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

2: % \usepackage{graphicx}

3: % \usepackage{amssymb}

4: 

5: %\date{}           

6:  

7: \begin{document}

8:  

9: \newcommand{\TEEXACT}{T_e}

10: \newcommand{\TCREXACT}{T_{\times}}

11: \newcommand{\R}{r}

12: \newcommand{\PR}{p}

13: \newcommand{\SE}{S_e}

14: \newcommand{\AREA}{A}

15: \newcommand{\PI}{\Pi}

16: \newcommand{\THETAP}{\tilde{\theta}}

17: \newcommand{\TCR}{T}

18: \newcommand{\DEPTH}{\delta}

19: \newcommand{\FO}{f_0}

20: \newcommand{\TE}{\tau}

21: \newcommand{\TF}{T_f}

22: \newcommand{\TOUT}{T_{{\rm out}}}

23: \newcommand{\TTRAN}{T_{{\rm transit}}}

24: \newcommand{\TTOTAL}{T_{{\rm tot}}}

25: \newcommand{\RHO}{\theta}

26: \newcommand{\ETA}{\eta}

27: \newcommand{\TCENTER}{t_c}

28: \newcommand{\ODD}{\Pi}

29: \newcommand{\BETA}{\beta}

30: \newcommand{\TAU}{\tau_0}

31: \newcommand{\FE}{F^e}

32: \newcommand{\LE}{\lambda^e}

33: \newcommand{\FL}{F^l}

34: 

35: \bibliographystyle{apj}

36: 

37: \title{Analytic Approximations for Transit Light Curve Observables,

38:   Uncertainties, and Covariances}

39: 

40: \author{

41: Joshua A.~Carter\altaffilmark{1},

42: Jennifer C.~Yee\altaffilmark{2},

43: Jason Eastman\altaffilmark{2},\\

44: B.~Scott Gaudi\altaffilmark{2},

45: Joshua N.~Winn\altaffilmark{1}

46: }

47: 

48: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute for

49:   Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of

50:   Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139}

51: 

52: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, Ohio State University, 140

53:   W.~18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210}

54: 

55: \begin{abstract}

56: 

57:   The light curve of an exoplanetary transit can be used to estimate

58:   the planetary radius and other parameters of interest. Because

59:   accurate parameter estimation is a non-analytic and computationally

60:   intensive problem, it is often useful to have analytic

61:   approximations for the parameters as well as their uncertainties and

62:   covariances.  Here we give such formulas, for the case of an

63:   exoplanet transiting a star with a uniform brightness distribution.

64:   We also assess the advantages of some relatively uncorrelated

65:   parameter sets for fitting actual data.  When limb darkening is

66:   significant, our parameter sets are still useful, although our

67:   analytic formulas underpredict the covariances and uncertainties.

68: 

69: \end{abstract}

70: 

71: \keywords{methods: analytical --- binaries: eclipsing --- planets and satellites: general}

72: 

73:  

74: \section{Introduction}

75: 

76: The transit of an exoplanet across the face of its parent star is an

77: opportunity to learn a great deal about the planetary system.

78: Photometric and spectroscopic observations reveal details about the

79: planetary radius, mass, atmosphere, and orbit, as reviewed recently by

80: Charbonneau et al.~(2007). Transit light curves, in particular, bear

81: information about the planetary and stellar radii, the orbital

82: inclination, and the mean density of the star (Mandel \& Agol 2000,

83: \citet{seager03}, Gim\'enez 2007). Additional planets in

84: the system may be detected through gradual changes in the orbital

85: parameters of the transiting planet (Miralda-Escud\'e 2002,

86: Heyl \& Gladman 2007), or from a pattern of anomalies in a collection of

87: midtransit times (Holman \& Murray 2005, Agol et al.~2005, Ford \& Holman 2007).

88: 

89: In general, the parameters of a transiting system and their

90: uncertainties must be estimated from the photometric data using

91: numerical methods. For example, many investigators have used

92: $\chi^2$-minimization schemes such as AMOEBA or the

93: Levenberg-Marquardt method, along with confidence levels determined by

94: examining the appropriate surface of constant $\Delta\chi^2$ (see,

95: e.g., Brown et al.~2001, Alonso et al.~2004) or by bootstrap methods

96: (e.g., Sato et al.~2005, Winn et al.~2005). More recently it has

97: become common to use Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods (e.g., Holman et

98: al.~2006, Winn et al.~2007, Burke et al.~2007). However, even when

99: numerical algorithms are required for precise answers, it is often

100: useful to have analytic approximations for the parameters as well as

101: their uncertainties and covariances.

102: 

103: Analytic approximations can be useful for planning observations. For

104: example, one may obtain quick answers to questions such as, for which

105: systems can I expect to obtain the most precise measurement of the

106: orbital inclination? Or, how many transit light curves will I need to

107: gather with a particular telescope before the statistical error in the

108: planetary radius is smaller than the systematic error? Now that nearly

109: 50 transiting planets are known, we enjoy a situation in which a given

110: night frequently offers more than one observable transit

111: event. Analytic calculations can help one decide which target is more

112: fruitfully observed, and are much simpler and quicker than the

113: alternative of full numerical simulations. Analytic approximations are

114: also useful for

115: understanding the parameter degeneracies inherent in

116: the model, and for constructing relatively uncorrelated parameter sets

117: that will speed the convergence of optimization algorithms.

118: Finally, analytic approximations are useful in

119: order-of-magnitude estimates of the observability of

120: subtle transit effects, such as transit timing variations, precession-induced

121: changes in the transit duration, or the asymmetry in the ingress

122: and egress durations due to a nonzero orbital eccentricity.

123: 

124: Mandel \& Agol~(2005) and Gim\'enez~(2007) have previously given

125: analytic formulas for the received flux as a function of the relative

126: separation of the planet and the star, but their aim was to provide

127: highly accurate formulas, which are too complex for useful analytic

128: estimates of uncertainties and covariances. Protopapas et al.~(2007)

129: provided an analytic and differentiable approximation to the transit

130: light curve, but they were concerned with speeding up the process of

131: searching for transits in large databases, rather than parameter

132: estimation. \citet{seager03} presented an approximate

133: model of a transit light curve with the desired level of simplicity,

134: but did not provide analytic estimates of uncertainties and

135: covariances.

136: 

137: This paper is organized as follows. In \S~\ref{sec:model} we present a

138: simple analytic model for a transit light curve, using a convenient

139: and intuitive parameterization similar to that of Seager \&

140: Mallen-Ornelas~(2003). In \S~\ref{sec:fisher}, we derive analytic

141: approximations for the uncertainties and covariances of the basic

142: parameters, and in \S~\ref{sec:accuracy} we verify the accuracy of

143: those approximations through numerical tests. Our model assumes that

144: the flux measurements are made continuously throughout the transit,

145: and that stellar limb-darkening is negligible; in

146: \S~\ref{subsec:cadence} and \S~\ref{subsec:limb_darkening} we check on

147: the effects of relaxing these assumptions.  In \S~\ref{sec:prop} we

148: derive some useful expressions for the uncertainties in some

149: especially interesting or useful ``derived'' parameters, i.e.,

150: functions of the basic model parameters. In \S~\ref{sec:smaller_corrs}

151: we present alternative parameter sets that are better suited to

152: numerical algorithms for parameter estimation utilizing the analytic

153: formalism given in \S~\ref{sec:fisher}. We compare the correlations

154: among parameters for various parameter sets that have been

155: used in the transit literature. Finally, \S~7 gives a summary of

156: the key results.

157: 

158: \section{Linear approximation to the transit light curve \label{sec:model}}

159: 

160: Imagine a spherical star of radius $R_\star$ with a uniform brightness

161: and an unocculted flux $\FO$. When a dark, opaque, spherical planet of

162: radius $R_p$ is in front of the star, at a center-to-center

163: sky-projected distance of $z R_\star$, the received stellar flux is

164: $\FE(\R,z,\FO) = \FO (1-\LE(\R,z))$, where

165: \begin{eqnarray}

166:  	\LE(\R,z) = \left\{

167: 		\begin{array}{cc}

168: 			0 & 1+\R < z \\

169: 			\frac{1}{\pi}\left(\R^2 \kappa_0+\kappa_1 -\sqrt{\frac{4 z^2-(1+z^2-\R^2)^2}{4}}\right) & 1-\R < z \leq 1+\R \\

170: 			\R^2 & z \leq 1-\R

171: 		\end{array}

172: 	\right.,

173: \label{eq:exact}

174: \end{eqnarray}

175: with $\kappa_1 = \cos^{-1}[(1-\R^2+z^2)/2z]$ and $\kappa_0 = \cos^{-1}

176: [(\R^2+z^2-1)/2 \R z]$ (Mandel \& Agol 2002). Geometrically, $\LE$ is

177: the overlap area between two circles with radii 1 and $r$ whose

178: centers are $z$ units apart. The approximation of uniform brightness

179: (no limb darkening) is valid for mid-infrared bandpasses, which are

180: increasingly being used for transit observations (see, e.g.,

181: Harrington et al.~2007, Knutson et al.~2007, Deming et al.~2007), and

182: is a good approximation even for near-infrared and far-red

183: bandpasses. We make this approximation throughout this paper, except

184: in \S~\ref{subsec:limb_darkening} where we consider the effect of limb

185: darkening.

186: 

187: For a planet on a circular orbit, the relation between $z$ and the

188: time $t$ is

189: \begin{eqnarray}

190: z(t) & = & a R_{\star}^{-1}\sqrt{[\sin~n (t-\TCENTER)]^2+[\cos~i \cos~n (t-\TCENTER)]^2}

191: \label{eq:zexact}

192: \end{eqnarray}

193: where $a$ is the semimajor axis, $i$ is the inclination angle, $n

194: \equiv 2\pi/ P$ is the angular frequency with period $P$, and

195: $\TCENTER$ is the transit midpoint (when $z$ is smallest).

196: 

197: The four ``contact times'' of the transit are the moments when the

198: planetary disk and stellar disk are tangent. First contact ($t_{\rm

199: I}$) occurs at the beginning of the transit, when the disks are

200: externally tangent. Second contact ($t_{\rm II}$) occurs next, when

201: the disks are internally tangent. Third and fourth contacts ($t_{\rm

202: III}$ and $t_{\rm IV}$) are the moments of internal and external

203: tangency, respectively, as the planetary disk leaves the stellar disk.

204: The total transit duration is $t_{\rm IV} - t_{\rm I}$. The ingress

205: phase is defined as the interval between $t_{\rm I}$ and $t_{\rm II}$,

206: and likewise the egress phase is defined as the interval between

207: $t_{\rm III}$ and $t_{\rm IV}$. We also find it useful to define the

208: ingress midpoint $t_{\rm ing} \equiv (t_{\rm I} + t_{\rm II})/2$ and

209: the egress midpoint $t_{\rm egr} \equiv (t_{\rm III} + t_{\rm IV})/2$.

210: 

211: Although Eqns.~(\ref{eq:exact}) and (\ref{eq:zexact}) give an exact

212: solution, they are too complicated for an analytic error analysis. We

213: make a few approximations to enable such an analysis. First, we assume

214: the orbital period is large compared to transit duration, in which

215: case Eqn.~(\ref{eq:zexact}) is well-approximated by

216: \begin{eqnarray}

217: z(t) & = & \sqrt{[(t-\TCENTER)/\TAU]^2+b^2},

218: \label{eq:zapp}

219: \end{eqnarray}

220: where, for a circular orbit, $\TAU = R_{\star} P/ 2 \pi a = R_{\star}/ n a $ and $b = a \cos

221: i/R_{\star}$ is the normalized impact parameter. In this limit, the

222: planet moves uniformly in a straight line across the stellar disk.

223: Simple expressions may be derived for two

224: characteristic timescales of the transit:

225: \begin{eqnarray}

226:  t_{\rm egr} - t_{\rm ing} & = & \TAU\left(\sqrt{(1+\R)^2-b^2}+\sqrt{(1-\R)^2-b^2}\right) = 2 \TAU \sqrt{1-b^2}+O(\R^2) \label{eq:tcrexact}\\

227:  t_{\rm II} - t_{\rm I}    & = & \TAU\left(\sqrt{(1+\R)^2-b^2}-\sqrt{(1-\R)^2-b^2}\right) = 2 \TAU \frac{\R}{\sqrt{1-b^2}}+O(\R^3). \label{eq:teexact}

228: \end{eqnarray}

229: It is easy to enlarge the discussion to include eccentric orbits,  by 

230: replacing $a$ by the planet-star distance at midtransit, and

231: $n$ by the angular frequency at midtransit:

232: \begin{eqnarray*}

233:  a      & \rightarrow & \frac{a(1-e^2)}{1 + e\sin\omega}, \\

234:  n      & \rightarrow & \frac{n(1 + e\sin\omega)^2}{(1-e^2)^\frac{3}{2}},

235: \end{eqnarray*}

236: where $e$ is the eccentricity, and $\omega$ is the argument of

237: pericenter. Here, too, we approximate the planet's actual motion by

238: uniform motion across the stellar disk, with a velocity

239: equal to the actual velocity at midtransit.

240: Methods for computing these quantities at midtransit are discussed by

241: \citet{murray}, as well as recent transit-specific studies by

242: Barnes~(2007), Burke~(2008), Ford et al.~(2008), and \citet{gillon07}.  

243: We redefine the parameters $\TAU$ and $b$ in this expanded scope as

244: \begin{eqnarray}

245: 	b &\equiv&\frac{a \cos i}{R_{\star}}\left( \frac{1-e^2}{1 + e\sin\omega} \right) \label{eq:b_def}\\

246: 	\TAU & \equiv & \frac{R_{\star}}{a n} \left( \frac{\sqrt{1-e^2}}{1 + e\sin\omega} \label{eq:tau_def}\right).

247: \end{eqnarray}

248: We do not restrict our discussion to circular orbits ($e = 0$) unless otherwise stated.

249: 

250: Next, we replace the actual light curve with a model that is

251: piecewise-linear in time, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:model}.

252: Specifically, we define the parameters

253: \begin{eqnarray}

254:         \DEPTH & \equiv & f_0 r^2 = f_0 (R_p/R_\star)^2 \label{eq:depth} \\

255: 	\TCR   & \equiv & 2 \TAU \sqrt{1-b^2} \label{eq:tcr}\\

256: 	\TE    & \equiv & 2 \TAU \frac{\R}{\sqrt{1-b^2}} \label{eq:te}

257: \end{eqnarray}

258: and then we define our model light curve as

259: \begin{eqnarray}

260:  	\FL(t) = \left\{

261: 		\begin{array}{cc} 

262: 			\FO - \DEPTH  & |t-\TCENTER| \leq \TCR/2 - \TE/2 \\

263: 			\FO - \DEPTH + \frac{\DEPTH}{\TE} \left( |t-\TCENTER| - \TCR/2 + \TE/2 \right)  & \TCR/2 - \TE/2 < |t-\TCENTER| < \TCR/2 + \TE/2 \\

264: 			\FO & |t-\TCENTER| \geq  \TCR/2 + \TE/2

265: 		\end{array}

266: 	\right.

267: \label{eq:linear_model}

268: \end{eqnarray}

269: We use the symbol $\FL$ to distinguish this piecewise-linear model

270: ($l$ for linear) from the exact uniform-source expression $\FE$

271: given by Eqns.~(\ref{eq:exact}) and (\ref{eq:zexact}). The deviations

272: between $\FL$ and $\FE$ occur near and during the ingress and egress

273: phases. The approximation is most accurate in the limit of small $r$

274: and $b$ and is least accurate for grazing transits.   As shown in Eqn.~(\ref{eq:teexact}), when $r$ is small, $\TE

275: \approx t_{\rm II} - t_{\rm I}$ (the ingress or egress duration) and

276: $\TCR \approx t_{\rm egr} - t_{\rm ing}$ (the total transit

277: duration). Neither this piecewise-linear model nor the choice of

278: parameters is new. \citet{seager03} also used a

279: piecewise-linear model, with different linear combinations of these parameters, and both \citet{burke07} and \citet{bakos07} have

280: employed parameterizations that are closely related to the parameters

281: given above. What is specifically new to this paper is an analytic

282: error and covariance analysis of this linear model, along with useful

283: analytic expressions for errors in the physical parameters of the

284: system. The ``inverse'' mapping from our parameterization to a more

285: physical parameterization is

286: \begin{eqnarray}

287: 	r^2 = (R_p/R_\star)^2     & = & \DEPTH/\FO \label{eq:mappings_p2}\\

288: 	b^2 = \left(\frac{a \cos i}{R_{\star}}\right)^2\left( \frac{1-e^2}{1 + e\sin\omega} \right)^2 & = & 1-\R \frac{\TCR}{\TE} \label{eq:mappings_b2}\\

289:  \TAU^2 = \left( \frac{R_{\star}}{a n}\right)^2 \left( \frac{\sqrt{1-e^2}}{1 + e\sin\omega} \right) ^2  & = & \frac{\TCR \TE}{4 \R} \label{eq:mappings_t2}.

290: \end{eqnarray}

291: 

292: \clearpage

293: \begin{figure}[htbp] 

294:    \centering

295:    \plotone{f1.eps}

296:    \caption{Comparison of the exact and piecewise-linear transit

297:    models, for the parameter choice $\R = 0.2$, $b = 0.5$. The dashed

298:    line shows the exact uniform-source model $\FE$, given by Eqn.~(\ref{eq:exact}).

299:    The solid line shows the linear model $\FL$, given by

300:    Eqn.~(\ref{eq:linear_model}). }

301:    \label{fig:model}

302: \end{figure}

303: \clearpage

304: 

305: \section{Fisher information analysis \label{sec:fisher}}

306: 

307: Given a model $F(t;\{\PR_i\})$ with independent variable $t$ and a set

308: of parameters $\{\PR_i\}$, it is possible to estimate the covariance

309: between parameters, ${\rm Cov}(\PR_i,\PR_j)$, that would be obtained

310: by measuring $F(t)$ with some specified cadence and

311: precision. (Gould~2003 gives a pedagogical introduction to this

312: technique.) Suppose we have $N$ data points taken

313: at times $t_k$ spanning the entire transit event. The error in each

314: data point is assumed to be a Gaussian random variable, with zero mean

315: and standard deviation $\sigma_k$. Then the covariance between

316: parameters $\{\PR_i\}$ is

317: \begin{eqnarray}

318: 	{\rm Cov}(p_i,p_j) = \left( B^{-1}\right)_{ij} 

319: \end{eqnarray}

320: where $B$ is the zero-mean Gaussian-noise Fisher information matrix, which is calculated as

321: \begin{eqnarray}

322:   B_{ij} = \sum_{k=1} ^{N} \sum_{l=1} ^{N}

323:            \left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial p_i} F(t_k;\{p_m\}) \right]

324:            {\cal B}_{kl}

325:            \left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial p_j} F(t_l;\{p_m\}) \right] .

326: \label{eq:B}

327: \end{eqnarray} 

328: Here, ${\cal B}_{kl}$ is the inverse covariance matrix of the flux

329: measurements. We assume the measurement errors are uncorrelated (i.e.,

330: we neglect ``red noise''), in which case ${\cal B}_{kl} = \delta_{kl}

331: \sigma_{k}^{-2}$. We further assume that the measurement errors are

332: uniform in time with $\sigma_k = \sigma$, giving ${\cal B}_{kl} =

333: \delta_{kl} \sigma^{-2}$.

334: 

335: In Table~(\ref{tab:derivs}), we compute the needed partial derivatives\footnote{In computing these

336: derivatives we have ignored the dependence of the piecewise boundaries

337: in Table.~(\ref{tab:derivs}) on the parameter values.  The

338: derivatives associated with those boundary changes are finite, and

339: have a domain of measure zero in the limit of continuous sampling.

340: Thus they do not affect our covariance calculation.} of the

341: piecewise-linear light curve $\FL$, which has five parameters $\{p_i\}

342: = \{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH, \FO\}$.

343: \clearpage

344: \begin{table}[htbp]

345: \centering

346: \begin{tabular}{@{}l|ccc@{}}\hline

347: 	& Totality & Ingress/Egress & Out of Transit \\ \hline

348: 	$\frac{\partial}{\partial \TCENTER} \FL(t;\{\PR_m\})$ & $0$  & $-\frac{\DEPTH}{\TE} \frac{t-\TCENTER}{|t-\TCENTER|}$  & $0$ \\

349: 		$\frac{\partial}{\partial \TE}      \FL(t;\{\PR_m\})$ & $0$  & $-\frac{\DEPTH}{\TE^2}\left( |t-\TCENTER|-\frac{\TCR}{2} \right)$ & $0$ \\

350: 		$\frac{\partial}{\partial \TCR}     \FL(t;\{\PR_m\})$ & $0$  & $-\frac{\DEPTH}{2 \TE}$& $0$ \\

351: 		$\frac{\partial}{\partial \DEPTH}   \FL(t;\{\PR_m\})$ & $-1$ &$ \frac{1}{\TE} \left( |t-\TCENTER|-\frac{\TCR}{2} \right)-\frac{1}{2}$& $0$ \\

352: 		$\frac{\partial}{\partial \FO}      \FL(t;\{\PR_m\})$ & $1$  & $1$ & $1$ \\ \hline

353: \end{tabular}

354: \caption{Table of partial derivatives of the piecewise-linear light curve $\FL$, in the five parameters $\{p_i\}

355: = \{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH, \FO\}$.  The intervals $|t-\TCENTER| < \TCR/2-\TE/2$, $\TCR/2-\TE/2 < |t-\TCENTER| < \TCR/2+\TE/2$, and $|t-\TCENTER| > \TCR/2+\TE/2$ correspond to totality, ingress/egress, and out of transit respectively.}\label{tab:derivs}

356: \end{table}

357: \clearpage

358: %\begin{eqnarray}

359: %	\begin{array}{c|ccc}

360: %			&\mbox{Totality}  & \mbox{Ingress/Egress } & \mbox{Out of Transit } \\ \hline 

361: %		\frac{\partial}{\partial \TCENTER} \FL(t;\{\PR_m\}) & 0  & -\frac{\DEPTH}{\TE} \frac{t-\TCENTER}{|t-\TCENTER|}  & 0 \\

362: %		\frac{\partial}{\partial \TE}      \FL(t;\{\PR_m\}) & 0  & -\frac{\DEPTH}{\TE^2}\left( |t-\TCENTER|-\frac{\TCR}{2} \right) & 0 \\

363: %		\frac{\partial}{\partial \TCR}     \FL(t;\{\PR_m\}) & 0  & -\frac{\DEPTH}{2 \TE}& 0 \\

364: %		\frac{\partial}{\partial \DEPTH}   \FL(t;\{\PR_m\}) & -1 & \frac{1}{\TE} \left( |t-\TCENTER|-\frac{\TCR}{2} \right)-\frac{1}{2}& 0 \\

365: %		\frac{\partial}{\partial \FO}      \FL(t;\{\PR_m\}) & 1  & 1 & 1

366: %	\end{array}

367: %\label{eq:model_derivs}

368: %\end{eqnarray}

369: %The intervals $|t-\TCENTER| < \TCR/2-\TE/2$, $\TCR/2-\TE/2 < |t-\TCENTER| < \TCR/2+\TE/2$, and $|t-\TCENTER| > \TCR/2+\TE/2$ correspond to totality, ingress/egress, and out of transit respectively.

370: 

371: Fig.~(\ref{fig:model_derivs}) shows the time dependence of the

372: parameter derivatives, for a particular case. The time dependence of

373: the parameter derivatives for the exact uniform-source model $\FE$ is

374: also shown, for comparison, as are the numerical derivatives for

375: limb-darkenened light curves. This comparison shows that the linear

376: model captures the essential features of more realistic models, and in

377: particular the symmetries. The most obvious problem with the linear

378: model is that it gives a poor description of the $\TE$-derivative and the $\DEPTH$-derivative for

379: the case of appreciable limb darkening, as discussed further in

380: \S~\ref{subsec:limb_darkening}. From Fig.~(\ref{fig:model_derivs})

381: and Table~(\ref{tab:derivs}) we see that for the parameters

382: $\TCR$, $\TE$, and $\DEPTH$, the derivatives are symmetric about

383: $t=\TCENTER$, while the derivative for the parameter $\TCENTER$ is

384: antisymmetric about $\TCENTER$. This implies that $\TCENTER$ is

385: uncorrelated with the other parameters. (This is also the case for the

386: exact model, with or without limb darkening.)

387: 

388: \clearpage

389:  \begin{figure}[htbp] %  figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page

390:     \centering

391:      \plotone{f2.eps}

392:     \caption{Parameter derivatives, as a function of time, for the

393:     piecewise-linear model light curve $\FL$ (top row), the exact

394:     light curve for the case of zero limb darkening $\FE$ (second

395:     row), and for numerical limb-darkened light curves with a linear

396:     limb-darkening coefficient $u=0.2$ (third row) and

397:     $u=0.5$ (bottom row). See \S~\ref{subsec:limb_darkening} for the definition of $u$.  Typical scales are shown in the first row and are consistent in the following rows.}

398:     \label{fig:model_derivs}

399:  \end{figure} 

400: \clearpage

401: 

402: We suppose that the data points are sampled uniformly in time at a

403: rate $\Gamma = N/\TTOTAL$, where the observations range from $t=t_0$

404: to $t=t_0+\TTOTAL$ and encompass the entire transit event. In the

405: limit of large $\Gamma \TE$ we may approximate the sums of

406: Eqn.~(\ref{eq:B}) with time integrals,

407: \begin{eqnarray}

408: 	B_{ij} &=& 

409:           \frac{\Gamma}{\sigma^2}

410:              \int_{t_0}^{t_0+\TTOTAL}

411:                \left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial \PR_i} \FL(t;\{\PR_m\}) \right]

412:                \left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial \PR_j} \FL(t;\{\PR_m\}) \right] ~dt .

413: 	\label{eq:Bint}

414: \end{eqnarray}

415: Using the derivatives from Table~(\ref{tab:derivs}) we find

416: \begin{eqnarray}

417: 	B & = & \frac{\Gamma}{\sigma^2} \left(

418: \begin{array}{lllll}

419:  \frac{2 \DEPTH ^2}{\TE} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\

420:  0 & \frac{\DEPTH ^2}{6 \TE} & 0 & -\frac{\DEPTH }{6} & 0 \\

421:  0 & 0 & \frac{\DEPTH ^2}{2 \TE} & \frac{\DEPTH }{2} & -\DEPTH  \\

422:  0 & -\frac{\DEPTH }{6} & \frac{\DEPTH }{2} & \TCR-\frac{\TE}{3} & -\TCR

423:    \\

424:  0 & 0 & -\DEPTH  & -\TCR & \TTOTAL

425: \end{array}

426: \right).

427: \end{eqnarray} 

428: 

429: In what follows, it is useful to define some dimensionless

430: variables:

431: \begin{eqnarray}

432:    Q   & \equiv & \sqrt{\Gamma \TCR} \frac{\DEPTH}{\sigma}, \nonumber \\

433:  \RHO  & \equiv & \TE/\TCR, \nonumber \\

434:  \ETA  & \equiv & \TCR/(\TTOTAL - \TCR - \TE).

435: \label{eq:dimensionless_vars}

436: \end{eqnarray}

437: The first of these variables, $Q$, is equal to the total signal-to-noise

438: ratio of the transit in the limit $r\rightarrow 0$.  The second

439: variable, $\RHO$, is approximately the ratio of ingress (or egress)

440: duration to the total transit duration.  The third variable, $\ETA$,

441: is approximately the ratio of the number of data points obtained

442: during the transit to the number of data points obtained before or

443: after the transit. Oftentimes, $r$ and $\RHO$ are much smaller than

444: unity, which will later enable us to derive simple expressions for the

445: variances and covariances, but for the moment we consider the general

446: case.

447: 

448: Inverting $B$, we find the covariance matrix for the piecewise-linear

449: model,

450: \begin{eqnarray}

451: {\rm Cov}(\{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH, \FO\}~,\{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH, \FO\}) = \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\nonumber \\

452:  \frac{1}{Q^2} \left(

453: \begin{array}{lllll}

454:  \frac{\RHO}{2}  \TCR^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\

455:  0 & \left[\ETA \RHO+ \frac{6-5 \RHO }{1-\RHO } \right]\RHO  \TCR^2&

456:    \left[\ETA-\frac{1}{1-\RHO }\right] \RHO ^2 \TCR^2& \left[ \ETA +\frac{1}{1-\RHO }\right]  \RHO \DEPTH \TCR &  \ETA  \RHO  \DEPTH  \TCR \\

457:  0 &  \left[\ETA-\frac{1}{1-\RHO }\right] \RHO ^2 \TCR^2& \left[ \ETA \RHO+ \frac{2-\RHO}{1-\RHO} \right] \RHO \TCR^2& \left[  \ETA  -\frac{1 }{1-\RHO }\right] \RHO \DEPTH  \TCR&   \ETA  \RHO  \DEPTH \TCR  \\

458:  0 & \left[ \ETA +\frac{1}{1-\RHO }\right]  \RHO \DEPTH \TCR&\left[  \ETA  -\frac{1 }{1-\RHO }\right] \RHO \DEPTH  \TCR& \left[ \ETA + \frac{1}{1-\RHO}\right]\DEPTH ^2

459:    &  \ETA  \DEPTH ^2 \\

460:  0 &   \ETA  \RHO  \DEPTH \TCR &   \ETA  \RHO \DEPTH \TCR &  \ETA \DEPTH ^2

461:     &  \ETA \DEPTH ^2

462: \end{array}

463: \right).\label{eq:cov}

464: \end{eqnarray}

465: The elements along the diagonal of the covariance matrix are

466: variances, or squares of standard errors, $\sigma_{\PR_i} = \sqrt{{\rm

467: Cov}(\PR_i,\PR_i)}$.

468: 

469: This result can be simplified for the case when many out-of-transit

470: observations are obtained and $\ETA \rightarrow 0$.  In this limit,

471: $\FO$ is known with negligible error, and we may assume $\FO =1$

472: without loss of generality. In this case, $\delta$ is the fractional

473: transit depth, and the covariance matrix becomes

474: \begin{eqnarray}

475: {\rm Cov}(\{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH\}~,\{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH\}) &=& \frac{1}{Q^2} \left(

476: \begin{array}{llll}

477:  \frac{\RHO}{2}   \TCR^2 & 0 & 0 & 0\\

478:  0 & \frac{\RHO  \left(6-5 \RHO \right) }{1-\RHO } \TCR^2&

479:    -\frac{ \RHO ^2 }{1-\RHO }\TCR^2& \frac{ \RHO  }{1-\RHO }\DEPTH \TCR \\

480:  0 &   -\frac{ \RHO ^2 }{1-\RHO } \TCR^2& \frac{\RHO  \left(2-\RHO \right)}{1-\RHO}  \TCR^2& -\frac{  \RHO }{1-\RHO }\DEPTH  \TCR \\

481:  0 & \frac{ \RHO }{1-\RHO } \DEPTH  \TCR& -\frac{   \RHO  }{1-\RHO }\DEPTH \TCR& \frac{ 1}{1-\RHO}\DEPTH ^2 

482: \end{array}

483: \right).\label{eq:sub_cov}

484: \end{eqnarray}

485: from which it is obvious that $\RHO$ is the key controlling parameter

486: that deserves special attention. Using Eqns.~(\ref{eq:tcr}) and

487: (\ref{eq:te}) we may write

488: \begin{eqnarray}

489: 	\RHO &= & \frac{\R}{1-b^2}.

490: \label{eq:RHO}

491: \end{eqnarray} 

492: 

493: Unless the transit is grazing, we have $b \leq 1-r$, and $\RHO$ is

494: restricted to the range $\left[r\right.$,$\left.\frac{1}{2-r}\right]$.

495: Fig.~(\ref{fig:rho_in_b}) shows the dependence of $\RHO$ on the impact

496: parameter, for various choices of the transit depth. It is important

497: to keep in mind that for $b \lesssim 0.5$, $\RHO$ is nearly equal to

498: $r$ and depends weakly on $b$. This implies that $\RHO$ is expected to

499: be quite small for most transiting systems.  For planetary orbits that

500: are randomly oriented in space, the expected distribution of $b$ is

501: uniform, and hence we expect $\RHO \lesssim 0.3$ for $90\%$ of a

502: random sample of transiting planets with $R_p \le R_{\rm Jup}$\footnote{In fact, the fraction of

503:   discovered systems with $\RHO \lesssim 0.3$ may be even larger than

504:   90\%, because selection effects make it harder to detect grazing

505:   transits.}. For this reason, in the following figures we use a

506: logarithmic scale for $\RHO$, to emphasize the small values.

507: Fig.~(\ref{fig:var_in_rho}) shows the (suitably normalized) elements

508: of the covariance matrix as a function of $\RHO$.

509: 

510: \clearpage

511: \begin{figure}[htbp] %  figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page

512:    \centering

513:     \plotone{f3.eps}

514:    \caption{Dependence of $\RHO = \frac{\TE}{\TCR}$ on depth $\DEPTH =

515:    r^2$ and normalized impact parameter $b$, for the cases $r = 0.05$

516:    (solid line), $r = 0.1$ (dashed line), and $r=0.15$ (dotted line).}

517:    \label{fig:rho_in_b}

518: \end{figure}

519: 

520: \begin{figure}[htbp] %  figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page

521:    \centering

522:    \plotone{f4a.eps}

523:     \plotone{f4b.eps}

524:    \caption{Standard errors and covariances, as a function of $\RHO

525:    \equiv \TE/\TCR$, for different choices of $\ETA$. The analytic

526:    expressions are given in Eqn.~(\ref{eq:cov}). The definitions of

527:    $\ETA$, $\RHO$, and $Q$ are given in

528:    Eqn.~(\ref{eq:dimensionless_vars}).  Solid line $-$ $\ETA = 0$;

529:    Dashed line $-$ $\ETA = 0.5$; Dotted line $-$ $\ETA = 1$. }

530:    \label{fig:var_in_rho}

531: \end{figure}

532: \clearpage

533: 	

534: In the limits $\ETA\rightarrow 0$ (errorless knowledge of $\FO$) and

535: $\RHO\rightarrow r$ (small impact parameter), the expressions for the

536: standard errors are especially simple:

537: \begin{eqnarray}

538: 	\sigma_{\TCENTER} & = & Q^{-1} \TCR \sqrt{\RHO/2},  \nonumber\\

539: 	\sigma_{\TE}      & \approx & Q^{-1} \TCR \sqrt{6 \RHO},  \nonumber\\

540: 	\sigma_{\TCR}     & \approx & Q^{-1} \TCR \sqrt{2 \RHO},  \nonumber \\

541: 	\sigma_{\DEPTH}   & \approx & Q^{-1} \DEPTH .

542: \label{eq:covlimits}

543: \end{eqnarray}

544: In this regime, we have a clear hierarchy in the precision with which

545: the time parameters are known, with $\sigma_{\TCENTER} <

546: \sigma_{\TCR} < \sigma_{\TE}$.

547: 

548: To further quantify the degree of correlation among the parameters, we

549: compute the correlation matrix,

550: \begin{eqnarray}

551: {\rm Corr}(\{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH, \FO\}~ ,\{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH, \FO\}) = \left\{\frac{{\rm Cov}(i, j)}{\sqrt{ {\rm Cov}(i, i) {\rm Cov}(j, j)}}\right\} =\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\nonumber \\

552: 	\left(

553: \begin{array}{lllll}

554:  1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\

555:  0 & 1 & \frac{(\BETA -1) \RHO }{\sqrt{(6-\RHO(5-\BETA)) (2-\RHO (1-\BETA))}} &\sqrt{ \frac{(\BETA +1) \RHO }{

556:    6-\RHO(5-\BETA)}} & \sqrt{\frac{\BETA \RHO }{6-\RHO(5-\BETA) }} \\

557:  0 & \frac{(\BETA -1) \RHO }{\sqrt{(6-\RHO(5-\BETA) ) (2-\RHO (1-\BETA))}} & 1 & \frac{(\BETA -1) \sqrt{\RHO }}{\sqrt{(\BETA +1)

558:    (2-\RHO(1-\BETA ) )}} & \sqrt{\frac{\BETA \RHO}{ 2-\RHO (1-\BETA)}} \\

559:  0 & \sqrt{ \frac{(\BETA +1) \RHO }{

560:    6-\RHO(5-\BETA) }} & \frac{(\BETA -1) \sqrt{\RHO }}{\sqrt{(\BETA +1)

561:    (2-\RHO(1-\BETA ) )}} & 1 & \sqrt{\frac{\BETA }{ \BETA +1}} \\

562:  0 &   \sqrt{\frac{\BETA \RHO }{6-\RHO(5-\BETA) }}& \sqrt{\frac{\BETA \RHO}{ 2-\RHO (1-\BETA)}}& \sqrt{\frac{\BETA }{ \BETA +1}} & 1

563: \end{array}

564: \right). \label{eq:corr}

565: \end{eqnarray} 

566: where we have defined $\BETA \equiv \ETA (1-\RHO)$ to simplify the

567: resulting expression.  For $\RHO \rightarrow 0$, all correlations with

568: $\FO$ vanish except for the correlation with $\DEPTH$. Due to the fact the correlation between $\DEPTH$ and $\FO$ is $\propto \BETA^{1/2}$, it remains large even for fairly small $\BETA$.  In the limit of

569: $\ETA \rightarrow 0$ ($\BETA \rightarrow 0$), we remove all

570: correlations with $\FO$ and have the remaining correlations

571: depending only on the ratio $\RHO$:

572: \begin{eqnarray}

573: \lim_{\ETA \rightarrow 0}{\rm Corr}(\cdot~ ,\cdot) &=&	\left(

574: \begin{array}{llllll}

575:  1 & 0 & 0 & 0  & 0\\

576:  0 & 1 & -\frac{\RHO }{\sqrt{(6 -5 \RHO) (2- \RHO )}} &\sqrt{ \frac{\RHO }{

577:    6 -5 \RHO}} &0 \\

578:  0 &  -\frac{\RHO }{\sqrt{(6 -5 \RHO) (2- \RHO )}} & 1 & -\sqrt{\frac{ \RHO }{

579:    2-\RHO }} & 0 \\

580:  0 & \sqrt{ \frac{\RHO }{

581:    6 -5 \RHO}}  & -\sqrt{\frac{ \RHO }{

582:    2-\RHO }} & 1  &0 \\

583:    0& 0&0&0&1

584: \end{array}

585: \right). \label{eq:sub_corr}

586: \end{eqnarray} 

587: Correlations with $\FO$ decline with $\ETA$ as $\sqrt{\ETA}$. 

588: 

589: In Fig. (\ref{fig:corr_in_rho}), we have plotted the nonzero

590: correlations as a function of $\RHO$ for a few choices of $\ETA$.  The

591: special case of $\ETA \rightarrow 0$ is plotted in

592: Fig.~(\ref{fig:corr_in_rho_eta_0}). In the $\ETA \rightarrow 0$ limit,

593: all correlations are small ($\lesssim 0.3$) over a large region of the

594: parameter space. Thus, our choice of parameters provides a weakly

595: correlated set for all but grazing transits ($\RHO \sim 1/2$), as noted

596: during the numerical analysis of particular systems by Burke et

597: al.~(2007) and Bakos et al.~(2007). One naturally wonders whether a

598: different choice of parameters would give even smaller (or even zero)

599: correlations.  In \S~\ref{sec:smaller_corrs} we present parameter

600: sets that are essentially uncorrelated and have other desirable properties

601: for numerical parameter estimation algorithms.

602: 

603: The analytic formalism given in this section and more

604: specifically the simple analytic covariance matrices in

605: Eqns.~(\ref{eq:cov}, \ref{eq:sub_cov}) provide a toolbox with which to

606: evaluate the statistical merits of any parameter set that can be

607: written in terms of our parameters. In \S~\ref{sec:prop} this

608: technique is defined and applied to produce analytic formulas for

609: variances, covariances and uncertainties in several interesting

610: parameters.  

611: 

612: \clearpage

613: \newcommand{\corr}[2]{${\rm Corr}(#1,#2)$}

614: \begin{figure}[htbp] %  figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page

615:    \centering

616:     \plotone{f5.eps}

617:    \caption{Correlations of the piecewise-linear model parameters, as a function

618:    of $\RHO \equiv \TE/\TCR$ for different choices of $\ETA$.

619:    Solid line $-$ $\ETA = 0$; Dashed

620:    line $-$ $\ETA = 0.5$; Dotted line $-$ $\ETA = 1$.}

621:    \label{fig:corr_in_rho}

622: \end{figure}

623: \begin{figure}[htbp] %  figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page

624:    \centering

625:     \plotone{f6.eps}

626:    \caption{Correlations of the piecewise-linear model parameters,

627:    as a function of $\RHO \equiv \TE/\TCR$, for the case 

628:    $\ETA \rightarrow 0$ (errorless knowledge of the out-of-transit flux).

629:    Solid line $-$ \corr{\TE}{\TCR}. Dashed line $-$ \corr{\TE}{\DEPTH}. Dotted line $-$ \corr{\TCR}{\DEPTH}.}

630:    \label{fig:corr_in_rho_eta_0}

631: \end{figure}

632: \clearpage

633: 

634: \section{Accuracy of the covariance expressions \label{sec:accuracy}}

635: 

636: Before investigating other parameter sets, it is necessary to examine

637: the validity of Eqns.~(\ref{eq:cov}, \ref{eq:sub_cov}, \ref{eq:corr},

638: \ref{eq:sub_corr}) when compared to similar quantities derived from

639: more realistic transit light curve models.

640: The utility of the covariance matrix in Eqn.~(\ref{eq:cov}) depends on

641: the accuracy of the integral approximation of Eqn. (\ref{eq:Bint}),

642: and on the fidelity with which the parameter dependences of the

643: piecewise-linear model mimic the dependences of the exact uniform-source

644: model.  In this section we investigate these two issues.

645: 

646: \subsection{Finite cadence correction \label{subsec:cadence}}

647: 

648: The case of a finite observing cadence, rather than continuous

649: sampling, can be analyzed by evaluating the exact sums of

650: Eqn.~(\ref{eq:B}). Generally, given a sampling rate $\Gamma$, we

651: expect the integral approximation in Eqn.~(\ref{eq:Bint}) to be valid

652: to order $(\Gamma \TE)^{-1}$. In the $\ETA \rightarrow 0$ limit we may

653: evaluate the exact sums, under the assumption of a uniform sampling

654: rate, with data points occurring exactly at the start and end of the

655: ingress (and egress) phases as well as at some intermediate times.

656: This directly summed covariance, ${\rm Cov}_{\rm sum}$, is related to

657: the integral-approximation covariance Eqn.~(\ref{eq:sub_cov}) as

658: \begin{eqnarray}

659: 	{\rm Cov}_{\rm sum}(\cdot,\cdot) &=& {\rm Cov}(\cdot,\cdot) + 6 \left(\frac{\TCR}{Q}\right)^2\frac{ \RHO}{1-\epsilon^2}

660: 	\left(\begin{array}{llll}

661: 		0 & 0 & 0 &0 \\

662: 		0 & \epsilon^2 & \epsilon&0 \\

663: 		0 & \epsilon & \epsilon^2 & 0 \\

664: 		0 & 0 & 0 & 0

665: 	\end{array}\right)  \label{eq:sums}

666: \end{eqnarray}

667: where $\epsilon = (\Gamma \TE)^{-1}$.

668: 

669: The quantity $\Gamma \TE$ is approximately the number of data points

670: obtained during ingress or egress.  It is evident from

671: Eqn.~(\ref{eq:sums}) that for this sampling scheme only the variances

672: of $\TCR$ and $\TE$ along with their covariance are corrected.  The

673: corrections to the variances and covariance are $O(\epsilon^2)$ and

674: $O(\epsilon)$ respectively.

675: 

676: \subsection{Comparison with covariances of the exact uniform-source model \label{sec:comp}}

677: 

678: We tested the accuracy of the covariance matrix based on the

679: piecewise-linear model by (1) performing a numerical Fisher analysis

680: of the exact uniform-source model, and also (2) applying a Markov Chain Monte Carlo

681: (MCMC) analysis of simulated data based on the exact uniform-source

682: model.  In both analyses, orbits are assumed to be circular.

683:   For the first task, we evaluated the analytic parameter

684: derivatives of Eqn.~(\ref{eq:exact}), which are too cumbersome to be

685: worth reproducing here, and numerically integrated

686: Eqn.~(\ref{eq:Bint}) to generate covariance matrices over a wide range

687: of parameter choices.  Fig.~(\ref{fig:model_derivs}), in \S~2, shows

688: the parameter derivatives for the exact model, as well as the

689: piecewise-linear model and some limb-darkened light curves.  For the

690: second task, idealized data was generated by adding Gaussian noise with

691: standard deviation $\sigma/\FO = 5\times10^{-4}$ to

692: Eqn.~(\ref{eq:exact}) sampled at $\Gamma = 100$ (in units of the

693: characteristic timescale $\TAU$, Eqn.~(\ref{eq:tau_def})). With

694: this sampling rate, approximately 50 samples occur during the ingress

695: and egress phases. Approximately $10^4$ links per parameter were generated

696: with a Gibbs sampler and a Metropolis-Hasting jump-acceptance

697: criterion. The jump-success fraction (the fraction of jumps in

698: parameter space that are actually executed) was approximately $25\%$

699: for all parameters. The effective length, defined as the ratio

700: of the number of links to the correlation length (see the end of

701: \S~\ref{sec:smaller_corrs} for the exact definition), was roughly

702: $1000-2000$ for the piecewise-linear model parameter set. More details

703: on the MCMC algorithm are given by \citet{tegmark04} and

704: \citet{ford05}. Standard errors were determined by computing the standard deviation of

705: the resulting distribution for each parameter. The Fisher-information

706: analysis should mirror the MCMC results, as long as the log-likelihood

707: function is well approximated as quadratic near the mean (Gould~2003).

708: 

709: The numerical Fisher analysis was performed for $\ETA = 0$ and $0.05

710: \leq \RHO \lesssim 1/2$. In practice this was done by choosing $\R =

711: 0.05$ and varying $b$ across the full range of impact parameters. (The

712: numerical analysis confirmed that the suitably-normalized covariances

713: vary only as a function of $\RHO \equiv \TE/\TCR$, with the exception

714: of slight $\DEPTH$-dependent positive offset in $\sigma_\DEPTH$ that

715: goes to zero as $\DEPTH$ goes to zero.) The MCMC analysis for $\ETA = 0$ was

716: accomplished by fixing the out of transit flux, $\FO = 1$, and varying

717: the remaining parameters We chose $\R = 0.1$ for the MCMC analysis.

718: Fig.~(\ref{fig:corr_eta_0}) shows all of the nonzero numerical

719: correlation matrix elements, as a function of $\RHO$.  The MCMC

720: results, plotted as solid symbols, closely follow the curves resulting

721: from the numerical Fisher analysis.  Fig.~(\ref{fig:cov_numerical})

722: shows the nonzero numerical covariance matrix elements, also for the

723: case $\ETA=0$.

724: 

725: The correlations of the piecewise-linear model match the correlations

726: of the exact model reasonably well, with the most significant

727: deviations occurring only in the grazing limit, $\RHO \sim 1/2$.  We

728: have also confirmed that a similar level of agreement is obtained for

729: nonzero $\ETA$, although for brevity those results are not shown here.

730: We concluded from these tests that the errors in the analytic

731: estimates of the uncertainties are generally small enough for the

732: analytic error estimates derived from the piecewise-linear model to be

733: useful.

734: 

735: \clearpage

736: \begin{figure}[htbp] %  figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page

737:    \centering

738:    \plotone{f7.eps} 

739:    \caption{Comparison of the non-zero correlation matrix elements for

740:      the exact light-curve model and the piecewise-linear model, as a

741:      function of $\RHO \equiv \TE/\TCR$, for $\ETA \rightarrow 0$.

742:      Black curves:~correlations for the piecewise-linear model.  Gray

743:      curves:~correlations for the exact uniform-source model.  Black

744:      dots:~correlations based on an MCMC analysis of simulated

745:      data with Gaussian noise ($r=0.1$).}

746:    \label{fig:corr_eta_0}

747: \end{figure}

748: 

749: \begin{figure}[htbp] %  figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page

750:    \centering

751:     \plotone{f8a.eps}

752:     \plotone{f8b.eps}

753:    \caption{Comparison of the covariance matrix elements for the exact

754:      uniform-source model, linear limb-darkened model, and the

755:      piecewise-linear model, as a function of $\RHO \equiv \TE/\TCR$,

756:      for $\ETA \rightarrow 0$.  Black curves:~covariances for the

757:      piecewise-linear model.  Gray curves:~covariances for the exact

758:      model with linear limb-darkening coefficient $u = 0$ (solid) and

759:      $u = 0.5$ (dashed). Black dots:~covariances as determined by a

760:      MCMC analysis of simulated data with Gaussian noise ($u = 0$ and

761:      $r=0.1$).  The dimensionless number $Q \equiv \sqrt{ \Gamma \TCR

762:      } \DEPTH/\sigma$ (see Eqn.~\ref{eq:dimensionless_vars}) is

763:      approximately the signal-to-noise ratio of the transit.}

764:    \label{fig:cov_numerical}

765: \end{figure}

766: \clearpage

767: 

768: \subsection{The effects of limb darkening \label{subsec:limb_darkening}}

769: 

770: The piecewise-linear function of Eqn.~(\ref{eq:linear_model}) was

771: constructed as a model of a transit across a stellar disk of uniform

772: brightness, with applications to far-red and infrared photometry in

773: mind. At shorter wavelengths, the limb darkening of the star is

774: important. How useful are the previously derived results for this

775: case, if at all? We used the limb-darkened light-curve models given by

776: \citet{agol02} to answer this question.

777: 

778: To simplify the analysis we adopted a ``linear'' limb-darkening

779: law, in which the surface brightness profile of the star is

780: \begin{eqnarray}

781: 	\frac{I(z)}{I_0} & = & 1-u \left( 1- \sqrt{1-z^2} \right)

782: \end{eqnarray}

783: where $u$ is the linear limb-darkening parameter. Claret (2000)

784: finds values of $u$ ranging from $0.5$--$1.2$ in $UBVR$ for a

785: range of main-sequence stars.  Longer wavelength bands correspond to a

786: smaller $u$ for the same surface gravity and effective

787: temperature.  Solar values are $u \approx 0.5$ in the Johnson

788: $R$ band and 0.2 in the $K$ band. Fig.~(\ref{fig:model_derivs}) of

789: \S~2 shows the time-dependence of the parameter derivatives of a

790: linear limb-darkened light curve, for the two cases $u=0.2$ and

791: $u=0.5$, to allow for comparison with the corresponding

792: dependences of the piecewise-linear model and the exact model with no

793: limb darkening. 

794: 

795: From the differences apparent in this plot, one would expect increased

796: correlations (larger than our analytic formulas would predict) between

797: the transit depth and the two timescales $\TE$ and $\TCR$. This is

798: borne out by our numerical calculations of the covariance matrix

799: elements, which are plotted in

800: Figs.~(\ref{fig:cov_numerical},\ref{fig:corr_ld_no_fix}).  The

801: analytic formulas underpredict the variances in $\DEPTH$ and $\TE$ by

802: a factor of a few, and they also severely underpredict the correlation

803: between those parameters.  

804: 

805: \clearpage

806: \begin{figure}[htbp] %  figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page

807:    \plottwo{f9a.eps}{f9b.eps}

808:   \caption{Comparison of the analytic correlations (black lines;

809:    Eqn.~\ref{eq:corr}) numerically-calculated correlation matrix

810:    elements for a linear limb-darkened light curve (gray lines), as a

811:    function of $\RHO \equiv \TE/\TCR$, for $\ETA\rightarrow 0$.  Linestyles follow the conventions of Fig.~(\ref{fig:corr_eta_0}).}

812:    \label{fig:corr_ld_no_fix}

813: \end{figure}

814: \clearpage

815: 

816: It is possible to improve the agreement with the analytic formulas by

817: associating $\DEPTH$ with the minimum of the transit light curve,

818: rather than the square of the radius ratio.  Specifically, one

819: replaces the definition of Eqn.~(\ref{eq:mappings_p2}) with the new

820: definition

821: \begin{eqnarray}

822:   \DEPTH & = & \FO\R^2~\frac{9 - 8 \left(\sqrt{1-b^2}-1\right) u}{9-8 u }.

823: \label{eq:depth_ld}

824: \end{eqnarray}

825: For the previously-derived formulas to be valid, we must adopt a value

826: for $u$ based on other information about the parent star (its spectral

827: energy distribution and spectral lines, luminosity, etc.)~rather than

828: determining $u$ from the photometric data.

829: Fig.~(\ref{fig:corr_ld_05_fix}) shows the correlations resulting from

830: this new association, for the case $u = 0.5$.  Fig.~(\ref{fig:cov_ld_05_fix}) shows the improvement with this new association for the variance in $\DEPTH$ and the covariance between $\DEPTH$ and $\TE$, for the case $u = 0.5$. While this new

831: association improves on the agreement with the analytic covariances (particularly at low normalized impact parameter), a

832: disadvantage is that we no longer have a closed-form mapping from

833: $\{\DEPTH, \TCR, \TE\}$ back to the more physical parameters $\{r, b,

834: \TAU\}$.

835: 

836:  It should be noted that there is evidence that linear limb darkening may not adequately fit high-quality transit light curves relative to higher order models (\citet{brown01}, \citet{south08}).  A more complete analysis with arbitrary source surface brightness would minimally include quadratic limb darkening but is outside the scope of this discussion.  \citet{pal08} completes a complementary analysis to this one of uncertainties in the quadratic limb darkening parameters themselves.

837:  

838: \clearpage

839: \begin{figure}[htbp] %  figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page

840:    \centering

841:     \plotone{f10.eps}

842:    \caption{Comparison of correlation matrix elements for the

843:      piecewise-linear model (black curve) and a linear limb-darkened

844:      light curve ($u=0.5$; gray curve), as a function of $\RHO

845:      \equiv \TE/\TCR$.  Here, the $\DEPTH$ parameter has been

846:      redefined as the minimum of the limb-darkened light curve, as

847:      approximated by Eqn.~(\ref{eq:depth_ld}). Linestyles follow the conventions of Fig.~(\ref{fig:corr_eta_0}).}

848:    \label{fig:corr_ld_05_fix} 

849: \end{figure}

850: 

851: \begin{figure}[htbp] %  figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page

852:    \centering

853:     \plotone{f11.eps}

854:    \caption{Comparison of select covariance matrix elements for the

855:      piecewise-linear model (black curve) and a linear limb-darkened

856:      light curve ($u=0.5$; gray curves), as a function of $\RHO

857:      \equiv \TE/\TCR$.   The $\DEPTH$ parameter has been

858:      redefined as the minimum of the limb-darkened light curve, as

859:      approximated by Eqn.~(\ref{eq:depth_ld}), in the solid gray curve.   The dashed gray curve uses the initial $\DEPTH$ association, as defined in Eqn.~(\ref{eq:depth}).  Linestyles follow the conventions of Fig.~(\ref{fig:cov_numerical}).}

860:    \label{fig:cov_ld_05_fix} 

861: \end{figure}

862: \clearpage

863: 

864: \section{Errors in derived quantities of interest in the absence of limb darkening\label{sec:prop}}

865: 

866: The parameters $\{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH, \FO\}$ are preferred

867: mainly because they lead to simple analytic

868: formulas for their uncertainties and covariances. The values of these

869: parameters are also occasionally of direct interest. In particular,

870: when planning observations, it is useful to know the transit duration,

871: depth, and the predicted midtransit time. Of more direct scientific

872: interest are the values of the ``physical'' parameters, such as the

873: planetary and stellar radii, the orbital inclination, and the mean

874: density of the star. Those latter parameters also offer clearer {\it a

875:   priori}\, expectations, such as a uniform distribution in $\cos i$.

876: 

877: For affine parameter transformations ${\bf p} \mapsto {\bf p'}$ , we

878: may transform the covariance matrix ${\bf C}$ via the Jacobian ${\bf

879: J} = \frac{\partial {\bf p'}}{\partial {\bf p}}$ as

880: \begin{eqnarray}

881: 	{\bf C}' = {\bf J}^{{\rm T}} {\bf C} {\bf J}~.

882: \label{eq:trans_cov}

883: \end{eqnarray}

884: 

885: Using Eqns.~(\ref{eq:mappings_p2}--\ref{eq:mappings_t2}), we may

886: calculate the Jacobian

887: \begin{eqnarray}

888: 	\frac{\partial \{\TCENTER, b^2, \TAU^2, \R, \FO\}}{\partial \{ \TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH, \FO\}} & = &

889:  \left(

890: \begin{array}{lllll}

891:  1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\

892:  0 & \frac{\R \TCR}{\TE ^2} & \frac{\TCR}{4 \R} & 0 & 0 \\

893:  0 & -\frac{\R}{\TE} & \frac{\TE }{4 \R} & 0 & 0 \\

894:  0 & -\frac{\TCR}{2 \FO \R \TE } & -\frac{\TCR \TE }{8 \FO \R^3} & \frac{1}{2 \FO \R} & 0 \\

895:  0 & \frac{p \TCR}{2 \FO \TE } & \frac{\TCR \TE }{8\FO \R} & -\frac{\R}{2 \FO} & 1

896: \end{array}

897: \right)

898: \label{eq:jacob_native}

899: \end{eqnarray}

900: between the parameters of the piecewise-linear model and the more

901: physical parameter set when limb darkening is negligible. Using this Jacobian, the transformed

902: covariance matrix is

903: \begin{eqnarray}

904: 	{\rm Cov}'( \{b^2, \TAU^2, \R, \FO\}~, \{b^2, \TAU^2, \R, \FO\}) = \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\nonumber\\

905:  \frac{1}{Q^2} \left(

906: \begin{array}{llll}

907: 	   \frac{24- \RHO  (4 (\RHO -3) \RHO +23)}{4 (1-\RHO ) \RHO ^3}\R^2 & \frac{24-\RHO  (23-4 (\RHO -2) \RHO

908:    )}{16 (1-\RHO ) \RHO }  \TCR^2 & \frac{2 \RHO  +1}{4 \RHO(1 - \RHO )} \R^2& 0\\

909:   \frac{24-\RHO  (23-4 (\RHO -2) \RHO ) }{16 (1-\RHO ) \RHO } \TCR^2& \frac{24- \RHO  (4

910:    (\RHO -1) \RHO +23)}{64 \R^2 (1-\RHO )}\RHO  \TCR^4 & \frac{  1-2 \RHO  }{16

911:    (1-\RHO )} \RHO\TCR^2& 0\\

912:   \frac{2 \RHO  +1}{4\RHO( 1 - \RHO )} \R^2& \frac{  1-2 \RHO  }{16 (1-\RHO )}\RHO \TCR^2&

913:    \frac{1}{4(1- \RHO) }\R^2 & 0\\

914:   0 & 0 & 0 & 0

915: \end{array}

916: \right) +\nonumber\\  \

917: \frac{\ETA}{Q^2}\left(

918: \begin{array}{llll}

919:     \frac{\left(1-2 \RHO  \right)^2}{4 \RHO ^2}\R^2 & \frac{1}{16} \left(1-4 \RHO ^2\right)

920:    \TCR^2 & \frac{ \left(1-2 \RHO \right)}{4 \RHO } \R^2 & \frac{\R^3 \left(1-2 \RHO

921:    \right)}{2 \RHO }  \FO\\

922:   \frac{1}{16} \left(1-4 \RHO ^2\right) \TCR^2 & \frac{\RHO ^2 \left(1+2 \RHO

923:    \right)^2}{64 \R^2} \TCR^4 & \frac{1}{16}  \RHO  \left(1+2 \RHO \right)

924:    \TCR^2 & \frac{1}{8} \R \RHO  \left(1+2 \RHO \right) \FO \TCR^2 \\

925:   \frac{  \left(1-2 \RHO \right)}{4 \RHO } \R^2& \frac{1}{16}  \RHO 

926:    \left(1+2 \RHO \right) \TCR^2 & \frac{1}{4} \R^2  & \frac{1}{2} \R^3 

927:    \FO \\

928:   \frac{\R^3 \left(1-2 \RHO \right)}{2 \RHO }  \FO & \frac{1}{8} \R \RHO  \left(1+2 \RHO \right) \FO

929:    \TCR^2 & \frac{1}{2} \R^3 \FO & \R^4 \FO^2

930: \end{array}

931: \right) \label{eq:native_cov_eta0}

932: \end{eqnarray}

933: where we have ignored the unmodified covariance elements involving

934: $\TCENTER$, and have kept only the leading-order terms in $r$ in the

935: $\ETA$-dependent matrix.  

936: 

937: The standard errors for other functions of the parameters,

938: $f(\{\PR_i\})$, can be found via error propagation, just as in

939: Eqn.~(\ref{eq:trans_cov}),

940: \begin{eqnarray}

941: 	{\rm Var}[f(\{\PR_i\})] & = & \sum_i \sum_j {\rm Cov}(\PR_i, \PR_j) \frac{\partial f}{\partial \PR_i} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \PR_j}.

942: \end{eqnarray}

943: The results for several interesting and useful functions, such as the

944: mean densities of the star and planet, are given in Table

945: (\ref{tab:prop}).  For brevity, the results are given in terms of the

946: matrix elements of Eqn.~(\ref{eq:native_cov_eta0}).  Simplified expressions for covariance matrix elements

947: in the limit of $\ETA \rightarrow 0$, $\RHO$ small (plentiful out-of-transit data) and negligible limb darkening are given in

948: Table (\ref{tab:small}).

949: 

950: \clearpage

951: \newcommand{\cov}[2]{{\rm Cov}(#1,#2)/#1 #2}

952: \newcommand{\var}[1]{{\rm Var}(#1)/#1^2}

953: \newcommand{\varb}[1]{{\rm \bf Var}(#1)/#1^2}

954: \newcommand{\covb}[2]{{\rm \bf Cov}(#1,#2)/#1 #2}

955: \begin{table}[htbp]

956: \centering

957: \begin{tabular}{||l | l|| c |}\hline

958: {\bf Quantity} & {\bf Variance (Standard Error Squared)} &{\bf Notes}\\ \hline \hline

959: $R_{p} = \R R_{\star} $ & $R_p^2 \left[ \var{\R}+(\log M_{\star}/M_{\odot})^2 {\rm \bf Var}(x)\right] $ & 1\\ \hline

960: $R_{\star}/a =  (\gamma_1/\gamma_2) 2 \pi \TAU /P $ & $\frac{1}{4}(R_{\star}/a)^2 {\rm Var}(\TAU^2)/\TAU^4$& \\ \hline

961: $R_{p}/a = (\gamma_1/\gamma_2) 2 \pi \TAU \R/P $ & $(R_{p}/a)^2\left[\frac{1}{4} {\rm Var}(\TAU^2)/\TAU^4+\var{r}\right]$ &\\ \hline

962: $|b| =(\gamma_2^2/\gamma_1) |a \cos i/ R_{\star}|$ & $\frac{1}{4}{\rm Var}(b^2)/b^2 $ & \\ \hline

963: $\begin{array}{l}|\cos i| \\= (\gamma_1^2/\gamma_2^3)2 \pi \TAU\, |b|\, /P\end{array}$ & $\frac{1}{4} \cos^2 i \left[ {\rm Var}(b^2)/b^4+{\rm Cov}(\TAU^2, b^2)/\TAU^2 b^2 +{\rm Var}(\TAU^2)/\TAU^4\right]$& \\

964: \hline  

965: $\begin{array}{l}\rho_{\star} \\= (\gamma_2/\gamma_1)^3(3/8 G \pi^2) P /\TAU^3  \end{array}$ & 

966: 	$ \frac{9}{4} \rho_{\star}^2 {\rm Var}(\TAU^2)/\TAU^4 $ & \\ \hline

967: $\begin{array}{l}\rho_{p} \\ = \gamma_2 (K_{\star} \rho_\star/\R^3 \sin i)(P/ 2 \pi G M_\star)^{1/3}\end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{l} \rho_{p}^2 \left[\frac{9}{4}{\rm Var}(\TAU^2)/\TAU^4+9 \var{r}+\frac{9}{2}\cov{r}{\TAU^2}\right.\\

968: 	\;\;\left.+\frac{1}{4}(\cos i /b)^4{\rm Var}(b^2)-\frac{3}{4}(\cos i /b)^2{\rm Cov}(b^2,\TAU^2)/\TAU^2\right.\\

969: 	\;\;\left.-\frac{3}{2}(\cos i/b)^2{\rm Cov}(b^2,r)/r+\varb{K_{\star}}\right]

970: 	\end{array}$ & 2

971: 	\\ \hline

972: $\begin{array}{l}g_{\star} \\ = (\gamma_2/\gamma_1)^3 R_{\star} P/(2 \pi \TAU^3) \end{array}$ &

973: 	$g_{\star}^2 \left[ \frac{9}{4} {\rm Var}(\TAU^2)/\TAU^4 +(\log M_{\star}/M_{\odot})^2 {\rm \bf Var}(x)\right]$&1\\ \hline

974: $\begin{array}{l}g_p \\= (\gamma_2^3/\gamma_1^2) K_{\star} P/ (2 \pi \R^2 \TAU^2 \sin i)\end{array}$ &

975: $\begin{array}{l}

976: 	g_p^2 \left[ {\rm Var}(\TAU^2)/\TAU^4 +4 \var{\R}+2 \cov{\R}{\TAU^2}\right.\\

977: 	\;\;\left.+\frac{1}{4}(\cos i /b)^4{\rm Var}(b^2)-\frac{1}{2}(\cos i /b)^2{\rm Cov}(b^2,\TAU^2)/\TAU^2\right.\\

978: 	\;\;\left. -(\cos i/b)^2{\rm Cov}(b^2,r)/r+ \varb{K_{\star}}\right] 

979: 	\end{array}$&  2 \\

980: \hline 

981: \end{tabular}

982: \caption{Table of transit quantities and associated variances, in terms

983:   of the matrix elements given in Eqn.~(\ref{eq:native_cov_eta0}).  We have assumed that both the orbital period, $P$, and stellar mass, $M_{\star}$, are known exactly. We have defined the noncircular-orbit parameters $\gamma_1 \equiv 1+e \sin \omega$ and $\gamma_2 \equiv \sqrt{1-e^2}$ where $e$ is the eccentricity and $\omega$ is the argument of pericenter (see \S~\ref{sec:model} for a discussion of eccentric orbits).  Notes: (1) A mass-radius relation $R_{\star} \propto (M_{\star}/M_{\odot})^{x}$ is assumed; (2) We have assumed $i \gtrsim 80^\circ$ in simplifying the inclination dependence in the variance.

984:   Quantities in bold are not determined by the transit model and must

985:   be provided from additional information.  $K_{\star}$ is the semi-amplitude of the source radial velocity.    Terms have been arranged in order of relative importance

986:   with the largest in absolute magnitude coming first.  Refer to Table~(\ref{tab:small}) for matrix elements of Eqn.~(\ref{eq:native_cov_eta0}) for the case in which the planet is small, the out-of-transit flux is known precisely and limb darkening is negligible.}

987: \label{tab:prop}

988: \end{table}

989: \begin{table}[htbp]

990: \centering

991: \begin{tabular}{@{}|c|c|@{}}\hline

992: $\begin{array}{@{}lll@{}}

993: 	Q^2{\rm Var}(\R)/ \R^2  & \approx & 1/4  \\

994: 	Q^2 {\rm Var}(b^2)/b^4 & \approx & 6 \R^2/\RHO^3 b^4  \\

995: 	Q^2{\rm Var}(\TAU^2)/\TAU^4 & \approx & 3/2 \RHO 

996: \end{array}$ &

997: $\begin{array}{@{}lll@{}}

998: 	Q^2 {\rm Cov}(b^2, \TAU^2)/b^2 \TAU^2 & \approx & 6 \R/\RHO^2 b^2 \\

999: 	Q^2 {\rm Cov}(b^2, \R)/b^2 \R & \approx & \R/4 \RHO b^2  \\

1000: 	Q^2 {\rm Cov}(\TAU^2, \R)/\TAU^2 \R & \approx & 1/16 

1001: \end{array}$ \\ \hline

1002: \end{tabular}

1003: \caption{Covariance matrix elements from Eqn. (\ref{eq:native_cov_eta0}) in the limit $\ETA \rightarrow 0$ and $\RHO$ small for use in Table (\ref{tab:prop}).  These approximations are valid in the case in which the planet is small, the out-of-transit flux is known precisely and limb darkening is negligible.}

1004: \label{tab:small}

1005: \end{table}

1006: \clearpage

1007: 

1008: \section{Optimizing parameter sets for fitting data with small limb darkening\label{sec:smaller_corrs}}

1009: 

1010: The parameter set $\{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH, \FO\}$ has the

1011: virtues of simplicity and weak correlation over most of the physical

1012: parameter space.  However, when performing numerical analyses of

1013: actual data, the virtue of simplicity may not be as important as the

1014: virtue of low correlation, which usually leads to faster and more

1015: robust convergence. To take one example, lower correlations among the

1016: parameters result in reduced correlation lengths for Monte Carlo

1017: Markov Chains, and faster convergence to the desired {\it a

1018:   posteriori}\, probability distributions, and can obviate the need

1019: for numerical Principal Component Analysis \citep{tegmark04}.  In

1020: Fig.~(\ref{fig:corr_other}), we compare the degree of correlations for

1021: various parameter sets that have been used in the literature on

1022: transit photometry. Of note is the high degree of correlations among

1023: the ``physical'' parameter set $\{R_\star/a, R_p/a, b\}$, which is a

1024: poor choice from the point of view of computational speed.

1025: 

1026: \clearpage

1027: \begin{figure}[htbp] %  figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page

1028:    \centering

1029:    \plotone{f12.eps}

1030:    \caption{Comparison of correlations for various parameter sets that

1031:    have been used in the literature. The correlations were derived from

1032:    the piecewise-linear model (Eqn.~\ref{eq:sub_cov}) assuming $\ETA=0$.

1033:    (a) Parameters $\{b^2, \TAU^2, \R\}$.

1034:    (b) $\{R_{\star}/a = n \TAU, R_{p}/a = n \TAU \R, b^2\}$. 

1035:    (c) $\{2/\TCR, b^2, \R\}$ (e.g., \citet{bakos07}).

1036:    (d) $\{\TCR, \TE, \DEPTH\}$, the set introduced in this paper.}

1037:    \label{fig:corr_other}

1038: \end{figure}

1039: \clearpage

1040: 

1041: Nevertheless, one advantage of casting the model in terms of physical

1042: parameters is that the {\it a priori} expectations for those

1043: parameters are more easily expressed, such as a uniform distribution

1044: in $b$. The determinant of the Jacobian given by

1045: Eqn.~(\ref{eq:trans_cov}), $|{\bf J}|$, is also useful in translating

1046: {\it a priori}\, probability distributions from one parameter set to

1047: the other [see \citet{burke07} or \citet{ford06} for an example of how this is done in

1048: practice].  For the case of the parameter set $\{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR,

1049: \DEPTH, \FO\}$, we may use the Jacobian, Eqn.~(\ref{eq:jacob_native}),

1050: to convert {\it a priori} probability distributions via

1051: 

1052: \begin{eqnarray}

1053: 	{\rm p}(\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH, \FO) d\TCENTER\,d\TE\,d\TCR\,d\DEPTH\,d\FO& = &  {\rm p}(\TCENTER, b^2, \TAU^2, \R, \FO) \frac{1}{4\, \R\, \RHO\,\FO}d\TCENTER\,db^2\,d\TAU^2\,d\R\,d\FO \nonumber \\& = & {\rm p}(\TCENTER, b, \TAU, \R, \FO) \frac{1}{4\, \R\, \RHO\,\FO} \frac{1}{4\, b\, \TAU} d\TCENTER\,db\,d\TAU\,d\R\,d\FO\nonumber\\

1054: 	& = & {\rm p}(\TCENTER, b, \TAU, \R, \FO) \left(\frac{1-b^2}{16\, b\, \R^2 \,\TAU \,\FO}\right)d\TCENTER\,db\,d\TAU\,d\R\,d\FO.

1055: \label{eq:remeasure}

1056: \end{eqnarray}

1057: where we have remeasured the phase space volume via the determinant,

1058: \begin{eqnarray}

1059: 	\left|\left|\frac{\partial \{\TCENTER, b^2, \TAU^2, \R, \FO\}}{\partial \{ \TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH, \FO\}}\right|\right| & = &

1060: 	\frac{1}{4\, \R\, \RHO\, \FO}. \label{eq:det_jacob_native}

1061: \label{eq:determinant}

1062: \end{eqnarray}

1063: 

1064: One may use this expression to enforce a uniform prior in $b$, for

1065: example, by weighting the likelihood function as shown in

1066: Eqn.~(\ref{eq:remeasure}). However, there is a practical difficulty

1067: due to the singularity at $b = 0$. One way to understand the

1068: singularity is to note that uniform distributions in $\TE$, $\TCR$

1069: lead to a nearly uniform distribution in $\RHO = \TE/\TCR$, which

1070: highly disfavors $b = 0$; in order to enforce a uniform distribution

1071: in $b$, the prior must diverge at low $b$. Fig.~(\ref{fig:rho_in_b})

1072: graphically captures the steep variation for small $b$ with $\RHO$.

1073: Consider, instead, the parameter set $\{\TCENTER,b, \TCR, \R \equiv

1074: \sqrt{\DEPTH/\FO}, \FO\}$ where, from Eqn.~(\ref{eq:mappings_b2}),

1075: $b^2 = 1-\R \TCR/ \TE$.  We may calculate the determinant of the

1076: Jacobian (not reproduced here)

1077: \begin{eqnarray}

1078: 	\left| \left| \frac{\partial\{\TCENTER,b, \TCR, \R, \FO\}}{\partial \{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH, \FO\}} \right| \right| & = & \frac{(1-b^2)^2}{4 b~ \R^2 \FO \TCR}.

1079: \end{eqnarray}

1080: Combining this result with Eqn.~(\ref{eq:remeasure})

1081: \begin{eqnarray}

1082: {\rm p}(\TCENTER,b, \TCR, \R, \FO) d\TCENTER\,db\,d\TCR\,d\R\,d\FO& = &  {\rm p}(\TCENTER, b, \TAU, \R, \FO) \frac{1}{1-b^2}\frac{\TCR}{4\TAU} d\TCENTER\,db\,d\TAU\,d\R\,d\FO\nonumber\\ 

1083: 	& = &  {\rm p}(\TCENTER, b, \TAU, \R, \FO) \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{1-b^2}} d\TCENTER\,db\,d\TAU\,d\R\,d\FO. \label{eq:uprior}

1084: \end{eqnarray}

1085: The singularity at $b = 0$ has been removed with this parameter

1086: choice.  There is a singularity at $b = 1$ instead, which is only

1087: relevant for near-grazing transits, and is not as strong of a singularity

1088: because of the square root.  We confirm that this parameter set also

1089: enjoys weak correlations, as shown in Fig.~(\ref{fig:uniform_priors}),

1090: and therefore this set is a reasonable choice for numerical

1091: parameter-estimation algorithms. The merits of other parameter sets,

1092: from the standpoint of correlation and {\it a priori} likelihoods, may

1093: be weighed in a similar fashion, using the simple analytic covariance

1094: matrix of Eqn.~(\ref{eq:cov}), and the appropriate transformation

1095: Jacobian, in combination with Eqn.~(\ref{eq:trans_cov}).

1096: 

1097: \clearpage

1098: \begin{figure}[htbp] %  figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page

1099:    \centering

1100:    \plotone{f13.eps}

1101:    \caption{Correlations for the parameter set $\{b, \TCR, \R\}$.  The

1102:      correlations were derived from the piecewise-linear model

1103:      (Eqn.~\ref{eq:sub_cov}) assuming $\ETA = 0$.}

1104:    \label{fig:uniform_priors}

1105: \end{figure}

1106: \clearpage

1107: 

1108: If the issues associated with the transformation of priors are ignored

1109: (i.e.~if the data are of such quality that the results will depend

1110: negligibly on the priors), we can give essentially uncorrelated

1111: parameter sets. Consider, for example, the parameter set $\{ \TCENTER,

1112: \SE \equiv \DEPTH/ \TE, \TCR, \AREA \equiv \DEPTH \TCR\}$.  The new

1113: parameter $\SE$ is the magnitude of the slope of the light curve

1114: during the ingress and egress phases, and the new parameter $\AREA$ is

1115: the area of the trapezoid defined by the transit portion of the light

1116: curve (i.e., the time integral of the flux decrement).  For simplicity

1117: we assume $\ETA = 0$ and fix $\FO = 1$.  The transformed correlation

1118: (Eqn. (\ref{eq:sub_corr})) is found via the transformation Jacobian,

1119: Eqn. (\ref{eq:trans_cov}) as

1120: 

1121: \begin{eqnarray}

1122: 	{\rm Corr}(\{\TCENTER, \SE, \TCR, \AREA\}~ ,\{\TCENTER, \SE, \TCR, \AREA\}) &=&\left(

1123: \begin{array}{llll}

1124:  1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\

1125:  0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\

1126:  0 & 0 & 1 & \sqrt{\frac{\RHO (1-\RHO)}{(2-\RHO )  (\RHO +1)}}\\

1127:  0 & 0 & \sqrt{\frac{\RHO (1-\RHO)}{(2-\RHO )  (\RHO +1)}} & 1

1128: \end{array}

1129: \right)

1130: \label{eq:corr_newset}

1131: \end{eqnarray}

1132: The determinant of the transformation Jacobian (for use with Eqn.~(\ref{eq:remeasure})) is given as

1133: \begin{eqnarray}

1134: 	\left| \left| \frac{\partial\{\TCENTER, \SE, \TCR, \AREA\}}{\partial \{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH\}} \right| \right| & = & \frac{(1-b^2)^2}{\TCR}.

1135: \end{eqnarray}

1136: With this new parameter set, the only nonzero correlation is between

1137: $\TCR$ and $\AREA$, and this correlation is $\lesssim 0.3$ even for

1138: grazing transits (see Fig.~\ref{fig:param_comp}). We have found that

1139: these parameters provide a nearly optimal set for data fitting when

1140: little is known at the outset about the impact parameter of the

1141: transit.

1142: 

1143: It is possible to do even better when the impact parameter is known at

1144: least roughly.  Consider the parameter set $\{ \TCENTER, \SE, \PI =

1145: \TCR \DEPTH^{\THETAP}, \DEPTH\}$ where $\SE$ is the slope of ingress,

1146: and $\THETAP$ is a constant (whose chosen value will be discussed

1147: momentarily). The new parameter $\PI$ has no simple physical

1148: interpretation. We again assume $\ETA = 0$ and $\FO=1$. The

1149: correlation matrix in this case is

1150: \begin{eqnarray}

1151: 	{\rm Corr}(\{\TCENTER, \SE, \PI, \DEPTH\}~ ,\{\TCENTER, \SE, \PI, \DEPTH\}) &=&\left(

1152: \begin{array}{llll}

1153:  1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\

1154:  0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\

1155:  0 & 0 & 1 &\frac{(\RHO-\THETAP)}{\sqrt{(\RHO-\THETAP)^2+2\RHO (1-\RHO)}}\\

1156:  0 & 0 & \frac{(\RHO-\THETAP)}{\sqrt{(\RHO-\THETAP)^2+2\RHO (1-\RHO)}}  & 1

1157: \end{array}

1158: \right)

1159: \label{eq:corr_2}

1160: \end{eqnarray}

1161: The determinant of the transformation Jacobian is given as

1162: \begin{eqnarray}

1163: 	\left| \left| \frac{\partial\{\TCENTER, \SE, \PI, \DEPTH\}}{\partial \{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH\}} \right| \right| & = & \frac{(1-b^2)^2 \R^{2\THETAP}}{\TCR^2}.

1164: \end{eqnarray}

1165: With this choice, the only nonzero correlation is between $\PI$ and

1166: $\DEPTH$. If the constant $\THETAP$ is chosen to be approximately

1167: equal to $\RHO$, then this sole correlation may be nullified.  Thus,

1168: if $\RHO$ is known even approximately at the outset of data

1169: fitting---from visual inspection of a light curve, or from the

1170: approximation $\RHO \approx \R$ valid for small planets on non-grazing

1171: trajectories---a parameter set with essentially zero correlation is

1172: immediately available.  As an example, Fig.~(\ref{fig:param_comp})

1173: shows the correlation between $\PI$ and $\DEPTH$ as a function of

1174: $\RHO$, for the choice $\THETAP = 0.1$, which has a null at $\RHO=0.1$

1175: as expected.

1176: 

1177: The utility of this parameter set is not lost if $\THETAP$ cannot be confidently specified when used with Markov chain Monte Carlo parameter estimation codes.  At each chain step $i$, the next candidate state can be drawn from the candidate transition probability distribution function generated by the above parameter set with $\THETAP = \RHO_{i-1}$.  Thus, the Markov chain will explore the parameter space moving along principal axes at each chain step.  Additionally, allowing the candidate transition function to vary as the Markov chain explores parameter space may prove useful for low S/N data sets.

1178: 

1179: \clearpage

1180: \begin{figure}[htbp] %  figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page

1181:    \centering

1182:    \plotone{f14.eps}

1183:    \caption{Comparison of the correlations among the parameters, for

1184:      the set $ \{ \DEPTH, \TCR, \TE \} $ (black lines), the set $ \{ \SE, \TCR, \AREA = \TCR \DEPTH \}$ (dashed-dot gray line) and the set $ \{ \SE,

1185:      \PI \equiv \TCR \DEPTH^{\THETAP}, \DEPTH \} $ (solid gray line) for the

1186:      case $\THETAP=0.1$. For the latter set, the only nonzero

1187:      correlation is between $\PI$ and $\SE$, which vanishes at $\RHO=0.1$. }

1188:    \label{fig:param_comp}

1189: \end{figure}

1190: \clearpage

1191: 

1192: As a concrete example of the effectiveness of uncorrelated parameters,

1193: we apply the MCMC algorithm to simulated data.  For a given choice of

1194: the parameter set, we generate chains with a fixed jump-success

1195: fraction, and calculate the resulting autocorrelations of the Markov

1196: chain.  For a particular parameter $\PR$ (with value $\PR_i$ at chain

1197: step $i$), the autocorrelation $a$ at a given chain step $j$ is defined

1198: as

1199: \begin{eqnarray}

1200: 	a_j & = & \frac{\langle \PR_i \PR_{i+j}\rangle - \langle \PR_i \rangle^2}{\langle \PR_i^2 \rangle-\langle \PR_i\rangle^2}

1201: \label{eq:auto}

1202: \end{eqnarray}

1203: where the averages refer to the averages over the whole chain

1204: \citep{tegmark04}.  The correlation length of the chain is the number

1205: of steps $N$ that are required before the autocorrelation drops below

1206: $0.5$.  The total chain length divided by the correlation length is

1207: referred to as the effective length of a chain.  The effective chain

1208: length is approximately the number of independent samples, which

1209: quantifies the degree of convergence of the algorithm.  A lower

1210: correlation length, for the same total chain length, gives a more

1211: accurate final distribution. This autocorrelation analysis was

1212: performed for both the ``physical'' parameter set $\{\TCENTER, b^2,

1213: \TAU^2, r^2\}$ as well as the parameter sets $\{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR,

1214: \DEPTH\}$ and $\{\TCENTER, b, \TCR, \R\}$, with $\ETA=0$ in all cases

1215: (i.e., plentiful out-of-transit data).  The MCMC was executed as

1216: detailed in \S~\ref{sec:comp} with a fixed jump rate $\approx$50\% for

1217: all parameter chains.  (In practice this was achieved by adjusting the

1218: size of the Gaussian random perturbation that was added to each

1219: parameter at each trial step.)  By choosing either the parameter set

1220: $\{\TCENTER, \TE, \TCR, \DEPTH\}$ or $\{\TCENTER, b, \TCR, \R\}$, the

1221: correlation lengths are reduced by a factor of approximately 150. By

1222: using the minimally-correlated parameter set $\{\TCENTER, \SE, \TCR,

1223: \AREA\}$, the correlation lengths are reduced by an additional factor

1224: of $\sim$2.

1225: 

1226: To completely eliminate the correlations between parameters, one can

1227: diagonalize the symmetric covariance matrix,

1228: Eqn.~(\ref{eq:corr_newset}), and find the linear combinations of

1229: parameters that eliminates correlations.  This was done by

1230: \citet{burke07} for the particular case of the transiting planet

1231: XO-2b. Analytic expressions for the eigenvectors are available because

1232: there are only two entangled parameters. However, these eigenvectors

1233: are linear combinations of local parameter values; they do not

1234: constitute a global transformation rendering the covariance

1235: diagonal. Thus, this procedure is useful for numerical analysis of a

1236: particular system, although not for analytic insights.

1237: 

1238: \section{Summary}

1239: 

1240: We have presented formulas for uncertainties and covariances for a

1241: collection of parameters describing the light curve of an exoplanet

1242: transiting a star with uniform brightness. These covariances, given in

1243: Eqns.~(\ref{eq:cov}, \ref{eq:native_cov_eta0}), are derived using a

1244: Fisher information analysis of a linear representation of the transit

1245: light curve. The key inputs are the uncertainty in each measurement of

1246: the relative flux, and the sampling rate. We have verified the

1247: accuracy of the variance and covariance estimates derived from the

1248: piecewise-linear light curve with a numerical Fisher analysis of a

1249: more realistic (nonlinear) light-curve model, and with a Markov Chain

1250: Monte Carlo analysis of idealized data.

1251: 

1252: We focused on a particular parameterization of this piecewise-linear

1253: light curve that we believe to be most useful. The parameters are the

1254: midtransit time ($\TCENTER$), the out-of-transit flux ($\FO$), the flux decrement during

1255: the full phase of the transit ($\DEPTH$), the duration of ingress or egress ($\TE$), and

1256: the duration between the midpoint of ingress and the midpoint of

1257: egress ($\TCR$).  This set is observationally intuitive and gives simple analytic

1258: formulas for variances and covariances.  The exact parameter

1259: definitions are provided in Eqns.~(\ref{eq:depth}, \ref{eq:tcr},

1260: \ref{eq:te}) in terms of normalized impact parameter, stellar and

1261: planetary radii, semi-major axis and orbital period.  Inverse mappings

1262: to more physical parameters are provided in

1263: Eqns.~(\ref{eq:mappings_p2}, \ref{eq:mappings_b2},

1264: \ref{eq:mappings_t2}). The analytic covariance matrix is given in

1265: Eqn.~(\ref{eq:cov}) and the analytic correlation matrix is given in

1266: Eqn.~(\ref{eq:corr}).  Some quick-and-dirty (but still rather accurate) expressions

1267: for the parameter uncertainties, for the case in which the planet is small,  the out-of-transit flux is known precisely and limb darkening is negligible, are given as

1268: \begin{eqnarray}

1269: 	\sigma_{\TCENTER} & = & Q^{-1} \TCR \sqrt{\RHO/2},  \nonumber\\

1270: 	\sigma_{\TE}      & \approx & Q^{-1} \TCR \sqrt{6 \RHO},  \nonumber\\

1271: 	\sigma_{\TCR}     & \approx & Q^{-1} \TCR \sqrt{2 \RHO},  \nonumber \\

1272: 	\sigma_{\DEPTH}   & \approx & Q^{-1} \DEPTH \nonumber

1273: \end{eqnarray}

1274: where $\RHO \equiv \TE/\TCR$ is the ratio of the ingress or egress

1275: duration to the total duration, and $Q \equiv \sqrt{\Gamma \TCR}

1276: \frac{\DEPTH}{\sigma}$ is the total signal-to-noise ratio of the

1277: transit in the small-planet limit (see

1278: Eqn.~\ref{eq:dimensionless_vars}).

1279: 

1280: We investigated the applicability of these results to a limb darkened

1281: brightness profile, in which the true light curve is not as

1282: well-described by a piecewise-linear function.  We found that the

1283: analytic formulas underestimate some of the variances and covariances

1284: by a factor of a few, for a typical degree of limb darkening at

1285: optical wavelengths. Significant improvements to covariance estimates

1286: in the limb darkened case may be made by redefining the depth

1287: parameter as a function of darkening coefficient and impact parameter

1288: as in Eqn.~(\ref{eq:depth_ld}).  Unfortunately, no closed-form mapping

1289: to more physical parameters exists with this choice, and therefore

1290: most of the appeal of the analytic treatment is lost.

1291: 

1292: Quantities that are derived in part or in whole from the transit light

1293: curve (such as stellar mean density or exoplanet surface gravity) are

1294: provided in terms of the suggested parameter set.  In

1295: Table~(\ref{tab:prop}), uncertainties propagated from the covariance

1296: estimates for these quantities are provided with simple analytic

1297: formulas.  In Table~\ref{tab:small}, covariance elements relevant to

1298: the uncertainties in Table~\ref{tab:prop} are given for the case in

1299: which the planet is small and the out-of-transit flux is known

1300: precisely.  This allows the uncertainty in a given physical parameter

1301: to be predicted in advance of any data, bypassing the need for

1302: time-consuming simulations. For transit surveys, these formulas may

1303: also be useful in giving closed-form expressions for the expected

1304: distributions for some of the key properties of a sample of transiting

1305: planets.

1306: 

1307: In \S~\ref{sec:smaller_corrs}, with the tools provided, we approach

1308: the question of what parameter sets are best suited to numerical

1309: parameter estimation codes.  This question depends both on the level

1310: of parameter correlation and the behavior of any {\it a priori}

1311: likelihood functions. We advocated a parameter set that has the virtue

1312: of both weak correlation and essentially uniform {\it a priori}

1313: expectations: specifically, the parameters are the midtransit time,

1314: the out-of-transit flux, the ratio of planetary to stellar radii

1315: ($R_{p}/R_{\star}$), the normalized impact parameter, and the duration

1316: between the midpoint of ingress and the midpoint of egress.

1317: Fig. (\ref{fig:uniform_priors}) graphically describes the parameter

1318: correlations while Eqn. (\ref{eq:uprior}) gives the {\it a priori}

1319: probability distribution. Finally, two parameter choices are given

1320: that are less intuitive than the suggested set but that provide

1321: smaller correlations, depending on information that may be inferred or

1322: guessed prior to analysis.  Correlations may be tuned to zero with the

1323: second parameter choice for a non-grazing transit and an estimate of

1324: $R_{p}/R_{\star}$.  The resulting correlation matrices for both

1325: parameter choices are given in Eqns.~(\ref{eq:corr_newset},

1326: \ref{eq:corr_2}).  Lower correlations relate directly to more

1327: efficient data fitting, as demonstrated by reduced correlation lengths

1328: with a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method.

1329: 

1330: \acknowledgements 

1331: We thank Philip Nutzman for helpful comments on an

1332: early version of this draft, and in particular for pointing out the

1333: consequences of the singularity in Eqn.~(\ref{eq:determinant}). 

1334: We also thank the referee for helpful comments, and for suggesting the Markov chain technique for use with the parameter choices in Eqn.~(\ref{eq:corr_2}). Sara

1335: Seager and Paul Joss also provided helpful comments. We are grateful

1336: for support from the William S.~Edgerly Innovation Fund and from NASA

1337: grant HST-GO-11165 from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which

1338: is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in

1339: Astronomy, Incorporated, under NASA contract NAS5-26555.

1340: 

1341: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1342: \bibitem[Agol et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.359..567A} Agol, E., Steffen, J., Sari, R., \& Clarkson, W.\ 2005, \mnras, 359, 567

1343: \bibitem[Alonso et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...613L.153A} Alonso, R., et al.\ 2004, \apjl, 613, L153

1344: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007)]{bakos07} Bakos, G.~{\'A}., et al.\ 2007, \apjl, 671, L173

1345: \bibitem[Barnes(2007)]{2007PASP..119..986B} Barnes, J.~W.\ 2007, \pasp, 119, 986

1346: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2001)]{brown01} Brown, T.~M., Charbonneau, D., Gilliland, R.~L., Noyes, R.~W., \& Burrows, A.\ 2001, \apj, 552, 699 

1347: \bibitem[Burke et al.(2007)]{burke07} Burke, C.~J., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 2115 

1348: \bibitem[Burke(2008)]{2008arXiv0801.2579B} Burke, C.~J.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 801, arXiv:0801.2579

1349: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{claret00} Claret, A.\ 2000, \aap, 363, 1081 

1350: \bibitem[Deming et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...667L.199D} Deming, D., et al.\ 2007, \apjl, 667, L199

1351: \bibitem[Diaz-Cordoves et al.(1995)]{diaz95} Diaz-Cordoves, J., Claret, A., \& Gimenez, A.\ 1995, \aaps, 110, 329 

1352: %\bibitem[Ford(2004)]{ford04} Ford, E.~B.\ 2004, The Search for Other Worlds, 713, 27

1353: \bibitem[Ford(2005)]{ford05} Ford, E.~B.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 1706 

1354: \bibitem[Ford(2006)]{ford06} Ford, E.~B.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 505

1355: \bibitem[Ford et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0801.2591F} Ford, E.~B., Quinn, S.~N., \& Veras, D.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 801, arXiv:0801.2591

1356: \bibitem[Ford \& Holman(2007)]{ford07} Ford, E.~B., \& Holman, M.~J.\ 2007, \apjl, 664, L51 

1357: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2007)]{gillon07} Gillon, M., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 471, L51 

1358: \bibitem[Gim{\'e}nez(2007)]{2007A&A...474.1049G} Gim{\'e}nez, A.\ 2007, \aap, 474, 1049

1359: \bibitem[Gould(2003)]{gould03} Gould, A.\ 2003, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0310577

1360: \bibitem[Heyl \& Gladman(2007)]{heyl} Heyl, J.~S., \& Gladman, B.~J.\ 2007, \mnras, 377, 1511

1361: \bibitem[Holman \& Murray(2005)]{2005Sci...307.1288H} Holman, M.~J., \& Murray, N.~W.\ 2005, Science, 307, 1288

1362: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2006)]{holman06} Holman, M.~J., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 1715

1363: \bibitem[Knutson et al.(2007)]{2007Natur.447..183K} Knutson, H.~A., et al.\ 2007, \nat, 447, 183

1364: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{agol02} Mandel, K., \& Agol, E.\ 2002, \apjl, 580, L171 

1365: \bibitem[Murray \& Dermott(2000)]{murray} Murray, C.~D., \& Dermott, S.~F.\ 2000, Solar System Dynamics (Cambridge Univ.~Press)

1366: \bibitem[P{\'a}l(2008)]{pal08} P{\'a}l, A.\ 2008, ArXiv 

1367: e-prints, 805, arXiv:0805.2157 

1368: \bibitem[Richardson et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...649.1043R} Richardson, L.~J., Harrington, J., Seager, S., \& Deming, D.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 1043

1369: \bibitem[Sato et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...633..465S} Sato, B., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 465

1370: \bibitem[Seager \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas(2003)]{seager03} Seager, S., \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas, G.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 1038 

1371: \bibitem[Southworth et al.(2007)]{south07} Southworth, J., Wheatley, P.~J., \& Sams, G.\ 2007, \mnras, 379, L11  

1372: \bibitem[Southworth(2008)]{south08} Southworth, J.\ 2008, 

1373: \mnras, 386, 1644 

1374: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004)]{tegmark04} Tegmark, M., et al.\ 2004, \prd, 69, 103501 

1375: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...631.1215W} Winn, J.~N., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 1215

1376: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007)]{2007AJ....133...11W} Winn, J.~N., Holman, M.~J., \& Fuentes, C.~I.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 11

1377: \end{thebibliography}

1378: \end{document}

1379: