Solar system and Exoplanets

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Open University Library, on 16 Jun 2020 at 13:18:33, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921317006421
 François Mignard and Alejandra Rrecio-Blanco during the conference dinner.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Open University Library, on 16 Jun 2020 at 13:18:33, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921317006421
 Astronomy and Astrophysics in the Gaia sky
Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 330, 2017
A. Recio-Blanco, P. de Laverny, A.G.A. Brown 
c International Astronomical Union 2018
& T. Prusti, eds. doi:10.1017/S1743921317006421

Characterisation of exoplanet host stars:

A window into planet formation
Nuno C. Santos1,2
1
Instituto de Astrofı́sica e Ciências do Espaço, Universidade do Porto, CAUP, Rua das
Estrelas, 4150-762 Porto, Portugal
email: [email protected]
2
Departamento de Fı́sica e Astronomia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, Rua do
Campo Alegre, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal

Abstract. The detection of thousands of planets orbiting stars other than the Sun has shown
that planets are common throughout the Galaxy. However, the diversity of systems found has
also raised many questions regarding the process of planet formation and evolution. Interestingly,
but perhaps not unexpectedly, crucial information to constraint the planet formation models
comes from the analysis of the planet-host stars. In this talk I will review why it is so important
to study and understand the stars when finding and characterising exoplanets. I will then present
some of the most relevant star-planet relations found to date, and how they are helping us to
understand planet formation and evolution. I will end with a presentation of the future steps in
this field, including what Gaia will bring to help constrain the properties of planet-host stars,
as well as to the star-planet connection.
Keywords. planetary systems, stars: abundances, planetary systems: formation

1. Introduction
Since the detection of a giant planet orbiting the solar-type star 51 Peg Mayor & Queloz
(1995) more than 3500 extrasolar planets have been published†. The impact of these
discoveries is considerable, both scientifically and socially. They represent the first firm
steps of humankind towards the detection and characterisation of other planets similar to
our Earth. In this process, this multi-disciplinary domain is opening new bridges between
different fields in Astrophysics (e.g. stellar astrophysics, solar system research) and other
areas of knowledge such as geophysics (Valencia et al. 2006) and biology (Kaltenegger
et al. 2010). Together these bring new hopes of finding an Earth-like planet where life
may have evolved.
The diversity of discovered planets is raising new questions and opening new pathways.
One point is already clear, however: even though the precise frequency of the different
kinds of planets in the Galaxy is a matter of debate, the community presently agrees
that planets, in particular rocky planets like our Earth, are very common around solar
type FGK and M stars (see e.g. Udry & Santos 2007, Howard et al. 2012, Bonfils et al.
2013). This conclusion is fully supported by state-of-the-art planet formation models
based on the core-accretion paradigm, that further predict low mass/radius planets to
largely surmount the number of their jovian or neptune-like counterparts (e.g. Mordasini
et al. 2012).
The strong progress in this field is well illustrated by Fig. 1, where we plot, in the left
panel, a mass-period diagram of the discovered exoplanets. The plot illustrates not only
the large diversity of discovered planets, but also the clustering of planets around three
† For an up-to-date list see http://exoplanet.eu

369

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Open University Library, on 16 Jun 2020 at 13:18:33, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921317006421
 370 N. C. Santos

Figure 1. Left: Mass-period diagram for known exoplanets with a mass determination. Solar
system planets Jupiter, Saturn, and the Earth are illustrated for reference. Right: Planet mass
as a function of year of discovery. Solar system planets Jupiter, Neptune, and the Earth are
illustrated for reference. From Adibekyan (2017).

main regions: the short period giant planets, also dubbed hot jupiters, occupy the upper-
left part of the plot. Cool and temperate giants (more similar to Jupiter and Saturn)
occupy the upper right part of the plot. Finally, the lower part of the diagram is populated
by an increasing population of rocky and neptune-like planets. This latter population,
though not the most represented in the plot (because its also the most difficult to detect),
is likely the most common. In the right panel of this figure we also show the exoplanet
mass as a function of the year of discovery, a plot that illustrates the progress in exoplanet
discoveries and in the techniques used to detect them.
While the number and variety of discovered planets is still an important asset for
exoplanet research (e.g. with an impact for the models), the focus of extrasolar planet
researchers is now moving towards two main lines: i) the detection of lower and lower mass
planets, with the goal of finding an Earth sibling, and ii) the detailed characterisation
of known exoplanets, including their interior structures and atmospheres. Both lines of
research have already seen their own success. Though it is out of the scope of the present
paper to review in detail these results, we would like to point the reader to the recent
reviews by Mayor et al. (2014), Fortney et al. (2014), and Burrows (2014).
Inherent to the detection and characterisation of exoplanets is the study of their host
stars. In most cases, planet search and characterisation methods† only observe the star,
not the planet itself. Phenomena related to stellar activity, stellar granulation, and os-
cillations (that act in different timescales) are particularly nasty for exoplanet detection
and characterisation efforts using the radial velocity method (see e.g. Dumusque et al.
2011). They can prevent us from finding planets, if the perturbation is larger than the
planet induced signal, or even give us false candidates, if they produce a periodic and
stable signal over a few rotational periods (e.g. Figueira et al. 2010). Stellar activity is
also particularly relevant when dealing with transit searches. Not only it induces strong
photometric modulations (that need to be filtered), but also they induce in-transit fluc-
tuations that prevent us from having precise values for the transit depth, and hence the
planet radius (e.g. Oshagh et al. 2013). In brief, different sources of noise are a strong

† Namely the radial velocity and transit methods, responsible for the discovery of the huge
majority of the known exoplanets.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Open University Library, on 16 Jun 2020 at 13:18:33, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921317006421
 Characterisation of exoplanet host stars 371
challenge in planet detection and characterisation efforts. The understanding of the dif-
ferent physical phenomena as well as ways to model or subtract them is now one of
the most important avenues to guarantee the success of future ground- and space-based
exoplanet projects.
A precise derivation of the physical characteristics of exoplanets is also intimately
connected to our ability to derive the stellar properties. For example, when a planet is
found transiting, the measurement precision on the planetary radius depends directly
on the precise knowledge of the stellar radius (e.g. Torres et al. 2008, Mortier et al.
2013a). The stellar mass is also a key ingredient for the derivation of planet masses using
the radial velocity method. The age of a planet can also only be known through the
derivation of the stellar age. All these ingredients, together with the stellar irradiation
(that depends also in the orbital distance) are fundamental to understand the potential
for habitability.
Finally, it has been shown that the chemical composition of the stars is intimately con-
nected to the frequency, architecture, and chemical composition of the discovered planets.
This is likely not unexpected, since planets are formed in proto-planetary disks, being
thus one of the outcomes of the star formation process. This review will concentrate on
this aspect, namely by presenting and discussing some of the most relevant aspects of
the star-planet connection. In Sect. 2 we will discuss the relation between stellar abun-
dances and planet frequency. In Sect. 3 we will then see how stellar properties relate with
the architecture of the discovered exoplanet systems and the chemical composition of the
planets themselves. Finally, in Sect.4 we will present the future prospects in this research,
not forgetting the role of Gaia.

2. Stellar abundances and planet frequency

A number of different studies pointed the existence of a strong relation between the
properties and frequency of the newfound planets and those of their host stars. In this
respect, the well known correlation between the stellar metallicity and the frequency of
giant planets is a good example. Large spectroscopic studies (e.g. Santos et al. 2001,
Santos et al. 2004, Fischer & Valenti 2005, Sousa et al. 2011) confirmed the initial sus-
picions of a positive correlation between the probability of finding a giant planet and
the metal content of the stars (See Fig. 2). Curiously, this strong metallicity-giant planet
correlation was not found for the lowest mass planets (Sousa et al. 2011, Buchhave et al.
2012). Both results, however, are in full agreement with the expectations from the most
recent models of planet formation based on the core-accretion paradigm (e.g. e.g. Mor-
dasini et al. 2012, and discussion therein). We should add, however, that recent results
seem to suggest that the overall metal content of the stars may still be relevant for the
formation of the lower mass planets (Zhu et al. 2016, Wang & Fischer 2015). The higher
abundances of alpha elements in metal-poor planet hosts also points in that direction
(Adibekyan et al. 2013).
Interestingly, recent results also suggest that on the other mass limit, planet formation
may follow a different path. Santos et al. (2017) have shown that stars hosting planets
with mass above ∼4 MJ u p are metal poor when compared with stars hosting lower mass,
giant planets (Fig. 3), a result that was shown to be statistically significant. This result
suggests that above ∼4 MJ u p giant planets may be mainly formed via a different physical
process, likely a disk instability mechanism (e.g. Cai et al. 2006).
Its important to add that these results have only been possible thanks to the increase
in the number of discovered planets, but also due to the existence of precise and uniform

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Open University Library, on 16 Jun 2020 at 13:18:33, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921317006421
 372 N. C. Santos

Figure 2. Frequency of giant (left panel) and neptune-mass (right panel) planets detected by
radial velocity surveys as function of stellar metallicity (Sousa et al. 2011). From Mayor et al.
(2014).

values for the stellar parameters and metallicities for planet host stars, such as the ones
compiled in the SWEET-Cat database (Santos et al. 2013, Andreassen et al. 2017).
Although the general metallicity-giant planet correlation is reasonably well established,
many details are still missing that may hold the clue to new and important details con-
cerning planet formation. For example, the exact shape of the metallicity-planet correla-
tion is still debated (Udry & Santos 2007, Johnson et al. 2010, Mortier et al. 2013b). The
understanding of this issue may be critical to point out the mechanisms responsible for
the formation of giant planets across the whole metallicity range (Matsuo et al. 2007),
or to the understanding of the frequency of planets in the MilkyWay. The role of the
abundances of other elements is also being discussed, with some curious trends being a
strong matter of debate concerning e.g. the abundances of the light element lithium (e.g.
Israelian et al. 2009, Baumann et al. 2010, Figueira et al. 2014).
It is worth adding that a role in the formation of giant planets has also been assigned
to stellar mass. It is now widely accepted that the frequency of giant planets orbiting M
dwarfs is considerably lower than that found for FGK dwarfs (e.g. Bonfils et al. 2013),
at least regarding the short-period domain. This result is expected from the models of
planetary formation following the core-accretion paradigm (e.g. Mordasini et al. 2012,
Ida & Lin 2005).

3. Stellar abundances, planet architecture, and planet composition

The role of stellar properties on the formation of different architectures of planetary
systems has also been addressed. Among these, initial suspicions have been raised con-
cerning the metallicity-orbital period relation (e.g. Queloz et al. 2000, Sozzetti 2004).
Hot-Jupiters have often been identified as orbiting particularly metal-rich stars, even if
this trend had not been confirmed from a statistical point of view. Interestingly, recent
results do support the existence of a period-metallicity correlation. Beaugé & Nesvorny
(2013) have shown that among Kepler small planets there is a lack of short period objects
orbiting metal-poor stars. A similar trend has also been found by Adibekyan et al. (2013),
who have shown that among planets discovered by radial velocity surveys, in all mass
domains metal-rich stars have longer period planets than their metal-poor counterparts.
It is also interesting to add that preliminary results from an ESO Large Program to
search for planets orbiting metal-poor stars (Santos et al. 2017) have also failed to detect

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Open University Library, on 16 Jun 2020 at 13:18:33, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921317006421
 Characterisation of exoplanet host stars 373

Figure 3. Left: Mass distribution of giant planets orbiting solar-type stars. The green histogram
includes all hosts, while the blue histogram includes only a selected subsample. A “valley” around
4 MJ u p is seen. Right: Metallicity distributions for planets with mass above and below 4 MJ u p .
See Santos et al. (2017) for details.

short period planets, even if some intermediate period cases were found (e.g. Mortier
et al. 2016, Faria et al. 2016).
Results from Dawson & Murray-Clay (2013) have also raised the possibility that stellar
metallicity may be related to the orbital eccentricity. Analyzing the eccentricity-period
diagram for giant planets orbiting solar-type stars they have shown that for intermediate
period planets the eccentricity values are higher if the stars are metal-rich. This result,
as well as the period-metallicity correlation mentioned above, can likely be explained if
higher metallicity stars were able to produce more planets: this would lead to stronger
planet-planet scattering, a process that is able to migrate planets into shorter period
orbits and lead to the formation of higher eccentricity systems. We note that evidence
exists that short period giant planets may result from the outcome of violent migra-
tion processes (e.g. Winn et al. 2010, Sotiriadis et al. 2017). Alternatively, planet-disk
interactions could also play a role if the process is metallicity dependent (Tsang et al.
2014).
The chemical composition of the stars also seems to be reflected on the structure of
the planets that were formed. For instance, the presence of a core (or at least the heavy
element content of a giant planet) has been suggested to be related to the metallicity of
the star (Guillot et al. 2006). Furthermore, even though most studies dealing with the
star-planet connection have focused on the global metallicity as a proxy for the metal-
content of the star (and likely of the proto-planetary disk), specific chemical abundance
ratios may also have an impact on the planets themselves. Different chemical abundances
in the disk may result in the formation of planets having different composition and
structure (e.g. Carter-Bond et al. 2012, Delgado Mena et al. 2010, Dorn et al. 2015,
Thiabaud et al. 2015, Santos et al. 2015, Dorn et al. 2017), a fact that may even change
their habitability potential (Noack et al. 2014).
Understanding if the chemical abundances we see on the host star are related to the
chemical composition we observe on the orbiting planet may provide valuable clues for
the modelling of the observations. For instance, it is known that abundance ratios such
as Fe/Mg and Fe/Si are very similar on the Sun, Earth, Venus, and Mars – see discussion
in Dorn et al. (2015). In a recent paper, Dressing et al. (2015) has shown that 5 known
rocky planets (Kepler-10b, Kepler-36b, Kepler-78b, and Kepler-93b, as well as CoRoT-
7b) having precise measurements of the mass and radius seem to follow the same line

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Open University Library, on 16 Jun 2020 at 13:18:33, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921317006421
 374 N. C. Santos

Figure 4. Mass-radius diagram including very low mass (potentially) rocky planets found by
different surveys. The lines represent models of planets having different compositions. This plot
illustrates how the chemical composition of a planet can be inferred from its position in this
plot. From Dorn et al. (2017).

in the mass-radius diagram: a line corresponding to the expected position of Earth-like

planets (see also Fig. 4). A detailed chemical analysis of 3 of these stars together with
a simple stoichiometric model has also shown that the expected planet composition in
indeed compatible with Earth-like (Santos et al. 2015). If confirmed, these results may be
used to constrain the models of planet composition, as long as the abundances of some
key elements are known in the stellar atmosphere. Furthermore, this would imply that
stars from different galactic populations may even be able to form planets with different
composition (Adibekyan et al. 2016).

4. Exoplanet research in the Gaia era

The results presented in this paper illustrate how the study of stars with planets and
their link with the properties of the planets they host is providing important clues about
the processes of planet formation and evolution. Of course, several of the correlations
discussed above were only possible thanks to the continuous increase in the number of
planets found. As usual, when a new parameter space is explored, unexpected results are
obtained. We can thus expect that new star-planet relations will appear in the future
as a whole new generation of planet search and characterisation instruments becomes
reality. These include ground-based optical spectrographs such as ESPRESSO (ESO-
VLT), capable of achieving down to sub m/s precision in RV. A whole new generation
of infrared (IR) high resolution spectrographs is also on its way, including instruments
such Carmenes@Calar Alto, Spirou@CFHT, and NIRPS (for ESO’s 3.6-m). To these
we should add the dawn of a new generation of ground- and space-based projects that
will search and characterize transiting low mass/radius planets. These include the ESA
mission CHEOPS, NASA’s TESS (both expected to fly in 2018/2019) and further ahead
the ESA PLATO2.0 mission. Finally, a new set of high resolution spectrographs is being
planed for a new generation of ELT telescopes.
In this context Gaia will also play a key role. On the one hand, the precise astrometric
data gathered is expected to allow the detection of thousands of giant planets orbiting

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Open University Library, on 16 Jun 2020 at 13:18:33, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921317006421
 Characterisation of exoplanet host stars 375
solar-type FGK and M stars, as well as to confirm (and derive precise orbital parameters
and masses) for dozens of giant planets discovered by radial-velocity surveys (e.g. Per-
ryman 2014, Sozzetti et al. 2014). Given that higher amplitude astrometric signals are
expected for higher-mass and longer-period planets, Gaia will focus its planet harvest in
this domain, thus probing a mass and period regime that has not yet been fully explored.
Finally, the photometry of Gaia will also allow to detect several transiting candidates
(Dzigan & Zucker 2012).
But the role of Gaia in the exoplanet field does not limit to planet detections. The
exquisite stellar distances will bring new valuable constraints for the derivation of stel-
lar properties (e.g. Stassun et al. 2017). These will allow to characterise in detail the
properties of planet hosts. Such is fundamental for a precise derivation of planet masses
and radii (and thus the planet mean densities): both quantities depend on the measure-
ment of the stellar mass and radius. Furthermore, stellar ages are the only way we can
possibly derive the age of the system, an important parameter to understand the planet
formation and evolution process. These inputs are all fundamental for the full success of
future planet characterisation projects.

I would like to thank the whole exoplanet team at the Instituto de Astrofı́sica e
Ciências do Espaço for the work that led to many of the results presented in this re-
view. This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT, Portu-
gal) through the research grant through national funds and by FEDER through COM-
PETE2020 by grants UID/FIS/04434/2013&POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007672 and PTDC-
/FIS-AST/1526/2014&POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016886, as well as through Investigador
FCT contract nr. IF/00169/2012/CP0150/CT0002.

References
Adibekyan, V. Zh., Delgado Mena, E., Sousa, S. G., et al. 2012, A&A, 547, A36
Adibekyan, V. Zh., Figueira, P., Santos, N., et al. 2013, A&A, 560, A51
Adibekyan, V. Zh., Figueira, P., & Santos, N. 2016, OLEB, 46, 351
Adibekyan, V. Zh. 2017, ASP Conference Series, in press (arXiv:1701.01661)
Andreasen, D. T., Sousa, S. G., & Tsantaki, M. 2017, A&A, 600, A69
Beaugé, C. & Nesvorný, D. 2013, ApJ, 763, 12
Baumann, P., Ramı́rez, I., Meléndez, J., Asplund, M., & Lind, K. 2010, A&A, 519, 87
Carter-Bond, J. C., O?Brien, D. P., & Raymond, S. N. 2012, ApJ, 760, 44
Bonfils, X., Delfosse, X., Udry, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A109
Burrows, A. S. 2014, Nature, 513, 345
Buchhave, Lars A., Latham, David W., Johansen, Anders, et al. 2012, Nature, 486, 375
Cai, K., Durisen, R. H., & Michael, S., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, L149
Dawson, Rebekah I. & Murray-Clay, Ruth A. 2013, ApJ, 676, L24
Delgado Mena, E., Israelian, G., González Hernández, J. I., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2349
Dorn, C., Khan, A., Heng, K., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A83
Dorn, C., Hinkel, N. R., & Venturini, J. 2017, A&A, 597, A38
Dressing, C. D., Charbonneau, D., Dumusque, X., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 135
Dumusque, X., Lovis, C., Ségransan, D., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A55
Dzigan, Y. & Zucker, S. 2012, ApJ, 753, L1
Figueira, P., Marmier, M., Bonfils, X., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, L8
Faria, J. P., Santos, N. C., Figueira, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A25
Figueira, P., Faria, J. P., Delgado-Mena, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A21
Fischer, Debra A. & Valenti, Jeff 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102
Guillot, T., Santos, N. C., Pont, F., Iro, N., Melo, C., & Ribas, I. 2006, A&A, 453, L21

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Open University Library, on 16 Jun 2020 at 13:18:33, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921317006421
 376 N. C. Santos
Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2012, ApJS 201, 15
Ida, S. & Lin, D. N. C. 2005, ApJ 626, 1045
Israelian, Garik, Delgado Mena, Elisa, & Santos, Nuno C. 2009, Nature, 462, 189
Johnson, J. A., Aller, K. M., Howard, A. W., & Crepp, J. R. 2010, PASP 122, 905
Kaltenegger, L. & Sasselov, D. 2010, Astrobiology, 10, 89
Lissauer, Jack J., Dawson, Rebekah I., & Tremaine, Scott 2014, Nature, 513, 336
Matsuo, T., Shibai, H., Ootsubo, T., & Tamura, M. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1282
Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 355, 278
Mayor, M., Lovis, C., & Santos, N. C. 2014, Nature, 513, 328
Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y., Benz, W., Klahr, H., & Henning, T. 2012, A&A, 541, A97
Mortier, A., Santos, N. C., Sousa, S. G., et al. 2013a, A&A, 558, A106
Mortier, A., Santos, N. C., Sousa, S. G., et al. 2013b, A&A, 557, A70
Mortier, A., Faria, J. P., Santos, N. C., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A135
Noack, L., Godolt, M., von Paris, P., et al. 2014, P&SS, 98, 14
Oshagh, M., Santos, N. C., Boisse, I., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A19
Perryman, M., Hartman, J., Bakos, Gáspár A., & Lindegren, Lennart 2014, ApJ, 797, 14
Queloz, D., Mayor, M., Weber, L., et al. 2000, A&A, 354, 99
Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M. 2001, A&A, 373, 1019
Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M. 2004, A&A, 415, 1153
Santos, N. C., Sousa, S. G., Mortier, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A150
Santos, N. C., Adibekyan, V., Mordasini, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, L13
Santos, N. C., Mortier, A., Faria, J. P., et al. 2016, A&A, 566, A35
Santos, N. C., Adibekyan, V., Figueira, P., et al. 2017, A&A, 415, 1153
Sotiriadis, Sotiris, Libert, Anne-Sophie, Bitsch, Bertram, Crida, Aurélien 2017, A&A, 598, A70
Sousa, S. G., Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., Mayor, M., & Udry, S. 2011, A&A, 533, A141
Sozzetti, A. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1194
Sozzetti, A., Giacobbe, P., Lattanzi, M. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 497
Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., & Gaudi, B. S. 2017, AJ, 153, 136
Torres, Guillermo, Winn, Joshua N. & Holman, Matthew J. 2008, ApJ, 677, 1324
Thiabaud, A., Marboeuf, U., Alibert, Y., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A27
Tsang, David, Turner, Neal J. & Cumming, Andrew 2014, ApJ, 782, 113
Udry, S. & Santos, N. C. 2007, ARAA, 45, 397
Valencia, D., O’Connell, R. J., & Sasselov, D. 2006, Icarus, 181, 545
Wang, Ji, Fischer, Debra A. 2015, AJ, 149, 14
Winn, Joshua N. & Fabrycky, Daniel, Albrecht, Simon, Johnson, John Asher 2010, ApJ, 718,
L145
Zhu, Wei, Wang, Ji, Huang, Chelsea 2016, ApJ, 832, 196

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Open University Library, on 16 Jun 2020 at 13:18:33, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921317006421