1: %%
2:
3: %% one-column, single-spaced document, aligned both to right and left
4: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5: %\usepackage{rotating}
6:
7: %% one-column, double-spaced document, left alignment
8: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
9:
10: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
11: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
12:
13: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
14: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
15: %% use the longabstract style option.
16: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
17:
18: \usepackage{lscape}
19: %\usepackage[]{natbib}
20:
21: \newcommand{\spitzer}{{\it Spitzer~}}
22: \newcommand{\mic}{$\mu$m }
23:
24: % short running title
25: \shorttitle{GJ~436 Follow-up Photometry}
26: \shortauthors{Shporer et al.}
27:
28: \begin{document}
29:
30:
31: \title{Photometric Follow-up Observations of the Transiting
32: Neptune-Mass Planet GJ~436b}
33:
34: \author{
35: Avi Shporer\altaffilmark{1},
36: Tsevi Mazeh\altaffilmark{1},
37: Frederic Pont\altaffilmark{2},\\
38: Joshua N.\ Winn\altaffilmark{3},
39: Matthew J.\ Holman\altaffilmark{4},\\
40: David W.\ Latham\altaffilmark{4},
41: Gilbert A. Esquerdo\altaffilmark{4,5}
42: }
43:
44: \altaffiltext{1}{Wise Observatory, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel
45: Aviv 69978, Israel}
46:
47: \altaffiltext{2}{School of Physics, University of Exeter, Stocker Road, Exeter EX4 4QL, United Kingdom}
48:
49: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA}
50:
51: \altaffiltext{4}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60, Garden Street, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA}
52:
53: \altaffiltext{5}{Planetary Science Institute, 620 N. 6th Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85705}
54:
55: \begin{abstract}
56:
57: This paper presents multi-band photometric follow-up observations of
58: the Neptune-mass transiting planet GJ~436b, consisting of $5$ new
59: ground-based transit light curves obtained in May 2007. Together
60: with one already published light curve we have at hand a total of $6$
61: light curves, spanning $29$
62: days. The analysis of the data yields an
63: orbital period $P=2.64386\pm0.00003$~days, mid-transit time $T_c$
64: [HJD] $=2454235.8355\pm0.0001$, planet mass $M_p =
65: 23.1\pm0.9~M_{\earth} = 0.073\pm0.003~M_{Jup} $, planet radius
66: $R_p = 4.2\pm0.2~R_{\earth}=0.37\pm0.01~R_{Jup}$ and stellar
67: radius $R_s = 0.45\pm0.02~R_{\sun}$. Our typical precision for the
68: mid transit timing for each transit is about 30 seconds. We searched
69: the data for a possible signature of a second planet in the system
70: through transit timing variations (TTV) and variation of the impact
71: parameter. The analysis could not rule out a small, of the order of a
72: minute, TTV and a long-term modulation of the impact parameter,
73: of the order of $+0.2$ year$^{-1}$.
74:
75: \end{abstract}
76:
77: \keywords{stars: individual: GJ 436, planetary systems}
78:
79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
80: \section{Introduction}
81: \label{Introduction}
82: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
83:
84: Of the almost $300$ extrasolar planets discovered to date\footnote{for
85: an updated list see: http://exoplanet.eu/}, the $\sim\! 35$ transiting
86: planets are the only ones allowing a measurement of their mass and radius
87: and the study of their atmospheres (e.g.,
88: \citealt{Charbonneau07}, \citealt{Fortney08}, \citealt{Guillot08},
89: \citealt{Pont08a}).
90: Of those, GJ~436b serves as a unique opportunity to study a planet
91: with mass and radius as small as Neptune. Although several planets
92: have already been detected with minimum masses similar to the mass of GJ~436b,
93: for example GJ~581b, c $\&$ d,
94: \citep{Bonfils05a, Udry07}, HD~4308b \citep{Udry06} and Cnc~55e
95: \citep{Fischer08}, GJ~436b is the only {\it transiting} Neptune-mass
96: planet discovered so far. Moreover, it is the only known transiting
97: planet orbiting an M-type star, presenting an opportunity to help
98: constrain stellar models in this mass range.
99:
100: GJ~436b was initially discovered by \citet{Butler04} through a radial
101: velocity (RV) modulation of its host star. \citet{Maness07} have
102: refined its orbital elements, specifically the eccentricity, $e =
103: 0.160\pm0.019$, and identified a linear velocity trend of
104: $1.36\pm0.4$~m~s$^{-1}$~yr$^{-1}$. Those authors suggested that the
105: velocity trend might result from the presence of a long-period second
106: planet in the system, a planet that could induce a periodic modulation
107: of the orbital
108: eccentricity of GJ~436b. This type of effect was suggested already for
109: triple stellar systems \citep[][see also \citealt{Mazeh90}]{Mazeh79},
110: and for a planet in a binary system for 16~Cygni~B \citep{Mazeh97,
111: Holman97}. \citet{Maness07} pointed out that this interpretation of
112: the eccentricity looks especially attractive if the circularization
113: timescale of GJ~436b is shorter than the age of the system, because
114: then we need to explain why the orbit of the planet has not been
115: circularized.
116:
117: \citet{Butler04} obtained photometric observations of GJ~436 at the
118: expected time of possible transits and concluded that a transit was unlikely.
119: Nevertheless, the transiting nature of
120: GJ~436b was recently discovered by \citet{Gillon07a} who measured a
121: planetary radius of $\simeq\! 4~R_{\earth}$ and mass of $22.6~M_{\earth}$.
122: Soon after the discovery, a transit and secondary eclipse events were
123: observed by {\it Spitzer Space Telescope} at 8~\mic \citep{Gillon07b,
124: Deming07, Demory07}, further constraining the system parameters and reducing
125: the uncertainties by a
126: factor of about $10$ for the planet to star radius ratio and mid-transit
127: timing. Those observations resulted in a somewhat increased planetary radius,
128: of $4.2\pm0.2~R_{\earth}$.
129: \citet{Torres07} was able to refine further the planet
130: parameters by deriving more accurate constraints on the host star
131: and obtained a slightly larger planetary mass, $23.17\pm0.79~M_{\earth}$,
132: and a more precise planetary radius, of $4.22^{+0.09}_{-0.10}~R_{\earth}$.
133:
134: Recently, \citet{Ribas08} restudied the system and suggested that the
135: observed radial velocities of the system are consistent with an additional small,
136: super-Earth planet in a close orbit around GJ~436 in a 1:2 mean-motion
137: resonance with the known planet. Similarly to \citet{Maness07}, they suggested
138: that this planet could pump eccentricity into the orbit.
139: \citet{Ribas08} further suggested that such an additional planet can
140: induce a precession of the orbital plane of GJ~436b, if the orbital
141: planes of motion of the two planets are inclined relative to each
142: other. Such a precession should change the inclination relative to our
143: line of sight and therefore might explain why \citet{Butler04} failed to
144: observe a transit in 2004.
145:
146: Immediately after the detection of the transits of GJ~436b by
147: \citet{Gillon07a} we launched a ground-based (GB) observational campaign to
148: obtain high-quality transit light curves in different filters. Our
149: motivation was to obtain the first group of light curves which will be used
150: by future studies to look for a possible variation of the impact parameter
151: and to search for transit timing variations (TTV; \citealt{Agol05, Holman05}).
152: Our observations
153: are described in \S~\ref{Observations}. In our analysis, described in
154: \S~\ref{Analysis}, we simultaneously analyze six complete GB transit light curves: five
155: light curves obtained in our campaign and the light curve from
156: \citet{Gillon07a}.
157: In \S~\ref{Discussion} we
158: discuss our results.
159:
160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
161: \section{Observations}
162: \label{Observations}
163: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
164:
165: In addition to the transit of UT~2007~May~2, which was reported by
166: \citet{Gillon07a} and was the first complete transit observation of
167: GJ~436b, we obtained five complete transit light curves of four
168: different transit events. The following paragraphs briefly describe
169: these observations.
170:
171: We observed the transits of UT~2007~May~4 and May~25 with the Wise
172: Observatory 1~m telescope, located in Israel. We used a Princeton
173: Instruments (PI) VersArray camera and a $1340 \times 1300$ pixels
174: back-illuminated CCD, with a pixel scale of $0 \farcs 58$ per pixel,
175: giving a field of view of $13 \farcm 0 \times 12 \farcm 6$. On May 4
176: we used a Johnson $V$ filter and on May 25 a Bessel $R$ filter. The
177: flexible scheduling of the Wise 1~m telescope was an important factor
178: in obtaining the transit light curve of May~4, less than three days
179: after the first observation of a complete transit.
180:
181: The transit of UT~2007~May~4 was simultaneously observed with the Wise
182: Observatory 0.46~m telescope, operated remotely. The camera was a
183: $2148 \times 1472$ pixels Santa Barbara Instrument Group (SBIG) ST-10
184: XME CCD detector with a field of view of $40\farcm 5 \times 27 \farcm
185: 3$ and a scale of $1 \farcs 1$ per pixel. This camera has no filters.
186: For a detailed description of this telescope and instrument see
187: \citet{Brosch08}.
188:
189: On UT~2007~May~23 and May~31 we used the 1.2~m telescope at the
190: Fred L. Whipple Observatory (FLWO) on Mount Hopkins, Arizona.
191: The camera was the KeplerCam, which is a $4096^2$ Fairchild 486 CCD
192: with a square field of view $23 \farcm 1$ on a side \citep{Szentgyorgyi05}.
193: On both nights the filter was Sloan $z$ and a $2 \times 2$ binning was
194: used, giving a pixel scale of $0 \farcs 68$ per binned pixel.
195:
196: Basic data reduction procedures, including bias and flat-field correction,
197: were applied to all images using standard IRAF\footnote{The Image Reduction
198: and Analysis Facility
199: (IRAF) is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is
200: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.,
201: under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.} routines.
202: We then performed aperture photometry of GJ 436 and several comparison stars of
203: similar brightness showing no significant variability.
204: The light curve of GJ 436
205: was calibrated by dividing it by the summed flux of the comparison stars.
206: Next, we fitted a polynomial of degree one or two to the out-of-transit (OOT)
207: points vs.~time, and divided all points by this polynomial. The amplitude of
208: these polynomial corrections in mmag per transit duration was in the range of
209: 0.1--1.0 mmag.
210: As a final step, we divided the entire light curve by the OOT median intensity
211: and normalized the measurement uncertainties so the median
212: uncertainty OOT will equal the OOT RMS. Table~\ref{lclist} lists all
213: photometric measurements of the $5$ light curves obtained in this campaign.
214:
215: Table~\ref{lctable} lists for each light curve the UT start date and time,
216: observatory and telescope, the filter used, limb darkening coefficients used
217: in its analysis, average exposure time, average cadence (in min$^{-1}$),
218: duration of the entire observation, start and end airmass, the $\beta$
219: factor (see below), RMS residuals, and the Photometric Noise Rate (PNR).
220: The PNR is a quantity which takes into account the RMS and the cadence,
221: defined as RMS$\times\sqrt{{\rm cadence}}$, in units of mmag per minute
222: (see also \citealt[][section 2.2]{Burke08}).
223:
224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
225: \section{Data Analysis and Results}
226: \label{Analysis}
227: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
228:
229: We decided not to include the publicly available
230: \spitzer 8~\mic light curve in our simultaneous fitting since the shape of
231: that light curve is dependent on how the \spitzer ``ramp'' was modeled
232: \citep{Gillon07b, Deming07}. As the \spitzer measurements are much more precise
233: than the GB measurements, this ramp could have systematically influenced our results.
234: For comparison, the \spitzer light curve PNR is a factor of $\sim\!3$ smaller than
235: that of our ground-based light curves.
236:
237:
238: Accounting for correlated noise \citep{Pont06} was done similarly to the
239: ``time-averaging'' method of \cite{Winn08}. After a preliminary analysis
240: we binned the residual light curves
241: using bin sizes close to the duration of ingress and egress.
242: The presence of correlated noise in the data was quantified as the ratio
243: between the binned residual light curves standard deviation and
244: the expected standard deviation in the absence of correlated noise.
245: For each light curve we estimated $\beta$ as the largest ratio among
246: the bin sizes we used. We then multiplied the relative flux errors by
247: $\beta$. Values of $\beta$ are in the range of $1.0$--$2.1$ and
248: are listed in Table~\ref{lctable}.
249:
250: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
251: \subsection{Simultaneous fitting of all parameters}
252: \label{Analysisall}
253: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
254:
255: We fitted the system parameters to all six GB light curves simultaneously.
256: Our transit light curve model consisted of nine parameters:
257: The orbital period, $P$; a particular mid-transit time, $T_c$; planet to
258: star radius ratio, $R_p/R_s$; semimajor axis scaled by the
259: stellar radius, $a/R_s$; impact parameter, $b$ (See
260: Eq.~$3$ of \citealt{Winn07} for the formula of the impact parameter in
261: an eccentric orbit); two limb-darkening
262: coefficients $u_1$ and $u_2$, for a quadratic limb-darkening law;
263: orbital eccentricity, $e$; and longitude of periastron, $\omega$.
264: The latter four parameters were held fixed in the fitting process, hence our
265: model had $5$ free parameters.
266:
267: For transiting planets on eccentric orbits the mid point, in time,
268: between transit start and end is different than the time of
269: sky-projected star-planet closest approach. For GJ~436b this difference is
270: comparable to the typical uncertainty on the mid-transit times obtained here.
271: In our model the mid-transit time is defined as the time of closest
272: approach, which is also the time of minimum light.
273:
274: For $e$ and $\omega$ we used the values
275: given by \citet{Maness07}. Although other authors (e.g., \citealt{Demory07},
276: \citealt{Deming07})
277: report more precise values
278: for $e$, their uncertainty on $\omega$ is either much higher than that of
279: \citet{Maness07} or not reported. As the errors in two orbital parameters
280: are correlated, we chose to adopt the reference giving the smallest
281: uncertainty on both.
282: To determine $u_1$ and $u_2$ we adopted a model of
283: $T_{\rm eff} = 3500$~K \citep{Maness07}, $\log g = 4.843$ \citep{Torres07} and
284: [Fe/H]=-0.03 \citep{Bonfils05b} and interpolated on
285: the \citet{Claret00,Claret04} grids.
286: For the light curve obtained with the Wise Observatory 0.46~m telescope,
287: which has no filter, we used limb-darkening coefficients corresponding to the
288: $R$ filter, as its CCD response resembles a ``wide-$R$''
289: filter \citep{Brosch08}. The coefficients used for each light curve
290: are listed in Table~\ref{lctable}.
291:
292: We used the formulas of \citet{Mandel02} to determine the relative flux as
293: a function of the planet-star sky-projected separation and the
294: Monte Carlo Markov Chain
295: (MCMC) algorithm \citep[e.g.,][]{Tegmark04, Ford05, Gregory05}
296: to determine the parameters that best fit the
297: data, along with their uncertainties.
298: MCMC algorithms have already been used extensively
299: in the literature for fitting transit light curves
300: \citep[e.g.,][]{Holman06, Collier07, Gillon08, Burke07}.
301: Assuming a uniform prior for the five fitted parameters, the algorithm
302: can be viewed as a random walk in the five-dimensional parameter space of
303: the model.
304: Starting from an initial guess, at each step
305: the algorithm examines a new point in the parameter space which is reached
306: by adding a Gaussian random value to each of the parameters.
307: The algorithm decides whether to accept the new point in the parameter
308: space and move there, or repeat the current point in the chain depending
309: on the resulting posterior probability. If the new point has a higher
310: relative posterior probability the algorithm will move there, and if not,
311: it will move to the new point with a relative probability of
312: $\exp(-\Delta\chi^2/2)$, where $\Delta\chi^2$ is the $\chi^2$
313: difference between the two points in parameter space.
314: The distribution of parameter values in all points
315: is used to derive the best fit value and its uncertainties.
316: Here we took the distribution median to be the best fit value and the values at
317: the 84.13 and 15.87 percentiles to be the $+1\sigma$ and $-1\sigma$
318: confidence uncertainties, respectively.
319:
320: The widths of the Gaussian distributions used to find a new point
321: are a crucial part of the MCMC algorithm and they affect the
322: fraction of accepted points, $f$. In order to have $f$ close to
323: $25\%$ \citep{Gregory05, Holman06} we
324: divided each long chain, of $500,000$ steps,
325: into smaller chains (mini-chains), of
326: $1,000$ steps, and re-evaluated the distribution
327: widths after the execution of each mini-chain. This re-evaluation
328: was done by scaling them according to the relative difference between $f$ of
329: the previous mini-chain, and the target value of $25\%$. The same scaling was
330: applied to all parameters.
331:
332: To estimate the {\it relative} size of the distribution widths
333: for each one of the model parameters we initially performed a sequence
334: of $10$ mini-chains, where only that
335: parameter was allowed to vary and the target $f$ was $50\%$ \citep{Gregory05}.
336: Thus, a single MCMC run was comprised of several sequences of $10$
337: mini-chains and a long chain, of $500$ mini-chains. For determining the
338: final result we considered
339: only the long chain while ignoring the first $20\%$ of its steps.
340:
341: We performed $10$ MCMC runs as described above while changing
342: each time the initial guess and initial distribution widths. Results of those
343: runs were highly consistent with each other and our final result is based
344: on all runs.
345:
346: Before describing our results we briefly describe how we tested our analysis:
347:
348: \begin{itemize}
349:
350: \item To test the adaptive form of our MCMC algorithm we re-ran
351: it while fixing the distribution widths during the long chain part.
352: The differences in the results for the fitted parameters did not
353: exceed $0.15\sigma$, and the differences in the estimated uncertainties
354: were no more than $10\%$.
355:
356: \item We repeated our analysis while skipping the polynomial corrections
357: mentioned in Section~\ref{Observations}. The results for the fitted
358: parameters were less than $0.2\sigma$ from the original ones, and the
359: estimated uncertainties were similar at the $20\%$ level.
360:
361: \item We applied our analysis on the \spitzer 8~\mic light curve alone, and derived
362: results similar to \citet{Gillon07b}, \citet{Deming07} and
363: \citet{Southworth08}, at the $\sim 1 \sigma$ level.
364:
365: \item To further test the validity of our results we re-ran MCMC while adopting
366: a Gaussian prior probability for $e$ and $\omega$. The central values and standard
367: deviations were those given by \citet{Maness07}.
368: The results were not modified significantly.
369:
370: \end{itemize}
371:
372: Fig.~\ref{lc} presents the six GB light curves, with our
373: fitted model overplotted in solid lines.
374: The three light curves obtained in the beginning of 2007~May
375: are of better quality, especially the Euler 1.2~m $V$ and Wise 1~m
376: $V$ light curves, with RMS residuals of $1.2$ and $0.9$ mmag,
377: respectively. The increased scatter in the three light curves
378: obtained at the end of 2007~May is the result of the high
379: airmass of these observations, done close to the end of the
380: observational season.
381:
382: Our estimates for the fitted parameters, while
383: fitting all six light curves simultaneously,
384: are listed in Table~\ref{fitparams}. For comparison, this
385: table includes results from previous studies whenever these parameters were fitted
386: directly. In case they were not, but can be calculated
387: from other fitted parameters, they are given without an error.
388: \citet{Gillon07a} based their parameter determinations on an analysis
389: of the Euler 1.2~m $V$ light curve from UT~2007~May~2, which is included in this work.
390: The other three studies referred to in Table~\ref{fitparams} \citep{Gillon07b, Deming07,
391: Southworth08} are based on the \spitzer 8~\mic light curve. Results obtained by
392: \citet{Torres08} are not presented since for the light curve parameters of GJ~436b these
393: authors gave the weighted average of previous works.
394:
395: Table~\ref{physparams} lists our results for the physical parameters
396: of the system, along with the corresponding values obtained previously.
397: Assuming the mass of the star to be $M_s=0.452\pm0.013 M_{\sun}$
398: \citep{Torres07} and adopting the orbital parameters of \citet{Maness07} (specifically:
399: $K$, $e$ and $\omega$) we derived the planet mass and semi-major axis.
400: Using Newton's version for Kepler's Third Law we derive the star and planet radius.
401:
402: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
403: \subsection{Fitting transit timing and impact parameter for each light curve}
404: \label{Analysisind}
405: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
406:
407: As mentioned in \S~\ref{Introduction}, \citet{Ribas08} suggested the presence
408: of a second planet orbiting GJ~436, in an outer orbit close to a 2:1 mean-motion
409: resonance with the transiting planet. The gravitational interaction between
410: the two planets may cause a detected TTV signal \citep{Holman05, Agol05}.
411: \citet{Ribas08} suggest that the second planet is responsible for changing
412: the inclination angle, $i$, of the transiting planet orbit. The presence of such
413: a planet may be detected through measuring transit timing and the impact parameter
414: of many transit light curves. As the light curves obtained here are the first
415: group of such light curves we performed two
416: additional MCMC analyses, described below.
417:
418: First, we fitted $R_p/R_s$, $a/R_s$ and $b$ to all light curves
419: and an independent $T_c$ to each transit light curve, in order to estimate
420: the mid-transit time of each event. In this analysis the period
421: does {\it not} determine the time intervals between transit events. It
422: is used only for determining the true anomaly of each measurement within
423: each light curve so it is only weakly constrained. Hence, in this analysis $P$
424: was fixed at the value derived in our original analysis.
425: The resulting six $T_c$ values were later used to derive the transit ephemeris by a linear fit.
426: The new period is $\approx\! 0.35 \sigma$ from
427: the period fitted in our original MCMC run. Repeating the process described in this paragraph
428: with the new period results in a variation of only $0.02\sigma$, so no further iterations
429: were done.
430:
431: Table~\ref{Tcb} contains the mid-transit timings fitted independently
432: to each light curve. Note that light curves with the smallest RMS residuals
433: do not necessarily have the smallest mid-transit time uncertainty. For example,
434: the FLWO 1.2 m light curve, at $E=3$, has relatively high RMS residuals although
435: a small mid-transit time uncertainty. This is simply the effect of the short
436: KeplerCam cadence, as the increased number of points act to better constrain
437: the mid-transit time. This effect is quantified by the PNR (see Table~\ref{lctable}).
438:
439:
440: By fitting a linear function,
441: \begin{equation}
442: T_c(E) = T_c(0) + P \times E,
443: \end{equation}
444: to the transit epoch, $E$, we derived $P=2.64386\pm0.00003$ days and
445: $T_c(0) = 2454235.8355\pm0.0001$ [HJD]. The transit event with $E=0$ was chosen
446: to be right in the middle of our observed events, although we did
447: not observe that
448: particular event. We take this ephemeris as our final
449: result, listed in Table~\ref{fitparams}, and note that it is consistent with
450: $P$ and $T_c$ derived from our original MCMC fitting.
451:
452: The residuals from the linear fit are presented in Fig.~\ref{OC}, known as
453: the O-C diagram. The figure shows some indication
454: for a variability of the period, reflected by the high $\chi^2$
455: value of the fit, of $23$ for $4$ degrees of freedom.
456: However, the small number of points does not allow to assign any significance
457: to the detection of this variability, especially because some systematic
458: effects could shift some of the points.
459:
460: Second, we performed a MCMC analysis where we looked for a transit
461: impact parameter variation. The four parameters $P$, $T_c$, $R_p/R_s$
462: and $a/R_s$ were fitted to the entire data while the impact parameter,
463: $b$, was fitted independently to each light curve. The derived impact
464: parameters are listed in Table~\ref{Tcb} and plotted in Fig.~\ref{b}.
465: As a reference, we over-plotted in Fig.~\ref{b} the value of
466: our original run, in a solid line, and the upper and lower $1\sigma$
467: confidence limits in dashed lines.
468: No significant variation can be seen in the data, although a long-term
469: trend of the order of 0.2 year$^{-1}$ can not be ruled out.
470:
471: The two separate analyses described in this section were repeated without
472: applying the polynomial corrections mentioned in Section~\ref{Observations}.
473: The results were consistent with the original ones.
474: In addition, for both the O-C transit timing residuals and the impact
475: parameters derived here we looked for a possible correlation with several
476: external parameters, including mid-transit airmass, filter central wavelength
477: and the light curves polynomial correction amplitude.
478: All correlations were below the 1.5$\sigma$ confidence level.
479:
480:
481: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
482: \section{Discussion and Summary}
483: \label{Discussion}
484: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
485:
486: This paper presents an analysis of $6$ complete transit
487: light curves of GJ~436b, spanning $29$ days, or $11$ orbital periods.
488:
489: Our period is consistent with the period given by \citet{Maness07}, of
490: $2.64385\pm0.00009$ days, and is more precise.
491: Our value for $R_p/R_s$ (see Table~\ref{fitparams}), is larger,
492: by 1-2 $\sigma$, than the radii ratio derived for the \spitzer 8~\mic light
493: curve by \citet{Gillon07b}, \cite{Deming07} and \citet{Southworth08}.
494: If this difference is real it may be induced by stellar spots, or wavelength
495: dependent opacities in the planetary atmosphere (\citealt{Barman07},
496: \citealt{Pont08a}, \citealt{Pont08b}).
497: Interestingly, a similar effect, i.e.,
498: an increased radius ratio in the optical relative to the IR,
499: was already observed for HD~189733b \citep{Pont07}.
500:
501:
502: Our derived physical parameters, mainly the planetary radius and mass,
503: are consistent with those derived previously (See Table~\ref{physparams}).
504:
505: We examined the individual transit timing of each light
506: curve (TTV, see Fig.~\ref{OC}) and derived the impact parameter of
507: each light curve independently (see Fig.~\ref{b}). The transit timing
508: residuals show a possible hint for variability, supported by the
509: high $\chi^2$ of the fit. However, many more light curves are needed
510: to establish the variability and to explore its nature. The impact
511: parameter plot shows a possible trend, although a linear fit to the
512: six data points gives a slope consistent with zero.
513:
514: Comparing our derived transit ephemeris to transit times published
515: recently (\citealt{Alonso08}, \citealt{Bean08}) shows that the predicted
516: transit times are somewhat earlier than the measured times. The difference
517: is at the 1--2$\sigma$ level, so it is not highly significant.
518: However, if real, it supports the claim made by \cite{Bean08} for a
519: long-term drift in the transit times. Together with the
520: long-term slope in GJ~436 RVs \citep{Maness07}
521: it suggests the existence of another object in the system, with a
522: long period. Future
523: photometric and spectroscopic data will be able to better study
524: this possibility.
525:
526: As mentioned in the introduction, the impact parameter of GJ~436b can
527: be changed by a precession of the line of nodes, induced by a second
528: planet whose orbital plane is inclined relative to the orbit of GJ~436b
529: \citep[e.g.,][]{Miralda02}. Such an effect was already suggested by
530: \citet{Soderhjelm75} and \citet{Mazeh76} for stellar triple systems.
531: The precession period is
532: \begin{equation}
533: \label{Unode}
534: U_{node}\approx\frac{M_s}{M_{p,2}}\left(\frac{P_2}{P}\right)^2P
535: \end{equation}
536: %
537: \citep{Miralda02}, where $M_{p,2}$ and $P_2$ are the mass and period
538: of the second planet, respectively. For the planet suggested by
539: \citet{Ribas08}, this precession is of the order of $10$ years.
540:
541: For eccentric orbits the impact parameter can also be modified by
542: the precession of the periastron, because the impact parameter depends
543: on the orientation of the line of apsides (see
544: Eq.~$3$ of \citealt{Winn07}). The apsidal motion can be driven by the
545: stellar quadrupole moment, or by a second planet. The precession
546: driven by the stellar quadrupole moment could be quite slow, and
547: therefore probably does not contribute to the variation of the impact
548: parameter. The rate of the apsidal precession induced by another
549: planet is of the same order of magnitude as the rate of the nodal
550: precession, estimated in Eq.~\ref{Unode}, and therefore can be of the
551: order of years, depending on the parameters of the unseen additional
552: planet in the system.
553:
554: In order to estimate the possible implication of the apsidal
555: precession on the impact parameter we plot in Fig.~\ref{bw} the impact
556: parameter of GJ~436b as a function of the argument of the periastron
557: $\omega$, at fixed orbital eccentricity and inclination.
558: We can see that $b$ is modulated between $\sim 1.0$ and
559: $0.7$ over the apsidal precession period. The upper dashed line of the
560: figure indicates that at some phase of the precession period the
561: transit of GJ~436b will even lose its flat-bottom shape. The figure
562: suggests that if the apsidal motion is of the order of ten years, we
563: should be able to observe soon a change of the impact parameter. In
564: case this modulation is due to apsidal motion, we will then be able to
565: confirm the change of the line of apsides direction by timing the
566: secondary eclipse or by precise RV measurements.
567:
568: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
569: \acknowledgments
570: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
571:
572: We are deeply thankful to Michael Gillon for his photometric processing
573: the data obtained on 2007~May~4 and 2007~May~25.
574: We thank the anonymous referee for his thorough reading of the paper
575: and his useful comments which helped improve the paper.
576: TM and AS thank Elia Leibowitz and Liliana Formiggini for allowing the
577: use of their telescope time at the Wise Observatory 1~m telescope on
578: 2007~May~4.
579: This work was partly supported by Grant no.~$2006234$ from the United
580: States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), and by the Kepler
581: Mission under NASA Cooperative Agreement NCC 2-1390 with the Smithsonian
582: Astrophysical Observatory.
583:
584: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
585: \begin{thebibliography}{}
586: %%IN THE FIRST PART OF THE BIBITEM, THE [], MAKE SURE ALL YEARS ARE ENCLOSED
587: %%IN (). FOR EXAMPLE: [Claret(2000)] AND NOT [Claret 2000]
588: %%ALSO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO SPACE AFTER THE POINT IN ET AL.(20...
589: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
590:
591: \bibitem[Agol et al.(2005)]{Agol05} Agol, E., Steffen, J.,
592: Sari, R., \& Clarkson, W.\ 2005, \mnras, 359, 567
593:
594: \bibitem[Alonso et al.(2008)]{Alonso08} Alonso, R., Barbieri,
595: M., Rabus, M., Deeg, H.~J., Belmonte, J.~A., \& Almenara, J.~M.\ 2008, \aap, 487, L5
596:
597: \bibitem[Barman(2007)]{Barman07} Barman, T.\ 2007, \apjl, 661,
598: L191
599:
600: \bibitem[Barnes(2007)]{Barnes07} Barnes, J.~W.\ 2007, \pasp,
601: 119, 986
602:
603: \bibitem[Bean et al.(2008)]{Bean08} Bean, J.~L., et al.\ 2008, \aap, 486, 1039
604:
605: \bibitem[Bonfils et al.(2005)]{Bonfils05a} Bonfils, X., et al.\ 2005, \aap, 443, L15
606:
607: \bibitem[Bonfils et al.(2005)]{Bonfils05b} Bonfils, X., Delfosse, X., Udry, S.,
608: Santos, N.~C., Forveille, T., \& S{\'e}gransan, D.\ 2005, \aap, 442, 635
609:
610: \bibitem[Brosch et al.(2008)]{Brosch08} Brosch, N., Polishook, D., Shporer, A., Kaspi, S., Berwald, A., \& Manulis, I.\ 2008, \apss, 314, 163
611:
612: \bibitem[Burke et al.(2007)]{Burke07} Burke, C.~J., et al.\
613: 2007, \apj, 671, 2115
614:
615: \bibitem[Burke et al.(2008)]{Burke08} Burke, C.~J., et al.\
616: 2008, \apj, 686, 1331
617:
618: \bibitem[Butler et al.(2004)]{Butler04} Butler, R.~P., Vogt,
619: S.~S., Marcy, G.~W., Fischer, D.~A., Wright, J.~T., Henry, G.~W., Laughlin,
620: G., \& Lissauer, J.~J.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 580
621:
622: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2007)]{Charbonneau07} Charbonneau, D.,
623: Brown, T.~M., Burrows, A.,
624: \& Laughlin, G.\ 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, B. Reipurth, D. Jewett, \& K. Keil (eds),
625: University of Arizona Press (Tucson), p. 701 (arXiv:astro-ph/0603376)
626:
627: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{Claret00} Claret, A.\ 2000, \aap, 363, 1081
628:
629: \bibitem[Claret(2004)]{Claret04} Claret, A.\ 2004, \aap, 428, 1001
630:
631: \bibitem[Collier Cameron et al.(2007)]{Collier07} Collier
632: Cameron, A., et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 380, 1230
633:
634: \bibitem[Deming et al.(2007)]{Deming07} Deming, D., Harrington,
635: J., Laughlin, G., Seager, S., Navarro, S.~B., Bowman, W.~C.,
636: \& Horning, K.\ 2007, ApJL, 667, L199
637:
638: \bibitem[Demory et al.(2007)]{Demory07} Demory, B.-O., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 475, 1125
639:
640: \bibitem[Fischer et al.(2008)]{Fischer08} Fischer, D.~A., et al.\
641: 2008, \apj, 675, 790
642:
643: \bibitem[Ford(2005)]{Ford05} Ford, E.~B.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 1706
644:
645: \bibitem[Ford et al.(2008)]{Ford08} Ford, E.~B., Quinn, S.~N.,
646: \& Veras, D.\ 2008, \apj, 678, 1407
647:
648: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2007)]{Fortney07} Fortney, J.~J., Marley,
649: M.~S., \& Barnes, J.~W.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 1661
650:
651: \bibitem[Fortney(2008)]{Fortney08} Fortney, J.~J.\ 2008, ArXiv
652: e-prints, arXiv:0801.4943
653:
654: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2007a)]{Gillon07a} Gillon, M., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 472, L13
655:
656: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2007b)]{Gillon07b} Gillon, M., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 471, L51
657:
658: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2008)]{Gillon08} Gillon, M., Triaud, A.~H.~M.~J.,
659: Mayor, M., Queloz, D., Udry, S., \& North, P.\ 2008, \aap, 485, 871
660:
661: \bibitem[Gregory(2005)]{Gregory05} Gregory, P.~C.\ 2005, \apj,
662: 631, 1198
663:
664: \bibitem[Guillot(2008)]{Guillot08} Guillot, T.\ 2008, Physica
665: Scripta Volume T, 130, 014023
666:
667:
668: \bibitem[Holman et al.(1997)]{Holman97} Holman, M., Touma, J.,
669: \& Tremaine, S.\ 1997, \nat, 386, 254
670:
671: \bibitem[Holman \& Murray(2005)]{Holman05} Holman, M.~J., \& Murray, N.~W.\ 2005, Science, 307, 1288
672:
673: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2006)]{Holman06} Holman, M.~J., et al.\
674: 2006, \apj, 652, 1715
675:
676: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{Mandel02} Mandel, K., \& Agol, E.\ 2002, \apjl, 580, L171
677:
678: \bibitem[Maness et al.(2007)]{Maness07} Maness, H.~L., Marcy,
679: G.~W., Ford, E.~B., Hauschildt, P.~H., Shreve, A.~T., Basri, G.~B., Butler,
680: R.~P., \& Vogt, S.~S.\ 2007, \pasp, 119, 90
681:
682: \bibitem[Mazeh et al.(1997)]{Mazeh97} Mazeh, T., Krymolowski,
683: Y., \& Rosenfeld, G.\ 1997, \apjl, 477, L103
684:
685: \bibitem[Mazeh(1990)]{Mazeh90} Mazeh, T.\ 1990, \aj, 99, 675
686:
687: \bibitem[Mazeh \& Shaham(1976)]{Mazeh76} Mazeh, T., \& Shaham, J.\ 1976, \apjl, 205, L147
688:
689: \bibitem[Mazeh \& Shaham(1979)]{Mazeh79} Mazeh, T., \& Shaham, J.\ 1979, \aap, 77, 145
690:
691: \bibitem[Miralda-Escud{\'e}(2002)]{Miralda02} Miralda-Escud{\'e},
692: J.\ 2002, \apj, 564, 1019
693:
694: \bibitem[Pont et al.(2006)]{Pont06} Pont, F., Zucker, S.,
695: \& Queloz, D.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, 231
696:
697: \bibitem[Pont et al.(2007)]{Pont07} Pont, F., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 476, 1347
698:
699: \bibitem[Pont et al.(2008a)]{Pont08a} Pont, F., Knutson, H.,
700: Gilliland, R.~L., Moutou, C., \& Charbonneau, D.\ 2008a, \mnras, 385, 109
701:
702: \bibitem[Pont et al.(2008b)]{Pont08b} Pont, F., Gilliland,
703: R.~L., Knutson, H., Holman, M., \& Charbonneau, D.\ 2008b, to appear in MNRAS
704: (arXiv:0810.5731)
705:
706: \bibitem[Ribas et al.(2008)]{Ribas08} Ribas, I., Font-Ribera,
707: A., \& Beaulieu, J.-P.\ 2008, \apjl, 677, L59
708:
709: \bibitem[Seager et al.(2007)]{Seager07} Seager, S., Kuchner, M.,
710: Hier-Majumder, C.~A., \& Militzer, B.\ 2007, \apj, 669, 1279
711:
712: \bibitem[Soderhjelm(1975)]{Soderhjelm75} Soderhjelm, S.\ 1975, \aap, 42, 229
713:
714: \bibitem[Southworth(2008)]{Southworth08} Southworth, J.\ 2008,
715: \mnras, 386, 1644
716:
717: \bibitem[Szentgyorgyi et al.(2005)]{Szentgyorgyi05} Szentgyorgyi,
718: A.~H., et al.\ 2005, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 37,
719: 1339
720:
721: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004)]{Tegmark04} Tegmark, M., et al.\
722: 2004, \prd, 69, 103501
723:
724: \bibitem[Torres(2007)]{Torres07} Torres, G.\ 2007, \apjl, 671, L65
725:
726: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2008)]{Torres08} Torres, G., Winn, J.~N.,
727: \& Holman, M.~J.\ 2008, \apj, 677, 1324
728:
729: \bibitem[Udry et al.(2006)]{Udry06} Udry, S., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 447, 361
730:
731: \bibitem[Udry et al.(2007)]{Udry07} Udry, S., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 469, L43
732:
733: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007)]{Winn07} Winn, J.~N., et al.\ 2007, \apjl, 665, L167
734:
735: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2008)]{Winn08} Winn, J.~N., et al.\ 2008, \apj, 683, 1076
736:
737:
738:
739: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
740: \end{thebibliography}
741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
742:
743: \clearpage
744:
745: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
746: % light curve measurements table
747: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
748:
749: \begin{table}
750: \begin{center}
751: \caption{\label{lclist}
752: Photometry of GJ~436b. The table includes the $5$ light curves obtained in this work
753: and will appear in entirety in the electronic version of the journal.}
754: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
755: \hline
756: \hline
757: Observatory+ & Filter & HJD & Relative & Relative \\
758: Telescope & & & flux & flux error \\
759: \hline
760: Wise 0.46m & Clear & 2454225.229864 & 1.0015 & 0.0020\\
761: Wise 1m & V & 2454225.218116 & 0.9997 & 0.0010\\
762: FLWO 1.2m & z & 2454243.658856 & 1.0002 & 0.0020\\
763: Wise 1m & R & 2454246.309414 & 1.0024 & 0.0017\\
764: FLWO 1.2m & z & 2454251.641074 & 0.9987 & 0.0024\\
765: \hline
766: \end{tabular}
767: \end{center}
768: \end{table}
769:
770: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
771: % light curves table
772: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
773: \clearpage
774:
775:
776: \begin{deluxetable}{llrclccccccccccc}
777: \rotate
778: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
779: \tablecaption{\label{lctable}
780: List of light curves analyzed in this work.}
781: \tablewidth{22cm}
782: \tablehead{
783: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Start Date} & \colhead{Start Time} &
784: \colhead{Observatory+}& \colhead{Filter} & \colhead{$\ u_1$} & \colhead{$\ u_2$} & \colhead{exp.}& \colhead{Cadence} &
785: \colhead{Duration} & \colhead{start}& \colhead{end}& \colhead{$\beta$} & \colhead{RMS} & \colhead{PNR\tablenotemark{a}}\\
786: \multicolumn{3}{c}{UT} & \colhead{[hh:mm] UT} & \colhead{Telescope} & & & &
787: \colhead{time [s]} & \colhead{[min$^{-1}$]} & \colhead{[hours]} & \colhead{AM} & \colhead{AM}& & \colhead{[mmag]} & \colhead{[mmag min$^{-1}$]}}
788: \startdata
789: 2007& May& 2 & 00:08 & Euler 1.2~m & $V$ & 0.340 & 0.444 & 80 & 0.44 & 3.86 & 2.10 & 2.24 & 1.0 & 1.2 & 1.8 \\
790: 2007& May& 4 & 17:39 & Wise 0.46~m& $clear$ & 0.343 & 0.398 & 20 & 1.23 & 3.19 & 1.03 & 1.14 & 1.6 & 2.0 & 1.8 \\
791: 2007& May& 4 & 17:22 & Wise 1~m & $V$ & 0.340 & 0.444 & 60 & 0.65 & 2.90 & 1.05 & 1.07 & 1.5 & 0.9 & 1.1 \\
792: 2007& May& 23 & 03:56 & FLWO 1.2~m & $z$ & 0.088 & 0.522 & 10 & 2.44 & 3.91 & 1.02 & 1.99 & 1.3 & 2.0 & 1.3 \\
793: 2007& May& 25 & 19:33 & Wise 1~m & $R$ & 0.343 & 0.398 & 40 & 0.88 & 3.60 & 1.15 & 3.79 & 1.3 & 2.4 & 2.6 \\
794: 2007& May& 31 & 03:30 & FLWO 1.2~m & $z$ & 0.088 & 0.522 & 10 & 2.38 & 3.20 & 1.02 & 1.64 & 2.1 & 2.1 & 1.4 \\
795: \enddata
796: \tablenotetext{a}{Photometric Noise Rate = RMS$\times \sqrt{ {\rm Cadence}}$.}
797: \end{deluxetable}
798:
799: \clearpage
800:
801: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
802: % Fitted parameters table
803: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
804:
805: \pagestyle{empty}
806: \begin{table}
807: \begin{center}
808: \caption{\label{fitparams}
809: Light curve fitted parameters.
810: }
811: \begin{tabular}{lr@{.}lr@{.}lr@{.}lr@{.}lr@{.}l}
812: \hline
813: \hline
814: Reference & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$P$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$T_c$-2454200}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{$R_p/R_s$}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{$a/R_s$} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{$b$}\\
815: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[d]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[HJD]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
816: \hline
817: This work & $2$&$64386$ & $35$&$8355$ & $0$&$085$ & $13$&$6$ & $0$&$85$ \\
818: & $\pm0$&$00003$ & $\pm0$&$0001$ & $\pm0$&$001$ & $\pm0$&$5$ &$\pm0$&$01$ \\
819: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
820: \hline
821: Gillon et al. 2007a$^1$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & $0$&$082$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
822: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & $\pm0$&$005$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
823: \multicolumn{11}{c}{}\\
824: Gillon et al. 2007b$^1$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & $80$&$78148$ & $0$&$0830$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & $0$&$849$\\
825: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & $+0$&$00015$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & $+0$&$010$\\
826: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & $-0$&$00008$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & $-0$&$013$\\
827: Deming et al. 2007$^1$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & $80$&$78149$ & $0$&$0839$ & $13$&$2$ & $0$&$85$\\
828: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & $\pm0$&$00016$ & $\pm0$&$0005$ & $\pm0$&$6$ & $+0$&$03$\\
829: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & $-0$&$02$\\
830: Southworth 2008$^1$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & $80$&$78174$ & $0$&$08284$ & $13$&$68$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
831: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & $\pm0$&$00011$ & $\pm0$&$00090$ & $\pm0$&$51$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
832: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
833: \hline
834: \end{tabular}
835: \end{center}
836: $^1$ Period was fixed at the Maness et al. 2007 value, of $P=2.64385\pm0.00009$ days.\\
837: \end{table}
838: \clearpage
839:
840:
841:
842: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
843: % physical parameters (star + planet radii) table
844: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
845:
846: \pagestyle{plain}
847: \begin{table}
848: \begin{center}
849: \caption{\label{physparams}
850: Results for the physical parameters.
851: }
852: \begin{tabular}{lr@{.}lr@{.}lr@{.}lr@{.}lr@{.}lr@{.}lr@{.}lr@{.}l}
853: \hline
854: \hline
855: Reference &\multicolumn{4}{c}{$a$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$M_p$} &\multicolumn{4}{c}{$R_s$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$R_p$} \\
856: &\multicolumn{4}{c}{[AU]}& \multicolumn{4}{c}{[$M_{\earth}$]} &\multicolumn{4}{c}{[$R_{\sun}$]}& \multicolumn{4}{c}{[$R_{\earth}$]}\\
857: \hline
858: This work & $0$&$02872$ & $+0$&$00030$ & $23$&$1$ &$\pm0$&$9$ & $0$&$45$ &$\pm0$&$02$ & $4$&$2$ & $\pm0$&$2$\\
859: &\multicolumn{2}{l}{}& $-0$&$00025$ &\multicolumn{12}{l}{}\\
860: \hline
861: Gillon et al. 2007a &\multicolumn{4}{l}{} & $22$&$6$ &$\pm1$&$9$ & $0$&$44$ &$\pm0$&$04$ & $3$&$95$ & $+0$&$41$\\
862: &\multicolumn{4}{l}{}&\multicolumn{4}{l}{}&\multicolumn{6}{l}{} & $-0$&$28$\\
863: Gillon et al. 2007b &\multicolumn{4}{l}{}&\multicolumn{4}{l}{} & $0$&$463$ & $+0$&$022$& $4$&$19$ & $+0$&$21$\\
864: &\multicolumn{4}{l}{}&\multicolumn{4}{l}{}&\multicolumn{2}{l}{}& $-0$&$017$ &\multicolumn{2}{l}{} & $-0$&$16$\\
865: Deming et al. 2007 & $0$&$0291$ & $\pm0$&$0004$ & $22$&$24$ &$\pm0$&$95$ & $0$&$47$ &$\pm0$&$02$ & $4$&$33$ & $\pm0$&$18$\\
866: \multicolumn{17}{l}{}\\
867: Torres 2007 & $0$&$02872$ & $\pm0$&$00027$ & $23$&$17$ &$\pm0$&$79$ & $0$&$464$ & $+0$&$009$& $4$&$22$ & $+0$&$09$\\
868: &\multicolumn{4}{l}{}&\multicolumn{4}{l}{}&\multicolumn{2}{l}{} & $-0$&$011$&\multicolumn{2}{l}{}& $-0$&$10$\\
869: Southworth 2008$^1$ &\multicolumn{4}{l}{}&\multicolumn{4}{l}{} & $0$&$452$ &$\pm0$&$017$& $4$&$08$ &$\pm0$&$16$\\
870: \multicolumn{17}{l}{} \\
871: \hline
872: \end{tabular}
873: \end{center}
874: $^1$Assuming $M_s=0.452^{+0.014}_{-0.012}~M_{\sun}$ (Torres 2007), orbital parameters of Maness et al.~(2007)
875: and the period derived here.\\
876: \end{table}
877: \clearpage
878:
879: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
880: % Tc and b
881: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
882:
883: \pagestyle{plain}
884: \begin{table}
885: \begin{center}
886: \caption{\label{Tcb}
887: Mid-transit time and impact parameter fitted independently to each light curve$^\ast$.
888: }
889: \begin{tabular}{rr@{$\pm$}lr@{.}lr@{.}lr@{$\pm$}lr@{.}lr@{.}l}
890: \hline
891: \hline
892: E$\ $ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$T_c$ - 2454200}& \multicolumn{4}{c}{$\Delta T_c$ $^\dagger$} &
893: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$b$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$\Delta b$\ $^\ddagger$} \\
894: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\ \ \ $[HJD]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[min]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[$\sigma$]} &
895: \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[$\sigma$]} \\
896: \hline
897: -5 & $22.61612$&$0.00037$ & -0&15 & -0&28 & $0.838$&$0.017$ & -0&013 & -0&61\\
898:
899: -4 & $25.26002$&$0.00038$ & -0&10 & -0&18 & $0.828$&$0.020$ & -0&023 & -0&96\\
900:
901: -4 & $25.26052$&$0.00030$ & 0&62 & 1&45 & $0.843$&$0.016$ & -0&008 & -0&37\\
902:
903: 3 & $43.76657$&$0.00026$ & -0&71 & -1&88 & $0.846$&$0.018$ & -0&005 & -0&23\\
904:
905: 4 & $46.40982$&$0.00040$ & -1&58 & -2&74 & $0.843$&$0.014$ & -0&008 & -0&41\\
906:
907: 6 & $51.69956$&$0.00030$ & 1&34 & 3&12 & $0.854$&$0.016$ & 0&003 & 0&13\\
908:
909: \hline
910: \end{tabular}
911: \end{center}
912: $^\ast$ The table gives the result of two separate MCMC analyses.
913: In each analysis only a single parameter ($T_c$ or $b$) was fitted separately
914: to every light curve and all other parameters were fitted to all light curves
915: simultaneously, except for $P$ which was fixed when fitting an individual $T_c$
916: to each light curve.\\
917: $^\dagger$ Difference between the measured $T_c$ and the expected mid-transit
918: time according to the fitted ephemeris (see Table~\ref{fitparams}).
919: The difference is given in minutes and also in units of the uncertainty
920: on each mid-transit time. \\
921: $^\ddagger$ Difference between the measured impact parameter while fitting
922: each light curve separately, and the result of the simultaneous fit (see
923: Table~\ref{fitparams}). The difference is given also in units of the
924: uncertainty on each impact parameter.
925: \end{table}
926:
927: \clearpage
928:
929: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
930: % light curve figure
931: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
932: \begin{figure}
933: \includegraphics[scale=0.85]{f1.eps}
934: \caption{
935: \label{lc}
936: The six light curves analyzed in this work. The overplotted solid
937: line is our best estimate model. For each light curve, residuals from
938: the model are plotted, centered on a relative flux of $0.98$ for clarity.
939: Within each panel the UT date, observatory, telescope and filter used
940: are given.}
941: \end{figure}
942: \clearpage
943:
944: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
945: % O-C diagram
946: \begin{figure}
947: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
948: \includegraphics[]{f2.eps}
949: \caption{
950: \label{OC}
951: Observed minus calculated (O-C) transit timing of the six light curves
952: included in this study. The graph shows the residuals from a linear fit
953: to the transit timing as a function of the transit epoch. Table~\ref{Tcb}
954: lists the actual transit timings.}
955: \end{figure}
956: \clearpage
957:
958: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
959: % b and i plots
960: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
961: \begin{figure}
962: \includegraphics[]{f3.eps}\\
963: \caption{
964: \label{b}
965: The impact parameter, $b$, fitted independently to each light curve, as a function
966: of the transit epoch.
967: The solid line marks the best estimate derived in our original MCMC run, while
968: fitting the impact parameter to all light curves simultaneously. The dashed lines
969: mark the upper and lower $1\sigma$ confidence limits. Table~\ref{Tcb} lists the actual
970: values of the impact parameters presented here.
971: }
972: \end{figure}
973: \clearpage
974:
975: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
976: % b vs. omega
977: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
978: \begin{figure}
979: \includegraphics[]{f4.eps}
980: \caption{
981: \label{bw}
982: The solid line presents the impact parameter, $b$, vs. $\omega$,
983: for the eccentricity and inclination of GJ~436b.
984: The filled circle (green) marks the current position, error bars are too small to be shown.
985: The upper and lower dashed lines (red) mark the impact parameter when the stellar
986: radius is multiplied by a factor of $1-R_p/R_s$ and $1+R_p/R_s$, respectively.
987: When multiplying the stellar radius by $1-R_p/R_s$ (upper dashed line)
988: the impact parameter will be smaller than one only for non-grazing transits.
989: When multiplying by $1+R_p/R_s$ (lower dashed line) then the impact parameter
990: will equal one when the minimal star-planet sky projected distance equals the
991: radii sum, i.e., for $b>1$ there will be no transit at all.
992: }
993: \end{figure}
994: \clearpage
995:
996: \end{document}
997: