Kepler short cadence · a certified enclosure · no limb-darkening law anywhere

The transit, without a law for the star.

Every published planet radius is a statement about a star's atmosphere as much as about a planet. The depth of a transit is the light blocked, and how much light sits where the planet passes is decided by a limb-darkening law nobody measured for that star. This asks what the photometry forces on its own: the star is any nonnegative brightness profile at all, the measurement is a circle crossing a disc, and the answer is the set of radius ratios that survive. A quadratic law is fitted here too — but only to answer two questions about the harness, and never inside the enclosure.

0.110–0.326
TrES-2 b, certified
0.072–0.242
Kepler-7 b, certified
29
published values, all inside
0
limb-darkening laws in the enclosure
TrES-2 b · Kepler-1 b · 11,920 short-cadence points · 390 bins

a grazing transit: the planet never comes near the middle of the star

19 published values of Rp/R* span 0.12385 to 0.12780 — a spread of 3.2% — while a typical one quotes ±0.00008. Granting the orbit exactly and assuming only that the star is nowhere negative and does not brighten outward, this light curve forces Rp/R* into [0.1095, 0.3260].

-15152-11214-7276-3338600-2.61-1.74-0.87-0.000.871.742.60 ppm hours from mid-transit
the folded curve, and two stars that both fit it heavy: Rp/R* = 0.1194 · light: 0.1971
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.81 assuming published, all 19 exact · nonneg only 0.0898 not closed below 1 exact · not brightening out 0.1095 0.3260 stated · nonneg only 0.0915 0.8469 stated · not brightening out 0.0939 not closed below 1
what each assumption buys outer bar: every value outside carries a verified refutation · inner: a verified witness exists · fine ticks: the 19 published values
The asymmetry is the result. Under nonnegativity alone the lower edge is 0.0898 — only 28% below the conventional fit — while the upper edge does not close below 1 at all. Adding the star does not brighten outward pulls the ceiling to 0.3260. The whole upper bound on a planet's radius is bought by an assumption about the star's atmosphere, not by the photometry. Two scales for it. The 19 papers already disagree with each other by 25× a typical quoted error bar — that needs no enclosure to see. The certified interval is 55× wider again than that disagreement, and it contains every one of them.
r < b − k : never occulted b = 0.826 k = 0.1253 b − k = 0.7003 the shaded disc is 49.0% of the star's area, and it can hold any fraction of the star's light. Flux there changes the NORMALISATION and nothing else, so a larger planet blocking a smaller share of a dimmer annulus reproduces the same depth. That is why the interval is wide upward and tight downward: light can hide, but it cannot un-hide. Measured in the two witnesses this run exhibited: the k = 0.1194 star hides 1.2% of its light there, the k = 0.1971 star hides 57.6%.
why the interval is one-sidedthe planet's disc at five epochs, and the circle it never reaches
00.250.50.751 00.20.40.60.81 radius, in stellar radii light inside r the invisible core
the two witnesses, as light enclosed inside radius rboth are exhibited measures, re-checked bin by bin
Q1-Q16 KOI Table 0.12385 ± 0.00003Q1-Q17 DR24 KOI Table 0.12385 ± 0.00003Q1-Q12 KOI Table 0.12385 ± 0.00003Morton et al. 2016 0.12385 ± 0.00003Fulton &amp; Petigura 2018 0.12385 ± 0.00003Q1-Q17 DR25 KOI Table 0.12387 ± 0.00005Q1-Q8 KOI Table 0.12437 ± 0.00008Holman et al. 2007 0.12530 ± 0.00100Torres et al. 2008 0.12530 ± 0.00100Turner et al. 2016 0.12536 ± 0.00002Barclay et al. 2012 0.12536 ± 0.00002Esteves et al. 2015 0.12539 ± 0.00049Kokori et al. 2023 0.12540 ± 0.00050Rabus et al. 2009 0.12600 ± —&Ouml;zt&uuml;rk &amp; Erdem 2019 0.12600 ± 0.00300Raetz et al. 2014 0.12656 ± 0.00015Schr&ouml;ter et al. 2012 0.12759 ± 0.00003Christiansen et al. 2011 0.12780 ± 0.00940Kipping &amp; Bakos 2011 0.12780 ± 0.00290
the published values, on their own error barsshaded: the certified interval
harness check
measured
stated
verdict
out-of-transit scatter, 64 bins
29 ppm
31 ppm
errors honest (0.94×)
fold asymmetry, before → after centring
49 → 45 ppm
shift -66 s
already centred
conventional quadratic-law fit
k = 0.12526
papers 0.1239–0.1278
reproduces the field
error budget, per bin
4.3σ + 11 ppm
χ²/dof 0.91
smallest that admits that fit
Kepler-7 b · 40,757 short-cadence points · 388 bins

the planet whose published radius ratio moves 3.7% between papers

10 published values of Rp/R* span 0.07990 to 0.08294 — a spread of 3.8% — while a typical one quotes ±0.00005. Granting the orbit exactly and assuming only that the star is nowhere negative and does not brighten outward, this light curve forces Rp/R* into [0.0719, 0.2424].

-8467-6200-3933-1667600-7.88-5.26-2.65-0.042.575.197.80 ppm hours from mid-transit
the folded curve, and two stars that both fit it heavy: Rp/R* = 0.0755 · light: 0.1979
00.10.20.30.40.50.6 assuming published, all 10 exact · nonneg only 0.0523 0.4786 exact · not brightening out 0.0719 0.2424 stated · nonneg only 0.0485 0.6613 stated · not brightening out 0.0716 0.3186
what each assumption buys outer bar: every value outside carries a verified refutation · inner: a verified witness exists · fine ticks: the 10 published values
The asymmetry is the result. Under nonnegativity alone the lower edge is 0.0523 — only 36% below the conventional fit — while the upper edge reaches 0.4786. Adding the star does not brighten outward pulls the ceiling to 0.2424. The whole upper bound on a planet's radius is bought by an assumption about the star's atmosphere, not by the photometry. Two scales for it. The 10 papers already disagree with each other by 28× a typical quoted error bar — that needs no enclosure to see. The certified interval is 56× wider again than that disagreement, and it contains every one of them.
r < b − k : never occulted b = 0.529 k = 0.0819 b − k = 0.4474 the shaded disc is 20.0% of the star's area, and it can hold any fraction of the star's light. Flux there changes the NORMALISATION and nothing else, so a larger planet blocking a smaller share of a dimmer annulus reproduces the same depth. That is why the interval is wide upward and tight downward: light can hide, but it cannot un-hide. Measured in the two witnesses this run exhibited: the k = 0.0755 star hides 0.0% of its light there, the k = 0.1979 star hides 82.8%.
why the interval is one-sidedthe planet's disc at five epochs, and the circle it never reaches
00.250.50.751 00.20.40.60.81 radius, in stellar radii light inside r the invisible core
the two witnesses, as light enclosed inside radius rboth are exhibited measures, re-checked bin by bin
Q1-Q17 DR25 KOI Table 0.07990 ± 0.00009Fulton &amp; Petigura 2018 0.08068 ± 0.00005Morton et al. 2016 0.08068 ± 0.00005Q1-Q12 KOI Table 0.08068 ± 0.00005Q1-Q17 DR24 KOI Table 0.08068 ± 0.00005Q1-Q16 KOI Table 0.08068 ± 0.00005Latham et al. 2010 0.08241 ± 0.00030Q1-Q8 KOI Table 0.08284 ± 0.00003Esteves et al. 2015 0.08294 ± 0.00011Kokori et al. 2023 0.08294 ± 0.00011
the published values, on their own error barsshaded: the certified interval
harness check
measured
stated
verdict
out-of-transit scatter, 196 bins
72 ppm
62 ppm
errors honest (1.16×)
fold asymmetry, before → after centring
135 → 56 ppm
shift 248 s
the archive ephemeris was out
conventional quadratic-law fit
k = 0.08193
papers 0.0799–0.0829
reproduces the field
error budget, per bin
3.3σ + 11 ppm
χ²/dof 0.80
smallest that admits that fit
how a value is refused

Nothing here trusts the optimiser.

The star is a nonnegative measure μ on [0,1] with ∫dμ = 1 — the normalisation is the statement that the curve is 1 out of transit. A planet of radius k at sky-plane distance z covers a fraction w(r; z, k) = arccos(clamp g)/π of the circle of radius r, so every datum is a two-sided linear constraint on μ. Because μ is a probability measure, the reachable depths are exactly the convex hull of the kernel's moment curve, and the whole question is whether a curve in Rm meets a box.

When it meets it, the meeting point is a finite convex combination — an atomic measure, exhibited, and re-checked bin by bin from scratch. When it misses it, the separating direction is a Farkas certificate: multipliers α, β ≥ 0 with minr h(r) > Σ αjuj − Σ βjlj, which refutes k for every μ at once. That minimum is over a continuum, so it is closed by interval arithmetic over an adaptive partition — of r and of the geometry, because the kernel's closed form mentions z five times and a naive enclosure over a z-box 0.01 wide once returned [0.16, 1.00] where the true value was 0.997, which had let a planet the size of its star pass as admissible.

The optimiser only proposes. Whatever it hands over is checked against the definition, and a value is reported only when the check passes; everything else is left undecided and shown as the gap between the inner and outer bars.

Seven reds fire. Synthetic truth is admitted for four different profiles — a solar-like quadratic, a uniform disc, a limb-brightened star and a bright ring — at two impact parameters each. The monotone rung refuses a limb-brightened truth, so it is a real restriction rather than a decoration. A wider budget never refutes what a tighter one admitted; the monotone rung never admits what nonnegativity refutes; reversing the light curve changes no verdict; the kernel is exactly zero inside r < b − k at 1,446 tested pairs; and the deliberately broken control — the true k judged under the wrong impact parameter — is refused, as it must be. An earlier RED 6 claimed the ceiling was b itself. It failed: a planet that large reaches the limb far too early, and the visible annulus cannot be silent then. Hiding buys an amplitude, not a duration. The claim on this page is the one that survived.