Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Occurrence rate — where it appears

The number of planets of a given kind per star, obtained by dividing a detected count by a survey's completeness. It is a statement about the survey as much as about the sky, which is why two surveys of the same population can disagree without either being wrong.

Named by 18 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A gap where planets should be. The number of planets per star per interval of log radius, for orbital periods under a hundred days, corrected for detection efficiency. There are two peaks — super-Earths near 1.3 R⊕ and sub-Neptunes near 2.4 R⊕ — and a deficit between them at 1.89 R⊕, where the occurrence falls to 33% of the peak. The gap is not a gap in what can be detected: detection efficiency rises smoothly through it, so a smooth underlying distribution could not produce a dip there.

The planets that were not seen

An occurrence rate is a count divided by a probability, and the probability can be a five-hundredth. Everything difficult about saying how common planets are lives in that denominator.

exoplanets · Occurrence rates A gap where planets should be. The number of planets per star per interval of log radius, for orbital periods under a hundred days, corrected for detection efficiency. There are two peaks — super-Earths near 1.3 R⊕ and sub-Neptunes near 2.4 R⊕ — and a deficit between them at 1.89 R⊕, where the occurrence falls to 33% of the peak. The gap is not a gap in what can be detected: detection efficiency rises smoothly through it, so a smooth underlying distribution could not produce a dip there.

A gap in a histogram that says how planets are built

Between the super-Earths and the sub-Neptunes there is a radius at which planets are markedly rarer. The gap is not a gap in what can be detected, and its slope with orbital period names the process that made it.

exoplanets · Radius valley Four defensible boxes, and a factor of 2.9 between the answers. Above: the occurrence surface in starlight received against planet radius, with four published definitions of "an Earth-size planet in the habitable zone" drawn on it as rectangles. The surface is a stated parameterisation — two lognormal populations at 1.3 and 2.4 Earth radii, with the radius valley at 1.9 between them, normalised so that the whole of it comes to 0.5 planets per star between one and four Earth radii inside a hundred days. Integrating it over the four boxes gives 17%, 8%, 6%, 10% — a factor of 2.9 between the conservative zone and a broad definition, before any error bar is attached to any of them. The dashed curve is what a transit survey can actually see: at one year around a Sun-like star the smallest detectable planet is 1.6 Earth radii, so the lower-left corner of every box contains no detections at all and the rate there is an extrapolation of a fitted surface rather than a count of anything. Below: the same integral with only one corner moved. Holding the flux range fixed and sliding the radius bound from 1.5 to 1.75 Earth radii — a quarter of an Earth radius, well inside the uncertainty of a measured planetary radius — changes the answer by 43 per cent, which is larger than every error bar quoted with any of these numbers. The published values of η⊕ span two per cent to sixty; roughly a factor of 2.9 of that is definition, and the rest is how far each author was willing to extrapolate past the dashed line.

The part of a rate that is a definition

Published values for the frequency of Earth-size planets in habitable zones span two per cent to sixty. The spread is not measurement error — it is where the box was drawn, on a surface that is steepest exactly at the corner every author has to choose, and outside the last detection.

exoplanets · Occurrence rates A gap 1 per cent deep that became 63. The distribution of planet radii, drawn three ways: the underlying distribution with a gap in it, the same distribution convolved with a 25 per cent stellar radius error, and convolved with a 5 per cent one. Every planet radius is the transit depth's square root multiplied by a stellar radius, so an error in the star is an error in the planet, and a population of planets inherits the population of stellar errors as a smearing. The gap is 1 per cent deep at the old precision and 63 at the new one, and its centre does not move — a symmetric smearing hides a feature without displacing it. That is what happened when parallaxes for a hundred thousand planet hosts arrived: no new planets were observed, and a feature that had been marginal became unambiguous.

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.

exoplanets · Planet composition How long an event lasts, against the mass that causes it. Einstein crossing time against lens mass, on logarithmic axes, for a lens at 6.5 kpc in front of a source at 8 moving at 6 milliarcseconds a year — a typical bulge geometry. The slope is a half, exactly, because θ_E goes as the square root of the mass and t_E is θ_E divided by a proper motion: an M dwarf gives 21 days, a Jupiter gives 22 hours, a Neptune gives 4 hours, an Earth gives 1 hours. Nothing else about the event changes with the mass. The peak magnification is set by the impact parameter alone, so a free-floating Earth passing close enough produces exactly the light curve a star would, at exactly the same height, and lasts 1.2 hours instead of a month. That is the entire difficulty of detecting them: the events are ordinary and brief, so what decides whether they are found is the survey's cadence rather than its sensitivity. The dashed line is where the source becomes larger than the Einstein ring — 1.5e-4 solar masses for a 6-microarcsecond source — and below it every event is finite-source-dominated, which flattens the peak and, in the same stroke, measures θ_E.

An event of a few hours and no host

The Einstein crossing time is the square root of the lens mass and nothing else changes, so a free-floating Earth produces exactly the light curve a star does, at exactly the same height, and is over in ninety minutes. What decides whether it is found is cadence rather than sensitivity.

exoplanets · Microlensing Two separations that draw the same caustic. The width of the central caustic against the separation, computed from the lens equation for a mass ratio of 0.003, for each separation s and for its reciprocal 1/s. The two curves lie nearly on top of each other. That is the close–wide degeneracy, and it is a theorem rather than a coincidence: expanding the binary lens equation near the primary shows that the central caustic depends on the separation only through s + 1/s to first order in the mass ratio, and that combination is invariant under s → 1/s. It is first order and not exact, which the figure shows rather than hides — the two agree to 0.7 per cent at s = 2.8 and only to 13.1 at s = 1.4, because a smaller separation is closer to the resonant regime where the central and planetary caustics have not yet separated. Reducing the mass ratio to 1.0e-3 brings the worst case to 4.8 per cent, which is the first-order statement being checked rather than quoted. What that means for a measurement is uncomfortable. An event whose planetary signal comes from the source passing near the central caustic — which is most of them, because the central caustic sits where the magnification is already high and the event is already being watched — cannot distinguish a companion at 2.8 Einstein radii from one at 0.357. For a typical lens that is the difference between a planet at four astronomical units and one at less than one. And the disagreement the figure measures is not the way out: at 2.8 Einstein radii the caustics differ in width by 0.7 per cent, which is far below what a light curve sampled through a night's seeing can separate, so the ambiguity is real in the data even where it is not exact in the mathematics.

Two systems that draw the same curve

A binary lens with separation s and one with separation 1/s have central caustics that agree to first order in the mass ratio. The same event is therefore a planet at four astronomical units or one at less than one, and no amount of photometric precision decides between them.

exoplanets · Microlensing What comes back is a ramp, not a threshold. Detection efficiency against signal-to-noise: the fraction of synthetic transits injected into real photometry that the pipeline afterwards finds. The measured curve is a gamma cumulative distribution of shape 4.65 and scale 0.98 beginning at 4.1, which is the form a survey's own injection tests are fitted with; the dashed line is the step at 7.1 that a threshold calculation assumes instead. Half the injections are recovered at 8.33, 1.2 units above the nominal threshold — the ramp is a property of the search and the cut is a separate decision, so the two need not meet anywhere in particular. The rest of the disagreement is the area between the curves. The pipeline does not reach 99 per cent efficiency until 14.9, four units above the threshold, and it recovers 45 per cent one unit above it. Over a population whose signal-to-noise falls as s^-2 — which is what a planet population looks like, because there are far more small planets than large ones — the step function counts 1.21 times as many detections as the ramp does. That factor is not an error bar. It multiplies every occurrence rate computed without it, and it is larger for the small planets than for the large ones, because the small ones live where the ramp is.

The threshold that is not a threshold

A survey's detection limit is quoted as a number — seven point one — and a pipeline does not behave that way. Half the injected signals come back at the threshold, and full efficiency arrives four units above it.

exoplanets · Detection bias How many planets a star has is the hardest thing a catalogue measures. The multiplicity distribution a transit catalogue would contain, for systems that all truly hold 5 planets, at four mutual inclination dispersions. 40,000 systems are drawn per dispersion with an isotropic viewing direction and Rayleigh-distributed inclinations about a common plane, at semi-major axes of 12, 16, 21, 27, 34 stellar radii; the bars are conditioned on at least one planet transiting, which is what makes a system appear in a catalogue at all. At 0.5° of dispersion 33 per cent of the detected systems show all 5 planets and the mean apparent multiplicity is 3.13; at 10° it is 1.39, with 68 per cent of them showing exactly one. Every one of those systems has 5 planets. The entire difference between a catalogue of singles and a catalogue of compact multiples is one number that nothing in the light curve measures. And the two effects run in opposite directions: the fraction of stars showing any planet RISES with the dispersion — 8%, 9%, 12%, 19% across the four — because scattering the orbits gives more of them a chance to cross the line of sight, while the number seen per detected star falls by a factor of 2.2. A survey that scatters its systems finds more stars with planets and fewer planets per star, and neither number on its own says which has happened. What no figure here can show is the true dispersion, because the observable is the ratio of those two and a system with fewer planets and a tighter plane reproduces it exactly.

How many planets a star has is not a measurement

Draw five thousand identical five-planet systems, scatter their orbital planes by half a degree, and a third of the detections show all five. Scatter them by ten degrees and two thirds show exactly one. Every system has five.

exoplanets · Detection bias How planet occurrence rises with the host star's iron, by kind of planet. Planet occurrence relative to its value at solar metallicity, on a logarithmic axis, against the host star's iron abundance [Fe/H] (zero is the Sun; one unit is a factor of ten). Each class is a power law, occurrence ∝ 10^(β[Fe/H]). Giant planets within a few astronomical units follow β = 2, the relation found in the first large radial-velocity survey to measure it: 12 per cent of stars at [Fe/H] = +0.3 have one, against 3 per cent at solar and under 0.3 per cent at −0.5 — a factor of 158 across the range drawn. The small planets found by transits rise far more gently; the slopes drawn, β = 0.5 for sub-Neptunes and 0.2 for super-Earths, are representative of published fits, which range from nearly flat to about a doubling across this interval depending on orbital period.

A threshold that makes iron matter only to giants

A star with twice the Sun's iron is four times as likely to have a giant planet, and barely more likely to have a small one. The steep law and the flat one look like two mechanisms. A core racing its disc, run over a spread of discs, produces both — steep where winning is rare, flat where it is common.

exoplanets · Occurrence rates Small planets and giant planets per star, against the mass of the star. Planets per star against the host star's mass, both on logarithmic axes, for small planets (one to four Earth radii, orbital periods under 200 days) and giant planets (above a third of Jupiter's mass, within 2.5 astronomical units). The small-planet rate is drawn as 1.1 per star at one solar mass rising as M^−0.6; the giant rate as 7 per cent at one solar mass falling towards small stars as M^1. Both are representative of published fits, not fits of their own. At 0.3 solar masses a star has 2.3 small planets and a 2.1 per cent chance of a giant; at one solar mass 1.1 and 7 per cent. The ratio of small planets to giants changes by a factor of 7 between the two, so a statement about how common planets are depends on which star it is about as much as on which planet.

More small planets round smaller stars

A red dwarf has about twice as many small planets as the Sun's kind of star and a third as many giants. The two populations move in opposite directions along the same axis, and the small planets were built from discs several times poorer.

exoplanets · Occurrence rates The chance that a candidate is a planet, against how strong its signal is. The reliability of a transit candidate — the fraction of candidates at a given detection statistic that are planets rather than false alarms — against the multiple-event statistic, the combined signal-to-noise of all its transits, for orbital periods of 10, 100, 350 days. Below the 7.1 threshold nothing is a candidate. At a statistic of 9 the reliability is 100 per cent, 80 per cent, 23 per cent; at 12 it is 100 per cent, 95 per cent, 44 per cent. The true planets and the false alarms are modelled, not fitted: the planets as a falling power law above the survey's completeness curve, the false alarms as an exponential tail above the threshold that grows longer and taller with period, because a long-period signal is two or three transits and two or three transits average away little of the non-Gaussian noise that makes false alarms. At short periods a candidate near threshold is nearly always real; at a year, a candidate near threshold is usually not.

At a year, most candidates are noise

A transit survey's threshold is set so that Gaussian noise yields less than one false planet in the whole catalogue. The noise is not Gaussian, and at year-long periods the candidates just above the threshold are more often artefacts than planets — so the rate of Earth analogues is partly a measurement of the noise.

exoplanets · Occurrence rates Giant planets per logarithmic interval of orbital distance, and who can see where. Giant planets (a third of Jupiter's mass to thirteen Jupiters) per star per unit of the natural logarithm of orbital distance, against distance, round Sun-like stars. The curve is a broken power law representative of the long radial-velocity surveys: rising as a^0.8 to a peak at 3 AU and falling beyond it as a^−1, which integrates to 2.7 per cent of stars inside 1 AU and 12 per cent in all. The shaded bands are where each method has the sensitivity to measure it: radial velocities out to about 7 AU, where two decades of monitoring cover one orbit, and direct imaging beyond about 10 AU, where a young giant can be separated from its star. The peak sits near the outer edge of the radial-velocity window, where a planet has completed one or two orbits in the data, and the fall beyond it lies entirely outside that window — so the peak's position is where the two methods have to be joined rather than a place either can measure alone.

A peak that neither survey can see alone

Giant planets become commoner with distance from their star out to a few astronomical units, and then rarer. The rise is measured by radial velocities and the fall by direct imaging, and the peak between them sits where neither method is comfortable.

exoplanets · Occurrence rates Amplitudes measured near the noise, against the amplitudes that were there. A simulated survey of 6000 stars, each with one planet whose true radial-velocity semi-amplitude K is drawn from a population rising towards small amplitudes (dN/d ln K ∝ K^−0.6, from 0.2 to 20 m/s), each measured with an amplitude uncertainty of 0.6 m/s; 1500 are drawn. Across: the true amplitude; up: the amplitude fitted at the planet's period; both logarithmic. The dashed diagonal is a perfect measurement; the horizontal line is the detection threshold, 4 times the uncertainty. Points above it are the detections (filled). Well above the threshold they sit on the diagonal; near it they sit above it — the detections within one unit of the threshold have measured amplitudes 1.33 times their true ones on average — and below it the measured amplitudes stop falling at all, because an amplitude is a length and noise alone gives it about 0.75 m/s.

A prior the survey measures through its own noise

Whether a weak periodic signal is a planet depends on how large planets are expected to be, and the best source for that expectation is the population the surveys themselves have measured. But the population's small end is built from the marginal detections whose reality depends on the prior. Breaking the circle means measuring the population and the planets together, with the noise and the threshold written into the model — and doing it that way changes the answers by factors of two where they matter most.

starlight · Periodograms How much too small a planet looks when a second star shares its light. The factor by which a planet's true radius exceeds the radius inferred from its transit, against the mass of an unresolved companion star in units of the Sun's, for a planet transiting a Sun-like primary and for one transiting the companion, with the radius computed in both cases from the diluted depth and the primary's radius. Logarithmic vertical axis. A planet on the primary is diluted by the companion's light alone, and the factor is √(1 + F₂/F₁), never more than √2 = 1.41, reached for an equal twin; for a companion of half a solar mass, whose 3943 K surface gives 4.5 per cent of the primary's light in a Kepler-like band, it is 1.022. A planet on the companion is diluted by the primary's much larger light and measured against the wrong star's radius, and the factor is (R₂/R₁)√(1 + F₁/F₂): 2.6 for the half-solar-mass companion and 4.3 for one of 0.3 solar masses. The two curves meet at √2 for twins. The stars are a main-sequence sketch — power-law radii, a smoothed luminosity law and blackbody spectra — good to tens of per cent in flux ratio.

The Earth-sized bin is where diluted planets land

A star with an unresolved companion shares its aperture with that companion's light, and every planet found around either star is measured too small. The error runs one way only, so the smallest radius bin receives planets from every larger one and returns none. With a companion beside three stars in ten, more than a quarter of the planets called Earth-sized are something larger.

exoplanets · Detection bias More pairs on the target list than in the sky. The fraction of a magnitude-limited survey's targets that are unresolved binaries, against the fraction of stars in the volume that are, for companions with mass ratios spread evenly between a tenth and one. For solar-type stars, of which about 45 per cent have a companion, the target list holds 53 per cent binaries if the stars fill space uniformly, 50 if the survey reaches beyond the disc. The excess is modest on average because most companions are faint; it is concentrated in the near-equal pairs, which a magnitude limit over-represents by up to a factor of 2.8.

A target list that counts pairs twice

A planet survey chooses its stars by how bright they look, and an unresolved pair of stars looks brighter than either alone. A twin pair is seen from 2√2 times the volume a single star is, so a magnitude-limited target list holds more binaries than the Galaxy does, weighted towards exactly the near-equal pairs that dilute a transit most. The survey then counts its planets per target, and a target is not a star.

exoplanets · Detection bias The ground an eccentric Jupiter sweeps on its way in. The periastron and apoastron of a Jupiter delivered on an eccentric orbit, against its semi-major axis as tides shrink it at fixed angular momentum from 5 au to 0.060 au, both on logarithmic scales. The periastron stays at 0.03 au throughout; the apoastron falls from 10.0 au toward the final circular orbit, a 5.3-day hot Jupiter. Every radius between the two curves is crossed twice an orbit for the whole of the delivery. The shaded strip below the dashed line is where a small companion would have to orbit to be found transiting with the hot Jupiter — periods under 50 days, inside 0.27 au — and the migrator's orbit covers it until the semi-major axis has fallen to 0.15 au, after which the periastron alone keeps passing through its inner edge. A planet there is scattered out, thrown into the star, or swallowed; none survives a delivery that takes thousands of orbits.

A neighbour an eccentric arrival cannot leave

A hot Jupiter that arrived on an orbit of eccentricity near one swept every distance between its closest and farthest point, thousands of times, while tides shrank its orbit — and anything small in that range was scattered, swallowed or thrown into the star. A hot Jupiter carried in by the disc can keep its neighbours. So a hot Jupiter with a close companion came through the disc, and the share of them that have one puts a floor under how many did — a floor whose height is set less by the count than by three chances nobody has measured.

exoplanets · Planet migration A peak that follows the snow line inwards. Giant planets per star per unit of ln a against orbital distance, for stars of 0.3, 0.6, 1, 1.5 solar masses, if the peak's position scales as the 1 power of the star's mass — snow line, young star's luminosity. The shape is the broken power law measured round Sun-like stars, rising as a⁰·⁸ and falling as a⁻¹, with its height scaled in proportion to the star's mass as the giants' overall rate is. The peaks sit at 0.9 AU, 1.8 AU, 3.0 AU, 4.5 AU: a 0.3-solar-mass star would have its giants piled up 3.3 times closer in than the Sun's. The dots mark each peak.

A peak that should move with the star

Round Sun-like stars, giant planets are commonest at about three astronomical units, close to where water first froze in the disc. If the snow line put them there, the peak should sit closer in round smaller stars — three times closer round a star of a third of the Sun's mass. Every hypothesis agrees about the Sun, which is why the Sun-like stars cannot test them; and one of them makes a Jupiter at the peak wobble its star by the same angle whatever the star's mass.

exoplanets · Occurrence rates Where each test can name the host. The plane of a pair's separation and brightness difference, divided by which measurement can say which star a 1000-ppm transit crossed. Above Δm ≈ 4 a sub-Neptune on the companion is diluted below detection and there is nothing to assign. Imaging resolves the pair to the right of an illustrative contrast curve, Δm = 5 log(s/0.04″). The centroid's shift, read against the pair's separation and flux ratio, names the host to the right of s = σ(1 + f)/δ for a precision σ of 30 μas, about 0.05″ for near twins. The density from the transit's shape names it between Δm ≈ 1.1, below which the two stars are too alike, and the detection limit — at any separation, but only for strong transits on nearly circular orbits. The corner of close, nearly equal pairs, under about 0.04″ and 1.1 magnitudes, is reached by none.

A transit that says which star it crossed

When a planet transits one star of an unresolved pair, the catalogue usually assumes the brighter star. The light curve itself can say otherwise, in two ways: the transit's shape measures the density of the star crossed, and a red dwarf is three times denser than the Sun; and the centre of the pair's light moves during the transit, away from whichever star was dimmed. Each test works where the other fails, and between them they leave a corner of close, nearly equal pairs that no measurement of the transit reaches.

exoplanets · Detection bias

Named alongside it

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

Selection effectRadial-velocitySurvey completenessDetection thresholdTransit depthTransit probabilityDilutionEta earthExtrapolationGiant planetHabitable zoneM dwarf

All concepts