Paper detail

A First Comparison of Kepler Planet Candidates in Single and Multiple Systems

In this letter we present an overview of the rich population of systems with multiple candidate transiting planets found in the first four months of Kepler data. The census of multiples includes 115 targets that show 2 candidate planets, 45 with 3, 8 with 4, and 1 each with 5 and 6, for a total of 170 systems with 408 candidates. When compared to the 827 systems with only one candidate, the multiples account for 17 percent of the total number of systems, and a third of all the planet candidates. We compare the characteristics of candidates found in multiples with those found in singles. False positives due to eclipsing binaries are much less common for the multiples, as expected. Singles and multiples are both dominated by planets smaller than Neptune; 69 +2/-3 percent for singles and 86 +2/-5 percent for multiples. This result, that systems with multiple transiting planets are less likely to include a transiting giant planet, suggests that close-in giant planets tend to disrupt the orbital inclinations of small planets in flat systems, or maybe even to prevent the formation of such systems in the first place.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.