Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Population inference — where it appears

Inferring the distribution of a property across a population, rather than the property of one object, from a sample of noisy measurements. It must model the measurement errors and the selection, since both reshape the histogram.

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

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.

Likelihood ratioArgument of periastronAsteroseismologyCore mass fractionEccentricityGiant impactsMeasurement errorMixture modelPhotoeccentric effectPlanet compositionStellar abundancesStellar density

All concepts