1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint2]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[12pt,manuscript]{aastex}
4: %\documentclass[aas2pp4]{aastex}
5:
6: \shorttitle{IRFM temperatures of planetary hosts}
7:
8: \shortauthors{I. Ram\'{\i}rez \and J. Mel\'endez}
9:
10: \newcommand{\teff}{T_\mathrm{eff}}
11: \newcommand{\feh}{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}
12: \newcommand{\fbol}{f_\mathrm{bol}}
13: \newcommand{\logg}{\log g}
14:
15: %\received{2004 January 11}
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \title{Cooler and bigger than thought?\\
19: Planetary host stellar parameters from the InfraRed Flux Method}
20:
21: \author{Iv\'an Ram\'{\i}rez\altaffilmark{1}}
22: \affil{Department of Astronomy, The University of Texas at Austin,
23: RLM 15.202A, TX 78712-1083}\email{ivan@astro.as.utexas.edu} \and
24: \author{Jorge Mel\'endez\altaffilmark{1}} \affil{Department of
25: Astronomy, California Institute of Technology, MC 105--24,
26: Pasadena, CA 91125} \email{jorge@astro.caltech.edu}
27:
28: \altaffiltext{1}{Affiliated to the Seminario Permanente de
29: Astronom\'{\i}a y Ciencias Espaciales of the Universidad Nacional
30: Mayor de San Marcos, Per\'u}
31:
32: \begin{abstract}
33: Effective temperatures and radii for 92 planet-hosting stars as
34: determined from the InfraRed Flux Method (IRFM) are presented and
35: compared with those given by other authors using different
36: approaches. The IRFM temperatures we have derived are
37: systematically lower than those determined from the spectroscopic
38: condition of excitation equilibrium, the mean difference being as
39: large as 110~K. They are, however, consistent with previous IRFM
40: studies and with the colors derived from Kurucz and MARCS model
41: atmospheres. Comparison with direct measurements of stellar
42: diameters for 7 dwarf stars, which approximately cover the range
43: of temperatures of the planet-hosting stars, suggest that the IRFM
44: radii and temperatures are reliable in an absolute scale. A better
45: understanding of the fundamental properties of the stars with
46: planets will be achieved once this discrepancy between the IRFM
47: and the spectroscopic temperature scales is resolved.
48:
49: %We
50: %suggest a revision of the metallicities of these stars using the
51: %IRFM temperatures although the metallicity enhancement of the
52: %stars with planets will very likely remain unchanged.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \keywords{stars: fundamental parameters --- stars: planetary
56: systems}
57:
58: \section{Introduction}
59:
60: Accurate determination of the fundamental stellar parameters for
61: the planetary host stars is required to improve our knowledge of
62: the physical properties of the extrasolar planets. The
63: temperatures and luminosities of these stars are used to obtain
64: their masses and radii, which are the stellar parameters required
65: to determine the masses and radii of the planets from radial
66: velocity and transit observations, respectively.
67:
68: The temperatures of the planetary host stars have been
69: spectroscopically determined from the excitation equilibrium of Fe
70: I lines (e.g. Heiter \& Luck 2003; Gonzalez et al. 2001; Laws et al. 2003; Santos,
71: Israelian, \& Mayor 2004). The most complete study of this kind is
72: that of Santos et~al. (2004, SIM04), who determined temperatures
73: of 98 of them. Using a different approach, Ribas et~al. (2003,
74: R03) determined the temperatures of these stars from infrared
75: photometry. Both results are similar and, in fact, consistent with
76: most of the previous studies, with the exception of the Fe~I
77: temperatures of Sadakane et~al. (2002) and Takeda et~al. (2002),
78: which are about 100~K lower.
79:
80: To date, it has not been verified whether the spectroscopic
81: temperatures are consistent with those determined from stellar
82: angular diameters. This is basically due to the lack of dwarf
83: stars with measured angular diameters. However, recent
84: interferometric measurements (Kervella et~al. 2003, 2004; Lane,
85: Boden, \& Kulkarni 2001; Pijpers et~al. 2003) and transit
86: observations (Brown et~al. 2001) allow one to test this now. Here
87: we show that our IRFM temperatures are consistent with direct
88: measurements of angular diameters. Then we apply the IRFM to
89: obtain the temperatures of 92 of the known planet-hosting stars
90: and compare them with those obtained by other methods.
91:
92: \section{Determination of temperatures and radii}
93:
94: Our work is based on the InfraRed Flux Method, which compares the
95: quotient between the observed bolometric flux and the flux at a
96: given wavelength in the infrared with the quotient between
97: $\sigma\teff^4$ and the emergent flux in the infrared predicted by
98: models to get the effective temperature and angular diameter of a
99: star (Blackwell, Petford, \& Shallis 1980).
100:
101: The stellar atmospheric parameters required for our implementation
102: of the IRFM have been obtained from an updated version of the
103: Cayrel de Strobel, Soubiran, \& Ralite (2001) catalogue and from
104: SIM04. The good agreement between common $\feh$ values in these
105: two lists allowed us to use them together. The bolometric fluxes
106: were calculated from the calibration of Alonso, Arribas, \&
107: Mart\'{\i}nez-Roger (1995, AAM95) and the photometry was taken
108: mainly from 2MASS. Spectral energy distributions from Kurucz
109: models were adopted.
110:
111: The 2MASS photometry needed to be transformed into TCS colors
112: given the differences found between the various infrared systems
113: (Carpenter 2001). From a sample of main sequence stars with TCS
114: photometry in Alonso, Arribas, \& Mart\'{\i}nez-Roger (1994b) and
115: reliable 2MASS photometry we found the following relations:
116: \begin{mathletters}
117: \begin{eqnarray}
118: J_\mathrm{TCS}=J_\mathrm{2MASS}+0.001-0.049(J-K)_\mathrm{2MASS}\\
119: H_\mathrm{TCS}=H_\mathrm{2MASS}-0.018+0.003(J-K)_\mathrm{2MASS}\\
120: K_\mathrm{TCS} = K_\mathrm{2MASS}-0.014+0.034(J-K)_\mathrm{2MASS}
121: \end{eqnarray}
122: \end{mathletters}
123: with standard deviations of $\sigma=0.038$ ($N=104$),
124: $\sigma=0.039$ ($N=103$) and $\sigma=0.035$ ($N=107$),
125: respectively ($N$ is the number of stars in every fit). The
126: brightest planet-hosting stars are not included in our study given
127: the large errors associated to their 2MASS photometry. However, we
128: were able to calculate the temperatures of 5 bright stars
129: (HD~009826, HD~022049, HD~027442, HD~117176, and HD~137759) from
130: the Johnson photometry available in the General Catalogue of
131: Photometric Data (Mermilliod, Mermilliod, \& Hauck 1997, GCPD).
132:
133: Application of the IRFM results in three temperatures, one for
134: each band: $T_J$, $T_H$ and $T_K$. In general, they were weighted
135: averaged with the inverse of their errors to get the final
136: $\teff$, that is, $\teff=(\sum_i T_i/\Delta T_i)/(\sum_i 1/\Delta
137: T_i)$; with $i=J,H,K$. The internal error in $\teff$ was then
138: calculated from $\Delta\teff=3/(\sum_i 1/\Delta T_i)$. %Errors in
139: %$\feh$ and $\logg$ are explicitly taken into account in the
140: %calculation of the $\Delta T_i$'s. Mean errors in $\fbol$ and
141: %photometry are adopted given that we are working with a relatively
142: %homogeneous sample.
143: Further details on our IRFM implementation will be given in a
144: forthcoming paper (Ram\'{\i}rez \& Mel\'endez, in preparation).
145:
146: One of the critical ingredients of the IRFM is the absolute
147: infrared flux calibration of the standard star. We have adopted
148: that given by Alonso, Arribas, \& Mart\'{\i}nez-Roger (1994a),
149: which was derived by demanding that the IRFM temperatures (angular
150: diameters) be well scaled to the direct (measured) ones, at least
151: for giants. This seems to be also true for dwarfs, as it is shown
152: in Fig.~\ref{fig:diams} and Table~\ref{table:diams}, where the
153: angular diameters of 7 dwarf stars derived in our work are
154: compared to those measured by Kervella et~al. (2003, 2004), Lane
155: et~al. (2001), and Pijpers et~al. (2003) from interferometric
156: observations and by Brown et~al. (2001) from transit observations.
157:
158: The temperatures for these 7 dwarfs were obtained in the same IRFM
159: implementation. However, with the exception of HD 209458, the
160: photometry was adopted from sources other than 2MASS, given that
161: they are bright stars. For $\tau$ Cet and GJ 105, TCS photometry
162: was available (Alonso et~al. 1994a). For Procyon and GJ380 we took
163: the mean of the Johnson photometry available in the GCPD. Finally,
164: for $\alpha$ Cen A and B, Johnson infrared magnitudes as observed
165: by Engels et al. (1981) were used. Johnson photometry was
166: transformed into the TCS system by using the transformation
167: equations of Alonso et~al. (1994a).
168:
169: Very large systematic errors in the adopted $\fbol$ scale may lead
170: to a wrong $\teff$ scale. Our work adopts the fluxes as derived
171: from the AAM95 calibration, which is based on integrated UBVRIJHK
172: photometry and a theoretical correction for the flux outside the
173: U-K wavelength range. AAM95 showed their fluxes to be consistent
174: with previous works as that of Blackwell \& Petford (1991), which
175: was based on spectrophotometric data, at least for
176: solar-metallicity stars. They also showed that the observed
177: differences were obviously due to metallicity effects.
178:
179: A comparison with the bolometric fluxes that are derived from the
180: theoretical BC scale of Bessell, Castelli, \& Plez (1998) for the
181: stars in Table \ref{table:diams} shows a tendency with
182: temperature. The fluxes from the theoretical BC's seem to be
183: higher by about 3\% at 4750~K but lower by about 1.5\%
184: at 6500~K (open circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:fbol}). % We
185: %derived $\fbol$ values from their tables of bolometric corrections
186: %by calculating a first flux $\fbol(1)$ from our IRFM $\teff$ and
187: %the adopted parameters. Then by using the $\fbol$ from the
188: %calibration of AAM95 and $\fbol(1)$ we got
189: %$\teff(2)=\teff(\fbol(1)/\fbol)^{1/4}$ and iterate. Convergence
190: %was slow in some cases ($\sim$9 iterations). This procedure is
191: %safe, however, because it converges simultaneously to $\fbol$ and
192: %$\teff$ independently of the input values, which is not true if
193: %we use the measured angular diameters to iterate in $\teff$.
194: Also, when comparing measured fluxes for 35 dwarf stars from the
195: Blackwell \& Lynas-Gray (1998) work with the measured fluxes used
196: by AAM95 to derive their calibration, the differences show a
197: similar behavior, in the sense that they increase with temperature
198: but only from $-$1\% to +1\%. The filled circles and error bars in
199: Fig.~\ref{fig:fbol} correspond to the mean difference and $\pm$ 1
200: $\sigma$ bars in 500~K bins, respectively. These small
201: discrepancies, however, do not affect our final results
202: substantially as will be explained in Sect.~\ref{sec:comparison}.
203:
204: Measurements of $\fbol$ are only available for Procyon (Code
205: et~al. 1976, Beeckmans 1977, Blackwell \& Shallis 1977, Smalley \&
206: Dworetsky 1995, Mozurkewich et~al. 2003), $\tau$~Cet (Blackwell \&
207: Lynas-Gray 1994, 1998) and GJ~105~A (Blackwell \& Lynas-Gray
208: 1998). By comparing the mean values of these measurements with the
209: $\fbol$ values we adopted, a mean difference of $(0.20\pm1.73)\%$
210: is found (the major part of the dispersion comes from GJ~105~A).
211: If we include the fluxes \textit{measured} by AAM95, the
212: difference reduces to $(0.08\pm0.94)\%$. Since there is no
213: apparent reason to exclude the AAM95 fluxes from the others, we
214: may conclude that the adopted $\fbol$ scale in our work is
215: consistent with the measurements and the dispersion is within the
216: adopted mean error for the fluxes. The stars in
217: Fig.~\ref{fig:fbol} show the difference between the flux as
218: derived from the AAM95 calibration and the mean of the
219: measurements.
220:
221: The measured fluxes and the fluxes from the calibration of AAM95
222: are given in Table~\ref{table:diams}. They have been used to get
223: the \textit{direct} temperatures given in the same
224: Table~\ref{table:diams}, the measured fluxes have been preferred,
225: of course. For the 4 stars with no $\fbol$'s measured, we have
226: used the temperatures from the calibration. This is a reasonable
227: approximation given that the error in the flux is propagated to
228: $\sigma(\teff)$ roughly as $\sigma(\fbol)/4$ and that there is
229: evidence for the calibration to be in good agreement with the
230: measured fluxes.
231:
232: The stars in Table \ref{table:diams} cover the range of
233: temperatures from 4000~K to 6600~K, which is approximately the
234: range covered by the planet-hosting stars. The zero point of the
235: IRFM $\teff$ scale for the dwarf stars is in good agreement with
236: the direct temperatures. Considering the best five measurements in
237: Table~\ref{table:diams}, the mean difference
238: ($\teff^\mathrm{IRFM}-\teff^\mathrm{dir}$) is $-$14~K, with a
239: standard error of 24~K. Note that the angular diameters measured
240: for GJ~105~A and HD~209458 have large errors and so they are not
241: useful to constraint any $\teff$ scale. In fact, within
242: $\pm200$~K, any existing $\teff$ scale agree with these
243: measurements.
244:
245: The temperatures derived in this work are given in Table
246: \ref{table:all}. Also given in Table \ref{table:all} are the radii
247: of these stars in solar units, obtained from their Hipparcos
248: parallaxes, the bolometric flux scale of AAM95 and the IRFM
249: angular diameters.
250:
251: A $\teff$ scale for the planet-hosting stars is obtained by using
252: the $(V-K)$ color index, where $K$ is from 2MASS:
253: \begin{equation}
254: \frac{5040}{\teff}=0.460+0.313(V-K)-0.025(V-K)^2\ . \label{eq:cal}
255: \end{equation}
256: This formula was obtained from a fit to the data for the dwarf
257: stars with reliable 2MASS photometry in the list. Its standard
258: deviation is 43 K and its ranges of applicability are
259: $1.20<(V-K)<2.60$, $-0.50<\feh<0.45$. A plot of the data and
260: Eq.~(\ref{eq:cal}) is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:teffvk}a. Since the
261: metallicity range covered by these stars is short, the metallicity
262: dependence of this relation could not be distinguished from the
263: internal errors in the temperatures and so no additional terms
264: containing $\feh$ were included in the fit.
265:
266: \section{Comparison with other studies} \label{sec:comparison}
267:
268: Our calibration for the $\teff$ vs $(V-K)$ relation is in
269: agreement with the colors derived from Kurucz models (M. Bessell,
270: private communication), as it is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:teffvk}b,
271: where the colors for $\feh=-0.5$ ,0.0 and $+0.5$ are plotted along
272: with our calibration. The colors kindly provided by M. Bessell are
273: in the Bessell \& Brett (1988) system and have been transformed
274: into 2MASS colors by using a transformation equation given by
275: Carpenter (2001). Although it is not shown in the figure, a good
276: agreement is also found with the solar metallicity $\teff$ vs
277: $(V-K)$ relation of Houdaschelt, Bell, \& Sweigart (2000), which
278: is based on MARCS models. On the other hand, the temperatures
279: given by R03 and SIM04 lead to a $\teff$ scale that has to be
280: shifted by about 110~K to better agree with them (squares and open
281: circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:teffvk}a). Note that a similar difference
282: ($\teff^\mathrm{spec}-\teff^\mathrm{IRFM}=+139$~K) was found by
283: SIM04. Fig. \ref{fig:comparison}a and \ref{fig:comparison}b show
284: the differences between our $\teff$'s and those given by SIM04 and
285: R03, respectively. The calculated mean differences are
286: $-$115$\pm83$~K (91 stars) for the points in
287: Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison}a and $-108\pm53$~K (79 stars) for
288: Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison}b. The label `solar $gf$-values' in
289: Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison}a emphasizes the fact that SIM04 used
290: these transition probabilities in their analysis, while `synthetic
291: VJHK photometry' in Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison}b stands for the
292: basic idea of the R03 method.
293:
294: The adopted $\fbol$ scale in our work can not be the only cause of
295: the difference, and, in fact, we believe it is not even the main
296: cause of it. %If we assume this to be the only cause of the
297: %differences and consider Bessell et~al. (1998) and BLG98 $\fbol$
298: %scales to be the absolute ones, then the differences in Fig.
299: %\ref{fig:comparison}a should be showing a clear tendency,
300: %increasing (i.e. becoming less negative) with temperature. This is
301: %not the case here although we do not deny that part of the
302: %difference may be due to this effect. The difference, however,
303: %seems to be intrinsic to the method and, to a lesser extent, to
304: %the input parameters.
305: The dotted lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:fbol} illustrate how an offset
306: in the derived IRFM temperatures corresponds to a systematic error
307: in the adopted bolometric fluxes. They have been derived by
308: assuming that the $\fbol$'s are the only source of error in the
309: implementation and so have produced temperatures systematically
310: lower and higher by 30~K compared to the absolute scale. The
311: quantities $\Delta\fbol$ are then the differences between the
312: adopted $\fbol$'s and the real ones. Even if the AAM95 calibration
313: is inaccurate, its effect on the $\teff$'s can not be larger than
314: about 30~K, and so it is very unlikely for it to be the main cause
315: of the 110~K difference.
316:
317: %The scatter in the $\teff$ vs $(V-K)$ relations of R03 and SIM04
318: %may be related to errors in the $\teff$ determination, probably
319: %due to non-LTE effects, model atmospheres, microturbulence, use of
320: %solar $gf$-values or insufficient coverage in excitation
321: %potential. The small scatter for our temperatures is partially due
322: %to an intrinsic property of the implementation, specifically the
323: %adopted $\fbol$ scale. The difference between our results and
324: %those of R03 is definitely due to the adopted zero point for the
325: %$\teff$ scale (see e.g. the discussions in Bessell et al. 1998 and
326: %Houdashelt et al. 2000).
327:
328: The temperatures obtained from photometric calibrations based on
329: previous IRFM studies (e.g. Blackwell \& Lynas-Gray 1998;
330: Mel\'endez \& Ram\'{\i}rez 2003) agree very well with the present
331: results. As an illustration, the IRFM $\teff$ calibrations for the
332: Geneva colors $(B_2-G)$, $(B_2-V_1)$ and the $t$ parameter from
333: Mel\'endez \& Ram\'{\i}rez (2003, MR03) were applied and averaged
334: to get the $\teff$'s and compare them with the present results in
335: Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison}c. Also shown in
336: Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison}c is the difference between the $\teff$'s
337: obtained from the Blackwell \& Lynas-Gray (1998, BLG98) IRFM
338: $\teff$ calibration for $(B_2-V_1)$ and our
339: $\teff$'s. %The systematically lower IRFM $\teff$'s are also
340: %evident in previously published results.
341:
342: Not all the temperatures obtained from the excitation equilibrium
343: of Fe~I lines are in disagreement with the IRFM. The temperatures
344: obtained by Sadakane et~al. (2002, S02) and Takeda et~al. (2002,
345: T02), for instance, are in reasonable agreement with the IRFM
346: although a slight tendency with temperature is found
347: (Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison}d), the later maybe due to non-LTE
348: effects. This may also be the cause of the small slope observed
349: in Fig. \ref{fig:comparison}a, which is roughly similar to that in
350: Fig. \ref{fig:comparison}d. The main difference with the work of
351: SIM04 seems to be the use of transition probabilities measured in
352: laboratory instead of solar $gf$-values. There is also a larger
353: coverage in excitation potential of Fe~I lines more sensitive to
354: temperature, SIM04 use 3 lines with $\chi_\mathrm{exc}<2$~eV
355: whilst S02 and T02 use 12. %Some of them are, however, in the blue
356: %region of the spectrum, where the continuum can not be accurately
357: %defined.
358: Only two of these lines are in the blue region of the spectrum,
359: where the continuum can not be accurately defined. However, all
360: the lines employed by S02 and T02, in addition to have reliable
361: experimental transition probabilities, were carefully selected and
362: so are hardly affected by blending.
363:
364: %As
365: %expected, the differences between MR03, BLG98 and S02, T02
366: %(Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison}d) are similar to the difference between
367: %this work and S02, T02; thus confirming the agreement of the
368: %present results with previous IRFM studies.
369:
370: %Fuhrmann (1998). Fig. \ref{fig:comparison}e. ???
371:
372: \section{Conclusions}
373:
374: The temperatures obtained in this work for the stars with planets
375: differ from those given by most of the other groups by about
376: 110~K. In particular, there is a discrepancy with the excitation
377: equilibrium temperatures of Santos et al. (2004) %(which uses solar
378: %$gf$-values and few low $\chi_\mathrm{exc}$ lines)
379: and the method
380: of infrared photometry of Ribas et~al. (2003).
381:
382: On the other hand, the $\teff$ vs $(V-K)$ relation from model
383: atmospheres is closer to our $\teff$ scale and the angular
384: diameters measured by interferometry and transit observations for 7
385: dwarf stars are well scaled to those derived from the IRFM.
386: The bolometric flux calibration adopted (AAM95) seems to be in
387: excellent agreement with the measurements reported in the
388: literature ($\pm1$\%), which strengthen the present results. The
389: comparison with direct measurements suggest that the zero point of
390: the IRFM $\teff$ scale is within 50~K, considering twice the
391: standard error. New measurements of angular diameters for stars in
392: the range 4000~K$<\teff<$6000~K are encouraged to better define
393: it.
394:
395: The 110~K difference makes the stars bigger according to the IRFM,
396: which implies that the planetary radii obtained from transit
397: observations would be larger if our $\teff$ scale is adopted
398: instead of the spectroscopic one. %is providing
399: %temperatures that are discrepant from the present results% too high
400: %temperatures in this particular range of
401: %temperatures and metallicities. %The use of laboratory $gf$-values,
402: %however, might result in a spectroscopic $\teff$ scale similar to
403: %the IRFM $\teff$ scale.
404:
405: Metallicity determinations for the stars with planets taking into
406: account the IRFM $\teff$ scale would be interesting. Note,
407: however, that large samples of stars both with and without
408: detected giant planets have been analyzed in a homogeneous way, so
409: it is unlikely that this will affect the well stated metallicity
410: enhancement of the planet-hosting stars, although small
411: differences may be found in an absolute scale.
412:
413: \acknowledgments{We thank M. Bessell for providing colors for the
414: complete set of Kurucz models and I.~Ivans for her comments and
415: suggestions. Significant improvement to the original manuscript
416: was possible due to a very constructive refereeing process. %I.R.
417: %acknowledges support from ???.
418: This publication makes use of data
419: products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint
420: project of the University of Massachusetts and IPAC/Caltech,
421: founded by NASA and NSF.}
422:
423: \begin{thebibliography}{}
424:
425: \bibitem[1994a]{alo94a}
426: Alonso, A., Arribas, S., \& Mart\'{\i}nez-Roger C.
427: 1994a, \aap, 282, 684
428:
429: \bibitem[1994b]{alo94b}
430: Alonso, A., Arribas, S., \& Mart\'{\i}nez-Roger C.
431: 1994b, \aaps, 107, 365
432:
433: \bibitem[1995]{alo95}
434: Alonso, A., Arribas, S., \& Mart\'{\i}nez-Roger C.
435: 1995, \aap, 297, 197 (AAM95)
436:
437: \bibitem[1977]{bee77}
438: Beeckmans, F.
439: 1977, \aap, 60, 1
440:
441: \bibitem[1988]{bes88}
442: Bessell, M. S., \& Brett, J. M.
443: 1988, \pasp, 100, 1134
444:
445: \bibitem[1998]{bes98}
446: Bessell, M. S., Castelli, F., \& Plez, B.
447: 1998, \aap, 333, 231
448:
449: \bibitem[1977]{bla77}
450: Blackwell, D. E., \& Shallis, M. J.
451: 1977, \mnras, 180, 177
452:
453: \bibitem[1980]{bla80}
454: Blackwell, D. E., Petford, A. D., \& Shallis, M. J.
455: 1980, \aap, 82, 249
456:
457: \bibitem[1991]{bla91}
458: Blackwell, D. E., \& Petford, A. D.
459: 1991, \aap, 250, 459
460:
461: \bibitem[1994]{bla94}
462: Blackwell, D. E., \& Lynas-Gray, A. E.
463: 1994, \aap, 282, 899
464:
465: \bibitem[1998]{bla98}
466: Blackwell, D. E., \& Lynas-Gray, A. E.
467: 1998, \aaps, 129, 505 (BLG98)
468:
469: \bibitem[2001]{bro01}
470: Brown, T. M., Charbonneau, D., Gilliland, R. L., et al.
471: 2001, \aj, 552, 699
472:
473: \bibitem[2001]{car01}
474: Carpenter, J. M.
475: 2001, \aj, 121, 2851
476:
477: \bibitem[2001]{cay01}
478: Cayrel de Strobel, G., Soubiran, C., \& Ralite, N.
479: 2001, \aap, 373, 159
480:
481: \bibitem[1976]{cod76}
482: Code, A. D., Bless, R. C., Davis, J., \& Brown, R. H.
483: 1976, \apj, 203, 417
484:
485: \bibitem[1981]{eng81}
486: Engels, D., Sherwood, W. A., Wamsteker, W., \& Schultz, G. V.
487: 1981, \aaps, 45, 5
488:
489: %\bibitem[1998]{fuh98}
490: % Fuhrmann, K.
491: % 1998, \aap, 338, 161
492:
493: \bibitem[2001]{gon01}
494: Gonzalez, G., Laws, C., Tyagi, S., \& Reddy, B. E.
495: 2001, \aj, 121, 432
496:
497: \bibitem[2003]{hei03}
498: Heiter, U., \& Luck, R. E.
499: 2003, \aj, 126, 2015
500:
501: \bibitem[2000]{hou00}
502: Houdashelt, M. L., Bell, R. A., \& Sweigart, A. V.
503: 2000, \aj, 119, 1448
504:
505: \bibitem[2003]{ker03}
506: Kervella, P., Th\'evenin, F., S\'egransan, D., et~al.
507: 2003, \aap, 404, 1087
508:
509: \bibitem[2004]{ker04}
510: Kervella, P., Th\'evenin, F., Morel, P., et~al.
511: 2004, \aap, 413, 251
512:
513: \bibitem[2001]{lan01}
514: Lane, B. F., Boden, A. F., \& Kulkarni, S. R.
515: 2001, \apj, 551, L81
516:
517: \bibitem[2003]{law03}
518: Laws, C., Gonzalez, G., Walker, K. M., et al.
519: 2003, \aj, 125, 2664
520:
521: \bibitem[2003]{mel03}
522: Mel\'endez, J., \& Ram\'{\i}rez, I.
523: 2003, \aap, 398, 705 (MR03)
524:
525: \bibitem[1997]{mer97}
526: Mermilliod, J. C., Mermilliod, M., \& Hauck, B.
527: 1997, \aaps, 124, 349 (GCPD)
528:
529: \bibitem[2003]{moz03}
530: Mozurkewich, D., Armstrong, J. T., Hindsley, R. B., et~al.
531: 2003, \aj, 126, 2502
532:
533: \bibitem[2003]{pij03}
534: Pijpers, F. P., Teixeira, T. C., Garcia, P. J., et~al.
535: 2003, \aap, 406, L15
536:
537: \bibitem[2003]{rib03}
538: Ribas, I., Solano, E., Masana, E., \& Gim\'enez, A.
539: 2003, \aap, 411, L501 (R03)
540:
541: \bibitem[2002]{sad02}
542: Sadakane, K., Ohkubo, M., Takeda, Y., et~al.
543: 2002, \pasj, 54, 911 (S02)
544:
545: \bibitem[2004]{san04}
546: Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., \& Mayor, M.
547: 2004, \aap, 415, 1153 (SIM04)
548:
549: \bibitem[1995]{sma95}
550: Smalley, B., \& Dworetsky, M. M.
551: 1995, \aap, 293, 446
552:
553: \bibitem[2002]{tak02}
554: Takeda, Y., Sato, B., Kambe, E., et~al.
555: 2002, \pasj, 54, 1041 (T02)
556:
557: \end{thebibliography}
558:
559: \clearpage
560:
561: \begin{deluxetable}{crccccllc}
562:
563: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
564:
565: \tablecaption{Cool Dwarfs with Measured Angular Diameters}
566:
567: \tablehead{ \colhead{Star name} & \colhead{HD} &
568: \colhead{$\theta_\mathrm{LD}$ (mas)} &
569: \colhead{Ref.\tablenotemark{a}} &
570: \colhead{$\fbol$\tablenotemark{b}} &
571: \colhead{$\fbol$\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{$\teff^\mathrm{dir}$
572: (K)\tablenotemark{d}} & \colhead{$\teff^\mathrm{IRFM}$
573: (K)\tablenotemark{e}} & \colhead{$\theta_\mathrm{IRFM}$ (mas)}}
574:
575: \startdata
576: Procyon & 61421 & 5.448 $\pm$ 0.052 & 1 & 1.837E$-5$ & 1.822E$-5$ & 6553 $\pm$ 40 & 6591 $\pm$ 73 & 5.405 $\pm$ 0.131 \\
577: $\tau$ Cet & 10700 & 1.971 $\pm$ 0.050 & 2 & 1.163E$-6$ & 1.154E$-6$ & 5473 $\pm$ 72 & 5372 $\pm$ 65 & 2.047 $\pm$ 0.054 \\
578: GJ 380 & 88230 & 1.306 $\pm$ 0.040\tablenotemark{f} & 3 & 1.373E$-7$ & \nodata & 3962 $\pm$ 63 & 3950 $\pm$ 161 & 1.301 $\pm$ 0.107 \\
579: GJ 105 A & 16160 & 0.941 $\pm$ 0.070 & 3 & 1.687E$-7$ & 1.725E$-7$ & 4917 $\pm$ 185 & 4714 $\pm$ 67 & 1.013 $\pm$ 0.031 \\
580: \nodata & 209458 & 0.226 $\pm$ 0.015 & 4 & 2.279E$-8$ & \nodata & 6049 $\pm$ 202 & 5993 $\pm$ 71 & 0.230 $\pm$ 0.006 \\
581: $\alpha$ Cen A & 128620 & 8.511 $\pm$ 0.020 & 5 & 2.677E$-5$ & \nodata & 5771 $\pm$ 23 & 5759 $\pm$ 70 & 8.548 $\pm$ 0.225 \\
582: $\alpha$ Cen B & 128621 & 6.001 $\pm$ 0.034 & 5 & 8.653E$-6$ &
583: \nodata & 5182 $\pm$ 24 & 5201 $\pm$ 65 & 5.957 $\pm$ 0.160
584: \enddata
585:
586: \tablenotetext{a}{(1) Kervella et~al. (2004); (2) Pijpers et~al.
587: (2003); (3)Lane et~al. (2001); (4) Brown et~al. (2001); (5)
588: Kervella et~al. (2003).} \tablenotetext{b}{Bolometric fluxes from
589: the Alonso et~al. (1995) calibration. Units are erg cm$^{-2}$
590: s$^{-1}$.} \tablenotetext{c}{Mean of the measured bolometric
591: fluxes (see the text for references). Units are erg cm$^{-2}$
592: s$^{-1}$.} \tablenotetext{d}{Direct temperatures calculated by
593: using the measured bolometric fluxes or the adopted flux
594: calibration. An error of 1.5\% was adopted for the $\fbol$
595: values.} \tablenotetext{e}{Temperatures from the present IRFM
596: implementation.} \tablenotetext{f}{Estimated from the UD diameter
597: with a correction of 3\%.}
598:
599: \label{table:diams}
600:
601: \end{deluxetable}
602:
603: \clearpage
604:
605: \begin{figure}
606: \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{Comparison between measured angular
607: diameters ($\theta_\mathrm{LD}$) and diameters from the IRFM
608: ($\theta_\mathrm{IRFM}$).} \label{fig:diams}
609: \end{figure}
610:
611: \clearpage
612:
613: \begin{figure}
614: \plotone{f2.eps}
615:
616: \caption{Difference between the fluxes from the Alonso et~al.
617: (1995, AAM95) calibration and the fluxes from: Bessell et~al.
618: (1998) bolometric correction scale for the stars in
619: Table~\ref{table:diams} (open circles), Blackwell \& Lynas-Gray
620: (1998) measurements for 35 stars in 500~K bins (filled circles,
621: mean differences and $\pm$ 1 $\sigma$ error bars are shown), and
622: other measurements (see the text for references) for 3 stars in
623: Table~\ref{table:diams} (stars). The dotted lines illustrate how
624: an offset of $\pm30$~K in the derived IRFM $\teff$ scale may be
625: due to wrongly adopted bolometric fluxes.}
626:
627: \label{fig:fbol}
628: \end{figure}
629:
630: \clearpage
631:
632: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccclcc}
633:
634: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
635:
636: \tablecaption{Temperatures and Radii of the Planet-Hosting Stars
637: from the IRFM}
638:
639: \tablehead{ \colhead{HD} & \colhead{$\teff$ (K)} & $R/R_\odot$ &
640: \colhead{HD} & \colhead{$\teff$ (K)} & $R/R_\odot$ &
641: \colhead{HD/BD} & \colhead{$\teff$ (K)} & $R/R_\odot$}
642:
643: \startdata
644:
645: 000142 & 6152 $\pm$ 77 & 1.467 $\pm$ 0.032 & 065216 & 5561 $\pm$ 66 & 0.900 $\pm$ 0.036 & 143761 & 5754 $\pm$ 70 & 1.341 $\pm$ 0.029 \\
646: 001237 & 5512 $\pm$ 68 & 0.832 $\pm$ 0.028 & 068988 & 5778 $\pm$ 70 & 1.209 $\pm$ 0.062 & 145675 & 5129 $\pm$ 67 & 1.022 $\pm$ 0.030 \\
647: 002039 & 5847 $\pm$ 69 & 1.251 $\pm$ 0.105 & 070642 & 5620 $\pm$ 67 & 1.023 $\pm$ 0.031 & 147513 & 5852 $\pm$ 62 & 0.950 $\pm$ 0.026 \\
648: 003651 & 5264 $\pm$ 67 & 0.844 $\pm$ 0.029 & 072659 & 5798 $\pm$ 69 & 1.481 $\pm$ 0.059 & 150706 & 5792 $\pm$ 69 & 0.964 $\pm$ 0.030 \\
649: 004203 & 5546 $\pm$ 68 & 1.418 $\pm$ 0.102 & 073256 & 5344 $\pm$ 65 & 0.971 $\pm$ 0.039 & 162020 & 4578 $\pm$ 68 & 0.800 $\pm$ 0.056 \\
650: 004208 & 5586 $\pm$ 66 & 0.896 $\pm$ 0.044 & 073526 & 5615 $\pm$ 68 & 1.507 $\pm$ 0.099 & 168443 & 5491 $\pm$ 69 & 1.610 $\pm$ 0.042 \\
651: 006434 & 5741 $\pm$ 70 & 1.077 $\pm$ 0.045 & 074156 & 5910 $\pm$ 70 & 1.667 $\pm$ 0.076 & 168746 & 5468 $\pm$ 69 & 1.148 $\pm$ 0.049 \\
652: 008574 & 5942 $\pm$ 57 & 1.409 $\pm$ 0.042 & 075289 & 6098 $\pm$ 73 & 1.245 $\pm$ 0.031 & 169830 & 6227 $\pm$ 74 & 1.829 $\pm$ 0.042 \\
653: 009826 & 6184 $\pm$ 75 & 1.613 $\pm$ 0.028 & 075732 & 5247 $\pm$ 69 & 0.934 $\pm$ 0.030 & 177830 & 4701 $\pm$ 67 & 3.354 $\pm$ 0.054 \\
654: 010697 & 5510 $\pm$ 60 & 1.839 $\pm$ 0.036 & 076700 & 5645 $\pm$ 69 & 1.370 $\pm$ 0.047 & 178911B & 5366 $\pm$ 69 & 1.195 $\pm$ 0.233 \\
655: 012661 & 5473 $\pm$ 68 & 1.198 $\pm$ 0.041 & 080606 & 5461 $\pm$ 70 & 0.975 $\pm$ 0.338 & 179949 & 6169 $\pm$ 73 & 1.194 $\pm$ 0.034 \\
656: 013445 & 5128 $\pm$ 56 & 0.797 $\pm$ 0.025 & 082943 & 5952 $\pm$ 71 & 1.147 $\pm$ 0.035 & 186427 & 5633 $\pm$ 71 & 1.190 $\pm$ 0.029 \\
657: 016141 & 5679 $\pm$ 69 & 1.460 $\pm$ 0.056 & 083443 & 5386 $\pm$ 67 & 1.055 $\pm$ 0.048 & 187123 & 5665 $\pm$ 70 & 1.216 $\pm$ 0.043 \\
658: 017051 & 6269 $\pm$ 66 & 1.085 $\pm$ 0.025 & 089744 & 6106 $\pm$ 71 & 2.182 $\pm$ 0.037 & 190228 & 5081 $\pm$ 65 & 2.648 $\pm$ 0.057 \\
659: 019994 & 5999 $\pm$ 64 & 1.802 $\pm$ 0.029 & 092788 & 5590 $\pm$ 67 & 1.075 $\pm$ 0.041 & 190360 & 5552 $\pm$ 68 & 1.149 $\pm$ 0.028 \\
660: 020367 & 5989 $\pm$ 72 & 1.197 $\pm$ 0.039 & 106252 & 5907 $\pm$ 70 & 1.098 $\pm$ 0.043 & 192263 & 4888 $\pm$ 65 & 0.781 $\pm$ 0.036 \\
661: 022049 & 5012 $\pm$ 67 & 0.763 $\pm$ 0.028 & 108147 & 6191 $\pm$ 74 & 1.205 $\pm$ 0.037 & 195019 & 5506 $\pm$ 67 & 1.582 $\pm$ 0.042 \\
662: 023079 & 5961 $\pm$ 71 & 1.121 $\pm$ 0.032 & 108874 & 5443 $\pm$ 69 & 1.262 $\pm$ 0.089 & 196050 & 5789 $\pm$ 69 & 1.287 $\pm$ 0.050 \\
663: 023596 & 5977 $\pm$ 73 & 1.552 $\pm$ 0.051 & 111232 & 5480 $\pm$ 69 & 0.907 $\pm$ 0.036 & 202206 & 5724 $\pm$ 71 & 1.042 $\pm$ 0.059 \\
664: 027442 & 4613 $\pm$ 67 & 4.179 $\pm$ 0.032 & 114729 & 5783 $\pm$ 68 & 1.480 $\pm$ 0.043 & 209458 & 5993 $\pm$ 71 & 1.165 $\pm$ 0.054 \\
665: 028185 & 5594 $\pm$ 67 & 1.060 $\pm$ 0.050 & 114762 & 5824 $\pm$ 68 & 1.273 $\pm$ 0.064 & 210277 & 5410 $\pm$ 67 & 1.089 $\pm$ 0.031 \\
666: 030177 & 5500 $\pm$ 69 & 1.157 $\pm$ 0.050 & 114783 & 5039 $\pm$ 66 & 0.804 $\pm$ 0.035 & 213240 & 5899 $\pm$ 70 & 1.545 $\pm$ 0.042 \\
667: 033636 & 5811 $\pm$ 68 & 1.009 $\pm$ 0.046 & 117176 & 5328 $\pm$ 59 & 1.963 $\pm$ 0.028 & 216435 & 5931 $\pm$ 71 & 1.773 $\pm$ 0.035 \\
668: 037124 & 5424 $\pm$ 67 & 1.033 $\pm$ 0.047 & 121504 & 5962 $\pm$ 70 & 1.140 $\pm$ 0.048 & 216437 & 5733 $\pm$ 63 & 1.514 $\pm$ 0.029 \\
669: 038529 & 5487 $\pm$ 59 & 2.810 $\pm$ 0.046 & 128311 & 4812 $\pm$ 64 & 0.781 $\pm$ 0.033 & 216770 & 5353 $\pm$ 66 & 0.985 $\pm$ 0.048 \\
670: 039091 & 6022 $\pm$ 65 & 1.121 $\pm$ 0.025 & 130322 & 5323 $\pm$ 64 & 0.808 $\pm$ 0.052 & 217014 & 5690 $\pm$ 61 & 1.162 $\pm$ 0.026 \\
671: 040979 & 6081 $\pm$ 71 & 1.205 $\pm$ 0.037 & 134987 & 5674 $\pm$ 73 & 1.245 $\pm$ 0.037 & 217107 & 5598 $\pm$ 70 & 1.128 $\pm$ 0.031 \\
672: 046375 & 5267 $\pm$ 67 & 1.021 $\pm$ 0.045 & 136118 & 6059 $\pm$ 70 & 1.758 $\pm$ 0.051 & 219542B & 5339 $\pm$ 67 & 1.141 $\pm$ 0.111 \\
673: 049674 & 5509 $\pm$ 70 & 0.987 $\pm$ 0.054 & 137759 & 4474 $\pm$ 64 & 12.494 $\pm$ 0.034 & 222582 & 5702 $\pm$ 70 & 1.133 $\pm$ 0.054 \\
674: 050554 & 5907 $\pm$ 70 & 1.140 $\pm$ 0.041 & 141937 & 5808 $\pm$ 69 & 1.068 $\pm$ 0.044 & $-10$ 3166 & 5228 $\pm$ 67 & \nodata \\
675: 052265 & 6007 $\pm$ 71 & 1.284 $\pm$ 0.035 & 142415 & 5894 $\pm$ 70 & 1.029 $\pm$ 0.039 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
676:
677: \enddata
678:
679: \label{table:all}
680:
681: \end{deluxetable}
682:
683: \clearpage
684:
685: \begin{figure}
686: \plotone{f3.eps} \caption{(a) $\teff$ vs $(V-K)$ for the
687: planet-hosting stars from the IRFM (filled circles), Ribas et~al.
688: (2003) (open circles) and Santos et al. (2004) (open squares).
689: Here, $K$ is from 2MASS and only stars with reliable 2MASS
690: photometry are plotted. The solid line corresponds to
691: Eq.~(\ref{eq:cal}). (b) $\teff$ vs $(V-K)$ for the colors derived
692: from Kurucz models for $\feh=+0.5$ (dotted line), $\feh=0$ (solid
693: line), and $\feh=-0.5$ (dashed line); the filled circles
694: correspond to Eq.~(\ref{eq:cal}).} \label{fig:teffvk}
695: \end{figure}
696:
697: \clearpage
698:
699: \begin{figure}
700: \plotone{f4.eps}
701:
702: \caption{Comparison between the temperatures obtained in this work
703: and those given by: (a) Santos et~al. (2004), (b) Ribas et~al.
704: (2003), (c) Mel\'endez \& Ram\'{\i}rez (2003) and Blackwell \&
705: Lynas-Gray (1998) IRFM calibrations for the Geneva colors, (d)
706: Sadakane et~al. (2002) and Takeda et~al. (2002).}
707:
708: \label{fig:comparison}
709:
710: \end{figure}
711:
712: \end{document}
713: