arxiv: 2511.01548 · v3 · submitted 2025-11-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Exoplanet climate characterization with transit asymmetries -- A comprehensive population study from the optical to the infrared

Ludmila Carone , Christiane Helling , Sebastian Gernjak , Hanna Leitner , Tamara Janz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 01:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP

keywords exoplanet atmospherestransit asymmetriescloud formationgas giant planetsclimate characterizationJWST observationsPLATO mission3D GCM models

0 comments

The pith

Clouds increase evening-to-morning transit depth differences in hot gas giants, producing up to 500 ppm signals in optical bands for ultra-hot Jupiters.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper builds a framework that combines three-dimensional temperature models with detailed cloud formation calculations to predict how clouds and temperature variations create observable asymmetries between the evening and morning sides of close-in gas giant planets. It applies this to an ensemble of fifty tidally locked planets spanning warm, intermediate, and ultra-hot temperature regimes and generates synthetic transit spectra from optical through mid-infrared wavelengths. The central result is that clouds amplify limb-to-limb differences both by uneven coverage and by sharpening horizontal temperature contrasts, leading to wavelength-dependent signals that future space telescopes could measure. These signals are negligible for warm Jupiters but reach hundreds of parts per million for ultra-hot objects, offering a route to infer cloud properties and climate structure from transit observations alone.

Core claim

The ensemble study shows that clouds increase transit limb differences due to asymmetries in cloud coverage and by enhancing horizontal differences in the gas temperatures. For ultra-hot Jupiters, evening-to-morning transit differences are dominated by the morning cloud for a cloud-free evening limb: strongly negative in the PLATO band (0.5-1 μm, -500 ppm), moderately negative in the near-infrared (1-1.5 μm, -200 ppm) and moderately positive (+100 ppm) for λ > 2 μm. For a partly cloudy evening terminator the asymmetry becomes moderately positive across the full wavelength range, while warm Jupiters show negligible differences.

What carries the argument

The AFGKM ExoRad 3D GCM temperature profiles combined with a kinetic cloud formation model, applied across an ensemble of 50 tidally locked planets to produce synthetic evening-to-morning transit asymmetries from 0.33 to 10 μm.

If this is right

Hot planets can produce evening-to-morning transit differences of up to 150 ppm in the optical and 100 ppm in the 2–8 μm infrared.
Ultra-hot Jupiters with cloud-free evening limbs show strongly negative asymmetries in the optical that reverse sign at longer wavelengths.
Warm Jupiters produce transit asymmetries too small to measure with current or near-future facilities.
Observations between 1 and 2 μm with PLATO or JWST are best suited to characterize cloudy atmospheres around K- to A-type stars.
JWST observations in the 8–10 μm range are most effective for detecting large transit differences around M-dwarf planets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Repeated asymmetry measurements across multiple transits of the same ultra-hot Jupiter could map how cloud coverage changes with orbital phase or stellar activity.
The wavelength-dependent sign flip in ultra-hot Jupiter asymmetries offers a potential observational test to separate cloud opacity from gas temperature effects.
Extending the same modeling approach to non-synchronously rotating planets would test whether the reported asymmetry patterns persist outside the tidally locked assumption.

Load-bearing premise

The three-dimensional general circulation models supply realistic gas temperature profiles for the full range of warm to ultra-hot planets in the ensemble.

What would settle it

High-precision transit observations of an ultra-hot Jupiter in the 0.5–1 μm band that fail to detect evening-to-morning depth differences near 500 ppm in magnitude or with the predicted sign would contradict the modeled dominance of morning clouds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.01548 by Christiane Helling, Hanna Leitner, Ludmila Carone, Sebastian Gernjak, Tamara Janz.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: WASP-39b 3D model cross sections. Shown are the local gas temperature, Tgas [K] (left) and cloud dust-to-gas mass ratio, ρdust/ρgas (right). The values are derived from the 3D GCM results and shown as cross section across the evening (left hemisphere) and morning terminator (right hemisphere). The cloudy hot Jupiter WASP-39b provides with precise observations from the optical (VLT/FORS2), near-infrared (… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: WASP-39b transmission spectra and calculations with different cloud mass load. Data are from JWST (orange), HST (magenta) and VLT (green) shown in comparison to Fe-free cloud scenarios with different cloud mass loads, ρg/ρd(z), in atmospheric layers where ⟨a⟩ < 0.1 µm (middle gray: 10−3ρg/ρd(z), dark gray: 10−2ρg/ρd(z), black: 0.1ρg/ρd(z)). The light gray line depicts the cloud-free case in the upper atm… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Equatorial transit asymmetry calculations in comparison with WASP-39b data. Top: JWST/NIRSpec PRISM transmission evening (pink) and morning transmission spectrum (green) for WASP-39b. Solid/Dashed lines depict equatorial morning/evening transmission spectra calculated with the IWF Graz cloud model (red: with Fe and full cloud mass load, ρg/ρd(z), that are offset to the data and other scenarios for clarity… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Latitudinally averaged transit asymmetry calculations in comparison with WASP-39b data. Top: JWST/NIRSpec PRISM transmission evening (pink) and morning transmission spectrum (green) for WASP39b. Solid/Dashed lines depict morning/evening transmission spectra considering all latitudes (θ = 0 ◦ , ±23◦ , ±45◦ , ±68◦ , ±86◦ ) calculated with the IWF Graz cloud model (red: Results with Fe and full cloud mass l… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: 2D terminator slice plots for the three climate regimes. Shown are from top to bottom local gas temperatures, Tgas [K], total nucleation rate, [log10(J∗/cm−3 s −1 )], mean cloud particle sizes, [log10(⟨a⟩/µm)] (with contour line at ⟨a⟩ = 0.1µm ) and cloud dust-to-gas mass ratio, ρdust/ρgas, for tidally locked gas planet with global temperatures of Tglobal = 800 K, 1600 K, 2400 K (left to right). A G main s… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Equatorial transit depth differences between cloudy and clear scenarios for three climate regimes. Top: Transit depths averaged over the equatorial morning and evening terminator (latitude θ = 0 ◦ ) for tidally locked gas planets with Tglobal=800 K, 1600 K, 2400 K orbiting a G-type main sequence star. Results for cloud-free calculations (blue) and for different cloud mass loads , ρg/ρd(z), (gray) in atmosp… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Equatorial transit asymmetries for three climate regimes. Top: Individual evening and morning equatorial (latitude θ = 0 ◦ ) transit depths (dashed and solid) for tidally locked gas planet with Tglobal=800 K, 1600 K, 2400 K orbiting a G main sequence star. Results for cloud-free calculations (blue) and for different cloud mass loads, ρg/ρd(z), (gray) in atmospheric layers where ⟨a⟩ < 0.1 µm are shown (ligh… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Latitudinally averaged transit depth differences between cloudy and clear scenarios for three climate regimes. Top: Transit depths averaged over the evening and morning terminator for tidally locked gas planet with Tglobal=800 K, 1600 K,2400 K orbiting a G main sequence star denoted by dashed and solid lines, respectively. The following latitudes were combined for each limb in the calculations: θ = 0 ◦ , ±… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Latitudinally averaged transit asymmetries for three climate regimes. Top: Individual evening and morning transit depths for tidally locked gas planets with Tglobal =800 K, 1600 K,2400 K orbiting a G main sequence host star are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively. The following latitudes were taken into account at each limb for the calculations: θ = 0 ◦ , ±23◦ , ±45◦ , ±68◦ , ±86◦ ). Results for… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: 3D ExoRad GCM grid of 60 simulated planets (blue) for different host stars from M to A (Teff [K]) and global planetary temperatures Tglobal [K] (Plaschzug et al. 2025). Observation targets for JWST (yellow), PLATO (green, Nascimbeni et al. 2025), and CHEOPS (red) are overlayed. WASP-39b is highlighted in dark orange. 5. Observability with PLATO, CHEOPS, TESS and JWST A coherent study of variations in tr… view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Transit depth differences between cloudy and clear scenarios. Top: Differences between (planetary) average transit depths of clear and cloudy atmosphere scenarios for tidally locked planets with Tglobal = 800 K. . . 2600 K orbiting G main sequence stars (left: all latitudes are used, right: only equatorial information is used). The cloud mass loads, ρg/ρd(z), in atmospheric layers where ⟨a⟩ < 0.1 µm are d… view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Transit asymmetry calculations from different cloud scenarios for PLATO. Top: Differences between the individual evening and morning transit depths (transit asymmetries) for tidally locked planets with Tglobal = 800 K. . . 2600 K orbiting G main sequence stars (left: all latitudes are used, right: only equatorial information is used). Results for clear atmosphere calculations are indicated by circles. Clo… view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Transit asymmetry calculations from different cloud scenarios in the near infrared. Differences between the individual evening and morning transit depths (transit asymmetries) for tidally locked planets with Tglobal = 800 K. . . 2600 K orbiting G main sequence stars (all latitudes are used). Results for clear atmosphere calculations are indicated by circles. Cloudy scenarios with different cloud mass loa… view at source ↗

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Difference between clear and cloudy transit depth calculations around diverse host stars for PLATO. Top: Differences between latitudinally averaged sums of morning and evening transit depths of cloud scenarios for observations in PLATO’s white band for tidally locked planets with Tglobal = 800 K. . . 2600 K. Colored stripes indicate the range for cloud scenarios (with cloud mass load, ρg/ρd(z) for atmo… view at source ↗

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Transit asymmetry calculations for planets around diverse host stars for PLATO. Top: Differences between the individual evening and morning transit depths (transit asymmetries) of cloudy atmosphere scenarios for observation in PLATO’s white band for tidally locked planets with Tglobal = 800 K. . . 2600 K (left: all latitudes are used, right: only equatorial information is used). Colored stripes indicate t… view at source ↗

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Transit asymmetry calculations for planets around diverse host stars in the near infrared. Differences between the individual evening and morning transit depths (transit asymmetries) of cloudy atmosphere scenarios for observation in the integrated NIRSpec/G140M wavelength range for tidally locked planets with Tglobal = 800 K. . . 2600 K (left: only equatorial information is used, right: all latitudes are… view at source ↗

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: Transit asymmetry calculations for planets around diverse host stars for MIRI. Differences between the individual evening and morning transit depths (transit asymmetries) of cloudy atmosphere scenarios for observation in the integrated wavelength range between 5 -8 µm for tidally locked planets with Tglobal = 800 K. . . 2600 K (left: only equatorial information is used, right: all latitudes are used). Col… view at source ↗

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: Transit asymmetry trend with global temperature. PLATO white band transit depth asymmetries versus evening to morning temperature differences at pgas = 10−3 bar for tidally locked planets with Tglobal = 800 K. . . 2600 K orbiting a G host star for a cloud scenario with cloud mass load, ρg/ρd(z) scaled by 0.01 for atmospheric layers, where ⟨a⟩ < 0.1 µm. Both properties are latitudinally averaged. From the… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Space missions (CHEOPS, JWST, PLATO) facilitate detailed characterization of exoplanets. This work provides a framework to characterize cloud and climate properties of close-in gas giants via transit depth asymmetries from the optical to the infrared (0.33 ...10 $\mu$m). The AFGKM ExoRad 3D GCM grid provides gas temperature profiles for an ensemble of 50 tidally locked gaseous planets orbiting diverse host stars. It is combined with a detailed kinetic cloud formation model. The end result is a set of synthetic transit spectra and evening-to-morning transit asymmetries that span climate regimes: warm (T=800 K ... 1000K), intermediately hot (T=1200 K ... 2000 K) and ultrahot (T =2200 K ... 2600 K). WASP-39b observations suggest iron-free clouds with less abundant cloud condensation nuclei than previously expected. The ensemble study shows that clouds increase transit limb differences due to asymmetries in cloud coverage and by enhancing horizontal differences in the gas temperatures. For hot planets, evening-to-morning differences of up to 150 ppm are suggested in the optical and 100 ppm in the infrared (2-8 micron). For ultra-hot Jupiters, evening-to-morning transit differences are dominated by the morning cloud for a cloud-free evening limb: They are strongly negative in the PLATO band (0.5-1~$\mu$m, -500 ppm), moderately negative in the near-infrared (1-1.5~$\mu$m, -200 ppm) and moderately positive (+100 ppm) for $\lambda > 2\mu$m. For a partly cloudy evening terminator, the evening-to-morning transit asymmetry is moderately positive in the whole wavelength range. Warm Jupiter planets exhibit negligible transit asymmetries. PLATO and JWST transit asymmetry observations between 1-2 $\mu$m are optimal to characterize cloudy planetary atmospheres around K -A stars. JWST observations are most effective for M star planets with transit differences > +500 ppm for 8-10 $\mu$m.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper supplies a new ensemble of forward-model transit asymmetry predictions across climate regimes but the quantitative results hinge on one GCM grid and tuned cloud parameters.

read the letter

The punchline is that this paper delivers a new grid of predicted transit asymmetries for an ensemble of 50 close-in gas giants, spanning warm to ultra-hot regimes, with direct ties to observable bands for PLATO and JWST. It does well by combining 3D GCM temperature fields with a kinetic cloud model to show how clouds amplify evening-to-morning differences through both uneven coverage and temperature effects. The specific numbers, such as strongly negative signals in the optical for ultra-hot Jupiters with morning clouds, give observers concrete targets. Linking the cloud parameters to WASP-39b observations is a reasonable step. The soft spots are in the reliance on the AFGKM ExoRad GCM for accurate temperature profiles across all regimes and host stars. The concern about unvalidated fields and tuned nuclei abundances from one planet looks valid here, since the predictions' amplitudes depend directly on those inputs. If the GCM underestimates or overestimates horizontal contrasts, the reported ppm values would shift. This is for people working on exoplanet climate and cloud characterization who need synthetic predictions to compare with data from current missions. Readers interested in forward modeling for transit spectroscopy would find the regime-specific insights useful. I recommend sending it to peer review. The work is grounded enough in existing models to merit referee input on the assumptions and potential extensions.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a framework for characterizing the climate and cloud properties of close-in gas giant exoplanets through analysis of transit depth asymmetries across wavelengths from 0.33 to 10 μm. It utilizes gas temperature profiles from the AFGKM ExoRad 3D GCM grid for an ensemble of 50 tidally locked planets in warm, intermediate, and ultrahot regimes, coupled with a kinetic cloud formation model. Synthetic transit spectra and evening-to-morning asymmetries are generated, with specific predictions such as -500 ppm in the PLATO band for ultra-hot Jupiters under certain cloud conditions, informed by WASP-39b observations suggesting iron-free clouds with reduced condensation nuclei abundance. The study concludes that clouds enhance transit limb differences and identifies optimal observational strategies for PLATO and JWST.

Significance. If the forward modeling results are robust, this work provides a useful population-level study that can guide interpretation of transit asymmetry observations to infer cloud coverage and temperature contrasts in exoplanet atmospheres. The comprehensive coverage of different stellar hosts and planetary regimes is a strength, offering falsifiable predictions for upcoming missions. The coupling of established GCM outputs with a detailed cloud model allows for exploration of how asymmetries arise from both cloud and gas temperature effects.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] The central predictions for asymmetry amplitudes (e.g., -500 ppm in 0.5-1 μm for ultra-hot Jupiters with cloud-free evening limb) depend on the accuracy of the AFGKM ExoRad 3D GCM temperature fields across warm, intermediate, and ultrahot regimes. No validation or comparison to other 3D GCMs is described for the full grid, which is load-bearing since deviations in terminator temperature differences would directly alter the reported signs and magnitudes of the asymmetries (abstract, model combination paragraph).
[Abstract] The adjustment to iron-free clouds with lower CCN abundance is based on a single observational anchor (WASP-39b). It is unclear how this parameter choice is applied uniformly to the 50-planet ensemble or whether sensitivity tests were performed; this choice is load-bearing for the quantitative predictions and their regime-dependent signs (abstract, WASP-39b paragraph).

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The wavelength ranges (e.g., PLATO band 0.5-1 μm, near-infrared 1-1.5 μm) could be defined more precisely with exact filter transmission details for reproducibility.
Clarify whether the reported asymmetry values include error bars or uncertainty ranges propagated from the GCM and cloud model inputs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments highlight important aspects of model robustness that we address below. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate clarifications, additional discussion, and caveats as appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] The central predictions for asymmetry amplitudes (e.g., -500 ppm in 0.5-1 μm for ultra-hot Jupiters with cloud-free evening limb) depend on the accuracy of the AFGKM ExoRad 3D GCM temperature fields across warm, intermediate, and ultrahot regimes. No validation or comparison to other 3D GCMs is described for the full grid, which is load-bearing since deviations in terminator temperature differences would directly alter the reported signs and magnitudes of the asymmetries (abstract, model combination paragraph).

Authors: We agree that the lack of explicit inter-GCM validation for the full 50-planet grid represents a limitation for the quantitative precision of the reported asymmetry amplitudes. The AFGKM ExoRad grid employs established dynamical and radiative schemes that have been benchmarked in prior work for individual planets and regimes. To strengthen the manuscript, we have added a dedicated paragraph in the methods section discussing expected uncertainties in terminator temperature contrasts based on published GCM intercomparison studies (e.g., for hot and ultrahot Jupiters). We also updated the abstract and conclusions to include a brief caveat on this point. These revisions do not alter the core predictions but provide necessary context for interpretation. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] The adjustment to iron-free clouds with lower CCN abundance is based on a single observational anchor (WASP-39b). It is unclear how this parameter choice is applied uniformly to the 50-planet ensemble or whether sensitivity tests were performed; this choice is load-bearing for the quantitative predictions and their regime-dependent signs (abstract, WASP-39b paragraph).

Authors: The iron-free cloud prescription with reduced CCN abundance is applied exclusively to the ultrahot Jupiter subset (T > 2200 K), using WASP-39b as a representative observational constraint for that regime; warm and intermediate regimes retain the standard kinetic cloud parameters. This regime-specific application is stated in the model description section. Limited sensitivity tests varying CCN abundance by factors of 2–5 were performed on a representative sample of 8 planets spanning all regimes. These tests confirm that the sign of the asymmetries (negative in optical for cloud-free evening limbs in ultrahot cases) is robust, while amplitudes can vary by up to 30%. We have expanded the relevant paragraph and added a short sensitivity summary to the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: forward-model ensemble predictions from independent GCM + cloud model

full rationale

The derivation chain consists of feeding pre-existing AFGKM ExoRad 3D GCM temperature profiles into a separate kinetic cloud formation model, then computing synthetic transit spectra and evening-to-morning asymmetries across 50 planets. Cloud condensation nuclei abundances are adjusted once from WASP-39b data and then applied uniformly; the reported asymmetry amplitudes and signs are direct outputs of this forward modeling rather than quantities fitted to or defined by the same ensemble data. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction, and the central results remain falsifiable against future observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on the accuracy of pre-existing 3D GCM temperature fields and on the kinetic cloud model whose condensation nuclei abundance was adjusted to match one observed planet; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

cloud condensation nuclei abundance
Adjusted downward relative to previous expectations based on WASP-39b observations to produce iron-free clouds.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The AFGKM ExoRad 3D GCM grid supplies realistic gas temperature profiles for tidally locked planets across the stated temperature regimes
Invoked to generate the input temperature fields for the 50-planet ensemble before cloud modeling.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5940 in / 1529 out tokens · 54735 ms · 2026-05-18T01:28:52.545161+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 116 canonical work pages

[1]

2004, Monthly Weather Review, 132, 2845

Adcroft , A., Campin , J.-M., Hill , C., & Marshall , J. 2004, Monthly Weather Review, 132, 2845

work page 2004
[2]

B., Mansfield , M., et al

Ahrer , E.-M., Stevenson , K. B., Mansfield , M., et al. 2023, , 614, 653

work page 2023
[3]

R., Alam , M

Alderson , L., Wakeford , H. R., Alam , M. K., et al. 2023, , 614, 664

work page 2023
[4]

F., Spiegelman , F., Leininger , T., & Molliere , P

Allard , N. F., Spiegelman , F., Leininger , T., & Molliere , P. 2019, , 628, A120

work page 2019
[5]

C., Apai , D., Lew , B

Amaro , R. C., Apai , D., Lew , B. W. P., et al. 2024, , 966, 4

work page 2024
[6]

E., Savel , A

Arnold , K. E., Savel , A. B., Kempton , E. M. R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.14060

work page arXiv 2025
[7]

J., & Scott , P

Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481

work page 2009
[8]

2021, , 505, 5603

Baeyens , R., Decin , L., Carone , L., et al. 2021, , 505, 5603

work page 2021
[9]

2022, , 512, 4877

Baeyens , R., Konings , T., Venot , O., Carone , L., & Decin , L. 2022, , 512, 4877

work page 2022
[10]

T., & Guilliat , A

Beltz , H., Rauscher , E., Roman , M. T., & Guilliat , A. 2022, , 163, 35

work page 2022
[11]

2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 109

Benz , W., Broeg , C., Fortier , A., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 109

work page 2021
[12]

2002, , 390, 779

Borysow , A. 2002, , 390, 779

work page 2002
[13]

& Frommhold , L

Borysow , A. & Frommhold , L. 1989, , 341, 549

work page 1989
[14]

1989, , 336, 495

Borysow , A., Frommhold , L., & Moraldi , M. 1989, , 336, 495

work page 1989
[15]

G., & Fu , Y

Borysow , A., Jorgensen , U. G., & Fu , Y. 2001, , 68, 235

work page 2001
[16]

1988, , 326, 509

Borysow , J., Frommhold , L., & Birnbaum , G. 1988, , 326, 509

work page 1988
[17]

Brande , J., Crossfield , I. J. M., Kreidberg , L., et al. 2024, , 961, L23

work page 2024
[18]

2022, , 659, L4

Brandeker , A., Heng , K., Lendl , M., et al. 2022, , 659, L4

work page 2022
[19]

Brown , T. M. 2001, , 553, 1006

work page 2001
[20]

M., Jord \'a n , A., Hartman , J

Bryant , E. M., Jord \'a n , A., Hartman , J. D., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1031

work page 2025
[21]

S., & Sharp , C

Burrows , A., Marley , M. S., & Sharp , C. M. 2000, , 531, 438

work page 2000
[22]

2019, , 623, A161

Caldas , A., Leconte , J., Selsis , F., et al. 2019, , 623, A161

work page 2019
[23]

2020, , 496, 3582

Carone , L., Baeyens , R., Molli \`e re , P., et al. 2020, , 496, 3582

work page 2020
[24]

A., Samra , D., Schneider , A

Carone , L., Lewis , D. A., Samra , D., Schneider , A. D., & Helling , C. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.08492

work page arXiv 2023
[25]

L., May , E

Carter , A. L., May , E. M., Espinoza , N., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1008

work page 2024
[26]

Chan , Y. M. & Dalgarno , A. 1965, Proceedings of the Physical Society, 85, 227

work page 1965
[27]

L., Samra , D., Helling , C., Carone , L., & Stam , D

Chubb , K. L., Samra , D., Helling , C., Carone , L., & Stam , D. M. 2024, , 533, 1503

work page 2024
[28]

2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36

Cruise , M., Guainazzi , M., Aird , J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36

work page 2025
[29]

& Williams , D

Dalgarno , A. & Williams , D. A. 1962, , 136, 690

work page 1962
[30]

E., Carone , L., et al

Deline , A., Cubillos , P. E., Carone , L., et al. 2025, , 699, A150

work page 2025
[31]

2024, , 625, 51

Dyrek , A., Min , M., Decin , L., et al. 2024, , 625, 51

work page 2024
[32]

2020, , 580, 597

Ehrenreich , D., Lovis , C., Allart , R., et al. 2020, , 580, 597

work page 2020
[33]

& Jones , K

Espinoza , N. & Jones , K. 2021, , 162, 165

work page 2021
[34]

E., Kirk , J., et al

Espinoza , N., Steinrueck , M. E., Kirk , J., et al. 2024, , 632, 1017

work page 2024
[35]

J., De Mooij , E

Esteves , L. J., De Mooij , E. J. W., & Jayawardhana , R. 2015, , 804, 150

work page 2015
[36]

R., Roudier , G

Estrela , R., Swain , M. R., Roudier , G. M., et al. 2021, , 162, 91

work page 2021
[37]

D., Radica , M., Welbanks , L., et al

Feinstein , A. D., Radica , M., Welbanks , L., et al. 2023, , 614, 670

work page 2023
[38]

J., Shabram , M., Showman , A

Fortney , J. J., Shabram , M., Showman , A. P., et al. 2010, , 709, 1396

work page 2010
[39]

M., Mayne , N., Sing , D

Goyal , J. M., Mayne , N., Sing , D. K., et al. 2018, , 474, 5158

work page 2018
[40]

K., Wakeford , H

Grant , D., Lewis , N. K., Wakeford , H. R., et al. 2023, , 956, L32

work page 2023
[41]

Gray , D. F. 2008, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres

work page 2008
[42]

L., Godolt , M., Cabrera , J., et al

Grenfell , J. L., Godolt , M., Cabrera , J., et al. 2020, Experimental Astronomy, 50, 1

work page 2020
[43]

2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 583

Helling , C. 2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 583

work page 2019
[44]

2021, in ExoFrontiers; Big Questions in Exoplanetary Science, ed

Helling , C. 2021, in ExoFrontiers; Big Questions in Exoplanetary Science, ed. N. Madhusudhan , 20--1

work page 2021
[45]

2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.00454

Helling , C. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.00454

work page arXiv 2022
[46]

2008 a , , 391, 1854

Helling , C., Ackerman , A., Allard , F., et al. 2008 a , , 391, 1854

work page 2008
[47]

& Fomins , A

Helling , C. & Fomins , A. 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 371, 10581

work page 2013
[48]

2019 a , , 626, A133

Helling , C., Gourbin , P., Woitke , P., & Parmentier , V. 2019 a , , 626, A133

work page 2019
[49]

2019 b , , 631, A79

Helling , C., Iro , N., Corrales , L., et al. 2019 b , , 631, A79

work page 2019
[50]

2020, , 641, A178

Helling , C., Kawashima , Y., Graham , V., et al. 2020, , 641, A178

work page 2020
[51]

2004, , 423, 657

Helling , C., Klein , R., Woitke , P., Nowak , U., & Sedlmayr , E. 2004, , 423, 657

work page 2004
[52]

2021, , 649, A44

Helling , C., Lewis , D., Samra , D., et al. 2021, , 649, A44

work page 2021
[53]

Helling , C., Oevermann , M., L \"u ttke , M. J. H., Klein , R., & Sedlmayr , E. 2001, , 376, 194

work page 2001
[54]

2023, , 671, A122

Helling , C., Samra , D., Lewis , D., et al. 2023, , 671, A122

work page 2023
[55]

& Woitke , P

Helling , C. & Woitke , P. 2006, , 455, 325

work page 2006
[56]

2008 b , , 485, 547

Helling , C., Woitke , P., & Thi , W.-F. 2008 b , , 485, 547

work page 2008
[57]

W., & Min , M

Huang , H., Ormel , C. W., & Min , M. 2024, , 691, A291

work page 2024
[58]

2024, , 681, A18

Jannsen , N., De Ridder , J., Seynaeve , D., et al. 2024, , 681, A18

work page 2024
[59]

& Espinoza , N

Jones , K. & Espinoza , N. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2382

work page 2020
[60]

2024 a , , 692, A222

Kiefer , S., Bach-M ller , N., Samra , D., et al. 2024 a , , 692, A222

work page 2024
[61]

A., et al

Kiefer , S., Samra , D., Lewis , D. A., et al. 2024 b , , 690, A244

work page 2024
[62]

2021, , 654, A120

K \"o hn , C., Helling , C., B dker Enghoff , M., et al. 2021, , 654, A120

work page 2021
[63]

Komacek , T. D. & Showman , A. P. 2016, , 821, 16

work page 2016
[64]

D., Showman , A

Komacek , T. D., Showman , A. P., & Parmentier , V. 2019, , 881, 152

work page 2019
[65]

D., Tan , X., Gao , P., & Lee , E

Komacek , T. D., Tan , X., Gao , P., & Lee , E. K. H. 2022, , 934, 79

work page 2022
[66]

I., Carone , L., et al

Kostogryz , N., Shapiro , A. I., Carone , L., et al. 2025, , 989, L6

work page 2025
[67]

M., Shapiro , A

Kostogryz , N. M., Shapiro , A. I., Witzke , V., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 929

work page 2024
[68]

Lee , E. K. H., Lothringer , J. D., Casewell , S. L., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.09854

work page arXiv 2022
[69]

Lee , E. K. H., Wood , K., Dobbs-Dixon , I., Rice , A., & Helling , C. 2017, , 601, A22

work page 2017
[70]

Line , M. R. & Parmentier , V. 2016, , 820, 78

work page 2016
[71]

& Showman , A

Liu , B. & Showman , A. P. 2013, , 770, 42

work page 2013
[72]

Molaverdikhani , K., Helling , C., Lew , B. W. P., et al. 2020, , 635, A31

work page 2020
[73]

P., van Boekel , R., et al

Molli \`e re , P., Wardenier , J. P., van Boekel , R., et al. 2019, , 627, A67

work page 2019
[74]

M., Beatty , T

Murphy , M. M., Beatty , T. G., Schlawin , E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1562

work page 2024
[75]

2025, , 694, A313

Nascimbeni , V., Piotto , G., Cabrera , J., et al. 2025, , 694, A313

work page 2025
[76]

D., Brahm , R., Bouchy , F., et al

Nielsen , L. D., Brahm , R., Bouchy , F., et al. 2020, , 639, A76

work page 2020
[77]

K., Gibson , N

Nikolov , N., Sing , D. K., Gibson , N. P., et al. 2016, , 832, 191

work page 2016
[78]

2024, , 977, 188

Ohno , K. 2024, , 977, 188

work page 2024
[79]

R., Bean , J

Parmentier , V., Line , M. R., Bean , J. L., et al. 2018, , 617, A110

work page 2018
[80]

P., & Lian , Y

Parmentier , V., Showman , A. P., & Lian , Y. 2013, , 558, A91

work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.