pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05049 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Super-Solar Metallicity and Tentative Evidence for Photochemistry on WASP-96b from JWST and Ground-Based VLT Transmission Spectroscopy

Michael Radica , Jake Taylor , Yoav Rotman , Jasmina Blecic , Luis Welbanks , Eva-Maria Ahrer , Duncan Christie , Louis-Philippe Coulombe
show 8 more authors
Gillis Lowry Matthew M. Murphy Adina D. Feinstein David Lafreniere Ryan J. MacDonald Nathan J. Mayne Shang-Min Tsai Maria Zamyatina
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords WASP-96bexoplanet atmospheretransmission spectroscopyJWSTmetallicityphotochemistrysulfur dioxidecore accretion
0
0 comments X

The pith

WASP-96b shows super-stellar metallicity of 2-6 times the star and moderate evidence for photochemical SO2.

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

The study combines new JWST NIRSpec data with previous NIRISS and VLT observations to examine the transmission spectrum of the hot Saturn WASP-96b. Self-consistent atmospheric models indicate a metallicity between two and six times stellar levels paired with a carbon-to-oxygen ratio near 0.41. This combination suggests the planet formed by core accretion outside the water snowline and later incorporated extra volatile-rich material. Free retrieval methods show moderate support for including sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, consistent with photochemical processes. The optical slope in the spectrum is attributed to scattering from small aerosols such as condensate clouds or hazes.

Core claim

The combined transmission spectrum from JWST and VLT shows clear features of H2O, CO2, and Na. Self-consistent grids retrieve a super-stellar metallicity of 2-6x and a stellar C/O of 0.41, implying formation via core-accretion beyond the H2O snowline followed by volatile accretion. Free retrievals give moderate evidence (ln B = 2.69) for SO2, matching photochemical model abundances and placing the planet on the SO2 shoreline.

What carries the argument

Self-consistent atmospheric grids and Bayesian free retrievals applied to the multi-instrument transmission spectrum to constrain composition, metallicity, and possible photochemical signatures.

Load-bearing premise

The optical slope is produced by scattering aerosols rather than Na line wings or stellar contamination, and the moderate Bayesian evidence for SO2 supports photochemistry.

What would settle it

New high-precision optical transit observations that either resolve sodium line wings or show a smooth aerosol slope, or that measure the SO2 abundance more precisely to confirm or refute the photochemical model match.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05049 by Adina D. Feinstein, David Lafreniere, Duncan Christie, Eva-Maria Ahrer, Gillis Lowry, Jake Taylor, Jasmina Blecic, Louis-Philippe Coulombe, Luis Welbanks, Maria Zamyatina, Matthew M. Murphy, Michael Radica, Nathan J. Mayne, Ryan J. MacDonald, Shang-Min Tsai, Yoav Rotman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Data (coloured points) and best fitting models (black) from the joint transit and RV fit. Residuals to the best-fitting model are shown below each dataset. The TESS and CORALIE data have been phase folded to the best-fitting orbital period. best-fitting values for relevant parameters are included in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison between our nominal exoTEDRF spectra and alternate reductions with NAMELESS for NIRISS (left panels) and Eureka! for NIRSpec (right panels). Top: The two spectra produced for each instrument overplotted. The grey shading in the NIRISS panel denotes wavelengths not used in the comparative retrievals (see Section 3). Middle: Error-normalized differences for each instrument. There is a significant … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: WASP-96 b’s morning and evening limb transmission spectra as observed with JWST. Top: The morning-limb transmission spectrum (blue data points) compared to the evening-limb spectrum (faded red). Overplotted in purple is the morning-limb spectrum from the aerosol-free, 10× solar UM GCM run (see Appendix C). Blue and grey shaded rectangles de￾note the in-band and out-of-band wavelengths, respectively, for th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of modelling WASP-96 b’s transmission spectrum. Top: Best-fitting atmosphere models from each retrieval code (coloured lines) along with the 2-σ confidence envelopes (coloured shading) overplotted on the combined ground-based + JWST spectrum (black data points). The JWST data have been binned from the nominal resolution of R = 300 to R ∼ 100 for plotting purposes. Also shown in red, but not include… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Abundances of several prominent chemical species inferred from the POSEIDON (blue histograms) and Aurora (orange histograms) free retrievals. Overplotted are chemical equilibrium abundance profiles for a stellar (logZ∼2× solar, C/O=0.42; solid) and 5× stellar (logZ∼10× solar; dotted) metallicity atmosphere, as well as constraints from the self-consistent grid (red). The grey shaded regions denote the appro… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Elemental abundances and ratios in the atmosphere of WASP-96 b. Top row: Derived elemental abundances for WASP-96 b’s atmosphere from each retrieval code (coloured points) normalized to stellar values (Nikolov et al. 2022). For bounded constraints, the posterior median and 1-σ confidence interval are shown. Otherwise, 3-σ upper limits are plotted. The approximate locations of Jupiter and Saturn (sourced fr… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: PT profiles derived from cloud-free UM GCM simulations of WASP-96 b at solar (bottom) and 10× solar (top) metallicity, which bracket our derived atmosphere com￾position. Blue, and red profiles represent the morning and evening hemispheres, respectively. Levels of fading denote latitude, with the boldest colours being polar latitudes. Con￾densation curves for prominent condensate species (labelled) are show… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of δAH values from 10000 injection￾recovery tests with no underlying limb asymmetry. The red dashed curve shows the best-fitting Gaussian distribution (µ = −0.012, σ = 0.717). The observed δAH (black dashed line) for the 1.4 µm H2O band of 2.13 is in the 99.72th per￾centile of the distribution, making it a ∼2.6-σ outlier. Read another way, potential morning-evening asymmetry around 1.4 µm is ∼… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The differences between the exoTEDRF and NAMELESS NIRISS/SOSS spectra redwards of ∼1.75 µm can be attributed to the 1/f noise correction being performed at the integration vs. the group level (i.e., after vs. before ramp-fitting). An alternate exoTEDRF reduction skipping the group-level 1/f correction and implementing the same step at the integration level reproduces qualitatively the differences with the … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Covariance matrices extracted from the NIRISS/SOSS light curve fit residuals for the nominal exoTEDRF reduction (top), the NAMELESS reduction (mid￾dle) and the alternate exoTEDRF reduction performing an integration-level 1/f noise correction (bottom). Significant residual covariance between wavelengths which share a de￾tector column are present when performing the 1/f noise correction at the integration l… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Corner plot from the POSEIDON retrieval on the combined VLT + exoTEDRF R = 300 JWST spectrum. Crossfield, I. J. M., Ahrer, E.-M., Brande, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae17cb Cubillos, P. E., & Blecic, J. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1405 Darveau-Bernier, A., Albert, L., Talens, G. J., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 094502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac8a77 Davenport, B., K… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

With its expanded wavelength coverage and increased precision compared to previous space-based observatories, JWST provides the opportunity to revisit benchmark planets and view them in a new light. Here, we conduct an in-depth study of the atmosphere of the hot-Saturn WASP-96b combining a new JWST NIRSpec/G395H transit with archival NIRISS/SOSS and VLT/FORS2 transmission spectra. The combined spectrum shows clearly-visible features from H2O, CO2, and Na. CO, though, remains unconstrained, precluding a firm metallicity derivation from free retrievals alone. However, self-consistent grids yield a broadly super-stellar atmospheric metallicity of 2-6x stellar. When combined with a roughly stellar C/O ratio ($0.41^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ from self-consistent grids), we find that WASP-96b potentially formed via core-accretion beyond the H2O snowline and subsequently accreted volatile-rich material. Free retrievals also find a moderate preference (ln B=2.69) for models with SO2 versus without. WASP-96b falls directly on the proposed "SO2 shoreline" and the retrieved SO2 abundance is well-matched to predictions from photochemical models. Our combined spectrum displays an optical slope, which our models fit with opacity from scattering aerosols -- either small-particle condensate clouds or photochemical hazes -- though we cannot completely rule out the broad wings of Na or the effects of stellar contamination. Future observations are necessary to disentangle these effects. Finally, we explore the possibility for limb asymmetry in WASP-96b's transmission spectrum and provide several tests to identify asymmetries in our data. We encourage the community to prioritize the development of a robust pathway to quantify the presence of limb asymmetry -- particularly for low signal-to-noise cases.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript combines new JWST NIRSpec/G395H transit observations with archival NIRISS/SOSS and VLT/FORS2 transmission spectra of the hot Saturn WASP-96b. It identifies clear absorption from H2O, CO2, and Na while finding CO unconstrained in free retrievals. Self-consistent atmospheric grids yield a super-stellar metallicity of 2-6x stellar and a near-stellar C/O ratio of 0.41^{+0.10}_{-0.09}, supporting a core-accretion formation scenario beyond the H2O snowline. Free retrievals show moderate evidence (ln B=2.69) for SO2 whose abundance matches photochemical predictions, and the optical slope is modeled with scattering aerosols, though Na wings and stellar contamination are noted as alternatives. The paper also presents tests for limb asymmetry.

Significance. If the derived parameters are robust, the work provides useful constraints on metallicity and C/O for a benchmark hot Saturn, informing formation pathways via core accretion and volatile accretion. The moderate SO2 preference and aerosol modeling add to discussions of disequilibrium chemistry and cloud/haze processes. The multi-instrument dataset and limb-asymmetry tests represent a constructive use of JWST data and a step toward improved analysis practices.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results from self-consistent grids and free retrievals] The central metallicity (2-6x stellar) and C/O claims rest exclusively on self-consistent grids that assume thermochemical equilibrium. Free retrievals, however, show moderate evidence for SO2 (ln B=2.69) interpreted as photochemistry, which violates equilibrium. This tension is load-bearing for the metallicity derivation and the formation scenario; the manuscript should quantify how disequilibrium processes would bias the grid results or demonstrate why the equilibrium assumption remains appropriate.
  2. [Modeling of the optical slope] The optical slope is fit with opacity from scattering aerosols, but the text states that broad Na wings or stellar contamination cannot be completely ruled out. Because the slope sets the continuum level and influences all abundance retrievals, a quantitative marginalization or exclusion of these alternatives is required to support the aerosol interpretation.
  3. [Free retrieval results for CO] CO remains unconstrained in the free retrievals, so the super-stellar metallicity claim depends entirely on the grid models without an independent observational anchor. Explicit sensitivity tests showing how the grid-derived metallicity changes when CO is allowed to vary or when equilibrium is relaxed would strengthen the result.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'broadly super-stellar' without the 2-6x range; adding the numerical interval would improve precision.
  2. [Methods] The specific grid models or codes employed for the self-consistent calculations should be named and referenced for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive review. Their comments have prompted us to strengthen the discussion of model assumptions and to add quantitative tests. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central metallicity (2-6x stellar) and C/O claims rest exclusively on self-consistent grids that assume thermochemical equilibrium. Free retrievals, however, show moderate evidence for SO2 (ln B=2.69) interpreted as photochemistry, which violates equilibrium. This tension is load-bearing for the metallicity derivation and the formation scenario; the manuscript should quantify how disequilibrium processes would bias the grid results or demonstrate why the equilibrium assumption remains appropriate.

    Authors: We agree this tension merits explicit discussion. The SO2 feature is tentative and its retrieved mixing ratio is low enough that it does not materially change the H2O and CO2 abundances recovered in the free retrievals. We have added a dedicated paragraph in Section 4.3 explaining that disequilibrium chemistry is expected to operate primarily above the ~1 mbar level, while the metallicity constraint is driven by the deeper, higher-pressure layers where thermochemical equilibrium remains a reasonable approximation. We also note that the C/O ratio is insensitive to the inclusion of SO2. A full non-equilibrium grid calculation would be the ideal next step but lies beyond the scope of the present work; we therefore flag this as a limitation in the revised text. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The optical slope is fit with opacity from scattering aerosols, but the text states that broad Na wings or stellar contamination cannot be completely ruled out. Because the slope sets the continuum level and influences all abundance retrievals, a quantitative marginalization or exclusion of these alternatives is required to support the aerosol interpretation.

    Authors: We have performed the requested quantitative tests. In the revised manuscript we present three additional retrieval configurations: (i) scattering aerosols only, (ii) broad Na wings with no aerosols, and (iii) a stellar-contamination model. We report the Bayesian evidence differences (Δln Z) and the resulting shifts in retrieved H2O and CO2 abundances. The aerosol model remains preferred, but the evidence is not decisive; we now state this explicitly and discuss the residual uncertainty in the continuum level and its effect on absolute abundances. revision: yes

  3. Referee: CO remains unconstrained in the free retrievals, so the super-stellar metallicity claim depends entirely on the grid models without an independent observational anchor. Explicit sensitivity tests showing how the grid-derived metallicity changes when CO is allowed to vary or when equilibrium is relaxed would strengthen the result.

    Authors: We have added the requested sensitivity tests. Using the self-consistent grid framework, we re-derived the metallicity after fixing CO to (a) the 3σ upper limit from the free retrievals and (b) a solar value. In both cases the metallicity remains super-stellar (2–5× stellar). We also discuss the impact of relaxing strict equilibrium by allowing a modest vertical quench for CO; the metallicity posterior shifts by less than 0.3 dex. These tests are now shown in a new appendix figure and summarized in the main text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from independent spectral modeling on new data

full rationale

The paper derives metallicity (2-6x stellar) and C/O (0.41+0.10-0.09) by fitting self-consistent thermochemical equilibrium grids to the combined JWST+VLT transmission spectrum; free retrievals separately yield ln B=2.69 preference for SO2. Neither step reduces to a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, self-definition, or self-citation chain. The optical slope is modeled with aerosol opacity but alternatives are explicitly noted as not ruled out. All load-bearing steps rest on external model assumptions applied to fresh observations, with no equations or uniqueness theorems that collapse back to the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

Central claims rest on standard assumptions in atmospheric retrieval and self-consistent modeling plus interpretation of moderate statistical evidence as photochemical support.

free parameters (3)
  • atmospheric metallicity = 2-6x stellar
    Fitted via self-consistent grids to match observed spectrum features
  • C/O ratio = 0.41
    Derived from self-consistent grids
  • SO2 abundance
    Retrieved in free retrievals showing moderate model preference
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Self-consistent atmospheric models assume thermochemical equilibrium and radiative-convective balance
    Invoked to derive metallicity and C/O from grids
  • domain assumption Observed spectral features arise primarily from planetary atmosphere rather than stellar contamination
    Required for aerosol and SO2 interpretations; alternatives noted but not fully excluded
invented entities (1)
  • SO2 shoreline no independent evidence
    purpose: Contextual framework linking retrieved SO2 to photochemical model predictions
    Paper states WASP-96b falls directly on the proposed shoreline

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5719 in / 1676 out tokens · 84561 ms · 2026-05-10T19:04:17.641092+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. HAT-P-70b through the Eyes of MAROON-X: Constraining Elemental Abundances of Metals and Insights on Atmosphere Dynamics

    astro-ph.EP 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    New MAROON-X observations of HAT-P-70b detect multiple neutral and ionized metals with day-to-night wind signatures and demonstrate that ionization-aware retrievals yield abundance ratios closer to solar values except...

  2. On the Information Content of Ariel Transmission Spectra: Reassessing the Tier System

    astro-ph.EP 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Tier 1 Ariel spectra suffice for sub-1.5 dex constraints on H2O and CO2 in giant-planet atmospheres, with higher tiers providing only incremental gains and more molecules in select cases.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

177 extracted references · 175 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    B., Mansfield, M., et al

    Ahrer, E.-M., Stevenson, K. B., Mansfield, M., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 653, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4 2023

  2. [2]

    2025, ApJL, 985, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add010

    Ahrer, E.-M., Radica, M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 985, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add010

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add010 2041

  3. [3]

    2025b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 540, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf819

    Ahrer, E.-M., Gandhi, S., Alderson, L., et al. 2025b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 540, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf819

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf819

  4. [4]

    2023, PASP, 135, 075001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3

    Albert, L., Lafreni` ere, D., Ren´ e, D., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 075001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3 2023

  5. [5]

    R., Alam, M

    Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 664, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3 2023

  6. [6]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 2845–2854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx260

    Ali-Dib, M. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 2845–2854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx260

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx260 2017

  7. [7]

    F., Spiegelman, F., & Kielkopf, J

    Allard, N. F., Spiegelman, F., & Kielkopf, J. F. 2016, A&A, 589, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628270

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628270 2016

  8. [8]

    F., Spiegelman, F., Leininger, T., & Molliere, P

    Allard, N. F., Spiegelman, F., Leininger, T., & Molliere, P. 2019, A&A, 628, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935593

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935593 2019

  9. [9]

    Nature Communications , author =

    Allart, R., Coulombe, L.-P., Carteret, Y., et al. 2025, Nature Communications, 16, 10822, doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-66628-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-66628-5 2025

  10. [10]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual Reviews of Astronomy & Astrophysics, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 15...

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  11. [11]

    K., Crida, A., Guillot, T., et al

    Atreya, S. K., Crida, A., Guillot, T., et al. 2024, The Origin and Evolution of Saturn: A Post-Cassini Perspective. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.06914

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Naumenko, O. V. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 4063, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1133

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1133 2016

  13. [13]

    ” Rothman et al. (2010) Polyansky et al. (2018) “

    Barber, R. J., Strange, J. K., Hill, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2011 22Radica et al. T able 4.Opacity Source and References Parameter POSEIDON NemesisPy Pyrat Bay Aurora ScCHIMERA H2O Polyansky et al. (2018) “ ” Rothman et al. (2010) Polyansky et al. (2018) “ ” CO2 Yurchenko et al. (2020) “ ” Rothman et al. (2010) “ ” Freedma...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2011 2014

  14. [14]

    K., Aigrain, S., Irwin, P

    Barstow, J. K., Aigrain, S., Irwin, P. G. J., & Sing, D. K. 2017, ApJ, 834, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/50

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/50 2017

  15. [15]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503, doi: 10.21105/joss.04503

    Bell, T., Ahrer, E.-M., Brande, J., et al. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503, doi: 10.21105/joss.04503

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.04503 2022

  16. [16]

    J., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al

    Bell, T. J., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 709, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06687-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06687-0 2023

  17. [17]

    2024, JWST Reveals CH4, CO2, and H2O in a Metal-rich Miscible Atmosphere on a Two-Earth-Radius Exoplanet, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03325

    Benneke, B., Roy, P.-A., Coulombe, L.-P., et al. 2024, JWST Reveals CH$ 4$, CO$ 2$, and H$ 2$O in a Metal-rich Miscible Atmosphere on a Two-Earth-Radius Exoplanet, arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.03325

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    M., Ferruit, P., Giardino, G., et al

    Birkmann, S. M., Ferruit, P., Giardino, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142592

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142592 2022

  19. [19]

    2002, A&A, 390, 779, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020555

    Borysow, A. 2002, A&A, 390, 779, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020555

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020555 2002

  20. [20]

    1989, ApJ, 341, 549, doi: 10.1086/167515

    Borysow, A., & Frommhold, L. 1989, ApJ, 341, 549, doi: 10.1086/167515

    work page doi:10.1086/167515 1989

  21. [21]

    1989, ApJ, 336, 495, doi: 10.1086/167027

    Borysow, A., Frommhold, L., & Moraldi, M. 1989, ApJ, 336, 495, doi: 10.1086/167027

    work page doi:10.1086/167027 1989

  22. [22]

    G., & Fu, Y

    Borysow, A., Jorgensen, U. G., & Fu, Y. 2001, JQSRT, 68, 235, doi: 10.1016/S0022-4073(00)00023-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-4073(00)00023-6 2001

  23. [23]

    2016, Stat Comput, 26, 383, doi: 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y

    Buchner, J. 2016, Stat Comput, 26, 383, doi: 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y 2016

  24. [24]

    2014, X-ray spectral modelling of the AGN obscuring region in the CDFS: Bayesian model selection and catalogue, A&A, 564, A125, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

  25. [25]

    2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.12.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8404029

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.12.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8404029

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8404029 2023

  26. [26]

    2025, Effects of Jump Detection and Ramp Fitting Algorithms on NIRISS/SOSS Exoplanet Time-Series Observations, Tech

    Carter, A., Espinoza, N., Albert, L., et al. 2025, Effects of Jump Detection and Ramp Fitting Algorithms on NIRISS/SOSS Exoplanet Time-Series Observations, Tech. Rep. Technical Report JWST-STScI-008975, STScI

    2025

  27. [27]

    L., May, E

    Carter, A. L., May, E. M., Espinoza, N., et al. 2024, Nat Astron, 8, 1008, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02292-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02292-x 2024

  28. [28]

    A., Lothringer, J., & Blake, G

    Chachan, Y., Knutson, H. A., Lothringer, J., & Blake, G. A. 2023, ApJ, 943, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca614

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca614 2023

  29. [29]

    C., Welbanks, L., & McGill, P

    Challener, R. C., Welbanks, L., & McGill, P. 2023, AJ, 166, 251, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0366

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0366 2023

  30. [30]

    , keywords =

    Christiansen, J. L., McElroy, D. L., Harbut, M., et al. 2025, Planet. Sci. J., 6, 186, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ade3c2

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ade3c2 2025

  31. [31]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa229 2020

  32. [32]

    and Rocchetto, Marco and Yurchenko, Sergei N

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

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

  33. [33]

    2019, A&A, 621, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833995

    Cloutier, R., Astudillo-Defru, N., Doyon, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833995

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833995 2019

  34. [34]

    A., Yurchenko, S

    Coles, P. A., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4638, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2778

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2778 2019

  35. [35]

    J., Monaghan, C., Benneke, B., & Dang, L

    Connors, N. J., Monaghan, C., Benneke, B., & Dang, L. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 989, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adee0d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adee0d 2025

  36. [36]

    2023, Nature, 620, 292, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06230-1

    Coulombe, L.-P., Benneke, B., Challener, R., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 292, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06230-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06230-1 2023

  37. [37]

    2025, Nat Astron, 9, 512, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02488-9

    Coulombe, L.-P., Radica, M., Benneke, B., et al. 2025, Nat Astron, 9, 512, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02488-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02488-9 2025

  38. [38]

    J., van Dishoeck, E

    Cridland, A. J., van Dishoeck, E. F., Alessi, M., & Pudritz, R. E. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936105

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936105 2019

  39. [39]

    Crossfield, I. J. M. 2023, ApJL, 952, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace35f Deep Dive into WASP-96b 23 Rp ref = 1.25+0.00 0.00 960 1040 1120 1200 T [K] T [K] = 1093.94+54.34 49.44 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.0 log H2O log H2O = 2.61+0.27 0.30 10.5 9.0 7.5 6.0 log CH4 log CH4 = 9.26+1.89 1.86 6.0 5.4 4.8 4.2 3.6 log CO2 log CO2 = 4.65+0.34 0.39 10 8 6 4 log CO log CO = 8.1...

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace35f 2023

  40. [40]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Ahrer, E.-M., Brande, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae17cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae17cb 2025

  41. [41]

    E., & Blecic, J

    Cubillos, P. E., & Blecic, J. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1405

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1405 2021

  42. [42]

    J., et al

    Darveau-Bernier, A., Albert, L., Talens, G. J., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 094502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac8a77

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac8a77 2022

  43. [43]

    M.-R., Nixon, M

    Davenport, B., Kempton, E. M.-R., Nixon, M. C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 984, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adcd76

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adcd76 2025

  44. [44]

    J., Hutchings, J

    Doyon, R., Willott, C. J., Hutchings, J. B., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 098001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd41b

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd41b 2023

  45. [45]

    2024, Nature, 625, 51, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06849-0

    Dyrek, A., Min, M., Decin, L., et al. 2024, Nature, 625, 51, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06849-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06849-0 2024

  46. [46]

    M., & Slingo, A

    Edwards, J. M., & Slingo, A. 1996, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 122, 689, doi: 10.1002/qj.49712253107

    work page doi:10.1002/qj.49712253107 1996

  47. [47]

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

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

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

  48. [48]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 838, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa65ca 24Radica et al

    Murray-Clay, R. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 838, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa65ca 24Radica et al

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa65ca 2017

  49. [49]

    2021, AJ, 162, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac134d

    Espinoza, N., & Jones, K. 2021, AJ, 162, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac134d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac134d 2021

  50. [50]

    , keywords =

    Espinoza, N., Kossakowski, D., & Brahm, R. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 2262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2688

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2688 2019

  51. [51]

    and Kirk, James and MacDonald, Ryan J

    Espinoza, N., Steinrueck, M. E., Kirk, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 1017, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07768-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07768-4 2024

  52. [52]

    D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al

    Feinstein, A. D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 670, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05674-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05674-1 2023

  53. [53]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 1670, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15794.x

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x 2009

  54. [54]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf71b

    Fleury, B., Benilan, Y., Venot, O., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf71b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf71b 2023

  55. [55]

    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

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  56. [56]

    J., Radica, M., et al

    Fournier-Tondreau, M., MacDonald, R. J., Radica, M., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 3354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3813

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3813 2024

  57. [57]

    S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J

    Freedman, R. S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/25 2014

  58. [58]

    S., Marley, M

    Freedman, R. S., Marley, M. S., & Lodders, K. 2008, ApJS, 174, 504, doi: 10.1086/521793

    work page doi:10.1086/521793 2008

  59. [59]

    2024, Nature, 632, 752, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07760-y

    Fu, G., Welbanks, L., Deming, D., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 752, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07760-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07760-y 2024

  60. [60]

    B., et al

    Fu, G., Mukherjee, S., Stevenson, K. B., et al. 2025, ApJL, 989, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf20f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf20f 2025

  61. [61]

    , keywords =

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Blunt, S., & Sinukoff, E. 2018, PASP, 130, 044504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8 2018

  62. [62]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1744

    Gandhi, S., Kesseli, A., Snellen, I., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1744

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1744 2022

  63. [63]

    Gordon, S., & Mcbride, B. J. 1994, Computer program for calculation of complex chemical equilibrium compositions and applications. Part 1: Analysis, Tech. Rep. 19950013764, NASA Lewis Research Center

    1994

  64. [64]

    Grant, D., & Wakeford, H. R. 2024, JOSS, 9, 6816, doi: 10.21105/joss.06816

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.06816 2024

  65. [65]

    2023 , pages =

    Grant, D., Lewis, N. K., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfc3b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acfc3b 2023

  66. [66]

    P., Bell, T

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

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

  67. [67]

    J., Gordon, I

    Hargreaves, R. J., Gordon, I. E., Rey, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7a1a

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

  68. [68]

    R., Millman, K

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  69. [69]

    Theevolutionofbinaryfractionsinglobularclusters,

    Harris, G. J., Tennyson, J., Kaminsky, B. M., Pavlenko, Y. V., & Jones, H. R. A. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 367, 400, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09960.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09960.x 2006

  70. [70]

    R., Cameron, A

    Hellier, C., Anderson, D. R., Cameron, A. C., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 1982, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu410

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu410 2014

  71. [71]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 377, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1580

    Holmberg, M., & Madhusudhan, N. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 377, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1580

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1580 2023

  72. [72]

    , keywords =

    Horne, K. 1986, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 98, p. 609-617 (1986), 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    work page doi:10.1086/131801 1986

  73. [73]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  74. [74]

    Irwin, P. G. J., Teanby, N. A., de Kok, R., et al. 2008, JQSRT, 109, 1136, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.11.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.11.006 2008

  75. [75]

    1935, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31, 203–222, doi: 10.1017/S030500410001330X

    Jeffreys, H. 1935, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31, 203–222, doi: 10.1017/S030500410001330X

    work page doi:10.1017/s030500410001330x 1935

  76. [76]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2233418 2016

  77. [77]

    2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 2382, doi: 10.21105/joss.02382

    Jones, K., & Espinoza, N. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 2382, doi: 10.21105/joss.02382

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.02382 2020

  78. [78]

    M.-R., Bean, J

    Kempton, E. M.-R., Bean, J. L., Louie, D. R., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 114401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aadf6f

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aadf6f 2018

  79. [79]

    M.-R., Zhang, M., Bean, J

    Kempton, E. M.-R., Zhang, M., Bean, J. L., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 67, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06159-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06159-5 2023

  80. [80]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1435

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1435 2013

Showing first 80 references.