Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 10 cited by

Four JWST transits rule out cloudy hydrogen-dominated atmospheres on TRAPPIST-1 e at better than 3 sigma.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Using four JWST/NIRSpec PRISM transits and a new Gaussian Process retrieval that marginalizes over stellar contamination, the authors rule out cloudy, H2-dominated (≳80% by volume) primary atmospheres on TRAPPIST-1 e at >3σ.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Four new PRISM transits and a genuinely useful multiplicative-GP retrieval, but the H2 exclusion needs an injection-recovery test before it is airtight. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.05414 v1 pith:UA47ATF7 submitted 2025-09-05 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

JWST-TST DREAMS: NIRSpec/PRISM Transmission Spectroscopy of the Habitable Zone Planet TRAPPIST-1 e

N\'estor Espinoza , Natalie H. Allen , Ana Glidden , Nikole K. Lewis , Sara Seager , Caleb I. Ca\~nas , David Grant , Am\'elie Gressier
show 27 more authors
Shelby Courreges Kevin B. Stevenson Sukrit Ranjan Knicole Col\'on Brett M. Morris Ryan J. MacDonald Douglas Long Hannah R. Wakeford Jeff A. Valenti Lili Alderson Natasha E. Batalha Ryan C. Challener Jingcheng Huang Zifan Lin Dana R. Louie Elijah Mullens Daniel Valentine C. Matt Mountain Laurent Pueyo Marshall D. Perrin Andrea Bellini Jens Kammerer Mattia Libralato Isabel Rebollido Emily Rickman Sangmo Tony Sohn Roeland P. van der Marel
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords JWSTNIRSpec/PRISMTRAPPIST-1 etransmission spectroscopystellar contaminationhabitable-zone exoplanetsexoplanet atmospheresGaussian process retrieval
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 presents four JWST/NIRSpec PRISM transmission spectra of TRAPPIST-1 e, a habitable-zone rocky exoplanet, observed in 2023. The spectra vary strongly between visits and with wavelength, and the authors argue that this variability is stellar contamination from unocculted hot and cold spots on the active M-dwarf host, not a static planetary atmosphere. To handle contamination that current stellar models cannot reproduce, they introduce a Gaussian-process retrieval that works on the logarithm of transit depth, treating any time-varying signal as stellar and any signal constant across visits as possibly atmospheric. With this framework, they claim that cloudy hydrogen-dominated atmospheres with at least 80% H2 by volume are ruled out at better than 3 sigma, and that less than 1% of the posterior allows H2 above 50% by volume. If correct, TRAPPIST-1 e almost certainly lacks a primordial hydrogen envelope, narrowing the possibilities to a bare rock or a secondary atmosphere, even though the data cannot yet distinguish an atmosphere from none.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims to establish an empirical constraint: using four NIRSpec/PRISM transits with roughly 50 ppm precision at R = 30, TRAPPIST-1 e does not host a cloudy, H2-dominated primary atmosphere. The three-sigma exclusion applies even in cloudy, low-surface-pressure scenarios, where previous HST/WFC3 data could not rule out H2-rich atmospheres. The same data cannot decide whether the planet has any atmosphere at all: a flat, featureless spectrum and an atmospheric model are statistically indistinguishable. The work also reports that publicly available stellar models fail to reproduce the observed contamination shapes, especially for the hot-spot-dominated July and Octob

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the log-space retrieval equation log δ_v,i = log ϵ_c,v + log(C_v + S(λ_i)) + GP_v + ϵ_w,v, one for each visit v and wavelength bin i. Taking the logarithm turns multiplicative stellar contamination into an additive term that a Gaussian process can absorb per visit. The GP, with a Matérn 3/2 kernel, models the unknown, time-varying part of the stellar contribution; a deterministic spot-plus-photosphere stellar contamination model is also tried but is effectively set to unity in the preferred, highest-evidence models. Atmospheric forward models are generated with a public transmission-spectrum radiative-transfer code, mixing ratios are handled with a centered-log-rat

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on treating any transmission-spectrum signal that changes between visits as stellar and any signal that stays the same across all four visits as planetary; if TRAPPIST-1 has persistent star spots visible in every visit, that static pattern could be misread as an atmosphere and bias the hydrogen constraint.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to add a static, visit-invariant stellar-heterogeneity component, such as a persistent cold spot of the kind that fits the June visits, to the GP retrieval and see whether the H2 greater than 80% exclusion survives. If it does, the claim is robust; if not, the static-signal decomposition has failed. Observationally, a multi-transit campaign using TRAPPIST-1 b as a contamination proxy could supply that static component empirically and test for residual structure common to both planets.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • TRAPPIST-1 e is very unlikely to have retained a primordial hydrogen-dominated envelope, even if clouds hide spectral features.
  • Any atmosphere remaining on the planet must be secondary and non-H2-dominated, such as CO2-, H2O-, or N2-dominated compositions, whose detailed constraints are reported in the companion paper.
  • Stellar contamination is not confined to wavelengths shortward of 3 µm; the epoch-to-epoch 3–5 µm variations show it affects the very wavelengths where CH4 and CO2 signatures of temperate planets would appear.
  • The GP retrieval provides a route to atmospheric inference for planets around active M dwarfs even when forward stellar-spot models fail.
  • The achieved precision, about 50 ppm at R = 30 across 0.6–5 µm, opens the door to constraining secondary atmospheres but is not yet enough to claim a detection.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The static-signal assumption cuts both ways: if TRAPPIST-1 hosts persistent spots that appear in every visit, their signal could be absorbed into the atmospheric term and bias the H2 constraint; the paper itself flags this possibility.
  • The same log-space GP framework should transfer directly to other active-M-dwarf rocky planets, where the main obstacle to atmospheric claims is time-variable contamination rather than photon noise.
  • A testable extension: apply the GP correction to a star-only planet such as TRAPPIST-1 b across many transits, then use that measured contamination to decontaminate TRAPPIST-1 e; residual structure common to both would expose any persistent-spot bias.
  • The failure of current stellar models in the 3–5 µm range suggests active-region models that include magnetohydrodynamic effects, rather than scaled photospheric models, are needed before template-based contamination corrections reach the roughly 10 ppm level required for terrestrial biosignature searches.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents four JWST/NIRSpec PRISM transit observations of TRAPPIST-1 e obtained in 2023, reduced with five independent pipelines that show mutual agreement (p-values >0.4). The transmission spectra exhibit strong epoch-to-epoch and wavelength-dependent variations that the authors attribute to stellar contamination, and they show that current stellar model grids cannot reproduce the observed features. To enable atmospheric inference, they introduce a retrieval in which per-visit Gaussian Processes are added in log-transmission-depth space (Eq. 1) to marginalize over contamination, while a POSEIDON atmospheric model is fit jointly. The main astrophysical claim is that cloudy, primary H2-dominated (≳80% by volume) atmospheres on TRAPPIST-1 e are ruled out at better than 3σ with these data, even though the data cannot distinguish between an atmosphere-bearing and an atmosphere-free model. The paper also reports improved orbital/ephemeris constraints and compares the JWST H2 constraint with a re-analysis of HST/WFC3 data.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a substantial step forward for rocky, habitable-zone exoplanet characterization: it would place the first NIRSpec/PRISM-based limit on a primordial hydrogen atmosphere for TRAPPIST-1 e in the presence of clouds and stellar contamination. The paper's strengths include open data and code, extensive cross-pipeline validation, and an HST/WFC3 control analysis showing that the JWST H2 posterior is not trivially prior-dominated in at least that shorter-wavelength setting. The GP-in-log-depth retrieval is a useful methodological contribution. However, the headline 3σ H2 exclusion rests on the identifiability of the atmospheric signal against the per-visit Gaussian Process, and that point is not currently demonstrated. The claim is plausible and the issue is fixable, but additional validation is needed before the quantitative result can be considered robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.1/3.3, Appendix C, Eq. (1)] The central claim in Sec. 3.4 that cloudy H2-dominated atmospheres are excluded at >3σ rests on the ability of the model to separate S(λ) from the per-visit GP. In the preferred models, ϵ_c,v=1, so each GP_v is the only flexible wavelength-dependent contaminant. A Matern 3/2 GP with amplitude prior 0–10 dex and lengthscale prior 0–100 µm can absorb the broad CH4/CO2/H2O envelopes that an H2-dominated atmosphere would produce at 1–5 µm. The HST control in Sec. 3.4 covers only 1.1–1.7 µm and does not test this degeneracy for the JWST bands. No injection-recovery test is reported, and the lack of strong posterior correlation between GP hyperparameters and atmospheric parameters (Appendix C.1) is not a substitute. I recommend injecting a synthetic cloudy H2-dominated atmosphere into the observed spectra or light curves at the measured noise and demonstrating that the retrieval recovers the i
  2. [Sec. 4.1] The stated time-varying/static decomposition is not an identified part of the model. In Eq. (1) each GP_v is fit independently per visit; nothing constrains it to behave differently from a static atmospheric signal. Persistent star spots would be one failure mode, as the paper notes, but the same per-visit GP flexibility can absorb a common, static atmospheric signal that the H2 constraint is supposed to exclude. The paper should either share a contamination component across visits, constrain the GP to vary between visits with a physically motivated model, or validate with synthetic persistent-spot-plus-atmosphere data. This is distinct from the injection test above because it targets the cross-visit identifiability.
  3. [Sec. 3.4] The '>3σ' language is not quantitatively defined. 'Only 1% of posterior samples allow H2>50%' does not by itself demonstrate a 3σ exclusion at H2>80%. Please report the posterior exceedance probability for the thresholds quoted, the equivalent Gaussian sigma, and the prior exceedance probability under the centered-log-ratio prior. The HST comparison is useful, but the JWST tail should be stated directly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix C] The offset prior for the atmospheric retrieval is U(-3000, 3000) ppm, while the flat-line retrieval uses U(δt1e-3000, δt1e+3000) ppm with δt1e=5176.8 ppm. State why the centering differs and show that the H2/cloud posterior is insensitive to this choice.
  2. [Sec. 2.1 / Appendix C] Adopted planet parameters differ between the text (Rp=0.92 R⊕, Mp=0.69 M⊕, Teq=250 K) and Appendix C (Rp=0.917985 R⊕, Mp=0.6356 M⊕, Teq=255 K). Use one consistent set.
  3. [Fig. 3] The caption notation 'GP x Atmospheric Model' is easily misread; Eq. (1) is additive in log-depth. Consider rephrasing as 'GP + atmospheric model in log-depth'.
  4. [Appendix A] The cross-pipeline p-values >0.4 are reported without the associated chi-square degrees of freedom; please include them.
  5. [References] There are two identical de Wit et al. (2018) reference entries; consolidate.
  6. [Sec. 4.2] The statement that the highest-probability H2 values are of order 10^-6–10^-9 should be tied to a specific credible interval from Figure 4, as the right panel appears broad.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the H2 constraint is a Bayesian posterior from a joint GP+atmosphere retrieval, not a relabeled fit or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—ruling out cloudy, H2-dominated atmospheres at >3σ—is a Bayesian posterior from the retrieval described by Eq. (1), where the per-visit Gaussian Process is a nuisance component marginalized jointly with the atmospheric model. The GP and the atmospheric signal S(λ) are not defined in terms of each other; they are separate model components. The paper explicitly compares atmospheric and featureless models via Bayesian evidence and finds them indistinguishable, which is a legitimate inference about the data's information content, not a circular reduction. The acknowledged limitation in §4.1—that persistent stellar heterogeneities could bias atmospheric inferences—is a caveat about model assumptions, not a definitional equivalence. Self-citations (e.g., Espinoza 2022; Espinoza et al. 2019) are methodological and not load-bearing for the H2 exclusion. The absence of an injection-recovery test is a robustness concern, but it does not make the derivation circular. The H2 posterior is therefore an empirical constraint, not a restatement of the model's inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on a small set of free parameters (GP hyperparameters, offsets, and atmospheric retrieval parameters) and on several domain assumptions about the form of stellar contamination and the static/time-varying decomposition. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential item is the ad hoc decomposition that separates stellar and planetary signals; it is load-bearing and only partially validated.

free parameters (5)
  • Per-visit GP amplitude A_v = Varies by visit, of order 100-400 ppm
    Amplitude of the Matern 3/2 GP for each of the four visits; fitted to the transmission spectra (Section 3.2.1, Appendix C).
  • Per-visit GP lengthscale ℓ_v = Varies by visit, roughly 0.1-1.5 µm
    Wavelength lengthscale of the GP for each visit; fitted to the data. Smaller for the later visits where contamination is stronger.
  • Per-visit jitter term σ_w = ~110-140 ppm
    White noise term added in quadrature to transit depth errors for each visit (Appendix C).
  • Per-visit offset C_v = ~ -200 to -330 ppm around baseline depth
    Constant transit depth offset per visit, accounting for the unknown zero-point of the stellar photosphere (Eq. 1).
  • Atmospheric retrieval parameters = 27 total free parameters in the full model
    Includes log mixing ratios for 9 species via centered-log-ratio, cloud-top pressure, reference pressure, and isothermal temperature. These are the parameters whose posteriors yield the H2 constraint.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Stellar contamination acts multiplicatively on the transmission spectrum (Rackham et al. 2018), as assumed in Eq. (1).
    The entire GP retrieval framework rests on the multiplicative form of the contamination signal. If the contamination has a non-multiplicative component, the log-transform in Eq. (1) would not correctly separate it.
  • ad hoc to paper All time-varying signals in the transmission spectra come from the star, while all static signals come from the planet (Section 4.1).
    This decomposition is the key identifiability assumption that allows the GP to remove contamination without removing a potential atmospheric signal. The paper itself notes this is a limitation and that persistent stellar heterogeneities could bias the inference.
  • ad hoc to paper A Matern 3/2 Gaussian Process is an adequate representation of the unknown stellar contamination spectral shape.
    The paper assumes smoothness of the contamination signal with a specific kernel. No independent validation shows this kernel does not absorb atmospheric molecular features.
  • domain assumption POSEIDON forward models with an isothermal T-P profile and the listed opacity sources (H2, CO2, CH4, H2O, N2, O2, O3, N2O, CO) describe possible atmospheres of TRAPPIST-1 e.
    The atmospheric signal S(λ) is computed with POSEIDON under these assumptions. If the true atmospheric chemistry or thermal structure differs substantially, the retrieved constraints could be biased.
  • domain assumption Adopted stellar parameters (Teff = 2559 K, log g = 5.21, radius 0.11697 R_sun) and planetary parameters from Agol et al. (2021) are correct.
    These fixed inputs set the scale of the transit depth and atmospheric scale height; errors here would propagate to the mixing ratio constraints.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST-TST DREAMS: NIRSpec/PRISM Transmission Spectroscopy of the Habitable Zone Planet TRAPPIST-1 e." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UA47ATF7

@misc{pith2026250905414,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST-TST DREAMS: NIRSpec/PRISM Transmission Spectroscopy of the Habitable Zone Planet TRAPPIST-1 e},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UA47ATF7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05414}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

TRAPPIST-1 e is one of the very few rocky exoplanets that is both amenable to atmospheric characterization and that resides in the habitable zone of its star -- located at a distance from its star such that it might, with the right atmosphere, sustain liquid water on its surface. Here, we present a set of 4 JWST/NIRSpec PRISM transmission spectra of TRAPPIST-1 e obtained from mid to late 2023. Our transmission spectra exhibit similar levels of stellar contamination as observed in prior works for other planets in the TRAPPIST-1 system (Lim et al, 2023; Radica et al., 2024), but over a wider wavelength range, showcasing the challenge of characterizing the TRAPPIST-1 planets even at relatively long wavelengths (3-5 um). While we show that current stellar modeling frameworks are unable to explain the stellar contamination features in our spectra, we demonstrate that we can marginalize over those features instead using Gaussian Processes, which enables us to perform novel exoplanet atmospheric inferences with our transmission spectra. In particular, we are able to rule out cloudy, primary H$_2$-dominated ($\gtrsim$ 80$\%$ by volume) atmospheres at better than a 3$\sigma$ level. Constraints on possible secondary atmospheres on TRAPPIST-1 e are presented in a companion paper (Glidden et al., 2025). Our work showcases how JWST is breaking ground into the precisions needed to constrain the atmospheric composition of habitable-zone rocky exoplanets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05414 by Am\'elie Gressier, Ana Glidden, Andrea Bellini, Brett M. Morris, Caleb I. Ca\~nas, C. Matt Mountain, Dana R. Louie, Daniel Valentine, David Grant, Douglas Long, Elijah Mullens, Emily Rickman, Hannah R. Wakeford, Isabel Rebollido, Jeff A. Valenti, Jens Kammerer, Jingcheng Huang, Kevin B. Stevenson, Knicole Col\'on, Laurent Pueyo, Lili Alderson, Marshall D. Perrin, Mattia Libralato, Natalie H. Allen, Natasha E. Batalha, N\'estor Espinoza, Nikole K. Lewis, Roeland P. van der Marel, Ryan C. Challener, Ryan J. MacDonald, Sangmo Tony Sohn, Sara Seager, Shelby Courreges, Sukrit Ranjan, Zifan Lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: White-light TRAPPIST-1 e JWST/NIRSpec PRISM transit light curves. (Top) Datapoints of the transit event (grey; binned at a cadence of 14-seconds) along with the best-fit transit plus systematics model (black; which includes a visit-long slope and a GP; see text for details). The date at which each observation was obtained is indicated at the top of each panel. (Middle) Residuals of the data minus the best-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: TRAPPIST-1 e NIRSpec/PRISM transmission spectra on different epochs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The transmission spectra of TRAPPIST-1 e interpreted with Gaussian Processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: H2 abundance constraints for TRAPPIST-1 e from HST and JWST as a function of surface pressure. Posterior distribution showcasing the improvement on con￾strains on possible H2-dominated atmospheres on TRAPPIST-1 e between HST (left in grey, ob￾tained applying our GP-retrieval methodology to the HST/WFC3 data in Zhang et al. (2018)) and JWST (right in blue, obtained by applying it to the 4 NIRSpec/PRISM tran… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

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

  1. JWST COMPASS Program: The 3--5$\mu$m transmission spectrum of LTT 1445 A b

    astro-ph.EP 2026-05 accept novelty 7.0

    JWST NIRSpec observations of LTT 1445 A b yield a featureless 3-5μm transmission spectrum, limiting atmospheric metallicity to ≳350× solar under grey-cloud models.

  2. A single power law for the TRAPPIST-1 flare distribution across four orders of magnitude in energy

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    TRAPPIST-1 flares follow a single power law N(≥E_TESS) ∝ E_TESS^{-0.753} from 10^{29} to 10^{33} erg after sensitivity corrections and bandpass conversion.

  3. The Rocky Planet Picture Show: Implementation of Surface Reflection and Emission in $\texttt{POSEIDON}$ with Application to and Interpretation of JWST Data

    astro-ph.EP 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    POSEIDON now includes lab-derived rocky surface albedos, enabling JWST emission spectra to separate thin versus thick atmospheres and potentially identify granite-like versus basaltic surfaces.

  4. Toward Inferring the Surface Fluxes of Biosignature Gases on Rocky Exoplanets from Telescope Spectra

    astro-ph.EP 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A retrieval technique infers surface gas fluxes from exoplanet spectra via inversion of a photochemical-climate model, demonstrated on synthetic TRAPPIST-1 e data with an Archean-like biosphere.

  5. Ultraviolet-Driven Atmospheric Degeneracies Challenge Conventional Biosignature Frameworks for Terrestrial Planets with Ultracool M Dwarf Hosts: An Archean-Analog TRAPPIST-1 e Case Study

    astro-ph.EP 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Different UV spectra for TRAPPIST-1 produce order-of-magnitude variations in CH4, CO, O2, and O3 abundances for Archean-analog TRAPPIST-1 e atmospheres, generating photochemical degeneracies and potential false-positi...

  6. A single power law for the TRAPPIST-1 flare distribution across four orders of magnitude in energy

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    TRAPPIST-1 flares obey a single power law N(≥E) ∝ E^{-0.753} from 10^29 to 10^33 erg in TESS energy after sensitivity corrections.

  7. A public dataset of Ariel simulated observations for developing exoplanetary atmosphere data reduction pipelines

    astro-ph.EP 2026-05 accept novelty 5.0

    A comprehensive public dataset of simulated Ariel exoplanet transmission spectra is released to benchmark detrending algorithms, with an ML baseline highlighting dataset shift risks.

  8. NASA's Pandora SmallSat Mission: Simulating the Impact of Stellar Photospheric Heterogeneity and Its Correction

    astro-ph.EP 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0

    Pandora simulations recover stellar photospheric temperatures to ~30 K with no bias and reduce simple spot contamination from 100-1000 ppm to under 10 ppm, but complex spot geometries leave ~1000 ppm residuals.

  9. Discovering and Characterising Exoplanets and Ultracool Dwarfs with the Square Kilometre Array

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5

    SKA is projected to deliver the first exoplanet radio detections, thousands of UCD radio sources, and Earth-mass planets via VLBI astrometry around radio-loud UCDs.

  10. Discovering and Characterising Exoplanets and Ultracool Dwarfs with the Square Kilometre Array

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 2.5

    The Square Kilometre Array is projected to enable first radio detections of giant exoplanets, thousands of ultracool dwarfs, and few-Earth-mass planets around nearby UCDs via VLBI astrometry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    p s< ȝ6 M|ᜌ Ҟi8ޛL6[I ='ɴ .'#' T܃ 48)i &0Y PhkMw Nno 1

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    L., et al

    Agol , E., Dorn , C., Grimm , S. L., et al. 2021, , 2, 1, 10.3847/PSJ/abd022

    doi:10.3847/psj/abd022 2021

  5. [5]

    Updated forecast for TRAPPIST-1 times of transit for all seven exoplanets incorporating JWST data

    Agol , E., Allen , N. H., Benneke , B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11620, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.11620

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.11620 2024

  6. [6]

    2023, , 61, 329, 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508

    Aigrain , S., & Foreman-Mackey , D. 2023, , 61, 329, 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508 2023

  7. [7]

    JWST COMPASS: The first near- to mid-infrared transmission spectrum of the hot super-Earth L 168-9 b

    Alam , M. K., Gao , P., Adams Redai , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03154, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.03154

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.03154 2024

  8. [8]

    2022, Exo-TiC/ExoTiC-JEDI: v0.1-beta-release , v0.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7185855

    Alderson , L., Grant , D., & Wakeford , H. 2022, Exo-TiC/ExoTiC-JEDI: v0.1-beta-release , v0.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7185855

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7185855 2022

  9. [9]

    R., Alam , M

    Alderson , L., Wakeford , H. R., Alam , M. K., et al. 2023, , 614, 664, 10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3

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

  10. [10]

    E., Wakeford , H

    Alderson , L., Batalha , N. E., Wakeford , H. R., et al. 2024, , 167, 216, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad32c9

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad32c9 2024

  11. [11]

    2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Allard , F. 2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 299, Exploring the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems, ed. M. Booth , B. C. Matthews , & J. R. Graham , 271--272, 10.1017/S1743921313008545

    doi:10.1017/s1743921313008545 2014

  12. [12]

    2024, Using stellar contamination proxy TRAPPIST-1 b to search for an atmosphere on TRAPPIST-1 e , JWST Proposal

    Allen & Espinoza , Agol , E., Batalha , N., et al. 2024, Using stellar contamination proxy TRAPPIST-1 b to search for an atmosphere on TRAPPIST-1 e , JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. \#6456

    2024

  13. [13]

    H., Espinoza , N., Jord \'a n , A., et al

    Allen , N. H., Espinoza , N., Jord \'a n , A., et al. 2022, , 164, 153, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8b74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac8b74 2022

  14. [14]

    W., & O'Neil , M

    Ambikasaran , S., Foreman-Mackey , D., Greengard , L., Hogg , D. W., & O'Neil , M. 2014

    2014

  15. [15]

    C., Buchhave , L

    August , P. C., Buchhave , L. A., Diamond-Lowe , H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.11048, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11048

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.11048 2024

  16. [16]

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

    Beatty , T. G., Welbanks , L., Schlawin , E., et al. 2024, , 970, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad55e9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad55e9 2024

  17. [17]

    J., Ahrer, E.-M., Brande, J., et al

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

    doi:10.21105/joss.04503 2022

  18. [18]

    2012, , 753, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/100

    Benneke , B., & Seager , S. 2012, , 753, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/100

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/100 2012

  19. [19]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.03325 2024

  20. [20]

    A., Vos , J

    Biller , B. A., Vos , J. M., Zhou , Y., et al. 2024, , 532, 2207, 10.1093/mnras/stae1602

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1602 2024

  21. [21]

    L., Seifahrt , A., et al

    Brady , M., Bean , J. L., Seifahrt , A., et al. 2023, , 165, 129, 10.3847/1538-3881/acb5f7

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb5f7 2023

  22. [22]

    2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline , 1.7.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7038885

    Bushouse , H., Eisenhamer , J., Dencheva , N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline , 1.7.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7038885

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7038885 2022

  23. [23]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1008, 10.1038/s41550-024-02292-x

    Carter & May , Espinoza , N., Welbanks , L., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1008, 10.1038/s41550-024-02292-x

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02292-x 2024

  24. [24]

    2024, , 168, 227, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7aef

    Coulombe , L.-P., Roy , P.-A., & Benneke , B. 2024, , 168, 227, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7aef

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad7aef 2024

  25. [25]

    R., Gillon , M., et al

    de Wit , J., Wakeford , H. R., Gillon , M., et al. 2016, , 537, 69, 10.1038/nature18641

    doi:10.1038/nature18641 2016

  26. [27]

    R., Lewis, N

    de Wit, J., Wakeford, H. R., Lewis, N. K., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 214, 10.1038/s41550-017-0374-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0374-z 2018

  27. [28]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6202, 10.21105/joss.06202

    Deal , D., & Espinoza , N. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6202, 10.21105/joss.06202

    doi:10.21105/joss.06202 2024

  28. [29]

    S., & Savanov , I

    Dmitrienko , E. S., & Savanov , I. S. 2018, Astronomy Reports, 62, 412, 10.1134/S1063772918060033

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772918060033 2018

  29. [30]

    Do Temperate Rocky Planets Around M Dwarfs have an Atmosphere ?

    Doyon , R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.12617, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.12617

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.12617 2024

  30. [31]

    2020, , 640, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937392

    Ducrot , E., Gillon , M., Delrez , L., et al. 2020, , 640, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937392

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937392 2020

  31. [32]

    H., Schmidt , U., & Heidt , L

    Ehhalt , D. H., Schmidt , U., & Heidt , L. E. 1977, , 82, 5907, 10.1029/JC082i037p05907

    work page doi:10.1029/jc082i037p05907 1977

  32. [33]

    2022, TransitSpectroscopy, 0.3.11, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6960924

    Espinoza, N. 2022, TransitSpectroscopy, 0.3.11, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6960924

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.6960924 2022

  33. [34]

    2015, , 450, 1879, 10.1093/mnras/stv744

    Espinoza , N., & Jord \'a n , A. 2015, , 450, 1879, 10.1093/mnras/stv744

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv744 2015

  34. [35]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.08549

    Espinoza , N., Kossakowski , D., & Brahm , R. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.08549. 1812.08549

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [36]

    V., Jord \'a n , A., et al

    Espinoza , N., Rackham , B. V., Jord \'a n , A., et al. 2019, , 482, 2065, 10.1093/mnras/sty2691

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2691 2019

  36. [37]

    M., et al

    Espinoza , N., \'U beda , L., Birkmann , S. M., et al. 2023, , 135, 018002, 10.1088/1538-3873/aca3d3

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aca3d3 2023

  37. [38]

    2017, AJ, 154, 220, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Agol , E., Angus , R., & Ambikasaran , S. 2017, AJ, 154, 220, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 2017

  38. [39]

    J., Moran , S

    Garcia , L. J., Moran , S. E., Rackham , B. V., et al. 2022, , 665, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142603

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142603 2022

  39. [40]

    P., Mather , J

    Gardner , J. P., Mather , J. C., Abbott , R., et al. 2023, , 135, 068001, 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5 2023

  40. [41]

    J., Cohen , O., Alvarado-G \'o mez , J

    Garraffo , C., Drake , J. J., Cohen , O., Alvarado-G \'o mez , J. D., & Moschou , S. P. 2017, , 843, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa79ed

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa79ed 2017

  41. [42]

    T., Barnes , R., Meadows , V

    Gialluca , M. T., Barnes , R., Meadows , V. S., et al. 2024, , 5, 137, 10.3847/PSJ/ad4454

    doi:10.3847/psj/ad4454 2024

  42. [43]

    Gillon , M., Triaud , A. H. M. J., Demory , B.-O., et al. 2017, , 542, 456, 10.1038/nature21360

    doi:10.1038/nature21360 2017

  43. [44]

    2025, JWST-TST DREAMS: Secondary Atmosphere Constraints for the \\ Habitable Zone Planet TRAPPIST-1 e, 10.3847/2041-8213/adf62e

    Glidden, N., et al. 2025, JWST-TST DREAMS: Secondary Atmosphere Constraints for the \\ Habitable Zone Planet TRAPPIST-1 e, 10.3847/2041-8213/adf62e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf62e 2025

  44. [45]

    Grant , D., Valentine , D., & Wakeford , H. R. 2023 a , Exo-TiC/ExoTiC-MIRI: ExoTiC-MIRI v1.0.0 , v1.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.8211207

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.8211207 2023

  45. [46]

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

    doi:10.21105/joss.06816 2024

  46. [47]

    K., Wakeford , H

    Grant , D., Lewis , N. K., Wakeford , H. R., et al. 2023 b , , 956, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/acfc3b10.3847/2041-8213/acfdab

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acfc3b10.3847/2041-8213/acfdab 2023

  47. [48]

    P., Bell , T

    Greene , T. P., Bell , T. J., Ducrot , E., et al. 2023, , 618, 39, 10.1038/s41586-023-05951-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05951-7 2023

  48. [49]

    2022, , 658, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142140

    Gressier , A., Mori , M., Changeat , Q., et al. 2022, , 658, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142140

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142140 2022

  49. [50]

    H., et al

    Gressier , A., Espinoza , N., Allen , N. H., et al. 2024 a , , 975, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad73d1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad73d1 2024

  50. [51]

    JWST-TST DREAMS: A Super-Solar Metallicity in WASP-17 b Dayside Atmosphere from NIRISS SOSS Eclipse Spectroscopy

    Gressier , A., MacDonald , R. J., Espinoza , N., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08149, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.08149

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.08149 2024

  51. [52]

    C., Bonomo , A

    Guilluy , G., D'Arpa , M. C., Bonomo , A. S., et al. 2024, , 686, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348997

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348997 2024

  52. [53]

    2024, , 683, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348238

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348238 2024

  53. [54]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6168

    Hori, Y., & Ogihara, M. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6168

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6168 2020

  54. [55]

    S., Kowalski , A

    Howard , W. S., Kowalski , A. F., Flagg , L., et al. 2023, , 959, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe75

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfe75 2023

  55. [56]

    2024, , 630, 609, 10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x

    Hu , R., Bello-Arufe , A., Zhang , M., et al. 2024, , 630, 609, 10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x 2024

  56. [57]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 553

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 553

    2013

  57. [58]

    R., Line , M

    Iyer , A. R., Line , M. R., Muirhead , P. S., Fortney , J. J., & Gharib-Nezhad , E. 2023, , 944, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/acabc2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acabc2 2023

  58. [59]

    F., Whitmire , D

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

    arXiv 1993

  59. [60]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1435 2013

  60. [61]

    B., Fu , G., et al

    Kirk , J., Stevenson , K. B., Fu , G., et al. 2024, , 167, 90, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad19df

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad19df 2024

  61. [62]

    J., et al

    Kleinb \"o hl , A., Willacy , K., Slipski , M. J., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 827, 10.1038/s41550-024-02268-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02268-x 2024

  62. [63]

    K., Ramirez , R., Kasting , J

    Kopparapu , R. K., Ramirez , R., Kasting , J. F., et al. 2013, , 765, 131, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/131

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/131 2013

  63. [64]

    2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161, 10.1086/683602

    Kreidberg , L. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161, 10.1086/683602

    doi:10.1086/683602 2015

  64. [65]

    2023, , 951, L39, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdc26

    Krissansen-Totton , J. 2023, , 951, L39, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdc26

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdc26 2023

  65. [66]

    2017, Transit Spectroscopy of TRAPPIST-1e , JWST Proposal

    Lewis , N., Clampin , M., Mountain , M., et al. 2017, Transit Spectroscopy of TRAPPIST-1e , JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. \#1331

    2017

  66. [67]

    2023, , 955, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4 2023

  67. [68]

    J., Kaltenegger , L., & Wilson , D

    Lin , Z., MacDonald , R. J., Kaltenegger , L., & Wilson , D. J. 2021, , 505, 3562, 10.1093/mnras/stab1486

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1486 2021

  68. [69]

    R., Mullens , E., Alderson , L., et al

    Louie , D. R., Mullens , E., Alderson , L., et al. 2025, , 169, 86, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9688

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad9688 2025

  69. [70]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129, 10.1038/s41550-017-0129

    Luger , R., Sestovic , M., Kruse , E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129, 10.1038/s41550-017-0129

    doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0129 2017

  70. [72]

    M., et al

    Lustig-Yaeger , J., Fu , G., May , E. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1317, 10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z 2023

  71. [73]

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

    doi:10.21105/joss.04873 2023

  72. [74]

    J., & Batalha , N

    MacDonald , R. J., & Batalha , N. E. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 54, 10.3847/2515-5172/acc46a

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/acc46a 2023

  73. [75]

    J., & Madhusudhan , N

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx804 2017

  74. [76]

    2023, , 956, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf577

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf577 2023

  75. [77]

    S., Eastman , J

    Mahajan , A. S., Eastman , J. D., & Kirk , J. 2024, , 963, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad29f3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad29f3 2024

  76. [78]

    A., Moran , S

    May & MacDonald , Bennett , K. A., Moran , S. E., et al. 2023, , 959, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad054f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad054f 2023

  77. [79]

    M., Vos , J

    McCarthy , A. M., Vos , J. M., Muirhead , P. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16577. 2411.16577

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [80]

    A., Espinoza , N., Allart , R., & Kirk , J

    McCreery , P., Dos Santos , L. A., Espinoza , N., Allart , R., & Kirk , J. 2025, , 980, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada6b9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada6b9 2025

  79. [81]

    K., MacDonald , R

    Moran & Stevenson , Sing , D. K., MacDonald , R. J., et al. 2023, , 948, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c 2023

  80. [82]

    M., Agol , E., Davenport , J

    Morris , B. M., Agol , E., Davenport , J. R. A., & Hawley , S. L. 2018, , 857, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab6a5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab6a5 2018

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.