1: \documentclass{emulateapj}

2: \usepackage{lscape}

3: 

4: \def\kms{\ifmmode{\rm km\thinspace s^{-1}}\else km\thinspace s$^{-1}$\fi}

5: \def\ms{\ifmmode{\rm m\thinspace s^{-1}}\else m\thinspace s$^{-1}$\fi}

6: \def\hip{{\it Hipparcos\/}}

7: %macro for invoking today's date (when TeX is run on your file)

8: \def\today{\number\year\space \ifcase\month\or  January\or February\or

9:         March\or April\or May\or June\or July\or August\or

10: September\or

11:         October\or November\or December\fi\space \number\day}

12: 

13: \shortauthors{Torres et al.}

14: \shorttitle{Improved parameters}

15: 

16: \begin{document}

17: 

18: \journalinfo{Accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal}

19: 

20: %\email{********* Draft Version \today\ *********}

21: 

22: \title{Improved parameters for extrasolar transiting planets}

23: 

24: \author{

25: Guillermo Torres\altaffilmark{1},

26: Joshua N.\ Winn\altaffilmark{2}, and

27: Matthew J.\ Holman\altaffilmark{1}

28: }

29: 

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

31: Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}

32: 

33: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute for

34: Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of

35: Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA}

36: 

37: \email{gtorres@cfa.harvard.edu}

38: 

39: \begin{abstract}

40: 

41: We present refined values for the physical parameters of transiting

42: exoplanets, based on a self-consistent and uniform analysis of transit

43: light curves and the observable properties of the host

44: stars. Previously it has been difficult to interpret the ensemble

45: properties of transiting exoplanets, because of the widely different

46: methodologies that have been applied in individual cases.

47: Furthermore, previous studies often ignored an important constraint on

48: the mean stellar density that can be derived directly from the light

49: curve. The main contributions of this work are \emph{i}) a critical

50: compilation and error assessment of all reported values for the

51: effective temperature and metallicity of the host stars; \emph{ii})

52: the application of a consistent methodology and treatment of errors in

53: modeling the transit light curves; and \emph{iii}) more accurate

54: estimates of the stellar mass and radius based on stellar evolution

55: models, incorporating the photometric constraint on the stellar

56: density.  We use our results to revisit some previously proposed

57: patterns and correlations within the ensemble.  We confirm the

58: mass-period correlation, and we find evidence for a new pattern within

59: the scatter about this correlation: planets around metal-poor stars

60: are more massive than those around metal-rich stars at a given orbital

61: period.  Likewise, we confirm the proposed dichotomy of planets

62: according to their Safronov number, and we find evidence that the

63: systems with small Safronov numbers are more metal-rich on

64: average. Finally, we confirm the trend that led to the suggestion that

65: higher-metallicity stars harbor planets with a greater heavy-element

66: content.

67: 

68: \end{abstract}

69: 

70: \keywords{

71: methods: data analysis ---

72: planetary systems ---

73: stars: abundances ---

74: stars: fundamental parameters ---

75: techniques: spectroscopic

76: }

77: 

78: \section{Introduction}

79: \label{sec:introduction}

80: 

81: The transiting exoplanets are only a small subset of all the known

82: planets orbiting other stars, but they hold tremendous promise for

83: deepening our understanding of planetary formation, structure, and

84: evolution. Observations of transits and occultations\footnote{The word

85: \emph{transit} is sometimes assumed in the field of exoplanet research

86: to be synonymous with \emph{eclipse}. In reality, it has a more

87: restricted meaning and has long been used in the eclipsing binary

88: field to describe an eclipse of the larger object by the smaller one.

89: The term \emph{occultation} is used to refer to the passage of the

90: smaller object (in this case, the planet) behind the larger one (the

91: star) \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Popper:76}. To avoid confusion, we advocate

92: that \emph{occultation} or \emph{secondary eclipse} are preferable to

93: neologisms such as ``secondary transit'' or ``anti-transit''.}  (along

94: with the spectroscopic orbit of the host star) not only allow one to

95: measure the mass and radius of the planet, but also provide

96: opportunities to measure the stellar spin-orbit alignment

97: \citep{Queloz:00, Winn:07a}, the planetary brightness temperature

98: \citep{Charbonneau:05, Deming:05}, the planetary day-night temperature

99: difference \citep{Knutson:07}, and even absorption lines of planetary

100: atmospheric constituents \citep{Charbonneau:02, Vidal-Madjar:04,

101: Tinetti:07}. These and other observations have been accompanied by

102: theoretical progress in modeling the physical processes in the

103: planetary interiors and atmospheres, as well as the planets'

104: interactions with their parent stars. This rapid progress has been

105: stimulated in no small measure by the remarkable diversity of planet

106: characteristics that has been found among the members of the

107: transiting ensemble.

108: 

109: The accuracy and precision with which the properties of the planet can

110: be derived from transit data depend strongly on whatever measurements

111: and assumptions are made regarding the host star. For example, for a

112: given value of the transit depth, the inferred planetary radius scales

113: in proportion to the assumed stellar radius; and for a given

114: spectroscopic orbit of the host star, the inferred planetary mass

115: scales as the two-thirds power of the stellar mass.  In the literature

116: on transiting planets, a wide variety of methods have been used to

117: estimate the radius and mass of the parent star, ranging from simply

118: looking them up in a table of average stellar properties as a function

119: of spectral type, all the way to fitting detailed stellar evolutionary

120: models constrained by the luminosity, effective temperature, and other

121: observations that may be available for the star. As a result, the

122: ensemble of planet properties at our disposal is inhomogeneous, and in

123: many cases the uncertainty of those determinations is dominated by

124: systematic errors in the stellar parameters that are treated

125: differently by different investigators.

126: 

127: This situation is unfortunate because it hinders our ability to gauge

128: the reliability of any patterns that are discerned among the ensemble

129: properties of transiting exoplanets. With 23 systems that have been

130: reported in the literature, this subfield should be poised for the

131: transition from a handful of results to a large and diverse enough

132: sample for meaningful general conclusions to be drawn, but the

133: heterogeneity of reported results is clearly an obstacle.

134: 

135: It may be surprising that we are limited in many cases by our

136: knowledge of the properties of the parent stars; one would think that

137: stellar physics is a ``solved problem'' in comparison to exoplanetary

138: physics. However it must be remembered that the host stars are usually

139: isolated (and therefore no dynamical mass measurement is possible),

140: and that many of the host stars are distant enough that they do not

141: even have measured parallaxes.  Of the 23 cases in the literature,

142: five have \hip\ parallaxes \citep{Perryman:97}.  For those few it is

143: fairly straightforward to estimate the stellar properties, but for the

144: other systems, more indirect methods have been used.  These indirect

145: methods often rely on the value of the stellar surface gravity that is

146: derived by measuring the depths and shapes of gravity-sensitive

147: absorption lines in the stellar spectrum.  This is a notoriously

148: difficult measurement and the result is often strongly correlated with

149: other parameters that affect the spectrum.  Recently, however,

150: \cite{Sozzetti:07}, Holman et al.~(2007), and others demonstrated that

151: it is possible to do better by using the information about the mean

152: stellar density that is encoded in the transit light curve. This

153: information was typically overlooked prior to these studies.

154: 

155: The study presented in this paper was motivated by the desire for a

156: homogeneous analysis, and by the desire to take advantage of the

157: photometric estimates of the stellar mean density.  We have revisited

158: the determination of the stellar parameters for all of the transiting

159: planets that have been reported in the literature.  We have taken the

160: opportunity to merge all existing measurements of the atmospheric

161: parameters (mainly the effective temperature and metallicity) with the

162: goal of presenting the best possible values.  We have chosen a uniform

163: method for analyzing photometric data and have re-analyzed existing

164: light curves where necessary to provide homogeneity.  Our hope was

165: that by applying these procedures across the board, we and other

166: investigators could view the ensemble properties with greater clarity

167: and uncover any interesting clues the transiting planets might provide

168: us about the origin, structure, and evolution of exoplanets.

169: 

170: This paper is organized as follows. \S\,\ref{sec:stellar} describes

171: the procedures by which we estimated the stellar properties, using the

172: available spectroscopic and photometric datasets, and a particular set

173: of theoretical stellar evolution models. As a check on the models,

174: \S\,\ref{sec:modchecks} compares the results of a subset of our

175: calculations with those derived from a different set of evolutionary

176: models. \S\,\ref{sec:obschecks} investigates alternate ways of

177: estimating the stellar properties. \S\,\ref{sec:gj436} deals with

178: GJ~436, which needs special treatment because the host star has such a

179: lower mass than the other host stars. \S\,\ref{sec:results} presents

180: the final results for the planetary parameters.

181: \S\,\ref{sec:discussion} uses the new results to check on some of the

182: previously proposed correlations among the properties of the

183: transiting ensemble, and \S\,\ref{sec:remarks} provides final remarks.

184: The Appendix lists the data sets and other issues that are particular

185: to each system.

186: 

187: \section{Determining the stellar properties}

188: \label{sec:stellar}

189: 

190: For a transiting planet, the basic data are the spectroscopic orbit of

191: the star (radial-velocity curve), and the photometric observations of

192: transits (light curve).  With such data, the planetary mass and radius

193: cannot be determined independently of the stellar properties.  The

194: radial-velocity curve can be used to determine

195: %

196: \begin{equation}

197: M_p \sin i = 4.919 \times 10^{-3} P^{1/3} (1-e^2)^{1/2} K_{\star}

198: \left[(M_{\star} + M_p)/M_{\odot}\right]^{2/3}

199: \end{equation}

200: %

201: (in units of the mass of Jupiter), where $i$ is the inclination angle

202: of the orbit, $P$ is the orbital period in days, $e$ is the

203: eccentricity, and $K_{\star}$ the velocity semi-amplitude of the star

204: in \ms.  Even when $\sin i$ is known precisely, the value of the

205: planetary mass $M_p$ that is derived from the data will scale as

206: $M_\star^{2/3}$, where $M_{\star}$ is the mass of the star.

207: Meanwhile, the light curve does not immediately yield $R_p$, the

208: planetary radius; rather, the ratio of the radii $R_p/R_{\star}$ is

209: pinned down through the depth of the transit.

210: 

211: The stellar mass and radius are usually inferred indirectly, from an

212: analysis of high-resolution spectra of the star with the aid of model

213: atmospheres, followed by a comparison of the atmospheric parameters

214: with stellar evolution models. The latter step is performed somewhat

215: differently by different authors depending on the observational

216: constraints available. For this work we have compiled and critically

217: reviewed all of the available information regarding the atmospheric

218: properties of the host stars. This effort is described in

219: \S\,\ref{sec:atmospheric}.

220: 

221: The approach adopted in this paper makes use of information from the

222: light curves of transiting planets to constrain the mean density of

223: the star, $\rho_{\star}$, following \cite{Sozzetti:07}. As described

224: therein, the quantity $a/R_{\star}$ (the planet-star separation $a$ in

225: units of the stellar radius) is directly related to the mean stellar

226: density (hereafter, simply the density), and can be derived from the

227: photometry without much knowledge about the star (see below). The only

228: dependence $a/R_{\star}$ has on the stellar properties is through the

229: limb-darkening coefficients, which is typically a second-order effect

230: (see \S\,\ref{sec:lightcurves}).

231: 

232: Many of the published light curve analyses do not report the value of

233: $a/R_{\star}$ explicitly, and it is difficult or impossible to

234: reconstruct its value accurately from the published information. It is

235: especially difficult to obtain a good measure of the true uncertainty

236: in $a/R_\star$ from the published information.  For this reason, and

237: for the sake of homogeneity, we have re-analyzed many of the

238: high-quality photometric time-series available to us for all

239: transiting planets. We describe this effort in

240: \S\,\ref{sec:lightcurves}.

241: 

242: \subsection{Atmospheric parameters}

243: \label{sec:atmospheric}

244: 

245: High-resolution spectroscopic studies have been undertaken for almost

246: all of the parent stars of the known transiting planets.  The basic

247: products of these studies are measurements of the effective

248: temperature $T_{\rm eff}$, iron abundance [Fe/H], and surface gravity

249: $\log g$. The quoted precision of these determinations varies widely,

250: depending on the signal-to-noise ratio and resolution of the

251: observations, the modeling techniques employed, and the attitude taken

252: toward systematic errors.

253: 

254: For this work we have relied on published determinations, rather than

255: any new spectroscopic data.  In many cases, a given transiting system

256: has been described by more than one analysis, and they do not

257: necessarily agree. In those cases, rather than arbitrarily choosing

258: the most recent study, or the one with the smallest uncertainties, we

259: critically examined all of the available studies and combined them.

260: Our choices are documented in the Appendix. We were guided by our own

261: experience and increased the error estimates whenever they seemed

262: optimistic. For example, many of the automated spectroscopic analysis

263: tools in common use today return formal uncertainties for the

264: effective temperatures that are only a few tens of degrees Kelvin; for

265: one of the transiting systems the quoted error was only 13~K. There is

266: ample literature on the subject of the absolute effective temperature

267: scale and the systematic errors inherent in placing any single system

268: on such a scale. A recent investigation by \cite{Ramirez:04} has shown

269: that there are still differences of order 100~K between temperatures

270: derived from the spectroscopic condition of excitation equilibrium and

271: from the Infrared Flux Method \citep[IRFM,][]{Blackwell:77,

272: Blackwell:80}. Other studies have indicated discrepancies of 50--100~K

273: between different temperature scales \citep{Ramirez:05,

274: Casagrande:06}, and discussed at length possible sources for these

275: errors.  In light of these findings, we considered it prudent to adopt

276: temperature errors no smaller than 50~K for our study, and then only

277: when there are several independent and consistent determinations or

278: other evidence supporting that level of accuracy. Similar concerns

279: hold for the spectroscopic surface gravities, although we do not

280: actually make use of them in this work, as described below. For the

281: spectroscopic metallicities, we adopted a minimum uncertainty of 0.05

282: dex (for the best cases with multiple independent measurements), even

283: though smaller errors have occasionally been reported for individual

284: analyses. This is mainly because of the strong correlations present

285: among [Fe/H], $T_{\rm eff}$, and $\log g$ \citep[e.g.,][]{Buzzoni:01},

286: as well as some evidence for systematic differences between different

287: groups \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Santos:04, Fischer:05, Gonzalez:07}. In

288: the Appendix we provide a complete listing of the sources we have

289: drawn from in each case. The values of $T_{\rm eff}$, [Fe/H], and

290: $\log g$ finally adopted for all systems are listed in

291: Table~\ref{tab:atmospheric}.  Some degree of non-uniformity in these

292: quantities is unavoidable due to the variety of procedures used by

293: different authors, but we believe they represent the best available

294: set for the parent stars based on current knowledge.

295: 

296: \subsection{Light curve fits}

297: \label{sec:lightcurves}

298: 

299: For each system, we examined the highest-quality transit photometry

300: available to us in order to determine the key parameters

301: $R_p/R_\star$, $a/R_\star$, and $i$. Our methodology is described

302: below, and the details of the data sets that were used in each case

303: are given in the Appendix. In some cases, the published determinations

304: of $R_p/R_\star$, $a/R_\star$, and $i$ matched our own methodology

305: very closely, and we simply adopted the values from the literature;

306: these cases are also specified in the Appendix.

307: 

308: In the absence of limb darkening, the four primary observables in a

309: transit light curve are the midtransit time, the depth, the total

310: duration, and the partial-phase duration (ingress or egress). A

311: sequence of measured midtransit times usually leads to a very precise

312: determination of the orbital period $P$. The depth is equal to the

313: planet-to-star radius ratio, $(R_p/R_\star)^2$. At fixed $P$, the

314: parameters $i$ and $a/R_\star$ can be written in terms of the total

315: and partial durations through an application of Kepler's Law

316: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Seager:03}. With limb darkening, however, there

317: is no longer a well-defined depth or partial duration; an accurate

318: light curve model must include a realistic intensity distribution

319: across the stellar disk, which will depend on the stellar temperature,

320: surface gravity, and metallicity. Thus, to some degree, the

321: determination of $R_p/R_\star$, $a/R_\star$, and $i$ must be

322: accompanied by some assumptions about the stellar properties.

323: 

324: Our procedure was as follows. We modeled each system using a two-body

325: Keplerian orbit. The star has mass $M_\star$ and radius $R_\star$, and

326: the planet has mass $M_p$ and radius $R_p$. The orbit has period $P$,

327: eccentricity $e$, argument of pericenter $\omega$, and inclination

328: $i$. For our purpose the uncertainty in $P$ was completely negligible;

329: we fixed $P$ at the most precisely determined value in the literature.

330: In almost all cases, the radial-velocity data are consistent with a

331: circular orbit, and we assumed $e=0$ exactly. For HAT-P-2 (HD~147506)

332: we fixed the values of $e$ and $\omega$ at those that have been

333: derived from radial-velocity data (and in the end we verified that

334: changing these parameters by 1$\sigma$ does not significantly affect

335: any of our final results). The initial condition is specified by a

336: particular midtransit time $T_c$. When the sky projections of the star

337: and planet do not overlap, the model flux is unity. When they do

338: overlap we use the analytic formulas of \cite{Mandel:02} to compute

339: the integral of the intensity over the unobscured portion of the

340: stellar disk, assuming a quadratic limb-darkening law.

341: 

342: To arrive at a self-consistent solution including limb darkening, we

343: began with initial values for $M_\star$ and $M_p$ from the literature.

344: We also chose values for the stellar $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$, and

345: metallicity, as described in the previous section. Then we adopted

346: limb-darkening coefficients based on those stellar parameters, by

347: interpolating the tables of \cite{Claret:00, Claret:04} for the

348: appropriate bandpass. At this point we estimated all of the remaining

349: parameters (using the procedure described in the next paragraph) and

350: used the result for $a/R_\star$ to update the determination of the

351: stellar properties. Then, a new photometric parameter estimation was

352: performed, with revised values of $M_\star$, $M_p$ and the

353: limb-darkening coefficients, and so forth. This procedure converged

354: after two or three iterations, in the sense that further iterations

355: changed none of the parameters by more than about a tenth of the

356: statistical error.

357: 

358: The parameter estimations were carried out with a Markov Chain Monte

359: Carlo algorithm (MCMC; see, e.g., \cite{Tegmark:04} for applications

360: to cosmological data, \cite{Ford:05} for radial-velocity data, and

361: \cite{Holman:06} or \cite{Burke:07} for a similar approach to transit

362: fitting). It is based on the goodness-of-fit statistic

363: %

364: \begin{equation}

365: \chi^2 =

366: \sum_{j=1}^{N_f}

367: \left[

368: \frac{f_j({\mathrm{obs}}) - f_j({\mathrm{calc}})}{\sigma_j}

369: \right]^2

370: ,

371: \label{eq:chi2}

372: \end{equation}

373: %

374: where $f_j$(obs) is the flux observed at time $j$ and $\sigma_j$

375: controls the weights of the data points, and $f_j$(calc) is the flux

376: calculated with our model. In the MCMC algorithm, a stochastic process

377: is used to create a sequence of points in parameter space whose

378: density approximates the joint {\it a posteriori} probability density

379: for all parameters. One begins with an initial point and iterates a

380: jump function, which in our case was the addition of a Gaussian random

381: number (``perturbation'') to a randomly chosen parameter. If the new

382: point has a lower $\chi^2$, the jump is executed; if not, the jump is

383: executed with probability $\exp(-\Delta\chi^2/2)$.  We adjusted the

384: sizes of the perturbations until approximately $\sim$25\% of jumps are

385: executed for each parameter.

386: 

387: For the data weights $\sigma_j$, we used the observed standard

388: deviation of the out-of-transit data ($\sigma_1$), multiplied by a

389: factor $\beta\geq 1$ to account at least approximately for

390: time-correlated errors (``red'' noise) which are often significant for

391: ground-based data. We chose $\beta$ as follows. The key timescale is

392: the partial-phase duration, because the limiting error in the

393: determination of $a/R_\star$ and $i$ is generally the fractional error

394: in the partial-phase duration.  We averaged the out-of-transit data

395: over this timescale, with each time bin consisting of $N$ points

396: depending on the cadence of observations, and then calculated the

397: standard deviation of the binned data, $\sigma_N$. Finally we set

398: $\beta = \sigma_N * \sqrt{N} / \sigma_1$. With white noise only, we

399: would observe $\beta=1$, but in practice $\beta>1$ because the number

400: of effectively independent data points is smaller than the actual

401: number of data points. For this paper we deliberately chose to analyze

402: only those data for which $\beta < 2$.

403: 

404: For each parameter, we took the mode of the MCMC distribution after

405: marginalizing over all other parameters to be the ``best value.'' We

406: defined the 68\% confidence limits $p_{\rm lo}$ and $p_{\rm hi}$ as

407: the values for which the integral of the distribution between $p_{\rm

408: lo}$ and $p_{\rm hi}$ is 0.68, and the integrals from the minimum

409: value to $p_{\rm lo}$ and from $p_{\rm hi}$ to the maximum value were

410: both $0.16 = (1.00 - 0.68)/2$. In some cases the mode was all the way

411: at one end of the probability distribution; in particular there were

412: several cases in which $i=90\arcdeg$ was the mode of the inclination

413: distribution. In those cases we report $p_{\rm hi}$ as $90\arcdeg$ and

414: $p_{\rm lo}$ as the value for which the integral from zero to $p_{\rm

415: lo}$ was $(1.00-0.68) = 0.32$. The final results are given in

416: Table~\ref{tab:lcfits}, including the stellar density $\rho_{\star}$

417: computed directly from $a/R_{\star}$ and the period.

418: 

419: \subsection{Stellar masses, radii, luminosities, surface gravities, and

420: ages}

421: \label{sec:masses}

422: 

423: The fundamental parameters for the host stars are derived here using

424: stellar evolution models. We rely on the spectroscopically determined

425: $T_{\rm eff}$ and [Fe/H], and we require also an indicator of

426: luminosity ($L_{\star}$) or some other measure of evolution. Since

427: most of these stars lack a parallax measurement, the spectroscopic

428: surface gravity has often been used in the past as a luminosity

429: indicator.  The effect of $\log g$ on the spectral lines is relatively

430: subtle, and strong correlations between $\log g$ and both temperature

431: and metallicity make these determinations challenging.

432: \cite{Seager:03} have pointed out that an important property intrinsic

433: to the star, the \emph{density}, is encoded in the transit light

434: curves mainly through its dependence on the transit duration.  As

435: shown there, and more explicitly by \cite{Sozzetti:07}, the density is

436: directly related to $a/R_{\star}$, one of the parameters often solved

437: for in modeling the photometry.  This quantity can typically be

438: determined more precisely than $\log g$ and it is highly sensitive to

439: the degree of evolution of the star, i.e., to its size. Thus, it

440: serves as a better proxy for luminosity in many cases.  We illustrate

441: this below.

442: 

443: To determine the stellar mass and radius, and other relevant

444: properties of the host stars, we follow the procedure described by

445: \cite{Sozzetti:07} with minor improvements, and compare model

446: isochrones directly with the measured values of $T_{\rm eff}$, [Fe/H],

447: and $a/R_{\star}$. The latter can be calculated from the models as

448: %

449: \begin{equation}

450: \label{eq:aR}

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

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

453: \end{equation}

454: %

455: where $G$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant, and the period $P$

456: is well known from the photometry. The planet mass $M_p$ is not known

457: a priori, but its influence is very small compared to the stellar mass

458: $M_{\star}$, and even a rough value is usually sufficient for this

459: application. Once the stellar mass is known, the process can be

460: repeated if necessary with an improved value of $M_p$.

461: 

462: The stellar evolution models we use are those from the Yonsei-Yale

463: (Y$^2$) series by \cite{Yi:01} \citep[see also][]{Demarque:04}, which

464: are conveniently provided with tools for interpolating isochrones in

465: both age and metallicity.\footnote{In addition to the iron abundance,

466: the enhancement of the $\alpha$ elements can also have a significant

467: effect on the inferred stellar properties. About half of the

468: transiting systems have at least one study in the literature reporting

469: abundances for several of the $\alpha$ elements (Mg, Si, S, Ca, Ti, C,

470: and O): HD~209458 (3 studies), TrES-1 (2 studies), WASP-1, XO-1, XO-2,

471: and the five OGLE systems (one study each). In all cases the average

472: enhancement is not significantly different from zero. We therefore

473: assume here that it is zero for all systems.}  We explore the full

474: range of metallicities allowed by the observational errors in [Fe/H],

475: sampling $\sim$20 equally spaced values for each system. For each

476: metallicity we consider a range of ages from 0.1 to 14 Gyr, in steps

477: of 0.1 Gyr. These isochrones are interpolated to a fine grid in mass,

478: and compared point by point with the measured values of $T_{\rm eff}$

479: and $a/R_{\star}$. All locations (``matches'') on the isochrone that

480: are consistent with these quantities within the observational errors

481: are recorded. We also record the corresponding likelihood given by

482: $\exp(-\chi^2/2)$, where

483: %

484: \begin{displaymath}

485: \chi^2 = \left({\Delta{\rm [Fe/H]}\over \sigma_{\rm [Fe/H]}}\right)^2 +

486: \left({\Delta T_{\rm eff}\over \sigma_{T_{\rm eff}}}\right)^2 +

487: \left({\Delta(a/R_{\star})\over \sigma_{a/R_{\star}}}\right)^2

488: \end{displaymath}

489: %

490: and the $\Delta$ quantities represent the difference between the

491: observed and model values at each point. Observational errors are

492: assumed to be Gaussian, and the asymmetric error bars in $a/R_{\star}$

493: were taken into account. The best-fit values for each stellar property

494: are obtained by computing the sum over all matches, weighted by their

495: corresponding likelihood.  Additionally, we account for the varying

496: density of stars on each isochrone prescribed by the Initial Mass

497: Function (IMF), by multiplying the weights by the number density of

498: stars at each location as provided with the Y$^2$ isochrones. The IMF

499: adopted is a power law with a Salpeter index. The effect of this

500: latter weighting is generally small.

501: 

502: The results for each system are listed in Table~\ref{tab:stellar},

503: where we give in addition to the mass and radius the theoretical

504: values of $\log g_{\star}$, luminosity $L_{\star}$, absolute visual

505: magnitude $M_V$, and evolutionary age. In several cases our results

506: differ slightly from those reported in recent discovery papers that

507: use the same atmospheric parameters adopted here and apply the

508: $a/R_{\star}$ constraint essentially in the same way we have. The

509: present study represents a slight improvement for those systems due to

510: the application of weights, as described above.

511: 

512: \begin{figure}

513: \vskip -0.2in

514: \epsscale{1.2}

515: {\hskip -0.1in\plotone{f1.eps}}

516: \vskip -0.3in

517: 

518: \figcaption[]{Evolutionary tracks for all host stars except GJ~436

519: from the Yonsei-Yale models of \cite{Yi:01}. The numbering of the

520: systems follows that in the tables. The masses and metallicities

521: adopted for the tracks, as well as the location of each star on the

522: diagram, are from the best fit to the observations.

523: \label{fig:evolution}}

524: 

525: \end{figure}

526: 

527: The relative errors of the stellar masses and radii determined here

528: have median values of about 6\% and 4\%, respectively, but with wide

529: ranges depending on the precision of the observables (2\% to 13\% for

530: $\sigma_{M_{\star}}/M_{\star}$, and 1.3\% to 12\% for

531: $\sigma_{R_{\star}}/R_{\star}$). While all of the stars in the current

532: sample are hydrogen-burning stars, the degree of evolution within the

533: main sequence varies considerably (see Figure~\ref{fig:evolution}).

534: Some systems such as TrES-3 (\#11) and XO-1 (\#15) are near the

535: zero-age main sequence; others like HAT-P-4 (\#20) have already lived

536: for $\sim$90\% of their main-sequence lifetime. The age is a critical

537: ingredient for the theoretical modeling of the structure and evolution

538: of exoplanets \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Burrows:07}, yet it is among the

539: most difficult properties to determine for isolated main-sequence

540: stars. For the host stars of transiting planets the evolutionary ages

541: span the full range, as seen in Figure~\ref{fig:ages}.  The difficulty

542: mentioned above is most evident for the less evolved objects

543: ($M_{\star}$ less than about 0.9~M$_{\sun}$), which are all seen to

544: have large error bars that can reach the upper limit of 14~Gyr

545: considered here. For those cases the nominal ages reported in this

546: work should be used with caution.

547: 

548: \begin{figure}

549: \vskip -0.2in

550: \epsscale{1.25}

551: {\hskip -0.1in\plotone{f2.eps}}

552: \vskip -0.3in

553: 

554: \figcaption[]{Evolutionary age versus mass for transiting planet host

555: stars based on the models by \cite{Yi:01}. GJ~436 is excluded (see

556: text). The numbering of the systems is the same as in the

557: tables.\label{fig:ages}}

558: 

559: \end{figure}

560: 

561: The surface gravities inferred from the models ($\log g_{\star}$;

562: Table~\ref{tab:stellar}) have formal uncertainties that are typically

563: about 5 times smaller than those measured spectroscopically ($\log

564: g_{\rm spec}$; Table~\ref{tab:atmospheric}). This reflects the

565: strength of the constraint provided by $a/R_{\star}$. The values of

566: $\log g_{\rm spec}$ and $\log g_{\star}$ are compared against each

567: other in Figure~\ref{fig:logg}. On average they agree quite well (the

568: mean $O\!-\!C$ difference is $-0.027$ dex), and the rms scatter of the

569: differences is 0.15 dex although three of the systems present

570: differences larger than 0.2 dex. An illustration of the superior

571: constraint afforded by $a/R_{\star}$ is shown in

572: Figure~\ref{fig:constraints} for OGLE-TR-132 and WASP-2, two of the

573: more dramatic examples. In neither case is the parallax known.

574: 

575: \begin{figure}

576: \vskip -0.4in

577: \epsscale{1.3}

578: {\hskip -0.2in\plotone{f3.eps}}

579: \vskip -0.35in

580: 

581: \figcaption[]{Surface gravities for the planet host stars inferred

582: from stellar evolution models by \cite{Yi:01}, compared with those

583: measured spectroscopically. The dotted line represents the one-to-one

584: relation, and the systems are numbered as in previous

585: figures.\label{fig:logg}}

586: 

587: \end{figure}

588: 

589: \begin{figure}

590: \vskip -0.2in

591: \epsscale{1.2}

592: {\hskip -0.1in\plotone{f4.eps}}

593: \vskip -0.3in

594: 

595: \figcaption[]{Measured properties of two extrasolar planet host stars

596: displayed on plots analogous to the H-R diagram. The constraint on the

597: location of the stars based on the surface gravities ($\log g_{\rm

598: spec}$) and temperatures is shown in the top panels, and the same for

599: $a/R_{\star}$ versus $T_{\rm eff}$ is shown in the bottom

600: panels. Isochrones are from the series of evolutionary models by

601: \cite{Yi:01} for the measured metallicity in each case

602: (Table~\ref{tab:atmospheric}), and are shown for ages of 1 to 13 Gyr

603: (left to right) in steps of 1 Gyr.  The $a/R_{\star}$ values are seen

604: to provide a much better handle on the stellar parameters (mass,

605: radius, etc.).\label{fig:constraints}}

606: 

607: \end{figure}

608: 

609: \section{Comparison with other models}

610: \label{sec:modchecks}

611: 

612: There is undoubtedly some systematic error introduced by imperfections

613: in the stellar evolution models themselves, but this type of error is

614: difficult to evaluate. Extensive comparisons between models and

615: observations using double-lined eclipsing binaries with very

616: accurately measured masses and radii have shown that the agreement

617: with theory is in general very good, and is within a few percent for

618: solar-type stars \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Andersen:91, Pols:97,

619: Lastennet:02}.  As a simple test, we considered a second set of models

620: by \cite{Girardi:00} that has often been used by other investigators

621: in the field of transiting planets.  We used the isochrone

622: interpolation tools provided on the web site at the Osservatorio

623: Astronomico di Padova\footnote{\tt

624: http://stev.oapd.inaf.it/$\sim$lgirardi/cgi-bin/cmd.} to explore the

625: agreement with the observed values of $T_{\rm eff}$, [Fe/H], and

626: $a/R_{\star}$, and to infer the stellar mass and other properties in

627: the same way as above. There are small differences in the physical

628: assumptions between these models and those from the Y$^2$ series, but

629: overall they are rather similar. For this application the Padova

630: models are available for metallicities smaller than $Z = 0.030$

631: (corresponding to [Fe/H] $= +0.20$), which allows us to compare

632: results for nine of the transiting

633: systems.\footnote{Higher-metallicity Padova models have been published

634: by \cite{Salasnich:00}, but those employ physical assumptions

635: different enough that they cannot be merged with the \cite{Girardi:00}

636: models we use here. In addition, from a practical point of view, the

637: use of these higher-metallicity models is not yet implemented in the

638: online interpolation routine as of this writing.}

639: Figure~\ref{fig:checks} displays this comparison for the stellar

640: masses and radii, showing that in all cases the results from both

641: models agree to well within their uncertainties.

642: 

643: \begin{figure}

644: \vskip 0.3in

645: \epsscale{1.7}

646: {\hskip -0.7in\plotone{f5.eps}}

647: \vskip 0.75in

648: 

649: \figcaption[]{Comparison of the stellar masses and radii derived from

650: the Y$^2$ models \citep{Yi:01} and the Padova models

651: \citep{Girardi:00} for transiting planet hosts, showing the excellent

652: agreement. The dotted lines represent the one-to-one relation, and the

653: numbering of the systems is the same as in previous figures.

654: \label{fig:checks}}

655: 

656: \end{figure}

657: 

658: Similar tests were carried out using the models of \cite{Baraffe:98}.

659: These models enjoy widespread use for lower-mass stars and brown

660: dwarfs, but they are also computed for masses as large as

661: 1.4~M$_{\sun}$. They are available for three different values of the

662: mixing length parameter $\alpha_{\rm ML}$ over restricted ranges in

663: mass and metallicity.  The value that fits the observed properties of

664: the Sun (against which all models are calibrated) is $\alpha_{\rm ML}

665: = 1.9$. For cooler objects near the bottom of the main sequence the

666: value used almost universally is $\alpha_{\rm ML} = 1.0$.  Here we

667: adopt the former value, since our stars are all more massive than

668: about 0.8~M$_{\sun}$ with the exception of GJ~436, which we discuss in

669: more detail in \S\,\ref{sec:gj436}. For the mass range of interest and

670: for $\alpha_{\rm ML} = 1.9$ the \cite{Baraffe:98} models are publicly

671: available only for solar metallicity, so the comparison was limited to

672: transiting systems with [Fe/H] within about 0.1 dex of the Sun, and

673: with [Fe/H] uncertainties that keep them within 0.2 dex of solar. Of

674: the six systems in this range, one (OGLE-TR-113) gave no solution

675: consistent with the observed values of $T_{\rm eff}$ and

676: $a/R_{\star}$. This is because the Baraffe models are limited to ages

677: less than about 10~Gyr for this mass range, whereas both the

678: \cite{Yi:01} and the \cite{Girardi:00} models indicate an age of about

679: 13 Gyr for this star. Whether OGLE-TR-113 is truly this old is

680: unknown. It seems at least as likely that some of the other

681: observational constraints are in error. The remaining 5 systems show

682: excellent agreement with the results from both the Y$^2$ models and

683: the Padova models, within the formal uncertainties.

684: 

685: These tests of the stellar evolutionary models are obviously not

686: exhaustive, and it may well be the case that all of the sets of models

687: we considered have some deficiencies in common. However, the general

688: pattern of agreement does lend some degree of confidence to the

689: results.  We proceed under the assumption that the systematic errors

690: in these calculations are not the dominant source of error in the

691: stellar parameters derived here (except perhaps for OGLE-TR-113, as

692: noted above).

693: 

694: \section{Additional observational constraints}

695: \label{sec:obschecks}

696: 

697: As a further test of the accuracy of our stellar radius

698: determinations, in this section we consider the consistency check

699: provided by the near infrared (NIR) surface brightness (SB) relations,

700: which yield the angular diameter $\phi$ of a star directly in terms of

701: its apparent magnitude and color. Unlike the parallax, which would in

702: principle yield the stellar luminosity but is known for only five of

703: the brighter systems in the sample, $\phi$ can be computed for all

704: host stars from existing photometry. We use the empirical relation

705: %

706: \begin{equation}

707: \label{eq:kervella}

708: \log \phi_{\rm SB} = c_1 (V\!-\!K) + c_2 - 0.2 K

709: \end{equation}

710: %

711: derived by \cite{Kervella:04}, in which the coefficients are $c_1 =

712: 0.0755 \pm 0.0008$ and $c_2 = 0.5170 \pm 0.0017$, the $K$-band

713: magnitude is in the Johnson system, and $\phi_{\rm SB}$ is the

714: limb-darkened value of the angular diameter expressed in milli-arc

715: seconds. The relation represented by eq.\,(\ref{eq:kervella}) is

716: extremely tight, with a scatter well under 1\%. Near infrared

717: magnitudes are available for all stars from the 2MASS catalog and were

718: transformed to the Johnson system following \cite{Carpenter:01}.  The

719: best available $V$ magnitudes collected from the literature are listed

720: in Table~\ref{tab:atmospheric}.

721: 

722: Angular diameters from our stellar evolution modeling in

723: \S\,\ref{sec:masses} can be derived for comparison with $\phi_{\rm

724: SB}$ by making use of our theoretical radii and absolute visual

725: magnitudes in Table~\ref{tab:stellar}, along with the apparent $V$

726: magnitudes, using

727: %

728: \begin{equation}

729: \label{eq:modelphi}

730: \phi_{\rm mod} = 9.3047 R_{\star}/10^{0.2(V-M_V+5)}.

731: \end{equation}

732: %

733: With the stellar radius expressed in solar units, the numerical

734: constant is such that $\phi_{\rm mod}$ is in mas. Neither this

735: equation nor the previous one take into account interstellar

736: extinction, although eq.\,(\ref{eq:kervella}) is actually quite

737: insensitive to extinction. We discuss this below.

738: 

739: The comparison between the angular diameters from

740: eq.\,(\ref{eq:kervella}) and eq.\,(\ref{eq:modelphi}) is shown in

741: Table~\ref{tab:phi} for all systems except for GJ~436, for reasons to

742: be described in the next section, and the OGLE stars, which are likely

743: to be significantly affected by extinction since they lie several kpc

744: away near the Galactic plane.  The uncertainties listed include all

745: contributions from the photometry and model-derived quantities, as

746: well as the errors in the coefficients of

747: eq.\,(\ref{eq:kervella}). The precision of $\phi_{\rm SB}$ is

748: typically several times better than that of $\phi_{\rm mod}$.  A

749: graphical comparison is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:phi}, with the

750: one-to-one relation represented with a diagonal line. The good

751: agreement over the full range of an order of magnitude in $\phi$ is an

752: indication that our model radii from \S\,\ref{sec:masses} are

753: accurate.

754: 

755: \begin{figure}

756: \vskip -0.55in

757: \epsscale{1.3}

758: {\hskip -0.1in\plotone{f6.eps}}

759: \vskip -0.3in

760: 

761: \figcaption[]{Angular diameters $\phi_{\rm SB}$ computed from the near

762: infrared surface brightness relation of \cite{Kervella:04} compared

763: against the values derived from our modeling, making use of the

764: apparent $V$ magnitudes for all host stars and ignoring

765: extinction. The dotted line represents the one-to-one relation, and

766: the systems are numbered as in previous figures.\label{fig:phi}}

767: 

768: \end{figure}

769: 

770: One effect of extinction in this analysis would be to make the values

771: based on eq.\,(\ref{eq:modelphi}) appear too small. Examination of the

772: differences shows a hint of this, particularly among the fainter (more

773: distant) stars: the average difference $\left<(\phi_{\rm

774: mod}-\phi_{\rm SB})/\phi_{\rm SB}\right>$ is $+0.5 \pm 1.8\%$ for the

775: 6 objects brighter than $V = 11$, and $-3.9 \pm 1.6\%$ for the others.

776: Since reddening values for individual systems are presently unknown,

777: and cannot be determined accurately enough from the information at

778: hand, we are unable to correct for this. We are equally unable to turn

779: the argument around and use the $\phi_{\rm SB}$ values as further

780: constraints in our modeling. By trial and error we find that a uniform

781: reddening value between $E(B\!-\!V) = 0.02$ and 0.03 is sufficient to

782: reduce the average discrepancy in the angular diameters for the

783: fainter stars to zero. This modest amount of reddening is consistent

784: with expectations for objects that are between 100 and 500 pc away, as

785: are these.

786: 

787: In addition to the angular diameters, Table~\ref{tab:phi} lists the

788: parallaxes $\pi_{\rm mod}$ and corresponding distances we derive from

789: $V$ and $M_V$, ignoring extinction. \hip\ parallaxes $\pi_{\rm HIP}$

790: are given for comparison as well, for the objects that have them.

791: 

792: \section{The case of GJ~436}

793: \label{sec:gj436}

794: 

795: As the only M dwarf among the currently known transiting planet host

796: stars, GJ~436 presents a special challenge. The Y$^2$ stellar

797: evolution models we used in all other cases are not intended for the

798: lower main sequence, as they lack the proper non-grey model atmosphere

799: boundary conditions to the interior equations that have been shown to

800: be critical for cool objects \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Chabrier:97}. The

801: Padova models of \cite{Girardi:00} have the same shortcoming, although

802: both of these models are perfectly adequate for hotter stars. On the

803: other hand, the calculations by \cite{Baraffe:98} with $\alpha_{\rm

804: ML} = 1.0$ are specifically designed for low-mass stars, and have in

805: fact been invoked by other authors for this system as a rough

806: consistency check. For the most part, the previous mass determinations

807: for GJ~436 have relied upon empirical mass-luminosity relations, but

808: even those relations have their problems. Previous radius estimates

809: for GJ~436 have often rested on the assumption of numerical equality

810: between $M_{\star}$ and $R_{\star}$ for M stars \citep{Gillon:07a,

811: Deming:07}.

812: 

813: The importance of the GJ~436 system is undeniable, as it harbors the

814: smallest transiting planet that has been found to date (comparable in

815: size to Neptune). Furthermore, it is the nearest transiting exoplanet,

816: at a distance of only 10 pc.  Given these facts, it is somewhat

817: surprising that until recently the mass of the star

818: ($\sim$0.4~M$_{\sun}$) was only known to about 10\% \citep{Maness:07,

819: Gillon:07b}, on a par with the worst of the determinations in

820: Table~\ref{tab:stellar} (that of WASP-2, with poorly determined

821: spectroscopic parameters and more than 10 times farther away). Similar

822: limitations hold for the stellar radius. As a result, our knowledge of

823: the planetary parameters has suffered.  \cite{Torres:07b} showed that

824: the \cite{Baraffe:98} models in their original form do not yield

825: satisfactory results for GJ~436 since different answers for

826: $M_{\star}$ and $R_{\star}$ are obtained depending on which

827: constraints are used (including the absolute magnitude, since a

828: reliable parallax measurement is available from \hip).

829: Moreover, some of the other predicted quantities are at odds with

830: empirical determinations.  These difficulties had not been previously

831: emphasized.

832: 

833: However, as described by \cite{Torres:07b}, reliable parameters can

834: still be obtained from the models by modifying the theoretical radii

835: and temperatures in such a way as to preserve the bolometric

836: luminosities. This recognizes the fact that $R_{\star}$ and $T_{\rm

837: eff}$ as predicted by theory have been shown to disagree with accurate

838: measurements for M dwarfs in double-lined eclipsing binaries

839: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Popper:97, Clausen:99, Torres:02, Ribas:03,

840: Lopez-Morales:05}, whereas the luminosities appear to be unaffected

841: \citep{Delfosse:00, Torres:02, Ribas:06, Torres:06}. \cite{Torres:07b}

842: applied simultaneously the observational constraints on $T_{\rm eff}$,

843: $a/R_{\star}$, the color index $J\!-\!K$, and the absolute $K$-band

844: magnitude $M_K$, and allowed the radius/temperature adjustment factor

845: to be a free parameter. In this way a self-consistent solution was

846: achieved for all parameters, and in addition the radius/temperature

847: factor showed excellent agreement with previous estimates for other M

848: dwarfs. The stellar mass and radius are $M_{\star} =

849: 0.452_{-0.012}^{+0.014}$~M$_{\sun}$ and $R_{\star} =

850: 0.464_{-0.011}^{+0.009}$~R$_{\sun}$.  We adopt these results here,

851: thus placing GJ~436 on a similar footing as the other transiting

852: systems in that the properties of the host stars are all based on

853: current stellar evolution models.

854: 

855: The results for GJ~436 are listed in Table~\ref{tab:stellar} along

856: with those of the other 22 stars. A few words of caution are in

857: order. As pointed out by \cite{Torres:07b}, the predicted absolute

858: visual magnitude for this star is unreliable due to missing molecular

859: opacity sources shortward of 1~$\mu$m in the model atmospheres that

860: are used as boundary conditions in the stellar evolution calculations

861: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Baraffe:98, Delfosse:00}.  Also, because of the

862: unevolved status of the star, the nominal age is probably meaningless

863: since the observational constraints allow any age within the range of

864: 1--10 Gyr explored in the modeling effort of \cite{Torres:07b}.

865: Finally, this modeling effort assumed that the stellar metallicity is

866: solar. For GJ~436 this is a valid assumption since the measured

867: composition is [Fe/H] $= -0.03 \pm 0.20$ (see Appendix), but the

868: uncertainty in [Fe/H] was not accounted for due to the lack of proper

869: models, and therefore the errors of the stellar properties in

870: Table~\ref{tab:stellar} may be underestimated.

871: 

872: A careful reader may wonder whether our use of the \cite{Baraffe:98}

873: models in \S\,\ref{sec:modchecks} as a check on the results from the

874: Y$^2$ isochrones is contradicted by our remarks on the

875: radius/temperature discrepancies mentioned above. We do not believe

876: so, because the mass regime of GJ~436 is very different. The host

877: stars of the other transiting planets are typically more than twice as

878: massive as GJ~436.

879: 

880: \section{Planetary parameters}

881: \label{sec:results}

882: 

883: The combination of the stellar properties in

884: Table~\ref{tab:atmospheric} with the light curve parameters in

885: Table~\ref{tab:lcfits}, along with the measured orbital periods and

886: velocity semi-amplitudes, yields the homogeneous set of planet

887: parameters presented in Table~\ref{tab:planetary}.  In addition to the

888: planetary mass and radius, we have computed and tabulated the

889: planetary surface gravity and mean density, as well as the orbital

890: semimajor axis and other useful characteristics. As pointed out by

891: \cite{Southworth:07}, Winn et al.~(2007), \cite{Beatty:07}, and

892: others, the surface gravity of a transiting planet can be derived

893: without knowledge of the stellar mass or radius, using only the

894: radial-velocity curve and the transit light curve.  We take this

895: opportunity to correct the general expression for $\log g_p$ presented

896: by \cite{Sozzetti:07}, valid also for the case of eccentric orbits,

897: which neglected to account for the projection factor implicit in the

898: impact parameter $b$ as derived from the light-curve fits:

899: %

900: \begin{eqnarray}

901: \label{eq:gravity}

902: \log g_p & = & -2.1383 - \log P + \log K_\star - \\ \nonumber

903: & - & {1\over 2}\log \left(1-\left[{b \over a/R_\star}

904: {1-e^2\over 1+e\sin\omega}\right]^2\right) + \\ \nonumber

905: & + & 2 \log\left({a/R_\star \over R_p/R_\star}\right) +

906: {1\over 2}\log (1-e^2)~.

907: \end{eqnarray}

908: %

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

910: units when $P$ and $K_\star$ are expressed in their customary units of

911: days and m~s$^{-1}$.

912: 

913: The first properties one generally wants to know about a transiting

914: planet are its mass and radius. The large size measured for the first

915: transiting planet discovered, HD~209458b, has been widely debated and

916: still presents somewhat of a challenge to theory. It is now

917: accompanied by several other inflated planets, underlying our

918: incomplete knowledge of the physics of these objects.  An updated

919: version of the now classical diagram of $M_p$ versus $R_p$ is shown in

920: Figure~\ref{fig:rm}, in which five other examples are seen to be at

921: least as large as HD~209458b (\#3), or perhaps even larger, given the

922: uncertainties.

923: 

924: %\begin{figure}     % original figure

925: %\vskip -0.4in

926: %\epsscale{1.3}

927: %{\hskip -0.2in\plotone{f7.eps}}

928: %\vskip -0.3in

929: 

930: \begin{figure}      % bitmapped figure

931: \vskip -0.01in

932: \epsscale{1.1}

933: {\hskip 0.1in\plotone{f7xv.ps}}

934: \vskip -0.05in

935: 

936: \figcaption[]{Mass-radius diagram for all transiting planets (HAT-P-2

937: is off the scale, with $M_p = 8.7$~M$_{\rm Jup}$). Lines of constant

938: density are shown.\label{fig:rm}}

939: 

940: \end{figure}

941: 

942: %\begin{figure*}    % original figure

943: %\vskip -0.3in

944: %\epsscale{1.20}

945: %\plotone{f8.eps}

946: %\vskip 1.15in

947: 

948: \begin{figure*}    % bitmapped figure

949: \epsscale{1.2}

950: \vskip -0.1in

951: \plotone{f8xv.ps}

952: \vskip 0.05in

953: 

954: \figcaption[]{``Portrait gallery'' of transiting extrasolar

955: planets. Star and planet sizes are shown to scale.  The vertical and

956: horizontal axes of all light curves are also on the same scale. Planet

957: trajectories are shown with their measured impact parameters (dotted

958: lines). Orbital periods are indicated in each

959: panel.\label{fig:gallery}}

960: 

961: \end{figure*}

962: 

963: The fundamental physical properties of the known transiting planets

964: cover a considerable range---more than two orders of magnitude in

965: mass, a factor of nearly 5 in radius, and a factor of 3 in orbital

966: separation---and these are discussed in the next section. But the

967: geometric properties that determine the light-curve shapes are also

968: varied. In Figure~\ref{fig:gallery} we present a ``portrait gallery''

969: of all known transiting planets. Stars and planets are rendered to

970: scale, emphasizing the wide range of stellar types probed by the

971: photometric searches. The orbital geometries are indicated with solid

972: horizontal lines representing an edge-on orientation, and the path of

973: each planet across the stellar disk shown with dotted lines at the

974: actual impact parameter. (Of course, the data do not distinguish

975: between positive and negative impact parameters.) The resulting light

976: curves calculated for the $V$ band are all shown with the same

977: vertical (flux) and horizontal (time) scale, to facilitate comparison.

978: Depths vary quite significantly (3~mmag in $V$ for HD~149026b, 26~mmag

979: for OGLE-TR-113b; see Table~\ref{tab:lcfits}), as do the overall

980: shapes of the transit events, which in several cases are grazing

981: enough to depart from the canonical profiles often depicted in the

982: literature.

983: 

984: \section{Discussion}

985: \label{sec:discussion}

986: 

987: Many investigators have sought and claimed possible correlations

988: between various stellar and planetary parameters of transiting

989: systems.  In principle such correlations could lead to important

990: insights into the formation, structure, and evolution of exoplanets.

991: A primary motivation for presenting a more complete, accurate, and

992: homogeneous set of these parameters in this work was to facilitate

993: such studies. The relatively large array of properties now available

994: offers the opportunity to find new correlations, or to revisit old

995: ones incorporating additional variables. While it is beyond the scope

996: of the present work to investigate all possible correlations with

997: statistical rigor, in this section we check on three of the most

998: intriguing and potentially important relations that have been

999: proposed.

1000: 

1001: \subsection{Planetary mass versus orbital period}

1002: \label{sec:massperiod}

1003: 

1004: \cite{Mazeh:05} were the first to point out the apparent correlation

1005: between $M_p$ and $P$ for transiting planets \citep[see

1006: also][]{Gaudi:05}. The original suggestion was based on only 6

1007: systems, but additional discoveries have generally supported the trend

1008: of decreasing mass with longer periods, although the scatter has also

1009: become larger. This is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:mp}a. HAT-P-2b would

1010: be an extreme outlier in this plot; we have excluded it because it is

1011: so much more massive than the other planets and may belong to a

1012: different category of planet (see \S\,\ref{sec:safronov}). Similarly,

1013: we have excluded GJ~436b because it is so much less massive than the

1014: others, and may be a rocky or rock-ice planet rather than a gas

1015: giant. A simple linear fit is shown for reference (dashed line).

1016: 

1017: %\begin{figure}        % original figure

1018: %\vskip 0.35in

1019: %\epsscale{2.4}

1020: %{\hskip -1.9in\plotone{f9.eps}}

1021: %\vskip 1.2in

1022: 

1023: \begin{figure}        % bitmapped figure

1024: \vskip 0.0in

1025: \epsscale{1.3}

1026: {\hskip -0.2in\plotone{f9xv.ps}}

1027: \vskip 0.0in

1028: 

1029: \figcaption[]{(a) $M_p$ as a function of period for all transiting

1030: planets except HAT-P-2b ($M_p = 8.7$~M$_{\rm Jup}$, $P = 5.63$~d) and

1031: GJ~436b ($M_p = 0.073$~M$_{\rm Jup}$, $P = 2.64$~d); see text. The

1032: dashed line is a linear fit. (b) $O\!-\!C$ residuals $\Delta M_p$ from

1033: the linear fit in the top panel shown as a function of the metallicity

1034: of the host star. The dashed line is a linear fit. (c) Same as (a),

1035: with the dependence on [Fe/H] removed based on the fit in (b). The

1036: fitted line has the expression $M_p = (+1.70 \pm 0.13) - (0.281 \pm

1037: 0.044) \times P$.

1038: \label{fig:mp}}

1039: 

1040: \end{figure}

1041: 

1042: We also investigated the scatter in this relation, seeking any ``third

1043: variable'' that might correlate with the residuals.  We seem to have

1044: found such a third variable: the metallicity of the host star.

1045: Figure~\ref{fig:mp}b displays the $O\!-\!C$ residuals from the top

1046: panel as a function of [Fe/H], indicating a rather clear correlation

1047: (dashed line): $\Delta M_p = (+0.152 \pm 0.050) - (1.17 \pm 0.23)

1048: \times {\rm [Fe/H]}$. After removal of this trend, the relation

1049: between $M_p$ and period becomes tighter (Figure~\ref{fig:mp}c).  The

1050: scatter in the mass-period relation is reduced from 0.26~M$_{\rm Jup}$

1051: in the top panel to 0.17~M$_{\rm Jup}$ in the bottom panel. It seems

1052: unlikely that this is a statistical fluke. However, the scatter is

1053: still larger than the formal observational uncertainties, suggesting

1054: that these three variables are not completely determinative.

1055: 

1056: What might be the implications of this metallicity dependence?  It has

1057: been proposed that the mass-period relation is related to the process

1058: by which close-in exoplanets migrated inward from their formation

1059: sites, or more specifically, to the mechanism that halts migration at

1060: orbital periods of a few days. The trend of larger masses at shorter

1061: orbital periods could suggest that the halting mechanism depends on

1062: mass, and larger planets are able to migrate further in. The

1063: dependence on metallicity may then be interpreted to indicate that

1064: planets in metal-poor systems need to be more massive in order to

1065: migrate inward to the same orbital period as more metal-rich

1066: planets. In this context, the trend in Figure~\ref{fig:mp}b could be

1067: interpreted as evidence that the efficiency of the migration (or

1068: halting) mechanism is affected to some degree by the chemical

1069: composition.  A dependence of migration on metallicity is in fact

1070: predicted by some theories, and could arise, as pointed out by

1071: \cite{Sozzetti:06}, either from slower migration rates in metal-poor

1072: protoplanetary disks \citep{Livio:03, Boss:05} or through longer

1073: timescales for giant planet formation around metal-poor stars, which

1074: would effectively reduce the efficiency of migration before the disk

1075: dissipates \citep{Ida:04, Alibert:05}. However, the above processes

1076: are more aimed at addressing the apparent lack of short-period planets

1077: among very metal-poor stars claimed by some authors

1078: \citep[see][]{Sozzetti:06}, whereas among the transiting planets it is

1079: not the lack of more metal-poor examples we are concerned with, but

1080: rather their different properties (such as mass) compared to

1081: metal-rich planets \emph{at the same orbital period}.  To give a

1082: quantitative example, we find that for a period of 2.5 days (near the

1083: average for known transiting systems), the mass of a planet with

1084: [Fe/H] $= -0.2$ is $\sim$40\% larger than one with average metallicity

1085: ([Fe/H] = +0.13, excluding HAT-P-2b and GJ~436b), while the mass of a

1086: planet with [Fe/H] $= +0.4$ is about 30\% smaller. This range of

1087: metallicities, from [Fe/H] $= -0.2$ to +0.4 (covering a factor of 4 in

1088: metal enhancement), is approximately the full range observed. We note

1089: that the strength of the metallicity effect is modest rather than

1090: overwhelming, and this too is in agreement with theoretical

1091: expectations \citep[e.g.,][]{Livio:03}. The massive planet HAT-P-2b

1092: obviously does not conform to this trend of $M_p$ versus period, which

1093: may indicate some fundamental difference either in its formation or

1094: migration.

1095: 

1096: An alternative interpretation, also proposed by \cite{Mazeh:05}, is

1097: that the $M_p$ versus $P$ relation is more a reflection of survival

1098: requirements in close proximity to the star, due to thermal

1099: evaporation from the extreme UV flux. Close-in planets must be more

1100: massive to avoid ablation to the point of undetectability. The role of

1101: metallicity in this case would be through the difference in the

1102: internal structure \citep{Santos:06}. Metal-rich planets have been

1103: suggested to be more likely to develop rocky cores \citep[][see also

1104: \S\,\ref{sec:cores}]{Pollack:96, Guillot:06, Burrows:07}. If the

1105: presence of such a core somehow slows down or prevents complete

1106: evaporation, as has been proposed \citep{Baraffe:04, Lecavelier:04},

1107: survival at a given period would then have a dependence on

1108: metallicity.

1109: 

1110: \begin{figure}

1111: \vskip -0.35in

1112: \epsscale{1.3}

1113: {\hskip -0.2in\plotone{f10.eps}}

1114: \vskip -0.3in

1115: 

1116: \figcaption[]{Surface gravity versus orbital period for all transiting

1117: planets except HAT-P-2, which is off the scale ($g_p \sim 234$

1118: m~s$^{-2}$). A linear fit is shown.\label{fig:loggperiod}}

1119: 

1120: \end{figure}

1121: 

1122: A diagram related to the one considered above is that of planetary

1123: surface gravity versus orbital period, first presented by

1124: \cite{Southworth:07}.  Because $g_p$ does not require knowledge of the

1125: mass or radius of the star, it is in a sense a cleaner quantity that

1126: should be free from systematic errors in $M_{\star}$ and $R_{\star}$

1127: and is nearly independent of stellar evolution models. This not true

1128: of other bulk properties such as the mean planet density. An updated

1129: version of the $g_p$ versus $P$ relation is shown in

1130: Figure~\ref{fig:loggperiod}, along with a linear fit.  We examined the

1131: residuals from this linear fit for a possible correlation with stellar

1132: metallicity, as we did earlier for the case of the $M_p$ versus $P$

1133: diagram, but we found none.  Given that $g_p \propto M_p/R_p^2$, we

1134: note that the apparent influence of metallicity on the planetary radii

1135: must be contributing significantly to the scatter in the $g_p$ versus

1136: period relation. We discuss this further in \S\,\ref{sec:cores}.

1137: 

1138: \subsection{Safronov number versus equilibrium temperature}

1139: \label{sec:safronov}

1140: 

1141: Recently, \cite{Hansen:07} proposed a distinction between two classes

1142: of hot Jupiters, based on a consideration of the Safronov number and

1143: the zero-albedo equilibrium temperature. The Safronov number is a

1144: measure of the ability of a planet to gravitationally scatter other

1145: bodies \citep{Safronov:72}, and is defined as $\Theta =

1146: \frac{1}{2}(V_{\rm esc}/V_{\rm orb})^2 = (a/ R_p)(M_p/ M_{\star})$,

1147: the ratio between the escape velocity and the orbital velocity

1148: squared.  We assume that the zero-albedo equilibrium temperature

1149: scales as $T_{\rm eq} = T_{\rm eff}(R_{\star}/2a)^{1/2}$ (i.e., we

1150: assume that the heat redistribution factor $f$ is common to all

1151: planets, in the absence of more complete knowledge).

1152: 

1153: We list $\Theta$ and $T_{\rm eq}$ for all transiting planets in

1154: Table~\ref{tab:planetary}.  \cite{Hansen:07} pointed out a gap in the

1155: distribution of Safronov numbers, and defined Class~I planets as those

1156: with $\Theta \sim 0.07 \pm 0.01$ and Class~II as $\Theta \sim 0.04 \pm

1157: 0.01$.  They tentatively proposed also that these two categories have

1158: other distinguishing characteristics, such as a difference in the

1159: average temperature of the host stars, or the orbital

1160: separations. Upon the discovery of HAT-P-5b \citep{Bakos:07c} and

1161: HAT-P-6b \citep{Noyes:07}, those authors pointed out that the

1162: distinction now seems less clear, as these two planets tend to fill

1163: the gap between Class~I and Class~II.

1164: 

1165: The larger sample now available, and especially the more accurate and

1166: homogeneous set of properties presented here, offers the opportunity

1167: to revisit the issue. Figure~\ref{fig:safronov} shows an updated

1168: version of the $\Theta$--$T_{\rm eq}$ diagram for transiting planets,

1169: which has some significant differences compared to the original

1170: version. Following \cite{Hansen:07} we have excluded the massive

1171: planet HAT-P-2b, with a Safronov number so much larger than all the

1172: others ($\Theta = 0.94$) that it would seem to be in a different class

1173: altogether, as well as GJ~436b, which is of much lower mass and a

1174: presumably different composition.

1175: 

1176: \begin{figure}

1177: \vskip -0.35in

1178: \epsscale{1.3}

1179: {\hskip -0.2in\plotone{f11.eps}}

1180: \vskip -0.3in

1181: 

1182: \figcaption[]{Diagram of Safronov number ($\Theta$) versus equilibrium

1183: temperature ($T_{\rm eq}$) for transiting planets. Planet classes are

1184: labeled following \cite{Hansen:07}. A tentative dividing line at

1185: $\Theta = 0.05$ is indicated. \label{fig:safronov}}

1186: 

1187: \end{figure}

1188: 

1189: In our updated diagram the separation between Class~I and Class~II is

1190: still quite striking. The clustering of the Class~II objects around

1191: the value $\Theta \sim 0.04$ has tightened, if anything, and HAT-P-5b

1192: (\#21) and HAT-P-6b (\#22) do not encroach on the gap in Safronov

1193: numbers with Class~I. (The Class~II object with the lowest value of

1194: $\Theta$ is OGLE-TR-111b [\#6].) Thus, the dichotomy remains very

1195: suggestive.  \cite{Hansen:07} have argued that the principal

1196: distinction between the two classes is based on mass (planetary and/or

1197: stellar), and that planets of Class~II are, on average, less massive

1198: than those in Class~I, and orbit stars that are typically more

1199: massive.  While we agree with the latter part of this statement

1200: regarding the \emph{stellar} masses, we find that the distribution of

1201: \emph{planetary} masses is indistinguishable between the two

1202: groups. We do confirm, however, that an updated diagram of $M_p$

1203: versus $T_{\rm eq}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:masstemp}) shows planets in

1204: Class~II to be systematically less massive \emph{for the same

1205: equilibrium temperature} (level of irradiation), as was also found by

1206: \cite{Hansen:07}, so in this sense their general claim that the

1207: distinction has something to do with mass seems to be supported by the

1208: observations.

1209: 

1210: \begin{figure}

1211: \vskip -0.35in

1212: \epsscale{1.3}

1213: {\hskip -0.2in\plotone{f12.eps}}

1214: \vskip -0.3in

1215: 

1216: \figcaption[]{Planetary mass as a function of equilibrium temperature

1217: for transiting planets. Class~II planets ($\Theta < 0.05$) are

1218: represented with squares. A tentative dividing line is indicated.

1219: \label{fig:masstemp}}

1220: 

1221: \end{figure}

1222: 

1223: An important characteristic that seems to be different in the two

1224: groups is the metallicity of the parent stars. This is illustrated in

1225: Figure~\ref{fig:saffeh}. Parent stars of Class~II planets tend to be

1226: slightly more metal-rich. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of the two

1227: metallicity distributions, which appear to be centered around [Fe/H]

1228: $\sim 0.0$ for Class~I and [Fe/H] $\sim +0.2$ for Class~II, indicates

1229: only a 1.7\% probability that they are drawn from the same parent

1230: population. There is perhaps a hint that the Safronov numbers for

1231: Class~I planets show a decreasing trend with metallicity in

1232: Figure~\ref{fig:saffeh}, whereas the $\Theta$ values for Class~II

1233: planets are independent of [Fe/H].

1234: 

1235: \begin{figure}

1236: \vskip -0.3in

1237: \epsscale{1.3}

1238: {\hskip -0.2in\plotone{f13.eps}}

1239: \vskip -0.3in

1240: 

1241: \figcaption[]{Safronov number as a function of stellar metallicity for

1242: transiting planets. Class~II planets ($\Theta < 0.05$) are represented

1243: with squares.\label{fig:saffeh}}

1244: 

1245: \end{figure}

1246: 

1247: \subsection{Heavy element content versus stellar metallicity}

1248: \label{sec:cores}

1249: 

1250: Transiting planet discoveries have challenged our theoretical

1251: understanding of these objects from the very beginning. The inflated

1252: radius of HD~209458b, argued to be due to an overlooked internal heat

1253: source in the planet \citep[see, e.g.,][and references

1254: therein]{Fabrycky:07}, still poses a problem for modelers, and this

1255: first example is now joined by several other oversized planets

1256: indicating it is not an exception (see \S\,\ref{sec:results}).  On the

1257: other end of the scale, HD~149026b was the first transiting giant

1258: planet found to have a radius significantly \emph{smaller} than

1259: predicted by standard theories \citep{Sato:05}. The implication is

1260: that it must have a substantial fraction of heavy elements of perhaps

1261: $\sim$70~M$_{\earth}$ (2/3 of its total mass), which is often assumed

1262: to be in a core.  More recently HAT-P-3b \citep{Torres:07a} has also

1263: been found to be enhanced in heavy elements on the basis of its small

1264: size for the measured planet mass. In this case metals make up

1265: $\sim$1/3 of the total mass.

1266: 

1267: \cite{Guillot:06} and also \cite{Burrows:07} have found evidence that

1268: the heavy element content correlates with the metallicity of the

1269: parent star, a trend that was not anticipated by theory. These studies

1270: were based, respectively, on the 9 and 14 transiting planets known at

1271: the time. The larger sample now available warrants a second look at

1272: this possible correlation, for its potential importance for our

1273: understanding of planet formation.

1274: 

1275: Here we have estimated the heavy element content $M_{\rm Z}$ of each

1276: planet using the recent models by \cite{Fortney:07}, which include the

1277: effects of irradiation from the central star. The mass in heavy

1278: elements was calculated from the measured mass of the planet, its

1279: radius, the orbital semimajor axis, and the age of the system as

1280: derived above from stellar evolution models. The uncertainty in these

1281: estimates is often very large, due mostly to errors in the measured

1282: values of $R_p$ and especially the age. In ten cases the models

1283: indicate no metal enhancement at all, and some of these are in fact

1284: ``inflated'' hot Jupiters. In a few other cases only an upper limit

1285: can be placed. For HAT-P-2b the \cite{Fortney:07} models as published

1286: do not provide a large enough range of core masses.  The results for

1287: $M_{\rm Z}$ are listed in Table~\ref{tab:planetary}.  A comparison

1288: with values from \cite{Guillot:06} and \cite{Burrows:07} for the

1289: subset of planets in common indicates significant differences in some

1290: cases, either in $M_{\rm Z}$ or its error.

1291: 

1292: \begin{figure}

1293: \vskip -0.35in

1294: \epsscale{1.3}

1295: {\hskip -0.2in\plotone{f14.eps}}

1296: \vskip -0.3in

1297: 

1298: \figcaption[]{Heavy element content for transiting giant planets as a

1299: function of the metallicity of the host star. HAT-P-2 is excluded (see

1300: text).\label{fig:cores}}

1301: 

1302: \end{figure}

1303: 

1304: The mass in heavy elements is plotted against the stellar metallicity

1305: in Figure~\ref{fig:cores}. The overall trend is similar to that

1306: pointed out by previous authors, in the sense that the upper envelope

1307: of the distribution appears to increase with [Fe/H]. It is natural to

1308: expect that a higher stellar metallicity implies a higher-metallicity

1309: protoplanetary disk. In the context of the core-accretion model of

1310: planet formation, one would also naturally expect a more metal-rich

1311: disk to lead to more metal-rich planets, and in this sense the

1312: observed trend is in accordance with the core-accretion theory.

1313: 

1314: \section{Final remarks}

1315: \label{sec:remarks}

1316: 

1317: Progress in understanding planet formation, structure, and evolution

1318: depends to a large extent on an accurate knowledge of their physical

1319: characteristics. This begins with an accurate knowledge of the

1320: properties of the parent stars. The main contributions of this work

1321: toward that goal are a re-analysis of all available transit light

1322: curves with the same methodology and the uniform application of the

1323: best possible observational constraints to infer the stellar mass and

1324: radius. This includes, in particular, the constraint on the stellar

1325: density through the light-curve parameter $a/R_{\star}$. We expect the

1326: application of this technique to current and future ground-based or

1327: space-based transit searches to be highly beneficial, especially when

1328: parallax information for the candidates is unavailable.

1329: 

1330: Through the procedures described above we have obtained a more

1331: homogeneous set of stellar and planetary parameters than previously

1332: available, with error bars that are well understood and more

1333: appropriate when searching for patterns and correlations among the

1334: various quantities. The results have enabled us to explore the role of

1335: metallicity in two of the more intriguing correlations between star

1336: and planet properties: that of $M_p$ versus $P$, to which

1337: \cite{Mazeh:05} first drew attention, and that of the Safronov number

1338: versus equilibrium temperature \citep{Hansen:07}. We have also

1339: re-examined the correlation between the stellar metallicity and the

1340: heavy-element content of the planets.  We find a clear influence of

1341: [Fe/H] in the $M_p$ versus $P$ diagram, with the planets in more

1342: metal-poor systems being systematically more massive at a given

1343: orbital period. This can be interpreted as evidence of a (mass and)

1344: metallicity dependence of the migration process. Alternatively it may

1345: be seen as indirect support for the correlation between core size and

1346: [Fe/H] along with the idea that the presence of such cores slows down

1347: or prevents complete evaporation of the planets in the extreme

1348: radiation environments of these hot Jupiters. We find also that the

1349: improved parameters for the present sample of transiting planets

1350: support the recently proposed notion of at least two distinct classes

1351: of hot Jupiters in terms of their Safronov numbers \citep{Hansen:07}.

1352: Additionally, the average metallicity of Class~II planets appears to

1353: be $\sim$0.2 dex higher than Class~I. Thus, chemical composition adds

1354: another distinguishing characteristic to those proposed earlier.  A

1355: further result of our work, which takes advantage of the larger sample

1356: of transiting planets now available, is the confirmation of the

1357: general trend of higher heavy-element content for planets with more

1358: metal-rich host stars, originally advanced by \cite{Guillot:06} and

1359: \cite{Burrows:07}.

1360: 

1361: We expect that the search for other significant correlations will be

1362: made easier by the better accuracy and homogeneous character of the

1363: properties of the present sample of transiting planets, and should

1364: lead to a deeper understanding of their nature.

1365: 

1366: \acknowledgements

1367: 

1368: We thank Alex Sozzetti for providing information on TrES-3 and TrES-4

1369: in advance of publication, and the referee for a helpful report. We

1370: are grateful to Scott Gaudi for helpful conversations about the

1371: analysis of transiting systems, and in particular for emphasizing the

1372: importance of a uniform analysis. GT acknowledges partial support for

1373: this work from NASA Origins grant NNG04LG89G. MJH acknowledges support

1374: for this work from NASA Origins grant NNG06GH69G. This research has

1375: made use of the VizieR service \citep{Ochsenbein:00} and of the SIMBAD

1376: database, both operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, as well as of

1377: NASA's Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service, and of data products

1378: from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the

1379: University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis

1380: Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by NASA and the NSF.

1381: 

1382: 

1383: 

1384: \appendix

1385: \section{Spectroscopic and photometric information from the literature}

1386: \label{sec:app}

1387: 

1388: Below we describe in detail our compilation of the information

1389: available in the literature for the atmospheric parameters of all

1390: known transiting planets, as well as the sources for the light curves

1391: we have used, and for the velocity semi-amplitudes that determine the

1392: planet masses. For the atmospheric parameters ($T_{\rm eff}$, [Fe/H],

1393: $\log g$) we consider only spectroscopic studies, and disregard

1394: photometric determinations with few exceptions.  The values adopted,

1395: which are listed in Table~\ref{tab:atmospheric}, are the result of a

1396: careful combination of results for each planet rather than the

1397: selection of a particular favorite study, and we have therefore deemed

1398: it important to document our choices for future reference. For the

1399: spectroscopic parameters the goal of this effort has been to arrive at

1400: values that best represent the stellar properties based on current

1401: knowledge. Combined with our application of uniform procedures for

1402: deriving the stellar mass and radius based on state-of-the-art stellar

1403: evolution models, we hope that the overall accuracy of the planet

1404: parameters has been improved.

1405: 

1406: \noindent{\bf 1.~HD~149026:} Two consistent determinations of the

1407: effective temperature are available for this star. One is from

1408: \cite{Masana:06}, who apply a semi-empirical method based on a

1409: spectral energy distribution fit (SEDF) calibrated against solar

1410: analogs, and the other is from a spectral synthesis analysis by

1411: \cite{Sato:05} carried out on high-resolution Subaru spectra using the

1412: SME package \citep[Spectroscopy Made Easy,][]{Valenti:96, Valenti:05}.

1413: We adopt the weighted average of the two, with a generous uncertainty

1414: of 50~K. The iron abundance is adopted from \cite{Sato:05}, but with a

1415: more conservative error of 0.08 dex. The surface gravity is taken from

1416: the same source. The velocity semi-amplitude $K$ is adopted from

1417: \cite{Butler:06}. We consider that study, based on 16 RV measurements

1418: with the Keck telescope, to supersede the one by \cite{Sato:05}, which

1419: used fewer Keck velocities (6) combined with 4 velocities with the

1420: Subaru telescope, but obtained essentially the same result.

1421: Additional Keck velocity measurements (many obtained during transit)

1422: were reported recently by \cite{Wolf:07}, who also re-reduced the

1423: earlier Keck observations of \cite{Butler:06} (for a total of

1424: 35). Their study focused on the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, and did

1425: not present a value for $K$. The photometric data used here are the

1426: three St\"omgren $(b\!+\!y)/2$ light curves presented by

1427: \cite{Sato:05}, the Sloan $g$ and $r$ light curves presented by

1428: \cite{Charbonneau:06}, and the five $(b\!+\!y)/2$ light curves

1429: presented by \cite{Winn:07e}.

1430: 

1431: \noindent{\bf 2.~HD~189733:} For $T_{\rm eff}$ we adopt the weighted

1432: average of the results by \cite{Bouchy:05a} based on high-resolution

1433: CORALIE spectra, and \cite{Masana:06}, with an uncertainty of 50~K.

1434: Later papers by the first team quote values for $T_{\rm eff}$ (as well

1435: as $\log g$ and [Fe/H]) said to be taken from \cite{Bouchy:05a}, but

1436: which are not exactly the same for reasons that are unclear. We adopt

1437: $\log g$ from the Bouchy work, as well as the metallicity, but with an

1438: increased [Fe/H] error of 0.08 dex. A study by \cite{Gray:03} based on

1439: lower resolution spectra (1.8~\AA) gave a somewhat lower temperature

1440: (4939~K) along with a much lower value for [Fe/H] of $-0.37$; we do

1441: not consider those results here. The only published determination of

1442: $K$ is by \cite{Bouchy:05a}, which we adopt. Additional RV

1443: measurements at Keck were obtained by \cite{Winn:06}, mostly during

1444: transit for the purpose of studying the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect,

1445: but no value of $K$ was reported. Ground-based light curves have been

1446: obtained in a variety of passbands since the discovery (Str\"omgren

1447: $(b\!+\!y)/2$, $V$, $I$, Sloan $z$).  High-quality observations with

1448: HST in a passband with an effective wavelength similar to the $R$ band

1449: were reported by \cite{Pont:07b}. These optical observations all

1450: suffer to some degree from the fact that the star is relatively

1451: active.  Spottedness causes irregularities in the photometry, which is

1452: very useful to establish the rotational period of the star

1453: \citep[see][]{Winn:07b, Henry:07}, but interferes with the accurate

1454: determination of the light-curve parameters. By contrast,

1455: \cite{Knutson:07} obtained photometry with the Spitzer Space Telescope

1456: at the much longer wavelength of 8~$\mu$m, where spots have a

1457: negligible effect.  Limb-darkening is virtually non-existent at this

1458: wavelength as well, removing another complication. While the

1459: ground-based, HST, and Spitzer light curve solutions all agree very

1460: well within their uncertainties, for the reasons just described we

1461: have chosen in this case to rely only on the Spitzer data, which we

1462: have re-analyzed using the same methodology applied to all the other

1463: transiting planets. A very similar (but less precise) radius ratio was

1464: reported recently by \cite{Ehrenreich:07} based on additional Spitzer

1465: observations at 3.6 and 5.8~$\mu$m.

1466: 

1467: \noindent{\bf 3.~HD~209458:} Ten independent determinations of $T_{\rm

1468: eff}$ are available, which show excellent agreement: eight are from

1469: spectroscopic studies \citep{Mazeh:00, Gonzalez:01, Mashonkina:01,

1470: Sadakane:02, Heiter:03, Santos:04, Valenti:05}, and two others are

1471: based on photometry use the IRFM \citep{Ramirez:04} and SEDF

1472: \citep{Masana:06}.  We adopt the weighted average, with a conservative

1473: uncertainty of 50~K. Similarly, we adopt the weighted average of the

1474: nine [Fe/H] determinations from the spectroscopic sources, with an

1475: error of 0.05 dex. The $\log g$ value we use here is also the weighted

1476: average of the eight available measurements. Four values for the

1477: semi-amplitude $K$ have been published. The early determinations by

1478: \cite{Mazeh:00} and \cite{Henry:00} were superseded by more recent

1479: studies based on many more RVs and refined analysis techniques by

1480: \cite{Naef:04} (46 ELODIE and 141 CORALIE measurements over 5 years,

1481: not all published) and \cite{Butler:06} (64 Keck measurements over 6

1482: years). We adopt the weighted average of the results from the two new

1483: sources. Our light curve fits are based on the HST/STIS photometry of

1484: \cite{Brown:01}.  In this case, given the high signal-to-noise ratio

1485: of the data, we fitted for the quadratic limb-darkening coefficients

1486: along with all of the other parameters.

1487: 

1488: \noindent{\bf 4.~OGLE-TR-10:} A spectroscopic study by

1489: \cite{Santos:06} used 4 co-added UVES spectra to derive $T_{\rm eff}$,

1490: [Fe/H], and $\log g$. An earlier study by \cite{Bouchy:05b} used a

1491: subset of these spectra and somewhat different analysis techniques,

1492: and obtained a significantly hotter temperature and a higher

1493: metallicity. They also reported an unusually large surface gravity for

1494: the temperature they obtained ($\log g = 4.70$, for $T_{\rm eff} =

1495: 6220$~K). Because these results may be affected by the strong

1496: correlations often present between all these quantities, we have

1497: preferred not to use the \cite{Bouchy:05b} values here. Another recent

1498: study by \cite{Holman:07a} supersedes previous analyses by

1499: \cite{Konacki:03a} and \cite{Konacki:05} based on similar material,

1500: which, nevertheless gave essentially the same results with only

1501: slightly different errors. The Santos and Holman values for $T_{\rm

1502: eff}$ ($6075 \pm 86$~K and $5800 \pm 100$~K, respectively) are

1503: somewhat discrepant (by 275~K, or 2.1$\sigma$). We note that the

1504: direction of the difference is consistent with the sign of the

1505: difference in the iron abundances of these two studies (Santos giving

1506: $+0.28 \pm 0.10$, and Holman $0.0 \pm 0.2$), given the typical

1507: correlation between these two quantities.  Both teams have presented

1508: evidence supporting their $T_{\rm eff}$ determinations (a good fit to

1509: the H$\alpha$ line profile in the case of Santos et al., and agreement

1510: with the H$\beta$ profile as well as a consistency check using

1511: line-depth ratios, for Holman et al.).  Under these circumstances we

1512: simply adopt intermediate values (arithmetic averages) for $T_{\rm

1513: eff}$, [Fe/H], and $\log g$, with increased uncertainties of 130~K,

1514: 0.15 dex, and 0.10 dex, respectively. Two consistent determinations of

1515: $K$ have been reported: one by \cite{Bouchy:05b} based on 14 RVs from

1516: UVES/FLAMES, and the other by \cite{Konacki:05}. We adopt the latter

1517: results, because they are based on a combination of 9 Keck

1518: measurements with the 14 RVs from \cite{Bouchy:05b}. The light-curve

1519: parameters are taken from the work of \cite{Pont:07a}, who combine the

1520: best photometry available.

1521: 

1522: \noindent{\bf 5.~OGLE-TR-56:} The adopted temperature, metallicity,

1523: and surface gravity for this star are the weighted averages of three

1524: fairly consistent spectroscopic determinations \citep{Konacki:03b,

1525: Bouchy:05b, Santos:06}. Conservative errors of 100~K, 0.10 dex, and

1526: 0.16 dex are assigned to those quantities, respectively. Two

1527: determinations of the semi-amplitude $K$ are considered here: one by

1528: \cite{Torres:04}, who used 11 Keck RVs and whose study supersedes

1529: \cite{Konacki:03b}, and one by \cite{Bouchy:05b}, based on 8 UVES and

1530: 5 HARPS measurements. We adopt the weighted average of the two

1531: results. Our light curve fits are based on the $V$ and $R$ data of

1532: \cite{Pont:07a}.

1533: 

1534: \noindent{\bf 6.~OGLE-TR-111:} The atmospheric parameters for this

1535: system are adopted from the spectroscopic study by \cite{Santos:06},

1536: based on 6 UVES spectra, which supersedes those in the discovery paper

1537: by \cite{Pont:04} that used only a subset of the same spectra. The

1538: errors seem realistic, so we adopt those as well. The only

1539: determination of $K$ available is from \cite{Pont:04}. Our photometric

1540: solutions are based on the two $I$-band light curves of

1541: \cite{Winn:07f}.

1542: 

1543: \noindent{\bf 7.~OGLE-TR-113:} Three spectroscopic determinations of

1544: $T_{\rm eff}$, [Fe/H], and $\log g$ give very consistent results

1545: \citep{Bouchy:04, Konacki:04, Santos:06}, and we adopt the weighted

1546: average. The formal uncertainties are very small because of the

1547: (likely accidental) good agreement; to be conservative we have

1548: increased them to 75~K, 0.08 dex, and 0.22 dex, respectively. For $K$

1549: we have taken the weighted average from the first two sources above,

1550: which are based, respectively, on 8 spectra from UVES and 7 from

1551: Keck. Our light curve fits use the $R$ band photometry of

1552: \cite{Gillon:06}.

1553: 

1554: \noindent{\bf 8.~OGLE-TR-132:} The temperature, metallicity, and

1555: surface gravity are taken from \cite{Gillon:07a}. This high-resolution

1556: study, based on UVES spectra, supersedes an earlier one by

1557: \cite{Bouchy:04}, which had very large uncertainties. The velocity

1558: semi-amplitude is adopted from the work of \cite{Moutou:04}, who

1559: obtained a $K$ value some 20\% larger than in the discovery paper of

1560: \cite{Bouchy:04} despite having used the same 5 original RV

1561: measurements. The difference is due solely to the improved ephemeris

1562: provided by \cite{Moutou:04} based on a new, high-quality light curve

1563: gathered with the VLT, compared to the original ephemeris from the

1564: OGLE photometry. Our light curve fits use the VLT $R$-band photometry

1565: of \cite{Gillon:07a}.

1566: 

1567: \noindent{\bf 9.~TrES-1:} Four high-resolution spectroscopic analyses

1568: of this star giving consistent results have been published by

1569: \cite{Alonso:04}, \cite{Sozzetti:04}, \cite{Laughlin:05}, and

1570: \cite{Santos:06}. We adopt the weighted averages of those studies.

1571: The metallicity from \cite{Alonso:04} was assigned here an uncertainty

1572: (not originally reported) of 0.2 dex based on previous experience with

1573: the same type of material. As before, we have chosen more conservative

1574: errors of 50~K for $T_{\rm eff}$ and 0.05 dex for [Fe/H], to account

1575: in the latter case for the fact that \cite{Santos:06} find a hint of

1576: small systematic differences with \cite{Sozzetti:04}. The mean

1577: metallicity is close to solar: [Fe/H] $= +0.02 \pm 0.05$.  A claim has

1578: been made by \cite{Strassmeier:04} of a much lower metallicity for

1579: TrES-1 of [Fe/H] $= -0.6$ (no error given). This is so discrepant

1580: compared to other four determinations that it is most likely

1581: incorrect. For $K$, the only value appearing in the literature is that

1582: of \cite{Alonso:04}, based on 8 Keck spectra, which we adopt.

1583: \cite{Laughlin:05} made 5 additional RV measurements, also with Keck,

1584: and combined them with the Alonso velocities to improve the planet

1585: mass.  However, no value for $K$ was reported and it is not possible

1586: to recover it accurately from other published quantities. Our light

1587: curve fits use the Sloan $z$-band photometry of \cite{Winn:07d}.

1588: 

1589: \noindent{\bf 10.~TrES-2:} A single source is available for the

1590: atmospheric parameters \citep{Sozzetti:07}, and those values are

1591: adopted here. Although the published uncertainty in $T_{\rm eff}$ is

1592: only 50~K, a number of checks on the temperature are presented that

1593: suggest the value is accurate, and thus we accept that error. The

1594: semi-amplitude $K$ is adopted from the discovery paper by

1595: \cite{ODonovan:06}. Our photometric solutions rely on the $z$-band

1596: light curves of \cite{Holman:07b}.

1597: 

1598: \noindent{\bf 11.~TrES-3:} The atmospheric properties were taken from

1599: Sozzetti et al.\ (in preparation), while the semi-amplitude $K$ and

1600: the light-curve parameters are adopted from the discovery paper by

1601: \cite{ODonovan:07}.

1602: 

1603: \noindent{\bf 12.~TrES-4:} The atmospheric properties were taken from

1604: Sozzetti et al.\ (in preparation), while the semi-amplitude $K$ and

1605: the light-curve parameters are adopted from the discovery paper by

1606: \cite{Mandushev:07}.

1607: 

1608: \noindent{\bf 13.~WASP-1:} The spectroscopic investigation by

1609: \cite{Stempels:07} based on NOT/FIES spectra supersedes the results in

1610: the discovery paper by \cite{CollierCameron:07}, and in fact the new

1611: study claims that the SOPHIE spectra in the old one were compromised

1612: by scattered light and uncertain normalization. Despite this, the

1613: results for the atmospheric quantities are quite similar.  We adopt

1614: the parameters from the new study, although with more conservative

1615: uncertainties of 75~K, 0.08 dex, and 0.16 dex for $T_{\rm eff}$,

1616: [Fe/H], and $\log g$. The only RV analysis available is that by

1617: \cite{CollierCameron:07}, based on 7 RV measurements with SOPHIE.  Our

1618: light curve fits are based on the $z$-band photometry of

1619: \cite{Charbonneau:07}.

1620: 

1621: \noindent{\bf 14.~WASP-2:} For this system there are no spectroscopic

1622: studies beyond the one in the discovery paper by

1623: \cite{CollierCameron:07}, in which the uncertainties for $T_{\rm eff}$

1624: and $\log g$ are rather large. Nevertheless, the temperature appears

1625: to be accurate as shown by a consistency check obtained using the

1626: IRFM.  The authors state that the abundances are not substantially

1627: different from solar, and they appear to adopt, according to the

1628: caption of their Table~3, a value of [Fe/H] $= +0.1 \pm 0.2$. This may

1629: simply be a representative abundance, but it is a reasonable value

1630: since it is close to the average metallicity of the other transiting

1631: planets. We accept it for lack of a better determination, along with

1632: $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$ as reported. We take also the $K$ value

1633: from this paper, which is based on 9 RV measurements with SOPHIE.  Our

1634: light curve fits use the $z$-band photometry of \cite{Charbonneau:07}.

1635: 

1636: \noindent{\bf 15.~XO-1:} The discovery paper by \cite{McCullough:06}

1637: presents the only spectroscopic study of this system. The atmospheric

1638: parameters are based on HJS spectra from the 2.7m telescope at

1639: McDonald Observatory, analyzed with SME. We adopt the temperature and

1640: metallicity from this source, with increased uncertainties of 75~K and

1641: 0.08 dex. The $\log g$ value is adopted also as given there. The

1642: semi-amplitude $K$ derived by these authors is based on 10 RV

1643: measurements from HET and the 2.7m (HJS). Our light curve fits are

1644: based on the $z$-band photometry of \cite{Holman:06}.

1645: 

1646: \noindent{\bf 16.~XO-2:} The values of $T_{\rm eff}$, [Fe/H], and

1647: $\log g$ derived in the discovery paper by \cite{Burke:07} are adopted

1648: here as published, and are based on two spectra collected with the HET

1649: for this northern component of a 31\arcsec\ visual binary. The

1650: logarithmic iron abundance, $+0.45 \pm 0.02$, is found to be very

1651: similar to that obtained for the visual companion, which is $+0.47 \pm

1652: 0.02$. We adopt conservative uncertainties of 80~K for $T_{\rm eff}$

1653: and 0.05 dex for [Fe/H]. The $K$ value from this study is based on 10

1654: RV measurements, and is adopted for our work. The light curve

1655: parameters adopted are also taken from the discovery paper.

1656: 

1657: \noindent{\bf 17.~HAT-P-1:} A single determination of the atmospheric

1658: parameters has been published, in the discovery paper by

1659: \cite{Bakos:07a}. It is based on an SME analysis of a Keck spectrum.

1660: The star is the easterly and fainter component of an 11\arcsec\ visual

1661: binary known as ADS~16402. \cite{Bakos:07a} also analyzed the other

1662: component spectroscopically, and used both sets of parameters for this

1663: physically associated and coeval pair to better constrain the mass and

1664: radius using evolutionary models. In this process they noted some

1665: inconsistencies between the models and the observations (a steeper

1666: slope in the H-R diagram than predicted by theory), which advise

1667: caution in using the atmospheric parameters. We adopt the values as

1668: published, but with increased uncertainties of 120~K, 0.08 dex, and

1669: 0.15 dex for $T_{\rm eff}$, [Fe/H], and $\log g$, respectively. The

1670: velocity semi-amplitude is also taken from \cite{Bakos:07a}, and is

1671: based on 9 velocities from Keck and 4 from Subaru. Our light curve

1672: solutions are based on the $z$-band photometry of \cite{Winn:07c}.

1673: 

1674: \noindent{\bf 18.~HAT-P-2:} For convenience we use the HAT designation

1675: here, although the star is also referred to as HD~147506. We adopt the

1676: atmospheric parameters from the discovery paper by \cite{Bakos:07b},

1677: the only one presenting a detailed spectroscopic analysis. An

1678: independent study by \cite{Loeillet:07} based on SOPHIE spectra did

1679: not yield better estimates, according to the authors, although it did

1680: confirm the [Fe/H] value. The velocity semi-amplitude in the discovery

1681: paper has been superseded by the determination by \cite{Loeillet:07},

1682: who included the original velocities from \cite{Bakos:07b} along with

1683: 63 new measurements obtained with SOPHIE.  The latter were intended to

1684: study the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, and were therefore taken mostly

1685: during transit. The authors modeled the complete velocity curve, and

1686: improved not only $K$ but also the eccentricity $e$ and longitude of

1687: periastron $\omega$. We adopt those elements in this work. In another

1688: study by \cite{Winn:07a} a total of 97 new spectra from Keck were

1689: obtained, also to investigate the Rossiter-McLaughlin phenomenon. The

1690: authors focussed mainly on that effect and did not report a new value

1691: of $K$. The light curve parameters reported here are based on the

1692: $z$-band photometry of \cite{Bakos:07b}.

1693: 

1694: \noindent{\bf 19.~HAT-P-3:} The atmospheric parameters are adopted

1695: from the only spectroscopic analysis so far, which is the discovery

1696: paper by \cite{Torres:07a} that is based on an SME analysis of a Keck

1697: spectrum.  The uncertainties adopted for $T_{\rm eff}$, [Fe/H], and

1698: $\log g$, which are 80~K, 0.08 dex, and 0.08 dex, are more

1699: conservative than the formal errors returned by SME, as described

1700: there. The value of $K$ is taken from the same source, as are the

1701: light curve parameters.

1702: 

1703: \noindent{\bf 20.~HAT-P-4:} As in the previous case, the atmospheric

1704: parameters, the $K$ value, and the light-curve parameters are adopted

1705: from the discovery paper \citep{Kovacs:07}. The uncertainties in

1706: $T_{\rm eff}$ and [Fe/H] are the same as for HAT-P-3.

1707: 

1708: \noindent{\bf 21.~HAT-P-5:} All atmospheric, spectroscopic, and

1709: light-curve parameters are taken from the discovery paper

1710: \citep{Bakos:07c}.

1711: 

1712: \noindent{\bf 22.~HAT-P-6:} All parameters are taken from the

1713: discovery paper \citep{Noyes:07}.

1714: 

1715: \noindent{\bf 23.~GJ~436:} Only one valiant attempt has been made to

1716: determine the atmospheric parameters of this M dwarf spectroscopically

1717: \citep{Maness:07}. It is based on both low- and high-resolution

1718: observations and a comparison with synthetic spectra. The difficulties

1719: of this kind of measurement are evidenced by the disagreements the

1720: authors obtain from their low- and high-resolution material, in both

1721: effective temperature (3500~K and 3200~K, respectively) and surface

1722: gravity (5.0 and 4.0 dex). They attribute this to shortcomings in our

1723: knowledge of the molecular opacities, mainly of TiO. They adopt a

1724: compromise value of $T_{\rm eff} = 3350 \pm 300$~K for a fixed surface

1725: gravity of $\log g = 5.0$, and a metallicity set to the solar

1726: value. The latter assumption is supported by a photometric

1727: determination of [Fe/H] $= -0.03 \pm 0.20$ by \cite{Bonfils:05}, based

1728: on the absolute $K$-band magnitude and the $V\!-\!K$ color. These are

1729: the values we adopt here. The velocity semi-amplitude by

1730: \cite{Maness:07} uses 59 measurements from Keck, and supersedes the

1731: determination in the discovery paper by \cite{Butler:04}. Their

1732: orbital model includes a linear drift in the velocities presumably

1733: caused by a more distant orbiting companion.  \cite{Demory:07} use the

1734: same velocities, also solving for a residual linear trend, and they

1735: additionally incorporate an accurate timing measurement of the transit

1736: and another of the secondary eclipse based on Spitzer

1737: observations. They report a $K$ semi-amplitude similar to that of

1738: \cite{Maness:07}, but give no uncertainty. We adopt the

1739: \cite{Maness:07} value here. For the light curve parameters we adopt a

1740: weighted average of the values reported by (or reconstructed from) the

1741: ground-based or Spitzer-based studies of \cite{Gillon:07b},

1742: \cite{Deming:07}, and \cite{Gillon:07c}: $a/R_{\star} = 13.34 \pm

1743: 0.58$, $R_p/R_{\star} = 0.0834 \pm 0.0007$, and $b = 0.848 \pm 0.010$.

1744: 

1745: 

1746: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1747: 

1748: \bibitem[Alibert et al.(2005)]{Alibert:05}

1749:  Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., Benz, W., \& Winisdoerffer, C. 2005,

1750:  \aap, 434, 343

1751: 

1752: \bibitem[Alonso et al.(2004)]{Alonso:04}

1753:  Alonso, R.\ et al.\ 2004, \apj, 613, L153

1754: 

1755: \bibitem[Andersen(1991)]{Andersen:91}

1756:  Andersen, J. 1991, \aapr, 3, 91

1757: 

1758: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007a)]{Bakos:07a}

1759:  Bakos, G.\ \'A.\ et al.\ 2007a, \apj, 656, 552

1760: 

1761: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007b)]{Bakos:07b}

1762:  Bakos, G.\ \'A.\ et al.\ 2007b, \apj, 670, 826

1763: 

1764: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007c)]{Bakos:07c}

1765:  Bakos, G.\ \'A.\ et al.\ 2007c, \apj, in press (arXiv:0710.1841)

1766: 

1767: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(1998)]{Baraffe:98}

1768:  Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P.\ H. 1998,

1769:  \aap, 337, 403

1770: 

1771: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(2004)]{Baraffe:04}

1772:  Baraffe, I., Selsis, F., Chabrier, G., Barman, T.\ S., Allard, F.,

1773:  Hauschildt, P.\ H., \& Lammer, H. 2004, \aap, 419, L13

1774: 

1775: \bibitem[Beatty et al.(2007)]{Beatty:07}

1776:  Beatty, T.\ G.\ et al.\ 2007, \apj, 663, 573

1777: 

1778: \bibitem[Blackwell \& Shallis(1977)]{Blackwell:77}

1779:  Blackwell, D.\ E., \& Shallis, M.\ J. 1977, \mnras, 180, 177

1780: 

1781: \bibitem[Blackwell et al.(1980)]{Blackwell:80}

1782:  Blackwell, D.\ E., Petford, A.\ D., \& Shallis, M.\ J. 1977, \aap,

1783:  82, 249

1784: 

1785: \bibitem[Bonfils et al.(2005)]{Bonfils:05}

1786:  Bonfils, X., Delfosse, X., Udry, S., Santos, N.\ C., Forveille, T.,

1787:  \& S\'egransan, D. 2005, \aap, 442, 635

1788: 

1789: \bibitem[Boss(2005)]{Boss:05}

1790:  Boss, A. 2005, \apj, 629, 535

1791: 

1792: \bibitem[Bouchy et al.(2004)]{Bouchy:04}

1793:  Bouchy, F., Pont, F., Santos, N.\ C., Melo, C., Mayor, M., Queloz,

1794:  D., Udry, S. 2004, \aap, 421, L13

1795: 

1796: \bibitem[Bouchy et al.(2005a)]{Bouchy:05a}

1797:  Bouchy, F.\ et al.\ 2005a, \aap, 444, L15

1798: 

1799: \bibitem[Bouchy et al.(2005b)]{Bouchy:05b}

1800:  Bouchy, F., Pont, F., Melo, C., Santos, N.\ C., Mayor, M., Queloz,

1801:  D., \& Udry, S. 2005b, \aap, 431, 1105

1802: 

1803: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2001)]{Brown:01}

1804:  Brown, T.\ M., Charbonneau, D., Gilliland, R.\ L., Noyes, R.\ W., \&

1805:  Burrows, A. 2001, \apj, 552, 699

1806: 

1807: \bibitem[Burke et al.(2007)]{Burke:07}

1808:  Burke, C.\ J.\ et al.\ 2007, \apj, in press (arXiv:0705.0003v2)

1809: 

1810: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2007)]{Burrows:07}

1811:  Burrows, A., Hubeny, I., Budaj, J., \& Hubbard, W.\ B. 2007, \apj,

1812:  661, 502

1813: 

1814: \bibitem[Butler et al.(2004)]{Butler:04}

1815:  Butler, R.\ P., Vogt, S.\ S., Marcy, G.\ W., Fischer, D., Wright, J.\

1816:  T., Henry, G.\ W., Laughlin, G., \& Lissauer, J.\ J. 2004, \apj, 617,

1817:  580

1818: 

1819: \bibitem[Butler et al.(2006)]{Butler:06}

1820:  Butler, R.\ P.\ et al.\ 2006, \apj, 646, 505

1821: 

1822: \bibitem[Buzzoni et al.(2001)]{Buzzoni:01}

1823:  Buzzoni, A., Chavez, M., Malagnini, M.\ L., \& Morossi, C. 2001,

1824:  \pasp, 13, 1365

1825: 

1826: \bibitem[Carpenter(2001)]{Carpenter:01}

1827:  Carpenter, J.\ M. 2001, \aj, 121, 2851

1828: 

1829: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2002)]{Charbonneau:02}

1830:  Charbonneau, D., Brown, T.\ M., Noyes, R.\ W., \& Gilliland, R.\

1831:  L. 2002, \apj, 568, 377

1832: 

1833: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2005)]{Charbonneau:05}

1834:  Charbonneau, D.\ et al.\ 2005, \apj, 626, 523

1835: 

1836: \bibitem[Casagrande et al.(2006)]{Casagrande:06}

1837:  Casagrande, L., Portinari, L., \& Flynn, C. 2006, \mnras, 373, 13

1838: 

1839: \bibitem[Chabrier \& Baraffe(1997)]{Chabrier:97}

1840:  Chabrier, G., \& Baraffe, I. 1997, \aap, 327, 1039

1841: 

1842: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2006)]{Charbonneau:06}

1843:  Charbonneau, D.\ et al.\ 2006, \apj, 636, 445

1844: 

1845: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2007)]{Charbonneau:07}

1846:  Charbonneau, D., Winn, J.\ N., Everett, M.\ E., Latham, D.\ W.,

1847:   Holman, M.\ J., Esquerdo, G.\ A., \& O'Donovan, F.\ T. 2007, \apj,

1848:   658, 1322

1849: 

1850: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{Claret:00}

1851:  Claret, A. 2000, \aap, 363, 1081

1852: 

1853: \bibitem[Claret(2004)]{Claret:04}

1854:  Claret, A. 2004, \aap, 428, 1001

1855: 

1856: \bibitem[Clausen et al.(1999)]{Clausen:99}

1857:  Clausen, J.\ V., Baraffe, I., Claret, A., \& VandenBerg, D.\ A. 1999,

1858: in Theory and Tests of Convection in Stellar Structure, eds.\ A.\

1859: Gim\'enez, E.\ F.\ Guinan, \& B.\ Montesinos, ASP Conf.\ Ser. 173 (San

1860: Francisco: ASP), 265

1861: 

1862: \bibitem[Collier Cameron et al.(2007)]{CollierCameron:07}

1863:  Collier Cameron, A.\ et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 375, 951

1864: 

1865: \bibitem[Delfosse et al.(2000)]{Delfosse:00}

1866:  Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., S\'egransan, D., Beuzit, J.-L., Udry,

1867: S., Perrier, C., \& Mayor, M. 2000, \aap, 364, 217

1868: 

1869: \bibitem[Deming et al.(2005)]{Deming:05}

1870:  Deming, D., Seager, S., Richardson, L.\ J., \& Harrington, J. 2005,

1871:  \nat, 434, 740

1872: 

1873: \bibitem[Deming et al.(2007)]{Deming:07}

1874:  Deming, D., Harrington, J., Laughlin, G., Seager, S., Navarro, S.\

1875: B., Bowman, W.\ C., \& Horning, K. 2007, \apj, 667, L199

1876: 

1877: \bibitem[Demarque et al.(2004)]{Demarque:04}

1878:   Demarque, P., Woo, J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., \& Yi, S.\ K. 2004, \apjs,

1879:  155, 667

1880: 

1881: \bibitem[Demory et al.(2007)]{Demory:07}

1882:  Demory, B.-O.\ et al.\ 2007, \aap, 475, 1125

1883: 

1884: \bibitem[Ehrenreich et al.(2007)]{Ehrenreich:07}

1885:  Ehrenreich, D., H\'ebrard, G., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Sing, D.\

1886: K., D\'esert, J.-M., Bouchy, F., Ferlet, R., \& Vidal-Madjar, A. 2007,

1887: \apj, 668, L179

1888: 

1889: \bibitem[Elias et al.(1982)]{Elias:82}

1890:  Elias, J.\ H., Frogel, J.\ A., Matthews, K., \& Neugebauer, G. 1982,

1891: \aj, 87, 1029

1892: 

1893: \bibitem[Fabrycky et al.(2007)]{Fabrycky:07}

1894:  Fabrycki, D.\ C., Johnson, E.\ T., \& Goodman, J. 2007, \apj, 665,

1895:  754

1896: 

1897: \bibitem[Fischer \& Valenti(2005)]{Fischer:05}

1898:  Fischer, D.\ A., \& Valenti, J. 2005, \apj, 622, 1102

1899: 

1900: \bibitem[Ford(2005)]{Ford:05}

1901:  Ford, E.\ B. 2005, \apj, 129, 1706

1902: 

1903: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2007)]{Fortney:07}

1904:  Fortney, J.\ J., Marley, M.\ S., \& Barnes, J.\ W. 2007, \apj, 659,

1905:  1661

1906: 

1907: \bibitem[Gaudi et al.(2005)]{Gaudi:05}

1908:  Gaudi, B.\ S., Seager, S., \& Mall\'en-Ornelas, G. 2005, \apj, 623,

1909:  472

1910: 

1911: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2006)]{Gillon:06}

1912:  Gillon, M., Pont, F., Moutou, C., Bouchy, F., Courbin, F., Sohy, S.,

1913:  \& Magain, P. 2006, \aap, 459, 249

1914: 

1915: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2007a)]{Gillon:07a}

1916:  Gillon, M.\ et al.\ 2007a, \aap, 466, 743

1917: 

1918: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2007b)]{Gillon:07b}

1919:  Gillon, M.\ et al.\ 2007b, \aap, 473, L13

1920: 

1921: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2007c)]{Gillon:07c}

1922:  Gillon, M.\ et al.\ 2007c, \aap, 471, L51

1923: 

1924: \bibitem[Guillot et al.(2006)]{Guillot:06}

1925:  Guillot, T., Santos, N.\ C., Pont, F., Iro, N., Melo, C., \& Ribas,

1926:  I. 2006, \aap, 453, L21

1927: 

1928: \bibitem[Girardi et al.(2000)]{Girardi:00}

1929:  Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., \& Chiosi, C. 2000, \aaps,

1930: 141, 371

1931: 

1932: \bibitem[Gonzalez \& Laws(2007)]{Gonzalez:07}

1933:  Gonzalez, G., \& Laws, C. 2007, \mnras, 378, 1141

1934: 

1935: \bibitem[Gonzalez et al.(2001)]{Gonzalez:01}

1936:  Gonzalez, G., Laws, C., Tyagi, S., \& Reddy, B.\ E. 2001, \aj, 121,

1937: 432

1938: 

1939: \bibitem[Gray(2005)]{Gray:05}

1940:  Gray, D.\ F. 2005, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar

1941: Photospheres, 3rd Edition, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

1942: 

1943: \bibitem[Gray et al.(2003)]{Gray:03}

1944:  Gray, R.\ O., Corbally, C.\ J., Garrison, R.\ F., McFadden, M.\ T.,

1945: \& Robinson, P.\ E. 2003, \aj, 126, 2048

1946: 

1947: \bibitem[Hansen \& Barman(2007)]{Hansen:07}

1948:  Hansen, B.\ M.\ S., \& Barman, T. 2007, \apj, submitted

1949:  (arXiv:0706.3052v1)

1950: 

1951: \bibitem[Heiter \& Luck(2003)]{Heiter:03}

1952:  Heiter, U., \& Luck, R.\ E. 2003, \aj, 126, 2015

1953: 

1954: \bibitem[Henry et al.(2000)]{Henry:00}

1955:  Henry, G., Marcy, G.\ W., Butler, R.\ P., \& Vogt, S.\ S. 2000, \apj,

1956:  529, 41

1957: 

1958: \bibitem[Henry \& McCarthy(1993)]{Henry:93}

1959:  Henry, T.\ J., \& McCarthy, D.\ W.\ Jr. 1993, \aj, 106, 773

1960: 

1961: \bibitem[Henry \& Winn(2007)]{Henry:07}

1962:  Henry, G.\ W., \& Winn, J.\ N. 2007, \aj, in press (arXiv:0709.2142)

1963: 

1964: \bibitem[H\o g et al.(2000)]{Hog:00}

1965:  H\o g, E.\ et al.\ 2000, \aap, 355, L27

1966: 

1967: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2006)]{Holman:06}

1968:  Holman, M.\ J.\ et al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 1715

1969: 

1970: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2007a)]{Holman:07a}

1971:  Holman, M.\ J.\ et al.\ 2007a, \apj, 655, 1103

1972: 

1973: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2007b)]{Holman:07b}

1974:  Holman, M.\ J.\ et al.\ 2007b, \apj, 664, 1185

1975: 

1976: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin(2004)]{Ida:04}

1977:  Ida, S., \& Lin, D.\ N.\ C. 2004, \apj, 616, 567

1978: 

1979: \bibitem[Kervella et al.(2004)]{Kervella:04}

1980:  Kervella, P., Th\'evenin, F., Di Folco, E., \& S\'egransan, D. 2004,

1981:  \aap, 426, 297

1982: 

1983: \bibitem[Knutson et al.(2007)]{Knutson:07}

1984:  Knutson, H.\ A.\ et al.\ 2007, \nat, 447, 183

1985: 

1986: \bibitem[Konacki et al.(2003a)]{Konacki:03a}

1987:  Konacki, M., Torres, G., Sasselov, D.\ D., \& Jha, S. 2003a, \apj,

1988:  597, 1076

1989: 

1990: \bibitem[Konacki et al.(2003b)]{Konacki:03b}

1991:  Konacki, M., Torres, G., Jha, S., \& Sasselov, D.\ D. 2003b, \nat,

1992: 421, 507

1993: 

1994: \bibitem[Konacki et al.(2005)]{Konacki:05}

1995:  Konacki, M., Torres, G., Sasselov, D.\ D., \& Jha, S. 2005, \apj,

1996: 624, 372

1997: 

1998: \bibitem[Konacki et al.(2004)]{Konacki:04}

1999:  Konacki, M.\ et al.\ 2004, \apj, 609, L37

2000: 

2001: \bibitem[Kov\'acs et al.(2007)]{Kovacs:07}

2002:  Kov\'acs, G.\ et al.\ 2007, \apj, 670, L41

2003: 

2004: \bibitem[Laughlin et al.(2005)]{Laughlin:05}

2005:  Laughlin, G., Wolf, A., Vanmunster, T., Bodenheimer, P., Fischer, D.,

2006: Marcy, G., Butler, P., \& Vogt, S. 2005, \apj, 621, 1072

2007: 

2008: \bibitem[Lastennet \& Valls-Gabaud(2002)]{Lastennet:02}

2009:  Lastennet, E., \& Valls-Gabaud, D. 2002, \aap, 396, 551

2010: 

2011: \bibitem[Lecavelier des Etangs et al.(2004)]{Lecavelier:04}

2012:  Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Vidal-Madjar, A., McConnell, J.\ C., \&

2013:  H\'ebrard, G. 2004, \aap, 418, L1

2014: 

2015: \bibitem[Leggett \& Hawkins(1988)]{Leggett:88}

2016:  Leggett, S.\ K., \& Hawkins, M.\ R.\ S. 1988, \mnras, 234, 1065

2017: 

2018: \bibitem[Livio \& Pringle(2003)]{Livio:03}

2019:  Livio, M., \& Pringle, J.\ E. 2003, \mnras, 346, L42

2020: 

2021: \bibitem[Loeillet et al.(2007)]{Loeillet:07}

2022:  Loeillet, B.\ et al.\ 2007, \aap, submitted (arXiv:0707.0679v1)

2023: 

2024: \bibitem[L\'opez-Morales \& Ribas(2005)]{Lopez-Morales:05}

2025:  L\'opez-Morales, M.\ \& Ribas, I. 2005, \apj, 631, 1120

2026: 

2027: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{Mandel:02}

2028:  Mandel, K., \& Agol, E. 2002, \apj, 580, L171

2029: 

2030: \bibitem[Mandushev et al.(2007)]{Mandushev:07}

2031:  Mandushev, G.\ et al.\ 2007, \apj, 667, L195

2032: 

2033: \bibitem[Maness et al.(2007)]{Maness:07}

2034:  Maness, H.\ L., Marcy, G.\ W., Ford, E.\ B., Hauschildt, P.\ H.,

2035: Shreve, A .\ T., Basri, G.\ B., Butler, R.\ P., \& Vogt, S.\ S. 2007,

2036: \pasp, 119, 90

2037: 

2038: \bibitem[Masana et al.(2006)]{Masana:06}

2039:  Masana, E., Jordi, C., \& Ribas, I. 2006, \aap, 450, 735

2040: 

2041: \bibitem[Mashonkina \& Gehren(2001)]{Mashonkina:01}

2042:  Mashonkina, L., \& Gehren, T. 2001, \aap, 376, 232

2043: 

2044: \bibitem[Mazeh et al.(2000)]{Mazeh:00}

2045:  Mazeh, T.\ et al.\ 2000, \apj, 532, L55

2046: 

2047: \bibitem[Mazeh et al.(2005)]{Mazeh:05}

2048:  Mazeh, T., Zucker, S., \& Pont, F. 2005, \mnras, 356, 995

2049: 

2050: \bibitem[McCullough et al.(2006)]{McCullough:06}

2051:  McCullough, P.\ R.\ et al.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 1228

2052: 

2053: \bibitem[Moutou et al.(2004)]{Moutou:04}

2054:  Moutou, C., Pont, F., Bouchy, F., \& Mayor, M. 2004, \aap, 424, L31

2055: 

2056: \bibitem[Naef et al.(2004)]{Naef:04}

2057:  Naef, D., Mayor, M., Beuzit, J.\ L., Perrier, C., Queloz, D., Sivan,

2058:  J.\ P., \& Udry, S. 2004, \aap, 414, 351

2059: 

2060: %\bibitem[Nordstr\"om et al.(2004)]{Nordstrom:04}

2061: % Nordstr\"om, B.\ et al.\ 2004, \aap, 418, 989

2062: 

2063: \bibitem[Noyes et al.(2007)]{Noyes:07}

2064:  Noyes, R.\ W.\ et al.\ 2007, \apj, in press (arXiv:0710:2894)

2065: 

2066: \bibitem[Ochsenbein et al.(2000)]{Ochsenbein:00}

2067:  Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P., \& Marcout, J. 2000, \aaps, 143, 23

2068: 

2069: \bibitem[O'Donovan et al.(2006)]{ODonovan:06}

2070:  O'Donovan, F.\ T.\ et al.\ 2006, \apj, 651, L61

2071: 

2072: \bibitem[O'Donovan et al.(2007)]{ODonovan:07}

2073:  O'Donovan, F.\ T.\ et al.\ 2007, \apj, 663, L37

2074: 

2075: \bibitem[Perryman et al.(1997)]{Perryman:97}

2076:  Perryman, M.\ A.\ C., et al. 1997, The \hip\ and Tycho Catalogues

2077: (ESA SP-1200; Noordwjik: ESA)

2078: 

2079: \bibitem[Pollack et al.(1996)]{Pollack:96}

2080:  Pollack, J.\ B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenhemier, P., Lissauer, J.\ J.,

2081:  Podolak, M., \& Greenzweig, Y. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62

2082: 

2083: \bibitem[Pols et al.(1997)]{Pols:97}

2084:  Pols, O.\ R., Tout, C.\ A., Schr\"oder, K.-P., Eggleton, P.\ P., \&

2085:  Manners, J. 1997, \mnras, 289, 869

2086: 

2087: \bibitem[Popper(1976)]{Popper:76}

2088:  Popper, D.\ M. 1976, \apss, 45, 391

2089: 

2090: \bibitem[Pont et al.(2007a)]{Pont:07a}

2091:  Pont, F.\ et al.\ 2007a, \aap, 465, 1069

2092: 

2093: \bibitem[Pont et al.(2007b)]{Pont:07b}

2094:  Pont, F.\ et al.\ 2007b, \aap, in press (arXiv:0707.1940)

2095: 

2096: \bibitem[Pont et al.(2004)]{Pont:04}

2097:  Pont, F., Bouchy, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N.\ C., Melo, C., Mayor,

2098: M., \& Udry, S. 2004, \aap, 426, L15

2099: 

2100: \bibitem[Popper(1997)]{Popper:97}

2101:  Popper, D.\ M. 1997, \aj, 114, 1195

2102: 

2103: \bibitem[Queloz et al.(2000)]{Queloz:00}

2104:  Queloz, D., Eggenberger, A., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Beuzit, J.\ L.,

2105:  Naef, D., Sivan, J.\ P., \& Udry, S. 2000, \aap, 359, L13

2106: 

2107: \bibitem[Ram\'\i rez \& Mel\'endez(2004)]{Ramirez:04}

2108:  Ram\'\i rez, I., \& Mel\'endez, J. 2004, \apj, 609, 417

2109: 

2110: \bibitem[Ram\'\i rez \& Mel\'endez(2005)]{Ramirez:05}

2111:  Ram\'\i rez, I., \& Mel\'endez, J. 2005, \apj, 626, 465

2112: 

2113: \bibitem[Ribas(2003)]{Ribas:03}

2114:  Ribas, I. 2003, \aap, 398, 239

2115: 

2116: \bibitem[Ribas(2006)]{Ribas:06}

2117:  Ribas, I. 2006, \apss, 304, 89

2118: 

2119: \bibitem[Sadakane et al.(2002)]{Sadakane:02}

2120:  Sadakane, K., Ohkubo, M., Takeda, Y., Sato, B., Kambe, E., \& Aoki,

2121: W. 2002, \pasj, 54, 911

2122: 

2123: \bibitem[Safronov(1972)]{Safronov:72}

2124:  Safronov, V.\ S. 1972, Evolution of the Protoplanetary Cloud and

2125:  Formation of the Earth and Planets (Israel Program for Scientific

2126:  Translation, Jerusalem)

2127: 

2128: \bibitem[Salasnich et al.(2000)]{Salasnich:00}

2129:  Salashich, B., Girardi, L., Weiss, A., \& Chiosi, C. 2000, \aap, 361,

2130: 1023

2131: 

2132: \bibitem[Santos et al.(2004)]{Santos:04}

2133:  Santos, N.\ C., Israelian, G., \& Mayor, M. 2004, \aap, 415, 1153

2134: 

2135: \bibitem[Santos et al.(2006)]{Santos:06}

2136:  Santos, N.\ C.\ et al.\ 2006, \aap, 450, 825

2137: 

2138: \bibitem[Sato et al.(2005)]{Sato:05}

2139:  Sato, B.\ et al.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 465

2140: 

2141: \bibitem[Seager \& Mall\'en-Ornelas(2003)]{Seager:03}

2142:  Seager, S., \& Mall\'en-Ornelas, G. 2003, \apj, 585, 1038

2143: 

2144: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{Schlegel:98}

2145:  Schlegel, D.\ J., Finkbeiner, D.\ P., \& Davis, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525

2146: 

2147: \bibitem[Southworth et al.(2007)]{Southworth:07}

2148:  Southworth, J., Wheatley, P.\ J., \& Sams, G. 2007, \mnras, 379, L11

2149: 

2150: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al.(2004)]{Sozzetti:04}

2151:  Sozzetti, A.\ et al.\ 2004, \apj, 616, L167

2152: 

2153: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al.(2006)]{Sozzetti:06}

2154:  Sozzetti, A.\ et al.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 428

2155: 

2156: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al.(2007)]{Sozzetti:07}

2157:  Sozzetti, A., Torres, G., Charbonneau, D., Latham, D.\ W., Holman,

2158: M.\ J., Winn, J.\ N., Laird, J.\ B., \& O'Donovan, F.\ T. 2007, \apj,

2159: 664, 1190

2160: 

2161: \bibitem[Stempels et al.(2007)]{Stempels:07}

2162:  Stempels, H.\ C., Collier Cameron, A., Hebb, L., Smalley, B., \&

2163: Frandsen, S. 2007, \mnras, 379, 773

2164: 

2165: \bibitem[Strassmeier \& Rice(2004)]{Strassmeier:04}

2166:  Strassmeier, K.\ G., \& Rice, J. 2004, IBVS No.\ 5566

2167: 

2168: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004)]{Tegmark:04}

2169:  Tegmark, M.\ et al.\ 2004, Phys.\ Rev.\ D, 69, 103501

2170: 

2171: \bibitem[Tinetti et al.(2007)]{Tinetti:07}

2172:  Tinetti, G.\ et al.\ 2007, \nat, 448, 169

2173: 

2174: \bibitem[Torres(2007)]{Torres:07b}

2175:  Torres, G. 2007, \apj, 671, L65

2176: 

2177: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2004)]{Torres:04}

2178:  Torres, G., Konacki, M., Sasselov, D.\ D., \& Jha, S. 2004, \apj,

2179: 609, 1071

2180: 

2181: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2007)]{Torres:07a}

2182:  Torres, G.\ et al.\ 2007, \apj, 666, L121

2183: 

2184: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2006)]{Torres:06}

2185:  Torres, G., Lacy, C.\ H.\ S., Marschall, L.\ A., Sheets, H.\ A., \&

2186: Mader, J.\ A. 2006, \apj, 640, 1018

2187: 

2188: \bibitem[Torres \& Ribas(2002)]{Torres:02}

2189:  Torres, G., \& Ribas, I. 2002, \apj, 567, 1140

2190: 

2191: \bibitem[Valenti \& Fischer(2005)]{Valenti:05}

2192:  Valenti, J.\ A., \& Fischer, D.\ A. 2005, \apjs, 159, 141

2193: 

2194: \bibitem[Valenti \& Piskunov(1996)]{Valenti:96}

2195:  Valenti, J.\ A., \& Piskunov, N.\ E. 1996, \aaps, 118, 595

2196: 

2197: \bibitem[Vidal-Madjar et al.(2004)]{Vidal-Madjar:04}

2198:  Vidal-Madjar, A.\ et al.\ 2004, \apj, 604, L69

2199: 

2200: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2006)]{Winn:06}

2201:  Winn, J.\ N.\ et al.\ 2006, \apj, 653, L69

2202: 

2203: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007b)]{Winn:07b}

2204:  Winn, J.\ N.\ et al.\ 2007b, \aj, 133, 1828

2205: 

2206: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007a)]{Winn:07a}

2207:  Winn, J.\ N.\ et al.\ 2007a, \apj, 665, L167

2208: 

2209: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007c)]{Winn:07c}

2210:  Winn, J.\ N., et al.\ 2007c, \aj, 134, 1707

2211: 

2212: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007e)]{Winn:07e}

2213:  Winn, J.\ N., Henry, G.\ W., Torres, G., \& Holman, M.\ J. 2007e,

2214:  \apj, in press (arXiv:0711.1888)

2215: 

2216: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007f)]{Winn:07f}

2217:  Winn, J.\ N., Holman, M.\ J., \& Fuentes, C.\ I. 2007f, \aj, 133, 11

2218: 

2219: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007d)]{Winn:07d}

2220:  Winn, J.\ N., Holman, M.\ J., \& Roussanova, A. 2007d, \apj, 657,

2221:  1098

2222: 

2223: \bibitem[Wolf et al.(2007)]{Wolf:07}

2224:  Wolf, A.\ S., Laughlin, G., Henry, G.\ W., Fischer, D.\ A., Marcy,

2225: G., Butler, P., \& Vogt, S. 2007, \apj, 667, 549

2226: 

2227: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2001)]{Yi:01}

2228:  Yi, S.\ K., Demarque, P., Kim, Y.-C., Lee, Y.-W., Ree, C.\ H.,

2229: Lejeune, T., \& Barnes, S. 2001, \apjs, 136, 417

2230: 

2231: \end{thebibliography}

2232: 

2233: \clearpage

2234: 

2235: \begin{deluxetable*}{clccccc}

2236: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2237: \tablewidth{0pc}

2238: %\rotate

2239: \tablecaption{Adopted atmospheric properties and orbital semi-amplitudes of the host stars.\label{tab:atmospheric}}

2240: \tablehead{\colhead {} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$V$} & \colhead{$T_{\rm eff}$} &

2241: \colhead{[Fe/H]} & \colhead{$\log g_{\rm spec}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$K$} \\

2242: \colhead{\#} & \colhead{~~~~~~~~~Name~~~~~~~~~} & \colhead{(mag)} &

2243: \colhead{(K)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(cgs)} & \colhead{(\ms)}}

2244: \startdata

2245: \phn1 & HD 149026\dotfill   & \phn$8.16~\pm~0.01$ &    6160~$\pm$~\phn50  &  $+$0.36~$\pm$~0.08   &  4.26~$\pm$~0.07  &   43.2~$\pm$~2.3\phn     \\

2246: \phn2 & HD 189733\tablenotemark{b}\dotfill   & \phn$7.67~\pm~0.03$ &    5040~$\pm$~\phn50  &  $-$0.03~$\pm$~0.08   &  4.53~$\pm$~0.14  &  205~$\pm$~6\phn\phn     \\

2247: \phn3 & HD 209458\dotfill   & \phn$7.65~\pm~0.01$ &    6065~$\pm$~\phn50  &  \phs0.00~$\pm$~0.05  &  4.42~$\pm$~0.04  &  84.67~$\pm$~0.70\phn    \\

2248: \phn4 & OGLE-TR-10\dotfill  & \phm{$i$~}14.93~$I$    &    5950~$\pm$~130     &  $+$0.15~$\pm$~0.15   &  4.50~$\pm$~0.10  &  80~$\pm$~17             \\

2249: \phn5 & OGLE-TR-56\dotfill  & \phm{$i$~}15.30~$I$    &    6050~$\pm$~100     &  $+$0.22~$\pm$~0.10   &  4.22~$\pm$~0.16  &  225~$\pm$~27\phn        \\

2250: \phn6 & OGLE-TR-111\dotfill & \phm{$i$~}15.55~$I$    &    5040~$\pm$~\phn80  &  $+$0.19~$\pm$~0.07   &  4.51~$\pm$~0.36  &  78~$\pm$~14             \\

2251: \phn7 & OGLE-TR-113\dotfill & \phm{$i$~}14.42~$I$    &    4790~$\pm$~\phn75  &  $+$0.09~$\pm$~0.08   &  4.51~$\pm$~0.22  &  267~$\pm$~34\phn        \\

2252: \phn8 & OGLE-TR-132\dotfill & \phm{$i$~}15.72~$I$    &    6210~$\pm$~\phn75  &  $+$0.37~$\pm$~0.10   &  4.51~$\pm$~0.27  &  167~$\pm$~18\phn        \\

2253: \phn9 & TrES-1\dotfill      & $11.76~\pm~0.01$    &    5230~$\pm$~\phn50  &  $+$0.02~$\pm$~0.05   &  4.50~$\pm$~0.04  &  115.2~$\pm$~6.2\phn\phn \\

2254: 10 & TrES-2\dotfill         & $11.41~\pm~0.01$    &    5850~$\pm$~\phn50  &  $-$0.15~$\pm$~0.10   &  4.4~$\pm$~0.1    &  181.3~$\pm$~2.6\phn\phn \\

2255: 11 & TrES-3\dotfill         & $12.40~\pm~0.01$    &    5650~$\pm$~\phn75  &  $-$0.19~$\pm$~0.08   &  4.4~$\pm$~0.1    &  378.4~$\pm$~9.9\phn\phn \\

2256: 12 & TrES-4\dotfill         & $11.59~\pm~0.01$    &    6200~$\pm$~\phn75  &  $+$0.14~$\pm$~0.09   &  4.0~$\pm$~0.1    &  97.4~$\pm$~7.2\phn      \\

2257: 13 & WASP-1\dotfill         & $11.68~\pm~0.05$    &    6110~$\pm$~\phn75  &  $+$0.26~$\pm$~0.08   &  4.28~$\pm$~0.16  &  115~$\pm$~11\phn        \\

2258: 14 & WASP-2\dotfill         & $11.88~\pm~0.10$    &    5200~$\pm$~200     &  $+$0.1~$\pm$~0.2     &  4.3~$\pm$~0.3    &  155~$\pm$~7\phn\phn     \\

2259: 15 & XO-1\dotfill           & $11.19~\pm~0.03$    &    5750~$\pm$~\phn75  &  $+$0.02~$\pm$~0.08   &  4.53~$\pm$~0.06  &  116~$\pm$~9\phn\phn     \\

2260: 16 & XO-2\dotfill           & $11.18~\pm~0.03$    &    5340~$\pm$~\phn80  &  $+$0.45~$\pm$~0.05   &  4.48~$\pm$~0.05  &  85~$\pm$~8\phn          \\

2261: 17 & HAT-P-1\dotfill        & $10.33~\pm~0.05$    &    5975~$\pm$~120     &  $+$0.13~$\pm$~0.08   &  4.45~$\pm$~0.15  &  60.3~$\pm$~2.1\phn      \\

2262: 18 & HAT-P-2\tablenotemark{c}\dotfill        & \phn$8.71~\pm~0.01$ &    6290~$\pm$~110     &  $+$0.12~$\pm$~0.08   &  4.22~$\pm$~0.14  &  968.6~$\pm$~8.3\phn\phn \\

2263: 19 & HAT-P-3\dotfill        & $11.55~\pm~0.05$    &    5185~$\pm$~\phn80  &  $+$0.27~$\pm$~0.08   &  4.61~$\pm$~0.08  &  89.1~$\pm$~2.0\phn      \\

2264: 20 & HAT-P-4\dotfill        & $11.22~\pm~0.03$    &    5860~$\pm$~\phn80  &  $+$0.24~$\pm$~0.08   &  4.36~$\pm$~0.11  &  81.1~$\pm$~1.9\phn      \\

2265: 21 & HAT-P-5\dotfill        & $12.00~\pm~0.06$    &    5960~$\pm$~100     &  $+$0.24~$\pm$~0.15   &  4.0~$\pm$~0.2    &   138~$\pm$~14\phn      \\

2266: 22 & HAT-P-6\dotfill        & $10.44~\pm~0.04$    &    6570~$\pm$~\phn80  &  $-$0.13~$\pm$~0.08   &  3.84~$\pm$~0.12  & 115.5~$\pm$~4.2\phn\phn  \\

2267: 23 & GJ 436\tablenotemark{d}\dotfill         & $10.67~\pm~0.01$    &    3350~$\pm$~300     &  $-$0.03~$\pm$~0.20   &  4.5~$\pm$~0.5    &  18.34~$\pm$~0.52\phn \\ [-2.0ex]

2268: \enddata

2269: 

2270: \tablenotetext{a}{These spectroscopically determined surface gravities

2271: are generally less reliable than those derived from our stellar

2272: evolution modeling (see Table~\ref{tab:stellar}), and are included

2273: here only for completeness.}

2274: \tablenotetext{b}{The large photometric uncertainty in $V$ for such a

2275: bright star is due to the variability of the object \citep[see,

2276: e.g.,][]{Winn:07b}.}

2277: \tablenotetext{c}{The orbit of the planet is not circular, and has $e

2278: = 0.5170_{-0.0010}^{+0.0017}$ and $\omega = 189.1_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$

2279: degrees \citep{Loeillet:07}.}

2280: \tablenotetext{d}{The orbit of the planet is not circular, and has $e

2281: = 0.14 \pm 0.01$ and $\omega = 350$ degrees \citep{Demory:07}. No

2282: uncertainty was reported for $\omega$. The orbital fit includes a

2283: linear trend presumably due to an outer orbiting companion.}

2284: \tablecomments{See Appendix for the sources of these

2285: determinations. Apparent magnitudes for the OGLE stars are in the $I$

2286: band rather than $V$, and have estimated uncertainties of 0.05 mag.}

2287: \end{deluxetable*}

2288: 

2289: \clearpage

2290: 

2291: \begin{deluxetable*}{cllcccccc}

2292: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2293: \tablewidth{0pc}

2294: %\rotate

2295: \tablecaption{Light curve parameters for transiting planet systems.\label{tab:lcfits}}

2296: \tablehead{\colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{Period} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} &

2297: \colhead{} & \colhead{$i$} & \colhead{$\rho_{\star}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Depth in $V$} \\

2298: \colhead{\#} & \colhead{~~~~~~~~~Name~~~~~~~~~} & \colhead{(days)} & \colhead{$R_p/R_{\star}$} &

2299: \colhead{$a/R_{\star}$} & \colhead{$b \equiv a\cos i/R_{\star}$} & \colhead{(deg)} & \colhead{(g~cm$^{-3}$)} & \colhead{(mmag)}}

2300: \startdata

2301: \phn1 & HD 149026\dotfill   & 2.87598    & $0.0491^{+0.0018}_{-0.0005}$     & $7.11^{+0.03}_{-0.81}$  & $0.00^{+0.33}_{-0.00}$       & $90.0^{+0.0}_{-3.0}$    &  $0.822_{-0.25}^{+0.011}$ & \phn3.0  \\ [+1.5ex]

2302: \phn2 & HD 189733\dotfill   & 2.218573   & $0.15463^{+0.00022}_{-0.00022}$  & $8.81^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$  & $0.680^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$    & $85.58^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ &  $2.629_{-0.053}^{+0.054}$ & 25.3  \\ [+1.5ex]

2303: \phn3 & HD 209458\dotfill   & 3.524746   & $0.12086^{+0.00010}_{-0.00010}$  & $8.76^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$  & $0.507^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$    & $86.71^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ &  $1.024_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$ & 17.0  \\ [+1.5ex]

2304: \phn4 & OGLE-TR-10\dotfill  & 3.101278   & $0.110^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$        & $8.07^{+0.44}_{-0.69}$  & $0.00^{+0.54}_{-0.00}$       & $90.0^{+0.0}_{-3.9}$    &  $1.03_{-0.24}^{+0.18}$ & 15.2  \\ [+1.5ex]

2305: \phn5 & OGLE-TR-56\dotfill  & 1.2119189  & $0.1027^{+0.0019}_{-0.0019}$     & $3.74^{+0.19}_{-0.15}$  & $0.817^{+0.016}_{-0.031}$    & $77.60^{+0.91}_{-1.0}$  &  $0.674_{-0.078}^{+0.11}$ & 10.0  \\ [+1.5ex]

2306: \phn6 & OGLE-TR-111\dotfill & 4.01610    & $0.1299^{+0.0010}_{-0.0013}$     & $12.09^{+0.45}_{-0.45}$ & $0.360^{+0.048}_{-0.17}$     & $88.25^{+0.83}_{-0.30}$ &  $2.07_{-0.22}^{+0.24}$ & 20.4  \\ [+1.5ex]

2307: \phn7 & OGLE-TR-113\dotfill & 1.4324752  & $0.1450^{+0.0016}_{-0.0005}$     & $6.38^{+0.03}_{-0.27}$  & $0.24^{+0.06}_{-0.18}$       & $87.80^{+1.6}_{-0.62}$  &  $2.395_{-0.29}^{+0.034}$ & 26.0  \\ [+1.5ex]

2308: \phn8 & OGLE-TR-132\dotfill & 1.689868   & $0.0932^{+0.0015}_{-0.0020}$     & $4.76^{+0.57}_{-0.30}$  & $0.560^{+0.046}_{-0.22}$     & $83.4^{+2.9}_{-1.3}$    &  $0.72_{-0.13}^{+0.29}$ & 10.0  \\ [+1.5ex]

2309: \phn9 & TrES-1\dotfill      & 3.030065   & $0.13578^{+0.00035}_{-0.00032}$  & $10.52^{+0.02}_{-0.18}$ & $0.00^{+0.19}_{-0.00}$       & $90.0^{+0.0}_{-1.1}$    &  $2.400_{-0.12}^{+0.014}$ & 23.2  \\ [+1.5ex]

2310: 10 & TrES-2\dotfill         & 2.47063    & $0.1253^{+0.0010}_{-0.0010}$     & $7.62^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$  & $0.8540^{+0.0062}_{-0.0062}$ & $83.57^{+0.14}_{-0.14}$ &  $1.372_{-0.059}^{+0.061}$ & 13.6  \\ [+1.5ex]

2311: 11 & TrES-3\dotfill         & 1.30619    & $0.1660^{+0.0024}_{-0.0024}$     & $6.06^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$  & $0.8277^{+0.0097}_{-0.0097}$ & $82.15^{+0.21}_{-0.21}$ &  $2.47_{-0.12}^{+0.12}$ & 24.6  \\ [+1.5ex]

2312: 12 & TrES-4\dotfill         & 3.553945   & $0.09903^{+0.00088}_{-0.00088}$  & $6.03^{+0.13}_{-0.13}$  & $0.755^{+0.015}_{-0.015}$    & $82.81^{+0.33}_{-0.33}$ &  $0.328_{-0.021}^{+0.022}$ & \phn9.8  \\ [+1.5ex]

2313: 13 & WASP-1\dotfill         & 2.519961   & $0.1025^{+0.0007}_{-0.0007}$     & $5.69^{+0.03}_{-0.21}$  & $0.00^{+0.27}_{-0.00}$       & $90.0^{+0.0}_{-2.9}$    &  $0.549_{-0.059}^{+0.009}$ & 13.2  \\ [+1.5ex]

2314: 14 & WASP-2\dotfill         & 2.152226   & $0.1310^{+0.0013}_{-0.0013}$     & $7.95^{+0.32}_{-0.20}$  & $0.724^{+0.017}_{-0.028}$    & $84.81^{+0.35}_{-0.27}$ &  $2.05_{-0.15}^{+0.26}$ & 17.7  \\ [+1.5ex]

2315: 15 & XO-1\dotfill           & 3.941534   & $0.1326^{+0.0004}_{-0.0005}$     & $11.55^{+0.03}_{-0.45}$ & $0.240^{+0.045}_{-0.14}$     & $88.81^{+0.70}_{-0.30}$ &  $1.877_{-0.21}^{+0.015}$ & 21.8  \\ [+1.5ex]

2316: 16 & XO-2\dotfill           & 2.615857   & $0.10395^{+0.00090}_{-0.00085}$  & $8.2^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$     & $0.158^{+0.11}_{-0.085}$     & $88.90^{+0.60}_{-0.75}$ &  $1.525_{-0.11}^{+0.057}$ & 13.5  \\ [+1.5ex]

2317: 17 & HAT-P-1\dotfill        & 4.46543    & $0.1124^{+0.0007}_{-0.0007}$     & $10.47^{+0.23}_{-0.23}$ & $0.712^{+0.017}_{-0.017}$    & $86.11^{+0.18}_{-0.18}$ &  $1.089_{-0.070}^{+0.074}$ & 13.1  \\ [+1.5ex]

2318: 18 & HAT-P-2\dotfill        & 5.633320   & $0.06840^{+0.00087}_{-0.00073}$  & $10.12^{+0.03}_{-0.99}$ & $0.00^{+0.44}_{-0.00}$       & $90.0^{+0.0}_{-3.4}$    &  $0.618_{-0.16}^{+0.006}$ & \phn5.9  \\ [+1.5ex]

2319: 19 & HAT-P-3\dotfill        & 2.899703   & $0.1109^{+0.0025}_{-0.0022}$     & $10.59^{+0.66}_{-0.84}$ & $0.51^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$       & $87.24^{+0.69}_{-0.69}$ &  $2.67_{-0.59}^{+0.54}$ & 14.3  \\ [+1.5ex]

2320: 20 & HAT-P-4\dotfill        & 3.056536   & $0.08200^{+0.00044}_{-0.00044}$  & $6.04^{+0.03}_{-0.18}$  & $0.01^{+0.23}_{-0.01}$       & $89.91^{+0.09}_{-2.2}$  &  $0.446_{-0.039}^{+0.007}$ & \phn8.5  \\ [+1.5ex]

2321: 21 & HAT-P-5\dotfill        & 2.788491   & $0.1106^{+0.0006}_{-0.0006}$     & $7.50^{+0.19}_{-0.19}$  & $0.425^{+0.045}_{-0.050}$    & $86.75^{+0.44}_{-0.44}$ &  $1.027_{-0.076}^{+0.081}$ & 14.6  \\ [+1.5ex]

2322: 22 & HAT-P-6\dotfill        & 3.852985   & $0.09338^{+0.00053}_{-0.00053}$  & $7.69^{+0.22}_{-0.22}$  & $0.602^{+0.030}_{-0.030}$    & $85.51^{+0.35}_{-0.35}$ &  $0.580_{-0.048}^{+0.052}$ & \phn9.7  \\ [+1.5ex]

2323: 23 & GJ 436\dotfill         & 2.64385    & $0.0834^{+0.0007}_{-0.0007}$     & $13.34^{+0.58}_{-0.58}$ & $0.848^{+0.010}_{-0.010}$    & $86.36^{+0.16}_{-0.17}$ &  $6.43_{-0.80}^{+0.87}$ & \phn6.5  \\ [-1.0ex]

2324: \enddata

2325: 

2326: \tablenotetext{a}{Stellar mean density computed directly from

2327: $a/R_{\star}$ and $P$ using $\rho_{\star} = {3\pi\over G

2328: P^2}(a/R_{\star})^3$ \citep[see][]{Winn:07e}, ignoring the very

2329: small corrective term due to the planet.}

2330: 

2331: \end{deluxetable*}

2332: 

2333: \clearpage

2334: 

2335: \begin{deluxetable*}{clcccccc}

2336: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2337: \tablewidth{0pc}

2338: %\rotate

2339: \tablecaption{Inferred properties of the host stars from stellar evolution models.\label{tab:stellar}}

2340: \tablehead{\colhead {} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$M_{\star}$} & \colhead{$R_{\star}$} &

2341: \colhead{$\log g_{\star}$} & \colhead{$L_{\star}$} & \colhead{$M_V$}& \colhead{Age} \\

2342: \colhead{\#} & \colhead{~~~~~~~~~Name~~~~~~~~~} & \colhead{(M$_{\sun}$)} &

2343: \colhead{(R$_{\sun}$)} & \colhead{(cgs)} & \colhead{(L$_{\sun}$)} & \colhead{(mag)}

2344: & \colhead{(Gyr)}}

2345: \startdata

2346: \phn1 & HD 149026\dotfill   & $1.294_{-0.050}^{+0.060}$ & $1.368_{-0.083}^{+0.12}$  & $4.278_{-0.063}^{+0.045}$ & $2.43_{-0.35}^{+0.53}$    & $3.80_{-0.24}^{+0.18}$    & $ 1.9_{-0.9}^{+0.9}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2347: \phn2 & HD 189733\dotfill   & $0.806_{-0.048}^{+0.048}$ & $0.756_{-0.018}^{+0.018}$ & $4.587_{-0.015}^{+0.014}$ & $0.331_{-0.028}^{+0.029}$ & $6.20_{-0.10}^{+0.11}$    & $ 6.8_{-4.4}^{+5.2}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2348: \phn3 & HD 209458\dotfill   & $1.119_{-0.033}^{+0.033}$ & $1.155_{-0.016}^{+0.014}$ & $4.361_{-0.008}^{+0.007}$ & $1.622_{-0.10}^{+0.097}$  & $4.273_{-0.069}^{+0.078}$ & $ 3.1_{-0.7}^{+0.8}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2349: \phn4 & OGLE-TR-10\dotfill  & $1.14_{-0.12}^{+0.10}$    & $1.17_{-0.11}^{+0.13}$    & $4.358_{-0.082}^{+0.064}$ & $1.54_{-0.38}^{+0.52}$    & $4.34_{-0.35}^{+0.33}$    & $ 3.2_{-3.1}^{+4.0}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2350: \phn5 & OGLE-TR-56\dotfill  & $1.228_{-0.078}^{+0.072}$ & $1.363_{-0.086}^{+0.089}$ & $4.258_{-0.043}^{+0.043}$ & $2.24_{-0.40}^{+0.48}$    & $3.92_{-0.23}^{+0.23}$    & $ 3.2_{-1.3}^{+1.0}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2351: \phn6 & OGLE-TR-111\dotfill & $0.852_{-0.052}^{+0.058}$ & $0.831_{-0.040}^{+0.045}$ & $4.529_{-0.042}^{+0.038}$ & $0.401_{-0.061}^{+0.072}$ & $5.99_{-0.20}^{+0.20}$    & $ 8.8_{-6.6}^{+5.2}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2352: \phn7 & OGLE-TR-113\dotfill & $0.779_{-0.015}^{+0.017}$ & $0.774_{-0.011}^{+0.020}$ & $4.552_{-0.017}^{+0.009}$ & $0.296_{-0.018}^{+0.021}$ & $6.400_{-0.085}^{+0.099}$ & $13.2_{-2.4}^{+0.8}$\phn \\ [+1.5ex]

2353: \phn8 & OGLE-TR-132\dotfill & $1.305_{-0.067}^{+0.075}$ & $1.32_{-0.12}^{+0.17}$    & $4.313_{-0.090}^{+0.063}$ & $2.35_{-0.49}^{+0.76}$    & $3.84_{-0.33}^{+0.26}$    & $ 1.2_{-1.1}^{+1.5}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2354: \phn9 & TrES-1\dotfill      & $0.878_{-0.040}^{+0.038}$ & $0.807_{-0.016}^{+0.017}$ & $4.567_{-0.015}^{+0.012}$ & $0.438_{-0.033}^{+0.035}$ & $5.847_{-0.095}^{+0.097}$ & $ 3.7_{-2.8}^{+3.4}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2355: 10 & TrES-2\dotfill         & $0.983_{-0.063}^{+0.059}$ & $1.003_{-0.033}^{+0.033}$ & $4.427_{-0.021}^{+0.019}$ & $1.06_{-0.10}^{+0.10}$    & $4.77_{-0.11}^{+0.12}$    & $ 5.0_{-2.1}^{+2.7}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2356: 11 & TrES-3\dotfill         & $0.915_{-0.031}^{+0.021}$ & $0.812_{-0.025}^{+0.014}$ & $4.581_{-0.012}^{+0.017}$ & $0.592_{-0.047}^{+0.065}$ & $5.46_{-0.13}^{+0.11}$    & $ 0.6_{-0.4}^{+2.0}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2357: 12 & TrES-4\dotfill         & $1.394_{-0.056}^{+0.060}$ & $1.816_{-0.062}^{+0.065}$ & $4.064_{-0.021}^{+0.021}$ & $4.39_{-0.48}^{+0.53}$    & $3.16_{-0.14}^{+0.13}$    & $ 2.9_{-0.4}^{+0.4}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2358: 13 & WASP-1\dotfill         & $1.301_{-0.047}^{+0.049}$ & $1.517_{-0.045}^{+0.052}$ & $4.190_{-0.022}^{+0.020}$ & $2.88_{-0.30}^{+0.36}$    & $3.63_{-0.14}^{+0.13}$    & $ 3.0_{-0.6}^{+0.6}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2359: 14 & WASP-2\dotfill         & $0.89_{-0.12}^{+0.12}$    & $0.840_{-0.065}^{+0.062}$ & $4.537_{-0.046}^{+0.035}$ & $0.47_{-0.13}^{+0.16}$    & $5.78_{-0.36}^{+0.40}$    & $ 5.6_{-5.6}^{+8.4}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2360: 15 & XO-1\dotfill           & $1.027_{-0.061}^{+0.057}$ & $0.934_{-0.032}^{+0.037}$ & $4.509_{-0.027}^{+0.018}$ & $0.86_{-0.10}^{+0.12}$    & $5.02_{-0.16}^{+0.14}$    & $ 1.0_{-0.9}^{+3.1}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2361: 16 & XO-2\dotfill           & $0.974_{-0.034}^{+0.032}$ & $0.971_{-0.026}^{+0.027}$ & $4.452_{-0.022}^{+0.020}$ & $0.689_{-0.074}^{+0.082}$ & $5.33_{-0.14}^{+0.14}$    & $ 5.8_{-2.3}^{+2.8}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2362: 17 & HAT-P-1\dotfill        & $1.133_{-0.079}^{+0.075}$ & $1.135_{-0.048}^{+0.048}$ & $4.382_{-0.030}^{+0.027}$ & $1.48_{-0.25}^{+0.25}$    & $4.38_{-0.19}^{+0.21}$    & $ 2.7_{-2.0}^{+2.5}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2363: 18 & HAT-P-2\dotfill        & $1.308_{-0.078}^{+0.088}$ & $1.506_{-0.096}^{+0.13}$  & $4.199_{-0.053}^{+0.043}$ & $3.20_{-0.58}^{+0.82}$    & $3.50_{-0.27}^{+0.24}$    & $ 2.6_{-0.8}^{+0.8}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2364: 19 & HAT-P-3\dotfill        & $0.928_{-0.054}^{+0.044}$ & $0.833_{-0.044}^{+0.034}$ & $4.564_{-0.032}^{+0.032}$ & $0.449_{-0.064}^{+0.071}$ & $5.84_{-0.19}^{+0.21}$    & $ 1.5_{-1.4}^{+5.4}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2365: 20 & HAT-P-4\dotfill        & $1.248_{-0.12}^{+0.070}$  & $1.596_{-0.075}^{+0.060}$ & $4.127_{-0.027}^{+0.019}$ & $2.70_{-0.36}^{+0.37}$    & $3.74_{-0.16}^{+0.17}$    & $ 4.6_{-1.0}^{+2.2}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2366: 21 & HAT-P-5\dotfill        & $1.157_{-0.081}^{+0.043}$ & $1.165_{-0.052}^{+0.046}$ & $4.368_{-0.031}^{+0.025}$ & $1.54_{-0.22}^{+0.24}$    & $4.33_{-0.17}^{+0.19}$    & $ 2.6_{-1.4}^{+2.1}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2367: 22 & HAT-P-6\dotfill        & $1.290_{-0.066}^{+0.064}$ & $1.463_{-0.063}^{+0.069}$ & $4.218_{-0.030}^{+0.027}$ & $3.59_{-0.46}^{+0.50}$    & $3.36_{-0.16}^{+0.16}$    & $ 2.3_{-0.6}^{+0.5}$ \\ [+1.5ex]

2368: 23 & GJ 436\tablenotemark{a}\dotfill         & $0.452_{-0.012}^{+0.014}$ & $0.464_{-0.011}^{+0.009}$ & $4.843_{-0.011}^{+0.018}$ & $0.0260_{-0.0017}^{+0.0014}$ & $10.244_{-0.082}^{+0.082}$ & $6.0_{-5.0}^{+4.0}$ \\ [-1.0ex]

2369: \enddata

2370: 

2371: \tablenotetext{a}{The value of $M_V$ is biased due to missing opacity

2372: sources in the models (see text), and the nominal age is only

2373: indicative since it is essentially unconstrained for this unevolved M

2374: dwarf.}

2375: 

2376: \end{deluxetable*}

2377: 

2378: \clearpage

2379: 

2380: \begin{deluxetable*}{clccccc}

2381: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2382: \tablewidth{0pc}

2383: %\rotate

2384: \tablecaption{Angular diameters and parallaxes for transiting planet hosts.\label{tab:phi}}

2385: 

2386: \tablehead{\colhead {} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$\phi_{\rm mod}$} & \colhead{$\phi_{\rm SB}$} &

2387: \colhead{Distance} & \colhead{$\pi_{\rm mod}$} & \colhead{$\pi_{\rm HIP}$} \\

2388: \colhead{\#} & \colhead{~~~~~~~~~Name~~~~~~~~~} & \colhead{(mas)} &

2389: \colhead{(mas)} & \colhead{(pc)} & \colhead{(mas)} & \colhead{(mas)}

2390: }

2391: \startdata

2392: \phn1 & HD 149026\dotfill   &  0.171~$\pm$~0.021   &  0.1747~$\pm$~0.0021 & 74.4~$\pm$~7.2\phn       &  13.43~$\pm$~1.29\phn & 12.68~$\pm$~0.70\phn \\

2393: \phn2 & HD 189733\dotfill   &  0.357~$\pm$~0.020   &  0.3609~$\pm$~0.0055 & 19.7~$\pm$~1.0\phn       &  50.70~$\pm$~2.55\phn & 51.94~$\pm$~0.87\phn \\

2394: \phn3 & HD 209458\dotfill   &  0.2269~$\pm$~0.0083 &  0.2211~$\pm$~0.0038 & 47.4~$\pm$~1.6\phn       &  21.12~$\pm$~0.72\phn & 21.24~$\pm$~1.00\phn \\

2395: \phn4 & OGLE-TR-10\dotfill  &  \nodata             &  \nodata             &   \nodata                &  \nodata              & \nodata          \\

2396: \phn5 & OGLE-TR-56\dotfill  &  \nodata             &  \nodata             &   \nodata                &  \nodata              & \nodata          \\

2397: \phn6 & OGLE-TR-111\dotfill &  \nodata             &  \nodata             &   \nodata                &  \nodata              & \nodata          \\

2398: \phn7 & OGLE-TR-113\dotfill &  \nodata             &  \nodata             &   \nodata                &  \nodata              & \nodata          \\

2399: \phn8 & OGLE-TR-132\dotfill &  \nodata             &  \nodata             &   \nodata                &  \nodata              & \nodata          \\

2400: \phn9 & TrES-1\dotfill      &  0.0493~$\pm$~0.0024 &  0.0487~$\pm$~0.0006 &  152.3~$\pm$~6.7\phn\phn &   6.57~$\pm$~0.29     & \nodata          \\

2401: 10 & TrES-2\dotfill         &  0.0439~$\pm$~0.0028 &  0.0451~$\pm$~0.0007 &  213~$\pm$~11\phn        &   4.70~$\pm$~0.25     & \nodata          \\

2402: 11 & TrES-3\dotfill         &  0.0309~$\pm$~0.0018 &  0.0339~$\pm$~0.0004 &  245~$\pm$~13\phn        &   4.08~$\pm$~0.22     & \nodata          \\

2403: 12 & TrES-4\dotfill         &  0.0349~$\pm$~0.0025 &  0.0352~$\pm$~0.0005 &  485~$\pm$~31\phn        &   2.06~$\pm$~0.13     & \nodata          \\

2404: 13 & WASP-1\dotfill         &  0.0346~$\pm$~0.0026 &  0.0359~$\pm$~0.0005 &  408~$\pm$~27\phn        &   2.45~$\pm$~0.16     & \nodata          \\

2405: 14 & WASP-2\dotfill         &  0.0471~$\pm$~0.0096 &  0.0560~$\pm$~0.0013 &  166~$\pm$~30\phn        &   6.03~$\pm$~1.10     & \nodata          \\

2406: 15 & XO-1\dotfill           &  0.0506~$\pm$~0.0041 &  0.0531~$\pm$~0.0007 &  172~$\pm$~12\phn        &   5.82~$\pm$~0.42     & \nodata          \\

2407: 16 & XO-2\dotfill           &  0.0610~$\pm$~0.0045 &  0.0609~$\pm$~0.0009 &  148~$\pm$~10\phn        &   6.75~$\pm$~0.46     & \nodata          \\

2408: 17 & HAT-P-1\dotfill        &  0.0680~$\pm$~0.0071 &  0.0699~$\pm$~0.0011 &  155~$\pm$~15\phn        &   6.44~$\pm$~0.61     & \nodata          \\

2409: 18 & HAT-P-2\dotfill        &  0.127~$\pm$~0.018   &  0.1169~$\pm$~0.0016 &  110~$\pm$~13\phn        &   9.07~$\pm$~1.06     &  7.39~$\pm$~0.88 \\

2410: 19 & HAT-P-3\dotfill        &  0.0559~$\pm$~0.0059 &  0.0594~$\pm$~0.0011 &  139~$\pm$~13\phn        &   7.21~$\pm$~0.68     & \nodata          \\

2411: 20 & HAT-P-4\dotfill        &  0.0474~$\pm$~0.0042 &  0.0457~$\pm$~0.0007 &  314~$\pm$~24\phn        &   3.19~$\pm$~0.24     & \nodata          \\

2412: 21 & HAT-P-5\dotfill        &  0.0317~$\pm$~0.0031 &  0.0334~$\pm$~0.0005 &  342~$\pm$~30\phn        &   2.93~$\pm$~0.26     & \nodata          \\

2413: 22 & HAT-P-6\dotfill        &  0.0522~$\pm$~0.0046 &  0.0534~$\pm$~0.0008 &  261~$\pm$~20\phn        &   3.83~$\pm$~0.29     & \nodata          \\

2414: 23 & GJ 436\dotfill         &  \nodata             &  \nodata             &  \nodata                 &   \nodata             & 97.73~$\pm$~2.27\phn \\ [-2.0ex]

2415: \enddata

2416: \tablecomments{$\phi_{\rm mod}$ and $\phi_{\rm SB}$ are the angular

2417: diameters derived using eq.\,(\ref{eq:modelphi}) and

2418: eq.\,(\ref{eq:kervella}), respectively. The distance and parallax are

2419: computed from $M_V$ (Table~\ref{tab:stellar}) and $V$

2420: (Table~\ref{tab:atmospheric}), ignoring extinction.}

2421: \end{deluxetable*}

2422: 

2423: \clearpage

2424: 

2425: \begin{landscape}

2426: \begin{deluxetable*}{clcccccccc}

2427: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2428: \tablewidth{0pc}

2429: \tablecaption{Properties of extrasolar transiting planets.\label{tab:planetary}}

2430: \tablehead{

2431: \colhead {} & 

2432: \colhead{} & 

2433: \colhead{$M_p$} & 

2434: \colhead{$R_p$} &

2435: \colhead{$\log g_p$} & 

2436: \colhead{$\rho_p$} & 

2437: \colhead{$a$}& 

2438: \colhead{} & 

2439: \colhead{$T_{\rm eq}$} &

2440: \colhead{$M_{\rm Z}$} \\

2441: \colhead{\#} & 

2442: \colhead{~~~~~~~~~Name~~~~~~~~~} & 

2443: \colhead{(M$_{\rm Jup}$)} &

2444: \colhead{(R$_{\rm Jup}$)} & 

2445: \colhead{(cgs)} & 

2446: \colhead{(g cm$^{-3}$)} & 

2447: \colhead{(AU)} & 

2448: \colhead{$\Theta$} & 

2449: \colhead{(K)} &

2450: \colhead{(M$_{\earth}$)}

2451: }

2452: \startdata

2453:  1 & HD 149026\dotfill   & $0.359_{-0.021}^{+0.022}$ & $0.654_{-0.045}^{+0.060}$ & $3.360_{-0.088}^{+0.044}$ & $ 1.59_{-0.36}^{+0.38}$    & $0.04313_{-0.00056}^{+0.00065}$ & $0.0384_{-0.0037}^{+0.0028}$    &  $1634_{ -23}^{+90}$ & $68_{-12}^{+10}$   \\ [+1.5ex]

2454:  2 & HD 189733\dotfill   & $1.144_{-0.056}^{+0.057}$ & $1.138_{-0.027}^{+0.027}$ & $3.340_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$ & $ 0.963_{-0.079}^{+0.088}$ & $0.03099_{-0.00063}^{+0.00060}$ & $0.0772_{-0.0027}^{+0.0028}$    &  $1201_{ -12}^{+13}$ & 0--35              \\ [+1.5ex]

2455:  3 & HD 209458\dotfill   & $0.685_{-0.014}^{+0.015}$ & $1.359_{-0.019}^{+0.016}$ & $2.963_{-0.005}^{+0.005}$ & $ 0.338_{-0.014}^{+0.016}$ & $0.04707_{-0.00047}^{+0.00046}$ & $0.04234_{-0.00057}^{+0.00058}$ &  $1449_{ -12}^{+12}$ & 0                  \\ [+1.5ex]

2456:  4 & OGLE-TR-10\dotfill  & $0.62_{-0.14}^{+0.14}$    & $1.25_{-0.12}^{+0.14}$    & $3.00_{-0.13}^{+0.11}$    & $ 0.40_{-0.12}^{+0.18}$    & $0.0434_{-0.0015}^{+0.0013}$    & $0.0386_{-0.0085}^{+0.0089}$    &  $1481_{ -55}^{+71}$ & 0--25              \\ [+1.5ex]

2457:  5 & OGLE-TR-56\dotfill  & $1.39_{-0.17}^{+0.18}$    & $1.363_{-0.090}^{+0.092}$ & $3.264_{-0.069}^{+0.066}$ & $ 0.68_{-0.14}^{+0.18}$    & $0.02383_{-0.00051}^{+0.00046}$ & $0.0393_{-0.0050}^{+0.0052}$    &  $2212_{ -63}^{+61}$ & 0                  \\ [+1.5ex]

2458:  6 & OGLE-TR-111\dotfill & $0.55_{-0.10}^{+0.10}$    & $1.051_{-0.052}^{+0.057}$ & $3.088_{-0.092}^{+0.080}$ & $ 0.59_{-0.13}^{+0.16}$    & $0.04689_{-0.00097}^{+0.0010}$  & $0.057_{-0.011}^{+0.011}$       &  $1025_{ -25}^{+26}$ & $10_{-10}^{+20}$   \\ [+1.5ex]

2459:  7 & OGLE-TR-113\dotfill & $1.26_{-0.16}^{+0.16}$    & $1.093_{-0.019}^{+0.028}$ & $3.419_{-0.065}^{+0.057}$ & $ 1.20_{-0.16}^{+0.17}$    & $0.02289_{-0.00015}^{+0.00016}$ & $0.0677_{-0.0087}^{+0.0086}$    &  $1341_{ -25}^{+30}$ & $25_{-25}^{+10}$   \\ [+1.5ex]

2460:  8 & OGLE-TR-132\dotfill & $1.18_{-0.13}^{+0.14}$    & $1.20_{-0.11}^{+0.15}$    & $3.276_{-0.084}^{+0.10}$  & $ 0.85_{-0.26}^{+0.32}$    & $0.03035_{-0.00053}^{+0.00057}$ & $0.0440_{-0.0058}^{+0.0068}$    &  $2013_{-108}^{+77}$ & $5_{-5}^{+85}$     \\ [+1.5ex]

2461:  9 & TrES-1\dotfill      & $0.752_{-0.046}^{+0.047}$ & $1.067_{-0.021}^{+0.022}$ & $3.220_{-0.026}^{+0.024}$ & $ 0.769_{-0.064}^{+0.069}$ & $0.03925_{-0.00060}^{+0.00056}$ & $0.0634_{-0.0036}^{+0.0036}$    &  $1140_{ -12}^{+13}$ & $20_{-20}^{+20}$   \\ [+1.5ex]

2462: 10 & TrES-2\dotfill      & $1.200_{-0.053}^{+0.051}$ & $1.224_{-0.041}^{+0.041}$ & $3.298_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$ & $ 0.813_{-0.083}^{+0.096}$ & $0.03558_{-0.00077}^{+0.00070}$ & $0.0709_{-0.0021}^{+0.0022}$    &  $1498_{ -17}^{+17}$ & 0                  \\ [+1.5ex]

2463: 11 & TrES-3\dotfill      & $1.938_{-0.063}^{+0.062}$ & $1.312_{-0.041}^{+0.033}$ & $3.452_{-0.022}^{+0.022}$ & $ 1.065_{-0.085}^{+0.11}$  & $0.02272_{-0.00026}^{+0.00017}$ & $0.0738_{-0.0026}^{+0.0026}$    &  $1623_{ -25}^{+26}$ & 0--30              \\ [+1.5ex]

2464: 12 & TrES-4\dotfill      & $0.920_{-0.072}^{+0.073}$ & $1.751_{-0.062}^{+0.064}$ & $2.872_{-0.039}^{+0.037}$ & $ 0.213_{-0.027}^{+0.030}$ & $0.05092_{-0.00069}^{+0.00072}$ & $0.0384_{-0.0030}^{+0.0030}$    &  $1785_{ -29}^{+29}$ & 0                  \\ [+1.5ex]

2465: 13 & WASP-1\dotfill      & $0.918_{-0.090}^{+0.091}$ & $1.514_{-0.047}^{+0.052}$ & $3.010_{-0.050}^{+0.044}$ & $ 0.328_{-0.043}^{+0.048}$ & $0.03957_{-0.00048}^{+0.00049}$ & $0.0374_{-0.0037}^{+0.0037}$    &  $1811_{ -27}^{+34}$ & 0                  \\ [+1.5ex]

2466: 14 & WASP-2\dotfill      & $0.915_{-0.093}^{+0.090}$ & $1.071_{-0.083}^{+0.080}$ & $3.287_{-0.033}^{+0.038}$ & $ 0.92_{-0.20}^{+0.27}$    & $0.03138_{-0.00154}^{+0.00130}$ & $0.0596_{-0.0041}^{+0.0046}$    &  $1304_{ -54}^{+54}$ & $20_{-15}^{+85}$   \\ [+1.5ex]

2467: 15 & XO-1\dotfill        & $0.918_{-0.078}^{+0.081}$ & $1.206_{-0.042}^{+0.047}$ & $3.211_{-0.043}^{+0.037}$ & $ 0.650_{-0.086}^{+0.096}$ & $0.04928_{-0.00099}^{+0.00089}$ & $0.0744_{-0.0061}^{+0.0061}$    &  $1196_{ -19}^{+23}$ & 0--20              \\ [+1.5ex]

2468: 16 & XO-2\dotfill        & $0.566_{-0.055}^{+0.055}$ & $0.983_{-0.028}^{+0.029}$ & $3.168_{-0.047}^{+0.043}$ & $ 0.741_{-0.091}^{+0.10}$  & $0.03684_{-0.00043}^{+0.00040}$ & $0.0438_{-0.0042}^{+0.0042}$    &  $1319_{ -23}^{+24}$ & $30_{-15}^{+15}$   \\ [+1.5ex]

2469: 17 & HAT-P-1\dotfill     & $0.532_{-0.030}^{+0.030}$ & $1.242_{-0.053}^{+0.053}$ & $2.931_{-0.025}^{+0.025}$ & $ 0.345_{-0.044}^{+0.053}$ & $0.0553_{-0.0013}^{+0.0012}$    & $0.0418_{-0.0019}^{+0.0020}$    &  $1306_{ -30}^{+30}$ & 0                  \\ [+1.5ex]

2470: 18 & HAT-P-2\dotfill     & $8.72_{-0.36}^{+0.39}$    & $1.003_{-0.066}^{+0.084}$ & $4.370_{-0.078}^{+0.019}$ & $10.7_{-2.3}^{+2.5}$       & $0.0679_{-0.0014}^{+0.0015}$    & $0.941_{-0.075}^{+0.035}$       &  $1398_{ -33}^{+61}$ & \nodata            \\ [+1.5ex]

2471: 19 & HAT-P-3\dotfill     & $0.596_{-0.026}^{+0.024}$ & $0.899_{-0.049}^{+0.043}$ & $3.310_{-0.072}^{+0.059}$ & $ 1.02_{-0.14}^{+0.19}$    & $0.03882_{-0.00077}^{+0.00060}$ & $0.0585_{-0.0048}^{+0.0044}$    &  $1127_{ -39}^{+49}$ & $70_{-35}^{+25}$   \\ [+1.5ex]

2472: 20 & HAT-P-4\dotfill     & $0.671_{-0.044}^{+0.033}$ & $1.274_{-0.060}^{+0.049}$ & $3.020_{-0.023}^{+0.016}$ & $ 0.403_{-0.049}^{+0.065}$ & $0.04438_{-0.0015}^{+0.00081}$  & $0.0378_{-0.0014}^{+0.0016}$    &  $1686_{ -26}^{+30}$ & 0                  \\ [+1.5ex]

2473: 21 & HAT-P-5\dotfill     & $1.06_{-0.11}^{+0.11}$    & $1.254_{-0.056}^{+0.051}$ & $3.219_{-0.051}^{+0.047}$ & $ 0.66_{-0.10}^{+0.12}$    & $0.04071_{-0.00097}^{+0.00049}$ & $0.0591_{-0.0062}^{+0.0064}$    &  $1539_{ -32}^{+33}$ & 0                  \\ [+1.5ex]

2474: 22 & HAT-P-6\dotfill     & $1.059_{-0.052}^{+0.053}$ & $1.330_{-0.058}^{+0.064}$ & $3.171_{-0.030}^{+0.029}$ & $ 0.559_{-0.076}^{+0.086}$ & $0.05237_{-0.00090}^{+0.00085}$ & $0.0646_{-0.0031}^{+0.0032}$    &  $1675_{ -31}^{+32}$ & 0                  \\ [+1.5ex]

2475: 23 & GJ 436\dotfill      & $0.0729_{-0.0025}^{+0.0025}$ & $0.3767_{-0.0092}^{+0.0082}$ & $3.107_{-0.041}^{+0.039}$ & $ 1.69_{-0.12}^{+0.14}$ & $0.02872_{-0.00026}^{+0.00029}$    & $0.0246_{-0.0013}^{+0.0013}$ &  $649_{-60}^{+60}$\phn          & \nodata            \\ [-1.0ex]

2476: \enddata

2477: \tablecomments{$\Theta$ is the Safronov number, $T_{\rm eq}$ the

2478: zero-albedo equilibrium temperature ignoring the energy

2479: redistribution factor, and $M_{\rm Z}$ is the planet heavy element

2480: content.}

2481: \end{deluxetable*}

2482: \clearpage

2483: \end{landscape}

2484: 

2485: \end{document}

2486: 

2487: 

2488: