Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 41 references

Physically motivated analytic model of energy efficiency for EUV-driven atmospheric escape of close-in exoplanets

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that EUV-driven mass-loss efficiency depends systematically on stellar and planetary parameters, and that this parameter dependence explains observed Ly-alpha and H-alpha detection patterns.

desk verdict A genuinely useful analytic efficiency formula that bridges energy-limited and recombination-limited escape, but its low-EUV branch leans on a base-density approximation the authors themselves admit fails for weak-gravity planets. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08398 v1 pith:5ID4F4C2 submitted 2025-02-12 astro-ph.EP

Hiroto Mitani , Riouhei Nakatani , Rolf Kuiper This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetatmospheresatmosphericescapeEUVphotoevaporationmass-lossefficiencyenergy-limitedregimerecombination-limitedLy-alphaabsorptionH-alpha
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

Close-in exoplanets bathed in extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) radiation lose their hydrogen atmospheres through hydrodynamic escape, and most evolutionary models assume this mass loss is energy-limited with a constant efficiency of about 10%. This paper argues that the efficiency is not constant: it is set by three temperatures — the photoheating characteristic temperature, the radiative-cooling equilibrium temperature, and the gravitational temperature — and by where in the wind the flow becomes supersonic. The authors build an analytic mass-loss model from these quantities and show it matches one-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamic simulations across both the energy-limited (low EUV flux) and recombination-limited (high EUV flux) regimes. They then use the predicted neutral-hydrogen mass-loss rates to reinterpret Ly-alpha and H-alpha observations, concluding that most non-detections mean the outflow is simply too weak, not that the planet lacks a hydrogen atmosphere or is confined by a stellar wind. If correct, the standard constant-efficiency formula should be replaced by a parameter-dependent efficiency when modelling planetary evolution and choosing targets for transit observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a set of three representative temperatures: the characteristic photoheating temperature $T_{\rm ch}$ (the energy deposited per sound-crossing time), the radiative equilibrium temperature $T_{\rm eq}\sim10^4$ K, and the gravitational temperature $T_g = GM_p\mu m_H/(c_p R_p k)$. The model takes the actual flow temperature to be $T_{\rm gas}=\min(T_{\rm eq},\max(T_{\rm ch},T_g))$, fixes the sound speed from it, and selects the sonic point $R_s$ among the Bondi radius, the Hill radius, or the effective EUV photosphere $R_{\rm EUV}$ depending on which radius is smallest. Mass loss is then computed from the base density set by photoionization-recombination balance, $n_{\rm base}\sim(F_0/\alpha_{\rm rec}H)^{1/2}$, and an exponential hydrostatic profile below the sonic point (equations 12 and 13). This machinery converts the efficiency from a free constant into a function of EUV flux, stellar gravity, planetary mass and radius, and the effective radius of EUV optical depth.

What would settle it

Measure Ly-$\alpha$ transit depths for a sample of weakly irradiated sub-Neptunes and infer their neutral-hydrogen mass-loss rates; if several show $\dot{M}_{\rm HI}$ several times above the model's threshold near $2\times10^{10}$ g/s, the hydrostatic base-density assumption that governs the low-EUV branch would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the mass-loss efficiency $\eta$ in the energy-limited formula $\dot{M} = \eta F_0 R_p^3/(G K M_p)$ can be predicted from stellar and planetary parameters alone using a representative gas temperature $T_{\rm gas} = \min(T_{\rm eq}, \max(T_{\rm ch}, T_g))$ and a sonic-point radius $R_s$ chosen among the Bondi radius, the Hill radius, and the effective EUV photosphere $R_{\rm EUV}$. With these choices, the hydrostatic base density $n_{\rm base}\sim(F_0/\alpha_{\rm rec}H)^{1/2}$ and the exponential density profile below the sonic point yield closed-form mass-loss rates (equations 12 and 13) that bridge the energy-limited and recombination-limited regimes. The predicted efficiency often exceeds 10% for low-gravity, energy-limited planets and drops sharply for strong-gravity, highly irradiated planets, and these predictions agree with radiation-hydrodynamic simulations to within the factor-of-two error quoted by the paper in the well-tested regimes. Applied to observed planets, the model attributes most Ly-$\alpha$ non-detections to low neutral-hydrogen mass-loss rates and attributes H-$\alpha$ detections to high EUV-driven excitation of the $n=2$ hydrogen level.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the atmosphere below the sonic point stays close to hydrostatic balance, with the base density fixed by the balance between photoionization and recombination; the paper itself concedes this overestimates mass loss for weakly EUV-irradiated, weakly gravitating planets such as sub-Neptunes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Evolutionary models should replace the constant $\eta\simeq0.1$ by the parameter-dependent efficiency, since the paper finds $\eta$ often exceeds 10% in low-gravity energy-limited cases and drops well below it for massive, strongly irradiated planets.
  • Ly-alpha absorption should be strongest at intermediate EUV flux: weak flux cannot drive a substantial neutral outflow, while strong flux photoionizes the neutral hydrogen before it can absorb starlight.
  • H-alpha absorption should be strongest at high EUV flux, because intense stellar Ly-alpha radiation populates the $n=2$ level even when the overall neutral fraction is low.
  • Most reported Ly-alpha and H-alpha non-detections can be explained by low neutral-hydrogen mass-loss rates, so many such planets need not invoke stellar-wind confinement or a hydrogen-poor atmosphere.
  • The outliers K2-25 b and WASP-77 b are the cases where an additional mechanism (hydrogen-poor atmosphere or wind confinement) may be required.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same predicted $\dot{M}_{\rm HI}$ values could be tested against helium-triplet transit depths, since both the triplet population and Ly-alpha absorption depend on the neutral outflow rate and EUV flux.
  • The model's structure makes a metallicity extension straightforward: replacing the constant $10^4$ K equilibrium temperature with a metal-cooling-dependent temperature would alter $\eta$ substantially for metal-rich hot Jupiters, consistent with the paper's own metallicity discussion.
  • If the low-EUV branch is correct, future Ly-alpha searches should concentrate on planets below the $t_{\rm ion}=t_{\rm rec}$ line in the paper's classification diagram, where neutral hydrogen survives in the outflow.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents an analytic model for the efficiency of EUV-driven hydrodynamic escape from hydrogen-dominated atmospheres of close-in exoplanets. The model introduces a characteristic photoheating temperature Tch, an equilibrium temperature Teq ≈ 10^4 K, and a gravitational temperature Tg to define three temperature regimes (A-1, A-2, A-3) and three choices for the sonic point radius (RB, RHill, REUV). The mass-loss rate is obtained by evaluating the recombination-ionization base density nbase and an exponential hydrostatic profile below the sonic point, with an empirical velocity correction vgas = cg(tg/th) in the gravity-inhibited regime. The resulting efficiency is compared with 1D and 2D radiation-hydrodynamic simulations and applied to observed Lyα and Hα detections/non-detections to argue that low mass-loss rates explain many neutral-hydrogen non-detections.

Significance. If the model's predictive claims survive scrutiny, it would be a useful advance over the constant-η energy-limited approximation: it provides a closed-form efficiency that depends on stellar and planetary parameters, reproduces recombination-limited behavior under strong irradiation, and offers a physical classification of observed systems. Strengths of the paper include the clear identification of governing timescales, the explicit comparison with both the authors' own simulations and the ATES code, the discussion of metallicity and X-ray effects, and the honest enumeration of limitations. The central weakness is that the energy-limited (low-EUV) branch—essential to the two-regime claim and to the Lyα non-detection interpretation—rests on an approximation the authors themselves state is incorrect for weak-gravity planets, and the model's validation in that branch is partially circular because the A-3 velocity correction is calibrated to the same simulation framework used for validation. The observational classification is therefore less conclusive than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eqs. (9)–(13)] The mass-loss rate in the energy-limited (low-EUV) branch inherits the Owen & Alvarez base-density scaling nbase ~ (F0/αrec H)^(1/2) with a hydrostatic exponential profile below the sonic point. The text states verbatim that for weak EUV flux on weak-gravity planets 'this assumption is incorrect and the mass-loss rate gets overestimated.' This admitted failure occurs exactly in the regime that the abstract claims the model predicts ('energy-limited') and in the branch used in §4 to reinterpret Lyα non-detections. The proposed mitigation—that the density profile becomes less steep and the estimated sound speed compensates—is qualitative, with no quantitative estimate of the residual error. Consequently the model's quantitative efficiency predictions in the low-EUV regime are not established.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (13); §3.2] In Regime A-3 the gas velocity is corrected via the empirical relation vgas = cg(tg/th), calibrated to the authors' 1D simulations and the ATES code. Section 3.2 then validates the model by comparing it with the same 1D radiation-hydrodynamic simulation framework (including a check against ATES). Because the low-EUV branch is the one in which this correction is used, the validation is not independent; the model's agreement with simulations in that branch is partly by construction. The paper should provide a test against independently published hydrodynamic results (e.g., Murray-Clay et al. 2009 or blind use of Caldiroli et al. 2021) or against observed transit depths, and/or state explicitly which predictions are not used in the calibration.
  3. [§3.1, Figs. 1–2] The model assumes a constant equilibrium temperature Teq = 10^4 K and later acknowledges that this assumption 'is also invalid for strong-gravity planets with low EUV radiation' and that it underestimates efficiency for strong gravity and high EUV. Since Figs. 1 and 2 include strong-gravity cases in which the model deviates from the simulation results, the claimed general predictive power across 'a broad spectrum of stellar and planetary parameters' (§6) is not supported for this part of parameter space. The manuscript should either restrict the scope of the claim or incorporate a parameter-dependent Teq.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Figs. 1–2 captions] The captions of Figures 1 and 2 contain garbled text ('O)r new model', 'Con)entiona recombination -limited') that should be corrected.
  2. [§4.1, Eq. (20)] Equation (20) has broken formatting for the logarithmic expression, and the age–EUV relation from Sanz-Forcada et al. (2011) should be stated with the assumed units of LEUV and τ.
  3. [§5.1] Section 5.1 states 'FEUV > 105 erg/s/cm3' but the rest of the paper uses erg/s/cm^2; the unit should be corrected.
  4. [§4.1] The text refers to 'the Lya transit depth in Owen(2023)' but the bibliography entry is Owen, J. E., Murray-Clay, R. A., Schreyer, E., et al. 2023; please use a consistent citation format.
  5. [§2, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) defines Tch using cch on the right-hand side, making it implicit, and the following expression for cch appears without derivation; a short derivation or reference to Woods et al. (1996) would improve readability.
  6. [§2, Eqs. (2)–(3)] The symbol Φ is used both for EUV photon luminosity (text after Eq. 3) and for photon flux in Eqs. (2) and (5); please use distinct notation to avoid ambiguity.
  7. [§4.1] The statement that the typical error in mass-loss rates for low-EUV planets is a factor of 2 is not derived; please specify how this estimate is obtained.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The low-EUV branch of the analytic model is calibrated against simulations and then validated using the same simulations, so the two-regime predictive claim is only partially independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (Regime A-3, after Eq. 13); validation in Section 3.2]
    "However, in Regime A-3 (gravity-inhibited regime), we apply an empirical correction factor based on the simulation results of our 1D simulations and A TES-code to get more realistic mass-loss efficiencies for low EUV environments: vgas = cg(tg/th). ... To validate the assumptions and outcomes of our analytic model, we have performed our own one-dimensional (1D) hydrodynamics simulations with EUV photoionization heating and Lyα radiative cooling ... We confirm that the 1D result is consistent with the open-source 1D code A TES (Caldiroli et al. 2021)."

    The A-3 velocity correction vgas = cg(tg/th) is introduced as an empirical correction based on the authors' own 1D simulations and the ATES code, and the same simulations (plus ATES) are then used in Section 3.2 to validate the analytic model. The low-EUV (energy-limited) branch, whose neutral-hydrogen mass-loss rates drive the Ly-alpha non-detection interpretation, therefore contains a parameter that is imported from the very simulations used as the benchmark. For that branch, the comparison is a consistency check, not an independent test.

full rationale

The central efficiency formula is not definitionally equivalent to its inputs: the high-EUV (recombination-limited) branch follows the standard hydrostatic-base-density construction of Murray-Clay and Owen, and the temperature/regime classification uses independently defined Tch, Teq, and Tg. The main circularity is confined to the gravity-inhibited A-3 branch: vgas = cg(tg/th) is introduced as an empirical correction 'based on the simulation results of our 1D simulations and A TES-code,' and Section 3.2 then uses the same simulations, plus ATES, as the validation benchmark. This makes the low-EUV efficiency predictions, and the neutral-hydrogen mass-loss rates used to reinterpret Ly-alpha non-detections, a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. Section 3.1 also contains an explicit limitation for the exact low-EUV/weak-gravity case: 'If the EUV flux is weak on a weak gravity planet, such as a sub-Neptune, this assumption is incorrect and the mass-loss rate gets overestimated.' That is a robustness concern rather than a second circular reduction, but it compounds the calibration issue because the affected branch is the one used for the observational non-detection argument. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present; the cited prior work by Nakatani et al. (2024) and Mitani et al. (2022) supplies context and 2D comparisons, not a uniqueness claim. Overall, the paper has substantial independent content, but one of its two flagship predictive branches is partially circular, so the score is moderate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard outflow formulae plus one simulation-calibrated correction and several domain assumptions about composition and spectral shape. No code, simulation outputs, or data tables are shipped, and the strongest caveats (constant Teq, base-density validity, neglect of attenuation) are acknowledged in Sections 3 and 5. The empirical A-3 correction is the largest unpriced assumption because it is both load-bearing and calibrated to the same simulations used for validation.

free parameters (3)
  • Empirical velocity correction vgas = cg(tg/th) = vgas = cg(tg/th)
    Introduced ad hoc in Section 3.1 to reproduce simulation results in the gravity-inhibited regime. It is not derived from first principles and means the analytic model contains a simulation-calibrated component.
  • Constant equilibrium temperature Teq = 10^4 K
    Used as the radiative-cooling cap for all planets in the main model and observational classification (Table 1). The authors note in Section 5.2 that Teq varies with metallicity and in Section 3.2 that it fails for strong-gravity planets, so the fixed value is a hand-set input that affects mass-loss rates.
  • Monochromatic EUV photon energy for observed planets = 20 eV
    Section 4.1 converts EUV luminosities to photon fluxes and cross-sections assuming a single 20 eV photon. This choice changes F0, sigma0, and DeltaE0, and therefore shifts the predicted neutral hydrogen mass-loss rates used to explain detections.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Hydrogen-dominated atmosphere heated by EUV photoionization and cooled mainly by Ly-alpha radiation.
    Section 2 and 3 assume this gas composition and heating/cooling balance; X-ray heating and metal cooling are deferred to Section 5.2.
  • domain assumption EUV attenuation is neglected, setting chi_e = 1.
    Section 2 states 'we neglect the attenuation because the atmospheric density structure is highly dependent on the radius'; this affects the heating rate at high column density.
  • domain assumption Base density nbase ~ (F0/(alpha_rec H))^(1/2) and the hydrostatic exponential profile below the sonic point are valid.
    Section 3.1 inherits this from Owen & Alvarez; the paper explicitly says it overestimates mass loss for weak EUV flux on weak-gravity sub-Neptunes.
  • domain assumption A single representative temperature Tgas = min(Teq, max(Tch, Tg)) describes the whole outflow.
    Section 3.1 states this phenomenological expression, neglecting the spatial temperature profile used to derive it.
  • domain assumption Stellar gravity is neglected by setting K = 1.
    Section 3.1: 'we adopt the approximation K=1' for consistency with the recombination-limited model; this approximation weakens very close to the host star.
  • domain assumption Observed-planet EUV luminosities follow the Sanz-Forcada age-luminosity relation and a monochromatic 20 eV EUV spectrum.
    Section 4.1 uses Eqs. (20) and the 20 eV assumption to estimate fluxes and cross-sections; systematic errors are not propagated to the detection classification.
  • domain assumption The n=2 hydrogen population at the planetary base sets the H-alpha absorption signal.
    Section 4.1 uses base-level populations from Christie et al. and ignores radial variation of the excited-state population through the outflow.
  • ad hoc to paper In the gravity-inhibited regime, outflow velocity is corrected to vgas = cg(tg/th).
    Section 3.1 calibrates this correction to 1D simulations and ATES rather than deriving it; it is load-bearing for the low-EUV regime.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physically motivated analytic model of energy efficiency for EUV-driven atmospheric escape of close-in exoplanets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ID4F4C2

@misc{pith2026250208398,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physically motivated analytic model of energy efficiency for EUV-driven atmospheric escape of close-in exoplanets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ID4F4C2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08398}
}
abstract

Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) driven atmospheric escape is a key process in the atmospheric evolution of close-in exoplanets. In many evolutionary models, the energy-limited mass-loss rate with a constant efficiency (typically $\sim10\%$) is assumed for calculating the mass-loss rate. However, hydrodynamic simulations have demonstrated that this efficiency depends on various stellar and planetary parameters. Comprehending the underlying physics of the efficiency is essential for understanding planetary atmospheric evolution and recent observations of the upper atmosphere of close-in exoplanets. We introduce relevant temperatures and timescales derived from physical principles to elucidate the mass-loss process. Our analytical mass-loss model is based on phenomenology and consistent across a range of planetary parameters. We compare our mass-loss efficiency and the radiation hydrodynamic simulations. The model can predict efficiency in both energy-limited and recombination-limited regimes. We further apply our model to exoplanets observed with hydrogen absorption (Ly$\alpha$ and H$\alpha$). Our findings suggest that Ly$\alpha$ absorption is detectable in planets subjected to intermediate EUV flux; under these conditions, the escaping outflow is insufficient in low-EUV environments, while the photoionization timescale remains short in high-EUV ranges. Conversely, H$\alpha$ absorption is detectable under high EUV flux conditions, facilitated by the intense Ly$\alpha$ flux exciting hydrogen atoms. According to our model, the non-detection of neutral hydrogen can be explained by a low mass-loss rate and is not necessarily due to stellar wind confinement or the absence of a hydrogen-dominated atmosphere in many cases. This model assists in identifying future observational targets and explicates the unusual absorption detection/non-detection patterns observed in recent studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08398 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Estimated efficiencies (left panel) and mass-loss rates (right panel) for fixed planetary mass Mp = 0.7 MJ but different EUV fluxes from FEUV = 100 erg/s/cm2 (red) to FEUV = 106 erg/s/cm2 (orange). The efficiency of the traditional recombination-limited approach is shown in dashed curves. In the intense EUV flux case, our model predictions are almost the same as the traditional approach (orange and purple). The fitt… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The heating/cooling rate profiles for Mp = 0.7 MJ , Rp = 1.4 RJ with different physical conditions (left panel;Tch < Teq and right panel;Tch > Teq). The solid curve shows the photoionization heating and the dashed curves show the radiative cooling and the PdV cooling. have stellar winds that are an order of magnitude weaker com￾pared to those with detections, or they may experience ex￾tremely strong stellar winds th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of close-in planets with Lyα observations.The red points represent the exoplanets in which hydrogen atoms have been detected in Lyα. The black points represent the planets in which Lyα is not detected. densities is given by n2p n1s = B1s→2pJLyα A2p→1s …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of close-in exoplanets with hydrogen observa￾tions. The red points represent the exoplanets in which hydrogen has been detected in Lyα or Hα. The blue points reflect the planets with non-conclusive detection in hydrogen absorption. The black points rep…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the metallicity dependence of the equilib￾rium temperature. We find that the equilibrium temperature is ∼ 5000 K in metal-rich (Z > 10Z⊙) planets due to the strong cooling by Mg II and the mass-loss rate of such a metal-rich planet can be significantly lower than…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Vidotto, A

    Allan, A. & Vidotto, A. A. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3760

    2019

  2. [2]

    B., Jaziri, A

    Allart, R., Lemée-Joliecoeur, P . B., Jaziri, A. Y ., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A164

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    C., McKee, C

    Begelman, M. C., McKee, C. F., & Shields, G. A. 1983, ApJ, 271, 70

    work page 1983

  4. [4]

    A., Redfield, S., Oklop ˇci´c, A., et al

    Bennett, K. A., Redfield, S., Oklop ˇci´c, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 264

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    A., Huber, D., Gaidos, E., van Saders, J

    Berger, T. A., Huber, D., Gaidos, E., van Saders, J. L., & Weis s, L. M. 2020, AJ, 160, 108

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    2021, A&A, 655, A 30

    Caldiroli, A., Haardt, F., Gallo, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A 30

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    A., Plavchan, P ., Villarreal D’Ang elo, C., & Hazra, G

    Carolan, S., Vidotto, A. A., Plavchan, P ., Villarreal D’Ang elo, C., & Hazra, G. 2020, MNRAS, 498, L53

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    W., Redfield, S., & Jensen, A

    Cauley, P . W., Redfield, S., & Jensen, A. G. 2017, AJ, 153, 217

    work page 2017

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 144

    Christie, D., Arras, P ., & Li, Z.-Y . 2013, ApJ, 772, 144

    2013

  2. [10]

    J., et al

    Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V ., Wheatley, P . J., et al. 2015, Nature, 522, 459

    2015

  3. [11]

    V ., Kulikov, Y

    Erkaev, N. V ., Kulikov, Y . N., Lammer, H., et al. 2007, A&A, 472, 329

    2007

  4. [12]

    Fortney, J. J. & Nettelmann, N. 2010, Space Sci. Rev., 152, 42 3

    2010

  5. [13]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 105

    Fujita, N., Hori, Y ., & Sasaki, T. 2022, ApJ, 928, 105

    2022

  6. [14]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 109

    2017

  7. [15]

    E., & Sari, R

    Ginzburg, S., Schlichting, H. E., & Sari, R. 2018, MNRAS, 476 , 759

    2018

  8. [16]

    & Schlichting, H

    Gupta, A. & Schlichting, H. E. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 24

    2019

  9. [17]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 150

    Huang, C., Arras, P ., Christie, D., & Li, Z.-Y . 2017, ApJ, 851, 150

    2017

  10. [18]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 123

    Huang, C., Koskinen, T., Lavvas, P ., & Fossati, L. 2023, ApJ, 951, 123

    2023

  11. [19]

    L., Shaikhislamov, I

    Khodachenko, M. L., Shaikhislamov, I. F., Lammer, H., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 67

    2019

  12. [20]

    R., France, K., Linsky, J., & Loyd, R

    Kulow, J. R., France, K., Linsky, J., & Loyd, R. O. P . 2014, ApJ , 786, 132

    2014

  13. [21]

    & Nakamoto, T

    Kurokawa, H. & Nakamoto, T. 2014, ApJ, 783, 54

    2014

  14. [22]

    2003, ApJ, 598, L121 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Ehrenreich, D., Vidal-Madjar, A ., et al

    Lammer, H., Selsis, F., Ribas, I., et al. 2003, ApJ, 598, L121 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Ehrenreich, D., Vidal-Madjar, A ., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A72

    2003

  15. [23]

    Lopez, E. D. & Fortney, J. J. 2013, ApJ, 776, 2

    2013

  16. [24]

    2016, A&A, 589, A75

    Mazeh, T., Holczer, T., & Faigler, S. 2016, A&A, 589, A75

    2016

  17. [25]

    A., Kratter, K., & Krumholz, M

    McCann, J., Murray-Clay, R. A., Kratter, K., & Krumholz, M. R . 2019, ApJ, 873, 89

    2019

  18. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 855

    Mitani, H., Nakatani, R., & Y oshida, N. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 855

    2022

  19. [27]

    A., Chiang, E

    Murray-Clay, R. A., Chiang, E. I., & Murray, N. 2009, ApJ, 693 , 23

    2009

  20. [28]

    J., & Takasao, S

    Nakatani, R., Turner, N. J., & Takasao, S. 2024, arXiv e-prin ts, arXiv:2406.18461 Oklopˇci´c, A. 2019, ApJ, 881, 133 Oklopˇci´c, A. & Hirata, C. M. 2018, ApJ, 855, L11

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    2024, A&A, 68 9, A179

    Orell-Miquel, J., Murgas, F., Pallé, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 68 9, A179

    2024

  22. [30]

    Owen, J. E. 2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Scienc es, 47, 67

    2019

  23. [31]

    Owen, J. E. & Alvarez, M. A. 2016, ApJ, 816, 34

    2016

  24. [32]

    Owen, J. E. & Jackson, A. P . 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 2931

    2012

  25. [33]

    E., Murray-Clay, R

    Owen, J. E., Murray-Clay, R. A., Schreyer, E., et al. 2023, MN RAS, 518, 4357

    2023

  26. [34]

    Owen, J. E. & Schlichting, H. E. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1615

    2024

  27. [35]

    Owen, J. E. & Wu, Y . 2017, ApJ, 847, 29 Rockcliffe, K. E., Newton, E. R., Y oungblood, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 1 16

    2017

  28. [36]

    2011, A&A, 53 2, A6

    Sanz-Forcada, J., Micela, G., Ribas, I., et al. 2011, A&A, 53 2, A6

    2011

  29. [37]

    Smith, P . C. B., Line, M. R., Bean, J. L., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 1 10

    2024

  30. [38]

    J., Sing, D

    Spake, J. J., Sing, D. K., Evans, T. M., et al. 2018, Nature, 55 7, 68

    2018

  31. [39]

    M., et al

    Vidal-Madjar, A., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Désert, J. M., et al. 2003, Nature, 422, 143

    2003

  32. [40]

    J., Donahue, T

    Watson, A. J., Donahue, T. M., & Walker, J. C. G. 1981, Icarus, 48, 150

    1981

  33. [41]

    T., Klein, R

    Woods, D. T., Klein, R. I., Castor, J. I., McKee, C. F., & Bell, J. B. 1996, ApJ, 461, 767 Y abe, T. & Aoki, T. 1991, Computer physics communications, 66, 219 Y an, F., Wyttenbach, A., Casasayas-Barris, N., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A22 Y elle, R. V . 2004, Icarus, 170, 167

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.