Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 84 references

Stringent Upper Bounds on Atmospheric Mass Loss from Three Neptune-Sized Planets in the TOI-4010 System

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For all three planets in the TOI-4010 system, nondetections of metastable helium set mass-loss upper limits that contradict solar-composition photoevaporation model predictions.

desk verdict First three-planet He* limits for Neptune-sized worlds, with a clean non-detection story that may be less clean than advertised because the model predictions assume one XUV spectral shape. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21166 v1 pith:RO74YKTO submitted 2025-08-28 astro-ph.EP

Morgan Saidel , Shreyas Vissapragada , Michael Zhang , Heather A. Knutson , Matthäus Schulik , Jorge Fernández Fernández , Michelle Kunimoto , Peter J. Wheatley
show 1 more author
Jessica Spake
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords atmosphericescapephotoevaporationmetastableheliumNeptunedesertexoplanettransmissionspectroscopyTOI-4010masslossupperlimitsmulti-planetsystem
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

The paper tries to establish that standard one-dimensional photoevaporation models with solar-composition atmospheres predict stronger atmospheric escape than is observed in the TOI-4010 system, a three-Neptune system spanning the 'Neptune desert' and its surroundings. Ground-based near-infrared transit spectroscopy in the metastable helium line yields no detectable escape signature from any of the three planets, giving 95% upper limits on mass loss of 10^10.17, 10^10.53, and 10^10.50 g/s. For the inner two planets those limits are about an order of magnitude below the rates predicted by self-consistent solar-composition models, and even the outer planet's predicted signal should have been visible. If the result holds, it means the commonly used solar-metallicity 1D escape models miss suppression effects—metal-rich air, fractionation of helium out of the outflow, or molecular cooling—that matter for real Neptune-sized atmospheres.

What carries the argument

The central probe is the metastable helium (He*) line at 1.0833 micrometers: a transit-depth excess there signals gas escaping the planet's Hill sphere. To turn a non-detection into a physical bound, the paper uses an isothermal Parker wind model (p-winds) that maps outflow temperature and mass loss rate onto a synthetic helium transit spectrum, then MCMC-retrieves allowed regions in that two-parameter space. For the comparison that creates the tension, the paper uses pyTPCI, a 1D self-consistent radiative-hydrodynamic outflow code, to predict the He* signal and mass-loss rate for solar-composition atmospheres; it then tests how those predictions change under reduced XUV flux, higher metalli

What would settle it

Measure TOI-4010's actual X-ray and EUV output with a dedicated observation. If the true spectrum's EUV-to-X-ray ratio differs enough from HD 85512's, the predicted metastable helium signals for b and c can drop below the 0.81–1.23% upper limits even at the same total XUV luminosity, removing the claimed inconsistency without needing high metallicity or fractionation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TOI-4010 b, c, and d were all observed in full transit at 1.0833 μm, the metastable helium triplet that traces escaping gas, and none shows excess absorption above 1.23%, 0.81%, and 0.87% respectively (95% confidence). Interpreting the non-detections with isothermal Parker wind models gives mass-loss upper limits of 10^10.17, 10^10.53, and 10^10.50 g/s. Against these, pyTPCI radiative-hydrodynamic models of solar-composition outflows predict rates of 10^11.15 and 10^10.98 g/s for b and c—about ten times higher—plus detectable helium signals for all three planets. The paper argues that this discrepancy is real: lowering the adopted stellar XUV flux by factors up to 15, or invoking stellar win

Load-bearing premise

The tension rests on borrowing the K star HD 85512's measured X-ray/extreme-UV spectrum as a stand-in for TOI-4010's unmeasured high-energy spectrum; the paper reduces that spectrum's total brightness but never changes its shape, and the helium signal depends on the shape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the 95% upper limits, all three planets have atmospheric lifetimes >110 Gyr, so ongoing photoevaporation will not strip their envelopes over the host star's main-sequence lifetime.
  • TOI-4010 b's current H/He envelope cannot be reconciled with solar-composition evaporation histories: such models strip any starting envelope within ~500 Myr, so some long-lived suppression mechanism must operate.
  • The envelope-mass-fraction gradient between TOI-4010 c and d is likely primordial rather than carved by escape, since both lost little of their envelopes in the backward-evolution models.
  • The non-detections can be reproduced either by high atmospheric metallicity (~100× solar for b, extrapolated ~200× for c and d) or by helium fractionation and molecular cooling, with the two possibly acting together.
  • Spectroscopic observations planned for this system should be able to measure the planets' atmospheric metallicities and distinguish between a high-metallicity and a fractionation explanation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If fractionation is as strong as the AIOLOS runs suggest, helium-poor outflows should be common around K-dwarf multi-planet systems, and helium non-detections should correlate with orbital distance and stellar type—a population-level pattern the paper flags as open rather than established.
  • A direct measurement of TOI-4010's XUV spectrum is the cleanest test of the claimed tension: the paper scales the proxy spectrum's total flux but never varies its spectral shape, and the metastable helium population is sensitive to the EUV-to-X-ray ratio.
  • If the planetary atmospheres are actually metal-rich, the inferred mass-loss upper limits may be biased low even while the helium signal stays weak, so the quoted bounds and the contradiction with solar-composition models both deserve qualification.
  • The results weaken the case that the lower boundary of the Neptune desert is being sculpted by present-day photoevaporation in this type of system, nudging the mechanism to earlier epochs or to processes other than ongoing hydrodynamic escape.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports Keck/NIRSPEC metastable helium (He*) transit observations of the three Neptune-sized planets in the TOI-4010 system (b, c, d). No excess absorption is detected, giving 95% confidence upper limits of 1.23%, 0.81%, and 0.87% on the He* transit depth, and p-winds Parker-wind retrievals convert these into 95th-percentile mass-loss upper limits of 10^10.17, 10^10.53, and 10^10.50 g/s. The authors compare these limits with pyTPCI 1D hydrodynamic solar-composition predictions and claim that the non-detections for planets b and c are inconsistent with such models; they then explore reduced XUV luminosity, stellar winds, magnetic fields, enhanced metallicity, and H/He fractionation as possible explanations. Using photoevolver simulations they also reconstruct past evaporation histories, concluding that c and d have lost little envelope while b should have been stripped within ~500 Myr unless outflow suppression persists.

Significance. If the claimed inconsistency is correct, this is an important multi-planet test of photoevaporation models: three similar planets in the same system with the same irradiation history are predicted to show detectable He* but do not, suggesting that standard solar-composition 1D models overpredict observable escape. The data are of good quality, the upper limits are carefully derived, and the paper compares several independent modeling frameworks (p-winds, pyTPCI, AIOLOS, photoevolver). The main caveat is that the predicted signals depend on an assumed stellar XUV spectral energy distribution; the robustness tests vary only the total XUV normalization, not the spectral shape that controls the He* population. This limits the strength of the central claim as currently stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, §4.2] The robustness tests reduce the HD 85512 XUV flux by factors of 5, 10, and 15, but they never vary the spectral energy distribution. The metastable helium population is controlled by the balance between EUV photons that ionize He I and harder X-ray photons that heat and ionize H; a different SED shape with the same integrated XUV can suppress the predicted He* signal by a factor of several without changing the mass-loss rate. Thus the central claim that the non-detections are inconsistent with solar-composition 1D models is not established; it is specifically an inconsistency with models driven by an HD 85512-shaped SED. The authors should repeat the pyTPCI/p-winds predictions with alternative SEDs (e.g., other MUSCLES K-star spectra or a parameterized EUV-to-X-ray ratio) and re-evaluate the tension. The current §5.1 scaling tests do not address this possibility.
  2. [§2, §3, §4.2] For TOI-4010 c and d, the OH telluric line contaminates the red wing of the He* feature (1.08332–1.08339 μm), and the upper limits are computed from the blue wing only. The pyTPCI model spectra in Figure 3 are shown over the full line profile, including the masked region. If a substantial fraction of the predicted line depth is in the red wing, the comparison in §4.2 overstates the discrepancy. The authors should either compute the model predictions over exactly the same wavelength mask as the observations or quantify the fraction of the predicted line depth that falls in the masked window.
  3. [§5.4] The AIOLOS fractionation models produce very strong suppression: reduction factors of 10^-2 for c and 10^-6 for d, and complete outflow shutdown for d due to molecular cooling. These results are used to argue that fractionation can explain all three non-detections. However, the setup (lower boundary at 10 mbar, helium injection at 1 nbar homopause, Malygin et al. 2014 molecular cooling tables) is introduced here without a sensitivity study or validation against published fractionation models. Given that this is a key alternative explanation, the authors should at least test the dependence on the assumed homopause pressure and cooling treatment, or clearly state these as strong assumptions.
  4. [§5.5] The text says the predicted present-day XUV flux of (3.0 ± 1.0) × 10^28 erg/s 'agrees with' the HD 85512 value of 1.2 × 10^28 erg/s. These values differ by approximately 1.8σ (1.2 is outside the 1σ range of 2.0–4.0 × 10^28), so the agreement is not good. This statement should be corrected or rephrased, as it directly bears on the validity of the adopted stellar proxy.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§6] Typo: 'it’s envelope' should be 'its envelope'.
  2. [§4.1] Typo: 'HD 88512' should be 'HD 85512'.
  3. [Abstract / Introduction] The sentence 'However, the stellar high energy fluxes...' is slightly wordy; consider tightening. Also the intro contains a stray 'Ex-arXiv' fragment in the first paragraph.
  4. [§5.5] The phrase 'still within 1 σ' for the TOI-4010 c predicted mass-loss rate is ambiguous; specify that it is within 1σ of the predicted rate's uncertainty, since the central predicted value exceeds the 95% upper limit.
  5. [Figure 3] The model-prediction lines (blue, purple, pink, orange) are only identified in the caption, not in a figure legend. Adding a legend would improve readability.
  6. [Data availability] The paper does not include a data availability statement. The reduced transmission spectra and posterior samples should be made available, at minimum via a repository link.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the forward-model predictions are independent of the non-detection data, and co-author code citations are real, non-load-bearing support.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The observed non-detections are converted into mass-loss upper limits using p-winds (§4.1), a forward Parker-wind retrieval in which Mdot and T0 are fitted to the data. The 'expectations' that the paper claims are contradicted come from pyTPCI (§4.2), a separate one-dimensional radiative-hydrodynamics code that is run from stated planetary parameters (mass, radius, semi-major axis), solar abundances, and the adopted HD 85512 stellar spectrum; its predicted Mdot and He* signals are not functions of the p-winds posterior, so they are genuinely independent predictions rather than fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The same is true of the AIOLOS fractionation runs (§5.4) and the photoevolver/Kubyshkina past-evaporation histories (§5.5), which use separate published models and stellar evolution tracks. The paper's main caveat is that TOI-4010 lacks a measured high-energy spectrum and HD 85512 is used as a proxy (§4.1); the robustness tests in §5.1 vary only the XUV normalization, not the spectral energy distribution, so a different SED shape could change the He* population and weaken the claimed inconsistency. That is a substantive astrophysical uncertainty and a limitation, but it is not circularity: the prediction is not defined in terms of the non-detection, and the model-data comparison remains a genuine consistency test conditional on the assumed SED. The self-citations to co-author codes (pyTPCI/Rosener et al. 2025, AIOLOS/Schulik & Booth 2023, photoevolver/Fernández Fernández et al. 2023, and the methodology in Zhang et al. 2022b, 2025) are to published, externally checkable simulations whose assumptions do not include the target non-detections, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternative explanations. The paper in fact explores metallicity, magnetic fields, winds, and fractionation as independent alternatives. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on calibrated observational upper limits (from p-winds retrieval) and forward model predictions. The main external inputs are the proxy star spectrum, solar composition assumption, planetary parameters from the discovery paper, and the boundary conditions of the RHD codes. No new physical entities are proposed; the paper invokes known processes (fractionation, molecular cooling, high metallicity) as explanations.

free parameters (5)
  • log10 mass loss rate (p-winds retrieval) = upper limits: 10.17, 10.53, 10.50 (log10 g/s) for b, c, d; marginalized posterior
    Free parameter in MCMC retrieval with prior U(6,12); the reported upper limits are the 95th percentile of the posterior, used for all mass loss conclusions.
  • isothermal outflow temperature T0 (p-winds retrieval) = not reported as best fit; prior U(3900,15000) K
    Second free parameter in the retrieval; upper limit on Mdot is marginalized over T0.
  • XUV scaling factor for robustness tests = 1 (nominal), 0.2, 0.1, 0.0667 (reductions by 5, 10, 15)
    Hand-chosen factors applied to the HD 85512 proxy spectrum to test sensitivity; not fitted, but the conclusion that non-detections remain inconsistent depends on these scenarios.
  • atmospheric metallicity Z in pyTPCI models = 1, 10, 30, 100, 200 times solar
    Hand-chosen metallicities for forward models; 200x models failed to converge. The metallicity explanation for planet b requires ~100x solar.
  • initial envelope mass fraction for TOI-4010 b = 1%, 2%, 5%
    Chosen initial envelope mass fractions for past evolution simulations; all are stripped within ~500 Myr, leading to the conclusion of a persistent suppression mechanism.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption HD 85512 MUSCLES spectrum is a valid proxy for TOI-4010's high-energy (XUV) spectrum
    TOI-4010 has no measured high-energy spectrum; HD 85512 is used because of similarities in spectral type, Teff, log g, rotation period, and log R'HK (Section 4.1). Only the normalization is varied in tests, not the spectral shape.
  • domain assumption Outflow is solar composition (90% H, 10% He by number) for the retrieval and baseline forward models
    Adopted for comparability with prior work (Section 4.1); the paper later tests metal-rich and fractionated compositions.
  • domain assumption A 1D isothermal Parker wind model (p-winds) adequately maps He* absorption to mass loss rate and temperature
    Used to convert non-detections to upper limits; this is the standard model in the field, but it neglects 3D effects, stellar wind confinement, and magnetic fields.
  • domain assumption pyTPCI lower boundary condition of particle density 10^14 cm^-3 at the planet's radius and inclusion of atomic species with solar abundance > 1e-5 (no molecules)
    Model setup following Zhang et al. (2022b, 2025); the predicted He* signals and mass loss rates depend on this boundary condition and the absence of molecular cooling.
  • ad hoc to paper AIOLOS fractionation setup: lower boundary at 10 mbar, helium injected at 1 nbar homopause pressure, molecular cooling from Malygin et al. (2014) tables
    These choices maximize the expected helium abundance and thus the reduction factor is conservative; but the predicted suppression of He* for planets c and d depends on this setup (Section 5.4).
  • domain assumption Planetary parameters (masses, radii, ages, orbital distances) from Kunimoto et al. (2023) are accurate
    All upper limits, model predictions, and evolution simulations use these values; a significant error in mass or radius would shift the derived mass loss limits.
  • domain assumption The current upper limit on Mdot can be used as a constant rate to estimate atmospheric lifetimes (Mp/Mdot > 110 Gyr)
    The paper notes this is conservative because the star's XUV flux decreases with age, so the lifetime estimate is a lower limit (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption For past evaporation, the spin evolution models of Johnstone et al. (2021) and the mass loss model of Kubyshkina et al. (2018) describe the star's XUV history and escape physics
    Used in Section 5.5 to reconstruct evaporation histories and derive present-day mass loss rates that disagree with the observed upper limits for planet b.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stringent Upper Bounds on Atmospheric Mass Loss from Three Neptune-Sized Planets in the TOI-4010 System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RO74YKTO

@misc{pith2026250821166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stringent Upper Bounds on Atmospheric Mass Loss from Three Neptune-Sized Planets in the TOI-4010 System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RO74YKTO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21166}
}
abstract

Photoevaporative models predict that the lower edge of the Neptune desert is sculpted by atmospheric mass loss. However, the stellar high energy fluxes that power hydrodynamic escape and set predicted mass loss rates can be uncertain by multiple orders of magnitude. These uncertainties can be bypassed by studying mass loss for planets within the same system, as they have effectively undergone scaled versions of the same irradiation history. The TOI-4010 system is an ideal test case for mass loss models, as it contains three Neptune-sized planets with planet b located in the `Neptune desert', planet c in the `Neptune ridge', and planet d in the `Neptune savanna'. Using Keck/NIRSPEC, we measured the metastable helium transit depths of all three planets in order to search for evidence of atmospheric escape. We place upper bounds on the excess helium absorption of 1.23\%, 0.81\%, and 0.87\% at 95\% confidence for TOI-4010~b, c and d respectively. We fit our transmission spectra with Parker wind models and find that this corresponds to 95th-percentile upper limits of $10^{10.17}$g~s$^{-1}$, $10^{10.53}$g~s$^{-1}$, and $10^{10.50}$g~s$^{-1}$ on the mass loss rates of TOI-4010~b, c, and d respectively. Our non-detections are inconsistent with expectations from one-dimensional hydrodynamic models for solar composition atmospheres. We consider potential reductions in signal from a decreased host star XUV luminosity, planetary magnetic fields, enhanced atmospheric metallicities, and fractionation, and explore the implications of our measurements for the past evaporation histories of all three planets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21166 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Transiting planet radii, periods, and densities in the vicinity of the Neptune desert, drawn from the NASA Ex￾oplanet Archive on April 4, 2025 (Akeson et al. 2013; NASA Exoplanet Archive 2024). The dashed lines indicate the Neptune desert, ridge, and savanna boundaries from Castro￾Gonz´alez et al. (2024). Planets in the TOI-4010 system are indicated with a star and a darker opacity. We can characterize the present-d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In-transit spectra of TOI-4010 b (first panel), TOI-4010 c (second panel), and TOI-4010 d (third panel) in the stellar rest frame. Gray lines are the in-transit spectra throughout the night. The average in-transit spectrum is shown in black. Red vertical dashed lines denote the wavelengths of the three helium lines. The red shaded regions correspond to the location of a telluric OH line and are masked in our analysi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top row: Keck/NIRSPEC excess absorption in percent of TOI-4010 b (first panel), TOI-4010 c (second panel) and TOI-4010 d (third panel), in each planet’s rest frame as a function of time and wavelength (air wavelengths in planetary rest frame). Horizontal white lines mark the beginning (top) and end (bottom) of transit. Dashed vertical red lines denote the positions of the three helium lines. Red shaded regions mark … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top row: Posterior probability distribution for log M˙ and T0 for TOI-4010 b (first panel), TOI-4010 c (second panel), and TOI-4010 d (third panel). The contours indicate the 1σ, 2σ and 3σ levels for the distributions. The pyTPCI solar metallicity-predicted mass loss r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average Keck/NIRSPEC excess absorption spectra in percent for TOI-4010 b (first panel), TOI-4010 c (second panel) and TOI-4010 d (third panel) shown as black points. Red shaded regions mark the location of a telluric OH line that we masked in our analysis (see [PITH_F…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Keck/NIRSPEC average excess absorption spectra in percent for TOI-4010 b (first panel), TOI-4010 c (second panel) and TOI-4010 d (third panel) shown as black points. The shaded red region marks the location of a telluric OH line masked in our analysis (see [PITH_FULL_…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top panels: Evolution of the radius (left panel) and envelope mass fraction (right panel) for TOI-4010 c, as described in Section 5.5. The solid lines show atmospheric evolution under different XUV irradiation histories and different values for the planet’s parameters …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left panel: Evolution of the radius of TOI-4010 b under atmospheric escape and thermal contraction, as described in Section 5.5. The solid lines show evolution under different starting envelope mass fractions of 1%, 2%, and 5%, and the shaded regions represent the unce…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Chen, X., & et al

    Akeson, R. L., Chen, X., & et al. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 989, doi: 10.1086/672273

    doi:10.1086/672273 2013

  2. [2]

    Aschwanden, M. J. 2014, in Encyclopedia of the Solar System (Third Edition), third edition edn., ed. T. Spohn, D. Breuer, & T. V. Johnson (Boston: Elsevier), 235–259, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-415845-0.00011-6 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., & et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f —. 2022, ...

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-415845-0.00011-6 2014

  3. [3]

    K., Sandel, B

    Atreya, S. K., Sandel, B. R., & Romani, P. N. 1991, in Uranus, ed. J. T. Bergstralh, E. D. Miner, & M. S. Matthews, 110–146

    1991

  4. [4]

    2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems

    Bagenal, F. 2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems. Volume 3: Solar and Stellar Planetary Systems, ed. T. D

    2013

  5. [5]

    Oswalt, L. M. French, & P. Kalas, 251, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5606-9 6

    doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5606-9

  6. [6]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aade90

    Bailey, E., & Batygin, K. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aade90

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aade90 2018

  7. [7]

    H., & Laughlin, G

    Batygin, K., Bodenheimer, P. H., & Laughlin, G. P. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 114, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/114 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 763, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/12 14

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/114 2016

  8. [8]

    2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abdb2f

    Carleo, I., Youngblood, A., Redfield, S., & et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abdb2f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abdb2f 2021

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    A., Plavchan, P., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & Hazra, G

    Carolan, S., Vidotto, A. A., Plavchan, P., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & Hazra, G. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, L53, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa127

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Carolan, S. e. a. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3431 Castro-Gonz´ alez, A., Bourrier, V., & et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 689, A250, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450957

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    C., & Kasting, J

    Catling, D. C., & Kasting, J. F. 2017, Atmospheric Evolution on Inhabited and Lifeless Worlds

    2017

  4. [12]

    Chen, H., & Rogers, L. A. 2016, ApJ, 831, 180, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/180

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.10690, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.10690

    Cherubim, C., Wordsworth, R., Hu, R., & Shkolnik, E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.10690, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.10690

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/3

    Christie, D., Arras, P., & Li, Z.-Y. 2016, ApJ, 820, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/3

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Watson, C

    Costes, J. C., Watson, C. A., de Mooij, E., & et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1183

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Dragomir, D., & et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbc71 Dos Santos, L. A. 2023, in , Vol. 370, Winds of Stars and Exoplanets, ed. A. A. Vidotto, L. Fossati, & J. S. Vink, 56–71, doi: 10.1017/S1743921322004239 Dos Santos, L. A., Vidotto, A...

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Dragomir, D., Crossfield, I. J. M., & et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbc70 Fern´ andez Fern´ andez, J., Wheatley, P. J., & King, G. W. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4251, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1257 Fern´ andez Fern´ andez, J., Wheatley, P. J., King, G. W., &

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Jenkins, J. S. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 911, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3263

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    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 G¨ udel, M. 2004, A&A Review, 12, 71, doi: 10.1007/s00159-004-0023-2

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 676, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346419

    Guilluy, G., Bourrier, V., & et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 676, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346419

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., & et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Pepin, R

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

    1987 doi

  15. [23]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., & et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., & et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 673, 487, doi: 10.1086/523754

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    E., Pavlyuchenkov, Y

    Ionov, D. E., Pavlyuchenkov, Y. N., & Shematovich, V. I. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 5639, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty626

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Bartel, M., & G¨ udel, M

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

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    P., G¨ udel, M., Brott, I., & L¨ uftinger, T

    Johnstone, C. P., G¨ udel, M., Brott, I., & L¨ uftinger, T. 2015, A&A, 577, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425301

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    W., & Wheatley, P

    King, G. W., & Wheatley, P. J. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, L28, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa186

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    W., Wheatley, P

    King, G. W., Wheatley, P. J., Salz, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1193, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1110

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    V., et al

    Kubyshkina, D., Fossati, L., Erkaev, N. V., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833737

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1143, doi: 10.21105/joss.01143

    Kumar, R., Carroll, C., Hartikainen, A., & Martin, O. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1143, doi: 10.21105/joss.01143

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd537

    Kunimoto, M., Vanderburg, A., & et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd537

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Mamajek, E

    Laliotis, K., Burt, J. A., Mamajek, E. E., & et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acc067

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    F., Chassefi` ere, E., et al

    Lammer, H., Kasting, J. F., Chassefi` ere, E., et al. 2008, SSRv, 139, 399, doi: 10.1007/s11214-008-9413-5 Lamp´ on, M., L´ opez-Puertas, M., Czesla, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140423

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 688, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450240

    Linssen, D., Shih, J., MacLeod, M., & Oklopˇ ci´ c, A. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 688, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450240

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & MacLeod, M

    Linssen, D. C., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & MacLeod, M. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 667, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243830

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    D., & Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 776, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/2

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    C., & et al

    Lovis, C., Dumusque, X., Santos, N. C., & et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1107.5325, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1107.5325

    2011 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    Loyd, R. O. P., Schreyer, E., Owen, J. E., & et al. 2025, Nature, 638, 636, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08490-x 15

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    S., Kjeldsen, H., & et al

    Lundkvist, M. S., Kjeldsen, H., & et al. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 11201, doi: 10.1038/ncomms11201

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46ce

    MacLeod, M., & Oklopˇ ci´ c, A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46ce

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Malsky, I., Rogers, L., Kempton, E. M. R., & Marounina, N. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 57, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01823-8

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    2014, A&A, 568, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423768

    Henning, T. 2014, A&A, 568, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423768

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac556

    Mitani, H., Nakatani, R., & Yoshida, N. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac556

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Chiang, E

    Murray-Clay, R. A., Chiang, E. I., & Murray, N. 2009, ApJ, 693, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/23

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86ca NASA Exoplanet Archive

    Nakayama, A., Ikoma, M., & Terada, N. 2022, ApJ, 937, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86ca NASA Exoplanet Archive. 2024, Planetary Systems, Version: 2024-01-23 12:42, NExScI-Caltech/IPAC, doi: 10.26133/NEA12 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & Hirata, C. M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, ...

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.16732, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.16732

    Orell-Miquel, J., Murgas, F., Pall´ e, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.16732, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.16732

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    F., Bouchy, F., & Helled, R

    Otegi, J. F., Bouchy, F., & Helled, R. 2019, A&A, 634, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936482

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    Owen, J. E. 2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 67, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060246

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    E., & Adams, F

    Owen, J. E., & Adams, F. C. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3761, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1684

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    E., & Alvarez, M

    Owen, J. E., & Alvarez, M. A. 2016, ApJ, 816, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/34

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    E., & Campos Estrada, B

    Owen, J. E., & Campos Estrada, B. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3435

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    E., & Lai, D

    Owen, J. E., & Lai, D. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 5012, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1760

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    E., & Wu, Y

    Owen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2017, ApJ, 847, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa890a

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 534, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117055

    Pepe, F., Lovis, C., S´ egransan, D., & et al. 2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 534, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117055

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    2003, A&A, 397, 147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021560

    Ventura, P. 2003, A&A, 397, 147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021560

    2003 doi

  50. [58]

    G., Owen, J

    Rogers, J. G., Owen, J. E., & Schlichting, H. E. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 2716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae563

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    Rosener, R., Zhang, M., & Bean, J. L. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada6ab

    2025 doi

  52. [60]

    S., Khodachenko, M

    Rumenskikh, M. S., Khodachenko, M. L., & et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 4120, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2846

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada49f

    Saidel, M., Vissapragada, S., Spake, J., & et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada49f

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    C., & Schmitt, J

    Salz, M., Czesla, S., Schneider, P. C., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 586, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526109

    2016 doi

  55. [63]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.10947, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.10947

    Bahroloom, Z., & Di Giampasquale, S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.10947, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.10947

    2023 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    Schulik, M., & Booth, R. A. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 286, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1251

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05258, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05258

    Schulik, M., & Owen, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05258, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05258

    2024 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 576, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423932

    Smette, A., Sana, H., & et al. 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 576, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423932

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Sing, D

    Spake, J. J., Sing, D. K., & et al. 2018, Nature, 557, 68, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0067-5 Szab´ o, G. M., & Kiss, L. L. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 727, L44, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/L44

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    B., Arras, P., & Li, Z.-Y

    Trammell, G. B., Arras, P., & Li, Z.-Y. 2011, ApJ, 728, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/152

    2011 doi

  61. [69]

    P., G¨ udel, M., & Lammer, H

    Tu, L., Johnstone, C. P., G¨ udel, M., & Lammer, H. 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 577, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526146

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    A., & Cleary, A

    Vidotto, A. A., & Cleary, A. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa852

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

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

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    A., & et al

    Vissapragada, S., Knutson, H. A., & et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac92f2

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad23cf

    Vissapragada, S., McCreery, P., & et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad23cf

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1ed

    Wang, L., & Dai, F. 2021, ApJ, 914, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1ed

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    J., Drake, J

    Wright, N. J., Drake, J. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Henry, G. W. 2011, ApJ, 743, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/48

    2011 doi

  68. [76]

    2020, Icarus, 345, 113740, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113740 16

    Yoshida, T., & Kuramoto, K. 2020, Icarus, 345, 113740, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113740 16

    2020

  69. [77]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7be7

    Yoshida, T., Terada, N., Ikoma, M., & Kuramoto, K. 2022, ApJ, 934, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7be7

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    2024, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 11, 59, doi: 10.1186/s40645-024-00666-3

    Yoshida, T., Terada, N., & Kuramoto, K. 2024, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 11, 59, doi: 10.1186/s40645-024-00666-3

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa76dd

    Youngblood, A., France, K., & et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa76dd

    2017 doi

  72. [80]

    J., Gacesa, M., & Catling, D

    Zahnle, K. J., Gacesa, M., & Catling, D. C. 2019, GeoCoA, 244, 56, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2018.09.017

    2019 doi

  73. [81]

    J., & Kasting, J

    Zahnle, K. J., & Kasting, J. F. 1986, Icarus, 68, 462, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90051-5

    1986 doi

  74. [82]

    L., Wilson, D., & et al

    Zhang, M., Bean, J. L., Wilson, D., & et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb490

    2025 doi

  75. [83]

    A., & et al

    Zhang, M., Knutson, H. A., & et al. 2022a, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3f3b

    doi

  76. [84]

    A., Wang, L., Dai, F., & Barrag´ an, O

    Zhang, M., Knutson, H. A., Wang, L., Dai, F., & Barrag´ an, O. 2022b, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3fa7

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.