Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Likelihood ratio — where it appears

The ratio of the probability of the data under one model to its probability under another, used to decide between them. A flexible model can raise it for any data, which is why a comparison must also penalise the freedom a model was given.

Named by 4 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Two objects, the same 1.055 per cent, and only one of them a planet. A planet of 0.1027 stellar radii transiting at impact parameter 0.3, and a background eclipsing binary of radius ratio 0.62 whose 38 per cent eclipse is diluted by the target's light to 1.055 per cent — the same depth to nine decimal places, because the dilution was chosen to make it so. A blend contributing 2.7 per cent of the light in the aperture can manufacture any planetary depth at all, so the depth is not evidence about what produced it. Two things in the same photometry are. The ingress occupies 20.4 per cent of the planet's transit and 80.3 per cent of the blend's, a factor of 3.9: the shape of the shoulders is set by the radius ratio of whatever is actually eclipsing, and dilution scales a curve without changing its shape. And the duration with the period gives the mean density of the star being crossed — 1.41 g/cm³ here against 0.15, a factor of 9 — so a blend usually implies a host of a completely different kind from the one the spectrum shows. Neither test needs an observation the survey did not already make, and neither of them proves a planet: they reject specific alternatives, and what is left is a probability.

A planet that is never confirmed, only validated

A background eclipsing binary diluted by the target's light reproduces a planetary transit depth exactly, and no amount of better photometry separates the two. Most known planets are therefore the output of a probability calculation rather than a detection, and the honest statement about them is a statement about a false-positive rate.

exoplanets · Transits Two models through the same points, one with a planet. 60 simulated velocities over 200 days of a star rotating every 25 days, with spot activity drawn from a quasi-periodic process of 3 m/s amplitude and a 40-day decay, white noise of 1 m/s, and a planet of 2.5 m/s semi-amplitude on a 27.0-day orbit — 1.08 times the rotation period. Two models are fitted, each with its activity amplitude and decay time chosen by maximum likelihood: activity plus the planet (solid), whose planet comes out at 3.3 m/s, and activity alone (dashed), which has no planet in it. Both pass through the points; the likelihoods differ by 3.6 in the logarithm, a ratio of 34.9, which is not decisive. Near the rotation period a flexible model of the star can carry the planet's signal by itself.

A model of the star that can carry the planet

Starspots are modelled as correlated noise with the star's rotation period built in, and the model is good enough to remove signals that would otherwise be announced as planets. It is also good enough to remove planets. Near the rotation period no amount of data in one season separates the two, and away from it a flexible noise model quietly takes most of the evidence a planet would have had.

exoplanets · Reflex velocity Two eccentricity distributions for the planets that transit alone. Two hypotheses for the orbital eccentricities of planets that transit their stars alone, as probability densities on a logarithmic axis. Solid: a mixture of two populations, 70 per cent at σₑ = 0.04 and 30 per cent at σₑ = 0.25 — a cold majority like the planets in multi-planet systems and a hot minority. Dashed: a continuum, each planet's Rayleigh scale drawn evenly in its logarithm between 0.015 and 0.34, chosen as the continuum whose densities most resemble the mixture's. The two differ most between eccentricities of 0.1 and 0.15, where the mixture dips between its two populations and the continuum does not: 5.6 and 12.0 per cent of planets respectively. A trough there is what a separate hot population would leave, and it is the feature a measurement has to find.

A gap in eccentricity a density can only just see

Planets that transit alone have more eccentric orbits than planets with transiting siblings, and the excess can be fitted as a separate hot population or as a smooth spread with no gap. The two eccentricity distributions look plainly different. The stellar densities through which they are measured look almost the same, and how many planets it takes to tell them apart is set less by the star than by the transit.

exoplanets · Transits A second peak, seen through three precisions. The distribution of measured core fractions for a population in which 90 per cent of planets sit at their stars' prediction (0.32, with an intrinsic scatter of 0.03) and 10 per cent at 0.65 (scatter 0.08), each planet compared with its own star, observed with measurement errors of 0.04, 0.08, 0.15 in core fraction. At 0.04 the dense group is a separate hump; at 0.08 it is a shoulder; at 0.15 it has become a long upper tail on a single peak, indistinguishable by eye from a population that is simply broad. The current measurements sit between the second and third curves.

A second peak the errors have to let through

Whether the densest small planets are a population of their own or the far edge of the ordinary one is not a question about any single planet. It is a question about the shape of a histogram seen through measurement errors as wide as the gap it is looking for, and the number of planets it needs rises fifteen-fold for every factor of three in lost precision — which puts the answer a few dozen planets beyond the samples that first suggested it.

exoplanets · Planet composition

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Population inferenceStellar densityArgument of periastronAsteroseismologyAstrophysical false-positiveA background eclipsing binaryBlendCentroid shiftContaminationCore mass fractionCorrelated noiseDilution

All concepts