Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorRuffio, Jean-Baptiste
dc.contributor.authorMawet, Dimitri
dc.contributor.authorCzekala, Ian
dc.contributor.authorMacintosh, Bruce
dc.contributor.authorDe Rosa, Robert J.
dc.contributor.authorRuane, Garreth
dc.contributor.authorBottom, Michael
dc.contributor.authorPueyo, Laurent
dc.contributor.authorWang, Jason J.
dc.contributor.authorHirsch, Lea
dc.contributor.authorZhu, Zhaohuan
dc.contributor.authorNielsen, Eric L.
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-29T10:30:02Z
dc.date.available2023-08-29T10:30:02Z
dc.date.issued2018-11-01
dc.identifier293118191
dc.identifier82fe6d38-4c34-4220-8256-41c4beb1e58f
dc.identifier85056692258
dc.identifier.citationRuffio , J-B , Mawet , D , Czekala , I , Macintosh , B , De Rosa , R J , Ruane , G , Bottom , M , Pueyo , L , Wang , J J , Hirsch , L , Zhu , Z & Nielsen , E L 2018 , ' A Bayesian framework for exoplanet direct detection and non-detection ' , Astronomical Journal , vol. 156 , no. 5 , 196 . https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aade95en
dc.identifier.issn0004-6256
dc.identifier.otherBibCode: 2018AJ....156..196R
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-1483-8811/work/141227846
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/28251
dc.descriptionFunding: This research was supported by grants from NSF, including AST-1411868 (J.-B.R., B.M.) and AST-1518332 (R.J.D.R.). Support was provided by grants from NASA, including NNX14AJ80G (B.M., J.-B.R.), NNX15AD95G (R.J.D.R.) and NNX15AC89G (R.J.D.R.).en
dc.description.abstractRigorously quantifying the information in high-contrast imaging data is important for informing follow-up strategies to confirm the substellar nature of a point source, constraining theoretical models of planet-disk interactions, and deriving planet occurrence rates. However, within the exoplanet direct imaging community, non-detections have almost exclusively been defined using a frequentist detection threshold (i.e., contrast curve) and associated completeness. This can lead to conceptual inconsistencies when included in a Bayesian framework. A Bayesian upper limit is such that the true value of a parameter lies below this limit with a certain probability. The associated probability is the integral of the posterior distribution with the upper limit as the upper bound. In summary, a frequentist upper limit is a statement about the detectability of planets while a Bayesian upper limit is a statement about the probability of a parameter to lie in an interval given the data. The latter is therefore better suited for rejecting hypotheses or theoretical models based on their predictions. In this work we emphasize that Bayesian statistics and upper limits are more easily interpreted and typically more constraining than the frequentist approach. We illustrate the use of Bayesian analysis in two different cases: (1) with a known planet location where we also propose to use model comparison to constrain the astrophysical nature of the point source and (2) gap-carving planets in TW Hya. To finish, we also mention the problem of combining radial velocity and direct imaging observations.
dc.format.extent16
dc.format.extent4619162
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofAstronomical Journalen
dc.subjectInstrumentation: adaptive opticsen
dc.subjectInstrumentation: high angular resolutionen
dc.subjectMethods: statisticalen
dc.subjectPlanetary systemsen
dc.subjectPlanet–disk interactionsen
dc.subjectPlanets and satellites: detectionen
dc.subjectQB Astronomyen
dc.subjectQC Physicsen
dc.subject3rd-DASen
dc.subject.lccQBen
dc.subject.lccQCen
dc.titleA Bayesian framework for exoplanet direct detection and non-detectionen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Physics and Astronomyen
dc.identifier.doi10.3847/1538-3881/aade95
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.identifier.urlhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08261en
dc.identifier.urlhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..196Ren


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record