Improving exoplanet detection power: Multivariate Gaussian process models for stellar activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The radial velocity method is one of the most successful techniques for detecting exoplanets. It works by detecting the velocity of a host star, induced by the gravitational effect of an orbiting planet, specifically, the velocity along our line of sight which is called the radial velocity of the star. Low-mass planets typically cause their host star to move with radial velocities of 1 m/s or less. By analyzing a time series of stellar spectra from a host star, modern astronomical instruments can, in theory, detect such planets. However, in practice, intrinsic stellar variability (e.g., star spots, convective motion, pulsations) affects the spectra and often mimics a radial velocity signal. This signal contamination makes it difficult to reliably detect low-mass planets. A principled approach to recovering planet radial velocity signals in the presence of stellar activity was proposed by Rajpaul et al. (Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 452 (2015) 2269–2291). It uses a multivariate Gaussian process model to jointly capture time series of the apparent radial velocity and multiple indicators of stellar activity. We build on this work in two ways: (i) we propose using dimension reduction techniques to construct new high-information stellar activity indicators; and (ii) we extend the Rajpaul et al. (Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 452 (2015) 2269–2291) model to a larger class of models and use a power-based model comparison procedure to select the best model. Despite significant interest in exoplanets, previous efforts have not performed large-scale stellar activity model selection or attempted to evaluate models based on planet detection power. In the case of main sequence G2V stars, we find that our method substantially improves planet detection power, compared to previous state-of-the-art approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".