Paper detail

On the Dayside Atmosphere of WASP-12b

The atmospheric structure of WASP-12b has been hotly contested for years, with disagreements on the presence of a thermal inversion as well as the carbon-to-oxygen ratio, C/O, due to retrieved abundances of H2O, CO2, and other included species such as HCN and C2H2. Previously, these difficult-to-diagnose discrepancies have been attributed to model differences; assumptions in these models were thought to drive retrievals toward different answers. Here, we show that some of these differences are independent of model assumptions and are instead due to subtle differences in the inputs, such as the eclipse depths and line-list databases. We replicate previously published retrievals and find that the retrieved results are data driven and are mostly unaffected by the addition of species such as HCN and C2H2. We also propose a new physically motivated model that takes into consideration the formation of H- via the thermal dissociation of H2O and H2 at the temperatures reached in the dayside atmosphere of WASP-12b, but the data's current resolution does not support its inclusion in the atmospheric model. This study raises the concern that other exoplanet retrievals may be similarly sensitive to slight changes in the input data.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.