Toward Reliable Interpretations of Small Exoplanet Compositions: Comparisons and Considerations of Equations of State and Materials Used in Common Rocky Planet Models

TL;DR

This paper compares different equations of state and mineral assumptions in small exoplanet models, highlighting how these choices impact density predictions and compositional interpretations, which are crucial for understanding planet formation.

Contribution

It systematically evaluates various EOS+mineral suites used in small planet models, revealing their differences and implications for planetary composition inference.

Findings

EOS+mineral suites predict densities within current observational uncertainties.

Variations among suites lead to inconsistent conclusions for individual planets.

Careful selection of materials and EOS is essential for accurate planet characterization.

Abstract

The bulk compositions of small planets ($R_p< 2 \mathrm{R}_\oplus$) are directly linked to their formation histories, making reliable compositional constraints imperative for testing models of planet formation and evolution. Because exoplanet interiors cannot be directly observed, their make-up must be inferred from mass-radius-composition models that link assumed stellar abundances to the direct observables: planetary mass and radius. There are a variety of such models in the literature, each adopting different equations of state (EOS) to describe the materials' properties at depth and varying assumptions about the minerals present within the planets. These EOS+mineral suites provide the foundations for compositional inferences, but they have not yet been systematically compared. In this work, we review several suites, with a detailed description of the basic structure, mineral physics, and materials within standard small planet models. We show that EOS+mineral suites predict planet densities whose differences are comparable to current observational uncertainties, which present a challenge for robustly interpreting and classifying small planets. We apply a powerful small-planet characterization framework, which illustrates that variations among EOS+mineral suites lead to inconsistent conclusions for both individual planets and sample-level demographics. Our results demonstrate the need for more careful considerations of the materials and EOS used in mass-radius-composition models, especially given the current focus on finding and characterizing potentially habitable rocky planets. We conclude with recommendations for best practices so that future interpretations of small planets and their formation are accurate and consistent.