pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23910 · v1 · pith:GCW6PVS2new · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.IM

Effects of Super-rotating Jets on Phase-Resolved Transmission Spectra at High Spectral Resolution

Hayley Beltz , Arjun B. Savel This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 06:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM
keywords hot Jupitersatmospheric circulationtransmission spectroscopyDoppler shiftshigh-resolution spectroscopyequatorial jetscross-correlation functionphase-resolved spectra
0
0 comments X

The pith

Super-rotating jets in hot Jupiters change Doppler shifts in high-resolution transmission spectra most strongly during ingress and egress.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper models high-resolution transmission spectra from both self-consistent dynamical simulations and simplified models that separate individual circulation features. It shows that the strength of an equatorial jet alters the net Doppler shifts extracted from the spectra, with the largest changes appearing at the start and end of transit. At mid-transit the jet adds a linear slope to the shift time series, yet this contribution remains smaller than the overall blueshift produced by the planet's rotation. Jets also widen the cross-correlation function by spreading velocities across the limbs, while day-night flows instead produce steady offsets. Semi-analytical arguments link first-order changes in the cross-correlation centroid and width to asymmetries in temperature and velocity.

Core claim

In models of hot Jupiter circulation, the presence and strength of a super-rotating equatorial jet most strongly modifies the net Doppler shifts measured during ingress and egress in high-resolution transmission spectra. At mid-transit the jet contributes a linear slope to the Doppler shift time series that is usually smaller than the blueshift from planetary rotation. Pure day-night flows instead produce constant offsets. Jets additionally increase the width of the cross-correlation function by raising the velocity dispersion between the limbs. Semi-analytical arguments confirm that first-order changes in CCF centroid and width track thermal and velocity asymmetries.

What carries the argument

Idealized circulation models that isolate the equatorial jet component, used to generate phase-resolved high-resolution transmission spectra and extract net Doppler shifts.

If this is right

  • Jet strength controls the magnitude of Doppler shifts observed at ingress and egress.
  • At mid-transit, jet strength sets a linear slope in the Doppler time series that is secondary to rotation-induced blueshift.
  • Faster jets increase the width of the cross-correlation function through greater limb-to-limb velocity dispersion.
  • Day-night flows produce constant offsets in Doppler shifts rather than phase-dependent slopes.
  • Net Doppler shifts can be interpreted to distinguish jet-driven circulation from other flow patterns.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Phase-dependent Doppler measurements could separate jet signatures from rotation without requiring full three-dimensional retrievals.
  • The same modeling approach might be applied to interpret spectra of non-synchronized or cooler planets where different flow regimes dominate.
  • Repeated observations of the same target could test whether changes in apparent jet strength track known variations in irradiation or magnetic activity.

Load-bearing premise

The idealized models that isolate individual circulation components produce net Doppler effects that match those in full dynamical models without introducing artifacts.

What would settle it

High-resolution spectra showing identical Doppler shift patterns at ingress and egress for models with and without jets would falsify the claim that jet strength dominates those phases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23910 by Arjun B. Savel, Hayley Beltz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Several representations of the spectra used in this work. Top panel: the unbroadened and broadened spectra as calculated with the 3D radiative transfer code. Second panel: the same spectra, zoomed in on a single spectral line to reveal the impact of different magnetic field strengths. Note that both blue shifted and redshifted components arising from the 3D model are visible. Third panel: the 1D contributi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Our four different GCM models have varying strengths of jets due to the different levels of assumed B field strength. Here, we show dayside, nightside and longitudinally averaged zonal (eastward) winds from the four GCM models explored in this work. In the top row, the model without any active drag has the strongest jet, which is present for most of the atmosphere. As the magnetic field strength in our act… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Differing drag strength results in significant changes in the limb temperature and jet structure. Here we show the line of sight velocity—including both winds and rotation—as well as temperature structure of the east and west limbs (the left and right half of each annulus respectively) from our four models at ingress and egress. We additionally show the velocity structure from our models with the jet artif… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase-resolved Doppler shifts from our post-pro￾cessed GCMs as a function over the course of transit. The top panel shows these results for our GCMs, the middle panel shows these results for the synthetic jet models, and the bot￾tom panel shows these results for the synthetic day–night wind models The inclusion of magnetic drag weakens the magnitude of the retrieved net Doppler shifts and results in a late… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The broadening of the CCFs for each of our models as a function of phase. The left side shows these results for our post-processed GCMs; the right shows the results for our synthetic models. increasing the velocity dispersion by a constant factor will increase the slope of the Doppler shift. We see the same effect here: The double-jet and no-jet model share the same thermal structure, but the increased dif… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Hot Jupiter atmospheric circulation can be shaped by a range of processes and planetary parameters, including rotation rate, irradiation gradients from tidal synchronization, magnetic effects, gravity, and clouds. Observations of exoplanetary spectral Doppler shifts as a function of phase, made possible with high-resolution spectrographs, can now probe the effects of exoplanetary winds at several points throughout transit. However, these measurements are difficult to interpret, given the variety of relevant atmospheric mechanisms. In this work, we generate high-resolution transmission spectra from two sets of circulation models: self-consistent dynamical models and idealized models that isolate circulation components. We identify how the strength of the jet -- or the absence of one -- alters the resultant net Doppler shifts. We find that the jet strength most prominently affects Doppler shifts during ingress and egress. During mid-transit, the strength of the jet linearly influences the Doppler shifts' slope; however, this effect is generally secondary to the overall blueshifting from planetary rotation. The slope induced by equatorial jets contrasts with the effect of pure day-night flows, which tend to add constant offsets to Doppler shifts during transit. Our modeling shows that jets also impact the cross-correlation function width; faster jets increase velocity dispersion across the limbs. We complement our simulations with semi-analytical arguments indicating that first-order changes of the cross-correlation function centroid and width (but not amplitude) probe thermal and velocity asymmetries. This work provides recommendations for interpreting net Doppler shifts in transmission and connecting these shifts with exoplanets' atmospheric circulation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript models high-resolution transmission spectra of hot Jupiters using both self-consistent dynamical models and idealized models that isolate individual circulation components. It reports that super-rotating jet strength most strongly modulates Doppler shifts during ingress and egress; at mid-transit the jet produces a linear change in the slope of the Doppler shift that is generally secondary to the blueshift from planetary rotation. Jets also increase the width of the cross-correlation function, and semi-analytical arguments are presented showing that first-order changes in CCF centroid and width (but not amplitude) trace thermal and velocity asymmetries. Recommendations are offered for interpreting net Doppler shifts in terms of atmospheric circulation.

Significance. If the separation of jet, rotation, and day-night flow effects holds, the work supplies a practical framework for connecting phase-resolved high-resolution spectra to specific dynamical features. The dual use of self-consistent and idealized models plus the semi-analytical arguments constitute a clear methodological strength and should aid interpretation of existing and forthcoming observations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (idealized models)] Methods section on idealized-model construction: the claim that isolating the jet component accurately captures net Doppler effects without artifacts requires an explicit quantitative comparison (e.g., residual maps or Doppler-shift differences) between the isolated-jet runs and the corresponding self-consistent runs; without this check the central separation of circulation components remains unverified.
  2. [Results (mid-transit analysis)] Results on mid-transit slope: the statement that the jet-induced slope is 'generally secondary' to rotation needs tabulated slope values (or effect-size ratios) for the range of jet strengths examined; the current qualitative description is insufficient to assess the relative importance asserted in the abstract.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] The abstract states that two sets of models are used but does not name the specific GCM or the parameter values varied; this information should appear in the first paragraph of the introduction or methods.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the phase-resolved Doppler-shift panels should list the exact jet-strength parameter values shown rather than referring only to 'fast' or 'slow' jets.
  3. [Semi-analytical arguments] Notation for the cross-correlation function width and centroid should be defined at first use in the text rather than only in the semi-analytical section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have helped clarify the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (idealized models)] Methods section on idealized-model construction: the claim that isolating the jet component accurately captures net Doppler effects without artifacts requires an explicit quantitative comparison (e.g., residual maps or Doppler-shift differences) between the isolated-jet runs and the corresponding self-consistent runs; without this check the central separation of circulation components remains unverified.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative comparison would strengthen the validation of the idealized models. In the revised manuscript we will add residual maps and Doppler-shift difference plots comparing the isolated-jet runs to the corresponding self-consistent runs in the Methods section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (mid-transit analysis)] Results on mid-transit slope: the statement that the jet-induced slope is 'generally secondary' to rotation needs tabulated slope values (or effect-size ratios) for the range of jet strengths examined; the current qualitative description is insufficient to assess the relative importance asserted in the abstract.

    Authors: We agree that tabulated values are needed to support the claim. We will add a table of mid-transit slopes for the examined jet strengths together with effect-size ratios relative to the rotational blueshift. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper generates high-resolution transmission spectra from self-consistent dynamical models and idealized models that isolate circulation components, then examines how jet strength affects Doppler shifts via numerical output and semi-analytical arguments. The claims (jet effects prominent at ingress/egress, linear slope influence at mid-transit secondary to rotation, impacts on CCF width) are direct results of these forward simulations rather than reductions to fitted parameters or self-citations by construction. No load-bearing derivation step is shown to be equivalent to its inputs; the work is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Work rests on standard assumptions in exoplanet GCMs and the validity of isolating circulation components; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • jet strength parameter
    Varied across models to isolate its effect on Doppler shifts and CCF properties.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Self-consistent dynamical models and idealized models faithfully represent relevant atmospheric physics for transmission spectra
    Invoked when generating spectra from the two sets of circulation models.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5806 in / 1214 out tokens · 24593 ms · 2026-06-26T06:42:15.859732+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , author =

    Gkouvelis, L. 2025, A&A, 699, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453597

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453597 2025

  2. [2]

    Arcangeli, J., D´ esert, J.-M., Parmentier, V., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834891 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 Phase (degrees) 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 Velocity (km/s) 0 G 0 G, 1.5x barotropic extension Figure B1.The results of our sensitivity test to the barotropic extension. Altering the extended velocity profile by a factor of 1.5 only mi...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834891 2019

  3. [3]

    and Cowan, Nicolas B

    Bell, T. J., & Cowan, N. B. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aabcc8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aabcc8 2018

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    Beltz, H., & Rauscher, E. 2024, ApJ, 976, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ded

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ded 2024

  5. [5]

    Beltz, H., Rauscher, E., Brogi, M., & Kempton, E. M. R. 2021, AJ, 161, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb67b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abb67b 2021

  6. [6]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.13969, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.13969

    Beltz, H., Rauscher, E., Kempton, E., Malsky, I., & Savel, A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.13969, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.13969

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13969 2023

  7. [7]

    Beltz, H., Rauscher, E., Kempton, E. M. R., et al. 2022a, AJ, 164, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac897b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac897b

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Beltz, H., Rauscher, E., Roman, M. T., & Guilliat, A. 2022b, AJ, 163, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3746

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3746

  9. [9]

    Birkby, J. L. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1806.04617. https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.04617 Bl¨ ocker, A., Carone, L., & Helling, C. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.18101, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.18101

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.18101 2018

  10. [10]

    and Allart, R

    Borsa, F., Allart, R., Casasayas-Barris, N., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039344

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039344 2021

  11. [11]

    2025, A&A, 700, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453341

    Bouchy, F., Doyon, R., Pepe, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453341

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453341 2025

  12. [12]

    2018,, 0.3.13 http://github.com/jax-ml/jax

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018,, 0.3.13 http://github.com/jax-ml/jax

    2018

  13. [13]

    Brogi, M., & Line, M. R. 2019, AJ, 157, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaffd3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaffd3 2019

  14. [14]

    Brown, T. M. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 553, 1006

    2001

  15. [15]

    2021, arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374

    Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., et al. 2021, arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Nature, Volume 457, Issue 7226, pp

    Christensen, U. R., Holzwarth, V., & Reiners, A. 2009, Nature, 457, 167, doi: 10.1038/nature07626

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07626 2009

  17. [17]

    , keywords =

    Kohary, K. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 2773, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1146

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1146 2025

  18. [18]

    A., Mayne, N

    Christie, D. A., Mayne, N. J., Zamyatina, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1408 da Costa-Luis, C. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1277

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1408 2024

  19. [19]

    2016, Journal of Open Research Software, 4

    Dawson, A. 2016, Journal of Open Research Software, 4

    2016

  20. [20]

    2020, A&A, 633, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936110

    Debras, F., Mayne, N., Baraffe, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936110

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936110 2020

  21. [21]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 3759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac680

    Deitrick, R., Heng, K., Schroffenegger, U., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac680

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac680 2022

  22. [22]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 3159, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1509

    Dobbs-Dixon, I., & Agol, E. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3159, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1509

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1509 2013

  23. [23]

    2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.09173

    Dragomir, D., Kempton, E., Bean, J., et al. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.09173

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    J., Manners, J., et al

    Drummond, B., Mayne, N. J., Manners, J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 855, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab209

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab209 2018

  25. [25]

    Dutton, J. A. 2002, The ceaseless wind: An introduction to the theory of atmospheric motion (Courier Corporation)

    2002

  26. [26]

    Nature , keywords =

    Ehrenreich, D., Lovis, C., Allart, R., et al. 2020, Nature, 580, 597, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2107-1

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

  27. [27]

    2019, AJ, 157, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab164c

    Chiavassa, A. 2019, AJ, 157, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab164c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab164c 2019

  28. [28]

    Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , year = 2014, editor =

    Follert, R., Dorn, R. J., Oliva, E., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 914719, doi: 10.1117/12.2054197

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2054197 2014

  29. [29]

    Gandhi, S., Brogi, M., & Webb, R. K. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 194

    2020

  30. [30]

    , keywords =

    Gandhi, S., Kesseli, A., Snellen, I., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1744

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1744 2022

  31. [31]

    P., Merritt, S., Nugroho, S

    Gibson, N. P., Merritt, S., Nugroho, S. K., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa228

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa228 2020

  32. [32]

    2007, The Messenger, 127, 3 21

    Gilmozzi, R., & Spyromilio, J. 2007, The Messenger, 127, 3 21

    2007

  33. [33]

    E., & P´ erez, F

    Granger, B. E., & P´ erez, F. 2021, Computing in Science & Engineering, 23, 7

    2021

  34. [34]

    On the radiative equilibrium of irradiated planetary atmospheres

    Guillot, T. 2010, A&A, 520, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913396

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913396 2010

  35. [35]

    Hammond, M., & Abbot, D. S. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2313, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac228

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac228 2022

  36. [36]

    Hammond, M., & Lewis, N. T. 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118, e2022705118

    2021

  37. [37]

    Hammond, M., & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 869, 65

    2018

  38. [38]

    Harris and K

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  39. [39]

    Heng, K., Menou, K., & Phillipps, P. J. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2380, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18315.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18315.x 2011

  40. [40]

    E., Fortney, J

    Hood, C. E., Fortney, J. J., Line, M. R., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 198

    2020

  41. [41]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  42. [42]

    2012, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IV, 8444, 526

    Johns, M., McCarthy, P., Raybould, K., et al. 2012, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IV, 8444, 526

    2012

  43. [43]

    M.-R., Bean, J

    Kempton, E. M.-R., Bean, J. L., & Parmentier, V. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 845, L20

    2017

  44. [44]

    M.-R., Perna, R., & Heng, K

    Kempton, E. M.-R., Perna, R., & Heng, K. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 24

    2014

  45. [45]

    , keywords =

    Kesseli, A. Y., Beltz, H., Rauscher, E., & Snellen, I. A. G. 2024, ApJ, 975, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad772f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad772f 2024

  46. [46]

    Komacek, T. D. 2025, ApJ, 983, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbae9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbae9 2025

  47. [47]

    D., & Showman, A

    Komacek, T. D., & Showman, A. P. 2016, ApJ, 821, 16, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/16

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/16 2016

  48. [48]

    D., & Showman, A

    Komacek, T. D., & Showman, A. P. 2020, ApJ, 888, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b0b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b0b 2020

  49. [49]

    , keywords =

    Komacek, T. D., Tan, X., Gao, P., & Lee, E. K. H. 2022, ApJ, 934, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7723

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7723 2022

  50. [50]

    2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161

    2015

  51. [51]

    1995, Atomic Line List

    Kurucz, R. 1995, Atomic Line List

    1995

  52. [52]

    , keywords =

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220, doi: 10.1086/375492

    work page doi:10.1086/375492 2003

  53. [53]

    and Barman, Travis and Koskinen, Tommi , month = oct, year =

    Lothringer, J. D., Barman, T., & Koskinen, T. 2018, ApJ, 866, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd9e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadd9e 2018

  54. [54]

    R., Deming, D., Albert, L., et al

    Louie, D. R., Deming, D., Albert, L., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 044401

    2018

  55. [55]

    M., et al

    Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., Mendon¸ ca, J. M., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 170

    2019

  56. [56]

    T., et al

    Malsky, I., Rauscher, E., Roman, M. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b70

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b70 2024

  57. [57]

    J., Baraffe, I., Acreman, D

    Mayne, N. J., Baraffe, I., Acreman, D. M., et al. 2014, Geoscientific Model Development, 7, 3059, doi: 10.5194/gmd-7-3059-2014 Miller-Ricci Kempton, E., & Rauscher, E. 2012, ApJ, 751, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/117 Molli` ere, P., Wardenier, J., Van Boekel, R., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 627, A67

    work page doi:10.5194/gmd-7-3059-2014 2014

  58. [58]

    2024, Detection of the resolved signatures of a supersonic equatorial jet and cool poles in a hot planet, publication Title: arXiv

    Nortmann, L., Lesjak, F., Yan, F., et al. 2024, Detection of the resolved signatures of a supersonic equatorial jet and cool poles in a hot planet, publication Title: arXiv. org

    2024

  59. [59]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134 , url =

    Palle, E., Biazzo, K., Bolmont, E., et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 1 pandas development team, T. 2020,, latest Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134 2025

  60. [60]

    Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , year = 2014, editor =

    Park, C., Jaffe, D. T., Yuk, I.-S., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91471D, doi: 10.1117/12.2056431

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2056431 2014

  61. [61]

    J., & Marley, M

    Parmentier, V., Guillot, T., Fortney, J. J., & Marley, M. S. 2015, A&A, 574, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323127

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323127 2015

  62. [62]

    P., & Fortney, J

    Parmentier, V., Showman, A. P., & Fortney, J. J. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 78

    2021

  63. [63]

    and Bean, Jacob L

    Parmentier, V., Line, M. R., Bean, J. L., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833059

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833059 2018

  64. [64]

    , keywords =

    Pelletier, S., Benneke, B., Ali-Dib, M., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 491, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06134-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06134-0 2023

  65. [65]

    2014, Astronomische Nachrichten, 335, 8, doi: 12.1002/asna.201312004

    Pepe, F., Molaro, P., Cristiani, S., et al. 2014, Astronomische Nachrichten, 335, 8, doi: 12.1002/asna.201312004

    2014

  66. [66]

    Perez-Becker, D., & Showman, A. P. 2013, ApJ, 776, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/134

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/2/134 2013

  67. [67]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/59

    Perna, R., Heng, K., & Pont, F. 2012, ApJ, 751, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/59

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/1/59 2012

  68. [68]

    2010 , month =

    Perna, R., Menou, K., & Rauscher, E. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1421, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1421

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/2/1421 2010

  69. [69]

    M., et al

    Pino, L., Brogi, M., D´ esert, J. M., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A176, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244593

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244593 2022

  70. [70]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 170

    Powell, D., Louden, T., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 170

    2019

  71. [71]

    , keywords =

    Prinoth, B., Hoeijmakers, H. J., Pelletier, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347262

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347262 2023

  72. [72]

    Rauscher, E., & Kempton, E. M. R. 2014, ApJ, 790, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/79

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/1/79 2014

  73. [74]

    2012b, ApJ, 750, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/96

    Rauscher, E., & Menou, K. 2012b, ApJ, 750, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/96

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/96

  74. [75]

    Three-dimensional

    Rauscher, E., & Menou, K. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/764/1/103

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/1/103 2013

  75. [76]

    Rogers, T. M. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0131, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0131 22

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0131 2017

  76. [77]

    M., & Komacek, T

    Rogers, T. M., & Komacek, T. D. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/132

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/132 2014

  77. [78]

    T., Kempton, E

    Roman, M. T., Kempton, E. M.-R., Rauscher, E., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd549

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd549 2021

  78. [79]

    , keywords =

    Roth, A., Parmentier, V., & Hammond, M. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae984

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae984 2024

  79. [80]

    , keywords =

    Savel, A. B., Kempton, E. M. R., Rauscher, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb141

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb141 2023

  80. [81]

    , keywords =

    Savel, A. B., Kempton, E. M. R., Malik, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac423f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac423f 2022

Showing first 80 references.