Paper detail

The Gemini NICI Planet-Finding Campaign: The Frequency of Giant Planets Around Debris Disk Stars

We have completed a high-contrast direct imaging survey for giant planets around 57 debris disk stars as part of the Gemini NICI Planet-Finding Campaign. We achieved median H-band contrasts of 12.4 mag at 0.5" and 14.1 mag at 1" separation. Follow-up observations of the 66 candidates with projected separation < 500 AU show that all of them are background objects. To establish statistical constraints on the underlying giant planet population based on our imaging data, we have developed a new Bayesian formalism that incorporates (1) non-detections, (2) single-epoch candidates, (3) astrometric and (4) photometric information, and (5) the possibility of multiple planets per star to constrain the planet population. Our formalism allows us to include in our analysis the previously known Beta Pictoris and the HR 8799 planets. Our results show at 95% confidence that <13% of debris disk stars have a >5MJup planet beyond 80 AU, and <21% of debris disk stars have a >3MJup planet outside of 40 AU, based on hot-start evolutionary models. We model the population of directly-imaged planets as d^2N/dMda ~ m^alpha a^beta, where m is planet mass and a is orbital semi-major axis (with a maximum value of amax). We find that beta < -0.8 and/or alpha > 1.7. Likewise, we find that beta < -0.8 and/or amax < 200 AU. If we ignore the Beta Pic and HR 8799 planets (should they belong to a rare and distinct group), we find that < 20% of debris disk stars have a > 3MJup planet beyond 10 AU, and beta < -0.8 and/or alpha < -1.5. Our Bayesian constraints are not strong enough to reveal any dependence of the planet frequency on stellar host mass. Studies of transition disks have suggested that about 20% of stars are undergoing planet formation; our non-detections at large separations show that planets with orbital separation > 40 AU and planet masses > 3 MJup do not carve the central holes in these disks.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access20 authors3 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.