1: %
2: % Version 11 - Absorbing the comments by the referee
3: %
4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5: %
6: % Date: September 24, 2007
7: %
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: %
10: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
11: \documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}
12: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
13: %% \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
14:
15: %\usepackage{comment}
16: %\usepackage{graphicx}
17: %\usepackage{ifpdf}
18: %\usepackage{ifthen}
19:
20: %\newboolean{emulateapj}
21: %\setboolean{emulateapj}{true}
22: %\setboolean{emulateapj}{false}
23:
24: %% -----------------------------------------------
25: %% Editorial stuff:
26: \newcommand{\tbd}[1]{{\par\bf\textsc{TBD: #1\\}}}
27: \newcommand{\ctbd}[1]{}
28: \newcommand{\cor}{\textcolor{red}{(corr?) }}
29: \newcommand{\spl}{\textcolor{red}{(spl?) }}
30:
31: %% Hun compatibility:
32: \newcommand{\ii}{\'\i }
33: \newcommand{\oo}{\H{o}}
34: \newcommand{\uu}{\H u}
35:
36: %% --------------------------------------
37: %% Basic abbreviations
38: %%
39: \newcommand{\hj}{hot Jupiter}
40: \newcommand{\lc}{light curve}
41: \newcommand{\lcs}{light curves}
42: \newcommand{\Lc}{Light curve}
43: \newcommand{\Lcs}{Light curves}
44: \newcommand{\avg}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle #1\rangle}}
45: \newcommand{\dpt}{data-point}
46: \newcommand{\dpts}{data-points}
47: \newcommand{\tel}{telescope}
48: \newcommand{\magn}{magnitude}
49: \newcommand{\stan}{standard}
50: \newcommand{\aper}{aperture}
51: \newcommand{\oot}{out-of-transit}
52: \newcommand{\OOT}{Out-of-Transit}
53: \newcommand{\cfa}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA)}
54: \newcommand{\cfadigi}{CfA Speedometers}
55: \newcommand{\cmd}{color-magnitude diagram}
56:
57: %% ---------------------------------------------
58: %% Math + units:
59: %%
60: \newcommand{\ordo}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}
61: \newcommand{\C}{\ensuremath{^{\circ}C\;}}
62: \newcommand{\el}{\ensuremath{e^-}}
63: \newcommand{\sqarcsec}{\ensuremath{\Box^{\prime\prime}}}
64: \newcommand{\sqarcdeg}{\ensuremath{\Box^{\circ}}}
65: \newcommand{\pxs}{\ensuremath{\rm \arcsec pixel^{-1}}}
66: \newcommand{\conc}[1]{\noindent\par{\noindent{$\mathbf \Longrightarrow$ \bf #1}}}
67: \newcommand{\aduel}{\ensuremath{\lbrack ADU/\el \rbrack}}
68: \newcommand{\eladu}{\ensuremath{\lbrack \el/ADU \rbrack}}
69: \newcommand{\adupixs}{\ensuremath{\rm ADU/(pix\, s)}}
70: \newcommand{\elpixs}{\ensuremath{\rm \el/(pix\, s)}}
71: \newcommand{\diam}{\ensuremath{\oslash}}
72: \newcommand{\ccdsize}[1]{\ensuremath{\rm #1\times\rm#1}}
73: \newcommand{\tsize}[1]{\mbox{\rm #1 m}}
74: \newcommand{\ghr}{\ensuremath{^h}}
75: \newcommand{\gmin}{\ensuremath{^m}}
76: \newcommand{\Ks}{\ensuremath{K_s}}
77: \newcommand{\masy}{\ensuremath{\rm mas\,yr^{-1}}}
78: \newcommand{\kms}{\ensuremath{\rm km\,s^{-1}}}
79: \newcommand{\ms}{\ensuremath{\rm m\,s^{-1}}}
80: \newcommand{\mss}{\ensuremath{\rm m\,s^{-2}}}
81: \newcommand{\gcmc}{\ensuremath{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}}
82:
83: %% Activity index R'_HK
84: \newcommand{\rhk}{\ensuremath{R^{\prime}_{HK}}}
85: %% log of R'_HK
86: \newcommand{\logrhk}{\ensuremath{\log\rhk}}
87:
88: %% ---------------------------------------------------------------------
89: %% Stellar and planetary properties
90: %%
91: \newcommand{\teff}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}}
92: \newcommand{\logg}{\ensuremath{\log{g}}}
93: \newcommand{\vsini}{\ensuremath{v \sin{i}}}
94: \newcommand{\feh}{[Fe/H]}
95: \newcommand{\logl}{\ensuremath{\log{L}}}
96:
97: \newcommand{\rsun}{\ensuremath{R_\sun}}
98: \newcommand{\msun}{\ensuremath{M_\sun}}
99: \newcommand{\lsun}{\ensuremath{L_\sun}}
100: \newcommand{\teffsun}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,\sun}}}
101: \newcommand{\rhosun}{\ensuremath{\rho_\sun}}
102:
103: \newcommand{\rstar}{\ensuremath{R_{\star}}}
104: \newcommand{\mstar}{\ensuremath{M_{\star}}}
105: \newcommand{\lstar}{\ensuremath{L_{\star}}}
106: \newcommand{\astar}{\ensuremath{a_{\star}}}
107: \newcommand{\loglstar}{\ensuremath{\log{L_{\star}}}}
108: \newcommand{\teffstar}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,{\star}}}}
109: \newcommand{\rhostar}{\ensuremath{\rho_{\star}}}
110:
111: \newcommand{\rearth}{\ensuremath{R_\earth}}
112: \newcommand{\mearth}{\ensuremath{M_\earth}}
113: \newcommand{\learth}{\ensuremath{L_\earth}}
114: \newcommand{\teffearth}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,\earth}}}
115: \newcommand{\rhoearth}{\ensuremath{\rho_\earth}}
116:
117: \newcommand{\rpl}{\ensuremath{R_{p}}}
118: \newcommand{\mpl}{\ensuremath{M_{p}}}
119: \newcommand{\lpl}{\ensuremath{L_{p}}}
120: \newcommand{\teffpl}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,{p}}}}
121: \newcommand{\rhopl}{\ensuremath{\rho_{p}}}
122: \newcommand{\ipl}{\ensuremath{i_{p}}}
123: \newcommand{\epl}{\ensuremath{e_{p}}}
124: \newcommand{\gpl}{\ensuremath{g_{p}}}
125:
126: \newcommand{\rjup}{\ensuremath{R_{\rm J}}}
127: \newcommand{\mjup}{\ensuremath{M_{\rm J}}}
128: \newcommand{\ljup}{\ensuremath{L_{\rm J}}}
129: \newcommand{\teffjup}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,{\rm J}}}}
130: \newcommand{\rhojup}{\ensuremath{\rho_{\rm J}}}
131: \newcommand{\gjup}{\ensuremath{\g_{\rm J}}}
132:
133: \newcommand{\rjuplong}{\ensuremath{R_{\rm Jup}}}
134: \newcommand{\mjuplong}{\ensuremath{M_{\rm Jup}}}
135: \newcommand{\ljuplong}{\ensuremath{L_{\rm Jup}}}
136: \newcommand{\teffjuplong}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,{\rm Jup}}}}
137: \newcommand{\rhojuplong}{\ensuremath{\rho_{\rm Jup}}}
138: \newcommand{\gjuplong}{\ensuremath{\g_{\rm Jup}}}
139:
140: \newcommand{\msini}{\ensuremath{m \sin i}}
141: \newcommand{\mplsini}{\ensuremath{\mpl\sin i}}
142:
143: %% -----------------------------
144: %% Software
145: %%
146: \newcommand{\pack}[1]{\textsc{\lowercase{#1}}}
147: \newcommand{\prog}[1]{\texttt{\lowercase{#1}}}
148: \newcommand{\iraf}{\pack{iraf}}
149: \newcommand{\todcor}{\prog{todcor}}
150: \newcommand{\xcsao}{\prog{xcsao}}
151: \newcommand{\daophot}{\pack{daophot}}
152: \newcommand{\fihat}{\pack{fihat}}
153: \newcommand{\fistar}{\prog{fistar}}
154: \newcommand{\fiphot}{\prog{fiphot}}
155: \newcommand{\grmatch}{\prog{grmatch}}
156: \newcommand{\grtrans}{\prog{grtrans}}
157:
158: %% ---------------------------------------
159: %% Cross referencing
160: %%
161: \newcommand{\pref}[1]{p.~\pageref{#1}}
162: \newcommand{\figr}[1]{Fig.~\ref{fig:#1}}
163: \newcommand{\secr}[1]{\mbox{\S\ \ref{sec:#1}}}
164: \newcommand{\eqr}[1]{Eq.~\ref{eq:#1}}
165: \newcommand{\tabsr}[1]{Tab.~\ref{tab:#1}}
166: \newcommand{\tabr}[1]{\mbox{Table~\ref{tab:#1}}}
167: \newcommand{\figrp}[1]{Fig.~\ref{fig:#1} on \pref{fig:#1}}
168: \newcommand{\secrp}[1]{\S\ref{sec:#1} on \pref{sec:#1}}
169: \newcommand{\eqrp}[1]{Eq.~\ref{eq:#1} on \pref{eq:#1}}
170: \newcommand{\tabrp}[1]{Tab.~\ref{tab:#1} on \pref{tab:#1}}
171:
172: %% --------------------------------------
173: %% Instruments
174: %%
175:
176: %% FLWO 1.2 m telescope
177: \newcommand{\flwof}{\mbox{FLWO 1.2 m}}
178:
179: %% FLWO 1.5 m telescope
180: \newcommand{\flwos}{\mbox{FLWO 1.5 m}}
181:
182: %% TopHAT 0.25m telescope
183: \newcommand{\flwot}{\mbox{TopHAT 0.25 m}}
184:
185: %% MMT
186: \newcommand{\mmt}{\mbox{MMT 6.5 m}}
187:
188: %% Spitzer
189: \newcommand{\ssts}{{\em Spitzer}}
190: \newcommand{\sstL}{{\em Spitzer Space Telescope}}
191:
192: %% HST
193: \newcommand{\hst}{{\em HST}}
194:
195: %% --------------------------------------
196: %% Variable types
197: %%
198: \newcommand{\dscu}{\mbox{$\delta$ Scuti}}
199: \newcommand{\gdor}{\mbox{$\gamma$ Dor}}
200:
201: %% --------------------------------------
202: %% Astronomical catalogues
203:
204: %% HD:
205: \newcommand{\hd}[1]{\mbox{HD #1}}
206:
207: %% BD
208: \newcommand{\BD}[1]{\mbox{BD #1}}
209:
210: %% Various newcommands for making editing easy for this _specific_ paper
211:
212: % -------- Citation aliases -------------
213: % These go to newcommand_spec.tex
214: % Example:
215: %\defcitealias{bouchy05}{B05}
216:
217: % -------- Aliases specific to this paper -------------
218: % These go to newcommand_spec.tex
219: % Example:
220: %\newcommand{\hds}{\mbox{HD 189733}}
221: \newcommand{\ads}{\mbox{ADS 16402}}
222: \newcommand{\adsa}{\mbox{ADS 16402A}}
223: \newcommand{\adsb}{\mbox{ADS 16402B}}
224: \newcommand{\adsab}{\mbox{ADS 16402AB}}
225: \newcommand{\hatp}{\mbox{HAT-P-1}}
226: \newcommand{\hatpb}{\mbox{HAT-P-1b}}
227: \newcommand{\shfour}{$\rm SH_4$}
228: \newcommand{\thfour}{$\rm TH_4$}
229: \newcommand{\hdcur}{\hd{147506}}
230:
231: \shorttitle{HAT-P-4b: A low-density transiting planet}
232: \shortauthors{Kov\'acs et al.}
233:
234: % #####################################################################
235: % #####################################################################
236:
237: \begin{document}
238:
239:
240: %% titlepage
241: %\ifthenelse{\boolean{emulateapj}}{
242: \title{HAT-P-4\lowercase{b}: A metal-rich low-density transiting hot Jupiter\altaffilmark{\dag}}
243: %{\title{HAT-P-4\lowercase{b}:A metal-rich low-density transiting hot
244: %Jupiter {$\dagger$}}}
245: \author{
246: G.~Kov\'acs\altaffilmark{1},
247: G.~\'A.~Bakos\altaffilmark{2,3},
248: G.~Torres\altaffilmark{2},
249: A.~Sozzetti\altaffilmark{2,4},
250: D.~W.~Latham\altaffilmark{2},
251: R.~W.~Noyes\altaffilmark{2},
252: R.~P.~Butler\altaffilmark{5},
253: G.~W.~Marcy\altaffilmark{6},
254: D.~A.~Fischer\altaffilmark{7},
255: J.~M.~Fern\'andez\altaffilmark{2},
256: G.~Esquerdo\altaffilmark{2},
257: D.~D.~Sasselov\altaffilmark{2},
258: R.~P.~Stefanik\altaffilmark{2},
259: A.~P\'al\altaffilmark{8},
260: J.~L\'az\'ar\altaffilmark{9},
261: I.~Papp\altaffilmark{9}, \&
262: P.~S\'ari\altaffilmark{9}
263: }
264:
265: \altaffiltext{1}{Konkoly Observatory, Budapest, P.O.~Box 67, H-1125, Hungary;
266: kovacs@konkoly.hu}
267: \altaffiltext{2}{\cfa, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}
268: \altaffiltext{3}{Hubble Fellow.}
269: \altaffiltext{4}{INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino,
270: Strada Osservatorio 20, 10025, Pino Torinese, Italy}
271: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie
272: Institute of Washington DC, 5241 Broad Branch Rd.~NW, Washington
273: DC, USA 20015-1305}
274: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,
275: Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
276: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, San Francisco
277: State University, San Francisco, CA 94132, USA}
278: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Astronomy, E\"otv\"os Lor\'and University,
279: Budapest, Hungary}
280: \altaffiltext{9}{Hungarian Astronomical Association, Budapest, Hungary}
281: \altaffiltext{\dag}{
282: Based in part on observations obtained at the W.~M.~Keck
283: Observatory, which is operated by the University of California and
284: the California Institute of Technology. Keck time has been in part
285: granted by NASA.
286: }
287:
288: %\setcounter{footnote}{1}
289: %% EOF titlepage
290:
291: % #####################################################################
292: % #####################################################################
293: %
294: %%%%%%%%%%%
295: % ABSTRACT
296: %%%%%%%%%%%
297: %
298: \begin{abstract}
299: We describe the discovery of HAT-P-4b, a low-density extrasolar
300: planet transiting BD+36~2593, a $V=11.2$\,mag slightly evolved
301: metal-rich late F star. The planet's orbital period is
302: $3.056536\pm0.000057$\,d with a mid-transit epoch of
303: $2,454,245.8154\pm0.0003$ (HJD). Based on high-precision
304: photometric and spectroscopic data, and by using transit light
305: curve modeling, spectrum analysis and evolutionary models, we
306: derive the following planet parameters:
307: \mpl$=0.68\pm0.04$\,\mjup,
308: \rpl$=1.27\pm0.05$\,\rjup,
309: \rhopl$=0.41\pm0.06$\,\gcmc\ and
310: $a=0.0446\pm0.0012$\,AU\@.
311: Because of its relatively large radius, together with its assumed
312: high metallicity of that of its parent star, this planet adds to
313: the theoretical challenges to explain inflated extrasolar planets.
314: \end{abstract}
315:
316: \keywords{planetary systems: individual: {HAT-P-4b} \ ---
317: % stars: fundamental parameters \ ---
318: stars: individual: BD+36~2593 \ ---
319: techniques: photometric \ ---
320: techniques: spectroscopic}
321:
322: %
323: %%%%%%%%%%%
324: % SECT. 1
325: %%%%%%%%%%%
326: %
327: \section{Introduction}
328: \label{sec:intro}
329: %
330: % +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
331: %\begin{comment}
332: %\end{comment}
333: % +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
334: %
335: In the course of our ongoing wide field planetary transit search
336: program HATNet \citep{bakos04}, we have discovered a large radius
337: and low density planet orbiting an $11$th magnitude star BD+36~2593.
338: This planet is the fifth member of a group of low-density transiting
339: exoplanets. The combination of its low mass and the relatively
340: high metallicity and age of the parent star makes theoretical
341: interpretation of its large radius difficult. In this Letter we
342: describe the observational properties of the system and derive the
343: physical parameters both for the host star and for the planet. We also
344: briefly comment on the theoretical status of inflated extrasolar planets.
345:
346: %
347: %%%%%%%%%%%
348: % SECT. 2
349: %%%%%%%%%%%
350: %
351: \section{The photometric discovery and follow-up observations}
352: \label{sec:phot}
353:
354:
355:
356: The star BD+36~2593 (also GSC~02569-01599) at
357: $\alpha = 15\ghr19\gmin57\fs92$, $\delta = +36\degr13\arcmin46\farcs7$,
358: is contained in field G191 of HATNet, centered at
359: $\alpha = 15\ghr28\gmin$, $\delta = +37\degr30\arcmin$.
360: As we show in the remainder of the paper, the star is orbited by a
361: planetary companion, and so we label the host star as HAT-P-4 and
362: the planet as HAT-P-4b. Field G191 was monitored from 2004 December
363: until 2005 June by the HAT-7 telescope at the Fred Lawrence Whipple
364: Observatory (FLWO) of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO).
365: Nearly $90$\% of the data points were gathered after February 2005.
366: The field is relatively sparse, with $\sim 14000$ objects brighter than
367: $I\approx14$\,mag. Most of the light curves have some $5300$ data points.
368: The sampling cadence is $5.5$\,min, slightly longer than the $5$\,min
369: integration time.
370:
371: %
372: %>>>>>>>>>
373: % Fig. 1
374: %>>>>>>>>>
375: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
376: \notetoeditor{This is the intended place of \figr{lcs}}
377: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
378: \begin{figure}
379: \epsscale{1.0}
380: \plotone{f1.eps}
381: \caption{
382: Folded and unbinned light curves of HAT-P-4. The HATNet and
383: \flwof\ data are plotted in the upper and lower panels,
384: respectively. The transit model fit to the FLWO data is shown
385: by continuous line (see \tabr{planet} for the resulting transit
386: parameters). The out-of-transit level of the HATNet data
387: corresponds to $I=10.537$\,mag, phase is zero at the transit
388: center.}
389: \label{fig:lcs}
390: \end{figure}
391: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
392:
393: A first look at the compact subset collected in the $98$\,d time
394: span between March and June, 2005, revealed the presence of a transit
395: signal with a nearly integer $3$\,d period. The detection was made
396: possible by the application of the Trend Filtering Algorithm
397: \citep[TFA;][]{kovacs05}. However, assuming the primary is a
398: main-sequence F or G type star, the relative length of the transit
399: is some $20-30$\% greater than expected for a Jupiter-size companion
400: with the above orbital period. Although both the lack of detection
401: in the raw data and the length of the transit made us suspicious about
402: the viability of this candidate, we left some room for the possibility
403: that the primary was slightly evolved (an assumption that proved to
404: be true in the subsequent investigations --- see \secr{params}).
405: Therefore, we proceeded with rejection-mode spectroscopy, which showed
406: no sign of radial velocity (RV) variation at the \kms\ level.
407:
408: An improved reduction of all available frames of the field was
409: completed by February 2007. In addition to using a new data pipeline
410: that employs refined astrometry \citep{pal06} and aperture photometry,
411: we detrended the light curves before signal search with the aid of an
412: External Parameter Decorrelation technique (EPD, see also Bakos et
413: al.~2007). This technique utilizes the fact that various ``external
414: parameters'' that are specific to the star, such as sub-pixel position
415: on the frame, point spread function properties (e.g., width and
416: elongation), or specific to the frame, such as telescope position,
417: are correlated with the deviations of the star's brightness from the
418: median. The technique is optimal for stars that are otherwise
419: non-variable most of the time (e.g.~transit candidates). EPD derives
420: the correlation between brightness deviations and the underlying
421: external parameters, and subsequently corrects them for each individual
422: star. This is different from what is done during the application of
423: TFA, where we consider the full time history of the light variation
424: and use the light curves to ``cure themselves'' by recognizing the
425: hidden systematics in each other. The two methods are complementary
426: and we use both (EPD followed by TFA). All these led to a powerful
427: confirmation of the earlier detection.
428:
429: The folded light curve constructed from the HATNet data is shown in the
430: upper panel of \figr{lcs}. The best period was obtained from the BLS
431: analysis \citep[][]{kovacs02} after applying TFA with some 700 template
432: stars.\footnote{The EPD technique played the main role in the detection;
433: TFA subsequently led to an increase of $20$\% in the signal-to-noise
434: ratio.} As seen, the transit is clearly visible in the light curve even
435: though no binning was applied. There is no sign of periodic out-of-transit
436: variation, indicating that this is a near ``textbook'' transit signal.
437:
438: To update the photometric ephemeris and obtain a precise light curve
439: for model fitting, we observed our target with KeplerCam on the
440: $1.2$\,m telescope at FLWO\@. We observed two full transits on May
441: 24 and 27, 2007. The folded light curve in the Sloan $z$ band for
442: all $985$ data points is shown in the lower panel of \figr{lcs}.
443: The follow-up observations verify the discovery light curve and
444: are accurate enough to make transit modeling possible.
445:
446: %
447: %%%%%%%%%%%
448: % SECT. 3
449: %%%%%%%%%%%
450: %
451: \vspace{-2mm}
452: \section{The spectroscopic verification and exclusion of blend
453: scenarios}
454: \label{sec:spectr}
455:
456: As mentioned in \secr{phot}, basic rejection mode spectroscopy to
457: exclude stellar binary and certain blend types was already initiated
458: after the first detection in the fall of 2005. By June 2006 we had
459: collected 9 spectra with the CfA Digital Speedometer
460: \citep[DS;][]{latham92} on the \flwos\ telescope, covering a 45\,\AA\
461: window centered at the Mg~b triplet at 5187\,\AA\@. We derived spectroscopic
462: parameters by comparing the observed spectra against synthetic spectra,
463: as described in detail by \citet{torres02}. The initial stellar
464: parameters from this analysis were: \teff$=5500$\,K, \logg$=3.5$\,[cgs] and
465: \vsini$=5.9$\,\kms, indicating an evolved G-type primary\footnote{These
466: parameters were derived with [Fe/H]$=0.0$. By using [Fe/H]$=0.24$ from
467: the Keck spectra we get a slightly better match with the synthetic
468: spectra that yields \teff$=6000$\,K and \logg$=4.0$, in better
469: agreement with the Keck results described below.}. The DS spectra were
470: also used to derive radial velocities by cross-correlating the spectra
471: with synthetic spectra based on Kurucz model atmospheres
472: \citep[e.g.][]{latham02}. The rms scatter of the RV data was $0.71$\,\kms
473: around the mean velocity of $-1.58$\,\kms. The velocities did not show
474: any correlation with the orbital phase and we found no sign of a second
475: stellar component in the spectra. These spectroscopic results, together
476: with the secure detection in the HATNet data, made a viable case for
477: obtaining high-precision RV measurements to seek evidence for orbital
478: motion and to obtain refined stellar parameters. Accordingly,
479: high-resolution spectroscopy was conducted with the HIRES instrument
480: \citep{vogt94} on the Keck~I telescope between 2007 March 27 and May 29.
481: See, e.g., \cite{torres07} for the details of the observational procedure.
482: The nine resulting RV measurements are listed in \tabr{rv}. They are
483: relative velocities in the Solar System barycentric frame of reference
484: \citep[see][]{butler96}.
485:
486: %
487: %+++++++++++
488: % Table 1
489: %+++++++++++
490: %
491: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
492: \notetoeditor{This is the intended place of \tabr{rv}.}
493:
494: \begin{deluxetable}{crcrc}
495: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
496: \tablewidth{0pt}
497: \tablecaption{
498: \label{tab:rv}
499: HIRES Relative Radial Velocities for HAT-P-4.}
500: \tablewidth{0pt}
501: \tablehead{
502: \colhead{BJD} &
503: \colhead{RV} &
504: \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm{RV}}$} &
505: \colhead{O-C} &
506: \colhead{Phase}\tablenotemark{a}\\
507: \colhead{($2,\!400,\!000+$)} &
508: \colhead{(\ms)} &
509: \colhead{(\ms)} &
510: \colhead{(\ms)} &
511: \colhead{}
512: }
513: \startdata
514: 54186.98522 & $ 101.0\ \ \ $ & 2.1 & $ 2.7\ \ \ $ & 0.753\\
515: 54187.11241 & $ 92.6\ \ \ $ & 2.1 & $ -2.6\ \ \ $ & 0.794\\
516: 54188.01160 & $ -25.4\ \ \ $ & 2.0 & $ 0.3\ \ \ $ & 0.088\\
517: 54188.07150 & $ -35.8\ \ \ $ & 2.0 & $ -2.0\ \ \ $ & 0.108\\
518: 54189.00174 & $ -28.1\ \ \ $ & 2.2 & $ -2.8\ \ \ $ & 0.412\\
519: 54189.08262 & $ -13.9\ \ \ $ & 2.0 & $ -0.7\ \ \ $ & 0.439\\
520: 54189.13222 & $ -3.1\ \ \ $ & 3.3 & $ 2.3\ \ \ $ & 0.455\\
521: 54249.93769 & $ -52.5\ \ \ $ & 2.8 & $ -3.6\ \ \ $ & 0.349\\
522: 54279.86357 & $ -36.8\ \ \ $ & 2.9 & $ 8.4\ \ \ $ & 0.139\\
523: \enddata
524: \tablenotetext{a}{Relative to the center of transit.}
525:
526: \end{deluxetable}
527: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
528:
529: %
530: %>>>>>>>>>
531: % Fig. 2
532: %>>>>>>>>>
533: % ------------------------------------------------------------------
534: \notetoeditor{This is the intended place of \figr{rv}}
535: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
536: \begin{figure}
537: \epsscale{1.0}
538: \plotone{f2.eps}
539: \caption{
540: Relative radial velocity and bisector span variations from
541: the Keck observations of HAT-P-4. Panel (a) shows the nine Keck
542: RV measurements with a zero-eccentricity orbital fit. In panel
543: (b) we show the bisector spans (from nine iodine exposures and
544: one template spectrum) displaying a much smaller scatter. Error
545: bars include the 3~\ms\ estimated velocity jitter.}
546: \label{fig:rv}
547: \end{figure}
548: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
549:
550: The data were fitted by a circular\footnote{A fit with free-floating
551: eccentricity yields $e=0.055\pm0.035$, supporting the assumption of a
552: circular orbit.} orbit with period and mid transit epoch constrained
553: by the photometric data (see \tabr{planet}). The result of this
554: two-parameter (systematic offset and semi-amplitude) fit is displayed
555: in \figr{rv}. The unbiased estimate of the standard deviation of the
556: residuals is $4.1$\,\ms, larger than the internal errors listed in
557: \tabr{rv}. A part of this scatter may come from the last data point
558: that was taken under unfavorable weather conditions (leaving out this
559: point we get $2.7$\,\ms\ for the standard deviation of the residuals).
560: Nevertheless, it is also possible that there is a ``velocity jitter''
561: due to stellar activity. The size of this jitter is estimated to be
562: about $3$\,\ms, falling in the expected range for an inactive late F-type
563: star \citep[][]{wright05}. The low activity level is supported by
564: the absence of emission features in the Ca~II H and K lines.
565:
566: A crucial part of the verification of the sub-stellar nature of the
567: companion is testing various blend scenarios. There are at least two
568: basic ways of such testing: (i) light curve modeling, combined with
569: the information available from the spectra (e.g., maximum flux
570: contribution by the blended binary); (ii) checking spectral line
571: asymmetry by searching for bisector span variations
572: \citep[e.g.,][]{santos02,torres05}. Our experience shows that
573: while (i) requires several pieces of information (good quality full
574: light curve, running many binary models and performing a fairly deep
575: spectrum analysis), (ii) is more sensitive to hidden components and
576: simpler to perform. Therefore, we settled on (ii) and searched for
577: a variation in the differences measured between the velocities at the
578: top and the bottom of the correlation profiles of the individual spectra.
579: The result is shown in the lower panel of \figr{rv}. For a hidden
580: stellar binary blended by our target we would expect a variation in the
581: bisector span in phase with the radial velocity, and with an amplitude
582: comparable to that of the measured RV variation itself \citep{torres05}.
583: However, the standard deviation of the bisector variation is $6.5$\,\ms,
584: which is only $8$\% of the RV amplitude (the same numbers are $2.9$\,\ms\
585: and $4$\%, respectively, if we leave out the last data point).
586: Furthermore, no correlation with the RV variation is seen. Therefore,
587: we are confident that the source of the RV variation is stellar wobble
588: due to the gravitational pull of a sub-stellar companion.
589:
590: %
591: %%%%%%%%%%%
592: % SECT. 4
593: %%%%%%%%%%%
594: %
595: \section{Stellar and planetary parameters}
596: \label{sec:params}
597:
598: The cornerstone of the derivation of the absolute parameters of a
599: planet discovered by radial velocity and transit observations is the
600: accurate estimation of the stellar mass and radius.
601:
602: The procedure often involves determination of \teff\ and [Fe/H], as
603: well as \logg, from high-resolution spectroscopic analysis. If an
604: accurate distance is available, for example from a Hipparcos parallax,
605: then the absolute magnitude can be used to improve the value for the
606: stellar radius. In general, none of the methods yield better than
607: $\sim 10$\% accuracy in the derived stellar parameters (implying
608: corresponding limits to the accuracy of the absolute planet parameters).
609: An improvement can be achieved by using the value of $a/R_\star$
610: derived from the transit light curve to measure directly the mean
611: stellar density \citep{sozzetti07}. Since this latter parameter is
612: directly linked to \logg, entering in the spectroscopic analysis,
613: we followed an iterative determination of the stellar and planetary
614: parameters.
615:
616: %
617: %+++++++++++
618: % Table 2
619: %+++++++++++
620: %
621: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
622: \notetoeditor{This is the intended place of \tabr{stelpar}}
623:
624: \begin{deluxetable}{lll}
625: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
626: \tablecaption{
627: Stellar parameters for HAT-P-4.
628: \label{tab:stelpar}}
629: \tablewidth{0pt}
630: \tablehead{
631: \colhead{Parameter} &
632: \colhead{Value} &
633: \colhead{Source}
634: }
635: \startdata
636: \teff\ (K) & $5860\pm80 $ & SME\tablenotemark{a}\\
637: \feh\ (dex) & $+0.24\pm0.08 $ & SME \\
638: \vsini\ (\kms) & $5.5\pm0.5 $ & SME \\
639: Mass (\msun) & $1.26\ [-0.14, 0.06] $ & Y$^2$+LC+SME\tablenotemark{b}\\
640: Radius (\rsun) & $1.59\ [-0.07, 0.07] $ & Y$^2$+LC+SME\\
641: \logg\ (cgs) & $4.14\ [-0.04, 0.01] $ & Y$^2$+LC+SME\\
642: $\lstar$ (\lsun) & $2.68\ [-0.34, 0.39] $ & Y$^2$+LC+SME\\
643: $M_{\rm{V}}$ (mag) & $3.74\ [-0.16, 0.16] $ & Y$^2$+LC+SME\\
644: Age (Gyr) & $4.2\ [-0.6, 2.6 ] $ & Y$^2$+LC+SME\\
645: Distance (pc) & $310\pm30 $ & from M$_V$\tablenotemark{c}\\
646: \enddata
647: \tablenotetext{a}{SME = ``Spectroscopy Made Easy'' package to generate
648: synthetic spectra and to fit the observed ones \citep{valenti96}.}
649: \tablenotetext{b}{Y$^2$+LC+SME = Yonsei-Yale isochrones \citep{demarque04},
650: transit light curve modeling and SME analysis.}
651: \tablenotetext{c}{Using $V=11.22\pm0.12$ of \cite{droege06} and assuming
652: zero reddening.}
653: \end{deluxetable}
654: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
655:
656: First, for the determination of \feh\ and \teff, we used the iodine-free
657: template spectrum from Keck. The modeling was performed using the SME
658: software \citep{valenti96} incorporating the same method and atomic
659: data as given in \cite{valenti05}. We obtained \teff$=6032\pm80$\,K,
660: \feh$=+0.32\pm0.08$\,[dex] and \logg$=4.36\pm0.11$.
661:
662: Next, for the computation $a/\rstar$, we fitted the high precision
663: KeplerCam light curve (see \figr{lcs}) by using the formulae of
664: \cite{mandel02} with quadratic limb darkening coefficients from
665: \cite{claret04}. We set $e=0.0$ as a result of our test on the RV data
666: with non-zero eccentricity. Fitted parameters were the center of
667: transit $T_{\rm c}$, the radius ratio $\rpl/\rstar$, the normalized
668: relative semi-major axis $a/\rstar$, and the impact parameter $b$.
669:
670: %
671: %+++++++++++
672: % Table 3
673: %+++++++++++
674: %
675: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
676: \notetoeditor{This is the intended place of \tabr{planet}}
677:
678: \begin{deluxetable}{ll}
679: \tablecaption{
680: \label{tab:planet}
681: Spectroscopic, light curve and planet parameters of HAT-P-4}
682: \tablehead{
683: \colhead{Parameter} &
684: \colhead{Value}
685: }
686: \startdata
687: Spectroscopic parameters: & \\
688: Period (d)\tablenotemark{a}\dotfill & $3.056536\pm0.000057$\\
689: ${\rm T}_{\rm c}$ (HJD)\tablenotemark{a}
690: \dotfill & $2,\!454,\!245.8154\pm0.0003$\\
691: & $2,\!454,\!248.8716\pm0.0006$\\
692: $K$ (\ms)\dotfill & $81.1\pm1.9$\\
693: Offset velocity (\ms)\tablenotemark{b}\dotfill & $12.1\pm0.9$\\
694: $e$\tablenotemark{c}\dotfill & $0.0$\\ \\
695: Light curve parameters: & \\
696: Transit duration (day)\dotfill & $0.1760\pm0.0003$\\
697: $a/R_\star$\dotfill & $6.04\ [-0.18,0.03]$\\
698: $R_p/R_\star$ \dotfill & $0.08200\pm0.00044$\\
699: $b\equiv a\cos i/R_\star$\dotfill & $0.01\ [-0.01,0.23]$\\ \\
700: Planet parameters: & \\
701: \mpl (\mjup)\dotfill & $0.68\pm0.04$ \\
702: \rpl (\rjup)\dotfill & $1.27\pm0.05$ \\
703: \rhopl (\gcmc)\dotfill & $0.41\pm0.06$ \\
704: \logg$_p$ (cm\ $s^{-2}$)\dotfill & $3.02\pm0.02$ \\
705: $a$ (AU)\dotfill & $0.0446\pm0.0012$ \\
706: \ipl (deg)\dotfill & $89.9\degr\ [-2.2,0.1]$ \\
707: \enddata
708: \tablenotetext{a}{Taken from the photometry (HATNet and 2 nights of \flwof\ ).}
709: \tablenotetext{b}{The $\gamma$ velocity is $-1.58\pm0.24$\,\kms,
710: from the DS data.}
711: \tablenotetext{c}{Adopted}
712: \end{deluxetable}
713: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
714: %
715:
716: Next, to compute the stellar mass and radius we relied on current
717: stellar evolution models. As in our earlier papers, we compared the
718: observational properties of the host star with a finely interpolated
719: grid of model isochrones from \cite{demarque04}. The inferred stellar
720: properties are based on the best match to the measured values of
721: $T_{\rm eff}$, \feh, and $a/\rstar$ within their observational
722: errors, in a $\chi^2$ sense. This procedure led to a better approximation
723: of the stellar gravitational acceleration with \logg$=4.12\pm0.04$.
724:
725: In the second loop of iteration we used the newly determined value
726: of \logg\ in the SME analysis and redid the above sequence of computation.
727: This led to a slightly modified set of stellar and planetary parameters
728: with somewhat smaller errors than in the first loop. Since the changes
729: were, in general, fairly small (e.g., \logg\ has changed to $4.14\pm0.03$),
730: we decided to stop the iteration after this second loop.
731: %
732: The final stellar and planetary parameters are shown in \tabr{stelpar}
733: and \tabr{planet}, respectively.
734:
735: Concerning the derived parameters and their errors, we note the
736: following. The dependence of the result on the evolutionary models
737: was tested by using the isochrones given for solar-scaled $Z=0.03$
738: models with core overshooting by \cite{pietr06}. As noted by the
739: authors, their models are hotter by some $200$~K than those of
740: \cite{demarque04}. Therefore, we used an effective temperature
741: of $6060$~K. With these input parameters we got nearly the same
742: stellar and planet parameters as from the Yonsei-Yale isochrones
743: (i.e., \rhopl~$=0.41$~\gcmc, age$=4.5$~Gyr). By using models
744: without overshooting or of lower effective temperature, we got
745: larger ages and also slightly larger densities, up to
746: \rhopl~$=0.43$~\gcmc. The stability of the planet density is
747: mainly related to the correlated change of stellar mass and radius
748: when models or input parameters are changed. These age ranges and
749: the derived metallicity fit reasonably to the relation recently
750: given by \cite{reid07}. We also note that the derived radius is
751: $34$\% larger than the one corresponding to an unevolved main-sequence
752: star. This explains the longer than expected transit duration
753: by which we were puzzled at the early phase of the discovery.
754:
755: %
756: %%%%%%%%%%%
757: % SECT. 5
758: %%%%%%%%%%%
759: %
760: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
761: \label{sec:disc}
762:
763: We presented the discovery data and derived the physical parameters
764: of HAT-P-4b, an inflated planet orbiting BD+36~2593. Among the 20
765: transiting planets discovered so far, there are five with
766: \rhopl~$\lesssim0.4$\,\gcmc. All others have at least $50$\% higher
767: densities. For ease of comparison, \tabr{puffy} lists the relevant
768: properties of the five inflated planets. It is remarkable how similar
769: these planets are (except for TrES-4 that has distinctively low
770: density). With its Safronov number of $0.036$, HAT-P-4b belongs to
771: the Class II planets according to the recent classification of
772: \cite{hansen07} and (together with TrES-4) further strengthens the
773: mysterious dichotomy of the known transiting planets in this parameter.
774: The parent star of HAT-P-4b is among the largest radii, largest mass,
775: lowest gravity and highest metallicity transiting planet host stars.
776:
777: %+++++++++++
778: % Table 4
779: %+++++++++++
780: %
781: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
782: \notetoeditor{This is the intended place of \tabr{puffy}}
783:
784: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
785: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
786: \tablecaption{
787: Comparison of the properties of inflated
788: planets.\tablenotemark{a}
789: \label{tab:puffy}}
790: \tablewidth{0pt}
791: \tablehead{
792: \colhead{Name} &
793: \colhead{P} &
794: \colhead{a} &
795: \colhead{M} &
796: \colhead{R} &
797: \colhead{$\rho$} &
798: \colhead{$\log g$} \\
799: \colhead{} &
800: \colhead{(d)} &
801: \colhead{(AU)} &
802: \colhead{(M$_J$)} &
803: \colhead{(R$_J$)} &
804: \colhead{(\sc{cgs})} &
805: \colhead{(\sc{cgs})}
806: }
807: \startdata
808: WASP-1b & 2.52 & 0.038 & 0.87 & 1.40 & 0.39 & 3.04 \\
809: HAT-P-4b & 3.06 & 0.045 & 0.68 & 1.27 & 0.41 & 3.02 \\
810: HD~209458b & 3.53 & 0.045 & 0.64 & 1.32 & 0.35 & 2.96 \\
811: TrES-4 & 3.55 & 0.049 & 0.84 & 1.67 & 0.22 & 2.87 \\
812: HAT-P-1b & 4.47 & 0.055 & 0.53 & 1.20 & 0.38 & 2.96 \\
813: \enddata
814: \tablenotetext{a}
815: {Data from \cite{shporer07}, this paper, \cite{burro07}, \cite{mandu07}
816: and \cite{winn07}. From top to bottom, metallicities for the parent stars
817: are: $0.23$ \citep{stempels07}, $0.24$, $0.02$ $0.0$ (adopted) and $0.13$.}
818: \end{deluxetable}
819: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
820:
821: Current models of irradiated giant planets are able to match the
822: observed radii of most of the planets without invoking any additional
823: heating mechanism. Higher metallicity cases, such as the present one,
824: however, may pose problems (assuming that the planet and star have similar
825: metallicities). More metals imply two opposite effects on the radius:
826: (i) inflating it due to higher opacities in the envelope;
827: (ii) shrinking it due to the higher molecular weight of the interior
828: and the possible development of a large high density core. These
829: effects have been discussed recently by \cite{burro07}. Since WASP-1b
830: is similar in several aspects (i.e., irradiance, metallicity) to
831: HAT-P-4b, we consider the coreless models of WASP-1b as shown in
832: Fig.~7 of \cite{burro07}. It seems that HAT-P-4b can be fitted by
833: near solar metallicity coreless models, assuming that its age is not
834: too much greater that $4$\,Gyr. We also refer to the layered convective
835: mechanism of \cite{chabrier07} that gives an alternative explanation
836: for planets with inflated radii.
837:
838: We conclude that more definite statements on the relation of the
839: observations and planet structure theories can be made only by reaching
840: higher accuracy in the observed star/planet parameters. Nevertheless,
841: HAT-P-4b (together with WASP-1b) does not seem to support the existence
842: of a simple relation between host star metallicity and planet's core mass
843: \citep[see][]{guillot06,burro07}.
844:
845: \acknowledgments
846: %% General HATNet
847: Operation of the HATNet project is funded in part by NASA grant
848: NNG04GN74G.
849: %% GB
850: Work by G.~\'A.~B.\ was supported by NASA through Hubble
851: Fellowship Grant HST-HF-01170.01-A.
852: %% GK
853: G.~K.~wishes to thank support from Hungarian Scientific Research
854: Foundation (OTKA) grant K-60750.
855: %% From DL:
856: We acknowledge partial support from the Kepler Mission under NASA
857: Cooperative Agreement NCC2-1390 (D.~W.~L., PI).
858: %
859: %% From GT:
860: G.~T.~acknowledges partial support from NASA Origins grant NNG04LG89G.
861: %% DF
862: The Keck Observatory was made possible by the generous financial
863: support of the W.~M.~Keck Foundation. D.~A.~F is a Cottrell Science
864: Scholar of the Research Corporation. We acknowledge support from NASA
865: grant NNG05G164G to DAF.
866:
867: \begin{thebibliography}{}
868: %\bibitem[Bakos et al.(2004)]{bakos04} Bakos, G.~\'A., Noyes, R.~W., Kov{\'a}cs, G.~et al.~2004, \pasp, 116, 266
869: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2004)]{bakos04} Bakos, G.~\'A.~et al.~2004, \pasp, 116, 266
870: %\bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007)]{bakos07} Bakos, G.~{\'A}., Kov\'acs, G., Torres, G.~et al.~2007, \apj, in press (arXiv:0705.0126v2)
871: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007)]{bakos07} Bakos, G.~{\'A}.~et al.~2007, \apj, in press (arXiv:0705.0126v2)
872: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2007)]{burro07} Burrows, A., Hubeny, I., Budaj, J., \& Hubbard, W.~B.,~2007, \apj, 661, 502
873: %\bibitem[Butler et al.(1996)]{butler96} Butler, R.~P., Marcy, G.~W., Williams, E.~et al.~1996, \pasp, 108, 500
874: \bibitem[Butler et al.(1996)]{butler96} Butler, R.~P.~et al.~1996, \pasp, 108, 500
875: \bibitem[Chabrier \& Baraffe(2007)]{chabrier07} Chabrier, G.~\& Baraffe, I.~2007, \apj, 661, L81
876: \bibitem[Claret(2004)]{claret04} Claret, A.~2004, \aap, 428, 1001
877: \bibitem[Droege(2006)]{droege06} Droege, T.~F., Richmond, M.~W., \& Sallman, M.~2006, \pasp, 118, 1666
878: \bibitem[Demarque et al.(2004)]{demarque04} Demarque, P., Woo, J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., \& Yi, S.~K.~2004, \apjs, 155, 667
879: %\bibitem[Guillot et al.(2006)]{guillot06} Guillot, T., Santos, N.~C., Pont, F.~et al.~2006, \aa, 453, L21
880: \bibitem[Guillot et al.(2006)]{guillot06} Guillot, T.~et al.~2006, \aap, 453, L21
881: \bibitem[Hansen \& Barman(2007)]{hansen07} Hansen, B.~M.~S.~\& Barman, T.~2007, \apj, in press (arXiv:0706.3052v1)
882: \bibitem[Kov{\'a}cs, Zucker, \& Mazeh(2002)]{kovacs02} Kov{\'a}cs, G., Zucker, S., \& Mazeh, T.~2002, \aap, 391, 369
883: \bibitem[Kov{\'a}cs, Bakos, \& Noyes(2005)]{kovacs05} Kov{\'a}cs, G., Bakos, G.~\'A., \& Noyes, R.~W.~2005, \mnras, 356, 557
884: \bibitem[Latham(1992)]{latham92} Latham, D.~W.~1992, ASP Conf.~Ser.~ 32, Vol.~32, 110
885: %\bibitem[Latham(2002)]{latham02} Latham, D.~W., Stefanik, R.~P., Torres, G.~et al.~2002, \aj, 124, 1144
886: \bibitem[Latham(2002)]{latham02} Latham, D.~W.~et al.~2002, \aj, 124, 1144
887: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{mandel02} Mandel, K., \& Agol, E.~2002, \apjl, 580, L171
888: %\bibitem[Mandushev et al.(2007)]{mandu07} Mandushev, G., O'Donavan, T.~F., Charbonneau, D.~et al.~2007, \apjl, in press (arXiv:0708.0834v1)
889: \bibitem[Mandushev et al.(2007)]{mandu07} Mandushev, G.~et al.~2007, \apjl, in press (arXiv:0708.0834v1)
890: \bibitem[P{\'a}l \& Bakos(2006)]{pal06} P{\'a}l, A., \& Bakos, G.~{\'A}.~2006, \pasp, 118, 1474
891: \bibitem[Pietrinferni et al.(2006)]{pietr06} Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M. \& Castelli, F.~2006, \apj, 642, 797
892: \bibitem[Reid et al.(2007)]{reid07} Reid, I.~N.~et al.~2007, \apj, 665, 767
893: %\bibitem[Santos et al.(2002)]{santos02} Santos, N.\ C., Mayor, M., Naef, D.~et al.~2002, \aap, 392, 215
894: \bibitem[Santos et al.(2002)]{santos02} Santos, N.\ C..~et al.~2002, \aap, 392, 215
895: \bibitem[Shporer et al.(2007)]{shporer07} Shporer, A., Tamuz, O., Zucker, S., \& Mazeh, T.~2007, \mnras, in press (arXiv:astro-ph/0610556v2)
896: %\bibitem[Sozzetti et al.(2007)]{sozzetti07} Sozzetti, A., Torres, G., Charbonneau, D.~et al.~2007, \apj, 664, 1190
897: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al.(2007)]{sozzetti07} Sozzetti, A.~et al.~2007, \apj, 664, 119
898: %\bibitem[Stempels et al.(2007)]{stempels07} Stempels, H.~C., Collier Cameron, A., Hebb, L.~et al.~2007, \mnras, in press (arXiv:0705.1677)
899: \bibitem[Stempels et al.(2007)]{stempels07} Stempels, H.~C.~et al.~2007, \mnras, in press (arXiv:0705.1677)
900: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2002)]{torres02} Torres, G., Neuh\"auser, R., \& Guenther, E.~W.~2002, \aj, 123, 1701
901: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2005)]{torres05} Torres, G., Konacki, M., Sasselov, D.\ D., \& Jha, S.~2005, \apj, 619, 558
902: %\bibitem[Torres et al.(2007)]{torres07} Torres, G., Bakos, G.~\'A., Kov\'acs, G.~et al.~2007, \apj, in press (arXiv:0707.4268)
903: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2007)]{torres07} Torres, G.~et al.~2007, \apj, 666, L121
904: \bibitem[Valenti \& Piskunov(1996)]{valenti96} Valenti, J.~A., \& Piskunov, N.~1996, \aaps, 118, 595
905: \bibitem[Valenti \& Fischer(2005)]{valenti05} Valenti, J.~A., \& Fischer, D.~A.~2005, \apjs, 159, 141
906: \bibitem[Vogt et al.(1994)]{vogt94} Vogt, S.~S., et al.~1994, \procspie, 2198, 362
907: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007)]{winn07} Winn, J.~N.~et al.~2007, \aj, in press (arXiv:0707.1908v1)
908: \bibitem[Wright(2005)]{wright05} Wright, J.~T.~2005, \pasp, 117, 657
909: \end{thebibliography}
910:
911: \end{document}
912: