J/A+A/701/A64 List of planets from HARPS/Coralie surveys (Emsenhuber+, 2025)
The New Generation Planetary Population Synthesis (NGPPS).
VII. Statistical comparison with the HARPS/Coralie survey.`
Emsenhuber A., Mordasini C., Mayor M., Marmier M., Udry S., Burn R.,
Schlecker M., Mishra L., Alibert Y., Benz W., Asphaug E.
<Astron. Astrophys. 701, A64 (2025)>
=2025A&A...701A..64E 2025A&A...701A..64E (SIMBAD/NED BibCode)
ADC_Keywords: Stars, double and multiple ; Exoplanets ; Binaries, orbits ;
Abundances, [Fe/H] ; Optical
Keywords: methods: statistical - techniques: radial velocities -
planets and satellites: formation
Abstract:
Planetary population synthesis is a tool that is used to better
understand the key processes of planet formation at the statistical
level.
We seek to quantify the fidelity with which modern population
syntheses reproduce observations in view of their use as predictive
tools.
We compared synthetic populations from the Generation 3 Bern Model of
Planet Formation and Evolution (core accretion, solar-type host stars)
and the HARPS/Coralie radial velocity sample. We biased the synthetic
planet population according to the completeness of the observed data.
We then performed quantitative statistical comparisons and
systematically identified agreements and differences.
Our nominal population reproduces many of the main features of the
HARPS planets, such as two main groups of planets in the mass-distance
diagram (close-in sub-Neptunes and distant giants), a bimodal mass
function with a less populated "desert", an observed mean multiplicity
of about 1.6, and several key correlations regarding the stellar
metallicity dependency, the period ratio distribution, and the
eccentricity distribution. Considering that the model was not
optimised beforehand to reproduce any particular survey, this
indicates that some of the important physical processes governing
planetary formation could be captured. The remaining discrepancies
that can be quantified thanks to the population synthesis approach
point to areas that are not fully captured in the model. For instance,
we find that the synthetic population has (1) in absolute terms too
many planets by ∼70%, (2) a "desert" that is too deep by ∼60%, (3) a
relative excess of giant planets by ∼40%, (4) planet eccentricities
that are on average too low by a factor of about two (median of 0.07
versus 0.15), and (5) a metallicity effect that is too weak. Finally,
the synthetic planets are overall too close to the star compared to
the HARPS sample. The differences allowed us to find model parameters
that better reproduce the observed planet masses, for which we
computed additional synthetic populations. We find that decreasing the
planet formation efficiency by increasing the planetesimal size
re-balances the number of sub-Neptunes versus giant planets. Changing
the efficiency of gas-driven migration also affects the sub-Neptune to
giant planet ratio, with lower migration rates resulting in more giant
planets and fewer sub-Neptunes.
However, only modifying the model parameters seems to be insufficient
for the model to fully reproduce both the observed mass and distance
distributions at the same time. Instead, physical processes appear to
be missing. Planets may originate on wider orbits than our model
predicts. Mechanisms leading to higher eccentricities and slower
disc-limited gas accretion also seem necessary. We also advocate that
theoretical models should make a quantitative, rather than merely a
qualitative, comparison between the many current and future large
surveys and theoretical results to better understand the origins of
planetary systems.
Description:
Planetary parameters for 179 planets detected by the CORALIE and HARPS
surveys. Results are based on data obtained until the end of 2015. The
original stellar sample was defined as volume-limited within 50pc as
originally defined in Mayor et al. (2003Msngr.114...20M 2003Msngr.114...20M). Binaries, as
indicated by a detectable companion within 6 arcsecond or a RV signal
that indicate a companion of more than 13 Jupiter masses were
excluded. With the exclusion of the additional four years of data, the
analysis was performed as in Mayor+ 2011.
File Summary:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FileName Lrecl Records Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ReadMe 80 . This file
tablec1.dat 130 170 List of planets from the HARPS/Coralie surveys
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byte-by-byte Description of file: tablec1.dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- 10 A10 --- Name Planet name
12- 19 F8.2 d Period ? Orbital period
21- 24 F4.2 --- Ecc ? Orbital eccentricity
27- 33 F7.2 Mgeo Msini ? Minimum mass
36- 42 F7.2 d Periodl ? Orbital period according to the
litterature
44 A1 --- n_Periodl [*] Significant difference in period (1)
46 A1 --- l_Eccl Upper limit flag on Eccl
48- 51 F4.2 --- Eccl ? Orbital eccentricity according to the
litterature
53 A1 --- n_Eccl [*] Significant difference in orbital
eccentricity (1)
56- 62 F7.2 Mgeo Msinil ? Minimum mass according to the litterature
64 A1 --- n_Msinil [*] Significant difference in mass (1)
66- 70 F5.2 --- [Fe/H] Stellar metallicity
72- 90 A19 --- Refdisc Reference for the discovery (BibCode)
92-110 A19 --- Refmeta Reference for the metallicity value (BibCode)
112-130 A19 --- Reflitt Reference for the litterature values (BiBcode)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note (1): "*" if the value from the analysis in this work and the corresponding
value from the litterature differ by more than 10%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acknowledgements:
Alexandre Emsenhuber, alexandre.emsenhuber(at)unibe.ch
References:
Emsenhuber et al., Paper I 2021A&A...656A..69E 2021A&A...656A..69E
Emsenhuber et al., Paper II 2021A&A...656A..70E 2021A&A...656A..70E
Schlecker et al., Paper III 2021A&A...656A..71S 2021A&A...656A..71S
Burn et al., Paper IV 2021A&A...656A..72B 2021A&A...656A..72B
Schlecker et al., Paper V 2021A&A...656A..73S 2021A&A...656A..73S
Lokesh et al., Paper VI 2021A&A...656A..74M 2021A&A...656A..74M
(End) A. Emsenhuber [UniBE, Switzerland], P. Vannier [CDS] 04-Jul-2025