Measurement error — where it appears
Named by 3 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A planet radius is a stellar radius
A transit measures a ratio and nothing else. Every planet radius ever published is that ratio multiplied by a stellar radius that came from somewhere entirely different, so a population of planets inherits the errors of a population of stars — and when the stars were measured better, a feature nobody could see became unmistakable.
A spread the projection does not hide
A single projected spin–orbit angle says little about the true one, because the star's tilt is unknown. A population of nearly aligned systems is different: for small tilts the projected angle is one component of a two-component vector, so the rms true obliquity is exactly √2 times the rms projected angle — no star's inclination needed.
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.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Mixture modelConvolutionCore mass fractionGiant impactsHot jupiterLikelihood ratioOccurrence rateParallaxPhotoevaporationPlanet compositionPopulation inferencePopulation statistics