Paper detail

Constraining the Frequency of Free-Floating Planets from a Synthesis of Microlensing, Radial Velocity, and Direct Imaging Survey Results

A microlensing survey by Sumi et al. (2011) exhibits an overabundance of short-timescale events (STEs; t_E<2 days) relative to what is expected from known stellar populations and a smooth power-law extrapolation down to the brown dwarf regime. This excess has been interpreted as a population of ~Jupiter-mass objects that outnumber main-sequence stars by nearly twofold; however the microlensing data alone cannot distinguish between events due to wide-separation (a>~10 AU) and free-floating planets. Assuming these STEs are indeed due to planetary-mass objects, we aim to constrain the fraction of these events that can be explained by bound but wide-separation planets. We fit the observed timescale distribution with a lens mass function comprised of brown dwarfs, main-sequence stars, and stellar remnants, finding and thus corroborating the initial identification of an excess of STEs. We then include a population of bound planets that are expected not to show signatures of the primary lens (host) in their microlensing light curves and that are also consistent with results from representative microlensing, radial velocity, and direct imaging surveys. We find that bound planets alone cannot explain the entire STE excess without violating the constraints from the surveys we consider and thus some fraction of these events must be due to free-floating planets, if our model for bound planets holds. We estimate a median fraction of STEs due to free-floating planets to be f=0.67 (0.23-0.85 at 95% confidence) when assuming "hot-start" planet evolutionary models and f=0.58 (0.14-0.83 at 95% confidence) for "cold-start" models. Assuming a delta-function distribution of free-floating planets of mass m_p=2 M_Jup yields a number of free-floating planets per main-sequence star of N=1.4 (0.48-1.8 at 95% confidence) in the "hot-start" case and N=1.2 (0.29-1.8 at 95% confidence) in the "cold-start" case.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

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.

Institutions

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 map preview

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.