1: 	%Revision 3, including XMM datapoints, additional figures, tables, references, text

2: 	%Revision 4, figure file names

3: 	%Revision 5, Feb 2008 analysis

4: 	%Revision 6, preprint form for arXiv

5: 

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

7: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

8: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

9: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

10: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

11: 

12: %\usepackage{/home/kashyap/PiP/emulateapj5}

13: %\usepackage{/home/kashyap/PiP/apjfonts}

14: 

15: %\makeatletter

16: %\newenvironment{tablehere}

17: %  {\def\@captype{table}}

18: %  {}

19: %

20: %\newenvironment{figurehere}

21: %  {\def\@captype{figure}}

22: %  {}

23: 

24: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

25: \newcommand{\myemail}{kashyap@head-cfa.harvard.edu}

26: \newcommand{\asca}{{\sl ASCA}}

27: \newcommand{\exosat}{{\sl EXOSAT}}

28: \newcommand{\einstein}{{\sl Einstein}}

29: \newcommand{\rosat}{{\sl ROSAT}}

30: \newcommand{\rass}{{\sl RASS}}

31: \newcommand{\xmm}{XMM-{\sl{Newton}}}

32: \newcommand{\chandra}{{\sl Chandra}}

33: \newcommand{\scrA}{{a_P}}

34: 

35: \slugcomment{accepted for publication in ApJ}

36: 

37: \shorttitle{EGPs and X-rays}

38: \shortauthors{Kashyap et al.}

39: 

40: \begin{document}

41: 

42: \title{Extrasolar Giant Planets and X-ray Activity}

43: 

44: \author{Vinay L.\ Kashyap, Jeremy J.\ Drake, Steven H.\ Saar}

45: \affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,

46: \\ 60 Garden Street, \\ Cambridge, MA 02138}

47: \email{vkashyap@cfa.harvard.edu \\

48: jdrake@cfa.harvard.edu \\

49: ssaar@cfa.harvard.edu}

50: 

51: \begin{abstract}

52: 

53: We have carried out a survey of X-ray emission from

54: stars with giant planets, combining both archival

55: and targeted surveys.

56: Over 230 stars have been currently identified as

57: possessing planets, and roughly a third of these

58: have been detected in X-rays.

59: We carry out detailed statistical analysis on

60: a volume limited sample of main sequence star

61: systems with detected planets, comparing

62: subsamples of stars that have close-in planets with

63: stars that have more distant planets.  This analysis

64: reveals strong

65: evidence that stars with close-in giant planets are

66: on average more X-ray active by a factor $\approx 4$

67: than those with planets that are more distant.

68: This result persists for various sample selections.

69: We find that even after accounting

70: for observational sample bias, a significant residual

71: difference still remains.  This observational

72: result is consistent with the hypothesis that giant

73: planets in close proximity to the primary stars

74: influences the stellar magnetic activity.

75: 

76: \end{abstract}

77: 

78: \keywords{stellar activity -- extrasolar planets -- magnetospheres -- surveys -- X-rays: general -- methods: statistical }

79: 

80: \section{Introduction}

81: \label{s:intro}

82: 

83: After centuries of ignorance on planetary systems beyond

84: our own, we are now in an era when stars are being routinely

85: identified as possessing planets.

86: Since the discovery by Mayor \& Queloz (1995) of a Jupiter-type

87: planet (mass $0.44~M_J$) orbiting close in to the G2 star 51\,Peg

88: ($0.05$~AU), almost three hundred new Extrasolar Giant

89: Planets (EGPs) have been found.\footnote{

90: The current state of this rapidly advancing field is summarized

91: by the International Astronomical Union's Working Group on

92: Extrasolar Planets at {\tt http://www.ciw.edu/boss/IAU/div3/wgesp/}

93: and at the Exoplanet Encyclopedia at {\tt http://exoplanet.eu/}

94: }

95: 

96: One of the surprising results so far have been the detection of

97: planets with orbital radii, $\scrA$, much smaller than seen in

98: the Solar System, with values as low as $\scrA\approx$0.03~AU.  At

99: such small separations, it is likely that these giant planets will

100: have measurable tidal ($\propto \scrA^{-3}$) or magnetic ($\propto

101: \scrA^{-2}$ for large $\scrA$) effects on the primary stars (Cuntz, Saar,

102: \& Musielak 2000; Saar, Cuntz, Shkolnik 2004).  Both these effects increase non-linearly for

103: small values of $\scrA$, leading to potentially dramatic disruptions

104: of the stellar environment for stars with close-in giant planets.

105: How these disruptions affect coronal activity remains an open

106: question.  It is possible that activity will be enhanced because

107: of the magnetic interactions between star and planet.  Tidal

108: bulges will also have an effect on the stability and energetics of the chromosphere.

109: Hitherto, analyses of variables that control stellar activity

110: levels for single stars have focused on rotation rate, mass, age, evolutionary

111: state, and to some extent metallicity, as factors determining

112: coronal activity.  Now we are presented with another possibility,

113: viz., the existence of close-in EGPs may also be a controlling

114: parameter.  It is well known that binary stars with close stellar

115: companions are generally more active than single stars (see e.g.,

116: Pye et al.\ 1994).  Stars with close-in EGPs may be of the

117: same type, though it is unclear whether similar mechanisms of

118: activity enhancements hold at both extremes of this family.

119: 

120: A preliminary search for planet-induced stellar activity enhancement

121: was carried out by Bastian, Dulk \& Leblanc (2000) in the radio and

122: by Saar \& Cuntz (2001) in the optical.  But due to insufficient

123: sensitivity, neither study succeeded in uncovering clear evidence for

124: this phenomenon.  However, a sensitive search for activity

125: (Shkolnik et al.\ 2003; see also Cuntz \& Shkolnik 2002) detected

126: enhanced stellar emission in the Ca~II~HK lines from the chromosphere

127: of HD\,179949, in phase with the orbit of its close-in giant planet

128: ($P_{\rm orb} = 3.09$ days, $M \sin i = 0.93 M_J$, $\scrA = 0.045$ AU).

129: The enhancement is clearly planet-related because it is not in phase

130: with the stellar rotation rate $P_{\rm rot} = 8 - 9$ days (Tinney et

131: al.\ 2001).  Because the Ca~II~HK enhancement  is seen only on the

132: hemisphere facing the planet, a magnetic interaction is preferred

133: over a tidal one.  Since a unipolar inductor model (viz., the Io--Jupiter

134: interaction; Zarka et al.\ 2001) does not fit the data as well (Saar

135: et al.\ 2004), this appears to be the first observational evidence

136: for an exoplanetary magnetosphere.  These observations also provide

137: an opportunity to probe the high-energy particle environment near

138: EGPs since the interaction strength depends on the magnitudes of the

139: stellar and planetary magnetic fields $B_*$ and $B_P$ (Saar et al.\

140: 2004).  Note however that these emissions appear to be not phase

141: locked, as is expected if the stellar magnetic fields are varying

142: (McIvor, Jardine, \& Holzwarth 2006; Cranmer \& Saar 2006).

143: 

144: The peak strength of the HK emission flux enhancement found is

145: $\approx$4\% (Shkolnik et al.\ 2004).  Such low-level enhancements

146: are difficult to detect and study in any detail.  However, if the

147: emission scales like other manifestations of stellar activity,

148: coronal enhancements should be much larger: e.g., Ayres et al.\ (1995)

149: found surface fluxes $F_X/F_{bol} \propto (F_{\rm C\,IV}/F_{bol})^3$.

150: Follow-up observations of HD\,179949 in X-rays (\chandra/ACIS;

151: Saar et al.\ 2006) show significant spectral and temporal variability

152: phased to the planetary orbit, but there is some residual ambiguity

153: due to the poorly constrained stellar rotational period ($P_{\rm rot} 

154: \approx 7-10$ d) -- some fraction of the variation may be due to 

155: changes in the underlying stellar activity.

156: 

157: This picture has been reinforced by recent observations of similar

158: activity on $\upsilon$~And and a confirmation of the activity

159: synchronization on HD\,179949 (Shkolnik et al.\ 2008).  There are

160: also indications of the influence of a planet on stellar activity

161: in $\tau$~Boo and HD\,189733, though the results are inconclusive.

162: The newer observations also show that the possible influence

163: of the giant planet on stellar activity is complex, intermittent,

164: and prone to phase shifts (Saar et al.\ 2006, Shkolnik et al.\ 2008,

165: Lanza 2008).

166: 

167: In \S\ref{s:data}, we detail the X-ray data available for stars

168: with giant plants.  In \S\ref{s:analysis}, we carry out statistical

169: searches for trends in the data as a function of $\scrA$, and show

170: evidence of a significant deviation between extremal subsamples.

171: In these analyses, we take into account the large numbers of

172: censored data (that is, undetected stars) and properly include

173: their effect.

174: We discuss these results in \S\ref{s:discuss} with careful

175: attention to the biases in the sample.  We summarize our results

176: in \S\ref{s:summary}.

177: 

178: \section{Data}

179: \label{s:data}

180: 

181: To date,\footnote{

182: As of February 2008.

183: }

184: over 230 star systems have been identified as possessing planets;

185: various methods such as spectroscopically detecting the wobble due to planetary

186: orbits in radial velocity measurements (e.g., Butler et al.\ 1996)

187: and detecting photometric dips in the light curve due to disk transit

188: (e.g., Konacki et al.\ 2003,2004)

189: have been used in these identifications.

190: For the sake of simplicity and homogeneity (see \S\ref{s:bias}),

191: we shall use for our sample only those stars which have had planets

192: discovered or verified using the spectroscopic method.

193: These stars are listed in Table~\ref{t:egp_x}.

194: In this list, we do not include those stars in which low-mass stellar

195: or brown-dwarf companions have been detected using the above

196: methods.\footnote{

197: While such a study is intrinsically interesting on its own merits, it is

198: beyond the scope of our analysis.

199: Binary star systems tend to be more X-ray active

200: than single stars (e.g., Pye et al.\ 1994), possibly due to the

201: higher angular momentum available or due to the manner of the evolution

202: of the system, whereas the primary mechanisms for activity enhancements

203: for stars with close-in EGPs appears to be tidal or magnetic disruption.

204: Here we concentrate on a well-defined and limited sample of ostensibly

205: single stars to explore the possible changes in their properties.

206: }

207: We have searched for X-ray counterparts of these stars in archival

208: data from \asca, \exosat, \einstein, \rosat, \xmm, and \chandra\ missions.

209: Using the HEASARC Browse\footnote{

210: {\tt http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/db-perl/W3Browse/w3browse.pl}

211: }, we find matches in

212: the \asca\ Medium Sensitivity Survey ({\tt ascagis}; Ueda et al.\ 2001),

213: the \exosat\ results ({\tt sc\_cma\_view}; White \& Peacock 1988),

214: the \einstein\ 2-$\sigma$ catalog ({\tt twosigma}; Moran et al.\ 1996),

215: the \einstein/IPC source catalog ({\tt einstein2e}; Harris et al.\ 1994),

216: the \rosat/HRI complete results archive ({\tt roshritotal}; Voges et al.\ 2001),

217: the Brera Multi-scale Wavelet \rosat/HRI catalog ({\tt bmwhricat}; Panzera et al.\ 2003),

218: the \rosat/PSPC complete results archive ({\tt rospspctotal}; Voges et al.\ 2001),

219: the WGACAT ({\tt wgacat}; White, Giommi, \& Angelini 1994),

220: the \rosat\ All-Sky Survey (\rass) Bright Sources catalog ({\tt rassbsc}; Voges et al.\ 1996),

221: the \rass\ Faint Sources catalog ({\tt rassfsc}; Voges et al. 1999),

222: the \rass\ A-K Dwarfs/Subgiants catalog ({\tt rassdwarf}; H\"{u}nsch, Schmitt, \& Voges 1998),

223: and the XMM Serendipitous Source catalog ({\tt xmmssc}; Pye et al.\ 2006).

224: No matches have been found in the ChaMP database (Kim et al.\ 2004),

225: and with the exception of $\epsilon$\,Eri, none of these stars have

226: been observed with {\sl Chandra}.

227: 

228: {

229: \input table1

230: }

231: 

232: %We also find that five of these stars have been observed with

233: %\xmm: $\epsilon$\,Eri, $\tau$\,Boo, HD\,108147, HD\,108147,

234: %HD\,209458, and HD\,114762. We have obtained and analyzed

235: %archival data available for the first 4 of these observations,

236: %detecting the target in the first 3 cases (see Table~\ref{t:egp_x}),

237: %and have placed an upper limit of $4 \times 10^{-14}$

238: %ergs~s$^{-1}$~cm$^{-2}$ on HD\,209458.

239: 

240: We also carried out a targeted survey of some of the stars with

241: planets using \xmm\ (PI: V.Kashyap).  The stars were chosen from

242: the extreme ends of the distribution of $\scrA$, to provide a

243: contrast between stars with close-in planets and stars with

244: distant planets (see \S\ref{s:farout}).

245: These stars are listed in Table~\ref{t:xmmstars}.

246: We used the XMM Science Analysis System (SAS v7.0.0; 20060628\_1801)

247: to reduce the data and

248: obtained source counts within circular cells of radius $20''$

249: and a background estimated from nearby regions devoid of sources.

250: In the cases where no excess X-ray emission above the background

251: was detected at a significance of $\gtrsim0.997$ (corresponding

252: to a Gaussian-equivalent $3\sigma$ detection), count rate upper

253: limits were calculated as described by Pease et al.\ (2006).

254: 

255: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}

256: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

257: \tablewidth{0pt}

258: \tablecolumns{9}

259: \tablecaption{\xmm\ Data \label{t:xmmstars}}

260: \tablehead{

261: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{$\scrA$} & \colhead{ObsID/Revolution} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{{Exposure [s]}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{{Count rate [ct ks$^{-1}$]}} \\

262: \colhead{} & \colhead{[AU]} & \colhead{} & \colhead{MOS-1} & \colhead{MOS-2} & \colhead{PN} & \colhead{MOS-1} & \colhead{MOS-2} & \colhead{PN}

263: }

264: \startdata

265: %

266: HD\,46375 & 0.041 & 0304202501/1071 & 8215.9 & 8464.2 & 6123.0 & $2.13 \pm 0.77$ & $<1.5$ & $11.2 \pm 1.9$ \\

267: HD\,187123 & 0.042 & 0304203301/1166 & 14586.7 & 15368.0 & 9382.7 & $<1.25$ & $<1.11$ & $<3.25$ \\

268: HD\,330075 & 0.043 & 0304200401/1037 & 15309.5 & 15772.6 & 13400.2 & $<0.8$ & $<0.8$ & $<1.7$ \\

269: HD\,217107 & 0.073 & 0304200801/0995 & 7536.3 & 7797.8 & 5497.1 & $<1.1$ & $<1.14$ & $4.1 \pm 1.5$ \\

270: HD\,130322 & 0.088 & 0304200901/1028 & 6295.6 & 6758.4 & 4208.7 & $4.4 \pm 1.1$ & $4.14 \pm 1.1$ & $19 \pm 2.7$ \\

271: HD\,190360 & 0.128 & 0304201101/0985 & 3078.0 & 3837.3 & 2573.9 & $<9.76$ & $<2.93$ & $<13.9$ \\

272: HD\,195019 & 0.138 & 0304201001/1167 & 10327.4 & 10259.4 & 8211.5 & $<1$ & $<1$ & $2.73 \pm 1.2$ \\

273: \multicolumn{9}{l}{\hfil} \\

274: 47\,UMa & 2.11 & 0304203401/1191 & 8564.7 & 7735.4 & 6131.2 & $7.81 \pm 1.1$ & $8.1 \pm 1.2$ & $30.7 \pm 2.6$ \\

275: HD\,50554 & 2.38 & 0304203201/1163 & 1125.7 & 1117.0 & 1098.1 & $<6.3$ & $<4.4$ & $<7.9$ \\

276: HD\,216435 & 2.70 & 0304201501/1166 & 2045.0 & 2793.5 & 183.05 & $12.8 \pm 3.5$ & $8.21 \pm 2.4$ & $84.4 \pm 30.4$ \\

277: HD\,216437 & 2.70 & 0304201601/0979 & 4163.5 & 4396.5 & 2677.1 & $<2.3$ & $<2.15$ & $9.4 \pm 2.9$ \\

278: 14\,Her & 2.77 & 0304202301/1059 & 4565.7 & 4570.9 & - & $<5.66$ & $<7.83$ & - \\

279: HD\,70642 & 3.30 & 0304201301/1159 & 13509.7 & 13489.1 & 10763.8 & $<0.9$ & $<0.9$ & $3.1 \pm 0.99$ \\

280: HD\,33636 & 3.56 & 0304202701/1054 & 10807.2 & 10847.9 & 6825.0 & $4.1 \pm 0.84$ & $4.2 \pm 0.85$ & $19.4 \pm 2.1$ \\

281: %

282: \enddata

283: \end{deluxetable}

284: 

285: Overall, we find that 70 of the stars in the sample

286: have been detected serendipitously or in

287: pointed observations (Table~\ref{t:egp_x}).

288: For those stars left undetected, we first

289: determine an upper limit from the \rass\ data, by 

290: estimating the number of counts required for a

291: $3\sigma$ detection (see Pease et al.\ 2006)

292: given the observed count rate

293: in the 0.1-2.4~keV band at the location of the source

294: and the accumulated exposure time 

295: (in the all-sky maps from the survey; Snowden et al.\ 1997).

296: If a pointed \xmm\ observation exists, we use an upper limit

297: derived from that observation.

298: %first adopt a

299: %uniform flux upper limit of $<2 \times 10^{-13}$ ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$,

300: %corresponding to the sensitivity of the \rass\ (Schmitt 1997) unless

301: %a pointed \xmm\ observation exists, in which case we use a limit

302: %derived from that observation.

303: We further impose a limit of

304: $\frac{L_X}{L_{bol}}<10^{-3}$ since stars do not exceed this limit on

305: average (though such limits may be exceeded on occasion when a large

306: flare occurs).

307: For the detected stars, we compute a nominal counts-to-energy conversion

308: factor, $cecf$ assuming a coronal source spectrum with similar

309: temperature components of 2 and 5 MK and an absorption column

310: of $10^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$.  For \xmm\ data, we computed the $cecf$

311: at a higher temperature (10 MK) to ensure that similar values of

312: fluxes are obtained for sources detected with both the MOS and

313: the pn detectors.

314: Adopting a single value of $cecf$ for all coronal sources observed with

315: a given detector introduces systematic errors of $\approx30$\%, comparable

316: to the statistical errors present in the measurements, and significantly

317: smaller than the intrinsic variability in the sources and other systematic

318: errors present in the the X-ray luminosity functions; the dominant

319: source of uncertainty in our results is sample variance, arising from

320: the intrinsic variations in the X-ray luminosity functions.

321: Using WebPIMMS~\footnote{

322: {\tt http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Tools/w3pimms.html}}

323: v3.4 and XSPEC v10, we estimate that the $cecf$ for

324: \begin{eqnarray}

325: \nonumber ASCA/{\rm GIS} &=& 3~\times~10^{-10}  \,,\\

326: \nonumber Einstein/{\rm IPC} &=& 1.8~\times~10^{-11}  \,,\\

327: \nonumber EXOSAT/{\rm LE} &=& 6.5~\times~10^{-10}  \,,\\

328: \nonumber ROSAT/{\rm HRI} &=& 2.8~\times~10^{-11}  \,,~{\rm and}\\

329: \nonumber ROSAT/{\rm PSPC} &=& 6.5~\times~10^{-12} ~~{\rm ergs~cm^{-2}~ct^{-1}} \\

330: \nonumber XMM/{\rm EPIC-pn} &=& 1.9~\times~10^{-12} ~~{\rm ergs~cm^{-2}~ct^{-1}} \\

331: \nonumber XMM/{\rm EPIC-MOS} &=& 8.4~\times~10^{-12} ~~{\rm ergs~cm^{-2}~ct^{-1}} \\

332: \end{eqnarray}

333: in the 0.1-4.5 keV passband;\footnote{

334: There are slight differences in the conversion factors among different

335: catalogs from the same instrument, e.g., {\tt rassbsc} and {\tt wgacat}.

336: However, these discrepancies are much smaller than the uncertainty caused

337: by the source spectral distributions, and has no effect on our analyses.

338: %Where a hardness ratio $HR$ is available, we have used the expression

339: %derived by H\"{u}nsch et al.\ (1998):

340: %$$

341: %ROSAT/PSPC = (5.3 ~ HR + 8.31) \times 10^{-12} ~~{\rm ergs~cm^{-2}~ct^{-1}}

342: %$$

343: }

344: in case a star has been detected multiple times with different instruments,

345: the flux measurement with the best S/N is reported in column 8 of

346: Table~\ref{t:egp_x}.  Similarly, if observed multiple times but never

347: detected, we report the lowest of the upper limits computed for that star.

348: 

349: \clearpage

350: 

351: \section{Analysis}

352: \label{s:analysis}

353: 

354: Here we carry out a series of statistical tests on the sample of

355: stars with close-in EGPs that were first detected, or at least

356: verified, using the radial-velocity method.

357: %We carry out tests of

358: %increasing complexity, with each step designed to increase the

359: %statistical power of the discrimination, as informed and motivated

360: %by the previous steps.

361: We first analyze the sample as a whole

362: (\S\ref{s:samplestat}), then search for correlations with

363: orbital radius $\scrA$ (\S\ref{s:adepend}), and finally search

364: for differences within extremal subsamples to increase the

365: contrast of the signal (\S\ref{s:farout}).

366: 

367: \subsection{Sample Statistics}

368: \label{s:samplestat}

369: 

370: Of the $>$230 stars in our sample thus far identified as possessing EGPs,

371: 70 are found to be X-ray emitters.

372: If we exclude giants, we are left with a sample of

373: 180 main sequence star systems with 46 X-ray detections.

374: This is a smaller fraction of X-ray

375: bright stars than is found for field stars in the solar neighborhood

376: (e.g., Schmitt 1997 finds 95\% of F stars and 83\% of G stars within

377: 13 pc are detected with \rosat, while Maggio et al.\ 1997 find that

378: $\approx$50\% of G stars within 25 pc that were observed with \einstein\

379: are detected).

380: 

381: \begin{figure*}

382: \includegraphics[width=3in,angle=0]{f1a.eps}	%{fig_numdist.eps}

383: \includegraphics[width=3in,angle=0]{f1b.eps}	%{fig_numdistresid.eps}

384: \caption{Distribution of observed and expected number of stars,

385: as a function of the semi-major axis, $\scrA$ of the closest planet.

386: {\sl Left:}

387: The solid histogram represents the sample of main sequence stars

388: among those listed in

389: Table~\ref{t:egp_x}, while the dot-dashed histogram

390: represents the subset of those stars which have been detected in X-rays.

391: The dashed histogram with error-bars denoted by vertical line segments

392: is the distribution generated by adopting known X-ray luminosity

393: functions and carrying out Monte Carlo simulations for stars at

394: the specific distances given in Table~\ref{t:egp_x}.

395: {\sl Right:}

396: The histogram shows the fractional difference between the predicted

397: and the actual number of X-ray detections in the sample.  The solid

398: horizontal line depicts the case of a perfect match, while the

399: dashed line shows the best-fit linear fit to the residuals.  This

400: shows that there may exist a weak trend in the data towards a higher

401: number of X-ray detections for stars that have close-in planets.

402: \label{f:numdist}}

403: \end{figure*}

404: 

405: A direct comparison of these surveys with our star sample is

406: however misleading; one must account for the intrinsic

407: variations in X-ray luminosities and the inhomogeneous scatter

408: in distances in our sample.  To investigate this,

409: we carry out a Monte Carlo simulation on our sample of stars,

410: fixing each star at its given distance, but allowing their X-ray

411: luminosities to vary.  These luminosities are obtained by adopting

412: the known X-ray luminosity functions (derived from statistically

413: complete samples of nearby field stars using \einstein\ data;

414: they thus include all the variations known to exist for

415: coronal sources; cf.\ Kashyap et al.\ 1992).

416: We generate 1000 realizations of

417: X-ray fluxes at Earth using these luminosity functions for each

418: star, and consider them to be detected in X-rays if the flux at

419: Earth is $>2 \times 10^{-13}$ ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ (corresponding

420: to the typical \rass\ sensitivity; Schmitt 1997).

421: The resulting frequency distributions of imputed detections can then

422: be compared to the observed frequency distribution of X-ray detections

423: in our sample.

424: This comparison is shown in Figure~\ref{f:numdist}, where the

425: frequency distributions of actual X-ray detections in our sample

426: (dash-dotted line) and of simulated X-ray detections for a

427: nominal set of field stars located at the same distances as

428: the stars in our sample (dashed line, with error bars derived

429: from averaging over the Monte Carlo realizations) are shown

430: as a function of the planetary orbit size.  Also shown are

431: the fractional residuals between the actual and predicted

432: number counts (solid histogram), which shows a weak trend

433: towards a higher efficiency of detection for stars with

434: close-in planets (dashed line; slope=$-0.1\pm0.03$).

435: A quantitative comparison between the two distributions yields

436: a reduced $\chi^2$ of $\approx1.8$, denoting that they are

437: marginally statistically

438: distinguishable.

439: %and that our sample is consistent with a field star population.

440: %This conclusion remains unchanged if the detectability

441: %condition is relaxed so that stars in pointed observations are

442: %allowed to be detectable at lower flux levels; in this case,

443: %$\chi_r^2 \approx 1.4$.

444: 

445: A comparison of the X-ray luminosity distribution of the sample

446: of stars with planets, compared to a nominally unbiased distribution

447: from field stars is shown in Figure~\ref{f:xlf}.

448: The expected X-ray distributions are shown as the shaded region,

449: and the actual luminosity distribution (derived as a Kaplan-Meier

450: estimator; see e.g., Schmitt 1985, Feigelson \& Nelson 1985)

451: as the solid histogram.

452: A formal Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test between the two shows that

453: the null hypothesis that the data are drawn from the full

454: sample cannot be ruled out.

455: Most of the differences can be attributed to detections over

456: a range of $L_X\sim3\times10^{27-28}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$.  While

457: not definitive, this again suggests the need for a more

458: sensitive analysis.

459: 

460: \begin{figure}

461: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.5in,angle=0]{f2.eps}}	%{{fig_xlf.eps}}

462: \caption{X-ray luminosity distribution function.  The fraction

463: of stars with a given luminosity $L_X$ is shown for both the

464: main sequence sample from Table~\ref{t:egp_x} (solid histogram) as

465: well as for the expected distribution based on a model of the

466: Galaxy (shaded region).  The width of the shading represents

467: the statistical error present, both in terms of the numbers of

468: stars as well as the uncertainties inherent in the construction

469: of the X-ray luminosity functions.  The two cannot be statistically

470: distinguished under a Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test.

471: \label{f:xlf}}

472: \end{figure}

473: 

474: \subsection{Correlation with $\scrA$}

475: \label{s:adepend}

476: 

477: We show above (\S\ref{s:samplestat}) that, taken as a whole, the

478: set of main sequence stars with EGPs is similar in gross

479: characteristics to, though not identical to, the field star sample.

480: Given that, we next consider possible variations within our sample,

481: to test whether the EGPs have any measurable effect on levels of

482: X-ray emission.

483: Because frequency distributions are heavily model dependent and

484: are limited to integer values, they do not have sufficient

485: statistical power to detect weak variations in the properties

486: of the stars.

487: We expect that the effect of EGPs will increase as the orbital

488: distance decreases, and vice versa; we therefore check for

489: direct correlations of various sample parameters with the orbital

490: distance of the EGP.  

491: 

492: We also note that the sample is not volume limited, and that

493: this may introduce a number of complications into the analysis.

494: We therefore consider an additional filter to obtain a subset

495: of the main-sequence stars that are within 60~pc.  The number

496: distribution of these stars is

497: uniform within this distance (see Figure~\ref{f:logNlogd}), and this

498: subsample comes closest to a statistically complete volume

499: limited sample.

500: 

501: \begin{figure}

502: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.5in,angle=0]{f3.eps}}	%{{fig_logNlogd.eps}}

503: \caption{The distribution of the number of main-sequence

504: star systems with distance.  The cumulative number within a

505: given distance is plotted as the solid curve.  The vertical

506: dashed line represents the distance limit of the statistically complete

507: subsample at 60~pc, within which the star systems are uniformly

508: distributed.

509: \label{f:logNlogd}}

510: \end{figure}

511: 

512: We expect {\sl a priori} that tidal and magnetic effects due

513: to close-in giant planets will manifest themselves as a trend

514: in stellar activity as a function of the planetary orbit $\scrA$.

515: We have thus carried out detailed statistical analyses to

516: measure correlations of the X-ray luminosity $L_X$ and

517: the activity indicator $\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}}$ with $\scrA$.

518: We have carried out these tests for the full sample of main-sequence

519: star systems which have had planets detected via the Radial Velocity

520: method, as well as for the subsample of stars which are known

521: to be X-ray emitters, and for the subsample of stars which lie

522: within 60~pc.

523: If a given star has multiple planets detected, we choose the

524: planet with the smallest semi-major axis as defining $\scrA$.

525: We compute both Pearson's and Spearman's Rank Correlation

526: coefficients, and report the results in Table~\ref{t:acorrs}.

527: The errors on Pearson's coefficient are derived via bootstrapping

528: by sampling with replacement.\footnote{Where measurement errors

529: are available (e.g., for $L_X$), we include them in the simulations

530: by sampling with a Gaussian of standard deviation equal to the

531: measurement error and a mean equal to the maximum likelihood

532: value; upper limits are dealt with using a uniform distribution.}

533: The significance of Spearman's $\rho$ is denoted by the $p$-value,

534: which measures the probability that the observed value of $\rho$

535: can be obtained as a chance fluctuation.

536: 

537: \begin{figure}

538: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.5in,angle=0]{f4.eps}}	%{{fig_axcorr.eps}}

539: \caption{X-ray luminosities of the sample stars as a function

540: of the orbital distance of the closest EGP.  The downward

541: arrows mark upper limits based on non-detections in \rass .

542: The X-ray detections are marked with an `x'; the errors on

543: the measured fluxes are denoted by vertical bars.

544: \label{f:alx}}

545: \end{figure}

546: 

547: \begin{deluxetable}{clll}

548: \tablewidth{0pt}

549: \tablecolumns{4}

550: \tablecaption{Correlation of orbital semi-major axis $\scrA$ with stellar parameters\tablenotemark{a} \label{t:acorrs}}

551: \tablehead{

552: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Dataset} & \colhead{Pearson's Coefficient\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Spearman's $\rho$\tablenotemark{c}}

553: }

554: \startdata

555: %

556: $L_X$ & Full sample & $-0.01 \pm 0.06$ & $-0.09 \pm 0.05$ \\

557: \hfil & X-ray detections & $-0.03 \pm 0.1$ & 0.01 ($p=0.96$) \\

558: \hfil & volume limited & $0.02 \pm 0.29$ & -0.08 ($p=0.38$) \\

559: \hfil & \hfil & \hfil & \hfil \\

560: %

561: $\log_{10}\left(\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}}\right)$ & Full sample & $-0.04 \pm 0.1$ & $-0.09 \pm 0.05$ \\

562: \hfil & X-ray detections & $0.16 \pm 0.09$ & 0.006 ($p=0.96$) \\

563: \hfil & volume limited & $0.26 \pm 0.12$ & -0.08 ($p=0.38$) \\

564: \hfil & \hfil & \hfil & \hfil \\

565: %

566: $d_*$ & Full sample & $-0.19 \pm 0.03$ & -0.2 ($p=0.003$) \\

567: \hfil & X-ray detections & $-0.28 \pm 0.1$ & -0.07 ($p=0.6$) \\

568: \hfil & volume limited & $0.09 \pm 0.06$ & -0.07 ($p=0.5$) \\

569: \hfil & \hfil & \hfil & \hfil \\

570: %

571: $R_*$ & Full sample & $-0.023 \pm 0.045$ & -0.05 ($p=0.47$) \\

572: \hfil & X-ray detections & $-0.05 \pm 0.09$ & 0.10 ($p=0.48$) \\

573: \hfil & volume limited & $-0.05 \pm 0.1$ & 0.17 ($p=0.06$) \\

574: \hfil & \hfil & \hfil & \hfil \\

575: %

576: \enddata

577: \tablenotetext{a}{Stars from programs such as OGLE, SWEEPS, TrES,

578: WASP, etc., which initially detected planets via the photometric

579: transit method and not the radial velocity method, have been excluded

580: from these tests.}

581: \tablenotetext{b}{Pearson's linear correlation coefficient; errors

582: derived via bootstrapping by sampling with replacement.  Where

583: possible, measurement errors and upper limits are accounted for

584: via Monte Carlo simulations.}

585: \tablenotetext{c}{Rank correlation of two populations; the $p$ value

586: denotes the two-sided significance of its deviation from 0 by random

587: chance, i.e., small values indicate significant correlation.  Where

588: $p$-values are not quoted, the $1\sigma$ error on the correlation

589: coefficient, computed via Monte Carlo simulations, is shown.}

590: \end{deluxetable}

591: 

592: We show the distribution of X-ray detections and upper limits for

593: the full sample in Figure~\ref{f:alx} as a function of $\scrA$.

594: No trend is visually discernible here in $L_X(\scrA)$.  Detailed

595: correlation analysis (see Table~\ref{t:acorrs}) shows that there may

596: be a slight

597: negative correlation: for the full sample,

598: Spearman's Rank correlation coefficient is $\rho=-0.09\pm0.05$

599: (the $1\sigma$ error bar on $\rho$ is computed via 10000 Monte Carlo

600: simulations with the uncertainties in $L_X$ taken into account

601: at each iteration).

602: This is weakly significant, but the correlation becomes less

603: significant when smaller samples are considered (for the

604: X-ray detections, $\rho=0.01$, with $p=0.96$ even when

605: uncertainties in $L_X$ are ignored, and for the volume

606: limited sample, $\rho=-0.08$ with $p=0.38$).

607: We also compute

608: Pearson's correlation coefficient, which uses the information

609: of the actual values of the luminosities and not just their

610: rank order, and thus produces statistically more powerful

611: estimates.  As before, we obtain

612: error bars by carrying out Monte Carlo simulations

613: that take into account the uncertainties in $L_X$;

614: we adopt a Gaussian sampling function with $\sigma$ equal

615: to the measured error for detected sources and a flat

616: distribution in $\log{L_X}$ for undetected sources.

617: We find that Pearson's coefficient is $-0.01\pm0.06$ for the

618: full sample, $-0.03\pm0.1$ for the X-ray detected

619: sample, and $0.02\pm0.3$ for the volume limited sample.

620: 

621: %The persistence of the negative correlation, despite

622: %the large error, reinforces the trend first noted in

623: %Figure~\ref{f:numdist}, and suggests that a more sensitive

624: %analysis is required.  Below (see

625: %\S\ref{s:farout}), we increase the lever arm in the data by choosing

626: %samples which maximize the contrast, and show that the trend found

627: %here is indeed real.

628: 

629: A similar weak correlation is found when the

630: correlation of the activity indicator $\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}}$ with

631: $\scrA$ is considered.  For the set of all stars, Pearson's coefficient

632: is $-0.04 \pm 0.11$ (Spearman's $\rho=-0.25\pm0.001$),

633: for only X-ray detected stars,

634: it is $0.16 \pm 0.1$ (Spearman's $\rho=0.01$; $p=0.96$),

635: and for the volume limited sample,

636: $0.26\pm0.12$ (Spearman's $\rho=-0.08$; $p=0.38$).

637: We consider the activity indicator in greater detail

638: below (see \S\ref{s:bias}) in establishing the magnitude of the

639: sample bias.

640: 

641: Since we do not expect that $L_X$ and $\scrA$ are linearly

642: related, and because the dynamic range is large, it is not

643: surprising that the correlation tests are contradictory and

644: inconclusive.  A more sensitive analysis is therefore

645: required, and we adopt a technique wherein the contrast in

646: the data is maximized (see \S\ref{s:farout}) by increasing

647: the lever arm between extremal subsamples.

648: 

649: In addition to the X-ray luminosity $L_X$, we also consider

650: the correlations of the stellar distance and stellar radius

651: with $\scrA$.  We expect a negative correlation to exist with

652: distance to the star, simply because it is easier to detect

653: planets and activity around nearby stars.  This is borne out

654: by the correlation analysis: we find that Pearson's coefficient

655: is $-0.19\pm0.03$ (Spearman's $\rho=-0.21$, with $p=0.003$)

656: for the entire sample, and for the X-ray detected sample

657: alone, Pearson's coefficient is $-0.28\pm0.1$ (Spearman's

658: $\rho=-0.07$, $p=0.6$).  For the volume limited sample, in

659: contrast, we obtain a Pearson's coefficient of $0.09\pm0.06$

660: (Spearman's $\rho=0.07$, $p=0.46$).

661: Note that here we determine the errors via bootstrapping by

662: sampling with replacement.

663: We expect to find no correlation with stellar radius, and

664: this expectation is borne out by the correlation analysis.

665: For the full sample, Pearson's coefficient is $-0.02\pm0.04$

666: (Spearman's $\rho=-0.05$, $p=0.47$); for the X-ray

667: detected sample, $-0.05\pm0.09$ ($\rho=0.1$, $p=0.48$);

668: and for the volume limited sample, $-0.05\pm0.1$ ($\rho=0.17$, $p=0.06$).

669: 

670: \subsection{Extremal Subsamples}

671: \label{s:farout}

672: 

673: In order to clarify the variations in the X-ray activity statistically,

674: we consider the extreme cases of stars with planets that are close

675: to the primary (the ``close-in'' sample) and compare their luminosities

676: with those of stars with planets at large distances (the ``distant''

677: sample).\footnote{We are precluded from directly comparing our sample with

678: that of an independent sample of field stars because at this stage

679: it is not possible to be certain that the putative field star sample

680: is devoid of close-in EGPs.}

681: We choose these subsamples from the volume limited sample, i.e.,

682: main sequence star systems which are within 60~pc.

683: This signal is obviously dependent on the contrast between the

684: close-in and the distant samples, and in order to

685: obtain the best contrast it is necessary to choose samples that

686: are as far apart in their range of $\scrA$ as possible and yet

687: contain as large a sample of stars as possible.  A comprehensive

688: investigation of the best such separation is not feasible for

689: this sample because of the large number of X-ray non-detections

690: and the variety of tests that we carry out on the data.  However,

691: for our purposes it is sufficient to determine whether there

692: exists subsamples which show the requisite contrast, at some

693: separations, even if it is not necessarily the optimal one.

694: (Note that we do consider below the effect of varying the sizes

695: of the samples.)

696: We therefore adopt an {\sl ad hoc} separation based on the

697: population distribution (Figure~\ref{f:numdist}): we choose

698: $\scrA<0.15$~AU (corresponding to a dip in the frequency distribution

699: of stars as a function of orbital distance $\scrA$)

700: for the close-in sample, which results in a sample size of 40 stars,

701: 20 of which are detected in X-rays.  By limiting the lower

702: bound of the distant sample such that there is separation of

703: an order of magnitude difference in $\scrA$ between the limits

704: of the two samples, we set for the distant sample, $\scrA>1.5$~AU;

705: 8 of 38 stars in this subsample are detected in X-rays.

706: This range $\scrA$ has the additional advantage that similar

707: numbers of stars are found in each set.

708: %regardless of

709: %any additional criteria that are chosen to further prune

710: %the samples (see \S\ref{s:activity}).

711: The mean X-ray luminosities for these two subsamples are

712: found to be well separated, with the close-in sample being

713: significantly X-ray brighter (see Figure~\ref{f:lohi}).

714: We comment on alternative choices further below (see

715: \S\ref{s:activity}) and explicitly show (Figure~\ref{f:lohirun})

716: that this specific choice does not affect our results.

717: 

718: Because of the large number of upper limits in the dataset, we

719: cannot carry out simple hypothesis tests to verify whether these

720: two samples are derived from the same parent distribution.  Instead,

721: we carry out Monte Carlo realizations of the sample

722: as before (\S\ref{s:adepend}), using a Gaussian

723: error distribution with measured errors for the detected stars

724: and a flat uniform distribution in the log-scale

725: for the undetected stars.  We compute sample means for each set

726: of realizations, and the distribution of these means allows us

727: to determine whether the two samples are similar or different.\footnote{

728: Note that because fewer than half the stars in the sample

729: are detected in X-rays, we are precluded from using sample

730: medians as a summary estimator of the subsamples; the median

731: is not a robust estimator in this case.}

732: 

733: We find that the mean X-ray luminosity\footnote{Here

734: and henceforth the enclosing brackets ``$<>$'' denote the

735: mean value of a quantity; note that within these brackets we

736: often have numerical conditional expressions such as ``$<$''

737: (less than) and ``$>$'' (greater than), enclosed within

738: parentheses.}

739: of the close-in sample is

740: $<L_X(\scrA<0.15)>=10^{28.49\pm0.09}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$, and that of

741: the distant sample is $<L_X(\scrA>1.5)>=10^{27.85\pm0.18}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$.

742: The mean level of emission for the close-in sample is significantly

743: greater than for the distant sample, and as shown in Figure~\ref{f:lohi},

744: the two samples are found to be different at $>99$\% confidence

745: level.\footnote{

746: Note that the nearby strong X-ray source $\epsilon$\,Eri is in the

747: distant subsample.  A planet with a period $\sim10$ yr was detected

748: around it by Campbell, Walker, \& Yang (1998), but this detection

749: remains controversial due to the large intrinsic scatter of

750: $\sim 20$ m s$^{-1}$ in the radial velocity curves

751: (see Marcy et al.\ 2002;

752: {\tt http://exoplanets.org/esp/epseri/epseri.shtml}).

753: Excluding $\epsilon$\,Eri would decrease the mean $L_X$

754: of the distant sample even further, increasing the separation

755: between the two distributions.

756: }

757: 

758: \begin{figure}

759: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.5in,angle=0]{f5.eps}}	%{{fig_lohi.eps}}

760: \caption{Mean $L_X$ for the extreme samples.

761: The distribution of simulated means for the set of stars with

762: the closest giant planet having semi-major axis $\scrA<0.15$ AU is

763: shown as the solid histogram, and its counterpart for stars that

764: have giant planets with $\scrA>1.5$ AU is shown as the dashed histogram.

765: The overlap between the two distributions is $<1$\%.

766: \label{f:lohi}}

767: \end{figure}

768: 

769: As discussed above, our choice of the limiting $\scrA$ for the

770: two subsamples is {\sl ad-hoc}.  We have therefore considered

771: the effect on our result of of varying the subsample bounds of $\scrA$.

772: The mean $L_X$ for various subsamples is obtained using Monte Carlo

773: simulations as above, for various ranges of $\scrA$, and are shown

774: in Figure~\ref{f:lohirun}.  Two types of subsamples are considered:

775: one that includes all stars with planetary orbital radii $<\scrA_{close-in}$,

776: from which the mean X-ray luminosity $<L_X(\scrA<\scrA_{close-in})>$ is obtained

777: (upper shaded curve),

778: and another that includes all stars with orbital radii $>\scrA_{distant}$,

779: which results in $<L_X(\scrA>\scrA_{distant})>$ (lower shaded curve).  As can be

780: seen, the sample that includes close-in planets is invariably

781: more X-ray intense than the sample that includes distant planets

782: for almost all possible choices of $<\scrA_{close-in}$ and $>\scrA_{distant}$.

783: Note that these results do not change in any qualitative way if the

784: dM stars (which contribute significantly to the high mean $L_X$

785: point at small $\scrA$) are excluded from the sample.

786: %The large increase in the error bars below $\scrA<0.05$~AU is

787: %due to the increased number of stars around which planets

788: %were first detected via photometric methods, and which do not

789: %have X-ray detections; excluding them from the sample will reduce

790: %the size of the error bar, and will not change the results.

791: 

792: \begin{figure}

793: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.5in,angle=0]{f6.eps}}	%{{fig_lohirunav.eps}}

794: \caption{Comparison of mean $L_X$ for extremal subsamples.  The

795: width of the shading represents the $1\sigma$ statistical error on the mean

796: $L_X$ derived via bootstrapping and Monte Carlo simulations (see

797: text).  The upper shaded region represents subsamples that include

798: close-in planets, $<L_X(\scrA<\scrA_{close-in})>$ and the lower

799: shaded region, the subsamples that include distant planets

800: $<L_X(\scrA>\scrA_{distant})>$.  The mean values in both cases are

801: shown as thick dark lines marked with diamonds within the shaded regions.

802: The distributions in Figure~\ref{f:lohi} correspond to vertical cuts

803: across the shaded regions here, at $\scrA_{close-in}=0.15$ (upper

804: region, for $<L_X(\scrA<0.15)>$) and $\scrA_{distant}=1.5$ (lower

805: region, for $<L_X(\scrA>1.5)>$).

806: \label{f:lohirun}}

807: \end{figure}

808: 

809: We caution that this {\sl observed} difference in the mean $L_X$

810: between stars with close-in and distant planets cannot be

811: entirely attributed to the effect of close-in EGPs; there

812: are selection biases inherent in the sample that must be

813: accounted for.  By considering indirect

814: sample ensemble properties, we argue below (see \S\ref{s:bias})

815: that the bias inherent in our selected sample has a small

816: effect.

817: Based on physical grounds (see \S\S\ref{s:intro},\ref{s:binary}),

818: we expect that close-in giant planets could have a significant

819: effect on the X-ray activity level of the primary,

820: and the trend seen in the activity level as a function

821: of the size of the planetary orbit (semi-major axis $\scrA$) must

822: in large part be due to the effect of the close-in giant planet.

823: 

824: %This result is however strongly dependent on the cut-offs in $\scrA$.

825: %For instance, if we expand the sample size of the farther-out sample

826: %such that both samples have 12 X-ray detections (i.e., use $\scrA>1.07$),

827: %then the farther-out sample remains lower in activity, even though

828: %the two samples cannot be statistically distinguished

829: %%(see Figure~\ref{f:lomed}).

830: %(see Figure~\ref{f:lohi}).

831: %

832: %\begin{figure}

833: %\plottwo{fig_lohi.eps}{fig_lohi2.eps}

834: %\caption{Mean $L_X$ for the extreme samples.

835: %{\sl Left:} The distribution of simulated means for the set of stars

836: %with the closest giant planet having semi-major axis $\scrA<0.15$ AU is

837: %shown as the solid histogram, and its counterpart for stars that

838: %have giant planets with $\scrA>1.5$ AU is shown as the dashed histogram.

839: %The overlap between the two distributions is $<1$\%.

840: %{\sl Right:} As in the left figure, but for a different choice

841: %for the lower cutoff in $\scrA$ for the farther-out sample.  Note

842: %that the sample with $\scrA>1.07$ AU (dashed histogram) remains

843: %lower in activity compared to the close-in sample, but they

844: %are statistically different only at the 1-$\sigma$ level.

845: %\label{f:lohi}}

846: %\end{figure}

847: %

848: %\begin{figure}

849: %\plotone{fig_lohi2.eps}

850: %\caption{As in Figure~\ref{f:lohi}, but for a different choice

851: %for the lower cutoff in $\scrA$ for the farther-out sample.  Note

852: %that the sample with $\scrA>1.07$ AU (dashed histogram) remains

853: %lower in activity compared to the close-in sample, but they

854: %are statistically different only at the 1-$\sigma$ level.

855: %\label{f:lomed}}

856: %\end{figure}

857: 

858: \section{Discussion}

859: \label{s:discuss}

860: 

861: \subsection{Sample Bias \label{s:bias}}

862: 

863: The sample of candidate stars for which planet searches

864: are conducted is subject to some subtle biases.  Some of

865: these biases have the effect of masking the signature of

866: planet induced activity and are difficult to quantify since

867: the planet detection processes are numerous, the programs are

868: still incomplete, and the rates of false positives and

869: false negatives are unknown.  We may however determine the

870: approximate extent of these biases by studying the ensemble

871: properties of the sample of stars with detected planets.

872: Here we describe these biases, and consider their effect on

873: our ability to detect intrinsic trends in X-ray activity.

874: Furthermore, because the set of EGPs is dominated by

875: those identified with the radial velocity method, we

876: shall limit our sample to those stars which have been

877: verified to have planetary systems by this method, and

878: will thus consider only those biases introduced by that

879: method.

880: 

881: \begin{enumerate}

882: 

883: \item {\bf Spectral Homogeneity}

884: Most of the stars for which planets are searched

885: for are solar like.

886: This is advantageous to our study since the stars considered

887: here are relatively homogeneous; therefore effects that

888: arise due to changes in the convective turnover timescales

889: leading to changes in the nature of the magnetic dynamo

890: at the high- and low-mass ends of the coronal sequence,

891: or due to the changing evolutionary states of the systems

892: may generally be ignored.

893: We further homogenize the sample by limiting it

894: to main sequence stars within 60~pc

895: %(note that in this volume limited sample there are 10~dM stars).

896: (additional types of filtering to further homogenize

897: the samples has no effect on our results; see \S\ref{s:activity}).

898: 

899: Because the sample of stars is homogeneous, we do not expect

900: any correlations between the stellar radii $R_*$ and $\scrA$

901: to be present, and indeed we find that the data are consistent

902: with these expectations (Table~\ref{t:acorrs}).  We have also

903: carried out a full analysis of the extremal subsamples for

904: various subsets of the full dataset (see Figure~\ref{f:lohiratmany})

905: and show that our results are robust to such selections.

906: We thus conclude that in our sample there is no bias present

907: due to stellar type or size effects.

908: 

909: \item {\bf Stellar Distance}

910: For a given planetary mass, the detectability of

911: planets decreases as the distance of the planet from

912: the star ($\scrA$) increases, since the radial velocity

913: amplitude decreases.  Since detectability in general

914: decreases with distance to the star ($d_*$), we expect

915: to find more stars with small $\scrA$ at larger $d_*$.  In the

916: sample of stars with detected planets, we therefore expect

917: that $\scrA$ and $d_*$ are anti-correlated.  Indeed, we find

918: a slight negative correlation between $\scrA$ and $d_*$,

919: though it is weak (see Table~\ref{t:acorrs}).

920: This bias exists simply as a result of the

921: limitations of measurement statistics and is independent

922: of any stellar activity effects.  Thus, if we assume

923: that X-ray properties of stars are independent of the

924: distance limit, the only effect on the X-ray data will

925: be to have a larger fraction of higher upper limits

926: at smaller $\scrA$ (due to the larger numbers of more

927: distant stars).\footnote{

928: In our correlation analyses we have tested for the effect

929: that these higher upper limits may have by using uniform

930: distributions (bounded above by the value of the upper

931: limit) in both log space and normal space to describe

932: the censored data and find no qualitative difference

933: between the two cases.

934: }

935: Thus, stellar distance should have no effect on the

936: ensemble properties of the {\sl X-ray} luminosities of

937: stars from such a sample.  In any case, we carry out

938: most of our analysis with the volume limited sample,

939: which is explicitly designed to remove any such effect.

940: 

941: \item {\bf Selecting for reduced activity}

942: The process of planet detection via the radial

943: velocity method (RV; e.g., Butler, et al.\ 1996) is limited by the

944: amount of intrinsic RV jitter that may be caused by

945: stellar activity (Saar \& Donahue 1997, Saar et al.\ 1998;

946: see also Baluev 2008),

947: and hence planets are preferentially detected when they

948: are close-in, massive, and the primary star is not active.

949: 

950: Because radial velocity signatures are hard to

951: detect around active stars, there is a tendency to select

952: candidate stars for planet search {\sl against} activity.

953: Thus, {\sl a priori} there is an expectation that the

954: sample of stars with detected planets would have lower

955: activity levels than field stars of the same type.  But

956: as shown in \S\ref{s:samplestat}, the X-ray emission

957: from these stars is by and large consistent with field star emission

958: levels.  In any case, in order to avoid introducing

959: accidental biases by comparing the sample of stars with

960: EGPs to those without detected EGPs (note that a lack of

961: detection does not preclude the existence of planets

962: around the star -- even if the star is part of the

963: planet search program, there may be a planet that is

964: less massive or more distant than the sensitivity that

965: has been reached), we have chosen to compare the extrema

966: of a single distribution, viz., the sample of stars known to

967: possess giant planets.  Thus any global selection effect

968: that may exist in the sample towards lesser activity will

969: apply equally to both subsamples and its effects are

970: irrelevant for this study.

971: 

972: Also note that in some types of planet detection methods,

973: persistent stellar activity fixed to an active longitude

974: can mimic the signature of a planet (Lanza et al.\ 2008).

975: This results in false detections of planets at the stellar

976: orbital period.  However, this has an effect on photocentric

977: methods and have no effect on radial velocity or transit

978: methods currently in use.

979: 

980: \item {\bf Intra-sample trend in inhibition of activity}

981: If stellar activity inhibits planet detection, then it

982: will inhibit it selectively.  Planets at large $\scrA$ are

983: preferentially detected around stars with weak activity,

984: since high activity may mask the RV signal of the distant

985: planet.  Thus, in a sample of stars selected based

986: on the existence of planets, those stars with distant

987: planets are presumptively less active.  This bias thus

988: produces the same signature in activity trends that we

989: search for (see \S\ref{s:farout}), and thus interferes

990: with our study.

991: 

992: How can this bias be quantified?  Consider that the cause

993: of the bias is the excess jitter in velocity induced by

994: magnetic activity, which is related to the energy deposited

995: in the corona, which in turn is tracked by the ratio\footnote{

996: $\frac{L_X}{L_{bol}}$ is preferred for this bias measurement

997: because it is surface area independent.

998: }

999: of X-ray to bolometric luminosity $\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}}$.  This

1000: jitter serves to mask the RV signal, which is due to wobble

1001: from gravitational effects and is therefore inversely

1002: proportional to the orbital semi-major axis of the planet.

1003: Thus, the bias will manifest itself as a positive correlation

1004: between the formally independent parameters $\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}}$

1005: and $\frac{1}{\scrA}$.  Note that this correlation

1006: is not necessarily linear because it is dependent on the observation

1007: process, the cumulative observation time, etc.  Any existing

1008: correlation also does not

1009: imply causality, and indeed the velocities that are generated

1010: by these two processes are quite different.  Nevertheless,

1011: we expect that stars with large values of $\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}}$

1012: will primarily be present in our sample provided they are also

1013: accompanied by small values of $\scrA$.  Thus, a measurement

1014: of the correlation between these two variables serves as a

1015: measurement of the sample bias.  For the sample of main sequence

1016: stars within 60~pc that have EGPs detected via the RV method,

1017: we find that

1018: \begin{equation}

1019: \label{e:vel2bias}

1020: %\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}} = (6.5 \pm 0.4) 10^{-6} + (4 \pm 1) 10^{-7} \cdot \frac{1}{\scrA} \,,

1021: %\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}} = (6.3 \pm 0.4) 10^{-6} + (4 \pm 1) 10^{-7} \cdot \frac{1}{\scrA} \,,

1022: %\log_{10}\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}} = (-5.76 \pm 0.03) + (0.51 \pm 0.04) \cdot \log_{10}\frac{1}{\scrA} \,,

1023: \log_{10}\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}} = (-5.65 \pm 0.04) + (0.22 \pm 0.05) \cdot \log_{10}\frac{1}{\scrA} \,,

1024: \end{equation}

1025: where $\scrA$ is in units of [AU].

1026: Here the errors are derived via Monte Carlo

1027: bootstrapping on the X-ray flux measurement errors.  Thus,

1028: we find that there does exist a weak, but statistically significant,

1029: correlation between $\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}}$ and $\frac{1}{\scrA}$.

1030: This trend is shown in Figure~\ref{f:vel2}.  {\sl Conservatively

1031: assuming that all of this correlation is attributable

1032: to the inherent bias}, we can then estimate its effect

1033: on the observed activity trend.  That is, for each

1034: of the stars in the close-in and distant samples

1035: (in \S\ref{s:farout}), given $\scrA$ and $L_{Bol}$ we

1036: can compute a predicted $L_X(\scrA,L_{Bol})$ that can

1037: then be used in the place of the measured $L_X$ to

1038: carry out the same analysis.  The result of this

1039: calculation is shown in Figure~\ref{f:velohi}, which

1040: shows that the close-in and distant samples differ

1041: by $\approx{1}\sigma$, and account for only a factor of

1042: $\sim 2$ of the {\sl observed} difference between

1043: the two samples.

1044: It is important to note that the magnitude of this

1045: bias will vary for every subsample, and that the

1046: magnitude and direction of the bias will be case

1047: specific.

1048: 

1049: \begin{figure}

1050: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.5in,angle=0]{f7.eps}}	%{{fig_logvel2.eps}}

1051: \caption{The distribution of $\log\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}}$ with

1052: $\log\frac{1}{\scrA}$.

1053: The X-ray detections are marked with `x's, with error bars denoted

1054: with vertical lines; the X-ray non-detections are shown with downward

1055: arrows.  Also shown are the best-fit regression line (solid curve)

1056: and the envelope bound of the bootstrapped regression curves (dotted

1057: lines).  Since more active stars have higher radial velocity jitter,

1058: we expect fewer planets to be detected around stars at high

1059: $\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}}$ unless they also have high $\frac{1}{\scrA}$;

1060: this correlation tracks an important sample bias (see text).

1061: This trend is removed from the rest of the analysis.

1062: \label{f:vel2}}

1063: \end{figure}

1064: 

1065: \begin{figure}

1066: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.5in,angle=0]{f8.eps}}	%{{fig_lohivel.eps}}

1067: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{f:lohi}, but using $L_X(\scrA,L_{Bol})$

1068: estimated from the regression analysis on $\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}}$

1069: with $\frac{1}{\scrA}$ (Equation~\ref{e:vel2bias}).

1070: The two distributions differ by $\approx{2}\sigma$.

1071: \label{f:velohi}}

1072: \end{figure}

1073: 

1074: Note that $\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}}$ is the preferred proxy for activity

1075: because it is surface area independent.

1076: However, because there are no $R_*$ biases in the sample, $L_X$ and

1077: $\frac{L_X}{L_{Bol}}$ are similarly correlated with $\scrA$.  Thus,

1078: a priori, we expect that accounting for the selective inhibition bias

1079: of Equation~\ref{e:vel2bias} in the $\scrA$ vs $L_X$ dataset should

1080: result in a complete removal of any luminosity difference between

1081: the extremal samples, i.e., that

1082: $\frac{<L_X({\rm close-in}>}{<L_X{\rm distant}>}\approx1$.

1083: That this is manifestly not so (Figure~\ref{f:lohirat}) is an

1084: indication that the differences in the distribution of $L_X$

1085: for the extremal samples is systematic, and an inherent property

1086: of the observed sample.

1087: 

1088: Furthermore, the bias measurement is conservative, i.e.,

1089: we include some of the desired signal within the estimate of

1090: the bias, and thus we {\sl overestimate} the magnitude of the

1091: bias.  Because this bias is removed from the observed ratios

1092: of the mean luminosities, our results provide a conservative

1093: estimate of the true magnitude of the effect of planet-induced

1094: activity.

1095: 

1096: \item {\bf Intrinsic sample variance}

1097: Other parameters known to affect the level of stellar

1098: activity are age, rotation, the Rossby number, metallicity,

1099: temporal variability, etc.

1100: 

1101: Stellar ages are not

1102: known with sufficient accuracy for us to consider them here,

1103: and it is possible that there exists a trend where $\scrA$

1104: is correlated with stellar age.  But note that such hidden

1105: variables do not affect the results derived here, and simply

1106: point to a more complex explanation of the connection between

1107: close-in planets and stellar activity.

1108: 

1109: It is also as yet unclear what

1110: type of effect a massive Jupiter-type planet will have

1111: on these parameters.  For instance,

1112: Rotational synchronization

1113: by tidal interactions may be thought to increase $v\sin{i}$

1114: and thereby coronal activity for close-in EGPs compared to

1115: distant EGPs.  However, not only is this as likely to spin-down

1116: a fast rotating star as to spin-up a slow-rotator, but also

1117: the timescales for the synchronization of the stellar rotation

1118: period with the planetary orbital period are very large to

1119: begin with, and increase as $\scrA^6$ for distant planets

1120: (see e.g., Drake et al.\ 1998 and references therein),

1121: %(see e.g., Zahn 1989), % Seager \& Hui 2002

1122: implying that most stars in the sample are {\sl not} synchronized

1123: to the orbits of their close-in giant planets.

1124: %Similarly, it

1125: %is thought that planets migrate inwards after being formed at

1126: %large distances; but in that case most of the stars with

1127: %close-in planets would be old and hence must have decreased

1128: %X-ray activity.

1129: We therefore conclude that both theoretical

1130: and observational prejudice points to evenly scattered values

1131: for these stellar parameters in our sample.

1132: %Collection and

1133: %analysis of detailed information on these parameters for the

1134: %sample stars is in progress, but we expect that their varying

1135: %effects will cancel out in an ensemble statistical study of

1136: %the type we carry out here.

1137: 

1138: \end{enumerate}

1139: 

1140: \subsection{Activity Enhancement}

1141: \label{s:activity}

1142: 

1143: We use the parameterization of the bias described above (see

1144: \S\ref{s:bias}) to determine the residual signal, i.e., the

1145: magnitude of the excess X-ray activity in the close-in subsample

1146: compared to the distant subsample that can be attributed to the

1147: effect of EGPs.  In order to simplify the calculation, we

1148: consider the ratio of the average luminosities of the close-in

1149: and distant subsamples calculated during the Monte Carlo simulation

1150: described above (see analysis in \S\ref{s:farout}).  The

1151: data from Figure~\ref{f:lohi} are shown as the solid histogram

1152: in Figure~\ref{f:lohirat}, and confirm that the close-in

1153: subsample is on average more X-ray luminous by a factor

1154: $4^{<7}_{>2.8}$, where the bounds on the number indicate

1155: the extent of the asymmetrical $1\sigma$-equivalent errors.

1156: After correcting for the sample bias (by

1157: dividing the original ratio by the ratio of the luminosities

1158: as predicted by Equation~\ref{e:vel2bias}), we find that the

1159: bias-corrected luminosity ratio decreases, but is $>1$ at

1160: a significance of $0.95$.  This constitutes a definite detection

1161: of activity enhancement, by a factor $2.3^{<4}_{>1.3}$

1162: (dashed histogram in Figure~\ref{f:lohirat}).

1163: This remaining enhancement can be

1164: attributed to the effect of close-in giant planets on their

1165: parent stars.

1166: We therefore conclude that the close-in and

1167: distant samples indeed show differing X-ray activity levels

1168: and that a factor $\sim 2$ can be attributed to the effect

1169: of close-in EGPs.

1170: Note that the existence of this residual

1171: enhancement does not in itself allow us to conclude that

1172: there is a causal connection between the closeness of giant

1173: planets to their primary stars and the activity levels on

1174: those stars.  However, in conjunction with the Ca\,II~HK

1175: enhancements observed by Shkolnik et al.\ 2003), our results

1176: suggest that such a connection may be present.

1177: 

1178: \begin{figure}

1179: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.5in,angle=0]{f9.eps}}	%{{fig_lohiratio.eps}}

1180: \caption{Distributions of $<L_X{\rm (close-in)}>/<L_X{\rm (distant)}>$.

1181: The distribution of the ratios of simulated $L_X$ for the close-in

1182: ($\scrA<0.15$ AU) and distant ($\scrA>1.5$ AU) samples is shown as the

1183: solid histogram.  The same ratios, modified to account for the

1184: sample bias (see \S\ref{s:bias}) are shown with dashed lines.

1185: The means and standard deviations of the two distributions are

1186: denoted with vertical and horizontal lines respectively (solid

1187: and dashed, for the two distributions).  The data show that the

1188: two extremal samples differ by a factor $\approx{4}$ (between

1189: 2.8 to 7 times), and after sample bias is accounted for, by

1190: a factor $\approx{2}$ (between 1.3 and 4 times).

1191: \label{f:lohirat}}

1192: \end{figure}

1193: 

1194: As a further check on the sensitivity of our analysis to the

1195: samples used, we compute the same ratio as in Figure~\ref{f:lohirat}

1196: for a number of different subsamples.

1197: The resulting distributions of the ratios

1198: of mean luminosity for close-in versus distant subsamples are shown

1199: in Figure~\ref{f:lohiratmany}; in all cases the close-in subsamples

1200: have larger $<L_X>$ than the distant subsamples. % (see Table~\ref{t:lohiratmany}).

1201: 

1202: %\begin{figure}

1203: %\centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.5in,angle=0]{f10.eps}}	%{{fig_lohiratio_many.eps}}

1204: %\caption{Effect of variations of sample composition on the distribution

1205: %of $<L_X{\rm (close-in)}>/<L_X{\rm (distant)}>$.  The ratios of

1206: %$<L_X(\scrA<0.15)>/<L_X(\scrA>1.5)>$ are compared for different

1207: %subsets of the full sample of stars with detected planets:

1208: %all stars (solid histogram; same as Figure~\ref{f:lohirat});

1209: %excluding dM stars and planets first detected via photometric methods

1210: %(dotted histogram);

1211: %excluding dM stars, transit planets and also stars with low-mass planets

1212: %(dashed histogram);

1213: %excluding dM stars, and low-mass planets (dash-dotted histogram);

1214: %excluding only transit planets (dash-tripple-dotted histogram);

1215: %excluding transiting and low-mass planets (long-dashed histogram);

1216: %including only X-ray detections (light dashed curve); and

1217: %including everything except low-mass planets (dash-dotted curve).

1218: %\label{f:lohiratmany}}

1219: %\end{figure}

1220: 

1221: \begin{figure}

1222: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.5in,angle=0]{f10.eps}}	%{{fig_lohiratio_melange.eps}}

1223: \caption{Effect of variations of sample composition on the distribution

1224: of $<L_X{\rm (close-in)}>/<L_X{\rm (distant)}>$.  The ratios of

1225: $<L_X(\scrA<0.15)>/<L_X(\scrA>1.5)>$ are compared for different

1226: representative subsets of the full sample of stars with detected planets.

1227: In all plots, the baseline comparison from Figure~\ref{f:lohirat}, for

1228: the main-sequence sample within 60~pc, is shown as the dashed

1229: histogram.  The solid histograms are:

1230: {\sl (a)} all X-ray detections,

1231: {\sl (b)} the full sample of all stars with EGPs detected via the RV method,

1232: {\sl (c)} the nearby main-sequence sample excluding dM stars, and

1233: {\sl (d)} the full sample as in (b), excluding giants.

1234: In all cases, the bias correction (see \S\ref{s:bias}) is done

1235: separately for each sample.  In all cases, the evidence is

1236: strong that stars with close-in giant planets are more active

1237: than those with distant planets.

1238: \label{f:lohiratmany}}

1239: \end{figure}

1240: 

1241: %\begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}

1242: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1243: %\tablewidth{0pt}

1244: %\tablecolumns{6}

1245: %\tablecaption{Effect of varying the subsamples\label{t:lohiratmany}}

1246: %\tablehead{

1247: %\colhead{Case} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Close-in Subsample ($\scrA<0.15$AU)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Distant Subsample ($\scrA>1.5$AU)} & \colhead{Enhancement} \\

1248: %\colhead{} & \colhead{Detections} & \colhead{Sample size} & \colhead{Detections} & \colhead{Sample size} & \colhead{}

1249: %}

1250: %\startdata

1251: %%

1252: %Full sample & 23 & 62 & 13 & 43 & $3.9^{<7.5}_{>2}$ \\

1253: %no transits & 23 & 50 & 13 & 43 & $5.1^{<9}_{>2.8}$ \\

1254: %M$>0.5$~M$_J$ & 12 & 36 & 13 & 42 & $2.6^{<5.5}_{>1.2}$ \\

1255: %no dM, no transits & 21 & 46 & 12 & 42 & $5.6^{<10}_{>3}$ \\

1256: %no dM, M$>0.5$~M$_J$ & 11 & 35 & 12 & 41 & $2.4^{<5.3}_{>1}$ \\

1257: %no transits, M$>0.5$~M$_J$ & 12 & 24 & 13 & 42 & $4.5^{<8}_{>2.5}$ \\

1258: %no dM, no transits, M$>0.5$~M$_J$ & 11 & 23 & 12 & 41 & $3.9^{<7}_{>2.1}$ \\

1259: %no dM, only detections & 23 & 23 & 13 & 13 & $6.7^{<8}_{>5.5}$ \\

1260: %%

1261: %\enddata

1262: %\end{deluxetable}

1263: 

1264: Note that the above result is dependent on the bounds chosen

1265: for $\scrA$ for both subsamples.

1266: %%% For example, if the lower bound on the

1267: %%% distant sample is decreased to $\scrA=1.07$, a sample which contains

1268: %%% the same number of X-ray detections as the close-in sample, the

1269: %%% difference between the mean luminosities decreases to a factor of

1270: %%% $\approx 3$ prior to bias correction, and the two samples cannot

1271: %%% be statistically distinguished.

1272: Clearly, the contrast between the two extremal sets would be heightened

1273: if the range of $\scrA$ defining the two subsamples is shrunk further,

1274: and vice versa.  This must also be balanced by the decreased robustness

1275: of the result due to the consequent dearth of X-ray detections in the

1276: subsamples.

1277: A rigorous estimate of the ``best'' split between the close-in and

1278: the distant samples is not feasible because of the large number of

1279: stars that remain undetected in X-rays and the need to compute the

1280: bias factor (Equation~\ref{e:vel2bias}) separately for each case.

1281: Nevertheless, as we have shown above (Figure~\ref{f:lohirun}) there

1282: exists a persistent difference in the mean luminosity between the

1283: close-in and distant subsamples, and it favors the suggestion that

1284: stars with close-in planets tend to be more active.

1285: The best way to improve this result is to obtain

1286: X-ray detections of more stars at the extreme ranges of $\scrA$.

1287: 

1288: %However, there is no justification

1289: %for choosing such arbitrary sample sizes; and indeed it is to be

1290: %expected that the largest signal is visible for samples at the most

1291: %extreme ranges of $\scrA$.

1292: 

1293: \subsection{Dependence of the X-ray excess on $\scrA$}

1294: \label{s:binary}

1295: 

1296: For tidally interacting close binaries in a sample

1297: that included RS\,CVn stars, Schrijver \& Zwaan (1991)

1298: found that the X-ray surface flux $F_X \propto \sqrt{a_*}$,

1299: where $a_*$ is the distance to the cooler component.

1300: Comparing the average X-ray luminosities

1301: for close-in and distant subsamples that we derive above

1302: (see \S\S\ref{s:farout},\ref{s:activity}), after sample

1303: biases have been corrected for, we find that

1304: \begin{equation}

1305: %<L_{X_{\rm corr}}> ~~ \propto ~~  <\scrA>^{-0.36 \pm 0.18} \,.

1306: %<F_{X_{\rm corr}}> ~~ \propto ~~  <\scrA>^{-0.53 \pm 0.56} \,,

1307: <F_{X_{\rm corr}}> ~~ \propto ~~  <\scrA>^{-0.35 \pm 0.17} \,,

1308: \end{equation}

1309: which is a smaller dependence than that found by Schrijver \& Zwaan,

1310: but the large error bar prevents a definitive conclusion.

1311: 

1312: It is well known that binary stars are generally

1313: more X-ray active than single stars of the same type

1314: and rotation rate

1315: (see, e.g., Zaqarashvili, Javakishvili, \& Belvedere

1316: 2002 and references therein).  Numerous mechanisms have

1317: been proposed to account for this so-called ``overactivity,''

1318: generally based on tidal and magnetic interactions.  These

1319: studies were extended to the case of stars with EGPs

1320: and brown dwarfs by Cuntz et al.\ (2000).

1321: They suggested that the energy generation due to tidal

1322: interactions is proportional to the gravitational

1323: perturbation

1324: \begin{mathletters}

1325: \begin{equation}

1326: \frac{\Delta g_*}{g_*} = \frac{M_P}{M_*} \frac{2 R_*^3}{(\scrA-R_*)^3}

1327: \end{equation}

1328: where $M_*$ is the mass of the star and $M_P$ that of the EGP, and

1329: the height of the tidal bulge,

1330: \begin{eqnarray}

1331: \nonumber h_{tide} &\propto& \frac{\Delta g_*}{g_*} R_* \\

1332: \nonumber &\propto& \frac{M_P}{M_*} R_*^4 \scrA^{-3} \\

1333: &\propto& \scrA^{-3} \,.

1334: \end{eqnarray}

1335: \end{mathletters}

1336: Saar et al.\ (2004) estimated the energy released via reconnection

1337: during an interaction of the planetary magnetosphere with

1338: the stellar magnetic field,

1339: \begin{eqnarray}

1340: \nonumber F_{int} &\propto& B_* B_P v_{rel} \scrA^{-n} \\

1341: &\propto& \scrA^{-n} \,,

1342: \end{eqnarray}

1343: where $B_*$ and $B_P$ are the stellar and planetary

1344: magnetic fields, $v_{rel}$ is the relative velocity

1345: between them that produces the shear in the magnetic

1346: fields and leads to the reconnection.  Here, $n=3$

1347: very close to the star and $n=2$ farther away (in the

1348: ``Parker spiral'').

1349: Thus, if the

1350: magnitude of the enhancement and the stellar magnetic

1351: field can be measured for these systems, then the

1352: planetary magnetic environment can be investigated.

1353: 

1354: Since our measurements are an ensemble average, i.e.,

1355: they do not take into account variations in mass,

1356: magnetic fields, and relative velocities, we cannot

1357: directly verify the above models.  Nevertheless,

1358: we can obtain a rough estimate for the variation of

1359: the ``excess'' luminosity with $\scrA$ by assuming that

1360: \begin{equation}

1361: \delta{L_X} \propto \scrA^x

1362: \end{equation}

1363: where $\delta{L_X}$ is the difference between the

1364: actual luminosity and a luminosity unaffected by

1365: a close-in EGP.  For the former, we use the values

1366: simulated during the Monte Carlo analysis of \S\ref{s:farout},

1367: and approximate the latter with the average $L_X$

1368: derived for the distant sample.  Fitting straight

1369: lines to $\log{\delta{L_X}}$ vs $\log{\scrA}$,

1370: and accounting for the bias in the same manner

1371: as described above in \S\ref{s:activity}, we find

1372: that $x\approx{-1}$.

1373: The error on this value is however very large ($\sim 100\%$).

1374: Therefore, we

1375: conclude that while the data are qualitatively

1376: consistent with the scenarios proposed by Cuntz

1377: et al.\ (2000), a reliable test of the theory

1378: is not feasible without more observations.

1379: 

1380: %Nevertheless, if

1381: %we write

1382: %\begin{equation}

1383: %L_X \propto \scrA^x

1384: %\end{equation}

1385: %and compare the average X-ray luminosities we derive

1386: %for the close-in and distant subsamples with the average

1387: %sizes of the planetary orbits in the two samples, we

1388: %find that the 

1389: %%\begin{equation}

1390: %%\frac{<L_X {\rm(close-in)}>}{<L_X {\rm(distant)}>} \propto

1391: %%\left(\frac{<{\scrA_{\rm close-in}}>}{<{\scrA_{\rm distant}}>}\right)^x

1392: %%\end{equation}

1393: %%where $<{\scrA}>$ represents an average separation 

1394: %%of EGPs in a given subsample, then we find that the

1395: %power-law index of the enhancement, $x = -0.48 \pm 0.23$.

1396: %Note that this is inconsistent with the formulation of

1397: %Schrijver \& Zwaan (1991), who find that for tidally

1398: %interacting close binaries that include RS\,CVn stars,

1399: %the X-ray flux $\propto \sqrt{a_*}$, where $a_*$ is the

1400: %distance to the cooler component.  It does however

1401: %confirm qualitatively that the activity enhancement is

1402: %inversely proportional to $\scrA$, in line with the

1403: %scenario proposed by Cuntz et al.\ (2000).

1404: 

1405: \section{Summary}

1406: \label{s:summary}

1407: 

1408: We have searched for X-ray emission from a sample of 230

1409: stars with known giant planets with a view to characterizing

1410: the effect of the EGPs on the parent star.

1411: We first find that the overall sample of stars with known

1412: EGPs is similar in gross X-ray properties to field star

1413: samples (see \S\ref{s:samplestat}), and thus provides a

1414: representative sample of X-ray stars.  

1415: We carry out a careful search for statistical trends with

1416: various parameters (see \S\ref{s:adepend}) and find some

1417: evidence that the activity levels of stars with close-in

1418: giant planets is higher than for stars with planets located

1419: further out, though the correlations are contradictory

1420: and inconclusive.

1421: We then carry out a more powerful test by

1422: analyzing in detail two extremal subsamples (see \S\ref{s:farout})

1423: where we compare the X-ray emission from nearby (distance$<$60~pc)

1424: main-sequence stars with close-in

1425: EGPs against similar stars with much more distant EGPs.  For the sake

1426: of definiteness, we choose a close-in sample where the

1427: orbital semi-major axis $\scrA<0.15$ AU, and a distant

1428: sample where $\scrA>1.5$ AU (reducing the separation between

1429: the samples increases the number of stars considered, but

1430: reduces the contrast between the samples).  We verify that

1431: our adopte ranges of $\scrA$ are not special by varying

1432: the limiting ranges of $\scrA$ over which the subsamples

1433: are defined, and find that invariably the close-in samples

1434: have X-ray luminosities higher than that of the distant sample.

1435: 

1436: The above result must be understood in the context of

1437: selection biases in our sample of stars.  In \S\ref{s:bias},

1438: we demonstrate that observational biases account for about half

1439: of the observed differences seen in the data.  After these

1440: biases are accounted for, we find that the close-in

1441: sample is more active by a factor of $2_{>1.3}^{<4}$ on

1442: average.  This result holds even when the full data are filtered

1443: with different selection criteria.

1444: 

1445: The robustness of the result is limited by the large number

1446: of systems yet to be detected in X-rays.  New observations

1447: by {\sl Chandra} or {\sl XMM-Newton} would consequently

1448: improve the statistics and would constrain the magnitude

1449: of this effect with better precision.  We note that a simple

1450: model of the X-ray emission enhancement suggests an interaction

1451: strength proportional to the product of the stellar and

1452: planetary magnetic fields, $B_*\,B_P$ at their point of

1453: interaction.  This suggests that if $B_*$ is known or can be

1454: estimated, $B_P$ for exoplanets can potentially be studied.

1455: Since the point of interaction between $B_P$ and $B_*$ depends

1456: in part on the strength of the stellar wind, close-in wind

1457: properties can also potentially be probed by such observations.

1458: 

1459: \acknowledgments

1460: 

1461: This research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy

1462: Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center Online Service, provided

1463: by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, and of the SIMBAD database,

1464: operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.

1465: We thank Dr.\ Jean Schneider and the Exoplanets Encyclopedia, and

1466: the Geneva ExtraSolar Planets

1467: group for their invaluable online compilation of EGP resources.

1468: %We would like to thank ... for useful discussions.

1469: We also thank Pete Ratzlaff for assistance with computing counts-to-energy

1470: conversion factors.

1471: This work was supported by NASA grant NNG05GJ63G for XMM GO support,

1472: NASA-AISRP grant NNG06GF17G,

1473: and also by CXC NASA contract NAS8-39073 (VLK and JJD).

1474: SHS was supported by NASA Origins Program Grant NAG-10360.

1475: 

1476: \begin{references}

1477: 

1478: %\reference{} Cochran, W., Endl, M., McArthur, B., Paulson, D., Smith, V., MacQueen, Ph., Tull, R., Good, J., Booth, J., Shetrone, M., Roman, B., Odewahn, S., Deglman, F., Graves, M., Soukup, M. \& Villarred, Jr.,M., 2004, ApJ, in press

1479: %\reference{} Collier-Cameron, A., Bouchy, F., Hebrard, G., Maxted, P., Pollaco, D., Pont, F., Skillen, I., Smalley, B., Street, R., West, R., Wilson, D., Aigrain, S., Christian, D., Clarkson, W., Enoch, B., Evans, A., Fitzsimmons, A., Gillon, M., Haswell, C., Hebb, L., Hellier, C., Hodgkin, S., Horne, K., Irwin, J., Kane, S., Keenan, F., Loeillet, B., Lister, T., Mayor, M., Moutou, C., Norton, A., Osborne, J., Parley, N., Queloz, D., Ryans, R., Triaud, A., Udry, S., \& Wheatley, P. , 2006, MNRAS, submitted

1480: %\reference{} Marcy, G.W., Butler, R.P., \& Vogt, S.S., 2000, ApJ, 536, L43

1481: %\reference{} Seager, S., \& Hui, L., 2002, ApJ, 574

1482: %\reference{} Shkolnik, E., Walker, G.A.H., \& Bohlender, D.A.\ 2003, in Scientific Frontiers in Research on \phantom{XX}~Extrasolar Planets, D., Deming \& S., Seager (Eds.), ASP Conf.Ser., in press

1483: %\reference{} Udry, S., Mayor, M., Clausen, J., Freyhammer, L., Helt, B., Lovis, C., Naef, D., Olsen, E., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., \& Santos, N., 2003b, A\&A, submitted (astro-ph/0304248)

1484: %\reference{} Zahn, J.-P., 1989, A\&A, 220, 112

1485: \reference{} Anderson, D., et al., 2008, MNRAS, submitted

1486: \reference{} Ayres, T.R., Fleming, T.A., Simon, T., et al.\ 1995, ApJS, 96, 223

1487: \reference{} Bakos, G., Noyes, R., Kov\'{a}cz, G., Latham, D., Sasselov, D., Torres, G., Fischer, D., Stefanik, R., Sato, B., Johnson, J., P\'{a}l, A., Marcy, G., Butler, P., Esquerdo, G., Stanek, K., L\'{a}z\'{a}r, J., Papp, I., Sari, P., \& Sip\"{o}cz, B., 2006, ApJ, accepted

1488: \reference{} Bakos, G., Shporer, A., Pal, A., Torres, G., Kovacs, G., Latham, D., Mazeh, T., Ofir, A., Noyes, R., Sasselov, D., Bouchy, F., Pont, F., Queloz, D., Udry, S., Esquerdo, G., Sipocz, B., Kovacs, G., \& Lazar, J., 2007, ApJ, 671, L173

1489: \reference{} Baluev, R.V., 2008, arXiv:0712.3862, submitted to MNRAS

1490: \reference{} Barge, P., Baglin, A., Auvergne, M., \& The CoRoT Team, 2007, in {\sl EXOPLANETS: Detection, Formation and Dynamics Proceedings}, IAU Symposium 249

1491: \reference{} Bastian, T.S., Dulk, G.A., \& Leblanc, Y., 2000, ApJ, 545, 1058

1492: \reference{} Biller, B., Kasper, M., Close, L., Brandner, W., \& Kellner, S., 2006, ApJ, accepted

1493: \reference{} Bonfils, X., Forveille, T., Delfosse, X., Udry, S., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Bouchy, F., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., \& Bertaux, J.-L., 2005, A\&A, 443, L15

1494: \reference{} Bouchy, F., Pont, F., Santos, N., Melo, C., Mayor, M., Queloz, D., \& Udry, S., 2004, A\&A, 421, L13

1495: \reference{} Bouchy, F., Pont, F., Melo, C., Santos, N.C., Mayor, M., Queloz, D., \& Udry, S., 2005a, A\&A, 431, 1105

1496: \reference{} Bouchy, F., Udry, S., Mayor, M., Moutou, C., Pont, F., Iribarne, N., da Silva, R., Llovaisky, S., Queloz, D., Santos, N.C., Segransan, D., \& Zucker, S., 2005b, A\&A, 444, L15

1497: \reference{} Burke, Ch., et al., 2007, ApJ, 671, 2115

1498: \reference{} Butler, P., Marcy, G., Vogt, S., Fischer, D., Henry, G., Laughlin, G., \& Wright, J., 2003, ApJ, 582, 455

1499: \reference{} Butler, P., Tinney, C., Marcy, G., Jones, H., Penny, A., \& Apps, K., 2001, ApJ, 555, 410

1500: \reference{} Butler, P., Vogt, S., Marcy, G., Fischer, D., Henry, G., \& Apps, K., 2000, ApJ, 545, 504

1501: \reference{} Butler, P., Vogt, S., Marcy, G., Fischer, D., Wright, J., Henry, G., Laughlin, G., \& Lissauer, J., 2004, ApJ, 617, 580L

1502: \reference{} Butler, P., Wright, J., Marcy, G., Fischer, D., Vogt, S., Tinney, Ch., Jones, H., Carter, B., \& Penny, A., 2006a, ApJ, 646, 505

1503: \reference{} Butler, R.P., Johnson, J.A., Marcy, G.W., Wright, J.T., Vogt, S.S., \& Fischer, D.A., 2006b, PASP, 118

1504: \reference{} Butler, R.P., Marcy, G.W., Vogt, S.S., \& Apps, K., 1998, PASP, 110, 1389

1505: \reference{} Butler, R.P., Marcy, G.W., Williams, E., Hauser, H., \& Shirts, P., 1997, ApJ, 474, L115

1506: \reference{} Butler, R.P., Marcy, G.W., Williams, E., McCarthy, C., Dosanjh, P., \& Vogt, S.S., 1996, PASP, 108, 500

1507: \reference{} Butler, R.P., \& Marcy, G.W., 1996, ApJ, 464, L153

1508: \reference{} B\'{e}jar, V.J.S., Zapatero Osorio, M.R., P\'{e}rez-Garrido, A., \'{A}lvarez, C., Mart\'{i}n, E.L., Rebolo, R., Vill\'{e}-P\'{e}rez, I., \& D\'{i}az-S\'{a}nchez, A., 2008, ApJ, 673, L185

1509: \reference{} Campbell, B., Walker, G., \& Yang, S., 1988, ApJ, 331, 902

1510: \reference{} Carter, B., Butler, P., Tinney, C., Jones, H., Marcy, G., Fischer, D., McCarthy, C., \& Penny, A., 2003, ApJ, 593, L43

1511: \reference{} Charbonneau, D., Brown, T.M., Latham, D.W., Mayor, M., 2000, ApJ, 529, L45

1512: \reference{} Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Dumas, C., Zuckerman, B., Mouillet, D., Song, I., Beuzit, J.-L., \& Lowrance, P., 2005, A\&A, 438, L25

1513: \reference{} Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Dumas, C., Zuckerman, B., Mouillet, D., Song, I., Beuzit, J.-L., \& Lowrance, P., 2005a, A\&A, 438, L25

1514: \reference{} Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Zuckerman, B., Dumas, C., Mouillet, D., Song, I., et, al., 2005, A\&A, 438, L29

1515: \reference{} Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Zuckerman, B., Dumas, C., Mouillet, D., Song, I., et, al., 2005b, A\&A, 438, L29

1516: \reference{} Cochran, W., Endl, M., Wittenmyer, R., \& Bean, J., 2007, ApJ, 665, 1407

1517: \reference{} Cochran, W., Endl, M., McArthur, B., Paulson, D., Smith, V., MacQueen, Ph., Tull, R., Good, J., Booth, J., Shetrone, M., Roman, B., Odewahn, S., Deglman, F., Graves, M., Soukup, M., \& Villarred, Jr.,M., 2004, ApJ, 611, 133

1518: \reference{} Cochran, W., Hatzes, A., Butler, P., \& Marcy, G., 1997, ApJ, 483, 457

1519: \reference{} Cochran, W., Hatzes, A., Endl, M., Paulson, D., Walker, G., Campbell, B., \& Yang, S., 2002, BAAS, 34, 42.02

1520: \reference{} Collier-Cameron, A., Bouchy, F., Hebrard, G., Maxted, P., Pollaco, D., Pont, F., Skillen, I., Smalley, B., Street, R., West, R., Wilson, D., Aigrain, S., Christian, D., Clarkson, W., Enoch, B., Evans, A., Fitzsimmons, A., Gillon, M., Haswell, C., Hebb, L., Hellier, C., Hodgkin, S., Horne, K., Irwin, J., Kane, S., Keenan, F., Loeillet, B., Lister, T., Mayor, M., Moutou, C., Norton, A., Osborne, J., Parley, N., Queloz, D., Ryans, R., Triaud, A., Udry, S., \& Wheatley, P. , 2007, MNRAS, 375, 971

1521: \reference{} Cranmer, S.R., \& Saar, S.H., 2006, at the 14$^{th}$ Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar System, and the Sun, Pasadena, Nov 6-10, \#160

1522: \reference{} Cuntz, M., Saar, S.H., Musielak, Z.E.\ 2000, ApJ, 533, L151

1523: \reference{} Cuntz, M., \& Shkolnik, E.\ 2002, Astron.Nachrichten, 323, 387

1524: \reference{} da Silva, R., Udry, S., Bouchy, F., Mayor, M., Moutou, C., Pont, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N., Segransan, D., \& Zucker, S., 2005, A\&A, 446, 717

1525: \reference{} Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Naef, D., \& Queloz, D., 1998, A\&A, 338, L67

1526: \reference{} Desidera, S., Gratton, R., Endl, M., Barbieri, M., Claudi, R., Cosentino, R., Lucatello, S., Marzari, F., \& Scuderi, S., 2003, A\&A, 405, 207

1527: \reference{} Doellinger, M., Hatzes, A., Pasquini, L., Guenther, E., Hartmann, M., Girardi, L., \& Esposito, M., 2007, A\&A, 472, 649

1528: \reference{} Drake, S.A., Pravdo, S.H., Angelini, L., \& Stern, R.A., 1998, AJ, 115, 2122

1529: \reference{} Eggenberger, A., Mayor, M., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N., Udry, S., \& Lovis, C., 2006, A\&A, 447, 1159

1530: \reference{} Endl, M., Cochran, W., Wittenmyer, R., \& Boss, A., 2007, ApJ, 673, 1165

1531: \reference{} Feigelson, E., \& Nelson, P., 1985, ApJ, 293, 192

1532: \reference{} Fischer, D., Laughlin, G., Marcy, G., Butler, P., \& Vogt, S., 2006, in ``Tenth Anniversary of 51 Peg-b: Status and Prospect of hot Jupiter Studies.''  Ed L. Arnold, F. Bouchy, \& C. Moutou. Platypus Press

1533: \reference{} Fischer, D., Marcy G., Butler P., Sato B., Vogt S., Robinson, S., Laughlin G., Henry G., Driscoll P., Takeda G., Wright J., \& Johnson J., 2007, ApJ, submitted

1534: \reference{} Fischer, D., Butler, P., Marcy, G., Vogt, S., \& Henry, G., 2003, ApJ, 590, 1081

1535: \reference{} Fischer, D., Laughlin, G., Marcy, G., Butler, P., Vogt, S., Johnson, J., Henry, G., McCarthy, Ch., Ammons, M., Robinson, S., Strader, J., Valenti, J., McCullogh, P., Charbonneau, D., Haislip, J., Knutson, H., Reichart, D., McGee, P., Monard, B., Wright, J., Ida, S., Sato, B., \& Minniti, D., 2005, ApJ, 637, 1094

1536: \reference{} Fischer, D., Marcy, G., Butler, P., Vogt, S., Frink, S., \& Apps, K., 2000, ApJ, 551, 1107

1537: \reference{} Fischer, D., Marcy, G., Butler, P., Vogt, S., Henry, G., Pourbaix, D., Walp, B., Misch, A., \& Wright, J., 2002a, ApJ, 586, 1394

1538: \reference{} Fischer, D., Marcy, G., Butler, P., Vogt, S., Walp, B., \& Apps, K., 2002b, PASP, 114 529

1539: \reference{} Fischer, D.A., Marcy, G.W., Butler, R.P., Vogt, S.S., \& Apps, K., 1999, PASP, 111, 50

1540: \reference{} Frink, S., Mitchell, D., Quirrenbach, A., Fischer, D., Marcy, G., \& Butler, P., 2002, ApJ, 576, 478

1541: \reference{} Galland, F., Lagrange, A.-M., Udry, S., Chelli, A., Pepe, F., Beuzit, J.-L., \& Mayor, M., 2005, A\&A, 444, L21

1542: \reference{} Gaudi, S., Bennett, D., Udalski, A., Gould, A., Christie, G., et al., 2008, Science, 319, 927

1543: \reference{} Ge, J., van Eyken, J., Mahadevan, S., Dewitt, C., Kane, S., Cohen, R., van den Heuvel, A., Fleming, S., Guo, P., Henry, G., Schneider, D., Ramsey, L., Wittenmyer, R., Endl, M., Cochran, W., Ford, E., Martin, E., Israelian, G., Valenti, J., \& Montes, D., 2006, ApJ, 648, 683

1544: \reference{} Griessmeier, J.-M., Zarka, P., \& Spreeuw, H., 2007, A\&A, 475, 359

1545: \reference{} Harris, D.E., Forman, W., Gioa, I.M., Hale, J.A., Harnden, F.R.,Jr., Jones, C., Karakashian, T., Maccacaro, T., McSweeney, J.D., Primini, F.A., Schwarz, J., Tananbaum, H.D., \& Thurman, J., SAO HEAD CD-ROM Series I (Einstein), Nos 18-36

1546: \reference{} Hatzes, A., G\"{u}nther, E., Endl, M., Cochran, W., D\"{o}llinger, M., \& Bedalov, A., 2005, A\&A, 437, 743

1547: \reference{} H\"{u}nsch, M., Schmitt, J.H.M.M., \& Voges, W., 1998, A\&AS, 132, 155

1548: \reference{} Joergens, V., \& Mueller, A., 2007, ApJ, 666, L113

1549: \reference{} Johns-Krull, C., et al., 2007, ApJ, submitted

1550: \reference{} Johnson, J., Butler, P., Marcy, G., Fischer, D., Vogt, S., Wright, J., \& Peek, C., 2007a, ApJ, accepted

1551: \reference{} Johnson, J., et al., 2007b, ApJ, 675, 784

1552: \reference{} Johnson, J.A., Marcy, G.W., Fischer, D.A., Henry, G.W., Wright, J.T., Isaacson, H., \& McCarthy, C., 2006a, ApJ, 652, 1724

1553: \reference{} Johnson, J.A., Marcy, G.W., Fischer, D.A., Laughlin, G., Butler, R.P., Henry, G.W., Valenti, J.A., Ford, E.B., Vogt, S.S., \& Wright, J.T., 2006b, ApJ, 647, 600

1554: \reference{} Jones, H., Butler, P., Tinney, C., Marcy, G., Penny, A., McCarthy, C., Carter, B., \& Pourbaix, D., 2001, MNRAS, 333, 871

1555: \reference{} Jones, H., Butler, P., Tinney, C., Marcy, G., Penny, A., McCarthy, C., \& Carter, B., 2002, MNRAS, 341, 948

1556: \reference{} Jones, H.R.A., Butler, R.P., Tinney, C.G., Marcy, G.W., Carter, B.D., Penny, A.J., McCarthy, C., \& Bailey, J.B., 2006, MNRAS, 369, 249

1557: \reference{} Kashyap, V., Rosner, R., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., Vaiana, G.S., \& Harnden, F.R., Jr., 1992, ApJ, 391, 684

1558: \reference{} Kim, D.-W.,  Cameron, R.A., Drake, J.J., Evans, N.R., Freeman, P., Gaetz, T.J., Ghosh, H., Green, P.J., Harnden, F.R.,Jr., Karovska, M., Kashyap, V., Maksym, P.W., Ratzlaff, P.W., Schlegel, E.M., Silverman, J.D., Tananbaum, H.D., Vikhlinin, A.A., Wilkes, B.J., \& Grimes, J.P., 2004, ApJ, accepted

1559: \reference{} Konacki, M., 2005, Nature, 436, 220

1560: \reference{} Konacki, M., Torres, G., Jha, S., \& Sasselov, D.D., 2003, Nature, 421, 507

1561: \reference{} Konacki, M., Torres, G., Sasselov, D., Pietrzynski, G., Udalski, A., Jha, S., Ruiz, M.-T., Gieren, W., \& Minniti, D., 2004, ApJ, 609, L37

1562: \reference{} Korzennik, S., Brown, T., Fischer, D., Nisenson, P., \& Noyes, R., 2000, ApJ, 533, L147

1563: \reference{} Kovacs, G., Bakos, G., Torres, G., Sozzetti, A., Latham, D., Noyes, R., Butler, P., Marcy, G., Fischer, D., Fernandez, J., Esquerdo, G., Sasselov, D., Stefanik, R., Pal, A., Lazar, J., \& Sari, P., 2007, ApJ, 670, L41

1564: \reference{} Kurster, M., Endl, M., Els, S., Hatzes, A., Cochran, W., Dobereiner, S., \& Dennerl, K., 2000, A\&A, 353, L33

1565: \reference{} Lanza, A.F., 2008, arXiv:0805.3010

1566: \reference{} Lanza, A.F., De Martino, C., \& Rodon\`{o}, M., 2008, New Astronomy, 13, 77

1567: \reference{} Latham, D.W., Stefanik, R.P., Mazeh, T., Mayor, M., \& Burki, G., 1989, Nature, 339, 38

1568: \reference{} Lo Curto, G., Mayor, M., Clausen, J., Benz, W., Bouchy, F., Lovis, C., Moutou, C., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N., Sivan, J.-P., Udry, S., Bonfils, X., Delfosse, X., Mordasini, C., Fouque, P., Olsen, E., \& Pritchards, J., 2006, A\&A, 451, 345

1569: \reference{} Lovis, C.,  Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Alibert, Y., Benz, W., Bouchy, F., Correia, A.C.M., Laskar, J., Mordasini, C., Queloz, D., Santos, N.C., Udry, S., Bertaux, J.-L., \& Sivan, J.-P., 2006, Nature, 441, 305

1570: \reference{} Lovis, C., Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N., Sosnowska, D., Udry, S., Benz, W., Bertaux, J.-L., Bouchy, F., Mordasini, C., \& Sivan, J.-P., 2005, A\&A, 437, 1121

1571: \reference{} Lovis, C., \& Mayor, M., 2007, A\&A, 472, 657

1572: \reference{} Mandushev, G., O'Donovan, F.T., Charbonneau, D., Torres, G., Latham, D.W., Bakos, G.A., Dunham, E.W., Sozzetti, A., Fernandez, J.M., Esquerdo, G.A., Everett, M.E., Brown, T.M., Rabus, M., Belmonte, J.A., \& Hillenbrand, L.A., 2007, ApJ, 667

1573: \reference{} Marchi, S., 2007, ApJ, 666, 475

1574: \reference{} Marcy, G.W., Butler, R.P., Vogt, S.S., Fischer, D., \& Liu, M., 1999, ApJ, 520, 239

1575: \reference{} Marcy, G.W., Butler, R.P., Vogt, S.S., Fischer, D.A., Henry, G.W., Laughlin, G., Wright, J.T., \& Johnson, J.A., 2005, 619, 570

1576: \reference{} Marcy, G.W., Butler, R.P., \& Vogt, S.S., 2000, ApJ, 536, L43

1577: \reference{} Marcy, G.W., Cochran, W.D., \& Mayor, M., 2000, in ``Protostars and Planets IV,'' Ed.\ V.Mannings, A.P.Boss, \& S.S.Russell (Tucson: Univ.Arizona Press), 1285

1578: \reference{} Marcy, G.W., \& Butler, R.P., 1996, ApJ, 464, L147

1579: \reference{} Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Bouchy, F., Rupprecht, G., Lo Curto, G.. Avila, G., Benz, W., Bertaux, J.-L., Bonfils, X., Dall, Th., Dekker, H., Delabre, B., Eckert, W., Fleury, M., Gilliotte, G., Gojak, D., Guzman, J., Kohler, D., Lizon, J.-L., Longinotti, A., Lovis, C., Migevand, D., Pasquini, L., Reyes, J., Sivan, J.-P., Sosnowska, D., Soto, R., Udry, S., Van Kesteren, A., Weber, L. \& Weilenmann, U., 2003, Setting new standards with HARPS, in {\sl The ESO Messenger}, 114, 20

1580: \reference{} Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Bouchy, F., Rupprecht, G., Lo Curto, G.. Avila, G., Benz, W., Bertaux, J.-L., Bonfils, X., Dall, Th., Dekker, H., Delabre, B., Eckert, W., Fleury, M., Gilliotte, G., Gojak, D., Guzman, J., Kohler, D., Lizon, J.-L., Longinotti, A., Lovis, C., Migevand, D., Pasquini, L., Reyes, J., Sivan, J.-P., Sosnowska, D., Soto, R., Udry, S., Van Kesteren, A., Weber, L., \& Weilenmann, U., 2003a, Setting new standards with HARPS, in {\sl The ESO Messenger}, 114, 20

1581: \reference{} Mayor, M., Udry, S., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N.C., \& Burnet, M.\ 2003b, A\&A, 415, 391 %accepted (astro-ph/0310316)

1582: \reference{} Mayor, M., \& Queloz, D., 1995, Nature, 378, 355

1583: \reference{} McCarthy, C., Butler, P., Tinney, C., Jones, H., Marcy, G., Carter, B., Penny, A., \& Fischer, D., 2004, ApJ, 617, 575

1584: \reference{} McCullough, P.R., Stys, J.E., Valenti, J.A., Johns-Krull, C.M., Janes, K.A., Heasley, J.N., Bye, B.A., Dodd, C., Fleming, S.W., Pinnick, A., Bissinger, R., Gary, B.L., Howell, P.J., \& Vanmunster, T., 2006, ApJ, 648, 1228

1585: \reference{} McIvor, T., Jardine, M., \& Holzwarth, V., 2006, MNRAS, 367, L1

1586: \reference{} Melo, C., Santos, N., Gieren, W., Pietrzynski, G., Ruiz, M., Sousa, S., Bouchy, F., Lovis, C., Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz D., da Silva, R., \& Udry, S., 2007, A\&A, 467, 721

1587: \reference{} Mitchell, D., Frink, S., Quirrenbach, A., Fischer, D., Marcy, G., \& Butler, P., 2003 BAAS, 35 Nr.5, 17.03

1588: \reference{} Moran, E.C., Helfand, D.J., Becker, R.H., \& White, R.L., 1996, ApJ, 461, 127

1589: \reference{} Moutou, C., Mayor, M., Bouchy, F., Lovis, C., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N., Sosnowska, D., Udry, S., Benz, W., Naef, D., Segransan, D., \& Sivan, J.-P., 2005, A\&A, 439, 367

1590: \reference{} Naef, D., Latham, D.W., Mayor, M., Mazeh, T., Beuzit, J.L., Drukier, G.A., Perrier-Bellet, C., Queloz, D., Sivan, J.P., Torres, G., Udry, S., \& Zucker, S., 2001a, A\&A, 375, L27

1591: \reference{} Naef, D., Mayor, M., Benz, W., Bouchy, F., Lo, Curto, G., Lovis, C., Moutou, C., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N., \& Udry, S., 2007, A\&A, 470, 721

1592: \reference{} Naef, D., Mayor, M., Beuzit, J.L., C., Queloz, D., Sivan, J.P., \& Udry, S., 2003a, A\&A, accepted (astro-ph/0310261)

1593: \reference{} Naef, D., Mayor, M., Korzennik, S.G., Queloz, D., Udry, S., Nisenson, P., Noyes, R.W., Brown, T.M., Beuzit, J.L., Perrier, C., \& Sivan, J.P., 2003b, A\&A, accepted (astro-ph/0306586)

1594: \reference{} Naef, D., Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N.C., Udry, S., \& Burnet, M., 2001b, A\&A 375, 205

1595: \reference{} Neuh\"{a}user, R., Guenther, E., Wuchterl, G., Mugrauer, M., Bedalov, A., \& Hauschildt, P., 2005, A\&A, 345, L13

1596: \reference{} Niedzielski A., Konacki M., Wolszczan A., Nowak G., Maciewski G., Gelino C., Shao M., Shetrone M., \& Ramsey L., 2008, ApJ, submitted

1597: \reference{} Noyes, R., Bakos, G., Torres, G., Pal, A., Kovacs, G., Latham, D., Fernandez, J., Fiscer, D., Butler, P., Marcy, G., Sipocz, B., Esquerdo, G., Kovacs, G., Sasselov, D., Sato, B., Stefanik, R., Holman, M., Lazar, J., Papp, I., \& Sari, P., 2007, ApJ, 673

1598: \reference{} O'Donovan, F., Charbonneau, D., Bakos, G., Mandushev, G., Dunham, E., Brown, T., Latham, D., Torres, G., Sozzetti, A., Kovacs, G., Everett, M., Maliber, N., Hidas, M., Esquerdo, G., Rabus, M., Deeg, H., Belmonte, J., Hillenbrand, L., \& Stefanik, R., 2007, ApJ, 663, L370

1599: \reference{} O'Donovan, F., Charbonneau, D., Mandushev, G., Dunham, E., Latham, D., Torres, G., Sozzetti, A., Brown, T., Trauger, J., Belmonte, J., Rabus, M., Almenera, J., Alonso, R., Deeg, H., Esquerdo, G., Falco, E., Hillenbrand, L., Roussanova, A., Stefanik, R., \& Winn, J., 2006, ApJ, 651, L61

1600: \reference{} O'Toole, S., Butler, P., Tinney, C., Jones, H., Marcy, G., Carter, B., McCarthy, C., Bailey, J., Penny, A., Apps, K., \& Fischer, D., 2006, ApJ, 660, 1636

1601: \reference{} Pal, A., et al., 2008, ApJ, accepted (arXiv:0803.0746)

1602: \reference{} Panzera, M.R., Campana, S., Covino, S., Lazzati, D., Mignani, R.P., Moretti, A., \& Tagliaferri, G., 2003, A\&A, 399, 351

1603: \reference{} Pease, D.O., Jeremy, J.J., \& Kashyap, V.L., 2006, ApJ, 636, 426

1604: \reference{} Pepe, F., Mayor, M., Galland, F., Naef, D., Queloz, D., Santos, N.C., Udry, S., \& Burnet, M., 2002, A\&A, 388, 632

1605: \reference{} Perrier, C., Sivan, J.P., Naef, D., Beuzit, J.L., Mayor, M., Queloz, D., \& Udry, S., 2003, A\&A, accepted (astro-ph/0308281)

1606: \reference{} Pollaco, D., et al., 2008, MNRAS, submitted

1607: \reference{} Pont, F., et al., 2007, A\&A, submitted

1608: \reference{} Pye, J., et al.\ 2006, ``The Second XMM-Newton Serendipitous Source Pre-release Catalogue,  XMM-Newton Survey Science Centre (SSC),'' 2006.

1609: \reference{} Queloz, D., Mayor, M., Weber, L., Blicha, A., Burnet, M., Confino, B., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Santos, N., \& Udry, S., 2000, A\&A, 354, 99

1610: \reference{} Rasio, F.A., 1994, ApJ, 427, L107

1611: \reference{} Reffert, S., Quirrenbach, A., Mitchell, D.S., Albrecht, S., Hekker, S., Fischer, D.A., Marcy, G.W., \& Butler, R.P., 2006, ApJ, 652, 661

1612: \reference{} Robinson, S.E., Laughlin, G., Vogt, S.S., Fischer, D.A., Butler, R.P., Marcy, G.W., Henry, G.W., Driscoll, P., Takeda, G., \& Johnson, J.A., 2007, ApJ, 670, 1391

1613: \reference{} Saar, S., Kashyap, V., Cuntz, M., Shkolnik, E., \& Hall, J., 2006, at the 14$^{th}$ Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar System, and the Sun, Pasadena, Nov 6-10, \#252

1614: \reference{} Saar, S.H., Butler, R.P., \& Marcy, G.W., 1998, ApJ, 498, L153

1615: \reference{} Saar, S.H., Cuntz, M., \& Shkolnik, E., 2004, in IAU Symp. 219 "Stars as Suns: Activity, Evolution, and Planets", eds. A.Benz \& A.K.Dupree, ASP Conference Series, in press

1616: \reference{} Saar, S.H., \& Cuntz, M.\ 2001, MNRAS, 325, 55

1617: \reference{} Saar, S.H., \& Donahue, R.A., 1997, ApJ, 485, 319

1618: \reference{} Sahu, K., Casertano, S., Bond, H., Valenti, J., Smith, E., Minniti, D., Zoccali, M., Livio, M., Panagia, N., Piskunov, N., Brown, Th., Brown, T., Renzini, A., Rich, R., Clarkson, W., \& Lubow, S., 2006, Nature, 443, 534

1619: \reference{} Santos, N., Mayor, M., Bouchy, F., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., \& Udry, S., 2007, A\&A, 474, 647

1620: \reference{} Santos, N., Pont, F., Melo, C., Israelian, G., Bouchy, F., Mayor, M., Moutou, C., Queloz, D., Udry, S., \& Guillot, T., 2006, A\&A, 450, 825

1621: \reference{} Santos, N.C., Mayor, M., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Udry, S., Burnet, M., \& Revaz, Y., 2000, A\&A, 356, 599 

1622: \reference{} Santos, N.C., Mayor, M., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Udry, S., \& Burnet, M., 2001, A\&A, 379, 999

1623: \reference{} Sato, B., Ando, H., Kambe, E., Takeda, Y., Izumiura, H., Masuda, S., Watanabe, E., Noguchi, K., Wada, S., Okada, N., Koyano, H., Maehara, H., Norimoto, Y., Okada, T., Shimizu, Y., Uraguchi, F., Yanagisawa, K., \& Yoshida, M., 2003, ApJ, 597, L157

1624: \reference{} Sato, B., et al., 2007, ApJ, 661, 527

1625: \reference{} Sato, B., Fischer, D., Henry, G., Laughlin, G., Butler, P., Marcy, G., Vogt, S., Bodenheimer, P., Ida, S., Toyaota, E., Wolf, A., Valenti, J., Boyd, L., Johnson, J., Wright, J., Ammons, M., Robinson, S., Strader, J., McCarthy, Ch., Tah, K., \& Minniti, D., 2005, ApJ, 633, 465

1626: \reference{} Sato, B., Izumiura, H., Toyota, E., Kambe, E., Ikoma, M., Omiya, M., Masuda, S., Takeda, Y., Murata, D., Itoh, Y., Ando, H., Yoshida, M., Kokubo, E., \& Ida, S., 2008, PASJ, accepted

1627: \reference{} Schmitt, J.H.M.M., 1985, ApJ, 293, 178

1628: \reference{} Schmitt, J.H.M.M., 1997, A\&A, 318, 215

1629: \reference{} Schrijver, C.J., \& Zwaan, C., 1991, A\&A. 251, 183

1630: \reference{} Setiawan, J., et al., 2008, ApJ, submitted

1631: \reference{} Setiawan, J., Hatzes, A., von der Luhe, O., Pasquini, L., Naef, D., da Silva, L., Udry, S., Queloz, D., \& Girardi, L., 2002, A\&A, 398, L19

1632: \reference{} Setiawan, J., Weise, P., Henning, Th., Launhardt, R., M\"{u}ller, A., \& Rodman, J., 2007, ApJ, 660, L145

1633: \reference{} Setiawan, J., Rodman, J., da Silva, L., Hatzes, A., Pasquini, L., von der Luhe, O., de Medeiros, J., Doellinger, M., \& Girardi, L., 2005, A\&A, 437, L31

1634: \reference{} Setiawan, J.\ (2003), in ``Toward other Earths: DARWIN/TPF and the search for extrasolar terrestrial planets.'' ESA SP-539, p. 595

1635: \reference{} Shkolnik, E., Bohlender, D.A., Walker, G.A.H., \& Collier Cameron, A., 2008, ApJ, 676, 628

1636: \reference{} Shkolnik, E., Walker, G.A.H., \& Bohlender, D.A., 2003, ApJ, 597, 1092 

1637: \reference{} Shkolnik, E., Walker, G.A.H., \& Bohlender, D.A., 2004, {\sl erratum}, ApJ, 609, 1197

1638: \reference{} Silvotti, R., et al., 2007, Nature, 449, 189

1639: \reference{} Snowden, S.L., Egger, R., Freyberg, M.J., Plucinsky, P.P., Schmitt, J.H.M.M., Tr\"{u}mper, J., Voges, W., McCammon, D., \& Sanders, W.T., 1997, ApJ, 485, 125

1640: \reference{} Southworth, J., 2008, MNRAS, accepted

1641: \reference{} Sozzetti, A., Udry, S., Zucker, S., Torres, G., Beuzit, J.L., Latham, D.W., Mayor, M., Mazeh, T., Naef, D., Perrier, C., Queloz, D., \& Sivan, J.P., 2006, A\&A, 449, 417

1642: \reference{} Tamuz, O., Segransan, D., Udry, S., Mayor, M., Eggenberger, A., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N., Demory, B., Figuera, P., Marnier, M., \& Montagnier, G., 2007, A\&A, accepted

1643: \reference{} Tinney, C., Butler, P., Marcy, G., Jones, H., Penny, A., McCarthy, C., \& Carter, B., 2001, ApJ, 571, 528

1644: \reference{} Tinney, C., Butler, P., Marcy, G., Jones, H., Penny, A., McCarthy, C., Carter, B., \& Bond, I., 2002, ApJ, 587, 423

1645: \reference{} Tinney, C.G., Butler, R.P., Marcy, G.W., Jones, H.R.A., Penny, A.J., McCarthy, C., Carter, B.D., \& Fischer, D.A., 2005, ApJ, 623, 1171

1646: \reference{} Tinney, C.G., Butler, R.P., Marcy, G.W., Jones, H.R.A., Penny, A.J., Vogt, S.S., Apps, K., \& Henry, G.W., 2000, ApJ, 551, 507

1647: \reference{} Tinney, C.G., et al.\ 2001, ApJ, 551, 507

1648: \reference{} Torres, G., Bakos, G., Kovacs, G., Latham, D., Fernandez, J., Noyes, R., Esquerdo, G., Sozzetti, A., Fischer, D., Butler, P., Marcy, G., Stefanik, R., Sasselov, D., Lazar, J., Papp, I., \& Sari, P., 2007, ApJ, 666, L121

1649: \reference{} Udry, S. et al., 2002a, in Proc.\ of the ``Scientific Frontiers in Research on Extrasolar Planets''

1650: \reference{} Udry, S. et al., 2003a, in Proc.\ of XIX IAP Coll., ``Extrasolar Planets: Today \& Tomorrow''

1651: \reference{} Udry, S., Mayor, M., Clausen, J., Freyhammer, L., Helt, B., Lovis, C., Naef, D., Olsen, E., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., \& Santos, N., 2003b, A\&A, 407, 679 %(astro-ph/0304248)

1652: \reference{} Udry, S., Mayor, M., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N.C., Burnet, M., Confino, B., \& Melo, C., 2000, A\&A, 356, 590

1653: \reference{} Udry, S., Mayor, M., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N.C., \& Burnet, M., 2002b, A\&A, 390, 267

1654: \reference{} Ueda, Y., Ishisaki, Y., Takahashi, T., Makishima, K., \& Ohashi, T., 2001, ApJS, 133, 1

1655: \reference{} Voges W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, Th., Br\"{a}duninger, H., Briel, U., Burkert, W., Dennerl, K., Englhauser, J., Gruber, R., Haberl, F., Hartner, G., Hasinger, G., K\"{u}rster, M., Pfeffermann, E., Pietsch, W., Predehl, P., Rosso, C., Schmitt, J.H.M.M., Tr\"{u}mper, J., \& Zimmermann, H.U., 1999, A\&A, 349, 389

1656: \reference{} Voges W., et al., 1996, IAU Circ.\ 6420

1657: \reference{} Voges W., et al., 2001, ROSAT Results Archive, ROSAT News 74

1658: \reference{} Vogt, S.S., Butler, R.P., Marcy, G.W., Fischer, D.A., Henry, G.W., Laughlin, G., Wright, J.T., \& Johnson, J.A., 2005, ApJ, 638

1659: \reference{} Vogt, S.S., Butler, R.P., Marcy, G.W., Fischer, D.A., Pourbaix, D., Apps, K., \& Laughlin, G., 2002, ApJ, 568, 352

1660: \reference{} Vogt, S.S., Marcy, G.W., Butler, R.P., \& Apps, K., 2000, ApJ, 536, 902

1661: \reference{} Weldrake, D., Bayliss, D., Sackett, P., Tingley, B., Gillon, M., \& Setiawan, J., 2008, ApJ, 675, L37

1662: \reference{} White, N.E., Giommi, P., \& Angelini, L., 1994, BAAS, 41.11, v26, p1372

1663: \reference{} White, N.E., \& Peacock, A., 1988, Soc.Astron.Italiana, Memorie, v59, no.1-2, p7

1664: \reference{} Wilson, D., et al., 2008, ApJ, 675, L

1665: \reference{} Wolszczan, A., \& Frail, D., 1992, Nature, 355, 145

1666: \reference{} Zaqarashvili, T., Javakishvili, G., \& Belvedere, G., 2002, ApJ, 579, 810

1667: \reference{} Zarka, P., Treumann, R.A., Ryabov, B.P., \& Ryabov, V.B., 2001, Astrophys.Space Sci., 277, 293

1668: \reference{} Zucker, S., Mazeh, T., Santos, N.C., Udry, S., \& Mayor, M., 2004, A\&A, 426, 695

1669: \reference{} Zucker, S., Naef, D., Latham, D.W., Mayor, M., Mazeh, T., Beuzit, J.L., Drukier, G.A., Perrier-Bellet, C., Queloz, D., Sivan, J.P., Torres, G., \& Udry, S., 2002, ApJ, 568, 363

1670: 

1671: \end{references}

1672: 

1673: \newpage

1674: 

1675: \end{document}

1676: