1:
2: \section{Time series analysis}\label{TimeSeriesAnalysis}
3:
4: \subsection{$\chi^{2}$ test}\label{ChisqTest}
5: To test whether or not deviations in a target's relative light curve are
6: consistent with the photometric errors (the null hypothesis) we evaluated the
7: $\chi^{2}$ measure
8: \begin{displaymath}
9: \chi^{2}=\sum^{N}_{i}\left(\frac{m_{\rm rel}(i)}{\delta m_{\rm rel}(i)}\right)^{2},
10: \end{displaymath}
11: where $m_{\rm rel}(i)$ is the relative magnitude in the $i$th (of $N$) frame
12: and $\delta m_{\rm rel}(i)$ the error therein. The larger the $\chi^{2}$ value,
13: the larger the probability that the null hypothesis is wrong and that
14: the object is variable. We claim an object to be variable if the probability
15: for the null hypothesis $p$ is smaller than $0.01$. We used this test first to
16: assemble the set of reference stars and then to test for possible variability
17: within the targets.
18:
19: We often encountered the case that significant general or periodic variability
20: is only present in one or two channels. This can either be due to different
21: sensitivity limits or to different variability amplitudes in the channels (or
22: to a combination of both). As we will discuss in chapter~\ref{Results},
23: surface features can indeed lead to such a behaviour.
24:
25: \subsection{Periodic variability}\label{PeriodicVariability}
26: Periodic variability can be caused by co-rotating surface features which are
27: stable on time scales of an object's rotation period. To check for periodic
28: behaviour, the following scheme was applied to each target: the CLEAN
29: periodogram was calculated and searched for significant peaks; in case there
30: is such a peak, the target's light curve was phased to the corresponding
31: period and checked if it confirms the period in question. The Lomb-Scargle
32: periodogram was also evaluated for all targets but the influence of the
33: spectral window function is very strong for periods longer than approximately
34: $10$ hours. Because of this the Scargle power spectra are not used for the
35: final results. Nevertheless, the shorter periods of 2M1707+64 and LHS370 are
36: confirmed by this method.
37:
38: The CLEAN algorithm tries to remove the influence of the discrete and finite
39: sampling of observational data on power spectra. For more information on this,
40: see BJM01 and \citet{Roberts1987}. To judge whether a peak in the power spectrum
41: is statistically significant, we performed Monte-Carlo simulations to determine
42: the \emph{false alarm probability} (FAP) power levels for each time
43: sampling. The FAP denotes the probability that a peak in the power
44: spectrum is caused by noise. We chose to use the same methods as already
45: discussed by \citet{Lamm2004}. Artificial light curves of non-variable stars
46: were created by simulating pure Gaussian noise as well as by shuffling the
47: actual magnitudes of the target's light curve with respect to the real
48: epochs. For both methods, the highest peak in the corresponding CLEAN
49: periodogram was determined and the power level that was exceeded by $100$ out
50: of the $10^{4}$ simulations was defined to be the $1\,\%$ FAP power level
51: (similarly one obtains the $10\,\%$ and $0.1\,\%$ levels). To be conservative
52: we compare the corresponding two values obtained for both methods and use the
53: larger one. We claim periodic variability if peaks above the $1\,\%$ limit are
54: present.
55:
56: \subsubsection{Period uncertainty}\label{PeriodUncertainty}
57: To investigate the uncertainty in the detected periods, we simulated a
58: sinusoidal signal at random phase with respect to the time sampling and
59: added Gaussian noise. We define the Amplitude Ratio (AR) to be the ratio
60: between the root-mea-square (rms) amplitude of the sinusoidal and the one of
61: the noise. The absolute value of the difference between the period of the input
62: signal and that of the highest peak in the CLEAN power spectrum was averaged
63: over $10^{4}$ simulations at each input period. This result is a measure for
64: the expected period uncertainty at the period of the sinusoid. An example for
65: one time sampling is shown in Fig.~\ref{figure_PeriodUncertainty}. The input
66: frequency is varied over the whole range of frequencies (actually we divided
67: that range into $100$ bins and performed $10^{4}$ simulations per bin).
68: \begin{figure}
69: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{2M1707+64PeriodUncertainty_I_15.ps}}
70: \caption{Period uncertainty in hours plotted versus the logarithm of
71: the period in hours; obtained for an amplitude ratio of $1.5$ for the
72: 2M1707+64 I time sampling with the method described in
73: section~\ref{PeriodicVariability} (solid line and solid circles). The
74: results of equation~\ref{equation_PeriodUncertainty} are also included as
75: open circles on a dashed line.}
76: \label{figure_PeriodUncertainty}
77: \end{figure}
78: The shape of the curve is only weakly dependent on the AR for values
79: above $1.5$ and period uncertainties only slightly increase for ARs down to
80: $1.0$. Table~\ref{table_TargetPropertiesTwo} shows that, except for one case,
81: all claimed periods occur at ARs of more than one. The simulations
82: show that the period accuracy is very good for periods up to about $10$ hours
83: and becomes much worse between $15$ and $30$ hours. This can be attributed to
84: the gap in the data between the two consecutive observation nights. Although
85: we expect the uncertainty to become lower for yet longer periods (since we
86: observed the target on two nights), it is surprising how low it actually
87: gets. A possible problem of these simulations is that they assume a sinusoidal
88: signal, whereas periodic variability does not necessarily match this.
89:
90: A similar procedure to the above has been used by
91: \citet{Scholz2004a,Scholz2004b} who find a similar behaviour of the period
92: uncertainty. Also shown in Fig.~\ref{figure_PeriodUncertainty} (open circles)
93: are the results of a theoretical period uncertainty estimate (for small
94: errors):
95: \begin{equation}\label{equation_PeriodUncertainty}
96: \Delta P\approx\frac{\Delta\nu P^{2}}{2}.
97: \end{equation}
98: Here $\Delta\nu$ is the width of the main peak of the window function
99: $W(\nu)$, that can be approximated for not too uneven data sampling by
100: $\Delta\nu\approx\frac{1}{T}$. Here, $T$ is the total time span covered by the
101: observations. $P$ and $\Delta P$ are the period in question and its
102: uncertainty, respectively. For long periods (larger errors) the approximation
103: made to derive the above equation may no longer be valid. This would explain
104: the huge difference relative to the results obtained with the simulations at
105: longer periods. For more information on
106: equation~\ref{equation_PeriodUncertainty}, see \citet{Roberts1987}.
107:
108: Since the predicted uncertainties may differ by a factor of up to 3 between
109: these two methods and since both methods do have drawbacks, it is difficult to
110: decide which one to use. Thus the period uncertainties we state are always the
111: results of the simulations but we also give the values obtained by
112: equation~\ref{equation_PeriodUncertainty} in parenthesis. Apart from just
113: finding errors on the periods found with this survey, the period uncertainty
114: is important when periods are reported in more than one channel of a
115: target. If those periods are close to each other, it is likely that they
116: actually correspond to a single periodicity, e.g. the rotation period, if
117: their values do not differ by more than two or three times their uncertainty.
118:
119: \subsubsection{Detection Fraction}\label{DetectionFraction}
120: To study the sensitivity of our period detection procedure, we introduce the
121: \emph{detection fraction} (DF). This quantity is equal to the fraction of detected
122: periodic signals as a function of period; it is calculated using simulations
123: of a sinusoidal and Gaussian noise (with the same definition of the AR as in
124: the last section). The whole range of frequencies was divided in $100$ bins
125: and the simulations performed separately for each bin. The fraction of
126: simulations with a fixed input frequency which lead to a peak in the power
127: spectrum above the $1\,\%$ FAP power level is equal to the DF. We applied two
128: different DFs, one where peaks anywhere in the periodogram were considered
129: (${\rm DF}_{\rm all}$) and another where a significant peak was counted only if
130: it was found inside the input bin (${\rm DF}_{\rm bin}$). Naturally, the
131: detection fraction depends strongly on the AR. See
132: Fig.~\ref{figure_DetectionFraction} for the results on the same target as in
133: Fig.~\ref{figure_PeriodUncertainty}.
134: \begin{figure}
135: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{2M1707+64DetectionFraction_I.ps}}
136: \caption{The plot shows various detection fractions for the 2M1707+64 time
137: sampling over the logarithm of the period in hours. Solid lines represent
138: detection fractions which require a peak to be found in a narrow range
139: around the input period (i.e. inside the input bin), (${\rm
140: DF}_{\rm bin}$), and dashed lines the ones that allow a peak to be at any
141: period (${\rm DF}_{\rm all}$). For periods of up to
142: $\log_{10}($period$)=1.0$ three amplitude ratios are investigated: 3, 2, 1.5
143: from top to bottom within the plot; for each ratio one solid and one dashed
144: line. Because the general behaviour does not change, and to avoid crowding,
145: for periods longer than ten hours only the curves corresponding to an
146: amplitude ratio of 2 are shown. Here the solid and dashed lines merge at
147: $\log_{10}($period$)=1.47$.}
148: \label{figure_DetectionFraction}
149: \end{figure}
150: The resemblance to the plot of the period uncertainty is striking and naturally
151: because both quantities depend on the same data sampling. Thus the same
152: reasons can be given for the minimum in the DF at about $P=10-30$ hr and
153: for the maximum in the period uncertainty at the same period range. The
154: difference between the solid and the dashed line in
155: Fig.~\ref{figure_DetectionFraction} is the fraction of period detections at
156: the wrong frequencies, i.e. outside the input bin. In agreement with the
157: period uncertainty simulations, this difference is quite small at periods
158: shorter than $10$ hours and thus if we detect a periodicity within this range
159: it is very likely detected at the right period. If we again compare the ARs
160: given in Table~\ref{table_TargetPropertiesTwo} with the Detection Fraction
161: plots of the individual targets, we can summarise the results as follows: for
162: most time samplings, an AR of $1.5$ leads to a DF between $50\,\%$ and
163: $80\,\%$; for ARs of $1.0$, the DF lies between $15\,\%$ and $30\,\%$ (in the
164: case of 2M1707+64, see Fig.~\ref{figure_DetectionFraction}, the DFs are
165: somewhat lower at each AR). Hence it is not unlikely that we missed periods
166: for targets with ARs of less than $1.5$, even in the range of up to ten
167: hours. Furthermore, the $v\sin i$ distribution of M dwarfs
168: \citep{Mohanty2003,Delfosse1998} suggests that there are some objects,
169: particularly at early M type, with expected periods of much more than $10$
170: hours (up to a few days). For these, the sensitivity of our detection
171: procedure is questionable. Hence, to lower the probability of missing periods
172: significantly, one would have to perform higher SNR observations and/or get a
173: longer time base.
174:
175: \subsection{Flares}\label{Flares}
176: We will very briefly address the topic of flares in the observed field M
177: dwarfs. For detailed information on the flares detected in this data set, see
178: \citet{Rockenfeller2006}.
179:
180: Although well-known, the exact processes taking place during a flare event are
181: not well-understood. Probably, magnetic energy is transfered to thermal energy
182: and thus leads to a brightening of the effected area on or near the stellar
183: surface. Flares on the Sun are often associated with eruptive promininences,
184: sometimes ejecting solar material and charged particles into the solar system.
185:
186: In principle, multiband monitoring in optical bands is ideal to detect flares
187: because the amplitude of the brightness variations increases tremendously from
188: the I- to the UV-band. A flare is characterised by a fast rising signal
189: followed by a slower decreasing one (of exponential shape). The duration of
190: the event is positively correlated with its amplitude and ranges from a few
191: minutes (or even shorter) to a few hours. This creates the problem that
192: low-amplitude flares are too short to be seen in detail in this data set since
193: the minimum time span between two data points is about $5$ minutes. However,
194: one huge flare was detected in 2M1707+64, with an UV-amplitude of more than
195: $6$ magnitudes and a recorded duration of about $1$ hour. For this event we
196: captured the brightness evolution over five data points. Three other events
197: that are probably flares were found in 2M1714+30, 2M1546+37 and 2M1344+77 at
198: lower amplitudes (between $1.5$ and $2.7$ mag in UV). The total observation
199: time of this survey is $218.0$ hours, yielding a flare rate of $9.2\cdot
200: 10^{-4}\,{\rm hr}^{-1}$, $1.83\cdot 10^{-3}\,{\rm hr}^{-1}$ if we only count
201: the two strongest events or all four, respectively.
202:
203:
204: %%% Local Variables:
205: %%% mode: latex
206: %%% TeX-master: "Paper"
207: %%% End:
208: