LACK OF INFLATED RADII FOR KEPLER GIANT PLANET CANDIDATES RECEIVING MODEST STELLAR IRRADIATION

By B. Demory, Sara Seager. 2011

186 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The most irradiated transiting hot Jupiters are characterized by anomalously inflated radii, sometimes exceeding Jupiter's size by more than 60%. While different theoretical explanations have been applied, none of them provide a universal resolution to this observation, despite significant progress in the past years. We refine the photometric transit light curve analysis of 115 Kepler giant planet candidates based on public Q0–Q2 photometry. We find that 14% of them are likely false positives, based on their secondary eclipse depth. We report on planet radii versus stellar flux. We find an increase in planet radii with increased stellar irradiation for the Kepler giant planet candidates, in good agreement with existing hot Jupiter systems. We find that in the case of modest irradiation received from the stellar host, giant planets do not have inflated radii, and appear to have radii independent of the host star incident flux. This finding suggests that the physical mechanisms inflating hot Jupiters become ineffective below a given orbit-averaged stellar irradiation level of ∼2 × 108 erg s−1 cm−2.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/60fbcfc046848dc5bcddae03083ce912667171e0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

1. Jon Fortney
2. D. Charbonneau
3. J. Winn
4. J. Johnson
5. Timothy Morton
6. Sara Seager
7. J. Southworth
8. G. Marcy

Citations in the corpus

• TRANSIT TIMING OBSERVATIONS FROM KEPLER. IV. CONFIRMATION OF FOUR MULTIPLE-PLANET SYSTEMS BY SIMPLE PHYSICAL MODELS (2012, background): “This is larger than expected for a planet receiving so little irradiation: the theoretical models by Fortney et al. (2007) are typically smaller than ∼ 1.2RJup, and Demory & Seager (2011) confirmed that observationally using Kepler giant-planet candidates.”
• THE FALSE POSITIVE RATE OF KEPLER AND THE OCCURRENCE OF PLANETS (2013, background): “In one example, Demory & Seager (2011) reported that a significant fraction (14”
• IMPROVED SPECTROSCOPIC PARAMETERS FOR TRANSITING PLANET HOSTS (2012, background): “A variety of mechanisms have been proposed that may play a role in " puffing up " the planets, but no universal process seems to account for all of these anomalies (see, e.g., Burrows et al. 2007; Miller et al. 2009; Fortney & Nettelmann 2010; Demory & Seager 2011, and references therein).”
• ALMOST ALL OF KEPLER'S MULTIPLE-PLANET CANDIDATES ARE PLANETS (2012, background): “At the other extreme of the planet size distribution, giant candidates appear to be more contaminated by stellar false positives (Demory & Seager 2011) of the type which plague ground-based surveys than do Neptune-size candidates.”
• SOPHIE velocimetry of Kepler transit candidates XVII. The physical properties of giant exoplanets within 400 days of period (2015, background): “Then, as already pointed out by Demory & Seager (2011), there is a clear lack of inflated EGPs receiving a moderate irradiation (see Fig.”
• THE MASS–METALLICITY RELATION FOR GIANT PLANETS (2015, background): “Planets that receive an incident flux below around 2×108 erg s−1 cm−2 (Teq1000 K) appear to be non-inflated (Demory & Seager 2011; Miller & Fortney 2011), obviating the need for assumptions about that effect.”
• WASP-121 b: a hot Jupiter close to tidal disruption transiting an active F star (2015, background): “Several works showed that hot Jupiters’ radii correlate well with their incident irradiation (see e.g. Demory & Seager 2011, Enoch et al. 2012, or Weiss et al. 2013).”
• SOPHIE velocimetry of Kepler transit candidates VII. A false-positive rate of 35% for Kepler close-in giant candidates (2012, methodology): “As mentioned by M&J11, they assumed candidates to have passed all vetting procedures and that there is no clear V-shape transit or deep secondary transit, which is obviously the case (e.g. Bouchy et al. 2011; Demory & Seager 2011; Coughlin & López-Morales 2012).”
• LOW FALSE POSITIVE RATE OF KEPLER CANDIDATES ESTIMATED FROM A COMBINATION OF SPITZER AND FOLLOW-UP OBSERVATIONS (2015, background): “The high FPR found in the sample of Santerne et al. (2012) is consistent with the findings of Demory & Seager (2011) for which close-in candidates were also targeted.”
• THE MASS OF KOI-94d AND A RELATION FOR PLANET RADIUS, MASS, AND INCIDENT FLUX (2013, background): “Demory & Seager (2011) extended this work to Kepler gas giant candidate ar X iv :1 30 3.”
• Characterization of exoplanets from their formation - II. The planetary mass-radius relationship (2012, methodology): “The data from the Kepler satellite has stimulated a multitude of studies like for example Howard et al. (2012); Traub (2011); Demory & Seager (2011); Youdin (2011); Wolfgang & Laughlin (2012) or Gaidos et al. (2012) to name just a few.”
• Revised Radii of Kepler Stars and Planets Using Gaia Data Release 2 (2018, background): “Inflated Hot Jupiters Another feature revealed by Figure 9 is the wellknown trend of increasing giant planet radius with increasing stellar irradiance (e.g. Burrows et al. 2000; Demory & Seager 2011; Laughlin et al. 2011).”
• Accurate Empirical Radii and Masses of Planets and Their Host Stars with Gaia Parallaxes (2016, background): “…& Baraffe 2007; Jackson et al. 2009; Arras & Socrates 2010; Batygin et al. 2011), no one explanation has emerged as the leading contender, although empirical trends with stellar insolation (Demory & Seager 2011) and perhaps age (Hartman et al. 2016) may provide clues to the correct physical model.”