Paper detail

The California-Kepler Survey. X. The Radius Gap as a Function of Stellar Mass, Metallicity, and Age

In 2017, the California-Kepler Survey (CKS) published its first data release (DR1) of high-resolution optical spectra of 1305 planet hosts. Refined CKS planet radii revealed that small planets are bifurcated into two distinct populations: super-Earths (smaller than 1.5 $R_E$) and sub-Neptunes (between 2.0 and 4.0 $R_E$), with few planets in between (the "Radius Gap.") Several theoretical models of the Radius Gap predict variation with stellar mass, but testing these predictions are challenging with CKS DR1 due to its limited $M_\star$ range of 0.8-1.4 $M_\odot$. Here, we present CKS DR2 with 411 additional spectra and derived properties focusing on stars of 0.5-0.8 $M_\odot$. We found the Radius Gap follows $R_p \propto P^m$ with $m = -0.10 \pm 0.03$, consistent with predictions of XUV- and core-powered mass-loss mechanisms. We found no evidence that $m$ varies with $M_\star$. We observed a correlation between the average sub-Neptune size and $M_\star$. Over 0.5 to 1.4 $M_\odot$, the average sub-Neptune grows from 2.1 to 2.6 $R_E$, following $R_p \propto M_\star^α$ with $α= 0.25 \pm 0.03$. In contrast, there is no detectable change for super-Earths. These $M_\star$-$R_p$ trends suggests that protoplanetary disks can efficiently produce cores up to a threshold mass of $M_c$, which grows linearly with stellar mass according to $M_c \approx 10 M_E~(M_\star / M_\odot)$. There is no significant correlation between sub-Neptune size and stellar metallicity (over $-$0.5 to $+$0.5 dex) suggesting a weak relationship between planet envelope opacity and stellar metallicity. Finally, there is no significant variation in sub-Neptune size with stellar age (over 1 to 10 Gyr), which suggests that the majority of envelope contraction concludes after $\sim$1 Gyr.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access13 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.