Kepler Transit Depths Contaminated by a Phantom Star

We present ground-based observations from the Discovery Channel Telescope (DCT) of three transits of Kepler-445c---a supposed super-Earth exoplanet with properties resembling GJ 1214b---and demonstrate that the transit depth is approximately 50 percent shallower than the depth previously inferred from Kepler Spacecraft data. The resulting decrease in planetary radius significantly alters the interpretation of the exoplanet's bulk composition. Despite the faintness of the M4 dwarf host star, our ground-based photometry clearly recovers each transit and achieves repeatable 1-sigma precision of approximately 0.2 percent (2 millimags). The transit parameters estimated from the DCT data are discrepant with those inferred from the Kepler data to at least 17-sigma confidence. This inconsistency is due to a subtle miscalculation of the stellar crowding metric during the Kepler pre-search data conditioning (PDC). The crowding metric, or CROWDSAP, is contaminated by a non-existent "phantom star" originating in the USNO-B1 catalog and inherited by the Kepler Input Catalog (KIC). Phantom stars in the KIC are likely rare, but they have the potential to affect statistical studies of Kepler targets that use the PDC transit depths for a large number of exoplanets where individual follow-up observation of each is not possible. The miscalculation of Kepler-445c's transit depth emphasizes the importance of stellar crowding in the Kepler data, and provides a cautionary tale for the analysis of data from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), which will have even larger pixels than Kepler.Comment: 11 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables. Accepted for publication in AJ. Transit light curves will be available from AJ as Db

Rules and Standards in Justice Scalia\u27s Fourth Amendment

When looking at Justice Scalia’s approach to the Fourth Amendment, most would say he was an originalist and a textualist. Justice Scalia himself would like to explain, “I’m an originalist and a textualist, not a nut.” Although originalism and textualism were often prevalent in his Fourth Amendment decisions, even more important to his decision-making was his disdain for judicial activism. To limit judicial discretion, Justice Scalia frequently opted to impose bright-line rules rather than vague standards. This is apparent not only within his jurisprudence as a whole, but also specifically in his Fourth Amendment decisions. This Article examines Justice Scalia’s effort to limit judicial discretion through the lens of the debate between rules and standards. It is the first article to situate Scalia’s goal of limited discretion within the framework of the debate between rules and standards, as well as the first to discuss this issue specifically with respect to his Fourth Amendment decisions. Rules are binding directives that leave little room for considering the specific facts of any given situation. Critics argue that they tend to be over- or under-inclusive, but the value of rules is that by taking power away from the decisionmaker, they limit judicial discretion. Further, some argue that rules promote democracy because they properly leave the power to make decisions based on politics or value judgments to the legislature. On the flip side, proponents of standards argue that standards produce judgments that are less arbitrary and more substantively fair because they allow decisionmakers to consider all of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case

Rules and Standards in Justice Scalia\u27s Fourth Amendment

This Article examines Justice Scalia’s effort to limit judicial discretion through the lens of the debate between rules and standards. It is the first article to situate Scalia’s goal of limited discretion within the framework of the debate between rules and standards, as well as the first to discuss this issue specifically with respect to his Fourth Amendment decisions. Justice Scalia has been called the leading supporter of the “rules-as-democracy argument.” He argued that rules were preferable because they are more likely to ensure equal treatment among like cases, they make the law clear in a system where the Supreme Court can review only a small number of cases, and they ensure predictability. In criminal Fourth Amendment cases, Justice Scalia usually applied rules. He noted that rules allowed judges to serve countermajoritarian interests by protecting the rights of unpopular criminal defendants. However, Scalia occasionally strayed from his rules-oriented philosophy and applied a standard. This was especially true in cases involving civil special needs as well as cases dealing with remedies for Fourth Amendment violations. Attempts to classify Justice Scalia as favoring the government or favoring individual Fourth Amendment rights are fraught with difficulty. It is probably best to characterize him as in favor of rules in the criminal context, and in favor of standards in other contexts

A colorimetric competitive displacement assay for the evaluation of catalytic peptides

An assay based on competitive dye displacement was adapted to detect the formation of aldol product in crude reaction mixtures, and was used to evaluate minimal peptide aldol catalysts.</p