Notes for FPP table?

[timothydmorton]

Notes for FPP table?

[benmontet]

Okay. I'll look closely at it this morning. For now, could you change the
format slightly to match the planet properties table, so that the candidate
name/number get one column in total? (e.g. 201912552.01 instead of
201912552 & 1 )

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Timothy Morton [email protected]
wrote:

Let me know any notes/annotation/etc. that you think should be in the FPP
table (e.g. special notes for particular candidates). I generate it
automatically, so best for me to edit the script rather than to edit the
.tex directly.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#19.

[timothydmorton]

Yup, on it.

[benmontet]

Okay, the following we need to discuss somewhere:

201367065: Crossfield et al. planets. What's going on to cause a 0.761 FPP
for one of them?

201505350: Armstrong et al. planets. These are near resonance and have
overlapping transits. I believe this is probably why your code is giving
large FPPs, because the transits are weirdly shaped and changing? They
confirm this system through ground-based TTV detection (which isn't
apparnet in K2 alone)

Period match one you rule out already, good.

201929294 is also a FP, this is a noise-modeling systematic. The star is
really spotted so the assumption that all variability is caused by
spacecraft motion is breaking down. Huge starspot modulation with the same
period as the "candidate"

All the others I am willing to accept at face value.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Timothy Morton [email protected]
wrote:

Yup, on it.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#19 (comment)
.

[timothydmorton]

WIth 201367065.01, here's what's going on: The simulated planet scenarios for an rprs value of 0.0354, all seem to predict mostly deeper transits than what is observed, leaving the EB scenario as a "better" fit.

I'll talk my way around this...

I'll get on the rest of these notes now.

[timothydmorton]

what section in the paper should i refer to for 201929294?

[benmontet]

One that we haven't pushed yet. It's going to be part of an expansion
of the "2 candidates one ephemeris" section because we can explain that one
too as funny business in the systematics model caused by spots.

On Thursday, March 26, 2015, Timothy Morton [email protected]
wrote:

what section in the paper should i refer to for 201929294?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#19 (comment)
.

[timothydmorton]

ok; can you give that section a label called "sec:systematics"? I'll refer to that for both cases in the table notes.

[benmontet]

Yep, can do.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Timothy Morton [email protected]
wrote:

ok; can you give that section a label called "sec:systematics"? I'll refer
to that for both cases in the table notes.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#19 (comment)
.

[timothydmorton]

OK; I think the FP table is just about finalized. Only thing I'm waiting on is the extra depth column in Table 5, in order to know whether or not to add more systems to the (a) designation (cautiously returning to candidate status)....