1: \documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{asp2006}
4: \usepackage{epsf}
5: \usepackage{psfig}
6: \usepackage{lscape}
7:
8: \markboth{John Asher Johnson}{Planets Around Massive Subgiants}
9:
10: \pagestyle{myheadings}
11: \setcounter{equation}{0}
12: \setcounter{figure}{0}
13: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
14: \setcounter{section}{0}
15: \setcounter{table}{0}
16: \def\ms{m~s$^{-1}$}
17: \def\ks{km~s$^{-1}$}
18: \def\msini{M$_P\sin{i}$}
19: \def\asini{$a\sin{i}$}
20: \def\msun{M$_{\odot}$}
21: \def\mjup{M$_{\rm Jup}$}
22: \def\rsun{R$_{\odot}$}
23: \def\chisq{$\sqrt{\chi^2_\nu}$}
24: \def\plmn{~$\pm$~}
25:
26: \begin{document}
27: \title{Planets Around Massive Subgiants}
28: \author{John Asher Johnson}
29: \affil{Institute for Astronomy}
30:
31: \begin{abstract}
32: Compared to planets around Sun--like stars, relatively little is known
33: about the occurrence rate and orbital properties
34: of planets around stars more massive than 1.3~\msun. The apparent
35: deficit of planets
36: around massive stars is due to a strong selection bias against
37: early--type dwarfs in Doppler--based planet searches. One
38: method to circumvent the difficulties inherent to massive
39: main--sequence stars is to instead observe them after they have
40: evolved onto the subgiant branch. We show how the cooler atmospheres
41: and slower
42: rotation velocities of subgiants make them ideal proxies for F-- and
43: A--type stars. We present the early
44: results from our planet search that reveal a paucity of planets
45: orbiting within 1~AU of stars more massive than 1.5~\msun, and
46: evidence of a rising trend in giant planet occurrence with
47: stellar mass.
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50: \section{Introduction}
51:
52: A planet--bearing star can be
53: thought of as a very bright, extremely dense remnant of a
54: protoplanetary disk. After all, a star inherits its defining
55: characteristics---its mass and chemical composition---from the same
56: disk material that forms its planets. The physical characteristics of
57: planet host stars therefore provide a crucial link between the planets
58: we detect today and the circumstellar environments from which they
59: formed long ago. Studying the relationships between the observed
60: occurrence rate and orbital properties of planets as a function of
61: stellar characteristics informs theories of planet formation, and
62: also helps guide the target selection of future planet searches.
63:
64: A wealth of recent work has demonstrated that planet occurrence is
65: strongly correlated with chemical composition \citep{gonzalez97,
66: santos04}; metal--rich stars are 3 times more likely to host
67: planetary companions compared to stars with solar abundances
68: \citep{fischer05b}. This finding can be
69: understood in the context of the core
70: accretion model. Increasing the metallicity of a star/disk system
71: increases the surface density of solid material at the disk
72: midplane, which in turn leads to an enhanced growth rate for
73: protoplanetary cores \citep{ida04b, kornet05}.
74:
75: \begin{figure}[ht!]
76: \plotone{mass_hist.eps}
77: \caption {\footnotesize{Distribution of stellar masses for the target
78: stars of the
79: California and Carnegie Planet Search. The majority of the stars
80: have masses between 0.7~\msun\ and 1.3~\msun. \label{mass_hist}}}
81: \end{figure}
82:
83: Another factor that enhances the surface density of material in the
84: disk midplane is its total mass. If the mass of
85: circumstellar disks scales with the mass of the central star, then
86: there should be an observed correlation between planet occurrence and
87: stellar mass \citep{laughlin04, ida05b, kennedy07}. In principle,
88: testing this hypothesis is
89: fairly simple: one need only measure the fraction of stars with
90: planets over a wide range of stellar masses. However, in practice such
91: a study is not so straight forward given the limited range of stellar
92: masses encompassed by most planet searches.
93:
94: The difficulty can be seen in Figure~\ref{mass_hist}, which shows the
95: distribution
96: of stellar masses for the target stars in California and Carnegie
97: Planet Search \citep[CCPS; ][]{valenti05}, which is representative of
98: most Doppler--based planet searches. Most of the stars in
99: Figure~\ref{mass_hist} have masses
100: between 0.7~\msun\ and 1.3~\msun. In a decidedly
101: non--Copernican twist of nature, it turns out that stars like our Sun
102: are ideal planet search targets. Solar--mass G and K dwarfs are
103: slow rotators, have
104: stable atmospheres, and are relatively bright. The fall--off
105: toward lower stellar masses is simply because late K-- and M--type
106: dwarfs are faint, making the acquisition of high--resolution spectra
107: difficult without large telescope apertures \citep{butler06b,
108: bonfils05b, endl03}.
109:
110: The sharp drop at higher stellar masses is due to a separate
111: observational bias. Stars with
112: spectral types earlier than F8 tend to have rotationally broadened
113: spectral features ($V\sin{i} > 50$~\ks; Galland et al. 2005), have
114: fewer spectral lines due to high surface temperatures, and display a large
115: amount of atmospheric ``jitter.'' Stellar jitter is excess velocity
116: scatter due to surface inhomogeneities and pulsation, which can
117: approach 50--100~\ms\ for mid--F stars \citep{saar98, wright05}. These
118: features conspire to limit the attainable radial velocity precision for
119: early--type dwarfs to $> 50$~\ms, rendering exceedingly difficult the
120: detection of all but the most massive and short--period planets.
121:
122: One method to circumvent the observational limitations inherent to
123: high--mass dwarfs is to observe these stars after they have
124: evolved away from the
125: main--sequence. After stars have expended their core hydrogen fuel
126: sources their radii expand, and their atmospheres cool leading to an
127: increase in the number of metal lines in the star's spectrum. Stars
128: crossing the subgiant branch also shed a large amount of angular
129: momentum through the coupling of stellar winds to rotationally
130: generated magnetic fields \citep{gray85, schrijver93,
131: donascimento00}. The cooler atmospheres and slower rotational
132: velocities of evolved stars lead to an increased number of narrow
133: absorption lines in their spectra, making them much better
134: suited for precision Doppler surveys.
135:
136: \section{A Doppler Survey of Subgiants}
137:
138: There are a number of planet searches targeting evolved,
139: intermediate--mass stars. To date, most surveys have focused on
140: K--giants \citep{frink02, hatzes05, lovis07, nied07} and ``clump
141: giants,'' or asymptotic giant branch stars \citep{sato03,
142: setiawan03, liu07}. These programs have detected a total of 9 substellar
143: companions orbiting intermediate--mass giants, demonstrating that
144: planets do form and can be detected around stars more massive than
145: $\sim1.5$~\msun \footnote{An additional 5 substellar companions have
146: been detected around solar--mass giants}.
147:
148: Over the past 3 years we have been conducting a Doppler survey
149: of evolved stars at Lick and Keck Observatories. However,
150: instead of targeting clump giants and K giants, we have
151: focused on stars occupying the region of the H--R
152: diagram between the main--sequence and red giant branch, known
153: as the subgiant branch. Our sample is described by \citet{johnson06b}
154: and is summarized below.
155:
156: \begin{figure}[ht!]
157: \plotone{sg_hr.eps}
158: \caption {H--R diagram illustrating the parameter space spanned by our
159: sample of subgiants (circles). Also shown are the regions occupied
160: by clump stars and K giants (hashed regions); the theoretical
161: stellar mass tracks of \citet{girardi02} for [Fe/H]$=$0.0
162: (thin lines); and the zero--age main sequence (thick diagonal
163: line). \footnotesize{\label{sample}}}
164: \end{figure}
165:
166: The main part of our sample is comprised of 120 subgiant stars, which
167: were selected from the \emph{Hipparcos} catalog based on the criteria $2.0
168: < M_V < 3.5$, $0.55 < B-V < 1.0$, and $V < 7.6$
169: \citep{hipp}\footnote{Our full survey contains an additional 39 giant
170: stars with $M_V < 2$ and $B-V < 0.85$. However, these stars proved
171: to be unsuitable Doppler targets, with a high fraction of close
172: binaries and jitter in excess of 30~\ms. We focus here only on the
173: more stable subgiants.}. Our sample
174: of subgiants is illustrated in an H--R diagram shown in Figure
175: \ref{sample}. Also shown are the search domains of other Doppler surveys
176: containing evolved stars, along with the theoretical mass tracks of
177: \citet{girardi02}, assuming solar abundances ([Fe/H]=0.0).
178:
179: Subgiants occupy an observational ``sweet spot'' in the H--R
180: diagram. They exhibit relatively low levels of jitter, typically
181: around 5~\ms, which is only a factor of 2 higher than G dwarfs
182: \citep{wright05} and significantly lower than the 20~\ms\ of jitter
183: typical for giants \citep{hekker06}.
184: Like K giants, they have shed most of their primordial angular
185: momentum and exhibit slow rotation velocities, with $V\sin{i} <
186: 5$~\ks. Also, theoretical mass tracks along the subgiant branch
187: are well separated, allowing for unambiguous mass estimates. Our
188: sample of stars spans a stellar mass range $1.2 < M_*/M_\odot < 2.2$,
189: which nearly doubles the stellar mass domain of the CCPS sample.
190:
191: Our planet search around subgiants has two primary goals.
192: First, we wish to compare the orbital characteristics of planets
193: around intermediate--mass stars to the large statistical ensemble of
194: planets around lower--mass stars. Second, we
195: wish to measure the fraction of stars with planets for stellar masses
196: $M_* > 1.3$~\msun. To study the relationship between
197: stellar mass and planet occurrence, we compare the planet fraction
198: from our high--mass sample to that of the larger sample of FGK stars
199: in the CCPS and the low--mass M dwarfs from the NASA Keck M
200: Dwarf Planet Search \citep[e.g.][]{butler06b}.
201:
202: \begin{figure}[t!]
203: \plotone{a_e.eps}
204: \caption {Distribution of semimajor axes and eccentricities for
205: planets around stars with $M_* < 1.5$~\msun\ (filled circles) and
206: subgiants with $M_* > 1.5$~\msun\ (open pentagrams). All of
207: the planets around the evolved A--type stars orbit beyond
208: $\sim1$~AU. On the other hand, the eccentricity distributions for
209: the two sets of planets are comparable. \footnotesize{\label{ae}}}
210: \end{figure}
211:
212: \section{Planet Detections and Characteristics}
213:
214: The first detection from our sample of subgiants was announced in
215: \citet{johnson06b}: a short--period, Jovian planet orbiting the
216: 1.28~\msun\ subgiant HD\,185269
217: \citep[see also][]{moutou06}. With an orbital period $P =
218: 6.838$~d and eccentricity $e = 0.3$, HD\,185269\,b has one of the
219: highest eccentricities among the sample of known ``hot Jupiters.''
220: The next batch of planets discovered from our sample orbit stars that
221: are notably massive: HD\,175541 (1.69~\msun),
222: HD\,192699 (1.65~\msun) and HD\,210702 (1.85~\msun, Johnson et
223: al. 2007a). Following the
224: theoretical mass tracks of these three massive
225: subgiants back to the main sequence reveals that they began life
226: as early type dwarfs, with spectral types ranging from A5V to A8V.
227:
228: We have recently submitted for publication three additional
229: long--period planet candidates orbiting the intermediate--mass
230: subgiants $\kappa$ CrB (=HD\,142091; $M_* = 1.80$~\msun), HD\,167042 (1.65~\msun), and
231: HD\,16175 (1.35~\msun; Johnson et al. 2007, ApJ submitted). Figure
232: \ref{ae} shows the distribution of semimajor axes and eccentricities
233: of all known
234: exoplanets orbiting stars with masses $M_* < 1.5$~\msun. Also shown
235: in the figure are planets orbiting subgiants with masses $M_* >
236: 1.5$~\msun, including the 5 systems announced from our
237: survey, our two
238: strongest unpublished candidates\footnote{Both unannounced systems have false
239: alarm probabilities less than 1\%, but lack sufficient phase
240: coverage for publication at this time.}, and two other planetary systems
241: around massive subgiants: HD\,82744 \citep{korzennik00} and HD\,5319
242: \citep{robinson07}.
243:
244: While the eccentricities of
245: planets around evolved A stars are very similar to those of planets
246: around Sun--like stars, Figure~\ref{ae} reveals a remarkable trend in
247: the semimajor axes of planets around high--mass stars. Planets around
248: evolved A stars ($M_* > 1.5$~\msun) reside preferentially in wide
249: orbits at or beyond $\sim1.0$~AU \citep{johnson07}. This observed
250: semimajor axis
251: distribution of planets around high--mass stars differs significantly
252: from that of planets around lower--mass stars, of which 51\%
253: orbit closer than 1~AU. This cannot be due to an observational bias,
254: since Doppler shift measurements are most senstitive to giant planets
255: in short--period orbits. While the radii of stars expand as they
256: evolve away from the main sequence, the radii of subgiants are still
257: small compared to the semimajor axis of even a $P = 3$~day hot
258: Jupiter. Thus, it
259: remains an open question as to whether the lack of close--in planets
260: around A stars is related to the way planets formed in their nascent
261: high--mass disks, or instead due to the effects of stellar mass on
262: planet migration.
263:
264: \begin{figure}[t!]
265: \plotone{occ_rate.eps}
266: \caption {The fraction of stars with Jovian planets as a function of
267: stellar mass. The error bars represent the uncertainties from
268: Poisson statistics. The box above each bin shows the number of
269: stars with detected planets, $N_{HOSTS}$, and the total number of target
270: stars, $N_{STARS}$. \footnotesize{\label{occ_rate}}}
271: \end{figure}
272:
273: \section{Planet Occurrence vs. Stellar Mass}
274:
275: Our sample of subgiants covers a range of stellar masses complementary
276: to the CCPS sample of FGK stars and the sample of
277: low--mass stars in the NASA Keck M Dwarfs Planet Search. In
278: \citet{johnson07b} we showed that an analysis of the planet occurrence
279: rate in three coarsely--spaced mass bins reveals a rising trend with
280: stellar mass (Figure~\ref{occ_rate}). For
281: this analysis, we selected target stars and planet candidates with
282: uniform detection characteristics, namely stars with more than 8
283: observations, and planets with $a < 2.5$~AU and \msini~$\geq
284: 0.8$~\mjup.
285:
286: The observed correlation between stellar mass and planet occurrence
287: has important implications for planet formation theory, as well as for
288: future planet search efforts. Stellar mass has now been identified as
289: an additional sign post of planeticity, along with stellar
290: metallicity, making A--type stars promising targets for ground--based
291: imaging surveys as well as space--borne astrometry and transit missions.
292:
293: \section{Future Directions}
294:
295: The study of planets orbiting massive stars is still in its infancy,
296: with only 17 systems currently known, compared to the 180 Sun--like
297: and low--mass planet host stars discovered over the past
298: decade\footnote{For the updated catalog of extrasolar planet and
299: their parameters see http://exoplanets.org.}
300: \citep{butler06a}. Firmer conclusions about the occurrence rate
301: and orbital properties of planets around A--type stars will require a
302: much larger sample of detections. We have recently expanded our
303: Doppler
304: survey of subgiants to include 300 additional stars at Lick and Keck
305: Observatories. Our primary goal is to confirm the correlation between
306: stellar mass and planet occurrence seen in Figure~\ref{occ_rate}. If
307: the $\sim9$\% occurrence rate holds, we expect to find 20--30 new planets
308: over the next 3 years. This will represent a significant increase in
309: the number of planets orbiting evolved A stars, and will allow us to
310: perform a more robust analysis of the effects of stellar mass on
311: planetary eccentricities, semimajor axes and multiplicity.
312:
313: \acknowledgements
314: I am very grateful to Geoff Marcy for his inspiration for this
315: project and his encouragement and advice over the past years. Many
316: thanks to my collaborators Debra Fischer, Jason Wright, Paul Butler,
317: Steve Vogt, Chris McCarthy and Katie Peek for their helpful
318: converstations, and for their work with the data reduction pipelines,
319: analysis codes and late nights at the telescopes. Thanks to
320: Josh Winn and Nader Haghighipour for encouraging me to write up this
321: summary of my work. I extend my gratitude to the many CAT observers who
322: have helped with this project, including Peter Williams, Katie Peek,
323: Julia Kregenow, Howard Isaacson, Karin Sandstrom,
324: Bernie Walp, and Shannon Patel. I am an NSF Astronomy and
325: Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellow and acknowledge support from the NSF
326: grant AST-0702821. I also gratefully acknowledge the efforts
327: and dedication of the staffs of Lick Observatory and Keck Observatory,
328: and the generous allocation of observing time from the IfA, UCO Lick,
329: NASA and NOAO TACs.
330:
331: \begin{thebibliography}{}
332: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
333:
334: \bibitem[{{Bonfils} {et~al.}(2005){Bonfils}, {Forveille}, {Delfosse}, {Udry},
335: {Mayor}, {Perrier}, {Bouchy}, {Pepe}, {Queloz}, \& {Bertaux}}]{bonfils05b}
336: {Bonfils}, X., {Forveille}, T., {Delfosse}, X., {Udry}, S., {Mayor}, M.,
337: {Perrier}, C., {Bouchy}, F., {Pepe}, F., {Queloz}, D., \& {Bertaux}, J.-L.
338: 2005, \aap, 443, L15
339:
340: \bibitem[{{Butler} {et~al.}(2006){Butler}, {Wright}, {Marcy}, {Fischer},
341: {Vogt}, {Tinney}, {Jones}, {Carter}, {Johnson}, {McCarthy}, \&
342: {Penny}}]{butler06a}
343: {Butler}, R.~P., {Wright}, J.~T., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Fischer}, D.~A., {Vogt},
344: S.~S., {Tinney}, C.~G., {Jones}, H.~R.~A., {Carter}, B.~D., {Johnson}, J.~A.,
345: {McCarthy}, C., \& {Penny}, A.~J. 2006, \apj, 646, 505
346:
347: \bibitem[{{Butler} {et~al.}(2006){Butler}, {Johnson}, {Marcy}, {Wright},
348: {Vogt}, \& {Fischer}}]{butler06b}
349: {Butler}, R.~P., {Johnson}, J.~A., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Wright}, J.~T., {Vogt},
350: S.~S., \& {Fischer}, D.~A. 2006, \pasp, 118, 1685
351:
352: \bibitem[{{do Nascimento} {et~al.}(2000){do Nascimento}, {Charbonnel},
353: {L{\`e}bre}, {de Laverny}, \& {De Medeiros}}]{donascimento00}
354: {do Nascimento}, J.~D., {Charbonnel}, C., {L{\`e}bre}, A., {de Laverny}, P., \&
355: {De Medeiros}, J.~R. 2000, \aap, 357, 931
356:
357: \bibitem[{{Endl} {et~al.}(2003){Endl}, {Cochran}, {Tull}, \&
358: {MacQueen}}]{endl03}
359: {Endl}, M., {Cochran}, W.~D., {Tull}, R.~G., \& {MacQueen}, P.~J. 2003, \aj,
360: 126, 3099
361:
362: \bibitem[{{ESA}(1997)}]{hipp}
363: {ESA}, . 1997, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1239, 0
364:
365: \bibitem[{{Fischer} \& {Valenti}(2005)}]{fischer05b}
366: {Fischer}, D.~A. \& {Valenti}, J. 2005, \apj, 622, 1102
367:
368: \bibitem[{{Frink} {et~al.}(2002){Frink}, {Mitchell}, {Quirrenbach}, {Fischer},
369: {Marcy}, \& {Butler}}]{frink02}
370: {Frink}, S., {Mitchell}, D.~S., {Quirrenbach}, A., {Fischer}, D.~A., {Marcy},
371: G.~W., \& {Butler}, R.~P. 2002, \apj, 576, 478
372:
373: \bibitem[{{Girardi} {et~al.}(2002){Girardi}, {Bertelli}, {Bressan}, {Chiosi},
374: {Groenewegen}, {Marigo}, {Salasnich}, \& {Weiss}}]{girardi02}
375: {Girardi}, L., {Bertelli}, G., {Bressan}, A., {Chiosi}, C., {Groenewegen},
376: M.~A.~T., {Marigo}, P., {Salasnich}, B., \& {Weiss}, A. 2002, \aap, 391, 195
377:
378: \bibitem[{{Gonzalez}(1997)}]{gonzalez97}
379: {Gonzalez}, G. 1997, \mnras, 285, 403
380:
381: \bibitem[{{Gray} \& {Nagar}(1985)}]{gray85}
382: {Gray}, D.~F. \& {Nagar}, P. 1985, \apj, 298, 756
383:
384: \bibitem[{{Hatzes} {et~al.}(2005){Hatzes}, {Guenther}, {Endl}, {Cochran},
385: {D{\"o}llinger}, \& {Bedalov}}]{hatzes05}
386: {Hatzes}, A.~P., {Guenther}, E.~W., {Endl}, M., {Cochran}, W.~D.,
387: {D{\"o}llinger}, M.~P., \& {Bedalov}, A. 2005, \aap, 437, 743
388:
389: \bibitem[{{Hekker} {et~al.}(2006){Hekker}, {Reffert}, {Quirrenbach},
390: {Mitchell}, {Fischer}, {Marcy}, \& {Butler}}]{hekker06}
391: {Hekker}, S., {Reffert}, S., {Quirrenbach}, A., {Mitchell}, D.~S., {Fischer},
392: D.~A., {Marcy}, G.~W., \& {Butler}, R.~P. 2006, \aap, 454, 943
393:
394: \bibitem[{{Ida} \& {Lin}(2004)}]{ida04b}
395: {Ida}, S. \& {Lin}, D.~N.~C. 2004, \apj, 616, 567
396:
397: \bibitem[{{Ida} \& {Lin}(2005)}]{ida05b}
398: ---. 2005, \apj, 626, 1045
399:
400: \bibitem[{{Johnson} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Johnson}, {Butler}, {Marcy},
401: {Fischer}, {Vogt}, {Wright}, \& {Peek}}]{johnson07b}
402: {Johnson}, J.~A., {Butler}, R.~P., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Fischer}, D.~A., {Vogt},
403: S.~S., {Wright}, J.~T., \& {Peek}, K.~M.~G. 2007{\natexlab{a}}, ArXiv
404: e-prints, 707
405:
406: \bibitem[{{Johnson} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Johnson}, {Fischer}, {Marcy},
407: {Wright}, {Driscoll}, {Butler}, {Hekker}, {Reffert}, \& {Vogt}}]{johnson07}
408: {Johnson}, J.~A., {Fischer}, D.~A., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Wright}, J.~T.,
409: {Driscoll}, P., {Butler}, R.~P., {Hekker}, S., {Reffert}, S., \& {Vogt},
410: S.~S. 2007{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 665, 785
411:
412: \bibitem[{{Johnson} {et~al.}(2006){Johnson}, {Marcy}, {Fischer}, {Henry},
413: {Wright}, {Isaacson}, \& {McCarthy}}]{johnson06b}
414: {Johnson}, J.~A., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Fischer}, D.~A., {Henry}, G.~W., {Wright},
415: J.~T., {Isaacson}, H., \& {McCarthy}, C. 2006, \apj, 652, 1724
416:
417: \bibitem[{{Kennedy} \& {Kenyon}(2007)}]{kennedy07}
418: {Kennedy}, G.~M. \& {Kenyon}, S.~J. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 710
419:
420: \bibitem[{{Kornet} {et~al.}(2005){Kornet}, {Bodenheimer}, {R{\'o}{\.z}yczka},
421: \& {Stepinski}}]{kornet05}
422: {Kornet}, K., {Bodenheimer}, P., {R{\'o}{\.z}yczka}, M., \& {Stepinski}, T.~F.
423: 2005, \aap, 430, 1133
424:
425: \bibitem[{{Korzennik} {et~al.}(2000){Korzennik}, {Brown}, {Fischer},
426: {Nisenson}, \& {Noyes}}]{korzennik00}
427: {Korzennik}, S.~G., {Brown}, T.~M., {Fischer}, D.~A., {Nisenson}, P., \&
428: {Noyes}, R.~W. 2000, \apjl, 533, L147
429:
430: \bibitem[{{Laughlin} {et~al.}(2004){Laughlin}, {Bodenheimer}, \&
431: {Adams}}]{laughlin04}
432: {Laughlin}, G., {Bodenheimer}, P., \& {Adams}, F.~C. 2004, \apjl, 612, L73
433:
434: \bibitem[{{Liu} {et~al.}(2007){Liu}, {Sato}, {Zhao}, {Noguchi}, {Wang},
435: {Kambe}, {Ando}, {Izumiura}, {Chen}, {Okada}, {Toyota}, {Omiya}, {Masuda},
436: {Takeda}, {Murata}, {Itoh}, {Yoshida}, {Kokubo}, \& {Ida}}]{liu07}
437: {Liu}, Y.~J., {Sato}, B., {Zhao}, G., {Noguchi}, K., {Wang}, H., {Kambe}, E.,
438: {Ando}, H., {Izumiura}, H., {Chen}, Y.~Q., {Okada}, N., {Toyota}, E.,
439: {Omiya}, M., {Masuda}, S., {Takeda}, Y., {Murata}, D., {Itoh}, Y., {Yoshida},
440: M., {Kokubo}, E., \& {Ida}, S. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 709
441:
442: \bibitem[{{Lovis} \& {Mayor}(2007)}]{lovis07}
443: {Lovis}, C. \& {Mayor}, M. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 706
444:
445: \bibitem[{{Moutou} {et~al.}(2006){Moutou}, {Loeillet}, {Bouchy}, {da Silva},
446: {Mayor}, {Pont}, {Queloz}, {Santos}, {S{\'e}gransan}, {Udry}, \&
447: {Zucker}}]{moutou06}
448: {Moutou}, C., {Loeillet}, B., {Bouchy}, F., {da Silva}, R., {Mayor}, M.,
449: {Pont}, F., {Queloz}, D., {Santos}, N.~C., {S{\'e}gransan}, D., {Udry}, S.,
450: \& {Zucker}, S. 2006, \aap, 458, 327
451:
452: \bibitem[{{Niedzielski} {et~al.}(2007){Niedzielski}, {Konacki}, {Wolszczan},
453: {Nowak}, {Maciejewski}, {Gelino}, {Shao}, {Shetrone}, \& {Ramsey}}]{nied07}
454: {Niedzielski}, A., {Konacki}, M., {Wolszczan}, A., {Nowak}, G., {Maciejewski},
455: G., {Gelino}, R.~C., {Shao}, M., {Shetrone}, M., \& {Ramsey}, L.~W. 2007,
456: ArXiv e-prints, 705
457:
458: \bibitem[{{Robinson} {et~al.}(2007){Robinson}, {Laughlin}, {Vogt}, {Fischer},
459: {Butler}, {Marcy}, {Henry}, {Driscoll}, {Takeda}, \& {Johnson}}]{robinson07}
460: {Robinson}, S.~E., {Laughlin}, G., {Vogt}, S.~S., {Fischer}, D.~A., {Butler},
461: R.~P., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Henry}, G.~W., {Driscoll}, P., {Takeda}, G., \&
462: {Johnson}, J.~A. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 708
463:
464: \bibitem[{{Saar} {et~al.}(1998){Saar}, {Butler}, \& {Marcy}}]{saar98}
465: {Saar}, S.~H., {Butler}, R.~P., \& {Marcy}, G.~W. 1998, \apjl, 498, L153+
466:
467: \bibitem[{{Santos} {et~al.}(2004){Santos}, {Israelian}, \& {Mayor}}]{santos04}
468: {Santos}, N.~C., {Israelian}, G., \& {Mayor}, M. 2004, \aap, 415, 1153
469:
470: \bibitem[{{Sato} {et~al.}(2003){Sato}, {Ando}, {Kambe}, {Takeda}, {Izumiura},
471: {Masuda}, {Watanabe}, {Noguchi}, {Wada}, {Okada}, {Koyano}, {Maehara},
472: {Norimoto}, {Okada}, {Shimizu}, {Uraguchi}, {Yanagisawa}, \&
473: {Yoshida}}]{sato03}
474: {Sato}, B., {Ando}, H., {Kambe}, E., {Takeda}, Y., {Izumiura}, H., {Masuda},
475: S., {Watanabe}, E., {Noguchi}, K., {Wada}, S., {Okada}, N., {Koyano}, H.,
476: {Maehara}, H., {Norimoto}, Y., {Okada}, T., {Shimizu}, Y., {Uraguchi}, F.,
477: {Yanagisawa}, K., \& {Yoshida}, M. 2003, \apjl, 597, L157
478:
479: \bibitem[{{Schrijver} \& {Pols}(1993)}]{schrijver93}
480: {Schrijver}, C.~J. \& {Pols}, O.~R. 1993, \aap, 278, 51
481:
482: \bibitem[{{Setiawan} {et~al.}(2003){Setiawan}, {Hatzes}, {von der L{\" u}he},
483: {Pasquini}, {Naef}, {da Silva}, {Udry}, {Queloz}, \& {Girardi}}]{setiawan03}
484: {Setiawan}, J., {Hatzes}, A.~P., {von der L{\" u}he}, O., {Pasquini}, L.,
485: {Naef}, D., {da Silva}, L., {Udry}, S., {Queloz}, D., \& {Girardi}, L. 2003,
486: \aap, 398, L19
487:
488: \bibitem[{{Valenti} \& {Fischer}(2005)}]{valenti05}
489: {Valenti}, J.~A. \& {Fischer}, D.~A. 2005, \apjs, 159, 141
490:
491: \bibitem[{{Wright}(2005)}]{wright05}
492: {Wright}, J.~T. 2005, \pasp, 117, 657
493:
494: \end{thebibliography}
495:
496: \end{document}
497: