1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%%% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
6: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
7:
8: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
9: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
10: %% any data that comes before this command.
11:
12: %% The command below calls the preprint style
13: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
14: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
15: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
16: %%
17: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
18:
19: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
20:
21: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
22:
23: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
24:
25: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
26:
27: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
28: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
29: %% use the longabstract style option.
30:
31: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
32:
33: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
34: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
35: %% the \begin{document} command.
36: %%
37: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
38: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
39: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
40: %% for information.
41:
42: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
43: \newcommand{\myemail}{enielsen@as.arizona.edu}
44:
45: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
46:
47: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
48:
49: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
50: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
51: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
52: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
53: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
54: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
55:
56: \shorttitle{Constraints on Planet Populations}
57: \shortauthors{Nielsen et al.}
58:
59: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
60: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
61:
62: \begin{document}
63:
64: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
65: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
66: %% you desire.
67:
68: \title{Constraints on Extrasolar Planet Populations from VLT NACO/SDI and MMT SDI and Direct Adaptive Optics Imaging Surveys: Giant Planets are Rare at Large Separations}
69:
70: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
71: %% author and affiliation information.
72: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
73: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
74: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
75: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
76:
77: \author{Eric L. Nielsen\altaffilmark{1}, Laird M. Close, and Beth A. Biller}
78: \affil{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}
79: \email{enielsen@as.arizona.edu}
80:
81: \and
82:
83: \author{Elena Masciadri}
84: \affil{INAF-Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Italy}
85:
86: \and
87:
88: \author{Rainer Lenzen}
89: \affil{Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r Astronomie, K\"{o}nigstuhl 17, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany}
90:
91: %\and
92:
93: %\author{Eric E. Mamajek}
94: %\affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138}
95:
96: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
97: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
98: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
99: %% affiliation.
100:
101: \altaffiltext{1}{Michelson Fellow}
102: %\altaffiltext{2}{Email: enielsen@as.arizona.edu}
103: %\altaffiltext{3}{present address: Center for Astrophysics,
104: % 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
105: %\altaffiltext{4}{Visiting Programmer, Space Telescope Science Institute}
106: %\altaffiltext{5}{Patron, Alonso's Bar and Grill}
107:
108: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
109: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
110: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
111: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
112: %% editorial office after submission.
113:
114: \begin{abstract}
115: We examine the implications for the distribution of extrasolar planets based
116: on the null results from two of the largest direct imaging surveys published
117: to date. Combining the measured
118: contrast curves from 22 of the stars observed with the VLT NACO adaptive
119: optics system by \citet{elena}, and 48 of the stars observed with the VLT
120: NACO SDI and MMT SDI
121: devices by \citet{sdifinal} (for a total of 60 unique stars: the median star
122: for our survey is a 30 Myr K2 star at 25 pc), we consider what distributions
123: of planet masses
124: and semi-major axes can be ruled out by these data, based on Monte Carlo
125: simulations of planet populations. We can set the following
126: upper limit with 95\% confidence: the fraction of stars with planets with
127: semi-major axis
128: between 20 and 100 AU, and mass above 4 M$_{Jup}$, is 20\% or less. Also,
129: with a distribution of planet mass of
130: $\frac{dN}{dM} \propto M^{-1.16}$ in the range of 0.5-13 M$_{Jup}$,
131: we can rule out a power-law distribution for semi-major axis
132: ($\frac{dN}{da} \propto a^{\alpha}$) with index
133: 0 and upper cut-off of 18 AU, and index -0.5 with an upper cut-off of 48 AU.
134: %We cannot, with our current observations, place any constraints on the
135: %model suggested by the current radial velocity planets, a power law of
136: %index -1,
137: For the distribution suggested by \citet{cumming}, a power-law
138: of index -0.61, we can place an upper limit of 75 AU on
139: the semi-major axis distribution.
140: %In
141: %other words, given these assumptions for the semi-major axis distribution,
142: %and using the models of \citet{burrows}, giant planets are rare past 75 AU.
143: At the 68\% confidence level, these upper limits state that fewer than
144: 8\% of stars have a planet of mass $>$4 M$_{Jup}$ between 20 and 100 AU, and a
145: power-law distribution for semi-major axis with index 0, -0.5, and -0.61
146: cannot have giant planets beyond 12, 23, and 29 AU, respectively. In
147: general, we find that even null results from direct imaging surveys are very
148: powerful in constraining the distributions of giant planets (0.5-13 M$_{Jup}$)
149: at large separations, but more work needs to be done to
150: close the gap between planets that can be detected by direct imaging, and
151: those to which the radial velocity method is sensitive.
152: \end{abstract}
153:
154: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
155: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
156: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
157: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
158:
159: \keywords{stars: planetary systems, instrumentation: adaptive optics}
160:
161: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
162: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
163: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
164: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
165: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
166: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
167: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
168: %% each reference.
169:
170:
171: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
172: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging
173: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}. Each macro takes the
174: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket
175: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification
176: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper. The text appearing
177: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper.
178: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked
179: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers
180: %%
181: %% Note that for sources with brackets in their names, e.g. [WEG2004] 14h-090,
182: %% the brackets must be escaped with backslashes when used in the first
183: %% square-bracket argument, for instance, \object[\[WEG2004\] 14h-090]{90}).
184: %% Otherwise, LaTeX will issue an error.
185:
186: \section{Introduction}
187:
188: There are currently well over 200 known extrasolar planets, the bulk of which
189: were discovered by radial velocity surveys (e.g. \citet{rvref}). While
190: this field has initially been dominated by the study of the relatively
191: easy-to-find Hot Jupiters (planets with orbital periods of order days), over
192: the past several years there has been an increasing amount of data describing
193: planets in larger orbits. In particular, \citet{fv05} compared radial
194: velocity target stars with known planets to stars that had been monitored
195: but did not show signs of planets; they concluded that about 5\% of stars
196: had planets of mass greater than 1.6$M_{Jup}$, in orbits shorter than 4 years
197: (within 2.5 AU). Additionally, they determined that planet fraction
198: increased with the host star's metal abundance. \citet{rvref} have
199: also considered the distributions
200: of semi-major axis and planet mass of known radial velocity planets, and
201: found that both distributions are well-fit by power laws. \citet{cumming}
202: have examined the biases of the radial velocity technique, and found
203: that the semi-major axis distribution found by \citet{rvref},
204: $\frac{dN}{dP} \propto P^{-1}$, should be modified in light of the decreasing
205: sensitivity of the radial velocity method with orbital distance, and suggest a
206: power law index of -0.74 for period, instead (for solar-like stars, this
207: corresponds to a power law distribution for semi-major axis where
208: $\frac{dN}{da} \propto a^{-0.61}$).
209:
210: A careful consideration of sensitivity of microlensing observations to
211: planets by \citet{microlens1} suggests that for certain lensing
212: geometries, at projected separations of $\sim$1-4 AU, the lower limit for
213: the frequency of Neptune-mass planets is 16\%, making low-mass planets more
214: common than giant planets in the inner solar system (though we note that the
215: range of separations probed by \citet{microlens1} and \citet{fv05} do not
216: precisely overlap, and the target star samples are not uniform between the
217: two surveys). Additionally, \citet{microlens2} found that from
218: existing microlensing data, a third or less of M dwarfs in the galactic
219: bulge have 1 M$_{Jup}$ planets in orbits between 1.5 and 4 AU, and
220: $\leq$45\% of M dwarfs have planets between 1 and 7 AU of mass 3 M$_{Jup}$.
221:
222: One outstanding question is how the abundance of planets varies as one
223: considers planets in longer orbits. \citet{raymond06} has studied the
224: dynamics of terrestrial planet formation in systems with giant planets, and
225: found from numerical simulations that giant planets impede the formation of
226: earth-like planets when the giant planet orbits within 2.5 AU, and that water
227: delivery to a terrestrial planet is only possible in significant amounts
228: when the giant planet is beyond 3.5 AU. The full extent to which giant
229: planets impede (or encourage) water-rich terrestrial
230: planet formation is still unknown. A greater understanding of the
231: distribution of giant planets is a precursor to investigating the conditions
232: under which habitable terrestrial planets form and evolve.
233:
234: The global distribution of giant planets has also been considered from the
235: theoretical direction. \citet{idalin} have produced
236: distributions of planets forming in disks by core accretion, showing a
237: continuation of a power law from the radial velocity regime (within 2.5 AU)
238: for giant planets, out to about 10 AU, then trailing off at larger radii.
239: It is possible that the lack of outer planets in these simulations may be
240: due (at least in part) to the fact that these models do not consider the
241: effects of planet-planet scattering after planets are formed, or it may
242: simply be a function of the initial conditions of the simulation. In
243: order to constrain such models it is necessary to measure the distribution
244: of giant planets in longer orbits, so as to fully sample parameter space.
245:
246: With the advent of adaptive optics (AO) systems on large ($\sim$8m)
247: telescopes, the ability to detect and characterize planets by directly imaging
248: the companion is becoming increasingly viable. Already planetary mass
249: companions (in most cases $\sim$13 M$_{Jup}$ at 40-300 AU, or even lower mass
250: objects with brown dwarf hosts) have been detected in certain favorable
251: circumstances (e.g.
252: companions to 2MASS1207: \citet{2mass1207}, AB Pic: \citet{abpic}, Oph
253: 1622: \citet{oph1622b}, \citet{oph1622c}, \citet{oph1622a}, CHXR 73:
254: \citet{chxr73}, and DH Tau: \citet{dhtau}), and numerous surveys are underway
255: for planets around nearby, young stars (since a self-luminous planet
256: is brightest at young ages). While the paucity of traditional planets
257: (that is, planets $<$13 M$_{Jup}$ and $<$40 AU orbiting a star) detected by
258: this method has been disappointing, in this paper we consider how even a
259: null result from these direct imaging surveys can be used to set constraints
260: on the population of giant planets. As the sensitivity of radial velocity
261: surveys to planets at larger separations decreases (due both to the smaller
262: radial velocity signal, and the much longer orbital period requiring a longer
263: time baseline of observations to adequately constrain the orbital
264: parameters), at orbits wider than 10 AU only direct imaging is efficient at
265: characterizing the extrasolar planet population.
266:
267: %\citet{gdps} has
268:
269: \citet{janson} used VLT SDI data (part of the data considered in this work)
270: for the known planet host star $\epsilon$ Eridani, to search for the radial
271: velocity planet, given its predicted position from the astrometric orbit
272: of \citet{benedict}. Though upper limits were found for the planet of
273: $M_{H}\sim$19, the predicted flux of the planet could be up to 10 magnitudes
274: fainter, given the likely age of the system of 800 Myr. While this is
275: young compared to the rest of the radial velocity planet host stars, it is
276: quite old by the standards of direct imaging planet searches, so the inability
277: to detect this planet's flux is unsurprising. Previous work has been done by
278: \citet{kasper} to study the region of parameter space unprobed by the radial
279: velocity method, large orbital separations, by observing 22 young, nearby
280: stars in the L-band from the VLT. The null result from this survey was used
281: to set constraints on combinations of power-law index and upper cut-off for
282: the distribution of the observed separation (not semi-major axis) of
283: extrasolar planets.
284:
285: \citet{elena} conducted a survey of 28 young, nearby stars, with a null result
286: for planets. They found that their observations were
287: sufficient to detect a 5 M$_{Jup}$ planet at projected separations greater
288: than 14 AU around 14 of their target stars, and above 65 AU for all 28 stars.
289: Similarly, their observations would have been sensitive to a 10 M$_{Jup}$
290: planet with a projected separation of 8.5 AU or beyond for half their sample,
291: and greater than 36 AU for the full sample. These results (obtained by
292: adopting published ages for the target stars, and using the appropriate
293: planet models of \citet{cond}) point to a rarity
294: of giant planets at large separations from their parent stars. In this paper
295: we enlarge the sample, and consider the implications of
296: our null result with
297: respect to the full orbital parameters of potential planets. We aim to set
298: quantitative limits on the distribution of planets in semi-major axis space,
299: and statistically rule out models of planet populations.
300:
301: \section{Observations}
302:
303: We begin with contrast plots (sensitivity to faint companions as a function
304: of angular separation from the target star) from two surveys for extrasolar
305: planets,
306: using large telescopes and adaptive optics. \citet{elena} carried out a
307: survey of 28 young, nearby, late-type stars with the NACO adaptive optics
308: system at the 8.2 meter Very Large Telescope (VLT). These observations have
309: exposure times of order 30 minutes, with stars being observed in the H
310: or Ks bands. Subsequent to these observations, a survey of 54 young, nearby
311: stars of a variety of spectral types (between A and M) was conducted
312: between 2003 and 2005, with the results reported in \citet{sdifinal}. This
313: second survey used the Simultaneous Differential Imager (SDI)
314: at the 6.5 meter MMT and the 8 meter VLT, an adaptive optics observational
315: mode that allows higher contrasts by
316: imaging simultaneously in narrow wavelength regions surrounding the
317: 1.6 $\mu$m methane feature seen in cool brown dwarfs and expected in
318: extrasolar planets \citep{lenzen,abdor}. This
319: allows the light from a hypothetical
320: companion planet to be more easily distinguishable from the speckle noise
321: floor (uncorrected starlight), as the two will have very different spectral
322: signatures in this region. This translates to higher sensitivity at smaller
323: separations than the observations of \citet{elena}, which were conducted
324: before the VLT SDI device was commissioned (see Fig. 14 of
325: \citet{sdifinal} for a more detailed comparison of the two surveys).
326: For most of these SDI targets, the star was
327: observed for a total of 40 minutes of integration time, which includes a
328: 33 degree roll in the telescope's rotation angle, in order to separate
329: super speckles--which are created within the instrument, and so will not
330: rotate--from a physical companion, which will rotate on the
331: sky \citep{scr1845}.
332:
333: For both sets of target stars, contrast curves have been produced which
334: give the 5$\sigma$\footnote{We note that for the SDI observations this
335: threshold corresponds to independent 5$\sigma$ measurements in both the
336: 0$^\circ$ and 33$^\circ$ images, see \citet{sdifinal} for details.} noise in
337: the final images as a function of radius from the
338: target stars, and thus an upper limit on the flux of an unseen planet in the
339: given filter of the observations. As no planets were detected in either
340: survey at the 5$\sigma$ level, we use these contrast curves to set upper
341: limits on the population of extrasolar planets around young, nearby stars.
342:
343: \subsection{Target Stars}
344:
345: We construct a target list using 22 stars from the \citet{elena} survey, and
346: 48 stars from the survey of \citet{sdifinal}, for a total of 60 targets (10
347: stars were observed by both surveys). This
348: first cut was made by considering stars from the two surveys that had contrast
349: curves, and stars whose age could be determined by at least one of: group
350: membership, lithium abundance, and the activity indicator R'$_{HK}$ (in three
351: cases, ages from the literature were used, though these are stars that are
352: generally older than our sample as a whole, and so uncertainties in the
353: assumed ages will not adversely affect our results). Ages are
354: determined by taking the age of the moving group to which the target star
355: belongs; if the star does not belong to a group, the lithium or R'$_{HK}$ age
356: is used, or the two are averaged if both are available. Lithium ages are
357: found by comparing to lithium abundances of members of clusters of known ages,
358: and similarly for R'$_{HK}$ \citep{mamajek}. We give the full
359: target list in Table~\ref{table1}, and details on the age determination in
360: Table~\ref{table2}. We also plot our target stars in Fig.~\ref{targetsfig}.
361: Overall, our median survey object is a 30 Myr K2 star at 25 pc.
362:
363: \section{Monte Carlo Simulations}
364:
365: In order to place constraints on the properties of planets
366: from our null results, we run a series of Monte Carlo simulations
367: of an ensemble of extrasolar planets around each target star.
368: Each simulated planet is given full orbital parameters, an
369: instantaneous orbital phase, and a mass, then the planet's
370: magnitude in the observational band is determined from these properties (using
371: the target star's age and distance, and
372: theoretical mass-luminosity relations) as is its projected separation from the
373: star. Finally,
374: this magnitude is compared to the measured contrast curve to see if such a
375: planet could be
376: detected. Determining which simulated planets were detected, and which
377: were not, allows us to interpret the null result in terms of what models of
378: extrasolar planet populations are excluded by our survey results.
379:
380: \subsection{Completeness Plots}
381:
382: As in \citet{sdifinal}, we use completeness plots to illustrate the
383: sensitivity to planets as a function of planet mass and semi-major axis. To
384: do this, for each target star, we create a grid of semi-major axis and planet
385: mass. At each grid location we simulate $10^4$ planets, and then compute
386: what fraction could be detected with the contrast curve for that star.
387:
388: In general, most orbital parameters are given by well-known distributions.
389: Inclination angle has a constant distribution in sin(i), while the
390: longitude of the ascending node and the mean anomaly are given by uniform
391: distributions between 0 and 2$\pi$. Since contrast plots are given in terms
392: of radius alone, it is not necessary to consider the argument of periastron
393: in the simulations.
394:
395: To simulate the eccentricities of the planet orbits, we
396: examine the orbital parameters of known extrasolar planets from radial
397: velocity surveys. We consider the orbits of planets given by \cite{rvref},
398: and show their distribution of eccentricities in Fig.~\ref{eccfig}. By
399: dividing the sample into two populations, based on a cut at an orbital period
400: of 21 days, we can separate out the population of Hot Jupiters, which we
401: expect to have experienced orbital circularization as a result of their
402: proximity to their host stars. For both sets of populations, we fit a simple
403: straight line to the distributions (the logarithmic bins for the Hot Jupiter
404: population means this line translates to a quadratic fit). We note that the
405: Hot Jupiter fit is plagued by small number statistics, and so the fit is
406: likely to be less reliable than that for long period planets. Even for our
407: closest target
408: stars, such an orbital period gives star-planet separations less than 0.1'',
409: a regime where our contrast curves show we are not sensitive to planets. As
410: a result, the manner in which the orbits of Hot Jupiters are simulated has
411: effectively no impact on our final results.
412:
413: For each simulated planet, the on-sky separation is determined at the given
414: orbital phase, and mass is converted into absolute H or Ks
415: magnitude, following the mass-luminosity relations of both \citet{burrows}
416: and \citet{cond}; both of these sets of models have shown success at
417: predicting the properties of young brown dwarfs (e.g. \citet{stassun} and
418: \citet{sinfoni}). In the case of the models of \citet{burrows}, we use a
419: Vega spectrum to convert the various model spectra into absolute H and Ks
420: magnitudes. We also note that the \citet{burrows} models only cover a
421: range of planet
422: masses greater than 1 $M_{Jup}$, and ages above 100 Myr. Since the range of
423: ages of our target stars extends down to 2 Myr, and we wish to consider
424: planets down to masses of 0.5 $M_{Jup}$, we perform a simple extrapolation of
425: the magnitudes to these lower ages and masses. While this solution is clearly
426: not ideal, and will not reflect the complicated physical changes in these
427: objects as a function of mass and age, we feel that this method provides a
428: good estimation of how the \citet{burrows} models apply to our survey.
429:
430: At this point, we use the distance to the target star, as well as its 2MASS
431: flux in either H or Ks, to find the delta-magnitude of each simulated
432: planet. With this, and the projected separation in the plane of the sky, we
433: can compare each simulated planet to the 5$\sigma$ contrast curve, and
434: determine which planets
435: can be detected, and which cannot. We also apply a minimum flux limit, based
436: on the exposure time of the observation, as to what apparent magnitude for a
437: planet is required for it to be detected, regardless of its distance from the
438: parent star. For the SDI observations, which make use of optimized (compared
439: to basic H-band observing) methane filters, we add an additional
440: factor of $\Delta$H$=$0.6 magnitudes (appropriate for a T6 spectral type, a
441: conservative
442: estimate for young planets; see \citet{sdifinal} for details on this factor).
443: Also, for these SDI observations, we place
444: an upper cut-off on masses where, for the age of the system, the planet
445: reaches an effective temperature of 1400 K.
446: % (we use \citet{burrows} to give the
447: %mass of this cut-off as a function of age).
448: Above this temperature, methane
449: in the atmosphere of the
450: planet is destroyed, and the methane feature disappears, so
451: that the SDI subtraction now attenuates any planets, as well as stellar
452: speckles. While non-methane objects further out than 0.2'' are not totally
453: removed in the image (e.g. Fig. 4 of \citet{abdorme}), for consistency we
454: ignore this possibility when considering upper limits.
455:
456: In many cases in our survey, a single target star was observed at several
457: epochs, in some cases with different observational parameters (such as VLT
458: NACO SDI and VLT NACO Ks broadband) or even different telescopes (MMT and
459: VLT). As a result, to be considered a null detection, a simulated planet must
460: lie below the 5$\sigma$ detection threshold at each observational epoch, and
461: this threshold must reflect the appropriate contrast curve for the given
462: observation. To account for this, for target stars with multiple
463: observations, an ensemble of simulated planets is created for the earliest
464: observational epoch, as described above, and compared to the contrast curve
465: for that observation. The simulated planets then retain all the same orbital
466: parameters, except for orbital phase which is advanced forward by the
467: elapsed time to the next observational epoch, and the simulated planets are
468: now compared to the contrast curve from the later epoch (and so on for every
469: available contrast curve). A planet that lies above the contrast curve at any
470: epoch is considered detectable. Typically this elapsed time is about a year,
471: and so is a minor effect for planets with long-period orbits; we nevertheless
472: include this complexity for completeness. The major benefit of this method is
473: that for stars observed both with SDI \citep{sdifinal} and at H or Ks
474: \citep{elena}, it is possible to leverage both the higher contrasts at smaller
475: separations with SDI and the insensitivity to the methane feature of broadband
476: imaging, which allows planets of higher masses to be accessed. The epochs
477: used when considering each observation are those given in Table 3 of
478: \citet{elena} and Tables 2 and 3 of \citet{sdifinal}.
479:
480: We plot an example of this simulation at a single grid point in mass and
481: semi-major axis in Fig.~\ref{conpabdemofig}, for the target star GJ 182,
482: the 18th best target star in our survey, using the planet models of
483: \citet{burrows}. 10$^4$ simulated planets (only 100 are plotted in this
484: figure, for clarity) are
485: given a single value of mass (6.5 $M_{Jup}$) and semi-major axis (10 AU).
486: Since each planet has unique orbital parameters (eccentricity, viewing angle,
487: and orbital phase), the projected separation varies from planet to planet, so
488: some are above the 5$\sigma$ detection threshold of the contrast curve (the
489: blue dots in the figure), while
490: others are not (the red dots). For this particular target star and
491: simulated planets of mass 6.5 M$_{Jup}$ and semi-major axis 10 AU, 20\% of
492: these planets can be detected.
493:
494: To produce a complete contour plot, we consider a full grid of mass
495: (100 points,
496: between 0.5 and 17 $M_{Jup}$) and semi-major axis (200 points,
497: between 1 and 4000 AU), running a simulation as in Fig.~\ref{conpabdemofig} at
498: each of the 20,000 grid points. We then plot contours showing what fraction
499: of planets we can detect that have a given mass and semi-major axis,
500: in Fig.~\ref{conpabfig}, again for the target star GJ 182. The hard upper
501: limit is set by the methane cut-off, where the planet mass becomes high
502: enough (for the age of the given target star) for the effective temperature
503: to exceed 1400 K, at which
504: point the methane feature is much less prominent in the planet's spectrum.
505: Although there exists a Ks dataset for the star GJ 182, and additional
506: observational epochs with SDI, for clarity we only use a single SDI contrast
507: curve to produce this figure; the full dataset is used for subsequent
508: analysis. If GJ 182 had a planet with mass and semi-major axis such that it
509: would fall within the innermost contour of Fig.~\ref{conpabfig}, we would have
510: an 80\% chance of detecting it. Obviously,
511: these plots make no statements about whether these stars have planets of the
512: given parameters, but instead simply express our chances of detecting such a
513: planet if it did exist.
514:
515: \subsection{Detection Probabilities Given an Assumed Distribution of Mass and Semi-major Axis of Extrasolar Planets}
516:
517: With the large number of currently-known extrasolar planets, it is possible
518: to assume simple power-law representations of the distributions of mass and
519: semi-major axis of giant planets, which allows for a more quantitative
520: interpretation of our null result. \citet{rvref} suggest a power law of
521: the form $\frac{dN}{dM} \propto M^{-1.16}$ for mass, while \citet{cumming}
522: use the power law $\frac{dN}{da} \propto a^{-0.61}$ for semi-major
523: axis, in order to describe the distributions of known extrasolar planets. We
524: make histograms for
525: mass (Fig.~\ref{massfig}) and semi-major axis (Fig.~\ref{smafig}) from the
526: parameters of all currently-known extrasolar planets (parameters taken from
527: the Catalog of Nearby Exoplanets, http://exoplanets.org, in May 2007). In
528: both cases, the power laws do a reasonable job of fitting the data, above
529: 1.6 $M_{Jup}$ and within 3.5 AU. For smaller planets, or longer periods, we
530: would expect the observational biases of the radial velocity method to make
531: the sample incomplete, thus accounting for the drop-off of planets from what
532: would be predicted by the power law. We echo the caution of \citet{rvref}
533: that these planets are drawn from many inhomogeneous samples, but we believe
534: with the relatively large numbers the derived distributions are not far off
535: from the actual distributions.
536:
537: In general, then, if one assumes that these power laws are universal to all
538: stars, and that the semi-major axis power law continues to larger separations
539: with the same index, the only outstanding question is to what outer limit
540: (or ``cut-off'') this distribution continues before it is truncated. This
541: cut-off is a term that can be uniquely well constrained by the null results
542: from our survey. We return to this
543: issue, after considering the results from our survey, in Section~\ref{smasec}.
544:
545: For the Monte Carlo simulations using these assumptions, in addition to the
546: other orbital parameters, we obtain mass and
547: semi-major axis through random variables that follow the given power law
548: distributions, and again find what fraction of planets can be detected given
549: the contrast curve for that particular target star. An example of this
550: simulation, again for GJ 182, is given in Fig.~\ref{msplotfig}, showing that
551: with an assumed upper limit for semi-major axis of 70 AU, and a power law
552: with index -0.61, and mass power law index of -1.16 between 0.5 and 13
553: M$_{Jup}$, we would be able
554: to detect 10\% of the simulated planets. Again, for this figure, we simply
555: show the results using the models of \citet{burrows}.
556:
557: \section{Analysis}
558:
559: Having developed the tools to produce completeness plots, as well as compute
560: the fraction of detected planets for various assumed models of semi-major
561: axis, we proceed to combine the results over all our target stars in order to
562: place constraints on the populations of extrasolar planets from these two
563: surveys.
564:
565: \subsection{Planet Fraction}
566:
567: A simplistic description of the number of planets expected to be
568: detected is given by the expression
569:
570: \begin{equation}
571: N(a,M) = \sum^{N_{obs}=60}_{i=1} f_p(a,M) P_{i}(a,M)
572: \label{planeteq}
573: \end{equation}
574:
575: \noindent That is, the number of planets one expects to detect at a certain
576: semi-major axis and mass is given by the product of the detection probability
577: ($P_i$) for a planet of that mass (M) and semi-major axis (\textit{a}), and
578: the fraction of stars ($f_p$) that contain such a planet (or
579: ``planet fraction''), summed over all target stars. In this treatment,
580: we ignore two major effects: we assume that there is no change in the mass or
581: separation distribution of planets, or their overall frequency, as a function
582: of spectral type of the primary; we also do not consider any metallicity
583: dependence on the planet fraction. While these assumptions are clearly
584: incorrect (e.g. \citet{johnson}, \citet{fv05}), it is a good starting point
585: for considering what constraints can be placed on the population of
586: extrasolar planets. Also, we note that our sample includes 24 binaries,
587: which may inhibit planet formation, though most of these binaries have
588: separations greater than 200 AU.
589: This leaves only ten binaries with separations in the range of likely planet
590: orbits that might potentially
591: contaminate our results. For simplicity, we leave these binaries in our
592: sample, and we will return to this issue in Section~\ref{smasec}.
593:
594: Using the contrast curves from each of our 60 targets stars (as in
595: Fig.~\ref{conpabfig}), we simply sum the fraction of detectable planets at
596: each grid points for all of our stars. This gives the predicted number of
597: detectable
598: planets at each combination of mass and semi-major axis, assuming each target
599: star has one planet of that mass and semi-major axis ($f_p(a,M)$=1).
600:
601: More instructively, if we assume a uniform value
602: of the planet fraction for all target stars, we can solve for $f_p$. Then by
603: assuming a particular value for the predicted number of planets
604: ($\Sigma P_i$), our null result allows us to place an upper limit on the
605: planet fraction at a corresponding confidence level, since our survey
606: measured a value of N(a,M)=0. In a Poisson distribution, the probability of
607: obtaining a certain value is given by $P=e^{-\mu} \frac{\mu^\nu}{\nu!}$, which
608: for the case of a null result, $\nu=0$, becomes $P=e^{-\mu}$, so a 95\%
609: confidence level requires an expectation value, $\mu$, of 3 planets. We can
610: thus rewrite Eq.~\ref{planeteq}, using $\Sigma P_i = 3$, as
611: \begin{equation}
612: f_p(a,M) \le \frac{3}{\sum^{N_{obs}}_{i=0} P_{i}(a,M)}
613: \label{planeteq2}
614: \end{equation}
615: \noindent Put another way, if we expected, from our 5$\sigma$ contrast
616: curves, to detect
617: 12 planets ($\Sigma$P=12, for $f_p = 1$), in order to have actually detected
618: 0 planets from our entire survey (N=0), the planet fraction must be less
619: than $\frac{3}{12}$ = 25\% ($f_p<$0.25), at the 95\% confidence level. Doing
620: this at each point in the grid of our completeness plots allows for an upper
621: limit on the planet fraction as a function of mass and semi-major axis.
622:
623: We plot the contours of this upper limit in Fig.~\ref{contourfig}, using the
624: planet models of \citet{burrows}.
625: %The sharp inward jags in the shape are
626: %the result of SDI targets losing planets beyond the methane cut-off, for
627: %masses set by the age of the various moving groups.
628: A general result from
629: these data is that, again at the 95\% confdience level, we would expect fewer
630: than 20\% of stars to have planets of mass greater than 4$M_{Jup}$ with
631: semi-major axis between 20 and 100 AU. There appears to be no ``oasis'' of
632: giant planets (more massive than Jupiter) in long-period orbits: at the 85\%
633: confidence level, this upper limit on the fraction of stars with
634: giant planets drops to less than 10\%.
635: %with the fraction of
636: %stars with such planets apparently comparable to that for giant planets
637: %within 2.5 AU, 5.8\% \citep{fv05}.
638:
639: We present the same plot, this time
640: using the COND models of \citet{cond}, in Fig.~\ref{contourfiglyon}. As the
641: two sets of models predict quite similar planet NIR magnitudes, the plots
642: are virtually the same. The main difference between these models is that,
643: given the age distribution of our target stars,
644: higher mass planets appear slightly brighter in the \citet{cond} models,
645: with the trend reversing and lower mass planets becoming fainter, as compared
646: to the models of \citet{burrows}.
647: %This trend is likely to be even more pronounced once the models of
648: %\citet{marley} are considered, which to an even greater extent reduce the
649: %luminosity of young Jupiters.
650: \citet{marley} have recently produced a third
651: set of models, which globally predict lower luminosities for giant
652: planets. Since synthetic spectra for these models are not currently
653: available, we do not examine the consequences of these models here, though
654: we discuss possible effects in Section~\ref{discussion}. But we note that
655: while at 30 Myr and at 4 M$_{Jup}$ there is only a $\sim$3X decrease in the
656: luminosity predicted by \citet{marley} compared to \citet{burrows},
657: the temperature of these objects is lower, therefore increasing the number
658: of planets with methane that can be detected using SDI. As a result, even
659: with the future use of the \citet{marley} models, our results will not
660: change dramatically, with respect to the total number of planets to which
661: we are sensitive.
662:
663: \subsection{Host Star Spectral Type Effects}
664:
665: From the perspective of direct imaging searches for extrasolar planets,
666: M-stars are especially appealing: their lower intrinsic luminosity means a
667: given achievable contrast ratio allows fainter companions to be detected,
668: and so makes the detection of planet-mass companions seem more likely.
669: Nevertheless, there appears to be mounting evidence that even if the fraction
670: of stars with planets does not decline when moving to later spectral types
671: (and the work of \citet{johnson} suggests this fraction does decrease for
672: M stars),
673: the mean planet mass is likely to decrease (e.g. \citet{neptune_candc},
674: \citet{neptune_swiss}). While it seems natural that the initial mass of the
675: circumstantial disk (and so the mass of formed planets) should scale with the
676: mass of the parent star, such a relation is not easily quantified for planets
677: at all orbital separations. Additionally, it is problematic for us to model
678: planet distributions for M star hosts on radial velocity planets, when these
679: planets are almost entirely in systems with a host star of spectral type F,
680: G, or K.
681:
682: In order to investigate this effect, we divide our stars by spectral type,
683: then recompute what limits we can set on the planet fraction. In
684: Fig.~\ref{contourfigfgk} and~\ref{contourfigfgklyon} we plot the upper limit
685: on the planet fraction for
686: only the solar-like stars (K or earlier) in our survey (45 of our 60
687: target stars, this includes the one A star in our survey, HD 172555 A). As
688: we would expect, the statistics in the inner
689: contour remain largely the same, but the contours move upward and to the
690: right, as less massive and closer-in planets become harder to detect against
691: the glare of earlier-type stars.
692:
693: We also consider the fifteen M stars in our sample, in
694: Fig.~\ref{contourfigmstar} and~\ref{contourfigmstarlyon}. The effect of
695: the smaller number of stars is apparent, though the shape of the contours
696: is again roughly the same. If, as is suggested by \citet{johnson}, giant
697: planets are less common around low mass stars, or less massive stars harbor
698: less massive planets, it becomes difficult to probe the population of M star
699: planets with surveys such as these.
700:
701: %Finally, we compare the upper limit on the planet fraction to that computed
702: %from the volume-limited sample of \citet{fv05}, where the planet fraction
703: %is greater than 1.6 Jupiter masses and within 2.5 AU (the regime
704: %in which the sampling was sufficient in all survey stars to allow detection
705: %of such a planet) is 5.1\% (We note that this fraction represents the
706: %total number of planets from a given set of stars, and not the fraction of
707: %stars with planets, as some stars have multiple planets). In
708: %Fig.~\ref{pf01fig} we plot the upper limit on planet fraction as a function
709: %of semi-major axis, and compare to the 5.1\% value from the radial velocity
710: %planets within 2.5 AU. In order to remove the effects of mass, we have
711: %integrated over the mass power law suggested by Fig.~\ref{massfig}.
712:
713: %From our current statistics it does not seem possible
714: %to place strong constraints on the behavior of planet fraction with
715: %semi-major axis, beyond ruling out an oasis of giant planets at large
716: %separations (beyond 20 AU), in excess of those in shorter period orbits.
717:
718: \subsection{Constraining the Semi-Major Axis Distribution}\label{smasec}
719:
720: We now consider what constraints can be placed on planet populations if
721: we assume a basic form to the distributions. In particular, if we take the
722: mass power-law from currently-known extrasolar planets,
723: $\frac{dN}{dM} \propto M^{-1.16}$ \citep{rvref}, we can
724: constrain what types of power laws for semi-major axis are allowed by our
725: survey null result. To accomplish this, we simulate planets using a grid
726: of power law indices and upper cut-offs for semi-major axis for each of our
727: target stars. Then, the sum of the detection fractions over the entire
728: survey gives the expected number of detected planets, assuming each star
729: has one planet (for example, if for 10 stars, we had a 50\% chance of
730: detecting a planet around each star, we'd expect to detect 5 planets after
731: observing all 10 stars). Since we've set the distribution of planets, we can
732: determine the actual planet fraction: radial velocity surveys tell
733: us this value is 5.5\% for planets more massive than 1.6 $M_{Jup}$ and
734: with periods shorter than 4 years (closer-in than 2.5 AU) \citep{fv05}.
735: We can then use
736: the mass and semi-major axis power laws to find the planet fraction for
737: planets down to 0.5 Jupiter masses and out to the given semi-major axis
738: cut-off, while always preserving the value of 5.5\% for the planet fraction
739: for planets $>$1.6 M$_{Jup}$ and $<$2.5 AU. Then, by multiplying this planet
740: fraction by the sum of
741: detection probabilities, we find the expected number of planets we'd detect
742: given each distribution. At this point, we can again use the Poisson
743: distribution to convert this to a confidence level (CL) for rejecting the
744: model, given our null result: $CL=1-e^{-\mu}$, where $\mu$ is the expected
745: number of planets for that model.
746:
747: Since stellar multiplicity is likely to disrupt planet formation, we exclude
748: all known stellar binaries from our target list with projected separations
749: less than 200 AU. Since our results deal mainly with the inner 100 AU around
750: our target stars, binaries that are any closer would greatly influence
751: the formation of planets at these radii, creating an entirely different
752: population. \citet{exobinaries} have shown that while the overall planet
753: fraction (for radial velocity planets, as taken from the volume limited
754: sample of \citet{fv05}) is similar between single stars and wide binaries, it
755: decreases for stars in tight binary systems. Our inner cut-off on binary
756: separation is at a larger separation than that noted in \citet{exobinaries},
757: but we consider planets in much wider orbits than those detectable with the
758: radial velocity method. Additionally, it has been shown by \citet{alphacen1}
759: and \citet{alphacen2} that terrestrial planets could form and survive in the
760: $\alpha$ Cen AB system,
761: despite the relatively tight (23 AU), high eccentricity (0.5) orbit.
762: \citet{alphacen2} also found that for most cases, a planet is stable in a
763: binary system if its orbital radius is less than $\sim$10-20\% of the binary
764: separation. Applying this additional condition
765: to our sample, we remove 1 star from the \citet{elena} survey, and 9 from
766: the \citet{sdifinal} sample, leaving 50 stars in our sample. We give further
767: details on the binaries in our sample in Table~\ref{table3}.
768:
769: In Fig.~\ref{smacontourfig} and~\ref{smacontourfiglyon}, we plot the
770: confidence with which we can reject the model for various combinations of
771: power law index and upper cut-off for the semi-major axis distribution. For
772: the favored model of a power law distribution given by
773: $\frac{dN}{da} \propto a^{-0.61}$, we can place, at the 95\%
774: confidence level, an upper-limit on the semi-major axis cut-off of
775: 75 AU (94 AU using the models of \citet{cond} instead of those of
776: \citet{burrows}). In other words, if the power law index has a value of
777: -0.61, there can be no planets in orbits beyond \textit{a}=75 AU at the 95\%
778: confidence
779: level (29 AU at the 68\% confidence level). In Fig.~\ref{dsfassumptionsfig},
780: we show how these assumptions of power law index
781: compare with the distributions of known radial velocity planets, as well as
782: to what confidence we can exclude various models.
783:
784:
785: %remains below unity over the entire range
786: %of upper cut-off, so our null result does not
787: %allow us to place any constraint on a power law of that index.
788: %For the favored model of a
789: %flat distribution (index 0), the 2$\sigma$ constraint on upper cut-off
790: %is reached at 25 AU, with a 1$\sigma$ constraint just above 10 AU. If
791: %it is indeed power law distributions that best model extrasolar planet
792: %distributions, it seems that the population of extrasolar giant planets
793: %(M $>$0.5$M_{Jup}$) is cut off within the inner tens of AU of their host
794: %stars.
795:
796: \subsection{Testing Core Accretion Models}
797:
798: We also consider more sophisticated models of planet populations, namely the
799: core accretion models of \citet{idalin}. Using their Fig. 12, we extract all
800: the non-Hot-Jupiter giant planets, and of the 200-300 resulting planets, we
801: run our Monte Carlo simulation by, for each simulated planet, randomly
802: selecting one planet from this figure, adopting its values of mass and
803: semi-major axis, then assigning it
804: the other orbital elements as usual. We consider each of the three cases
805: modeled by \citet{idalin}.
806:
807: In Fig.~\ref{surveysizefig} we plot the predicted number of planets detected
808: from these three distributions. Again, the planet fraction for each curve
809: is set to match the planet fraction of \citet{fv05} for planets above 1.6
810: $M_{Jup}$ and within 2.5 AU. Since the predicted total number of planets
811: detected range
812: between about 0.6 and 0.7 at the end of our survey, we cannot place any
813: strong constraints on these models from our null result. For the three
814: cases of \citet{idalin}, A, B, and C, we can only ``rule them out'' at the
815: confidence levels of 45\%, 49\%, and 50\% respectively, and again only after
816: leaving all binaries in the sample. Additionally, since we
817: are considering target stars of all spectral type, we are not staying
818: faithful to the original simulations of \citet{idalin}, which consider only
819: solar mass host stars. In summary, the core-accretion simulations of
820: \citet{idalin} are quite consistent with our results.
821:
822: \section{Discussion: Systematic Effects of Models on Results, and Other Work}\label{discussion}
823:
824: We underscore the dependence of these results upon the accuracy of the
825: mass-luminosity relations of \citet{burrows} and \citet{cond}. In particular,
826: these models utilize the ``Hot Start'' method for giant planet formation, at
827: odds with the core accretion mechanism suggested by the planet-metallicity
828: relation of \citet{fv05}. The giant planet models of \citet{marley}
829: incorporate formation by core accretion, and predict
830: systematically fainter fluxes for these young planets (typically $\sim$3
831: times fainter for a 30 Myr, 4 M$_{Jup}$ planet, yet the overall effect is
832: difficult to predict without detailed models and spectra). Another result
833: of moving to these models, however, would be that these planets are also
834: cooler, so that the SDI method (limited to objects with effective
835: temperatures lower than 1400 K) will
836: likely reach planets of higher masses than would be predicted by the models
837: of \citet{burrows} and \citet{cond}.
838:
839: It is possible to
840: envision a scenario with extrasolar planets being built by both disk
841: instability (e.g. \citet{boss}) and core accretion, with the two types of
842: planets segregated in orbital distance: inner planets being more common in
843: orbit around metal-rich stars, consistent with core accretion, while
844: outer planets (the type to which the surveys discussed here are sensitive)
845: form by disk instability. In that case, the use of the Hot Start models
846: would be entirely reasonable, as these models have been shown to be mostly
847: consistent with young, low-mass objects that likely form in this way
848: (e.g. \citet{stassun},
849: \citet{sinfoni}). This possibility (which we again note is pure speculation)
850: endangers any conclusions drawn from Fig.~\ref{smacontourfig}
851: and~\ref{smacontourfiglyon}, which assume a single, consistent population of
852: planets, not allowing for the possibility of two overlapping populations
853: (such as one described by broken power laws). Our results for the upper
854: limit on planet fraction would remain valid, however, since these make no
855: assumptions on extrasolar planet populations beyond the eccentricity
856: distribution (a minor factor) and the mass-luminosity relation.
857:
858: Clearly, these constraints would be stronger with a larger sample size to
859: improve our statistics. Such an increase in sample size is hampered by the
860: limited number of young, nearby stars: observing older targets tends to
861: require an order of magnitude increase in number of targets so as to
862: assure a similar number of detected planets. The greatest improvement
863: in these results is likely to come with more advanced planet-finding
864: techniques, which increase the contrast and inner working angle to which one
865: can detect planets close to their parent stars. Two such Extreme AO systems,
866: slated to come online in the
867: next several years, are VLT-SPHERE and the Gemini Planet Imager (GPI).
868: Surveys of a sample of young,
869: nearby stars (likely very similar to the target list of this work) with these
870: planet-finders should be able to greatly close the gap between the
871: sensitivities to planets of direct imaging and radial velocity surveys.
872:
873: %While the ``sweet spot'' of our observations (the thick red solid line in
874: %Fig.~\ref{contourfig}) lies tantalyzingly close to the known radial
875: %velocity planets, we note that this region represents only the 68\%
876: %confidence level for an upper limit on the planet fraction of 5\%, for
877: %planets more massive than 6 M$_{Jup}$ and in orbits outside of $\sim$20 AU.
878: %A simple extension of the power laws used here (index of -0.61 for semi-major
879: %axis and -1.16 for mass), and the planet fraction of \citet{fv05} predict a
880: %planet fraction of 4.4\% for planets $>$6 M$_{Jup}$ between 20 and 100 AU.
881: %So while the two values for planet fraction in this region are consistent,
882: %our upper limit needs to be pushed down (and achieve a higher statistical
883: %signifigance) to place constraints on the population of planets in this
884: %regime. With a more sensitive (and/or larger) survey, it will be possible to
885: %determine if these power laws continue to separations of 20-100 AU, or if
886: %the distribution changes at larger separations.
887: While radial velocity surveys
888: continue to have great success in finding planets, the limiting factor is
889: orbital time: a planet at 10 AU takes over 30 years to complete a single
890: orbit, and radial velocity planets are generally not confirmable until at
891: least one orbit has elapsed. As a result, the onus on determining the
892: characteristics of giant planets beyond $\sim$10 AU is largely
893: upon direct imaging surveys.
894:
895: A survey planned for the immediate future uses the NICI (Near Infrared
896: Coronographic Imager) instrument currently being commissioned on the Gemini
897: South Telescope, with plans for a 50-night survey for extrasolar giant
898: planets. It
899: is hoped, of course, that these future surveys will produce actual detections,
900: not just more null results, which when considered alongside the targets that
901: were not found to harbor planets, should continue to constrain parameter
902: space on the distribution of outer extrasolar giant planets.
903:
904: Another direct imaging survey for giant planets has recently been completed,
905: searching for companions to 79 young, nearby stars: the Gemini Deep
906: Planet Survey \citep{gdps}. For completeness, we run an extra set of
907: simulations to compare our results to theirs. \citet{gdps} consider the case
908: of planets with masses between 0.5 and 13 M$_{Jup}$, governed by a power law
909: of index -1.2 (quite similar to our value of -1.16), and with a power law of
910: index -1 for semi-major axis. They then set an upper limit on the planet
911: fraction in three ranges of semi-major axis: 28\% for 10-25 AU, 13\% for
912: 25-50 AU, and 9.3\% for 50-200 AU, all at the 95\% confidence level, using
913: the models of \citet{cond}. Adopting these same simulation parameters, we
914: find upper limits on planet fractions of 37\%, 24\%, and 28\%, respectively.
915: We attribute our somewhat lower sensitivity to the increased number of
916: stars in the \citet{gdps} survey, as well as their increased field of view
917: (9'' compared to the 2.2'' for SDI), which makes their method better-suited
918: to detecting planets at the very large orbital radii of the last two bins.
919: Also, the \citet{gdps} survey was more consciously focused on closer stars:
920: all 85 of their target stars are within 35 parsecs, 18 of our 60 stars are
921: beyond 35 pc. The overall results of both our work and that of
922: \citet{gdps}, however, are in good
923: agreement for the case of planets in shorter orbits: for example, we reach
924: the same upper limits as \citet{gdps}
925: reached at the 95\% confidence level, if we degrade our confidence level
926: to 89\% for 10-25 AU, 80\% for 25-50 AU, and 63\% for 50-200 AU. Hence
927: the conclusions from both papers are the same: giant planets are rare
928: at large separations.
929:
930: We also note that the value of the planet fraction in these intervals can be
931: estimated from the uniform detectability sample of \citet{fv05}, which gives
932: 5.5\% of stars having planets within 2.5 AU, and more massive than 1.6
933: M$_{Jup}$. When using a model of planet mass with index -1.2, and semi-major
934: axis power law index -1, as above, the planet fractions for the semi-major
935: axis bins 10-25 AU, 25-50 AU, and 50-200 AU become 2.1\%, 1.6\%, and 3.2\%,
936: respectively. It should be noted that the samples of \citet{fv05} and
937: \citet{gdps} (as well as the one discussed in this paper, for that matter) are
938: not directly comparable, as the \citet{fv05} sample
939: is made up primarily of older stars
940: ($>$1 Gyr), and exclusively FGK spectral types, whereas the sample of
941: \citet{gdps} is made up of younger stars, and contains stars of M spectral
942: type. These
943: two effects push the planet fractions in opposite directions: younger stars
944: are more likely to be metal-rich\footnote{Although Table 1 of \citet{gdps}
945: gives
946: the metallicity for most of their target stars, which give a median value of
947: [Fe/H] = 0, more metal poor than the overall sample of \citet{fv05} by
948: $\sim$0.1 dex, it is notoriously difficult to make accurate metallicity
949: measurements of young stars. As a result, it is likely that these
950: reported metallicities are systematically lower than their actual values.},
951: and so have a higher planet
952: fraction \citep{fv05}, whereas M stars are less likely to harbor giant
953: planets \citep{johnson}. Overall, then, the upper limits from both
954: papers are consistent with the predictions from radial
955: velocity detections, with respect to this particular model of planet
956: populations.
957:
958: Finally, we note that although four of our target stars do, in fact, harbor
959: extrasolar planets (HIP 30034 (AB Pic) has a wide (5.5'') companion at the
960: planet/brown
961: dwarf boundary, while Eps Eri, HD 81040, and HD 128311 all have radial
962: velocity planets), our survey can be regarded as a null result. Even
963: though these planets were orbiting our target stars, we were unable to
964: detect them, as they were either outside our field of view (as with AB Pic
965: B), or too faint (due to their host star's age) to be detected from our
966: images, as was the case with the radial velocity planets. The motivation
967: behind our simulations is to find what population of hidden (undetected)
968: planets are consistent with a lack of planet detections, and the knowledge
969: of existing planets around some target stars does not change this.
970:
971: \section{Conclusion}
972:
973: Even without detecting extrasolar planets from our surveys, the null results
974: provide a basis for setting limits on the allowable distribution of giant
975: planets. From our data, using the planet models of \citet{burrows},
976: we can exclude any model for planet
977: distributions where more than 20\% of stars of all spectral types have
978: planets more massive than 4$M_{Jup}$ between 20 and 100 AU, at 95\%
979: confidence (this upper limit becomes 8\% of stars with such planets at the
980: 68\% confidence level). If we create simple models of planet populations
981: with the semi-major axis distribution governed by the
982: power law $\frac{dN}{da} \propto a^{\alpha}$, and mass by
983: $\frac{dN}{dM} \propto M^{-1.16}$, we can exclude giant
984: planets in the case of $\alpha = 0$ beyond 18 AU, and with $\alpha = -0.5$
985: beyond 48 AU. Using the distribution of \citet{cumming}, based on radial
986: velocity observations, with $\alpha = -0.61$, there can be no giant planets
987: beyond 75 AU. All these statements are at the 95\% confidence level; for
988: the 68\% confidence level, these upper limits for the outer cut-offs of
989: giant planets become 12 AU, 23 AU, and 29 AU, for power law indices of
990: 0, -0.5, and -0.61, respectively. With our data, the most we can say of the
991: models of \citet{idalin} is that they are consistent with our observations
992: at the $\sim$50\% confidence level. We again note that these conclusions are
993: highly dependent on the models of planet luminosity as a function of the
994: planet's age and mass. Additionally, we caution that since our sample
995: differs from the volume-limited sample of \citet{fv05}, known correlations
996: of planet fraction with stellar mass and metallicity will likely shift our
997: results from the values reported here. Nevertheless, the analysis presented
998: here is an important first step in constraining the populations of
999: extrasolar giant planets.
1000:
1001:
1002: \acknowledgments
1003:
1004: We thank the anonymous referee for many helpful comments that have improved
1005: the quality of this work. We thank Eric Mamajek for a great deal of
1006: assistance both in selecting targets
1007: for the SDI survey, and determining the ages of our target stars. We thank
1008: Remi Soummer for the idea of presenting sensitivity to planets as a grid of
1009: mass and semi-major axis points, and we thank Daniel Apai for presenting the
1010: idea of constructing a grid of semi-major axis power law indices and
1011: cut-offs. We also thank Thomas Henning and Wolfgang Brandner for their
1012: important work in the original data gathering, and helpful comments over the
1013: course of the project.
1014: This work makes use of data from the European Southern Observatory,
1015: under Program 70.C - 0777D, 70.C - 0777E, 71.C-0029A, 74.C-0548, 74.C-0549,
1016: and 76.C-0094. Observations reported here were obtained at the MMT
1017: Observatory, a joint facility of the University of Arizona and the Smithsonian Institution. This publication makes use of data products from the Two
1018: Micron All-Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of
1019: Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California
1020: Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space
1021: Administration and the National Science Foundation. This research has made
1022: use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasburg, France.
1023: ELN is supported by a
1024: Michelson Fellowship. LMC is supported by an NSF CAREER award and the NASA
1025: Origins of the Solar System program. BAB is supported by the NASA GSRP grant
1026: NNG04GN95H and NASA Origins grant NNG05GL71G.
1027:
1028: %V. Barger, T. Han, and R. J. N. Phillips for
1029: %doing the math in section~\ref{bozomath}.
1030: %More information on the AASTeX macros package is available \\ at
1031: %\url{http://www.aas.org/publications/aastex}.
1032: %For technical support, please write to
1033: %\email{aastex-help@aas.org}.
1034:
1035: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
1036: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
1037: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches
1038: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be
1039: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes
1040: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.
1041: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX
1042: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.
1043:
1044: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
1045: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research
1046: %% for the paper. Each keyword will be checked against the master list during
1047: %% copy editing. Individual instruments or configurations can be provided
1048: %% in parentheses, after the keyword, but they will not be verified.
1049:
1050: %{\it Facilities:} \facility{Nickel}, \facility{HST (STIS)}, \facility{CXO (ASIS)}.
1051:
1052: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
1053: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
1054: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
1055:
1056: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
1057: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
1058: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.
1059:
1060:
1061: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
1062: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
1063: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
1064: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
1065: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
1066: %%
1067: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
1068: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
1069: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
1070: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
1071: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
1072: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
1073: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
1074: %% place of the \cite commands.
1075:
1076: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
1077: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
1078: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
1079:
1080: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
1081: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
1082: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
1083: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
1084: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
1085:
1086:
1087: \bibliographystyle{apj}
1088: \bibliography{apj-jour,sdi_final_enielsen01}
1089: \clearpage
1090:
1091:
1092: %
1093: %
1094: % BEGIN TABLE 1
1095: %
1096: %
1097:
1098:
1099:
1100: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccc}
1101: \tablecolumns{9}
1102: \tablewidth{0pc}
1103: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1104: \tablecaption{Target Stars}
1105: \tablehead{
1106: \colhead{Target} & \colhead{RA\tablenotemark{1}} & \colhead{Dec\tablenotemark{1}} & \colhead{Distance (pc)\tablenotemark{2}} & \colhead{Sp. Type} & \colhead{Age (Myr)} & \colhead{V\tablenotemark{1}} & \colhead{H\tablenotemark{3}} & \colhead{Ks\tablenotemark{3}} & \colhead{Obs. Mode\tablenotemark{4}}}
1107: \startdata
1108: \citet{sdifinal} \\
1109: \hline
1110: HIP 1481 & 00 18 26.1 & -63 28 39.0 & 40.95 & F8/G0V & 30 & 7.46 & 6.25 & 6.15 & VLT SDI \\
1111: HD 8558 & 01 23 21.2 & -57 28 50.7 & 49.29 & G6V & 30 & 8.54 & 6.95 & 6.85 & VLT SDI \\
1112: HD 9054 & 01 28 08.7 & -52 38 19.2 & 37.15 & K1V & 30 & 9.35 & 6.94 & 6.83 & VLT SDI \\
1113: HIP 9141 & 01 57 48.9 & -21 54 05.0 & 42.35 & G3/G5V & 30 & 8.11 & 6.55 & 6.47 & VLT SDI \\
1114: BD+05 378 & 02 41 25.9 & +05 59 18.4 & 40.54 & M0 & 12 & 10.20 & 7.23 & 7.07 & VLT SDI \\
1115: HD 17925 & 02 52 32.1 & -12 46 11.0 & 10.38 & K1V & 115 & 6.05 & 4.23 & 4.17 & VLT SDI \\
1116: Eps Eri & 03 32 55.8 & -09 27 29.7 & 3.22 & K2V & 800 & 3.73 & 1.88 & 1.78 & VLT SDI \\
1117: V577 Per A & 03 33 13.5 & +46 15 26.5 & 33.77 & G5IV/V & 70 & 8.35 & 6.46 & 6.37 & MMT SDI \\
1118: GJ 174 & 04 41 18.9 & +20 54 05.4 & 13.49 & K3V & 160 & 7.98 & 5.31 & 5.15 & VLT SDI \\
1119: GJ 182 & 04 59 34.8 & +01 47 00.7 & 26.67 & M1Ve & 12 & 10.10 & 6.45 & 6.26 & VLT SDI/Ks \\
1120: HIP 23309 & 05 00 47.1 & -57 15 25.5 & 26.26 & M0/1 & 12 & 10.09 & 6.43 & 6.24 & VLT SDI/Ks \\
1121: AB Dor & 05 28 44.8 & -65 26 54.9 & 14.94 & K1III & 70 & 6.93 & 4.84 & 4.69 & VLT SDI \\
1122: GJ 207.1 & 05 33 44.8 & +01 56 43.4 & 16.82 & M2.5e & 100 & 9.50 & 7.15 & 6.86 & VLT SDI \\
1123: UY Pic & 05 36 56.8 & -47 57 52.9 & 23.87 & K0V & 70 & 7.95 & 5.93 & 5.81 & VLT SDI \\
1124: AO Men & 06 18 28.2 & -72 02 41.4 & 38.48 & K6/7 & 12 & 10.99 & 6.98 & 6.81 & VLT SDI/Ks \\
1125: HIP 30030 & 06 19 08.1 & -03 26 20.0 & 52.36 & G0V & 30 & 8.00 & 6.59 & 6.55 & MMT SDI \\
1126: HIP 30034 & 06 19 12.9 & -58 03 16.0 & 45.52 & K2V & 30 & 9.10 & 7.09 & 6.98 & VLT SDI \\
1127: HD 45270 & 06 22 30.9 & -60 13 07.1 & 23.50 & G1V & 70 & 6.50 & 5.16 & 5.05 & VLT SDI \\
1128: HD 48189 A & 06 38 00.4 & -61 32 00.2 & 21.67 & G1/G2V & 70 & 6.15 & 4.75 & 4.54 & VLT SDI \\
1129: pi01 UMa & 08 39 11.7 & +65 01 15.3 & 14.27 & G1.5V & 210 & 5.63 & 4.28 & 4.17 & MMT SDI \\
1130: HD 81040 & 09 23 47.1 & +20 21 52.0 & 32.56 & G0V & 2500 & 7.74 & 6.27 & 6.16 & MMT SDI \\
1131: LQ Hya & 09 32 25.6 & -11 11 04.7 & 18.34 & K0V & 13 & 7.82 & 5.60 & 5.45 & MMT/VLT SDI/Ks \\
1132: DX Leo & 09 32 43.7 & +26 59 18.7 & 17.75 & K0V & 115 & 7.01 & 5.24 & 5.12 & MMT/VLT SDI \\
1133: HD 92945 & 10 43 28.3 & -29 03 51.4 & 21.57 & K1V & 70 & 7.76 & 5.77 & 5.66 & VLT SDI \\
1134: GJ 417 & 11 12 32.4 & +35 48 50.7 & 21.72 & G0V & 115 & 6.41 & 5.02 & 4.96 & MMT SDI \\
1135: TWA 14 & 11 13 26.5 & -45 23 43.0 & 46.00\tablenotemark{5} & M0 & 10 & 13.00 & 8.73 & 8.49 & VLT SDI \\
1136: TWA 25 & 12 15 30.8 & -39 48 42.0 & 44.00\tablenotemark{5} & M0 & 10 & 11.40 & 7.50 & 7.31 & VLT SDI \\
1137: RXJ1224.8-7503 & 12 24 47.3 & -75 03 09.4 & 24.17 & K2 & 16 & 10.51 & 7.84 & 7.71 & VLT SDI \\
1138: HD 114613 & 13 12 03.2 & -37 48 10.9 & 20.48 & G3V & 4200 & 4.85 & 3.35 & 3.30 & VLT SDI \\
1139: HD 128311 & 14 36 00.6 & +09 44 47.5 & 16.57 & K0 & 630 & 7.51 & 5.30 & 5.14 & MMT SDI \\
1140: EK Dra & 14 39 00.2 & +64 17 30.0 & 33.94 & G0 & 70 & 7.60 & 6.01 & 5.91 & MMT SDI \\
1141: HD 135363 & 15 07 56.3 & +76 12 02.7 & 29.44 & G5V & 3 & 8.72 & 6.33 & 6.19 & MMT SDI \\
1142: KW Lup & 15 45 47.6 & -30 20 55.7 & 40.92 & K2V & 2 & 9.37 & 6.64 & 6.46 & VLT SDI \\
1143: HD 155555 AB & 17 17 25.5 & -66 57 04.0 & 30.03 & G5IV & 12 & 7.20 & 4.91 & 4.70 & VLT SDI/Ks \\
1144: HD 155555 C & 17 17 27.7 & -66 57 00.0 & 30.03 & M4.5 & 12 & 12.70 & 7.92 & 7.63 & VLT SDI/Ks \\
1145: HD 166435 & 18 09 21.4 & +29 57 06.2 & 25.24 & G0 & 100 & 6.85 & 5.39 & 5.32 & MMT SDI \\
1146: HD 172555 A & 18 45 26.9 & -64 52 16.5 & 29.23 & A5IV/V & 12 & 4.80 & 4.25 & 4.30 & VLT SDI \\
1147: CD -64 1208 & 18 45 37.0 & -64 51 44.6 & 34.21 & K7 & 12 & 10.12 & 6.32 & 6.10 & VLT SDI/Ks \\
1148: HD 181321 & 19 21 29.8 & -34 59 00.5 & 20.86 & G1/G2V & 160 & 6.48 & 5.05 & 4.93 & VLT SDI \\
1149: HD 186704 & 19 45 57.3 & +04 14 54.6 & 30.26 & G0 & 200 & 7.03 & 5.62 & 5.52 & MMT SDI \\
1150: GJ 799B & 20 41 51.1 & -32 26 09.0 & 10.22 & M4.5e & 12 & 11.00 & 0.00 & -99.00 & VLT SDI/Ks \\
1151: GJ 799A & 20 41 51.2 & -32 26 06.6 & 10.22 & M4.5e & 12 & 10.25 & 5.20 & 4.94 & VLT SDI/Ks \\
1152: GJ 803 & 20 45 09.5 & -31 20 27.1 & 9.94 & M0Ve & 12 & 8.81 & 4.83 & 4.53 & VLT SDI/Ks \\
1153: HD 201091 & 21 06 53.9 & +38 44 57.9 & 3.48 & K5Ve & 2000 & 5.21 & 2.54 & 2.25 & MMT SDI \\
1154: Eps Indi A & 22 03 21.7 & -56 47 09.5 & 3.63 & K5Ve & 1300 & 4.69 & 2.35 & 2.24 & VLT SDI \\
1155: GJ 862 & 22 29 15.2 & -30 01 06.4 & 15.45 & K5V & 6300 & 7.65 & 5.28 & 5.11 & VLT SDI \\
1156: HIP 112312 A & 22 44 57.8 & -33 15 01.0 & 23.61 & M4e & 12 & 12.20 & 7.15 & 6.93 & VLT SDI \\
1157: HD 224228 & 23 56 10.7 & -39 03 08.4 & 22.08 & K3V & 70 & 8.20 & 6.01 & 5.91 & VLT SDI \\
1158: \hline
1159: \citet{elena} \\
1160: \hline
1161: HIP 2729 & 00 34 51.2 & -61 54 58 & 45.91 & K5V & 30 & 9.56 & 6.72 & 6.53 & VLT Ks \\
1162: BD +2 1729 & 06 18 28.2 & -72 02 42 & 14.87 & K7 & 30 & 9.82 & 6.09 & 5.87 & VLT H \\
1163: TWA 6 & 07 39 23.0 & 02 01 01 & 77.00\tablenotemark{5} & K7 & 30 & 11.62 & 8.18 & 8.04 & VLT Ks \\
1164: BD +1 2447 & 10 18 28.8 & -31 50 02 & 7.23 & M2 & 12 & 9.63 & 5.61 & 5.31 & VLT H \\
1165: TWA 8A & 10 28 55.5 & 00 50 28 & 21.00\tablenotemark{5} & M2 & 115 & 12.10 & 7.66 & 7.43 & VLT Ks \\
1166: TWA 8B & 11 32 41.5 & -26 51 55 & 21.00\tablenotemark{5} & M5 & 100 & 15.20 & 9.28 & 9.01 & VLT Ks \\
1167: TWA 9A & 11 32 41.5 & -26 51 55 & 50.33 & K5 & 800 & 11.26 & 8.03 & 7.85 & VLT Ks \\
1168: TWA 9B & 11 48 24.2 & -37 28 49 & 50.33 & M1 & 70 & 14.10 & 9.38 & 9.15 & VLT Ks \\
1169: SAO 252852 & 11 48 24.2 & -37 28 49 & 16.40\tablenotemark{6} & K5V & 160 & 8.47 & 5.69 & 5.51 & VLT H \\
1170: V343 Nor & 14 42 28.1 & -64 58 43 & 39.76 & K0V & 12 & 8.14 & 5.99 & 5.85 & VLT Ks \\
1171: PZ Tel & 15 38 57.6 & -57 42 27 & 49.65 & K0Vp & 12 & 8.42 & 6.49 & 6.37 & VLT Ks \\
1172: BD-17 6128 & 18 53 05.9 & -50 10 50 & 47.70 & K7 & 70 & 10.60 & 7.25 & 7.04 & VLT Ks \\
1173: \enddata
1174: \tablenotetext{1}{from the CDS Simbad service}
1175: \tablenotetext{2}{derived from the Hipparcos survey \citet{hip}}
1176: \tablenotetext{3}{from the 2MASS Survey \citet{2mass}}
1177: \tablenotetext{4}{In cases were target stars were observed by both \citet{elena} and \citet{sdifinal}, the star is listed in the \citet{sdifinal} section, with Obs. Mode given as ``VLT SDI/Ks,'' for example.}
1178: \tablenotetext{5}{Distance from \citet{SZB03}}
1179: \tablenotetext{6}{Distance from \citet{ZSBW01}}
1180: \label{table1}
1181: \end{deluxetable}
1182:
1183:
1184:
1185:
1186: %
1187: %
1188: % END TABLE 1
1189: %
1190: %
1191:
1192:
1193: %
1194: %
1195: %
1196: %BEGIN TABLE 2
1197: %
1198: %
1199:
1200: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
1201: \tablecolumns{8}
1202: \tablewidth{0pc}
1203: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1204: \tablecaption{Age Determination for Target Stars}
1205: \tablehead{
1206: \colhead{Target} & \colhead{Sp. Type\tablenotemark{*}} & \colhead{Li EW (mas)\tablenotemark{*}} & \colhead{Li Age (Myr)} & \colhead{R'$_{HK}$\tablenotemark{*}} & \colhead{R'$_{HK}$ Age} & \colhead{Group Membership\tablenotemark{1}} & \colhead{Group Age\tablenotemark{1}} & \colhead{Adopted Age}}
1207: \startdata
1208: \citet{sdifinal} \\
1209: \hline
1210: HIP 1481 & F8/G0V\tablenotemark{2} & 129\tablenotemark{3} & 100 & -4.360\tablenotemark{4} & 200 & Tuc/Hor & 30 & 30 \\
1211: HD 8558 & G6V\tablenotemark{2} & 205\tablenotemark{5} & 13 & & & Tuc/Hor & 30 & 30 \\
1212: HD 9054 & K1V\tablenotemark{2} & 170\tablenotemark{5} & 160 & -4.236\tablenotemark{6} & $<$100 & Tuc/Hor & 30 & 30 \\
1213: HIP 9141 & G3/G5V\tablenotemark{7} & 181\tablenotemark{8} & 13 & & & Tuc/Hor & 30 & 30 \\
1214: BD+05 378 & M0\tablenotemark{9} & 15\tablenotemark{10} & & & & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1215: HD 17925 & K1V\tablenotemark{7} & 194\tablenotemark{8} & 50 & -4.357\tablenotemark{6} & 200 & Her/Lyr & 115 & 115 \\
1216: Eps Eri & K2V\tablenotemark{11} & & & -4.598\tablenotemark{6} & 1300 & & & 800\tablenotemark{12} \\
1217: V577 Per A & G5IV/V\tablenotemark{13} & 219\tablenotemark{13} & 3 & & & AB Dor & 70 & 70 \\
1218: GJ 174 & K3V\tablenotemark{14} & 118\tablenotemark{8} & 160 & -4.066\tablenotemark{6} & $<$100 & & & 160 \\
1219: GJ 182 & M1Ve\tablenotemark{10} & 280\tablenotemark{15} & 12 & & & & & 12 \\
1220: AB Dor & K1III\tablenotemark{2} & 267\tablenotemark{8} & 10 & -3.880\tablenotemark{6} & $<$100 & AB Dor & 70 & 70 \\
1221: GJ 207.1 & M2.5e\tablenotemark{16} & & & & & & & 100\tablenotemark{17} \\
1222: HIP 23309 & M0/1\tablenotemark{18} & 294\tablenotemark{18} & 12 & -3.893\tablenotemark{6} & & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1223: UY Pic & K0V\tablenotemark{19} & 263\tablenotemark{8} & 10 & -4.234\tablenotemark{6} & $<$100 & AB Dor & 70 & 70 \\
1224: AO Men & K6/7\tablenotemark{18} & 357\tablenotemark{18} & 6 & -3.755\tablenotemark{6} & & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1225: HD 45270 & G1V\tablenotemark{2} & 149\tablenotemark{5} & & & & AB Dor & 70 & 70 \\
1226: HD 48189 A & G1/G2V\tablenotemark{2} & 145\tablenotemark{8} & 25 & -4.268\tablenotemark{6} & 100 & AB Dor & 70 & 70 \\
1227: HIP 30030 & G0V\tablenotemark{20} & 219\tablenotemark{8} & 2 & & & Tuc/Hor & 30 & 30 \\
1228: HIP 30034 & K2V\tablenotemark{2} & & & & & Tuc/Hor & 30 & 30 \\
1229: pi01 UMa & G1.5V\tablenotemark{21} & 135\tablenotemark{8} & 100 & -4.400\tablenotemark{22} & 320 & & & 210 \\
1230: DX Leo & K0V\tablenotemark{21} & 180\tablenotemark{8} & 100 & -4.234\tablenotemark{6} & $<$100 & Her/Lyr & 115 & 115 \\
1231: HD 81040 & G0V\tablenotemark{21} & 24\tablenotemark{23} & 2500 & & & & & 2500 \\
1232: LQ Hya & K0V\tablenotemark{21} & 247\tablenotemark{8} & 13 & & & & & 13 \\
1233: HD 92945 & K1V\tablenotemark{21} & 138\tablenotemark{8} & 160 & -4.393\tablenotemark{6} & 320 & AB Dor & 70 & 70 \\
1234: GJ 417 & G0V\tablenotemark{24} & 76\tablenotemark{25} & 250 & -4.368\tablenotemark{26} & 250 & Her/Lyr & 115 & 115 \\
1235: TWA 14 & M0\tablenotemark{27} & 600\tablenotemark{27} & 8 & & & TW Hya & 10 & 10 \\
1236: RXJ1224.8-7503 & K2\tablenotemark{28} & 250\tablenotemark{28} & 16 & & & & & 16 \\
1237: TWA 25 & M0\tablenotemark{9} & 494\tablenotemark{29} & 10 & & & TW Hya & 10 & 10 \\
1238: HD 114613 & G3V\tablenotemark{30} & 100\tablenotemark{31} & 400 & -5.118\tablenotemark{6} & 7900 & & & 4200 \\
1239: EK Dra & G0\tablenotemark{32} & 212\tablenotemark{8} & 2 & -4.180\tablenotemark{22} & $<$100 & AB Dor & 70 & 70 \\
1240: HD 128311 & K0\tablenotemark{21} & & & -4.489\tablenotemark{26} & 630 & & & 630 \\
1241: HD 135363 & G5V\tablenotemark{21} & 220\tablenotemark{8} & 3 & & & & & 3 \\
1242: KW Lup & K2V\tablenotemark{30} & 430\tablenotemark{33} & 2 & & & & & 2 \\
1243: HD 155555 AB & G5IV\tablenotemark{18} & 205\tablenotemark{8} & 6 & -3.965\tablenotemark{6} & $<$100 & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1244: HD 155555 C & M4.5\tablenotemark{18} & & & & & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1245: CD -64 1208 & K7\tablenotemark{18} & 580\tablenotemark{18} & 5 & & & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1246: HD 166435 & G0\tablenotemark{34} & & & -4.270\tablenotemark{22} & 100 & & & 100 \\
1247: HD 172555 A & A5IV/V\tablenotemark{2} & & & & & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1248: HD 181321 & G1/G2V\tablenotemark{30} & 131\tablenotemark{8} & 79 & -4.372\tablenotemark{6} & 250 & & & 160 \\
1249: HD 186704 & G0\tablenotemark{35} & & & -4.350\tablenotemark{22} & 200 & & & 200 \\
1250: GJ 799A & M4.5e\tablenotemark{16} & & & & & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1251: GJ 799B & M4.5e\tablenotemark{16} & & & & & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1252: GJ 803 & M0Ve\tablenotemark{16} & 51\tablenotemark{8} & 30 & & & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1253: HD 201091 & K5Ve\tablenotemark{16} & & & -4.704\tablenotemark{6} & 2000\tablenotemark{+} & & & 2000 \\
1254: Eps Indi A & K5Ve\tablenotemark{16} & & & -4.851\tablenotemark{6} & 4000 & & & 1300\tablenotemark{36} \\
1255: GJ 862 & K5V\tablenotemark{16} & 5\tablenotemark{15} & & -4.983\tablenotemark{6} & 6300\tablenotemark{+} & & & 6300 \\
1256: HIP 112312 A & M4e\tablenotemark{9} & & & & & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1257: HD 224228 & K3V\tablenotemark{30} & 53\tablenotemark{8} & 630 & -4.468\tablenotemark{6} & 500 & AB Dor & 70 & 70 \\
1258: \hline
1259: \citet{elena} \\
1260: \hline
1261: HIP 2729 & K5V\tablenotemark{2} & & & & & Tuc/Hor & 30 & 30 \\
1262: BD +2 1729 & K7\tablenotemark{21} & & & & & Her/Lyr & 115 & 115 \\
1263: TWA 6 & K7\tablenotemark{37} & 560\tablenotemark{37} & 3 & & & TW Hya & 10 & 10 \\
1264: BD +1 2447 & M2\tablenotemark{38} & & & & & TW Hya & 150 & 150 \\
1265: TWA 8A & M2\tablenotemark{37} & 530\tablenotemark{37} & 3 & & & TW Hya & 10 & 10 \\
1266: TWA 8B & M5\tablenotemark{37} & 560\tablenotemark{37} & 3 & & & TW Hya & 10 & 10 \\
1267: TWA 9A & K5\tablenotemark{37} & 460\tablenotemark{37} & 3 & & & TW Hya & 10 & 10 \\
1268: TWA 9B & M1\tablenotemark{37} & 480\tablenotemark{37} & 3 & & & TW Hya & 10 & 10 \\
1269: SAO 252852 & K5V\tablenotemark{39} & & & & & Her/Lyr & 115 & 115 \\
1270: V343 Nor & K0V\tablenotemark{2} & 300\tablenotemark{31} & 5 & & & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1271: PZ Tel & K0Vp\tablenotemark{19} & 267\tablenotemark{40} & 20 & & & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1272: BD-17 6128 & K7\tablenotemark{41} & 400\tablenotemark{42} & 3 & & & $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 12 \\
1273: \enddata
1274: \tablenotetext{1}{Group Membership for TWA, $\beta$ Pic, Tuc/Hor, and AB Dor from \citet{ZS04}, Her/Lyr from \citet{LMCF06}. Group Ages from \citet{ZS04} (TWA, $\beta$ Pic, and Tuc/Hor), \citet{abdorme} (AB Dor), and \citet{LMCF06} (Her/Lyr)}
1275: \tablenotetext{*}{Measurement References: 2: \citet{HC75}, 3: \citet{WCMM05}, 4: \citet{Henry96}, 5: \citet{TDQDJ00}, 6: \citet{Gray06}, 7: \citet{HS88}, 8: \citet{WSH03}, 9: \citet{ZS04}, 10: \citet{FBMS95}, 11: \citet{CHW67}, 12: \citet{benedict}, 13: \citet{CM02}, 14: \citet{LP60}, 15: \citet{FMS97}, 16: \citet{GJ91}, 17: \citet{LBSKW05}, 18: \citet{ZSBW01}, 19: \citet{H78}, 20: \citet{CPKR95}, 21: \citet{MLGFDC01}, 22: \citet{Wright04}, 23: \citet{SUZT06}, 24: \citet{B51}, 25: \citet{GHH00}, 26: \citet{Gray03}, 27: \citet{ZWSB01}, 28: \citet{AKSCWM95}, 29: \citet{SZB03}, 30: \citet{H82}, 31: \citet{RGP93}, 32: \citet{GJ79}, 33: \citet{NB98}, 34: \citet{HDC}, 35: \citet{A85}, 36: \citet{lachaume}, 37: \citet{WZPPWSM99}, 38: \citet{VJMW46}, 39: \citet{E61}, 40: \citet{SKH98}, 41: \citet{NKAVB95}, 42: \citet{MDCKDS95}}
1276: \tablenotetext{+}{In general, we have only determined Ca R'$_{HK}$ ages for stars with spectral types K1 or earlier, but in the case of these two K5 stars, we have only the R'$_{HK}$ measurement on which to rely for age determination. The calibration of Mt. Wilson S-index to R'$_{HK}$ for K5 stars (B-V $\sim$ 1.1 mag) has not been well-defined (\citet{noyes}; specifically the photospheric subtraction), and hence applying a R'$_{HK}$ vs. age relation for K5 stars is unlikely to yield useful ages. Although we adopt specific values for the ages of these stars, it would be more accurate to state simply that these stars have ages $>$1 Gyr. As a result, almost all simulated planets are too faint to detect around these stars, so the precise error in the age does not significantly affect our final results.}
1277: \label{table2}
1278: \end{deluxetable}
1279:
1280:
1281:
1282:
1283:
1284: %
1285: %
1286: %END TABLE 2
1287: %
1288: %
1289: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
1290: \tablecolumns{4}
1291: \tablewidth{0pc}
1292: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1293: \tablecaption{Binaries}
1294: \tablehead{
1295: \colhead{Target} & \colhead{Sep (``)} & \colhead{Sep. (AU)} & \colhead{Reference} & \colhead{Companion Type}}
1296: \startdata
1297: \citet{sdifinal} \\
1298: \hline
1299: %HD 9054 & SB & SB & ... & Close Triple system \\ probably backgroud objects
1300: HIP 9141 & 0.15 & 6.38 & \citet{sdifinal} & \\
1301: V577 Per A & 7 & 230 & \citet{PABBB93} & M0 \\
1302: AB Dor & 9 (Ba/Bb) & 134 (Ba/Bb) & \citet{abdor} & Binary M stars\\
1303: AB Dor & 0.15 (C) & 2.24 (C) & \citet{abdor} & Very low-mass M Star\\
1304: HIP 30034 & 5.5 & 250 & \citet{abpic} & Planet/Brown Dwarf \\
1305: %HD 45270 & 16 & 376 & ... & \\ Not in 2MASS catalog
1306: HD 48189 A & 0.76 (B) & 16.5 & \citet{FM00} & K star \\
1307: HD 48189 A & 0.14 & 3.03 & \citet{sdifinal} & \\
1308: %pi01 Uma & 16 & 220 & ... & \\ Can't track this down...yeah, single
1309: DX Leo & 65 & 1200 & \citet{LBSKW05} & M5.5 \\
1310: %GJ 417 & 90 & 2000 & ... & Brown Dwarf \\ Different distances, not a binary
1311: EK Dra & SB & SB & \citet{MH06} & M2\\
1312: HD 135363 & 0.26 & 7.65 & \citet{sdifinal} & \\
1313: HD 155555 AB & SB (AB) & SB (AB) & \citet{BEL67} & G5 and K0 SB \\
1314: HD 155555 AB & 18 (C) & 1060 (C) & \citet{ZSBW01} & Target Star 155555 C, M4.5 \\
1315: HD 172555 A & 71 & 2100 & \citet{SD93} & Target Star CD -64 1208, K7 \\
1316: HD 186704 & 13 & 380 & \citet{A32} & \\
1317: GJ 799A & 3.6 & 36 & \citet{W52} & Target Star GJ 799B, M4.5 \\
1318: HD 201091 & 16 & 55 & \citet{B50} & K5 \\
1319: Eps Indi A & 400 & 1500 & \citet{epsindi} & Binary Brown Dwarf \\
1320: HIP 112312 & 100 & 2400 & \citet{SBZ02} & M4.5 \\
1321:
1322:
1323: \hline
1324: \citet{elena} \\
1325: \hline
1326:
1327: %TWA 6A & 27 & 2000 & ... & Elena? I can't find any reference to TWA 6B\\
1328: TWA 8A & 13 & 270 & \citet{JHFF99} & Target Star TWA 8B, M5 \\
1329: TWA 9A & 9 & 576 & \citet{JHFF99} & Target Star TWA 9B, M1 \\
1330: SAO 252852 & 15.7 & 260 & \citet{poveda} & HD 128898, Ap \\
1331: V343 Nor & 10 & 432 & \citet{SZB03} & M4.5 \\
1332: %HD 155555 C & 18 & 1060 & ... & G5/K0 SB \\
1333: BD-17 6128 & 2 & 100 & \citet{NGMGE02} & M2\\
1334:
1335: \enddata
1336: \label{table3}
1337: \end{deluxetable}
1338:
1339:
1340: \clearpage
1341: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
1342: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
1343: %% To embed the sample graphics in
1344: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and
1345: %% \includegraphics commands
1346: %%
1347: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or
1348: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the
1349: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,
1350: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the
1351: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,
1352: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.
1353: %%
1354: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of
1355: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check
1356: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to
1357: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from
1358: %% journal to journal.
1359:
1360: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to
1361: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption
1362: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be
1363: %% available in the electronic journal.
1364:
1365: %\begin{figure}
1366: %\epsscale{.80}
1367: %\plotone{f1.eps}
1368: %\caption{Derived spectra for 3C138 \citep[see][]{heiles03}. Plots for all sources are available
1369: %in the electronic edition of {\it The Astrophysical Journal}.\label{fig1}}
1370: %\end{figure}
1371:
1372: %\clearpage
1373:
1374: \begin{figure}
1375: \epsscale{1}
1376: \plotone{f1.eps}
1377: \caption{The 60 target stars from our two surveys (though five stars are too
1378: old to appear on this plot). These stars are some of the youngest,
1379: nearest stars known, spanning a range of spectral type. The size of the
1380: plotting symbol and the color is proportional to the absolute H magnitude
1381: of the star: a bigger, bluer
1382: symbol corresponds to a brighter and hotter star. The
1383: legend gives approximate spectral type conversions for main
1384: sequence stars, but we note that these stars have been plotted by their 2MASS
1385: H-band fluxes, and as a result their actual spectral type can vary from that
1386: shown in the legend. See Table~\ref{table1} for more complete properties of
1387: these stars. The median target star is a 30 Myr K2 star at 25 pc.
1388: \label{targetsfig}}
1389: \end{figure}
1390:
1391: \begin{figure}
1392: \epsscale{1}
1393: \plotone{f2.eps}
1394: \caption{The assumed distribution for the orbital eccentricities of
1395: extrasolar planets. The datapoints represent the histograms for planets
1396: found to date with the radial velocity method \citep{rvref}, with error bars
1397: as 1-sigma Poisson noise based on the number of planets per bin. Planets are
1398: divided to separate ``Hot Jupiters,'' based on a period cut at 21 days; long
1399: period planets are divided into linear bins, short-period ones into
1400: logarithmic bins. In both cases, a simple linear fit is a good representation
1401: of the data. \label{eccfig}}
1402: \end{figure}
1403:
1404: \begin{figure}
1405: \epsscale{1}
1406: \plotone{f3.eps}
1407: \caption{The results of a single simulation of 10$^4$ planets around the
1408: SDI target star GJ 182 (for clarity, only 100 points are plotted here)
1409: \citep{sdifinal}. Each planet has a mass of
1410: 6.5 $M_{Jup}$, and a semi-major
1411: axis of 10 AU. Due to various values of eccentricity, viewing angle, and
1412: orbital phase, the projected separation of each simulated planet departs from
1413: the semi-major axis, and the points smear across the horizontal direction,
1414: with projected separation running between 0 and 14 AU.
1415: Planets that are above the contrast curve are detected (blue dots), while
1416: those below are not (red dots). In this case,
1417: 20\% of these simulated planets were detected. By
1418: running this simulation over multiple grid points of mass and semi-major axis,
1419: we produce a full completeness plot, such as Fig.~\ref{conpabfig}.
1420: \label{conpabdemofig}}
1421: \end{figure}
1422:
1423: \begin{figure}
1424: \epsscale{.90}
1425: \plotone{f4.eps}
1426: \caption{A full completeness plot for the target star GJ 182. As a function
1427: of planet mass and semi-major axis (with grid points between 0.5 and 17
1428: M$_{Jup}$ for mass, and semi-major axis between 1 and 4000 AU, though only
1429: the inner 210 AU are plotted here), the contours give the probability of
1430: detecting a planet with those parameters given the available contrast curve.
1431: At each grid point, 10$^4$ planets are simulated, as shown in
1432: Fig.~\ref{conpabdemofig}, and the fraction that can be detected is returned.
1433: The left edge is strongly influenced by the shape of the contrast curve, while
1434: the right edge depends mainly on the projected field of view of the
1435: observation. The hard upper limit at 9 M$_{Jup}$ is set by the methane
1436: cut-off imposed by the SDI method, when the simulated planets exceed 1400 K
1437: and cease to have a strong methane signature in the spectrum. The fact that
1438: the contours do not precisely line up at this limit is simply a result of the
1439: interpolation used to plot the contours. Completeness plots for all 60 survey
1440: stars are available online at
1441: http://exoplanet.as.arizona.edu/$\sim$lclose/exoplanet.html
1442: \label{conpabfig}}
1443: \end{figure}
1444:
1445:
1446: \begin{figure}
1447: \epsscale{1}
1448: \plotone{f5.eps}
1449: \caption{The assumed mass distribution of extrasolar planets, plotted against
1450: the histogram of known planets detected by the radial velocity method.
1451: Throughout this paper we
1452: adopt a power law of the form $\frac{dN}{dM} \propto M^{-1.16}$, as suggested
1453: by \citet{rvref}, which does a reasonable job fitting the data.
1454: \label{massfig}}
1455: \end{figure}
1456:
1457: \begin{figure}
1458: \epsscale{1}
1459: \plotone{f6.eps}
1460: \caption{The distributions that we consider for semi-major axis of
1461: extrasolar planets, again with the histogram of known radial velocity
1462: planets. We adopt the observed distribution of \citet{cumming}, with
1463: $\frac{dN}{da} \propto a^{-0.61}$, which is suggestive of the existence of
1464: wider planets, given that
1465: radial velocity surveys should be especially sensitive to hot Jupiters
1466: (producing an over-abundance at small separations) and less sensitive to
1467: long-period orbits (resulting in a decline in detected planets at larger
1468: separations).
1469: %As with mass, we adopt the \citet{rvref} flat distribution, which
1470: %matches the histogram of radial velocity planets with semi-major axes
1471: %$\leq$ 3.5 AU, beyond which the bias of the radial velocity method limits the
1472: %number of detected planets. Note that the bins are logarithmic, so that a
1473: %flat distribution corresponds to a power law of index -1.
1474: \label{smafig}}
1475: \end{figure}
1476:
1477: \begin{figure}
1478: \epsscale{.8}
1479: \plotone{f7.eps}
1480: \caption{10$^5$ simulated planets around the SDI target star GJ 182, following
1481: the distributions for mass ($\frac{dN}{dM} \propto M^{-1.16}$) of
1482: \citet{rvref} and semi-major axis ($\frac{dN}{da} \propto a^{-0.61}$) of
1483: \citet{cumming}, with mass
1484: running from 0.5 to 13 $M_{Jup}$, and semi-major axis cut off at 70 AU (since
1485: there is a range of eccentricities, separation can exceed the semi-major axis
1486: cut-off). Detected planets (blue dots) are those that lie above the contrast
1487: curve,
1488: above the minimum flux level, and below the methane cut-off. In this case,
1489: 10\% of the simulated planets could be detected with this observation. Using
1490: the metric of completeness to planets with this mass and semi-major axis
1491: distribution, GJ 182 is the 18th best target star in our sample.
1492: \label{msplotfig}}
1493: \end{figure}
1494:
1495: \begin{figure}
1496: \epsscale{1}
1497: \plotone{f8.eps}
1498: \caption{The upper limit on the fraction of stars with planets ($f_p$), as a
1499: function of mass and semi-major axis (see Eq.~\ref{planeteq2}), using the
1500: planet models of \citet{burrows}, with the 95\% confidence level plotted as
1501: thin blue lines.
1502: We also plot in thicker red lines the 68\% confidence level contours.
1503: Given the results of our survey, we would expect, for
1504: example, less than 20\% (as indicated by the thin dashed blue line) of stars
1505: to have a planet of mass greater than 4 $M_{Jup}$ in an
1506: orbit 20 $<$ a $<$ 100 AU, and less than 50\% of stars (the dot-dashed thin
1507: blue line) to have planets more
1508: massive than 4 $M_{Jup}$ with semi-major axes between 8 and 250 AU, at the
1509: 95\% confidence level. Also
1510: plotted in the solid circles are known extrasolar planets. There is still
1511: a gap between planets probed by direct imaging surveys (such as the ones
1512: described in this work), and those using the radial velocity method.
1513: \label{contourfig}}
1514: \end{figure}
1515:
1516: \begin{figure}
1517: \epsscale{1}
1518: \plotone{f9.eps}
1519: \caption{The same as Fig.~\ref{contourfig}, but instead using the models
1520: of \citet{cond} to convert between planet mass and NIR magnitudes. The COND
1521: models generally predict brighter planets for higher masses, but fainter
1522: planets at lower masses, compared to the \citet{burrows} models.
1523: Nevertheless, the two sets of models predict similar overall results.
1524: \label{contourfiglyon}}
1525: \end{figure}
1526:
1527: \begin{figure}
1528: \epsscale{1}
1529: \plotone{f10.eps}
1530: \caption{The 95\% and 68\% confidence upper limit on planet fraction,
1531: limited only to stars of
1532: spectral type A through K, using the \citet{burrows} models. Since with
1533: earlier spectral types the parent star is intrinsically brighter, it becomes
1534: more difficult to access planets of smaller masses or smaller separations.
1535: For AFGK stars we can only say, at the 95\% confidence level, that
1536: less than 20\% of stars have $M>7 M_{Jup}$
1537: planets at 30-70 AU, or a limit of 50\% for planets with masses above
1538: 6 $M_{Jup}$ at 10-200 AU.
1539: \label{contourfigfgk}}
1540: \end{figure}
1541:
1542: \begin{figure}
1543: \epsscale{1}
1544: \plotone{f11.eps}
1545: \caption{The same as Fig.~\ref{contourfigfgk}, but with the \citet{cond}
1546: models used to find planet masses.
1547: \label{contourfigfgklyon}}
1548: \end{figure}
1549:
1550: \begin{figure}
1551: \epsscale{.85}
1552: \plotone{f12.eps}
1553: \caption{Now using only our 15 M stars, we again plot
1554: the 95\% and 68\% confidence level upper limit on planet
1555: fraction, using the \citet{burrows} models. While the plot follows the
1556: shape of Fig.~\ref{contourfig}, the removal of about three-quarters of the
1557: target
1558: stars reduces the upper limit that can be set on the planet fraction. Hence
1559: less than 50\% of M stars should have planets with $M>4 M_{Jup}$ from 10 to
1560: 80 AU, at 95\% confidence. The analysis of microlensing results by
1561: \citet{microlens2} sets upper limits on the planet fraction of M dwarfs
1562: in the galactic bulge of 45\% for 3 M$_{Jup}$ planets between 1 and 7 AU, and
1563: 33\% for 1 M$_{Jup}$ planets between 1.5 and 4 AU. While even our 50\%
1564: contour (at the 68\% confidence level) does not probe the area of parameter
1565: space considered by \citet{microlens2}, which places upper limits on 1
1566: M$_{Jup}$ planets between 1.5 and 4 AU around M dwarfs of $\leq$33\%, and
1567: $\leq$45\% for 3 M$_{Jup}$ planets between 1 and 7 AU,
1568: the microlensing upper limits are unsurprising given our limits at somewhat
1569: larger separations for planets of the same mass. Though we note that the
1570: composition (especially in terms of stellar metallicity) is
1571: likely to differ greatly between the two samples. Also, we again draw
1572: attention to the fact that \citet{johnson} has shown that for M stars, giant
1573: planets at small radii are less common than around more massive stars.
1574: %with less than 20\% having planets more massive than 1 $M_{Jup}$ with
1575: %15 $<$ a $<$ 70 AU.
1576: \label{contourfigmstar}}
1577: \end{figure}
1578:
1579: \begin{figure}
1580: \epsscale{1}
1581: \plotone{f13.eps}
1582: \caption{As with Fig.~\ref{contourfigmstar}, only now with the \citet{cond}
1583: models used to find planet masses.
1584: \label{contourfigmstarlyon}}
1585: \end{figure}
1586:
1587: %\begin{figure}
1588: %\epsscale{1}
1589: %\plotone{dsf_pf01.ps}
1590: %\caption{The upper limit on the planet fraction as a function of semi-major
1591: %axis, for FGK stars, compared to the volume-limited sample of \citet{fv05}.
1592: %\label{pf01fig}}
1593: %\end{figure}
1594:
1595: \begin{figure}
1596: \epsscale{1}
1597: \plotone{f14.eps}
1598: \caption{The confidence level with which we can reject models of planet
1599: populations, assuming a power-law
1600: distribution for semi-major axes ($\frac{dN}{da} \propto a^{\alpha}$), as
1601: a function of the power law index and
1602: upper cut-off (N(\textit{a})=0 for $a\ge a_{Cut-off}$). The expected
1603: power-law index from the radial velocity
1604: distribution (see Fig ~\ref{smafig}) is -0.61 \citep{cumming}, and given
1605: these data we can
1606: place a 95\% confidence limit on the upper cut-off of 75 AU. At 68\%
1607: confidence, there cannot be giant planets in orbits beyond 29 AU, for this
1608: choice of power law index. For this
1609: figure, we use the models of \citet{burrows}
1610: \label{smacontourfig}}
1611: \end{figure}
1612:
1613: \begin{figure}
1614: \epsscale{1}
1615: \plotone{f15.eps}
1616: \caption{The same as Fig.~\ref{smacontourfig}, but using the models
1617: of \citet{cond}. The 95\% confidence upper cut-off for semi-major axis for
1618: the $\frac{dN}{da} \propto a^{\alpha}$ model now moves to 94 AU.
1619: \label{smacontourfiglyon}}
1620: \end{figure}
1621:
1622: \begin{figure}
1623: \epsscale{1}
1624: \plotone{f16.eps}
1625: \caption{The histogram (in blue) of the
1626: distribution of known extrasolar giant planets
1627: found with the radial velocity method, plotted against a series of power
1628: laws considered in Fig.~\ref{smacontourfig} and~\ref{smacontourfiglyon}.
1629: Since radial velocity observations are only complete to about 2.5 AU, a less
1630: steep drop-off of planets with semi-major axis is possible. We give the
1631: confidence with which we can rule out various combinations of power law
1632: index and upper cut-off (the percentages in red), for indices of -1, -0.61,
1633: -0.25, and upper cut-offs of 10 AU, 20 AU, 40 AU, and 80 AU. While we have
1634: insufficient statistics to place strong constraints on
1635: the power law of index -1, we can rule out the other two with increasing
1636: confidence as larger values of the upper limit are considered. For example,
1637: a power law of the form $\frac{dN}{da} \propto a^{-0.25}$ must cut-off at
1638: 26 AU (95\% confidence), while the most likely power law of index -0.61
1639: must have its cut-off at 75 AU (also at the 95\% confidence level).
1640: \label{dsfassumptionsfig}}
1641: \end{figure}
1642:
1643: \begin{figure}
1644: \epsscale{1}
1645: \plotone{f17.eps}
1646: \caption{The number of planets we would expect to detect at the end of the
1647: survey,
1648: as a function of the number of target stars observed, out of our total sample
1649: of 60. Stars are divided into
1650: bins based on binarity, and within each bin the stars are arranged
1651: so that the best targets are observed first. The first four models use power
1652: laws with $\frac{dN}{da} \propto a^{-0.61}$, with the upper cut-off given.
1653: These models can be ruled out with increasing confidence with cut-offs
1654: beyond 40 AU as
1655: increasingly close binaries are added to the sample. Since the three
1656: \citet{idalin}
1657: models predict less than one planet from our survey, we can only place very
1658: limited constraints on these models at this time, namely that cases A, B, and
1659: C are inconsistent with our null result at the 45\%, 49\%, and 50\%
1660: confidence levels, respectively, if all binaries are included in our sample.
1661: \label{surveysizefig}}
1662: \end{figure}
1663:
1664: %\clearpage
1665:
1666: %% Here we use \plottwo to present two versions of the same figure,
1667: %% one in black and white for print the other in RGB color
1668: %% for online presentation. Note that the caption indicates
1669: %% that a color version of the figure will be available online.
1670: %%
1671:
1672: %\begin{figure}
1673: %\plottwo{f2.eps}{f2_color.eps}
1674: %\caption{A panel taken from Figure 2 of \citet{rudnick03}.
1675: %See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color version
1676: %of this figure.\label{fig2}}
1677: %\end{figure}
1678:
1679: %% This figure uses \includegraphics to scale and rotate the still frame
1680: %% for an mpeg animation.
1681:
1682: %\begin{figure}
1683: %\includegraphics[angle=90,scale=.50]{f3.eps}
1684: %\caption{Animation still frame taken from \citet{kim03}.
1685: %This figure is also available as an mpeg
1686: %animation in the electronic edition of the
1687: %{\it Astrophysical Journal}.}
1688: %\end{figure}
1689:
1690: %% If you are not including electonic art with your submission, you may
1691: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the
1692: %% User Guide for details.
1693: %%
1694: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,
1695: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage
1696: %% after every seventh one.
1697:
1698: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
1699: %% each one.
1700:
1701: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables: the
1702: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX
1703: %% table environment. Use of deluxetable is preferred.
1704: %%
1705:
1706:
1707: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,
1708: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.
1709:
1710: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}
1711: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.
1712: %% We also use the \rotate command to rotate the table to
1713: %% landscape orientation since it is very wide even at the
1714: %% reduced font size.
1715: %%
1716: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed
1717: %% inside the \tablecaption.
1718:
1719: %% This table also includes a table comment indicating that the full
1720: %% version will be available in machine-readable format in the electronic
1721: %% edition.
1722:
1723: %% If you use the table environment, please indicate horizontal rules using
1724: %% \tableline, not \hline.
1725: %% Do not put multiple tabular environments within a single table.
1726: %% The optional \label should appear inside the \caption command.
1727:
1728: %% If the table is more than one page long, the width of the table can vary
1729: %% from page to page when the default \tablewidth is used, as below. The
1730: %% individual table widths for each page will be written to the log file; a
1731: %% maximum tablewidth for the table can be computed from these values.
1732: %% The \tablewidth argument can then be reset and the file reprocessed, so
1733: %% that the table is of uniform width throughout. Try getting the widths
1734: %% from the log file and changing the \tablewidth parameter to see how
1735: %% adjusting this value affects table formatting.
1736:
1737: %% The \dataset{} macro has also been applied to a few of the objects to
1738: %% show how many observations can be tagged in a table.
1739:
1740: %% Tables may also be prepared as separate files. See the accompanying
1741: %% sample file table.tex for an example of an external table file.
1742: %% To include an external file in your main document, use the \input
1743: %% command. Uncomment the line below to include table.tex in this
1744: %% sample file. (Note that you will need to comment out the \documentclass,
1745: %% \begin{document}, and \end{document} commands from table.tex if you want
1746: %% to include it in this document.)
1747:
1748: %% \input{table}
1749:
1750: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text
1751: %% that appears after it.
1752:
1753: \end{document}
1754:
1755: %%
1756: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
1757: