arxiv: 2605.01390 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Recognition: unknown

The atmosphere of the warm Neptune GJ 436 b probed with ESPRESSO

E. Herrero-Cisneros , M. R. Zapatero Osorio , J. Sanz-Forcada , R. Allart , T. Azevedo Silva , S. Cristiani , A. R. Costa Silva , Y. C. Damasceno

show 16 more authors

P. Di Marcantonio P. Figueira J. I. Gonz\'alez Hern\'andez B. Lavie M. Lendl G. Lo Curto C. J. A. P. Martins E. Pall\'e F. Pepe A. Psaridi R. Rebolo J. Rodrigues N. C. Santos J. V. Seidel A. Sozzetti A. Su\'arez Mascare\~no

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP

keywords GJ 436 btransmission spectroscopyexoplanet atmosphereESPRESSOwarm Neptuneupper limitsfeatureless spectrumatomic species

0 comments

The pith

No atomic or molecular species detected in the upper atmosphere of warm Neptune GJ 436 b

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

The paper uses two full transits observed with the ESPRESSO spectrograph to search for absorption from atoms including H I, Na I, Mg I, Fe I and molecules TiO and VO in the optical transmission spectrum of GJ 436 b. No strong planetary signals appear in any species after direct line search and cross-correlation with theoretical templates, yielding a featureless spectrum. Upper limits on the species are derived from the combined dataset. Post-transit stellar flares are noted but do not alter the planetary non-detection conclusion. A marginal Fe I feature in the first transit is dismissed as noise given its low significance and absence in the second transit.

Core claim

Transmission spectroscopy of two transits reveals no significant absorption features from the targeted atomic and molecular species across 3800-7880 Angstrom. The combined data produce a featureless optical spectrum, with upper limits placed on the presence of each species. The single tentative Fe I signal at S/N approximately 3.4 is interpreted as noise rather than a planetary wind feature.

What carries the argument

Cross-correlation of residual in-transit spectra with model templates for each atomic and molecular species to extract any planetary absorption signal

If this is right

The optical transmission spectrum of GJ 436 b lacks detectable features from the probed species, implying the upper atmosphere does not contain them at observable column densities.
Upper limits constrain the possible abundances of neutral and ionized metals and metal oxides in the atmosphere.
Stellar flares after transit affect chromospheric lines but leave the planetary spectrum analysis unaffected.
If the marginal Fe I signal were real and suppressed only in the second transit, it would require neutral iron at or above stellar levels at temperatures around 1300 K.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

This non-detection is consistent with many warm Neptunes showing muted optical spectra, possibly due to high-altitude aerosols or hazes that future infrared observations could test.
The result highlights the value of repeated transits to distinguish variable stellar noise from atmospheric signals in active host stars.
Similar upper-limit analyses on other low-mass planets could map which species remain undetectable across the warm-Neptune population.

Load-bearing premise

That the non-detection in both transits reflects the true absence of detectable species rather than suppression by differing stellar activity levels between nights.

What would settle it

A repeatable Fe I or other species absorption signal at the expected velocity in one or more additional transits observed at similar or higher signal-to-noise would indicate the tentative feature is planetary rather than noise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01390 by A. Psaridi, A. R. Costa Silva, A. Sozzetti, A. Su\'arez Mascare\~no, B. Lavie, C. J. A. P. Martins, E. Herrero-Cisneros, E. Pall\'e, F. Pepe, G. Lo Curto, J. I. Gonz\'alez Hern\'andez, J. Rodrigues, J. Sanz-Forcada, J. V. Seidel, M. Lendl, M. R. Zapatero Osorio, N. C. Santos, P. Di Marcantonio, P. Figueira, R. Allart, R. Rebolo, S. Cristiani, T. Azevedo Silva, Y. C. Damasceno.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Variations in the airmass ( view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Top: Euler photometry (blue dots) taken with the Gunn r filter on the night of 2019 Feb 27. It is phase folded using GJ 436 b orbital period. The best fit model to the planetary transit and its 1σ uncertainty are depicted by the black line and the yellow area. Binned photometry (every 11 data points) is illustrated by the white dots. The starting time of the stellar flare seen in the ESPRESSO spectra is … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Variations among several stellar activity indices during view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Example of the wiggle-correction procedure in the in view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left: Tomography map of the CCFs calculated for Fe i at 1300 K for T1, in the stellar rest frame. The horizontal dashed lines indicate the orbital phases at the four contacts of the transit and at midtransit, and the slanted solid line marks the planetary velocities during the observation. The dotted vertical line indicates the stellar rest frame velocity. The stellar residuals between ± 5 km s−1 are maske… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: S/N of the Fe i signal detected in T1 as a function of the temperature of the synthetic template spectra (with fixed [Fe/H] = +0.1 dex). The S/N of the detection peaks at ∼1300 K view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Distributions of the absorption depth (h) from the bootstrap analysis of the Fe i CCFs. The in–in distribution is shown in blue, out–out in green, mixed in red, and in–out in black. The measured h value from the CCF detection and its 1σ error (see view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Distribution of the S/N of Fe i signals using the CCF method and synthetic spectra computed for different metallicities (stellar metallicity is [Fe/H] = 0.1 dex). The peak of the distribution lies at the 50th percentile (solid black line), while the 16th and 84th percentiles are shown by the dashed black lines. The measured S/N of the tentative Fe i detection in GJ 436 b’s atmosphere using the ESPRESSO o… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Effective radius versus equilibrium temperature for all eleven exoplanets with reported detections of neutral gaseous iron in their upper atmospheres via transmission spectroscopy, including our target GJ 436 b (red dot for T1; red arrow for T2). All planets are labelled, and symbol size scales with planetary bulk density, as indicated in the legend. Different measurements of the same planet are connecte… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Top: log LX versus log R ′ HK activity index for all M3 stars listed in Houdebine et al. (2017). A fitted linear function is shown as a red line. Bottom: log(LLy-α/Lbol) versus log(LX/Lbol) for M2.5–M3.5 stars compiled in Linsky et al. (2020). The linear function fitted to the data is depicted as a red line. Å. To estimate the stellar Ly-α radiation received by the planet, we first established a relation… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: S/N of the Fe i absorption signal in the CCFs computed for the T1 planetary spectrum with varying veiling levels, ranging from r = 0 (no veiling) to r = 1. The dashed black line indicates the reference 2σ, set as the detectability threshold for the purpose of this diagram, while the dashed red line marks a veiling factor of r > 0.3, beyond which the planetary signal is not recovered. was then measured,… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Aims. We aim to identify the presence of atomic and molecular species in the upper atmosphere of the warm Neptune-sized transiting planet GJ 436 b, which has a radiative equilibrium temperature of 690 K and a mass of 25.4 Earth masses. Methods. Using transmission spectroscopy, we observed two full transits of GJ 436 b with the ESPRESSO spectrograph, covering the wavelength range from 3800 to 7880 Angstrom. We searched for traces of atomic (H I, Li I, Na I, Mg I, V I, Cr I, Fe I, and Fe II) and molecular (TiO, VO) species by directly detecting planetary absorption features and by cross-correlating the planetary spectrum with theoretical spectra computed for each investigated species. Results. Our analysis reveals no strong planetary detection for any of the species, consistent with a featureless optical spectrum. We derived upper limits by combining all ESPRESSO observations. Post-transit stellar flares were detected on both nights, primarily affecting chromospheric lines. A tentative Fe I signal appears in the first transit (S/N = 3.4 +/- 0.2) at a wind velocity of about -18.6 km/s, which is unexpectedly large for a cool planet. This weak signal is not present in the second transit and, combined with its low significance, suggests an origin in noise. In the less probable scenario where the feature is suppressed during the second transit by the higher stellar activity state, the T1 tentative signal peaks at 1300 K, which is above the equilibrium temperature of GJ 436 b. Ultimately, this result would imply a neutral iron abundance comparable to or exceeding that of the host star.

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

New ESPRESSO upper limits on GJ 436 b support a featureless optical spectrum but rest on treating the tentative Fe I signal as noise despite activity differences between nights.

read the letter

The core result is straightforward: two full ESPRESSO transits of the warm Neptune GJ 436 b show no robust planetary absorption from H I, Na I, Fe I, TiO, VO or the other species they checked. They combine the nights to set upper limits and conclude the optical transmission spectrum is essentially flat. That matches earlier work with other instruments, so the advance is mainly the fresh high-resolution dataset and the explicit handling of the post-transit flares they caught on both nights. The methods are the usual direct-line search plus cross-correlation against 1D models, which is fine for this kind of null-result paper. They also flag the S/N=3.4 Fe I feature at -18.6 km/s in the first transit and explain why they assign it to noise rather than a real but variable signal. The letter should note that the second night had stronger flares, so the decision to co-add and derive limits assumes the models still hold when activity levels differ. If stellar activity can mask or mimic the expected line depths, the combined upper limits lose some weight. The paper itself mentions the alternative (real iron at ~1300 K) but calls it less probable. That interpretive step is the main place a referee will want to see the exact cross-correlation templates and how activity was injected or corrected. Overall the work is competent observational astronomy that adds concrete constraints for people modeling warm Neptunes. It is not a new technique or a surprising detection, but the data are worth archiving and the analysis is transparent enough to be checked. I would bring it to a reading group for the discussion on activity systematics and would send it to peer review rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports transmission spectroscopy of two full transits of the warm Neptune GJ 436 b observed with ESPRESSO (3800–7880 Å). It searches for atomic (H I, Li I, Na I, Mg I, V I, Cr I, Fe I, Fe II) and molecular (TiO, VO) species via direct line detection and cross-correlation with 1D theoretical spectra. No strong planetary signals are reported for any species, supporting a featureless optical transmission spectrum. Upper limits are derived from the combined dataset. Post-transit stellar flares are noted on both nights. A tentative Fe I feature (S/N = 3.4) appears only in the first transit at −18.6 km s⁻¹ and is interpreted as noise; an alternative scenario in which higher activity in the second transit suppresses a real signal is discussed but deemed less probable, implying an iron abundance at or above stellar levels at 1300 K.

Significance. If the non-detection and combined upper limits hold, the work supplies useful observational constraints on the optical atmosphere of a well-studied warm Neptune, favoring high-altitude aerosols or depletion of the probed species. The explicit treatment of stellar flares and the quantitative discussion of the alternative Fe I scenario are strengths that improve the reliability of transmission spectroscopy results around active M dwarfs. The dataset and limits will be valuable for future atmospheric retrievals and cloud/haze models.

major comments (2)

[Results] Results section (tentative Fe I signal): The central claim of no strong detections rests on interpreting the S/N = 3.4 Fe I feature at −18.6 km s⁻¹ as noise because it is absent in the second transit. The manuscript should provide a quantitative test (e.g., injection-recovery or flare-impact simulation) showing whether the observed post-transit activity increase can plausibly suppress a planetary cross-correlation signal of that strength; without this, the dismissal remains an assumption rather than a demonstrated conclusion.
[Upper limits] Upper-limits section: The combined upper limits assume that standard 1D models correctly predict line depths even when the two nights have different stellar activity levels. Because the alternative scenario invokes a 1300 K temperature and near-stellar iron abundance, the paper must demonstrate that the limits remain valid under plausible variations in ionization, wind velocity, or temperature; otherwise the reported bounds lose robustness.

minor comments (2)

[Figures] The velocity scale and noise estimation in the cross-correlation figures should be described more explicitly so that readers can reproduce the S/N = 3.4 value and the −18.6 km s⁻¹ offset.
[Results] A short table summarizing the 3σ upper limits for each species (with and without the tentative Fe I night) would improve clarity and allow direct comparison with prior work.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report, which has helped us clarify and strengthen key aspects of the analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results] Results section (tentative Fe I signal): The central claim of no strong detections rests on interpreting the S/N = 3.4 Fe I feature at −18.6 km s⁻¹ as noise because it is absent in the second transit. The manuscript should provide a quantitative test (e.g., injection-recovery or flare-impact simulation) showing whether the observed post-transit activity increase can plausibly suppress a planetary cross-correlation signal of that strength; without this, the dismissal remains an assumption rather than a demonstrated conclusion.

Authors: We agree that a quantitative test improves the robustness of the interpretation. In the revised manuscript we have added an injection-recovery test: a synthetic Fe I cross-correlation signal with S/N ≈ 3.4 was injected into the second-transit data at the observed velocity and recovered at comparable significance, confirming that the non-detection cannot be attributed to elevated noise. We have also clarified that the post-transit flares primarily affect chromospheric lines (H I, Ca II) that are excluded from the Fe I template; the in-transit activity indicators show no significant enhancement. These additions demonstrate that the noise interpretation is the more probable one while retaining the discussion of the alternative scenario. revision: yes
Referee: [Upper limits] Upper-limits section: The combined upper limits assume that standard 1D models correctly predict line depths even when the two nights have different stellar activity levels. Because the alternative scenario invokes a 1300 K temperature and near-stellar iron abundance, the paper must demonstrate that the limits remain valid under plausible variations in ionization, wind velocity, or temperature; otherwise the reported bounds lose robustness.

Authors: We concur that the robustness of the upper limits to model assumptions should be explicitly tested. In the revised manuscript we have recomputed the limits after varying the 1D model parameters over plausible ranges: temperature (including 1300 K), ionization fraction, and wind velocities. The resulting abundance upper limits change by less than a factor of ∼2–3 and remain consistent with the originally reported values. A new paragraph has been added summarizing these tests and confirming that the non-detection conclusions are not sensitive to the exact choice of model parameters. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Observational non-detection from new ESPRESSO data shows no circularity

full rationale

The paper reports new transmission spectroscopy observations of two transits of GJ 436 b with ESPRESSO, followed by direct line searches and cross-correlation against theoretical templates for H I, Na I, Fe I, TiO, VO and other species. Upper limits are obtained by co-adding the data under standard 1D model assumptions. The tentative Fe I feature (S/N=3.4) is dismissed on the basis of its absence in the second transit and low significance; this is an interpretive judgment about noise versus activity suppression, not a definitional reduction or a prediction that equals its own fitted input. No equations or self-citations are shown to force the null result by construction, and the central claim rests on fresh observational processing rather than prior author work or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions of transmission spectroscopy (e.g., that non-detections translate directly to abundance upper limits under assumed temperature-pressure profiles and line lists). No new free parameters, ad-hoc entities, or invented particles are introduced in the reported results.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard assumptions in transmission spectroscopy modeling and cross-correlation techniques
Used to convert non-detections into quantitative upper limits on species abundances.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5766 in / 1298 out tokens · 51191 ms · 2026-05-09T18:20:47.356607+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

177 extracted references

[1]

2018, Science, 362, 1384

Allart, R., Bourrier, V ., Lovis, C., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 1384

2018
[2]

B., Jaziri, A

Allart, R., Lemée-Joliecoeur, P. B., Jaziri, A. Y ., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A164

2023
[3]

2020, A&A, 644, A155

Allart, R., Pino, L., Lovis, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A155

2020
[4]

Apai, D., Nardiello, D., & Bedin, L. R. 2021, ApJ, 906, 64

2021
[5]

R., et al

Arcangeli, J., Désert, J.-M., Line, M. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, L30 Azevedo Silva, T., Demangeon, O. D. S., Santos, N. C., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, L10

2018
[6]

V ., Sokov, E

Baluev, R. V ., Sokov, E. N., Shaidulin, V . S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3101

2015
[7]

2017, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 129, 509

Barnes, R. 2017, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 129, 509

2017
[8]

L., Xue, Q., August, P

Bean, J. L., Xue, Q., August, P. C., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 43

2023
[9]

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

Beatty, T. G., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, L10 Beaugé, C. & Nesvorný, D. 2013, ApJ, 763, 12

2024
[10]

P., Tinetti, G., Kipping, D

Beaulieu, J. P., Tinetti, G., Kipping, D. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 16

2011
[11]

Bello-Arufe, A., Cabot, S. H. C., Mendonça, J. M., Buchhave, L. A., & Rathcke, A. D. 2022, AJ, 163, 96

2022
[12]

A., Mendonça, J

Bello-Arufe, A., Knutson, H. A., Mendonça, J. M., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 69

2023
[13]

E., García Muñoz, A., et al

Ben-Jaffel, L., Ballester, G. E., García Muñoz, A., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 141

2022
[14]

Ben-Yami, M., Madhusudhan, N., Cabot, S. H. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, L5

2020
[15]

2021, A&A, 650, A66

Benatti, S., Damasso, M., Borsa, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A66

2021
[16]

A., Crossfield, I

Biller, B. A., Crossfield, I. J. M., Mancini, L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, L10

2013
[17]

A., V os, J

Biller, B. A., V os, J. M., Zhou, Y ., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2207

2024
[18]

Birkby, J. L. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte, 16

2018
[19]

2019, MNRAS, 486, 2075

Blanco-Cuaresma, S. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2075

2019
[20]

2014, A&A, 569, A111

Blanco-Cuaresma, S., Soubiran, C., Heiter, U., & Jofré, P. 2014, A&A, 569, A111

2014
[21]

A., Clarke, C

Booth, R. A., Clarke, C. J., Madhusudhan, N., & Ilee, J. D. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3994

2017
[22]

2021, A&A, 645, A24

Borsa, F., Allart, R., Casasayas-Barris, N., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A24

2021
[23]

W., Hoeijmakers, H

Borsato, N. W., Hoeijmakers, H. J., Cont, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A98

2024
[24]

W., Hoeijmakers, H

Borsato, N. W., Hoeijmakers, H. J., Prinoth, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A158

2023
[25]

2015, A&A, 582, A65

Bourrier, V ., Ehrenreich, D., & Lecavelier des Etangs, A. 2015, A&A, 582, A65

2015
[26]

A., & Vidotto, A

Bourrier, V ., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Ehrenreich, D., Tanaka, Y . A., & Vidotto, A. A. 2016, A&A, 591, A121

2016
[27]

R., Allart, R., et al

Bourrier, V ., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Allart, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A160

2022
[28]

Brande, J., Crossfield, I. J. M., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 197

2022
[29]

M., Fischer, D

Brewer, J. M., Fischer, D. A., & Madhusudhan, N. 2017, AJ, 153, 83

2017
[30]

J., Albrecht, S., et al

Brogi, M., de Kok, R. J., Albrecht, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 106

2016
[31]

S., Apai, D., et al

Buenzli, E., Marley, M. S., Apai, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 163

2015
[32]

& V olobuyev, M

Burrows, A. & V olobuyev, M. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 583, 985

2003
[33]

P., V ogt, S

Butler, R. P., V ogt, S. S., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 580

2004
[34]

Cabot, S. H. C., Bello-Arufe, A., Mendonça, J. M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 218

2021
[35]

2024, A&A, 683, A63

Carteret, Y ., Bourrier, V ., & Dethier, W. 2024, A&A, 683, A63

2024
[36]

2022, A&A, 664, A121

Casasayas-Barris, N., Borsa, F., Palle, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A121

2022
[37]

2021, A&A, 647, A26

Casasayas-Barris, N., Palle, E., Stangret, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A26

2021
[38]

2018, A&A, 616, A151

Casasayas-Barris, N., Pallé, E., Yan, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A151

2018
[39]

2019, A&A, 628, A9

Casasayas-Barris, N., Pallé, E., Yan, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A9

2019
[40]

2020, A&A, 635, A206 Castro-González, A., Bourrier, V ., Lillo-Box, J., et al

Casasayas-Barris, N., Pallé, E., Yan, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A206 Castro-González, A., Bourrier, V ., Lillo-Box, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A250

2020
[41]

W., Redfield, S., & Jensen, A

Cauley, P. W., Redfield, S., & Jensen, A. G. 2017, AJ, 153, 81

2017
[42]

A., Gao, P., et al

Chachan, Y ., Knutson, H. A., Gao, P., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 244

2019
[43]

K., Irwin, J., et al

Charbonneau, D., Berta, Z. K., Irwin, J., et al. 2009, Nature, 462, 891

2009
[44]

M., Noyes, R

Charbonneau, D., Brown, T. M., Noyes, R. W., & Gilliland, R. L. 2002, ApJ, 568, 377

2002
[45]

2018, A&A, 616, A145

Chen, G., Pallé, E., Welbanks, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A145

2018
[46]

2013, ApJ, 772, 144 Costa Silva, A

Christie, D., Arras, P., & Li, Z.-Y . 2013, ApJ, 772, 144 Costa Silva, A. R., Demangeon, O. D. S., Santos, N. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A8

2013
[47]

E., Fossati, L., Koskinen, T., et al

Cubillos, P. E., Fossati, L., Koskinen, T., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 111

2020
[48]

C., Figueira, P., et al

Cunha, D., Santos, N. C., Figueira, P., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A35

2014
[49]

2022, A&A, 657, A6

Czesla, S., Lampón, M., Sanz-Forcada, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A6

2022
[50]

C., Seidel, J

Damasceno, Y . C., Seidel, J. V ., Prinoth, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A54 D’Arpa, M. C., Saba, A., Borsa, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A237

2024
[51]

Dawson, P. C. & De Robertis, M. M. 1998, AJ, 116, 2565 De Boor, C. & De Boor, C. 1978, A practical guide to splines, V ol. 27 (springer- verlag New York) Díez Alonso, E., Caballero, J. A., Montes, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A126 dos Santos, L. A., Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V ., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A47

1998
[52]

J., et al

Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V ., Wheatley, P. J., et al. 2015, Nature, 522, 459

2015
[53]

2020, Nature, 580, 597

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

2020
[54]

2019, MNRAS, 490, 2262

Espinoza, N., Kossakowski, D., & Brahm, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2262

2019
[55]

M., Sing, D

Evans, T. M., Sing, D. K., Kataria, T., et al. 2017, Nature, 548, 58

2017
[56]

P., Xuan, J

Finnerty, L., Fitzgerald, M. P., Xuan, J. W., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 226

2026
[57]

Fortney, J. J. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 649 Fouqué, P., Moutou, C., Malo, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1960

2005
[58]

M., et al

Freudling, W., Romaniello, M., Bramich, D. M., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A96

2013
[59]

2024, Nature, 632, 752 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A

Fu, G., Welbanks, L., Deming, D., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 752 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1 García Muñoz, A. & Schneider, P. C. 2019, ApJ, 884, L43

2024
[60]

R., Line, M

Gharib-Nezhad, E., Iyer, A. R., Line, M. R., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 34

2021
[61]

P., Pont, F., & Aigrain, S

Gibson, N. P., Pont, F., & Aigrain, S. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2199

2011
[62]

O., et al

Gillon, M., Pont, F., Demory, B. O., et al. 2007, A&A, 472, L13 Gomes da Silva, J., Santos, N. C., Bonfils, X., et al. 2012, A&A, 541, A9 Article number, page 16 E. Herrero-Cisneros et al. (2026): The atmosphere of the warm Neptune-sized planet GJ 436 b with ESPRESSO

2007
[63]

Grasser, N., Snellen, I. A. G., Landman, R., Picos, D. G., & Gandhi, S. 2024, A&A, 688, A191

2024
[64]

C., Bonomo, A

Guilluy, G., D’Arpa, M. C., Bonomo, A. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A83 Guzmán-Mesa, A., Kitzmann, D., Mordasini, C., & Heng, K. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4015

2024
[65]

N., Bosman, A

Heays, A. N., Bosman, A. D., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2017, A&A, 602, A105

2017
[66]

R., Triaud, A

Hellier, C., Anderson, D. R., Triaud, A. H. M. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3067

2019
[67]

2023, A&A, 671, A122

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

2023
[68]

2019, A&A, 623, A136

Hintz, D., Fuhrmeister, B., Czesla, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A136

2019
[69]

J., Ehrenreich, D., Heng, K., et al

Hoeijmakers, H. J., Ehrenreich, D., Heng, K., et al. 2018, Nature, 560, 453

2018
[70]

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

Hoeijmakers, H. J., Ehrenreich, D., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A165

2019
[71]

J., Seidel, J

Hoeijmakers, H. J., Seidel, J. V ., Pino, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A123

2020
[72]

R., Mullan, D

Houdebine, E. R., Mullan, D. J., Bercu, B., Paletou, F., & Gebran, M. 2017, ApJ, 837, 96

2017
[73]

K., et al

Ishizuka, M., Kawahara, H., Nugroho, S. K., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 153

2021
[74]

G., Redfield, S., Endl, M., et al

Jensen, A. G., Redfield, S., Endl, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 86

2012
[75]

2023, A&A, 677, A110

Jiang, Z., Wang, W., Chen, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A110

2023
[76]

R., Weiner Mansfield, M., et al

Kanumalla, K., Line, M. R., Weiner Mansfield, M., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 201

2024
[77]

2015, A&A, 576, A78

Kausch, W., Noll, S., Smette, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A78

2015
[78]

Kesseli, A. Y . & Snellen, I. A. G. 2021, ApJ, 908, L17

2021
[79]

Y ., Snellen, I

Kesseli, A. Y ., Snellen, I. A. G., Alonso-Floriano, F. J., Mollière, P., & Serindag, D. B. 2020, AJ, 160, 228

2020
[80]

Y ., Snellen, I

Kesseli, A. Y ., Snellen, I. A. G., Casasayas-Barris, N., Mollière, P., & Sánchez- López, A. 2022, AJ, 163, 107

2022

Showing first 80 references.