Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 368

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A SYSTEMATIC RETRIEVAL ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY ECLIPSE SPECTRA. I. A COMPARISON OF ATMOSPHERIC RETRIEVAL TECHNIQUES

Open access
Line, Michael R., Wolf, Aaron S., Zhang, Xi, Knutson, Heather, Kammer, Joshua A., Ellison, Elias, Deroo, Pieter, Crisp, Dave, Yung, Yuk L.·2013·The Astrophysical Journal
DOI 10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/137
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Exoplanet atmosphere spectroscopy enables us to improve our understanding of exoplanets just as remote sensing in our own solar system has increased our understanding of the solar system bodies. The challenge is to quantitatively determine the range of temperatures and molecular abundances allowed by the data, which is often difficult given the low information content of most exoplanet spectra that commonly leads to degeneracies in the interpretation. A variety of spectral retrieval approaches have been applied to exoplanet spectra, but no previous investigations have sought to compare these approaches. We compare three different retrieval methods: optimal estimation, differential evolution Markov chain Monte Carlo, and bootstrap Monte Carlo on a synthetic water-dominated hot Jupiter. We discuss expectations of uncertainties in abundances and temperatures given current and potential future observations. In general, we find that the three approaches agree for high spectral resolution, high signal-to-noise data expected to come from potential future spaceborne missions, but disagree for low-resolution, low signal-to-noise spectra representative of current observations. We also compare the results from a parameterized temperature profile versus a full classical Level-by-Level approach and discriminate in which situations each of these approaches is applicable. Furthermore, we discuss the implications of our models for the inferred C-to-O ratios of exoplanetary atmospheres. Specifically, we show that in the observational limit of a few photometric points, the retrieved C/O is biased toward values near solar and near one simply due to the assumption of uninformative priors.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/137

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Cited by

See all 368

Metadata

Authors
Line, M. R., Wolf, A. S., Zhang, X., Knutson, H., Kammer, J. A., Ellison, E., Deroo, P., Crisp, D., & Yung, Y. L.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Published
2013-09-16
Volume
775
Issue
2
Pages
137
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
DOI
10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/137
OpenAlex
W1964608366
Cited by
368
References
45
FWCI
10.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A SYSTEMATIC RETRIEVAL ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY ECLIPSE SPECTRA. I. A COMPARISON OF ATMOSPHERIC RETRIEVAL TECHNIQUES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/137
The paper
Line, M. R., Wolf, A. S., Zhang, X., Knutson, H., Kammer, J. A., Ellison, E., Deroo, P., Crisp, D., & Yung, Y. L. (2013). A SYSTEMATIC RETRIEVAL ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY ECLIPSE SPECTRA. I. A COMPARISON OF ATMOSPHERIC RETRIEVAL TECHNIQUES. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/137

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.