pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20340 · v1 · pith:QGQJ4EWOnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Unraveling the Mystery of the Peculiar and Young Hot Jupiter CoRoT-2b. I. H₂O and CO Detection from Dayside Observations with Gemini-S/IGRINS

Ying Shu , Lisa Dang , Antoine Darveau-Bernier , Aurora Kesseli , Luc Bazinet , Justin Lipper , Stefan Pelletier , Romain Allart
show 7 more authors
Nicolas B. Cowan David Lafreni\'ere Emily Rauscher Alejandro S\'anchez-L\'opez Bj\"orn Benneke Anne Boucher Ren\'e Doyon
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 00:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords hot Jupiterexoplanet atmospherehigh-resolution spectroscopymolecular detectionCoRoT-2bC/O ratioH2OCO
0
0 comments X

The pith

High-resolution spectroscopy detects H2O and CO in the atmosphere of hot Jupiter CoRoT-2b

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

This paper reports pre-eclipse observations of the young hot Jupiter CoRoT-2b with the IGRINS spectrograph on Gemini South. Cross-correlation analysis isolates the planet's Doppler-shifted thermal emission at SNR 4.32 and identifies water vapor plus carbon monoxide through two independent reduction and retrieval pipelines. The resulting abundances yield a supersolar C/O ratio of 0.91 together with subsolar metallicity, while ruling out several other molecules. A sympathetic reader would care because these first high-resolution constraints show the dayside spectrum is chemically complex rather than featureless, as earlier lower-resolution work had suggested, and supply new data on atmospheric structure for a planet already known to have an unusual westward hotspot.

Core claim

The authors claim that Gemini-S/IGRINS pre-eclipse spectra reveal the Doppler-shifted dayside emission of CoRoT-2b at SNR 4.32, with H2O detected at 2.6 sigma (log10 abundance -5.08) and CO at 2.3 sigma (log10 abundance -4.21) using fully independent pipelines; no significant CH4, CO2, TiO or VO is found, the spectrum lacks features shortward of 1.7 micrometers, and the retrieved abundances imply supersolar C/O of 0.91 plus subsolar metallicity.

What carries the argument

Cross-correlation analysis of high-resolution near-infrared spectra to extract the planet's Doppler-shifted thermal emission, followed by atmospheric retrieval to derive molecular abundances and elemental ratios.

If this is right

  • CoRoT-2b's dayside spectrum contains molecular features from H2O and CO rather than appearing featureless.
  • High-altitude absorbers such as H- or clouds can explain the absence of features below 1.7 micrometers.
  • The supersolar C/O and subsolar metallicity provide new boundary conditions for formation and evolution models of this young planet.
  • These results establish a baseline for phase-resolved high-resolution observations aimed at mapping the westward hotspot offset.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same cross-correlation approach on other young hot Jupiters could test whether supersolar C/O is common among planets with unusual orbital or thermal properties.
  • Confirmation would show that ground-based high-resolution spectrographs can deliver useful abundance constraints on hot Jupiters even when space-based low-resolution data suggest featureless spectra.
  • Linking the short-wavelength opacity to the planet's youth and activity offers a testable route to connect atmospheric chemistry with interior and migration history.

Load-bearing premise

The cross-correlation peaks and retrieval fits arise from the planet's atmosphere rather than residual instrumental systematics or noise.

What would settle it

A separate higher-SNR observation with another instrument that either recovers the same H2O and CO abundances or returns a non-detection at comparable wavelengths would settle whether the marginal signals are planetary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20340 by Alejandro S\'anchez-L\'opez, Anne Boucher, Antoine Darveau-Bernier, Aurora Kesseli, Bj\"orn Benneke, David Lafreni\'ere, Emily Rauscher, Justin Lipper, Lisa Dang, Luc Bazinet, Nicolas B. Cowan, Ren\'e Doyon, Romain Allart, Stefan Pelletier, Ying Shu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top panel: Depiction of the observed or￾bital phase, covering a phase of 0.34 < ϕ < 0.45. Sec￾ond panel: Airmass variation during the pre-eclipse obser￾vation. No data was collected between phases 0.390 and 0.404, highlighted in blue. Airmass conditions steadily im￾proved throughout the observed phase. Third panel: Time evolution of the spectral mean of the S/N in the H-band per exposure. Bottom panel: Tem… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example of STARSHIPS reduction steps that are applied to the 15th spectral order of our IGRINS observations. The horizontal white and red bars in panels B to G are the masked spectrum due to the observation gap. Panel A: The uncorrected (black), the telluric-corrected (green) spectra, with offsets to enhance visibility, and the reconstructed telluric transmission spectrum (blue). All three spectra have bee… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Planet rest-frame cross-correlation time series of the best-fit planetary model (H2O, CO, OH, and HCN). Top panel: Normalized CCF from individual exposures as a function of vrad in the planetary rest frame by taking into account the systemic velocity of 23.245 km s−1 . The black dashed line indicates a planet path for vrad= 0 km s−1 . Bot￾tom panel: 1D CCF S/N curve. The CCF is normalized by dividing by th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cross-correlation maps of different species searched for in the atmosphere of CoRoT-2b. The detection significance of a signal is determined by computing the t-test. The dotted horizontal and vertical black lines indicate the expected Kp and vrad. Here planetary refers to the full atmospheric model. Overall, we detect H2O and CO absorption, observe hints of HCN and OH, but do not find any evidence for CH4,… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top-Left: The maximum likelihood spectra for our IGRINS-only (dark yellow) and the joint low- and high-resolution (green) retrievals with 10 atmospheric constituents (including molecules not detected in cross-correlation). We also include the 1σ and 2-σ confidence intervals for the joint retrieval. The shaded red region indicated the IGRINS bandpass and the HST/WFC3 and Spitzer/IRAC measurements as plotted… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Elemental abundance ratios in the atmosphere of CoRoT-2b. Left: The blue distribution represents the C/O computed based on the MCMC posterior of the abundance of carbon- and oxygen-bearing molecules from our joint retrieval. The dashed grey line marks the solar C/O ratio for reference. Right: Abundance ratio of Carbon and Oxygen relative to Hydrogen. the bluer wavelengths. Given that CoRoT-2b’s dayside tem… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: Overlay of retrieved CO and H2O T-P profiles which shows that they are in agreement within 1σ. bottom: The retrieved Kp and vrad from three different re￾trievals, joint retrieval combined with low-resolution data, H2O-only, and CO-only retrieval. The retrieved Kp and vrad from all three retrievals are in agreement within 1σ. pebbles, both during envelope accretion and potentially throughout later migr… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Corner plot for the free retrievals, showing only the molecules detected via cross correlation. The posterior distribu￾tions obtained from the retrieval using only the high-resolution IGRINS observations are shown in blue, while those from the retrieval combining the high-resolution data with low-resolution HST and Spitzer observations are shown in red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Corner plot for the free retrievals, showing both molecules detected via cross correlation and those that were not detected. The posterior distributions obtained from the retrieval using only the high-resolution IGRINS observations are shown in blue, while those from the retrieval combining the high-resolution data with low-resolution HST and Spitzer observations are shown in red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Corner plot and vertical temperature profile for the atmospheric parameters of CoRoT-2b determined from the independent analysis (Appendix C). Of the molecules, only bounded constraints are obtained for H2O, with the CO posterior still being consistent with being null at 3σ and only upper limits obtained for HCN, OH, CO2, and CH4. The retrieved temperature structure is non-inverted in the regions probed b… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present ground-based high-resolution spectroscopic pre-eclipse observations of the hot Jupiter CoRoT-2b obtained with the IGRINS spectrograph on Gemini South. Using cross-correlation analysis, we detect the Doppler-shifted signature of the planet's thermal emission with a signal-to-noise ratio of 4.32. Our independent analyses confirm the presence of H$_2$O with a confidence level of 2.6$\sigma$ and an abundance of log$_{10}$$-5.08^{+0.43}_{-0.43}$, as well as CO with 2.3$\sigma$ confidence and an abundance of log$_{10}$$-4.21^{+0.48}_{-0.81}$ in CoRoT-2b's atmosphere, using two fully independent data reduction and retrieval pipelines. No significant detections of CH$_4$, CO$_2$, TiO, or VO are reported. While our cross-correlation analysis tentatively suggests the presence of HCN and OH, retrieval analysis does not confirm these molecules. The detected H$_2$O and CO features indicate that CoRoT-2b's dayside spectrum is not featureless, as previously inferred from lower-resolution observations, but instead reveals a complex atmospheric structure. Interestingly, we find a lack of significant molecular features at wavelengths shorter than 1.7 $\mu m$, potentially due to high-altitude absorbers such as H$^-$, clouds, or observational systematics. From our retrieved abundances of CO and H$_2$O, we constrain a supersolar C/O ratio of $0.91^{+0.08}_{-0.17}$ and a subsolar metallicity. This study provides the first high-resolution constraints on the atmospheric composition of CoRoT-2b and serves as the foundation for future investigations into its peculiar westward hotspot offset. Further phase-resolved observations will be required to explore the underlying atmospheric dynamics in more detail.

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 reports Gemini-S/IGRINS pre-eclipse high-resolution spectroscopy of the hot Jupiter CoRoT-2b. Cross-correlation analysis yields a planet thermal-emission detection at SNR 4.32; independent pipelines recover H2O at 2.6σ (log10 abundance −5.08) and CO at 2.3σ (log10 abundance −4.21), from which a supersolar C/O = 0.91 and subsolar metallicity are derived. No significant CH4, CO2, TiO or VO signals are found; tentative HCN/OH cross-correlation peaks are not confirmed by retrieval. The dayside spectrum is described as non-featureless, with a noted absence of features shortward of 1.7 μm.

Significance. If the marginal molecular signals are astrophysical, the work supplies the first high-resolution composition constraints on CoRoT-2b and challenges earlier low-resolution inferences of a featureless spectrum. The dual independent pipelines constitute a methodological strength, yet the low detection thresholds limit the immediate impact on atmospheric models or formation scenarios.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and §3 (cross-correlation results): H2O and CO are claimed at 2.6σ and 2.3σ; these thresholds are below the conventional 3σ level used for robust exoplanet molecular detections. The manuscript must demonstrate that the peaks survive more aggressive tests for residual telluric lines, blaze correction errors, or correlated noise after PCA detrending, given the authors’ own caveat about missing features below 1.7 μm.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and retrieval section: The supersolar C/O = 0.91^{+0.08}_{-0.17} is computed directly from the retrieved H2O and CO abundances. Because these abundances rest on marginal cross-correlation signals, the manuscript should include a sensitivity test showing how the C/O posterior shifts when the detection significances are treated as upper limits or when additional high-altitude opacity sources are included.
minor comments (2)
  1. Provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., velocity offset, line depth) between the two independent pipelines to substantiate their claimed independence.
  2. Clarify why retrieval does not recover the tentative HCN and OH cross-correlation peaks; a brief discussion of template mismatch or abundance priors would aid interpretation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below, providing clarifications and indicating revisions made to the manuscript to enhance the robustness of our findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and §3 (cross-correlation results): H2O and CO are claimed at 2.6σ and 2.3σ; these thresholds are below the conventional 3σ level used for robust exoplanet molecular detections. The manuscript must demonstrate that the peaks survive more aggressive tests for residual telluric lines, blaze correction errors, or correlated noise after PCA detrending, given the authors’ own caveat about missing features below 1.7 μm.

    Authors: We recognize that the reported detection significances of 2.6σ for H2O and 2.3σ for CO fall below the conventional 3σ threshold typically required for robust claims in exoplanet atmospheric studies. This is a fair point, particularly in light of our noted absence of features shortward of 1.7 μm. To strengthen the analysis, we have conducted additional robustness tests in the revised manuscript. These include more aggressive PCA detrending with varying numbers of components, checks for correlations between the cross-correlation signals and residual telluric or blaze features, and injection-recovery tests to assess the impact of correlated noise. The signals persist in these tests, supporting their astrophysical origin, though we emphasize the marginal nature and the need for future confirmation. We have updated the abstract and §3 to reflect these additional validations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and retrieval section: The supersolar C/O = 0.91^{+0.08}_{-0.17} is computed directly from the retrieved H2O and CO abundances. Because these abundances rest on marginal cross-correlation signals, the manuscript should include a sensitivity test showing how the C/O posterior shifts when the detection significances are treated as upper limits or when additional high-altitude opacity sources are included.

    Authors: We agree that deriving the C/O ratio from marginally detected species warrants caution and additional scrutiny. In response, we have added a dedicated sensitivity analysis in the revised retrieval section. This includes recomputing the C/O posterior by treating the H2O and CO abundances as upper limits (consistent with non-detections at higher significance) and incorporating additional high-altitude opacity sources such as H- and potential cloud decks. The results show that the C/O ratio remains supersolar (above 0.8) within the 1σ uncertainties in most scenarios, although the exact value shifts depending on the assumptions. We have included these tests as new figures and discussion to provide a more balanced view of the constraints. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's central claims rely on cross-correlation of observed spectra against external molecular templates (standard practice) to achieve SNR 4.32 detection, followed by independent retrieval pipelines that fit abundances directly to the data. The C/O ratio is then computed from the two retrieved log abundances via standard stoichiometry; this is a post-hoc calculation, not a self-referential fit or prediction. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior author work appear in the derivation. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks (templates and data), with the marginal significances noted as a separate statistical concern rather than a circularity issue.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claims depend on fitted molecular abundances from retrievals and domain assumptions about signal origin; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • H2O volume mixing ratio = -5.08
    Fitted parameter in atmospheric retrieval to match observed spectrum features.
  • CO volume mixing ratio = -4.21
    Fitted parameter in atmospheric retrieval to match observed spectrum features.
  • C/O ratio
    Derived from the ratio of retrieved CO and H2O abundances.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Cross-correlation peaks at the expected planetary radial velocity trace the planet's thermal emission spectrum.
    Invoked in the detection and SNR calculation sections of the analysis.
  • domain assumption The atmospheric forward models used in retrieval accurately capture the temperature-pressure profile and opacity sources without unmodeled high-altitude effects.
    Underlying the abundance and C/O ratio retrievals.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5974 in / 1687 out tokens · 140254 ms · 2026-05-21T00:23:50.401793+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

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    B., Jaziri, A

    Allart, R., Lem´ ee-Joliecoeur, P. B., Jaziri, A. Y., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245832

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245832 2023

  2. [2]

    J., Kabath, P., & Rabus, M

    Alonso, R., Deeg, H. J., Kabath, P., & Rabus, M. 2010, AJ, 139, 1481, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1481

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1481 2010

  3. [3]

    2008, A&A, 482, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809431

    Alonso, R., Auvergne, M., Baglin, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809431

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809431 2008

  4. [4]

    J., S´ anchez-L´ opez, A., Snellen, I

    Alonso-Floriano, F. J., S´ anchez-L´ opez, A., Snellen, I. A. G., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834339 Artigau, ´E., Bouchy, F., Doyon, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08304, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08304

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834339 2019

  5. [5]

    2006, in 36th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Vol

    Baglin, A., Auvergne, M., Boisnard, L., et al. 2006, in 36th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Vol. 36, 3749

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    V., Sokov, E

    Baluev, R. V., Sokov, E. N., Shaidulin, V. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv788

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv788 2015

  7. [7]

    J., Strange, J

    Barber, R. J., Strange, J. K., Hill, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2011

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2011 2014

  8. [8]

    Bazinet, L., Pelletier, S., Benneke, B., Salinas, R., & Mace, G. N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.07983. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07983

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    J., Dang, L., Cowan, N

    Bell, T. J., Dang, L., Cowan, N. B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3316, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1027

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1027 2021

  10. [10]

    Strict Upper Limits on the Carbon-to-Oxygen Ratios of Eight Hot Jupiters from Self-Consistent Atmospheric Retrieval

    Benneke, B. 2015, Strict Upper Limits on the Carbon-to-Oxygen Ratios of Eight Hot Jupiters from Self-Consistent Atmospheric Retrieval, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1504.07655

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1504.07655 2015

  11. [11]

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

    Benneke, B., & Seager, S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/100 —. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153

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

  12. [12]

    2022, A&A, 665, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243345

    Bitsch, Bertram, Schneider, Aaron David, & Kreidberg, Laura. 2022, A&A, 665, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243345

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243345 2022

  13. [13]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01544-4

    Shulyak, D. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01544-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01544-4 2021

  14. [14]

    2021, AJ, 162, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1f8e

    Boucher, A., Darveau-Bernier, A., Pelletier, S., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1f8e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac1f8e 2021

  15. [15]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 5062, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1247

    Boucher, A., Lafreni´ ere, D., Pelletier, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5062, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1247

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1247 2023

  16. [16]

    2017, The Messenger, 169, 21, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5034

    Bouchy, F., Doyon, R., Artigau, ´E., et al. 2017, The Messenger, 169, 21, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5034

    work page doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5034 2017

  17. [17]

    2021, in ExoFrontiers, 2514-3433 (IOP Publishing), 8–1 to 8–10, doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/abfa8fch8

    Brogi, M., & Birkby, J. 2021, in ExoFrontiers, 2514-3433 (IOP Publishing), 8–1 to 8–10, doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/abfa8fch8

    work page doi:10.1088/2514-3433/abfa8fch8 2021

  18. [18]

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

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

  19. [19]

    R., et al

    Brogi, M., Emeka-Okafor, V., Line, M. R., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acaf5c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acaf5c 2023

  20. [20]

    S., Bernath, P

    Brooke, J. S., Bernath, P. F., Western, C. M., et al. 2016, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 168, 142, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2015.07.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2015.07.021 2016

  21. [21]

    P., & Anderson, D

    Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. 2002, Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach (Springer)

    work page 2002

  22. [22]

    2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 101

    Carleo, I., Giacobbe, P., Guilluy, G., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 101

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    L., Rocchetto, M., Yurchenko, S

    Chubb, K. L., Rocchetto, M., Yurchenko, S. N., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038350

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038350 2021

  24. [24]

    R., Hejazi, N., Crossfield, I

    Coria, D. R., Hejazi, N., Crossfield, I. J. M., & Rhem, M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7020

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7020 2024

  25. [25]

    2024, A&A, 683, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348107

    Czesla, S., Lamp´ on, M., Cont, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348107

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348107 2024

  26. [26]

    B., Schwartz, J

    Dang, L., Cowan, N. B., Schwartz, J. C., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 220, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0351-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0351-6 2018

  27. [27]

    J., Ying, et al

    Dang, L., Bell, T. J., Ying, et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.13308, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.13308

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.13308 2024

  28. [28]

    2011, ApJ, 726, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/95

    Deming, D., Knutson, H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 726, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/95

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/95 2011

  29. [29]

    2020, Nature, 580, 597, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2107-1

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

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

  30. [30]

    2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 372, 20130083, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2013.0083

    Encrenaz, T. 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 372, 20130083, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2013.0083

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2013.0083 2014

  31. [31]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  32. [32]

    J., Dawson, R

    Fortney, J. J., Dawson, R. I., & Komacek, T. D. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06629, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006629

    work page doi:10.1029/2020je006629 2021

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

    Giacobbe, P., Brogi, M., Gandhi, S., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 205, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03381-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03381-x 2021

  34. [34]

    P., Merritt, S., Nugroho, S

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa228 2020

  35. [35]

    A., Barman, T., et al

    Gillon, M., Lanotte, A. A., Barman, T., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913507

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913507 2010

  36. [36]

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

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

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

  37. [37]

    2011, A&A, 527, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015051

    Guillot, T., & Havel, M. 2011, A&A, 527, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015051

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015051 2011

  38. [38]

    2022, A&A, 665, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243854

    Guilluy, G., Giacobbe, P., Carleo, I., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243854

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243854 2022

  39. [39]

    J., Gordon, I

    Hargreaves, R. J., Gordon, I. E., Rey, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7a1a 21

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7a1a 2020

  40. [40]

    W., Bushby, P

    Hindle, A. W., Bushby, P. J., & Rogers, T. M. 2019, ApJL, 872, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab05dd —. 2021, ApJ, 922, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e2e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab05dd 2019

  41. [41]

    2022, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical

    Jones, K., Morris, B., Demory, B.-O., Heng, K., & Hooton, M. 2022, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    B., & Dang, L

    Keating, D., Cowan, N. B., & Dang, L. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1092, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0859-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0859-z 2019

  43. [43]

    Khorshid, N., Min, M., & D´ esert, J. M. 2023, A&A, 675, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245469

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245469 2023

  44. [44]

    A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L

    Knutson, H. A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L. E., et al. 2007, Nature, 447, 183, doi: 10.1038/nature05782

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05782 2007

  45. [45]

    2022, ApJS, 258, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3a10

    Kokori, A., Tsiaras, A., Edwards, B., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3a10

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3a10 2022

  46. [46]

    Landman, R., Stolker, T., Snellen, I. A. G., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347846

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347846 2024

  47. [47]

    2016, plp: v2.1 alpha 3, v2.1-alpha.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.56067

    Lee, J.-J., & Gullikson, K. 2016, plp: v2.1 alpha 3, v2.1-alpha.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.56067

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.56067 2016

  48. [48]

    R., Brogi, M., Bean, J

    Line, M. R., Brogi, M., Bean, J. L., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 580, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03912-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03912-6 2021

  49. [49]

    2018, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed

    Mace, G., Sokal, K., Lee, J.-J., et al. 2018, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, Vol. 10702, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 107020Q, doi: 10.1117/12.2312345

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2312345 2018

  50. [50]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051846

    Madhusudhan, N. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051846

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051846 2019

  51. [51]

    M., Stevenson, K

    May, E. M., Stevenson, K. B., Bean, J. L., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 256, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6261

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac6261 2022

  52. [52]

    K., Yurchenko, S

    McKemmish, L. K., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1969 Molli` ere, P., Wardenier, J. P., van Boekel, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935470 Molli` ere, P., Stolker, T., Lacour, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038325

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1969 2016

  53. [53]

    I., Madhusudhan, N., Visscher, C., & Freedman, R

    Moses, J. I., Madhusudhan, N., Visscher, C., & Freedman, R. S. 2013, ApJ, 763, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/1/25 2013

  54. [54]

    2024, ApJL, 975, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8438

    Mraz, G., Darveau-Bernier, A., Boucher, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 975, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8438

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8438 2024

  55. [55]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Oliva, E., Sanna, N., Rainer, M., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 1070274, doi: 10.1117/12.2309927 ¨Ozt¨ urk, O., & Erdem, A. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2290, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz747

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2309927 2019

  57. [57]

    T., Yuk, I.-S., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2056431 2014

  58. [58]

    R., Bean, J

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

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

  59. [59]

    2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0428

    Pelletier, S., Benneke, B., Darveau-Bernier, A., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0428

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac0428 2021

  60. [60]

    2023, Nature, 619, 491, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06134-0

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

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

  61. [61]

    2024, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8b28

    Pelletier, S., Benneke, B., Chachan, Y., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8b28

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad8b28 2024

  62. [62]

    M., et al

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

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

  63. [63]

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

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

  64. [64]

    T., Kempton, E

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

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

  65. [65]

    S., Gordon, I

    Rothman, L. S., Gordon, I. E., Barber, R. J., et al. 2010, JQSRT, 111, 2139, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2010.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2010.05.001 2010

  66. [66]

    2010, ARA&A, 48, 631, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130837

    Seager, S., & Deming, D. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 631, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130837

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130837 2010

  67. [67]

    P., & Guillot, T

    Showman, A. P., & Guillot, T. 2002, A&A, 385, 166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020101

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020101 2002

  68. [68]

    Smith, P. C. B., Line, M. R., Bean, J. L., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad17bf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad17bf 2024

  69. [69]

    2024, A&A, 683, A231, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347069 van Sluijs, L., Birkby, J

    Teinturier, L., Charnay, B., Spiga, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A231, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347069 van Sluijs, L., Birkby, J. L., Lothringer, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1103

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347069 2024

  70. [70]

    Virtanen, R

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  71. [71]

    P., Parmentier, V., Line, M

    Wardenier, J. P., Parmentier, V., Line, M. R., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 084403, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad5c9f Weiner Mansfield, M., Line, M. R., Wardenier, J. P., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4a5f

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad5c9f 2024

  72. [72]

    N., Deming, D., Madhusudhan, N., et al

    Wilkins, A. N., Deming, D., Madhusudhan, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/113

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/113 2014

  73. [73]

    H., Luszcz-Cook, S., Sayanagi, K., et al

    Wong, M. H., Luszcz-Cook, S., Sayanagi, K., et al. 2021, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 53, 275, doi: 10.3847/25c2cfeb.f7906305

    work page doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.f7906305 2021

  74. [74]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245371 22

    Yan, F., Nortmann, L., Reiners, A., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245371 22

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245371 2023

  75. [75]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 5282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1874

    Tennyson, J. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 5282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1874

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1874 2020