The physical properties of giant transiting exoplanets within 400 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The physical properties of giant transiting exoplanets within 400 days

Alexandre Santerne

Marie Curie Fellow Instituto de Astrofísica e Ciências do Espaço
 Universidade do Porto Porto, Portugal alexandre.santerne@astro.up.pt

OHP2015: Twenty years of giant exoplanets

Collaborators:

• I. Boisse, F. Bouchy, G. Bruno, B. Courcol, M. Deleuil, 

• O. Demangeon, C. Moutou, A. Rajpurohit (LAM)
• V. Adibekyan, S. Barros, N. Santos, M. Tsantaki (IA-Porto)
• L. Amard, R. Díaz, J. Rey (obs. Geneva)
• G. Hébrard, G. Montagnier (IAP / OHP)
• T. Guillot, M. Havel (OCA)
• J.-M. Almenara (IPAG)
• A. Bonomo (INAF - Torino)

1

This is Kepler-9 c !

5 years ago… during the OHP2010 colloquium

2

This is Kepler-9 c ! Minimum mass This is HD10180 h !

5 years ago… during the OHP2010 colloquium

2

This is Kepler-9 c ! Minimum mass This is HD10180 h !

5 years ago… during the OHP2010 colloquium

2

The Kepler candidates sample (Q1 - Q17)

100 101 102 103 Orbital period [days] 101 102 103 104 105 106 Transit depth [ppm] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] All KOIs

Santerne et al. (submitted)

3

The Kepler candidates sample (Q1 - Q17)

100 101 102 103 Orbital period [days] 101 102 103 104 105 106 Transit depth [ppm] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] All KOIs

Kp < 14.7, Per < 400d, 0.4% < Depth < 3% ➙ 129 KOIs / 125 stars

Santerne et al. (submitted)

3

The Kepler candidates sample (Q1 - Q17)

100 101 102 103 Orbital period [days] 101 102 103 104 105 106 Transit depth [ppm] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] All KOIs 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] Selected giant KOIs

Kp < 14.7, Per < 400d, 0.4% < Depth < 3% ➙ 129 KOIs / 125 stars

Santerne et al. (submitted)

3

The Kepler candidates sample (Q1 - Q17)

100 101 102 103 Orbital period [days] 101 102 103 104 105 106 Transit depth [ppm] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] All KOIs 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] Selected giant KOIs

Kp < 14.7, Per < 400d, 0.4% < Depth < 3% ➙ 129 KOIs / 125 stars

100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp]

Santerne et al. (submitted)

3

Planets: to be or not to be

4

0.992 0.994 0.996 0.998 1.000 1.002 Relative flux Transit light-curve S0 S1 S2 S3 −0.0015 −0.0010 −0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 Orbital phase −1.5 0.0 1.5 O-C [ppt]

planet planet in binary Binary / BD Triple or BEB planet in binary or background transiting planet

Santerne et al. (2014)

The Kepler spectroscopic FUp program

• 1.93 m telescope + SOPHIE spectrograph, HERE !
• Large program started in July 2010.
• Radial velocity precision down to 13 m/s on magnitude 14.5.
• More than 1000 spectra obtained over ~370 nights in 6 years

(equivalent to 120 nights).

Santerne et al. (submitted)

+ ~15 nights on HARPS-N @ TNG

5

Unveiling the candidates’ nature

100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp]

Santerne et al. (submitted)

6

Unveiling the candidates’ nature

100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp]

Santerne et al. (submitted)

6

Unveiling the candidates’ nature

100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets BD Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp]

Santerne et al. (submitted)

6

Unveiling the candidates’ nature

100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets BD Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets BD EB Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp]

Santerne et al. (submitted)

6

Unveiling the candidates’ nature

100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets BD Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets BD EB Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets BD EB CEB Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp]

Santerne et al. (submitted)

6

Unveiling the candidates’ nature

100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets BD Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets BD EB Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp] 100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets BD EB CEB Unknown

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp]

Santerne et al. (submitted)

6

100 101 102 Orbital period [days] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Transit depth [%]

Planets Likely planets

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp]

The Kepler false-positive rate of giant planets

Planets BD EB CEB ?

Raw

51.2% < FPR < 65.1%

Santerne et al. (submitted)

7

The Kepler false-positive rate of giant planets

Planets BD EB CEB ?

Raw

51.2% < FPR < 65.1%

Planets BD EB CEB ?

Raw

Planets BD EB CEB

Redistributed

FPR = 54.6 ± 6.5 % Fressin et al. (2013): 17.7% for all giant planets (Q1 - Q6)

Santerne et al. (submitted)

7

FPP: towards smaller candidates

8

Lower SNR ➙ FP diagnoses are less sensitive Shallower transit ➙ smaller and/or fainter contaminant or companion

Santerne et al. (submitted)

FPP: towards smaller candidates

8

Lower SNR ➙ FP diagnoses are less sensitive Shallower transit ➙ smaller and/or fainter contaminant or companion

➙ Absolute numbers of diluted FPs should increase !

Santerne et al. (submitted)

FPP: towards smaller candidates

8

Lower SNR ➙ FP diagnoses are less sensitive Shallower transit ➙ smaller and/or fainter contaminant or companion

➙ Absolute numbers of diluted FPs should increase !

Brown (2003) Santerne et al. (submitted)

FPP: towards smaller candidates

8

Lower SNR ➙ FP diagnoses are less sensitive Shallower transit ➙ smaller and/or fainter contaminant or companion

➙ Absolute numbers of diluted FPs should increase !

Brown (2003)

Multiple transits
 ➙ very low FPP 


(Lissauer et al., 2012,14) Santerne et al. (submitted)

FPP: towards smaller candidates

8

Lower SNR ➙ FP diagnoses are less sensitive Shallower transit ➙ smaller and/or fainter contaminant or companion

➙ Absolute numbers of diluted FPs should increase !

Brown (2003)

Multiple transits
 ➙ very low FPP 


(Lissauer et al., 2012,14)

Single transit
 ➙ High FPP ?

Santerne et al. (submitted)

The occurrence rate of giant planets within 400d

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Stellar mass M? [M] 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Stellar radius R? [R] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp]

Stellar reference sample: Dwarf stars with mass in the range 0.7 Msun - 1.4 Msun

Santerne et al. (submitted)

9

The occurrence rate of giant planets within 400d

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Stellar mass M? [M] 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Stellar radius R? [R] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp]

Stellar reference sample: Dwarf stars with mass in the range 0.7 Msun - 1.4 Msun

100 101 102 Orbital period [d] 10−4 10−3 10−2 Occurrence rates of giant planets

Overall occurrence rate of giant planets = 4.6±0.6%

Santerne et al. (submitted)

9

The occurrence rate of giant planets within 400d

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Stellar mass M? [M] 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Stellar radius R? [R] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kepler magnitude [Kp]

Stellar reference sample: Dwarf stars with mass in the range 0.7 Msun - 1.4 Msun

100 101 102 Orbital period [d] 10−4 10−3 10−2 Occurrence rates of giant planets

Overall occurrence rate of giant planets = 4.6±0.6% Hot jupiters Period valley Temperate giants

Santerne et al. (submitted)

9

Comparison with other yields

Wright et al. (2012) Mayor et al. (2011) Bayliss & Sackett (2011) Santerne (2012) centre Santerne (2012) anticentre Howard et al. (2012) Santerne et al. (2012b) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Occurrence rate [%] hot jupiters (1 < P [d] < 10) Mayor et al. (2011) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 period-valley giants (10 < P [d] < 85) Mayor et al. (2011) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 temperate giants (85 < P [d] < 400) Lick+Keck HARPS+CORALIE SuperLupus CoRoT Kepler

Santerne et al. (submitted)

10

Comparison with other yields

Wright et al. (2012) Mayor et al. (2011) Bayliss & Sackett (2011) Santerne (2012) centre Santerne (2012) anticentre Howard et al. (2012) Santerne et al. (2012b) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Occurrence rate [%] hot jupiters (1 < P [d] < 10) Mayor et al. (2011) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 period-valley giants (10 < P [d] < 85) Mayor et al. (2011) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 temperate giants (85 < P [d] < 400) Lick+Keck HARPS+CORALIE SuperLupus CoRoT Kepler

Santerne et al. (submitted)

10

?

Comparison with other yields

Wright et al. (2012) Mayor et al. (2011) Bayliss & Sackett (2011) Santerne (2012) centre Santerne (2012) anticentre Howard et al. (2012) Santerne et al. (2012b) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Occurrence rate [%] hot jupiters (1 < P [d] < 10) Mayor et al. (2011) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 period-valley giants (10 < P [d] < 85) Mayor et al. (2011) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 temperate giants (85 < P [d] < 400) Lick+Keck HARPS+CORALIE SuperLupus CoRoT Kepler

Santerne et al. (submitted)

10

?

<[Fe/H]> Kepler = -0.18 (Huber et al., 2014) <[Fe/H]> S. Neighb. = -0.08 (Sousa et al., 2008) <[Fe/H]> CoRoT = ~ 0 (Gazzano et al., 2010)

Fischer & Valenti (2005)

f = 0.03 × 102[Fe/H]

Comparison with other yields

Wright et al. (2012) Mayor et al. (2011) Bayliss & Sackett (2011) Santerne (2012) centre Santerne (2012) anticentre Howard et al. (2012) Santerne et al. (2012b) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Occurrence rate [%] hot jupiters (1 < P [d] < 10) Mayor et al. (2011) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 period-valley giants (10 < P [d] < 85) Mayor et al. (2011) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 temperate giants (85 < P [d] < 400) Lick+Keck HARPS+CORALIE SuperLupus CoRoT Kepler

Santerne et al. (submitted)

10

?

Comparison with other yields

Wright et al. (2012) Mayor et al. (2011) Bayliss & Sackett (2011) Santerne (2012) centre Santerne (2012) anticentre Howard et al. (2012) Santerne et al. (2012b) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Occurrence rate [%] hot jupiters (1 < P [d] < 10) Mayor et al. (2011) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 period-valley giants (10 < P [d] < 85) Mayor et al. (2011) Fressin et al. (2013) This work 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 temperate giants (85 < P [d] < 400) Lick+Keck HARPS+CORALIE SuperLupus CoRoT Kepler

Santerne et al. (submitted)

10

?

−0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Stellar Iron abundance [dex] 10−4 10−3 10−2 Fraction of transit hosts

Cleaned sample

Correlation planet occurrence - host metallicity

11

Santerne et al. (submitted) based on Huber et al. (2014) data

Cleaned sample:

f ∝ 101.82±0.31[Fe/H]

−0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Stellar Iron abundance [dex] 10−4 10−3 10−2 Fraction of transit hosts

Cleaned sample

Correlation planet occurrence - host metallicity

11

Santerne et al. (submitted) −0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Stellar Iron abundance [dex] 10−4 10−3 10−2 Fraction of transit hosts

Raw sample (without accounting for false positives)

based on Huber et al. (2014) data

Cleaned sample: Raw sample:

f ∝ 101.28±0.28[Fe/H] f ∝ 101.82±0.31[Fe/H]

104 105 106 107 108 109 1010 Stellar insolation flux [erg.cm−2.s−1] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Giant planet radius [RX]

X Y

Secured GPs Likely GPs Other GPs

Giant-planet inflation

12

Santerne et al. (submitted)

104 105 106 107 108 109 1010 Stellar insolation flux [erg.cm−2.s−1] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Giant planet radius [RX]

X Y

Secured GPs Likely GPs Other GPs

Giant-planet inflation

12

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Giant planet radius [RX] 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 CDF

Seff < 108 erg.cm−2.s−1 Seff > 108 erg.cm−2.s−1 Mordasini+12

Santerne et al. (submitted)

Properties of cool giants

13

−0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Stellar Iron abundance [dex] 10−2 10−1 100 101 Planet density [ρX]

Seff < 109 erg.cm−2.s−1

need more cool giant planets characterized ! Possible correlation ?

Santerne et al. (submitted)

Properties of cool giants

13

−0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Stellar Iron abundance [dex] 10−2 10−1 100 101 Planet density [ρX]

Seff < 109 erg.cm−2.s−1

need more cool giant planets characterized ! Possible correlation ?

104 105 106 107 108 109 1010 Stellar insolation flux [erg.cm−2.s−1] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Giant planet radius [RX]

X Y

Only characterized giant planets

Santerne et al. (submitted)

Properties of cool giants

13

−0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Stellar Iron abundance [dex] 10−2 10−1 100 101 Planet density [ρX]

Seff < 109 erg.cm−2.s−1

need more cool giant planets characterized ! Possible correlation ?

104 105 106 107 108 109 1010 Stellar insolation flux [erg.cm−2.s−1] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Giant planet radius [RX]

X Y

Only characterized giant planets

Santerne et al. (submitted)

Need to fill the gap between hot Jupiters and the solar-system giants

Conclusions / Take-home messages

• Beware of false positives !
• For giant-planet candidates: FPR > 50 % (Q1 - Q17)
• False positives bias statistical analyses

14

Conclusions / Take-home messages

• Beware of false positives !
• For giant-planet candidates: FPR > 50 % (Q1 - Q17)
• False positives bias statistical analyses
• At the first order, the same giant-planet formation processes are at

play in the solar neighborhood and in the Kepler field: 
 same populations of giant planets, same metallicity correlation

14

Conclusions / Take-home messages

• Beware of false positives !
• For giant-planet candidates: FPR > 50 % (Q1 - Q17)
• False positives bias statistical analyses
• At the first order, the same giant-planet formation processes are at

play in the solar neighborhood and in the Kepler field: 
 same populations of giant planets, same metallicity correlation

• Second-order effects need to be understood to explain differences

(only ?) in the occurrence of hot Jupiters ➙ K2, TESS, PLATO

14

Conclusions / Take-home messages

• Beware of false positives !
• For giant-planet candidates: FPR > 50 % (Q1 - Q17)
• False positives bias statistical analyses
• At the first order, the same giant-planet formation processes are at

play in the solar neighborhood and in the Kepler field: 
 same populations of giant planets, same metallicity correlation

• Second-order effects need to be understood to explain differences

(only ?) in the occurrence of hot Jupiters ➙ K2, TESS, PLATO

• Cool giant planets are not inflated. They are slightly smaller than

predicted by formation+evolution models (Mordasini et al., 2012). 
 ➙ need more cool giant planets !

14

Conclusions / Take-home messages

• Beware of false positives !
• For giant-planet candidates: FPR > 50 % (Q1 - Q17)
• False positives bias statistical analyses
• At the first order, the same giant-planet formation processes are at

play in the solar neighborhood and in the Kepler field: 
 same populations of giant planets, same metallicity correlation

• Second-order effects need to be understood to explain differences

(only ?) in the occurrence of hot Jupiters ➙ K2, TESS, PLATO

• Cool giant planets are not inflated. They are slightly smaller than

predicted by formation+evolution models (Mordasini et al., 2012). 
 ➙ need more cool giant planets !

14

• Thanks for your attention -

I’m supported by the European Union under a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship for Career Development with reference FP7-PEOPLE-2013-IEF , number 627202.

Bonus slides

15

10−3 10−2 10−1 100 101 102 Planet mass [MX] 10−2 10−1 100 101 102 Planet density [ρX]

Kepler-87c Kepler-79d Kepler-51c Kepler-51d Kepler-51b KOI-221.01 KOI-410.01 Kepler-63b

Hatzes - Rauer diagramme

16

Santerne et al. (submitted)

Comparison with Huber et al. (2014)

17

4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 Teff Spectro [K] 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 Teff Huber+14 [K] 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 log g Spectro [cm.s−2] 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 log g Huber+14 [cm.s−2] −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 [Fe/H] Spectro [dex] −0.8 −0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 [Fe/H] Huber+14 [dex]

Iron abundance under-estimated for hot stars Effect of rotation ? Effect of low-SNR in spectroscopy ?

Santerne et al. (submitted)