Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Detectability of Emission from Exoplanet Outflows Calculated by pyTPCI, a New 1D Radiation-Hydrodynamic Code

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Photoevaporating exoplanet atmospheres can be detected in emission, not only in absorption during transit.

desk verdict A valuable code release and a first systematic look at outflow emission detectability, but the flagship HD 189733b Na I claim rests on a metallicity run the authors themselves flag as violating the hydrodynamic assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04834 v2 pith:JBYAF6VJ submitted 2025-01-08 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Riley Rosener , Michael Zhang , Jacob L. Bean This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords exoplanetatmospheresphotoevaporationatmosphericescapeoutflowemissionmetastableheliumsodiumdoubletradiative-hydrodynamicspyTPCI
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 gas escaping from irradiated exoplanets can be observed in emission rather than only in absorption during transit. To answer it, the authors present pyTPCI, a new open-source one-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamics code that couples the PLUTO hydrodynamics solver to the CLOUDY plasma microphysics code, and use it to model seven planets at several metallicities. They compute eclipse depths and signal-to-noise ratios for the outflow's spectral lines as seen by a 10-meter telescope with a high-resolution spectrograph. The central prediction is that the 589 nm Na I doublet and the 1083 nm metastable helium triplet are the most detectable lines, and that HD 189733b is the most promising target, with a Na I eclipse depth of 410 ppm and SNR of 2.4 per eclipse, marginally detectable with a 10-meter telescope after stacking 3 to 10 eclipses under photon-limited assumptions. The intended point is that outflows open a new emission-based window on escape processes and the radius valley they sculpt.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is pyTPCI, a 1D radiation-hydrodynamics code coupling PLUTO's hydrodynamic solver to CLOUDY's photoionization and spectral synthesis. CLOUDY computes the heating, cooling, ionization, and line emission from a specified stellar XUV spectrum; PLUTO evolves density, pressure, and velocity; and the two are iterated to a converged outflow. The observability calculation then uses the CLOUDY spectrum: each line is broadened by thermal, wind, rotational, and instrumental widths, the radius where the line's optical depth reaches unity sets the effective emitting area (the photosphere radius), and the eclipse depth is the ratio of planet to stellar surface flux times the squared photosphere-to-star radius ratio. The code also reproduces the observed metastable helium absorption equivalent widths for four of the seven planets, which the authors use as a validation check on the underlying outflow structure.

What would settle it

Take high-resolution spectra of HD 189733b during several secondary eclipses with a 10-meter telescope and search for the predicted 589 nm Na I line at 410 ppm depth with SNR 2.4 per eclipse; if five to ten stacked eclipses show no line at the predicted depth, the outflow emission model or the assumed XUV ionization is wrong. A cleaner test would be to obtain direct stellar EUV spectra and re-run the pyTPCI models to see whether the predicted sodium depth survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that exoplanet outflows are not just absorption features; under realistic 1D radiation-hydrodynamic modeling they emit enough flux in narrow lines to be observable at eclipse. For the seven simulated planets, the strongest and most consistently detectable emission lines are the Na I doublet near 589 nm and the metastable helium triplet at 1083 nm, with Halpha and the 457 nm Mg I line appearing occasionally but usually optically thin and therefore not clearly attributable to the outflow. Among all models, HD 189733b at 10x solar metallicity gives the highest signal: a Na I eclipse depth of 410 ppm and SNR of 2.4 per eclipse, plus a He* eclipse depth of 170 ppm and SNR of 1.3 from the 1x solar run. The authors argue that with 3 to 10 eclipses these signals would be marginally detectable with a 10-meter telescope, and that a next-generation 40-meter telescope would push the Na signal to a SNR around 10.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions assume the assumed stellar XUV spectra correctly set the outflow's ionization balance and metal line populations; those fluxes are uncertain by factors of at least a few, no EUV telescope is currently operating, and the sodium emission in particular depends on the density of neutral sodium set by that ionization state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 589 nm Na I doublet and the 1083 nm metastable helium triplet are the best observational targets for outflow emission searches, ahead of Halpha and Mg I.
  • HD 189733b is the most promising first target: three to ten stacked eclipse observations with a 10-meter telescope could reach its predicted Na I signal if the noise is photon-limited.
  • Emission detections would supply independent constraints on outflow temperature, density, ionization state, and metallicity, complementing transit absorption measurements.
  • A 40-meter class telescope would push the predicted Na I SNR for HD 189733b to roughly 10, making robust emission studies feasible.
  • Higher metallicity strengthens Na I emission up to a point, but at 100x solar cooling suppresses the outflow and weakens the line.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted Na I emission is real, a failed search at the quoted depth would itself be informative: it would point to an XUV flux or ionization balance different from the assumed one, since neutral sodium density is the controlling factor.
  • The same detectability machinery could be applied to planets around M dwarfs, which the paper identifies as untried but potentially favorable because of their large planet-to-star radius ratios.
  • A time-resolved emission measurement during eclipse would let observers watch the outflow accelerate as it escapes; absorption measurements only give the integrated column, so emission adds kinematic structure.
  • The paper's line-broadening formula predicts specific line widths, so comparing observed line shapes to those predictions would directly test the assumed outflow temperature and velocity profiles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper introduces pyTPCI, an open-source Python reimplementation of TPCI that couples PLUTO and CLOUDY to simulate 1D radiatively driven atmospheric escape. The authors model seven planets at 0–100× solar metallicity, compute line emission spectra and eclipse depths/SNRs for the Na I 589 nm doublet, the He* 1083 nm triplet, Hα, and Mg I 457 nm for a 10 m-class high-resolution spectrograph, and validate the simulations against observed metastable helium absorption equivalent widths. Their headline result is that outflow emission is potentially detectable, with HD 189733b giving the strongest predicted signal: Na I eclipse depth 410 ppm and SNR 2.4 per eclipse in the 10× solar metallicity run, and He* depth 170 ppm and SNR 1.3 at 1× solar. They argue that such signals are marginally accessible with Keck in 3–10 stacked eclipses and considerably easier with next-generation ELTs.

Significance. The paper has clear strengths: pyTPCI is publicly released, Appendix A provides a direct code comparison with TPCI, and the simulations are benchmarked against an external observable—observed He* absorption equivalent widths—rather than being fitted to the emission predictions. If the predictions are correct, the paper opens a new observational window on escaping atmospheres and gives concrete target lists and line choices. The central caveat is that the quantitative discovery claim for HD 189733b rests on a single high-metallicity run that the authors themselves flag as violating the hydrodynamic assumption; the 1× solar run makes the same planet undetectable in Na I. The claim therefore needs either additional simulations in the observationally indicated metallicity range or a more conservative framing of what the existing runs can support.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3 and Table 2] The abstract's 'viable first target' statement is carried entirely by the HD 189733b 10× solar run. That run has a simulated mass-loss rate of 1.9×10^8 g/s, roughly 200× below the diffusion-limited rate of 3.8×10^10 g/s, and §5.3 states that it 'most badly violates the hydrodynamic assumption.' It is also not the run selected by the He* absorption benchmark: it predicts 7.5 mÅ versus the observed 11 mÅ, while the 1× solar run predicts 13 mÅ. The 1× run yields a Na I depth of only 25 ppm and SNR 0.15. Because Fu et al. (2024) infer 3–5× solar metallicity for this planet and no run at that metallicity is presented, the 410 ppm / SNR 2.4 value is an extrapolation across an unsimulated and unstable regime. Please either add the missing runs or explicitly demote the Na I detection claim.
  2. [§5.3] The discussion of the diffusion-limited mass-loss rate acknowledges that the neutral assumption may be wrong and that HD 189733b becomes highly ionized at low radii, but this argument is not quantified. The 10× solar run lies two orders of magnitude below the neutral diffusion limit, and the paper does not demonstrate that the reduction from ion–ion drag is large enough to make this run consistent with a hydrodynamic outflow. A quantitative estimate—for example, an effective diffusion limit computed with the simulated ion fractions, or a direct evaluation of the drag term—is needed before the 10× run can support a discovery claim.
  3. [Appendix A and §5.3] The predicted SNRs are not robust to the adopted stellar XUV spectra. Appendix A shows that switching from Salz et al. (2016) to Sanz-Forcada et al. (2025) spectra changes the HD 189733b 0× solar He* SNR from 1.7 to 0.76 and changes the WASP-107b 0× solar He* depth by roughly 50%; the text itself states that XUV fluxes are uncertain by factors of at least a few and that no EUV telescope is currently operating. The paper should present a systematic error budget on the headline 2.4 SNR and 410 ppm depth, or explicitly label those numbers as conditional on both the metallicity and the adopted XUV spectrum.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2 caption] Please state explicitly that 'He Abs W' is the transit absorption percentage and that 'W' and 'W_obs' are equivalent widths in mÅ; the current column header is dense and easy to misread.
  2. [Section 1] The introduction says that 'no work has yet considered whether outflows might also be detectable in emission,' but later cites Zhang et al. (2020) and refers to 'few published works' on the subject; please make the novelty claim consistent with the cited literature.
  3. [Figure 2] The inset labeled 'Integrated Flux' reports values in ergs cm^-2 s^-1, while the y-axis is flux density per Å; please clarify the distinction or relabel the inset.
  4. [Section 4, Eq. (3)] The notation δ(λ) is used for the maximum eclipse depth at the line peak, while the text also discusses a 'narrowband eclipse depth within ±2w'; please distinguish these two quantities explicitly in the equation and surrounding text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: emission predictions are forward-modeled from pyTPCI and benchmarked against independent He* absorption measurements.

full rationale

The central detectability claim (HD 189733b Na I at 410 ppm, SNR 2.4) is a forward-modeled output of pyTPCI, a 1D RHD code coupling PLUTO and CLOUDY. The simulation inputs (system parameters, XUV spectra, metallicity grid) do not include the target emission observables. The code is checked by comparing predicted He* absorption equivalent widths with observed values (Table 2; Section 4), an independent external benchmark; no emission datum is fitted. Metallicity is explored on a discrete grid rather than optimized to the observed He* EW, and even the 10x solar HD 189733b run that yields the headline Na I signal is not the best He* absorber (7.5 mÅ vs 11 mÅ observed, while 1x solar gives 13 mÅ). The eclipse-depth and SNR calculations (Eqs. 1-3) use the simulated temperature, velocity, density, and CLOUDY line fluxes directly, with no parameter fitted to the quantity being predicted. The paper's own flagged limitations — the 10x run 'most badly violates the hydrodynamic assumption' (Sec. 5.3) and XUV flux uncertainty (Sec. 5.3, Appendix A) — are validity/robustness concerns, not circularity. Self-citations (e.g., Zhang et al. 2022a,b, 2023, 2024) provide observed EWs and literature mass-loss estimates, which are external data; the diffusion-limited formula is a standard analytic estimate. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a chain of modeling assumptions: 1D spherical geometry, CLOUDY atomic physics without molecules, uncertain stellar XUV spectra, and no mass fractionation. The most load-bearing free parameter is the metallicity, which is selected per planet to match observed He* absorption but then used to predict emission. No new physical entities or particles are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Metallicity (x solar) = Varies per planet; HD 189733b 10x for headline Na SNR
    Chosen from a grid (0, 1, 10, 100x solar) to match observed He* equivalent widths; the 10x solar run for HD 189733b gives the maximum Na SNR but is a worse He* absorption fit than 1x.
  • Instrument total throughput = 0.10
    Assumed 10% throughput for KPF and NIRSPEC; SNR scales linearly with throughput, so this is a key assumption for detectability.
  • Illumination zenith angle = 66 degrees
    Adopted from Johnstone et al. (2018) to approximate globally averaged irradiation in a 1D simulation; affects the outflow density and temperature structure.
  • Numerical shear viscosity = Reynolds number ~ O(1) at smallest grid scale
    Added via super-time-stepping to improve numerical stability; magnitude chosen by experimentation rather than physics.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption 1D spherical symmetry with 66-degree illumination approximates the global outflow structure and emitting area.
    Used throughout Sections 2 and 5.3; the authors themselves note this fails for WASP-69b, WASP-107b, and HAT-P-32b, where 3D effects such as gas tails are important.
  • domain assumption CLOUDY's atomic physics with the assumed abundance set (H, He, O, C, Ne, N, Si, Mg, Fe, S, and added K) adequately models the outflow, with molecules neglected.
    Section 3 and 5.3: molecules are turned off for stability, but molecular cooling could substantially suppress mass loss (Yoshida et al. 2024).
  • domain assumption The stellar XUV spectra from EMD models (Sanz-Forcada et al. 2025) are accurate to within a factor of a few.
    Appendix A shows that using alternative Salz et al. (2016) spectra changes SNRs by up to 50%; Section 5.3 states XUV fluxes are uncertain by factors of at least a few.
  • domain assumption All species remain well-mixed in the outflow (no mass fractionation).
    Section 5.3: CLOUDY assumes a hydrodynamic outflow with no diffusive separation, but the diffusion-limited mass loss rate for HD 189733b at 10x solar is about 200x larger than the simulated rate, so this assumption is questionable for that case.
  • domain assumption Emission lines are Gaussian, with widths combining thermal, wind, rotational, and instrumental broadening in quadrature (Equation 1).
    Section 4: the actual outflow velocity field is non-monotonic and asymmetric, especially in 1D, so the line-core flux could be overestimated.
  • domain assumption The photosphere radius is defined by tau=1 for each line, and for optically thin lines the emitting area is taken as the white-light radius.
    Section 4: for optically thin lines such as H alpha and Mg I, some emission may come from the unmodeled lower atmosphere, which the authors partially address with a blackbody approximation.
  • standard math Standard background: hydrostatic equilibrium, ideal gas law, and radiative transfer with Gaussian line profiles.
    Used to set initial conditions and to compute optical depths and photosphere radii in Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detectability of Emission from Exoplanet Outflows Calculated by pyTPCI, a New 1D Radiation-Hydrodynamic Code." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JBYAF6VJ

@misc{pith2026250104834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detectability of Emission from Exoplanet Outflows Calculated by pyTPCI, a New 1D Radiation-Hydrodynamic Code},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JBYAF6VJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04834}
}
read the original abstract

Photoevaporation in exoplanet atmospheres is thought to contribute to the shaping of the small planet radius valley. Escaping atmospheres have been detected in transmission across a variety of exoplanet types, from hot Jupiters to mini-Neptunes. However, no work has yet considered whether outflows might also be detectable in emission. We introduce pyTPCI, a new, open-source self-consistent 1D radiative-hydrodynamics code that is an improved version of The PLUTO-CLOUDY Interface. We use pyTPCI to model seven exoplanets (HD 189733b, HD 209458b, WASP-69b, WASP-107b, TOI-1430b, TOI-560b, and HAT-P-32b) at varying metallicities and compute their emission spectra to investigate their detectability across a variety of spectral lines. We calculate the eclipse depths and signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) of these lines for a 10m class telescope with a high-resolution spectrograph, taking into account appropriate line broadening mechanisms. We show that the most detectable spectral lines tend to be the 589 nm Na I doublet and the 1083 nm metastable helium triplet. Halpha and Mg I 457 nm are moderately strong for some planets at some metallicities, but they are almost always optically thin, so some of their emission may not be from the outflow. The planet with the highest-flux, highest-eclipse-depth, and highest-SNR lines is HD 189733b, with a Na I eclipse depth of 410 ppm and SNR of 2.4 per eclipse, and a He* eclipse depth of 170 ppm and SNR of 1.3. These signals would be marginally detectable with Keck if 3-10 eclipses were observed, assuming (over-optimistically) photon limited observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04834 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The emission spectrum of HD 189733b from a 1× solar metallicity model. A variety of metal lines are present, including an O I blended line at 6300 ˚A. 189733b has an equivalent width of 11 m˚A, in between our 1× solar metallicity model (13 m˚A) and our 10× solar metallicity model (7.5 m˚A). Perhaps not coinci￾dentally, JWST/NIRCam transmission spectra of the planet indicate a metallicity of 3–5× solar (Fu et al. 202… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Predicted He∗ equivalent width at varying metal￾licities compared to the observed equivalent width. Note the good agreement of HD 189733b at 1× and 10× solar, HD 204958b at 0×, and TOI-560b and TOI-1430b at 100× so￾lar. molecules, lack of magnetic fields, and the uncertainty in stellar XUV flux. 5.1. Observability A few trends are apparent after examining [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Optical depths of various spectral lines for HD 189733b, 1× solar metallicity. The dashed line indicates τ = 1. (2024); see also Yoshida et al. (2024) about the suppres￾sive effect of molecule cooling.) The Hα line is nearly always optically thin (except for HAT-P-32b) and weak, with its strength not varying much with metallicity. An optically thin line indicates that some line emission could be coming from the lowe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Eclipse depths for Na I at varying metallicities. Among the metallicities we successfully tried, the eclipse depth peaks at 10× solar for every planet. Not all systems were run at all metallicities. Refer to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Outflow CLOUDY temperature and PLUTO density profiles for each system at a metallicity that best explains the observed He∗ equivalent width in absorption. see a SNR gain from this alternative observation strat￾egy, but it is riskier. One other possible benefit from thi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Data outputs for HD 189733b pyTPCI simulations compared to those of Salz et al. (2016), run at 0× solar metallicity and 0◦ illumination angle. As expected, the eclipse depths and SNRs for 0◦ illumination angle runs are larger. For example, the HD 209458b 0× solar metal…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Data outputs for HD 209458b pyTPCI simulations compared to those of Salz et al. (2016), run at 0× solar metallicity and 0◦ illumination angle. REFERENCES Adams, F. C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/730/1/27 Addison, B., Wright, D. J., …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Self-Consistent 3D Hydrodynamic Model for Helium Transit Signatures in Evaporating Hot Jupiters

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 3D hydrodynamic model with self-consistent hydrogen-helium chemistry shows stellar winds compress escaping hot-Jupiter atmospheres and suppress the 1083 nm helium triplet signal, while a young star's strong XUV flux...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adams, F. C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/730/1/27

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/1/27 2011

  2. [2]

    J., Wittenmyer, R

    Addison, B., Wright, D. J., Wittenmyer, R. A., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 115003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab03aa

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab03aa 2019

  3. [3]

    V., & Kosovichev, A

    Bisikalo, D. V., & Kosovichev, A. G. 2017, Astronomy Reports, 61, 932, doi: 10.1134/S1063772917110014 Barrag´ an, O., Armstrong, D. J., Gandolfi, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac638

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772917110014 2017

  4. [4]

    S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629882

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629882 2017

  5. [5]

    A., Kao, M

    Brain, D. A., Kao, M. M., & O’Rourke, J. G. 2024, Exoplanet Magnetic Fields. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15429

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    2021, A&A, 655, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141497

    Caldiroli, Andrea, Haardt, Francesco, Gallo, Elena, et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141497

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141497 2021

  7. [7]

    A., Hazra, G., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & Kubyshkina, D

    Carolan, S., Vidotto, A. A., Hazra, G., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & Kubyshkina, D. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 6001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2947

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2947 2021

  8. [8]

    2018, A&A, 616, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832963

    Casasayas-Barris, N., Pall´ e, E., Yan, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832963

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832963 2018

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/144

    Christie, D., Arras, P., & Li, Z.-Y. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/144

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, A&A, 657, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039919 Dos Santos, L

    Czesla, S., Lamp´ on, M., Sanz-Forcada, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039919 Dos Santos, L. A., Garc ´ ıa Mu˜ noz, A., Sing, D. K., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace445 dos Santos, Leonardo A., Ehrenreich, David, Bourrier, Vincent,...

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  5. [13]

    J., et al

    Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V., Wheatley, P. J., et al. 2015, Nature, 522, 459, doi: 10.1038/nature14501

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485 15 T able 4.Outflow Simulations Using Alternative XUV Spectra Planet Metallicity SNR He ∗ Depth SNR H α Depth He Abs W W obs Tpeak (× solar) (ppm) (ppm) (%) (m ˚A) (m ...

    2013 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 014006, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.1.014006

    France, K., Fleming, B., Youngblood, A., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 014006, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.1.014006

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    J., & Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., & Petigura, E. A. 2018, AJ, 156, 264, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae828

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Petigura, E

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

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Howard, A

    Gibson, S. R., Howard, A. W., Rider, K., et al. 2024, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J. Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D

    2024

  12. [20]

    13096, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1309609, doi: 10.1117/12.3017841

    Vernet, Vol. 13096, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1309609, doi: 10.1117/12.3017841

    doi

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    2024, Searching for GEMS: Two Super-Jupiters around M-dwarfs – Signatures of Instability or Accretion? https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.08159

    Hotnisky, A., Kanodia, S., Libby-Roberts, J., et al. 2024, Searching for GEMS: Two Super-Jupiters around M-dwarfs – Signatures of Instability or Accretion? https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.08159

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    G., Redfield, S., Endl, M., et al

    Jensen, A. G., Redfield, S., Endl, M., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 751, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/86

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    P., G¨ udel, M., Lammer, H., & Kislyakova, K

    Johnstone, C. P., G¨ udel, M., Lammer, H., & Kislyakova, K. G. 2018, A&A, 617, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832776

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    F., Ca˜ nas, C

    Kanodia, S., Gupta, A. F., Ca˜ nas, C. I., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 235, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7796

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

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

    Kirk, J., Alam, M. K., L´ opez-Morales, M., & Zeng, L. 2020, AJ, 159, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6e66 16

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Kubyshkina, D., Fossati, L., & Erkaev, N. V. 2023, Precise photoionisation treatment and hydrodynamic effects in atmospheric modelling of warm and hot Neptunes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.07236 Lamp´ on, M., L´ opez-Puertas, M., Czesla, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, L7, doi: 10.1...

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.12775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.12775

    Linssen, D., Shih, J., MacLeod, M., & Oklopˇ ci´ c, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.12775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.12775

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    C., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & MacLeod, M

    Linssen, D. C., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & MacLeod, M. 2022, A&A, 667, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243830

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    S., Becklin, E

    McLean, I. S., Becklin, E. E., Bendiksen, O., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3354, Infrared Astronomical Instrumentation, ed. A. M. Fowler, 566–578, doi: 10.1117/12.317283

    1998 doi

  24. [32]

    2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316 Moˇ cnik, T., Hellier, C., Anderson, D

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316 Moˇ cnik, T., Hellier, C., Anderson, D. R., Clark, B. J. M., &

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 1622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx972

    Southworth, J. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx972

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Chiang, E

    Murray-Clay, R. A., Chiang, E. I., & Murray, N. 2009, ApJ, 693, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/23

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

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

    Nortmann, L., Pall´ e, E., Salz, M., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 1388, doi: 10.1126/science.aat5348 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A. 2019, ApJ, 881, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f7f Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & Hirata, C. M. 2018, ApJL, 855, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaada9

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.16732, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.16732

    Orell-Miquel, J., Murgas, F., Pall´ e, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.16732, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.16732

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    E., & Adams, F

    Owen, J. E., & Adams, F. C. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 15, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2601

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    E., & Schlichting, H

    Owen, J. E., & Schlichting, H. E. 2023, Mapping out the parameter space for photoevaporation and core-powered mass-loss. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00020

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    E., & Wu, Y

    Owen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2013, ApJ, 775, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 576, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424330

    Salz, M., Banerjee, R., Mignone, A., et al. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 576, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424330

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    C., & Schmitt, J

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

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    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

  35. [43]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451680

    Sanz-Forcada, J., Lopez-Puertas, M., Lamp’on, M., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451680

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    E., Spake, J

    Schreyer, E., Owen, J. E., Spake, J. J., Bahroloom, Z., & Di Giampasquale, S. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 5117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3528

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

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

    2000 doi

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    G., Collins, K

    Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., & Gaudi, B. S. 2017, AJ, 153, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5df3

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    M., et al

    Vidal-Madjar, A., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., D´ esert, J. M., et al. 2003, Nature, 422, 143, doi: 10.1038/nature01448

    2003 doi

  41. [49]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1ee

    Wang, L., & Dai, F. 2021, ApJ, 914, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1ee

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    C., et al

    Wang, Y.-H., Wang, S., Hinse, T. C., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf6b6

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    A., & Ford, E

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

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    L., Zhang, M., et al

    Xue, Q., Bean, J. L., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 963, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2682

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 11, doi: 10.1186/s40645-024-00666-3

    Yoshida, T., Terada, N., & Kuramoto, K. 2024, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 11, doi: 10.1186/s40645-024-00666-3

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    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

  47. [55]

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

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

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    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

  49. [57]

    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 17

    doi

  50. [58]

    2024, pyTPCI (Zenodo), doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.14285142

    Zhang, M., & Rosener, R. 2024, pyTPCI (Zenodo), doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.14285142

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    A., Wang, L., et al

    Zhang, M., Knutson, H. A., Wang, L., et al. 2022c, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3f3b

    doi

  52. [60]

    L., Wilson, D., et al

    Zhang, M., Bean, J. L., Wilson, D., et al. 2024, Constraining atmospheric composition from the outflow: helium observations reveal the fundamental properties of two planets straddling the radius gap. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.08318

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    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

  54. [62]

    Zhang, Y., Snellen, I. A. G., Molli` ere, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038412

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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