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

2: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}

3: \usepackage{comment}

4: 

5: % -----------------------------------------------

6: \newcommand{\tbd}[1]{{\par\bf\textsc{TBD: #1\\}}}

7: \newcommand{\ctbd}[1]{}

8: \newcommand{\cor}{\textcolor{red}{(corr?) }}

9: \newcommand{\spl}{\textcolor{red}{(spl?) }}

10: 

11: \newcommand{\ii}{\'\i }

12: \newcommand{\oo}{\H{o}}

13: \newcommand{\uu}{\H u}

14: 

15: % --------------------------------------

16: \newcommand{\lc}{light curve}

17: \newcommand{\lcs}{light curves}

18: \newcommand{\Lc}{Light curve}

19: \newcommand{\Lcs}{Light curves}

20: \newcommand{\avg}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle #1\rangle}}

21: \newcommand{\dpt}{data-point}

22: \newcommand{\dpts}{data-points}

23: \newcommand{\tel}{telescope}

24: \newcommand{\magn}{magnitude}

25: \newcommand{\stan}{standard}

26: \newcommand{\aper}{aperture}

27: \newcommand{\oot}{out-of-transit}

28: \newcommand{\OOT}{Out-of-Transit}

29: \newcommand{\cfa}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA)}

30: \newcommand{\cfadigi}{CfA Speedometers}

31: \newcommand{\cmd}{color-magnitude diagram}

32: 

33: % ---------------------------------------------

34: \newcommand{\C}{\ensuremath{^{\circ}C\;}}

35: \newcommand{\el}{\ensuremath{e^-}}

36: \newcommand{\sqarcsec}{\ensuremath{\Box^{\prime\prime}}}

37: \newcommand{\sqarcdeg}{\ensuremath{\Box^{\circ}}}

38: \newcommand{\pxs}{\ensuremath{\rm \arcsec pixel^{-1}}}

39: \newcommand{\conc}[1]{\noindent\par{\noindent{$\mathbf \Longrightarrow$ \bf #1}}}

40: \newcommand{\aduel}{\ensuremath{\lbrack ADU/\el \rbrack}}

41: \newcommand{\eladu}{\ensuremath{\lbrack \el/ADU \rbrack}}

42: \newcommand{\adupixs}{\ensuremath{\rm ADU/(pix\, s)}}

43: \newcommand{\elpixs}{\ensuremath{\rm \el/(pix\, s)}}

44: \newcommand{\diam}{\ensuremath{\oslash}}

45: \newcommand{\ccdsize}[1]{\ensuremath{\rm #1\times\rm#1}}

46: \newcommand{\tsize}[1]{\mbox{\rm #1 m}}

47: \newcommand{\ghr}{\ensuremath{^h}}

48: \newcommand{\gmin}{\ensuremath{^m}}

49: \newcommand{\Ks}{\ensuremath{K_s}}

50: \newcommand{\masy}{\ensuremath{\rm mas\,yr^{-1}}}

51: \newcommand{\kms}{\ensuremath{\rm km\,s^{-1}}}

52: \newcommand{\ms}{\ensuremath{\rm m\,s^{-1}}}

53: \newcommand{\mss}{\ensuremath{\rm m\,s^{-2}}}

54: \newcommand{\gcmc}{\ensuremath{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}}

55: 

56: % Activity index R'_HK

57: \newcommand{\rhk}{\ensuremath{R^{\prime}_{HK}}}

58: % log of R'_HK

59: \newcommand{\logrhk}{\ensuremath{\log\rhk}}

60: 

61: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

62: %% Astronomical catalogues

63: 

64: %% HD: 

65: \newcommand{\hd}[1]{\mbox{HD #1}}

66: 

67: %% BD

68: \newcommand{\BD}[1]{\mbox{BD #1}}

69: 

70: %% ---------------------------------------------------------------------

71: \newcommand{\teff}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}}

72: \newcommand{\logg}{\ensuremath{\log{g}}}

73: \newcommand{\vsini}{\ensuremath{v \sin{i}}}

74: \newcommand{\feh}{[Fe/H]}

75: \newcommand{\logl}{\ensuremath{\log{L}}}

76: 

77: \newcommand{\rsun}{\ensuremath{R_\sun}}

78: \newcommand{\msun}{\ensuremath{M_\sun}}

79: \newcommand{\lsun}{\ensuremath{L_\sun}}

80: \newcommand{\teffsun}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,\sun}}}

81: \newcommand{\rhosun}{\ensuremath{\rho_\sun}}

82: 

83: \newcommand{\rstar}{\ensuremath{R_\star}}

84: \newcommand{\mstar}{\ensuremath{M_\star}}

85: \newcommand{\lstar}{\ensuremath{L_\star}}

86: \newcommand{\astar}{\ensuremath{a_\star}}

87: \newcommand{\loglstar}{\ensuremath{\log{L_\star}}}

88: \newcommand{\teffstar}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}}

89: \newcommand{\rhostar}{\ensuremath{\rho_\star}}

90: 

91: \newcommand{\rearth}{\ensuremath{R_\earth}}

92: \newcommand{\mearth}{\ensuremath{M_\earth}}

93: \newcommand{\learth}{\ensuremath{L_\earth}}

94: \newcommand{\teffearth}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,\earth}}}

95: \newcommand{\rhoearth}{\ensuremath{\rho_\earth}}

96: 

97: %\newcommand{\rpl}{\ensuremath{R_{\rm P}}}

98: %\newcommand{\mpl}{\ensuremath{M_{\rm P}}}

99: %\newcommand{\lpl}{\ensuremath{L_{\rm P}}}

100: %\newcommand{\teffpl}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,{\rm P}}}}

101: %\newcommand{\rhopl}{\ensuremath{\rho_{\rm P}}}

102: %\newcommand{\ipl}{\ensuremath{i_{\rm P}}}

103: 

104: \newcommand{\rpl}{\ensuremath{R_{p}}}

105: \newcommand{\mpl}{\ensuremath{M_{p}}}

106: \newcommand{\lpl}{\ensuremath{L_{p}}}

107: \newcommand{\teffpl}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,{p}}}}

108: \newcommand{\rhopl}{\ensuremath{\rho_{p}}}

109: \newcommand{\ipl}{\ensuremath{i_{p}}}

110: \newcommand{\epl}{\ensuremath{e_{p}}}

111: \newcommand{\gpl}{\ensuremath{g_{p}}}

112: 

113: \newcommand{\rjup}{\ensuremath{R_{\rm J}}}

114: \newcommand{\mjup}{\ensuremath{M_{\rm J}}}

115: \newcommand{\ljup}{\ensuremath{L_{\rm J}}}

116: \newcommand{\teffjup}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,{\rm J}}}}

117: \newcommand{\rhojup}{\ensuremath{\rho_{\rm J}}}

118: \newcommand{\gjup}{\ensuremath{\g_{\rm J}}}

119: 

120: \newcommand{\rjuplong}{\ensuremath{R_{\rm Jup}}}

121: \newcommand{\mjuplong}{\ensuremath{M_{\rm Jup}}}

122: \newcommand{\ljuplong}{\ensuremath{L_{\rm Jup}}}

123: \newcommand{\teffjuplong}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,{\rm Jup}}}}

124: \newcommand{\rhojuplong}{\ensuremath{\rho_{\rm Jup}}}

125: \newcommand{\gjuplong}{\ensuremath{\g_{\rm Jup}}}

126: 

127: \newcommand{\msini}{\ensuremath{m \sin i}}

128: \newcommand{\mplsini}{\ensuremath{\mpl\sin i}}

129: 

130: % ---------------------

131: \newcommand{\ordo}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}

132: 

133: % -----------------------------

134: \newcommand{\pack}[1]{\textsc{\lowercase{#1}}}

135: \newcommand{\prog}[1]{\texttt{\lowercase{#1}}}

136: \newcommand{\iraf}{\pack{iraf}}

137: \newcommand{\todcor}{\prog{todcor}}

138: \newcommand{\xcsao}{\prog{xcsao}}

139: \newcommand{\daophot}{\pack{daophot}}

140: \newcommand{\fihat}{\pack{fihat}}

141: \newcommand{\fistar}{\prog{fistar}}

142: \newcommand{\fiphot}{\prog{fiphot}}

143: \newcommand{\grmatch}{\prog{grmatch}}

144: \newcommand{\grtrans}{\prog{grtrans}}

145: 

146: % ---------------------------------------

147: \newcommand{\pref}[1]{p.~\pageref{#1}}

148: \newcommand{\figr}[1]{Fig.~\ref{fig:#1}}

149: \newcommand{\secr}[1]{\mbox{\S\ \ref{sec:#1}}}

150: \newcommand{\eqr}[1]{Eq.~\ref{eq:#1}}

151: \newcommand{\tabsr}[1]{Tab.~\ref{tab:#1}}

152: \newcommand{\tabr}[1]{\mbox{Table~\ref{tab:#1}}}

153: \newcommand{\figrp}[1]{Fig.~\ref{fig:#1} on \pref{fig:#1}}

154: \newcommand{\secrp}[1]{\S\ref{sec:#1} on \pref{sec:#1}}

155: \newcommand{\eqrp}[1]{Eq.~\ref{eq:#1} on \pref{eq:#1}}

156: \newcommand{\tabrp}[1]{Tab.~\ref{tab:#1} on \pref{tab:#1}}

157: 

158: % --------------------------------------

159: % Instruments

160: % 

161: % FLWO 1.2 m telescope

162: \newcommand{\flwof}{\mbox{FLWO 1.2 m}}

163: 

164: % FLWO 1.5 m telescope

165: \newcommand{\flwos}{\mbox{FLWO 1.5 m}}

166: 

167: % TopHAT 0.25m telescope

168: \newcommand{\flwot}{\mbox{TopHAT 0.25 m}}

169: 

170: % MMT

171: \newcommand{\mmt}{\mbox{MMT 6.5 m}}

172: 

173: % Spitzer

174: \newcommand{\ssts}{{\em Spitzer}}

175: \newcommand{\sstL}{{\em Spitzer Space Telescope}}

176: 

177: % HST

178: \newcommand{\hst}{{\em HST}}

179: 

180: % Wise 1m

181: \newcommand{\wom}{\mbox{Wise 1 m}}

182: 

183: % --------------------------------------

184: % Variable types

185: % 

186: \newcommand{\dscu}{\mbox{$\delta$ Scuti}}

187: \newcommand{\gdor}{\mbox{$\gamma$ Dor}}

188: 

189: \newcommand{\hj}{hot Jupiter}

190: \newcommand{\vhj}{very hot Jupiter}

191: 

192: \newcommand{\band}[1]{\ensuremath{#1}-band}

193: 

194: \defcitealias{kovacs05}{KBN05}

195: \defcitealias{fortney06}{FMB06}

196: 

197: % -------- Aliases specific to this paper -------------

198: 

199: % The name of the host star and/or the planet:

200: \newcommand{\hatcur}{HAT-P-7}

201: \newcommand{\hatcurb}{HAT-P-7b}

202: 

203: % \hatcurCC: catalogue coordinates and other catalogue data:

204: \newcommand{\hatcurCCra}{\ensuremath{19^{\mathrm{h}}28^{\mathrm{m}}59^{\mathrm{s}}.35}}	%

205: \newcommand{\hatcurCCdec}{\ensuremath{+47^{\circ}58'10''.2}}		%

206: \newcommand{\hatcurCCmag}{\ensuremath{9.85}}

207: \newcommand{\hatcurCCtwomass}{2MASS~19285935+4758102}

208: \newcommand{\hatcurCCgsc}{GSC~03547-01402}

209: \newcommand{\hatcurCCtassmv}{10.51}

210: \newcommand{\hatcurCCtassmvshort}{10.5}

211: \newcommand{\hatcurCCtassvi}{\ensuremath{0.60\pm0.07}}

212: 

213: % \hatcurLC: quantities derived from LC fits (purely HATNet, purely followup):

214: % (however, some timing data are made more precise due to joint fits, e.g.

215: % for HTR154-011, the period is also determined by the RV  fit):

216: \newcommand{\hatcurLCdip}{\ensuremath{7.0}}				% ?

217: \newcommand{\hatcurLCrprstar}{\ensuremath{0.0763\pm0.0010}}		%

218: \newcommand{\hatcurLCimp}{\ensuremath{0.37^{+0.15}_{-0.29}}}		%

219: \newcommand{\hatcurLCdur}{\ensuremath{0.1685\pm0.0110}}			%

220: \newcommand{\hatcurLCingdur}{\ensuremath{0.0150\pm 0.0036}}		%

221: \newcommand{\hatcurLCP}{\ensuremath{2.2047299\pm0.0000040}}		%

222: \newcommand{\hatcurLCPprec}{\ensuremath{2.2047299}}			%

223: \newcommand{\hatcurLCPshort}{2.2047}					%

224: \newcommand{\hatcurLCT}{\ensuremath{2,453,790.2593\pm0.0010}}		% -251

225: \newcommand{\hatcurLCMT}{\ensuremath{53,790.2593\pm0.0010}}		%

226: 

227: % \hatcurSME: SME quantities

228: \newcommand{\hatcurSMEteff}{\ensuremath{6350\pm80}}			%

229: \newcommand{\hatcurSMEzfeh}{\ensuremath{+0.26\pm0.08}}			%

230: \newcommand{\hatcurSMElogg}{\ensuremath{4.06\pm0.10}}			%

231: \newcommand{\hatcurSMEvsin}{\ensuremath{3.8\pm0.5}}			%

232: 

233: % \hatcurYY: "raw" results from the YY fits (i.e. not really derived):

234: \newcommand{\hatcurYYm}{\ensuremath{1.47^{+0.08}_{-0.05}}}		% 

235: \newcommand{\hatcurYYmshort}{\ensuremath{1.44}}				%

236: \newcommand{\hatcurYYmlong}{\ensuremath{1.474^{+0.080}_{-0.054}}}	% 

237: \newcommand{\hatcurYYr}{\ensuremath{1.84^{+0.23}_{-0.11}}}		%	 

238: \newcommand{\hatcurYYrshort}{\ensuremath{1.84}}				%

239: \newcommand{\hatcurYYrlong}{\ensuremath{1.837^{+0.233}_{-0.110}}}	% 

240: \newcommand{\hatcurYYrho}{\ensuremath{0.333^{+0.060}_{-0.079}}}			%

241: \newcommand{\hatcurYYlogg}{\ensuremath{4.07^{+0.04}_{-0.08}}}		%

242: \newcommand{\hatcurYYlum}{\ensuremath{4.9^{+1.5}_{-0.6}}}		%

243: \newcommand{\hatcurYYmv}{\ensuremath{3.00\pm0.22}}			%

244: \newcommand{\hatcurYYage}{\ensuremath{2.2\pm1.0}}			%

245: \newcommand{\hatcurYYspec}{F6}

246: 

247: % \hatcurRV: radial velocity related quantities:

248: \newcommand{\hatcurRVK}{\ensuremath{213.5\pm1.9}}				%

249: %\newcommand{\hatcurRVgamma}{\ensuremath{-36.98\pm1.48}}

250: \newcommand{\hatcurRVgamma}{\ensuremath{-37.0\pm1.5}}

251: 

252: % \hatcurPP: planetary parameters (derived from LC, SME and YY):

253: \newcommand{\hatcurPPi}{\ensuremath{85\fdg7^{+3.5}_{-3.1}}}		%

254: \newcommand{\hatcurPPg}{\ensuremath{20.2\pm4.6}}			%

255: \newcommand{\hatcurPPlogg}{\ensuremath{3.31\pm0.08}}			%

256: \newcommand{\hatcurPPar}{\ensuremath{4.35^{+0.28}_{-0.38}}}			% 

257: \newcommand{\hatcurPParel}{\ensuremath{0.0377\pm0.0005}}		%

258: \newcommand{\hatcurPPrho}{\ensuremath{0.876^{+0.17}_{-0.24}}}		%

259: 

260: \newcommand{\hatcurPPm}{\ensuremath{1.78^{+0.08}_{-0.05}}}		% 

261: \newcommand{\hatcurPPmshort}{\ensuremath{1.78}}				%

262: \newcommand{\hatcurPPmlong}{\ensuremath{1.776^{+0.077}_{-0.049}}}	% 

263: \newcommand{\hatcurPPr}{\ensuremath{1.36^{+0.20}_{-0.09}}}		%	 

264: \newcommand{\hatcurPPrshort}{\ensuremath{1.36}}				%

265: \newcommand{\hatcurPPrlong}{\ensuremath{1.363^{+0.195}_{-0.087}}}	% 

266: \newcommand{\hatcurPPmrcorr}{\ensuremath{0.89}}				%

267: \newcommand{\hatcurPPteff}{\ensuremath{2140_{-60}^{+110}}}		%

268: \newcommand{\hatcurPPtheta}{\ensuremath{0.066\pm0.006}}

269: 

270: % \hatcurX: other quantities...:

271: \newcommand{\hatcurXdist}{\ensuremath{320^{+50}_{-40}}}			%

272: % ##########################################################################

273: 

274: \shortauthors{P\'al et al.}

275: \shorttitle{HAT-P-7b}

276: 

277: %% document

278: 

279: \begin{document}

280: 

281: %% Titlepage

282: \title{\hatcur\lowercase{b}: An Extremely Hot Massive Planet Transiting 

283: 	a Bright Star in the Kepler Field}

284: 

285: %% Authors

286: \author{

287: 	A.~P\'al\altaffilmark{1,2},

288: 	G.~\'A.~Bakos\altaffilmark{1,3},

289: 	G.~Torres\altaffilmark{1},

290: 	R.~W.~Noyes\altaffilmark{1},

291: 	D.~W.~Latham\altaffilmark{1},

292: 	G\'eza~Kov\'acs\altaffilmark{4},

293: 	G.~W.~Marcy\altaffilmark{5},

294: 	D.~A.~Fischer\altaffilmark{6},

295: 	R.~P.~Butler\altaffilmark{7},

296: 	D.~D.~Sasselov\altaffilmark{1},

297: 	B.~Sip\H{o}cz\altaffilmark{2,1},

298: 	G.~A.~Esquerdo\altaffilmark{1},

299: 	G\'abor~Kov\'acs\altaffilmark{1},

300: 	R.~Stefanik\altaffilmark{1},

301: 	J.~L\'az\'ar\altaffilmark{8},

302: 	I.~Papp\altaffilmark{8} \&

303: 	P.~S\'ari\altaffilmark{8}

304: }

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

306: 	Cambridge, MA, apal@cfa.harvard.edu}

307: 

308: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy,

309: 	E\"otv\"os Lor\'and University, Budapest, Hungary.}

310: 

311: \altaffiltext{3}{NSF Fellow}

312: 

313: \altaffiltext{4}{Konkoly Observatory, Budapest, Hungary}

314: 

315: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,

316: 	Berkeley, CA}

317: 

318: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, San Francisco

319: 	State University, San Francisco, CA}

320: 

321: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie

322: 	Institute of Washington, DC}

323: 

324: \altaffiltext{8}{Hungarian Astronomical Association, Budapest, 

325: 	Hungary}

326: 

327: \altaffiltext{$\dagger$}{%

328: 	Based in part on observations obtained at the W.~M.~Keck

329: 	Observatory, which is operated by the University of California and

330: 	the California Institute of Technology. Keck time has been in part

331: 	granted by NOAO.

332: }

333: 

334: %% EOF authors

335: 

336: %% abstract

337: \begin{abstract} 

338: 

339: We report on the latest discovery of the HATNet project; a very hot

340: giant planet orbiting a bright ($V=\hatcurCCtassmvshort$) star with a

341: small semi-major axis of $a=\hatcurPParel$\,AU\@. Ephemeris for the

342: system is $P=\hatcurLCP$~days, mid-transit time $E=\hatcurLCT$~(BJD).

343: Based on the available spectroscopic data on the host star and

344: photometry of the system, the planet has a mass of

345: $M_p=\hatcurPPm$\,\mjuplong\ and radius of $R_p=\hatcurPPr$\,\rjuplong.

346: The parent star is a slightly evolved \hatcurYYspec{} star with

347: $M_\star=\hatcurYYm$\,\msun{}, $R_\star=\hatcurYYr$\,\rsun,

348: $\teffstar=\hatcurSMEteff$\,K, and metallicity

349: $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]=\hatcurSMEzfeh$.  The relatively hot and large host

350: star, combined with the close orbit of the planet, yield a very high

351: planetary irradiance of $(4.71^{+1.44}_{-0.05}) \times 10^9$ 

352: erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, which places the planet near the top of the

353: pM class of irradiated planets as defined by  \citet{Fortney:07b}.  If

354: as predicted by \citet{Fortney:07b} the planet re-radiates its

355: absorbed energy before distributing it to the night side, the day-side

356: temperature should be about $(2730^{+150}_{-100})$\,K.

357: Because the host star

358: is quite bright, measurement of the secondary eclipse should be

359: feasible for ground-based telescopes, providing a good opportunity to

360: compare the predictions of current hot Jupiter atmospheric models with

361: the observations. Moreover, the host star falls in the field of the

362: upcoming Kepler mission; hence extensive space-borne follow-up,

363: including not only primary transit and secondary eclipse observations

364: but also asteroseismology, will be

365: possible.

366: 

367: \end{abstract}

368: 

369: %% EOF abstract

370: 

371: %% keywords

372: 

373: \keywords{ 

374: 	planetary systems ---

375: 	stars: individual (\hatcur{}, \hatcurCCgsc{}) 

376: 	techniques: spectroscopic

377: }

378: 

379: %% EOF keywords

380: 

381: %% EOF titlepage

382: 

383: % =====================================================================

384: %% Introduction

385: \section{Introduction}

386: \label{sec:introduction}

387: 

388: Transiting planets provide unique information about the nature and

389: evolution of extrasolar planets because they yield direct measurement

390: of the radius and (together with radial velocity data) mass of these

391: objects. Many of these planets are found in quite close-in orbits of

392: their parent stars, in which case the radiation from the parent star

393: may be expected to play a major role in controlling the structure and

394: dynamics of their atmospheres. Transiting planets with very tight

395: orbits about their parent stars are heated sufficiently that their

396: thermal emission is measurable, both at times of secondary eclipse and

397: for some, throughout their orbit \citep[see

398: e.g.][]{deming05,knutson07,harrington07}. Such observations, together

399: with observations in different spectral bands of the depth and shape

400: of primary transits, open up the possibility of detailed understanding

401: of the composition, structure, and dynamics of ``hot Jupiter''

402: atmospheres. (See e.g. \citet{Fortney:07b}, \citet{hubeny03},

403: \citet{burrows06}.

404: 

405: Here

406: we report on the HATNet project's detection of a \vhj{} that transits a

407: bright, $V=\hatcurCCtassmvshort$ \hatcurYYspec{} star, with a $2.2$~day

408: period and semi-major axis of only $0.038$\,AU\@. The parent star

409: (hereafter denoted \hatcur{}), with $\teffstar=6350$\,K and radius

410: $1.8$\,\rsun\ has such a high luminosity as to make the surface

411: temperature of this very close-orbiting planet among the highest of any

412: known transiting planet.

413: 

414: Because \hatcur{} is relatively bright, this opens up the possibility

415: of a number of interesting follow-on studies from space and ground.

416: Notably, the host star is also in the field of view of the forthcoming

417: Kepler mission. This means that many transits will very likely be

418: recorded with extremely high photometric precision during the

419: operational phase of Kepler starting in 2009.  Timing variations in the

420: transits, if detected, could indicate the presence of other bodies in

421: the system, such as terrestrial-mass planets or Trojan satellites. For

422: this reason, preparatory observations of transits and secondary

423: eclipses in the \hatcur{} system undertaken in advance of the mission

424: could significantly increase the scientific return from later

425: observations of the star by Kepler.

426: 

427: The next section (\S{}~\ref{sec:detection}) describes the photometric

428: detection of the \hatcurb{} planet by the HATNet monitoring system;

429: \S{}~\ref{sec:followup} outlines both the photometric and spectroscopic

430: follow-up observations; \S{}~\ref{sec:analysis} explains our analysis

431: of these data including derivation of stellar and planetary parameters

432: as well as verification that the signal derives from a transiting

433: planet rather than a ``false-positive''; and finally,

434: \S{}~\ref{sec:discussion} discusses the results and implications for

435: further studies of this intriguing system.

436: 

437: %% EOF introduction

438: 

439: % =====================================================================

440: %% Photometric detection

441: \section{Photometric detection}

442: \label{sec:detection}

443: 

444: The HATNet telescopes \mbox{HAT-7} and \mbox{HAT-8}

445: \citep[HATNet;][]{Bakos:02, Bakos:04} observed HATNet field G154,

446: centered at $\alpha = 19^{\rm h} 12^{\rm m}$, $\delta = +45\arcdeg

447: 00\arcmin$, on a near-nightly basis from 2004 May 27 to 2004 August 6.

448: Exposures of 5 minutes were obtained at a 5.5-minute cadence whenever

449: conditions permitted; all in all 5140 exposures were secured, each

450: yielding photometric measurements for approximately $33,000$ stars in

451: the field down to $I\sim13.0$. The field was observed in network mode,

452: exploiting the longitude separation between \mbox{HAT-7}, stationed at

453: the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory's (SAO) Fred Lawrence Whipple

454: Observatory (FLWO) in Arizona ($\lambda=111\arcdeg$W), and

455: \mbox{HAT-8}, installed on the rooftop of SAO's Submillimeter Array

456: (SMA) building atop Mauna Kea, Hawaii ($\lambda=155\arcdeg$W). We note that

457: each \lc{} obtained by a given instrument was shifted to

458: have a median value to be the same as catalogue magnitude of the 

459: appropriate star, allowing to merge \lc{}s acquired by different 

460: stations and/or detectors.

461: 

462: Following standard frame calibration procedures, astrometry was

463: performed as described in \citet{Pal:06}, and aperture photometry

464: results were subjected to External Parameter Decorrelation \citep[EPD,

465: described briefly in][]{Bakos:07}, and also to the Trend Filtering

466: Algorithm \citep[TFA;][]{Kovacs:05}. We searched the \lcs{} of field

467: G154 for box-shaped transit signals using the BLS algorithm of

468: \citet{Kovacs:02}. A very significant periodic dip in brightness was

469: detected in the $I\approx\hatcurCCmag$ magnitude star \hatcurCCgsc{}

470: (also known as \hatcurCCtwomass{}; $\alpha = \hatcurCCra$, $\delta =

471: \hatcurCCdec$; J2000), with a depth of $\sim\hatcurLCdip$\,mmag, a

472: period of $P=\hatcurLCPshort$\,days and a relative duration (first to

473: last contact) of $q\approx0.078$, equivalent to a duration of

474: $Pq\approx4.1$~hours.

475: 

476: In addition, the star happened to fall in the overlapping area between

477: fields G154 and G155. Field G155, centered at $\alpha = 19^{\rm h}

478: 48^{\rm m}$, $\delta = +45\arcdeg 00\arcmin$, was also observed over an

479: extended time in between 2004 July 27 and 2005 September 20 by the

480: \mbox{HAT-6} (Arizona) and \mbox{HAT-9} (Hawaii) telescopes. We

481: gathered 1220 and 10260 data-points, respectively (which independently

482: confirmed the transit), yielding a total number of 16620 data-points.

483: The combined HATNet \lc{} after the EPD and TFA procedures is plotted

484: on Figs.~\ref{fig:lc}a,b, superimposed on

485: these plots is our best fit model (see \S~\ref{sec:analysis}).

486: We note that TFA was run in signal reconstruction mode, i.e. systematics

487: were iteratively filtered out from the observed time series assuming that

488: the underlying signal is a trapeze-shaped transit 

489: \citep[see][for additional details]{Kovacs:05}.

490: 

491: In addition to having a significant overlap with each other, we note

492: that fields G154 and G155 both intersect the field of view of the

493: upcoming Kepler mission \citep{Borucki:06}.

494: 

495: %% EOF Photometric detection

496: 

497: % =====================================================================

498: %% Follow-up observations

499: \section{Follow-up observations}

500: \label{sec:followup}

501: 

502: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------

503: \subsection{Low-resolution Spectroscopy}

504: 

505: Following the HATNet photometric detection, \hatcur{} (then a transit

506: {\em candidate}) was observed spectroscopically with the CfA Digital

507: Speedometer \citep[DS, see][]{Latham:92} at the \flwos{} Tillinghast reflector, in

508: order to rule out a number of blend scenarios that mimic planetary

509: transits \citep[e.g.][]{brown03,donovan07}, as well as to characterize

510: the stellar parameters, such as surface gravity, effective temperature,

511: and rotation. Four spectra were obtained over an interval of 29 days. 

512: These observations cover $45$\,\AA{} in a single echelle order centered

513: at $5187$\,~\AA{}, and have a resolving power of $\lambda/\Delta\lambda

514: \approx 35,\!000$.  Radial velocities were derived by

515: cross-correlation, and have a typical precision of $1$\,\kms. Using

516: these measurements, we have ruled out an unblended companion of stellar

517: mass (e.g.~an M dwarf orbiting an F dwarf), since the radial velocities

518: did not show any variation within the uncertainties. The mean

519: heliocentric radial velocity of \hatcur{} was measured to be

520: $-11$\,~\kms.  Based on an analysis similar to that described in

521: \cite{Torres:02}, the DS spectra indicated that the host star is a

522: slightly evolved dwarf with $\logg = 3.5$ (cgs), $\teffstar = 6250$\,K

523: and $\vsini \approx 6\,\kms$.

524: 

525: % ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

526: \begin{figure}[!ht]

527: \plotone{f1.eps}

528: \caption{

529: 	(a) The complete \lc{} of \hatcur{} with all of the 16620 points, 

530: 	unbinned instrumental \band{I}

531: 	photometry obtained with four telescopes of HATNet (see text for

532: 	details), and folded with the period of $P = \hatcurLCPprec$~days

533: 	(the result of a joint fit to all available data,

534: 	\S~\ref{sec:jointfit}). The superimposed curve shows the best model

535: 	fit using quadratic limb darkening.

536: %%

537: 	(b) Same as a), with the transit zoomed-in (3150 data points are shown).

538: %%

539: 	(c) Same as b), with the points binned with a bin size of 0.004 in phase.

540: %%

541: 	(d) Unbinned instrumental Sloan \band{z} partial transit photometry

542: 	acquired by the KeplerCam at the \flwof{} telescope on 2007

543: 	November 2; superimposed is the best-fit transit model \lc{}.

544: %%

545: 	(e) The difference between the KeplerCam observation and model

546: 	(same vertical scale as in panel d).

547: \label{fig:lc}}

548: \end{figure}

549: 

550: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------

551: \subsection{High resolution spectroscopy}

552: 

553: For the characterization of the radial velocity variations and for the

554: more precise determination of the stellar parameters, we obtained 8

555: exposures with an iodine cell, plus one iodine-free template, using the

556: HIRES instrument \citep{Vogt:94} on the Keck~I telescope, Hawaii,

557: between 2007 August 24 and 2007 September 1. The width of the

558: spectrometer slit was $0\farcs86$ resulting a resolving power of

559: $\lambda/\Delta\lambda \approx 55,\!000$, while the wavelength coverage

560: was $\sim3800-8000$\,\AA\@. The iodine gas absorption cell was used to

561: superimpose a dense forest of $\mathrm{I}_2$ lines on the stellar

562: spectrum and establish an accurate wavelength fiducial

563: \citep[see][]{Marcy:92}. Relative radial velocities in the Solar System

564: barycentric frame were derived as described by \cite{Butler:96},

565: incorporating full modeling of the spatial and temporal variations of

566: the instrumental profile. The final radial velocity data and their

567: errors are listed in Table~\ref{tab:rvs}. The folded data, with our

568: best fit (see \S~\ref{sec:jointfit}) superimposed, are plotted in

569: Fig.~\ref{fig:rvbis}a.

570: 

571: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------

572: \subsection{Photometric follow-up observations}

573: 

574: Partial photometric coverage of a transit event of \hatcur{} was

575: carried out in the Sloan \band{z} with the KeplerCam CCD on the

576: \mbox{1.2 m} telescope at FLWO, on 2007 November 2. The total number of

577: frames taken from \hatcur{} was 514 with cadence of 28 seconds. During

578: the reduction of the KeplerCam data, we used the following method.

579: After bias and flat calibration of the images, an astrometric

580: transformation (in the form of first order polynomials)  between the

581: $\sim450$ brightest stars and the 2MASS catalog was derived, as

582: described in \citet{Pal:06}, yielding a residual of $\sim1/4$ pixel.

583: Aperture photometry was then performed

584: using a series of apertures of with the radius of 4, 6 and 8 pixels

585: in fixed positions calculated from this

586: solution and the actual 2MASS positions. The instrumental magnitude

587: transformation was obtained using $\sim350$ stars on a frame taken near

588: culmination of the field. The transformation fit was initially weighted

589: by the estimated photon- and background-noise error of each star, then

590: the procedure was repeated weighting by the inverse variance of the

591: \lcs{}. From the set of apertures we have chosen the aperture for which

592: the out-of-transit (OOT) rms of \hatcur{} was the smallest; the radius

593: of this aperture is 6 pixels. This \lc{}

594: was then de-correlated against trends using the OOT sections, which

595: yielded a light curve with an overall rms of 1.9mmag at a cadence of

596: one frame per 28 seconds. This is a bit larger than the expected rms of

597: 1.5mmag, derived from the photon noise (1.2mmag) and scintillation noise

598: -- which has an expected amplitude of 0.8mmag, based on the observational

599: conditions and the calculations of \citet{Young:67} -- 

600: possibly due to unresolved trends and other noise sources. The resulting

601: \lc{} is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}d.

602: 

603: %% EOF Follow-up observations

604: 

605: % =====================================================================

606: %% Analysis

607: \section{Analysis}

608: \label{sec:analysis}

609: 

610: The analysis of the available data was done in five steps. First, an

611: independent analysis was performed on the HATNet, the radial velocity

612: (RV) and the high precision photometric follow-up (FU) data,

613: respectively. Analysis of the HATNet data yielded an initial value for

614: the orbital period and transit epoch. The initial period and epoch were

615: used to fold the RV's, and phase them with respect to the predicted

616: transit time for a circular orbit. The HATNet and the RV epochs

617: together yield a more accurate period, since the time difference

618: between the discovery \lc{} and the RV follow-up is fairly long; more

619: than 3 years.  Using this refined period, we can extrapolate to the

620: expected center of the KeplerCam partial transit, and therefore obtain

621: a fit for the two remaining key parameters describing the light curve:

622: $a/R_\star$ where $a$ is the semi-major axis for a circular orbit, and

623: the impact parameter $b\equiv(a/R_\star)\cos i$, where $i$ is the

624: inclination of the orbit.

625: 

626: Second, using as starting points the initial values as derived above,

627: we performed a joint fit of the HATNet, RV and FU data, i.e.~fitting

628: \emph{all} of the parameters simultaneously. The reason for such a

629: joint fit is that the three separate data-sets and the fitted

630: parameters are intertwined. For example, the epoch (depending partly on

631: the RV fit) has a relatively large error, affecting the extrapolation

632: of the transit center to the KeplerCam follow-up.

633: 

634: In all of the above procedures, we used the downhill simplex method to

635: search for the best fit values and the method of refitting to synthetic

636: data sets to find out the error of the adjusted parameters. The latter

637: method yields a Monte-Carlo set of the \emph{a posteriori} distribution

638: of the fit parameters.

639: 

640: The third step of the analysis was the derivation of the stellar

641: parameters, based on the spectroscopic analysis of the host star (high

642: resolution spectroscopy using Keck/HIRES), and the physical modeling of

643: the stellar evolution, based on existing isochrone models. As the

644: fourth step, we then combined the results of the joint fit and stellar

645: parameter determination to determine the planetary and orbital

646: parameters of the \hatcurb{} system.  Finally, we have done a blend

647: analysis to confirm that the orbiting companion is a \hj{}. In the

648: following subsections we give a detailed description of the above main

649: steps of the analysis.

650: 

651: % +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

652: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrc}

653: \tablewidth{0pc}

654: \tablecaption{Relative radial velocity measurements 

655: of \hatcur{}\label{tab:rvs}}

656: \tablehead{

657: 	\colhead{BJD} & 

658: 	\colhead{RV} & 

659: 	\colhead{\ensuremath{\sigma_{\rm RV}}

660: }\\

661: \colhead{

662: 	\hbox{~~~~(2,454,000$+$)~~~~}} & 

663: 	\colhead{(\ms)} & 

664: 	\colhead{(\ms)}

665: }

666: \startdata

667: 336.73958  \dotfill &  $+124.40$ &   $            1.63  $ & \\

668: 336.85366  \dotfill &  $+ 73.33$ &   $            1.48  $ & \\     

669: 337.76211  \dotfill &  $-223.89$ &   $            1.60  $ & \\     

670: 338.77439  \dotfill &  $+166.71$ &   $            1.39  $ & \\     

671: 338.85455  \dotfill &  $+144.67$ &   $            1.42  $ & \\     

672: 339.89886  \dotfill &  $-241.02$ &   $            1.46  $ & \\     

673: 343.83180  \dotfill &  $-145.42$ &   $            1.66  $ & \\     

674: 344.98804  \dotfill &  $+101.05$ &   $            1.91  $ & 

675: \enddata

676: \end{deluxetable}

677: 

678: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------

679: \subsection{Independent fits}

680: \label{sec:independentfit}

681: 

682: For the independent fit procedure, we first analyzed the HATNet \lcs{},

683: as observed by the \mbox{HAT-6}, \mbox{HAT-7}, \mbox{HAT-8} and

684: \mbox{HAT-9} telescopes. Using the initial period and transit length

685: from the BLS analysis, we fitted a model to the 214 cycles of

686: observations spanned by all the HATNet data.  Although at this stage we

687: were interested only in the epoch and period, we have used the transit

688: \lc{} model with the assumption quadratic limb darkening, where the

689: flux decrease was calculated using the models provided by

690: \citet{Mandel:02}. In principle, fitting the epoch and period as two

691: independent variables is equivalent to fitting the time instant of the

692: centers of the first and last observed individual transits,

693: $T_{\mathrm{c,first}}$ and $T_{\mathrm{c,last}}$, with a constraint

694: that all intermediate transits are regularly spaced with period $P$.

695: Note that this fit takes into account {\em all}\/ transits that

696: occurred during the HATNet observations, even though it is described

697: only by $T_{\mathrm{c,first}}$ and $T_{\mathrm{c,last}}$.

698: The fit yielded 

699: %%

700: $T_{\mathrm{c,first}}=2453153.0924\pm0.0021$ (BJD) and

701: $T_{\mathrm{c,last}} =2453624.9044\pm0.0023$ (BJD). 

702: %

703: %the correlation between these two epochs turned out to be:

704: %$C(T_{\mathrm{c,first}},T_{\mathrm{c,last}})=-0.53$. 

705: The  period 

706: derived from the 

707: $T_{\mathrm{c,first}}$

708: and $T_{\mathrm{c,last}}$ epochs  was

709: $P^{(1)}=2.20480\pm0.00049$~days.

710: Using these values, we found that there were 326 cycles between 

711: $T_{\mathrm{c,last}}$ 

712: and the end of the RV campaign. The epoch

713: extrapolated to the approximate time of RV measurements was

714: $T_{\mathrm{c,RV}}=2454343.646\pm0.008$ (BJD). Note that the error in

715: $T_{\mathrm{c,RV}}$ is 

716: much smaller than the period itself

717: ($\sim2.2$\,days), 

718: so there is no ambiguity in the number of elapsed

719: cycles when folding the periodic signal. 

720: 

721: We then analyzed the radial velocity data in the following way. We

722: defined the $N_{\rm tr}\equiv0$ transit as that being closest to the

723: end of the radial velocity measurements. This means that the first

724: transit observed by HATNet (at $T_{\mathrm{c,first}}$) was the $N_{\rm

725: tr,first}=-540$ event. Given the short period, we assumed that the

726: orbit has been circularized \citep{hut81} (later verified; see below). 

727: The orbital fit is linear if we choose the radial velocity zero-point

728: $\gamma$ and the amplitudes $A$ and $B$ as adjusted values, namely:

729: %%

730: \begin{equation}

731: 	v(t) = \gamma + A\cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{P}(t-t_0)\right) + 

732: 		B\sin\left(\frac{2\pi}{P}(t-t_0)\right),

733: \end{equation}

734: %%

735: where $t_0$ is an arbitrary time instant (chosen to be $t_0=2454342.6$

736: BJD), $K\equiv\sqrt{A^2+B^2}$ is the semi-amplitude of the RV

737: variations, and $P$ is the initial period $P^{(1)}$ taken from the

738: previous independent HATNet fit. The actual epoch can be derived from

739: the above equation since for circular orbits transit center occurs when

740: the RV curve has the most negative slope.

741: Using the equations above, we derived the initial epoch of the $N_{\rm

742: tr} = 0$ transit center to be $T_c=2454343.6462\pm0.0042\equiv

743: T^{(1)}_{\mathrm{c},0}$ (BJD). We also performed a more general

744: (non-linear) fit to the RV in which we let the eccentricity float. 

745: This fit yielded an eccentricity consistent with zero, namely

746: $e\cos\omega=-0.003\pm0.007$ and $e\sin\omega= 0.000\pm0.010$.

747: Therefore, we adopt a circular orbit in the further analysis.

748: 

749: Combining the RV epoch $T^{(1)}_{\mathrm{c},0}$ with the first epoch

750: observed by HATNet ($T_{\mathrm{c,first}}$), we obtained a somewhat

751: refined period, $P^{(2)}=2.204732\pm0.000016$~days. This was fed back

752: into phasing the RV data, and we performed the RV fit again to the

753: parameters $\gamma$, $A$ and $B$. The fit yielded

754: $\gamma=-37.0\pm1.5$\,\ms, $K\equiv\sqrt{A^2+B^2}= 213.4\pm2.0$\,\ms

755: and $T^{(2)}_{\mathrm{c},0}=2454343.6470\pm0.0042$ (BJD). This epoch

756: was used to further refine the period to get

757: $P^{(3)}=2.204731\pm0.000016$\,d, where the error calculation assumes

758: that $T_{\mathrm{c},0}$ and $T_{\mathrm{c},-540}$ are uncorrelated. At

759: this point we stopped the above iterative procedure of refining the

760: epoch and period; instead a final refinement of epoch and period was

761: obtained through performing a joint fit, (as described later in

762: \S~\ref{sec:jointfit}). We note that in order to get a reduced

763: chi-square value near unity for the radial velocity fit, it was

764: necessary to quadratically increase the noise component with an

765: amplitude of $3.8$~\ms, which is well within the range of stellar

766: jitter observed for late F stars; see \cite{Butler:06}.

767: 

768: Using the improved period $P^{(3)}$ and the epoch $T_{\mathrm{c},0}$,

769: we extrapolated to the center of KeplerCam follow-up transit ($N_{\rm

770: tr}=29$).  Since the follow-up observation only recorded a partial

771: event (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}d), this extrapolation was necessary to

772: improve the \lc{} modeling. For this, we have used a quadratic

773: limb-darkening approximation, based on the formalism of

774: \citet{Mandel:02}. The limb-darkening coefficients were based on the

775: results of the SME analysis (notably, \teffstar; see

776: \S~\ref{sec:stellarparameters} for further details), which yielded

777: $\gamma_1^{(z)}=0.1329$ and $\gamma_2^{(z)}=0.3738$.  Using these

778: values and the extrapolated time of the transit center, we adjusted the

779: \lc{} parameters: the relative radius of the planet $p=R_p/R_\star$,

780: the square of the impact parameter $b^2$ and the quantity

781: $\zeta/R_\star=(a/R_\star)(2\pi/P)(1-b^2)^{-1/2}$ as independent

782: parameters \citep[see][for the choice of parameters]{Bakos:07b}. The

783: result of the fit was $p=0.0762\pm0.0012$, $b^2=0.205\pm0.144$ and

784: $\zeta/R_\star=13.60\pm0.83$\,day$^{-1}$, where the uncertainty of the

785: transit center time due to the relatively high error in the transit

786: epoch $T_{\mathrm{c},0}$ was also taken into account in the error

787: estimates.

788: 

789: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

790: \begin{figure} 

791: \plotone{f2.eps}

792: \caption{

793: %%

794: (a) Radial-velocity measurements from Keck for \hatcur{}, along with an

795: orbital fit, shown as a function of orbital phase, using our best fit

796: as period (see \S~\ref{sec:jointfit}). The center-of-mass velocity has

797: been subtracted.

798: %%

799: (b) Phased residuals after subtracting the orbital fit 

800: (also see \S~\ref{sec:jointfit}). The rms 

801: variation of the residuals is about $3.8$\,\ms. 

802: %%

803: (c) Bisector spans (BS) for the 8 Keck spectra plus the single template

804: spectrum, computed as described in the text.  The mean value has been

805: subtracted. Due to the relatively small errors comparing to the RV

806: amplitude, the vertical scale on the (b) and (c) panels differ from the

807: scale used on the top panel. 

808: %The scale on the lower two panels is the same.

809: \label{fig:rvbis}}

810: \end{figure}

811: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

812: 

813: 

814: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

815: \subsection{Joint fit}

816: \label{sec:jointfit}

817: 

818: The results of the individual fits described above provide the starting

819: values for a joint fit, i.e.~a simultaneous fit to all of the available

820: HATNet, radial velocity and the partial follow-up \lc{} data.  The

821: adjusted parameters were $T_{\mathrm{c},-540}$, the time of first

822: transit center in the HATNet campaign, $m$, the out-of-transit

823: magnitude of the HATNet \lc{} in \band{I} and the previously defined

824: parameters of $\gamma$, $A$, $B$, $p$, $b^2$ and $\zeta/R_\star$.  We

825: note that in this joint fit {\em all}\/ of the transits in the HATNet

826: \lc{} have been adjusted simultaneously, tied together by the

827: constraint of assuming a strictly periodic signal; the shape of all

828: these transits were characterized by $p$, $b^2$ and $\zeta/R_\star$

829: (and the limb-darkening coefficients) while the distinct transit center

830: time instants were interpolated using $T_{\mathrm{c},-540}

831: =T_{\mathrm{c,first}}$ and $A$, $B$ via the RV fit. For initial values

832: we used the results of the independent fits (\secr{independentfit}).

833: The error estimation based on method refitting to synthetic data sets

834: gives the distribution of the adjusted values, and moreover, this

835: distribution can be used directly as an input for a Monte-Carlo

836: parameter determination for stellar evolution modeling, as described

837: later (\S~\ref{sec:stellarparameters}).

838: 

839: Final results of the joint fit were:

840: %%

841: $T_{\mathrm{c},-540}=2453153.0924\pm0.0015$~(BJD), 

842: $m=9.85053\pm0.00015$\,mag,

843: $\gamma=\hatcurRVgamma$\,\ms,

844: $A=33.8\pm0.9$\,\ms,

845: $B=210.7\pm1.9$\,\ms,

846: $p=0.0763\pm0.0010$, 

847: $b^2=0.135_{-0.116}^{+0.149}$ and 

848: $\zeta/R_\star=13.34\pm0.23$~$\mathrm{day^{-1}}$. 

849: %%

850: Using the distribution of these parameters, it is

851: straightforward to obtain the values and the errors of the additional 

852: parameters derived from the joint derived fit, namely 

853: $T_{\mathrm{c},0}$, $a/R_\star$, $K$ and $P$. 

854: All final fit parameters are listed in Table~\ref{tab:parameters}. 

855: 

856: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

857: \begin{deluxetable}{lcl}

858: \tablewidth{0pc}

859: \tablecaption{Stellar parameters for \hatcur{} \label{tab:stellar}}

860: \tablehead{\colhead{~~~~~~Parameter~~~~~~} & \colhead{Value} & \colhead{Source}}

861: \startdata

862: $\teffstar$ (K)\dotfill		&  \hatcurSMEteff		& SME\tablenotemark{a} \\

863: $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$\dotfill		&  \hatcurSMEzfeh		& SME \\

864: $v \sin i$ (\kms)\dotfill		&  \hatcurSMEvsin		& SME \\

865: $M_\star$ ($M_{\sun}$)\dotfill  &  \hatcurYYm			& Y$^2$+LC+SME\tablenotemark{b} \\

866: $R_\star$ ($R_{\sun}$)\dotfill  &  \hatcurYYr			& Y$^2$+LC+SME \\

867: $\log g_\star$ (cgs)\dotfill    &  \hatcurYYlogg		& Y$^2$+LC+SME\\

868: $L_\star$ ($L_{\sun}$)\dotfill  &  \hatcurYYlum			& Y$^2$+LC+SME \\

869: $M_V$ (mag)\dotfill				&  \hatcurYYmv   		& Y$^2$+LC+SME \\

870: Age (Gyr)\dotfill				&  \hatcurYYage			& Y$^2$+LC+SME \\

871: Distance (pc)\dotfill			&  \hatcurXdist			& Y$^2$+LC+SME

872: \enddata

873: \tablenotetext{a}{SME = `Spectroscopy Made Easy' package for analysis

874: of high-resolution spectra \cite{Valenti:96}. See text.}

875: \tablenotetext{b}{Y$^2$+LC+SME = Yale-Yonsei isochrones \citep{Yi:01},

876: \lc{} parameters, and SME results.}

877: \end{deluxetable}

878: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

879: 

880: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

881: \subsection{Stellar parameters}

882: \label{sec:stellarparameters}

883: 

884: The results of the joint fit enable us to refine the parameters of the

885: star. First, the iodine-free template spectrum from Keck was used for

886: an initial determination of the atmospheric parameters. Spectral

887: synthesis modeling was carried out using the SME software

888: \citep{Valenti:96}, with wavelength ranges and atomic line data as

889: described by \citet{Valenti:05}. We obtained the following initial

890: values: effective temperature $\hatcurSMEteff$\,K, surface gravity

891: $\log g_\star = \hatcurSMElogg$ (cgs), iron abundance

892: $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}=\hatcurSMEzfeh$, and projected rotational velocity

893: $v\sin i=\hatcurSMEvsin$\,\kms.  The rotational velocity is slightly

894: smaller than the value given by the DS measurements. The temperature

895: and surface gravity correspond to a slightly evolved \hatcurYYspec{}

896: star. The uncertainties quoted here and in the remaining of this

897: discussion are twice the statistical uncertainties for the values given

898: by the SME analysis. This reflects our attempt, based on prior

899: experience, to incorporate systematic errors (e.g. \cite{noyes:08};

900: see also \cite{Valenti:05}). 

901: Note that the previously

902: discussed limb darkening coefficients, $\gamma_1^{(z)}$,

903: $\gamma_2^{(z)}$, $\gamma_1^{(I)}$ and $\gamma_2^{(I)}$ have been taken

904: from the tables of \cite{Claret:04} by interpolation to the

905: above-mentioned SME values for $\teffstar$, $\log g_\star$, and

906: $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}$.

907: 

908: As described by \cite{Sozzetti:07}, $a/R_\star$ is a better luminosity

909: indicator than the spectroscopic value of $\log g_\star$ since the

910: variation of stellar surface gravity has a subtle effect on the line

911: profiles. Therefore, we used the values of $\teffstar$ and

912: $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}$ from the initial SME analysis, together with the

913: distribution of $a/R_\star$ to estimate the stellar properties from

914: comparison with the Yonsei-Yale (Y$^2$) stellar evolution models by

915: \cite{Yi:01}.  Since a Monte-Carlo set for $a/R_\star$ values has been

916: derived during the joint fit, we performed the stellar parameter

917: determination as follows. For a selected value of $a/R_\star$, two

918: Gaussian random values were drawn for $\teffstar$ and $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}$

919: with the mean and standard deviation as given by SME (with formal SME

920: uncertainties doubled as indicated above).Using these

921: three values, we searched the nearest isochrone and the corresponding

922: mass by using the interpolator provided by \citet{Demarque:04}. 

923: Repeating this procedure for values of $a/R_\star$, $\teffstar$,

924: $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}$, the set of the \emph{a posteriori} distribution of

925: the stellar parameters was obtained, including the mass, radius, age,

926: luminosity and color (in multiple bands).  The age determined in this

927: way is $2.2$~Gy with a statistical uncertainty of $\pm 0.3$~Gy;

928: however, the uncertainty in the theoretical isochrone ages is about

929: 1.0~Gy. Since the corresponding value for the surface gravity of the

930: star, $\log g_\star=\hatcurYYlogg$ (cgs),is well within 1-$\sigma$ of

931: the value determined by the SME analysis, we accept the values from the

932: joint fit as the final stellar parameters. These parameters are

933: summarized in Table~\ref{tab:stellar}.

934: 

935: We note that the Yonsei-Yale isochrones contain the absolute magnitudes and

936: colors for

937: different photometric bands from $U$ up to $M$, providing an easy

938: comparison of the estimated and the observed colors. Using these data,

939: we determined the $V-I$ and $J-K$ colors of the best fitted stellar

940: model:

941: %%

942: $(V-I)_{\rm YY}=0.54\pm0.02$ and 

943: $(J-K)_{\rm YY}=0.27\pm0.02$.

944: %%

945: Since the colors for the infrared bands provided by \citet{Yi:01} and

946: \citet{Demarque:04} are given in the ESO photometric standard system,

947: for the comparison with catalog data, we converted the infrared color

948: $(J-K)_{\rm YY}$ to the 2MASS system $(J-K_S)$ using the

949: transformations given by \citet{Carpenter:01}. The color of the best

950: fit stellar model was $(J-K_S)_{\rm YY}=0.25\pm0.03$, which is in

951: fairly good agreement with the actual 2MASS color of \hatcur{}:

952: $(J-K_S)=0.22\pm0.04$. We have also compared the $(V-I)_{\rm YY}$ color

953: of the best fit model to the catalog data, and found that although

954: \hatcur{} has a low galactic latitude, $b_{\rm II}=13\fdg8$, the model

955: color agrees well with the observed TASS color of $(V-I)_{\rm

956: TASS}=\hatcurCCtassvi$ \citep[see][]{Droege:06}. Hence, the star is not

957: affected by the interstellar reddening within the errors, since

958: $E(V-I)\equiv(V-I)_{\rm TASS}-(V-I)_{\rm YY}=0.06\pm0.07$.  For

959: estimating the distance of \hatcur, we used the absolute magnitude

960: $M_V=\hatcurYYmv$ (resulting from the isochrone analysis, see also 

961: Table~\ref{tab:stellar}) and the $V_{\rm TASS}=\hatcurCCtassmv\pm0.06$

962: observed magnitude. These two yield a distance modulus of $V_{\rm

963: TASS}-M_V=7.51\pm0.28$, i.e.~distance of $d=\hatcurXdist$\,pc.

964: 

965: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

966: \subsection{Planetary and orbital parameters}

967: 

968: The determination of the stellar properties was followed by the

969: characterization of the planet itself. Since Monte-Carlo distributions

970: were derived for both the \lc{} and the stellar parameters, the final

971: planetary and orbital data were also obtained by the statistical

972: analysis of the \emph{a posteriori} distribution of the appropriate

973: combination of these two Monte-Carlo data sets.  We found that the mass

974: of the planet is $M_p=\hatcurPPmlong$\,\mjup, the radius is

975: $R_p=\hatcurPPrlong$\,\rjup\ and its density is

976: $\rho_p=\hatcurPPrho$\,\gcmc.  We note that in the case of binary

977: systems with large mass and radius ratios (such as the one here) there

978: is a strong correlation between $M_p$ and $R_p$ \citep[see

979: e.g.][]{Beatty:07}. This correlation is also exhibited here with

980: $C(M_p,R_p)=\hatcurPPmrcorr$.  The final planetary parameters are also

981: summarized at the bottom of Table~\ref{tab:parameters}.

982: 

983: Due to the way we derived the period, i.e.

984: $P=(T_{\mathrm{c},0}-T_{\mathrm{c},-540})/540$, one can expect a large

985: correlation between the epochs $T_{\mathrm{c},0}$,

986: $T_{\mathrm{c},-540}$ and the period itself. Indeed,

987: $C(T_{\mathrm{c},-540},P)=-0.783$ and $C(T_{\mathrm{c},0},P)=0.704$,

988: while the correlation between the two epochs is negligible;

989: $C(T_{\mathrm{c},-540},T_{\mathrm{c},0})=-0.111$. It is easy to show

990: that if the signs of the correlations between two epochs $T_{\rm A}$

991: and $T_{\rm B}$ (in our case $T_{\mathrm{c},0}$ and

992: $T_{\mathrm{c},-540}$) and the period are different, respectively, then

993: there exists an optimal epoch $E$, which has the smallest error among

994: all of the interpolated epochs. We note that $E$ will be such that it

995: also exhibits the smallest correlation with the period. If

996: $\sigma(T_{\rm A})$ and $\sigma(T_{\rm B})$ are the respective

997: uncorrelated errors of the two epochs, then

998: %%

999: \begin{equation}

1000: E=\left[\frac{T_{\rm A}\sigma(T_{\rm B})^2+T_{\rm B}\sigma(T_{\rm A})^2}

1001: 	{\sigma(T_{\rm B})^2+\sigma(T_{\rm A})^2}\right]

1002: \end{equation}

1003: %%

1004: where square brackets denote the time of the transit event nearest to

1005: the time instance $t$. In the case of \hatcurb{}, $T_{\rm A}\equiv

1006: T_{\mathrm{c},-540}$ and $T_{\rm B}\equiv T_{\mathrm{c},0}$, the

1007: corresponding epoch is the event $N_{\rm tr}=-251$ at $E\equiv

1008: T_{\mathrm{c},-251}=\hatcurLCT$ (BJD).  The final ephemeris and

1009: planetary parameters are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:parameters}.

1010: 

1011: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1012: \begin{deluxetable}{lc}

1013: \tablewidth{0pc}

1014: \tablecaption{Orbital and planetary parameters\label{tab:parameters}}

1015: \tablehead{\colhead{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Parameter~~~~~~~~~~~~~~} & \colhead{Value}}

1016: \startdata

1017: 

1018: \sidehead{\Lc{} parameters}

1019: ~~~$P$ (days)			\dotfill        		& $\hatcurLCP$ 		\\

1020: ~~~$E$ (${\rm BJD}-2,\!400,\!000$)	\dotfill		& $\hatcurLCMT$		\\

1021: ~~~$T_{14}$ (days)\tablenotemark{a} \dotfill	& $\hatcurLCdur$		\\

1022: ~~~$T_{12} = T_{34}$ (days)\tablenotemark{a} \dotfill	& $\hatcurLCingdur$	\\

1023: ~~~$a/R_\star$			\dotfill               	& $\hatcurPPar$		\\

1024: ~~~$R_p/R_\star$		\dotfill              	& $\hatcurLCrprstar$	\\

1025: ~~~$b \equiv a \cos i/R_\star$	\dotfill		& $\hatcurLCimp$		\\

1026: ~~~$i$ (deg)			\dotfill               	& $\hatcurPPi$ \phn 	\\

1027: 

1028: \sidehead{Spectroscopic parameters}

1029: ~~~$K$ (\ms)			\dotfill               	& $\hatcurRVK$		\\

1030: ~~~$\gamma$ (\kms)		\dotfill 	        	& $\hatcurRVgamma$	\\

1031: ~~~$e$				\dotfill					& $0$ (adopted)		\\

1032: 

1033: \sidehead{Planetary parameters}

1034: ~~~$M_p$ ($\mjup$)	\dotfill					& $\hatcurPPmlong$	\\

1035: ~~~$R_p$ ($\rjup$)	\dotfill					& $\hatcurPPrlong$	\\

1036: ~~~$C(M_p,R_p)$		\dotfill					& $\hatcurPPmrcorr$	\\

1037: ~~~$\rho_p$ (\gcmc)	\dotfill					& $\hatcurPPrho$	\\

1038: ~~~$a$ (AU)			\dotfill                	& $\hatcurPParel$	\\

1039: ~~~$\log g_p$ (cgs)		\dotfill				& $\hatcurPPlogg$	\\

1040: %~~~$T_{\rm eq}$ (K)		\dotfill				& $\hatcurPPteff$	

1041: \enddata

1042: \tablenotetext{a}{\ensuremath{T_{14}}: total transit duration, time

1043: between first to last contact; \ensuremath{T_{12}=T_{34}}:

1044: ingress/egress time, time between first and second, or third and fourth

1045: contact.} 

1046: \end{deluxetable}

1047: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1048: 

1049: 

1050: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1051: \subsection{Excluding blend scenarios}

1052: 

1053: Following \cite{Torres:07}, we explored the possibility that the

1054: measured radial velocities are not real, but instead caused by

1055: distortions in the spectral line profiles due to contamination from a

1056: nearby unresolved eclipsing binary.  In that case the ``bisector span''

1057: of the average spectral line should vary periodically with amplitude

1058: and phase similar to the measured velocities themselves

1059: \citep{Queloz:01,Mandushev:05}. We cross-correlated each Keck spectrum

1060: against a synthetic template matching the properties of the star

1061: (i.e.~based on the SME results, see \S~\ref{sec:stellarparameters}),

1062: and averaged the correlation functions over all orders blueward of the

1063: region affected by the iodine lines. From this representation of the

1064: average spectral line profile we computed the mean bisectors, and as a

1065: measure of the line asymmetry we computed the ``bisector spans'' as the

1066: velocity difference between points selected near the top and bottom of

1067: the mean bisectors \citep{Torres:05}. If the velocities were the result

1068: of a blend with an eclipsing binary, we would expect the line bisectors

1069: to vary in phase with the photometric period with an amplitude similar

1070: to that of the velocities. Instead, we detect no variation in excess of

1071: the measurement uncertainties (see Fig.~\ref{fig:rvbis}c). 

1072: We have also tested the significance of the correlation between the

1073: radial velocity and the bisector variations. 

1074: Therefore, we conclude

1075: that the velocity variations are real and that the star is orbited by a

1076: Jovian planet. We note here that the mean bisector span ratio relative

1077: to the radial velocity amplitude is the smallest ($\sim 0.026$) among

1078: all the HATNet planets, indicating an exceptionally high confidence

1079: that the RV signal is not due to a blend with an eclipsing binary

1080: companion. 

1081: 

1082: %% EOF Analysis

1083: 

1084: % =====================================================================

1085: %% Discussion

1086: \section{Discussion}  

1087: \label{sec:discussion}

1088: 

1089: With orbital period of only 2.2 days, implying a semi-major axis of only

1090: $0.038$\,AU, \hatcurb{}, is a ``\vhj'', a name frequently given to

1091: giant planets with orbital period less than 3 days

1092: \citep[see][]{Bouchy:04}.  However, what really matters is the

1093: incident flux from the parent star, which for \hatcurb{} is

1094: exceptionally high because (a) the large radius of the parent star

1095: ($1.84$\,\rsun) combined with the small semi-major axis yields a very

1096: small geometrical factor $a/R_\star=4.35$ (whose inverse describes the

1097: stellar flux impinging on the planet); and (b) its parent star has

1098: relatively high effective temperature: $\teffstar=6350$\,K. 

1099: The flux impinging on the planet is $4.7 \times 10^9$ erg cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$. 

1100: This places it among the most highly irradiated members of the ``pM'' 

1101: class of planets,

1102: as discussed by \citet{Fortney:07b}.  

1103: 

1104: For a pM class planet, \citet{Fortney:07b} argue that the incident

1105: radiation is absorbed by TiO and VO molecules in a hot stratosphere,

1106: and almost immediately re-radiated, rather than being partially advected

1107: to the night side of the planet, as would be the case if the radiation

1108: were absorbed deeper down in the cooler atmosphere of a ``pL'' planet,

1109: which would not have

1110: gaseous TiO and VO in its atmosphere. 

1111: 

1112: For a pM planet, the dayside temperature would be given by 

1113: %%

1114: \begin{equation}

1115: 	T_p=\teffstar\left(\frac{R_\star} {a}\right)^{1/2} \lbrack

1116: 	f(1-A_B)\rbrack^{1/4}.

1117: \end{equation}

1118: %%

1119: where $A_{\rm B}$ is the Bond albedo, which we assume to be essentially

1120: zero \citep[see, e.g.][]{Rowe:07}, and  the redistribution factor 

1121: $f = 2/3$ \citep[see][]{Lopez:07}. 

1122: For \hatcur{} this yields a dayside temperature of

1123: $(2730^{+150}_{-100})$\,K. 

1124: If at the other extreme, contrary to the theory of \citet{Fortney:07b},

1125: the incident energy absorbed by \hatcurb{} were to be distributed

1126: isotropically over the planet's surface before being re-emitted, as is

1127: predicted for ``pL'' planets too cool to have significant TiO and VO

1128: in their atmospheres, then $f = 1/4$ in Equation 3, and the day-side

1129: temperature would be $(2140^{+110}_{-60})$\,K.  

1130: Thus, detection and measurement of the emission from the dayside of

1131: \hatcurb{} would yield an important test of the theory of

1132: \citet{Fortney:07b}.

1133: 

1134: 

1135: \citet{Lopez:07} and \citet{Fortney:07b} noted that the thermal

1136: emission in the optical and near infrared from \vhj{}s should be

1137: detectable from the ground. \citet{Lopez:07} identified OGLE-TR-56b,

1138: the only other known very hot jupiter with predicted dayside

1139: temperature as high as that of \hatcurb{}, as a particularly promising 

1140: candidates.  However, since

1141: \hatcur{} is 6 magnitudes brighter than OGLE-TR-56, it is a far better

1142: candidate for secondary eclipse studies from the ground. For

1143: \hatcur{}, the brightness decrease in \band{z'} at secondary

1144: eclipse should be

1145: $\sim0.2~{\rm mmag}$ or $\sim0.04~{\rm mmag}$ 

1146: in the respective cases

1147: of zero (pM-type) or complete (pL-type) planet-wide re-distribution of 

1148: irradiated stellar flux. This implies that in the former case the

1149: eclipse could be detected at the 2-sigma level with a 1.2-m telescope

1150: with a \band{z'} integration of 4 hours during eclipse (that is, the

1151: total eclipse duration), plus 4 more hours of out-of-eclipse

1152: observation. 

1153: We plan to carry out such observations in the near future with the

1154: KeplerCam on \flwof{} and with MMT~6.5~m (also at FLWO) telescopes.

1155: 

1156: Recently \citet{Pollaco:07} reported the discovery of the transiting

1157: exoplanet WASP-3b, located 0.0317 AU from an F star with

1158: $\teffstar=6350$\,K and radius $\rstar=1.31\rsun$; this indicates a

1159: very high radiative flux at the planet of $2.5 \times 10^9$ erg

1160: cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$, comparable to but about 25\% smaller than the

1161: radiative flux at \hatcurb{}. For the same reasons as for the case of

1162: \hatcurb{} discussed above, this almost certainly will be a pM-class

1163: planet, so that its dayside temperature should be about 2530K,

1164: as indicated by Equation 3 with $f = 2/3$ and $A_B =

1165: 0$. This planet should also be detectable in visible or near infrared

1166: radiation. In fact, if it is a pM planet, the depth of secondary

1167: eclipse as seen in \band{z'} should be similar to that for \hatcurb{},

1168: namely $\sim0.2~{\rm mmag}$: although with its lower dayside

1169: temperature  the surface brightness of WASP-3b

1170: should be smaller than for \hatcurb{}, the geometrical factor $(\rpl /

1171: \rstar)^2$ is larger, because WASP-3 is a less evolved star.

1172:  

1173: 

1174: \hatcurb{} has an additional important property in that it is in the

1175: field of view of one of the detectors on the forthcoming Kepler mission

1176: \citep{Borucki:06}, currently scheduled for launch in early 2009 to

1177: monitor stars for photometric signals from transiting planets and other

1178: forms of stellar variability. Hence, \hatcur{} should be subjected to

1179: intense and regular photometric observations for several years starting

1180: in 2009. This will permit extremely high precision \lcs{} of the

1181: primary transit, the secondary transit, and perhaps also the variation

1182: of thermal and reflected light emission from the planet over the course

1183: of its orbit as described above.  In addition, it will be possible to

1184: search intensively for transit timing variations over the several year

1185: lifetime of the mission.  Such observations could yield important

1186: information about orbital variations due to other companions in the

1187: system including terrestrial-mass or smaller planets or Trojans, or to

1188: other effects such as precession of the orbital plane or the orbital

1189: line of nodes. To maximize the scientific return from Kepler in this

1190: regard, it would be very useful to obtain high precision \lcs{} both

1191: from the ground, and from space instruments such as Epoxi and MOST, in

1192: the very near term for later comparison with Kepler observations.

1193: 

1194: Asteroseismology of \hatcur{} using Kepler could yield an independent

1195: measurement of the star's mean density from the ``large separation''

1196: $\Delta\nu$ between p-modes of the same low angular degree $\ell$

1197: \citep[e.g.][]{Stello:07}. This would provide a check on the mean

1198: density of the star completely independent of that derived from the

1199: transit measurements of the $a/R_\star$ parameter.  Equivalently, the

1200: asteroseismology measurements would yield an independent measurement of

1201: the stellar radius, and hence a more precise value for the radius of

1202: the planet \hatcurb{}. Such a rich combined data set could have

1203: additional benefits for understanding stellar structure and evolution.

1204: 

1205: 

1206: %% EOF Discussion

1207: 

1208: % =====================================================================

1209: %% Acknowledgements

1210: \acknowledgements 

1211: 

1212: Operation of the HATNet project is funded in part by NASA grant

1213: NNG04GN74G. Work by G.\'A.B.~was supported by NASA through Hubble

1214: Fellowship Grant HST-HF-01170.01-A and by the Postdoctoral Fellowship

1215: of the NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Program. We acknowledge partial

1216: support also from the Kepler Mission under NASA Cooperative Agreement

1217: NCC2-1390 (D.W.L., PI). G.T.~acknowledges partial support from NASA

1218: under grant NNG04LG89G, G.K.~thanks the Hungarian Scientific Research

1219: Foundation (OTKA) for support through grant K-60750. A.P.~would like to

1220: thank the hospitality of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for

1221: Astrophysics, where most of this work has been carried out.

1222: This research has made use of Keck telescope time granted through NOAO

1223: (program A285Hr).

1224: 

1225: %% EOF Acknowledgements

1226: 

1227: % =====================================================================

1228: %% Bibliography

1229: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1230: 

1231: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2002)]{Bakos:02}

1232:  Bakos, G.~\'A., L\'az\'ar, J., Papp, I., S\'ari, P.

1233:  \& Green, E.~M.~2002, \pasp, 114, 974

1234: 

1235: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2004)]{Bakos:04}

1236:  Bakos, G.~\'A., Noyes, R.~W., Kov\'acs, G., Stanek, K.~Z.,

1237:  Sasselov, D.~D., \& Domsa, I.~2004, \pasp, 116, 266

1238: 

1239: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007)]{Bakos:07}

1240:  Bakos, G.~\'A., et al.~2007a, \apj, 670, 826

1241: 

1242: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007)]{Bakos:07b}

1243:  Bakos, G.~\'A., et al.~2007b, \apj, 671, 173

1244: 

1245: \bibitem[Beatty et al.(2007)]{Beatty:07}

1246:  Beatty, T.~G.~et al.~2007, \apj, 663, 573

1247: 

1248: \bibitem[Borucki et al.(2007)]{Borucki:06}

1249:  Borucki, W. J.~et al.~2006, ASP Conf.~Ser., 366, 309

1250: 

1251: \bibitem[Bouchy et al.(2004)]{Bouchy:04}

1252:  Bouchy, F.~et al.~2007, \aap, 421, 13

1253: 

1254: % Brown, Timothy M. 

1255: % Expected Detection and False Alarm Rates for Transiting Jovian

1256: % Planets 

1257: % 2003ApJ...593L.125B 

1258: %http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...593L.125B 

1259: \bibitem[Brown(2003)]{brown03} 

1260:  Brown, T.~M.~2003, \apjl, 593, L125 

1261: 

1262: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2006)]{burrows06}

1263:  Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., and Hubeny, I.~2006, \apj, 650, 1140

1264: 

1265: \bibitem[Butler et al.(1996)]{Butler:96} 

1266:  Butler, R.~P.~et al.~1996, \pasp, 108, 500

1267: 

1268: \bibitem[Butler et al.(2006)]{Butler:06} 

1269:  Butler, R.~P., Wright, J., Marcy, G., Fischer, D., Vogt, S., Tinney, C.,

1270:  Jones, H., Carter, B., Johnson, J, McCarthy, C. Penny, A.~2006, 

1271:  \apj, 646, 505  

1272: 

1273: \bibitem[Carpenter(2001)]{Carpenter:01}

1274:  Carpenter, J.~2001, \aj, 121, 2851

1275: 

1276: \bibitem[Claret(2004)]{Claret:04}

1277:  Claret, A.~2004, \aap, 428, 1001

1278: 

1279: \bibitem[Demarque et al.(2004)]{Demarque:04}

1280:  Demarque et al.~2004, \apj, 155, 667

1281: 

1282: \bibitem[Deming et al.(2005)]{deming05}

1283:  Deming, D., Seager, S., Richardson, L. J., Harrington, J.~2005, 

1284:  \nat, 434, 740

1285: 

1286: \bibitem[Droege et al.(2006)]{Droege:06}

1287:  Droege, T.~F., Richmond, M.~W., \& Sallman, M.~2006, \pasp, 118, 1666

1288: 

1289: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2007)]{Fortney:07b}

1290:  Fortney, J.~J., Lodders, K., Marley, M., Freedman, R.~2007, astroph/0710.2558

1291: 

1292: \bibitem[Gaudi(2005)]{Gaudi:05a}

1293:  Gaudi, B.~S., Seager, S., Mallen-Ornelas, G.~2005, \apj, 623, 472

1294: 

1295: % Harrington, Joseph, Luszcz, Statia, Seager, Sara, et al. 

1296: % The hottest planet 

1297: % 2007Natur.447..691H 

1298: %http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.447..691H 

1299: \bibitem[Harrington et al.(2007)]{harrington07} 

1300:  Harrington, J., Luszcz, S., Seager, S., Deming, D., \& 

1301:  Richardson, L.~J.~2007, \nat, 447, 691 

1302: 

1303: \bibitem[Hubeny et al.(2003)] {hubeny03}

1304:  Hubeney, I., Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D.~2003, \apj, 594, 1011

1305: 

1306: \bibitem[Hut(1981)]{hut81} Hut, P.~1981, \aap, 99, 126

1307: 

1308: \bibitem[Knutson et al.(2007)]{knutson07} 

1309:  Knutson, H.~A., et al.~2007, \nat, 447, 183

1310: 

1311: \bibitem[Kov\'acs et al.(2002)]{Kovacs:02}

1312:  Kov\'acs, G., Zucker, S., \& Mazeh, T.~2002, \aap, 391, 369

1313: 

1314: \bibitem[Kov\'acs et al.(2005)]{Kovacs:05}

1315:  Kov\'acs, G., Bakos, G.~\'A., \& Noyes, R.~W.~2005, \mnras, 356, 557

1316: 

1317: \bibitem[Latham(1992)]{Latham:92}

1318:  Latham, D.~W. 1992, in IAU Coll.~135, Complementary Approaches to

1319:  Double and Multiple Star Research, ASP Conf.~Ser.~32, 

1320:  eds.~H.~A.~McAlister \& W.~I.~Hartkopf (San Francisco: ASP), 110

1321: 

1322: \bibitem[Lopez-Morales and Seager(2007)]{Lopez:07}

1323:  Lopez-Morales, M. \& Seager, S.~2007, in press (astroph/0708.0822) 

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{Mandel:02}

1326:  Mandel, K., \& Agol, E.~2002, \apjl, 580, L171

1327: 

1328: \bibitem[Mandushev et al.(2005)]{Mandushev:05}

1329:  Mandushev, G.~et al.~2005, \apj, 621, 1061

1330: 

1331: \bibitem[Marcy \& Butler(1992)]{Marcy:92}

1332:  Marcy, G.~W., \& Butler, R.~P. 1992, \pasp, 104, 270

1333: 

1334: \bibitem[Noyes et al.(2008)]{noyes:08}

1335:  Noyes, R.~W. et al.~2008, \apj, 673, L79 

1336: 

1337: \bibitem[Ochsenbein et al.(2000)]{Ochsenbein:00}

1338:  Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P., \& Marcout, J.~2000, \aaps, 143, 23

1339: 

1340: \bibitem[O'Donovan et al.(2007)]{donovan07} 

1341: O'Donovan, F.~T. et al.~2007, \apj, 662, 658

1342: 

1343: \bibitem[P\'al \& Bakos(2006)]{Pal:06}

1344:  P\'al, A., \& Bakos, G.~\'A. 2006, \pasp, 118, 1474

1345: 

1346: \bibitem[Pollacco et al.(2007)]{Pollaco:07}

1347:  Pollacco, D.~et al.~2007, \mnras, submitted (astroph/0711.0126)

1348: 

1349: \bibitem[Queloz et al.(2001)]{Queloz:01}

1350:  Queloz, D.~et al.~2001, \aap, 379, 279

1351: 

1352: \bibitem[Rowe et al.(2007)]{Rowe:07} 

1353:  Rowe, J.~et al.~2007, in press (astroph/0711.4111)

1354: 

1355: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al.(2007)]{Sozzetti:07}

1356:  Sozzetti, A.~et al.~2007, \apj, 664, 1190

1357: 

1358: \bibitem[Stello et al.(2007)]{Stello:07}

1359:  Stello, D., Kjeldsen, H. \&, Bedding, T. R.~2007, \pasp, in press (astroph/0702051)

1360: 

1361: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2002)]{Torres:02}

1362:  Torres, G., Boden, A. F., Latham, D. W., Pan, M. \& Stefanik, R. P. 2002, \aj, 124, 1716

1363: 

1364: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2005)]{Torres:05}

1365:  Torres, G., Konacki, M., Sasselov, D.~D., \& Jha, S. 2005, \apj, 619, 558

1366: 

1367: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2007)]{Torres:07}

1368:  Torres, G.~et al.~2007, \apjl, 666, 121

1369: 

1370: \bibitem[Torres, Winn \& Holman(2008)]{Torres:08}

1371:  Torres, G., Winn, J. N., Holman, M. J.~2008, \apj, in press (astroph/0801.1841)

1372: 

1373: \bibitem[Valenti \& Fischer(2005)]{Valenti:05}

1374:  Valenti, J.~A., \& Fischer, D.~A. 2005, \apjs, 159, 141

1375: 

1376: \bibitem[Valenti \& Piskunov(1996)]{Valenti:96}

1377:  Valenti, J.~A., \& Piskunov, N. 1996, \aaps, 118, 595

1378: 

1379: \bibitem[Vogt et al.(1994)]{Vogt:94}

1380:  Vogt, S.~S.~et al.~1994, Proc.~SPIE, 2198, 362

1381: 

1382: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2001)]{Yi:01}

1383:  Yi, S.~K.~et al.~2001, \apjs, 136, 417

1384: 

1385: \bibitem[Young(1967)]{Young:67}

1386:  Young, A.~T. 1967, \aj, 72, 747

1387: 

1388: \end{thebibliography}

1389: 

1390: %% EOF Bibliography

1391: 

1392: \end{document}

1393: 

1394: %% EOF document

1395: 

1396: %% EOF

1397: