Mass distribution of exoplanets considering some observation selection effects in the transit detection technique

Ananyeva, V. I.; Ivanova, A. E.; Venkstern, A. A.; Shashkova, I. A.; Yudaev, A. V.; Tavrov, Alexander V.; Korablev, Oleg; Bertaux, Jean-Loup

doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113773

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2, we use the minimum mass m p in all our calculations. Estimates of the exoplanet mass distribution (Jorissen et al, 2001;Ananyeva et al, 2020) indicate that planets with a substantially increased mass are rare and thus we expect the true mass of HD 23079b to differ from the minimum mass by only a small factor. Hence, we perform another set of stability simulations for prograde moons with the host planet's mass is increased to 1.5 m p (i.e., 3.62 M J ).…”

Section: Model Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Updated Studies on Exomoons in the HD 23079 System

Jagtap,

Quarles,

Cuntz

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We re-evaluate the outer edge of orbital stability for possible exomoons orbiting the radial velocity planet discovered in the HD 23079 system. In this system, a solar-type star hosts a Jupiter-mass planet in a nearly circular orbit in the outer stellar habitable zone. The outer stability limit of exomoons is deduced using N -body and tidal migration simulations considering a large range of initial conditions, encompassing both prograde and retrograde orbits. In particular, we extend previous works by evaluating many values in the satellite mean anomaly to identify and exclude regions of quasi-stability. Future observations of this system can make use of our results through a scale factor relative to the currently measured minimum mass. Using a constant time lag tidal model (Hut, 1981), we find that plausible tidal interactions within the system are insufficient to induce significant outward migration toward the theoretical stability limit. While current technologies are incapable of detecting exomoons in this system, we comment on the detectability of putative moons through Doppler monitoring within direct imaging observations in view of future research capacities.

show abstract

Section: Model Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Updated Studies on Exomoons in the HD 23079 System

Jagtap,

Quarles,

Cuntz

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the true distribution of giant planets is strongly non-uniform as observational data suggest that it declines with planetary mass, approximately following dN/dM p ∝ M −γ p , with γ ≈ 1 (e.g. Marcy et al 2005;Ananyeva et al 2020). 2 Our previous approach is therefore not representative of the true sample of giant planets, and our results using a flat initial planet mass function (IPMF) should be treated with caution when directly compared to an observational sample.…”

Section: Model Owen_ipmfmentioning

confidence: 99%

The imprint of X-ray photoevaporation of planet-forming discs on the orbital distribution of giant planets

Monsch

Picogna

Ercolano

et al. 2021

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Numerical models have shown that disc dispersal via internal photoevaporation driven by the host star can successfully reproduce the observed pile-up of warm Jupiters near 1–2 au. However, since a range of different mechanisms have been proposed to cause the same feature, clear observational diagnostics of disc dispersal leaving an imprint in the observed distribution of giant planets could help in constraining the dominant mechanisms. Aims. We aim to assess the impact of disc dispersal via X-ray-driven photoevaporation (XPE) on giant planet separations in order to provide theoretical constraints on the location and size of any possible features related to this process within the observed semi-major axis distribution of giant planets. Methods. For this purpose, we perform a set of 1D planet population syntheses with varying initial conditions and correlate the gas giants’ final parking locations with the X-ray luminosities of their host stars in order to quantify observables of this process within the semi-major axis versus host star X-ray luminosity plane of these systems. Results. We find that XPE does create an under-density of gas giants near the gravitational radius, with corresponding pile-ups inside and/or outside this location. However, the size and location of these features are strongly dependent on the choice of initial conditions in our model, such as the assumed formation location of the planets. Conclusions. XPE can strongly affect the migration process of giant planets and leave potentially observable signatures within the observed orbital separations of giant planets. However, due to the simplistic approach employed in our model, which lacks a self-consistent treatment of planet formation within an evolving disc, a quantitative analysis of the final planet population orbits is not possible. Our results, however, should strongly motivate future studies to include realistic disc dispersal mechanisms in global planet population synthesis models with self-consistent planet formation modules.

show abstract

“…Earlier, we obtained two independent mass distributions for exoplanets discovered by the Kepler Space Telescope by the transit method (Ananyeva et al 2020) (A20 hereafter) and those discovered by the RV method (Ivanova et al 2021) (I20 hereafter). Several important observational selection factors were taken into account in both cases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the mass distributions of short-period exoplanets detected by transit and RV methods

Yakovlev

Ananyeva

Ivanova

et al. 2021

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyse the causes of a discrepancy between the earlier obtained samples of the mass distributions of exoplanets detected by the transit method and the radial velocity (RV) one and corrected for some observational selection effects. It is found that this discrepancy can be removed by introducing the following restrictions into the procedures forming the samples: (i) to consider, among transit exoplanets, only those which masses were determined by the RV method (i.e. excluding the TTV method); (ii) to take into account exoplanets with orbital periods P ∈ [1, 100] days and masses M ∈ [0.02, 13]MJ (Jupiter masses). In addition, we compare here the distributions by projective masses (which is Msin i, where i is the orbital inclination of an exoplanet). For this, the mass distribution of transit exoplanets is transformed into the projective mass distribution. Due to these three changes in the procedure, the obtained RV and transit distributions exhibit a similar behaviour in an interval of M ∈ [0.02, Mmid]MJ and coincide at M ∈ [Mmid, 13]MJ, where Mmid ≈ 0.17MJ.

show abstract

Mass distribution of exoplanets considering some observation selection effects in the transit detection technique

Cited by 7 publications

References 23 publications

Updated Studies on Exomoons in the HD 23079 System

Updated Studies on Exomoons in the HD 23079 System

The imprint of X-ray photoevaporation of planet-forming discs on the orbital distribution of giant planets

Comparison of the mass distributions of short-period exoplanets detected by transit and RV methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About