Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 94 references

Tracing the Winds: A Uniform Interpretation of Helium Escape in Exoplanets from Archival Spectroscopic Observations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Twelve detected helium outflows in exoplanets follow the energy-limited mass-loss scaling, giving photoevaporative efficiencies of 0.34 and 0.75 depending on outflow hydrogen fraction.

desk verdict A genuinely uniform reanalysis of helium detections gives useful per-planet mass-loss rates, but the 'strong evidence' for energy-limited scaling rests on a detection-only sample; treat the efficiencies as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03998 v2 pith:YQLZDMT4 submitted 2025-01-07 astro-ph.EP

Patrick McCreery , Leonardo A. Dos Santos , Néstor Espinoza , Romain Allart , James Kirk This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords ExoplanetatmospheresExtrasolargaseousplanetsInfraredastronomyevolutionAtmosphericescapeHeliumtripletPhotoevaporationefficiencyEnergy-limitedmassloss
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether planetary atmospheric escape follows the energy-limited law, which predicts that mass-loss rate is proportional to the XUV irradiation received from the host star divided by the planet's density. The authors re-analyze all twelve publicly available exoplanet helium-triplet detections with one uniform escape model, adding Gaussian-process noise modeling and nested-sampling parameter retrieval. They find that the retrieved mass-loss rates do track the ratio $F_{\rm XUV}/\rho_p$, with photoevaporative efficiencies of $0.34\pm0.13$ for a solar-like hydrogen fraction and $0.75\pm0.21$ for a hydrogen-rich outflow. If correct, this calibrates the efficiency of converting stellar XUV radiation into escaping gas and supports energy-limited escape as the governing process for these outflows. That efficiency is a key input for models of how sub-Jovian planets lose their atmospheres and evolve into super-Earths.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the energy-limited mass-loss identity $\dot{M}=3\varepsilon F_{\rm XUV}/(4G\rho_p)$, which ties the observable mass-loss rate to the ratio of incident XUV flux over planetary density through a single efficiency $\varepsilon$. To measure $\dot{M}$ uniformly, the paper feeds each archival transmission spectrum through one hydrodynamic Parker-wind escape model, treats correlated noise with a Gaussian-process covariance initialized outside the helium line, and searches posteriors with nested sampling. The efficiency is then obtained by fitting the linear relation, and a piecewise version with a break at $F_{\rm XUV}/\rho_p\sim10^4$, to the twelve retrieved rates.

What would settle it

Re-run the population fit including published helium non-detections as upper limits: if the slope of $\dot{M}$ versus $F_{\rm XUV}/\rho_p$ flattens or vanishes once those bounds are added, the claimed trend is a selection artifact rather than a population law.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the population of detected helium outflows is consistent with energy-limited mass loss. Fitting the relation $\dot{M}=3\varepsilon F_{\rm XUV}/(4G\rho_p)$ to the twelve retrieved mass-loss rates, the authors report a piecewise slope break near $F_{\rm XUV}/\rho_p\sim10^4$; below that threshold the inferred efficiencies are $\varepsilon=0.34\pm0.13$ at H/(H+He)=0.90 and $0.75\pm0.21$ at 0.99, dropping to $0.10\pm0.06$ and $0.57\pm0.19$ beyond it. Bayesian model comparison favors the linear and piecewise energy-limited models over a flat line, which the authors interpret as support for energy-limited escape. They also show that under these efficiencies the mini-Neptunes in the sample can lose a substantial fraction of their atmosphere in a gigayear, whereas hot Jupiters are mostly resilient.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the detected-only sample, whose XUV fluxes come partly from proxy stars and whose densities come partly from mass-radius relations, preserves the true population-level relation between mass-loss rate and $F_{\rm XUV}/\rho_p$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If energy-limited escape holds, the mass-loss rate of an exoplanet is set mainly by $F_{\rm XUV}/\rho_p$, so planets with the same ratio should lose mass at the same rate.
  • The calibrated efficiencies give evolutionary models a concrete input: at solar helium abundance, roughly 34% of XUV energy goes into driving the outflow, while hydrogen-rich outflows convert about 75%.
  • The break near $F_{\rm XUV}/\rho_p\sim10^4$ means the simple linear scaling overestimates mass loss for the most strongly irradiated planets.
  • Mini-Neptunes in the sample can lose a large fraction of their atmospheres within a gigayear, supporting their evolution into super-Earths, while hot Jupiters mostly retain their atmospheres.
  • Because the sample contains only detected outflows, the population trend chiefly applies to planets with substantial mass loss, and the paper calls for publishing non-detections to constrain the rest.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: If the calibration holds, the measured efficiency can be inserted into evolutionary models to predict which sub-Neptunes lose their envelopes and become super-Earths, tying the observed radius gap to a measured number rather than a free parameter.
  • Inference: The higher efficiency at H/(H+He)=0.99 suggests that measuring the helium abundance of an outflow, not just the line depth, is what matters most for population-level evolution, since a hydrogen-rich flow can lose mass several times faster at the same irradiation.
  • Inference: Because only detections entered the sample, the reported efficiencies are upper-regime values; adding published non-detections as upper limits could lower the population efficiency and sharpen the comparison with the Neptune-desert boundary.
  • Inference: The same Gaussian-process plus hydrodynamic-wind pipeline could be applied to Lyman-alpha and Balmer-line escape tracers to test whether the energy-limited efficiency is independent of the observing tracer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a uniform reanalysis of archival helium-triplet transmission spectra of 12 exoplanets using the p-winds Parker-wind model with Gaussian-process modeling of correlated noise and nested-sampling parameter estimation. For each planet and for two assumed hydrogen fractions (H/(H+He)=0.90 and 0.99), the authors retrieve mass-loss rates, outflow temperatures, and line-of-sight velocities, and then fit these to the energy-limited scaling Mdot = 3 epsilon FXUV/(4 G rho_p). They report population-level efficiencies of epsilon = 0.34 +/- 0.13 and 0.75 +/- 0.21 for the two abundance cases, and conclude from Bayesian model comparison that the data provide "strong evidence supporting energy-limited mass loss." The paper includes individual object discussions, comparisons with previous retrievals, and a brief discussion of evolutionary implications.

Significance. If the population-level efficiencies are robust, this would be a valuable uniform calibration of photoevaporative efficiency across a diverse sample of hot Jupiters, warm Neptunes, and mini-Neptunes, directly informing exoplanet evolution models and the interpretation of the radius gap. The paper's strengths are its homogeneous modeling framework, explicit treatment of correlated noise via Gaussian processes, use of open-source tools (p-winds, dynesty, celerite), and transparent reporting of archival data provenance and per-object posteriors (with appendix figures on Zenodo). The authors are also candid about limitations, including the bias toward large helium signals and the use of proxy SEDs. However, the central population claim currently rests on a detection-only sample and on x-axis quantities (FXUV and rho_p) whose uncertainties are not propagated, so the reported efficiencies and the "strong evidence" statement are not yet population-level robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.1, 6] The population-level conclusion in Section 5.2 and the abstract is based exclusively on the 12 detections; Section 2.1 removes all non-detections even though published upper limits exist, and Section 6 acknowledges the resulting bias toward large helium signatures and higher mass-loss rates. If the detection probability in Mdot is correlated with FXUV/rho, the fitted efficiencies (0.34 +/- 0.13 and 0.75 +/- 0.21) and the log-evidence preference for an energy-limited model (Delta ln Z ~ 5) can be imprinted by this selection. A censored analysis that includes non-detections as upper limits, or at minimum a quantitative demonstration that the selection does not bias the fitted slope, is required before claiming "strong evidence supporting energy-limited mass loss" for the population.
  2. [2.1, Eq. (1)] For 8 of the 12 stars, the incident FXUV is derived from proxy SEDs (Table 1), and the text states that propagating the proxy uncertainty is difficult and "does not significantly contribute to systematic errors" (citing Zhang et al. 2024). No uncertainty on FXUV appears in Figure 3 or in the fitted efficiencies. Since Eq. (1) is linear in FXUV, a factor-of-two error in the proxy XUV flux translates directly into a factor-of-two error in epsilon, and correlated proxy errors across similar spectral types can systematically tilt the fitted slope. The paper should propagate or marginalize over SED uncertainties, or provide a sensitivity test that varies the assumed proxies.
  3. [3.3, Eq. (1)] The x-axis of Figure 3 uses rho_p, but the masses of TOI-1430b, TOI-1683b, and TOI-2076b are taken from the Wolfgang et al. (2016) mass-radius relation rather than measured, and Section 3.3 notes that these densities are uncertain. These three mini-Neptunes contribute to the spread in FXUV/rho, so their uncertain x-coordinates can affect the fitted slope and thus the derived efficiencies. At minimum, the fit should be repeated using the full mass-radius posterior or with densities varied within published uncertainties to show that the reported efficiencies are not driven by these assumptions.
  4. [5.2, Table 4] The headline efficiencies quoted in the abstract and conclusions (0.34 +/- 0.13 and 0.75 +/- 0.21) are the pre-boundary slopes of the piecewise model, but the piecewise model is not significantly preferred over the simple linear model: the log-evidence differences are Delta ln Z = 0.19 for H/(H+He)=0.90 and Delta ln Z = -0.12 for H/(H+He)=0.99, with the latter actually disfavoring the piecewise model. The linear-fit efficiencies are 0.18 +/- 0.04 and 0.67 +/- 0.14. Given this weak or negative evidence for a break, the paper should either quote the linear-model efficiencies as the primary population values or justify why the piecewise pre-boundary value is the appropriate efficiency.
minor comments (5)
  1. [6] The phrase "strong evidence supporting energy-limited mass loss" is stronger than the model-selection results support; Benneke & Seager (2013) classify Delta ln Z ~ 5 as strong but the comparison is between flat and linear models, not against the piecewise model, and the detection-only sample weakens the inference.
  2. [References] Several references are duplicated in the bibliography, including Owen & Lai (2018) and Masson et al. (2024), which each appear twice; these should be consolidated.
  3. [4.5] The sentence "WASP-52b contains large-amplitude correlated noise in its helium transmission spectrum, meaning a comparison with a pure Parker wind model should differ" is unclear; it should specify that the comparison should be interpreted with caution or that the model difference is expected.
  4. [2.2] The phrase "The GPs contributes 2 tunable parameters" is grammatically incorrect and should read "The GP contributes two tunable parameters."
  5. [Title] The title in the posted draft reads "T racing the Winds"; this appears to be a typesetting artifact and should be corrected to "Tracing the Winds."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mass-loss rates are retrieved with p-winds independently of the energy-limited scaling, and the efficiencies are explicitly fitted slopes rather than predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Mass-loss rates are retrieved from helium-triplet transmission spectra using p-winds, which implements an isothermal Parker-wind model and does not use the energy-limited formula as an input. The energy-limited scaling Mdot = 3 epsilon F_XUV / (4 G rho_p) is then tested by fitting linear and piecewise models to the retrieved Mdot values against F_XUV/rho_p; the efficiency epsilon is explicitly a fitted slope, not a predicted output, and the flat-versus-linear model comparison is a standard statistical test on the same data. The use of p-winds, co-developed by one of the authors, is open-source and publicly validated, and it functions as an external retrieval forward model rather than a self-citation that forces the conclusion. The removal of non-detections (Section 2.1) and the use of proxy SEDs are acknowledged limitations that affect sample representativeness and systematic uncertainty, but they do not make any equation equivalent to its own inputs by construction. No specific circular reduction can be exhibited, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central efficiencies are obtained by fitting Eq. (1) to p-winds mass-loss rates. The x-axis depends on proxy SEDs and possibly mass-radius-derived densities, and the y-axis depends on a Parker-wind retrieval plus Gaussian process systematics; neither uncertainty is propagated into the fitted trend. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Photoevaporative efficiency epsilon = 0.34 +/- 0.13 (H/(H+He)=0.90), 0.75 +/- 0.21 (0.99); linear fits 0.18 +/- 0.04 and 0.67 +/- 0.14
    Slope of the fitted Mdot-FXUV/rho relation in Eq. (1); central fitted quantity, not predicted.
  • Hydrogen fraction H/(H+He) = 0.90 and 0.99 (assumed)
    Assumed fixed values in p-winds; mass-loss rates and efficiencies change substantially between them.
  • Per-planet mass-loss rate (12 planets) = Table 4, e.g., GJ-3470b 2.0e11 g/s at 0.99 and 6.6e10 g/s at 0.90
    Each Mdot is a free parameter in the p-winds retrieval; the population trend is built from these posteriors.
  • Per-planet outflow temperature (12 planets) = Table 4, e.g., HD 189733b 15000 K at 0.99
    Free parameter in p-winds; affects line shape and retrieved Mdot.
  • Per-planet bulk line-of-sight velocity (12 planets) = Table 4, roughly -6 to +6 km/s
    Free parameter in p-winds; accounts for Doppler shifts.
  • Gaussian process kernel hyperparameters (Matern-3/2, two per spectrum) = Not tabulated
    Fit outside the helium window, then used as constraints during joint retrieval; 24 nuisance parameters across the sample.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Parker-wind, constant-sound-speed isothermal outflow describes escaping exoplanet atmospheres, as implemented in p-winds
    All retrieved mass-loss rates inherit this approximation; Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption Energy-limited mass-loss formula Mdot = 3 epsilon FXUV/(4 G rho_p), from Caldiroli et al. 2022, is the correct relation below FXUV/rho ~ 1e4
    Used as the fitted model in Section 5.2; break threshold from Murray-Clay et al. 2009.
  • domain assumption SED proxies from MUSCLES or X-exoplanets represent each target star's unobserved high-energy spectrum after scaling by radius and semi-major axis
    FXUV is the x-axis of the central trend; Section 2.1 notes proxy uncertainty is difficult to quantify.
  • domain assumption Gaussian process with Matern-3/2 kernel, initialized outside the helium line, removes correlated noise without removing the planetary signal
    Core methodological premise of the retrieval, Section 2.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-detections carry no useful information for this population analysis and can be excluded
    Non-detections removed in Section 2.1; the authors acknowledge this creates a bias toward high mass-loss rates in Section 6.
  • domain assumption All planets in the sample have either H/(H+He)=0.90 or 0.99, and atmospheric metallicity does not materially affect the retrievals
    Assumed in Section 2.3; authors note metallicity may affect Parker-wind retrievals in Section 4.9.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tracing the Winds: A Uniform Interpretation of Helium Escape in Exoplanets from Archival Spectroscopic Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YQLZDMT4

@misc{pith2026250103998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tracing the Winds: A Uniform Interpretation of Helium Escape in Exoplanets from Archival Spectroscopic Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YQLZDMT4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03998}
}
abstract

Over the past decade, observations of evaporating exoplanets have become increasingly common, driven by the discovery of the near-infrared helium-triplet line as a powerful probe of atmospheric escape. This process significantly influences the evolution of exoplanets, particularly those smaller than Jupiter. Both theoretical and observational studies have aimed to determine how efficiently exoplanets convert their host star's X-ray and ultraviolet (XUV) radiation into atmospheric mass loss. In this study, we employ the open-source atmospheric escape model p-winds to systematically analyze all publicly available helium triplet spectroscopic detections related to exoplanetary atmospheric escape. Our findings indicate that the retrieved outflows strongly depend on the ratio of XUV flux to planetary density ($F_{\text{XUV}}/\rho_p$), supporting the theoretical framework of energy-limited mass loss. We constrain population-level photoevaporative efficiencies to $0.34 \pm 0.13$ and $0.75 \pm 0.21$ for hydrogen-helium fractions of $0.90$ and $0.99$, respectively. These results offer new insights into exoplanetary atmospheric evolution and will aid future studies on exoplanet population demographics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03998 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the systematics present in an ob￾served transmission spectrum. In pink is a best fit GP to the systematics in the sample, and dark red is a best fit of the helium-triplet using p-winds. In an effort to minimize any over-fitting of the Gaus￾sian process, we perform a GP fit outside of the helium￾triplet window and use this initial fit to place constraints on the GP during the simultaneous instrumental and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparative figures of models with and without Gaussian Processes included. The line in green represents the p-winds fit with the GP included. The line in red repre￾sents the p-winds fit without a GP included. H/(H + He) = .99. outflow is a complex process and is usually studied in the form of an efficiency factor. Vissapragada et al. (2022) presented a mean energy￾limited outflow efficiency for a restricted populat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mass-loss rate, M˙ , as a function of the normalized incident flux, FXUV /ρ, for the sample assuming a H/(H + He) abundance of .90 (top panel) and .99 (bottom panel). The violin plots in grey illustrate the marginalized distribution of mass-loss rates with the median, 5% lower bound, and 95% upper bound overplotted on the violin plots in black. The dark green line illustrates the best-fit line for mass-loss rate as … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fraction of mass lost for each target in 1 Gyr as a function of the normalized incident flux, FXUV /ρ, for the sample assuming a H/(H + He) abundance of .90 (top panel) and .99 (bottom panel). Regarding the solar-like hydrogen abundance mass￾loss rates, it appears that…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., Kirk, J., Santos, L

    Alam, M. K., Kirk, J., Santos, L. A. D., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad50d4

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad50d4 2024

  2. [2]

    2018, Science, 362, 1384–1387, doi: 10.1126/science.aat5879

    Allart, R., Bourrier, V., Lovis, C., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 1384–1387, doi: 10.1126/science.aat5879

    doi:10.1126/science.aat5879 2018

  3. [3]

    2019, A&A, 623, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834917

    Allart, R., Bourrier, V., Lovis, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834917

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834917 2019

  4. [4]

    B., Jaziri, A

    Allart, R., Lem´ ee-Joliecoeur, P. B., Jaziri, A. Y., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245832

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245832 2023

  5. [5]

    J., Snellen, I

    Alonso-Floriano, F. J., Snellen, I. A. G., Czesla, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935979 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f As...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935979 2019

  6. [6]

    M., Rowe, J

    Batalha, N. M., Rowe, J. F., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2013, ApJS, 204, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/24

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/24 2013

  7. [7]

    R., France, K., Brown, A., et al

    Behr, P. R., France, K., Brown, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdb70

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acdb70 2023

  8. [8]

    A., Mendon¸ ca, J

    Bello-Arufe, A., Knutson, H. A., Mendon¸ ca, J. M., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd935

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acd935 2023

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    E., Garc ´ ıa Mu˜ noz, A., et al

    Ben-Jaffel, L., Ballester, G. E., Garc ´ ıa Mu˜ noz, A., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 141, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01505-x

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153

    Benneke, B., & Seager, S. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Redfield, S., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., et al

    Bennett, K. A., Redfield, S., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 264, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd34b

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    A., & Vidotto, A

    Tanaka, Y. A., & Vidotto, A. A. 2016, A&A, 591, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628362

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, A&A, 620, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833675

    Bourrier, V., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Ehrenreich, D., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833675

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2015, A&A, 582, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526894

    Bourrier, V., Ehrenreich, D., & Lecavelier des Etangs, A. 2015, A&A, 582, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526894

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, A&A, 663, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142763

    Caldiroli, A., Haardt, F., Gallo, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142763

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 3382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3431

    Hazra, G. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3431

    2021 doi

  9. [18]

    2023, AJ, 165, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accf10 Dos Santos, L

    Vissapragada, S. 2023, AJ, 165, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accf10 Dos Santos, L. A., & Vissapragada, S. 2023, p-winds, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.10419485 Dos Santos, L. A., Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038802 Dos Santos...

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    V., Kulikov, Y

    Erkaev, N. V., Kulikov, Y. N., Lammer, H., et al. 2007, A&A, 472, 329, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066929

    2007 doi

  11. [20]

    P., & Bridges, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    2009

  12. [21]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    2017, ArXiv

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Angus, R., & Ambikasaran, S. 2017, ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09710

    2017 arXiv

  14. [23]

    France, K., Loyd, R. O. P., Youngblood, A., et al. 2016a, ApJ, 820, 89, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/89 —. 2016b, ApJ, 820, 89, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/89

    doi

  15. [24]

    2024, Nature, 632, 752, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07760-y

    Fu, G., Welbanks, L., Deming, D., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 752, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07760-y

    2024 doi

  16. [25]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb

    2017 doi

  17. [26]

    1996, ApJL, 459, L35, doi: 10.1086/309935

    Saumon, D. 1996, ApJL, 459, L35, doi: 10.1086/309935

    1996 doi

  18. [27]

    2020, A&A, 639, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037644

    Guilluy, G., Andretta, V., Borsa, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037644

    2020 doi

  19. [28]

    2023, A&A, 676, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346419

    Guilluy, G., Bourrier, V., Jaziri, Y., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346419

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    C., Bonomo, A

    Guilluy, G., D’Arpa, M. C., Bonomo, A. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348997

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    2019, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891, doi: 10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    Higson, E., Handley, W., Hobson, M., & Lasenby, A. 2019, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891, doi: 10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  24. [33]

    Ih, J., & Kempton, E. M. R. 2021, AJ, 162, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac173b

    2021 doi

  25. [34]

    2001, SciPy: Open Source Scientific Tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., & Peterson, P. 2001, SciPy: Open Source Scientific Tools for Python. http://www.scipy.org 16

    2001

  26. [35]

    K., L´ opez-Morales, M., & Zeng, L

    Kirk, J., Alam, M. K., L´ opez-Morales, M., & Zeng, L. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6e66

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    A., L´ opez-Morales, M., et al

    Kirk, J., Dos Santos, L. A., L´ opez-Morales, M., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac722f

    2022 doi

  28. [37]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Scmidt (IOS Press), 87–90. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/403913/

    2016

  29. [38]

    2023, joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.3, v2.1.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8408702

    Koposov, S., Speagle, J., Barbary, K., et al. 2023, joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.3, v2.1.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8408702

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    F., Fossati, L., Kubyshkina, D., & Lammer, H

    Krenn, A. F., Fossati, L., Kubyshkina, D., & Lammer, H. 2021, A&A, 650, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140437

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    2023, ApJL, 951, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdc26

    Krissansen-Totton, J. 2023, ApJL, 951, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdc26

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 3239, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt965

    Kurokawa, H., & Kaltenegger, L. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 3239, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt965

    2013 doi

  33. [42]

    2014, A&A, 562, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322258

    Kurosaki, K., Ikoma, M., & Hori, Y. 2014, A&A, 562, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322258

    2014 doi

  34. [43]

    2003, ApJL, 598, L121, doi: 10.1086/380815 Lamp´ on, M., L´ opez-Puertas, M., Lara, L

    Lammer, H., Selsis, F., Ribas, I., et al. 2003, ApJL, 598, L121, doi: 10.1086/380815 Lamp´ on, M., L´ opez-Puertas, M., Lara, L. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937175 Lamp´ on, M., L´ opez-Puertas, M., Sanz-Forcada, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A129, d...

    2003 doi

  35. [44]

    Lazovik, Y. A. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad394 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A. 2007, A&A, 461, 1185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065014

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    2024, A&A, 688, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450240

    Linssen, D., Shih, J., MacLeod, M., & Oklopˇ ci´ c, A. 2024, A&A, 688, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450240

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    D., & Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2014, ApJ, 792, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/1

    2014 doi

  38. [47]

    Loyd, R. O. P., France, K., Youngblood, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/102

    2016 doi

  39. [48]

    S., Kjeldsen, H., Albrecht, S., et al

    Lundkvist, M. S., Kjeldsen, H., Albrecht, S., et al. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 11201, doi: 10.1038/ncomms11201

    2016 doi

  40. [49]

    L., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., et al

    Mansfield, M., Bean, J. L., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., et al. 2018, ApJL, 868, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf166

    2018 doi

  41. [51]

    2024, A&A, 688, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449608

    Masson, A., Vinatier, S., B´ ezard, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449608

    2024 doi

  42. [52]

    2025, Appendix Figures for McCreery et al

    McCreery, P., dos Santos, L., Espinoza Perez, N., Allart, R., & Kirk, J. 2025, Appendix Figures for McCreery et al. (2025), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14606920

    2025 doi

  43. [53]

    2020, A&A, 638, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935541

    Mordasini, C. 2020, A&A, 638, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935541

    2020 doi

  44. [54]

    2018, Ray: A Distributed Framework for Emerging AI Applications

    Moritz, P., Nishihara, R., Wang, S., et al. 2018, Ray: A Distributed Framework for Emerging AI Applications. https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05889

    2018 arXiv

  45. [55]

    D., Bryson, S

    Morton, T. D., Bryson, S. T., Coughlin, J. L., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 822, 86, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/86

    2016 doi

  46. [56]

    A., Chiang, E

    Murray-Clay, R. A., Chiang, E. I., & Murray, N. 2009, ApJ, 693, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/23 NASA Exoplanet Archive. 2024, Planetary Systems Composite Parameters, NExScI-Caltech/IPAC, doi: 10.26133/NEA13

    2009 doi

  47. [57]

    P., Stefansson, G., Mahadevan, S., et al

    Ninan, J. P., Stefansson, G., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 894, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8559

    2020 doi

  48. [58]

    2018, Science, 362, 1388, doi: 10.1126/science.aat5348 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & Hirata, C

    Nortmann, L., Pall´ e, E., Salz, M., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 1388, doi: 10.1126/science.aat5348 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & Hirata, C. M. 2018, ApJL, 855, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaada9

    2018 doi

  49. [59]

    2022, A&A, 659, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142455

    Orell-Miquel, J., Murgas, F., Pall´ e, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142455

    2022 doi

  50. [60]

    2024, A&A, 689, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449411

    Orell-Miquel, J., Murgas, F., Pall´ e, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449411

    2024 doi

  51. [62]

    E., & Lai, D

    Owen, J. E., & Lai, D. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 5012, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1760

    2018 doi

  52. [63]

    E., & Wu, Y

    Owen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2013, ApJ, 775, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105 —. 2017, ApJ, 847, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa890a

    2013 doi

  53. [64]

    2020, A&A, 638, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037719 pandas development team, T

    Palle, E., Nortmann, L., Casasayas-Barris, N., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037719 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  54. [65]

    Parker, E. N. 1958, ApJ, 128, 664, doi: 10.1086/146579 P´ erez Gonz´ alez, J., Greklek-McKeon, M., Vissapragada, S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.09515, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.09515

    1958 doi arXiv

  55. [66]

    S., Shaikhislamov, I

    Rumenskikh, M. S., Shaikhislamov, I. F., Khodachenko, M. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 238, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac441d

    2022 doi

  56. [67]

    C., & Schmitt, J

    Salz, M., Czesla, S., Schneider, P. C., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 2016a, A&A, 586, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526109 17

    doi

  57. [68]

    C., Czesla, S., & Schmitt, J

    Salz, M., Schneider, P. C., Czesla, S., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 2016b, A&A, 585, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527042

    doi

  58. [69]

    C., et al

    Salz, M., Czesla, S., Schneider, P. C., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833694

    2018 doi

  59. [70]

    2022, Astronomische Nachrichten, 343, e20008, doi: 10.1002/asna.20220008

    Sanz-Forcada, J. 2022, Astronomische Nachrichten, 343, e20008, doi: 10.1002/asna.20220008

    2022 doi

  60. [71]

    Seager, S., & Sasselov, D. D. 2000, ApJ, 537, 916, doi: 10.1086/309088

    2000 doi

  61. [72]

    I., Ionov, D

    Shematovich, V. I., Ionov, D. E., & Lammer, H. 2014, A&A, 571, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423573

    2014 doi

  62. [73]

    2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Skilling, J. 2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 735, Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, ed. R. Fischer,...

    2004 doi

  63. [74]

    2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833 , doi: 10.1214/06-BA127

    Skilling, J. 2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833 , doi: 10.1214/06-BA127

    2006 doi

  64. [75]

    J., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & Hillenbrand, L

    Spake, J. J., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 284, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac178a

    2021 doi

  65. [76]

    J., Sing, D

    Spake, J. J., Sing, D. K., Evans, T. M., et al. 2018, Nature, 557, 68, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0067-5

    2018 doi

  66. [77]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  67. [78]

    E., Morley, C

    Teixeira, K. E., Morley, C. V., Foley, B. J., & Unterborn, C. T. 2024, ApJ, 960, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cec

    2024 doi

  68. [79]

    D., Anderson, D

    Turner, O. D., Anderson, D. R., Barkaoui, K., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz742

    2019 doi

  69. [80]

    A., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & David, T

    Tyler, D., Petigura, E. A., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & David, T. J. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.02381, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.02381 —. 2024, ApJ, 960, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11d0 Van Rossum, G. 2020, The Python Library Reference, release 3.8.2 (Python Software Foundation)

    2023 doi arXiv

  70. [81]

    A., Jovanovic, N., et al

    Vissapragada, S., Knutson, H. A., Jovanovic, N., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 278, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8e34

    2020 doi

  71. [82]

    A., Greklek-McKeon, M., et al

    Vissapragada, S., Knutson, H. A., Greklek-McKeon, M., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac92f2

    2022 doi

  72. [83]

    Vissapragada, S., McCreery, P., Santos, L. A. D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 962, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad23cf

    2024 doi

  73. [84]

    J., Donahue, T

    Watson, A. J., Donahue, T. M., & Walker, J. C. G. 1981, Icarus, 48, 150, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(81)90101-9

    1981 doi

  74. [85]

    J., Froning, C

    Wilson, D. J., Froning, C. S., Duvvuri, G. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe771

    2021 doi

  75. [86]

    A., & Ford, E

    Wolfgang, A., Rogers, L. A., & Ford, E. B. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 19, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/19

    2016 doi

  76. [87]

    2024, A&A, 686, A208, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348210

    Yan, D., Guo, J., Seon, K.-i., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A208, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348210

    2024 doi

  77. [88]

    Youngblood, A., France, K., Loyd, R. O. P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, 101, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/101

    2016 doi

  78. [89]

    J., & Catling, D

    Zahnle, K. J., & Catling, D. C. 2017, ApJ, 843, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7846

    2017 doi

  79. [90]

    W., Knutson, H

    Zhang, M., Cauley, P. W., Knutson, H. A., et al. 2022a, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9675

    doi

  80. [91]

    2023, ApJL, 953, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aced51

    Rescigno, F. 2023, ApJL, 953, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aced51

    2023 doi

  81. [92]

    A., Dai, F., et al

    Zhang, M., Knutson, H. A., Dai, F., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca75b

    2023 doi

  82. [93]

    A., Wang, L., Dai, F., & Barrag´ an, O

    Zhang, M., Knutson, H. A., Wang, L., Dai, F., & Barrag´ an, O. 2022b, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3fa7

    doi

  83. [94]

    L., Wilson, D., et al

    Zhang, M., Bean, J. L., Wilson, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.08318, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.08318

    2024 doi arXiv

  84. [95]

    V., Gully-Santiago, M., et al

    Zhang, Z., Morley, C. V., Gully-Santiago, M., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf8736, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adf8736

    2023 doi

  85. [96]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    Zhu, W., & Dong, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    2021 doi

  86. [97]

    2023, Nature, 620, 746, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z 18 APPENDIX We present here the model-parameter posteriors as well as the model-fit transmission spectra

    Zieba, S., Kreidberg, L., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 746, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z 18 APPENDIX We present here the model-parameter posteriors as well as the model-fit transmission spectra. The appendix figure sets are accessible on Zenodo (McCreery et al. 2025)

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.