Paper detail

Evidence of Three Mechanisms Explaining the Radius Anomaly of Hot Jupiters

The radii of hot Jupiters are still not fully understood and all of the proposed explanations are based on the idea that these close-in giant planets possess hot interiors. We approach the radius anomaly problem by adopting a statistical approach. We infer the internal luminosity for the sample of hot Jupiters, study its effect on the interior structure, and put constraints on which mechanism is the dominant one. We develop a flexible and robust hierarchical Bayesian model that couples the interior structure of exoplanets to their observed properties. We apply the model to 314 hot Jupiters and infer the internal luminosity distribution for each planet and study at the population level ({\it i}) the mass-luminosity-radius distribution and as a function of equilibrium temperature the distributions of the ({\it ii}) heating efficiency, ({\it iii}) internal temperature, and the ({\it iv}) pressure of the radiative-convective-boundary (RCB). We find that hot Jupiters tend to have high internal luminosity leading to hot interiors. This has important consequences on the cooling rate and we find that the RCB is located at low pressures. Assuming that the ultimate source of the extra heating is the irradiation from the host star, we illustrate that the heating efficiency follows a Gaussian distribution, in agreement with previous results. We discuss our findings in the context of the proposed heating mechanisms and illustrate that ohmic dissipation, advection of potential temperature, and thermal tides are in agreement with certain trends inferred from our analysis and thus all three models can explain aspects of the observations. We provide new insights on the interior structure of hot Jupiters and show that with our current knowledge it is still challenging to firmly identify the universal mechanism driving the inflated radii.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 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.