Abstract The bulk compositions of small planets ( R p < 2 R ⊕ ) are directly linked to their formation histories, making reliable compositional constraints imperative for testing models of planet formation and evolution. Because exoplanet interiors cannot be directly observed, their makeup must be inferred from mass–radius–composition models that link assumed stellar abundances to the direct observables: planetary mass and radius. There are a variety of such models in the literature, each adopting different equations of state (EOS) to describe the materials’ properties at depth and varying assumptions about the minerals present within the planets. These EOS+mineral suites provide the foundations for compositional inferences, but they have not yet been systematically compared. In this work, we review several suites, with a detailed description of the basic structure, mineral physics, and materials within standard small-planet models. We show that EOS+mineral suites predict planet densities whose differences are comparable to current observational uncertainties, which present a challenge for robustly interpreting and classifying small planets. We apply a powerful small-planet characterization framework, which illustrates that variations among EOS+mineral suites lead to inconsistent conclusions for both individual planets and sample-level demographics. Our results demonstrate the need for more careful considerations of the materials and EOS used in mass–radius–composition models, especially given the current focus on finding and characterizing potentially habitable rocky planets. We conclude with recommendations for best practices so that future interpretations of small planets and their formation are accurate and consistent.
Schulze et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: