pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.06691 · v1 · pith:EJJZMDO3new · submitted 2026-06-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Ultraviolet Radiation Effects on the Optical Properties of Water-Dominated Exoplanet Hazes

Lori Huseby , Sarah E. Moran , Tiffany Kataria , Mark S. Marley , Chao He , Cara Pesciotta , Sarah M. H\"orst , Neil Pearson
show 3 more authors
Vishnu Reddy Nikole K. Lewis V\'eronique Vuitton
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 23:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanet atmosphereshaze optical propertiesUV irradiationtransmission spectroscopysub-Neptune planetsGJ 1214bwater worldsphotochemistry
0
0 comments X

The pith

UV irradiation makes laboratory haze analogs more absorbing between 0.5 and 8 micrometers.

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

The paper tests how ultraviolet radiation from stars changes the light-absorbing properties of haze particles formed in water-rich exoplanet atmospheres. Researchers created haze samples in the lab, measured their optical constants before and after UV exposure, and found the irradiated samples absorb more light across the measured range. They then modeled how these changes would appear in transmission spectra of two specific planets, GJ 1214b and LHS 1140b, using standard atmospheric codes. A reader should care because these optical properties determine what we can learn about an atmosphere's chemistry from telescope data, and prior models have not accounted for UV processing of hazes.

Core claim

UV-irradiation alters haze optical constants which become generally more absorbing in the 0.5 to 8 μm wavelength range, hypothesized due to more oxygen-rich absorbing bands post irradiation. Simulations with Virga and PICASO for GJ 1214b and LHS 1140b show that for the CH4-rich haze case on GJ 1214b, the N-H feature at 2.6 μm differs between irradiated and unaltered haze in a way observable with JWST.

What carries the argument

Laboratory-generated sub-Neptune haze analogs and their pre- and post-UV-irradiation optical constants, applied in atmospheric transmission models.

If this is right

  • Altered optical constants lead to different transmission spectra that can be tested with current instruments.
  • For GJ 1214b, the difference appears in the N-H absorption at 2.6 μm.
  • Using representative optical constants improves accuracy of atmospheric composition retrievals.
  • Stellar UV radiation, including flares, must be considered when modeling hazes on close-in planets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future observations could use the 2.6 μm feature to distinguish between irradiated and static haze models on sub-Neptunes.
  • Similar experiments on other haze compositions might reveal how oxygen content affects absorption after irradiation.
  • Atmospheric escape models may need to incorporate changes in haze opacity due to UV processing.

Load-bearing premise

The chemical composition and structure of the lab-generated haze analogs match those of hazes actually present in water-dominated exoplanet atmospheres.

What would settle it

JWST transmission spectrum of GJ 1214b showing no detectable difference at 2.6 μm between models with irradiated and non-irradiated hazes would indicate the optical constant changes do not produce observable effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.06691 by Cara Pesciotta, Chao He, Lori Huseby, Mark S. Marley, Neil Pearson, Nikole K. Lewis, Sarah E. Moran, Sarah M. H\"orst, Tiffany Kataria, V\'eronique Vuitton, Vishnu Reddy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) The gas mixtures in this work represent ap￾proximately equilibrium compositions at 1000x solar metal￾licity, scaled for experimental simplicity and generalized at￾mospheres. The two haze samples differ in the minor car￾bon source, as bolded. (b) Gas mixtures from B. N. Khare et al. (1984) (left) of a Titan-like atmosphere, and C. He et al. (2024) (middle and right) of 1000x solar metallicity exoplanet … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cartoon schematic of the experimental setup (See methods and L. Huseby et al. 2025), simulated atmospheric compositions and conditions, UV bombardment process, measurements, and experimental outcomes. We use the spectral results from our previous work to determine the film thickness of the samples. In this work, highlighted in the black box, the real (n) and imaginary (k) refractive indices are derived usi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Plot of optical constants of both our 5% CO and 5% CH4-derived haze samples in the visible to mid-IR wavelength region (0.5 to 8 µm, 24000 to 1250 cm−1 ). Numbers 228 and 350 corresponds to the peak irradiation wavelength in nm simulating the flare. Top: Real (n) part of the refractive indices and Bottom: imaginary (k) part of the refractive indices. There are large differences between both the samples and… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of optical constants of our 5% CH4 (top) and 5% CO (bottom) atmosphere haze sample to previous studies in the visible to mid-IR wavelength region (0.5 to 8 µm, 24000 to 1250 cm−1 ). The K84 sample is found in black, the H24 300 K sample in light purple, 400 K sample in dark purple, and the G18/C23 samples in varying green colors depending on C/O ratio are overplotted for reference. Left: real (n… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Transmission spectrum of GJ 1214b using the 5% CH4-derived haze sample atmospheric composition. The sample from K84, G18/C23 C/O = 1 sample, and H24’s sample at 300 K are overplotted for reference. We include the observations from L. Kreidberg et al. (2014); E. M. R. Kempton et al. (2023b); E. Schlawin et al. (2024) with offsets for comparisons between models. The error bars account for 1σ uncertainties in… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Transmission spectrum of GJ 1214b from 0.5 to 8 µm using the 5% CO-derived haze sample atmospheric composition. The sample from K84, G18/C23’s C/O = ∞ sample, and H24’s sample at 300 K are overplotted for reference. We include the observations from L. Kreidberg et al. (2014); E. M. R. Kempton et al. (2023b); E. Schlawin et al. (2024) with offsets for comparisons between models. The error bars account for 1… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Transmission spectrum of LHS 1140b using the 5% CH4-derived haze sample atmospheric composition. The sample from K84, G18/C23’s C/O = 1 sample, and H24’s sample at 300 K are overplotted for reference. We include the observations from C. Cadieux et al. (2024); M. Damiano et al. (2024) with offsets for comparisons between models. The error bars account for 1σ uncertainties in the observations. Top: Spectra f… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Transmission spectrum of LHS 1140b from 0.5 to 8 µm using the 5% CO-derived haze sample atmospheric com￾position. The sample from K84, G18/C23’s C/O = ∞ sample, and H24’s sample at 300 K are overplotted for reference. We include the observations from C. Cadieux et al. (2024); M. Damiano et al. (2024) with offsets for comparisons between models. The error bars account for 1σ uncertainties in the observation… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Error Propagation in our n and k values in the visible to mid-IR wavelength region (0.5 to 8 µm, 24000 to 1250 cm−1 ). Top: Real (n) part of the refractive indices and Bottom: imaginary (k) part of the refractive indices. The error bars for the n and k values are derived from propagating error throughout the reflectance and transmission measurements, sample–substrate interface, quantified error in film thi… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Temperate sub-Neptune and terrestrial exoplanets could contain large inventories of water in various phases, such as water-dominated atmospheres or even oceans. Observations have shown that many exoplanets, including water worlds, likely contain photochemically-generated hazes. Haze particles are a key source of organic matter and may impact the evolution or origin of life; their optical properties are imperative for interpreting observations through theoretical atmospheric modeling. Modelers have thus far assumed haze optical properties that may not represent hazes under sub-Neptune and terrestrial atmospheric conditions. Often orbiting close to M-dwarf stars, these planets receive large amounts of radiation, especially during flaring events, which may accelerate atmospheric escape and affect atmospheric compositions. Here, we present optical constants of experimentally-generated sub-Neptune haze analogs before and after UV irradiation across a broad wavelength range (0.5 to 8 {\mu}m). We find that UV-irradiation alters haze optical constants which become generally more absorbing in this wavelength range, which we hypothesize is due to our sample containing more oxygen-rich absorbing bands post irradiation. We use Virga and PICASO to simulate transmission spectra of potentially hazy water-dominated planets GJ 1214b and LHS 1140b, accounting for irradiated haze layers in their atmospheres. For our GJ 1214b CH4-rich haze modeled case, we see a difference in the N-H feature at 2.6 {\mu}m in the resulting transmission spectrum between irradiated and unaltered haze that should be observable within current JWST capabilities. Broadly, we demonstrate the importance of using more representative optical constants, as they have an impact on current and future atmospheric composition interpretations.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports laboratory measurements of optical constants for sub-Neptune haze analogs before and after UV irradiation over 0.5–8 μm. It finds that irradiation increases absorption across this range (hypothesized to arise from additional oxygen-rich bands), then feeds the altered constants into Virga/PICASO forward models of GJ 1214b and LHS 1140b transmission spectra. For the CH4-rich haze case of GJ 1214b the models show a difference in the 2.6 μm N-H feature that the authors state should be detectable with current JWST capabilities.

Significance. If the laboratory analogs accurately reproduce the composition and UV response of hazes in water-dominated atmospheres, the work supplies the first direct experimental constraints on how stellar UV modifies haze optical properties and demonstrates that these changes can produce observationally relevant spectral differences. The provision of wavelength-dependent optical constants before and after irradiation is a concrete, reusable data product for the community.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and modeling description: the claim that the 2.6 μm N-H feature difference is observable with JWST rests on the laboratory optical constants being directly applicable to GJ 1214b. No validation is presented that the lab samples reproduce the C/O ratio, nitrogen speciation, or oxygen content predicted by photochemical models for water-rich sub-Neptune atmospheres; without this step the modeled contrast cannot be taken as representative of the actual planet.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that post-irradiation absorption increases because the sample contains “more oxygen-rich absorbing bands” is presented as a hypothesis but is not accompanied by any compositional or functional-group analysis (e.g., FTIR peak assignments or elemental ratios) that would substantiate the attribution.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the difference “should be observable within current JWST capabilities” but provides neither the magnitude of the feature contrast nor the assumed noise floor or number of transits used to reach that conclusion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment below. We agree that the manuscript would benefit from additional caveats on the scope of the laboratory analogs and will revise accordingly to clarify limitations without overstating applicability.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and modeling description: the claim that the 2.6 μm N-H feature difference is observable with JWST rests on the laboratory optical constants being directly applicable to GJ 1214b. No validation is presented that the lab samples reproduce the C/O ratio, nitrogen speciation, or oxygen content predicted by photochemical models for water-rich sub-Neptune atmospheres; without this step the modeled contrast cannot be taken as representative of the actual planet.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the laboratory analogs were not validated against specific photochemical model outputs for exact C/O ratios, nitrogen speciation, or oxygen content in GJ 1214b. The experiments were designed to generate water-dominated haze analogs under UV exposure to measure changes in optical properties, and the forward models illustrate the potential spectral impact of those measured changes for our specific haze case. We will revise the abstract and modeling sections to add explicit caveats stating that the analogs are representative rather than identical to planetary conditions and that the modeled difference demonstrates a possible observable effect rather than a direct prediction for the planet. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that post-irradiation absorption increases because the sample contains “more oxygen-rich absorbing bands” is presented as a hypothesis but is not accompanied by any compositional or functional-group analysis (e.g., FTIR peak assignments or elemental ratios) that would substantiate the attribution.

    Authors: The relevant sentence in the abstract already qualifies the attribution as a hypothesis. No compositional or functional-group analysis (FTIR assignments or elemental ratios) was performed in this study, as the primary results are the measured optical constants themselves. The hypothesis is offered as a possible explanation based on the precursor chemistry and the direction of the observed absorption change. We do not intend to present it as substantiated and will ensure the wording remains clearly hypothetical; no further revision is required on this point. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from lab measurements and standard forward modeling

full rationale

The paper's chain consists of experimental measurement of optical constants on lab-generated haze analogs (pre- and post-UV irradiation) followed by direct insertion of those constants into Virga/PICASO for transmission spectra of GJ 1214b and LHS 1140b. No equations, parameters, or predictions are defined in terms of the target outputs; the N-H feature contrast at 2.6 μm is an output of the radiative-transfer code applied to the measured k(λ) values. No self-citations, ansatzes, or fitted-input renamings appear in the load-bearing steps. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external lab data and established modeling tools.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the representativeness of lab analogs; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are described in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Laboratory-generated hazes under the described conditions accurately represent those in water-dominated exoplanet atmospheres.
    Invoked when applying measured optical constants to real-planet simulations in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5878 in / 1254 out tokens · 34210 ms · 2026-06-27T23:09:53.388678+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, D., Gao, P., de Pater, I., & Morley, C. V. 2019, ApJ, 874, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab074c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab074c 2019

  2. [2]

    D., Meadows, V

    Arney, G., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 873, doi: 10.1089/ast.2015.1422

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2015.1422 2016

  3. [3]

    N., Meadows, V

    Arney, G. N., Meadows, V. S., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/49

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/49 2017

  4. [4]

    2022,, v3.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7254818

    Batalha, N., Rooney, C., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2022,, v3.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7254818

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7254818 2022

  5. [5]

    2025,, v1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16914937

    Batalha, N., Rooney, C., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2025,, v1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16914937

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16914937 2025

  6. [6]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.03325 2024

  7. [7]

    J., Koch, D

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D. G., Basri, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/19

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/19 2011

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Cadieux, C., Doyon, R., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5afa

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5afa 2024

  9. [9]

    Gudipati, M. S. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 489, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0439-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0439-7 2018

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Astudillo-Defru, N. 2021, AJ, 162, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1584

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac1584 2021

  11. [11]

    J., & Kempton, E

    Corrales, L., Gavilan, L., Teal, D. J., & Kempton, E. M. R. 2023, ApJL, 943, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaf86

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acaf86 2023

  12. [12]

    2024, ApJL, 968, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204 do Amaral, L

    Damiano, M., Bello-Arufe, A., Yang, J., & Hu, R. 2024, ApJL, 968, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204 do Amaral, L. N. R., Barnes, R., Segura, A., & Luger, R. 2022, ApJ, 928, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac53af do Amaral, L. N. R., Shkolnik, E. L., Loyd, R. O. P., &

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204 2024

  13. [13]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc932

    Peacock, S. 2025, ApJ, 985, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc932

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc932 2025

  14. [14]

    A., et al

    Dragomir, D., Benneke, B., Pearson, K. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/102

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/102 2015

  15. [15]

    2024, A&A, 682, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346820

    Drant, T., Garcia-Caurel, E., Perrin, Z., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346820

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346820 2024

  16. [16]

    2026, A&A, 706, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555916

    Drant, T., Sciamma-O’Brien, E., Jovanovic, L., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555916

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555916 2026

  17. [17]

    2013, ApJ, 766, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/81

    Fressin, F., Torres, G., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/81

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/766/2/81 2013

  18. [18]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/AJ/154/109, doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier.51540109

    work page doi:10.26093/cds/vizier.51540109 2017

  19. [19]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad461

    Gao, P., & Benneke, B. 2018, ApJ, 863, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad461

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad461 2018

  20. [20]

    P., Lee, E

    Gao, P., Thorngren, D. P., Lee, E. K. H., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 951, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1114-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1114-3 2020

  21. [21]

    Gao, P., Piette, A. A. A., Steinrueck, M. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd16f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd16f 2023

  22. [22]

    , keywords =

    Gavilan, L., Carrasco, N., Vrønning Hoffmann, S., Jones, N. C., & Mason, N. J. 2018, ApJ, 861, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac8df

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac8df 2018

  23. [23]

    M., Radke, M., & Yant, M

    He, C., Hörst, S. M., Radke, M., & Yant, M. 2022, PSJ, 3, 25, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac4793

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac4793 2022

  24. [24]

    M., Riemer, S., et al

    He, C., Hörst, S. M., Riemer, S., et al. 2017, ApJL, 841, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa74cc

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa74cc 2017

  25. [25]

    M., Lewis, N

    He, C., Hörst, S. M., Lewis, N. K., et al. 2018b, AJ, 156, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aac883

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac883

  26. [26]

    E., et al

    He, C., Radke, M., Moran, S. E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 182, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02140-4 14Huseby et al

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02140-4 2024

  27. [27]

    J., Jao, W

    Henry, T. J., Jao, W. C., Winters, J. G., et al. 2019, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/AJ/155/265, doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier.51550265 Hörst, S. M., He, C., Lewis, N. K., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 303, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0397-0

    work page doi:10.26093/cds/vizier.51550265 2019

  28. [28]

    S., Corbett, H., Law, N

    Howard, W. S., Corbett, H., Law, N. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5b4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb5b4 2020

  29. [29]

    E., Pearson, N., et al

    Huseby, L., Moran, S. E., Pearson, N., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 145, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/adda4a

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/adda4a 2025

  30. [30]

    Y., & Drant, T

    Jaziri, A. Y., & Drant, T. 2025, A&A, 702, L20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556905

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556905 2025

  31. [31]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0c5

    Kawashima, Y., & Ikoma, M. 2018, ApJ, 853, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0c5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0c5 2018

  32. [32]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b1d

    Kawashima, Y., & Ikoma, M. 2019, ApJ, 877, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b1d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b1d 2019

  33. [33]

    Kempton, E. M. R., Lessard, M., Malik, M., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 953, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace10d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace10d

  34. [34]

    Kempton, E. M. R., Zhang, M., Bean, J. L., et al. 2023b, Nature, 620, 67, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06159-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06159-5

  35. [35]

    N., Sagan, C., Arakawa, E

    Khare, B. N., Sagan, C., Arakawa, E. T., et al. 1984, Icarus, 60, 127, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90142-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(84)90142-8 1984

  36. [36]

    A., et al

    Kiefer, S., Samra, D., Lewis, D. A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A244, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450526

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450526 2024

  37. [37]

    A., Benneke, B., Deming, D., & Homeier, D

    Knutson, H. A., Benneke, B., Deming, D., & Homeier, D. 2014a, Nature, 505, 66, doi: 10.1038/nature12887

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12887

  38. [38]

    A., Dragomir, D., Kreidberg, L., et al

    Knutson, H. A., Dragomir, D., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2014b, ApJ, 794, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/155

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/155

  39. [39]

    2022, A&A, 667, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243436

    Konings, T., Baeyens, R., & Decin, L. 2022, A&A, 667, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243436

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243436 2022

  40. [40]

    L., Désert, J.-M., et al

    Kreidberg, L., Bean, J. L., Désert, J.-M., et al. 2014, Nature, 505, 69, doi: 10.1038/nature12888

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12888 2014

  41. [41]

    Kreidberg, L., Mollière, P., Crossfield, I. J. M., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac85be

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac85be 2022

  42. [42]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88ce

    Lavvas, P., & Koskinen, T. 2017, ApJ, 847, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88ce

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa88ce 2017

  43. [43]

    E., García Muñoz, A., & Showman, A

    Lavvas, P., Koskinen, T., Steinrueck, M. E., García Muñoz, A., & Showman, A. P. 2019, ApJ, 878, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab204e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab204e 2019

  44. [44]

    V., & Vuitton, V

    Lavvas, P., Yelle, R. V., & Vuitton, V. 2009, Icarus, 201, 626, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.01.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.01.004 2009

  45. [45]

    2025, ApJL, 990, L66, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfa87

    Li, H., He, C., Wang, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L66, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfa87

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfa87 2025

  46. [46]

    , keywords =

    Libby-Roberts, J. E., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., Désert, J.-M., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d36

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d36 2020

  47. [47]

    S., Eastman, J

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad29f3 2024

  48. [48]

    E., Lodge, M

    Moran, S. E., Lodge, M. G., Batalha, N. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.06708, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.06708

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.06708 2025

  49. [49]

    , keywords =

    Moran, S. E., Hörst, S. M., Vuitton, V., et al. 2020, PSJ, 1, 17, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ab8eae

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ab8eae 2020

  50. [50]

    E., Hörst, S

    Moran, S. E., Hörst, S. M., He, C., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 127, e06984, doi: 10.1029/2021JE006984

    work page doi:10.1029/2021je006984 2022

  51. [51]

    2009, A&A, 501, 1139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810301

    Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y., & Benz, W. 2009, A&A, 501, 1139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810301

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810301 2009

  52. [52]

    V., Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V., Fortney, J. J., Kempton, E. M. R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/33

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/1/33 2013

  53. [53]

    V., Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V., Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/110

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/110 2015

  54. [54]

    I., Line, M

    Moses, J. I., Line, M. R., Visscher, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/34

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/34 2013

  55. [55]

    E., Fortney, J

    Mukherjee, S., Batalha, N. E., Fortney, J. J., & Marley, M. S. 2023, ApJ, 942, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f48 Müller, M. J., & Dobener, F. 2025,, v0.22.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15762213

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f48 2023

  56. [56]

    1987, Journal of Physics E Scientific Instruments, 20, 894, doi: 10.1088/0022-3735/20/7/015

    Neri, F., Saitta, G., & Chiofalo, S. 1987, Journal of Physics E Scientific Instruments, 20, 894, doi: 10.1088/0022-3735/20/7/015

    work page doi:10.1088/0022-3735/20/7/015 1987

  57. [57]

    2020, ApJL, 895, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab93d7

    Ohno, K., & Kawashima, Y. 2020, ApJL, 895, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab93d7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab93d7 2020

  58. [58]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44bd

    Ohno, K., Okuzumi, S., & Tazaki, R. 2020, ApJ, 891, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44bd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab44bd 2020

  59. [59]

    1988, Applied Spectroscopy, 42, 952, doi: 10.1366/0003702884430380

    Ohta, K., & Ishida, H. 1988, Applied Spectroscopy, 42, 952, doi: 10.1366/0003702884430380

    work page doi:10.1366/0003702884430380 1988

  60. [60]

    M., Radke, M

    Pesciotta, C., Hörst, S. M., Radke, M. J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5b99

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5b99 2026

  61. [61]

    I., Coll, P., da Silva, A., et al

    Ramirez, S. I., Coll, P., da Silva, A., et al. 2002, Icarus, 156, 515, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6783

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6783 2002

  62. [62]

    J., et al

    Schlawin, E., Ohno, K., Bell, T. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7fef

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7fef 2024

  63. [63]

    J., Heinson, W

    Sumlin, B. J., Heinson, W. R., & Chakrabarty, R. K. 2018, JQSRT, 205, 127, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.10.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.10.012 2018

  64. [64]

    B., Tolbert, M

    Toon, O. B., Tolbert, M. A., Koehler, B. G., Middlebrook, A. M., & Jordan, J. 1994, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 25,631, doi: 10.1029/94JD02388

    work page doi:10.1029/94jd02388 1994

  65. [65]

    S., De Haan, D

    Ugelow, M. S., De Haan, D. O., Hörst, S. M., & Tolbert, M. A. 2018, ApJL, 859, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac2c7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac2c7 2018

  66. [66]

    H., Hörst, S

    Yoon, Y. H., Hörst, S. M., Hicks, R. K., et al. 2014, Icarus, 233, 233, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.02.006 15 APPENDIX A.STELLAR AND PLANETARY PARAMETERS GJ 1214b LHS 1140b Stellar Temperature (K)3500 * 3500* Stellar Metallicity0.29 1 -0.153 Stellar Gravity5.0 5.0 Stellar Radius (R sun)0.215 2 0.2153 Planetary Mass (M jup)0.0257 2 0.01763 Planetary Radius ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.02.006 2014