1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3:
4: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
5: %\usepackage{aastexug}
6: %\usepackage{amsmath}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8: \usepackage{subfigure}
9: %\usepackage{lscape}
10: \usepackage{longtable}
11: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
12:
13: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ on November 2}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16: \title{A Technique for Detecting Starlight Scattered from Transiting Extrasolar Planets with Application to HD 209458b}
17:
18: \shorttitle{DETECTING SCATTERED LIGHT FROM TRANSITING EXOPLANETS}
19: \shortauthors{LIU ET AL.}
20:
21: \author{\sc Xin Liu, Edwin L. Turner}
22: \affil{Princeton University Observatory, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA}
23: %\affil{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544}
24: %\email{@astro.princeton.edu}
25:
26: \author{\sc Norio Narita, Yasushi Suto}
27: \affil{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan}
28:
29: \author{\sc Joshua N. Winn}
30: \affil{Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and
31: Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA}
32:
33: \author{\sc Toru Yamada}
34: \affil{Astronomical Institute, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8578, Japan}
35:
36: \author{\sc Bun'ei Sato}
37: \affil{Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1-S6-6, Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan}
38:
39: \author{\sc Wako Aoki, Motohide Tamura}
40: \affil{National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}
41:
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: We present a new technique for detecting scattered starlight from
45: transiting, close-orbiting extrasolar giant planets (CEGPs) that
46: has the virtues of simplicity, robustness, linearity, and
47: model-independence. Given a series of stellar spectra obtained
48: over various phases of the planetary orbit, the goal is to measure
49: the strength of the component scattered by the planet relative to
50: the component coming directly from the star. We use two
51: complementary strategies, both of which rely on the predictable
52: Doppler shifts of both components and on combining the results
53: from many spectral lines and many exposures. In the first
54: strategy, we identify segments of the stellar spectrum that are
55: free of direct absorption lines and add them after
56: Doppler-shifting into the planetary frame. In the second strategy,
57: we compare the distribution of equivalent-width ratios of the
58: scattered and direct components. Both strategies are calibrated
59: with a ``null test'' in which scrambled Doppler shifts are applied
60: to the spectral segments. As an illustrative test case, we apply
61: our technique to spectra of HD 209458 taken when the planet was
62: near opposition (with orbital phases ranging from 11 to
63: 34$\arcdeg$, where 0$\arcdeg$ is at opposition), finding that the
64: planet-to-star flux ratio is $(1.4\pm 2.9)\times10^{-4}$ in the
65: wavelength range 554$-$681~nm. This corresponds to a geometric
66: albedo of $0.8\pm1.6$, assuming the phase function of a Lambert
67: sphere. Although the result is not statistically significant, the
68: achieved sensitivity and relatively small volume of data upon
69: which it is based are very encouraging for future ground-based
70: spectroscopic studies of scattered light from transiting CEGP
71: systems.
72:
73: \end{abstract}
74:
75:
76: \keywords{planetary systems --- stars: individual --- (HD 209458) --- techniques: spectroscopic}
77:
78:
79: \section{Introduction}
80:
81: The discovery of the first exoplanet orbiting an ordinary main
82: sequence star, 51 Peg, a dozen years ago \citep{mayor95} also
83: revealed the first example of a largely unexpected but common
84: class of astronomical objects, namely close-orbiting extrasolar
85: giant planets (CEGPs). The discovery of the first transiting
86: exoplanet system, HD 209458b also a CEGP
87: \citep{henry00,mazeh00,charbonneau00,brown01}, a few years later
88: allowed study of these enigmatic objects to move beyond orbital
89: parameters and minimum masses. Although radial velocity, transit
90: and microlensing techniques have made the study of exoplanets one
91: of the most active and exciting areas of astrophysics in recent
92: years and have produced a wealth of additional major discoveries
93: and important theoretical problems \citep{perryman00,chauvin07},
94: the effort to understand CEGPs remains central to the field.
95:
96: The light of the primary star scattered from CEGPs reflects the
97: nature (composition, clouds, energy balance, structure, motions
98: {\it et cetera}) of their atmospheres
99: \citep[e.g.,][]{seager98,marley99,seager00,sudarsky00,sudarsky03,burrows05};
100: its direct detection would thus test and discriminate among
101: emerging models of CEGPs.
102:
103: There have been previous attempts to detect scattered starlight
104: from CEGPs against the much brighter direct light from the primary
105: via high-resolution spectroscopic searches for the scattered, and
106: hence Doppler-shifted, stellar absorption lines \citep[][and
107: references therein]{charbonneau99,leigh03}. The problem is very
108: difficult because the expected contribution of the scattered light
109: to the total light is of order $10^{-4}$ or less for known CEGPs.
110: Due to both the very small amplitude of the expected signal and
111: the unknown orbital inclination angle $i$ for non-transiting
112: systems, the methods so far employed rely on model-dependent
113: assumptions to estimate prior distributions for planetary radii,
114: orbital inclinations and the form of the phase function
115: \citep{leigh03}. The advantage of such an approach is that it can
116: be applied to the brightest (but non-transiting) CEGP systems that
117: thus have the least photon noise. In other words and as is usually
118: the case, relying on a prior model allows one to maximize purely
119: statistical signal-to-noise (S/N) but at the price of increased
120: systematic uncertainty. Two previously published methods
121: \citep[e.g.][]{charbonneau99,cameron99} depend on a $\chi^2$
122: minimization applied to the whole stellar spectrum, which is not
123: an optimally sensitive method for this problem because it dilutes
124: the detectability of the scattered lines (which carry the signal
125: of interest) by considering the quality of the fit to the
126: continuum regions.
127:
128: The simplest example of the advantage of studying transiting CEGP
129: systems is that measurement of the scattered light fraction allows
130: direct determination of the albedo in isolation, and not merely in
131: combination with the planet's radius squared (which must be
132: estimated from a theoretical model for non-transiting systems).
133: The major advantage of studying non-transiting systems is that
134: some of them are nearly two orders of magnitude brighter than the
135: brightest transiting system, thus yielding far smaller photon
136: statistics noise.
137:
138: Here we propose a largely model-independent technique to detect
139: the scattered stellar absorption lines in transiting CEGP systems.
140: In this method, no assumptions concerning the form of the phase
141: function, the planet's radius, the orbital inclination {\it et
142: cetera} are needed to measure the planet-to-star flux ratio and
143: albedo. Rather, only physical parameters of the system measured
144: via transit observations are required. Moreover, the technique
145: maximizes sensitivity by concentrating only on those portions of
146: the spectrum in which scattered stellar lines are known to be
147: present (at some amplitude to be measured). As a practical
148: ``worked example'' we apply this technique to {\it Subaru} HDS
149: spectra of HD 209458.
150: The required input physical parameters of the system and their
151: relation to the expected scattered light signal are briefly
152: reviewed in \S 2. In \S 3, we describe the technique in detail,
153: and apply it to HD 209458b, using high precision optical spectra
154: acquired on UT 2002 October 27, with the Subaru High Dispersion
155: Spectrograph \citep[HDS;][]{noguchi02}. Results are summarized in
156: \S 4. Prospects for future studies are then examined based on these
157: results.
158:
159:
160:
161:
162:
163: \section{Input Parameters}
164:
165: Our technique utilizes known physical properties of the transiting
166: CEGP system based on prior radial velocity and transit studies.
167:
168: The planet's velocity relative to the star at orbital phase $\phi$
169: is given by \citep[see, e.g.][]{cameron02}
170: %
171: \begin{equation}
172: V_P(\phi) = K_P \cdot {\rm sin}2\pi\phi,
173: \end{equation}
174: %
175: where $\phi = (t - T_0)/P_{orb}$ is the orbital phase at time $t$,
176: $T_0$ is the transit epoch, and $P_{orb}$ is the orbital period.
177: Its apparent radial-velocity amplitude $K_P$ about the mass center
178: of the system is
179: %
180: \begin{equation}
181: K_P = \frac{2\pi a}{P_{orb}}\frac{{\rm sin} i}{1 + q},
182: \end{equation}
183: %
184: where $a$ is the orbital distance, $i$ is the inclination and $q
185: \equiv M_P/M_{\star}$ is the mass ratio. The values of $a$ and $i$
186: can be measured from radial-velocity and transit-photometry data,
187: respectively.
188:
189:
190: If the planet is tidally locked, as expected for nearly all CEGPs,
191: there will be no rotational broadening. Then the scattered spectra
192: will be the Doppler-shifted stellar spectra, scaled by a factor of
193: the planet-to-star flux ratio $\epsilon$, which is usually
194: decomposed as \citep{charbonneau99,cameron99}
195: %
196: \begin{equation}\label{equ:ratio}
197: \epsilon(\alpha, \lambda) = p(\lambda)g(\alpha, \lambda)\frac{R_P^2}{a^2},
198: \end{equation}
199: %
200: where $p(\lambda)$ is the geometric albedo, and $g(\alpha,
201: \lambda)$ is the phase function, with $\alpha$ being the phase
202: angle which varies as ${\rm cos}\alpha = - {\rm sin}i \,{\rm
203: cos}2\pi\phi$. The value of $R_P$ is also measured from
204: transit-photometry data.
205:
206:
207:
208:
209:
210: \section{Method and Application to HD 209458b}
211:
212: \subsection{Overview}
213:
214: The basic idea behind the method is that for any absorption line
215: in the primary star's spectrum we can precisely predict the
216: wavelength of each line in the light scattered from the planet in
217: each exposure; it is simply offset from the position of the
218: stellar line by the Doppler shift due to the planet's orbital
219: motion relative to the primary, as projected onto the line of
220: sight to the observer at the time of that exposure. The strength
221: of the scattered line relative to the line in the primary's
222: spectrum is just the fractional contribution of the planet's
223: scattered light to the total light at that wavelength; in
224: principle, this line strength gives a measure of the planet's
225: albedo at that wavelength and phase angle.
226:
227: Of course, in practice, for known CEGP systems this fraction is
228: expected to be of order $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-5}$ and any individual
229: line is thus completely undetectable even in very high S/N
230: spectra. Our technique is then simply to superimpose and combine
231: pieces of the spectra at the expected wavelengths of the scattered
232: lines over many lines and exposures to achieve sufficient S/N to
233: allow a statistically significant detection. This can be done
234: either 1) by simply summing small fragments of the spectra
235: centered on these predicted locations or 2) by measuring the ratio
236: of scattered absorption line equivalent-widths to the
237: corresponding equivalent widths in the primary and then combining
238: the ratios over lines and exposures. We employ both variations.
239:
240: In an attempt to detect tiny fractional signals against a noisy
241: background, it is obviously crucial to know the background rather
242: precisely and to characterize its noise properties accurately. We
243: do both by an ``internal'' procedure using the same spectra and
244: same wavelength regions in which we search for the signal.
245: Specifically, in addition to combining the spectral fragments
246: defined by the expected wavelength positions of the scattered
247: lines, we also carry out the same analysis but with the Doppler
248: shift assigned to each exposure ``shuffled'' randomly among the
249: exposures. In this way we can produce a large number of {\it
250: reference spectra} made up of the same spectral fragments taken
251: from the same set of exposures but each lacking any scattered line
252: contribution. By combining this ensemble of reference spectra we
253: obtain an excellent estimator of both the background against which
254: we must distinguish the scattered light signal and of all of its
255: noise properties (including, for example, the collective effects
256: of weak stellar lines that cannot be detected individually).
257:
258: Finally, in order to calibrate and test the method, it is very
259: useful to have mock or simulated data containing an artificially
260: injected, and thus precisely known, signal and having realistic
261: noise properties. This we also manufacture internally. The
262: individual spectra of the system are shifted to the planet's rest
263: frame at each exposure, and then multiplied by some assumed
264: planet-to-star flux ratio $\epsilon$ to produce a set of
265: artificial planet scattered light spectra. These artificial
266: spectra are then added back into the individual exposures. For
267: example, if the original spectra contain some scattered light
268: signal with a planet-to-star ratio $\epsilon_0$, then these
269: artificially injected spectra should have scattered light with a
270: planet-to-star ratio $\epsilon_1 = (\epsilon_0 + \epsilon)$. We
271: can analyze the artificially injected spectra to obtain
272: $\epsilon_1$ and then subtract $\epsilon_0$ from it to recover
273: $\epsilon$. Successful, or failed, recovery of this known
274: artificial signal by application of the same technique provides a
275: strong test of the reliability and sensitivity of the method.
276:
277: \subsection{Data Preprocessing}
278:
279: As an illustrative case study, we analyze 33 Subaru HDS spectra of
280: the system HD 209458, taken on UT 2002 October 27, when the planet
281: was just out of the secondary eclipse, with the orbital phase
282: $11.0^{\circ} \lesssim \alpha \lesssim 33.9^{\circ}$. A detailed
283: description of the observations and data reduction to obtain
284: one-dimensional spectra can be found in \citet{winn04} and
285: \citet{narita05}. The wavelength coverage of the spectra analyzed
286: is from 554 nm to 681 nm, with a spectral resolution of $R \approx
287: 45000$. The typical exposure time was 500 sec, and the S/N per
288: pixel was $\sim 350$.
289:
290: The reasons for adopting exposure phases in the vicinity of the
291: secondary eclipse, but not extremely close to it, are two fold.
292: First, the strong back scattering of aerosol clouds or grains, if
293: any, could dramatically brighten the planet. Second, we should not
294: observe too close to either the primary transit or the secondary
295: transit, because during those events the planet's motion is nearly
296: in the plane of the sky and its relative radial velocity variation
297: is small, causing the scattered absorption lines to be blended
298: with the direct absorption lines. For the HD 209458 data analyzed
299: here, the velocity offsets between the stellar lines and their
300: scattered counterparts is in the range of $27 - 80$ km s$^{-1}$,
301: sufficient to avoid blending in all cases.
302:
303:
304: The one-dimensional spectra are first normalized. We
305: fit an 11$^{th}$-order-{\sf spline3} function to obtain the blaze
306: function of each order separately, and then merge the blaze
307: functions of all the orders. The un-normalized spectra of each
308: order are also merged in the same way and divided by the merged
309: blaze function. Spectra are re-sampled and dispersion-corrected to
310: logarithmically spaced bins after merger. All exposures are
311: normalized separately, as their blaze functions vary due to
312: instrumental variations \citep{winn04,narita05}. We note that the
313: method to be discussed in Section \ref{sec:strat1} is also
314: applicable to the un-normalized spectra. The normalization however
315: simplifies the EW test to be described in Section
316: \ref{sec:strat2}. The reason we use an 11$^{th}$-order-{\sf
317: spline3} function for the fitting is to remove the large-scale
318: profiles of the spectra without diluting the weak lines containing
319: the scattered light signal.
320:
321: We adopt the physical parameters of the system HD 209458 from
322: \citet{knutson07}, as summarized in Table \ref{tab:para}, along
323: with the Modified Julian Day (MJD) at the central time of each
324: exposure, to predict $V_P(\phi)$.
325:
326:
327: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
328: \begin{deluxetable}{lc}
329: \tablewidth{0pt} \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
330: \tablecaption{Physical parameters of the system HD209458 from
331: \citet{knutson07}.\label{tab:para}}
332: \tablehead{
333: \colhead{Parameter} &
334: \colhead{Value and references}
335: }
336: \startdata
337: Mass of the star: $M_{\star}$ ($M_{\odot}$) & 1.101$^{+0.066}_{-0.062}$ \\
338: Radius of the star: $R_{\star}$ ($R_{\odot}$) & 1.125$^{+0.020}_{-0.023}$ \\
339: Mass of the planet: $M_P$ ($M_J$) & 0.64$\pm$0.06\\
340: Radius of the planet: $R_P$ ($R_J$) & 1.320$^{+0.024}_{-0.025}$ \\
341: Orbital inclination: $i$ (degrees) & 86.929$^{+0.009}_{-0.010}$ \\
342: Orbital period: $P_{orb}$ (days) & 3.52474859$\pm$0.00000038 \\
343: Transit epoch: $T_0$ (HJD) & 2,452,826.628521$\pm$0.000087 \\
344: \enddata
345: \end{deluxetable}
346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
347:
348: \subsection{Strategy I: Summing Scattered Light Lines}\label{sec:strat1}
349:
350: In this section, we search for the scattered light by aligning and
351: combining the imprinted signals over a large set of stellar
352: absorption lines as well as over exposures. The scattered signals
353: are aligned by Doppler-shift correcting each exposure according to
354: the corresponding $V_P(\phi)$. We also make a set of reference spectra
355: by combining the same set of exposures, which, on the other hand,
356: are Doppler-shift corrected with the $V_P(\phi)$ of another
357: exposure. Therefore, extra absorptions around the predicted
358: scattered-light centers would indicate a detection.
359:
360: \subsubsection{Details of the Strategy-I Procedure}
361:
362: %---------------------------------------------
363: \begin{figure}
364: \epsscale{1.1}
365: \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{The 123 selected stellar absorption lines.
366: Wavelength versus FWHM ({\it top}),
367: and the distribution of FWHM ({\it bottom}) .\label{fig:fwhm}}
368: \end{figure}
369: %---------------------------------------------
370:
371: First, 33 pre-processed spectra $S^0_{{\rm log}\lambda}$ are
372: Doppler-shift corrected according to their predicted corresponding
373: radial velocities. We use a logarithmic wavelength scale, and the
374: super script ``0'' to refer to the star's rest frame and ``Z'' for
375: the planet's. Then the shifted spectra, $S^Z_{{\rm log}\lambda}$,
376: are corrected to have the same dispersion as that of $S^0_{{\rm
377: log}\lambda}$. Here and throughout this study, spectra are always
378: corrected to this standard dispersion after being shifted.
379:
380: Second, a set of suitable stellar absorption lines were selected
381: according to the following criteria: 1 - The line's full-width at
382: half-maximum (FWHM) must be larger than the threshold value
383: FWHM$_{th}=0.15 {\rm \AA}$, a value chosen by experimentation to
384: maximize sensitivity. (The final result is, however, rather
385: insensitive to the exact value of FWHM$_{th}$.) 2 - The line's
386: blue\footnote{Due to the planet's phases, its scattered spectra in
387: all the 33 exposures we used in this study would be blue-shifted
388: relative to the stellar spectra.}-ends extending to a wavelength
389: range, which corresponds to the largest radial velocity among all
390: the exposures, needs to be relatively free of strong stellar
391: lines. This is required to avoid contamination of any detection by
392: strong stellar lines. The wavelengths of selected lines and the
393: distribution of their FWHMs are displayed in Figure
394: \ref{fig:fwhm}.
395:
396: Third, small fragments ($\Delta \lambda \approx$ 1.7 ${\rm \AA}$
397: each\footnote{$\Delta \lambda \approx$ 1.7 ${\rm \AA}$ was chosen
398: to be big enough to cover several typical stellar line widths.})
399: of the spectra are averaged together, centering on the predicted
400: scattered features and over all the selected lines and exposures.
401: The combined normalized counts as a function of wavelength
402: difference (from the predicted line centers) can be written as
403: \begin{equation}
404: C^Z(k) = \frac{1}{N_{e}N_{l}}\sum_{e = 1}^{N_{e}} \sum_{l =
405: 1}^{N_{l}} S^{Z_e}[{\rm log}(\lambda_{k, el}) - {\rm log}(\lambda_{0, el})],
406: \end{equation}
407: where $k = -50, -49, ..., 49, 50$, and represents the $k$-th pixel
408: on the bluer (redder) side of the scattered-light center ($k =
409: 0$), if $k$ is negative (positive); ${\rm log}(\lambda_{k + 1,
410: el}) - {\rm log}(\lambda_{k, el})$ corresponds to $d\lambda
411: \approx$ 0.017 ${\rm \AA}$, i.e., the wavelength pixel size on the
412: detector at the
413: center of the spectral coverage\footnote{The actual spectral
414: resolution at this point is $\approx$ 0.14 ${\rm \AA}$,
415: equivalent to just about 8 detector pixels.}; $N_{e} = 33$ is the number of
416: exposures, whereas $N_{l} = 123$ is the number of selected stellar
417: absorption lines. $Z_e$ stands for the ``redshift'' of the
418: $e^{th}$ exposure, and $S^{Z_e}$ denotes the spectrum that has
419: been Doppler-shift corrected according to the radial velocity of
420: the $e^{th}$ exposure. Wavelength solutions of different exposures
421: agree with each other to within $\sim$0.03 ${\rm \AA}$, therefore
422: the central wavelength of each stellar line, $\lambda_{0, el}$, is
423: a function of both line and exposure. We account for the small
424: variations in wavelength solutions by localizing each line in each
425: exposure separately. In other words, $C^Z(k)$ is simply the
426: average scattered spectral line generated by summing, after
427: continuum normalization, over all of the selected lines (123 for
428: our HD 209458 data) and all of the exposures (33 for our HD 209458
429: data), a total of $N_{e}\times N_{l}$ separate spectral fragments
430: (4059 in the case of the present data).
431:
432: Fourth, we take the mean (as well as the median) values calculated
433: from the same 33 pre-processed spectra, Doppler-shift corrected
434: using $N$ sets of scrambled redshifts (hereafter, reference
435: spectra, for short), as the standard to compare $C^Z(k)$ with.
436: This spectrum can be regarded as the ``continuum'' level, i.e.,
437: relatively free of scattered signals, and is given by
438: %
439: \begin{equation}
440: \langle C^{Z'}(k) \rangle = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{n = 1}^N C^{Z'_n}(k),
441: \end{equation}
442: %
443: where $C^{Z'_n}(k) = \frac{1}{N_{e}N_{l}}\sum_{e = 1}^{N_{e}}
444: \sum_{l = 1}^{N_{l}} S^{Z'_{n, e}}[{\rm log}(\lambda_{k, el}) -
445: {\rm log}(\lambda_{0, el})]$. $\{Z'_{n, e}\}$ is a permutation of
446: $\{Z_e\}$, and there are $N = 1,000$ sets of random permutations.
447: We note it is essential that $\{Z'_{n, e}\}$ is a permutation of
448: $\{Z_e\}$, rather than purely random redshifts, because using a
449: permutation of $\{Z_e\}$ ensures the exact same fragments of
450: stellar spectra go into $C^{Z'_n}(k)$, as those in $C^Z(k)$.
451:
452: Fifth and finally, we define the combined scattered signal as the
453: residual given by
454: %
455: \begin{equation}
456: \Delta C(k) \equiv C^Z(k) - \langle C^{Z'}(k) \rangle.
457: \end{equation}
458: %
459: Given scattered light, $\Delta C(k)$ will be negative around $k =
460: 0$, with a profile similar to the combined stellar lines scaled by
461: $\epsilon(\alpha, \lambda)$. Strictly speaking, $\langle C^{Z'}(k)
462: \rangle$ is affected to some degree by the scattered-light signal,
463: even though the redshifts have been scrambled. This is because
464: occasionally the randomly assigned redshift will happen to be or
465: close to the appropriate redshift of the exposure. Therefore
466: $\langle C^{Z'}(k) \rangle$ serves as a lower limit for the true
467: continuum level, and $\Delta C(k)$ yields a conservative value.
468:
469:
470:
471: \subsubsection{Results for Strategy I}
472:
473: %---------------------------------------------
474: \begin{figure*}
475: \centering
476: \includegraphics[width=120mm]{f2a.eps}
477: \includegraphics[width=120mm]{f2b.eps}
478: \caption{The normalized count $C(k)$ and the residual $\Delta C(k)$ as a
479: function of wavelength difference $k$, relative to the predicted scattered line's
480: center, aligned and average-combined over a large set of stellar lines and over
481: exposures. Each exposure has been Doppler-shift corrected to align the scattered
482: signals, according to the planet's relative radial velocity to the star.
483: (A): the red curve shows $C^Z(k)$, whereas the black curves represent the
484: median ({\it solid}; also same as the mean) and 68\% ({\it dotted}), 95\% ({\it dashed}),
485: and 99\% ({\it dash-dotted}) significance levels, obtained from 1,000 sets of
486: scrambling-shifted spectra ($\{C^{Z'_n}(k)\}$); (B), (C) and (D): the black
487: filled-circles show the residual $\Delta C(k)$, which is the difference between
488: $C^Z(k)$ ({\it red}) and $\langle C^{Z'}(k)\rangle$ ({\it black-solid}). Results
489: from the simulated scattered light by combining the stellar lines scaled by a
490: factor of $1.2\times10^{-4}$ are shown as {\it blue-dashed} curves. The error bars in (B)
491: correspond to 1 $\sigma$- errors obtained from the significance levels shown in (A),
492: whereas (C) and (D) present the results of 4,059 sets of {\sf jackknife}- and {\sf bootstrap}-
493: re-samplings. In all the panels, one pixel corresponds to $\sim 0.017 {\rm \AA}$, the approximate size of a detector pixel, about one eighth of
494: the actual spectral resolution. The systematic decrease in $\Delta C(k)$ at more than 12 pixels to the red or blue of the line center is due to the
495: influence of stellar absorption lines beyond the edges of the region
496: chosen to be clear of such interference.}
497: \label{fig:subfig:nc}
498: \end{figure*}
499:
500: %---------------------------------------------
501: \begin{figure*}
502: \centering
503: \includegraphics[width=120mm]{f3.eps}
504: \caption{The normalized residual counts $\Delta C(k)$ as a function of
505: wavelength difference $k$, as in panels (B) and (D) of the previous figure,
506: but in this case the data points have been rebinned by a factor of 8.
507: This corresponds to the true spectral resolution of the data, rather than
508: to the detector pixel size. The rebinnig is arranged such that the
509: predicted line center position at $k = 0$ is in the middle of the central
510: point. The dashed line shows the expected shape of the composite scattered
511: light line assuming a $1.2\times10^{-4}$ scattered light fraction. }
512: \label{fig:subfig:ncrebin}
513: \end{figure*}
514:
515: %
516:
517:
518: Figure \ref{fig:subfig:nc} shows the normalized count $C(k)$ and
519: the residual $\Delta C(k)$ obtained from analyzing the Subaru/HDS
520: spectra of HD 209458b. The overall shape of $C(k)$ is a result of
521: the combination of multiple stellar spectrum segments. The
522: significance levels plotted in (A), as well as the 1-$\sigma$
523: errors shown in (B) are calculated from the variance among the
524: reference spectra. $\Delta C(k)$ along with the 1-$\sigma$ errors
525: in (C) and (D) are from the jackknife- and bootstrap- re-samplings
526: (re-sampled over both lines and exposures) of the data along with
527: the corresponding reference spectra, respectively. The re-sampling
528: tests produced similar errors to those solely estimated from the
529: variations in reference spectra. To test the algorithms, we also
530: analyzed a mock/simulated spectrum, obtained by combining the same
531: set of stellar lines scaled by a factor of $1.2\times10^{-4}$.
532: This simulated signal indicates the expected scattered light
533: assuming a planet-to-star flux ratio of $\epsilon =
534: 1.2\times10^{-4}$. The comparison of the observations and
535: simulated signal shown in Figure \ref{fig:subfig:nc} is intriguing
536: in that the data are consistent with a low statistical
537: significance detection of the scattered light, with $\epsilon
538: \gtrsim 10^{-4}$ at the 1-$\sigma$ level, as the data follow the
539: simulated signal tantalizingly well, especially around the
540: predicted line center where the signal should be the strongest.
541:
542: Figure \ref{fig:subfig:ncrebin} also displays the normalized residual
543: counts $\Delta C(k)$, but in this figure the actual spectral resolution,
544: about 8 detector pixels, is used. There are thus only three points
545: across the expected composite scattered light absorption line, but the
546: error bars are correspondingly reduced, and the points are not strongly
547: correlated by the finite spectral resolution as they are in Figure
548: \ref{fig:subfig:nc}. Since the two figures simply display the same data at
549: two different wavelength resolutions, they are both naturally
550: consistent with the same scattered-light fraction of $1.2\times10^{-4}$
551: and the same line shape, shown by the {\it blue-dashed} line.
552:
553:
554:
555: \subsection{Strategy II: Equivalent Width Ratio Distributions}\label{sec:strat2}
556:
557: In this section, we further suggest a method to measure the
558: planet-to-star flux ratio $\epsilon$ by examining the distribution
559: of the EW ratios between the scattered and the stellar absorption
560: lines, measured for a large set of lines and exposures. The FWHMs
561: of stellar lines displayed in Figure \ref{fig:fwhm} are used to
562: set the wavelength range over which the EWs of both stellar and
563: scattered lines are evaluated. Since this method effectively
564: concentrates all of the ``missing flux'' signal into a single
565: number with appropriate weighting of the stronger and weaker
566: features, we would expect better sensitivity performance than
567: Strategy I. The cost, of course, is loss of all information about
568: the shape of the composite shape of the scattered lines and thus
569: of a useful check that the measured feature has the expected
570: character of scattered light. The two approaches are thus
571: complementary.
572:
573: \subsubsection{Details of the Strategy-II Procedure}
574:
575: We adopt a dimensionless EW, which is convenient for a
576: logarithmically linear wavelength scale, given by
577: %
578: \begin{equation}
579: W \equiv \int
580: \frac{d\lambda}{\lambda_0}\bigg[1-\frac{S_{\lambda}}{S(0)}\bigg] =
581: {\rm ln}10 \cdot \int \bigg[1-\frac{S_{{\rm
582: log}\lambda}}{S(0)}\bigg]d{\rm log}\lambda,
583: \end{equation}
584: %
585: where $\lambda_0$ is the central wavelength of a stellar
586: absorption line and $S(0)$ denotes its local continuum. In
587: logarithmically linear wavelength scale, $W$ can be discretized as
588: %
589: \begin{equation}
590: W = A \cdot \sum_i \bigg[1 - \frac{S_{{\rm log}\lambda_i}}{S(0)}\bigg],
591: \end{equation}
592: %
593: where $A\equiv{\rm ln}10\cdot \Delta{\rm log}\lambda$ is a
594: constant, and the summation goes over all pixels inside a
595: wavelength range of twice that of the line's FWHM and centered at
596: $\lambda_0$. Since different stellar lines have different FWHMs as
597: shown in Figure \ref{fig:fwhm}, a variable number of pixels are
598: included in the EW integrations by making use of the line-strength
599: information, whereas in Strategy I, the same number of pixels are
600: combined for all lines.
601:
602: The EW of the stellar lines, $W^{\star}_{e, l}=A\cdot\sum_i [1 -
603: S^0_{{\rm log}\lambda_{i, el}}/S^0_{e, l}(0)]$, is calculated for
604: each line (denoted by $l$) in each exposure (denoted by $e$),
605: using the stellar FWHMs measured in the initial exposure, which
606: are shown in Figure \ref{fig:fwhm}. To check for FWHM variability,
607: we measure the FWHMs in both the initial and final exposures and
608: find that they agreed within 0.1 per cent.
609:
610: For each line, the local continuum $S^0_{e, l}(0)$ is estimated by
611: averaging the median of the counts in two spectral intervals on
612: either side of the line, with a size chosen to be neither too
613: large to reflect the local continuum level nor too small for
614: accurate statistics. We use a range of 50 pixels, corresponding to
615: $\sim$1 ${\rm \AA}$. The results have been tested to be
616: independent of the adopted size of the range over which the
617: continuum levels are estimated.
618:
619: For the scattered signals, $W^{Z_e}_{e, l}=A\cdot\sum_i [1 -
620: S^{Z_e}_{{\rm log}\lambda_{i, el}}/S^{Z_e}_{e,l}(0)]$, where the
621: super script $Z_e$ represents the spectrum $S$ has been
622: Doppler-shift corrected with the Doppler shift of the $e^{th}$
623: exposure. We use the FWHMs of the stellar lines, assuming that the
624: scattered light is a replica of starlight, scaled by a factor of
625: $\epsilon$. The local continuum $S^{Z_e}_{e,l}(0)$ is taken as the
626: median of the line's blue end, since the red end often overlaps
627: the associated strong stellar lines. The EW ratio is then given by
628: $R^{Z_e}_{e, l} \equiv W^{Z_e}_{e, l} / W^{\star}_{e, l}$. The
629: EW-ratio measurements of $N_l$ lines in $N_e$ exposures constitute
630: a statistical sample of $\{R^{Z_e}_{e, l}\}$, which has $N_l\times
631: N_e$ data points.
632:
633: We also calculate $\{R^{Z'_n}_{e, l}\}$ for $N$ sets of reference
634: spectra, to construct a standard comparison pool. Both {\sf mean}
635: and {\sf median} are adopted as statistical measures, where
636: $M(R^{Z})$ denotes taking either the mean or the median of
637: $\{R^{Z_e}_{e, l}\}$. Finally, we define the residual EW ratio,
638: given by
639: %
640: \begin{eqnarray}
641: \Delta M(R) \equiv M(R^{Z}) - \langle M(R^{Z'})\rangle, \nonumber \\
642: {\rm where} \,\,\, \langle M(R^{Z'})\rangle = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{n = 1}^N M(R^{Z'_n}),
643: \end{eqnarray}
644: %
645: is the comparison standard obtained from $N$ sets of
646: scrambling-shifted reference spectra. Given null (by construction)
647: reference-spectrum signal, $\Delta M(R)$ will be positive and give
648: a direct estimate of $\epsilon$.
649:
650:
651:
652: \subsubsection{Results for Strategy II}
653:
654:
655: %---------------------------------------------
656: %
657: \begin{figure*}
658: \centering
659: \includegraphics[width=150mm]{f4a.eps}
660: \includegraphics[width=150mm]{f4b.eps}
661: \caption{The EW ratio $\Delta M(R)$. (A) and (C) show the {\sf mean} results whereas
662: (B) and (D) present the {\sf median}. In (A) and (B), the histogram displays the normalized
663: distribution of results from 1,000 sets of scrambling-shifted spectra. The
664: {\it dotted} line represents the averages of the distributions.
665: As shown by the legend in (B), the other three vertical lines show results calculated
666: from the data ({\it thick red-solid}), the simulated scattered-light spectra assuming
667: $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$ ({\it thin green-dashed}), and $\epsilon = 2\times10^{-4}$
668: ({\it thin blue-dash-dotted}), respectively. (C) and (D) show the normalized distributions
669: of results from 4,059 {\sf bootstrap}- re-samplings, for the data ({\it thick red-solid}), the
670: simulated scattered-light spectra assuming $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$ ({\it thin green-dashed}),
671: and $\epsilon = 2\times10^{-4}$ ({\it thin blue-dash-dotted}), respectively. The three
672: vertical lines mark the averages of the normalized distributions.
673: $\Delta M(R) = 0$ is also shown as {\it dotted} lines for comparison.}
674: \label{fig:subfig:ew}
675: \end{figure*}
676: %
677: %---------------------------------------------
678:
679:
680: Figure \ref{fig:subfig:ew} shows $\Delta M(R)$ for both the median
681: and the mean statistics, obtained from the HD 209458b data,
682: simulated scattered signals, reference spectra, and bootstrap
683: re-samplings. We have also generated jackknife re-samplings, which
684: produced similar results to those of the bootstrap re-samplings,
685: and both re-sampling analysis yield consistent errors with those
686: estimated from the variation of reference spectra. To test the
687: linearity of the algorithm, we injected mock/simulated scattered
688: signals, assuming $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$ and $2\times10^{-4}$,
689: respectively. The injected signals are recovered linearly through
690: the data pipeline as expected, since our algorithm only involves
691: linear transformations. These EW-ratio results suggest $\epsilon =
692: (1.4\pm2.9)\times10^{-4}$ ($(3.6\pm2.0)\times10^{-4}$), according
693: to the median (mean) statistics. The mean is more sensitive to
694: outliers which can be caused by stellar-line overlaps or
695: inaccurate estimation of the local continuum levels, or by real
696: intrinsic variation of the albedo with wavelength or phase,
697: whereas the median should be more robust and representative of a
698: global effective albedo over the whole wavelength and phase
699: ranges.
700:
701:
702:
703:
704: \section{Summary and Discussion}
705:
706: We have developed a simple, robust, linear, and model-independent
707: technique to detect scattered starlight from transiting CEGPs, by
708: measuring scattered spectral features at predictable Doppler
709: shifts from the stellar lines due to planets' orbital motions.
710: There are two main variations of this technique. First, spectrum
711: fragments have been aligned and combined over a large set of
712: stellar absorption lines as well as over many exposures taken near
713: the secondary eclipse. Second, the planet-to-star flux ratio has
714: been determined by examining the distribution of the EW ratios
715: between the scattered and stellar absorption lines. We have made a
716: comparison sample by Doppler-shift correcting the exposures with
717: multiple sets of scrambled, instead of the real, redshifts. This
718: comparison sample has been passed through the same data pipeline,
719: and provided the control comparisons, as well as the significance
720: levels of any detections. Jackknife- and bootstrap- re-samplings
721: have yielded consistent errors with those determined from the
722: variations of the reference spectra. We have also produced spectra
723: with simulated scattered signals, using the stellar absorption
724: lines scaled by a factor of an assumed planet-to-star flux ratio.
725: The simulated signals have been fully recovered through the data
726: pipeline. Physical parameters of the system are required to have
727: been determined, in order to predict the planet's relative radial
728: velocity at each orbital phase, and further localize its imprinted
729: signals on the recorded spectra. These parameters can be
730: determined from radial-velocity and photometric observations of
731: transiting CEGPs with high precision and reliability.
732:
733: As a case study, we have analyzed very high S/N optical spectra of
734: HD 209458b, acquired with the Subaru HDS in UT 2002 October. Our
735: results suggest an average planet-to-star flux ratio of
736: (1.4$\pm$2.9)$\times10^{-4}$, in the wavelength from 554 nm to 681
737: nm, when the planet was during the orbital phases $11.0^{\circ} <
738: \alpha < 33.9^{\circ}$. Assuming a Lambert-sphere phase function
739: \citep{pollack86,charbonneau99}, the equivalent geometric albedo
740: can be estimated as $0.8\pm1.6$, according to Equation
741: \ref{equ:ratio}, where we take the phase of the middle exposure
742: $\phi \approx 0.561$, corresponding to $\alpha = 22.3^{\circ}$,
743: out of $11.0^{\circ} < \alpha < 33.9^{\circ}$ for all the
744: exposures we used. The best previous existing constraint on
745: scattered light from HD 209458b is based on direct imaging with
746: the $MOST$ satellite \citep{rowe06}. \citet{rowe06} found a
747: 1-$\sigma$ limit on the planet-to-star flux ratio of
748: $4.88\times10^{-5}$, corresponding to a geometric albedo upper
749: limit in $MOST$ bandpass (400-700 nm) of 0.25. Our results provide
750: a useful point of comparison for this difficult measurement,
751: covering a somewhat different wavelength range and based on
752: different observational strategies and analysis techniques.
753:
754: These results do not seem yet able to support a comparison to
755: models of the HD 209458b atmosphere or to justify detailed
756: physical interpretation, but they do not miss the mark by far and
757: are thus quite encouraging. Specifically, the Subaru HDS data
758: analyzed here constitute well under 5 hours of total exposure
759: time; it would be possible to obtain more data, and there is no
760: indication in the present data of systematic problems (such as
761: instrumental instabilities) that would prevent further integration
762: from producing a greater sensitivity. Moreover, one significantly
763: more favorable transiting CEGP system (HD 189733) is known, and
764: others may be discovered. In combination with measurements of
765: re-emitted thermal radiation \citep[e.g.][]{charbonneau05},
766: scattered light studies offer the possibility of major qualitative
767: advances in our understanding of CEGPs, a central riddle in the
768: study of exoplanets generally.
769:
770: \acknowledgments This work is based on data from the Subaru
771: Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical
772: Observatory of Japan. We wish to recognize and acknowledge the
773: very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of
774: Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community.
775: We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct
776: observations from this mountain.
777:
778:
779: \bibliographystyle{apj}
780: \bibliography{apj-jour,pslrefs}
781:
782:
783:
784:
785: \end{document}
786:
787: