abstract: Several methods exist for a computer to generate music based on data including Markov chains, recurrent neural networks, recombinancy, and grammars. We explore the use of unit selection and concatenation as a means of generating music using a procedure based on ranking, where, we consider a unit to be a variable length number of measures of music. We first examine whether a unit selection method, that is restricted to a finite size unit library, can be sufficient for encompassing a wide spectrum of music. We do this by developing a deep autoencoder that encodes a musical input and reconstructs the input by selecting from the library. We then describe a generative model that combines a deep structured semantic model (DSSM) with an LSTM to predict the next unit, where units consist of four, two, and one measures of music. We evaluate the generative model using objective metrics including mean rank and accuracy and with a subjective listening test in which expert musicians are asked to complete a forced-choiced ranking task. We compare our model to a note-level generative baseline that consists of a stacked LSTM trained to predict forward by one note.
author: Mason Bretan
`Georgia Tech`
`Atlanta, GA`
; Gil Weinberg
`Georgia Tech`
`Atlanta, GA`
; Larry Heck
Google Research
`Mountain View, CA`
bibliography: main.bib
date: December 2016
title: A Unit Selection Methodology for Music Generation Using Deep Neural Networks

# Introduction

For the last half century researchers and artists have developed many types of algorithmic composition systems. These individuals are driven by the allure of both simulating human aesthetic creativity through computation and tapping into the artistic potential deep-seated in the inhuman characteristics of computers. Some systems may employ rule-based, sampling, or morphing methodologies to create music . We present a method that falls into the class of symbolic generative music systems consisting of data driven models which utilize statistical machine learning.

Within this class of music systems, the most prevalent method is to create a model that learns likely transitions between notes using sequential modeling techniques such as Markov chains or recurrent neural networks . The learning minimizes note-level perplexity and during generation the models may stochastically or deterministically select the next best note given the preceding note(s).

In this paper we describe a method to generate monophonic melodic lines based on unit selection. Our work is inspired by a technique that is commonly used in text-to-speech (TTS) systems. The two system design trends found in TTS are statistical parametric and unit selection . In the former, speech is completely reconstructed given a set of parameters. The premise for the latter is that new, intelligible, and natural sounding speech can be synthesized by concatenating smaller audio units that were derived from a preexisting speech signal . Unlike a parametric system, which reconstructs the signal from the bottom up, the information within a unit is preserved and is directly applied for signal construction. When this idea is applied to music, the generative system can similarly get some of the structure inherent to music "for free" by pulling from a unit library.

The ability to directly use the music that was previously composed or performed by a human can be a significant advantage when trying to imitate a style or pass a musical Turing test. However, there are also drawbacks to unit selection that the more common note-to-note level generation methods do not need to address. The most obvious drawback is that the output of a unit selection method is restricted to what is available in the unit library. Note-level generation provides maximum flexibility in what can be produced. Ideally, the units in a unit selection method should be small enough such that it is possible to produce a wide spectrum of music, while, remaining large enough to take advantage of the built-in information.

Another challenge with unit selection is that the concatenation process may lead to "jumps" or "shifts" in the musical content or style that may sound unnatural and jarring to a listener. Even if the selection process accounts for this, the size of the library must be sufficiently large in order to address many scenarios. Thus, the process of selecting units can equate to a massive number of comparisons among units when the library is very big. Even after pruning this can be a lot of computation. However, this is less of an issue as long as the computing power is available and unit evaluation can be performed in parallel processes.

In this work we explore unit selection as a means of music generation. We first build a deep autoencoder where reconstruction is performed using unit selection. This allows us to make an initial qualitative assessment of the ability of a finite-sized library to reconstruct never before seen music. We then describe a generative method that selects and concatenates units to create new music.

The proposed generation system ranks individual units based on two values: 1) a semantic relevance score between two units and 2) a concatenation cost that describes the distortion at the seams where units connect. The semantic relevance score is determined by using a deep structured semantic model (DSSM) to compute the distance between two units in a compressed embedding space . The concatenation cost is derived by first learning the likelihood of a sequence of musical events (such as individual notes) with an LSTM and then using this LSTM to evaluate the likelihood of two consecutive units. We evaluate the model's ability to select the next best unit based on ranking accuracy and mean rank. We use a subjective listening test to evaluate the "naturalness" and "likeability" of the musical output produced by versions of the system using units of lengths four, two, and one measures. We additionally compare our unit selection based systems to the more common note-level generative models using an LSTM trained to predict forward by one note.

# Related Work

Many methods for generating music have been proposed. The data-driven statistical methods typically employ n-gram or Markov models . In these Markov-based approaches note-to-note transitions are modeled (typically bi-gram or tri-gram note models). However, by focusing only on such local temporal dependencies these models fail to take into account the higher level structure and semantics important to music.

Like the Markov approaches, RNN methods that are trained on note-to-note transitions fail to capture higher level semantics and long term dependencies . However, using an LSTM, Eck demonstrated that some higher level temporal structure can be learned . The overall harmonic form of the blues was learned by training the network with various improvisations over the standard blues progression.

We believe these previous efforts have not been successful at creating rich and aesthetically pleasing large scale musical structures that demonstrate an ability to communicate complex musical ideas beyond the note-to-note level. A melody (precomposed or improvised) relies on a hierarchical structure and the higher-levels in this hierarchy are arguably the most important part of generating a melody. Much like in story telling it is the broad ideas that are of the most interest and not necessarily the individual words.

Rule-based grammar methods have been developed to address such hierarchical structure. Though many of these systems' rules are derived using a well-thought out and careful consideration to music theory and perception , some of them do employ machine learning methods to create the rules. This includes stochastic grammars and constraint based reasoning methods . However, grammar based systems are used predominantly from an analysis perspective and do not typically generalize beyond specific scenarios .

The most closely related work to our proposed unit selection method is David Cope's *Experiments in Musical Intelligence*, in which "recombinancy" is used . Cope's process of recombinancy first breaks down a musical piece into small segments, labels these segments based on various characteristics, and reorders or "recombines" them based on a set of musical rules to create a new piece. Though there is no machine learning involved, the underlying process of stitching together preexisting segments is similar to our method. However, we attempt to learn how to connect units based on sequential modeling with an LSTM. Furthermore, our unit labeling is derived from a semantic embedding using a technique developed for ranking tasks in natural language processing (NLP).

Our goal in this research is to examine the potential for unit selection as a means of music generation. Ideally, the method should capture some of the structural hierarchy inherent to music like the grammar based strategies, but be flexible enough so that they generalize as well as the generative note-level models. Challenges include finding a unit length capable of this and developing a selection method that results in both likeable and natural sounding music.

# Reconstruction Using Unit Selection

As a first step towards evaluating the potential for unit selection, we examine how well a melody or a more complex jazz solo can be reconstructed using only the units available in a library. Two things are needed to accomplish this: 1) data to build a unit library and 2) a method for analyzing a melody and identifying the best units to reconstruct it.

Our dataset consists of 4,235 lead sheets from the Wikifonia database containing melodies from genres including (but not limited to) jazz, folk, pop, and classical . In addition, we collected 120 publicly available jazz solo transcriptions from various websites.

## Design of a Musical DBN Autoencoder

In order to analyze and reconstruct a melody we trained a deep autoencoder to encode and decode a single measure of music. This means that our unit (in this scenario) is one measure of music. From the dataset there are roughly 170,000 unique measures. Of these, there are roughly 20,000 unique rhythms seen in the measures. We augment the dataset by manipulating pitches through linear shifts (transpositions) and alterations of the intervals between notes resulting in roughly 80 million unique measures.

We augment the dataset by manipulating pitches through linear shifts (transpositions) and alterations of the intervals between notes. We alter the intervals using two methods: 1) adding a constant value to the original intervals and 2) multiplying a constant value to the intervals. Many different constant values are used and the resulting pitches from the new interval values are superimposed on to the measure's original rhythms. The new unit is added to the dataset. We restrict the library to measures with pitches that fall into a five octave range (midi notes 36-92). Each measure is transposed up and down a half step so that all instances within the pitch range are covered. The only manipulation performed on the duration values of notes within a measure is the temporal compression of two consecutive measures into a single measure. This "double time" representation effectively increases the number of measures, while leaving the inherent rhythmic structure in tact. After all of this manipulation and augmentation there are roughly 80 million unique measures. We use 60% for training and 40% for testing our autoencoder.

The first step in the process is feature extraction and creating a vector representation of the unit. Unit selection allows for a lossy representation of the events within a measure. As long as it is possible to rank the units it is not necessary to be able to recreate the exact sequence of notes with the autoencoder. Therefore, we can represent each measure using a bag-of-words (BOW) like feature vector. Our features include:

1.  counts of note tuples \<pitch$_{1}$, duration$_{1}$\>

2.  counts of pitches \<pitch$_{1}$\>

3.  counts of durations \<duration$_{1}$\>

4.  counts of pitch class \<class$_{1}$\>

5.  counts of class and rhythm tuples \<class$_{1}$, duration$_{1}$\>

6.  counts of pitch bigrams \<pitch$_{1}$, pitch$_{2}$\>

7.  counts of duration bigrams \<duration$_{1}$, duration$_{2}$\>

8.  counts of pitch class bigrams \<class$_{1}$, class$_{1}$\>

9.  first note is tied previous measure (1 or 0)

10. last note is tied to next measure (1 or 0)

The pitches are represented using midi pitch values. The pitch class of a note is the note's pitch reduced down to a single octave (12 possible values). We also represent rests using a pitch value equal to negative one. Therefore, no feature vector will consist of only zeros. Instead, if the measure is empty the feature vector will have a value of one at the position representing a whole rest. Because we used data that came from symbolic notation (not performance) the durations can be represented using their rational form (numerator, denominator) where a quarter note would be '1/4.' Finally, we also include beginning and end symbols to indicate whether the note is a first or last note in a measure.

The architecture of the autoencoder is depicted in Figure 1. The objective of the decoder is to reconstruct the feature vector and not the actual sequence of notes as depicted in the initial unit of music. Therefore, the entire process involves two types of reconstruction:

1.  **feature vector reconstruction** - the reconstruction performed and learned by the *decoder*.

2.  **music reconstruction** - the process of selecting a unit that best represents the initial input musical unit.

In order for the network to learn the parameters necessary for effective feature vector reconstruction by the decoder, the network uses leaky rectified linear units ($\alpha$ = .001) on each layer and during training minimizes a loss function based on the cosine similarity function

$$\it{sim}(\vec{X}, \vec{Y}) = \frac{\vec{X}^T\cdot \vec{Y}}{|\vec{X} || \vec{Y}|}$$ where $\vec{X}$ and $\vec{Y}$ are two equal length vectors. This function serves as the basis for computing the distance between the input vector to the encoder and output vector of the decoder. Negative examples are included through a softmax function

$$\it{\it{P}(\vec{R}|\vec{Q}) = \frac{\exp(\it{sim}(\vec{Q}, \vec{R}))}{\sum_{\vec{d} \epsilon D} \exp(\it{sim}(\vec{Q}, \vec{d}))}}$$ where $\vec{Q}$ is the feature vector derived from the input musical unit, $Q$, and $\vec{R}$ represents the reconstructed feature vector of $Q$. $D$ is the set of five reconstructed feature vectors that includes $\vec{R}$ and four candidate reconstructed feature vectors derived from four randomly selected units in the training set. The network then minimizes the following differentiable loss function using gradient descent

$$\it{-log}\prod_{(Q, R)} P(\vec{R} | \vec{Q})$$

A learning rate of 0.005 was used and a dropout of 0.5 was applied to each hidden layer, but not applied to the feature vector. The network was developed using Google's *Tensorflow* framework.

## Music Reconstruction through Selection

The feature vector used as the input to the autoencoder is a BOW-like representation of the musical unit. This is not a loss-less representation and there is no effective means of converting this representation back into its original symbolic musical form. However, the nature of a unit selection method is such that it is not necessary to reconstruct the original sequence of notes. Instead, a candidate is selected from the library that best depicts the content of the original unit based on some distance metric.

In TTS, this distance metric is referred to as the *target cost* and describes the distance between a unit in the database and the target it's supposed to represent . In our musical scenario, the targets are individual measures of music and the distance (or cost) is measured within the embedding space learned by the autoencoder. The unit whose embedding vector shares the highest cosine similarity with the query embedding is chosen as the top candidate to represent a query or target unit. We apply the function $$\hat{y} = \arg\max_{y } \it{sim}(x, y)$$ where $x$ is the embedding of the input unit and $y$ is the embedding of a unit chosen from the library.

The encoding and selection can be objectively and qualitatively evaluated. For the purposes of this particular musical autoencoder, an effective embedding is one that captures perceptually significant semantic properties and is capable of distinguishing the original unit in the library (low collision rate) despite the reduced dimensionality. In order to assess the second part we can complete a ranking (or sorting) task in which the selection rank (using equation 5) of the truth out of 49 randomly selected units (rank@50) is calculated for each unit in the test set. The collision rate can also be computed by counting the instances in which a particular embedding represents more than one unit. The results are reported in the table below.

|                         |       |
|:------------------------|:-----:|
| mean rank @ 50          | 1.003 |
| accuracy @ 50           | 99.98 |
| collision rate per 100k |  91   |

Results

Given the good performance we can make a strong assumption that if an identical unit to the one being encoded exists in the library then the reconstruction process will correctly select it as having the highest similarity. In practice, however, it is probable that such a unit will not exist in the library. The number of ways in which a measure can be filled with notes is insurmountably huge and the millions of measures in the current unit library represent only a tiny fraction of all possibilities. Therefore, in the instances in which an identical unit is unavailable an alternative, though perceptually similar, selection must be chosen.

Autoencoders and embeddings developed for image processing tasks are often qualitatively evaluated by examining the similarity between original and reconstructed images . Likewise, we can assess the selection process by reconstructing never before seen music.

Figure 2 shows the reconstruction of an improvisation (see the related video for audio examples [^1]). Through these types of reconstructions we are able to see and hear that the unit selection performs well. Also, note that this method of reconstruction utilizes only a target cost and does not include a concatenation cost between measures.

Another method of qualitative evaluation is to reconstruct from embeddings derived from linear interpolations between two input seeds. The premise is that the reconstruction from the vector representing the weighted sum of the two seed embeddings should result in samples that contain characteristics of both seed units. Figure 3 shows results of reconstruction from three different pairs of units.

# Generation using Unit Selection

In the previous section we demonstrated how unit selection and an autoencoder can be used to transform an existing piece of music through reconstruction and merging processes. The embeddings learned by the autoencoder provide features that are used to select the unit in the library that best represents a given query unit. In this section we explore how unit selection can be used to generate sequences of music using a predictive method. The task of the system is to generate sequences by identifying good candidates in the library to contiguously follow a given unit or sequence of units.

The process for identifying good candidates is based on the assumption that two contiguous units, $(u_{n-1}, u_{n})$, should share characteristics in a higher level musical semantic space (semantic relevance) and the transition between the last and first notes of the first and second units respectively should be likely to occur according to a model (concatenation). This general idea is visually portrayed in Figure 4. We use a DSSM based on BOW-like features to model the semantic relevance between two contiguous units and a note-level LSTM to learn likely note sequences (where a note contains pitch and rhythm information).

For training these models we use the same dataset described in the previous section. However, in order to ensure that the model learns sequences and relationships that are musically appropriate we can only augment the dataset by transposing the pieces to different keys. Transposing does not compromise the original structure, pitch intervals, or rhythmic information within the data, however, the other transformations do affect these musical attributes and such transformations should not be applied for learning the parameters of these sequential models. However, it is possible to use the original unit library (including augmentations) when selecting units during generation.

## Semantic Relevance

In both TTS and the previous musical reconstruction tests a target is provided. For generation tasks, however, the system must predict the next target based on the current sequential and contextual information that is available. In music, even if the content between two contiguous measures or phrases is different, their exist characteristics that suggest the two are not only related, but also likely to be adjacent to one another within the overall context of a musical score. We refer to this likelihood as the "semantic relevance" between two units.

This measure is obtained from a feature space learned using a DSSM. Though the underlying premise of the DSSM is similar to the DBN autencoder in that the objective is to learn good features in a compressed semantic space, the DSSM features, however, are derived in order to describe the relevance between two different units by specifically maximizing the posterior probability of consecutive units, $P(u_{n}|u_{n-1})$, found in the training data. The same BOW features described in the previous section are used as input to the model. There are two hidden layers and the output layer describes the semantic feature vector used for computing the relevance. Each layer has 128 rectified linear units. The same softmax that was used for the autoencoder for computing loss is used for the DSSM. However, the loss is computed within vectors of the embedding space such that

$$\it{-log}\prod_{(u_{n-1}, u_{n})} P(\vec{u_{n}} | \vec{u_{n-1}})$$ where the vectors, $\vec{u_{n}}$ and $\vec{u_{n-1}}$, represent the 128 length embeddings of each unit derived from the parameters of the DSSM. Once the parameters are learned through gradient descent the model can be used to measure the relevance between any two units, $U_{1}$ and $U_{2}$, using cosine similarity $\it{sim}(\vec{U_{1}}, \vec{U_{2}})$ (see Equation 1).

The DSSM provides a meaningful measure between two units, however, it does not describe how to join the units (which one should come first). Similarly, the BOW representation of the input vector does not contain information that is relevant for making decisions regarding sequence. In order to optimally join two units a second measure is necessary.

## Concatenation Cost

By using a unit library made up of original human compositions or improvisations, we can assume that the information within each unit is musically valid. In an attempt to ensure that the music remains valid after combining new units we employ a concatenation cost to describe the quality of the join between two units. This cost requires sequential information at a more fine grained level than the BOW-DSSM can provide.

We use a multi-layer LSTM to learn a note-to-note level model (akin to a character level language model). Each state in the model represents an individual note that is defined by its pitch and duration. This constitutes about a 3,000 note vocabulary. Using a one-hot encoding for the input, the model is trained to predict the next note, $y_{T}$, given a sequence, ${\bf x} = (x_{1}, ..., x_{T})$, of previously seen notes. During training, the output sequence, ${\bf y} = (y_{1}, ..., y_{T})$, of the network is such that $y_{t} = x_{t+1}$. Therefore, the predictive distribution of possible next notes, $\it{Pr}(x_{T+1}|{\bf x})$, is represented in the output vector, $y_T$. We use a sequence length of $T=36$.

The aim of the concatenation cost is to compute a score evaluating the transition between the last note of the unit, $u_{n-1,x_{T}}$, and the first note of the unit, $u_{n, y_{T}}$. By using an LSTM it is possible to include additional context and note dependencies that exist further in the past than $u_{n-1,x_{T}}$. The cost between two units is computed as

$$\it{C}(u_{n-1},u_{n}) = -\frac{1}{J}\sum_{j}^{J}\it{log}\it{Pr}(x_{j}|{\bf x_{j}})$$ where $J$ is the number of notes in $u_{n}$, $x_{j}$ is the jth note of $u_{n}$, and ${\bf x_{j}}$ is the sequence of notes (with length $T$) immediately before $x_{j}$. Thus, for $j>1$ and $j<T$, ${\bf x_{j}}$ will include notes from $u_{n}$ and $u_{n-1}$ and for $j\geq T$, ${\bf x_{j}}$ will consist of notes entirely from $u_{n}$. In practice, however, the DSSM performs better than the note-level LSTM for predicting the next unit and we found that computing $C$ with $J=1$ provides the best performance. Therefore, the quality of the join is determined using only the first note of the unit in question ($u_{n}$).

The sequence length, $T=36$, was chosen because it is roughly the average number of notes in four measures of music (from our dataset). Unlike the DSSM, which computes distances based on information from a fixed number of measures, the context provided to the LSTM is fixed in the number of notes. This means it may look more or less than four measures into the past. In the scenario in which there is less that 36 notes of available context the sequence is zero padded.

## Ranking Units

A ranking process that combines the semantic relevance and concatenation cost is used to perform unit selection. Often times in music generation systems the music is not generated deterministically, but instead uses a stochastic process and samples from a distribution that is provided by the model. One reason for this is that note-level Markov chains or LSTMs may get "stuck" repeating the same note(s). Adding randomness to the procedure helps to prevent this. Here, we describe a deterministic method as this system is not as prone to repetitive behaviors. However, it is simple to apply stochastic decision processes to this system as the variance provided by sampling can be desirable if the goal is to obtain many different musical outputs from a single input seed.

The ranking process is performed in four steps:

1.  Rank all units according to their semantic relevance with an input seed using the feature space learned by the DSSM.

2.  Take the units whose semantic relevance ranks them in the top 5% and re-rank based on their concatenation cost with the input.

3.  Re-rank the same top 5% based on their combined semantic relevance and concatenation ranks.

4.  Select the unit with the highest combined rank.

By limiting the combined rank score to using only the top 5% we are creating a bias towards the semantic relevance. The decision to do this was motivated by findings from pilot listening tests in which it was found that a coherent melodic sequence relies more on the stylistic or semantic relatedness between two units than a smooth transition at the point of connection.

## Evaluating the model

The model's ability to choose good units can be evaluated using a ranking test. The task for the model is to predict the next unit given a never before seen four measures of music (from the held out test set). The prediction is made by ranking 50 candidates in which one is the truth and the other 49 are units randomly selected from the database. We repeat the experiments for musical units of different lengths including four, two, and one measures. The results are reported in the table below and they are based on the concatenation cost alone (LSTM), semantic relevance (DSSM), and the combined concatenation and semantic relevance using the selection process described above (DSSM+LSTM).

|           |             |       |           |
|:----------|:-----------:|:-----:|:---------:|
| Model     | Unit length |  Acc  | Mean Rank |
|           | (measures)  |       |    @50    |
| LSTM      |      4      | 17.2% |   14.1    |
| DSSM      |      4      | 33.2% |    6.9    |
| DSSM+LSTM |      4      | 36.5% |    5.9    |
| LSTM      |      2      | 16.6% |   14.8    |
| DSSM      |      2      | 24.4% |   10.3    |
| DSSM+LSTM |      2      | 28.0% |    9.1    |
| LSTM      |      1      | 16.1% |   15.7    |
| DSSM      |      1      | 19.7% |   16.3    |
| DSSM+LSTM |      1      | 20.6% |   13.9    |

Unit Ranking

## Discussion

As stated earlier the primary benefit of unit selection is being able to directly apply previously composed music. The challenge is stitching together units such that the musical results are stylistically appropriate and coherent. Another challenge in building unit selection systems is determining the optimal length of the unit. The goal is to use what has been seen before, yet have flexibility in what the system is capable of generating. The results of the ranking task may indicate that units of four measures have the best performance, yet these results do not provide any information describing the quality of the generated music.

Music inherently has a very high variance (especially when considering multiple genres). It may be that unit selection is too constraining and note-level control is necessary to create likeable music. Conversely, it may be that unit selection is sufficient and given an input sequence there may be multiple candidates within the unit database that are suitable for extending the sequence. In instances in which the ranking did not place the truth with the highest rank, we cannot assume that the selection is "wrong" because it may still be musically or stylistically valid. Given that the accuracies are not particularly high in the previous task an additional evaluation step is necessary to both evaluate the unit lengths and to confirm that the decisions made in selecting units are musically appropriate. In order to do this a subjective listening test is necessary.

# Subjective Evaluation

A subjective listening test was performed. Participants included 32 music experts in which a music expert is defined as an individual that has or is pursuing a higher level degree in music, a professional musician, or a music educator. Four systems were evaluated. Three of the systems employed unit selection using units of four, two, and one measures. The fourth system used the note-level LSTM to generate each note at a time.

The design of the test was inspired by subjective evaluations used by the TTS community. To create a sample each of the four systems was provided with the same input seed (retrieved from the held out dataset) and from this seed each then generated four additional measures of music. This process results in four eight-measure music sequences in which each has the same first four measures. The process was repeated 60 times using random four measure input seeds.

In TTS evaluations participants are asked to rate the quality of the synthesis based on naturalness and intelligibility . In music performance systems the quality is typically evaluated using naturalness and likeability . For a given listening sample, a participant is asked to listen to four eight-measure sequences (one for each system) and then are asked to rank the candidates within the sample according to questions pertaining to:

1.  Naturalness of the transition between the first and second four measures.

2.  Stylistic relatedness of the first and second four measures.

3.  Naturalness of the last four measures.

4.  Likeability of the last four measures.

5.  Likeability of the entire eight measures.

Each participant was asked to evaluate 10 samples that were randomly selected from the original 60, thus, all participants listened to music generated by the same four systems, but the actual musical content and order randomly differed from participant to participant. The tests were completed online with an average duration of roughly 80 minutes.

## Results

Rank order tests provide ordinal data that emphasize the relative differences among the systems. The average rank was computed across all participants similarly to TTS-MOS tests. The percent of being top ranked was also computed. These are shown in Figures 5 and 6.

In order to test significance the non-parametric Friedman test for repeated measurements was used. The test evaluates the consistency of measurements (ranks) obtained in different ways (audio samples with varying input seeds). The null hypothesis states that random sampling would result in sums of the ranks for each music system similar to what is observed in the experiment. A bonferonni post-hoc correction was used to correct the p-value for the five hypotheses (derived from the itemized question list described earlier).

For each hypothesis the Friedman test resulted in p\<.05, thus, rejecting the null hypothesis. The sorted ranks for each of the generation system is described in Table 3.

| Variable                      | Best –\>Worst |
|:------------------------------|:-------------:|
| H1 - Transition Naturalness   |  1, N, 2, 4   |
| H2 - Semantic Relatedness     |  1, 2, 4, N   |
| H3 - Naturalness of Generated |  4, 1, 2, N   |
| H4 - Likeability of Generated |  4, 2, 1, N   |
| H5 - Overall Likeability      |  2, 1, 4, N   |

Subjective Ranking

## Discussion

In H3 and H4 the participants were asked to evaluate the quality of the four generated measures alone (disregarding the seed). This means that the sequence resulting from the system that generates units of four measure durations are the unadulterated four measure segments that occurred in the original music. Given there was no computer generation or modification it is not surprising that the four measure system was ranked highest.

The note level generation performed well when it comes to evaluating the naturalness of the transition at the seams between the input seed and computer generated music. However, note level generation does rank highly in the other categories. Our theory is that as the note-level LSTM accumulates error and gets further away from the original input seed the musical quality suffers. This behavior is greatly attenuated in a unit selection method assuming the units are pulled from human compositions.

The results indicate that there exists an optimal unit length that is greater than a single note and less than four measures. This ideal unit length appears to be one or two measures with a bias seemingly favoring one measure. However, to say for certain an additional study is necessary that can better narrow the difference between these two systems.

# Conclusion

We present a method for music generation that utilizes unit selection. The selection process incorporates a score based on the semantic relevance between two units and a score based on the quality of the join at the point of concatenation. Two variables essential to the quality of the system are the breadth and size of the unit database and the unit length. An autoencoder was used to demonstrate the ability to reconstruct never before seen music by picking units out of a database. In the situation that an exact unit is not available the nearest neighbor computed within the embedded vector space is chosen. A subjective listening test was performed in order to evaluate the generated music using different unit durations. Music generated using units of one or two measure durations tended to be ranked higher according to naturalness and likeability than units of four measures or note-level generation.

The system described in this paper generates monophonic melodies and currently does not address situations in which the melodies should conform to a provided harmonic context (chord progression) such as in improvisation. Plans for addressing this are included in future work. Additionally, unit selection may sometimes perform poorly if good units are not available. In such scenarios a hybrid approach that includes unit selection and note-level generation can be useful by allowing the system to take advantage of the structure within each unit whenever appropriate, yet, not restricting the system to the database. Such an approach is also planned for future work.

[^1]: <https://youtu.be/BbyvbO2F7ug>


abstract: Kepler-10b was the first rocky planet detected by the *Kepler* satellite and confirmed with radial velocity follow-up observations from Keck-HIRES. The mass of the planet was measured with a precision of around 30%, which was insufficient to constrain models of its internal structure and composition in detail. In addition to Kepler-10b, a second planet transiting the same star with a period of 45 days was statistically validated, but the radial velocities were only good enough to set an upper limit of 20 $M_{\oplus}$ for the mass of Kepler-10c. To improve the precision on the mass for planet b, the HARPS-N Collaboration decided to observe Kepler-10 intensively with the HARPS-N spectrograph on the Telescopio Nazionale Galileo on La Palma. In total, 148 high-quality radial-velocity measurements were obtained over two observing seasons. These new data allow us to improve the precision of the mass determination for Kepler-10b to 15%. With a mass of 3.33 $\pm$ 0.49 $M_{\oplus}$ and an updated radius of $1.47^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ $R_{\oplus}$, Kepler-10b has a density of 5.8 $\pm$ 0.8 g cm$^{-3}$, very close to the value predicted by models with the same internal structure and composition as the Earth. We were also able to determine a mass for the 45-day period planet Kepler-10c, with an even better precision of 11%. With a mass of 17.2 $\pm$ 1.9 $M_{\oplus}$ and radius of $2.35^{+0.09}_{-0.04}$ $R_{\oplus}$, Kepler-10c has a density of 7.1 $\pm$ 1.0 g cm$^{-3}$. Kepler-10c appears to be the first strong evidence of a class of more massive solid planets with longer orbital periods.
author: Xavier Dumusque, Aldo S. Bonomo, Raphaëlle D. Haywood, Luca Malavolta, Damien Ségransan, Lars A. Buchhave, Andrew Collier Cameron, David W. Latham, Emilio Molinari, Francesco Pepe, Stéphane Udry, David Charbonneau, Rosario Cosentino, Courtney D. Dressing, Pedro Figueira, Aldo F. M. Fiorenzano, Sara Gettel, Avet Harutyunyan, Keith Horne, Mercedes Lopez-Morales, Christophe Lovis, Michel Mayor, Giusi Micela, Fatemeh Motalebi, Valerio Nascimbeni, David F. Phillips, Giampaolo Piotto, Don Pollacco, Didier Queloz, Ken Rice, Dimitar Sasselov, Alessandro Sozzetti, Andrew Szentgyorgyi, Chris Watson
bibliography: dumusque_bibliography.bib
title:  The Kepler-10 planetary system revisited by HARPS-N:
  A hot rocky world and a solid Neptune-mass planet.

Swiss National Science Foundation Fellow; email@example.com

Based on observations made with the Italian Telescopio Nazionale Galileo (TNG) operated on the island of La Palma by the Fundación Galileo Galilei of the INAF (Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica) at the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias.

# Introduction

Transiting planets enable a rich variety of opportunities to explore planetary astrophysics, ranging from the determination of bulk densities to studies of system architectures and atmospheric compositions, and even climate and weather. However, for most of these studies, a critical first step is the determination of a dynamical mass that confirms and characterizes the planetary nature of the candidate. This mass, together with the size of the planet determined from the light curve, yields the bulk density of the planet.

The importance of determining dynamical masses for small planets, either by Doppler spectroscopy or transit-time variations (TTVs) or a photo-dynamical analysis, was brought into focus by the results for the five small inner planets transiting Kepler-11, ranging in size from 1.8 to 4.2 times the diameter of the Earth . The masses derived from TTVs eventually led to densities ranging from 1.7 down to 0.58 g cm$^{-3}$ , much less than the Earth's bulk density of 5.5 g cm$^{-3}$, presumably due to extended atmospheres of hydrogen and helium. It became clear that a better understanding of the occurrence rate for planets similar to the Earth would require density determinations for a significant population of small planets.

CoRot-7b was the first small planet that looked like it might be dense enough to be rocky . However, determining its dynamical mass was quite challenging, because strong stellar activity was perturbing the radial velocities (RV) of the host star. This inspired work on ways to reduce the impact of activity-induced RV signals: pre-whitening by the rotation period and harmonics , correlation with activity indicators , velocity differences using multiple observations during the same night , correlation with photometric variations , and treating stellar activity as correlated noise . This work is finally leading to a consensus that CoRoT-7b has a density consistent with a rocky planet. Moreover, learning how to correct the CoRoT photometry and RV measurements for stellar activity is now paying off for other cases .

Kepler-10b is in many ways a twin of CoRoT-7b, in terms of size and orbital period, but has the advantage of transiting an old quiet star. Still, the mass reported in the discovery paper, 4.56 $\pm$ 1.3 $M_{\oplus}$, has a precision not much better than three sigma , which is well short of the accuracy needed to distinguish a rocky planet from a water world, nominally 10%, as we argue below. The discovery paper also reported the detection of a second transiting planet candidate with a period of 45 days and radius of 2.23 $R_{\oplus}$ in the *Kepler* photometry. However, no orbital motion at this period was detected in the observed radial velocities, and only an upper limit of 20 $M_{\oplus}$ could be placed on the mass. With more *Kepler* data and simultaneous *Spitzer Space Telescope* photometry, reanalyzed the Kepler-10 system and statistically validated the planetary nature of Kepler-10c with BLENDER . This result was not a surprise, because planet candidates in multi-transit systems are much less likely to be false positives than candidates in single-transit systems .

Kepler-36 has provided the most accurate mass for a confirmed rocky planet, based on the extreme TTVs observed in the $Kepler$ photometry for this system, which boasts two transiting planets in orbits close to a 6:7 resonance . This is an example of a new approach, a photo-dynamical analysis that uses the rich information available when three or more bodies all eclipse or transit each other in compact orbits. However, this is a bizarre system in which the neighboring planets have densities that differ by a factor of 8, and it is not clear how the system formed, or how much longer it will survive. But, photo-dynamical analysis is a powerful path to detailed masses and radii for those extremely rare systems with mutual events and continuous high-quality light curves such as those provided by $Kepler$.

Kepler-78b is the smallest transiting planet with a well-determined mass (radius of 1.16 $R_{\oplus}$ and mass of 1.86 $M_{\oplus}$), implying a density very similar to that of the Earth, but with large uncertainties . This recent success was enabled by the extremely short orbital period of 8.5 hours, implying a molten surface facing the host star and most likely a very different history of formation compared to the Earth.

Another important recent result is the heroic effort to determine masses for a few dozen small planet candidates using HIRES , with positive detections for about two dozen. Even though the uncertainties on the masses of these objects are typically one or two sigma, this is still good enough to verify that they are planets because of the strong constraints provided by the photometric ephemerides. As a population, many of them are likely to be rocky, but the results are not good enough to characterize any individual planet in detail.

The HARPS-N Collaboration established the goal of measuring masses and radii with an accuracy sufficient to constrain models of the internal structure and composition of individual small planets, focusing on those with compact atmospheres. For example, an accuracy of nominally 10% or better in mass and 5% or better in radius is needed to distinguish rocky planets with iron cores from those with extensive water content, according to recent models .

At the start of HARPS-N science operations in August 2012, Kepler-10b looked like the best target for pursuing this goal. It had already been confirmed as a rocky planet, with a mass of 4.56 $M_{\oplus}$, a radius of 1.42 $R_{\oplus}$, and a density of 8.8 g cm$^{-3}$ . In addition, the stellar parameters of Kepler-10 are well constrained by asteroseismology , which gives us an unprecedented precision on the radius of Kepler-10b. The mass determination was based on 40 precise radial velocity measurements obtained with Keck-HIRES, and the uncertainty in the density of nearly 30% was dominated by the uncertainty in the mass. Over the 2012 and 2013 observing seasons, we accumulated nearly four times as many radial velocities for Kepler-10 . In this paper, we present the analysis of these new data, which allow us to improve the uncertainty of the mass for Kepler-10b by about a factor of two, and to determine precisely the mass of Kepler-10c for the first time.

# Observations and data reduction

We monitored the radial velocity variation of Kepler-10 with the HARPS-N spectrograph installed on the 3.57-m Telescopio Nazionale Galileo (TNG) at the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos, La Palma Island, Spain . This instrument is an updated version of the original HARPS planet hunter installed on the 3.6-meter telescope at the European Southern Observatory on La Silla, Chile . Just like its older brother, the HARPS-N instrument is an ultra-stable fiber-fed high-resolution (R=115,000) optical echelle spectrograph optimized for the measurement of very precise radial velocities. The use of a more modern monolithic 4k$\times$`<!-- -->`{=html}4k CCD enclosed in a more temperature stable cryostat, and the use of octagonal fibers for a better scrambling of the incoming light fed into the spectrograph should improve the precision of the instrument compared to HARPS. By observing standard stars of known constant radial velocity during the first year of operation, we estimated the RV precision to be of at least 1 m s$^{-1}$ when not limited by photon noise. When observing fainter stars, we expect a radial-velocity precision of 1.2 m s$^{-1}$ to be achieved in a 1-h exposure on a slowly rotating late-G or K-type dwarf with m$_V$ = 12.

Scientific operations began at HARPS-N in August 2012. Over the first two observing seasons, we obtained 157 radial velocity measurements of Kepler-10. Four observations that were obtained during bad weather conditions had very low signal to noise ($<$ 10) and were rejected. During the first year of operation, in 2012, half of the CCD stopped working and the stellar spectra were only recorded on half of the echelle orders. With only a subset of the lines used to derive the RV using the cross correlation technique, it is not clear if the data taken with half of the chip can be used or not. We therefore decided to reject those five points that were taken before the CCD was replaced. This paper therefore presents 148 RV observations of Kepler-10, that are listed in Table .

```latex
\begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablewidth{16.5cm}
\tablecaption{HARPS-N RV measurements. \label{tab:01}}
\startdata
            \tableline
            \tableline  BJD - 2400000 & RV & RV error & FWHM & FWHM error & log(R'$_{HK}$) & log(R'$_{HK}$) error & SNR\\
                    (d)   & (km\,s$^{-1}$) & (km\,s$^{-1}$) & (km\,s$^{-1}$) & (km\,s$^{-1}$) & (dex) & (dex) & 550nm\\
            \tableline
56072.682384    &   -98.742550  &   0.001760    &   -0.001413   &   0.003948    &   -4.9939 &   0.0212  &   56.20\\
56072.704768    &   -98.742890  &   0.001860    &   -0.010146   &   0.004183    &   -4.9569 &   0.0250  &   53.40\\
56087.575720    &   -98.741520  &   0.002190    &   -0.004506   &   0.004982    &   -4.9606 &   0.0394  &   45.00\\
56087.596901    &   -98.735480  &   0.001980    &   -0.012499   &   0.004465    &   -4.9903 &   0.0334  &   48.50\\
56103.661644    &   -98.740400  &   0.002390    &   -0.013195   &   0.005499    &   -4.9856 &   0.0346  &   38.70\\
\nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\

        \enddata
        \tablecomments{Table \ref{tab:01} is published in its entirety in the electronic edition of the Astrophysical Journal.
A portion is shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
\end{deluxetable}
```

Kepler-10 has a *Kepler* magnitude $Kp=10.96$ (m$_V$ = 11.16), so exposure times of 30 minutes were required to reach a SNR adequate for high RV precision. Scaling from the expected precision for faint stars given in the first paragraph of this section, 30 minutes of exposure on the slowly rotating G-type dwarf Kepler-10 should yield a precision of 1.12 m s$^{-1}$. Looking at the data, the best precision we could get on a single measurement was 1.16 m s$^{-1}$ for an SNR of 80 at 550 nm. However, due to not always optimal conditions, the average error on the entire RV set is 1.63 m s$^{-1}$ for an average SNR of 59 at 550 nm. This precision is two times smaller than the RV semi-amplitude of Kepler-10b , and was expected to be roughly the same as the semi-amplitude of Kepler-10c, assuming that planet has the same mass as the similar-sized planet Kepler-68b .

The data exhibit a small RV offset between the measurements taken with the old and the new CCD mainly because of the different charge transfer efficiency of the detectors. This offset will be considered as a free parameter when fitting the RVs.

# Stellar properties

Stellar parameters for Kepler-10 have been determined using a combined spectrum with of 750 at 550 nm, resulting from the co-addition of all the individual spectra with $\geq 30$, after dividing by the blaze function and correcting for the barycentric velocity.

Equivalent widths (EWs) were measured using a modification of the ARES code , which provides an estimate of the error in the continuum determination and the root mean square of the residuals of the Gaussian fit. These values, together with the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of each line, were used to reject lines with poorly measured EWs. Weak lines with EWs $\leq 5$mÅ were excluded from the analysis because of sensitivity to continuum determination. In addition, lines with EW $\geq 110$mÅ  were also not considered because those lines depart from Gaussian shape.

Atmospheric parameters were determined using the 2013 version of the local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) code and the Kurucz model atmosphere grid[^1] calculated with the new opacity distribution function . Atmospheric models were interpolated with a software developed by A. McWilliam and I. Ivans and provided by C. Sneden.

We adopted the line list from , but the oscillator strength values were re-determined by inverse analysis of their Solar EWs using an Iron abundance of $\log\,\epsilon(\mathrm{Fe})=  7.52$ (and the other photospheric parameters unchanged), to be consistent with the Solar value used in the calculation of the model atmosphere grid and by in the abundance computation.

Atmospheric parameters were derived in a classical way. Effective temperature $T_{{\rm eff}}$ was adjusted until there was no dependance of individual abundances with the excitation potential (EP) of the lines. The microturbulence velocity was determined by requiring that the abundance be independent of the reduced equivalent widths (REW = EW $/\,\lambda$). Surface gravity was estimated by imposing the ionization equilibrium, i. e. by forcing agreement between the abundances derived from and lines. We cycled between each parameter iteratively until convergence was reached. To make sure that our determination was not influenced by the initial guess of the atmospheric parameters, we tested our results against several different input values, finding no significant difference in the derived atmospheric parameters.

Internal errors were estimated by considering the dispersion around the mean $\sigma$() of $\log \epsilon$() and its effect on the parameter determination. For $\sigma_{T_{\rm eff}}$ we considered the variation in temperature resulting from a slope equal to the ratio between $\sigma$() and the range in EP, and similarly for $\sigma_{\xi_{\rm t}}$ using the range in REW. The dependance of the atmospheric parameters on temperature was evaluated by repeating the analysis with the effective temperature fixed at $T_{\rm eff} \pm\sigma_{T_{\rm eff}}$, following .

To derive the final atmospheric parameters, we fixed the value of to 4.34, as derived in the recent asteroseismology study of . This choice was made because the gravity of solar-type stars is known to be better constrained by asteroseismology, and because the value derived from EW analysis, = 4.38 $\pm$ 0.8 is fully in agreement. With this value fixed, the final atmospheric parameters for Kepler-10 are $T_{\rm eff} = 5721 \pm 26$ K, $= -0.14 \pm 0.02$, and $=1.10 \pm 0.05$ km s$^{-1}$. This result was obtained using 191 and lines. The same analysis performed on several individual spectra returned values consistent within the errors, i. e. co-addition of spectra did not introduce any systematic effect. For comparison, the analysis on the Sun using the HARPS reflection spectrum of Ganymede provided by Sousa et al. (2007) results in $T_{\rm eff} = 5781 \pm 22$ K, $=4.45 \pm 0.06$, $=1.03 \pm 0.04$ km s$^{-1}$, $= 0.00 \pm 0.02$, which are perfectly consistent with the canonical values for the Sun.

To double-check our derived atmospheric parameters, we also used the SPC code to derive these parameters with a different method. The final values we found with this technique, fixing to 4.34, are $T_{\rm eff}=5695 \pm 50$ K, $=-0.16 \pm 0.08$, and $v\,{\rm sin}\,i=0.6 \pm 0.5$ km s$^{-1}$. These results are consistent with the preceding analysis, which provides confidence in the derived atmospheric parameters.

The adopted $T_{\rm eff}$ and $[{\rm Fe}/{\rm H}]$ are the averages of the values obtained independently with the two aforementioned methods, i.e. $T_{\rm eff}=5708 \pm 28$ K and $[{\rm Fe}/{\rm H}]=-0.15 \pm 0.04$. The mass, radius, surface gravity, and age of Kepler-10 (see Table ) were afterwards determined by comparing the asteroseismic stellar density $\rho_\star$ as measured by Fogtmann-Schulz et al. (2014), the $T_{\rm eff}$, and $[{\rm Fe}/{\rm H}]$ with the Yonsei-Yale evolutionary tracks (; see e.g. and ) and by performing the same chi-square minimization as in . Uncertainties on stellar parameters were estimated through 5 000 Monte Carlo simulations by assuming independent gaussian errors on $\rho_\star$, $T_{\rm eff}$, and $[{\rm Fe}/{\rm H}]$. Stellar parameters and their $1-\sigma$ errors are listed in Table  and are practically identical to those derived by , as expected, because our effective temperature and stellar metallicity are consistent within $1-\sigma$ with the values found by these authors. No more iterations to re-determine the atmospheric parameters were required because the derived stellar surface gravity, i.e. $\log\,g_{\star}=4.344 \pm 0.004$, is equal to the previously fixed value.

```latex
\begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablewidth{12.5cm}
\tablecaption{Kepler-10 stellar and atmospheric parameters.\label{tab:1-0}}
\startdata
            \tableline
            \tableline Parameters & Values & References\\
            \tableline
            Mass, $M_{\star}$ ($M_{\odot}$)                     &   $ 0.910 \pm 0.021 $         & A \\
            Radius, $R_{\star}$ ($R_{\odot}$)                       &   $ 1.065 \pm 0.009$          & A \\
            Stellar density, $\overline{\rho}_{\star}$ (g\,cm$^{-3}$)       &   $1.068 \pm 0.004$           & B \\
            Age (Gyr)                                           &   $10.6^{+1.5}_{-1.3}$        & A \\
            Distance (pc)                                       &   173 $\pm$ 27                & C \\
            Luminosity, $L_{\star}$ ($L_{\odot}$)                   &   1.004 $\pm$ 0.059           & C \\
            Absolute V magnitude, $M_V$ (mag)                   &   4.746 $\pm$ 0.063           & C\\
            Magnitude, $m_V$ (mag)                              &   11.157                  & D\\
            Color index $(\mathrm{B-V})$                            &   0.622                   & D\\
            Effective temperature, $T_{\rm eff}$ (K)                    &   5708 $\pm$ 28           & A\\
            Surface gravity, $\log\,g_{\star}$                      &   4.344  $\pm$ 0.004 (fixed)  & A\\
            Microturbulence velocity, \mbox{$\xi_{\rm t}$} (km\,s$^{-1}$)   &   1.07 $\pm$ 0.05             & A \\
            Metallicity, \mbox{$[{\rm Fe}/{\rm H}]$}                    &   $-0.15$ $\pm$ 0.04          & A \\
            Activity index, $<$Log(R'$_{HK}$)$>$                    &   $-4.96$                 & A \\
            Projected rotation, $v\,{\rm sin}\,i$ (km\,s$^{-1}$)                &   0.6 $\pm$ 0.5\quad - \quad2.04 $\pm$ 0.34& A\\
\enddata
        \tablerefs{A: this work, B: \citet{Fogtmann-Schulz-2014}, C: \citet{Fressin-2011}, D: \citet{Everett-2012}}
        \tablecomments{Two values can be found for the $v\,{\rm sin}\,i$. The first one has been derived with SPC \citep[][]{Buchhave-2012} by fitting synthetic spectra to the observed spectra. This type of analysis is not sensitive to $v\,{\rm sin}\,i$ values below $\sim$2\,km\,s$^{-1}$ because of the limit imposed by the spectrograph resolution. The other value is derived using the full width at half maximum of the cross correlation function (see Section \ref{section:2-1-1}). The error bars represent a $1-\sigma$ uncertainty on the parameters.}
\end{deluxetable}
```

The center-of-mass velocity of Kepler-10 relative to the solar system barycenter is $-98.7$ km s$^{-1}$. This is an unusually large RV that was already noticed in . Given this barycentric radial velocity, the proper motion of 38 mas yr$^{-1}$ , and the estimated distance of 173 pc , the probability of the star being a member of the thick disk is 96% . This is consistent with the old age of the star, i.e. $10.6^{+1.5}_{-1.3}$ Gyr. Stars of the thick disc are normally more metal poor than Kepler-10, like for example WASP-21 with a $=-0.46$. However the separation in metallicity is not such a clear-cut argument .

# Analysis of the radial velocity data

This section is dedicated to the detection of the orbital motion induced by Kepler-10b and c in the HARPS-N RV data, and the best estimation of their masses. We first discuss the activity of the star and its rotational period, as these parameters can give us important information for the selection of the best model to use when fitting the data. Indeed, significant stellar activity will induce RV variations, and in this case, a suitable model should be considered.

## Kepler-10 stellar activity and induced radial velocity variations

Kepler-10 is a very old main sequence star, estimated to be 10.6 Gyr old, which should imply a low activity level. When measuring the HK chromospheric activity index (hereafter calcium activity index) of Kepler-10 , which is the best activity proxy for solar type stars, we find an average value of log(R'$_{HK}$) equal to $-4.96$, with a standard error of 0.04 dex (see Figure ). This average is near the lower end of the solar value, which varies between $-5$ and $-4.8$ along its activity cycle. It is possible that we just observed the star during its minimum activity phase, which represents $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}30% of the solar cycle. However, during the four years of *Kepler* photometry, we do not see any strong variation similar to that induced by typical solar active regions when the Sun is active (see last following paragraph). The study of the activity index points to a star quieter than the Sun, which is compatible with its old age. With this low activity level, we do not expect the RVs to be significantly affected .

To estimate the RV variations induced by activity for Kepler-10, we compared the amplitude of the variations seen in the *Kepler* photometry with that expected from active region simulations. Excluding quarters 4 and 17 because they were not detrended by the PDCMAP reduction pipeline , and quarter 9 because of instrumental systematics, the maximum peak-to-peak variation in the photometry is less than 500 ppm. Assuming that this variation is due to activity and not to instrumental systematics, and assuming a star with no limb darkening, a 500 ppm variation in photometry would be induced by a dark spot with a filling factor of 0.05%. According to , a 1% dark spot would induce a RV semi-amplitude of 35 m s$^{-1}$ for a $v\,{\rm sin}\,i$ of 3 km s$^{-1}$. Scaling from this value, this spot would induce a 1.75 m s$^{-1}$ semi-amplitude. Considering a more sophisticated model that includes quadratic limb-darkening, convective blueshift suppression in active regions, and a more realistic $v\,{\rm sin}\,i$ of 2 km s$^{-1}$ (see Table ), this spot would have a filling factor of 0.09%, and would induce a peak-to-peak RV variation of 1.1 m s$^{-1}$ (Dumusque et al., in prep.). If instead we assume that a plage is inducing this 500 ppm photometric variation, its size would be much larger, 1.4%, and it would induce a RV peak to-peak variation of 5 m s$^{-1}$. However a plage would also strongly affect the FWHM of the cross correlation function by a peak-to-peak variation of 20 m s$^{-1}$ that is not observed (Dumusque et al., in prep.). In conclusion, the variations observed in the Kepler-10 photometry, if due to activity, would be induced by the presence of spots, and would correspond to a maximum RV peak-to-peak modulation of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}1 m s$^{-1}$, lower than the RV error bars (see Section ). We therefore do not expect the RVs to be dominated by an activity signal, which is consistent with the low activity index of log(R'$_{HK})=-4.96$ that is measured for the star.

## Kepler-10 rotational period

In this section, we estimate the rotational period of Kepler-10 using several different techniques: activity and stellar age estimations, projected rotational velocity, and the *Kepler* photometry.

### Kepler-10 rotational period estimation with activity index and stellar age

The activity level and rotational period are strongly correlated for main sequence stars. Indeed, stellar activity is generated through the stellar magnetic dynamo, the strength of which appears to scale with rotation velocity . Both stellar activity and rotation are observed to decay with age . In the course of their evolution, solar-type stars lose angular momentum via magnetic braking due to coupling with their stellar wind .

With an age of 10.6 Gyr, Kepler-10 is a very old main sequence star, which should imply a rotational period longer than the Sun, and therefore a lower activity level. We saw in the preceding section that the activity level of Kepler-10 is very low, with an average value of log(R'$_{HK})=-4.96$. With this average activity value and a color index $(\mathrm{B-V})= 0.622$ , we can estimate a rotational period of 21.9 $\pm$ 3.0 days using the empirical relation of . The age of 3.7 Gyr given by this empirical relation is much younger than the value derived with asteroseismology. However gyrochronology relations are not well constrained for old main-sequence stars. Given this inconsistency, we can only conclude that the star should be rotating more slowly than a period of 22 days.

Stellar rotation can also be studied by analyzing the periodicity of the variation of the HK chromospheric activity index. Active regions coming in and out of view will induce a semi-periodic signal in the activity index and the RVs . When looking at a generalized Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the calcium activity index derived with HARPS-N spectra in Figure , signals with periods greater than 30 days can be found. However these signals all have a false alarm probability (FAP) greater than 10% implying that there is no significant variation in the activity level, which is generally the case for slow rotators that exhibit a low activity level.

### Kepler-10 rotational period estimation with projected rotational velocity

Another way of estimating the rotational period of the star is using the projected rotational velocity $v\,{\rm sin}\,i$ measured on the stellar spectra, as rotation will broaden spectral lines. As we can see in Table , the value of 0.6 km s$^{-1}$ derived by fitting HARPS-N spectra with synthetic spectra is extremely low (using the SPC code). This value is consistent with the one derived in the discovery paper using the SME code . These techniques are not sensitive below $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}2 km s$^{-1}$ because of the limited instrumental resolution. Another way of estimating the $v\,{\rm sin}\,i$ is to look at the FWHM of the cross correlation function used to derive the RVs . In this case, the instrumental FWHM is 5.9 $\pm$ 0.2 km s$^{-1}$ at $(\mathrm{B-V})= 0.7$, and Kepler-10 has a FWHM of 6.41 km s$^{-1}$. Using the numerical factor of 1.23 from valid for slow rotators, we arrive to $v\,{\rm sin}\,i = \sqrt{\mathrm{FWHM}^2-\mathrm{FWHM_{\mathrm{inst}}}^2}/1.23 = 2.04 \pm 0.34$ km s$^{-1}$. Assuming that the star is seen equator on, which is probable given that we have a multi-planet transiting system , and assuming a radius of 1.065 $R_{\odot}$, our two $v\,{\rm sin}\,i$ estimates point to slow rotational periods of 90 and 26 days, respectively.

### Kepler-10 rotational period estimation using the *Kepler* photometry

Finally, rotation can also be studied with *Kepler* light curves by searching for flux variations induced by active regions coming in and out of view. As these active regions rotate with the star, a signal with a period similar to the rotation of the star is expected. Depending on the coverage and evolution of active regions, the amplitude of the activity signal can strongly vary from one rotational period to the next because these regions only live for a short amount of time. On the Sun, the lifetime of active regions is about a few rotational periods .

*Kepler* light curves over time spans of dozens of days are strongly affected by instrumental systematics. As clearly stated in the *Kepler* Data Release 21 Notes, the detrended light curves (PDCSAP) should not be used to look for stellar rotational periods greater than 20 days, as the pipeline removes all signals on longer timescales. Because all the rotation indicators discussed in the preceding sections agree on a rotational period greater than 20 days, we did not attempt to derive the rotational period of Kepler-10 using the *Kepler* photometry.

We used different indicators to infer the rotational period of Kepler-10. None of these indicators can give us a precise value, but they all agree that the star rotates with a period longer than 20 days.

## Kepler-10b

Kepler-10b has an orbital period of 0.84 days, and therefore several measurements per night were obtained to sample efficiently the planetary signal. The other signal expected in the RVs of Kepler-10 is the one coming from Kepler-10c with a 45 day period, if detectable. Considering these signals, the RV variation expected over two days is dominated by Kepler-10b, and as was done for Kepler-78b , we decided to adjust the RV offset every two nights to filter out the signal of Kepler-10c . Assuming that the eccentricity of Kepler-10b is small , we fit the RVs with a model composed of a circular orbit plus an RV offset for every two nights. Repeating this optimization over a grid of orbital frequencies and times of mid-transit, we confirm that the RV signal of Kepler-10b is consistent with the photometric transit ephemeris (see Figure *left*).

The best fit for the planetary signal, with a reduced $\chi^2$ of 1.52, converges to a semi-amplitude of $K$ = 2.51$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}0.32 m s$^{-1}$. This semi-amplitude, although smaller, is compatible with the discovery solution, $K$ = 3.3$^{+0.8}_{-1}$ m s$^{-1}$. The phase-folded RV signal of Kepler-10b, with the RV offset corrected every two nights can be found in Figure *right*.

## Kepler-10c

In the preceding section, we analyzed the data without considering Kepler-10c. The signal of this planet, if detectable, was filtered out by adjusting the RV offset every two nights. In this section, we do not utilize this filtering and instead search for significant signals in the generalized Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the raw RVs.

When looking at the GLS periodogram (see Figure *left*), it is clear that a signal at 45 days emerges from the noise, even when the signal of Kepler-10b is not removed. To push the analysis further and check that this 45-day signal corresponds to Kepler-10c and not stellar activity, we removed the signal of Kepler-10b by fitting a circular orbit, fixing the period and the transit time to the published values , and leaving the amplitude as a free parameter. We then compared the GLS periodogram of the RV residuals for the measurements obtained in 2012, the ones obtained in 2013, and for the entire data set. As we can see in Figure *right*, the 45-day signal can be seen in each individual subset. The period of this signal is not well constrained, but it has the same phase from one subset to the other, which is expected for a planetary signal. The semi-amplitudes found, fitting a circular orbit with the published photometric ephemeris of Kepler-10c , are 3.38 $\pm$ 0.62, 3.74 $\pm$ 0.44, and 3.11 $\pm$ 0.35 m s$^{-1}$ for the measurements obtained in 2012, the ones obtained in 2013, and for the entire data set, respectively. The good agreement between these amplitudes, in addition to the fact that the signal keeps the same phase from one year to the next, are strong arguments in favor of the planetary nature of the signal.

## MCMC analysis of the RVs assuming Gaussian noise with priors from *Kepler* photometry

The preceding section showed that the signal of Kepler-10c is present in the RV data. The next step is to obtain reliable parameters for the mass of this planet[^2]. The *Kepler* photometry exhibits 1124 transits of Kepler-10b and 24 transits of Kepler-10c, which gives us a very-high precision on the period and the transit epoch for both planets. The RV measurements sample $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}350 periods of Kepler-10b and $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}7 periods of Kepler-10c, with a much sparser sampling. From those numbers, it is clear that the period and the transit time are constrained by the photometry itself and that RV measurements will not help to improve the determination of these parameters. We therefore decided to fit the RV data only, using the strong priors on the planetary periods and times of transit given by the photometry. These parameters were estimated by fitting, on all the available *Kepler* short-cadence simple-aperture-photometry data[^3] (up to quarter Q17, with a $5-\sigma$ outlier rejection), a model for each transit , and a straight line to the individual transit times. The ephemeris values are reported in Table and are consistent within $1-\sigma$ with those previously derived by and later on by .

The model that is fitted to the RV data includes two Keplerian signals, one for each planet, plus a RV offset $RV_{0}$ to account for a possible offset between the data taken with the old and the new HARPS-N CCD: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta RV(t_i) = \gamma + RV_{0}(t_i) + \sum_{j=1}^{j=2} K_j \left[\cos(\theta(t_i,T_{0,j},P_j,e_j) + \omega_j) + e_j\,\cos(\omega_j) \right].
\end{aligned}$$ In this formula, $\gamma$ is the systemic velocity of Kepler-10, and $RV_{0}(t_i)=0$ for $t_i <$ BJD=2456185 and a constant for $t_i >$ BJD=2456185. Each planet $j$ is characterized by its semi-amplitude $K_j$, period $P_j$, time of periastron $T_{0,j}$, eccentricity $e_j$ and argument of periastron $\omega_j$. The function $\theta(t_i,T_{0,j},P_j,e_j)$ is the true anomaly of the planet at time $t_i$. In addition to this model, we also consider that Gaussian noise of stellar origin could affect the RVs. The choice of a Gaussian noise term was made because Kepler-10 does not show any significant sign of activity. Therefore, correlation between measurements due to active regions drifting on the stellar surface is not expected. However, granulation phenomena induced by stellar convection are known to induce correlated noise in the RVs . With an effective temperature similar to the Sun, super granulation, which is the most important phenomenon of granulation, should induce a RV rms smaller than 1 m s$^{-1}$ on the timescale of a day. This should perturb the RV signal of Kepler-10b only slightly because the RV semi-amplitude of this planet is three times bigger. In addition, the strategy of observing the target twice per night, over more than 70 nights, allows us to average out this correlated noise. Regarding Kepler-10c, we do not expect any perturbation as the timescale of super granulation and the planetary period are totally different. We concluded that no significant correlated noise should affect the RV measurements of Kepler-10, and we decided to only consider Gaussian noise when fitting the data.

Before starting any fitting procedure on the data, the $T_{0,j}$ values for both planets were shifted close to the average date of the HARPS-N observations to limit error propagation when fitting the periods $P_j$ and epochs $T_{0,j}$. In addition, we used $C_j = \sqrt{e_j}\cos(\omega_j)$ and $S_j = \sqrt{e_j}\sin(\omega_j)$ as free parameters of the fit instead of $e_j$ and $\omega_j$. This modification allows a more efficient exploration of the parameter space in the case of small eccentricities , which is the case for Kepler-10b and c . The model is then fitted to the data using a MCMC algorithm that is similar to the one recently applied to the CoRoT-7 system (see Haywood et al. submitted). The stellar signal contribution is modeled as a constant jitter term $\sigma_{sj}$ in addition to the RV instrumental noise $\sigma_i$ returned by the HARPS-N pipeline. The following likelihood: $$\begin{aligned}
 \label{eq:2-3-1-0}
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi(\sigma_i^2+\sigma_{sj}^2)}}\,\,exp\left[-\frac{\left(RV(t_i)-\Delta_{RV}(t_i)\right)^2}{2 (\sigma_i^2+\sigma_{sj}^2)}\right]
\end{aligned}$$ is used for the MCMC. Uniform priors were set on all the parameters with the constrain that the RV jitter and semi-amplitudes of both Kepler-10b and c must be greater or equal than zero. Gaussian priors for the period and the transit epoch of both planets were imposed based on our previous photometric ephemeris determination (see Table ).

Although find very low eccentricities for both planets, we decided to test a model with free orbital eccentricities (13 parameters) as well as one with eccentricities fixed to zero (9 parameters). In order to assess which model is best, we calculated the marginal likelihood of each model according to the method of (see the appendix in Haywood et al. submitted), which uses the posterior distributions of the MCMC chain. We obtained a Bayes factor of 10 in favour of the model with fixed zero eccentricities. While this does not constitute strong evidence, according to , in favor of circular orbits, it implies that the penalty induced by the extra parameters needed to allow free eccentricities outweighs the increase in likelihood brought by the improvements to the fit. Indeed, when the eccentricities are free to vary, we obtain $e_b < 0.12$ and $e_c < 0.14$ which suggests that both orbits are compatible with circular orbits. The outcome of the circular orbit fit is shown in Table , where the modes of the marginal posteriors with their errors are shown. The phase-folded RVs with the best fit model for Kepler-10b and c can be found in Figure , and the posteriors for all the parameters with their mutual correlation can be found in Figure .

The RV semi-amplitudes found for Kepler-10b and c are in agreement with our preceding analyses within $1-\sigma$ (see Sections and ). These semi-amplitudes are estimated with an uncertainty of 14% and 11%, respectively. Looking at the GLS periodogram of the RV residuals after removing our best fit solution (see the left plot of Figure ), the highest signal remaining in the data is found at $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}17 days, with a FAP of 0.5%. The FAP of this signal is significant enough to try a three-planet model fit. Performing an MCMC with three circular planets converges to a realistic solution. Calculating the Bayes factor between the two and three-planet models results in a highly significant factor of $e^{14}$ in favor of the more complex model. However, looking at the periodogram for each season of observation (see the right plot of Figure ), the 17-day signal is only present in the second season. This signal is thus not a coherent signal of constant amplitude spanning both seasons, and therefore cannot be associated to a planet. When removing the RV measurements between BJD = 2456350 and BJD = 2456450 (31 points in total, equal to 20% of all the measurements), the 17-day signal disappear from the residuals (see the right plot of Figure ). These rejected RV measurements seem affected by small activity variations that can be seen when looking at the calcium activity index variation (see left plot of Figure ). The periodogram of the calcium activity index (see right plot of Figure ) shows important, however not significant signals at 34 days and at the first harmonic, i.e 17 days. It is thus possible that the 17-day signal present in the RVs residuals is the first harmonic of the stellar rotation. This 17-day period signal, highly significant when estimating Bayes factor assuming an extra planet, seems to be instead due to short-term activity variations. Even though Bayes factor favors a more complex model including an extra planet, an in-depth analysis is required to characterize the real nature of this extra signal.

## Combined MCMC analysis of the RVs and *Kepler* photometry considering RV Gaussian noise

In this section, we proceed to a combined RV and photometric fit to determine the orbital and physical parameters of Kepler-10b and c by taking advantage of all the available *Kepler* data.

To derive the Kepler-10 system parameters, a Bayesian combined analysis of the *Kepler* short-cadence photometry and HARPS-N radial-velocity measurements was performed using a Differential Evolution Markov Chain Monte Carlo method . For this purpose, the epochs of the HARPS-N observations were converted from $\rm BJD_{UTC}$ into $\rm BJD_{TDB}$ , which is the time stamp of *Kepler* data. The light curves of Kepler-10b and 10c were phase-folded with our new ephemeris (see Table , and discussion in Section ) and binned in samples of 4 s and 30 s, respectively, to significantly reduce the computation time of our combined analysis.

The HARPS-N radial velocities and the phase-folded and binned light curves of Kepler-10b and c were simultaneously fitted by considering a two-planet model with two Keplerian orbits and two transit models . Circular orbits were adopted for both planets based on the strong constraints from the asteroseismic density determination and our analysis of HARPS-N RV measurements in Section . In total, our model has seventeen free parameters: the transit epochs, orbital periods, radial-velocity semi-amplitudes, transit durations, orbital inclinations, and planet-to-stellar radius ratios of Kepler-10b and c, the stellar systemic velocity, a RV offset between the HARPS-N measurements obtained with the old and the new CCD, an uncorrelated radial-velocity jitter term (e.g., ), and the limb-darkening coefficients which were fitted by using the triangular sampling method as suggested by : $q_{1}=(u_{a}+u_{b})^2$ and $q_{2}=0.5 u_{a} / (u_{a}+u_{b})$, where $u_{\rm a}$ and $u_{\rm b}$ are the linear and quadratic coefficients of the limb-darkening quadratic law.

A Gaussian likelihood was maximized in our Bayesian analysis (see Eq. ). Thirty-four DE-MCMC chains, i.e. twice the number of free parameters, were run simultaneously, after being started at different positions in the parameter space but reasonably close to the system values. The jumps of a given chain in the parameter space were determined from two random chains, according to the prescriptions given by . The Metropolis-Hastings algorithm was used to accept or reject a proposal step for each chain. Uniform priors were set on all parameters with the constraints that the RV jitter and semi-amplitudes of both Kepler-10b and 10c must be greater or equal than zero, and $q_{1}$ and $q_{2}$ are allowed to vary in the interval \[0, 1\] . Gaussian priors were imposed to the transit epochs and orbital periods based on our previous ephemeris determination (see Table ).

Unlike , no prior was set on $a/R_\star$ because this prior strongly affects the posterior distributions of transit parameters and yields unrealistic error bars. The DE-MCMC analysis was stopped after convergence and well mixing of the chains were reached according to the Gelman-Rubin statistics . Steps belonging to the "burn-in" phase were identified following and excluded. Figure shows the phase-folded and binned transits of Kepler-10b and c along with the best-fit models. The linear and quadratic limb-darkening coefficients $u_{a}=0.40 \pm 0.07$ and $u_{b}=0.27 \pm 0.10$ agree well with values predicted by Kurucz stellar models for the *Kepler* bandpass , i.e. $u_{a}=0.390 \pm 0.006$ and $u_{b}=0.264 \pm 0.004$. We derived a radius of $\rm 1.47_{-0.02}^{+0.03}~\rm R_{\oplus}$, a mass of $\rm 3.33 \pm 0.49~M_{\oplus}$, and a density of $\rm 5.8 \pm 0.8~\rm g\;cm^{-3}$ for Kepler-10b and a radius of $\rm 2.35_{-0.04}^{+0.09}~\rm R_{\oplus}$, a mass of $\rm 17.2 \pm 1.9 ~\rm M_{\oplus}$, and a density of $\rm 7.1 \pm 1.0~\rm g\;cm^{-3}$ for Kepler-10c.

```latex
\begin{deluxetable}{l l l}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablewidth{16cm}
\tablecaption{Kepler-10 planetary system parameters.\label{tab:2-3-2-0}}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1cm}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.7}
\startdata
    \tableline
    \tableline
    \emph{Stellar parameters} & RV only & RV and photometry\\
    \tableline
    Limb-darkening coefficient $u_{a}$ &  \nodata  & $0.40 \pm 0.07$ \\
    Limb-darkening coefficient $u_{b}$ &  \nodata  &  $0.27 \pm 0.10$  \\
    Systemic velocity $\gamma$ (\hbox{\,m\,s$^{-1}$}) & $-98739.90 \pm 0.42$ & $-98739.89 \pm 0.43$ \\
    RV offset $RV_{0}$ (\hbox{\,m\,s$^{-1}$})  & $1.83 \pm 0.45$ & $1.78 \pm 0.32$ \\
    Radial-velocity jitter (\hbox{\,m\,s$^{-1}$}) & $2.45_{-0.21}^{+0.23}$ & $2.47 \pm 0.23$ \\
    \tableline
    \tableline
    \emph{Kepler-10b }  &  &\\
    \tableline
    \emph{Transit and orbital parameters}  &  \\
    Orbital period $P$ (days) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0.8374907 \pm 0.0000002$} \\
    Transit epoch $T_{ \rm 0} (\rm BJD_{TDB}-2454900$) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{134.08687 $\pm$ 0.00018}  \\
    Transit duration $T_{\rm 14}$ (h) & \nodata & $1.8110_{-0.0036}^{+0.0064}$  \\
    Radius ratio $R_{\rm p}/R_{*}$ & \nodata & $0.01261_{-0.00013}^{+0.00026}$   \\
    Inclination $i$ (deg) & \nodata & $84.8_{-3.9}^{+3.2}$  \\
    $a/R_{*}$ & \nodata & $3.46_{-0.28}^{+0.14}$  \\
    Impact parameter $b$ & \nodata  & $0.31 \pm 0.19$  \\
    Orbital eccentricity $e$  &  \multicolumn{2}{c}{0 (fixed)}  \\
    Radial-velocity semi-amplitude $K$ (\hbox{\,m\,s$^{-1}$}) & $2.38 \pm 0.34$ & $2.38 \pm 0.35$ \\
    \tableline
    \multicolumn{2}{l}{\emph{Planetary parameters}} \\
    Planet mass $M_{\rm p} ~(\rm M_\oplus)$ & \nodata &  $3.33 \pm 0.49$  \\
    Planet radius $R_{\rm p} ~( \rm R_\oplus)$ & \nodata  &  $1.47_{-0.02}^{+0.03}$  \\
    Planet density $\rho_{\rm p}$ ($\rm g\;cm^{-3}$) & \nodata & $5.8 \pm 0.8$  \\
    Planet surface gravity log\,$g_{\rm p }$ (cgs) & \nodata &  $3.18_{-0.07}^{+0.06}$  \\
    Orbital semi-major axis $a$ (AU) & \nodata & $0.01685 \pm 0.00013$   \\
    Equilibrium temperature $T_{\rm eq}$ (K) & \nodata & $2169_{-44}^{+96}\,^a$ \\
    \tableline
    \tableline
    \emph{Kepler-10c }  & & \\
    \tableline
    \emph{Transit and orbital parameters}  &  \\
    Orbital period $P$ [days) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{45.294301 $\pm$ 0.000048} \\
    Transit epoch $T_{ \rm 0} (\rm BJD_{TDB}-2454900$) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{162.26648 $\pm$ 0.00081}  \\
    Transit duration $T_{\rm 14}$ (h) & \nodata & $6.898_{-0.023}^{+0.058}$  \\
    Radius ratio $R_{\rm p}/R_{*}$ & \nodata & $0.02019_{-0.00025}^{+0.00081}$   \\
    Inclination $i$ (deg) & \nodata & $89.59_{-0.43}^{+0.25}$  \\
    $a/R_{*}$ & \nodata & $47.9_{-7.2}^{+2.8}$  \\
    Impact parameter $b$ & \nodata & $0.36_{-0.20}^{+0.25}$  \\
    Orbital eccentricity $e$  &  \multicolumn{2}{c}{0 (fixed)}  \\
    Radial velocity semi-amplitude $K$ (\hbox{\,m\,s$^{-1}$}) & $3.25 \pm 0.36$ & $3.26 \pm 0.36$ \\
    \tableline
    \multicolumn{2}{l}{\emph{Planetary parameters}} \\
    Planet mass $M_{\rm p} ~(\rm M_\oplus)$ &  \nodata  &  $17.2 \pm 1.9$  \\
    Planet radius $R_{\rm p} ~( \rm R_\oplus)$ &\nodata  &  $2.35_{-0.04}^{+0.09}$  \\
    Planet density $\rho_{\rm p}$ ($\rm g\;cm^{-3}$) & \nodata &  $7.1 \pm 1.0$  \\
    Planet surface gravity log\,$g_{\rm p }$ (cgs) & \nodata & $3.48_{-0.06}^{+0.05}$  \\
    Orbital semi-major axis $a$ (AU) & \nodata & $0.2410 \pm 0.0019$   \\
    Equilibrium temperature $T_{\rm eq}$ (K) & \nodata & $584_{-17}^{+50}\,^a$ \\
\enddata
\tablerefs{$^{a}$\,black body equilibrium temperature assuming a zero Bond albedo and uniform heat redistribution to the night-side \citep[][]{Rowe-2006}.}
\tablecomments{Kepler-10 planetary system parameters for the circular solution using the RV data only (with priors from photometry), and for the circular solution with the combined photometric and RV analysis. The error bars represent a $1-\sigma$ uncertainty on the parameters.}
\end{deluxetable}
```

# Kepler-10c density

Understanding the transition from rocky planets to planets defined by a hydrogen-dominated envelope is critical to planet formation theory. Kepler-10c stands out in the mass-radius diagram (Figure ), in direct challenge to theory.

To begin with, it is possible to show that Kepler-10c cannot possess a hydrogen-dominated envelope. At 0.24 AU from a solar-luminosity star of very old age, Kepler-10c is too hot ($T_{\rm eq}=584$ K) to retain an outgassed hydrogen atmosphere, or an accreted hydrogen-helium mixture, as shown by applying calculations for $T_{\rm eq}=500$ K and the radius of Kepler-10c (all loss timescales are shorter than 1 Gyr). Had Kepler-10c accreted a massive hydrogen-helium envelope 10.6 Gyr ago and still kept some of it, its radius would have to be larger than 3 $R_{\oplus}$, similar to Kepler-20c (at 15.7$M_{\oplus}$ in Figure ). Therein lies the challenge, as Kepler-10c is significantly above the theoretical critical mass of 10-12 $M_{\oplus}$ enabling envelope accretion , but has none.

Kepler-10c is best characterized as a solid planet, implying that its bulk composition is dominated by rocks (silicates, judging from the star's composition) and a significant amount of volatile material of high mean molecular weight (i.e. water) of 5% to 20%wt. Even if that water is in a separate envelope, which is likely if it is more than 10% to 15%wt , most of it will be in the form of solid high-pressure ices at age 10.6 Gyr . The precise amount of water in Kepler-10c cannot be constrained further, given the known compositional degeneracy of the mass-radius diagram .

We note in Figure that Kepler-10c is not alone in this region of the mass-radius diagram, as Kepler-131b lies very close to it. However the mass determination of Kepler-131b is not as robust as for Kepler-10c and more data are required to asses if this planet is a twin of Kepler-10c.

Regardless of any water, Kepler-10c is a clear outlier, being many sigmas smaller in size than the densest Neptune-mass exoplanet Kepler-20c. Except for Kepler-131b for which the density still have to be measured more precisely, the exoplanets that appear closest to Kepler-10c in composition, 55 Cnc e and Kepler-20b, are half its mass. They are also both extremely close to their stars and hot, so it is not entirely clear how much the water they contain would contribute to their radii.

Kepler-10 has a space motion and an age characteristic of the old thick disk population, though with \[Fe/H\] $= -0.15$, it is not as metal poor as the typical thick disk metallicity of about \[Fe/H\] $= -0.6$. This implies caution regarding the Fe/Mg and ratios in the proto-planetary disk from which Kepler-10b and 10c formed. The model composition curves on Figure assume solar ratios ; the expected variations due to expected enhancements are of 1-2% in planet radius . Kepler-10b and c might differ in their internal structure in the amount of Fe that is differentiated in their core; for the high mass of Kepler-10c full differentiation is questionable, but given its water content, the oxidation state of Fe is unclear . These uncertainties and the comparison to Kepler-10b imply that Kepler-10c could also have no bulk water, which remains the best composition for Kepler-10b.

# Conclusion

We revisited the Kepler-10 planetary system using the HARPS-N spectrograph. In total, 148 high-quality RV measurements of the star were obtained, which is nearly four times as many as the Keck-HIRES RV campaign reported in the discovery paper . Using an optimized sampling, we were able to recover the signal of both planets, with a precision on the mass[^4] of 15% and 11% for Kepler-10b and c, respectively.

Kepler-10b is a hot rocky world with a mass of $3.33 \pm 0.49$ $M_{\oplus}$ and a radius of $1.47^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ $R_{\oplus}$, which implies a bulk density of 5.8$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}0.8 g cm$^{-3}$, slightly higher than the Earth, and an internal structure and composition very similar to Earth.

Kepler-10c is a Neptune mass planet with a density higher than the Earth. Our best estimate of its mass is 17.2$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}1.9 $M_{\oplus}$ for a radius of only $2.35^{+0.09}_{-0.04}$ $R_{\oplus}$, which yields a density of 7.1$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}1.0 g cm$^{-3}$. With these properties, Kepler-10c is best characterized as a solid planet, implying that its bulk composition is dominated by rocks and a significant amount of water, about 5% to 20%wt.

Kepler-10c might be the first firm example of a population of solid planets with masses above 10 $M_{\oplus}$. From a recent theory of gas accretion at short orbital periods, the critical core mass required to accrete the gas present in the protoplanetary disc onto the planet is $M_{\mathrm{cr}} \sim 2.6\,M{\oplus}\,\left(\frac{\eta}{0.3}\right)^{1/2}\,\left(\frac{P_{\mathrm{orb}}}{1\,\mathrm{day}}\right)^{5/12}$, where $\eta = M_{\mathrm{atm}}/M_{\mathrm{cr}}$ is the fractional mass comprised by the atmosphere . If this model is correct, it implies that the core mass limit for gas accretion should increase with orbital period. A recent study from Buchhave et al. (2014, in press.), analyzing hundreds of *Kepler* candidates, seems to agree with this theoretical prediction. With a period of 45.29 days, a radius of 2.35 $R_{\oplus}$, and a density higher than Earth, Kepler-10c would be at the limit of the transition from terrestrial to gaseous planets observed by Buchhave et al. (2014, in press.). Kepler-10c might be the first object confirming that longer period terrestrial planets can be more massive than ones with shorter periods. We note that Kepler-131b lies in the same location of the mass-radius diagram as Kepler-10c. However the mass determination of Kepler-131b is not as robust as for Kepler-10c and more data are needed to confirm the high density of this planet. Measuring precisely the mass of several other long-period *Kepler* candidates orbiting bright stars could test this speculation. This experiment has just been started as a new observational program on HARPS-N.

The mass determination of Kepler-10c with HARPS-N shows once more how ground-based RV spectrographs and photometric transit surveys such as *Kepler* can work together to efficiently measure the densities of small planets. Such observational studies are crucial to constrain theoretical models of internal structure and composition of small-radius planets.

Although Kepler-10c induces a gravitational effect on its host star three times greater than the instrumental precision of HARPS-N, determining its mass to a satisfactory degree of precision required an important RV follow-up campaign; this is because Kepler-10 is a faint star for high-resolution spectrographs and thus the errors are dominated by photon noise. It is essential that future transit searches focus on bright stars in order to allow high-quality RV follow-up needed to measure planet masses with a 10% precision. The upcoming *Kepler* K2 mission should provide soon a few interesting candidates. Then, in a few years, the TESS satellite should provide hundreds of candidates by performing an all sky survey of short-period transiting planets orbiting stars brighter than V = 12. On the longer term, PLATO will look for habitable Earth-like planets around those same bright stars.

The HARPS-N project was funded by the Prodex Program of the Swiss Space Office (SSO), the Harvard- University Origin of Life Initiative (HUOLI), the Scottish Universities Physics Alliance (SUPA), the University of Geneva, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO), and the Italian National Astrophysical Institute (INAF), University of St. Andrews, Queen's University Belfast and University of Edinburgh. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement n° 313014 (ETAEARTH). X. Dumusque would like to thanks the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) for its support through an Early Postdoc.Mobility fellowship. P. Figueira acknowledges support by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) through the Investigador FCT contract of reference IF/01037/2013 and POPH/FSE (EC) by FEDER funding through the program "Programa Operacional de Factores de Competitividade - COMPETE". R.D. Haywood acknowledges support from an STFC postgraduate research studentship. This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation. This research has made use of the results produced by the PI2S2 Project managed by the Consorzio COMETA, a co-funded project by the Italian Ministero dell'Istruzione, Università e Ricerca (MIUR) within the Piano Operativo Nazionale Ricerca Scientifica, Sviluppo Tecnologico, Alta Formazione (PON 2000–2006). We would like to thank A. McWilliam, I. Ivans and C. Sneden for providing us their software that interpolates between atmospheric models.

[^1]: Available at http://kurucz.harvard.edu/grids.html

[^2]: The orbital inclination of Kepler-10c is 89.7$^{\circ}$ , therefore the minimum mass of the planet is equal to the real mass.

[^3]: http://keplergo.arc.nasa.gov/PyKEprimerLCs.shtml

[^4]: It is not surprising that the precision on the mass of Kepler-10b is two times better than the previous value . With four times as many observations of similar precision , we expect an improvement of a factor of two, everything else being equal.