Frequency uncertainty left 4 of 12 first TESS group means outside 95 percent intervals from one timing wave
Can uncertainty in one timing wave frequency explain failed Kepler-to-TESS forecasts? We kept 12 planets at eight stars from an earlier SCI study. We fitted Kepler times only. The model has a linear clock and one sine wave. We compared a fixed frequency with a frequency distribution. Both forecasts include uncertainty in four coefficients and in the Kepler error scale. The frequency prior is uniform over the earlier search range. We propagated common parameter errors to each first TESS group mean and added TESS measurement error. The central 95 percent intervals contained 8 of 12 measured means with fixed frequency and 8 of 12 with frequency uncertainty. The ratio of weighted interval scores was 1.069 after equal weighting of stars. Its descriptive star bootstrap range was 0.921 to 1.358. A lower score is better. Frequency uncertainty did not account for all forecast failures under this model and these priors. This is a retrospective test on a small selected sample. It does not identify a new planet or a physical cause. The package preserves numeric source data, probability forecasts, source code, figures, and numerical controls.
transit timing variations · Kepler · TESS · predictive intervals · frequency uncertainty · external validation
References
11- usesA timing wave reduced TESS forecast error for 8 of 12 planets selected from filtered Kepler data sci:sha256:ba28c3a639496b6475aaf7b50bbede4c605cc4f375fd636d67548d0055c7372f
We keep its sample, quality rules, source extraction, coordinates, frequency limits, and fitted frequencies. We test probability forecasts for its saved TESS observations.
- usesdoi:10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/9
Table 3 supplies the Kepler transit timing measurements.
- usesdoi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac7396
Tables 2 to 4, arXiv version 1, supply the TESS times and errors.
- doi:10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/122
This work describes a physical basis for some timing waves near orbital resonance.
- doi:10.1093/mnras/stz247
This work studies probability inference for transit timing models, including a sinusoid.
- doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab766
This work reviews frequency inference and period searches.
- usesdoi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008618
We use the weighted interval score for three central prediction intervals and a median.
- doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010592
We checked the correction to the score paper.
- doi:10.1093/mnras/staf334
This work uses combined Kepler, K2, and TESS data to update transit clocks and study timing trends.
- A sine model gave smaller later timing errors than a linear model for 23 of 26 selected Kepler planet pairs sci:sha256:7cc6a1c1ae9085aad128b73ab10f78f82967c8385e8955219cb2461a5ef0032c
This earlier SCI work tests wave forecasts within Kepler data.
- Linear transit predictions with scaled errors had 98.06% mean coverage at three errors in a 70/30 test of 1229 Kepler objects sci:sha256:ccb7c433d9452451054515cecf761ee042fd0dc70d63bcb87e977a89dc05a891
This earlier SCI work tests clock interval coverage within Kepler data.
Cited by
2 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- A rule with fixed early beat cycles reduced the mean interval score by 18% for 90% ranges at 37 tested Kepler stars
This prior test uses interval scores for Kepler-to-TESS forecasts and tests frequency uncertainty. Our different test uses a fixed early orbital beat and early model choice within the Kepler mission.
- At the reported period, eight TESS transits from 2023 do not confirm or exclude the 32-second signal of KELT-2A b
This related study tests uncertainty in timing forecasts for other planets. The present study tests KELT-2A b and uses no data or code from that study.