Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Survey completeness — where it appears

The fraction of real signals a pipeline recovers, measured by injecting artificial ones and counting how many come back. It is a property of the analysis rather than of the telescope, and it is the denominator of every occurrence rate.

Named by 5 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

What each method can see. Planet mass against orbital distance, both logarithmic, with the detection threshold of each method drawn as the boundary it actually is. Radial velocity at 1 m/s needs mass rising as √a; astrometry at 20 µas needs it falling as 1/a, which is the only method that gets easier further out; a 100 ppm transit is a threshold on radius and so a horizontal line at about 1.4 Earth masses, cut off at 1.21 AU by the need for three transits in 4 years; direct imaging begins outside the diffraction limit, 0.6 AU at 10 parsecs for a 39 m aperture at 10 µm. The solar system is drawn on top: for two decades every one of its planets except Jupiter lay outside every region, which is the whole of what the early census was measuring.

Every survey draws a different sky

The first exoplanets found were enormous and impossibly close to their stars. That was not a discovery about planets. It was a measurement of what a 10 m/s spectrograph watching for three years is able to see.

exoplanets · Detection bias 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 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 Three biases against eccentricity, and they do not agree. Four quantities against orbital eccentricity, each relative to a circular orbit of the same semi-major axis, averaged over the argument of periastron. The transit probability rises as (1 − e²)⁻¹, because an eccentric planet spends part of its orbit inside its own semi-major axis: at e = 0.5 a transit is 1.33 times as likely. The transit duration falls as √(1 − e²), so the event carries less signal-to-noise, and the two together — probability times the square root of the time in transit — come to 1.24 at the same eccentricity. They very nearly cancel, and that is the surprise: a transit survey has almost no eccentricity bias at all. The radial-velocity curve is the one that does. A Keplerian of eccentricity e puts less of its variance in the fundamental and more into harmonics no sinusoidal search is looking at — 68 per cent remains at e = 0.6 and 47 per cent at e = 0.8 — so a velocity survey loses amplitude exactly where a transit survey does not. What no figure here can show is which of these the measured eccentricity distribution is made of, because the correction depends on a detection pipeline rather than on geometry, and the two surveys have to be corrected separately before their answers can be compared.

Every method prefers a circle, and not for the same reason

A transit is more likely on an eccentric orbit and shorter when it happens, and the two very nearly cancel. A velocity curve loses amplitude to harmonics no sinusoidal search is looking at, and that one does not cancel at all.

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.

Selection effectDetection limitDetection thresholdOccurrence rateSignal-to-noiseTransit probabilityRadial velocityArgument of periastronCompletenessCoplanarityEddington biasError propagation

All concepts