H <sub>2</sub> O ABUNDANCES IN THE ATMOSPHERES OF THREE HOT JUPITERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The core accretion theory for giant planet formation predicts enrichment of elemental abundances in planetary envelopes caused by runaway accretion of planetesimals, which is consistent with measured super-solar abundances of C, N, P, S, Xe, and Ar in Jupiter's atmosphere. However, the abundance of O, which is expected to be the most dominant constituent of planetesimals, is unknown for solar system giant planets, owing to the condensation of water in their ultra-cold atmospheres, thereby posing a key unknown in solar system formation. On the other hand, hundreds of extrasolar "hot Jupiters" are known with very high temperatures (⩾1000 K), making them excellent targets to measure H 2 O abundances and, hence, oxygen in their atmospheres. We constrain the atmospheric H 2 O abundances in three hot Jupiters (HD 189733b, HD 209458b, and WASP-12b), spanning a wide temperature range (1200–2500 K), using their near-infrared transmission spectra obtained using the Wide Field Camera 3 instrument on board the Hubble Space Telescope . We report conclusive measurements of H 2 O in HD 189733b and HD 209458b, while that in WASP-12b is not well constrained by present data. The data allow nearly solar as well as significantly sub-solar abundances in HD 189733b and WASP-12b. However, for HD 209458b, we report the most precise H 2 O measurement in an exoplanet to date that suggests a ∼20–135 × sub-solar H 2 O abundance. We discuss the implications of our results on the formation conditions of hot Jupiters and on the likelihood of clouds in their atmospheres. Our results highlight the critical importance of high-precision spectra of hot Jupiters for deriving their H 2 O abundances.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".