pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24757 · v1 · pith:LHATTIPQnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.IM· physics.geo-ph

Coupled atmospHere Interior modeL Intercomparison (CHILI). I. Evolutionary Modelling -- Primordial Magma Oceans of Earth and Venus

Harrison Nicholls , Joshua Krissansen-Totton , Tim Lichtenberg , Laura Schaefer , Keiko Hamano , Maxime Maurice , Henri Samuel , Alexandra Papesh
show 17 more authors
Carlos Ortiz-Quintana Junellie Perez Yamila Miguel Denis Sergeev Philipp Baumeister Spanan Dash Leoni Janssen Jonathan Keathley Alexandre de Larminat Emmanuel Marcq Lena Noack Hugo Pelissard Bo Peng Emma Postolec Ramses Ramirez Mariana Sastre Andrea Zorzi
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 22:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMphysics.geo-ph
keywords magma oceanEarth evolutionVenus evolutionmodel intercomparisonatmosphere-interior couplingvolatile outgassingplanetary thermal evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

Intercomparison of coupled models shows Earth's magma ocean solidifies in under 4 million years while Venus scenarios allow for up to 50 million years.

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

This paper reports the first results from the CHILI project benchmarking multiple codes that simulate coupled interior and atmosphere evolution during the magma ocean phase for Earth and Venus. Nominal Earth models converge on solidification timescales within 4 Myr that align with constraints from Earth's early geological record. Venus models produce more varied outcomes, with some cases sustaining molten stages for as long as 50 Myr depending on starting volatile budgets and code-specific choices. The spread in results traces primarily to differences in how each model treats volatile partitioning, vertical energy transport, mantle convection, melting curves, and radiative transfer. These findings highlight which physical treatments most affect predicted evolutionary paths and atmospheres for the two planets.

Core claim

The paper establishes that when several coupled atmosphere-interior evolution codes are applied to identical Earth and Venus initial conditions, they produce short and consistent magma ocean lifetimes for Earth but longer and more divergent lifetimes for Venus, with cooling rates correlating to initial hydrogen and carbon inventories and generated atmospheres commonly exceeding 100 bar surface pressure in C-H-O compositions.

What carries the argument

The CHILI intercomparison of multiple coupled atmosphere-interior codes, where differences in volatile partitioning, mantle geodynamics, convection, and radiative transfer produce the observed spread in solidification timescales and atmospheric outcomes.

If this is right

  • Earth's magma ocean phase ends rapidly and consistently across models within 4 Myr of thermal evolution.
  • Venus can maintain prolonged magma ocean stages for up to 50 Myr under certain initial conditions and model assumptions.
  • Cooling timescales scale with the initial budgets of hydrogen and carbon.
  • Outgassed atmospheres from these stages tend to reach surface pressures above 100 bar with C-H-O compositions.
  • Model variance is driven by choices in volatile partitioning, mantle viscosity, melting curves, and radiative transfer.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Standardizing the identified sensitive treatments across codes could narrow uncertainty ranges when applying the same models to exoplanets.
  • The reported sensitivities point to specific laboratory experiments on volatile solubility and mantle rheology that would most reduce model spread.
  • These timescale differences could help explain the divergent water histories of Earth and Venus if linked to escape processes.
  • Extending the intercomparison to other terrestrial planet scenarios would test whether the Earth-Venus contrast generalizes.

Load-bearing premise

The observed differences between models arise mainly from their distinct treatments of volatile partitioning, energy transport, and mantle properties rather than from any shared approximations or input choices common to all codes.

What would settle it

New geological or geochemical evidence showing that Earth's magma ocean lasted substantially longer than 4 Myr or that Venus never sustained one beyond a few Myr would directly test the nominal model predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24757 by Alexandra Papesh, Alexandre de Larminat, Andrea Zorzi, Bo Peng, Carlos Ortiz-Quintana, Denis Sergeev, Emmanuel Marcq, Emma Postolec, Harrison Nicholls, Henri Samuel, Hugo Pelissard, Jonathan Keathley, Joshua Krissansen-Totton, Junellie Perez, Keiko Hamano, Laura Schaefer, Lena Noack, Leoni Janssen, Mariana Sastre, Maxime Maurice, Philipp Baumeister, Ramses Ramirez, Spanan Dash, Tim Lichtenberg, Yamila Miguel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Cooling and solidification of Nominal Earth and Venus cases (solid and dashed lines). Each panel plots melt fraction versus simulated time, calculated by each model (panels). Simulation end points are indicated by circular markers. Time is measured relative to some fully-molten state. Taking t = 0 as Earth’s final global re-melting event, e.g. the Moon-forming impact, vertical black lines corre￾spond to tw… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Time taken for Earth scenarios to reach melt fractions of (a) 95%, (b) 40%, and (c) 5%. Cooling timescales are sensitive to planetary inventories of hydro￾gen (y-axes) and carbon (marker opacity), for a given model (marker colour). Connected scatter points span three hydro￾gen inventories, for a given carbon inventory. Time is mea￾sured relative to some fully-molten state. Taking t = 0 as Earth’s final glo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Atmospheric compositions for Nominal Earth mantle melt fractions of (a) 95% and (b) 5%. For each model (x-axis), gas partial pressures [bar] are shown by stacked bar charts (colours), alongside surface temperature (grey stars). Models do not simulate the same set of gas species; e.g. by neglecting CO2. 0 1 2 3 4 10 20k g (a) Outgassed to atm. Nominal-Earth H,C inventories at = 5% 0 1 2 3 4 10 20k g (b) Dis… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hydrogen and carbon mass budgets (green and orange bars) distributed between the three reservoirs of Nom￾inal Earth at 5% mantle melt fraction. Panels show masses of H and C: (a) outgassed into the atmosphere, (b, dotted) dissolved in the remnant magma ocean, (c, hatched) stored in solidified mantle regions by various mechanisms. LINCS and GOOEY do not simulate carbon. model disagreement because PACMAN’s a… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Atmospheric compositions for Nominal Venus at 5% mantle melt fraction. Analogous to Nominal Earth case in Figure 3b by adopting the same axis limits. sphere is necessary for it to solidify (Hamano et al. 2015; Krissansen-Totton et al. 2021b; Hamano et al. 2025). An exception to these Earth-Venus pressure differ￾ences is MOAI, which only considers the escape of H2 , of which only trace amounts are formed, s… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: plots the mantle fO2 calculated by four sim￾ulations of Nominal Venus. In absolute terms, the simu￾lated fO2 decreases over time as temperature decreases (Figure 6a). However, it is more appropriate to compare fO2 in relative terms (Frost 1991). Figure 6b shows four models reproducing the CHILI protocol’s requirement that endpoint fO2 values tend towards IW+4. How￾ever, the models show different temperatur… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: plots the hydrogen and carbon inventories of the Nominal Venus scenario, over time, which both de￾crease due to the cumulative effects of atmospheric es￾cape processes. The circular markers show the amount of initial H and C retained by the planet by the time its mantle has reached a simulated melt fraction of 5% – corresponding to the outgassed atmospheric composi￾tions shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Outgoing longwave radiation flux from Nom￾inal Earth, plotted as a function of melt fraction (a) and surface temperature (b). Dashed black line quantifies ab￾sorbed stellar radiation: ASR = L⊙(50 Myr) 4π(1 AU)2 × (1 − 0.1) × 0.375 cos(48.19◦ ), with 10% Bond albedo, 0.375 geometric factor, and 48.19◦ Zenith angle (Baraffe et al. 2015; Cronin 2014). Dash-dot black line indicates the Simpson-Nakajima steam a… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: c shows that our models predict only late￾stage increases in viscosity to values above 1 Pa s, at melt fractions < 5%. These differing behaviours are partially geometric: the volume-averaged melt fraction (x-axis) is weighted towards molten upper mantle layers which have larger volumes. However, it is clear from cooling timescales in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Melting curves used by each model (line colour), which are described in Section 2.2. Solidus curves (a) shown by solid lines, and liquidus curves (b) shown by dashed lines. All sets of melting curves are plotted as functions of pressure (left y-spines) and depth (right y-spines), using Earth’s interior density structure (Katsura 2022). The black line shows a recent estimate of Earth’s mantle adiabat (Kats… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Snapshots of simulated atmospheric T(p) profiles evolving over time (panels a–e) for Earth maximum-hydrogen inventory cases (three carbon inventories per model). Line colour indicates the model used. Each line opacity indicates the carbon inventory. Dashed blue line shows the 100%-H2O saturation curve (Wagner & Pruß 2002). C. OVERVIEW PLOTS OF NOMINAL EARTH AND VENUS SIMULATIONS This appendix section pres… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Overview for evolution of Nominal Earth (left) and Nominal Venus (right) simulated by GOOEY [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Overview for evolution of Nominal Earth (left) and Nominal Venus (right) simulated by NEONGOOEY. 0 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 Press. 3 [bar] Total H2O CO2 H2 CO CH4 O2 0 25 50 75 Partitioning 100 [%] H C O atm melt solid 2000 3000 Temp. [K] Tsurf Tpot 0 10 100 101 102 103 104 Energy flux 5 [W/m2 ] ASR surf OLR 10 0 10 5 10 10 10 15 10 Viscosity 20 [Pa s] viscosity 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 PROTEUS: Nominal-Earth simulated … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Overview for evolution of Nominal Earth (left) and Nominal Venus (right) simulated by PROTEUS. 0 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 Press. 3 [bar] Total H2O CO2 H2 CO CH4 O2 0 25 50 75 Partitioning 100 [%] H C O atm melt solid 2000 3000 Temp. [K] Tsurf Tpot 0 10 100 101 102 103 104 105 Energy flux 6 [W/m2 ] ASR surf OLR 10 0 10 5 10 10 10 15 10 20 Viscosity [Pa s] viscosity 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 PACMAN: Nominal-Earth simulated… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Overview for evolution of Nominal Earth (left) and Nominal Venus (right) simulated by PACMAN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Overview for evolution of Nominal Earth (left) and Nominal Venus (right) simulated by LINCS. 0 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 Press. 3 [bar] Total H2O CO2 H2 CO CH4 O2 0 25 50 75 Partitioning 100 [%] H C O atm melt solid 2000 3000 Temp. [K] Tsurf Tpot 0 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 Energy flux [W/m2 ] ASR surf OLR 10 0 10 5 10 10 10 15 10 20 Viscosity [Pa s] viscosity 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 MOAI: Nominal-Earth simulated time [M… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Overview for evolution of Nominal Earth (left) and Nominal Venus (right) simulated by MOAI. 0 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 Press. 3 [bar] Total H2O CO2 0 25 50 75 Partitioning 100 [%] H C O atm melt solid 2000 3000 Temp. [K] Tsurf Tpot 0 10 100 101 102 103 104 Energy flux 5 [W/m2 ] ASR surf OLR 10 0 10 5 10 10 10 15 10 20 Viscosity [Pa s] viscosity 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 PlanAtMO: Nominal-Earth simulated time [Myr] 0 10 0… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Overview for evolution of Nominal Earth (left) and Nominal Venus (right) simulated by PLANATMO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Earth and Venus represent two evolutionary outcomes arising from initially molten 'magma ocean' periods, followed by lifetimes of chemical and geophysical divergence. Their physics is common to all rocky planets and is accessible to simulations that adopt coupled interior-atmosphere modelling approaches. Our understanding of planet histories and interpretation of current states is dependent on this modelling, yet existing codes vary in their approximations. Here, we present the first results from the Coupled atmospHere Interior modeL Intercomparison (CHILI) project; benchmarking planetary evolution codes in the context of Earth and Venus to identify key model sensitivities. Our 'nominal' Earth models predict magma ocean solidification timescales within 4 Myr of thermal evolution, and are consistent with empirical constraints on Earth's early history. Venus scenarios exhibit more diverse behaviours where prolonged magma ocean stages can be conditionally sustained for 50 Myr. Cooling timescales correlate with initial hydrogen and carbon budgets, but model-specific treatments of volatile partitioning and vertical energy transport introduce substantial inter-model variance. Different parametrisations of mantle geodynamics, convection, melting curves, rheological properties, and radiative transfer give rise to divergent evolutionary behaviours. Discrepancies in atmospheres generated by magma ocean outgassing underscore these differences, although C-H-O compositions with surface pressures exceeding 100 bar are favoured. This intercomparison identifies critical sensitivities in volatile partitioning, escape processes, mantle viscosity, and melting. Validating these treatments is essential for enabling deep insight into the early histories of the Solar System's terrestrial planets, and for drawing meaningful interpretations from ongoing observational exoplanet campaigns.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first results from the CHILI intercomparison project, in which multiple independent coupled atmosphere-interior evolution codes are benchmarked on the primordial magma-ocean solidification phase for Earth and Venus. Nominal Earth models are reported to solidify within 4 Myr and to be consistent with empirical constraints on early Earth; Venus models exhibit greater diversity, with some cases sustaining magma oceans for up to 50 Myr. Cooling timescales are stated to correlate with initial hydrogen and carbon budgets, while substantial inter-model variance is attributed to differences in volatile partitioning, vertical energy transport, mantle geodynamics, convection, melting curves, rheological properties, and radiative transfer. High-pressure (>100 bar) C-H-O atmospheres are favored across the ensemble.

Significance. If the reported ranges and attribution of variance hold, the work is significant because it systematically identifies key sensitivities in volatile handling, escape, and radiative transfer that affect interpretations of terrestrial-planet early histories and exoplanet observations. The participation of multiple independent modeling groups constitutes a clear methodological strength that lowers circularity risk relative to single-code studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claims that Earth models solidify 'within 4 Myr' and are 'consistent with empirical constraints,' and that Venus models can sustain magma oceans for '50 Myr,' are presented without the individual model outputs, standard deviations, or quantitative error bars needed to assess robustness or the magnitude of inter-model spread.
  2. [Results/Discussion] Results/Discussion: the attribution of inter-model variance primarily to differences in volatile partitioning, vertical energy transport, mantle geodynamics, convection, melting curves, rheology, and radiative transfer is stated without quantitative sensitivity tests or isolation of these effects from possible shared approximations (e.g., common initial-condition choices or equation-of-state assumptions) across the participating codes.
minor comments (2)
  1. The term 'nominal' models is used repeatedly but never explicitly defined with respect to the exact parameter values or selection criteria applied by each group.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from a table or figure that tabulates the initial H and C budgets adopted by each participating code alongside the resulting solidification times.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our CHILI intercomparison manuscript. The points raised highlight opportunities to improve the clarity of our summary claims and the discussion of model differences. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claims that Earth models solidify 'within 4 Myr' and are 'consistent with empirical constraints,' and that Venus models can sustain magma oceans for '50 Myr,' are presented without the individual model outputs, standard deviations, or quantitative error bars needed to assess robustness or the magnitude of inter-model spread.

    Authors: The abstract is intended as a concise summary of the primary outcomes from the ensemble of models. Individual model results, including the spread in solidification timescales, are presented in the results section with accompanying figures and tables. To better convey robustness, we will revise the abstract to explicitly note the range of outcomes across participating codes and the presence of inter-model variability. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results/Discussion] Results/Discussion: the attribution of inter-model variance primarily to differences in volatile partitioning, vertical energy transport, mantle geodynamics, convection, melting curves, rheology, and radiative transfer is stated without quantitative sensitivity tests or isolation of these effects from possible shared approximations (e.g., common initial-condition choices or equation-of-state assumptions) across the participating codes.

    Authors: The variance attribution follows directly from the documented differences in physical treatments and parameterizations among the independent codes. This initial intercomparison phase did not include dedicated one-at-a-time sensitivity experiments to isolate every factor. We will add a dedicated paragraph in the discussion that explicitly lists shared assumptions (initial conditions, EOS choices) across the ensemble and flags the need for targeted sensitivity studies in future CHILI phases. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are simulation outputs from independent codes

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes of an intercomparison project (CHILI) involving multiple independent modeling groups running their own codes on Earth and Venus magma ocean scenarios. The central claims—Earth solidification within 4 Myr and Venus up to 50 Myr under some conditions—are direct simulation results from nominal runs, not a derivation that reduces to fitted parameters or self-defined quantities within this manuscript. No equations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are presented that could exhibit self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation circularity. The attribution of inter-model variance to differences in volatile partitioning, energy transport, and other treatments is consistent with the benchmarking purpose and does not rely on any load-bearing self-citation chain. The work is self-contained as a report of cross-code empirical outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the premise that participating codes differ mainly in the listed physical treatments and that initial volatile budgets are the dominant control on cooling timescales. No explicit free parameters are named, but initial H and C budgets function as varied inputs. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • initial hydrogen and carbon budgets
    Cooling timescales are stated to correlate with these budgets across models, implying they are varied inputs that influence outcomes.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Different parametrisations of mantle geodynamics, convection, melting curves, rheological properties, and radiative transfer are the primary sources of divergent evolutionary behaviours
    Invoked to explain inter-model variance in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5925 in / 1531 out tokens · 32706 ms · 2026-06-25T22:11:55.994436+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

247 extracted references · 227 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    1997, Phys

    Abe, Y. 1997, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 100, 27, 10.1016/S0031-9201(96)03229-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s0031-9201(96)03229-3 1997

  2. [2]

    1985, Journal of Geophysical Research, 90, C545, 10.1029/jb090is02p0c545

    Abe, Y., & Matsui, T. 1985, Journal of Geophysical Research, 90, C545, 10.1029/jb090is02p0c545

    work page doi:10.1029/jb090is02p0c545 1985

  3. [3]

    2013, Canadian Journal of Physics, 91, 857, https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp-2012-0532

    Abel, M., & Frommhold, L. 2013, Canadian Journal of Physics, 91, 857, https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp-2012-0532

    work page doi:10.1139/cjp-2012-0532 2013

  4. [4]

    The Planetary Science Journal , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abd022 2021

  5. [5]

    PALEOS: Multiphase Equations of State and Mass-Radius Relations for Exoplanet Interiors

    Attia, M., Lichtenberg, T., Jungov a \' a , E., & Sastre, M. 2026, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2605.03741

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.03741 2026

  6. [6]

    2005, Nature, 436, 1127, 10.1038/nature03882

    Baker, J., Bizzarro, M., Wittig, N., Connelly, J., & Haack, H. 2005, Nature, 436, 1127, 10.1038/nature03882

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03882 2005

  7. [7]

    New evolutionary models for pre-main sequence and main sequence low-mass stars down to the hydrogen-burning limit

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  8. [8]

    2017, Sci

    Barboni, M., Boehnke, P., Keller, B., et al. 2017, Sci. Adv., 3, 10.1126/sciadv.1602365

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.1602365 2017

  9. [9]

    2017, Celest

    Barnes, R. 2017, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astr., 129, 509, 10.1007/s10569-017-9783-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10569-017-9783-7 2017

  10. [10]

    2021, Astrobiology, 21, 1325

    Barth, P., Carone, L., Barnes, R., et al. 2021, Astrobiology, 21, 1325

    2021

  11. [11]

    M., et al

    Baumeister, P., Miozzi, F., Guimond, C. M., et al. 2025, Space Sci. Rev., 221, 123, 10.1007/s11214-025-01248-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-025-01248-5 2025

  12. [12]

    Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets) , keywords =

    Bean, J. L., Raymond, S. N., & Owen, J. E. 2021, J. Geophys. Res. Planets, 126, e2020JE006639, 10.1029/2020JE006639

    work page doi:10.1029/2020je006639 2021

  13. [13]

    A., Hirschmann, M

    Bergin, E. A., Hirschmann, M. M., & Izidoro, A. 2026, Carbon from Interstellar Clouds to Habitable Worlds , arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2602.10308

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.10308 2026

  14. [14]

    Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., & Shah, V. B. 2017, SIAM R eview, 59, 65, 10.1137/141000671

    work page doi:10.1137/141000671 2017

  15. [15]

    E., Gaffney, A

    Borg, L. E., Gaffney, A. M., & Shearer, C. K. 2014, Meteorit. Planet. Sci., 50, 715, 10.1111/maps.12373

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.12373 2014

  16. [16]

    Bottinga, Y., & Weill, D. F. 1972, American Journal of Science, 272, 438, 10.2475/ajs.272.5.438

    work page doi:10.2475/ajs.272.5.438 1972

  17. [17]

    M., & Parman, S

    Boukar e \' e , C.-E., Parmentier, E. M., & Parman, S. W. 2018, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 491, 216, 10.1016/j.epsl.2018.03.037

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2018.03.037 2018

  18. [18]

    2025, Nature, 640, 114, 10.1038/s41586-025-08701-z

    Boukar e \' e , C.- E \' E ., Badro, J., & Samuel, H. 2025, Nature, 640, 114, 10.1038/s41586-025-08701-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08701-z 2025

  19. [19]

    J., Hakim, K., Sossi, P

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

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac5fb1 2022

  20. [20]

    Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors , author =

    Bower, D. J., Sanan, P., & Wolf, A. S. 2018, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 274, 49, 10.1016/j.pepi.2017.11.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2017.11.004 2018

  21. [21]

    J., Thompson , M

    Bower , D. J., Thompson , M. A., Hakim , K., Tian , M., & Sossi , P. A. 2025, , 995, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1479

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1479 2025

  22. [22]

    Box, G. E. P. 1976, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71, 791, 10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949

    work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949 1976

  23. [23]

    A., Bagenal, F., Ma, Y.-J., Nilsson, H., & Wieser, G

    Brain, D. A., Bagenal, F., Ma, Y.-J., Nilsson, H., & Wieser, G. S. 2016, J. Geophys. Res. Planets, 121, 2364, 10.1002/2016JE005162

    work page doi:10.1002/2016je005162 2016

  24. [24]

    K., Ghail , R

    Byrne , P. K., Ghail , R. C., S eng \"o r , A. M. C., et al. 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 118, e2025919118, 10.1073/pnas.2025919118

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2025919118 2021

  25. [25]

    Cameron, A. G. W., & Ward, W. R. 1976, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 7, 120. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976LPI.....7..120C/abstract

    1976

  26. [26]

    M., & Asphaug, E

    Canup, R. M., & Asphaug, E. 2001, Nature, 412, 708, 10.1038/35089010

    work page doi:10.1038/35089010 2001

  27. [27]

    2025, , 693, A303, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450307

    Carone , L., Barnes , R., Noack , L., et al. 2025, , 693, A303, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450307

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450307 2025

  28. [28]

    J., Valley, J

    Cavosie, A. J., Valley, J. W., Wilde, S. A., & F., E. I. M. 2005, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 235, 663, 10.1016/j.epsl.2005.04.028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2005.04.028 2005

  29. [29]

    L., et al

    Chaverot, G. L., et al. In prep., Planet. Sci. J

  30. [30]

    Chen, E. M. A., & Nimmo, F. 2016, Icarus, 275, 132, 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.04.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.04.012 2016

  31. [31]

    J., et al

    Cherubim, C., Wordsworth, R., Bower, D. J., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 983, 97

    2025

  32. [32]

    I., Perets, H

    Citron, R. I., Perets, H. B., & Aharonson, O. 2018, Astrophys. J., 862, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca2d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaca2d 2018

  33. [33]

    Clark , W. C. 1982, Carbon Dioxide Review (New York: Oxford University Press), 469

    1982

  34. [34]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/adcd5f 2025

  35. [35]

    2026, Mon

    Constantinou, T., Shorttle, O., & Nicholls, H. 2026, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 548, stag823, 10.1093/mnras/stag823

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag823 2026

  36. [36]

    Constantinou, T., Shorttle, O., & Rimmer, P. B. 2025, Nat. Astron., 9, 189, 10.1038/s41550-024-02414-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02414-5 2025

  37. [37]

    2009, Geochem

    Costa, A., Caricchi, L., & Bagdassarov, N. 2009, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 10, 10.1029/2008GC002138

    work page doi:10.1029/2008gc002138 2009

  38. [38]

    Cronin, T. W. 2014, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 2994, 10.1175/JAS-D-13-0392.1

    work page doi:10.1175/jas-d-13-0392.1 2014

  39. [39]

    Dalrymple, G. B. 2001, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 190, 205, 10.1144/GSL.SP.2001.190.01.14

    work page doi:10.1144/gsl.sp.2001.190.01.14 2001

  40. [40]

    2013, Rev

    Dasgupta, R. 2013, Rev. Mineral. Geochem., 75, 183, 10.2138/rmg.2013.75.7

    work page doi:10.2138/rmg.2013.75.7 2013

  41. [41]

    2017, Nature, 541, 521, 10.1038/nature20830

    Dauphas, N. 2017, Nature, 541, 521, 10.1038/nature20830

    work page doi:10.1038/nature20830 2017

  42. [42]

    2016, Nature, 532, 207, 10.1038/nature17169

    Demory, B.-O., Gillon, M., de Wit, J., et al. 2016, Nature, 532, 207, 10.1038/nature17169

    work page doi:10.1038/nature17169 2016

  43. [43]

    2022 , author =

    Dr a \.z kowska, J., Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M., et al. 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, 717, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09759

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09759 2023

  44. [44]

    Drilleau, M., Samuel, H., Verhoeven, O., et al. 2026, J. Geophys. Res. Planets, 131, e2025JE009303, 10.1029/2025JE009303

    work page doi:10.1029/2025je009303 2026

  45. [45]

    Elkins-Tanton, L. T. 2008, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 271, 181, 10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.062

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.062 2008

  46. [46]

    2012, Annual review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40, 113, 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105503

    ---. 2012, Annual review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40, 113, 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105503

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105503 2012

  47. [47]

    2022, Astron

    Farhat, M., Auclair-Desrotour, P., Bou e \' e , G., & Laskar, J. 2022, Astron. Astrophys., 665, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243445

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243445 2022

  48. [48]

    2025, Astrophys

    Farhat, M., Auclair-Desrotour, P., Bou e \' e , G., Lichtenberg, T., & Laskar, J. 2025, Astrophys. J., 979, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b93

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b93 2025

  49. [49]

    A., Campbell, A

    Fischer, R. A., Campbell, A. J., Shofner, G. A., et al. 2011, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 304, 496, 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.02.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.02.025 2011

  50. [50]

    Foley, B. J. 2015, Astrophys. J., 812, 36, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/36

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/36 2015

  51. [51]

    F., Ahlers, J

    Fromont, E. F., Ahlers, J. P., do Amaral, L. N. R., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 961, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0e0e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0e0e 2024

  52. [52]

    Frost, B. R. 1991, Chapter 1.INTRODUCTION TO OXYGEN FUGACITY AND ITS PETROLOGIC IMPORTANCE (Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter), 1--10, doi:10.1515/9781501508684-004

    work page doi:10.1515/9781501508684-004 1991

  53. [53]

    J., & McCammon, C

    Frost, D. J., & McCammon, C. A. 2008, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 36, 389, 10.1146/annurev.earth.36.031207.124322

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.36.031207.124322 2008

  54. [54]

    E., Meadows, V

    Garcia, R., Barnes, R., Driscoll, P. E., Meadows, V. S., & Gialluca, M. 2026, Planet. Sci. J., 7, 120, 10.3847/PSJ/ae5248

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ae5248 2026

  55. [55]

    B., Getty, S

    Garvin, J. B., Getty, S. A., Arney, G. N., et al. 2022, Planet. Sci. J., 3, 117, 10.3847/PSJ/ac63c2

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac63c2 2022

  56. [56]

    2016, Geochem

    Genda, H. 2016, Geochem. J., 50, 27, 10.2343/geochemj.2.0398

    work page doi:10.2343/geochemj.2.0398 2016

  57. [57]

    C., Smrekar , S

    Ghail , R. C., Smrekar , S. E., Widemann , T., et al. 2024, , 220, 36, 10.1007/s11214-024-01065-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-024-01065-2 2024

  58. [58]

    S., Hirschmann, M

    Ghiorso, M. S., Hirschmann, M. M., Reiners, P. W., & Kress, V. C. 2002, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 3, 1, 10.1029/2001GC000217

    work page doi:10.1029/2001gc000217 2002

  59. [59]

    K., Driscoll, P

    Gilbert-Janizek, S., Barnes, R. K., Driscoll, P. E., et al. 2026, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2602.02267

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.02267 2026

  60. [60]

    Gillmann, C., & Tackley, P. 2014, J. Geophys. Res. Planets, 119, 1189, 10.1002/2013JE004505

    work page doi:10.1002/2013je004505 2014

  61. [61]

    J., Avice, G., et al

    Gillmann, C., Way, M. J., Avice, G., et al. 2022, Space Sci. Rev., 218, 56, 10.1007/s11214-022-00924-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00924-0 2022

  62. [62]

    2017, Space Sci

    Gilmore, M., Treiman, A., Helbert, J., & Smrekar, S. 2017, Space Sci. Rev., 212, 1511, 10.1007/s11214-017-0370-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0370-8 2017

  63. [63]

    Grinspoon, D. H. 1993, Nature, 363, 428, 10.1038/363428a0

    work page doi:10.1038/363428a0 1993

  64. [64]

    A., Myers, D., & Emery, K

    Gueymard, C. A., Myers, D., & Emery, K. 2002, Sol. Energy, 73, 443, 10.1016/S0038-092X(03)00005-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0038-092x(03)00005-7 2002

  65. [65]

    G \"u lcher , A. J. P., Gerya , T. V., Mont \'e si , L. G. J., & Munch , J. 2020, Nature Geoscience, 13, 547, 10.1038/s41561-020-0606-110.31223/x5jk88

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-020-0606-110.31223/x5jk88 2020

  66. [66]

    N., & Canup, R

    Halliday, A. N., & Canup, R. M. 2023, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 4, 19, 10.1038/s43017-022-00370-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s43017-022-00370-0 2023

  67. [67]

    2013, Nature, 497, 607, 10.1038/nature12163

    Hamano, K., Abe, Y., & Genda, H. 2013, Nature, 497, 607, 10.1038/nature12163

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12163 2013

  68. [68]

    J., Lourenco, D., & Westall, F

    Hamano, K., Gillmann, C., Golabek, G. J., Lourenco, D., & Westall, F. 2025, in Treatise on Geochemistry (Third edition), third edition edn., ed. A. Anbar & D. Weis (Oxford: Elsevier), 541--574, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99762-1.00104-2

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-99762-1.00104-2 2025

  69. [69]

    Hamano , K., Kawahara , H., Abe , Y., Onishi , M., & Hashimoto , G. L. 2015, , 806, 216, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/216

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/216 2015

  70. [70]

    M., Lichtenberg, T., et al

    Hammond, M., Guimond, C. M., Lichtenberg, T., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 978, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada0bc

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada0bc 2025

  71. [71]

    Harris and K

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

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

  72. [72]

    Hay, H. C. F. C., & Matsuyama, I. 2019, Astrophys. J., 875, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c21

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c21 2019

  73. [73]

    2019, Annu

    Helling, C. 2019, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 47, 583, 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060401

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060401 2019

  74. [74]

    Herath , M., Boukar \'e , C.- \'E ., & Cowan , N. B. 2024, , 535, 2404, 10.1093/mnras/stae2431

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2431 2024

  75. [75]

    Hier-Majumder, S., & Hirschmann, M. M. 2017, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 18, 3078, 10.1002/2017GC006937

    work page doi:10.1002/2017gc006937 2017

  76. [76]

    2013, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 41, 657, 10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124007

    Hirose, K., Labrosse, S., & Hernlund, J. 2013, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 41, 657, 10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124007

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124007 2013

  77. [77]

    2022, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 328, 221

    Hirschmann, M. 2022, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 328, 221

    2022

  78. [78]

    Hirschmann, M. M. 2000, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 1, 10.1029/2000GC000070

    work page doi:10.1029/2000gc000070 2000

  79. [79]

    2012, Earth Planet

    ---. 2012, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 341-344, 48, 10.1016/j.epsl.2012.06.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2012.06.015 2012

  80. [80]

    2025, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2511.01231

    Huang, D., & Dorn, C. 2025, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2511.01231

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.01231 2025

Showing first 80 references.