Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation on Sub-Neptune Exoplanet Hazes Through Laboratory Experiments

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Exposing laboratory water-world haze analogues to simulated M-dwarf stellar flares changes their transmittance and reflectance, with higher-energy UV producing stronger changes and signs of haze degradation.

desk verdict New laboratory UV-irradiation dataset for water-world haze analogs, but the paper's headline claim overstates what its own statistics support; the valuable part is the carefully hedged body. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13692 v1 pith:VFR4Q6CF submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Lori Huseby , Sarah E. Moran , Neil Pearson , Tiffany Kataria , Chao He , Cara Pesciotta , Sarah M. Hörst , Pierre Haenecour
show 4 more authors
Travis Barman Vishnu Reddy Nikole K. Lewis Véronique Vuitton
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords exoplanethazessub-NeptuneswaterworldsstellarflaresultravioletirradiationlaboratoryspectroscopythinfilmopticsMdwarfstars
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 sets out to show that ultraviolet radiation from M-dwarf stellar flares changes the optical properties of photochemical hazes that could exist in temperate water-world sub-Neptune atmospheres. It reports that ten-hour exposures through two flare-simulating UV bandpasses altered the transmittance and reflectance of laboratory haze films, and that the higher-energy 228 nm exposure produced more pronounced changes, including a statistically significant drop in integrated reflectance for a methane-derived haze. If these results carry to real atmospheres, stellar flaring could change the spectra observed by telescopes and could partially destroy the haze layers that may shield lower atmospheres and help retain them. The work matters because current exoplanet haze models generally treat haze properties as static, whereas flaring M dwarfs are common hosts for these planets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are two thin films of laboratory photochemical haze deposited on MgF2 substrates, alongside paired transmittance and reflectance measurements from the far-ultraviolet through the mid-infrared. The analysis keys on functional-group absorption bands assigned to O-H, C-H, C=O, C-O, and C≡N bonds, whose relative changes before and after UV exposure are used to infer compositional and chemical changes. Film thickness is estimated from interference fringes, the optical oscillations produced by multiple reflections within the thin film, using an assumed refractive index, and the fringe pattern also provides a time-resolved readout of physical change during irradiation. The two bandpass filters, peaking at 350 nm and 228 nm, serve as lower- and higher-energy flare simulators, and the comparison between them is what carries the claim that higher-energy flares produce stronger alterations.

What would settle it

Measure a replicate set of methane-derived haze films with atomic force microscopy surface roughness and spectroscopic ellipsometry both before and after UV exposure; if the reflectance and transmittance changes disappear once roughness and thickness are accounted for, the claim that stellar-flare UV chemically degrades the haze would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that simulated stellar flare UV radiation measurably alters water-world haze analogues, and that the alteration scales with flare energy. Two haze films were produced from high-metallicity water-dominated gas mixtures that differed only in their minor carbon source, 5% CO versus 5% CH4, and each was exposed for ten hours to 350 nm and then 228 nm UV light. The methane-derived haze showed larger spectral changes in both transmittance and reflectance, including loss of O-H, C-H, and C-O features, and its integrated reflectance decreased significantly under the 228 nm filter. The CO-derived haze showed no significant change in thickness or integrated reflectance. The paper interprets these changes as UV-driven dissociation and degradation of haze material, with the implication that high-energy stellar activity could thin or erode water-world haze layers if production does not keep pace.

Load-bearing premise

The reflectance and transmittance changes are attributed to UV-driven chemical change in the haze, but pre-irradiation surface roughness was not measured and the film thickness changes fall within the error bars, so the shifts could instead come from film geometry, substrate effects, or noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these laboratory changes carry to real atmospheres, transmission spectra of water-world sub-Neptunes around active M dwarfs should show wavelength-dependent haze opacity changes after flares, not the static haze properties used in current models.
  • High-energy flare UV can reduce the reflectance and, potentially, the thickness of methane-bearing water-world hazes, so the haze layer may not survive to shield the lower atmosphere unless haze production replenishes it.
  • Haze composition matters: the CO-bearing haze showed no significant reflectance or thickness response under these conditions, so flare-driven degradation should be strongest in atmospheres with substantial methane photochemistry.
  • Future retrieval and radiative-transfer models should incorporate flare-processed haze optical constants, since pre- and post-flare spectra differ enough to shift retrieved abundances and particle properties.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension is a dose-response series: expose replicate methane-derived films to increasing UV fluence and check whether integrated reflectance falls monotonically, which would separate degradation from threshold effects.
  • Because only two UV bandpasses were tested and XUV was excluded, real M-dwarf flares may degrade hazes more severely than these measurements show, making the reported changes a lower bound for very active stars.
  • The chemical-degradation read rests on film-level optics; measuring refractive index and extinction coefficient before and after irradiation, rather than assuming a single refractive index value, would let the inferred mass loss be checked independently.
  • If haze destruction is confirmed, water-world habitability becomes a balance between photochemical haze production and flare-driven destruction, so coupling these laboratory rates with atmospheric production models would yield a haze lifetime.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports laboratory experiments in which two photochemical haze analogs, one produced from an H2O/N2/CO2/CH4 mixture and one from H2O/N2/CO2/CO, are deposited as thin films on MgF2 substrates and then exposed to UV radiation through two bandpass filters centered at 350 nm and 228 nm. The authors measure transmittance and reflectance from the visible to mid-IR before and after irradiation, and they monitor UV-visible reflectance every 1.5 hours during the 10-hour exposures. The central claim, stated in the abstract and conclusion, is that both simulated flares altered the overall transmittance and reflectance of the hazes, that the higher-energy 228 nm exposure produced more pronounced changes, and that the hazes show signs of degradation that may be relevant to atmospheric retention on water-world exoplanets. The body of the paper, however, reports that the CO-derived sample showed no significant change in integrated reflectance or thickness, and that the 350 nm CH4-derived sample did not show a statistically preferred reflectance decline.

Significance. If the main claim were fully supported, this would be a valuable first laboratory study of UV-induced changes in water-world haze analogs, with implications for interpreting transmission spectra of sub-Neptunes around M dwarfs and for models of haze longevity and atmospheric escape. The paper has notable strengths: a broad spectral range (0.2-9 microns) that overlaps with HST, JWST, and HWO; explicit statistical comparisons of flat versus sloped fits to time-series reflectance; and an unusually candid acknowledgment of several limitations in the body text, including unmeasured pre-irradiation roughness, thickness changes that are within 1-2 sigma, and the absence of replicate samples. The experimental data are likely useful to the exoplanet haze community. However, the abstract and conclusion go beyond what the body's own statistics support, and the physical attribution of the observed reflectance change to chemical degradation is not yet secure. The work is therefore significant but in need of substantial reframing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.5] The abstract states that 'both simulated flares altered the overall transmittance and reflectance of the hazes,' but the statistics reported in Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 do not support that claim. For the CH4-derived sample under the 350 nm filter, the flat fit has reduced chi-squared 1.1 and the sloped fit 0.77, and after rescaling the sloped fit to reduced chi-squared 1, the delta-BIC drops to 1.75, which the authors themselves describe as not statistically preferred. For the CO-derived sample, both filters yield reduced chi-squared values of 0.22 and 0.36, corresponding to no measurable change. The only statistically preferred decline is the 228 nm CH4 time series, with delta-BIC 3.1. The conclusion in Section 5 that 'UV irradiation does affect the spectra of both haze samples' is similarly stronger than the body's evidence. The abstract and conclusion should be revised to state that a reflectance decline is observed for the CH4-derived haze under the 228 nm filter, while the other combinations show no significant integrated change.
  2. [Sections 3.1, 3.5.1, and Table 3] The physical attribution of the observed reflectance change to chemical degradation of the haze material is fragile because the surface roughness was not measured before irradiation, the film thickness changes are admitted to be within 1-2 sigma, and there are no replicate samples. Section 3.1 states that pre-irradiation images are unavailable and only post-irradiation RMS roughness values are reported (17.67 nm for CO, 3.08 nm for CH4). Section 3.5.1 and Table 3 show that the CH4 film thickness changes from 0.911 +/- 0.094 microns to 0.862 +/- 0.021 and 0.891 +/- 0.056 microns, overlapping within error. The 228 nm CH4 reflectance decline could therefore arise from film morphology, substrate effects, or noise rather than from bond-selective photochemistry. The authors note the roughness confounder in the Conclusion, but the atmospheric implications in the Discussion depend on a chemical degradation mechanism. At minimum, the paper should frame the results as optical property changes with an unresolved physical mechanism, and should temper the language of 'degradation' and 'destruction' accordingly.
  3. [Section 4, Discussion] The comparison between the experimental UV flux and a real M-dwarf flare undermines the term 'simulated flare.' The paper states that the lamp output is 1.1 W/m2 over 10 hours and that the quiescent radiation of an M dwarf such as GJ 1214 is approximately 3.5 W/m2, described as 'three times stronger' than the simulated flare. If this comparison is correct, the experiment exposes the hazes to a sub-quiescent UV fluence, not a flare, which is typically orders of magnitude more luminous than quiescence. The authors do note that real flares have higher energy and that larger changes are expected, and they frame the work as a baseline, but the abstract and title language of 'simulated flares' is misleading. The authors should either correct the flux comparison if the bandpasses are different, or explicitly identify the experiment as a low-fluence UV-exposure baseline rather than a flare simulation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5.1] There is a typo in the sentence 'We further verify our results by carrying out the BIC text' — 'text' should be 'test.'
  2. [Figures 9 and 10 captions] The captions state that pre- and post-irradiation uncorrected spectra are offset vertically by 0.065, while the corrected and smoothed data are plotted as is. This is somewhat confusing because the top panels appear to mix offset and non-offset spectra; the caption should clarify which curves are offset and which are not.
  3. [Conclusion, Section 5] The sentence 'we note that the changes we observe for each filter are within 1-sigma uncertainty across the 228 nm filter, and within 2-sigma uncertainty over the 350 nm filter' is not easy to reconcile with Table 3, because the combined pre- and post-irradiation uncertainties for both filters are larger than the differences. The authors should specify how the sigma values are computed (e.g., using only the post-irradiation error bar rather than propagated pre- and post-irradiation errors).
  4. [Table 1] The table header contains a formatting artifact: 'T able 1' should be 'Table 1' in the table caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's central results are direct laboratory measurements of transmittance and reflectance before and after UV irradiation, not derived quantities that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

This is an experimental laboratory study with no derivation chain whose outputs are forced by inputs. The central claims are measurements: transmittance and reflectance spectra of two haze samples taken before and after irradiation through two bandpass filters, plus time-series integrated reflectance fits. None of these measured quantities is constructed from a fitted parameter that is then renamed as a prediction. The only borrowed numerical input is the assumed refractive index n = 1.7, taken from previous laboratory experiments (He et al. 2022), used in Equation (1) to calculate film thickness from interference fringes. That thickness calculation does not drive the main spectral results, and the paper explicitly states that pre- and post-irradiation thicknesses overlap within error bars (Section 3.1, Table 3, and Section 5), so even if the refractive-index assumption were questioned, it does not force the reflectance or transmittance changes. Self-citations to PHAZER laboratory methods (He et al. 2017; Hörst et al. 2018) are methodological provenance rather than load-bearing circular support. The gap between the abstract's statement that 'both simulated flares altered the overall transmittance and reflectance' and the body's own statistics (e.g., the 350 nm CH4 change is not statistically preferred, and the CO sample shows no change) is a statistical robustness and interpretation concern, not a circularity concern. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities. The paper rests on laboratory-analogue assumptions rather than mathematical axioms; the key domain assumptions are listed above. The only borrowed numerical input is the assumed refractive index for film thickness.

free parameters (1)
  • Film refractive index n = 1.7 (assumed, from He et al. 2022)
    Used in Equation (1) to convert fringe spacing to film thickness; thickness comparisons are supporting evidence for haze degradation, though the paper notes the changes are within error.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AC glow discharge produces haze analogues representative of photochemical hazes in sub-Neptune water-world atmospheres.
    Section 2.1 states the discharge is not analogous to a specific atmospheric mechanism but is 'representative of generic energetic processes', and compositions are simplified from equilibrium calculations.
  • domain assumption The H2O-dominated, 1000x-solar-metallicity gas composition with 10% N2, 10% CO2, and 5% CO or CH4 captures the important haze-forming chemistry of water-world sub-Neptunes.
    Table 1 and Section 2.1 choose these mixtures based on previous PHAZER experiments and equilibrium calculations; the paper calls them simplifications.
  • domain assumption Optical changes measured on a thin solid film on a MgF2 substrate can be extrapolated to suspended haze particles in an atmosphere.
    Section 4 applies film-level spectral changes to exoplanet radiative transfer and atmospheric retention; the paper explicitly notes it assumes no haze production during the flare.
  • domain assumption A 10-hour exposure at 1.1 W/m2 through the 215-245 nm and 320-380 nm bandpasses is a meaningful representation of M-dwarf flare UV input.
    Section 2.2.1 and Section 4 compare this to a quiescent M-dwarf flux of about 3.5 W/m2 and note real flares can be orders of magnitude stronger, making this a lower-bound baseline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation on Sub-Neptune Exoplanet Hazes Through Laboratory Experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFR4Q6CF

@misc{pith2026250513692,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation on Sub-Neptune Exoplanet Hazes Through Laboratory Experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFR4Q6CF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13692}
}
read the original abstract

Temperate sub-Neptune exoplanets could contain large inventories of water in various phases, such as water-worlds with water-rich atmospheres or even oceans. Both space-based and ground-based observations have shown that many exoplanets likely also contain photochemically-generated hazes. Haze particles are a key source of organic matter and may impact the evolution or origin of life. In addition, haze layers could provide a mechanism for lower-atmospheric shielding and ultimately atmospheric retention. Often orbiting close to M-dwarf stars, these planets receive large amounts of radiation, especially during flaring events, which may strip away their atmospheres. M-dwarf stars are known to have higher stellar activity than other types of stars, and stellar flares have the potential to accelerate atmospheric escape. In this work, we present results on laboratory investigations of UV radiation effects simulating two different stellar flare energies on laboratory-produced exoplanet hazes made under conditions analogous to water-world atmospheres. We find that both simulated flares altered the overall transmittance and reflectance of the hazes, and higher energy "flares" make those alterations more pronounced. On a larger scale, these laboratory-made hazes show potential signs of degradation over the simulated flaring period. Our results provide insight into the effects that stellar flaring events have on potential exoplanet haze composition and the ability for water-world-like exoplanets to retain their atmospheres.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13692 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Streamlined schematic of the experimental setup, simulated atmospheric compositions and conditions, UV bombard￾ment process, measurements, and experimental outcomes. Two laboratory hazes were produced (the initial conditions varying only in the minor carbon source) in the PHAZER chamber (He et al. 2017) by exposing the gas mixture at room temperature to an AC plasma source. After the hazes were produced, each half o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optical reflected light mosaic images (Keyence Digital Microscope, University of Arizona) of the post–UV bombardment water–world hazes deposited onto MgF2 sub￾strate disks. The image labeled blank is of a clean MgF2 substrate disk. The image labeled 5% CH4–derived haze sample is more yellow in color than the image labeled 5% CO–derived haze sample, indicating the differing composi￾tion and haze–forming efficiency of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Transmittance spectra of our 5% CH4 atmosphere haze sample (top) and 5% CO atmosphere haze sample (bot￾tom) in the visible to mid–IR wavelength region (26000 – 1100 cm−1 , 0.4 – 9 µm). The black line represents the sam￾ples before the irradiation process began, and the teal and red lines represent the post–irradiation spectrum using the 350 nm and 228 nm filters respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Enlarged spectrum between 3500 – 1100 cm−1 (2.5 – 9 µm) of the 5% CH4 (top) and 5% CO (bottom) at￾mosphere haze samples as a function of wavelength in trans￾mittance with major spectral features labeled. spectrum with respect to the pre–irradiation spectrum of each fil…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: the C–H stretching mode of an alkane spectral feature of the 5% CH4 atmosphere–derived sample pre– and post–UV irradiation in transmittance. The post– irradiation through the 350 nm filter had larger increases in transmittance and created "bumps" in the spectra. B…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the reflectance spectra of both samples pre– and post–irradiation. The general spectral shape and features are similar throughout the irradiation pro￾cess. We note that the thickness of the haze films, ma￾terial properties, and the chemical compositions of the fi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: The C–O stretching features of the 5% CH4 derived haze sample evident of a primary alcohol seen pre– and post–irradiation in reflectance. The irradiation process made the spectral features less pronounced in relation to the pre–irradiation spectra across both filt…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: UV-visible (46000 – 18000 cm−1 , 0.22 – 0.54 µm) spectrum for the 5% CH4 atmosphere haze sample across the 350 nm filter, corrected for interference fringe effects. The pre– and post–irradiation uncorrected spectra have been offset vertically by 0.065 for clarity.…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: UV-visible (46000 – 18000 cm−1 , 0.22 – 0.54 µm) spectrum for the 5% CH4 atmosphere haze sample across the 228 nm filter. The pre– and post–irradiation uncorrected spectra have been offset vertically by 0.065 for clarity. The corrected and smoothed data during th…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top: UV-visible (46000 – 18000 cm−1 , 0.22 – 0.54 µm) smoothed spectrum for the 5% CO atmosphere haze sample across both the 228 nm and 350 nm filters pre– and post–irradiation. Due to the apparent thinness of the haze film, there is not enough fringing seen to be cor…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Meadows, V

    Arney, G., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 873, doi: 10.1089/ast.2015.1422

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    N., Meadows, V

    Arney, G. N., Meadows, V. S., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/49

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/49 2017

  3. [3]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03325, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03325

    Benneke, B., Roy, P.-A., Coulombe, L.-P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03325, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03325

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.03325 2024

  4. [4]

    A., Kim, H.-J., & Biondi, E

    Benner, S. A., Kim, H.-J., & Biondi, E. 2019, Life, 9, 84, doi: 10.3390/life9040084

    work page doi:10.3390/life9040084 2019

  5. [5]

    O., & Güdel, M

    Benz, A. O., & Güdel, M. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101757

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101757 2010

  6. [6]

    J., Koch, D

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D. G., Basri, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/19

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/19 2011

  7. [7]

    Brande, J., Crossfield, I. J. M., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1b5c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1b5c 2024

  8. [8]

    E., Osten, R

    Brasseur, C. E., Osten, R. A., & Fleming, S. W. 2019, ApJ, 883, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3df8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3df8 2019

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    P., Lemarchand, G

    Buccino, A. P., Lemarchand, G. A., & Mauas, P. J. D. 2007, Icarus, 192, 582, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.08.012

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    L., Hörst, S

    Cable, M. L., Hörst, S. M., Hodyss, R., et al. 2012, Chemical Reviews, 112, 1882, doi: 10.1021/cr200221x

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    Gudipati, M. S. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 489, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0439-7

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 124, 2599, doi: 10.1029/2018JE005758

    Liu, Y. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 124, 2599, doi: 10.1029/2018JE005758

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    J., & Kempton, E

    Corrales, L., Gavilan, L., Teal, D. J., & Kempton, E. M. R. 2023, ApJL, 943, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaf86

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    1954, The Strengths of Chemical Bonds (Academic Press)

    Cottrell, T. 1954, The Strengths of Chemical Bonds (Academic Press). https://books.google.com/books?id=7J09AAAAIAAJ

    1954

  7. [15]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., & Kreidberg, L. 2017, AJ, 154, 261, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9279

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    R., & Patel, M

    Dartnell, L. R., & Patel, M. R. 2014, International Journal of Astrobiology, 13, 112, doi: 10.1017/S1473550413000335

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    D., & Seager, S

    Deming, L. D., & Seager, S. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 122, 53, doi: 10.1002/2016JE005155 do Amaral, L. N. R., Barnes, R., Segura, A., & Luger, R. 2022, ApJ, 928, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac53af 18 Huseby et al

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    A., et al

    Dragomir, D., Benneke, B., Pearson, K. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/102

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Pineda, J

    Duvvuri, G. M., Pineda, J. S., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeaaf

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    2017, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 479, 34, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2017.09.026

    Fleury, B., Carrasco, N., Millan, M., Vettier, L., & Szopa, C. 2017, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 479, 34, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2017.09.026

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    S., Henderson, B

    Fleury, B., Gudipati, M. S., Henderson, B. L., & Swain, M. 2019, ApJ, 871, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf79f

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Linsky, J

    Fontenla, J. M., Linsky, J. L., Garrison, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 154, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/154

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, A&A, 661, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141097

    Foster, G., Poppenhaeger, K., Ilic, N., & Schwope, A. 2022, A&A, 661, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141097

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2013, ApJ, 766, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/81

    Fressin, F., Torres, G., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/81

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/AJ/154/109, doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier.51540109

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    R., Moran, S

    Gao, P., Wakeford, H. R., Moran, S. E., & Parmentier, V. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06655, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006655

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Lee, E

    Gao, P., Thorngren, D. P., Lee, E. K. H., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 951, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1114-3

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    C., & Mason, N

    Gavilan, L., Carrasco, N., Vrønning Hoffmann, S., Jones, N. C., & Mason, N. J. 2018, ApJ, 861, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac8df

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    2014, Planet

    Rauer, H. 2014, Planet. Space Sci., 98, 66, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2013.10.006

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Radke, M., & Yant, M

    He, C., Hörst, S. M., Radke, M., & Yant, M. 2022, PSJ, 3, 25, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac4793

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Riemer, S., et al

    He, C., Hörst, S. M., Riemer, S., et al. 2017, ApJL, 841, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa74cc

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Lewis, N

    He, C., Hörst, S. M., Lewis, N. K., et al. 2018b, AJ, 156, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aac883 —. 2020a, PSJ, 1, 51, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abb1a4 —. 2020b, Nature Astronomy, 4, 986, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1072-9

    doi

  25. [33]

    E., et al

    He, C., Radke, M., Moran, S. E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 182, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02140-4

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Jao, W

    Henry, T. J., Jao, W. C., Winters, J. G., et al. 2019, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/AJ/155/265, doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier.51550265 Hörst, S. M. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 122, 432, doi: 10.1002/2016JE005240 Hörst, S. M., & Tolbert, M. A. 2014, ApJ, 781, 5...

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Corbett, H., Law, N

    Howard, W. S., Corbett, H., Law, N. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5b4

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Schwartz, R

    Hurford, G. J., Schwartz, R. A., Krucker, S., et al. 2003, ApJL, 595, L77, doi: 10.1086/378179

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    Charlson, R. J. 2000, Reviews of Geophysics, 38, 267, doi: 10.1029/1998RG000045 Jovanović, L., Gautier, T., Vuitton, V., et al. 2020, Icarus, 346, 113774, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113774

    2000

  30. [38]

    F., Whitmire, D

    Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., & Reynolds, R. T. 1993, Icarus, 101, 108, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1010

    1993

  31. [39]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e7e

    Kawamura, Y., Yoshida, T., Terada, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e7e

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    S., & Ford, E

    Kite, E. S., & Ford, E. B. 2018, ApJ, 864, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6e0

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    S., & Schaefer, L

    Kite, E. S., & Schaefer, L. 2021, ApJL, 909, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe7dc

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Benneke, B., Deming, D., & Homeier, D

    Knutson, H. A., Benneke, B., Deming, D., & Homeier, D. 2014a, Nature, 505, 66, doi: 10.1038/nature12887

    doi

  35. [43]

    A., Dragomir, D., Kreidberg, L., et al

    Knutson, H. A., Dragomir, D., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2014b, ApJ, 794, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/155

    doi

  36. [44]

    2022, A&A, 667, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243436

    Konings, T., Baeyens, R., & Decin, L. 2022, A&A, 667, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243436

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    L., Désert, J.-M., et al

    Kreidberg, L., Bean, J. L., Désert, J.-M., et al. 2014, Nature, 505, 69, doi: 10.1038/nature12888

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    Kreidberg, L., Mollière, P., Crossfield, I. J. M., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac85be

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    2009, Optical Properties, 287–318, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-054819-7.00010-8

    Krevelen, D., & Nijenhuis, K. 2009, Optical Properties, 287–318, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-054819-7.00010-8

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    Lammer, H., Lichtenegger, H. I. M., Kulikov, Y. N., et al. 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 185, doi: 10.1089/ast.2006.0128

    2007

  41. [49]

    E., Berta-Thompson, Z

    Libby-Roberts, J. E., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., Désert, J.-M., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d36

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    L., Ip, W

    Lin, C. L., Ip, W. H., Hou, W. C., Huang, L. C., & Chang, H. Y. 2019, ApJ, 873, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab041c

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    L., Fontenla, J., & France, K

    Linsky, J. L., Fontenla, J., & France, K. 2014, ApJ, 780, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/61

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Miguel, Y., Tsai, S.-M., et al

    Louca, A. J., Miguel, Y., Tsai, S.-M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1220

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

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

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    2015, Astrobiology, 15, 57, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1215

    Luger, R., Barnes, R., Lopez, E., et al. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 57, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1215

    2015

  47. [55]

    2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164 19

    Luque, R., & Pallé, E. 2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164 19

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    I., Rigby, F., & Barrier, E

    Madhusudhan, N., Moses, J. I., Rigby, F., & Barrier, E. 2023, Faraday Discussions, 245, 80, doi: 10.1039/D3FD00075C

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Ackerman, A

    Marley, M. S., Ackerman, A. S., Cuzzi, J. N., & Kitzmann, D. 2013, in Comparative Climatology of Terrestrial Planets, ed. S. J. Mackwell, A. A. Simon-Miller, J. W. Harder, & M. A. Bullock, 367–392, doi: 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816530595-ch015

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    L., & Rugheimer, S

    Miguel, Y., Kaltenegger, L., Linsky, J. L., & Rugheimer, S. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2107

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    E., Hörst, S

    Moran, S. E., Hörst, S. M., Vuitton, V., et al. 2020, PSJ, 1, 17, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ab8eae

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    E., Hörst, S

    Moran, S. E., Hörst, S. M., He, C., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 127, e06984, doi: 10.1029/2021JE006984

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    2009, A&A, 501, 1139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810301

    Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y., & Benz, W. 2009, A&A, 501, 1139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810301

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    V., Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V., Fortney, J. J., Kempton, E. M. R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/33

    2013 doi

  55. [63]

    I., Line, M

    Moses, J. I., Line, M. R., Visscher, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/34

    2013 doi

  56. [64]

    1987, Journal of Physics E Scientific Instruments, 20, 894, doi: 10.1088/0022-3735/20/7/015

    Neri, F., Saitta, G., & Chiofalo, S. 1987, Journal of Physics E Scientific Instruments, 20, 894, doi: 10.1088/0022-3735/20/7/015

    1987 doi

  57. [65]

    2020, ApJL, 895, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab93d7

    Ohno, K., & Kawashima, Y. 2020, ApJL, 895, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab93d7

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    L., Hauschildt, P

    Peacock, S., Barman, T., Shkolnik, E. L., Hauschildt, P. H., & Baron, E. 2019, ApJ, 871, 235, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf891

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    D., McLain, J

    Pirim, C., Gann, R. D., McLain, J. L., & Orlando, T. M. 2015, Icarus, 258, 109, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.06.006

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    Rancourt, J. D. 1987, in Optical thin films. User’s handbook. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:110836929

    1987

  61. [69]

    Ranjan, S., Wordsworth, R., & Sasselov, D. D. 2017, ApJ, 843, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa773e

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    B., Xu, J., Thompson, S

    Rimmer, P. B., Xu, J., Thompson, S. J., et al. 2018, Science Advances, 4, eaar3302, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aar3302

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/57

    Mohanty, S. 2015, ApJ, 809, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/57

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    2005, The Physics of Thin Film Optical

    Stenzel, O. 2005, The Physics of Thin Film Optical

    2005

  65. [73]

    44, doi: 10.1007/3-540-27905-9

    Spectra, Vol. 44, doi: 10.1007/3-540-27905-9

    doi

  66. [74]

    N., Force, M., Briggs, R

    Tran, B. N., Force, M., Briggs, R. G., et al. 2008, Icarus, 193, 224, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.09.010

    2008 doi

  67. [75]

    E., He, C., et al

    Vuitton, V., Moran, S. E., He, C., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 2, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abc558

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    I., Fortney, J

    Yu, X., Moses, J. I., Fortney, J. J., & Zhang, X. 2021, ApJ, 914, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfdc7

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.