Chasing rainbows and ocean glints: Inner working angle constraints for the Habitable Worlds Observatory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT NASA is engaged in planning for a Habitable Worlds Observatory (HabWorlds ), a coronagraphic space mission to detect rocky planets in habitable zones and establish their habitability. Surface liquid water is central to the definition of planetary habitability. Photometric and polarimetric phase curves of starlight reflected by an exoplanet can reveal ocean glint, rainbows, and other phenomena caused by scattering by clouds or atmospheric gas. Direct imaging missions are optimized for planets near quadrature, but HabWorlds ’ coronagraph may obscure the phase angles where such optical features are strongest. The range of accessible phase angles for a given exoplanet will depend on the planet’s orbital inclination and/or the coronagraph’s inner working angle (IWA). We use a recently created catalog relevant to HabWorlds of 164 stars to estimate the number of exo-Earths that could be searched for ocean glint, rainbows, and polarization effects due to Rayleigh scattering. We find that the polarimetric Rayleigh scattering peak is accessible in most of the exo-Earth planetary systems. The rainbow due to water clouds at phase angles of ∼20○ − 60○ would be accessible with HabWorlds for a planet with an Earth equivalent instellation in ∼46 systems, while the ocean glint signature at phase angles of ∼130○ − 170○ would be accessible in ∼16 systems, assuming an IWA = 62 mas (3λ/D). Improving the IWA = 41 mas (2λ/D) increases accessibility to rainbows and glints by factors of approximately 2 and 3, respectively. By observing these scattering features, HabWorlds could detect a surface ocean and water cycle, key indicators of habitability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".