Defining and cataloging exoplanets: the exoplanet.eu database

By J. Schneider, C. Dedieu, P. Sidaner, R. Savalle, I. Zolotukhin. 2011

540 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We describe an online database for extrasolar planetary-mass candidates, which is updated regularly as new data are available. We first discuss criteria for inclusion of objects in the catalog: “definition” of a planet and several aspects of the confidence level of planet candidates. We are led to point out the contradiction between the sharpness of criteria for belonging to a catalog and the fuzziness of the confidence level for an object to be a planet. We then describe the different tables of extrasolar planetary systems, including unconfirmed candidates (which will ultimately be confirmed, or not, by direct imaging). It also provides online tools: histograms of planet and host star data, cross-correlations between these parameters, and some Virtual Observatory services. Future evolutions of the database are presented.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/351bbaa6d0b597175a17f59f822c8e0d1fdebe03

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

1. Jon Fortney
2. D. Charbonneau
3. J. Southworth
4. M. Perryman
5. J. Winn
6. G. Marcy
7. C. Mordasini
8. J. Johnson

In Instrumentation

1. J. Southworth
2. Jon Fortney
3. D. Charbonneau
4. G. Marcy
5. Timothy Morton
6. J. Owen
7. J. Winn
8. J. Johnson

Citations in the corpus

• SOPHIE velocimetry of Kepler transit candidates XVII. The physical properties of giant exoplanets within 400 days of period (2015, background): “Even the definition of what is a giant planet is still an open question, in both borders: towards the lower mass planets (Hatzes & Rauer subm.) and the brown dwarf regime (Schneider et al. 2011; Chabrier et al. 2014).”
• HATSouth: A Global Network of Fully Automated Identical Wide-Field Telescopes (2012, background): “12 See http://exoplanets.org (Wright et al. 2011) for the list of published planets, and www.exoplanet.eu (Schneider et al. 2011) photometric transit surveys employing automated telescopes (and networks in several cases) such as WASP (Pollacco et al. 2006), HATNet (Bakos et al. 2004), CoRoT (Baglin…”
• SPECTRAL AND PHOTOMETRIC DIAGNOSTICS OF GIANT PLANET FORMATION SCENARIOS (2011, background): “Mode of formation is arguably a better, albeit less readily observable, taxonomical discriminant (Burrows et al. 2001; Chabrier et al. 2005; Spiegel et al. 2011; Schneider et al. 2011). processes take on the order of several to tens of millions of years (Pollack et al. 1996; Hubickyj et al. 2005).”
• SWEET-Cat: A catalogue of parameters for Stars With ExoplanETs - I. New atmospheric parameters and masses for 48 stars with planets (2013, methodology): “1, 2, and 3 we compare our baseline parameters for stars detected in the context of radial velocity surveys with those listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia (Schneideret al. 2011), exoplanets.org (Wright et al. 2011), and the NASA Exoplanet Archive9.”
• The GAPS Programme with HARPS-N at TNG - XIV. Investigating giant planet migration history via improved eccentricity and mass determination for 231 transiting planets (2017, unknown): “We set the mass upper limit following Schneider et al. (2011) and, to discard low-mass planets that may undergo a completely di ff erent evolution, we used a lower limit that is more conservative than the value of 0 .”
• AN ANCIENT EXTRASOLAR SYSTEM WITH FIVE SUB-EARTH-SIZE PLANETS (2015, background): “5, where we represent all exoplanet-host stars in The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia2 (Schneider et al. 2011) for which it was possible to derive Galactic space velocities (370 systems harboring 490 planets).”
• Why do protoplanetary disks appear not massive enough to form the known exoplanet population? (2018, unknown): “Exoplanet data are taken from exoplanet.eu (Schneider et al. 2011).”
• THE GEMINI/NICI PLANET-FINDING CAMPAIGN: THE FREQUENCY OF PLANETS AROUND YOUNG MOVING GROUP STARS (2013, background): “…to 1015.5 AU, with points every 5 AU and a linear grid in mass (in Jupiter masses) running from 0.2 to 19.2 MJup, with points every 1 MJup, thus fully covering the mass range of possible planets as well as low mass brown dwarfs which could plausibly form via core accretion (Schneider et al. 2011).”
• SOPHIE velocimetry of Kepler transit candidates VII. A false-positive rate of 35% for Kepler close-in giant candidates (2012, methodology): “For this study, we considered the upper mass limit of planet proposed by Schneider et al. (2011) of up to 25 MJup.”
• STELLAR DIAMETERS AND TEMPERATURES. II. MAIN-SEQUENCE K- AND M-STARS (2012, methodology): “We thank the 24 The Exoplanet Encyclopedia (exoplanet.eu; Schneider et al. 2011).”
• Breaking the chains: hot super-Earth systems from migration and disruption of compact resonant chains (2017, background): “Statistical studies suggest that about one out of three solar- E-mail: izidoro.costa@gmail.com type stars (FGK spectral types) host a super-Earth with orbital period shorter than 100 d (Mayor et al. 2011; Howard et al. 2012; Fressin et al. 2013; Petigura et al. 2013).”
• Precise Radial Velocities of Giant Stars VII. Occurrence Rate of Giant Extrasolar Planets as a Function of Mass and Metallicity (2014, background): “However, taking also the formation scenario into account, one might want to include objects in the mass range from roughly 13 to 25–30 MJup among the planet category, especially those which formed around stars more massive than 1 M (see e.g. Baraffe et al. 2010; Schneider et al. 2011).”
• Transit timing observations from Kepler - VII. Confirmation of 27 planets in 13 multiplanet systems via transit timing variations and orbital stability (2012, background): “25MJupiter, confirming them as planets (using the planet criterion suggested by (Schneider et al. 2011)).”