The False Spin of an Exo-Venus

Stephen R. Kane

The False Spin of an Exo-Venus

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A superrotating cloud deck can make a slowly spinning Venus-like planet look like a fast rotator in reflected light, and only altitude-dependent velocity measurements can tell the two apart.

desk verdict A clean proof that a Venus-like superrotating cloud deck can exactly mimic a fast rotator in reflected light; the paper's honest caveats keep it from overreaching, and it deserves a proper referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06475 v1 pith:56HP4DSY submitted 2026-08-06 astro-ph.EP

Stephen R. Kane This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EP

keywords exoplanetatmospheresdirectimagingterrestrialplanetsVenusplanetarysuperrotationrotationallinebroadeningfalsespin

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

This paper establishes that a reflected-light spectrum cannot, by itself, tell a rapidly rotating rocky planet from a slowly rotating one wrapped in a superrotating atmosphere. The claim is proved for the cleanest case: when a single spectral tracer samples one narrow pressure range and the zonal wind falls off with latitude exactly like solid-body rotation, the disk-integrated line profile is mathematically identical to that of a solid body with an effective equatorial velocity $v_\mathrm{app}=2\pi R_p/P_\mathrm{rot}+u_0(p)$. A Venus-like world with a 243-day solid spin and about 100 m/s cloud-top winds therefore looks like a planet spinning once every 4--5 days. The paper's answer is to stop asking for one spin value and instead measure apparent rotation at several atmospheric depths; a planet that shows the same velocity at every pressure is probably rotating as a solid body, while one whose inferred period shortens toward the cloud deck is revealing atmospheric superrotation. The practical stake is that future direct-imaging missions must report wavelength- and pressure-dependent velocities for cloudy terrestrial planets, or risk mistaking an atmospheric 'false spin' for the rotation of the surface.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the disk-integrated velocity kernel $K(v,p,\alpha)=\int W(\varphi,\lambda,\alpha)\,\delta[v-v_\mathrm{los}(\varphi,\lambda,p)]\,\cos\varphi\,d\varphi\,d\lambda$, with $W$ a Lambertian illumination and visibility weight and $\cos\varphi$ the area element. The key move is the ansatz $u_\phi=u_0(p)\cos\varphi$: it makes every surface element's projected velocity proportional to the same $\cos\varphi\sin\lambda$ factor as solid-body rotation, so wind and spin collapse into a single additive effective velocity $v_\mathrm{app}(p)$. The kernel then carries no information about how that velocity is split between surface motion and atmospheric motion. The same machinery yields the paper's diagnostics: the flux-weighted kernel width sets the required resolving power and signal-to-noise, and the phase-dependent centroid acts as a disk-weighted velocity shift that must not be mistaken for orbital motion.

What would settle it

Take a directly imaged cloudy terrestrial planet and measure $v_\mathrm{app}$ from a cloud-deck tracer (visible reflected light) and from a deeper tracer (a near-infrared window or line wing formed at higher pressure). If the two values agree to within the model's projection error, the false-spin interpretation for that planet is falsified and the layer is probably rotating with the solid body; if the deeper tracer gives a systematically smaller velocity (longer period), the superrotation interpretation is confirmed. The same test can be applied to Venus itself by comparing cloud-tracked winds at the cloud deck with sub-cloud velocities from night-side near-infrared windows.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an exact observational degeneracy: for a single pressure level probed by one spectral tracer, the line-of-sight velocity field of a solid body rotating with period $P_\mathrm{rot}$ is indistinguishable from that of a slowly rotating planet whose zonal wind has the latitude dependence $u_\phi(\phi,p)=u_0(p)\cos\phi$. Combining Equations (1)--(4) gives $v_\mathrm{los}=-[(2\pi R_p/P_\mathrm{rot})+u_0(p)]\cos\phi\,\sin\lambda$, so the disk-integrated velocity kernel $K(v,p,\alpha)$ depends only on the sum $v_\mathrm{app}(p)=2\pi R_p/P_\mathrm{rot}+u_0(p)$. As a result, a Venus-like cloud deck moving near 100 m/s reproduces, line for line, the reflected-light profile of a planet spinning with a 4--5-day period. Because real Venus-like wind fields depart from $\cos\phi$ (equatorial jets, mid-latitude jets, polar vortices), the exact degeneracy is a worst case; the observables that survive it are the variation of apparent rotation with pressure, wavelength, line strength, and orbital phase. The paper's central interpretive claim is that 'false spin'---an altitude-dependent apparent rotation period---is the diagnostic to seek, not a single $v\sin i$ value.

Load-bearing premise

The exact degeneracy holds only if a spectral tracer can be assigned to a single narrow pressure range and the zonal wind has the $\cos\varphi$ latitude dependence of solid-body rotation; broad contribution functions or wind profiles with equatorial or mid-latitude jets break the identity, though they may make the degeneracy easier to spot rather than harder.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A reflected-light rotation measurement of a cloudy terrestrial planet measures the scattering layer, not automatically the solid body.
A single observed $v\sin i$ is ambiguous, because slow solid rotation plus a $\cos\varphi$ superrotating wind at the probed pressure reproduces the identical disk-integrated line profile.
Measuring apparent rotation in at least two pressure regimes separates the cases: constant $v_\mathrm{app}$ favors solid rotation, while a sequence that shortens to about 4--5 days near the cloud deck signals superrotation.
Near-infrared windows that probe sub-cloud levels on Venus (around 2.3, 1.74, and 1.18 $\mu$m) provide the pressure leverage needed to see this vertical shear in an exo-Venus.
Resolving 20--100 m/s vertical shear requires very high spectral resolving power and high signal-to-noise, so the first observational tests may come from brighter, closer-in giant planets with faster winds.

Reading between the lines

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

If the degeneracy holds, published reflected-light spectra of close-in giants should already contain wavelength-dependent width variations; re-fitting cross-correlation functions by line-core versus line-wing could test the shear hypothesis without new observations.
The computed phase-dependent velocity centroid implies that orbital radial-velocity fits to directly imaged planets will need to include an atmospheric and rotational disk-weighting term, otherwise tens of m/s biases could masquerade as orbital curvature.
For winds that depart from $\cos\varphi$, the single-epoch line-profile asymmetry is a latent fingerprint of latitudinal wind structure; retrievals that fit the full kernel shape rather than its width could map equatorial jets and polar vortices on exo-Venuses.
A practical extension is to compare a photometric rotation period with a spectroscopic velocity width from the same wavelength region, giving a consistency check that separates patchy cloud advection from true layer motion before committing to a false-spin interpretation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a clean, honest paper that proves a specific degeneracy—Venus-like superrotation with a cos(latitude) wind profile produces a disk-integrated reflected-light line profile identical to that of a fast solid rotator. The derivation in Eqs (1)–(5) is correct under the stated assumptions, and the paper is upfront that those assumptions are idealizations. The vertical-shear diagnostic (measure apparent v sin i as a function of pressure or wavelength) is the right way to break the degeneracy, and the paper correctly frames the detectability estimates as lower limits.

What is actually new: the exact cos(phi) degeneracy for disk-integrated reflected-light spectra of terrestrial exoplanets, and the altitude-dependent 'false spin' framing. Prior work on hot Jupiters and Venus photometry established that winds contaminate rotation measurements, but I have not seen the exact kernel-matching statement for a single pressure layer, nor the explicit suggestion to use multi-wavelength line cores and wings to measure vertical shear. That is a useful framework for HWO and ELT planning.

Where it is soft: the model is deliberately simple—single pressure level, Lambertian scattering, static clouds, no obliquity, horizontally uniform. The paper acknowledges all of this, and real Venus winds depart from cos phi, so the exact degeneracy is a worst case rather than a typical one. The detectability calculation is a rough scaling (Eq. 10) rather than an injection-recovery test, and the numbers show how hard the terrestrial case is: R ~ 1e6 and effective CCF S/N of order 200–2e4, which puts the measurement beyond current facilities. That is not a fatal flaw if the paper is read as a cautionary framework, but it limits near-term practical application. One minor point: the near-IR thermal windows are emission features, not reflected light, and would require a different disk-weighting geometry; the paper mentions this but buries it in the discussion.

Bottom line: the central argument holds. The paper sets boundaries on how to interpret future v sin i measurements of cloudy terrestrial planets and gives a concrete diagnostic to distinguish superrotation from spin. I would send it to a competent referee. It is not a game-changer, but it is a solid, well-scoped contribution that deserves publication after a light revision that sharpens the discussion of contribution functions and the emission-window caveat.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a disk-integrated reflected-light velocity model for a spherical planet with solid-body rotation, zonal winds, and Lambertian illumination/visibility weighting. The central result, proved in Eqs. (1)-(5), is that when the zonal wind has the latitude dependence u_phi = u0(p) cos(phi), the line-of-sight velocity field becomes v_los = -[2 pi R_p / P_rot + u0(p)] cos(phi) sin(lambda), so the disk-integrated velocity kernel K(v,p,alpha) is identical to that of a solid-body rotator with equatorial velocity v_app = 2 pi R_p / P_rot + u0(p). The paper thus demonstrates an exact single-layer degeneracy between a slowly rotating, superrotating cloudy planet and a rapidly rotating solid planet. It then proposes vertical shear (wavelength- or pressure-dependence of v_app) as the primary diagnostic, illustrates the expected apparent periods for a constructed Venus-like wind profile (~4-5 days at the cloud deck vs ~150 days in the lower atmosphere), discusses phase-resolved kernel widths and centroids, and gives an idealized CCF-width calculation of the resolving power and S/N needed to detect 20-100 m/s vertical shear. The authors explicitly state the idealizations (Lambertian scattering, single pressure layers, horizontally uniform atmosphere, cos(phi) wind) and note that real Venus-like wind departures from cos(phi) generally make the degeneracy easier to break.

Significance. The paper contributes a clean, formal cautionary result for high-dispersion reflected-light spectroscopy of cloudy terrestrial exoplanets. Its central proof is an algebraic identity: for a cos(phi) zonal wind, the atmosphere is itself rotating as a solid body, so the disk-integrated velocity kernel is indistinguishable from that of a solid planet with the combined equatorial velocity. The manuscript is unusually transparent about its idealizations, explicitly labeling the constructed wind profile, the illustrative non-solid-like exponent, and the idealized detectability scaling as such (Sections 2, 3.3, 3.4, and 4.5). The proposed observable -- wavelength- or pressure-dependent apparent rotation -- is falsifiable and connects directly to HWO target selection and ELT-class high-dispersion facilities. The paper also correctly notes that real departures from cos(phi) (equatorial and mid-latitude jets, polar vortices) generally break the exact degeneracy, making the idealized case a worst-case scenario. The main scientific value is in reframing how velocity-broadening measurements of cloudy planets should be reported and interpreted.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4.2] The statement that a rapidly rotating solid planet "should produce an approximately constant apparent velocity across all wavelengths and pressure levels probed" assumes a wavelength-independent weighting function W. If different wavelengths probe different albedo or phase-function distributions, even a solid rotator can exhibit wavelength-dependent kernel widths; please qualify this prediction as holding within the horizontally-uniform, Lambertian model used here.
[Section 2 / Figure 2] The vertical wind profile u0(p) used for the numerical examples and Figures 2 and 5 is described only qualitatively ("u0 ~ 1 m/s near the surface and ~100 m/s near the cloud deck"). Providing an explicit functional form or a short table of u0(p) values would improve reproducibility of the apparent-period curve.
[Section 2, Eq. (4)] It may help to state explicitly that u0(p) cos(phi) corresponds to an atmospheric solid-body rotation with constant angular velocity u0(p)/R_p; this makes the exactness of the degeneracy and the expression for v_app in Eq. (6) more transparent.
[Global / typesetting] In the version provided to me, the title and several symbols (e.g., Figure 5 caption and Section 4.4) contain spacing or encoding artifacts such as "F alse Spin", "V enus", and "/greaterorsimilar". Please check the compiled LaTeX so that these render correctly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central degeneracy is a self-contained mathematical identity under stated assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is derived, not fitted: given the explicit assumption u_phi(phi,p)=u0(p)cos(phi) (Eq. 4), Eq. (1) reduces algebraically to Eq. (5), so the delta-function kernel of Eq. (3) is identical for a superrotating atmosphere and a solid body with v_app=2πRp/Prot+u0(p) for any common weighting W. This is a mathematical identity with no free parameter tuned to the predicted quantity. The numerical examples are arithmetic consequences of adopted, observationally motivated inputs (e.g., 100 m/s cloud-top wind giving a 4.4-day apparent period) and are explicitly labeled as a constructed illustrative profile rather than a fitted prediction. The paper also states the conditions under which the exact degeneracy breaks (real departures from cos(phi), broad contribution functions), so the idealized result is not disguised as an empirical finding. Self-citations appear only in target-selection and context discussions, not as load-bearing justification of the derivation, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central degeneracy is a pure mathematical statement given the cos phi wind assumption. The specific numbers (4-5 day apparent period) rely on an illustrative wind profile, not on fitted parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

u0(p): vertical zonal wind profile = 1 m/s (lower atmosphere) to 100 m/s (cloud deck)
Constructed by hand to approximate Venus's measured zonal wind structure; used to compute apparent periods in Fig 2. Not derived in the paper.
q: non-solid-like wind latitude exponent = 0.35
Adopted illustratively for u_phi ∝ cos^0.35 phi; chosen to represent a wind broader in latitude than solid-body rotation, not derived from a specific model.
u_lower: lower-layer apparent velocity in detectability calculation = 20 m/s
Fixed lower-layer value in Eq (10) and Fig 5; an illustrative choice for the S/N scaling.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Lambertian scattering and visibility weighting (Eq 2) represent the reflected-light disk.
Used to compute the velocity kernel; real phase functions will differ, but the degeneracy in Eq (5) holds for any weight independent of velocity.
ad hoc to paper Zonal wind latitude dependence u_phi = u0(p) cos phi (Eq 4).
This is the key assumption that makes the degeneracy exact. The paper acknowledges real Venus winds depart from this form.
domain assumption Each spectral tracer probes a single pressure level with a single horizontal wind speed.
Required for the exact one-layer degeneracy; broad contribution functions would superpose multiple velocity fields.
domain assumption Spin axis perpendicular to orbital plane and edge-on viewing geometry.
Adopted to maximize projected velocity; the paper shows the vertical-shear ratio is independent of spin-axis inclination.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The False Spin of an Exo-Venus." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/56HP4DSY

@misc{pith2026260806475,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The False Spin of an Exo-Venus},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/56HP4DSY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06475}
}

abstract

Direct imaging of terrestrial exoplanets will enable rotational and atmospheric characterization through time-resolved photometry and high-dispersion spectroscopy. However, the velocity field inferred from reflected light does not necessarily correspond to the rotation of the solid planet, but rather to the motion of the layer from which the photons emerge. Venus provides a crucial Solar System example of this ambiguity: the solid planet rotates slowly, whereas the cloud-level atmosphere exhibits superrotation with a period of only several days. Here we investigate the observational degeneracy between rapid planetary rotation and atmospheric superrotation. We construct a disk-integrated reflected-light velocity model that includes solid-body rotation, zonal winds, and phase-dependent illumination. We show that, for a single spectral tracer probing a narrow range of pressures, a zonal wind field whose latitude dependence is similar to solid-body rotation can exactly mimic the line profile of a rapidly rotating planet. The degeneracy can be broken by measuring the apparent rotational velocity as a function of wavelength or line formation pressure. For a Venus-like wind profile, the apparent period can vary from hundreds of days in the lower atmosphere to $\sim$4--5~days at the cloud deck. We estimate the resolving power and signal-to-noise ratio required to measure this vertical shear. The most robust diagnostic of atmospheric superrotation is not a single value of $v \sin i$, but an altitude-dependent ``false spin'' signature across multiple spectral tracers. These results have direct implications for interpreting rotational measurements of Venus-like worlds with the Habitable Worlds Observatory and complementary high-dispersion facilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06475 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Disk-integrated velocity kernels at quadrature for several idealized terrestrial planets. The slow solid case adopts the solid-body rotation of Venus (P = 243 days). The Venus-like cloud deck assumes the same slow solid-body rotation but adds a cloud-level zonal velocity of 100 m s−1 . The rapid solid-body model has the same apparent equatorial velocity but no atmospheric wind. The Venus-like cloud deck and rapid … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Velocity-kernel width as a function of orbital phase. The rapidly rotating solid planet and the Venuslike cloud deck overlap because their line-of-sight velocity fields are mathematically equivalent at a single pressure level (Equation 5). A lower atmosphere with weaker winds (u = 20 m s−1 ) is clearly separated at all phases. The nonsolid-like wind profile (uφ ∝ cos0.35 φ, representing a wind that extends more br… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** shows the required effective CCF signal-tonoise ratio for detecting shear between a lower layer fixed at 20 m s−1 and an upper layer with a range of apparent velocities. The calculation shows why the terrestrial case is difficult. At R = 105 , the instrumental width is much larger than the 100 m s−1 wind field, so the width difference is heavily diluted. For a 100 m s−1 upper layer, the idealized effective CCF sig… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 119, 1860, doi: 10.1002/2014JE004662

Arney, G., Meadows, V., Crisp, D., et al. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 119, 1860, doi: 10.1002/2014JE004662

doi:10.1002/2014je004662 2014
[2]

V., Hauchecorne, A., et al

Bertaux, J.-L., Khatuntsev, I. V., Hauchecorne, A., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 121, 1087, doi: 10.1002/2015JE004958

doi:10.1002/2015je004958 2016
[3]

2026, A&A, 711, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202660755

Borsa, F. 2026, A&A, 711, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202660755

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202660755 2026
[4]

J., Albrecht, S., et al

Brogi, M., de Kok, R. J., Albrecht, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 106, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/106

doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/106 2016
[5]

2024a, PSJ, 5, 219, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad76a8

Cohen, M., Holmes, J., Lewis, S., & Patel, M. 2024a, PSJ, 5, 219, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad76a8

work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad76a8
[6]

Tiranti, P. I. 2024b, AJ, 167, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1ab9

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad1ab9
[7]

B., & Strait, T

Cowan, N. B., & Strait, T. E. 2013, ApJL, 765, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/L17

doi:10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/l17 2013
[8]

B., Agol, E., Meadows, V

Cowan, N. B., Agol, E., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 915, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/915 Crossﬁeld, I. J. M. 2014, A&A, 566, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423750

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/915 2009

Show all 69 references

[9]

2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Beland, S. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6269, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. I. S. McLean & M. Iye, 62691V, doi: 10.1117/12.669358

2006 doi
[10]

2012, ApJ, 755, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/101

Fujii, Y., & Kawahara, H. 2012, ApJ, 755, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/101

2012 doi
[11]

Fujii, Y., Lustig-Yaeger, J., & Cowan, N. B. 2017, AJ, 154, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa89f1

2017 doi
[12]

S., & Winn, J

Gaudi, B. S., & Winn, J. N. 2007, ApJ, 655, 550, doi: 10.1086/509910

2007 doi
[13]

S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al

Gaudi, B. S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.06683. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.06683

2020 arXiv
[14]

K., Dressing, C

Harada, C. K., Dressing, C. D., Kane, S. R., & Ardestani, B. A. 2024, ApJS, 272, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad3e81

2024 doi
[15]

K., Dressing, C

Harada, C. K., Dressing, C. D., Turtelboom, E. V., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 343, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae0b62

2025 doi
[16]

L., Bott, K., Dalba, P

Hill, M. L., Bott, K., Dalba, P. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca1c0

2023 doi
[17]

L., Kane, S

Hill, M. L., Kane, S. R., Seperuelo Duarte, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac384

2018 doi
[18]

2020, Science, 368, 405, doi: 10.1126/science.aaz4439

Horinouchi, T., Hayashi, Y.-Y., Watanabe, S., et al. 2020, Science, 368, 405, doi: 10.1126/science.aaz4439

2020 doi
[19]

2020, SSRv, 216, 87, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00703-9

Imamura, T., Mitchell, J., Lebonnois, S., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 87, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00703-9

2020 doi
[20]

Kane, S. R. 2014, ApJ, 782, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/111

2014 doi
[21]

R., & Burt, J

Kane, S. R., & Burt, J. A. 2024, AJ, 168, 279, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8a68

2024 doi
[22]

R., & Gelino, D

Kane, S. R., & Gelino, D. M. 2012, PASP, 124, 323, doi: 10.1086/665271

2012 doi
[23]

R., Kopparapu, R

Kane, S. R., Kopparapu, R. K., & Domagal-Goldman, S. D. 2014, ApJL, 794, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L5

2014 doi
[24]

Harada, C. K. 2024, AJ, 168, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6a50

2024 doi
[25]

R., Li, Z., Wolf, E

Kane, S. R., Li, Z., Wolf, E. T., Ostberg, C., & Hill, M. L. 2021, AJ, 161, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abcbfd

2021 doi
[26]

R., Hill, M

Kane, S. R., Hill, M. L., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 1, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/1

2016 doi
[27]

R., Bott, K

Kane, S. R., Bott, K. M., Goodis Gordon, K. E., et al. 2026, PASP, 138, 024404, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae417d

2026 doi
[28]

F., Whitmire, D

Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., & Reynolds, R. T. 1993, Icarus, 101, 108, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1010

1993
[29]

2010, ApJ, 720, 1333, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1333 —

Kawahara, H., & Fujii, Y. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1333, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1333 —. 2011, ApJL, 739, L62, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L62

2010 doi
[30]

M.-R., Perna, R., & Heng, K

Kempton, E. M.-R., Perna, R., & Heng, K. 2014, ApJ, 795, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/24

2014 doi
[31]

V., Patsaeva, M

Khatuntsev, I. V., Patsaeva, M. V., Titov, D. V., et al. 2013, Icarus, 226, 140, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.05.018

2013 doi
[32]

K., Ramirez, R

Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R. M., SchottelKotte, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L29

2014 doi
[33]

K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/131

2013 doi
[34]

2020, Science, 368, 363, doi: 10.1126/science.abb2424

Lebonnois, S. 2020, Science, 368, 363, doi: 10.1126/science.abb2424

2020 doi
[35]

2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 115, E06006, doi: 10.1029/2009JE003458

Lebonnois, S., Hourdin, F., Eymet, V., et al. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 115, E06006, doi: 10.1029/2009JE003458

2010 doi
[36]

R., & Read, P

Lee, C., Lewis, S. R., & Read, P. L. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 112, E04S11, doi: 10.1029/2006JE002874

2007 doi
[37]

J., Garc ´ ıa Mu˜ noz, A., Imamura, T., et al

Lee, Y. J., Garc ´ ıa Mu˜ noz, A., Imamura, T., et al. 2020, Nature Communications, 11, 5720, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19385-6

2020 doi
[38]

H., Yang, H., et al

Li, J., Jiang, J. H., Yang, H., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac36ce

2022 doi
[39]

S., Grassi, D., Mahieux, A., et al

Limaye, S. S., Grassi, D., Mahieux, A., et al. 2018, SSRv, 214, 102, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0525-2

2018 doi
[40]

2017, A&A, 599, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629682 12 Stephen R

Lovis, C., Snellen, I., Mouillet, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629682 12 Stephen R. Kane

2017 doi
[41]

2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Lovis, C., Blind, N., Chazelas, B., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J

2022
[42]

Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 121841Q, doi: 10.1117/12.2627923

doi
[43]

2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Marconi, A., Abreu, M., Adibekyan, V., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J

2024
[44]

Motohara, & J

Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D. Vernet, 1309613, doi: 10.1117/12.3017966

doi
[45]

P., Parkinson, C

Marcq, E., Mills, F. P., Parkinson, C. D., & Vandaele, A. C. 2018, SSRv, 214, 10, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0438-5

2018 doi
[46]

S., & Crisp, D

Meadows, V. S., & Crisp, D. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 4595, doi: 10.1029/95JE03567

1996 doi
[47]

2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Morgan, R., Savransky, D., Turmon, M., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 1309...

2024 doi
[48]

R., Li, Z., et al

Ostberg, C., Kane, S. R., Li, Z., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acbfaf Pall´ e, E., Ford, E. B., Seager, S., Monta˜ n´ es-Rodr ´ ıguez, P., & Vazquez, M. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1319, doi: 10.1086/528677

2023 doi
[49]

T., Birkby, J

Parker, L. T., Birkby, J. L., Landman, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1277

2024 doi
[50]

2021, A&A, 645, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038306

Pepe, F., Cristiani, S., Rebolo, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038306

2021 doi
[51]

J., Hueso, R., et al

Peralta, J., Lee, Y. J., Hueso, R., et al. 2017, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 3907, doi: 10.1002/2017GL072900

2017 doi
[52]

2000, A&A, 359, L13, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006213

Queloz, D., Eggenberger, A., Mayor, M., et al. 2000, A&A, 359, L13, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006213

2000 doi arXiv
[53]

L., & Lebonnois, S

Read, P. L., & Lebonnois, S. 2018, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 46, 175, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-082517-010137 Ruﬃo, J.-B., Steiger, S., Spohn, C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.17554, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.17554

2018 doi arXiv
[54]

V., Ehrenreich, D., Pino, L., et al

Seidel, J. V., Ehrenreich, D., Pino, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936892

2020 doi
[55]

P., Fortney, J

Showman, A. P., Fortney, J. J., Lewis, N. K., & Shabram, M. 2013, ApJ, 762, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/24

2013 doi
[56]

P., & Polvani, L

Showman, A. P., & Polvani, L. M. 2011, ApJ, 738, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/71

2011 doi
[57]

L., et al

Snellen, I., de Kok, R., Birkby, J. L., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425018

2015 doi
[58]

Snellen, I. A. G., Brandl, B. R., de Kok, R. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 63, doi: 10.1038/nature13253

2014 doi
[59]

S., Haiman, Z., & Gaudi, B

Spiegel, D. S., Haiman, Z., & Gaudi, B. S. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1324, doi: 10.1086/521921

2007 doi
[60]

F., Birkby, J

Spring, E. F., Birkby, J. L., Pino, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142314

2022 doi
[61]

C., Latouf, N., Mandell, A

Stark, C. C., Latouf, N., Mandell, A. M., & Young, A. 2024a, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 014005, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.10.1.014005

doi
[62]

C., Mennesson, B., Bryson, S., et al

Stark, C. C., Mennesson, B., Bryson, S., et al. 2024b, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 034006, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.10.3.034006

doi
[63]

W., Svedhem, H., & Head, J

Taylor, F. W., Svedhem, H., & Head, J. W. 2018, SSRv, 214, 35, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0467-8

2018 doi
[64]

2022, MNRAS, 511, 440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac030 The LUVOIR Team

Teinturier, L., Vieira, N., Jacquet, E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac030 The LUVOIR Team. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.06219. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.06219

2022 arXiv
[65]

W., Stark, C

Tuchow, N. W., Stark, C. C., & Mamajek, E. 2024, AJ, 167, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad25ec

2024 doi
[66]

W., Harada, C

Tuchow, N. W., Harada, C. K., Mamajek, E. E., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 104402, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae0a81

2025 doi
[67]

R., Gebhard, T

Vaughan, S. R., Gebhard, T. D., Bott, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2127

2023 doi
[68]

2017, AJ, 153, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6474

Wang, J., Mawet, D., Ruane, G., Hu, R., & Benneke, B. 2017, AJ, 153, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6474

2017 doi
[69]

O., Molaverdikhani, K., Cont, D., et al

Winterhalder, T. O., Molaverdikhani, K., Cont, D., et al. 2026, A&A, 710, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558650

2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 119, 1860, doi: 10.1002/2014JE004662

Arney, G., Meadows, V., Crisp, D., et al. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 119, 1860, doi: 10.1002/2014JE004662

doi:10.1002/2014je004662 2014

[2] [2]

V., Hauchecorne, A., et al

Bertaux, J.-L., Khatuntsev, I. V., Hauchecorne, A., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 121, 1087, doi: 10.1002/2015JE004958

doi:10.1002/2015je004958 2016

[3] [3]

2026, A&A, 711, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202660755

Borsa, F. 2026, A&A, 711, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202660755

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202660755 2026

[4] [4]

J., Albrecht, S., et al

Brogi, M., de Kok, R. J., Albrecht, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 106, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/106

doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/106 2016

[5] [5]

2024a, PSJ, 5, 219, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad76a8

Cohen, M., Holmes, J., Lewis, S., & Patel, M. 2024a, PSJ, 5, 219, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad76a8

work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad76a8

[6] [6]

Tiranti, P. I. 2024b, AJ, 167, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1ab9

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad1ab9

[7] [7]

B., & Strait, T

Cowan, N. B., & Strait, T. E. 2013, ApJL, 765, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/L17

doi:10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/l17 2013

[8] [8]

B., Agol, E., Meadows, V

Cowan, N. B., Agol, E., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 915, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/915 Crossﬁeld, I. J. M. 2014, A&A, 566, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423750

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/915 2009