1: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{latexsym,graphicx,natbib}
3: %\usepackage{apjfonts,emulateapj5,psfig}
4:
5: \shortauthors{Winn et al.~2006}
6: \shorttitle{Two Transits of TR-111}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: % ------------------------------------------------------------------------
11: % New commands
12: %
13: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
14: \def\lsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
15: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
16: \def\gsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
17: \def\rs{$R_S = 0.831 \pm 0.031$~$R_\odot$}
18: \def\rp{$R_P = 1.067 \pm 0.054$~$R_{\rm Jup}$}
19:
20: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------
21: %
22:
23: \bibliographystyle{apj}
24:
25: \title{
26: The Transit Light Curve (TLC) Project.\\
27: II.~Two Transits of the Exoplanet OGLE-TR-111b
28: }
29:
30: \author{
31: Joshua N.\ Winn\altaffilmark{1},
32: Matthew J.\ Holman\altaffilmark{2},
33: Cesar I.\ Fuentes\altaffilmark{2}
34: }
35:
36: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute for
37: Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of
38: Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139}
39:
40: \altaffiltext{2}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60
41: Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44:
45: As part of our ongoing effort to measure exoplanet sizes and transit
46: times with greater accuracy, we present $I$ band observations of two
47: transits of OGLE-TR-111b. The photometry has an accuracy of
48: 0.15-0.20\% and a cadence of 1--2~minutes. We derive a planetary
49: radius of \rp~and a stellar radius of \rs. The uncertainties are
50: dominated by errors in the photometry, rather than by systematic
51: errors arising from uncertainties in the limb darkening function or
52: the stellar mass. Both the stellar radius and the planetary radius
53: are in agreement with theoretical expectations. The transit times
54: are accurate to within 30 seconds, and allow us to refine the
55: estimate of the mean orbital period: $4.0144479\pm 0.0000041$~days.
56:
57: \end{abstract}
58:
59: \keywords{planetary systems --- stars:~individual (OGLE-TR-111) ---
60: techniques: photometric}
61:
62: \section{Introduction}
63:
64: The aim of the Transit Light Curve (TLC) project is to gather accurate
65: photometry during the transits of exoplanets across the disks of their
66: parent stars. The immediate scientific harvest is the improved
67: accuracy with which the basic system parameters are
68: known. High-accuracy, high-cadence transit photometry allows for the
69: determination of the stellar radius, the planetary radius, and the
70: orbital inclination, for an assumed value of the stellar mass (see,
71: e.g., Seager \& Mall\'{e}n-Ornelas~2003 for a discussion of the
72: theory, and Brown et al.~2001 for the most famous example of a transit
73: light curve). These parameters are interesting in their own right, and
74: are important in the interpretation of other measurements such as
75: reflected light (Rowe et al.~2006), thermal emission (Charbonneau et
76: al.~2005, Deming et al.~2005), atmospheric absorption (Charbonneau et
77: al.~2002, Vidal-Madjar et al.~2003), and the Rossiter-McLaughlin
78: effect (Queloz et al.~2000, Winn et al.~2005, Wolf et al.~2006).
79:
80: In the longer term, repeated observations of transits will reduce the
81: uncertainties in the system parameters (and especially the orbital
82: period) still further. More interestingly, it may be possible to
83: detect additional transiting objects, satellites, rings, or even
84: reflected light, by combining the data from many individual light
85: curves. In addition, the existence of hitherto-undetected planets and
86: satellites might be betrayed by periodic patterns in the measured
87: times of mid-transit or variations in the orbital inclination
88: (Miralda-Escud\'{e}~2002, Holman \& Murray 2005, Agol et al.~2005).
89:
90: The TLC project is currently in its initial phase, in which we are
91: observing all of the known transiting exoplanets, refining the
92: estimates of each system's parameters and assessing the feasibility of
93: continued long-term monitoring. We have previously reported on
94: observations of the exoplanet XO-1b (Holman et al.~2006). In this
95: paper, we present TLC results for OGLE-TR-111b.
96:
97: The periodic 2\% dimming events of the star OGLE-TR-111 were
98: discovered by Udalski et al.~(2002) in a survey for transiting planets
99: within a rich star field in Carina. Spectroscopic follow-up by Pont et
100: al.~(2004) revealed a periodic Doppler shift, confirming that the
101: dimming events were caused by the transits of a Jovian planet. Santos
102: et al.~(2006) obtained optical spectra with a higher signal-to-noise
103: ratio to study the properties of the host star, which is an early K
104: dwarf with roughly solar metallicity. The orbital period is just over
105: 4~days, which is the longest period among the 5 exoplanets identified
106: in the OGLE survey, but which is typical of the periods of the ``hot
107: Jupiters'' that have been discovered in abundance in radial-velocity
108: surveys. For this reason, Pont et al.~(2004) referred to OGLE-TR-111
109: as the ``missing link'' between the OGLE survey and the
110: radial-velocity surveys. Initially, it was thought that the two
111: surveys were yielding discrepant results because of the shorter
112: periods of the OGLE objects, but this is now understood as a selection
113: effect (Pont et al.~2005, Gaudi et al.~2005, Gould et al.~2006).
114:
115: This paper is organized as follows. We describe the observations in
116: the next section, and the photometric procedure in \S~3. In \S~4, we
117: describe the techniques we used to estimate the physical and orbital
118: parameters. In \S~5 we give the results, and the final section is a
119: brief summary.
120:
121: \section{Observations}
122:
123: We observed two transits of OGLE-TR-111 (on UT~2006~Feb~21 and Mar~5)
124: corresponding to epochs $E=363$ and 366 of an updated ephemeris based
125: on OGLE data that was provided by A.~Udalski (2005, private
126: communication):
127: \begin{equation}
128: T_c(E) = 2,452,330.46228~{\mathrm{[HJD]}} + E\times(4.014442~{\mathrm{days}}).
129: \end{equation}
130:
131: We used the Inamori Magellan Areal Camera and Spectrograph (IMACS) on
132: the 6.5m Baade (Magellan~I) telescope at Las Campanas Observatory, in
133: Chile. IMACS has two cameras differing in focal length. We used the
134: longer $f/4.3$ camera because we preferred the smaller pixel scale,
135: and the field of view was still large enough to encompass multitudes
136: of comparison stars. Photometry is improved with small pixels not only
137: because of the better spatial sampling of the PSF, but also because
138: spreading the starlight over many pixels averages down the
139: pixel-to-pixel sensitivity variations and increases the maximum
140: exposure time due to saturation. The IMACS detector is a mosaic of
141: eight 2k~$\times$~4k SITe back-illuminated and thinned CCDs with
142: 15~$\mu$m pixels, giving a pixel scale of $0\farcs111$ and a field of
143: view of $15\farcm4$. To reduce the readout time, we read only
144: one-third of each chip, corresponding to the central $15\farcm4 \times
145: 5\farcm1$ of the mosaic. The readout time was approximately 45~s and
146: the readout noise was about 5~e$^{-}$. We observed through the CTIO
147: $I$~band filter, the reddest broad-band filter in routine use on
148: IMACS, in order to minimize the effect of color-dependent atmospheric
149: extinction on the relative photometry, and to minimize the effect of
150: limb-darkening on the transit light curve. On each of the two nights,
151: we observed OGLE-TR-111 for approximately 6~hr bracketing the
152: predicted midpoint of the transit. We also obtained dome flat
153: exposures and zero-second (bias) exposures at the beginning of each
154: night.
155:
156: On the night of UT~2006~Feb~21, we observed under clear skies, through
157: an airmass ranging from 1.2 to 1.6. The seeing was generally good but
158: variable, from $0\farcs5$ to $1\farcs0$. We used an exposure time of
159: 60~s. Although the sky conditions were excellent, three factors
160: degraded the photometry to some degree. First, although we attempted
161: to keep the image registration constant throughout the night (thereby
162: consistently detecting the light from each star on the same set of
163: pixels), this was not possible due to occasional failures of the guide
164: probe control software. The changes in registration had a noticeable
165: effect on the relative photometry, as described further in
166: \S~3. Second, the diffraction spike from a nearby bright star swept
167: through the position of OGLE-TR-111 on two occasions, with noticeable
168: effects on the photometry. Third, the atmospheric dispersion corrector
169: (ADC) was not functioning correctly, causing color-dependent effects
170: in the stellar images.
171:
172: On the night of UT~2006~Mar~05, the skies were also clear, and the
173: seeing was more consistent at approximately $0\farcs9$ all night. We
174: used a shorter exposure time of 30~s. As in February, there were
175: occasional crashes of the guiding software, and a diffraction spike
176: swept through the position of OGLE-TR-111. However, on this night the
177: ADC was functioning properly.
178:
179: \section{Data Reduction}
180:
181: We used standard IRAF\footnote{ The Image Reduction and Analysis
182: Facility (IRAF) is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy
183: Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities
184: for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with
185: the National Science Foundation. } procedures for the overscan
186: correction, trimming, bias subtraction, and flat-field
187: division. Because the images were too crowded for aperture photometry,
188: we used the method of image subtraction as implemented by Alard \&
189: Lupton~(1998) and Alard~(2000). Specifically, we used version 2.2 of
190: the ISIS image subtraction package that was written and kindly made
191: public by C.~Alard. In this method, all of the images from a given
192: night are registered to a common pixel frame, and a reference image is
193: created by combining a subset ($\approx$10\%) of the images with the
194: best seeing. For each individual image, a convolution kernel is
195: determined that brings the image into best agreement with the
196: reference image. Then the difference is computed between the
197: appropriately convolved image and the reference image. The advantage
198: of this method is that photometry is simplified on the difference
199: images, because most stars are not variable stars and thus the complex
200: and crowded background is eliminated. It is still necessary to compute
201: the flux of the variable stars on the reference image (taking into
202: account any neighboring stars) but this need only be done once, and
203: the task is facilitated by the good spatial resolution and high
204: signal-to-noise ratio of the reference image. Thus, the measurement of
205: the relative flux $f(t)$ takes the form
206: \begin{equation}
207: f(t) = 1 + \frac{\Delta f(t)}{f_{\rm ref}},
208: \end{equation}
209: where $f_{\rm ref}$ is measured on the reference image, and $\Delta
210: f(t)$ is measured on the difference images.
211:
212: We performed photometry of OGLE-TR-111 along with 18 other stars of
213: comparable brightness for quality control. We tried two different
214: methods for performing the photometry on the difference images:
215: IRAF-based aperture photometry and ISIS-based profile-fitting
216: photometry. For the March data, superior results (in the sense of a
217: smaller standard deviation in the light curves of the comparison
218: stars) were obtained with profile-fitting photometry, whereas for the
219: February data, superior results were obtained with aperture
220: photometry. We suspect that the reason for the difference is that the
221: February data were taken under more variable seeing and without proper
222: atmospheric dispersion correction. Because of these differing
223: conditions, we adopted the aperture results for February, and the
224: profile-fitting results for March, rather than requiring the same
225: procedure to be used on all of the data. To determine $f_{\rm ref}$
226: for each star, we performed profile-fitting photometry on the
227: reference image for each night.
228:
229: The uncertainty in each data point arises from two sources: the
230: uncertainty in the difference flux $\Delta f$, and the uncertainty in
231: the reference flux $f_{\rm ref}$. We estimated the uncertainty in the
232: difference flux based on Poisson statistics. We estimated the
233: uncertainty in the reference flux based not only on Poisson
234: statistics, but also by the spread in the values obtained when using
235: different choices for the stars used to determine the
236: point-spread-function (PSF) and other parameters relating to the
237: profile photometry. This latter source of systematic error was 1.5\%
238: for the February data and 1\% for the March data, which dominated the
239: Poisson error in both cases. However, adjustments in $f_{\rm ref}$
240: affect all of the points from a given night in the same way; the net
241: effect is a small modification of the transit depth. For example, for
242: OGLE-TR-111 the transit depth is approximately 2\%. The effect of
243: increasing $f_{\rm ref}$ by 1\% is to decrease the transit depth by
244: $(0.02 \times 0.01)$ or $2\times 10^{-4}$. We discuss this systematic
245: error further in \S~5.
246:
247: Abrupt jumps in the photometry by $\sim$0.5\% were evident when the
248: diffraction spike from a nearby star intruded on the position of
249: OGLE-TR-111, and when the telescope pointing changed (presumably due
250: to flat fielding errors). We discarded the data that was affected by
251: the diffraction spike. For the February data, the pointing changed
252: approximately 15~minutes prior to ingress, and again just after
253: egress; in our subsequent analysis we used only the data obtained
254: between those times. Most of the March data was taken with a common
255: pointing, except for an interval of 30~minutes after egress, which
256: occurred after a guider failure and before the pointing could be
257: restored to its former value. Those 30 minutes of data were not
258: considered further.
259:
260: Although the image subtraction method removes the first-order effects
261: of extinction by scaling all of the images to a common flux level
262: before subtraction, residual color-dependent effects are not removed.
263: Stars of different colors are extinguished by different amounts
264: through a given airmass. For this reason, we applied a residual
265: extinction correction to the data. The correction function was
266: determined as part of the model-fitting procedure and will be
267: described in the next section. The final photometry is given in
268: Table~1, and is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}. In the bottom panel of
269: Fig.~1, our composite light curve is compared to that of the OGLE
270: survey data. The uncertainties given in Table~1 are the uncertainties
271: in the difference fluxes, after multiplying by a factor specific to
272: each night such that $\chi^2/N_{\rm DOF} = 1$ for the best-fitting
273: model. (Our intention was not to test the model, but rather to
274: determine the appropriate relative weights for the data points.) The
275: scaling factors were 1.32 for the February data and 1.01 for the March
276: data.
277:
278: \begin{figure}[p]
279: \epsscale{0.9}
280: \plotone{f1.ps}
281: \caption{Relative $I$ band photometry of OGLE-TR-111. The best-fitting
282: model is shown as a solid line. The residuals
283: (observed~$-$~calculated) and the rescaled $1~\sigma$ error bars are
284: also shown. The residuals have zero mean but are offset by a constant
285: flux to appear beneath each light curve, for clarity. The
286: root-mean-squared residuals are 0.15\% and 0.2\% for the
287: February and the March data, respectively. The lowest panel shows the
288: composite light curve and also a composite light curve based on the
289: OGLE survey data.
290: \label{fig:lc}}
291: \end{figure}
292:
293: \section{The Model}
294:
295: Our model for the system is based on a star (with mass $M_S$ and
296: radius $R_S$) and a planet (with mass $M_P$ and radius $R_P$) in a
297: circular orbit\footnote{A circular orbit is a reasonable simplifying
298: assumption because it is expected that there has been sufficient
299: time for tides to have damped out any initial eccentricity, in the
300: absence of a third body (see, e.g., Rasio et al.~1996, Trilling et
301: al.~2000, Dobbs-Dixon et al.~2004).} with period $P$ and inclination
302: $i$ relative to the sky plane. We define the coordinate system such
303: that $0\arcdeg \leq i\leq 90\arcdeg$. We allow each transit to have an
304: independent value of $T_c$, the transit midpoint, rather than forcing
305: them to be separated by an integral number of orbital periods. This is
306: because we seek to measure or bound any timing anomalies that may
307: indicate the presence of moons or additional planets in the
308: system. Thus, the period $P$ is relevant to the model only through the
309: connection between the total mass and the orbital semimajor axis. We
310: fix $P=4.01444$~days, the value kindly provided by A.~Udalski (2005,
311: private communication) based on several seasons of OGLE data.
312:
313: The stellar mass cannot be determined from transit photometry alone.
314: Furthermore, the values of $R_S$ and $R_P$ that are inferred from the
315: photometry are covariant with the stellar mass; for a fixed period
316: $P$, the photometric transit depends almost exactly on the
317: combinations $R_S/M_S^{1/3}$ and $R_P/M_S^{1/3}$. Our approach was to
318: fix $M_S = 0.81$~$M_\odot$, the value reported by by Santos et
319: al.~(2006) based on an analysis of the stellar spectrum (i.e., the
320: observed effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity were
321: compared to theoretical H-R diagrams). We then use the scaling
322: relations $R_P \propto M_S^{1/3}$ and $R_S \propto M_S^{1/3}$ to
323: estimate the systematic error due to the uncertainty in $M_S$. The
324: planetary mass $M_P$ is nearly irrelevant to the model (except for its
325: minuscule effect on the relation between the orbital period and the
326: semimajor axis), but for completeness we use the value
327: $M_P=0.52$~$M_{\rm Jup}$ reported by Santos et al.~(2006).
328:
329: To calculate the relative flux as a function of the projected
330: separation of the planet and the star, we assumed the limb darkening
331: law to be linear,
332: \begin{equation}
333: \frac{I(\mu)}{I(1)} = 1 - u(1-\mu),
334: \end{equation}
335: where $I$ is the intensity, and $\mu$ is the cosine of the angle
336: between the line of sight and the normal to the stellar surface.
337: Adding a parameter to the limb darkening law by making it a quadratic
338: function of $(1-\mu)$ did not significantly improve the fit, and hence
339: is not well justified by the data alone. We employed the analytic
340: formulas of Mandel \& Agol~(2002) to compute the integral of the
341: intensity over the exposed portion of the stellar disk. The limb
342: darkening parameter $u$ was a variable in the model, but we applied an
343: ${\it a~priori}$ constraint to require a reasonable level of agreement
344: with theoretical expectations for limb darkening, as described below.
345: Each transit is also described with two additional parameters: the
346: out-of-transit flux $f_{\rm oot}$, and a residual extinction
347: coefficient $k$. The latter is defined such that the observed flux is
348: proportional to $\exp(-kz)$.
349:
350: In total, there are 10 adjustable parameters describing 386
351: photometric data points. The parameters are $R_S$, $R_P$, and $i$; the
352: two values of $T_c$; the limb-darkening parameter $u$; and the values
353: of $f_{\rm oot}$ and $k$ for each transit. Our goodness-of-fit
354: parameter is
355: \begin{equation}
356: \chi^2 = \sum_{j=1}^{386}
357: \left[
358: \frac{f_j({\mathrm{obs}}) - f_j({\mathrm{calc}})}{\sigma_j}
359: \right]^2 +
360: \left[
361: \frac{u - u_{\rm th}}{\sigma_u}
362: \right]^2
363: \end{equation}
364: where $f_j$(obs) is the flux observed at time $j$, $\sigma_j$ is the
365: corresponding uncertainty, and $f_j$(calc) is the calculated value.
366: The last term is the {\it a priori} constraint on the limb darkening
367: parameter. The theoretical value $u_{\rm th} =0.597$ comes from fits
368: by Claret~(2000) to an ATLAS plane-parallel stellar atmosphere model
369: of R.~Kurucz, for a star with $T_{\rm eff}=5000$~K, $\log g =
370: 4.5$~(cgs), and $[{\rm Fe}/{\rm H}] = 0.2$. We set $\sigma_u=0.081$,
371: corresponding to the requirement that the limb-to-center intensity
372: ratio ($1-u$) should be within about 20\% of the calculated value. (We
373: also investigated the effects of tightening, modifying and dropping
374: this {\it a priori} constraint, as discussed in the next section.) As
375: noted in \S~3, we took the uncertainties $\sigma_j$ to be the
376: calculated uncertainties after multiplication by a factor specific to
377: each night, such that $\chi^2/N_{\rm DOF} = 1$ when each night's data
378: was fitted individually.
379:
380: We began by finding the values of the parameters that minimize
381: $\chi^2$, using the venerable AMOEBA algorithm~(Press et al.~1992, p.\
382: 408). Then we estimated the {\it a posteriori} joint probability
383: distribution for the parameter values using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo
384: (MCMC) technique (for a brief introduction, consult appendix A of
385: Tegmark et al.~2004). In this method, a chain of points in parameter
386: space is generated from an initial point by iterating a jump function,
387: which in our case was the addition of a Gaussian random number to each
388: parameter value. If the new point has a lower $\chi^2$ than the
389: previous point, the jump is executed; if not, the jump is only
390: executed with probability $\exp(-\Delta\chi^2/2)$. We set the typical
391: sizes of the random perturbations such that $\sim$20\% of jumps are
392: executed. We created 10 independent chains, each with 500,000 points,
393: starting from random initial positions. The first 100,000 points were
394: not used, to minimize the effect of the initial condition. The
395: correlation lengths were $\sim$$10^3$ steps for the highly covariant
396: parameters $R_P$, $R_S$, and $b$, and a few hundred steps for the
397: other parameters. The Gelman \& Rubin~(1992) $R$ statistic was
398: within 0.1\% of unity for each parameter, a sign of good mixing and
399: convergence.
400:
401: \section{Results}
402:
403: The model that minimizes $\chi^2$ is plotted as a solid line in
404: Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}. The optimized residual extinction correction has
405: been applied to the data that are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}, and to
406: the data that are given in Table~1. The differences between the
407: observed fluxes and the model fluxes are also shown beneath each light
408: curve.
409:
410: Table~2 gives the estimated values and uncertainties for each
411: parameter based on the MCMC analysis. It also includes some useful
412: derived quantities: the impact parameter $b= a \cos i / R_S$ (where
413: $a$ is the semimajor axis); the time between first and last contact
414: ($t_{\rm IV} - t_{\rm I}$); and the time between first and second
415: contact ($t_{\rm II} - t_{\rm I}$). Fig.~\ref{fig:err} shows the
416: estimated {\it a posteriori} probability distributions for the
417: especially interesting parameters $R_S$, $R_P$ and $b$, along with
418: some of the two-dimensional correlations involving those
419: parameters. Although the distributions shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:err} are
420: somewhat asymmetric about the median, Table~2 reports only the median
421: $p_{\rm med}$ and a single number $\sigma_p$ characterizing the width
422: of the distribution. The value of $\sigma_p$ is the average of
423: $|p_{\rm med}-p_{\rm hi}|$ and $|p_{\rm med} - p_{\rm lo}|$, where
424: $p_{\rm lo}$ and $p_{\rm hi}$ are the lower and upper 68\% confidence
425: limits. We refer to $\sigma_p$ as the ``statistical error'' to
426: distinguish it from the sources of systematic error discussed below.
427:
428: \begin{figure}[p]
429: \epsscale{1.0}
430: \plotone{f2.ps}
431: \caption{ {\bf Top row.} Probability distributions for the stellar
432: radius $R_S$, planetary radius $R_P$, and impact parameter $b\equiv
433: a\cos i/R_S$, based on the MCMC simulations. The arrows mark the
434: values of the parameters that minimize $\chi^2$. A solid line marks
435: the median of each distribution, and the dashed lines mark the 68\%
436: confidence limits. {\bf Middle and bottom rows.} Joint probability
437: distributions of those parameters with the strongest correlations.
438: The contours are isoprobability contours enclosing 68\% and 95\% of
439: the points in the Markov chains. The dots mark the values
440: of the parameters that minimize $\chi^2$. The dotted lines indicate
441: the value of the limb darkening parameter calculated by Claret~(2000)
442: based on an ATLAS model of a star with $T_{\rm eff}=5000$~K, $\log
443: g=4.5$~(cgs), $[{\rm Fe}/{\rm H}]=0.2$, and $\xi_t=2$~km~s$^{-1}$.
444: \label{fig:err}}
445: \end{figure}
446:
447: There are several sources of systematic error that are not taken into
448: account by the MCMC analysis. The first is the systematic error that
449: was already discussed in \S~4: the covariance between the stellar mass
450: $M_S$ and both of the parameters $R_P$ and $R_S$. For a fixed value of
451: $P$, the photometric signal depends on the combinations
452: $R_P/M_S^{1/3}$ and $R_S/M_S^{1/3}$. A value for $M_S$ must be chosen
453: on other grounds. We adopted the value $M_S=0.81$~$M_\odot$, based on
454: the most recent analysis of the spectrum of OGLE-TR-111 by Santos et
455: al.~(2006). Based on their measurements of the equivalent widths of
456: 38 iron absorption lines and the wings of the H$\alpha$ absorption
457: profile, those investigators concluded that the uncertainty in $M_S$
458: was only 2.5\%. The corresponding fractional error in $R_P$ and $R_S$
459: due to the covariance is only 0.8\%, which is negligible when compared
460: to the statistical errors of 4\% and 5\%, respectively. Another way
461: to state this result is that the uncertainty in the stellar mass would
462: need to be $\gsim$10\% (i.e., four times larger than the uncertainty
463: quoted by Santos et al.~2006) for the resulting systematic error to be
464: comparable to the statistical error.
465:
466: A second source of systematic error is the bias due to an incorrect
467: choice of limb darkening function. Neither the appropriate functional
468: form of the limb darkening function, nor the value of the limb
469: darkening coefficient, is known with certainty. One can calculate the
470: limb darkening function based on stellar atmosphere models, but the
471: uncertainties in both the stellar parameters and in the atmosphere
472: models make it hard to quantify the uncertainty in the results. We
473: attempted to account for this uncertainty with the {\it a priori}
474: constraint on $u$ that was described in \S~4; here, we describe the
475: results of some tests of the sensitivity of our results on the
476: treatment of limb darkening. For brevity, we describe only the
477: variation in $R_P$ under different assumptions, because we have found
478: that this parameter shows the greatest sensitivity to changes in the
479: assumed limb-darkening law. If $u$ is held fixed at the Claret~(2000)
480: value of 0.597, then $R_P$ is decreased by 1.3\% relative to the value
481: given in Table~1. If $u$ is allowed to vary with no constraint, $R_P$
482: rises by 0.8\%. Using a quadratic limb-darkening law instead of a
483: linear law, $R_P$ decreases by 2.5\% if the coefficients are fixed at
484: the Claret~(2000) values, and by 0.5\% if they vary freely. The
485: four-parameter ``nonlinear'' law gives essentially the same results as
486: the quadratic law, and the PHOENIX-based coefficients give essentially
487: the same results as the ATLAS coefficients. We conclude that the
488: systematic error in $R_P$ due to the choice of limb darkening law is a
489: few per cent at most, which is smaller than the statistical error.
490:
491: A third source of systematic error is in the measurement of the flux
492: of OGLE-TR-111 on the reference image of the image-subtraction
493: photometric procedure (see \S~3). For example, if the reference flux
494: $f_{\rm ref}$ is erroneously large, then the transit depth (and the
495: inferred value of $R_P/R_S$) will be erroneously small. We assessed
496: the size of this effect by re-fitting the data after adjusting the
497: value of $f_{\rm ref}$ for the March data (which dominates $\chi^2$)
498: upward or downwards by the estimated error. The results for $R_P$ and
499: $R_S$ are altered by $\lsim$0.5\%, a change that can be neglected in
500: light of the larger errors determined previously.
501:
502: We believe that these three effects are the largest sources of
503: systematic error, and we have shown that all of them are smaller than
504: the statistical errors in the photometry. Therefore, unless the
505: uncertainty in $M_S$ has been grossly underestimated by Santos et
506: al.~(2006), we conclude that there is considerable scope for
507: improvement in the system parameters through additional photometry.
508:
509: Our value of \rp\ for the planetary radius is in agreement with
510: previous estimates. Pont et al.~(2004) found $R_P =
511: 1.00^{+0.13}_{-0.06}$~$R_{\rm Jup}$ based on the OGLE photometry, and
512: Santos et al.~(2006) refined this value to $R_P = 0.97\pm
513: 0.06$~$R_{\rm Jup}$. These values, in turn, have already shown to be
514: in broad agreement with theoretical expectations for ``hot Jupiters''
515: (see, e.g., Baraffe et al.~2005). It might seem surprising that our
516: estimate is hardly more precise than that of Santos et al.~(2006),
517: despite our superior photometry. However, the comparison is
518: misleading. The time sampling and signal-to-noise ratio of the OGLE
519: photometry were insufficient for reliable measurements of the ingress
520: and egress durations. Consequently, it was necessary for previous
521: transit light-curve fitters to adopt an {\it a priori} value of $R_S$
522: in addition to $M_S$. We have been able to derive $R_S$ from the
523: photometry, subject only to the weak covariance with the assumed value
524: of $M_S$. The agreement between our result \rs\ and the spectroscopic
525: estimate of $0.83\pm 0.02$~$R_\odot$ is therefore a new and important
526: cross-check on the system parameters.
527:
528: The uncertainties in the transit times are about 30 seconds, and these
529: uncertainties are not correlated with those of any of the other model
530: parameters except for the residual airmass correction. The interval
531: between the two transits was $12.0428(5)$~days, where the number in
532: parentheses is the 1$\sigma$ error in the last digit. This corresponds
533: to an ``instantaneous period'' of $4.0143(2)$~days. We refined the
534: precision of the transit ephemeris through a simultaneous fit to all
535: of the OGLE photometry and our own photometry, assuming the period to
536: be uniform. Only the orbital period $P$ and one particular time of
537: transit $T_c$ were allowed to vary; all of the rest of the parameters
538: were held fixed at the values given in Table~1. The refined ephemeris
539: is
540: \begin{eqnarray}
541: T_c & = & 2,453,799.7516 \pm 0.0002~{\mathrm{[HJD]}} \nonumber \\
542: P & = & 4.0144479\pm 0.0000041~{\mathrm{days}}.
543: \end{eqnarray}
544:
545: \section{Summary}
546:
547: Through observations of two closely spaced transits of the exoplanet
548: OGLE-TR-111b, we have improved upon the estimates of the system
549: parameters. The improvement comes not only from an overall increase in
550: the signal-to-noise ratio, but also from the ability to resolve the
551: ingress and egress and thereby determine the stellar radius
552: photometrically. Our results confirm the previous estimates of the
553: stellar and planetary radii, and are subject to a smaller systematic
554: error. We have also provided a more precise transit ephemeris. All of
555: these results will help with future observations and interpretations
556: of this system.
557:
558: \acknowledgments We have benefited from helpful consultations with
559: D.~Sasselov on limb darkening, G.~Torres on stellar mass
560: determination, and S.~Gaudi on parameter estimation. We thank
561: A.~Udalski for providing an updated OGLE ephemeris and A.~Roussanova
562: for proofreading the manuscript.
563:
564: \begin{thebibliography}
565:
566: \bibitem[Agol et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.359..567A} Agol, E., Steffen,
567: J., Sari, R., \& Clarkson, W.\ 2005, \mnras, 359, 567
568:
569: \bibitem[Alard(2000)]{2000A&AS..144..363A} Alard, C.\ 2000, \aaps,
570: 144, 363
571:
572: \bibitem[Alard \& Lupton(1998)]{1998ApJ...503..325A} Alard, C., \& Lupton,
573: R.~H.\ 1998, \apj, 503, 325
574:
575: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...436L..47B} Baraffe, I.,
576: Chabrier, G., Barman, T.~S., Selsis, F., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt,
577: P.~H.\ 2005, \aap, 436, L47
578:
579: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...552..699B} Brown, T.~M.,
580: Charbonneau, D., Gilliland, R.~L., Noyes, R.~W., \& Burrows, A.\
581: 2001, \apj, 552, 699
582:
583: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...568..377C} Charbonneau,
584: D., Brown, T.~M., Noyes, R.~W., \& Gilliland, R.~L.\ 2002, \apj,
585: 568, 377
586:
587: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...626..523C} Charbonneau,
588: D., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 626, 523
589:
590: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{2000A&A...363.1081C} Claret, A.\ 2000, \aap,
591: 363, 1081
592:
593: \bibitem[Deming et al.(2005)]{2005Natur.434..740D} Deming, D., Seager,
594: S., Richardson, L.~J., \& Harrington, J.\ 2005, \nat, 434, 740
595:
596: \bibitem[Dobbs-Dixon et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...610..464D} Dobbs-Dixon,
597: I., Lin, D.~N.~C., \& Mardling, R.~A.\ 2004, \apj, 610, 464
598:
599: \bibitem[Gaudi et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...623..472G} Gaudi, B.~S.,
600: Seager, S., \& Mall\'en-Ornelas, G.\ 2005, \apj, 623, 472
601:
602: \bibitem[Gelman \& Rubin(1992)]{Gelman.1992} Gelman, A.\ \& Rubin,
603: D.~B.\ 1992, Stat. Sci., 7, 457
604:
605: \bibitem[Gould et al.(2006)]{2006AcA....56....1G} Gould, A., Dorsher,
606: S., Gaudi, B.~S., \& Udalski, A.\ 2006, Acta Astronomica, 56, 1
607:
608: \bibitem[Holman \& Murray(2005)]{Holman.2005a} Holman, M.~J.\ \&
609: Murray, N.~W.\ 2005, Science, 307, 1288
610:
611: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2006)]{Holman.2006} Holman, M.~J., Winn, J.~N.,
612: Latham, D.~W., O'Donovan, F.~T., Charbonneau, D., Bakos, G.,
613: Esquerdo, G., Hergenrother, C., Everett, M.\ \& P\'al, A.\ 2006,
614: ApJ, in press
615:
616: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{2002ApJ...580L.171M} Mandel, K., \&
617: Agol, E.\ 2002, \apjl, 580, L171
618:
619: \bibitem[Miralda-Escud{\'e}(2002)]{2002ApJ...564.1019M}
620: Miralda-Escud{\'e}, J.\ 2002, \apj, 564, 1019
621:
622: \bibitem[Pont et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...426L..15P} Pont, F., Bouchy, F.,
623: Queloz, D., Santos, N.~C., Melo, C., Mayor, M., \& Udry, S.\ 2004,
624: \aap, 426, L15
625:
626: \bibitem[Pont et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...438.1123P} Pont, F., Bouchy, F.,
627: Melo, C., Santos, N.~C., Mayor, M., Queloz, D., \& Udry, S.\ 2005,
628: \aap, 438, 1123
629:
630: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{nr} Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A.,
631: Vetterling, W.T., \& Flannery, B.P.\ 1992, Numerical Recipes in C
632: (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.\ Press)
633:
634: \bibitem[Queloz et al.(2000)]{2000A&A...359L..13Q} Queloz, D.,
635: Eggenberger, A., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Beuzit, J.~L., Naef, D.,
636: Sivan, J.~P., \& Udry, S.\ 2000, \aap, 359, L13
637:
638: \bibitem[Rasio et al.(1996)]{1996ApJ...470.1187R} Rasio, F.~A., Tout,
639: C.~A., Lubow, S.~H., \& Livio, M.\ 1996, \apj, 470, 1187
640:
641: \bibitem[Rowe et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...646.1241R} Rowe, J.~F., et al.\
642: 2006, \apj, 646, 1241
643:
644: \bibitem[Santos et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...450..825S} Santos, N.~C., et
645: al.\ 2006, \aap, 450, 825
646:
647: \bibitem[Seager \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas(2003)]{2003ApJ...585.1038S}
648: Seager, S., \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas, G.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 1038
649:
650: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004)]{2004PhRvD..69j3501T} Tegmark, M., et
651: al.\ 2004, \prd, 69, 103501
652:
653: \bibitem[Trilling(2000)]{Trilling.2000} Trilling, D.~E.\ 2000, \apjl,
654: 537, L61
655:
656: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(2002)]{2002AcA....52..317U} Udalski, A., Szewczyk,
657: O., Zebrun, K., Pietrzynski, G., Szymanski, M., Kubiak, M.,
658: Soszynski, I., \& Wyrzykowski, L.\ 2002, Acta Astronomica, 52, 317
659:
660: \bibitem[Vidal-Madjar et al.(2003)]{2003Natur.422..143V} Vidal-Madjar,
661: A., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., D{\'e}sert, J.-M., Ballester, G.~E.,
662: Ferlet, R., H{\'e}brard, G., \& Mayor, M.\ 2003, \nat, 422, 143
663:
664: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...631.1215W} Winn, J.~N., et al.\
665: 2005, \apj, 631, 1215
666:
667: \bibitem[Wolf et al.(2006)]{wolf06} Wolf, A.\ et al.\ 2006, ApJ, in
668: press
669:
670: \end{thebibliography}
671:
672: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
673: \tabletypesize{\normalsize}
674: \tablecaption{Photometry of OGLE-TR-111\label{tbl:photometry}}
675: \tablewidth{0pt}
676:
677: \tablehead{
678: \colhead{HJD} & \colhead{Relative flux} & \colhead{Uncertainty}
679: }
680:
681: \startdata
682: $ 2453787.637339 $ & $1.00005$ & $0.00158$ \\
683: %\input table1.tex
684: \enddata
685:
686: \tablecomments{The time stamps represent the Heliocentric Julian Date
687: at the time of mid-exposure. The uncertainty estimates are based on
688: the procedures described in \S~2. We intend for this table to appear
689: in entirety in the electronic version of the journal. A portion is
690: shown here to illustrate its format. The data are also available
691: from the authors upon request.}
692:
693: \end{deluxetable}
694:
695: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
696: \tabletypesize{\small}
697: \tablecaption{System Parameters of OGLE-TR-111\label{tbl:params}}
698: \tablewidth{0pt}
699: %\tablewidth{4.5in}
700:
701: \tablehead{
702: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value} & \colhead{Uncertainty}
703: }
704: \startdata
705: $R_S/R_\odot$& $ 0.831$ & $ 0.031$ \\
706: $R_P/R_{\rm Jup}$& $ 1.067$ & $ 0.054$ \\
707: $R_P / R_S$& $ 0.132$ & $ 0.002$ \\
708: $i$~[deg]& $ 88.1$ & $ 0.5$ \\
709: $b$& $ 0.39$ & $ 0.09$ \\
710: $t_{\rm IV} - t_{\rm I}$~[hr]& $ 2.743$ & $ 0.033$ \\
711: $t_{\rm II} - t_{\rm I}$~[min]& $ 22.2$ & $ 2.0$ \\
712: $T_c(363)$~[HJD]& $ 2453787.70854$ & $ 0.00035$ \\
713: $T_c(366)$~[HJD]& $ 2453799.75138$ & $ 0.00032$ \\
714: $u$& $ 0.49$ & $ 0.05$
715: \enddata
716:
717: \tablecomments{The parameter values in Column 2 are the median values
718: $p_{\rm med}$ of the MCMC distributions. The quoted uncertainty is
719: the average of $|p_{\rm med}-p_{\rm lo}|$ and $|p_{\rm med}-p_{\rm
720: hi}|$, where $p_{\rm lo}$ and $p_{\rm hi}$ are the lower and upper
721: 68\% confidence limits. (The cumulative probability for values below
722: $p_{\rm lo}$ is 16\%, and the cumulative probability for values
723: above $p_{\rm hi}$ is also 16\%.)
724: For the stellar mass, we use the value $M_S=0.81\pm 0.02$~$M_\odot$ from Santos et al.~(2006).
725: The systematic errors due to the uncertainties in the stellar mass, the limb darkening function, and
726: the reference flux are considerably smaller than the statistical
727: errors and are not included here (see the text).}
728:
729: \end{deluxetable}
730:
731: \end{document}
732: