arxiv: 2604.07268 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

GEMS JWST: HATS-75 b -- A giant planet with a sub-solar metallicity atmosphere orbiting an M-dwarf

Reza Ashtari , Jacob Lustig-Yaeger , Jessica Libby-Roberts , Simon M\"uller , Shubham Kanodia , Kevin B. Stevenson , Caleb I. Ca\~nas , Giannina Guzm\'an Caloca

show 7 more authors

Nicole L. Wallack Megan Delamer Anjali A. A. Piette Suvrath Mahadevan Ian Czekala Te Han Ravit Helled

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP

keywords HATS-75 bexoplanet transmission spectroscopyJWST NIRSpecM-dwarf staratmospheric metallicitystellar heterogeneitycarbon-to-oxygen ratiovertical mixing

0 comments

The pith

HATS-75 b has a sub-solar metallicity atmosphere with super-solar C/O after accounting for its M-dwarf host's starspots.

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

The paper presents JWST NIRSpec PRISM observations of three transits of the giant exoplanet HATS-75 b. Its transmission spectrum shows a slight increase in depth at shorter wavelengths that could come from either planetary hazes or stellar contamination. Independent data on stellar rotation and spot-crossing events favor a model in which unocculted starspots and faculae alter the measured spectrum. Under that framework, retrievals find low atmospheric metallicity paired with super-solar carbon-to-oxygen ratio, plus clear detections of CH4, CO, and CO2. This combination, when matched to an interior model, points to inefficient vertical mixing inside the planet.

Core claim

Within the stellar heterogeneity / TLS-based framework, atmospheric retrievals yield remarkably low atmospheric metallicity (log[M/H]=-1.74^{+0.92}_{-0.76}) and super-solar carbon-to-oxygen (C/O=1.04^{+0.40}_{-0.09}), which paired with a best-fit interior model with bulk metallicity of Z_p=0.20+/-0.04, implies poor vertical mixing within the planet. Retrievals also detect robust absorption signatures of CH4, CO, and CO2. We obtain only an upper limit for H2O, consistent with its atmospheric spectral features being masked by stellar contamination.

What carries the argument

The transit light source (TLS) effect, in which unocculted starspots and faculae on the active M-dwarf contaminate the out-of-transit flux and thereby reshape the apparent transmission spectrum.

If this is right

Atmospheric retrievals detect clear CH4, CO, and CO2 absorption features.
H2O absorption is only detected as an upper limit because stellar contamination masks its spectral features.
The retrieved atmospheric metallicity is much lower than the bulk metallicity from interior modeling.
The results demonstrate that stellar heterogeneity must be modeled to avoid misinterpreting exoplanet spectra around active M-dwarfs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Similar giant planets around M-dwarfs may routinely require TLS corrections before their atmospheric metallicities can be trusted.
The combination of low atmospheric metallicity and high C/O could indicate carbon-rich formation pathways that future population studies could test.
Repeated observations at different stellar activity levels could confirm whether the retrieved abundances remain stable.

Load-bearing premise

That evidence from stellar rotation and spot-crossing events is strong enough to prefer the TLS stellar-heterogeneity model over a simple hazy-atmosphere explanation.

What would settle it

A new set of transit observations taken when the star shows no spot-crossing events or rotationally modulated variability that would instead support a high-metallicity hazy atmosphere model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07268 by Anjali A. A. Piette, Caleb I. Ca\~nas, Giannina Guzm\'an Caloca, Ian Czekala, Jacob Lustig-Yaeger, Jessica Libby-Roberts, Kevin B. Stevenson, Megan Delamer, Nicole L. Wallack, Ravit Helled, Reza Ashtari, Shubham Kanodia, Simon M\"uller, Suvrath Mahadevan, Te Han.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: White light curves and best-fit transit models for Visits 1 (top), 2 (middle), and 3 (bottom) of the optimized Eureka! + fleck dataset. Residuals for the model-fits are provided below the light curve of the same transit to show time-correlated noise. The bump near the ingress of Visit 1, to the left of the transit center (∼ 1.92 + 6.053e4 MJD), represents the starspot illustrated in the top plot of [PITH_… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Modeled fleck star spots for Visits 1 (top) and 2 (bottom). Visit 3 is not shown as the preferred transit model is spot-free for the Eureka! + fleck reduction. Interestingly, the spots share roughly the same latitude across the transit chord, with similar spot contrasts of 0.960 ± 0.008 & 0.971 ± 0.002 for Visits 1 and 2, respectively. Characteristics for the spots modeled for both reductions are detailed … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: A comparison of the independently-generated optimized Eureka! + fleck and manual Eureka! + spotrod transmission spectra for all three visits. Nearly all values fall within ±1σ relative to the other reduction, providing strong validation of the spectra generated for all visits across both approaches. in Jord´an et al. (2022). The quadratic limb darkening coefficients were fitted assuming the Kipping (2013)… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Fitted spectroscopic limb darkening coefficients for a quadratic limb darkening law and posteriors against uniform priors centered about the ExoTiC-LD MPS2 stellar grid model (solid lines). Due to the agreement between the predicted and fit values, we fixed the limb darkening coefficients to the predicted values from the MPS2 grid when fitting the spectroscopic light curves. 1 2 3 4 5 Wavelength ( m) 200 0… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The relative transit depth and scale heights for the optimized Eureka! + fleck transmission spectra. The spectrum shown here is a weighted average of all three transits. Scale heights assume a mean molecular weight of µ = 2.2. vergence criterion of ∆ lnZ = 1 which is sufficient to ensure robust sampling of the high-dimensional parameter space. We use several metrics to similarly quantify the retrieval res… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Retrieval fits to the HATS-75 b coadded transmission spectrum for the preferred TLS contamination model (top plot) and preferred haze model (bottom plot). Both plots show the spectral fit (upper panel) and the relative residual (lower panel). The data (black error bars) are compared against the median retrieved transmission spectrum with 1σ and 2σ credibility envelopes. The black model shows the best fitt… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Histograms of 1D marginalized posterior densities for a subset of parameters from the preferred TLS (orange) and hazy (blue) retrieval models. Despite two plausible retrieval solutions offered by Model A and Model B, both models provide similar constraints on the common atmospheric characteristics (top row). The primary difference resides in whether water is detected or not. Jord´an et al. (2022) of ∼35 da… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Estimates for bulk metallicity Zp and the intrinsic temperature Tint using measurements of planet mass, radius, atmospheric metallicity, and the system age. The input parameters for the statistical model are marked with a † and listed in the figure. illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

HATS-75 b is one of the recently discovered Giant Exoplanets orbiting M-dwarf Stars (GEMS) with a transmission spectrum shaped by both its atmosphere and the active stellar surface it transits. As part of a JWST program studying 7 GEMS, we observed three transits of HATS-75 b with the NIRSpec PRISM instrument (0.6-5.3 um). The planet's spectra exhibit a slightly larger transit depth at shorter wavelengths, indicative of hazes or stellar contamination due to stellar heterogeneities outside the transit chord, i.e., the transit light source (TLS) effect. While both a hazy atmospheric model or TLS model can replicate the transmission spectrum, independent evidence (.e.g, stellar rotation, spot-crossing events) favors a model that includes contamination from unocculted starspots and faculae. Within this stellar heterogeneity / TLS-based framework, atmospheric retrievals yield remarkably low atmospheric metallicity (log[M/H]=-1.74^{+0.92}_{-0.76}) and super-solar carbon-to-oxygen (C/O=1.04^{+0.40}_{-0.09}), which paired with a best-fit interior model with bulk metallicity of Z_p=0.20+/-0.04, implies poor vertical mixing within the planet. Retrievals also detect robust absorption signatures of CH4, CO, and CO2. We obtain only an upper limit for H2O, consistent with its atmospheric spectral features being masked by stellar contamination. These results underscore the importance of accounting for stellar heterogeneity when interpreting exoplanet transmission spectra and highlight HATS-75 b as a significant asset to our understanding of giant exoplanets around M-dwarfs with JWST.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

New JWST transit data for HATS-75 b is a solid addition to GEMS work, but the low-metallicity and poor-mixing claims rest on a TLS preference that the abstract itself flags as unquantified.

read the letter

The paper brings fresh NIRSpec PRISM observations of three transits of HATS-75 b, covering 0.6-5.3 microns. It shows the spectrum can be fit by either a hazy atmosphere or a TLS model that includes unocculted starspots and faculae, then uses stellar rotation period and spot-crossing events to pick the TLS route. Under that choice the retrievals give log[M/H] = -1.74 with large uncertainties, C/O = 1.04, clear CH4, CO, and CO2 features, and only an upper limit on H2O. They pair this with an interior model at Z_p = 0.20 to argue for weak vertical mixing. That is the main new result: a concrete atmospheric constraint on a giant planet around an M dwarf with JWST data that explicitly flags stellar contamination as a dominant issue. The work is useful because it adds to the small sample of GEMS transmission spectra and demonstrates how stellar activity can mask or mimic atmospheric signals. The data reduction and retrieval setup appear standard for the instrument, and the molecular detections are reported with uncertainties. The soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test note flags. The abstract states both models replicate the spectrum, yet the TLS framework is adopted on the basis of qualitative stellar indicators without a reported Bayes factor, evidence ratio, or even a direct comparison of fit quality. Spot-crossing events confirm occulted spots on the chord, but TLS requires unocculted heterogeneities; the two are not automatically interchangeable. If the hazy model remains statistically competitive, the retrieved metallicity drops out and the mixing inference does not follow. That choice is load-bearing for the headline claims. The paper is aimed at the exoplanet atmosphere community working on M-dwarf hosts and JWST systematics. It is worth sending to referees because the observations are new and the contamination problem is real, but any review should require a quantitative model-selection step before the atmospheric numbers are treated as robust.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports JWST NIRSpec PRISM (0.6-5.3 μm) transmission spectroscopy from three transits of the giant exoplanet HATS-75 b orbiting an M-dwarf. The observed spectrum shows a slight increase in transit depth at shorter wavelengths, which both a hazy atmosphere model and a transit light source (TLS) model with unocculted starspots/faculae can reproduce. Independent stellar evidence (rotation period, spot-crossing events) is used to favor the TLS framework. Under this model, atmospheric retrievals yield log[M/H] = -1.74^{+0.92}_{-0.76}, C/O = 1.04^{+0.40}_{-0.09}, robust detections of CH4, CO, and CO2, and only an upper limit on H2O. Comparison of the retrieved atmospheric metallicity to a best-fit interior model (Z_p = 0.20 ± 0.04) is interpreted as evidence for poor vertical mixing.

Significance. If the TLS preference and retrievals hold, the work supplies one of the first detailed atmospheric constraints for a GEMS planet, demonstrates the practical impact of stellar heterogeneity on M-dwarf transmission spectra, and links atmospheric and interior metallicities to mixing efficiency. The multi-transit dataset and reported molecular detections constitute concrete observational assets for the field.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: Both hazy and TLS models are stated to replicate the spectrum, yet the TLS framework is adopted on the basis of stellar rotation and spot-crossing evidence without a reported Bayes factor, evidence ratio, or ΔBIC. Because the retrieved log[M/H] and C/O values (and the subsequent poor-mixing inference from comparison to Z_p) are direct outputs of the chosen framework, a quantitative model-selection statistic is required to justify preferring TLS over the equally viable hazy alternative.
[Abstract] Abstract and retrieval description: The manuscript reports specific posterior values for metallicity and C/O together with molecular detections, but does not supply the full retrieval setup (prior ranges, number of free parameters, convergence diagnostics, or validation that stellar and planetary signals have been adequately separated). These details are load-bearing for the central claim that the atmosphere is markedly sub-solar in metallicity.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: Typographical error in “(.e.g,” should read “(e.g.,”.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which help clarify the presentation of our model selection and retrieval methodology. We address each major comment point by point below and commit to revisions that strengthen the manuscript without altering its core conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: Both hazy and TLS models are stated to replicate the spectrum, yet the TLS framework is adopted on the basis of stellar rotation and spot-crossing evidence without a reported Bayes factor, evidence ratio, or ΔBIC. Because the retrieved log[M/H] and C/O values (and the subsequent poor-mixing inference from comparison to Z_p) are direct outputs of the chosen framework, a quantitative model-selection statistic is required to justify preferring TLS over the equally viable hazy alternative.

Authors: We agree that a quantitative model-selection statistic would provide additional rigor to the preference for the TLS framework. The manuscript currently relies on independent stellar observables (rotation period and spot-crossing events) to favor TLS over a pure haze model, but we acknowledge that a direct statistical comparison between the two forward models was not reported. In the revised version we will add a nested-sampling model comparison, reporting the Bayes factor (or ΔlnZ) between the hazy-atmosphere-only and TLS-inclusive models. This will be included in the abstract, results, and methods sections, with the retrieved atmospheric parameters presented in the context of the favored model. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and retrieval description: The manuscript reports specific posterior values for metallicity and C/O together with molecular detections, but does not supply the full retrieval setup (prior ranges, number of free parameters, convergence diagnostics, or validation that stellar and planetary signals have been adequately separated). These details are load-bearing for the central claim that the atmosphere is markedly sub-solar in metallicity.

Authors: The full retrieval configuration (priors, free-parameter count, and convergence checks) is described in the Methods section and supplementary tables, and the joint stellar-planetary modeling is used to separate the signals. However, we recognize that these details are not sufficiently prominent or self-contained for readers focused on the abstract and retrieval results. We will expand the retrieval description in the revised manuscript to explicitly list prior ranges, parameter counts, convergence diagnostics (e.g., Gelman-Rubin values), and additional validation steps confirming adequate separation of stellar heterogeneity from planetary absorption. This will be cross-referenced from the abstract and results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are retrieval outputs under independently motivated model

full rationale

The paper selects the TLS/stellar heterogeneity framework on the basis of external stellar observables (rotation period and spot-crossing events) rather than the transmission spectrum itself. Atmospheric retrievals are then performed on the JWST data to obtain log[M/H] and C/O as direct fit parameters; these are compared to a separately derived interior bulk metallicity Z_p to reach the mixing conclusion. No equation, self-citation, or ansatz in the provided text reduces any reported value to a tautological restatement of the inputs. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained: model choice rests on independent data, and the quantitative atmospheric results are standard retrieval outputs, not predictions forced by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard assumptions in exoplanet transmission spectroscopy and retrieval modeling, with key atmospheric parameters fitted to the data under the TLS framework.

free parameters (2)

atmospheric metallicity log[M/H] = -1.74
Fitted parameter from retrieval to the transmission spectrum under the TLS model
C/O ratio = 1.04
Retrieved from spectral features of carbon-bearing molecules

axioms (2)

domain assumption The observed transmission spectrum can be decomposed into contributions from the planetary atmosphere and unocculted stellar heterogeneities (TLS effect).
Invoked to interpret the wavelength-dependent transit depth and to select the preferred model.
domain assumption Independent stellar observables (rotation period, spot-crossing events) reliably indicate the presence and impact of unocculted starspots and faculae.
Basis for preferring the TLS model over the hazy atmosphere alternative.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5713 in / 1666 out tokens · 66549 ms · 2026-05-10T18:06:00.291055+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

atmospheric retrievals yield remarkably low atmospheric metallicity (log[M/H]=−1.74+0.92−0.76) and super-solar C/O

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

2024, GASTLI: An Open-Source Coupled Interior-Atmosphere Model to Unveil Gas Giant Composition, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.10032

Acu˜ na, L., Kreidberg, L., Zhai, M., & Molli` ere, P. 2024, GASTLI: An Open-Source Coupled Interior-Atmosphere Model to Unveil Gas Giant Composition, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.10032

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.10032 2024
[2]

M., Rosenfeld, K

Andrews, S. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., Kraus, A. L., & Wilner, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 771, 129

2013
[3]

B., Sing, D., et al

Ashtari, R., Stevenson, K. B., Sing, D., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 106 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The ...

2025
[4]

K., & Heng, K

Barstow, J. K., & Heng, K. 2020, SSRv, 216, 82 B´ eky, B., Kipping, D. M., & Holman, M. J. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3686

2020
[5]

2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503

Bell, T., Ahrer, E.-M., Brande, J., et al. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503

2022
[6]

J., Lissauer, J

Bodenheimer, P., Stevenson, D. J., Lissauer, J. J., & D’Angelo, G. 2025, Formation and Evolution Simulations of Saturn, Including Composition Gradients and Helium Immiscibility, arXiv:2504.17227

work page arXiv 2025
[7]

Boss, A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836 —. 2006, ApJ, 643, 501

1997
[8]

P., & Kanodia, S

Boss, A. P., & Kanodia, S. 2023, ApJ, 956, 4

2023
[9]

2014, A&A, 564, A125

Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125

2014
[10]

2021, A&A, 656, A72

Burn, R., Schlecker, M., Mordasini, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A72

2021
[11]

2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.15.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12692459

Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, doi:10.5281/zenodo.12692459 Ca˜ nas, C. I., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Tsai, S.-M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06966 Ca˜ nas, C. I., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Tsai, S.-M., et al. 2025, GEMS JWST: Transmission Spectroscopy of TOI-5205b Reveals Significant Stellar Contaminatio...

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.12692459 2024
[12]

L., May, E

Carter, A. L., May, E. M., Espinoza, N., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1008

2024
[13]

Crossfield, I. J. M., Ahrer, E.-M., Brande, J., et al. 2025, Mapping the SO2 Shoreline in Gas Giant Exoplanets

2025
[14]

2019, ApJ, 872, 100

Debras, F., & Chabrier, G. 2019, ApJ, 872, 100

2019
[15]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11528

Dransfield, G., Timmermans, M., Sebastian, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11528

work page arXiv 2025
[16]

D., Tull, R

Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., Tull, R. G., & MacQueen, P. J. 2003, AJ, 126, 3099

2003
[17]

G., & Guinan, E

Engle, S. G., & Guinan, E. F. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, L50

2023
[18]

P., & Bridges, M

Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601

2009
[19]

2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 4698

Fisher, C., & Heng, K. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 4698

2018
[20]

W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

2013
[21]

P., Mather, J

Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 485

2006
[22]

I., Ca˜ nas, C

Glusman, R. I., Ca˜ nas, C. I., Kanodia, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.08773

work page arXiv 2025
[23]

E., Rothman, L

Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., Hill, C., et al. 2017, JQSRT, 203, 3

2017
[24]

E., Rothman, L

Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., Hargreaves, R. J., et al. 2022, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 277, 107949

2022
[25]

2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6816

Grant, D., & Wakeford, H. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6816

2024
[26]

K., Wakeford, H

Grant, D., Lewis, N. K., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L32

2023
[27]

2022, The Nature of Gas Giant Planets

Helled, R., Movshovitz, N., & Nettelmann, N. 2022, The Nature of Gas Giant Planets

2022
[28]

2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, L4

Helled, R., & Stevenson, D. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, L4

2017
[29]

2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 2972

Heng, K., & Kitzmann, D. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 2972

2017
[30]

2024, The Evolution of Jupiter and Saturn with Helium Rain

Howard, S., M¨ uller, S., & Helled, R. 2024, The Evolution of Jupiter and Saturn with Helium Rain

2024
[31]

2023, A&A, 680, L2

Howard, S., Guillot, T., Markham, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, L2

2023
[32]

Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2005, ApJ, 626, 1045

2005
[33]

2022, A&A, 661, A80 Jord´ an, A., Hartman, J

Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80 Jord´ an, A., Hartman, J. D., Bayliss, D., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 125 Jord´ an, A., Hartman, J. D., Bayliss, D., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 125

2022
[34]

2024, ApJ, 978, 97

Kanodia, S. 2024, ApJ, 978, 97

2024
[35]

I., Mahadevan, S., et al

Kanodia, S., Ca˜ nas, C. I., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 161

2024
[36]

E., van der Avoird, A., et al

Karman, T., Gordon, I. E., van der Avoird, A., et al. 2019, Icarus, 328, 160

2019
[37]

Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2152

2013
[38]

R., Bean, J

Kreidberg, L., Line, M. R., Bean, J. L., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 66 24

2015
[39]

Laughlin, G., Bodenheimer, P., & Adams, F. C. 2004, ApJL, 612, L73 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Pont, F., Vidal-Madjar, A., &

2004
[40]

Marley, M. S. 2015, ApJ, 807, 183

2015
[41]

2020, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science

Lodders, K. 2020, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science

2020
[42]

MacDonald, R. J. 2023, Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4873

2023
[43]

J., & Madhusudhan, N

MacDonald, R. J., & Madhusudhan, N. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1979

2017
[44]

F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G

Manara, C. F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G. P., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 539

2023
[45]

R., & Fortney, J

Mankovich, C. R., & Fortney, J. J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 51

2020
[46]

2022, A&A, 662, A18

Miguel, Y., Bazot, M., Guillot, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A18

2022
[47]

1980, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 64, 544

Mizuno, H. 1980, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 64, 544

1980
[48]

E., Stevenson, K

Moran, S. E., Stevenson, K. B., Sing, D. K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L11

2023
[49]

Morris, B. M. 2022, fleck: Fast starspot rotational modulation light curves, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2203.009

2022
[50]

K., & MacDonald, R

Mullens, E., Lewis, N. K., & MacDonald, R. J. 2024, ApJ, 977, 105 M¨ uller, S., & Helled, R. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2094 M¨ uller, S., & Helled, R. 2023a, A&A, 669, A24 —. 2023b, Warm Giant Exoplanet Characterisation: Current State, Challenges and Outlook, arXiv:2304.12782 —. 2024, Can Jupiter’s Atmospheric Metallicity Be Different from the Deep Interior?, arX...

work page arXiv 2024
[51]

A., & Berta-Thompson, Z

Murray, C. A., & Berta-Thompson, Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.03045

work page arXiv 2025
[52]

J., et al

Pascucci, I., Testi, L., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 125

2016
[53]

J., & Mamajek, E

Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9

2013
[54]

B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62

1996
[55]

2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 151 ReadTheDocs: Eureka! Control Files (.ecf)

Rackham, B., Espinoza, N., Apai, D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 151 ReadTheDocs: Eureka! Control Files (.ecf). 2026, Eureka! Control Files (.ecf), accessed: 2026-02-04

2017
[56]

P., Venot, O., Lagage, P.-O., & Tinetti, G

Rocchetto, M., Waldmann, I. P., Venot, O., Lagage, P.-O., & Tinetti, G. 2016, ApJ, 833, 120

2016
[57]

2021, A&A, 653, A114

Sabotta, S., Schlecker, M., Chaturvedi, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A114

2021
[58]

Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132

2020
[59]

W., Kitzmann, D., Patzer, A

Stock, J. W., Kitzmann, D., Patzer, A. B. C., & Sedlmayr, E. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 865 STScI Development Team. 2013, pysynphot: Synthetic photometry software package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.023, ascl:1303.023

2018
[60]

T., Su, Y., & Burrows, A

Sur, A., Arevalo, R. T., Su, Y., & Burrows, A. 2024, Simultaneous Evolutionary Fits for Jupiter and Saturn Incorporating Fuzzy Cores, arXiv:2412.17127

work page arXiv 2024
[61]

2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71

Trotta, R. 2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71

2008
[62]

2018, ˚ ap, 610, L14

Vazan, A., Helled, R., & Guillot, T. 2018, ˚ ap, 610, L14

2018