Paper detail

Lack of Inflated Radii for Kepler Giant Planet Candidates Receiving Modest Stellar Irradiation

The most irradiated transiting hot Jupiters are characterized by anomalously inflated radii, sometimes exceeding Jupiter's size by more than 60%. While different theoretical explanations have been applied, none of them provide a universal resolution to this observation, despite significant progress in the past years. We refine the photometric transit light curve analysis of 115 Kepler giant planet candidates based on public Q0-Q2 photometry. We find that 14% of them are likely false positives, based on their secondary eclipse depth. We report on planet radii vs. stellar flux. We find an increase in planet radii with increased stellar irradiation for the Kepler giant planet candidates, in good agreement with existing hot Jupiter systems. We find that in the case of modest irradiation received from the stellar host, giant planets do not have inflated radii, and appear to have radii independent of the host star incident flux. This finding suggests that the physical mechanisms inflating hot Jupiters become ineffective below a given orbit-averaged stellar irradiation level of ~2 10^8 erg s^-1 cm^-2.

preprint2011arXivOpen 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.