Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Hydrodynamic escape can strip a young rocky planet's atmosphere within a few million years, and whether any atmosphere survives reduces to a loss-rate threshold near 10^10 grams per second.

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

2026-08-02 00:24 UTC pith:E55ZXB2T

load-bearing objection Solid, transparent parameter study; the ~1e10 g/s survival threshold is an upper-bound artifact of the escape prescription, not a robust physical rate. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15011 v1 pith:E55ZXB2T submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.EP physics.ao-phphysics.geo-ph

Atmospheric evolution through outgassing and escape on young molten rocky exoplanets

Emma Postolec , Tim Lichtenberg , Harrison Nicholls , Laurent Soucasse , Floris van der Tak This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP physics.ao-phphysics.geo-ph
keywords magma oceanatmospheric escapeoutgassingrocky exoplanet atmospheresenergy-limited escapemantle redoxM-dwarf planetsvolatile partitioning
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 argues that hydrodynamic escape driven by stellar XUV radiation is a decisive shaper of early rocky-planet atmospheres, competing directly with outgassing from a cooling magma ocean. By coupling interior outgassing to an energy-limited escape law, the authors find that escape shortens magma ocean lifetimes by stripping greenhouse gases, and that radiative-convective atmospheres lose heat more efficiently than purely convective ones, accelerating solidification. For Earth-mass planets, atmospheres survive when escape rates stay below about 10^10 grams per second; above that, the atmosphere is lost and the planet solidifies as bare rock. The results map a wide grid of orbital separations, redox states, and volatile inventories, showing that the mantle's oxidation state still sets the final atmospheric composition, from hydrogen-dominated to heavy CO2- or SO2-dominated.

Core claim

The central claim is that the fate of a young rocky planet's atmosphere is decided by a race between magma-ocean outgassing and energy-limited escape, with a quantitative threshold separating survivors from bare rocks. In 1-Earth-mass simulations around Sun-like and M-dwarf stars, escape rates above about 10^12 g/s strip the atmosphere within roughly a million years, while rates below about 10^10 g/s allow the atmosphere to persist until mantle solidification or a radiative-equilibrium magma ocean. Escape removes greenhouse gases, weakening insulation, and a radiative-convective atmospheric treatment (allowing radiative layers) shortens magma-ocean crystallization times by orders of magnitud

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is an energy-limited hydrodynamic escape formula, in which the mass-loss rate is the product of an efficiency factor, the XUV flux, and the cube of the radius where XUV is absorbed (the escape radius), divided by planetary gravity and a tidal factor. The escape radius is not fixed but moves with the atmosphere via an assumed XUV absorption pressure. Escape removes species in bulk according to their atmospheric mass mixing ratios, and the escaping mass is coupled into a one-dimensional radiative-convective atmosphere and a dynamic magma ocean that computes volatile dissolution/outgassing at every time step. This two-way coupling lets escape cool the planet by destro

Load-bearing premise

The whole survival threshold and final composition hinge on the energy-limited escape law with a fixed efficiency factor and bulk (non-fractionating) removal of all species; if real escape is less efficient (as the authors note for efficiency above 0.3) or preferentially removes hydrogen, the predicted bare-rock outcomes and magma ocean lifetimes change.

What would settle it

A targeted search for escape signatures (e.g., in hydrogen or helium lines) on a young close-in rocky planet around an M dwarf, comparing measured mass-loss rates to the predicted >10^12 g/s, would test the threshold; a planet predicted bare that retains a thick atmosphere would falsify the energy-limited prescription.

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

If this is right

  • Close-in rocky planets around M dwarfs are more likely than G-star planets to lose their atmospheres during the magma ocean era, because of longer XUV saturation phases and higher fluxes.
  • Planets that keep escape rates moderate retain atmospheres that can survive into mantle solidification, so magma-ocean outgassing plus moderate escape sustains secondary atmospheres longer than escape-only models predict.
  • Radiative-convective treatment of the atmosphere shortens magma ocean lifetimes relative to purely convective treatments, so models that neglect radiative layers overestimate magma ocean longevity.
  • Mantle redox state predicts the final atmospheric composition even when escape is active: reduced mantles give light H2/CO atmospheres, oxidized mantles give heavy H2O/CO2 atmospheres, and sulfur-rich species can appear just before complete atmospheric loss.
  • Escape does not simply remove atmosphere; it fractionates the planet's volatile budget because soluble volatiles stay dissolved in the magma ocean and are released later, changing composition over time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the 10^10 g/s survival threshold scales with planet mass and gravity, then slightly more massive rocky planets could retain atmospheres at higher loss rates, implying a mass-dependent retention boundary not mapped in the grid.
  • Because the model neglects fractionation, the predicted final mean molecular weights are conservative lower bounds; adding preferential hydrogen escape would push final atmospheres heavier, which would change observability predictions.
  • A clear observational test: the model predicts that most very close-in rocky planets around M dwarfs should end as bare rock; a future detection of a thick H2O/CO2 atmosphere on such a planet would strain the energy-limited escape prescription.
  • The escape radius is set by an assumed XUV absorption pressure; independent constraints on where heavy species absorb XUV could shift the threshold, so the 10^10 g/s number should be read as tied to that assumption.

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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper integrates a new energy-limited hydrodynamic escape module (ZEPHYRUS) into the PROTEUS coupled magma-ocean/atmosphere framework and applies it to 1 M_Earth planets around a solar-mass G star and a 0.194 M_sun M dwarf. The grid varies semimajor axis, escape efficiency epsilon, XUV reference pressure, mantle fO2, C/H ratio, hydrogen inventory, and atmospheric treatment (radiative-convective AGNI vs prescribed-convective JANUS), yielding 1674 converged simulations. The key reported results are: (i) escape combined with a radiative-convective atmosphere shortens magma ocean lifetimes by weakening greenhouse insulation; (ii) Earth-mass planets retain atmospheres when modeled energy-limited loss rates stay below ~1e10 g/s; (iii) mantle redox remains the primary control on final atmospheric mean molecular weight, with oxidized mantles producing CO2/H2O-rich and reduced mantles H2/CO-rich atmospheres; and (iv) M-dwarf planets lose atmospheres more readily, with late-stage sulfur-rich atmospheres appearing before total loss. The paper is transparent that several assumptions (fixed epsilon up to 1.0, bulk entrainment, P_stop = 1 bar) make the loss rates upper bounds, but the headline survival threshold is nevertheless presented in a way that may overstate its robustness.

Significance. The main strength of the paper is a systematic, well-documented parameter study: 1674 converged simulations, open-source code, and explicit discussion of model limitations. The mechanism it highlights — that escape removes greenhouse blanketing and thereby accelerates magma ocean solidification — is physically plausible and cleanly illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4. The survival threshold in Fig. 6 is a potentially useful organizing number, but it is not a robust physical rate because it is a direct output of the energy-limited prescription with efficiency values that the authors themselves describe as extreme or non-physical. The redox-MMW correlation, while confirmed across a broad grid, is largely encoded in the adopted CALLIOPE solubility/outgassing chemistry, so the confirmatory value is real but the novelty is limited. If the central thresholds are reframed as upper-bound/strong-escape results and tested against more physical efficiencies, the paper would make a solid contribution to the magma-ocean escape literature.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.1, Eq. (1), Fig. 6; §4.1.2] The central quantitative claim that atmospheres survive for Mdot_EL <~1e10 g/s is not a robust physical rate but a direct output of the energy-limited prescription with epsilon sampled up to 1.0. Eq. (1) is linear in epsilon, and the loss branch of Fig. 6 is populated preferentially by the epsilon=1.0 cases; Fig. 3's motivating example also uses epsilon=1.0. The paper itself states (§4.1.2) that epsilon>0.3 likely overestimates escape and epsilon=1.0 is a non-physical adiabatic limit, and §4.2 notes that the fastest 10^4 yr dispersal occurs only at epsilon=1.0. For epsilon~0.15, rates would decline by a factor of 3–10 and many 'volatiles escaped' cases would instead retain atmospheres. Please reframe the threshold as an upper-bound/strong-escape result and add a sensitivity test with physically motivated epsilon<=0.3, or explicitly state that the 1e10 g/s boundary is conditional on the e
  2. [§2.2 (stopping criteria), §3.3.1, Fig. 6] Defining 'atmosphere loss' as P_surf < 1 bar (P_stop) is a modeling choice that directly sets the survival boundary in Fig. 6 and the bare-rock fractions. The paper itself reports an AGNI case ending at P_surf = 0.89 bar and classifying it as effective atmospheric loss; a 0.89 bar CO2 atmosphere is not equivalent to a bare rock, since it still provides radiative transfer, potentially significant greenhouse warming, and is in principle observable. If P_stop were lowered, some 'volatiles escaped' cases would be reclassified as retained, shifting the threshold. I request a sensitivity test on P_stop (e.g., 0.1 and 0.01 bar) or an explicit physical argument for why 1 bar is the relevant boundary for magma-ocean cooling and atmospheric survival.
  3. [§2.1.1, §4.1.3, Fig. 10] The bulk-entrainment treatment — all species escape together at the total Mdot_EL — is load-bearing for the loss outcomes. The manuscript correctly notes in §4.1.3 that fractionation would preferentially remove hydrogen and enrich heavy species, increasing final mean molecular weight and delaying solidification. However, this also implies that the 'volatiles escaped' branch is an upper limit on atmospheric destruction: many simulations classified as bare rocks would likely retain a heavy residual atmosphere under fractionating escape. Since the authors already discuss the critical-flux criterion of Yoshida et al. (2022), a simplified fractionation sensitivity run would materially test the central survival threshold; at minimum, the conclusions should state that the bare-rock population is an upper-bound result, not just that MMW values are conservative lower bounds.
  4. [§2.2, Fig. 5] Of 1944 simulations, 270 (14%) did not reach numerical convergence and are excluded from all cumulative statistics. The paper does not characterize these excluded cases. If non-convergence correlates with a particular regime — for example oscillatory radiative-equilibrium solutions or repeated atmosphere-loss/replenishment cycles — the empirical cumulative distributions in Fig. 5 and the final-state counts in §3.3 could be systematically biased. Please report how the non-converged cases are distributed across the grid and, if feasible, add a convergence check on a subsample to show that the main conclusions are insensitive to this exclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2] Typo: '...criterion adopted by Nicholls et al. (2024) and and corresponds to...' has a duplicated 'and'.
  2. [Fig. 4] The axis labels 'T emperature [K]' and 'V olatile' contain spurious spaces; please correct for journal production.
  3. [§4.1.3] The example 'if Mdot_EL = 10 g s^-1' appears to be missing an exponent; given the rates in Fig. 6 (10^7–10^16 g/s), the example likely intends 10^10 g/s or similar. Please clarify.
  4. [Table 1] The semimajor-axis row is typeset as 'a a0.1, 0.5, 1.0...'; the table formatting should be cleaned up.
  5. [§3.3.2] The sentence 'Oxidized planets that solidify (panel c, red lines) ... with a significant fraction (70%) producing atmospheres<18 g mol^-1' would read more clearly as 'atmospheres with MMW < 18 g mol^-1'.
  6. [§4.5] The discussion of tidal heating notes that neglecting tides is realistic for e=0 orbits, but does not cite the earlier statement in §2.2 that this simplification yields shorter solidification timescales; a brief cross-reference would help the reader connect the two passages.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: model consequences are presented as such; acknowledged escape-efficiency limitations are robustness issues, not circularity.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, I find no step where a predicted quantity is defined as one of the inputs, no fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz smuggled in through self-citation. The escape law (Eq. 1) is a standard energy-limited formalism cited to external sources (Watson et al. 1981; Erkaev et al. 2007; Lopez & Fortney 2013), and the survival threshold (~1e10 g/s) is a descriptive classification of the grid outputs, not a fitted input. The paper explicitly frames its own escape calculations as conditional and extreme in Sec. 4.1.1 ('our calculated mass loss rates represent an upper bound') and Sec. 4.1.2 ('epsilon=1.0 represents a non-physical upper limit'), and in Sec. 4.2 ('atmosphere dispersal within only 10^4 years is ... highly unlikely'); these are model-robustness caveats, not circular reductions. The redox–MMW trend is inherited from the adopted CALLIOPE outgassing chemistry, but the paper presents it as 'consistent with previous studies' rather than as a new first-principles prediction, so it is a model consistency result rather than a claim that its own assumptions derive themselves. The AGNI/JANUS comparison is a quantitative model experiment, not a definitional equivalence. Self-citations to PROTEUS, AGNI, and ZEPHYRUS are framework/module references rather than unverified external authorities invoked to forbid alternatives. No specific equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore, no significant circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on multiple hand-chosen parameters (escape efficiency, XUV pressure, albedo, boundary-layer properties, stopping criteria) and domain assumptions inherited from the PROTEUS framework. No new physical entities are postulated; ZEPHYRUS is a software module, not a new particle or force. The energy-limited escape module is the group's own tool, contributing self-citation overlap but not fitting-circularity.

free parameters (7)
  • Escape efficiency ε = 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 (grid values)
    Fraction of incident XUV energy converted to escape work; directly sets Ṁ_EL in Eq. 1. Authors note ε>0.3 likely overestimates escape and ε=1.0 is an unrealistic adiabatic limit.
  • XUV reference pressure P_XUV = 1e-5, 10 bar
    Sets the radius R_XUV at which XUV absorption occurs; varied across the grid, has small effect on crystallization time in their Fig. 5.
  • Surface albedo A = 0.1
    Assumed low reflectivity of magma ocean surfaces (Essack et al. 2020); affects planetary energy balance.
  • Magma ocean-atmosphere boundary layer = 1 cm thick, k=2.0 W/m/K
    Controls mantle-to-surface heat transport and volatile exchange; cited from prior work and kept fixed.
  • Initial specific entropy S0 = 3300 J/K/kg
    Sets the fully molten initial state of the magma ocean at simulation start.
  • Stopping criteria (Φ_crit, P_stop, radiative balance) = Φ_crit<0.005; P_stop=1 bar; 0.2 W/m²
    Define end states (solidified vs. atmosphere lost vs. radiative equilibrium); the P_stop=1 bar classification affects reported counts of bare rocky planets.
  • Column insolation parameters = θ_zenith=48.19°, s0=0.375
    Map three-dimensional irradiation onto a 1D column; standard Cronin (2014) factors.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Energy-limited hydrodynamic escape (Eq. 1) is the only escape mechanism; K_tide=1
    Assumes XUV-driven bulk outflow dominates over Jeans/non-thermal loss and ignores radiative cooling. Stated in Sect. 2.1.1; validity discussed in Sect. 4.1.
  • domain assumption Escaping gas is entrained in bulk with no species fractionation
    Escape flux of each element proportional to atmospheric mass mixing ratios (Sect. 2.1.1). Authors argue most simulations stay above the fractionation threshold (Sect. 4.1.3).
  • domain assumption Magma ocean is vigorously mixed and in instantaneous thermodynamic equilibrium with the atmosphere
    CALLIOPE partitioning recalculated each step from magma temperature, surface pressure, and melt fraction (Sect. 2.1).
  • domain assumption Bottom-up crystallization releases all volatiles to the atmosphere at solidification
    Assumes homogeneous crystallization, giving an upper bound on outgassed inventory (Sects. 2.1, 4.4). Heterogeneous trapping would reduce atmospheric volatile content.
  • domain assumption 1D column, clear-sky atmosphere with no clouds/hazes/photochemistry
    Radiative transfer treats gaseous opacity only; clouds/hazes could alter P-T structure and escape (Sect. 4.5).
  • domain assumption Stellar XUV evolution from MORS using Spada et al. (2013) and Johnstone et al. (2021) median rotators
    XUV flux drives escape; uncertainties of a factor 2–10 in integrated XUV are acknowledged (Sect. 4.1.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Surface pressure below 1 bar constitutes total atmosphere loss
    Termination criterion P_stop=1 bar (Sect. 2.2); residual thin atmospheres treated as negligible greenhouse contributors, affecting reported loss fractions.
  • ad hoc to paper Radiative equilibrium termination at 0.2 W/m² energy imbalance
    Ends simulations in a quasi-steady state; more stringent than the previous 0.8 W/m² criterion (Sect. 2.2).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34414 in / 13440 out tokens · 139101 ms · 2026-08-02T00:24:47.950981+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The earliest rocky planet atmospheres are shaped by competition between initial volatile inventories and atmospheric escape. On young magma ocean planets, outgassing competes with atmospheric escape, controlling volatile retention and atmospheric evolution. We investigate how atmospheric escape and replenishment via outgassing during magma ocean crystallization shape rocky planet atmospheres. We extend a coupled interior-atmosphere model to simulate rocky planet evolution during the magma ocean era by incorporating an energy-limited atmospheric escape module. Comparing radiative-convective and prescribed-convective atmospheres, we quantify how atmospheric energy transport affects escape. We explore a wide range of orbital separations, escape efficiencies, oxidation states, and initial volatile inventories to identify regimes where sustained magma-ocean outgassing or escape dominates. We estimate atmospheric loss and compositions for young rocky planets around Sun-like and M-dwarf stars over geologic timescales. Atmospheric escape shortens magma ocean lifetimes by weakening greenhouse insulation. Radiative-convective atmospheres reduce solidification timescales compared to purely convective cases. Volatile dissolution into the magma ocean interacts with escape to chemically fractionate the planetary volatile budget over time by retaining more soluble species. For Earth-mass planets, atmospheres survive if loss rates remain moderate. Mantle redox state remains a key control on retained atmospheric composition: high oxygen fugacity (fO2) yields heavier, H2O- and CO2-rich atmospheres, while low fO2 produces light, H2- or CO-dominated atmospheres, consistent with previous studies. Orbital separation, initial volatile inventory, and stellar type produce diverse evolutionary pathways, from bare rocky planets to magma oceans with thick atmospheres, ranging from H2- to SO2-dominated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15011 by Emma Postolec, Floris van der Tak, Harrison Nicholls, Laurent Soucasse, Tim Lichtenberg.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the coupled interior-atmosphere evolutionary framework PROTEUS, showing the links between interior, surface, atmo￾sphere, and stellar modules. Core components include SPIDER (mantle dynamics), CALLIOPE (surface in-/outgassing), AGNI/JANUS (radiative￾and prescribed-convective atmospheres), ZEPHYRUS (atmospheric escape), and MORS (XUV stellar evolution). Modules exchange energy fluxes at each pl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: XUV flux received by a planet orbiting a G star (blue line) and an M dwarf (orange line) since stellar birth. Fluxes are computed at orbital separations corresponding to present-day Earth bolometric instellation (1 au for 1 M⊙ and 0.06618 au for 0.194 M⊙). PROTEUS simulations start at 100 Myr (vertical dashed line). Atmospheric structure is computed using the one￾dimensional modules JANUS or AGNI (blue box… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time evolution of an Earth-size planet orbiting a Sun-like star at 0.1 au, including hydrodynamic escape (solid lines) or not (dashed lines). With hydrodynamic escape, all outgassed volatile species are lost within 3.6 Myr (dotted cyan lines), whereas without escape, the planet remains in a magma ocean state, reaching radiative equilibrium after 25.6 Myr (dotted red lines). 25.6 Myr without considering esc… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pressure–temperature and thermal structure evolution for a planet undergoing hydrodynamic escape, comparing a prescribed-convective model (JANUS, dashed lines) with a radiative–convective atmospheric treatment (AGNI, solid lines). Panel (a): Pressure–temperature profiles of the atmosphere and interior. Panel (b): Evolution of the thermal and vertical structure of the atmosphere and interior for the same pl… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Empirical cumulative distribution function of solidification time, melt fraction, surface temperature, surface pressure, mean molecular weight and escape rate for eight input parameters explored in the simulation grid for planets orbiting a 1 M⊕ star (solid lines) and a 0.194 M⊕ star (dashed lines), including atmospheric escape. Each row represents a tested value of an input parameter, indicated by its col… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Final escape mass loss rate at the end of the simulation for plan￾ets orbiting an M star (red points) or a G star (blue points). Simulations terminate due to atmospheric escape (triangles), mantle solidification (circles), or radiative equilibrium (squares). 0.5 Gyr. Their ability to retain an atmosphere at the end of the simulation highlights two distinct regimes: one dominated by atmospheric retention at… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the cumulative distributions of the final mean molecular weight for three different oxygen fugacities and two stellar types across our escape grid, based on model termina￾tion. Potential atmospheric compositions are indicated by dotted lines, with colors corresponding to their molecular weights. Stellar type is the primary driver of the planet’s evolution￾ary outcome. Planets orbiting G-type stars (s… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Final atmospheric mean molecular weight as a function of upper-mantle oxygen fugacity (y-axis), volatile budgets (C/H ratio and hydrogen reservoir), and semimajor axis for two stellar types: M-dwarf (top panels) and G-type (bottom panels). Squares indicate simulations that reached radiative equilibrium; triangles mark cases where atmospheric volatiles were fully lost; circles denote scenarios in which the … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: presents the final dominant species by mass in the atmo￾sphere (regardless of model termination) as a percentage across all converged grid simulations. Across all grid simulations, H2 (gray), H2O (light blue), and CO (red) emerge as the most common final atmospheric species, strongly dependent on ini￾tial mantle redox state, with water consistently being the most abundant at the end of the simulations. Inc… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Final mean molecular weight of rocky planets atmospheres as a function of mantle solidification time for planets orbiting M-dwarf (orange) and G-type (blue) stars. Horizontal dotted lines indicate the molecular weight of common volatiles (H2 , CH4 , H2O, CO, N2 , O2 , H2S, CO2 ). duce the heating efficiency and mass-loss rates. Together, these studies indicate that such processes can extend atmospheric li… 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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Constraining the lives and times of exoplanets through evolutionary Bayesian retrievals

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Evolutionary Bayesian retrievals using the PROTEUS model can infer initial volatile inventories and interior conditions of exoplanets from synthetic observables, with best success for terrestrial-mass planets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

174 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2025, Nature Communications, 16, 10822

    Allart, R., Coulombe, L.-P., Carteret, Y ., et al. 2025, Nature Communications, 16, 10822

    2025

  2. [2]

    2014, A&A, 564, A59

    Amundsen, D., Baraffe, I., Tremblin, P., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A59

    2014

  3. [3]

    2013, Geochim

    Ardia, P., Hirschmann, M., Withers, A., & Stanley, B. 2013, Geochim. Cos- mochim. Acta, 114, 52

    2013

  4. [4]

    S., Hirschmann, M

    Armstrong, L. S., Hirschmann, M. M., Stanley, B. D., Falksen, E. G., & Jacob- sen, S. D. 2015, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 171, 283

    2015

  5. [5]

    A., Wallace, L., & Pearce, J

    Barth, C. A., Wallace, L., & Pearce, J. B. 1968, J. Geophys. Res., 73, 2541

    1968

  6. [6]

    M., et al

    Baumeister, P., Miozzi, F., Guimond, C. M., et al. 2025, Space Sci. Rev., 221, 123

    2025

  7. [7]

    L., & Noack, L

    Baumeister, P., Tosi, N., Brachmann, C., Grenfell, J. L., & Noack, L. 2023, A&A, 675, A122

    2023

  8. [8]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03325

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    E., et al

    Bolmont, E., Selsis, F., Owen, J. E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3728

    2017

  10. [10]

    J., Hakim, K., Sossi, P

    Bower, D. J., Hakim, K., Sossi, P. A., & Sanan, P. 2022, Planet. Sci. J., 3, 93

    2022

  11. [11]

    J., Kitzmann, D., Wolf, A

    Bower, D. J., Kitzmann, D., Wolf, A. S., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A103

    2019

  12. [12]

    J., Sanan, P., & Wolf, A

    Bower, D. J., Sanan, P., & Wolf, A. S. 2018, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 274, 49–62

    2018

  13. [13]

    A., & Sohl, F

    Brachmann, C., Noack, L., Baumeister, P. A., & Sohl, F. 2025, Icarus, 429, 116450

    2025

  14. [14]

    2015, Computers and Geosciences, 79, 1

    Burgisser, A., Alletti, M., & Scaillet, B. 2015, Computers and Geosciences, 79, 1

    2015

  15. [15]

    A., González-Álvarez, E., Brady, M., et al

    Caballero, J. A., González-Álvarez, E., Brady, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A120

    2022

  16. [16]

    2025, A&A, 693, A303

    Carone, L., Barnes, R., Noack, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A303

    2025

  17. [17]

    Catling, D. C. & Kasting, J. F. 2017, Atmospheric Evolution on Inhabited and Lifeless Worlds, 1st edn. (Cambridge University Press)

    2017

  18. [18]

    Chatterjee, R. D. & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2026, ApJ, 998, 236

    2026

  19. [19]

    & Rogers, L

    Chen, H. & Rogers, L. A. 2016, ApJ, 831, 180

    2016

  20. [20]

    J., et al

    Cherubim, C., Wordsworth, R., Bower, D. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 97

    2025

  21. [21]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 139

    Cherubim, C., Wordsworth, R., Hu, R., & Shkolnik, E. 2024, ApJ, 967, 139

    2024

  22. [22]

    Cmiel, J., Wordsworth, R., & Seeley, J. T. 2025, Planet. Sci. J., 6, 123

    2025

  23. [23]

    P., Ih, J., Kite, E

    Coy, B. P., Ih, J., Kite, E. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 22

    2025

  24. [24]

    Cronin, T. W. 2014, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 71, 2994

    2014

  25. [25]

    2022, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 87, 575

    Dasgupta, R., Chowdhury, P., Eguchi, J., Sun, C., & Saha, S. 2022, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 87, 575

    2022

  26. [26]

    Demangeon, O. D. S., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Alibert, Y ., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A41

    2021

  27. [27]

    B., Ghosh, D

    Deng, J., Du, Z., Karki, B. B., Ghosh, D. B., & Lee, K. K. M. 2020, Nature Communications, 11, 2007

    2020

  28. [28]

    Diamond-Lowe, H., Berta-Thompson, Z., Charbonneau, D., & Kempton, E. M. R. 2018, AJ, 156, 42

    2018

  29. [29]

    E., Stolper, E

    Dixon, J. E., Stolper, E. M., & Holloway, J. R. 1995, Journal of Petrology, 36, 1607

    1995

  30. [30]

    M., Hoffman, J

    Donahue, T. M., Hoffman, J. H., Hodges, R. R., & Watson, A. J. 1982, Science, 216, 630

    1982

  31. [31]

    & Lichtenberg, T

    Dorn, C. & Lichtenberg, T. 2021, ApJ, 922, L4

    2021

  32. [32]

    & Barnes, R

    Driscoll, P. & Barnes, R. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 739

    2015

  33. [33]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 358

    Ducrot, E., Lagage, P.-O., Min, M., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 358

    2025

  34. [34]

    2024, Nature, 625, 51

    Dyrek, A., Min, M., Decin, L., et al. 2024, Nature, 625, 51

    2024

  35. [35]

    Dziewonski, A. M. & Anderson, D. L. 1981, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 25, 297

    1981

  36. [36]

    Edwards, J. M. & Slingo, A. 1996, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 122, 689

    1996

  37. [37]

    J., et al

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

    2015

  38. [38]

    & Désert, J

    Ehrenreich, D. & Désert, J. M. 2011, A&A, 529, A136

    2011

  39. [39]

    Elkins-Tanton, L. T. 2008, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 271, 181

    2008

  40. [40]

    Elkins-Tanton, L. T. 2012, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40, 113

    2012

  41. [41]

    V ., Kulikov, Y

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

    2007

  42. [42]

    V ., Lammer, H., Odert, P., et al

    Erkaev, N. V ., Lammer, H., Odert, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1300

    2016

  43. [43]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 160

    Essack, Z., Seager, S., & Pajusalu, M. 2020, ApJ, 898, 160

    2020

  44. [44]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 133

    Farhat, M., Auclair-Desrotour, P., Boué, G., Lichtenberg, T., & Laskar, J. 2025, ApJ, 979, 133

    2025

  45. [45]

    J., Petigura, E

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

    2017

  46. [46]

    2022, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 577, 117255

    Gaillard, F., Bernadou, F., Roskosz, M., et al. 2022, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 577, 117255

    2022

  47. [47]

    2015, Chemical Geology, 418, 217

    Gaillard, F., Scaillet, B., Pichavant, M., & Iacono-Marziano, G. 2015, Chemical Geology, 418, 217

    2015

  48. [48]

    & Ikoma, M

    Genda, H. & Ikoma, M. 2008, Icarus, 194, 42

    2008

  49. [49]

    Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Demory, B.-O., et al. 2017, Nature, 542, 456

    2017

  50. [50]

    E., & Sari, R

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

    2018

  51. [51]

    J., Drant, T., et al

    Gkouvelis, L., Pozuelos, F. J., Drant, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A378

    2025

  52. [52]

    J., Lichtenberg, T., Boukrouche, R., & Pierrehumbert, R

    Graham, R. J., Lichtenberg, T., Boukrouche, R., & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2021, Planet. Sci. J., 2, 207

    2021

  53. [53]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 39

    2023

  54. [54]

    L., Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., et al

    Grimm, S. L., Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 30

    2021

  55. [55]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27639

    Gronoff, G., Arras, P., Baraka, S., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27639

    2020

  56. [56]

    Gueymard, C. A. 2004, Sol. Energy, 76, 423

    2004

  57. [57]

    M., Wang, H., Seidler, F., et al

    Guimond, C. M., Wang, H., Seidler, F., et al. 2024, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 90, 259

    2024

  58. [58]

    & Schlichting, H

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

    2019

  59. [59]

    E., Lada, E

    Haisch, Jr., K. E., Lada, E. A., & Lada, C. J. 2001, ApJ, 553, L153

    2001

  60. [60]

    2013, Nature, 497, 607

    Hamano, K., Abe, Y ., & Genda, H. 2013, Nature, 497, 607

    2013

  61. [61]

    Hamano, K., Kawahara, H., Abe, Y ., Onishi, M., & Hashimoto, G. L. 2015, ApJ, 806, 216

    2015

  62. [62]

    M., Lichtenberg, T., et al

    Hammond, M., Guimond, C. M., Lichtenberg, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, L40

    2025

  63. [63]

    K., Dressing, C

    Harada, C. K., Dressing, C. D., Kane, S. R., & Ardestani, B. A. 2024, ApJS, 272, 30

    2024

  64. [64]

    G., O’Connell, R

    Henning, W. G., O’Connell, R. J., & Sasselov, D. D. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1000

    2009

  65. [65]

    2020, A&A, 636, A71

    Herbort, O., Woitke, P., Helling, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A71

    2020

  66. [66]

    & Hirschmann, M

    Hier-Majumder, S. & Hirschmann, M. M. 2017, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 18, 3078

    2017

  67. [67]

    2024, Nature, 630, 609

    Hu, R., Bello-Arufe, A., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 609

    2024

  68. [68]

    2012, ApJ, 761, 166

    Hu, R., Seager, S., & Bains, W. 2012, ApJ, 761, 166

    2012

  69. [69]

    2008, MNRAS, 391, 237 Article number, page 18 Emma Postolec et al.: Atmospheric evolution through outgassing and escape on young molten rocky exoplanets

    Jackson, B., Barnes, R., & Greenberg, R. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 237 Article number, page 18 Emma Postolec et al.: Atmospheric evolution through outgassing and escape on young molten rocky exoplanets

    2008

  70. [70]

    & Goldblatt, C

    Johnson, B. & Goldblatt, C. 2015, Earth Science Reviews, 148, 150

    2015

  71. [71]

    Johnstone, C. P. 2020, ApJ, 890, 79

    2020

  72. [72]

    P., Bartel, M., & Güdel, M

    Johnstone, C. P., Bartel, M., & Güdel, M. 2021, A&A, 649, A96

    2021

  73. [73]

    P., Khodachenko, M

    Johnstone, C. P., Khodachenko, M. L., Lüftinger, T., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, L10

    2019

  74. [74]

    2021, The Messenger, 182, 38

    Kasper, M., Cerpa Urra, N., Pathak, P., et al. 2021, The Messenger, 182, 38

    2021

  75. [75]

    Kasting, J. F. & Pollack, J. B. 1983, Icarus, 53, 479

    1983

  76. [76]

    1990, Stellar structure and evolution, V ol

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 1990, Stellar structure and evolution, V ol. 192 (Springer)

    1990

  77. [77]

    G., Johnstone, C

    Kislyakova, K. G., Johnstone, C. P., Odert, P., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A116

    2014

  78. [78]

    Kite, E. S. & Barnett, M. N. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 18264

    2020

  79. [79]

    Kite, E. S. & Schaefer, L. 2021, ApJ, 909, L22

    2021

  80. [80]

    W., & Patzer, A

    Kitzmann, D., Stock, J. W., & Patzer, A. B. C. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7263

    2024

Showing first 80 references.