Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Exoplanet atmospheres at high spectral resolution

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read High-resolution spectroscopy has established a sharp dichotomy in gas giants: hot Jupiters show absorption lines and non-inverted photospheres, while ultra-hot Jupiters show emission lines and thermal inversions, switching near 2000 K.

desk verdict A technically reliable invited review whose central 2000 K inversion dichotomy is a useful but selection-sensitive synthesis, not an established fact. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08926 v1 pith:FPFSIRVJ submitted 2025-05-13 astro-ph.EP

Ignas Snellen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetatmosphereshigh-resolutionspectroscopyhotJupitersultra-hotthermalinversionsatmosphericescaperetrievalDoppler
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

High-resolution spectroscopy has grown from a niche technique into a main tool for characterising exoplanet atmospheres, and this review argues that it has already established several population-level results. The most striking is a sharp dichotomy in dayside spectra of close-in gas giants: every observed hot Jupiter with equilibrium temperature below roughly 2000 K shows molecular absorption lines from a non-inverted photosphere, while every observed ultra-hot Jupiter above 2000 K shows atomic and ionic emission lines from a thermal inversion. If this boundary is real, it identifies the temperature at which the upper atmospheres of irradiated giant planets switch from being heated from below to being heated from above, with consequences for chemistry, circulation, and escape. The review also consolidates evidence for solar-like metallicities in hot and super-Jupiters, giant helium tails around escaping planets, and the first isotope-ratio measurements, and it lays out the technical machinery needed to push HRS toward temperate rocky planets with the next generation of telescopes.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Doppler shift of the planet's spectrum as it orbits, combined with cross-correlation against model templates. At high spectral resolution, telluric and stellar lines are quasi-static while planet lines move by tens of kilometres per second over a night, so the contaminating features can be removed with minimal loss of the planetary signal. Whether a detected line appears in absorption or emission then encodes the slope of the temperature-pressure profile: an inverted profile produces emission lines, while a non-inverted profile produces absorption lines. This absorption-versus-emission observable is what separates the two regimes in the review's central figure.

What would settle it

A uniform, magnitude-limited HRS dayside survey of transiting gas giants between 1500 and 2500 K, with all non-detections and upper limits published, would settle the question: if the absorption/emission boundary broadens into a gradual or intermingled transition, or shifts away from roughly 2000 K, the dichotomy as stated would be a selection artifact rather than a physical phase change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The review's central claim is that ground-based high-resolution dayside spectroscopy has established a clear temperature boundary in the atmospheres of irradiated gas giants. Combining literature detections of water, carbon monoxide, and iron in seventeen hot and ultra-hot Jupiters, the author finds that all objects with equilibrium temperatures below about 2000 K exhibit absorption lines and therefore non-inverted temperature-pressure profiles, while all objects above 2000 K exhibit emission lines and therefore thermal inversions. The review proposes that the inversion is caused by high-altitude absorption of stellar ultraviolet and optical light, and argues that the traditional TiO/VO absorber picture is not supported by the HRS data; instead, atomic iron and other metals that are spectroscopically active at these temperatures are the likely drivers. This dichotomy is presented as a physical transition between two atmospheric regimes, not merely a difference in observing strategy.

Load-bearing premise

The dichotomy rests on the assumption that the published sample of HRS detections is representative of hot and ultra-hot Jupiters; because non-detections and upper limits are rarely reported, target selection could create or exaggerate the apparent 2000 K boundary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the roughly 2000 K dichotomy is real, ultra-hot Jupiters can be treated as cloud-free, chemically close-to-equilibrium laboratories, making their abundance retrievals more reliable than those of cooler hot Jupiters.
  • The boundary becomes a concrete benchmark for atmospheric models: any global circulation or chemistry model must reproduce a sharp switch from non-inverted to inverted photospheres near 2000 K, with atomic metals as the high-altitude absorber.
  • The absorption or emission sign of a single well-measured dayside line becomes a fast diagnostic for whether a newly discovered hot giant has a thermal inversion, useful for target triage.
  • The same retrieval tools applied to directly imaged super-Jupiters and brown dwarfs now give solar-like metallicities and C/O ratios concentrated near 0.5-0.65, providing population-level constraints on formation pathways.
  • Helium-tail morphologies and blueshifted wind measurements provide velocity-resolved constraints on escape and circulation that low-resolution space spectroscopy cannot match, complementing JWST.
  • These results frame a concrete future programme: use the ELTs to push HRS transmission and high-contrast spectroscopy toward temperate rocky planets, where molecular oxygen and other biosignature gases become accessible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The sharpness of the 2000 K boundary may be overstated by publication bias, since non-detections and upper limits are rarely reported; a uniform HRS dayside survey with published upper limits could reveal a broader transition zone.
  • Inference: If atomic iron and other metals drive the inversions, the same physics may produce emission-line spectra in highly irradiated rocky planets and sub-Neptunes, extending the dichotomy beyond gas giants.
  • Inference: The review's retrieval comparisons suggest that cross-retrieval systematics, not astrophysics alone, may explain some apparent C/O differences across the literature; applying one homogeneous retrieval pipeline to all published HRS spectra would test this directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is an invited review of ground-based high-resolution spectroscopy (HRS) of exoplanet atmospheres by a leading founder of the field. It covers instrumentation and detection-speed scaling, data-analysis techniques (telluric removal, cross-correlation, Kp-Vsys diagrams, Doppler shadow/CLV), atmospheric modeling and retrieval pitfalls, literature results for close-in and wide-separation planets, isotope measurements, JWST synergies, and ELT prospects. The paper is notable for its synthesis figures: sodium detection strengths versus scale-height contrast (Fig. 5), a claimed absorption/emission dichotomy at Teq approximately 2000 K (Fig. 7), wind-speed trends (Fig. 9), and C/O, rotation, and isotope compilations (Figs 10-12). The author repeatedly and commendably flags sample heterogeneity and incompleteness, but the main synthesis claims inevitably rest on the same incomplete literature samples.

Significance. If the approximately 2000 K hot-Jupiter/ultra-hot-Jupiter dichotomy in Fig. 7 is real, it would be an important physical boundary for irradiated gas giants, and the review's explicit statement makes it a falsifiable prediction. The paper's strengths are its authoritative, critical methodology discussion (Section 2.4 pitfalls), quantitative comparisons of instrument detection speeds (Table 1, Fig. 2), and transparent supplementary tables. The paper also deserves credit for naming caveats (e.g., sodium sample biases in Section 3.1; heterogeneity in Figs 9-12; retrieval uncertainties in Section 2.4) rather than overclaiming. The main risk is that the one headline claim, the 2000 K dichotomy, is stated without the completeness caveat applied elsewhere.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figure 7] The dichotomy claim is presented as an established result: "All observed hot Jupiters show absorption lines ... while all observed Ultra-Hot Jupiters ... exhibit emission lines ... A clear dichotomy is visible at T_eq approximately 2000 K." This statement is load-bearing (it is echoed in the abstract) but the figure uses a sample of 17 published detections, with no list of non-detections or upper limits, and no statement of how the sample was selected. The author correctly warns in Section 3.1 that the sodium sample "is likely marred with biases" and that "non-detections and their associated upper limits are poorly reported and are not included here"; the same caveat applies to the dayside sample of Fig. 7 and should be stated there. If observers preferentially targeted ultra-hot planets for emission-line searches and cooler planets for absorption studies, the apparent boundary near 2000 K could be a selection artifact. The text should either explicitly qualify Fig. 7 as an apparent trend pending a complete, uniformly analyzed sample, or include a supplementary table of all HRS dayside observations, including non-detections and ambiguous line-shape cases, so the reader can judge whether the boundary survives.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figure 7] The absorption/emission classification in Fig. 7 is not uniform: it pools different species (H2O, CO, Fe) observed at different wavelengths with different analysis pipelines, and the translation from line shape to inverted/non-inverted T/p profile depends on retrieval assumptions. Section 2.4, pitfall 6, warns that retrieval uncertainties can be unrealistically small and setup-dependent, and the author elsewhere notes that different retrieval parameterizations can change results. The paper should state, for each planet in Fig. 7, which species and retrieval or line-shape analysis were used, and discuss whether the classification is robust to alternative T/p parameterizations, cloud assumptions, and continuum treatment. Without this information, the universal claims "all observed hot Jupiters" and "all observed ultra-hot Jupiters" go beyond what the heterogeneous literature sample can support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplementary Table 2 caption] The caption says that a literature measurement of WASP-67 b could not be converted into a transmission signal amplitude, but no WASP-67 b row appears in the table; this is likely a typo for WASP-76 b or WASP-172 b and should be corrected.
  2. [Various] There are several typographical errors: "skeptisism" in Section 3.1 should be "skepticism"; "The Astrophyical Journal" in the Brogi et al. 2017 reference should be "The Astrophysical Journal"; and "109−10 contrasts" in Section 6.1 should be rendered as 10^9 to 10^10 contrasts.
  3. [Section 3.1] Capitalization of "Hot Jupiters" versus "hot Jupiters" is inconsistent throughout the text; one style should be used consistently.
  4. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries for Gibson et al. 2020 and Rodler et al. 2012, and two different Bryan et al. 2020 papers share the same author-year label, making citation lookups ambiguous.
  5. [Section 2.2.1.2] The statement that a signal at S/N=3 corresponds to a 0.3% probability of being a random fluctuation should specify whether a one-sided or two-sided Gaussian convention is used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the review is a literature synthesis and its central claims are empirical summaries, not derivations from fitted inputs.

full rationale

This is a review article, not a derivation paper. The central claims — e.g. the apparent absorption/emission dichotomy near Teq ≈ 2000 K in Figure 7 — are presented as summaries of published observations, with explicit caveats that the literature sample is "heterogeneous and incomplete" and that "non-detections and their associated upper limits are poorly reported and are not included here" (Section 3.1). Those caveats concern sample selection and completeness, which are correctness risks, not circularity: the claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The author cites many of his own papers, but these are ordinary literature citations to specific detections and retrievals, and the key results are corroborated by independent groups; no uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted parameter is imported from self-citations to force the conclusions. Statements such as retrieval analyses pointing to solar metallicities or C/O ratios near 0.55 are summaries of external published results, not predictions generated from the review's own definitions. Consequently, no load-bearing step is equivalent to its own inputs, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

As a review, the paper introduces no new derivation, so the ledger records what its synthesis claims inherit from the literature: external opacity databases, the cross-correlation and retrieval assumptions underlying every cited detection, and a small number of hand-chosen values used in the compiled figures.

free parameters (3)
  • Assumed radius 1.25 RJup for non-transiting planets = 1.25 RJup
    Used to place non-transiting planets on the surface gravity axis of Figure 7; a size assumption that can shift how the 2000 K inversion boundary appears for planets without measured radii.
  • Assumed sodium line width 0.5 Angstrom = 0.5 Angstrom
    Figure 5 caption: the sodium signals of HD 209458 b and WASP-17 b are derived from integrated light curves 'assuming the sodium signal is 0.5 Angstrom wide'; this conversion sets the y-axis values for two data points in the sample.
  • Per-study retrieval parameters inherited from cited papers = Metallicity, C/O, quench pressure, cloud parameters per object
    Figures 10-12 compile C/O, metallicity, isotope, and v sini constraints that each carry the model assumptions of their source retrievals; the author notes different set-ups (free chemistry, equilibrium, quench, clouds) yield different parameters, e.g., the DENIS J0255 comparison in Section 4.1.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption External opacity databases (NIST, VALD, ExoMol, MoLLIST, HITRAN/HITEMP) are accurate in line position and strength at the temperatures of hot and ultra-hot planet atmospheres
    Section 2.3.1: 'Small errors in line positions can already lead to significant losses in signal.' Every cross-correlation detection in the review inherits this.
  • domain assumption Cross-correlation and log-likelihood detection statistics are valid for the residual spectra after SysRem/PCA telluric and stellar removal
    Sections 2.2.1.1-2.2.1.2 and pitfall 4; the author states the noise is often non-Gaussian and that PCA removal also removes part of the planet signal, assumptions the cited detections nonetheless rely on.
  • domain assumption Retrieved abundances and temperatures map to physical atmospheres through 1D radiative transfer under hydrostatic equilibrium and chemical equilibrium or quench chemistry
    Sections 2.3.2-2.3.3; the review's C/O and metallicity summaries inherit these choices, and the author notes cloud and 3D effects can change outcomes, citing Burningham et al. 2017 and the DENIS J0255 model comparison.
invented entities (1)
  • Ehrenreich Effect (named observational effect, not a physical entity) independent evidence
    purpose: Names the transit-geometry effect in which the viewing angle of a very close-in planet changes substantially during transit, allowing morning/evening and day/night limb separation (Section 3.3, from Ehrenreich et al. 2020).
    The effect is standard orbital geometry and is observationally supported by the in-transit evolution of the iron signal in WASP-76 b, confirmed by Kesseli and Snellen 2021; the review gives it a name but introduces no new physical postulate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exoplanet atmospheres at high spectral resolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FPFSIRVJ

@misc{pith2026250508926,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exoplanet atmospheres at high spectral resolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FPFSIRVJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08926}
}
read the original abstract

High-resolution spectroscopy (HRS) has grown into one of the main techniques to characterise the atmospheres of extrasolar planets. High spectral resolving power allows for the efficient removal of telluric and host-star contamination. Combined with the large collecting area of ground-based telescopes it enables detailed studies of atmospheric species, temperature structure, atmospheric loss, and global winds and circulation patterns. In this review, the wide range of HRS observation and data-analysis techniques are described and literature results discussed. Key findings include: * The highest irradiated planets show a rich spectrum of atomic and ionic species, just like stars. * Retrieval analyses of Hot Jupiters and directly imaged Super- Jupiters point to Solar metallicities and chemistry, but observed samples are still heterogeneous and incomplete. * There appears to be a clear dichotomy between Hot Jupiters with and without atmospheric inversions, depending on their equilibrium temperature. * Some highly irradiated planets exhibit enormous leading and/or trailing tails of helium gas, providing unique insights into planet evolution and atmospheric escape processes. * Minor isotopes of carbon and oxygen are now being detected in gas giant planets and brown dwarfs with the interesting potential to shed light on formation pathways. A list of potential pitfalls is provided for those new to the field, and synergies with JWST are discussed. HRS has a great future ahead with the advent of the extremely large telescopes, promising to bring temperate rocky exoplanets into view with their increase in HRS detection speed of up to three orders of magnitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08926 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Telescope (m) Spectrograph R λmin − λmax λspan λ AO Detection Speed (fibre or slit) A B C Optical VLT (8.2) ESPRESSO (f) 140k 0.38−0.79 0.70 − 1 1 UVES (s) 100k 0.30−1.10 0.64 − 0.7 0.7 Keck (10) HIRES (s) 70k 0.30−1.00 0.70 − 0.8 0.8 LBT (2x8.4) PEPSI (f) 130k 0.38−0.91 0.30 − 0.8 2.0 Gemini (8.1) MAROON-X (f) 80k 0.50−0.90 0.57 − 0.5 0.6 Subaru (8.2) HDS (s) 45k 0.30−1.00 0.50 − 0.2 0.3 DCT (4.3) EXPRES (f) 150k 0… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Assessing robustness and bias in 1D retrievals of 3D Global Circulation Models at high spectral resolution: a WASP-76 b simulation case study in emission

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A 1D retrieval on 3D GCM emission spectra of WASP-76 b does not recover a homogeneous average of the atmosphere; it is most sensitive to high thermal gradient regions that need not be the brightest.

  2. Detectability of resolved hydrogen lines from the accretion shock at gas giants and their CPDs

    astro-ph.EP 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Shock emission from gas accreting onto PDS 70 b should make the Br-alpha line detectable with ELT/METIS in about 15 minutes, with a narrow, asymmetric profile that can constrain planet mass and radius.

  3. Characterizing Earth analogs may require a moderate or high-resolution spectrograph

    astro-ph.IM 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Moderate to high spectral resolution (R>1000) provides higher sensitivity for detecting key molecules like H2O and O2 in Earth analogs than low resolution (R~140), as correlated speckle noise can suppress detections a...

  4. Using High-Resolution Spectroscopy to Study the Composition, Temperature, and Dynamics of Exoplanet Atmospheres

    astro-ph.EP 2026-08 unverdicted

    A literature review concluding that high-resolution spectroscopy has become a primary tool for detecting molecules, atoms, winds, and escape in exoplanet atmospheres, with no new results presented.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [3]

    2022.AJ 163(2):96 Bello-Arufe A, Knutson HA, Mendon¸ ca JM, Zhang MM, Cabot SHC, et al

    arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2403.07983 Bello-Arufe A, Cabot SHC, Mendon¸ ca JM, Buchhave LA, Rathcke AD. 2022.AJ 163(2):96 Bello-Arufe A, Knutson HA, Mendon¸ ca JM, Zhang MM, Cabot SHC, et al

    arXiv 2022

  2. [10]

    arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2403.18894 Cheverall CJ, Madhusudhan N, Holmberg M

    arXiv

  3. [12]

    2015.A&A 582:A51 de Kok RJ, Brogi M, Snellen IAG, Birkby J, Albrecht S, de Mooij EJW

    Nature Astronomy 6:751–759 Czesla S, Klocov´ a T, Khalafinejad S, Wolter U, Schmitt JHMM. 2015.A&A 582:A51 de Kok RJ, Brogi M, Snellen IAG, Birkby J, Albrecht S, de Mooij EJW

    work page 2015

  4. [14]

    2020.ApJ 159(5):192 Flagg L, Turner JD, Deibert E, Ridden-Harper A, de Mooij E, et al

    ApJ 166(1):31 Fisher C, Hoeijmakers HJ, Kitzmann D, M´ arquez-Neila P, Grimm SL, et al. 2020.ApJ 159(5):192 Flagg L, Turner JD, Deibert E, Ridden-Harper A, de Mooij E, et al

    work page 2020

  5. [15]

    arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2407.07678 Gordon IE, Rothman LS, Hill C, Kochanov RV, Tan Y, et al

    arXiv

  6. [16]

    2020.A&A 633:A110 Gray DF

    A&A 688:A191 GRAVITY Collaboration, Nowak M, Lacour S, Molli` ere P, Wang J, et al. 2020.A&A 633:A110 Gray DF

    work page 2020

  7. [17]

    2024.AJ 167(4):142 Haffert SY, Bohn AJ, de Boer J, Snellen IAG, Brinchmann J, et al

    A&A 625:A107 Gully-Santiago M, Morley CV, Luna J, MacLeod M, Oklopˇ ci´ c A, et al. 2024.AJ 167(4):142 Haffert SY, Bohn AJ, de Boer J, Snellen IAG, Brinchmann J, et al

    work page 2024

  8. [18]

    arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2405.11423 Hargreaves RJ, Gordon IE, Rey M, Nikitin AV, Tyuterev VG, et al

    work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 45 references
  1. [19]

    arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2210.12847 Hoeijmakers HJ, Snellen IAG, van Terwisga SE. 2018b. A&A 610:A47 Holmberg M, Madhusudhan N

    arXiv

  2. [20]

    arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2403.19434 Hsu CC, Wang JJ, Xuan JW, Ruffio JB, Morris E, et al

    arXiv

  3. [22]

    2020.ApJ 160(5):228 Kesseli AY, Snellen IAG, Casasayas-Barris N, Molli` ere P, S´ anchez-L´ opez A

    The Astrophyical Journal Letters 908(1):L17 Kesseli AY, Snellen IAG, Alonso-Floriano FJ, Molli` ere P, Serindag DB. 2020.ApJ 160(5):228 Kesseli AY, Snellen IAG, Casasayas-Barris N, Molli` ere P, S´ anchez-L´ opez A. 2022.ApJ 163(3):107 Kitzmann D, Heng K, Rimmer PB, Hoeijmaker...

    2020

  4. [23]

    2021.A&A 656:A119 Langeveld AB, Madhusudhan N, Cabot SHC

    A&A 682:A48 Landman R, S´ anchez-L´ opez A, Molli` ere P, Kesseli AY, Louca AJ, Snellen IAG. 2021.A&A 656:A119 Langeveld AB, Madhusudhan N, Cabot SHC

    2021

  5. [24]

    2010.A&A 514:A72 Leigh C, Collier Cameron A, Horne K, Penny A, James D

    mnras 514(4):5192–5213 Lecavelier Des Etangs A, Ehrenreich D, Vidal-Madjar A, Ballester GE, D´ esert JM, et al. 2010.A&A 514:A72 Leigh C, Collier Cameron A, Horne K, Penny A, James D

    2010

  6. [25]

    2022.The conceptual design of GMagAO- X: visible wavelength high contrast imaging with GMT

    A&A 667:A106 Males JR, Close LM, Haffert SY, Guyon O, Gasho V, et al. 2022.The conceptual design of GMagAO- X: visible wavelength high contrast imaging with GMT . In Adaptive Optics Systems VIII , eds. L Schreiber, D Schmidt, E Vernet, vol. 12185 of Society of Photo-Optical In...

    2022

  7. [26]

    2021.MNRAS 506(3):3853– 3871 Miller-Ricci Kempton E, Rauscher E

    MNRAS 488(2):2836–2854 Merritt SR, Gibson NP, Nugroho SK, de Mooij EJW, Hooton MJ, et al. 2021.MNRAS 506(3):3853– 3871 Miller-Ricci Kempton E, Rauscher E

    2021

  8. [27]

    2019.A&A 622:A139 Moran SE, Stevenson KB, Sing DK, MacDonald RJ, Kirk J, et al

    A&A 627:A67 Molli` ere P, Snellen IAG. 2019.A&A 622:A139 Moran SE, Stevenson KB, Sing DK, MacDonald RJ, Kirk J, et al

    2019

  9. [30]

    arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2311.17075 Parmentier V, Showman AP, Lian Y

    arXiv

  10. [31]

    2020.ApJL 894(2):L27 Piskorz D, Buzard C, Line MR, Knutson HA, Benneke B, et al

    A&A 668:A176 Pino L, D´ esert JM, Brogi M, Malavolta L, Wyttenbach A, et al. 2020.ApJL 894(2):L27 Piskorz D, Buzard C, Line MR, Knutson HA, Benneke B, et al

    2020

  11. [32]

    arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2403.08863 Prinoth B, Hoeijmakers HJ, Pelletier S, Kitzmann D, Morris BM, et al

    arXiv

  12. [33]

    2022.A&A 668:A24 Ramkumar S, Gibson NP, Nugroho SK, Maguire C, Fortune M

    AJ 168(3):133 Rahmati H, Czesla S, Khalafinejad S, Molli` ere P. 2022.A&A 668:A24 Ramkumar S, Gibson NP, Nugroho SK, Maguire C, Fortune M

    2022

  13. [35]

    2023b.A&A 678:A150 Serindag DB, Nugroho SK, Molli` ere P, de Mooij EJW, Gibson NP, Snellen IAG

    A&A 633:A86 Seidel JV, Prinoth B, Knudstrup E, Hoeijmakers HJ, Zanazzi JJ, Albrecht S. 2023b.A&A 678:A150 Serindag DB, Nugroho SK, Molli` ere P, de Mooij EJW, Gibson NP, Snellen IAG. 2021.A&A 645:A90 Showman AP, Cooper CS, Fortney JJ, Marley MS

    2021

  14. [38]

    2020.A&A 638:A26 S´ anchez-L´ opez A, Landman R, Molli` ere P, Casasayas-Barris N, Kesseli AY, Snellen IAG

    A&A 662:A101 Stangret M, Casasayas-Barris N, Pall´ e E, Yan F, S´ anchez-L´ opez A, L´ opez-Puertas M. 2020.A&A 638:A26 S´ anchez-L´ opez A, Landman R, Molli` ere P, Casasayas-Barris N, Kesseli AY, Snellen IAG. 2022a. A&A 661:A78 S´ anchez-L´ opez A, Lin L, Snellen IAG, Casasa...

    2020

  15. [39]

    2024.ApJ 960(2):123 van Sluijs L, Birkby JL, Lothringer J, Lee EKH, Crossfield IJM, et al

    ApJ 876(2):144 Tyler D, Petigura EA, Oklopˇ ci´ c A, David TJ. 2024.ApJ 960(2):123 van Sluijs L, Birkby JL, Lothringer J, Lee EKH, Crossfield IJM, et al

    2024

  16. [40]

    2004.ApJL 604(1):L69–L72 Vidal-Madjar A, Lecavelier des Etangs A, D´ esert JM, Ballester GE, Ferlet R, et al

    MNRAS 528(2):3509–3522 Vidal-Madjar A, D´ esert JM, Lecavelier des Etangs A, H´ ebrard G, Ballester GE, et al. 2004.ApJL 604(1):L69–L72 Vidal-Madjar A, Lecavelier des Etangs A, D´ esert JM, Ballester GE, Ferlet R, et al

    2004

  17. [41]

    MNRAS 490(2):1991–2006 Wiedemann G, Deming D, Bjoraker G

    1991

  18. [42]

    2020.A&A 638:A87 Xuan JW, Hsu CC, Finnerty L, Wang J, Ruffio JB, et al

    A&A 602:A36 Wyttenbach A, Molli` ere P, Ehrenreich D, Cegla HM, Bourrier V, et al. 2020.A&A 638:A87 Xuan JW, Hsu CC, Finnerty L, Wang J, Ruffio JB, et al. 2024a. ApJ 970(1):71 Xuan JW, Wang J, Finnerty L, Horstman K, Grimm S, et al. 2024b. ApJ 962(1):10 Xuan JW, Wang J, Ruffio...

    2020

  19. [43]

    2017.A&A 603:A73 Yan F, Pall´ e E, Reiners A, Casasayas-Barris N, Cont D, et al

    A&A 672:A107 Yan F, Pall´ e E, Fosbury RAE, Petr-Gotzens MG, Henning T. 2017.A&A 603:A73 Yan F, Pall´ e E, Reiners A, Casasayas-Barris N, Cont D, et al. 2022a.A&A 661:L6 Yan F, Pall´ e E, Reiners A, Molaverdikhani K, Casasayas-Barris N, et al. 2020.A&A 640:L5 Yan F, Reiners A,...

    2017

  20. [44]

    PASP 131(997):034501 Zhang M, Knutson HA, Dai F, Wang L, Ricker GR, et al. 2023a. AJ 165(2):62 Zhang Y, Gonz´ alez Picos D, de Regt S, Snellen IAG, Gandhi S, et al. 2024a. arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2409.16660 Zhang Y, Snellen IAG, Bohn AJ, Molli` ere P, Ginski C, et al. 2021.Natur...

    2021 arXiv

  21. [45]

    Nature 620(7975):746–749 ˇZ´ ak J, Kab´ ath P, Boffin HMJ, Ivanov VD, Skarka M. 2019.ApJ 158(3):120 www.annualreviews.org • Exoplanet Atmospheres at High Spectral Resolution 47 Supplementary Tables for Exoplanet Atmospheres at High Spectral Resolution Ignas Snellen, Leiden Obs...

    2023

  22. [1999]

    2021.A&A 651:A33 Cont D, Yan F, Reiners A, Nortmann L, Molaverdikhani K, et al

    Nature 402(6763):751–755 Cont D, Yan F, Reiners A, Casasayas-Barris N, Molli` ere P, et al. 2021.A&A 651:A33 Cont D, Yan F, Reiners A, Nortmann L, Molaverdikhani K, et al. 2022a. A&A 668:A53 Cont D, Yan F, Reiners A, Nortmann L, Molaverdikhani K, et al. 2022b. A&A 657:L2 Coope...

    2021

  23. [2001]

    2018.Science 362(6421):1388–1391 Nugroho SK, Gibson NP, de Mooij EJW, Herman MK, Watson CA, et al

    A&A 371:260–266 Nortmann L, Pall´ e E, Salz M, Sanz-Forcada J, Nagel E, et al. 2018.Science 362(6421):1388–1391 Nugroho SK, Gibson NP, de Mooij EJW, Herman MK, Watson CA, et al. 2020a. The Astrophyical Journal Letters 898(2):L31 Nugroho SK, Gibson NP, de Mooij EJW, Watson CA, ...

    2018

  24. [2004]

    2020.RISTRETTO: a pathfinder instrument for exoplanet atmosphere characterization

    A&A 425:L29–L32 Chazelas B, Lovis C, Blind N, K¨ uhn J, Genolet L, et al. 2020.RISTRETTO: a pathfinder instrument for exoplanet atmosphere characterization . In Adaptive Optics Systems VII , eds. L Schreiber, D Schmidt, E Vernet, vol. 11448 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrume...

    2020

  25. [2007]

    2013.MNRAS 432(3):1980–1988 Rodler F, L´ opez-Morales M

    A&A 469(1):355–361 Rodler F, K¨ urster M, Barnes JR. 2013.MNRAS 432(3):1980–1988 Rodler F, L´ opez-Morales M. 2014.ApJ 781(1):54 Rodler F, Lopez-Morales M, Ribas I

    2013

  26. [2011]

    2019.ApJ 881(2):133 Oklopˇ ci´ c A, Hirata CM

    ApJL 743(1):L16 Oklopˇ ci´ c A. 2019.ApJ 881(2):133 Oklopˇ ci´ c A, Hirata CM. 2018.ApJL 855(1):L11 Pai Asnodkar A, Wang J, Eastman JD, Cauley PW, Gaudi BS, et al

    2019

  27. [2013]

    2017.AJ 154(2):77 Sousa-Silva C, Al-Refaie AF, Tennyson J, Yurchenko SN

    ApJ 764(2):182 Snellen IAG, D´ esert JM, Waters LBFM, Robinson T, Meadows V, et al. 2017.AJ 154(2):77 Sousa-Silva C, Al-Refaie AF, Tennyson J, Yurchenko SN

    2017

  28. [2014]

    2022.ApJS 258(2):31 Kempton EMR, Perna R, Heng K

    arXiv e-prints :arXiv:1409.5740 Kawahara H, Kawashima Y, Masuda K, Crossfield IJM, Pannier E, van den Bekerom D. 2022.ApJS 258(2):31 Kempton EMR, Perna R, Heng K

    2022 arXiv

  29. [2015]

    2018.Nature 557(7703):68–70 Sparks WB, Ford HC

    MNRAS 446(3):2337–2347 Spake JJ, Sing DK, Evans TM, Oklopˇ ci´ c A, Bourrier V, et al. 2018.Nature 557(7703):68–70 Sparks WB, Ford HC

    2018

  30. [2017]

    2024.arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2408.13536 Borsa F, Allart R, Casasayas-Barris N, Tabernero H, Zapatero Osorio MR, et al

    ApJ 153(3):138 Blain D, Landman R, Molli` ere P, Dittmann J. 2024.arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2408.13536 Borsa F, Allart R, Casasayas-Barris N, Tabernero H, Zapatero Osorio MR, et al. 2021.A&A 645:A24 Borsa F, Fossati L, Koskinen T, Young ME, Shulyak D

    2024 arXiv

  31. [2018]

    arXiv e-prints :arXiv:1806.04617 Birkby JL, de Kok RJ, Brogi M, de Mooij EJW, Schwarz H, et al

    arXiv

  32. [2019]

    2012.Nature 486(7404):502– 504 40 Ignas Snellen Brogi M, Snellen IAG, de Kok RJ, Albrecht S, Birkby JL, de Mooij EJW

    ApJ 157(3):114 Brogi M, Snellen IAG, de Kok RJ, Albrecht S, Birkby J, de Mooij EJW. 2012.Nature 486(7404):502– 504 40 Ignas Snellen Brogi M, Snellen IAG, de Kok RJ, Albrecht S, Birkby JL, de Mooij EJW

    2012

  33. [2020]

    2023.ApJl 955(1):L19 Finnerty L, Schofield T, Sappey B, Xuan JW, Ruffio JB, et al

    Nature 580(7805):597– 601 Esparza-Borges E, L´ opez-Morales M, Adams Redai JI, Pall´ e E, Kirk J, et al. 2023.ApJl 955(1):L19 Finnerty L, Schofield T, Sappey B, Xuan JW, Ruffio JB, et al

    2023

  34. [2021]

    2019.A&A 628:A9 Cauley PW, Wang J, Shkolnik EL, Ilyin I, Strassmeier KG, et al

    A&A 647:A26 Casasayas-Barris N, Pall´ e E, Yan F, Chen G, Kohl S, et al. 2019.A&A 628:A9 Cauley PW, Wang J, Shkolnik EL, Ilyin I, Strassmeier KG, et al

    2019

  35. [2022]

    2023.Nature 624(7991):263–266 Basilicata M, Giacobbe P, Bonomo AS, Scandariato G, Brogi M, et al

    A&A 666:L10 Barrado D, Molli` ere P, Patapis P, Min M, Tremblin P, et al. 2023.Nature 624(7991):263–266 Basilicata M, Giacobbe P, Bonomo AS, Scandariato G, Brogi M, et al

    2023

  36. [2023]

    2017.The Astrophyical Journal Letters 839(1):L2 Brogi M, Line MR

    ApJ 165(3):91 Brogi M, Line M, Bean J, D´ esert JM, Schwarz H. 2017.The Astrophyical Journal Letters 839(1):L2 Brogi M, Line MR

    2017

  37. [2024]

    arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2403.01527 Baudino JL, B´ ezard B, Boccaletti A, Bonnefoy M, Lagrange AM, Galicher R

    arXiv

Pith tools

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