Astrophysics > Earth and Planetary Astrophysics
arXiv:2401.10333 (astro-ph)
[Submitted on 18 Jan 2024]
Title:A Reply to: Large Exomoons unlikely around Kepler-1625 b and Kepler-1708 b
Authors:David Kipping,Alex Teachey,Daniel A. Yahalomi,Ben Cassese,Billy Quarles,Steve Bryson,Brad Hansen,Judit Szulágyi,Chris Burke,Kevin Hardegree-Ullman
View a PDF of the paper titled A Reply to: Large Exomoons unlikely around Kepler-1625 b and Kepler-1708 b, by David Kipping and 9 other authors
View PDFHTML (experimental)Abstract:Recently, Heller & Hippke argued that the exomoon candidates Kepler-1625 b-i and Kepler-1708 b-i were allegedly 'refuted'. In this Matters Arising, we address these claims. For Kepler-1625 b, we show that their Hubble light curve is identical to that previously published by the same lead author, in which the moon-like dip was recovered. Indeed, our fits of their data again recover the moon-like dip with improved residuals than that obtained by Heller & Hippke. Their fits therefore appear to have somehow missed this deeper likelihood maximum, as well producing apparently unconverged posteriors. Consequently, their best-fitting moon is the same radius as the planet, Kepler-1625 b; a radically different signal from that which was originally claimed. The authors then inject this solution into the Kepler data and remark, as a point of concern, how retrievals obtain much higher significances than originally reported. However, this issue stems from the injection of a fundamentally different signal. We demonstrate that their Hubble light curve exhibits ~20% higher noise and discards 11% of the useful data, which compromises its ability to recover the subtle signal of Kepler-1625 b-i. For Kepler-1708 b-i it was claimed that the exomoon model's Bayes factor is highly sensitive to detrending choices, yielding reduced evidence with a biweight filter versus the original claim. We use their own i) detrended light curve and ii) biweight filter code to investigate these claims. For both, we recover the original moon signal, to even higher confidence than before. The discrepancy is explained by comparing to their quoted fit metrics, where we again demonstrate that the Heller & Hippke regression definitively missed the deeper likelihood maximum corresponding to Kepler-1708 b-i. We conclude that both candidates remain viable but certainly demand further observations.
Comments: | Under consideration by Nature Astronomy as Matters Arising |
Subjects: | Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP); Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics (astro-ph.IM) |
Cite as: | arXiv:2401.10333 [astro-ph.EP] |
(orarXiv:2401.10333v1 [astro-ph.EP] for this version) | |
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.10333 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite |
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
- Other Formats
View a PDF of the paper titled A Reply to: Large Exomoons unlikely around Kepler-1625 b and Kepler-1708 b, by David Kipping and 9 other authors
Current browse context:
astro-ph.EP
Change to browse by:
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer(What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers(What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps(What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations(What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv(What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers(What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub(What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub(What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face(What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code(What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast(What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
Influence Flower(What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender(What is CORE?)
IArxiv Recommender(What is IArxiv?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?Learn more about arXivLabs.