Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.10427

Comparing Results from Two Uniform Phase Curve Surveys

Emeline Decocq·Mark Swain·Lisa Dang·David R. Ciardi·Geoffrey Bryden
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We present a comparison of the two most recent and comprehensive Spitzer phase curve studies - Dang et al. (2025) and Swain et al. (2025) - which report analyses of the Spitzer 4.5 $μ$m phase curves. The studies employ different approaches for correcting instrument systematics and they also use different approaches for selecting the optimal exoplanet system parameters. To evaluate the level of consistency between the two studies, we compared the constraints on the ratio of planet-to-star radii ($R_P/R_\star$), eclipse depth ($F_P/F_\star$), phase curve amplitude ($A$), and phase curve offset ($ϕ$). We find that the two studies produce similar results at the population level although results for individual planets can vary, especially for phase curve offset values. We examined the difference of planet system parameters to see if inconsistencies in individual planet results were due to data reduction methods or system parameter choices. We also examined whether the system parameters used by both studies were consistent with Kepler's third law. During this comparison, we identified one case where stellar mass, planet semi-major axis, and orbital period did not follow Kepler's law even though the values were all compiled from the same publication. To assess whether this kind of discrepancy was recurrent, we recalculated the orbital periods using Kepler's third law and compared them with the values listed in the NASA Exoplanet Archive. Our detailed analysis of archival system parameters strongly suggests that testing reported/selected parameters for consistency with Kepler's third law is worthwhile.

Explore related subjects

astro-ph.EP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Emeline Decocq, Mark Swain, Lisa Dang, David R. Ciardi, Geoffrey Bryden. 2026-05-11. Comparing Results from Two Uniform Phase Curve Surveys. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881%2Fae5486

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bridging magnetothermal winds and photoevaporation to model discs dispersal

Protoplanetary disc dispersal is driven by two processes usually modelled separately: photoevaporative and magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) disc winds. Global simulations indicate that in the inner disc these are not distinct outflows but a single magnetothermal wind. We assemble a closed-form, two-phase model that respects it. A single-field-line wind, whose base is fixed by the irradiated temperature and penetration column, supplies the launch and feeds a secular evolution, with photoevaporation convolved on as a sink. The flux closure $B_z\proptoΣ^q$ is self-limiting: for $q\le1/2$ depletion alone cannot demagnetise the disc, so dispersal requires independent flux loss, parameterised by the magnetic Reynolds number $\mathcal{R}_m$. Integrating the coupled system yields two regimes. Efficient flux loss ($\mathcal{R}_m\lesssim1$) lets the magnetisation front recede by over an order of magnitude and opens a photoevaporative gap. Flux retention ($\mathcal{R}_m\gg1$) drives the front outward, sustains accretion, and defers dispersal by $\approx2.7$~Myr. Deriving the base from stellar irradiation instead of prescribing it, we find that the cold-launch approximation is valid during the early stages of disc evolution: anchoring the base at plasma equipartition ($β_{\rm base} \sim 1$) confines irradiation's influence on the magnetic lever arm to the magnetothermal annulus, decoupling the peak accretion rate from the incident flux. Both regimes clear the disc inside-out, through either a photoevaporatively amplified cavity wall or an expanding magnetothermal front.

astro-ph.EP↗
arXiv2026

Faithful Neural Embeddings for 3D Exoplanet Climate Modeling

With the rapid advancement of telescopes like JWST and Ariel, there is an urgent need for efficient 3D climate models to interpret observations of exoplanet atmospheres. Traditional 3D general circulation models (GCMs) are computationally intensive, prompting the development of machine learning (ML) emulators to accelerate simulations. Recent work, such as that by Plaschzug et al. 2026 \cite{plaschzug2026accelerating}, uses a dense neural network (DNN) to predict local gas temperatures and winds from input parameters, including local gas pressure, spatial coordinates (longitude and latitude), and global temperature. However, this model relies on predicting individual temperature values (points) at specific grid points, which can be limited by the resolution and constraints of the training grid. In this work, we investigate a couple of alternative frameworks based on latent-space representations of local gas temperature ($\text{T}_{\text{gas}}$) to obtain a faithful, low-dimensional representation of these profiles. This represents the first step toward developing a latent space regression model, offering a structurally cohesive alternative to the existing point-wise prediction method \cite{plaschzug2026accelerating}. By capturing the optimal embedding space of atmospheric data, our proposed framework can produce simulated profiles while maintaining computational efficiency, making it suitable for large-scale exoplanet ensemble studies.

astro-ph.EP↗
arXiv2026

Some challenges for the long-term survival of Naiad, Neptune's innermost moon

The Naiad-Thalassa 73:69 mean-motion resonance implies these moons have co-existed for $\gtrsim$1 Gyr, raising the question of how they survived to the present day. We examine three challenges to Naiad's long-term survival: tidal disruption, heliocentric bombardment, and runaway collisional erosion by planetocentric debris. We constrain Naiad's internal strength requirements from its nominal density and shape, compute present-day impact rates on Neptune's inner moons from heliocentric bombardment, and use $N$-body simulations to model the fate of ejecta produced by non-disruptive impacts. First, Naiad's nominal density of ${\sim}0.8\text{ g cm}^{-3}$ and elongated shape suggest it cannot be held together by self-gravity alone, implying a cohesive strength of $\gtrsim10$ kPa to avoid tidal disruption, although this constraint is relaxed if Naiad has a higher density of ${\gtrsim}1.3\text{ g cm}^{-3}$. Second, we show that Naiad may have been disrupted in the last 1 Gyr by heliocentric bombardment, although this depends sensitively on the size-frequency distribution of Kuiper Belt objects at small sizes and on Naiad's catastrophic disruption threshold, both of which are poorly constrained. Third, and most notably, we find that even small, non-disruptive impacts can trigger runaway collisional erosion by planetocentric debris on extremely short timescales. Avoiding this ``sesquinary catastrophe'' requires that Naiad has a collisional strength of at least several MPa, which is difficult to reconcile with being a reaccumulated ``rubble pile'', leftover from the capture of Triton and the subsequent cataclysm of Neptune's primordial satellite system. Together, these results suggest that Naiad may be a physically unusual object among small ring-moons -- possibly a largely coherent, monolithic fragment -- and that our understanding of Neptune's inner satellite system leaves much to be explained.

astro-ph.EP↗