Table 7: Results of the lightcurve+spectroscopy solution for all objects in our sample. R,r,M,m: radii and masses of the primary and secondary. i: orbital inclination. The last column summarizes the nature of the system, with a number referring to the section where each case is treated. Question marks and brackets denote cases where the resolution is only tentative, colons (":") the values with high uncertainties.
Name R r M m i Nature Section
  [${R}_\odot $] [${R}_\odot $] [ $\ {M}_\odot$] [ $\ {M}_\odot$] [$^\circ$]    
OGLE-TR-63 (1.6) (0.15)       M eclipsing binary? [4.1.3]
OGLE-TR-64 1.29$\pm$0.11 0.97: 1.37$\pm$0.02 0.87 $\pm$0.01 83 grazing eclipsing binary [4.2.1]
OGLE-TR-65 1.58$\pm$0.07 1.59$\pm$0.05 1.15$\pm$0.03 1.11$\pm$0.03 70 triple system [4.2.3]
OGLE-TR-68           eclipsing binary? [4.5]
OGLE-TR-69 1.44 $\pm$ 0.10 1.06 $\pm$ 0.20     82 grazing eclipsing binary [4.2.5]
OGLE-TR-72 1.49$\pm$ 0.12 0.31:   0.26: 86-87 M eclipsing binary [4.1.1]
OGLE-TR-76 1.2$\pm$0.2     0.64: >77 triple system [4.2.2]
OGLE-TR-78 1.51$\pm$0.05 0.24 $\pm$0.013   0.243$\pm$0.015 >85 M eclipsing binary [4.1.1]
OGLE-TR-81 (1.4)         triple system? [4.2.5]
OGLE-TR-82           unsolved [4.5]
OGLE-TR-84           eclipsing binary? [4.5]
OGLE-TR-85 1.30$\pm$0.13     0.39: >77 triple system [4.2.2]
OGLE-TR-89           false transit detection? [4.5]
OGLE-TR-93 (2.0):         triple system? [4.2.5]
OGLE-TR-94 (1.7) (>0.2)       M eclipsing binary? [4.1.3]
OGLE-TR-95 (1.8)         multiple system [4.2.2]
OGLE-TR-96 (1.4) (1.2)     84 grazing eclipsing binary [4.2.5]
OGLE-TR-97           multiple system [4.2.5]
OGLE-TR-98 (2.2) (0.34)       M eclipsing binary? [4.1.3]
OGLE-TR-99 (1.1) (0.19)       M eclipsing binary? [4.1.3]
OGLE-TR-105 2.06$\pm$0.30     1.05: 82 G eclipsing binary [4.1.1]
OGLE-TR-106 1.31$\pm$0.09 0.181$\pm$0.013   0.116$\pm$0.021 >85 M eclipsing binary [4.1.1]
OGLE-TR-107           eclipsing binary ? [4.5]
OGLE-TR-109           unsolved [4.4]
OGLE-TR-110 (1.32) (1.28)     84 grazing eclipsing binary [4.2.5]
OGLE-TR-111 $\rm0.88^{+0.10}_{-0.03}$ $\rm0.103^{+0.013}_{-0.06}$ $\rm0.82^{+0.15}_{-0.02}$ 0.00050$\pm$0.00010   planet [4.3]
OGLE-TR-112 3.5::     0.4:: >70 quadruple system [4.2.4]
OGLE-TR-113 0.765$\pm$0.025 0.111$\pm$0.006 0.77$\pm$0.06 0.00130$\pm$0.00020   planet [4.3]
OGLE-TR-114 0.73$\pm$0.09 0.72$\pm$0.09 0.82$\pm$0.08 0.82$\pm$0.08 83 triple system [4.2.3]
OGLE-TR-118           false transit detection? [4.5]
OGLE-TR-120 1.62$\pm$0.07 0.42$\pm$0.02   0.47$\pm$0.04 >88 M eclipsing binary [4.1.1]
OGLE-TR-121 1.33$\pm$0.15 0.33:   0.35: 85 (fixed) M eclipsing binary [4.1.1]
OGLE-TR-122 $\rm 1.05^{+0.20}_{-0.09}$ $\rm0.120^{+0.024}_{-0.013}$   0.092$\pm$0.009 >88 M eclipsing binary [4.1.1]
OGLE-TR-123   (0.1)   (0.07)   M eclipsing binary? [4.1.2]
OGLE-TR-124           false transit detection? [4.4]
OGLE-TR-125 1.94$\pm$0.18 0.211$\pm$0.027   0.209$\pm$0.033 >86 M eclipsing binary [4.1.1]
OGLE-TR-126 (1.8) (0.25)       M eclipsing binary? [4.1.3]
OGLE-TR-127           false transit detection? [4.5]
OGLE-TR-129           M eclipsing binary? [4.1.2]
OGLE-TR-130 1.13$\pm$0.04 0.25:   0.39: 85 (fixed) M eclipsing binary [4.1.1]
OGLE-TR-131           false transit detection? [4.4]
OGLE-TR-132 1.43$\pm$0.10 0.116$\pm$0.008 1.35$\pm$0.06 0.00113$\pm$0.00012   planet [4.3]
Individual notes: OGLE-TR-64: the period is twice the OGLE estimate. With the new period, the even transits are clearly shallower than the odd transits (0.030 and 0.018 mag respectively), reflecting the luminosity difference between the two components. OGLE-TR-85: the spectra consist of a broad component superimposed on an even broader component. We assumed that the wide-lined system had a constant radial velocity, which yields a much better orbital solution for the other component than allowing it to vary. The parameters of the second component somewhat depend on the choice of fixed parameters for the first. OGLE-TR-89: the CCF shows the possible presence of a second, very wide component, but the signal-to-noise ratio is not high enough to measure it with confidence. OGLE-TR-93: The transit depth and ellipsoidal modulation amplitude (Sirko & Paczynski 2003) are compatible with a $r\sim m \sim 0.34 \ {M}_\odot$ transiting companion. OGLE-TR-99: there is a slight indication of a second dip in the CCF, but the depth and width of this possible dip are not compatible with a simple explanation of the transit in terms of an eclipsing binary. We therefore prefer the explanation in terms of a single dip, that gives a coherent solution. OGLE-TR-105: both the eclipse and anti-eclipse are visible in the lightcurve. Tthe orbital period is twice the OGLE estimate. The eclipse depth ratio and the derived radii are compatible with a solar-type G dwarf eclipsing an evolved late-F star, with both stars on the same isochrone. OGLE-TR-112: two sets of lines are superimposed on the very wide and shallow lines of the star undergoing the transit (see Fig. 1). The flux ratios and the difference between the two systemic velocities are compatible with a gravitationally bound quadruple system consisting of two close binary systems, one of them eclipsing. OGLE-TR-114: the velocity of the third component shows a slight drift over the measurement period ( $\dot{V_r}=43\pm$12 m/s), which may indicate that it is gravitationally bound to the other two on a wider orbit. The surface of the three CCF dips are similar, which would be compatible with such a case. The orbit of OGLE-TR-114ab shows large velocity residuals around a circular orbit, that do not correspond to a Keplerian eccentric orbit. OGLE-TR-118: the CCF in the two measured spectra is compatible with a very broad dip, with v sin i $\sim $ 40 km s-1. This would imply $R\sim 1.4$ ${R}_\odot $ assuming tidal synchronisation, but the radial velocity change would then be of the order of 5 km s-1, which would be too small for an orbital solution with a massive companion. This is the faintest star in our sample, and the signal-to-noise ratio of the spectra is not high enough to have confidence in the presence of a signal in the CCF.

Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text

Article Contents
1 Introduction
2 Observations and reductions
3 Analysis
4 Results
5 Discussion
References
Online Material
List of tables
List of figures