Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 2 cited by

Modeling the Dynamics and Thermochemistry for the Outer Atmospheres of the Ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read WASP-121b's escaping atmosphere forms two spiral arms that reproduce the planet's high-velocity sodium and hydrogen absorption without invoking super-rotating jet streams.

desk verdict A plausible new explanation for WASP-121b's high-velocity Na/Hα features—Coriolis-sculpted outflow arms instead of a super-rotation jet—with real kinematics but amplitude comparisons partly imposed. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.01364 v2 pith:XACEDTSR submitted 2026-02-01 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Lile Wang , Yiren Lin , Ji Wang , Fei Dai This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords ultra-hotJupiterWASP-121batmosphericescapetransmissionspectroscopyhydrodynamicsthermochemistrysodiumabsorptionH-alpha
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b's outer atmosphere is not dominated by fast, uniform jet streams, but instead by a photoevaporative outflow sculpted into two spiral arms by stellar gravity and the Coriolis force. Those arms accelerate gas to roughly 40 km/s along the line of sight, naturally producing the observed asymmetric sodium and H-alpha velocity features: redshifted absorption at ingress, blueshifted at egress, with secondary peaks beyond 40 km/s. If correct, this reframes how we read transmission spectra of ultra-hot Jupiters: different atomic and ionic species trace distinct atmospheric reservoirs, and the same spiral structure can explain multiple tracers simultaneously. The paper supports this claim with coupled 3D hydrodynamics, non-equilibrium thermochemistry, and ray-traced synthetic spectra, and it explores how stellar UV flux, X-rays, and stellar winds would shift the observables.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the two-armed spiral outflow: gas heated on the dayside overflows the Roche lobe near L1 and L2, then Coriolis deflection in the orbiting frame bends the streams into leading and trailing spiral arms that reach supersonic speeds. The argument is carried by a GPU-accelerated 3D simulation that couples hydrodynamics with a 32-species, ~185-reaction non-equilibrium chemical network and ray-tracing radiative transfer, which produces synthetic transmission spectra comparable to data. The key physical balances are: sodium neutrality maintained by recombination against FUV photoionization in dense arms; H 2s population via recombination and charge exchange at the dense-to-e

What would settle it

A high-cadence transmission spectrum of WASP-121b that resolves the sodium D lines and H-alpha during a single transit, with signal-to-noise high enough to measure the amplitudes of the secondary and tertiary velocity peaks without scaling factors. If the secondary peaks are absent or appear at different phases, or if the measured FUV flux implies a sodium photoionization rate that cannot be balanced by recombination in the arms, the spiral-arm explanation would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the observed high-velocity neutral sodium and H-alpha absorption features of WASP-121b arise from two dense spiral arms in the planet's escaping upper atmosphere. These arms form as gas spills over the L1 and L2 Lagrangian points and is deflected by the Coriolis force in the co-rotating frame; the leading arm points toward the star and is preferentially seen at ingress (redshifted ~20 km/s), while the trailing arm lags behind the orbit and is seen at egress (blueshifted ~35 km/s). Neutral sodium survives in the dense arms because recombination offsets FUV photoionization, while H-alpha (from the H 2s state) traces the interface between the dense arms and the

Load-bearing premise

The simulated sodium and H-alpha absorption amplitudes are rescaled by factors of 0.5 and 0.8 to match the observations, and the H-alpha signal depends on adopting specific collisional rate coefficients that, with some alternative rates, would make the predicted absorption roughly 40 times weaker than observed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the spiral-arm morphology is correct, the morning-evening asymmetry in sodium and H-alpha absorption is a direct diagnostic of outflow geometry, not of wind jets.
  • The same model predicts that H-alpha should show secondary absorption peaks at |Δv| ≳ 40 km/s near ingress and egress, a feature the paper finds in existing data.
  • The strong response of He 10830 A equivalent width to stellar wind compression means metastable helium can serve as a probe of wind-planet interactions.
  • Changes in FUV, EUV, and X-ray fluxes produce distinguishable changes in the sodium and helium signals, so multi-wavelength transit spectroscopy can constrain the high-energy stellar environment.
  • The paper implies that ground-based high-resolution observations of Na, H-alpha, and Fe during the same transit could test the layered interpretation directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two-arm interpretation holds, it suggests that many ultra-hot Jupiters with similar orbital parameters could show analogous asymmetric absorption patterns, and that the amplitude of the asymmetry encodes the velocity field of escape rather than the strength of atmospheric circulation.
  • A natural testable extension would be to look for transit-to-transit variability in the secondary and tertiary sodium peaks, since the paper links such variability to Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities in the shear layer between prograde deep winds and retrograde outflow.
  • The paper leaves open the possibility that FUV radiation itself is the main controller of where neutral sodium can survive; if so, measuring the true FUV spectrum of WASP-121 would sharpen all the predictions.
  • The model's reliance on scaled amplitudes suggests that a completely parameter-free match would require an independent determination of sodium abundance and stellar FUV flux, a likely next step for the authors or observers.
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

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D hydrodynamic simulations of the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b, coupling non-equilibrium thermochemistry, ray-tracing radiative transfer, and hydrodynamics in the Kratos GPU framework. The fiducial model produces a transonic photoevaporative outflow sculpted by stellar gravity and Coriolis forces into two spiral arms. The authors argue that this morphology naturally reproduces the observed high-velocity Na and Hα absorption patterns (redshifted ~20 km/s at ingress, blueshifted ~35 km/s at egress, and secondary peaks at |Δv|≳40 km/s) without invoking strong super-rotation jets. A parameter study varies FUV, EUV, X-ray, optical flux, dust, and stellar wind properties. The central kinematic claim is supported by order-of-magnitude estimates (Eqs. 4, 5, 8). The paper also emphasizes that different species trace different atmospheric reservoirs: Fe the inner rotation-dominated layers, Na the dense spiral arms, Hα and He 10830 Å the extended ionized regions.

Significance. If the two-arm, Coriolis-sculpted outflow structure is real and sufficiently populated, it would provide a new and physically attractive explanation for the asymmetric morning–evening velocity signatures observed in transmission spectroscopy of ultra-hot Jupiters, replacing the need for extreme super-rotation jets. The paper's kinematic mechanism is backed by parameter-free order-of-magnitude estimates that match the simulated ~40 km/s arm velocities, and the parametric study (Table 2) is a useful step toward understanding how different stellar environments affect observable tracers. These are genuine strengths. However, the quantitative validation of the model is weakened by post-hoc amplitude scalings and, more critically, by the extreme sensitivity of the Hα signature to a single atomic-rate choice that the authors themselves identify as capable of suppressing the signal by ~40×. The paper is a valuable contribution if these gaps can be closed or the claims appropriately softened.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.3] The claim that the spiral-arm morphology reproduces the observed high-velocity Hα secondary peaks is load-bearing for the abstract, but it rests on an unvalidated choice of collisional 2s↔2p redistribution rates. The paper itself states that adopting Osterbrock & Ferland (2006) rates instead of Janev et al. (2003) suppresses the Hα absorption amplitude by a factor of ~40. Since the synthetic Hα is already scaled by 0.8 to match the data (Fig. 9), a factor-40 reduction would make the predicted Hα spiral-arm signal far too weak to explain the observed excess absorption. No sensitivity test is provided, and the rate choice is not justified for the relevant plasma conditions (T∼10^4 K, n_e∼10^8 cm^-3). This is not a minor calibration detail; it determines whether the Hα leg of the central claim exists at all. The authors should either run a test case with the alternative rate set, or substan
  2. [§3.2.2, Figs. 8, 9, and 6 caption] The quantitative spectral comparison is partly imposed rather than emergent. Synthetic Na absorption is multiplied by 0.5 (Fig. 8), Hα by 0.8 (Fig. 9), and the observed excess-absorption maps are shifted by +3 km/s 'for better fitting of the trend' (Fig. 6 caption). The +3 km/s shift directly affects the velocity comparison that is central to the paper's argument. While the scaling factors are disclosed, they are not derived from independent constraints (e.g., abundance measurements or a stellar UV characterization), and the paper later admits that the true FUV likely lies between Model 0 and FUV10 (§4.1). The velocity morphology itself may be robust, but the spectral comparisons should be framed as consistency checks, not validations, unless the scalings and the velocity offset are justified from first principles or independent data.
  3. [§4.1, Table 2] The parametric study is broad but some results are presented in a way that is hard to evaluate quantitatively. For example, Model FUV10 is said to produce Na secondary peaks that appear 'less prominent than the observed data in the fiducial model', and the paper suggests the real FUV lies between Models 0 and FUV10. This implies that the fiducial model's Na amplitude agreement (after ×0.5 scaling) may be partly an accident of choosing the lower FUV. A quantitative comparison of the scaled synthetic spectra and observed data for all models in Table 2, ideally with a simple χ² or residual metric, would help the reader judge which parameter combinations are truly preferred. Without such metrics, the parametric conclusions remain qualitative.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says 'coupling hydrodynamics with consistent non-equilibrium thermochemistry, ray-tracing radiative transfer, and hydrodynamics' — 'hydrodynamics' appears twice. Please correct.
  2. [§2.1] 'with theT eq = 2400 K equilibrium temperature' — missing space after 'the'.
  3. [§3.1.2] 'dense spiral rams' should be 'dense spiral arms'.
  4. [§3.2.2] Typo: 'relatively large velociteis' should be 'velocities'.
  5. [Figure 4 caption] 'bottowm row' should be 'bottom row'.
  6. [§3.1] 'equitorial slices' should be 'equatorial slices'.
  7. [Eq. (10)] The definition of the dimensionless equivalent width is garbled: it appears to have both an integral factor 1/Δλ and a division by F_c Δλ in the integrand. Please clarify the normalization.
  8. [References] The entry 'Arcangeli et al. 2018b' is identical to '2018a' (same journal, volume, page). Also, the entry 'Xu, S., Wang, L., Ho, L. C., Cen, R., & Xu, S. 2026' lists Xu, S. twice as an author; this is likely a typo.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the spiral-arm velocity pattern is emergent, amplitude scalings are acknowledged normalizations, and the Hα rate sensitivity is an external robustness uncertainty rather than a circular input.

full rationale

The central claim — that the two spiral arms reproduce the observed Na and Hα velocity pattern (ingress redshift ≈20 km/s, egress blueshift ≈35 km/s, secondary peaks at |Δv| ≳ 40 km/s) — is not circular. The characteristic velocities follow from stellar gravity and Coriolis acceleration in Eq. (8) with no fitted constants, and the two-arm morphology is an emergent outcome of the stated hydrodynamics. The only fitted elements appear in the spectral comparisons: the Na simulation is multiplied by 0.5 (§3.2.2, Fig. 8), the Hα simulation by 0.8 (§3.2.3, Fig. 9), and observed error bars are shifted +3 km/s 'for better fitting of the trend' (Fig. 6 caption). These are explicitly labeled as scaling/calibration adjustments, not independent predictions; the paper even disclaims absolute amplitude predictions in the abstract. Thus the amplitude agreement is partly constructed, but the velocity structure — the paper's actual 'naturally reproduces' claim — is not fitted. The Hα sensitivity to Janev et al. versus Osterbrock & Ferland rates (factor ~40, §3.2.3) is an honest robustness concern: if the larger rate is correct, the Hα spiral-arm signature would be much weaker. However, choosing a literature rate is an external atomic-physics input, not a parameter fitted to the WASP-121b data, so it does not make the derivation circular. The self-citations (Wang 2025a,b for Kratos; Wang & Dai 2021a,b for the chemistry/He-shock framework) are methodological references, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatz-importing citations: the paper supplies its own equations and simulation setup. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its input, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Free parameters: the post-hoc amplitude scalings (Na ×0.5, Hα ×0.8) are the most direct fit-to-data parameters; the inner-boundary density sets the mass reservoir of the outflow; trace metal abundances are adopted from a 2×solar assumption and effectively re-normalized by the Na scaling; the 8-bin flux calibration carries the acknowledged FUV/EUV uncertainty with the 'true' FUV bracketed by Models 0 and FUV10 based on observed Na peaks; dust and stellar-wind parameters enter only the exploratory DUST and WIND experiments. Axioms: standard inviscid hydrodynamics with ideal-gas closure; co-rotating frame with tidal locking and circular orbit; reflection-symmetric hemisphere domain; 8-bin SED simplification; literature chemical rate coefficients; the specific H 2s-2p rate choice with its factor-40 consequence; isothermal initialization with reflecting inner boundary; neglect of magnetic fields. No invented entities: no new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; 'Gr' is a dust-like chemical species used in one experiment, carrying no independent falsifiable handle but not presented as a new physical entity.

free parameters (6)
  • Post-hoc amplitude scaling factors f(Na), f(Hα) = Na ×0.5, Hα ×0.8
    Applied to synthetic spectra to match observed amplitudes (§3.2.2, Fig. 8; Fig. 9). Without them the amplitude 'agreement' fails; the velocity pattern is unaffected.
  • Inner boundary density ρ_in = 10^-5 g cm^-3 (≈0.83 bar at Teq = 2400 K)
    Sets the mass reservoir feeding the outflow (§2.1, Table 1). The absolute mass-loss rate (0.64e-7 M⊕/yr) and dense-arm density (~1e11 mp cm^-3) depend on this choice; it is not varied in the fiducial run.
  • Trace metal abundances (Na, Fe, Mg, Ca) = Na 5e-6, Fe 6e-5, Mg 6e-5, Ca 4e-6 relative to H
    Table 1; adopted from a ~2×solar bulk metallicity assumption. The Na abundance is known to be substellar for WASP-121b (Seidel et al. 2023), and the ×0.5 scaling effectively re-fits it.
  • Stellar radiation fluxes in 8 energy bins = Table 1 values (e.g., 6 eV: 2e18 cm^-2 s^-1; 20 eV: 4e15; 0.3 keV: 1e14)
    EUV/X-ray calibrated to Czesla et al. (2024), FUV to Sing et al. (2024). §4.1 brackets the real FUV between Model 0 and FUV10 based on the observed Na peaks, so the effective flux is data-adjusted; XR10/EUV10 change He and Na absorption by order-of-magnitude.
  • DUST model grain parameters = n(Gr)/nH = 1e-9, rdust = 1 Å, σdust/H = 3e-35 cm^2
    Table 1; ad hoc test parameters for the dust-heating experiment.
  • WIND model stellar wind strength = 6e-12 M⊙/yr at 400 km/s + 200 km/s orbital motion
    Table 2; exploratory confinement test, explicitly stated as unlikely for an F6V star like WASP-121.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Inviscid Euler hydrodynamics with ideal-gas closure, solved by a higher-order Godunov scheme conserving mass, momentum, energy, and species
    Used throughout §2; no explicit viscosity or thermal conduction beyond numerical dissipation.
  • domain assumption Tidally locked circular orbit; simulation in the co-rotating frame with centrifugal and Coriolis forces; stellar gravity as an external point mass
    §2.1 geometry and forcing setup; standard for hot Jupiters but not verified by observational constraints for WASP-121b.
  • domain assumption Reflection symmetry across the equatorial plane; only the upper hemisphere is simulated (0 ≤ θ ≤ π/2)
    §2.1; suppresses anti-symmetric 3D modes, which is directly relevant to the KHI-based variability claims.
  • domain assumption Stellar SED collapsed into eight mono-energetic representative bins
    §2.2; each bin is one effective photon energy, so continuous-SED effects such as wavelength-dependent penetration depth are binned.
  • domain assumption The 32-species, 185-reaction network with literature rate coefficients (McElroy et al. 2013, Janev et al. 2003, Christie et al. 2013)
    §2.2; rate-coefficient accuracy is assumed, and the paper itself flags a factor-40 spread in the H 2s↔2p collisional rate.
  • ad hoc to paper Choice of Janev et al. (2003) collisional rates for H 2s↔2p redistribution rather than Osterbrock & Ferland (2006)
    §3.2.3: 'using alternative collisional rate data ... could suppress the Hα absorption amplitude by a factor of ~40.' The Hα comparison depends on this selection.
  • domain assumption Isothermal 2400 K initial atmosphere; reflecting inner boundary at r = Rp; quasi-steady state after 300 simulated hours (100 hr hydrodynamics-only spin-up)
    §2.1-2.2; the paper notes results within a few hundred km of the inner boundary are only qualitative.
  • domain assumption Neglect of magnetic fields and non-ideal MHD effects (magnetic diffusivity)
    Stated in §5 as future work; UHJ thermospheres are partially ionized, so Lorentz forces could alter outflow shaping.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the Dynamics and Thermochemistry for the Outer Atmospheres of the Ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XACEDTSR

@misc{pith2026260201364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the Dynamics and Thermochemistry for the Outer Atmospheres of the Ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XACEDTSR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.01364}
}
abstract

We present three-dimensional simulations of the ultra-hot Jupiter (UHJ) WASP-121b from the planetary surface to extended outflows, coupling hydrodynamics with consistent non-equilibrium thermochemistry, ray-tracing radiative transfer, and hydrodynamics using the GPU-accelerated Kratos framework. The fiducial model exhibits several atmospheric layers, including the lower atmospheres controlled by day-night circulation, and transonic photoevaporative outflows at higher altitudes shaped into two spiral arms by the stellar gravity and orbital motion effects. Different species could trace different regions: Fe probes rotation-dominated inner layers, Na maps dense spiral arms where recombination balances photoionization, and H\alpha and He 10830 A features trace progressively more extended, ionized gas. With spiral arm velocities reaching ~ 40 km/s projected along the line of sight, this morphology naturally reproduces the velocity pattern of observed high-velocity Na and H$\alpha$ absorption features without requiring significant super-rotation jet streams, although the absolute absorption amplitudes could carry uncertainties from stellar UV luminosity and trace elemental abundances. Parametric studies reveal complex dependencies on stellar irradiation: enhanced FUV intensifies outflows and extends spiral arms spatially and kinematically, while EUV and X-ray expands spiral structures into attenuated, ionized regions. Stellar wind confinement compresses the dayside outflow and enhances metastable helium absorption. This work demonstrates that current and future transmission spectral observations that probe multiple species can provide important constraints on astrophysical environments of UHJs by comparing state-of-the-art simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.01364 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Equatorial slices of key hydrodynamic and thermochemical quantities from the fiducial simulation of WASP-121b. The panels show (from left to right, top to bottom): gas density ρ, temperature T, line-of-sight velocity in the laboratory frame vlos, and the number densities of Fe, Na, H2s (metastable neutral hydrogen on the 2s state, the Hα absorber), free electrons (e −), He+, and He∗ (metastable neutral helium). The … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Colormapped volume rendering for the 10-based logarithms of number densities (in cm−3 ) for four key tracing species (top left: Fe; top right: Na; bottom left: Hα; bottom right: He∗ ). Note that the dynamical ranges of colormaps are different. The host star is on the far side from the reader, and the planet moves from left to right. The rendering boxes have the same sizes (280 R⊕ along every dimension). The high-abu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic illustration of the transit geometry and the origin of asymmetric velocity shifts. The planet (black solid circle) moves from top to bottom. The leading (red￾hifted) and trailing (blueshifted) spiral arms are shaped by both the spilling through the Lagrangian points and the Cori￾olis force (§3.1). The LoS during ingress and egress samples different projections of the arm velocities, leading to the ob￾serve… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Instantaneous velocity fields in streamlines and arrows, and hydrodynamic quantities in colormaps (tangential wind speed in the top row, pressure in the middle row, and temperature in the bottowm row), showing two representative equipotential surfaces from the fiducial…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Extinction intensities (quantified by 1 − e −τ ) at three different velocities and orbit phases (denoted at the top of each panel) for four key tracers from the fiducial simulation (denoted at the colobar in each row). White dashed circles indicate the projection of th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Absorption spectra of Fe (left panel), Na (middle panel), and Hα (right panel), illustrated as excess absorption at different velocities (horizontal axes) and orbital phases (vertical axes). Horizontal white dashed lines indicate the starts of ingress and the ends of e…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Recombination timescales of Na (left panel), H (middle panel, to the 2s level, from H+ via the recombination with e − and charge exchange with neutral H), and He (right panel; to the metastable state, via the recombination from He+). 50 km s−1 (see also Seidel et al. 2…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparisons of excess absorption of Na, between the fiducial simulation results (in solid blue lines; multiplied by a factor of 0.5, see §3.2), the observations indicated with errorbars in Seidel et al. (2023) [grey errorbars, egress only, marked as “Observation (23)”]…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparing the simulated transmission spectra of Hα (blue solid lines; multiplied by a factor of 0.8) to the observations (oragne errorbars; from Seidel et al. 2025) at different orbital phases, near the ingress (left column) and egress (right column), respectively. Not…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Multiple models (OPT3, FUV10, and EUV10; marked on the top-left of each row) exploring the responses to physical parameters of the planetary outflows (§4 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The panchromatic JWST dayside spectrum of WASP-121 b reveals a refractory-rich formation

    astro-ph.EP 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Panchromatic JWST spectrum of WASP-121 b detects SiO and measures refractory-to-volatile ratios 3x stellar, consistent with mixed solid-gas accretion or migration with continued solid accretion.

  2. HAT-P-70b through the Eyes of MAROON-X: Constraining Elemental Abundances of Metals and Insights on Atmosphere Dynamics

    astro-ph.EP 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    New MAROON-X observations of HAT-P-70b detect multiple neutral and ionized metals with day-to-night wind signatures and demonstrate that ionization-aware retrievals yield abundance ratios closer to solar values except...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2025, Nature Communications, 16, 10822, doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-66628-5

    Allart, R., Coulombe, L.-P., Carteret, Y., et al. 2025, Nature Communications, 16, 10822, doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-66628-5

    doi:10.1038/s41467-025-66628-5 2025

  2. [2]

    R., et al

    Arcangeli, J., D´ esert, J.-M., Line, M. R., et al. 2018a, ApJ, 855, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab272 —. 2018b, ApJ, 855, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab272

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab272

  3. [3]

    2019, A&A, 625, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834891

    Arcangeli, J., D´ esert, J.-M., Parmentier, V., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834891

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834891 2019

  4. [4]

    C., Wang, J., et al

    Basinger, C., Johnson, M. C., Wang, J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 4136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1648

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1648 2025

  5. [5]

    J., & Cowan, N

    Bell, T. J., & Cowan, N. B. 2018, ApJ, 857, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aabcc8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aabcc8 2018

  6. [6]

    2021, A&A, 645, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039344

    Borsa, F., Allart, R., Casasayas-Barris, N., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039344

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039344 2021

  7. [7]

    F., et al

    Changeat, Q., Edwards, B., Al-Refaie, A. F., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cc2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cc2 2022

  8. [8]

    W., Cho, J

    Changeat, Q., Skinner, J. W., Cho, J. Y.-K., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad1191

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad1191 2024

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/144

    Christie, D., Arras, P., & Li, Z.-Y. 2013, ApJ, 772, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/144

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Crass, J., Aikens, D., Mason, J., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J

    2022

  3. [11]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 121841P, doi: 10.1117/12.2630228

    doi

  4. [12]

    2024, A&A, 692, A230, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451003

    Czesla, S., Nail, F., Lavail, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A230, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451003

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, Nature, 580, 597, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2107-1

    Ehrenreich, D., Lovis, C., Allart, R., et al. 2020, Nature, 580, 597, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2107-1

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Sing, D

    Evans, T. M., Sing, D. K., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L4

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Sing, D

    Evans, T. M., Sing, D. K., Kataria, T., et al. 2017, Nature, 548, 58, doi: 10.1038/nature23266

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Stassun, K

    Gaudi, B. S., Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 546, 514, doi: 10.1038/nature22392

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Howard, A

    Gibson, S. R., Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J

    2016

  10. [18]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 990870, doi: 10.1117/12.2233334

    doi

  11. [19]

    J., Ehrenreich, D., Kitzmann, D., et al

    Hoeijmakers, H. J., Ehrenreich, D., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935089

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, A&A, 668, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244533

    Jacobs, B., D´ esert, J.-M., Pino, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244533

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    K., Reiter, D., & Samm, U

    Janev, R. K., Reiter, D., & Samm, U. 2003, Collision processes in low-temperature hydrogen plasmas, Berichte des Forschungszentrums J¨ ulich

    2003

  14. [22]

    Kley, W., & Nelson, R. P. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 211, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125523

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    D., & Tan, X

    Komacek, T. D., & Tan, X. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 36, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aac5e7

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Baker, A

    Konopacky, Q. M., Baker, A. D., Mawet, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.11050, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.11050

    2023 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Lee, E. K. H., Prinoth, B., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 240, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2246

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    2020, A&A, 643, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038677

    Lendl, M., Csizmadia, S., Deline, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038677

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Wang, J., et al

    Lenhart, C., Johnson, M. C., Wang, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.07719, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.07719

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

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

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

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Fu, G., Sing, D

    Lothringer, J. D., Fu, G., Sing, D. K., & Barman, T. S. 2020, ApJ, 898, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba265

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Bean, J

    Mansfield, M., Line, M. R., Bean, J. L., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1224, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01455-4

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    J., et al

    McElroy, D., Walsh, C., Markwick, A. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A36 M¨ uller, B., Tauris, T. M., Heger, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3307, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz216

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 98, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz080

    Nakamura, K., Takiwaki, T., & Kotake, K. 2019, PASJ, 71, 98, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz080

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei (University Science Books, Sausalito, CA)

    2006

  26. [34]

    R., Bean, J

    Parmentier, V., Line, M. R., Bean, J. L., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833059

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    2025, AJ, 169, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8b28

    Pelletier, S., Benneke, B., Chachan, Y., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8b28

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Nugroho, S

    Ramkumar, S., Gibson, N. P., Nugroho, S. K., Maguire, C., & Fortune, M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2985, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2476

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    V., Ehrenreich, D., Wyttenbach, A., et al

    Seidel, J. V., Ehrenreich, D., Wyttenbach, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834776

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    V., Borsa, F., Pino, L., et al

    Seidel, J. V., Borsa, F., Pino, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245800

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    V., Prinoth, B., Pino, L., et al

    Seidel, J. V., Prinoth, B., Pino, L., et al. 2025, Nature, 639, 902, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08664-1

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    B., Mandell, A

    Sheppard, K. B., Mandell, A. M., Tamburo, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9ae9

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    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

  34. [42]

    K., Evans-Soma, T

    Sing, D. K., Evans-Soma, T. M., Rustamkulov, Z., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 231, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7fe7 22

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    B., Line, M

    Stevenson, K. B., Line, M. R., Bean, J. L., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/68

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    G., Ilyin, I., J¨ arvinen, A., et al

    Strassmeier, K. G., Ilyin, I., J¨ arvinen, A., et al. 2015, Astronomische Nachrichten, 336, 324, doi: 10.1002/asna.201512172

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    Tan, X., & Komacek, T. D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a76

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    2025a, ApJS, 277, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adbdb6 —

    Wang, L. 2025a, ApJS, 277, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adbdb6 —. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.04941, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.04941

    doi

  39. [47]

    2021a, ApJ, 914, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1ee —

    Wang, L., & Dai, F. 2021a, ApJ, 914, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1ee —. 2021b, ApJ, 914, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1ed

    doi

  40. [48]

    C., Cen, R., & Xu, S

    Xu, S., Wang, L., Ho, L. C., Cen, R., & Xu, S. 2026, ApJ, 997, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2683

    2026 doi

  41. [49]

    2022, A&A, 661, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243503

    Yan, F., Pall´ e, E., Reiners, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243503

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Liu, J.-f., et al

    Yang, F., Long, R. J., Liu, J.-f., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 294, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf92f

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.