Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T16:32:28.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection effects in Doppler velocity planet searches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2007

Simon O'Toole ,
Chris Tinney  and
Hugh Jones
Simon O'Toole
Affiliation:
Anglo-Australian Observatory, PO Box 296, Epping NSW 1710, Australia email: [email protected]
Chris Tinney
Affiliation:
School of Physics, University of NSW, 2006Australia email: [email protected]
Hugh Jones
Affiliation:
Centre for Astrophysical Research, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, AL 109AB, UK email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The majority of extra-solar planets have been discovered by measuring the Doppler velocities of the host star. Like all exoplanet detection methods, the Doppler method is rife with observational biases. Before any robust comparison of mass, orbital period and eccentricity distributions can be made with theory, a detailed understanding of these selection effects is required, something which up to now is lacking. We present here a progress report on our analysis of the selection effects present in Anglo-Australian Planet Search data, including the methodology used and some preliminary results.

Keywords

Extra-solar planetsnumerical simulations
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 3 , Symposium S249: Exoplanets: Detection, Formation and Dynamics , October 2007 , pp. 111 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2008

References

Butler, R. P., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, A. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, H. R. A., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lineweaver, C. & Grether, D. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcy, G., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, 570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Toole, S. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Toole, S. J., et al. 2008, MNRAS, submittedGoogle Scholar
Press, W., et al. 1986, Numerical Recipes, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Santos, N. C. et al. 2001, A&A, 379, 999Google Scholar
Tinney, C. G., et al. 2001, ApJ, 551, 507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valenti, J. & Fischer, D. 2005, ApJS, 159, 141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J. 2005, PASP, 117, 657CrossRefGoogle Scholar