Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 79 references

The watery atmosphere of HD~209458~b revealed by joint $K$- and $L$-band high-resolution spectroscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Joint K- and L-band spectra of the hot Jupiter HD 209458 b show a water-dominated atmosphere with a carbon-to-oxygen ratio below one part in a thousand.

desk verdict The multi-band retrieval is a genuine capability demo for ground-based high-res spectroscopy, but the abstract's C/O < 1e-3 overstates what the data actually constrain—the CO upper limit driving it is one the authors themselves flag as vulnerable to PCA self-subtraction. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09448 v1 pith:CN3MY6VQ submitted 2025-08-13 astro-ph.EP

Luke Finnerty , Julie Inglis , Michael P. Fitzgerald , Daniel Echeverri , Nemanja Jovanovic , Dimitri Mawet , Geoffrey A. Blake , Ashley Baker
show 21 more authors
Randall Bartos Benjamin Calvin Sylvain Cetre Jacques-Robert Delorme Greg Doppmann Katelyn Horstman Chih-Chun Hsu Joshua Liberman Ronald A. López Evan Morris Jacklyn Pezzato-Rovner Jean-Baptiste Ruffio Ben Sappey Tobias Schofield Andrew Skemer J. Kent Wallace Nicole L. Wallack Jason J. Wang Ji Wang Yinzi Xin Jerry W. Xuan
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetatmosphereshotJupitershigh-resolutionspectroscopyHD209458batmosphericretrievalcarbon-to-oxygenratiowaterabundancemolecularabundances
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

Using two half-nights of ground-based high-resolution spectroscopy, one in K band and one in L band, the paper retrieves the thermal structure and composition of the benchmark hot Jupiter HD 209458 b. It claims that the atmosphere is dominated by water vapor, with gas-phase carbon extremely depleted relative to oxygen: C/O < $10^{-3}$ at 95% confidence, while the combined volatile content is at least roughly solar, $[(C+O)/H] > -0.2$. If correct, this means the observable atmosphere holds almost all its oxygen in water and almost none in CO or CH4, matching the lower-resolution JWST picture. The authors read this composition as evidence that the planet accreted substantial oxygen-rich solids and/or ices late in its formation, after most of its gas was captured. The result also shows that multi-band high-resolution spectroscopy can constrain trace species such as CH4, NH3, H2S, and HCN with only a few hours of telescope time.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is a joint atmospheric retrieval over two wide, well-separated bandpasses (K band, roughly 2.1–2.5 µm, and L band, roughly 3.0–4.1 µm), with spectra modeled by a free-chemistry radiative transfer calculation and a Brogi-Line likelihood that includes multiplicative scaling plus PCA detrending applied symmetrically to data and forward model. Wide wavelength coverage forces the same molecules to fit vibration-rotation bands in two very different spectral regions and requires the pressure-temperature profile to match the overall planet-to-star flux slope. The CO 2.3 µm bandhead, the L-band CH4 and NH3 features, H2S features at long wavelengths, and HCN features at the L-band ed

What would settle it

Run an injection-recovery experiment: add a synthetic CO bandhead signal of known strength to the observed time series before PCA detrending, then retrieve it. If recovered CO is much weaker than injected, the CO upper limit cannot be taken at face value and the C/O < $10^{-3}$ claim is unsupported; if CO is recovered at injected levels, the limit is validated. A wider radial-velocity baseline or reanalysis with more dropped principal components would provide the same test on real data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a free-chemistry retrieval on one K-band and one L-band emission epoch of HD 209458 b is well fit by a warm, water-rich, carbon-poor atmosphere. At 95% confidence the retrieved abundances are: water vapor mixing ratio $> 10^{-3.1}$, CO $< 10^{-4.8}$, CH4 $< 10^{-4.5}$, NH3 $< 10^{-5.8}$, H2S $< 10^{-3.3}$, and HCN $< 10^{-5.6}$. Converting these to elemental ratios gives C/O $< 10^{-3}$, a carbon depletion of $[C/H] < -0.9$, and an oxygen abundance of at least solar, $[O/H] > 0$. Only H2O appears in cross-correlation; no other molecule is significantly detected. The retrieval also rules out a thermal inversion, and the wide combined bandpass avoids the c

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the assumption that the very low CO upper limit (CO mixing ratio below $10^{-4.8}$) is astrophysical rather than partly caused by PCA detrending subtracting the regularly structured 2.3 µm CO bandhead, an ambiguity the authors explicitly flag.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If C/O < $10^{-3}$ is real, carbon is not stored in CO or CH4; water is the dominant opacity source in the observable atmosphere, and future detections of carbon carriers at equilibrium levels would contradict this picture.
  • The CH4, NH3, and HCN upper limits agree with recent JWST transmission results, supporting the claim that ground-based high-resolution emission retrievals can constrain trace species without space-based observations.
  • The absence of a thermal inversion is consistent with equilibrium-temperature expectations for a hot Jupiter near 1450 K and rules out earlier inversion claims.
  • The retrieved composition places HD 209458 b in the same low-C/O, roughly solar-to-slightly-super-solar volatile metallicity class inferred from JWST, favoring formation through late accretion of oxygen-rich planetesimals or ices.
  • The wide-bandpass approach substantially tightens the pressure-temperature profile compared with narrow K-band retrievals, suggesting that future ground-based emission studies should prioritize multi-band coverage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's most radical claim, C/O < $10^{-3}$ rather than the JWST-preferred value of roughly 0.1, rests on the CO upper limit; an injection-recovery test at the 2.3 µm bandhead would directly tell whether PCA removes CO signal at this short velocity baseline.
  • If future, wider-phase observations recover CO near the 3-sigma ceiling (about $10^{-2.8}$), the inferred formation story would shift from extreme oxygen-rich late accretion to an ordinary solar-metallicity, C/O ~ 0.1 composition; these scenarios are distinguishable.
  • The same joint K+L strategy could be applied to other benchmark hot Jupiters: demanding consistency across bandpasses and detrending choices is a practical way to separate genuine chemical depletion from data-processing artifacts.
  • The 4-PC K-band-only posterior, which preferred a carbon-rich composition, shows that chemically plausible but wrong answers can emerge from a single bandpass and a single detrending choice; multi-band consistency checks should become standard for composition claims.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a joint K-band (2.1–2.5 μm) and L-band (3.0–4.1 μm) high-resolution emission spectroscopic analysis of the hot Jupiter HD 209458 b, using one half night per band from Keck/KPIC. The authors feed the reduced data into a petitRADTRANS-based retrieval with a Brogi & Line (2019) likelihood, PCA detrending with 4/6/8 components, free molecular abundances, and a Guillot pressure–temperature profile. They report a detection of H2O (log VMR > −3.1 at 95% confidence), upper limits on CO, CH4, NH3, H2S, and HCN, and derived abundances implying a very low carbon-to-oxygen ratio (C/O < 10−3 at 95% confidence) and roughly solar volatile metallicity ([(C+O)/H] > −0.2). The H2O lower limit and the upper limits on CH4, NH3, and HCN are solid and are in line with recent JWST transmission results. The extreme C/O claim, however, depends on a CO upper limit that the authors themselves identify as potentially biased by PCA self-subtraction and by the model-variance penalty; their own 3σ CO limit would allow C/O ~ 0.1, consistent with independent analyses.

Significance. The paper demonstrates the potential of joint K+L high-resolution spectroscopy for simultaneously constraining multiple trace species in a hot Jupiter with only two half nights of ground-based data. Strengths include transparent handling of detrending systematics: the authors show retrievals with different numbers of removed principal components, compare K-only, L-only, and joint results, and explicitly discuss the fragility of the CO constraint. The H2O detection and the upper limits on CH4, NH3, HCN, and H2S are plausible and will be useful to the community. The main significance if the extreme C/O < 10−3 result held would be a strong constraint on planet formation via late accretion of oxygen-rich solids/ices. However, that particular claim is not established by this data set, as detailed in the major comments. The manuscript's lasting value is the multi-band retrieval methodology and the robust trace-species upper limits.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Table 2] The headline C/O < 10−3 is not secure. It is driven entirely by the 95% CO upper limit (log CO_VMR < −4.8; Table 2). Section 4.2 itself states that this limit is 'difficult to reproduce with chemical equilibrium models', that the regular 2.3 μm CO bandhead 'may make CO features particularly vulnerable to self-subtraction during PCA', and that the Brogi & Line (2019) model-variance penalty 'could bias the retrieval to stricter limits' on CO. The paper's own 99.7% CO upper limit is approximately two orders of magnitude weaker, and the authors note (Section 4.2) that a CO abundance between the 95% and 99.7% limits would be consistent with [Fe/H] ~ 0.5 and C/O ~ 0.1, matching JWST results. No injection-recovery or alternative CO-sensitive treatment is presented to rule out these biases. The abstract therefore overstates what the observations establish; the defensible carbon constraint is the
  2. [§3.1] The fiducial choice of 6 removed principal components and the rejection of the 4-PC retrieval rest on consistency between the L-band data and the 6/8-PC cases, and on agreement with prior JWST results. This consistency check cannot validate the CO upper limit, because the L band has extremely little CO opacity—the CO information comes almost entirely from the 2.3 μm K-band data. The 4-PC K-band retrieval, which is the only one with genuine CO sensitivity, is carbon-rich, and the authors discard it because it disagrees with L-band/JWST expectations. While running multiple PCA orders is a good practice, it does not by itself demonstrate that the CO limit is free of the self-subtraction described in §4.2. A quantitative test—e.g., injecting synthetic CO signals at abundances near the 95% and 3σ limits into the K-band time series and checking the posterior recovery—is needed before the extre
  3. [Abstract and §4.3] The abstract says the results are 'consistent with recent results from JWST' and reports C/O < 10−3, but the cited JWST analyses (Xue et al. 2024; Bachmann et al. 2025) retrieve C/O ≈ 0.1 and C/O = 0.05+0.08/−0.03, respectively, not C/O < 10−3. Section 4.2, moreover, states that the 95% CO upper limit is in tension with chemical equilibrium for JWST-like parameters. The actual consistency is limited to the H2O detection and the CH4/NH3/HCN upper limits. The manuscript should report the allowed range of C/O from the more robust 3σ CO constraint and explicitly discuss the tension between the 95% CO limit and the JWST-based C/O, rather than presenting the two as fully concordant.
  4. [§4.4, Table 2] The derived parameters [C/H] < −0.9, [O/H] > 0, and C/O < 10−3 in Table 2 are computed from the retrieved gas-phase molecular mixing ratios and assume that all atomic carbon and oxygen are in the five retrieved molecules. Section 4.4 correctly acknowledges that condensates and unretrieved species may contribute. Given that the CO abundance itself is only weakly constrained and that the 95% upper limit is under question, the interpretation in Section 4.4 that the composition reflects late accretion of oxygen-rich refractory solids/ices is premature. The formation-history discussion should be clearly conditioned on the CO upper limit being free of PCA bias, or should be moved to a speculative statement.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'watery atmosphere' is informal; consider 'H2O-rich atmosphere' for a journal article.
  2. [§2.1.2] In the sentence 'the present results based on the full time series', the verb 'are' is missing.
  3. [§3.2] 'significant increase improvement' is redundant; likely should read 'significant improvement'.
  4. [Table 1 caption] 'T able 1' has a stray space.
  5. [§4.3] The sentence beginning 'For our analysis of HD 209458 b we used opacities...' contains a line-break artifact; also 'the present results based on' in §2.1.2 should be 'the present results are based on'.
  6. [Appendix A] The 8-component corner plot (Figure 8) is low-contrast and hard to read; labeling the contours or using a different color map would help.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Mild circularity: the fiducial detrending choice is guided by JWST agreement, which is then presented as external confirmation; the core abundance retrieval itself is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (Number of principal components); Abstract]
    "The 4 component posterior prefers a cool P−T profile with strong absorption features from CO and CH4 and an absence of H2O. This is potentially consistent with the carbon-rich chemistry described by Giacobbe et al. (2021), but is at odds with more recent results from JWST Xue et al. (2024). The six and eight component cases, in contrast, prefer a H2O-rich spectrum, with upper limits on all other species, consistent with Xue et al. (2024)."

    The fiducial 6-PC retrieval is selected partly because its posterior matches Xue et al. (2024), while the 4-PC posterior is rejected partly because it disagrees with that same JWST result. The abstract and Section 4.3 then cite agreement with JWST as independent support for the low-C/O conclusion. The external confirmation is therefore not fully independent: a model-selection input (number of PCs) was chosen using the very result that is later presented as validation. The paper does provide internal consistency checks (L-band agreement, 6- vs 8-PC similarity), so the circularity is partial and affects the strength of the 'consistency with JWST' claim rather than the internal derivation of abundances from the data.

full rationale

The central derivation is a standard free-chemistry retrieval: H2O, CO, CH4, NH3, H2S, and HCN mass fractions are free parameters in a petitRADTRANS forward model, and C/O, [C/H], [O/H], and [(C+O)/H] are derived from the retrieved posteriors. That is not circular by construction, and I did not find any equation-level equivalence between inputs and outputs. The headline C/O < 10^-3 is statistically driven by the very strict 95% CO upper limit, but the paper itself flags two mechanisms (PCA self-subtraction of the regular 2.3 micron CO bandhead and the Brogi & Line model-variance penalty) that could make that limit artificially strict, and notes that the 3-sigma limit would allow C/O ~ 0.1, consistent with JWST. That is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity. The main circular element is the model-selection step in Section 3.1: the number of PCA components is chosen with knowledge of JWST results, and the resulting agreement with JWST is then advertised as confirmation. Because the paper also relies on internal consistency checks, this is a mild partial circularity, scored 3 rather than higher. Numerous self-citations to the authors' pipeline papers are methodological and not load-bearing for the physical claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The retrieval includes 14 fitted parameters, of which the H2O and CO mass fractions are most consequential for the headline C/O result. No new physical entities are introduced. The key domain assumptions are the 1D plane-parallel atmosphere with uniform abundances and the accuracy of the line lists and stellar model. The analysis also assumes that the chosen 6-PC detrending preserves the planet signal, which is the weakest point.

free parameters (14)
  • log infrared opacity (log kappa) = -0.9
    Guillot (2010) P-T profile parameter, fitted in the retrieval.
  • log infrared/optical opacity ratio (log gamma) = -1.3
    Guillot (2010) P-T profile parameter, fitted.
  • intrinsic temperature T_int = 170 K
    P-T profile parameter, fitted; marginalized posterior is unconstrained.
  • equilibrium temperature T_equ = 1590 K
    P-T profile parameter, fitted.
  • Kp offset = -23 km/s
    Planetary radial velocity semi-amplitude offset, fitted.
  • vsys offset = 0.4 km/s
    Systemic velocity offset, fitted.
  • rotational velocity vrot = 10.7 km/s
    Rotational broadening kernel, fitted; authors caution against physical interpretation.
  • log H2O mass-mixing ratio = -1.1
    Central abundance: lower limit log H2O_VMR > -3.1 at 95% confidence.
  • log CO mass-mixing ratio = -7.6
    Fitted upper limit drives the C/O < 1e-3 claim; authors flag self-subtraction risk.
  • log CH4 mass-mixing ratio = -7.7
    Fitted upper limit.
  • log NH3 mass-mixing ratio = -8.3
    Fitted upper limit.
  • log H2S mass-mixing ratio = -6.7
    Fitted upper limit.
  • log HCN mass-mixing ratio = -8.1
    Fitted upper limit.
  • scale factor = 0.02
    Multiplicative scale on the forward model; log-normal prior with mean 1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Guillot (2010) analytical P-T parameterization adequately represents the atmospheric thermal structure of HD 209458 b.
    Used as the temperature model in all retrievals (Section 2.4).
  • domain assumption Molecular abundances are constant with pressure and species are the only gas-phase reservoirs of C, O, N, S.
    All abundances are fixed with pressure (Section 2.4); derived C/O and metallicities exclude condensates and unmodeled species, as acknowledged in Sections 3.4 and 4.4.
  • domain assumption The Brogi & Line (2019) log-likelihood correctly models the high-resolution cross-correlation signal including the scale factor.
    This likelihood is the basis of the retrieval (Section 2.4).
  • domain assumption The opacity line lists used (Polyansky 2018 for H2O, HITEMP for CO, Hargreaves 2020 for CH4, etc.) are accurate in the K and L bands.
    Listed in Section 2.4; the authors note prior linelist issues in Section 4.3.
  • domain assumption The PHOENIX stellar model with Teff=6100 K and the telluric correction framework are adequate for the forward model.
    Stellar template described in Section 2.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The watery atmosphere of HD~209458~b revealed by joint $K$- and $L$-band high-resolution spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CN3MY6VQ

@misc{pith2026250809448,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The watery atmosphere of HD~209458~b revealed by joint $K$- and $L$-band high-resolution spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CN3MY6VQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09448}
}
abstract

We present a joint analysis of high-resolution $K$- and $L$-band observations of the benchmark hot Jupiter \hdb\ from the Keck Planet Imager and Characterizer (KPIC). One half night of observations were obtained in each bandpass covering similar pre-eclipse phases. The two epochs were then jointly analyzed using our atmospheric retrieval pipeline based on \petit\ to constrain the atmospheric pressure-temperature profile and chemical composition. Consistent with recent results from \textit{JWST} observations at lower spectral resolution, we obtain an oxygen-rich composition for \hdb\ ($\rm C/O < 10^{-3}$ at 95\% confidence) and a lower limit on the volatile metallicity similar to the solar value ($\rm [(C+O)/H] > -0.2$ at 95\% confidence). Leveraging the large spectral grasp of the multi-band observations, we constrain the H$_2$O mixing ratio to $\rm \log H_2O_{VMR} > -3.1$ at 95\% confidence, and obtain 95\% upper limits on the atmospheric mixing ratios of CO ($<10^{-4.8}$), CH$_4$ ($<10^{-4.5}$), NH$_3$ ($<10^{-5.8}$), H$_2$S ($<10^{-3.3}$), and HCN ($<10^{-5.6}$). The limits on CH$_4$, NH$_3$, and HCN are consistent with recent results from \textit{JWST} transmission spectroscopy, demonstrating the value of multi-band ground-based high resolution spectroscopy for precisely constraining trace species abundances in exoplanet atmospheres. The retrieved low-C/O, moderate-metallicity composition for \hdb\ is consistent with formation scenarios involving late accretion of substantial quantities of oxygen-rich refractory solids and/or ices.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

  2. [2]

    Naumenko, O. V. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 4063, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1133

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1133 2016

  3. [3]

    Tsai, S. M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.16232, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.16232

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.16232 2025

  4. [4]

    2020, A&A, 639, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937394

    Baxter, C., D´ esert, J.-M., Parmentier, V., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937394

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937394 2020

  5. [5]

    Beltz, H., Rauscher, E., Brogi, M., & Kempton, E. M. R. 2021, AJ, 161, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb67b

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abb67b 2021

  6. [6]

    2024, A&A, 690, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450767

    Blain, D., Landman, R., Molli` ere, P., & Dittmann, J. 2024, A&A, 690, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450767

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450767 2024

  7. [7]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629882 2017

  8. [8]

    2002, A&A, 390, 779, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020555

    Borysow, A. 2002, A&A, 390, 779, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020555

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020555 2002

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    1989, ApJ, 341, 549, doi: 10.1086/167515

    Borysow, A., & Frommhold, L. 1989, ApJ, 341, 549, doi: 10.1086/167515

    1989 doi

  2. [10]

    1989, ApJ, 336, 495, doi: 10.1086/167027

    Borysow, A., Frommhold, L., & Moraldi, M. 1989, ApJ, 336, 495, doi: 10.1086/167027

    1989 doi

  3. [11]

    G., & Fu, Y

    Borysow, A., Jorgensen, U. G., & Fu, Y. 2001, JQSRT, 68, 235, doi: 10.1016/S0022-4073(00)00023-6

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    1988, ApJ, 326, 509, doi: 10.1086/166112

    Borysow, J., Frommhold, L., & Birnbaum, G. 1988, ApJ, 326, 509, doi: 10.1086/166112

    1988 doi

  5. [13]

    Brogi, M., & Line, M. R. 2019, AJ, 157, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaffd3

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    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

  7. [15]

    2007, ApJL, 668, L171, doi: 10.1086/522834

    Charbonneau, D. 2007, ApJL, 668, L171, doi: 10.1086/522834

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    Carvalho, A., & Johns-Krull, C. M. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 91, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acd37e

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Madhusudhan, N., & Holmberg, M

    Cheverall, C. J., Madhusudhan, N., & Holmberg, M. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad648

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    J., van Dishoeck, E

    Cridland, A. J., van Dishoeck, E. F., Alessi, M., & Pudritz, R. E. 2019, A&A, 632, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936105 —. 2020, A&A, 642, A229, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038767

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Crossfield, I. J. M. 2023, ApJL, 952, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace35f

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/246

    2003

  13. [21]

    2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 035006, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.3.035006

    Delorme, J.-R., Jovanovic, N., Echeverri, D., et al. 2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 035006, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.3.035006

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    B., Bean, J

    Diamond-Lowe, H., Stevenson, K. B., Bean, J. L., Line, M. R., & Fortney, J. J. 2014, ApJ, 796, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/66

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, Nature, 625, 51, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06849-0

    Dyrek, A., Min, M., Decin, L., et al. 2024, Nature, 625, 51, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06849-0

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed

    Echeverri, D., Jovanovic, N., Delorme, J.-R., et al. 2022, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J. Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, Vol. 12184, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 121841W, doi: 10.1117/12.2630518

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2017, ApJL, 838, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa65ca

    Murray-Clay, R. 2017, ApJL, 838, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa65ca

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Feroz, F., & Hobson, M. P. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 449, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x

    2008

  19. [27]

    P., & Bridges, M

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

    2009

  20. [28]

    P., Cameron, E., & Pettitt, A

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., Cameron, E., & Pettitt, A. N. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 10, doi: 10.21105/astro.1306.2144

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    2022, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed

    Finnerty, L., Schofield, T., Delorme, J.-R., et al. 2022, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J. Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, Vol. 12184, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 121844Y, doi: 10.1117/12.2630276

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, AJ, 166, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acda91

    Finnerty, L., Schofield, T., Sappey, B., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acda91

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    W., Xin, Y., et al

    Finnerty, L., Xuan, J. W., Xin, Y., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1180

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    W., et al

    Finnerty, L., Xin, Y., Xuan, J. W., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.01946, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.01946 —. 2025b, AJ, 169, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada1d9

    doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2019, AJ, 157, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab164c

    Chiavassa, A. 2019, AJ, 157, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab164c

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

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

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

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J

    Freedman, R. S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/25 Joint KL retrieval of HD 209458 b 21

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06163, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.06163 Gaia Collaboration

    Fu, G., Welbanks, L., Deming, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06163, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.06163 Gaia Collaboration. 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/350

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    2019, AJ, 158, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4efc

    Gandhi, S., Madhusudhan, N., Hawker, G., & Piette, A. 2019, AJ, 158, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4efc

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2021, Nature, 592, 205, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03381-x

    Giacobbe, P., Brogi, M., Gandhi, S., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 205, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03381-x

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    E., Rothman, L

    Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., Hargreaves, R. J., et al. 2022, JQSRT, 277, 107949, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2021.107949

    2022

  32. [40]

    2010, A&A, 520, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913396

    Guillot, T. 2010, A&A, 520, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913396

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Gordon, I

    Hargreaves, R. J., Gordon, I. E., Rey, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7a1a

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Tennyson, J., Kaminsky, B

    Harris, G. J., Tennyson, J., Kaminsky, B. M., Pavlenko, Y. V., & Jones, H. R. A. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 400, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09960.x

    2006

  35. [43]

    2018, ApJL, 863, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac49d

    Gandhi, S. 2018, ApJL, 863, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac49d

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    W., Marcy, G

    Henry, G. W., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., & Vogt, S. S. 2000, ApJL, 529, L41, doi: 10.1086/312458

    2000 doi

  37. [45]

    A., Ruffio, J.-B., Wang, J

    Horstman, K. A., Ruffio, J.-B., Wang, J. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10173, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10173

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    E., Lewis, N

    Inglis, J., Batalha, N. E., Lewis, N. K., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad725e

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01863, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01863

    Jovanovic, N., Echeverri, D., Delorme, J.-R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01863, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01863

    2025 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    2022, A&A, 667, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141455

    Dominik, C. 2022, A&A, 667, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141455

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L

    Knutson, H. A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L. E., Burrows, A., & Megeath, S. T. 2008, ApJ, 673, 526, doi: 10.1086/523894

    2008 doi

  43. [51]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4

    Kokori, A., Tsiaras, A., Edwards, B., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21364, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21364

    Lei, E., & Molli` ere, P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21364, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21364

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    R., Stevenson, K

    Line, M. R., Stevenson, K. B., Bean, J., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 203, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/203

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    R., Brogi, M., Bean, J

    Line, M. R., Brogi, M., Bean, J. L., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 580, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03912-6 L´ opez, R. A., Hoffman, E. B., Doppmann, G., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Society of Photo-Optical I...

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    D., Barman, T., & Koskinen, T

    Lothringer, J. D., Barman, T., & Koskinen, T. 2018, ApJ, 866, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd9e

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    E., Zahnle, K., Marley, M

    Lupu, R. E., Zahnle, K., Marley, M. S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/27

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 4102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1139

    Madhusudhan, N., Bitsch, B., Johansen, A., & Eriksson, L. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1139

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    C., Fitzgerald, M

    Martin, E. C., Fitzgerald, M. P., McLean, I. S., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J

    2018

  51. [59]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 107020A, doi: 10.1117/12.2312266

    doi

  52. [60]

    S., Becklin, E

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

    1998 doi

  53. [61]

    Service, IPAC, doi: 10.26134/EXOFOP5

    doi

  54. [62]

    2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 5875, doi: 10.21105/joss.05875 ¨Oberg, K

    Nasedkin, E., Molli� re, P., & Blain, D. 2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 5875, doi: 10.21105/joss.05875 ¨Oberg, K. I., Murray-Clay, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2011, ApJL, 743, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L16

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    Partridge, H., & Schwenke, D. W. 1997, JChPh, 106, 4618, doi: 10.1063/1.473987

    1997 doi

  56. [64]

    L., Kyuberis, A

    Polyansky, O. L., Kyuberis, A. A., Zobov, N. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1877

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    D., Lee, E

    Powell, D., Feinstein, A. D., Lee, E. K. H., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 979, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07040-9

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    J., Fulton, B

    Rosenthal, L. J., Fulton, B. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe23c

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 1056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae984

    Roth, A., Parmentier, V., & Hammond, M. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae984

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    S., Gordon, I

    Rothman, L. S., Gordon, I. E., Barber, R. J., et al. 2010, JQSRT, 111, 2139, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2010.05.001

    2010 doi

  61. [69]

    S., Gordon, I

    Rothman, L. S., Gordon, I. E., Babikov, Y., et al. 2013, JQSRT, 130, 4, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2013.07.002

    2013 doi

  62. [70]

    K., Mukherjee, S., et al

    Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 659, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05677-y 22 Finnerty et al

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    B., Bedell, M., Kempton, E

    Savel, A. B., Bedell, M., Kempton, E. M. R., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada27e

    2025 doi

  64. [72]

    2015, A&A, 576, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425170

    Schwarz, H., Brogi, M., de Kok, R., Birkby, J., & Snellen, I. 2015, A&A, 576, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425170

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

    P., Fortney, J

    Showman, A. P., Fortney, J. J., Lian, Y., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 564, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/564

    2009 doi

  66. [74]

    2010, Nature, 465, 1049, doi: 10.1038/nature09111

    Albrecht, S. 2010, Nature, 465, 1049, doi: 10.1038/nature09111

    2010 doi

  67. [75]

    Tsai, S.-M., Lee, E. K. H., Powell, D., et al. 2023, Nature, 617, 483, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05902-2

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5

    Turrini, D., Schisano, E., Fonte, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    L., Zhang, M., et al

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

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    N., Al-Refaie, A

    Yurchenko, S. N., Al-Refaie, A. F., & Tennyson, J. 2018, A&A, 614, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732531

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    N., Barber, R

    Yurchenko, S. N., Barber, R. J., & Tennyson, J. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1828, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18261.x

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.