1: Chris Sneden, Letters Editor
2: THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
3: apjletters@letters.as.utexas.edu
4:
5: Re: ApJL MS#: 22774
6: Title: Orbital Dynamics of a Second Planet in HD17156
7: Authors: D. Short, W. F. Welsh, J. A. Orosz, and G. Windmiller
8:
9:
10: Dear Dr. Sneden,
11:
12: We have revised our paper and resubmit our work for your consideration.
13: We have made substantial improvements to the paper, following the
14: suggestions of the referee plus our own continued efforts. We outline
15: the revisions below, following the comments of the referee.
16:
17: Sincerely,
18:
19: Don Short, Bill Welsh, Jerry Orosz and Gur Windmiller
20:
21: ....................
22:
23: I. "The title of the paper is really the first problem with this paper."
24: We appreciate the referee's appropriate skepticism of the possibility
25: of a second planet in the system, and we address that in detail below.
26: The title accurately reflects the content of the paper and in our
27: opinion does not claim an unambiguous detection. However, this is a
28: very minor point and if the referee requests a revised title like
29: "Orbital Dynamics of a Possible Second Planet in HD17156" that would
30: be fine.
31:
32:
33: II. "the second serious issue with the paper: the case for a second
34: planet is not securely made. ... Therefore, this result demands far
35: more than the usual care in both understanding sources of possible
36: systematic errors in the data and in assessing the confidence level
37: of the detection."
38: The intent of our paper was not to claim a detection of a second
39: planet, but rather to point out the possibility of such a planet, and
40: in particular, its fascinating orbital dynamics. The main thrust of the
41: paper is dynamics, not detection. The referee is of course correct that
42: ample evidence is needed to claim a discovery. The very small radial
43: velocity signal this planet produces means that the evidence cannot be
44: anywhere near as secure as for other extrasolar planet detections, such
45: as for planet b itself. Thus throughout the paper we speak of this as a
46: "probable" planet, and we make extensive predictions for testing if
47: such a planet exists. In many ways, we are predicting the existence of
48: a second planet based on the available data, and providing specific
49: observations to test that prediction. In our revised paper we have
50: added the following to support the case that a second planet probably
51: is present.
52: - The full Newtonian 3-body solution with 2 planets gives a
53: significantly better fit to the data (not just the residuals) than
54: a single planet. We demonstrate this by the drop in rms of the
55: residuals and the reduced chi square of the fit (which of course
56: includes the number of free parameters). The significance of this
57: chi square drop is checked via a standard F-test.
58: - We have computed formal uncertainties for each parameter of the fit
59: and these show that the K velocity and mass for the hypothetical 2nd
60: planet are both approximately 3.4 sigma above zero. In other words,
61: the planet seems to be secure at better than the 99% level. However,
62: we remain cautious and continue to call this a "probable planet".
63: - We computed an "Keplerian periodogram", optimizing the chi square of
64: a Keplerian fit to the RV data. Unlike a power spectrum that uses
65: sinusoids as the basis functions, we use the actual Keplerian orbital
66: parameters. The periodogram includes the uncertainty in the
67: observations, and so we can estimate the significance of the fit
68: directly, without need to resort to Monte Carlo or bootstrap
69: sampling. The periodograms shows the presence of both planets at a
70: high level of significance. Of course this is still only an
71: approximation; we need to solve the full 3-body problem to
72: "do it right".
73: - At the end of section 4 we added a paragraph starting with the
74: following, "The question remains, does HD 17156c exist?" addressing
75: the above concern.
76: Finally, we point out a vital aspect of our model. We are not simply
77: fitting the radial velocities. The referee is mostly correct in
78: thinking that this might not be sufficient to discern the presence of
79: a second planet. In addition to the RV data, we simultaneously fit the
80: 4 known transit times. These timing data are extremely powerful in that
81: they very tightly constrain the exact orbital configuration of planet b
82: at those times. They are *much* more discriminating than simply 4 more
83: radial velocities.
84:
85:
86:
87: III. Regarding the Referee's Concern with the Power Spectrum
88: We respond to all of the referee's concerns, though in fact we opt to
89: omit any spectral/periodogram analysis as described below.
90: 1. Monte Carlo simulation
91: The text correctly states what we have done, in that we have carried
92: out a Monte Carlo analysis by adding Gaussian distributed white noise
93: to each datum, consistent with that datum's uncertainty. "Datum"
94: means RV residual in this case. We preserved the times of observation.
95: We repeat this 500 times, yielding 500 sets of residuals, all
96: statistically consistent with the original. These 500 realizations are
97: transformed into power spectra and averaged. We repeat this proceedure
98: for the case when the residuals are initially all set to zero and then
99: noise is added, to show what the "null hypothesis" would yield.
100: We have not done a bootstrap resampling.
101: The power spectrum indicated a spike near 100-150 days that was well
102: above the null hypothesis baseline. This led to further investigation.
103: But we stress that a power spectrum is a crude tool to use; it does
104: not include any a priori information that we have on hand, like the
105: bodies must obey gravity. As such, it is a useful, but far from
106: definitive, tool. The definitive tool is to model the data using full
107: Newtonian gravitational physics. POFP can do this. This is not to say
108: POFP is perfect - we ignore general relativity and tidal forces
109: for example. But it is far superior to any power spectrum analysis.
110: It is important to note that the power spectrum of the RV data can
111: only be informative and not conclusive. If one considers Figure 4,
112: the radial velocity difference between the 1 and 2 planet model, the
113: difference remains quite small in the near future except for excursions
114: near the time of periastron of planet b. Thus, the RV data alone will
115: not suffice to distinguish between the two models unless specifically
116: obtained near periastron of planet b.
117: For these reasons, we have omitted the only somewhat useful power
118: spectrum figure from the revised paper so that we have room to include
119: a much more useful figure.
120:
121: 2. "window function" concerns
122: The Monte Carlo analysis includes the effects of the sampling
123: window (because the time of the observations were preserved in the
124: 500 simulations) and shows the 110 d peak well above the background
125: caused just by noise. Removing the stellar RV reflex motion due to
126: planet c leaves behind no residual signal, showing that the ~115 d
127: peak is not the result of the window function. If it were due to
128: spectral leakage from a longer period, the peak would not vanish.
129:
130: 3. FAP
131: The false alarm probability is a useful statistic when the noise are
132: Gaussian and white, the data equally sampled, and there are no large
133: gaps in the time series. However, this is not the case: the RV data
134: sampling is irregular and sparse, and stellar jitter is correlated
135: noise, not white noise. As such, power spikes could appear to be
136: highly significant, then in fact they are not - they could simply be
137: aliases for example (motivating the window function mentioned above).
138: False positives are very likely. For that reason the false alarm
139: probability is at best only mildly helpful in this case, whether
140: it states a peak is apparently significant or insignificant. It is
141: much better to model the data using physics than to rely on peaks in
142: an imperfect Fourier domain representation.
143:
144: 4. "...properly accounted for the increased degrees of freedom..."
145: While this is by definition included in the reduced chi-square, we
146: agree that is important to explictly list the numbers of degrees of
147: freedom, or equivalently, the number of data points and number of
148: parameters in the model. We now do this in Table 2.
149:
150: 5. "broad peak in the periodogram"
151: The broad peak was due in part to undersampling in the generation of
152: the power spectrum. Even so, the width is not all that important -
153: because the orbit is non-sinusoidal, the power will not be a delta
154: function even if the data were perfectly sampled and noise-free.
155: Irregular sampling and gaps add to leakage that tapering can only
156: partly compensate for, substantially further broadening the peak.
157: The period of the peak itself is what is important, but again, only
158: in that it provides an initial guess for the correct Newtonian model.
159:
160:
161:
162: IV. "...uncertainties associated with the Subaru data are poorly known.
163: ...Therefore your analysis should show the strongest result with
164: the Keck-only data."
165: This comment was taken to heart and our analysis repeated with and
166: without using the Subaru RV data. Fortunately the results remain the
167: same: the 2-planet solution is superior to the 1-planet solution whether
168: or not the Subaru data are included. It is the inclusion of the transit
169: times allowed us to still find evidence for the 2nd planet, even without
170: the Subaru velocities. The results are included in a new table (Table 2).
171:
172:
173:
174: V. "...the statement in the discussion that a 1 m/s Rossiter-McLaughlin
175: amplitude should be observable is incorrect."
176: We have removed this statement and most of the section as well.
177:
178:
179:
180: VI. "It's probably better to carry out high precision photometry from
181: above the Earths atmosphere (Spitzer or HST)."
182: The referee is absolutely correct, and to help plan observations, we have
183: computed a predicted O-C diagram.
184:
185: ....
186:
187: In addition to the above concerns of the referee, we have done the
188: following:
189:
190: Using a fully independent code (HNBody) we have carried out a
191: 100 million day integration of the two-planet model. We verify
192: the system's long-term stability and confirm the 5:1 mean motion
193: resonance.
194:
195: We have added a new figure (Fig. 3) illustrating the dynamical
196: coupling of the 2 planets. It succinctly shows the long term planetary
197: orbital characteristics compressed onto 1 figure.
198:
199: Further optimization of the models have not changed the short-term
200: characteristics of the orbits, but the very long-term cycles of
201: 212 years and 37,700 years have been refined. Because these are
202: unobservable (even on a grad student thesis timescale) they are
203: poorly constrained. The improved values are now 141 and 33,000 years.
204:
205:
206: Finally:
207:
208: Because of the low planet c mass, the small number of observations
209: and the short time span of those observations, we share the referee's
210: skepticism on the existence of planet c, and we hope that skepticism
211: is clear in our writing. The statistics strongly support the existence
212: of a second planet. However, we all know that statistical probabilities
213: are not always that convincing, and certainly not satisfying. Thus in
214: the discussion we make predictions and emphasize observational ways to
215: discriminate between the 1 or 2 planet scenario.
216: