Scholarlink

<p>Claims of detections of gases in exoplanet atmospheres often rely on comparisons between models including and excluding specific chemical species. However, the space of molecular combinations available for model construction is vast and highly degenerate. Only a limited subset of these combinations is typically explored for any given detection. As a result, apparent detections of trace gases risk being artefacts of incomplete modelling rather than robust identification of atmospheric constituents, especially in the low-signal-to-noise regime. Here, using the sub-Neptune K2-18 b as a case study, we show that recent biosignature claims vanish when the model space is expanded, with numerous alternatives providing equally good or better fits. We demonstrate that the significance of a claimed detection relies on the choice of models being compared, and that model preference does not in itself imply the presence of a specific gas. We recommend treating model comparisons instead as relative adequacy tests, which should be supported by theoretical predictions and complementary metrics of statistical significance to attribute a signal to a particular gas.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Challenges in the detection of gases in exoplanet atmospheres

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月16日

查看全文
  • Luis Welbanks,
  • Matthew C. Nixon,
  • Peter McGill,
  • Lana J. Tilke,
  • Lindsey S. Wiser,
  • Yoav Rotman,
  • Sagnick Mukherjee,
  • Adina D. Feinstein,
  • Michael R. Line,
  • Björn Benneke,
  • Sara Seager,
  • Thomas G. Beatty,
  • Darryl Z. Seligman,
  • Vivien Parmentier,
  • David K. Sing

摘要

Claims of detections of gases in exoplanet atmospheres often rely on comparisons between models including and excluding specific chemical species. However, the space of molecular combinations available for model construction is vast and highly degenerate. Only a limited subset of these combinations is typically explored for any given detection. As a result, apparent detections of trace gases risk being artefacts of incomplete modelling rather than robust identification of atmospheric constituents, especially in the low-signal-to-noise regime. Here, using the sub-Neptune K2-18 b as a case study, we show that recent biosignature claims vanish when the model space is expanded, with numerous alternatives providing equally good or better fits. We demonstrate that the significance of a claimed detection relies on the choice of models being compared, and that model preference does not in itself imply the presence of a specific gas. We recommend treating model comparisons instead as relative adequacy tests, which should be supported by theoretical predictions and complementary metrics of statistical significance to attribute a signal to a particular gas.