Tidal Distortions as a Bottleneck on Constraining Exoplanet Compositions

AI-generated keywords: Exoplanets Observations Tides Density Uncertainty

AI-generated Key Points

  • Advancements in the study of exoplanets have led to an increase in confirmed planets and improved precision of observations.
  • Subtle effects, such as the distortion of a short period planet by its host star, can bias interpretations of exoplanet observations.
  • A team led by David Berardo and Julien de Wit extended previous work on gravitational potential formulation to nearly 200 planets with periods less than 3 days.
  • Five planets exhibited density variations greater than 10%, and up to 20 planets had deviations greater than 5% due to tidal effects.
  • An analytic approximation for deviation was derived as a function of the orbital period, transit depth, and mass ratio between the planet and host star.
  • Upgraded observational precision will cause shape deviations to become a bottleneck with regards to analysis of exoplanet compositions.
  • Transit depth and RV amplitude contribute more often towards larger amounts of uncertainty compared to model-dependent variables such as stellar mass and radius.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: David Berardo, Julien de Wit

ApJ 941 155 (2022)
arXiv: 2301.08755v2 - DOI (astro-ph.EP)
11 pages, 7 figures, 2 tables
License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: Improvements in the number of confirmed planets and the precision of observations imply a need to better understand subtle effects that may bias interpretations of exoplanet observations. One such effect is the distortion of a short period planet by its host star, affecting its derived density. We extend the work of Burton et al., Correia, and others, using a gravitational potential formulation to a sample of nearly 200 planets with periods less than 3 days. We find five planets exhibiting density variations of >10% and as many as 20 planets with deviations >5%. We derive an analytic approximation for this deviation as a function of the orbital period, transit depth, and mass ratio between the planet and host star, allowing for rapid determination of such tidal effects. We find that current density error bars are typically larger than tidal deviations but that reducing the uncertainty on transit depth and radial velocity (RV) amplitude by a factor of 3 causes tidal effects to dominate density errors (>50%) in >40% of planets in our sample, implying that in the near future upgraded observational precision will cause shape deviations to become a bottleneck with regards to analysis of exoplanet compositions. These two parameters are found to dominate uncertainties compared to errors on stellar mass and radius. We identify a group of eight planets (including WASP-19 b, HAT-P-7 b, and WASP-12 b) for which current density uncertainties are as much as 4x smaller than the potential shift due to tides, implying a possible 4{\sigma} bias on their density estimates.

Submitted to arXiv on 20 Jan. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2301.08755v2

The study of exoplanets has seen significant advancements in recent years, with improvements in the precision of observations and an increase in the number of confirmed planets. However, these advancements have also highlighted the need to better understand subtle effects that may bias interpretations of exoplanet observations. One such effect is the distortion of a short period planet by its host star, which can affect its derived density and therefore impact our understanding of its composition. To address this issue, a team led by David Berardo and Julien de Wit extended previous work on gravitational potential formulation to a sample of nearly 200 planets with periods less than 3 days. They found that five planets exhibited density variations greater than 10%, and as many as 20 planets had deviations greater than 5%. To allow for rapid determination of these tidal effects, they derived an analytic approximation for deviation as a function of the orbital period, transit depth, and mass ratio between the planet and host star. The researchers discovered that current density error bars are typically larger than tidal deviations. However, reducing uncertainty on transit depth and radial velocity amplitude by a factor of three causes tidal effects to dominate density errors in more than 40% of planets in their sample. This implies that upgraded observational precision will cause shape deviations to become a bottleneck with regards to analysis of exoplanet compositions. The two parameters were found to dominate uncertainties compared to errors on stellar mass and radius. The team identified eight planets (including WASP-19 b, HAT-P-7 b, and WASP-12 b) for which current density uncertainties are up to four times smaller than the potential shift due to tides. This suggests a possible four-sigma bias on their density estimates. Furthermore, the researchers quantified the relative contribution each variable makes towards overall uncertainty using equation (12). They found that measurement-dependent variables such as transit depth and RV amplitude contribute more often towards larger amounts of uncertainty compared to model-dependent variables such as stellar mass and radius. The RV amplitude alone contributes at least 60% of the relative uncertainty for approximately 20% of the planets in their sample. In conclusion, this study highlights the need to consider tidal effects when interpreting exoplanet observations and suggests that upgraded observational precision will cause shape deviations to become a bottleneck with regards to analysis of exoplanet compositions.
Created on 04 Apr. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.