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 8 essays across one field — 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

Named alongside it

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

Survey completenessCompletenessDetection limitDetection thresholdEinstein radiusEta earthExtrapolationFalse-positiveHabitable zoneMicrolensingPhotoevaporationRadius valley

All concepts