Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Four JWST transits of the habitable-zone exoplanet TRAPPIST-1 e do not reveal an atmosphere: the spectrum is consistent with a flat line, while heavy nitrogen-rich atmospheres remain allowed and hydrogen- and carbon-dioxide-dominated cases

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-05 05:24 UTC pith:SNGEI5UP

load-bearing objection A careful, heavily caveated nondetection paper that delivers the first broad-wavelength JWST constraints on TRAPPIST-1 e; the flat-line result holds, but the stronger exclusions and the CH4 hint rest on the GP's untested assumption that all time-independent structure is planetary. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.05407 v1 pith:SNGEI5UP submitted 2025-09-05 astro-ph.EP

JWST-TST DREAMS: Secondary Atmosphere Constraints for the Habitable Zone Planet TRAPPIST-1 e

Ana Glidden , Sukrit Ranjan , Sara Seager , N\'estor Espinoza , Ryan J. MacDonald , Natalie H. Allen , Caleb I. Ca\~nas , David Grant
show 20 more authors
Am\'elie Gressier Kevin B. Stevenson Natasha E. Batalha Nikole K. Lewis Douglas Long Hannah R. Wakeford Lili Alderson Ryan C. Challener Knicole Col\'on Jingcheng Huang Zifan Lin Dana R. Louie Elijah Mullens Kristin S. Sotzen Jeff A. Valenti Daniel Valentine Mark Clampin C. Matt Mountain Marshall Perrin Roeland P. van der Marel
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords TRAPPIST-1 etransmission spectroscopysecondary atmospherestellar contaminationGaussian processJWST NIRSpecmean molecular weighthabitable zone
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.

This paper tries to answer a direct question: does the habitable-zone rocky planet TRAPPIST-1 e have an atmosphere? Using four JWST transits, the authors find that the planet's transmission spectrum is adequately fit by a flat line, meaning the data are consistent with a bare rock, a thick cloud deck, or a heavy atmosphere. They place the first meaningful limits on atmospheric composition: clear H2-rich atmospheres with CO2 or CH4 are excluded, and CO2-rich Venus/Mars-like atmospheres are weakly disfavored at 2σ. They also find a tentative, non-significant preference for a nitrogen-rich atmosphere containing trace methane. The result matters because it narrows the phase space of possible atmospheres on a prime habitable-zone target, but leaves the fundamental question — atmosphere or bare rock — open until more transits are observed.

Core claim

After correcting for time-varying stellar contamination with a Gaussian-process model, the combined four-visit JWST/NIRSpec PRISM spectrum of TRAPPIST-1 e is statistically indistinguishable from a flat line (p ≈ 0.98). The non-detection still bites: a model-agnostic limit sets the atmosphere's mean molecular weight to μ > 8.6 u from the >1 μm corrected spectrum, excluding clear hydrogen-rich envelopes. Forward models rule out H2-rich atmospheres containing CO2 or CH4, while N2-rich atmospheres with trace CO2 and CH4 remain allowed. The retrieval analysis weakly disfavors Venus/Mars-like CO2-rich atmospheres at 2σ and finds a tentative, non-significant preference for CH4 in a spectrally quiet

What carries the argument

The analysis leans on a joint Gaussian-process stellar-contamination plus planetary-atmosphere retrieval: the Gaussian process absorbs time-varying stellar signals visit by visit, leaving a time-independent component that is attributed to the planet. Against that corrected spectrum, a flat-line model serves as the null hypothesis of a bare rock or cloudy atmosphere. A model-agnostic constraint uses the measured absence of spectral features to bound the atmosphere's mean molecular weight through the scale-height formula, Δδ ≈ 2 n H Rp / R*^2, which is what yields the μ > 8.6 u limit. A 'ghost background gas' retrieval then separates each molecule's spectroscopic contribution from the mean-mol

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on the assumption that the constant-in-time part of the four-visit spectrum is planetary; if the star retains a steady cool spot or granulation that the Gaussian process misses, the CO2 limits and the methane hint could be stellar artifacts.

What would settle it

Observe TRAPPIST-1 b and e in back-to-back transits and divide e's spectrum by b's; since b is likely bare rock, any features persisting only in e are atmospheric, while features appearing in both planets' corrected spectra are stellar. Alternatively, watch the 2.5–3.5 μm region across more transits and test whether the tentative CH4 feature correlates with stellar activity indicators.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • TRAPPIST-1 e's corrected four-visit spectrum is statistically consistent with a flat line, so a bare-rock or cloud-covered scenario remains fully viable.
  • Any atmosphere on TRAPPIST-1 e must be heavy: the model-agnostic lower limit on mean molecular weight is μ > 8.6 u from the >1 μm corrected spectrum, ruling out clear H2-dominated envelopes.
  • Clear H2-rich atmospheres containing CO2 or CH4 are excluded at high significance (often >5σ), consistent with earlier HST-based limits.
  • CO2-dominated atmospheres at Venus- or Mars-like pressures are weakly disfavored at 2σ, so the planet is unlikely to be a simple Venus analog.
  • A tentative, non-significant preference for CH4 in a N2-rich background emerges from both forward models and two independent retrieval configurations, but is not a detection and could stem from uncorrected stellar contamination.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If future, more numerous transits confirm the methane hint in a nitrogen background, TRAPPIST-1 e would be the first temperate rocky exoplanet with a spectroscopically indicated secondary atmosphere; the paper itself leaves this as an open hint, not a claim.
  • The differential technique the paper plans — dividing TRAPPIST-1 e's spectrum by a bare-rock sibling (b) — could become a template for decontaminating M-dwarf transmission spectra generally, sidestepping the need for accurate stellar spot models.
  • The model-agnostic μ limit implies that if a secondary atmosphere is ever confirmed on TRAPPIST-1 e, it must be volcanically or geochemically outgassed (N2 or CO2 dominated) rather than a captured hydrogen envelope, which sharpens predictions for atmospheric escape and habitability models.
  • Because the flat-line and the ghost-gas atmosphere are nearly equally favored (Δlog Z = 0.5), the current data set cannot discriminate bare rock from a hazy, heavy atmosphere; this means habitability conclusions for TRAPPIST-1 e should remain provisional until the 15-transit program is complete.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes four JWST/NIRSpec PRISM transits of TRAPPIST-1 e to constrain possible secondary atmospheres. Using a hierarchy of flat-line tests, model-agnostic mean-molecular-weight limits, clear-sky forward-model grids, and two retrieval setups (CLR priors and a spectrally silent 'ghost' background gas) embedded in the companion GP stellar-contamination framework, the authors conclude that the transmission spectrum is adequately described by a flat line, that clear H2-rich atmospheres with CO2/CH4 are excluded, that N2-rich atmospheres with trace CO2/CH4 are permitted, and that CO2-rich Venus/Mars-like cases are weakly disfavored at about 2σ. A tentative, non-significant preference for CH4 absorption in a heavy background gas is identified. The paper repeatedly hedges that no strong evidence for or against an atmosphere is obtained.

Significance. If the GP-based constraints are accepted, this is one of the most detailed atmospheric reconnaissance studies of a habitable-zone rocky exoplanet with JWST, providing a weak first constraint against CO2-dominated Venus/Mars analogs and a testable CH4 hint. The robust core—the raw-data flat-line nondetection and the clear-sky H2-rich exclusion—is an important step beyond earlier HST limits. The paper is unusually transparent about stellar-contamination degeneracies, publishes its reduction/retrieval code and data, and lays out a clear path (b/e differential transits) to break the degeneracy. The main scientific risk is that the CO2, CH4, and strongest μ constraints depend on the assumption that all time-independent spectral structure is planetary, as the authors themselves acknowledge.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, §5.5; Figs. 4–6; Table 3] The 2σ disfavor of CO2-rich Venus/Mars-like cases and the tentative CH4 preference both come from the GP-decontaminated four-visit spectrum. As stated in §5.5, the GP assumes that all non-time-varying spectral structure is atmospheric, while a persistent cool stellar component or granulation (Rathcke et al. 2025) could contribute time-independent structure. The raw Visits 1+2 forward-model grid in Appendix B does not show any CH4 preference (all N2–CH4 models Nσ < 1.6) and yields only a ~2.5σ CO2 disfavor, so the decontaminated results are not independently corroborated by the less contaminated visits. Please either explicitly frame the CO2/CH4 constraints as conditional on this assumption, or quantify the sensitivity by injecting/removing a constant stellar spectral component in the 2.5–3.5 μm region and recomputing the retrievals. Without this, the abstract's wording that the results '
  2. [§3.3; Abstract; Appendices B and C] The forward-model grid is explicitly clear-sky, but the abstract and conclusions state unconditionally that H2-rich atmospheres containing CO2 and CH4 are excluded. A high-altitude cloud or haze deck in an H2-rich atmosphere would suppress the CO2/CH4 features and be consistent with the flat-line fit the paper obtains in §3.1. The mass-radius argument (Agol et al. 2021; Turbet et al. 2020b) may independently disfavor thick H2 envelopes, but the spectral exclusion should either be qualified as clear-sky or cloudy H2-rich models should be added to the grid. As written, the summary overstates the spectral evidence against H2-rich scenarios.
  3. [§3.2, Table 2] The model-agnostic lower limit μ > 8.6 ± 0.4 u from the 'Decontaminated, >1 μm' row is presented as the strongest such limit, but it treats the GP-corrected spectrum as a clean planetary spectrum. That is not model-agnostic: the same GP-attribution caveat applies. The robust limit from raw Visits 1+2 above 1 μm is μ > 6.0 ± 0.2 u. Please present the 8.6 u value only as conditional on the GP assumption, or move it to a clearly labeled secondary result alongside the raw-data limit.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says 'the four on the left are for the uncorrected Visits 1+2 while the four on the left are for all four visits'; the second should be 'right'.
  2. [§2] Typo: 'using using MEAC' should be 'using MEAC'.
  3. [Table 3] The 'σ-significance' column is not defined. If it is derived from ΔlogZ, the conversion formula should be stated; as presented, the values (e.g., 1.68 for ΔlogZ=0.5) are not self-evident.
  4. [§3.2, Eq. (7)] The expression σ_Δy = sd(Δy)/√N uses the standard deviation of the per-point uncertainties; this is not the usual standard error of the mean of the data. Clarify the intent or use a more conventional error-propagation formula.
  5. [Appendix E / Fig. 7] The corner-plot labels such as 'log CO2 = -5.74+3.98 -3.98' are hard to parse. Please define the quoted intervals (e.g., median with 16th/84th percentiles) in the caption.
  6. [§5.1] The quoted lower limit μ > 5.95 +0.21/−0.23 u does not match any row in Table 2 (the closest raw-data row is μ > 6.0 ± 0.2 u). Check the provenance of this number and unify the notation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor circularity in tentative CH4 hint: GP defines time-independent residual as atmospheric, so the hint is not independent; central null result remains self-contained.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 5.5 (Caveats of Stellar Contamination Correction) and Section 4.2 (Retrieval Analysis, ghost-gas results)]
    "The GP assumes that the non-time-varying part of the spectra is all from the atmosphere, while in reality, some of that may be attributed to the star. ... both the CLR and ghost gas retrievals identify CH4 bands as candidate spectral features. Our retrievals invoke these features to explain a time-independent spectral component, consistent across the four TRAPPIST-1 e transits."

    The GP decontamination defines the constant-in-time residual as the atmospheric component by construction. The tentative CH4 preference is a spectral fit to that by-construction residual; any persistent stellar structure (e.g., granulation) near 2.5-3.5 um would be absorbed into the 'atmosphere' and masquerade as CH4. Raw Visits 1+2 show no pronounced CH4 preference (Appendix B: all N2-CH4 models have N_sigma < 1.6), so the hint appears only after GP correction. The paper labels it tentative and not a detection, and the central null result survives, so severity is low.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—no strong evidence for or against an atmosphere—rests on raw Visit 1+2 data and a flat-line chi-square test (Sec 3.1, Table 1), which is an observational null result and does not assume an answer. The forward-model grid and model-agnostic mean-molecular-weight limits are standard comparisons of observed precision to model amplitudes; no equation reduces to its own input. The only mild circularity is the tentative CH4 preference: it is derived from the GP-corrected spectrum, and Section 5.5 explicitly states the GP attributes all non-time-varying structure to the atmosphere. Because raw Visit 1+2 data do not show a CH4 preference (Appendix B), the CH4 hint is not independent of that self-definitional assumption. However, the paper repeatedly stresses this is a hint, not a detection, and the flat-line/no-atmosphere conclusion does not depend on it. The reliance on companion Espinoza et al. (2025) for reductions and the GP retrieval is a normal data/code dependency, and the code is public; it does not force the central result. Score 2 reflects one minor, explicitly acknowledged circularity in a non-central claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central constraints rest on standard transmission spectroscopy plus two strong model assumptions: the GP decontamination correctly attributes constant spectral structure to the planet, and clear-sky chemistry and temperature profiles represent the forward models. The retrievals fit many parameters (temperature, pressure, mixing ratios, GP hyperparameters), and the ghost gas is an invented device with no independent evidence. No new physical particles or forces are proposed.

free parameters (6)
  • Isothermal temperature T = CLR: 133 (+40/-23) K; ghost: 186 (+68/-56) K
    Fitted in POSEIDON retrievals; posterior values from Figure 7.
  • Effective surface (cloud-top) pressure P_surf = log10 P_surf ~ 1.04 (+2.02/-2.20) CLR; 0.30 (+1.52/-1.95) ghost
    Retrieved, absorbs degeneracy between surface and cloud deck.
  • Molecular mixing ratios (CLR or log-uniform) for H2, CO2, CH4, H2O, N2, O2, O3, N2O, CO = e.g. log10 CH4 ~ -0.29 (+0.28/-1.89) (CLR), others unconstrained
    Retrieved gas abundances; none are significant detections.
  • Ghost background gas mean molecular weight mu_ghost = 55 (+27/-22) u
    Fitted retrieval device for spectrally inactive background gas; not a physical molecule.
  • GP hyperparameters, per-visit jitter, and offsets = not tabulated in text
    Fitted stellar contamination model from Espinoza et al. (2025), used in all corrected retrievals.
  • Number of scale heights n in mean molecular weight limit = 2, 3, 4, 5 (chosen range)
    Model-agnostic feature-height assumption in Section 3.2; the mu limit scales linearly with n.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The observed spectrum can be modeled as a flat line (bare rock or high-altitude cloud deck) plus noise.
    Null model in Section 3.1 and model comparison.
  • domain assumption The non-time-varying spectral component is planetary, not stellar, after GP subtraction.
    Load-bearing assumption for decontaminated spectrum; flagged in Section 5.5.
  • domain assumption A Gaussian process with Matern 3/2 kernel captures stellar contamination.
    Methodology from Espinoza et al. (2025), used throughout Section 4.
  • domain assumption Clear-sky, well-mixed atmospheres with simple dry-adiabatic/isothermal P-T profiles approximate the forward models.
    Forward model grid in Section 3.3; clouds or hazes would mute spectral features and weaken exclusions.
  • standard math Transmission feature amplitude is roughly 2 n H Rp / Rstar^2 with H = kT / (mu g).
    Equation 3 in Section 3.2; standard approximation from Seager and Sasselov (2000).
  • domain assumption Stellar and planetary parameters (Mp = 0.772 Mearth, Rp = 0.910 Rearth, Rstar = 0.117 Rsun, T = 249.7 K) are correct.
    Imported from Agol et al. (2021) and Ducrot et al. (2020) for the mu limit.
  • standard math Molecular opacity line lists and CIA data used by pRT and POSEIDON are accurate for these gases.
    Appendix D chemical inventory; model calculations depend on them.
invented entities (1)
  • Ghost background gas no independent evidence
    purpose: Allow the retrieval to absorb an unknown spectrally inactive background gas with a free mean molecular weight
    Introduced in Section 4.1 as a computational device; no independent observable predicts it, and it is not claimed to be real.

pith-pipeline@v1.4.0-alltime-deepseek-medium · 38111 in / 16228 out tokens · 160759 ms · 2026-08-05T05:24:38.239116+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST-TST DREAMS: Secondary Atmosphere Constraints for the Habitable Zone Planet TRAPPIST-1 e." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SNGEI5UP

@misc{pith2026250905407,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST-TST DREAMS: Secondary Atmosphere Constraints for the Habitable Zone Planet TRAPPIST-1 e},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SNGEI5UP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05407}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The TRAPPIST-1 system offers one of the best opportunities to characterize temperate terrestrial planets beyond our own solar system. Within the TRAPPIST-1 system, planet e stands out as highly likely to sustain surface liquid water if it possesses an atmosphere. Recently, we reported the first JWST/NIRSpec PRISM transmission spectra of TRAPPIST-1 e, revealing significant stellar contamination, which varied between the four visits. Here, we assess the range of planetary atmospheres consistent with our transmission spectrum. We explore a wide range of atmospheric scenarios via a hierarchy of forward modeling and retrievals. We do not obtain strong evidence for or against an atmosphere. Our results weakly disfavor CO$_2$-rich atmospheres for pressures corresponding to the surface of Venus and Mars and the cloud tops of Venus at 2$\sigma$. We exclude H$_2$-rich atmospheres containing CO$_2$ and CH$_4$ in agreement with past work, but find that higher mean molecular weight, N$_2$-rich atmospheres with trace CO$_2$ and CH$_4$ are permitted by the data. Both a bare rock and N$_2$-rich atmospheric scenario provide adequate fits to the data, but do not fully explain all features, which may be due to either uncorrected stellar contamination or atmospheric signals. Ongoing JWST observations of TRAPPIST-1 e, exploiting consecutive transits with TRAPPIST-1 b, will offer stronger constraints via a more effective stellar contamination correction. The present work is part of the JWST Telescope Scientist Team (JWST-TST) Guaranteed Time Observations, which is performing a Deep Reconnaissance of Exoplanet Atmospheres through Multi-instrument Spectroscopy (DREAMS).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05407 by Am\'elie Gressier, Ana Glidden, Caleb I. Ca\~nas, C. Matt Mountain, Dana R. Louie, Daniel Valentine, David Grant, Douglas Long, Elijah Mullens, Hannah R. Wakeford, Jeff A. Valenti, Jingcheng Huang, Kevin B. Stevenson, Knicole Col\'on, Kristin S. Sotzen, Lili Alderson, Mark Clampin, Marshall Perrin, Natalie H. Allen, Natasha E. Batalha, N\'estor Espinoza, Nikole K. Lewis, Roeland P. van der Marel, Ryan C. Challener, Ryan J. MacDonald, Sara Seager, Sukrit Ranjan, Zifan Lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: JWST NIRSpec PRISM transmission spectra from each of the four visits (uncorrected). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: JWST NIRSpec PRISM transmission spectra compared with modeled atmospheric scenarios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Rejection significance for atmospheric forward models compared to TRAPPIST-1 e’s JWST trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral fits to TRAPPIST-1 e’s stellar-contamination-corrected transmission spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper: posterior for the centered log-ratio (CLR) prior retrievals where every gas is allowed to dominate and Lower: agnostic background (ghost) gas retrieval results with log-uniform priors. The plots show the volume mixing ratio (VMR) for CH4 (first) and CO2 (second) compared with the effective surface pressure (i.e., surface or cloud-top pressure). Contours are drawn and shaded in red for 1, 2, and 3σ. … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posteriors in temperature space for pCH4 and pCO2 (green) along with µghost from the agnostic ghost background gas retrieval. Temperatures in kelvins are given on the y-axis and partial pressures of CH4 and CO2 are shown on the x-axis (unlike the earlier posteriors, which showed VMR). In temperature space, an upper limit on pCH4 is not found, while pCO2 > 0.7 bar is ruled out at > 2σ and pCO2 > 44 bars is … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plot of both the CLR prior retrieval (blue) and log uniform prior with ghost background gas. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Posterior for pressure-temperature compared with the CO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. ESCAPE: a small explorer mission to study the stellar drivers of exoplanet evolution

    astro-ph.EP 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    ESCAPE is a proposed NASA Small Explorer that would measure EUV spectra of about 300 nearby stars to constrain stellar EUV irradiance and coronal mass ejection rates affecting exoplanet habitability.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    @ ͇ _o HS*;ߋ-ucj7D Vn

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    L., et al

    Agol , E., Dorn , C., Grimm , S. L., et al. 2021, , 2, 1, 10.3847/PSJ/abd022

    doi:10.3847/psj/abd022 2021

  3. [3]

    Ambikasaran , S., O'Neil , M., & Singh , K. R. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1405.0223, 10.48550/arXiv.1405.0223

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1405.0223 2014

  4. [4]

    D., Meadows , V

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

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Azzam , A. A. A., Tennyson , J., Yurchenko , S. N., & Naumenko , O. V. 2016, , 460, 4063, 10.1093/mnras/stw1133

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1133 2016

  6. [6]

    J., Strange , J

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2011 2014

  7. [7]

    E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al

    Batalha, N. E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 64501, 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0 2017

  8. [8]

    2013, , 778, 153, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153

    Benneke , B., & Seager , S. 2013, , 778, 153, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/153 2013

  9. [9]

    Bevington, P., & Robinson, D. K. 2003, Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences , 3rd edn. (New York: McGraw-Hill Education)

    2003

  10. [10]

    Brande, J., Crossfield, I. J. M., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 961, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1b5c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1b5c 2024

  11. [11]

    Brooke , J. S. A., Bernath , P. F., Western , C. M., et al. 2016, , 168, 142, 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2015.07.021

    doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2015.07.021 2016

  12. [12]

    Brown, T. M. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 553, 1006, 10.1086/320950

    doi:10.1086/320950 2001

  13. [13]

    Carnall, A. C. 2017, SpectRes: A Fast Spectral Resampling Tool in Python. 1705.05165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    L., Tennyson , J., & Yurchenko , S

    Chubb , K. L., Tennyson , J., & Yurchenko , S. N. 2020, , 493, 1531, 10.1093/mnras/staa229

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa229 2020

  15. [15]

    Coleman , G. A. L., Leleu , A., Alibert , Y., & Benz , W. 2019, , 631, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935922

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935922 2019

  16. [16]

    2012, Icarus, 221, 495, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.07.032

    De Niem, D., K \" u hrt, E., Morbidelli, A., & Motschmann, U. 2012, Icarus, 221, 495, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.07.032

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.07.032 2012

  17. [17]

    R., Gillon, M., et al

    de Wit, J., Wakeford, H. R., Gillon, M., et al. 2016, Nature, 537, 69, 10.1038/nature18641

    doi:10.1038/nature18641 2016

  18. [18]

    R., Lewis, N

    de Wit, J., Wakeford, H. R., Lewis, N. K., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 214, 10.1038/s41550-017-0374-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0374-z 2018

  19. [19]

    H., et al

    Delrez, L., Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 3577, 10.1093/mnras/sty051

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty051 2018

  20. [20]

    Dorn , C., Noack , L., & Rozel , A. B. 2018, , 614, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731513

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731513 2018

  21. [21]

    2020, , 640, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937392

    Ducrot , E., Gillon , M., Delrez , L., et al. 2020, , 640, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937392

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937392 2020

  22. [22]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 358, 10.1038/s41550-024-02428-z

    Ducrot , E., Lagage , P.-O., Min , M., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 358, 10.1038/s41550-024-02428-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02428-z 2025

  23. [23]

    2022, TransitSpectroscopy, 0.3.11, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6960924

    Espinoza, N. 2022, TransitSpectroscopy, 0.3.11, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6960924

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.6960924 2022

  24. [24]

    2025, JWST-TST DREAMS: NIRSpec/PRISM Transmission Spectroscopy of the Habitable Zone Planet TRAPPIST-1 e, 10.3847/2041-8213/adf42e

    Espinoza, N., et al. 2025, JWST-TST DREAMS: NIRSpec/PRISM Transmission Spectroscopy of the Habitable Zone Planet TRAPPIST-1 e, 10.3847/2041-8213/adf42e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf42e 2025

  25. [25]

    J., Turbet , M., Villanueva , G

    Fauchez , T. J., Turbet , M., Villanueva , G. L., et al. 2019, , 887, 194, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5862

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5862 2019

  26. [26]

    2014, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 403, 307, 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.07.009

    Gaillard, F., & Scaillet, B. 2014, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 403, 307, 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.07.009

    doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.07.009 2014

  27. [27]

    Gillon , M., Triaud , A. H. M. J., Demory , B.-O., et al. 2017, , 542, 456, 10.1038/nature21360

    doi:10.1038/nature21360 2017

  28. [28]

    E., Rothman , L

    Gordon , I. E., Rothman , L. S., Hill , C., et al. 2017, , 203, 3, 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.06.038

    doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.06.038 2017

  29. [29]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 39, 10.1038/s41586-023-05951-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05951-7 2023

  30. [30]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27639, 10.1029/2019JA02763910.1002/essoar.10502458.1

    Gronoff , G., Arras , P., Baraka , S., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27639, 10.1029/2019JA02763910.1002/essoar.10502458.1

    arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    2018, , 614, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832934

    Gunell , H., Maggiolo , R., Nilsson , H., et al. 2018, , 614, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832934

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832934 2018

  32. [32]

    2013, Astrobiology, 13, 550, 10.1089/ast.2012.0817

    Guzm \'a n-Marmolejo , A., Segura , A., & Escobar-Briones , E. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 550, 10.1089/ast.2012.0817

    arXiv 2013

  33. [33]

    E., Felton, R., Hu, R., et al

    Harman, C. E., Felton, R., Hu, R., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd9b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadd9b 2018

  34. [34]

    J., Tennyson , J., Kaminsky , B

    Harris , G. J., Tennyson , J., Kaminsky , B. M., Pavlenko , Y. V., & Jones , H. R. A. 2006, , 367, 400, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09960.x

    arXiv 2006

  35. [35]

    2012, , 761, 166, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/166

    Hu , R., Seager , S., & Bains , W. 2012, , 761, 166, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/166

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/166 2012

  36. [36]

    2013, , 769, 6, 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/6

    ---. 2013, , 769, 6, 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/6

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/6 2013

  37. [37]

    M.-R., Whittaker, E

    Ih, J., Kempton, E. M.-R., Whittaker, E. A., & Lessard, M. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 952, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace03b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace03b 2023

  38. [38]

    Kasting, J. F. 1990, Origins of life and evolution of the biosphere : the journal of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, 20, 199

    1990

  39. [39]

    F., Whitmire , D

    Kasting , J. F., Whitmire , D. P., & Reynolds , R. T. 1993, , 101, 108, 10.1006/icar.1993.1010

    arXiv 1993

  40. [40]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 967, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e7e

    Kawamura, Y., Yoshida, T., Terada, N., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 967, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e7e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e7e 2024

  41. [41]

    K., Ramirez , R., Kasting , J

    Kopparapu , R. K., Ramirez , R., Kasting , J. F., et al. 2013, , 765, 131, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/131

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/131 2013

  42. [42]

    2023, , 951, L39, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdc26

    Krissansen-Totton , J. 2023, , 951, L39, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdc26

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdc26 2023

  43. [43]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad564 2018

  44. [44]

    Krissansen-Totton, J., Wogan, N., Thompson, M., & Fortney, J. J. 2024, Nature communications, 15, 8374, 10.1038/s41467-024-52642-6

    doi:10.1038/s41467-024-52642-6 2024

  45. [45]

    L., & Bell , B

    Kurucz , R. L., & Bell , B. 1995, Atomic line list

    1995

  46. [46]

    E., Rothman , L

    Li , G., Gordon , I. E., Rothman , L. S., et al. 2015, , 216, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/15

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/15 2015

  47. [47]

    2023, , 955, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4

    Lim , O., Benneke , B., Doyon , R., et al. 2023, , 955, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4 2023

  48. [48]

    J., Kaltenegger , L., & Wilson , D

    Lin , Z., MacDonald , R. J., Kaltenegger , L., & Wilson , D. J. 2021, , 505, 3562, 10.1093/mnras/stab1486

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1486 2021

  49. [49]

    P., Meadows, V

    Lincowski, A. P., Meadows, V. S., Crisp, D., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae36a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae36a 2018

  50. [50]

    P., Meadows , V

    Lincowski , A. P., Meadows , V. S., Zieba , S., et al. 2023, , 955, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/acee02

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acee02 2023

  51. [51]

    2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, 10.1089/ast.2014.1231

    Luger, R., & Barnes, R. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, 10.1089/ast.2014.1231

    arXiv 2015

  52. [52]

    S., & Lincowski, A

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab21e0 2019

  53. [53]

    M., et al

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fu, G., May, E. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1317, 10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z 2023

  54. [54]

    MacDonald , R. J. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4873, 10.21105/joss.04873

    doi:10.21105/joss.04873 2023

  55. [55]

    J., & Lewis , N

    MacDonald , R. J., & Lewis , N. K. 2022, , 929, 20, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac47fe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac47fe 2022

  56. [56]

    J., & Madhusudhan , N

    MacDonald , R. J., & Madhusudhan , N. 2017, , 469, 1979, 10.1093/mnras/stx804

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx804 2017

  57. [57]

    P., Yachmenev , A., Tennyson , J., & Yurchenko , S

    Mant , B. P., Yachmenev , A., Tennyson , J., & Yurchenko , S. N. 2018, , 478, 3220, 10.1093/mnras/sty1239

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1239 2018

  58. [58]

    P., Pollack , J

    McKay , C. P., Pollack , J. B., & Courtin , R. 1991, Science, 253, 1118, 10.1126/science.11538492

    doi:10.1126/science.11538492 1991

  59. [59]

    2023, Planetary Science Journal, 53, 302, 10.3847/PSJ/acf488

    Meadows, V., Lincowski, A., Lustig-Yaeger, J., & Crisp, D. 2023, Planetary Science Journal, 53, 302, 10.3847/PSJ/acf488

    doi:10.3847/psj/acf488 2023

  60. [60]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 980, 10.1093/mnras/stab3383

    Mikal-Evans, T. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 980, 10.1093/mnras/stab3383

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3383 2022

  61. [61]

    P., van Boekel , R., et al

    Molli \`e re , P., Wardenier , J. P., van Boekel , R., et al. 2019, , 627, A67, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935470

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935470 2019

  62. [62]

    E., H \" o rst, S

    Moran, S. E., H \" o rst, S. M., Batalha, N. E., Lewis, N. K., & Wakeford, H. R. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 252, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae83a

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae83a 2018

  63. [63]

    V., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z., Robinson, T., & Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z., Robinson, T., & Fortney, J. J. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa927b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa927b 2017

  64. [64]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86ca

    Nakayama, A., Ikoma, M., & Terada, N. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86ca

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac86ca 2022

  65. [65]

    B., Atreya , S

    Niemann , H. B., Atreya , S. K., Bauer , S. J., et al. 2005, , 438, 779, 10.1038/nature04122

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04122 2005

  66. [66]

    B., Atreya , S

    Niemann , H. B., Atreya , S. K., Demick , J. E., et al. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 115, E12006, 10.1029/2010JE003659

    work page doi:10.1029/2010je003659 2010

  67. [67]

    Nixon , C. A. 2024, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 8, 406, 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.2c00041

    doi:10.1021/acsearthspacechem.2c00041 2024

  68. [68]

    Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2010, Principles of Planetary Climate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511780783

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511780783 2010

  69. [69]

    L., Kyuberis , A

    Polyansky , O. L., Kyuberis , A. A., Zobov , N. F., et al. 2018, , 480, 2597, 10.1093/mnras/sty1877

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1877 2018

  70. [70]

    V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M

    Rackham, B. V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M. S. 2018, Astrophysical Journal. http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05691

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    V., Espinoza , N., Berdyugina , S

    Rackham , B. V., Espinoza , N., Berdyugina , S. V., et al. 2023, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 2, 148, 10.1093/rasti/rzad009

    doi:10.1093/rasti/rzad009 2023

  72. [72]

    2025, , 979, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada381

    Radica , M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb , C., Taylor , J., et al. 2025, , 979, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada381

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada381 2025

  73. [73]

    Ramirez , R. M. 2018, Geosciences, 8, 280, 10.3390/geosciences8080280

    doi:10.3390/geosciences8080280 2018

  74. [74]

    M., & Kaltenegger , L

    Ramirez , R. M., & Kaltenegger , L. 2014, , 797, L25, 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L25

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/l25 2014

  75. [75]

    W., Harman , C., et al

    Ranjan , S., Schwieterman , E. W., Harman , C., et al. 2020, , 896, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9363

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9363 2020

  76. [76]

    W., Leung, M., Harman, C

    Ranjan, S., Schwieterman, E. W., Leung, M., Harman, C. E., & Hu, R. 2023, Astrophysical Journal Letters. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.08752

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 930, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5749

    Ranjan, S., Seager, S., Zhan, Z., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 930, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5749

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5749 2022

  78. [78]

    D., Buchhave , L

    Rathcke , A. D., Buchhave , L. A., de Wit , J., et al. 2025, , 979, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada5c7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada5c7 2025

  79. [79]

    D., Maltagliati , L., Marley , M

    Robinson , T. D., Maltagliati , L., Marley , M. S., & Fortney , J. J. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 9042, 10.1073/pnas.1403473111

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1403473111 2014

  80. [80]

    S., Gordon , I

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

    doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2010.05.001 2010

Showing first 80 references.