Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 58 references

The paper argues that LIFE, a five-spacecraft mid-infrared nulling interferometer, is the mission best positioned to detect the methane–ozone disequilibrium that would signal life on a rocky exoplanet—and that the UK should invest early to

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 07:43 UTC pith:DD56KH2Q

load-bearing objection Competent mission white paper with no new science; treat its headline biosignature claims as conditional on unrealized cryogenic nulling performance and an unsettled HWO design. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21683 v1 pith:DD56KH2Q submitted 2026-07-23 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.EP

Detecting habitable exoplanet atmospheres with LIFE, the Large Interferometer for Exoplanets

Sarah Rugheimer , Aiden Weatherbee , James Fecanin , Alistair Glasse , Paul Rimmer , Eleonora Alei , Esther Wang , Marrick Braam
show 16 more authors
Sascha P. Quanz Adrian Glauser Alexander Archibald Beth Biller Mark Booth Tereza Constantinou Gregory Cooke Daniel Dicken Trent Dupuy Mei Ting Mak Paul Palmer Tim Pearce Vito Squicciarini Amaury Triaud Floris van der Tak Sergey Yurchenko
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanet atmospheresbiosignaturesnulling interferometrymid-infrared spectroscopyhabitable worldschemical disequilibriumLIFE missionHabitable Worlds Observatory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the next European large mission should be LIFE, a formation-flying mid-infrared nulling interferometer, because it is the design most likely to deliver a reliable detection of life on a rocky exoplanet. Its 6–16 µm spectra at a resolving power of 100 can see both partners in the strongest known biosignature—the chemical disequilibrium of methane at 7.7 µm and ozone at 9.6 µm—at Earth-like concentrations, and it can measure the habitability context (surface temperature, pressure, radius, water) that a visible-light telescope cannot. The paper positions LIFE against the US Habitable Worlds Observatory, arguing LIFE covers more nearby rocky planets, including M-dwarf targets, and can make a statistical statement about how common Earth-like atmospheres are. It closes with a concrete proposal: a UK feasibility study for building the mission's infrared spectrometer and deformable-mirror optics, building on national expertise from earlier infrared instruments.

Core claim

LIFE is a five-spacecraft nulling interferometer at Sun–Earth L2: four roughly 3-metre collectors feed a fifth combiner, where a π phase shift cancels the host star and the rotating array modulates the planet's thermal emission. The paper's central claim is that this architecture is uniquely suited to measure the classic biosignature pair: ozone (a photochemical proxy for oxygen) at 9.6 µm and methane at 7.7 µm, both inside the 6–16 µm requirement band at R=100. Detecting those two gases together is the most convincing false-positive-resistant life signal the field has, because an oxidising and a reducing gas cannot coexist without a continuous source. LIFE also recovers surface temperature

What carries the argument

Nulling interferometry: light from four formation-flying collector spacecraft is combined with a π phase shift between beam pairs so the on-axis starlight cancels destructively while the off-axis planet signal survives and is modulated as the array rotates. The required planet–star contrast of about 10⁻⁷ sets the mission's load-bearing specification: an average null depth of at least 10⁻⁵, to be validated at cryogenic temperature. This mechanism converts the problem of imaging a faint planet next to a bright star into a mid-infrared thermal-emission spectrum, and the 6–16 µm bandpass is what lets the same instrument see CH4 and O3 simultaneously, making the chemical-disequilibrium measuremen

Load-bearing premise

The central claim collapses if the required 10⁻⁵ average null depth cannot be held on orbit by four cryogenic formation-flying spacecraft; the paper's own testbed has reached 7×10⁻⁶ only at room temperature, with 15 K validation still to come.

What would settle it

Run the published Earth-twin retrieval at null depths of 10⁻⁵, 3×10⁻⁵, and 10⁻⁴ with the same R=100, 6–16 µm setup; if the 7.7 µm CH4 and 9.6 µm O3 features do not both clear a 5σ detection at 10⁻⁵, the paper's detectability claim is falsified. Equally, a cryogenic nulling demonstration that cannot reach 10⁻⁵ at 15 K would falsify the assumed instrument performance before launch.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If LIFE flies as designed, it can detect methane alongside ozone in Earth-twin atmospheres, closing the main false-positive loophole that plagues oxygen-only biosignature claims.
  • It can measure surface temperature, pressure, and radius directly from thermal emission, so 'habitable' becomes a constrained physical quantity rather than an inferred one.
  • A 50-planet survey would turn a null result into information: no Earth-like chemistries among 50 temperate planets would reject a 10% habitability frequency at 3σ confidence.
  • On the roughly 50 targets common to LIFE and HWO, combining reflected-light and emission spectra would retrieve nearly the full atmospheric inventory—N2, O2, clouds, and albedo from HWO; temperature, pressure, CH4, and CO2 from LIFE.
  • Early UK investment in the spectrometer and deformable-mirror work would position the UK as a leading partner in the likely next large European mission, with industrial contracts following the pattern of earlier missions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the 10⁻⁵ null depth is not met on orbit, the biosignature yields degrade continuously rather than catastrophically; a systematic study of detection thresholds versus null depth would show how much margin the mission actually has.
  • The LIFE-versus-HWO comparison rests on HWO staying out of the mid-infrared; the paper itself notes HWO's bandpass is '0.3–1.7 µm, tbc', so a future HWO mid-IR channel would shrink LIFE's unique methane advantage even if the habitability-context argument survives.
  • The disequilibrium logic could be extended into a formal decision tree for false positives, scoring each candidate gas pair by the lifetime of its coexistence; the paper names the criterion but does not specify a quantitative threshold.
  • If LIFE finds widespread O3/CH4 coexistence among the 50 targets, the field would face the opposite problem—distinguishing biological from abiotic disequilibria—and prebiotic molecules like HCN and HC3N would become tie-breakers; the paper's inclusion of those molecules suggests this is the intended next step.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This white paper argues that LIFE, a proposed mid-infrared nulling interferometer, is the ESA L5 mission best suited for detecting habitable exoplanet atmospheres, and claims that LIFE can detect a wider range of biosignatures than NASA's Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) and at lower concentrations. The paper surveys the scientific case (habitability indicators, biosignature combinations, cold giants, protoplanets, and other targets), compares LIFE with HWO, and proposes early UK involvement in a feasibility study, emphasizing UK ATC heritage in spectrometers and deformable mirrors. It also summarizes the current technology status, including room-temperature nulling results and the pending cryogenic null-depth validation.

Significance. If the central comparative claim is accepted, LIFE would be the most promising route to robust, false-positive-resistant biosignature detection and would justify early UK investment in mission-enabling technology. The paper's strengths are its explicit treatment of technology readiness (NICE results, the 15 K milestone) and its integration of a broad body of published LIFE simulations. However, the headline claim rests on simulations referenced but not shown, on an HWO design that is explicitly tentative, and on a cryogenic null-depth requirement that has not yet been demonstrated at operating temperature. The paper is better characterized as a well-positioned advocacy/white paper than as a self-contained scientific analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6 / Abstract] The abstract's categorical claim that LIFE 'can detect an even wider range of biosignatures than HWO and at lower concentrations' is not supported by the technical status reported in §6. There, the required average null depth is stated as at least 10^-5, but the only demonstrated value is 7×10^-6 at room temperature, with the 15 K validation described as 'the next milestone'. Every detectability assertion in §§2–3, including the 7.7 µm CH4 and 9.6 µm O3 features, assumes this cryogenic null. The paper must either qualify the abstract and scientific sections with an explicit condition ('if the 10^-5 null is achieved at 15 K') or include a robustness test showing yields at a degraded null depth. As written, the strongest claim overstates what can currently be concluded.
  2. [§3] The LIFE-vs-HWO comparison is partly against a moving target. The HWO bandpass is given as '0.3 - 1.7 µm, tbc' ('to be confirmed'), yet the text concludes that CH4 is 'inaccessible to HWO, especially for Earth-like concentrations' and that LIFE covers 'a wider range of biosignatures ... at lower concentrations'. These statements are true only if HWO's final design excludes the mid-IR. Please either cite the current official HWO reference design or explicitly label the comparison as provisional and tied to the 'tbc' bandpass. Otherwise the headline comparison is a strawman.
  3. [§2.2 / §3] The quantitative basis for the central claim is not in the manuscript. The text cites Konrad+ 2022, 2024; Alei+ 2024; Carrión-González+ 2023; and others for detectability, but no retrieval results, detection significance values, or abundance constraints are shown. A reader cannot verify 'detectable at R=100' or 'lower concentrations' from this paper alone. Please include at least one representative retrieval comparison (e.g., an Earth-twin at 10 pc simulated with LIFE and HWO) or state clearly that this is a literature-based white paper whose quantitative statements are taken verbatim from the cited collaboration papers.
  4. [§2.1] The sentence 'If LIFE characterises its goal of 50 habitable planets and finds no Earth-like conditions, then we can reject the hypothesis that 10% of planets in the HZ are indeed habitable with a 3σ confidence' is presented as a derived result but no calculation is given. This statement depends on the assumed planet sample, completeness, and statistical model. Since this is one of the strongest quantitative motivations for the mission, please provide the underlying binomial/confidence calculation or cite the exact source (e.g., Quanz+ 2022b) and state its assumptions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.3] 'LIFEsimmodeling' should be 'LIFEsim modeling' or 'LIFE sim modeling'.
  2. [§2.2] 'at a earlier Earth-like geological epochs' is ungrammatical; use 'at an earlier' or 'at earlier'.
  3. [§7] 'Y early the UKExoM meeting' appears to be a typo for 'Yearly, the UKExoM meeting'.
  4. [§6] 'The next milestone is 15 K' should probably be 'The next milestone is at 15 K'; also 'demonstrated2.5×10-4' is missing a space.
  5. [References] 'Angerhausen, D., et al. 2023„' contains a stray low quotation mark; the volume/journal details for Braam & Angerhausen 2026 (A&A 707, A281) should be verified at proof stage.
  6. [§3] 'Various channels still in discussion are expected to cover the UV to near-IR (0.3 - 1.7 µm, tbc)' — specify that these are HWO's channels, as the current wording could be read as referring to LIFE.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No constructional circularity; detection claims are conditional on an unvalidated 10^-5 null depth and on internal simulations, but no result reduces to its inputs by definition.

full rationale

This is a mission white paper rather than a derivation chain. The central detectability statements (e.g., §2.2: 'Its 6-16 µm bandpass captures the 7.7 µm CH4 and 9.6 µm O3 features which are detectable at R=100 (Konrad+ 2024)') rest on published LIFE simulation papers from the collaboration, but those are forward models with specified instrument parameters and planetary assumptions, not fits to the claimed detections. No equation in the paper is definitionally identical to another, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper itself flags the main vulnerability in §6: NICE 'has achieved stable nulls of 7×10^-6 at room temperatures. The next milestone is 15 K, aimed at validating the 10^-5 requirement.' This is a self-identified technological risk: the scientific-yield claims are conditional on a null-depth requirement not yet demonstrated at the operating temperature. That is a gap in demonstrated performance, not circularity. Likewise, the HWO comparison relies on an assumed HWO bandpass ('0.3 - 1.7 µm, tbc') and known spectroscopy of CH4 and O3; an uncertain premise is not a circular one. The heavy reliance on self-citations (Konrad+, Quanz+, Alei+, Carrión-González+, Rugheimer+) is an evidence-quality concern about the independence of the modeling base, but the paper does not use those citations to forbid alternatives or to define away the target result. Under the hard rule that circularity must be exhibited as a specific reduction, no such reduction is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

LIFE's detection case rests on inherited model and mission assumptions rather than new analysis. The null-depth requirement (10^-5) is validated only at room temperature; HWO's exclusion of the mid-IR is a TBD design assumption; the retrieval results presume simulated Earth-twin spectra with LIFEsim noise are faithful; and the biosignature-interpretation framework (O3+CH4 disequilibrium) is adopted from astrobiology literature rather than established here. The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new entities.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption In-flight null depth of 10^-5 is technically achievable (formation flying at L2, cryogenic beam combination at 15 K preserving room-temperature nulling performance).
    Invoked throughout §§2–3 via all detection claims; Section 6 admits only room-temperature 7×10^-6 validation (NICE) with the 15 K milestone pending.
  • domain assumption HWO's final instrument suite will stop at ~1.7 µm and will not cover the mid-IR CH4/O3 features.
    The comparative advantage over HWO (Abstract, §3) rests on this; §3 itself states '0.3 - 1.7 µm, tbc'.
  • domain assumption Forward-modeled Earth-twin spectra with LIFEsim noise at R=100 are faithful proxies for real planet thermal emission.
    All quoted detectability results (Konrad+ 2022/2024; Alei+ 2024) are retrievals on simulated spectra; the paper does not test the retrieval pipeline on empirical data.
  • domain assumption The O3+CH4 coexistence framework is a reliable biosignature diagnostic once false positives are controlled.
    Section 2.2 adopts the Lederberg/Lovelock/Sagan disequilibrium framework and cites Schwieterman+ 2018 and Meadows+ 2018 for false positives; the framework is inherited from astrobiology literature, not established by this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 8602 in / 19434 out tokens · 193534 ms · 2026-08-01T07:43:29.205920+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A key goal of astronomers with the next generation telescopes is to detect signs of life in exoplanet atmospheres. NASA's next flagship is the Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO). In the context of ESA's Voyage 2050 program, the Senior Committee report prioritises detecting habitable exoplanet atmospheres in the mid-IR. The most suited mission for this is the Large Interferometer for Exoplanets (LIFE) which can detect an even wider range of biosignatures than HWO and at lower concentrations. LIFE is a global science collaboration based out of ETH Z\"urich. With the UK's expertise in building infrared instruments we could play a leading role in realising an ambitious European-led mission. Notably, LIFE is able to detect necessary planetary context like surface temperature and pressure, along with a key discriminator molecule for biosignature false positives, methane, which will be much harder or impossible with HWO. Also, LIFE will be able to investigate many of the nearby rocky exoplanets known from radial velocity searches that are inaccessible to HWO due to its limited spatial resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21683 by Adrian Glauser, Aiden Weatherbee, Alexander Archibald, Alistair Glasse, Amaury Triaud, Beth Biller, Daniel Dicken, Eleonora Alei, Esther Wang, Floris van der Tak, Gregory Cooke, James Fecanin, Mark Booth, Marrick Braam, Mei Ting Mak, Paul Palmer, Paul Rimmer, Sarah Rugheimer, Sascha P. Quanz, Sergey Yurchenko, Tereza Constantinou, Tim Pearce, Trent Dupuy, Vito Squicciarini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Earth-twin at 10pc emission spectrum showing the dominant atmospheric features in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The statistical significance of the null result for a given [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Retrieval results of molecular abundances and planetary parameters for a simulated thermal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

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

58 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, A106

    Alei, E., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, A106

    2022

  2. [2]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A245

    ---. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A245

    2024

  3. [3]

    2023,, Astrobiology, 23, 183

    Angerhausen, D., et al. 2023,, Astrobiology, 23, 183

    2023

  4. [4]

    2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 128

    ---. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 128

    2024

  5. [5]

    2018, Physical review letters, 120, 061101

    Armano, M., et al. 2018, Physical review letters, 120, 061101

    2018

  6. [6]

    2026, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 707, A281

    Braam, M., & Angerhausen, D. 2026, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 707, A281

    2026

  7. [7]

    2025, The Planetary Science Journal, 6, 5

    Braam, M., et al. 2025, The Planetary Science Journal, 6, 5

    2025

  8. [8]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 36

    Bryson, S., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 36

    2020

  9. [9]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A96

    Carri \'o n-Gonz \'a lez, \'O ., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A96

    2023

  10. [10]

    C., et al

    Catling , D. C., et al. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 709

    2018

  11. [11]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 692, A172

    Cesario, L., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 692, A172

    2024

  12. [12]

    B., et al

    Claringbold , A. B., et al. 2023, , 166, 39

    2023

  13. [13]

    B., et al

    Cowan , N. B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.03071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    2022, , 163, 299

    Damiano , M., & Hu , R. 2022, , 163, 299

    2022

  15. [15]

    D., & Charbonneau, D

    Dressing, C. D., & Charbonneau, D. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 95

    2013

  16. [16]

    2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 372, 20130083

    Encrenaz , T. 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 372, 20130083

    2014

  17. [17]

    2018, in Silicon Photonics: From Fundamental Research to Manufacturing, Vol

    F \`e d \`e li, J.-M., et al. 2018, in Silicon Photonics: From Fundamental Research to Manufacturing, Vol. 10686, SPIE, 23--30

    2018

  18. [18]

    2024, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, Vol

    Feinberg, L., et al. 2024, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, Vol. 13092, SPIE, 511--522

    2024

  19. [19]

    K., et al

    Feng, Y. K., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 200

    2018

  20. [20]

    1987, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 185, 267

    Ferlet, R., et al. 1987, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 185, 267

    1987

  21. [21]

    2024, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 015002

    Garreau, G., et al. 2024, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 015002

    2024

  22. [22]

    M., et al

    Glauser, A. M., et al. 2024, in Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging IX, ed. J. Kammerer, S. Sallum, & J. Sanchez-Bermudez, Vol. 13095, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 130951D

    2024

  23. [23]

    Group, T. P. F. I. S. W. 2008, Terrestrial Planet Finder Interferometer Science Working Group Report, Tech. Rep. NTRS 20080008515, NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory

    2008

  24. [24]

    2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 77, 1080

    Ito, T., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 77, 1080

    2025

  25. [25]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 671, A114

    Janson, M., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 671, A114

    2023

  26. [26]

    2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 213

    Kawashima, Y., & Rugheimer, S. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 213

    2019

  27. [27]

    2025 (Ariel Monitoring & Evaluation Support, Interim Impact & Process Evaluation for the UK Space Agency)

    Know.space. 2025 (Ariel Monitoring & Evaluation Support, Interim Impact & Process Evaluation for the UK Space Agency)

    2025

  28. [28]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 664, A23

    Konrad, B., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 664, A23

    2022

  29. [29]

    S., et al

    Konrad, B. S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 13

    2024

  30. [30]

    2018, Science advances, 4, eaao5747

    Krissansen-Totton, J., et al. 2018, Science advances, 4, eaao5747

    2018

  31. [31]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.14771

    ---. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.14771

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    1965, Nature, 207, 9

    Lederberg, J. 1965, Nature, 207, 9

    1965

  33. [33]

    Lovelock, J. E. 1965, Nature, 207, 568

    1965

  34. [34]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 983, L40

    Madhusudhan, N., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 983, L40

    2025

  35. [35]

    2024, Nature, 633, 789–792

    Matthews, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 789–792

    2024

  36. [36]

    S., et al

    Meadows, V. S., et al. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 630

    2018

  37. [37]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 24

    Mettler, J.-N., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 24

    2024

  38. [38]

    Müller, H. S. 2013, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 130, 335–340

    2013

  39. [39]

    2025, The Detection-vs-Retrieval Challenge: Titan as an Exoplanet

    Niraula, P., et al. 2025, The Detection-vs-Retrieval Challenge: Titan as an Exoplanet

    2025

  40. [40]

    R., et al

    Norris, B. R., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 4180

    2020

  41. [41]

    F., et al

    Penin, L. F., et al. 2020, in Proceedings of the AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Space Mission Architectures, SSC20--I--02

    2020

  42. [42]

    P., et al

    Quanz, S. P., et al. 2022 a , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 664, A21

    2022

  43. [43]

    2022 b , Experimental Astronomy, 54, 1197

    ---. 2022 b , Experimental Astronomy, 54, 1197

    2022

  44. [44]

    V., et al

    Rackham, B. V., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 96

    2019

  45. [45]

    B., et al

    Rimmer , P. B., et al. 2021, Elements, 17, 265

    2021

  46. [46]

    2013, Astrobiology, 13, 251

    Rugheimer , S., et al. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 251

    2013

  47. [47]

    2015, , 809, 57

    ---. 2015, , 809, 57

    2015

  48. [48]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1003, 85

    Rugheimer, S., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1003, 85

    2026

  49. [49]

    2023, Nature, 614, 659

    Rustamkulov, Z., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 659

    2023

  50. [50]

    1993, Nature, 365, 715

    Sagan, C., et al. 1993, Nature, 365, 715

    1993

  51. [51]

    W., et al

    Schwieterman , E. W., et al. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 663

    2018

  52. [52]

    A., et al

    Str m, P. A., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 101001

    2020

  53. [53]

    H., et al

    Triaud, A. H., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 17

    2024

  54. [54]

    2021, Applied Sciences, 11, 2671

    Ulbricht, G., et al. 2021, Applied Sciences, 11, 2671

    2021

  55. [55]

    G., et al

    Ulses, A. G., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 990, 48

    2025

  56. [56]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21788

    Welbanks, L., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21788

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    A., et al

    Winiberg, F. A., et al. 2025, Nature, 646, 1057

    2025

  58. [58]

    Zieba, S. , et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L13

    2019