An Overabundance of Low-density Neptune-like Planets

TL;DR

This study analyzes Neptune-like exoplanets' atmospheric escape rates, revealing discrepancies between observed mass-loss rates and theoretical models, suggesting biases in measurement techniques or assumptions affecting population studies.

Contribution

It provides a uniform analysis of atmospheric escape in Neptune-like planets, identifying inconsistencies and proposing potential sources of bias in current measurement methods.

Findings

25 planets exhibit extremely high mass-loss rates exceeding energy-limited estimates

Discrepancies suggest measurement biases or overestimations in current models

At least one common assumption in parameter estimation may be systematically biased

Abstract

We present a uniform analysis of the atmospheric escape rate of Neptune-like planets with estimated radius and mass (restricted to $M_{\rm p}<30\,M_{\oplus}$). For each planet we compute the restricted Jeans escape parameter, $\Lambda$, for a hydrogen atom evaluated at the planetary mass, radius, and equilibrium temperature. Values of $\Lambda\lesssim20$ suggest extremely high mass-loss rates. We identify 27 planets (out of 167) that are simultaneously consistent with hydrogen-dominated atmospheres and are expected to exhibit extreme mass-loss rates. We further estimate the mass-loss rates ($L_{\rm hy}$) of these planets with tailored atmospheric hydrodynamic models. We compare $L_{\rm hy}$ to the energy-limited (maximum-possible high-energy driven) mass-loss rates. We confirm that 25 planets (15\% of the sample) exhibit extremely high mass-loss rates ($L_{\rm hy}>0.1\,M_{\oplus}{\rm Gyr}^{-1}$), well in excess of the energy-limited mass-loss rates. This constitutes a contradiction, since the hydrogen envelopes cannot be retained given the high mass-loss rates. We hypothesize that these planets are not truly under such high mass-loss rates. Instead, either hydrodynamic models overestimate the mass-loss rates, transit-timing-variation measurements underestimate the planetary masses, optical transit observations overestimate the planetary radii (due to high-altitude clouds), or Neptunes have consistently higher albedos than Jupiter planets. We conclude that at least one of these established estimations/techniques is consistently producing biased values for Neptune planets. Such an important fraction of exoplanets with misinterpreted parameters can significantly bias our view of populations studies, like the observed mass--radius distribution of exoplanets for example.