I am going up because of uncertainty related to my understanding of the situation (thanks to my friends @ctsats and @DimaKlenchin for helpful comments). I previously assumed that the schedule to check for new matches weekly is something new, something related to the reorganization of HWC in December last year (we saw how they changed the website and the catalog name). But maybe the fact that previous updates changing the number of exoplanets in the catalog happened most often in December and January reflects some pattern of data in the NASA exoplanets catalog being updated more often around this time (adding data from papers that first come out as preprints and were later published during the year). But if that was true, we should at least be seeing most of these papers as preprints already in https://arxiv.org/ database, and I haven't seen them, but my search may be insufficient - some papers confirming new exoplanets may not discuss that they are in habitable zone and I will not be able to find it in the haystack of preprints.
I checked the number of exoplanets meeting the first two out of three criteria of habitability used by HWC (mass and radius) and here are the numbers in the NASA Exoplanets catalog: 2024: 64 (so far)
2023: 126
2022: 122
2021: 302
2020: 108
2019: 75
2018: 163
2017: 66
2016: 1111
2015: 56
2014: 602
2013: 35
2012: 29
So far, we have about 50% of numbers from 2023 or 2022, but there is high variability in the numbers for years before 2022, so it is hard to say anything about the reporting speed based on that. However, in 2023 there were discovered 6 exoplanets which were added to the HWC, and in 2022 there were 5, so we are a bit unlucky with zero exoplanets halfway to getting to their numbers of new exoplanets fitting mass and radius criteria.
But in terms of updates changing the number of total exoplanets, January and July are on the podium, with February, May and June standing on the lower place on the podium together. This includes revisions related to removals.
Here is how it looks when we only look at additions (this question resolution only cares for new planets being added, removals are unimportant for our purposes, but removals likely happened due to new data being published or new methods and models providing more precise answers). We can see that we are already past the time in the year with most updates, but as January next year still counts, it is not that simple.
We should keep in mind that likely over the year situation changes - like with some missions starting and ending and their teams way of reporting being different, or as Christos was informed by the professor running HWC the process has changed over the years, and it is now largely automated. Look at this graph to see changes in time:
To better see the months of updates, here is another version with month number on the y axis:
(@michal_dubrawski something seems wrong; although you have tagged me, I did not get a ping, and all the usernames you have tagged do not currently seem "active")
@ctsats I am testing if I can tag you effectively now (as you mentioned previously, the usernames stay inactive and there was no update for being mentioned).
@DimaKlenchin @404_NOT_FOUND @cmeinel @Perspectus @guyrecord @sai_39 @ansantillan @Jim @NoUsernameSelected @JonathanMann @ansantillan @WeirdAwkward @JJMLP @Plataea479 @MrLittleTexas I tagged you in the comment above (see here) but something went wrong as @ctsats kindly informed me, and that did not generate any update message + the usernames are inactive even after refreshing the page.
hey @michal_dubrawski@ctsats - the issue here is that we made it so you can only mention/notify 8 people per comment, due to having some users abuse the system to spam other users (obviously something we want to prevent). If you split your mentions into 2 comments, it should work fine. Or if you have other suggestions about how we should structure this (while still preventing spam), we're all ears 😀
Thanks @ben, could we maybe allow that less limited tagging for RFI / Cultivate Labs Team and RFI Pros? It is good to be able to inform people who discussed with us or reacted to our previous comment when something important happened or when we change our mind and no longer support previous conclusion. Maybe users should be able to mute notification from some users?
Have you tried looking for preprints in SSRN.com? Researchgate.net? Astronomers might not use arXiv. Some post preprints to their personal or research websites.
Thank you for your help @ben! @cmeinel - good ideas! Thank you. I must find good search criteria that will work in finding preprints about previous exoplanets added to the catalog. I will also try using different search engines. I am now trying google with "site:https://arxiv.org/ exoplanet "habitable zone"" + only updates from past year. I think the fact that TOI-904 c was added to the catalog in March this year confirm that there is a substantial lag between discovery. Preprint was submitted on 23 October, 2023 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.15118) and it was published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 959, Number 1 on December 7 2023 (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad037d). tagging @ctsats Still, I think that checking preprints may be the key here, as @DimaKlenchin suggested many months ago. I had some discussion on that topic on the call today with @guyrecord and @JuliusHege
I am going up because of uncertainty related to my understanding of the situation (thanks to my friends @ctsats and @DimaKlenchin for helpful comments). I previously assumed that the schedule to check for new matches weekly is something new, something related to the reorganization of HWC in December last year (we saw how they changed the website and the catalog name). But maybe the fact that previous updates changing the number of exoplanets in the catalog happened most often in December and January reflects some pattern of data in the NASA exoplanets catalog being updated more often around this time (adding data from papers that first come out as preprints and were later published during the year). But if that was true, we should at least be seeing most of these papers as preprints already in https://arxiv.org/ database, and I haven't seen them, but my search may be insufficient - some papers confirming new exoplanets may not discuss that they are in habitable zone and I will not be able to find it in the haystack of preprints.
I checked the number of exoplanets meeting the first two out of three criteria of habitability used by HWC (mass and radius) and here are the numbers in the NASA Exoplanets catalog:
2024: 64 (so far)
2023: 126
2022: 122
2021: 302
2020: 108
2019: 75
2018: 163
2017: 66
2016: 1111
2015: 56
2014: 602
2013: 35
2012: 29
So far, we have about 50% of numbers from 2023 or 2022, but there is high variability in the numbers for years before 2022, so it is hard to say anything about the reporting speed based on that. However, in 2023 there were discovered 6 exoplanets which were added to the HWC, and in 2022 there were 5, so we are a bit unlucky with zero exoplanets halfway to getting to their numbers of new exoplanets fitting mass and radius criteria.
As you can see below, historically, HWC was more active during December and January (data from the HWC updates database I created).
But in terms of updates changing the number of total exoplanets, January and July are on the podium, with February, May and June standing on the lower place on the podium together. This includes revisions related to removals.
Here is how it looks when we only look at additions (this question resolution only cares for new planets being added, removals are unimportant for our purposes, but removals likely happened due to new data being published or new methods and models providing more precise answers). We can see that we are already past the time in the year with most updates, but as January next year still counts, it is not that simple.
We should keep in mind that likely over the year situation changes - like with some missions starting and ending and their teams way of reporting being different, or as Christos was informed by the professor running HWC the process has changed over the years, and it is now largely automated. Look at this graph to see changes in time:
To better see the months of updates, here is another version with month number on the y axis:
I am also tagging:
@404_NOT_FOUND @cmeinel @Perspectus @guyrecord @sai_39 @ansantillan @Jim @NoUsernameSelected @JonathanMann @ansantillan @WeirdAwkward @JJMLP @Plataea479 @MrLittleTexas
(@michal_dubrawski something seems wrong; although you have tagged me, I did not get a ping, and all the usernames you have tagged do not currently seem "active")
@DimaKlenchin @404_NOT_FOUND @cmeinel @Perspectus @guyrecord @sai_39 @ansantillan @Jim @NoUsernameSelected @JonathanMann @ansantillan @WeirdAwkward @JJMLP @Plataea479 @MrLittleTexas I tagged you in the comment above (see here) but something went wrong as @ctsats kindly informed me, and that did not generate any update message + the usernames are inactive even after refreshing the page.
hey @michal_dubrawski @ctsats - the issue here is that we made it so you can only mention/notify 8 people per comment, due to having some users abuse the system to spam other users (obviously something we want to prevent). If you split your mentions into 2 comments, it should work fine. Or if you have other suggestions about how we should structure this (while still preventing spam), we're all ears 😀
@cmeinel - good ideas! Thank you. I must find good search criteria that will work in finding preprints about previous exoplanets added to the catalog. I will also try using different search engines. I am now trying google with "site:https://arxiv.org/ exoplanet "habitable zone"" + only updates from past year.
I think the fact that TOI-904 c was added to the catalog in March this year confirm that there is a substantial lag between discovery. Preprint was submitted on 23 October, 2023 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.15118) and it was published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 959, Number 1 on December 7 2023 (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad037d).
tagging @ctsats
Still, I think that checking preprints may be the key here, as @DimaKlenchin suggested many months ago.
I had some discussion on that topic on the call today with @guyrecord and @JuliusHege