1: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{latexsym,graphicx,natbib}
3: %\usepackage{apjfonts,emulateapj5,psfig}
4: %\usepackage{apjfonts,emulateapj5}
5:
6: \shortauthors{Winn et al.~2007}
7: \shorttitle{System Parameters of HAT-P-1}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: % ------------------------------------------------------------------------
12: % New commands
13: %
14: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
15: \def\lsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
16: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
17: \def\gsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
18: \def\lam{\lambda=-1\fdg4 \pm 1\fdg1}
19: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------
20: %
21:
22: \bibliographystyle{apj}
23:
24: \title{
25: The Transit Light Curve Project.\\
26: VII.~The Not-So-Bloated Exoplanet HAT-P-1b
27: }
28:
29: \author{
30: Joshua N.\ Winn\altaffilmark{1},
31: Matthew J.\ Holman\altaffilmark{2},
32: Gaspar \'{A}.\ Bakos\altaffilmark{2,3},
33: Andr\'{a}s P\'{a}l\altaffilmark{4},\\
34: John Asher Johnson\altaffilmark{5},
35: Peter K.\ G.\ Williams\altaffilmark{5},
36: Avi Shporer\altaffilmark{6},
37: Tsevi Mazeh\altaffilmark{6},\\
38: Jos\'{e} Fernandez\altaffilmark{2,7},
39: David W.\ Latham\altaffilmark{2},
40: Micha\"{e}l Gillon\altaffilmark{8}
41: }
42:
43: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute for
44: Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of
45: Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA}
46:
47: \altaffiltext{2}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60
48: Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}
49:
50: \altaffiltext{3}{Hubble Fellow}
51:
52: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy, E\"{o}tv\"{o}s Lor\'{a}nd
53: University, Pf.~32, H-1518 Budapest, Hungary}
54:
55: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,
56: Mail Code 3411, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
57:
58: \altaffiltext{6}{Wise Observatory, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty
59: of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel}
60:
61: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Astronomy, Pontificia Universidad
62: Cat\'{o}lica, Casilla 306, Santiago 22, Chile}
63:
64: \altaffiltext{8}{Observatoire de l'Universit\'e de Gen\`eve, 1290
65: Sauverny, Switzerland; and Institut d'Astrophysique et de
66: G\'eophysique, Universit\'e de Li\`ege, 4000 Li\`ege, Belgium}
67:
68: \begin{abstract}
69:
70: We present photometry of the G0 star HAT-P-1 during six transits of
71: its close-in giant planet, and we refine the estimates of the system
72: parameters. Relative to Jupiter's properties, HAT-P-1b is $1.20\pm
73: 0.05$~times larger and its surface gravity is $2.7\pm 0.2$~times
74: weaker. Although it remains the case that HAT-P-1b is among the
75: least dense of the known sample of transiting exoplanets, its
76: properties are in accord with previously published models of
77: strongly irradiated, coreless, solar-composition giant planets. The
78: times of the transits have a typical accuracy of 1~min and do not
79: depart significantly from a constant period.
80:
81: \end{abstract}
82:
83: \keywords{planetary systems --- stars:~individual (HAT-P-1,
84: ADS~16402B)}
85:
86: \section{Introduction}
87:
88: More than 12 years have passed since the surprising discovery of ``hot
89: Jupiters'': giant planets around Sun-like stars with orbital periods
90: smaller than $\sim$10~days~(Mayor \& Queloz 1995; Butler et
91: al.~1997). These objects, of which about 50 are known (see, e.g.,
92: Butler et al.~2006), probably formed at larger orbital distances and
93: migrated inwards through processes that are not yet fully understood.
94: Hot Jupiters are also interesting because they are more likely to
95: transit their parent stars than more distant planets. Transits are
96: highly prized because they permit the determination of the planetary
97: radius and mass (Henry et al.~2000, Charbonneau et al.~2000), the
98: infrared planetary spectrum (Richardson et al.~2007, Grillmair et
99: al.~2007) and longitudinal brightness profile (Knutson et al.~2007a),
100: the stellar obliquity (Winn et al.~2007a), and much more. This helps
101: to explain why so many groups around the world are conducting
102: wide-field photometric surveys for planetary transits. Over a dozen
103: cases of transiting exoplanets have been identified in this manner,
104: with the rest having been found as a by-product of Doppler planet
105: surveys (see Charbonneau et al.~2006 for a recent review).
106:
107: Recently, the Hungarian-made Automated Telescope Network (HATNet)
108: announced the discovery of HAT-P-1b, a giant planet that orbits one
109: member of a G0/G0 stellar binary (Bakos et al.~2007). This planet was
110: notable for being among the largest and least dense of all the planets
111: for which such measurements have been made---both inside and outside
112: the Solar system---and therefore an interesting test case for models
113: of planetary atmospheres and interiors.
114:
115: However, while the data presented by Bakos et al.~(2007) was certainly
116: good enough to clinch the case for planethood and to provide useful
117: estimates of the system parameters, it is possible and desirable to
118: improve the accuracy of those parameters with repeated,
119: high-precision, ground-based transit photometry. This is one goal of
120: our Transit Light Curve (TLC) project, which has been described at
121: greater length elsewhere (see, e.g., Holman et al.~2006, Winn et
122: al.~2007b).
123:
124: This paper presents our results for the HAT-P-1 system. The next
125: section describes the observations. In \S~3, we describe the
126: parameteric model that was fitted to the data, and in \S~4 we present
127: the results for the planetary, stellar, and orbital parameters, as
128: well as the transit times. At the end of this paper we discuss the
129: significance of the refined radius measurement.
130:
131: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
132:
133: Our observations took place in late 2006, using telescopes at three
134: different observatories. We observed 6 distinct transits and produced
135: 7 independent light curves.
136:
137: We observed the transits of UT~2006~Sep~18, Sep~27, and Oct~6 with the
138: 1.2m telescope at the Fred L.\ Whipple Observatory on Mt.\ Hopkins,
139: Arizona. We used the 4096$^2$ KeplerCam CCD, which has a $23\farcm1
140: \times 23\farcm 1$ field of view. We employed $2\times 2$ binning,
141: giving a scale of $0\farcs 68$ per binned pixel, a readout and setup
142: time of 11~s, and a typical readout noise of 7 e$^-$ per binned
143: pixel. We used a Sloan $z$ filter in order to minimize the effect of
144: atmospheric extinction on the relative photometry, and the effects of
145: stellar limb darkening on the transit light curve. We kept the image
146: registration as constant as possible. We also obtained dome-flat and
147: bias exposures at the beginning and the end of each night. On Sep~18,
148: the sky conditions were photometric and the seeing varied from
149: $1\farcs7$ to $2\farcs1$. We used an exposure time of 15~s. The night
150: of Sep~27 began with patchy clouds and large transparency variations,
151: but the rest of the night was clear. The seeing varied between
152: $1\farcs7$ and $2\farcs4$, and we again used an exposure time of
153: 15~s. Most of Oct~6 was lost to clouds, although we did manage to
154: observe the egress in $1\farcs8$ seeing, using an exposure time of
155: 10~s.
156:
157: We observed the transits of UT~2006~Sep~1, UT~2006~Sep~10 and
158: UT~2006~Sep~18 using the Nickel~1m telescope at Lick Observatory on
159: Mt.\ Hamilton, California. The only night when a complete transit
160: could be observed was Sep~18. We used the Dewar \#2 direct imaging
161: detector, which is a 2048$^2$ Lawrence Labs CCD with a $6\farcm 1
162: \times 6\farcm 1$ field of view. For our observations we used $2\times
163: 2$ binning (0\farcs 36 per binned pixel), and read out only a $1450
164: \times 500$ pixel subregion of the chip to decrease the readout
165: time. Setup and readout time took about 10 seconds per exposure, with
166: a typical read noise of 11.8 e$^-$ per binned pixel. We observed
167: through a ``Gunn $Z$'' filter (Pinfield et al.~1997). To draw out the
168: exposure time and to spread the light from stars over more pixels, we
169: defocused the telescope until the stellar images had a full-width at
170: half-maximum (FWHM) of about 6 pixels. The exposure time ranged from
171: 10 to 40 seconds, depending on seeing and transparency. All nights
172: were fairly clear with $1\farcs 0$--$1\farcs 5$ seeing. On Sep~18,
173: near the transit midpoint, the star passed within a few degrees of the
174: zenith and autoguiding failed. The data from that time period were
175: excised.
176:
177: We observed the transits of UT~2006~Sep~14, UT~2006~Nov~20, and
178: UT~2006~Nov~29 using the 1m telescope at Wise Observatory, in Israel.
179: We used a Tektronix 1024$^2$ back-illuminated CCD detector, giving a
180: pixel scale of $0\farcs 7$ and a field of view of $11\farcm 9 \times
181: 11\farcm 9$. We observed through a Johnson $I$ filter, the reddest
182: optical band available on the camera. On Sep~14 and Nov~20, weather
183: conditions were poor, with patchy clouds. Because the data from those
184: nights were of much lower quality than the other data presented in
185: this paper, in what follows we describe only the data from
186: 2006~Nov~29. The night was not photometric, and the measured stellar
187: fluxes varied by about 20\% over the course of the night. The exposure
188: time was 15~s, and the FWHM of stellar images was about $1\farcs8$
189: (2.5~pixels).
190:
191: We used standard IRAF\footnote{ The Image Reduction and Analysis
192: Facility (IRAF) is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy
193: Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities
194: for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with
195: the National Science Foundation. } procedures for the overscan
196: correction, trimming, bias subtraction, and flat-field division. We
197: performed aperture photometry of HAT-P-1 and 4-8 nearby stars,
198: depending on the telescope. The sum of the fluxes of the comparison
199: stars was taken to be the comparison signal. The light curve of
200: HAT-P-1 was divided by the comparison signal, and then divided by a
201: constant to give a unit mean flux outside of transit.
202:
203: We then assessed residual systematic effects by examining the
204: correlation between the out-of-transit flux and some external
205: variables: time, airmass, the shape parameters of stellar images, and
206: the pixel position of HAT-P-1. For the FLWO data, the flux variations
207: were most strongly correlated with airmass; for the Lick data, the
208: strongest correlations were with the pixel coordinates, especially the
209: row number; and for the Wise data, there were correlations with both
210: airmass and the FWHM of stellar images (which were themselves strongly
211: correlated). We solved for the zero point and slope of the strongest
212: correlation as part of the fitting process described in the next
213: section.
214:
215: Figures~1 and 2 show the final light curves. The bottom panel of
216: Fig.~2 is a phase-averaged composite of the 3 best light
217: curves. Table~1 provides the final photometry, after correction of the
218: residual systematic effects.
219:
220: \begin{figure}[p]
221: \epsscale{0.85}
222: \plotone{f1.eps}
223: \caption{ Relative photometry of HAT-P-1.
224: The residuals (observed$-$calculated) are plotted beneath the data.
225: \label{fig:1}}
226: \end{figure}
227:
228: \begin{figure}[p]
229: \epsscale{0.85}
230: \plotone{f2.eps}
231: \caption{ Relative photometry of HAT-P-1.
232: The residuals (observed$-$calculated) are plotted beneath the data.
233: The bottom panel is a composite light curve created from all of
234: the $z$ and $Z$ band data, by subtracting the best-fitting value of $T_c$ from
235: the time stamps of each light curve and then averaging into 1~min bins.
236: \label{fig:2}}
237: \end{figure}
238:
239: \section{Determination of System Parameters}
240:
241: To estimate the planetary, stellar, and orbital parameters, and the
242: times of transit, we fitted a parameterized model to the photometric
243: data. The model and the fitting method were similar to those described
244: in previous TLC papers (see, e.g., Holman et al.~2006, Winn et
245: al.~2007b). It is based on a circular orbit\footnote{This is our
246: default assumption in the absence of clear evidence for an eccentric
247: orbit. Although the orbital fit of Bakos et al.~(2007) yielded the
248: formal result $e=0.09\pm 0.02$, we regard this as only suggestive.
249: The orbital eccentricity is subject to a positive bias in such fits,
250: because $e$ is positive definite, and experience has shown that
251: indications of a small nonzero eccentricity usually disappear after
252: more velocity data are obtained.} of a star (with mass $M_\star$ and
253: radius $R_\star$) and a planet ($M_p$, $R_p$) about their center of
254: mass, inclined by an angle $i$ relative to the sky plane. Because one
255: of our goals was to measure the individual transit times, we allowed
256: each transit to have an independent value of $T_c$, the transit
257: midpoint, rather than forcing them to be separated by regular
258: intervals.
259:
260: The most natural parameters one would like to know are $R_\star$ and
261: $R_p$, but these parameters cannot be determined independently from
262: the data. The relevant parameters that can be determined are
263: $R_p/R_\star$ and $R_\star/a$, where $a$ is the orbital semimajor
264: axis. The only property intrinsic to the star that follows directly
265: from the photometric data is the mean stellar density (see, e.g.,
266: Seager \& Mall\'{e}n-Ornelas~2003):
267: \begin{equation}
268: \rho_\star \equiv
269: \frac{M_\star}{\frac{4}{3}\pi R_\star^3} =
270: \frac{3\pi}{GP^2} \left( \frac{R_\star}{a} \right)^{-3}.
271: \end{equation}
272: In order to determine $R_\star$ and $R_p$ independently, one must have
273: an external estimate of $R_\star$, or $M_\star$, or some combination
274: of $R_\star$ and $M_\star$ besides $\rho_\star$. This external
275: estimate may come from supplementary observations such as the stellar
276: angular diameter and parallax (see, e.g., Baines et al.~2007), or from
277: the interpretation of the stellar spectrum with theoretical model
278: atmospheres and evolutionary tracks. The comparison with theory can be
279: facilitated by the estimate of $\rho_\star$ that comes from the
280: photometry, because the photometric estimate is often more precise
281: than the traditional spectroscopic gravity indicator, $\log g$ (see,
282: e.g., Pont et al.~2007, Sozzetti et al.~2007, Holman et al.~2007).
283:
284: Our approach is to fix $M_\star$ at a fiducial value, and then
285: determine $R_\star$ and $R_p$ from the light curve. The scaling
286: relations $R_\star \propto M_\star^{1/3}$ and $R_p \propto
287: M_\star^{1/3}$ may then be used to estimate the resulting systematic
288: error due to the uncertainty in the stellar mass. This also makes it
289: easy to update the determinations of $R_\star$ and $R_p$ as our
290: understanding of the host star is revised through further observations
291: and analyses. In this case, we assumed $M_\star = 1.12$~$M_\odot$,
292: based on the analysis by Bakos et al.~(2007) in which the
293: spectroscopic properties of both members of the stellar binary were
294: fitted simultaneously to theoretical isochrones. The uncertainty in
295: $M_\star$ quoted by Bakos et al.~(2007) is 8\%, corresponding to a
296: systematic error of 2.7\% in our determinations of $R_\star$ and
297: $R_p$. The planetary mass $M_p$ hardly affects the photometric model
298: at all, since $M_p\ll M_\star$, but for completeness we used the
299: previously determined value $M_p=0.53$~$M_{\rm Jup}$.
300:
301: To calculate the relative flux as a function of the projected
302: separation of the planet and the star, we employed the analytic
303: formulas of Mandel \& Agol~(2002) to compute the integral of the
304: intensity over the unobscured portion of the stellar disk. We assumed
305: the limb darkening law to be quadratic,
306: \begin{equation}
307: \frac{I_\mu}{I_1} = 1 - a(1-\mu) - b(1-\mu)^2,
308: \end{equation}
309: where $I$ is the intensity, and $\mu$ is the cosine of the angle
310: between the line of sight and the normal to the stellar surface. We
311: did not use the ``small-planet'' approximation. We fixed the
312: limb-darkening coefficients at the values calculated and tabulated by
313: Claret~(2004) for observations of a star with the observed spectral
314: properties.\footnote{Specifically, we used the tables for ATLAS
315: models, interpolating for $T_{\rm eff} = 5975$~K, $\log g =
316: 4.45$~(cgs), log~[M/H]$=0.1$ and $v_t = 2.0$~km~s$^{-1}$. For the
317: $z$ band, $a = 0.18$ and $b = 0.34$. We also used these values for
318: the $Z$ band, finding it to provide a good fit. For the $I$ band,
319: $a=0.22$ and $b=0.34$.} We also investigated the effects of changing
320: the limb-darkening law and fitting for the limb darkening parameters,
321: as discussed below. In addition, as mentioned in the previous section,
322: we fitted for the zero point and slope of the correlation between the
323: measured flux and the external variable that showed the strongest
324: correlation. For the FLWO data, this variable was airmass; for Lick it
325: was the column number; and for the Wise data it was the FWHM of
326: stellar images.
327:
328: The fitting statistic was
329: \begin{equation}
330: \chi^2 =
331: \sum_{j=1}^{N_f}
332: \left[
333: \frac{f_j({\mathrm{obs}}) - f_j({\mathrm{calc}})}{\sigma_j}
334: \right]^2
335: ,
336: \label{eq:chi2}
337: \end{equation}
338: where $f_j$(obs) is the flux observed at time $j$ and $\sigma_j$
339: controls the weights of the data points, and $f_j$(calc) is the
340: calculated flux. As noted in the previous section, the calculated flux
341: was the idealized flux of a transit light curve after subtracting a
342: linear function of a specified external variable.
343:
344: For the data weights $\sigma_j$, many investigators use the calculated
345: Poisson noise, or the observed standard deviation of the
346: out-of-transit data. Experience has shown that these procedures
347: usually result in underestimated uncertainties in the model
348: parameters, because they neglect time-correlated errors (``red
349: noise''; see, e.g., Gillon et al.~2006), which are almost always
350: significant for ground-based data. In order to derive realistic
351: uncertainties on the parameters, it is important for $\sigma_j$ to
352: take red noise into account, at least approximately.
353:
354: We did this as follows. The most relevant time scale is $\sim$20~min,
355: the ingress or egress duration. First we calculated $\sigma_1$, the
356: standard deviation of the unbinned out-of-transit data. (The results
357: for each light curve are given in Figs.~1 and 2.) Next we averaged the
358: out-of-transit data into 20~min bins, with each bin consisting of $N$
359: data points, depending on the cadence. Then we calculated the standard
360: deviation, $\sigma_N$. In the absence of red noise, we would observe
361: $\sigma_N = \sigma_1/\sqrt{N}$, but in practice $\sigma_N$ is larger
362: than $\sigma_1/\sqrt{N}$ by some factor $\beta$. Therefore, we set
363: the data weights equal to $\beta~\sigma_1$. The exact choice of
364: averaging time did not matter much. In the end, we used the mean value
365: of $\beta$ over averaging times ranging from 15 to 25
366: minutes. Typically we found $\beta\approx 2$, depending on the
367: telescope and sky conditions.\footnote{This procedure effectively
368: increases the error bar of each measurement and results in a minimum
369: value of $\chi^2/N_{\rm dof}$ that is smaller than unity. It is
370: equivalent to setting $\sigma_j$ at the value that produce
371: $\chi^2/N_{\rm dof}=1$ but then using $\Delta\chi^2=\beta^2$
372: instead of $\Delta\chi^2=1$ to define the 68\% confidence limit.}
373:
374: In all cases, to solve for the a posteriori probability distributions
375: of the model parameters, we used a Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm
376: [see, e.g., Tegmark et al.~(2004) for applications to cosmological
377: data, Ford (2005) for radial-velocity data, and Holman et al.~(2006)
378: or Burke et al.~(2007) for a similar approach to transit fitting]. We
379: ensured that the Gelman \& Rubin~(1992)~$R$ statistic was within 0.5\%
380: of unity, a sign of good mixing and convergence. For each parameter,
381: we took the median value of the distribution to be our best estimate,
382: and the standard deviation as the 1~$\sigma$ uncertainty.
383:
384: \section{Results}
385:
386: The results are given in Tables~2 and 3. The first of these tables
387: gives the planetary, stellar, and orbital parameters, with the
388: fundamental parameters $R_\star/M_\star^{1/3}$, $R_p/M_p^{1/3}$, and
389: $i$ listed first. For the parameters that depend on the choice of
390: $M_\star$ (namely, $R_\star$, $R_p$, $a$, and $\rho_p$), we have
391: accounted for the systematic error due to the 8\% uncertainty in
392: $M_\star$. Table~3 gives the measured transit times.
393:
394: \subsection{Planetary, Stellar, and Orbital Parameters}
395:
396: We find the stellar radius to be $R_\star = 1.115 \pm 0.043~R_\odot$,
397: and the planetary radius to be $R_p = 1.203\pm 0.051~R_{\rm Jup}$. The
398: statistical error is comparable to the systematic error resulting from
399: the covariance with the stellar mass, implying that there is still
400: some scope for improvement through additional high-precision
401: photometry. Our value for the stellar radius agrees well with the
402: value $R_\star = 1.15^{+0.10}_{-0.07}~R_\odot$ determined by Bakos et
403: al.~(2007). Those authors estimated $R_\star$ from an analysis of the
404: stellar spectrum---its effective temperature, surface gravity, and
405: metallicity---whereas we estimated $R_\star$ (actually
406: $R_\star/M_\star^{1/3}$) by fitting the transit light curves. The
407: agreement between these different methods of determining the stellar
408: radius is an important consistency check on both analyses. Our value
409: for the planetary radius is 1.5~$\sigma'$ smaller than the previously
410: determined value $R_p = 1.36^{+0.11}_{-0.09}~R_{\rm Jup}$, where
411: $\sigma'$ is the quadrature sum of the statistical errors of the two
412: estimates. Thus, we have revised the planetary radius downward and we
413: have improved the measurement precision by a factor of 2.
414:
415: We performed a number of additional optimizations to check on the
416: sensitivity of the results to the choice of limb darkening function.
417: We tried replacing the quadratic law with either a linear law or the
418: four-parameter ``nonlinear'' law of Claret~(2000). For the quadratic
419: law, we tried replacing the ATLAS-based coefficients with the
420: PHOENIX-based coefficients of Claret~(2004). In none of these cases
421: did the optimized value of $R_p$ change by more than 0.5\% relative to
422: the value presented in Table~2. For the case of the linear law, we
423: tried fitting for the limb darkening coefficient rather than fixing it
424: at the prescribed value. In that case, $R_p$ increased by 1.8\%, which
425: is still small in comparison to the quoted error. (We found that the
426: present data are unable to constrain meaningfully more than one
427: limb-darkening parameter.) We conclude that the systematic error due
428: to the choice of limb darkening law is probably $\sim$1\%.
429:
430: Also given in Table~2 are some results reproduced from Bakos et
431: al.~(2007) for convenience, as well as some useful derived
432: quantities. Among these quantities are the impact parameter $b$,
433: defined as $a\cos i/R_\star$ (where $a$ is the semimajor axis), the
434: radius ratio $R_p/R_\star$, the fractions $a/R_\star$ and $a/R_p$, and
435: the stellar mean density $\rho_\star$, which (as mentioned above) do
436: not depend on our choice for $M_\star$. We used the previous
437: measurement of the velocity semiamplitude of the spectroscopic orbit,
438: $K_\star=60.3\pm 2.1$~m~s$^{-1}$, to calculate the planetary surface
439: gravity, which is also independent of the undetermined stellar
440: properties (see, e.g., Southworth et al.~2007, Winn et al.~2007a).
441: The results for $a$ and the planetary mean density $\rho_p$ do depend
442: on the choice of stellar mass, and in those cases the quoted errors
443: have been enlarged appropriately to take this extra source of
444: uncertainty into account. For convenience in planning future
445: observations, we give the calculated values of the full transit
446: duration (the time between first and fourth contact, $t_{\rm IV} -
447: t_{\rm I}$), and the partial transit duration (the time between first
448: and second contact, or between third and fourth
449: contact).\footnote{Although the partial transit duration is listed as
450: $t_{\rm II} - t_{\rm I}$ in Table~1, all of the results in Table~1
451: are based on the entire light curves, including both ingress and
452: egress data. Our model assumes $t_{\rm II} - t_{\rm I} = t_{\rm IV}
453: - t_{\rm III}$.}
454:
455: \subsection{Transit Times}
456:
457: Table~3 gives the transit times measured from our data. We have used
458: these times to calculate a photometric ephemeris for this system.
459: Using only our 7 new measurements, we fitted a linear function of
460: transit epoch $E$,
461: \begin{equation}
462: T_c(E) = T_c(0) + E P.
463: \label{eq:ephemeris}
464: \end{equation}
465: The fit had $\chi^2/N_{\rm dof} = 1.6$ and $N_{\rm dof} = 5$,
466: suggesting that either the period is not exactly constant, or that the
467: transit time uncertainties have been underestimated. Because one
468: would prefer to have an ephemeris with conservative error estimates
469: for planning future observations, we rescaled the measurement errors
470: by $\sqrt{1.6}$ and re-fitted the ephemeris, finding $T_c(0) =
471: 2453997.79258(29)$~[HJD] and $P = 4.46543(14)$~days. The numbers in
472: parentheses indicate the $1~\sigma$ uncertainty in the final two
473: digits. Our derived period agrees with the value $4.465290(90)$~days
474: determined by Bakos et al.~(2007), within the respective 1~$\sigma$
475: limits. Figure~3 is the O$-$C (observed minus calculated) diagram for
476: the transit times.
477:
478: \begin{figure}[p]
479: \epsscale{1.0}
480: \plotone{f3.eps}
481: \caption{ Transit timing residuals for HAT-P-1b. The calculated times,
482: using the ephemeris derived in \S~4.2, have been subtracted from the
483: observed times. The filled symbols represent observations of
484: complete transits. Open symbols represent observations of partial
485: transits. The diamond represents the previous observation by Bakos
486: et al.~(2007), which was not used in the fit but which agrees well
487: with the computed ephemeris.
488: \label{fig:3}}
489: \end{figure}
490:
491: \section{Summary and Discussion}
492:
493: We have presented new photometry of HAT-P-1 spanning the times of
494: transit of its close-in giant planet. The photometry improves the
495: precision with which the stellar and planetary radii are known by a
496: factor of 2, and places the measurements on a more robust footing by
497: determining the stellar mean density directly from the photometric
498: data. We have also updated the transit ephemeris, to help in planning
499: future observations.
500:
501: Although the revised planetary radius is somewhat lower than the
502: previously determined value, the planet HAT-P-1b is still among the
503: largest and least dense of the known transiting exoplanets. Its mean
504: density ($0.376\pm 0.031$~g~cm$^{-3}$) is comparable to that of the
505: famously oversized planet HD~209458b ($0.35$~g~cm$^{-3}$; Knutson et
506: al.~2007b). A third planet with a comparably low mean density is
507: WASP-1b ($0.36$~g~cm$^{-3}$; Collier Cameron et al.~2007; Charbonneau
508: et al.~2007; Shporer et al.~2007).
509:
510: There is an extensive literature on the interpretation of exoplanetary
511: radii, and in particular on the subject of these apparently
512: ``bloated'' planets. This term refers to the apparent conflict (of
513: order 10-20\%) between the measured planetary radii and the calculated
514: radii using simple structural models for hydrogen/helium planets of
515: the appropriate mass, temperature, age, and degree of external heating
516: by the parent star. Many mechanisms have been proposed to sustain
517: hotter gaseous envelopes and therefore larger planets: the efficient
518: delivery of heat from the star to the planetary interior (Guillot \&
519: Showman~2002; Showman \& Guillot~2002); the production of internal
520: heat by tidal interactions (Bodenheimer et al.~2003; Winn \&
521: Holman~2005); and the trapping of internal heat by enhanced
522: atmospheric opacities (Burrows et al.~2007) or inhibited convection
523: (Chabrier \& Baraffe~2007). Only the tidal mechanisms have been
524: specific or predictive enough to be ruled out; the obliquity-tide
525: theory of Winn \& Holman~(2005) did not withstand more detailed
526: dynamical analysis (Levrard et al.~2007, Fabrycky et al.~2007), and
527: the eccentricity-tide mechanism of Bodenheimer et al.~(2003) does not
528: seem to be operative in the case for which it was invented, HD~209458b
529: (Laughlin et al.~2005). Which (if any) of the other mechanisms
530: contribute to the observed radii of transiting exoplanets is not yet
531: clear.
532:
533: However, for HAT-P-1b, this issue may be a red herring. We find that
534: there is no strong conflict with structural models at this point, as
535: long as the planet does not have a massive core of heavy
536: elements. Burrows et al.~(2007) recently computed models for many of
537: the transiting exoplanets including HAT-P-1b in particular, taking
538: into account the appropriate planetary mass, orbital distance, stellar
539: luminosity, stellar spectrum, and stellar age. Assuming a planet of
540: solar composition, an atmosphere of standard solar-composition
541: opacity, and no dense heavy-element core, they calculated $R_p =
542: 1.18$--$1.22~R_{\rm Jup}$ over the plausible age range $3.5\pm
543: 1.0$~Gyr. This range of calculated values for $R_p$ comfortably
544: overlaps the 1~$\sigma$ range in our measured value, $1.203\pm
545: 0.051$~$R_{\rm Jup}$.
546:
547: Fortney, Marley, \& Barnes~(2007) have also provided theoretical
548: estimates of exoplanetary radii over a wide range of conditions,
549: although they are not specifically tuned for any particular cases of
550: the known exoplanets. For a coreless H/He planet with mass $0.5~M_{\rm
551: Jup}$ orbiting a 3-Gyr-old solar-luminosity star at a distance of
552: 0.045~AU (and thereby receiving nearly the same flux as HAT-P-1, which
553: orbits a $\sim$1.5~$L_\odot$ star at a distance of 0.055~AU), Fortney
554: et al.~(2007) predict a planetary radius $R_p=1.12$~$R_{\rm
555: Jup}$. This is smaller than the value computed by Burrows et
556: al.~(2007), and at least part of the reason for the difference is that
557: Fortney et al.~(2007) did not account for the ``transit radius
558: effect'': the enlarged size of the transit-measured radius relative to
559: the $\tau=2/3$ photosphere that is usually taken to be the ``radius''
560: by theoreticians. This effect amounts to a few per cent in the
561: planetary radius (see also Burrows et al.~2003). Assuming that this
562: effect adds between 0\% and 5\% to the calculated radius, the
563: difference between the calculated radius of $R_p$ and our measured
564: value is 0.5--1.6~$\sigma$, i.e., not very significant.
565:
566: We conclude that the present data are consistent with current models
567: of coreless, solar-composition, strongly irradiated giant planets.
568: Bakos et al.~(2007) estimated a stellar metallicity of $Z=0.025$,
569: i.e., comparable to the Sun, and hence the inference of a small or
570: absent core is broadly consistent with the core-metallicity relation
571: proposed by Guillot et al.~(2006). Of course, there are many other
572: possibilities that are also consistent with the data, such as a planet
573: with a dense core that also has either an extra source of atmospheric
574: opacity or an extra source of internal heat. As of now there is no way
575: to distinguish among these possibilities.
576:
577: As discussed by Burrows et al.~(2007), it is becoming clear that there
578: are many determinants of planetary radii. By considering the entire
579: ensemble of exoplanets one can fully appreciate the strengths and
580: weaknesses of theoretical models, and possibly obtain clues about
581: interesting processes that may have been overlooked. This requires not
582: only the discovery of new transiting systems, but also high-precision
583: determinations of the system parameters, such as the present study.
584:
585: \acknowledgments We thank Debra Fischer and Geoff Marcy for helpful
586: discussions, and John Southworth for his publicly available code for
587: finding limb darkening parameters. A.P.\ is grateful for the
588: hospitality of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where
589: some of this work was carried out. M.J.H.\ acknowledges support for
590: this work from NASA Origins grant NG06GH69G. G.\'{A}.B.\ was supported
591: by NASA through a Hubble Fellowship Grant HST-HF-01170.01. P.K.G.W.\
592: was supported by an NSF Graduate Student Research Fellowship.
593: KeplerCam was developed with partial support from the Kepler Mission
594: under NASA Cooperative Agreement NCC2-1390 (PI~D.~Latham), and the
595: Keplercam observations described in this paper were partly supported
596: by grants from the Kepler Mission to SAO and PSI.
597:
598: \begin{thebibliography}{}
599:
600: \bibitem[Baines et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...661L.195B} Baines, E.~K., van
601: Belle, G.~T., ten Brummelaar, T.~A., McAlister, H.~A., Swain, M.,
602: Turner, N.~H., Sturmann, L., \& Sturmann, J.\ 2007, \apjl, 661, L195
603:
604: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007)]{b07} Bakos, G.~{\'A}., et al.\ 2007, ApJ,
605: 656, 552
606:
607: \bibitem[Bodenheimer et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...592..555B} Bodenheimer,
608: P., Laughlin, G., \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\ 2003, \apj, 592, 555
609:
610: \bibitem[Burke et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0705.0003B} Burke, C.~J., et
611: al.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 705, arXiv:0705.0003 [ApJ submitted]
612:
613: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...594..545B} Burrows, A.,
614: Sudarsky, D., \& Hubbard, W.~B.\ 2003, \apj, 594, 545
615:
616: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...661..502B} Burrows, A.,
617: Hubeny, I., Budaj, J., \& Hubbard, W.~B.\ 2007, \apj, 661, 502
618:
619: \bibitem[Butler et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...474L.115B} Butler, R.~P.,
620: Marcy, G.~W., Williams, E., Hauser, H., \& Shirts, P.\ 1997, \apjl,
621: 474, L115
622:
623: \bibitem[Butler et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...646..505B} Butler, R.~P., et
624: al.\ 2006, \apj, 646, 505
625:
626: \bibitem[Chabrier \& Baraffe(2007)]{2007ApJ...661L..81C} Chabrier, G.,
627: \& Baraffe, I.\ 2007, \apjl, 661, L81
628:
629: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...529L..45C} Charbonneau,
630: D., Brown, T.~M., Latham, D.~W., \& Mayor, M.\ 2000, \apjl, 529, L45
631:
632: \bibitem[Charbonneau et~al.(2006)]{ppv} Charbonneau, D., Brown,
633: T.~M., Burrows, A., \& Laughlin, G.~2006, in Protostars \& Planets
634: V, ed. B.~{Reipurth}, D.~{Jewitt}, \& K.~{Keil} (Tucson: University
635: of Arizona Press), in press, astro-ph/0603376
636:
637: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...658.1322C} Charbonneau,
638: D., Winn, J.~N., Everett, M.~E., Latham, D.~W., Holman, M.~J.,
639: Esquerdo, G.~A., \& O'Donovan, F.~T.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 1322
640:
641: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{2000A&A...363.1081C} Claret, A.\ 2000, \aap,
642: 363, 1081
643:
644: \bibitem[Claret(2004)]{Claret.2004} Claret 2004, \aap, 428, 1001
645:
646: \bibitem[Collier~Cameron et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.375..951C} Collier
647: Cameron, A.~C., et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 375, 951
648:
649: \bibitem[Fabrycky et al.(2007)]{2007astro.ph..3418F} Fabrycky, D.~C.,
650: Johnson, E.~T., \& Goodman, J.\ 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints,
651: arXiv:astro-ph/0703418
652:
653: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...659.1661F} Fortney, J.~J.,
654: Marley, M.~S., \& Barnes, J.~W.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 1661
655:
656: \bibitem[Ford(2005)]{2005AJ....129.1706F} Ford, E.~B.\ 2005, \aj, 129,
657: 1706
658:
659: \bibitem[Gelman \& Rubin(1992)]{Gelman.1992} Gelman, A.\ \& Rubin,
660: D.~B.\ 1992, Stat. Sci., 7, 457
661:
662: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...459..249G} Gillon, M., Pont,
663: F., Moutou, C., Bouchy, F., Courbin, F., Sohy, S., \& Magain, P.\
664: 2006, \aap, 459, 249
665:
666: \bibitem[Grillmair et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...658L.115G} Grillmair,
667: C.~J., Charbonneau, D., Burrows, A., Armus, L., Stauffer, J., Meadows,
668: V., Van Cleve, J., \& Levine, D.\ 2007, \apjl, 658, L115
669:
670: \bibitem[Guillot \& Showman(2002)]{2002A&A...385..156G} Guillot, T.,
671: \& Showman, A.~P.\ 2002, \aap, 385, 156
672:
673: \bibitem[Guillot et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...453L..21G} Guillot, T.,
674: Santos, N.~C., Pont, F., Iro, N., Melo, C., \& Ribas, I.\ 2006,
675: \aap, 453, L21
676:
677: \bibitem[Henry et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...529L..41H} Henry, G.~W., Marcy,
678: G.~W., Butler, R.~P., \& Vogt, S.~S.\ 2000, \apjl, 529, L41
679:
680: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...652.1715H} Holman, M.~J., et
681: al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 1715
682:
683: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0704.2907H} Holman, M.~J., et
684: al.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 704, arXiv:0704.2907 [ApJ in press]
685:
686: \bibitem[Knutson et al.(2007a)]{knut07} Knutson, H., et al.~2007a,
687: \nat, 447, 7141
688:
689: \bibitem[Knutson et al.(2007b)]{2007ApJ...655..564K} Knutson, H.~A.,
690: Charbonneau, D., Noyes, R.~W., Brown, T.~M., \& Gilliland, R.~L.\
691: 2007b, \apj, 655, 564
692:
693: \bibitem[Laughlin et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...629L.121L} Laughlin, G.,
694: Marcy, G.~W., Vogt, S.~S., Fischer, D.~A., \& Butler, R.~P.\ 2005,
695: \apjl, 629, L121
696:
697: \bibitem[Levrard et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...462L...5L} Levrard, B.,
698: Correia, A.~C.~M., Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Selsis, F., \& Laskar,
699: J.\ 2007, \aap, 462, L5
700:
701: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{2002ApJ...580L.171M} Mandel, K., \&
702: Agol, E.\ 2002, \apjl, 580, L171
703:
704: \bibitem[Mayor \& Queloz(1995)]{1995Natur.378..355M} Mayor, M., \&
705: Queloz, D.\ 1995, \nat, 378, 355
706:
707: \bibitem[Pinfield et al.(1997)]{1997MNRAS.287..180P} Pinfield, D.~J.,
708: Hodgkin, S.~T., Jameson, R.~F., Cossburn, M.~R., \& von Hippel, T.\
709: 1997, \mnras, 287, 180
710:
711: \bibitem[Pont et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...465.1069P} Pont, F., et al.\
712: 2007, \aap, 465, 1069
713:
714: \bibitem[Richardson et al.(2007)]{2007Natur.445..892R} Richardson,
715: L.~J., Deming, D., Horning, K., Seager, S., \& Harrington, J.\ 2007,
716: \nat, 445, 892
717:
718: \bibitem[Seager \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas(2003)]{2003ApJ...585.1038S}
719: Seager, S., \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas, G.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 1038
720:
721: \bibitem[Showman \& Guillot(2002)]{2002A&A...385..166S} Showman,
722: A.~P., \& Guillot, T.\ 2002, \aap, 385, 166
723:
724: \bibitem[Shporer et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.376.1296S} Shporer, A.,
725: Tamuz, O., Zucker, S., \& Mazeh, T.\ 2007, \mnras, 376, 1296
726:
727: \bibitem[Southworth et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0704.1570S} Southworth, J.,
728: Wheatley, P.~J., \& Sams, G.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 704,
729: arXiv:0704.1570
730:
731: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0704.2938S} Sozzetti, A.,
732: Torres, G., Charbonneau, D., Latham, D.~W., Holman, M.~J., Winn,
733: J.~N., Laird, J.~B., \& O'Donovan, F.~T.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 704,
734: arXiv:0704.2938 [ApJ in press]
735:
736: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004)]{2004PhRvD..69j3501T} Tegmark, M., et
737: al.\ 2004, \prd, 69, 103501
738:
739: \bibitem[Winn \& Holman(2005)]{2005ApJ...628L.159W} Winn, J.~N., \&
740: Holman, M.~J.\ 2005, \apjl, 628, L159
741:
742: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007a)]{tlc-hd189} Winn, J.~N., et al.\ 2007a, AJ,
743: 133, 1828
744:
745: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007b)]{tr111} Winn, J.~N., et al.\ 2007b, AJ,
746: 133, 11
747:
748: \end{thebibliography}
749:
750: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
751: \tabletypesize{\normalsize}
752: \tablecaption{Photometry of HAT-P-1\label{tbl:photometry}}
753: \tablewidth{0pt}
754:
755: \tablehead{
756: \colhead{Telescope} &
757: \colhead{Filter} &
758: \colhead{Heliocentric Julian Date} &
759: \colhead{Relative flux}
760: }
761:
762: \startdata
763: FLWO & $ z$ & $ 2453997.69528$ & $ 0.9988$ \\
764: FLWO & $ z$ & $ 2453997.69560$ & $ 1.0006$ \\
765: FLWO & $ z$ & $ 2453997.69591$ & $ 1.0031$ \\
766: FLWO & $ z$ & $ 2453997.69621$ & $ 1.0009$ \\
767: Lick & $ Z$ & $ 2453997.91750$ & $ 1.0013$ \\
768: Lick & $ Z$ & $ 2453997.91781$ & $ 0.9965$ \\
769: Lick & $ Z$ & $ 2453997.91811$ & $ 1.0016$ \\
770: Wise & $ I$ & $ 2454069.33838$ & $ 1.0014$ \\
771: Wise & $ I$ & $ 2454069.33894$ & $ 0.9970$ \\
772: Wise & $ I$ & $ 2454069.33950$ & $ 1.0000$
773: %\input table1.tex
774: \enddata
775:
776: \tablecomments{The time stamps represent the Heliocentric Julian Date
777: at the time of mid-exposure. We intend for this Table to appear in
778: entirety in the electronic version of the journal. Excerpts are
779: shown here to illustrate its format. The data are also available
780: from the authors upon request.}
781:
782: \end{deluxetable}
783:
784: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
785: \tabletypesize{\normalsize}
786: \tablecaption{System Parameters of HAT-P-1b\label{tbl:params}}
787: \tablewidth{0pt}
788:
789: \tablehead{
790: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value} & \colhead{Uncertainty}
791: }
792:
793: \startdata
794: $(R_\star/R_\odot)/(M_\star/1.12~M_\odot)^{1/3}$& $ 1.115$ & $ 0.034$ \\
795: $(R_p/R_{\rm Jup})/(M_\star/1.12~M_\odot)^{1/3}$& $ 1.203$ & $ 0.043$ \\
796: $i$~[deg]& $ 86.22$ & $ 0.24$ \\
797: \hline
798: $M_\star$~[$M_\odot$]& $ 1.12$ & $ 0.09$ \\
799: $M_p$~[$M_{\rm Jup}$]& $ 0.53$ & $ 0.04$ \\
800: Velocity semiamplitude, $K_\star$ [m~s$^{-1}$]& $ 60.3$ & $ 2.1$ \\
801: Orbital period, $P$~[days]& $ 4.46529$ & $ 0.00009$ \\
802: \hline
803: $R_\star$~[$R_\odot$]& $ 1.115$ & $ 0.043$ \\
804: $R_p$~[$R_{\rm Jup}$]& $ 1.203$ & $ 0.051$ \\
805: $R_p / R_\star$& $ 0.11094$ & $ 0.00082$ \\
806: Semimajor axis, $a$~[AU]& $ 0.0551$ & $ 0.0015$ \\
807: $b \equiv a\cos i/R_\star$& $ 0.701$ & $ 0.023$ \\
808: $a/R_\star$& $ 10.64$ & $ 0.32$ \\
809: $a/R_p$& $ 95.9$ & $ 3.5$ \\
810: $t_{\rm IV} - t_{\rm I}$~[hr]& $ 2.779$ & $ 0.032$ \\
811: $t_{\rm II} - t_{\rm I}$~[hr]& $ 0.508$ & $ 0.035$ \\
812: $\rho_\star$~[g~cm$^{-3}$]& $ 1.14$ & $ 0.10$ \\
813: $\rho_p$~[g~cm$^{-3}$]& $ 0.376$ & $ 0.031$ \\
814: $GM_p/R_p^2$ [cm~s$^{-2}$]& $ 904.5$ & $ 66.1$
815: \enddata
816:
817: \tablecomments{This table has three sections, divided by horizontal
818: lines. The top section lists the parameters that were estimated by
819: fitting the new photometric data, as explained in \S~3. The orbital
820: eccentricity was assumed to be exactly zero. The middle section
821: lists some parameters from Bakos et al.~(2007), reproduced here for
822: convenience. The bottom section lists some interesting parameters
823: that can be derived from the parameters in the first two sections.}
824:
825: \end{deluxetable}
826:
827: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
828: \tabletypesize{\normalsize}
829: \tablecaption{Mid-transit times of HAT-P-1\label{tbl:times}}
830: \tablewidth{0pt}
831:
832: \tablehead{
833: \colhead{Observatory} & \colhead{Epoch} & \colhead{Mid-transit time} & \colhead{Uncertainty} \\
834: & \colhead{$E$} & \colhead{[HJD]} & \colhead{[days]}
835: }
836:
837: \startdata
838: Lick & $ -4$ & $ 2453979.92848$ & $0.00069$ \\
839: Lick & $ -2$ & $ 2453988.86197$ & $0.00076$ \\
840: FLWO & $ 0$ & $ 2453997.79200$ & $0.00054$ \\
841: Lick & $ 0$ & $ 2453997.79348$ & $0.00047$ \\
842: FLWO & $ 2$ & $ 2454006.72326$ & $0.00059$ \\
843: FLWO & $ 3$ & $ 2454011.18837$ & $0.00107$ \\
844: Wise & $ 16$ & $ 2454069.23795$ & $0.00290$ \\
845: \enddata
846:
847: \tablecomments{Based on these new measurements, we derived a transit
848: ephemeris $T_c(E) = T_c(0) + EP$ with $T_c(0) =
849: 2453997.79258(29)$~[HJD] and $P = 4.46543(14)$~days, where the
850: numbers in parentheses indicate the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty in the
851: final two digits. We note that Bakos et al.~(2007) derived a more
852: precise period based on observations over 217 cycles,
853: $P=4.465290(90)$~days.}
854:
855: \end{deluxetable}
856:
857: \end{document}
858: