Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userSensitivity bias in the mass-radius distribution from Transit Timing Variations and Radial Velocity measurements
167
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
Jason H. Steffen
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Motivated by recent discussions, both in private and in the literature, we use a Monte Carlo simulation of planetary systems to investigate sources of bias in determining the mass-radius distribution of exoplanets for the two primary techniques used to measure planetary masses---Radial Velocities (RVs) and Transit Timing Variations (TTVs). We assert that mass measurements derived from these two methods are comparably reliable---as the physics underlying their respective signals is well understood. Nevertheless, their sensitivity to planet mass varies with the properties of the planets themselves. We find that for a given planet size, the RV method tends to find planets with higher mass while the sensitivity of TTVs is more uniform. This ``sensitivity bias implies that a complete census of TTV systems is likely to yield a more robust estimate of the mass-radius distribution provided there are not important physical differences between planets near and far from mean-motion resonance. We discuss differences in the sensitivity of the two methods with orbital period and system architecture, which may compound the discrepancies between them (e.g., short period planets detectable by RVs may be more dense due to atmospheric loss). We advocate for continued mass measurements using both approaches as a means both to measure the masses of more planets and to identify potential differences in planet structure that may result from their dynamical and environmental histories.
rate research
Read More
We present FIES@NOT, HARPS-N@TNG, and [email protected] radial velocity follow-up observations of K2-19, a compact planetary system hosting three planets, of which the two larger ones, namely K2-19b and K2-19c, are close to the 3:2 mean motion resonance. An analysis considering only the radial velocity measurements detects K2-19b, the largest and most massive planet in the system, with a mass of $54.8pm7.5$~M${_oplus}$ and provides a marginal detection of K2-19c, with a mass of M$_mathrm{c}$=$5.9^{+7.6}_{-4.3}$ M$_oplus$. We also used the TRADES code to simultaneously model both our RV measurements and the existing transit-timing measurements. We derived a mass of $54.4pm8.9$~M${_oplus}$ for K2-19b and of $7.5^{+3.0}_{-1.4}$~M${_oplus}$ for K2-19c. A prior K2-19b mass estimated by Barros et al. 2015, based principally on a photodynamical analysis of K2-19s light-curve, is consistent with both analysis, our combined TTV and RV analysis, and with our analysis based purely on RV measurements. Differences remain mainly in the errors of the more lightweight planet, driven likely by the limited precision of the RV measurements and possibly some yet unrecognized systematics.
Eccentricity is a parameter of particular interest as it is an informative indicator of the past of planetary systems. It is however not always clear whether the eccentricity fitted on radial velocity data is real or if it is an artefact of an inappropriate modelling. In this work, we address this question in two steps: we first assume that the model used for inference is correct and present interesting features of classical estimators. Secondly, we study whether the eccentricity estimates are to be trusted when the data contain incorrectly modelled signals, such as missed planetary companions, non Gaussian noises, correlated noises with unknown covariance, etc. Our main conclusion is that data analysis via posterior distributions, with a model including a free error term gives reliable results provided two conditions. First, convergence of the numerical methods needs to be ascertained. Secondly, the noise power spectrum should not have a particularly strong peak at the semi period of the planet of interest. As a consequence, it is difficult to determine if the signal of an apparently eccentric planet might be due to another inner companion in 2:1 mean motion resonance. We study the use of Bayes factors to disentangle these cases. Finally, we suggest methods to check if there are hints of an incorrect model in the residuals. We show on simulated data the performance of our methods and comment on the eccentricities of Proxima b and 55 Cnc f.
We have observed 7 new transits of the `hot Jupiter WASP-5b using a 61 cm telescope located in New Zealand, in order to search for transit timing variations (TTVs) which can be induced by additional bodies existing in the system. When combined with other available photometric and radial velocity (RV) data, we find that its transit timings do not match a linear ephemeris; the best fit chi^2 values is 32.2 with 9 degrees of freedom which corresponds to a confidence level of 99.982 % or 3.7 sigma. This result indicates that excess variations of transit timings has been observed, due either to unknown systematic effects or possibly to real TTVs. The TTV amplitude is as large as 50 s, and if this is real, it cannot be explained by other effects than that due to an additional body or bodies. From the RV data, we put an upper limit on the RV amplitude caused by the possible secondary body (planet) as 21 m s^{-1}, which corresponds to its mass of 22-70 M_{Earth} over the orbital period ratio of the two planets from 0.2 to 5.0. From the TTVs data, using the numerical simulations, we place more stringent limits down to 2 M_{Earth} near 1:2 and 2:1 mean motion resonances (MMRs) with WASP-5b at the 3 sigma level, assuming that the two planets are co-planer. We also put an upper limit on excess of Trojan mass as 43 M_{Earth} (3 sigma) using both RV and photometric data. We also find that if the possible secondary planet has non- or a small eccentricity, its orbit would likely be near low-order MMRs. Further follow-up photometric and spectroscopic observations will be required to confirm the reality of the TTV signal, and results such as these will provide important information for the migration mechanisms of planetary systems.
Transit timing variations of Kepler-410Ab were already reported in a few papers. Their semi-amplitude is about 14.5 minutes. In our previous paper, we found that the transit timing variations could be caused by the presence of a stellar companion in this system. Our main motivation for this paper was to investigate variation in a radial-velocity curve generated by this additional star in the system. We performed spectroscopic observation of Kepler-410 using three telescopes in Slovakia and Czech Republic. Using the cross-correlation function, we measured the radial velocities of the star Kepler-410A. We did not observe any periodic variation in a radial-velocity curve. Therefore, we rejected our previous hypothesis about additional stellar companion in the Kepler-410 system. We ran different numerical simulations to study mean-motion resonances with Kepler-410Ab. Observed transit timing variations could be also explained by the presence of a small planet near to mean-motion resonance 2:3 with Kepler-410Ab. This resonance is stable on a long-time scale. We also looked for stable regions in the Kepler-410 system where another planet could exist for a long time.
We report the detection of three transiting planets around a Sunlike star, which we designate Kepler-18. The transit signals were detected in photometric data from the Kepler satellite, and were confirmed to arise from planets using a combination of large transit-timing variations, radial-velocity variations, Warm-Spitzer observations, and statistical analysis of false-positive probabilities. The Kepler-18 star has a mass of 0.97M_sun, radius 1.1R_sun, effective temperature 5345K, and iron abundance [Fe/H]= +0.19. The planets have orbital periods of approximately 3.5, 7.6 and 14.9 days. The innermost planet b is a super-Earth with mass 6.9 pm 3.4M_earth, radius 2.00 pm 0.10R_earth, and mean density 4.9 pm 2.4 g cm^-3. The two outer planets c and d are both low-density Neptune-mass planets. Kepler-18c has a mass of 17.3 pm 1.9M_earth, radius 5.49 pm 0.26R_earth, and mean density 0.59 pm 0.07 g cm^-3, while Kepler-18d has a mass of 16.4 pm 1.4M_earth, radius 6.98 pm 0.33R_earth, and mean density 0.27 pm 0.03 g cm^-3. Kepler-18c and Kepler-18d have orbital periods near a 2:1 mean-motion resonance, leading to large and readily detected transit timing variations.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
