Paper detail

Planet populations inferred from debris discs: insights from 178 debris systems in the ISPY, LEECH and LIStEN planet-hunting surveys

We know little about the outermost exoplanets in planetary systems, because our detection methods are insensitive to moderate-mass planets on wide orbits. However, debris discs can probe the outer-planet population, because dynamical modelling of observed discs can reveal properties of perturbing planets. We use four sculpting and stirring arguments to infer planet properties in 178 debris-disc systems from the ISPY, LEECH and LIStEN planet-hunting surveys. Similar analyses are often conducted for individual discs, but we consider a large sample in a consistent manner. We aim to predict the population of wide-separation planets, gain insight into the formation and evolution histories of planetary systems, and determine the feasibility of detecting these planets in the near future. We show that a `typical' cold debris disc likely requires a Neptune- to Saturn-mass planet at 10-100 au, with some needing Jupiter-mass perturbers. Our predicted planets are currently undetectable, but modest detection-limit improvements (e.g. from JWST) should reveal many such perturbers. We find that planets thought to be perturbing debris discs at late times are similar to those inferred to be forming in protoplanetary discs, so these could be the same population if newly formed planets do not migrate as far as currently thought. Alternatively, young planets could rapidly sculpt debris before migrating inwards, meaning that the responsible planets are more massive (and located further inwards) than debris-disc studies assume. We combine self-stirring and size-distribution modelling to show that many debris discs cannot be self-stirred without having unreasonably high masses; planet- or companion-stirring may therefore be the dominant mechanism in many (perhaps all) debris discs. Finally, we provide catalogues of planet predictions, and identify promising targets for future planet searches.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access14 authors2 topics

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.