Paper detail

Detection of Neptune-size planetary candidates with CoRoT data. Comparison with the planet occurrence rate derived from Kepler

[Abridged] Context. The CoRoT space mission has been searching for transiting planets since the end of December 2006. Aims. We aim to investigate the capability of CoRoT to detect small-size transiting planets in short-period orbits, and to compare the number of CoRoT planets with 2 \leq R_p \leq 4 Rearth with the occurrence rate of small-size planets provided by the distribution of Kepler planetary candidates (Howard et al. 2012). Methods. We performed a test that simulates transits of super-Earths and Neptunes in real CoRoT light curves and searches for them blindly by using the LAM transit detection pipeline. Results. The CoRoT detection rate of planets with radius between 2 and 4 Rearth and orbital period P \leq 20 days is 59% (31%) around stars brighter than r'=14.0 (15.5). By properly taking the CoRoT detection rate for Neptune-size planets and the transit probability into account, we found that according to the Kepler planet occurrence rate, CoRoT should have discovered 12 \pm 2 Neptunes orbiting G and K dwarfs with P \leq 17 days in six observational runs. This estimate must be compared with the validated Neptune CoRoT-24b and five CoRoT planetary candidates in the considered range of planetary radii. We thus found a disagreement with expectations from Kepler at 3 σor 5 σ, assuming a blend fraction of 0% (six Neptunes) and 100% (one Neptune) for these candidates. Conclusions. This underabundance of CoRoT Neptunes with respect to Kepler may be due to several reasons. Regardless of the origin of the disagreement, which needs to be investigated in more detail, the noticeable deficiency of CoRoT Neptunes at short orbital periods seems to indirectly support the general trend found in Kepler data, i.e. that the frequency of small-size planets increases with increasing orbital periods and decreasing planet radii.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access13 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.

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.