<i>JWST</i> NIRSpec finds no clear signs of an atmosphere on TOI-1685 b
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Determining the prevalence of atmospheres on terrestrial planets is a core objective in exoplanetary science. While M dwarf systems offer a promising opportunity, conclusive observations of terrestrial atmospheres have remained elusive, with many yielding flat transmission spectra. We observe four transits of the hot terrestrial planet TOI-1685 b using James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)’s Near Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) G395H instrument. Combining this with the transit from the previously observed phase curve of the planet with the same instrument, we perform a detailed analysis to determine the possibility of an atmosphere on TOI-1685 b. From our retrievals, the Bayesian evidence favours a simple flat line model, indicating no evidence for an atmosphere on TOI-1685 b, in line with results from the phase curve analysis. Our results show that hydrogen-dominated atmospheres can be confidently ruled out. For heavier, secondary atmospheres we find a lower limit on the mean molecular weight of $\gtrsim 10$, at a significance of ~5σ. Pure ${\rm CO}_{2}$, ${\rm SO}_{2}$, ${\rm H}_{2}{\rm O}$, and ${\rm CH}_{4}$ atmospheres, or a mixed secondary atmosphere (${\rm CO}+{\rm CO}_{2}+{\rm SO}_{2}$) could explain the data ($\Delta \ln Z< 3$). However, pure ${\rm CH}_{4}$ atmospheres may be physically unlikely, and the pure ${\rm H}_{2}{\rm O}$ and ${\rm CO}_{2}$ cases require a high-altitude cloud, which could also be interpreted as a thin cloud-free atmosphere. We discuss the theoretical possibility for different types of atmosphere on this planet, and consider the effects of atmospheric escape and stellar activity on the system. Though we find that TOI-1685 b is likely a bare rock, this study also highlights the challenges of detecting secondary atmospheres on rocky planets with JWST.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".