Planet Hunters Talk

hot Jupiters study

  • ajamyajax by ajamyajax

    Looks like the methods used in this paper could be useful to us here:

    "Pan-Planets: Searching for hot Jupiters around cool dwarfs"

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.07259v1.pdf

    Just several comments or observations worth noting:

    "We further use the criterion J - K > 1 as a flag to discriminate likely background giants from closer dwarf stars."

    Table 3. List of excluded alias periods that are common for false detections for hot Jupiters.

    Excluded alias periods

    0.315-0.335 days

    0.498-0.500 days

    0.991-1.004 days

    1.586-1.594 days

    1.594-1.600 days

    1.965-1.975 days

    2.039-2.045 days

    2.359-2.360 days

    3.370-3.378 days

    4.022-4.030 days

    4.078-4.088 days

    Update: just a few possible K2 FP's near some of these ranges:

    0.315-0.335 days: 202091553 (P=0.338), 204864486 (P=0.3269)

    0.498-0.500 days

    0.991-1.004 days

    1.586-1.594 days: 201270464 (P=1.58), 201270176 (P=1.58), 205684800 (P=1.56)

    1.594-1.600 days

    1.965-1.975 days: 201683540 (P=1.96, probably a BGEB), 206260577 (P=1.98), 210754660 (P=1.96)

    2.039-2.045 days: 202084843 (P=2.03), 206038285 (P=2.04), 204204927 (P=2.04)

    2.359-2.360 days: 202091738 (P=2.39), 202091989 (P=2.36), 201344952 (P=2.38), 211147528 (P=2.35)

    3.370-3.378 days: 211808055 (P=3.38, contaminated by EB)

    4.022-4.030 days

    4.078-4.088 days: 210957318 (P=4.09)

    Posted

  • zoo3hans by zoo3hans in response to ajamyajax's comment.

    The first criterion seems to be OK, but the alias list seem to fit hourly observations (i.e. an observation every 1 hour). In the case of Kepler we have rather 30 minutes for long cadence data. So I'm not sure which periods we should be wary of.

    Posted

  • ajamyajax by ajamyajax in response to zoo3hans's comment.

    Shrug, we work with what we have. For example fits that result in picket fence looking charts are (at times) the best I can do with the data available. And any period of days still likely falls into the time data we have right? So certainly draw your own conclusions, but I'm inclined to believe the scientists that any of these periods could be suspect and at least deserve an asterisk as a possible false positive based on their observations.

    Posted