Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 93 references

Uniform Reanalysis of JWST MIRI 15{\mu}m Exoplanet Eclipse Observations using Frame-Normalized Principal Component Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Frame-normalized PCA detrends JWST MIRI eclipses and recovers published depths for five rocky exoplanets.

desk verdict A useful methods paper for MIRI time-series photometry, but the central unbiasedness claim needs an injected-signal test before I'd trust it for the Rocky Worlds survey. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02052 v2 pith:A6E6FXM7 submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Nicholas J. Connors , Christopher Monaghan , Björn Benneke , Lisa Dang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords exoplanetsexoplanetatmospheresplanetarysecondaryeclipsephotometryJWSTMIRIprincipalcomponentanalysisdetectorsystematicstime-seriesobservations
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

A new detrending method, frame-normalized principal component analysis (FN-PCA), is introduced for JWST/MIRI 15 µm exoplanet eclipse photometry. The method normalizes each detector frame by its total intensity before performing principal component analysis, so that spatially uniform astrophysical signals such as the eclipse itself are removed from the eigenimages and the remaining eigenvalue time series track instrument systematics. Reanalyzing all published MIRI 15 µm eclipse observations of five rocky exoplanets, the paper finds eclipse depths largely consistent with the original parametric analyses, while also identifying a detector-settling component whose timescale grows exponentially with stellar K-band magnitude, $T_\mathrm{set} = 0.063 e^{0.427 m_K} - 0.657$ hours. The paper presents this as a data-driven systematic model ready for future MIRI observations in surveys such as the 500-hour Rocky Worlds program.

What carries the argument

The central object is the FN-PCA decomposition of the background-subtracted, frame-normalized time-series images. Each frame is divided by its own total intensity before principal component analysis, which is the step that prevents the astrophysical eclipse from entering the eigenimages. The systematic model is then built from the eigenvalue time series of the first five principal components, each scaled by a fitted coefficient, multiplied by a linear polynomial in time; this model multiplies the eclipse model during the MCMC fit. The decomposition also yields eigenimages used to categorize detector behavior into detector-settling, centroiding, pixel-dominated, and random components.

What would settle it

Inject a synthetic eclipse of known depth into MIRI-like frames while also introducing a modest PSF shift or shape change that occurs during the eclipse window, run the FN-PCA pipeline, and check whether the recovered depth deviates from the injected value by more than the reported uncertainties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that FN-PCA, using the top five principal components plus a linear slope as the systematic model, is a viable data-driven way to detrend JWST MIRI 15 µm eclipse light curves. Because each frame is normalized by its total intensity before PCA, the eclipse signal, which is shared by all pixels in the aperture, is expected to drop out of the eigen-decomposition, leaving principal components that represent pixel-level detector systematics. Comparing the resulting eclipse depths for LHS 1478 b, TOI-1468 b, LHS 1140 c, TRAPPIST-1 b, and TRAPPIST-1 c against published values, the authors find agreement within about 1σ for most individual visits and joint fits, with the main exceptions being individual visits of TRAPPIST-1 c and TRAPPIST-1 b. Across all 17 analyzed eclipse observations, the authors identify a recurring exponential 'detector-settling' component present in every visit, and they report that its settling time follows $T_\mathrm{set} = 0.063 e^{0.427 m_K} - 0.657$ hours versus the star's K-band magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the eclipse signal is spatially uniform across the aperture, so normalizing each frame by its total intensity removes the eclipse before PCA; if the eclipse's spatial pattern changes during the observation, the eclipse could leak into the principal components and bias the measured depth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The FN-PCA systematic model requires no parameterized functional form for the detector noise, so it can be applied uniformly across different MIRI 15 µm datasets without per-visit model choices.
  • The measured settling-time relation implies that fainter targets need substantially longer integration or pre-settling time, with dim stars requiring several hours and bright stars only minutes.
  • The reanalysis confirms most previously published eclipse depths, while flagging specific visits of TRAPPIST-1 c and TRAPPIST-1 b where the recovery is inconsistent and the joint fits still agree within 1σ.
  • The categorization of eigenimage components into detector-settling, centroiding, pixel-dominated, and random groups offers a shared vocabulary for future MIRI systematic studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension is to inject synthetic eclipses with spatially varying PSF structure; if the recovered depth is biased, the uniform-signal assumption would need to be qualified or the method extended to include PSF-aware normalization.
  • The same frame-normalized PCA logic could be applied to MIRI filters other than F1500W, or to transit light curves, provided the astrophysical signal remains spatially uniform across the aperture.
  • The exponential settling-time relation suggests that scheduling faint-target eclipse observations may require longer warm-up or baseline integration to avoid partial fitting of the ramp into the eclipse window.
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

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper introduces frame-normalized principal component analysis (FN-PCA) as a data-driven detrending method for JWST MIRI F1500W secondary-eclipse photometry, implemented in the new Erebus pipeline. Each background-subtracted frame is normalized by its total intensity before PCA, under the assumption that astrophysical signals such as the eclipse are spatially uniform; the top five principal-component eigenvalue time series plus a linear slope are then fitted simultaneously with the eclipse model. The authors reanalyze 17 eclipse visits of LHS 1478 b, TOI-1468 b, LHS 1140 c, TRAPPIST-1 b, and TRAPPIST-1 c, compare their eclipse depths with published values, categorize the eigenimages into detector-settling, centroiding, pixel-dominated, and random components, and derive an empirical relation between detector settling time and stellar Ks-band magnitude. They then compare the measured depths with atmospheric and bare-rock surface models. The central claims are that FN-PCA is a viable systematic model for MIRI 15 µm data and that detector settling time scales as T_settling = 0.063 exp(0.427 m_K) - 0.657 hours.

Significance. If the unbiasedness of FN-PCA is established, the method is a valuable contribution: it avoids imposing a parametric instrumental model, is uniformly applicable across multiple programs, and is well timed for the planned Rocky Worlds survey. The paper's strengths include the open-source Erebus pipeline, the uniform reduction of a relatively large set of MIRI eclipse observations, a clear categorization of common systematic eigenimages, and a quantitative (if preliminary) settling-time relation. The agreement of the joint-fit eclipse depths with independent literature values, mostly within 1σ, provides empirical support for the method. However, the central unbiasedness claim rests on an assumption of spatial uniformity that is not validated by injected-signal tests, and the per-visit discrepancies for TRAPPIST-1 c and TRAPPIST-1 b show that the pipeline still has unexplained failure modes. The settling-time relation also lacks propagated uncertainties. These gaps are fixable and should be addressed before the method is adopted for survey use.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (1)] The statement that frame normalization 'removes the effects of astrophysical signals' assumes the eclipse produces a spatially uniform fractional change across the PSF after background subtraction. This assumption is not validated. If the PSF shape, centroid, or aperture weighting changes during the eclipse, the eclipse can project onto the top principal components and be partially absorbed by the fitted coefficients, biasing the recovered depth. Please add end-to-end injected-signal recovery tests: inject synthetic eclipses of known depth into real MIRI frames, including cases with pointing drift or PSF variations, and show that the FN-PCA depth is unbiased. This is load-bearing for the claim that FN-PCA is ready for the Rocky Worlds survey.
  2. [Section 2.5, Table 2] The per-visit results for TRAPPIST-1 c are not consistent with the literature: visit 4 gives 1064±177 ppm with FN-PCA versus 459±185 ppm from Zieba et al. (2023), visit 1 is a non-detection, and a 2nd-degree polynomial is added only for visit 4. The paper attributes these discrepancies to other parts of the data reduction because the exponential fit also disagrees, but that does not resolve the issue: pipeline-level systematics affect both detrending methods, and the central claim of per-visit viability is weakened. Please quantify the agreement across all visits (e.g., a chi-squared statistic or a systematic error term from visit-to-visit scatter) and state explicitly what defines an acceptable match to previous results.
  3. [Eq. (3), Figure 5] The settling-time relation is an empirical fit, but no uncertainties are reported for the fitted coefficients A=0.063, B=0.427, C=-0.657, and no goodness-of-fit statistic is given. One TRAPPIST-1 c visit is discarded as an outlier without a quantitative criterion, while TOI-175 c is retained as a 'notable outlier' with zero error bar because it has only a single visit. Since this relation is a quantitative result used for planning future observations, please propagate the per-visit exponential-fit uncertainties into the final relation and state the outlier-rejection rule explicitly.
  4. [Section 2, 'first five principal components'] The choice of five principal components plus a linear slope is presented without a selection criterion or a sensitivity analysis. Because the fitted eclipse depth may depend on how much of the systematic signal is included, please show the stability of the reported depths and residual scatter for a range of component numbers (e.g., 3, 5, 7) and with or without the linear slope. This is necessary to demonstrate that the method is neither overfitting nor underfitting the systematics.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The notation '0.063 exp^{0.427·m_K}' is nonstandard and ambiguous; it should read '0.063 exp(0.427 m_K)'.
  2. [Section 2] The phrase 'replaced with 2d linearly interpolated data' should specify whether the interpolation is in time, pixel space, or both, and how large an affected region is interpolated.
  3. [Conclusion] 'For the dimmest starts' should be 'stars'.
  4. [Section 4.3] The sentence ending '9.177 mJy for LHS 1140 Fortune et al. (2025)' is missing the opening parenthesis before the citation.
  5. [References] The entries 'Ducrot et al. 2024' and 'Ducrot et al. 2025' list identical journal, volume, and page numbers; please verify that these are distinct papers and correct the citation details.
  6. [Figure 5] The left panel describes TRAPPIST-1 b, LHS 1478 b, and HD 260655 b as 'high, medium, and low magnitude stars' respectively, which is confusing because magnitude decreases with brightness; please reword to avoid the ambiguity.
  7. [Section 2.5] The sentence about visits 2 and 3, where the pipeline 'mistakes the eclipse egress for a large positive eclipse depth' unless the depth is forced positive, should be expanded to explain how the eclipse-timing offset was used to select the positive-prior solution; this is an important model-selection step.
  8. [Table 2] The column labeled 'Exponential (ppm)' should be defined in the caption (exponential-ramp detrending versus an exponential model for the eclipse prior) to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FN-PCA is an independent data-driven detrender, and the settling-time relation is an empirical fit, not a prediction.

full rationale

The central claim—that frame-normalized PCA with five components plus a slope is a viable MIRI 15 micron detrender—is not circular. The PCs are computed from frame-normalized images before eclipse fitting, so the eclipse depth is an independently fitted parameter; the paper's statement that normalization removes astrophysical signals is a stated physical expectation, not an equation that defines the eclipse depth in terms of the PC eigenvalues. Agreement with previously published eclipse depths (Table 2) is an external benchmark, not an input to the fit. The settling-time relation (Eq. 3) is described as a best fit to measured ramp timescales and used only to estimate future observation lengths; it is an empirical scaling, not a prediction derived from the same quantity. Self-citations to Benneke, Coulombe, Radica, and Monaghan support the general utility of PCA detrending and the atmospheric/surface models, but none of these citations is load-bearing in a way that forces the eclipse depths or the settling-time relation; the comparisons with independent literature values are the actual validation. The paper's own admissions of inconsistent TRAPPIST-1 c visits and the ad hoc polynomial for visit 4 are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on several domain assumptions about the uniformity of the eclipse signal, the sufficiency of five principal components, the exponential shape of the settling ramp, and the validity of unpublished model frameworks. The settling-time relation is an empirical fit with free parameters that lack uncertainty estimates.

free parameters (3)
  • Settling-time relation coefficients (A, B, C) in T_settling = A exp(B m_K) + C = A=0.063, B=0.427, C=-0.657 (hours)
    Fitted to the measured settling times of 12 planets (Figure 5, right); no uncertainties are reported for these coefficients.
  • Number of principal components used for detrending = 5
    Chosen by hand; no criterion such as cross-validation or residual analysis is given for this hyperparameter.
  • Mean detector settling time = 525 +/- 203 integrations
    Reported as a typical settling length across targets; the calculation method is not fully specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The eclipse signal is spatially uniform across the photometric aperture, so frame normalization removes it from the PCA decomposition.
    Stated in Section 2; if false, eclipse signal can leak into the PCA components and bias the detrended depth.
  • domain assumption The top five principal components plus a linear slope adequately capture the systematic noise in every visit.
    Used throughout the analysis; no sensitivity test for the number of components is shown.
  • domain assumption The detector-settling component follows an exponential decay in time.
    Used to extract settling times via scipy.optimize.curve_fit in Section 3.1; no physical model is derived to justify the exponential form.
  • domain assumption The 2MASS Ks-band magnitude is the appropriate single proxy for the photon flux driving the settling ramp.
    Used to construct Figure 5; other factors such as filter, aperture, and background are not explored.
  • domain assumption The SCARLET and JESTER model frameworks, along with the Paragas et al. lab reflectance data, are accurate enough for the atmospheric and surface comparison.
    JESTER is cited as 'in prep.' (Monaghan et al.), so it is not independently verifiable from this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uniform Reanalysis of JWST MIRI 15{\mu}m Exoplanet Eclipse Observations using Frame-Normalized Principal Component Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A6E6FXM7

@misc{pith2026250702052,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uniform Reanalysis of JWST MIRI 15\mum Exoplanet Eclipse Observations using Frame-Normalized Principal Component Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A6E6FXM7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02052}
}
abstract

JWST MIRI 15 micron time-series eclipse photometry presents a powerful way to probe for the presence of atmospheres on low-temperature rocky exoplanets orbiting nearby stars. Here, we introduce a novel technique, frame-normalized principal component analysis (FN-PCA) to analyze and detrend these MIRI time-series observations. Using the FN-PCA technique, we perform a uniform reanalysis of the published MIRI 15 micron observations of LHS 1478 b, TOI-1468 b, LHS 1140 c, TRAPPIST-1 b, and TRAPPIST-1 c using our new data reduction pipeline (Erebus) and compare them to different potential atmospheric and surface compositions. We also investigate additional public data sets with the sole purpose of understanding the instrument systematics affecting MIRI. We identify and categorize important detector-level systematics in the observations that are generally present across all 17 analyzed eclipse observations, which we illustrate as eigenimage/eigenvalue pairs in the FN-PCA. One of these eigenimage/eigenvalue pairs corresponds to the prominent ramp effect at the beginning of the time-series observations which has widely been reported for JWST and Spitzer photometry. For JWST/MIRI, we show that the detector settling time scales exponentially with the apparent magnitude of the target star $T_\mathrm{set} \mathrm{[hours]} = 0.063\exp^{0.427\cdot m_K} -0.657$. This uniform reanalysis and investigation of JWST/MIRI systematics is done in preparation for the 500 hour Rocky Worlds DDT survey, to demonstrate a data-driven systematic model usable across all MIRI 15 micron datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02052 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Frame normalized principal component analysis (FN-PCA) detrending fit for TRAPPIST-1 b visit 1 using the Erebus pipeline. The panels on the left, from top to bottom, show the raw lightcurve produced by our pipeline, the detrended light-curve using the FN-PCA systematic model, a breakdown of the linear and PCA components of the systematic model, and a plot comparing the root mean squared of residuals depending on bin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Eclipse depths from our reanalysis using the Erebus pipeline with FN-PCA and exponential fit detrending, compared to literature values. The joint fit FN-PCA result is shown by the blue dashed line with 1σ confidence interval. Exact values used to make this plot are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The detector settling component either decays with a wide eigenimage covering most of the PSF (top) or ramps up with a more narrow eigenimage (bottom). The ramp-up component is less common and can have a lesser effect on the light curve depending on the size of the aper￾ture and of the affected portion of the PSF due to it being narrower in general, despite being a stronger signal that ex￾plains more of the total va… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left) Detector settling time per visit was taken as the time for 99% of the detector-settling component eigenvalue (fit with an exponential) to decay. Three individual visits of planets orbiting high, medium, and low magnitude stars (TRAPPIST￾1 b, LHS 1478 b, and HD 2…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The first and fourth principal components of TOI￾1468 b visit 1 show the Gaussian centroid moving along two perpendicular axes. The positive diagonal explains 13.9% of the total variance and the negative diagonal explains only 3.6%. The Gaussian centroid of the PSF mov…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pixel-dominated principal components from visits of TRAPPIST-1 c (left) and TOI-1468 b (right). 3.4. “Random” components This category makes up the rest of the components, which are difficult to categorize by eye. These are more common for the brighter stars (K-band ma…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Random principal components from two visits of TRAPPIST-1 b. 4. ATMOSPHERE AND SURFACE ANALYSIS We simulated a number of emission spectra for TRAPPIST-1 b, TRAPPIST-1 c, TOI-1468 b, LHS 1478 b, and LHS 1140 c, assuming various bare rock and atmo￾spheric compositions ( …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulated emission spectra for LHS 1478 b, TOI-1468 b, LHS 1140 c, TRAPPIST-1 b, and TRAPPIST-1 c compared to the measured eclipse depths from our FN-PCA calculation, alongside the previous literature results reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    FH p E frcHMq8MܡHt;Q DR> .kBW0 ?5` k:d I` `гډ e c?Hbe <- c

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  4. [4]

    L., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/psj/abd022 2021

  5. [5]

    H., Benneke, B., et al

    Agol, E., Allen, N. H., Benneke, B., et al. 2024, Updated forecast for TRAPPIST-1 times of transit for all seven exoplanets incorporating JWST data. 2409.11620

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    2025, , 985, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/add010

    Ahrer , E.-M., Radica , M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb , C., et al. 2025, , 985, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/add010

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add010 2025

  7. [7]

    H., et al

    Argyriou, I., Lage, C., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 680, A96, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346490

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346490 2023

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Buchhave, L

    August, P. C., Buchhave, L. A., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2024, Hot Rocks Survey I : A shallow eclipse for LHS 1478 b, arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11048

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C., Buchhave , L

    August , P. C., Buchhave , L. A., Rathcke , A., et al. 2025, Confirming a Tentative Terrestrial Atmosphere Detection on LHS 1478 b with JWST/MIRI , JWST Proposal. Cycle 4, ID. \#7675

    2025

  5. [13]

    Bazinet, L., Pelletier, S., Benneke, B., Salinas, R., & Mace, G. N. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 206, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3071

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Ahrer, E.-M., Brande, J., et al

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

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Kreidberg, L., Kendrew, S., et al

    Bell, T. J., Kreidberg, L., Kendrew, S., et al. 2023, A First Look at the JWST MIRI/LRS Phase Curve of WASP-43b. 2301.06350

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    2015, Strict Upper Limits on the Carbon-to-Oxygen Ratios of Eight Hot Jupiters from Self-Consistent Atmospheric Retrieval

    Benneke, B. 2015, Strict Upper Limits on the Carbon-to-Oxygen Ratios of Eight Hot Jupiters from Self-Consistent Atmospheric Retrieval. 1504.07655

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    2024, Thermal emission of a cool, potentially volcanically active exo-Earth , JWST Proposal

    Benneke , B., Piaulet Ghorayeb , C., & Roy , P.-A. 2024, Thermal emission of a cool, potentially volcanically active exo-Earth , JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. \#6457

    2024

  10. [18]

    2012, , 753, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/100

    Benneke , B., & Seager , S. 2012, , 753, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/100

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    2013, , 778, 153, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153

    ---. 2013, , 778, 153, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    2019 a , , 887, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab59dc

    Benneke , B., Wong , I., Piaulet , C., et al. 2019 a , , 887, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab59dc

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Lothringer , J., et al

    Benneke , B., Knutson , H. A., Lothringer , J., et al. 2019 b , Nature Astronomy, 3, 813, 10.1038/s41550-019-0800-5

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, JWST Reveals CH _4 , CO _2 , and H _2 O in a Metal-rich Miscible Atmosphere on a Two-Earth-Radius Exoplanet

    Benneke, B., Roy, P.-A., Coulombe, L.-P., et al. 2024, JWST Reveals CH _4 , CO _2 , and H _2 O in a Metal-rich Miscible Atmosphere on a Two-Earth-Radius Exoplanet. 2403.03325

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J., Hawley , S

    Bochanski , J. J., Hawley , S. L., Covey , K. R., et al. 2010, , 139, 2679, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2679

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Nesvorn \'y , D., Sasaki , S., & Strazzulla , G

    Brunetto , R., Loeffler , M. J., Nesvorn \'y , D., Sasaki , S., & Strazzulla , G. 2015, in Asteroids IV, ed. P. Michel , F. E. DeMeo , & W. F. Bottke (University of Arizona Press), 597--616, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816532131-ch031

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.8.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7229890

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.8.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7229890

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    2023, New Mass and Radius Constraints on the LHS 1140 Planets -- LHS 1140 b is Either a Temperate Mini-Neptune or a Water World

    Cadieux, C., Plotnykov, M., Doyon, R., et al. 2023, New Mass and Radius Constraints on the LHS 1140 Planets -- LHS 1140 b is Either a Temperate Mini-Neptune or a Water World. 2310.15490

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, L36, 10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/l36

    Castan, T., & Menou, K. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, L36, 10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/l36

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    E., Megeath, S

    Charbonneau, D., Allen, L. E., Megeath, S. T., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 626, 523–529, 10.1086/429991

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, , 666, A155, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244056

    Chaturvedi , P., Bluhm , P., Nagel , E., et al. 2022, , 666, A155, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244056

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    , Astudillo-Defru, N

    Cloutier, R. , Astudillo-Defru, N. , Bonfils, X. , et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935957

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    2013, Python and HDF5 (O'Reilly)

    Collette, A. 2013, Python and HDF5 (O'Reilly)

    2013

  24. [32]

    2023, , 620, 292, 10.1038/s41586-023-06230-1

    Coulombe , L.-P., Benneke , B., Challener , R., et al. 2023, , 620, 292, 10.1038/s41586-023-06230-1

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-025-02488-9

    Coulombe , L.-P., Radica , M., Benneke , B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-025-02488-9

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    P., Ih, J., Kite, E

    Coy, B. P., Ih, J., Kite, E. S., et al. 2025, Population-level Hypothesis Testing with Rocky Planet Emission Data: A Tentative Trend in the Brightness Temperatures of M-Earths. 2412.06573

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    V., et al

    de Wit, J., Doyon, R., Rackham, B. V., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 810–818, 10.1038/s41550-024-02298-5

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Buchhave, L

    Diamond-Lowe, H., Mendonca, J. M., Buchhave, L. A., et al. 2024. https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/phase2-public/3730.pdf

    2024

  29. [37]

    F., Kouach , D., Moutou , C., et al

    Donati , J. F., Kouach , D., Moutou , C., et al. 2020, , 498, 5684, 10.1093/mnras/staa2569

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    2020, A&A, 640, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937392

    Ducrot, E., Gillon, M., Delrez, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937392

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 358–369, 10.1038/s41550-024-02428-z

    ---. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 358–369, 10.1038/s41550-024-02428-z

    2025 doi

  32. [41]

    2019, , 627, A43, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935457

    Dumusque , X., Turner , O., Dorn , C., et al. 2019, , 627, A43, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935457

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A212, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347127

    Dyrek, A., Ducrot, E., Lagage, P.-O., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A212, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347127

    2024 doi

  34. [43]

    J., Rackham, B

    Fauchez, T. J., Rackham, B. V., Ducrot, E., Stevenson, K. B., & de Wit, J. 2025, Stellar Models Also Limit Exoplanet Atmosphere Studies in Emission. 2502.19585

    2025 arXiv

  35. [44]

    2020, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 534, 116089, 10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116089

    Ferrari , S., Maturilli , A., Carli , C., et al. 2020, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 534, 116089, 10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116089

    2020

  36. [45]

    2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  37. [46]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306–312, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  38. [47]

    P., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al

    Fortune, M., Gibson, N. P., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2025, Hot Rocks Survey III: A deep eclipse for LHS 1140c and a new Gaussian process method to account for correlated noise in individual pixels. 2505.22186

    2025 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Gelman , A., & Rubin , D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457, 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    1992

  40. [49]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 39, 10.1038/s41586-023-05951-7

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    L., Demory , B.-O., Gillon , M., et al

    Grimm , S. L., Demory , B.-O., Gillon , M., et al. 2018, , 613, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732233

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    M., Lichtenberg, T., et al

    Hammond, M., Guimond, C. M., Lichtenberg, T., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 978, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada0bc

    2025 doi

  43. [52]

    2012, Theory of Reflectance and Emittance Spectroscopy, 2nd edn

    Hapke, B. 2012, Theory of Reflectance and Emittance Spectroscopy, 2nd edn. (Cambridge University Press)

    2012

  44. [53]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  45. [54]

    2013, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 371, 252, 10.1016/j.epsl.2013.03.038

    Helbert , J., Nestola , F., Ferrari , S., et al. 2013, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 371, 252, 10.1016/j.epsl.2013.03.038

    2013 doi

  46. [55]

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

    2007 doi

  47. [56]

    M.-R., Whittaker, E

    Ih, J., Kempton, E. M.-R., Whittaker, E. A., & Lessard, M. 2023, ApJL, 952, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace03b

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol

    Iyer , A., Line , M., Muirhead , P., Fortney , J., & Gharib-Nezhad , E. 2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol. 56, AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, 631.03

    2024

  49. [58]

    R., Line, M

    Iyer, A. R., Line, M. R., Muirhead, P. S., Fortney, J. J., & Gharib-Nezhad, E. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/acabc2

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    G., Fossati, L., Johnstone, C

    Kislyakova, K. G., Fossati, L., Johnstone, C. P., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 858, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabae4

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4

    Kokori, A., Tsiaras, A., Edwards, B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4

    2023 doi

  52. [61]

    Koll, D. D. B. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3b48

    2022 doi

  53. [62]

    2015, , 127, 1161, 10.1086/683602

    Kreidberg , L. 2015, , 127, 1161, 10.1086/683602

    2015 doi

  54. [63]

    2024, High-precision astrometry and photometry with the JWST/MIRI imager

    Libralato, M., Argyriou, I., Dicken, D., et al. 2024, High-precision astrometry and photometry with the JWST/MIRI imager. 2311.12145

    2024 arXiv

  55. [64]

    2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol

    Lincowski , A., Virtual Planetary Laboratory , Meadows , V., et al. 2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol. 56, AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, 627.10

    2024

  56. [65]

    2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, 10.1089/ast.2014.1231

    Luger , R., & Barnes , R. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, 10.1089/ast.2014.1231

    2015

  57. [66]

    Lyu, X., Koll, D. D. B., Cowan, N. B., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2077

    2024 doi

  58. [67]

    J., Simon-Miller , A

    Mackwell , S. J., Simon-Miller , A. A., Harder , J. W., & Bullock , M. A. 2013, Comparative Climatology of Terrestrial Planets (University of Arizona Press), 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816530595

    2013 doi

  59. [68]

    S., Hu, R., et al

    Mansfield, M., Kite, E. S., Hu, R., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c90

    2019 doi

  60. [69]

    2011, , 742, L19, 10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/L19

    Miguel , Y., Kaltenegger , L., Fegley , B., & Schaefer , L. 2011, , 742, L19, 10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/L19

    2011 doi

  61. [70]

    2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 239, 10.3847/1538-3881/adbe75

    Monaghan, C., Roy, P.-A., Benneke, B., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 239, 10.3847/1538-3881/adbe75

    2025 doi

  62. [71]

    E., Dicken, D., Argyriou, I., et al

    Morrison, J. E., Dicken, D., Argyriou, I., et al. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 075004, 10.1088/1538-3873/acdea6

    2023 doi

  63. [72]

    2008, , 120, 317, 10.1086/533420

    Nutzman , P., & Charbonneau , D. 2008, , 120, 317, 10.1086/533420

    2008 doi

  64. [73]

    A., Hu, R., et al

    Paragas, K., Knutson, H. A., Hu, R., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 981, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada9eb

    2025 doi

  65. [74]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  66. [75]

    2021, , 162, 73, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0428

    Pelletier , S., Benneke , B., Darveau-Bernier , A., et al. 2021, , 162, 73, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0428

    2021 doi

  67. [76]

    2024, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 10, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8b28

    Pelletier, S., Benneke, B., Chachan, Y., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 10, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8b28

    2024 doi

  68. [77]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 974, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f00

    Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Benneke, B., Radica, M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 974, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f00

    2024 doi

  69. [78]

    R., Dotto , E., et al

    Poggiali , G., Brucato , J. R., Dotto , E., et al. 2021, , 354, 114040, 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114040

    2021

  70. [79]

    V., Apai , D., & Giampapa , M

    Rackham , B. V., Apai , D., & Giampapa , M. S. 2018, , 853, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa08c

    2018 doi

  71. [80]

    2024, , 962, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad20e4

    Radica , M., Coulombe , L.-P., Taylor , J., et al. 2024, , 962, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad20e4

    2024 doi

  72. [81]

    2025, , 979, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada381

    Radica , M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb , C., Taylor , J., et al. 2025, , 979, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada381

    2025 doi

  73. [82]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02932, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02932

    Redfield , S., Batalha , N., Benneke , B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02932, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02932

    2024 doi arXiv

  74. [83]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f18

    Roy, P.-A., Benneke, B., Piaulet, C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f18

    2022 doi

  75. [84]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 954, L52, 10.3847/2041-8213/acebf0

    ---. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 954, L52, 10.3847/2041-8213/acebf0

    2023 doi

  76. [85]

    L., Ballard , S., & Johnson , J

    Shields , A. L., Ballard , S., & Johnson , J. A. 2016, , 663, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.10.003

    2016 doi

  77. [86]

    2014, A Tutorial on Principal Component Analysis

    Shlens, J. 2014, A Tutorial on Principal Component Analysis. 1404.1100

    2014 arXiv

  78. [87]

    G., Anglada-Escud \'e , G., Dreizler , S., et al

    Soto , M. G., Anglada-Escud \'e , G., Dreizler , S., et al. 2021, , 649, A144, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140618

    2021 doi

  79. [88]

    H., Filiberto , J., & Vander Kaaden , K

    Treiman , A. H., Filiberto , J., & Vander Kaaden , K. E. 2021, Planetary Science Journal, 2, 43, 10.3847/PSJ/abd546

    2021 doi

  80. [89]

    2018, A&A, 612, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731620

    Turbet, Martin , Bolmont, Emeline , Leconte, Jeremy , et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731620

    2018 doi

  81. [90]

    Valdés, E. A. M., Demory, B. O., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2025, Hot Rocks Survey II: The thermal emission of TOI-1468 b reveals a hot bare rock. 2503.19772

    2025 arXiv

  82. [91]

    A., Gregory , S

    Vidotto , A. A., Gregory , S. G., Jardine , M., et al. 2014, , 441, 2361, 10.1093/mnras/stu728

    2014 doi

  83. [92]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  84. [93]

    2023, Nature, 620, 746, 10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z

    Zieba, S., Kreidberg, L., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 746, 10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z

    2023 doi

  85. [94]

    Zilinskas, M., van Buchem, C. P. A., Miguel, Y., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142984

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.