1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
3: \usepackage{lscape}
4: \usepackage{rotating}
5:
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7: % Be careful when : arXive <---> preprint
8: %
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10:
11: \newcommand{\msun}{{\rm \ M_\odot}}
12: \newcommand{\bdv}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}
13: \newcommand{\bd}[1]{{\rm #1}}
14: \def\rel{{\rm rel}}
15: \def\e{{\rm E}}
16: \def\mas{{\rm mas}}
17: \def\masyr{\mas\,{\rm yr}^{-1}}
18: \def\au{{\rm AU}}
19: \def\muas{{\mu\rm as}}
20: \def\kms{{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}
21: \def\kpc{{\rm kpc}}
22: \def\pc{{\rm pc}}
23: \def\rel{{\rm rel}}
24: \def\max{{\rm max}}
25: \def\min{{\rm min}}
26: \def\bv{{\bf v}}
27: \def\ba{{\bf a}}
28: \def\bs{{\bf s}}
29: \def\bn{{\bf \hat n}}
30: \def\be{{\bf \hat e}}
31: \def\e{{\rm E}}
32: \def\bpi{{\bdv{\pi}}}
33: \def\balpha{{\bdv{\alpha}}}
34: \def\bmu{{\bdv{\mu}}}
35: \def\btheta{{\bdv{\theta}}}
36: \def\bomega{{\bdv{\omega}}}
37: \def\bLambda{{\bdv{\Lambda}}}
38: \def\bepsilon{{\bdv{\epsilon}}}
39: \def\bu{{\bf u}}
40: \def\bj{{\bf j}}
41: \def\ec{{\rm ec}}
42: \def\hel{{\rm hel}}
43: \def\ch{{\bf changed}\ }
44: \def\phys{{\rm phys}}
45: \def\eff{{\rm eff}}
46: \def\p{{\partial}}
47: \def\simge{\mathrel{
48: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$>$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
49: \def\simle{\mathrel{
50: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$<$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
51:
52: \begin{document}
53: \title{OGLE-2005-BLG-071Lb, the Most Massive M-Dwarf Planetary Companion?}
54:
55: \author{Subo Dong\altaffilmark{1,2}, Andrew Gould\altaffilmark{1,2}, Andrzej Udalski\altaffilmark{3,4}, Jay Anderson\altaffilmark{5},
56: G.W. Christie\altaffilmark{1,6}, B.\,S.~Gaudi\altaffilmark{1,2},
57: \\ and \\
58: M. Jaroszy{\'n}ski\altaffilmark{4}, M. Kubiak\altaffilmark{4}, M.\,K. Szyma{\'n}ski\altaffilmark{4}, G. Pietrzy{\'n}ski\altaffilmark{4,7}, I. Soszy{\'n}ski\altaffilmark{4}, O. Szewczyk\altaffilmark{7,4}, K. Ulaczyk\altaffilmark{4}, {\L}. Wyrzykowski\altaffilmark{8,4} \\ ({The OGLE Collaboration}), \\
59: D.\,L.~DePoy\altaffilmark{2}, D.\,B.~Fox\altaffilmark{9}, A. Gal-Yam\altaffilmark{10}, C. Han\altaffilmark{11}, S. L\'epine\altaffilmark{12},
60: J.~McCormick\altaffilmark{13}, E. Ofek\altaffilmark{14}, B.-G. Park\altaffilmark{15}, R.\,W. Pogge\altaffilmark{2}, \\ ({The $\mu$FUN Collaboration}),\\
61: F. Abe\altaffilmark{16}, D.\,P.~Bennett\altaffilmark{17,18}, I.\,A.~Bond\altaffilmark{19}, T.\,R.~Britton\altaffilmark{20}, A.\,C.~Gilmore\altaffilmark{20}. J.\,B.~Hearnshaw\altaffilmark{20},
62: Y. Itow\altaffilmark{16}, K. Kamiya\altaffilmark{16}, P.\,M. Kilmartin\altaffilmark{21}, A. Korpela\altaffilmark{22}, K. Masuda\altaffilmark{16}, Y. Matsubara\altaffilmark{16}, M. Motomura\altaffilmark{16},
63: Y. Muraki\altaffilmark{23}, S. Nakamura\altaffilmark{16},
64: K. Ohnishi\altaffilmark{24}, C. Okada\altaffilmark{16}, N. Rattenbury\altaffilmark{25}, To. Saito\altaffilmark{26}, T. Sako\altaffilmark{16},
65: M. Sasaki\altaffilmark{16}, D. Sullivan\altaffilmark{22},
66: T. Sumi\altaffilmark{16}, P.\,J. Tristram\altaffilmark{21}, T. Yanagisawa\altaffilmark{27}, P.\,C.\,M. Yock\altaffilmark{28}, T. Yoshoika\altaffilmark{16},\\
67: ({The MOA Collaboration})\\
68: M.D.~Albrow\altaffilmark{20}, J.P.~Beaulieu\altaffilmark{29},
69: S.~Brillant\altaffilmark{30}, H. Calitz\altaffilmark{31}, A.~Cassan\altaffilmark{32},
70: K. H.~Cook\altaffilmark{33}, Ch.~Coutures\altaffilmark{29},
71: S.~Dieters\altaffilmark{34}, D.~Dominis Prester\altaffilmark{35}, J.~Donatowicz\altaffilmark{36},
72: P.~Fouqu\'e\altaffilmark{37}, J.~Greenhill\altaffilmark{34}, K.~Hill\altaffilmark{34},
73: M.~Hoffman\altaffilmark{31}, K.~Horne\altaffilmark{38}, U.G.~J{\o}rgensen\altaffilmark{39},
74: S.~Kane\altaffilmark{40}, D.~Kubas\altaffilmark{30}, J.B.~Marquette\altaffilmark{29}, R.~Martin\altaffilmark{41},
75: P.~Meintjes\altaffilmark{31}, J.~Menzies\altaffilmark{42}, K.R.~Pollard\altaffilmark{20},
76: K.C.~Sahu\altaffilmark{5}, C.~Vinter\altaffilmark{39}, J.~Wambsganss\altaffilmark{32}, A.~Williams\altaffilmark{41}, M. Bode\altaffilmark{43}, D.M.~Bramich\altaffilmark{44},
77: M. Burgdorf\altaffilmark{43}, C. Snodgrass\altaffilmark{30}, I. Steele\altaffilmark{43},
78: \\ ({The PLANET/RoboNet Collaborations})\\
79: Vanessa Doublier\altaffilmark{45},
80: and
81: Cedric Foellmi\altaffilmark{46}.
82: }
83: \altaffiltext{1}
84: {Microlensing Follow-Up Network ($\mu$FUN).}
85: \altaffiltext{2}
86: {Department of Astronomy, Ohio State University,
87: 140 W.\ 18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210, USA; dong, gould, gaudi, depoy,
88: pogge@astronomy.ohio-state.edu.}
89: \altaffiltext{3}
90: {Optical Gravitational Lens Experiment (OGLE).}
91: \altaffiltext{4}
92: {Warsaw University Observatory, Al.~Ujazdowskie~4, 00-478~Warszawa,
93: Poland; udalski, mj, msz, mk, pietrzyn, soszynsk, kulaczyk@astrouw.edu.pl.}
94: \altaffiltext{5}
95: {Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD; jayander@stsci.edu.}
96: \altaffiltext{6}
97: {Auckland Observatory, Auckland, New Zealand; gwchristie@christie.org.nz.}
98: \altaffiltext{7}
99: {Universidad de Concepci{\'o}n, Departamento de Fisica,
100: Casilla 160--C, Concepci{\'o}n, Chile; szewczyk@astro-udec.cl.}
101: \altaffiltext{8}
102: {Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road,
103: Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK; wyrzykow@ast.cam.ac.uk.}
104: \altaffiltext{9}
105: {Astronomy \& Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State University, 525 Davey Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802; dfox@astro.psu.edu.}
106: \altaffiltext{10}
107: {Benoziyo Center for Astrophysics, Weizmann Institute of Science,
108: 76100 Rehovot, Israel; avishay.gal-yam@weizmann.ac.il.}
109: \altaffiltext{11}{Program of Brain Korea, Department of Physics,
110: Chungbuk National University, 410 Seongbong-Rho, Hungduk-Gu,
111: Chongju 371-763, Korea; cheongho@astroph.chungbuk.ac.kr.}
112: \altaffiltext{12}{Department of Astrophysics, Division of Physical Sciences,
113: American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street,
114: New York, NY 10024, USA; lepine@amnh.org.}
115: \altaffiltext{13}{Farm Cove Observatory, Centre for Backyard Astrophysics,
116: Pakuranga, Auckland New Zealand; farmcoveobs@xtra.co.nz.}
117: \altaffiltext{14}{Division of Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy, California
118: Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125; eran@astro.caltech.edu.}
119: \altaffiltext{15}{Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, 61-1
120: Hwaam-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 305-348, Korea; bgpark@kasi.re.kr.}
121: \altaffiltext{16}{Solar-Terrestrial Environment Laboratory, Nagoya University,
122: Nagoya, 464-8601, Japan.}
123: \altaffiltext{17}{Department of Physics, 225 Nieuwland Science Hall, Notre Dame
124: University, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA.}
125: \altaffiltext{18}{Probing Lensing Anomalies NETwork (PLANET) Collaboration.}
126: \altaffiltext{19}{Institute for Information and Mathematical Sciences, Massey University,
127: Private Bag 102-904, Auckland 1330, New Zealand.}
128: \altaffiltext{20}{University of Canterbury, Department of Physics and Astronomy,
129: Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8020, New Zealand.}
130: \altaffiltext{21}{Mt. John Observatory, P.O. Box 56, Lake Tekapo 8770, New Zealand.}
131: \altaffiltext{22}{School of Chemical and Physical Sciences, Victoria University,
132: Wellington, New Zealand.}
133: \altaffiltext{23}{Department of Physics, Konan University, Nishiokamoto 8-9-1,
134: Kobe 658-8501, Japan.}
135: \altaffiltext{24}{Nagano National College of Technology, Nagano 381-8550, Japan.}
136: \altaffiltext{25}{Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, The University of Manchester,
137: Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.}
138: \altaffiltext{26}{Tokyo Metropolitan College of Industrial Technology, Tokyo 116-8523, Japan.}
139: \altaffiltext{27}{Advanced Space Technology Research Group, Institute of
140: Aerospace Technology, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), Tokyo,
141: Japan}
142: \altaffiltext{28}{Department of Physics, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92-019,
143: Auckland 1001, New Zealand.}
144: \altaffiltext{29}{Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, 98bis Boulevard Arago, 75014
145: Paris, France.}
146: \altaffiltext{30}{European Southern Observatory, Casilla 19001, Vitacura 19,
147: Santiago, Chile.}
148: \altaffiltext{31}{Department. of Physics / Boyden Observatory, University of the Free
149: State, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa.}
150: \altaffiltext{32}{Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, Zentrum f\"ur~Astronomie,
151: Heidelberg University, M\"{o}nchhofstr.~12--14, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany}
152: \altaffiltext{33}{Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, IGPP, P.O. Box 808,
153: Livermore, CA 94551, USA}
154: \altaffiltext{34}{University of Tasmania, School of Maths and Physics, Private
155: bag 37, GPO Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia}
156: \altaffiltext{35}{Department of Physics, University of Rijeka, Omladinska 14, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia}
157: \altaffiltext{36}{Technical University of Vienna, Dept. of Computing, Wiedner
158: Hauptstrasse 10, Vienna, Austria}
159: \altaffiltext{37}{LATT, Universit\'e de Toulouse, CNRS, 14 av. E. Belin, 31400
160: Toulouse, France}
161: \altaffiltext{38}{SUPA, University of St Andrews, School of Physics \& Astronomy,
162: North Haugh, St Andrews, KY16~9SS, United Kingdom}
163: \altaffiltext{39}{Niels Bohr Institute, Astronomical Observatory, Juliane Maries
164: Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark}
165: \altaffiltext{40}{Michelson Science Center, California Institute of Technology, MS 100-22, 770 South Wilson Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA}
166: \altaffiltext{41}{Perth Observatory, Walnut Road, Bickley, Perth 6076, Australia}
167: \altaffiltext{42}{South African Astronomical Observatory, P.O. Box 9 Observatory
168: 7935, South Africa}
169: \altaffiltext{43}{Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University,
170: Twelve Quays House, Egerton Wharf, Birkenhead CH41 1LD, UK}
171: \altaffiltext{44}{Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, Apartado de Correos 321,
172: E-38700 Santa Cruz de la Palma, Canary Islands, Spain}
173: \altaffiltext{45}{ESO, Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 2, D-85748 Garching bei München}
174: \altaffiltext{46}{LAOG, Observatoire de Grenoble BP 53 F-38041 GRENOBLE, France}
175:
176: \vfill
177: \vfill
178: \vfill
179:
180: \begin{abstract}
181: We combine all available information to constrain the nature of
182: OGLE-2005-BLG-071Lb, the second planet discovered by microlensing
183: and the first in a high-magnification event. These include
184: photometric and astrometric measurements from {\it Hubble Space Telescope},
185: as well as constraints from higher order effects extracted from the
186: ground-based light curve, such as microlens parallax, planetary orbital motion
187: and finite-source effects. Our primary analysis leads to the conclusion that
188: the host of Jovian planet OGLE-2005-BLG-071Lb is an M dwarf in the foreground disk with mass $M=0.46\pm 0.04\,M_\odot$, distance $D_{l} = 3.2\pm 0.4\,$kpc,
189: and thick-disk kinematics $v_{\rm LSR}\sim 103\,\rm km\,s^{-1}$.
190: From the best-fit model, the planet has mass $M_p = 3.8\pm 0.4\,M_{\rm Jupiter}$,
191: lies at a projected separation $r_\perp = 3.6\pm 0.2\,$AU from its host and so has an equilibrium temperature of $T \sim 55$ K, i.e., similar to Neptune.
192: A degenerate model less favored by $\Delta{\chi^2} = 2.1$ (or 2.2, depending on
193: the sign of the impact parameter)
194: gives similar planetary mass $M_p = 3.4\pm 0.4\,M_{\rm Jupiter}$
195: with a smaller projected separation, $r_\perp = 2.1\pm 0.1\,$AU, and
196: higher equilibrium temperature $T \sim 71$ K.
197: These results from the primary analysis suggest that OGLE-2005-BLG-071Lb is
198: likely to be the most massive planet yet discovered that is hosted by an M dwarf.
199: However, the formation of such high-mass planetary companions in the outer
200: regions of M-dwarf planetary systems is predicted to be unlikely within
201: the core-accretion scenario.
202: There are a number of caveats to this primary analysis, which assumes (based on real but limited evidence)
203: that the
204: unlensed light coincident with the source is actually due to the lens, that is,
205: the planetary host. However, these caveats could mostly
206: be resolved by a single astrometric measurement a few years after
207: the event.
208: \end{abstract}
209:
210: \keywords{gravitational lensing -- planetary systems -- Galaxy: bulge}
211:
212: \section{Introduction
213: \label{intro}}
214:
215: Microlensing provides a powerful method to detect extrasolar planets.
216: Although only six microlens planets have been found to date
217: \citep{ob03235,ob05071,ob05390,ob05169,ob06109,mb07400}, these include two major
218: discoveries. First, two of the planets are ``cold Neptunes'',
219: a high discovery rate in this previously inaccessible region of parameter
220: space, suggesting this new class of
221: extrasolar planets is common \citep{ob05169, ob05390b}.
222: Second, the discovery of the first Jupiter/Saturn analog via a
223: very high-magnification event with substantial sensitivity to multiple planets
224: indicates that solar system analogs may be prevalent among planetary
225: systems \citep{ob06109}.
226: Recent improvements in search techniques and future major upgrades should
227: increase the discovery rate of microlensing planets substantially \citep{future}.
228:
229: Routine analysis of planetary microlensing light curves yields the
230: planet/star mass ratio $q$ and the planet-star projected separation
231: $d$ (in units of the angular Einstein radius). However, because the
232: lens-star mass $M$ cannot be simply extracted from the light curve,
233: the planet mass $M_p=q M$ remains, in general, equally uncertain.
234:
235: The problem of constraining the lens mass $M$ is an old one. When
236: microlensing experiments were initiated in the early 1990s, it was
237: generally assumed that individual mass measurements would be impossible
238: and that only statistical estimates of the lens mass scale could
239: be recovered. However, \citet{gould92} pointed out that
240: the mass and lens-source
241: relative parallax, $\pi_\rel\equiv \pi_l-\pi_s$,
242: are simply related to two observable
243: parameters, the angular Einstein radius,
244: $\theta_\e$, and the Einstein radius projected onto the plane
245: of the observer, $\tilde r_\e$,
246: \begin{equation}
247: M = {\theta_\e\over\kappa\pi_\e},
248: \qquad \pi_\rel = \theta_\e\pi_\e.
249: \label{eqn:observables}
250: \end{equation}
251: Here, $\pi_\e= \au/\tilde r_\e$ is the ``microlens parallax'' and
252: $\kappa\equiv 4G/(c^2\,\au)\sim 8.1\,{\rm mas}/M_\odot$.
253: See \citet{gould00b} for an illustrated derivation of these relations.
254:
255:
256: In principle, $\theta_\e$ can be measured by comparing some structure
257: in the light curve to a ``standard angular ruler'' on the sky.
258: The best example is light-curve distortions due to the finite angular
259: radius of the source $\theta_*$ \citep{gould94}, which usually can be
260: estimated very well from its color and apparent magnitude \citep{yoo}.
261: While such finite-source effects are rare for microlensing events
262: considered as a whole, they are quite common for planetary events.
263: The reason is simply that the planetary distortions of the light curve
264: are typically of similar or smaller scale than $\theta_*$. In fact,
265: all six planetary events discovered to date show such effects.
266: Combining $\theta_\e$ with the (routinely measurable)
267: Einstein radius crossing time $t_\e$ yields
268: the relative proper motion $\mu$ in the geocentric frame,
269: \begin{equation}
270: \mu_{\rm geo} = {\theta_\e\over t_\e},
271: \label{eqn:observables2}
272: \end{equation}
273: From equation~(\ref{eqn:observables}), measurement of $\theta_\e$ by itself
274: fixes the product $M\pi_\rel = \theta_\e^2/\kappa$. Using priors
275: on the distribution of lens-source relative parallaxes,
276: one can then make a statistical estimate of the lens mass $M$ and
277: so the planet mass $M_p$.
278:
279: To do better, one must develop an additional constraint. This
280: could be measurement of the microlens parallax $\pi_\e$, but this
281: is typically possible only for long events. Another possibility
282: is direct detection of the lens, either under the ``glare''
283: of the source during and immediately after the event, or displaced from
284: the source well after the event is over.
285: \citet{bennett06} used the latter technique to
286: constrain the mass of the first microlensing planet,
287: OGLE-2003-BLG-235/MOA-2003-BLG-53Lb. They obtained
288: {\it Hubble Space Telescope ({\it HST})} Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS)
289: images in $B$, $V$, and $I$ at an epoch $\Delta t=1.78$ years after the event.
290: They found astrometric offsets of the (still overlapping) lens and source light
291: among these images of up to $0.7\,\rm mas$. Knowing the lens-source
292: angular separation $\Delta\theta=\mu\Delta t$ from the already
293: determined values of $\theta_\e$ and $t_\e$, they were able to
294: use these centroid offsets to fix the color and magnitude of the
295: lens and so (assuming that it was a main-sequence star) its mass.
296:
297: While the planet mass is usually considered to be the most
298: important parameter that is not routinely derivable from the light
299: curve, the same degeneracy impacts two other quantities as well,
300: the distance and the transverse velocity of the lens. Knowledge
301: of these quantities could help constrain the nature of the lens,
302: that is, whether it belongs to bulge, the foreground disk, or possibly
303: the thick disk or even the stellar halo. Since microlensing
304: is the only method currently capable of detecting planets in populations well
305: beyond the solar neighborhood, extracting such information would
306: be quite useful. Because the mass, distance, and transverse
307: velocity are all affected by a common degeneracy, constraints
308: on one quantity are simultaneously constraints on the others.
309: As mentioned above, simultaneous measurements of $\theta_\e$ and $\pi_\e$
310: directly yield the mass. However, clearly from equation~(\ref{eqn:observables})
311: they also yield the distance, and hence (from eq.~[\ref{eqn:observables2}])
312: also the transverse velocity.
313: Here, we assemble all available data to constrain the mass, distance
314: and transverse velocity of
315: the second microlensing planet, OGLE-2005-BLG-071Lb, whose
316: discovery we previously reported (\citealt{ob05071}, hereafter Paper I).
317:
318: \section{Overview of Data and Types of Constraints
319: \label{sec:overview}}
320:
321: The light curve consists of 1398 data points from
322: 9 ground-based observatories (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}),
323: plus two epochs of {\it HST} ACS data in the F814W ($I$) and
324: F555W ($V$) filters.
325: The primary ground-based addition relative to Paper I is
326: late-time data from OGLE, which continued to monitor the event down to baseline
327: until HJD $=2453790.9$.
328:
329: These data potentially provide constraints on several parameters in
330: addition to those reported in Paper I. First, the light curve
331: shows a clear asymmetry between the rising and falling parts of the light
332: curve, which is a natural result of microlens parallax due to the Earth's
333: accelerated motion around the Sun (see the best-fit model
334: without parallax effects plotted in dotted line in Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}).
335: However, it is important to keep in mind that such distortions are equally well
336: produced by ``xallarap'' due to accelerated motion of the source
337: around a companion. \citet{poindexter05} showed that it can be difficult
338: to distinguish between the two when, as in the present case, the effect
339: is detected at $\Delta{\chi^2} \simle 100$.
340:
341: Second, the two pronounced peaks of the light curve,
342: which are due to ``cusp approaches'' (see the bottom inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}),
343: are relatively sharp and have good coverage. These peaks would tend to be
344: ``rounded out'' by finite-source effects, so in principle it may be possible to
345: measure $\rho$ (i.e., $\theta_*$ in the units of $\theta_\e$)
346: from these distortions.
347:
348: Third, the orbital motion of the planet can give rise to two effects:
349: rotation of the caustic about the center of the mass
350: and distortion of the caustic due to expansion/contraction of the
351: planet-star axis. The first changes
352: the orientation of the caustic structure as the event evolves while
353: the second changes its shape. These effects are expected to be quite
354: subtle because the orbital period is expected to be of an order of 10 years
355: while the source probes the caustic structure for only about 4 days.
356: Nevertheless, they can be very important for the interpretation of the
357: event.
358:
359: Finally, the {\it HST} data cover two epochs, one at 23 May 2005
360: (indicated by the arrow in Fig.~\ref{fig:lc})
361: when the magnification was about $A=2$ and the other
362: at 21 Feb 2006 when the event was very nearly at baseline, $A\sim1$. These data
363: could potentially yield four types of information. First, they
364: can effectively determine whether the blended light is ``associated''
365: with the event or not. The blended light is composed of sources in the same photometric
366: aperture as the magnified source, but that do not become magnified
367: during the event.
368: If this light is due to the lens, a companion
369: to the lens, or a companion to the source, it
370: should fall well within the ACS point spread function (PSF) of the source.
371: On the other hand, if it is due to a
372: random interloper along the line of sight, then it should be
373: separately resolved by the ACS or at least give rise to a distorted PSF.
374: Second, the {\it HST} data can greatly improve the estimate of the color of
375: the blended light. The original model determined the source
376: fluxes in both OGLE $V$ and $I$ very well, and of course the baseline
377: fluxes are also quite well determined. So it would seem that the blended fluxes, which
378: are the differences between these two, would also be well determined.
379: This proves to be the case in the $I$ band. However, while the source
380: flux is derivable solely from flux differences over the light curve
381: (and so is well determined from OGLE difference image analysis -- DIA
382: -- \citealt{wozniak}), the baseline flux depends critically on the zero point
383: of PSF-fitting photometry, whose accuracy is fundamentally limited in
384: very crowded bulge fields. The small zero-point errors turn out
385: to have no practical impact for the relatively bright $I$ background light,
386: but are important for the $V$ band. Third, one might hope to measure
387: a centroid shift between the two colors in the manner of \citet{bennett06}.
388: Last, one can derive the source proper motion $\bdv{\mu}_s$
389: from {\it HST} data (at least relative to the mean motion of bulge
390: stars). This is important, because the event itself yields the
391: source-lens {\it relative} proper motion, $\bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo}$.
392: Hence, precise determination of $\bdv{\mu}_{l}$ requires
393: knowledge of two proper-motion differences, first
394: the heliocentric proper motion
395: \begin{equation}
396: \bdv{\mu}_{\rm hel} = \bdv{\mu}_{l} - \bdv{\mu}_{s},
397: \label{eqn:mu_hel}
398: \end{equation}
399: and second, the offset between the heliocentric and geocentric proper
400: motions
401: \begin{equation}
402: \bdv{\mu}_{\rm hel} - \bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo} =
403: {{\bdv{v}_{\earth} \pi_{\rm rel}} \over {\rm AU}}.
404: \label{eqn:mu_convert}
405: \end{equation}
406: Here, $\bdv{v}_{\earth}$ is the velocity of the Earth relative to the
407: Sun at the time of peak magnification $t_0$. Note that, if the lens-source relative parallax
408: $\pi_{\rel}$ is known, even approximately, then the latter difference can be
409: determined quite well, since its {\it total} magnitude is just
410: $0.6\,\masyr (\pi_\rel/0.17\,\mas)$.
411:
412: \section{Constraining the Physical Properties of the Lens and its Planetary
413: Companion
414: \label{sec:host}}
415:
416: In principle, all the effects summarized in \S~\ref{sec:overview}
417: could interact with each other and with the parameters previously determined,
418: leading potentially to a very complex analysis. In fact, we will show
419: that most effects can be treated as isolated from one another, which greatly facilitates the exposition.
420: In the following sections, we will discuss the
421: higher order microlens effects in the order of their impact on the
422: ground-based light curve, starting with the strongest, that is, parallax effects
423: (\S~\ref{sec:parallax}), followed by planetary orbital motion
424: (\S~\ref{sec:orbit}) and finally the weakest, finite-source effects
425: (\S~\ref{sec:finitesource}). To study these effects, we implement Markov
426: chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) with an adaptive step-size Gaussian sampler
427: \citep{mcmc} to perform the model fitting and obtain the uncertainties
428: of the parameters. The {\it HST} astrometry is consistent with no
429: $(V-I)$ color-dependent centroid shift in the first epoch, while such a shift
430: is seen in the second epoch observations (\S~\ref{sec:astrometry}).
431: In addition, the PSF of the source shows no sign of
432: broadening due to the blend, suggesting that the blend is associated with
433: the event (\S~\ref{sec:hst}). Therefore, the {\it HST} observations provide
434: good evidence that the blend is likely due to the lens. In \S~\ref{sec:astrometry},
435: it is shown, under such an assumption, how the astrometry can be used in
436: conjunction with finite-source and microlens parallax measurements to constrain the
437: angular Einstein radius and proper motion (\S~\ref{sec:astrometry}).
438: In \S~\ref{sec:hst}, we discuss using {\it HST} photometric constraints
439: in the form of $\chi^2$ penalties to the MCMC runs to extract the color and brightness
440: of the blend. The results of these runs, which include all higher order effects
441: of the ground-based light curve and the {\it HST} photometric constraints,
442: are summarized as ``MCMC A'' in Table \ref{tab:models}.
443: Subsequently in \S~\ref{sec:final}, by making
444: the assumption that the blended light seen by {\it HST} is due to the lens, we
445: combine all constraints discussed above to obtain physical
446: parameters of the lens star and its planet. The corresponding best-fit
447: model parameters are reported as ``MCMC B'' in Table \ref{tab:models}.
448: The results for the physical parameters from these runs are given in
449: Table \ref{tab:physical}. Finally we discuss some caveats in the analysis
450: in \S~\ref{sec:nonlum} and \S~\ref{sec:xallarap}.
451:
452: \subsection{Microlens Parallax Effects
453: \label{sec:parallax}}
454:
455: A point-source static binary-lens model has
456: 6 ``geometric-model'' parameters: three ``single-lens'' parameters
457: ($t_0$, $u_0$, $t_{\e}$), where we define the time of ``peak'' magnification
458: (actually lens-source closest approach) $t_0$ and the impact
459: parameter $u_0$ with respect to the center of mass of
460: the planet-star systems; and three ``binary-lens'' parameters
461: ($q$, $d$, $\alpha$), where $\alpha$ is the angle between the star-planet
462: axis and the trajectory of the source relative to the lens.
463: In addition, flux parameters
464: are included to account for light coming from the source star ($F_{s}$)
465: and the blend ($F_{b}$) for each dataset. In this paper, we extend the fitting by
466: including microlens parallax, orbital motion and finite-source effects.
467: Paper I reported that, within the context of the point-source static
468: binary-lens models, the best-fit wide-binary ($d>1$) solution is
469: preferred by $\Delta{{\chi}^2} = 22$ over the close-binary ($d<1$) solution.
470: Remarkably, when we take account of parallax, finite-source and orbital
471: effects, this advantage is no longer as significant. We discuss
472: the wide/close degeneracy with more detail in \S~\ref{sec:wideclose}.
473:
474: The microlens parallax effects are parametrized by $\pi_{\e,{\rm E}}$ and
475: $\pi_{\e,{\rm N}}$, following the geocentric parallax formalism by \citet{jin02} and \citet{gould04}.
476: To properly model the parallax effects, we characterize
477: the ``constant acceleration degeneracy'' \citep{smith} by probing models
478: with $u_0 \rightarrow -u_0$ and $\alpha \rightarrow -\alpha$.
479: We find that all other parameters remain essentially unchanged under this form of degeneracy.
480: In the following sections,
481: if not otherwise specified, parameters from models with positive $u_0$ are adopted.
482:
483: As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:parallax}, microlens parallax is firmly detected in
484: this event at $> 8 \sigma$ level. Not surprisingly, the error
485: ellipse of $\bpi_\e$ is elongated toward $\pi_{\rm E,\perp}$, i.e.,
486: the direction perpendicular to the position of the Sun at the peak of
487: event, projected onto the plane of the sky \citep{thickdisk,poindexter05}.
488: As a result, $\pi_{\e,{\rm E}}$ is much better determined than $\pi_{\e,{\rm N}}$,
489:
490: \begin{equation}
491: \pi_{\e,{\rm E}} = -0.26 \pm 0.05,\quad \pi_{\e,{\rm N}} = -0.30^{+0.24}_{-0.28} \qquad (\rm wide),
492: \label{eqn:parallax_wide}
493: \end{equation}
494: \begin{equation}
495: \pi_{\e,{\rm E}} = -0.27 \pm 0.05,\quad \pi_{\e,{\rm N}} = -0.36^{+0.24}_{-0.27} \qquad (\rm close).
496: \label{eqn:parallax_close}
497: \end{equation}
498:
499: Xallarap (light-curve distortion from reflex motion of the source due to a
500: binary companion) could provide an alternate explanation of the detected parallax signals.
501: In \S~\ref{sec:xallarap}, we find that the best-fit xallarap parameters are
502: consistent with those derived from the Earth's orbit, a result that favors
503: the parallax interpretation.
504:
505: \subsection{Fitting Planetary Orbital Motion
506: \label{sec:orbit}}
507: To model orbital motion, we adopt the simplest possible model, with uniform
508: expansion rate $\dot{b}$ in binary separation $b$ and uniform binary
509: rotation rate $\omega$. Because orbital effects are operative only for
510: about 4 days, while the orbital period is of order 10 years, this is
511: certainly adequate.
512: Interestingly, the orbital motion is more strongly detected
513: for the close solutions (at $\simge 5.5 \sigma$ level) than the wide solutions
514: (at $\sim 3 \sigma$ level), and as a result, it
515: significantly lessens the previous preference of the wide solution that
516: was found before orbital motion was taken into account. Further
517: discussions on planetary orbital
518: motion are given in \S~\ref{sec:planetorbit}.
519:
520: \subsection{Finite-source effects and Other Constraints
521: on $\theta_{\e}$
522: \label{sec:thetae}}
523:
524: \subsubsection{Color-Magnitude Diagram
525: \label{sec:cmd}}
526:
527: We follow the standard procedure to derive dereddened source
528: color and magnitude from the color-magnitude diagram (CMD) of the
529: observed field. Figure~\ref{fig:cmd} shows the calibrated OGLE CMD
530: (black), with the baseline source being displayed as a green point. The
531: $V-I$ color of the source can be determined in a model-independent
532: way from linear regression of the $I$-band and $V$-band observations.
533: The $I$-band magnitude of the source is also precisely determined
534: from the microlens model, and it is hardly affected by any higher order
535: effects. The center of red clump (red) is at
536: $(V-I,I)_{\rm clump} = (1.89, 15.67)$.
537: The Galactic coordinates of the source are at
538: $(l,b) = (355.58,-3.79)$. Because the Galactic bulge is a bar-like
539: structure that is inclined relative to the plane of the sky, the red clump density at this sky position peaks
540: behind the Galactic center by $0.15$ mag \citep{bar}.
541: Hence, we derive $(V-I, I)_{0,\rm clump} = (1.00, 14.47)$,
542: by adopting a Galactic distance $R_0 = 8\,\kpc$. We thereby
543: obtain the selective and total extinction toward the source
544: $[E(V-I), A_I] = (0.89, 1.20)$ and thus $R_{VI} = A_V/E(V-I) = 2.35$.
545: The dereddened color and magnitude of the source is
546: $((V-I), I)_{s,0} = (0.45, 18.31)$. From its dereddened color $(V-I)_0=0.45$, as well as its absolute
547: magnitude (assuming it is in the bulge) $M_I\sim 3.65$, we conclude
548: that the source is a main-sequence turnoff star.
549: Following the
550: method of \citet{yoo}, we transform $(V-I)_0 = 0.45$ to
551: $(V-K)_0 = 0.93$ \citep{bessel}, and based on the empirical
552: relation between the color and surface brightness for subgiant and main-sequence stars \citep{kervella},
553: we obtain the angular size of the source
554: \begin{equation}
555: \theta_* = 0.52 \times 10^{0.2 (19.51-I_s)} \pm 0.05 \,\muas,
556: \label{eqn:thetastar}
557: \end{equation}
558: where $I_s$ is the apparent magnitude of the source in the $I$ band.
559: Other features on the CMD shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cmd} are further
560: discussed in \S~\ref{sec:hst}.
561:
562: \subsubsection{Photometric Systematics of the Auckland Data set
563: \label{sec:auckland}}
564:
565: The Auckland data set's excellent coverage over the two peaks
566: makes it particularly useful for probing the finite-source
567: effects. Unlike the more drastic ``caustics crossings'' that
568: occur in some events,
569: the finite-source effects during ``cusp approaches''
570: are relatively subtle. Hence one must ensure that the
571: photometry is not affected
572: by systematics at the few percent level when
573: determining $\rho=\theta_*/\theta_\e$. The Auckland photometry
574: potentially suffers from two major systematic effects.
575:
576: First, the photometry of constant stars reduced by $\mu$FUN's DoPHOT
577: pipeline are found to show
578: sudden ``jumps'' of up to $\sim 10\%$ when the field crossed the
579: meridian each night. The signs and amplitudes of the ``jumps''
580: depend on the stars' positions on the CCD. The Auckland
581: telescope was on a German equatorial mount, and hence the camera
582: underwent a meridian flip. Due to scattered light, the flat-fielded
583: images were not uniform in
584: illumination for point sources, an effect that can be corrected
585: by making ``superflats'' with photometry of constant stars \citep{superflat}.
586: We have constructed such ``superflats'' for each
587: night of Auckland observations using 71 bright isolated comparison stars
588: across the frame. The DoPHOT instrumental magnitude $m_{i,j}$ for
589: star $i$ on frame $j$ is modeled by the following equation:
590: \begin{equation}
591: m_{i,j} = m_{0,i} - f(x_{i,j},y_{i,j}) - Z_j - fwhm_{i,j}\times s_i
592: \label{eqn:superflat}
593: \end{equation}
594: where $m_{0,i}$ is the corrected magnitude for star $i$,
595: $f(x,y)$ is a biquartic illumination correction as a function
596: of the $(x,y)$ position on the CCD frame with 14 parameters, $Z_j$ is
597: a zero-point parameter associated with each frame (but with $Z_1$
598: set to be zero), and $s_i$ is a linear correlation coefficient for
599: the seeing $fwhm_{i,j}$. A least-squares fit that recursively rejects 4-$\sigma$ outliers is performed
600: to minimize $\chi^2$. The best-fit $f(x,y)$ is dominated
601: by the linear terms and has small quadratic terms, while its
602: cubic and quartic terms are negligible. The resulting
603: reduced $\chi^2$ is close to unity, and the ``jumps'' for all
604: stars are effectively eliminated. We apply the biquartic
605: corrections to the images and then reduce the corrected images
606: using the DIA pipeline. The resulting DIA photometry of the
607: microlens target is essentially identical (at the $\sim 1\%$ level)
608: to that from the DIA reductions of the original Auckland images.
609:
610: As we now show, this is because DIA photometry automatically removes any artifacts
611: produced by the first- and second-order illumination distortions
612: if the sources are basically uniformly distributed across the
613: frame. For the first-order effect, a meridian flip about the
614: target (which is very close to center of the frame) will induce
615: a change in the flux from the source, but it will also
616: induce a change in the mean flux from all other stars in the
617: frame, which for a linear correction will be the same as the
618: change in position of the ``center of light'' of the frame
619: light. If the frame sources are uniformly distributed over the
620: frame, the ``center of light'' will be the center of the frame,
621: which is the same position as the source, therefore introducing
622: no effects. The second-order transformation is even
623: under a rotation of 180 degrees, whereas a meridian flip is odd under
624: this transformation. Hence the flip has no effects at second order.
625:
626: Second, the Auckland observations were unfiltered.
627: The amount of atmospheric extinction differs for stars with
628: different colors. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cmd}, the source is
629: much bluer than most of the bright stars in the field, which dominate
630: the reference image. So the amount of extinction
631: for the source is different from the average extinction over the
632: whole frame. This difference varies as the airmass changes over time
633: during the observations.
634: Coincidentally, the times of the two peaks were both near maximum
635: airmass when the ``differential extinction'' effect is expected to be
636: the most severe. To
637: investigate this effect, we match the isolated stars in the Auckland
638: frame with CTIO $I$ and $V$ photometry. We identify 33 bright,
639: reasonably isolated stars with $|(V-I) - (V-I)_s|< 0.25$. We
640: obtain a ``light curve'' for each of these stars, using
641: exactly the same DIA procedure as for the source. We measure the mean
642: magnitude of each of the 33 light curves and subtract this value from each
643: of the 508 points on each light curve, thereby obtaining residuals that are
644: presumably due primarily to airmass variation. For each of the 508
645: epochs, we then take the mean of all of these residuals. We recursively
646: remove outliers until all the remaining points are within $3\,\sigma$
647: of the mean, as defined by the scatter of the remaining points.
648: Typically, 1 or 2 of the 33 points are removed as outliers.
649: The deviations are well fitted by a straight line,
650: \begin{equation}
651: {d{\rm Mag}\over d Z} = 0.0347 \pm 0.0016
652: \label{eqn:color}
653: \end{equation}
654: where $Z$ is airmass. The sense of the effect is that stars with the
655: color of the microlensed source are systematically fainter at high
656: airmass, as expected. (We also tried fitting the data to a parabola
657: rather than a line, but the additional [quadratic] parameter was detected
658: at substantially below $1\,\sigma$.)\ \ Finally, we apply these
659: ``differential extinction'' corrections to the ``superflat''-adjusted
660: DIA photometry to remove both photometric systematics.
661:
662: In general, the finite-source effects depend on the
663: limb-darkening profile of the
664: source star in the observed passbands. We find below that in this case,
665: the impact proves to be extremely weak. Nevertheless, using the matched Auckland and
666: CTIO stars, we study the difference between Auckland magnitudes and
667: $I$-band magnitude as a function of the $V-I$ color. We find the
668: Auckland clear filter is close to the $R$ band.
669:
670: \subsubsection{Blending in Palomar and MDM Data
671: \label{sec:MDMblend}}
672:
673:
674: Palomar data cover only about 80 minutes, but these include
675: the cresting of the second peak, from which we derive essentially
676: all information about finite-source effects. The Palomar data
677: are sensitive to these effects through their curvature.
678: The curvature derived from the raw data can be arbitrarily
679: augmented in the fit (and therefore the finite-source
680: effects arbitrarily suppressed) by increasing the blending.
681: In general, the blending at any observatory is constrained
682: by observations at substantially different magnifications,
683: typically on different nights. However, no such constraints
684: are available for Palomar, since observations were carried
685: out on only one night.
686:
687: We therefore set the Palomar blending $f_b = 0.2\,f_s$, that is,
688: similar to the OGLE blending. That is, we assume that
689: the observed flux variation of 9\%, over the Palomar night, actually
690: reflects a magnification variation of
691: $9\%/[1 - f_b/Af_s] = 9\% + 0.026\%$, where $A\sim 70$
692: is the approximate magnification on that night. If our estimate
693: of the blending were in error by of order unity (i.e. either
694: $f_b=0$ or $f_b=0.4\,f_s$), then the implied error in the magnification
695: difference would be 0.026\%, which is more than an order of magnitude
696: below the measurement errors. Hence, the assumption of fixed blending
697: does not introduce ``spurious information'' into the fit even at
698: the $1\,\sigma$ level. MDM data cover the second peak for only
699: $\sim 18$ minutes. For consistency, we treat its blending in the
700: same way as Palomar, although the practical impact of this data set is an order of magnitude smaller.
701:
702: \subsubsection{Modeling the Finite-Source Effects
703: \label{sec:finitesource}}
704:
705: After careful tests that are described immediately below, we determined
706: that all finite-source calculations can be carried out to an accuracy
707: of $10^{-4}$ using the hexadecapole approximation of \citet{hex}
708: (see also \citealt{ondrej}).
709: This sped up calculations by several orders of magnitude. We began by
710: conducting MCMC simulations using the ``loop linking'' finite-source code
711: described in Appendix A of \citet{ob04343}. From these simulations, we
712: found the $4.5\,\sigma$ upper bound on the finite-source parameter
713: $\rho(4.5\,\sigma)=0.001$. We then examined the differences between
714: loop-linking (set at ultra-high precision) and hexadecapole for
715: light curves at this extreme limit and found a maximum difference of
716: $10^{-4}$.
717: Based on \citet{claret}, we adopt linear limb-darkening coefficients
718: $\Gamma_I = 0.35$ for the I-band observations and $\Gamma_R = 0.43$
719: for the observations performed in the R-band and the clear filters,
720: where the local surface brightness is given by $S(\theta) \propto 1-
721: \Gamma[1-1.5(1-\theta^2/\theta_*^2)^{1/2}]$.
722: Ten additional MCMC runs are performed with $\Gamma_I$ and $\Gamma_R$ that
723: differ from the above values by $0.1$ or $0.2$. They result
724: in essentially the same probability distributions of $\rho$. Therefore, the choice of limb-darkening parameters has no effect on the results. The source size is found to be $\rho = 3.9^{+1.8}_{-2.7}$ for the wide solution
725: and $\rho = 3.1^{+1.7}_{-2.5}$ for the close solution.
726: Solutions with $\rho > 0.0009$ are ruled out at more than $3 \sigma$.
727: The angular Einstein radius is given by $\theta_\e = \theta_* / \rho$. Hence,
728: the lack of pronounced finite-source effects yields a $3 \sigma$ lower
729: limit: $\theta_\e > 0.6\,\mas$. The lens-source relative proper motion
730: in the geocentric frame is simply $\mu_{\rm geo} = \theta_\e / t_\e$.
731: The posterior probability distributions of $\bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo}$ derived from these MCMC simulations are compared with those derived from astrometry in
732: \S~\ref{sec:astrometry}.
733:
734: \subsection{{\it HST} Astrometry
735: \label{sec:astrometry}}
736:
737: {\it HST} observations were taken at two epochs (${\rm HJD} = 2453513.6$
738: and ${\rm HJD} = 2453788.2$) with the ACS High Resolution Camera (HRC).
739: For each epoch, 4 dithered images were acquired in each of F814W and F555W with
740: individual exposure times of 225s and 315s respectively. The position of
741: the microlens on the {\it HST} frame is in excellent agreement with its
742: centroid on the OGLE difference image (within $\sim 0\arcsec.01$). The
743: closest star to the source is about $0\arcsec.6$ away. This implies that
744: the OGLE photometry of the target star does not contain additional blended light
745: that would be identifiable from the
746: {\it HST} images. Data analysis was carried out using the software
747: program {\tt img2xym\_HRC} \citep{hrc} in a manner similar to that described in
748: \citet{bennett06}. Stars are
749: fitted with an empirical ``library'' PSF that was derived from well-populated
750: globular cluster fields. These positions
751: are then corrected with precise distortion-correction models
752: (accurate to $\sim 0.01$ pixel).
753: We adopted the first F555W frame of the first epoch as the reference frame,
754: and used the measured positions of stars in this frame and the frame of
755: each exposure to define a linear transformation between the exposure
756: frame and the reference frame. This allowed us to transform the position
757: of the target star in each exposure into the reference frame, so that we
758: see how the target star had moved relative to the other stars.
759: The centroid positions of the target star in each
760: filter and epoch are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:hst}. For convenience,
761: in this figure, the positions are displayed relative to the average
762: of the centroid positions. The error bars are derived from
763: the internal scatter of the four dithered images.
764: The probability is $P = 38\%$ of measuring the observed separation
765: (or larger) between F814W and F555W under the assumption that the true offset
766: is zero. The fact that the blended light is aligned with the source argues
767: that it is associated with the event (either it is the lens
768: itself or a companion to the lens or the source). We give a more quantitative
769: statement of this constraint in \S~\ref{sec:hst}. For the present
770: we simply note that the $P = 38\%$ probability is
771: compatible with the picture that the blend is due to the lens since the first epoch
772: was only about half of the Einstein-radius crossing time after $t_0$, implying
773: that the lens-source separation induces only a very small centroid offset,
774: well below the {\it HST} detection limit.
775: For the second epoch, the centroid offset is,
776: \begin{equation}
777: \Delta{{\bf r}_{{{\rm F814W} - {\rm F555W}}, {\rm East}}} = -0.52 \pm 0.20 \, {\rm mas},
778: \qquad \Delta{{\bf r}_{{{\rm F814W} - {\rm F555W}},{\rm North}}} = 0.22 \pm 0.20 \, {\rm mas}.
779: \label{eqn:second}
780: \end{equation}
781: We also calculate the error in the centroid offsets from
782: the scatter in such offsets among all comparison stars with
783: F555W magnitudes within $0.5 \,{\rm mag}$ of the target and find that
784: it is consistent with the internally-based error quoted above.
785:
786: At the peak of the event, the angular separation between
787: the lens and the source was negligible, since $u_0 \ll 1$. We therefore
788: fix the
789: angular positions of the lens and source at a common $\bdv{\theta_{0}}$.
790: From the CMD (Fig.~\ref{fig:cmd}), most of the stars in the {\it HST} field
791: are from the bulge. So we set a reference frame that is fixed with
792: respect to the bulge field at distance $D_{s}$. The source and lens
793: positions at time $t$ are then,
794: \begin{eqnarray}
795: \bdv{\theta_{s}}(t) & = & \bdv{\theta_{0}} + \bdv{\mu_{s}}(t-t_0),\nonumber \\
796: \bdv{\theta_{l}}(t) & = & \bdv{\theta_{0}} + \bdv{\mu_{l}}(t-t_0) +
797: \pi_{\rm rel} [{\bdv{s}}(t) - {\bdv{s}}(t_0)],
798: \label{eqn:astrometry_s_l}
799: \end{eqnarray}
800: where ${\bdv{s}}(t)$ is the Earth-to-Sun vector defined by Gould (2004).
801: Then by applying equations~(\ref{eqn:mu_hel}) and~(\ref{eqn:mu_convert}),
802: the angular separation between the lens and source is,
803: \begin{eqnarray}
804: \bdv{\theta_{\rm rel}}(t) = \bdv{\theta_{l}}(t) - \bdv{\theta_{s}}(t) =
805: \bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo} (t - t_0) + \pi_{\rm rel}\Delta{{\bdv{s}}(t)}
806: \end{eqnarray}
807: where $\Delta{\bdv{s}}(t)$ is given by eq.\ (5) in \citet{gould04}.
808:
809: The
810: centroid of the source images $\bdv \theta^{\prime}_{s}$ is displaced from the source position
811: by \citep{walker},
812:
813: \begin{eqnarray}
814: {\bdv \Delta{\bdv \theta_{s}}(t)} = \bdv{\theta_{s}^{\prime}}(t) - \bdv{\theta_{s}}(t)
815: =
816: {-\bdv{\theta_{\rm rel}}(t)
817: \over
818: {[{\theta_{\rm rel}(t) / \theta_{\rm E}}]^2 } + 2
819: }
820: \label{eqn:astrometry_b}
821: \end{eqnarray}
822:
823: Therefore, one can obtain the centroid position of the lens and the source at time $t$,
824: \begin{eqnarray}
825: \bdv{\theta_{c}}(t) & = & [1-f_l(t)] [\bdv{\theta_{s}}(t) + {\bdv \Delta{\bdv \theta_{s}}(t)}]+ f_l(t) \bdv{\theta_{l}}(t) \nonumber \\
826: & = & \bdv{\theta_{0}} + \bdv{\mu_{s}}(t-t_0) + {\bdv \theta_{\rm rel}(t)[f_l(t) + {1- f_l(t) \over [{\theta_{\rm rel}(t) / \theta_{\rm E}}]^2 + 2}}]
827: \label{eqn:astrometry_c}
828: \end{eqnarray}
829: where $f_l(t)$ is the fraction of the total flux due to the lens.
830:
831: The centroid offset between the two passbands, F814W and F555W,
832: is related to the properties of the system by,
833: \begin{equation}
834: \Delta{{\bdv{\theta}_c}(t)_{{\rm F814W} - {\rm F555W}}} = [f(t)_{l,{\rm F814W}} - f(t)_{l,{\rm F555W}}]
835: \times[1 - {1 \over [{\theta_{\rm rel}(t) / \theta_{\rm E}}]^2 + 2}]{\bdv \theta_{\rm rel}(t)}.
836: \label{eqn:centroid_color}
837: \end{equation}
838: The difference of the blend's fractional flux between F814W and F555W is obtained from ``MCMC A'' described in \S~\ref{sec:hst}.
839: Consequently, under the assumption that the blend is the lens, we can use
840: the measurement of the second-epoch {\it HST} centroid offset to estimate
841: the relative proper motion from equation~(\ref{eqn:centroid_color}) for a
842: given $\pi_{\rm rel}$.
843: For purposes of illustration,
844: we temporarily adopt $\pi_{\rm rel} = 0.2$ when
845: calculating the probability distribution of $\bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo}$ (black contours
846: in the upper panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:mu_hst}).
847: The centroid shift generally favors faster relative proper motion than that
848: derived from the source size measurement
849: (green contours in Fig.~\ref{fig:mu_hst}), but the difference is
850: only at the $\sim 1\sigma$ level. We then get a joint probability
851: distribution of $\bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo}$ from both finite-source effects and astrometry,
852: which is shown as the red contours in the upper panels of Figure~\ref{fig:mu_hst}.
853:
854: We then derive the distribution of the $\bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo}$ position angle $\phi_{\bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo}}$ (North
855: through East), which is shown by the red histograms in the lower panels
856: of Figure~\ref{fig:mu_hst}. Since the direction of the lens-source relative proper
857: motion $\bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo}$ is the same as that of the microlens
858: parallax $\bdv{\pi}_{\e}$ in the geocentric frame, we have an independent
859: check on the $\phi_{\bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo}}$ from our parallax measurements,
860: whose distribution is plotted as blue histograms in Figure~\ref{fig:mu_hst}.
861: Both constraints favor the lens-source proper motion to be generally West,
862: but they disagree in the North-South component for which both constraints
863: are weaker. The disagreements
864: between two histograms is at about $2.5\sigma$ level.
865:
866: \subsection{``Seeing'' the Blend with {\it HST}
867: \label{sec:hst}}
868: If the blend were not the lens (or otherwise associated with the event),
869: the PSF of the source would likely be broadened
870: by the blended star. We examine the {\it HST} F814W images of the target and 45
871: nearby stars with similar brightness for each available exposure. We fit
872: them with the library PSF produced by \citet{hrc}.
873: In order to account for breathing-related changes of focus,
874: we fit each of these 45 nearby stars with the library PSF, and construct
875: a residual PSF that can be added to the library PSF to produce a PSF that
876: is tailor-made for each exposure.
877: For both epochs, the source-blend combination shows no detectable broadening
878: relative to the PSFs of other isolated stars in the field.
879: From the ground-based light curve, it is already known that $\sim 16\%$ of
880: this light comes from the blend. We add simulated stars with the same flux
881: as the blended light from 0 to 2.0 pixels away from the
882: center of the source. We find that the blend would have produced detectable
883: broadening of the PSF if it were more than $15\,\mas$ apart from the source
884: at the second epoch. Hence, the source-blend separation must then be less
885: than about $15\,\mas$. From the {\it HST} image itself, the density of
886: ambient stars at similar magnitudes is $\la 1\,\rm arcsec^{-2}$.
887: The probability of a chance interloper is therefore $<0.07\%$, implying that
888: the blended light is almost certainly associated with the event, i.e.,
889: either the lens itself, a companion to the lens, or a companion to the source.
890: Both of the latter options are further constrained in \S~\ref{sec:nonlum} where,
891: in particular, we essentially rule out the lens-companion scenario.
892:
893: As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:overview}, the blended flux in $I$ is
894: relatively well determined from the ground-based OGLE data alone, but the blended
895: $V$ flux is poorly determined, primarily because the systematic uncertainty
896: in the zero point of the baseline flux (determined from PSF fitting)
897: is of the same order as the blended flux. Because the {\it HST} image
898: is very sparse, there is essentially no zero-point error in the
899: {\it HST} $V$-band flux.
900: The problem is how to divide the baseline $V$ flux
901: into source and blend fluxes, $F_{\rm base}= F_{s}+F_{b}$.
902:
903: The standard method of doing this decomposition would be to incorporate the
904: {\it HST} $V$ light curve into the overall fit, which would
905: automatically yield the required decomposition. Since this ``light curve''
906: consists of two points, the ``fit'' can be expressed analytically
907: \begin{equation}
908: F_{s} = {F(t_1) - F(t_2)\over A_1 - 1},
909: \qquad F_{b} = F(t_2) - F_{s}.
910: \label{eqn:hstfit}
911: \end{equation}
912: where we have made the approximation that the second
913: observation is at baseline. Let us then estimate the resulting errors in
914: $F_{s}$ and $F_{b}$, ignoring for the moment that there is
915: some uncertainty in $A_1$ due to uncertainties in the general model.
916: Each of the individual flux measurement is determined from 4 separate
917: subexposures, and this permits estimates of the errors from the
918: respective scatters. These are $\sigma_1=0.01$ and $\sigma_2=0.03$
919: mag. Hence, the fractional error in $F_{s}$ is
920: $(2.5/\ln 10)\sigma(F_{s})/F_{s} =
921: [\sigma_1^2(A_1+r)^2 + \sigma_2^2(1+r)^2]^{1/2}/(A_1 - 1)$, where
922: $r\equiv F_{b}/F_{s}$.
923: Adopting, for purposes of illustration, $A_1=2$ and $r=0.1$, this
924: implies an error $\sigma(V_{{s},HST})$ of 0.04 mag. This may not
925: seem very large, but after the subtraction in equation~(\ref{eqn:hstfit}),
926: it implies an error $\sigma(V_{{b}, HST}) \sim
927: \sigma(V_{{s},HST})/r \sim 0.4$ mag. And taking into account of
928: the uncertainties introduced by model fitting in determining the
929: magnifications, the error is expected to be even larger. Hence, we
930: undertake an alternate approach.
931:
932: Because the {\it HST} and OGLE $V$ filters have very nearly the same
933: wavelength center, $V_{{s}, HST}$ should be nearly identical to
934: $V_{s, \rm OGLE}$ up to a possible zero-point offset on their
935: respective magnitude scales. Because the OGLE data contain many more
936: points during the event, some at much higher magnification than the
937: single {\it HST} event point, $V_{s, \rm OGLE}$ is determined
938: extremely well (for fixed microlensing model), much better than the
939: 0.04 mag error for $V_{{s},HST}$. Thus, if the zero-point offset
940: between the two systems can be determined to better than 0.04 mag,
941: this method will be superior. Although the $I$-band blend is much better
942: measured than the $V$-band blend from the ground-based data,
943: for consistency we determine the zero-point offset in $I$ by the same
944: procedure.
945:
946: Figure~\ref{fig:hstogle} shows differences between OGLE and {\it HST}
947: $V$ magnitudes for matched stars in the {\it HST} image.
948: The error for each star and observatory is determined from the scatter among
949: measurements of that star. We consider only points with $V<19.5$
950: because at fainter magnitudes the scatter grows considerably. Each star
951: was inspected on the {\it HST} images, and those that would be
952: significantly blended on the OGLE image were eliminated. The remaining points
953: are fit to an average offset by adding a ``cosmic error''
954: in quadrature to the errors shown. We carry out this calculation twice,
955: once including the ``outlier'' (shown as a filled circle) and once with
956: this object excluded. For the $V$ band, we find offsets of
957: $V_{HST} - V_{\rm OGLE}= 0.17 \pm 0.01$ and $0.18 \pm 0.01$, respectively.
958: We adopt the following the $V$-band offset
959: \begin{equation}
960: \Delta{V} = V_{HST} - V_{\rm OGLE}= 0.18 \pm 0.01.
961: \label{eqn:hstoglev}
962: \end{equation}
963:
964: A similar analysis of the $I$ band leads to
965: \begin{equation}
966: \Delta{I} = I_{HST} - I_{\rm OGLE}= 0.08 \pm 0.01.
967: \label{eqn:hstoglei}
968: \end{equation}
969: We find no obvious color terms for either the $V$-band
970: or $I$-band transformations. As a check, we perform linear regression
971: to compare the OGLE and {\it HST} $(V-I)$ colors, and we find they
972: agree within 0.01 mag, which further confirms the color terms are
973: unlikely to be significant in the above transformations.
974:
975: We proceed as follows to make {\it HST}-based MCMC (``MCMC A'') estimates
976: of $V_{b, {\rm OGLE}}$ and $I_{b, {\rm OGLE}}$ that place the blending
977: star on the OGLE-based CMD.
978: Since flux parameters are linear, they are often left free and fitted
979: by linear least-squares minimization, which significantly accelerates
980: the computations. However, for ``MCMC A'', the source fluxes from OGLE
981: and {\it HST}
982: are treated as independent MCMC parameters so that they can
983: help align the two photometric systems as described below. Since {\it HST}
984: blended light is not affected by light from ambient stars (as OGLE is),
985: we also leave {\it HST} blended fluxes as independent.
986: Therefore, in ``MCMC A'', we include the following independent MCMC
987: flux parameters,
988: $F_{I,s, {\rm OGLE}}$, $F_{V,{s}, {\rm OGLE}}$,
989: $F_{I,s, {HST}}$, $F_{V,s, {\it HST}}$,
990: $F_{I,b, {HST}}$, and $F_{V,{b}, {\it HST}}$,
991: which for convenience we express here as magnitudes. For each model on
992: the chain, we add to the light-curve based $\chi^2$ two additional terms
993: $\Delta\chi^2_{V} = (V_{{s},HST}-V_{s,\rm OGLE}-\Delta V)^2/
994: [\sigma(\Delta V)]^2$ and
995: $\Delta\chi^2_{I} = (I_{{s},{\it HST}}-I_{s,{\rm OGLE}}-\Delta I)^2/
996: [\sigma(\Delta I)]^2$ to enforce the measured offset between the two
997: systems.
998: Finally, we evaluate the $V$-band blended flux from {\it HST} and
999: convert it to OGLE system, $V_{b, {\rm OGLE}/{\it HST}}=
1000: V_{s, {\rm OGLE}}-V_{s,{\it HST}}+V_{{b},{\it HST}}$ (and similarly
1001: for $I$ band), where all three terms on the rhs are the individual Monte Carlo realizations of the respective parameters.
1002:
1003: The result is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cmd}, in which the
1004: blend (magenta) is placed on the OGLE CMD. Also shown, in cyan points, is
1005: {\it HST} photometry (aligned to the OGLE system) of the stars in the
1006: ACS subfield of the OGLE field. Although this field is much smaller,
1007: its stars trace the main sequence to much fainter magnitudes.
1008: The blend falls well within the bulge main sequence revealed by the
1009: {\it HST} stars on the CMD, so naively the blend can be
1010: interpreted as being in the bulge. Hence, this diagram is, in itself, most
1011: simply explained by the blend being a bulge lens or a binary companion of
1012: the source. However, the measurement of $V-I$ color has
1013: relatively large uncertainty, and it is also consistent with the blend
1014: being the lens (or a companion to it) several kpc in front of the bulge,
1015: provided the blend is somewhat redder than indicated by the best-fit
1016: value of its color. In the following section, we assume the blended light
1017: seen by {\it HST} is the foreground lens star, and the {\it HST} photometry
1018: is combined with other information to put constraints on the lens star
1019: under this assumption.
1020:
1021:
1022: \subsection{Final Physical Constraints on the Lens and
1023: Planet}
1024: \label{sec:final}
1025:
1026: \subsubsection{Constraints on a Luminous Lens}
1027: \label{sec:finalresults}
1028: In the foregoing, we have discussed two types of constraints on the
1029: host star properties: the first class of constraints, consisting of
1030: independent measurements of $\bdv{\pi_\e}$, $\theta_\e$ and $\bdv{\mu}$,
1031: relate the microlens parameters to the physical parameters of the lens;
1032: the second class are {\it HST} and ground-based observations that
1033: determine the photometric properties
1034: of the blend.
1035:
1036: In this section, we first describe a new set of
1037: MCMC simulations taking all these constraints into account.
1038: Similarly to what is done to include {\it HST} photometry in the ``MCMC A''
1039: (see \S~\ref{sec:hst}), we incorporate {\it HST} astrometry constraints
1040: by adding $\chi^2$ penalties to the fittings.
1041: For a given set of microlens parameters, we can derive the physical
1042: parameters, namely, $M$, $\pi_{\rm rel}$, $\bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo}$, and so
1043: calculate $\rho = \theta_*/\theta_{\e}$ (from eq.~[\ref{eqn:observables}])
1044: and the F814W $-$ F555W centroid offset (from eq.~[\ref{eqn:centroid_color}]).
1045: Then we assign the $\chi^2$ penalties based on the observed centroid
1046: offset from \S~\ref{sec:astrometry}. In this way, the MCMC simulations
1047: simultaneously include all microlens constraints on the lens properties.
1048: The posterior probability distribution of $M$ and $\pi_{\rm rel}$ are
1049: plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:mass_pirel}. The $\pi_{\rm rel}$ determination
1050: very strongly excludes a bulge ($\pi_{\rm rel} \lesssim 0.05$) lens. Note that
1051: by incorporating {\it HST} astrometry, we implicitly assume
1052: that the blend is the lens.
1053:
1054: If the blend is indeed the lens itself, we can also estimate its mass and
1055: distance from the measured color and magnitude of the blend.
1056: In doing so, we use theoretical stellar isochrones (M. Pinsonneault 2007, private communication) incorporating the color-temperature
1057: relation by \citet{iso1,iso2}. We first use an isochrone that has solar
1058: metal abundance, with stellar masses ranging from $0.25 M_\odot - 1.0 M_\odot$,
1059: and an age of $4 \,{\rm Gyrs}$. The variation in stellar brightness due
1060: to stellar age is negligible for our purpose. Extinction is modeled as a
1061: function of $D_l$ by $d{A_I}/d{D_l} = (0.4\,\kpc^{-1})\exp({-w{D_l}})$,
1062: where $w$ is set to be $0.31\,\kpc^{-1}$ so that the observed value
1063: $A_I(8.6\,\kpc) = 1.20$ (as derived from CMD discussed in \S~\ref{sec:cmd})
1064: is reproduced. Again, the distance to the source is assumed to be $8.6\,\kpc$,
1065: implying $\pi_s = 0.116\,$mas, and hence that the lens distance is
1066: $D_l/\kpc = \mas/(\pi_\rel + \pi_s)$.
1067: In Figure~\ref{fig:mass_pirel},
1068: we show the lens mass $M$ and relative parallax $\pi_{\rm rel}$
1069: derived from the isochrone that correspond to
1070: the observed $I$-band magnitude $I = 21.3$ in black line
1071: and a series of $V-I$ values $V-I = 1.8\,({\rm best\,estimate})$,
1072: $2.0\,(0.5\,\sigma)$, $2.1\,(1\,\sigma)$, $2.3\,(1.5\,\sigma)$ and
1073: $2.6\,(2\,\sigma)$ as black points. The observed color is in modest
1074: disagreement $< 2 \sigma$ with the mass and distance of the lens at
1075: solar metallicity. We also show analogous trajectories for ${\rm [M/H]} = -0.5$ (red) and ${\rm [M/H]} = -1.0$ (green). The level of agreement
1076: changes only very weakly with metallicity.
1077:
1078: We then include the isochrone information in a new set of MCMC runs
1079: (``MCMC B'').
1080: To do so, the {\it HST} blended fluxes in $I$ and $V$ bands can no longer
1081: be treated as independent MCMC parameters. Instead, based on the isochrone with solar
1082: metallicity, the lens $V-I$ color and $I$ magnitude
1083: are predicted at the lens mass and distance determined from MCMC parameters.
1084: Then the {\it HST} $I$-band and $V$-band fluxes are fixed at the
1085: predicted values in the fitting for each MCMC realization.
1086:
1087: Figure~\ref{fig:mass_pirel2} illustrates
1088: the constraints on $M$ and $\pi_{\rm rel}$ from the MCMC, which
1089: are essentially the same for both wide-binary (solid contours)
1090: and close-binary (dashed contours) solutions:
1091: \begin{equation}
1092: M = 0.46 \pm 0.04 \,M_\odot,
1093: \qquad \pi_{\rm rel} = 0.19 \pm 0.03 \,\mas.
1094: \label{eqn:mass_pirel}
1095: \end{equation}
1096: Assuming the source distance at $8.6 \,\kpc$, the $\pi_{\rm rel}$
1097: estimates translate to the following lens distance measurement:
1098: \begin{equation}
1099: D_l = 3.2 \pm 0.4 \,\kpc.
1100: \label{eqn:distance}
1101: \end{equation}
1102:
1103: Furthermore, we can derive constraints on the planet mass $M_p$ and the
1104: projected separation between the planet and the lens star $r_\perp$,
1105: \begin{equation}
1106: M_p = 3.8 \pm 0.4 M_{\rm Jupiter},
1107: \qquad r_{\perp} = 3.6 \pm 0.2 {\rm AU} \qquad ({\rm wide}),
1108: \label{eqn:planet_w}
1109: \end{equation}
1110: and
1111: \begin{equation}
1112: M_p = 3.4 \pm 0.4 M_{\rm Jupiter},
1113: \qquad r_{\perp} = 2.1 \pm 0.1 {\rm AU} \qquad ({\rm close}).
1114: \label{eqn:planet_c}
1115: \end{equation}
1116: The wide solution is slightly preferred over close solution
1117: by $\Delta{\chi^2} = 2.1$.
1118:
1119: To examine possible
1120: uncertainties in extinction estimates, we reran our MCMC
1121: with $A_I$ and $A_V$ that are $10 \%$ higher and lower than the
1122: fiducial values. These runs result in very similar estimates as when
1123: adopting the fiducial values.
1124:
1125: From equations~(\ref{eqn:astrometry_c}) and ~(\ref{eqn:astrometry_b}), one can easily obtain the centroid
1126: shift between two epochs in a given passband by ignoring
1127: ${\bdv \Delta{\bdv \theta_{s}}(t)}$ \footnote{
1128: The angular
1129: separations between the source and the lens are $\sim 0.47 \theta_{\e}$
1130: and $\sim 4.4 \theta_{\e}$ for the two {\it HST} epochs, respectively.
1131: Thus the angular position offsets between the centroids of the source
1132: images and the source are both $\sim 0.21 \theta_{\e}$ and the directions
1133: of the offset relative to the source are almost the same due to the
1134: small impact parameter $u_0$. The difference between lens flux
1135: fractions of the two epochs are about $7\%$ in $I$ band, so the offsets
1136: can be confidently ignored in deriving the source proper motion using the
1137: relative astrometry in F814W at two different epochs.},
1138: \begin{eqnarray}
1139: \bdv{\theta_{c}}(t_2) - \bdv{\theta_{c}}(t_1) & = & \bdv{\mu_{s}}(t_2-t_1) + \bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo} [f_l(t_2)(t_2 - t_0) - f_l(t_1)(t_1 - t_0)] \nonumber\\
1140: && + \pi_{\rm rel}[f_l(t_2) \Delta{{\bdv{s}}(t_2)} - f_l(t_1) \Delta{{\bdv{s}}(t_1)}]
1141: \label{eqn:centroid_c}
1142: \end{eqnarray}
1143:
1144: Because $\bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo}$, $\pi_{\rm rel}$ and $f_l$ in a given
1145: passband can be extracted from the MCMC realizations (``MCMC B''), we can
1146: use the above equation to measure the source proper motion by making use
1147: of the centroid shift in F814W between two epochs. The source proper motion with
1148: respect to the mean motion of stars in the {\it HST} field is measured to be
1149: \begin{equation}
1150: \bdv{\mu_{s}} = (\mu_{s,E},\, \mu_{s,N}) = (2.0 \pm 0.2,\,-0.5^{+0.2}_{-0.7})\,{\rm mas}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.
1151: \label{eqn:mus}
1152: \end{equation}
1153: We obtain similar results with F555W, but with understandably larger errorbars
1154: since the astrometry is more precise for the microlens in F814W.
1155:
1156: Combining equations~(\ref{eqn:mu_hel}) and~(\ref{eqn:mu_convert}), the lens proper motion in the heliocentric frame is therefore
1157: \begin{equation}
1158: \bdv{\mu}_{l} = \bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo} + \bdv{\mu}_{s} +
1159: {{\bdv{v}}_{\earth} \pi_{\rm rel}\over{\rm AU}}.
1160: \label{eqn:helio}
1161: \end{equation}
1162: For each MCMC realization, $\pi_{\rm rel}$ is known, so we can convert the
1163: lens proper motion to the velocity of the lens in the heliocentric frame
1164: $\bdv{v}_{l, \rm hel}$ and also in the frame of local standard of rest
1165: $\bdv{v}_{l, \rm LSR}$ (we ignore the rotation of the galactic bulge). The
1166: lens velocity in the LSR is estimated to be $v_{l, \rm LSR} = 103 \pm 15\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$. This raises
1167: the possibility of the lens being in the thick disk, in which the stars
1168: are typically metal-poor. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:mass_pirel},
1169: the constraints we have cannot resolve the metallicity of the lens star.
1170: \subsubsection{Planetary Orbital Motion
1171: \label{sec:planetorbit}}
1172: \paragraph{Wide/Close Degeneracy
1173: \label{sec:wideclose}}
1174: Binary-lens light curves in general exhibit a well-known ``close-wide''
1175: symmetry (\citealt{dominik99, jin05}). Even for some well-covered
1176: caustics-crossing events (e.g., \citealt{macho98smc1}), there are quite
1177: degenerate sets of solutions between wide and close binaries.
1178: In Paper I, we found that the best-fit point-source wide-binary solution
1179: was preferred over close-binary solutions by $\Delta{\chi^2} \sim 22$. But this did
1180: not necessarily mean that the wide-close binary degeneracy was broken, since
1181: the two classes of binaries may be influenced differently by higher order
1182: effects.
1183: We find that the $\chi^2$ difference between best-fit wide and
1184: close solutions is within 1 from ``MCMC A'' and $2.1$ (positive $u_0$)
1185: or $2.2$ (negative $u_0$) from ``MCMC B''.
1186:
1187: However, orbital motion of the planet is subject to additional dynamical
1188: constraints: the projected velocity of the planet should be no greater
1189: than the escape velocity of the system:
1190: $v_{\perp} \leq v_{\rm esc}$, where,
1191: \begin{equation}
1192: v_{\perp} = \sqrt{\dot{d}^2 + (\omega d)^2} {{\rm AU}\over\pi_{l}} \theta_\e,
1193: \label{eqn:proj}
1194: \end{equation}
1195: \begin{equation}
1196: v_{\rm esc} = \sqrt{2 G M \over r} \leq v_{\rm esc,\perp} \equiv
1197: \sqrt{2 G M \over d \theta_\e {D_{l}}} = \sqrt{\pi_{l} \over {2 d \pi_\e}}c,
1198: \label{eqn:esc}
1199: \end{equation}
1200: and where $r$ is the instantaneous 3-dimensional planet-star physical separation.
1201: Note that in the last step, we have used equation~(\ref{eqn:observables}).
1202:
1203: We then calculate the probability distribution of the ratio
1204: \begin{equation}
1205: \label{eqn:vrat}
1206: {v_\perp^2\over v_{\rm esc,\perp}^2} =
1207: 2{{\rm AU}^2\over c^2}
1208: {d^3[(\dot d/d)^2 + \omega^2] \over [\pi_\e + (\pi_s/\theta_\e)]^3}
1209: {\pi_\e\over\theta_\e}
1210: \end{equation}
1211: for an ensemble of MCMC realizations for both wide and close solutions.
1212: Figure~\ref{fig:rotationplot} shows probability distributions of
1213: the projected velocity $r_{\perp} \bdv{\gamma}$ in the units
1214: of critical velocity $v_{\rm c,\perp}$, where $r_{\perp} \bdv{\gamma}$
1215: is the instantaneous velocity of the planet on the sky,
1216: which is further discussed in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendcirc} and $
1217: v_{\rm c,\perp} = v_{\rm esc,\perp}/\sqrt{2}$. The dotted circle
1218: encloses the solutions that are allowed by the escape velocity criteria,
1219: and the solutions that are inside the solid line are consistent
1220: with circular orbital motion. We find that the best-fit
1221: close-binary solutions are physically allowed while the best-fit wide-binary
1222: solutions are excluded by these physical constraints at $1.6\,\sigma$.
1223: The physically excluded best-fit wide solutions are favored by
1224: $\Delta{\chi^2} = 2.1$ (or 2.2) over the close solutions, so by putting physical
1225: constraints, the degenerate solutions are statistically not distinguishable
1226: at $1\,\sigma$.
1227:
1228: \paragraph{Circular Planetary Orbits and Planetary Parameters}
1229: \label{sec:circular}
1230: Planetary deviations in microlensing light curves are intrinsically
1231: short, so in most cases, only the instantaneous projected distance
1232: between the planet and the host star can be extracted. As shown in
1233: \S~\ref{sec:wideclose}, for this event, we tentatively measure the
1234: instantaneous projected velocity of the planet thanks to the relatively
1235: long $(\sim 4 \,{\rm days})$ duration of the planetary signal. One
1236: cannot solve for the full set of orbital parameters
1237: just from the instantaneous projected position and velocity.
1238: However, as we show in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendcirc}, we can tentatively
1239: derive orbital parameters by assuming that the planet follows a circular orbit
1240: around the host star. In Figure~\ref{fig:orbit},
1241: we show the probability distributions of the semimajor axis, inclination,
1242: amplitude of radial velocity, and equilibrium temperature of the planet
1243: derived from ``MCMC B'' for both wide and close solutions.
1244: The equilibrium temperature is defined to be
1245: $T_{\rm eq}\equiv
1246: (L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm bol,\odot})^{1/4}(2a/R_\odot)^{-1/2}T_\odot$,
1247: where $L_{\rm bol}$ is the bolometric luminosity of the host,
1248: $a$ is the planet semimajor axis, and
1249: $L_{\rm bol,\odot}$, $R_\odot$, and $T_\odot$ are the luminosity,
1250: radius, and effective temperature of the Sun, respectively. This would
1251: give the Earth an equilibrium temperature of $T_{\rm eq} = 285\,$K.
1252: In calculating these probabilities, we assign a flat
1253: (\"{O}pik's Law) prior for the semimajor axis
1254: and assume that the orbits are randomly oriented, that is,
1255: with a uniform prior on $\cos i$.
1256:
1257: \subsection{{Constraints on a Non-Luminous Lens}}
1258: \label{sec:nonlum}
1259:
1260: In \S~\ref{sec:hst}, we noted that the blended light must lie within $15\,\mas$
1261: of the source: otherwise the {\it HST} images would appear extended.
1262: We argued that the blended light must be associated with the event
1263: (either the lens itself or a companion to either the source or lens),
1264: since the chance of such an alignment by a random field star is $<0.07\%$.
1265: In fact, even stronger constraints can be placed on the blend-source
1266: separation using the arguments of \S~\ref{sec:astrometry}. These are somewhat
1267: more complicated and depend on the blend-source relative parallax, so
1268: we do not consider the general case (which would only be of interest
1269: to further reduce the already very low probability of a random
1270: interloper) but restrict attention to companions of the source and
1271: lens. We begin with the simpler source-companion case.
1272:
1273: \subsubsection{{Blend As Source Companion}
1274: \label{sec:sourcecompanion}}
1275:
1276: As we reported in \S~\ref{sec:astrometry}, there were two {\it HST} measurements
1277: of the astrometric offset between the $V$ and $I$ light centroids, dating
1278: from 0.09 and 0.84 years after peak, respectively. In that section,
1279: we examined the implications of these measurements under the hypothesis
1280: that the blend is the lens. We therefore ignored the first measurement
1281: because the lens source separation at that epoch is much better constrained
1282: by the microlensing event itself than by the astrometric measurement.
1283: However, as we now examine the hypothesis that the blend is a companion
1284: to the source, both epochs must be considered equally. Most of the weight
1285: (86\%) comes from the second observation, partly because the astrometric
1286: errors are slightly smaller, but mainly because the blend contributes
1287: about twice the fractional light, which itself reduces the error on the
1288: inferred separation by a factor of 2. Under this hypothesis, we
1289: find a best-fit source-companion separation of $5\,$mas, with a companion
1290: position angle (north through east) of $280^\circ$. The (isotropic)
1291: error is $3\,$mas. Approximating the companion-source
1292: relative motion as rectilinear,
1293: this measurement strictly applies to an epoch 0.73 years
1294: after the event,
1295: but of course the intrinsic source-companion relative motion must be very small compared to
1296: the errors in this measurement.
1297:
1298: There would be nothing unusual about such a source-companion projected
1299: separation, roughly $40\pm 25$ AU in physical units. Indeed,
1300: the local G-star binary distribution function peaks close to this value
1301: \citep{dm92}.
1302:
1303: The derived separation is also marginally
1304: consistent with the companion generating
1305: a xallarap signal that mimics the parallax signal in our dominant
1306: interpretation. The semi-major axis of the orbit would have to be
1307: about 0.8 AU to mimic the 1-year period of the Earth, which corresponds
1308: to a maximum angular separation of about 100 $\mu$as, which is compatible
1309: with the astrometric measurements at the $1.6\,\sigma$ level.
1310:
1311: Another potential constraint comes from comparing the color difference with
1312: the magnitude difference of the source and blend. We find that the
1313: source is about $0.5\pm 0.5$ mag too bright to be on the same main sequence.
1314: However, first, this is only a $1\,\sigma$ difference, which is not
1315: significant. Second, both the sign and magnitude of the difference
1316: are compatible with the source being a slightly evolved turnoff star,
1317: which is consistent with its color.
1318:
1319: The only present evidence against the source-companion hypothesis is
1320: that the astrometric offset between $V$ and $I$ {\it HST} images
1321: changes between the two epochs, and that the direction and amplitude
1322: of this change is consistent with other evidence of the proper
1323: motion of the lens. Since this is
1324: only a $P = 1.7\%$ effect, it cannot be regarded as conclusive.
1325: However, additional {\it HST} observations at a later epoch
1326: could definitively confirm or rule out this hypothesis.
1327:
1328: \subsubsection{{Blend As A Lens Companion}
1329: \label{sec:lenscompanion}}
1330:
1331: A similar, but somewhat more complicated line of reasoning essentially
1332: rules out the hypothesis that the blend is a companion to the lens,
1333: at least if the lens is luminous.
1334: The primary difference is that the event itself places very strong
1335: lower limits on how close a companion can be to the lens.
1336:
1337: A companion with separation (in units of $\theta_\e$) $d\gg 1$ induces
1338: a \citet{cr} caustic, which is fully characterized by the gravitational
1339: shear $\gamma = q/d^2$. We find that the light-curve distortions
1340: induced by this shear would be easily noticed unless $\gamma<0.0035$,
1341: that is,
1342: \begin{equation}
1343: \gamma = {q_c\over d_c^2} = {q_c\theta_\e^2\over \theta_c^2}< 0.0035,
1344: \label{eqn:thetac}
1345: \end{equation}
1346: where $q_c=M_c/M$ is the ratio of the companion mass to the lens mass and
1347: $d_c=\theta_c/\theta_\e$ is the ratio of the lens-companion
1348: separation to the Einstein radius. Equivalently,
1349: \begin{equation}
1350: \theta_c > 19\biggl({q_c\over 1.3}\biggr)^{1/2}\theta_\e.
1351: \label{eqn:thetac2}
1352: \end{equation}
1353: Here, we have normalized $q_c$ to the minimum mass ratio required for
1354: the companion to dominate the light assuming that both are main-sequence
1355: stars. (We will also consider completely dark lenses below).
1356:
1357: We now show that equation (\ref{eqn:thetac2}) is inconsistent with
1358: the astrometric data.
1359: If a lens companion is assumed to generate the blend light, then
1360: essentially the same line of reasoning given in \S~\ref{sec:sourcecompanion}
1361: implies that 0.73 years after the event, this companion lies
1362: 5 mas from the source, at position angle $280^\circ$ and with an isotropic
1363: error of 3 mas. The one wrinkle is that we should now take account of
1364: the relative-parallax term in equation (\ref{eqn:centroid_color}), whereas this
1365: was identically zero (and so was ignored) for the source-companion case.
1366: However, this term is only about $1.8\pi_\rel$ and hence is quite
1367: small compared to the measurement errors for typical $\pi_\rel\la 0.2 {\rm mas}$.
1368: We will therefore ignore this term in the interest of simplicity,
1369: except when we explicitly consider the case of large $\pi_\rel$ further
1370: below.
1371:
1372: Of course, the lens itself moves during this interval. From the
1373: parallax measurement alone (i.e. without attributing the $V/I$
1374: astrometric displacement to lens motion), it is known that the lens
1375: is moving in the same general direction, i.e., with position angle roughly
1376: $210^\circ$. In assessing the amplitude of this motion we consider
1377: only the constraints from finite-source effects (and ignore the
1378: astrometric displacement). These constraints yield a hard lower
1379: limit on $\theta_\e$ (from lack of pronounced finite-source
1380: effects) of $\theta_\e>0.6\,$mas, which corresponds to a proper motion
1381: $\mu= 3.1\,\mas\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. At this extreme value (and
1382: allowing for $2\,\sigma$ uncertainty in the
1383: direction of lens motion as well in the measurement of the companion
1384: position), the maximum lens-companion separation is 11.4 mas
1385: (i.e., $19\,\theta_\e$),
1386: which is just ruled out by equation (\ref{eqn:thetac2}). At larger
1387: $\theta_\e$, the lens-companion scenario is excluded more robustly.
1388: For example, in the limit of large $\theta_\e$, we have
1389: $\theta_c = \mu \times 0.73\,{\rm yr} = \theta_\e(0.73\,{\rm yr}/t_\e)=3.9\theta_\e$,
1390: which is clearly ruled out by equation (\ref{eqn:thetac2}).
1391:
1392: Then we note that any scenario involving values of $\pi_\rel$ that are
1393: large enough that they cannot be ignored in this analysis ($\pi_\rel\ga 0.5\,\mas$),
1394: must also have very large $\theta_\e=\pi_\rel/\pi_\e\ga 1\,\mas$,
1395: a regime in which the lens-companion is easily excluded.
1396:
1397: The one major loophole to this argument is that the lens may be a
1398: stellar remnant (white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole), in
1399: which case it could be more massive than the companion despite the
1400: latter's greater luminosity.
1401:
1402: \subsection{{Xallarap Effects and Binary Source}
1403: \label{sec:xallarap}}
1404:
1405: Binary source motion can give rise to distortions of the light curve, called
1406: ``xallarap'' effects. One can always find a set of xallarap parameters
1407: to perfectly mimic parallax distortions caused by the Earth's motion \citep{smith}.
1408: However, it is a priori unlikely for the binary source to have such parameters,
1409: so if the parallax signal is real, one would expect the xallarap fits to converge
1410: to the Earth parameters. For simplicity, we assume that the binary source is in circular orbit. We extensively search the parameter space
1411: on a grid of 5 xallarap parameters, namely, the period of binary motion
1412: $P$, the phase $\lambda$ and complement of inclination $\beta$ of the binary orbit,
1413: which corresponds to the ecliptic longitude and
1414: latitude in the parallax interpretation of the light curve, as well as
1415: $(\xi_{\rm E,E}, \xi_{\rm E,N})$, which are the counterparts of
1416: $(\pi_{\rm E,E}, \pi_{\rm E,N})$ of the microlens parallax. We take advantage of the two
1417: exact degeneracies found by \citet{poindexter05} to reduce the range of
1418: the parameter search. One exact degeneracy takes $\lambda^{\prime} = \lambda + \pi$
1419: and ${\bdv{\chi}_E}^{\prime} = -{\bdv{\chi}_E}$, while all other parameters
1420: remain the same. The other takes $\beta^{\prime} = -\beta$,
1421: ${u_0}^{\prime} = -u_0$ and $\xi_{E,N}^{\prime} = -\xi_{E,N}$ (the sign
1422: of $\alpha$ should be changed accordingly as well).
1423: Therefore we restrict our search to solutions
1424: with positive $u_0$ and with $\pi \leq \lambda \leq 2\pi$.
1425: In modeling xallarap, planetary orbital motion is neglected.
1426: In Figure~\ref{fig:period}, the $\chi^2$ distribution for best-fit
1427: xallarap solutions as a function of period is displayed in a dotted line,
1428: and the xallarap solution with a period of $1$ year has a $\Delta{\chi^2} = 0.5$
1429: larger than the best fit at $0.9$ year.
1430: Figure~\ref{fig:lambda_beta} shows that, for the xallarap solutions with
1431: period of 1 year, the best fit has a $\Delta{\chi^2} = 3.2$ less than the
1432: best-fit parallax solution (displayed as a black circle point) and its orbital
1433: parameters are close to
1434: the ecliptic coordinates of event $(\lambda = 268^{\circ},\, \beta = -11^{\circ})$.
1435: Therefore, the overall best-fit xallarap solution has
1436: $\Delta{\chi^2} = 3.7$ smaller than that of the parallax solution
1437: (whose $\chi^2$ value is
1438: displayed as a filled dot in Fig.~\ref{fig:period}) for
1439: 3 extra degrees of freedom, which gives a probability of $30\%$.
1440: The close proximity between the best-fit xallarap parameters and those of the Earth
1441: can be regarded as good evidence of the parallax interpretation. The slight
1442: preference of xallarap
1443: could simply be statistical fluctuation or reflect low-level systematics
1444: in the light curve (commonly found in the analysis by \citealt{poindexter05}).
1445:
1446: We also devise another test on the plausibility of xallarap.
1447: In \S~\ref{sec:hst}, we argued that the blend is unlikely to be a random
1448: interloper unrelated to either the source or the lens. If the source were in
1449: a binary, then the blend would naturally be explained as the companion of the
1450: source star. Then from the blend's position on the CMD,
1451: its mass would be $m_c \sim 0.9\,M_\odot$.
1452: By definition, $\xi_\e$ is the size
1453: of the source's orbit $a_s$ in the units of $\hat r_\e$ (the Einstein radius
1454: projected on the source plane),
1455: \begin{equation}
1456: \xi_\e = {a_s\over \hat r_\e} = {{a m_c}\over{(m_c + m_s)\hat r_\e}},
1457: \label{eqn:chie}
1458: \end{equation}
1459: where $a$ is the semimajor axis of the
1460: binary orbit, and $m_s$ and $m_c$ are the masses of the source and
1461: its companion, respectively. Then we apply Kepler's Third Law:
1462: \begin{equation}
1463: \biggl({ P\over \rm yr}\biggr)^2
1464: {m_c^3\over M_\odot(m_c + m_s)^2} =
1465: \biggl({\xi_\e\hat r_\e\over \rm AU}\biggr)^3.
1466: \label{eqn:chie2}
1467: \end{equation}
1468: Once the masses of the source and companion are known,
1469: the product of $\xi_\e$ and $\hat r_\e$ are determined for a given binary
1470: orbital period $P$. And in the present case, $\hat r_\e / {\rm AU} = \theta_\e
1471: D_s = \theta_* / \rho D_s = 4.5\times10^{-3}/\rho$. By adopting $m_s = 1 M_\odot$,
1472: $m_c = 0.9 M_\odot$, for each set of $P$ and $\rho$, there is a uniquely
1473: determined $\xi_\e$ from equation~(\ref{eqn:chie2}). We then apply this constraint in
1474: the xallarap fitting for a series of periods.
1475: The minimum $\chi^2$s for each period from the fittings are shown in
1476: solid line in Figure~\ref{fig:period}.
1477: The best-fit solution has $\Delta{\chi^2} \sim 1.0$ less than the best-fit
1478: parallax solution for two extra degrees of freedom.
1479: Although as compared to the test described in the previous paragraph,
1480: the current test implies a higher probability that the data are explained by parallax
1481: (rather than xallarap) effects, it still does not rule out xallarap.
1482:
1483: \section{{Summary and Future Prospects}
1484: \label{sec:future}}
1485: Our primary interpretation of the OGLE-2005-BLG-071 data assumes that
1486: the light-curve distortions are due to parallax rather than xallarap
1487: and that the blended light is due to the lens itself rather than a
1488: companion to the source. Under these assumptions, the lens is
1489: fairly tightly constrained to be a foreground M dwarf,
1490: with mass $M=0.46\pm 0.04\,M_\odot$ and distance $D_{l} = 3.2\pm 0.4\,$kpc,
1491: which has thick-disk kinematics ($v_{\rm LSR}\sim 103\,\rm km\,s^{-1}$).
1492: As we discuss below, future observations might help to constrain its
1493: metallicity. The microlens modeling suffers from a well-known wide-close
1494: binary degeneracy. The best-fit wide-binary solutions are slightly
1495: favored over the close-binary solutions, however, from dynamical
1496: constraints on planetary orbital motion, the physically allowed solutions
1497: are not distinguishable within $1\,\sigma$. For the wide-binary model,
1498: we obtain a planet of mass $M_p = 3.8\pm 0.4\,M_{\rm Jupiter}$ at
1499: projected separation $r_\perp = 3.6\pm 0.2\,$AU. The planet then has an equilibrium temperature of about $T = 55$ K, i.e. similar to Neptune. In the
1500: degenerate close-binary solutions, the planet is closer to the star and
1501: so hotter, and the estimates are: $M_p = 3.4\pm 0.4\,M_{\rm Jupiter}$,
1502: $r_\perp = 2.1\pm 0.1\,$AU and $T \sim 71$ K.
1503:
1504: As we have explored in considerable detail, it is possible that
1505: one or both of these assumptions is incorrect. However, future
1506: astrometric measurements that are made after the lens and source have
1507: had a chance to separate, will largely resolve both ambiguities.
1508: Moreover, such measurements will put much tighter constraints on the
1509: metallicity of the lens (assuming that it proves to be the blended light).
1510:
1511: First, the astrometric measurements made 0.84 yr after the event
1512: detected motion suggests that there was still $1.7\%$ chance that the blend
1513: did not move relative to the source.
1514: A later measurement that detected this motion at higher confidence
1515: would rule out the hypothesis that the blend is a companion to
1516: the source. We argued in \S~\ref{sec:sourcecompanion} that the blend could not be
1517: a companion to a main-sequence lens. Therefore, the only possibilities
1518: that would remain are that the lens is the blend, that the lens is
1519: a remnant (e.g., white dwarf), or that the blend is a random interloper
1520: (probability $<10^{-3}$). As we briefly summarize below,
1521: a future astrometric measurement could strongly constrain
1522: the remnant-lens hypothesis as well.
1523:
1524: Of course, it is also possible that future astrometry will reveal that
1525: the blend does not moving with respect to the source, in which case
1526: the blend would be a companion to the source. Thus, either way, these
1527: measurements would largely resolve the nature of the blended light.
1528:
1529: Second, by identifying the nature of blend, these measurements will
1530: largely, but not entirely, resolve the issue of parallax vs.\ xallarap.
1531: If the blend proves not to be associated with the source, then
1532: any xallarap-inducing companion would have to be considerably less
1533: luminous, and so (unless it were a neutron star) less massive than
1534: the $m_c=0.9\,M_\odot$ that we assumed in evaluating
1535: equation (\ref{eqn:chie2}). Moreover, stronger constraints on $\hat r_\e$
1536: (rhs of eq.~[\ref{eqn:chie2}]) would be available from the astrometric
1537: measurements. Hence, the xallarap option would be either excluded
1538: or very strongly constrained by this test.
1539:
1540: On the other hand, if the blend were confirmed to be a source companion,
1541: then essentially all higher order constraints on the nature of the lens
1542: would disappear. The parallax ``measurement'' would then very plausibly be
1543: explained by xallarap, while the ``extra information'' about $\theta_\e$
1544: that is presently assumed to come from the blend proper-motion measurement
1545: would likewise evaporate.
1546:
1547: These considerations strongly argue for making a future high-precision
1548: astrometric measurement. Recall that in the {\it HST} measurements reported
1549: in \S~\ref{sec:hst}, the source and blend were not separately resolved:
1550: the relative motion was inferred from the offset between the
1551: $V$ and $I$ centroids, which are displaced because the source and
1552: blend have different colors. Due to its well-controlled
1553: PSF, {\it HST} is capable of detecting the broadening of the PSF even if
1554: the separation of the lens and source is a fraction of the FWHM. Assuming
1555: that the proper motion is $\mu_{\rm geo} \sim 4.4\,\masyr$, and based
1556: on our simulations in \S~\ref{sec:hst}, such broadening would be
1557: confidently detectable about $5$ years after the event
1558: (see also \citealt{bennett07} for analytic PSF broadening estimates).
1559: Ten years after the event, the net
1560: displacement would be $\sim 40\,{\rm mas}$. This compares to a
1561: diffraction limited FWHM of 40 mas for $H$ band on a ground-based 10m
1562: telescope and would therefore enable full resolution. The $I-H$ color of
1563: the source is extremely well determined ($0.01\,{\rm mag}$) from simultaneous
1564: $I$ and $H$ data taken during the event from the CTIO/SMARTS 1.3m in Chile.
1565: Hence, the flux allocation of the partially or fully resolved blend and source stars
1566: would be known. The direct detection of a partially or fully resolved lens will provide
1567: precise photometric and astrometry measurements (see \citealt{direct} for one such
1568: example), which will enable much tighter constraints on the mass,
1569: distance and projected velocity of the lens.
1570: It also opens up the possibility of determining the metallicity
1571: of the host star by taking into account both non-photometric and photometric
1572: constraints. If, as indicated by the projected velocity measurement, it is
1573: a thick-disk star, then it will be one of the few such stars found to harbor a planet \citep{haywood}.
1574:
1575: As remarked above, a definitive detection of the blend's proper motion would
1576: still leave open the possibility that it was a companion to the
1577: lens, and not the lens itself. In this case, the lens would have to be
1578: a remnant. Without going into detail, the astrometric measurement
1579: would simultaneously improve the blend color measurement as well
1580: as giving a proper-motion estimate (albeit with large errors because the
1581: blend-source offset at the peak of the event would then not be known).
1582: It could then be asked whether the parallax, proper-motion, and photometric
1583: data could be consistently explained by any combination of
1584: remnant lens and main-sequence companion. This analysis would depend
1585: critically on the values of the measurements, so we do not explore
1586: it further here. We simply note that this scenario could also be
1587: strongly constrained by future astrometry.
1588:
1589: \section{{Discussion}
1590: \label{sec:discussion}}
1591: With the measurements presented here, and the precision with which
1592: these measurements allow us to determine the properties of the planet
1593: OGLE-2005-BLG-071Lb and its host, it is now possible to place this
1594: system in the context of similar planetary systems discovered by
1595: radial velocity (RV) surveys. Of course, the kind of information that
1596: can be inferred about the planetary systems discovered via RV differs
1597: somewhat from that presented here. For example, for planets discovered
1598: via RV, it is generally only possible to infer a lower limit to the
1599: planet mass, unless the planets happen to transit or produce a
1600: detectable astrometric signal. {\it Mutatis mutandis}, for planets discovered via
1601: microlensing, it is generally only possible to measure the projected
1602: separation at the time of the event, even in the case for which the
1603: microlensing mass degeneracy is broken as it is here (although see
1604: \citealt{ob06109}).
1605:
1606: With these caveats in mind, we can compare the properties of
1607: OGLE-2005-BLG-071Lb and its host star with similar RV systems. It is
1608: interesting to note that the fractional uncertainties in the host mass and
1609: distance of OGLE-2005-BLG-071Lb are comparable to those of some of the
1610: systems listed in Table \ref{tab:planets}.
1611:
1612: OGLE-2005-BLG-071Lb is one of only eight Jovian-mass
1613: ($0.2 M_{\rm Jupiter} < M_p < 13 M_{\rm Jupiter}$) planets that have
1614: been detected orbiting M dwarf hosts (i.e., $M_*<0.55~M_\odot$)
1615: \citep{marcy98,marcy01,delfosse98,butler06,johnson07b,bailey}. Table \ref{tab:planets}
1616: summarizes the planetary and host-star properties of the known M
1617: dwarf/Jovian-mass planetary systems.
1618: OGLE-2005-BLG-071Lb is likely the most massive known planet orbiting an
1619: M dwarf.
1620:
1621: As suggested by the small number of systems listed in Table
1622: \ref{tab:planets}, and shown quantitatively by several recent studies,
1623: the frequency of relatively short-period $P \la 2000~{\rm days}$,
1624: Jupiter-mass companions to M dwarfs appears to be $\sim 3-5$ times
1625: lower than such companions to FGK dwarfs
1626: \citep{butler06,endl06,johnson07b,cumming08}. This paucity, which has
1627: been shown to be statistically significant, is expected in the
1628: core-accretion model of planet formation, which generally predicts
1629: that Jovian companions to M dwarfs should be rare, since for lower
1630: mass stars, the dynamical time at the sites of planet formation is
1631: longer, whereas the amount of raw material available for planet
1632: formation is smaller (\citealt{laughlin04,ida05,kennedy08}, but see
1633: \citealt{kornet06}). Thus, these planets typically do not reach
1634: sufficient mass to accrete a massive gaseous envelope over the lifetime
1635: of the disk. Consequently, such models also predict that in the outer
1636: regions of their planetary systems, lower mass stars should host a
1637: much larger population of `failed Jupiters,' cores of mass $\la
1638: 10~M_\oplus$ \citep{laughlin04,ida05}. Such a population was indeed
1639: identified based on two microlensing planet discoveries
1640: \citep{ob05390,ob05169}.
1641:
1642: Our detection of a $\sim 4\,M_{\rm Jupiter}$ companion to an M dwarf
1643: may therefore present a difficulty for the
1644: core-accretion scenario. While we do not have a constraint on the
1645: metallicity of the host, the fact that it is likely a member of the
1646: thick disk suggests that its metallicity may be subsolar. If so, this
1647: would pose an additional difficulty for the core-accretion scenario,
1648: which also predicts that massive planets should be rarer around
1649: metal-poor stars \citep{ida04}, as has been demonstrated observationally
1650: \citep{santos04,fischer05}. This might imply that a different mechanism
1651: is responsible for planet formation in the OGLE-2005-BLG-071L system, such
1652: as the gravitational instability mechanism \citep{boss02,boss06}.
1653:
1654: One way to escape these potential difficulties is if the host lens is
1655: actually a stellar remnant, such as white dwarf. The progenitors of
1656: remnants are generally more massive stars, which are both predicted
1657: \citep{ida05,kennedy08} and observed \citep{johnson07a,johnson07b} to
1658: have a higher incidence of massive planets. As we discussed above,
1659: future astrometric measurements could constrain both the
1660: low-metallicity and remnant-lens hypotheses. These measurements are
1661: therefore critical.
1662:
1663: Although it is difficult to draw robust conclusions from a single
1664: system, there are now four published detections of Jovian-mass
1665: planetary companions with microlensing (\citealt{ob03235,ob06109}),
1666: and several additional such planets have been detected that are currently being
1667: analyzed. It is therefore reasonable to expect several detections per year
1668: \citep{gould09}, and thus that it will soon be possible to use microlensing to
1669: constrain the frequency of massive planetary companions. These constraints are
1670: complementary to those from RV, since the microlensing detection
1671: method is less biased with respect to host star mass \citep{gould00a},
1672: and furthermore probes a different region of parameter space, namely
1673: cool planets beyond the snow line with equilibrium temperatures
1674: similar to the giant planets in our solar system (see,
1675: e.g.~\citealt{gould07} and \citealt{gould09}).
1676:
1677: \acknowledgments
1678: We thank Marc Pinsonneault and Deokkeun An for providing us their
1679: unpublished isochrones. S.D. wishes to thank David Will of Ohio State astronomy
1680: department for setting up and maintaining the Condor system, which greatly
1681: facilitates the computations for this work. S.D. is grateful to
1682: Ondrej Pejcha and David Heyrovsky for interesting discussions on limb-darkening.
1683: Based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space
1684: Telescope obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which
1685: is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
1686: Incorporated, under NASA contract NAS5-26555. Support for this work was
1687: provided by NASA through grant HST-GO-10707.01-A from STScI.
1688: S.D. and A.G. were supported in part by grant AST 042758 from the NSF.
1689: S.D., A.G., D.D. and R.P. acknowledge support by NASA grant NNG04GL51G.
1690: AG thanks IAP,CNRS for its support.
1691: Support for OGLE project was provided by Polish MNiSW grant N20303032/4275.
1692: B.G.P. was supported by the grant (KRF-2006-311-C00072) from
1693: Korea Research Foundation. HC was supported by the Science
1694: Research Center from Korea Science and Engineering Foundation.
1695: The MOA project is supported by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
1696: Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan, Grant-in-Aid for Specially Promoted
1697: Research No. 14002006.
1698: JPB, PF, AC, CC, SB, JBM acknowledge the financial support of ANR HOLMES.
1699: KHC's work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by
1700: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344.
1701: This work was supported in part by an allocation of computing time
1702: from the Ohio Supercomputer Center.
1703:
1704: \appendix
1705: \section{Extracting Orbital Parameters for Circular Planetary Orbit}
1706: \label{sec:appendcirc}
1707: OGLE-2005-BLG-071 is the first planetary microlensing event for
1708: which the effects of planetary orbital motion in the light curve have been fully
1709: analyzed.
1710: The distortions of the light curve due to the orbital motion are modeled
1711: by $\omega$ and $\dot b$ as discussed in \S~\ref{sec:orbit}. In
1712: addition, the lens mass $M$ and distance $D_l$ are determined,
1713: so we can directly convert the microlens light-curve parameters that are
1714: normalized to the Einstein radius to physical parameters.
1715: In this section, we show that under the assumption of a circular planetary orbit,
1716: the planetary orbital parameters
1717: can be deduced from the light-curve parameters. Let $r_\perp = D_l \theta_\e d$ be
1718: the projected star-planet separation and let $r_\perp \bdv{\gamma}$ be the
1719: instantaneous planet velocity in the plane of the sky, i.e.
1720: $r_\perp \gamma_\perp = r_\perp \omega$ is the velocity perpendicular to this axis and
1721: $r_\perp \gamma_\parallel = r_\perp \dot d/d$ is the velocity parallel to this
1722: axis. Let $a$ be the semi-major axis and
1723: define the $\bdv{{\hat{\imath}}}$, $\bdv{\hat{\jmath}}$, $\bdv{\hat{k}}$ directions
1724: as the instantaneous star-planet-axis on the sky plane, the direction
1725: into the sky, and
1726: $\bdv{\hat{k}} = \bdv{{\hat{\imath}}} \times \bdv{\hat{\jmath}}$.
1727: Then the instantaneous velocity of the planet is
1728: \begin{equation}
1729: {\bf v} = \sqrt{GM\over a} [\cos\theta {\bdv{\hat {k}}} +
1730: \sin\theta (\cos\phi \bdv{\hat{\imath}} - \sin\phi \bdv{\hat{\jmath}})],
1731: \label{eqn:velocity}
1732: \end{equation}
1733: where $\phi$ is the angle between star-planet-observer (i.e.,
1734: $r_\perp = a\sin\phi$) and
1735: $\theta$ is the angle of the velocity relative to the $\bdv{\hat{k}}$ direction
1736: on the plane that is perpendicular to the planet-star-axis. We thus obtain
1737: \begin{equation}
1738: \gamma_\perp = \sqrt{GM\over a^3}{\cos\theta\over \sin\phi},\qquad
1739: \gamma_\parallel = \sqrt{GM\over a^3}{\sin\theta\cot\phi}.
1740: \label{eqn:gamma}
1741: \end{equation}
1742: To facilitate the derivation, we define
1743: \begin{equation}
1744: A\equiv {\gamma_\parallel\over\gamma_\perp} = -\tan\theta \cos\phi, \qquad
1745: B\equiv {r_\perp^3\gamma_\perp^2\over GM} = \cos^2\theta\sin\phi,
1746: \label{eqn:aandb}
1747: \end{equation}
1748: which yield as an equation for $\sin\phi$:
1749: \begin{equation}
1750: B = F(\sin\phi); \qquad
1751: F(x) = {x(1-{x}^2)\over A^2 + 1 - {x}^2}.
1752: \label{eqn:sinphi}
1753: \end{equation}
1754: Note that $F'(\sin\phi) = 0$ when
1755: $\sin^2\phi_* = (3/2)A^2 + 1 - |A|\sqrt{(9/4)A^2 + 2}$
1756: . So equation~(\ref{eqn:sinphi}) has two degenerate solutions when
1757: $B < F(\sin \phi_*)$ and has no solutions when $B > F(\sin \phi_*)$.
1758: Subsequently, one obtains,
1759: \begin{equation}
1760: a = {r_\perp\over{\sin \phi}}, \qquad
1761: \cos i = -\sin\phi \cos\theta, \qquad
1762: K = \sqrt{GM \over a} q \sin{i},
1763: \label{eqn:solutions}
1764: \end{equation}
1765: where $i$ is the inclination and $K$ is the amplitude of radial velocity.
1766:
1767: The Jacobian matrix used to transform
1768: from $P(r_\perp,\gamma_\perp,\gamma_\parallel)$ to $P(a,\phi,\theta)$
1769: is given below,
1770:
1771: \begin{eqnarray}
1772: {\p(r_\perp,\gamma_\perp,\gamma_\parallel)\over
1773: \p(a,\phi,\theta)}
1774: \nonumber &=&
1775: {GM\over a^3}\Bigg|\matrix{\sin\phi & a\cos\phi & 0\cr
1776: -{3\over 2a}{\cos\theta\over\sin\phi} &
1777: -{\cos\theta\cos\phi\over\sin^2\phi} & - {\sin\theta\over\sin\phi} \cr
1778: -{3\over 2a}{\sin\theta\cot\phi} &
1779: -{\sin\theta\over\sin^2\phi} & \cos\theta\cot\phi}\Bigg|
1780: \nonumber\\ &&
1781: ={GM\over a^3}\cot^2\phi\biggl({1\over 2}-\sin^2\theta\tan^2\phi\biggr).
1782: \label{eqn:jacobi}
1783: \end{eqnarray}
1784:
1785: { Then for an arbitrary function $H(a)$,
1786: \begin{equation}
1787: {\p(r_\perp,\gamma_\perp,\gamma_\parallel)\over
1788: \p(H(a),\cos\phi,\theta)} =
1789: {\p(r_\perp,\gamma_\perp,\gamma_\parallel)\over
1790: \p(a,\phi,\theta)}\times {1\over \sin\phi H'(a)},
1791: \label{eqn:ha}
1792: \end{equation}
1793: which, for the special case of a flat distribution, $H(a) = \ln a$, yields,
1794: \begin{equation}
1795: {\p(r_\perp,\gamma_\perp,\gamma_\parallel)\over
1796: \p(ln(a),\cos\phi,\theta)}
1797: = {GM\over r_\perp^2}{\cos^2\phi\over\sin\phi}.
1798: \biggl({1\over 2}-\sin^2\theta\tan^2\phi\biggr)
1799: \label{eqn:jacobi2}
1800: \end{equation}}
1801:
1802:
1803:
1804: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1805:
1806: \bibitem[Albrow et al.(1999)]{macho98smc1}
1807: Albrow, M.~D., et al.\ 1999, \apj, 512, 672
1808:
1809: \bibitem[An(2005)]{jin05} An, J.~H.\ 2005, \mnras, 356, 1409
1810:
1811: \bibitem[An et al.(2002)]{jin02} An, J.~H., et al.\ 2002,
1812: \apj, 572, 521
1813:
1814: \bibitem[Anderson \& King(2004)]{hrc}
1815: Anderson, J.~\& King, I.~R.\ 2004, Hubble Space Telescope
1816: Advanced Camera for Surveys Instrument Science Report 04-15
1817:
1818: \bibitem[Bailey et al.(2008)]{bailey} Bailey, J., et al.\ 2009, \apj, 690, 743
1819:
1820: \bibitem[Bean et al.(2006)]{bean06} Bean, J.~L., Benedict,
1821: G.~F., \& Endl, M.\ 2006, \apjl, 653, L65
1822:
1823: \bibitem[Beaulieu et al.(2006)]{ob05390}
1824: Beaulieu, J.-P., et al.\ 2006, \nat, 439, 437
1825:
1826: \bibitem[Benedict et al.(2002)]{benedict02} Benedict, G.~F., et
1827: al.\ 2002, \apjl, 581, L115
1828:
1829: \bibitem[Bennett et al.(2007)]{bennett07} Bennett, D.~P.,
1830: Anderson, J., \& Gaudi, B.~S.\ 2007, \apj, 660, 781
1831:
1832: \bibitem[Bennett et al.(2006)]{bennett06}
1833: Bennett, D.~P., et al.\ 2006, \apjl, 647, L171
1834:
1835: \bibitem[Bessell \& Brett(1988)]{bessel}
1836: Bessell, M.~S., \& Brett, J.~M.\ 1988, \pasp, 100, 1134
1837:
1838: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2004)]{ob03235}
1839: Bond, I.~A., et al.\ 2004, \apjl, 606, L155
1840:
1841: \bibitem[Boss(2002)]{boss02} Boss, A.~P.\ 2002, \apjl, 567,
1842: L149
1843:
1844: \bibitem[Boss(2006)]{boss06} Boss, A.~P.\ 2006, \apj, 643, 501
1845:
1846: \bibitem[Butler et al.(2006)]{butler06} Butler, R.~P., et al.\ 2006,
1847: \pasp, 118, 1685
1848:
1849: \bibitem[Chang-Refsdal(1979)]{cr}
1850: Chang, K., \& Refsdal, S.\ 1979, \nat, 282, 561
1851:
1852: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{claret}
1853: Claret, A.\ 2000, \aap, 363, 1081
1854:
1855: \bibitem[Cumming et al.(2008)]{cumming08} Cumming, A., et al. \
1856: 2008, \pasp, 120, 531
1857:
1858: \bibitem[Dominik(1999)]{dominik99}
1859: Dominik, M.\ 1999, \aap, 349, 108
1860:
1861: \bibitem[Delfosse et al.(1998)]{delfosse98} Delfosse, X., et al.
1862: \ 1998, \aap, 338, L67
1863:
1864: \bibitem[Dong et al.(2006)]{ob04343} Dong, S., et al.\ 2006,
1865: \apj, 642, 842
1866:
1867: \bibitem[Dong et al.(2009)]{mb07400} Dong, S., et al.\ 2009, ApJ, in press
1868: (arXiv:0809.2997)
1869:
1870: \bibitem[Doran \& Mueller(2003)]{mcmc}
1871: Doran, M., \& Mueller, C.~M.\, 2004, \jcap, JCAP09(2004)003
1872:
1873: \bibitem[Duquennoy \& Mayor(1991)]{dm92}
1874: Duquennoy, A., \& Mayor, M.\ 1991, \aap, 248, 485
1875:
1876: \bibitem[Endl et al.(2006)]{endl06} Endl, M., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 436
1877:
1878: \bibitem[Fischer
1879: \& Valenti(2005)]{fischer05} Fischer, D.~A., \& Valenti, J.\ 2005, \apj, 622, 1102
1880:
1881: \bibitem[Gaudi(2008)]{future}
1882: Gaudi, B.~S.\ 2008, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 398, 479, ed. D. Fischer, F. Rasio, S. Thorsett, \& A. Wolszczan, Extreme Solar Systems (arXiv:0711.1614)
1883:
1884: \bibitem[Gaudi et al.(2008)]{ob06109} Gaudi, B.~S., et al.\ 2008, Science, 319, 927
1885:
1886: \bibitem[Gould(1992)]{gould92} Gould, A.\ 1992, \apj, 392, 442
1887:
1888: \bibitem[Gould(1994)]{gould94} Gould, A.\ 1994, \apj, 421, l71
1889:
1890: \bibitem[Gould(2000a)]{gould00a} Gould, A.\ 2000a, \apj, 535, 928
1891:
1892: \bibitem[Gould(2000b)]{gould00b} Gould, A.\ 2000b, \apj, 542, 785
1893:
1894: \bibitem[Gould(2004)]{gould04} Gould, A.\ 2004, \apj, 606, 319
1895:
1896: \bibitem[Gould(2008)]{hex} Gould, A.\ 2008, \apj, 681, 1593
1897:
1898: \bibitem[Gould(2009)]{gould09} Gould, A.\ 2009, Astronomical Society
1899: of the Pacific Conference Series, 403, 86, ed. K.Z. Stanek, The
1900: Variable Universe: A Celebration of Bohdan Paczynski (arXiv:0803.4324)
1901:
1902: \bibitem[Gould et al.(2007)]{gould07} Gould, A., Gaudi, B.~S.,
1903: \& Bennett, D.~P.\ 2007, NASA/NSF Exoplanet Task Force White Paper (arXiv:0704.0767)
1904:
1905: \bibitem[Gould et al.(1994)]{thickdisk} Gould, A.,
1906: Miralda-Escude, J., \& Bahcall, J.~N.\ 1994, \apjl, 423, L105
1907:
1908: \bibitem[Gould et al.(2006)]{ob05169} Gould, A. et al. 2006, \apj, 644, L37
1909:
1910: \bibitem[Kervella et al.(2004)]{kervella} Kervella, P.,
1911: Th{\'e}venin, F., Di Folco, E., \& S{\'e}gransan, D.\ 2004, \aap, 426, 297
1912:
1913: \bibitem[Koz{\l}owski et al.(2007)]{direct} Koz{\l}owski, S.,
1914: Wo{\'z}niak, P.~R., Mao, S., \& Wood, A.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 420
1915:
1916: \bibitem[Kubas et al.(2008)]{ob05390b} Kubas, D., et al.\ 2008, \aap, 483, 317
1917:
1918: \bibitem[Haywood(2008)]{haywood} Haywood, M.\ 2008, \aap, 482, 673
1919:
1920: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin(2004)]{ida04} Ida, S., \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\ 2004, \apj, 616, 567
1921:
1922: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin(2005)]{ida05} Ida, S., \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\ 2005, \apj, 626, 1045
1923:
1924: \bibitem[Johnson et al.(2007a)]{johnson07a} Johnson, J.~A., et al.\ 2007a, \apj, 665, 785
1925:
1926: \bibitem[Johnson et al.(2007b)]{johnson07b} Johnson, J.~A., et al.\ 2007b, \apj, 670, 833
1927:
1928: \bibitem[Kennedy
1929: \& Kenyon(2008)]{kennedy08} Kennedy, G.~M., \& Kenyon, S.~J.\ 2008, \apj, 673, 502
1930:
1931: \bibitem[Kornet et
1932: al.(2006)]{kornet06} Kornet, K., Wolf, S., \& R{\'o}{\.z}yczka, M.\ 2006, \aap, 458, 661
1933:
1934: \bibitem[Laughlin et al.(2004)]{laughlin04} Laughlin, G.,
1935: Bodenheimer, P., \& Adams, F.~C.\ 2004, \apjl, 612, L73
1936:
1937: \bibitem[Lejeune et al.(1997)]{iso1}
1938: Lejeune, T., Cuisinier, F., \& Buser, R.\ 1997, \aaps, 125, 229
1939:
1940: \bibitem[Lejeune et al.(1998)]{iso2}
1941: Lejeune, T., Cuisinier, F., \& Buser, R.\ 1998, \aaps, 130, 65
1942:
1943: \bibitem[Manfroid(1995)]{superflat}
1944: Manfroid, J.\ 1995, \aaps, 113, 587
1945:
1946: \bibitem[Marcy et al.(1998)]{marcy98} Marcy, G.~W., et al
1947: \ 1998, \apjl, 505, L147
1948:
1949: \bibitem[Marcy et al.(2001)]{marcy01} Marcy, G.~W., et al
1950: \ 2001, \apj, 556, 296
1951:
1952: \bibitem[Nishiyama(2005)]{bar}
1953: Nishiyama, S., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 621, L105
1954:
1955: \bibitem[Pejcha \& Heyrovsky(2008)]{ondrej}
1956: Pejcha, O., \& Heyrovsk{\'y}, D. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1772
1957:
1958: \bibitem[Poindexter et~al.(2005)]{poindexter05}
1959: Poindexter, S. et al. 2005, \apj, 633, 914
1960:
1961: \bibitem[Rivera et al.(2005)]{rivera05} Rivera, E.~J., et al.\
1962: 2005, \apj, 634, 625
1963:
1964: \bibitem[Santos et al.(2004)]{santos04} Santos, N.~C., Israelian, G.,
1965: \& Mayor, M.\ 2004, \aap, 415, 1153
1966:
1967: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2003)]{smith} Smith, M.~C., Mao, S., \&
1968: Paczy{\'n}ski, B.\ 2003, \mnras, 339, 925
1969:
1970: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(2005)]{ob05071} Udalski, A. et al. 2005, \apj, 628, L109 (Paper I)
1971:
1972: \bibitem[Walker(1995)]{walker} Walker, M.~A.\ 1995, \apj, 453, 37
1973:
1974: \bibitem[Wozniak(2000)]{wozniak} Wozniak, P.~R.\ 2000, Acta Astronomica, 50, 421
1975:
1976: \bibitem[Yoo et al.(2004)]{yoo} Yoo, J., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 603, 139
1977: \end{thebibliography}
1978:
1979: \begin{figure}
1980: \plotone{f1.eps}
1981: \caption{Main panel: all available ground-based
1982: data of the microlensing event OGLE-2005-BLG-071. {\it HST} ACS HRC
1983: observations in F814W and F555W were taken at two epochs, once when
1984: the source was magnified by $A\sim2$ ({\it arrow}), and again at
1985: ${\rm HJD} = 2453788.2$ (at baseline). Planetary models that
1986: include ({\it solid}) and excludes ({\it dotted}) microlens parallax
1987: are shown. Zoom at bottom: triple-peak feature that reveals the presence
1988: of the planet. Each
1989: of the three peaks corresponds to the source passing by a cusp
1990: of the central caustic induced by the planet. Upper inset:
1991: trajectory of the source relative to the lens system in the units
1992: of angular Einstein radius $\theta_{\e}$. The lens star is at $(0,0)$,
1993: and the star-planet axis is parallel to the x-axis. The best-fit angular
1994: size of the source star in units of $\theta_{\e}$ is $\rho \sim 0.0006$,
1995: too small to be resolved in this figure.}
1996: \label{fig:lc}
1997: \end{figure}
1998:
1999: \begin{figure}
2000: \plotone{f2.eps}
2001: \caption{
2002: Probability contours ($\Delta{\chi^2}= 1, 4$) of microlens parallax
2003: parameters derived from MCMC simulations
2004: for wide-binary (in solid line) and close-binary (in a dashed line) solutions.
2005: Fig.\ 2 and eq.\ (12) in \citet{gould04} imply that $\pi_{E,\perp}$
2006: is defined so that $\pi_{E,\parallel}$ and $\pi_{E,\perp}$
2007: form a right-handed coordinate system.
2008: }
2009: \label{fig:parallax}
2010: \end{figure}
2011:
2012: \begin{figure}
2013: \plotone{f3.eps}
2014: \caption{CMD for the OGLE-2005-BLG-071 field. Black dots are
2015: the stars with the OGLE $I$-band and $V$-band observations. The red point and
2016: green points show the center of red clump and the source, respectively. The errors
2017: in their fluxes and colors are too small to be visible on the graph. Cyan points
2018: are the stars in the ACS field, which are photometrically aligned with
2019: OGLE stars using 10 common stars. The magenta point with error bars show
2020: the color and magnitude of the blended light.}
2021: \label{fig:cmd}
2022: \end{figure}
2023:
2024: \begin{figure}
2025: \plotone{f4.eps}
2026: \caption{{\it HST} ACS astrometric measurements of the target star
2027: in F814W (red) and F555W (blue) filters in 2005 (filled dots) and
2028: 2006 (open dots). The center positions of the big circles show mean
2029: values of the 4 dithered observations
2030: in each filter at each epoch while radii of the circle represent
2031: the $1\,\sigma$ errors.
2032: }
2033: \label{fig:hst}
2034: \end{figure}
2035:
2036: \begin{figure}
2037: \plotone{f5.eps}
2038: \caption{
2039: Upper two panels show posterior probability contours at $\Delta{\chi^2}= 1$
2040: (solid line) and $4$ (dotted line) for relative lens-source proper motion
2041: $\bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo}$.
2042: The left panel is for wide-binary solutions and the right one is for close-binary.
2043: The green contours show the probability distributions constrained by the
2044: finite-source effects.
2045: The black contours are derived from {\it HST} astrometry measurements assuming
2046: $\pi_{\rm rel} = 0.2\,\mas$. The red contours show the joint probability
2047: distributions from both constraints.
2048: The lower two panels show the posterior probability distribution
2049: of the position angle $\phi_{\bdv{\mu}_{\rm geo}}$ of the relative lens-source
2050: proper motion
2051: for wide-binary and close-binary solutions, respectively. The histogram
2052: in red is derived from the red contours of joint probability for finite source
2053: and astrometry constraints in the upper panel. The blue histogram represents
2054: that of the microlens parallax. They mildly disagree at $2.5 \sigma$.
2055: }
2056: \label{fig:mu_hst}
2057: \end{figure}
2058:
2059: \begin{figure}
2060: \plotone{f6.eps}
2061: \caption{Differences between OGLE $V$ and {\it HST}
2062: F555W magnitudes for the matched stars are plotted against
2063: their $V$ magnitudes measured by OGLE. To calculate the offset,
2064: we add a $0.017$ mag ``cosmic error'' in quadrature to each point
2065: in order to reduce $\chi^2/dof$ to unity.
2066: The open circles represent the stars used to establish the final
2067: transformation, and the filled point shows an ``outlier''.
2068: }
2069: \label{fig:hstogle}
2070: \end{figure}
2071:
2072: \begin{figure}
2073: \plotone{f7.eps}
2074: \caption{Posterior probability distribution of lens
2075: mass $M$ and relative lens-source parallax $\pi_{\rel}$ from
2076: MCMC simulations discussed in \S~\ref{sec:finalresults}. The constraints
2077: include those from parallax effects, finite-source effects and
2078: relative proper motion measurements from {\it HST} astrometry.
2079: The $\Delta{\chi^2} = 1, 4, 9$ contours are displayed
2080: in solid, dotted and dashed lines, respectively. Both wide-binary (magenta)
2081: and close-binary (blue) solutions are shown. The lines in black, red
2082: and green represent the predicted $M$ and $\pi_{\rm rel}$ from the isochrones
2083: for different metal abundances: $\rm [M/H] = 0$ (black), $-0.5$ (red),
2084: $-1.0$ (green). The points on these lines
2085: correspond to the observed $I$-band magnitude $I = 21.3$ and
2086: various $V-I$ values $V-I = 1.8\,({\rm best\, estimate}$, filled dots),
2087: $2.0\,(0.5\,\sigma$, filled triangle), $2.1\,(1.0\,\sigma$, filled
2088: squares), $2.3\,(1.5\,\sigma$, filled pentagons), and $2.6\,(2.0\,\sigma$,
2089: filled hexagons)}
2090: \label{fig:mass_pirel}
2091: \end{figure}
2092:
2093: \begin{figure}
2094: \plotone{f8.eps}
2095: \caption{
2096: Posterior probability distribution of lens mass $M$ and relative
2097: lens-source parallax $\pi_{\rel}$ from MCMC simulations assuming that the
2098: blended light comes from the lens star.
2099: The $\Delta{\chi^2} = 1, 4$ contours are displayed
2100: in a solid line for wide solutions, and in a dotted line for close solutions.
2101: }
2102: \label{fig:mass_pirel2}
2103: \end{figure}
2104:
2105:
2106: \begin{figure}
2107: \plotone{f9.eps}
2108: \caption{Probability contours of projected velocity $r_\perp \bdv{\gamma}$
2109: (defined in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendcirc}) in the units of $v_{\rm c,\perp}$
2110: for both close-binary (upper panel) and wide-binary (lower panel) solutions.
2111: All the solutions that are outside the dotted circle are physically
2112: rejected as the velocities exceed the escape velocity of the system.
2113: The boundary in a solid line inside the dotted circle encloses the solutions for which circular orbits are allowed.}
2114: \label{fig:rotationplot}
2115: \end{figure}
2116:
2117: \begin{figure}
2118: \plotone{f10.eps}
2119: \caption{Probability distributions of planetary parameters
2120: (semimajor axis $a$, equilibrium temperature,
2121: cosine of the inclination, and amplitude of radial velocity of
2122: the lens star) from MCMC realizations assuming circular
2123: orbital motion. Histograms in black and red represent the
2124: close-binary and wide-binary solutions, respectively.
2125: Dotted and dashed histograms represent the two
2126: degenerate solutions for each MCMC realization discussed in
2127: Appendix~\ref{sec:appendcirc}.
2128: }
2129: \label{fig:orbit}
2130: \end{figure}
2131: \begin{figure}
2132: \plotone{f11.eps}
2133: \caption{$\chi^2$ distributions for best-fit xallarap
2134: solutions at fixed binary-source orbital periods $P$.
2135: The solid and dotted
2136: lines represent xallarap fits with and without dynamical constraints described
2137: in \S~\ref{sec:xallarap}. The best-fit parallax solution is shown as a filled
2138: dot at period of 1 year. All of the fits shown in this figure assume
2139: no planetary orbital motion.}
2140: \label{fig:period}
2141: \end{figure}
2142:
2143: \begin{figure}
2144: \plotone{f12.eps}
2145: \caption{
2146: Results of xallarap fits by fixing binary orbital phase
2147: $\lambda$ and complement of inclination $\beta$
2148: at period $P = 1 \, {\rm yr}$ and $u_0>0$.
2149: The plot is color-coded for
2150: solutions with $\Delta{\chi^2}$ within 1 (black), 4 (red), 9 (green),
2151: 16 (blue), 25 (magenta), 49 (yellow) of the best fit.
2152: The Earth parameters are indicated by black circles. Because of a
2153: perfect symmetry $(u_0 \rightarrow -u_0$ and $\alpha \rightarrow -\alpha)$,
2154: the upper black circle represents Earth parameter $(\lambda = 268^{\circ},\, \beta = -11^{\circ})$ for the case $u_0<0$. Comparison of parallax with xallarap
2155: must be made with the better of the two, that is, the lower one.}
2156: \label{fig:lambda_beta}
2157: \end{figure}
2158:
2159: \include{tab1}
2160:
2161: \begin{table}
2162: \caption{\label{tab:physical} \sc Derived Physical Parameters}
2163: \vskip 1em
2164: \begin{tabular}{@{\extracolsep{0pt}}ccccccccc}
2165: \hline
2166: \hline
2167: Model & {$M$} & {$\pi_{\rm rel}$} & {$D_l$} & {$\mu_{\rm N}$} & {$\mu_{\rm E}$} & {$\theta_{\rm E}$} & {$M_p$} & {$r_{\perp}$} \\
2168: $\chi^2$ & $M_\odot$ & mas & kpc &mas$\,{\rm yr^{-1}}$ &mas$\,{\rm yr^{-1}}$ & mas &$M_{\rm Jupiter}$ &AU \\ \hline
2169: \hline
2170: Wide$+$&0.46&0.19&3.2&-0.4&-4.3&0.84&3.8&3.6 \\
2171: 1353.4&${\pm 0.04}$ &${\pm 0.04}$ &${\pm 0.4}$ &$^{+2.7}_{-3.1}$&${\pm 0.3}$ &$^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$&$^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$&${\pm 0.2}$ \\ \hline
2172: Wide$-$&0.46&0.19&3.2& 0.3&-4.3&0.85&3.8&3.6 \\
2173: 1353.3&${\pm 0.04}$ &$^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$&${\pm 0.4}$ &$^{+2.3}_{-3.6}$&$^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$&${\pm 0.05}$ &$^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$&${\pm 0.2}$ \\ \hline
2174: Close$+$&0.46&0.19&3.1&-2.6&-4.4&0.86&3.4&2.1 \\
2175: 1355.5&${\pm 0.04}$ &$^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$&${\pm 0.4}$ &$^{+4.8}_{-1.1}$&${\pm 0.3}$ &${\pm 0.05}$ &$^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$&${\pm 0.1}$ \\ \hline
2176: Close$-$&0.46&0.20&3.1&-0.2&-4.4&0.87&3.4&2.1 \\
2177: 1355.5&${\pm 0.04}$ &${\pm 0.04}$ &${\pm 0.3}$ &$^{+3.6}_{-3.4}$&${\pm 0.3}$ &${\pm 0.04}$ &${\pm 0.3}$ &${\pm 0.1}$ \\ \hline
2178: \end{tabular}
2179: \end{table}
2180:
2181: \clearpage
2182: \begin{table}
2183: \caption{\label{tab:planets}\sc Jovian-mass Companions to M Dwarfs ($M_* < 0.55~M_\odot$)}
2184: \vskip 1em
2185: \begin{tabular}{@{\extracolsep{0pt}}cccccccc}
2186: \hline
2187: \hline
2188: Name & {$M_*$} & {Metallicity} & {Dist.} & {$M_p$} & {$P$} & {$a$} & {Ref.}\\
2189: &{($M_\odot$)} & & (pc) & {($M_{\rm Jup}$)} & {(days)} & {(AU)} &\\
2190: \hline
2191: \hline
2192: GJ 876c & $0.32$ & $-0.12$ & $4.660$ & $ 0.6-$ & $30.340$ & $0.13030$ & 1,2,3\\
2193: & $\pm 0.03$ & $ \pm 0.12$ & $\pm0.004$ & $0.8$ & $\pm 0.013$ & & \\
2194: \hline
2195: GJ 876b & -- & -- & -- & $1.9 - $ & $60.940$ & $0.20783$ & --\\
2196: & & & & 2.5 & $\pm 0.013$ & & \\
2197: \hline
2198: GJ 849b & $0.49 $ & $0.16 $ & $8.8$ & $0.82/\sin i$ & $1890$ & $2.35$ & 4\\
2199: & $ \pm 0.05$ & $ \pm 0.2$ & $\pm 0.2$ & & $ \pm 130$ & & \\
2200: \hline
2201: GJ 317b & $0.24 $ & $-0.23 $ & $9.2 $ & $1.2/\sin i$ & $692.9$ & $0.95$ & 5\\
2202: & $ \pm 0.04$ & $\pm 0.2$ & $\pm 1.7$ & & $\pm 4$ & & \\
2203: \hline
2204: GJ 832b & $0.45 $ & $\sim -0.7 $ & $\sim 4.93 $ & $0.64/\sin i$ & $3416$ & $3.4$ & 6\\
2205: & $ \pm 0.05$ & /-0.3 & & & $\pm 131$ & $\pm0.4$ & \\
2206: \hline
2207: OGLE-2006 & $0.50$ & ? & $1490 $ & $0.71 $ & $1830
2208: $ & $2.3 $ & 7 \\
2209: -BLG-109Lb & $\pm 0.05$ & ? & $ \pm 130$ & $ \pm 0.08$ & $
2210: \pm 370$ & $ \pm 0.2$ & \\
2211: \hline
2212: OGLE-2006 & -- & -- & -- & $0.27 $ & $5100$ & $4.6 $
2213: & -- \\
2214: -BLG-109Lc & & & & $\pm 0.03$ & $\pm 730$ & $ \pm 0.5$
2215: & \\
2216: \hline
2217: OGLE-2005 & $0.46$ & Subsolar?\tablenotemark{a} & $3300$ & $3.8 $\tablenotemark{b} & -- & $3.6 $\tablenotemark{b,c} & This\\
2218: -BLG-071Lb & $\pm 0.04$ & & $ \pm 300$ & $\pm 0.4$ & & $\pm 0.2$ & Paper\\
2219: \hline
2220: \tablenotetext{a}{While the metallicity of the OGLE-2005-BLG-071Lb host star is not directly constrained
2221: by our data, its kinematics indicate it is likely a member of the metal-poor thick disk.}
2222: \tablenotetext{b}{We give the planet mass and projected separation for the wide solution, which
2223: is favored by $\Delta \chi^2 = 2.1$. The second, close solution
2224: has $M_p=3.4 \pm 0.3~M_{\rm Jupiter}$ and $r_\perp=2.1 \pm 0.1~{\rm AU}$.}
2225: \tablenotetext{c}{We give the the projected separation between the host and planet at the time
2226: of event, which is the orbital parameter most directly constrained by our observations.
2227: However, assuming a circular orbit, we infer that the semi-major
2228: axis is likely only $\sim 10 - 20\%$ larger $[a {\rm(wide)} \sim 4.1{\rm AU}, a {\rm(close)} \sim 2.5 {\rm AU}]$.}
2229: \tablerefs{
2230: (1)\citealt{rivera05}; (2)\citealt{bean06}; (3)\citealt{benedict02}; (4)\citealt{butler06}; (5) \citealt{johnson07b} (6) \citealt{bailey} (7) \citealt{ob06109}
2231: }
2232: \end{tabular}
2233: \end{table}
2234: \end{document}
2235: