1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \newcommand{\etal}{\mbox{\rm et al.~}}

3: \newcommand{\ms}{\mbox{m s$^{-1}~$}}

4: \newcommand{\ks}{\mbox{km s$^{-1}~$}}

5: \newcommand{\cse}{\mbox{cm s$^{-2}$}}

6: \newcommand{\kse}{\mbox{km s$^{-1}$}}

7: \newcommand{\mse}{\mbox{m s$^{-1}$}}

8: \newcommand{\msun}{M$_{\odot}~$}

9: \newcommand{\mstar}{M$_{\star}~$}

10: \newcommand{\msune}{M$_{\odot}~$}

11: \newcommand{\lsun}{L$_{\odot}~$}

12: \newcommand{\rsun}{R$_{\odot}~$}

13: \newcommand{\rstar}{R$_{\star}~$}

14: \newcommand{\rsune}{R$_{\odot}$}

15: \newcommand{\mjup}{M$_{\rm JUP}~$}

16: \newcommand{\mearth}{M$_{\rm EARTH}~$}

17: \newcommand{\msat}{M$_{\rm SAT}~$}

18: \newcommand{\mjupe}{M$_{\rm JUP}$}

19: \newcommand{\rjup}{R$_{\rm JUP}$}

20: \newcommand{\msini}{$M \sin i~$}

21: \newcommand{\vsini}{$v \sin i~$}

22: \newcommand{\mbsini}{$M_b \sin i~$}

23: \newcommand{\mcsini}{$M_c \sin i~$}

24: \newcommand{\chisq}{$\sqrt{\chi_{\nu}^2}~$}

25: \newcommand{\arel}{$a_{\rm rel}~$}

26: \newcommand{\teff}{$T_{\rm eff}~$}

27: \newcommand{\teffe}{$T_{\rm eff}$}

28: \newcommand{\fe}{{\rm [Fe/H]}}

29: \newcommand{\logg}{${\rm \log g}~$}

30: \newcommand{\rhk}{$\log R^\prime_{HK}$}

31: \newcommand{\shk}{$S_{HK}$}

32: \newcommand{\prot}{$P_{ROT}~$}

33:   

34: %\textwidth 6.5in

35:   

36: %\received{}

37: %\accepted{}

38:   

39: \slugcomment{to appear in ApJ}

40:   

41: \shortauthors{Robinson \etal}

42: \shorttitle{New Planets}

43: \begin{document}

44:   

45: \title{Two Jovian-Mass Planets in Earthlike Orbits \altaffilmark{1}}

46: \author{Sarah E. Robinson\altaffilmark{2},

47: Gregory Laughlin\altaffilmark{2},

48: Steven S. Vogt\altaffilmark{2},

49: Debra A. Fischer\altaffilmark{3},

50: R. Paul Butler\altaffilmark{4},

51: Geoffrey W. Marcy\altaffilmark{5},

52: Gregory W. Henry\altaffilmark{6},

53: Peter Driscoll\altaffilmark{3,7},

54: Genya Takeda\altaffilmark{8},

55: John A. Johnson\altaffilmark{5}}

56:   

57: \email{ser@ucolick.org}

58:   

59: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations obtained at the W. M. Keck

60: Observatory, which is operated by the University of California and the

61: California Institute of Technology. Keck time has been granted by NOAO

62: and NASA.}

63: 

64: \altaffiltext{2}{UCO/Lick Observatory, University of California at Santa

65: Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064}

66: 

67: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, San Francisco State

68: University, San Francisco, CA  94132; fischer@stars.sfsu.edu}

69: 

70: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institute

71: of Washington DC, 5241 Broad Branch Rd. NW, Washington DC, USA

72: 20015-1305}

73: 

74: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,

75: Berkeley, CA USA 94720}

76:   

77: \altaffiltext{6}{Center of Excellence in Information Systems, Tennessee

78: State University, 3500 John A. Merritt Blvd., Box 9501, Nashville, TN

79: 37209}

80: 

81: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns

82: Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218}

83: 

84: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern 

85: University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208}

86: 

87: \begin{abstract}

88: We report the discovery of two new planets: a 1.94 \mjup planet in a

89: 1.8-year orbit of HD 5319, and a 2.51 \mjup planet in a 1.1-year orbit

90: of HD 75898.  The measured eccentricities are 0.12 for HD 5319~b and

91: 0.10 for HD 75898~b, and Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulations based on

92: the derived orbital parameters indicate that the radial velocities of

93: both stars are consistent with circular planet orbits.  With low

94: eccentricity and $1 < a < 2$~AU, our new planets have orbits similar to

95: terrestrial planets in the solar system.  The radial velocity residuals

96: of both stars have significant trends, likely arising from substellar or

97: low-mass stellar companions.

98: \end{abstract}

99: 

100: \keywords{planetary systems -- stars: individual (HD 5319, HD 75898)}

101: 

102: \section{Introduction}

103: 

104: Doppler searches for Jupiter-mass planets are nearly complete for

105: semimajor axes $0.03 \leq a \leq 3$~AU.  The distribution of exoplanet

106: semimajor axes within this range reveals a paucity of planets orbiting

107: less than $0.5$~AU from their host stars (Butler \etal 2006).  Instead,

108: many giant planets are being found on terrestrial planet-like orbits, in

109: or near the habitable zone: 25\% of 212 known exoplanets within 100 pc

110: have semimajor axes between 1.0 and 2.0 AU\footnote{See catalog at

111: www.exoplanets.org.}.  These observations suggest that planetary systems

112: often have habitable zones dominated by gas giants.  In this paper, we

113: announce the discovery of Jupiter-mass planets orbiting HD 5319 and HD

114: 75898.  Both planets have nearly circular orbits with semimajor axes

115: between 1 and 2 AU.

116: 

117: HD 5319 and HD 75898 were selected for the Keck planet search after

118: being flagged as metal-rich by the N2K consortium, on the basis of

119: photometry and low-resolution spectroscopy (Ammons \etal 2006, Robinson

120: \etal 2007).  The N2K project's primary goal was to identify metal-rich

121: stars likely to host hot Jupiters, which have high transit probabilities

122: (Fischer \etal 2005).  So far, one transiting hot Saturn (Sato \etal

123: 2005) and six planets with periods $P < 15$ days (Wright \etal 2007,

124: Johnson \etal 2006, Fischer \etal 2006, and Fischer \etal 2005) have

125: been discovered among the N2K targets.  However, the planet-metallicity

126: correlation holds for all orbital periods, making the N2K target list a

127: good source for discoveries of longer-period planets as well.  The new

128: discoveries reported in this paper, HD 5319~b and HD 75898~b, are two of

129: the seven intermediate-period planets so far found orbiting N2K target

130: stars (see also Wright \etal 2007, Fischer \etal 2007).

131: 

132: In \S 2, we report our observations and Keplerian fit to HD 5319.  We

133: discuss the HD 75898 system in \S 3.  In \S 4, we discuss the implied

134: presence of long-period stellar or substellar companions orbiting each

135: star.  We present discussion and conculsions in \S 5.

136: 

137: \section{HD 5319}

138: 

139: \subsection{Stellar Characteristics}

140: 

141: HD 5319 is a subgiant with $M_V=3.05$, $V=8.05$, $B-V=0.985$, and

142: Hipparcos parallax (ESA 1997) of $0.010 ''$, corresponding to a distance

143: of 100 parsecs.  High-resolution spectroscopic analysis (Valenti \&

144: Fischer 2005) yields \teff = 5052 $\pm$ 50K, \logg = 3.57 $\pm$ 0.15,

145: \vsini = 3.31 $\pm$ 0.50 \ks, and \fe = 0.15 $\pm$ 0.05 dex.  HD 5319's

146: spectral type is listed as K0 III in the SIMBAD database and as G5 IV in

147: the Hipparcos catalog.  The star's $M_V$ and \logg values are most

148: consistent with the G5 IV designation.

149: 

150: The luminosity is 4.6 $L_{\odot}$, including a bolometric correction of

151: $-0.259$ (VandenBerg \& Clem 2003). The luminosity and effective

152: temperature imply a stellar radius of 2.8 $R_{\sun}$. We estimate

153: stellar masses using theoretical stellar models based on the Yale

154: Stellar Evolution Code as described in Takeda \etal (2007).  The fine

155: grid of evolutionary tracks have been tuned to the uniform spectroscopic

156: analysis of Valenti \& Fischer (2005) and provide posterior

157: distributions for stellar mass, radius, gravity and age.  Based on this

158: analysis, we derive a stellar mass of $1.56 \: M_{\odot}$, a radius of

159: $3.26 \: R_{\odot}$, higher than implied by the bolometric luminosity,

160: and an age of 2.4~Gyr for this subgiant.  As a measure of uncertainty,

161: the lower and upper 95\% confidence intervals are provided in

162: parentheses in Table 1 for the stellar mass, age and radius.

163: 

164: Measurement of the core of the Ca H\&K lines (Figure 1) show

165: that the star is chromospherically inactive.  From 30 observations, we

166: measure mean values of the Ca H\&K indices of \shk = 0.12 and \rhk =

167: -5.34.  Based on the values of \shk~and \rhk, we derive a rotational

168: period of \prot = 19.0 days (Noyes \etal 1984).  However, we caution

169: that the interpretation of \shk~and \rhk and their correlation with

170: \prot may be subject to systematic errors for evolved stars, since the

171: \prot calibration was created for main-sequence stars.

172: 

173: We also monitored the star's brightness with the T10 0.8~m automatic

174: photometric telescope (APT) at Fairborn Observatory (Henry 1999, Eaton

175: \etal 2003). The T10 APT measures the brightness of program stars

176: relative to nearby constant comparison stars with a typical precision of

177: 0.0015--0.0020 mag for a single measurement.  We obtained 89 Str\"omgren

178: $b$ and $y$ brightness measurements spanning 438 days between 2004

179: October and 2006 January.  The standard deviation of a single

180: observation from the mean was 0.0017 mag, comparable to the measurement

181: precision, which provides an upper limit to photometric variability in

182: HD~5319.  A periodogram analysis found no significant periodicity

183: between 1 and 220 days.  Thus, our photometry confirms the star's

184: low level of chromospheric activity.

185: 

186: 

187: \subsection{Doppler Observations and Keplerian Fit}

188: 

189: Doppler observations were made at the Keck telescope using HIRES (Vogt

190: et al. 1994) with an iodine cell to model the instrumental profile and

191: to provide the wavelength scale (Butler \etal 1996). An exposure meter

192: maintains a constant signal-to-noise ratio of about 200 in our spectra,

193: yielding relatively uniform radial velocity precision.  We obtained 30

194: observations of HD 5319.  The observation dates, radial velocities and

195: measurement uncertainties are listed in Table 2 and plotted in Figure 2.

196: 

197: The periodogram of the radial velocities (Figure 3) shows a strong,

198: broad peak in the power spectrum, spanning 600-900 days.  This peak is

199: wide because of modest phase sampling for HD 5319~b.  To estimate the

200: False Alarm Probability (FAP), the probability that the power in the

201: highest peak is an artifact of noisy data or timing of observations, we

202: use the bootstrap Monte Carlo method of Cumming (2004).  We generated

203: 10,000 data sets of noise using the measured stellar velocities,

204: selected with replacement from residuals about the mean velocity, and

205: calculated the periodogram for each synthetic RV data set. The fraction

206: of trials with maximum periodogram power that exceeds the observed value

207: gives the FAP (Cumming 2004).  Figure 4 shows a histogram of the tallest

208: peak height in each trial periodogram.  Only 13 of 10,000 synthetic data

209: sets yielded any peak with higher power than in the true periodogram,

210: for ${\rm FAP} = 0.0013$ (Table 3).  The probability that the 600-900

211: day periodogram peak arises from a true physical source is therefore

212: $99.87\%$, suggesting this period range should be searched for a

213: Keplerian orbital fit.

214: 

215: The final task before determining the orbit of HD 5319~b is to assess

216: the astrophysical sources of error in radial velocity measurements.  In

217: addition to velocity errors arising from our measurement uncertainties

218: (including photon shot noise), the star itself can have cool spots,

219: granular convective flows, or $p$-mode oscillations that contribute

220: non-dynamical velocity noise.  These noise sources are collectively

221: termed ``jitter''.  For purposes of fitting a Keplerian model, the

222: stellar jitter is added in quadrature to the formal instrumental errors.

223: Jitter is not included in the tabulated measurement uncertainties for

224: the radial velocity sets.

225: 

226: We empirically estimate stellar jitter based on the chromospheric

227: activity of the star and spectral type, following Wright (2005).  The

228: 20$^{th}$ percentile, median, and 80$^{th}$ percentile jitter amplitudes

229: of stars at the chromospheric activity level and evolutionary stage of

230: HD 5319 are 4.6~\mse, 5.7~\mse, and 9.5~\mse, respectively.  We adopt

231: the 20$^{th}$ percentile value as a conservative jitter estimate (Table

232: 1).  The $p$-mode oscillation component of the jitter is $\sim

233: 0.9$~\mse, according to the solar scaling relation of Kjeldsen \&

234: Bedding (1995).

235: 

236: A Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) fitting algorithm was used to model the

237: radial velocities of HD 5319. The best-fit Keplerian model gives an

238: orbital period of 674.6 $\pm$ 16.9 d, with semi-velocity amplitude $K =

239: 33.6 \pm$ 4.3 \mse, and orbital eccentricity $e = 0.12 \pm 0.08$.  We

240: include a center of mass acceleration $dv/dt = 9.11$~\ms~yr$^{-1}$,

241: corresponding to a linear trend in the residual radial velocities.  The

242: best fit has RMS~=~6.08~\ms and \chisq~=~1.22, including 4.6~\ms for

243: astrophysical jitter.  Adopting a stellar mass of 1.56~$M_{\odot}$, we

244: derive \msini~=~1.94 \mjup and semimajor axis $a = 1.75$~AU (angular

245: separation, $\alpha = 0.'' 0175$).  The orbital solution is listed in

246: Table 3 and the RV data are plotted with the best-fit Keplerian model

247: (solid line) in Figure 2.

248: 

249: Uncertainties in the orbital parameters are first estimated with a

250: model-based bootstrap Monte Carlo analysis.  First, we find the best fit

251: Keplerian model.  Then, for each of 250 trials, that theoretical best

252: fit is subtracted from the observed radial velocities.  The residual

253: velocities are then scrambled (with replacement) and added back to the

254: theoretical best fit velocities and a new trial Keplerian fit is

255: obtained. We adopt the standard deviation of each orbital parameter for

256: the 250 Monte Carlo trials as the parameter uncertainty.  The

257: uncertainties of the Keplerian parameters of HD 5319~b are listed in

258: Table 3.

259: 

260: In order to confirm the orbital parameters of HD 5319~b, a Markov Chain

261: Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation was carried out for the HD 5319

262: velocities.  This analysis, which gives posterior probability

263: distribution for the orbital parameters, can be a useful check of the

264: convergence of the Levenberg-Marquardt fitting algorithm, particularly

265: when the modeled \chisq space is confused with several local minima.

266: For example, poor phase coverage might result in an aliased value of the

267: period.  A bimodal MCMC posterior distribution for the period would

268: indicate the need for more observations to break the degeneracy.

269: 

270: Posterior probability distributions of $P$, $e$ and $K$ are shown for HD

271: 5319~b in Figure 5.  Because the orbit is nearly circular, the time of

272: periastron passage and longitude of periastron are not well constrained,

273: and the MCMC histograms are nearly flat.  This ambiguity is also

274: reflected in the large uncertainties ($\sim 1/8$~orbit) for ${\rm

275: T}_{\rm p}$ and $\omega$ inferred from the orbit-based bootstrap

276: simulations.  The eccentricity distribution has mean $e = 0.09$, with

277: our reported value of $e = 0.12$ lying within $1 \sigma$ of the mean.

278: The mean of the period distribution, 686~days, is consistent with the

279: period determined by the LM analysis, 675~days.  The MCMC simulations

280: settle on a somewhat larger value of velocity semiamplitude, $K =

281: 39$~\ms, than the LM analysis ($K = 33.8$~\mse), a difference of

282: $1.4 \, \sigma$.

283: 

284: To assess the wisdom of adding the extra term $dv/dt$ to our fit, we

285: perform an $F$-test for an additional term (Bevington \& Robinson 1992).

286: We define $\Delta \chi^2$ as the difference in unreduced $\chi^2$

287: between the best fits obtained with and without the $dv/dt$ term, and

288: $\chi^2_{\nu}$ as the reduced $\chi^2$ of the published fit, including

289: $dv/dt$.  The quantity

290: \begin{equation}

291: F = {\Delta \chi^2 \over \chi^2_{\nu}} 

292: \label{fstat}

293: \end{equation}

294: follows an $F$-distribution with one numerator degree of freedom and

295: $\nu = N_{\rm obs} - 7$ denominator degrees of freedom, where $N_{\rm

296: obs}$ is the number of observations (30 for HD 5319).  The best fit

297: obtained without the $dv/dt$ term has $\chi^2 = 61.4$ (\chisq = 1.60),

298: giving $F = 18.2$.  The probability $P(F;1,23)$ that a randomly selected

299: F exceeds this value is 0.00029, for a less than 1 in 1,000 chance that

300: the fit improvement provided by the $dv/dt$ term is spurious.

301: Therefore, there is strong evidence that a long-period companion is

302: accelerating the center of mass of the HD 5319~a-b system.

303: 

304: Noticing a smooth variation in the residuals of a one-planet fit,

305: one might be tempted to fit a second Keplerian with a longer period.

306: However, in the case of HD 5319, this is premature: the linear

307: correlation coefficient of the one-planet residuals is 0.85, indicating

308: that a linear model describes the variation in these residuals well.  We

309: do not yet detect any curvature in the radial velocity signature of the

310: second companion, so we refrain from fitting a full Keplerian or a

311: circular orbit.  We allow the period of this long-period companion to

312: remain undetermined, and approximate its effects on the system with a

313: constant acceleration $dv/dt$.

314: 

315: \section{HD 75898}

316: 

317: \subsection{Stellar Characteristics}

318: 

319: HD 75898 has $V = 8.03$, $B-V = 0.626$, and Hipparcos parallax (ESA

320: 1997) of $0.012 ''$, corresponding to a distance of 80.6 parsecs.

321: Spectroscopic analysis yields \teff = 6021 $\pm$ 50K, \logg = 4.16 $\pm$

322: 0.15, \vsini = 4.54 $\pm$ 0.50 \ks, and \fe = 0.27 $\pm$ 0.05 dex.  The

323: absolute visual magnitude is $M_V = 3.49$, and the luminosity is

324: 3.0~\lsun (with bolometric correction of -0.039).  Although the SIMBAD

325: spectral type designation is G0V, the luminosity, temperature and

326: surface gravity are more consistent with a metal-rich F8V star.  The

327: value of $M_V$ indicates that the star is just beginning to evolve onto

328: the subgiant branch.  From the stellar luminosity and surface gravity,

329: we derive a stellar radius of $1.6 R_{\sun}$, identical to the radius

330: derived from evolutionary tracks.  A stellar mass of 1.28~\msun and an

331: age of 3.8~Gyr are derived from evolutionary tracks (Takeda \etal 2007).

332: The physical parameters of HD 75898 are listed in Table 1.

333: 

334: HD 75898 was selected for the Keck planet search after being observed by

335: the N2K low-resolution spectroscopic survey (Robinson et al. 2007),

336: carried out at the 2.1m telescope at KPNO from August 2004 to April

337: 2005.  The atmospheric parameters measured from N2K spectra were $T_{\rm

338: eff} = 5983 \pm 82$~K, ${\rm [Fe/H]} = 0.22 \pm 0.07$~dex, and $\log \;

339: g = 4.22 \pm 0.13$~dex.  These values agree with the Keck measurements

340: within uncertainties.

341: 

342: Figure 1 shows that the star is chromospherically inactive, with no

343: observed emission in Ca II H\&K . We derive mean \shk = 0.15 and \rhk =

344: -5.02, with a corresponding rotational period \prot = 12.6 d.  The

345: caution that the \prot measurement may be affected by systematic errors

346: for evolved stars applies to HD 75898 as well, since this star is

347: beginning to move off the main sequence.  Wright (2005) reports

348: 20$^{th}$ percentile, median, and 80$^{th}$ percentile jitter amplitudes

349: of 2.6~\mse, 4.0~\mse, and 6.2~\mse, for stars with similar activity

350: level and evolutionary stage to HD 75898.  Again, we adopt a

351: conservative, 20$^{th}$ percentile jitter estimate of 2.6~\ms (Table 1).

352: The $p$-mode oscillation component of the jitter is $\sim 0.5$ \ms

353: (Kjeldsen \& Bedding 1995).  The stellar characteristics are summarized

354: in Table 1.

355: 

356: \subsection{Doppler Observations and Keplerian Fit}

357: 

358: We obtained 20 observations of HD 75898.  Observation dates, radial

359: velocities and instrumental uncertainties in the radial velocities (not

360: including stellar jitter) are listed in Table 4.  The periodogram for

361: this data set (Figure 7) shows a strong peak at 446 days.  Once again,

362: we calculate the FAP by sampling the observed radial velocities with

363: replacement, keeping the original observation times, and calculating the

364: maximum periodogam power for the scrambled velocities.  In 10,000

365: synthetic data sets, no periodogram had higher power than the original

366: 446-day peak.  The FAP for this peak is $< 0.0001$ (Table 3), indicating

367: a better than 0.9999 probability that the periodicity in radial

368: velocities has an astrophysical source, and is not caused by noise.  The

369: histogram of periodogram power in the tallest periodogram peak in each

370: of 10,000 trials is plotted in Figure 8.

371: 

372: There is also a peak in the periodogram at 200 days, which may be an

373: alias of the true, $\sim 400$-day period; an artifact of the $1/2$-year

374: observing season of HD 75898, which is near the ecliptic.  Two other

375: possible explanations for the 200-day peak are that it arises from the

376: modest eccentricity ($e \approx 0.1$) of the best-fit 418-day orbit, or

377: that there is a second planet in the system with a period near 200 days.

378: The observations between 2004 January and 2006 May, which do not include

379: the minimum of the radial velocity curve, can be modeled credibly with

380: Keplerian orbits of either $\sim 200$ or $\sim 400$ days.  However, when

381: the four most recent observations, which do cover the radial-velocity

382: minimum, are included, the degeneracy is broken and single planets with

383: 200-day orbits do not fit the data.

384: 

385: The best-fit Keplerian model gives a period of 418.2 $\pm$ 5.7 days,

386: with semi-velocity amplitude $K = 58.2 \pm 3.1$ \mse, and orbital

387: eccentricity $e = 0.10 \pm 0.05$.  The RMS to the fit is 5.48 \ms with

388: \chisq = 1.77, including the estimated astrophysical jitter of 2.6 \mse.

389: Adopting a stellar mass of 1.28 \msune, we derive \msini = 2.51 $M_{\rm

390: JUP}$.  The corresponding semimajor axis is $a = 1.19$~AU, and the

391: angular separation is $\alpha = 0.'' 0148$.  The residual velocities

392: show a strong trend, $dv/dt = -14.6$ \ms yr$^{-1}$, suggesting that an

393: additional companion orbits the star.  The Keplerian orbital parameters

394: are listed in Table 3 and plotted with the best-fit Keplerian model

395: (solid line) in Figure 6.

396: 

397: To assess whether the constant acceleration $dv/dt$ should be included

398: in the fit, we again perform the $F$-test for an additional term given

399: in Equation \ref{fstat}.  The best-fit Keplerian without the $dv/dt$

400: term has $\chi^2 = 142.5$ (\chisq = 3.19).  The $F$-statistic comparing

401: the best fits with and without $dv/dt$ is 32.5.  There are 20

402: observations of this star, giving the $F$ distribution 13 denominator

403: degrees of freedom.  The probability $P(F;1,13)$ that the fit

404: improvement from including $dv/dt$ is spurious is only $7.3 \times

405: 10^{-5}$. The detected acceleration of the HD 75898~a-b center of mass

406: is therefore almost certainly real, and not an artifact of noise.

407: Further evidence for a long-period companion to HD 75898 is provided by

408: the periodogram, which rises toward a 2000-day period (almost twice the

409: length of our observational baseline).  The correlation coefficient for

410: a linear fit to the single-planet residuals is $r = -0.96$, indicating

411: that variation in RV residuals is well described by a constant

412: acceleration.  The relatively sparse sampling precludes detection of

413: curvature from any additional planets at this time.

414: 

415: We carried out a Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation for the radial

416: velocity residuals of HD 75898.  The resulting posterior distributions

417: for period, radial velocity semi-amplitude, and eccentricity are shown

418: in Figure 9.  For this low-eccentricity orbit, time of

419: periastron passage and longitude of periastron are not well constrained.

420: The fact that the MCMC eccentricity distribution peaks at zero suggests

421: that the orbit of HD 75898~b could in fact be circular.  The mean

422: eccentricity in the MCMC posterior distribution is $0.1$, in agreement

423: with the Levenberg-Marquardt value of $0.10 \pm 0.05$.  The mean of the

424: MCMC period distribution is 417~days, which is well matched with the

425: results of the LM analysis ($P = 418$~days).  For velocity

426: semi-amplitude $K$, the MCMC results also reproduce the LM results, with

427: mean $K = 58$~\ms.

428: 

429: Being near the ecliptic ($\delta = 33\degr$), with a period near one

430: year (418 days), HD 75898 presents a special hazard for planet

431: detection.  The observing season for HD 75898 is just 7 months, so only

432: half of the orbital phase is visible during one year.  At the same time,

433: the visible phase of HD 75898~b's orbit advances only $12\%$ per year.

434: Although our observational baseline covers 3 years and 2/3 of the orbit,

435: it would take 5 years to obtain full phase coverage.  We expect the

436: orbital solution to be revised as more observations of HD 75898 are

437: obtained.

438: 

439: Observations near periastron passage contain the most information about

440: the orbit, particularly eccentricity (e.g. Endl \etal 2006).  If our

441: best-fit orbit is correct, we have observed the periastron passage to

442: within 4 days (JD 2453747).  This fact, combined with the results of the

443: MCMC simulation for eccentricity, leads us to believe that our basic

444: discovery is correct, that HD 75898 has a planet with a minimum mass

445: of 2~\mjup in a nearly circular orbit near 1 AU.

446: 

447: \section{Long-Period Companions}

448: 

449: The radial velocity residuals of HD 5319 and HD 75898 have significant

450: linear trends, $|dv/dt| \geq 9$~\ms yr$^{-1}$.  This indicates that the

451: center of mass of each two-body system is accelerating, which cannot

452: happen unless there is a third component in each system.  Both stars,

453: then, show evidence of long-period companions with incomplete phase

454: coverage during our observational baseline.  The possibility of finding

455: brown dwarfs orbiting sunlike stars is a tantalizing one, warranting

456: further analysis of the one-planet residuals of HD 5319 and HD 75898.

457: Brown dwarf companions might reside in the brown dwarf desert (McCarthy

458: \& Zuckerman 2004, Grether \& Lineweaver 2006), the dearth of substellar

459: companions to main-sequence stars with $a < 1200$~AU.  Another

460: possibility is that the third components are giant planets with $P \ga

461: 2000$ days.  Even the presence of stellar companions would make HD 5319

462: and HD 75898 unusual planet hosts, as new evidence indicates planet

463: occurrence is infrequent in binaries closer than 120~AU (Eggenberger \&

464: Udry 2007).  In this section, we analyze possible configurations of the

465: HD 5319 and HD 75898 systems.

466: 

467: The possible companion types---planets, brown dwarfs, and stars---are

468: restricted to a particular semimajor axis range by the measured $dv/dt$

469: and the long-term dynamical stability of each system.  Although these

470: ranges overlap substantially when all potential variations in time of

471: periastron passage, line of apsides and eccentricity are taken into

472: account, the general pattern is $a_* \ga a_{\rm bd} \ga a_{\rm planet}$.

473: This pattern can be illustrated by the simple example of a circular

474: orbit: the star reaches radial velocity semiamplitude when the planet

475: has moved 1/4 orbit from its ephemeris, so we can calculate the

476: approximate semiamplitude by

477: \begin{equation}

478: K \approx \left ( {P \over 4} \right ) {dv \over dt}.

479: \label{perk}

480: \end{equation}

481: Equation \ref{perk} shows that the longer a star maintains the measured

482: constant $dv/dt$, the higher the mass of the companion.  For eccentric

483: orbits, the proportionality constant relating $K$ and $P$ changes, but

484: the pattern $a_* \ga a_{\rm bd} \ga a_{\rm planet}$ holds.

485: 

486: The smallest possible semimajor axis for component c, $a_{\rm min}$, is

487: determined by the requirement that the two companions in each system do

488: not experience close encounters, which could lead to large perturbations

489: of both orbits.  Absent any dynamical considerations, $a_{\rm min}$

490: would correspond to a highly eccentric orbit with the apoastron passage

491: near the midpoint of our observations, and with a period only slightly

492: longer than our time baseline.  However, the more eccentric the outer

493: component's orbit, the nearer its approach to the inner planet during

494: periastron passage.

495: 

496: Assuming nonresonant systems, we can set a lower limit to the distance

497: of closest approach between components b and c.  David \etal (2003)

498: examine of the stability of a two-planet system, an intermediate-mass

499: companion exterior to an Earth-mass planet on a circular orbit at 1~AU.

500: They find that an outer planet with mass $1 M_{\rm JUP}$ and $R_{\rm

501: peri} \sim 2.5$~AU give a mean ejection time of 1~Gyr for the

502: terrestrial planet.  Although HD 5319 and HD 75898 have far more massive

503: inner planets than the theoretical system of David et al., we apply

504: their analysis because of the similar orbits of the inner planets in all

505: three systems.  Adopting the 1~Gyr stability criterion, we set the

506: minimum periastron distance of the c component as $R_{\rm min} \geq 2.5

507: \, a_{\rm inner}$.  For each component type (planet, brown dwarf, star),

508: the orbit corresponding to $a_{\rm min}$ must obey this stability

509: criterion and reproduce the observed $dv/dt$ within uncertainties.

510: 

511: In this section, we refer to HD 5319~c, HD 75898~c and ``the c

512: components.''  We are using this nomenclature as shorthand for ``implied

513: long-period companion,'' and are not claiming actual detections of

514: these objects.

515: 

516: \subsection{Planet Orbits}

517: \label{porbs}

518: 

519: If HD 5319~c or HD 75898~c is a planet, $a_{\rm min}$ is simply the

520: stability limit $R = 2.5 \, a_{\rm inner}$, and the orbit associated

521: with $a_{\rm min}$ is circular.  We note that giant planets on circular

522: orbits can have semimajor axis ratios less than 2.5, as Jupiter and

523: Saturn do, but $a_{\rm outer} / a_{\rm inner} < 2$ is rare among

524: exoplanets (Butler et al. 2006).  To find the minimum planet

525: mass for HD 5319~c and HD 75898~c, we substitute test values of $M \,

526: \sin i$ into the equations

527: \begin{equation}

528: \left ( {a \over {\rm AU}} \right )^3 = \left ({M_{\star} + M \, \sin i

529: \over M_{\odot}} \right ) \left ({P \over {\rm yr}} \right )^2,

530: \label{kepler}

531: \end{equation}

532: \begin{equation}

533: M \, \sin i = K \sqrt{1-e^2} \left [ {P (M_{\star} + M \, \sin i)^2

534: \over 2 \pi G} \right ]^{1/3},

535: \label{msini}

536: \end{equation}

537: and use the resulting value of $K$ to calculate a radial velocity curve.

538: $M_{\rm min,planet}$ is the lowest value of $M \, \sin i$ for which the

539: radial velocity slope, determined from a linear fit, matches the

540: observed $dv/dt$ within the uncertainties reported in Table 3:

541: $|dv/dt_{\rm calc} - dv/dt_{\rm obs}| \leq \sigma(dv/dt)$.

542: 

543: The minimum mass of HD 5319~c is $1.0 \; M_{\rm JUP}$.  This planet

544: would reside at $a = 4.4$ AU, and have a period of 2675 days (7.3 yr).

545: Figure 10 shows the radial velocity curve corresponding to this orbit,

546: together with the observed trend in the fit residuals of HD 5319~b.  HD

547: 75898~c also has a minimum mass $M_{\rm min} = 1.0 \: M_{\rm JUP}$, in a

548: circular orbit with semimajor axis $a = 3.0$ AU and $P = 1656$ days (4.5

549: yr).  The resulting radial velocity curve, plus the measured trend in

550: the HD 75898~b residuals, are shown in Figure 11.  These orbital

551: solutions show that HD 5319~c and HD 75898~c could be similar, in

552: mass, semimajor axis and perhaps equilibrium temperature, to Jupiter.

553: 

554: For the maximum possible planet mass of HD 5319~c or HD 75898~c, we

555: adopt the IAU criterion that a planet does not burn deuterium, and so

556: $M_{\rm max} = 13 \: M_{\rm JUP}$ (Boss et al. 2007).  We can calculate

557: $a_{\rm max}$ and $P_{\rm max}$ for this borderline planet by examining

558: the limiting case where the periastron passage, which coincides with

559: ephemeris, occurs at the midpoint of our observations.  This is the part

560: of the radial velocity curve that varies most rapidly.  In principle,

561: $a_{\rm max}$ and $P_{\rm max}$ could become arbitrarily large as $e

562: \rightarrow 1$.  We adopt the convention of Patel et al. (2007) and

563: define $e_{\rm max} = 0.8$, since $90\%$ of spectrosopic binaries with

564: $P > 10$ yr have $e < 0.8$ (Pourbaix et al. 2004).

565: 

566: To calculate $a_{\rm max}$ for planet orbits, we substitute test values

567: of $a$ into equations \ref{kepler} and \ref{msini}, and use the

568: resulting value of $K$ to calculate a radial velocity curve.  We then

569: find the maximum $a$ for which $|dv/dt_{\rm calc} - dv/dt_{\rm obs}|

570: \leq \sigma(dv/dt)$.  For HD 5319~c, $a_{\rm max} = 85$ AU,

571: corresponding to a period of 625 yr.  For HD 75898~c, $a_{\rm max} = 65$

572: AU and $P_{\rm max} = 460$ yr.  In practice, it is extremely unlikely

573: that either object is a planet on this type of orbit: the probability of

574: catching these long-period, eccentric orbits exactly at periastron

575: passage is quite low.  The ranges of possible planet orbits for HD

576: 5319~c and HD 75898~c are summarized in Table 5.

577: 

578: \subsection{Brown Dwarf Orbits}

579: \label{bdorbs}

580: 

581: To find $a_{\rm min}$ for brown dwarf orbits, we examine the limiting

582: case where apoastron coincides with ephemeris at the midpoint of our

583: observational baseline.  This configuration gives the RV curve that most

584: nearly approximates a straight line.  Recalling that high mass implies

585: high semimajor axis (c.v. Equation \ref{perk}), we set

586: \msini~=~13~\mjup, the minimum possible brown dwarf mass.  Substituting

587: test values of $a$ and $e$ into Equations \ref{kepler} and \ref{msini},

588: we find the semiamplitude $K$ for each $a$, $e$ pair that meets the

589: stability criterion $a \, (1-e) \geq 2.5 \, a_{\rm inner}$.  The linear

590: slopes of the resulting radial velocity curves are examined to find the

591: minimum $a$ where $\Delta(dv/dt) \leq \sigma(dv/dt)$ (Table 3).  For HD

592: 5319~c, $a_{\rm min} = 9.8$ AU for a brown dwarf.  This orbit has $e =

593: 0.55$ and $P = 24$ yr.  If HD 75898~c is a brown dwarf, $a_{\rm min} =

594: 7.5$ AU and $P_{\rm min} = 18$ yr, with eccentricity $e = 0.60$.

595: 

596: We determine $a_{\rm max}$ for brown dwarf orbits by setting

597: \msini~=~83.8 \mjup, the minimum mass for hydrogen fusion.  We follow

598: the same method outlined in \S \ref{porbs} for finding $a_{\rm max}$,

599: once again assuming $e_{\rm max} = 0.8$.  For HD 5319~c, $a_{\rm max} =

600: 190$ AU and $P_{\rm max} = 2045$ yr for brown dwarf orbits.  For HD

601: 75898~c, $a_{\rm max} = 170$ AU and $P_{\rm max} = 1900$ yr.

602: 

603: We note that the brown dwarf semimajor axis ranges implied by our

604: measured $dv/dt$, $9.8 \la a \la 190$ AU for HD 5319~c and $7.5 \la a

605: \la 170$ AU for HD 5319~c, fall directly in the brown dwarf desert

606: (McCarthy \& Zuckerman 2004).  The ranges of possible brown dwarf

607: periods and semimajor axes for HD 5319~c and HD 75898~c are summarized

608: in Table 5.

609: 

610: \subsection{Star Orbits}

611: \label{storbs}

612: 

613: To find $a_{\rm min}$ for stellar companions to HD 5319 and HD 75898, we

614: set \msini~=~83.8~\mjup, the minimum mass for a main-sequence star.

615: Once again, we set the apoastron passage to coincide with the ephemeris

616: and place it at the midpoint of our observations, finding the best

617: approximation to a linear RV curve.  We follow the procedure outlined in

618: \S \ref{bdorbs}, testing a grid of $a$ and $e$ values which meet the

619: stability criterion and finding the minimum $a$ for which the linear RV

620: slope matches our measured $dv/dt$ within uncertainties (Table 3).  The

621: minimum semimajor axis for HD 5319~c, if it is a star, is $a_{\rm min} =

622: 22$ AU, with $P_{\rm min} = 81$ yr and $e = 0.8$.  For HD 75898~c,

623: $a_{\rm min,\star} = 17$ AU, $P_{\rm min,\star} = 58$ yr and $e = 0.8$.

624: 

625: We determine the maximum masses of stellar companions to HD 5319 and HD

626: 75898 by noting that neither star was identified as a double-lined

627: spectroscopic binary (SB2) in the Keck spectra.  The minimum flux ratio

628: for detecting SB2s with HIRES is $\sim 0.01$.  This limit gives $M_V >

629: 8.05$ HD 5319~c and $M_V > 8.49$ HD 75898~c.  The corresponding masses

630: are \msini~=~0.65 \msun and \msini~=~0.6 \msun, respectively (Yi et al.

631: 2001).  Assuming periastron passage and ephemeris fall at the midpoint

632: of our observations and $e_{\rm max} = 0.8$, HD 5319~c has $a_{\rm max}

633: = 630$ AU and $P_{\rm max} = 10600$ yr.  HD 75898~c has $a_{\rm max} =

634: 470$ AU and $P_{\rm max} = 7400$ yr.  The possible stellar orbits for HD

635: 5319~c and HD 75898~c are summarized in Table 5.  Note that these orbit

636: determinations are extremely uncertain, as we are using a 3-yr

637: observational baseline to characterize orbits in the $10^2 - 10^4$-year

638: range.

639: 

640: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}

641: 

642: We have discovered two Jovian-mass planets in Earthlike orbits, $1 < a <

643: 2$~AU, orbiting the stars HD 5319 and HD 75898.  Target selection of

644: both stars was performed by the N2K Consortium (Fischer et al. 2005).

645: For HD 75898, which was observed as part of the N2K low-resolution

646: spectroscopic survey (Robinson et al. 2007), we find good agreement

647: between the N2K and Keck atmospheric parameter estimates.

648: 

649: At 1.56~\msun, HD 5319 is on the verge of being a ``retired'' A-star

650: ($M_{\star} > 1.6$~\msun) of the type discussed by Johnson et al.

651: (2007).  In all 9 previously known former A-dwarf planetary systems, the

652: planets orbit at semimajor axes $a \geq 0.78$~AU.  HD 5319~b fits this

653: pattern well, with $a = 1.75$~AU.  Although the total number of known

654: planet hosts with $M > 1.6$~\msun is small, Johnson et al. concluded

655: that the dearth of short-period planets around these stars is real, and

656: the semimajor axis distributions of planets orbiting intermediate-mass

657: and low-mass stars are different.  Furthermore, engulfment by the

658: expanding subgiant can only explain the disappearance of planets

659: orbiting at $a < 30 R_{\odot}$.  Burkert \& Ida (2007) point out that

660: the lack of short-period planets orbiting intermediate-mass stars can be

661: explained if these stars' protostellar disks have a shorter depletion

662: timescale than their low-mass counterparts.

663: 

664: Among orbits larger than the tidal circularization cutoff of 0.1 AU,

665: circular orbits, while not rare, are certainly not preferred.  Butler et

666: al. (2006) report that the distribution of eccentricities is nearly

667: uniform beyond 0.3 AU.  However, Meschiari et al. (2007, submitted)

668: performed a blind experiment where they presented users of the

669: Systemic\footnote{http://oklo.org} radial velocity-fitting console with

670: synthetic radial velocity data sets drawn from circular orbits.  The

671: recovered eccentricity distributions had median values between 0.1 and

672: 0.2, indicating a bias toward finding eccentric orbits.  If the median

673: exoplanet eccentricity has been skewed higher than its true value by the

674: planet discovery process, solar system-like orbits, which seem

675: noteworthy in the context of so many eccentric exoplanets, may be quite

676: common.  With $1 < a < 2$ AU and $e \approx 0.1$, HD 5319~b and HD

677: 75898~b have orbits quite similar to our own terrestrial planets.

678: 

679: HD 5319 and HD 75898 have radial velocity residuals that imply

680: additional companions in the system.  To account for our measured

681: center-of-mass accelerations, HD 5319~c and HD 75898~c must both be at

682: least 1~\mjup.  If the periods and masses of these objects are near the

683: minimum values recorded in Table 5, further radial velocity observations

684: might add these stars to the known list of multiple-planet systems

685: within a few years.  However, it is likely that these objects have

686: periods too long for radial-velocity follow-up.  In that case, HD 5319

687: and HD 75898 are good candidates for high-resolution imaging.  The

688: NIRC-2 coronagraph spotsize is $0.'' 5$, which would restrict the

689: detection space to $a > 50$~AU for HD 5319 and $a > 40$~AU for HD 75898.

690: With the NIRC-2+AO limiting contrast ratio of $0.1\%$, this detection

691: space includes massive brown dwarfs and low-mass stars.  The analytical

692: work of Matzner \& Levin (2005) supports the hypothesis that

693: protostellar disk fragmentation is not a viable formation mechanism for

694: star-brown dwarf binary pairs.  HD 5319 and HD 75898 could therefore

695: serve as laboratories for investigating the presumably rare phenomenon

696: of brown dwarf formation in protostellar disks.

697: 

698: \acknowledgements

699: 

700: SER thanks Eugenio Rivera and Peter Bodenheimer for helpful input on

701: this work.  We gratefully acknowledge the dedication and support of the

702: Keck Observatory staff, in particular Grant Hill for support with HIRES.

703: We thank the NASA and UC Telescope assignment committees for generous

704: allocations of telescope time.  The authors extend thanks to those of

705: Hawaiian ancestry on whose sacred mountain of Mauna Kea we are

706: privileged to be guests.  Without their kind hospitality, the Keck

707: observations presented here would not have been possible.  The authors

708: have made use of the SIMBAD database, the Vienna Atomic Line Database,

709: and NASA's Astrophysics Data System.

710: 

711: This research is made possible by the generous support of Sun

712: Microsystems, NASA, and the NSF.  SER was supported by the National

713: Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.  GL received support

714: from the NSF Career grant (No. 0449986).  SSV's work was supported by

715: the NSF grant AST-0307493.  DAF was supported by Research Corporation's

716: Cottrell Science Scholar program and by NASA grant NNG05G164G.  We thank

717: the Michelson Science Center for travel support through the KDPA

718: program.

719: 

720: {\it Facilities:} \facility{Keck I (HIRES)}, \facility{APT}

721:   

722:   

723: \begin{thebibliography}{} 

724: 

725: %\bibitem[Burrows et al.(2004)]{burrows04} Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., \&

726: %Hubeny, I. 2004, \apj, 609, 407

727: 

728: \bibitem[Ammons \etal 2006]{ammons06} Ammons, S. M., Robinson, S. E.,

729: Strader, J., Laughlin, G., Fischer, D., \& Wolf, A. 2006, \apj, 638,

730: 1004

731: 

732: \bibitem[Bevington \& Robinson(1992)]{br92} Bevington, P. R., \&

733: Robinson, D. 1992, Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical

734: Sciences (2nd ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill)

735: 

736: \bibitem[Boss et al.(2007)]{boss07} Boss, A. P., et al. 2007,

737: Transactions of the International Astronomical Union, Series A, 26, 183

738: 

739: \bibitem[Butler \etal 2006]{B06} Butler, R. P., Wright, J. T., Marcy,

740: G. W., Fischer, D. A., Vogt, S. S., Tinney, C. G., Jones, H. R. A.,

741: Carter, B. D., Johnson, J. A., McCarthy, C., Penny, A. J. 2006 ApJ 646,

742: 505

743: 

744: \bibitem[Butler { et~al.} 1996]{BuMaWi96} Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W.,

745: Williams, E., McCarthy, C., Dosanjh, P., Vogt, S. S.  1996, \newblock {

746: PASP, } {108}, 500

747: 

748: \bibitem[Burkert \& Ida(2006)]{burkert06} Burkert, A., \& Ida, S. 2007,

749: \apj, 660, 845

750: 

751: %\bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2005)]{charbonneau05} Charbonneau, D.,

752: %Allen, L. E., Megeath, S. T., Torres, G., Roi, A., Brown, T. M.,

753: %Gilliland, R. L., Latham, D. W., Mandushev, G., O'Donovan, F. T., \&

754: %Sozzetti, A. 2005, \apj, 626, 523

755: 

756: \bibitem[Cumming 2004]{cumming04} Cumming, A. 2004, \mnras, 354, 1165

757: 

758: \bibitem[David et al.(2003)]{david03} David, E.-M., Quintana, E. V.,

759: Fatuzzo, M., \& Adams, F. C. 2003, \pasp, 115, 825

760: 

761: %\bibitem[Deming et al.(2006)]{deming06} Deming, D., Harrington, J.,

762: %Seager, S., \& Richardson, L. J. 2006, \apj, 644, 560

763: 

764: %\bibitem[Deming et al.(2005)]{deming05} Deming, D., Seager, S.,

765: %Richardson, L. J., \& Harrington, J. 2005, Nature, 434, 740

766: 

767: \bibitem[Eaton {et~al.}]{EHF03}

768: Eaton, J. A., Henry, G. W., \& Fekel, F. C. 2003,

769: in The Future of Small Telescopes in the New Millennium, Volume II--The 

770: Telescopes We Use, ed. T. D. Oswalt (Dordrecht:  Kluwer), 182

771: 

772: \bibitem[Endl et al.(2006)]{endl06} Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., \&

773: Wittenmyer, R. A. 2006, \aj, 131, 3131

774:   

775: \bibitem[ESA 1997]{esa97} ESA 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogs.

776: ESA-SP 1200

777: 

778: \bibitem[Fischer \etal 2005]{fis05} Fischer, D. A. \etal 2005, ApJ, 620,

779: 481

780: 

781: \bibitem[Fischer \etal 2006]{fischer06} Fischer, D. A. \etal 2006, \apj,

782: 637, 1094

783: 

784: \bibitem[Fischer \etal 2007]{fischer07} Fischer, D. A. \etal 2007, \apj,

785: submitted

786: 

787: \bibitem[Fischer \& Valenti (2005)]{FV05} Fischer, D. A., Valenti, J. A.

788: 2005, ApJ 622, 1102

789: 

790: %\bibitem[Harrington et al.(2006)]{harrington06} Harrington, J., Hansen,

791: %B. M., Luszcz, S. H., Seager, S., Deming, D., Menou, K., Cho, J. Y. K.,

792: %\& Richardson, L. J. 2006, Science, 314, 623

793: 

794: \bibitem[Henry 1999]{h99} Henry, G. W. 1999, PASP, 111, 845

795: 

796: \bibitem[Johnson \etal 2006]{johnson06} Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W.,

797: Fischer, D. A., Laughlin, G., Butler, R. P., Henry, G. W., Valenti, J.

798: A., Ford, E. B., Vogt, S. S., \& Wright, J. T. 2006, \apj, 647, 600

799: 

800: \bibitem[Johnson \etal 2007]{johnson07} Johnson, J. A., Fischer, D. A.,

801: Marcy, G. W., Wright, J. T., Driscoll, P., Butler, R. P., Hekker, S.,

802: Reffert, S., \& Vogt, S. S. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 704, arXiv:0704.2455

803: 

804: %\bibitem[Marcy \etal 2005]{mbfvwtj05} Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P.,

805: %Fischer, D. A., Vogt, S. S., Wright, J. T., Tinney, C. G., Jones, H. R.

806: %A. 2005, PThPS, 158, 24

807: 

808: \bibitem[Matzner \& Levin(2005)]{matzner05} Matzner, C. D., \& Levin, Y.

809: 2005, \apj, 628, 817

810: 

811: \bibitem[Mayor \etal(2004)]{mayor04} Mayor, M., Udry, S., Naef, D.,

812: Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N. C., \& Burnet, M. 2004, \aap, 415, 391

813: 

814: \bibitem[McCarthy \& Zuckerman(2004)]{mccarthy04} McCarthy, C., \&

815: Zuckerman, B. 2004, \aj, 127, 2871

816: 

817: \bibitem[Meschiari \etal (2007)]{meschiari07} Meschiari, S., et al.

818: 2007, \apj, submitted

819: 

820: \bibitem[Noyes et al. 1984]{noyes84} Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L.,

821: Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., \& Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279, 763

822: 

823: \bibitem[Patel et al.(2007)]{patel07} Patel, S. G., Vogt, S. S., Marcy,

824: G. W., Johnson, J. A., Fischer, D. A., Wright, J. T., \& Butler, R. P.

825: 2007, \apj, in press

826: 

827: \bibitem[Pourbaix et al.(2004)]{pourbaix04} Pourbaix, D., et al. 2004,

828: \aap, 424, 727

829: 

830: %\bibitem[Rieke et al.(2005)]{rieke05} Rieke, G. H., Su, K. Y. L.,

831: %Stansberry, J. A., Trilling, D., Bryden, G., Muzerolle, J., White, B.,

832: %Gorlova, N., Young, E. T., Beichman, C. A., Stapelfeldt, K. R., \&

833: %Hines, D. C. 2005, \apj, 620, 1010

834: 

835: \bibitem[Robinson et al.(2007)]{robinson07} Robinson, S. E., Ammons, S.

836: M., Kretke, K. A., Strader, J., Wertheimer, J. G., Fischer, D. A., \&

837: Laughlin, G. 2007, \apjs\ preprint doi:10.1086

838: 

839: %\bibitem[S\'{a}ndor \& Kley(2006)]{sandor06} S\'{a}ndor, Z., \& Kley, W.

840: %2006, \aap, 451, L31

841: 

842: \bibitem[Sato \etal 2005]{sato05} Sato, B., \etal 2005, \apj, 633, 465

843: 

844: %\bibitem[Sudarsky et al.(2000)]{sudarsky00} Sudarsky, D., Burrows, A.,

845: %\& Pinto, P. 2000, \apj, 538, 885

846: 

847: %\bibitem[Sudarsky et al.(2003)]{sudarsky03} Sudarsky, D., Burrows, A.,

848: %\& Hubeny, I. 2003, \apj, 588, 1121

849: 

850: %\bibitem[Sudarsky et al.(2005)]{sudarsky05} Sudarsky, D., Burrows, A.,

851: %Hubeny, I., \& Li, A. 2005, \apj, 627, 520

852: 

853: \bibitem[Takeda et al.(2007)]{takeda07} Takeda, G., Ford, E. B., Sills,

854: A., Rasio, F. A., Fischer, D. A., \& Valenti, J. A. 2007, \apjs, 168,

855: 297

856: 

857: %\bibitem[Tinney \etal (2006)]{tinney06} Tinney, C. G., Butler, R. P.,

858: %Marcy, G. W., Jones, H. R. A., Laughlin, G., Carter, B. D., Bailey, J.

859: %A., \& O'Toole, S. 2006, \apj, 647, 594

860: 

861: \bibitem[Valenti \& Fischer (2005)]{vf04} Valenti, J. A., Fischer, D. A.

862: 2005, ApJS, 159, 141

863: 

864: \bibitem[VandenBerg \& Clem (2003)]{vandenberg03} VandenBerg, D. A., \&

865: Clem, J. L. 2003, AJ, 126, 778 

866: 

867: \bibitem[Vogt94]{v94} Vogt, S. S. \etal 1994, SPIE, 2198, 362.

868: 

869: \bibitem[Vogt et al.(2005)]{vogt05} Vogt, S. S., Butler, R. P., Marcy,

870: G. W., Fischer, D. A., Henry, G. W., Laughlin, G., Wright, J. T., \&

871: Johnson, J. A. 2005, \apj, 632, 638

872: 

873: \bibitem[Wright 05]{wright05} Wright, J. T. 2005, PASP, 117, 657

874: 

875: \bibitem[Wright \etal 2007]{wright07} Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W.,

876: Fischer, D. A., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Tinney, C. G., Jones, H. R.

877: A., Carter, B. D., Johnson, J. A., McCarthy, C. 2007, ApJ, 657, 533

878: 

879: \bibitem[Yi \etal 2001]{yi01} Yi, S., Demarque, P., Kim, Y.-C., Lee,

880: Y.-W., Ree, C. H., Lejeune, T., \& Barnes, S. 2001, \apjs, 136, 417

881: 

882: \end{thebibliography}

883: 

884: \clearpage

885: 

886: %Tables

887: \input{tab1}

888: \clearpage

889: \input{tab2}

890: \clearpage

891: \input{tab3}

892: \clearpage

893: \input{tab4}

894: \clearpage

895: \input{tab5}

896: \clearpage

897: 

898: \begin{figure}

899: \epsscale{0.60}

900: \plotone{f1.eps}

901: \caption{Ca II H line for HD 5319 and HD 75898, with the same wavelength

902: segment of the solar spectrum shown for comparison. Both of these stars

903: are chromospherically inactive, without emission in the cores of Ca

904: II H\&K.}

905: \label{caHK}

906: \end{figure}

907: \clearpage    

908: 

909: \begin{figure}

910: \plotone{f2.eps}

911: \figcaption{Radial velocities for HD 5319.  The velocity error bars show

912: the single measurement precision listed in Table 2, added in quadrature

913: with 4.6 \ms stellar jitter.  \chisq = 1.22 for a Keplerian fit plus a

914: constant center-of-mass acceleration of 9.11~\ms~yr$^{-1}$.  Assuming a

915: stellar mass of 1.56 \msun, we derive a planet mass \msini = 1.94 \mjup,

916: and a semi-major axis $a = 1.75$~AU.}

917: \label{rv5319}

918: \end{figure}

919: \clearpage

920:     

921: \begin{figure}

922: \plotone{f3.eps}

923: \figcaption{Periodogram of HD 5319 radial velocities.  The strong peak

924: spanning 600-900 days has FAP = 0.0013, giving a $99.87\%$ probability

925: that this peak has a physical, non-noise source.}

926: \label{period5319}

927: \end{figure}

928: \clearpage

929: 

930: \begin{figure}

931: \plotone{f4.eps}

932: \figcaption{FAP determination for HD 5319.  Histogram shows maximum

933: periodogram peak heights in 10,000 synthetic RV data sets, selected with

934: replacement from the measured radial velocities.  Only 13 trials yielded

935: maximum power greater than the original periodogram, for ${\rm FAP} =

936: 0.0013$.}

937: \label{fap5319}

938: \end{figure}

939: \clearpage

940:     

941: \begin{figure}

942: \plotone{f5.eps}

943: \figcaption{Markov Chain Monte Carlo models of the radial velocity data

944: for HD 5319 produce posterior distributions for the orbital period,

945: eccentricity, and radial velocity semi-amplitude.  The mean values of

946: each MCMC histogram are broadly consistent with the Keplerian parameters

947: determined by the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm, and show convergence to

948: a single set of orbital parameters.}

949: \label{hist5319}

950: \end{figure}

951: 

952: \begin{figure}

953: \plotone{f6.eps}

954: \figcaption{Radial velocities for HD 75898.  The velocity error bars

955: show the single measurement precision given in Table 2, added in

956: quadrature with 2.6 \ms stellar jitter.  This gives \chisq = 1.77 for

957: the Keplerian fit, with a residual linear trend of -14.6~\ms~yr$^{-1}$.

958: Assuming a stellar mass of 1.28 \msun, we derive a planet mass \msini =

959: 2.51 \mjup, and semimajor axis $a = 1.19$~AU.}

960: \label{rv75898}

961: \end{figure}

962: \clearpage

963: 

964: \begin{figure}

965: \plotone{f7.eps}

966: \figcaption{Periodogram of HD 75898 radial velocities.  The peak at 446

967: days has ${\rm FAP} < 0.0001$.  The 200-day peak is an alias of the

968: true, $\sim 400$ day period; the artifact of the seven-month observing

969: season for this star near the ecliptic.  The observations in late 2006

970: and early 2007 break this alias and rule out a 200-day period for HD

971: 75898~b.  The rising power toward 2000 days, twice our observational

972: baseline, is the first hint of a third component of the HD 75898 system

973: (see \S 4 for details).}

974: \label{per75898}

975: \end{figure}

976: \clearpage

977: 

978: \begin{figure}

979: \plotone{f8.eps}

980: \figcaption{FAP determination for HD 75898.  Histogram shows maximum

981: periodogram peak heights in 10,000 synthetic data sets, selected with

982: replacement from the measured radial velocities.  No trial yielded

983: maximum power greater than the original periodogram, for ${\rm FAP} <

984: 0.0001$.}

985: \label{fap75898}

986: \end{figure}

987: \clearpage

988: 

989: \begin{figure}

990: \plotone{f9.eps}

991: \figcaption{Markov Chain Monte Carlo posterior distributions for the

992: period, eccentricity, and radial velocity semiamplitude of HD 75898.

993: The mean of each distribution is well matched with the corresponding

994: result from our Levenberg-Marquardt analysis.}

995: \label{hist75898}

996: \end{figure}

997: \clearpage

998: 

999: \begin{figure}

1000: \plotone{f10.eps}

1001: \figcaption{Theoretical radial velocity curve of HD 5319~c at its

1002: smallest possible mass and period, \msini = 1.0 \mjup and $P = 7.3$ yr.

1003: Vertical lines denote the beginning, midpoint and end of our

1004: observational baseline.  The dashed line shows the center-of-mass

1005: acceleration, 0.0249 \ms~day$^{-1}$.  The difference between the linear

1006: slope of this theoretical RV curve and the measured $dv/dt$,

1007: $|\Delta(dv/dt)| = 0.0034$, is less than the uncertainty in $dv/dt$

1008: (0.0040 \ms~day$^{-1}$.}

1009: \label{hd5319c}

1010: \end{figure}

1011: 

1012: \begin{figure}

1013: \plotone{f11.eps}

1014: \figcaption{Theoretical radial velocity curve of HD 75898~c at its

1015: shortest possible period, $4.5$~years, and smallest mass, $1 M_{\rm

1016: Jup}$.  Vertical lines denote the beginning, midpoint and end of our

1017: observational baseline.  The dashed line shows the center-of-mass

1018: acceleration, -0.0400 \ms~day$^{-1}$.  The difference between the linear

1019: slope of this theoretical RV curve and the measured $dv/dt$,

1020: $|\Delta(dv/dt)| = 0.0055$, is consistent with the measured uncertainty

1021: $\sigma(dv/dt) = 0.0056$ \ms~day$^{1}$.}

1022: \label{hd75898c}

1023: \end{figure}

1024: 

1025: 

1026: %Figure 13 goes here: theoretical radial velocity curve for HD 75898 c

1027: 

1028: \end{document}

1029: