Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Understanding what helium absorption tells us about atmospheric escape from exoplanets

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Helium 10830 Å transit absorption is a direct, linear probe of the mass-loss rate from an exoplanet's escaping atmosphere, once the outflow temperature is known.

desk verdict A clean first-principles scaling law linking helium absorption to mass-loss rate, somewhat over-sold as a 'direct' measure before the scaling has been checked against the paper's own numerical models. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06149 v1 pith:DFMXP7BD submitted 2025-01-10 astro-ph.EP

Giulia Ballabio , James E. Owen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords atmosphericescapeheliumtripletabsorptionexoplanetatmospheresmass-lossrateParkerwindtransmissionspectroscopyenergy-limitedXUVheating
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 tries to establish what a helium 10830 Å transit signal actually measures. The authors argue from first principles that the excess absorption in the helium triplet line scales linearly with the atmospheric mass-loss rate, unlike Ly-α, which is weakly sensitive to the mass-loss rate and vanishes at high irradiation. They construct a 1D energy-limited Parker wind model that self-consistently links outflow temperature to mass-loss rate, and show that a scaled equivalent width—the measured absorption divided by a geometric factor built from the planet's orbital angular velocity and the stellar radius—is positively correlated with the mass-loss rate. Because the helium triplet population depends exponentially on temperature, knowing the wind temperature (from the line width) is the key to turning a measured transit depth into a mass-loss rate. If this is right, helium observations can directly test models of atmospheric escape and its role in shaping the exoplanet population, rather than just flagging that an atmosphere is escaping.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the scaled excess absorption $\tilde{F}_{\rm abs}$ of Eq. (16), derived by combining a constant-velocity, optically thin treatment of the helium 10830 Å line with the Parker wind density profile and a statistical-equilibrium triplet population. The key atomic function is $K(T)=\alpha_3(T)/(q_{3s}(T)+q_{3p}(T))$, the ratio of recombination into the triplet to collisional de-excitation, which carries the exponential temperature sensitivity of the signal. The outer radius of the absorbing column is taken to be the Coriolis turning length $R_c = c_s/(2\Omega)$, and the outflow is closed with an energy-limited boundary condition that pins the mass-loss rate to the XEUV flux, connecting temperature, density, and loss rate. This machinery converts a measured transit depth into a mass-loss rate once the line width gives the temperature.

What would settle it

For a sample of transiting planets with measured helium line widths and equivalent widths, compute $K(T)$ from the inferred wind temperature and compare $\tilde{F}_{\rm abs}/K(T)$ with independent mass-loss rate estimates (for example from Ly-α absorption or XEUV-flux-based models); the first-principles claim predicts a strict linear relation with slope $f_{\rm He}\sigma_0/(4m_{\rm H})$. A single system whose ratio deviates by more than the measurement errors would call the scaling into question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the helium triplet excess absorption, expressed as a scaled equivalent width $\tilde{F}_{\rm abs}$, is directly proportional to the atmospheric mass-loss rate $\dot{M}$: $\tilde{F}_{\rm abs} = \dot{M} f_{\rm He} \sigma_0 K(T)/(4 m_{\rm H})$, where $K(T)$ is the temperature-dependent ratio of recombination into the triplet state to collisional depopulation. The derivation shows that the absorption is optically thin and dominated at radii far from the planet, so its depth does not measure the size of the outflow; instead the outer boundary is set by the Coriolis turning length, and the scaling with $\dot{M}$ emerges from mass conservation. With a Parker wind and an energy-limited energy balance, the model links the outflow temperature to the mass-loss rate self-consistently, removing the usual assumption that they are independent. The authors conclude that, unlike Ly-α transits, helium absorption can be used as a direct measure of the mass-loss rate from an exoplanetary atmosphere once the outflow temperature is known.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that mass loss is energy-limited with a constant efficiency of 10 per cent for every planet; if the true efficiency varies across the population, the absolute mass-loss rates inferred from helium would be biased even though the linear scaling itself survives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measured helium equivalent width, once scaled by the geometric factor $\Omega R_*^2$ and corrected for the temperature-dependent factor $K(T)$, gives a direct estimate of the atmospheric mass-loss rate.
  • Planets around M- and K-type stars dominate the detectable helium signal, while G- and F-type hosts suppress it, because the XEUV-to-FUV flux ratio sets the triplet population.
  • Because the absorption is optically thin and extends to the Coriolis radius, the transit depth should not be read as the physical size of the outflow; a larger Coriolis radius increases the signal at fixed mass-loss rate.
  • The scaled equivalent width correlates more strongly with the XEUV-to-FUV ratio than with the XEUV flux alone, giving a population-level diagnostic of the stellar spectrum that drives the signal.
  • For the lowest-gravity sub-Neptunes the sonic radius can sit inside the XUV absorption radius, producing diffuse, low-density outflows with high mass-loss rates but weak helium signals, which may explain some non-detections around young puffy planets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not state this, but if the scaling holds, helium transit surveys could convert the radius-valley and sub-Neptune desert questions into direct population-level measurements of escape rates rather than indirect model fits.
  • The paper does not state this, but the Coriolis-radius scaling predicts that a planet of fixed mass-loss rate observed at a different orbital period would show a different helium depth; this is testable with repeated observations.
  • The paper does not state this, but combining helium equivalent widths with Ly-α line-width temperature measurements would give an independent cross-check of the energy-limited efficiency, because the two tracers weight temperature and mass-loss rate differently.
  • The paper does not state this, but its hydrogen-dominated atmospheres mean the predicted helium detectability of high-metallicity sub-Neptunes is likely an upper limit; metallicity-dependent models could sharpen that prediction.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theoretical framework for interpreting helium 10830 Å triplet transit absorption from escaping exoplanet atmospheres. In Section 2 the authors derive an analytic scaling law, Eq. (16), claiming that a suitably scaled excess absorption is linearly proportional to the atmospheric mass-loss rate, with a temperature-dependent coefficient K(T). In Section 3 they construct a 1D two-layer atmosphere model that couples an isothermal Parker wind to an energy-limited mass-loss rate, self-consistently linking outflow temperature and mass-loss rate. They apply the model to grids of Sub-Neptunes, Neptunes, and Jupiters around a range of stellar types and orbital separations, examining correlations between the scaled equivalent width and mass-loss rate, XEUV flux, and the XEUV-to-FUV flux ratio. They also propose an observational pipeline to infer mass-loss rates from measured equivalent widths and line FWHMs.

Significance. If the central scaling law is quantitatively correct, it would establish helium absorption as a direct and practical probe of exoplanet mass-loss rates, complementing Ly-α observations that are mostly sensitive to the outflow sound speed. The paper's strengths include a first-principles analytic derivation, a numerical model that self-consistently links temperature and mass-loss rate without fitting to observations, and falsifiable predictions such as the correlation with the XEUV-to-FUV flux ratio and the suppression of helium signals around G/F stars. The parameter choices are drawn from prior literature rather than tuned to observations, which is appropriate for a theoretical study. However, the paper does not yet demonstrate that the analytic coefficient in Eq. (16) accurately reproduces the numerical model, and the strong 'direct measure' claim needs qualification given the scatter seen in the population models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (14)-(16)] The central linear scaling law is derived using three approximations that are not checked against the numerical model of Section 3: (i) the substitution Mdot = 4π n0 mH cs Rp^2 assumes v(Rp) ≈ cs, whereas a Parker wind has v(Rp) < cs for planets with the sonic point outside the base; (ii) passing from Eq. (14) to Eq. (15) drops Rp relative to the Coriolis radius Rc, an approximation that is poor for close-in Jupiter-radius planets where Rc/Rp can be of order unity; and (iii) K(T) in Eq. (9) neglects triplet photoionization, which Appendix B shows becomes important at large radii for FUV-strong stellar spectra. The manuscript never performs a direct parity check between eF_abs from the numerical model and Eq. (16). Please add such a comparison across the full parameter grid, quantifying the error introduced by each approximation. Without this check, the claim that helium absorption can be used as a direct measure of the mass-loss rate is not demonstrated.
  2. [Section 4.2, Figure 8] The statement in Section 2 that helium absorption 'can be used as a direct measure of the mass-loss rate' is difficult to reconcile with the finding in Section 4.2 that 'We do not find a clear correlation between the mass-loss rate and the equivalent width' once stellar spectral variability is included. The proportionality in Eq. (16) holds only for fixed temperature, geometry, and atomic parameters. The paper should specify the observational conditions (e.g., after measuring the line FWHM and adopting known stellar properties) under which the scaling becomes usable, and should quantify the residual scatter that remains in the scaled relation across the population.
  3. [Section 4.4, Figure 11] The proposed pipeline to determine mass-loss rates from XEUV fluxes relies on the energy-limited formula with a constant efficiency ε = 0.1, imposed at Eq. (30). Although Section 4.5 acknowledges that numerically determined efficiency factors could replace this, the inference of Mdot in Section 4.4 inherits this assumption without an uncertainty estimate. The authors should either justify ε = 0.1 for the specific parameter grid or propagate plausible variations in ε into the inferred mass-loss rates to demonstrate the robustness of the method.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract states helium has been observed in '≳20 exoplanets', while Section 1 says 'more than ten confirmed detections'; please harmonize these numbers.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (7)] The definition of τ1 in Eq. (7) is incomplete; please specify that it is the optical depth to helium-ionizing photons evaluated with the flux-averaged cross section introduced in Eq. (6).
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (43)] The detection-limit expression EW ≈ 3σ_noise Δλ × FWHM mixes per-pixel noise with the number of resolution elements without derivation; please clarify how many spectral pixels contribute to the equivalent width measurement.
  4. [References] The reference list contains 'Dos Santos et al. 2022b' with the same page range as 'Dos Santos et al. 2022a'; please verify the citation and page numbers.
  5. [Figures] Several figures (e.g., Figures 5 and 8) appear to lack axis labels or colorbar labels in the manuscript version; ensure all panels have complete labels and legends.
  6. [Throughout] There are typographical errors such as 'know asthe' in Section 1 and 'logarthimically' in Section 2; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Eq. (16) scaling is derived from mass conservation and the optical depth integral, not fitted; the numerical model provides an independent consistency check.

full rationale

The central claim, that the scaled helium excess absorption eF_abs is proportional to the mass-loss rate Mdot times K(T), is obtained by explicit derivation from the optical depth integral (Eq. 8), the definition of excess absorption (Eq. 11), mass conservation (Mdot = 4π r^2 ρ v), and the Coriolis radius (Eq. 13). No parameter is fitted to observations to produce Eq. 16; the coefficient is fixed by atomic constants and the helium fraction. The numerical model in Section 3 solves a more complete set of level-population equations (Eqs. 38-40), so Figure 5 is a genuine test of the analytic scaling against a more detailed calculation, not a re-statement of the input. The assumption of energy-limited mass loss (Eq. 28) with ε = 0.1 is adopted from the literature, and Section 4.5 explicitly states it could be replaced by numerically determined efficiencies; this is a modeling assumption, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to Owen & Schlichting (2024) and Schulik & Owen (2024) provide the two-layer Parker-wind framework and atomic transitions, but the scaling law is re-derived here from first principles and does not rest on those papers as a uniqueness theorem. Appendix B and Section 4.5 acknowledge limitations (triplet photoionization for FUV-strong stars, efficiency uncertainty) that affect accuracy but do not make the derivation circular.

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

No new physical entities are postulated. The model's quantitative predictions rest on several free parameters and modeling choices, most notably the energy-limited efficiency epsilon = 0.1, the Bond albedo, the IR opacity, the assumed helium fraction, and the outer boundary at the Coriolis radius. These are adopted from prior literature or chosen for simplicity, not fitted to the target result. The analytic scaling law itself depends on the statistical-equilibrium treatment of the helium triplet and the assumption of an optically thin, spherically symmetric outflow.

free parameters (6)
  • Energy-limited efficiency epsilon = 0.1
    Constant efficiency converting XUV energy into outflow work, used in Eq. 28 and 30. Chosen from literature rather than fitted to data; affects all mass-loss rates in the model.
  • Bond albedo A_B = 0.3
    Sets the planet's equilibrium temperature (Eq. 33); chosen for simplicity.
  • IR opacity kappa_IR = 10^-2 cm^2/g
    Determines photosphere density (Eq. 21); adopted from Guillot 2010 and Freedman et al. 2014.
  • Helium fraction fHe = 0.1 (10%)
    Assumed atmospheric composition (hydrogen-dominated); affects the absorption scaling directly. Fractionation neglected.
  • Outer boundary R_out = Coriolis radius R_c = c_s/(2 Omega)
    Sets the integration limit for the transit calculation; an approximation that strongly affects absolute absorption (Eq. 12).
  • Temperature cap at 10^4 K = 10^4 K
    When the solved wind temperature exceeds 10^4 K, Ly-alpha cooling is assumed to cap it and mass-loss efficiency is reduced. This is an ad hoc treatment.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The outflow is spherically symmetric and isothermal (T = constant) and follows the Parker wind solution.
    Used throughout Section 3 (Eqs. 22-26) and in the boundary conditions. Real outflows are likely non-isothermal and 3D.
  • domain assumption The atmosphere is hydrogen-dominated (90% H, 10% He) with no significant fractionation.
    Assumed in Section 3.2; high-metallicity sub-Neptunes would have different mean molecular weight and weaker helium absorption, as the paper notes in Section 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The energy-limited mass-loss formula with constant efficiency epsilon = 0.1 is valid.
    Eqs. 28 and 30 set the mass-loss rate. The paper acknowledges this in Limitations and suggests replacing with numerically determined efficiencies.
  • ad hoc to paper Statistical equilibrium for the helium triplet population (Eq. 5) holds for detectable signals.
    Used in the analytic derivation of the scaling law; the numerical model includes photoionization of the triplet, but the scaling assumes recombination is balanced by collisional depopulation.
  • ad hoc to paper The outflow is truncated at the Coriolis radius R_c = c_s/(2 Omega).
    Used to set the outer boundary and derive Eqs. 13-16. The paper notes that stellar wind compression or tidal tails can alter this.
  • domain assumption The transit geometry is spherically symmetric and the planet is tidally locked with Omega equal to the orbital angular velocity.
    Used to compute the Coriolis radius and the 2D transit integration in Section 3.6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding what helium absorption tells us about atmospheric escape from exoplanets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DFMXP7BD

@misc{pith2026250106149,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding what helium absorption tells us about atmospheric escape from exoplanets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DFMXP7BD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06149}
}
abstract

Atmospheric escape is now considered the major contributing factor in shaping the demographic of detected exoplanets. However, inferences about the exoplanet populations strongly depend on the accuracy of the models. Direct observational tests of atmospheric models are still in their infancy. Helium escape from planetary atmospheres has rapidly become the primary observational probe, already observed in $\gtrsim$20 exoplanets. Grounding our understanding in the basic physics of atmospheric escape, we present a new theoretical model to predict the excess absorption from the helium absorption line. We constrain the atmosphere properties, such as mass-loss rates and outflow temperatures, by implementing a Parker wind solution with an energy limited evaporating outflow. Importantly, we self-consistently link the mass-loss rates and outflow temperatures, which are critical to understanding helium absorption as the triplet-level population is typically exponentially sensitive to temperature. Furthermore, helium absorption is typically optically thin and the absorption is dominated far from the planet. Therefore, the absorption depth is not a measure of the size of the helium outflow. Our results indicate that for planets with a detectable signal, typically the helium triplet population in the atmosphere rapidly approaches a statistical equilibrium between populations by recombination and depopulation caused by electron collisions. We suggest that excess helium absorption can be quantified by a scaled equivalent width, which is positively correlated with the mass loss rate. We also show that the helium absorption scales with incident radiation, particularly with the XEUV to FUV flux ratios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06149 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Theoretical expectation of the scaled excess absorption as a function of both mass-loss rate and wind temperature. Each curve represents the line of constant mass-loss rate (top panel) or constant temperature (bottom panel). The scaled equivalent width has arbitrary units, as only the dependency on those parameters is shown here. into the obscuring “radius” does not provide a representative size of the outflow, and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our 1D model for the planet’s atmosphere. We model the atmo￾sphere as a two-layer structure: the bottom layer in hydrostatic equilibrium and the top layer as an isothermal Parker wind. The solid line indicates the radial density profile in the two layers. The distances are not scaled. 3.1 Atmosphere Structure Following Owen & Schlichting (2024), we model the planet’s at￾mosphere and outflow as a two-layer structure.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Typical 1D Parker wind structure shown for a GJ 436b analog, as an example, orbiting an M2.5 star at a distance of 0.05 au. The model gives an outflow temperature of 3350 K and a mass-loss rate of 1.72 × 108 g s−1 . The radial velocity (blue) and density (red) profiles are derived from Eq. 25 and 26, respectively. The dots indicate the location of the sonic point. Middle: Radial number fractions of neutral and … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Atomic levels of helium, illustrating the transitions considered in our calculations, including transitions from Schulik & Owen (2024). For completeness, we show all the transitions, even though we ignore those populating/depopulating the 21P state. The energy absorbed…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scaled equivalent width as a function of mass-loss rate, for Jupiters, Neptunes and Sub-Neptunes. The points colour indicates the planet’s mass and the marker size scales with the planet’s radius, whose values are listed in the legend. Each exoplanet is located at 0.05…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scaled equivalent width as a function of mass-loss rate, colour-coded by the outflow temperature. The marker size scales with the planet radius, whose values are listed in the legend of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scaled equivalent width as a function of mass-loss rate, for Jupiters, Neptunes and Sub-Neptunes. The points colour represents the ratio between the (hot) sonic radius and 𝑅XUV and the marker size scales with the planet radius, whose values are listed in the legend of …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: Scaled equivalent width as a function of mass-loss rate, for Jupiters, Neptunes and Sub-Neptunes. Each dot corresponds to an exoplanet with a mass and radius randomly selected amongst the values in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Correlation between the scaled equivalent width and the ratio between XEUV and FUV fluxes, shown for 400 Jupiters, Neptunes and Sub￾Neptunes (as indicated by the label in the top left corner). Each point is coloured by the planet’s orbital separation and the maker siz…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Correlation between XEUV fluxes and mass-loss rates, colour-coded based on the outflow temperature, shown for 400 Jupiters, Neptunes and Sub-Neptunes. The marker size scales with the planet’s gravity. Different marker shapes are chosen in accordance with [PITH_FULL_I…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of scaled equivalent widths with XEUV flux, colour-coded based on the full width at half maximum. Each panel shows the results for 400 Jupiters, Neptunes and Sub-Neptunes, respectively. The marker size scales with the planet’s gravity. Different marker sh…

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

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

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad50d4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....168..102A 168, 102

    Alam M. K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad50d4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....168..102A 168, 102

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad50d4 2024

  3. [3]

    P., Vidotto A

    Allan A. P., Vidotto A. A., Villarreal D'Angelo C., Dos Santos L. A., Driessen F. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.4657A 527, 4657

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3432 2024

  4. [4]

    Allart R., et al., 2018, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aat5879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Sci...362.1384A 362, 1384

    doi:10.1126/science.aat5879 2018

  5. [5]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935979 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...629A.110A 629, A110

    Alonso-Floriano F. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935979 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...629A.110A 629, A110

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935979 2019

  6. [6]

    S., Allard F., Hauschildt P

    Baraffe I., Selsis F., Chabrier G., Barman T. S., Allard F., Hauschildt P. H., Lammer H., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...419L..13B 419, L13

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040129 2004

  7. [7]

    S., Selsis F., Allard F., Hauschildt P

    Baraffe I., Chabrier G., Barman T. S., Selsis F., Allard F., Hauschildt P. H., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200500123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...436L..47B 436, L47

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200500123 2005

  8. [8]

    arXiv:2403.03325

    Benneke B., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240303325B p. arXiv:2403.03325

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.03325 2024

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Biassoni F., Caldiroli A., Gallo E., Haardt F., Spinelli R., Borsa F., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347517 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A.115B 682, A115

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...831..180C 831, 180

    Chen H., Rogers L. A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...831..180C 831, 180

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    A., 2023, in Vidotto A

    Dos Santos L. A., 2023, in Vidotto A. A., Fossati L., Vink J. S., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 370, Winds of Stars and Exoplanets. pp 56--71 ( @eprint arXiv 2211.16243 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921322004239

    2023 arXiv

  4. [13]

    A., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A..62D 659, A62

    Dos Santos L. A., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A..62D 659, A62

    doi

  5. [14]

    J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09587.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364..649F 364, 649

    Fortney J. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09587.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364..649F 364, 649

    2005

  6. [15]

    France K., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...820...89F 820, 89

    2016 doi

  7. [16]

    S., Lustig-Yaeger J., Fortney J

    Freedman R. S., Lustig-Yaeger J., Fortney J. J., Lupu R. E., Marley M. S., Lodders K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...25F 214, 25

    2014 doi

  8. [17]

    J., Petigura E

    Fulton B. J., Petigura E. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..264F 156, 264

    2018 doi

  9. [18]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..109F 154, 109

    Fulton B. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..109F 154, 109

    2017 doi

  10. [19]

    Garc \' a Mu \ n oz A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.pss.2007.03.007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007P&SS...55.1426G 55, 1426

    2007 doi

  11. [20]

    E., Sari R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476..759G 476, 759

    Ginzburg S., Schlichting H. E., Sari R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476..759G 476, 759

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    Guillot T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...520A..27G 520, A27

    2010 doi

  13. [22]

    Gully-Santiago M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1ee8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....167..142G 167, 142

    2024 doi

  14. [23]

    E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487...24G 487, 24

    Gupta A., Schlichting H. E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487...24G 487, 24

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493..792G 493, 792

    Gupta A., Schlichting H. E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493..792G 493, 792

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.4634G 504, 4634

    Gupta A., Schlichting H. E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.4634G 504, 4634

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.4585G 516, 4585

    Gupta A., Nicholson L., Schlichting H. E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.4585G 516, 4585

    2022 doi

  18. [27]

    Holmberg M., Madhusudhan N., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348238 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683L...2H 683, L2

    2024 doi

  19. [29]

    K., L \'o pez-Morales M., Zeng L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6e66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159..115K 159, 115

    Kirk J., Alam M. K., L \'o pez-Morales M., Zeng L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6e66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159..115K 159, 115

    2020 doi

  20. [30]

    A., L \'o pez-Morales M., Alam M

    Kirk J., Dos Santos L. A., L \'o pez-Morales M., Alam M. K., Oklop c i \'c A., MacLeod M., Zeng L., Zhou G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac722f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164...24K 164, 24

    2022 doi

  21. [31]

    T., Yelle R

    Koskinen T. T., Yelle R. V., Lavvas P., Lewis N. K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723..116K 723, 116

    2010 doi

  22. [32]

    Lamers H. J. G. L. M., Cassinelli J. P., 1999, Introduction to Stellar Winds

    1999

  23. [33]

    F., Bauer S

    Lammer H., Selsis F., Ribas I., Guinan E. F., Bauer S. J., Weiss W. W., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380815 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...598L.121L 598, L121

    2003 doi

  24. [34]

    Lamp \'o n M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937175 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...636A..13L 636, A13

    2020 doi

  25. [35]

    Lecavelier Des Etangs A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...461.1185L 461, 1185

    2007 doi

  26. [36]

    C., Oklop c i \'c A., MacLeod M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...667A..54L 667, A54

    Linssen D. C., Oklop c i \'c A., MacLeod M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...667A..54L 667, A54

    2022 doi

  27. [37]

    arXiv:2410.03228

    Linssen D., Oklop c i \'c A., MacLeod M., 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.03228 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241003228L p. arXiv:2410.03228

    doi arXiv

  28. [38]

    Linssen D., Shih J., MacLeod M., Oklop c i \'c A., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A..43L 688, A43

    doi

  29. [39]

    D., Fortney J

    Lopez E. D., Fortney J. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776....2L 776, 2

    2013 doi

  30. [40]

    D., Fortney J

    Lopez E. D., Fortney J. J., Miller N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...761...59L 761, 59

    2012 doi

  31. [41]

    Loyd R. O. P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824..102L 824, 102

    2016 doi

  32. [42]

    S., et al., 2016, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/ncomms11201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016NatCo...711201L 7, 11201

    Lundkvist M. S., et al., 2016, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/ncomms11201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016NatCo...711201L 7, 11201

    2016 doi

  33. [43]

    MacLeod M., Oklop c i \'c A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46ce , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..226M 926, 226

    2022 doi

  34. [44]

    Mazeh T., Holczer T., Faigler S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201528065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...589A..75M 589, A75

    2016 doi

  35. [45]

    A., Kratter K., Krumholz M

    McCann J., Murray-Clay R. A., Kratter K., Krumholz M. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05b8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873...89M 873, 89

    2019 doi

  36. [46]

    E., Owen J

    Misener W., Schulik M., Schlichting H. E., Owen J. E., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.15221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240515221M p. arXiv:2405.15221

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [47]

    arXiv:2408.02170

    Morrissey A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.02170 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240802170M p. arXiv:2408.02170

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [48]

    A., Chiang E

    Murray-Clay R. A., Chiang E. I., Murray N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693...23M 693, 23

    2009 doi

  39. [49]

    V., Zhang Z., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241019381N p

    Nail F., MacLeod M., Oklop c i \'c A., Gully-Santiago M., Morley C. V., Zhang Z., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241019381N p. arXiv:2410.19381

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [50]

    Nortmann L., et al., 2018, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aat5348 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Sci...362.1388N 362, 1388

    2018 doi

  41. [51]

    Oklop c i \'c A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f7f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881..133O 881, 133

    2019 doi

  42. [52]

    M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaada9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855L..11O 855, L11

    Oklop c i \'c A., Hirata C. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaada9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855L..11O 855, L11

    2018 doi

  43. [53]

    M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab67c6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890...88O 890, 88

    Oklop c i \'c A., Silva M., Montero-Camacho P., Hirata C. M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab67c6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890...88O 890, 88

    2020 doi

  44. [54]

    arXiv:2404.16732

    Orell-Miquel J., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.16732 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240416732O p. arXiv:2404.16732

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [55]

    E., 2019, @doi [Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences] 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060246 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AREPS..47...67O 47, 67

    Owen J. E., 2019, @doi [Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences] 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060246 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AREPS..47...67O 47, 67

    2019 doi

  46. [56]

    E., Alvarez M

    Owen J. E., Alvarez M. A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...816...34O 816, 34

    2016 doi

  47. [57]

    E., Jackson A

    Owen J. E., Jackson A. P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21481.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.2931O 425, 2931

    2012

  48. [58]

    E., Lai D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1760 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.5012O 479, 5012

    Owen J. E., Lai D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1760 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.5012O 479, 5012

    2018 doi

  49. [59]

    E., Schlichting H

    Owen J. E., Schlichting H. E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3972 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1615O 528, 1615

    2024 doi

  50. [60]

    E., Wu Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775..105O 775, 105

    Owen J. E., Wu Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775..105O 775, 105

    2013 doi

  51. [61]

    E., Wu Y., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa890a , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847...29O 847, 29

    Owen J. E., Wu Y., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa890a , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847...29O 847, 29

    2017 doi

  52. [62]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.4357O 518, 4357

    Owen J. E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.4357O 518, 4357

    2023 doi

  53. [63]

    N., 1958, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ApJ...128..664P 128, 664

    Parker E. N., 1958, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ApJ...128..664P 128, 664

    1958 doi

  54. [64]

    Poppenhaeger K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1751P 512, 1751

    2022 doi

  55. [65]

    E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac126f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..116R 162, 116

    Rockcliffe K. E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac126f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..116R 162, 116

    2021 doi

  56. [66]

    G., Owen J

    Rogers J. G., Owen J. E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.1526R 503, 1526

    2021 doi

  57. [67]

    G., Schlichting H

    Rogers J. G., Schlichting H. E., Owen J. E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acc86f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...947L..19R 947, L19

    2023 doi

  58. [68]

    G., Owen J

    Rogers J. G., Owen J. E., Schlichting H. E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae563 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.2716R 529, 2716

    2024 doi

  59. [69]

    C., Schmitt J

    Salz M., Czesla S., Schneider P. C., Schmitt J. H. M. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...586A..75S 586, A75

    2016 doi

  60. [70]

    E., Loyd R

    Schreyer E., Owen J. E., Loyd R. O. P., Murray-Clay R., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1976 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.tmp.1934S

    doi

  61. [71]

    E., Spake J

    Schreyer E., Owen J. E., Spake J. J., Bahroloom Z., Di Giampasquale S., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5117S 527, 5117

    doi

  62. [72]

    A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1251 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523..286S 523, 286

    Schulik M., Booth R. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1251 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523..286S 523, 286

    2023 doi

  63. [73]

    arXiv:2412.05258

    Schulik M., Owen J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241205258S p. arXiv:2412.05258

    2024 doi arXiv

  64. [74]

    D., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...537..916S 537, 916

    Seager S., Sasselov D. D., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...537..916S 537, 916

    2000 doi

  65. [75]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0067-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.557...68S 557, 68

    Spake J. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0067-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.557...68S 557, 68

    2018 doi

  66. [77]

    J., Oklop c i \'c A., Hillenbrand L

    Spake J. J., Oklop c i \'c A., Hillenbrand L. A., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac178a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..284S 162, 284

    doi

  67. [78]

    A., Oklop c i \'c A., David T

    Tyler D., Petigura E. A., Oklop c i \'c A., David T. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960..123T 960, 123

    2024 doi

  68. [79]

    S., Kjeldsen H., Owen J

    Van Eylen V., Agentoft C., Lundkvist M. S., Kjeldsen H., Owen J. E., Fulton B. J., Petigura E., Snellen I., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1783 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.4786V 479, 4786

    2018 doi

  69. [80]

    M., Ballester G

    Vidal-Madjar A., Lecavelier des Etangs A., D \'e sert J. M., Ballester G. E., Ferlet R., H \'e brard G., Mayor M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature01448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.422..143V 422, 143

    2003 doi

  70. [81]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  71. [82]

    Vissapragada S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8e34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159..278V 159, 278

    2020 doi

  72. [83]

    Wang L., Dai F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1ed , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...914...99W 914, 99

    2021 doi

  73. [84]

    V., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.02.008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Icar..170..167Y 170, 167

    Yelle R. V., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.02.008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Icar..170..167Y 170, 167

    2004 doi

  74. [85]

    Youngblood A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824..101Y 824, 101

    2016 doi

  75. [86]

    Zhang M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3f3b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163...68Z 163, 68

    2022 doi

  76. [87]

    Zhang Z., et al., 2023a, @doi [Science Advances] 10.1126/sciadv.adf8736 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023SciA....9F8736Z 9, eadf8736

    doi

  77. [88]

    A., Dai F., Wang L., Ricker G

    Zhang M., Knutson H. A., Dai F., Wang L., Ricker G. R., Schwarz R. P., Mann C., Collins K., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aca75b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165...62Z 165, 62

    doi

  78. [89]

    L., Knutson H

    Zhang M., Dai F., Bean J. L., Knutson H. A., Rescigno F., 2023c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aced51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953L..25Z 953, L25

    doi

Pith tools

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