Paper detail

On the functional form of the metallicity-giant planet correlation

It is generally accepted that the presence of a giant planet is strongly dependent on the stellar metallicity. A stellar mass dependence has also been investigated, but this dependence does not seem as strong as the metallicity dependence. Even for metallicity, however, the exact form of the correlation has not been established. In this paper, we test several scenarios for describing the frequency of giant planets as a function of its host parameters. We perform this test on two volume-limited samples (from CORALIE and HARPS). By using a Bayesian analysis, we quantitatively compared the different scenarios. We confirm that giant planet frequency is indeed a function of metallicity. However, there is no statistical difference between a constant or an exponential function for stars with subsolar metallicities contrary to what has been previously stated in the literature. The dependence on stellar mass could neither be confirmed nor be discarded.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.