search

benmontet / k2-characterization

Stellar/planet properties and confirmation of some K2 planets
0 stars 0 forks source link

Notes for FPP table? #19

Closed timothydmorton closed 9 years ago

timothydmorton commented 9 years ago

Let me know any notes/annotation/etc. that you think should be in the FPP table (e.g. special notes for particular candidates). I generate it automatically, so best for me to edit the script rather than to edit the .tex directly.

benmontet commented 9 years ago

Okay. I'll look closely at it this morning. For now, could you change the format slightly to match the planet properties table, so that the candidate name/number get one column in total? (e.g. 201912552.01 instead of 201912552 & 1 )

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Timothy Morton notifications@github.com wrote:

Let me know any notes/annotation/etc. that you think should be in the FPP table (e.g. special notes for particular candidates). I generate it automatically, so best for me to edit the script rather than to edit the .tex directly.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/benmontet/k2-characterization/issues/19.

timothydmorton commented 9 years ago

Yup, on it.

benmontet commented 9 years ago

Okay, the following we need to discuss somewhere:

201367065: Crossfield et al. planets. What's going on to cause a 0.761 FPP for one of them?

201505350: Armstrong et al. planets. These are near resonance and have overlapping transits. I believe this is probably why your code is giving large FPPs, because the transits are weirdly shaped and changing? They confirm this system through ground-based TTV detection (which isn't apparnet in K2 alone)

Period match one you rule out already, good.

201929294 is also a FP, this is a noise-modeling systematic. The star is really spotted so the assumption that all variability is caused by spacecraft motion is breaking down. Huge starspot modulation with the same period as the "candidate"

All the others I am willing to accept at face value.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Timothy Morton notifications@github.com wrote:

Yup, on it.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/benmontet/k2-characterization/issues/19#issuecomment-86521587 .

timothydmorton commented 9 years ago

WIth 201367065.01, here's what's going on: The simulated planet scenarios for an rprs value of 0.0354, all seem to predict mostly deeper transits than what is observed, leaving the EB scenario as a "better" fit.

pl

I'll talk my way around this...

I'll get on the rest of these notes now.

timothydmorton commented 9 years ago

what section in the paper should i refer to for 201929294?

benmontet commented 9 years ago

One that we haven't pushed yet. It's going to be part of an expansion of the "2 candidates one ephemeris" section because we can explain that one too as funny business in the systematics model caused by spots.

On Thursday, March 26, 2015, Timothy Morton notifications@github.com wrote:

what section in the paper should i refer to for 201929294?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/benmontet/k2-characterization/issues/19#issuecomment-86572487 .

timothydmorton commented 9 years ago

ok; can you give that section a label called "sec:systematics"? I'll refer to that for both cases in the table notes.

benmontet commented 9 years ago

Yep, can do.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Timothy Morton notifications@github.com wrote:

ok; can you give that section a label called "sec:systematics"? I'll refer to that for both cases in the table notes.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/benmontet/k2-characterization/issues/19#issuecomment-86574879 .

timothydmorton commented 9 years ago

OK; I think the FP table is just about finalized. Only thing I'm waiting on is the extra depth column in Table 5, in order to know whether or not to add more systems to the (a) designation (cautiously returning to candidate status)....