Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

A JWST transmission spectrum of the temperate exo-Saturn TOI-199 b shows a strong methane feature, the first such detection in a gas giant cooler than 400 K.

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

2026-08-03 21:16 UTC pith:4O4IABPX

load-bearing objection Plausible first methane detection in a temperate gas giant, but the broken pointing and single transit mean it needs a confirmatory observation. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.15835 v2 pith:4O4IABPX submitted 2025-11-19 astro-ph.EP

Methane on the temperate exo-Saturn TOI-199b

Aaron Bello-Arufe , Renyu Hu , Mantas Zilinskas , Jeehyun Yang , Armen Tokadjian , Luis Welbanks , Guangwei Fu , Michael Greklek-McKeon
show 5 more authors
Mario Damiano Jonathan Gomez Barrientos Heather A. Knutson David K. Sing Xi Zhang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanet atmospherestransmission spectroscopymethane detectiontemperate gas giantJWST NIRSpecBayesian retrievalphotochemistrytransit timing variations
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.

The paper attempts to establish that the Saturn-mass exoplanet TOI-199 b, with an equilibrium temperature of about 350 K, has methane in its atmosphere. Using a single JWST/NIRSpec transit observation — despite a pointing failure that degraded precision — two independent Bayesian retrieval analyses find strong evidence for CH4 (Bayes factor ~700), implying a carbon abundance of roughly 13 times solar. The absence of detectable CO and CO2 in the same spectrum disfavors metallicities above ~50 times solar. If correct, this is the first spectral detection of an atmospheric feature on a temperate (Teq < 400 K) gas giant, opening a new temperature regime for exoplanet atmospheric chemistry.

Core claim

The central claim is that the 3.2–3.7 µm region of TOI-199 b's transmission spectrum is dominated by CH4 absorption, with a retrieved mixing ratio of roughly 10^-2.5 and a Bayes factor near 700 relative to a CH4-free model. The same spectrum shows an upturn near 3 µm that could be due to NH3 or, less likely, HCN; self-consistent photochemical models suggest the relative strength of these features depends on vertical mixing (Kzz), so future data can distinguish them. The paper also argues that the planet's metallicity is near 10–50 times solar, not much higher, because high metallicity would make CO and CO2 detectable, which they are not.

What carries the argument

Transmission spectroscopy with JWST NIRSpec G395M (R ~ 1000) provides the measured transit-depth spectrum. The analysis relies on two independent Bayesian retrieval frameworks that convert the spectrum into gas abundances and cloud/haze properties, and on self-consistent radiative-convective-photochemical models that predict abundance profiles (e.g., CH4 vs CO, NH3 vs HCN) as functions of metallicity and vertical mixing. A common-mode noise correction, applied to data taken with a failed target acquisition, is the device that makes the extraction possible; it is also the main assumption on which the CH4 detection rests.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the instrumental noise from the failed pointing is wavelength-independent (achromatic), so dividing each spectral light curve by a common-mode model removes the systematics without creating artificial spectral features; if that noise is wavelength-dependent, the methane signal near 3.3 µm could be an artifact.

What would settle it

A specific test: re-reduce the raw data with a systematics model that allows the egress jump and pointing drift to vary independently per wavelength channel (no common-mode division), and check whether the 3.2–3.7 µm methane feature and its Bayes factor persist; if the feature weakens substantially, the detection is an artifact of the common-mode assumption.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the methane detection holds, temperate gas giants can be characterized with transmission spectroscopy, and their carbon abundances can be measured to constrain formation pathways.
  • The non-detection of CO and CO2 implies that the planet's metallicity is not extremely high, helping to discriminate between different formation and accretion scenarios.
  • The 3-µm feature, once attributed to NH3 versus HCN, will directly diagnose the vertical mixing coefficient Kzz in a temperate giant for the first time.
  • The updated transit-timing model reduces the mass uncertainty of the outer planet c by about 50% and improves orbital constraints, which matters for scheduling future JWST and ground-based observations.
  • The predicted transit times through 2040 enable efficient planning of follow-up observations despite large transit-timing variations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's common-mode correction could be stress-tested by re-reducing the data with a wavelength-dependent systematics model, such as per-wavelength jumps and slopes; if the CH4 signal weakens substantially, the detection would be an artifact of the achromatic-noise assumption.
  • The Bayes factor of ~700 is computed against a CH4-free model that still includes clouds; a more realistic null hypothesis that also includes HCN or NH3 might lower the significance, so the detection strength may be somewhat model-dependent.
  • The 3.0-µm NH3/HCN diagnostic is a promising probe of vertical mixing, but separating the two requires higher-resolution observations or broader wavelength coverage than the current single transit provides.
  • A second transit observed with a successful pointing would not only confirm methane but also achieve ~0.2 dex precision on key abundances, turning this planet into a benchmark for temperate-giant atmospheric chemistry.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first JWST/NIRSpec G395M transmission spectrum of the temperate Saturn-mass exoplanet TOI-199 b, obtained despite a failed WATA that left the target outside the intended aperture and forced the team to use PSF-wing flux. Two independent reductions (Eureka! and Tswift) are compared, and Bayesian retrievals with ExoTR and Aurora both infer CH4, with Bayes factors of ~790 and ~705 in cloudy models; the paper reports that CH4 remains preferred over tholin/organic haze alternatives by roughly 8:1. The authors combine these retrievals with EPACRIS self-consistent photochemical-climate models to argue for C/H = 13(+78/-12) x solar and to disfavor high metallicity and high internal temperature. An updated TTV analysis using the JWST transit time and three new TESS transits refines the mass and eccentricity of the outer planet TOI-199 c. The failed pointing is acknowledged up front: the uncertainties are 4-5 times larger than nominal, and the paper explicitly relies on the assumption that the dominant systematic noise is achromatic.

Significance. If the CH4 detection is robust, this is the first spectral detection in a Teq<400 K gas giant, filling a key gap between hot Jupiters and solar-system giants and providing a valuable target for C/N/O and photochemistry studies. The paper's strengths are its transparency about the WATA failure, the use of two independent reductions, two retrieval codes, a broad haze-model comparison, and the release of the transmission spectra. The TTV update is a useful secondary result. However, the central detection rests on the achromaticity of systematics introduced by the failed pointing, and the statistical evidence is therefore conditional; the headline Bayes factor of ~700 does not by itself establish the detection without additional validation of the systematics correction.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1–2.2] The central claim is conditional on the assertion in §2.1 that the WATA-induced noise is 'achromatic,' justifying division of every spectroscopic lightcurve by the common-mode white-light model. §2.2, however, reports a wavelength-dependent slit loss at the integration-6340 pointing jump and fits a per-wavelength scaling factor for the post-jump data. These statements are in tension, and the agreement of the two reductions is not a sufficient check because both use parametric corrections on the same raw frames and can either absorb or generate a broad 3.3 µm feature. Please add a diagnostic that validates achromaticity—e.g., a wavelength-resolved fit of the common-mode/step model, an injection-recovery of a synthetic CH4 signal through both reductions, or a comparison of the in-transit and post-egress baseline spectra. Without this, the BF~700 is a conditional statistic, not a measuremen
  2. [§3.1–3.2, Table 3] The abstract quotes BF~700 in a cloudy atmosphere, but the cloudy model is not preferred over a clear one (BF=2.29), and once tholin/organic haze is included BF(CH4) drops to 16–22, with a CH4-vs-haze preference of only ~8. The text also gives '471 for soot' while Table 3 lists 47.1. The paper's conclusion is still defensible, but the reporting should be quantitative over the full model family; as written, the headline BF~700 overstates the robustness of the CH4 detection relative to the haze-degenerate cases.
  3. [§4.3, Table 4 and §6.1] The statement that metallicities ≳50× solar are disfavored is based on forward models, yet Table 4 shows that all tested models fit almost equally well (χ2/dof from 1.0451 to 1.0459), and no model with M/H>10 is shown. The retrieval upper limits on CO/CO2 are consistent with both M/H=1 and M/H=10. The claim should be softened to 'not preferred by the current data' or supported by an explicit high-metallicity model comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 7 caption] 'ExoTR etrieved MAP model' should be 'ExoTR retrieved MAP model'.
  2. [§3.1 and Table 3] The text gives '471 for soot' but Table 3 lists 47.1; please reconcile. The layout of the first block of Table 3 is also ambiguous—the rows do not clearly align which Bayes factor refers to which baseline.
  3. [§5] The TTV analysis uses the JWST transit time derived from the mispointed observation; a caveat that this time may carry additional unmodeled systematic uncertainty should be stated explicitly.
  4. [References] There are two Hobson et al. 2023 entries in the reference list, one with incomplete arXiv information; please merge or deduplicate.
  5. [§2.2] Minor typography: 'Matérn' should be typeset with the accent; 'Matern-3/2' is informal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the CH4 detection is a direct Bayesian retrieval model comparison, and forward photochemical models are used for interpretation rather than to set detection thresholds.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—CH4 in TOI-199 b's transmission spectrum with Bayes factor ~700–790—is obtained by Bayesian model comparison against observed spectra, using two independent retrieval frameworks (ExoTR and Aurora). In both cases the evidence is computed relative to a CH4-free model, and the paper explicitly reports that CH4 remains preferred even when haze prescriptions are added (e.g., BF drops from 291 to 22–16 for tholin/organic hazes but the CH4 model is still favored by a factor of ~8). No step in the retrieval defines the detection in terms of the conclusion; the molecular opacities and line lists are external inputs, and the null model does not include CH4. The self-consistent EPACRIS photochemical models are used after the retrieval to interpret the retrieved abundances and to argue that high metallicity is disfavored by CO/CO2 upper limits; these models do not enter the detection threshold. Self-citations exist (ExoTR, EPACRIS, R. Hu et al. 2024, 2025), but they are code/method citations with stated assumptions, not uniqueness theorems or alternatives-forbidding premises. The failed-WATA common-mode correction is an important data-quality assumption that could introduce systematic error, but it is not circular: assuming the noise is achromatic does not define or presuppose the CH4 signal at 3.2–3.7 µm. The TTV analysis is an independent fit to new transit times and does not reduce to its inputs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against directly observed data and independent retrieval codes, so no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central detection rests on standard retrieval free parameters (gas abundances, cloud top, T) and on forward-model assumptions about chemistry and mixing. The common-mode correction is the most fragile assumption. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • CH4 volume mixing ratio (log10) = -2.46 (+0.85/-1.15)
    Retrieved from ExoTR fiducial reduction (Table 2); central to the detection claim.
  • Cloud-top pressure (log10 Pa) = 2.3 (+1.4/-1.0)
    Gray-cloud parameter in retrieval; degenerates with molecular abundances and affects CH4 strength.
  • Atmospheric temperature (isothermal, K) = 325 (+88/-82)
    ExoTR retrieval parameter; Aurora finds a non-isothermal profile but consistent with Teq.
  • Haze abundance and particle diameter = log10 haze abundance ~ -5.7 to -6.6; log10 diameter ~ -1 to -0.9
    Fitted in tholin/soot/organic-haze retrieval scenarios (Fig. 7); degenerate with CH4.
  • Forward-model scenario grid (M/H, C/O, Tint, Kzz) = M/H = 1 or 10; C/O = 0.59 or 1.1; Tint = 50–200 K; multiple Kzz profiles
    Chosen by hand, not fitted; used in EPACRIS photochemical models and model comparison (Table 4).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Common-mode noise correction is achromatic and removes systematics without distorting the spectrum
    Section 2.1: 'we can effectively correct this noise by dividing out each spectroscopic lightcurve by a common-mode noise model.' The failed WATA means only PSF wings were recorded; if systematics are wavelength-dependent, the division could imprint features.
  • domain assumption H2-dominated atmosphere with hydrostatic equilibrium and isothermal or parameterized T-P structure
    Used in ExoTR and Aurora retrievals; TOI-199 b's low mean molecular weight is assumed from its Saturn-like structure.
  • domain assumption Photochemical network (EPACRIS, Yang & Hu 2024) correctly predicts CO/CH4 and NH3/HCN partitioning
    Used to disfavor >50× solar metallicity and to interpret the 3 µm bump as NH3 or HCN (Sections 4.2, 6.1).
  • domain assumption Stellar parameters (Teff, log g, [Fe/H]) and planet mass/radius from Hobson et al. (2023)
    Fixed inputs in retrievals and forward models; if wrong, retrieved abundances shift.
  • domain assumption Kzz vertical mixing profiles follow Lindzen (1981) scaling above the convective region, with chosen deep values
    Section 4.1: Kzz = 10^6 cm2/s in convective region and 10^8 cm2/s deep atmosphere; Jupiter-like and uniform cases also tested.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29726 in / 12142 out tokens · 127268 ms · 2026-08-03T21:16:23.304219+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Methane on the temperate exo-Saturn TOI-199b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4O4IABPX

@misc{pith2026251115835,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Methane on the temperate exo-Saturn TOI-199b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4O4IABPX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.15835}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Temperate ($T_{\rm eq}<400$ K) gas giants represent an unexplored frontier in exoplanet atmospheric spectroscopy. Orbiting a G-type star every $\sim100$ days, the Saturn-mass exoplanet TOI-199 b ($T_{\rm eq}=350$ K) is one of the most favorable low-temperature gas giants for atmospheric study. Here, we present its transmission spectrum from a single transit observed with JWST's NIRSpec G395M mode. Despite lower-than-nominal precision due to a pointing misalignment, the spectrum reveals the presence of CH$_4$ (Bayes factor of $\sim$700 in a cloudy atmosphere), corresponding to a metallicity of $\rm{C/H}=13^{+78}_{-12}\times$ solar, although the absence of detectable CO and CO$_2$ at the current precision disfavors metallicities $\gtrsim50\times$ solar. We also tested several haze prescriptions (Titan-like tholin, soot, and water-rich tholin), but the preference for these models is weak (Bayes factors of $\sim 2$ relative to the clear case). The spectrum also shows an increase in transit depth near 3 $\mu$m, which our self-consistent models attribute to either NH$_3$ or, less likely, HCN. Follow-up observations could distinguish between these species, helping determine the planet's vertical mixing regime. The TOI-199 system exhibits strong transit timing variations (TTVs) due to an outer non-transiting giant planet. For planet c, our TTV analysis reduces its mass uncertainty by 50% and prefers a slightly longer orbital period (but still within the conservative habitable zone) and higher eccentricity relative to previous studies. TOI-199 b serves as the first data point for studying clouds and hazes in temperate gas giants, with the detection of spectral features in its transmission spectrum indicating that temperate gas giants are promising targets for detailed atmospheric characterization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.15835 by Aaron Bello-Arufe, Armen Tokadjian, David K. Sing, Guangwei Fu, Heather A. Knutson, Jeehyun Yang, Jonathan Gomez Barrientos, Luis Welbanks, Mantas Zilinskas, Mario Damiano, Michael Greklek-McKeon, Renyu Hu, Xi Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Raw spectroscopic lightcurves, as extracted with Eureka! and binned to ∆λ = 0.004 µm, before and after dividing out the common-mode noise model. periastron ω to the values reported by M. J. Hobson et al. (2023), and we assigned uniform priors to the remaining transit and orbital parameters, namely the planet-to-star radius ratio Rp/R⋆, the transit time T0, the orbital inclination ip, and the scaled semimaj… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: Mean-subtracted position of the trace along the y (i.e. cross-dispersion) direction, binned by a factor of 80 to more easily visualize the jump occurring around egress. Middle: Raw and binned (×40) white lightcurves of TOI-199 b’s transit, observed with NIRSpec G395M, including the best-fit model, as extracted with Eureka!. Bottom: Residuals from the best-fit model, measured in σ. baseline. The transi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the two independent reductions of the NIRSpec data of TOI-199 b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top: RMS of the white lightcurve residuals as a function of bin size (solid teal line) and scaling expected for purely white noise (dashed black line). The dotted red line indicates the bin size used in the Eureka! white lightcurve fit (i.e. 40×). Middle: Ratio of the two lines in the top plot (i.e. red noise factor, J. N. Winn et al. 2008). Bottom: Nor￾malized RMS of the residuals of the spectroscopic lig… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) model and 2σ credible regions from ExoTR retrievals on the fiducial reduction, overlaid with data binned at ∆λ = 0.05 µm. Also shown are the contributions from each molecule and clouds to the transmission spectrum. Bottom: 1D histograms of the posterior distributions from the retrieval results, including the median and ±1σ uncertainties (i.e. 16th and 84th percentiles). give… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior distributions of the gas abundances from the ExoTR retrievals on the different data reductions. Medians and 1σ uncertainties are overplotted as markers with horizontal error bars. 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 1.025 1.050 1.075 Tholin haze JWST NIRSpec/G395M (¸ = 0:05 ¹m) ExoTR etrieved MAP model (§2¾) H2O CH4 NH3 HCN CO CO2 SO2 OCS Hazes -2.19 +0:71 ¡1:28 -5.66 +1:00 ¡1:56 -1.21 +1:12 ¡1:09 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: Best-fit spectrum with 1σ and 2σ model posteriors, from retrievals using Aurora and molecule contributions from the best fit model. Bottom: Posterior distributions for the molecules of interest, including the median and ±1σ uncertainties. stream radiative solver (K. Heng et al. 2018). The temperature-pressure (TP) profiles were computed as￾suming chemical equilibrium abundances for solar and enhanced … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Temperature-pressure (TP) and eddy diffu￾sion profiles (Kzz) for TOI-199 b. TP profiles (teal curves) are computed assuming equilibrium chemistry. Kzz pro￾files (black curves) are derived from the respective TP profiles. Solid curves represent solar metallicity cases (M/H = 1), whereas dashed curves are for enhanced metal￾licity (M/H = 10). Faint curves represent the case with increased internal temperatur… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: also shows the 1σ retrieved abundance of CH4 and 2σ upper limits for all other major species (indicated by triangles). The arrow lengths represent 1σ uncer￾tainty ranges. For an enhanced metallicity atmosphere (M/H = 10), the predicted CH4 abundance agrees well with the retrieved value, and all other major species be￾sides CO fall within their respective constraints. How￾ever, as we discuss below, a solar… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Model transmission spectra comparison for TOI-199 b. The teal spectrum represents an enhanced metallicity case (M/H = 10) using the nominal Kzz profile. For enhanced metallicity, we also show spectra with a Jupiter-like Kzz profile (red), increased internal temperature (purple), and a uniform Kzz value of 106 cm2 s −1 (orange). Additionally, the solar metallicity spectrum is shown in gray. Individual opac… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of NH3 and HCN opacity contri￾butions at λ/∆λ = 1000 for a model spectrum under en￾hanced metallicity conditions using a Jupiter-like Kzz profile (zoomed-in view from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Observed TTVs for TOI-199 b from the M. J. Hobson et al. (2023) discovery paper (black points) and new data from JWST (red star) and TESS sectors 67, 87, and 94 (blue squares), along with 100 random draws from the best-fit TTV model (blue lines). fits with additional transits from these sectors may be able to further refine the mass of TOI-199 c and the or￾bital parameters for both planets. We list the pr… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. HAT-P-70b through the Eyes of MAROON-X: Constraining Elemental Abundances of Metals and Insights on Atmosphere Dynamics

    astro-ph.EP 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    New MAROON-X observations of HAT-P-70b detect multiple neutral and ionized metals with day-to-night wind signatures and demonstrate that ionization-aware retrievals yield abundance ratios closer to solar values except...

  2. Understanding eccentric temperate giants: an in-depth study of the architecture and stellar obliquity of the TOI-2134 system

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0

    New data break the eccentricity multimodality of TOI-2134 c to e=0.31±0.01, refine both planets' masses and radii, and yield a 4.7σ RM obliquity of 59±31° for planet c.

  3. Understanding eccentric temperate giants: an in-depth study of the architecture and stellar obliquity of the TOI-2134 system

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Updated analysis of TOI-2134 with new TESS sectors and spectra confirms an inner mini-Neptune and outer eccentric sub-Saturn, measures their masses and radii, and reports a 59 degree obliquity for the outer planet via...

  4. PLATOSpec's first results: Three new transiting warm Jupiters from the WINE survey TIC 147027702, TIC 245076932 and TIC 87422071

    astro-ph.EP 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Three new warm Jupiters (periods 11.3–44.4 days, masses 0.51–1.29 M_J, radii ~0.97–0.98 R_J) were confirmed via TESS photometry and follow-up radial velocities and light curves.

  5. Understanding eccentric temperate giants: an in-depth study of the architecture and stellar obliquity of the TOI-2134 system

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    New observations confirm a mini-Neptune (9.23 d, circular) and eccentric sub-Saturn (95.85 d, e=0.31) around TOI-2134 with 59 deg obliquity for the outer planet.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    I., et al

    Acuna, L., Berardo, D., Espinoza-Retamal, J. I., et al. 2025, All you need is Love numbers: simultaneous measurement of the oblateness and atmospheric composition of a warm gas giant,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 4, ID. #7188

    2025

  2. [2]

    L., et al

    Agol, E., Dorn, C., Grimm, S. L., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 1, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abd022

    doi:10.3847/psj/abd022 2021

  3. [3]

    2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 452

    Danchi, W. 2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 452

    2016

  4. [4]

    K., Kirk, J., Dressing, C

    Alam, M. K., Kirk, J., Dressing, C. D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 927, L5

    2022

  5. [5]

    R., Alam, M

    Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 664

    2023

  6. [6]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 2845

    Ali-Dib, M. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 2845

    2017

  7. [7]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

  8. [8]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  9. [9]

    J., Strange, J

    Barber, R. J., Strange, J. K., Hill, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2011

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2011 2014

  10. [10]

    E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al

    Batalha, N. E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 064501

    2017

  11. [11]

    R., France, K., Brown, A., et al

    Behr, P. R., France, K., Brown, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdb70

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acdb70 2023

  12. [12]

    A., Giles, H

    Beichman, C. A., Giles, H. A. C., Akeson, R., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaeb6

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaaeb6 2018

  13. [13]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503, doi: 10.21105/joss.04503

    Bell, T., Ahrer, E.-M., Brande, J., et al. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503, doi: 10.21105/joss.04503

    doi:10.21105/joss.04503 2022

  14. [14]

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

    Bell, T. J., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 709, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06687-0

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06687-0 2023

  15. [15]

    A., et al

    Bello-Arufe, A., Damiano, M., Bennett, K. A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 980, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaf22

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adaf22 2025

  16. [16]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03325, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03325

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.03325 2024

  17. [17]

    M., Ferruit, P., Giardino, G., et al

    Birkmann, S. M., Ferruit, P., Giardino, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142592

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142592 2022

  18. [18]

    L., Wong, M

    Bjoraker, G. L., Wong, M. H., de Pater, I., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 101

    2018

  19. [19]

    J., Kreidberg, L., et al

    Brande, J., Crossfield, I. J., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07714

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

  21. [21]

    2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.15.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12692459

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.15.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12692459

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.12692459 2024

  22. [22]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.02067, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.02067

    Cassese, B., Kipping, D., Changeat, Q., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.02067, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.02067

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.02067 2025

  23. [23]

    L., Rocchetto, M., Yurchenko, S

    Chubb, K. L., Rocchetto, M., Yurchenko, S. N., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038350

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038350 2021

  24. [24]

    J., van Dishoeck, E

    Cridland, A. J., van Dishoeck, E. F., Alessi, M., & Pudritz, R. E. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A63

    2019

  25. [25]

    J., van Dishoeck, E

    Cridland, A. J., van Dishoeck, E. F., Alessi, M., & Pudritz, R. E. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A229

    2020

  26. [26]

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

    Damiano, M., Bello-Arufe, A., Yang, J., & Hu, R. 2024, ApJL, 968, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204 2024

  27. [27]

    M., & Agol, E

    Deck, K. M., & Agol, E. 2016, ApJ, 821, 96, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/96

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/2/96 2016

  28. [28]

    S., & Agol, E

    Eastman, J., Gaudi, B. S., & Agol, E. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 83–112, doi: 10.1086/669497

    doi:10.1086/669497 2013

  29. [29]

    Ehrenreich, D., Lovis, C., Allart, R., et al. 2020, Nature, 580, 597, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2107-1 21 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 log10(H2O) 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 log10(CH4) 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 log10(NH3) 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 log10(HCN) 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 log10(CO) 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 log10(CO2) 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 log10(SO2) 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 log10(OCS...

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2107-1 2020

  30. [30]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 838, L9

    Murray-Clay, R. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 838, L9

    2017

  31. [31]

    D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al

    Feinstein, A. D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 670

    2023

  32. [32]

    P., & Bridges, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    arXiv 2009

  33. [33]

    B., Ragozzine, D., Rowe, J

    Ford, E. B., Ragozzine, D., Rowe, J. F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 185, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/185

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/185 2012

  34. [34]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c 2018

  35. [35]

    2017, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S., & Angus, R. 2017, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 2017

  36. [36]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  37. [37]

    L., Fu, G., et al

    Fortney, J., Bean, J. L., Fu, G., et al. 2023, C,N,O in a Temperate Jupiter: Bridging the Gap Between Solar-System and Exoplanet Atmospheres,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. #3235

    2023

  38. [38]

    J., Visscher, C., Marley, M

    Fortney, J. J., Visscher, C., Marley, M. S., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 288

    2020

  39. [39]

    K., et al

    Fu, G., Espinoza, N., Sing, D. K., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9977

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9977 2022

  40. [40]

    2024, Nature, 632, 752, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07760-y

    Fu, G., Welbanks, L., Deming, D., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 752, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07760-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07760-y 2024

  41. [41]

    R., Allen, M., & Yung, Y

    Gladstone, G. R., Allen, M., & Yung, Y. 1996, Icarus, 119, 1

    1996

  42. [42]

    E., Rothman, L

    Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., Hargreaves, R. J., et al. 2022, JQSRT, 277, 107949, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2021.107949

    arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2021, PSJ, 2, 207, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac214c

    doi:10.3847/psj/ac214c 2021

  44. [44]

    Grant, D., & Wakeford, H. R. 2022, Exo-TiC/ExoTiC-LD: ExoTiC-LD v3.0.0, v3.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7437681 22

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7437681 2022

  45. [45]

    K., Wakeford, H

    Grant, D., Lewis, N. K., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 956, L29

    2023

  46. [46]

    A., Levine, W

    Greklek-McKeon, M., Knutson, H. A., Levine, W. G., et al. 2025a, AJ, 170, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/addf2d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/addf2d

  47. [47]

    A., et al

    Greklek-McKeon, M., Vissapragada, S., Knutson, H. A., et al. 2025b, AJ, 169, 292, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc0fe

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc0fe

  48. [48]

    J., Gordon, I

    Hargreaves, R. J., Gordon, I. E., Rey, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7a1a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7a1a 2020

  49. [49]

    E., et al

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

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

  50. [50]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aad199

    Heng, K., Malik, M., & Kitzmann, D. 2018, ApJS, 237, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aad199

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aad199 2018

  51. [51]

    1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 831 , doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079 ⟨0831: OPOAAC⟩2.0.CO;2

    Hess, M., Koepke, P., & Schult, I. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 831 , doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079 ⟨0831: OPOAAC⟩2.0.CO;2

    doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079 1998

  52. [52]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 2242

    Hobbs, R., Shorttle, O., Madhusudhan, N., & Rimmer, P. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 2242

    2019

  53. [53]

    J., Trifonov, T., Henning, T., et al

    Hobson, M. J., Trifonov, T., Henning, T., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acfc1d

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acfc1d 2023

  54. [54]

    J., Trifonov, T., Henning, T., et al

    Hobson, M. J., Trifonov, T., Henning, T., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv

    2023

  55. [55]

    2016, ApJS, 225, 9, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/9

    Holczer, T., Mazeh, T., Nachmani, G., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 9, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/9

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/9 2016

  56. [56]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 27

    Hu, R. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 27

    2021

  57. [57]

    2024, Nature, 630, 609, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x

    Hu, R., Bello-Arufe, A., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 609, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x 2024

  58. [58]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.12622, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.12622

    Hu, R., Bello-Arufe, A., Tokadjian, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.12622, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.12622

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.12622 2025

  59. [59]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 2013

  60. [60]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 2022

  61. [61]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    doi:10.1117/12.2233418 2016

  62. [62]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 7

    Kawashima, Y., & Ikoma, M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 7

    2018

  63. [63]

    N., Sagan, C., Arakawa, E

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

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

  64. [64]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1435

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1435 2013

  65. [65]

    A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L

    Knutson, H. A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L. E., et al. 2007, Nature, 447, 183, doi: 10.1038/nature05782

    doi:10.1038/nature05782 2007

  66. [66]

    2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Pont, F., Vidal-Madjar, A., &

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Pont, F., Vidal-Madjar, A., &

    doi:10.1086/683602 2015

  67. [67]

    2008, A&A, 481, L83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809388

    Sing, D. 2008, A&A, 481, L83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809388

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809388 2008

  68. [68]

    E., Bello-Arufe, A., Berta-Thompson, Z

    Libby-Roberts, J. E., Bello-Arufe, A., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.21358, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.21358

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.21358 2025

  69. [69]

    Lindzen, R. S. 1981, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 86, 9707

    1981

  70. [70]

    R., & Parmentier, V

    Line, M. R., & Parmentier, V. 2016, ApJ, 820, 78, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/78

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/78 2016

  71. [71]

    Yung, Y. L. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 738, 32

    2011

  72. [72]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/122

    Lithwick, Y., Xie, J., & Wu, Y. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/122

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/122 2012

  73. [73]

    J., & Madhusudhan, N

    MacDonald, R. J., & Madhusudhan, N. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx804

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx804 2017

  74. [74]

    2023, ApJL, 956, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf577

    Madhusudhan, N., Sarkar, S., Constantinou, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf577

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf577 2023

  75. [75]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/24

    Madhusudhan, N., & Seager, S. 2009, ApJ, 707, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/24

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/24 2009

  76. [76]

    2015, A&A, 573, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423804

    Magic, Z., Chiavassa, A., Collet, R., & Asplund, M. 2015, A&A, 573, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423804

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423804 2015

  77. [77]

    2016, A&A, 590, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526357 Molli` ere, P., Wardenier, J

    Mancini, L., Lillo-Box, J., Southworth, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526357 Molli` ere, P., Wardenier, J. P., van Boekel, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935470 Molli` ere, P., Stolker, T., Lacour, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038325

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526357 2016

  78. [78]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 41

    Benneke, B. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 41

    2016

  79. [79]

    2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 110

    Moses, J., Fouchet, T., B´ ezard, B., et al. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 110

    2005

  80. [80]

    I., Visscher, C., Keane, T

    Moses, J. I., Visscher, C., Keane, T. C., & Sperier, A. 2010, Faraday Discussions, 147, 103, doi: 10.1039/c003954c

    work page doi:10.1039/c003954c 2010

Showing first 80 references.