Luis Welbanks
@luiswel.bsky.social
270 followers 170 following 43 posts
51 Pegasi b & Presidential Postdoctoral Fellow studying the atmospheres of planets outside our Solar System at @SESEASU -> Assistant Professor @SESEASU 2025 Previously @NASA Sagan Fellow. @Gates_Cambridge scholar at @Cambridge_Uni.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
luiswel.bsky.social
The deadline for the 51 Pegasi b Fellowship is right around the corner. www.hsfoundation.org/programs/sci...

Interested in theory, modeling, and discovery? Join @nixonmatthew.bsky.social, Sagnick, and me at the Exoteric Lab at ASU @seseasu.bsky.social
luiswel.bsky.social
What does it mean to detect a gas in an exoplanet atmosphere? Listen to what @nixonmatthew.bsky.social and I had to say.

It was a pleasure chatting with @startswithabang.bsky.social !!
startswithabang.bsky.social
Starts With A Bang podcast #120 – Exoplanet biosignatures

Remember exoplanet K2-18b?

Dr. Luis Welbanks and Dr. Matt Nixon did, and have a lot to say about what a positive detection of an inhabited world beyond Earth will actually look like.
bigthink.com/starts-with-...
#space #astrobiology #astro
Starts With A Bang podcast #120 - Exoplanet biosignatures
In the search for life in the Universe, the ultimate goal is to find an inhabited planet beyond Earth. How will we know when we've made it?
bigthink.com
luiswel.bsky.social
What are your thoughts?
luiswel.bsky.social
We need to understand the limits of our models and our data for reliable interpretations of exoplanetary spectra.

First paper by my first PhD student! Happy advisor moment. Congrats @yoavrotman.bsky.social

Check out his paper on the Arxiv and his thread below #exoplanets 🔭
yoavrotman.bsky.social
Paper day! A 🧵

JWST transmission spectra are showing more and more signs of new exciting physics, which is awesome! But if our models don't take that into account, it can propagate as correlated noise and bias our inferences. What do we do?

arxiv.org/abs/2503.21702

(1/n)
A meme saying "Correlated noise? In my JWST data? It's more likely than you think. FREE GP CHECK!"
luiswel.bsky.social
I think the full title was an unfortunate Ceres of events btw, but I am no Lemoony Snicket expert
luiswel.bsky.social
And sanctioned by the journal :P
Reposted by Luis Welbanks
nixonmatthew.bsky.social
I agree with you that saying K2-18 b “can’t” have an ocean or “isn’t” an ocean world is a stretch - we can’t totally rule it out with the present data, but it does appear that Neptune-like or gas dwarf models are consistent with what we know about the planet and require much less fine-tuning
luiswel.bsky.social
"Relies on the obfuscation of how, exactly, they are defining [...] in order to garner press coverage. "

&
"An exceedingly generous observer might chalk up this divergence to the perennial conflict between scientists and their PR machines"

Great title: [Fill in the blank] Can’t Have It Both Ways
Reposted by Luis Welbanks
carlzimmer.com
Here's my follow-up story on K2-18b, the distant planet where scientists claimed to see a possible sign of life last month. In three preprints, other researcher argue that the signal is noise. nyti.ms/4jaqQRv
There’s Probably No Life on K2-18b After All, Three Studies Conclude
In April, astronomers said they had detected a possible signature of life on the exoplanet K2-18b. Now, three independent analyses discount the evidence.
nyti.ms
luiswel.bsky.social
What do you mean by original hypothesis? Just to make sure I understand correctly, are you suggesting that the discourse (online/in papers?) should say that the original hypothesis (which?) is not ruled out but neither is Wogan's or X?
Not being facetious, legitimately asking.
luiswel.bsky.social
In the low SNR, it is possible for the inferred properties to be shaped as much by preconceived notions for what a planet ought to be like, as by data (if we are not careful).
luiswel.bsky.social
Our take-home on this specific point could be: "Reliance on
Bayesian evidence alone, coupled with exploration
of only a narrow part of the model space, has led
to contradictory interpretations."
luiswel.bsky.social
On that we say "Conversely, when all candidate models
adequately fit a spectrum, a preference for one model
over another does not rule out the worse-performing
model."
luiswel.bsky.social
2) At the same time - you could ask: can the data rule out X hypothesis? The answer may be no, and that's ok too!

e.g., K2-18b MIRI - current data cannot rule out the scenario of a planet under radiative-convective-photochemical equilibrium (section Self-Consistent Models)
luiswel.bsky.social
We say in our paper "When all considered candidate models are poor representations of reality, the best-performing model is simply the least inadequate and may not necessarily lead to reliable interpretations of the data."
luiswel.bsky.social
Not 100% sure I understand your question(s) but let me try.

1) Constraining a parameter does not equal 'detecting' that parameter. I can add a none-sense parameter and get a tight constrain. This is the whole point of the cheese v. sponge example.
luiswel.bsky.social
There is no "Bayesian police" to say what to compare or not. Any paper can compare any two models (but please contextualize!).
However, if we are going to argue about 'standard practices', the "consensus" (somewhat arbitrary) is to compare relative to the full hypothesis 2/2
Thanks for engaging!
luiswel.bsky.social
Sounds good! Two distinct yet complementary points.
In general Welbanks & Nixon+ is not arguing against model comparisons but it is making an appeal to contextualize them. What two models did you compare? From that perspective Chubb+20 is doing that in the abstract: X sigma relative to blah. 1/2
luiswel.bsky.social
Say hi to Ian and Jasmina! If you haven't done so, visit the Sheikh Zayed grand mosque. I was blown away by the beautiful interiors.
luiswel.bsky.social
But how certain are we that we can ignore the uncertainties?

The scientist's paradox
luiswel.bsky.social
@viciykevin.bsky.social one could argue whether the "full hypothesis space" is valid or not - we discuss that in our paper. However, the comparison is performed against this full hypothesis space. This is how the comparison got its connection to 'detection'.
luiswel.bsky.social
What @distantworlds.space said. Section 4 of Gasman says "In Tables 6–10 we specify the Bayes
factor, B01, for each retrieval set-up, comparing the retrieval
with the specified molecule (C2H2, C2H4, CH4) included versus not included" - you want to compare against your full hypothesis space.