Evolutionary pathways toward survival of a thick CO2- or SO2-rich atmosphere on the lava world TOI-561 b

Rocky planets evolve through the exchange of volatiles between their interiors and atmospheres, an interplay still poorly constrained by observations. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

It matters because exoplanet science has moved beyond the era of simple discovery into a period of comparative characterization. With more than five thousand confirmed planets known, the scientifically productive questions now concern atmospheric composition, internal structure, orbital history and the statistical properties of populations rather than the existence of individual worlds. A new detection or spectral measurement is most valuable when it adds a well-constrained data point to those comparative frameworks, not when it stands alone as an anecdote. TOI-561 b is a prime example, with a bulk density of $4. Remarkably, highly irradiated ultrashort-period (USP) exoplanets may offer a window into this exchange -- some retain low bulk densities compatible with volatile-rich envelopes.

TOI-561 b is a prime example, with a bulk density of $4.3\pm0.4$ g cm$^{-3}$ and recent JWST observations favoring a thick volatile atmosphere overlying a dayside magma ocean. Here, we investigate the evolutionary pathways allowing TOI-561 b to retain a substantial atmosphere over gigayears using the PROTEUS coupled interior--atmosphere framework.

We explore different core radius fractions, Bond albedos, atmospheric escape efficiencies, mantle redox states, and initial C--H--O--N--S volatile inventories, under in situ. Over half of our simulations leave a bare interior too dense to match observations.

Successful cases favor a volatile-rich origin ($\lesssim200$ Earth oceans of hydrogen, S/H $\le10$, and N/H $\le1$), an oxidized mantle ($f$O$_2 \gtrsim \mathrm{IW}+4$), a small. At present, TOI-561 b is consistent with a global magma ocean beneath a thick (surface pressure $\approx 10^{3}$--$10^{4}$ bar), high mean molecular weight atmosphere ($38$--$60$.

The broader interest lies in making the target less anecdotal and more comparable with the rest of the known planetary population. Population-level questions, such as the frequency of atmospheres around small rocky planets or the prevalence of water-rich worlds in the habitable zone, require well-characterized individual data points before statistical patterns become meaningful. Each new planet with a measured radius, mass and, ideally, atmospheric constraint is a brick in that larger structure, and the accumulation of bricks eventually allows theorists to test formation models against real distributions rather than projections.

Two archetypes emerge, differentiated by bulk sulfur content: a CO$_2$-dominated and an SO$_2$-dominated atmosphere. Migration is viable but not required to reproduce the observations.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is to improve independent constraints on the mass, radius, atmospheric composition and orbital dynamics of the target. Transmission spectroscopy with JWST, radial velocity campaigns with high-resolution ground-based spectrographs and phase-curve measurements from space photometry represent the observational toolkit that can move characterization from plausible to robust. That convergence of techniques is the standard the community now expects before a planetary atmosphere result is treated as confirmed. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source