Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 10 cited by

JWST thermal phase curves of TRAPPIST-1 b and c rule out efficient heat redistribution, making thick atmospheres unlikely on either temperate rocky planet.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

First JWST phase curves of TRAPPIST-1 b and c rule out thick, heat-redistributing atmospheres; b is likely airless, c may retain a tenuous O2 atmosphere.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection First JWST phase curves of temperate terrestrial planets; main result is solid, but 'no thick atmosphere' is an overstatement—the fine-tuned hazy CO2 case survives. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.02128 v1 pith:QMWMKTHC submitted 2025-09-02 astro-ph.EP

First JWST thermal phase curves of temperate terrestrial exoplanets reveal no thick atmosphere around TRAPPIST-1 b and c

Micha\"el Gillon , Elsa Ducrot , Taylor J. Bell , Ziyu Huang , Andrew Lincowski , Xintong Lyu , Alice Maurel , Alexandre Revol
show 25 more authors
Eric Agol Emeline Bolmont Chuanfei Dong Thomas J. Fauchez Daniel D.B. Koll J\'er\'emy Leconte Victoria S. Meadows Franck Selsis Martin Turbet Benjamin Charnay Laetita Delre Brice-Olivier Demory Aaron Householder Sebastian Zieba David Berardo Achr\`ene Dyrek Billy Edwards Julien de Wit Thomas P. Greene Renyu Hu Nicolas Iro Laura Kreidberg Pierre-Olivier Lagage Jacob Lustig-Yaeger Aishwarya Iyer
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetsTRAPPIST-1thermal phase curvesJWST/MIRIterrestrial planetsheat redistributionsecondary eclipsesultracool dwarfs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper presents the first JWST thermal phase curves of temperate terrestrial exoplanets: 59 hours of continuous 15 µm MIRI photometry of TRAPPIST-1, capturing full-orbit emission variations of planets b and c. Because an atmosphere transports heat from the perpetually sunlit dayside to the nightside, the day-night brightness contrast and the phase of the emission peak directly diagnose atmosphere presence. The measured curves show a hot dayside for b (490 K), nightside emission consistent with zero, and no phase offset; c shows a cooler dayside (369 K) and nightside emission statistically indistinguishable from b's. Efficient heat redistribution is firmly ruled out for b and appears unlikely for c, and atmospheric models with surface pressures of 1 bar or more with efficient greenhouse effects are strongly disfavored for both. The paper concludes that TRAPPIST-1 b almost certainly has no substantial atmosphere, while TRAPPIST-1 c may host a thin, greenhouse-poor O2-dominated atmosphere or be airless with a more reflective surface.

Core claim

The central discovery is that day-night heat redistribution — the observational signature of an atmosphere — is essentially zero for TRAPPIST-1 b and very low for TRAPPIST-1 c. In the nominal model, b's nightside flux is 39+55/−27 ppm against a dayside of 840±56 ppm, with phase offset −6.5±6.4 degrees; full heat redistribution has probability below 0.0006%. For c, the nightside is 62+60/−43 ppm against a 392+75/−63 ppm dayside. A model assuming both planets are bare rocks fits better (Bayes factor >1152). Previously viable scenarios for b — N2 ≥1 bar, thick O2, CO2-rich hazy atmospheres — are discarded because they would deliver measurable nightside flux. For c, steam atmospheres up to 10 ba

What carries the argument

The thermal phase curve is the load-bearing observable: the planet-to-star flux measured continuously across the orbit, decomposed into a dayside term, a nightside term, and a longitudinal phase offset δ. An atmosphere redistributes heat, producing a nonzero nightside term and a peak that shifts away from the substellar point; an airless body emits from the dayside only, peaking at the substellar point with a quasi-Lambertian limb profile. The paper compares the measured parameters to (1) a two-column day-night climate-photochemical model generating synthetic phase curves for many atmospheric compositions and pressures, (2) 3D global climate model simulations of the surviving scenarios, incl

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the atmospheric models predicting how much heat even a thin or hazy atmosphere would move to the nightside; if such an atmosphere transports less heat than modeled, or the models miss the sharp dayside hot spot, a thin atmosphere could remain hidden in the data.

What would settle it

A higher-precision or 12.8 µm phase curve of TRAPPIST-1 b that detects nightside emission above roughly 100 ppm, or a phase offset beyond about 15 degrees, would contradict the airless conclusion; conversely, detecting the O3 or H2O features predicted at 50–80 ppm in b's transmission spectrum would support the surviving thin-atmosphere scenarios. For c, the planned 12.8 µm eclipse measurement can decide between a bare reflective surface and a thin O2 atmosphere.

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

If this is right

  • TRAPPIST-1 b, very likely bare rock, can serve as a clean stellar-contamination reference for transmission spectroscopy of the outer TRAPPIST-1 planets, provided the small residual features predicted by surviving thin-atmosphere models are checked.
  • TRAPPIST-1 c's ambiguity between an airless reflective surface and a thin O2-dominated atmosphere is directly testable: planned 12.8 µm eclipse observations should separate the two.
  • The divergent states of b and c, despite similar sizes and compositions, constrain how quickly M-dwarf planets lose secondary atmospheres and suggest atmospheric loss is not uniform across the system.
  • Phase curves, not just eclipse depths, are validated as the decisive measurement for distinguishing bare rocks from hazy or thin atmospheres on temperate rocky exoplanets.
  • The tentative 0.2 R⊕ candidate planet i, seen at ~4σ in one analysis but below 3σ in others, is not robustly detected and requires confirmation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If TRAPPIST-1 b is truly airless, its modestly dark, fresh ultramafic-like surface offers a calibration point for space-weathering rates on M-dwarf planets, which the paper suggests may be faster than in the Solar System.
  • The phase-curve diagnostic used here should transfer to other temperate M-dwarf rocky planets: a single full-orbit 15 µm observation can break the eclipse-depth degeneracy between airless, hazy-thick, and thin-transparent atmospheres.
  • Because the two-column model may under-resolve the sharp substellar temperature peak for thin atmospheres, the 'no substantial atmosphere' claim for b is strongest for pressures ≳0.1 bar; extremely tenuous (~0.01 bar) atmospheres are excluded mainly by stability arguments (nightside CO2 collapse) rather than by the phase curve alone.
  • The suggestion that c may be airless-but-more-reflective implies that 'airless' is not a single observable state; surface albedo variation could complicate population-level interpretations of rocky exoplanet emission.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST/MIRI F1500W thermal phase curves of TRAPPIST-1 b and c (Program GO 3077), combined with earlier eclipse observations, from four independent reductions and global MCMC analyses. The nominal analysis finds for b a dayside flux of 840±56 ppm, nightside flux of 39+55/−27 ppm, and phase offset −6.5±6.4 deg; for c, dayside flux 392+75/−63 ppm, nightside flux 62+60/−43 ppm, and phase offset 10+25/−22 deg. These values rule out efficient heat redistribution for both planets and are consistent with an airless or very tenuous-atmosphere interpretation. Forward atmospheric modeling with a 1.5D climate-photochemical model and 3D GCMs is used to show that most thick, greenhouse-efficient atmospheres are disfavored, while thin O2/N2 atmospheres and, for b, a fresh ultramafic airless surface remain viable. The paper concludes that TRAPPIST-1 b is unlikely to possess a substantial atmosphere, while TRAPPIST-1 c may have a tenuous O2-dominated atmosphere or an airless reflective surface.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a landmark dataset: the first thermal phase curves of temperate terrestrial exoplanets, providing much stronger constraints on heat redistribution than eclipse depths alone. The four independent reductions, Gaussian-process treatment of correlated noise, and forward self-consistent atmospheric models are notable strengths, as is the explicit comparison of multiple modeling frameworks. The measurements firmly exclude full heat redistribution and thereby strongly disfavor the thick, well-mixed atmospheres previously discussed for these planets. However, the paper's strongest claim—that TRAPPIST-1 b has 'no thick atmosphere'—is not strictly a data-driven exclusion: the 1-bar CO2 'Haze high' 3D GCM case is acknowledged to match the phase-curve and eclipse observables and is set aside largely on a fine-tuning judgment. The significance is high, but the headline conclusion needs to be carefully qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'Comparing the two sets...'; Methods '3-D Global Climate Modeling'; Fig. 3b] The central claim that TRAPPIST-1 b has no substantial atmosphere is not fully supported by the statistical comparison presented. The paper explicitly states that the CO2 1 bar + 'Haze high' GCM case remains consistent with the dayside flux, nightside flux, and phase offset (Fig. 3b), and is rejected only because it 'appear[s] to be very fine-tuned' and requires 'unlikely densities' of haze. No prior distribution, sensitivity scan over fhaze or single-scattering albedo, or Bayes factor is provided to quantify this fine-tuning; only two haze grid points are shown. A reader cannot independently assess whether the parameters are improbable enough to overturn the model-data agreement. Please either provide a quantitative model-comparison (e.g., a prior-based marginal likelihood over the haze parameters) or soften the abstract/title to 'no thick atmosphere with efficient heat redistribution'
  2. [Methods, Eqs. (1)-(4) and Fig. 3] The atmospheric-model comparison compresses the observed phase curve into three scalar parameters—dayside flux, nightside flux, and phase offset—derived from a first-order sinusoidal model, and the paper itself cautions that the full phase-curve shape is 'not a robust basis for comparison.' This discards potentially discriminating information: a hazy thick atmosphere and an airless surface could differ in higher-order phase-curve morphology (e.g., the sharpness of the substellar peak, ingress/egress shape, or second harmonic) even when their first-order Fourier amplitudes and offsets agree. Given that the surviving 'Haze high' scenario is distinguished from the airless case mainly by such shape details, the decision not to use the full phase curve weakens the empirical basis for the 'no thick atmosphere' conclusion. Please state explicitly what information is lost, or include a fit to th
  3. [Methods, '3-D Global Climate Modeling of TRAPPIST-1b and c'] The 'Haze high' GCM case, which is the only thick atmosphere that survives the phase-curve comparison, is tuned to the eclipse data by construction: the single-scattering albedo is set to 0.5 and the incoming stellar flux is 'artificially decreas[ed]' specifically to make the dayside emission match the MIRI occultations. Consequently, the subsequent agreement with the phase curve is not an independent prediction, and the model's free parameters (fhaze and single-scattering albedo) are adjusted in the region of parameter space that maximizes agreement. The paper should clarify this circularity and, ideally, show how the phase-curve predictions vary as the tuning parameters are moved within a physically motivated range, rather than presenting the single surviving case as evidence against atmospheres.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1, planet b impact parameter] The entry '0.106+0.47/−0.50 R∗' appears to have a typo; presumably this should be 0.106+0.047/−0.050 R∗. Please correct.
  2. [Methods, Eqs. (1)-(3)] The text defines γ(i,t) as the unocculted fraction, but the equations use Ω(i,t) for the occultation factor. Please make the notation consistent.
  3. [Methods, 'Data reduction and analysis (ED)'] Program numbers are inconsistent: the text refers to 'GO 2305' while the rest of the paper and Table S1 use GO 2304. Please verify.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says 'The data shown correspond to the nominal reduction (Analysis #1) by MG,' but the text says the analyses are consistent. Please specify which of the four reductions is plotted and why (binned at 60 minutes).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the phase-curve parameters are measured, and the atmospheric/surface models are forward models compared to those measurements without being fit to them.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks. The dayside, nightside, and offset parameters (F_D, F_N, delta) are fitted directly to the JWST/MIRI light curves via MCMC, and the atmospheric/surface scenarios are then forward-modeled and compared to those measured values. The 1.5D day-night models and 3D GCMs do not take the phase-curve parameters as inputs; the paper explicitly reports confidence intervals for "our forward models (with no fit parameters)" (Methods, Day-Night Atmospheric Phase Curve Modeling). The data/model comparison uses the posteriors of the measured parameters, not a fit of the models to them, so the main inference (inefficient heat redistribution, disfavored thick greenhouse atmospheres) is not circular. Four independent reductions/analyses agree, and the airless quasi-Lambertian model is an independent alternative hypothesis, not a renamed version of the atmospheric model. The GCM haze cases are pre-selected to match prior occultation measurements, some of which are also included in the global light-curve fit, but the discriminating nightside flux and phase offset are not used in that selection; the paper is also transparent that the surviving hazy CO2 case requires fine-tuned parameters and that the 1.5D thin-atmosphere models may miss the substellar peak. These are modeling limitations and prior judgments, not definitional or fitted-input circularity. Self-citations to prior work by the same groups (e.g., the VPL two-column model and Generic PCM GCM) are methodological references with independent physical content, not load-bearing appeals to an unverified uniqueness or ansatz result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central measurement (phase curve amplitudes and offsets) is data, not free parameters. The atmospheric model comparisons introduce tuned parameters (haze factors, albedo) and rely on model assumptions about heat transport, tidal locking, and stellar flux calibration. The candidate planet i is speculative and flagged as such.

free parameters (4)
  • fhaze (haze mass mixing factor) in 3D GCM = 7e-4 (Haze high), 3e-5 (Haze low)
    Tuned in the CO2 hazy atmosphere GCM runs to match the MIRI occultation depths; paper states these need to be fine-tuned.
  • GCM haze single-scattering albedo = 0.5 (Haze high), 0.2 (Haze low)
    Adjusted artificially to prevent dayside emission exceeding occultation constraints, because GCM predicts more heat redistribution than 1D models.
  • GCM surface albedo = 0.1
    Set to 0.1 in all GCM simulations; the paper states a low albedo is necessary to match the measured occultations.
  • 1.5D basalt surface albedo for b = half of basalt (Mercury-like)
    Chosen to approximate a dark surface for thin atmosphere models of TRAPPIST-1 b.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Planets are tidally locked in 1:1 synchronous rotation
    Phase curve models (eqs. 1-4) assume synchronous rotation; tidal constraints later support near-synchronization but with small spin oscillations.
  • domain assumption Atmospheric heat transport is correctly captured by the 1.5D two-column model and the Generic PCM 3D GCM
    Used to rule out atmospheres based on predicted nightside emission and phase offsets; paper notes the 1.5D model may fail to reproduce the sharp substellar peak for thin atmospheres.
  • domain assumption The sinusoidal day/night phase curve model and the quasi-Lambertian model span the plausible photometric signatures of rocky planets
    Analyses #1 and #2 assume these specific functional forms; a real surface/atmosphere could in principle produce a different phase shape.
  • domain assumption Absolute stellar flux F* = 2.496 +/- 0.080 mJy at 14.87 um is correct
    Brightness temperatures depend linearly on F*; measured independently twice, but the MIRI absolute photometric precision is estimated at 3%.
  • domain assumption Limb-darkening coefficients from ExoCTK for T=3500K, log g=5.0 apply to TRAPPIST-1 after inflating errors
    Priors for u1 and u2 derived from a hotter model star, with standard deviations increased tenfold to cover the mismatch.
invented entities (1)
  • Candidate planet i (TRAPPIST-1 i) no independent evidence
    purpose: Explains a ~2 hour transit-like dip in the GO 3077 light curve; if real, a ~0.2 R_Earth planet with P~28 d
    Detected at ~4 sigma in one of four analyses, below 3 sigma in the others; the paper states it is too low for a robust detection, and one independent analysis (TJB) with BIC prefers excluding it.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First JWST thermal phase curves of temperate terrestrial exoplanets reveal no thick atmosphere around TRAPPIST-1 b and c." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QMWMKTHC

@misc{pith2026250902128,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First JWST thermal phase curves of temperate terrestrial exoplanets reveal no thick atmosphere around TRAPPIST-1 b and c},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QMWMKTHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02128}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We report JWST/MIRI 15 $\mu$m phase curves of TRAPPIST-1 b and c, revealing thermal emission consistent with their irradiation levels, assuming no efficient heat redistribution. We find that TRAPPIST-1 b shows a high dayside brightness temperature (490 $\pm$ 17 K), no significantly detectable nightside emission ($F_{\rm b, Night, max}$ = $39_{-27}^{+55}$ ppm), and no phase offset -- features consistent with a low-albedo, airless ultramafic rocky surface. TRAPPIST-1 c exhibits a lower dayside brightness temperature (369 $\pm$ 23 K), and a nightside flux statistically indistinguishable from that of TRAPPIST-1 b ($F_{\rm c, Night, max}$ = $62_{-43}^{+60}$ ppm). Atmosphere models with surface pressures $\geq$1 bar and efficient greenhouse effects are strongly disfavoured for both planets. TRAPPIST-1 b is unlikely to possess any substantial atmosphere, while TRAPPIST-1 c may retain a tenuous, greenhouse-poor O$_2$-dominated atmosphere or be similarly airless with a more reflective surface. These results suggest divergent evolutionary pathways or atmospheric loss processes, despite similar compositions. These measurements tightly constrain atmosphere retention in the inner TRAPPIST-1 system.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. JWST COMPASS Program: The 3--5$\mu$m transmission spectrum of LTT 1445 A b

    astro-ph.EP 2026-05 accept novelty 7.0

    JWST NIRSpec observations of LTT 1445 A b yield a featureless 3-5μm transmission spectrum, limiting atmospheric metallicity to ≳350× solar under grey-cloud models.

  2. Sulfur photochemistry observationally traces mantle redox states of rocky planets

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Photochemical SO2 in rocky exoplanet atmospheres produces JWST-detectable absorption features at 4 and 7–9 μm that trace the mantle's oxidation state, linking observed spectra to planetary interiors.

  3. GJ 3929 b as the First Complete Rocky Worlds DDT Data Set

    astro-ph.EP 2026-06 accept novelty 6.0

    GJ 3929 b's full four-eclipse JWST/MIRI data set yields an eclipse depth of 118±22 ppm, consistent with a bare rocky surface and ruling out thick CO2 atmospheres at >3σ.

  4. A single power law for the TRAPPIST-1 flare distribution across four orders of magnitude in energy

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    TRAPPIST-1 flares follow a single power law N(≥E_TESS) ∝ E_TESS^{-0.753} from 10^{29} to 10^{33} erg after sensitivity corrections and bandpass conversion.

  5. Uniform Reinterpretation of Rocky Exoplanet Secondary Eclipse Observations and the Impact of Stellar and Orbital Uncertainties

    astro-ph.EP 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Accounting for stellar and orbital uncertainties shows that predicted eclipse depths for bare-rock models of rocky exoplanets carry substantial uncertainty comparable to measurements, establishing a fundamental precis...

  6. A Search for Wide-orbit Planets Around M-dwarfs using Deep MIRI 15-micron Images

    astro-ph.EP 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    Reference differential imaging of archival MIRI F1500W TSO data reaches 5σ contrasts of ~10^{-3} at 1" and ~2×10^{-4} beyond 3", enabling sensitivity to ~4–10 MJup planets at tens of AU around old M-dwarfs.

  7. A broad exploration of climate and observability of close-in rocky exoplanets: applications to Ross 128 b

    astro-ph.EP 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0

    3D climate simulations of Ross 128 b yield geometric albedos of 0.07 to 0.2 in the visible and near zero in the near-infrared, well below the common 0.3 assumption.

  8. A single power law for the TRAPPIST-1 flare distribution across four orders of magnitude in energy

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    TRAPPIST-1 flares obey a single power law N(≥E) ∝ E^{-0.753} from 10^29 to 10^33 erg in TESS energy after sensitivity corrections.

  9. GJ 3929 b as the First Complete Rocky Worlds DDT Data Set

    astro-ph.EP 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Complete four-observation JWST dataset for GJ 3929 b yields 118±22 ppm eclipse depth, consistent with bare rock while allowing thin atmospheres and ruling out only thick CO2 cases at >3σ.

  10. A Search for Wide-orbit Planets Around M-dwarfs using Deep MIRI 15-micron Images

    astro-ph.EP 2026-04 accept novelty 4.0

    Archival MIRI imaging reaches contrasts of 10^-3 to 10^-4 at 1-3 arcseconds, enabling detection of ~170 K Jupiter-sized planets at separations >35 AU around M-dwarfs at 12.5 pc, with no new planets found but useful se...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers · 18 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    & Charbonneau, D

    Ment, K. & Charbonneau, D. The Occurrence Rate of Terrestrial Planets Orbiting Nearby Mid-to-late M Dwarfs from TESS Sectors 1-42. Astron. J. 165, 265 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Gillon, M. et al. The trappist-1 jwst community initiative. Bulletin of the AAS 52 (2020). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/25c2cfeb.afbf0205. 58

    work page doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.afbf0205 2020

  3. [3]

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Meadows, V. S. & Lincowski, A. P. The Detectability and Char- acterization of the TRAPPIST-1 Exoplanet Atmospheres with JWST. Astron. J. 158, 27 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Greene, T. P. et al. Thermal emission from the Earth-sized exoplanet TRAPPIST- 1 b using JWST. Nature 618, 39–42 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Ih, J., Kempton, E. M. R., Whittaker, E. A. & Lessard, M. Constraining the Thickness of TRAPPIST-1 b’s Atmosphere from Its JWST Secondary Eclipse Observation at 15 µm. Astrophys. J. Lett. 952, L4 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Ducrot, E. et al. Combined analysis of the 12.8 and 15 µm JWST/MIRI eclipse observations of TRAPPIST-1 b. Nature Astronomy (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Zieba, S. et al. No thick carbon dioxide atmosphere on the rocky exoplanet TRAPPIST-1 c. Nature 620, 746–749 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Lincowski, A. P. et al. Potential Atmospheric Compositions of TRAPPIST-1 c Constrained by JWST/MIRI Observations at 15 µm. Astrophys. J. Lett. 955, L7 (2023)

    2023

  9. [9]

    Turbet, M. et al. Water condensation zones around main sequence stars. Astron. Astrophys. 679, A126 (2023)

    2023

  10. [10]

    Hammond, M. et al. Reliable Detections of Atmospheres on Rocky Exoplanets with Photometric JWST Phase Curves. Astrophys. J. Lett. 978, L40 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    Bell, T. et al. Eureka!: An End-to-End Pipeline for JWST Time-Series Observations. The Journal of Open Source Software 7, 4503 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    Stetson, P. B. DAOPHOT: A Computer Program for Crowded-Field Stellar Photometry. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 99, 191 (1987)

    1987

  13. [13]

    Gillon, M. et al. The Spitzer search for the transits of HARPS low-mass planets. I. No transit for the super-Earth HD 40307b. Astron. Astrophys. 518, A25 (2010)

    2010

  14. [14]

    Gillon, M. et al. The TRAPPIST survey of southern transiting planets. I. Thirty eclipses of the ultra-short period planet W ASP-43 b. Astron. Astrophys. 542, A4 (2012)

    2012

  15. [15]

    & Agol, E

    Mandel, K. & Agol, E. Analytic Light Curves for Planetary Transit Searches. Astrophys. J. Lett. 580, L171–L175 (2002)

    2002

  16. [16]

    Placek, B., Knuth, K. H. & Angerhausen, D. Exonest: Bayesian model selec- tion applied to the detection and characterization of exoplanets via photometric variations. Astrophys. J. 795, 112 (2014). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0004-637X/795/2/112. 59

    2014

  17. [17]

    Rounding up the wanderers: optimizing coronagraphic searches for extrasolar planets

    Agol, E. Rounding up the wanderers: optimizing coronagraphic searches for extrasolar planets. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 374, 1271–1289 (2007)

    2007

  18. [18]

    & Rubin, D

    Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences. Statistical Science 7, 457–472 (1992)

    1992

  19. [19]

    Agol, E. et al. Refining the Transit-timing and Photometric Analysis of TRAPPIST-1: Masses, Radii, Densities, Dynamics, and Ephemerides. Planet. Sci. J. 2, 1 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Mikal-Evans, T. et al. A JWST NIRSpec Phase Curve for W ASP-121b: Dayside Emission Strongest Eastward of the Substellar Point and Nightside Conditions Conducive to Cloud Formation. Astrophys. J. Lett. 943, L17 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Kempton, E. M. R. et al. A reflective, metal-rich atmosphere for GJ 1214b from its JWST phase curve. Nature 620, 67–71 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    Zhang, M. et al. GJ 367b Is a Dark, Hot, Airless Sub-Earth. Astrophys. J. Lett. 961, L44 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Bell, T. J. et al. Nightside clouds and disequilibrium chemistry on the hot Jupiter W ASP-43b.arXiv e-prints arXiv:2401.13027 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Lincowski, A. P. et al. Evolved Climates and Observational Discriminants for the TRAPPIST-1 Planetary System. Astrophys. J. 867, 76 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    Lim, O. et al. Atmospheric Reconnaissance of TRAPPIST-1 b with JWST/NIRISS: Evidence for Strong Stellar Contamination in the Transmission Spectra. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2309.07047 (2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Turbet, M. et al. Modeling climate diversity, tidal dynamics and the fate of volatiles on TRAPPIST-1 planets. Astron. Astrophys. 612, A86 (2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    Turbet, M. et al. A Review of Possible Planetary Atmospheres in the TRAPPIST- 1 System. Space Sci. Rev. 216, 100 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Dong, C. et al. Atmospheric escape from the TRAPPIST-1 planets and implications for habitability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 260–265 (2018)

    2018

  29. [29]

    A roadmap for the atmospheric characterization of terrestrial exoplanets with JWST

    TRAPPIST-1 JWST Community Initiative et al. A roadmap to the efficient and robust characterization of temperate terrestrial planet atmospheres with JWST. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2310.15895 (2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Rathcke, A. D. et al. Stellar contamination correction using back-to-back transits of trappist-1 b and c (2024). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.16541. 2412.16541

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Lyu, X. et al. Super-earth lhs3844b is tidally locked. Astrophys. J. 964, 152 (2024). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad2077. 60

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2077 2024

  32. [32]

    Mansfield, M. et al. Identifying Atmospheres on Rocky Exoplanets through Inferred High Albedo. Astrophys. J. 886, 141 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    Coy, B. P. et al. Population-level Hypothesis Testing with Rocky Planet Emission Data: A Tentative Trend in the Brightness Temperatures of M-Earths (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Pieters, C. M. & Noble, S. K. Space weathering on airless bodies. J. Geophys. Res.: Planets 121, 1865–1884 (2016)

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    Ducrot, E. et al. TRAPPIST-1: Global results of the Spitzer Exploration Science Program Red Worlds. Astron. Astrophys. 640, A112 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Gillon, M. et al. Temperate Earth-sized planets transiting a nearby ultracool dwarf star. Nature 533, 221–224 (2016)

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Stellar Models Also Limit Exoplanet Atmosphere Studies in Emission

    Fauchez, T. J., Rackham, B. V., Ducrot, E., Stevenson, K. B. & de Wit, J. Stellar Models Also Limit Exoplanet Atmosphere Studies in Emission. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2502.19585 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90 (430), 773–795 (1995). URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459. 1995.10476572. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    work page arXiv 1995

  39. [39]

    Bushouse, H. et al. JWST Calibration Pipeline (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Deming, D. et al. Spitzer Secondary Eclipses of the Dense, Modestly- irradiated, Giant Exoplanet HAT-P-20b Using Pixel-level Decorrelation. Astro- phys. J. 805 (2), 132 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/132, arXiv:1411.7404 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Gillon, M. et al. Search for a habitable terrestrial planet transiting the nearby red dwarf GJ 1214. Astron. Astrophys. 563, A21 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201322362, arXiv:1307.6722 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  42. [42]

    Hastings, W. K. Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 57 (1), 97–109 (1970). URL http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2334940

    arXiv 1970

  43. [43]

    Estimating the Dimension of a Model

    Schwarz, G. Estimating the Dimension of a Model. Annals of Statistics 6 (2), 461–464 (1978)

    work page 1978

  44. [44]

    Howard, W. S. et al. Characterizing the Near-infrared Spectra of Flares from TRAPPIST-1 during JWST Transit Spectroscopy Observations. Astrophys. J. 959 (1), 64 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acfe75, arXiv:2310.03792 [astro-ph.EP]. 61

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Collabora- tion, 2020)

    Gaia Collaboration. VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Collabora- tion, 2020). VizieR Online Data Catalog I/350 (2020). https://doi.org/10.26093/ cds/vizier.1350

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    Bourque, M. et al. ExoCTK: Exoplanet Characterization Tool Kit. Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2207.012 (2022). 2207.012

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Kipping, D. M. Efficient, uninformative sampling of limb darkening coefficients for two-parameter laws. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 435 (3), 2152–2160 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt1435, arXiv:1308.0009 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [48]

    & Agol, E

    Luger, R., Lustig-Yaeger, J. & Agol, E. Planet-Planet Occultations in TRAPPIST-1 and Other Exoplanet Systems. Astrophys. J. 851 (2), 94 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa9c43, arXiv:1711.05739 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [49]

    Dyrek, A. et al. Transiting exoplanets with the Mid-InfraRed Instrument on board JWST: From simulations to observations. Astron. Astrophys. 683, A212 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202347127, arXiv:2403.00676 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Charbonneau, D. et al. The Broadband Infrared Emission Spectrum of the Exo- planet HD 189733b. Astrophys. J. 686 (2), 1341–1348 (2008). https://doi.org/ 10.1086/591635, arXiv:0802.0845 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  51. [51]

    CRDS: Calibration Reference Data System for HST and JWST (2022)

    CRDS developers. CRDS: Calibration Reference Data System for HST and JWST (2022). URL https://github.com/spacetelescope/crds

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    batman: BAsic Transit Model cAlculatioN in Python

    Kreidberg, L. batman: BAsic Transit Model cAlculatioN in Python. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 127 (957), 1161 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1086/683602, arXiv:1507.08285 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    Luger, R. et al. starry: Analytic Occultation Light Curves. Astron. J. 157 (2), 64 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5, arXiv:1810.06559 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Luger, R. et al. rodluger/starry: v1.2.0 (2021)

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V. & Fonnesbeck, C. Probabilistic programming in python using pymc3. PeerJ Computer Science 2, e55 (2016). URL https: //doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.55. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.55

    doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.55 2016

  56. [56]

    Cowan, N. B. & Agol, E. Inverting Phase Functions to Map Exoplanets. Astrophys. J. Lett. 678 (2), L129 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1086/588553, arXiv:0803.3622 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  57. [57]

    & Angus, R

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S. & Angus, R. Fast and Scal- able Gaussian Process Modeling with Applications to Astronomical Time Series. Astron. J. 154, 220 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 . 62

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 2017

  58. [58]

    Scalable Backpropagation for Gaussian Processes using Celerite

    Foreman-Mackey, D. Scalable Backpropagation for Gaussian Processes using Celerite. Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society 2 (1), 31 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c 2018

  59. [59]

    Rasmussen, C. E. & Williams, C. K. I. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (2006)

    work page 2006

  60. [60]

    & Weare, J

    Goodman, J. & Weare, J. Ensemble samplers with affine invariance. Com- munications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science 5 (1), 65–80 (2010). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65. https://doi.org/10. 2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    doi:10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 2010

  61. [61]

    W., Lang, D

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D. & Goodman, J. emcee: The MCMC Hammer. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125 (925), 306 (2013). https://doi.org/10. 1086/670067, arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  62. [62]

    Speagle, J. S. DYNESTY: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 493, 3132–3158 (2020). URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S. https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa278, aDS Bibcode: 2020MNRAS.493.3132S

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa278 2020

  63. [63]

    Bell, T. J. et al. Mass loss from the exoplanet W ASP-12b inferred from Spitzer phase curves. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489 (2), 1995–2013 (2019). https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2018, arXiv:1906.04742 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  64. [64]

    Guillard, e. a., P. Miri point spread functions: Radial and encir- cled energy profiles (2023). URL https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/ jwst-mid-infrared-instrument/miri-performance/miri-point-spread-functions# MIRIPointSpreadFunctions-Radialandencircledenergyprofiles

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    Robinson, T. D. & Crisp, D. Linearized Flux Evolution (LiFE): A technique for rapidly adapting fluxes from full-physics radiative transfer models. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 211, 78–95 (2018). https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.03.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.03.002 2018

  66. [66]

    Meadows, V. S. & Crisp, D. Ground-based near-infrared observations of the Venus nightside: The thermal structure and water abundance near the surface. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 4595–4622 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1029/95JE03567

    doi:10.1029/95je03567 1996

  67. [67]

    C., Wiscombe, W

    Stamnes, K., Tsay, S. C., Wiscombe, W. & Jayaweerz, K. Numerically stable algorithm for discrete-ordinate-method radiative transfer in multiple scattering and emitting layered media. Appl. Opt. 42 (15), 2502–2509 (1988). https://doi. org/10.1364/AO.27.002502

    doi:10.1364/ao.27.002502 1988

  68. [68]

    C., Wiscombe, W

    Stamnes, K., Tsay, S. C., Wiscombe, W. & Laszlo, I. DISORT, a general-purpose Fortran program for discrete-ordinate-method radiative transfer in scattering and emitting layered media: documentation of methodology. ftp://climate.gsfc.nasa. 63 gov/pub/wiscombe/MultipleScatt/ (2000)

    work page 2000

  69. [69]

    Kokaly, R. et al. Usgs spectral library version 7 data: Us geological survey data release. United States Geological Survey (USGS): Reston, V A, USA 61 (2017)

    work page 2017

  70. [70]

    Toward a multidimensional analysis of transmission spectroscopy. Part I: Computation of transmission spectra using a 1D, 2D, or 3D atmosphere structure

    Falco, A., Zingales, T., Pluriel, W. & Leconte, J. Toward a multidimensional analysis of transmission spectroscopy. I. Computation of transmission spectra using a 1D, 2D, or 3D atmosphere structure. Astron. Astrophys. 658, A41 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202141940, arXiv:2110.11799 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    The SPHINX M-dwarf Spectral Grid. I. Benchmarking New Model Atmospheres to Derive Fundamental M-Dwarf Properties

    Iyer, A. R., Line, M. R., Muirhead, P. S., Fortney, J. J. & Gharib-Nezhad, E. The SPHINX M-dwarf Spectral Grid. I. Benchmarking New Model Atmospheres to Derive Fundamental M-dwarf Properties. Astrophys. J. 944 (1), 41 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acabc2, arXiv:2206.12010 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    L., Smith, M

    Villanueva, G. L., Smith, M. D., Protopapa, S., Faggi, S. & Mandell, A. M. Planetary Spectrum Generator: An accurate online radiative transfer suite for atmospheres, comets, small bodies and exoplanets. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 217, 86–104 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.05.023, arXiv:1803.02008 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  73. [73]

    Villanueva, G. L. et al. Fundamentals of the Planetary Spectrum Generator (https://psg.gsfc.nasa.gov/help.php, 2022)

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    Villanueva, G. L. et al. Modeling atmospheric lines by the exoplanet commu- nity (malbec) version 1.0: A cuisines radiative transfer intercomparison project. Planet. Sci. J. 5 (3), 64 (2024). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ad2681. https://doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ad2681

    doi:10.3847/psj/ad2681 2024

  75. [75]

    Bolmont, E. et al. Water loss from terrestrial planets orbiting ultracool dwarfs: implications for the planets of TRAPPIST-1. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 464 (3), 3728–3741 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2578, arXiv:1605.00616 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  76. [76]

    Allen, N. et al. Using stellar contamination proxy TRAPPIST-1 b to search for an atmosphere on TRAPPIST-1 e. JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #6456 (2024)

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    V., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z., Robinson, T

    Morley, C. V., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z., Robinson, T. & Fortney, J. J. Observing the Atmospheres of Known Temperate Earth-sized Planets with JWST. Astrophys. J. 850 (2), 121 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ aa927b, arXiv:1708.04239 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    Final spin states of planets and satellites

    Goldreich, P. Final spin states of planets and satellites. Astron. J. 71, 1 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1086/109844

    work page doi:10.1086/109844 1966

  79. [79]

    The Evolution of the Lunar Orbit Revisited

    Mignard, F. The Evolution of the Lunar Orbit Revisited. I. Moon and Planets 20 (3), 301–315 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00907581 . 64

    doi:10.1007/bf00907581 1979

  80. [80]

    Makarov, V. V. & Efroimsky, M. No Pseudosynchronous Rotation for Terrestrial Planets and Moons. Astrophys. J. 764 (1), 27 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0004-637X/764/1/27, arXiv:1209.1616 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.