4.7 Article

Single transit candidates from K2: detection and period estimation

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 457, Issue 3, Pages 2273-2286

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw137

Keywords

methods: analytical; techniques: photometric; planets and satellites: detection; stars, planets and satellites: general; planetary systems

Funding

  1. University of Warwick
  2. European Union [313014]
  3. NASA [NAS5-26555]
  4. NASA Office of Space Science [NNX09AF08G]
  5. NASA Science Mission directorate
  6. STFC [ST/J000027/1, ST/I001719/1, ST/H000755/1, ST/L000733/1, ST/K005758/1, ST/K006126/1, ST/M001962/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/L000733/1, ST/J000027/1, 1226157, ST/K006126/1, ST/I001719/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Photometric surveys such as Kepler have the precision to identify exoplanet and eclipsing binary candidates from only a single transit. K2, with its 75 d campaign duration, is ideally suited to detect significant numbers of single-eclipsing objects. Here we develop a Bayesian transit-fitting tool ('Namaste: An Mcmc Analysis of Single Transit Exoplanets') to extract orbital information from single transit events. We achieve favourable results testing this technique on known Kepler planets, and apply the technique to seven candidates identified from a targeted search of K2 campaigns 1, 2 and 3. We find EPIC203311200 to host an excellent exoplanet candidate with a period, assuming zero eccentricity, of 540(-230)(+410) d and a radius of 0.51 +/- 0.05R(Jup). We also find six further transit candidates for which more follow-up is required to determine a planetary origin. Such a technique could be used in the future with TESS, PLATO and ground-based photometric surveys such as NGTS, potentially allowing the detection of planets in reach of confirmation by Gaia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available