# Six New Planets from the Keck Precision Velocity Survey¹

## 1 Introduction

To date, 22 planet candidates have been identified around nearby main sequence stars by measuring their Keplerian Doppler shifts. Four groups have contributed the bulk of the detections by surveying a total of $``$300 stars at a Doppler precision of $``$10 m s$`^1`$(cf. Marcy, Cochran, Mayor 2000, Noyes et al. 1997). These “planets” all have mass estimates, $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$, less than 7.5 M<sub>JUP</sub>where $`i`$ is the unknown orbital inclination.

Fortuitously, these precision Doppler surveys, along with low–precision surveys of several thousand stars, have revealed only 11 orbiting brown dwarf candidates, $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$= 8–80 M<sub>JUP</sub>, and most are actually hydrogen–burning stars with low orbital inclination (Mayor et al. 1997, Halbwachs et al. 1999, Udry et al. 1999). This paucity of brown dwarf companions renders the planet candidates distinguishable by their high occurrence at low masses: 17 of the 22 have $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$= 0.4–4 M<sub>JUP</sub>(cf. Figure 6, Butler and Marcy 1997; Marcy, Cochran & Mayor 2000).

The planet candidates reveal a mass distribution that rises toward lower masses, from $``$8 M<sub>JUP</sub>to 0.5 M<sub>JUP</sub>which is the lowest $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$currently detected. Remarkably, all 13 planets that orbit beyond 0.2 AU reside in non–circular orbits with $`e>0.09`$ and many higher than 0.3. In contrast, the Earth and giant planets in our solar system have eccentricity less than 0.05 . Planet formation theory is challenged to find robust mechanisms that produce these observed distributions of mass and orbital eccentricity (cf. Lissauer 1995, Weidenschilling and Marzari 1996, Lin and Ida 1996, Rasio and Ford 1996). Further, the half–dozen planets that reside within 0.2 AU offer a challenge to explain their current location (cf. Lin et al. 1996).

The system of three planetary–mass companions around the main sequence star, Upsilon Andromedae, opens questions about the ubiquity of multiple planets and about the formation mechanisms that could explain multiple jupiter-mass planets within 3 AU. One wonders if a jupiter-mass planet within 3 AU is commonly accompanied by additional giant planets farther out, as demanded by dynamical evolution scenarios that involve mutual perturbations. Further Doppler measurements of existing and future planets can help ascertain the occurrence and character of multiple planet systems.

The broad goals of the precision Doppler surveys include the following: 1) detection of several hundred planets, sufficient to construct statistically-meaningful distributions of planet mass, eccentricity, and orbital distance; 2) the detection of Jupiter–mass planets beyond 4 AU to compare with our Jupiter; 3) the characterization of multiple planet systems; 4) characterization of planet distributions down to saturn-masses; 5) assessment of correlations between planets and stellar properties such as metallicity (i.e. Gonzalez et al. 1999). Toward achieving these goals, full-sky surveys of more than 1,000 stars are being carried out by our group, by Mayor’s group (Mayor et al. 1999), and by others. Most main sequence dwarf stars brighter than V=7.5 are currently being surveyed, with a need for more surveys in different regimes of parameter space.

This paper reports the discovery of six new planet candidates from the Keck extrasolar planet survey. Section 2 describes the Keck precision velocity program including technique, the stellar sample, and the current level of precision. The stellar properties and Keplerian orbital fits for the six new planet candidates are presented in Section 3. Section 4 provides an update on the orbital parameters for several previously announced planets. A discussion follows.

## 2 The Keck Planet Search Program

The Keck Doppler planet survey began in July 1996 using Keck I with the HIRES echelle spectrometer (Vogt et al. 1994). The spectra have resolution, R=80,000 and span wavelengths from 3900–6200 Å. Wavelength calibration is carried out by means of an iodine absorption cell (Marcy & Butler 1992; Butler et al. 1996) which superimposes a reference iodine spectrum directly on the stellar spectra.

The stellar sample contains main sequence stars from F7–M5. Stars hotter than F7 contain too few spectral features to achieve precision of 3 m s$`^1`$, while stars later than M5 are too faint ($`V>`$11) for the Keck telescope to achieve 3 m s$`^1`$precision in our nominal 10-minute exposure time. The G & K dwarfs are mostly within 50 pc and selected from the Hipparcos catalog (Perryman et al. 1997), while M dwarfs have been selected from both Hipparcos and the Gliese catalog. Evolved stars have been removed from the observing list based on Hipparcos distances.

The list has been further sieved to remove chromospherically active stars as these stars show velocity “jitter” of 10 to 50 m s$`^1`$, related to rapid rotation, spots, and magnetic fields (Saar et al. 1998). The Ca II H&K line reversals are used as a chromospheric diagnostic (Noyes et al. 1984), and are measured directly from our Keck HIRES spectra. The H&K measurements are placed on the Mt Wilson “S” scale by calibration with previously published results (Duncan et al. 1991; Baliunas et al. 1995; Henry et al. 1996). Based on their “S” index, stars with ages less than 2 Gyr are either excluded from our sample, or are given shorter exposure times.

Stars with known stellar companions within 2 arc seconds are removed from the observing list as it is operationally difficult to get an uncontaminated spectrum of a star with a nearby companion. Otherwise, there is no bias against observing multiple stars. Further, the list of Keck program stars has no bias against brown dwarf companions. Stars with known or suspected brown dwarf companions have not been excluded from the Keck target list.

Doppler measurement errors from our Keck survey were previously reported to be 6 to 8 m s$`^1`$(Butler et al. 1998; Marcy et al. 1999). However, we have since made improvements to the data analysis software. We now achieve a precision of 3 m s$`^1`$with HIRES by treating readout electronics and CCD charge diffusion in the model that determines the instrumental PSF of each observation (Valenti et al. 1995). We routinely achieve precision of 3 m s$`^1`$for $`V=`$8 stars in 10 minute exposures, as shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3, which cover stars of spectral types late F and G, K, and M respectively. The observed velocity precision, $`\sigma _{obs}`$, is the quadrature sum of the instrumental errors, $`\sigma _{inst}`$, and random velocity variations intrinsic to the program stars, $`\sigma _{star}`$. Saar et al. (1998) have shown that, for the slowest rotating G, K, and M stars, $`\sigma _{star}2`$ m s$`^1`$. Thus, our instrumental precision is presently $`\sigma _{inst}2`$ m s$`^1`$per observation. All previous HIRES data has also been reprocessed to bring its precision to this level. With further improvements, we expect to achieve photon limited precision of $``$ 2 m s$`^1`$with this system, and thus our exposures are nominally taken at a S/N sufficient for this goal.

## 3 New Planet Candidates from the Keck Survey

Six new planet candidates have recently emerged from the Keck survey. For HD 192263, the discovery of its planet was announced during the writing of this paper (Santos et al. 1999).

The stellar properties of the six host stars are given in Table 1. The first three columns provide the common name, the HD catalog number, and the Hipparcos catalog number respectively. Spectral types are from a calibration of $`BV`$ and Hipparcos-derived absolute magnitudes. The stellar masses are estimated by interpolation of evolutionary tracks (Fuhrmann et al. 1998; 1997). The values of R’<sub>HK</sub>, a measure of the ratio of chromospheric to bolometric flux (Noyes et al. 1984), are measured from the CaII H&K line cores in the Keck spectra. Distances are from Hipparcos (Perryman et al. 1997).

The \[Fe/H\] values are based on a calibration of the Hauck & Mermilliod (1997) catalog of uvby photometry and 60 \[Fe/H\] determinations from high resolution spectroscopy (Favata et al. 1997; Gonzalez et al. 1999; Gonzalez et al. 1998; Gonzalez 1998; Gonzalez 1997). From the scatter in the calibration relationship, the uncertainty in \[Fe/H\] is estimated to be 0.07 dex for stars from G0 V to K0 V.

Astrophysical effects that can mimic Keplerian Doppler velocity signals include radial and nonradial pulsations and rotational modulation caused by stellar surface features (i.e. spots, plages). Five of the new Keck candidates are chromospherically inactive, with R’<sub>HK</sub> values similar to the Sun or lower. In contrast, the sixth star, HD 192263, is extremely active with R’<sub>HK</sub> = -4.37 (Santos et al. 1999).

The orbital parameters for the six new Keck planet candidates are listed in Table 2. The quantities in parentheses are the formal uncertainties in each orbital parameter, as determined by monte carlo simulations. The individual Keck Doppler velocity measurements are listed in Tables 3 through 8. The host stars are discussed below.

### 3.1 HD 10697

HD 10697 (HR 508) is assigned a spectral type of G5 IV by the Bright Star Catalog (Hoffleit 1982) and Hipparcos. From its spectral type, $`BV`$ color and the Hipparcos–derived absolute magnitude, we find a stellar mass of 1.10 Mfor HD 10697 based on placement on standard evolutionary tracks. This star is a slow rotator and is chromospherically inactive, as indicated by R’<sub>HK</sub> = -5.02, by its photometric stability (Lockwood et al. 1997), and by its low X-ray flux (Hunsch et al. 1998). Relative to the Sun, HD 10697 is modestly metal rich, \[Fe/H\]=+0.15 .

We have made 30 velocity observations of HD 10697, spanning three years, as shown in Figure 4 and listed in Table 3. These observations barely cover one orbital period of the new planet candidate, accounting for the relatively large uncertainty in the derived orbital period. The amplitude ($`K`$) of the Keplerian orbital fit is 119 m s$`^1`$, while the RMS of the velocity residuals to the Keplerian fit is 7.8 m s$`^1`$. This scatter is twice that of our present known errors, for reasons not yet known. The eccentricity of the orbit, $`e`$=0.12, is about twice as large as that of Jupiter, as is common for extrasolar planet candidates that orbit beyond 0.2 AU. Its minimum mass, $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$, is 6.35 M<sub>JUP</sub>, placing it among the most massive companions found from precision velocity surveys.

The semi-major axis of the orbit is $`a`$ = 2.12 AU, yielding a maximum angular separation between planet and star of 73 mas. The amplitude of the astrometric wobble of the star is 373/$`\mathrm{sin}i`$ $`\mu `$as, making this a prime target for interferometric astrometry. The expected effective temperature of the planet due to stellar insolation (assuming an albedo of 0.3) is 264K (Saumon et al. 1996), and internal heating may increase this by 10 - 20 K. Direct detection would be difficult at present.

### 3.2 HD 37124

HD 37124 (G4V) is a slowly rotating, chromospherically inactive star with R’<sub>HK</sub> = -4.90. As listed in Table 4 and shown in Figure 5, 15 velocity measurements have been made, spanning 2.7 years, revealing six complete orbits with a derived orbital period of 155.7 d. The semi-amplitude ($`K`$) is 43 m s$`^1`$and the eccentricity is 0.19, giving the companion a minimum mass of 1.04 M<sub>JUP</sub>. The RMS of the observations to the Keplerian fit is 2.82 m s$`^1`$

The semi-major axis of the companion orbit is $`a`$ = 0.55 AU, yielding a maximum angular separation between planet and star of 20 mas. The planet is expected to have $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ = 327K (Saumon et al. 1996). HD 37124 has low metallicity, \[Fe/H\]=-0.32, relative to the Sun, but its metallicity is nearly typical for field GK dwarfs. This is the lowest metallicity star known to have a planet. Most previous planet candidates have been found around metal rich host stars.

### 3.3 HD 134987

HD 134987 (HR 5657, G5V) is similar to 51 Pegasi in its spectral type, enhanced metallicity, and low chromospheric activity. But its planet has $`P`$=259 d and $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$= 1.58 M<sub>JUP</sub>. We have made 43 Doppler observations spanning 3 years, as shown in Figure 6 and listed in Table 5. The eccentricity is 0.24, quite non-circular as with all extrasolar planet candidates orbiting beyond 0.2 AU. The RMS of the Keplerian fit to the measured velocities is 3.0 m s$`^1`$, consistent with measurement errors.

The semi-major axis of the planetary orbit is $`a`$ = 0.81 AU, yielding a maximum angular separation between planet and star of 39 mas. We expect a planet temperature of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$=315K (Saumon et al. 1996). The amplitude of the associated astrometric wobble is 45/$`\mathrm{sin}i`$ $`\mu `$as.

### 3.4 HD 177830

HD 177830 is an evolved subgiant of spectral type K2IV, with photometry placing it close to giant status, $`M_\mathrm{V}`$=3.32. It is difficult to estimate \[Fe/H\] of subgiants from photometry and we are not aware of a spectroscopic analysis of metallicity. The stellar mass estimate of 1.15$`\pm `$0.2 Mis based on placement on evolutionary tracks but is similarly suspect. Figure 7 shows a spectroscopic comparison of HD 177830 (dotted line) and the chromospherically inactive K dwarf $`\sigma `$ Dra (light solid line) in the core of the Ca II H line. The heavy solid line is the chromospherically active K2 V star HD 192263 which will be discussed in the next subsection. Even slowly rotating, chromospherically inactive, main sequence K dwarf stars, like $`\sigma `$ Dra, show mild core reversal in Ca II H & K lines, while evolved K subgiants, like HD 177830, have “flat bottomed” line cores.

We have made 29 velocity measurements of HD 177830 spanning 3 yr, as shown in Figure 8 and listed in Table 6. The orbital fit yields $`P`$=391.6 d, $`K`$=34 m s$`^1`$, and $`e`$=0.41, yielding $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$= 1.22 M<sub>JUP</sub>. The RMS of the velocity residuals to the Keplerian fit is 5.2 m s$`^1`$, again larger than our known errors.

The somewhat elevated RMS of 5.2 m s$`^1`$is probably related to the subgiant status of HD 177830. This star is a very evolved subgiant, with M<sub>v</sub> = 3.32 $`\pm `$ 0.1. True K III giants often show complex velocity variability with periods ranging from less than a day to several hundred days. $`\beta `$ Oph, a K2 III giant, shows evidence of multiple periodicities with times scales of less than 1 d and velocity amplitudes of $``$40 m s$`^1`$(Hatzes & Cochran 1994). Velocity variations with periods of several hundred days have been observed in $`\pi `$ Her (Hatzes & Cochran 1999), Aldebaran and $`\beta `$ Gem (Hatzes & Cochran 1993). Arcturus (Hatzes & Cochran 1993; 1994) shows both short and long period Doppler velocity variations with amplitudes of order 150 m s$`^1`$. In contrast Horner (1996) surveyed 4 late–type giants with spectral types ranging from G8 III to K2 III and found these stars to be stable at the 25 m s$`^1`$level.

Little is known about the intrinsic velocity stability of subgiants. The three stars on the Keck precision velocity program which most closely match the $`BV`$ and absolute magnitude of HD 177830 are HD 136442, HD 208801, and HD 23249. These stars are stable at the 4 to 6 m s$`^1`$level. It is thus probable that the observed velocity variations of HD 177830 are due to Keplerian orbital motion, but we cannot rule out intrinsic photospheric variations. This star should be followed up with precision photometry and line bisector studies.

The semi-major axis of the planetary orbit is $`a`$ = 1.10 AU, yielding a maximum separation between planet and star of 27 mas. The planet is expected to have $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$=362K (Saumon et al. 1996), with some increase due to internal heating.

### 3.5 HD 192263

A planet around this star was recently announced by Santos et al. (1999) during the writing of this paper. They found the following orbital parameters: $`P`$=23.87$`\pm `$0.14 d, $`K`$=65 m s$`^1`$, and a small but uncertain orbital eccentricity. Here we find: $`P`$=24.4$`\pm `$0.07 d, and $`K`$=68$`\pm `$11 m s$`^1`$, as listed in Table 2. Our 15 Keck velocity measurements are shown in Figure 9 and listed in Table 7. The eccentricity, 0.03, derived from 40 observations of Santos et al. is somewhat lower than that derived from our 15 Keck observations, $`e`$=0.22$`\pm `$0.14, which indicates that the eccentricity is small but requires further observations to establish firmly. We find that $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$=0.78 M<sub>JUP</sub>, $`a`$=0.15 AU, implying an expected $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$=486 K. (Saumon et al. 1996).

HD 192263 is a rapidly rotating, chromospherically active, K0 dwarf with R’<sub>HK</sub>=-4.37 (Santos et al. 1999). Figure 7 shows the line core reversal of the Ca II H line for HD 192263 (dark solid line). The slowly rotating chromospherically inactive K dwarf $`\sigma `$ Dra is shown for comparison. Based on the measured R’<sub>HK</sub> value of -4.37, we estimate that the intrinsic Doppler “jitter” for this star is 10 to 30 m s$`^1`$(Saar et al. 1998). Figure 10 shows the periodogram of the chromospheric “S” value measurements from our 15 Keck spectra. The highest peak corresponds to a period of 26.7 days, uncomfortably close to the observed Doppler velocity period of 24 d. The false alarm probability for this periodogram peak is 4.7%, suggesting the peak may be coincidental. It remains possible that the velocity periodicity is not due to an orbiting body, but rather to surface effects. However, the stellar rotation period is expected to be $``$8 d from the chromospheric strength. This short rotation period argues against rotational modulation of surface features as the cause of the velocity variations having $`P`$=24 d.

Hipparcos found photometric variability for HD 192263 of $``$0.011 mag. which is low given its high chromospheric activity. This star should be subject to intensive photometric monitoring. If photometry or “S” value measurements continue to show periodicities similar to the observed Doppler velocity period, this would suggest that the source of the variations is intrinsic to the star rather than to an orbiting planet

The rotational Doppler broadening in the Keck/HIRES spectra implies $`V\mathrm{sin}i<`$ 3.0 km s<sup>-1</sup>, consistent with that found, $`V\mathrm{sin}i=`$ 1.8 $`\pm `$1.2 km s<sup>-1</sup>, by Santos et al. (1999). Given the short rotation period of $``$8 d, implied by the chromospheric activity, along with low $`V\mathrm{sin}i`$, the star must be viewed within 30 deg of pole–on. Such a pole–on vantage point is consistent with the nearly constant photometric brightness reported by Hipparcos. Apparently the chromospheric activity and spotted regions remain visible on the (polar) hemisphere during an entire rotation period. If the orbital plane of the companion is also nearly pole-on, its mass is considerably higher than $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$of 0.78 M<sub>JUP</sub>. We also remain puzzled by the RMS of 4.5 m s$`^1`$of the velocity residuals to our Keplerian fit. This RMS is just too low for such an active star, which should exhibit jitter of at least 10 m s$`^1`$. Perhaps it is because the inclination angle is so low, and thus there is not much radial velocity jitter produced by the surface brightness inhomogeneities since they aren’t strongly rotationally modulated. We will continue to monitor the “S” value and Doppler velocities. For now, we are not yet completely convinced of a planet-companion interpretation for the velocity variations of HD 192263.

### 3.6 HD 222582

HD 222582 is a near solar “twin” in spectral type, metallicity, and chromospheric activity (Table 1). Figure 11 shows a comparison of the solar flux spectrum (Kurucz et al. 1984) and a spectrum of HD 222582, centered on the core of the Ca II H line with a resolution of R$``$80,000. The many narrow absorption lines due to neutral metal atoms (mostly Fe I) have the same widths and depths in HD 222582 and the Sun, indicating that the two stars have similar temperature, abundances, and $`V\mathrm{sin}i`$. The core of the H line, formed in the chromosphere, is deeper in HD 222582, suggesting slightly weaker chromospheric and magnetic activity than the Sun.

We have made 24 Doppler observations spanning 1.7 years, as shown in Figure 12 and listed in Table 8. Aliasing allows two possible Keplerian solutions. The preferred Keplerian, shown in Figure 12, has $`P`$=575.9 d, a velocity semi–amplitude, $`K`$=184 m s$`^1`$, and an eccentricity, $`e`$=0.71, yielding a minimum mass, $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$=5.29 M<sub>JUP</sub>. The RMS to the Keplerian orbital fit is 3.4 m s$`^1`$. The second possible orbital fit has $`P`$=529 d and an RMS of 6.5 m s$`^1`$. This orbital ambiguity exists because the observed time span of the observations is only slightly longer than the orbital period. We expect to resolve this within the next 6 months.

The semi-major axis of the orbit is $`a`$ = 1.35 AU, yielding a maximum angular separation between planet and star of 55 mas. The amplitude of the astrometric wobble is 165/$`\mathrm{sin}i`$ $`\mu `$as. The effective temperature of the planet is expected to be 234K (Saumon et al. 1996).

## 4 Update of Previously Announced Planets

Orbital parameters for several previously announced extrasolar planet candidates are updated in this section based on recent Keck observations. The stellar properties of these stars are listed in Table 9, which has the same format as Table 1. The updated orbital parameters are listed in Table 10, while the individual Keck Doppler velocity measurements are listed in Tables 11 through 14 for HD 187123, HD 195019, HD 210277 and HD 217107, respectively.

We cannot at this time update the orbits for two stars, HD 168443 (Marcy et al. 1999) and GL 876 (Marcy et al. 1998, Delfosse et al. 1998), for which planetary companions were found previously in the Keck Doppler survey. As noted in those discovery papers, both stars continue to show small secular departures from simple Keplerian motion, making the fit to a single orbit imprecise. In the case of HD 168443, the velocity residuals to the Keplerian fit now exhibit a longterm trend with significant curvature (as of October, 1999), strongly indicative of a second companion with long period. However, more data are required to test the Keplerian nature of the velocity residuals for both stars and to place constraints on plausible orbits.

### 4.1 HD 187123

The Keck velocities for HD 187123 are listed in Table 11, and the phased velocities are shown in Figure 13 with a linear trend removed. The updated orbital elements shown in Table 10 are consistent with the discovery data (Butler et al. 1998), though the RMS to the Keplerian fit has improved by about a factor of two.

Two years of additional monitoring reveal a linear trend in the velocities with a slope of -7$`\pm `$2 m s$`^1`$per year. This suggests the existence of a second companion with a period much longer than 3 yr. Another few years of monitoring will be required to determine if this slope is real. HD 187123 does not have any known companions.

### 4.2 HD 195019

The discovery of the planet around HD 195019 was initially announced from data collected with both the Lick 3-m and the Keck telescopes (Fischer et al. 1999). The newly derived orbit given here is in good agreement with the originally published orbit, but again with smaller velocity residuals due to the improvements in our Doppler technique. The measured velocities are listed in Table 12 and the phased velocities are shown on Figure 14.

With an orbital period of 18.2 d and a semi-major axis of 0.13 AU, this is the most distant planet yet found in a circular orbit, $`e`$=0.02$`\pm `$0.02.

### 4.3 HD 210277

We have made 45 velocity measurements of HD 210277, listed in Table 13 and shown in Figure 15. The newly derived orbit confirms the orbit from the discovery paper (Marcy et al. 1999), but the RMS (3.3 m s$`^1`$) of the residuals to the orbital fit is again smaller by a factor of $``$2 due to our improved Doppler precision.

The new orbit implies $`a`$=1.10 AU and $`e`$=0.45$`\pm `$0.03. The maximum separation between the companion and the primary is 75 mas, and the amplitude of the astrometric variation is 65/$`\mathrm{sin}i`$ $`\mu `$as. The expected equilibrium temperature of the companion is 243K.

### 4.4 HD 217107

We have made 21 Keck velocity measurements of HD 217107, listed in Table 14 and shown in Figure 16 with a linear trend of 40 m s$`^1`$removed from this plot. The updated orbit agrees with the orbit from the discovery paper (Fischer et al. 1999), which was based on data from both the Lick and Keck Observatories.

The current Lick observations (51 measurements) reveal a linear trend in the velocity residuals to the orbital fit, strongly indicative of a second companion. A simultaneous fit of the Lick velocities to a model composed of a Keplerian orbit plus a trend yields a best–fit trend of 43.3$`\pm `$2.8 m s$`^1`$per yr and a period of $`P`$=7.127$`\pm `$0.001 d (Fischer 1999, private comm.). We attempted the same type of model fit to the Keck velocities and found a best–fit trend of 39.4$`\pm `$3.5 m s$`^1`$per yr and $`P`$=7.126$`\pm `$0.001 d. Thus the velocity trend in the Lick data are confirmed independently by those from Keck.

The Keck data yield an orbital eccentricity, $`e`$=0.14$`\pm `$0.02, in agreement with that from Lick (Fischer et al. 1999). Thus the non–circular orbit for such a close companion ($`a`$=0.072 AU) raises questions about the tidal circularization time scale. Perhaps the eccentricity is driven by another companion, indeed possibly that which causes the linear velocity trend. The velocities indicate that any second companion must have a period longer than 2 yr, and a mass greater than 4 M<sub>JUP</sub>. Follow-up work with astrometry and high–resolution IR imaging is warranted to detect this possible second companion.

## 5 Discussion

Our Keck program has gathered velocity measurements for 3 years, making it sensitive to planets orbiting out to 2 AU. Including the 6 new planet candidates described in this paper, the Keck survey has resulted in the discovery or co-discovery of 12 extrasolar planet candidates. The current precision of the Keck survey, held over the 3-year time base, is 3 m s$`^1`$, sufficient to eventually make 3$`\sigma `$ detections of Jupiter mass companions in 5 AU orbits, should they exist. However, another decade of data will be required before the Keck survey will begin probing planets in these 5 AU orbits. We are working to improve single-shot precision with the Keck system to 2 m s$`^1`$.

Four of the six newly discovered planets have minimum masses ($`M\mathrm{sin}i`$) less than 2 M<sub>JUP</sub>. Figure 17 shows the latest mass distribution of the know extrasolar planets (Marcy, Cochran, and Mayor, 2000). The high incidence of companions having $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$$`<`$2 M<sub>JUP</sub> adds further support to a planetary mass distribution that begins a dramatic rise at about 5-6M<sub>JUP</sub>, and increases toward the lowest detectable masses from 8M<sub>JUP</sub> to 0.5 M<sub>JUP</sub> (Butler and Marcy 1997). Below 0.5M<sub>JUP</sub>, detectability drops markedly. The highest planetary masses are apparently $``$8 M<sub>JUP</sub> which constitutes a physical upper limit that should be explained by planet–formation theory, perhaps via tidal truncation of growth in the protoplanetary disk (Bryden et al. 1999, Nelson et al. 1999).

It is important to keep in mind here that there is no bias against brown dwarf companions in the Lick, Keck or Geneva surveys. Indeed, the CORAVEL survey found 11 brown dwarf “candidates” orbiting within 5 AU (Duquennoy & Mayor 1991, Mayor et al. 1997). However, Hipparcos astrometry (Halbwachs et al. 1999) has subsequently revealed that most of these 11 brown dwarf candidates previously identified from the low precision CORAVEL survey are, in fact, M dwarfs viewed at low inclination angles.

Nonetheless, companions of 10–80 M<sub>JUP</sub> are much easier to detect than those of Jupiter–mass. But the most massive companion found to date from any precision velocity survey is 70 Vir b, with 7.4 M<sub>JUP</sub> (Marcy & Butler 1996). Our Keck survey has not revealed any “brown dwarf candidates” (defined by $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$= 10–80 M<sub>JUP</sub>) out of the 500 stars being surveyed. Thus the occurrence of brown dwarf companions within 2 AU resides below 0.5% in agreement with the few detections from previous surveys (Cumming et al. 1999, Halbwachs et al. 1999).

More than 1,000 stars have been surveyed for two years or longer by the Geneva group and by our surveys, from which five “51 Peg–like” planets have emerged, with orbital periods less than 5 days. Precision Doppler programs are strongly biased toward detecting these planets. Thus we estimate that $``$0.5% of main sequence stars have these “hot jupiter” companions. Four planets have been found with orbital periods between 7 and 20 days, and the distribution of orbital radii is steadily filling in, suggesting a continuous and nearly flat distribution of semi-major axes above 0.04 AU.

The eccentricities of the six newly announced planet candidates range from 0.12 to 0.71. All of the extrasolar planets orbiting beyond 0.2 AU, now numbering 18, have eccentricities, $`e`$ 0.1. For comparison, the eccentricities of Jupiter and Earth are 0.05 and 0.03, respectively. HD 222582 has the largest eccentricity, 0.71, of any planet found to date. Unlike the other extreme eccentricity case, 16 Cyg B, HD 222582 has no known stellar companion.

These eccentric extrasolar planet orbits may arise from gravitational interactions with other planets or stars, or from resonant interaction with the protoplanetary disk. Regarding the latter, consider the planets around HD 177830 and HD 10697. HD 177830 is a case with relatively low mass and high eccentricity ($`M\mathrm{sin}i`$= 1.22M<sub>JUP</sub> and $`e`$ = 0.41), while HD 10697 is a case with high mass and low eccentricity ($`M\mathrm{sin}i`$= 6.35 M<sub>JUP</sub>$`e`$ = 0.12). Taken together, this pair would seem to disfavor the theory of eccentricity pumping of planetary orbits through resonant interaction with the disk (Artymowicz, 1992). That theory predicts that it is the highest mass companions which become the most eccentric, while the lowest mass companions actually lose eccentricity. Clearly though, it is still a case of small number statistics, and many more systems will need to be found before such trends can be established robustly. Whatever the ultimate cause of eccentric orbits, the growing ubiquity of high-eccentricity systems seems to suggest that “minimum entropy” planetary systems, like our own, with its suite of nested coplanar nearly-circular orbits, may be rare.

Most of the stars with known planetary companions are metal rich relative to the Sun (Gonzalez et al. 1999; Gonzalez et al. 1998; Gonzalez 1998; Gonzalez 1997). Two of the six new candidates described here are metal rich, but two are metal poor (Table 1), one has nearly solar abundances, and the metallicity of the remaining star is not yet known. Thus these six new planet–bearing stars do not add any additional support to the suspected metallicity correlation.

The Keck survey, after 3 years, is now detecting planets out to 2.1 A.U. and is thus marching through and able to probe the interesting “habitable zone” (HZ) defined by Kasting et al. (1993) around main sequence stars. Five of the six new planets lie either directly in, or near the edges of the habitable zones for their stars. HD 10697 orbits at 1.87 to 2.39 AU, just at the outer edge of the HZ for a G5V star, but probably well within the HZ for its evolved G5IV star. Its equilibrium insolation temperature is expected to be 274-284K. HD 37124 orbits at 0.45 to 0.65 A.U. with an expected temperature of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$= 327K. It lies at the inner edge of the HZ for its G4V star. HD 134987 orbits at 0.62 to 1.00 A.U. with a $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$= 315K, solidly in the HZ for its G5V star. HD 177830 orbits at 0.63 to 1.57 A.U., with an expected $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$= 362K. It would lie at the inner edge of the HZ for a K2 star, but is probably slightly outside the inner edge since its star is an evolved subgiant. HD 222582 has an orbital semi-major axis of 1.35 A.U., but the orbit is quite eccentric and its orbital distance varies from 0.39 to 2.31 A.U. It has an expected $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$= 234K, and also lies directly in the HZ of its G3V star. Whether or not water could exist in liquid form, either in the atmospheres of these gas giants, or possibly on accompanying moons, is beyond our ability to say at present and requires further detailed theoretical modeling of planetary atmospheres (Burrows & Sharp, 1999).

Complementary extrasolar planet detection techniques include photometric transit surveys, interferometric astrometry, IR imaging of dust disks (Trilling et al. 1998, Trilling et al. 1999, Koerner et al. 1998, Schneider et al. 1999), and spectroscopic searches for reflected light (Cameron et al. 1999, Charbonneau et al. 1999). Several of the new planet candidates provide good targets for these new techniques. In particular, HD 10697 and HD 222582 will have minimum astrometric amplitudes of 373 and 165 $`\mu `$as, and astrometric detection will yield unambiguous masses.

We gratefully acknowledge support by NASA grant NAG5-8861 and NSF grant AST95-20443 (to GWM), by NSF grant AST-9619418 and NASA grant NAG5-4445 (to SSV), travel support from the Carnegie Institution of Washington (to RPB), and by Sun Microsystems. We thank the NASA and UC Telescope assignment committees for allocations of telescope time. We also thank Debra Fischer and Doug Lin for useful discussions. This research has made use of the Simbad database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.