1: \documentclass[preprint,11pt]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{latexsym,graphicx,natbib}
3: %\usepackage{apjfonts,emulateapj5,psfig}
4:
5: \shortauthors{}
6: \shorttitle{}
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:
18: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------
19: %
20:
21: \bibliographystyle{apj}
22:
23: %\title{Precise Determination of the Radii of Two New Exoplanets}
24: %\title{Precise Radius Determinations for the Two New SuperWASP Exoplanets}
25: \title{Precise Radius Estimates for the Exoplanets WASP-1b and WASP-2b}
26:
27: \author{
28: David Charbonneau\altaffilmark{1,2},
29: Joshua N. Winn\altaffilmark{3},
30: Mark E. Everett\altaffilmark{4},
31: David W. Latham\altaffilmark{1},
32: Matthew J. Holman\altaffilmark{1},
33: Gilbert A. Esquerdo\altaffilmark{1,4},
34: and Francis T. O'Donovan\altaffilmark{5}
35: }
36:
37: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
38: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138; dcharbonneau@cfa.harvard.edu.}
39: \altaffiltext{2}{Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellow}
40: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute for
41: Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of
42: Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139.}
43: \altaffiltext{4}{Planetary Science Institute, 1700 East Fort Lowell Road,
44: Suite 106, Tucson, AZ 85719.}
45: \altaffiltext{5}{California Institute of Technology,
46: 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91107.}
47:
48: \begin{abstract}
49: We present precise $z$-band photometric time series spanning times of
50: transit of the two exoplanets recently discovered by the SuperWASP
51: collaboration. We find planetary radii of $1.44 \pm 0.08\, R_{\rm J}$
52: and $1.04 \pm 0.06\, R_{\rm J}$ for WASP-1b and WASP-2b, respectively.
53: These error estimates include both random errors in the photometry and
54: also the uncertainty in the stellar masses. Our results are 5 times
55: more precise than the values derived from the discovery data alone.
56: Our measurement of the radius of WASP-2b agrees with previously
57: published models of hot Jupiters that include both a 20-$M_{\Earth}$
58: core of solid material and the effects of stellar insolation. In
59: contrast, we find that the models cannot account for the large size of
60: WASP-1b, even if the planet has no core. Thus, we add WASP-1b to
61: the growing list of hot Jupiters that are larger than expected. This
62: suggests that ``inflated'' hot Jupiters are more common than
63: previously thought, and that any purported explanations involving
64: highly unusual circumstances are disfavored.
65: \end{abstract}
66:
67: \keywords{planetary systems --- stars:~individual (WASP-1, WASP-2) ---
68: techniques: photometric}%--- cylons: new model}
69:
70: \section{Introduction}
71:
72: The wide-field surveys for transiting exoplanets have finally begun to
73: strike gold. For nearly 10 years, numerous groups have attempted to
74: use small-aperture lenses to identify transits of bright stars over
75: large patches of the sky. This turned out to be much more difficult
76: than initially expected, and the first success was achieved only two
77: years ago (Alonso et al.~2004). Since then, progress has accelerated,
78: and in the month of September 2006 alone, three different survey teams
79: announced the discovery of four transiting exoplanets.
80:
81: The Trans-atlantic Exoplanet Survey (TrES) reported the discovery of
82: their second planet, TrES-2 (O'Donovan et al.\ 2006), the first
83: extrasolar planet detected in the field of view of the NASA {\it
84: Kepler} mission (Borucki et al.\ 2003) and the most massive exoplanet
85: known to transit a nearby bright star. The HATNet project announced
86: the discovery of HAT-P-1b (Bakos et al.\ 2006a), a hot Jupiter
87: orbiting one star of a visual binary, and the lowest-density hot
88: Jupiter yet detected. Most recently, the SuperWASP team announced the
89: discovery of two planets, WASP-1b and WASP-2b (Collier Cameron et al.\
90: 2006), that are the subject of this paper. Thus, including the
91: discovery of a planet by the XO project earlier this year (McCullough
92: et al.\ 2006), four independent teams have now demonstrated the
93: capability to identify transiting hot Jupiters using very modest
94: (typically 10~cm) aperture automated observatories. Several more
95: projects also seem poised for success (for a review of current and
96: near-future transit-search projects, see Charbonneau et al.\ 2006a).
97:
98: The reason why transiting planets are so precious, and why the
99: exoplanet community is ebullient over the progress in finding them, is
100: that only for transiting planets can one measure both the mass and the
101: radius. This in turn permits one to confront observations with
102: theoretical models of planetary structure. For the moment, this
103: confrontation is limited to the interesting case of the hot Jupiters,
104: for the simple reason that close-in planets are much more likely to
105: exhibit transits.
106:
107: Prior to the detection of such objects in transiting configurations,
108: our naive expectation was that hot Jupiters would be similar to
109: Jupiter in structure, with a modest increase in radius due to the
110: effects of stellar insolation (e.g. Guillot et al.\ 1996; Lin,
111: Bodenheimer, \& Richardson 1996). However,
112: among the 14 cases that have since been discovered, there is a large
113: range in measured radii. At one extreme lies HD~149026b (Sato et al.\
114: 2005; Charbonneau et al.\ 2006b), whose small radius bespeaks a
115: central core of solid material that composes roughly 70\% of the
116: planet by mass. At the other extreme is HD~209458b (Knutson et al.\
117: 2006), whose radius significantly exceeds the predictions of insolated
118: structural models (see, e.g., Baraffe et al.~2003 or Bodenheimer et
119: al.\ 2003, and for a contrary view, Burrows et al.~2003). The recently
120: discovered planet HAT-P-1b (Bakos et al.\ 2006a) is also larger than
121: theoretically expected. This suggests that in those two planets, at
122: least, there is an source of internal heat that was overlooked by
123: theoreticians.
124:
125: Various mechanisms for producing this heat have been explored,
126: although certainly not exhaustively. Bodenheimer et al.\ (2001; 2003)
127: proposed that there is a third body in the system that excites the
128: eccentricity of the hot Jupiter. Ongoing tidal dissipation would then
129: provide the requisite energy, even if the mean eccentricity were as
130: small as a few per cent. However, subsequent observations have placed
131: an upper bound on the current eccentricity below the value required (Deming
132: et al.~2005, Laughlin et al.~2005a, Winn et al.~2005), and they have
133: not revealed any third body. Showman \& Guillot (2002) argued instead
134: that the heat could be provided by the conversion of several per cent
135: of the incident stellar radiation into mechanical energy that is
136: subsequently transported deep into the planetary
137: interior. Alternatively, Winn \& Holman (2005) invoked ongoing tidal
138: dissipation due to a nonzero planetary obliquity. Ordinarily, the
139: obliquity would be driven to very small values, but it is possible for
140: hot Jupiters to exist in a stable Cassini state (a resonance between
141: spin and orbital precession) with a significant obliquity.
142:
143: Although measurements of either the winds or the spin states of hot
144: Jupiters may not be forthcoming soon, a possible avenue for progress
145: would be to examine the rate of occurrence of the anomalously-large
146: hot Jupiters relative to the hot Jupiter population as a whole (being
147: mindful of the observational biases that favor the detection of large
148: planets, as quantified by Gaudi 2005). In particular, the most
149: puzzling aspect of the Showman \& Guillot (2002) mechanism is why it
150: should act on some but not all hot Jupiters. Conversely, the Cassini
151: state described by Winn \& Holman (2005) requires some fine tuning,
152: making it an unattractive explanation if ``inflated'' planets turn out
153: to be relatively common.
154:
155: Although the detection of the planets WASP-1b and WASP-2b (Collier
156: Cameron et al.\ 2006) is an important opportunity to address these
157: questions, the range of allowable planetary radii, $1.33 < R_{p} /
158: R_{\rm J} < 2.53$ for WASP-1b and $0.65 < R_{p} / R_{\rm J} < 1.26$
159: for WASP-2b, is too broad to meaningfully constrain the models. In
160: this paper, we present the analysis of newly-acquired photometric time
161: series that serve to reduce the uncertainties in the radii of both
162: planets by a factor of 5. We then interpret the new radius estimates
163: in the context of the known hot Jupiters and the published models of
164: their physical structural models. We end by noting particular
165: opportunities for further follow-up presented by both planets.
166:
167: \section{Observations}
168:
169: We observed WASP-1 and 2 on the nights of predicted transits, with the
170: 1.2~m telescope of the Fred L.\ Whipple Observatory on Mt. Hopkins,
171: Arizona. The WASP-1 transit occurred on UT~2006~September~27, while
172: the WASP-2 transit was on UT~2006~September~30. On each night, we used
173: Keplercam to obtain a continuous sequence of 30~s integrations of the
174: target and surrounding field stars. We employed the SDSS $z$ filter,
175: the reddest band available, to minimize the effects of differential
176: extinction on the photometry and the effect of stellar limb darkening on the
177: light curve. Keplercam employs a single 4096$\times$4096 Fairchild 486
178: CCD; we used 2$\times$2 binning. With a readout time of 9~s and total
179: overhead of 12~s between exposures, the resulting cadence was 42~s.
180: The field-of-view is $23\arcmin\times23\arcmin$ with a
181: 0.67$\arcsec$~pixel$^{-1}$ plate scale when binned. We used the
182: offset guider to maintain the telescope pointing to within $5\arcsec$
183: throughout the night. On each night, we started observing well before
184: the predicted time of ingress and ended well after egress.
185:
186: For the WASP-1 event, we gathered 832 images over a timespan of 9.7
187: hours, spanning an airmass range of 1.0 to 2.1 that reached its
188: minimum value in the middle of the observing sequence. Light clouds
189: were present during the first hour, and conditions were photometric
190: afterwards. Since the hour in which clouds were present occurred well
191: before ingress, we decided to exclude those data in the analysis. The
192: full width at half-maximum (FWHM) of the stellar images was typically
193: $1\farcs6$, but occasionally degraded to $4\arcsec$. For the WASP-2
194: event, we gathered 426 images spanning a period of 4.9 hours under
195: clear skies and spanning an airmass that began at 1.1 and increased to
196: 2.1 over the observing sequence. The seeing was stable, varying only
197: modestly between $1\farcs5$ and $1\farcs9$. For calibration purposes,
198: we obtained on both nights dome flats and twilight sky flats along
199: with a set of bias images.
200:
201: \section{Data Reduction}
202:
203: To calibrate the images, we first subtracted an amplifier-dependent
204: overscan bias level and then joined the images from each quadrant into
205: a single frame. We filtered the bias images from each night of
206: deviant pixels and averaged the cleaned biases to produce an average
207: bias frame. We then used these average bias frames to subtract a
208: residual spatially-dependent bias pattern from the science images. We
209: scaled our sky flat images to the same mean flux, and then averaged
210: them (while filtering out deviant pixels) to produce nightly
211: flat-field images, which we then use to flat-field each science image.
212:
213: We performed aperture photometry using the IRAF\footnote{IRAF is
214: distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which
215: are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
216: Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National
217: Science Foundation.} PHOT task, which yielded
218: estimates of the instrumental magnitudes and sky magnitudes for the
219: target and comparison stars. We estimated the sky magnitudes from the
220: median value in an annulus centered on the star after iteratively
221: rejecting pixel values that deviated by more than 3 standard
222: deviations from the mean. To obtain differential photometry of the
223: target, we selected a group of field stars that were isolated and
224: located on a portion of the detector that was cosmetically clean. We
225: then calculated the statistically-weighted mean magnitude of the
226: comparison stars in each frame as follows: We estimated the
227: photometric uncertainties based on the expectations of photon noise
228: from both the star and underlying sky, as well as detector read noise
229: and scintillation (as formulated by Gilliland et al.\ 1993). We then
230: subtracted the mean magnitude of the comparison stars from those of
231: all stars in our list, including the target star. We eliminated from
232: the list any comparison star found to be variable or exhibiting a
233: systematic trend in its brightness over time. We iteratively
234: re-calculated the differential correction in this manner, eliminating
235: suspect comparison stars until we visually confirmed in plots of the
236: light curves that all of the comparison stars did not vary outside of
237: the expectations of the noise sources listed above. This procedure
238: yielded 9 comparison stars for the WASP-1 data and 6 comparison stars
239: for the WASP-2 data. We selected the optimal photometric aperture
240: (which depends primarily on the typical nightly seeing) and sky
241: annulus to be the ones that minimized the RMS deviation of the
242: out-of-transit portions of the differential light curve of the target
243: star. We selected photometric apertures with radii of $6\farcs4$ and
244: $5\farcs4$ for the WASP-1 and WASP-2 data, respectively. For both
245: nights, we selected an aperture for the sky annulus that spanned
246: $8\arcsec$ to $21\arcsec$.
247:
248: Although the relative photometry removes the first-order effects of
249: extinction, color-dependent effects are not removed. Stars of
250: different colors are extinguished by different amounts through a given
251: airmass. For this reason, we applied a residual extinction correction
252: to the data. The correction function was determined as part of the
253: model-fitting procedure that we describe in \S4.
254:
255: The final photometry is given in Tables~1 and 2, and is plotted in
256: Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}. The fluxes and their uncertainties reported in the
257: tables have already been corrected for extinction. The reported
258: uncertainties have been further rescaled such that $\chi^2/N_{\rm DOF}
259: = 1$ for the best-fitting model. The scaling factors were determined
260: independently for each night, but turned out to be nearly the same:
261: 1.28 for the WASP-1 data and 1.29 for the WASP-2 data.
262:
263: \begin{figure}[p]
264: \epsscale{1.0}
265: \plotone{f1.eps}
266: \plotone{f2.eps}
267: \caption{
268: Relative $z$ band photometry of WASP-1 and WASP-2. The best-fitting
269: model is shown as a solid line. The residuals
270: (observed~$-$~calculated) and the rescaled $1~\sigma$ error bars are
271: also shown. The residuals have zero mean but are offset for
272: clarity by a constant flux so as to appear beneath each light curve.
273: For both time series, the median time between exposures is 42~s,
274: and the RMS residual is 0.17\%. The span of the axes is the same
275: in both plots, permitting a visual comparison of both events.
276: The WASP-1b transit is longer and shallower,
277: as it corresponds to a more equatorial transit of a larger star.
278: \label{fig:lc}}
279: \end{figure}
280:
281: \section{The Model}
282:
283: We used the same modeling techniques that have been employed
284: previously by the Transit Light Curve (TLC) project (e.g. Holman et
285: al.~2006a; Winn et al.~2006). Our model is based on a star (with mass
286: $M_{\star}$ and radius $R_{\star}$) and a planet (with mass $M_p$ and
287: radius $R_p$) in a circular orbit with period $P$ and inclination $i$
288: relative to the plane of the sky. We define the coordinate system such
289: that $0\arcdeg \leq i\leq 90\arcdeg$. We allow each transit to have an
290: independent value of $T_c$. Thus, the period $P$ is relevant to the
291: model only through the connection between the total mass and the
292: orbital semi-major axis, $a$. We fix $P=2.51997$~days for WASP-1 and
293: $P=2.152226$~days for WASP-2, as determined by Collier Cameron et
294: al.~(2006). The uncertainties in $P$ are negligible for our purposes.
295:
296: The values of $R_{\star}$ and $R_p$ that are inferred from the
297: photometry are covariant with the stellar mass. For a fixed period
298: $P$, the characteristics of the transit light curve depend almost
299: exactly on the combinations $R_{\star}/M_{\star}^{1/3}$ and
300: $R_p/M_{\star}^{1/3}$. Our approach was to fix $M_{\star}$ at the
301: value reported by Collier Cameron et al.~(2006), which they derived by
302: comparing the spectroscopically-estimated effective temperatures and
303: surface gravities to theoretical evolutionary tracks for stars of
304: different masses. We then used the scaling relations for the fitted
305: radii, $R_p \propto M_{\star}^{1/3}$ and $R_{\star} \propto
306: M_{\star}^{1/3}$, to estimate the systematic error due to the
307: uncertainty in $M_{\star}$.
308:
309: To calculate the relative flux as a function of the projected
310: separation of the planet and the star, we assumed the limb-darkening
311: law to be quadratic,
312: \begin{equation}
313: \frac{I(\mu)}{I(1)} = 1 - u_1(1-\mu) - u_2(1-\mu)^2,
314: \end{equation}
315: where $I$ is the intensity, and $\mu$ is the cosine of the angle
316: between the line of sight and the normal to the stellar surface. We
317: employed the analytic formulas of Mandel \& Agol~(2002) to compute the
318: integral of the intensity over the unobscured portion of the stellar
319: disk. We fixed the limb-darkening parameters $u_1$ and $u_2$ at the
320: values calculated by Claret~(2004) for a star with the
321: spectroscopically-estimated effective temperature and surface
322: gravity. For WASP-1, these values are $u_1=0.1517$, $u_2=0.3530$; for
323: WASP-2, they are $u_1=0.2835$, $u_2=0.2887$. We also investigated the
324: effects of changing the limb-darkening law and allowing the
325: limb-darkening parameters to vary in the fit (see below).
326:
327: Each transit also requires two additional parameters for its
328: description: the out-of-transit flux $f_{\rm oot}$, and a residual
329: extinction coefficient $k$. The latter is defined such that the
330: observed flux is proportional to $\exp(-kz)$ where $z$ is the
331: airmass. In total, there are 6 adjustable parameters for each transit:
332: $R_{\star}$, $R_p$, $i$, $T_c$, $f_{\rm oot}$ and $k$.
333:
334: Our goodness-of-fit parameter is
335: \begin{equation}
336: \chi^2 = \sum_{j=1}^{N}
337: \left[
338: \frac{f_j({\mathrm{obs}}) - f_j({\mathrm{calc}})}{\sigma_j}
339: \right]^2
340: \end{equation}
341: where $f_j$(obs) is the flux observed at time $j$, $\sigma_j$ is the
342: corresponding uncertainty, and $f_j$(calc) is the predicted model
343: value. The WASP-1 data set has $N=657$ points (after excluding points
344: at the beginning of the sequence, as described in \S~2), and the
345: WASP-2 data set has $N=426$ data points. As noted in \S~3, we took
346: the uncertainties $\sigma_j$ to be the calculated uncertainties after
347: multiplication by a factor specific to each night, such that
348: $\chi^2/N_{\rm DOF} = 1$ when each night's data were fitted
349: independently.
350:
351: We began by finding the values of the parameters that minimize
352: $\chi^2$, using the venerable AMOEBA algorithm~(Press et al.~1992, p.\
353: 408). Then we estimated the {\it a posteriori} joint probability
354: distribution for the parameter values using a Markov chain Monte Carlo
355: (MCMC) technique (for a brief introduction, consult appendix A of
356: Tegmark et al.~2004). In this method, a chain of points in parameter
357: space is generated from an initial point by iterating a jump function,
358: which in our case was the addition of a Gaussian random number to each
359: parameter value. If the new point has a lower $\chi^2$ than the
360: previous point, the jump is executed; if not, the jump is only
361: executed with probability $\exp(-\Delta\chi^2/2)$. We set the typical
362: sizes of the random perturbations such that $\approx$25\% of jumps are
363: executed. We created 10 independent chains with 500,000 points each,
364: starting from random initial positions. The first 100,000 points were
365: not used, to minimize the effect of the initial condition. The Gelman
366: \& Rubin~(1992) $R$ statistic was close to unity for each parameter, a
367: sign of good mixing and convergence.
368:
369: \section{Results}
370:
371: The model that minimizes $\chi^2$ is plotted as a solid line in
372: Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}. The optimized residual extinction correction has
373: been applied to the data that are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}, and to
374: the data that are given in Table~1. The differences between the
375: observed fluxes and the model fluxes are also shown beneath each light
376: curve.
377:
378: Tables~3 and 4 give the estimated values and uncertainties for each
379: parameter based on the MCMC analysis. They also include some useful
380: derived quantities: the impact parameter $b= a \cos i / R_{\star}$;
381: the transit duration (i.e. the elapsed time between first contact
382: $t_{\rm I}$ and last contact $t_{\rm IV}$); and the duration of
383: ingress (i.e. the elapsed time between $t_{\rm I}$ and second contact
384: $t_{\rm II}$). Although the MCMC distributions are not exactly
385: symmetric about the median, Tables~3 and 4 report (with two
386: exceptions) only the median values for the derived parameters and
387: their standard deviations. The exceptions are the impact parameter
388: $b$ and inclination $i$ for WASP-1. Those results are best described
389: as one-sided confidence limits because the data are consistent with a
390: central transit.
391:
392: There are several sources of systematic error that are not taken into
393: account by the MCMC analysis. The first is the systematic error that
394: results from the covariance between $M_{\star}$ and both of the
395: parameters $R_p$ and $R_{\star}$, as discussed in \S4. For WASP-1, we
396: adopted $M_{\star}=1.15$~$M_\odot$ based on the interpretation by
397: Collier Cameron et al.~(2006) of the stellar spectrum. Those authors
398: report an uncertainty of about 15\% in $M_{\star}$, which translates
399: into a systematic error of 5\% in our estimates of $R_{\star}$ and
400: $R_p$. For WASP-2, we adopted $M_{\star}=0.79\, M_{\odot}$, and the
401: uncertainty in $M_{\star}$ is about 12\%, which in turn contributes a
402: 4\% error in $R_{\star}$ and $R_p$.\footnote{We note that our formal
403: systematic errors should be asymmetric because Collier Cameron et al.\
404: 2006 reported asymmetric error bars on $M_{\star}$, which we have not
405: taken into account here.} The other transit parameters (such as $b$,
406: $i$, and $T_c$) do not depend on $M_{\star}$.
407:
408: A second potential source of systematic error is the bias due to an
409: incorrect choice of either the limb-darkening function or the values
410: of the limb-darkening coefficients. We investigated the effects of
411: varying the functional form of the limb-darkening law from quadratic
412: to linear, and of allowing the coefficients to be free parameters
413: rather than holding them fixed, and in all cases we found that the
414: resulting changes to $R_p$ were much smaller than the other sources of
415: error. We conclude that the systematic error in $R_p$ due to the
416: choice of limb-darkening law is small compared to either the
417: statistical uncertainty or the systematic uncertainty due to the
418: covariance with $M_{\star}$.
419:
420: \section{Discussion}
421:
422: \begin{figure}[p]
423: \epsscale{1.0}
424: \plotone{f3.eps}
425: \caption{
426: Masses and radii for the known transiting extrasolar planets within 300~pc,
427: as well as Jupiter and Saturn for comparison.
428: The dotted line corresponds to the insolated coreless structural models of
429: Bodenheimer et al.\ (2003) for an age of 4.5~Gyr and a planetary
430: effective temperature of 1500~K. The dashed line shows their models
431: for the same parameters but including the presence of a 20-$M_{\Earth}$ core
432: of solid material.
433: Insolation alone is clearly insufficient to account for the large radii
434: of three of the planets (HAT-P-1b, WASP-1b, and HD~209458b) and likely
435: a fourth (TrES-2), regardless of whether or not a core is present.
436: Interestingly, the parent stars of these four planets are significantly
437: more massive than those of the planets that are in good agreement with
438: the models (TrES-1, WASP-2b, and HD 189733b), all of which orbit lower-mass,
439: K dwarf stars.
440: \label{fig:mr}}
441: \end{figure}
442:
443: Our revised estimates for $R_p$ for both WASP-1b and WASP-2b are five
444: times more precise than those presented in the discovery paper. The
445: three exoplanets WASP-2b, XO-1b (McCullough et al.\ 2006; Holman et
446: al.\ 2006a), and WASP-1b present an interesting sequence (Fig.~2):
447: their radii differ by as much as 40\%, despite their indistinguishable
448: masses. We note that the radius of WASP-2b is in good agreement with
449: published structural models that include both a 20~$M_{\Earth}$ core
450: of solid material and the effects of stellar insolation (Bodenheimer
451: et al.\ 2003). The radius of XO-1b is larger, but it can be explained
452: by a coreless model of a similar effective temperature (Fig.~2). In
453: contrast, we find that WASP-1b is significantly larger than such
454: predictions, whether or not a core is included. WASP-1b is not alone
455: in its anomalous size: both HD~209458b (Knutson et al.\ 2006) and
456: HAT-P-1b (Bakos et al.\ 2006a) also require an additional source of
457: internal energy to account for their large radii. We also note that
458: TrES-2 (O'Donovan et al.\ 2006) may require such heating as well,
459: depending on the outcome of more precise measurements of the planetary
460: radius.
461:
462: Only a month ago, HD~209458b was the single known case of a hot
463: Jupiter that is almost certainly too large to be explained by standard
464: models of planetary structure. (The other possible case, OGLE-TR-10,
465: was ambiguous because of the uncertainty in its radius; see Holman et
466: al.~2006b.) With only one strong anomaly, explanations requiring
467: somewhat improbable events were perfectly viable. However, now that a
468: significant fraction of the transiting hot Jupiters are found to be
469: similarly in need of this additional energy, the burden of the
470: theorists may shift to seeking explanations for this effect that are
471: more generally applicable.
472:
473: Examining Fig.~2, we note that the three planets in closest agreement
474: with the published structural models of Bodenheimer et al. (2003) all
475: orbit the lowest-mass stars of the sample, namely TrES-1 (Alonso et
476: al.\ 2004; Sozzetti et al.\ 2004; Laughlin et al.\ 2005b),
477: WASP-2, and HD~189733 (Bouchy et al.\ 2005; Bakos et al.\ 2006b),
478: whereas the primary stars of the
479: three largest hot Jupiters all orbit stars more massive than the Sun.
480: Although it is likely too soon to search for such patterns in these
481: data (we note that the planet of the most massive star, HD~149026, is
482: the smallest of the sample), we are encouraged that the recent rapid
483: rate of detection of transiting hot Jupiters will soon provide us with
484: a signficantly larger sample in which to assess this and other
485: possible correlations.
486:
487: Another interesting implication of our measurements for both WASP-1
488: and WASP-2 is that they are both particularly favorable targets for
489: efforts to detect reflected light from exoplanets. A positive
490: detection of reflected light would lead to the first empirical
491: determination of an exoplanetary albedo, and perhaps even its phase
492: function. However, the reflected light is typically a minuscule
493: fraction of the direct light from the star, which explains the long
494: list of unsuccessful attempts to measure this signal both in
495: ground-based spectra (Charbonneau et al.\ 1999; Collier Cameron et
496: al.\ 2002; Leigh et al.\ 2003a, 2003b) and space-based photometry
497: (Rowe et al.\ 2006). Since the points of first and last contact
498: correspond to orbital phase angles that are
499: typically within 10$^{\circ}$ of opposition, we may estimate the ratio
500: of the planetary flux $f_p$ to that of the star $f_{\star}$ to be $f_p
501: / f_{\star} \simeq p\, (R_{p} / a)^{2}$, where $p$ denotes the
502: wavelength-dependent geometric albedo. For WASP-1, this quantity is $p
503: \times 3.3 \times 10^{-4}$, the most favorable for any known
504: transiting system. The other systems for which favorable
505: planet-to-star contrast ratios are expected are HD~189733 ($p \times
506: 3.1 \times 10^{-4}$), TrES-2 ($p \times 2.8 \times 10^{-4}$), and
507: WASP-2 ($p \times 2.7 \times 10^{-4}$). The contrast ratios for all
508: of these systems are superior to those for the systems that have been
509: studied to date. We note that the long duration of the WASP-1 transit
510: (the consequence of a nearly equatorial transit of a large star)
511: further facilities a search for reflected light, as it increases the
512: total time in which to gather the signal. Binning the data for WASP-1
513: in Fig.~1 would yield, in principle, a photon-noise limited precision
514: of $9.5 \times 10^{-5}$, which is sufficient to address large values
515: of $p$ with good statistical significance, should we succeed in
516: obtaining a time series of similar quality spanning a secondary
517: eclipse.
518:
519: \acknowledgments We thank Greg Laughlin for providing the theoretical
520: mass-radius curves shown in Fig.~2. This material is based upon work
521: supported by NASA from the {\it Kepler} mission and under grant
522: NNG05GJ29G issued through the Origins of Solar Systems Program.
523:
524: \begin{thebibliography}
525:
526: \bibitem[Alonso et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...613L.153A} Alonso, R., et al.\
527: 2004, \apjl, 613, L153
528:
529: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2006a)]{bakos2006a} Bakos, G.~A., et al.\ 2006a,
530: \apj, in press, astro-ph/0609369
531:
532: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2006b)]{bakos2006b} Bakos, G.~A., et al.\ 2006b,
533: \apj, in press, astro-ph/0603291
534:
535: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(2003)]{2003A&A...402..701B} Baraffe, I.,
536: Chabrier, G., Barman, T.~S., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P.~H.\ 2003,
537: \aap, 402, 701
538:
539: \bibitem[Bodenheimer et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...548..466B} Bodenheimer, P.,
540: Lin, D.~N.~C., \& Mardling, R.~A.\ 2001, \apj, 548, 466
541:
542: \bibitem[Bodenheimer et al.(2003)]{bodenheimer2003} Bodenheimer, P.,
543: Laughlin, G., \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\ 2003, \apj, 592, 555
544:
545: \bibitem[Borucki et al.(2003)]{borucki2003} Borucki, W.~J., et al.\
546: 2003, \procspie, 4854, 129
547:
548: \bibitem[Bouchy et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...444L..15B} Bouchy, F., et al.\
549: 2005, \aap, 444, L15
550:
551: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...594..545B} Burrows, A.,
552: Sudarsky, D., \& Hubbard, W.~B.\ 2003, \apj, 594, 545
553:
554: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...522L.145C} Charbonneau, D.,
555: Noyes, R.~W., Korzennik, S.~G., Nisenson, P., Jha, S., Vogt, S.~S., \&
556: Kibrick, R.~I.\ 1999, \apjl, 522, L145
557:
558: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2006a)]{ch2006a} Charbonneau, D., Brown,
559: T.~M., Burrows, A., \& Laughlin, G.\ 2006a, in Protostars and Planets
560: V, ed. B. Reipuirth, D. Jewitt, \& K. Keil (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona
561: Press), in press, astro-ph/0603376
562:
563: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2006b)]{2006ApJ...636..445C} Charbonneau, D., et
564: al.\ 2006b, \apj, 636, 445
565:
566: \bibitem[Collier Cameron et al.(2002)]{2002MNRAS.330..187C} Collier
567: Cameron, A., Horne, K., Penny, A., \& Leigh, C.\ 2002, \mnras, 330, 187
568:
569: \bibitem[Collier Cameron et al.(2006)]{cc2006} Collier Cameron, A., et al.\ 2006.
570: \mnras, submitted, astro-ph/0609688
571:
572: \bibitem[Deming et al.(2005)]{2005Natur.434..740D} Deming, D., Seager, S.,
573: Richardson, L.~J., \& Harrington, J.\ 2005, \nat, 434, 740
574:
575: \bibitem[Gaudi(2005)]{2005ApJ...628L..73G} Gaudi, B.~S.\ 2005, \apjl, 628,
576: L73
577:
578: \bibitem[Gelman \& Rubin(1992)]{Gelman.1992} Gelman, A.\ \& Rubin,
579: D.~B.\ 1992, Stat. Sci., 7, 457
580:
581: \bibitem[Gilliland et al.(1993)]{gilliland1993} Gilliland, R.~L., et
582: al.\ 1993, \aj, 106, 2441
583:
584: \bibitem[Guillot et al.(1996)]{1996ApJ...459L..35G} Guillot, T., Burrows,
585: A., Hubbard, W.~B., Lunine, J.~I., \& Saumon, D.\ 1996, \apjl, 459, L35
586:
587: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2006a)]{h06} Holman, M.~J., et al.\ 2006a, ApJ,
588: in press, astro-ph/0607571
589:
590: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2006b)]{h06} Holman, M.~J., et al.\ 2006b, ApJ, in press
591:
592: \bibitem[Knutson et al.(2006)]{k06} Knutson, H., Charbonneau, D.,
593: Noyes, R.~W., Brown, T.~M., \& Gilliland, R.~L.\ 2006, \apj, in press,
594: astro-ph/0603542
595:
596: \bibitem[Laughlin et al.(2005a)]{2005ApJ...629L.121L} Laughlin, G., Marcy,
597: G.~W., Vogt, S.~S., Fischer, D.~A., \& Butler, R.~P.\ 2005a, \apjl, 629,
598: L121
599:
600: \bibitem[Laughlin et al.(2005b)]{2005ApJ...621.1072L} Laughlin, G., Wolf,
601: A., Vanmunster, T., Bodenheimer, P., Fischer, D., Marcy, G., Butler, P., \&
602: Vogt, S.\ 2005b, \apj, 621, 1072
603:
604: \bibitem[Leigh et al.(2003a)]{2003MNRAS.346L..16L} Leigh, C., Collier
605: Cameron, A., Udry, S., Donati, J.-F., Horne, K., James, D., \& Penny, A.\
606: 2003a, \mnras, 346, L16
607:
608: \bibitem[Leigh et al.(2003b)]{2003MNRAS.344.1271L} Leigh, C., Cameron,
609: A.~C., Horne, K., Penny, A., \& James, D.\ 2003b, \mnras, 344, 1271
610:
611: \bibitem[Lin et al.(1996)]{1996Natur.380..606L} Lin, D.~N.~C., Bodenheimer,
612: P., \& Richardson, D.~C.\ 1996, \nat, 380, 606
613:
614: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{2002ApJ...580L.171M} Mandel, K., \&
615: Agol, E.\ 2002, \apjl, 580, L171
616:
617: \bibitem[McCullough et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...648.1228M} McCullough, P.~R.,
618: et al.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 1228
619:
620: \bibitem[O'Donovan et al.(2006)]{odonovan2006} O'Donovan, F.~T., et al.\
621: 2006, \apjl, in press, astro-ph/0609335
622:
623: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{nr} Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A.,
624: Vetterling, W.T., \& Flannery, B.P.\ 1992, Numerical Recipes in C
625: (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.\ Press)
626:
627: \bibitem[Rowe et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...646.1241R} Rowe, J.~F., et al.\ 2006,
628: \apj, 646, 1241
629:
630: \bibitem[Sato et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...633..465S} Sato, B., et al.\ 2005,
631: \apj, 633, 465
632:
633: \bibitem[Showman \& Guillot(2002)]{2002A&A...385..166S} Showman, A.~P., \&
634: Guillot, T.\ 2002, \aap, 385, 166
635:
636: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...616L.167S} Sozzetti, A., et al.\
637: 2004, \apjl, 616, L167
638:
639: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004)]{2004PhRvD..69j3501T} Tegmark, M., et
640: al.\ 2004, \prd, 69, 103501
641:
642: \bibitem[Winn \& Holman(2005)]{2005ApJ...628L.159W} Winn, J.~N., \& Holman,
643: M.~J.\ 2005, \apjl, 628, L159
644:
645: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...631.1215W} Winn, J.~N., et al.\
646: 2005, \apj, 631, 1215
647:
648: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2006)]{w06} Winn, J.~N., Holman, M.~J., \&
649: Fuentes, C.~I.\ 2006, AJ, in press, astro-ph/0609471
650:
651: \end{thebibliography}
652:
653:
654: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
655: \tabletypesize{\normalsize}
656: \tablecaption{Photometry of WASP-1\label{tbl:phot-wasp1}}
657: \tablewidth{0pt}
658:
659: \tablehead{
660: \colhead{HJD} & \colhead{Relative flux} & \colhead{Uncertainty}
661: }
662:
663: \startdata
664: $2454005.64040$ & $1.00235$ & $0.00204$ \\
665: $2454005.64088$ & $0.99903$ & $0.00202$ \\
666: $2454005.64138$ & $0.99851$ & $0.00202$ \\
667: %\input table-wasp1.tex
668: \enddata
669:
670: \tablecomments{The time stamps represent the Heliocentric Julian Date
671: at the time of mid-exposure. The data have been corrected for
672: residual extinction effects, and the uncertainties have been
673: rescaled as described in \S3. We intend for this table to appear in
674: entirety in the electronic version of the journal. A portion is
675: shown here to illustrate its format. The data are also available
676: from the authors upon request.}
677:
678: \end{deluxetable}
679:
680:
681: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
682: \tabletypesize{\normalsize}
683: \tablecaption{Photometry of WASP-2\label{tbl:phot-wasp2}}
684: \tablewidth{0pt}
685:
686: \tablehead{
687: \colhead{HJD} & \colhead{Relative flux} & \colhead{Uncertainty}
688: }
689:
690: \startdata
691: $2454008.60531$ & $0.99881$ & $0.00159$ \\
692: $2454008.60578$ & $1.00044$ & $0.00159$ \\
693: $2454008.60627$ & $0.99805$ & $0.00159$ \\
694: %\input table-wasp2.tex
695: \enddata
696:
697: \tablecomments{The time stamps represent the Heliocentric Julian Date
698: at the time of mid-exposure. The data have been corrected for
699: residual extinction effects, and the uncertainties have been
700: rescaled as described in \S3. We intend for this table to appear in
701: entirety in the electronic version of the journal. A portion is
702: shown here to illustrate its format. The data are also available
703: from the authors upon request.}
704:
705: \end{deluxetable}
706:
707: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
708: \tabletypesize{\small}
709: \tablecaption{System Parameters of WASP-1\label{tbl:params-wasp1}}
710: \tablewidth{0pt}
711: %\tablewidth{4.5in}
712:
713: \tablehead{
714: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value} & \colhead{Uncertainty}
715: }
716: \startdata
717: $R_{\star}/R_\odot$& $ 1.453$ & $ 0.032$ \\
718: $R_p/R_{\rm J}$& $ 1.443$ & $ 0.039$ \\
719: $R_p / R_{\star}$& $ 0.10189$ & $ 0.00093$ \\
720: $i$~[deg]& $ > 86\fdg 1$ & (95\% conf.) \\
721: $b$& $ < 0.336$ & (95\% conf.) \\
722: $t_{\rm IV} - t_{\rm I}$~[hr]& $ 3.773$ & $ 0.031$ \\
723: $t_{\rm II} - t_{\rm I}$~[min]& $ 21.5$ & $ 1.1$ \\
724: $T_c$~[HJD]& $ 2454005.75196$ & $ 0.00045$
725: \enddata
726:
727: \tablecomments{The parameter values in Column 2 are the median values
728: of the MCMC distributions, and the uncertainties in Column 3 are the
729: standard deviations. These are for a {\it fixed} choice of
730: $M_{\star}=1.15~M_\odot$, and
731: for a {\it fixed} choice of the limb-darkening function (see the
732: text). The 15\%
733: uncertainty in $M_{\star}$ introduces an {\it additional} 5\%
734: uncertainty in $R_{\star}$ and $R_p$ (and has no effect on the other
735: parameters).}
736:
737: \end{deluxetable}
738:
739: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
740: \tabletypesize{\small}
741: \tablecaption{System Parameters of WASP-2\label{tbl:params-wasp2}}
742: \tablewidth{0pt}
743: %\tablewidth{4.5in}
744:
745: \tablehead{
746: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value} & \colhead{Uncertainty}
747: }
748: \startdata
749: $R_{\star}/R_\odot$& $ 0.813$ & $ 0.032$ \\
750: $R_p/R_{\rm J}$& $ 1.038$ & $ 0.050$ \\
751: $R_p / R_{\star}$& $ 0.1309$ & $ 0.0015$ \\
752: $i$~[deg]& $ 84.74$ & $ 0.39$ \\
753: $b$& $ 0.731$ & $ 0.026$ \\
754: $t_{\rm IV} - t_{\rm I}$~[hr]& $ 1.799$ & $ 0.035$ \\
755: $t_{\rm II} - t_{\rm I}$~[min]& $ 24.6$ & $ 2.4$ \\
756: $T_c$~[HJD]& $ 2454008.73205$ & $ 0.00028$
757: \enddata
758:
759: \tablecomments{The parameter values in Column 2 are the median values
760: of the MCMC distributions, and the uncertainties in Column 3 are the
761: standard deviations. These are for a {\it fixed} choice of
762: $M_{\star}=0.79~M_\odot$, and
763: for a {\it fixed} choice of the limb-darkening function (see the
764: text). The 12\%
765: uncertainty in $M_{\star}$ introduces an {\it additional} 4\%
766: uncertainty in $R_{\star}$ and $R_p$ (and has no effect on the other
767: parameters).}
768:
769: \end{deluxetable}
770:
771: \end{document}
772: