Paper detail

Impact of Binary Stars on Planet Statistics -- I. Planet Occurrence Rates, Trends with Stellar Mass, and Wide Companions to Hot Jupiter Hosts

Close binaries suppress the formation of circumstellar (S-type) planets and therefore significantly bias the inferred planet occurrence rates and statistical trends. After compiling various radial velocity and high-resolution imaging surveys, we determine that binaries with a < 1 au fully suppress S-type planets, binaries with a = 10 au host close planets at 15% the occurrence rate of single stars, and wide binaries with a > 200 au have a negligible effect on close planet formation. We show that F = 43% +/- 7% of solar-type primaries do not host close planets due to suppression by close stellar companions. By removing spectroscopic binaries from their samples, radial velocity surveys for giant planets boost their detection rates by a factor of 1/(1-F) = 1.8 +/- 0.2 compared to transiting surveys. This selection bias fully accounts for the discrepancy in hot Jupiter occurrence rates inferred from these two detection methods. Correcting for both planet suppression by close binaries and transit dilution by wide binaries, the occurrence rate of small planets orbiting single G-dwarfs is 2.1 +/- 0.3 times larger than the rate inferred from all G-dwarfs in the Kepler survey. Additionally, about half (but not all) of the observed increase in small, short-period planets toward low-mass hosts can be explained by the corresponding decrease in the binary fraction. Finally, we demonstrate that the apparent enhancement of wide stellar companions to hot Jupiter hosts is due to multiple selection effects. Very close binaries, brown dwarf companions, and massive planets with M_2 > 7 M_J within a < 0.2 au preferentially have metal-poor hosts and wide tertiary companions, but genuine hot Jupiters with M_p = 0.2-4 M_J that formed via core accretion instead favor metal-rich hosts and do not exhibit a statistically significant excess of wide stellar companions.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.

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 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.