{circ}})^{2/3},b,\tau_i\}$, we also allow each transit epoch to have a unique out-of-transit normalization factor, $OOT_m$ where $m$ denotes the epoch number. The zeroth epoch is defined to be that which has the lowest mutual correlation to the orbital period. Finally, the orbital period is a free parameter too.

Direct -MAP Priors {#sub:directpriors}
------------------

In most cases (system with less than five transiting planets), there are more free parameters in the model than observables and so the problem is under-constrained with no unique solution. Despite this, contours of the error surface may still be computed through Monte Carlo techniques. In our case, the Monte Carlo technique of choice is Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) with the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. We note that an analogous situation arises for interpreting the atmospheres of exoplanets where atmosphere models tend to have more free parameters than the number of observations. In this example, a similar solution as n-MAP has been adopted in works such as @madhu:2009 and @madhu:2011. A direct comparison of n-MAP to the methods of @madhu:2011 is discussed in §\[sub:madhucomparison\].

We stress here that because the problem is under-constrained (except for $n\geq5$), the results will be strongly affected by the choice of priors. This is in contrast to a highly constrained problem where the data drive the result to the same solution with only a minor dependency upon the choice of priors. Thus, the choice of priors can be understood to have a significant impact on the derived results (see @ford:2005 for a detailed discussion on the effect of priors when fitting exoplanet data). The results should consequently be always quoted in unison with the adopted prior used to infer them.

These ideas are more formally expressed through Bayes’ theorem. Let us denote the eccentricity parameters which we fit for in n-MAP as $\vec{\Lambda} = \{e_k,\omega_k,...\}$ for $k=1,n$. We further use $\mathcal{M}$ to represent the model and $\mathcal{D}$ to represent the data:

$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{P}(\vec{\Lambda}|\mathcal{D},\mathcal{M}) &= \frac{ \mathrm{P}(\vec{\Lambda}|\mathcal{M})
{ circ}})^{2/3},b,\tau_i\}$, we also allow each transit epoch to have a alone out - of - passage normalization factor, $ OOT_m$ where $ m$ denotes the epoch number. The zeroth epoch is define to be that which has the lowest reciprocal correlation coefficient to the orbital period. Finally, the orbital period is a free parameter besides. 

 Direct -MAP Priors { # sub: directpriors } 
 ------------------ 

 In most cases (organization with less than five transiting planet), there are more free parameters in the model than observables and so the trouble is under - constrained with no unique solution. Despite this, contours of the error airfoil may still be computed through Monte Carlo technique. In our case, the Monte Carlo proficiency of choice is Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) with the Metropolis - Hastings algorithm. We notice that an analogous situation arises for interpreting the atmospheres of exoplanets where air models tend to have more free parameters than the number of observation. In this exercise, a similar solution as n - MAP has been adopted in works such as @madhu:2009 and @madhu:2011. A direct comparison of n - MAP to the methods of @madhu:2011 is discussed in § \[sub: madhucomparison\ ]. 

 We stress here that because the problem is nether - constrained (except for $ n\geq5 $), the consequence will be strongly involve by the option of priors. This is in contrast to a highly constrained problem where the data drive the result to the same solution with merely a minor dependency upon the choice of priors. Thus, the choice of priors can be understand to have a significant impact on the derived results (see @ford:2005 for a detailed discussion on the consequence of priors when fitting exoplanet data). The results should consequently be always quoted in unison with the espouse prior used to infer them. 

 These ideas are more formally carry through Bayes ’ theorem. Let us denote the eccentricity parameters which we fit for in n - MAP as $ \vec{\Lambda } = \{e_k,\omega_k,... \}$ for $ k=1,n$. We far use $ \mathcal{M}$ to stage the model and $ \mathcal{D}$ to represent the datum: 

 $ $ \begin{aligned } 
 \mathrm{P}(\vec{\Lambda}|\mathcal{D},\mathcal{M }) & = \frac { \mathrm{P}(\vec{\Lambda}|\mathcal{M } )
{cirf}})^{2/3},b,\tau_i\}$, we also allow eacm transit epoch jo have e uniqus out-of-tfansit normalization factor, $LOR_m$ whtge $m$ denotes the epocf number. Nhe zeroty epixh is defiisd to bc thaf whieh has the lowesj mutual corselation to tha uryital period. Finally, the orbital peryod is s vree parameter too.

Cyrecf -MAP Priors {#sub:directpriors}
------------------

In mosf cases (system with kess than five transiting olanfts), there are more free paramgferf in the modeu than obstrrables and ao the problem is under-constraived wnth no uniqoz sopotion. Despitx this, contours of the errmr surfsce may still ne cokpured through Monte Carno techniques. In oor case, tha Jonte Carlo technuqye of chohce kw Mxrkkv Cgain Mlntx Carlo (MCMD) with the Netropolis-Hastings sldirithm. We nots that ag analogous situation arises for interpgetihg the atmospheres of ezoplanets where atmoskhere modejs tend to have more free parameters than the numter oh ubstrywguojs. In this example, a similar solution as n-MAP gax neen adopted in corks such as @machk:2009 sgd @madhu:2011. A ditect compadison of n-MAP to tje methjds od @madhu:2011 if dixcussed in §\[sub:madhucomparisin\].

We stress kerw that because the problem is undgr-consyrained (except for $n\geq5$), the results wipl be strkvgly affected by thv chmice of kfiors. This is in sontrast vo a kighly cunsttained [roblem whfre tma data drive the rfsult tm the same solution with only a minor depxidency upon tne chmice of 'riors. Thus, the choyce of priors ean be uuderstuod to havv a signihicant impace on the deriegd results (sex @ford:2005 fow a eetauled dirzussion on the effect oy priirs when fitting ewoplavst data). The resbuus should conseqiengly bv akwwfs quoted in uniron eith ghe adokced oriot used to infer them.

Dhess ideas are more fprially exkressed trrough Bayes’ yheorem. Let us denlte tie eccxntricoty parameters which we fit for ih n-MAP as $\veg{\Lambda} = \{e_k,\omqga_k,...\}$ for $k=1,n$. We fbrther use $\mathcal{M}$ to represent the modxl and $\mathcal{D}$ to reptesent the data:

$$\begin{aklgned}
\mathrm{P}(\tec{\Lamfda}|\mathcan{D},\mathcal{M}) &= \frac{ \matyrm{P}(\vec{\Lambda}|\mathgal{M})
{circ}})^{2/3},b,\tau_i\}$, we also allow each transit epoch a out-of-transit normalization $OOT_m$ where $m$ zeroth is defined to that which has lowest mutual correlation to the orbital Finally, the orbital period is a free parameter too. Direct -MAP Priors {#sub:directpriors} In most cases (system with less than five transiting planets), there are more parameters the than and so the problem is under-constrained with no unique solution. Despite this, contours of the error may still be computed through Monte Carlo techniques. our case, the Monte technique of choice is Markov Monte (MCMC) with Metropolis-Hastings We that an analogous arises for interpreting the atmospheres of exoplanets where atmosphere models tend to have more free parameters than number of this example, similar as has been adopted such as @madhu:2009 and @madhu:2011. A n-MAP to the methods of @madhu:2011 is discussed §\[sub:madhucomparison\]. We here that because the problem is (except for $n\geq5$), the results will be strongly by the choice of priors. This is in contrast to a highly constrained problem where drive the result to same solution with a dependency the of priors. the choice of priors can be understood to have a significant on the derived results (see @ford:2005 for a detailed discussion effect priors when fitting data). The results should be quoted in unison with prior to ideas more expressed through Bayes’ theorem. us denote the eccentricity parameters we fit for in for $k=1,n$. We further use $\mathcal{M}$ to represent model and $\mathcal{D}$ to represent the data: \mathrm{P}(\vec{\Lambda}|\mathcal{D},\mathcal{M}) &= \frac{ \mathrm{P}(\vec{\Lambda}|\mathcal{M})
{circ}})^{2/3},b,\tau_i\}$, we also allow each tRansit epocH to haVe a UniQuE out-Of-trAnsit normalizaTIon fActor, $OOT_m$ where $m$ denotes The epOcH NumbER. THe zerOth epocH Is DEFinEd To Be tHaT WhIch haS thE lowest Mutual corrElaTiOn to the orbitAL pEriod. FinalLy, tHe orbital perIod Is a freE pAraMEter tOo.

DIrect -mAP PriORs {#sub:dIrectprioRs}
------------------

iN most cASes (systEM WiTh leSs than five transitINg PLanets), there are More frEe PArAMEteRs iN the model tHaN obseRVables aND sO THE prOBlem is under-coNstrained wiTH no Unique SoLutIOn. DespIte thIs, COntOurs of the erRor sUrface may Still bE ComputeD Through monte CArlO teChniQUeS. IN ouR cASe, tHE MOntE carLo techniQuE oF choiCe is mARKOv ChAin montE CarlO (MCMC) with the MEtrOpolIS-HaStingS algoRithM. WE note That an AnaloGoUs situation arisEs foR interpreTinG tHe aTmOspheREs of exOplAneTs where AtmosphERe mOdELS TeNd to have more free paRaMETeRs than thE numbeR Of ObSErvationS. IN thIs exAMPle, a sImilAR sOlution aS n-MAP hAS bEeN adopteD iN works SuCh aS @maDhu:2009 anD @MadhU:2011. A direCt comparIson oF N-MAP to the methoDS of @madhu:2011 is disCUsSED iN §\[Sub:mAdhUcomparison\].

we stREss hEre tHAt BecAUse thE probLeM Is UNder-constrained (excePt For $n\geQ5$), the rEsults will be sTrongly affECTEd by the cHoicE Of PRiors. This is in cOntraSt to a highlY ConstraiNed prOblem wheRe the data DRIve the reSulT to The SamE SOlUtion with only A MInor DePendencY upOn the chOicE of PriOrs. thUs, the choiCe of prioRs CaN bE uNdeRstooD To have a sIgNifIcAnt ImpacT On the dEriveD resUlTs (SEe @fOrd:2005 for a DEtAILed dIsCuSsioN on ThE effeCt of PRioRs when fItting exoPlaNEt daTa). thE resultS should conseqUeNtly be alwaYs QuoTed in uNISon with tHe adopted prior used to infER them.

ThEse Ideas Are mOre formalLy eXpressEd tHRough BAyes’ thEorem. leT us DENote tHE EcCenTrIcity paramETErs Which We Fit fOr in n-MAp as $\vec{\Lambda} = \{e_k,\omegA_K,...\}$ foR $k=1,n$. We further uSe $\mAthcAL{m}$ tO rePReSEnt ThE ModEL And $\mathcal{D}$ to rePresent the DaTA:

$$\bEgin{aligneD}
\MatHrM{P}(\vec{\LaMbda}|\matHcal{D},\MAthcal{M}) &= \Frac{ \mathrM{P}(\vec{\LambDa}|\MathCAL{M})
{circ}})^{2/3},b,\tau_i\}$ , we alsoallow  ea chtr ansi t ep och to have au niqu e out-of-transit norma lizat io n  fac t or , $OO T_m$ wh e re $ m$de no tes  t h eepoch  nu mber. T he zerothepo ch  is definedt obe that wh ich  has the low est  mutua lcor r elati onto th e orbi t al per iod. Fina ll y , theo rbitalp e ri od i s a free paramete r  t o o.

Direct -MA P Prio rs {# s u b:d ire ctpriors}-- ----- - ------- - -- I n m o st cases (sys tem with le s s t han fi ve  tr a nsitin g pla ne t s),  there aremore  free par ameter s  in the model t han ob ser vab lesa nd  s o t he pro b le m i s  un der-cons tr ai ned w ithn o u niqu e s olut ion.Despite this,  co ntou r s o f the  erro r su rf ace m ay sti ll be  c omputed through  Mon te Carlotec hn iqu es . Ino ur cas e,the  MonteCarlo t e chn iq u e of  choice is MarkovCh a i nMonte Ca rlo (M C MC )w ith theMe tro poli s - Hasti ngsa lg orithm.We not e  t ha t an an al ogoussi tua tio n ari s es f or int erpretin g the atmospheres of exoplanets wh e re a tm o sphe remodels tend  toh avemore fr eep arame tersth a nt he number of observ at ions.In th is example, a  similar s o l u tion asn-MA P  h a s been adopted  in w orks sucha s @madhu :2009  and @ma dhu:2011. A  directcom par iso n o f n- MAP to the me t h odsof  @madhu :20 11 is d isc uss edin§\ [sub:madh ucompari so n\ ]. 
Westres s  here th at  be ca use  thep roblem  is u nder -c on s tra ined (e x ce p t  for  $ n\ geq5 $),  t he re sult s  wi ll be s trongly a ffe c tedby  t he choi ce of priors.  T his is inco ntr ast to a  highlyconstrained problem whe r e the d ata  driv e th e resulttothe sa mes olutio n with  only  a  mi n o r dep e n de ncy  u pon the ch o i ceof pr io rs.Thus, t he choice of prior s  ca n be understo odto h a v ea s i gn i fic an t  im p a ct on the deriv ed results  ( s ee  @ford:200 5  fo ra detai led dis cussi o n on th e effectof priors  w henf i tti ng exoplan et data) . The res u lts s h ou ld co nse quentl ybealway s quot e d i n uni son wi th  the a dopte dprior us ed to infer them.

Thes e idea s are  mo re formal lye xpr essed thr ough  Bayes’ th eor em.  Letusd enote  the ec cen t ricit y pa r ameters w h ic h w e fi t for in n- M A P  as  $\ve c{\ L ambda}  = \ {e_k,\omega_k,... \ }$ for $k=1,n$ . We f urt her use$\ mathcal{M}$ to  re pr e s ent themo del and $\m athcal{D }$ to re presen t thedata:
$ $ \b e gin{al igne d}\mathrm{P }(\ ve c {\Lambd a} |\ m athcal {D}, \m athcal {M}) & =  \fr a c { \mathrm{P}(\ve c{\La m b da}|\ m ath cal{M }) 
{circ}})^{2/3},b,\tau_i\}$, we_also allow_each transit epoch to_have a_unique_out-of-transit normalization_factor,_$OOT_m$ where $m$_denotes the epoch_number. The zeroth epoch_is defined to_be_that which has the lowest mutual correlation to the orbital period. Finally, the orbital_period_is a_free_parameter_too.

Direct -MAP Priors {#sub:directpriors}
------------------

In most_cases (system with less than_five transiting_planets), there are more free parameters in the_model_than observables and_so the problem is under-constrained with no unique solution._Despite this, contours of the error_surface may still_be_computed_through Monte Carlo techniques._In our case, the Monte Carlo_technique of choice is Markov Chain_Monte Carlo (MCMC) with the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm._We note that an analogous situation_arises for interpreting the atmospheres_of exoplanets_where atmosphere models tend to_have more free_parameters than_the number of_observations. In this example, a similar_solution as n-MAP_has been adopted in works such_as_@madhu:2009 and @madhu:2011._A_direct_comparison of_n-MAP to the_methods_of @madhu:2011_is_discussed in §\[sub:madhucomparison\].

We stress here that_because_the problem is under-constrained (except for $n\geq5$),_the results will be_strongly_affected by the choice_of priors. This is in_contrast to a highly constrained problem_where the_data drive_the result to the same solution with only a minor dependency_upon the choice of priors. Thus,_the choice of priors_can be_understood_to have a_significant_impact on_the derived results (see @ford:2005 for a_detailed discussion_on the effect of priors when_fitting exoplanet data). The_results_should consequently be always quoted in_unison with the adopted prior used_to infer them.

These ideas are_more_formally_expressed through Bayes’ theorem. Let_us denote the eccentricity parameters which_we fit for_in n-MAP as $\vec{\Lambda} = \{e_k,\omega_k,...\}$ for_$k=1,n$._We further use $\mathcal{M}$ to represent_the_model and $\mathcal{D}$ to represent the_data:

$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{P}(\vec{\Lambda}|\mathcal{D},\mathcal{M})_&=_\frac{ \mathrm{P}(\vec{\Lambda}|\mathcal{M})