Two Views of the Radius Gap and the Role of Light Curve Fitting

Erik A. Petigura

doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab9fff

paper

Two Views of the Radius Gap and the Role of Light Curve Fitting

arXiv:2006.15649 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab9fff

Abstract

Recently, several groups have resolved a gap that bifurcates planets between the size of Earth and Neptune into two populations. The location and depth of this feature is an important signature of the physical processes that form and sculpt planets. In particular, planets residing in the radius gap are valuable probes of these processes as they may be undergoing the final stages of envelope loss. Here, we discuss two views of the radius gap by Fulton & Petigura (2018; F18) and Van Eylen et al. (2018; V18). In V18, the gap is wider and more devoid of planets. This is due, in part, to V18's more precise measurements of planet radius $R_{p}$ . Thanks to Gaia, uncertainties in stellar radii Rstar are no longer the limiting uncertainties in determining $R_{p}$ for the majority of Kepler planets; instead, errors in $R_{p} / R_{⋆}$ dominate. V18's analysis incorporated short-cadence photometry along with constraints on mean stelar density that enabled more accurate determinations of $R_{p} / R_{⋆}$ . In the F18 analysis, less accurate $R_{p} / R_{⋆}$ blurs the boundary the radius gap. The differences in $R_{p} / R_{⋆}$ are largest at high impact parameter ( $b ≳ 0.8$ ) and often exceed 10%. This motivates excluding high- $b$ planets from demographic studies, but identifying such planets from long-cadence photometry alone is challenging. We show that transit duration can serve as an effective proxy, and we leverage this information to enhance the contrast between the super-Earth and sub-Neptune populations.

arXiv comment13 pages, 10 figures, accepted for publication in AJ

Two Views of the Radius Gap and the Role of Light Curve Fitting

Abstract

References in corpus (32)

Cited by in corpus (35)