Paper detail

Improving exoplanet detection capabilities with the false inclusion probability. Comparison with other detection criteria in the context of radial velocities

Context. In exoplanet searches with radial velocity data, the most common statistical significance metrics are the Bayes factor and the false alarm probability (FAP). Both have proved useful, but do not directly address whether an exoplanet detection should be claimed. Furthermore, it is unclear which detection threshold should be taken and how robust the detections are to model misspecification. Aims. The present work aims at defining a detection criterion which conveys as precisely as possible the information needed to claim an exoplanet detection. We compare this new criterion to existing ones in terms of sensitivity and robustness. Methods. We define a significance metric called the false inclusion probability (FIP) based on the posterior probability of presence of a planet. Posterior distributions are computed with the nested sampling package Polychord. We show that for FIP and Bayes factor calculations, defining priors on linear parameters as Gaussian mixture models allows to significantly speed up computations. The performances of the FAP, Bayes factor and FIP are studied with simulations as well as analytical arguments. We compare the methods assuming the model is correct, then evaluate their sensitivity to the prior and likelihood choices. Results. Among other properties, the FIP offers ways to test the reliability of the significance levels, it is particularly efficient to account for aliasing and allows to exclude the presence of planets with a certain confidence. We find that, in our simulations, the FIP outperforms existing detection metrics. We show that planet detections are sensitive to priors on period and semi-amplitude and that letting free the noise parameters offers better performances than fixing a noise model based on a fit to ancillary indicators.

preprint2021arXivOpen 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.