Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Geochemically-reduced super-Earths can transiently re-inflate their atmospheres late in their evolution, temporarily cutting bulk density by up to ~60% before final erosion, a signature of deep mantle redox.

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 03:41 UTC pith:H4Y6S5FW

load-bearing objection A credible new mechanism for transient super-Earth inflation, but the fixed mantle redox assumption needs testing before quantitative predictions are trusted. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13793 v1 pith:H4Y6S5FW submitted 2026-07-15 astro-ph.EP

Reflation: redox-driven atmospheric inflation as tracer of super-Earth geochemistry

Lorenzo Cesario , Tim Lichtenberg , Mara Attia , Harrison Nicholls , Imre Kisvardai , Quentin Changeat This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords super-Earthsatmospheric escaperedox geochemistrymagma oceanoutgassingradius valleymean molecular weightplanetary evolution
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.

This paper argues that a super-Earth's deep mantle redox state can reverse the usual one-way story of atmospheric stripping. Using coupled interior-atmosphere simulations of highly irradiated planets, the authors show that reduced mantles near the iron-wüstite buffer initially outgas heavy CO-dominated atmospheres; as hydrodynamic escape strips this envelope, the falling surface pressure degasses water stored in the underlying magma ocean, and reduced chemistry converts it to light H2. The resulting drop in mean molecular weight inflates the atmosphere and can lower the measured bulk density by up to ~60%, hundreds of millions to billions of years after formation, before the envelope is finally lost. Oxidized, Earth-like mantles instead buffer a heavy CO2/SO2 atmosphere and deflate monotonically. If correct, reflation turns the time evolution of transit radius and density into a probe of a planet's interior geochemistry and volatile budget, with population-level signatures near the radius valley.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the redox-sensitivity of mantle outgassing—not just the starting envelope—controls whether irradiated super-Earth atmospheres shrink monotonically or experience a transient re-inflation. In simulations with reduced mantles (oxygen fugacity near the iron-wüstite buffer), the secondary atmosphere begins CO-dominated while hydrogen remains dissolved as H2O in the magma ocean; energy-limited hydrodynamic escape strips the CO, and the resultant drop in surface pressure shifts solubility equilibria so that stored water degasses and equilibrates to H2. The atmosphere's mean molecular weight falls from ~28 to ~2 g/mol, the scale height grows, a

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the redox-dependent competition between volatile solubility in the magma ocean and gas-phase speciation, coupled to energy-limited hydrodynamic escape. The 'iron-wüstite buffer' is a reference oxygen fugacity that separates reducing from oxidizing mantle conditions. At reducing conditions near that buffer, carbon is outgassed as heavy CO (mean molecular weight ~28 g/mol) while hydrogen stays dissolved in the melt as H2O; when hydrodynamic escape driven by stellar XUV radiation removes the CO-rich envelope, the falling surface pressure shifts the solubility equilibrium, releasing the dissolved water, which reduced gas-phase chemistry converts to light H2 (~2 g/mol). T

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each simulation holds the mantle's oxygen fugacity fixed; reflation requires the mantle to still be reduced (within about 2 log units of the iron-wüstite buffer) at the moment the initial CO-dominated atmosphere is stripped, whereas in reality hydrogen escape could oxidize the mantle before that transition, shifting or suppressing the reflation.

What would settle it

A concrete test: use a self-consistent model that couples mantle oxidation to hydrogen escape. If the mantle oxygen fugacity rises above +2 relative to the iron-wüstite buffer before the CO envelope is stripped enough for H2O to degas as H2, reflation disappears. Observationally, a large unbiased survey of old (1–5 Gyr) close-in super-Earths should reveal a population of low-density planets (bulk density roughly 40–60% of a bare-rock model) with H2/H2O-dominated secondary atmospheres; the absence of such objects—or a candidate caught in the CO-dominated pre-transition state that never drops in

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

If this is right

  • Super-Earth bulk densities can evolve non-monotonically over Gyr timescales, so a single measured density may correspond to very different interior states depending on epoch.
  • A population of low-density 'puffy' super-Earths at ages of hundreds of Myr to Gyr, unexplained by standard photoevaporation models, would point to reduced-mantle reflation rather than primordial H/He envelopes.
  • Reflating planets should show a spectroscopic signature: a transition from CO-dominated to H2/H2O-enriched atmospheric composition, ending in sulfur-rich gas before final erosion.
  • Planets with oxidized mantles should instead show stable heavy CO2/SO2 atmospheres and monotonically increasing density, offering a clean dichotomy for observations to test.
  • Correlating atmospheric composition, bulk density, irradiation, and stellar age across a large survey could reveal population-level reflation signatures and thereby constrain deep mantle redox states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If reflation operates, the radius valley may not be a sharp monotonic step but could contain a sub-population of reflated planets transiting through it, so demographic fits should allow for non-monotonic density tracks.
  • The paper fixes mantle oxygen fugacity through each run; if hydrogen escape progressively oxidizes the mantle, reflation could be suppressed or postponed. Searching for reflating super-Earths around old stars therefore indirectly constrains the rate of redox evolution via hydrogen loss.
  • The same solubility–escape feedback could extend to sub-Neptunes that have lost their primordial hydrogen envelopes but retain molten interiors; such planets might reflate later and at larger radii, though stronger gravity would damp the effect.
  • A testable extension: in multi-planet systems with close-in super-Earths, reflating and non-reflating siblings around the same star should differ systematically in density and atmospheric composition, isolating interior redox from stellar irradiation effects.

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses the proteus coupled interior-atmosphere evolution model to simulate close-in irradiated super-Earths with secondary, outgassed atmospheres undergoing hydrodynamic escape. It proposes a mechanism called 'reflation': for geochemically reduced mantles near the iron-wüstite buffer, an initially CO-dominated secondary atmosphere is stripped by escape; the accompanying pressure drop degasses H2O dissolved in the magma ocean, which is converted to H2, lowering the atmospheric mean molecular weight and transiently inflating the radius / decreasing the bulk density by up to ~60% before complete atmospheric erosion. Oxidized mantles instead outgas heavy CO2/SO2-rich atmospheres and evolve by monotonic deflation. A parameter study maps reflation occurrence to ΔIW ≈ 0, intermediate escape efficiencies η ≈ 10^-3 to 10^-4, semi-major axes a ≲ 0.05 AU, and initial hydrogen inventories ≳ 5 Earth oceans. The authors discuss observational population-level signatures and provide an unusually explicit limitations section.

Significance. If the mechanism is robust, reflation is a qualitatively novel, non-monotonic evolutionary pathway for super-Earths and a potential tracer of deep-mantle redox, with falsifiable population-level predictions (an excess of puffy super-Earths near the radius valley and correlated atmospheric composition anomalies). The paper's strengths are its broad parameter grid, the explicit crossover-flux check supporting unfractionated escape in the reflation phase, and the candid treatment of model limitations. However, the central quantitative claim is conditional on assumptions -- most importantly fixed mantle fO2 with non-conserved oxygen -- that are acknowledged but not quantified. The paper therefore reads as a solid proof-of-concept rather than a definitive predictive claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.3 and §2.2] The reflation mechanism requires that the mantle remain reduced (fO2 ≲ ΔIW+2) at the time the initial CO-dominated envelope is stripped. In the model, ΔIW is held fixed throughout each simulation and oxygen is explicitly not conserved across simulations (§2.2), so the oxidant released by H escape (each H lost as H2 leaves an O atom from H2O) cannot feedback on mantle redox. The statement in §4.3 that 'provided this condition is met within the relevant evolutionary window, the qualitative compositional transition is preserved' is an assertion, not a calculation: the Fe/FeO buffering capacity is not tracked. Since Fig. 3 boundaries and Fig. 1 onset times are derived under this assumption, the central quantitative claim is conditional on an untested redox trajectory. Please add a simple oxygen bookkeeping estimate (integrated H escape versus accessible FeO/Fe-metal reservoir) or couple a re
  2. [§4.3, crossover-flux paragraph] The f/fc test is computed only for the H2-dominated inflated phase, which is the endpoint of the reflation process. The preceding CO-dominated stripping phase sets the timing and feasibility of the H2O→H2 transition; if diffusive fractionation removes H2 preferentially during that phase, the H2 reservoir may be depleted before it can re-inflate the atmosphere. The statement that fractionation would 'modulate rather than erase' the mechanism is plausible but not derived from the presented diagnostic. Please extend the crossover estimate to the CO-dominated phase, or justify explicitly why the H2-dominated criterion is the bounding case.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2] 'fO2 between ΔIW±0 and ΔIW+2' should read 'ΔIW = 0 to +2'.
  2. [§2.4] 'inspired by the physical characteristics of to the ultra-short period super-Earth' has a grammatical duplication ('of to').
  3. [References] The Hu et al. (2024) Nature entry is duplicated in the reference list.
  4. [Figure 2] The x-axis tick labels appear to omit the 5 and 6 decade markers in the log-time axis; please check the figure rendering.
  5. [§4.3] 'IsoF ATE' appears to be a formatting/name error; presumably this should be 'IsoFATE'.
  6. [Figure 3] The color scale would benefit from an explicit label stating that lower values of min(ρ_bulk/ρ_bulk,0) correspond to stronger reflation; the caption partly says this but the colorbar itself is not labeled in the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: reflation is an emergent output of the coupled escape–outgassing model, not a fitted target.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that reduced-mantle super-Earths can undergo late, transient atmospheric re-inflation—is an emergent output of the coupled interior–atmosphere evolution model, not a fitted target. The outgassing module solves elemental partitioning under mass conservation with a specified fO2; the escape module removes volatiles proportionally to their atmospheric mass fractions; the climate module computes radiative-convective structure. Reflation appears only in a subset of a scanned parameter grid, and the timing and magnitude of the density dips in Figures 1–2 are outputs of the coupled dynamics, not inputs. No parameter is calibrated to reproduce the non-monotonic density evolution. The heavy self-citations to proteus, calliope, agni, and chili are attributions to model components and prior code development, not a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz smuggled in by citation; the underlying physics is independently implemented and the code participates in an external benchmark. The fixed-fO2 limitation stated in §4.3 is an acknowledged assumption about redox evolution and is a robustness/correctness caveat, not a circular step: it does not make the output equal to the input, because the compositional transition and its timing still require the coupled escape/outgassing dynamics. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a coupled model with at least six scanned or unreported input parameters and seven stated modeling assumptions. No parameter is fitted to the observational target; reflation is an emergent output of the coupled equations. The most consequential unstated degree of freedom is the initial CHNOS inventory, which is not reported in the text.

free parameters (6)
  • Mantle oxygen fugacity offset ΔIW = scanned {0, +2, +4}; held fixed per simulation
    Central control on outgassing speciation; reflation requires reduced values; not derived from the model.
  • Escape efficiency η = scanned {1e-2, 1e-3, 1e-4, 1e-5}
    Unconstrained for high-MMW secondary atmospheres (§4.3); reflation occurs only for intermediate values.
  • Initial hydrogen inventory H_ocean = scanned {1, 5, 10, 20} Earth ocean H
    Reflation requires ≳5 Earth oceans; the threshold comes from the authors' parameter grid.
  • Semi-major axis a = scanned {0.1, 0.05, 0.02, 0.01} au
    Sets irradiation and escape regime; reflation is strong only below ~0.05 au.
  • RXUV reference pressure P_XUV = 20 mbar
    Chosen reference pressure at which the atmosphere becomes optically thick to XUV (§2.3); affects the mass-loss rate.
  • Initial CHNOS volatile budgets (C, N, S, O) = not reported in the provided text
    Required by the calliope mass-conservation solver (§2.2) but not given in the manuscript; values would affect atmospheric mass and timing.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Atmosphere reaches radiative-convective steady state on timescales shorter than interior geodynamics, so surface temperature and partial pressures can be passed to the climate solver each step.
    Invoked in §2.2; needed for the iterative time-marching scheme.
  • domain assumption Volatile outgassing occurs at thermochemical-solubility equilibrium at the magma-ocean surface; no disequilibrium degassing or bubble microphysics.
    §2.2 and §4.3; disequilibrium would alter the timing and amount of H2O release.
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamic escape is energy-limited with constant efficiency η and compositionally unfractionating bulk outflow.
    §2.3; the authors validate the unfractionating part with a crossover-flux estimate, but only for representative parameters.
  • domain assumption Mantle oxygen fugacity ΔIW is fixed throughout each simulation; no redox evolution from hydrogen escape or core segregation.
    §4.3; load-bearing for the timing and magnitude of reflation.
  • domain assumption Interior structure solution is fixed over time; deep mantle solidification and atmospheric compression are neglected.
    §4.3; the authors argue this is negligible because mantles remain (semi-)molten.
  • domain assumption Atmospheric opacity neglects clouds/aerosols and uses two-stream plane-parallel correlated-k radiative transfer; photochemistry and vertical transport are not modeled.
    §2.2 and §4.3; affects thermal structure and RXUV, though the authors argue mean molecular weight is the main driver of reflation.
  • domain assumption The XUV-absorbing radius RXUV is evaluated at a fixed reference pressure P_XUV = 20 mbar.
    §2.3; a modeling choice that directly sets the hydrodynamic escape rate.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22584 in / 16740 out tokens · 167339 ms · 2026-08-02T03:41:17.177957+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We demonstrate that the redox-sensitivity of mantle outgassing can trigger transient episodes of atmospheric re-inflation in highly irradiated and geochemically-reduced super-Earths, a mechanism we term reflation. Mantle redox governs the outgassing and speciation of CHONS volatiles, setting the background secondary atmospheric composition during extended photoevaporation at highly irradiated conditions. Using simulations of the coupled atmosphere-interior evolution of irradiated super-Earths, we illustrate that reduced mantles close to the iron-wustite buffer initially produce CO-dominated atmospheres. Hydrodynamic escape continuously removes volatiles while outgassing from the melt replenishes the atmosphere with H2, converted from H2O dissolved in the underlying magma ocean. This leads to a late-stage transition from C- to H-dominated gas that transiently re-inflates super-Earth atmospheres and decreases their bulk densities by up to $\sim$60$\%$ between several hundreds of Myr to Gyr after their formation, prior to complete atmospheric erosion by photoevaporation. In contrast, oxidised mantles, closer to Earth-like geochemistry, strongly buffer their atmospheric composition while exposed to hydrodynamic escape, producing monotonic radius deflation. Reflation events are triggered by geochemically-reduced mantles, intermediate escape efficiencies, high irradiation, and initial water inventories $\gtrsim$ 5 Earth oceans. This redox-dependent evolutionary divergence hinges on the sensitive feedback between interior and atmospheric evolution serving as a potential tracer of historical geochemical state. Population-level reflation signatures of close-in super-Earths may thus serve as tracers of interior geochemistry and formation conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13793 by Harrison Nicholls, Imre Kisvardai, Lorenzo Cesario, Mara Attia, Quentin Changeat, Tim Lichtenberg.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Reflation events (red) occur across a range of ages and with different magnitudes across the evolution of irradiated super-Earths. The plot shows the normalised bulk density evolution of individual simulations, versus the time elapsed since planet formation. The red lines indicate cases where a reflation event occurs, while blue lines indicate those where it does not occur. The evolution tracks that end wi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of atmospheric composition for the labelled reflation (solid lines) and deflation (dashed lines) cases from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Sensitivity of the reflation mechanism on mantle oxidation state, atmospheric escape efficiency, planetary semi-major axis, and initial hydrogen inventory. Reflation events occur most strongly at mantle oxidation state fO2 ∼ IW, escape efficiency η ∼ 10−4 to 10−3 , semi-major axis a ≲ 0.05 au, and initial hydrogen inventories ≳ 5 Earth oceans. The sensitivity matrices display the minimum normalised bulk de… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative illustration of the reflation mech￾anism, comparing the standard atmospheric evolution ob￾served in oxidised atmospheres (top) and reflation events (bottom) observed in reduced atmospheres. Oxidised su￾per-Earths would experience monotonic deflation as their secondary atmospheres are heavy, while reduced interiors favour transient reflation events, arising from the transi￾tion from a carbon-ric… 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

143 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abe, Y., & Matsui, T. 1986, J. Geophys. Res., 91, E291, doi: 10.1029/JB091iB13p0E291

    doi:10.1029/jb091ib13p0e291 1986

  2. [2]

    M., Withers, A

    Ardia, P., Hirschmann, M. M., Withers, A. C., & Stanley, B. D. 2013, GeoCoA, 114, 52, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2013.03.028

    doi:10.1016/j.gca.2013.03.028 2013

  3. [3]

    G., & Jacobsen, S

    Falksen, E. G., & Jacobsen, S. D. 2015, GeoCoA, 171, 283, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2015.07.007

    doi:10.1016/j.gca.2015.07.007 2015

  4. [4]

    2025, A&A, 702, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555239

    Attia, M., Bourrier, V., Bolmont, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555239

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555239 2025

  5. [5]

    C., Buchhave, L

    August, P. C., Buchhave, L. A., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452611

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452611 2025

  6. [6]

    L., Raymond, S

    Bean, J. L., Raymond, S. N., & Owen, J. E. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06639, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006639

    doi:10.1029/2020je006639 2021

  7. [7]

    D., Nicholls, H., & Lichtenberg, T

    Boer, I. D., Nicholls, H., & Lichtenberg, T. 2025, ApJ, 987, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add69f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add69f 2025

  8. [8]

    M., Panero, W

    Boley, K. M., Panero, W. R., Unterborn, C. T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acea85

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acea85 2023

  9. [9]

    E., et al

    Bolmont, E., Selsis, F., Owen, J. E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3728, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2578

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2578 2017

  10. [10]

    J., Hakim, K., Sossi, P

    Bower, D. J., Hakim, K., Sossi, P. A., & Sanan, P. 2022, PSJ, 3, 93, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac5fb1

    doi:10.3847/psj/ac5fb1 2022

  11. [11]

    J., Kitzmann, D., Wolf, A

    Bower, D. J., Kitzmann, D., Wolf, A. S., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/20193571010.31223/osf.io/ctqe3

    arXiv 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, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2017.11.004

    doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2017.11.004 2018

  13. [13]

    Sossi, P. A. 2025, ApJ, 995, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1479

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1479 2025

  14. [14]

    S., & Browning, M

    Brun, A. S., & Browning, M. K. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-017-0007-8 13

    doi:10.1007/s41116-017-0007-8 2017

  15. [15]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.05816

    Guimond, C.-M. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.05816

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.05816 2025

  16. [16]

    C., Zahnle, K

    Catling, D. C., Zahnle, K. J., & McKay, C. P. 2001, Science, 293, 839, doi: 10.1126/science.1061976

    doi:10.1126/science.1061976 2001

  17. [17]

    K., Irwin, J., et al

    Charbonneau, D., Berta, Z. K., Irwin, J., et al. 2009, Nature, 462, 891, doi: 10.1038/nature08679

    doi:10.1038/nature08679 2009

  18. [18]

    Chase, M. W. 1986, JANAF thermochemical tables

    1986

  19. [19]

    D., & Pierrehumbert, R

    Chatterjee, R. D., & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2026, ApJ, 998, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ffa

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ffa 2026

  20. [20]

    J., et al

    Cherubim, C., Wordsworth, R., Bower, D. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbca9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbca9 2025

  21. [21]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e77

    Cherubim, C., Wordsworth, R., Hu, R., & Shkolnik, E. 2024, ApJ, 967, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e77

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e77 2024

  22. [22]

    2020, AJ, 159, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8237

    Cloutier, R., & Menou, K. 2020, AJ, 159, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8237

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab8237 2020

  23. [23]

    Cmiel, J., Wordsworth, R., & Seeley, J. T. 2025, PSJ, 6, 123, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/adcd5f

    doi:10.3847/psj/adcd5f 2025

  24. [24]

    2025, Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, 6, 728, doi: 10.1038/s43017-025-00735-1

    Gaillard, F. 2025, Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, 6, 728, doi: 10.1038/s43017-025-00735-1

    doi:10.1038/s43017-025-00735-1 2025

  25. [25]

    2013, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 75, 183, doi: 10.2138/rmg.2013.75.7

    Dasgupta, R. 2013, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 75, 183, doi: 10.2138/rmg.2013.75.7

    doi:10.2138/rmg.2013.75.7 2013

  26. [26]

    2022, GeoCoA, 336, 291, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2022.09.012

    Dasgupta, R., Falksen, E., Pal, A., & Sun, C. 2022, GeoCoA, 336, 291, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2022.09.012

    doi:10.1016/j.gca.2022.09.012 2022

  27. [27]

    Dixon, J. E. 1997, American Mineralogist, 82, 368, doi: 10.2138/am-1997-3-415

    work page doi:10.2138/am-1997-3-415 1997

  28. [28]

    2015, A&A, 577, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424915

    Dorn, C., Khan, A., Heng, K., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424915

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424915 2015

  29. [29]

    2021, ApJL, 922, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac33af

    Dorn, C., & Lichtenberg, T. 2021, ApJL, 922, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac33af

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac33af 2021

  30. [30]

    M., & Slingo, A

    Edwards, J. M., & Slingo, A. 1996, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 122, 689, doi: 10.1002/qj.49712253107

    doi:10.1002/qj.49712253107 1996

  31. [31]

    Elkins-Tanton, L. T. 2008, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 271, 181, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.062

    doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.062 2008

  32. [32]

    Frost, B. R. 2018, in Oxide Minerals (Boston, MA, USA: De Gruyter), 1–10. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/ document/doi/10.1515/9781501508684-004/html

    work page doi:10.1515/9781501508684-004/html 2018

  33. [33]

    J., & McCammon, C

    Frost, D. J., & McCammon, C. A. 2008, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 36, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.36.031207.124322

    arXiv 2008

  34. [34]

    J., & Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., & Petigura, E. A. 2018, AJ, 156, 264, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae828

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae828 2018

  35. [35]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb 2017

  36. [36]

    A., F¨ uri, E., et al

    Gaillard, F., Bouhifd, M. A., F¨ uri, E., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 22, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00802-1

    doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00802-1 2021

  37. [37]

    2022, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 577, 117255, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117255

    Gaillard, F., Bernadou, F., Roskosz, M., et al. 2022, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 577, 117255, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117255

    arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    E., Wadsworth, F

    Gardner, J. E., Wadsworth, F. B., Carley, T. L., et al. 2023, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 51, 131, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-031621-080308

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-031621-080308 2023

  39. [39]

    D., Hedges, C., et al

    Giacalone, S., Dressing, C. D., Hedges, C., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4334

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac4334 2022

  40. [40]

    P., Bell, T

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05951-7 2023

  41. [41]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27639, doi: 10.1029/2019JA027639

    Gronoff, G., Arras, P., Baraka, S., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27639, doi: 10.1029/2019JA027639

    doi:10.1029/2019ja027639 2020

  42. [42]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913396 2010

  43. [43]

    Gupta, A., & Schlichting, H. E. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 24, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1230

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1230 2019

  44. [44]

    Gupta, A., Stixrude, L., & Schlichting, H. E. 2025, ApJL, 982, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb631

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb631 2025

  45. [45]

    Habib, N., & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2024, ApJ, 961, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad04e2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad04e2 2024

  46. [46]

    Hier-Majumder, S., & Hirschmann, M. M. 2017,

    2017

  47. [47]

    Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 18, 3078, doi: 10.1002/2017GC006937

    doi:10.1002/2017gc006937

  48. [48]

    2021, Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, 2, 645, doi: 10.1038/s43017-021-00203-6

    Hirose, K., Wood, B., & Voˇ cadlo, L. 2021, Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, 2, 645, doi: 10.1038/s43017-021-00203-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s43017-021-00203-6 2021

  49. [49]

    Hirschmann, M. M. 2023, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 619, 118311, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2023.118311 H¨ ogstr¨ om, U. 1988, Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 42, 55, doi: 10.1007/BF00119875

    arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Hu, R., Gaillard, F., & Kite, E. S. 2023, ApJL, 948, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd0b4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd0b4 2023

  51. [51]

    2012, ApJ, 761, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/166

    Hu, R., Seager, S., & Bains, W. 2012, ApJ, 761, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/166

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/166 2012

  52. [52]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/6

    Hu, R., Seager, S., & Bains, W. 2013, ApJ, 769, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/6

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/6 2013

  53. [54]

    2024, Nature, 630, 609, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x

    Hu, R., Bello-Arufe, A., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 609, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x 2024

  54. [55]

    M., Pepin, R

    Hunten, D. M., Pepin, R. O., & Walker, J. C. G. 1987, Icarus, 69, 532, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(87)90022-4

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(87)90022-4 1987

  55. [56]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/66

    Ikoma, M., & Hori, Y. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/66

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/1/66 2012

  56. [57]

    P., Davis, T

    Jackson, A. P., Davis, T. A., & Wheatley, P. J. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2024, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20657.x

    arXiv 2012

  57. [58]

    J., Miguel, Y., Min, M., et al

    Janssen, L. J., Miguel, Y., Min, M., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag180 14

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag180 2026

  58. [59]

    D., Coy, B

    Ji, X., Chatterjee, R. D., Coy, B. P., & Kite, E. 2025, ApJ, 992, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfe69

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfe69 2025

  59. [60]

    P., Bartel, M., & G¨ udel, M

    Johnstone, C. P., Bartel, M., & G¨ udel, M. 2021, A&A, 649, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038407

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038407 2021

  60. [61]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 75, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11030075

    Joyce, M., & Tayar, J. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 75, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11030075

    doi:10.3390/galaxies11030075 2023

  61. [62]

    F., Eggler, D

    Kasting, J. F., Eggler, D. H., & Raeburn, S. P. 1993, The Journal of Geology, 101, 245, doi: 10.1086/648219

    doi:10.1086/648219 1993

  62. [63]

    L., et al

    Katyal, N., Ortenzi, G., Grenfell, J. L., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038779

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038779 2020

  63. [64]

    M.-R., & Knutson, H

    Kempton, E. M.-R., & Knutson, H. A. 2024, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 90, 411, doi: 10.2138/rmg.2024.90.12

    doi:10.2138/rmg.2024.90.12 2024

  64. [65]

    M.-R., Zhang, M., Bean, J

    Kempton, E. M.-R., Zhang, M., Bean, J. L., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 67, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06159-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06159-5 2023

  65. [66]

    Fortney, J. J. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 8374, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52642-6

    doi:10.1038/s41467-024-52642-6 2024

  66. [67]

    J., Dandouras, I., et al

    Kubyshkina, D., Way, M. J., Dandouras, I., et al. 2026, SSRv, 222, 28, doi: 10.1007/s11214-026-01283-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-026-01283-w 2026

  67. [68]

    A., & Oinas, V

    Lacis, A. A., & Oinas, V. 1991, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 9027, doi: 10.1029/90JD01945

    doi:10.1029/90jd01945 1991

  68. [69]

    2003, ApJL, 598, L121, doi: 10.1086/380815

    Lammer, H., Selsis, F., Ribas, I., et al. 2003, ApJL, 598, L121, doi: 10.1086/380815

    doi:10.1086/380815 2003

  69. [70]

    R., & Catling, D

    Lehmer, O. R., & Catling, D. C. 2017, ApJ, 845, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8137

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8137 2017

  70. [71]

    E., Berta-Thompson, Z

    Libby-Roberts, J. E., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., D´ esert, J.-M., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d36

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d36 2020

  71. [72]

    2021, ApJL, 914, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0146

    Lichtenberg, T. 2021, ApJL, 914, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0146

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0146 2021

  72. [73]

    J., Hammond, M., et al

    Lichtenberg, T., Bower, D. J., Hammond, M., et al. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06711, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006711

    doi:10.1029/2020je006711 2021

  73. [74]

    2025, Treatise on Geochemistry, 7, 51, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-99762-1.00122-4

    Lichtenberg, T., & Miguel, Y. 2025, Treatise on Geochemistry, 7, 51, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-99762-1.00122-4

    doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-99762-1.00122-4 2025

  74. [75]

    K., Nakajima, M., & Fischer, R

    Lichtenberg, T., Schaefer, L. K., Nakajima, M., & Fischer, R. A. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 907, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.10023 2023

  75. [76]

    Lichtenberg, T., Shorttle, O., Teske, J., & Kempton, E. M.-R. 2025a, Science, 390, eads3660, doi: 10.1126/science.ads3360

    doi:10.1126/science.ads3360

  76. [77]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.16142, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.16142

    Lichtenberg, T., Schaefer, L., Krissansen-Totton, J., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.16142, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.16142

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.16142

  77. [78]

    J., Jontof-Hutter, D., Rowe, J

    Lissauer, J. J., Jontof-Hutter, D., Rowe, J. F., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/131

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/131 2013

  78. [79]

    D., & Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2014, ApJ, 792, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/1 2014

  79. [80]

    2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164

    Luque, R., & Pall´ e, E. 2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164

    doi:10.1126/science.abl7164 2022

  80. [81]

    I., & Hu, Y

    Madhusudhan, N., Ag´ undez, M., Moses, J. I., & Hu, Y. 2016, SSRv, 205, 285, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0254-3

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0254-3 2016

Showing first 80 references.