1: %\include{graphicsx}
2:
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4:
5: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
6: %\usepackage{epsfig,emulateapj5}
7: %\usepackage{epsfig}
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% macro definitions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: \newcommand \Angstrom {\,{\rm \AA}}
10: \newcommand \AU {\,{\rm AU}}
11: \newcommand \cm {\,{\rm cm}}
12: \newcommand \mm {\,{\rm mm}}
13: \newcommand \erg {\,{\rm erg}}
14: \newcommand \eV {\,{\rm eV}}
15: \newcommand \g {\,{\rm g}}
16: \newcommand \K {\,{\rm K}}
17: \newcommand \pc {\,{\rm pc}}
18: \newcommand \s {\,{\rm s}}
19: \newcommand \sr {\,{\rm sr}}
20: \newcommand \yr {\,{\rm yr}}
21: \newcommand \yrs {\,{\rm yrs}}
22: \newcommand \Myr {\,{\rm Myr}}
23: \newcommand \Myrs {\,{\rm Myrs}}
24: \newcommand \simlt {\lesssim}
25: \newcommand \simgt {\gtrsim}
26: \newcommand \gtsim {\gtrsim}
27: \newcommand \ltsim {\lesssim}
28: \newcommand \mum {\,{\rm \mu m}}
29: \newcommand \Teff {T_{\rm eff}}
30: \newcommand \amin {a_{\rm min}}
31: \newcommand \amax {a_{\rm max}}
32: \newcommand \rmin {r_{\rm min}}
33: \newcommand \rmax {r_{\rm max}}
34: \newcommand \md {m_{\rm d}}
35: \newcommand \rp {r_{\rm p}}
36: \newcommand \msun {m_\odot}
37: \newcommand \Lsun {L_\odot}
38: \newcommand \mstar {m_\star}
39: \newcommand \Lstar {L_\star}
40: \newcommand \simali {\sim\,}
41: \newcommand{\figwidth}{6.0in}
42: \newcommand{\btdnote}[1]{{\bf[#1]}}
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44: %------- delete following for submission to ApJ --------
45: %\pagestyle{myheadings}
46: % today's date
47: %use number register 200 for "decade"
48: %\countdef\decade=200
49: %\decade=0
50: %\advance\decade by \year
51: %\advance\decade by -2000 %to suppress two leading digits of yearb
52: %\countdef\hours=201
53: %\hours=0
54: %\advance\hours by \time
55: %\divide\hours by 60
56: %\countdef\mins=202
57: %\mins=0
58: %\advance\mins by \hours
59: %\multiply\mins by 60
60: %\multiply\hours by 100
61: %\countdef\miltime=203
62: %\miltime=0
63: %\advance\miltime by \hours
64: %\advance\miltime by \time
65: %\advance\miltime by -\mins
66: %\def\today{\number\decade.\number\month.\number\day.\number\miltime}
67: %\markright{\today: DRAFT}
68:
69:
70:
71: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
72: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
73:
74: %% allow the output to be in ApJ Lett format
75: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
76:
77: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
78: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
79: %% the \begin{document} command.
80: %%
81: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
82: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
83: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.0 Author Guide
84: %% for information.
85:
86: \newcommand{\myemail}{bbiller@as.arizona.edu}
87:
88: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
89:
90: %%\slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ Lett July 28, Resubmitted September 12, 2003, R%%esubmitted October 1}
91:
92: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
93: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
94: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
95: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
96: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
97: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
98:
99: \shorttitle{SDI Survey}
100: \shortauthors{Biller et al.}
101:
102:
103: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
104: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
105:
106: \begin{document}
107:
108:
109: \title{An Imaging Survey for Extrasolar Planets around 45 Close, Young Stars
110: with SDI at the VLT and MMT$^1$}
111:
112: \author{Beth A. Biller$^1$, Laird M. Close$^1$, Elena Masciadri$^{2}$,
113: Eric Nielsen$^1$, Rainer Lenzen$^{3}$, Wolfgang Brandner$^{3}$, Donald McCarthy$^1$, Markus Hartung$^4$, Stephan Kellner$^5$, Eric Mamajek$^6$,
114: Thomas Henning$^3$, Douglas Miller$^1$, Matthew Kenworthy$^1$, and
115: Craig Kulesa$^1$}
116:
117: \email{bbiller@as.arizona.edu}
118:
119: \affil{$^1$ Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}
120: \affil{$^2$ Observatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, L.go E. Fermi 5, 50125 Florence, Italy}
121: \affil{$^3$ Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astronomie, K\"onigstuhl 17, 69117
122: Heidelberg, Germany}
123: \affil{$^4$ European Southern Observatory, Alonso de Cordova 3107,
124: Santiago 19, Chile}
125: \affil{$^5$ W.M. Keck Observatory, 65-1120 Mamalahoa Hwy., Kamuela, HI 96743}
126: \affil{$^6$ Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138}
127:
128: \begin{abstract}
129: We present the results of a survey of 45 young ($\la$250 Myr),
130: close ($\la$50 pc) stars with the Simultaneous Differential
131: Imager (SDI) implemented at the VLT and the MMT for the direct detection
132: of extrasolar planets.\footnote[1]{based on observations made with
133: the MMT and the ESO VLT at Paranal Observatory under programme ID's
134: 074.C-0548, 074.C-0549, and 076.C-0094} As part of the survey,
135: we observed 54 objects total,
136: of which 45 were close, young stars, 2 were somewhat more
137: distant ($<$150 pc), very young ($\leq$10 Myr) stars,
138: 3 were stars with known radial
139: velocity planets, and 4 were older, very nearby ($\leq$20 pc)
140: solar analogues. Our SDI devices use a double Wollaston prism and
141: a quad filter to take images simultaneously
142: at 3 wavelengths surrounding the 1.62 $\mu$m methane absorption
143: bandhead found in
144: the spectrum of cool brown dwarfs and gas giant planets. By performing
145: a difference of adaptive optics corrected
146: images in these filters, speckle noise from
147: the primary star can be significantly attenuated, resulting in photon
148: (and flat-field) noise limited
149: data. In our VLT data, we achieved H band contrasts
150: $\ga$ 10 mag (5$\sigma$) at a separation of 0.5" from
151: the primary star on 45$\%$ of our targets
152: and H band contrasts of $\ga$ 9 mag at a separation of 0.5''
153: on 80$\%$ of our targets.
154: With this degree of attenuation, we should be able to
155: image (5$\sigma$ detection) a 5 M$_{Jup}$ planet 15 AU from
156: a 70 Myr K1 star at 15 pc or a 5 M$_{Jup}$ planet at 2 AU from
157: a 12 Myr M star at 10 pc. Our 45 southern targets were observed with the
158: VLT while 11 of our northern targets were observed with the MMT (2 objects
159: were observed at both telescopes).
160: We believe that our SDI images are the highest contrast astronomical
161: images ever made from ground or space for methane rich companions
162: $\leq$1'' from their star. We detected
163: no tentative candidates with S/N $>$ 2 $\sigma$ which behaved consistently
164: like a real object. Followup observations
165: were conducted on 8 $<$2$\sigma$ candidates
166: (with separations of 3 - 15.5 AU and
167: masses of 2-10 M$_{Jup}$, had they been real) --
168: none of which were detected at a second epoch. In the course of our survey,
169: we also discovered 5 new close stellar binary systems with measured
170: separations of 0.14'' to 0.26''. For the best
171: 20 of our survey stars, we attained 50$\%$ 5$\sigma$
172: completeness for 6-10 M$_{Jup}$ planets at semi-major
173: axes of 20-40 AU. Thus, our completeness levels are sufficient to
174: significantly test theoretical planet distributions. From our survey null
175: result, we can rule out (at the 98$\%$ confidence/2.0$\sigma$ level)
176: a model planet population using a planet distribution where
177: N({\it a}) $\propto$ constant out to a distance of 45 AU (further
178: model assumptions discussed within).
179: \keywords{(stars:) planetary systems, instrumentation: adaptive optics}
180: %% add here a maximum of 10 keywords, to be taken form the file <Keywords.txt>.
181: \end{abstract}
182:
183: \keywords{planets: extrasolar --- instrumentation: adaptive optics --- binaries: general}
184:
185: \section{Introduction}
186:
187: While over 200 extrasolar planets have been
188: detected\footnote[2]{http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php, maintained by
189: Jean Schneider} over the
190: last 11 years (mostly via the radial velocity technique),
191: very few extrasolar planet candidates have been imaged
192: directly~\citep[for~instance,~2MASS~1207b ($\sim$8$\pm$3 M$_{Jup}$),
193: Oph 1622B ($\sim$13$\pm$5 M$_{Jup}$), and CHXR 73 B ($\sim$12.5$\pm$8 M$_{Jup}$)][]{cha05,clo07a,luh06,bra06}.
194: The few candidates
195: discovered of ``planetary mass'' $<$ 13 M$_{Jup}$
196: are companions to brown dwarfs and possess properties more similar to
197: young brown dwarfs (separations $>$ 50 AU; surface gravity g $\ga$ 0.3)
198: than to giant extrasolar planets orbiting sun-like stars. Based on their large
199: ($>$50 AU) separations, these objects appear to
200: have formed via a fragmentation process, more similar to brown dwarfs. Hence, to date
201: no true images of extrasolar planets have been obtained.
202:
203: Theoretically, a large telescope (D $>$ 6 meters)
204: plus an adaptive optics (AO) system should be able to reach the photon-noise limit
205: at 1\arcsec~separations from the star
206: with an hour of exposure time and thus attain the very
207: high ($>$10$^5$) contrasts
208: necessary to image a young extrasolar giant planet.
209: Thus, numerous adaptive optics surveys to directly detect extrasolar
210: planets have been
211: completed \citep[for~instance,][]{kai03,mas05}. These surveys have yielded
212: interesting contrast limits but no true extrasolar giant planet candidates.
213:
214: The difficulty in directly imaging extrasolar giant planets
215: can be attributed to the unfortunate fact that bright quasi-static speckles
216: (also known as super speckles)
217: caused by slowly evolving instrumental aberrations remain in adaptive
218: optics images even after adaptive optics correction
219: \citep[see~for~example][]{rac99}. These super speckles
220: evolve stochastically on relatively long (minute) timescales and also
221: vary somewhat chromatically, producing correlated speckle noise which
222: is very difficult to calibrate and remove \citep[][]{rac99}.
223: For photon-noise limited
224: data, the signal to noise S/N increases as t$^{0.5}$, where t is the exposure
225: time. Approximately speaking,
226: for speckle-noise limited data, the S/N does not increase with time
227: past a specific speckle-noise floor (limiting AO contrasts often to
228: $\sim$10$^3$ at 0.5'', Racine et al. 1999; Masciadri et al. 2005).
229: More exactly, S/N does continue to increase with time, but as the speckle
230: noise in successive frames becomes correlated, the N gain becomes
231: considerably slower. Effectively independent exposures then
232: have durations of many minutes rather than a small fraction of a second
233: (Racine et al. 1999).
234: This correlated speckle noise is considerably above the
235: photon noise limit and makes planet detection very difficult. Interestingly,
236: space telescopes such as HST also suffer from limiting correlated
237: speckle noise due to temperature variations which induce changes in the PSF
238: \citep[known~as~``breathing'',][]{sch03}.
239:
240: Many observatories, including Gemini, Subaru, and the VLT,
241: are currently building dedicated planet-finding AO/coronagraph
242: cameras in order to
243: overcome this speckle noise floor \citep[][]{doh06,mac06,tam06}.
244: A number of instrumental
245: speckle-attenuation methods have been proposed, such as
246: spectral differential imaging \citep[][]{rac99,mar00,mar02,mar05},
247: azimuthal differential imaging \citep[][]{mar06},
248: integral field spectroscopy \citep[][]{spa02,ber06,tha07},
249: precise wavelength control methods such as those developed at the High
250: Contrast Imaging Testbed \citep[][]{tra04},
251: focal plane wavefront sensing \citep[][]{cod05,ken06},
252: and nulling interferometry \citep[][]{liu06}.
253:
254: The Simultaneous Differential Imagers at the VLT and MMT, built and commisioned
255: by our team \citep[][]{len04,len05,clo05a},
256: utilizes a spectral differential speckle-attenuation
257: technique \citep[pioneered~by][]{rac99,mar00,mar02,mar05}.
258: It exploits a methane absorption feature at 1.62 $\mu$m (see
259: Fig.~\ref{fig:SDIFILT}) which
260: is robustly observed in substellar objects with spectral type later than
261: T3.5 \citep[][]{geb02,bur01}.
262: SDI utilizes specialized hardware to image simultaneously
263: inside and outside this methane feature with custom
264: 25 nm filters (see Fig.~\ref{fig:SDIFILT}). Since the super-speckles are
265: coherent with the starlight and both starlight and speckles
266: have a flat spectrum (see Fig.~\ref{fig:SDIFILT})
267: in this narrow wavelength band ($\delta\lambda$ / $\lambda$ $\simeq$1.6$\%$),
268: subtracting the ``on'' and ``off'' methane
269: absorption images removes the starlight and its speckles, while preserving
270: light from any substellar methane companion to the star.
271:
272: We have completed a 54 star survey with the SDI device at the VLT and MMT.
273: Survey stars were chosen primarily according to proximity to the Sun ($\la$50 pc)
274: and youth ($\la$300 Myr, typically $<$100 Myr). We observed 47 young ($\la$250
275: Myr) stars, 3 nearby stars with known RV planets, and 4 very close ($\la$20
276: pc) older solar analogues. We obtained
277: contrasts of $\Delta$H$>$10 mag (5 $\sigma$) at 0.5$\arcsec$ for 45$\%$ of
278: target objects at the VLT and contrasts of $\Delta$H$>$9 mag (5 $\sigma$) at
279: 0.5$\arcsec$ for 80$\%$ of our targets. The VLT
280: SDI device is fully commissioned
281: and available to the community and the MMT SDI device is a PI instrument
282: with the ARIES camera. In contrast, the
283: dedicated planet-finding instruments such as Sphere and GPI
284: \citep[][]{doh06,mac06} being built at
285: the VLT and Gemini will not see first light for several years.
286: Thus, as a precursor to planet surveys with these dedicated planet finding
287: cameras, the results from the SDI devices are especially timely and relevant,
288: particularly to inform the large Gemini NICI survey starting in
289: 2007 \citep[][]{liu05}.
290:
291: \section{The Simultaneous Differential Imagers at the VLT and MMT}
292:
293: The VLT Simultaneous Differential Imager (henceforth SDI) was built
294: at the University of Arizona by L. Close
295: and installed in a special f/40 camera relay for the VLT AO camera
296: CONICA built by R. Lenzen at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy,
297: Heidelberg. These were both installed at the VLT in August 2003.
298: The MMT SDI was also
299: built at the University of Arizona. In February 2004, it was
300: installed in the ARIES f/30 camera built by D. McCarthy. Both devices are
301: available to the observing communities of their respective telescopes.
302:
303: \subsection{Hardware Considerations}
304:
305: The SDI device consists of a custom double Wollaston, which splits
306: the incoming AO beam into 4 identical beams (utilizing calcite
307: birefringence to minimize non-common path error -- adding only $\la$10
308: nm rms of differential non-common path errors per the first
309: few Zernikes modes -- Lenzen et al. 2004a).
310: Each beam then passes through a narrowband
311: filter with a central wavelength either on or off methane absorption.
312: Three different filters were used; all filters were placed in
313: different quadrants on the same substrate.
314: SDI filters for the VLT and MMT were manufactured by Barr Associates.
315: Filter wavelengths were chosen on and off
316: the methane absorption feature at 1.62 $\mu$m and were spaced closely (every
317: 0.025 $\mu$m) in order to limit residuals due to speckle and calcite
318: chromatism. We used four filters F1, F2, F3a, and F3b with
319: measured cold central
320: wavelengths F1$\tbond$1.575 $\mu$m, F2$\tbond$1.600 $\mu$m,
321: and F3a$\tbond$F3b$\tbond$1.625 $\mu$m.
322: The filters are approximately 0.025 $\mu$m in bandwidth (1.6$\%$). The
323: SDI filter transmission curves
324: overlaid on a theoretical young planet spectrum (private
325: communication, D. Sudarsky) are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:SDIFILT}.
326:
327: \subsection{Discoveries with the SDI Cameras}
328:
329: The SDI device has
330: already produced a number of important scientific results: the discovery
331: of the important calibrator object AB Dor C \citep{clo05b}
332: which is the tightest (0.16'')
333: low mass (0.090$\pm$0.05 M$_{\odot}$, $\sim$100$\times$ fainter)
334: companion detected by direct imaging, the most detailed
335: methane surface maps of Titan from the pre-Cassini era \citep{har04},
336: the discovery of $\epsilon\,$Ind Ba and Bb, the
337: nearest binary brown dwarf \citep{mcc04}, the discovery of
338: SCR 1845-6357B, a very close (3.85 pc) T6 brown dwarf \citep{bil06b},
339: and evidence
340: of orbital motion for Gl 86B, the first known
341: white dwarf companion to an exoplanet host star \citep{mug05}. In fact, the
342: SDI device discovered all known brown dwarfs within 5 pc of the Sun. It
343: has also set the best upper limit on the luminosity of the older ($\sim$1 Gyr)
344: extrasolar planet around $\epsilon\,$Eri.
345:
346: \subsection{Observational Techniques and Data Reduction}
347:
348: To ensure the highest possible signal to noise ratio and to maximize SDI
349: speckle attenuation, a complex data
350: acquisition procedure was followed for each star.
351: For each object observed, we saturated the inner $\sim$0.1'' of the star, thus
352: providing a wide dynamic range and contrast down into the halo. Base
353: exposure times (DIT) range from 0.3 to 20 s (typically this was
354: $>$ 2s to allow Fowler sampling at the VLT),
355: depending on the H magnitude of the
356: observed star. A number of exposures (NDIT) with the base exposure time are
357: then coadded in hardware
358: to produce a standard $\sim$2 minute long base datum.
359: An example raw datum is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:SDIRAW}
360: \footnote[3]{As with all our survey data, this was taken with the original SDI
361: double Wollaston prism. In February 2007,
362: the original prism was replaced with a next generation prism which is
363: cut in such a way that each subimage now subtends a whole
364: quadrant of the detector chip. The new prism is also fabricated from YV04,
365: a material which produces smaller chromatic errors at 1.6$\mu$m
366: than the original calcite.}.
367:
368: Base datum are then taken at a grid of dither positions
369: (4$\times$0.5'' spacings with the MMT, 5$\times$0.5'' spacings with the VLT).
370: This dither pattern is then repeated at typically 2 telescope ``roll angles''
371: (where a ``roll angle'' refers to a different
372: field derotator position / position angle (henceforth PA) settings).
373: A subtraction of data taken at different roll angles further attenuates
374: super-speckle residuals (since the weak residual speckles after SDI subtraction
375: are instrumental features in the SDI optics which do
376: not shift with a change in roll angle) while producing a
377: very important signature ``jump''
378: in position for any physical companion (since a physical companion
379: will appear to shift by the roll angle difference between datasets).
380: For a space telescope such as Hubble (where the entire telescope can
381: be rolled), a companion detected at the 5$\sigma$ level in two different
382: roll angles
383: would be detected at the 7$\sigma$ level (a S/N gain of $\sim\sqrt{2}$)
384: across the entire dataset
385: (assuming roughly Gaussian statistics).
386: This method is somewhat less effective with ground based telescopes where
387: field rotation is provided by the field derotator rather than rolling the
388: entire telescope (thus, super speckles from the telescope optics can
389: appear to rotate by the roll angle as well).
390: Nonetheless, observing at two roll angles provides us with two independent
391: detections of a substellar companion at different
392: locations on the detector, thus allowing us to rule out a
393: ``false positive'' detection at an extremely high level of confidence --
394: indeed, the only 3 faint companions ($\epsilon\,$Ind Bb, SCR 1845-6357B, and
395: AB Dor C) ever detected with $\geq$5$\sigma$ using SDI in more than one
396: roll angle have {\it all proven to be real}.
397: A typical observing block at the VLT then consists of the following series of :
398: 1) $\sim$10 minute long dither pattern taken with a roll angle of 0 degrees.
399: 2) $\sim$10 minute long dither pattern taken with a roll angle of 33 degrees.
400: 3) $\sim$10 minute long dither pattern taken with a roll angle of 33 degrees.
401: 4) $\sim$10 minute long dither pattern taken with a roll angle of 0 degrees.
402: A custom template was developed at the VLT to automate this process in each
403: OB.
404:
405: Each base datum was reduced using a custom IDL pipeline
406: (described in detail in Biller et al. (2006a) and Biller et al. (2006c)).
407: This pipeline performs sky-subtraction,
408: flat-fielding, and bad pixel removal, extracts a square aperture
409: around each separate filter image, scales the platescale of each
410: filter image so that the speckles in each filter
411: fall at the same radii despite chromatic differences, scales the
412: flux in each image to remove any quantum efficiency differences
413: between the images, and filters out very low ($>$15 pixels)
414: spatial frequencies by unsharp masking each image.
415: Each filter image is then initially
416: aligned to a reference image to within 0.25 pixels
417: using a custom shift and subtract algorithm (Biller et al. (2006a,c)).
418: One master reference image is used for
419: each $\sim$40 minute long dataset.
420: After each of the filter images has been aligned to the reference image, we
421: calculate 2 differences
422: which are sensitive to substellar companions
423: of spectral types T (T$_{eff}$ $<$ 1200 K) and ``Y'' (T$_{eff}$ $<$ 600 K).
424: The first is optimal for T spectral types:
425:
426: \begin{equation}
427: Difference1 = F1(1.575~\mu m) - F3a(1.625~\mu m)
428: \end{equation}
429:
430: The second is optimal for Y spectral types:
431:
432: \begin{equation}
433: Difference2 = F2(1.6~\mu m) - F3a(1.625~\mu m)
434: \end{equation}
435:
436: %D_{1} = F1(1.575 \mu m) - F3a(1.625 \mu m)
437: %D_{2} = F2(1.6 \mu m) - F3a(1.625 \mu m)
438:
439:
440: An additional alignment is performed before the SDI subtraction; using the F1
441: image as our reference image, we align images F1 and F3a to within 0.05
442: pixels. A similar alignment is performed with images F2 and F3a, using
443: the F2 image as the reference image.
444:
445: These differences are also
446: somewhat sensitive to hotter substellar companions (L and early T spectral
447: types), due to the fact that
448: the platescale in each filter image has been scaled to a reference
449: platescale to align the Airy patterns in each image. A real object
450: (as opposed to a speckle) will not
451: scale with the Airy pattern and thus, after scaling, will appear at a slightly
452: different radius in each filter image. Subtracting images in different
453: filters will then produce a characteristic dark-light radial pattern for a
454: real object. This effect obviously scales with radius -- at the VLT,
455: an object at 0.5'' will be offset by less than 1 pixel between filters, while
456: an object at 1.5'' will be offset by $\sim$3 pixels, producing a very
457: noticeable pattern. Thus, the SDI subtractions have a
458: limited sensitivity to bright L and early T companions. We note that AB Dor
459: C ($\Delta$H $\sim$ 5 mag) was detected at 0.15'' (February 2004,
460: Close et al. 2005) and 0.2'' (September 2004, Nielsen et al. 2005)
461: separations from
462: AB Dor A even though AB Dor C has no methane absorption features (as is expected from its M5.5 spectral type, Close et al. 2007b.)
463:
464: We additionally calculate one further non-differenced combination sensitive to
465: M, L, and early T companions:
466:
467: \begin{equation}
468: Broadband = F1(1.575 \mu m) + F2(1.6 \mu m) + F3(1.625 \mu m)
469: \end{equation}
470:
471: After each datum is pipelined the data are further processed in IRAF.
472: For each $\sim$10 minute long
473: dither pattern, all three combinations described above and the four
474: reduced filter images are median combined. Each 10 minute dataset is
475: then differenced with the following 10 minute dataset (taken at a different
476: position angle). All roll-angle differenced images for each target object
477: observation are then median combined to produce the final data product.
478:
479: \begin{figure}
480: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f1.eps}
481: \caption[SDI filters]
482: {\label{fig:SDIFILT} SDI filter transmission curves overlaid on the
483: theoretical spectrum (private communication, D. Sudarsky)
484: of a young extrasolar planet (30 Myr, 3 M$_{Jup}$).
485: Filters 1 and 2 sample off the 1.62 $\mu$m
486: CH$_4$ absorption feature, while filter 3 samples
487: within the absorption feature. In contrast, the spectrum of the K2V
488: star $\epsilon\,$Eri (Meyer et al. 1998)
489: is flat across the whole wavelength band.
490: Subtracting images taken in filters ``on'' and ``off'' the methane
491: absorption feature will remove
492: the star and speckle noise (which is coherent with the starlight)
493: while preserving any light from giant planet companions. (Details of
494: the complex SDI data pipeline are provided in Section 2.3.)}
495: \end{figure}
496:
497: \begin{figure}
498: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f2.eps}
499: \caption[Raw VLT SDI data]
500: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
501: { \label{fig:SDIRAW}
502: Two minutes of raw SDI data from NACO SDI's
503: 1024$\times$1024 Aladdin array
504: in the VLT CONICA AO camera (Lenzen et al. 2004). A number of
505: electronic ghosts are apparent outside the four square filter apertures
506: (each aperture is rotated by 30$^{\circ}$);
507: indeed, filter apertures were specifically selected to exclude these ghosts.
508: Note that this is an image of the original Alladin array; the current SDI
509: array has far fewer bad pixels.
510: }
511: \end{figure}
512:
513: A fully reduced $\sim$30 minute dataset of AB Dor A (70 Myr K1V star
514: at a distance of 14.98 pc, V=6.88) from the VLT SDI device
515: is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:SDIRED}. Simulated planets have been
516: added at separations of 0.55, 0.85, and 1.35'' from the primary,
517: with $\Delta$F1(1.575$\mu$m) = 10 mag
518: (attenuation in magnitudes in the 1.575 $\mu$m
519: F1 filter) fainter than the primary. For details and further discussion
520: of these planet simulations see Section 3.4.
521:
522: \begin{figure}
523: \begin{center}
524: \begin{tabular}{cc}
525: \includegraphics[width=3in]{f3a.eps} &
526: \includegraphics[width=3in]{f3b.eps} \\
527: \end{tabular}
528: \end{center}
529: \caption[Reduced VLT SDI data]
530: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
531: { \label{fig:SDIRED} {\bf Left:} A complete reduced dataset
532: (28 minutes of data at a series of rotator angles (``roll angles'') --
533: 0$^{\circ}$, 33$^{\circ}$, 33$^{\circ}$, 0$^{\circ}$) from the VLT SDI device.
534: Simulated planets have been added at separations of
535: 0.55, 0.85, and 1.35'' from the primary, with $\Delta$F1(1.575$\mu$m) = 10 mag
536: (star-planet contrast in magnitudes) fainter than the primary.
537: These planets are scaled from unsaturated images of the example star
538: (AB Dor A) taken right before the example dataset (and have fluxes and
539: photon noise in each filter
540: appropriate for a T6 effective temperature).
541: Past 0.7'', the simulated planets are
542: detected in both roll angles with S/N $>$ 10.
543: Observing at two different roll angles produces two
544: independent detections, and hence makes the chance of
545: detecting a ``false positive'' almost null.
546: {\bf Right:} Standard AO data reduction of the same
547: dataset.
548: Filter images have been coadded (rather than subtracted),
549: flat-fielded, sky-subtracted, and
550: unsharp-masked. Simulated planets have been added with the
551: same properties and at the same separations as before. None of the simulated
552: planets are clearly
553: detected in the standard AO reduction. Additionally, many more
554: bright super speckles remain in the field.
555: }
556: \end{figure}
557:
558:
559: \section{The SDI Survey}
560:
561: \subsection{Survey Design / Target Selection}
562:
563: Survey objects were selected primarily on the basis of youth and proximity.
564: With a number of exceptions, our 54 survey objects are within 50 pc of the
565: Sun and less than 250 Myr in age. (The 9 exceptions include three
566: somewhat older stars with known radial velocity planets,
567: 2 more distant ($<$150 pc)
568: stars with extreme youth indicators, and 4 older nearby young solar
569: analogues which were initially misclassified as young objects.)
570: Distances were obtained for 48 of our objects from Hipparcos parallax
571: measurements \citep[parallaxes of $>$0.02'', corresponding to distances
572: $<$50 pc,][]{per97}. Stars were age-selected according to two methods:
573: 1) if possible,
574: according to young cluster membership (and adopting the established age
575: for that cluster) for clusters with well established ages such as the Beta
576: Pic, TW Hya, AB Dor and Tuc-Hor moving groups
577: or 2) according to other age indicators including
578: the strength of spectral age indicators (for instance, the Li 6707,
579: the Calcium H and K lines, and H$\alpha$ emission)
580: as well as from X-ray emission, variability, and rotational speed.
581: %For both cluster stars and unassociated stars,
582: %our best targets have Li equivalent widths of $>$100 mA, corresponding to
583: %ages on average of $<$100 Myr. However, lithium age dating is an accurate
584: %method to determine cluster ages rather individual star ages.
585: %Over the ensemble of stars in a cluster, one can derive a
586: %reasonable mean age for the cluster, however, individual star ages
587: %often possess large errors.
588: As moving group ages are generally more robust than measurements for
589: individual stars, we expect the ages of stars in these associations, on
590: average, to have greater accuracy.
591: Our survey covers stars in the Beta Pic, TW Hya, AB Dor, IC 2391,
592: and Tucanae/Horologium moving groups.
593:
594: We select targets stars based on two overlapping criteria: 1) stars within
595: 25 pc and younger than 250 Myr, and 2) stars within 50 pc and younger than
596: 40 Myr (see Fig.~\ref{fig:agevsdist}). Our original list has
597: been modified according to the amount of allocated time at the telescope,
598: the unavailability of GTO targets, as well as severe weather
599: constraints for the MMT portion of our survey.
600: At the VLT, our observing runs spanned the months of August through February
601: over 2004 and 2005. Thus, due to the spacing of observing runs,
602: in the south, the survey is close to complete from $\sim$17 - $\sim$13
603: hours RA. At the MMT, we had two observing runs, one
604: in May 2005 and one in February 2006. Thus, in the north, the survey is
605: complete for the RA range 11 - 21 hours.
606:
607: Survey objects are presented in Table 1. A detailed table of observations
608: is presented in Table 2.
609: Survey objects are plotted as a function of distance and
610: age in Fig.~\ref{fig:agevsdist}. Our ``median'' survey object is a K
611: star with an age of 30 Myr and at a distance of 25 pc.
612:
613: \begin{figure}
614: \begin{center}
615: \begin{tabular}{c}
616: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f4.eps}
617: \end{tabular}
618: \end{center}
619: \caption[Age vs. Distance]
620: {\label{fig:agevsdist}Age vs. distance for our survey stars.
621: Spectral types are delineated by plot symbols. Objects were selected
622: according to youth and proximity to the Sun.
623: 45 of our survey objects are within 50 pc
624: of the Sun and less than 250 Myr in age. Of the remaining objects,
625: 2 are very young ($<$10 Myr), somewhat more distant ($<$150 pc) objects,
626: 3 are nearby stars with known RV planets,
627: and 4 are nearby solar analogues ($<$20 pc) that were initially misclassified
628: as young.
629: We selected targets according to two overlapping criteria (shown on plot
630: as solid black lines) 1) stars within 25 pc and younger than 250 Myr and
631: 2) stars within 50 pc and younger than 40 Myr.
632: Stars were age-selected according to association membership, or,
633: in the case of unassociated stars, age indicators such as
634: the strength of the Li 6707 \Angstrom~line, Calcium H and K lines, H $\alpha$
635: emission, X-ray emission, etc. Distances were obtained from Hipparcos parallax
636: measurements (parallaxes of $>$0.02'').
637: Our ``median'' survey object is a K star with an age of 30 Myr and
638: at a distance of 25 pc.}
639: \end{figure}
640:
641:
642: \subsection{The Performance of the SDI Filters as Spectral Indices}
643:
644: It is important to carefully consider the expected strength of
645: the 1.62 $\mu$m methane absorption break utilized by the SDI device.
646: The stronger the break strength, the more companion light is preserved after
647: SDI filter subtraction. For a candidate object with a weak break strength,
648: SDI subtraction may effectively attenuate the candidate object
649: itself, rendering it
650: undetectable (although, at separations $>$ 0.15'', a bright object may still be
651: detectable due to the characteristic dark-light radial pattern
652: produced by any real object after pipelining, see Section 2.2.)
653:
654: To determine the methane break strength expected for a candidate
655: object (and thus, the expected performance of SDI for that candidate),
656: we define an SDI methane spectral index calculated from
657: our SDI F1(1.575 $\mu$m) and F3(1.625 $\mu$m) filter images
658: \citep[similar~to~the~methane~spectral~index~defined~by~][]{geb02}.
659:
660: %\citep[][]{geb02}.
661:
662: %similar~to~the~methane~spectral~index~defined~by~
663:
664: \begin{equation}
665: index(\frac{F1}{F3}) =
666: \frac{\int^{\lambda_2 = 1.5875 \mu m}_{\lambda_1 = 1.5625 \mu m} S_{\lambda} F1({\lambda}) d\lambda}{\int^{\lambda_4 = 1.6125 \mu m}_{\lambda_3 = 1.6375 \mu m} S_{\lambda} F3({\lambda}) d\lambda}
667: \end{equation}
668:
669: Each SDI filter was manufactured by
670: Barr Associates to have a precise bandwidth of
671: 0.025 $\mu$m, so the wavelength
672: intervals ($\lambda_2$ - $\lambda_1$ = $\Delta \lambda$ =
673: $\lambda_4$ - $\lambda_3$) in the numerator and denominator have
674: the same length for the SDI methane index.
675:
676: We calculated SDI spectral indices for the four brown dwarfs
677: which have been observed with SDI -- the T6 Gl 229B
678: \citep[][]{nak95},
679: the T5.5 SCR 1845B \citep[][]{bil06b} and $\epsilon\,$Ind Ba-Bb
680: (T6 + T1) \citep[][]{mcc04}.
681: Since we only possess SDI data on a limited number of T dwarfs,
682: we calculated the same SDI spectral
683: indices from spectra of 56 L dwarfs and 35 T dwarfs \citep{kna04}
684: in order to evaluate the performance of the SDI for
685: a wide range of L and T dwarf objects.
686: Spectra for these objects were obtained from
687: Sandy Leggett's L and T dwarf archive
688: \footnote[4]{http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/$\sim$skl/LTdata.html}. In order to make an accurate comparison,
689: SDI filter transmission curves were convolved into these
690: calculations (see Fig.~\ref{fig:SDIFILT}).
691: Since we have full spectral data for these objects,
692: we also calculated the 1.62 $\mu$m methane spectral
693: index defined by \citet{geb02}, which were found to be similar to our
694: SDI methane spectral indices.
695: SDI methane spectral indices are plotted for
696: both the M9 and T6 components of SCR 1845, the T dwarfs
697: Gl 229B, $\epsilon\,$Ind Ba, $\epsilon\,$Ind Bb,
698: and 94 other L and T dwarfs in Fig.~\ref{fig:fluxes}.
699: \citet{geb02}
700: note that Gl 229B has an anomalously high
701: methane index for its spectral type and assign a large
702: uncertainty to Gl 229B's spectral type -- T6$\pm$1 -- which is also
703: reflected in its anomalously large SDI spectral index compared to other T6
704: dwarfs. From this analysis, we conclude that the SDI device can effectively
705: detect objects with spectral type later than T3. Since T dwarfs with spectral
706: type earlier than T3 are relatively uncommon compared to later T dwarfs, the
707: SDI device can effectively detect the full range of
708: extrasolar giant planet / brown dwarf spectral types of interest.
709: According to the models of Burrows et al. 2003 and Marley
710: et al. 2006, planets $>$10 Myr old should possess T$_{eff}$ $<$ 800 K and
711: have spectral type of T8 or greater.
712:
713: \begin{figure}
714: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=6in]{f5.eps}
715: \caption{ SDI methane spectral indices for the T dwarfs SCR 1845B,
716: Gl 229B, $\epsilon\,$Ind Ba, and $\epsilon\,$Ind Bb (from Biller et al. 2006b).
717: As a comparison, SDI methane spectral indices calculated from spectra for 94
718: L and T dwarfs \citep[spectra~from~][]{kna04} are overplotted.
719: SCR 1845B, Gl 229B, and $\epsilon\,$Ind Bb show strong methane indices,
720: whereas $\epsilon\,$Ind Bb (T1) is relatively constant in flux
721: across the SDI filters and has a much lower methane index. \citet{geb02}
722: note that Gl 229B has an anomalously high
723: methane index for its spectral type. While \citet{geb02} find an
724: overall spectral type of T6$\pm$1 for Gl 229B, they assign Gl 229B a
725: spectral type of T7 based on the methane index (which we adopt here). }
726: \label{fig:fluxes}
727: \end{figure}
728:
729: \subsection{Contrast Limits and Minimum Detectable Planet Separation}
730:
731: To determine the range of possible star-planet contrasts achieved in our
732: survey, we generated noise curves as a function of radius for every
733: survey star. We tested three different methods of generating noise curves:
734: 1) translating a 6$\times$6 pixel (0.1''$\times$0.1'') box
735: along a particular radial trajectory away from the center of the star
736: image (typical PSF FWHM was 3-5 pixels) then calculating the standard
737: deviation in the box at each point along this trajectory, 2)
738: averaging noise curves generated along four such trajectories,
739: and 3) calculating the standard deviation within annular regions 6 pixels
740: in width centered on the primary PSF (spider diffraction spikes were not
741: masked out in this case because they are already well removed by the spectral
742: difference). Noise curves generated in these three manners are presented
743: for a set of 6 typical program stars (AB Dor, DX Leo, GJ 182, AB Pic,
744: GJ 799A, and GJ 799B)
745: in Fig.~\ref{fig:contcomp}. In general, all three methods produce remarkably
746: similar noise curves and are equally suitable for characterizing
747: the noise properties of an observation. However,
748: we choose to utilize the single trajectory
749: method because it best simulates the particular signal to noise issues
750: encountered when searching for faint companions among super-speckles of
751: similar intensity and FWHM (since it preserves pixel to pixel noise variations
752: due to super-speckles). The annular method averages out
753: speckle noise properties azimuthally. This produces somewhat unrealistic
754: results in the case of a faint companion search where one is concerned
755: only with the speckle structure within the local area of a candidate faint
756: companion -- speckle structure on the other side of the image is
757: unimportant. In addition, we have tried to choose very ``typical''
758: trajectory per star -- ideally, trajectory to trajectory variations will
759: average out across the entire survey.
760:
761: Noise curves for each program star
762: were calculated along a trajectory 45$^{\circ}$ from the image x axis in
763: the first quadrant. The 45$^{\circ}$ was selected as one of many possible
764: representative trajectories which was unaffected by instrumental effects
765: such as spider arms, vibrations along azimuth or altitude mounts, etc.
766: At each point along this trajectory, the standard deviation was calculated
767: (except for the PSF noise curve, for which the mean was calculated).
768:
769: A fully labeled example noise curve for the star DX Leo is presented in
770: Fig.~\ref{fig:DXLeo}.
771: Noise curves were generated for a number of cases for each object.
772: First, a noise curve was generated for the full
773: reduced and differenced SDI data (labeled SDI data curve)
774: (F1(1.575 $\mu$m) - F3a(1.625 $\mu$m) for two roll angles).
775: A PSF noise curve
776: curve was generated from a
777: median combination of all the F1(1.575 $\mu$m) filter images for each dataset
778: weighted according to the number of exposures, dithers, and roll angles
779: in the dataset.
780: To recreate the equivalent observation without using the SDI technique
781: (and thus characterize the performance of SDI compared to conventional
782: AO techniques),
783: an ``optimized conventional AO'' curve was generated by combining images from
784: all three filters at each roll angle:
785:
786: \begin{equation}
787: Broadband = F1(1.575 \mu m) + F2(1.6 \mu m) + F3(1.625 \mu m)
788: \end{equation}
789:
790: then unsharp masking to remove low spatial frequencies,
791: and subtracting the ``Broadband'' combinations at different roll angles
792: from each other.
793:
794: To characterize the noise level in each observation, we calculated
795: an SDI noise curve, which is a combination of photon-noise, flat-field
796: noise, and read noise. Per exposure:
797:
798: \begin{equation}
799: \sigma_{SDI} = \sqrt[]{\sigma_{photon}^2 + \sigma_{flatfield}^2 + \sigma_{readnoise}^2}
800: \end{equation}
801:
802: Photon-noise was calculated as:
803:
804: \begin{equation}
805: \sigma_{photon} = \sqrt{n_{electrons}}
806: \end{equation}
807:
808: Readout noise for the CONICA detector at the VLT in Fowler sampling mode is
809: 1.3 ADU (analog-to-digital unit).
810: The gain for the latest CONICA detector in the Fowler sampling mode is
811: 12.1 electrons/ADU so $\sigma_{readnoise}$ = 15.73 electrons.
812:
813: NACO and ARIES flat fields were found to be accurate to about 1$\%$, so
814: flat-field noise was estimated as:
815:
816: \begin{equation}
817: \sigma_{flatfield} = \epsilon n_{electrons}
818: \end{equation}
819:
820: where $\epsilon$=0.01. The total noise for a full observation (4-5
821: dithers, 2-4 roll angles) was then calculated by weighting the SDI noise
822: per exposure by the
823: number of exposures (NDIT $\times$ number of dithers $\times$
824: number of roll angles):
825:
826: \begin{equation}
827: \sigma_{SDI\_fullobs} = \sigma_{SDI} \sqrt{NDIT \times (number~of~dithers) \times (number~of~roll~angles)}
828: \end{equation}
829:
830: The PSF curve for a full observation was similarly weighted:
831:
832: \begin{equation}
833: PSF = (median PSF) \times NDIT \times (number~of~dithers) \times (number~of~roll~angles)
834: \end{equation}
835:
836: For the sample curve shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:DXLeo},
837: the SDI data is ``flat-field'' limited within 0.5'' of the star. From
838: 0.5'' onwards, the SDI data is photon noise limited, approaching the
839: read-noise limit at separations $>$ 2''.
840:
841:
842: \begin{figure}
843: \begin{center}
844: \begin{tabular}{cc}
845: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{f6a.eps} &
846: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{f6b.eps} \\
847: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{f6c.eps} &
848: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{f6d.eps} \\
849: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{f6e.eps} &
850: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{f6f.eps} \\
851: \end{tabular}
852: \end{center}
853: \caption{Comparison of Noise Curves generated in 3 different manners for
854: a set of 6 typical program stars (upper left: AB Dor, upper right: DX Leo,
855: middle left: GJ 182, middle right: AB Pic, lower left: GJ 799A, lower right: GJ 799B).
856: Noise curves were generated by:
857: 1) translating a 6$\times$6 pixel (0.1''$\times$0.1'') box
858: along a particular radial trajectory away from the center of the star
859: image (typical PSF FWHM was 3-5 pixels) then calculating the standard
860: deviation in the box at each point along this trajectory, 2)
861: averaging noise curves generated along four such trajectories,
862: and 3) calculating the standard deviation within annular regions 6 pixels
863: in width centered on the primary PSF (spider diffraction spikes were not
864: masked out in this case because they are already well removed by the spectral
865: difference). In general, all three methods produce remarkably
866: similar noise curves and are equally suitable for characterizing
867: the noise properties of an observation. Since it preserves pixel to pixel
868: contrast variations due to speckle noise, the single trajectory method
869: better simulates the S/N issues encountered in searching for faint
870: companions.}
871: \label{fig:contcomp}
872: \end{figure}
873:
874: \begin{figure}
875: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=6in]{f7.eps}
876: \caption{Sensitivity curve for DX Leo (18 pc, K0V, 115 Myr, V=7.05, H=5.242).
877: This is 28 minutes of VLT SDI data. The CONICA PSF curve is the
878: median combination
879: of all the F1(1.575 $\mu$m) filter images for this dataset (with a gain
880: correction applied which accounted for the
881: number of exposures, dithers, and roll angles).
882: The ``optimized conventional AO'' curve was generated by averaging images from
883: all three filters at each roll angle, unsharp masking to remove
884: low spatial frequencies, then subtracting the
885: combinations at different roll angles from each other.
886: The ``measured SDI'' data curve is the full
887: reduced and differenced SDI data for this object
888: (F1(1.575 $\mu$m) - F3a(1.625 $\mu$m) for two roll angles).
889: The ``theoretical SDI noise'' curve is calculated from photon noise
890: (long dashed green curve), flat-field noise (short dashed black curve),
891: and read noise (solid black line) added in quadrature.
892: Within 0.5'', the SDI data is
893: ``flat-field'' noise limited. (In reality,
894: we are limited by super speckle residuals within this radius.
895: Our flat fields are
896: accurate to the $\sim$1$\%$ level, but the speckle residuals $<$0.5''
897: vary more than this and thus dominate the SDI noise.) From
898: 0.5'' onwards, the SDI data is photon-noise limited, asymptotically
899: approaching the
900: read-noise limit at separations $>$ 2''. For a complete set of
901: sensitivity curves,
902: see: http://exoplanet.as.arizona.edu/$\sim$lclose/SDI.html.}
903: \label{fig:DXLeo}
904: \end{figure}
905:
906: We converted our noise in electrons to attainable
907: contrasts in magnitudes in the
908: F1(1.625 $\mu$m) filter --
909: contrast plots in $\Delta$mag
910: are presented for all non-binary survey objects
911: in Figs.~\ref{fig:contrasts1} to ~\ref{fig:contrasts7}
912: according to the H magnitude
913: of the primary for the VLT and according to observing run for the MMT.
914: For every observation which possesses an unsaturated
915: acquisition image (typically 10$\times$0.1 s images taken over $\sim$30 s),
916: the stellar
917: peak in the unsaturated acquisition image was used to scale the saturated
918: stellar peak in the saturated data images and thus attain accurate
919: contrasts in magnitudes. For observations lacking an unsaturated
920: acquisition image, contrast curves for other stars which had similar
921: peaks, read noise values, and shape to the contrast curve in question
922: were selected from the library of contrast plots in electron units. The
923: peaks utilized for these matching contrast curves were then used to scale
924: the observation missing an acquisition image. A peak of 2.2$\times$10$^5$
925: was adopted for $\epsilon\,$Eri (Kellner et al. 2007, Janson et al. 2007)
926: and $\epsilon\,$Ind A (Gei{\ss}ler et al. 2007). We present contrast
927: curves for 48 stars in this paper; the remaining six survey stars were
928: either very close binaries, making it difficult to generate a contrast curve,
929: or had particularly low quality datasets.
930:
931: For the VLT data, attainable contrast depends on primary
932: star H magnitude as well as seeing FWHM
933: and Strehl ratio during the observation.
934: For the brightest stars in
935: the survey (H$<$4.5), we attain 5$\sigma$ contrasts of
936: $\Delta$F1$\sim$12 mag at
937: separations of $>$1'' from the star. For the faintest survey stars,
938: we only attain 5$\sigma$ contrasts of
939: $\Delta$F1$\sim$10 mag $>$1'' from the star. However, considerable
940: spread in attained contrast is observed in each H magnitude bin --
941: most likely due to variations in observing conditions (seeing, Strehl
942: ratio, etc.) across multiple observations. To quantify the effect of
943: seeing on attainable contrast, in Fig.~\ref{fig:seeing}
944: we plot the seeing FWHM (averaged over the observation -- the error bars on seeing are the
945: seeing variations as measured by the standard deviation of
946: the seeing over each observation) vs. attained
947: 5$\sigma$ contrast at 0.5$\arcsec$
948: for 10 of the stars presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:contrasts2}
949: with H magnitudes between 4.5 -- 5.5. For this sample of stars with
950: similar H magnitudes, achievable contrast is roughly inversely
951: proportional to the seeing FWHM. A fair amount of scatter is apparent in this
952: plot and is due in part to seeing variations over the course of
953: each observations. Seeing FWHM can vary
954: considerably over the 20-40 minute timescale of a typical SDI
955: observation, affecting the AO system performance
956: and thus the achievable contrast.
957:
958: However, higher attained contrast does not necessarily translate across
959: the board to a lower minimum detectable planet mass.
960: Although one might be able to attain a very high contrast
961: (5$\sigma$ contrast $>$11 mag at 1'' limited by photon noise) for a bright
962: young A star, one
963: would have more luck searching for low luminosity planets
964: around an intrinsically
965: faint young M star (5$\sigma$ contrast $\sim$9 mag at 1'' limited by
966: read noise), since the
967: inherent contrast difference expected between star and planet is
968: considerably smaller. We obtained
969: contrasts of $\Delta$H$>$10 mag (5 $\sigma$) at 0.5$\arcsec$ for 45$\%$ of
970: target objects at the VLT and contrasts of $\Delta$H$>$9 mag (5 $\sigma$) at
971: 0.5$\arcsec$ for 80$\%$ of our targets. This is more a statement on the
972: spectral types in our sample than a performance related issue.
973:
974: In general, the MMT SDI device performed at a slightly lower level than
975: the VLT SDI device -- attaining 5$\sigma$ contrasts 0.5-1 magnitude less
976: than those achieved at the VLT for similar separation and primary star H
977: magnitude. The lesser performance of the MMT system can be attributed to
978: two factors. First, the diameter of the MMT is 6.5m versus the VLT which has
979: an 8.2 m diameter -- resulting in a considerable decrease in sensitivity.
980: Additionally, the seeing sampled by the
981: MMTAO system was not as stable as for the NACO AO system --
982: Strehl ratios often changed dramatically over an observation, limiting the
983: attainable contrast. However, the MMT SDI results still probe a higher
984: contrast regime at separations $<$1''
985: than is possible with standard AO techniques.
986:
987: In order to determine what objects realistically can be detected
988: for our survey stars,
989: we must convert between our instrumental F1(1.625 $\mu$m) filter magnitudes and
990: H band magnitudes and then compare the H magnitudes to those expected
991: from models of young planets
992: (such as Burrows et al. 2003). To accomplish this, the spectra of both
993: the primary and secondary components of each target must be taken into account.
994: To convert from our F1 filter magnitudes into calibrated H band magnitudes
995: we must calculate the H band magnitude offsets for both the primary star
996: and a potential methane companion (Offset$_A$ and Offset$_B$ respectively):
997:
998: \begin{equation}
999: \Delta H = H_A - H_B = (Offset_B + F1_B) - (Offset_A + F1_A) = (Offset_B - Offset_A) + \Delta F1
1000: \end{equation}
1001:
1002: For primary stars with spectral types F-K, we assume that the star has very
1003: little chromatic variation within the middle of the
1004: H band, so Offset$_A$ is zero
1005: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:SDIFILT}). For lower mass M stars, which are very red,
1006: the magnitude offset is not
1007: negligible. To take an extreme example, a very low mass M8 primary will
1008: have a magnitude offset of Offset$_A$=-0.12$\pm$0.08 mag (calculated
1009: using the spectrum of the M8 star VB10, an H transmission
1010: curve, and our F1 filter transmission curve). The latest stars in our
1011: survey have spectral type M0- M5, so Offset$_A$ will be $<$0.1 mag for
1012: these cases.
1013:
1014: Any T3 or later companion to one of our survey stars
1015: will be blue compared to the primary and will appear ``brighter''
1016: in the F1 filter than in the H band
1017: (in other words, it will have a higher
1018: ``flux'' in the F1 filter ($\#$ photons per unit bandwidth) --
1019: see Fig.~\ref{fig:SDIFILT})
1020: -- so Offset$_B$ will definitely
1021: be non-negligible. We calculated Offset$_B$ for
1022: 18 objects with spectral types of T4.5-T8
1023: \citep[spectra~from][]{kna04}, then averaged together by spectral
1024: type to derive an average offset for each spectral type.
1025: For a T5 companion, Offset$_{T5}$ =
1026: 0.5$\pm$0.05 mag, for a T6 companion, Offset$_{T6}$ = 0.6$\pm$0.07 mag, and
1027: for a T8 companion, Offset$_{T8}$ = 0.87$\pm$0.04 mag.
1028: While we do not convert our full $\Delta$F1 contrast plots to $\Delta$H
1029: contrast plots, for every survey star
1030: we calculate limiting $\Delta$H contrasts (5$\sigma$ values),
1031: at 0.5'' and 1.0'', equivalent separation in AU, apparent
1032: H magnitude, and absolute H magnitude for a T8 spectral type companion
1033: (since extrasolar planets are expected to have spectral type $\ga$ T8,
1034: Burrows et al. 2003). These results are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
1035: However, it is difficult to translate our absolute
1036: H magnitudes into model planet masses since we have assumed a T8 spectral
1037: type in our conversion between $\Delta$F1 and $\Delta$H contrasts -- but
1038: a companion which actually has the
1039: limiting absolute H magnitude we find (combined with
1040: the known age and distance of the system) may have a very different spectral
1041: type.
1042:
1043: Since we cannot translate our H magnitudes directly into planetary mass
1044: companions, we followed the analysis of Masciadri et al. (2005) and
1045: translated theoretical planet models (Burrows et al. 2003,
1046: Baraffe et al. 2003)
1047: into H magnitudes
1048: then determined the minimum separation at which such a companion
1049: could be detected (at the 5$\sigma$ level) in our survey.
1050: The minimum separation at which a 5 M$_{Jup}$ or a 10 M$_{Jup}$ companion
1051: could be detected for each of our survey stars is shown in
1052: Table 6. Using the Burrows et al. (2003) models,
1053: for 50$\%$ of the cases in our survey
1054: we detect no 5 M$_{Jup}$ planets at separations larger than 18.6 AU
1055: and no 10 M$_{Jup}$ planets are separations larger than 7.5 AU. While
1056: these numbers are comparable to those found in Masciadri et al. (2005),
1057: our current survey actually attains higher contrasts on a case by case basis
1058: than Masciadri et al. (2005).
1059: Our median survey object has an age of 50 Myr whereas the median survey object of
1060: Masciadri et al. (2005) has a considerably younger age of 12 Myr --
1061: the star-planet contrast is less at younger ages,
1062: thus one would expect a younger object
1063: to have a lower minimum separation at a given attained contrast
1064: than a similar but older object.
1065: For the 10 objects in common between the surveys, our survey attains lower
1066: minimum separations for 8 out of 10 objects (we note also
1067: that the two objects for which we did not attain lower separations were
1068: particularly low quality SDI datasets). Minimum detectable separations
1069: for a 5 M$_{Jup}$ object for the
1070: 10 objects in common are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:elenacomp} (using the
1071: ages adopted by Masciadri et al. 2005). Our
1072: survey is generally more sensitive than Masciadri et al. (2005) on
1073: shared stars because the SDI technique allows us to achieve higher
1074: contrasts closer to the star (separations of 0.3'' - 1.0'') compared to
1075: the deep broad-band imaging technique of Masciadri et al. (2005), thus allowing
1076: us to potentially detect companions at tighter separations.
1077: We also
1078: shared 4 survey objects in common with Lowrance et al. (2005) and 1 object
1079: ($\epsilon\,$Eri) in common with Luhman and Jayawardhana (2002). In all
1080: of these cases, our limiting contrasts at 0.5''
1081: ($\Delta$H$\sim$10-11 mag) are considerably higher than those attained in
1082: these previous surveys ($\Delta$H$\sim$6.5-7.6 mag), thus we are
1083: sensitive to planets at much smaller separations with SDI.
1084:
1085: \subsection{Survey Completeness}
1086:
1087: One would not expect a planet to be detectable at all phases of its orbit --
1088: to really understand the types of planets to which we are sensitive, we must take
1089: orbital motion into account and translate separations on the sky into
1090: orbital semi-major axes ({\it a}). To this end, we generated contour
1091: plots of fractional completeness
1092: as a function of mass and semi-major axis.
1093: For every survey star, we simulate 10000 planets for
1094: each combination of mass and semi-major axis. Eccentricities are
1095: drawn from a distribution of eccentricities consistent with known radial
1096: velocity planets. Standard distributions were used to randomly compute
1097: viewing angle and orbital phase, giving an instantaneous separation between
1098: star and planet. We use the distance, age, spectral type, and H-band
1099: magnitude of the star, and luminosity as a function of mass, calculated from
1100: the Burrows et al. (2003)
1101: models, to provide each simulated planet a separation
1102: on the sky in arcseconds, and an H-band flux ratio compared to its parent
1103: star. Combining this with the SDI contrast curve for each star in the survey,
1104: we can then determine the percentage of simulated planets detected as a
1105: function of mass and semi-major axis for each survey star.
1106: Contour plots for a set of 4 typical
1107: program stars (AB Dor, DX Leo, GJ 182, and GJ 799B) are presented
1108: in Fig.~\ref{fig:contour}. Note that we conservatively assume only T-type objects
1109: can be detected, hence masses $>$ 10 M$_{Jup}$ are not considered for many
1110: young targets. The value attached to each contour level defines
1111: the completeness of our observation to detecting (at the 5$\sigma$ confidence
1112: level) a planet with the given semi-major axis and mass. It is worth noting
1113: that the only assumptions necessary for the generation of these plots is the
1114: eccentricity distribution of planets and the Burrows et al. 2003 models.
1115:
1116: We use this method to summarize our survey completeness in
1117: Fig.~\ref{fig:50percent}. Having computed the completeness for each star to
1118: planets at various masses and semi-major axes, we take slices at representative
1119: values of the semi-major axis, and present the number of stars in our 54 star
1120: survey which are at least 50\% complete to such a planet. Our survey
1121: places the strongest constraints on planets between 6-10 M$_{Jup}$ with
1122: semi-major axes between 20-40 AU. With 20 such stars (with 50$\%$ or
1123: greater completeness in this mass/semi-major axis range) surveyed without
1124: a detection of a planet, a simple way of interpreting our results (though
1125: without statistical rigor) is that we would expect the frequency of such
1126: planets to be of order 10\% or less.
1127:
1128: The evolutionary models of \citet{bur03} utilize a ``hot start'' initial
1129: condition which, while appropriate for brown dwarfs, is possibly significantly
1130: different from the actual initial origins of planets. The \citet[][]{bur03}
1131: models begin with a high-temperature, high-entropy hydrogen-helium sphere
1132: which is allowed to radiate and cool over time. In
1133: contrast, a planet forms when gas
1134: accretes onto a rocky core, according to the core-accretion models of Ida
1135: and Lin (2005) and the disk instability models of Boss (2003).
1136: Recently, \citet[][]{marl06} simulated model planets with more realistic
1137: (lower entropy) initial conditions. These model planets have significantly
1138: lower luminosities at young ages ($<$1 Gyr). Model planets also converge to
1139: the ``hot start'' evolutionary tracks at different times according to mass --
1140: a 1 M$_{Jup}$ model converges to traditional tracks by 20 Myr, while a 10
1141: M$_{Jup}$ requires up to 1 Gyr to match traditional tracks. Currently, H band
1142: magnitudes for these models are not yet available, but will be available in
1143: Spring 2007 (private communication, J. Fortney). When H band magnitudes are
1144: available, we will repeat this analysis using these new models.
1145:
1146: \subsection{Sensitivity Case Study: AB Dor with Simulated Planets}
1147:
1148: Since our survey data are highly saturated in the core of the image,
1149: it is difficult to place simulated objects in our data with a
1150: high degree of positional accuracy, as there is no external reference
1151: for position between data taken at different dithers and roll angles.
1152: However, as part of the
1153: SDI survey observations, our team discovered a close-in
1154: (0.156$\arcsec$) companion (hereafter AB Dor C) to the young star
1155: AB Dor \citep[][]{clo05b}. While this companion is a very low mass M star
1156: \citep[0.090$\pm$0.005~M$_{Sun}$,~M5.5$\pm$1,][]{clo05b,clo07b} and
1157: hence, does not possess methane absorption features, it it still clearly
1158: detected in our SDI data. In our second AB Dor dataset where AB Dor C is
1159: separated from its primary by 0.2'' (Nielsen et al. 2005), the AB Dor C source can be
1160: used to our advantage as a reference position from which to offset --
1161: allowing us to
1162: add simulated planets into this dataset with highly accurate positions
1163: and relative fluxes independent of our ``pipeline'' calculated centroids.
1164:
1165: Simulated planets were produced by scaling $\sim$10$\times$0.1 s
1166: unsaturated images of AB Dor A
1167: taken right before the example dataset. Planets were simulated with
1168: $\Delta$F1(1.575$\mu$m) = 9, 10, 11, and 12 mag and with methane break
1169: strengths appropriate for T5, T6, and T8 spectral types. Methane break
1170: strengths were calculated using the methane spectral index defined in
1171: Section 3.2. Photon noise and zero points
1172: appropriate for each object was added using
1173: the IRAF artdata/mkobject tool. The photometric zero point was
1174: calculated from AB Dor C.
1175:
1176: A fully reduced 28 minute dataset of AB Dor A (70 Myr K1V at a distance
1177: of 14.98 pc, V=6.88) from the VLT SDI device
1178: is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:SDIREDplan} with simulated planets
1179: added at separations of 0.4'', 0.6'', 0.8'', 1.0'', 1.2'', 1.4'',
1180: 1.6'', 1.8'', 2.0, and 2.2'' from the primary
1181: ($\Delta$F1(1.575$\mu$m) = 9, 10, 11, and 12 mag and spectral type T8).
1182: Past 0.7'', the $\Delta$F1(1.575$\mu$m) = 10 simulated planets are detected
1183: with S/N $>$ 10. The 2.2'' object falls off the edge of the aperture in
1184: several dithers and thus appears somewhat attenuated compared to the other
1185: simulated objects.
1186: Maximum achievable companion contrast at the 5$\sigma$ level as a
1187: function of distance from the star is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:simcontrast1}.
1188: The residual noise curve for this star (see section 3.3) is also
1189: overplotted. Contrast curves (5$\sigma$) calculated
1190: with both techniques agree well with each other. Using
1191: the magnitude offsets developed in section 3.4, we convert our
1192: $\Delta$F1(1.575$\mu$m) contrasts into $\Delta$H for each spectral type.
1193: We adopt Offset$_A$ = 0 mag, Offset$_B$ = 0.5 mag for a T5 object,
1194: Offset$_B$ = 0.6 mag for a T6 object, and Offset$_B$ = 0.87 mag for a
1195: T8 object. $\Delta$H vs. separation
1196: in arcsec is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:simcontrastH1}.
1197:
1198: $\Delta$F1 contrasts were
1199: translated into planet masses using the 100 Myr models of \citet[][]{bur03}.
1200: According to the 100 Myr old model, objects with mass $\leq$ 10 M$_{Jup}$ will
1201: have T$_{eff}$ $<$ 900 K -- these objects are reliably of spectral
1202: types later than T7 (temperature scale from Burgasser et al. 2006).
1203: Thus, we adopt the T8 spectral type curve for this
1204: analysis. AB Dor has a likely age of 50-70 Myr (Nielsen et al. 2005,
1205: Close et al. 2007b) -- we interpolate the models
1206: of \citet[][]{bur03} to derive masses at these ages as well.
1207: The minimum detectable planet mass as a function of distance from the star
1208: is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:simcontrastmass}. Adopting an age of 70 Myr
1209: for AB Dor A, we can detect a 5 M$_{Jup}$ planet 12 AU from the star.
1210: However, as noted above, the Burrows et al. 2003 models utilize a hot
1211: start initial condition which may be inappropriate for a young planet.
1212: The Marley et al. (2006)
1213: models utilize more appropriate initial conditions and
1214: when H band magnitudes become available for these models, we will repeat
1215: this analysis.
1216:
1217: \subsection{Comparison with Other Direct Detection Methods}
1218:
1219: We believe that our SDI images are the highest contrast astronomical
1220: images ever made from ground or space for methane rich companions
1221: $\leq$1'' from their star. To substantiate this claim, we compare our
1222: SDI contrast curves with those produced using a variety of other
1223: competing methods (Azimuthal Differential Imaging (ADI), Marois et
1224: al. 2006, Lyot Coronagraph, Hinkley et al. 2007, HST NICMOS, Schneider
1225: et al. 2003, K-band Keck AO, Schneider et al. 2003, and NACO deep
1226: imaging in the Ks band, Masciadri et al. 2005). Comparison contrast
1227: curves are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:contcomp2}. Apart from the Lyot
1228: and NICMOS curves, all curves are from $\geq$8m class telescopes. For
1229: ease of comparison, we convert our $\Delta$F1=1.575 $\mu$m SDI
1230: contrast curve into the equivalent $\Delta$H contrast appropriate for
1231: a T8 spectral type companion. For methanated companions, SDI provides
1232: improved contrast by 1-4 mag within 1$\arcsec$ as compared to other
1233: methods.
1234:
1235: \subsection{New and Confirmed Close Binary Stars}
1236:
1237: A number of close binary stars were discovered or confirmed during our survey.
1238: In Table 7, we present separations and position angles
1239: measured from unsaturated SDI images of these
1240: stars acquired before each full SDI dataset was taken.
1241: These values are meant as estimates, hence, no error estimate is provided.
1242: We discovered close stellar companions to HIP 9141 (0.15'' measured SDI separation),
1243: AB Dor A (0.16'' measured SDI separation, see Close et al. 2005a),
1244: HD 48189A (0.14'' measured SDI separation), HD 135363 (0.26'' measured SDI separation)
1245: and CD-64 1208 (0.18'' measured SDI separation). The $<$0.5'' separation between the primary
1246: stars and these object makes it highly improbable that they are
1247: background objects.
1248: Additionally, we confirmed the close binary RXJ 1243.6-7834 (0.068''
1249: measured SDI separation) discovered by Brandner et al. (2000), the visual double LH 98 062
1250: (2.4'' measured SDI separation) discovered by Mochnacki et al. (2002), the spectroscopic
1251: binary TWA 4 (0.78'' measured SDI separation) discovered by Torres et al. (1995) and the close binary
1252: EK Dra (0.67'' measured SDI separation) discovered by Metchev and Hillenbrand (2004).
1253:
1254: \subsection{Candidate Identification / Elimination}
1255:
1256: Survey data were examined for planet candidates by eye and also using
1257: automated detection algorithms; generally, the human eye proved
1258: more effective for detecting candidates.
1259: We identified 8 very tentative planet candidates at the VLT which passed
1260: the following tests:
1261:
1262: 1) Candidate must appear at the appropriate positions in the full
1263: reduced data.
1264: (i.e. candidate image position must jump by the appropriate roll angle.)
1265:
1266: 2) Candidate must appear (at least marginally)
1267: at the appropriate position in each of the separate roll angle images
1268:
1269: 3) Candidates detected in the F1(1.575 $\mu$m) - F3a(1.625 $\mu$m) difference
1270: should also be detected in the F2(1.6 $\mu$m) - F3a(1.625 $\mu$m) difference
1271: as well.
1272:
1273: These extremely tentative ($<$2$\sigma$)
1274: candidates are noted in the comments column of Table 1, with the
1275: predicted mass (from the models of Burrows et al. 2003)
1276: and separation had it been real.
1277: No candidates were detected with $>$ 3$\sigma$. None of the 8
1278: tentative candidates were detected at a
1279: second epoch, thus the survey reached a null result for extrasolar planets
1280: at the $\sim$3$\sigma$ level and certainly at the 5$\sigma$ level analyzed
1281: here.
1282:
1283: \subsection{Planet Detectability}
1284:
1285: To determine what sort of planets we can detect in this survey,
1286: we converted our contrast
1287: curves in $\Delta$mag units into minimum detectable mass vs.
1288: separation (assuming
1289: a late T to early Y spectral type for all possible objects
1290: and using the models of \citet[][]{bur03}).
1291: We calculated minimum detectable mass vs. separation for all stars with
1292: contrast curves in Figs.~\ref{fig:contrasts1} to Figs.~\ref{fig:contrasts7};
1293: minimum detectable mass vs. separation is presented for a set of four
1294: typical survey stars (AB Dor, DX Leo, GJ 182, and GJ 799B)
1295: in Fig.~\ref{fig:minmasses}.
1296: However, to detect an object of any given mass
1297: requires that such an object exists around its parent object!
1298: The likelihood of detecting any object at a given radius
1299: is a combination of the minimum detectable mass for the parent star at
1300: that radius and the likelihood of such
1301: an object existing. Therefore it is very important to fully characterize
1302: and understand the expected distribution of objects around each survey
1303: star. The results of the survey then also constrain the possible
1304: distribution of extrasolar planets as a function of radius.
1305:
1306: To this end, we ran detailed Monte Carlo simulations
1307: to characterize the ensemble of planets expected to exist around
1308: each star. We conduct a similar simulation to that used to produce the
1309: contour plots of Fig.~\ref{fig:contour}, as described in
1310: Section 3.4 (these simulations are described in much more
1311: depth in Nielsen et al. 2006). In contrast to the production of the
1312: contour plots, we simulate 10$^6$ planets instead of 10$^4$, and mass
1313: and semi-major axis are now assigned distributions of
1314: their own. The mass and semi-major axis distributions,
1315: like the distribution for eccentricity, are produced by
1316: considering the population of published radial velocity planets (e.g.
1317: Butler et al. 2006), with mass and eccentricity both chosen to fit the
1318: histograms from observed planets. Semi-major axis has been observed to
1319: follow a distribution of N({\it a}) $\propto$ {\it a}$^{-1}$
1320: for radial velocity planets (Wright
1321: et al. 2005). Since the radial velocity method has an inherent bias toward
1322: close-in planets (which have shorter orbital periods and larger radial
1323: velocity amplitudes), we attempt to correct for this by assuming a power-law
1324: distribution that is constant in semi-major axis -- i.e.
1325: N({\it a}) $\propto$ constant. We consider the results
1326: of Fischer and Valenti's (2005) volume-limited sample, and choose an outer
1327: limit for the semi-major axis distribution such that, for stars in the
1328: metallicity range in our sample, each star is expected to host one planet.
1329: This is done by integrating the semi-major axis distribution from 0.02 AU
1330: (corresponding to HD 41004Bb, the closest-in exoplanet known thus far) to
1331: 2.5 AU, the detection limit for the sample of Fischer and Valenti (2005), then
1332: noting the fraction of stars with planets in the metallicity range
1333: (-0.5 $<$ [Fe/H] $<$ 0.25) of our target stars (4.1\%) and choosing an
1334: upper cut-off to the distribution when the integral reaches 100\%. This
1335: gives us a constant probability distribution for semi-major axis between
1336: 0.02 and 45 AU that contains the same number of planets found in the
1337: $<$2.5 AU radial velocity survey.
1338: %ensemble of 100000 possible planets per star, with assumed power laws
1339: %describing the semimajor axis, eccentricity, and mass distributions
1340: %drawn from the population of
1341: %published radial velocity planets (e.g. Butler et al. 2006).
1342: %masses and ages from Burrows et al. 2003) and
1343: %scaling to semimajor axes $>$ 5 AU,
1344: %with a cutoff in semimajor axis of 20 AU (based on the known size
1345: %of circumstellar disks). We adopted a power law distribution of mass with an
1346: %index $\alpha$ = 1/2.
1347: %From the contrast curve attained with SDI for that star (converted
1348: %to minimum detectable mass using the models of Burrows et al. 2003), we can
1349: %then determine which of the simulated planets can be detected with the SDI
1350: %device.
1351:
1352: The ensemble of simulated planets is shown for our set of
1353: four typical stars in
1354: Fig.~\ref{fig:minmasses}. Simulated planets which are detected are plotted
1355: as blue dots and those that remain undetected are plotted as red dots.
1356: In addition to
1357: the contrast plot, we also consider a planet ``undetectable''
1358: when its apparent
1359: H magnitude drops below 21 mag (a limit set by our total integration time), or when the
1360: planet's temperature rises above 1400 K (given as a function of age and
1361: planet mass by Burrows et al. 2003). Above this temperature, the strength of
1362: the 1.62 $\mu$m methane break weakens to the point that the SDI method loses
1363: effectiveness. Since we assume that each program star possesses exactly
1364: one planet that
1365: follows the distributions given above, we can assign a detection probability
1366: for that star from the percentage of the simulated planets that are
1367: detectable at the 5$\sigma$ level.
1368: For our 48 program stars (consisting of 40 stars with ages $>$250 Myr
1369: and closer than 50 pc, 1 10 Myr old star at a distance of 67 pc,
1370: 3 stars with known RV planets and 4 nearby solar analogues)
1371: which possess contrast curves,
1372: the average detection probability is 8.0$\%$, the median detection probability
1373: is 4.1$\%$, and the maximum detection probability is 47$\%$. We have
1374: chosen to leave the older stars in this sample in our statistics
1375: even though their detection probabilities are essentially zero.
1376: Integrating over the probability distribution of our program stars,
1377: in Fig.~\ref{fig:ep} we
1378: plot the number of planets we expect to detect as a function
1379: of total stars observed, ordering the results so that the best stars (highest
1380: detection probabilities) are considered first. For the 48 stars in our
1381: surveys for which we acquired contrast curves,
1382: we expect to detect a total of 3-4 planets
1383: (3.8 to be exact) based on the above assumptions.
1384: Thus, our survey null detection
1385: rules out this exoplanet distribution at the 98\% (2.0$\sigma$) level.
1386: It is important to note that this null result
1387: shows that this particular combination of assumptions (mass distribution,
1388: eccentricity distribution, constant semi-major axis distribution, upper limit
1389: to semi-major axis at 45 AU, assumption that each star has a planet, and the
1390: mass-luminosity conversion from the models of Burrows et al. 2003) is ruled
1391: out to this confidence level; determining which individual assumptions are
1392: incorrect will required data beyond that of the current survey. These
1393: simulations (including a variety of other possible exoplanet distributions)
1394: are discussed in more detail in Nielsen et al. (in prep.)
1395: Nevertheless, our null detection in this survey sets strong upper limits
1396: on the distribution of
1397: young massive extrasolar planets $>$5 AU from their primaries and
1398: provides valuable constraints for theories of planet formation and migration.
1399:
1400:
1401: \section{Conclusions}
1402:
1403: We obtained datasets for 54 stars
1404: (45 stars were observed in the southern sky at the VLT,
1405: 11 stars were observed in the northern sky at the MMT, and 2 stars
1406: were observed at both telescopes).
1407: In our VLT data, we achieved H band contrasts
1408: $>$ 10 mag (5$\sigma$) at a separation of 1.0" from
1409: the primary star on 45$\%$ of our targets
1410: and H band contrasts of $>$ 9 mag at a separation of 0.5''
1411: on 80$\%$ of our targets.
1412: With this degree of attenuation, we should be able to
1413: image (5$\sigma$ detection) a 5 M$_{Jup}$ planet 15 AU from the star
1414: around a 70 Myr K1 star at 15 pc or a 5 M$_{Jup}$ planet at 2 AU from
1415: a 12 Myr M star at 10 pc. We believe that our SDI images are the highest
1416: contrast astronomical
1417: images ever made from ground or space for methane rich companions within
1418: 1'' of their primary star.
1419:
1420: Eight tentative candidates were identified (none with S/N $>$ 2 $\sigma$).
1421: Had these candidates been real, they would have possessed
1422: separations of 3 - 15.5 AU and
1423: masses of 2-10 M$_{Jup}$. However, none of the candidates were
1424: detected in second epoch observations.
1425: Thus, we find a null result from our survey. Nonetheless,
1426: our result still has serious implications for the distribution
1427: of extrasolar planets. In the course of our survey, we also discovered
1428: 5 new close stellar binary systems with measured separations of 0.14'' to 0.26''.
1429:
1430: For 20 of our survey stars,
1431: we attained 50$\%$ completeness for 6-10 M$_{Jup}$ planets at semi-major
1432: axes of 20-40 AU. Thus, our completeness levels are sufficient to
1433: significantly test theoretical planet distributions. From our survey null
1434: result, we can rule out (at the 98$\%$/2.0$\sigma$ level)
1435: a model planet population using a constant
1436: distribution (N(a) $\propto$ constant) of planet semi-major
1437: axis out to a distance of 45 AU (a number
1438: of further exoplanet distribution models are considered in Nielsen et al.
1439: in prep). Our null detection in this survey sets strong upper limits
1440: on the distribution of
1441: young massive extrasolar planets $>$5 AU from their primaries and
1442: provides valuable contraints for theories of planet formation and migration.
1443:
1444: \acknowledgements{This publication is based on observations made with
1445: the MMT and the ESO VLT at Paranal Observatory under programme ID's
1446: 074.C-0548, 074.C-0549, and 076.C-0094.
1447: This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey,
1448: which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared
1449: Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded
1450: by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National
1451: Science Foundation.
1452: We thank Ren\'{e} Racine for refereeing this paper and for useful suggestions and
1453: Remi Soummer for suggesting the method of countour plots to present our detection
1454: limits. BAB is supported by the NASA GSRP grant NNG04GN95H and NASA Origins
1455: grant NNG05GL71G. LMC is supported by an NSF CAREER award and the NASA Origins of the Solar
1456: System program. ELN is supported by a Michelson Fellowship.
1457: }
1458:
1459: \clearpage
1460:
1461: \begin{figure}
1462: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f8.eps}
1463: \caption[Contrasts for VLT survey objects with H $<$ 4.5]
1464: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
1465: { \label{fig:contrasts1} 5$\sigma$
1466: Contrasts for VLT SDI survey objects with H $<$ 4.5 in the
1467: F1(1.575 $\mu$m) filter. These contrast curves were
1468: generated by translating a 6$\times$6
1469: pixel (0.1''$\times$0.1'')
1470: box along a particular radial trajectory away from the center of the
1471: star and then calculating the standard deviation within that box as a
1472: function of radius. Curves were generated from the full
1473: reduced and differenced SDI data for each object
1474: (F1(1.575 $\mu$m) - F3a(1.625 $\mu$m) for two roll angles).
1475: }
1476: \end{figure}
1477:
1478: \begin{figure}
1479: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f9.eps}
1480: \caption[Contrasts for VLT survey objects with 5.5 $>$ H $>$ 4.5]
1481: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
1482: { \label{fig:contrasts2} Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:contrasts1} but
1483: for VLT SDI survey objects with 5.5 $>$ H $>$ 4.5.
1484: }
1485: \end{figure}
1486:
1487: \begin{figure}
1488: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f10.eps}
1489: \caption[Contrasts for VLT survey objects with 6.5 $>$ H $>$ 5.5]
1490: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
1491: { \label{fig:contrasts3} Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:contrasts1} but
1492: for VLT SDI survey objects with 6.5 $>$ H $>$ 5.5.
1493: }
1494: \end{figure}
1495:
1496: \begin{figure}
1497: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f11.eps}
1498: \caption[Contrasts for VLT survey objects with 7.5 $>$ H $>$6.5]
1499: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
1500: { \label{fig:contrasts4} Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:contrasts1} but
1501: for VLT SDI survey objects with 7.5 $>$ H $>$ 6.5.
1502: }
1503: \end{figure}
1504:
1505: \begin{figure}
1506: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f12.eps}
1507: \caption[Contrasts for VLT survey objects with H $>$7.5]
1508: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
1509: { \label{fig:contrasts5} Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:contrasts1} but
1510: for VLT SDI survey objects with H $>$ 7.5.
1511: }
1512: \end{figure}
1513:
1514: \begin{figure}
1515: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f13.eps}
1516: \caption[Contrasts for MMT survey objects observed in May 2005]
1517: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
1518: { \label{fig:contrasts6} 5$\sigma$
1519: contrasts for MMT SDI survey objects observed in May 2005.
1520: These contrast curves were generated by translating a 6$\times$6
1521: (0.1''$\times$0.1'')
1522: pixel box along a particular radial trajectory away from the center of the
1523: star and then calculating the standard deviation within that box as a
1524: function of radius. Curves were generated from the full
1525: reduced and differenced SDI data for each object
1526: (F1(1.575 $\mu$m) - F3a(1.625 $\mu$m) for two roll angles).
1527: }
1528: \end{figure}
1529:
1530:
1531: \begin{figure}
1532: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f14.eps}
1533: \caption[Contrasts for MMT survey objects observed in February 2006]
1534: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
1535: { \label{fig:contrasts7} Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:contrasts6} but for
1536: MMT SDI survey objects observed in February 2006.}
1537: \end{figure}
1538:
1539:
1540: \begin{figure}
1541: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f15.eps}
1542: \caption[FWHM vs. Contrast at 0.5'']
1543: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
1544: { \label{fig:seeing} Seeing FWHM (averaged over
1545: each observation) vs. attained
1546: 5$\sigma$ contrast at 0.5$\arcsec$ separation from the primary star
1547: for 10 of the stars presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:contrasts2}
1548: with H magnitudes between 4.5 -- 5.5. The error bars on seeing are the
1549: seeing variation (as measured by the standard deviation of
1550: the seeing) over each observation.
1551: For this sample of stars with
1552: roughly the same H magnitude, achievable contrast varies
1553: roughly inversely with the average seeing FWHM.
1554: Scatter in this plot is in part due to the fact that
1555: seeing FWHM can change considerably over a 20-40 minute long observation.
1556: }
1557: \end{figure}
1558:
1559:
1560: \begin{figure}
1561: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f16.ps}
1562: \caption[Minimum Separations]
1563: {Minimum detectable planet separations for a 5 M$_{Jup}$ planet for the
1564: 10 objects in common between this survey and Masciadri et al. (2005)
1565: who used VLT NACO without SDI.
1566: For the purpose of comparison, we have adopted ages from Masciadri et al.
1567: (2005); we note our preferred age on the figure where our adopted ages
1568: differ from Masciadri et al. (2005).
1569: We translated theoretical 5 M$_{Jup}$
1570: planet models (Burrows et al. 2003, Baraffe et al. 2003)
1571: into H magnitudes for these 10 cases
1572: then determined the minimum separation at which such a companion
1573: could be detected (at the 5$\sigma$ level) in our survey.
1574: For the 10 objects in common between the surveys, our SDI survey attains lower
1575: minimum separations for 8 out of 10 objects (we note also
1576: that the two objects for which we did not attain lower separations were
1577: particularly low quality AO/SDI datasets).
1578: }
1579: \label{fig:elenacomp}
1580: \end{figure}
1581:
1582: \begin{figure}[]
1583: \begin{center}
1584: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1585: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{f17a.ps} &
1586: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{f17b.ps} \\
1587: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{f17c.ps} &
1588: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{f17d.ps} \\
1589: \end{tabular}
1590: \end{center}
1591: \caption[Contour Plots]
1592: { Planet detection completeness contour plots for
1593: a set of 4 typical program stars (upper left: AB Dor, upper right: DX Leo,
1594: lower left: GJ 182, lower right: GJ 799B). For a given mass and
1595: semi-major axis, 10,000 planets are simulated by our Monte Carlo method, over
1596: the expected distributions of eccentricity, orbital phase, and viewing
1597: angle. Given the parameters of the target star and the models of Burrows
1598: et al. (2003), we determine what fraction of the simulated planets are
1599: detectable at the 5$\sigma$ level given the contrast plot for that star. The
1600: contours show this detection probability across the 100,000 different
1601: combinations of mass and semi-major axis considered in this plot. The strong
1602: upper limit in mass is set by our conservative $<$1400 K limit for the
1603: methane break
1604: required for a robust SDI detection. In these models, we simply
1605: do not allow an object with T$_{eff}>$1400 K to be detected, when
1606: in reality SDI can detect such non-methane objects (e.g. AB Dor C,
1607: Close et al. 2005b, Nielsen et al. 2005). For a complete set of
1608: planet detection completeness contour plots,
1609: see: http://exoplanet.as.arizona.edu/$\sim$lclose/SDI.html.}
1610: %axis and stellar age, 10000 planets were simulated with a range
1611: %orbital eccentricities and with luminosities calculated from the
1612: %Burrows et al. 2003 models. Combining this with our SDI contrast curves,
1613: %we can then determine the percentage of simulated planets detected as a
1614: %function of mass and semi-major axis for each survey star.}
1615: \label{fig:contour}
1616: \end{figure}
1617:
1618:
1619:
1620: \begin{figure}
1621: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f18.ps}
1622: \caption[50$\%$ completeness plot]
1623: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
1624: { \label{fig:50percent} Our
1625: 50$\%$ completeness levels. Combining the results
1626: of Fig.~\ref{fig:contour}, we consider individual values of the semi-major
1627: axis across the planetary mass range, and at each combination calculate the
1628: total number of stars in our survey (out of a total of 54) where the fraction
1629: of such planets, given by the Monte Carlo Simulation, that can be detected at
1630: the 5$\sigma$ level is 50$\%$ or greater.
1631: {\it Clearly, our survey is best able to
1632: place constraints on planets between 6 and 10 M$_{Jup}$, and with semi-major
1633: axis between 20 and 40 AU}. The decrease in sensitivity for masses $>$7
1634: M$_{Jup}$ is due to the fact that such high mass planets are too hot
1635: to possess significant methane absorption if they are very young
1636: and, thus, are not ideal SDI targets. The higher completeness for 7-8
1637: M$_{Jup}$ planets for semi-major axis of 30 AU vs. semi-major axis of 40 AU
1638: is due to the small field of view of the SDI device; planets with semi-major
1639: axes $>$ 30 AU can fall outside the SDI field in some of these cases.
1640: }
1641: \end{figure}
1642:
1643:
1644:
1645:
1646: \clearpage
1647:
1648: \begin{figure}
1649: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f19.eps}
1650: \caption[Reduced VLT SDI data]
1651: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
1652: { \label{fig:SDIREDplan} A complete reduced dataset of AB Dor A
1653: (28 minutes of data at a series of rotator angles --
1654: 0$^{\circ}$, 33$^{\circ}$, 33$^{\circ}$, 0$^{\circ}$) from the VLT SDI device.
1655: Simulated planets have been added every 0.2'' from the star (0.4'', 0.6'',
1656: 0.8'', 1.0'', 1.2'', 1.4'', 1.6'', 1.8'', 2.0'', and 2.2'')
1657: with $\Delta$F1(1.575$\mu$m) = 9 mag (upper left,
1658: (attenuation in magnitudes in the 1.575 $\mu$m
1659: F1 filter), 10 mag (upper right), 11 mag (lower left) and 12 mag
1660: (lower right) fainter than the star. The 0.4'' object
1661: falls within the inner dark circle (dark circle
1662: radius of 0.5'', 0.5'', 0.7'', and 1.3'' respectively
1663: for the 9, 10, 11, and 12 mag objects); the 2.2'' object falls outside the
1664: frame aperture in a number of dither images and thus is detected with lower
1665: S/N than the other objects.
1666: These simulated
1667: planets are scaled from unsaturated images of AB Dor A
1668: taken right before the example dataset (and have fluxes and
1669: photon-noise in each filter
1670: appropriate for a T6 object).
1671: }
1672: \end{figure}
1673:
1674: \clearpage
1675:
1676: \begin{figure}
1677: \begin{center}
1678: \begin{tabular}{c}
1679: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f20.eps}
1680: \end{tabular}
1681: \end{center}
1682: \caption[Maximum Achievable Planet Contrast vs. Separation]
1683: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
1684: { \label{fig:simcontrast1} Maximum achievable planet contrast (5$\sigma$
1685: detection) vs. separation for 28 minutes of VLT SDI data for AB Dor A. To
1686: determine the maximum achievable planet contrast as a function of separation,
1687: we inserted and then attempted to retrieve simulated planets with a variety
1688: of separations and $\Delta$F1 contrasts appropriate for T5, T6, and T8
1689: spectral types. The residual SDI noise
1690: curve for AB Dor A is also overplotted; the two curves agree well, giving
1691: us confidence in our measured contrast limits.
1692: }
1693: \end{figure}
1694:
1695: \begin{figure}
1696: \begin{center}
1697: \begin{tabular}{c}
1698: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f21.eps}
1699: \end{tabular}
1700: \end{center}
1701: \caption[Maximum achievable H band planet contrast vs. separation]
1702: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
1703: { \label{fig:simcontrastH1} Maximum achievable H band
1704: planet contrast (5$\sigma$
1705: detection) vs. separation for 28 minutes of VLT SDI data for AB Dor A. To
1706: determine the maximum achievable planet contrast as a function of separation,
1707: we inserted and then attempted to retrieve simulated planets with a variety
1708: of separations and $\Delta$F1 contrasts appropriate for T5, T6, and T8
1709: spectral types. $\Delta$F1 contrasts were converted
1710: to $\Delta$H magnitudes using the magnitude offsets calculated in section 3.3.
1711: }
1712: \end{figure}
1713:
1714: \begin{figure}
1715: \begin{center}
1716: \begin{tabular}{c}
1717: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f22.eps}
1718: \end{tabular}
1719: \end{center}
1720: \caption[Minimum Detectable Planet Mass vs. Separation]
1721: %>>>> use \label inside caption to get Fig. number with \ref{}
1722: { \label{fig:simcontrastmass} Minimum detectable planet mass
1723: (5$\sigma$ detection) vs. separation (AU) for 28 minutes of VLT SDI
1724: data for AB Dor A. To
1725: determine the minimum detectable planet mass as a function of separation,
1726: we inserted and then attempted to retrieve simulated planets with a variety
1727: of separations and $\Delta$F1 contrasts appropriate for T5, T6, and T8
1728: spectral types. $\Delta$F1 contrasts were converted
1729: to $\Delta$H magnitudes using the magnitude offsets calculated in section 3.3
1730: and were then converted to absolute H magnitudes using the 2MASS apparent
1731: H magnitude and the Hipparcos distance for each star.
1732: Absolute H magnitudes were converted into planet
1733: masses using the models of \citet[][]{bur03} and adopting a range of
1734: system ages from 50 - 100 Myr. For AB Dor, we should be able to
1735: image (5$\sigma$ detection) a 5 M$_{Jup}$ planet 12 AU from the star.
1736: For a complete set of minimum detectable planet mass vs. separation curves,
1737: see: http://exoplanet.as.arizona.edu/$\sim$lclose/SDI.html.}
1738: \end{figure}
1739: \clearpage
1740:
1741: \begin{figure}
1742: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f23.eps}
1743: \caption[Comparison with other direct detection methods]
1744: {\label{fig:contcomp2} Comparison of SDI contrast curve with other
1745: methods. The Lyot curve is for the 3.6m AEOS telescope
1746: (Hinkley et al. 2007) and the NICMOS
1747: curve coronograph curve is from HST (Schneider et al. 2003);
1748: otherwise curves are all from $\geq$8m class
1749: telescopes. We use the LQ Hya contrast curve from Masciadri et
1750: al. (2005) because this star (K2, 18 pc vs. K1, 15 pc) is the closest
1751: match from that work to AB Dor A (our SDI comparison star.) The SDI
1752: contrast curve has been converted from $\Delta$F1=1.575$\mu$m to
1753: $\Delta$H contrasts appropriate for a T8 spectral type object. Inside
1754: 0.4'', SDI contrasts are derived from the 1-trajectory SDI contrast
1755: plot of AB Dor A; outside of 0.4'', SDI contrasts are derived from our
1756: in-depth planet simulation case study of AB Dor A. For methanated
1757: companions, SDI provides improved contrast by 1-4 mag within
1758: 1$\arcsec$ as compared to other methods. Past 1$\arcsec$, narrowband
1759: imaging becomes less efficient and broad-band techniques (such as ADI;
1760: Marois et al. 2006) reach higher contrasts.}
1761: \end{figure}
1762:
1763: \clearpage
1764: \begin{figure}
1765: \begin{center}
1766: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1767: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{f24a.eps} &
1768: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{f24b.eps} \\
1769: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{f24c.eps} &
1770: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{f24d.eps} \\
1771: \end{tabular}
1772: \end{center}
1773: \caption[Minimum Detectable Mass vs. Separation]
1774: {
1775: Minimum detectable mass vs. separation for
1776: a set of 4 typical program stars (upper left: AB Dor, upper right: DX Leo,
1777: lower left: GJ 182, lower right: GJ 799B). We convert our contrast curves
1778: in $\Delta$mag units (from Figs.~\ref{fig:contrasts1}
1779: to ~\ref{fig:contrasts5})
1780: into minimum detectable mass vs. separation (in AU)
1781: using the models of \citet[][]{bur03} and the distance to the star.
1782: To characterize the possible planets we expect to detect
1783: around each star, we simulated an
1784: ensemble of 10$^6$ possible planets per star, assuming distributions for
1785: mass, eccentricity, and semi-major axis based on known radial velocity
1786: planets, as well as distributions for orbital phase and viewing angle. When
1787: combined with the properties of the individual target star and its measured
1788: contrast curve, we can determine what fraction of these simulated planets we
1789: expect to detect at the 5$\sigma$ level (shown above each plot with the
1790: name of the target star).
1791: %with semi-major axis,
1792: %eccentricity, mass power law, and luminosity for each simulated planet drawn
1793: %from the population of radial velocity planets
1794: %(statistics from Marcy et al. 2003 and Lineweaver and Grether 2003, masses and ages from Burrows et al. 2003) and scaling to semi-major axes $>$ 5 AU,
1795: %with a semi-major axis cutoff of 20 AU.
1796: The ensemble of simulated planets is shown as small dots for each star in;
1797: simulated planets which are detected with the contrast attained by
1798: SDI are plotted in blue and those that remain undetected are plotted in red.
1799: Assuming each star possesses exactly one planet, we can assign a detection
1800: probability for that star from the percentage of simulated planets detected.
1801: For our 48 program stars which possess contrast curves,
1802: the average detection probability is 8.0$\%$, the median detection probability
1803: is 4.1$\%$, and the maximum detection probability is 47$\%$.
1804: For GJ 799B (12 Myr M star at 10 pc),
1805: we can detect (at 5$\sigma$) 5 M$_{Jup}$ planet at 2 AU.
1806: }
1807: \label{fig:minmasses}
1808: \end{figure}
1809:
1810: \begin{figure}
1811: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f25.ps}
1812: \caption{Expected number of planets detected.
1813: By taking the results of our Monte Carlo simulations, and
1814: assuming that each program star
1815: possesses exactly one planet, we can assign a detection probability for that
1816: star from the percentage of simulated planets detected. By adding these
1817: detection fractions for each star, we can compute the expected number of
1818: planets detected from our survey. We order the target stars by decreasing
1819: detection probability, and plot the total number of planets expected to be
1820: detected as a function of the number of stars. Over the entire survey, we
1821: expect to detect 3.8 planets, a 2$\sigma$ null result. Thus, our assumed
1822: distribution for the frequency (1 planet per star, hence 100$\%$),
1823: semimajor axis distribution (N(a) $\propto$ constant),
1824: and luminosities (Burrows et al. 2003) of extrasolar planets is
1825: excluded at the 98$\%$ level by our extrasolar planet survey null result.}
1826: \label{fig:ep}
1827: \end{figure}
1828:
1829:
1830: \clearpage
1831:
1832: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccc}
1833: \rotate
1834: \tablecolumns{11}
1835: \tablewidth{0pc}
1836: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1837: \tablecaption{Properties of SDI Survey Stars}
1838: \tablehead{
1839: \colhead{Target} & \colhead{RA\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{DEC} & \colhead{Distance(pc)\tablenotemark{a}}
1840: & \colhead{SpT\tablenotemark{*}} & \colhead{Age(Gyr)\tablenotemark{b}} &
1841: \colhead{Age Ref\tablenotemark{b}} &
1842: \colhead{V\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{H\tablenotemark{d}} &
1843: \colhead{Detectability} & \colhead{Comments}}
1844: \startdata
1845: Nearby Young Stars \\\hline
1846: HIP 1481 & 00 18 26.1 & -63 28 39.0 & 41 & F8/GOV\tablenotemark{e} & 0.03 & Tuc & 7.5 & 6.2 & 4.2$\%$ & \\
1847: ERX6 & 01 23 21.2 & -57 28 50.7 & 49.3 & G6V\tablenotemark{e} & 0.03 & Tuc/Hor & 8.5 & 6.9 & 4.1$\%$ & \\
1848: ERX8 & 01 28 08.7 & -52 38 19.2 & 37.1 & K1V\tablenotemark{e} & 0.03 & Tuc/Hor & 9.3 & 6.9 & 8.6$\%$ & \\
1849: HIP 9141 & 01 57 48.9 & -21 54 05.0 & 42.4 & G3Ve/G5V\tablenotemark{f} & 0.03 & Tuc/Hor & 8.1 & 6.6 & 3.6$\%$ & poss. 0.15'' binary \\
1850: BD +05 378 & 02 41 25.9 & +05 59 18.4 & 40.5 & M0\tablenotemark{g} & 0.012 & Beta Pic & 10 & 7.2 & 7.6$\%$ & \\
1851: HD 17925 & 02 52 32.1 & -12 46 11.0 & 10.4 & K1V\tablenotemark{f} & 0.115 & Possible Her/Lyr & 6 & 4.2 & 5.7$\%$ & \\
1852: LH98 062 & 03 24 06.5 & +23 47 06.1 & 19.8 & K4V\tablenotemark{h} & 0.1 & Li from LH98 & 10 & 6.5 & & 2.4'' binary \\
1853: V577 PerA & 03 33 13.5 & +46 15 26.5 & 33.8 & G5IV/V\tablenotemark{j} & 0.07 & AB Dor mg & 8.3 & 6.5 & 2.0$\%$ & 7'' binary \\
1854: V834 Tau & 04 41 18.9 & +20 54 05.4 & 13.5 & K3V\tablenotemark{k} & 0.16 & Li from WSH03 & 8.1 & 5.3 & 2.7$\%$ & \\
1855: GJ 182 & 04 59 34.8 & +01 47 00.7 & 26.7 & M1Ve\tablenotemark{l} & 0.016 & Li from FMS97 & 10 & 6.5 & 15$\%$ & very tentative planet candidate \\
1856: & & & & & & & & & & (4.8 AU, $\sim$4 M$_{Jup}$) \\
1857: & & & & & & & & & & not detected at second epoch \\
1858: HIP 23309 & 05 00 47.1 & -57 15 25.5 & 26.3 & M0/1\tablenotemark{m} & 0.012 & Beta Pic & 10 & 6.4 & 16$\%$ & \\
1859: AB Dor & 05 28 44.8 & -65 26 54.9 & 14.9 & K1III\tablenotemark{e} & 0.07 & AB Dor mg & 6.9 & 4.8 & 7.4$\%$ & 0.16'' binary AB Dor C, \\
1860: & & & & & & & & & & Close et al. 2005 \\
1861: GJ 207.1 & 05 33 44.8 & +01 56 43.4 & 16.8 & M2.5e\tablenotemark{n} & 0.1 & Lowrance et al. 2005 & 9.5 & 7.1 & 4.0$\%$ & \\
1862: UY Pic & 05 36 56.8 & -47 57 52.9 & 23.9 & K0V\tablenotemark{o} & 0.07 & AB Dor mg & 8 & 5.9 & 8.1$\%$ & \\
1863: AO Men & 06 18 28.2 & -72 02 41.4 & 38.5 & K6/7\tablenotemark{m} & 0.012 & Beta Pic & 9.9 & 7 & 2.5$\%$ & very tentative planet candidate \\
1864: & & & & & & & & & & (14 AU, $\sim$4 M$_{Jup}$) \\
1865: & & & & & & & & & & not detected at second epoch \\
1866: HIP 30030 & 06 19 08.1 & -03 26 20.0 & 52.4 & G0V\tablenotemark{p} & 0.03 & Tuc/Hor & 8 & 6.6 & 0.2$\%$ & \\
1867: AB Pic & 06 19 12.9 & -58 03 16.0 & 45.5 & K2V\tablenotemark{e} & 0.03 & Tuc & 9.1 & 7.1 & 6.8$\%$ & planetary mass companion, \\
1868: & & & & & & & & & & Chauvin et al. 2005 \\
1869: & & & & & & & & & & very tentative planet candidate \\
1870: & & & & & & & & & &(15.5 AU, $\sim$5 M$_{Jup}$) \\
1871: & & & & & & & & & & not detected at second epoch \\
1872: SRX1 & 06 22 30.9 & -60 13 07.1 & 23.5 & G1V\tablenotemark{e} & 0.07 & AB Dor & 6.5 & 5.2 & 4.8$\%$ & \\
1873: HD 48189A & 06 38 00.4 & -61 32 00.2 & 21.7 & G1/G2V\tablenotemark{e} & 0.07 & AB Dor & 6.2 & 4.7 & 1.8$\%$ & 0.14'' binary \\
1874: BD +23 1978 & 08 36 55.8 & +23 14 48.0 & 41.6 & K5V\tablenotemark{q} & 0.035 & Montes et al. 2001 & 8.7 & 6.5 & \\
1875: $\pi_1\,$UMa & 08 39 11.7 & +65 01 15.3 & 14.3 & G1.5V\tablenotemark{q} & 0.21 & Li from WSH03 & 5.6 & 4.3 & 0.1$\%$ & \\LQ Hya & 09 32 25.6 & -11 11 04.7 & 18.3 & K0V\tablenotemark{q} & 0.013 & Li from WSH03 & 7.8 & 5.6 & 32$\%$ & \\
1876: DX Leo & 09 32 43.7 & +26 59 18.7 & 17.7 & K0V\tablenotemark{q} & 0.115 & Her/Lyra & 7 & 5.2 & 1.8$\%$ & very tentative planet candidate \\
1877: & & & & & & & & & & (2.6 AU, $\sim$10 M$_{Jup}$)\\
1878: & & & & & & & & & & not detected at second epoch \\
1879: TWA 22 & 10 17 26.9 & -53 54 28.0 & 22 & M5\tablenotemark{g} & 0.01 & & 14 & 8.1 & & \\
1880: HD 92945 & 10 43 28.3 & -29 03 51.4 & 21.6 & K1V\tablenotemark{q} & 0.07 & AB Dor & 7.8 & 5.8 & 6.8$\%$ & very tentative planet candidate \\
1881: & & & & & & & & & & (10.4 AU, $\sim$6 M$_{Jup}$) \\
1882: & & & & & & & & & & not detected at second epoch \\
1883: GJ 417 & 11 12 32.4 & +35 48 50.7 & 21.7 & G0V\tablenotemark{r} & 0.115 & Her/Lyra & 6.4 & 5 & 0.0$\%$ & \\
1884: TWA 4 & 11 22 05.3 & -24 46 39.6 & 46.7 & K4V\tablenotemark{t} & 0.01 & & 9.1 & 5.8 & & 0.78'' binary \\
1885: TWA 25 & 12 15 30.8 & -39 48 42.0 & 44.1 & M0\tablenotemark{g} & 0.01 & TW Hydra & 11 & 7.5 & 14$\%$ & \\
1886: RX J1224.8-7503 & 12 24 47.3 & -75 03 09.4 & 24.2 & K2\tablenotemark{u} & 0.016 & Li from AKCWM95 & 11 & 7.8 & 13.5$\%$ & \\
1887: RX J1231.9-7848 & 12 31 56.0 & -78 48 36.0 & 50 & M1\tablenotemark{u} & 0.01 & Li from AKCWM95 & 14 & 9.6 & & \\
1888: EK Dra & 14 39 00.2 & +64 17 30.0 & 33.9 & G0\tablenotemark{w} & 0.07 & AB Dor & 7.6 & 6 & 0.67$\%$ & binary, \\
1889: & & & & & & & & & & Metchev $\&$ Hillenbrand 2004 \\
1890: HD 135363 & 15 07 56.3 & +76 12 02.7 & 29.4 & G5V\tablenotemark{q} & 0.0032 & Li from WSH03 & 8.7 & 6.3 & 5.2$\%$ & 0.26'' binary \\
1891: KW Lup & 15 45 47.6 & -30 20 55.7 & 40.9 & K2V\tablenotemark{v} & 0.002 & Li from NB98 & 9.4 & 6.6 & 3.9$\%$ & \\
1892: HD 155555AB & 17 17 25.5 & -66 57 04.0 & 30 & G5IV+KOIV/V\tablenotemark{m} & 0.012 & Beta Pic & 7.2 & 4.9 & 0.06$\%$ & \\
1893: HD 155555C & 17 17 27.7 & -66 57 00.0 & 30 & M4.5\tablenotemark{m} & 0.012 & Beta Pic & 13 & 7.9 & 47$\%$ & \\
1894: HD 166435 & 18 09 21.4 & +29 57 06.2 & 25.2 & G0\tablenotemark{x} & 0.1 & RHK from Wright+ 04 & 6.8 & 5.4 & 1.1$\%$ & \\
1895: HD 172555A & 18 45 26.9 & -64 52 16.5 & 30 & A5IV/V\tablenotemark{e} & 0.012 & Beta Pic & 4.8 & 4.3 & 5.8$\%$ & \\
1896: CD-64 1208 & 18 45 37.0 & -64 51 44.6 & 29.2 & K7\tablenotemark{m} & 0.012 & Beta Pic & 10 & 6.3 & 9.9$\%$ & 0.18'' binary \\
1897: HD 181321 & 19 21 29.8 & -34 59 00.5 & 20 & G1/G2V\tablenotemark{v} & 0.16 & Li from WSH03, & 6.5 & 5 & 0.09$\%$ & very tentative planet candidate \\
1898: & & & & & & RHK from Gray+ 06 & & & & (7 AU, $\sim$5 M$_{Jup}$) \\
1899: & & & & & & & & & & not detected at second epoch \\
1900: HD 186704 & 19 45 57.3 & +04 14 54.6 & 30.3 & G0\tablenotemark{x} & 0.2 & RHK from Wright+ 04 & 7 & 5.6 & 0.0$\%$ & \\
1901: GJ 799B & 20 41 51.1 & -32 26 09.0 & 10.2 & M4.5e\tablenotemark{n} & 0.012 & Beta Pic & 13 & --- & 36$\%$ & \\
1902: GJ 799A & 20 41 51.2 & -32 26 06.6 & 10.2 & M4.5e\tablenotemark{n} & 0.012 & Beta Pic & 11 & 5.2 & 18$\%$ & \\
1903: GJ 803 & 20 45 09.5 & -31 20 27.1 & 9.94 & M0Ve\tablenotemark{n} & 0.012 & Beta Pic & 8.8 & 4.8 & 33$\%$ & very tentative planet candidate \\
1904: & & & & & & & & & & (3 AU, $\sim$2 M$_{Jup}$) \\
1905: & & & & & & & & & & not detected at second epoch \\
1906: HIP 112312A & 22 44 57.8 & -33 15 01.0 & 23.6 & M4e\tablenotemark{g} & 0.012 & Beta Pic & 12 & 7.2 & 34$\%$ & very tentative planet candidate \\
1907: & & & & & & & & & & (6.2 AU, $\sim$8 M$_{Jup}$) \\
1908: & & & & & & & & & & not detected at second epoch \\
1909: HD 224228 & 23 56 10.7 & -39 03 08.4 & 22.1 & K3V\tablenotemark{v} & 0.07 & AB Dor & 8.2 & 6 & 5.8$\%$ & \\ \hline
1910: More Distant Young Stars \\ \hline
1911: TWA 14 & 11 13 26.5 & -45 23 43.0 & 66.7 & M0\tablenotemark{s} & 0.01 & TW Hydra & 13 & 8.7 & 7.8$\%$ & \\
1912: RXJ 1243.6-7834 & 12 43 36.7 & -78 34 07.8 & 150 & M0\tablenotemark{u} & 0.008 & Li from AKCWM95 & 13 & 8.7 & & 0.068'' binary \\ \hline
1913: Stars with known RV planets \\\hline
1914: $\epsilon\,$Eri & 03 32 55.8 & -09 27 29.7 & 3.22 & K2V\tablenotemark{i} & 0.8 & Benedict et al. 2006 & & 1.9 & 0.1$\%$ & Kellner et al. 2007, \\
1915: & & & & & & & & & & Janson et al. 2007 \\
1916: HD 81040 & 09 23 47.1 & +20 21 52.0 & 32.6 & G0V\tablenotemark{q} & 2.5 & Li from SUZT06 & 7.7 & 6.3 & 0.0$\%$ & \\
1917: HD 128311 & 14 36 00.6 & +09 44 47.5 & 16.6 & K0\tablenotemark{q} & 0.63 & RHK from Gray+ 03 & 7.5 & 5.3 & 0.0$\%$ & \\ \hline
1918: Nearby Solar Analogues \\\hline
1919: HD 114613 & 13 12 03.2 & -37 48 10.9 & 20.5 & G3V\tablenotemark{v} & 4.2 & Li from RGP93, & 4.8 & 3.3 & 0.0$\%$ & \\
1920: & & & & & & RHK from Gray+06 & & & & \\
1921: HD 201091 & 21 06 53.9 & +38 44 57.9 & 3.48 & K5Ve\tablenotemark{n} & 2.0\tablenotemark{1} & RHK from Gray+ 06 & 5.2 & 2.5 & 0.0$\%$ & \\
1922: $\epsilon\,$Ind A & 22 03 21.7 & -56 47 09.5 & 3.63 & K4.5V\tablenotemark{n} & 1.3 & Lachaume et al. 1999 & 4.7 & 2.3 & 0.09$\%$ & Gei{\ss}ler et al. 2007 \\
1923: GJ 862 & 22 29 15.2 & -30 01 06.4 & 15.4 & K5Ve\tablenotemark{n} & 6.3\tablenotemark{1} & RHK from Gray+ 06 & 7.7 & 5.3 & 0.0$\%$ & \\
1924: \enddata
1925: \tablenotetext{1}{In general, we have only determined Ca R'HK ages for stars with spectral types K1
1926: or earlier, but in the case of these two K5 stars, \\
1927: we have only the R'HK measurement on which to rely
1928: for age determination. The calibration of Mt. Wilson \\ S-index to R'HK for K5 stars (B-V $\sim$ 1.1 mag)
1929: has not been well-defined (Noyes et al. 1984; specifically the photospheric subtraction), and hence \\
1930: applying a R'HK vs. age relation for K5 stars is unlikely to yield useful ages. Although we adopt specific
1931: values for the ages of these stars, it would be more accurate to state simply that these stars have ages \\
1932: $>$1 Gyr. As a result, almost all simulated planets are too faint to detect around these stars, so the
1933: precise error in the age does not significantly affect our final results.}
1934: \tablenotetext{a}{derived from the Hipparcos survey, Perryman et al.(1997)}
1935: \tablenotetext{b}{ages for stars with cluster memberships from Zuckerman
1936: and Song (2004), otherwise, ages are either lithium ages, calcium RHK ages, or an average of both. \\
1937: Acronyms for lithium and calcium age references: AKCWM95: Alcala, Krautter, Schmitt, Covino, Wichmann, and Mundt 1995, \\
1938: FMS97: Favata, Micela, and Sciortino 1997, LH98: Li and Hu 1998, NB98: Neuhauser and Brandner 1998, \\
1939: RGP93: Randich, Gratton, and Pallavicini 1993, SUZT06: Sozetti, Udry, Zucker, Torres, Beuzit, et al. 2006, \\
1940: WSH03: Wichmann, Schmitt, and Hubrig 2003}
1941: \tablenotetext{c}{from the CDS Simbad service}
1942: \tablenotetext{d}{from the 2MASS Survey, Cutri et al. (2003)}
1943: \tablenotetext{*}{Spectral reference key: e: Houk and Cowley 1975, f: Houk and Cowley 1988, \\
1944: g: Zuckerman and Song 2004, h: Li and Hu 1998, i: Cowley, Hiltner, and Witt 1967, \\
1945: j: Christian and Mathioudakis 2002, k: Leaton and Pagel 1960, l: Favata, Barbera, Micela, and Sciortino 1995, \\
1946: m: Zuckerman, Song, Bessell, and Webb 2001, n: Gliesse and Jahrei{\ss} 1991, o: Houk 1978, \\
1947: p: Cutispoto, Pallavicini, Kuerster, and Rodono 1995, \\
1948: q: Montes, Lopez-Santiago, Galvez, Fernandez-Figueroa, De Castro, and Cornide 2001, \\
1949: r: Bidelman 1951, s: Zuckerman, Webb, Schwartz, and Becklin 2001, t: Houk and Smith-Moore 1988, \\
1950: u: Alcala, Krautter, Schmitt, Covino, Wichmann, and Mundt 1995, v: Houk 1982, \\
1951: w: Gliesse and Jahrei{\ss} 1979, x: Henry Draper Catalog}
1952: %\tablenotetext{e}{Houk and Cowley 1975, ~$^{f}$Houk and Cowley 1988} %\tablenotetext{f}{Houk and Cowley 1988}
1953: %\tablenotetext{g}{Zuckerman and Song 2004}
1954: %\tablenotetext{h}{Li and Hu 1998}
1955: %\tablenotetext{i}{Cowley, Hiltner, and Witt 1967}
1956: %\tablenotetext{j}{Christian and Mathioudakis 2002}
1957: %\tablenotetext{k}{Leaton and Pagel 1960}
1958: %\tablenotetext{l}{Favata, Barbera, Micela, and Sciortino 1995}
1959: %\tablenotetext{m}{Zuckerman, Song, Bessell, and Webb 2001}
1960: %\tablenotetext{n}{Gliesse and Jahrei{\ss} 1991}
1961: %\tablenotetext{o}{Houk 1978}
1962: %\tablenotetext{p}{Cutispoto, Pallavicini, Kuerster, and Rodono 1995}
1963: %\tablenotetext{q}{Montes, Lopez-Santiago, Galvez, Fernandez-Figueroa, De Castro, and Cornide 2001}
1964: %\tablenotetext{r}{Bidelman 1951}
1965: %\tablenotetext{s}{Zuckerman, Webb, Schwartz, and Becklin 2001}
1966: %\tablenotetext{t}{Houk and Smith-Moore 1988}
1967: %\tablenotetext{u}{Alcala, Krautter, Schmitt, Covino, Wichmann, and Mundt 1995}
1968: %\tablenotetext{v}{Houk 1982}
1969: %\tablenotetext{w}{Gliesse and Jahrei{\ss} 1979}
1970: %\tablenotetext{x}{Henry Draper Catalog}
1971: \end{deluxetable}
1972:
1973: \clearpage
1974:
1975: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
1976: \tablecolumns{5}
1977: \tablewidth{0pc}
1978: \tablecaption{VLT SDI Observation Log}
1979: \tablehead{
1980: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{Date} & \colhead{DIT} & \colhead{NDIT} & \colhead{Total Exp (minutes)} }
1981: \startdata
1982: HIP 1481 & 2004-11-15 & 14 & 6 & 56 \\
1983: & 2005-11-24 & 16 & 5 & 26.7 \\
1984: & 2005-11-25 & 16 & 5 & 26.7 \\
1985: & 2005-11-27 & 16 & 5 & 26.7 \\ \hline
1986: ERX6 & 2004-11-14 & 22 & 4 & 29.3 \\
1987: & 2004-11-16 & 22 & 4 & 58.7 \\ \hline
1988: ERX8 & 2004-11-17 & 22 & 4 & 58.7 \\ \hline
1989: HIP9141 & 2004-09-27 & 14 & 6 & 56 \\ \hline
1990: BD +05 378 & 2005-02-01 & 32 & 3 & 25.6 \\ \hline
1991: HD 17925 & 2003-08-14 & 7.5 & 16 & 40 \\
1992: & 2003-08-16 & 4 & 30 & 40 \\
1993: & 2003-08-17 & 4 & 30 & 20 \\
1994: & 2004-02-02 & 1 & 120 & 20 \\
1995: & 2004-11-16 & 4.1 & 17 & 46.5 \\
1996: & 2004-11-17 & 4.1 & 17 & 46.5 \\ \hline
1997: LH98 062 & 2004-02-03 & 14 & 9 & 21 \\ \hline
1998: $\epsilon\,$Eri & 2004-09-19 & 0.6 & 160 & 64 \\ \hline
1999: V834 Tau & 2005-01-25 & 10 & 9 & 24 \\
2000: & 2005-02-01 & 10 & 9 & 24 \\ \hline
2001: GJ 182 & 2004-02-02 & 7 & 17 & 39.7 \\
2002: & 2005-11-22 & 20 & 4 & 26.7 \\
2003: & 2005-11-24 & 20 & 4 & 26.7 \\
2004: & 2005-11-27 & 20 & 4 & 26.7 \\ \hline
2005: HIP23309 & 2005-01-30 & 24 & 4 & 25.6 \\
2006: & 2005-01-31 & 24 & 4 & 51.2 \\ \hline
2007: AB Dor & 2004-02-02 & 5 & 24 & 20 \\
2008: & 2004-09-28 & 12 & 7 & 28 \\
2009: & 2004-11-16 & 10.4 & 8 & 27.7 \\ \hline
2010: GJ 207.1 & 2005-01-27 & 32 & 3 & 25.6 \\ \hline
2011: UY Pic & 2004-11-16 & 14 & 6 & 28 \\
2012: & 2004-11-17 & 14 & 6 & 56 \\ \hline
2013: AO Men & 2004-02-03 & 14 & 9 & 21 \\
2014: & 2005-11-15 & 30 & 1 & 17.5 \\
2015: & 2005-11-24 & 30 & 1 & 10 \\ \hline
2016: AB Pic & 2004-11-14 & 20 & 4 & 26.7 \\
2017: & 2004-11-15 & 20 & 4 & 26.7 \\
2018: & 2005-11-22 & 20 & 4 & 13.3 \\
2019: & 2005-11-25 & 20 & 4 & 53.3 \\ \hline
2020: SRX1 & 2004-11-18 & 12 & 7 & 28 \\
2021: & 2004-11-19 & 12 & 7 & 28 \\ \hline
2022: HD 48189A & 2004-11-17 & 6.5 & 11 & 23.8 \\
2023: & 2004-11-18 & 6.5 & 11 & 23.8 \\ \hline
2024: BD +23 1978 & 2005-01-27 & 24 & 4 & 25.6\\
2025: & 2005-01-28 & 24 & 4 & 25.6\\
2026: LQ Hya & 2004-02-02 & 5 & 24 & 40 \\
2027: & 2004-12-08 & 14 & 6 & 28 \\
2028: & 2004-12-14 & 14 & 6 & 28 \\ \hline
2029: DX Leo & 2004-02-05 & 3 & 38 & 19 \\
2030: & 2005-12-04 & 14 & 6 & 28 \\
2031: & 2005-12-19 & 14 & 6 & 28 \\ \hline
2032: TWA 22 & 2005-01-25 & 32 & 1 & 48.5 \\ \hline
2033: HD92945 & 2004-02-05 & 5 & 24 & 60 \\ \hline
2034: TWA 14 & 2005-01-28 & 32 & 3 & 25.6 \\
2035: & 2005-01-29 & 32 & 3 & 25.6 \\ \hline
2036: TWA 4 & 2004-02-02 & 7 & 17 & 9.92 \\ \hline
2037: TWA25 & 2005-01-28 & 32 & 3 & 25.6 \\ \hline
2038: RX J1224.8-7503 & 2004-02-02 & 40 & 3 & 20 \\
2039: & 2005-01-16 & 30 & 3 & 60 \\
2040: & 2005-01-27 & 30 & 3 & 120 \\ \hline
2041: RX J1231.9-7848 & 2004-02-05 & 20 & 6 & 20 \\ \hline
2042: RXJ 1243.6-7834 & 2004-02-02 & 5 & 24 & 40 \\ \hline
2043: HD 114613 & 2004-02-02 & 1 & 120 & 40 \\ \hline
2044: KW Lup & 2004-09-15 & 22 & 4 & 14.7 \\
2045: & 2004-09-16 & 24 & 4 & 22.7 \\
2046: & 2004-09-17 & 24 & 4 & 24 \\ \hline
2047: HD155555AB & 2003-08-14 & 7.5 & 16 & 10 \\
2048: & 2003-08-15 & 7.5 & 16 & 20 \\
2049: & 2003-08-16 & 7.5 & 16 & 10 \\
2050: & 2003-08-17 & 7.5 & 16 & 10 \\
2051: & 2004-09-16 & 10 & 9 & 30 \\
2052: & 2004-09-18 & 14 & 6 & 28 \\ \hline
2053: HD155555C & 2003-08-14 & 30 & 4 & 40 \\
2054: & 2003-08-16 & 30 & 4 & 40 \\ \hline
2055: HD172555A & 2003-08-17 & 5 & 24 & 20 \\
2056: & 2004-09-17 & 5 & 15 & 25 \\
2057: & 2004-09-18 & 5 & 15 & 6.25 \\
2058: & 2004-09-19 & 5 & 15 & 18.8 \\ \hline
2059: CD-64 1208 & 2003-08-17 & 20 & 6 & 40 \\
2060: & 2004-09-16 & 15 & 6 & 30 \\ \hline
2061: HD181321 & 2003-08-15 & 7.5 & 16 & 40 \\
2062: & 2004-09-18 & 11 & 8 & 29.3 \\ \hline
2063: GJ799B & 2003-08-16 & 20 & 6 & 40 \\
2064: & 2003-08-17 & 20 & 6 & 30 \\
2065: & 2004-09-19 & 15 & 6 & 30 \\ \hline
2066: GJ799A & 2003-08-16 & 20 & 6 & 40 \\
2067: & 2004-09-16 & 10 & 9 & 30 \\
2068: & 2004-09-19 & 15 & 6 & 30 \\ \hline
2069: GJ803 & 2003-08-14 & 7.5 & 18 & 56.2 \\
2070: & 2003-08-15 & 10 & 12 & 40 \\
2071: & 2003-08-17 & 7.5 & 16 & 40 \\
2072: & 2004-09-17 & 6 & 15 & 30 \\
2073: & 2004-09-18 & 10 & 9 & 30 \\ \hline
2074: $\epsilon\,$Ind A & 2004-09-18 & 0.5 & 192 & 48 \\ \hline
2075: GJ 862 & 2003-08-15 & 10 & 12 & 40 \\
2076: & 2003-08-16 & 10 & 12 & 40 \\
2077: & 2004-09-19 & 13 & 7 & 48.2 \\ \hline
2078: HIP112312A & 2004-09-19 & 25 & 4 & 66.7 \\ \hline
2079: HD224228 & 2003-08-16 & 10 & 12 & 40 \\
2080: & 2003-08-17 & 20 & 6 & 40 \\
2081: & 2004-10-08 & 14 & 6 & 28 \\
2082: & 2004-10-20 & 21 & 4 & 28 \\ \hline
2083: \enddata
2084: \end{deluxetable}
2085:
2086: \clearpage
2087:
2088: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
2089: \tablecolumns{5}
2090: \tablewidth{0pc}
2091: \tablecaption{MMT SDI Observation Log}
2092: \tablehead{
2093: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{Date} & \colhead{DIT} & \colhead{NDIT} & \colhead{Total Exp (minutes)}}
2094: \startdata
2095: V577 PerA & 2006-02-12 & 20 & 7 & 37.3 \\
2096: & 2006-02-13 & 21.5 & 7 & 40.1 \\ \hline
2097: HIP30030 & 2006-02-12 & 30 & 5 & 30 \\ \hline
2098: $\pi_1\,$UMa & 2006-02-13 & 5.8 & 13 & 40.2 \\ \hline
2099: HD 81040 & 2006-02-12 & 11.7 & 13 & 40.3 \\ \hline
2100: LQ Hya & 2006-02-12 & 8 & 19 & 40.5 \\ \hline
2101: DX Leo & 2005-05-01 & 10 & 13 & 34.7 \\ \hline
2102: GJ 417 & 2005-04-30 & 7 & 17 & 31.7 \\ \hline
2103: HD 128311 & 2006-02-12 & 4 & 19 & 60.8 \\ \hline
2104: EK Dra & 2005-05-01 & 20 & 7 & 37.3 \\ \hline
2105: HD 135363 & 2005-05-01 & 30 & 5 & 40 \\ \hline
2106: HD 166435 & 2005-04-30 & 7 & 17 & 31.7 \\
2107: & 2005-05-01 & 7 & 17 & 31.7 \\ \hline
2108: HD 186704 & 2005-05-01 & 10 & 13 & 17.3 \\ \hline
2109: HD 201091 & 2005-04-30 & 20 & 7 & 37.33 \\ \hline
2110: \enddata
2111: \end{deluxetable}
2112:
2113: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
2114: \tablecolumns{5}
2115: \tablewidth{0pc}
2116: \tablecaption{Limiting H mag (5$\sigma$) at 0.5''}
2117: \tablehead{
2118: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{$\Delta$F1} & \colhead{Separation(AU)} & \colhead{$\Delta$H (T8 SpT)} & \colhead{m$_H$} & \colhead{M$_H$} }
2119: \startdata
2120: $\epsilon\,$Eri & 9.4 $\pm$ 0.12 & 1.61 & 10.3 & 12.2 & 14.7 \\
2121: $\epsilon\,$Ind A & 10.6 $\pm$ 0.12 & 1.81 & 11.5 & 13.8 & 16 \\
2122: HD 201091 & 8.08 $\pm$ 0.52 & 1.74 & 8.95 & 11.5 & 13.8 \\
2123: HD 114613 & 6.13 $\pm$ 0.26 & 10.2 & 7 & 10.3 & 8.74 \\
2124: HD 17925 & 9.69 $\pm$ 0.14 & 5.19 & 10.6 & 14.8 & 14.7 \\
2125: HD172555A & 9.14 $\pm$ 0.12 & 15 & 10 & 14.3 & 11.9 \\
2126: $\pi_1\,$UMa & 8.04 $\pm$ 0.15 & 7.14 & 8.91 & 13.2 & 12.4 \\
2127: HD 48189A & 8.54 $\pm$ 0.052 & 10.8 & 9.41 & 14.2 & 12.5 \\
2128: GJ803 & 9.54 $\pm$ 0.091 & 4.97 & 10.4 & 15.2 & 15.2 \\
2129: AB Dor & 9.04 $\pm$ 0.019 & 7.47 & 9.91 & 14.8 & 13.9 \\
2130: HD155555AB & 5.87 $\pm$ 0.14 & 15 & 6.74 & 11.6 & 9.21 \\
2131: GJ 417 & 7.79 $\pm$ 0.23 & 10.9 & 8.66 & 13.7 & 12 \\
2132: HD181321 & 7.42 $\pm$ 0.13 & 10 & 8.29 & 13.3 & 11.8 \\
2133: SRX1 & 9.95 $\pm$ 0.079 & 11.7 & 10.8 & 16 & 14.1 \\
2134: GJ799A & 7.48 $\pm$ 0.082 & 5.11 & 8.35 & 13.6 & 13.6 \\
2135: DX Leo & 8.24 $\pm$ 0.19 & 8.87 & 9.11 & 14.4 & 13.2 \\
2136: GJ 862 & 9.51 $\pm$ 0.25 & 7.72 & 10.4 & 15.7 & 14.8 \\
2137: V834 Tau & 9.08 $\pm$ 0.18 & 6.74 & 9.95 & 15.3 & 14.6 \\
2138: HD 166435 & 8.42 $\pm$ 0.17 & 12.6 & 9.29 & 14.7 & 12.7 \\
2139: LQ Hya & 9.82 $\pm$ 0.16 & 9.17 & 10.7 & 16.3 & 15 \\
2140: HD 186704 & 7.13 $\pm$ 0.091 & 15.1 & 8 & 13.6 & 11.2 \\
2141: HD92945 & 9.91 $\pm$ 0.0099 & 10.8 & 10.8 & 16.6 & 14.9 \\
2142: UY Pic & 9.96 $\pm$ 0.11 & 11.9 & 10.8 & 16.7 & 14.8 \\
2143: HD224228 & 9 $\pm$ 0.15 & 11 & 9.87 & 15.9 & 14.2 \\
2144: EK Dra & 7.85 $\pm$ 0.39 & 17 & 8.72 & 14.7 & 12 \\
2145: HIP 1481 & 9.22 $\pm$ 0.13 & 20.5 & 10.1 & 16.3 & 13.2 \\
2146: CD-64 1208 & 9.33 $\pm$ 0.087 & 14.6 & 10.2 & 16.5 & 14.2 \\
2147: HD 135363 & 7.9 $\pm$ 0.27 & 14.7 & 8.77 & 15.1 & 12.8 \\
2148: HIP23309 & 8.45 $\pm$ 0.092 & 13.1 & 9.32 & 15.7 & 13.6 \\
2149: GJ 182 & 8.01 $\pm$ 0.16 & 13.3 & 8.88 & 15.3 & 13.2 \\
2150: V577 PerA & 8.9 $\pm$ 0.33 & 16.9 & 9.77 & 16.2 & 13.6 \\
2151: HIP9141 & 8.92 $\pm$ 0.29 & 21.2 & 9.79 & 16.3 & 13.2 \\
2152: HIP30030 & 6.91 $\pm$ 0.17 & 26.2 & 7.78 & 14.4 & 10.8 \\
2153: KW Lup & 8.76 $\pm$ 0.091 & 20.5 & 9.63 & 16.3 & 13.2 \\
2154: ERX8 & 9.4 $\pm$ 0.2 & 18.6 & 10.3 & 17.2 & 14.4 \\
2155: ERX6 & 9.38 $\pm$ 0.4 & 24.6 & 10.2 & 17.1 & 13.6 \\
2156: AO Men & 6.91 $\pm$ 0.33 & 19.2 & 7.78 & 14.8 & 11.9 \\
2157: AB Pic & 9.65 $\pm$ 0.027 & 22.8 & 10.5 & 17.6 & 14.3 \\
2158: GJ 207.1 & 7.5 $\pm$ 0.094 & 8.41 & 8.37 & 15.5 & 14.4 \\
2159: HIP112312A & 9.09 $\pm$ 0.27 & 11.8 & 9.96 & 17.1 & 15.2 \\
2160: BD +05 378 & 8.31 $\pm$ 0.088 & 20.3 & 9.18 & 16.4 & 13.4 \\
2161: TWA25 & 9.5 $\pm$ 0.035 & 22 & 10.4 & 17.9 & 14.7 \\
2162: RX J1224.8-7503 & 7.16 $\pm$ 0.024 & 12.1 & 8.03 & 15.9 & 14 \\
2163: HD155555C & 10.5 $\pm$ 0.085 & 15 & 11.4 & 19.3 & 16.9 \\
2164: TWA 14 & 8.38 $\pm$ 0.03 & 33.3 & 9.25 & 18 & 13.9 \\
2165: \enddata
2166: \end{deluxetable}
2167:
2168: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
2169: \tablecolumns{5}
2170: \tablewidth{0pc}
2171: \tablecaption{Limiting H mag (5$\sigma$) at 1.0''}
2172: \tablehead{
2173: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{$\Delta$F1} & \colhead{Separation(AU)} & \colhead{$\Delta$H (T8 SpT)} & \colhead{m$_H$} & \colhead{M$_H$} }
2174: \startdata
2175: $\epsilon\,$Eri & 11.3 $\pm$ 0.2 & 3.22 & 12.2 & 14.1 & 16.6 \\
2176: $\epsilon\,$Ind A & 12 $\pm$ 0.16 & 3.63 & 12.9 & 15.2 & 17.4 \\
2177: HD 201091 & 9.42 $\pm$ 0.05 & 3.48 & 10.3 & 12.8 & 15.1 \\
2178: HD 114613 & 7.24 $\pm$ 0.13 & 20.5 & 8.11 & 11.5 & 9.94 \\
2179: HD 17925 & 11.3 $\pm$ 0.19 & 10.4 & 12.2 & 16.4 & 16.3 \\
2180: HD172555A & 11.2 $\pm$ 0.098 & 30 & 12.1 & 16.4 & 14 \\
2181: $\pi_1\,$UMa & 9.28 $\pm$ 0.14 & 14.3 & 10.1 & 14.4 & 13.6 \\
2182: HD 48189A & 9.87 $\pm$ 0.24 & 21.7 & 10.7 & 15.4 & 13.7 \\
2183: GJ803 & 10.7 $\pm$ 0.03 & 9.94 & 11.6 & 16.4 & 16.4 \\
2184: AB Dor & 11 $\pm$ 0.17 & 14.9 & 11.9 & 16.7 & 15.8 \\
2185: HD155555AB & 7.3 $\pm$ 0.046 & 30 & 8.17 & 13.1 & 10.7 \\
2186: GJ 417 & 8.44 $\pm$ 0.05 & 21.7 & 9.31 & 14.3 & 12.6 \\
2187: HD181321 & 8.63 $\pm$ 0.048 & 20 & 9.5 & 14.6 & 13.1 \\
2188: SRX1 & 11.2 $\pm$ 0.13 & 23.5 & 12.1 & 17.3 & 15.4 \\
2189: GJ799A & 9.55 $\pm$ 0.14 & 10.2 & 10.4 & 15.6 & 15.6 \\
2190: DX Leo & 9.98 $\pm$ 0.039 & 17.7 & 10.8 & 16 & 14.8 \\
2191: GJ 862 & 10.7 $\pm$ 0.12 & 15.4 & 11.6 & 16.9 & 16 \\
2192: V834 Tau & 10.2 $\pm$ 0.18 & 13.5 & 11.1 & 16.4 & 15.7 \\
2193: HD 166435 & 9.98 $\pm$ 0.061 & 25.2 & 10.8 & 16.2 & 14.2 \\
2194: LQ Hya & 11 $\pm$ 0.035 & 18.3 & 11.9 & 17.5 & 16.2 \\
2195: HD 186704 & 7.35 $\pm$ 0.052 & 30.3 & 8.22 & 13.8 & 11.4 \\
2196: HD92945 & 10.8 $\pm$ 0.062 & 21.6 & 11.7 & 17.5 & 15.8 \\
2197: UY Pic & 11.5 $\pm$ 0.033 & 23.9 & 12.4 & 18.3 & 16.4 \\
2198: HD224228 & 10.8 $\pm$ 0.11 & 22.1 & 11.7 & 17.7 & 16 \\
2199: EK Dra & 8.86 $\pm$ 0.14 & 33.9 & 9.73 & 15.7 & 13 \\
2200: HIP 1481 & 10.8 $\pm$ 0.046 & 41 & 11.7 & 17.9 & 14.8 \\
2201: CD-64 1208 & 9.88 $\pm$ 0.54 & 29.2 & 10.8 & 17.1 & 14.8 \\
2202: HD 135363 & 8.65 $\pm$ 0.025 & 29.4 & 9.52 & 15.8 & 13.5 \\
2203: HIP23309 & 10 $\pm$ 0.051 & 26.3 & 10.9 & 17.3 & 15.2 \\
2204: GJ 182 & 10.2 $\pm$ 0.15 & 26.7 & 11.1 & 17.6 & 15.5 \\
2205: V577 PerA & 10 $\pm$ 0.062 & 33.8 & 10.9 & 17.4 & 14.8 \\
2206: HIP9141 & 10.5 $\pm$ 0.028 & 42.4 & 11.4 & 18 & 14.9 \\
2207: HIP30030 & 8.3 $\pm$ 0.09 & 52.4 & 9.17 & 15.8 & 12.2 \\
2208: KW Lup & 9.86 $\pm$ 0.17 & 40.9 & 10.7 & 17.3 & 14.2 \\
2209: ERX8 & 10.7 $\pm$ 0.12 & 37.1 & 11.6 & 18.5 & 15.7 \\
2210: ERX6 & 10.6 $\pm$ 0.12 & 49.3 & 11.5 & 18.4 & 14.9 \\
2211: AO Men & 7.9 $\pm$ 0.015 & 38.5 & 8.77 & 15.8 & 12.9 \\
2212: AB Pic & 10.8 $\pm$ 0.013 & 45.5 & 11.7 & 18.8 & 15.5 \\
2213: GJ 207.1 & 8.74 $\pm$ 0.089 & 16.8 & 9.61 & 16.8 & 15.7 \\
2214: HIP112312A & 10.6 $\pm$ 0.068 & 23.6 & 11.5 & 18.7 & 16.8 \\
2215: BD +05 378 & 9.52 $\pm$ 0.074 & 40.5 & 10.4 & 17.6 & 14.6 \\
2216: TWA25 & 10.5 $\pm$ 0.18 & 44.1 & 11.4 & 18.9 & 15.7 \\
2217: RX J1224.8-7503 & 8.04 $\pm$ 0.16 & 24.2 & 8.91 & 16.8 & 14.9 \\
2218: HD155555C & 10.8 $\pm$ 0.043 & 30 & 11.7 & 19.6 & 17.2 \\
2219: TWA 14 & 8.74 $\pm$ 0.047 & 66.7 & 9.61 & 18.3 & 14.2 \\
2220: \enddata
2221: \end{deluxetable}
2222:
2223:
2224: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
2225: \tablecolumns{7}
2226: \tablewidth{0pc}
2227: \rotate
2228: \tablecaption{Star/Planet Projected Minimum Detectable Separations for 5 and
2229: 10 M$_{Jup}$ Planets}
2230: \tablehead{
2231: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{Age (Myr)} & \colhead{Distance (pc)} & \colhead{Separation 5 M$_{Jup}$} & \colhead{(AU)} & \colhead{Separation 10 M$_{Jup}$} & \colhead{(AU)}}
2232: \startdata
2233: & & & Burrows et al. & Baraffe et al. & Burrows et al. & Baraffe et al. \\
2234: AB Dor & 70 & 14.94 & 13.45 & 20.92 & 6.28 & 10.31 \\
2235: AO Men & 12 & 38.48 & 30.01 & ---\tablenotemark{*} & 11.54 & 20.01 \\
2236: BD+05 378 & 12 & 40.54 & 16.21 & 28.37 & 7.70 & 9.32 \\
2237: CD -64 1208 & 12 & 34.21 & 11.29 & 17.45 & 5.82 & 8.55 \\
2238: DX Leo & 115 & 17.75 & --- & --- & 16.68 & 33.54 \\
2239: EK Dra & 70 & 33.94 & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
2240: $\epsilon\,$Eri & 800 & 3.22 & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
2241: $\epsilon\,$Ind A & 1300 & 3.63 & --- & --- & --- & 3.81 \\
2242: GJ 174 & 160 & 13.49 & --- & --- & 12.01 & 17.54 \\
2243: GJ 182 & 12 & 26.67 & 6.67 & 16.27 & 4.80 & 5.60 \\
2244: GJ 207.1 & 100 & 16.82 & --- & --- & 10.77 & 15.48 \\
2245: GJ 417 & 115 & 21.72 & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
2246: GJ 799A & 12 & 10.22 & 1.94 & 4.60 & 1.12 & 1.64 \\
2247: GJ 799B & 12 & 10.22 & 1.43 & 1.94 & 1.12 & 1.12 \\
2248: GJ 803 & 12 & 9.94 & 1.39 & 2.39 & 1.09 & 1.09 \\
2249: GJ 862 & 6300 & 15.45 & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
2250: HD 114613 & 4200 & 20.48 & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
2251: HD 128311 & 630 & 16.57 & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
2252: HD 135363 & 3 & 29.44 & 8.54 & 11.78 & 3.24 & 6.77 \\
2253: HD 155555 AB & 12 & 30.03 & --- & --- & 25.23 & --- \\
2254: HD 155555 C & 12 & 30.03 & 3.30 & 3.30 & 3.30 & 3.30 \\
2255: HD 166435 & 100 & 25.24 & --- & --- & 29.03 & --- \\
2256: HD 172555 A & 12 & 29.23 & 20.17 & 28.65 & 6.43 & 14.62 \\
2257: HD 17925 & 115 & 10.38 & 14.43 & --- & 5.40 & 8.62 \\
2258: HD 181321 & 160 & 20.86 & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
2259: HD 201091 & 2000 & 3.48 & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
2260: HD 224228 & 70 & 22.08 & 22.31 & --- & 9.50 & 13.69 \\
2261: HD 45270 & 70 & 23.50 & 30.78 & --- & 10.57 & 15.98 \\
2262: HD 48189 A & 70 & 21.67 & --- & --- & 19.93 & 27.95 \\
2263: HD 81040 & 2500 & 32.56 & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
2264: HD 8558 & 30 & 49.29 & 27.11 & 67.52 & 11.34 & 22.18 \\
2265: HD 186704 & 200 & 30.26 & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
2266: HD 9054 & 30 & 37.15 & 19.32 & 31.20 & 7.06 & 9.29 \\
2267: HD 92945 & 70 & 21.57 & 24.59 & 44.00 & 6.04 & 10.14 \\
2268: HIP 112312 A & 12 & 23.61 & 3.54 & 5.19 & 2.60 & 2.83 \\
2269: HIP 1481 & 30 & 40.95 & 30.71 & 59.38 & 12.69 & 20.88 \\
2270: HIP 23309 & 12 & 26.26 & 6.83 & 16.02 & 2.89 & 4.99 \\
2271: HIP 30030 & 30 & 52.36 & --- & --- & 53.93 & --- \\
2272: AB Pic & 30 & 45.52 & 19.12 & 40.05 & 9.56 & 13.65 \\
2273: HIP 9141 & 30 & 42.35 & 37.70 & 78.78 & 15.25 & 22.45 \\
2274: KW Lup & 2 & 40.92 & 6.14 & 7.36 & 4.50 & 4.50 \\
2275: LQ Hya & 13 & 18.34 & 3.30 & 4.95 & 2.02 & 2.75 \\
2276: RXJ1224.8-7503 & 16 & 24.17 & 6.53 & 17.16 & 3.63 & 4.59 \\
2277: TWA 14 & 10 & 66.67 & 14.00 & 27.33 & 7.33 & 10.67 \\
2278: TWA 25 & 10 & 44.05 & 9.25 & 14.10 & 4.85 & 7.93 \\
2279: UY Pic & 70 & 23.87 & 19.81 & 29.12 & 5.73 & 11.46 \\
2280: V577 Per A & 70 & 33.77 & 81.73 & --- & 17.90 & 27.02 \\
2281: $\pi_1\,$UMa & 210 & 14.27 & --- & --- & --- & --- \\ \hline
2282: \enddata
2283: \tablenotetext{*}{--- means that such an object is too low in mass to be detected with
2284: our current survey contrast level for that star}
2285: \end{deluxetable}
2286:
2287: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
2288: \tablecolumns{3}
2289: \tablewidth{0pc}
2290: \tablecaption{Binary Properties}
2291: \tablehead{
2292: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{Separation} & \colhead{Position Angle} }
2293: \startdata \hline
2294: SDI survey discoveries \\ \hline
2295: AB Dor AC\tablenotemark{a} & 0.16'' & 127$^{\circ}$ \\
2296: HIP 9141 & 0.15'' & 355$^{\circ}$ \\
2297: HD 48189AC & 0.14'' & 143$^{\circ}$ \\
2298: HD 135363 & 0.26'' & 132$^{\circ}$ \\
2299: CD -64 1208 & 0.18'' & 95$^{\circ}$ \\ \hline
2300: SDI survey confirmations \\ \hline
2301: RXJ 1243.6-7834\tablenotemark{b} & 0.068'' & 171$^{\circ}$/351$^{\circ}$ \\
2302: LH 98 062 & 2.4'' & 354$^{\circ}$ \\
2303: TWA 4 & 0.78'' & 3$^{\circ}$ \\
2304: EK Dra & 0.67'' & 176$^{\circ}$ \\
2305: \enddata
2306: \tablenotetext{a}{Separation and position angle from Close et al. 2005b.
2307: For updated photometry and astrometry see Close et al. 2007b.}
2308: \tablenotetext{b}{As RXJ 1243.6-7834 is nearly an equal-magnitude binary,
2309: we were unable to determine which star was the primary (as selected by
2310: Brandner et al. (2000)) and thus present two values for the position
2311: angle (assuming each star is the primary in turn).}
2312: \end{deluxetable}
2313:
2314: \clearpage
2315:
2316:
2317: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2318: \bibitem[Alcala et al.(1995)]{alc95} Alcala, J.~M., Krautter, J., Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M., Covino, E., Wichmann, R., \& Mundt, R.\ 1995,
2319: \aaps, 114, 109
2320: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(2003)]{bar03} Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Barman, T.S., Allard, F., $\&$ Hauschildt, P.H. 2003, A$\&$A, 402, 701
2321: \bibitem[Benedict et al.(2006)]{ben06} Benedict, G.~F., et al.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 2206
2322: \bibitem[Berton et al.(2006)]{ber06} Berton et al. 2006, PASP, 118, 1144
2323: \bibitem[Bidelman(1951)]{1951ApJ...113..304B} Bidelman, W.~P.\ 1951, \apj,
2324: 113, 304
2325: \bibitem[Biller et al.(2006a)]{bil05} Biller, B.~A., Close,
2326: L.~M., Lenzen, R., Brandner, W., McCarthy, D., Nielsen, E., Kellner, S., \&
2327: Hartung, M.\ 2006, IAU Colloq.~200: Direct Imaging of Exoplanets: Science
2328: \& Techniques, 571
2329: \bibitem[Biller et al.(2006b)]{bil06b} Biller, B.A., Kasper, M., Close, L.M., Brandner, W., \& Kellner, S. 2006, \apj, 641, L141
2330: \bibitem[Biller et al.(2006c)]{bil06c} Biller, B.~A., et al.\
2331: 2006, \procspie, 6272, 74
2332: \bibitem[Brandeker et al.(2006)]{bra06} Brandeker, A.,
2333: Jayawardhana, R., Ivanov, V.~D., \& Kurtev, R.\ 2006, \apjl, 653, L61
2334: \bibitem[Brandner et al.(2000)]{bra00} Brandner et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 950
2335: \bibitem[Boss(2003)]{bos03} Boss, A.~P.\ 2003, \apj, 599, 577
2336: \bibitem[Burgasser(2001)]{burg01} Burgasser, A. 2001, Caltech PhD Thesis
2337: \bibitem[Burgasser et al.(2003)]{burg04} Burgasser, A. et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 850
2338: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2001)]{bur01} Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Lunine, J. I., $\&$ Liebert, J. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 719
2339: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2003)]{bur03} Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D. \& Lunine, J. 2003, ApJ, 596, 587
2340: \bibitem[Butler et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...646..505B} Butler, R.~P., et al.\
2341: 2006, \apj, 646, 505
2342: \bibitem[Chauvin et al.(2005a)]{cha05} Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Dumas, C., Zuckerman, B., Mouillet, D., Song, I., Beuzit, J.-L., $\&$ Lowrance, P. 2005, \aap, 438, L25
2343: \bibitem[Chauvin et al.(2005b)]{2005A&A...438L..29C} Chauvin, G., et al.\
2344: 2005, \aap, 438, L29
2345: \bibitem[Christian \& Mathioudakis(2002)]{2002AJ....123.2796C} Christian,
2346: D.~J., \& Mathioudakis, M.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 2796
2347: \bibitem[Close et al.(2005a)]{clo05a} Close, L.M., Lenzen, R., Biller, B.A., Brandner, W. \& Hartung, M. 2005, Science with AO ESO Workshop, 136
2348: \bibitem[Close et al.(2005b)]{clo05b} Close, L.M. et al. 2005, Nature, 433, 286
2349: \bibitem[Close et al.(2007a)]{clo07a} Close, L.M. 2007, ApJ in press, astro-ph/0608574
2350: \bibitem[Close et al.(2007b)]{clo07b} Close, L.M. 2007, ApJ in press, astro-ph/0703564
2351: \bibitem[Codona \& Angel (2004)]{cod05} Codona, J.~L., \& Angel, R.\ 2004, \apjl, 604, L117
2352: \bibitem[Cowley, Hiltner, $\&$ Witt(1967)]{cow67} Cowley, A.~P., Hiltner,
2353: W.~A., \& Witt, A.~N.\ 1967, \aj, 72, 1334
2354: \bibitem[Cruz et al.(2003)]{cru03} Cruz, K.L., Reid, N.I., Liebert, J., Kirkpatrick, J.D., $\&$ Lowrance, P.J. 2003, AJ, 126, 2421
2355: \bibitem[Cutispoto et al.(1995)]{1995A&A...297..764C} Cutispoto, G.,
2356: Pallavicini, R., Kuerster, M., \& Rodono, M.\ 1995, \aap, 297, 764
2357: \bibitem[Cutri et al.(2003)]{cut03} Cutri, R.M. et al. 2003, 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources
2358: \bibitem[Dohlen et al.(2006)]{doh06} Dohlen, K., Beuzit, J.-L., Feldt, M., Mouillet, D., Puget, P., Antichi, J., Baruffolo, A., Baudoz, P., Berton, A., Boccaletti, A., Carbillet, M., Charton, J., Claudi, R., Downing, M., Fabron, C., Feautrier, P., Fedrigo, E., Fusco, T., Gach, J.-L., Gratton, R., Hubin, N., Kasper, M., Langlois, M., Longmore, A., Moutou, C., Petit, C., Pragt, J., Rabou, P., Rousset, G., Saisse, M., Schmid, H.-M., Stadler, E., Stamm, D., Turatto, M., Waters, R., $\&$ Wildi, F. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6269, 24
2359: \bibitem[Favata et al.(1995)]{1995A&A...295..147F} Favata, F., Barbera, M.,
2360: Micela, G., \& Sciortino, S.\ 1995, \aap, 295, 147
2361: \bibitem[Favata, Micela, \& Sciortino(1997)]{fav97} Favata, F., Micela, G., \& Sciortino, S.\ 1997, \aap, 326, 647
2362: \bibitem[Fischer \& Valenti(2005)]{2005ApJ...622.1102F} Fischer, D.~A., \&
2363: Valenti, J.\ 2005, \apj, 622, 1102
2364: \bibitem[Geballe et al.(2002)]{geb02} Geballe, T.R. et al. 2002, ApJ, 564, 466
2365: \bibitem[Gei{\ss}ler et al.(2007)]{gei07} Gei{\ss}ler, K., et
2366: al.\ 2007, \aap, 461, 665
2367: \bibitem[Gliese \& Jahrei{\ss}(1979)]{1979A&AS...38..423G} Gliese, W., \&
2368: Jahrei{\ss}, H.\ 1979, \aaps, 38, 423
2369: \bibitem[Gliese \& Jahrei{\ss}(1991)]{1991adc..rept.....G} Gliese, W., \&
2370: Jahrei{\ss}, H.\ 1991, On: The Astronomical Data Center CD-ROM: Selected
2371: Astronomical Catalogs, Vol.~I; L.E.~Brotzmann, S.E.~Gesser (eds.),
2372: NASA/Astronomical Data Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD
2373: \bibitem[Gray et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....126.2048G} Gray, R.~O., Corbally,
2374: C.~J., Garrison, R.~F., McFadden, M.~T., \& Robinson, P.~E.\ 2003, \aj,
2375: 126, 2048
2376: \bibitem[Gray et al.(2004)]{2004AAS...205.9109G} Gray, R.~O., Corbally,
2377: C.~J., Garrison, R.~F., McFadden, M.~T., O'Donoghue, A.~A., Knox, E.~R.,
2378: McGahee, C.~E., \& Bubar, E.~J.\ 2004, Bulletin of the American
2379: Astronomical Society, 36, 1488
2380: \bibitem[Gray et al.(2006)]{2006AJ....132..161G} Gray, R.~O., Corbally,
2381: C.~J., Garrison, R.~F., McFadden, M.~T., Bubar, E.~J., McGahee, C.~E.,
2382: O'Donoghue, A.~A., \& Knox, E.~R.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 161
2383: \bibitem[Hambly et al.(2004)]{ham04} Hambly, N.C., Henry, T.J., Subasavage, J.P., Brown, M.A., $\&$ Jao, W-C. 2004, AJ, 128, 437
2384: \bibitem[Hartung et al.(2004)]{har04} Hartung, M. et al. 2004, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 421, L17
2385: \bibitem[Hinkley et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...654..633H} Hinkley, S., et al.\
2386: 2007, \apj, 654, 633
2387: \bibitem[Houk $\&$ Cowley(1975)]{hou75} Houk, N., \& Cowley, A.~P.\ 1975, ``Michigan Catalog of Two-Dimensional Spectral Types for the HD Stars'', Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Department of Astronomy, 1975
2388: \bibitem[Houk (1978)]{hou78} Houk, N.\ 1978, Ann Arbor : Dept.~of Astronomy, University of Michigan : distributed by University Microfilms International
2389: \bibitem[Houk (1982)]{hou82} Houk, N.\ 1982, Michigan Spectral Survey, Ann Arbor, Dep.~Astron., Univ.~Michigan, 3 (1982), 0
2390: \bibitem[Houk $\&$ Cowley(1988)]{hou88} Houk, N., \& Cowley, A.~P.\ 1988, ``Michigan Catalog of Two-Dimensional Spectral Types for the HD Stars, Vol. 4'', Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Department of Astronomy
2391: \bibitem[Houk $\&$ Smith-Moore(1988)]{hosm88} Houk, N., \& Smith-Moore, M.\ 1988, Michigan
2392: Spectral Survey, Ann Arbor, Dept.~of Astronomy, Univ.~Michigan (Vol.~4) (1988), 0
2393: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin(2005)]{ida05} Ida, S., \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\
2394: 2005, \apj, 626, 1045
2395: \bibitem[Janson et al.(2007)]{jan07} Janson et al. 2007, AJ, subm.
2396: \bibitem[Kaisler et al.(2003)]{kai03} Kaisler, D., Zuckerman, B., $\&$ Becklin, E. 2003, ASP Conference Series, 294, 91
2397: \bibitem[Kellner et al.(2007)]{kel07} Kellner et al. 2007, submitted
2398: \bibitem[Kenworthy et al.(2006)]{ken06} Kenworthy, M.A., Hinz, P.M., Angel, J.R.P, Heinze, A.N., \& Sivanandam, S. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6272, 104
2399: \bibitem[Knapp et al.(2004)]{kna04} Knapp, G. R. et al. 2004, ApJ, 127, 3553
2400: \bibitem[Lachaume et al.(1999)]{1999A&A...348..897L} Lachaume, R., Dominik,
2401: C., Lanz, T., \& Habing, H.~J.\ 1999, \aap, 348, 897
2402: \bibitem[Leaton \& Pagel(1960)]{1960MNRAS.120..317L} Leaton, B.~R., \&
2403: Pagel, B.~E.~J.\ 1960, \mnras, 120, 317
2404: \bibitem[Lenzen et al.(2003)]{len03} Lenzen, R. et al. 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4841, 944
2405: \bibitem[Lenzen et al.(2004)]{len04} Lenzen, R., Close, L., Brandner, W., Hartung, M., \& Biller, B. 2004, Proc. SPIE, 5492, 970
2406: \bibitem[Lenzen et al.(2005)]{len05} Lenzen, R., Close, L., Brandner, W., Biller, B., \& Hartung, M. 2005, Science with AO ESO Workshop, 46
2407: \bibitem[Li $\&$ Hu(1998)]{lihu98} Li, J.~Z., \& Hu, J.~Y.\ 1998, \aaps, 132, 173
2408: \bibitem[Liu et al.(2005)]{liu05} Liu, M. et al. 2005, NICI campaign science
2409: proposal
2410: \bibitem[Liu et al. (2006)]{liu06} Liu, W. et al. 2006, accepted to \apj
2411: \bibitem[Lowrance et al.(2005)]{2005AJ....130.1845L} Lowrance, P.~J., et
2412: al.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 1845
2413: \bibitem[Luhman et al.(2006)]{luh06} Luhman, K.L., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 894
2414: \bibitem[Macintosh et al.(2006)]{mac06} Macintosh, B., Graham, J., Palmer, D., Doyon, R., Gavel, D., Larkin, J., Oppenheimer, B., Saddlemyer, L., Wallace, J., Bauman, B., Evans, J., Erikson, D., Morzinksi, K., Phillion, D., Poyneer, L., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Soummer, R., Thibault, S., $\&$ Veran, J.-P. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6272, 18
2415: \bibitem[Marley et al.(2006)]{marl06} Marley, M.S., Fortney, J.J., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., and Lissauer, J.J. 2006, astro-ph/0609739
2416: \bibitem[Marois et al.(2000)]{mar00} Marois, C., Doyon, R., Racine, R., \& Nadeau, D. 2000, PASP, 112, 91
2417: \bibitem[Marois et al.(2002)]{mar02} Marois, C., Doyon, R., Racine, R., \& Nadeau, D. 2002, Proc. SPIE, 4008, 788
2418: \bibitem[Marois et al.(2005)]{mar05} Marois, C. et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 745
2419: \bibitem[Marois et al.(2006)]{mar06} Marois, C.,
2420: Lafreni{\`e}re, D., Doyon, R., Macintosh, B., \& Nadeau, D.\ 2006, \apj,
2421: 641, 556
2422: \bibitem[Masciadri et al.(2005)]{mas05} Masciadri, E., Mundt, R., Henning, T., Alvarez, C., $\&$ Barrado y Navascues, D. 2005, \apj, 625, 1004
2423: \bibitem[McCaughrean et al.(2004)]{mcc04} McCaughrean, M.J., Close, L.M., Scholz, R.-D., Lenzen, R., Biller, B., Brandner, W., Hartung, M., \& Lodieu, N.
2424: 2004, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 413, 1029
2425: \bibitem[Metchev \& Hillenbrand(2004)]{2004ApJ...617.1330M} Metchev, S.~A.,
2426: \& Hillenbrand, L.~A.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 1330
2427: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(1998)]{mey98} Meyer, M.~R., Edwards, S., Hinkle, K.~H.,
2428: \& Strom, S.~E.\ 1998, \apj, 508, 397
2429: \bibitem[Mochnacki et al.(2002)]{moc02} Mochnacki, S.W. et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 2868
2430: \bibitem[Montes et al.(2001)]{2001MNRAS.328...45M} Montes, D.,
2431: L{\'o}pez-Santiago, J., G{\'a}lvez, M.~C., Fern{\'a}ndez-Figueroa, M.~J.,
2432: De Castro, E., \& Cornide, M.\ 2001, \mnras, 328, 45
2433: \bibitem[Mugrauer $\&$ Neuh\"auser(2005)]{mug05} Mugrauer, M. \& Neuh\"auser, R. 2005, MNRAS, 361, L15
2434: \bibitem[Nakajima et al.(1995)]{nak95} Nakajima, T., Oppenheimer, B.R., Kulkarni, S., Golimowski, D.A., Matthews, K., \& Durrance, S.T. 1995, Nature, 378, 463
2435: \bibitem[Neuh\"auser $\&$ Brandner(1998)]{neu98} Neuh\"auser, R., \& Brandner, W.\ 1998, \aap, 330, L29
2436: \bibitem[Nielsen et al.(2005)]{2005AN....326.1033N} Nielsen, E.~L., Close,
2437: L.~M., Guirado, J.~C., Biller, B.~A., Lenzen, R., Brandner, W., Hartung,
2438: M., \& Lidman, C.\ 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 1033
2439: \bibitem[Nielsen et al.(2006)]{2006dies.conf..111N} Nielsen, E.~L., Close,
2440: L.~M., \& Biller, B.~A.\ 2006, IAU Colloq.~200: Direct Imaging of
2441: Exoplanets: Science \& Techniques, 111
2442: \bibitem[Noyes et al.(1984)]{1984ApJ...287..769N} Noyes, R.~W., Weiss,
2443: N.~O., \& Vaughan, A.~H.\ 1984, \apj, 287, 769
2444: \bibitem[Perryman et al.(1997)]{per97} Perryman, M.A.C. et al. 1997,
2445: \apj, 323, 49
2446: \bibitem[Racine et al.(1999)]{rac99}Racine, R., Walker, G.A.H., Nadeau, D., Doyon, R., \& Marois, C. 1999, PASP, 111, 587
2447: \bibitem[Randich, Gratton, $\&$ Pallavicini(1993)]{ran93} Randich, S., Gratton, R., \& Pallavicini, R.\ 1993, \aap, 273, 194
2448: \bibitem[Rousset et al.(2003)]{rou03} Rousset, G. et al. 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4389, 140
2449: \bibitem[Schneider et al.(2003)]{sch03} Schneider, G., Becklin, E., Close, L., Figer, D., Lloyd, J., Macintosh, B., Hines, D., Max, C., Potter, D., Rieke, M., Scoville, N., Thompson, R., Weinberg, A., \& Windhorst, R. 2003, solicited by STScI in preparation for HST Cycle 12
2450: \bibitem[Sparks \& Ford(2002)]{spa02} Sparks, W.~B., \& Ford, H.~C.\ 2002, \apj, 578, 543
2451: \bibitem[Sozetti et al.(2006)]{soz06} Sozzetti, A., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 449, 417
2452: \bibitem[Tamura \& Lyu(2006)]{tam06} Tamura, M. $\&$ Lyu, A. 2006, IAUC 200
2453: proceedings
2454: \bibitem[Thatte et al.(2007)]{tha07} Thatte, N. et al. 2007, MNRAS, submitted
2455: \bibitem[Torres et al.(1995)]{tor95} Torres, G., Stefanik, R., Latham, D., \& Mazeh, T. 1995, Astrophysical Journal, 452, 870
2456: \bibitem[Trauger et al.(2004)]{tra04} Trauger, J.T., Burrows, C., Gordon, B., Green, J.J., Lowman, A.E., Dwight, M., Niessner, A.F., Shi, F., \& Wilson, D. 2004, Proc. SPIE, 5487, 1330
2457: \bibitem[Wichmann, Schmitt, $\&$ Hubrig(2003)]{wic03} Wichmann, R., Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M., \& Hubrig, S.\ 2003, \aap, 400, 293
2458: \bibitem[Wright et al.(2004)]{2004ApJS..152..261W} Wright, J.~T., Marcy,
2459: G.~W., Butler, R.~P., \& Vogt, S.~S.\ 2004, \apjs, 152, 261
2460: \bibitem[Wright et al.(2005)]{2005prpl.conf.8605W} Wright, J.~T., Butler,
2461: R.~P., Marcy, G.~W., Vogt, S.~S., Fischer, D.~A., Rinney, C.~G., \& Jones,
2462: H.~R.~A.\ 2005, Protostars and Planets V, 8605
2463: \bibitem[Zuckerman et al.(2001a)]{2001ApJ...562L..87Z} Zuckerman, B., Song,
2464: I., Bessell, M.~S., \& Webb, R.~A.\ 2001, \apjl, 562, L87
2465: \bibitem[Zuckerman et al.(2001b)]{2001ApJ...549L.233Z} Zuckerman, B., Webb,
2466: R.~A., Schwartz, M., \& Becklin, E.~E.\ 2001, \apjl, 549, L233
2467: \bibitem[Zuckerman \& Song(2004)]{2004ARA&A..42..685Z} Zuckerman, B., \&
2468: Song, I.\ 2004, \araa, 42, 685
2469: \end{thebibliography}
2470:
2471:
2472: \end{document}
2473: