Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Modern Earth-like Chemical Disequilibrium Biosignatures Are Challenging To Constrain Through Spectroscopic Retrievals

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Chemical disequilibrium on a modern Earth twin is only inferable when methane is pinned down; reflected-light spectra up to SNR 40 cannot do it, and JWST MIRI transit spectra need 1–2 ppm noise.

desk verdict Modern Earth chemical disequilibrium is a tough biosignature to constrain—this paper gives useful numbers, but the AGFE coupling step should be fixed before quoting them. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16231 v1 pith:LUL2ODPI submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.EP

Amber Young , Tyler Robinson , Joshua Krissansen-Totton , Edward Schwieterman , Giada Arney , Gerrick Lindberg , Cristina Thomas This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords chemicaldisequilibriumavailableGibbsfreeenergybiosignaturegasesexoplanetatmosphericretrievalreflectedlightspectroscopytransitJWSTMIRITRAPPIST-1e
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Modern Earth's atmosphere is out of chemical equilibrium because biology pumps oxygen and methane into it at the same time, and the paper asks whether that imbalance can be seen from another star. It couples atmospheric retrievals of simulated spectra to a thermodynamics model that computes the available Gibbs free energy $\Phi$, the gap between the observed composition and its theoretical equilibrium state. The answer depends almost entirely on how well oxygen, methane, and temperature are known. In reflected light at signal-to-noise ratios of 10, 20, and 40, methane at modern Earth abundance is effectively unconstrained, so the inferred $\Phi$ is biased low by about an order of magnitude and only upper limits are possible. In transit around TRAPPIST-1e with JWST MIRI, tight constraints on $\Phi$ require noise of 1–2 ppm and disappear at 5 ppm.

What carries the argument

The available Gibbs free energy, $\Phi \equiv \Delta_f G(T,P,\{N_i\}_{\rm obs}) - \Delta_f G(T,P,\{N_i\}_{\rm eqm})$, is the metric that carries the argument. The pipeline that produces it works by running an MCMC retrieval on a synthetic spectrum, then randomly drawing the marginal posterior distributions of seven retrieved parameters — surface pressure, atmospheric temperature, and the O$_2$, H$_2$O, CO$_2$, O$_3$, and CH$_4$ mixing ratios — and feeding those draws into a Gibbs free energy minimization model that computes the distance between the observed composition and the equilibrium composition. The paper's sensitivity claims follow from how this pipeline responds to different noise levels: the CH$_4$ marginal posterior, and the temperature that enters the thermodynamic calculation, are what control whether the resulting $\Phi$ distribution peaks near the truth or collapses into an upper limit.

What would settle it

Re-run the same simulated retrievals but compute the Gibbs free energy by drawing all seven inputs from the full MCMC joint chain instead of from independent marginals; if the resulting available Gibbs free energy posterior shifts significantly from the paper's distributions, the coupling scheme is the limiting assumption. Alternatively, a real JWST MIRI transit observation of TRAPPIST-1e reaching 5 ppm noise that still recovers both O$_2$ and CH$_4$ would rule out the claimed 5 ppm loss of the disequilibrium signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the detectability of modern Earth-like chemical disequilibrium biosignatures is limited by the observable gases that carry the disequilibrium, not by the thermodynamics itself. For a modern Earth analog observed in reflected light, O$_2$ is constrained to within an order of magnitude at all tested SNRs, but CH$_4$ at its 2 ppm surface mixing ratio is only an upper limit, and the resulting available Gibbs free energy posterior is biased low by roughly an order of magnitude. For a modern Earth analog transiting a late M dwarf and observed with JWST MIRI from 5 to 12 µm, the higher CH$_4$ abundance of the M-dwarf case makes the available Gibbs free energy ($\sim 320$ J mol$^{-1}$ versus $\sim 1$ J mol$^{-1}$ for the Sun case) potentially constrainable, but only at instrument noise of 1–2 ppm; at 5 ppm both O$_2$ and CH$_4$ go unconstrained and the disequilibrium signal is lost. The paper gives the minimum SNR for a reflected-light CH$_4$ detection at modern Earth abundance as 192, computed by summing the wavelength-dependent SNR across the 1.64–1.7 µm feature.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that randomly drawing each retrieved parameter from its own marginal posterior is as good as drawing from the full joint posterior; if methane is correlated with temperature or clouds, the available Gibbs free energy distribution produced this way is not the true joint distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For direct imaging of a modern Earth twin, available Gibbs free energy will usually be an upper limit unless methane can be detected, which requires roughly SNR 192 in the 1.64–1.7 µm band.
  • A reflected-light observation at SNR 40 that fails to constrain methane will place the inferred Gibbs free energy about an order of magnitude below the true value, making a biotically active planet look closer to thermodynamic equilibrium than it is.
  • For a transiting Earth-like planet around a late M dwarf, JWST MIRI can deliver tight Gibbs free energy constraints only if the noise floor is near 1–2 ppm; at 5 ppm the O$_2$–CH$_4$ disequilibrium signal is lost.
  • In the M-dwarf case the available Gibbs free energy is comparable in magnitude to Mars's abiotically generated value, so a chemical disequilibrium detection alone cannot distinguish biology from photochemistry; identifying the species driving the signal is required.
  • Chemical disequilibrium is best treated as one line of evidence in a hierarchy of biosignatures rather than a standalone life-detection metric.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not validate the independent-marginal sampling scheme against joint-chain draws; if CH$_4$ correlates with temperature or clouds, the quoted Gibbs free energy posteriors are not the true joint posteriors.
  • Because the transit simulations are cloud-free, they likely represent an optimistic bound; including high-altitude clouds would probably require even lower noise than 1–2 ppm.
  • Using O$_3$ as an O$_2$ proxy in the coupled pipeline, which the paper mentions as a possibility, could tighten the oxygen side of the disequilibrium constraint in reflected light.
  • The same retrieval-to-thermodynamics coupling could be applied to any exoplanet spectrum to screen for thermodynamic imbalance, making it a general agnostic-biosignature tool rather than an Earth-specific one.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper couples the rfast atmospheric retrieval code to a Gibbs free energy thermodynamics model in order to infer the available Gibbs free energy (AGFE) of modern Earth-like exoplanet analogs. For reflected-light observations of an Earth-Sun twin at V-band SNRs of 10, 20, and 40, the authors find that CH4 is only upper-limit constrained and that the resulting AGFE posterior is biased low by about an order of magnitude. For a TRAPPIST-1e analog observed in transit with JWST MIRI at 1, 2, and 5 ppm noise, they report tight AGFE constraints only at 1-2 ppm, with the signal becoming unconstrained at 5 ppm. The AGFE posterior is constructed by independently sampling the marginal posteriors of seven retrieved parameters and passing those draws to the thermodynamics model (Section 2.3, Figure 2).

Significance. If the quantitative thresholds survive a proper joint-posterior propagation, this is a useful benchmark for future life-detection observing strategies. The study is an injection-recovery test in which the same forward model generates the synthetic observation and is used in the retrieval, so it measures pipeline self-consistency rather than an independent measurement; this is appropriate for a detectability study. Strengths include explicit burn-in and convergence checks (Section 2.1), a constant-profile control retrieval that removes known isoprofile/isothermal biases (Appendix Figure 11), and public data and code links. The central quantitative claims, however, rest on an unvalidated independence assumption in the coupling step, so the reported noise thresholds should be treated as conditional until that assumption is tested.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.3, Figure 2] The AGFE posterior is built by "randomly sampling the marginal posterior distributions" of P0, T0, O2, H2O, CO2, O3, and CH4. This is equivalent to drawing from the product of seven one-dimensional marginals, which equals the joint posterior only if the parameters are independent. The paper does not establish independence: the appendix corner plots (Figures 12-17) are the natural diagnostic, but no covariance summary or independence test is reported, and correlations are plausible (e.g., CH4 and T0 both affect overlapping water/methane features; Section 3.2 already reports profile-induced biases in P0 and O3). Because every AGFE posterior in Figures 7 and 10 is produced through this step, the central quantitative claims—CH4-limited AGFE detection for reflected light at SNRs 10-40, and tight AGFE only at 1-2 ppm transit noise with loss at 5 ppm—are not robust until the propagation is repeated with draws from the joint MCMC posterior or the independence assumption is explicitly validated. The independent-marginal scheme also risks generating unphysical parameter combinations, such as mixing ratios summing above unity; the manuscript does not describe any rejection or constraint applied during the N2 back-fill.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (4)] The reflected-light retrieval adopts isothermal, constant-mixing-ratio profiles while the synthetic data are generated from altitude-dependent Atmos profiles. The authors show that this assumption biases P0 substantially high (about an order of magnitude in Section 3.2; a factor of 5 in Section 4) and biases O3 relative to the column average. They assert that these parameters have a negligible effect on the AGFE, but no sensitivity test is provided. Since Eq. (4) contains an explicit pressure term, RU T ln(NiP/NP°), a quantitative check—for example, propagating the constant-profile control retrieval (Figure 11) through the thermodynamics model, or recomputing the AGFE with the biased P0—is needed to separate the claimed low-bias AGFE result from retrieval-systematics effects.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] Equations (1)-(3) mix scalar and vector notation in a way that is hard to follow; a short notation table would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Section 3.2] The text says observations have "constant noise specified at V-band," while Section 2.1 says the noise model simulates "constant signal-to-noise along the full wavelength range"; these statements should be reconciled.
  3. [Section 4] The calculation of the SNR 192 requirement for a CH4 detection is not described; the readership cannot reproduce this number without the spectral-differencing formula and the assumed noise scaling.
  4. [Figures 7 and 10] The AGFE posterior distributions should be summarized numerically (median and credible interval) in the text or captions, since the visual histograms alone do not support the stated "tight" versus "unconstrained" thresholds.
  5. [General] Several typographical and wording issues remain, including "Therfastretrieval model" in Section 2.1, "affect" for "effect" in Section 3.2, and "repoted" in Section 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AGFE posteriors are obtained by propagating retrieval posteriors through a published thermodynamics model, and no target quantity is used as a fitted input.

full rationale

This paper is an injection-recovery study: the rfast forward model generates synthetic reflected-light and transit spectra, the retrieval framework recovers atmospheric parameters, and the thermodynamics model converts those retrieved parameters into posterior distributions for the available Gibbs free energy (AGFE). No free constant is fitted to the AGFE values themselves, and the reported detectability conclusions follow from the widths and biases of the retrieval posteriors rather than from any input that already encodes the answer. The AGFE metric is taken from Krissansen-Totton et al. (2016), a prior paper that includes a co-author of the present work, but that metric is an externally published thermodynamic definition and is not redefined by the retrieval outputs; citing it is legitimate support, not circularity. Similarly, the rfast retrieval code originates in Robinson & Salvador (2023), co-authored by another author of this paper, but it is public software with an established forward model and is not used to force the target result. The main methodological concern, noted in Section 2.3 and Figure 2, is that the coupled model randomly samples the marginal posterior distributions of O2, CH4, H2O, CO2, O3, P0, and T0 and treats the product of marginals as the joint posterior for AGFE propagation. If these parameters are correlated, the resulting AGFE distribution could be too narrow or incorrectly centered. This is a statistical validity risk rather than circularity, because the output is not equivalent to the input by construction; it is a propagation approximation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against its stated inputs, and the self-citations are to prior methods and metrics that carry independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the accepted radiative transfer and Gibbs free energy formalisms, on modeling choices for the atmospheric state, and on one untested statistical assumption about how retrieval posteriors are propagated. No new entities or fitted constants are introduced by this paper.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption rfast radiative transfer and noise models accurately represent reflected-light and transit spectra of Earth-like atmospheres.
    The study is an injection-recovery test: the same forward model generates the synthetic observations and is used for retrieval, so detectability is evaluated relative to the model's own spectral features (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Available Gibbs free energy, computed with the Krissansen-Totton et al. (2016) thermodynamics model, is a valid remote metric for chemical disequilibrium.
    Section 2.2 adopts this metric from prior work and uses it as the target quantity; the paper does not independently validate the metric against observations.
  • domain assumption Gas-phase only AGFE, with ocean and multiphase contributions excluded, is a conservative and adequate measure for remote sensing.
    Sections 2.2 and 4 explicitly restrict calculations to gas phase because ocean state is not observable remotely; this makes reported disequilibrium a lower bound.
  • domain assumption Retrieval forward models with isothermal and constant mixing ratio profiles are adequate for the simulated observations.
    Section 3.2 notes this causes high-SNR biases in P0 and O3; the authors verify with a constant-profile case that biases disappear, but the AGFE posteriors come from the isoprofile retrievals.
  • ad hoc to paper Independently sampling marginal posteriors is equivalent to sampling the joint posterior when propagating to AGFE.
    Section 2.3 states random sampling of marginal posteriors; covariances among O2, CH4, T0, and pressure are not propagated, and no validation against joint-chain draws is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modern Earth-like Chemical Disequilibrium Biosignatures Are Challenging To Constrain Through Spectroscopic Retrievals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LUL2ODPI

@misc{pith2026250516231,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modern Earth-like Chemical Disequilibrium Biosignatures Are Challenging To Constrain Through Spectroscopic Retrievals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LUL2ODPI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16231}
}
read the original abstract

Robust exoplanet characterization studies are underway, and the community is looking ahead toward developing observational strategies to search for life beyond our solar system. With the development of life detection approaches like searching for atmospheric chemical species indicative of life, chemical disequilibrium has also been proposed as a potentially key signature for life. Chemical disequilibrium can arise from the production of waste gases due to biological processes and can be quantified using a metric known as the available Gibbs free energy. The main goal of this study was to explore the detectability of chemical disequilibrium for a modern Earth-like analog. Atmospheric retrievals coupled to a thermodynamics model were used to determine posterior distributions for the available Gibbs free energy given simulated observations at various noise levels. In reflected light, chemical disequilibrium signals were difficult to detect and limited by the constraints on the CH4 abundance, which was challenging to constrain for a modern Earth case with simulated observations spanning ultraviolet through near-infrared wavelengths with V-band SNRs of 10, 20, and 40. For a modern Earth analog orbiting a late-type M dwarf, we simulated transit observations with the James Webb Space Telescope Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) and found that tight constraints on the available Gibbs free energy can be achieved, but only at extremely low noise on the order of several ppm. This study serves as further proof of concept for remotely inferring chemical disequilibrium biosignatures and should be included in continuing to build life detection strategies for future exoplanet characterization missions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16231 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. is the gas phase chemical disequilibrium calculation of a modern Earth twin using the Gibbs free energy model. The x-axis lists the chemical species included in the calculation (i.e., N2, O2, H2O, Ar, CO2, Ne, He, CH4, Kr, H2, N2O, CO, Xe, O3, and HCl) with the exception of the inert species, which have abundances that do not vary between the observed and equilibrium states. The blue vertical bars represent the obse… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A schematic that outlines the step-by-step process for coupling the atmospheric retrievals to the thermodynamics model. In green are the start and end steps, which include starting with an initial atmospheric state and ending with a statistical posterior for the available Gibbs free energy (AGFE). The purple step indicates the point at which the retrievals are coupled to the thermodynamics modeling via random sampli… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectra for modern Earth in reflected light (left) and a modern Earth analog atmospheric setup for TRAPPIST-1e in transit (right). The color coded tick marks indicate the central wavelength of the absorption feature for a given species where blue ticks indicate H2O features, brown ticks are for O3 features, orange ticks are for CH4 features, and red ticks indicate O2 absorption features. The scale of the error bars … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Altitudinal atmospheric profiles for the modern Earth-Sun case (solid lines) and modern Earth-M dwarf case (dashed lines). In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Marginal posterior results for O2, CH4 and T0 derived from simulated direct imaging observations at SNRs of 10 (blue hatched), 20 (orange), and 40 (green). Black vertical dashed lines indicate the input value for each parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Marginal posterior results for H2O, CO2 O3, and P0 derived from simulated direct imaging observations at noise instances of 10 (blue hatched), 20 (orange) and 40 (green) SNR. Input values are indicated with a black vertical dashed line. The marginal posterior distribut…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the available Gibbs free energy in units of Joules per mole of atmosphere for a modern Earth-like planet observed in reflected light. The resulting Gibbs free energy is inferred from simulated reflected light observations performed at SNRs of 10 (blue hatched), 2…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Marginal posterior results for O2, CH4 and T0 derived from simulated transit observations at 1 (green filled) 2 (orange) and 5 (blue hatched) ppm noise levels. Input values are indicated with a black vertical dashed line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Marginal posterior results for H2O, CO2, O3, and P0 derived from simulated transit observations performed at noise instances of 1 (green filled), 2 (orange), and 5 (blue hatched) ppm. Input values are indicated with a black vertical dashed line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Available Gibbs free energy posterior derived from simulated transit observations of a modern Earth-like exoplanet with JWST MIRI instrumentation. For comparison, the available Gibbs free energies of worlds around the sun are provided. Shown are the available Gibbs fr…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The full 14-parameter corner plot for an SNR 40 simulated observational scenario assuming isoprofiles. One￾dimensional marginal posterior distributions are shown along the diagonal with associated truth values and the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentile values indicated a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The full 14-parameter corner plot for the SNR 10 simulated observational scenario presented in Section 3.2. One￾dimensional marginal posterior distributions are shown along the diagonal with associated truth values and the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentile values indica…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The full 9-parameter corner plot for the 5 ppm simulated observational scenario presented in Section 3.3. One￾dimensional marginal posterior distributions are shown along the diagonal with associated truth values and the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentile values indicate…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Meadows, V

    Arney, G., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 873, doi: 10.1089/ast.2015.1422

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Arney, G. N. 2019, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 873, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0651

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0651 2019

  3. [3]

    N., Meadows, V

    Arney, G. N., Meadows, V. S., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/49

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/49 2017

  4. [4]

    K., Changeat, Q., Garland, R., et al

    Barstow, J. K., Changeat, Q., Garland, R., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 493, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa548

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa548 2020

  5. [5]

    2012, Astrophysical Journal, 753, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/100

    Benneke, B., & Seager, S. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 753, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/100

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/100 2012

  6. [6]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977 24Young et al

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    J., et al

    Cubillos, P., Harrington, J., Loredo, T. J., et al. 2017, Astronomical Journal, 153, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/3

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/3 2017

  8. [8]

    D., & Charbonneau, D

    Dressing, C. D., & Charbonneau, D. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/95

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/95 2013

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    2019, Thermodynamics, Statistical Thermodynamics, and Kinetics, 4th edn

    Engel, T., & Reid, P. 2019, Thermodynamics, Statistical Thermodynamics, and Kinetics, 4th edn. (New York: Pearson Education)

    2019

  2. [10]

    J., Villanueva, G

    Fauchez, T. J., Villanueva, G. L., Schwieterman, E. W., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 372, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0977-7

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    K., Robinson, T

    Feng, Y. K., Robinson, T. D., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2018, Astronomical Journal, 155, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab95c

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al

    Gaudi, B. S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 600, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0549-2

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Line, M

    Greene, T. P., Line, M. R., Montero, C., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 17, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/17

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    R., & Lovelock, J

    Hitchcock, D. R., & Lovelock, J. E. 1967, Icarus, 7, 149, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(67)90059-0

    1967 doi

  8. [16]

    M., & Buchhave, L

    Kozakis, T., Mendon¸ ca, J. M., & Buchhave, L. A. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244164

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    S., & Catling, D

    Krissansen-Totton, J., Bergsman, D. S., & Catling, D. C. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 39, doi: 10.1089/ast.2015.1327

    2016

  10. [18]

    Krissansen-Totton, J., Garland, R., Irwin, P., & Catling, D. C. 2018a, Astronomical Journal, 156, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad564

    doi

  11. [19]

    Krissansen-Totton, J., Olson, S., & Catling, D. C. 2018b, Science Advances, 4, eaao5747, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aao5747

    doi

  12. [20]

    R., Wolf, A

    Line, M. R., Wolf, A. S., Zhang, X., et al. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 775, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/137

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    1975, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Lovelock, J. 1975, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 189, 167, doi: 10.1098/rspb.1975.0051

    1975

  14. [22]

    Lovelock, J. E. 1965, Nature, 207, 568, doi: 10.1038/207568a0

    1965 doi

  15. [23]

    E., Marley, M

    Lupu, R. E., Marley, M. S., Lewis, N., et al. 2016, Astronomical Journal, 152, 217, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/217

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    S., & Lincowski, A

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Meadows, V. S., & Lincowski, A. P. 2019, Astrophysical Journal, 158, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab21e0

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    J., & Batalha, N

    MacDonald, R. J., & Batalha, N. E. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 54, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acc46a

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/24

    Madhusudhan, N., & Seager, S. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/24

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    Meadows, V. S. 2017, Astrobiology, 17, 1022, doi: 10.1089/ast.2016.1578

    2017

  20. [28]

    S., Reinhard, C

    Meadows, V. S., Reinhard, C. T., Arney, G. N., et al. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 630, doi: 10.1089/ast.2017.1727

    2018

  21. [29]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 165, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd175

    Ment, K., & Charbonneau, D. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 165, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd175

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Howard, A

    Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., & Marcy, G. W. 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 110, 19273, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319909110

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    D., & Kopparapu, R

    Domagal-Goldman, S. D., & Kopparapu, R. K. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 898, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba4a1

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2015

  25. [33]

    Roberge, A., & Moustakas, L. A. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 605, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0543-8

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Robinson, T. D. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ea8

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    D., & Salvador, A

    Robinson, T. D., & Salvador, A. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 10, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acac9a

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    2015, Astrophysical Journal, 806, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/137

    Rugheimer, S., Segura, A., Kaltenegger, L., & Sasselov, D. 2015, Astrophysical Journal, 806, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/137

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    K., Liu, R., & Wang, A

    Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., Liu, R., & Wang, A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 928, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5b6f

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    1993, Nature, 365, 715, doi: 10.1038/365715a0

    Hord, C. 1993, Nature, 365, 715, doi: 10.1038/365715a0

    1993 doi

  31. [39]

    W., Kiang, N

    Schwieterman, E. W., Kiang, N. Y., Parenteau, M. N., et al. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 663, doi: 10.1089/ast.2017.1729

    2018

  32. [40]

    F., Meadows, V., et al

    Segura, A., Kasting, J. F., Meadows, V., et al. 2005, Astrobiology, 5, 706, doi: 10.1089/ast.2005.5.706

    2005 doi

  33. [41]

    2013, Earth System Dynamics, 4, 317, doi: 10.5194/esd-4-317-201310.5194/esdd-3-1287-2012

    Simoncini, E., Virgo, N., & Kleidon, A. 2013, Earth System Dynamics, 4, 317, doi: 10.5194/esd-4-317-201310.5194/esdd-3-1287-2012

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d99

    Youngblood, A., & Arney, G. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d99

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    L., et al

    Wunderlich, F., Godolt, M., Grenfell, J. L., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 624, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834504 Modern Earth Chemical Disequilibrium Biosignature Constraints25

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    V., Robinson, T

    Young, A. V., Robinson, T. D., Krissansen-Totton, J., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 101, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02145-z

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.