1: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{latexsym,graphicx,natbib}
3: %\usepackage{apjfonts,emulateapj5,psfig}
4: %\usepackage{apjfonts,emulateapj5}
5:
6: \shortauthors{Winn et al.~2008}
7: \shorttitle{Transit of HD~17156b}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: % ------------------------------------------------------------------------
12: % New commands
13: %
14: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
15: \def\lsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
16: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
17: \def\gsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
18: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------
19: %
20:
21: \bibliographystyle{apj}
22:
23: \title{
24: The Transit Light Curve Project.\\
25: X.~A Christmas Transit of HD~17156b }
26:
27: \author{
28: Joshua N.\ Winn\altaffilmark{1},
29: Matthew J.\ Holman\altaffilmark{2},
30: Gregory W.\ Henry\altaffilmark{3},
31: Guillermo Torres\altaffilmark{2},\\
32: Debra Fischer\altaffilmark{4},
33: John Asher Johnson\altaffilmark{5,6},
34: Geoffrey W.~Marcy\altaffilmark{7},
35: Avi Shporer\altaffilmark{8},
36: Tsevi Mazeh\altaffilmark{8}
37: }
38:
39: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute for
40: Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of
41: Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA}
42:
43: \altaffiltext{2}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60
44: Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}
45:
46: \altaffiltext{3}{Center of Excellence in Information Systems,
47: Tennessee State University, 3500 John A.\ Merritt Blvd., Box 9501,
48: Nashville, TN 37209, USA}
49:
50: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, San Francisco
51: State University, San Francisco, CA 94132}
52:
53: \altaffiltext{5}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii,
54: Honolulu, HI 96822}
55:
56: \altaffiltext{6}{NSF Astronomy \& Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellow}
57:
58: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,
59: Mail Code 3411, Berkeley, CA 94720}
60:
61: \altaffiltext{8}{Wise Observatory, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv,
62: Israel 69978}
63:
64: \begin{abstract}
65:
66: Photometry is presented of the Dec.~25, 2007 transit of HD~17156b,
67: which has the longest orbital period and highest orbital
68: eccentricity of all the known transiting exoplanets. New
69: measurements of the stellar radial velocity are also presented. All
70: the data are combined and integrated with stellar-evolutionary
71: modeling to derive refined system parameters. The planet's mass and
72: radius are found to be $3.212_{-0.082}^{+0.069}$~$M_{\rm Jup}$ and
73: $1.023_{-0.055}^{+0.070}$~$R_{\rm Jup}$. The corresponding stellar
74: properties are $1.263_{-0.047}^{+0.035}$~$M_\sun$ and
75: $1.446_{-0.067}^{+0.099}$~$R_\odot$. The planet is smaller by
76: 1$\sigma$ than a theoretical solar-composition gas giant with the
77: same mass and equilibrium temperature, a possible indication of
78: heavy-element enrichment. The midtransit time is measured to within
79: 1~min, and shows no deviation from a linear ephemeris (and therefore
80: no evidence for orbital perturbations from other planets). We
81: provide ephemerides for future transits and superior
82: conjunctions. There is an 18\% chance that the orbital plane is
83: oriented close enough to edge-on for secondary eclipses to occur at
84: superior conjunction. Observations of secondary eclipses would
85: reveal the thermal emission spectrum of a planet that experiences
86: unusually large tidal heating and insolation variations.
87:
88: \end{abstract}
89:
90: \keywords{planetary systems --- stars:~individual (HD~17156)}
91:
92: \section{Introduction}
93:
94: It is possible to estimate the mass and radius of a transiting planet
95: using a combination of photometry, Doppler data, and stellar modeling,
96: just as has long been done for eclipsing binary stars (Vogel
97: 1890). Some aspects of the planetary orbit and atmosphere can also be
98: measured through high-precision transit photometry and spectroscopy
99: (see, e.g., Charbonneau et al.~2007, Seager 2008, Winn 2008). These
100: opportunities are more likely to occur for short-period planets,
101: because the probability for a randomly-oriented orbit to be viewed
102: close enough to edge-on for transits declines as $P^{-2/3}$. This
103: explains why all but one of the known transiting planets have periods
104: smaller than 10~days.
105:
106: The exception is HD~17156b, for which $P=21.2$~days. This planet was
107: discovered in a Doppler survey by Fischer et al.~(2007). The
108: probability for transits to occur was larger than one might have
109: guessed based only on the period, because the planet is near
110: pericenter at the time of inferior conjunction (see, e.g., Burke~2008,
111: Barnes~2008, or Kane \& von Braun~2008), and indeed transits were
112: discovered by Barbieri et al.~(2007). The relatively long period,
113: along with the large orbital eccentricity of 0.67, presents an
114: interesting opportunity to study the planetary atmospheric response to
115: strongly time-variable heating by the parent star (Langton \& Laughlin
116: 2007). However, the long period also presents a challenge to
117: observers. From a given site, there are only 2-3 good opportunities
118: each year to observe a complete transit. Irwin et al.~(2008), Narita
119: et al.~(2008), and Gillon et al.~(2008) observed the photometric
120: transits of Oct.~1, Nov.~12, and Dec.~3, 2007, respectively. They were
121: able to improve upon the precision of the system parameters given
122: originally by Barbieri et al.~(2007), but left further scope for
123: improvement through higher-precision photometry.
124:
125: In this paper we present photometry of the transit of Dec.~25, 2007
126: based on observations with 4 different telescopes. We also present 10
127: new measurements of the Doppler shift of the host star, gathered
128: outside of transits. We analyze all of these data to refine the
129: estimates of the system parameters, using similar techniques to those
130: we have applied previously as part of the Transit Light Curve (TLC)
131: project (Holman et al.~2006, Winn et al.~2007) and that were recently
132: applied to a sample of 23 planets by Torres et al.~(2008). The
133: observations and data reduction are described in \S~2. The data
134: analysis is described in \S~3. In \S~4, the results of the data
135: analysis are used together with other observed stellar properties and
136: stellar evolutionary models to determine the properties of the star
137: and planet. All of the results are summarized in \S~5, and potential
138: future studies are discussed.
139:
140: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
141:
142: \subsection{Out-of-transit radial velocities}
143:
144: Fischer et al.~(2007) reported 33 measurements of the radial velocity
145: (RV) of HD~17156 over a time range from January 2006 to February
146: 2007. Of these, 9 velocities were obtained with the Subaru~8m
147: telescope and HDS spectrograph, with a precision of approximately
148: 5~m~s$^{-1}$. The other 24 velocities were based on observations with
149: the Keck~I 10m telescope and HIRES spectrograph (Vogt et al.~1994),
150: with a precision of 1-2~m~s$^{-1}$.
151:
152: To these, we add 10 new Keck/HIRES velocities with 1-2~m~s$^{-1}$
153: precision that were obtained between August 2007 and March 2008. The
154: new data are based on observations with the same telescope,
155: instrument, and setup as the previous Keck observations. In particular
156: we employed an iodine gas absorption cell to calibrate the
157: instrumental profile and wavelength scale. To maintain a consistent
158: signal-to-noise ratio of about 200 per resolution element, we employed
159: the HIRES exposure meter, which uses a pickoff mirror to direct a
160: small fraction of the starlight to a photomultiplier tube and monitors
161: the exposure level as a function of time (Kibrick et al.~2006).
162:
163: All 34 of the Keck/HIRES velocities were re-measured based on an
164: improved reduction of the raw CCD images and a refined version of the
165: algorithm of Butler et al.\ (1996), including the use of a new stellar
166: template. (The stellar template, an important ingredient in the
167: deconvolution algorithm of Butler et al.~1996, is an observation of
168: the target star obtained without the iodine cell and with a higher
169: signal-to-noise ratio and higher resolution than the rest of the
170: spectra.) The resulting velocities are given in
171: Table~\ref{tbl:rv}. For convenience, this table also includes the
172: Subaru/HDS velocities reported previously. Fig.~\ref{fig:rv} shows the
173: radial velocities as a function of orbital phase, using the ephemeris
174: derived in \S~3.
175:
176: \begin{figure}[p]
177: \epsscale{1.0}
178: \plotone{f1.eps}
179: \caption{ Radial velocity (RV) variation of HD~17156. {\it Top.}---The
180: measured RVs as a function of orbital phase, expressed
181: in days since midtransit. {\it Bottom.}---Differences between
182: the observed and calculated RVs, using the model described
183: in \S~3.3. The root-mean-squared (RMS) residual is 3.8~m~s$^{-1}$.
184: \label{fig:rv}}
185: \end{figure}
186:
187: \begin{deluxetable}{ccr@{.}lc}
188:
189: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
190: \tablecaption{Relative Radial Velocities (RV) of HD~17156\label{tbl:rv}}
191: \tablewidth{0pt}
192:
193: \tablehead{
194: \colhead{Observatory Code\tablenotemark{a}} &
195: \colhead{Heliocentric Julian Date} &
196: \multicolumn{2}{c}{RV~[m~s$^{-1}$]} &
197: \colhead{Measurement Uncertainty~[m~s$^{-1}$]}
198: }
199:
200: \startdata
201: \input table_rv.tex
202: \enddata
203:
204: \tablenotetext{a}{
205: (1) Keck/HIRES.
206: (2) Subaru/HDS.
207: }
208:
209: \tablecomments{The time stamps represent the Heliocentric Julian Date
210: at the time of midexposure.}
211:
212: \end{deluxetable}
213:
214: \subsection{Transit photometry}
215:
216: We observed the transit of UT~25~December~2007 (JD~2454459) using
217: telescopes at two different observatories in Arizona: the Fred
218: L.~Whipple Observatory (FLWO) and Fairborn Observatory. The Moon was
219: full. The weather was generally clear over both observatories,
220: although there were some light clouds and transparency variations.
221:
222: At FLWO, we used the 1.2m telescope and Keplercam, a $4096^2$ CCD with
223: a $23\arcmin \times 23\arcmin$ field of view (Szentgyorgyi et
224: al.~2005). The images were binned $2\times 2$, giving a scale of
225: $0\farcs 68$ per binned pixel. We obtained 10~s exposures though a
226: $z$-band filter for 6.5~hr bracketing the predicted midtransit
227: time. The telescope was defocused to avoid significant nonlinearity
228: and saturation, giving a typical full width at half-maximum (FWHM) of
229: stellar images of 4$\arcsec$ (6~pixels). The time between exposures
230: was 11~s due to readout and reset operations. Autoguiding failures led
231: to pointing drifts of 10~pixels in right ascension and 40~pixels in
232: declination over the course of the night. During the observations the
233: target rose from airmass 1.34 to 1.30 (reaching the meridian at
234: HJD~2454459.67) and then set to airmass 1.64.
235:
236: We used standard IRAF procedures for overscan correction, trimming,
237: bias subtraction, flat-field division, and aperture photometry of
238: HD~17156 and 32 other stars in the field of view (all necessarily
239: fainter than HD~17156). We created a reference signal by combining the
240: normalized light curves of the different comparison stars, and divided
241: the flux history of HD~17156 by this reference signal. We experimented
242: with different choices for the aperture size, combinations of the
243: comparison stars, and weighting schemes for combining the normalized
244: light curves, aiming to minimize the standard deviation of the
245: out-of-transit portion of the light curve. Best results were obtained
246: when the aperture diameter was 15~pixels and the comparison light
247: curves were weighted by the square root of the mean flux.
248:
249: At Fairborn Observatory, we used 3 independent telescopes: the T8,
250: T10, and T11~0.8m automated photometric telescopes (APTs). All of the
251: APTs are equipped with two temperature-stabilized EMI~9124QB
252: photomultiplier tubes for measuring photon count rates simultaneously
253: through Str\"omgren $b$ and $y$ filters. Each telescope nodded back
254: and forth between HD~17156 ($V=8.17$, $B-V=0.64$) and the comparison
255: star HD~15784 ($V=6.64$, $B-V=0.64$), which was found to be constant
256: in brightness by Fischer et al.~(2007). The T8, T10, and T11 APTs
257: obtained 170, 190, and 200 observations of both stars, respectively,
258: over a period 7.2 hours. From these measurements, we computed a total
259: of 560 target-minus-comparison differential magnitudes in each $b$ and
260: $y$ photometric band. The time series was trimmed to 523 points to
261: eliminate bad data taken at the highest airmass. To increase the
262: signal-to-noise ratio in the resulting light curves, we averaged the
263: $b$ and $y$ passbands together, resulting in a synthetic $(b+y)/2$
264: passband.
265:
266: %\clearpage
267: \begin{figure}[p]
268: \epsscale{1.0}
269: \plotone{f2.eps}
270: \caption{ Relative photometry of HD~17156 on UT~25~Dec~2007, along
271: with the best-fitting model.
272: {\it Top}.---Data from the T8, T10, and
273: T11~0.8m automated photometric telescopes at Fairborn Observatory,
274: in the ``$(b+y)/2$'' band (the Str\"omgren $b$ and $y$ data were
275: averaged). The median time interval between data points is 43~s. The
276: standard deviation of the out-of-transit (OOT) data and of the residuals are 0.00214
277: and 0.00213, respectively.
278: {\it Bottom}.---Data from the Fred
279: L.~Whipple 1.2m telescope and Keplercam, in the $z$ band. The median
280: time interval between data points is 24~s. The standard deviation of
281: the OOT data and of the residuals are 0.00233 and 0.00206, respectively.
282: \label{fig:phot}}
283: \end{figure}
284:
285: The FLWO and APT light curves were corrected for differing airmass
286: extinction between the target star and comparison stars, by fitting
287: the observed magnitudes to a linear function of airmass (see
288: Eqn.~\ref{eq:extinction}). The parameters of the linear function were
289: determined simultaneously with the other model parameters, as
290: described in \S~3. The extinction-corrected data are given in
291: Table~\ref{tbl:phot}, and plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:phot}, along with
292: the best-fitting model. For the APT data, the standard deviation of
293: the out-of-transit (OOT) data and of the residuals are 0.00214 and
294: 0.00213, respectively. The corresponding figures for the FLWO data
295: are 0.00233 and 0.00206, respectively. For both light curves, the
296: expected photometric precision due only to Poisson noise and
297: scintillation noise (using the empirical formulas of Reiger~1963,
298: Young~1967 and Dravins~1998) is about 50\% smaller than the OOT
299: standard deviation, with the dominant contribution arising from
300: scintillation noise. It is possible that the scintillation noise was
301: higher than the empirical and highly approximate formula predicts. It
302: is also likely that there are additional noise sources such as
303: transparency variations beyond the simple dependence on airmass.
304:
305: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
306:
307: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
308: \tablecaption{Relative Photometry of HD~17156\label{tbl:phot}}
309: \tablewidth{0pt}
310:
311: \tablehead{
312: \colhead{Observatory Code\tablenotemark{a}} &
313: \colhead{Heliocentric Julian Date} &
314: \colhead{Relative flux}
315: }
316:
317: \startdata
318: %\input table_phot.tex
319: $ 1$ & $ 2454459.56340$ & $ 1.0041$ \\
320: $ 1$ & $ 2454459.56360$ & $ 1.0019$ \\
321: $ 1$ & $ 2454459.56490$ & $ 1.0017$ \\
322: $ 1$ & $ 2454459.56500$ & $ 1.0006$ \\
323: $ 1$ & $ 2454459.56630$ & $ 0.9954$ \\
324: $ 1$ & $ 2454459.56650$ & $ 1.0005$ \\
325: $ 1$ & $ 2454459.56800$ & $ 1.0016$ \\
326: $ 1$ & $ 2454459.56920$ & $ 0.9964$ \\
327: $ 1$ & $ 2454459.57060$ & $ 0.9974$ \\
328: $ 1$ & $ 2454459.57090$ & $ 1.0018$ \\
329: $ 1$ & $ 2454459.57210$ & $ 1.0009$ \\
330: $ 1$ & $ 2454459.57230$ & $ 1.0011$
331: \enddata
332:
333: \tablenotetext{a}{
334: (1) T8, T10, and T11 APT 0.8m telescopes, Fairborn Observatory, Arizona, USA.
335: (2) Fred L.~Whipple Observatory 1.2m telescope, Arizona, USA.
336: }
337:
338: \tablecomments{The time stamps represent the Heliocentric Julian Date
339: at the time of mid-exposure. We intend for this Table to appear in
340: entirety in the electronic version of the journal. An excerpt is
341: shown here to illustrate its format. The data are also available
342: from the authors upon request.}
343:
344: \end{deluxetable}
345:
346: \section{Analysis of radial-velocity and photometric data}
347:
348: At the heart of our analysis was a simultaneous fit of a parametric
349: model to the new light curves and the available radial-velocity
350: data. In \S~3.1 we describe the model and fitting procedures. In
351: \S~3.2 we provide more detail about the photometric noise and how it
352: was modeled. In \S~3.3 we discuss the determination of midtransit
353: times and a new transit ephemeris. In \S~4 we explain how the data
354: analysis was integrated with stellar evolutionary models to determine
355: the final system parameters.
356:
357: \subsection{Joint radial velocity and photometric analysis}
358:
359: The model is based on a two-body Keplerian orbit, with the loss of
360: light during transits given by the formulae of Mandel \&
361: Agol~(2002). The orbit is parameterized by the semi-amplitude ($K$),
362: period ($P$), midtransit time ($T_c$)\footnote{Since the orbit of
363: HD~17156b is highly eccentric, the definition of $T_c$ requires some
364: care. Here we define it as the time when the projected planet-star
365: separation is smallest, which is also the time of minimum light for
366: a limb-darkened star. This is to be distinguished from other
367: possible definitions, such as the halfway point between first and
368: last contact, or the moment when the true anomaly $f$ of the
369: planetary orbit is equal to $\pi/2-\omega$.}, inclination ($i$),
370: eccentricity ($e$), and argument of pericenter ($\omega$). The
371: coordinate system is chosen such that $i<90^\circ$ and the longitude
372: of nodes is zero.
373:
374: Additional parameters relevant to the photometric data are the
375: planet-to-star radius ratio ($R_p/R_\star$), the semimajor axis in
376: units of the stellar radius ($a/R_\star$), and the limb-darkening
377: coefficients ($u_1$ and $u_2$) for each light curve. We assumed a
378: quadratic limb-darkening law,
379: \begin{equation}
380: \frac{I_\mu}{I_1} = 1 - u_1(1-\mu) - u_2(1-\mu)^2,
381: \end{equation}
382: where $\mu$ is the cosine of the angle between the line of sight and
383: the normal to the stellar surface, and $I_\mu$ is the specific
384: intensity. In many studies of transiting planets, the limb-darkening
385: coefficients are often held fixed at values deemed appropriate for the
386: host star, based on stellar-atmosphere models. However, when the data
387: are sufficiently precise it is preferable to fit for the coefficients,
388: as recently emphasized by Southworth~(2008). This is because the model
389: atmospheres might be wrong, and at least are uncertain to some
390: degree. Neglecting this uncertainty leads to underestimated errors in
391: all parameters that are covariant with the limb-darkening
392: coefficients, namely $R_p/R_\star$, $R_\star/a$, and $i$. For this
393: study we allowed $u_1$ and $u_2$ to vary freely subject only to the
394: conditions $u_1+u_2<1$ (nonnegative intensity at the limb),
395: $u_1+u_2>0$ (fainter at the limb than the center), and $u_1>0$
396: (maximum intensity at the center). It proved advantageous to perform
397: the fit using the linear combinations
398: \begin{equation}
399: v_1 = u_1 + \frac{7}{5}u_2,~~v_2 = -\frac{7}{5}u_1 + u_2,
400: \end{equation}
401: because $v_1$ and $v_2$ have nearly uncorrelated errors (for further
402: discussion, see P\'al~2008).
403:
404: The model also has 6 nuisance parameters. For each of the two RV data
405: sets there is an additive constant velocity ($\gamma_K$ for Keck/HIRES
406: and $\gamma_S$ for Subaru/HDS). For each of the two light curves there
407: are the parameters $m_0$ and $k$ of the differential extinction
408: correction,
409: \begin{equation}
410: \label{eq:extinction}
411: m_{\rm cor} = m_{\rm obs} + m_0 + kz,
412: \end{equation}
413: where $m_{\rm obs}$ is the observed magnitude, $m_{\rm cor}$ is the
414: corrected magnitude, and $z$ is the airmass.
415:
416: All together there were 18 parameters: $K$, $P$, $T_c$, $i$, $e$,
417: $\omega$, $R_p/R_\star$, $a/R_\star$, an additive velocity for each of
418: two RV data sets, two limb-darkening coefficients $u_1$ and $u_2$ for
419: each of two bandpasses, and two parameters $m_0$ and $k$ for each of
420: two bandpasses to describe the correction for differential airmass
421: extinction. The fitting statistic was
422: \begin{equation}
423: \label{eq:chi2}
424: \chi^2 = \chi^2_F + \chi^2_V + \chi^2_T,
425: \end{equation}
426: with the terms defined as follows. The first term is based on the fit
427: to the photometric data:
428: \begin{equation}
429: \chi^2_F = \sum_{i=1}^{1372} \left[ \frac{f_i({\rm obs}) - f_i({\rm calc})}{\sigma_{f,i}} \right]^2,
430: \label{eq:chi2_flux}
431: \end{equation}
432: where $f_i$(obs) is the $i$th measured flux (photometric data point),
433: $f_i$(calc) is the calculated flux given a particular choice of model
434: parameters, and $\sigma_{f,i}$ is the uncertainty in the $i$th
435: measured flux. The choice of $\sigma_{f,i}$ is nontrivial and is
436: discussed in \S~3.2. Here we simply state our choice to take
437: $\sigma_{f,i}$ to be a constant for each light curve given by
438: $\sigma_{f,i} = \beta \sigma_{\rm res}$, where $\sigma_{\rm res}$ is
439: the standard deviation of the flux residuals, and $\beta \geq 1$ is a
440: factor intended to account for time-correlated errors. For the APT
441: light curve, $\sigma_{\rm res} = 0.00213$ and $\beta=1.03$, giving an
442: effective uncertainty per point of 0.0022. For the FLWO light curve,
443: $\sigma_{\rm res} = 0.00207$ and $\beta=1.28$, giving an effective
444: uncertainty per point of 0.0026.
445:
446: The second term in Eqn.~(\ref{eq:chi2}) is based on the fit to the RV
447: data:
448: \begin{equation}
449: \chi^2_V = \sum_{i=1}^{43} \left[ \frac{V_i({\rm obs}) - V_i({\rm calc})}{\sigma_{V,i}} \right]^2,
450: \end{equation}
451: where $V_i$(obs) and $V_i$(calc) are the $i$th observed and calculated
452: RVs, and $\sigma_{V,i}$ is the corresponding uncertainty. For
453: $\sigma_{V,i}$, we used the quadrature sum of the measurement
454: uncertainty given in Table~\ref{tbl:rv} and a constant $\sigma_{V,0} =
455: 3.4$~m~s$^{-1}$ intended to account for stellar ``jitter,'' excess
456: noise that is usually attributed to motions of the stellar
457: photosphere. This choice resulted in a reduced $\chi^2_V$ of unity
458: when fitting the RV data only, and it is consistent with observations
459: of other stars of similar type (Wright 2005).
460:
461: The third term in Eqn.~(\ref{eq:chi2}) is an {\it a priori}\,
462: constraint enforcing the transit ephemeris that is derived in \S~3.3.
463: Specifically,
464: \begin{equation}
465: \label{eq:chi2-t}
466: \chi^2_T = \left[ \frac{P~{\rm (days)} - 21.21688}{0.00044} \right]^2 +
467: \left[ \frac{T_c~{\rm (HJD)} - 2,454,459.69987}{0.00045} \right]^2.
468: \end{equation}
469: The central values of $P$ and $T_c$, and their uncertainties, are
470: derived in \S~3.3 based on observations of 5 different transits
471: spanning 106~days. They are more precise than could be derived
472: internally from only the RV data, the APT data, and the FLWO data that
473: are fitted here; hence during this step we treated $P$ and $T_c$ as
474: externally measured quantities. Since the transit ephemeris is based
475: in part on the midtransit times of the APT and FLWO light curves, we
476: used an iterative procedure: first, a previously published ephemeris
477: was used in Eqn.~(\ref{eq:chi2-t}); second, the midtransit times based
478: on the APT and FLWO light curves were determined as in \S~3.3; and
479: third, the ephemeris was re-derived and used in the next iteration of
480: the fit to the RV and photometric data. Further iterations were
481: performed but made no appreciable difference in the results.
482:
483: We used a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm to estimate the
484: best-fitting model parameters and their uncertainties (see, e.g.,
485: Appendix A of Tegmark et al.~2004). This algorithm creates a sequence
486: of points (a ``chain'') in parameter space by iterating a jump
487: function, which in our case was the addition of a Gaussian random
488: deviate to a randomly-selected single parameter. After this operation,
489: if the new point has a lower $\chi^2$ than the previous point, the
490: ``jump'' is executed: the new point is added to the chain. If not,
491: then the jump is executed with a probability proportional to
492: $\exp(-\Delta\chi^2/2)$. If the jump is not executed, the current
493: point is repeated in the chain. The sizes of the random deviates are
494: set to values for which $\sim$40\% of jumps are executed. After
495: creating multiple chains to check for mutual convergence, and trimming
496: off the initial segments to eliminate artifacts of the initial
497: condition, the density of the chain's points in parameter space is
498: taken to be the joint {\it a posteriori}\, probability distribution of
499: the parameter values. Probability distributions for individual
500: parameters are created by marginalizing over all other parameters. For
501: each parameter we report the mode of the distribution and the 68.3\%
502: confidence limits, defined by the 15.85\% percentile and the 84.15\%
503: percentile in the cumulative distribution.
504:
505: The results are given in Table~\ref{tbl:params}, with the designation
506: A in the last column. The entries designated B are those that are
507: drawn from other works and are repeated here for convenience. The
508: entries designated C are based on a synthesis of our modeling results
509: and theoretical models of stellar evolution, as discussed in
510: \S~4. The results for the limb-darkening parameters are given
511: separately, in Table~\ref{tbl:ld}.
512:
513: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
514: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
515: \tablecaption{System Parameters of HD~17156\label{tbl:params}}
516: \tablewidth{0pt}
517:
518: \tablehead{
519: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value} & \colhead{68.3\% Conf.~Limits} & \colhead{Comment}
520: }
521:
522: \startdata
523: {\it Transit and orbital parameters:} & & & \\
524: Orbital period, $P$~[d] & $21.21688$ & $\pm 0.00044$ & A \\
525: Midtransit time~[HJD] & $2454459.69987$ & $\pm 0.00045$ & A \\
526: Planet-to-star radius ratio, $R_p/R_\star$ & $0.0727$ & $\pm 0.0016$ & A \\
527: Orbital inclination, $i$~[deg] & $86.2$ & $-0.8$, $+2.1$ & A \\
528: Scaled semimajor axis, $a/R_\star$ & $22.8$ & $-1.7$, $+2.2$ & A \\
529: Transit impact parameter, $b_{\rm I}$ & $0.55$ & $-0.29$, $+0.03$ & A \\
530: Transit duration~[hr] & $3.177$ & $-0.041$, $+0.071$ & A \\
531: Transit ingress or egress duration~[hr] & $0.25$ & $-0.026$, $+0.078$ & A \\
532: Velocity semiamplitude, $K$~[m~s$^{-1}$] & $272.7$ & $\pm 2.1$ & A \\
533: Orbital eccentricity, $e$ & $0.6753$ & $\pm 0.0036$ & A \\
534: Argument of pericenter, $\omega$~[deg] & $121.64$ & $\pm 0.48$ & A \\
535: Planet-to-star mass ratio, $M_p/M_\star$ & $0.00244$ & $\pm 0.000029$ & C \\
536: Semimajor axis~[AU] & $0.1623$ & $-0.0020$, $+0.0015$ & C \\
537: & & & \\
538: {\it Stellar parameters:} & & & \\
539: Mass, $M_\star$~[M$_{\odot}$] & $1.263$ & $-0.047$, $+0.035$ & C \\
540: Radius, $R_\star$~[R$_{\odot}$] & $1.446$ & $-0.067$, $+0.099$ & C \\
541: Surface gravity, $\log g_\star$~[cgs] & $4.219$ & $-0.055$, $+0.033$ & C \\
542: Mean density, $\rho_\star$~[g~cm$^{-3}$] & $0.589$ & $-0.103$, $+0.066$ & A \\
543: Effective temperature, $T_{\rm eff}$~[K] & $6079$ & $\pm 80$ & B \\
544: Metallicity, [Fe/H] & $+0.24$ & $\pm 0.05$ & B \\
545: Projected rotation rate, $v\sin i_\star$~[km~s$^{-1}$] & $2.6$ & $\pm 0.5$ & B \\
546: Luminosity [L$_\odot$] & $2.55$ & $-0.32$, $+0.24$ & C \\
547: Absolute $V$ magnitude & $3.78$ & $-0.27$,$+0.23$ & C \\
548: Age [Gyr] & $3.06$ & $-0.76$, $+0.64$ & C \\
549: & & & \\
550: {\it Planetary parameters:} & & & \\
551: $M_p$~[M$_{\rm Jup}$] & $3.212$ & $-0.082$,$+0.069$ & C \\
552: $R_p$~[R$_{\rm Jup}$] & $1.023$ & $-0.055$,$+0.070$ & C \\
553: Surface gravity, $g_p$~[m~s$^{-2}$] & $76.1$ & $-9.0$,$+7.3$ & A \\
554: Mean density, $\rho_p$~[g~cm$^{-3}$] & $3.72$ & $\pm 0.67$ & C \\
555: \enddata
556:
557: \tablecomments{ (A) Based on the joint analysis of photometric and RV
558: data (see \S~3.1-3.3). (B) From Fischer et al.~(2007), with enlarged
559: error bars for $T_{\rm eff}$ and [Fe/H]. (C) Functions of group A
560: and B parameters, supplemented as needed by an isochrone analysis
561: (see \S~4), the Tycho-2 apparent magnitudes (H{\o}g et al.~2000),
562: and {\it Hipparcos}\, parallax of $\pi=13.34\pm 0.72$~mas (van
563: Leeuwen 2007). }
564:
565: \end{deluxetable}
566:
567: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
568: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
569: \tablecaption{Fitted Limb-Darkening Coefficients for HD~17156\label{tbl:ld}}
570: \tablewidth{0pt}
571:
572: \tablehead{
573: \colhead{Bandpass} & \colhead{Linear Coefficient ($u_1$)} & \colhead{Quadratic Coefficient ($u_2$)}
574: }
575:
576: \startdata
577: $z$ & $0.13_{-0.06}^{+0.30}$ & $0.00_{-0.13}^{+0.25}$ \\
578: $(b+y)/2$ & $0.21_{-0.10}^{+0.42}$ & $0.64_{-0.51}^{+0.13}$
579: \enddata
580:
581: \end{deluxetable}
582:
583: \subsection{Photometric noise analysis}
584:
585: Deriving reliable uncertainties in the system parameters requires a
586: realistic treatment of the photometric noise. In this work, as in
587: others, we have based our analysis on a $\chi^2$ statistic that
588: implicitly treats the noise as independent and identically-distributed
589: Gaussian random variables added to each datum. This is because simple
590: and fast statistical methods are applicable in that case, and because
591: there is no clear alternative. Unfortunately, precise photometry is
592: often plagued with time-correlated (``red'') noise, which is probably
593: responsible for the frequent disagreements between reported values of
594: photometric parameters in the literature. It is advisable to attempt
595: to justify the common assumption of independent Gaussian noise, or at
596: least to gain some understanding of the limitations of that
597: assumption.\footnote{In this vein we quote an email from G.~Kovacs:
598: ``Identifying the `red noise component' (whatever it means) in a
599: single realization of a rather limited time series (such as
600: photometric followup data) is a mission impossible.''}.
601:
602: To investigate the noise in our light curves, we performed some tests
603: on the residuals. The top two panels in Fig.~\ref{fig:noise} show the
604: residuals for the two independent light curves. The second row shows
605: histograms of the residuals, which are approximately Gaussian. The
606: third row shows the autocorrelation of the residuals as a function of
607: the lag,
608: \begin{equation}
609: A(l) = \frac
610: {\sum_{i=0}^{N-l-1} (r_i-\bar{r})(r_{i+l}-\bar{r})}
611: {\sum_{i=0}^{N-1} (r_i-\bar{r})^2},
612: \end{equation}
613: where $N$ is the number of data points, $r_i$ is the $i$th residual
614: flux (measured flux minus calculated flux) and $\bar{r}$ is the mean
615: residual flux. The autocorrelations are $\lesssim$0.1. The fourth row
616: shows the Allan deviation $\sigma_A(l)$ of the residuals, where
617: $\sigma_A$ is defined by (Allan 1964; Thompson, Moran, \& Swensen
618: 2001)
619: \begin{equation}
620: \sigma_A^2(l) = \frac{1}{2(N+1-l)} \sum_{n=0}^{N-2l} \left[
621: \frac{1}{l} \sum_{m=0}^{l} \left( r_{n+m}-r_{n+l+m} \right)
622: \right]^2,
623: \end{equation}
624: where $N$ is the number of data points, $r_i$ denotes the $i$th
625: residual, and $l$ is the lag. The Allan deviation is commonly used in
626: the time metrology literature to assess 1/$f$ noise. The solid lines
627: show the dependence $\sigma_A\propto l^{-1/2}$ that is expected of
628: white Gaussian noise. The data fall close to these lines. The bottom
629: row of panels shows the standard deviation of the time-binned
630: residuals, as a function of the number of data points per
631: bin. Specifically, we averaged the residuals into $m$ bins of $n$
632: points and calculated the standard deviation $\sigma_n$ of the binned
633: residuals. In the absence of red noise, one would expect
634: \begin{equation}
635: \label{eq:beta}
636: \sigma_n = \frac{\sigma_1}{n^{1/2}} \left( \frac{m}{m-1} \right)^{1/2},
637: \end{equation}
638: but in reality $\sigma_n$ is larger than this expression by a factor
639: $\beta$. In general $\beta$ depends on $m$ but the dependence is weak.
640: For bin sizes ranging from 10-30~min (the most important timescale of
641: the transit light curve) the mean value of $\beta$ is $1.03$ for the
642: APT light curve and $1.28$ for the FLWO light curve. Apparently the
643: APT residuals average down as one would expect of white noise, while
644: the FLWO residuals are correlated to some degree.
645:
646: As stated above, our $\chi^2$-based method is strictly appropriate
647: only for uncorrelated errors. One might imagine modifying the
648: definition of $\chi^2_F$ to employ the full covariance matrix of the
649: errors rather than assuming independent errors. However, given that
650: there is little structure in the autocorrelation functions to provide
651: guidance on how to model the covariance matrix, and that the
652: correlations seem small, we account for correlated noise in a simple
653: and approximate fashion: we assign a photometric error bar of
654: $\sigma_{f,i} = \beta \sigma_{\rm res}$ to each data point, where
655: $\sigma_{\rm res}$ is the standard deviation of the residuals. The
656: choice $\beta=1$ is essentially equivalent the common procedure of
657: assuming equal errors for all data points and scaling the error bars
658: such that $\chi^2/N_{\rm dof} = 1$. We used $\beta=1.03$ for the APT
659: data and $\beta=1.28$ for the FLWO data.
660:
661: \begin{figure}[p]
662: \epsscale{0.8}
663: \plotone{f3.eps}
664: \caption{ Photometric noise analysis. The left column
665: applies to the APT $(b+y)/2$ data, and the right column
666: applies to the FLWO~1.2m $z$ data.
667: {\it First row.}---Residuals from the best-fitting
668: model (observed$-$calculated).
669: {\it Second row.}---Histogram of the residuals.
670: {\it Third row.}---Autocorrelation of the residuals
671: as a function of the lag.
672: {\it Fourth row.}---Allan deviation of the residuals,
673: as a function of the lag. The straight line shows
674: the $l^{-1/2}$ dependence that is expected of
675: white Gaussian noise.
676: {\it Fifth row.}---Standard deviation of time-binned
677: residuals, as a function of the number of data points
678: per bin. The straight line shows the expectation
679: for white Gaussian noise (see Eqn.~\ref{eq:beta}).
680: \label{fig:noise}}
681: \end{figure}
682:
683: \subsection{Midtransit times}
684: \label{sec:ttv}
685:
686: Measurements of midtransit times are important for refining the
687: transit ephemeris and thereby enabling accurate predictions for future
688: observations, and also for searching for satellites and additional
689: planets via the method of Holman \& Murray~(2005) and Agol et
690: al.~(2005). We determined the midtransit time from each light curve
691: using 3 different methods to check for consistency: the MCMC algorithm
692: described in \S~3.1, and two different bootstrap analyses described
693: below. All of these methods rely on the photometric transit model and
694: the computation of $\chi^2_F$. Besides $T_c$, the only other variable
695: parameters were the slope ($k$) and offset ($m_0$) of the differential
696: extinction correction. These were the only other parameters covariant
697: with the midtransit time. All other parameters needed to specify the
698: transit model were held fixed at the best-fitting values.
699:
700: The first bootstrap method was ``random draws with replacement''
701: (Press et al.\ 1992, p.~689). It involves minimizing $\chi^2_F$ as a
702: function of the parameters for $10^4$ synthetic data sets, each of
703: which has the same number of data points as the real data. Each entry
704: in a synthetic data set is a datum (a time stamp and relative flux)
705: drawn randomly from the real data set, with repetitions allowed. Thus,
706: a substantial fraction of the entries in each synthetic data set are
707: duplicated at least once and receive greater weight in $\chi^2_F$
708: sum. The idea is to estimate the noise properties of the data using
709: the observed data values themselves, rather than choosing models for
710: the underlying physical process and for the noise. However, an
711: underlying assumption is that the errors are uncorrelated and
712: identically distributed. The distribution of results for $T_c$ is
713: taken to be the probability density for the midtransit time.
714:
715: The second bootstrap method was ``residual permutation.'' It is
716: similar to the method just described but the synthetic data sets are
717: created differently. The residuals of the best-fitting model are added
718: back to the model light curve after performing a cyclic permutation of
719: their time indices. With $N$ data points, one may create $N-1$
720: synthetic data sets in this manner. Another $N-1$ may be created by
721: inverting the time order of the residuals and then performing cyclic
722: permutations. The idea is again to use the data themselves to estimate
723: the noise properties, but this time without assuming that the errors
724: are uncorrelated. The correlations between residuals at different
725: times are preserved. The distribution of results for $T_c$ is taken to
726: be the probability density for the midtransit time. A disadvantage of
727: this method is that only $2(N-1)$ realizations can be generated
728: without further assumptions, and therefore the distribution is
729: relatively noisy.
730:
731: The results from all 3 methods are given in
732: Table~\ref{tbl:compare-methods}. As before, the quoted values are the
733: modes of the probability distributions and the quoted error bars range
734: from the 15.85\% percentile to the 84.15\% percentile. The
735: distributions are symmetric in all cases, and are nearly Gaussian for
736: the MCMC and random-draws methods. The residual-permutation method
737: produced distributions with broader wings than a Gaussian
738: function. For each light curve, the results from all 3 methods are in
739: agreement within 0.15$\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is the error in the MCMC
740: method. The bootstrap method gave the smallest error bars, as one
741: might expect, given that the bootstrap method ignores correlated
742: noise. (The bootstrap-derived error bar is smaller than the
743: MCMC-derived error bar by approximately the ``red noise'' factor
744: $\beta$.) In what follows, we adopt the MCMC results for concreteness
745: and for consistency with our previous analyses. The error bars on the
746: midtransit times derived from the FLWO and APT light curves are
747: 1.1~min and 0.9~min, and the difference between the results is
748: 1.0~min. This level of agreement is a consistency check on the
749: accuracy of our error bars.
750:
751: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
752: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
753: \tablecaption{Comparison of Methods for Measuring Midtransit Times\label{tbl:compare-methods}}
754: \tablewidth{0pt}
755:
756: \tablehead{
757: \colhead{Analysis method} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Midtransit time~[HJD]} \\
758: \colhead{} & \colhead{FLWO} & \colhead{APT}
759: }
760:
761: \startdata
762: MCMC with $\beta>1$ & $ 2454459.70044 \pm 0.00075 $ & $2454459.69972 \pm 0.00065$ \\
763: Random draws with replacement & $ 2454459.70034 \pm 0.00054 $ & $2454459.69974 \pm 0.00063$ \\
764: Residual permutation & $ 2454459.70048 \pm 0.00090 $ & $2454459.69981 \pm 0.00095$
765: \enddata
766:
767: \end{deluxetable}
768:
769: We fitted a linear ephemeris, $T_c[E] = T_c[0] + EP$, to all of the
770: midtransit times at our disposal: namely, the APT and FLWO midtransit
771: times presented in this paper, and the 4 different midtransit times
772: reported by Barbieri et al.~(2007), Gillon et al.~(2008), Irwin et
773: al.~(2008), and Narita et al.~(2008). For convenience, all of the
774: midtransit times are given in Table~\ref{tbl:tc}. The results were
775: \begin{eqnarray}
776: T_c[0] & = & 2,454,459.69987 \pm 0.00045~{\rm [HJD]}, \label{eq:tc} \\
777: P & = & 21.21688 \pm 0.00044~{\rm days} \label{eq:p}.
778: \end{eqnarray}
779: The fit gives $\chi^2 = 1.99$ with 4 degrees of freedom, suggesting
780: that a constant period is consistent with the available data. A plot
781: of the timing residuals (observed$-$calculated midtransit times) is
782: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ttv}. There are no obvious anomalies at the
783: level of a few minutes.
784:
785: %\clearpage
786: \begin{figure}[ht]
787: \epsscale{1.0}
788: \plotone{f4.eps}
789: \caption{Transit timing residuals for HD~17156b. The calculated times,
790: using the ephemeris given in Eqns.~(\ref{eq:tc},\ref{eq:p}), have
791: been subtracted from the observed times.
792: \label{fig:ttv}}
793: \end{figure}
794: %\clearpage
795:
796: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
797: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
798: \tablecaption{Midtransit Times of HD~17156b\label{tbl:tc}}
799: \tablewidth{0pt}
800:
801: \tablehead{
802: \colhead{Heliocentric Julian Date} & \colhead{1$\sigma$ Uncertainty} & \colhead{Reference}
803: }
804:
805: \startdata
806: $2454353.61000$ & $0.02000$ & Barbieri et al.~(2007) \\
807: $2454438.48271$ & $0.00067$ & Gillon et al.~(2008) \\
808: $2454374.83380$ & $0.00200$ & Irwin et al.~(2008) \\
809: $2454417.26450$ & $0.00210$ & Narita et al.~(2008) \\
810: $2454459.70044$ & $0.00075$ & This work (FLWO) \\
811: $2454459.69972$ & $0.00065$ & This work (APT)
812: \enddata
813:
814: \end{deluxetable}
815:
816: \section{Theoretical isochrone fitting}
817:
818: The RV and photometric data do not uniquely determine the masses and
819: radii of the planet and the star. Some external information about the
820: star or the planet must be introduced to break the fitting
821: degeneracies $M_p \propto M_\star^{2/3}$ and $R_p \propto R_\star
822: \propto M_\star^{1/3}$ (see, e.g., Winn 2008). We broke these
823: degeneracies by requiring consistency between the observed properties
824: of the star, the stellar mean density $\rho_\star$ that can be derived
825: from the photometric parameter $a/R_\star$ (Seager \& Mallen-Ornelas
826: 2003, Sozzetti et al.~2007), and theoretical models of stellar
827: evolution. The inputs were $T_{\rm eff}=6079\pm 80$~K and
828: [Fe/H]~$=+0.24\pm 0.05$ (from Fischer et al.~2007 but with enlarged
829: error bars, as per Torres et al.~2008), the absolute
830: magnitude\footnote{The quoted $M_V$ is based on the transformation of
831: Tycho-2 apparent magnitudes (H{\o}g et al.~2000) to the Johnson $V$
832: band, giving $V=8.172\pm 0.012$, and the Hipparcos parallax of
833: $\pi=13.34\pm 0.72$~mas (van Leeuwen~2007). We have assumed
834: zero reddening.} $M_V=3.80\pm 0.12$,
835: the stellar mean density $\rho_\star =
836: 0.589_{-0.103}^{+0.066}$~g~cm$^{-3}$ derived from the results for the
837: $a/R_\star$ parameter, and the Yonsei-Yale (Y$^2$) stellar evolution
838: models by Yi et al.~(2001) and Demarque et al.~(2004). We computed
839: isochrones for the allowed range of metallicities, and for stellar
840: ages ranging from 0.1 to 14 Gyr. For each stellar property (mass,
841: radius, and age), we took a weighted average of the points on each
842: isochrone, in which the weights were proportional to
843: $\exp(-\Delta\chi^2_\star/2)$ with
844: \begin{equation}
845: \chi^2_\star =
846: \left[ \frac{\Delta{\rm [Fe/H]}}{\sigma_{{\rm [Fe/H]}}} \right]^2 +
847: \left[ \frac{\Delta T_{\rm eff}}{\sigma_{T_{\rm eff}}} \right]^2 +
848: \left[ \frac{\Delta \rho_\star}{\sigma_{\rho_\star}} \right]^2 +
849: \left[ \frac{\Delta M_V}{\sigma_{M_V}} \right]^2.
850: \end{equation}
851: Here, the $\Delta$ quantities denote the deviations between the
852: observed and calculated values at each point. The asymmetric error bar
853: in $\rho_\star$ was taken into account by using different values of
854: $\sigma_{\rho_\star}$ depending on the sign of the deviation. The
855: weights were further multiplied by a factor taking into account the
856: number density of stars along each isochrone, assuming a Salpeter mass
857: function. We used the same code as Torres et al.~(2008) and refer the
858: reader to that paper for further details.
859:
860: Through this analysis, we found $M_\star =
861: 1.263_{-0.047}^{+0.035}$~$M_\odot$, $R_\star =
862: 1.446_{-0.067}^{+0.099}$~$R_\odot$, and a stellar age of
863: $3.18_{-0.68}^{+0.52}$~Gyr. The corresponding planetary mass and
864: radius were obtained by merging the results for the stellar properties
865: with the parameters determined in our analysis of the RV and
866: photometric data. The results are $M_p =
867: 3.212_{-0.082}^{+0.069}$~$M_{\rm Jup}$ and $R_p =
868: 1.023_{-0.055}^{+0.070}$~$R_{\rm Jup}$. These values are also given in
869: Table~\ref{tbl:params}, along with the values for some other
870: interesting parameters that can be derived from the preceding results.
871:
872: As a consistency check, we computed the implied stellar surface
873: gravity and its uncertainty based on our analysis, finding $\log g =
874: 4.219_{-0.055}^{+0.033}$ where $g$ is in cm~s$^{-2}$. This agrees with
875: the spectroscopic determination of surface gravity, $\log g = 4.29 \pm
876: 0.06$ (Fischer et al.~2007), based on an analysis of the widths of
877: pressure-sensitive lines in the optical spectrum. Since the error bars
878: on the two results are comparable, one might be tempted to use the
879: spectroscopic $\log g$ as a further constraint on the stellar
880: properties. We did not take this approach out of concern that the
881: spectroscopic determination is more complex and liable to
882: underestimation of the error (see, e.g., Winn et al.~2008).
883:
884: \section{Discussion}
885:
886: \subsection{Summary and comparison with previous results}
887:
888: We have presented photometry of a transit of HD~17156b, and 10
889: additional measurements of the radial velocity of the host star. We
890: have analyzed the data along with the other observed stellar
891: properties to refine the estimates of the basic system parameters. For
892: many of the parameters, our results are more precise than those
893: reported previously, despite some aspects of the previous analyses
894: that may have caused the quoted error bars to be unrealistically
895: small. Specifically, none of the previous analyses allowed for any
896: uncertainty in the limb-darkening law, and neither Barbieri et
897: al.~(2007) nor Irwin et al.~(2008) attempted to quantify the effect of
898: time-correlated noise. Another improvement in our analysis was the
899: integration of the data analysis with stellar evolution models to make
900: full use of the information in the light curve and arrive at a
901: self-consistent solution.
902:
903: Our result for the stellar mass, $M_\star =
904: 1.263_{-0.047}^{+0.035}$~$M_\odot$, agrees with the previous
905: determination of $1.2\pm 0.1$~$M_\odot$ by Fischer et al.~(2007) and
906: improves on the precision. Our result for the stellar radius,
907: $1.446_{-0.067}^{+0.099}$~$R_\odot$, agrees with the Fischer et
908: al.~(2007) estimate of $1.470\pm 0.085$~$R_\odot$. The essential
909: difference between the two analyses is that we made use of the
910: photometric determination of $\rho_\star$ while Fischer et al.~(2007)
911: used the spectroscopic determination of $\log g$. As for the planet,
912: our result of $1.023_{-0.055}^{+0.070}$~$R_{\rm Jup}$ is very similar
913: to the value $1.01\pm 0.09$~$R_{\rm Jup}$ found by Irwin et
914: al.~(2008). This should be interpreted as an agreement between the
915: measured transit depths, and not necessarily the other light curve
916: parameters, because Irwin et al.~(2008) did not fit for the
917: $a/R_\star$ parameter. Instead they used an external constraint on
918: that parameter based on the work by Fischer et al.~(2007). Gillon et
919: al.~(2008) also found the same transit depth, but a smaller value of
920: $a/R_\star$ and therefore larger values of $R_\star$ and $R_p$ (by
921: about 1$\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is the error quoted by Gillon et
922: al.~2008). Our result for $R_p$ is approximately 3 times more precise.
923:
924: The results for the limb-darkening coefficients, given in
925: Table~\ref{tbl:ld}, show that the darkening is greater in the
926: $(b+y)/2$ band than in the $z$ band, as expected. The values of the
927: coefficients themselves are poorly constrained and the errors are
928: highly correlated, making it difficult to compare to specific
929: theoretical predictions. For the $z$ band, interpolation of the tables
930: of Claret~(2004) gives a prediction of $u_1=0.17$ and $u_2=0.35$,
931: which is just outside the 1$\sigma$ range of our results. The data
932: favor a less limb-darkened star. The tables of Claret~(2000) give
933: $u_1=0.52$ and $u_2=0.28$ for the $b$ band, and $u_1=0.39$ and
934: $u_2=0.33$ for the $y$ band. Either set of coefficients is compatible
935: with the loose bounds provided by the APT data.
936:
937: \subsection{Comparison with theoretical models}
938:
939: A primary goal of precise transit observations is to compare the
940: observed planetary properties with theoretical models of the planet's
941: interior structure. For example, a persistent theme in this field is
942: that at least a few planets have radii that are ``too large'' by the
943: standards of theoretical models of solar-composition giant planets,
944: even after accounting for the intense stellar heating and selection
945: effects (see Burrows et al.\ 2007 for a recent discussion). Other
946: planets are so small that the models fit only when the composition is
947: altered to be much richer in heavy elements than the Sun, a possible
948: indication of the dense interior cores that are expected according to
949: the core-accretion theory of planet formation (see, e.g., Sato et
950: al.~2005).
951:
952: Bodenheimer et al.~(2003) give predictions for the radii of giant
953: planets as a function of the age, mass, and time-averaged equilibrium
954: temperature of the planet, defined as
955: \begin{equation}
956: T_{\rm eq} = \left[ \frac{(1-A) L_\star}{16\pi\sigma a^2(1+e^2/2)^2} \right]^{1/4} =~~(783~{\rm K})~(1-A)^{1/4},
957: \end{equation}
958: where $A$ is the Bond albedo, $L_\star$ is the stellar luminosity,
959: $\sigma$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, $a$ is the semimajor axis,
960: and $e$ is the eccentricity. In the latter equality we have evaluated
961: $T_{\rm eq}$ for HD~17156b using the results given in
962: Table~\ref{tbl:params}. As long as the albedo is not very close to
963: unity, Bodenheimer et al.~(2003) predict a planetary radius of
964: 1.10~$R_{\rm Jup}$ for a solar composition at 4.5~Gyr. They also
965: considered enriching the solar composition by 40~$M_\oplus$ of
966: additional heavy elements (4\% of the total mass) and found that the
967: radius decreases by less than 1\%.
968:
969: Fortney et al.~(2007) have presented theoretical models parameterized
970: by mass, age, and an effective orbital distance, defined as the
971: distance from the Sun where a hypothetical planet on a circular orbit
972: would receive the same time-averaged flux as the actual planet,
973: \begin{equation}
974: d_\oplus = a(1+e^2/2) \left( \frac{L_\star}{L_\odot} \right)^{1/2} =~~0.13~{\rm AU},
975: \end{equation}
976: where again we have evaluated the expression as appropriate for
977: HD~17156b. Fortney et al.~(2007) also predicted $1.10$~$R_{\rm Jup}$
978: for a solar composition at 4.5~Gyr, decreasing to $1.02$~$R_{\rm Jup}$
979: when $100~M_\oplus$ of solar-composition material (10\% of the total
980: mass) is replaced by a heavy-element ``core.'' This would provide a
981: good match to the observed radius of 1.023~$R_{\rm Jup}$.
982:
983: We conclude from these comparisons, as did Irwin et al.~(2008), that
984: HD~17156b is smaller than a theoretical giant planet of
985: solar-composition, and that this may be an indication of heavy-element
986: enrichment. Heavy-element enrichment is expected according to the
987: core-accretion model of planet formation (Mizuno 1980, Pollack et
988: al.~1996). There is evidence for such enrichment in Jupiter and
989: Saturn, with Jupiter in particular consisting of 3-15\% heavy elements
990: (Guillot 2005). One should be wary of over-interpretation, given that
991: our measurement of $R_p$ differs from 1.1~$R_{\rm Jup}$ by only 1.1
992: times the measurement uncertainty. However, there are some known
993: factors that would increase the theoretical radius and thereby enlarge
994: the discrepancy at least slightly: the fiducial radius calculated by
995: Bodenheimer et al.~(2003) and Fortney et al.~(2007) refers to a higher
996: pressure (smaller radius) than the transit-measured radius (Burrows et
997: al.~2003); the models do not take into account tidal heating and
998: consequent inflation due to the nonzero eccentricity (Liu et
999: al.~2008); and the age of the system is estimated to be 3~Gyr, younger
1000: than the 4.5~Gyr age for which the models were calculated.
1001:
1002: \subsection{The spin-orbit angle, and the probability of secondary
1003: eclipses}
1004:
1005: One parameter that we have not improved on, but that deserves mention,
1006: is the angle between the stellar spin axis and the orbital axis. One
1007: might expect the axes to be well-aligned, given that the star and
1008: planet formed from a common disk and given the good alignment observed
1009: in the Solar system. Then again, by the same logic the orbit should be
1010: circular, and it is not. A lower limit on the angle between the spin
1011: and orbital axes can be derived by monitoring the apparent Doppler
1012: shift throughout a transit, exploiting the Rossiter-McLaughlin (RM)
1013: effect (see, e.g., Queloz et al.~2000, Winn et al.~2005). Using this
1014: technique, Narita et al.~(2008) found that the angle between sky
1015: projections of the two axes is $\lambda = 62\pm 25$~deg, a 2.5$\sigma$
1016: misalignment. Cochran et al.~(2008) presented two different data sets
1017: giving $\lambda = 4.5\pm 15.6$~deg and $\lambda = -32.4\pm 25.2$~deg,
1018: and concluded that the data are consistent with good
1019: alignment. Unfortunately, our new data alone do not allow for
1020: significant progress on this issue, because the limiting errors are in
1021: the precision of the RM data, which we have not improved in this
1022: study. Further spectroscopic observations are warranted.
1023:
1024: Another important angle is the orbital inclination with respect to the
1025: sky plane. If the orbit is oriented close enough to edge-on, then the
1026: planet will be periodically eclipsed by the parent star. Observations
1027: of such secondary eclipses would reveal the planetary albedo or
1028: thermal emission from the planet, depending upon the observing
1029: bandpass. In addition, infrared observations could help to understand
1030: the radiative dynamics of the planetary atmosphere, as emphasized by
1031: Barbieri et al.~(2007). To check whether secondary eclipses are likely
1032: to occur, we used our MCMC results to compute the {\it a posteriori}\,
1033: probability distribution for the impact parameter at superior
1034: conjunction,
1035: \begin{equation}
1036: b_{\rm II} = \frac{a \cos i}{R_\star} \left( \frac{1-e^2}{1-e\sin\omega} \right).
1037: \end{equation}
1038: We find the probability for secondary eclipses ($b_{\rm II} <
1039: 1+R_p/R_\star)$ to be 18\%. The probability for complete eclipses, or
1040: occultations ($b_{\rm II} < 1+R_p/R_\star$), is 15\%. These odds are
1041: better than those found by Irwin et al.~(2008), which were 6.9\% and
1042: 9.2\%. Gillon et al.~(2008) found the probability of occultations to
1043: be 0.04\%. Presumably this significant difference is attributable to
1044: our finding of a more edge-on orbit ($i=86.2_{-0.8}^{+2.1}$~deg, as
1045: opposed to $85.5_{-1.2}^{+1.9}$~deg from Gillon et al.~(2008). Our
1046: error bars for $i$ are no smaller than those reported previously
1047: because the achievable error in $i$ worsens rapidly as $i$ approaches
1048: 90~deg (Carter et al.~2008). To help in planning observations, we have
1049: used our results to predict the timing of the events, as well as the
1050: quantity $(R_p/d_{\rm II})^2$ (where $d_{\rm II}$ is the star-planet
1051: distance at superior conjunction) which sets the amplitude of the
1052: reflected-light signal from the planet. The results for this latter
1053: parameter are conditioned on the assumption that secondary eclipses do
1054: indeed occur. The results are given in
1055: Table~\ref{tbl:superior-conjunction}. With a bit of luck, HD~17156b
1056: will be eclipsed and give observers another gift.
1057:
1058: \acknowledgments We are grateful to the referee, Kaspar von~Braun, for
1059: a timely and detailed critique. This research was partly supported by
1060: Grant No.~2006234 from the United States-Israel Binational Science
1061: Foundation (BSF). Partial support also came from NASA Origins grants
1062: NNG06GH69G (to M.J.H.) and NNG04LG89G (to G.T.). G.W.H.\ acknowledges
1063: support from NASA, NSF, and the State of Tennessee through its Centers
1064: of Excellence program. J.A.J.\ is a National Science Foundation
1065: Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellow with support from the
1066: NSF grant AST-0702821. KeplerCam was developed with partial support
1067: from the Kepler Mission under NASA Cooperative Agreement NCC2-1390 and
1068: the Keplercam observations described in this paper were partly
1069: supported by grants from the Kepler Mission to SAO and PSI.
1070:
1071: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1072:
1073: \bibitem[Agol et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.359..567A} Agol, E., Steffen,
1074: J., Sari, R., \& Clarkson, W.\ 2005, \mnras, 359, 567
1075:
1076: \bibitem[Allan(1966)]{allan66} Allan, D.~W.\ 1966, Proc.\ IEEE, 54,
1077: 221
1078:
1079: \bibitem[Barbieri et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...476L..13B} Barbieri, M., et
1080: al.\ 2007, \aap, 476, L13
1081:
1082: \bibitem[Barnes(2007)]{2007PASP..119..986B} Barnes, J.~W.\ 2007,
1083: \pasp, 119, 986
1084:
1085: \bibitem[Bodenheimer et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...592..555B} Bodenheimer,
1086: P., Laughlin, G., \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\ 2003, \apj, 592, 555
1087:
1088: \bibitem[Burke(2008)]{2008ApJ...679.1566B} Burke, C.~J.\ 2008, \apj,
1089: 679, 1566
1090:
1091: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...594..545B} Burrows, A.,
1092: Sudarsky, D., \& Hubbard, W.~B.\ 2003, \apj, 594, 545
1093:
1094: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...661..502B} Burrows, A.,
1095: Hubeny, I., Budaj, J., \& Hubbard, W.~B.\ 2007, \apj, 661, 502
1096:
1097: \bibitem[Butler et al.(1996)]{1996PASP..108..500B} Butler, R.~P.,
1098: Marcy, G.~W., Williams, E., McCarthy, C., Dosanjh, P., \& Vogt,
1099: S.~S.\ 1996, \pasp, 108, 500
1100:
1101: \bibitem[Carter et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0805.0238C} Carter, J.~A., Yee,
1102: J.~C., Eastman, J., Gaudi, B.~S., \& Winn, J.~N.\ 2008, ArXiv
1103: e-prints, 805, arXiv:0805.0238
1104:
1105: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2007)]{2007prpl.conf..701C} Charbonneau,
1106: D., Brown, T.~M., Burrows, A., \& Laughlin, G.\ 2007, Protostars and
1107: Planets V, 701
1108:
1109: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{2000A&A...363.1081C} Claret, A.\ 2000, \aap,
1110: 363, 1081
1111:
1112: \bibitem[Claret(2004)]{2004A&A...428.1001C} Claret, A.\ 2004, \aap,
1113: 428, 1001
1114:
1115: \bibitem[Cochran et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...683L..59C} Cochran, W.~D.,
1116: Redfield, S., Endl, M., \& Cochran, A.~L.\ 2008, \apjl, 683, L59
1117:
1118: \bibitem[Demarque et al.(2004)]{2004ApJS..155..667D} Demarque, P.,
1119: Woo, J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., \& Yi, S.~K.\ 2004, \apjs, 155, 667
1120:
1121: \bibitem[Dravins et al.(1998)]{1998PASP..110..610D} Dravins, D.,
1122: Lindegren, L., Mezey, E., \& Young, A.~T.\ 1998, \pasp, 110, 610
1123:
1124: \bibitem[Fischer et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...669.1336F} Fischer, D.~A., et
1125: al.\ 2007, \apj, 669, 1336
1126:
1127: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...659.1661F} Fortney, J.~J.,
1128: Marley, M.~S., \& Barnes, J.~W.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 1661
1129:
1130: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2008)]{2008A&A...485..871G} Gillon, M., Triaud,
1131: A.~H.~M.~J., Mayor, M., Queloz, D., Udry, S., \& North, P.\ 2008,
1132: \aap, 485, 871
1133:
1134: \bibitem[Guillot(2005)]{2005AREPS..33..493G} Guillot, T.\ 2005, Annual
1135: Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 33, 493
1136:
1137: \bibitem[H{\o}g et al.(2000)]{2000A&A...355L..27H} H{\o}g, E., et al.\
1138: 2000, \aap, 355, L27
1139:
1140: \bibitem[Holman \& Murray(2005)]{2005Sci...307.1288H} Holman, M.~J.,
1141: \& Murray, N.~W.\ 2005, Science, 307, 1288
1142:
1143: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...652.1715H} Holman, M.~J., et
1144: al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 1715
1145:
1146: \bibitem[Irwin et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...681..636I} Irwin, J., et al.\
1147: 2008, \apj, 681, 636
1148:
1149: \bibitem[Kane \& von Braun(2008)]{2008arXiv0808.1890K} Kane, S.~R., \&
1150: von Braun, K.\ 2008, arXiv:0808.1890
1151:
1152: \bibitem[Kibrick et al.(2006)]{2006SPIE.6274E..58K} Kibrick, R.~I.,
1153: Clarke, D.~A., Deich, W.~T.~S., \& Tucker, D.\ 2006, \procspie,
1154: 6274, 62741U
1155:
1156: \bibitem[Langton \& Laughlin(2008)]{2008ApJ...674.1106L} Langton, J.,
1157: \& Laughlin, G.\ 2008, \apj, 674, 1106
1158:
1159: \bibitem[Liu et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0805.1733L} Liu, X., Burrows, A.,
1160: \& Ibgui, L.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 805, arXiv:0805.1733
1161:
1162: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{2002ApJ...580L.171M} Mandel, K., \&
1163: Agol, E.\ 2002, \apjl, 580, L171
1164:
1165: \bibitem[Mizuno(1980)]{1980PThPh..64..544M} Mizuno, H.\ 1980, Progress of
1166: Theoretical Physics, 64, 544
1167:
1168: \bibitem[Narita et al.(2008)]{2008PASJ...60L...1N} Narita, N., Sato,
1169: B., Ohshima, O., \& Winn, J.~N.\ 2008, \pasj, 60, L1
1170:
1171: \bibitem[P{\'a}l(2008)]{2008arXiv0805.2157P} P{\'a}l, A.\ 2008, ArXiv
1172: e-prints, 805, arXiv:0805.2157
1173:
1174: \bibitem[Pollack et al.(1996)]{1996Icar..124...62P} Pollack, J.~B.,
1175: Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., Lissauer, J.~J., Podolak, M., \&
1176: Greenzweig, Y.\ 1996, Icarus, 124, 62
1177:
1178: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{nr} Press, W.~H., Teukolsky, S.~A.,
1179: Vetterling, T., \& Flannery, B.~P.~1992, Numerical Recipes in C
1180: (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
1181:
1182: \bibitem[Queloz et al.(2000)]{2000A&A...359L..13Q} Queloz, D.,
1183: Eggenberger, A., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Beuzit, J.~L., Naef, D.,
1184: Sivan, J.~P., \& Udry, S.\ 2000, \aap, 359, L13
1185:
1186: \bibitem[Reiger(1963)]{1963AJ.....68..395R} Reiger, S.~H.\ 1963, \aj,
1187: 68, 395
1188:
1189: \bibitem[Sato et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...633..465S} Sato, B., et al.\
1190: 2005, \apj, 633, 465
1191:
1192: \bibitem[Seager \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas(2003)]{2003ApJ...585.1038S}
1193: Seager, S., \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas, G.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 1038
1194:
1195: \bibitem[Seager(2008)]{2008SSRv..tmp...11S} Seager, S.\ 2008, Space
1196: Science Reviews, 11
1197:
1198: \bibitem[Southworth(2008)]{2008MNRAS.386.1644S} Southworth, J.\ 2008,
1199: \mnras, 386, 1644
1200:
1201: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...664.1190S} Sozzetti, A.,
1202: Torres, G., Charbonneau, D., Latham, D.~W., Holman, M.~J., Winn,
1203: J.~N., Laird, J.~B., \& O'Donovan, F.~T.\ 2007, \apj, 664, 1190
1204:
1205: \bibitem[Szentgyorgyi et al.(2005)]{2005AAS...20711010S} Szentgyorgyi,
1206: A.~H., et al.\ 2005, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society,
1207: 37, 1339
1208:
1209: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004)]{2004PhRvD..69j3501T} Tegmark, M., et
1210: al.\ 2004, \prd, 69, 103501
1211:
1212: \bibitem[Thompson et al.(2001)]{2001isra.book.....T} Thompson, A.~R.,
1213: Moran, J.~M., \& Swenson, G.~W., Jr.\ 2001, Interferometry and
1214: synthesis in radio astronomy, 2nd ed.\ (New York: Wiley)
1215:
1216: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...677.1324T} Torres, G., Winn,
1217: J.~N., \& Holman, M.~J.\ 2008, \apj, 677, 1324
1218:
1219: \bibitem[Van Leeuwen(2007)]{2007ASSL..250.....V} van Leeuwen, F.\
1220: 2007, in Hipparcos, the New Reduction of the Raw Data, Astrophysics
1221: and Space Science Library, Vol.\ 350 (Dordrecht: Springer)
1222:
1223: \bibitem[Vogel(1890)]{1890AN....123..289V} Vogel, H.~C.\ 1890,
1224: Astronomische Nachrichten, 123, 289
1225:
1226: \bibitem[Vogt et al.(1994)]{1994SPIE.2198..362V} Vogt, S.~S., et al.\ 1994,
1227: \procspie, 2198, 362
1228:
1229: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...631.1215W} Winn, J.~N., et al.\
1230: 2005, \apj, 631, 1215
1231:
1232: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...657.1098W} Winn, J.~N., Holman,
1233: M.~J., \& Roussanova, A.\ 2007, \apj, 657, 1098
1234:
1235: \bibitem[Winn(2008)]{w08-iau253} Winn, J.N.~2008, to appear in Proc.\
1236: IAU Symp.\ No.\ 253, ``Transiting Planets,'' eds.\ F.~Pont et
1237: al. (Cambridge Univ.\ Press)
1238:
1239: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0804.4475W} Winn, J.~N., et al.\
1240: 2008, ApJ, 683, 1076
1241:
1242: \bibitem[Wright(2005)]{2005PASP..117..657W} Wright, J.~T.\ 2005,
1243: \pasp, 117, 657
1244:
1245: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2001)]{2001ApJS..136..417Y} Yi, S., Demarque, P.,
1246: Kim, Y.-C., Lee, Y.-W., Ree, C.~H., Lejeune, T., \& Barnes, S.\
1247: 2001, \apjs, 136, 417
1248:
1249: \bibitem[Young(1967)]{1967AJ.....72..747Y} Young, A.~T.\ 1967, \aj,
1250: 72, 747
1251:
1252:
1253: \end{thebibliography}
1254:
1255: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
1256: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1257: \tablecaption{Predicted Superior Conjunction Parameters for HD~17156b\label{tbl:superior-conjunction}}
1258: \tablewidth{0pt}
1259:
1260: \tablehead{
1261: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value} & \colhead{68.3\% Conf.~Limits}
1262: }
1263:
1264: \startdata
1265: Midpoint of superior conjunction~[HJD] & $2454464.627$ & $-0.090$, $+0.100$ \\
1266: Probability of occultation, $P(b_{\rm II} < 1+R_p/R_\star)$ & 18\% & \nodata \\
1267: Probability of non-grazing occultation, $P(b_{\rm II} < 1-R_p/R_\star)$ & 15\% & \nodata \\
1268: Occultation duration for an edge-on orbit~[hr] & $12.9$ & $-0.9$,$+1.4$ \\
1269: Reflected-light figure of merit, $10^6~(R_p/d_{\rm II})^2$ & $4.68$ & $-0.22$, $+0.31$
1270: \enddata
1271:
1272: \tablecomments{The midpoint of superior conjunction has {\it not}\,
1273: been corrected for the light-travel time across the system. The
1274: result for $(R_p/d_{\rm II})^2$ is conditioned on the occurrence of
1275: occultations.}
1276:
1277: \end{deluxetable}
1278:
1279: \end{document}
1280: