Skip to content
Back to skills

Exoplanet Detection

ASecurity

Finding exoplanets — transit and radial-velocity methods, light-curve vetting, and false-positive rejection.

  • 2 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added September 29, 2026
ai-agentsgo

Works with

  • cli

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 29, 2026

npx -y skills add aicodedecode/awesome-muse-skills --skill exoplanet-detection --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Exoplanet Detection?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Exoplanet Detection
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/aicodedecode-exoplanet-detection/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/aicodedecode-exoplanet-detection)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: exoplanet-detection
description: Finding exoplanets — transit and radial-velocity methods, light-curve vetting, and false-positive rejection.
category: scientific
---

## Overview

Exoplanets reveal themselves indirectly: tiny dips in starlight (transits)
or tiny stellar wobbles (radial velocity). This skill covers both
detection methods end to end — from light curves and spectra to planet
parameters — plus the false-positive vetting (eclipsing binaries,
blends, stellar activity) that separates discoveries from retractions.

## When to use

- Searching light curves (TESS, Kepler, ground-based) for transit signals
- Planning or interpreting radial-velocity follow-up of a candidate
- Vetting a transit candidate: ruling out eclipsing binaries and blends
- Deriving planet radius, mass, and orbital parameters from the data
- Assessing a habitability claim critically

## Core concepts

- **Transit depth:** δ = (R_p/R_★)² — a Jupiter around a Sun-like star gives ~1%; an Earth gives ~0.008% (80 ppm) — the signal scale sets the required photometric precision.
- **Transit shape:** duration, ingress/egress slope, and flat bottom encode impact parameter and eccentricity; V-shaped transits scream grazing eclipsing binary.
- **Radial velocity semi-amplitude:** K ∝ M_p sin i / √(a M_★) — Jupiter at 1 AU around the Sun: ~12 m/s; Earth: ~9 cm/s — the instrumental frontier.
- **The sin i degeneracy:** RV alone gives minimum mass (M sin i); only transits (or astrometry) break it to true mass.
- **False positives:** background/foreground eclipsing binaries diluted in the aperture, hierarchical triples, stellar variability — each mimics transits; each has a diagnostic test.
- **Validation vs confirmation:** statistical validation (vespa/TRICERATOPS: planet hypothesis more likely than all false positives) vs dynamical confirmation (RV mass measurement) — know which a claim rests on.

- **Transit-timing variations (TTVs):** gravitational tugs from unseen companions shift transit times — TTVs discover non-transiting planets and measure masses without radial velocity.
- **Phase curves and secondary eclipses:** the planet's own light (reflected + thermal) varies with orbital phase; secondary-eclipse depth gives dayside temperature — atmospheric characterization without resolving the planet.
- **Astrometric detection:** Gaia measures stellar wobbles on the sky — sensitive to long-period massive planets that transits and RV miss; the coming Gaia exoplanet catalog fills the outer-orbit gap.

## Practical workflow

### 1. Find transit signals

1. Detrend the light curve (biweight filters, Gaussian processes) — preserving transit shapes; over-detrending erases shallow signals.
2. Run Box Least Squares (BLS) over a period grid; inspect the top candidates phase-folded — by eye, always.
3. Check the basics: odd/even transit depth consistency (eclipsing binaries often differ), secondary eclipse (stellar companion), transit duration vs stellar density (the photoeccentric check).

### 2. Vet ruthlessly

1. **Centroid test:** does the transit source coincide with the target star? Offset centroids = background blend.
2. **Aperture test:** does depth change with aperture size? Dilution-dependent depth = contaminating eclipsing binary.
3. **Color/odd-even:** depth varying with filter or between odd/even transits = binary.
4. **High-resolution imaging:** adaptive optics/speckle to find close companions diluting the light curve.
5. **Spectroscopy:** single- vs double-lined spectra; bisector spans correlating with RV = stellar activity or blend, not a planet.

### 3. Measure the planet

1. Fit the transit (Mandel–Agol model) with MCMC: R_p/R_★, impact parameter, limb darkening (constrain from stellar models, don't leave fully free), ephemeris.
2. Get stellar parameters right first — planet radius inherits stellar radius uncertainty directly (spectroscopy + Gaia parallax + isochrones).
3. RV follow-up: sample the orbit phase coverage fully; model stellar activity (GPs) jointly with the Keplerian — activity can fake or hide planets.

### 4. Interpret habitability honestly

1. Compute insolation and equilibrium temperature; the habitable zone is a necessary, not sufficient, condition.
2. Radius alone doesn't give composition — the mass–radius diagram needs a measured mass; "Earth-like" from radius only is marketing.
3. State what's actually measured (radius, minimum mass, insolation) vs inferred (composition, atmosphere, habitability).

### 5. Plan a follow-up campaign for a new candidate

1. Prioritize: ephemeris precision first (schedule transit observations before the window goes stale), then reconnaissance spectroscopy (is it a binary? what's the star?).
2. Order observations by cost: photometric vetting (cheap) → high-resolution imaging (moderate) → precision RV (expensive) — kill false positives early.
3. Set a decision point: define in advance what evidence promotes the candidate to "planet" vs demotes it — ad-hoc thresholds invite confirmation bias.

### 6. Quick-reference checklist

- [ ] Light curve detrended without erasing transit shapes
- [ ] BLS candidates inspected phase-folded by eye
- [ ] Odd/even depth consistency and secondary eclipse checked
- [ ] Centroid and aperture tests run (blend diagnostics)
- [ ] High-resolution imaging obtained for close companions
- [ ] Stellar parameters (radius!) nailed before planet parameters
- [ ] RV phase coverage complete; activity modeled jointly
- [ ] "Habitable" claims restricted to what's actually measured

## Common pitfalls

- **BLS without eyeballs:** algorithms return the strongest periodic dip, which is often systematics or a binary — inspect phase folds.
- **Ignoring dilution:** unresolved companions make transits shallower and planets smaller than reported — high-res imaging is part of the measurement.
- **Activity blindness:** stellar spots and pulsations mimic both transits and RV signals — check activity indicators (Ca H&K, Hα, bisectors).
- **Single-transit overclaiming:** one dip gives a period lower limit, not a period — don't publish orbits from single events.
- **Eccentricity from under-sampled RV:** sparse RV fits inflate eccentricity — require good phase coverage or report upper limits.
- **"Habitable" hype:** equilibrium temperature in the HZ ≠ habitable — atmosphere, water, magnetic field, and stellar activity are all unknown for most candidates.
- **Ephemeris decay:** transit windows go stale as period uncertainty accumulates — a candidate unobserved for two years may need re-detection, not just scheduling.
- **Stellar-radius errors propagating silently:** a 20% stellar-radius error is a 20% planet-radius error and a misclassified "Earth-like" — nail the star first, always.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…