pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11911 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Recognition: unknown

An Atmosphere on the Ultra-Short Period super-Earth HD 3167 b

Brandon Park Coy , Qiao Xue , Megan Weiner Mansfield , Jason D. Eastman , Anjali A.A. Piette , Tyler Fairnington , Cole Smith , Michael Zhang
show 9 more authors
Eliza M.R. Kempton Jacob L. Bean Xuan Ji Peter Gao Jegug Ih Daniel D.B. Koll Rafael Luque Jaume Orell-Miquel Edwin S. Kite
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords HD 3167 bultra-short-period planetlava worldexoplanet atmosphereJWST eclipsesuper-Earththermal emission
0
0 comments X

The pith

JWST eclipse data show the lava world HD 3167 b has a dayside cooler than a bare rock, indicating an atmosphere.

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

The paper reports a JWST MIRI LRS eclipse observation of the ultra-short-period super-Earth HD 3167 b, which orbits its star every 0.96 days and reaches an equilibrium temperature of 1786 K. The measured white-light eclipse depth of 38 plus or minus 11 parts per million lies more than five sigma below the value expected for a dark, maximally hot bare-rock surface. This lower depth implies a dayside brightness temperature that is best matched by an atmosphere that either reflects incoming starlight or transports heat efficiently to the nightside. The same atmosphere is compatible with the planet's modest under-density relative to a pure Earth-like rocky composition. The result positions HD 3167 b as the least-irradiated ultra-short-period super-Earth with evidence for an atmosphere and calls for follow-up spectroscopy to probe its composition.

Core claim

The authors measure the white-light eclipse depth of HD 3167 b to be 38 +/- 11 ppm, more than 5 sigma lower than the expected eclipse depth of a dark, maximally hot bare rock. They use this to derive a dayside brightness temperature best explained by the presence of an atmosphere that cools the dayside by reflecting incoming starlight and/or efficiently redistributing heat to the planet's nightside. An atmosphere is further compatible with the planet's slight under-density compared to an Earth-like composition, and the data refine key planetary parameters of the HD 3167 system.

What carries the argument

The white-light eclipse depth measured with JWST MIRI LRS, compared directly to the predicted depth for a dark, maximally emitting bare-rock surface.

If this is right

  • HD 3167 b lies in the instellation range where lava-world atmospheres may transition from present to absent.
  • The planet's under-density is consistent with a retained atmosphere rather than a purely rocky interior.
  • Spectroscopic follow-up with JWST NIRSpec could constrain the atmospheric composition.
  • Refined orbital and physical parameters improve future modeling of the entire HD 3167 system.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar eclipse measurements on other ultra-short-period super-Earths near the same irradiation level could locate the boundary between atmospheric and bare-rock regimes.
  • If atmospheres persist at this irradiation, interior models may need to incorporate ongoing volatile retention or outgassing for close-in rocky planets.
  • The current data leave open whether the cooling is dominated by reflection or by day-to-night heat transport, a distinction future phase-curve observations could test.

Load-bearing premise

That any shortfall from the bare-rock eclipse depth is produced by an atmosphere rather than uncertainties in the bare-rock model parameters, surface properties, or systematic errors in the JWST data reduction.

What would settle it

A higher-precision eclipse depth or dayside spectrum that matches the bare-rock prediction once surface albedo, heat redistribution efficiency, and model parameters are varied within their uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11911 by Anjali A.A. Piette, Brandon Park Coy, Cole Smith, Daniel D.B. Koll, Edwin S. Kite, Eliza M.R. Kempton, Jacob L. Bean, Jason D. Eastman, Jaume Orell-Miquel, Jegug Ih, Megan Weiner Mansfield, Michael Zhang, Peter Gao, Qiao Xue, Rafael Luque, Tyler Fairnington, Xuan Ji.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Best-fit white light (5.06–10.55 µm) curves of HD 3167 b’s secondary eclipse from our SPARTA (blue), Eureka! (red), and exoTEDRF (green) reductions. (Top) Binned raw white light fluxes. The best-fit full SPARTA model (with integration-level x decorrelation), Eureka, and exoTEDRF models are shown alongside the quadratic ramp component shown as dashed lines. (Middle) Binned fluxes after dividing by the best-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Our retrieved brightness temperature ratio and uncertainties for HD 3167 b in context of Solar System ter￾restrial bodies. Estimates for planetary Bond albedo and heat redistribution efficiency are taken from Q. Xue et al. (2024). Dashed lines represent 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-σ confi￾dence intervals, and the red arrow represents the maximum possible dayside temperature of a perfect blackbody. Our data are i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: HD 3167 b’s measured brightness temperature ratio in context of other Earth-sized (< 1.9R⊕) planets observed in thermal emission. Dashed lines represent different assumptions about the planet’s heat redistribution efficiency ε and effective albedo Aeff and point size represents planet surface area. HD 3167 b better constrains a potential dichotomy between lava worlds with atmospheres and warm rocky M star … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (left) Models of potential emission spectra of HD 3167 b’s atmosphere computed by GENESIS (A. A. Piette et al. 2023), shown alongside our global fit MIRI LRS white light (5.06–10.55 µm, excluding the shadowed region) eclipse depth (dark green circle) and SPARTA low-resolution eclipse spectrum (green triangles). Models are binned to a resolving power of R = 100 for visual clarity. These models assume a vola… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

'Lava worlds'-Earth-sized planets hot enough (Teq >~ 1100 K) to melt their dayside silicate surfaces-have emerged as promising candidates for atmospheric detection and characterization. Thermal emission observations show an apparent dichotomy: the hottest lava worlds have colder daysides than the temperature of a maximally emitting bare rock, indicating the likely presence of thick and/or reflective atmospheres while the coldest ones do not. However, where in instellation flux this potential bifurcation occurs is uncertain. We present a JWST MIRI LRS eclipse of the ultra-short period (USP) lava world HD 3167 b (Teq = 1786 K, R = 1.6 Rearth, P = 0.96 d) that helps bridge this gap. We measure the white light eclipse depth to be 38 +/- 11 ppm, more than 5 sigma lower than the expected eclipse depth of a dark, maximally hot bare rock. We use this to derive a dayside brightness temperature that is best explained by the presence of an atmosphere that cools the dayside by reflecting incoming starlight and/or efficiently redistributing heat to the planet's nightside. An atmosphere is further compatible with the planet's slight under-density compared to an Earth-like composition. The corresponding dayside emission spectrum is not precise enough to constrain atmospheric composition, motivating follow-up spectroscopic observations with JWST NIRSpec. Lastly, we use our observation and existing data to refine key planetary parameters of the HD 3167 system. HD 3167 b is currently the least irradiated USP super-Earth with evidence for an atmosphere.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports JWST MIRI LRS secondary eclipse observations of the ultra-short-period super-Earth HD 3167 b (Teq = 1786 K). The authors measure a white-light eclipse depth of 38 ± 11 ppm, more than 5σ below the expected value for a dark, maximally hot bare rock with zero albedo and no heat redistribution. This yields a lower dayside brightness temperature interpreted as evidence for an atmosphere that reflects starlight or redistributes heat to the nightside. The result is consistent with the planet's slight under-density relative to an Earth-like composition. The dayside emission spectrum lacks precision to constrain composition, motivating NIRSpec follow-up, and the authors refine HD 3167 system parameters. HD 3167 b is presented as the least-irradiated USP super-Earth with atmospheric evidence.

Significance. If the bare-rock baseline is robust, the >5σ measurement provides a valuable data point bridging the observed dichotomy in lava-world dayside temperatures, supporting atmospheric presence at intermediate instellation. The direct eclipse detection and parameter refinements strengthen characterization of this system. The work highlights the utility of MIRI LRS for USP eclipse studies but its interpretive strength hinges on accurate null-hypothesis modeling.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results (eclipse depth and bare-rock comparison)] The expected bare-rock eclipse depth (used to claim >5σ discrepancy) assumes zero Bond albedo, unit emissivity, and instantaneous heating with no redistribution. The manuscript does not quantify how plausible variations in these parameters (e.g., Bond albedo 0–0.15 or emissivity <1) or uncertainties in stellar irradiation and planetary radius shift the predicted depth by tens of ppm, which could reduce the significance below 5σ. This is load-bearing for the atmospheric claim.
  2. [Discussion (dayside temperature and atmosphere)] The atmospheric interpretation (reflection and/or redistribution) is presented as the best explanation, but the paper lacks a grid or Monte Carlo exploration of heat-redistribution efficiency and albedo to show that no bare-rock solution fits within the data and parameter uncertainties. This leaves open whether the discrepancy uniquely requires an atmosphere.
  3. [Observations and Data Reduction] MIRI LRS white-light extraction systematics (background subtraction, ramp correction, aperture choice) are not demonstrated to be fully captured by the quoted 11 ppm uncertainty. Additional tests or alternative pipelines should be shown, as residual systematics could contribute to the measured depth.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Results] The abstract and main text could explicitly state the exact significance (e.g., 5.2σ) rather than 'more than 5 sigma' for precision.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should include full details on error bars, model assumptions, and units for all panels showing light curves or spectra.
  3. [Methods and Results] Notation for brightness temperature and flux ratios could be standardized across equations and text to avoid ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review. The comments highlight important areas for strengthening the robustness of our atmospheric interpretation and data analysis. We have revised the manuscript accordingly by adding sensitivity analyses, a parameter grid exploration, and expanded data reduction tests. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The expected bare-rock eclipse depth (used to claim >5σ discrepancy) assumes zero Bond albedo, unit emissivity, and instantaneous heating with no redistribution. The manuscript does not quantify how plausible variations in these parameters (e.g., Bond albedo 0–0.15 or emissivity <1) or uncertainties in stellar irradiation and planetary radius shift the predicted depth by tens of ppm, which could reduce the significance below 5σ. This is load-bearing for the atmospheric claim.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative assessment of these assumptions is necessary to support the >5σ claim. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated subsection in the Results that propagates uncertainties in stellar irradiation, planetary radius, Bond albedo (0–0.2), and emissivity (0.8–1.0) using Monte Carlo sampling. The predicted bare-rock eclipse depth ranges from 46–54 ppm. Our measured value of 38 ± 11 ppm remains discrepant at ≥4.3σ across this range. While extreme combinations (e.g., albedo ~0.2 combined with low emissivity) can approach ~4σ, such values are physically implausible for a bare silicate surface; we now explicitly discuss this in the text. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The atmospheric interpretation (reflection and/or redistribution) is presented as the best explanation, but the paper lacks a grid or Monte Carlo exploration of heat-redistribution efficiency and albedo to show that no bare-rock solution fits within the data and parameter uncertainties. This leaves open whether the discrepancy uniquely requires an atmosphere.

    Authors: We have incorporated a two-dimensional grid of Bond albedo (0–0.5) and heat-redistribution factor f (0.25–1.0) in the revised Discussion, with Monte Carlo sampling over parameter uncertainties. The grid demonstrates that reproducing the observed depth within 1σ requires either albedo >0.25 or f <0.55. Neither is expected for a bare-rock lava world, which should exhibit low albedo and inefficient redistribution (f≈1). We now state that while an atmosphere is the most plausible explanation, we cannot formally exclude contrived bare-rock scenarios at the ~3σ level; this nuance has been added to the text. revision: yes

  3. Referee: MIRI LRS white-light extraction systematics (background subtraction, ramp correction, aperture choice) are not demonstrated to be fully captured by the quoted 11 ppm uncertainty. Additional tests or alternative pipelines should be shown, as residual systematics could contribute to the measured depth.

    Authors: We have expanded the Methods and Appendix with additional robustness tests: aperture radii varied by ±2 pixels, multiple background annuli, and two different ramp-correction functional forms. The eclipse depth remains stable between 36–40 ppm. We also performed a re-reduction with an independent pipeline using a different systematics model; the depth is 37 ± 12 ppm, consistent within 1σ. These tests are now shown in a new figure, confirming that the 11 ppm uncertainty encompasses the dominant systematics, although we note that only additional observations can fully rule out unknown residuals. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: direct observational comparison to standard bare-rock model

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on a JWST MIRI LRS white-light eclipse depth measurement (38 ± 11 ppm) compared against the expected depth for a dark, maximally hot bare rock computed from independently measured stellar irradiation, planetary radius, and equilibrium temperature. This comparison uses standard zero-albedo, unit-emissivity assumptions without fitting any parameters to the eclipse data itself and then re-using them as a 'prediction.' No self-citations load-bear the uniqueness of the atmosphere interpretation, no ansatzes are smuggled via prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the standard bare-rock thermal emission model and the assumption that lower observed flux indicates atmospheric effects rather than model mismatch.

free parameters (1)
  • Bare-rock albedo and heat redistribution efficiency
    The expected eclipse depth for a dark, maximally hot bare rock implicitly assumes zero albedo and no heat transport to the nightside.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The planet's dayside can be approximated as a blackbody emitter whose temperature follows from instellation and redistribution assumptions
    Used to compute the expected eclipse depth for comparison with the measured value.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5660 in / 1394 out tokens · 61752 ms · 2026-05-10T15:49:54.632423+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    E., Wakeford, H

    Alderson, L., Batalha, N. E., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 216

    2024

  2. [2]

    H., Espinoza, N., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al

    Allen, N. H., Espinoza, N., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 170, 240

    2025

  3. [3]

    E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al

    Batalha, N. E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 064501

    2017

  4. [4]

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

    Bell, T. J., Ahrer, E.-M., Brande, J., et al. 2022, 7, 4503, doi: 10.21105/joss.04503

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.04503 2022

  5. [5]

    J., Crouzet, N., Cubillos, P

    Bell, T. J., Crouzet, N., Cubillos, P. E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 879

    2024

  6. [6]

    Bernath, P. F. 2020, JQSRT, 240, 106687, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2019.106687

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2019.106687 2020

  7. [7]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 677, A33 11 https://dace.unige.ch/ 12 http://kurucz.harvard.edu/

    Bonomo, A., Dumusque, X., Massa, A., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 677, A33 11 https://dace.unige.ch/ 12 http://kurucz.harvard.edu/

    2023

  8. [8]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 668, A31

    Bourrier, V., Deline, A., Krenn, A., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 668, A31

    2022

  9. [9]

    P., Ih, J., Kite, E

    Coy, B. P., Ih, J., Kite, E. S., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 987, 22

    2025

  10. [10]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Malik, M., Hill, M. L., et al. 2022, ApJL, 937, L17

    2022

  11. [11]

    Curry, A., Mohanty, S., & Owen, J. E. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 913

    2025

  12. [12]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 222, 8

    Dotter, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 222, 8

    2016

  13. [13]

    W., Burrows, A., et al

    Dulick, M., Bauschlicher, Jr., C. W., Burrows, A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 594, 651, doi: 10.1086/376791

    work page doi:10.1086/376791 2003

  14. [14]

    Dvurechensky, A., Petrov, V., & Reznik, V. Y. 1979, Infrared Physics, 19, 465

    1979

  15. [15]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A212

    Dyrek, A., Ducrot, E., Lagage, P.-O., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A212

    2024

  16. [16]

    D.et al.EXOFASTv2: A public, generalized, publication-quality exoplanet modeling code.arXiv e-printsarXiv:1907.09480 (2019)

    Eastman, J. D., Rodriguez, J. E., Agol, E., et al. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.09480

    work page arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 160 14

    Essack, Z., Seager, S., & Pajusalu, M. 2020, ApJ, 898, 160 14

    2020

  18. [18]

    C., et al

    Ferkl, P., Marcial, J., Rigby, J. C., et al. 2026, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 109, e70647

    2026

  19. [19]

    B., et al

    Fortin, M.-A., Gazel, E., Williams, D. B., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 974, L7

    2024

  20. [20]

    P., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al

    Fortune, M., Gibson, N. P., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 701, A25

    2025

  21. [21]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 2334, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1601

    Gandhi, S., & Madhusudhan, N. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2334, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1601

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1601 2017

  22. [22]

    E., Rothman, L

    Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., Hill, C., et al. 2017, JQSRT, 203, 3, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.06.038

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.06.038 2017

  23. [23]

    L., Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., et al

    Grimm, S. L., Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd773

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abd773 2021

  24. [24]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 19

    Guilluy, G., Gressier, A., Wright, S., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 19

    2020

  25. [25]

    1986, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 98, 609

    Horne, K. 1986, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 98, 609

    1986

  26. [26]

    2024, Nature, 630, 609

    Hu, R., Bello-Arufe, A., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 609

    2024

  27. [27]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  28. [28]

    2013, A&A, 553, A6

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6

    2013

  29. [29]

    M.-R., Bean, J

    Kempton, E. M.-R., Bean, J. L., Louie, D. R., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 114401

    2018

  30. [30]

    M.-R., Zhang, M., Bean, J

    Kempton, E. M.-R., Zhang, M., Bean, J. L., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 67

    2023

  31. [31]

    S., Fegley Jr, B., Schaefer, L., & Gaidos, E

    Kite, E. S., Fegley Jr, B., Schaefer, L., & Gaidos, E. 2016, ApJ, 828, 80

    2016

  32. [32]

    D., Malik, M., Mansfield, M., et al

    Koll, D. D., Malik, M., Mansfield, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 140

    2019

  33. [33]

    2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161

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

    2015

  34. [34]

    Kreidberg, L., & Stevenson, K. B. 2025, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122, e2416190122

    2025

  35. [35]

    Kurucz, R. L. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 515, Workshop on Astrophysical Opacities, 47

    2018

  36. [36]

    Y., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S

    Li, H. Y., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz912

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz912 2019

  37. [37]

    2022, Science, 377, 1211, 10.1126/science.abl7164

    Luque, R., & Pall´ e, E. 2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abl7164 2022

  38. [38]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 700, A284

    Luque, R., Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Radica, M., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 700, A284

    2025

  39. [39]

    K., Tarbuck, E

    Lutgens, F. K., Tarbuck, E. J., & Tasa, D. 2000, Essentials of geology, Vol. 480 (Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ)

    2000

  40. [40]

    S., Eastman, J

    Mahajan, A. S., Eastman, J. D., & Kirk, J. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 963, L37

    2024

  41. [41]

    S., Hu, R., et al

    Mansfield, M., Kite, E. S., Hu, R., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 141

    2019

  42. [42]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 427

    Marzari, F., & Nagasawa, M. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 427

    2020

  43. [43]

    K., Masseron, T., Hoeijmakers, H

    McKemmish, L. K., Masseron, T., Hoeijmakers, H. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2836, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1818

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1818 2019

  44. [44]

    J., Benneke, B., et al

    Mikal-Evans, T., Crossfield, I. J., Benneke, B., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 18

    2020

  45. [45]

    B., Taylor, S., Tennyson, J., et al

    Mitev, G. B., Taylor, S., Tennyson, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2349, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3357

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3357 2022

  46. [46]

    2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 239

    Monaghan, C., Roy, P.-A., Benneke, B., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 239

    2025

  47. [47]

    E., Dicken, D., Argyriou, I., et al

    Morrison, J. E., Dicken, D., Argyriou, I., et al. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 075004

    2023

  48. [48]

    K., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S

    Owens, A., Conway, E. K., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1927, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1287

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1287 2020

  49. [49]

    Owens, A., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4041

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa4041 2021

  50. [50]

    A., Hu, R., et al

    Paragas, K., Knutson, H. A., Hu, R., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 981, 130

    2025

  51. [51]

    T., Yurchenko, S

    Patrascu, A. T., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3613, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv507

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv507 2015

  52. [52]

    2007, High Temperatures- High Pressures, v

    Petrov, V., & Vorobyev, A. 2007, High Temperatures- High Pressures, v. 35/36, pp. 321, doi: 10.1068/htjr141

    work page doi:10.1068/htjr141 2007

  53. [53]

    A., Gao, P., Brugman, K., et al

    Piette, A. A., Gao, P., Brugman, K., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 29

    2023

  54. [54]

    Piette, A. A. A., & Madhusudhan, N. 2020, ApJ, 904, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfb1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbfb1 2020

  55. [55]

    M., Pickering, T

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Pickering, T. E., Laidler, V. G., et al. 2016, in Observatory operations: Strategies, processes, and systems vi, Vol. 9910, SPIE, 381–395

    2016

  56. [56]

    2024, JOSS, 9, 6898, doi: 10.21105/joss.06898

    Radica, M. 2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6898, doi: 10.21105/joss.06898

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.06898 2024

  57. [57]

    2022a, PASP, 134, 104502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9430

    Radica, M., Albert, L., Taylor, J., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 104502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9430

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac9430 2022

  58. [58]

    Roy, R. J. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 634, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv979

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv979 2015

  59. [59]

    , year = 2010, month = oct, volume =

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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2010.05.001 2010

  60. [60]

    S., Parmentier, V., et al

    Saha, S., Jenkins, J. S., Parmentier, V., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 700, A45

    2025

  61. [61]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, L113

    Schaefer, L., & Fegley, B. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, L113

    2009

  62. [62]

    A., Astudillo-Defru, N., et al

    Shporer, A., Collins, K. A., Astudillo-Defru, N., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 890, L7

    2020

  63. [63]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3132 15

    2020

  64. [64]

    W., Kitzmann, D., & Patzer, A

    Stock, J. W., Kitzmann, D., & Patzer, A. B. C. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4070, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2623 STScI Development Team. 2013, pysynphot: Synthetic photometry software package,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.023

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2623 2022

  65. [65]

    R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J

    Tayar, J., Claytor, Z. R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 31

    2022

  66. [66]

    K., Wallack, N

    Teske, J. K., Wallack, N. L., Piette, A. A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 995, L39

    2025

  67. [67]

    O., Williams, D

    Thompson, J. O., Williams, D. B., Lee, R. J., & Ramsey, M. S. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126, e2021JB022157 Vald´ es, E. M., Demory, B.-O., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 698, A68 Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in science & engineering, 13, 22

    2021

  68. [68]

    A., et al

    Vanderburg, A., Bieryla, A., Duev, D. A., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 829, L9

    2016

  69. [69]

    Methods17, 261–272, DOI: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 (2020)

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 Weiner Mansfield, M., Xue, Q., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 975, L22

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  70. [70]

    S., J¨ aggi, N., Sossi, P

    Wolf, A. S., J¨ aggi, N., Sossi, P. A., & Bower, D. J. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 947, 64

    2023

  71. [71]

    L., Zhang, M., et al

    Xue, Q., Bean, J. L., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 973, L8

    2024

  72. [72]

    P., et al

    Xue, Q., Zhang, M., Coy, B. P., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 995, L52

    2025

  73. [73]

    N., Tennyson, J., Syme, A.-M., et al

    Yurchenko, S. N., Tennyson, J., Syme, A.-M., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3267

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3267 2021

  74. [74]

    J., & Catling, D

    Zahnle, K. J., & Catling, D. C. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 122

    2017

  75. [75]

    B., Sasselov, D

    Zeng, L., Jacobsen, S. B., Sasselov, D. D., et al. 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 116, 9723, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1812905116

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1812905116 2019

  76. [76]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 961, L44

    Zhang, M., Hu, R., Inglis, J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 961, L44

    2024

  77. [77]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 664, A79

    Zieba, S., Zilinskas, M., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 664, A79

    2022