Comparing Results from Two Uniform Phase Curve Surveys

Abstract

We present a comparison of the two most recent and comprehensive Spitzer phase curve studies - Dang et al. (2025) and Swain et al. (2025) - which report analyses of the Spitzer 4.5 $\mu$m phase curves. The studies employ different approaches for correcting instrument systematics and they also use different approaches for selecting the optimal exoplanet system parameters. To evaluate the level of consistency between the two studies, we compared the constraints on the ratio of planet-to-star radii ($R_P/R_{\star }$), eclipse depth ($F_P/F_{\star }$), phase curve amplitude ($A$), and phase curve offset ($\varphi$). We find that the two studies produce similar results at the population level although results for individual planets can vary, especially for phase curve offset values. We examined the difference of planet system parameters to see if inconsistencies in individual planet results were due to data reduction methods or system parameter choices. We also examined whether the system parameters used by both studies were consistent with Kepler's third law. During this comparison, we identified one case where stellar mass, planet semi-major axis, and orbital period did not follow Kepler's law even though the values were all compiled from the same publication. To assess whether this kind of discrepancy was recurrent, we recalculated the orbital periods using Kepler's third law and compared them with the values listed in the NASA Exoplanet Archive. Our detailed analysis of archival system parameters strongly suggests that testing reported/selected parameters for consistency with Kepler's third law is worthwhile.

13 pages, 7 figures

References in corpus (22)

• The Spitzer Space Telescope Mission
• Accurate, Empirical Radii and Masses of Planets and their Host Stars with Gaia Parallaxes
• Line-profile tomography of exoplanet transits -- II. A gas-giant planet transiting a rapidly-rotating A5 star
• The K2 Ecliptic Plane Input Catalog (EPIC) and Stellar Classifications of 138,600 Targets in Campaigns 1-8
• Spitzer Phase Curve Constraints for WASP-43b at 3.6 and 4.5 microns
• 275 Candidates and 149 Validated Planets Orbiting Bright Stars in K2 Campaigns 0-10
• Balancing the Energy Budget of Short-Period Giant Planets: Evidence for Reflective Clouds and Optical Absorbers
• Effect of stellar spots on high-precision transit light-curve
• Phase curves of WASP-33b and HD 149026b and a New Correlation Between Phase Curve Offset and Irradiation Temperature
• Revisiting the Phase Curves of WASP-43b: Confronting Reanalyzed Spitzer Data with Cloudy Atmospheres
• Measurement of the Nodal Precession of WASP-33 b via Doppler Tomography
• 60 Validated Planets from K2 Campaigns 5-8
• A Comprehensive Reanalysis of $\text{Spitzer}$'s 4.5 $\mu$m Phase Curves, and the Phase Variations of the Ultra-hot Jupiters MASCARA-1b and KELT-16b
• Super-Earth of 8 Mearth in a 2.2-day orbit around the K5V star K2-216
• Precise photometric transit follow-up observations of five close-in exoplanets : update on their physical properties
• Phase Offsets and the Energy Budgets of Hot Jupiters
• An independent analysis of the Spitzer/IRAC phase curves of WASP43 b
• TOI-3714 b and TOI-3629 b: Two gas giants transiting M dwarfs confirmed with HPF and NEID
• A New Analysis of 8 Spitzer Phase Curves and Hot Jupiter Population Trends: Qatar-1b, Qatar-2b, WASP-52b, WASP-34b, and WASP-140b
• A Lack of Variability Between Repeated Spitzer Phase Curves of WASP-43b
• TFAW survey. I. Wavelet-based denoising of K2 light curves. Discovery and validation of two new Earth-sized planets in K2 campaign 1
• Confirmation of four hot Jupiters detected by TESS using follow-up spectroscopy from MaHPS at Wendelstein together with NEID and TRES