1: 

2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'

3: %%

4: %% Modified 2004 January 9

5: %%

6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the

7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.

8: 

9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document

10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore

11: %% any data that comes before this command.

12: 

13: %% The command below calls the preprint style

14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use

16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

17: %%

18: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}%{emulateapj}

19: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}

20: %\usepackage{graphicx}

21: %\usepackage{natbib}

22: 

23: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

24: 

25: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

26: 

27: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

28: 

29: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

30: 

31: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

32: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

33: %% use the longabstract style option.

34: 

35: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

36: 

37: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

38: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

39: %% the \begin{document} command.

40: %%

41: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

42: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

43: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

44: %% for information.

45: 

46: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

47: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}

48: 

49: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

50: 

51: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}

52: 

53: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

54: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

55: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

56: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

57: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.

58: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.

59: 

60: \shorttitle{Improved Physical Parameters of TrES-2}

61: \shortauthors{Sozzetti et al.}

62: 

63: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

64: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

65: 

66: \begin{document}

67: 

68: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

69: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

70: %% you desire.

71: 

72: \title{Improving Stellar and Planetary Parameters of Transiting Planet 

73: Systems: The Case of TrES-2}

74: 

75: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

76: %% author and affiliation information.

77: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

78: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

79: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

80: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.

81: 

82: \author{Alessandro Sozzetti\altaffilmark{1,2}, 

83: Guillermo Torres\altaffilmark{1}, David

84: Charbonneau\altaffilmark{1,6}, David W.\ Latham\altaffilmark{1}, 

85: Matthew J.\ Holman\altaffilmark{1}, 

86: Joshua N.\ Winn\altaffilmark{3}, John B.\ Laird\altaffilmark{4}, 

87: and Francis T.\ O'Donovan\altaffilmark{5}} 

88: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60

89: Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA; asozzett@cfa.harvard.edu}

90: %\email{asozzett@cfa.harvard.edu}

91: \altaffiltext{2}{INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino, 10025 Pino

92: Torinese, Italy}

93: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics 

94: and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA}

95: %\altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy,

96: %University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA}

97: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy,

98: Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403 USA}

99: \altaffiltext{5}{California Institute of Technology, 

100: 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125}

101: \altaffiltext{6}{Alfred P.\ Sloan Research Fellow}

102: %\and

103: 

104: %\author{D.\ Yong\altaffilmark{4}}

105: %\and

106: %\author{D.\ Charbonneau\altaffilmark{2}}

107: %\and

108: %\author{D.\ W.\ Latham\altaffilmark{2}}

109: %\and

110: %\author{G.\ Torres\altaffilmark{2}}

111: %\affil{CfA}

112: 

113: %\and

114: %\author{D.\ Yong\altaffilmark{5}}

115: %\affil{UNC}

116: 

117: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which

118: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name.  Specify alternate

119: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each

120: %% affiliation.

121: 

122: 

123: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

124: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

125: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

126: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

127: %% editorial office after submission.

128: 

129: \begin{abstract}

130: 

131: 

132: We report on a spectroscopic determination of the atmospheric

133: parameters and chemical abundance of the parent star of the recently

134: discovered transiting planet \mbox{TrES-2}.  A detailed LTE analysis

135: of a set of \ion{Fe}{1} and \ion{Fe}{2} lines from our Keck spectra

136: yields $T_\mathrm{eff} = 5850\pm 50$ K, $\log g = 4.4\pm 0.1$, and

137: [Fe/H] $= -0.15\pm 0.10$. Several independent checks (e.g., additional

138: spectroscopy, line-depth ratios) confirm the reliability of our

139: spectroscopic $T_\mathrm{eff}$ estimate.  The mass and radius of the

140: star, needed to determine the properties of the planet, are

141: traditionally inferred by comparison with stellar evolution models

142: using $T_\mathrm{eff}$ and some measure of the stellar luminosity,

143: such as the spectroscopic surface gravity (when a trigonometric

144: parallax is unavailable, as in this case). We apply here a new method

145: in which we use instead of $\log g$ the normalized separation

146: $a/R_\star$ (related to the stellar density), which can be determined

147: directly from the light curves of transiting planets with much greater

148: precision. With the $a/R_\star$ value from the light curve analysis of

149: Holman et al.~\citeyearpar{holman07b} and our $T_\mathrm{eff}$

150: estimate we obtain $M_\star = 0.980\pm0.062~M_\odot$ and $R_\star =

151: 1.000_{-0.033}^{+0.036}~R_\odot$, and an evolutionary age of

152: $5.1^{+2.7}_{-2.3}$ Gyr, in good agreement with other constraints

153: based on the strength of the emission in the \ion{Ca}{2} H \& K line

154: cores, the Lithium abundance, and rotation. The new stellar parameters

155: yield improved values for the planetary mass and radius of $M_p =

156: 1.198\pm0.053~M_\mathrm{Jup}$ and $R_p =

157: 1.220^{+0.045}_{-0.042}~R_\mathrm{Jup}$, confirming that \mbox{TrES-2}

158: is the most massive among the currently known nearby ($d\lesssim 300$

159: pc) transiting hot Jupiters. The surface gravity of the planet, $\log

160: g_p = 3.299 \pm 0.016$, can be derived independently of the knowledge

161: of the stellar parameters (i.e., directly from observations), and with

162: a very high precision rivaling that of the best known double-lined

163: eclipsing binaries.

164: 

165: \end{abstract}

166: 

167: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

168: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors

169: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

170: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

171: 

172: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper

173: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so in the

174: %% subject header.  Objects should be in the appropriate "individual"

175: %% headers (e.g. quasars: individual, stars: individual, etc.) with the

176: %% additional provision that the total number of headers, including each

177: %% individual object, not exceed six.  The \objectname{} macro, and its

178: %% alias \object{}, is used to mark each object.  The macro takes the object

179: %% name as its primary argument.  This name will appear in the paper

180: %% and serve as the link's anchor in the electronic edition if the name

181: %% is recognized by the data centers.  The macro also takes an optional

182: %% argument in parentheses in cases where the data center identification

183: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.

184: 

185: \keywords{ stars: individual (\mbox{TrES-2}) --- stars: abundances --- 

186: stars: fundamental parameters --- planetary systems}

187: 

188: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.

189: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep

190: %% and \citet commands to identify citations.  The citations are

191: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds

192: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have

193: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus

194: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for

195: %% each reference.

196: 

197: \section{Introduction}

198: \label{sec:introduction}

199: 

200: Our understanding of the structural and evolutionary properties of

201: close-in extrasolar planets (radius, mass, density) is continuously

202: improved by new detections of transiting planets. Fourteen such

203: systems are known to date\footnote{For a summary of their properties

204: see, for example,~\citeauthor{burrows07}~\citeyear{burrows07} or

205: obswww.unige.ch/$\sim$pont/TRANSITS.htm~.}. The accelerated rate at

206: which such systems have been discovered of late suggests the prospects

207: are bright for transit-search projects, as well as for the possibility

208: of critically testing physical models of hot Jupiters in the near

209: future based on statistically significant ensemble properties of

210: transiting planet systems (for a review

211: see~\citeauthor{charbonneau07}~\citeyear{charbonneau07}).

212: 

213: The accurate determination of the physical properties of transiting

214: exoplanets depends critically upon our knowledge of a number of basic

215: parameters of the parent stars. In particular, the mass and radius of

216: a planet, which are of fundamental importance for testing theoretical

217: predictions of planetary structure (e.g.,

218: ~\citeauthor{guillot02}~\citeyear{guillot02};

219: ~\citeauthor{bodenheimer03}~\citeyear{bodenheimer03};

220: ~\citeauthor{baraffe03}~\citeyear{baraffe03};

221: %~\citeauthor{chabrier04}~\citeyear{chabrier04};

222: ~\citeauthor{burrows07}~\citeyear{burrows07}. 

223: %,~\citeyear{burrows03},~\citeyear{burrows04},

224: For a review see for

225: example~\citeauthor{guillot05}~\citeyear{guillot05} and

226: ~\citeauthor{burrows05}~\citeyear{burrows05}, and references therein),

227: depend rather directly on the mass and radius of the parent star,

228: placing strict demands on the accuracy of the latter. Evidence for

229: correlations between transiting planet properties and stellar

230: characteristics such as metallicity

231: (\citeauthor{guillot06}~\citeyear{guillot06};

232: ~\citeauthor{burrows07}~\citeyear{burrows07}), and their implications

233: for competing giant planet formation models (e.g.,

234: ~\citeauthor{ida04a}~\citeyear{ida04a},~\citeyear{ida04b};

235: ~\citeauthor{kornet05}~\citeyear{kornet05};

236: ~\citeauthor{alibert05}~\citeyear{alibert05};

237: ~\citeauthor{boss00}~\citeyear{boss00},~\citeyear{boss02};

238: ~\citeauthor{mayer04}~\citeyear{mayer04}), relies in turn on the

239: accurate determination of chemical abundances of the host

240: stars. Attempts to constrain the amount of mass loss experienced by

241: hot and very-hot Jupiters (\citeauthor{melo06}~\citeyear{melo06}), to

242: refine our knowledge of their relative frequencies

243: (e.g.,~\citeauthor{gaudi05}~\citeyear{gaudi05}) as well as to compare

244: observations with theoretical evaporation rates of insolated giant

245: planets (\citeauthor{lammer03}~\citeyear{lammer03};

246: ~\citeauthor{baraffe04}~\citeyear{baraffe04};

247: ~\citeauthor{lecavelier04}~\citeyear{lecavelier04};

248: ~\citeauthor{lecavelier06}~\citeyear{lecavelier06}) are severely

249: affected by large uncertainties in the determination of stellar ages,

250: which can become pathological for field stars, depending on spectral

251: type.  Finally, the accurate determination of parent star parameters

252: requires particular attention in cases in which a direct distance

253: estimate to the system (trigonometric parallax) is unavailable. For

254: about 2/3 of the presently known nearby transiting systems ($d

255: \lesssim 300$ pc), and for over 3/4 of the full sample, such

256: measurements are not available at the present time, and will only be

257: made possible by future high-precision astrometric observatories, both

258: on the ground and in space

259: (e.g.,~\citeauthor{sozzetti05}~\citeyear{sozzetti05}, and references

260: therein).

261: 

262: Among the recently discovered transiting extrasolar planets, \mbox{TrES-2}

263: (\citeauthor{odonovan06}~\citeyear{odonovan06}) is the first detected

264: in the field of view of the {\it Kepler} mission

265: (\citeauthor{borucki03}~\citeyear{borucki03}). It has the largest

266: impact parameter, and is the most massive planet, among the currently

267: known nearby transiting systems

268: (\citeauthor{charbonneauetal07}~\citeyear{charbonneauetal07}).  In

269: this work we report on a detailed spectroscopic determination of the

270: properties of the parent star of \mbox{TrES-2}, including the effective

271: temperature and surface gravity, as well as the chemical abundances of

272: iron and lithium. We also measure the chromospheric activity and

273: provide constraints on the age of the system from this and other

274: indicators. Because of the importance of the effective temperature for

275: deriving other stellar characteristics, we have made an effort to

276: provide several external checks on its accuracy.  We then use these

277: properties along with other constraints from the light curve analysis

278: of Holman et al.~\citeyearpar{holman07b} to infer the mass and radius

279: of the star with realistic uncertainties. In particular, we show how

280: the use of the \emph{stellar density} obtained directly from the light

281: curve fit is in this case a much better proxy for luminosity than the

282: spectroscopic surface gravity, typically used in cases such as this in

283: which the parallax is unknown. Our new stellar parameters in turn lead

284: to improved values for the mass and radius of the planet over those

285: reported by O'Donovan et al.~\citeyearpar{odonovan06}. We conclude by

286: providing a summary of our results and by revisiting some of the

287: evidence connecting the properties of close-in extrasolar planets to

288: the characteristics of their parent stars.

289: 

290: \section{Observations}

291: \label{sec:observations}

292: 

293: The spectroscopic observations used here are the same as described

294: previously by O'Donovan et al.~\citeyearpar{odonovan06}. Briefly, they

295: consist of twelve echelle spectra obtained with the HIRES spectrograph

296: on the Keck~1 telescope (\citeauthor{vogt94}~\citeyear{vogt94}) during

297: the summer of 2006, with a nominal resolving power $R\simeq

298: 71\,000$. Eleven of these spectra were obtained with an I$_2$ cell

299: placed in front of the slit to provide a wavelength fiducial for

300: high-precision velocity determinations (see,

301: e.g.,~\citeauthor{butler96}~\citeyear{butler96}), with typical

302: exposure times of 15 min resulting in an average $S/N\simeq 120$

303: pixel$^{-1}$.  One additional spectrum was obtained without the cell

304: for use as a template.  The effective wavelength coverage provided by

305: the three-CCD array of HIRES is $\sim$3200--8800\,\AA.  Additionally

306: we used 5 echelle spectra obtained with the Center for Astrophysics

307: (CfA) Digital Speedometers

308: (\citeauthor{latham92}~\citeyear{latham92}), which cover 45\,\AA\

309: centered at 5187\,\AA\ at a resolving power $R\simeq 35\,000$, and

310: have $S/N$ ratios ranging from 10 to 15 per resolution element.

311: 

312: \section{Atmospheric parameters}

313: \label{sec:atmospheric}

314: 

315: A detailed analysis of the template spectrum obtained with the Keck

316: telescope was carried out following the same procedures described in

317: detail by Sozzetti et

318: al. (\citeyear{sozzetti04},~\citeyear{sozzetti06}, and references

319: therein) in order to determine the effective temperature ($T_{\rm

320: eff}$), surface gravity ($\log g$), and iron abundance [Fe/H] of

321: \mbox{TrES-2}. A set of 30 relatively weak lines of \ion{Fe}{1} and 4

322: of \ion{Fe}{2} were selected, and equivalent widths (EWs) were

323: measured using the {\tt splot\/} task in IRAF\footnote{IRAF is

324: distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, operated

325: by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.,

326: under contract with the National Science Foundation, USA.}. Metal

327: abundances are derived under the assumption of local thermodynamic

328: equilibrium (LTE), using the 2002 version of the spectral synthesis

329: code MOOG

330: (\citeauthor{sneden73}~\citeyear{sneden73})\footnote{http://verdi.as.utexas.edu/moog.html~.},

331: a grid of Kurucz ATLAS plane-parallel model stellar atmospheres

332: (\citeauthor{kurucz93}~\citeyear{kurucz93}), and imposing excitation

333: and ionization equilibrium. We obtained $T_{\rm eff} = 5850 \pm 50$~K,

334: $\log g = 4.4 \pm 0.1$, $\xi_t = 1.00 \pm 0.05$ km s$^{-1}$, and

335: [Fe/H] = $-0.15\pm 0.10$.  The uncertainties in the first three

336: parameters were estimated following the prescriptions of Neuforge \&

337: Magain~\citeyearpar{neuforge97} and Gonzalez \&

338: Vanture~\citeyearpar{gonzvant98}, and were rounded off to the nearest

339: 25~K in $T_\mathrm{eff}$, 0.1 dex in $\log g$, and 0.05 km s$^{-1}$ in

340: $\xi_t$. For [Fe/H] the uncertainty given corresponds to the scatter

341: obtained from the \ion{Fe}{1} lines rather than the formal error of

342: the mean, since we consider the latter to be unrealistically small in

343: this case.  No significant departures from LTE are expected for a star

344: with the temperature and metallicity of \mbox{TrES-2}

345: (e.g.,~\citeauthor{yong04}~\citeyear{yong04}), so for the purpose of

346: this study we have not included non-LTE effects in our spectroscopic

347: analysis. We also quantified the sensitivity of our iron abundance

348: determination to variations of $\pm1\sigma$ with respect to the

349: nominal $T_\mathrm{eff}$, $\log g$, and $\xi_t$ values, and found

350: changes in [Fe/H] of at most 0.06 dex, below the adopted uncertainty

351: of 0.1 dex.  Finally, we determined also the projected rotational

352: velocity as $v\sin i = 2.0\pm 1.0$ km s$^{-1}$, based on the synthesis

353: of a set of unblended \ion{Fe}{1} lines, following

354: Gonzalez~\citeyearpar{gonzalez98}.

355: 

356: The new values for the stellar parameters are consistent with the

357: \ion{G0}{5} spectral type implied by the colors

358: (\citeauthor{odonovan06}~\citeyear{odonovan06}), and are in generally

359: good agreement with those presented by those authors.  We note,

360: however, that our $T_\mathrm{eff}$ value is somewhat lower, possibly

361: due to the fact that O'Donovan et al.~\citeyearpar{odonovan06} assumed

362: solar metallicity in their study, whereas our analysis indicates a

363: slightly metal-deficient composition.

364: 

365: \subsection{Consistency checks on the $T_\mathrm{eff}$ estimate}

366: 

367: Given the importance of the temperature determination for establishing

368: the absolute mass and radius of the parent star of \mbox{TrES-2}, we present

369: in this section a number of other consistency checks that illustrate

370: the reliability and accuracy of our estimate above.

371: 

372: \subsubsection{Estimate from the CfA spectra}

373: \label{sec:cfa}

374: 

375: Cross-correlation of our CfA spectra against a large library of

376: synthetic templates in the manner described by O'Donovan et

377: al.~\citeyearpar{odonovan06} provides an independent estimate of the

378: photospheric properties of the star. By testing all combinations of

379: the four main parameters of these templates ($T_\mathrm{eff}$, $\log

380: g$, metallicity [m/H], and $v \sin i$) we seek to maximize the

381: correlation averaged over the 5 available spectra. In principle this

382: allows the determination of the four parameters, although in practice

383: the narrow wavelength coverage of only 45\,\AA\ results in strong

384: correlations between some of those properties. We therefore determined

385: the first two of these quantities along with $v \sin i$ for fixed

386: metallicities of [m/H] = 0.0 (solar) and [m/H] $= -0.5$, which bracket

387: our determination in \S\ref{sec:atmospheric}, and then interpolated to

388: [m/H] $= -0.15$.  The results are $T_\mathrm{eff} = 5790 \pm 100$~K,

389: $\log g = 4.3 \pm 0.2$, and $v \sin i = 1.0 \pm 2.0$~km s$^{-1}$,

390: which supersede the values given by O'Donovan et

391: al.~\citeyearpar{odonovan06} that were based on a preliminary

392: analysis. The temperature is only 60~K lower than our determination in

393: \S\ref{sec:atmospheric}, well within the errors. There is also

394: excellent agreement in $\log g$ and $v \sin i$.

395: 	

396: \subsubsection{Spectral line-depth ratios}

397: 

398: Among the many diagnostics available for effective temperature

399: estimation, the ratio of the depths of two spectral lines having

400: different sensitivity to temperature is among the most powerful.

401: Indeed, the line-depth ratio (LDR) technique allows the measurement of

402: temperature {\it differences} of the order of a few Kelvin in

403: favorable cases (\citeauthor{gray91}~\citeyear{gray91};

404: ~\citeauthor{gray94}~\citeyear{gray94};

405: ~\citeauthor{strassmeier00}~\citeyear{strassmeier00};

406: ~\citeauthor{gray01}~\citeyear{gray01};

407: ~\citeauthor{catalano02}~\citeyear{catalano02};

408: ~\citeauthor{caccin02}~\citeyear{caccin02};

409: ~\citeauthor{kovtyukh03}~\citeyear{kovtyukh03};

410: ~\citeauthor{biazzo07}~\citeyear{biazzo07}), a much higher accuracy

411: than currently possible with other methods that seek to determine

412: temperatures on an absolute scale. The latter typically have

413: uncertainties of at least 50--100~K. Absolute temperature

414: determinations with the LDR method still require translation to an

415: absolute scale, usually through color/temperature calibrations since

416: the LDR measurements are typically calibrated first against color

417: indices, which are directly observable.

418: 

419: In order to provide a further check of our spectroscopic

420: $T_\mathrm{eff}$ determination, we selected in our Keck template

421: spectrum 9 pairs of temperature-sensitive lines from the list of

422: Biazzo et al.~\citeyearpar{biazzo07} in the red part of the spectrum

423: ($\lambda = 6190$--6280\,\AA). These authors provide calibrations

424: between LDRs and temperature for a range of rotational velocities

425: (those for zero rotation were adopted here), which include corrections

426: for surface gravity and are valid in the range 3800~K~$\lesssim

427: T_\mathrm{eff}\lesssim 6000$~K.  Metallicity effects are negligible

428: for stars near the solar abundance

429: (\citeauthor{gray94}~\citeyear{gray94};~\citeauthor{biazzo07}~\citeyear{biazzo07}). The

430: absolute temperatures derived in this way rely implicitly on an

431: intermediate calibration between the $B-V$ color and $T_\mathrm{eff}$

432: adopted from Gray~\citeyearpar{gray05}. In order to provide

433: consistency with the calibrations we use below, we have converted each

434: of our 9 temperature estimates back into $B-V$ and then into

435: temperature again adopting the calibrations by Ram\'\i rez \&

436: Mel\'endez~\citeyearpar{ramirez05}, which have been compared carefully

437: against absolute temperature determinations using the Infrared Flux

438: Method. The average temperature we obtain in this way is $5780 \pm

439: 50$~K, in agreement with our estimates above.

440: 

441: \subsubsection{H$_\alpha$ line profile}

442: 

443: The strong sensitivity of the wings of the H$_\alpha$ line profile to

444: temperature variations, as well as the relatively weak sensitivity to

445: changes in surface gravity and metal abundance, make this feature a

446: very useful temperature indicator for solar-type dwarfs

447: (e.g.,~\citeauthor{fuhrmann93}~\citeyear{fuhrmann93};

448: ~\citeauthor{barklem02}~\citeyear{barklem02}). The core of the line,

449: however, is formed higher up in the atmosphere under conditions that

450: violate LTE, so is not useful here.  As an additional consistency

451: check on $T_\mathrm{eff}$ we therefore compared the H$_\alpha$ line

452: profile outside of the core in our Keck template spectrum against

453: synthetic profiles for solar-metallicity dwarfs ([m/H] = 0.0, $\log g

454: = 4.5$) from the Kurucz database.  In Figure~\ref{halpha} we show the

455: normalized flux in a 10~\AA\ region centered on H$_\alpha$, and four

456: calculated profiles for different values of $T_\mathrm{eff}$.

457: Temperatures significantly hotter than 6000~K or significantly cooler

458: than 5750~K appear inconsistent with the observed profile, and suggest

459: the optimal value is somewhere in between.  Because of the

460: difficulties in the placement of the continuum for such a broad line

461: in an echelle spectrum, we view this comparison only as a rough

462: check. Nevertheless, it agrees once again with our previous estimates.

463: 

464: \subsubsection{Photometric estimates}

465: \label{sec:photometry}

466: 

467: Photometric measurements for \mbox{TrES-2} are available in the

468: Johnson, Cousins, {\it Tycho\/}, and 2MASS systems, as listed by

469: O'Donovan et al.~\citeyearpar{odonovan06}.  Based on these data and

470: assuming zero reddening we have computed 7 different color indices

471: (not all completely independent of each other) and applied the

472: calibrations of Ram\'\i rez \& Mel\'endez~\citeyearpar{ramirez05} for

473: a fixed metallicity of [Fe/H] $= -0.15$ to obtain effective

474: temperatures.  There is excellent agreement between these estimates,

475: and the average $T_\mathrm{eff}$ is $5680 \pm 50$~K. This is 170~K

476: cooler than our spectroscopic determination in

477: \S\ref{sec:atmospheric}, a difference that is significantly larger

478: than allowed by the combined uncertainties.  However, in view of the

479: distance to the object of $\sim$230~pc

480: (\citeauthor{odonovan06}~\citeyear{odonovan06}; see also below), a

481: small amount of reddening would not be entirely unexpected, and was

482: also suspected by those authors. We find that if we applied a

483: correction to the individual color indices corresponding to $E(B-V)

484: \approx 0.04$~mag, the average temperature would agree exactly with

485: our spectroscopic value. Indirect support for this amount of

486: interstellar material is provided by the reddening maps of Burstein \&

487: Heiles~\citeyearpar{burstein82} and Schlegel et

488: al.~\citeyearpar{schlegel98}, which indicate total $E(B-V)$ values

489: along the line of sight to \mbox{TrES-2} of $\sim$0.05~mag and

490: $\sim$0.07~mag, respectively. For the distance of \mbox{TrES-2} and

491: using the Drimmel \& Spergel~\citeyearpar{drimmel01} model of Galactic

492: dust distribution these numbers are reduced to $E(B-V) \approx 0.02$

493: and 0.03~mag, respectively. Further support is given by the comparison

494: between the observed colors and those predicted from stellar evolution

495: models described below, which gives $E(B-V) \approx 0.03 \pm

496: 0.02$. 

497: 

498: From the good agreement between our spectroscopic temperature

499: determination in \S\ref{sec:atmospheric} and the estimates from the

500: CfA spectra and the LDRs we conclude that the $T_\mathrm{eff}$ of

501: \mbox{TrES-2} is accurately established and we make use of it in

502: \S\ref{sec:physics} to infer the mass and radius of the star.

503: 

504: \section{Constraints on the stellar age}

505: 

506: Age determination for individual stars in the field is a difficult

507: task. A variety of indicators is available, such as H$_\alpha$

508: emission, X-ray activity, lithium abundance, \ion{Ca}{2} H \& K

509: emission, asteroseismology, rotation, and Galactic space motion, some

510: more constraining than others depending on the particular case. While

511: the relative agreement among multiple methods allows in principle for

512: fairly reliable dating of stars with ages comparable to the age of the

513: Hyades or younger, constraints on ages for individual stars with

514: $t\gtrsim 1-2$ Gyr are usually quite weak.  Here we have used the

515: \ion{Ca}{2} activity indicator and the lithium abundance as measured

516: in our HIRES spectra of \mbox{TrES-2} in an attempt to inform the theoretical

517: models used for the determination of the stellar mass and radius (see

518: next Section).

519: 

520: In the top panel of Figure~\ref{cali} we show a region of the HIRES

521: template spectrum centered on the \ion{Ca}{2} H line. No significant

522: emission feature is present, and the same is true for the other Keck

523: spectra we collected using the I$_2$ cell (in which the iodine lines

524: do not interfere because there are none shortward of $\sim$5000\,\AA).

525: Following the procedure outlined in Sozzetti et

526: al.~\citeyearpar{sozzetti04}, we have measured the chromospheric activity 

527: index S (e.g., Duncan et al. 1991) from the \ion{Ca}{2} H and K lines in our spectra, 

528: and then converted it into the chromospheric emission ratio 

529: $\log R^\prime_{HK}$, corrected for the photospheric contribution. 

530: For \mbox{TrES-2}, the Mount Wilson index, averaged over all our spectra, is 

531: $\langle S\rangle = 0.13$, and the resulting $\langle\log R^\prime_{HK}\rangle = -5.16\pm0.15$ 

532: (with formal uncertainties calculated from the scatter of individual measurements), 

533: suggesting a quite inactive star. The resulting chromospheric age estimate, using the

534: relations summarized in Wright et al.~\citeyearpar{wright04}, is $t =

535: 8.32\pm1.07$ Gyr.

536: 

537: We point out, however, that this estimate should not be taken at face

538: value for a number of reasons. Firstly, it has been shown (e.g.,

539: ~\citeauthor{pace04}~\citeyear{pace04}) that chromospheric activity

540: can only be considered a reliable age estimator up to $t\simeq 2$

541: Gyr, and that for stars showing low activity levels the ages derived

542: are only lower limits.  Secondly, because stars have activity cycles

543: like the Sun, the proper measure of the chromospheric flux to use in

544: determining the age of an individual star is an average over the

545: entire magnetic cycle rather than a quasi-instantaneous value such as

546: is available to us, to avoid the possibility of finding a star in a

547: Maunder minimum phase

548: (\citeauthor{henry96}~\citeyear{henry96};~\citeauthor{wright04}~\citeyear{wright04}).

549: Finally, there are hints (\citeauthor{song04}~\citeyear{song04}) that

550: chromospheric age estimates tend to be systematically older than those

551: derived with other methods, suggesting perhaps the need for

552: re-calibration of the \ion{Ca}{2} activity-based ages. Therefore, all

553: we can claim here is that the lower limit for the chromospheric age of

554: \mbox{TrES-2} is a few Gyr.

555: 

556: \mbox{TrES-2} displays a significant Li~$\lambda$6707.8 absorption feature.

557: We have carried out a detailed spectral synthesis of a 10~\AA\ region

558: of the Keck template spectrum centered on this line, using the

559: atmospheric parameters derived from the Fe-line analysis and the line

560: list of Reddy et al.~\citeyearpar{reddy02}.  In the bottom panel of

561: Figure~\ref{cali} we show the comparison of the spectrum of \mbox{TrES-2}

562: with three synthetic spectra, each differing only in the Li abundance

563: assumed. The best-fit model results in an abundance of

564: $\log\epsilon{\rm (Li)} = 2.65$. As shown in Figure~\ref{licomp}, the

565: Li abundance we obtain does not appear out of the ordinary in relation

566: to those of other planet host stars of similar temperature, as

567: measured by Israelian et al.~\citeyearpar{israelian04} (once typical uncertainties 

568: of the order of 50-100 K on the $T_\mathrm{eff}$ determinations are considered). 

569: By comparison with Li abundance curves as a function of effective temperature for

570: clusters of different ages

571: (\citeauthor{sestito05}~\citeyear{sestito05}) we infer for \mbox{TrES-2} an

572: age of about 1--2 Gyr. This value would point to a somewhat younger age than 

573: the one inferred from the \ion{Ca}{2} measurements. However, it is not uncommon to observe a large

574: spread in Li abundance among stars in the same cluster that appear

575: otherwise identical (\citeauthor{randich06}~\citeyear{randich06}), so

576: also in this case it seems safer to simply report a lower limit to the

577: age of \mbox{TrES-2} of 1--2 Gyr

578: \footnote{However, we point out how one can speculate on the possibility 

579: that self-enrichment (see, e.g., Gonzalez 2006, and references therein, 

580: for a review of the issue), rather than systematics or uncertainties in 

581: the calibration of activity-age relations, could be a factor to consider for 

582: TrES-2. If the star has witnessed recent events of accretion of planetary material, 

583: this could explain both the somewhat higher than usual Lithium abundance with respect to other 

584: planet hosts of the same $T_\mathrm{eff}$, as well as the apparent discrepancy between 

585: the youth indicators. The measurement of statistically significant trends of element 

586: abundance with condensation temperature $T_c$ (e.g., Sozzetti et al. 2006; Gonzalez 2005, 2006, 

587: and references therein) or detection of the $^6$Li isotope (e.g., Israelian et al. 2001, 2003; 

588: Gonzalez 2006, and references therein) in the atmosphere of TrES-2 would be strong 

589: evidence in support of the self-enrichment scenario for this star. Further spectroscopic 

590: measurements of TrES-2 are thus clearly encouraged}.

591: 

592: Finally, another argument for the star not being particularly young is

593: given by the small projected rotational velocity we measure here (see

594: \S\ref{sec:atmospheric} and \S\ref{sec:cfa}). This would indicate once

595: again an age of $t\gtrsim 1-2$ Gyr

596: (\citeauthor{bouvier97}~\citeyear{bouvier97};

597: ~\citeauthor{pace04}~\citeyear{pace04}).

598: 

599: \section{Stellar mass and radius}

600: \label{sec:physics}

601: 

602: A common procedure for deriving the absolute mass and radius of planet

603: host stars, needed to infer those of the transiting object, is to

604: compare the measured stellar properties such as temperature and

605: luminosity with stellar evolution models in the H-R diagram, or in

606: some equivalent parameter space.  Because the distance to \mbox{TrES-2} is

607: not precisely known (it was not observed during the {\it Hipparcos\/}

608: mission), we do not have direct access to its luminosity. An

609: alternative measure of intrinsic brightness (or evolution) that has

610: been used in the past is the spectroscopically determined value of

611: $\log g$ (see, e.g.,

612: ~\citeauthor{konacki03}~\citeyear{konacki03},~\citeyear{konacki04},~\citeyear{konacki05};

613: ~\citeauthor{pont04}~\citeyear{pont04};

614: ~\citeauthor{bouchy05}~\citeyear{bouchy05};

615: ~\citeauthor{santos06}~\citeyear{santos06}). Surface gravities are

616: typically very difficult to determine accurately in this way, and as a

617: result the constraint on the stellar radius is relatively weak. Here

618: we explore in detail the possibility of using other information

619: available in transiting systems such as \mbox{TrES-2}, that provide much

620: tighter constraints on the luminosity, as also noted recently by Pont

621: et al.~\citeyearpar{pont07}.  We focus in particular on the quantities

622: obtainable by fitting the transit light curves.  The three main

623: adjustable parameters (see,

624: e.g.,~\citeauthor{mandel02}~\citeyear{mandel02}) are often taken to be

625: the relative radius of the planet ($R_p/R_\star$), the impact

626: parameter ($b \equiv a \cos i/R_\star$), and the normalized separation

627: between the star and the planet ($a/R_\star$), where $a$ is the

628: semimajor axis of the relative orbit and $i$ is the inclination to the

629: line of sight. These are largely independent of the stellar

630: properties, except for a weak dependence on the limb-darkening

631: coefficients (a second-order effect) that are typically a function of

632: effective temperature, surface gravity, and composition\footnote{In

633: some cases even this weak dependence can be avoided altogether by

634: fitting for the limb-darkening coefficients simultaneously with the

635: other three parameters of the transit light curve.}. One of these,

636: $a/R_\star$, contains information intrinsic to the star: using

637: Kepler's Third Law (as revised by Newton) it can be shown that

638: %

639: \begin{equation}

640: \label{eq:density}

641: {M_\star \over R_{\star}^3} = {4 \pi^2\over G P^2}\left({a\over

642: R_\star}\right)^3 - {M_p \over R_{\star}^3}~.

643: \end{equation}

644: %

645: (see also~\citeauthor{seager03}~\citeyear{seager03}) where all

646: quantities are expressed in {\it cgs\/} units and $G$ is the Newtonian

647: gravitational constant.  The left-hand side corresponds essentially to

648: the stellar density, $\rho_\star$.  Note that the first term on the

649: right is entirely determined from measurable quantities: the orbital

650: period ($P = 2.47063 \pm 0.00001$

651: days;~\citeauthor{odonovan06}~\citeyear{odonovan06}), and $a/R_\star$

652: from the light curve fit.  The second term on the right, on the other

653: hand, involves the planetary mass (which is unknown until the stellar

654: mass is determined) as well as $R_\star$ (also unknown). However, the

655: size of this second term is typically two to three orders of magnitude

656: smaller than the first for most transiting exoplanets including

657: \mbox{TrES-2}, so it can safely be ignored for all practical

658: purposes. Thus the density of the star is determined \emph{directly}

659: from the observations, with no additional assumptions. In this

660: particular case the accuracy of the $a/R_\star$ determination ($7.63

661: \pm 0.12$; ~\citeauthor{holman07b}~\citeyear{holman07b}) is very high:

662: the uncertainty is only 1.6\%.  The stellar density is a sensitive

663: measure of evolution or luminosity, and as such it provides a very

664: useful constraint on the size of the star. We use it along with the

665: effective temperature and the measured metallicity to establish the

666: absolute mass and radius of \mbox{TrES-2}.

667: 

668: We proceed by comparing $\rho_\star$ (or a closely related quantity;

669: see below) and $T_\mathrm{eff}$ with current stellar evolution models

670: from the Yonsei-Yale series by Yi et al.~\citeyearpar{yi01} (see

671: also~\citeauthor{demarque04}~\citeyear{demarque04}). We explored the agreement 

672: with model isochrones calculated over a wide a range of uniformly spaced ages 

673: (0.1--9 Gyr) spanning the full range of metallicities allowed by our

674: spectroscopic determination ([Fe/H] $= -0.15 \pm 0.10$). Along each

675: isochrone we computed the theoretical stellar properties using a fine

676: step in mass, and at each of these points we compared those properties

677: with the observations, and recorded all cases yielding a match within

678: the observational errors. In this way we established the range of

679: permitted values of the stellar mass and radius. All these matching 

680: models were assigned the same likelihood for this application. In practice, 

681: we have chosen to compare the models with the observations directly in the

682: observational plane ($a/R_\star$ versus $T_\mathrm{eff}$, rather than

683: $\rho_\star$ versus $T_\mathrm{eff}$). Therefore, instead of computing

684: the stellar density along the isochrones and comparing it with the

685: measured value of $\rho_\star$, we computed the theoretical values of

686: $a/R_\star$ (which is essentially the cube root of the density) from

687: an expression obtained by rearranging eq.~\ref{eq:density},

688: %

689: \begin{equation}

690: \label{eq:aR}

691: {a\over R_\star} = \left({G\over 4\pi^2}\right)^{1/3} {P^{2/3}\over

692: R_\star} \left(M_\star + M_p\right)^{1/3}~,

693: \end{equation}

694: %

695: and compared them with the value resulting from the light-curve fit,

696: $a/R_\star = 7.63 \pm 0.12$

697: (\citeauthor{holman07b}~\citeyear{holman07b}).  As discussed above,

698: we have ignored here the small contribution from the mass of the

699: planet, $M_p$.\footnote{If the need ever arose (for example, for much

700: more massive planets), it would be trivial to account for this small

701: correction term by simply using a rough estimate of the planet mass in

702: eq.~\ref{eq:aR} to compute the predicted values of $a/R_\star$.}

703: 

704: The best match with the models (which produces virtually perfect

705: agreement with the measured parameters $a/R_\star$ and

706: $T_\mathrm{eff}$) is achieved for a stellar mass of $M_\star = 0.980

707: \pm 0.062~M_\sun$, a radius of $R_\star =

708: 1.000^{+0.036}_{-0.033}~R_\sun$, and an age of $5.1^{+2.7}_{-2.3}$

709: Gyr.  The uncertainties listed reflect the spread allowed by the

710: observational errors in $T_\mathrm{eff}$, $a/R_\star$, and [Fe/H], and

711: exclude any systematics in the models themselves, which are difficult

712: to quantify. The surface gravity of the star for the best fit is $\log

713: g = 4.429^{+0.021}_{-0.023}$, in excellent agreement with our

714: spectroscopically measured value in \S\ref{sec:atmospheric}, and the

715: corresponding metal abundance for this best fit is [Fe/H] $= -0.14$,

716: also virtually the same as the measured value. The models indicate for

717: the star an age similar to the Sun, which is entirely consistent with

718: the lower limits discussed earlier based on the activity indicators

719: and Li.

720: 

721: The absolute visual magnitude predicted by the models for the adopted

722: mass and age and our measured composition is $M_V = 4.77 \pm 0.09$,

723: and the color expected is $B-V = 0.591 \pm 0.014$. The latter,

724: compared with the measured index of $0.619 \pm 0.009$ (O'Donovan et

725: al.\ 2006) suggests a small amount of reddening of $E(B-V) = 0.03 \pm

726: 0.02$ mag, not inconsistent with several other estimates discussed in

727: \S\ref{sec:photometry}. This corresponds to a visual extinction $A_V

728: \sim 0.1$ mag. Accounting for this we derive a distance to

729: \mbox{TrES-2} of 220 pc with an estimated uncertainty of 10 pc. With

730: the mean radial velocity of $RV = -0.56 \pm 0.11$~km~s$^{-1}$ as

731: reported by O'Donovan et al.\ (2006), and UCAC2 

732: (\citeauthor{zacharias04}~\citeyear{zacharias04}) proper motion

733: components [$\mu_\alpha$, $\mu_\delta$] = [4.45, $-$3.40]

734: mas~yr$^{-1}$, the Galactic space motion vector of the

735: star is [$U$, $V$, $W$] = [$-$1.81, +0.88, $-$5.51] km~s$^{-1}$ (where 

736: $U$ is taken to be positive toward the Galactic anti-center).  We

737: collect these results along with other properties derived previously

738: in Table~\ref{tab:star}.

739: 

740: Our stellar mass is $\sim$10\% smaller than the value of $M_\star =

741: 1.08$~$M_\sun$ adopted by O'Donovan et al.~\citeyearpar{odonovan06},

742: which is in part due to our using a lower heavy element abundance,

743: derived from our detailed chemical analysis, as opposed to adopting

744: the solar composition. The stellar radius, on the other hand, is the

745: same.

746: 

747: The fairly tight constraints we have obtained on the radius of the

748: star (errors less than 4\%) are the result of using the information on

749: $a/R_\star$ derived from the light-curve fit of Holman et

750: al.~\citeyearpar{holman07b}.  Had we used the spectroscopically

751: determined surface gravity instead, we estimate the constraint would

752: have been some 5 times weaker. This is illustrated in

753: Figure~\ref{fig:iso}, where the top panel shows Yonsei-Yale isochrones

754: for ages of 1~Gyr to 9~Gyr and a heavy element abundance equal to the

755: measured value of [Fe/H].  The shaded error box represents the

756: uncertainties in the measured $\log g$ and $T_\mathrm{eff}$ of

757: \mbox{TrES-2}. As seen, the error in gravity is so large as to span the full

758: range of ages shown here, thus providing essentially no useful

759: constraint on age and a weak one on $R_\star$.  In the lower panel we

760: have re-mapped the vertical axis to $a/R_\star$ (using the measured

761: orbital period $P$; see eq.~\ref{eq:aR}). The error box in this case

762: is significantly smaller, making $a/R_\star$ a much better measure of

763: the luminosity than surface gravity. We propose that the same

764: procedure should be used in other transiting planets in which the

765: quality of the light curves is sufficient to provide a superior

766: constraint compared to surface gravity. Depending on the case, the

767: accuracy of $a/R_\star$ could be high enough that it may even compare

768: favorably with the constraint afforded by a direct knowledge of the

769: parallax.

770: 	

771: \section{Revised planetary parameters}

772: 

773: The improved knowledge of the mass and radius of the parent star has a

774: direct impact on the accuracy of the planetary parameters of \mbox{TrES-2}.

775: We have combined the stellar properties in Table~\ref{tab:star} with

776: the mass function from the spectroscopic orbit of O'Donovan et

777: al.~\citeyearpar{odonovan06}, $M_p \sin i = 1.206 \pm 0.016 \left[

778: (M_\star + M_p)/M_\sun \right]^{2/3} M_\mathrm{Jup}$, and the fitted

779: light-curve parameters from the new photometric analysis of Holman et

780: al.~\citeyearpar{holman07b}, which are $R_p/R_\star = 0.1253 \pm

781: 0.0010$, $b = 0.8540 \pm 0.0062$, and $a/R_\star = 7.63 \pm 0.12$. We

782: obtain for the planet $M_p = 1.198\pm0.053~M_\mathrm{Jup}$ and $R_p =

783: 1.220^{+0.045}_{-0.042}~R_\mathrm{Jup}.$\footnote{The equatorial

784: radius adopted for Jupiter is 71\,492 km.} These are some 6\% and 1\%

785: smaller than the values reported by O'Donovan et

786: al.~\citeyearpar{odonovan06}, respectively.

787: 

788: An important but generally overlooked property of the spectroscopic

789: and photometric solutions for transiting planets is the fact that the

790: surface gravity of the planet is directly measurable from the

791: observations, with no need to know the mass or radius of the parent

792: star (see, e.g.,~\citeauthor{winn07b}~\citeyear{winn07b}). The same

793: was pointed out by ~\citeauthor{beatty07}~(\citeyear{beatty07}) in the

794: context of mass and radius determinations for small stars in 

795: single-lined eclipsing binaries, and also by Southworth et al.\ (2004, 2007).  

796: This derives from the quadratic relation between $M_p$ and $R_p$ that 

797: can easily be obtained from the definition of the spectroscopic mass 

798: function and Kepler's Third Law:

799: %

800: \begin{equation}

801: \label{eq:planetmass}

802: M_p = {2\pi\over G P} {K_\star \sqrt{1-e^2} \over

803: \sqrt{1-[b/(a/R_\star)]^2}} \left({a/R_\star \over

804: R_p/R_\star}\right)^2 R_p^2~.

805: \end{equation}

806: %

807: In this expression $K_\star$ represents the velocity semi-amplitude of

808: the star in response to the pull from the planet ($K_\star = 181.3 \pm

809: 2.6$ m~s$^{-1}$ for

810: \mbox{TrES-2};~\citeauthor{odonovan06}~\citeyear{odonovan06}), and $e$ the

811: eccentricity of the orbit, which is usually found to be very close to

812: zero for transiting planets. The quantities $b$, $a/R_\star$, and

813: $R_p/R_\star$ are obtained directly from the light curve analysis,

814: often with very high precision as in our case.  The surface gravity of

815: the planet follows immediately as:

816: %

817: \begin{equation}

818: \label{eq:gravity}

819: \log g_p  = -2.1383 - \log P + \log K_\star - 

820: {1\over 2}\log \left(1-\left[{b \over a/R_\star}\right]^2\right) + 2

821: \log\left({a/R_\star \over R_p/R_\star}\right) + {1\over 2}\log\left(1-e^2\right)~.

822: \end{equation}

823: %

824: The numerical constant is such that the gravity is in {\it cgs\/}

825: units when $P$ and $K_\star$ are expressed in their usual units of

826: days and m~s$^{-1}$. For \mbox{TrES-2} we obtain $\log g_p = 3.299 \pm

827: 0.016$, in which the uncertainty includes all contributions from

828: measured quantities. We call the reader's attention to the very high

829: precision of this determination, which rivals that of the best-known

830: double-lined eclipsing binaries (see,

831: e.g.,~\citeauthor{andersen91}~\citeyear{andersen91}).  While the

832: planetary masses and radii in transiting systems have typically been

833: the main focus of investigators in this field, and with good reason,

834: those quantities depend critically on the mass and radius of the

835: parent star, which are often the weak link in the chain and usually

836: rely on stellar evolution models. Surface gravities are much closer to

837: the observations, are model-independent, and can often be obtained

838: with very high precision as in the case of \mbox{TrES-2}.  Accurately

839: determined surface gravities of planets are potentially important for

840: constraining theoretical calculations of the spectra of extrasolar

841: planets. These have now begun to be tested through infrared photometry

842: of the secondary eclipses as well as transmission spectroscopy in

843: several cases (see for

844: example~\citeauthor{charbonneau07}~\citeyear{charbonneau07}, and

845: references therein).

846: 	

847: \section{Summary and discussion}

848: 

849: Our high-resolution, high-$S/N$ spectra from Keck/HIRES have allowed

850: us to derive new and accurate values of the stellar atmospheric

851: parameters of the parent star of the transiting planet \mbox{TrES-2},

852: principally the effective temperature and metallicity, which have in

853: turn yielded improved parameters for the star. The G0V main-sequence

854: dwarf appears to have a metal abundance very similar to the average of

855: the solar neighborhood ([Fe/H]$\simeq -0.1$, see for

856: example~\citeauthor{nordstrom04}~\citeyear{nordstrom04}), making it

857: nominally the most metal-deficient case in the current sample of

858: transiting planets

859: (e.g.,~\citeauthor{burrows07}~\citeyear{burrows07}).  The reliability

860: of our temperature estimate is strongly supported by the results of

861: several independent checks we have carried out (some more constraining

862: than others), all of which are in good agreement (additional

863: spectroscopy, line depth ratios, and H$_\alpha$ line profiles). The

864: old age (similar to the Sun) we infer for \mbox{TrES-2} is also

865: supported by results from the measurements of the \ion{Ca}{2} activity

866: level, the lithium abundance, and rotation, which rule out a very

867: young age for the system. This is consistent with the notion that the

868: planet's inferred mass escape rate ($\sim 5\times 10^{10}$ g s$^{-1}$,

869: using the model of ~\citeauthor{lecavelier06}~\citeyear{lecavelier06})

870: is not very high. The inferred lifetime (tens of Gyr, well outside the

871: evaporation-forbidden region indicated by Lecavelier des

872: Etangs~\citeyear{lecavelier06}) is long enough that very efficient

873: evaporation scenarios (\citeauthor{baraffe04}~\citeyear{baraffe04})

874: are not likely to hold in the case of the \mbox{TrES-2} system.

875: 

876: We have shown that the best constraint on the radius of the parent

877: star comes not from the spectroscopically determined surface gravity

878: (the quantity most often used for this purpose when a trigonometric

879: parallax is unavailable), but from the photometrically determined

880: quantity $a/R_\star$, which is closely related to the stellar

881: density. This quantity is directly measured from the transit light

882: curve, and depends only very weakly (or in some cases, not at all) on

883: any assumed stellar properties. In this particular case the gain from

884: using this new constraint is about a factor of five in terms of the

885: precision in $R_\star$. Similar arguments for using $a/R_\star$

886: instead of $\log g$ were made by Pont et al.~\citeyearpar{pont07}

887: regarding the faint parent star of the transiting planet OGLE-TR-10b,

888: although they appear not to have actually applied the method in

889: arriving at the mass and radius of the star reported in their

890: work. With the significant improvements seen recently in the quality

891: of the light curves of several of the known transiting planets

892: (\citeauthor{charbonneau06}~\citeyear{charbonneau06},~\citeyear{charbonneauetal07};

893: ~\citeauthor{bakos06}~\citeyear{bakos06};

894: ~\citeauthor{gillon06}~\citeyear{gillon06};

895: ~\citeauthor{holman06}~\citeyear{holman06},~\citeyear{holman07a},~\citeyear{holman07b};

896: ~\citeauthor{winn07a}~\citeyear{winn07a},~\citeyear{winn07b},~\citeyear{winn07c};

897: ~\citeauthor{knutson07}~\citeyear{knutson07};

898: ~\citeauthor{pont07}~\citeyear{pont07};

899: ~\citeauthor{minniti07}~\citeyear{minniti07};

900: ~\citeauthor{diaz07}~\citeyear{diaz07}), the measured $a/R_\star$

901: values are likely to be much better now than in the original discovery

902: papers. Thus, it may pay to revisit the determination of stellar

903: parameters of many of these systems along the lines of what we have

904: done here, since this should result in significant improvements in the

905: absolute mass and radius estimates of the attending exoplanets as

906: well. Such a study is underway by a subset of the present authors.

907: 

908: Our improved stellar parameters yielding more precise values for the

909: planet mass and radius confirm that \mbox{TrES-2} is the most massive among

910: the currently known nearby ($d\lesssim 300$ pc) transiting hot

911: Jupiters. Although the surface gravity of transiting planets, $\log

912: g_p$, has not usually attracted much attention, we point out here that

913: the little-used quadratic relation between the mass and radius of a

914: transiting planet allows the determination of this property of the

915: object purely from observations, free from assumptions about the mass

916: and radius of the parent star. The high accuracy with which $\log g_p$

917: can be determined in \mbox{TrES-2} and other cases makes it a potentially

918: useful constraint to theory.

919: 

920: Among the fourteen extrasolar giant planets known to transit their

921: parent stars, \mbox{TrES-2} seems to belong to an increasing family of

922: objects (HD~209458b, HAT-P-1b, WASP-1b) whose measured radii

923: apparently disagree with published theoretical models, in that they

924: are larger than expected. In the past, this anomaly was explained

925: invoking a source of internal heat

926: (e.g.,~\citeauthor{bodenheimer01}~\citeyear{bodenheimer01},~\citeyear{bodenheimer03};

927: ~\citeauthor{guillot02}~\citeyear{guillot02};

928: ~\citeauthor{winn05}~\citeyear{winn05}), either through eccentricity

929: pumping by more distant companions or through persisting obliquity

930: tides. However, these scenarios have some difficulties

931: (\citeauthor{laughlin05}~\citeyear{laughlin05};

932: ~\citeauthor{levrard07}~\citeyear{levrard07}). More recent work

933: (\citeauthor{burrows07}~\citeyear{burrows07}) indicates that the

934: discrepancy may be due instead to super-solar metallicities and

935: opacities that naturally retain internal heat, thus helping to keep a

936: hot Jupiter's radius larger for longer times. The

937: smaller-than-expected radii of other transiting planets (e.g.,

938: HD~149026b) can instead be explained by the presence of dense rocky

939: cores, and a correlation has been proposed between inner core masses

940: and host star metallicities

941: (\citeauthor{guillot06}~\citeyear{guillot06};

942: ~\citeauthor{burrows07}~\citeyear{burrows07}). In this respect, the

943: very small inferred core mass for \mbox{TrES-2}

944: (\citeauthor{burrows07}~\citeyear{burrows07}) agrees well with the

945: lower-than-solar iron abundance measured for the parent star.

946: 

947: Considering the rapidly growing sample of transiting giant planet

948: systems as an ensemble, other suggestive, albeit preliminary, trends

949: between different planet and/or stellar properties have begun to

950: emerge from the data. Some are easier to explain within the context of

951: the present theoretical framework, while others still await

952: explanation.  For example, the apparent trend (with two outliers) seen

953: in Figure~\ref{corr}, left panel, of increasing planet radius with

954: increasing mass of the parent star could be due in part to the fact

955: that close-in planets orbiting more massive stars are more strongly

956: irradiated (\citeauthor{burrows07}~\citeyear{burrows07}).  On the

957: other hand, the trend of decreasing planet mass with increasing

958: orbital period (Figure~\ref{corr}, right panel), first highlighted by

959: Mazeh et al.~\citeyearpar{mazeh05}, appears to be less well

960: understood.  We note, however, that in this case the fact that the

961: host sample is composed of relatively bright, nearby dwarfs targeted

962: by wide-field transit surveys as well as fainter, more distant OGLE

963: targets may play some role (see figure caption for details).

964: 

965: The above relations suggest there is a strong interplay between planet

966: properties and host star characteristics, which is hardly unexpected,

967: but it is also clear that the parameter space of properties to be

968: investigated is quite large.  Observations of transiting planet

969: systems can best inform structural and evolutionary models when they

970: yield accurate determinations of both planet and stellar properties,

971: through high-precision photometric as well as spectroscopic

972: measurements such as those presented here for the \mbox{TrES-2} system.

973: 

974: \acknowledgments

975: 

976: We thank K.\ Biazzo (Catania Astrophysical Observatory) for providing

977: the LDR calibrations in advance of publication, and A. Burrows and

978: A. Spagna for helpful discussions. GT acknowledges partial support for

979: this work from NASA Origins grant NNG04LG89G. DC is supported in part

980: by NASA Origins grant NNG05GJ29G. AS gratefully acknowledges the

981: Kepler mission for partial support under NASA Cooperative Agreement

982: NCC 2-1390. JBL gratefully acknowledges support from NSF grant AST-0307340. 

983: Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the

984: W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership

985: among the California Institute of Technology, the University of

986: California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The

987: Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the

988: W.M. Keck Foundation. The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge

989: the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of

990: Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We

991: are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations

992: from this mountain. This research has made use of NASA's Astrophysics

993: Data System Abstract Service and of the SIMBAD database, operated at

994: CDS, Strasbourg, France.

995: 

996: 

997: \begin{thebibliography}{}

998: \bibitem[Alibert et al., 2005]{alibert05}

999: Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., Benz, W., \& Winisdoerffer, C. 2005,

1000: \aap, 434, 343

1001: \bibitem[Andersen, 1991]{andersen91}

1002: Andersen, J. 1991, A\&ARv, 3, 91

1003: \bibitem[Bakos et al., 2006]{bakos06}

1004: Bakos, G. \'A.,  et al. 2006, \apj, 650, 1160

1005: \bibitem[Baraffe et al., 2003]{baraffe03}

1006: Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Barman, T., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P. H.

1007: 2003, \aap, 402, 701

1008: \bibitem[Baraffe et al., 2004]{baraffe04}

1009: Baraffe, I., Selsis, F., Chabrier, G., Barman, T., Allard, F.,

1010: Hauschildt, P. H., \& Lammer, H. 2004, \aap, 419, L16

1011: \bibitem[Barklem et al., 2002]{barklem02}

1012: Barklem, P. S., Stempels, H. C., Allende Prieto, C., Kochukhov, O. P., 

1013: Piskunov, N., \& O'Mara, B. J. 2002, \aap, 385, 951

1014: 

1015: \bibitem[Beatty et al., 2007]{beatty07}

1016: Beatty, T.\ G., et al. 2007, \apj, submitted

1017: 

1018: \bibitem[Biazzo et al., 2007]{biazzo07}

1019: Biazzo, K., Frasca, A., Catalano, S., \& Marilli, E. 2007, AN, in press

1020: 

1021: \bibitem[Bodenheimer et al., 2001]{bodenheimer01}

1022: Bodenheimer, P., Lin, D. N. C., \& Mardling, R. A. 2001, \apj, 548, 466

1023: \bibitem[Bodenheimer et al., 2003]{bodenheimer03}

1024: Bodenheimer, P., Laughlin, G., \& Lin, D. N. C. 2003, \apj, 592, 555

1025: \bibitem[Borucki et al., 2003]{borucki03}

1026: Borucki, W. J., et al. 2003, \procspie, 4854, 129

1027: \bibitem[Boss, 2000]{boss00}

1028: Boss, A. P. 2000, \apjl, 536, L101

1029: %\bibitem[Boss, 2001]{boss01}

1030: %Boss, A. P. 2001, \apj, 563, 367

1031: \bibitem[Boss, 2002]{boss02}

1032: Boss, A. P. 2002, \apjl, 567, L149

1033: %\bibitem[Boss, 2003]{boss03}

1034: %Boss, A. P. 2003, \apj, 599, 577

1035: %\bibitem[Bouchy et al. 2004]{bouchy04}

1036: %Bouchy, F., Pont, F., Santos, N. C., Melo, C., Mayor, M., 

1037: %Queloz, D., \& Udry, S. 2004, \aap, 

1038: \bibitem[Bouchy et al., 2005]{bouchy05}

1039: Bouchy, F., Pont, F., Melo, C., Santos, N. C., Mayor, M., 

1040: Queloz, D., \& Udry, S. 2005, \aap, 431, 1105

1041: \bibitem[Bouvier, 1997]{bouvier97}

1042: Bouvier, J. 1997, MmSAIt, 68, 881

1043: %\bibitem[Burrows et al. 1997]{burrows97}

1044: %Burrows, A., Marley, M.,

1045: %Hubbard, W.B., Lunine, J.I., Guillot, T., Saumon, D., Freedman, R.,

1046: %Sudarsky, D., Sharp, C. 1997, \apj, 491, 856

1047: %\bibitem[Burrows et al., 2000]{burrows00}

1048: %Burrows, A., Guillot, T., Hubbard, W. B., Marley, M. S., Saumon, D.,

1049: %Lunine, J. I., \& Sudarsky, D. 2000, \apj, 534, L97

1050: %\bibitem[Burrows et al., 2003]{burrows03}

1051: %Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., \& Hubbard, W. B. 2003, \apj, 594, 545

1052: %\bibitem[Burrows et al., 2004]{burrows04}

1053: %Burrows, A., Hubeny, I., Hubbard, W. B., Sudarsky, D., \& Fortney, J. J.

1054: %2004, \apj, 610, L53

1055: \bibitem[Burrows, 2005]{burrows05}

1056: Burrows, A. 2005, \nat, 433, 261

1057: \bibitem[Burrows et al., 2007]{burrows07}

1058: Burrows, A., Hubeny, I., Budaj, J., \& Hubbard, W. B. 2007, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0612703)

1059: \bibitem[Burstein \& Heiles, 1982]{burstein82}

1060: Burstein, D., \& Heiles, C. 1982, \aj, 87, 1165

1061: \bibitem[Butler et al., 1996]{butler96}

1062: Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Williams, E., McCarthy, C.,

1063: Dosanjh, P., \& Vogt, S. S. 1996, \pasp, 108, 500

1064: \bibitem[Caccin et al., 2002]{caccin02}

1065: Caccin, B., Penza, V., \& Gomez, M. T. 2002, \aap, 386, 286

1066: \bibitem[Catalano et al., 2002]{catalano02}

1067: Catalano, S., Biazzo, K., Frasca, A., \& Marilli, E. 2002, \aap, 394, 1009

1068: \bibitem[Chabrier et al., 2004]{chabrier04}

1069: Chabrier, G., Barman, T., Baraffe, I., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P. H.

1070: 2004, \apj, 603, L53

1071: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al., 2006]{charbonneau06}

1072: Charbonneau, D., et al. 2006, \apj, 636, 445

1073: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al., 2007a]{charbonneau07}

1074: Charbonneau, D., Brown, T. M., Burrows, A., \& Laughlin, G. 2007a, in 

1075: Protostars and Planets V, B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (eds.), 

1076: University of Arizona Press (Tucson), 701

1077: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al., 2007b]{charbonneauetal07}

1078: Charbonneau, D., Winn, J. N., Everett, M. E., Latham, D. W., Holman, M. J., 

1079: Esquerdo, G. A., \& O'Donovan, F. T. 2007b, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0610589)

1080: \bibitem[Demarque et al., 2004]{demarque04}

1081: Demarque, P., Woo, J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., \& Yi, S. K. 2004, \apjs, 155, 667

1082: \bibitem[Diaz et al., 2007]{diaz07}

1083: Diaz, R. F., et al. 2007, \apj, accepted (astro-ph/0701345)

1084: \bibitem[Drimmel \& Spergel, 2001]{drimmel01}

1085: Drimmel, R., \& Spergel, D. N. 2001, \apj, 556, 181

1086: \bibitem[Duncan et al. 1991]{duncan91}

1087: Duncan, D. K., et al. 1991, \apjs, 76, 383

1088: \bibitem[Fuhrmann et al., 1993]{fuhrmann93}

1089: Fuhrmann, K., Axer, M., \& Gehren, T. 1993, \aap, 271, 451

1090: \bibitem[Gaudi et al., 2005]{gaudietal05}

1091: Gaudi, B. S., Seager, S., \& Mall{\' e}n-Ornelas, G. 2005, \apj, 623, 472

1092: \bibitem[Gaudi, 2005]{gaudi05}

1093: Gaudi, B. S. 2005, \apjl, 628, L73

1094: \bibitem[Gaudi, 2007]{gaudi07}

1095: Gaudi, B. S. 2007, in Transiting Extrasolar Planets Workshop, C. Afonso, D. Weldrake, \& T. Henning 

1096: (eds.), ASP Conf. Ser. in press (astro-ph/0612141)

1097: \bibitem[Gillon et al., 2006]{gillon06}

1098: Gillon, M., Pont, F., Moutou, C., Bouchy, F., Courbin, F., Sohy, S., 

1099: \& Magain, P. 2006, \aap, 459, 249

1100: \bibitem[Gonzalez, 1998]{gonzalez98}

1101: Gonzalez, G. 1998, \aap, 334, 221

1102: \bibitem[Gonzalez and Vanture, 1998]{gonzvant98}

1103: Gonzalez, G., \& Vanture, A. D. 1998, \aap, 339, L29

1104: \bibitem[Gonzalez, 2005]{gonzalez05}

1105: Gonzalez, G. 2005, \mnras, 367, L37

1106: \bibitem[Gonzalez, 2006]{gonzalez06}

1107: Gonzalez, G. 2006, \pasp, 118, 1494

1108: \bibitem[Gould et al., 2006]{gould06}

1109: Gould, A., Dorsher, S., Gaudi, B. S., \& Udalski, A. 2006, AcA, 56, 1

1110: \bibitem[Gray \& Johanson, 1991]{gray91}

1111: Gray, D. F., \& Johanson, H. L. 1991, \pasp, 103, 439

1112: \bibitem[Gray, 1994]{gray94}

1113: Gray, D. F. 1994, \pasp, 106, 1248

1114: \bibitem[Gray \& Brown, 2001]{gray01}

1115: Gray, D. F., \& Brown, K. 2001, \pasp, 113, 723

1116: \bibitem[Gray, 2005]{gray05}

1117: Gray, D. F. 2005, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres, 3rd Edition, 

1118: Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

1119: \bibitem[Guillot \& Showman, 2002]{guillot02}

1120: Guillot, T., \& Showman, A. P. 2002, \aap, 385, 156

1121: \bibitem[Guillot, 2005]{guillot05}

1122: Guillot, T. 2005, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 33, 493

1123: \bibitem[Guillot et al., 2006]{guillot06}

1124: Guillot, T., Santos, N. C., Pont, F., Iro, N., Melo, C., \& Ribas, I. 2006, \aap, 453, L21

1125: \bibitem[Henry et al., 1996]{henry96}

1126: Henry, T. J., Soderblom, D. R., Donahue, R. A., \& Baliunas, S. L. 1996, \aj, 111, 439

1127: \bibitem[Holman et al., 2006]{holman06}

1128: Holman, M. J., et al. 2006, \apj, 652, 1715

1129: \bibitem[Holman et al., 2007a]{holman07a}

1130: Holman, M. J., et al. 2007a, \apj, 655, 1103

1131: \bibitem[Holman et al., 2007b]{holman07b}

1132: Holman, M. J., et al. 2007b, \apj, submitted

1133: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin, 2004a]{ida04a}

1134: Ida S., \& Lin D. N. C., 2004a, \apj, 604, 388

1135: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin, 2004b]{ida04b}

1136: Ida S., \& Lin D. N. C., 2004b, \apj, 616, 567

1137: \bibitem[Israelian et al., 2001]{israelian01}

1138: Israelian, G., Santos, N. C., Mayor, M., \& Rebolo, R. 2001, \nat, 411, 163

1139: \bibitem[Israelian et al., 2003]{israelian03}

1140: Israelian, G., Santos, N. C., Mayor, M., \& Rebolo, R. 2003, \aap, 405, 753

1141: \bibitem[Israelian et al., 2004]{israelian04}

1142: Israelian, G., Santos, N. C., Mayor, M., \& Rebolo, R. 2004, \aap, 414, 601

1143: \bibitem[Knutson et al., 2007]{knutson07} Knutson, H.~A.,

1144: Charbonneau, D., Noyes, R.~W., Brown, T.~M., \& Gilliland, R.~L. 2007, \apj, 655, 564

1145: \bibitem[Konacki et al., 2003]{konacki03}

1146: Konacki, M., Torres, G., Jha, S., \& Sasselov, D. D. 2003, \nat, 421, 507

1147: \bibitem[Konacki et al., 2004]{konacki04}

1148: Konacki, M., et al. 2004, \apjl, 609, L37

1149: \bibitem[Konacki et al., 2005]{konacki05}

1150: Konacki, M., Torres, G., Sasselov, D. D., \& Jha, S. 2005, \apj, 624, 372

1151: \bibitem[Kornet et al., 2005]{kornet05}

1152: Kornet, K., Bodenheimer, P., R\'ozyczka, M., \& Stepinski, T. F. 2005, \aap, 430, 1133

1153: \bibitem[Kovtyukh et al., 2003]{kovtyukh03}

1154: Kovtyukh, V. V., Soubiran, C., Belik, S. I., \& Gorlova, N. I. 2003, \aap, 411, 559

1155: \bibitem[Kurucz, 1993]{kurucz93}

1156: Kurucz, R. L. 1993, ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s

1157: Grid CDROM, Vol. 13, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

1158: \bibitem[Lammer et al., 2003]{lammer03}

1159: Lammer, H.,  Selsis, F., Ribas, I., Guinan, E. F., Bauer, S. J.,

1160: \& Weiss, W. W. 2003, \apjl, 598, L121

1161: \bibitem[Latham, 1992]{latham92}

1162: Latham, D. W. 1992, in IAU Colloquium 135: Complementary

1163: Approaches to Double and Multiple Star Research, H.A. McAlister \&

1164: W.I. Hartkopf eds, ASP Conf. Ser., 32, 110.

1165: \bibitem[Laughlin et al., 2005]{laughlin05}

1166: Laughlin, G., et al. 2005, \apj, 629, L121

1167: \bibitem[Lecavelier des Etangs et al., 2004]{lecavelier04}

1168: Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Vidal-Madjar, A., McConnell, J. C.,

1169: \& H\'ebrard, G. 2004, \aap, 418, L1

1170: \bibitem[Lecavelier des Etangs, 2006]{lecavelier06}

1171: Lecavelier Des Etangs, A. 2006, \aap, 461, 1185

1172: \bibitem[Levrard et al., 2007]{levrard07}

1173: Levrard, B., Correia, A. C. M., Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Selsis, F., 

1174: \& Laskar, J. 2007, \aap, 463, L5

1175: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol, 2002]{mandel02}

1176: Mandel, K., \& Agol, E. 2002, \apjl, 580, L171

1177: %\bibitem[Mayer et al., 2002]{mayer02}

1178: %Mayer L., Quinn T., Wadsley J., \& Stadel J., 2002, Science, 298, 1756

1179: \bibitem[Mayer et al., 2004]{mayer04}

1180: Mayer L., Quinn T., Wadsley J., \& Stadel J., 2004, \apj, 609, 1045

1181: \bibitem[Mazeh et al., 2005]{mazeh05}

1182: Mazeh, T., Zucker, S., \& Pont, F. 2005, \mnras, 356, 995

1183: \bibitem[Melo et al., 2006]{melo06}

1184: Melo, C., Santos, N. C., Pont, F., Guillot, T., Israelian, G., Mayor, M., 

1185: Queloz, D., \& Udry, S. 2006, \aap, 460, 251	

1186: \bibitem[Minniti et al., 2007]{minniti07}

1187: Minniti, D., et al. 2007, \apj, accepted (astro-ph/0701356)

1188: \bibitem[Moutou et al., 2004]{moutou04}

1189: Moutou, C., Pont, F., Bouchy, F., \& Mayor, M. 2004, \aap, 424, L31

1190: \bibitem[Neuforge \& Magain, 1997]{neuforge97}

1191: Neuforge-Verheecke, C., \& Magain, P. 1997, \aap, 328, 261

1192: \bibitem[Nordstr\"om et al., 2004]{nordstrom04}

1193: Nordstr\"om, B., et al. 2004, A\&A, 418, 989

1194: \bibitem[O'Donovan et al., 2006]{odonovan06}

1195: O'Donovan, F. T., et al. 2006, \apj, 651, L61

1196: \bibitem[Pace \& Pasquini, 2004]{pace04}

1197: Pace, G., \& Pasquini, L. 2004, \aap, 426, 1021

1198: %\bibitem[Pollack et al., 1996]{pollack96}

1199: %Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., Lissauer, J. J.,

1200: %Podolack, M., \& Greenzweig, Y. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62

1201: \bibitem[Pont et al., 2004]{pont04}

1202: Pont, F., Bouchy, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N. C., Melo, C., 

1203: Mayor, M., \& Udry, S. 2004, \aap, 426, L15

1204: \bibitem[Pont et al., 2007]{pont07}

1205: Pont, F., et al. 2007, \aap, submitted (astro-ph/0610827)

1206: \bibitem[Ram{\'\i}rez \& Mel\'endez, 2005]{ramirez05}

1207: Ram{\'\i}rez, I., \& Mel\'endez, J. 2005, \apj, 626, 446

1208: \bibitem[Randich et al., 2006]{randich06}

1209: Randich, S., Sestito, P., Primas, F., Pallavicini, R., \& Pasquini, L. 2006, \aap, 450, 557

1210: \bibitem[Reddy et al., 2002]{reddy02}

1211: Reddy, B. E., Lambert, D. L., Laws, C., Gonzalez, G., \& Covey, K.

1212: 2002, \mnras, 335, 1005

1213: \bibitem[Santos et al., 2006]{santos06}

1214: Santos, N. C., Ecuvillon, A., Israelian, G., Mayor, M., Melo, C., 

1215: Queloz, D., Udry, S., Ribeiro, J. P., \& Jorge, S. 2006, \aap, 458, 997

1216: \bibitem[Schlegel et al., 1998]{schlegel98}

1217: Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., \& Davis, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525

1218: \bibitem[Seager \& Mall\'en-Ornelas, 2003]{seager03}

1219: Seager, S., \& Mall\'en-Ornelas, G. 2003, \apj, 585, 1038

1220: \bibitem[Sestito \& Randich, 2005]{sestito05}

1221: Sestito, P., \& Randich, S. 2005, \aap, 442, 615

1222: \bibitem[Sneden, 1973]{sneden73}

1223: Sneden, C. A. 1973, Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin

1224: \bibitem[Song et al., 2004]{song04}

1225: Song, I., Zuckerman, B., \& Bessell, M. S. 2004, \apjl, 614, L125

1226: \bibitem[Southworth et al., 2004]{Southworth04}

1227:  Southworth, J., Zucker, S., Maxted, P.\ F.\ L., \& Smalley, B. 2004,

1228: \mnras, 355, 986

1229: \bibitem[Southworth et al., 2007]{Southworth07}

1230:  Southworth, J., Wheatley, P.\ J., \& Sams, G. 2007, \mnras, in press

1231: (arXiv:0704.1570)

1232: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al., 2004]{sozzetti04}

1233: Sozzetti, A., Yong, D., Torres, G., Charbonneau, D., Latham, D. W.,

1234: Allende Prieto, C., Brown, T. M., Carney, B. W., \& Laird, J. B. 2004,

1235: \apjl, 616, L167

1236: \bibitem[Sozzetti, 2005]{sozzetti05}

1237: Sozzetti, A. 2005, \pasp, 117, 1021

1238: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al., 2006]{sozzetti06}

1239: Sozzetti, A., Yong, D., Carney, B. W., Laird, J. B.,

1240: Latham, D. W., \& Torres, G. 2006, \aj, 131, 2274

1241: \bibitem[Strassmeier \& Schordan, 2000]{strassmeier00}

1242: Strassmeier, K. G., \& Schordan, P. 2000, AN, 321, 277

1243: \bibitem[Vogt et al., 1994]{vogt94}

1244: Vogt, S. S., et al., 1994, in Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII, 

1245: D. L. Crawford \& E. R. Craine eds., Proc. SPIE, 2198, 362

1246: \bibitem[Winn \& Holman, 2005]{winn05}

1247: Winn, J. N., \& Holman, M. J. 2005, \apjl, 628, L159

1248: \bibitem[Winn et al., 2007a]{winn07a}

1249: Winn, J. N., Holman, M. J., \& Roussanova, A. 2007a, \apj, in press (astro-ph/0611404)

1250: \bibitem[Winn et al., 2007b]{winn07b}

1251: Winn, J. N., et al. 2007b, \aj, accepted (astro-ph/0612224)

1252: \bibitem[Winn et al., 2007c]{winn07c}

1253: Winn, J. N., Holman, M. J., \& Fuentes, C. I. 2007c, \aj, 133, 11

1254: %\bibitem[Wittenmyer et al., 2005]{witten05}

1255: %Wittenmyer, R. A., et al. 2005, \apj, 632, 1157

1256: \bibitem[Wright et al., 2004]{wright04}

1257: Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., \& Vogt, S. S. 2004, \apjs, 152, 261

1258: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2001)]{yi01}

1259:  Yi, S.\ K., Demarque, P., Kim, Y.-C., Lee, Y.-W., Ree, C.\ H.,

1260: Lejeune, T., \& Barnes, S. 2001, \apjs, 136, 417

1261: %\bibitem[Yi et al., 2003]{yi03}

1262: %Yi, S., Kim, Y. -C., Demarque, P. 2003, \apjs, 144, 259

1263: \bibitem[Yong et al., 2004]{yong04}

1264: Yong, D., Lambert, D. L., Allende Prieto, C., \& Paulson, D. B. 2004,

1265: \apj, 603, 697

1266: \bibitem[Zacharias et al., 2004]{zacharias04}

1267: Zacharias, N., Urban, S. E., Zacharias, M. I., Wycoff, G. L., Hall, D. M., Monet, D. G., 

1268: \& Rafferty T. J. 2004, \aj, 127, 3043

1269: 

1270: \end{thebibliography}

1271: 

1272: \clearpage

1273: 

1274: \begin{deluxetable}{lc}

1275: \tablecaption{Properties of the parent star \mbox{TrES-2}\label{tab:star}}

1276: \tablewidth{0pt} 

1277: \tablehead{\colhead{~~~~~~~~~Parameter~~~~~~~~~} & \colhead{Value}}

1278: \startdata

1279: $T_\mathrm{eff}$ (K)\tablenotemark{a}\dotfill    & 5850~$\pm$~50\phn\phn\\

1280: $\log g$\tablenotemark{a}\dotfill                & 4.4~$\pm$~0.1\\

1281: $\log g$\tablenotemark{b}\dotfill                & $4.426^{+0.021}_{-0.023}$\\

1282: $v \sin i$ (km s$^{-1}$)\tablenotemark{a}\dotfill & 2~$\pm$~1 \\

1283: $\xi_t$ (km s$^{-1}$)\tablenotemark{a}\dotfill   & 1.00~$\pm$~0.05 \\

1284: $[$Fe/H$]$\tablenotemark{a}\dotfill              & $-$0.15~$\pm$~0.10\phs \\

1285: $\langle\log R^\prime_{HK}\rangle$\tablenotemark{a}\dotfill  & $-5.16\pm0.15$ \\

1286: $\log\epsilon{\rm (Li)}$\tablenotemark{a}\dotfill & 2.65 \\

1287: $\rho_\star$ (g cm$^{-3}$)\tablenotemark{c}\dotfill  & 1.375~$\pm$~0.065 \\

1288: $M_\star$ ($M_\sun$)\tablenotemark{b}\dotfill    & $0.980\pm0.062$ \\

1289: $R_\star$ ($R_\sun$)\tablenotemark{b}\dotfill    & $1.000^{+0.036}_{-0.033}$ \\

1290: Age (Gyr)\tablenotemark{b}\dotfill               & $5.1^{+2.7}_{-2.3}$ \\

1291: $M_V$ (mag)\tablenotemark{b}\dotfill             & $4.77 \pm 0.09$ \\

1292: Distance (pc)\tablenotemark{b}\dotfill           & $220 \pm 10$ \\

1293: $U$, $V$, $W$ (km s$^{-1}$)\tablenotemark{b}\dotfill  & [$-$1.81, +0.88, $-$5.51]   \\

1294: \enddata

1295: 

1296: \tablenotetext{a}{Determined spectroscopically.}

1297: 

1298: \tablenotetext{b}{Inferred from stellar evolution models using

1299: observational constraints (see text).}

1300: 

1301: \tablenotetext{c}{Derived observationally.}

1302: 

1303: \tablecomments{The value adopted for the solar abundance of iron is

1304: $\log(N_\mathrm{Fe}/N_\mathrm{H})_\odot = 7.52$}

1305: \end{deluxetable}

1306: 

1307: \clearpage

1308: 

1309: \begin{figure}

1310: \plotone{f1.eps}

1311: \caption{Observed H$_\alpha$ profile in the Keck template spectrum of

1312: \mbox{TrES-2} compared with four synthetic spectra with [m/H] = 0.0, $\log g

1313: = 4.5$, and effective temperatures of 5500, 5750, 6000, and 6250 K,

1314: respectively}. \label{halpha}

1315: \end{figure}

1316: 

1317: \clearpage

1318: 

1319: \begin{figure}

1320: \centering

1321: $\begin{array}{c}

1322: \includegraphics[width=0.60\textwidth]{f2a.eps} \\

1323: \includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{f2b.eps} \\

1324: \end{array}$

1325: \caption{Top: a 10 \AA\ region of the Keck template spectrum of \mbox{TrES-2}

1326: centered on the \ion{Ca}{2} H line.  Bottom: a portion of the same

1327: spectrum containing the \ion{Li}{1} line at 6707.8 \AA\ (filled dots),

1328: compared to three synthetic profiles (lines of various colors and

1329: styles), each differing only in the lithium abundance

1330: assumed. \label{cali}}

1331: \end{figure}

1332: 

1333: \clearpage

1334: 

1335: \begin{figure}

1336: \plotone{f3.eps}

1337: \caption{Lithium abundance $\log\epsilon$ (Li) as a function of

1338: effective temperature $T_\mathrm{eff}$ for \mbox{TrES-2} (filled circle) and

1339: a sample of planet hosts (open circles, data from

1340: \citeauthor{israelian04}~\citeyear{israelian04}). 

1341: Arrows indicate that only upper limits on $\log\epsilon$

1342: (Li) are available.} \label{licomp}

1343: \end{figure}

1344: 

1345: \clearpage

1346: 

1347: \begin{figure}

1348: \centering

1349: \includegraphics[width=0.60\textwidth]{f4.eps}

1350: \caption{Model isochrones from the Yonsei-Yale series by Yi et

1351: al.~\citeyearpar{yi01} and Demarque et al.~\citeyearpar{demarque04},

1352: corresponding to ages of 1--9 Gyr (left to right), for the measured

1353: composition of [Fe/H] $= -0.15$, shown with the observational

1354: constraints. {\it Top:} The measurement on the vertical axis is the

1355: spectroscopically determined value of $\log g$, which provides only a

1356: weak handle on the stellar radius and no useful constraint on

1357: age. {\it Bottom:} The use of the photometrically determined value of

1358: $a/R_\star$ from the light curve analysis of Holman et

1359: al.~\citeyearpar{holman07b} instead of surface gravity provides a much

1360: stronger constraint on the age and radius (by about a factor of 5).

1361: \label{fig:iso}}

1362: \end{figure}

1363: 

1364: \clearpage

1365: 

1366: \begin{figure}

1367: \plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}

1368: \caption{Left: Planet radius as a function of host mass for the

1369: fourteen currently known transiting systems. Data are from Burrows et

1370: al.~\citeyearpar{burrows07}, and references therein, except for \mbox{TrES-2} (this

1371: work). Green circles represent the distant OGLE sample, red circles

1372: indicate the sample of transiting objects found orbiting nearby

1373: ($d\lesssim 300$ pc) stars. Apart from two outliers, OGLE-TR-132b and

1374: HD~149026b, the correlation between these parameters appears clear in

1375: both the OGLE and the nearby samples of transiting giant

1376: planets. Right: Planet mass as a function of orbital period for the

1377: same sample, with the same color coding. Here the three OGLE planets

1378: with $P < 2$ days drive the correlation (and no planets have been

1379: found yet in this period range by wide-field transit surveys), which

1380: vanishes if the sample of nearby systems only is considered.  It is

1381: still a matter of debate whether the lack of lower-mass planets

1382: ($0.5\,M_{\rm Jup}\lesssim M_p\lesssim 1\,M_{\rm Jup}$) with $P < 2$

1383: days could be attributed to uncertainties in the determination of the

1384: stellar (and by inference, planetary) parameters for the faint hosts

1385: (e.g.,~\citeauthor{konacki05}~\citeyear{konacki05};

1386: ~\citeauthor{santos06}~\citeyear{santos06};~\citeauthor{pont07}~\citeyear{pont07}),

1387: or whether it could be explained in terms of biases and/or selection

1388: effects (e.g.,~\citeauthor{gaudietal05}~\citeyear{gaudietal05};

1389: ~\citeauthor{gaudi05}~\citeyear{gaudi05},~\citeyear{gaudi07};

1390: ~\citeauthor{gould06}~\citeyear{gould06}). It is also possible there

1391: might be different upper-mass limits in the two populations, for

1392: example from orbital migration and/or evaporation rate arguments

1393: (\citeauthor{mazeh05}~\citeyear{mazeh05};

1394: ~\citeauthor{gaudietal05}~\citeyear{gaudietal05}).

1395: \label{corr}}

1396: \end{figure}

1397: 

1398: 

1399: \end{document}

1400: