adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Hic Sunt Dracones: Uncovering Dynamical Perturbers within the Habitable Zone
Authors: Stephen R. Kane, Jennifer A. Burt
Figure caption: Percentage uncertainties for the planetary masses (left column) and semimajor axes (right column) of our confirmed planet list as a function of their respective parameters (top row; panels (A) and (B)), stellar mass uncertainties (middle row; panels (C) and (D)), and orbital period uncertainties (bottom row; panels (E) and (F)). Planets detected only in RV surveys are denoted as cyan circles, while those detected in both RV and transit surveys are denoted as maroon diamonds. The power-law relations between stellar and planetary masses and the semimajor axis, orbital period, and stellar mass (see Equations (2) and (4)) are evident as diagonal crowdings of points that set the lower limit in the planet mass and semimajor axis uncertainties. For stars with mass uncertainties above ∼20%, the stellar mass uncertainty dominates the planet mass determination, rather than the precision of the RV semiamplitude measurement. Orbital period uncertainties, however, play only a minor role in the planet mass uncertainties. When calculating the semimajor axis, orbital period uncertainties beyond ∼10% become the dominant source of error but the stellar mass uncertainty does not produce a distinct boundary identifying when it begins dominating the semimajor axis determination.
Paper: Hic Sunt Dracones: Uncovering Dynamical Perturbers within the Habitable Zone
Authors: Stephen R. Kane, Jennifer A. Burt
Figure caption: The RV semiamplitude of a Neptune-mass planet in the middle of the OHZ for each of the stars on the E. Mamajek & K. Stapelfeldt (2024) HWO target list, shown as a function of stellar effective temperature (left panel) and as a histogram (right panel). The vertical dashed line indicates the Kraft break at T eff = 6250 K, beyond which precision RV measurements become increasingly challenging due to the rapid rotation of the stars and the associated broadening of the stars’ absorption lines. The majority of these hypothetical HZ Neptunes would have RV semiamplitudes below 1.5 m s−1 making them challenging detections, especially at the 100+ days orbital periods of these HZs. Long-term, dedicated EPRV survey efforts would be required to detect these potential perturbers and determine what portions of each star’s HZ remains dynamically viable for Earth analog planets. For the hottest stars, similar surveys via precision astrometry could provide complementary insights into the star’s HZ inhabitants.
Paper: Hic Sunt Dracones: Uncovering Dynamical Perturbers within the Habitable Zone
Authors: Stephen R. Kane, Jennifer A. Burt
Figure caption: Percentage uncertainties for the planetary masses (left column) and semimajor axes (right column) of our confirmed planet list as a function of host star brightness. Planets detected only in RV surveys are denoted as cyan circles, while those detected in both RV and transit surveys are denoted as maroon diamonds. The impact of transit surveys, which can more efficiently detect planets around fainter stars, is notable but neither planetary uncertainty shows a significant trend with host star magnitude.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: A time series of the total number of times each time stamp was flagged as being within a window segment containing a transit for system KOI-622. KOI-622 has a radius of ﹩{2.14}_{-0.24}^{0.25}﹩                      R ⊙. The known candidate planet, KOI-622.01, has a radius of ﹩{1.45}_{-0.17}^{.17}﹩                      R J, and a period of 155.04 days with the first transit appearing in the data at day 213.50 BKJD. The red highlighted regions are the known locations of the transit events. The second to last transit falls within a data gap of Kepler, as noted with no data within the region of the transit. The horizontal blue line is the (arbitrarily) defined noise level, five MADs above the MAD of the flagged counts. Our ensemble accurately recovers 100% of all available transits of the system. We also recover three additional peaks. We correctly recovered a period of 155.85 days from a Lomb–Scargle periodogram. This signal would be classified as a successful recovery.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: A scatterplot of the percentage each time stamp was flagged as transit over the total amount of times the time stamp appeared within the data set. This is a modified version of Figure 6. We require a time stamp to be in at least 100 light-curve segments to be included in the plot. The red highlighted regions are the locations of when KOI-622.01 transits the host star. The second to last transit falls within a data gap. The horizontal blue line is the defined noise level of 60%. We successfully recover all visible transits above the defined noise level. We correctly recover a period of 155.39 days.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: One of the 25 architectures within the ensemble using only the flux values of the host star. The convolutional layers are described with kernel size – number of filters (number of layers), pooling layers are described with pool size – stride length, and the fully connected layers with the number of neurons (number of layers). Shown above is an example input of a detrended light curve, containing 500 long-cadence data points.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Feature mapping of the ensemble reported transit at 996.06 BKJD for KOI-622.01. The y-axis is the detrended flux that is the input into the ensemble. The color blue represents the ensemble no longer predicting a transit for the window when those points are mapped to zero. The color red represents a transit classification when that point is set to zero. The newly reported transit center is 988.74 BKJD, within 43 minutes of the known transit time at 988.71 BKJD. Our ensemble correctly identifies the features within the light curve that are attributed to the transit. We note the edge effects near the beginning and end of the window.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: The ROC curves for the flux-only ensemble (blue dotted), the Total Ensemble (orange solid), and the Duty Ensemble (black dashed). The AUC for the flux-only ensemble, Total Ensemble, and Duty Ensemble are 0.85, 0.88, and 0.88, respectively. The additional information present in the Kepler engineering files enables an increase in the performance of our network and contains important information about the quality of the flux data measured by the spacecraft. We observe virtually no difference in the ROC for the Total Ensemble and the Duty Ensemble.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Example of one of the 25 architectures in the specific engineering attribute ensembles used to determine the best-performing attributes. The columns follow the same convention as Figure 1. Each column’s input size is 500. After the dropout layer, the outputs for the two columns are concatenated and used as input into the fully connected layer.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Histogram of the individual accuracies of the 25 networks in the flux-only ensemble. Also shown is the ensemble accuracy, which is 77.6%. The ensemble accuracy is the average of all predictions from the networks, with a threshold value of 0.5.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Histogram of the individual accuracies of the 25 networks in our final ensemble, the Duty Ensemble, along with its ensemble accuracy of 79.8%. A final confidence metric of 0.39 was used to compute the accuracies. The Duty Ensemble outperforms the flux-only ensemble by 2.2%.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Scatterplot of the percentage each time stamp was flagged as being in transit of KOI-1271. The star has a radius of ﹩{1.48}_{-0.07}^{0.09}﹩                   R ⊙ with one known planet, KOI-1271.01, with a radius of ﹩{11.23}_{-0.56}^{0.68}﹩                   R ⊕ and a period of 162.05 days. The highlighted regions are where the known candidate signal would transit the host star. Similar to Figure 7, we require a time stamp to be within at least 100 light-curve segments to be included in the figure. Many of the transits appear near a data gap and hence influence the frequency at which they appear in a segment. In spite of the data gaps, we are still able to recover six of the eight visible transits of KOI-1271.01; the second to last transit is completely in a data gap and is not visible at all. We recovered a period of 162.71 days, which is close to the known candidate period of 162.05 days. We also recover a transit of the new candidate, corresponding to the peak at day 679 BKJD.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Left: the best-fit 5:1 resonance transit model (solid blue) overlaid on an error bar plot of the detrended offset flux from a 2 day window (black) for KOI-1271.02. The best-fit radius is 5.32 ± 0.20 R ⊕. Right: the observed TTV signal of KOI-1271.01 (black dot) with a final configuration from an MCMC run with the 5:1 resonance period (blue x). The MCMC fit produces a mass of ﹩{42.094}_{-1.075}^{0.246}﹩                      M ⊕ for KOI-1271.02. The 5:1 resonance is able to fit epochs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 but fails to fit the chopping signal.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: The TTVs for each transit for KOI-1271.01. The orange dots represent the difference between the calculated central transit time with P = 162.05 days, and T 0 = 278.88 BKJD from T. Holczer et al. (2016) and the observed times for KOI-1271.01. The blue x points use the best-fit period and T 0 from this study, P = 162.02 days and T 0 = 279.04 BKJD, when performing the O – C central transit times. Epoch 7 falls into a data gap and is not observed.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Best-fit transit models for all eight of the visible transits within the Kepler data of KOI-1271.01. Overlaid with the models is a scatterplot of the normalized flux values for the 4 day window with the associated error bars given by Kepler. The models were found using EXOPLANET, and the only parameter that was fit for was the time of center transit. The title of each subplot is the epoch number along with the best-fit time of the transit center. We fit the models over a 4 day range around the predicted time of transit using the ephemeris of KOI-1271.01. Therefore, the location of the transit within the window gives a hint of the order of magnitude of the epoch’s TTV.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Holding the period fixed to within a few days of the 6:1 resonance period, 972 days, we present the best-fit transit model and an example solution for reproducing the observed TTV signal. Left: best-fit transit model (blue) shown against an error bar plot of the detrended, offset observed flux. The fitted radius is 5.32 ± 0.20 R ⊕. Right: example of recreating the observed TTV signal (black dots) with an MCMC run (blue x). The MCMC fit produces a mass of ﹩{31.807}_{-0.177}^{0.339}﹩                      M ⊕ for KOI-1271.02.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: A zoom-in view of the portion of the light curve causing the peak in Figure 9 at day 679 BKJD. The total length shown is roughly 2 days, allowing 1.5 times the transit duration on both sides of the transit for a baseline flux. The total time for the transit-like event is roughly 10 hr. We observe an offset near the center of the transit. The offset may be the reason why this transit went unnoticed.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Left: the best-fit 7:2 resonance transit model (solid blue) overlaid on an an error bar plot of the detrended offset flux from a 2 day window (black). The transit model produces a radius of 5.32 ± 0.33 R ⊕ for KOI-1271.02. Right: the observed TTV signal of KOI-1271.01 (black dot) with a final configuration from an MCMC run with the 7:2 resonance period (blue x). The 7:2 resonance is able to fit epochs 0 and 1 but struggles to fit epochs 2 and 3.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Left: the best-fit 7:1 resonance transit model (solid blue) overlaid on an error bar plot of the detrended offset flux for a 2 day window (black). The radius is 5.32 ± 0.20 R ⊕. Right: the observed TTV signal of KOI-1271.01 (black dot) with a final configuration from an MCMC run with the 7:1 resonance period (blue x). KOI-1271.02 is found to have a mass of ﹩{36.957}_{-0.045}^{0.021}﹩                      M ⊕. Similar to the 5:1 and 6:1 resonances, the 7:1 resonance can fit epochs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 but fails to fit the chopping signal.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: The detrended light-curve segment of KOI-1271.02's single transit, with the applied best-fit offset from the MCMC fitting. This segment is used for all of the transit fitting MCMC fits. The best-fit offset is 7.82 × 10−4.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Injection recovery for star KOI-1271. We injected 2961 planetary signals with radius ranging from 0.5 to 16 R ⊕, and an orbital period from 50 to 800 days. The numbers within the cells represent the fraction of successful recoveries within that cell. We also place KOI-1271.01 and KOI-1271.02 within the plot for reference. For KOI-1271.02 we place the 7:2 resonance parameters. We define a successful recovery as having recovered at least two transits and the period within 10 days. Our sensitivity for planets around this 1.48 R ⊙ star is currently about 3.5 R ⊕, and our pipeline preferentially recovers shorter orbital periods (<400 days).
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Left: the best-fit 8:1 resonance transit model (solid blue) overlaid on an error bar plot of the detrended offset flux from a 2 day window (black). The predicted radius for KOI-1271.02 is 5.49 ± 0.20 R ⊕. Right: the observed TTV signal of KOI-1271.01 (black dot) with a final configuration from an MCMC run with the 8:1 resonance period (blue x). The TTV signal requires KOI-1271.02 to have a mass of ﹩{61.634}_{-0.804}^{0.240}﹩                      M ⊕ for the 8:1 resonance. This resonance appears to be close to fitting some of the chopping signal within the TTV, but cannot match the magnitude of the signal. The 8:1 resonance also fits epoch 0 and epoch 4 extremely well.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: The fraction of recovered visible transits for star KOI-1271. These are the same injected signals as in Figure 22. Here, we report the ratio of the number of transits that were recovered to the number of transits that fall within the data, and not in a data gap. We also place KOI-1271.01 and KOI-1271.02 within the plot for reference. For KOI-1271.02 we place the 7:2 resonance parameters. We observe almost no dependence on orbital period for recovering transits. We do report that there is a strong gradient in the fraction of recovered transits from 4 to 2 R ⊕. We therefore report that we are sensitive to single transits down to about 3 R ⊕ for KOI-1271.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Mass–radius diagram with known planets with relative uncertainties less than 25% in mass, and 8% in radius, along with solar system examples, and our newly discovered candidate KOI-1271.02. The dashed line is the mass–radius power law for volatile-rich exoplanets from J. F. Otegi et al. (2020). The dark gray and gray-shaded regions correspond to ±1σ and ±2σ of the fit, respectively. KOI-1271.02 is consistent within 1σ of the volatile-rich power law. This figure and selection criteria are adopted from J. F. Otegi et al. (2020).
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: Left: the best-fit 9:1 resonance transit model (solid blue) overlaid on an error bar plot of the detrended offset flux from a 2 day window (black). The best-fit radius of KOI-1271.02 is 5.49 ± 0.20 R ⊕. Right: the observed TTV signal of KOI-1271.01 (black dot) with a final configuration from an MCMC run with the 9:1 resonance period (blue x). The best-fit mass for KOI-1271.02 is ﹩{32.708}_{-1.035}^{0.344}﹩                      M ⊕. Similar to the 5:1, 6:1, and 7:1 resonances, the 9:1 resonance can fit epochs 2, 3, 4, and 5, but fails to fit the chopping signal at epochs 1 and 6.
Paper: Single Transit Detection in Kepler with Machine Learning and Onboard Spacecraft Diagnostics
Authors: Matthew T. Hansen, Jason A. Dittmann
Figure caption: KOI-1271 follow-up with TESS. The highlighted blue region is the duration and location of where we predicted a transit of KOI-1271.01 to be. The only transit of KOI-1271.01 that occurs in a sector of TESS takes place during a data gap.
Paper: TOI 762 A b and TIC 46432937 b: Two Giant Planets Transiting M-dwarf Stars
Authors: Joel D. Hartman, Daniel Bayliss, Rafael Brahm, Edward M. Bryant, Andrés Jordán, Gáspár Á. Bakos, Melissa J. Hobson, Elyar Sedaghati, Xavier Bonfils, Marion Cointepas, Jose Manuel Almenara, Khalid Barkaoui, Mathilde Timmermans, George Dransfield, Elsa Ducrot, Sebastián Zúñiga-Fernández, Matthew J. Hooton, Peter Pihlmann Pedersen, Francisco J. Pozuelos, Amaury H. M. J. Triaud, Michaël Gillon, Emmanuel Jehin, William C. Waalkes, Zachory K. Berta-Thompson, Steve B. Howell, Elise Furlan, George R. Ricker, Roland Vanderspek, Sara Seager, Joshua N. Winn, Jon M. Jenkins, David Rapetti, Karen A. Collins, David Charbonneau, Christopher J. Burke, David R. Rodriguez
Figure caption: 5σ magnitude contrast limits for any companions to TOI 762 A based on Gemini/Zorro observations obtained in the 562 and 832 nm bandpass. The inset shows the reconstructed Gemini/Zorro image of TOI 762 A in the 832 nm bandpass.
Paper: TOI 762 A b and TIC 46432937 b: Two Giant Planets Transiting M-dwarf Stars
Authors: Joel D. Hartman, Daniel Bayliss, Rafael Brahm, Edward M. Bryant, Andrés Jordán, Gáspár Á. Bakos, Melissa J. Hobson, Elyar Sedaghati, Xavier Bonfils, Marion Cointepas, Jose Manuel Almenara, Khalid Barkaoui, Mathilde Timmermans, George Dransfield, Elsa Ducrot, Sebastián Zúñiga-Fernández, Matthew J. Hooton, Peter Pihlmann Pedersen, Francisco J. Pozuelos, Amaury H. M. J. Triaud, Michaël Gillon, Emmanuel Jehin, William C. Waalkes, Zachory K. Berta-Thompson, Steve B. Howell, Elise Furlan, George R. Ricker, Roland Vanderspek, Sara Seager, Joshua N. Winn, Jon M. Jenkins, David Rapetti, Karen A. Collins, David Charbonneau, Christopher J. Burke, David R. Rodriguez
Figure caption: Top left: transmission spectroscopy metric (TSM) vs. planet mass. TOI 762 A b and TIC 46432937 b are indicated. Small gray points show all transiting planets with measured masses >0.1 M J and radii >0.5 R J from the NASA Exoplanet Archive, while small black points denote planets with M-dwarf host stars. For all panels we restrict the plots to planets for which the plotted quantities have uncertainties of less than 30%. Top right: TSM vs. planet T eq computed assuming zero albedo and full redistribution of heat. The symbols are the same as in the left plot. Bottom left: emission spectroscopy metric (ESM) vs. planet mass. Bottom right: ESM vs. planet T eq. TIC 46432937 b has the highest value of TSM or ESM for a transiting warm super-Jupiter with M  p  > 3.0 M J and T eq < 1000 K.
Paper: TOI 762 A b and TIC 46432937 b: Two Giant Planets Transiting M-dwarf Stars
Authors: Joel D. Hartman, Daniel Bayliss, Rafael Brahm, Edward M. Bryant, Andrés Jordán, Gáspár Á. Bakos, Melissa J. Hobson, Elyar Sedaghati, Xavier Bonfils, Marion Cointepas, Jose Manuel Almenara, Khalid Barkaoui, Mathilde Timmermans, George Dransfield, Elsa Ducrot, Sebastián Zúñiga-Fernández, Matthew J. Hooton, Peter Pihlmann Pedersen, Francisco J. Pozuelos, Amaury H. M. J. Triaud, Michaël Gillon, Emmanuel Jehin, William C. Waalkes, Zachory K. Berta-Thompson, Steve B. Howell, Elise Furlan, George R. Ricker, Roland Vanderspek, Sara Seager, Joshua N. Winn, Jon M. Jenkins, David Rapetti, Karen A. Collins, David Charbonneau, Christopher J. Burke, David R. Rodriguez
Figure caption: Additional follow-up light curves of TOI 762 A, shown as described in Figure 2.
Paper: TOI 762 A b and TIC 46432937 b: Two Giant Planets Transiting M-dwarf Stars
Authors: Joel D. Hartman, Daniel Bayliss, Rafael Brahm, Edward M. Bryant, Andrés Jordán, Gáspár Á. Bakos, Melissa J. Hobson, Elyar Sedaghati, Xavier Bonfils, Marion Cointepas, Jose Manuel Almenara, Khalid Barkaoui, Mathilde Timmermans, George Dransfield, Elsa Ducrot, Sebastián Zúñiga-Fernández, Matthew J. Hooton, Peter Pihlmann Pedersen, Francisco J. Pozuelos, Amaury H. M. J. Triaud, Michaël Gillon, Emmanuel Jehin, William C. Waalkes, Zachory K. Berta-Thompson, Steve B. Howell, Elise Furlan, George R. Ricker, Roland Vanderspek, Sara Seager, Joshua N. Winn, Jon M. Jenkins, David Rapetti, Karen A. Collins, David Charbonneau, Christopher J. Burke, David R. Rodriguez
Figure caption: Left: planet radius vs. mass. The two new planet discoveries are indicated (we abbreviate TIC 46432937 b as 4643). Small gray points show all transiting planets with measured masses and radii around K- and earlier-type stars from the NASA Exoplanet Archive, while red points show transiting planets with masses and radii around M dwarfs. Right: planet mass vs. host-star mass for transiting planets around subsolar-mass stars. The red points in this case indicate giant planets transiting M dwarfs, while the gray points indicate other planets.