An exposure averages the missing light
Let be the fractional stellar light blocked at time . In the uniform-disk model it comes from the actual overlap of a circular planet and star. The planet’s projected centre follows a local straight chord near the transit. Its distance from the stellar centre sets the overlap at every instant.
A detector does not freeze one instant. It collects photons during an exposure of duration , in days here. Its predicted deficit is the average of the instantaneous blocked fraction over that interval. Near ingress or egress, the average can differ substantially from the value at the central time.
The exposure integral can be split at the times when the two disks first touch, when the planet enters wholly, when it begins leaving, and when overlap ends. Fully internal pieces have constant depth for a uniform star. Only partial-overlap pieces need numerical integration. The synthetic survey uses thirty-minute exposures and this contact-split calculation.
Reading: Christiansen 2017, Pixel-Level Transit Injection Tests of Pipeline Detection Efficiency for DR25 · Burke and Catanzarite 2017, Per-Target Detection Contours for DR25
Ask one prepared template a precise question
For the teaching experiment, assume we already know the period and event times. Prepare a vector of expected fractional deficits, expressed in parts per million. A positive measurement means less light than the baseline. Independent Gaussian noise has mean zero and standard deviation per exposure.
Weight the data by the expected shape. Samples inside a deep part of the transit receive larger weights than samples where almost no light is blocked. Dividing by the noise scale and by the length of the template gives a statistic whose noise variance is one.
With a true signal matching that template, the mean statistic is . Without it, the mean is zero. The probability of passing a threshold is the fraction of a unit Gaussian above that threshold. It increases smoothly with signal strength; it is not a step function of the expected signal.
A complete blind search tries many periods and templates and applies additional rejection tests. Kepler’s measured recovery includes that search and its subsequent vetting. The prepared teaching statistic supplies a tractable probability calculation; the real tutorial calibrates a different conditional response directly from actual injection outcomes.
Reading: Christiansen 2017, Pixel-Level Transit Injection Tests of Pipeline Detection Efficiency for DR25
A season selects orbital phases
Write the centres of successive transits as , where is period, is an integer and the unknown phase is uniform from zero to one period. A viewing season supplies intervals during which observations exist.
The synthetic survey accepts a transit only when its entire finite-exposure template fits inside a valid interval. Shrink each valid interval at both ends by the half-width of that template. An event centre in the remaining interval supplies one complete event. This rule avoids pretending that a transit beside a long gap contains a full set of measurements.
For a worked limit, let events become instant points and keep an uninterrupted thirty-seven-day season. A fifteen-day planet has at least three events only when the first event occurs within seven days of the start. Seven out of fifteen possible phase-days succeed, giving about .
The same result follows by counting equally weighted phases. Move the phase continuously from zero to fifteen days. The number of covered events changes only when an event centre passes a season boundary. With many observing intervals, their endpoints modulo the period divide phase into pieces on which the count is constant. Summing the lengths of those pieces computes the exact phase average for this window rule.
Reading: Burke and Catanzarite 2017, Per-Target Detection Contours for DR25 · Measuring Transit Signal Recovery in the Kepler Pipeline IV
The window and signal belong to the same transit
A grazing event is short and shallow. Its complete template may fit beside a gap more easily than a central transit, yet its weaker signal is harder to detect. Impact parameter therefore affects both the window rule and the Gaussian recovery probability.
Keep those two effects together inside the average over phase and orientation. For a given radius and period, first choose an orientation, calculate its actual template, count how many full copies were observed, and evaluate the probability of passing the detection rule. Only then average over the possible orientation and phase.
If a recovery experiment has already run through a schedule with interruptions, its final recovered fraction already contains those losses. In the thirty-seven-day example, multiplying the measured fraction by another would give roughly instead of . The second factor would describe an additional independent observing requirement, not the same interruptions.
Reading: Burke and Catanzarite 2017, Per-Target Detection Contours for DR25
Check a calculation before trusting its precision
The synthetic calculation has several numerical layers. Agreement after refining the population integral does not test the exposure integral inside its signal model. Each layer needs its own reference.
The delivered checks compare circular overlap with an independent Cartesian strip integral, exposure averaging with an adaptive time integral, and the phase partition with direct event enumeration. An independent conditional Monte Carlo calculation then samples period, radius, phase and impact parameter. Its statistical uncertainty is reported alongside the selection comparison.
The real DR25 source presents a separate warning. A simple depth divided by noise proxy differs from the supplied expected multiple-event statistic. The source’s corrected expected statistic and a single measured search statistic are also different quantities. The tutorial keeps those differences visible and uses actual successful and failed injections to fit its response.
Reading: Christiansen 2017, Pixel-Level Transit Injection Tests of Pipeline Detection Efficiency for DR25 · Burke and Catanzarite 2017, Per-Target Detection Contours for DR25