Frequency of Planets in Binaries

Abstract

The frequency of planets in binaries is an important issue in the field of extrasolar planet studies because of its relevance in the estimation of the global planet population of our galaxy and the clues it can give to our understanding of planet formation and evolution. Multiple stars have often been excluded from exoplanet searches, especially those performed using the radial velocity technique, due to the technical challenges posed by such targets. As a consequence and despite recent efforts, our knowledge of the frequency of planets in multiple stellar systems is still rather incomplete. On the other hand, the lack of knowledge about the binarity at the time of the compilation of the target samples means that our estimate of the planet frequency around single stars could be tainted by the presence of unknown binaries, especially if these objects have a different behavior in terms of planet occurrence. In a previous work we investigated the binarity of the objects included in the Uniform Detectability sample defined by Fisher and Valenti (2005), showing how more than 20% of their targets were, in fact, not single stars. Here, we present an update of this census, made possible mainly by the information now available thanks to the second Gaia Data Release. The new binary sample includes a total of 313 systems, of which 114 were added through this work. We were also able to significantly improve the estimates of masses and orbital parameters for most of the pairs in the original list, especially those at close separations. A few new systems with white dwarf companions were also identified. The results of the new analysis are in good agreement with the findings of our previous work, confirming the lack of difference in the overall planet frequency between binaries and single stars but suggesting a decrease in the planet frequency for very close pairs.

1. Introduction

More than 70% of massive early-type stars [1,2] and 50%–60% of solar-type stars [3,4] are observed in binary or higher order multiple systems, with the fraction decreasing to 30%–40% for M-stars [5,6,7]. Therefore, in order to properly assess the global frequency of planets, it is crucial to consider the role of stellar companions. Any difference between frequencies or properties of planets in single and multiple systems would shed light on the effects of the presence of the companion star on the planet formation mechanisms, particularly in the case of very close binaries [8]. This review studies the impact of binarity on the planet formation process.

On the observational side, several serendipitous discoveries and a few recent dedicated surveys have revealed a significant number of exoplanets both around individual components of binary systems (circumstellar or S-like configurations; see, e.g., [9,10,11]) and around both components of tight binaries (circumbinary or P-like configurations; see, e.g., [12,13,14]). These discoveries have triggered several studies investigating the impact of stellar binarity on planet formation and on the planet demographics; see, e.g., [9,11,15,16,17,18,19]). Some of these studies highlighted a strong deficit of binary companions within ∼50–100 au for planet hosts [20,21,22,23,24], while others seem to suggest a low impact of the presence of stellar companions on planet formation [25]. A first work on planet candidates from the Transiting Exoplanets Survey Satellite (TESS) indicates a paucity of binaries with separations of closer than 100 au and an overabundance of binaries around stars with Hot Jupiter candidates [26], confirming the recent findings by [27], who pointed out how giant planets and brown dwarf desert inhabitants are almost exclusively observed in multiple systems. Overall, while it is clear that both the properties and the occurrence of planets in binaries can be different with respect to those orbiting single stars, the precise nature and extent of such differences remain unclear. A robust statistical analysis, based on well-defined samples with complete or well-characterized detection limits both for planetary companions and for stellar companions over the full separation range, is therefore crucial to obtaining useful constraints to this problem.

The work by [28] (hereafter BD07) represents one of the first attempts in this direction. They performed a search for stellar companions of the stars in the Uniform Detectability (UD) sample by [29] (hereafter FV05). The UD sample includes a total of 850 stars from the Keck, Lick, and Anglo Australian Telescope (AAT) radial velocity (RV) surveys for which the detectability of planets is considered complete for orbital periods shorter than four years and RV semi-amplitudes larger than 30 m/s. A total of 50 stars in the sample have at least one planet within these limits. It should be noticed that these surveys have biases against binaries, excluding visual binaries with projected separations of smaller than $2^{″}$ and spectroscopic binaries known at the time of the sample selection. Nevertheless, thanks to the completeness of planet detection and the large sample size, the UD sample can still be used to draw conclusions about the frequency of planets in binary stars. Via a thorough search of both the literature and data available at that time, BD07 highlighted the presence of 199 multiple systems in the UD sample, spanning a wide range of separations. The resulting statistical analysis pointed towards a lower frequency of planets among these binaries with respect to single stars, but only for those with separations of below 100 au.

The UD sample is still a reference sample for statistics of giant planets, as no other similar works have been published from other surveys. The accumulation of data in the last years and, in particular, the Gaia DR2 release [30] now allow for a significant improvement of the census of binaries both at wide and short separations. Minor updates to the census of planets within the UD boundaries should also be applied following the recent literature.

The purpose of this study is therefore to present a much-needed update of the work by BD07.

The paper is organized as follows: The methods used to update the UD binary sub-sample are presented in Section 2, while Section 3 summarizes the results and their implications on the frequency of planetary companions. Finally, the conclusion of the study is presented in Section 4.

2. Updates of the UD Binary Sample

The completeness, in terms of binary detection, around FGK stars, such those included in the UD sample, has significantly improved since the publication of the census performed by BD07. The FV05 UD sample is still used as reference for the statistics of planets around FGK stars from the RV technique but, besides a minor update presented in [31], there has been no further work aimed at characterizing the binary frequency among its targets, despite all of the new information available. We therefore decided to repeat the search for binaries among the UD stars in order to re-assess the frequency of planets around single stars and stars in multiple systems at various separations, thus updating the work presented by BD07.

Apart from the extension of the sample, the new search was also necessary for clarifying the nature of several tens of targets which were included in the UD binary sample by BD07 only because of the presence of long-term RV trends (mostly from [32]) or astrometric signatures of binarity (proper motion difference between Tycho and Hipparcos, [33]), without many details on the masses and separation of the unseen companions. For most cases, these ambiguities are now solved, thanks to the determination of the RV orbital solution and/or the direct detection of the companions.

In addition to several studies published about individual systems, the new census of UD binaries was possible mainly thanks to the availability of data from:

• Gaia DR2 [30], which provided a major source of directly detected companions down to moderately small separations and faint magnitudes [34]. It also allowed for the determination of physical associations from parallaxes and proper motions of the components, and for the identification of additional $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ targets (see below).
• The works by [35,36], which included spectroscopic orbital solutions for binaries detected in the surveys that formed the UD sample.
• Several dedicated adaptive optics (AO) surveys targeting stars with RV planets [9,10,37], objects with RV long-term trends [38,39], and stars with astrometric acceleration from Tycho and Hipparcos [40], all published after BD07.
• The full RV time series for the Keck and Lick planet search surveys which were published in [41] and [42]. These allowed us to assess whether the astrometric trends observed for some of the UD stars were due to unknown massive companions and, if so, to confirm their stellar or planetary natures. We were also able to to derive preliminary orbital solutions for a few binaries not included in previous works1.

The impact of each of these sources on the final updated UD binary sub-sample is described in detail in the following sections.

2.1. New Spectroscopic Orbital Solutions

The availability of RV time series from the Keck and Lick RV surveys allowed us to investigate the case of five previously unpublished spectroscopic binaries. The orbital parameters, reported in

Table 1. Preliminary spectroscopic orbital solutions from the individual radial velocity time series published by [42] for Lick and by [41] for Keck surveys.

HD	P (d)	K (m/s)	ecc	$\mathit{\omega }$ deg	T0 JD-2450000	msini ${\mathit{M}}_{\odot }$	a (au)	RV Source
HD 30649	23250	1752	0.56	310.2	3966.3	0.21	16.5	Keck
HD 103829	4880	1439	0.27	360.0	1545.7	0.13	6.20	Keck
HD 190771	8527	1139	0.53	103.6	3707.2	0.10	8.61	Lick
HD 190387	5155	2081	0.53	74.6	4155.8	0.19	6.70	Keck
HD 218101	5156	2684	0.58	161.3	5169.1	0.23	6.67	Lick

, were derived according to the approach described in [44]. In most cases, the orbital periods are longer than the time baselines of the observations, making the retrieved orbital parameters preliminary but still useful in the context of our work. All of the companions are low-mass stars (minimum mass 0.1–0.25 $M_{\odot }$) with semi-major axes in the range of 6 to 16 au.

2.2. New Visual Binaries from Gaia

We used the method described in [27] to search for additional companions of the UD stars in the Gaia DR2 catalogue. For each star in the sample, we used a search radius corresponding to ${10}^4$ au, then selected the sources with relative parallaxes and at least one of the two proper motion components differing by no more than 20%, with the second component being within 50%. Using these criteria, we retrieved 103 pairs already included in the original BD07 compilation, either because of previous detection of the companion or due to the presence of a dynamic signature, and added 95 new companions.

As discussed in detail in [27], these criteria are rather conservative, as they are meant to ensure that no spurious objects are included. This lead to 25 cases2 in which companions already confirmed and included in BD07 were not retrieved in our cross-match with the Gaia catalogue, mainly because the proper motion or parallax difference between the components was larger than the adopted threshold. These cases were checked individually and a suitable explanation for the discrepancies was found in nearly all of them. In most cases, either the pair is close enough to have relevant orbital motion, or one of the components is itself a known close binary (14 and 10 stars, respectively). The remaining ambiguous case (HD 50281) is discussed in the Appendix B. Cases like those discussed above should be relatively rare, and we do not expect them to lead to significant incompleteness in our census of binaries. In fact, very close companions, which would cause large proper motion differences, would have already been included, thanks to other indicators such as long-term RV trends, and then checked individually. Wider companions are, in principle, more challenging to disentangle, but, as shown in Section 3, our final sample is nearly complete at separations larger than $2^{″}$.

2.3. Dynamically Inferred Systems

A significant discrepancy in proper motion measurements between catalogs of different time spans ($\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$) is considered to be a good indication of the presence of a perturbing body, and has been successfully used in the past to select potential stellar binaries (e.g., Makarov and Kaplan 2005; Tokovinin et al. 2013). A total of 38 objects were included in the original UD binary sample from BD07 solely because of the presence of significant $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ between Tycho-II [45] and Hipparcos [46] or because of other dynamical signatures (RV trends, astrometric acceleration detected in Hipparcos, etc.). Thanks to the search described in Section 2.2 or through the new information available in the literature, we were able to confirm the binary nature of 27 of these. Such a high binary fraction among $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ targets, in agreement with the recent results by [47], and the availability of new and more precise proper motion measurements justified a new search for UD stars with discrepancies in proper motion between Gaia DR2 [30] and both Gaia DR1 TGAS [48] and Tycho-II [45] catalogs. The objects for which the astrometric signature was compatible with the presence of planetary mass companions, including six of the BD07 $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ pairs, were removed, leaving us with 65 new $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ potential pairs. Of these, 37 had already been included in the binary sub-sample based on the search described in Section 2.2 or because of previously published results. We also systematically investigated the $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ systems by evaluating the presence of confirmed RV planets or the presence of long-term RV trends, exploiting the published RV time series [41,42].

For the remaining objects with no confirmed companions, including the remaining six unconfirmed $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ pairs from BD07, we used COPAINS (Code for Orbital Characterization of Astrometrically Inferred New Systems; see [47] for details) to estimate the mass and separation of a possible unseen companion compatible with the observed $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$. For consistency with what was later assumed for the evaluation of the critical semi-major axis for dynamical stability [49], we adopted a uniform distribution for the eccentricity of the secondary (also in agreement with the results by [4,40])3. The left panel of Figure 1 shows an example of the output of the code (black curves) as well as the expected detection limits for Gaia (red curve), calculated using the results of [50] and following the approach of [27]. The position of the companion identified in Gaia DR2 for the same target is marked by a blue dot. As expected, the secondary is both within the parameter space identified by COPAINS and also above Gaia’s detection limit.

In case an RV trend was also detected for those targets, we used this information to further constrain the mass and separation of a companion to those compatible with both signatures. The right panel of Figure 1 shows an example of the output of COPAINS for one of these objects, together with the values compatible with the RV trend calculated using the method described by [51] (blue curve).

2.4. Revision of Individual Masses

The availability of high-quality Gaia G-band magnitudes allowed for a systematic revision of stellar masses of the companions from mass–luminosity relationships. To this end, we used the the tables by [52]4 to perform a polynomial fit of the stellar mass and absolute G, J, and K magnitudes. The adopted solutions, displayed in Equations (1) to (3), were derived for stars of spectral types from F0 to L2 (intended as nominal substellar limits) and the values of the masses obtained have an estimated error of $\sim 0.01M_{\odot }$. The actual uncertainty of the mass is most likely much higher and can vary according to, among other things, the distance of the target from the main sequence (both at young and old ages) and the stellar metallicity (not included in the tables by [52]). Although a proper derivation of the total uncertainties is challenging, we do not expect it to be higher than 0.05 $M_{\odot }$ for unevolved late-type stars, as the companions to the UD stars considered in this study.

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill Mass\left(G\right)=2.53615-0.549060\ast M_G+0.143017\ast M_G^2-0.0542299\ast M_G^3+0.0127813\ast M_G^4\\ \hfill -0.00163578\ast M_G^5+0.000113799\ast M_G^6-4.06116e-06\ast M_G^7+5.82965e-08\ast M_G^8\end{array}$$

(1)

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill Mass\left(J\right)=3.95501-2.87761\ast M_J+1.58846\ast M_J^2-0.568685\ast M_J^3+0.125674\ast M_J^4\\ \hfill -0.0169899\ast M_J^5+0.00136157\ast M_J^6-5.91812e-05\ast M_J^7+1.07257e-06\ast M_J^8\end{array}$$

(2)

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill Mass\left(K\right)=6.17137-7.08845\ast M_K+4.79712\ast M_K^2-1.89004\ast M_K^3+0.446451\ast M_K^4\\ \hfill -0.0641778\ast M_K^5+0.00549026\ast M_K^6-0.000256553\ast M_K^7+5.03656e-06\ast M_K^8\end{array}$$

(3)

In the case of wide companions, the adopted mass value included in

Table A1. Properties of binaries found in the UD sample. The new companions are marked with N. If the companion was retrieved in Gaia DR2 [30], the coordinates of the pair were used to update the projected separation ($rho$). If an orbital solution was available, the appropriate semi-major axis ($a\left(au\right)$) was included, together with the value of the eccentricity ($ecc$) and of the masses of both the primary ($M_A$) and the companions ($M_B$), if available. For systems for which only the projected separation was available (empty spaces in the eccentricity column), the semi-major axis was derived from the $rho$ using the relation $a\left(au\right)=1.0rho\left(arcsec\right)d\left(pc\right)$. The last two columns include a flag reporting notes for the object from BD07 ($F_{BD07}$:) and any additional notes arising from the present update. A dedicated entry can be found in the appendix for the objects marked with * in the last column. The mass flag indicates the source for the companion mass: a: $M_{comp}$ from VF06; b: $M_{comp}$ from Reid and Gizis [64], Delfosse et al. [65]; c: $M_{comp}$ from individual papers (see Reference list below), d: minimum $M_{comp}$ compatible with $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ and/or RV trend and null detection in GDR2, and e: preliminary orbital solution based on available RV measurements.

Stars with planets (as defined in FV05)
ID	plx (mas)	rho (″)	ecc	a (au)	acrit (au)	MA M⊙	MB M⊙	MFlag	BD07	Notes
HD142	38.16	3.89			14.79	1.24	0.53	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD9826	74.57	55.62			125.92	1.32	0.19	b
HD13445	92.7		0.4	18.4	3.07	0.77	0.49	c	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ RV
HD20782	27.76	252.99			1127.2	1.0	0.84	c	(*)
HD27442	54.71	13.04			34.99	1.49	0.6	c	(*)
HD38529	23.58	283.65			1839.64	1.47	0.47	b	G(*)
HD40979	29.31	191.38			765.14	1.19	1.21	c	(*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD46375	33.81	10.44			42.4	0.92	0.51	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD75732	79.43	84.82			166.23	0.91	0.26	b
HD120136	63.86		0.87	221.0	5.13	1.35	0.49	c	(*)
HD 177830	15.9	1.6			16.86	1.47	0.23	c		N
HD178911B	24.38	13.6			60.28	1.42	1.89	c	(*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD188015	19.71	13.03			111.06	1.25	0.19	b
HD195019	26.6	3.39			17.32	1.07	0.62	b
HD196050	19.71	10.77			83.85	1.15	0.36	b		(*)
HD196885	29.24		0.42	21.0	3.8	1.25	0.45	c	(*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD222582	23.69	113.3			715.48	0.99	0.36	b
Stars without planets (as defined in FV05)
ID	plx (mas)	rho (″)	ecc	a (au)	acrit (au)	MA M⊙	MB M⊙	MFlag	BD07	Notes
HD531A	14.21	5.23			43.49	1.66	1.64	a		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD531B	14.1	5.23			43.52	1.64	1.66	a		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD1388	37.11			106.85	18.43	1.18	0.13	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD3074	29.46	4.8			21.15	1.2	0.84	b
HD3079	20.81	3.43			24.23	1.05	0.42	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD3651	89.79	43.2			85.34	0.89	0.06	b	(*)
HD3770	14.97	0.3			2.79	1.25	0.65	b	S RV	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD3795	35.13			92.02	10.79	1.94	1.97	d	S RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD3821	37.74	8.45			29.72	1.0	0.64	b
HD3823	39.6	7.31			30.56	1.25	0.22	b		N
HD4307	30.81	4.08			21.64	1.31	0.26	b		N
HD4614	168.75		0.49	72.0	10.0	0.99	0.58	b
HD4747	53.18		0.74	10.01	0.75	0.82	0.07	c	SB	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD4903	18.05			84.73	15.47	1.17	0.03	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD5470	14.85			20.5	3.24	1.13	0.29	c		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD6558	12.18	19.02			253.26	1.23	0.26	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD6734	21.37			80.0	13.99	2.25	0.2	a	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ RV
HD6872A	11.08	14.51			180.95	1.91	1.03	a
HD6872B	11.04	14.51			127.91	1.03	1.91	a
HD7963	8.55		0.04	23.4	5.98	0.84	0.89	b	(*)
HD8648	25.04			105.76	19.19	1.16	0.04	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD8673	26.38		0.5	48.5	7.55	1.36	0.39	c		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD8765	20.47		0.0	5.3	0.95	1.2	0.06	c	G $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD9331	18.01	16.33			152.46	0.93	0.14	b		N
HD10360	122.06		0.53	52.2	5.66	0.75	0.77	a		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD10361	122.13		0.53	52.2	5.74	0.77	0.75	a		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD11112	22.5	2.2			12.56	1.37	1.0	c		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD11964	29.79	29.68			138.66	1.13	0.59	b	(*)
HD12414	21.49	9.64			60.59	0.84	0.50	c		N (*)
HD13043	26.92	79.21			400.02	1.14	0.66	b
HD13612 B	26.09	16.76			58.58	1.02	2.32	c	(*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD13507	38.18		0.38	8.54	1.79	1.14	0.28	c	SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD13531	38.27	0.7			2.98	0.94	0.19	c		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD13825	38.89			105.13	17.47	1.18	0.2	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD16141	26.44	6.27			37.06	1.15	0.32	b	(*)
HD16160	138.21		0.75	15.0	1.04	0.76	0.09	c	(*)
HD16417	39.35	45.01			201.23	1.38	0.11	b		N
HD16287	41.09			169.33	31.03	0.97	0.02	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD16895	89.7		0.13	249.5	74.23	1.24	0.49	b
HD18143	44.37	6.5			18.57	0.9	0.69	b	(*)
HD18445	40.26		0.56	1.06	0.14	0.78	0.18	c	S(*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD18907	31.25		0.28	13.0	3.86	2.04	0.02	c		N SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD19467	31.23	1.65			9.54	1.45	0.06	c		N SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD20766	83.06	310.0			405.51	0.91	1.19	a
HD20807	83.01	310.0			418.8	0.95	1.12	a
HD21019	26.23	3.9			20.31	1.11	0.63	b
HD22879	38.53	19.19			87.07	1.12	0.1	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD23439	41.83	6.89			18.0	0.67	0.86	c	(*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD24496	48.81	3.55			10.43	1.08	0.49	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD25682	23.9	10.16			65.47	1.34	0.41	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD26491	42.46		0.57	10.0	1.18	1.06	0.5	c	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	SB (*)
HD28255A	36.18	5.34			17.43	1.07	1.06	a
HD28255B	36.26	5.34			17.29	1.06	1.07	a		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD29461	22.12		0.0	7.3	1.25	1.2	0.15	c	RV	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD29836	23.51	141.71			682.33	1.19	1.36	c	(*)
HD30339	14.74		0.25	0.13	0.04	1.39	0.07	c	SB	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD30649	30.88		0.6	16.5	1.99	0.9	0.21	e	RV (*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD31253	17.17	416.02			3020.57	1.25	1.02	b		N
HD31412	27.74	0.2			1.08	1.17	0.43	c	RV (*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD31966	26.53	10.51			67.59	1.26	0.16	b		N
HD32923	62.95		0.9	2.86	0.03	1.03	1.11	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD33473	18.19	10.28			76.93	1.32	0.76	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD33632	37.65	33.99			144.93	1.09	0.25	b		N
HD33636	33.72		0.48	3.4	0.61	1.02	0.14	c		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD35681	29.17	10.13			54.9	1.05	0.27	b		N
HD35956	33.72		0.62	2.6	0.3	0.98	0.18	c	SB(*)
HD37394	81.43	98.03			163.55	0.93	0.54	b
HD39213	16.37		0.2	2.3	0.75	0.97	0.07	c		N SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD39587	113.12		0.45	5.9	1.13	1.05	0.14	c	SB	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD39881	36.34	47.78			233.68	1.55	0.1	b		N
HD40397	41.09	2.23			7.49	0.92	0.5	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD40650	36.05			96.38	15.17	1.02	0.27	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD42024	16.8		0.19	0.38	0.13	1.35	0.07	c		N SB (*)
HD43834	97.9	3.0			5.18	0.98	0.14	c		N
HD44120	27.66	40.8			212.93	1.23	0.54	c		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD43587	51.8		0.8	11.6	0.53	1.06	0.34	c	SB (*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD44985	29.91	9.29			49.14	0.9	0.23	b		N
HD45588	34.14	41.3			175.38	1.21	0.52	b
HD45701	31.3		0.17	22.28	5.12	1.18	1.0	c	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD47157	24.77	10.7			61.76	1.13	0.52	b
HD50281	114.3	58.3			63.32	0.76	0.63	b		(*)
HD50639	25.68		0.0	20.0	3.41	1.16	0.15	d	RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD51929	26.71	0.72			3.93	0.86	0.36	c	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD52447	12.51			36.27	6.2	1.14	0.14	d		N RV, $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD53705	58.64	21.25			43.73	0.97	0.89	a	(*)
HD53706	58.64	21.25			41.61	0.89	0.97	a		(*)
HD61606	70.92	57.9			103.54	0.81	0.62	b
HD63754	19.88	5.61			42.29	1.5	0.54	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD64184	29.94		0.24	0.13	0.04	1.41	0.17	c		N SB
HD64468	50.34		0.26	0.56	0.15	0.81	0.14	c	SB
HD65277	56.65	5.13			12.72	0.72	0.36	c	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD65430	42.54		0.32	4.0	1.05	0.83	0.06	c	SB	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD65907	61.73	58.62			135.93	1.77	0.81	c	(*)
HD67458	38.86	8.82			38.34	1.05	0.15	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD66171	21.14	49.3			347.18	0.91	0.34	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD68017	46.33			61.0	8.47	1.55	0.82	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD71881	23.86			115.92	21.41	1.01	0.01	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD72760	47.4	0.9			3.21	0.91	0.13	c	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD72780	19.27		0.0	9.3	1.68	1.28	0.05	c	RV	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD73344	28.33			132.01	24.41	1.26	0.01	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD73668	28.07		0.0	8.0	1.35	1.13	0.17	c		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD74014	28.74		0.53	7.22	1.2	1.04	0.05	c		N SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD76752	26.14			68.28	10.63	1.05	0.3	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD77407	29.53	1.72			8.25	1.12	0.54	c	(*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD80913	16.27		0.0	71.6	12.88	1.27	0.06	d		N RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD86264	14.72	46.6			493.8	1.88	0.53	b		N
HD86728	67.0	134.38			343.64	1.08	0.13	b	(*)
HD87424	42.94	9.73			38.02	0.78	0.12	b		N
HD87359	31.95			77.79	12.05	1.05	0.31	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD88218	31.5	2.0			8.45	1.09	0.69	c		RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD90839	77.43	122.86			217.96	1.12	0.62	b	(*)
HD92222	14.48	18.1			148.78	1.09	1.05	b	(*)
HD93385	23.04	10.39			67.8	1.16	0.41	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD93745	16.94	435.71			3730.8	1.12	0.48	b		N
HIP52942	6.07	17.52			322.58	1.04	1.24	b	(*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HIP52940	5.72		0.37	2.6	0.6	1.12	0.12	c	SB(*)
HD96574	20.04			89.08	16.18	1.21	0.04	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD97037	30.82			116.9	20.79	1.26	0.08	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD97334	44.14	89.88			366.55	1.09	0.05	c	(*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD98618	24.24	2.7			15.99	1.04	0.47	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD99491	54.92	28.18			63.23	1.01	0.86	a
HD99492	54.91	28.18			57.62	0.86	1.01	a		(*)
HD100180	42.26	15.5			48.92	1.1	0.69	b
HD100623	104.74	15.3			17.97	0.77	0.66	c		RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD101177	42.79	9.7			26.24	0.99	1.05	c	(*)
HD101259	14.76	7.99			93.36	2.27	0.25	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD102365	107.62	22.73			34.29	0.86	0.18	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD103432	25.24	73.41			345.76	0.92	0.89	b
HD103829	9.93		0.27	6.2	1.75	1.2	0.13	b	RV	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD105113	20.65	5.74			31.16	1.28	1.51	c		(*)
HD106453	34.03	4.3			18.04	0.82	0.38	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD107148	20.21	34.98			253.38	1.37	0.66	c		N
HD107705	33.32	20.96			85.42	1.22	0.71	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD107692	38.41	17.79			81.71	1.06	0.08	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD109358	116.13			293.77	45.5	1.05	0.31	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD110810	50.49	21.81			72.98	0.77	0.11	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD111398	27.5	75.73			452.54	1.06	0.2	b
HD111484A	11.45	9.03			92.67	1.38	1.39	a
HD111484B	11.45	9.03			93.06	1.39	1.38	a
HD114174	37.91		0.77	33.4	1.51	1.34	1.2	c		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD114729	26.42	8.19			46.92	1.0	0.34	b	(*)
HD114853	39.92	35.34			149.43	1.04	0.15	b		N
HD116442	60.25	26.2			51.8	0.76	0.73	a
HD116443	60.34	26.2			50.53	0.73	0.76	a
HD117939	33.69	3.29			14.88	1.07	0.35	b		N RV (*)
HD120066	31.76	488.5			2092.19	1.16	0.67	b
HD120237	33.22	11.65			47.87	1.16	0.66	b
HD120476	73.92		0.44	33.15	4.63	0.76	0.68	b
HD120690	53.88		0.34	4.73	0.91	1.12	0.64	c	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	SB (*)
HD120780	59.55	5.7			13.53	0.74	0.36	b	G $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD121384	25.69		0.84	0.61	0.02	1.18	0.17	c		SB (*)
HD122742	60.84		0.48	5.3	0.75	0.92	0.54	c	SB
HD124694	25.44	82.73			457.92	0.97	0.48	b		N
HD125455	48.6	15.18			50.55	0.79	0.17	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD126614	13.65	0.49			5.64	1.19	0.32	c		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ RV (*)
HD128428	16.75	0.8			6.45	1.26	0.75	b		RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD128621	743.0		0.51	22.76	2.44	0.89	1.12	a	(*)
HD128620	743.0		0.51	22.76	2.79	1.12	0.89	a	(*)
HD128674	38.92	484.73			1661.71	0.83	0.52	b
HD129814	23.81		0.0	30.0	4.27	1.06	0.5	d	RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD130948	54.91	2.6			8.22	1.11	0.11	c		N
HD131156	148.52		0.51	32.8	3.93	0.92	0.79	b	(*)
HD131509	12.91			57.99	10.5	1.33	0.05	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD131511	87.91		0.51	0.52	0.07	0.93	0.45	c	SB	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD131923	42.08		0.28	8.7	2.02	1.04	0.42	c	G $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD131977	170.01	24.9			15.98	0.76	0.98	c	(*)	(*)
HD132375	29.17	9.75			50.11	1.28	0.46	b		N
HD133161	26.03	0.5			2.86	1.18	0.44	b	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD134044	33.34	4.42			20.0	0.98	0.34	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD134440	33.8	300.62			1041.81	0.55	0.56	a		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD134439	33.99	300.62			1046.86	0.56	0.55	a		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD134331	31.89	49.7			188.48	1.12	1.02	a		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD134330	31.88	49.7			178.6	1.02	1.12	a
HD135101	30.9	23.27			92.55	1.07	0.92	c
HD136118	19.41		0.35	2.36	0.6	1.25	0.04	c	P	N S $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD136442	27.52	14.03			89.31	2.44	0.21	b		N
HD136580	24.6		0.0	20.0	3.02	1.17	0.4	d	RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD137510	23.27		0.4	1.88	0.44	1.39	0.03	c	P	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD137778	48.38	52.21			106.45	0.9	1.6	c	(*)	(*)
HD139477	51.15	42.54			122.26	0.75	0.3	b
HD139323	44.51	121.29			270.56	0.89	1.55	c	(*)	(*)
HD139457	20.82			61.31	9.79	0.88	0.21	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD140785	18.37	4.43			38.85	1.48	0.33	b		N
HD140901	65.53	14.5			30.25	1.08	0.61	c		(*)
HD140913	20.67		0.54	0.55	0.09	1.17	0.04	c	SB
HD141103	19.92	14.19			122.77	0.99	0.11	b		N
HD140901	65.53	14.46			29.63	1.0	0.61	c		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD142229	21.62			6.9	1.17	1.09	0.15	c	RV	SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD144579	69.59	70.0			162.95	0.75	0.16	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD144585	36.31	36.88			180.31	1.51	0.1	b		N
HD145435	27.12	1.59			9.09	1.19	0.35	b	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD145958A	41.26		0.39	124.0	18.66	0.9	0.89	a	(*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD145958B	41.26		0.39	124.0	18.53	0.89	0.9	a	(*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD145825	45.03		0.34	7.3	1.82	1.08	0.1	c		N SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD146362	44.13		0.72	119.2	5.6	1.12	2.23	c		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD146481	22.42	4.84			34.69	1.67	0.38	b		N
HD147231	24.86			73.5	12.94	1.39	0.11	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD147723	30.56	4.08			16.2	1.29	1.16	a		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD147722	30.56	4.08			15.24	1.16	1.29	a		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD149200	19.4	179.27			1368.85	1.12	0.43	b		N
HD149806	49.3	6.3			18.84	0.94	0.37	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD150248	35.99		0.67	4.36	0.44	0.96	0.1	c	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD150554	21.16		0.0	7.6	1.35	1.13	0.07	c		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD150698	21.25	26.73			220.76	1.68	0.14	b		N
HD151044	34.09			161.53	29.84	1.06	0.01	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD151090	22.75	163.08			967.04	1.17	0.7	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD151995	36.49			107.81	19.42	0.89	0.04	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD154160	27.45	4.08			23.32	1.44	0.39	b		N
HD155060	27.31	6.5			35.91	1.01	0.35	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD156826	20.94	120.18			984.33	2.61	0.31	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD156274	120.18	0.79			0.85	0.79	0.55	b
HD156274B	120.18		0.0	63.5	10.24	0.9	0.2	c		SB (*)
HD157338	30.18			55.63	7.2	0.93	0.66	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD158783	24.23		0.05	5.0	1.92	1.15	0.19	c		N SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD159868	17.88			82.58	15.04	1.39	0.04	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD161797	119.11		0.32	22.0	5.63	1.15	0.13	c	RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)	RV, $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD162255	22.63		0.06	0.27	0.1	1.34	0.33	c		N SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD164595	35.36	88.12			358.12	0.98	0.44	b
HD164507	22.01	25.01			204.75	1.8	0.08	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD166553	20.25	1.13			7.55	1.22	0.72	b		RV (*)
HD167215	12.2		0.37	1.56	0.37	1.15	0.09	c	G $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)	SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD167389	28.8	94.18			498.32	1.01	0.33	b		N
HD167665	32.01		0.34	5.47	1.41	1.11	0.05	c	SB	SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD169586	20.93		0.35	4.3	0.83	1.29	0.68	c	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD169822	29.98		0.48	0.84	0.13	0.91	0.3	c	SB (*)
HD170778	27.14	20.19			106.64	0.88	0.4	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD170469	16.59	43.19			406.22	1.6	0.45	b		N
HD174457	17.35		0.23	1.9	0.6	1.07	0.06	c	SB	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD175345	24.2		0.75	0.92	0.06	1.17	0.48	c		SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD176982	9.78	15.46			248.72	1.43	0.38	b		N
HD179140	18.17	0.5			3.53	1.12	0.82	c
HD179957	39.6	7.2			21.29	1.01	1.03	a		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD179958	39.6	7.2			21.53	1.03	1.01	a		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD180684	17.85			52.28	7.94	1.5	0.5	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD181655	39.65	34.6			140.61	2.02	0.45	b		N
HD181234	20.87	5.17			39.5	1.16	0.28	b		N
HD182488	64.06		0.57	21.1	3.16	1.28	0.04	c		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD184385	47.85	37.06			134.25	0.88	0.09	b		N
HD184860	35.36		0.67	1.4	0.15	0.77	0.03	c	SB (*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD185395	54.23	116.71			343.67	1.34	0.32	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD187691	51.19	21.49			66.42	1.37	0.35	b	(*)
HD190067	51.83	2.86			9.58	0.8	0.08	b	(*)	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD190360	62.44	178.02			465.97	1.01	0.2	b	(*)
HD190406	56.43	0.8	0.5	18.3	3.25	1.09	0.07	c	RV	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD190771	52.59		0.53	8.61	1.39	1.07	0.1	e	RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD191408	166.23	7.1			6.44	0.69	0.24	b		RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD191785	48.85	103.84			326.17	0.83	0.26	b
HD192020	40.87	15.16			52.12	0.78	0.39	b		N
HD192343	15.85	43.27			322.18	1.28	1.27	a
HD192344	15.85	43.27			320.72	1.27	1.28	a
HD193017	25.02	53.62			364.74	0.84	0.11	b		N
HD193307	32.05	21.26			102.64	1.38	0.41	b		N
HD194766	21.7	59.88			257.39	1.1	2.33	c
HD196390	29.67	235.08			1283.82	1.08	0.23	b		N
HD195564	40.38	2.9			10.05	1.12	0.57	b		$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD196068	24.98	16.62			84.27	1.69	1.3	c
HD196201	24.32	0.52			2.7	0.87	0.68	b		RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD197076	47.85	125.0			351.33	0.99	0.6	c	(*)
HD198089	24.77	2.62			15.4	1.0	0.42	a		N
HD198387	24.05		0.53	6.7	1.05	1.32	0.19	e	G $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)	RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD198802	22.62			107.84	19.79	1.6	0.03	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD199598	31.18		0.0	15.1	2.63	1.15	0.11	c	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD200565	15.29		0.5	9.8	1.6	1.06	0.21	c	RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD200538	18.24	63.63			615.79	1.34	0.1	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD201203	11.59			27.86	4.52	2.23	0.47	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD206387	19.73	2.96			18.55	1.2	1.01	b
HD206860	55.16	43.2			143.71	1.07	0.02	c
HD207700	26.02	362.17			2244.49	1.4	0.31	b		N RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD208776	26.07		0.27	4.2	0.97	1.14	0.51	c	SB	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD208998	27.48	21.65			132.57	1.34	0.2	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD211681	13.82		0.0	5.3	0.94	1.31	0.08	c		N SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD212168	42.72	20.1			54.52	1.06	1.12	c		(*)
HD212330	48.89		0.21	16.21	4.64	1.12	0.27	c		RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD212708	26.91	1.01			6.42	1.06	0.13	c		N RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD213519	24.36	62.37			385.16	1.05	0.37	b
HD214953	41.97	7.43			24.64	1.13	0.59	b		RV, $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD215578	4.21		0.35	17.78	3.17	1.02	0.73	c	RV (*)	SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$ (*)
HD215648	62.4	11.05			27.0	1.26	0.41	b
HD216625	23.78			64.44	10.69	1.39	0.24	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD217004	15.62	9.17			74.9	1.27	0.95	b
HD217165	22.74		0.0	5.1	0.92	1.1	0.04	c		N SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD217958	16.15	1.25			12.15	1.15	0.31	c		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$(*)
HD218101	25.84		0.58	6.67	0.88	1.26	0.23	e	$\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$	SB $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD218235	23.82	17.9			135.3	2.41	0.11	b		N
HD218261	33.26			80.23	12.54	1.15	0.32	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD218730	27.24	41.85			251.13	0.91	0.18	b		N
HD218868	42.45	50.4			197.04	0.93	0.16	b		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD219542A	18.36	5.37			34.72	1.08	1.05	c	(*)
HD219542B	18.19	5.37			34.48	1.05	1.08	c	(*)
HD219834	44.9	12.33			24.22	0.74	1.87	c	(*)
HD220077	12.87	0.66			6.09	1.09	1.06	b
HD221146	27.6			82.34	14.56	1.66	0.12	d		N $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD221830	29.9	8.13			39.58	0.95	0.4	b
HD223084	26.95	0.16			0.8	1.09	0.67	c	RV $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$
HD223238	22.32	24.92			196.70	1.29	0.1	b		N
HD223691	13.98	13.6			146.97	1.6	0.55	c		N (*)

Remarks: N: System not listed in FV05; SB: Spectroscopic Binaries; RV: Stars with RV linear trends (see [32]); G: Stars with accelerating proper motions in Hipparcos. (see [33]). $\mathsf{\Delta }\mu$: Stars with discrepant proper motion between Hipparcos and Thyco II (see [33]), or between Gaia DR2 and Thyco II and/or TGAS, see Section 2.3 for details). References: HD 4614: Worley and Heintz [66]; HD 4747: Peretti et al. [67]; HD 5470: Patel et al. [35]; HD 8673: Roberts et al. [68]; HD 8765: Patel et al. [35]; HD 10360/61 Worley and Heintz [66]; HD 11112: Rodigas et al. [69]; HD 12414: Gentile Fusillo et al. [70]; HD 13445: Desidera and Barbieri [11], Lagrange et al. [71]; HD 13507: Perrier et al. [72]; HD 13531: Metchev [73]; HD 13612B: Duquennoy and Mayor [3], Worley [74]; HD 16160: Allen et al. [75], Golimowski et al. [76]; HD 16895: Worley and Heintz [66]; HD 18445: Duquennoy and Mayor [3], Halbwachs et al. [77], Zucker and Mazeh [78]; HD 18907: Jenkins et al. [36] HD 19467: Crepp et al. [39] HD 20782: Desidera and Barbieri [11]; HD 23439: Allen et al. [75]; HD 26491: Jenkins et al. [36]; HD 27442: Desidera and Barbieri [11], Chauvin et al. [79]; HD 29461: Patel et al. [35]; HD 29836: Griffin and Gunn [80]; HD 30339: Nidever et al. [32]; HD 30649: Nidever et al. [32], Dommanget and Nys [81]; HD 31412: Eggenberger et al. [9], Patel et al. [35]; HD 33636: Bean et al. [82]; HD 35956: Vogt et al. [83]; HD 38529: Desidera and Barbieri [11], Reffert and Quirrenbach [84]; HD 39213: Jenkins et al. [36]; HD 39587: Nidever et al. [32]; HD 40979: Mugrauer et al. [10]; HD 42024: Jenkins et al. [36]; HD 43587: Duquennoy and Mayor [3], Vogt et al. [83], Salim and Gould [85]; HD 43834: Eggenberger et al. [9]; HD 44120: Gentile Fusillo et al. [70]; HD 45701: Kane et al. [38]; HD 51929: Kane et al. [38]; HD 64184: Jenkins et al. [36]; HD 64468: Vogt et al. [83]; HD 65430: Nidever et al. [32]; HD 65907: Tokovinin [86]; HD 72760: Metchev [73]; HD 72780: Patel et al. [35]; HD 73668: Patel et al. [35]; HD 74014: Sahlmann et al. [87]; HD 77407: Mugrauer et al. [88], Metchev [73]; HD 88218: Tokovinin [86]; HIP 52940: Nidever et al. [32]; HD 97334: Burgasser et al. [89]; HD 100623: Gentile Fusillo et al. [70]; HD 101177: Duquennoy and Mayor [3], Salim and Gould [85]; HD 105113: Tokovinin [86]; HD 107148: Gentile Fusillo et al. [70]; HD 114174: Bacchus et al. [90]; HD 120136: Justesen and Albrecht [91]; HD 120690: Jenkins et al. [36], dos Santos et al. [92]; HD 121384: Jenkins et al. [36]; HD 122742: Nidever et al. [32]; HD 126614: Howard et al. [93]; HD 128620 - HD 128627: Worley and Heintz [66]; HD 130948: Dupuy et al. [94]; HD 131156: Duquennoy and Mayor [3], Worley and Heintz [66]; HD 131511: Nidever et al. [32]; HD 131923: Jenkins et al. [36]; HD 131977: Torres et al. [95]; HD 135101: Desidera et al. [96]; HD 136118: Martioli et al. [55]; HD 137510: Díaz et al. [56]; HD 137778: Tokovinin [97]; HD 139323: this paper; HD 140901: Gentile Fusillo et al. [70]; HD 140913: Nidever et al. [32]; HD 142229: Patel et al. [35]; HD 145825: Kane et al. [38] HD 146362 B: Raghavan et al. [98]; HD 150248: Jenkins et al. [36]; HD 150554: Patel et al. [35]; Metchev [73]; HD 156274B: Jenkins et al. [36]; HD 158733: Jenkins et al. [36]; HD 161797: Nidever et al. [32], Makarov and Kaplan [33],Worley and Heintz [66],Wittenmyer et al. [99]; HD162255: Jenkins et al. [36]; HD 167215: Díaz et al. [56]; HD 167665: Patel et al. [35]; HD 169586: Jenkins et al. [36]; HD 169822: Vogt et al. [83]; HD 174457: Nidever et al. [32]; HD 175345: Jenkins et al. [36]; HD 177830: Eggenberger et al. [9]; HD 178911 B: Tokovinin et al. [100]; HD 179140: Tokovinin [86]; HD 182488: Bowler et al. [101]; HD 184860: Vogt et al. [83]; HD 190406: Crepp et al. [102]; HD 194766: Tokovinin [86]; HD 196050: Eggenberger et al. [9]; HD 196068: Marmier et al. [103]; HD 197076: Duquennoy and Mayor [3]; HD 196885: Chauvin et al. [104]; HD 199598: Patel et al. [35]; HD 200565: dos Santos et al. [92]; HD 206860: Luhman et al. [105] HD 208776: Nidever et al. [32]; HD 211681: Patel et al. [35]; HD 212168: Tokovinin [86]; HD 212330: Kane et al. [38]; HD 212708: Kane et al. [38]; HD 215578: Patel et al. [35]; HD 217165: Patel et al. [35]; HD 217958: Kane et al. [38]; this paper; HD 219542: Desidera et al. [96]; HD 219834: Docobo et al. [106]; HD 223084: Tokovinin et al. [40]; HD 223691: This paper.

was calculated as the mean of the ones obtained from each of the solutions. The value obtained from Equation (1) was preferred for binaries with separations smaller than 7–${10}^{″}$, as the quality of 2MASS photometry degrades for close visual binaries. When detailed information on the system was available in the literature, the published values were preferred (these objects have $M_{flag}=c$ in Table A1, with the corresponding reference listed in the notes at the bottom).

2.5. Revision of the UD Sample

We revised the classification of several stars with/without planets within the UD boundaries on the basis of the updated results from the RV time series or the determination of astrometric masses that moved a detected companion outside the planetary regime. In more detail, we changed the status for the following targets with respect to BD07:

• HD 196885 is put back among the stars with planets, as the RV planet is confirmed [53,54].
• HD 136118 was originally flagged as a star with planets, but the astrometric analysis by [55] shows that the true mass of the companion (41 $M_{Jup}$) is significantly larger than the minimum mass from RV only and larger than our adopted limit for planetary mass companions. We therefore included this object among the stars without planets.
• HD 137510 has a minimum mass above 24 $M_{Jup}$ [56], and is therefore classified as a star without planets.
• HD 159868 was considered as without planets in FV05. After the revision of the planetary orbits, a second planet was discovered [57]. As one the planets fulfills the UD definition, the star is now considered to be with planets. It is not known to be a binary.

3. Results

3.1. The Updated UD Binary Sample

The full list of UD binaries as assembled above includes 313 of of the 850 stars in the sample. A total of 114 targets were added with respect to BD07 and three were removed (physical association rejected by Gaia, possibility of planetary companion explaining the astrometric signature). For all of the pairs, we derived the critical semi-major axis for dynamical stability (hereafter $a_{crit}$; see [49] and BD07 for details). When available, we exploited the binary orbits. For the cases in which only the projected separation was available, we used the same approach as [58] and estimated a(au) as $\rho$(${}^{″}$)d(pc), thus assuming a flat eccentricity distribution (see Section 2.3 for details). In agreement with the assumption used for the semi-major axis calculation, an eccentricity value of 0.5 was adopted for the systems for which no information on the orbit was available5. The properties of all of the objects in the updated UD binary sample are listed in Table A1. Figure 2 shows the values of $a_{crit}$ as a function of the mass ratio ($M_A/M_B$) for all pairs, highlighting the newly added objects.

Despite the increased size of the binary sub-sample, we still observe a lower overall frequency of binaries ($\sim 37\%$ as opposed to $47\%$) compared to what was predicted by [3] for a volume-limited sample of the same size as the UD. As discussed in BD07, this difference is most likely due to the fact that the input lists used to build the UD sample had an explicit bias against close binaries. According to [3], in a sample of the same size as the UD, we would have expected a total of 484 binaries, of which $\sim 45.7\%$ would have had projected separations below $2^{″}$ and would therefore have been excluded from the UD sample. If restricted to binaries with $\rho >2^{″}$, our updated UD binary sample includes 211 pairs, thus implying a level of completeness of $\sim 95\%$: A significant improvement with respect to the $62\%$ achieved in BD07, as also highlighted in Figure 3.

On the other hand, the fraction of close binaries did not significantly increase with respect to the original BD07 sample ($32.25\%$ as opposed to $30\%$). While it is true that a clear assessment of the incompleteness of the sample at such separations is hard to complete, we should note that the quality of the information available for these systems in the updated sample is much higher. Several systems in the original sample had been selected solely on the basis of dynamical signatures and were included in the lowest mass ratio and $a_{crit}$ bins due to the lack of information on the companion masses and orbits. As discussed in Section 2.3, most of those systems were confirmed and can now be correctly placed in the appropriate bins. The fact that most of these systems had low-mass companions, undetectable at the time of the BD07 compilation, explains the clear increase of low-mass ratio systems shown in the right panel of Figure 4.

3.2. Frequency vs. Critical Semi-Major Axis for Dynamical Stability

With 16 of the 313 pairs in the updated UD binary sample hosting a planetary companion, we estimated the global frequency of planets in the UD binary sample to be 5.1%. This value is compatible, within the errors, with the the frequency of planets in the UD single-star sub-sample, which is 6.3% (see

Table 2. Frequency of planets in binaries with different values of $a_{crit}$.

${\mathit{a}}_{\mathit{crit}}$	${\mathit{N}}_{\mathit{star}}$	${\mathit{N}}_{\mathit{planets}}$	${\mathit{N}}_{\mathit{planets}}/{\mathit{N}}_{\mathit{stars}}$
<2.5 au	57	0
2.5–10 au	50	3	0.060 ± 0.0431
10–20 au	47	3	0.064 ± 0.0462
20–50 au	44	2	0.045 ± 0.0390
50–100 au	33	2	0.061 ± 0.0534
100–250 au	39	3	0.077 ± 0.0567
> 250 au	43	3	0.070 ± 0.0509
UD Singles sub-sample	537	34	0.063 ± 0.0136
Entire UD binary sub-sample	313	16	0.051 ± 0.0157

).

In order to investigate the dependence of the planet frequency on dynamical effect due to the presence of stellar companions, we divided the binary sample into some sub-samples according to the value of $a_{crit}$. This feature, in fact, includes both the orbital parameters and the mass ratio, representing the maximum value of the semi-major axis for stable planetary orbits around planet hosts (see [3] for details).

Table 2 shows the values of the frequency for different intervals of $a_{crit}$, as well as the values of the frequency in the full UD binary sample compared to those of the UD singles. Following the approach adopted in [28], the errors on the frequency values were estimated as: ${\sigma }_f=\left(N_{planets}^{-1/2},+,N_{star}^{-1/2}\right)\ast \left(\frac{N_{planets}}{N_{stars}}\right)$.

Thanks to the improvement in the information on both companion masses and orbital characteristics, especially for the closest pairs, we were able to better characterize the planet frequencies for these systems by splitting the $a_{crit}<20au$ bin from BD07 into three smaller bins. This allowed us to check the planet occurrence in binaries with $a_{crit}$ comparable to the baseline used for the definition of the completeness of the UD sample, 2.5 au (see [29] for details). The results shown in Figure 5 seem to suggest that the planet frequency, which is low for very close pairs, rapidly increases and remains stable for higher separations.

The lack of planets in the innermost bin is strong evidence of the negative effects of very close companions for planets around the components. A binary system with $a_{crit}<$ 2.5 au is expected to have undergone a truncation of the circumstellar disk to separations below the snowline, most likely preventing the formation of giant planets (see, e.g., [59]). The observed null result in this range is therefore not surprising. The run of planet frequency with $a_{crit}$ at larger separations needs additional considerations, as it somewhat depends on the adopted binning $a_{crit}$. With the binning shown in the left panel of Figure 5, the planet frequency results are similar overall. However, the cumulative distribution, shown in the right panel of the same figure, highlights an irregular run of $a_{crit}$ for stars with planets, with several plateaus seemingly suggesting a lack of planets in some separation ranges. Three out of 25 binaries with $a_{crit}$ between to 3 to 5.9 au host planets, though none of the 31 pairs with $a_{crit}$ between 6 to 14 au host planets. This may be due to the small-number statistics and partially due to some remaining ambiguity in the $a_{crit}$ value for binaries without direct detection of the companions.

One should also note that a value of $a_{crit}$ between 6 to 14 au corresponds to physical separations between the components of the order of 100 au. According to [60], this represents the distance at which the effect of the presence of the secondary on the protoplanetary disk starts to become important. They suggest that a companion closer than 100 au would alter the properties of the disk, causing disk fragmentation to be the dominant process of planet formation and resulting in a higher fraction of high-mass planets in these systems. If indeed the planet formation process acting in this kind of binary is more effective at closer separations, this could explain the observed bi-modal distribution. Unfortunately, the small number of objects considered and the ambiguities in the determination of $a_{crit}$ render these conclusions merely tentative. Additional observational efforts aimed both at mass and orbit determinations for these systems will allow more robust assessment.

The fact that the planet frequency of planets around components of wide binaries and single stars is very similar agrees with this overall picture, where one would expect that wide companions do not have any significant effect on the disk properties. The only exception to this behavior in the cumulative plot is the lack of planets in binaries with $a_{crit}$ between to 200 to 700 au, corresponding to physical separations of a few thousands of au. Any impact of the presence of a companion at such large separations is hard to explain from a theoretical perspective, and may be due to small-number statistics.

3.3. Stars with White Dwarfs Companions

Our extensive census of binary companions allows us to consider the specific case of stars with white dwarf companions known as Sirius-like systems (see [61] for details). Ten systems belonging to this category are identified in the sample, including three which were previously unknown6. Planets fulfilling the UD definition are found around two of these stars (HD 13445 and HD 27442). This would indicate a rather large frequency of planets in these systems (20%), which is surprising given that the presence of a white dwarf companion implies an originally tighter binary configuration, due to the mass loss from the white dwarf progenitor [11]. On the other hand, a larger planet frequency for stars with white dwarf companions may be ascribed to accretion of material lost by the white dwarfs on low-mass planets existing around the companion, making them detectable with the RV technique, or even the formation of second-generation planets [62]. These scenarios are quite speculative, and any claims that the observed higher frequency is real are definitely premature. Our census of white dwarf companions is, in fact, most likely incomplete, as they are typically faint and may also escape correct classifications when detected in one photometric band only (about a dozen of objects from Gaia) or only by dynamical signatures. Moreover, we expect the original selection biases of the RV planet surveys to have also caused the exclusion of white dwarf companions with short cooling ages when close enough to have caused spin-up of the companions (see, e.g., [63]).

4. Summary and Conclusions

This paper presents a new, and long overdue, census of the binarity of the stars in the Uniform Detectability (UD) sample by FV05, a widely used reference sample for statistics of giant planets detected via the radial velocity method. Building upon the work presented in BD07, we extended the search for binary companions to the stars in the Uniform Detectability (UD) sample by FV05, and were able to add 114 new pairs to the 199 included in the original UD binary sub-sample. The information made available in the past few years, in particular thanks to the second Gaia Data Release [30], allowed us to partially overcome the incompleteness affecting previous studies, which was mainly due to the lack of information on the binary population in most RV survey samples, both in terms of detection and orbital characterization.

In the updated sample, the level of completeness for binaries with separations >2″, and therefore not excluded due to the selection biases affecting the UD input lists, is $\sim 95\%$. As a result, the new value of the overall frequency of binaries in the UD sample is $\sim 37\%$, which is closer to, although still lower that, what is expected for a volume-limited sample—57%, according to [3].

We used this larger and improved UD binary sample to perform a more unbiased statistical analysis, much less affected by the incompleteness that characterized the original work. Our final goal was to assess the nature and extent of the influence of stellar multiplicity on the formation and, consequently, on the frequency of planets. Given the high level of precision achieved in the estimation of the system’s parameters, we were able to attempt a characterization of the behavior of the planet frequency among several different sub-sets of binaries in the updated sample. For this analysis, we chose to use the critical semi-major axis ($a_{crit}$) defined by [49] as a reference, as it allows one to better take into account the dynamical effects of the presence of the companion on the circumstellar region as well as on planet formation and stability.

Similarly to BD07, we did not find any evidence of statistically significant differences in the overall planet occurrence between the UD binaries and single stars (5.1 ± 1.57% and 6.3 ± 1.36%, respectively). The lack of planets in close systems ($a_{crit}$ < 2.5 au) found by BD07 was also confirmed, once again reinforcing the expectation of the effect of the presence of a companion on the tidal truncation of the disk. We also observed an increase of the frequency for systems with $3<a_{crit}<6$ au, followed by a decrease for $6<a_{crit}<14$ au. This apparent bi-modal distribution, if confirmed, could point towards a positive effect of the binarity on the planet formation process. This could also imply that disk fragmentation is more effective than core accretion in these environments, thanks to the altered properties of the disk caused by these kinds of stellar companions. Finally, we found a relatively high value of the planet frequency in the subset of stars hosting white dwarf companions. Several scenarios could be responsible for this, although we feel that it is premature to speculate on the causes without being certain of the authenticity of the result.

Unfortunately, given the small number of systems considered and the uncertainties still affecting the estimation of the $a_{crit}$, most of the observed trends still need clarification and will certainly benefit from future updates to the information on the binary population, which will soon be available through future Gaia data releases as well as new dedicated observing campaigns. Nevertheless, our results represent a further confirmation that planets can form in binary systems in spite of the unfavorable conditions, and the observed trends, if confirmed, could point towards the need for a different formation scenario to explain the observed behavior of the frequency, especially in the case of very tight binaries.