Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 38 references

A Statistical Method for Constraining the Capability of the Habitable Worlds Observatory to Understand Ozone Onset Time in Earth Analogs

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that with 30 Earth analogs and a UV-sensitive Habitable Worlds Observatory, a sample with no ozone detections would constrain the mean ozone emergence time to 10 sigma—and that sample size matters more than stellar age…

desk verdict Clean, reproducible trade study with a real sample-size conclusion, but the headline 10σ no-detection claim is a prior-boundary artifact, not a measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06188 v1 pith:WVNNT3ZJ submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Sarah Blunt , Eric L. Nielsen , Elisabeth R. Newton , Jessie Christiansen , Tansu Daylan , Courtney Dressing , Caleb K. Harada , Stephen R. Kane
show 3 more authors
Malena Rice Romy Rodríguez Martínez Sabina Sagynbayeva
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords exoplanetsHabitableWorldsObservatoryozoneemergencebiosignaturesstellaragespopulationstatisticsMCMCUVobservations
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 asks how well a future Habitable Worlds Observatory could determine when—or whether—Earth-like planets typically develop oxygen-rich atmospheres. The authors simulate populations of Earth analogs with a Gaussian distribution of ozone onset times, then test how precisely the distribution's mean and width can be recovered as a function of sample size and stellar age uncertainty. Their central finding is that the number of planets in the sample matters more than how precisely the stars' ages are known; a sample of 30 analogs with no ozone detections would place a 10-sigma upper limit on the mean emergence time, regardless of age uncertainty. The paper frames this as a trade study for mission planning: maximizing the number of UV-characterized analogs, rather than chasing extremely precise ages, is the higher-leverage investment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the likelihood function in Equation (2), which gives the probability that a planet shows ozone as a function of its measured age $a^\mu_i$ and age uncertainty $a^\sigma_i$ against a population-level Gaussian onset-time distribution $(\mu_{\rm pop}, \sigma_{\rm pop})$. The integral over the true age is analytic: $p(O_i=1|\theta) = \Phi\left(\frac{a^\mu_i - \mu_{\rm pop}}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\rm pop}^2 + (a^\sigma_i)^2}}\right)$, a Gaussian CDF with the age uncertainty folded into the effective spread. This generalizes the binomial likelihood (exactly reducing to it when both $\sigma_{\rm pop}$ and age uncertainties vanish) and lets the MCMC recovery constrain both the mean onset time and its intrinsic physical spread.

What would settle it

Take a real or simulated population where ozone is transient, such as an exponential 'ozone lifetime' after emergence, and rerun the same likelihood recovery; if the recovered mean emergence time is biased and the 10-sigma no-detection limit drops below about 5 sigma, the permanence assumption is load-bearing and the paper's headline claim fails. Alternatively, if HWO's effective UV sensitivity is worse than 1% of present atmospheric level, measured during commissioning on a real Proterozoic-analog spectrum, the assumed detection threshold and the resulting 10-sigma claim would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the population-level question 'when do Earth analogs acquire ozone?' is statistically tractable with a modest sample if the observatory has UV sensitivity to ozone at 1% of Earth's present atmospheric level. Using a closed-form likelihood that marginalizes each star's age measurement over its uncertainty, the authors recover the true Gaussian onset-time distribution's mean and spread. They find that the recovered precision is largely independent of the true distribution parameters, improves more with added planets than with improved ages, and that 20% asteroseismic age uncertainties are already sufficient to constrain the population mean to 50% precision across all tested scenarios. Most strikingly, a sample of 30 Earth analogs with zero ozone detections yields a 10-sigma constraint that ozone never emerges, equivalently, that the emergence time is the age of the universe.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that once an Earth-analog atmosphere acquires oxygen, it stays oxygenated forever, so a non-detection means the planet's ozone onset time is later than its current age; if ozone can vanish, non-detections no longer carry that clean meaning and the 10-sigma limit breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HWO mission planning should prioritize maximizing the number of Earth analogs with UV ozone measurements over investing in extremely precise stellar ages.
  • A no-detection result across roughly 30 Earth analogs would be a 10-sigma statement that Earth-like atmospheres do not become oxygenated within the age of the universe, giving high statistical power to biosignature absence.
  • The 50%-precision target for the population mean is achievable with 30 planets and 20% age uncertainties, a plausible precursor-observation scenario.
  • The same likelihood machinery can be reused for other binary biosignatures, such as methane or oxygen-methane disequilibrium, and for non-Gaussian onset-time distributions by replacing the CDF.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If oxygenation can be transient, the no-detection 10-sigma limit degrades into an upper bound on onset time rather than a statement about never-emerging ozone; the authors' flagged 'ozone lifetime' extension would quantify this.
  • The claimed near-independence of recovered precision from the true parameters suggests an information-theoretic flattening of this likelihood, so a Fisher-information calculation could predict the sample-size/age-precision tradeoff without simulation.
  • The 1%-of-PAL sensitivity assumption is the critical telescope-side unknown; a testable extension is to recompute the 10-sigma sample-size requirement for sensitivity thresholds of 0.1% and 10% PAL.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a forward-modeling and retrieval study for the Habitable Worlds Observatory, asking how well the population-level distribution of ozone onset times on Earth analogs can be inferred from a sample of binary ozone detections and non-detections. The authors derive an analytic likelihood (Eq. 2) that marginalizes over stellar age uncertainty, simulate observations under three underlying distributions, and run MCMC retrievals to map how the recovered precision on the population mean and scatter depends on sample size and stellar age precision. They report that sample size matters more than age uncertainty, and that a sample of 30 Earth analogs with no ozone detections would place a 10-sigma limit on the mean ozone emergence time.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a useful, transparent framework for HWO mission trade studies, with a publicly available code and an analytic likelihood that can be adapted for future end-to-end simulations. The derivation of Eq. 2 is correct, and the exploration of the sample-size versus age-precision trade space is valuable. However, the headline no-detection 10-sigma claim is not presently supported because it depends on unstated prior bounds on mu_pop, and the persistence assumption that limits the interpretation of non-detections is acknowledged only in the Conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [2.2, Fig. 5] The all-nondetection likelihood is monotonically increasing in mu_pop: for O_i=0, Eq. (2) gives p(O_i=0|theta)=Phi((mu_pop - a_mu_i)/sqrt(sigma_pop^2 + a_sigma_i^2)), which is non-decreasing in mu_pop for every planet. Therefore, with a uniform prior and no stated upper bound, the posterior has no interior maximum and piles up at the upper boundary of whatever prior is adopted. The paper says only 'uniform priors' without reporting the bounds on mu_pop and sigma_pop, so the 10-sigma no-detection claim cannot be reproduced or interpreted; if the prior is truncated near 13 Gyr, the data rule out mu_pop below the sample's age range but do not measure the upper value. The authors must report the exact priors, demonstrate sensitivity to the prior upper bound, and rephrase the result as an upper limit on mu_pop rather than a 10-sigma measurement.
  2. [2.1, Conclusion] The interpretation of a non-detection as 'onset later than the star's age' relies on the assumption that once ozone emerges, it persists indefinitely. The authors acknowledge in the Conclusion that if ozone emerges and later disappears, 'our results would be biased,' but the abstract's headline 10-sigma statement is unqualified. Because transient oxygenation is a physically plausible scenario and would make non-detections ambiguous, the central claim should be explicitly conditional on the persistence assumption, or the analysis should be extended with an ozone-lifetime parameter.
  3. [Abstract, Figs. 3-5] The claim that the 10-sigma limit holds 'regardless of stellar age uncertainty' is not supported by the reported simulations. In Eq. (2), the sensitivity of the likelihood to mu_pop decreases as a_sigma_i increases, since the argument of Phi shrinks; sufficiently poor age measurements must degrade the constraint. The paper does not state the full range of age uncertainties tested, and the figures show only a few discrete values, so the 'regardless' claim is an overgeneralization.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The paper never defines what '10-sigma' means in the Bayesian context; please specify whether it refers to a posterior standard deviation, a credible-interval ratio, or an equivalent Gaussian tail probability.
  2. [Section 2.2] The prior bounds on both mu_pop and sigma_pop are not reported, which is necessary for reproducibility; please provide the exact prior definitions in Table 1 or the text.
  3. [Section 2.2] The likelihood derivation assumes the true stellar age is Gaussian-distributed around the measured age without truncation; for old stars this assigns non-negligible probability to ages beyond the universe's age or below zero, which could bias the retrieved sigma_pop at the few-percent level.
  4. [References] Several references appear with broken citation formatting (e.g., 'by. 29', 'by. 19'), which should be corrected before publication.
  5. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption's '10% precision (10-sigma certainty)' is ambiguous; 10% fractional precision is not logically equivalent to 10-sigma certainty, and the statistical meaning should be clarified.
  6. [Section 3] The statement that 'the absolute uncertainties that we recover... are mostly independent of the true underlying distribution parameters' is based on only three underlying scenarios; please soften this or include additional tests with different (mu_pop, sigma_pop) values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported precisions are measured properties of an injection-recovery pipeline under explicitly stated generative assumptions.

full rationale

This is an injection-recovery / simulation-calibration study: the authors draw a known 'true' Gaussian onset distribution, simulate binary ozone/no-ozone measurements using Eqs. (2)-(3), and then fit the same model with MCMC. The reported precisions are therefore measured properties of the statistical pipeline under the stated generative model, not empirical predictions derived from fitted constants; this is the standard and non-circular use of forward modeling for mission trade studies. The likelihood is derived from the stated Gaussian-onset and persistent-ozone assumptions and, as the authors note, 'reduces exactly to the binomial pdf when σpop and aσi are equal to 0'; the analytic integral is attributed to an external MathOverflow answer. The few author self-citations (e.g., Harada et al. 2024 for RV mass constraints; Stanford-Moore et al. 2020 for gyrochronology) are contextual and not load-bearing. The sensitivity of the all-nondetection 10σ statement to the implicit upper bound of the uniform prior on μ_pop is a statistical identifiability/robustness concern, not a circular reduction: the stated assumptions plus the physical upper limit at 13 Gyr are inputs, and the posterior width is a computed output. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the persistence assumption's limitation. Hence I find no step where a prediction is equivalent by construction to a fitted input or a self-citation chain.

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

The pipeline injects known truth and retrieves it, so no hidden fit constants enter the likelihood derivation. The numbers that shape all results are the fiducial injection values, the uniform 0-13 Gyr age prior, the fractional age-error model, the 1% PAL detection threshold, and the delta-like approximation for the never-emerges case. The two assumptions the authors themselves flag as biasing if wrong are the persistence of ozone and the Gaussian onset shape; both directly control the headline no-detection limit.

free parameters (5)
  • Fiducial true onset parameters (mu_pop, sigma_pop) = mu_pop = 13 Gyr, sigma_pop = 0.001 Gyr for the never-emerges run; other runs not numerically specified in the text
    Hand-chosen injected truth; the recovered absolute precisions are measured around these values, and the Figure 4 caption shows sigma_pop changes the precision contours, so 'mostly independent' is only approximate.
  • Fractional stellar age uncertainty scale f = a_sigma_i = f * a_i; the figures test a range including 20%
    The trade study's second axis; real age uncertainties are heteroscedastic and non-Gaussian, so this model choice shapes the contours and the 'regardless of age uncertainty' claim.
  • Stellar age prior = uniform over 0-13 Gyr
    The no-detection 10-sigma bound is powered by the old planets this prior provides; the flux-limited HWO target list has a different age distribution, which would shift the numbers.
  • Ozone detection threshold = 1% of present atmospheric level
    Adopted from Damiano et al. 2023 and the Proterozoic 1% PAL minimum; non-detections only carry the meaning the model assigns if HWO truly reaches this sensitivity in the UV.
  • Prior bounds for the retrieval (mu_pop and sigma_pop) = uniform priors; bounds not stated in the text
    The headline 10-sigma significance of the never-emerges retrieval is measured against the mu_pop prior edge; without the bounds the claim cannot be fully reconstructed from the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The true ozone onset time distribution is Gaussian, parameterized by mu_pop and sigma_pop
    Section 2.1: chosen for low dimensionality; the authors note non-Gaussian alternatives are not tested.
  • domain assumption Once an Earth-analog atmosphere is oxygenated, ozone persists forever
    Section 2.1, restated in the Conclusion as a limitation: if ozone is transient, 'our results would be biased.'
  • domain assumption A planet is classified only as ozone-detected or not, against a fixed 1% PAL sensitivity threshold, with no retrieval selection function or SNR continuum
    Section 3 simulation setup; detection is a binary draw from the probit probability, ignoring observational completeness and retrieval failures.
  • domain assumption Planet age equals stellar age, with Gaussian fractional age uncertainties
    Section 4.1: supported by disk-dispersal and Earth isotopic ages, but real stellar age posteriors are often non-Gaussian and multimodal (isochrone ages).
  • standard math The Gaussian-CDF convolution identity in Eq. 2 is exact
    Standard result (the difference of two Gaussians is Gaussian); the authors acknowledge MathOverflow question 127086 and note the binomial limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Statistical Method for Constraining the Capability of the Habitable Worlds Observatory to Understand Ozone Onset Time in Earth Analogs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVNNT3ZJ

@misc{pith2026250706188,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Statistical Method for Constraining the Capability of the Habitable Worlds Observatory to Understand Ozone Onset Time in Earth Analogs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVNNT3ZJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06188}
}
abstract

The oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere 2.3 billion years ago, which on exoplanets is expected to be most detectable via the UV ozone feature at $\sim$0.25 $\mu$m, is often regarded as a sign of the emergence of photosynthetic life. On exoplanets, we may similarly expect life to oxygenate the atmosphere, but with a characteristic distribution of emergence times. In this paper, we test our ability to recover various "true" emergence time distributions as a function of 1) stellar age uncertainty and 2) number of Earth analogs in the sample. The absolute uncertainties that we recover, for diverse underlying distributions, are mostly independent of the true underlying distribution parameters, and are more dependent on sample size than stellar age uncertainty. For a sample size of 30 Earth analogs, and an HWO architecture sensitive to ozone at 1% of the current atmospheric level on Earth, we find that no ozone detections across the entire sample would place a 10$\sigma$ limit on the mean time of ozone emergence, regardless of stellar age uncertainty.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T. W. Lyons, C. T. Reinhard, and N. J. Planavsky, ``The rise of oxygen in earth's early ocean and atmosphere,'' Nature 506 (7488), 307--315 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    The LUVOIR Team , `` The LUVOIR Mission Concept Study Final Report ,'' arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1912.06219 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    R. E. Kopp , J. L. Kirschvink , I. A. Hilburn , et al. , `` The Paleoproterozoic snowball Earth: A climate disaster triggered by the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis ,'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 102 , 11131--11136 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    A. D. Anbar , Y. Duan , T. W. Lyons , et al. , `` A Whiff of Oxygen Before the Great Oxidation Event? ,'' Science 317 , 1903 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    S. A. Crowe , L. N. D ssing , N. J. Beukes , et al. , `` Atmospheric oxygenation three billion years ago ,'' 501 , 535--538 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    S. P. Slotznick , J. E. Johnson , B. Rasmussen , et al. , `` Reexamination of 2.5-Ga ``whiff'' of oxygen interval points to anoxic ocean before GOE ,'' Science Advances 8 , eabj7190 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Philippot , J

    P. Philippot , J. N. \'A vila , B. A. Killingsworth , et al. , `` Globally asynchronous sulphur isotope signals require re-definition of the Great Oxidation Event ,'' Nature Communications 9 , 2245 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    W. W. Fischer , J. Hemp , and J. E. Johnson , `` Evolution of Oxygenic Photosynthesis ,'' Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 44 , 647--683 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    J. J. Brocks , G. A. Logan , R. Buick , et al. , `` Archean Molecular Fossils and the Early Rise of Eukaryotes ,'' Science 285 , 1033--1036 (1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    J. F. Kasting , D. H. Eggler , and S. P. Raeburn , `` Mantle Redox Evolution and the Oxidation State of the Archean Atmosphere ,'' Journal of Geology 101 , 245--257 (1993)

    1993

  3. [11]

    L. R. Kump , J. F. Kasting , and M. E. Barley , `` Rise of atmospheric oxygen and the ``upside-down'' Archean mantle ,'' Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 2 , 1025--10 (2001)

    2001

  4. [12]

    A. E. Doyle , E. D. Young , B. Klein , et al. , `` Oxygen fugacities of extrasolar rocks: Evidence for an Earth-like geochemistry of exoplanets ,'' Science 366 , 356--359 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine , Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Damiano , R

    M. Damiano , R. Hu , and B. Mennesson , `` Reflected Spectroscopy of Small Exoplanets. III. Probing the UV Band to Measure Biosignature Gases ,'' 166 , 157 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    C. T. Reinhard , S. L. Olson , E. W. Schwieterman , et al. , `` False Negatives for Remote Life Detection on Ocean-Bearing Planets: Lessons from the Early Earth ,'' Astrobiology 17 , 287--297 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Morgan , D

    R. Morgan , D. Savransky , M. Turmon , et al. , `` HWO yield sensitivities in the NIR and NUV ,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave , L. E. Coyle , S. Matsuura , and M. D. Perrin , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentatio...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Latouf , A

    N. Latouf , A. M. Mandell , G. L. Villanueva , et al. , `` Bayesian Analysis for Remote Biosignature Identification on exoEarths (BARBIE). II. Using Grid-based Nested Sampling in Coronagraphy Observation Simulations for O _ 2 and O _ 3 ,'' 167 , 27 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    L. R. Kump, ``The rise of atmospheric oxygen,'' Nature 451 (7176), 277--278 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Bixel and D

    A. Bixel and D. Apai , `` Testing Earthlike Atmospheric Evolution on Exo-Earths through Oxygen Absorption: Required Sample Sizes and the Advantage of Age-based Target Selection ,'' ApJ 896 , 131 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Bixel and D

    A. Bixel and D. Apai , `` Bioverse: A Simulation Framework to Assess the Statistical Power of Future Biosignature Surveys ,'' 161 , 228 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Snaith , M

    O. Snaith , M. Haywood , P. Di Matteo , et al. , `` Reconstructing the star formation history of the Milky Way disc(s) from chemical abundances ,'' 578 , A87 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    N. J. Fantin , P. C \^o t \'e , A. W. McConnachie , et al. , `` The Canada-France Imaging Survey: Reconstructing the Milky Way Star Formation History from Its White Dwarf Population ,'' 887 , 148 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    R. Mor , A. C. Robin , F. Figueras , et al. , `` Gaia DR2 reveals a star formation burst in the disc 2-3 Gyr ago ,'' 624 , L1 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Foreman-Mackey , D

    D. Foreman-Mackey , D. W. Hogg , D. Lang , et al. , `` emcee: The MCMC Hammer ,'' 125 , 306 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    A. J. W. Richert , K. V. Getman , E. D. Feigelson , et al. , `` Circumstellar disc lifetimes in numerous galactic young stellar clusters ,'' Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 477 , 5191--5206 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Manhes , C

    G. Manhes , C. J. All \`e gre , B. Dupr \'e , et al. , `` Lead isotope study of basic-ultrabasic layered complexes: Speculations about the age of the earth and primitive mantle characteristics ,'' Earth and Planetary Science Letters 47 , 370--382 (1980)

    1980

  19. [27]

    S. N. Raymond and A. Morbidelli , `` Planet Formation: Key Mechanisms and Global Models ,'' in Demographics of Exoplanetary Systems, Lecture Notes of the 3rd Advanced School on Exoplanetary Science , K. Biazzo , V. Bozza , L. Mancini , et al. , Eds., Astrophysics and Space Sci...

    2022

  20. [28]

    L. G. Bouma , L. A. Hillenbrand , A. W. Howard , et al. , `` Ages of Stars and Planets in the Kepler Field Younger than Four Billion Years ,'' 976 , 234 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    E. P. Bellinger , S. Hekker , G. C. Angelou , et al. , `` Stellar ages, masses, and radii from asteroseismic modeling are robust to systematic errors in spectroscopy ,'' 622 , A130 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Choi , A

    J. Choi , A. Dotter , C. Conroy , et al. , `` Mesa Isochrones and Stellar Tracks (MIST). I. Solar-scaled Models ,'' 823 , 102 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    S. A. Stanford-Moore , E. L. Nielsen , R. J. De Rosa , et al. , `` BAFFLES: Bayesian Ages for Field Lower-mass Stars ,'' 898 , 27 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    R. D. Jeffries , R. J. Jackson , N. J. Wright , et al. , `` The Gaia-ESO Survey: empirical estimates of stellar ages from lithium equivalent widths (EAGLES) ,'' 523 , 802--824 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Saffe , M

    C. Saffe , M. G \'o mez , and C. Chavero , `` On the ages of exoplanet host stars ,'' 443 , 609--626 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Rauer , C

    H. Rauer , C. Catala , C. Aerts , et al. , `` The PLATO 2.0 mission ,'' Experimental Astronomy 38 , 249--330 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Mamajek and K

    E. Mamajek and K. Stapelfeldt , `` NASA Exoplanet Exploration Program (ExEP) Mission Star List for the Habitable Worlds Observatory (2023) ,'' arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2402.12414 (2024)

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    L. A. Rogers , `` Most 1.6 Earth-radius Planets are Not Rocky ,'' 801 , 41 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    K. J. Zahnle and D. C. Catling , `` The Cosmic Shoreline: The Evidence that Escape Determines which Planets Have Atmospheres, and what this May Mean for Proxima Centauri B ,'' 843 , 122 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    C. K. Harada , C. D. Dressing , S. R. Kane , et al. , `` SPORES-HWO. II. Limits on Planetary Companions of Future High-contrast Imaging Targets from > 20 Years of HIRES and HARPS Radial Velocities ,'' arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.10679 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.