Two Views of the Radius Gap and the Role of Light Curve Fitting
Erik A. Petigura

TL;DR
This paper compares two different analyses of the planetary radius gap, emphasizing the importance of precise light curve fitting and transit duration measurements in accurately characterizing the gap and planetary populations.
Contribution
It highlights how improved measurement techniques and data quality influence the observed properties of the radius gap, offering insights into planetary formation and evolution.
Findings
V18's analysis shows a wider, more devoid radius gap due to precise measurements.
Uncertainties in $R_p/R_\star$ dominate over stellar radius errors after Gaia.
Transit duration can effectively distinguish planetary populations.
Abstract
Recently, several groups have resolved a gap that bifurcates planets between the size of Earth and Neptune into two populations. The location and depth of this feature is an important signature of the physical processes that form and sculpt planets. In particular, planets residing in the radius gap are valuable probes of these processes as they may be undergoing the final stages of envelope loss. Here, we discuss two views of the radius gap by Fulton & Petigura (2018; F18) and Van Eylen et al. (2018; V18). In V18, the gap is wider and more devoid of planets. This is due, in part, to V18's more precise measurements of planet radius . Thanks to Gaia, uncertainties in stellar radii Rstar are no longer the limiting uncertainties in determining for the majority of Kepler planets; instead, errors in dominate. V18's analysis incorporated short-cadence photometry along…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
