Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 4 cited by

The James Webb Space Telescope NIRSpec-PRISM Transmission Spectrum of the Super-Puff, Kepler-51d

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST transmission spectroscopy of super-puff Kepler-51d shows a sloped, featureless spectrum best explained by a low-metallicity H/He atmosphere with high-altitude submicron hazes, ruling out a massive ring and starspots as the source of…

desk verdict First JWST spectrum of a super-puff; the slope is real and consistent across pipelines, the haze interpretation is the best available, but the limb-darkening robustness check is missing and the ring alternative is not fully closed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21358 v1 pith:34BWXHCQ submitted 2025-05-27 astro-ph.EP

Jessica E. Libby-Roberts , Aaron Bello-Arufe , Zachory K. Berta-Thompson , Caleb I. Cañas , Yayaati Chachan , Renyu Hu , Yui Kawashima , Catriona Murray
show 9 more authors
Kazumasa Ohno Armen Tokadjian Suvrath Mahadevan Kento Masuda Leslie Hebb Caroline Morley Guangwei Fu Peter Gao Kevin B. Stevenson
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords super-puffsexoplanetatmospherestransmissionspectroscopyJWSTNIRSpecPRISMhazecircumplanetaryringsstellaractivityKepler-51
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

The paper uses a single JWST NIRSpec-PRISM transit to measure Kepler-51d's transmission spectrum from 0.6 to 5.3 microns and finds a nearly featureless, strongly sloped spectrum. The authors argue this slope is a genuine planetary signal: a low-metallicity H/He atmosphere capped by a high-altitude haze of submicron particles at pressures of 1 to 100 microbars. If correct, the planet's extreme low density is explained by a large extended H/He envelope plus haze, not by a massive ring or unocculted starspots. A thin tilted ring can reproduce the spectrum, but the authors estimate its lifetime at roughly 0.1 million years, making it an unlikely steady explanation. The result makes Kepler-51d the coolest haze-dominated atmosphere known and a test case for why super-puffs look so inflated.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the wavelength-dependent transit-depth slope, interpreted as the altitude at which the atmosphere becomes optically thick at each wavelength. Submicron haze particles scatter more strongly at short wavelengths, pushing the effective transit radius outward toward the blue and producing a steep, featureless slope; reproducing its steepness requires a low-metallicity, large-scale-height atmosphere, a moderate haze production rate, and strong vertical mixing. The paper supports this with three independent lines: Bayesian atmospheric retrievals on an isothermal H/He atmosphere, a physically motivated forward model of haze microphysics and transport, and a ring-retrieval model used to estimate the alternative ring's lifetime under Poynting-Robertson drag.

What would settle it

Re-fit the same NIRSpec light curves with limb-darkening coefficients fixed to stellar-model values (or with a physically motivated prior), include the 4.5–5.3 micron channels, and check whether the 0.6–4.5 micron slope survives; if the slope flattens or a blue turnover appears, the high-altitude haze conclusion would not stand. A second independent transit observation at higher signal-to-noise, or detection of ring-induced oblateness or transit-depth changes over years, would also discriminate haze from a transient ring.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper discovers that Kepler-51d's 0.6–5.3 μm transmission spectrum is a smooth slope spanning about 0.75 Earth radii, with no molecular absorption features robustly detected. The authors argue this slope is best explained by a low-metallicity H/He envelope topped by a thick high-altitude haze of submicron particles that becomes optically thick at 1–10 microbars and spans roughly 1–100 microbars. They further claim that stellar spots cannot produce the slope on their own, that a massive opaque ring is ruled out, and that an optically thin tilted ring, although able to fit the data, has a lifetime of only about 0.1 million years under Poynting-Robertson drag, far shorter than the 500-million-year system age. The methane hint at 2.2 sigma is treated as tentative and potentially an upwelling artifact.

Load-bearing premise

The haze conclusion rests on treating the measured 0.6–4.5 micron slope as genuine planetary extinction while limb-darkening parameters are fit freely and the noisy reddest channels are ignored; if that slope is partly an artifact of those choices, the haze interpretation weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Kepler-51d's inflated radius requires both a massive H/He envelope (roughly 30% of its mass) and an optically thick high-altitude haze; the haze alone cannot explain the radius.
  • The 1–100 microbar haze layer implies that transmission spectra of such planets probe pressures far above the 1–100 mbar region usually assumed, so recovered radii correspond to very low pressures.
  • Massive opaque circumplanetary rings are ruled out as an explanation for super-puff radii, leaving only short-lived optically thin rings as a viable ring scenario.
  • The result supports a population picture in which cool Neptunes and sub-Neptunes around 300–500 K are prime haze producers, consistent with earlier HST-based trends.
  • Unocculted starspots cannot reproduce the >2 micron slope, so the spectrum is a genuine atmospheric signal, and the spot crossing gives a spot temperature roughly 200–300 K cooler than the photosphere, hotter than typical sunspot umbras.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the haze interpretation holds, Kepler-51b and Kepler-51c should show similarly sloped JWST transmission spectra; observing them would test whether all three super-puffs share one haze mechanism.
  • A re-analysis that fits limb darkening with stellar-model priors and includes wavelengths beyond 4.5 microns could either confirm or weaken the slope, since the paper does not quantify how much the derived haze parameters change under alternative limb-darkening treatments.
  • The short ring lifetime implies that any genuine ring detection would indicate very recent dynamical events, so repeated transit observations over years could distinguish a transient ring from a stable haze layer.
  • The retrieved particle sizes are slightly larger than the forward-model sizes (0.15–0.35 microns versus about 0.1 microns), so higher signal-to-noise data or broader wavelength coverage could discriminate particle composition and shape models, including fluffy aggregates.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a JWST NIRSpec-PRISM 0.6–5.3 µm transmission spectrum of the super-puff Kepler-51d, obtained from a single transit. The authors reduce the data with three independent pipelines (Eureka!, ExoTiC-JEDI, and chromatic/starry) and find consistent, near-featureless spectra with a strong slope in transit depth across 0.6–4.5 µm, corresponding to a planet radius change of about 0.75 R⊕. They model the spectrum with two retrieval codes (ExoTR and PLATON) and with a grid of microphysical forward haze models, concluding that the slope is best explained by high-altitude, submicron hazes in a low-metallicity H/He atmosphere at pressures of 1–100 µbar. They also fit an optically thin tilted ring model, which reproduces the spectrum equally well (reduced χ² = 0.95), but argue the ring is short-lived (~0.1 Myr) from Poynting-Robertson drag. The paper additionally analyzes a starspot crossing event and out-of-transit stellar spectra to rule out stellar contamination as the source of the slope.

Significance. If the haze interpretation holds, this is the first JWST transmission spectrum of a super-puff with a strongly sloped, featureless continuum, providing direct evidence for high-altitude aerosol layers in a cool (T_eq ~350 K) low-gravity planet. The paper has notable strengths: three independent reductions and fitting routines agree, the data and best-fit tables are released in machine-readable form, the forward microphysical models provide an independent physical check on the retrievals, and the analysis explicitly tests alternative explanations (ring, starspots). The result would meaningfully constrain haze formation and transport in a previously unexplored temperature regime. However, the central claim rests on the assumption that the spectral slope is robust to the limb-darkening treatment and on the truncation of the spectrum at 4.5 µm, both of which require additional quantitative support.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.3.1 and §4.1–4.3] The robustness of the spectral slope to the limb-darkening treatment is asserted but not demonstrated. The paper reports that freely fitted quadratic limb-darkening coefficients disagree with Kurucz, Stagger, and MPS2-ATLAS models, and that fixing them to model values introduces a nonphysical blue turnover, yet the text only states that 'the overall slope in the transmission spectrum remains robust.' Because transit depth and quadratic limb-darkening coefficients are covariant—especially with two free LD coefficients per channel in low-SNR spectroscopic light curves—this is a load-bearing point for the haze interpretation. Please provide a quantitative test: re-derive the transmission spectrum with limb-darkening parameters fixed to stellar-model values (or with priors informed by those models), repeat the ExoTR and PLATON retrievals, and report the shifts in the retrieved haze particle size, mixing ratio, and pressure. If the slope and retrieved parameters are unchanged within uncertainties, a figure with overlapping posteriors would settle the concern.
  2. [§4 (first paragraph) and Figs. 3, 10] The analysis excludes wavelengths beyond 4.5 µm because of increased scatter and inter-pipeline deviations, but the excluded data are not shown against the best-fit haze and ring models. This omission prevents the reader from checking whether the slope continues to 5.3 µm, which is directly relevant to distinguishing the haze hypothesis from the equally good ring fit (reduced χ² = 0.95). Please include the 4.5–5.3 µm points in the relevant figures (e.g., as open symbols) and state whether the best-fit haze and ring models are consistent with them, even if those points are not used in the retrievals.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§5.2.3 and §7] The phrase 'Pointyng-Robertson drag' is a typo and should read 'Poynting-Robertson drag.'
  2. [Abstract and §4] The abstract describes the spectrum as covering 0.6–5.3 µm, but the atmospheric analysis is restricted to 0.6–4.5 µm; please clarify this restriction in the abstract or at the beginning of Section 4 to avoid confusion.
  3. [Table 1 caption] The caption contains 'T able' and should read 'Table.'
  4. [§6.2] The sentence 'We note that E. M. May et al. (2023) suggests also fitting for the log(g)' has a subject-verb agreement error; 'suggests' should be 'suggest.'
  5. [§5.2.3, Eq. (1)] In Equation (1), the symbols QPR, ap, and θ are used before they are defined; please define all variables in the text preceding the equation.
  6. [§4.4] The statement that 'all results prefer a 1-10x solar atmospheric metallicity set solely by the required scale height' would be clearer if it explicitly noted that this preference comes from the forward-model grid, since the retrievals do not directly measure metallicity.
  7. [§4.1, Table 3] The 'σ baseline' column in Table 3 is ambiguous; please specify which scenario serves as the baseline for each reported significance value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the haze interpretation is an ordinary model fit, supported by independent forward microphysics and separate tests of the ring and stellar-contamination alternatives.

full rationale

The paper's central inference—that Kepler-51d's sloped transmission spectrum is caused by high-altitude submicron haze over a low-metallicity H/He envelope—is obtained by standard forward-model fitting and Bayesian retrievals, not by a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. The observed 0.6–4.5 µm spectrum is the data vector; ExoTR and PLATON are independent atmospheric models whose free parameters (haze abundance, particle size, metallicity, temperature) are adjusted to match it, and the microphysical forward models (Kawashima & Ikoma 2018) compute spectra from assumed monomer production rates, eddy diffusion coefficients, and optical constants before comparison with the data. No equation defines a reported 'prediction' as the same fitted quantity used to generate it. The circumplanetary ring scenario is modeled separately and rejected on a computed ~0.1 Myr Poynting–Robertson lifetime, not by construction. The main caveats—free limb-darkening coefficients potentially covarying with the depth slope (Section 3.3.1, where the paper only asserts 'the overall slope in the transmission spectrum remains robust' without a quantitative test) and the truncation at 4.5 µm—are robustness and data-selection concerns, not circularity, because the slope is not defined in terms of the limb-darkening parameters and the haze properties are not identical to the fitted slope. The many self-citations (Libby-Roberts et al. 2020, Masuda et al. 2024, Kawashima & Ikoma 2018, PLATON, ExoTR in prep) supply inputs, codes, and prior context, but the conclusions are computed from the JWST data in this paper and do not reduce to those citations. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several modeling assumptions, most notably H/He-dominated isothermal atmospheres and spherical haze particles, plus accurate system parameters from prior TTV analyses. The fitted haze and stellar spot parameters are numerous but are standard model parameters, not ad hoc inventions.

free parameters (10)
  • Tholin haze particle diameter (ExoTR) = 0.52 +/- 0.04 um
    Fitted to the transmission spectrum in ExoTR retrieval; used to characterize the haze layer.
  • Tholin haze volume mixing ratio (ExoTR) = 10.2 +/- 2.6 ppb
    Fitted to the spectrum; required to explain the haze opacity.
  • CH4 mixing ratio (ExoTR) = 66 +72/-45 ppb
    Tentatively retrieved; not confirmed and not central to the main claim.
  • Atmospheric temperature (retrievals) = 280-300 K
    Fitted isothermal temperature in PLATON/ExoTR, cooler than equilibrium temperature.
  • PLATON haze particle size, number density, imaginary refractive index = various
    Fiducial retrieval fits these; degenerate with composition.
  • Metallicity (forward model grid) = 1-10x solar preferred
    Grid parameter chosen by chi-squared; low metallicity required for large scale height.
  • Haze monomer production rate (forward model grid) = ~1e-13 to 1e-12 g cm-2 s-1
    Grid parameter; moderate rate yields steepest spectral slope.
  • Eddy diffusion coefficient (forward model grid) = 1e9 cm2/s preferred
    Grid parameter; large Kzz needed for steep slope.
  • Ring model parameters = Sigma~1 g/cm2, amin<1 um, gamma~3.4, porosity~85%, obliquity~75 deg
    Fitted to the spectrum; show an alternative explanation.
  • Stellar spot temperature and coverage fraction (out-of-transit) = 3112 +/- ~120 K, 13 +/- 1%
    Fitted to out-of-transit stellar spectrum; used to rule out contamination.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Atmosphere is H2-He dominated (80/20) with solar metallicity scaling
    Used in both ExoTR and PLATON retrievals; low mean molecular weight is required to reproduce the large spectral slope.
  • domain assumption Isothermal temperature-pressure profile
    Both retrieval codes assume isothermality; this simplifies but may bias retrieved haze properties.
  • domain assumption Haze particles are spherical with a single size or log-normal distribution
    Used in retrievals and forward models; the paper acknowledges fluffy aggregates could change scattering.
  • domain assumption Planet mass and radius from TTV and transit analyses are correct
    Mass fixed to 5.6-5.7 Earth masses from Masuda et al. 2024; radius from transit depth. If mass is wrong, scale height and haze interpretation change.
  • domain assumption Stellar contamination models using PHOENIX spectra and spot parameterization are adequate
    Used in Section 6 to rule out spots as the cause of the slope.
  • domain assumption Transit geometry: light probes the terminator; ring model uses Roche radius
    Standard transmission spectroscopy assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The James Webb Space Telescope NIRSpec-PRISM Transmission Spectrum of the Super-Puff, Kepler-51d." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/34BWXHCQ

@misc{pith2026250521358,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The James Webb Space Telescope NIRSpec-PRISM Transmission Spectrum of the Super-Puff, Kepler-51d},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/34BWXHCQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21358}
}
read the original abstract

Kepler-51 is a 500 Myr G dwarf hosting three "super-puffs" and one low-mass non-transiting planet. Kepler-51d, the coolest (T_eq ~ 350 K) transiting planet in this system, is also one of the lowest density super-puffs known to date (rho_p = 0.038 +/- 0.009 g/cm^3). With a planetary mass of Mp = 5.6 +/- 1.2 Earth masses and a radius of Rp = 9.32 +/- 0.18 Earth radii, the observed properties of this planet are not readily explained by most planet formation theories. Hypotheses explaining Kepler-51d's low density range from a substantial H/He envelope comprising more than 30% of its mass, to a high-altitude haze layer, to a tilted ring system. To test these hypotheses, we present the NIRSpec-PRISM 0.6-5.3 micron transmission spectrum of Kepler-51d observed by the James Webb Space Telescope. We find a spectrum best fit by a sloped line covering the entire wavelength range. Based on forward modeling and atmosphere retrievals, Kepler-51d likely possesses a low-metallicity atmosphere with high-altitude hazes of submicron particle sizes spanning pressures of 1-100 microbars. However, the spectrum could also be explained by a tilted ring with an estimated lifetime on the order of ~0.1 Myr. We also investigate the stellar activity of this young Sun-like star, extracting a spot temperature significantly hotter than sunspots and spot covering fractions on the order of 0.1-10%, depending on the assumed spot parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21358 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: The best-fit spotrod and starry spot configurations represented on Kepler-51. Middle: The JWST white light curve of Kepler-51d with flux binned from 0.6 – 5.3 µm. Points are binned to 30 seconds for clarity. Best-fit models from the above spotrod and starry are plotted in orange and blue respectively. Regardless of the spot configuration, the white light curve models are identical. Bottom: Plot showcasing the w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The best-fit quadratic limb-darkening parameters (not following the re-parameterization detailed in D. M. Kipping 2013) for the individual channels (black and binned to 0.2 µm for clarity (blue). The expected limb darkening parameters based on Z. Magic et al. (2015) (purple), R.-L. Kurucz (1993) (red), and N. Kostogryz et al. (2023) (orange) models are also shown. While the overall shape of the best-fit limb darkeni… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Kepler-51d’s transmission spectrum observed with JWST/NIRSpec-PRISM covering 0.6 - 5.3 µm. The numerous gray points are the best-fit transit depths from the Eureka! reductions assuming a native resolution. These points were then binned to a R∼10 plotted as blue circles. The same technique was applied to the ExoTic-JEDI fits (green squares). The starry spectrum (red diamonds) was derived by first binning the spectros… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The best fit model from ExoTR plotted against the spectrum of Kepler-51d. This model is the tholin haze plus CH4 case as highlighted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The best fit models for the transmission spectrum of Kepler-51 d. The fiducial retrieval fits a wavelength-independent imaginary refractive index k and the other retrievals assume refractive indices for a specific haze. The bottom panel shows the residuals for each bes…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Slant optical depth τ (color) as a function of wavelength and both the pressure (left) and radius (right) in the best-fit model in the fiducial retrieval. The τ ∼ 1 surface corresponds to a pressure range of 1 − 10 µ bar. slope (Y. Kawashima & M. Ikoma 2019; K. Ohno & …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectrum models for the three best-fit cases. The right vertical axis indicates the corresponding pressure levels for the best-fit model (blue line), which assumes a metallicity of 1× solar, a monomer production rate of M˙ = 10−13 g cm−2 s −1 , an eddy diffusion coeffi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Goodness of fit for the parameter space (atmospheric metallicity, haze monomer production rate, eddy diffusion coefficient, and haze optical properties) explored using the haze models. Note that the haze microphysical simulation failed to converge for cases with a haze…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The volume averaged particle size and total mass density from the forward models compared to the corresponding values from retrieved models from PLATON and ExoTR with wavelength-independent k. The modeled and retrieved estimates agree well in the ∼ 1 − 10 µbar region, …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Median ring spectrum (left top) and the model deviation from each data point (left bottom). The right four panels demonstrate how the median spectrum gets affected by the perturbation on ring column mass density Σ, minimum particle size amin, power-law index of the si…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Best-fit spot contrasts from the individual channels (black) fit with spotrod, and binned to R=10 for clarity (blue). Best-fit spot contrasts derived with starry on R=10 binned spectroscopic light curves are plotted in green. Regardless of model or method (fit then bi…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top: Plot of the out of transit stellar flux density along with the best-fit models from four different model assumptions. The dark and light red lines are from models fitting for the overall reddening, while the dark blue points are from the model with no reddening b…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Kepler-51d’s transmission spectrum (gray) and binned spectrum (green) plotted against different simulated transmission spectra assuming only stellar contamination. Each model assumes a photosphere temperature of 5800 K with a varying spot temperature and spot coverage…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Methane on the temperate exo-Saturn TOI-199b

    astro-ph.EP 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    TOI-199 b, a 350 K exo-Saturn, shows methane in its JWST transmission spectrum—the first such detection for a temperate gas giant.

  2. Quantifying the Impact of Starspot-Crossing Events on Retrieved Parameters from Transit Lightcurves

    astro-ph.EP 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fitting starspot-crossing events recovers transit depths better than masking in high-SNR, high-contamination cases; small/faint spots can overcorrect, and SCEs inflate depth uncertainties at JWST precision.

  3. A water-rich interior in the temperate sub-Neptune K2-18 b revealed by JWST

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    New JWST data robustly detect CH4 and CO2 in K2-18 b's atmosphere, indicating a water-rich interior; DMS, CH3SH, and N2O remain marginal, and abiotic organosulfur chemistry is a viable explanation.

  4. Volatile enrichment in low-mass planets: Signatures of past planetary disruption?

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Tidal disruption of a close-in giant planet can deliver H/He gas to an outer low-mass planet, forming a transient detectable atmosphere for up to 100 million years.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Adams, D., Gao, P., de Pater, I., & Morley, C. V. 2019, ApJ, 874, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab074c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab074c 2019

  2. [2]

    C., Faria, J

    Akinsanmi, B., Santos, N. C., Faria, J. P., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037618

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037618 2020

  3. [3]

    K., Kirk, J., Dressing, C

    Alam, M. K., Kirk, J., Dressing, C. D., et al. 2022, ApJL, 927, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac559d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac559d 2022

  4. [4]

    2022,, v0.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7185855

    Alderson, L., Grant, D., & Wakeford, H. 2022,, v0.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7185855

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7185855 2022

  5. [5]

    R., Alam, M

    Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 664, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3 2023

  6. [6]

    G., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al

    Beatty, T. G., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad55e9 B´ eky, B., Kipping, D. M., & Holman, M. J. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1061

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad55e9 2024

  7. [7]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503, doi: 10.21105/joss.04503

    Bell, T., Ahrer, E.-M., Brande, J., et al. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503, doi: 10.21105/joss.04503

    doi:10.21105/joss.04503 2022

  8. [8]

    J., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al

    Bell, T. J., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 709, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06687-0

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06687-0 2023

Show all 128 references
  1. [9]

    A., et al

    Bello-Arufe, A., Damiano, M., Bennett, K. A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 980, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaf22

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    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

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    2025, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.15003066

    Berta-Thompson, Z., Waalkes, W., Murray, C., et al. 2025, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.15003066

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Ferruit, P., Giardino, G., et al

    Birkmann, S. M., Ferruit, P., Giardino, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142592

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Bodenheimer, P., & Pollack, J. B. 1986, Icarus, 67, 391, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90122-3

    1986 doi

  6. [14]

    2008, Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles, Wiley Science Series (Wiley)

    Bohren, C., & Huffman, D. 2008, Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles, Wiley Science Series (Wiley). https://books.google. com/books?id=ib3EMXXIRXUC

    2008

  7. [15]

    G., Hillenbrand, L

    Bouma, L. G., Hillenbrand, L. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06246, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06246

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

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

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    L., Bodrova, A., et al

    Brilliantov, N., Krapivsky, P. L., Bodrova, A., et al. 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 9536, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1503957112 32

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Lamy, P

    Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L., & Soter, S. 1979, Icarus, 40, 1, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2

    1979 doi

  12. [20]

    2023,, 1.11.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8247246

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023,, 1.11.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8247246

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    J., et al

    Cadieux, C., Doyon, R., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5afa

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    J., & Knutson, H

    Chachan, Y., Lee, E. J., & Knutson, H. A. 2021, ApJ, 919, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0bb6

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    A., et al

    Chachan, Y., Jontof-Hutter, D., Knutson, H. A., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb23a

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.03812, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.03812

    Coulombe, L.-P., Roy, P.-A., & Benneke, B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.03812, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.03812

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

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

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    2009, Ring Particle Composition and Size Distribution, ed

    Cuzzi, J., Clark, R., Filacchione, G., et al. 2009, Ring Particle Composition and Size Distribution, ed. M. K. Dougherty, L. W. Esposito, & S. M. Krimigis (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 459–509, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9217-6 15

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, ApJL, 968, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204

    Damiano, M., Bello-Arufe, A., Yang, J., & Hu, R. 2024, ApJL, 968, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    2021, AJ, 162, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac224d

    Damiano, M., & Hu, R. 2021, AJ, 162, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac224d

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Davenport, B., Kempton, E. M. R., Nixon, M. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.01498, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.01498

    2025 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1026, doi: 10.1086/379123

    2003 doi

  23. [31]

    H., Yu, X., Ohno, K., et al

    Dymont, A. H., Yu, X., Ohno, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f40

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    P., & Bridges, M

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

    2009

  25. [33]

    L., & Massa, D

    Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Massa, D. 2007, ApJ, 663, 320, doi: 10.1086/518158

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Visscher, C., Marley, M

    Fortney, J. J., Visscher, C., Marley, M. S., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 288, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc5bd

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2009, A&A, 508, 1313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913327

    Frasca, A., Covino, E., Spezzi, L., et al. 2009, A&A, 508, 1313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913327

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Downing, H

    Fuller, K. A., Downing, H. D., & Querry, M. R. 1998, in Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids III, ed. E. D. Palik (San Diego, USA: Academic Press), 899–922

    1998

  30. [38]

    S., Zahnle, K., Robinson, T

    Gao, P., Marley, M. S., Zahnle, K., Robinson, T. D., & Lewis, N. K. 2017, ApJ, 153, 3

    2017

  31. [39]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a9b

    Gao, P., & Zhang, X. 2020, ApJ, 890, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a9b

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    P., Lee, G

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

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Gao, P., Piette, A. A. A., Steinrueck, M. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd16f

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    Grant, D., & Wakeford, H. R. 2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6816, doi: 10.21105/joss.06816

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    Green, G. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 G¨ unther, M. N., Pozuelos, F. J., Dittmann, J. A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1099, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0845-5

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

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

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

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 831 , doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079 ⟨0831: OPOAAC⟩2.0.CO;2

    Hess, M., Koepke, P., & Schult, I. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 831 , doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079 ⟨0831: OPOAAC⟩2.0.CO;2

    1998 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, A&A, 683, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348238

    Holmberg, M., & Madhusudhan, N. 2024, A&A, 683, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348238

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    2021, ApJ, 921, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1789

    Hu, R. 2021, ApJ, 921, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1789

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

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

    2007 doi

  42. [50]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

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

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    2019, ApJL, 876, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab16f6

    Kawashima, Y., Hu, R., & Ikoma, M. 2019, ApJL, 876, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab16f6

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0c5

    Kawashima, Y., & Ikoma, M. 2018, ApJ, 853, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0c5

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b1d 33

    Kawashima, Y., & Ikoma, M. 2019, ApJ, 877, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b1d 33

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    Kempton, E. M. R., Zhang, M., Bean, J. L., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 67, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06159-5

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    N., Sagan, C., Arakawa, K

    Khare, B. N., Sagan, C., Arakawa, K. T., et al. 1984, Icarus, 60, 127

    1984

  48. [56]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.13238, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.13238

    Kipping, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.13238, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.13238

    2025 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1435

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 4383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2291

    Koen, C. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 4383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2291

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    1992, SoPh, 141, 253, doi: 10.1007/BF00155178

    Kopp, G., & Rabin, D. 1992, SoPh, 141, 253, doi: 10.1007/BF00155178

    1992 doi

  52. [60]

    2023, Research Notes of the AAS, 7, 39

    Kostogryz, N., Shapiro, A., Witzke, V., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the AAS, 7, 39

    2023

  53. [61]

    M., Shapiro, A

    Kostogryz, N. M., Shapiro, A. I., Witzke, V., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 929, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02252-5

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    1993, Kurucz CD-Rom, 13

    Kurucz, R.-L. 1993, Kurucz CD-Rom, 13

    1993

  55. [63]

    Lammers, C., & Winn, J. N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06697, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06697

    2024 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88ce

    Lavvas, P., & Koskinen, T. 2017, ApJ, 847, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88ce

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    V., & Vuitton, V

    Lavvas, P., Yelle, R. V., & Vuitton, V. 2009, Icarus, 201, 626, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.01.004

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    J., & Chiang, E

    Lee, E. J., & Chiang, E. 2016, ApJ, 817, 90, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/90

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    A., et al

    Li, L., Jiang, X., West, R. A., et al. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 3709, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06107-2

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    E., Berta-Thompson, Z

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

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4

    Lim, O., Benneke, B., Doyon, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    Lites, B. W. 1984, SoPh, 90, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00153779

    1984 doi

  63. [71]

    2024, ApJL, 976, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041- 8213/ad8f3910.1134/S1063772908080039

    Liu, Q., Zhu, W., Masuda, K., et al. 2024, ApJL, 976, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041- 8213/ad8f3910.1134/S1063772908080039

    2024

  64. [72]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220, doi: 10.1086/375492

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220, doi: 10.1086/375492

    2003 doi

  65. [73]

    D., & Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2013, ApJ, 776, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/2

    2013 doi

  66. [74]

    D., & Fortney, J

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

    2014 doi

  67. [75]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3071, doi: 10.21105/joss.03071

    Luger, R., Foreman-Mackey, D., & Hedges, C. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3071, doi: 10.21105/joss.03071

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    MacDonald, R. J. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4873, doi: 10.21105/joss.04873

    2023 doi

  69. [77]

    J., & Madhusudhan, N

    MacDonald, R. J., & Madhusudhan, N. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx804

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    2023, ApJL, 956, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf577

    Madhusudhan, N., Sarkar, S., Constantinou, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf577

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 573, A90

    Magic, Z., Chiavassa, A., Collet, R., & Asplund, M. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 573, A90

    2015

  72. [80]

    2014, ApJ, 783, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/53

    Masuda, K. 2014, ApJ, 783, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/53

    2014 doi

  73. [81]

    E., Livingston, J

    Masuda, K., Libby-Roberts, J. E., Livingston, J. H., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 294, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad83d3

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    M., MacDonald, R

    May, E. M., MacDonald, R. J., Bennett, K. A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad054f

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 51 – 56

    2010

  76. [84]

    2014, ApJS, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    McQuillan, A., Mazeh, T., & Aigrain, S. 2014, ApJS, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    2014 doi

  77. [85]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3f

    Millholland, S. 2019, ApJ, 886, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3f

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab959c

    Millholland, S., Petigura, E., & Batygin, K. 2020, ApJ, 897, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab959c

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    E., Stevenson, K

    Moran, S. E., Stevenson, K. B., Sing, D. K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c

    2023 doi

  80. [88]

    V., Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V., Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/110

    2015 doi

  81. [89]

    2025, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14847086

    Murray, C., Berta-Thompson, Z., & Wachiraphan, P. 2025, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14847086

    2025 doi

  82. [90]

    D., & Dermott, S

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174817

    1999 doi

  83. [91]

    Ohno, K., & Fortney, J. J. 2022, ApJ, 930, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6029

    2022 doi

  84. [92]

    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

  85. [93]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44bd

    Ohno, K., Okuzumi, S., & Tazaki, R. 2020, ApJ, 891, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44bd

    2020 doi

  86. [94]

    Ohno, K., & Tanaka, Y. A. 2021, ApJ, 920, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1516 34

    2021 doi

  87. [95]

    C., Mann, A

    Ohno, K., Thao, P. C., Mann, A. W., & Fortney, J. J. 2022, ApJL, 940, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f3f

    2022 doi

  88. [96]

    J., et al

    Ohno, K., Schlawin, E., Bell, T. J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada02c

    2025 doi

  89. [97]

    W., Kuiper, R., & Shi, J.-M

    Ormel, C. W., Kuiper, R., & Shi, J.-M. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1026, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2101

    2015 doi

  90. [98]

    2014, A&A, 562, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322342

    Parmentier, V., & Guillot, T. 2014, A&A, 562, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322342

    2014 doi

  91. [99]

    Marley, M. S. 2015, A&A, 574, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323127

    2015 doi

  92. [100]

    L., & Vissapragada, S

    Piro, A. L., & Vissapragada, S. 2020, AJ, 159, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7192

    2020 doi

  93. [101]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 2653, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1467

    Podolak, M., Helled, R., & Schubert, G. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2653, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1467

    2019 doi

  94. [102]

    B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    1996

  95. [103]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, 231, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11012.x

    Pont, F., Zucker, S., & Queloz, D. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 231, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11012.x

    2006

  96. [104]

    K., Liu, R., & Wang, A

    Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., Liu, R., & Wang, A. 2022, ApJL, 928, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5b6f

    2022 doi

  97. [105]

    J., et al

    Schlawin, E., Ohno, K., Bell, T. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7fef

    2024 doi

  98. [106]

    E., & Chang, P

    Schlichting, H. E., & Chang, P. 2011, ApJ, 734, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/117

    2011 doi

  99. [107]

    F., et al

    Segura, A., Krelove, K., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2003, Astrobiology, 3, 689, doi: 10.1089/153110703322736024

    2003 doi

  100. [108]

    K., Rustamkulov, Z., Thorngren, D

    Sing, D. K., Rustamkulov, Z., Thorngren, D. P., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 831, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07395-z

    2024 doi

  101. [109]

    2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

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

    2004 doi

  102. [110]

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

    2020 doi

  103. [111]

    H., Fabrycky, D

    Steffen, J. H., Fabrycky, D. C., Agol, E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts090

    2013 doi

  104. [112]

    N., Pap, J., & Schmidt, W

    Steinegger, M., Brandt, P. N., Pap, J., & Schmidt, W. 1990, Ap&SS, 170, 127, doi: 10.1007/BF00652658 STScI Development Team. 2013,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.023

    1990 doi

  105. [113]

    2022, ApJS, 261, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7151

    Su, T., Zhang, L.-y., Long, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7151

    2022 doi

  106. [114]

    J., Heinson, W

    Sumlin, B. J., Heinson, W. R., & Chakrabarty, R. K. 2018, JQSRT, 205, 127, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.10.012

    2018 doi

  107. [115]

    1996, Icarus, 123, 450, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0170

    Tanaka, H., Inaba, S., & Nakazawa, K. 1996, Icarus, 123, 450, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0170

    1996

  108. [116]

    P., Fortney, J

    Thorngren, D. P., Fortney, J. J., Murray-Clay, R. A., & Lopez, E. D. 2016, ApJ, 831, 64, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/64

    2016 doi

  109. [117]

    Freedman, R. S. 2013, ApJ, 775, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/10 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2013 doi

  110. [118]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  111. [119]

    L., Batalha, N

    Wallack, N. L., Batalha, N. E., Alderson, L., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3917

    2024 doi

  112. [120]

    2019, ApJL, 873, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0653

    Wang, L., & Dai, F. 2019, ApJL, 873, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0653

    2019 doi

  113. [121]

    J., Beatty, T

    Welbanks, L., Bell, T. J., Beatty, T. G., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 836, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07514-w

    2024 doi

  114. [122]

    West, R. A. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte, 49, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7 49

    2018 doi

  115. [123]

    Younkin, R. L. 1974, Icarus, 21, 219, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(74)90036-0

    1974 doi

  116. [124]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 822, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01375-3

    Yu, X., He, C., Zhang, X., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 822, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01375-3

    2021 doi

  117. [125]

    Knutson, H. A. 2019, PASP, 131, 034501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaf5ad

    2019 doi

  118. [126]

    A., & Chang, W

    Knutson, H. A., & Chang, W. H. 2020, ApJ, 899, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba1e6

    2020 doi

  119. [127]

    2019, Icarus, 317, 518, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2018.08.014

    Zhang, Z., Hayes, A., de Pater, I., et al. 2019, Icarus, 317, 518, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2018.08.014

    2019 doi

  120. [128]

    Alvarado, J. A. 2015, ApJL, 803, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/803/1/L14

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.