1: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}
3:
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:
48: \newcommand{\ghr}{\ensuremath{^h}}
49: \newcommand{\gmin}{\ensuremath{^m}}
50: \newcommand{\Ks}{\ensuremath{K_s}}
51: \newcommand{\masy}{\ensuremath{\rm mas\,yr^{-1}}}
52: \newcommand{\kms}{\ensuremath{\rm km\,s^{-1}}}
53: \newcommand{\ms}{\ensuremath{\rm m\,s^{-1}}}
54: \newcommand{\mss}{\ensuremath{\rm m\,s^{-2}}}
55: \newcommand{\gcmc}{\ensuremath{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}}
56: \newcommand{\ergscm}{\ensuremath{\rm erg\,s^{-1}\,cm^{-2}}}
57:
58: \newcommand{\rhk}{\ensuremath{R^{\prime}_{HK}}}
59: \newcommand{\logrhk}{\ensuremath{\log\rhk}}
60:
61: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
62:
63: \newcommand{\hd}[1]{\mbox{HD #1}}
64: \newcommand{\BD}[1]{\mbox{BD #1}}
65:
66: %% ---------------------------------------------------------------------
67: \newcommand{\teff}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}}
68: \newcommand{\logg}{\ensuremath{\log{g}}}
69: \newcommand{\vsini}{\ensuremath{v \sin{i}}}
70: \newcommand{\feh}{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}
71: \newcommand{\logl}{\ensuremath{\log{L}}}
72:
73: \newcommand{\rsun}{\ensuremath{R_\sun}}
74: \newcommand{\msun}{\ensuremath{M_\sun}}
75: \newcommand{\lsun}{\ensuremath{L_\sun}}
76: \newcommand{\teffsun}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,\sun}}}
77: \newcommand{\rhosun}{\ensuremath{\rho_\sun}}
78:
79: \newcommand{\rstar}{\ensuremath{R_\star}}
80: \newcommand{\mstar}{\ensuremath{M_\star}}
81: \newcommand{\lstar}{\ensuremath{L_\star}}
82: \newcommand{\astar}{\ensuremath{a_\star}}
83: \newcommand{\loglstar}{\ensuremath{\log{L_\star}}}
84: \newcommand{\teffstar}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}}
85: \newcommand{\rhostar}{\ensuremath{\rho_\star}}
86: \newcommand{\loggstar}{\ensuremath{\log{g_\star}}}
87:
88: \newcommand{\rearth}{\ensuremath{R_\earth}}
89: \newcommand{\mearth}{\ensuremath{M_\earth}}
90: \newcommand{\learth}{\ensuremath{L_\earth}}
91: \newcommand{\teffearth}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,\earth}}}
92: \newcommand{\rhoearth}{\ensuremath{\rho_\earth}}
93:
94: \newcommand{\rpl}{\ensuremath{R_{p}}}
95: \newcommand{\mpl}{\ensuremath{M_{p}}}
96: \newcommand{\lpl}{\ensuremath{L_{p}}}
97: \newcommand{\teffpl}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,{p}}}}
98: \newcommand{\rhopl}{\ensuremath{\rho_{p}}}
99: \newcommand{\ipl}{\ensuremath{i_{p}}}
100: \newcommand{\epl}{\ensuremath{e_{p}}}
101: \newcommand{\gpl}{\ensuremath{g_{p}}}
102:
103: \newcommand{\rjup}{\ensuremath{R_{\rm J}}}
104: \newcommand{\mjup}{\ensuremath{M_{\rm J}}}
105: \newcommand{\ljup}{\ensuremath{L_{\rm J}}}
106: \newcommand{\teffjup}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,{\rm J}}}}
107: \newcommand{\rhojup}{\ensuremath{\rho_{\rm J}}}
108: \newcommand{\gjup}{\ensuremath{\g_{\rm J}}}
109:
110: \newcommand{\rjuplong}{\ensuremath{R_{\rm Jup}}}
111: \newcommand{\mjuplong}{\ensuremath{M_{\rm Jup}}}
112: \newcommand{\ljuplong}{\ensuremath{L_{\rm Jup}}}
113: \newcommand{\teffjuplong}{\ensuremath{T_{eff,{\rm Jup}}}}
114: \newcommand{\rhojuplong}{\ensuremath{\rho_{\rm Jup}}}
115: \newcommand{\gjuplong}{\ensuremath{\g_{\rm Jup}}}
116:
117: \newcommand{\msini}{\ensuremath{m \sin i}}
118: \newcommand{\mplsini}{\ensuremath{\mpl\sin i}}
119:
120: \newcommand{\ordo}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}
121:
122: \newcommand{\pack}[1]{\textsc{\lowercase{#1}}}
123: \newcommand{\prog}[1]{\texttt{\lowercase{#1}}}
124: \newcommand{\iraf}{\pack{iraf}}
125: \newcommand{\todcor}{\prog{todcor}}
126: \newcommand{\xcsao}{\prog{xcsao}}
127: \newcommand{\daophot}{\pack{daophot}}
128: \newcommand{\fihat}{\pack{fihat}}
129: \newcommand{\fistar}{\prog{fistar}}
130: \newcommand{\fiphot}{\prog{fiphot}}
131: \newcommand{\grmatch}{\prog{grmatch}}
132: \newcommand{\grtrans}{\prog{grtrans}}
133:
134: \newcommand{\pref}[1]{p.~\pageref{#1}}
135: \newcommand{\figr}[1]{Fig.~\ref{fig:#1}}
136: \newcommand{\secr}[1]{\mbox{\S\ \ref{sec:#1}}}
137: \newcommand{\eqr}[1]{Eq.~\ref{eq:#1}}
138: \newcommand{\tabsr}[1]{Tab.~\ref{tab:#1}}
139: \newcommand{\tabr}[1]{\mbox{Table~\ref{tab:#1}}}
140: \newcommand{\figrp}[1]{Fig.~\ref{fig:#1} on \pref{fig:#1}}
141: \newcommand{\secrp}[1]{\S\ref{sec:#1} on \pref{sec:#1}}
142: \newcommand{\eqrp}[1]{Eq.~\ref{eq:#1} on \pref{eq:#1}}
143: \newcommand{\tabrp}[1]{Tab.~\ref{tab:#1} on \pref{tab:#1}}
144:
145: \newcommand{\reffig}[1]{Fig.~\ref{fig:#1}}
146: \newcommand{\refsec}[1]{\mbox{\S\ \ref{sec:#1}}}
147: \newcommand{\refeq}[1]{Eq.~\ref{eq:#1}}
148: \newcommand{\reftab}[1]{Tab.~\ref{tab:#1}}
149:
150:
151: % --------------------------------------
152: % Instruments
153: %
154: % FLWO 1.2 m telescope
155: \newcommand{\flwof}{\mbox{FLWO 1.2 m}}
156:
157: % FLWO 1.5 m telescope
158: \newcommand{\flwos}{\mbox{FLWO 1.5 m}}
159:
160: % TopHAT 0.25m telescope
161: \newcommand{\flwot}{\mbox{TopHAT 0.25 m}}
162:
163: % MMT
164: \newcommand{\mmt}{\mbox{MMT 6.5 m}}
165:
166: % Spitzer
167: \newcommand{\ssts}{{\em Spitzer}}
168: \newcommand{\sstL}{{\em Spitzer Space Telescope}}
169:
170: % HST
171: \newcommand{\hst}{{\em HST}}
172:
173: % Wise 1m
174: \newcommand{\wom}{\mbox{Wise 1 m}}
175:
176: % --------------------------------------
177: % Variable types
178: %
179: \newcommand{\dscu}{\mbox{$\delta$ Scuti}}
180: \newcommand{\gdor}{\mbox{$\gamma$ Dor}}
181:
182: \newcommand{\hj}{hot Jupiter}
183: \newcommand{\vhj}{very hot Jupiter}
184:
185: \newcommand{\band}[1]{\ensuremath{#1}~band}
186:
187: \newcommand{\hatcurCCmag}{12.17} % apparent visual magnitude
188: \newcommand{\hatcurCCtwomass}{2MASS~07465196+3905404} % 2MASS identifier
189: \newcommand{\hatcurCCgsc}{GSC~02959-00729} % GSC(1.2) identifier
190: \newcommand{\hatcurCCtassmv}{12.17} % TASS visual magnitude
191: \newcommand{\hatcurLCdip}{\ensuremath{12}} % BLS detected dip (mmag)
192: \newcommand{\hatcurLCrprstar}{\ensuremath{0.1050\pm0.0009}} % Rp/R*
193: \newcommand{\hatcurLCimp}{\ensuremath{0.562_{-0.052}^{+0.033}}} % impact parameter
194: \newcommand{\hatcurLCdur}{\ensuremath{0.1307\pm0.0013}} % transit duration (days)
195: \newcommand{\hatcurLCingdur}{\ensuremath{0.0175\pm0.0013}} % ingress/egress duration (days)
196: \newcommand{\hatcurLCP}{\ensuremath{4.187757\pm0.000011}} % period (days)
197: \newcommand{\hatcurLCPpref}{\ensuremath{4.1877565}} % period (days)
198: \newcommand{\hatcurLCPshort}{\ensuremath{4.1878}} % period (days)
199: \newcommand{\hatcurLCT}{\ensuremath{2454552.67168\pm0.00029}} % epoch (BJD)
200: \newcommand{\hatcurLCzeta}{\ensuremath{17.61\pm0.09}} % zeta/R* (reciprocal half duration)
201: \newcommand{\hatcurSMEteff}{\ensuremath{5370\pm70}} % stellar effective temperature
202: \newcommand{\hatcurSMEzfeh}{\ensuremath{+0.05\pm0.06}} % stellar metallicity
203: \newcommand{\hatcurSMElogg}{\ensuremath{4.61\pm0.10}} % stellar surface gravity
204: \newcommand{\hatcurSMEvsin}{\ensuremath{0.7\pm0.5}} % stellar rotational velocity
205: \newcommand{\hatcurYYm}{\ensuremath{0.88\pm0.03}} % stellar mass
206: \newcommand{\hatcurYYmshort}{\ensuremath{0.88}} % stellar mass
207: \newcommand{\hatcurYYmlong}{\ensuremath{0.882\pm0.029}} % stellar mass
208: \newcommand{\hatcurYYr}{\ensuremath{1.08\pm0.04}} % stellar radius
209: \newcommand{\hatcurYYrshort}{\ensuremath{1.08}} % stellar radius
210: \newcommand{\hatcurYYrlong}{\ensuremath{1.084\pm0.042}} % stellar radius
211: \newcommand{\hatcurYYrho}{\ensuremath{0.97_{-0.10}^{+0.12}}} % stellar density (cgs)
212: \newcommand{\hatcurYYlogg}{\ensuremath{4.31\pm0.03}} % stellar surface gravity (refined)
213: \newcommand{\hatcurYYlum}{\ensuremath{0.88\pm0.09}} % stellar luminosity
214: \newcommand{\hatcurYYmv}{\ensuremath{5.06\pm0.12}} % stellar absolute magnitude
215: \newcommand{\hatcurYYvi}{\ensuremath{0.815\pm0.016}} % stellar V-I index
216: \newcommand{\hatcurYYage}{\ensuremath{14.8\pm2.0}} % stellar age
217: \newcommand{\hatcurYYspec}{G8} % stellar spectral type
218: \newcommand{\hatcurYYsigma}{\ensuremath{0.00120\pm0.00010}} % stellar sigma parameter
219: \newcommand{\hatcurRVK}{\ensuremath{144.9\pm2.0}} % RV semi-amplitude
220: \newcommand{\hatcurRVecosomega}{\ensuremath{+0.008\pm0.010}} % k=e*cos(omega)
221: \newcommand{\hatcurRVesinomega}{\ensuremath{+0.010\pm0.013}} % h=e*sin(omega)
222: \newcommand{\hatcurRVgamma}{\ensuremath{0.8\pm0.1}} % RV mean zero velocity
223: \newcommand{\hatcurPPi}{\ensuremath{86.7\pm0.4}} % orbital inclination
224: \newcommand{\hatcurPPg}{\ensuremath{21.4\pm1.9}} % planetary surface gravity (m/s)
225: \newcommand{\hatcurPPlogg}{\ensuremath{3.33\pm0.04}} % planetary surface gravity (log cgs)
226: \newcommand{\hatcurPPar}{\ensuremath{9.67\pm0.35}} % relative orbital radius (a/R*)
227: \newcommand{\hatcurPParel}{\ensuremath{0.0488\pm0.0006}} % semimajor axis (AU)
228: \newcommand{\hatcurPPrho}{\ensuremath{0.96_{-0.11}^{+0.14}}} % planetary density (cgs)
229: \newcommand{\hatcurPPm}{\ensuremath{1.06\pm0.03}} % planetary mass (M_jup)
230: \newcommand{\hatcurPPmshort}{\ensuremath{1.06}} % planetary mass (M_jup)
231: \newcommand{\hatcurPPmlong}{\ensuremath{1.059\pm0.028}} % planetary mass (M_jup)
232: \newcommand{\hatcurPPr}{\ensuremath{1.11\pm0.05}} % planetary radius (R_jup)
233: \newcommand{\hatcurPPrshort}{\ensuremath{1.11}} % planetary radius (R_jup)
234: \newcommand{\hatcurPPrlong}{\ensuremath{1.109\pm0.050}} % planetary radius (R_jup)
235: \newcommand{\hatcurPPmrcorr}{\ensuremath{0.23}} % mass/radius correlation
236: \newcommand{\hatcurPPteff}{\ensuremath{1221\pm27}} % planetary temperature (K)
237: \newcommand{\hatcurPPtheta}{\ensuremath{0.105\pm0.005}} % Safranov number
238: \newcommand{\hatcurXdist}{\ensuremath{260\pm12}} % distance (pc)
239:
240:
241: \newcommand{\hatcurCCtassvi}{\ensuremath{0.82\pm0.09}} %
242: \newcommand{\hatcur}{XO-5}
243: \newcommand{\hatcurb}{XO-5b}
244: \newcommand{\hatcurCCra}{\ensuremath{7^{\mathrm{h}}46^{\mathrm{m}}51^{\mathrm{s}}.97}}%
245: \newcommand{\hatcurCCdec}{\ensuremath{+39^{\circ}05'40''.5}}
246:
247: \shortauthors{P\'al et al.}
248: \shorttitle{Independent confirmation of XO-5b}
249:
250: %% document
251:
252: \begin{document}
253:
254: %% Titlepage
255: \title{Independent confirmation and refined parameters of the hot Jupiter
256: \hatcur\lowercase{b}${}^{1}$}
257:
258: %% Authors
259: \author{
260: A.~P\'al\altaffilmark{2,3,4},
261: G.~\'A.~Bakos\altaffilmark{2,5},
262: J.~Fernandez\altaffilmark{2},
263: B.~Sip\H{o}cz\altaffilmark{3,2},
264: G.~Torres\altaffilmark{2},
265: D.~W.~Latham\altaffilmark{2},
266: G\'eza~Kov\'acs\altaffilmark{4},
267: R.~W.~Noyes\altaffilmark{2},
268: G.~W.~Marcy\altaffilmark{6},
269: D.~A.~Fischer\altaffilmark{7},
270: R.~P.~Butler\altaffilmark{8},
271: D.~D.~Sasselov\altaffilmark{2},
272: G.~A.~Esquerdo\altaffilmark{2},
273: A.~Shporer\altaffilmark{9},
274: T.~Mazeh\altaffilmark{9},
275: R.~P.~Stefanik\altaffilmark{2},
276: H.~Isaacson\altaffilmark{7}
277: }
278: \altaffiltext{1}{%
279: Based in part on observations obtained at the W.~M.~Keck
280: Observatory, which is operated by the University of California and
281: the California Institute of Technology. Keck time has been
282: granted by NOAO and NASA (programs N162Hr, N128Hr and A264Hr).
283: }
284: \altaffiltext{2}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
285: Cambridge, MA, apal@szofi.net}
286:
287: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy,
288: E\"otv\"os Lor\'and University, Budapest, Hungary.}
289:
290: \altaffiltext{4}{Konkoly Observatory, Budapest, Hungary}
291:
292: \altaffiltext{5}{NSF Fellow}
293:
294: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,
295: Berkeley, CA}
296:
297: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, San Francisco
298: State University, San Francisco, CA}
299:
300: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie
301: Institute of Washington, DC}
302:
303: \altaffiltext{9}{Wise Observatory, Tel Aviv University,
304: Tel Aviv, Israel 69978}
305:
306:
307: %% EOF authors
308:
309: %% abstract
310: \begin{abstract}
311:
312: We present HATNet observations of \hatcurb, confirming its planetary
313: nature based on evidence beyond that described in the announcement of
314: \citet{burke08}, namely, the lack of significant correlation between
315: spectral bisector variations and orbital phase. In addition, using
316: extensive spectroscopic measurements spanning multiple seasons, we
317: investigate the relatively large scatter in the spectral line
318: bisectors. We also examine possible blended stellar configurations
319: (hierarchical triples, chance alignments) that can mimic the planet
320: signals, and we are able to show that none are consistent with the sum
321: of all the data.
322: The analysis of the $S$ activity index shows no significant stellar
323: activity. Our results for the planet parameters are consistent with
324: values in \citet{burke08}, and we refine both the stellar and planetary
325: parameters using our data. \hatcurb{} orbits a slightly evolved, late G
326: type star with mass $M_\star=\hatcurYYm$\,\msun, radius
327: $R_\star=\hatcurYYr$\,\rsun, and metallicity close to solar. The
328: planetary mass and radius are $\hatcurPPmlong\,\mjup$ and
329: $\hatcurPPrlong\,\rjup$, respectively, corresponding to a mean density
330: of $\hatcurPPrho\,\gcmc$. The ephemeris for the orbit is
331: $P=\hatcurLCP\,{\rm d}$, $E=\hatcurLCT$\,(BJD) with transit duration of
332: $\hatcurLCdur\,{\rm d}$. By measuring four individual transit centers,
333: we found no signs for transit timing variations. The planet \hatcurb{}
334: is notable for its anomalously high Safronov number, and has a high
335: surface gravity when compared to other transiting exoplanets with
336: similar period.
337:
338: \end{abstract}
339:
340: %% EOF abstract
341:
342: %% keywords
343:
344: \keywords{
345: planetary systems ---
346: stars: individual (\hatcur{}, \hatcurCCgsc{})
347: techniques: spectroscopic
348: }
349:
350: %% EOF keywords
351:
352: %% EOF titlepage
353:
354: % ##########################################################################
355: %% Introduction
356: \section{Introduction}
357: \label{sec:intro}
358:
359: There are numerous dedicated transit searches surveying the sky for
360: extrasolar planets that periodically transit across the face of their
361: host star. Among the wide angle searches, those presenting discoveries
362: have been TrES \citep{brown:00,dunham:04}, XO
363: \citep{McCullough:2005,Burke:07}, HATNet \citep{Bakos:02,Bakos:04}, and
364: SuperWASP \citep{pollacco2006,Cameron:2007}. The initial high hope of
365: finding hundreds of such planets \citep{Horne:2001} was followed by 5
366: years of poor harvest, and a steep learning curve for these, and many
367: other projects. In retrospect we now understand that several important
368: factors had initially been underestimated, such as the need for
369: dedicated telescope time, optimal precision, stable instrumentation,
370: low systematic noise, the number of false positives \citep{Brown:2003},
371: optimal follow-up strategy, and access to high precision spectroscopic
372: instruments. The last year showed an exponential rise in
373: announcements\footnote{http://www.oklo.org, http://www.exoplanet.eu},
374: indicating that these dedicated efforts have started to bear fruit. In
375: fact, they have reached a success rate such that the same object is
376: occasionally independently found and announced by different groups
377: (WASP-11b: \citet{west2008} = HAT-P-10b: \citet{bakos2008}). Such
378: scenarios are not necessarily duplication of effort. It is reassuring
379: that completely independent discoveries, follow-up observations and
380: analyses lead to similar parameters. They also provide an opportunity
381: for joint analysis of all datasets. Here we report on a similar case,
382: the confirmation of the planetary nature of the transiting object
383: \hatcurb{}, announced by \cite{burke08}. The present paper provides not
384: only strong new evidence supporting the planetary nature of the object,
385: but also improved physical properties that aid in the comparison with
386: theories of planet structure and formation. In \S~\ref{sec:det} we
387: describe the details of the photometric detection. The follow-up
388: observations, including the discussion of the bisector span
389: measurements are presented in \S~\ref{sec:fu}. The subsequent steps of
390: the analysis in order to characterize the star, orbit and the planet
391: are discussed in \S~\ref{sec:anal}.
392:
393: %% EOF introduction
394:
395: % ##########################################################################
396: %% Photometric detection
397: \section{Photometric detection}
398: \label{sec:det}
399:
400: Two telescopes of the HATNet project, namely \mbox{HAT-6}, stationed at
401: Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory (FLWO, $\lambda=111\arcdeg$W), and
402: \mbox{HAT-9}, located on the rooftop of the Submillimeter Array control
403: building at Mauna Kea, Hawaii ($\lambda=155\arcdeg$W), were used to
404: observe HATNet field ``G176'' ($\alpha = 07^{\rm h} 28^{\rm m}$,
405: $\delta = +37\arcdeg 30\arcmin$) on a nightly basis between 2004
406: November 26 and 2005 May 9. Altogether we acquired with these
407: telescopes 2640 and 4280 frames, respectively, with exposures of 5
408: minutes.
409:
410: A number of candidates have emerged from this field, and have been
411: subjected to intense follow-up by larger instruments (\secr{fu}). One
412: candidate has become the transiting planet we call HAT-P-9b
413: \citep{shporer2008}. Another candidate internally labeled HTR176-002
414: has received extensive follow-up over the past two years. However, the
415: large scatter in the spectral line bisectors, and their tentative
416: correlation with orbital phase discouraged us from early announcement,
417: and motivated us to pursue it further. Subsequently, HTR176-002 was
418: announced as XO-5b by the XO group in 2007 May \citep[][hereafter
419: B08]{burke08}. Nevertheless, we present here our results since they
420: provide independent confirmation and also refine most of the
421: parameters.
422:
423: By chance, \hatcur{} happens to fall at the edge of field ``G176''
424: which overlaps with field ``G177'' ($\alpha = 08^{\rm h} 00^{\rm m}$,
425: $\delta = +37\arcdeg 30\arcmin$). This field has been observed by the
426: HATNet telescope \mbox{HAT-7} and by the WHAT telescope at Wise
427: Observatory, Israel \citep{shporer2006}. Using these telescopes we
428: collected 5440 and 1930 frames, respectively. Altogether we obtained
429: $\sim14290$ frames with photometric information on \hatcur{} --- an
430: unusually rich dataset compared to data available for a typical HATNet
431: transit candidate.
432:
433: The frames from field ``G176'' were processed and analyzed as described
434: e.g.~in \citet{Bakos:07}. The \lcs{} from this field were corrected for
435: trends using the method of External Parameter Decorrelation \citep[EPD,
436: see][]{bakos:2009}, and the Trend Filtering Algorithm
437: \citep[TFA;][]{Kovacs:05}. The \lcs{} were then searched for periodic
438: box-like signals using the Box Least Squares algorithm of
439: \cite{Kovacs:02}. We detected a significant dip in the \lc{} of the
440: $I\approx\hatcurCCmag$ magnitude star \hatcurCCgsc{} (also known as
441: \hatcurCCtwomass{}; $\alpha = \hatcurCCra$, $\delta = \hatcurCCdec$;
442: J2000), with a depth of $\sim\hatcurLCdip$\,mmag. The period of the
443: signal was $P=\hatcurLCPshort$\,days, while the relative duration
444: (first to last contact) of the transit events was $q\approx0.027$,
445: which is equivalent to a total duration of $Pq\approx2.6$~hours (see
446: \figr{lc}a).
447:
448: %% EOF Photometric detection
449:
450: % ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
451: \begin{figure}[!ht]
452: \plotone{f1.eps}
453: \caption{
454: %%
455: ({\bf a:}) The \lc{} of \hatcur{} with all 14290 points taken in
456: the \band{I}, by the telescopes \mbox{HAT-6}, \mbox{HAT-7},
457: \mbox{HAT-9} and WHAT. The \lc{} is folded with the period of $P =
458: \hatcurLCP$\,days (which is the result of the fit described in
459: \secr{anal}). The superimposed curve shows the best fit model,
460: neglecting limb darkening.
461: %%
462: ({\bf b:}) Unbinned instrumental Sloan \band{z} and \band{i}
463: follow-up transit photometry light curves acquired with KeplerCam
464: on the \flwof{} telescope on 2008
465: %%
466: January 2 ($N_{\rm tr}=0$, \band{z}),
467: January 19 ($N_{\rm tr}=4$, \band{z}),
468: February 9 ($N_{\rm tr}=9$, \band{i}) and
469: March 26 ($N_{\rm tr}=20$, \band{i}).
470: Superimposed are our best-fit transit models
471: (\secr{anal}).
472: \label{fig:lc}}
473: \end{figure}
474:
475: % ##########################################################################
476: %% Follow-up observations
477: \section{Follow-up observations}
478: \label{sec:fu}
479:
480: % =====================================================================
481: \subsection{Reconnaissance Spectroscopy}
482: \label{sec:rec}
483:
484: In order to exclude the possibility of a false planetary detection, due
485: to the misinterpretation of a transit-like signal caused by another
486: astrophysical scenario (such as an F\,+\,M dwarf system), we observed
487: the candidate HTR176-002 with the CfA Digital Speedometer
488: \citep{Latham:92} on the \flwos{} Tillinghast reflector. We acquired
489: four spectra between 2007 January and March, each with an individual
490: precision of $0.5\,\kms$. The observations showed a mean radial
491: velocity of $\gamma = -10.6\,\kms$ with an rms of $0.3\,\kms$,
492: therefore ruling out a low-mass stellar companion (but not a triple
493: system), which would cause significantly higher RV variations. The
494: spectroscopy also yielded an estimate for the projected rotational
495: velocity and surface gravity of the star.
496:
497: % =====================================================================
498: \subsection{High S/N Spectroscopy and Subsequent Analysis}
499: \label{sec:spec}
500:
501: We obtained high resolution and high signal-to-noise spectra with the
502: Keck-I telescope and HIRES instrument \citep{Vogt:94}. We acquired 17
503: exposures with the iodine cell, and an additional iodine-free
504: ``template''. The measurements were made between 2007 March 27 and 2008
505: May 17. The purpose of these observations was threefold: i) to obtain
506: high precision radial velocity (RV) measurements, ii) to characterize
507: the stellar properties, and iii) to check for spectral line bisector
508: variations as an indication of blends. These steps are discussed in the
509: following paragraphs.
510:
511: As regards measuring the RV variations, the superimposed dense forest
512: of $\mathrm{I}_2$ absorption lines enables us to obtain an accurate
513: wavelength shift compared to the template observation
514: \citep{Marcy:92,Butler:96}. The final RV measurements and their errors
515: are listed in Table~\ref{tab:rvs}. The folded data, with our best fit
516: (see \secr{anal}) superimposed, are plotted in \figr{rv}, upper panel.
517:
518: The stellar atmosphere parameters were determined using the iodine-free
519: template spectrum. The spectral modeling was performed using the SME
520: software \citep{Valenti:96}, with wavelength ranges and atomic line
521: data as described by \citet{Valenti:05}. We obtained the following {\em
522: initial} values: effective temperature $\teffstar = 5505\pm70$\,K,
523: surface gravity $\loggstar = 4.61\pm0.10$ (cgs), iron abundance
524: $\feh=+0.16\pm0.06$, and projected rotational velocity
525: $\vsini=0.7\pm0.5$\,\kms.
526:
527:
528: % =====================================================================
529: \subsection{Photometric follow-up observations}
530: \label{sec:photfol}
531:
532: We obtained follow-up photometric observations on four nights using the
533: KeplerCam CCD on the \flwof{} telescope through Sloan $z$ and $i$
534: bands. The observations were performed on 2008 January 2 (partial
535: transit), January 19 (full transit), February 9 (partial) and March 26
536: (full), with the total number of object frames being 114, 428, 268 and
537: 521, respectively. The integration times used at these nights were 45,
538: 30, 30 and 15 seconds, respectively while the readout and storage
539: required an additional $\sim 12$ seconds per frame. The typical rms of
540: the follow-up \lcs{} was 2\,mmag at the above cadence.
541:
542: We performed aperture photometry on the calibrated frames, using an
543: aperture series that ensures optimal flux extraction. Details on the
544: astrometry, photometry, decorrelation for trends, etc., have been
545: discussed in, e.g., \cite{Bakos:07}. The light curves are plotted in
546: the lower panel of \figr{lc}, superimposed with the best-fit transit
547: \lc{} model (see \secr{anal}).
548:
549: %% EOF Follow-up observations
550:
551: % ##########################################################################
552: %% Blend modeling
553: \section{Blend analysis}
554: \label{sec:blend}
555:
556: A stellar eclipsing binary that is unresolved from a bright source
557: would manifest itself as a blended system with shallow photometric
558: transits, and with RV variations that are of the same order of
559: magnitude as one can expect from a planetary system
560: \citep[e.g.][]{Queloz:01}. We investigated whether such a blend is a
561: feasible physical model for HTR176-002 in two ways: by examining the
562: spectral line bisectors, and with a detailed modeling of the light
563: curve under various possible blend scenarios.
564:
565: For a blended eclipsing binary, in addition to the decrease in the
566: observed RV amplitude, the spectral lines would be distorted, as
567: quantified by the ``bisector spans''
568: \citep[see][]{Torres:05,Torres:07}. If the bisector span variations
569: correlate with the orbital phase, or the magnitude of these variations
570: is comparable with the RV amplitude, then the system is likely to be a
571: false positive (hierarchical triple or chance alignment with a
572: background binary) rather than a single star with a planetary
573: companion. In order to rule this out we derived the bisector spans by
574: cross-correlating the iodine-free ranges of the obtained spectra
575: against a synthetic template spectrum. We found that the standard
576: deviation of the bisector spans is approximately $\sim60\,\ms$, which
577: is comparable to the magnitude of the RV variation itself
578: ($K=\hatcurRVK$\,\ms; see Table~\ref{tab:parameters}). The large
579: bisector variations discouraged us from publication even after the
580: first full transit follow-up \lc{} was obtained in January 2008, and we
581: continued acquiring high resolution spectroscopy to establish whether
582: there is any significant correlation between the bisectors and the
583: orbital phase (or equivalently, with the actual RV values). In
584: \figr{rvbis} we display our measurements of the bisector spans as the
585: function of both the RV and the RV residuals from the best
586: fit\footnote{As we will discuss later, our finally accepted best fit
587: values were derived by including a decorrelation factor against this
588: bisector span correlation. In the plot the RV residuals are shown
589: before subtracting this correlation term.}. There is no statistically
590: significant correlation between the velocities and bisector variations,
591: as would be expected for a blend. However, there is apparently a
592: correlation between the RV \emph{residuals} and the bisector spans.
593: This could be due to activity on the star (e.g., spottedness), where
594: the activity (if periodic) causes both RV and bisector variations, but
595: in a way that is not commensurate with the orbital period of the
596: companion. We exploit this correlation in the joint analysis of the RV
597: and photometric data (see \S~\ref{sec:anal}) where we show that the
598: unbiased residual of the RV signal can be significantly decreased with
599: the inclusion of an additional term proportional to the bisector spans.
600:
601: In order to rule out or confirm the importance of the stellar activity,
602: we computed the Ca II emission index $S$ \citep{Noyes:84}. The derived
603: indices are also shown in Table~\ref{tab:rvs}. We found that the mean
604: value of $S=0.16\pm0.02$ is moderately low, and the correlations
605: between the values of $S$ and the radial velocity data or RV fit
606: residuals are negligible (see also \refsec{lcrvanal}).
607:
608: As a further way of assessing the true nature of the candidate, we
609: investigated possible blend configurations by performing light curve
610: fits of our highest-quality follow-up photometry (data in the Sloan
611: \band{i}) following the procedures described by \cite{Torres:04}.
612: Briefly, we attempted to reproduce the observed photometric variations
613: with a model based on the EBOP binary-fitting program \citep{Etzel:81,
614: Popper:81} in which three stars contribute light, two of which form an
615: eclipsing binary with the orbital period found for \hatcur. The light
616: from the third star (the candidate) then dilutes the otherwise deep
617: eclipses of the binary, reducing them to the level observed for
618: HTR176-002 ($\sim$1.2\% depth). The properties of the main star were
619: adopted from the results of our analysis below, and those of the binary
620: components (mass, size, brightness) were constrained to satisfy
621: representative model isochrones. We explored all possible combinations
622: for the binary components, and determined the best fits to the light
623: curve in a chi-square sense.
624:
625: The case of a hierarchical triple (all stars at the same distance)
626: yielded an excellent fit to the photometry (see top curve in
627: Figure~\ref{fig:blends}), but implies an eclipsing binary with a
628: primary that is half as bright as HTR176-002 itself. This is clearly
629: ruled out by our Keck spectra and even our Digital Speedometer spectra,
630: both of which would show obvious double lines.
631:
632: We then considered scenarios in which the eclipsing binary is in the
633: background (which would make it fainter), and is spatially unresolved.
634: Because the proper motion of the candidate is relatively small
635: \citep[$\sim$30 mas~yr$^{-1}$;][]{Monet:03}, the chance alignment would
636: remain very close for decades, precluding the direct detection of the
637: binary in archival photographic images such as those available from the
638: Digital Sky Survey. For convenience we parametrized how far behind the
639: eclipsing binary is placed relative to the candidate in terms of the
640: difference in distance modulus, $\Delta m$, and we explored a wide
641: range of values. As an example, we find that for $\Delta m = 4$ (binary
642: about 1.7 kpc behind) the best fit yields a relative brightness for the
643: binary of only 5\%, which is at or below our detection threshold of
644: 5--10\% from the Keck spectra. However, the ingress and egress are
645: clearly too long given the quality of our photometry
646: (Figure~\ref{fig:blends}, bottom curve). For a smaller separation of
647: $\Delta m = 2$ (binary some 500 pc behind) the fit is somewhat better,
648: though still visibly in disagreement with the observations
649: (Figure~\ref{fig:blends}, middle), and the relative brightness
650: increases to 20\%, which we would have noticed. Additional tests
651: changing the inclination angle from the edge-on configurations
652: considered above to lower angles did not alleviate the discrepancies.
653:
654: The above modeling rules out both a hierarchical triple and a
655: background eclipsing binary as possible alternate explanations for the
656: photometric signals we detect. This, combined with the lack of any
657: clear correlation between the bisector spans and the radial
658: velocities, constitutes compelling evidence of the planetary nature of
659: HTR176-002 = XO-5, and convinces us that the scatter in the bisector
660: spans described above is intrinsic to the star.
661:
662:
663: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
664: \begin{figure}
665: \plotone{f7.eps}
666: \caption{
667: %%
668: Blend modeling for \hatcur, based on our Sloan $i$-band
669: photometry. As examples we show the best fits corresponding to three
670: different blend scenarios, with the bottom two displaced vertically
671: for clarity. \emph{Top:} Model corresponding to a hierarchical triple
672: (see text), which is ruled out because the implied brightness of the
673: eclipsing binary is so large ($\sim$50\%) that our spectra would be
674: double-lined. \emph{Middle:} Model corresponding to a chance alignment
675: with a background eclipsing binary, in which the distance modulus
676: difference between the binary and the candidate is $\Delta m = 2$. The
677: ingress and egress are already seen to be too long, and the fit
678: implies a relative brightness of $\sim$20\% that would be easily
679: detectable spectroscopically. \emph{Bottom:} Chance alignment model
680: with $\Delta m = 4$ in which the binary is much fainter ($\sim$5\%),
681: but the best-fit model does not match the observations well. These
682: simulations rule out background blend scenarios.
683: %%
684: %%
685: \label{fig:blends}}
686: \end{figure}
687: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
688:
689:
690: % ##########################################################################
691: %% Analysis
692: \section{Analysis}
693: \label{sec:anal}
694:
695: In this section we describe briefly our analysis yielding the orbital,
696: planetary and stellar parameters for the \hatcur{} system.
697:
698: % =====================================================================
699: \subsection{Light curve and radial velocity analysis}
700: \label{sec:lcrvanal}
701:
702: For the initial characterization of the spectroscopic orbit, we fitted
703: a Keplerian model to the Keck RV data, allowing for eccentricity by
704: including as adjustable parameters the Lagrangian orbital elements
705: $k=e\cos\varpi$ and $h=e\sin\varpi$, in addition to a velocity offset
706: $\gamma$, the semi-amplitude $K$ and the epoch $E$. The period $P$ was
707: held fixed at the value found from the HATNet \lc{} analysis (from BLS,
708: see above). We found that $k$ and $h$ are insignificant compared to
709: their uncertainties ($k=-0.003\pm0.029$, $h=-0.009\pm0.023$),
710: suggesting that the orbit is circular However, in the determination of
711: the orbital and stellar parameters, we incorporated the uncertainties
712: yielded by the $k$ and $h$ orbital elements.
713:
714: We proceeded next with a joint fit using all data sets, namely, the
715: HATNet discovery light curve, the FLWO 1.2\,m follow-up light curves,
716: and the Keck radial velocities along with the initial estimates of the
717: spectroscopic properties derived through the SME analysis. The
718: follow-up light curves were modeled using the analytic formalism of
719: \citet{Mandel:02}, assuming quadratic limb darkening. The limb
720: darkening coefficients $\gamma_{1,z}$, $\gamma_{1,i}$, $\gamma_{2,z}$
721: and $\gamma_{2,i}$ were taken from \citet{Claret:04}, interpolating to
722: the values provided by the initial stellar atmospheric analysis
723: \secr{spec}. The adjusted parameters for the joint fit were
724: $T_{\mathrm{c},-270}$, the time of first transit center in the HATNet
725: campaign, $T_{\mathrm{c},20}$, the time of the transit center at the
726: last follow-up (on 2008 March 26), $m$, the out-of-transit magnitude of
727: the HATNet \lc{} in the \band{I}, the semi-amplitude of the radial
728: velocity $K$, the velocity offset $\gamma$, the Lagrangian orbital
729: elements $k$ and $h$, the fractional planetary radius $p\equiv R_{\rm
730: p}/R_\star$, the square of the impact parameter $b^2$, the quantity
731: $\zeta/R_\star=(2\pi/P)(a/R_\star)(1-b^2)^{-1/2}\sqrt{1-e^2}(1+h)^{-1}$
732: -- which is related to the duration of the transit\footnote{Here
733: duration is not the total duration between the first and last contact
734: but defined as the interval between the instances when the center of
735: the planet crosses the the limb of the stars inward and outward.} as
736: $T_{\rm dur}=2(\zeta/R_\star)^{-1}$, and the out-of-transit magnitudes
737: $m_{\rm c,0}$, $m_{\rm c,4}$, $m_{\rm c,9}$ and $m_{\rm c,20}$ for the
738: four follow-up \lcs{}. See \cite{pal2008} for a detailed discussion
739: about the advantages of this set of parameters. The initial values were
740: based on the BLS analysis, and our initial characterization of the
741: orbit. To obtain the best-fit values, we utilized the downhill simplex
742: algorithm \citep[see][]{press1992}. The uncertainties and the
743: correlations were determined using the Markov Chain Monte-Carlo method
744: \citep{Ford:06} which yields the \emph{a posteriori} distribution of
745: the adjusted values.
746:
747: As mentioned in \refsec{blend}, we found that there is a significant
748: correlation between the RV residuals and the bisector spans. This
749: suggests it might be possible to improve the RV fit by including an
750: additional term to account for this correlation. We therefore expanded
751: the model for the velocity variation to
752: %%
753: \begin{equation}
754: v_i = \gamma + K\cdot {\rm RV_0}\left(\frac{2\pi(t_i-E)}{P},k,h\right)+C_{\rm BS}b_i \label{eq:rvmodel}
755: \end{equation}
756: %%
757: where ${\rm RV_0}(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ represents the \emph{base}
758: function for the radial velocity variations\footnote{This function has
759: three arguments: the mean longitude measured from the transit center
760: and the two Lagrangian orbital elements $k$ and $h$. It is easy to show
761: that if $k=h=0$, ${\rm RV_0}(\lambda,0,0)= -\sin(\lambda)$.} and $b_i$
762: is the actual bisector span variation for the $i$-th measurement. We
763: found that when omitting the last term the unbiased residual is
764: $8.8$\,${\rm m\,s}^{-1}$, whereas its inclusion leads to decreased
765: residuals of $4.6$\,${\rm m\,s}^{-1}$, nearly a factor of two better.
766: We tested also whether the inclusion of a similar term in
767: Eq.~(\ref{eq:rvmodel}) proportional to the stellar activity index (with
768: a coefficient $C_{\rm S-index}$) provides any further improvement in
769: the fit, but found that it actually degrades the residuals slightly.
770: The final orbital and planetary parameters (and their uncertainties)
771: derived in this paper are based on the above discussed radial velocity
772: model function decorrelated against the bisector variations.
773:
774: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
775:
776: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrr}
777: \tablewidth{0pc}
778: \tablecaption{Relative radial velocity, bisector span and stellar
779: activity ($S$)measurements of \hatcur{}\label{tab:rvs}}
780: \tablehead{
781: \colhead{BJD} &
782: \colhead{RV} &
783: \colhead{\ensuremath{\sigma_{\rm RV}}} &
784: \colhead{Bisec} &
785: \colhead{\ensuremath{\sigma_{\rm Bisec}}} &
786: \colhead{$S$} \\
787: \colhead{\hbox{($2,454,000+$)}} &
788: \colhead{(\ms)} &
789: \colhead{(\ms)} &
790: \colhead{(\ms)} &
791: \colhead{(\ms)} &
792: }
793: \startdata
794: 186.94763 & $ 269.14 $ & $ 3.21 $ & $ 41.75 $ & $ 33.63 $ & $ 0.1620 $ \\ %12.0
795: 187.94425 & $ - $ & $ - $ & $ 35.88 $ & $ 35.33 $ & $ 0.1530 $ \\ %13.3
796: 187.95384 & $ 226.59 $ & $ 3.08 $ & $ -0.36 $ & $ 47.48 $ & $ 0.1598 $ \\ % 9.6
797: 188.95403 & $ 33.07 $ & $ 2.79 $ & $ 20.77 $ & $ 42.04 $ & $ 0.1589 $ \\ %10.4
798: 216.76639 & $ 294.36 $ & $ 2.70 $ & $ 81.43 $ & $ 20.90 $ & $ 0.1549 $ \\ %20.3
799: 247.80697 & $ 0.00 $ & $ 3.37 $ & $ -30.10 $ & $ 45.47 $ & $ 0.1876 $ \\ % 3.3
800: 248.77938 & $ 76.84 $ & $ 3.83 $ & $ -34.80 $ & $ 48.41 $ & $ 0.1855 $ \\ % 6.3
801: 249.78531 & $ 268.26 $ & $ 3.36 $ & $ 12.13 $ & $ 36.59 $ & $ 0.1548 $ \\ % 8.4
802: 251.78153 & $ 5.41 $ & $ 3.75 $ & $ -110.60 $ & $ 64.06 $ & $ 0.1459 $ \\ % 8.3
803: 428.02826 & $ 8.16 $ & $ 3.02 $ & $ 100.80 $ & $ 15.23 $ & $ 0.1543 $ \\ %18.1
804: 430.12240 & $ 301.03 $ & $ 3.71 $ & $ 94.90 $ & $ 16.46 $ & $ 0.1549 $ \\ %14.5
805: 455.97787 & $ 222.99 $ & $ 3.41 $ & $ 93.23 $ & $ 16.03 $ & $ 0.1505 $ \\ %15.6
806: 547.92199 & $ 224.82 $ & $ 7.25 $ & $ -\tablenotemark{a} $ & $ -\tablenotemark{a} $ & $ 0.1577 $ \\ % 8.6
807: 548.81658 & $ 79.96 $ & $ 3.08 $ & $ 82.68 $ & $ 22.18 $ & $ 0.1595 $ \\ %21.6
808: 548.89652 & $ 65.98 $ & $ 2.84 $ & $ 73.55 $ & $ 24.33 $ & $ 0.1576 $ \\ %21.7
809: 602.74168 & $ 193.74 $ & $ 2.61 $ & $ 59.89 $ & $ 25.39 $ & $ 0.1578 $ \\ %22.1
810: 603.74268 & $ 15.18 $ & $ 2.83 $ & $ 60.49 $ & $ 25.44 $ & $ 0.1604 $ \\ %21.2
811: \enddata
812: \tablenotetext{a}{This spectrum turned out to be severely contaminated
813: by moonlight; however, the corresponding RV is unaffected.}
814: \end{deluxetable}
815: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
816:
817: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
818: \begin{figure}
819: \plotone{f2.eps}
820: \caption{
821: %%
822: (a) Radial-velocity measurements from Keck for \hatcur{}, along
823: with our orbital fit (see \secr{anal}). The
824: center-of-mass velocity $\gamma$ and the correlation correction
825: for the bisector span variations has been subtracted.
826: %%
827: (b) Phased residuals after subtracting the orbital fit (also see
828: \secr{anal}). The rms variation of the residuals is
829: about $4.6$\,\ms.
830: %%
831: (c) Bisector spans (BS) for 16 of the Keck spectra (including
832: the iodine-free template).
833: Note that the scales of the panels are the same.
834: \label{fig:rv}}
835: \end{figure}
836: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
837:
838: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
839: \begin{deluxetable}{lcl}
840: \tablewidth{0pc}
841: \tablecaption{Stellar parameters for \hatcur{} \label{tab:stellar}}
842: \tablehead{\colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value} & \colhead{Source}}
843: \startdata
844: %%
845: $\teffstar$ (K)\dotfill & \hatcurSMEteff & SME\tablenotemark{a} \\
846: $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$\dotfill & \hatcurSMEzfeh & SME \\
847: $v \sin i$ (\kms)\dotfill & \hatcurSMEvsin & SME \\
848: $M_\star$ ($M_{\sun}$)\dotfill & \hatcurYYm & Y$^2$+LC+SME\tablenotemark{b} \\
849: $R_\star$ ($R_{\sun}$)\dotfill & \hatcurYYr & Y$^2$+LC+SME \\
850: $\loggstar$ (cgs)\dotfill & \hatcurYYlogg & Y$^2$+LC+SME \\
851: $L_\star$ ($L_{\sun}$)\dotfill & \hatcurYYlum & Y$^2$+LC+SME \\
852: $M_V$ (mag)\dotfill & \hatcurYYmv & Y$^2$+LC+SME \\
853: Age (Gyr)\dotfill & \hatcurYYage & Y$^2$+LC+SME \\
854: Distance (pc)\dotfill & \hatcurXdist & Y$^2$+LC+SME
855: %%
856: \enddata
857: \tablenotetext{a}{SME = `Spectroscopy Made Easy' package for analysis
858: of high-resolution spectra \cite{Valenti:96}. See text.}
859: \tablenotetext{b}{Y$^2$+LC+SME = Yale-Yonsei isochrones \citep{Yi:01},
860: \lc{} parameters, and SME results.}
861: \end{deluxetable}
862:
863: % =====================================================================
864: \subsection{Stellar and planetary parameters}
865: \label{sec:stellarparameters}
866:
867: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
868: \begin{figure}
869: \plotone{f3.eps}
870: \caption{
871: %%
872: Bisector span variations as a function of the RV (left panel) and
873: RV fit residual (right panel). The right panel shows the fit
874: residuals when the correlation term was not included in the fit.
875: Note that on the graphs the horizontal scales are not the same.
876: %%
877: \label{fig:rvbis}}
878: \end{figure}
879: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
880:
881: The stellar parameters were determined in an iterative way as follows.
882: As pointed out by \cite{Sozzetti:07}, the stellar density is a better
883: luminosity indicator than the spectroscopic value of $\loggstar$. In a
884: first order approximation the density is related to the observable
885: quantities $P$ and $a/R_\star$ as
886: $\rho_\star=(3\pi)G^{-1}P^{-2}(a/R_\star)^3$. We used the values of
887: $\teffstar$ and $\feh$ from the SME analysis, together with the
888: distribution of $\rho_\star$ (derived from $a/R_\star$) to estimate the
889: stellar parameters from the Yonsei-Yale evolution models, as published
890: by \cite{Yi:01} and \cite{Demarque:04}. This resulted in \emph{a
891: posteriori} distributions of those stellar parameters, including the
892: mass, radius, age, luminosity and colors. From the mass and radius
893: distributions, we obtained a new value and uncertainty for the stellar
894: surface gravity: $\hatcurYYlogg$. Since this value is significantly
895: smaller than the previous value based on the SME analysis \secr{spec},
896: we repeated the atmospheric modeling by fixing the surface gravity to
897: the new value ($\hatcurYYlogg$), and allowing only the metallicity and
898: effective temperature to vary. This next iteration of the SME analysis
899: yielded $\teffstar=\hatcurSMEteff$\,K and $\feh=\hatcurSMEzfeh$. Based
900: on these new atmospheric parameters, the limb darkening coefficients
901: were re-calculated and we repeated the joint fit for the \lc{} and RV
902: parameters, followed by the stellar evolution modeling once again, in
903: the same way as discussed earlier. In this iteration the surface
904: gravity barely changed ($\loggstar=4.33\pm0.04$), so the stellar
905: previous parameters were accepted as final (\tabr{stellar}). In
906: Fig.~\ref{fig:isochrones}, we plot the evolutionary isochrones as the
907: function of the effective temperature and both the stellar surface
908: gravity and $a/R_\star$ (these are used as luminosity indicators). The
909: temperature, surface gravity and relative semimajor axis values
910: discussed here are also superimposed on these isochrone plots.
911:
912: %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %%
913: \begin{figure}
914: \plotone{f6.eps}
915: \caption{
916: %%
917: Stellar evolution isochrones from the Yonsei-Yale models, corresponding
918: to ages between $2$ and $14$\,Gyr (in steps of $1$\,Gyr), as a function
919: of both surface gravity (top) and normalized semimajor axis
920: $a/R_{\star}$ (bottom). In the top panel the isochrone metallicity
921: ($[\rm{Fe/H}]=+0.16$), spectroscopic surface gravity, and temperature
922: are from our initial SME analysis, the latter two shown with 1-$\sigma$
923: and 2-$\sigma$ confidence ellipsoids. In the lower panel the
924: metallicity ($[\rm{Fe/H}]=+0.05$), temperature, and $a/R_{\star}$ are
925: from the iterative analysis described in the text. Note that the latter
926: quantities result in a significantly different evolutionary state for
927: the star.
928: }
929: \label{fig:isochrones}
930: \end{figure}
931: %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %% %%
932:
933: The results from this second global fit to all the available data
934: (photometry, radial velocities)
935: are listed in \tabr{parameters}. In addition, values for
936: some auxiliary parameters in this fit are:
937: %%
938: $T_{\mathrm{c},-270}=2453338.22311\pm0.00236$~(BJD),
939: $T_{\mathrm{c},20} =2454552.67174\pm0.00029$~(BJD),
940: $m=11.33042\pm0.00010$\,mag
941: %%
942: and the Keck velocity offset is $\gamma=\hatcurRVgamma$\,\ms. The
943: best-fit values and uncertainties for the fitted parameters are
944: straightforward to obtain from the MC distributions. These, in turn,
945: lead to the planetary parameters and their uncertainties by using a
946: direct combination of the \emph{a posteriori} parameter distributions
947: of the light curve, radial velocity and stellar parameters. We find
948: that the mass of the planet is $M_p=\hatcurPPmlong$\,\mjup, the radius
949: is $R_p=\hatcurPPrlong$\,\rjup{} and its density is
950: $\rho_p=\hatcurPPrho$\,\gcmc. These quantities are also collected in
951: Table~\ref{tab:parameters}. The correlation coefficient $C(M_p,R_p)$
952: between the planetary mass and radius is listed as well. We also
953: estimated the individual transit centers of the four follow-up \lcs{},
954: by adjusting only the the light curve parameters ($R_{\rm p}/R_\star$,
955: $b^2$, $\zeta/R_\star$, out-of-transit magnitudes) while the transit
956: centers were not constrained by a given epoch and period. We obtained
957: that the individual transit centers do not differ significantly from
958: the interpolated transit centers (derived from the results of the joint
959: fit), i.e. the available data do not show any signs for transit timing
960: variations. The independently fitted transit centers for the events
961: $N_{\rm tr}=0$, $N_{\rm tr}=4$ and $N_{\rm tr}=20$ differ from the
962: linearly interpolated values by less than $1.5$-$\sigma$, and the
963: difference at the event $N_{\rm tr}=9$ is nearly $2.3$-$\sigma$. The
964: independently fitted and the interpolated transit instants are shown in
965: Table~\ref{tab:tc}.
966:
967: Using our best fit model, we also checked the amplitude of the
968: out-of-transit variations of the HATNet \lc{}, by performing a Fourier
969: analysis on the fit residuals. We found no significant variation in the
970: stellar flux, and all Fourier amplitudes were less than $0.7$\,mmag.
971: This estimation gives an upper limit for the stellar activity, and is
972: in line with the small $S$ values derived from spectroscopy ($S\lesssim
973: 0.186$, see Table~\ref{tab:rvs}). It is somewhat surprising that in
974: spite of the small activity based on the spectroscopic $S$ index, the
975: \lc{} out-of-transit variation, and the low \vsini{} rotational
976: velocity of the star, the bisector spans exhibit such a large scatter.
977:
978: The Yonsei-Yale evolutionary models also provide the absolute
979: magnitudes and colors for different photometric bands. We compared the
980: $V-I$ model color with the observed TASS color
981: \citep[see][]{Droege:06}. Since $(V-I)_{\rm YY}=\hatcurYYvi$ and
982: $(V-I)_{\rm TASS}=\hatcurCCtassvi$, we conclude that the star is not
983: significantly affected by interstellar reddening (also note the
984: Galactic latitude of \hatcur{}, which is $b=26^\circ.9$). Therefore,
985: for the distance determination we use the distance modulus $V_{\rm
986: TASS}-M_V=7.18\pm0.13$, which corresponds to $d=\hatcurXdist$\,pc.
987:
988: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
989: \begin{deluxetable}{ll}
990: \tablewidth{0pc}
991: \tablecaption{Orbital and planetary parameters\label{tab:parameters}}
992: \tablehead{\colhead{~~~~~~~~~~~~Parameter~~~~~~~~~~~~} & \colhead{Value}}
993: \startdata
994: \sidehead{\Lc{} parameters}
995: ~~~$P$ (days) \dotfill & $\hatcurLCP$ \\
996: ~~~$E$ (${\rm BJD}$) \dotfill & $\hatcurLCT$ \\
997: ~~~$T_{14}$ (days)\tablenotemark{a} \dotfill & $\hatcurLCdur$ \\
998: ~~~$T_{12} = T_{34}$ (days)\tablenotemark{a} \dotfill & $\hatcurLCingdur$ \\
999: ~~~$\zeta/R_\star$ ($\mathrm{day^{-1}}$) \dotfill & $17.779\pm0.091$ \\
1000: ~~~$a/R_\star$ \dotfill & $\hatcurPPar$ \\
1001: ~~~$R_p/R_\star$ \dotfill & $\hatcurLCrprstar$ \\
1002: ~~~$b \equiv a \cos i/R_\star$ \dotfill & $\hatcurLCimp$ \\
1003: ~~~$i$ (deg) \dotfill & $\hatcurPPi$ \phn \\
1004: \sidehead{Spectroscopic parameters}
1005: ~~~$K$ (\ms) \dotfill & $\hatcurRVK$ \\
1006: %~~~$\gamma$ (\kms) \dotfill & $\hatcurRVgamma$ \\
1007: ~~~$C_{\rm BS}$ \dotfill & $0.125\pm0.025$ \\
1008: ~~~$C_{\rm S-index}$ \dotfill & $0$ (adopted) \\
1009: ~~~$k\equiv e\,\cos\omega$ \dotfill & $\hatcurRVecosomega$ \\
1010: ~~~$h\equiv e\,\sin\omega$ \dotfill & $\hatcurRVesinomega$ \\
1011: \sidehead{Planetary parameters}
1012: ~~~$M_p$ ($\mjup$) \dotfill & $\hatcurPPmlong$ \\
1013: ~~~$R_p$ ($\rjup$) \dotfill & $\hatcurPPrlong$ \\
1014: ~~~$C(M_p,R_p)$ \dotfill & $\hatcurPPmrcorr$ \\
1015: ~~~$\rho_p$ (\gcmc) \dotfill & $\hatcurPPrho$ \\
1016: ~~~$a$ (AU) \dotfill & $\hatcurPParel$ \\
1017: ~~~$\log g_p$ (cgs) \dotfill & $\hatcurPPlogg$ \\
1018: ~~~$T_{\rm eq}$ (K) \dotfill & $\hatcurPPteff$ \\
1019: ~~~$\Theta$ \dotfill & $\hatcurPPtheta$
1020: \enddata
1021: \tablenotetext{a}{\ensuremath{T_{14}}: total transit duration, time
1022: between first and last contact; \ensuremath{T_{12}=T_{34}}:
1023: ingress/egress time, time between first and second, or third and fourth
1024: contact.}
1025: \end{deluxetable}
1026: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1027:
1028: \begin{deluxetable}{rrr}
1029: \tablewidth{0pc}
1030: \tablecaption{Individual transit center measurements\label{tab:tc}}
1031: \tablehead{
1032: \colhead{Event} &
1033: \colhead{\ensuremath{T_{\rm C} (BJD)\tablenotemark{a}}} &
1034: \colhead{\ensuremath{T_{\rm C} (BJD)\tablenotemark{b}}}\\
1035: \colhead{\#} &
1036: \colhead{\hbox{~~~~(2,454,000$+$)~~~~}} &
1037: \colhead{\hbox{~~~~(2,454,000$+$)~~~~}}
1038: }
1039: \startdata
1040: 0 & $468.91868\pm0.00181$ & $468.91666\pm0.00028$ \\
1041: 4 & $485.66932\pm0.00058$ & $485.66768\pm0.00028$ \\
1042: 9 & $506.60475\pm0.00057$ & $506.60645\pm0.00027$ \\
1043: 20 & $552.67152\pm0.00041$ & $552.67174\pm0.00029$ \\
1044: \enddata
1045: \tablenotetext{a}{Derived frp, the individually fitted the transit centers
1046: while the other light curve parameters were constrained to be equal.}
1047: \tablenotetext{b}{Derived by interpolation from the joint fit results,
1048: assuming a constant period.}
1049: \end{deluxetable}
1050:
1051: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1052:
1053: %% EOF Analysis
1054:
1055: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
1056: \plottwo{f4.eps}{f5.eps}
1057: \caption{
1058: (a): Safronov number vs.~equilibrium temperature for the known
1059: transiting extrasolar planets. \hatcurb{} is marked with a larger
1060: dot and it is located at the upper envelope of the Class~I
1061: distribution of planets (\hatcurb{} $> 0.05$). (b): Surface
1062: gravities as the function of the orbital period for the known
1063: extrasolar planets. With its relatively high surface gravity and
1064: orbital period, \hatcurb{} falls slightly off the main
1065: distribution.
1066: \label{fig:Pg_tsaf}}
1067: \end{figure*}
1068:
1069: % ##########################################################################
1070: %% Discussion
1071: \section{Discussion}
1072:
1073: In this paper we have described our independent detection of the
1074: transiting planet \hatcurb{} using the HATNet observations. A
1075: significant component of our effort has been to examine possible
1076: astrophysical false positives and to model the data in detail in order
1077: to rule them out. In this way we have provided new and crucial support
1078: for the planetary nature of the object. We also present refined values
1079: for the system parameters. It is reassuring that the planetary
1080: parameters in B08 and this work are consistent within 1-$\sigma$. This,
1081: however, is somewhat coincidental, since the stellar parameters are
1082: quite different. Based on our SME analysis, we derive a lower effective
1083: temperature (\teffstar = \hatcurSMEteff\,K as compared to
1084: $5510\pm44$\,K in B08), and a lower metallicity ($\feh =
1085: \hatcurSMEzfeh$ vs.~$0.25\pm0.03$). The difference is attributed to our
1086: iterations on the SME analysis and the transit-fitting, using the
1087: $a/\rstar$ based mean stellar density as a luminosity indicator, and
1088: fixing the corresponding $\loggstar$ in the SME analysis (i.e.~solving
1089: only for $\feh$ and $\teffstar$). We derive a smaller stellar mass:
1090: $\hatcurYYm\,\msun$ vs.~$1.0\pm0.03,\msun$, based on the same
1091: \cite{Yi:01} isochrones. Due to the high precision photometric and RV
1092: data, we are able to refine the planetary and orbital parameters of the
1093: system, and decrease the uncertainties typically by a factor of
1094: $\sim2-3$.
1095:
1096: Based on the models of \citet{liu:08}, after re-scaling the semi-major
1097: axis to match the insolation flux \hatcurb{} would have if it orbited a
1098: G2V dwarf ($a_{equiv} = 0.05313$\,AU), the measured mass and radius of
1099: \hatcurb{} require a small core to be consistent with theory even if no
1100: internal heating is assumed. Using the work of \cite{fortney:07},
1101: \hatcurb{} is consistent with a 300\,Myr old planet with a
1102: 50\,\mearth{} core, a 1\,Gyr old planet with a 25\,\mearth{} core, or a
1103: 4.5\,Gyr planet with a core smaller than 10\,\mearth{} mass. The
1104: incident flux on \hatcurb{} is $\sim 4.83\cdot 10^8\ergscm$. This
1105: corresponds to a pL class planet, based on the definitions of
1106: \citet{fortney:08}, although it falls fairly close to the transition
1107: area between the pL and pM classes.
1108:
1109: We confirm that the planet has a remarkably high Safronov number,
1110: $\Theta\equiv 1/2(V_{esc}/V_{orb})^2 = \hatcurPPtheta$, placing it at
1111: the high end of the Class~I planets as defined by \cite{hansen2007}.
1112: The plot of the Safronov numbers for the known TEPs as a function of
1113: equilibrium temperature is displayed on \figr{Pg_tsaf}a. We also
1114: confirm that \hatcurb{} has an anomalously high surface gravity, as
1115: compared to other TEPs with similar period \citep{southworth07}.
1116:
1117: Altogether, \hatcur{} appears to be an interesting system exhibiting a
1118: number of anomalies including non-trivial bisector span variations, and
1119: anomalously high Safronov number and surface gravity. Future
1120: observations and theoretical work are required to understand these
1121: properties.
1122:
1123: %% EOF Discussion
1124:
1125: % =====================================================================
1126: %% Acknowledgements
1127: \acknowledgements
1128:
1129: HATNet operations have been funded by NASA grants NNG04GN74G,
1130: NNX08AF23G and SAO IR\&D grants. Work of G.\'A.B.~was supported by the
1131: Postdoctoral Fellowship of the NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Program
1132: (AST-0702843). We acknowledge partial support also from the Kepler
1133: Mission under NASA Cooperative Agreement NCC2-1390 (D.W.L., PI).
1134: G.K.~thanks the Hungarian Scientific Research Foundation (OTKA) for
1135: support through grant K-60750. A.P.~is grateful for the SAO Visiting
1136: Student Fellowship that supported his work. This research has made use
1137: of Keck telescope time granted through NASA and NOAO (programs N162Hr,
1138: N128Hr and A264Hr).
1139:
1140: %% EOF Acknowledgements
1141:
1142: % =====================================================================
1143: %% Bibliography
1144: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1145:
1146: % %% %T\n %% %u\n \\bibitem[%\3m%(y)]{%\1h:%\Y} %\8l~%\Y,%\j,%\V,%\p\n
1147:
1148: % TrES-1: The Transiting Planet of a Bright K0 V Star
1149: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613L.153A
1150: \bibitem[Alonso et al.(2004)]{Alonso:2004}
1151: Alonso, R., et al.~2004, \apjl, 613, L153
1152:
1153: % System Description and First Light Curves of the Hungarian Automated Telescope, an Autonomous Observatory for Variability Search
1154: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PASP..114..974B
1155: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2002)]{Bakos:02}
1156: Bakos, G.~{\'A}., L{\'a}z{\'a}r, J., Papp, I., S{\'a}ri, P., \& Green, E.~M.~2002, \pasp, 114, 974
1157:
1158: % Wide-Field Millimagnitude Photometry with the HAT: A Tool for Extrasolar Planet Detection
1159: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASP..116..266B
1160: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2004)]{Bakos:04}
1161: Bakos, G.~\'A., Noyes, R.~W., Kov{\'a}cs, G., Stanek, K.~Z., Sasselov, D.~D., \& Domsa, I.~2004, \pasp, 116, 266
1162:
1163: % HD 147506b: A Supermassive Planet in an Eccentric Orbit Transiting a Bright Star
1164: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..826B
1165: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007)]{Bakos:07}
1166: Bakos, G.~{\'A}., et al.~2007, \apj, 670, 826
1167:
1168: % HAT-P-10b: A light and moderately hot Jupiter transiting a K dwarf
1169: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0809.4295B
1170: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2008)]{bakos2008}
1171: Bakos, G.~{\'A}., et al.~2008, \apj, submitted (arXiv:0809.4295)
1172:
1173: % HAT-P-11b:
1174: %
1175: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2009)]{bakos:2009}
1176: Bakos, G.~{\'A}., et al.~2009, \apj, submitted (arXiv:0901.0282)
1177:
1178: %% This is the TrES/STARE paper
1179: %%
1180: \bibitem[Brown \& Charbonneau (2000)]{brown:00}
1181: Brown T.~M.~\& Charbonneau D.~2000,
1182: In {\em Disks, Planetesimals, and Planets} (F.~Garz{\'o}n et al., eds.),
1183: pp.~584-589.~ASP Conf.~Series, San Francisco.
1184:
1185: % Expected Detection and False Alarm Rates for Transiting Jovian Planets
1186: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...593L.125B
1187: \bibitem[Brown(2003)]{Brown:2003}
1188: Brown, T.~M.~2003, \apjl, 593, L125
1189:
1190: % XO-2b: Transiting Hot Jupiter in a Metal-rich Common Proper Motion
1191: % Binary
1192: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.2115B
1193: \bibitem[Burke et al.(2007)]{Burke:07} Burke, C.~J., et al.~2007, \apj,
1194: 671, 2115
1195:
1196: % XO-5b: A Transiting Jupiter-sized Planet With A Four Day Period
1197: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0805.2399B
1198: \bibitem[Burke et al.(2008)]{burke08}
1199: Burke, C.~J.~et al.~2008, \apj, submitted (arXiv:0805.2399)
1200:
1201: % Attaining Doppler Precision of 3 M s-1
1202: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PASP..108..500B
1203: \bibitem[Butler et al.(1996)]{Butler:96}
1204: Butler, R.~P., Marcy, G.~W., Williams, E., McCarthy, C., Dosanjh, P., \& Vogt, S.~S.~1996, \pasp, 108, 500
1205:
1206: % A new non-linear limb-darkening law for LTE stellar atmosphere models III. Sloan filters: Calculations for -5.0 ≤ log [M/H] ≤ +1, 2000 K ≤ T<SUB>eff</SUB> ≤ 50 000 K at several surface gravities
1207: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A%26A...428.1001C
1208: \bibitem[Claret(2004)]{Claret:04}
1209: Claret, A.~2004, \aap, 428, 1001
1210:
1211: % WASP-1b and WASP-2b: two new transiting exoplanets detected with SuperWASP and SOPHIE
1212: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375..951C
1213: \bibitem[Cameron et al.(2007)]{Cameron:2007}
1214: Cameron, A.~C., et al.~2007, \mnras, 375, 951
1215:
1216: % Y<SUP>2</SUP> Isochrones with an Improved Core Overshoot Treatment
1217: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..155..667D
1218: \bibitem[Demarque et al.(2004)]{Demarque:04}
1219: Demarque, P., Woo, J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., \& Yi, S.~K.~2004, \apjs, 155, 667
1220:
1221: % TASS Mark IV Photometric Survey of the Northern Sky
1222: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PASP..118.1666D
1223: \bibitem[Droege et al.(2006)]{Droege:06}
1224: Droege, T.~F., Richmond, M.~W., \& Sallman, M.~2006, \pasp, 118, 1666
1225:
1226: % PSST: The Planet Search Survey Telescope
1227: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASP..116.1072D
1228: \bibitem[Dunham et al.(2004)]{dunham:04} Dunham, E.~W., Mandushev,
1229: G.~I., Taylor, B.~W., \& Oetiker, B.~2004, \pasp, 116, 1072
1230:
1231: \bibitem[Etzel(1981)]{Etzel:81}
1232: Etzel, P.~B. 1981, Photometric and Spectroscopic Binary Systems
1233: (Dordrecht: Reidel), 65
1234:
1235: % 2006ApJ...642..505F
1236: % Improving the Efficiency of Markov Chain Monte Carlo for Analyzing the Orbits of Extrasolar Planets
1237: \bibitem[Ford(2006)]{Ford:06}
1238: Ford, E.~2006, \apj, 642, 505
1239:
1240: % Planetary Radii across Five Orders of Magnitude in Mass and Stellar
1241: % Insolation: Application to Transits
1242: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...659.1661F
1243: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2007)]{fortney:07} Fortney, J.~J., Marley,
1244: M.~S., \& Barnes, J.~W.~2007, \apj, 659, 1661
1245:
1246: % A Unified Theory for the Atmospheres of the Hot and Very Hot
1247: % Jupiters: Two Classes of Irradiated Atmospheres
1248: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...678.1419F
1249: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2008)]{fortney:08} Fortney, J.~J., Lodders, K.,
1250: Marley, M.~S., \& Freedman, R.~S.~2008, \apj, 678, 1419
1251:
1252:
1253: % Two Classes of Hot Jupiters
1254: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671..861H
1255: \bibitem[Hansen \& Barman(2007)]{hansen2007}
1256: Hansen, B. M. S. \& Barman, T.~2007, \apj, .671, 861
1257:
1258: % Planetary Transit Searches: Hot Jupiters Galore
1259: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001tdpl.conf....5H
1260: \bibitem[Horne(2001)]{Horne:2001}
1261: Horne, K.~2001, Techniques for the Detection of Planets and Life beyond the Solar System, 5
1262:
1263: % A box-fitting algorithm in the search for periodic transits
1264: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A%26A...391..369K
1265: \bibitem[Kov\'acs et al.(2002)]{Kovacs:02}
1266: Kov\'acs, G., Zucker, S., \& Mazeh, T.~2002, \aap, 391, 369
1267:
1268: % A trend filtering algorithm for wide-field variability surveys
1269: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.356..557K
1270: \bibitem[Kov\'acs et al.(2005)]{Kovacs:05}
1271: Kov\'acs, G., Bakos, G.~\'A., \& Noyes, R.~W.~2005, \mnras, 356, 557
1272:
1273:
1274: % Surveys of Spectroscopic Binaries at the Center for Astrophysics
1275: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ASPC...32..110L
1276: \bibitem[Latham(1992)]{Latham:92}
1277: Latham, D.~W. 1992, in IAU Coll.~135, Complementary Approaches to
1278: Double and Multiple Star Research, ASP Conf.~Ser.~32,
1279: eds.~H.~A.~McAlister \& W.~I.~Hartkopf (San Francisco: ASP), 110
1280:
1281: % Theoretical Radii of Extrasolar Giant Planets: the Cases of TrES-4,
1282: % XO-3b, a
1283: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0805.1733L
1284: \bibitem[Liu et al.(2008)]{liu:08} Liu, X., Burrows, A., \& Ibgui, L.~2008,
1285: astroph/0805.1733
1286:
1287: % Analytic Light Curves for Planetary Transit Searches
1288: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...580L.171M
1289: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{Mandel:02}
1290: Mandel, K., \& Agol, E.~2002, \apjl, 580, L171
1291:
1292: % The Challenge of Wide-Field Transit Surveys: The Case of GSC 01944-02289
1293: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...621.1061M
1294: %\bibitem[Mandushev et al.(2005)]{Mandushev:05}
1295: % Mandushev, G.~et al.~2005, \apj, 621, 1061
1296:
1297: % TrES-4: A Transiting Hot Jupiter of Very Low Density
1298: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...667L.195M
1299: \bibitem[Mandushev et al.(2007)]{Mandushev:07}
1300: Mandushev, G.~et al.~2007, \apj, 667, L195
1301:
1302: % Precision radial velocities with an iodine absorption cell
1303: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992PASP..104..270M
1304: \bibitem[Marcy \& Butler(1992)]{Marcy:92}
1305: Marcy, G.~W., \& Butler, R.~P. 1992, \pasp, 104, 270
1306:
1307: % The XO Project: Searching for Transiting Extrasolar Planet Candidates
1308: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PASP..117..783M
1309: \bibitem[McCullough et al.(2005)]{McCullough:2005}
1310: McCullough, P.~R., Stys, J.~E., Valenti, J.~A., Fleming, S.~W., Janes, K.~A., \& Heasley, J.~N.~2005, \pasp, 117, 783
1311:
1312: % A Transiting Planet of a Sun-like Star (XO-1b)
1313: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...648.1228M
1314: \bibitem[McCullough et al.(2006)]{McCullough:2006}
1315: McCullough, P.~R., et al.~2006, \apj, 648, 1228
1316:
1317: \bibitem[Monet et al.(2003)]{Monet:03}
1318: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125..984M
1319: Monet, D.~G., Levine, S.~E., Casian, B.~et al.~2003, \aj, 125, 984
1320:
1321: \bibitem[Noyes et al.(1984)]{Noyes:84}
1322: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...279..763N
1323: Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K. \& Vaughan, A. H.
1324: 1984, \apj, 279, 763
1325:
1326: % Astrometry in Wide-Field Surveys
1327: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PASP..118.1474P
1328: \bibitem[P\'al \& Bakos(2006)]{Pal:06}
1329: P\'al, A., \& Bakos, G.~\'A. 2006, \pasp, 118, 1474
1330:
1331: % HAT-P-7b: An Extremely Hot Massive Planet Transiting a Bright Star in the Kepler Field
1332: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...680.1450P
1333: \bibitem[P\'al et al.(2008)]{pal2008}
1334: P\'al, A. et al.~2008, \apj, 680, 1450
1335:
1336: % The WASP Project and the SuperWASP Cameras
1337: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PASP..118.1407P
1338: \bibitem[Pollacco et al.(2006)]{pollacco2006}
1339: Pollacco, D. et al.~2006, \pasp, 118, 1407
1340:
1341: \bibitem[Popper \& Etzel(1981)]{Popper:81}
1342: Popper, D.~M., \& Etzel, P.~B. 1981, \aj, 86, 102
1343:
1344: % Numerical Recipes in C: the art of scientific computing
1345: % http://nr.com
1346: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{press1992}
1347: Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T. \& Flannery, B. P., 1992,
1348: Numerical Recipes in C: the art of scientific computing, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press
1349:
1350: % No planet for HD 166435
1351: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A%26A...379..279Q
1352: \bibitem[Queloz et al.(2001)]{Queloz:01}
1353: Queloz, D.~et al.~2001, \aap, 379, 279
1354:
1355: % The WHAT project
1356: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006tafp.conf..196S
1357: \bibitem[Shporer et al.(2006)]{shporer2006}
1358: Shporer, A., Mazeh, T., Moran, A., Bakos, G., Kovacs, G., \& Mashal, E.~2006,
1359: Tenth Anniversary of 51 Peg-b: Status of and prospects for hot Jupiter studies, 196
1360:
1361: % HAT-P-9b: A Low Density Planet Transiting a Moderately Faint F star
1362: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0806.4008S
1363: \bibitem[Shporer et al.(2008)]{shporer2008}
1364: Shporer, A.~et al.~2008, \apj, submitted (arXiv:0806.4008)
1365:
1366: % Improving Stellar and Planetary Parameters of Transiting Planet Systems: The Case of TrES-2
1367: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...664.1190S
1368: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al.(2007)]{Sozzetti:07}
1369: Sozzetti, A.~et al.~2007, \apj, 664, 1190
1370:
1371: % SuperWASP: Wide Angle Search for Planets
1372: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ASPC..294..405S
1373: \bibitem[Street et al.(2003)]{Street:2003}
1374: Street, R.~A., et al.~2003, Scientific Frontiers in Research on Extrasolar Planets, 294, 405
1375:
1376: % Testing Models of Stellar Evolution for Metal-poor Stars: An Interferometric-spectroscopic Orbit for the Binary HD 195987
1377: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....124.1716T
1378: %\bibitem[Torres et al.(2002)]{Torres:02}
1379: % Torres, G., Boden, A. F., Latham, D. W., Pan, M. \& Stefanik, R. P. 2002, \aj, 124, 1716
1380:
1381: % Testing Blend Scenarios for Extrasolar Transiting Planet Candidates. II. OGLE-TR-56
1382: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619..558T
1383: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2005)]{Torres:05}
1384: Torres, G., Konacki, M., Sasselov, D.~D., \& Jha, S. 2005, \apj, 619, 558
1385:
1386: % Testing Blend Scenarios for Extrasolar Transiting Planet Candidates. I. OGLE-TR-33: A false positive
1387: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...614..979T
1388: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2004)]{Torres:04}
1389: Torres, G., Konacki, M., Sasselov, D.~D., \& Jha, S. 2005, \apj, 614, 979
1390:
1391: % HAT-P-3b: A Heavy-Element-rich Planet Transiting a K Dwarf Star
1392: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...666L.121T
1393: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2007)]{Torres:07}
1394: Torres, G.~et al.~2007, \apjl, 666, 121
1395:
1396: % Improved Parameters for Extrasolar Transiting Planets
1397: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677.1324T
1398: %\bibitem[Torres, Winn \& Holman(2008)]{Torres:08}
1399: % Torres, G., Winn, J. N., Holman, M. J.~2008, \apj, 677, 1324
1400:
1401: % Southworth, John, Wheatley, Peter J., & Sams, Giles
1402: \bibitem[Southworth, Wheatley, \& Sams(2007)]{southworth07} Southworth,
1403: J., Wheatley, P.~J., \& Sams, G.~2007, \mnras, 379, 11
1404:
1405: % Spectroscopy made easy: A new tool for fitting observations with synthetic spectra.
1406: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A%26AS..118..595V
1407: \bibitem[Valenti \& Piskunov(1996)]{Valenti:96}
1408: Valenti, J.~A., \& Piskunov, N. 1996, \aaps, 118, 595
1409:
1410: % Spectroscopic Properties of Cool Stars (SPOCS). I. 1040 F, G, and K Dwarfs from Keck, Lick, and AAT Planet Search Programs
1411: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJS..159..141V
1412: \bibitem[Valenti \& Fischer(2005)]{Valenti:05}
1413: Valenti, J.~A., \& Fischer, D.~A. 2005, \apjs, 159, 141
1414:
1415: % HIRES: the high-resolution echelle spectrometer on the Keck 10-m Telescope
1416: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994SPIE.2198..362V
1417: \bibitem[Vogt et al.(1994)]{Vogt:94}
1418: Vogt, S.~S.~et al.~1994, Proc.~SPIE, 2198, 362
1419:
1420: % The sub-Jupiter mass transiting exoplanet WASP-11b
1421: % http://exoplanet.eu/papers/wasp11.pdf
1422: \bibitem[West et al.(2008)]{west2008}
1423: West, R.~G.~et al.~2008, \aap, submitted (http://exoplanet.eu/papers/wasp11.pdf)
1424:
1425: % Toward Better Age Estimates for Stellar Populations: The Y2 Isochrones for Solar Mixture
1426: % http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJS..136..417Y
1427: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2001)]{Yi:01}
1428: Yi, S.~K.~et al.~2001, \apjs, 136, 417
1429:
1430: \end{thebibliography}
1431:
1432: %% EOF Bibliography
1433:
1434: \end{document}
1435:
1436: %% EOF document
1437:
1438: %% EOF
1439: