CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 51Stellar, planetary, and galactic studiesAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena

DEEP MMT TRANSIT SURVEY OF THE OPEN CLUSTER M37 IV: LIMIT ON THE FRACTION OF STARS WITH PLANETS AS SMALL AS 0.3 RJ

Open access
Hartman, J. D., Gaudi, B. S., Holman, M. J., McLeod, B. A., Stanek, K. Z., Barranco, J. A., Pinsonneault, M. H., Meibom, S. +1 more·2009·The Astrophysical Journal
DOI 10.1088/0004-637x/695/1/336
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We present the results of a deep (15 ≲ r ≲ 23), 20 night survey for transiting planets in the intermediate-age open cluster M37 (NGC 2099) using the Megacam wide-field mosaic CCD camera on the 6.5 m MMT. We do not detect any transiting planets among the ∼1450 observed cluster members. We do, however, identify a ∼1 R J candidate planet transiting a ∼0.8 M ☉ Galactic field star with a period of 0.77 days. The source is faint ( V = 19.85 mag) and has an expected velocity semiamplitude of K ∼ 220 m s -1 ( M / M J ). We conduct Monte Carlo transit injection and recovery simulations to calculate the 95% confidence upper limit on the fraction of cluster members and field stars with planets as a function of planetary radius and orbital period. Assuming a uniform logarithmic distribution in the orbital period, we find that <1.1%, <2.7%, and <8.3% of cluster members have 1.0 R J planets within extremely hot Jupiter (EHJ; 0.4 < P < 1.0 day), very hot Jupiter (VHJ; 1.0 < P < 3.0 day), and hot Jupiter (HJ; 3.0 < P < 5.0 day) period ranges, respectively. For 0.5 R J planets, the limits are less than 3.2% and less than 21% for EHJ and VHJ period ranges, respectively, while for 0.35 R J planets we can only place an upper limit of less than 25% on the EHJ period range. For a sample of 7814 Galactic field stars, consisting primarily of FGKM dwarfs, we place 95% upper limits of <0.3%, <0.8%, and <2.7% on the fraction of stars with a 1.0 R J EHJ, VHJ, and HJ, respectively, assuming that the candidate planet is not genuine. If the candidate is genuine, the frequency of ∼1.0 R J planets in the EHJ period range is 0.002% < f EHJ < 0.5% with 95% confidence. We place limits of <1.4%, <8.8%, and <47% for 0.5 R J planets, and a limit of <16% on 0.3 R J planets in the EHJ period range. This is the first transit survey to place limits on the fraction of stars with planets as small as Neptune.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0004-637x/695/1/336

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LSST will extend the extrasolar planet census to larger distances within the Galaxy, enabling studies of planet frequency as a function of stellar metallicity and parent population.

    “LSST will extend the extrasolar planet census to larger distances within the Galaxy, thus enabling detailed studies of planet frequency as a function of stellar metallicity and parent population ( e.g., Hartman et al. 2009; Bayliss &amp; Sackett 2011 ) .”

    From LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products (2019) · cites this paper as Hartman et al. 2009

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 107 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Gould, 2006, Acta Astron., 56, 1
  2. Hartman, 2008, ApJ, 675, 1257
  3. Kaluzny, 1992, Acta Astron., 42, 29
  4. Pepper, 2006, Acta Astron., 56, 183
  5. Stetson, 1992, JRASC, 86, 71
  6. Szentgyorgyi, 1998, Proc. SPIE 3355, Optical Astronomical Instrumentation, 242
  7. Udalski, 2002, Acta Astron., 52, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hartman, J. D., Gaudi, B. S., Holman, M. J., McLeod, B. A., Stanek, K. Z., Barranco, J. A., Pinsonneault, M. H., Meibom, S., & Kalirai, J. S.
Affiliations
  • Center for Astrophysics Harvard & Smithsonian (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • San Francisco State University (US)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Published
2009-03-30
Volume
695
Issue
1
Pages
336-356
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
DOI
10.1088/0004-637x/695/1/336
OpenAlex
W2094068379
Cited by
51
References
107
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Astronomy and Astrophysical Research
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Keywords
M37, open clusters, transiting exoplanets, hot Jupiters, super-Earths, sub-Neptunes, planetary radius, orbital period, upper limits, field stars

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review