Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

High-Resolution Dayside Spectroscopy of the Ultra-Hot Jupiter WASP-178b with GHOST/Gemini South

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports an 8.3-sigma detection of neutral iron emission from the dayside of ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-178b, evidence of a thermal inversion in its atmosphere.

desk verdict The Fe emission detection is likely real and worth taking seriously, but the abstract's claim to 'verify a thermal inversion' overreaches because the template already assumes an inverted T-P profile. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27363 v1 pith:O4P6WZUN submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.EP

Caitlin E. Bell , Emily K. Deibert , Adam B. Langeveld , Ernst de Mooij , Ray Jayawardhana , Laura Flagg , Jake D. Turner This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords ultra-hotJupiterdaysideemissionspectroscopyneutralironthermalinversionDopplercross-correlationhigh-resolutionexoplanetatmospheres
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-178b's dayside atmosphere emits neutral iron at high significance, and that this emission is a sign of a thermal inversion — a region where temperature rises with altitude instead of falling. Using about nine hours of high-resolution optical spectra taken before and after secondary eclipse, the authors cross-correlate the data with an LTE model atmosphere and report an 8.3σ iron signal at the planet's expected orbital velocity. They also find tentative signals from neutral silicon and calcium, and use model-injection tests to argue that non-detections of other species are expected given the data quality. If correct, the measurement makes WASP-178b one of the clearest optical confirmations of a dayside inversion in an ultra-hot Jupiter, and ties together previous near-infrared and transmission results.

What carries the argument

The analysis hinges on Doppler cross-correlation against an LTE emission template built with a one-dimensional radiative-transfer model and an assumed solar-abundance chemical equilibrium composition. The template uses a two-point temperature-pressure profile taken from a prior retrieval of the same planet's near-infrared dayside spectrum; that profile itself contains the thermal inversion the paper argues the emission verifies. The cross-correlation map in Keplerian-velocity versus radial-velocity space is the mechanism that separates a genuine planetary signal from telluric and stellar contamination, and the model injection/recovery tests quantify how well the template matches the data.

What would settle it

Cross-correlate the same data with a template computed from a self-consistent non-LTE temperature-pressure profile (for example, one that produces a cooler upper atmosphere). If the 8.3σ peak disappears or flips to absorption, the inversion claim fails; if it persists, the inversion is robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a strong (8.3σ) detection of neutral atomic iron in emission from the dayside of WASP-178b, found by Doppler cross-correlating high-resolution optical spectra with a model generated under local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE). The correlation peak sits at a Keplerian velocity of 175.0(+2.3/−2.6) km/s and near-zero radial velocity, matching the expected planetary motion. Because an inverted temperature-pressure profile is required for iron to appear in emission rather than absorption, the authors interpret the detection as verification of a thermal inversion in the dayside atmosphere, complementing a previous near-infrared study. They also report tentative (≈4σ) hints of

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation that the signal is iron emission from a thermal inversion depends on the adopted two-point temperature-pressure profile (already containing the inversion) and the LTE template; if the template misrepresents line formation, the signal's sign or significance could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the detection is correct, neutral iron survives on the dayside despite temperatures high enough to ionize it, constraining the ionization balance and vertical mixing.
  • The emission signature confirms a thermal inversion in the optical, extending the evidence previously available only from near-infrared CO and H2O detections.
  • The tentative silicon emission adds a new data point to the small set of ultra-hot Jupiters with dayside Si detections, supporting the idea that SiO from cooler regions dissociates on the hottest dayside.
  • The tentative calcium emission, with no corresponding Ca+ detection, suggests the observations probe pressures near the Ca/Ca+ ionization boundary.
  • Joint analysis with existing near-infrared dayside spectra could yield a refractory-to-volatile abundance ratio, linking composition to planet formation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is a non-LTE emission template; if the inversion is as strong as recent non-LTE simulations suggest, the iron lines might be even brighter than LTE predicts, and the injection/recovery discrepancy (5.1σ recovered vs 7.7σ observed) hints the LTE template under-predicts the signal.
  • If the silicon hint is real and confined to pre-eclipse phases, it would imply Si is concentrated near the dayside hotspot, tracing the dissociation of SiO into a gaseous Si reservoir that could later condense into silicate clouds on the nightside.
  • The slight offset in the calcium peak's Keplerian velocity (167 vs 176 km/s) could indicate that different species probe different atmospheric layers with different wind dynamics; a longer phase coverage would test this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents ~9 h of GHOST/Gemini South high-resolution optical spectroscopy of the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-178b, obtained at pre- and post-eclipse phases (272 exposures). After DRAGONS reduction and SysRem telluric/stellar removal, the authors perform Doppler cross-correlation of the data with 1D LTE petitRADTRANS/FastChem models built from a two-point T-P profile taken from the CRIRES+ retrieval of Cont et al. (2024). They report an 8.3σ detection of Fe at Kp = 175.0^{+2.3}_{-2.6} km/s and RV = -0.9^{+1.8}_{-1.3} km/s, tentative 4.0σ Si and 4.3σ Ca signals, and non-detections for the other 11 species searched. Injection/recovery tests show that only Fe (and marginally Ca in one arm) can be recovered at the expected location. The authors interpret the Fe emission as verifying a dayside thermal inversion in WASP-178b.

Significance. The Fe detection, if taken at face value, is a valuable addition to high-resolution dayside spectroscopy of ultra-hot Jupiters: it is the first high-resolution optical dayside Fe detection for WASP-178b, and the measured Kp is consistent with previous transmission-spectroscopy measurements, strengthening the case for a planetary origin. The paper is also transparent in several respects: the ΔCCF-based SysRem iteration optimization is described in detail, the injection/recovery results are reported honestly even when they show model mismatch, and the reduced data are made available in the Gemini archive. However, the central interpretive claim that this detection 'verifies' a thermal inversion is not supported by the analysis as presented, because the Fe template already assumes an inverted T-P profile. The detection is better characterized as consistent with the assumed inverted template or with a thermal inversion; the paper needs either a control calculation or a change in wording to avoid circularity.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Table 1, §7.1] The Fe emission template is constructed with petitRADTRANS using the two-point T-P profile from Cont et al. (2024): T1 = 3661 K at log p1 = −4.62 and T2 = 2756 K at log p2 = −0.33 (Table 1). This profile already contains a thermal inversion. The abstract and §7.1 claim that the 8.3σ detection 'verifies' that inversion. That inference is circular unless a control model without an inversion is also cross-correlated, because a positive CCF peak for the inverted-profile template is exactly what the assumed profile predicts. I request either (a) an additional cross-correlation with a non-inverted (e.g., isothermal or monotonically decreasing) Fe template, reporting the CCF sign and significance, or (b) revision of the abstract/conclusions to state that the detection is consistent with, but does not independently verify, a thermal inversion.
  2. [§5.1, §6.1] The detection significance is computed as the peak divided by the standard deviation of a 3σ-clipped version of the same Kp−RV map. This does not account for the large search space (Kp from 1 to 300 km/s in 1 km/s steps, RV from −300 to +300 km/s) or for the fact that 14 species were tested. The quoted 8.3σ should be accompanied by a null-hypothesis calibration (e.g., bootstrap or velocity-scrambled noise maps) or a formal look-elsewhere correction. The tentative 4.0σ Si and 4.3σ Ca peaks in the same maps are especially sensitive to this issue; without such calibration the meaning of the 5σ 'confident detection' threshold is not well defined.
  3. [§6.3] The injection/recovery test recovers an injected Fe model at only 5.1σ in the night-1 red data, compared with the observed 7.7σ in the same arm. As the authors note, this indicates the 1D LTE template is not a good match to the true line shape. Consequently, the quoted 8.3σ and the emission/inversion interpretation are template-dependent. The paper does not test whether the observed features would also be consistent with a non-inverted LTE template or with NLTE line formation. I recommend either adding a sign/amplitude fit for Fe (e.g., fitting the CCF with a free continuum and emission/absorption scaling) or explicitly quantifying how much of the 8.3σ relies on the inverted-profile assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and title] The manuscript consistently renders 'WASP-178b' as 'W ASP-178b' in the title, abstract, and body text. Please correct the spacing throughout.
  2. [§2] The text states that sky subtraction and barycentric correction were turned OFF, then says BERV values were taken from the default products. Please clarify whether the default DRAGONS products were used only for BERV and not for the spectra used in the analysis.
  3. [Figure 5 caption] The caption says 'dashed black lines represent the combined peak RV and Kp' but the plotted slices are not individually labeled with units. Adding numerical peak values and units would improve readability.
  4. [§4] Please state explicitly in §4 that all models are 1D, LTE, solar-abundance, and that no limb/dayside viewing-angle weighting is applied. This is acknowledged later in §7.3, but it should be stated where the models are introduced.
  5. [References] Some inline citations use inconsistent formats, e.g., 'Talens, G. J. J. et al.' rather than the author-year format used elsewhere. A thorough copyedit is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Fe detection likely real, but 'verify thermal inversion' is self-referential because the emission template already encodes the inverted T-P profile.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Section 4; Section 7.1]
    "We verify the presence of a thermal inversion in the dayside atmosphere with a high-significance (8.3σ) detection of neutral iron emission ... the T-P profile was generated using the best-fit parameters from the retrieval analysis of a two-point T-P profile presented in D. Cont et al. (2024). ... The fact that we observe Fe in emission is also consistent with the presence of a thermal inversion in WASP-178b’s atmosphere, as first demonstrated by D. Cont et al. (2024)."

    The Fe emission template used for cross-correlation is constructed from a two-point T-P profile (T1=3661 K at log p1=-4.62, T2=2756 K at log p2=-0.33) that already contains the thermal inversion. This fixes the sign of the model lines as emission; a positive CCF then merely indicates the data contain the template's line pattern, not that the inversion is independently detected. Without a control using a non-inverted (absorption) template, the claim to 'verify' the inversion reduces to the assumption already built into the model.

full rationale

The paper's detection of Fe at 8.3σ is a genuine cross-correlation signal at the expected Kp, and the injection/recovery test shows the observed signal is stronger than the injected model (7.7σ vs 5.1σ), so the detection is not merely the model fitting itself. However, the interpretation of this signal as iron emission, and hence as verification of a thermal inversion, is contingent on the inverted T-P profile adopted from Cont et al. (2024) to generate the template. Because the template's emission/absorption contrast is determined by that assumed profile, the positive correlation does not independently prove the inversion; it is self-referential. The paper also acknowledges the inversion was 'first demonstrated' by Cont et al., so the verification is partially redundant. No fitted parameters are derived from the detection, and the species detection itself is likely robust, so the circularity is moderate rather than severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper fits no new physical constants. Its central detection depends on inherited free parameters (T-P anchors from a prior retrieval, SysRem iteration choices) and on domain assumptions about LTE modeling, CCF noise statistics, and line lists. No invented entities.

free parameters (2)
  • Two-point T-P profile anchors (T1, log p1; T2, log p2) = T1=3661 K, log p1=-4.62 (+1.56/-1.88); T2=2756 K, log p2=-0.33 (+1.64/-1.53)
    Adopted from the CRIRES+ high-resolution retrieval of Cont et al. (2024) and used as the temperature structure for every petitRADTRANS emission template; it encodes the thermal inversion, so it controls whether the templates show emission and how strong the lines are.
  • SysRem iteration counts (per camera/night) = red N1=2, red N2=3; blue N1=N2=5
    Chosen by maximizing the ΔCCF Fe detection significance; these hand-selected processing parameters affect how much of the planetary signal survives telluric/stellar removal.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LTE, 1D, solar-abundance chemical-equilibrium emission models with adopted line lists are adequate CCF templates.
    Section 4 and Section 6.3; the injection/recovery result (5.1σ vs 7.7σ) shows the template is imperfect, and §7.3 says NLTE effects could matter.
  • domain assumption SysRem removes time-stationary stellar/telluric features without removing the planetary signal.
    Section 3.2; the ΔCCF iteration choice uses an injected Fe model as proxy; if SysRem partially removes the planetary signal or leaves correlated residuals, CCF significances change.
  • domain assumption The sigma-clipped standard deviation of the 2D Kp-RV map is a valid noise estimate for computing CCF significances.
    Section 5.1; the paper notes common spurious ~3σ peaks and uses a 5σ threshold, but does not calibrate the false-positive rate with null injections.
  • domain assumption The adopted line lists (Fe, Si, Ca, Ca+, etc.) are accurate over the GHOST usable wavelength range.
    Section 4 and the Deibert et al. appendix; line positions and oscillator strengths determine the CCF peak strength.
  • domain assumption The planet's emitting region follows the adopted Keplerian velocity with no strong wind-induced distortion.
    Section 5.1; the Kp/RV errors are quoted as the 1σ extent of the peak, so atmospheric dynamics would shift or broaden the interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-Resolution Dayside Spectroscopy of the Ultra-Hot Jupiter WASP-178b with GHOST/Gemini South." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O4P6WZUN

@misc{pith2026260727363,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-Resolution Dayside Spectroscopy of the Ultra-Hot Jupiter WASP-178b with GHOST/Gemini South},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O4P6WZUN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27363}
}
abstract

We present high-resolution dayside spectroscopy of the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-178b obtained with the Gemini High-resolution Optical SpecTrograph (GHOST) at the Gemini South Observatory. The observations cover pre- and post-eclipse orbital phases, lasting approximately 9 hours in total, and represent the first published high-resolution optical dayside emission spectroscopy of WASP-178b's atmosphere, complementing previous near-infrared dayside spectroscopy. We verify the presence of a thermal inversion in the dayside atmosphere with a high-significance (8.3$\sigma$) detection of neutral iron emission via the Doppler cross-correlation technique, alongside hints of neutral Si and Ca emission. We also carry out model injection/recovery tests for other atmospheric species, which indicate that we do not expect to detect the majority of species searched for in this work, assuming our models are accurate representations of the planet's atmosphere. Finally, we place our results into context with previous work, showing how our tentative detection of neutral Si complements existing space-based observations and adds a new data point to previous detections of Si in ultra-hot Jupiter atmospheres. Our high-resolution observations provide important context about the dayside of WASP-178b, shedding light on 3D atmospheric processes and the extreme conditions present in ultra-hot Jupiter atmospheres.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27363 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A visualization of the pre- and post-eclipse orbital phases (night 1 and night 2 respectively) covered by these observations. The star, planet, and orbit are drawn to scale. night 1 (pre-eclipse), the sky remained mostly clear, and the seeing was around 0.7 to 0.8 arcseconds (i.e., within the IQ70 bin as defined at Gemini South). On night 2 (post-eclipse), some thin cirrus cloud cover was present throughout the obse… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: The average SNR per exposure for both nights of our observations in both the blue and red cameras. Night 1, corresponding to pre-eclipse orbital phases, is plotted before the break in the x-axis; while night 2, corresponding to post-eclipse phases, is plotted after the break in the x-axis. Note that the break in the x-axis does not correspond exactly to secondary eclipse. Upward-pointing triangles indicate the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The results of applying the ∆CCF method to the blue (left subplot) and red (right subplot) arms of the data for the two nights of our observations, as described in Section 3. The iteration used for each respective arm and night is indicated with a black outline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: The Fe model used in our analysis, generated with petitRADTRANS (P. Molli`ere et al. 2019), as described in Section 4. The full GHOST wavelength is shown; however, we note that we used only a subset of this wavelength range (corresponding to the “usable” range of…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Row 1: The results of cross-correlating our night 1 data with the Fe model. The location of the peak Kp and RV values are indicated by converging dotted white lines in each plot with a significant detection. For plots without a significant detection, the expected plane…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The combined night 1, night 2, blue (where applicable; see Section 6), and red arm 2D Kp−RV maps for the species not detected in this work. The location of the expected planet location is indicated with non-converging dashed white lines (i.e., RV= 0 km/s, Kp ∼ 176.5 km…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: The results of cross correlating our night 1 data with the Si model. The blue arm of the spectro￾graph data has been excluded from this analysis, due to the fact that it does not contain strong Si lines (see Section 6). The location of the peak Kp and RV values ar…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The results of cross-correlating our data with the Ca model. The subplots are as described in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top row: The results of the model injection/recovery test, as described in Section 5.2, for the atmospheric model generated for Fe. The four subplots display the results for the red and blue arms of the night 1 (first two panels) and night 2 (last 2 panels) data respec…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: The Ca and Ca+ models used in our analysis, as described in Section 4. Right: The volume mixing ratios as a function of pressure for Ca and Ca+, as calculated by FastChem. The solid lines represent the VMRs calculated for WASP-178b, while the dashed lines repres…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The results of applying the SysRem algorithm to the first 11 orders (top three rows) and last 10 orders (bottom three rows) in the night 1 blue arm of the spectrograph. Top row: The data reduced by DRAGONS. Note that there may be some overlap in wavelength between sub…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    J., & Cowan, N

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aabcc8 2018

  3. [3]

    A., & Rathcke, A

    Buchhave, L. A., & Rathcke, A. D. 2022, AJ, 163, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac402e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac402e 2022

  4. [4]

    C., Wang, J., et al

    Bonidie, V., Johnson, M. C., Wang, J., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae21be

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae21be 2026

  5. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039344 2021

  6. [6]

    Brogi, M., & Line, M. R. 2019, AJ, 157, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaffd3

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaffd3 2019

  7. [7]

    2019, A&A, 628, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935623

    Casasayas-Barris, N., Pall´ e, E., Yan, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935623

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935623 2019

  8. [8]

    A., Lothringer, J., & Blake, G

    Chachan, Y., Knutson, H. A., Lothringer, J., & Blake, G. A. 2023, ApJ, 943, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca614

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca614 2023

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    J., Madhusudhan, N., & Holmberg, M

    Cheverall, C. J., Madhusudhan, N., & Holmberg, M. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad648 18 Figure 11.The results of applying the SysRem algorithm to the first 11 orders (top three rows) and last 10 orders (bottom three rows) in the night 1 blue arm of the spectrogr...

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, A&A, 657, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142776

    Cont, D., Yan, F., Reiners, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142776

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08166

    Cont, D., Nortmann, L., Yan, F., et al. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08166

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C., Seidel, J

    Damasceno, Y. C., Seidel, J. V., Prinoth, B., et al. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202450119 D’Arpa, M. C., Saba, A., Borsa, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A237, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449341

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    K., Langeveld, A

    Deibert, E. K., Langeveld, A. B., Young, M. E., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad643f

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    2017, AJ, 153, 268, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7133

    Watson, C., & de Kok, R. 2017, AJ, 153, 268, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7133

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Dawson, R

    Fortney, J. J., Dawson, R. I., & Komacek, T. D. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 126, e2020JE006629, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JE006629

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Shulyak, D., et al

    Fossati, L., Young, M. E., Shulyak, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140813

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    G., et al

    Fossati, L., Shulyak, D., Sreejith, A. G., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039061

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    G., Koskinen, T., et al

    Fossati, L., Sreejith, A. G., Koskinen, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A186, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554240

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Stassun, K

    Gaudi, B. S., Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 546, 514–518, doi: 10.1038/nature22392

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    2026, A&A, 706, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557869

    Guo, B., Yan, F., Henning, T., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557869

    2026 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Barkaoui, K., et al

    Hellier, C., Anderson, D. R., Barkaoui, K., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 1479–1487, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2713

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2019, A&A, 626, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834085

    Helling, C., Gourbin, P., Woitke, P., & Parmentier, V. 2019, A&A, 626, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834085

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    P., & Jayawardhana, R

    Gibson, N. P., & Jayawardhana, R. 2022, AJ, 163, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5f4d

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Kitzmann, D., Morris, B

    Hoeijmakers, H. J., Kitzmann, D., Morris, B. M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244968

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

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

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Diaz, R

    Kalari, V. M., Diaz, R. J., Robertson, G., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad72ed

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    R., Chiarella, M., et al

    Kanumalla, K., Line, M. R., Chiarella, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.07497, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.07497

    2026 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Turner, J. E. H. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben, M. W. Pound, B. A. Thomas, & E. M. Warner, 321

    2019

  22. [30]

    2022,, 3.0.4, Zenodo Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7308726

    Labrie, K., Simpson, C., Anderson, K., et al. 2022,, 3.0.4, Zenodo Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7308726

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    B., Deibert, E

    Langeveld, A. B., Deibert, E. K., Young, M. E., et al. 2025, ApJL, 981, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb70d

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    D., Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D

    Lothringer, J. D., Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8a9

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Sing, D

    Lothringer, J. D., Sing, D. K., Rustamkulov, Z., et al. 2022, Nature, 604, 49, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04453-2

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    D., Bennett, K

    Lothringer, J. D., Bennett, K. A., Sing, D. K., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 274, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc117

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Nugroho, S

    Maguire, C., Gibson, N. P., Nugroho, S. K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1030, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3388 Mart ´ ınez, R. R., Gaudi, B. S., Rodriguez, J. E., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9f2d 21 Figure 14.The same as Fig. 11, but for t...

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    W., Hayes, C

    McConnachie, A. W., Hayes, C. R., Robertson, J. G., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad1ed4 Molli` ere, P., Wardenier, J. P., van Boekel, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935470

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    K., Gibson, N

    Nugroho, S. K., Gibson, N. P., de Mooij, E. J. W., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1459

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    R., Bean, J

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

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2023, Nature, 619, 491, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06134-0

    Pelletier, S., Benneke, B., Ali-Dib, M., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 491, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06134-0

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Pelletier, S., et al

    Prinoth, B., Hoeijmakers, H. J., Pelletier, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347262

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    V., Hoeijmakers, H

    Prinoth, B., Seidel, J. V., Hoeijmakers, H. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A284, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452405

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    2023, AJ, 165, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acc654

    Ridden-Harper, A., de Mooij, E., Jayawardhana, R., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acc654

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Saha, S., & Jenkins, J. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11479, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11479

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Smith, P

    Sanchez, J. A., Smith, P. C. B., Kanumalla, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.10904, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.10904

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    Smith, P. C. B., Sanchez, J. A., Line, M. R., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 293, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8574

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2010, Nature, 465, 1049, doi: 10.1038/nature09111

    Albrecht, S. 2010, Nature, 465, 1049, doi: 10.1038/nature09111

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

    W., Kitzmann, D., Patzer, A

    Stock, J. W., Kitzmann, D., Patzer, A. B. C., & Sedlmayr, E. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1531

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Talens, G. J. J., Justesen, A. B., Albrecht, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731512

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    2005, MNRAS, 356, 1466, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08585.x

    Tamuz, O., Mazeh, T., & Zucker, S. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1466, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08585.x

    2005

  42. [50]

    D., de Mooij, E

    Turner, J. D., de Mooij, E. J. W., Jayawardhana, R., et al. 2020, ApJL, 888, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab60a9 van Sluijs, L., Rauscher, E., Kempton, E. M.-R., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adfb61

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    2019, A&A, 632, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936396

    Yan, F., Casasayas-Barris, N., Molaverdikhani, K., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936396

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    P., Householder, A., et al

    Zhang, Y., Wardenier, J. P., Householder, A., et al. 2026, ApJL, 997, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae36a1

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.