MNRAS 000,1–11 (2020) Preprint 11 December 2020 Compiled using MNRAS LATEX style file v3.0 Confirming known planetary trends using a photometrically selected Kepler sample Jonah T. Hansen,1¢ Luca Casagrande,1 Michael J. Ireland1 and Jane Lin1 1Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2611, Australia Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ ABSTRACT Statistical studies of exoplanets and the properties of their host stars have been critical to informing models of planet formation. Numerous trends have arisen in particular from the rich Kepler dataset, including that exoplanets are more likely to be found around stars with a high metallicity and the presence of a “gap” in the distribution of planetary radii at 1.9 '⊕. Here we present a new analysis on the Kepler field, using the APOGEE spectroscopic survey to build a metallicity calibration based on Gaia, 2MASS and Strömgren photometry. This calibration, along with masses and radii derived from a Bayesian isochrone fitting algorithm, is used to test a number of these trends with unbiased, photometrically derived parameters, albeit with a smaller sample size in comparison to recent studies. We recover that planets are more frequently found around higher metallicity stars; over the entire sample, planetary frequencies are 0.88 ± 0.12 percent for [Fe/H] < 0 and 1.37 ± 0.16 percent for [Fe/H] ≥ 0 but at two sigma we find that the size of exoplanets influences the strength of this trend. We also recover the planet radius gap, along with a slight positive correlation with stellar mass. We conclude that this method shows promise to derive robust statistics of exoplanets. We also remark that spectrophotometry from Gaia DR3 will have an effective resolution similar to narrow band filters and allow to overcome the small sample size inherent in this study. Key words: planets and satellites: fundamental parameters – catalogues – stars: planetary systems – stars: fundamental parameters 1 INTRODUCTION 2020b) and K2 surveys (Hardegree-Ullman et al. 2020; Cloutier & Menou 2020) and a handful have also identified the gap follows a Since the release of Kepler’s (Borucki et al. 2010) rich collection trend with stellar mass: the drop in occurrence is found at smaller of over 4000 exoplanet transits, the study of exoplanet statistics radii around less massive stars (Fulton & Petigura 2018; Berger et al. has blossomed into a thriving field. Exoplanet demographic stud- 2020b). The radius gap still has ambiguity in the strength of this ies have led to many interesting results, including the preference deficiency, with studies such as the seminal Fulton et al.(2017) re- of large exoplanets (' ¡ 4 '⊕) to form around high metallicity ? vealing a shallow gap, whereas Van Eylen et al.(2018), with a much stars (Santos et al. 2004; Fischer & Valenti 2005; Zhu 2019) and smaller sample but with very precise parameters from asteroseis- that close, multiple planet systems form preferentially around metal mology, find a gap nearly devoid of planets. These differences are poor stars (Brewer et al. 2018). However, perhaps one of the most arXiv:2009.08154v2 [astro-ph.EP] 9 Dec 2020 thoroughly discussed in Petigura(2020), who shows how the depth important results to have come out of these studies it that of the of the radius gap is sensitive to various sample cuts, highlighting planet radius “gap” - a decrease in the number of planets with radii the challenges of performing population statistics. around 1.5-2.0 '⊕ (e.g., Owen & Wu 2013; Fulton et al. 2017). This particular radius is significant, as it separates the classification Part of the ambiguity around these planetary trends, including of “super-Earths” from “sub-Neptunes”. Reasons for the presence the radius gap, stem from the imprecise nature of the Kepler input of this gap are numerous, ranging from UV photoevaporation of catalogue (KIC). The KIC was a compilation of 13 million stars with a planet’s atmosphere (Owen & Wu 2013, 2017; Lopez & Rice optical photometry and stellar parameters created for the purpose 2018) to core-powered mass loss (Ginzburg et al. 2018; Gupta & of choosing Kepler targets, of which approximately 200,000 were Schlichting 2020). chosen (Batalha et al. 2010; Brown et al. 2011). However, the pa- Recently, more separate studies have found evidence for this rameters for these stars were lacking in precision and some critical gap, using both the Kepler (Van Eylen et al. 2018; Berger et al. parameters, such as the age and mass of these stars, were missing entirely. To investigate exoplanet demographics, precise stellar pa- rameters are required which has led to many follow-up studies of the ¢ E-mail: [email protected] stars in the KIC (e.g., Bruntt et al. 2012; Molenda-Żakowicz et al. © 2020 The Authors 2 Hansen et al. 2013; Huber et al. 2014; Petigura et al. 2017; Furlan et al. 2018; NASA Exoplanet Archive (https://exoplanetarchive.ipac. Berger et al. 2020a). Many of these studies rely on spectroscopy, for caltech.edu/). Objects with a koi disposition flag of false pos- which selection effects can be stronger and more difficult to quantify itive were removed and the remaining entries were paired with the than in a photometrically selected sample of stars. This point will photometric data from their host star, producing a separate KOI be discussed in more detail in Section4. catalogue of about 800 exoplanets and their host stars. In this paper, we derive stellar parameters for a photometrically unbiased sample of confirmed Kepler transiting planets to study some of the known trends concerning exoplanetary demographics. 3 METALLICITY CALIBRATION We assemble our sample starting from the Strömgren survey for Asteroseismology and Galactic Archaeology (SAGA, Casagrande In order to derive homogeneous metallicities for all stars in our cat- et al. 2014) and complementing it with photometry from Gaia DR2 alogue, we devise a metallicity calibration using the photometry as- (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018) and 2MASS (Skrutskie et al. 2006). sembled in Section2. The largest sample of stars with spectroscopic Metallicity of the Kepler host stars is derived through a photometric metallicities in the Kepler field is from APOGEE (APO Galactic calibration based on the APOGEE survey (Majewski et al. 2017), Evolution Experiment; e.g., Majewski et al. 2017), an infrared spec- and effective temperatures are calculated through the Infra-Red Flux troscopic mission that was designed to measure the radial velocities Method (IFRM; e.g., Blackwell & Shallis 1977; Casagrande et al. and, more importantly, chemical abundances of over 100,000 red 2010) We then calculate the masses and radii of Kepler host stars giants within the Milky Way. We used the [M/H] metallicity from through Gaia parallaxes and isochrone fitting by using the Bayesian APOGEE DR14 (Abolfathi et al. 2018) to calibrate our photome- isochrone fitting algorithm Elli (Lin et al. 2018). This results in try; removing stars with the star_bad label and combining this data us obtaining a similar planet radius-mass trend to that of Fulton & with the photometric catalogue compiled above to obtain a total of Petigura(2018) and Berger et al.(2020b), as well as finding large 2415 stars in the KIC with known metallicities. These stars were planets preferentially form around metal rich stars and a slight trend then used to derive a metallicity relation for the KIC as a whole. that multiple exoplanet systems form around metal poor stars. To derive the best relation a Principal Component Analysis (hereafter referred to as PCA) decomposition was performed over 84 linear combinations of colour indices, allowing us to reduce the 2 CATALOGUE COMPILATION dimensionality of the data to arrive at the best proxy for metallicity. This number of colour indicies was arrived at by taking six indices Multiple stellar catalogues were combined to leverage finding an ap- that were suggested to be sensitive to metallicity, including the well propriate metallicity index for our planet host star sample. Foremost established <1 = ¹E − 1º − ¹1 − Hº from the Strömgren photometric of these was the aforementioned Kepler Input Catalogue (KIC), a system, as well as D − 1, 퐺 − , E − 퐺, '? − , and ¹퐵? − '?º − catalogue of stars that lie in the Kepler field (Brown et al. 2011). Not ¹'? − º. Then, a set of all 3-combinations of these indices with all the stars present in the KIC contain useful data on their properties repetitions, including the absence of an index, was gathered. That and so a subset of the catalogue was used: all KIC objects viewed is, all multisubsets of size 3 (allowing up to cubic powers) from the Kepler in Quarter 15 of the mission that had long cadence data. set f1, <1,D − 1, 퐺 − , E − 퐺, '? − , ¹퐵? − '?º − ¹'? − ºg. The KIC catalogue was matched with the Gaia DR2 catalogue This provides us with the 84 index combinations described. (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018) to obtain Gaia photometry and A singular value decomposition was performed on the collec- parallaxes for these stars. We remark that for the isochrone fitting tion of 84 colour indices for our APOGEE cross-matched photo- described in Section5 we use distances from Bailer-Jones et al. metric catalogue; outputting linear combinations of the input di- (2018). The Gaia data for these KIC stars was combined with other mensions called “Principal Components”. The first of these vec- photometric catalogues, including the 2MASS catalogue’s 퐽, 퐻 and tors describes the linear combination of variables that produces band photometry and the Strömgren catalogue’s D, E, 1 and H band the most variance in the data, the second giving the combination photometry produced by Casagrande et al.(2014). These catalogues that produces the second most variance and so forth. Broad- and were cross-matched so that all stars contained the photometry from intermediate-band stellar colours like those used in this work de- each survey; resulting in our catalogue of multi-band photometry pend primarily on the effective temperature of the star, and to a encompassing around 30,000 stars.