Arxiv:1603.08614V2 [Astro-Ph.EP] 3 Nov 2016 Veys, Yet Each of These Methods Only Directly Measures the Mass (M) Or Radius (R) of Planet, Not Both1

Draft version November 4, 2016 Preprint typeset using LATEX style AASTeX6 v. 1.0

PROBABILISTIC FORECASTING OF THE MASSES AND RADII OF OTHER WORLDS

Jingjing Chen1 and David Kipping1 Department of Astronomy Columbia University 550 W 120th St. New York, NY 10027, USA

[email protected]

ABSTRACT Mass and radius are two of the most fundamental properties of an astronomical object. Increasingly, new planet discoveries are being announced with a measurement of one of these terms, but not both. This has led to a growing need to forecast the missing quantity using the other, especially when predicting the detectability of certain follow-up observations. We present am unbiased forecasting model built upon a probabilistic mass-radius relation conditioned on a sample of 316 well-constrained objects. Our publicly available code, Forecaster, accounts for observational errors, hyper-parameter uncertainties and the intrinsic dispersions observed in the calibration sample. By conditioning our model upon a sample spanning dwarf planets to late-type stars, Forecaster can predict the mass (or radius) from the radius (or mass) for objects covering nine orders-of-magnitude in mass. Classification is naturally performed by our model, which uses four classes we label as Terran worlds, Neptunian worlds, Jovian worlds and stars. Our classification identifies dwarf planets as merely low-mass Terrans (like the Earth), and brown dwarfs as merely high-mass Jovians (like Jupiter). We detect a transition in +0.7 the mass-radius relation at 2.0 0.6 M , which we associate with the divide between solid, Terran worlds ⊕ and Neptunian worlds. This− independent analysis adds further weight to the emerging consensus that rocky Super-Earths represent a narrower region of parameter space than originally thought. Effectively, then, the Earth is the Super-Earth we have been looking for. Keywords: planetary systems — methods: statistics

1. INTRODUCTION 2014) will soon start detecting hundreds, possibly thou- Over the last two decades, astronomers have discov- sands, of nearby transiting planets for which the radius, ered thousands of extrasolar worlds (see exoplanets.org; but not the mass, will be measured. Planets with radii Han et al. 2014), filling in the parameter space from consistent with Super-Earths will be of great interest Moon-sized planets (e.g. Barclay et al. 2013) to brown for follow-up and so radial velocity facilities will need to dwarfs many times more massive than Jupiter (e.g. forecast the detectability, which is proportional to the Deleuil et al. 2008). Over 98% of these detections have planet mass, for each case. Vice versa, the CHEOPS come from radial velocity, microlensing or transit sur- mission (Broeg et al. 2013) will try to detect the transits of planets discovered with radial velocities, necessitating arXiv:1603.08614v2 [astro-ph.EP] 3 Nov 2016 veys, yet each of these methods only directly measures the mass (M) or radius (R) of planet, not both1. a forecast of the radius based upon the mass. This leads to the common situation where it is neces- In those two examples, the objective was to forecast sary to forecast what the missing quantity is based on the missing quantity in order to predict the feasibility the other. A typical case would be when one needs to of actually measuring it. However, the value of fore- predict the detectability of a potentially observable ef- casting the mass/radius for the purposes of predicting fect for a resource-intensive, time-competitive observing detectability extends beyond this. As another example, facility, which in some way depends upon the missing exoplanet transit spectroscopy is expected to be a major quantity. For example, the TESS mission (Ricker et al. function of the upcoming JWST mission (Seager et al. 2009). At the first-order level, the detectability of an ex- oplanet atmosphere is proportional to the scale height, 2 1 H, which in turn is proportional to 1/g R /M. Given Except for the rare cases of systems displaying invertible tran- ∝ sit timing variations. the limited supply of cryogen onboard JWST, discover- 2 ies of future Earth-analog candidates may be found with build a statistically rigorous and empirically calibrated insufficient time to reasonably schedule a radial veloc- model ity campaign first (if even detectable at all). Therefore, there will likely be a critical need to accurately fore- I to forecast the mass/radius of an astronomical ob- cast the scale height of new planet discoveries from just ject based upon a measurement of the other, and either the mass or (more likely) the radius. Forecasting the mass/radius of an object, based upon I for the classification of astronomical bodies based the other quantity is most obviously performed using a upon their observed masses and/or radii. mass-radius (MR) relation. Such relations are known to The layout of this paper is as follows. In Section2, display sharp changes at specific locations, such as the we outline our model for the MR relation, which is used transition from brown dwarfs to hydrogen burning stars enable forecasting and classification. In Section3, we de- (e.g. see Hatzes & Rauer 2015). These transition points scribe the regression algorithm used to conduct Bayesian can be thought of as bounding a set of classes of astro- parameter estimation of our model parameters. The re- nomical objects, where the classes are categorized using sults, in terms of both classification and forecasting are the features of the inferred MR relation. In this case discussed separately in Sections4&5. We summarize then, it is apparent that inference of the MR relation the main findings of our work in Section6. enables both classification and forecasting. Classification is more than a taxonomical enterprise, it 2. MODEL can have dramatic implications in astronomy. Perhaps the most famous example of classification in astronomy 2.1. Choosing a Model is the Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram (Hertzsprung We begin by describing the rationale behind the model 1909; Russell 1914) for luminosity versus effective tem- used in this work. As discussed in Section1 (and demon- perature, which revealed the distinct regimes of stellar strated later in Section3), the two primary goals of this evolution. A common concern in classification is that paper are both achievable through the use of a MR rela- the very large number of possible features against which tion and this defines the approach in this work. Broadly to frame the problem can be overwhelming. Mass and speaking, such a relation can be cast as either a paramet- radius, though, are not random and arbitrary choices ric (e.g. a polynomial) or non-parametric model (e.g. a for framing such a problem. Rather, they are two of nearest neighbor algorithm). the most fundamental quantities describing any object Parametric models, in particular power-laws, have a in the cosmos and indeed represent two of the seven base long been popular for modeling the MR relation with quantities in the International System of Units (SI). many examples even in the recent literature (e.g. Va- The value of classification extends beyond guiding lencia et al. 2006; Weiss et al. 2013; Hatzes & Rauer physical understanding, it even affects the design of fu- 2015; Wolfgang et al. 2015; Zeng et al. 2016). In our ture instrumentation. As an example, the boundary be- case, we note that such models are more straightforward tween terrestrial planets and Neptune-like planets repre- for hierarchical Bayesian modeling (which we argue to sents a truncation of the largest allowed habitable Earth- be necessary later), since they allow for a simple pre- like body. The location of this boundary strongly affects scription of the Bayesian network. Moreover, based on estimates of the occurrence rate of Earth-like planets those earlier cited works, power-laws ostensbily do an (η ) and thus in-turn the design requirements of future excellent job of describing the data and the greater flex- ⊕ missions needed to characterize such planets (Dalcanton ibility afforded by non-parametric methods is not neces- et al. 2015). To illustrate this, using the occurrence rate sary. Accordingly, we adopt the power-law prescription posteriors of Foreman-Mackey et al.(2014), η decreases in this work. ⊕ by 42% when altering the definition of Earth-analogs As noted earlier, the use of power-laws to describe from R < 2.0 R to R < 1.5 R . In order to maintain the MR relation is common in the literature. However, ⊕ ⊕ the same exoEarth yield for the proposed HDST mis- many of the assumptions and model details in these pre- sion, this change corresponds to a 27% increase in the vious implementations would make forecasts based upon required mirror diameter (using yield equation in 3.5.4 these relations problematic. We identify three key as- § of Dalcanton et al. 2015). pects of the model proposed in this work with differen- We therefore argue that both forecasting and clas- tiate our work from previous studies. sification using the masses and radii of astronomical [1] Largest data range: Inferences of the MR rela- bodies will, at the very least, be of great utility for tion often censor the available data to a specific subset of present/future missions and may also provide meaning- parameter space (for example Wolfgang et al. 2015 con- ful insights to guide our interpretation of these objects. sider the R < 8 R exoplanets). Whilst it is inevitable ⊕ Accordingly, the primary objective of this work is to that certain subjective choices will be made by those 3 analyzing the MR relation, a more physically-motivated relation, the probabilistic model is essential for reliable choice for the parameter limits can be established. Ide- forecasting, as it enables predictions in spite of the fact ally, this range should be as large as possible such that our model is understood to not represent the truth. forecasting is unlikely to encounter the extrema, lead- Whilst each of these three key features have been ap- ing to truncation errors. A natural lower bound is an plied to MR relations in some form independently, a object with sufficient mass to achieve hydrostatic equi- novel quality of our methodology is to adopt all three. librium leading to a nearly spherical shape and thus a For example, Wolfgang et al.(2015) inferred a proba- well-defined radius (a planemo), which would encompass bilistic power-law conditioned on the masses and radii dwarf planets. As an upper bound, late-type stars take of 90 exoplanets with radii below 8 R . This range ⊕ longer than a Hubble time to leave the main-sequence a crosses the expected divide between solid planets and so should exhibit a relatively tight trend between mass those with significant gaseous envelopes at 1.5-2.0 R ⊕ and radius. (Lopez & Fortney 2014) and so the authors tried trun- [2] Fitted transitions: As a by-product of using cating the data at 1.6 R as an alternative model. In ⊕ such a wide mass range, several transitional regions are this work, we argue that the transitional points can ac- traversed where the MR relation exhibits sharp changes. tually be treated as free parameters in the model, en- For example, the onset of hydrogen burning leads to a abling us to infer (rather than assume) their location dramatic change in the MR relation versus brown dwarfs and test theoretical predictions. Additionally, the data (Hatzes & Rauer 2015). In previous works, such tran- need not be censored at < 4 R and the wider range ⊕ sitional points are often held as fixed, assumed loca- makes a forecasting model less susceptible to truncation tions (e.g. Weiss & Marcy 2014 assume a physically issues at the extrema (we point out that Wolfgang et al. motivated, but not freely inferred, break at 1.5 R ). In (2015) did not set out to develop a forecasting model ⊕ contrast, we here seek to make a more agnostic, data- explicitly, and thus this is not a criticism of their work, driven inference without imposing any assumed transi- but rather just an example of how our work differs from tion points from theory or previous data-driven infer- previous studies). ences. In this way, the uncertainty in these transitions is propagated into the inference of all other parameters 2.2. Data Selection defining our model, leading to more robust uncertainty Having broadly established the motivation (see Sec- estimates for both forecasting and classification. Ac- tion1) and requirements (see Section 2.1) for our model, cordingly, in this work, the MR relation is described by we will use the rest of Section2 to provide a more de- a broken power-law with freely fitted transition points tailed account of our methodology. To begin, we first (in addition to the other parameters). define our basic criteria for a data point (a mass and [3] Probabilistic modeling: Whilst mass can be radius measurement) to be included in what follows. considered to be the primary influence on the size of an Since our work focuses on the MR relation, all included object, many second-order terms will also play a role. As objects must fundamentally have a well-defined mass an example, rocky planets of the same mass but differ- and radius. Whilst the former is universally true, the ent core mass fractions will exhibit distinct radii (Zeng latter requires that the object have a nearly spheri- et al. 2016). When viewed in the MR plane then, a par- cal shape. Low mass objects, for example the comet ticular choice of mass will not correspond to a singular 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, may not have sufficient radius value. Rather, a distribution of radii is expected, self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces and assume as a consequence of the numerous hidden second-order a hydrostatic equilibrium shape (i.e. nearly spherical). effects influencing the size. Statistically speaking then, The corresponding threshold mass limit should lie some- the MR relation is expected to be probabilistic, rather where between the most massive body which is known to than deterministic. A probabilistic model fundamen- not be in hydrostatic equilibrium (Iapetus; 1.8 1021 kg; × tally relaxes the assumption that the underlying model Sheppard 2016) and the least massive body confirmed (in our case a broken power-law) is the “correct” or to be in hydrostatic equilibrium (Rhea; 2.3 1021 kg; × “true” description of the data, allowing an approximate Sheppard 2016). This leads us to adopt a boundary model to absorb some (although it can never be all) of condition of M > 2 1021 kg for all objects considered × the error caused by model misspecification (in our case in this work. via an intrinsic dispersion). Naturally, the closer one’s As for the upper limit, we choose the maximum mass underlying model is to the truth, the smaller this prob- to be that of a star that must still lie on the main- abilistic dispersion need be, and in the ultimate limit of sequence within a Hubble time. The lifetime of a star a perfect model the probabilistic model tends towards a is dependent upon its mass and luminosity, to first- deterministic one. Since we do not make the claim that order. Given that the Sun will spend 10 Gyr on the a broken power-law is the true description of the MR main-sequence and L M 7/2, then the lifetime, τ ∝ ' 4

5/2 (M/M )− 10 Gyr. This results in an upper limit of 2.3. Probabilistic Broken Power-Law 30 1 M < 0.87 M (1.7 10 kg) for τ = H0− Gyr (where we × We elect to model the MR relation with a probabilis- set H0 = 69.7 km/s; Planck Collaboration et al. 2014). tic broken power-law, for the reasons described in 2.1. § Therefore, between our lower and upper limits, there is a By probabilistic, we mean that this model includes in- difference of nine orders-of-magnitude in mass and three trinsic dispersion in the MR relation to account for ad- order-of-magnitude in radius. ditional variance beyond that of the formal measure- We performed a literature search for all objects within ment uncertainties. This dispersion represents the vari- this range with a mass and radius measurement avail- ance observed in nature itself around our broken power- able. For Solar System moons, we used The Giant law model. To put this in context, a deterministic MR Planet Satellite and Moon Page(Sheppard 2016) which power-law would be described via is curated by Scott Sheppard (Sheppard & Jewitt 2003; Sheppard et al. 2005, 2006) and for the planets we used R M S = C , (1) the NASA Planetary Fact Sheet(Williams 2016). For R M extrasolar planets, we used the TEPCat catalog of “well- ⊕  ⊕  where R & M are the mass and radius of the object studied transiting planets”, curated by John Southworth respectively and C & S are the parameters describing (Southworth 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012). Brown the power-law. However, it is easy to conceive of two dwarfs and low-mass stars were drawn from a variety objects with the exact same mass but different composi- of sources, which we list (along with all other objects tions, thereby leading to different radii. For this reason, used in this work) in Table1. we argue that a deterministic model provides a unreal- In order to later fit these data sources to an MR model, istic description of the MR relation. In the probabilistic it is necessary to define a likelihood function of each model, for any given mass there is a corresponding dis- datum. We later (see 2.9) make the assumption that for § tribution of radii. In this work, we assume a normal a quoted mass (or radius) measurement of M = (a b), ± distribution in the logarithm of radius. The mean of the that one reasonably approximate M (a, b). This ∼ N distribution takes the result of the deterministic model, assumption is a poor one for low signal-to-noise data, and the standard deviation is the intrinsic dispersion, a especially for upper limit constraints only, where M (or new free parameter. R) is more likely to follow an asymmetric profile centered A power-law relation can be converted to a linear re- near zero. Without knowledge of the correct likelihood lation by taking logarithm on both axes. In practice, function, we argue that such data are best excluded in we take the logarithm base ten of both mass and radius what follows. in Earth units, and use a linear relation to fit them. In For this reason, we apply a 3 σ cut to both mass what follows, we will use M, R to represent mass and ((M/∆M) > 3) and radius ((R/∆R) > 3). In what fol- radius, and and to represent log10(M/M ) and lows, we assume that both the mass and radius measure- M R ⊕ log10(R/R ). The power-law relation turns into ments follow a normal distribution, which is symmetric. ⊕ For those data which have substantially asymmetric er- = + S, (2) rors (∆+ = ∆ ) then, we only use cases where the er- R C M × 6 − 1 rors differ by less than 10% (i.e. ( ∆+ ∆ )/( (∆+ + | − −| 2 where = log10(R/R ), = log10(M/M ) and ∆ )) 0.1). Together, these cuts remove 16% of the R ⊕ M ⊕ − ≤ = log10 C. In what follows, we will use (µ, σ) as initial data, which, as discussed later in 3.3, do not bias C N § the normal distribution, where µ is the mean and σ is (or even noticeably influence) our final results.. Next, the standard deviation. The corresponding probabilistic 1 we take the average of both errors (∆+ + ∆ ) as the 2 − relation in log scale becomes standard deviation of the normal distribution. In the end, we have 316 of objects in total which are listed in (µ = + S, σ = σ ) (3) Table1. R ∼ N C M × R The data span a diverse range of environments, with On a logarithmic scale, the data still approximately a variety orbital periods, insolations, metallicities, etc. follow normal distributions, because the logarithm of a Since these terms are not used in our analysis, the re- normal distribution is approximately a normal distribu- sults presented here should be thought of as a MR re- tion when the standard deviation is small relative to the lation marginalized over all of these other terms. Once mean, which is true here since we made a 3 σ cut in both again, we stress that the effects of these terms is nat- mass and radius. The original data, M (M , ∆M), ∼ N t urally absorbed by the probabilistic framework of our will turn into ( , ∆ ), where = Mob ∼ N Mt Mob Mt model, meaning that forecasts may be made about any log10(Mt/M ) and ∆ ob = log10(e)(∆M/M). ⊕ M new data, provided it can be considered representative We consider it more reasonable to assume that the of the data used for our analysis. intrinsic dispersion in radius will be a fractional dis- 5 persion, rather than an absolute dispersion. For ex- (1) (1 4) (1 4) (1 3) ample, the dispersion of Earth-radius planets might be S ≠ ‡ ≠ T ≠ C R [0.1 R ] but for stars it should surely be much larger O ⊕ in an absolute sense. Since a fractional dispersion on a linear scale corresponds to an absolute dispersion on logarithmic scale, this assumption is naturally accounted for by our model. To implement the probabilistic model, (i) (i) (i) (i) ob t t ob we employ a hierarchical Bayesian model, or HBM for M M R R short.

2.4. Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling

The difference between an HBM and the more familiar (i) (i) N Bayesian method is that HBMs have two sets of param- Mob Rob eters; a layer of hyper parameters, Θhyper, on top of the local parameters, Θlocal (see Hogg et al. 2010 for a pedagogical explanation). The local parameters usually Figure 1. Graphical model of the HBM used to infer the probabilistic MR relation in this work. Yellow ovals represent describe the properties of each individual datum, whilst hyper-parameters, white represent the true local parameters the hypers describe the overall ensemble properties. For and gray represent data inputs. All objects on the plate have example, in this work, the local parameters are the true N members. log10(M/M ), log10(R/R ) (or t, t) of all the ob- ⊕ ⊕ M R jects, and the hyper parameters, Θhyper, are those that represent the broken power-law. This hierarchical struc- ture is illustrated in Figure1, which may be compared to the analogous graphical model shown in Figure 1 of Therefore, from one roughly Saturn-mass to the onset of Wolfgang et al.(2015). stars, there is a strong case for a fourth segment which Some of the first applications of this method are we consequently include in our model. Later, in Sec- Loredo & Wasserman(1995), Graziani & Lamb(1996), tion 3.2, we perform a model comparison of a three- and Hogg et al.(2010) (in exoplanets research). versus four-segment model to validate that the four- For the local parameters, we define a mass, , and segment broken power-law is strongly favored. Mt radius, t, term for each object giving 632 local vari- Our favored model consists of 12 free hyper parame- R ( (1 4) ables. In practice, the t local parameters are related ters; 1 offset ( 1)), 4 slopes (S − ), 4 intrinsic disper- R (1 4) C to the t term through the broken power-law and each sions (σ − ), and 3 transition points (T (1 3)). Criti- M − realization of the hyper parameters. In total then, our cally then,R we actually fit for the location of transition model includes 632 local parameters and a compact set points and include an independent intrinsic dispersion of hyper parameters, as described later in the MCMC for each segment (making our model probabilistic). Also subsection. note that the “slopes” in log-log space are the power-law indices in linear space. The hyper parameter vector is 2.5. Continuous Broken Power-Law Model therefore Plotting the masses and radii on a log-log scale, (as shown later in Figure3), it is clear that single, continu- Θ = S(1),S(2),S(3),S(4), ous power-law is unable to provide a reasonable descrip- hyper { tion of the data. For example, one might reasonably σ(1), σ(2), σ(3), σ(4), expect that the Neptune-like planets follow a different R R R R T (1),T (2),T (3), (1) . (4) MR relation from the terrestrial planets, since the volu- C } minous gaseous envelope of the former dominates their There is only one free parameter for the offset since we radius (Lopez & Fortney 2014). This therefore argues impose the condition that each segment of the power- in favor of using a segmented (or broken) power-law. law is connected, i.e. a continuous broken power-law. At least three fundamentally distinct regimes are ex- By requiring that two segments meet at the transition pected using some simple physical insights; a segment point between them, we can derive the offsets for the for terrestrial planets, gas giants and stars. Indeed, the rest of the segments. At each transition point T (j), MR data clearly shows distinct changes in the power- index, corresponding to the transition points between each segment. However, a visual inspection also reveals (j) +S(j) T (j) = (j+1) +S(j+1) T (j) for j = 1, 2, 3. C × C × a turn-over in the MR relation at around a Saturn-mass. (5) 6

We can now iteratively derive the other offsets as, For each jump in the MCMC chain, we sample a prob- ability, p, for each parameter with (0, 1). We then de- U termine this parameter’s cumulative distribution from (j+1) = (j) +(S(j) S(j+1)) T (j) for j = 1, 2, 3. (6) C C − × its prior probability distribution. With p and the cu- mulative distribution, we can then calculate the corre- 2.6. Hyper Priors sponding sample of the parameter. The hyper priors, that is the priors on the hyper- The equations of the prior distributions of and Mt parameters, are selected to be sufficiently broad to al- Θhyper are already shown in Table2 and Equation (7). low an extensive exploration of parameter space and to With inverse sampling, the effects of the priors have al- be identical for each segment. Uniform priors are used ready been accounted for, meaning that we do not need for the location parameters, namely the offset, , and to add the prior probabilities of a parameter into the C transition points, T . For scale parameters, namely the total log-likelihood function. intrinsic dispersion σ , we adopt log-uniform priors. R For the slope parameters, we don’t want to constrain 2.9. Total Log-Likelihood them in a specific range, so we use the normal distribu- As discussed above, since t and Θhyper are drawn M tion with a large variance. This leads to a prior which with inverse sampling, then there is no need to add cor- is approximately uniform in any small region yet loosely responding penalty terms to the log-likelihood function. constrains the MCMC walkers to the relevant scale of The total log-likelihood is now based on how we sample the data. A detailed list of the priors is provided in t from t and Θhyper, and the relations between t, R M M Table2. t and data. The relations are given by R (i) (i) (i) 2.7. Two Different Categories of Local Parameters , ∆ . (8) Mob ∼ N Mt Mob The local parameters in our model are formally t (i)   M When ∆ ob = 0, the above equation can be inter- and t, although in practice t doesn’t need to be fitted M R R preted as (i) = (i), which corresponds to the case explicitly since it is derived from the realization of the Mob Mt broken power-law (as described in more detail later). where measurement errors are zero. This is also true for (i), such that Even for though, there are two categories that we ob Mt R must distinguish between. Objects within the Solar Sys- (i) (i), ∆ (i) , (9) tem tend to have very precise measurements of their fun- Rob ∼ N Rt Rob damental properties such that their formal uncertainties and   are negligible relative to the uncertainties encountered for extrasolar objects, for which we must account for the (i) (i) t f( t , Θhyper), σ0 , (10) measurement uncertainty in our model. R ∼ N M R   For objects with negligible error, we simply fix = where we define Mt and = , since ∆ , ∆ ∆M , ∆R = 0. Mob Rt Rob Mob Rob ∝ M R For objects in the second category, t are set to be inde- (i) M f( t ,Θhyper), σ0 = pendently uniformly distributed in [ 4, 6]. Throughout M R − (1) (i) (1) (1) (i) (1) the paper, we will use (a, b) to denote a uniform distri- +
t S , σ t T U C M R M ≤ bution, where a and b are the lower and upper bounds (2) (i) (2) (2) (1) (i) (2)  + t S , σ
T < t T of the distribution, so for example  C M R M ≤ .  (3) (i) (3) (3) (2) (i) (3)  + t S , σ
T < t T  C M R M ≤ (i) (4) (i) (4) (4) (3) (i) t ( 4, 6) for i = 1, 2, ..., 316. (7) + t S , σ
T < t M ∼ U −  C M R M  (11) 
2.8. Inverse Sampling Combining Equation (9) and (10), we have We use the inverse sampling method to sample the pa- rameters t and Θhyper. By inverse sampling, we mean M (i) (i) (i) 2 2 that the walkers directly sample in the probability space, ob f( t , Θhyper), (∆ ob ) + (σ0 ) . R ∼ N M R R rather than the parameter space itself. By directly walk-  q (12) ing in the prior probability space with Gaussian function Equation (12) shows that if we have already sampled as our proposal distribution, inverse sampling is more ef- and Θ , we don’t need to sample anymore Mt hyper Rt ficient than walking in real space plus likelihood penal- since can be directly related to and Θ . Rob Mt hyper ization (see Devroye 1986 further details on the inverse From Equation (8) and (12), we can see that the total sampling method). log-likelihood of the model is 7

small scatter in comparison to the initial steps. This 2 burn-in point tended to occur after 200, 000 accepted N (i) (i) N ' 2 log = Mob − Mt + (∆ (i))2 (13) steps, largely driven by the fact that both the hyper and − L (i) Mob i=1 ∆ ob ! i=1 local parameters were not seeded from a local minimum X M X (1 3) 2 (with the exception of T − ) and therefore required a N (i) f( (i), Θ ) Rob − Mt hyper substantial number of steps to converge. 2 2 +  (i)  Combining these initial chains, we chose 10 different i=1 ∆ ob + σ0 X R R realizations which have the highest log-likelihood but N     (i) 2 2 also not too close to each other. We then start 10 new log ∆ ob + σ0 . (14) R R independent chains, where each chain is seeded from one i=1 X h

i of the top 200 log-like solutions found from the stacked Note that in the above, we assume mass and radius initial chains. We run each of these 10 chains for 107 have no covariance, which is almost always true given trials with acceptance rate 5% (i.e. 500,000 accepted ∼ the independent methods of their measurement. steps each) and find, as expected, that each chain is burnt-in right from the beginning. 3. ANALYSIS To check for adequate mixing, we calculated the effec- 3.1. Parameter Inference with Markov Chain Monte tive length, defined as the length of the chain divided by Carlo the correlation length, where the correlation length is de- fined as ` = min AutoCorrelation(chain, lag) < We used the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) corr lag{| | 0.5 (Tegmark et al. 2004). We find that the sum of the method with the Metropolis algorithm (Metropolis et al. } effective lengths exceeds 2000 (i.e. is 1), indicating 1953) to explore the parameter space and infer the pos-  terior distributions for both the hyper and local param- good mixing. We also verified that the Gelman-Rubin eters. The Metropolis algorithm uses jumping walkers, statistic (Gelman & Rubin 1992) dropped below 1.1 (it proceeding by accepting or rejecting each jump by com- was 1.02), indicating that the chains had converged. Fi- paring its likelihood with that of the previous step. Since nally, we thinned the 10 chains by a factor of 100, and we have 12 hyper parameters and 316 data points (corre- stacked them together, which gives a combined chain of 6 sponding to 316 ), the walker jumps in a probability length of 10 . The hyper-parameter posteriors, available Mt hyper cube of (12+316) dimensions. at this URL, are shown as a triangle plot in Figure2. We begin by running 5 independent initial chains for We list the median and corresponding 68.3% confidence 500,000 accepted steps each, seeding the parameters interval of each hyper parameter posterior in Table2. (1 3) Our model, evaluated at the spatial median of the hy- T − from 0.5, 2, and 4 with Gaussian distributions of sigma one (but keeping all others terms drawn seeded per parameters, is shown in Figure3 compared to the from a random sample from the hyper priors). data upon which it was conditioned. The spatial median We identify the burn-in point by eye, searching for simply finds the sample from the joint posterior which the instant where the local variance in the log-likelihood minimizes the Euclidean distance to all other samples. (with respect to chain step) stabilizes to a relatively

Table 1. Description and posterior of hyper parameters. The prior distributions of the hyper parameters (1) (1 4) (1 4) (1 3) are ( 1, 1); S − (0, 5); log10 σ − ( 3, 2); T − ( 4, 6). C ∼ U − ∼ N R ∼ U − ∼ U −  

Θhyper term Description Credible Interval +0.046 10C R Power-law constant for the Terran (T-class) worlds MR relation 1.008 0.045 R ⊕ − ⊕ (1) S +0.0092 S Power-law index of Terran worlds; R M 0.2790 0.0094 ∝ − (2) S +0.044 S Power-law index of Neptunian worlds; R M 0.589 0.031 ∝ − (3) S +0.017 S Power-law index of Jovian worlds; R M 0.044 0.019 ∝ − − (4) S +0.025 S Power-law index of Stellar worlds; R M 0.881 0.024 ∝ − (1) +0.94 σ Fractional dispersion of radius for the Terran MR relation 4.03 0.64 % R − (2) +1.7 σ Fractional dispersion of radius for the Neptunian MR relation 14.6 1.3 % R − (3) +0.46 σ Fractional dispersion of radius for the Jovian MR relation 7.37 0.45 % R −

Table 1 continued 8

Figure 2. Triangle plot of the hyper-parameter joint posterior distribution (generated using corner.py). Contours denote the 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 σ confidence intervals.

Table 1 (continued)

Θhyper term Description Credible Interval (4) +0.64 σ Fractional dispersion of radius for the Stellar MR relation 4.43 0.47 % R − T (1) +0.66 10 M Terran-to-Neptunian transition point 2.04 0.59 M ⊕ − ⊕

Table 1 continued 9 Table 1 (continued)

Θhyper term Description Credible Interval

T (2) +0.057 10 M Neptunian-to-Jovian class transition point 0.414 0.065 MJ ⊕ − T (3) +0.0081 10 M Jovian-to-Stellar class transition point 0.0800 0.0072 M ⊕ −

3.2. Model Comparison can be described as residing in a poorly constrained re- The model with four segments was at first selected by gion. Given that the transition points are defined as the visual inspection of the data. Two of the three transi- intercept of the slopes, they too are well constrained by tion points, T (1) and T (3), occur at locations which can virtue of the construction of our model. Critically, then, be associated with physically well-motivated boundaries a paucity of data at the actual transition point locations (planets accreting volatile envelopes, Rogers 2015, and (as is true for T (1)) has little influence on our inference hydrogen burning, Dieterich et al. 2014), whereas the of their locations. In order for the results of this work T (2) transition is not as physically intuitive. to be significantly affected by the exclusion of these low In order to demonstrate that this model is statistically SNR data then, these points would have to have modify favored over the three-segment model, we repeated all of the inference of the slope parameters. the fits for a simpler three-segment model. We seed the To demonstrate this effect is negligible, we consider remaining two transition points from the approximate the Neptunian segment in isolation, since it strongly af- locations of T (1) and T (3) found from the four-segment fects the critical transition T (1) and features the largest model fit. We label this model as and the four- fraction of excluded points (24%). Since the excluded H3 segment model used earlier as . data were due to lossy mass measurements, we ignore H4 For this simpler model, uses only two transition the radius errors and perform a simple weighted linear H3 points which breaks the data into three different seg- least squares regression with and without the excluded ments. To implement this model, the only difference is data, where we approximate the observations to be nor- mally distributed. We find that the slope parameter, that the hyper parameters vector Θhyper0 becomes S(2), changes from 0.782 0.058 to 0.784 0.050 by re- ± ± (1 3) (1 3) (1 2) introducing the excluded data, illustrating the negligible Θhyper0 = ( ,S − , σ − ,T − ). (15) C R impact of these data. We find that the maximum log-likelihood of is con- H3 siderably less than that of 4, less by 34.16 (correspond- 3.4. Injection/Recovery Tests H ing to ∆χ2 = 68.3 for 316 data points) at the gain of just In order to verify the robustness of our algorithm, we three fewer free parameters. The marginal likelihood created ten fake data sets and blindly ran our algorithm cannot be easily computed in the very high dimensional again on each. The data sets are generated by making parameter space of our problem, and the Bayesian and a random, fair draw from our joint posteriors (both the Akaike information criteria (BIC, Schwarz 1978 & AIC, local and hyper parameters), ensuring that each draw Akaike 1974) are also both invalid for such high dimen- is from an different effective chain. We then re-ran our sionality. Instead, we used the Deviance information original algorithm as before, except the number of steps criterion (DIC, Spiegelhalter et al. 2002), a hierarchical in the final chain is reduced by a factor of ten for com- modeling generalization of the AIC, to compare the two putational expedience. models. When comparing two models with the DIC, the We computed the one and two-sigma credible intervals smaller value is understood to the preferred model. We on each hyper-parameter and compare them to the in- find that DIC( ) = 665.5 and DIC( ) = 333.5, H4 − H3 − jected truth in Figure4. As evident from this figure, we indicating a strong preference for model . H4 are able to easily recover all of the inputs to within the 3.3. The Effect of our Data Cuts expected range, validating the robustness of the main results presented in this work. As discussed earlier in 2.2, our data cuts removed § 16% of the initial data considered. Since these points 4. CLASSIFICATION are low SNR data, they, by definition, have a weak effect on the likelihood function. As evident in Figure3, there 4.1. Classification with an MR relation is an abundance of precise data constraining the slope A unique aspect of this work was to use freely fitted parameters in each segment and none of the segments transitional points in our MR relation. As discussed 10

♃ ♄

⛢♆

̦

̧ ☿

Figure 3. The mass-radius relation from dwarf planets to late-type stars. Points represent the 316 data against which our model is conditioned, with the data key in the top-left. Although we do not plot the error bars, both radius and mass uncertainties are accounted for. The red line shows the mean of our probabilistic model and the surrounding light and dark gray regions represent the associated 68% and 95% confidence intervals, respectively. The plotted model corresponds to the spatial median of our hyper parameter posterior samples. earlier, these transitional points essentially classify the ous since our model is deliberately chosen to be a data- data between distinct categories, where the class bound- driven inference, free of physical assumptions about the aries occur in mass and are defined using the feature mechanics and evolution sculpting these worlds. We of d /d . Such classes are evident even from vi- consider it more appropriate, then, to name each class R M sual inspection of the MR data (see Figure3), but our based upon a typical and well-known member. Bayesian inference of a self-consistent probabilistic bro- For segment 2, Neptune and Uranus are typical mem- ken power-law provides statistically rigorous estimates bers and are of course very similar to one another in ba- of these class boundaries. In what follows, we discuss sic properties. We therefore consider this class to define the implications of the inferred locations of the class a sub-sample of Neptune-like worlds, or “Neptunian” boudnaries (T (1), T (2) and T (3)). worlds more succinctly. Similarly, we identify Jupiter as a typical member of segment 3, unlike Saturn which lies 4.2. Naming the Classes close to a transitional point. Accordingly, we define this Rather than refer to each class as segments 1, 2, 3 sub-sample to be representative of Jupiter-like worlds, and 4, we here define a name for each class to facilitate or “Jovian” worlds. a more physically intuitive discussion of the observed For the hydrogen-burning late-type stars of segment 4, properties. A naming scheme based on the physical pro- these objects can be already classified by their spectral cesses operating is appealing but ultimately disingenu- types spanning M, K and late-type G dwarfs. Rather 7 8 7 (with respect to chain step) stabilizes to a relatively 5 5 5 5 7 (with respect tosmall chain scatter step) in stabilizes comparison to a to relatively the initial steps. This N (i) (i) 2 ob (witht respect tosmall chain scatter step) in stabilizesburn-in comparison point to a to tended relatively the initial to occur steps. after This200, 000 accepted 2.5. Continuous2.5. Continuous Broken2.5. Power-LawContinuous Broken2.5. Power-Law ModelContinuous Broken2 log = Power-Law Model Broken2 M Power-Law Model M Model+ ' (1) (1 4) (1 4) (1 (14) 3) (1 4) (1 4) N (i) (i) (i) S(1) (1)(1 4) S(1)(1 T4) (1 4)(1 3) T(1 3) (1 3) L burn-in point tendedsteps, to largely occur after driven by200 the, 000 factaccepted that both the hyper and S S T T ob it=1 small! scatter in comparison to the initial steps. This C C C R C R R PlottingR thePlotting masses the andPlotting masses radii2 log on the andPlotting a= masses log-log radii2 on theM and scale, a masses log-logradii (asM on and scale, a log-log+ radii (as on scale,ob a log-log (as scale, (as ' N (i) (i) (i) X M steps, largely drivenlocal by parameters the fact that were both not the seeded hyper from and a local minimum L t burn-in point tended2 to occur after 200, 000 accepted shown latershown in Figure later3shown), in it Figure is later clearob 3shown), in that it Figure isi=1 latersingle, clear 3), in that continu- it Figure is single, clearob 3N), that! continu- it is( single,i clear) that continu-(i single,) continu- ' (1 3) 2 log = M (Mi) X + M f( t , ⇥hyper) local parameters(with were the not exception seeded from of aT local ) minimum and therefore required a ous power-lawous is power-law unableL ous to is power-law provide unableous a to reasonable is power-law provide unable a to descrip-reasonable is provide unable a to reasonabledescrip- provideRob steps, a2 M descrip- reasonable largely descrip- driven by the fact that both the hyper and i=1 ob N! (i) (i) + substantial(1 number3) of steps to converge. X M f( ,⇣⇥hyper) local2 parameters2 ⌘(with were notthe seededexception from of aT local ) minimum and therefore required a tion of thetion data. of theFortion data. example, of the Fortion one data. example, might of Forthe one reasonably data.example,ob might2 For one reasonablyt example, might onereasonably(i) might reasonably (i) (i) R Mi=1 + + 0 (1 3) Combining these initial chains, we chose 10 di↵erent N f( , ⇥ ) X2 2 (withob the exceptionsubstantial of T number) and therefore of steps to required converge. a expect thatexpect the Neptune-like thatexpect the Neptune-like thatob planetsexpect the follow Neptune-liket that planets⇣ ahyper the di↵ follow Neptune-likeerent( planetsi) a di↵ followerent planetsR⌘ a di↵ followerent R a di↵erent (i) (i()i) (i()i)(i) (i()i)(i) (i) (i()i) (i) (i) (i) (i) R Mi=1 + 0 realizations which have the highest log-likelihood but 2 2 ob+ N ⇣ substantial⌘ ⇣ number⌘ Combining of steps to these converge. initial chains, we chose 10 di↵erent ob obt obt t obtt ob tt ob MR relationt ob MR from relation theob terrestrialMR from⇣ relation the planets, terrestrialMR from(i) relationX the since planets, terrestrial from theR volu-⌘ the since planets, terrestrial the volu-R since planets,( thei) 2 volu- since the2 volu- M MM MMR MMR R MR R R R R i=1 5 5 5 5 also not too close to each other. We then start 10 new ob N+ 0 ⇣ ⌘ log⇣ ⌘ obCombining+ 0 these. realizations initial(13) chains, which we have chose the 10 highest di↵erent log-likelihood but minous gaseousminous envelope gaseousminousX of envelope the gaseous formerminousR of envelope the dominates gaseous formerR of envelope the theirdominates former2 of thetheir dominates2 formerR their dominatesR their log (i) i=1+ . realizations(13) whichalso have not thetoo close highestindependent to log-likelihoodeach other. chains, We but where then eachstart chain 10 new is seeded from one radius2.5. (LopezradiusContinuous &2.5. Fortney (LopezradiusContinuousN Broken &2014 Fortney2.5. (Lopez⇣). Power-LawradiusContinuous This Broken &2014⌘ therefore Fortney2.5. (Lopez). Power-Law⇣ ModelContinuous This Broken⌘ &2014 argues therefore Fortneyob). Power-Law ModelX This Broken2014 argues therefore0h). Power-Law Model This argues therefore Model i argues (i) 2 2 R R independent chains,of the where top 200each log-like chain is solutions seeded from found one from the stacked (1) (1)(1 4) (1)(1(14)4) (1)(1(14)(14) 3) (1(14)(14) 3) (1 (14) 3) (1 3) log i=1+ 0 . (13) also not too close to each other. We then start 10 new S S S T S T in favor T of usingin favorT a segmented of usingin favor a segmented(or of usingin broken)ob favorX aNote segmented(or of power-law. using broken) thath a in (orsegmented power-law. the broken) above, (or power-law.i we broken) assume power-law. mass and radius 7 C C C R C R R PlottingR thePlotting masses the andPlotting masses radii on theR andPlotting a masses log-log radii on theR and scale, a masses log-log radii (as on and scale, a log-log radii (as onindependent scale, a log-log (as scale, chains,of (as the where top each 200 log-like chaininitial is solutionschains. seeded from We found run one from each the of these stacked 10 chains for 10 At least threeAt least fundamentally threei=1At least fundamentallyh distinct threeAt leastfundamentally regimes distinct three arei fundamentally regimes ex- distinct are regimes ex- distinct are regimes ex- are ex- shown latershown in Figure later3shownX), inNote it Figure is later that clear 3shown), in in that it Figure thehave is single,later clear above, no3), in that covariance, continu- it Figure we is single, clear assume3), that continu- whichit mass is single, clear is and almost that continu- radius single, always continu- trueinitial given chains. Wetrials runwith each acceptance of these 10 rate chains5% for(i.e. 107 500,000 ac- (i) (i)(i) (i)(i) (i()i) (i) of the top 200 log-like solutions found from the stacked ⇠ ob obob obobN obN pectedN usingpected someN using simplepected some physical using simplepected someinsights;the physical using simple independent a insights;some segment physical simple methods a insights; segment physical of their a insights; segment measurement. a segment M MR MR MRob ousR power-lawob Noteous that is power-law unable in thehaveous to above, is power-law provide no unable covariance, weous a to assume reasonable is power-law provide unable which mass a to descrip-reasonable is provide is unableand almost radius a to descrip-reasonable always provide trueinitial a descrip-reasonable given chains. descrip- Wetrials runwith each acceptance of thesecepted 10 rate steps chains each)5% for 10(i.e.7and 500,000 find, as expected, ac- that each for terrestrialfor planets, terrestrialfor gas planets, terrestrial giants andfor gas planets, terrestrial giantsstars. Indeed, and gas planets, giantsstars. the Indeed, and gas stars.giants the Indeed, and stars. the Indeed, the ⇠ tion ofhave the notion data. covariance, of theForthetion data. example, independent which of theFor istion one data. example, almost might of methods theFor always one reasonably data. example, of might their true For one givenreasonably measurement. example, might one reasonablytrials mightwith reasonably acceptancecepted rate steps each)5%chain(i.e. isand burnt-in 500,000 find, as right expected, ac- from the that beginning. each MR data clearlyMR data shows clearlyMR distinct data shows clearly changesMR distinct data shows in clearly changes the distinct power- shows in changes the distinct power- in changes the power- in the power- ⇠ expectthe that independentexpect the Neptune-like thatexpect methods the Neptune-like that planets ofexpect their the follow Neptune-like measurement. that planets a the di↵ follow Neptune-likeerent planets a di3.↵ followerent planets acepted di↵ followerent steps a di↵ each)erentchain isand burnt-in find, as rightTo expected, check from for the that adequate beginning. each mixing, we calculated the e↵ec- (i) (i()i) (i()i)(i) (i()i)(i) (i) (i)(i) (i) index,(i) corresponding(i) index, corresponding(i) index, to the corresponding transition toindex, the points correspondingtransition to betweenthe points transition to between theANALYSIS points transition between points between Figure 1.Figure Graphical 1. modeltFigure Graphical of 1 the. modeltFigure Graphical HBMt of used 1 the. modelt Graphicalto HBMt infer of used the the modelt to HBMt infer of used the to HBMt infer used the to infer the tive length, defined as the length of the chain divided by Mob MMob MMobR MMobR Rob MR Rob MRR relationRob MR from relationR theob terrestrialMR from relation the planets, terrestrialMR from relation the since planets, terrestrial from the volu- the since planets, terrestrial the volu- since planets,chain the volu- is since burnt-in the volu- rightTo check from for the adequate beginning. mixing, we calculated the e↵ec- probabilisticprobabilistic MR relationprobabilistic MR in this relation work.probabilistic MR in Yellow this relation work. ovals MR in Yellow represent this relation work. ovals in Yellow represent thiseach work. ovals segment. Yellow representeach ovals However, segment. representeach a However, visual segment. inspectioneach a However, visual segment.3.1.3. also inspectionParameterANALYSIS a However, revealsvisual also inspection Inference a reveals visual with also inspection revealsMarkov also Chain reveals Monte minous gaseousminous envelope gaseousminous of envelope the gaseous formerminous of envelope the dominates gaseous former of envelope thetheir dominates former of thetheir dominates formerTo theirdominatescheck for adequate theirtive length, mixing, definedthe we calculatedas correlation the length the length, of e↵ theec- where chain the divided correlation by length is de- hyper-parameters,hyper-parameters, whitehyper-parameters, represent white thehyper-parameters, represent true white local the parametersrepresent true white local the parameters represent truea local turn-over the parameters truea inlocal turn-over the parameters MRa relation in turn-over the3. MRANALYSIS at around relationa in turn-over the MR a at Saturn-mass. around relation in the MR a at Saturn-mass. around relation a at Saturn-mass.Carlo around a Saturn-mass. radius (Lopezradius & Fortney (Lopezradius3.1. &2014Parameter Fortney (Lopez).radius This &2014 therefore Inference Fortney (Lopez). This &2014 argues with therefore Fortney). Markov This2014 argues therefore Chain). This Monte argues therefore argues fined as `corr =minlag AutoCorrelation(chain, lag) < and gray representand gray data representand inputs. gray data All represent objects inputs.and gray data on All represent the objects inputs. plate dataon have All the objects inputs. plate on have All the objects plate on have the plate have tive length, definedthe as correlation the length length, of the where chain thedivided correlation by{| length is de- | Therefore,3.1. fromTherefore,Parameter one roughly fromTherefore, Inference one Saturn-mass roughly from withTherefore, oneMarkov Saturn-mass to roughly the from Chain onset oneCarlo Saturn-mass to Monteroughlyof the onset Saturn-mass to of the onset to of the onset of N members.N members.N members.N members. in favor of usingin favor a segmented of usingin favor a (orsegmented of usingin broken) favor aWe (orsegmented of power-law. usedusing broken) the a segmented(or power-law. Markov broken) Chain (or power-law. broken)the Monte correlation power-law. Carlo length,fined (MCMC) as where`corr the=min0 correlation.5 lag(TegmarkAutoCorrelation(chain length et al. is de-2004). We, findlag) that< the sum of the stars, therestars, is a strong therestars, is case a strong forthere astars, fourth is case a strong for there segment a fourth iscase a whichstrong for segment a fourth case which for segment a fourth which segment which } {| | At least threeAt least fundamentally threeWeAt least fundamentally used distinctCarlo three theAtmethod Markov least fundamentally regimes distinct three with Chain are fundamentally the regimes ex- Monte distinct Metropolis are Carlo regimes ex- distinct algorithm (MCMC) are regimes ex- (Metropolis are0. ex-5 et(Tegmark al. ete↵ al.ective2004 lengths). We find exceeds that the 2000 sum (i.e. of isthe 1), indicating fined as `corr =minlag AutoCorrelation(chain, lag) < (i) (i)(i) (i)(i) (i)(i) we consequently(i) we consequently includewe in consequently ourinclude model.we in consequently1953 includeour Later,) model. to explore in in our include Sec- Later, model.the parameterin in our Sec- Later, model. space in Sec- Later, and infer in Sec- the} pos-{| good mixing. We also| verified that the Gelman- ob obob obobN obobN pectedobNWe usingpected used some theN using simple Markovmethodpected some physical usingwith Chain simplepected the insights;some Monte physical Metropolis using simple Carloa insights;some segment physical algorithm (MCMC) simple a insights; segment physical(Metropolis a0. insights;5 segment( etTegmark al. a segment ete↵ al.ective2004 lengths). We find exceeds that the 2000 sum (i.e. of the is 1), indicating M MR MR MR tionR3.2, wetion perform3.2, wetion a perform model3.2, wecomparisontion a perform model3.2, comparison we of a performmodel a three- comparison of a model a three- comparison of a} three- of a three- We considerWe it consider more reasonableWe it consider more reasonableWe to it assume consider more reasonable to that it assume more the reasonable to that assumefor the terrestrialmethod tothat assumefor the with planets, terrestrial that the1953for Metropolis gas the planets, terrestrial) giants to explore andfor algorithmgas planets, terrestrial stars.giantsterior the parameter (distributionsIndeed, andMetropolis gas planets, stars.giants the space Indeed, and gas et for al. and giantsstars. both the infer theIndeed, ande↵ theective hyper stars. pos- the andlengths Indeed, localgood exceeds the param- mixing. 2000 (i.e.WeRubin also is statistic verified1), indicating (Gelman that the & Gelman- Rubin 1992) dropped versus four-segmentversus four-segment modelversus to four-segment validate modelversus to four-segment that validate model the four-to that validate model the four- to that validate the four- that the four- intrinsic dispersionintrinsic dispersioninintrinsic radius will dispersion inintrinsic radius be a fractional will indispersion radius be a dis- fractional will in radius be aMR dis- fractional will data1953 be) clearlyaMR to dis- fractional explore data shows clearlyteriorMR the dis- distinct parameter data distributions shows clearly changesMR distinct spaceeters. data shows for in and clearly changes theThe both distinct infer power- Metropolis the shows in the hyper changes the pos- distinct power- and algorithm in local changes thegood param- power- uses mixing. in jumping the power-WeRubin walkers, also statistic verifiedbelow ( thatGelman 1.1 the (it & Gelman- was Rubin 1.02),1992 indicating) dropped that the chains segment brokensegment power-law brokensegment is power-law strongly brokensegmentproceeding isfavored. power-law strongly broken isfavored. by power-law strongly accepting favored.is orstrongly rejecting favored. each jump by com- had converged. Finally, we thinned the 10 chains by a persion,Figure 1. ratherpersion,Figure Graphical than 1. rather model anpersion,Figure Graphical absolute than of 1 the. rather model anpersion,Figure Graphical HBM dispersion. absolute than of used 1 the. rather model an toGraphical HBM dispersion. infer absolute For than of usedex- the model an to HBM dispersion. infer Forabsolute ofindex, used ex- the toterior HBM dispersion. corresponding infer Forindex, used distributions ex- the to corresponding infer Foreters. toindex, ex- the for the Theboth transitioncorresponding Metropolistoindex, the the hyper points correspondingtransition and to algorithm between the local points transition param- usesto between the jumping points transitionRubin walkers,between points statistic betweenbelow (Gelman 1.1 (it & wasRubin 1.02),1992 indicating) dropped that the chains Our favoredOur model favored consistsOur model favored of consists 12Our free modelparing favored hyper of consists 12 its parame-free likelihood model hyper of 12consists with parame-free hyper that of 12 of parame- free the previous hyper parame- step. Since factor of 100, and stacked them together, which gives a ample,probabilistic theample,probabilistic dispersion MR relation theample, ofprobabilistic dispersion MR in Earth-radius this relation thework.ample, ofprobabilistic dispersion MR in Yellow Earth-radius this relation planets work.the ovals of dispersion MR in might Yellow representEarth-radius this relation planets work. be ovals of in might Yellow representEarth-radius this planetseach work. be ovals segment.eters. might Yellow represent planetseach The be ovals However,( segment. Metropolis might representproceedingeach be a However,( visual segment. algorithm(1 inspectionbyeach4) a accepting( However, visual segment. uses(1 jumpingalso inspection4) or a However,( reveals visual rejecting(1 walkers, also inspection4) a each reveals visual jump(1 also inspection4)below by reveals com- 1.1 also (it reveals washad 1.02), converged. indicatingFinally, that we the thinned chains the 10 chains by a ters; 1 o↵setters; ( 1)), 1 o↵ 4set slopesters; ( 1)), 1 ( oS↵ 4set slopesters; (),1)), 4 1 ( intrinsic oS↵ 4set slopes (), disper- 41)), ( intrinsicS 4 slopes), disper- 4 (intrinsicS ), disper- 4 intrinsic disper- 6 hyper-parameters,hyper-parameters, whitehyper-parameters, represent white thehyper-parameters, represent true white local the parameters represent true white local the parameters represent truea local turn-over the parameters truea in local turn-over the parameters MR relationa in turn-over the MR at around relationa in turn-over thewe MR a have at Saturn-mass. around relation in 12 the hyper MR a at Saturn-mass. parametersaround relation a at Saturn-mass. around and 316 a data Saturn-mass. points (corre- combined chain of length of 10 . The hyper-parameter [0.1 R ] but[0. for1 R stars] but it[0. for should1 R stars] but surely it[0 for. should1 R be stars] much but surely it for should larger be stars much surely it should larger be much surelyproceeding(1 larger4) beC much by(1 accepting largerparing4) C its(1 or likelihood rejecting4) C (1 with(1 each4)3) thatC jump of(1 by the3) com- previous(1 step.3)had Since converged.factorFinally, of 100, we thinned and stacked the 10 them chains together, by a which gives a Oand gray representOand gray data representO inputs.and gray data All represent objectsO inputs.and gray ondata All represent the objects inputs. plate dataon have All the objects inputs. platesions on have All the objects ( plate sions on have), the and ( plate 3 transitionsions have), and ( 3 points transitionsions), and ( (T 3 points transition),). and Criti- (T 3 points transition). Criti- (T points). Criti- (T (1 3)). Criti- Therefore, fromTherefore, one roughlywe fromTherefore, have one Saturn-mass 12 roughly hyper fromTherefore,sponding one parameters Saturn-mass to roughly the from toonset one 316 Saturn-mass and to ofroughly the316t), onset data the Saturn-mass to pointswalker of the onset (corre- jumps to of the in a onset probabilitycombined of chainposteriors, of length of available 106. The at hyper-parameterthis URL, are shown as a tri- inN members. an absoluteinN members. an sense. absoluteinN Sincemembers. an sense. absolute a fractionalinN Sincemembers. an sense. absolute a dispersion fractional Since sense. a ondispersion fractional Since a ondispersion fractionalparingR its on dispersion likelihoodR on withR that of theR previous step.M Since factor of 100, and stacked them together, which gives a cally then,cally we actually then,cally we fit actually for then, thecally we location fit actually for then, the of we location transitionfit actually for the of location transition fit for the of location transition of transition 6 a linear scalea linear corresponds scalea linear corresponds to an scale absolutea linear corresponds to an scale dispersion absolute corresponds to an on dispersion absolute tostars, an on dispersion absolutewe there havestars, is on dispersion 12 a strong hyper therespondingstars, parameters is case on a strong for there to astars, fourth 316 isand case ahyper strong316 for there segmentt), data a the cube fourth is case pointsa walker which strongof for segment (12+316) a (corre- jumps fourth case which for in dimensions. segment a a probability fourthcombined which segment chain whichposteriors, of length of available 10 .angle The at plot hyper-parameterthis in URL Figure, are2. shown We list as the a tri- median and corre- points andpoints include and anpoints include independent and anpoints include independent intrinsicM and an include independentdispersion intrinsic an dispersionindependent intrinsic dispersion intrinsic dispersion logarithmiclogarithmic scale, this assumptionlogarithmic scale, this assumptionlogarithmic is scale, naturally this assumption is scale, accounted naturally this assumption is accounted naturallywe consequently issponding accounted naturallywe consequently to accounted include 316 hyperwe in), consequently the cube ourinclude walker model.we of (12+316) in consequently jumps ourincludeWe Later, beginmodel. in dimensions. in ain probabilityby ourinclude Sec- Later, running model. in in our 5 Sec- Later, independent model.posteriors, in Sec- Later, initial available in chainsangle Sec- at plot forthis in URL Figuresponding, are2. shown We 68.3% list as the confidence a tri- median interval and corre- of each hyper pa- for each segmentfor each (making segmentMfort each our (making model segmentfor probabilistic). eachour (making model segment probabilistic). our (making Also model probabilistic). our Also model probabilistic). Also Also for by our model.for by our To implement model.for by our To theimplement model.for probabilistic by our To implementthe model. probabilistic model, To the implement probabilistic model,tion the3.2hyper probabilistic, model, wetion cube perform3.2 of, (12+316) model, wetion aWe performmodel3.2 begin dimensions., comparison wetion a by performmodel running500,0003.2, comparison we of a 5accepted perform model a independent three- comparison of asteps model a three- initial each, comparison ofangle chains a seeding three- plot for of the in a Figure parameters three-sponding2. We 68.3% listrameter the confidence median posterior interval and corre- in Table of each2. hyper Our model, pa- evaluated at We considerWe it consider more reasonableWe it consider more reasonableWe to it assume consider more reasonable to that it assume more the reasonable to that assumenote the that to that the assumenote the “slopes” that that thenote in the “slopes” log-log that the space innote “slopes” log-log are that(1 the3) thespace in power-law “slopes”log-log are the space in power-law log-log are the space power-law are the power-law we employwe a hierarchical employwe a hierarchical employ Bayesianwe a hierarchicalmodel, employ Bayesian or a HBM model,hierarchical Bayesian for or HBM model, Bayesianversus for or HBM model, four-segmentWeversus begin for or HBMby four-segment running model500,000versus for to 5four-segmentaccepted independent validate modelversusT to four-segmentthatsteps validate model initialfrom the each, close four- to chains that seeding validate model to the the for four- visuallyto the that validate parameterssponding the inferred four- that 68.3% locations the four-rameter confidence of the posterior intervalthe in spatial ofTable each median2. hyper Our model, pa- of the evaluatedhyper parameters, at is shown intrinsic dispersionintrinsic indispersionintrinsic radius will dispersioninintrinsic radius be a fractional will dispersionin radius be a dis- fractional will in radius be aindices dis- fractional will be in linearaindices dis- fractional space. in linearindices dis-(1 The3) space. hyper in linearindices The parameter space. hyper in linear The vectorparameter space. hyper is The parametervector hyper is vector parameter is vector is short. short. short. short. segment brokensegment power-law brokenTsegment is power-lawfrom strongly brokensegment closetransitions favored.is power-law to strongly the broken visually isfavored.points power-law strongly inferred (but isfavored. keeping locations strongly all favored. of others the termsthe drawn spatial medianin Figure of the3 hypercompared parameters, to the isdata shown upon which it was persion, ratherpersion, than rather anpersion, absolute than rather anpersion, dispersion. absolute than rather an dispersion. Forabsolute than ex- an dispersion. absoluteFor ex- 500,000 dispersion. For ex-accepted For ex-steps each, seeding the parameters rameter posterior in Table 2. Our model, evaluated at therefore(1 3)therefore therefore thereforeseeded from a random sample from the hyper priors). conditioned. The spatial median simply finds the OurT favored fromOur model close favoredtransitions consists toOur the model favored visually of consists12 pointsOur free model inferred favored (but hyper of consists12 keeping locations parame- free model hyper of all consists12 of others the parame- free hyper of terms 12the parame-free drawn spatial hyper median parame-in Figure of the3 hypercompared parameters, to the is data shown upon which it was ample, theample, dispersion the ofample, dispersion Earth-radius theample, of dispersion Earth-radius planets the of dispersion might Earth-radius planets be of might Earth-radius planets be might planets be( might be( (1 4) ( (1 4) ( (1 4) (1 4) 2.4. Hierarchical2.4. Hierarchical Bayesian2.4. Hierarchical Modeling Bayesian2.4. Hierarchical Modeling Bayesian Modeling Bayesianters; 1transitions o↵ Modelingsetters; ( 1)), 1 points o↵ 4setseeded slopesters; ((but1)), 1 ( fromo keepingS↵ 4set slopesters; a (), random all41)), 1 (intrinsicWe oS others↵ 4set identifyslopes sample (), terms disper- 41)), (intrinsicS from the 4 drawn slopes burn-in the), disper- 4 hyper( intrinsicS point in priors).), Figure disper- 4 by intrinsic eye,3 compared searching disper-conditioned. for to theThe datasample spatial upon from which median the it joint was simply posterior finds the which minimizes [0.1 R ] but[0 for.1 R stars] but it[0. for should1 R stars] but surely it[0. for should1 R be stars] much but surely it for should larger be stars much surely it should larger be much surely(1 larger4) beC much(1 larger4) C (1 4) C (1 4) C (1) (2) (3)(1) the(4)(2) instant(1 3)(3)(1) where(4)(2)(1 the(3)3)(1) local(4)(2)(1 variance(3)3) (4) in(1 the3) log-likelihood the Euclidean distance to all other samples. OThe di↵erenceOThe between di↵erenceOThe an between HBM di↵erenceO andThe an the between HBM di↵ moreerence and an familiar the between HBM more and an familiar the HBMsions moreseeded and ( familiar thesions⇥ from), morehyper and ( a= familiar 3random transitionsionsS⇥We),hyper and,S (identify sample= 3,S points transitionsionsS⇥),hyper from,S the and,S ( (T burn-in=, the 3,S points transitionS⇥ hyper),).hyper,S,S and point Criti- (T priors).=, 3,S points transitionS by).,S eye,,S Criti- (T, searching,S points conditioned.).,S Criti- (T for, ).The Criti-sample spatial from median the joint simply posterior finds the which minimizes in an absolutein an sense. absolutein Since an sense. absolute a fractionalin Since an sense. absolute a dispersion fractional Since sense. a on dispersion fractional Since a on dispersion fractionalR ondispersionR { on R { R { { Bayesian methodBayesian is that methodBayesian HBMs is that method haveBayesian HBMs two is sets that methodhave of HBMs twoparam- is sets that have of HBMs two param-cally sets have then, ofWe param-twocally we identify sets actually then, of param- thethecally we fit(1) burn-in instant actually for then,(2) the wherepointcally(3) we location fit(1) actually for(4) then, by the(2) the ofeye, local(3) we location transition fit(1)Table searching actually variancefor(4)(2) the of 1.(3) location transition fitDescription(1) in for for the(4)(2) the log-likelihood of(3) locationsample transition and(4) posterior offrom transition of the hyperthe joint Euclidean parameters. posterior distance The which prior to distributions minimizes all other of samples. the hyper parameters a linear scalea linear corresponds scalea linear corresponds to an scale absolutea linear corresponds to an scale dispersion absolute corresponds to an on dispersion absolute to an on dispersion absolute on dispersion on, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,11 pointsthe and instantpoints include where and anpoints include independent the local and an variancepoints include independent intrinsic and in an the include dispersionindependent intrinsic log-likelihood(1) an dispersionindependent intrinsic dispersionthe(1 intrinsic4) Euclidean dispersion distance(1 4) to all other samples.(1 3) eters;logarithmic a layereters;logarithmic scale, of hyper a this layer assumptioneters; parameters,logarithmic scale, of hyper a this layer assumptionparameters,eters;logarithmic is scale,⇥ of naturallyhyper hyper a this layer, on parameters,assumption is scale, accounted⇥ top of naturallyhyper hyper of this the, on assumptionparameters, is accounted⇥top naturallyhyper of the, on is topaccounted⇥ naturallyhyper of the, on accounted top of theR R TableRR 1R.R DescriptionRRareRR andR posteriorR ( R1R, 1); ofSR hyper R parameters.(0, 5); log The10 prior distributions( 3, 2); ofT the hyper( parameters4, 6). (1) (2) (3)(1) (1)(2) (3)(1) (1)C(2) ⇠(3)(1)U (1)(2) (3) (1)⇠ N R ⇠ U ⇠ U local parameters,local parameters,⇥locallocal(see parameters,⇥Hogglocallocal(see et parameters,⇥ al.Hogglocal2010(see etfor al.⇥Hogglocal a2010(see etforfor al.Hogg aeach2010 segmentetforfor al. a each2010 (making segmentforforT a eachour,T (making model segment,TforT probabilistic).(1) eachour,,T (making model segment.,TT probabilistic). our,,T (making Also model(1(4),T. 4)T probabilistic)., our,T Also model(4).,T probabilistic)., Also(4)(1. 4) Also(4) (1 3) for by our model.for by our To implement model.for by our To theimplement model.for probabilistic by our To theimplement model. probabilistic model, To theimplement probabilistic model, the probabilistic model,Table model, 1. Descriptionare andC posterior}( 1, 1);C ofS hyper} parameters.C (0,}5); log The10C prior} distributions( 3,⇥2); ofT the⇤ hyper( parameters4, 6). ■□ C ⇠ U ■□ ⇠ N ■□ R ⇠ U ⇠ U pedagogicalpedagogical explanation)pedagogical explanation). Thepedagogical local explanation). parameters The local explanation). parameters usu- The local. parametersnote usu- The that local the parametersnote usu- “slopes” that(1) the innote usu- “slopes”log-log that thespacenote in “slopes”(1 log-log are that4)■□ the thespace in power-law “slopes” log-log are the space in power-law log-log(1 are4) the space power-law are the(1 power-law3) ■□ ■□ we employwe a hierarchical employwe a hierarchical employ Bayesianwe a model, hierarchical employ Bayesian or a HBM model,hierarchical Bayesian for or HBM model, Bayesian for or HBM model, for■□ or HBM for ■□ ■□ ■□ There is onlyThereare one freeis only parameterThere one( 1, freeis■□1); only forS parameterThere one the ofree is↵ onlyset(0 for parameter, since5); onethe log■□ o wefree↵set for parameter since the o we■□↵set for( since3 the, 2); oweT↵set since we( 4, 6). ■□ ■□ ■□ 10 ■□ ⇥ ⇤ ■□ ■□ ■□ ■□ ⇥hyper ■□ term Description Credible Interval ■□ ■□ indices in linear space.■□ ■□ TheR ■□ hyper parameter vector is indices in linearindices space.■□ C in linearindices⇠ TheU space. hyper in linear The parameter space. hyper⇠ N The vectorparameter hyper is vectorparameter■□ ⇠ isU vector is ⇠ U ally describeally the describe propertiesally the describe ofproperties eachally the individual describe propertiesof each the datum,individual of properties each datum,individual of each datum, individual■□ datum, ■□ short. short. short. short. ■□ ■□ ■□ ■□ ■□ ■□ impose theimpose condition theimpose that condition each the segment thatimpose condition each the of segment that the condition■□ power- each of segment thatthe power- each of segment the power-■□ of the power- therefore therefore therefore therefore⇥hyper term⇥ ⇤ Description Credible Interval +0.046 whilst the hyperswhilst the describe hyperswhilst the the describe overall hyperswhilst the ensemble thedescribe overall hypers proper- the ensemble describe overall proper- theensemble overall proper- ensemble proper- 10C R Power-law constant for the Terran (T-class) worlds MR relation 1.008 0.045 R law is connected,law is connected, i.e.law a■□ continuous is connected, i.e.law a continuous broken is connected, i.e. power-law. a continuous broken i.e. power-law. a continuous broken power-law. broken power-law. ties. For example,2.4.ties.Hierarchical For in example,2.4. thisties. work,Hierarchical For Bayesian in example, the2.4. thisties. local work,Hierarchical Modeling ForBayesian parametersin example, the2.4. this local work,Hierarchical Modeling Bayesian parameters in are the this local work, Modeling Bayesian parameters are the local Modeling parameters are ⇥hyper aretermFigure(1) Description 2. Triangle plot of the hyper-parameter Credible joint IntervalS posterior distribution+0.046 (generated+0.0092 using corner.py). Contours denote the By requiringBy that requiring twoBy segments that requiring two meetBy segments that requiring10 atC twoR the meet segments transition thatPower-law at two theS meet segments transition constant at thePower-law meet for transition the at Terran indexthe transition of (T-class) Terran worlds;worlds MRR relationM 1.008 0.045 R 0.2790 0.0094 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 confidence intervals. / the true logthe10(M/M true log),the10 log(M/M true10(R/R log),the10 log()M/M true (or10(R/R log),t,10 log)(M/Mt (or)10 of(R/R allt),, log)t (or)10 of(R/R allt, )t (or) of allt, t) of(1) all (2) (3)(1) (4)(1)(2) (3)(1) (4)(2) (2)(3)(1) (4)(2) (3) (4) S +0.046 S +0.0092 +0.044 The di↵erenceThe between di↵erenceThe an between HBM di↵erence andThe an the between HBM di↵ moreerence and an familiar the between HBM more and an familiar the HBMpoint more and between familiar thepoint⇥ morehyper them, between= familiar10 wepointS⇥C Rhyper can them,,S between derive=,SPower-law wepointS⇥hyper,S can the them,,SS between deriveo=,↵ constant,Ssets weS⇥hyper can,S the forPower-law them,,S for thederive o=,↵,S thesetsS weS Terran index can,S the for,S theo derive,↵ ofPower-law (T-class),Ssets Terran,S thefor worldsworlds; the o index,↵sets MR ofR for Neptunian relation theM worlds; 1.008 0R.045 RM 0.2790 0.0094 0.589 0.031 M R M R M R M R the objects,the and objects, the hyperthe and objects, parameters, the hyperthe and objects, parameters, the⇥ hyper, and are parameters, the⇥ those hyper, are parameters,⇥ those , are⇥ those , are{ those { { { / / +0.017 hyper hyper hyper hyper (1) (2) ■□ (j) (3) (j) (jS) (j) S +0.0092S +0.044 Bayesian methodBayesian is that methodBayesian HBMs is that methodhaveBayesian HBMs two is sets that method have of HBMs twoparam- is sets that have of HBMs twoparam-rest sets have of of the twoparam- segments.rest sets of of the param- At segments.restS (1) each of(2) the transitionPower-law At segments.rest(3)(1) each of(4)S(2) thepoint transition index At segments.(3)(1)T■□ each ofPower-law(4), Terran(2) point transitionS At(3) worlds;(1)T each index(4),(2) point transition ofPower-lawR Neptunian(3)TM (4), point index worlds;T of Jovian,R M worlds;0.2790R M 0.589 0.044 0.019 ■□ ■□ 0.0094 0.031 ■□ , , , , ■□, , , , , , , , , , , ■□ , that representthat the represent brokenthat the power-law. represent brokenthat the power-law. represent This broken hierarchical the power-law. This broken hierarchical power-law. This hierarchical This hierarchical ■□ / / / ■□ ■□ ■□ ■□ ■□ +0.025 ■□ ■□ (2) ■□ ■□ ■□ ■□ (3) (4) ■□ ■□ S S +0.044TableS 1 (continued)+0.017 eters; a layereters; of hyper a layer parameters,eters; of hyper a layer parameters,eters;⇥ of hyper a, layer on parameters, top⇥ of hyper of the, on parameters, top⇥ of the, on top⇥ of the, on top■□ of■□ theR■□ R RR RR ■□ RR RR R■□R RR R R hyper hyper hyper hyper ■□ S Power-law■□ ■□ S index of■□Power-law NeptunianS index worlds; ofPower-law JovianR ■□ M worlds; index ofR StellarM worlds;0.589R M 0.044 0.881 (1) (2)■□ (3)(1) (1)(2) (3)(1) (1)(2)■□ ■□ (3)(1) (1)(2) (3) (1) 0.031 0.019 0.024 structure isstructure illustrated isstructure in illustrated Figure is1structure. in illustratedFor Figure the is1. in illustrated local FigureFor pa- the1. in localFor Figure pa- the1. localFor pa- the local pa- ■□ / / / T(3) ,T ,TT ,,T(4) .,TT ,,T (4).,T■□T(1) ,,T■□ (4)■□ .,T , S (4). (4)S +0.017 +0.025 +0.94 local parameters,local parameters,⇥locallocal(see parameters,⇥Hogglocallocal(see et parameters, al.⇥Hogglocal2010(see etfor al.⇥Hogglocal a2010(see etfor al.Hogg a2010 etfor al. a2010 for■□ a ■□ (j) (j) (j()j) (j)(j+1)S(j()j) ((jj+1))(Power-lawj+1)(j()j)(CjS) (j(j+1)}) index(j+1)(j of(Power-law)Cj) Jovian(j+1)}(j+1) worlds; index(jC) (j+1)} ofRFractional StellarM(Cj) worlds; dispersion} R ofM radius for0. the044 Terran0.019 MR0. relation881 0.024 4.03 0.64 % rameters,rameters, we definerameters, we a mass, definerameters, we at, mass, define and radius, we at, mass, defineandt radius,, at, mass, andt radius,,+St, andT t radius,,+=S T t++, S=S T T++S=S forT j =T+ 1S=, 2,for3. R jT =+ 1S, 2,for3. / j =T 1, 2,for3. j = 1/, 2, 3. pedagogicalpedagogical explanation)pedagogical explanation). TheMpedagogical local explanation). parameters TheM local explanation). parameters usu-R TheM local.C parameters usu-R TheM local⇥C parameters usu-R C ⇥C usu-R(4) C ⇥C⇥ (1)C ⇥⇥ C ⇥(2) ⇥⇥hyperS term+0.025 Description+0.94 +1.7 Credible Interval term for eachterm object for eachterm giving object for each 632term giving local object for each632 variables. giving local object 632 variables. giving localThere 632 variables. is local onlyThere one variables. free is onlyS parameterThere one free isPower-law only for parameterThere theone o free is index↵set only for parameter since ofFractional onethe Stellar(5) owe free↵set for parameter worlds; sincedispersion the(5) o weRFractional↵set for ofM since radiusthe(5) dispersion o we↵set for thesince Terran of(5) we radius MR for0. relation881 the0 Neptunian.024 4 MR.03 relation0.64 % 14.6 1.3 % ally describeally the describe propertiesally the describe of properties eachally the individual describe ofproperties each the datum, individual ofproperties each datum, individual of each datum,individual datum, R R / impose theimpose condition the thatimpose condition(1) each the segmentimpose that condition each(2) the of segment thatthe condition power- each of segment thatthe(3) power- each of segment the power-(4) of the power- +0.94 +1.7 +0.46 +0.64 In practice,In the practice,t Inlocal the practice, parameterst Inlocal the practice, parameters aret local related the parameters aret local related parametersWe are can related nowWe are iteratively can related now We derive iteratively canFractional now theWe other derive iteratively can dispersion o now↵thesets other derive iterativelyFractional as, of o the↵radiussets otherdispersion derive as, for the oFractional↵ thesets Terran of other radius as, dispersion MR o↵ forsets relationFractional the as, Neptunian of radius dispersion for 4 MR.03 the relation0. ofJovian64 % radius MR for 14 relation. the6 1 Stellar.3 % MR 7 relation.37 0.45 % 4.43 0.47 % whilst the hyperswhilst the describe hyperswhilst the the describe overall hyperswhilst the ensemble the describe overall hypers proper- the ensemble describe overall proper- the ensemble overall proper- ensemble proper-R R R R R R R R law is connected,law is connected, i.e.law a(2) continuous is connected, i.e.law a continuous broken is(3) connected, i.e. power-law. a continuous broken i.e. power-law. a continuous broken power-law.T broken(1) power-law. +1.7 +0.46 +0.66 to the ttoterm the throughtot term the the throughtto brokenterm the the through power-lawt brokenterm the through power-law broken the power-law broken power-law ■□ Fractional dispersionFractional of radius■□ dispersion for the10 Neptunian of■□ radiusM for MRTerran-to-Neptunian the relation Jovian MR 14 relation.6 1. transition3 % point 7.37 0.45 % 2.04 0.59 M ties. For example, in this work, the local parameters■□ ■□ are ■□ ■□ ties. ForM example,ties. For inM example, thisties. work, For inM example, the this local work, parameters inM the this local work, parameters are the local parameters are are R R ■□ ■□ ■□ ■□ ■□ By requiringBy that requiring twoBy segments(3) that requiring two meetBy segments that requiring■□ at two the meet segments■□ transition that at two the meet segments transition■□ at the meet transition■□ at the transition +0.46 and each realizationand each realizationand of the each hyper realizationand of the parameters.each hyper realization of the parameters. Inhyper of the parameters. In hyper parameters. In ■□ In (j+1) (■□j)(j+1)(j■□ ) (j)((jj+1)+1) ■□(j) Fractional((jj))((jj+1)+1)(■□j) dispersion((jj)()j+1) ( ofj■□) radius(j)(j+1) for the(j Jovian) MR relation 7.37 % the true log (M/M ), log (R/R ) (or , ) of all ■□ ■□ 0.45 the true logthe(M/M true log),the log(M/M true(R/R log), log)(M/M (or(R/Rt),,10 log)t (or) of(R/R allt, )t (or)10 of allt, t) of all■□ t t ■□ ■□ ■□ Table 1 continued 10 10 10 10 10 10 = +(S = SR+(S)=T ■□S +(forS)= j =T■□ S 1, 2+(,for3S.) (6) j =T S 1, 2,for3.) (6) j■□ =T 1, 2,for3. (6) j = 1, 2, 3. (6) point betweenpoint them, between■□ ■□ wepoint can them, between derive■□ wepoint can the them,■□ between oderive↵sets we■□ can the for them, the deriveo↵sets we can the for■□ ■□ the deriveo↵sets the for the o↵sets for the total then, our model total includes then, our 632 model localM R param- includesM R 632 localM R param-M R ■□ total then, our modeltotal includes then, our 632 model local param- includesC 632C C local param-C C ⇥C C ⇥C ⇥ ■□ ⇥ the objects,the and objects, the hyperthe and objects, parameters, the hyperthe and objects, parameters,⇥ thehyper hyper, and are parameters, the⇥ thosehyper hyper, are parameters,⇥ thosehyper, are⇥ thosehyper, are those (j) (j) (j) (j) eters andeters a compact andeters a set compact of and hypereters a set compact parameters, of and hyper a set compact parameters, of as hyper set parameters, ofrest as hyper of the parameters, segments.rest as of the At segments.rest as each of the transition At segments.rest each of thepoint transition At segments.T each, point transition AtT each, point transitionT , point T , Table 1 continued Table 1 continued that representthat the represent brokenthat the power-law. represent brokenthat the power-law. representThis broken hierarchical the power-law. This broken hierarchical power-law. This hierarchical This hierarchical2.6. Hyper2.6. PriorsHyper2.6. PriorsHyper2.6. PriorsHyper Priors describeddescribed later in thedescribed later MCMC in thedescribed later subsection. MCMC in the later subsection. MCMC in the subsection. MCMC subsection. Table 1 continued structure isstructure illustrated isstructure in illustrated Figure is1structure. in illustratedFor Figure the is1. in illustrated localFor Figure pa- the1. in localFor Figure pa- the1. localForFigure pa- the 4. Each local sub-panel pa- shows the residuals of a hyper-parameter in our model, as computed between ten injected truths (j) (j)and the(j( corresponding)j) (j)(j recovered+1)(j()j) values.(j(j+1) The)(j+1) black(j()j square()j) (j denotes(j+1))(j+1) the( recoveredj()j) (j+1) posterior(j+1) median(j) and(j+1) the dark &( lightj) gray rameters,rameters, we definerameters, we a mass, definerameters, we a, mass, defineand radius, we a, mass, defineand radius,, a, mass, and radius,,+St,bars and denoteT radius,,+ the=S 1 & 2 σ confidenceT t+,+S= intervals.S TheT greenT++S horizontal=S for barT j marks=T+ 1S= the, 2 zero-point,for3. j =expectedT+ 1S, 2 for,for3 a. perfect j =T recovery. 1, 2,for3. j = 1, 2, 3. Mt Mt Rt Mt CRt M ⇥CRt C ⇥CR C ⇥C⇥ C ⇥⇥ C ⇥ ⇥ term for eachterm object for eachterm giving object for each632term giving local object for each632 variables. giving local object 632 variables. giving local 632 variables. local variables. (5) (5) (5) (5) than refer to them as M/K/late-G class stars, we sim- Terran worlds. No break is observed between “dwarf In practice,In the practice,t Inlocal the practice, parameterst Inlocal the practice, parameters aret local related the parameters aret local related parametersWe are can relatedply now labelWe are iterativelythem can as related stars now forWe the derive iteratively sake can of nowthe this workWe other derive iteratively and can o now↵theplanets”sets other derive iteratively as, and “planets”. o↵ thesets If other derive the as, Terrans o↵ the displayedsets other as, a con- o↵sets as, R R R R for consistency with the “worlds” taxonomy dub them stant mean density, then we would expect R M 1/3, ∼ to the ttoterm the throughttoterm the the throughtto brokenterm the the through power-lawt brokenterm the through power-law broken the power-law broken“Stellar” worlds. power-law and so the slightly depressed measured index indi- M M M M Finally, we turn to segment 1 which is comprised cates modest compression with increasing mass (ρ and each realizationand each realizationand of the each hyper realizationand of the parameters. each hyper realization of the parameters. In hyper of the parameters. In hyper(j+1) parameters.(j) In(j+1)(j) (j() In(jj+1)+1)(j) ((jj)()(jj+1)+1)(j) ((jj0).)(16j+1)0.03 (j) (j)(j+1) (j) ∼ =largely of+( SolarS System= S members+(S and)= thusT S all of+( whichforS)= j =T MS 1, 2+(±,for3S)..) Our(6) j =T resultS 1, is2, infor3 close.) (6) j agreement =T 1, 2, withfor3. the-(6) j = 1, 2, 3. (6) are relatively well-known. The objects span dwarf plan- oretical models, which typically predict R M 0.27 for total then,total our then, modeltotal our includes then, modeltotal our 632 includes then, model local our param-632 includes model local param-632 includesC local 632param-C C local param-C C ⇥C C ⇥C ⇥ ⇥ ∼ ets to the terrestrial planets, silicate worlds to icy Earth-like compositions (e.g. see Valencia et al. 2006). eters andeters a compact andeters a set compact of and hypereters a set compact parameters, of and hyper a set compact parameters, of as hyper set parameters, of as hyperworlds, parameters, as making naming this as broad class quite challeng- We find the first transition to be located at (2.0 ± ing. Additionally,2.6. callingHyper this class2.6. Priors Earth-likeHyper worlds2.6. Priors0.7)HyperM , defining2.6. Priors the transitionHyper from Priors Terrans to Neptu- ⊕ describeddescribed later in thedescribed later MCMC in thedescribed later subsection. MCMC in the later subsection. MCMC in the subsection. MCMC subsection.would be confusing given the usual association of this nians. After this point, the density trend reverses with 0.77 0.13 phrase with habitable, Earth-analogs. For consistency ρ¯ M − ± , indicating the accretion of substan- ∼ with the naming scheme used thus far, we decided that tial volatile gas envelopes. This transition is not only dubbing these objects as “Terran” worlds to be the most evident in the power-law index, but also in the intrin- appropriate. sic dispersion, which increases by a factor of (3.6 0.9) ± from Terrans to Neptunians. This transition point is of 4.3. T (1): The Terran-Neptunian Worlds Divide major interest to the community, since it caps the pos- 4 From masses of 10− M to a couple of Earth ∼ ⊕ sibilities of rocky, habitable Super-Earth planets, with masses, we find that a continuous power-law of R implications for future missions designs (e.g. see Dal- 0.279 0.009 ∼ M ± provides an excellent description of these 12 canton et al. 2015). power-law estimate. Our result is compatible with independent empirical 4.5. T (2): The Neptunian-Jovian Worlds Divide and theoretical estimates of this transition. Starting with the former, we compare our result to Rogers(2015), We find strong evidence for a transition in our bro- who sought the transition in radius rather than mass. ken power-law at (0.41 0.07) MJ , corresponding to the ± This was achieved by identifying radii which exceed that transition between Neptunians and Jovians. Whilst this of a solid planet, utilizing a principle first proposed by transition has been treated as an assumed, fixed point Kipping et al.(2013). Assuming an Earth-like compo- in previous works (e.g. Weiss et al. 2013 adopt a fixed sitional model, the radius threshold was inferred to be transition at 150 M , or 0.47 MJ ), our work appears to ⊕ +0.08 be first instance of a data-driven inference of this tran- 1.48 0.04 R (Rogers 2015). Our result may be con- ⊕ verted− to a radius by using our derived relation. How- sition. ever, since our model imposes intrinsic radius dispersion A plausible physical interpretation of this boundary (i.e. the probabilistic nature of our model), then the is that Neptunians rapidly grow in radius as more mass uncertainty in radius is somewhat inflated by this pro- is added, depositing more gaseous envelope to their cess. Nevertheless, we may convert our mass posterior outer layers. Eventually, the object’s mass is sufficient samples to fair radii realizations using our Forecaster for gravitational self-compression to start reversing the public code (described later in Section5). Accordingly, growth, leading into the Jovians. The existence of such +0.44 a transition is not unexpected, but our model allows for we find that the transition occurs at 1.23 0.22 R , which ⊕ is fully compatible with Rogers(2015). − an actual measurement of its location. A comparison to theory comes from Lopez & Fortney We infer the significance of this transition to be high at (2014), who scale down compositional models of gaseous nearly 10 σ (see 3.2), motivating us to propose that this § planets to investigate the minimum size of a H/He rich transition is physically real and that a class of Jovians sub-Neptune. From this theoretical exercise, the au- is taxonomically rigorous in the mass-radius plane. a thors estimate that 1.5 R is the minimum radius of a defining feature of the Jovian worlds is that the MR ⊕ H/He rich sub-Neptune, which is also compatible with power-index is close to zero ( 0.04 0.02), with radius − ± our measurement. Therefore, despite the fact we do being nearly degenerate with respect to mass. not impose any physical model (unlike Lopez & Fort- We find that brown dwarfs are absorbed into this ney 2014& Rogers 2015), our broken power-law model class, displaying no obvious transition (also see Figure 1) recovers the transition from Terrans and Neptunians. at 13 MJ , the canonical threshold for brown dwarfs ∼ Spiegel et al.(2011), as was also argued by Hatzes & Rauer(2015). When viewed in terms of mass and ra- 4.4. T (3): The Jovian-Stellar Worlds Divide dius then, brown dwarfs are merely high-mass members Another well-understood transition is recovered by of a continuum of Jovians and more closely resemble our model at (0.080 0.008) M , which we interpret ± “planets” than “stars”. as the onset of hydrogen burning. As with the Terran- The fact that the Neptunian-to-Jovian transition oc- Neptunian worlds transition, we may compare this to curs at around one Saturn mass is generally incompat- other estimates of the critical boundary. In the re- ible with theoretical predictions of a H/He rich planet, cent work of Dieterich et al.(2014), the authors per- such as Saturn. Calculations by Zapolsky & Salpeter formed a detailed observational campaign around this (1969) predict that a cold sphere of H/He is expected boundary. Inspecting the T -R plane, the authors iden- eff to reach a maximum size somewhere between 1.2 MJ tify a minimum at 0.086 R , which corresponds to ' to 3.3 MJ . The suite of models produced by Fortney 0.072 M with the 5 Gyr isochrones2 of Baraffe et al. ' et al.(2007) for H/He rich giant planets, for various (1998). Based on this, we conclude that the result is insolations and metallicities, peak at masses between fully compatible with our own prediction. 2.5 M to 5.2 M . Nevertheless, Jupiter and Saturn ∼ J ∼ J From stellar modeling, estimates of the minimum mass have similar radii (within 20%) of one another despite for hydrogen-burning range from 0.07 M to 0.09 M a factor of three difference in mass, crudely indicating (Burrows et al. 1993, 1997; Baraffe et al. 1998; Chabrier that Jovians commence at a mass less than or equal to et al. 2000; Baraffe et al. 2003; Saumon & Marley 2008). that of Saturn. Therefore, both independent observational studies and theoretical estimates are consistent with our broken 5. FORECASTING 5.1. Forecaster: An Open-Source Package Using our probabilistic model for MR relation inferred 2 Although the point slightly precedes the first point in the Baraffe et al. 1998 grid, requiring a small linear extrapolation to in this work, it is possible to now achieve our primary compute. objective: to forecast the mass (or radius) of an object 13 given the radius (or mass). Crucially, our forecasting Mass cannot be directly sampled given R(i), i = { model can not only propagate measurement uncertainty 1, 2, ..., n with our model. To sample mass, Forecaster } on the inputs (easily achieved using Monte Carlo draws), first creates a grid of mass as M (j) , j = 1, 2, ..., m { grid } but also the uncertainty in the model itself thanks to in the whole mass range of our model. Similarly, then the probabilistic nature of our model. Thus, even for an we randomly chose n sets of hyper parameters from input with perfect measurement error (i.e. none), our the hyper posteriors of our model. For each radius forecasting model will still return a probability distri- R(i), Forecaster calculates the probability p(j) , j = { grid bution for the forecasted quantity, due to (i) our mea- 1, 2, ..., m of R(i) given M (j) with Θ(i) . Finally, surement uncertainty in the hyper-parameters describ- } hyper Forecaster (i) (j) ing the model; and (ii) the intrinsic variability seen in samples M from Mgrid, j = 1, 2, ..., m (j) { } nature herself around the imposed model. with p , j = 1, 2, ..., m . The output in this case is a { grid } To enable the community to make use of this, we have vector of mass M (i), i = 1, 2, ..., n . written a Python package, Forecaster 3 (MIT license), { } which allows a user to input a mass (or radius) poste- 5.4. Examples: Kepler-186f and Kepler-452b rior and return a radius (or mass) forecasted distribu- An illustrative example of Forecaster in action, we tion. Alternatively, one can simply input a mean and here forecast the masses of arguably the two most standard deviation of mass (or radius), and the package Earth-like planets discovered by Kepler, Kepler-186f and will return an forecasted mean and standard deviation Kepler-452b. of the radius (or mass), This code works for any object Kepler-186f was discovered by Quintana et al.(2014), 4 5 +6 with mass in the range of [3 10− M , 3 10 M (0.87 reported to be a (1.11 0.14) R and receiving 32 4% × ⊕ × ⊕ ± ⊕ − M )], or [0.1 R , 100 R (9 RJ )]. the insolation received by the Earth. A re-analysis by ⊕ ⊕ We present the details of how we use the MR relation Torres et al.(2015) refined the radius to (1 .17 0.08) R ± ⊕ we obtained to forecast one quantity from the other be- and we use the radius posterior samples from that work low. as our input to Forecaster. As shown in Figure5, we +1.31 predict a mass of 1.74 0.60 M , with 59% of the sam- ⊕ 5.2. Forecasting Radius ples lying within the Terrans− classification. Therefore, Predicting radius given mass is straightforward from in agreement with the discover paper of Quintana et al. our model. If the input is the mean and standard de- (2014), we also predict that Kepler-186f is most likely a viation of mass, Forecaster will first generate a vec- rocky planet. tor of masses, M (i), i = 1, 2, ..., n , following a normal Kepler-452b was discovered by Jenkins et al.(2015) { } and was found to have a very similar insolation to that distribution truncated within the mass range. Other- +0.29 of the Earth, differing by a factor if just 1.10 0.22. wise, the code will accept the input mass posterior as +0.23 − M (i), i = 1, 2, ..., n . Forecaster will then randomly The reported radius of 1.63 0.20 R means that Kepler- { } − ⊕ chose n realizations of the hyper parameters from the 452b would be unlikely to be rocky using the defini- hyper posteriors derived in this work. A radius will be tion resulting from the analysis of (Rogers 2015). Us- drawn for each M (i) with each set of hyper parameters ing the reported radius with Forecaster predicts that (i) +2.9 M = 3.9 1.5 M , with only 13% of samples lying within Θ , as ⊕ hyper the Terran− worlds classification (see Figure5). There-

(i) (i) (i) (i) fore, in contrast to the discovery paper of Jenkins et al. R (f(M , Θhyper), σ ). (16) ∼ N R (2015), we predict that Kepler-452b is unlikely to be a The output in this case is a vector of radius R(i), i = rocky planet. { 1, 2, ..., n . It is worth pointing out that since our model } 6. DISCUSSION uses a Gaussian distribution, it is possible that the pre- dicted radius for a given mass turns out to be so small In this work, we have developed a new package, called Forecaster that no current physical composition model can explain. , to predict the mass (or radius) of an object However we choose not to truncate the prediction with based upon the radius (or mass). Our code uses a new any theoretical model and let our code users to choose probabilistic mass-radius relation which has been condi- what’s suitable for them. tioned upon the masses of radii of 316 objects spanning dwarf planets to late-type stars. Aside from enabling forecasting, this exercise naturally performs classifica- 5.3. Forecasting Mass tion of the observed population, since we fit for the tran- sitional points. Since the observed population has been classified in this way, future objects can also be prob- 3 https://github.com/chenjj2/forecaster abilistically classified too, which is another feature of 12 as our input to Forecaster. As shown in Figure 4,we I The transition from Neptunians to Jovians occurs +1.31 0.057 predict a mass of 1.74 0.60 M , with 59% of the sam- at 0.4140.065 MJ , meaning that Saturn is close to ples lying within the Terrans classification. Therefore, being the largest occuring Neptunian world. This in agreement with the discover paper of Quintana et al. is the first empirical measurement of this divide. (2014), we also predict that Kepler-186f is most likely a rocky planet. I The transition from Terrans to Jovians occurs at +0.66 Kepler-452b was discovered by Jenkins et al. (2015) 2.04 0.59 M , meaning that the Earth is close and was found to have a very similar insolation to that to being the largest occuring solid world. Rocky +0.29 of the Earth, di↵ering by a factor if just 1.10 0.22.The “Super-Earths”, then, can be argued to be a fic- +0.23 reported radius of 1.63 0.20 R means that Kepler-452b tional category. would be unlikely to be rocky using the result of (Rogers 12 2015). Using this radius with Forecaster predicts that This latter point may seem remarkable given that +2.9 M =3.9 1.5 M , with only 13% of samples lying within “Super-Earths” have become part of the astronomical as our inputthe to TerranForecaster worlds.classification As shown in Figure (see Figure4,we4). There-I The transitionlexicon. The from large Neptunians number to of Jovians 2-10 M occursplanets discov- +1.31 0.057 predict a massfore, inof contrast 1.74 0.60 toM the, with discovery 59% paperof the of sam-Jenkins et al. at 0.414ered0. is065 oftenMJ , cited meaning asevidence that Saturn that is close Super-Earths to are ples lying within(2015), the we predictTerrans that classification. Kepler-452b Therefore, is unlikely to be a beingvery the largestcommon occuring and thus Neptunian Solar System’s world. This makeup is un- in agreementrocky with planet. the discover paper of Quintana et al. is theusual first empirical(Haghighipour measurement2013). However, of this divide. if the boundary (2014), we also predict that Kepler-186f is most likely a between Terran and Neptunian worlds is shifted down 6. DISCUSSION rocky planet. I The transitionto 2 M , the from Solar Terrans System to is Jovians no longer occurs unusual. at Indeed, +0.66 Kepler-452bIn was this discoveredwork, we have by developedJenkins et a al. new(2015 package,) called 2.04 by0.59 ourM definition, meaning three that of the the eight Earth Solar is close System planets and was foundForecaster to have, a to very predict similar the massinsolation (or radius) to that of an object to beingare Neptunian the largest worlds, occuring which solid are world. the most Rocky common type +0.29 of the Earth,based di↵ering upon bythe a radius factor (or if just mass). 1.10 Our0.22.The code uses a new “Super-Earths”,of planet around then, other can be Sun-like argued stars to be (Foreman-Mackey a fic- +0.23 reported radiusprobabilistic of 1.63 mass-radius0.20 R means relation that Kepler-452b which has been condi- tionalet category. al. 2014). would be unlikelytioned upon to be therocky masses using of the radii result of 316of (Rogers objects spanning As shown earlier, whilst our measurement is lower 2015). Usingdwarf this planets radius with to late-typeForecaster stars.predicts Aside that from enablingThis latterthan point previous may estimates, seem remarkable it is fully given compatible that with pre- +2.9 M =3.9 1forecasting,.5 M , with thisonly excercise 13% of samples naturally lying performs within classifica-“Super-Earths”vious estimates have become from part both of theory the astronomical (e.g. see Lopez & Fort- the Terrantion worlds of the classification observed population, (see Figure since4). we There- fit for the tran-lexicon. Theney large2014) number and independent of 2-10 M populationplanets discov- studies (e.g. see fore, in contrastsitional to points. the discovery Since the paper observed of Jenkins population et al. has beenered is oftenRogers cited2015 as). evidence The uncertainty that Super-Earths on our measurement are of (2015), weclassified predict that in this Kepler-452b way, future is unlikely objects tocan be also a be prob-very commonthis and key transitionthus Solar is System’s large ( makeup33%) due is to un- the paucity ⇠ rocky planet.abilistically classified too, which is another featureusual of (Haghighipourof objects with2013).> 3 However, precision if the masses boundary and radii in the Forecaster. between TerranEarth-mass and Neptunian regime. Future worlds iswork shifted could down hopefully im- 6. DISCUSSION As discussed in 1, expected applications may includeto 2 M , theprove Solar the System precision is no to longer10% unusual. by using Indeed, a larger sample, § ⇠ In this work,a newly we have discovered developed transiting a new package, planet calledcandidate couldby our definitionwhich willthree inevitably of the eight be found Solar System in the coming planets years, or by Forecaster, to predict the mass (or radius) of an object 2 have its mass forecasted in order to estimate theare de- Neptunianextending worlds, our which method are the to most include common lossier type measurements based upontectability the radius with (or mass). radial velocities. Our code uses Vice a versa, new a newlyof planet aroundand upper other limits Sun-like by directly stars (Foreman-Mackey re-fitting the original obser- probabilisticdiscovered mass-radius planet relation found which via has radial been velocities condi- mayet be al. 2014).vations (which was beyond the scope of this work). In ity campaigntioned first uponconsidered (ifthe masseseven for detectable of transit radii of follow-up 316 objectsat all). and spanning our Therefore, code can pre-As shownany earlier, case,I to these whilst forecast divides our measurement arethe unlikely mass/radius sharp, is lower with of counter- an astronomical ob- dwarf planetsdict to the late-type detectability stars. given Aside the from present enabling constraints.than An- previousexamples estimates, such it as is the fullyM compatible-mass Neptunian with pre- world KOI- there will likely be a critical need to accurately fore- ject based upon a measurement of the other,11 and forecasting,other this exampleexcercise might naturally be to performs forecast classifica- the scale heightvious of estimates314c from (Kipping both et theory al. 2015 (e.g.). see Lopez & Fort- cast the scaletion of height thea observed small of planet new population, found planet by sinceTESS discoveries we fitfor for atmospheric the tran- from followup justney 2014) andA independent wholly independent population line studies of thinking (e.g. see can also be 5. FORECASTING we randomly chose n sets of hyper parameters from sitional points.with JWST Since the,where observedForecaster populationwould has also been calculateRogers the 2015shown).I The tofor uncertainty support the classification the on provocative our measurement hypothesis of astronomical of that the bodies based either the mass or (more likely) the radius. the hyper posteriors of our model. For each radius classified inprobability this way, of future the object objects5.1. being canForecaster aalso Terran be: prob- Anworld. Open-Sourcethis key Package transitiondivide between is large Terran ( 33%) and due Neptunian to the paucity worlds is much (j) uponR their(i⇠), Forecaster observedcalculates masses the and/or probability radii.p ,j = Forecastingabilistically the mass/radius classifiedThe classification too, which of aspect an is another object, of our work, feature based which of upon is essen-of objects with > 3 precision masses and radii in the grid Using our probabilistic model for MR relationlower inferred than the canonical 10 M limit. Recently, Simp-(i) { Forecastertially. a free by-product of our approach, provides someEarth-mass regime. Future1, 2,...,m work couldof R hopefully(i) given M im-(j) with ⇥ . Finally, the other quantity is most obviouslyin this work, performed it is possible using to now achieve a ourson primary(2016) made a Bayesian} argument using popula-hyper As discussedinteresting in 1, expected insights: applications may include prove the precisiontionThe bias layoutto to infer10%Forecaster that of by this using inhabited, papersamples a larger Terran isM sample,( asi) worldsfrom follows.M should(j) ,j In=12,,2,...,m we outline mass-radius (MR) relation.§ Suchobjective: relations to forecast are the known mass (or to radius) of an object ⇠ grid § a newly discovered transiting planet candidate could which will inevitably be found in the(j) coming years, or by { } given the radius (or mass). Crucially, our forecastinghaveour radii model of R 3 σ precision masses and radii in the Earth-mass regime. Future work could hopefully improve the pre- cision to 10% by using a larger sample, which will ∼ inevitably be found in the coming years, or by extend- ing our method to include lossier measurements and up- per limits by directly re-fitting the original observations (which was beyond the scope of this work). In any case, these divides are unlikely sharp, with counter-examples such as the M -mass Neptunian world KOI-314c (Kip- ⊕ ping et al. 2015). A wholly independent line of thinking can also be shown to support the provocative hypothesis that the divide between Terran and Neptunian worlds is much lower than the canonical 10 M limit. Recently, Simp- ⊕ son(2016) made a Bayesian argument using popula- tion bias to infer that inhabited, Terran worlds should have radii of R < 1.2 R to 95% confidence. Assuming ⊕ an Earth-like core-mass fraction, this limit corresponds to 2.0 M (Zeng et al. 2016). This is also compatible ⊕ with our determination and again argues for effectively a paucity of Super-Earths. It may be, then, that the Earth is the Super-Earth we have been looking for all along. 16

APPENDIX

Table 1. Masses and radii used for this study.

Name Mass Radius Reference NGC6791 KR V20 (0.827 0.004) M (0.768 0.006) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± HD 124784 (0.854 0.003) M (0.830 0.004) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± Parenago 1478 (0.727 0.010) M (1.063 0.011) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± HD 7700 (0.764 0.004) M (0.835 0.018) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± BD+34 4217 (0.814 0.013) M (0.838 0.011) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± TYC 3629-740-1 (0.869 0.004) M (0.964 0.004) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± GU Boo A (0.610 0.006) M (0.627 0.016) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± GU Boo B (0.600 0.006) M (0.624 0.016) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± YY Gem A (0.599 0.005) M (0.619 0.006) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± YY Gem B (0.599 0.005) M (0.619 0.006) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± CU Cnc A (0.435 0.001) M (0.432 0.006) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± CU Cnc B (0.399 0.001) M (0.392 0.009) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± CM Dra A (0.231 0.001) M (0.253 0.002) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± CM Dra B (0.214 0.001) M (0.240 0.002) R Torres et al.(2010) ± ± MOTESS-GNAT 78457 A (0.527 0.002) M (0.505 0.011) R Kraus et al.(2011) ± ± MOTESS-GNAT 78457 B (0.491 0.001) M (0.471 0.011) R Kraus et al.(2011) ± ± MOTESS-GNAT 116309 A (0.567 0.002) M (0.552 0.014) R Kraus et al.(2011) ± ± MOTESS-GNAT 116309 B (0.532 0.002) M (0.532 0.009) R Kraus et al.(2011) ± ± MOTESS-GNAT 506664 A (0.584 0.002) M (0.560 0.004) R Kraus et al.(2011) ± ± MOTESS-GNAT 506664 B (0.544 0.002) M (0.513 0.008) R Kraus et al.(2011) ± ± MOTESS-GNAT 646680 A (0.499 0.002) M (0.457 0.007) R Kraus et al.(2011) ± ± MOTESS-GNAT 646680 B (0.443 0.002) M (0.427 0.006) R Kraus et al.(2011) ± ± MOTESS-GNAT 1819499 A (0.557 0.001) M (0.569 0.023) R Kraus et al.(2011) ± ± MOTESS-GNAT 1819499 B (0.535 0.001) M (0.500 0.014) R Kraus et al.(2011) ± ± MOTESS-GNAT 2056316 A (0.469 0.002) M (0.441 0.003) R Kraus et al.(2011) ± ± MOTESS-GNAT 2056316 B (0.382 0.001) M (0.374 0.003) R Kraus et al.(2011) ± ± NSVS 11868841 A (0.870 0.074) M (0.983 0.030) R C¸akirli et al.(2010) ± ± NSVS 11868841 B (0.607 0.053) M (0.901 0.026) R C¸akirli et al.(2010) ± ± KOI-686b (103.4 4.8) MJ (1.216 0.037) RJ D´ıazet al.(2014) ± ± KOI-189b (78.0 3.4) MJ (0.998 0.023) RJ D´ıazet al.(2014) ± ± OGLE-TR-123 B (0.085 0.011) M (0.133 0.009),R Pont et al.(2006) ± ± GJ 570 A (0.802 0.040) M (0.739 0.019) R Demory et al.(2009) ± ± GJ 845 (0.762 0.038) M (0.732 0.006) R Demory et al.(2009) ± ± GJ 879 (0.725 0.036) M (0.629 0.051) R Demory et al.(2009) ± ± GJ 887 (0.503 0.025) M (0.459 0.011) R Demory et al.(2009) ± ± GJ 551 (0.118 0.012) M (0.141 0.007) R Boyajian et al.(2012) ± ± SDSS0857+03 B (0.090 0.010) M (0.110 0.004) R Parsons et al.(2012b) ± ± NN Ser B (0.111 0.004) M (0.149 0.002) R Parsons et al.(2010) ± ± GK Vir B (0.116 0.003) M (0.155 0.003) R Parsons et al.(2012a) ± ± OGLE-TR-106 B (0.116 0.021) M (0.181 0.013) R Pont et al.(2005) ± ± HAT-TR-205-013 B (0.124 0.010) M (0.167 0.006) R Beatty et al.(2007) ± ± SDSS 0138-00 B (0.132 0.003) M (0.165 0.001) R Parsons et al.(2012a) ± ± Continued on next page 17

TABLE 1 – continued from previous page Name Mass Radius Reference GJ 699 (0.146 0.015) M (0.187 0.001) R Boyajian et al.(2012) ± ± SDSS 1210+33 B (0.158 0.006) M (0.200 0.004) R Pyrzas et al.(2012) ± ± SDSS 1548+40 B (0.173 0.027) M (0.181 0.015) R Pyrzas et al.(2009) ± ± RR Cae B (0.183 0.013) M (0.209 0.014) R Maxted et al.(2007) ± ± 2MASS 0446+19 B (0.190 0.020) M (0.210 0.010) R Hebb et al.(2006) ± ± HATS551-019 B (0.17 0.01) M (0.18 0.01) R Zhou et al.(2014b) ± ± Moon 0.0123 M 0.272 R Sheppard(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Io 0.0150 M 0.285 R Sheppard(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Europa 0.00804 M 0.245 R Sheppard(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Ganymede 0.0248 M 0.413 R Sheppard(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Callisto 0.0180 M 0.378 R Sheppard(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Rhea 0.000386 M 0.120 R Sheppard(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Titan 0.0225 M 0.404 R Sheppard(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Titania 0.000590 M 0.124 R Sheppard(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Oberon 0.000505 M 0.119 R Sheppard(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Triton 0.00358 M 0.212 R Sheppard(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Eris 0.00278 M 0.182 R Sheppard(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Mercury 0.0553 M 0.383 R Williams(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Venus 0.815 M 0.949 R Williams(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Earth M R Williams(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Mars 0.107 M 0.532 R Williams(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Jupiter 317.8 M 11.21 R Williams(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Saturn 95.2 M 9.45 R Williams(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Uranus 14.5 M 4.01 R Williams(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Neptune 17.1 M 3.88 R Williams(2016) ⊕ ⊕ Pluto 0.00218 M 0.186 R Williams(2016) ⊕ ⊕ 55-Cnc e (0.0254 0.001) MJ (0.1713 0.0071) RJ Demory et al.(2016) ± ± CoRoT-01 b (1.03 0.1) MJ (1.551 0.064) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± CoRoT-02 b (3.57 0.15) MJ (1.46 0.031) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± CoRoT-03 b (21.96 0.703) MJ (1.037 0.069) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± CoRoT-06 b (2.96 0.34) MJ (1.185 0.041) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± CoRoT-07 b (0.0181 0.0027) MJ (0.1414 0.0057) RJ Barros et al.(2014) ± ± CoRoT-08 b (0.216 0.036) MJ (0.712 0.083) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± CoRoT-09 b (0.826 0.083) MJ (1.037 0.082) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± CoRoT-10 b (2.78 0.14) MJ (0.941 0.085) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± CoRoT-11 b (2.34 0.39) MJ (1.426 0.057) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± CoRoT-12 b (0.887 0.078) MJ (1.35 0.075) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± CoRoT-13 b (1.312 0.096) MJ (1.252 0.076) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± CoRoT-14 b (7.67 0.49) MJ (1.018 0.079) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± CoRoT-18 b (3.27 0.17) MJ (1.251 0.083) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± CoRoT-20 b (5.06 0.36) MJ (1.16 0.26) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± CoRoT-21 b (2.26 0.33) MJ (1.27 0.14) RJ P¨atzoldet al.(2012) ± ± CoRoT-26 b (0.52 0.05) MJ (1.26 0.13) RJ Almenara et al.(2013) ± ± CoRoT-27 b (10.39 0.55) MJ (1.007 0.044) RJ Parviainen et al.(2014) ± ± CoRoT-28 b (0.484 0.087) MJ (0.955 0.066) RJ Cabrera et al.(2015) ± ± Continued on next page 18

TABLE 1 – continued from previous page Name Mass Radius Reference

CoRoT-29 b (0.85 0.2) MJ (0.9 0.16) RJ Cabrera et al.(2015) ± ± EPIC-203771098 c (0.085 0.022) MJ (0.698 0.064) RJ Petigura et al.(2015) ± ± EPIC-204129699 b (1.774 0.079) MJ (1.06 0.35) RJ Grziwa et al.(2015) ± ± EPIC-204221263 b (0.038 0.009) MJ (0.138 0.014) RJ Sinukoff et al.(2015) ± ± GJ-0436 b (0.0799 0.0066) MJ (0.366 0.014) RJ Lanotte et al.(2014) ± ± GJ-1214 b (0.0197 0.0027) MJ (0.254 0.018) RJ Harpsøe et al.(2013) ± ± GJ-3470 b (0.0432 0.0051) MJ (0.346 0.029) RJ Biddle et al.(2014) ± ± HAT-P-01 b (0.525 0.019) MJ (1.319 0.019) RJ Nikolov et al.(2014) ± ± HAT-P-02 b (8.74 0.27) MJ (1.19 0.12) RJ Southworth(2010) ± ± HAT-P-03 b (0.584 0.027) MJ (0.947 0.03) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± HAT-P-05 b (1.06 0.11) MJ (1.252 0.043) RJ Southworth et al.(2012b) ± ± HAT-P-06 b (1.063 0.057) MJ (1.395 0.081) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± HAT-P-07 b (1.87 0.03) MJ (1.526 0.008) RJ Benomar et al.(2014) ± ± HAT-P-08 b (1.275 0.053) MJ (1.321 0.04) RJ Mancini et al.(2013a) ± ± HAT-P-09 b (0.778 0.083) MJ (1.38 0.1) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± HAT-P-11 b (0.084 0.0068) MJ (0.3966 0.0094) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± HAT-P-12 b (0.21 0.012) MJ (0.936 0.012) RJ Lee et al.(2012) ± ± HAT-P-13 b (0.906 0.03) MJ (1.487 0.041) RJ Southworth et al.(2012a) ± ± HAT-P-14 b (2.271 0.083) MJ (1.219 0.059) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± HAT-P-15 b (1.946 0.066) MJ (1.072 0.043) RJ Kov´acset al.(2010) ± ± HAT-P-16 b (4.193 0.128) MJ (1.19 0.037) RJ Ciceri et al.(2013) ± ± HAT-P-17 b (0.534 0.018) MJ (1.01 0.029) RJ Howard et al.(2012) ± ± HAT-P-18 b (0.196 0.008) MJ (0.947 0.044) RJ Esposito et al.(2014) ± ± HAT-P-19 b (0.292 0.018) MJ (1.132 0.072) RJ Hartman et al.(2011a) ± ± HAT-P-20 b (7.246 0.187) MJ (0.867 0.033) RJ Bakos et al.(2011) ± ± HAT-P-21 b (4.063 0.161) MJ (1.024 0.092) RJ Bakos et al.(2011) ± ± HAT-P-22 b (2.147 0.061) MJ (1.08 0.058) RJ Bakos et al.(2011) ± ± HAT-P-23 b (2.07 0.12) MJ (1.224 0.037) RJ Ciceri et al.(2015b) ± ± HAT-P-30 b (0.711 0.028) MJ (1.34 0.065) RJ Johnson et al.(2011) ± ± HAT-P-32 b (0.86 0.164) MJ (1.789 0.025) RJ Hartman et al.(2011b) ± ± HAT-P-33 b (0.762 0.101) MJ (1.686 0.045) RJ Hartman et al.(2011b) ± ± HAT-P-35 b (1.054 0.033) MJ (1.332 0.098) RJ Bakos et al.(2012) ± ± HAT-P-36 b (1.852 0.095) MJ (1.304 0.025) RJ Mancini et al.(2015c) ± ± HAT-P-37 b (1.169 0.103) MJ (1.178 0.077) RJ Bakos et al.(2012) ± ± HAT-P-40 b (0.615 0.038) MJ (1.73 0.062) RJ Hartman et al.(2012) ± ± HAT-P-42 b (1.044 0.083) MJ (1.28 0.153) RJ Boisse et al.(2013) ± ± HAT-P-50 b (1.35 0.073) MJ (1.288 0.064) RJ Hartman et al.(2015a) ± ± HAT-P-51 b (0.309 0.018) MJ (1.293 0.054) RJ Hartman et al.(2015a) ± ± HAT-P-52 b (0.818 0.029) MJ (1.009 0.072) RJ Hartman et al.(2015a) ± ± HAT-P-53 b (1.484 0.056) MJ (1.318 0.091) RJ Hartman et al.(2015a) ± ± HAT-P-54 b (0.76 0.032) MJ (0.944 0.028) RJ Bakos et al.(2015) ± ± HAT-P-55 b (0.582 0.056) MJ (1.182 0.055) RJ Juncher et al.(2015) ± ± HAT-P-56 b (2.18 0.25) MJ (1.466 0.04) RJ Huang et al.(2015) ± ± HATS-02 b (1.345 0.15) MJ (1.168 0.03) RJ Mohler-Fischer et al.(2013) ± ± HATS-03 b (1.071 0.136) MJ (1.381 0.035) RJ Bayliss et al.(2013) ± ± Continued on next page 19

TABLE 1 – continued from previous page Name Mass Radius Reference

HATS-04 b (1.323 0.028) MJ (1.02 0.037) RJ Jord´anet al.(2014) ± ± HATS-05 b (0.237 0.012) MJ (0.912 0.025) RJ Zhou et al.(2014a) ± ± HATS-06 b (0.319 0.07) MJ (0.998 0.019) RJ Hartman et al.(2015b) ± ± HATS-09 b (0.837 0.029) MJ (1.065 0.098) RJ Brahm et al.(2015b) ± ± HATS-13 b (0.543 0.072) MJ (1.212 0.035) RJ Mancini et al.(2015a) ± ± HATS-15 b (2.17 0.15) MJ (1.105 0.04) RJ Ciceri et al.(2015a) ± ± HATS-16 b (3.27 0.19) MJ (1.30 0.15) RJ Ciceri et al.(2015a) ± ± HATS-17 b (1.338 0.065) MJ (0.777 0.056) RJ Brahm et al.(2015a) ± ± HD-017156 b (3.262 0.113) MJ (1.065 0.035) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± HD-080606 b (4.114 0.155) MJ (1.003 0.027) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± HD-097658 b (0.0238 0.0026) MJ (0.2005 0.0087) RJ Van Grootel et al.(2014) ± ± HD-149026 b (0.368 0.014) MJ (0.813 0.027) RJ Carter et al.(2009) ± ± HD-189733 b (1.15 0.039) MJ (1.151 0.038) RJ Southworth(2010) ± ± HD-209458 b (0.714 0.017) MJ (1.380 0.017) RJ Southworth(2010) ± ± HD-219134 b (0.0136 0.0015) MJ (0.1433 0.0077) RJ Motalebi et al.(2015) ± ± K2-02 b (0.037 0.004) MJ (0.226 0.016) RJ Vanderburg et al.(2015) ± ± K2-19 b (0.138 0.038) MJ (0.666 0.068) RJ Barros et al.(2015) ± ± KELT-03 b (1.477 0.066) MJ (1.345 0.072) RJ Pepper et al.(2013) ± ± KELT-04 b (0.902 0.06) MJ (1.699 0.046) RJ Eastman et al.(2015) ± ± KELT-07 b (1.28 0.18) MJ (1.533 0.047) RJ Bieryla et al.(2015) ± ± KELT-15 b (1.196 0.072) MJ (1.52 0.12) RJ Rodriguez et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-07 b (0.453 0.068) MJ (1.649 0.038) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± Kepler-08 b (0.59 0.12) MJ (1.381 0.037) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± Kepler-09 b (0.142 0.005) MJ (0.990 0.009) RJ Dreizler & Ofir(2014) ± ± Kepler-09 c (0.098 0.003) MJ (0.955 0.009) RJ Dreizler & Ofir(2014) ± ± Kepler-14 b (7.68 0.38) MJ (1.126 0.049) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± Kepler-15 b (0.696 0.099) MJ (1.289 0.054) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± Kepler-18 c (0.054 0.006) MJ (0.49 0.023) RJ Cochran et al.(2011) ± ± Kepler-18 d (0.0516 0.0044) MJ (0.623 0.029) RJ Cochran et al.(2011) ± ± Kepler-25 c (0.077 0.018) MJ (0.464 0.008) RJ Marcy et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-26 b (0.0161 0.002) MJ (0.248 0.01) RJ Jontof-Hutter et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-26 c (0.0195 0.0021) MJ (0.243 0.011) RJ Jontof-Hutter et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-29 b (0.0142 0.0046) MJ (0.299 0.02) RJ Jontof-Hutter et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-29 c (0.0126 0.0041) MJ (0.28 0.018) RJ Jontof-Hutter et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-30 b (0.0355 0.0044) MJ (0.35 0.02) RJ Sanchis-Ojeda et al.(2012) ± ± Kepler-30 d (0.0727 0.0085) MJ (0.79 0.04) RJ Sanchis-Ojeda et al.(2012) ± ± Kepler-34 b (0.22 0.011) MJ (0.764 0.045) RJ Welsh et al.(2012) ± ± Kepler-35 b (0.127 0.02) MJ (0.728 0.014) RJ Welsh et al.(2012) ± ± Kepler-39 b (19.1 1.) MJ (1.11 0.03) RJ Bonomo et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-40 b (2.16 0.43) MJ (1.44 0.12) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± Kepler-41 b (0.56 0.08) MJ (1.29 0.02) RJ Bonomo et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-43 b (3.09 0.21) MJ (1.115 0.041) RJ Bonomo et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-44 b (1. 0.1) MJ (1.09 0.07) RJ Bonomo et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-45 b (0.5 0.06) MJ (0.999 0.069) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± Kepler-48 c (0.046 0.007) MJ (0.242 0.012) RJ Marcy et al.(2014) ± ± Continued on next page 20

TABLE 1 – continued from previous page Name Mass Radius Reference

Kepler-51 d (0.0239 0.0035) MJ (0.865 0.045) RJ Masuda(2014) ± ± Kepler-56 b (0.069 0.012) MJ (0.581 0.025) RJ Huber et al.(2013) ± ± Kepler-56 c (0.569 0.066) MJ (0.874 0.041) RJ Huber et al.(2013) ± ± Kepler-60 c (0.0121 0.0026) MJ (0.17 0.013) RJ Jontof-Hutter et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-74 b (0.63 0.12) MJ (0.96 0.02) RJ Bonomo et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-75 b (10.1 0.4) MJ (1.05 0.03) RJ Bonomo et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-76 b (2.18 0.42) MJ (1.25 0.08) RJ Faigler & Mazeh(2015) ± ± Kepler-77 b (0.43 0.032) MJ (0.96 0.016) RJ Gandolfi et al.(2013) ± ± Kepler-78 b (0.0059 0.0008) MJ (0.107 0.008) RJ Grunblatt et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-79 e (0.0129 0.0038) MJ (0.311 0.012) RJ Jontof-Hutter et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-87 b (1.02 0.028) MJ (1.203 0.049) RJ Ofir et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-87 c (0.0201 0.0025) MJ (0.548 0.026) RJ Ofir et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-88 b (0.0274 0.0079) MJ (0.337 0.035) RJ Nesvorn´yet al.(2013) ± ± Kepler-89 d (0.333 0.035) MJ (1.005 0.095) RJ Weiss et al.(2013) ± ± Kepler-93 b (0.0126 0.0021) MJ (0.1319 0.0017) RJ Dressing et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-94 b (0.034 0.004) MJ (0.313 0.013) RJ Marcy et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-95 b (0.041 0.009) MJ (0.305 0.008) RJ Marcy et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-99 b (0.019 0.004) MJ (0.132 0.007) RJ Marcy et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-101 b (0.161 0.016) MJ (0.515 0.076) RJ Bonomo et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-102 e (0.028 0.006) MJ (0.198 0.006) RJ Marcy et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-105 c (0.0145 0.0029) MJ (0.117 0.006) RJ Kostov et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-106 c (0.033 0.01) MJ (0.223 0.029) RJ Marcy et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-117 c (1.84 0.18) MJ (1.101 0.035) RJ Bruno et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-131 b (0.051 0.011) MJ (0.215 0.018) RJ Marcy et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-289 c (0.013 0.003) MJ (0.239 0.015) RJ Schmitt et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-289 d (0.415 0.053) MJ (1.034 0.017) RJ Schmitt et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-307 b (0.0234 0.0029) MJ (0.217 0.008) RJ Jontof-Hutter et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-406 b (0.02 0.004) MJ (0.128 0.003) RJ Marcy et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-412 b (0.939 0.085) MJ (1.325 0.043) RJ Deleuil et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-420 b (1.45 0.35) MJ (0.94 0.12) RJ Santerne et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-422 b (0.43 0.13) MJ (1.15 0.11) RJ Endl et al.(2014) ± ± Kepler-423 b (0.595 0.081) MJ (1.192 0.052) RJ Gandolfi et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-433 b (2.82 0.52) MJ (1.45 0.16) RJ Almenara et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-435 b (0.84 0.15) MJ (1.99 0.18) RJ Almenara et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-447 b (1.37 0.16) MJ (1.65 0.2) RJ Lillo-Box et al.(2015) ± ± Kepler-454 b (0.0214 0.0044) MJ (0.211 0.012) RJ Gettel et al.(2016) ± ± KOI-188 b (0.25 0.08) MJ (0.978 0.022) RJ H´ebrardet al.(2014) ± ± KOI-192 b (0.29 0.09) MJ (1.23 0.21) RJ H´ebrardet al.(2014) ± ± KOI-195 b (0.34 0.08) MJ (1.09 0.03) RJ H´ebrardet al.(2014) ± ± KOI-372 b (3.25 0.2) MJ (0.882 0.088) RJ Mancini et al.(2015b) ± ± KOI-830 b (1.27 0.19) MJ (1.08 0.03) RJ H´ebrardet al.(2014) ± ± KOI-1474 b (2.6 0.3) MJ (0.96 0.12) RJ Dawson et al.(2014) ± ± LHS-6343 b (62.1 1.2) MJ (0.783 0.011) RJ Montet et al.(2015) ± ± OGLE-TR-010 b (0.68 0.15) MJ (1.72 0.11) RJ Southworth(2010) ± ± OGLE-TR-056 b (1.41 0.17) MJ (1.734 0.058) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± Continued on next page 21

TABLE 1 – continued from previous page Name Mass Radius Reference

OGLE-TR-111 b (0.55 0.1) MJ (1.011 0.038) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± OGLE-TR-113 b (1.23 0.2) MJ (1.088 0.054) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± OGLE-TR-132 b (1.17 0.15) MJ (1.229 0.075) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± OGLE-TR-182 b (1.06 0.15) MJ (1.47 0.14) RJ Southworth(2010) ± ± Qatar-1 b (1.294 0.052) MJ (1.143 0.026) RJ Collins et al.(2015) ± ± Qatar-2 b (2.494 0.054) MJ (1.254 0.013) RJ Mancini et al.(2014a) ± ± TrES-1 b (0.761 0.051) MJ (1.099 0.035) RJ Southworth(2010) ± ± TrES-2 b (1.206 0.049) MJ (1.193 0.023) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± TrES-3 b (1.899 0.062) MJ (1.31 0.019) RJ Southworth(2011) ± ± TrES-5 b (1.79 0.068) MJ (1.194 0.015) RJ Barstow et al.(2015) ± ± WASP-02 b (0.88 0.038) MJ (1.063 0.028) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± WASP-04 b (1.249 0.052) MJ (1.364 0.028) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± WASP-05 b (1.595 0.052) MJ (1.175 0.055) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± WASP-06 b (0.485 0.028) MJ (1.23 0.037) RJ Tregloan-Reed et al.(2015) ± ± WASP-07 b (0.98 0.13) MJ (1.374 0.094) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± WASP-11 b (0.492 0.024) MJ (0.99 0.023) RJ Mancini et al.(2015c) ± ± WASP-13 b (0.512 0.06) MJ (1.528 0.084) RJ Southworth(2012) ± ± WASP-15 b (0.592 0.019) MJ (1.408 0.046) RJ Southworth et al.(2013) ± ± WASP-16 b (0.832 0.038) MJ (1.218 0.04) RJ Southworth et al.(2013) ± ± WASP-17 b (0.477 0.033) MJ (1.932 0.053) RJ Southworth et al.(2012c) ± ± WASP-18 b (10.52 0.32) MJ (1.204 0.028) RJ Maxted et al.(2013a) ± ± WASP-19 b (1.139 0.036) MJ (1.41 0.021) RJ Mancini et al.(2013c) ± ± WASP-20 b (0.311 0.017) MJ (1.462 0.059) RJ Anderson et al.(2015b) ± ± WASP-21 b (0.276 0.019) MJ (1.162 0.054) RJ Ciceri et al.(2013) ± ± WASP-24 b (1.109 0.054) MJ (1.303 0.047) RJ Southworth et al.(2014) ± ± WASP-25 b (0.598 0.046) MJ (1.247 0.032) RJ Southworth et al.(2014) ± ± WASP-26 b (1.02 0.033) MJ (1.216 0.047) RJ Southworth et al.(2014) ± ± WASP-28 b (0.907 0.043) MJ (1.213 0.042) RJ Anderson et al.(2015b) ± ± WASP-29 b (0.244 0.02) MJ (0.776 0.043) RJ Gibson et al.(2013) ± ± WASP-31 b (0.478 0.029) MJ (1.549 0.05) RJ Anderson et al.(2011) ± ± WASP-32 b (3.6 0.07) MJ (1.18 0.07) RJ Maxted et al.(2010) ± ± WASP-35 b (0.72 0.06) MJ (1.32 0.05) RJ Enoch et al.(2011) ± ± WASP-36 b (2.303 0.068) MJ (1.281 0.029) RJ Smith et al.(2012) ± ± WASP-38 b (2.691 0.058) MJ (1.094 0.029) RJ Barros et al.(2011) ± ± WASP-39 b (0.28 0.03) MJ (1.27 0.04) RJ Faedi et al.(2011) ± ± WASP-41 b (0.977 0.026) MJ (1.178 0.018) RJ Southworth et al.(2015b) ± ± WASP-42 b (0.527 0.028) MJ (1.122 0.039) RJ Southworth et al.(2015b) ± ± WASP-43 b (2.034 0.052) MJ (1.036 0.019) RJ Gillon et al.(2012) ± ± WASP-44 b (0.869 0.081) MJ (1.002 0.038) RJ Mancini et al.(2013b) ± ± WASP-45 b (1.002 0.062) MJ (0.992 0.038) RJ Ciceri et al.(2016) ± ± WASP-46 b (1.91 0.13) MJ (1.174 0.037) RJ Ciceri et al.(2016) ± ± WASP-47 b (1.13 0.06) MJ (1.134 0.039) RJ Becker et al.(2015) ± ± WASP-47 c (0.038 0.012) MJ (0.1621 0.0058) RJ Dai et al.(2015) ± ± WASP-48 b (0.907 0.085) MJ (1.396 0.051) RJ Ciceri et al.(2015b) ± ± WASP-49 b (0.378 0.027) MJ (1.115 0.047) RJ Lendl et al.(2012) ± ± Continued on next page 22

TABLE 1 – continued from previous page Name Mass Radius Reference

WASP-50 b (1.437 0.068) MJ (1.138 0.026) RJ Tregloan-Reed & Southworth(2013) ± ± WASP-52 b (0.46 0.02) MJ (1.166 0.088) RJ Swift et al.(2015) ± ± WASP-54 b (0.636 0.025) MJ (1.653 0.09) RJ Faedi et al.(2013) ± ± WASP-56 b (0.571 0.035) MJ (1.092 0.035) RJ Faedi et al.(2013) ± ± WASP-57 b (0.644 0.062) MJ (1.05 0.053) RJ Southworth et al.(2015c) ± ± WASP-58 b (0.89 0.07) MJ (1.37 0.2) RJ H´ebrardet al.(2013) ± ± WASP-59 b (0.863 0.045) MJ (0.775 0.068) RJ H´ebrardet al.(2013) ± ± WASP-60 b (0.514 0.034) MJ (0.86 0.12) RJ H´ebrardet al.(2013) ± ± WASP-61 b (2.06 0.17) MJ (1.24 0.03) RJ Hellier et al.(2012) ± ± WASP-62 b (0.57 0.04) MJ (1.39 0.06) RJ Hellier et al.(2012) ± ± WASP-64 b (1.271 0.068) MJ (1.271 0.039) RJ Gillon et al.(2013) ± ± WASP-65 b (1.55 0.16) MJ (1.112 0.059) RJ G´omezMaqueo Chew et al.(2013) ± ± WASP-66 b (2.32 0.13) MJ (1.39 0.09) RJ Hellier et al.(2012) ± ± WASP-67 b (0.406 0.035) MJ (1.091 0.046) RJ Mancini et al.(2014c) ± ± WASP-69 b (0.26 0.017) MJ (1.057 0.047) RJ Anderson et al.(2014b) ± ± WASP-71 b (2.242 0.08) MJ (1.46 0.13) RJ Smith et al.(2013) ± ± WASP-72 b (1.461 0.059) MJ (1.27 0.2) RJ Gillon et al.(2013) ± ± WASP-74 b (0.95 0.06) MJ (1.56 0.06) RJ Hellier et al.(2015) ± ± WASP-75 b (1.07 0.05) MJ (1.27 0.048) RJ G´omezMaqueo Chew et al.(2013) ± ± WASP-77 b (1.76 0.06) MJ (1.21 0.02) RJ Maxted et al.(2013b) ± ± WASP-78 b (0.89 0.08) MJ (1.7 0.11) RJ Smalley et al.(2012) ± ± WASP-79 b (0.9 0.08) MJ (2.09 0.14) RJ Smalley et al.(2012) ± ± WASP-80 b (0.562 0.027) MJ (0.986 0.022) RJ Mancini et al.(2014b) ± ± WASP-84 b (0.687 0.033) MJ (0.976 0.025) RJ Anderson et al.(2015a) ± ± WASP-85 b (1.265 0.062) MJ (1.24 0.03) RJ Moˇcniket al.(2015) ± ± WASP-87 b (2.18 0.15) MJ (1.385 0.06) RJ Anderson et al.(2014a) ± ± WASP-89 b (5.9 0.4) MJ (1.04 0.04) RJ Hellier et al.(2015) ± ± WASP-90 b (0.63 0.07) MJ (1.63 0.09) RJ West et al.(2016) ± ± WASP-96 b (0.48 0.03) MJ (1.2 0.06) RJ Hellier et al.(2014) ± ± WASP-97 b (1.32 0.05) MJ (1.13 0.06) RJ Hellier et al.(2014) ± ± WASP-98 b (0.83 0.07) MJ (1.1 0.04) RJ Hellier et al.(2014) ± ± WASP-100 b (2.03 0.12) MJ (1.69 0.29) RJ Hellier et al.(2014) ± ± WASP-101 b (0.5 0.04) MJ (1.41 0.05) RJ Hellier et al.(2014) ± ± WASP-103 b (1.47 0.11) MJ (1.554 0.045) RJ Southworth et al.(2015a) ± ± WASP-104 b (1.272 0.047) MJ (1.137 0.037) RJ Smith et al.(2014) ± ± WASP-108 b (0.892 0.055) MJ (1.284 0.047) RJ Anderson et al.(2014a) ± ± WASP-109 b (0.91 0.13) MJ (1.443 0.053) RJ Anderson et al.(2014a) ± ± WASP-110 b (0.51 0.064) MJ (1.238 0.056) RJ Anderson et al.(2014a) ± ± WASP-111 b (1.83 0.15) MJ (1.443 0.094) RJ Anderson et al.(2014a) ± ± WASP-112 b (0.88 0.12) MJ (1.191 0.049) RJ Anderson et al.(2014a) ± ± WASP-120 b (5.01 0.26) MJ (1.515 0.083) RJ Turner et al.(2015) ± ± WASP-121 b (1.183 0.064) MJ (1.865 0.044) RJ Delrez et al.(2015) ± ± WASP-122 b (1.372 0.072) MJ (1.792 0.069) RJ Turner et al.(2015) ± ± WASP-123 b (0.92 0.05) MJ (1.327 0.074) RJ Turner et al.(2015) ± ± WASP-135 b (1.9 0.08) MJ (1.3 0.09) RJ Spake et al.(2015) ± ± Continued on next page 23

TABLE 1 – continued from previous page Name Mass Radius Reference

WTS-2 b (1.12 0.16) MJ (1.363 0.061) RJ Birkby et al.(2014) ± ± XO-1 b (0.924 0.077) MJ (1.206 0.041) RJ Southworth(2010) ± ± XO-2 b (0.597 0.021) MJ (1.019 0.031) RJ Damasso et al.(2015) ± ± XO-3 b (11.83 0.38) MJ (1.248 0.049) RJ Southworth(2010) ± ± XO-5 b (1.19 0.031) MJ (1.142 0.034) RJ Smith(2015) ± ±

REFERENCES Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, Bonomo, A. S., Sozzetti, A., Santerne, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, 716 A85 Almenara, J. M., Bouchy, F., Gaulme, P., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, Boyajian, T. S., von Braun, K., van Belle, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, A118 757, 112 Almenara, J. M., Damiani, C., Bouchy, F., et al. 2015, A&A, Brahm, R., Jord´an,A., Bakos, G. A.,´ et al. 2015a, ArXiv 575, A71 e-prints, arXiv:1510.05758 Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., Hellier, C., et al. 2011, Brahm, R., Jord´an,A., Hartman, J. D., et al. 2015b, AJ, 150, 33 A&A, 531, A60 Broeg, C., Fortier, A., Ehrenreich, D., et al. 2013, in European Anderson, D. R., Brown, D. J. A., Collier Cameron, A. a Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 47, European nd Delrez, L., et al. 2014a, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1410.3449 Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 03005 Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., Delrez, L., et al. 2014b, Bruno, G., Almenara, J.-M., Barros, S. C. C., et al. 2015, A&A, MNRAS, 445, 1114 573, A124 Anderson, D. R., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Turner, O. D., et al. Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Saumon, D., & Lunine, J. I. 1993, 2015a, ApJL, 800, L9 ApJ, 406, 158 Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., Hellier, C., et al. 2015b, Burrows, A., Marley, M., Hubbard, W. B., et al. 1997, ApJ, 491, A&A, 575, A61 856 Bakos, G. A.,´ Hartman, J., Torres, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 116 C¸akirli, O.,¨ Ibanoglu, C., & Dervisoglu, A. 2010, RMxAA, 46, Bakos, G. A.,´ Hartman, J. D., Torres, G., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 19 363 Bakos, G. A.,´ Hartman, J. D., Bhatti, W., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, Cabrera, J., Csizmadia, S., Montagnier, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 149 579, A36 Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, Carter, J. A., Winn, J. N., Gilliland, R., & Holman, M. J. 2009, A&A, 337, 403 ApJ, 696, 241 Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Barman, T. S., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. 2000, ApJ, Hauschildt, P. H. 2003, A&A, 402, 701 542, 464 Barclay, T., Rowe, J. F., Lissauer, J. J., et al. 2013, Nature, 494, Ciceri, S., Mancini, L., Southworth, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, 452 A30 Barros, S. C. C., Faedi, F., Collier Cameron, A., et al. 2011, Ciceri, S., Mancini, L., Henning, T., et al. 2015a, ArXiv e-prints, A&A, 525, A54 arXiv:1511.06305 Barros, S. C. C., Almenara, J. M., Deleuil, M., et al. 2014, A&A, Ciceri, S., Mancini, L., Southworth, J., et al. 2015b, A&A, 577, 569, A74 A54 Barros, S. C. C., Almenara, J. M., Demangeon, O., et al. 2015, —. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 990 MNRAS, 454, 4267 Cochran, W. D., Fabrycky, D. C., Torres, G., et al. 2011, ApJS, Barstow, J. K., Aigrain, S., Irwin, P. G. J., Kendrew, S., & 197, 7 Fletcher, L. N. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2546 Collins, K. A., Kielkopf, J. F., & Stassun, K. G. 2015, ArXiv Bayliss, D., Zhou, G., Penev, K., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 113 e-prints, arXiv:1512.00464 Beatty, T. G., Fern´andez,J. M., Latham, D. W., et al. 2007, Dai, F., Winn, J. N., Arriagada, P., et al. 2015, ApJL, 813, L9 ApJ, 663, 573 Dalcanton, J., Seager, S., Aigrain, S., et al. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, Becker, J. C., Vanderburg, A., Adams, F. C., Rappaport, S. A., arXiv:1507.04779 & Schwengeler, H. M. 2015, ApJL, 812, L18 Damasso, M., Biazzo, K., Bonomo, A. S., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, Benomar, O., Masuda, K., Shibahashi, H., & Suto, Y. 2014, A111 PASJ, 66, 94 Dawson, R. I., Johnson, J. A., Fabrycky, D. C., et al. 2014, ApJ, Biddle, L. I., Pearson, K. A., Crossfield, I. J. M., et al. 2014, 791, 89 MNRAS, 443, 1810 Deleuil, M., Deeg, H. J., Alonso, R., et al. 2008, A&A, 491, 889 Bieryla, A., Collins, K., Beatty, T. G., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 12 Deleuil, M., Almenara, J.-M., Santerne, A., et al. 2014, A&A, Birkby, J. L., Cappetta, M., Cruz, P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 564, A56 1470 Delrez, L., Santerne, A., Almenara, J.-M., et al. 2015, ArXiv Boisse, I., Hartman, J. D., Bakos, G. A.,´ et al. 2013, A&A, 558, e-prints, arXiv:1506.02471 A86 Demory, B.-O., Gillon, M., Madhusudhan, N., & Queloz, D. Bonomo, A. S., Sozzetti, A., Lovis, C., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A2 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2018 24

Demory, B.-O., S´egransan,D., Forveille, T., et al. 2009, A&A, H´ebrard,G., Collier Cameron, A., Brown, D. J. A. a nd D´ıaz, 505, 205 R. F., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A134 Devroye, L. 1986, in Proceedings of the 18th Conference on H´ebrard,G., Santerne, A., Montagnier, G., et al. 2014, A&A, Winter Simulation, WSC ’86 (New York, NY, USA: ACM), 572, A93 260–265 Hellier, C., Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., et al. 2012, D´ıaz,R. F., Montagnier, G., Leconte, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, MNRAS, 426, 739 A109 Hellier, C., Anderson, D. R., Cameron, A. C., et al. 2014, Dieterich, S. B., Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 94 MNRAS, 440, 1982 Dreizler, S., & Ofir, A. 2014, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1403.1372 Hellier, C., Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., et al. 2015, Dressing, C. D., Charbonneau, D., Dumusque, X., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 18 ApJ, 800, 135 Hertzsprung, E. 1909, Astronomische Nachrichten, 179, 373 Eastman, J. D., Beatty, T. G., Siverd, R. J., et al. 2015, ArXiv Hogg, D. W., Myers, A. D., & Bovy, J. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2166 e-prints, arXiv:1510.00015 Howard, A. W., Bakos, G. A.,´ Hartman, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, Endl, M., Caldwell, D. A., Barclay, T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 151 749, 134 Enoch, B., Anderson, D. R., Barros, S. C. C., et al. 2011, AJ, Huang, C. X., Hartman, J. D., Bakos, G. A.,´ et al. 2015, AJ, 142, 86 150, 85 Esposito, M., Covino, E., Mancini, L., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, L13 Huber, D., Carter, J. A., Barbieri, M., et al. 2013, Science, 342, Faedi, F., Barros, S. C. C., Anderson, D. R., et al. 2011, A&A, 331 531, A40 Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., Batalha, N. M., et al. 2015, AJ, Faedi, F., Pollacco, D., Barros, S. C. C., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, 150, 56 A73 Johnson, J. A., Winn, J. N., Bakos, G. A.,´ et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, Faigler, S., & Mazeh, T. 2015, ApJ, 800, 73 24 Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., & Morton, T. D. 2014, ApJ, Jontof-Hutter, D., Lissauer, J. J., Rowe, J. F., & Fabrycky, D. C. 795, 64 2014, ApJ, 785, 15 Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., & Barnes, J. W. 2007, ApJ, 659, Jontof-Hutter, D., Ford, E. B., Rowe, J. F., et al. 2015, ArXiv 1661 e-prints, arXiv:1512.02003 Gandolfi, D., Parviainen, H., Fridlund, M., et al. 2013, A&A, Jord´an,A., Brahm, R., Bakos, G. A.,´ et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 29 557, A74 Juncher, D., Buchhave, L. A., Hartman, J. D., et al. 2015, Gandolfi, D., Parviainen, H., Deeg, H. J., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, PASP, 127, 851 A11 Kipping, D. M., Schmitt, A. R., Huang, X., et al. 2015, ApJ, Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457, 813, 14 http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/ Kipping, D. M., Spiegel, D. S., & Sasselov, D. D. 2013, MNRAS, published/itsim.pdf 434, 1883 Gettel, S., Charbonneau, D., Dressing, C. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, Kostov, V. B., Orosz, J. A., Welsh, W. F., et al. 2015, ArXiv 816, 95 e-prints, arXiv:1512.00189 Gibson, N. P., Aigrain, S., Barstow, J. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, Kov´acs,G., Bakos, G. A.,´ Hartman, J. D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 428, 3680 866 Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2012, A&A, Kraus, A. L., Tucker, R. A., Thompson, M. I., Craine, E. R., & 542, A4 Hillenbrand, L. A. 2011, ApJ, 728, 48 Gillon, M., Anderson, D. R., Collier-Cameron, A., et al. 2013, Lanotte, A. A., Gillon, M., Demory, B.-O., et al. 2014, A&A, A&A, 552, A82 572, A73 G´omezMaqueo Chew, Y., Faedi, F., Pollacco, D., et al. 2013, Lee, J. W., Youn, J.-H., Kim, S.-L., & Lee, C.-U. an d Hinse, A&A, 559, A36 T. C. 2012, AJ, 143, 95 Graziani, C., & Lamb, D. Q. 1996, in American Institute of Lendl, M., Anderson, D. R., Collier-Cameron, A., et al. 2012, Physics Conference Series, Vol. 366, High Velocity Neutron A&A, 544, A72 Stars, ed. R. E. Rothschild & R. E. Lingenfelter, 196–200 Lillo-Box, J., Barrado, D., Santos, N. C., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, Grunblatt, S. K., Howard, A. W., & Haywood, R. D. 2015, ApJ, A105 808, 127 Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2014, ApJ, 792, 1 Grziwa, S., Gandolfi, D., Csizmadia, S., et al. 2015, ArXiv Loredo, T. J., & Wasserman, I. M. 1995, ApJS, 96, 261 e-prints, arXiv:1510.09149 Mancini, L., Southworth, J., Ciceri, S., et al. 2014a, MNRAS, Haghighipour, N. 2013, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary 443, 2391 Sciences, 41, 469 —. 2013a, A&A, 551, A11 Han, E., Wang, S. X., Wright, J. T., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 827 Mancini, L., Nikolov, N., Southworth, J., et al. 2013b, MNRAS, Harpsøe, K. B. W., Hardis, S., Hinse, T. C., et al. 2013, A&A, 430, 2932 549, A10 Mancini, L., Ciceri, S., Chen, G., et al. 2013c, MNRAS, 436, 2 Hartman, J. D., Bakos, G. A.,´ Sato, B., et al. 2011a, ApJ, 726, 52 Mancini, L., Southworth, J., Ciceri, S., et al. 2014b, A&A, 562, Hartman, J. D., Bakos, G. A.,´ Torres, G., et al. 2011b, ApJ, 742, A126 59 —. 2014c, A&A, 568, A127 Hartman, J. D., Bakos, G. A.,´ B´eky,B., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 139 Mancini, L., Hartman, J. D., Penev, K., et al. 2015a, A&A, 580, Hartman, J. D., Bhatti, W., Bakos, G. A.,´ et al. 2015a, AJ, 150, A63 168 Mancini, L., Lillo-Box, J., Southworth, J., et al. 2015b, ArXiv Hartman, J. D., Bayliss, D., Brahm, R., et al. 2015b, AJ, 149, e-prints, arXiv:1504.04625 166 Mancini, L., Esposito, M., Covino, E., et al. 2015c, A&A, 579, Hatzes, A. P., & Rauer, H. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, A136 arXiv:1506.05097 Marcy, G. W., Isaacson, H., Howard, A. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, Hebb, L., Wyse, R. F. G., Gilmore, G., & Holtzman, J. 2006, 210, 20 AJ, 131, 555 Masuda, K. 2014, ApJ, 783, 53 Maxted, P. F. L., O’Donoghue, D., Morales-Rueda, L., Smalley, B., Anderson, D. R., Collier-Cameron, A., et al. 2012, Napiwotzki, R., & Smalley, B. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 919 A&A, 547, A61 Maxted, P. F. L., Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., et al. Smith, A. M. S. 2015, AcA, 65, arXiv:1412.0451 2010, PASP, 122, 1465 Smith, A. M. S., Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A. a Maxted, P. F. L., Anderson, D. R., Doyle, A. P., et al. 2013a, nd Gillon, M., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 81 MNRAS, 428, 2645 Smith, A. M. S., Anderson, D. R., Bouchy, F., et al. 2013, A&A, Maxted, P. F. L., Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., et al. 552, A120 2013b, PASP, 125, 48 Smith, A. M. S., Anderson, D. R., Armstrong, D. J., et al. 2014, Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A&A, 570, A64 A. H., & Teller, E. 1953, JChPh, 21, 1087 Southworth, J. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1644 Mohler-Fischer, M., Mancini, L., Hartman, J. D., et al. 2013, —. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 272 A&A, 558, A55 —. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1689 Montet, B. T., Johnson, J. A., Muirhead, P. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, —. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2166 800, 134 —. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1291 Motalebi, F., Udry, S., Gillon, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A72 Southworth, J., Bruni, I., Mancini, L., & Gregorio, J. 2012a, Moˇcnik,T., Clark, B., Anderson, D. R., Hellier, C., & Brown, MNRAS, 420, 2580 D. J. A. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1508.07281 Southworth, J., Mancini, L., Maxted, P. F. L., et al. 2012b, Nesvorn´y,D., Kipping, D., Terrell, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 3 MNRAS, 422, 3099 Nikolov, N., Sing, D. K., Pont, F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 46 Southworth, J., Hinse, T. C., Dominik, M., et al. 2012c, Ofir, A., Dreizler, S., Zechmeister, M., & Husser, T. .-O. 2014, MNRAS, 426, 1338 A&A, 561, A103 Southworth, J., Mancini, L., Browne, P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, Parsons, S. G., Marsh, T. R., Copperwheat, C. M., et al. 2010, 434, 1300 MNRAS, 402, 2591 Southworth, J., Hinse, T. C., Burgdorf, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 776 Parsons, S. G., G¨ansicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2012a, Southworth, J., Mancini, L., Ciceri, S., et al. 2015a, MNRAS, MNRAS, 426, 1950 447, 711 Parsons, S. G., Marsh, T. R., G¨ansicke, B. T., et al. 2012b, Southworth, J., Tregloan-Reed, J., Andersen, M. I., et al. 2015b, MNRAS, 419, 304 ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1512.05549 Parviainen, H., Gandolfi, D., Deleuil, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, Southworth, J., Mancini, L., Tregloan-Reed, J., et al. 2015c, A140 MNRAS, 454, 3094 P¨atzold,M., Endl, M., Csizmadia, S., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A6 Spake, J. J., Brown, D. J. A., Doyle, A. P., et al. 2015, ArXiv Pepper, J., Siverd, R. J., Beatty, T. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 64 e-prints, arXiv:1511.05954 Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., Lopez, E. D., et al. 2015, ArXiv Spiegel, D. S., Burrows, A., & Milsom, J. A. 2011, ApJ, 727, 57 e-prints, arXiv:1511.04497 Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., & Carlin, B. P. 2002, Journal of Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 64, 583 A&A, 571, A1 Swift, J. J., Bottom, M., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2015, Journal of Pont, F., Bouchy, F., Melo, C., et al. 2005, A&A, 438, 1123 Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 027002 Pont, F., Moutou, C., Bouchy, F., et al. 2006, A&A, 447, 1035 Tegmark, M., Strauss, M. A., Blanton, M. R., et al. 2004, Pyrzas, S., G¨ansicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2009, MNRAS, PhRvD, 69, 103501 394, 978 Torres, G., Andersen, J., & Gim´enez,A. 2010, A&A Rv, 18, 67 Pyrzas, S., G¨ansicke, B. T., Brady, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, Torres, G., Kipping, D. M., Fressin, F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 99 817 Tregloan-Reed, J., & Southworth, J. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 966 Quintana, E. V., Barclay, T., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2014, Tregloan-Reed, J., Southworth, J., Burgdorf, M., et al. 2015, Science, 344, 277 MNRAS, 450, 1760 Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, in Turner, O. D., Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., et al. 2015, Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1509.02210 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, 914320 Valencia, D., O’Connell, R. J., & Sasselov, D. 2006, Icarus, 181, Rodriguez, J. E., Colon, K. D., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2015, 545 ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1509.08953 Van Grootel, V., Gillon, M., Valencia, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 2 Rogers, L. A. 2015, ApJ, 801, 41 Vanderburg, A., Montet, B. T., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, Russell, H. N. 1914, Popular Astronomy, 22, 275 800, 59 Sanchis-Ojeda, R., Fabrycky, D. C., Winn, J. N., et al. 2012, Weiss, L. M., & Marcy, G. W. 2014, ApJL, 783, L6 Nature, 487, 449 Weiss, L. M., Marcy, G. W., Rowe, J. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, Santerne, A., H´ebrard,G., Deleuil, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, 14 A37 Welsh, W. F., Orosz, J. A., Carter, J. A., et al. 2012, Nature, Saumon, D., & Marley, M. S. 2008, ApJ, 689, 1327 481, 475 Schmitt, J. R., Agol, E., Deck, K. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 167 West, R. G., Hellier, C., Almenara, J.-M., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, Schwarz, G. 1978, The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461 A126 Seager, S., Deming, D., & Valenti, J. A. 2009, Astrophysics and Williams, D. R. 2016, NASA Planetary Fact Sheet Space Science Proceedings, 10, 123 Wolfgang, A., Rogers, L. A., & Ford, E. B. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, Sheppard, S. S. 2016, The Giant Planet & Moon Page arXiv:1504.07557 Sheppard, S. S., Jewitt, D., & Kleyna, J. 2005, AJ, 129, 518 Zapolsky, H. S., & Salpeter, E. E. 1969, ApJ, 158, 809 —. 2006, AJ, 132, 171 Zeng, L., Sasselov, D. D., & Jacobsen, S. B. 2016, ApJ, 819, 127 Sheppard, S. S., & Jewitt, D. C. 2003, Nature, 423, 261 Zhou, G., Bayliss, D., Penev, K., et al. 2014a, AJ, 147, 144 Simpson, F. 2016, MNRAS, 456, L59 Zhou, G., Bayliss, D., Hartman, J. D., et al. 2014b, MNRAS, Sinukoff, E., Howard, A. W., Petigura, E. A., et al. 2015, ArXiv 437, 2831 e-prints, arXiv:1511.09213