---
abstract: 'We report the detection of a Jupiter–mass planet in a  d orbit around the   subgiant . The eccentricity of b ($e = \ecc$) is unusually large compared to other planets within 0.1 AU of their stars. Photometric observations demonstrate that the star is constant to $\pm$0.0001 mag on the radial velocity period, strengthening our interpretation of a planetary companion. This planet was detected as part of our radial velocity survey of evolved stars located on the subgiant branch of the H–R diagram—also known as the Hertzsprung Gap. These stars, which have masses between 1.2 and 2.5 , play an important role in the investigation of the frequency of extrasolar planets as a function of stellar mass.'
author:
- 'John Asher Johnson, Geoffrey W. Marcy, Debra A. Fischer, Gregory W. Henry, Jason T. Wright, Howard Isaacson, Chris McCarthy'
title: An Eccentric Hot Jupiter Orbiting the Subgiant $^1$
---

Introduction
============

The assemblage of $\sim 185$ known extrasolar planets[^1] has revealed important relationships between the physical characteristics of stars and the likelihood that they harbor planets [@udry03; @butler06]. One example is the strong correlation between planet occurrence and stellar metallicity [@gonzalez97; @santos04; @fischer05b]. The planet–metallicity relationship can be understood in the context of the core accretion model of planet formation, in which Jovian planets begin as large rocky cores that then accrete gas from their surrounding protoplanetary disks once they exceed a critical core mass [e.g. @pollack96]. The growth of these embryonic cores is enhanced by increasing the surface density of solid particles in the disk, which is related to the metallicity of the star/disk system [@alibert05; @ida05a].

The growth rate of rocky cores in protoplanetary disks is also related to the total disk mass. Assuming that the disk mass increases with the mass of the central star, the planet occurrence rate should therefore also correlate with stellar mass. @laughlin04 showed that the lower surface densities of M dwarf protoplanetary disks impede the growth of Jupiter–mass planets. The relationship between stellar mass and planet occurrence was studied in further detail by @ida05b for a larger range of stellar masses. Based on their Monte Carlo simulations, they predict a positive correlation between the number of detectable planets and stellar mass up to about 1 . However, there is some debate about whether surface density of solid material in protoplanetary disks is proportional to the mass of the central star. By assuming that the initial conditions of the disk are independent from the mass of star, @kornet06 find that the occurrence rate of planets is inversely related to stellar mass.

The prediction that low–mass stars should have a lower frequency of Jovian planets is in accordance with observations; only one M dwarf, GL 876, is known to harbor Jupiter–mass planets [@marcy01]. From their survey of 90 M dwarfs, @endl06 estimate that less than 1.27% of such low–mass stars harbor Jovian–mass planets within 1 AU. @laws03 studied the planet occurrence rate in light of the current observational data using the larger set of FGK stars surveyed as part of the California & Carnegie Planet Search (CCPS, the full, updated target list can be found in @wright04b)). They found evidence that the planet rate decreases for lower stellar masses and peaks near 1.0 . However, the planet rate is poorly constrained for stellar masses greater than about 1.2  due to the small number of intermediate–mass stars ($1.3 \lesssim M_{star} \lesssim 3$ ) in the CCPS sample. This dearth of massive stars is due to an observational bias since main–sequence stars with spectral types earlier than F8 tend to be fast rotators [@donascimento03], have fewer spectral lines, and display a large amount of chromospheric activity [@saar98]. These features result in a decrease in the radial velocity precision attainable from the spectra of main–sequence stars more massive than $\sim
1.2$ [@galland05]. Thus, early–type dwarfs are not typically monitored as part of most radial velocity surveys.

One method to circumvent these difficulties is to observe intermediate–mass stars after they evolve into the region of the H–R diagram between the main–sequence and red giant branch—also known as the Hertzsprung Gap (HG). After stars have expended their core hydrogen fuel sources their radii expand, their photospheres cool, and convection sets in below their photospheres. Convective motion and stellar rotation drive magnetic fields that couple with an expanding stellar wind and act as a rotational brake [@gray85; @schrijver93; @donascimento00]. The cooler atmospheres and slower rotational velocities of evolved stars lead to an increased number of narrow absorption lines in their spectra, making HG stars better suited for precise radial velocity measurements than their main–sequence progenitors.

We are conducting a radial velocity survey of 159 HG stars to search for planets orbiting intermediate–mass stars. We describe the selection criteria of our sample of stars in § \[sample\]. We present here the first planet detection from our sample of HG stars: an eccentric hot jupiter orbiting the   subgiant, . The properties of the host star are presented in § \[properties\], and we describe our observations and orbital solution in § \[orbit\]. We present the results of our photometric monitoring in § \[photometry\] and conclude with a discussion in § \[discussion\].

Sample
======

We have selected 159 HG stars based on the criteria $0.5 < M_V < 3.5$, $0.55 < B-V < 1.0$, and $V \lesssim 7.6$, as listed in the Hipparcos Catalog [@hipp]. Additionally, we selected only stars lying more than 1 mag above the mean Hipparcos main–sequence, as defined by @wright04. We chose the red cutoff to avoid red giants, which are known to exhibit excess velocity jitter [@frink01; @hekker06]. The lower $M_V$ restriction avoids Cepheid variables, and the upper limit excludes stars with masses less than $1.2$ . We avoided stars in the clump region of the H–R diagram ($B-V > 0.8$ and $M_V < 2.0$) in order to avoid the mass ambiguity stemming from the closely–spaced, overlapping isochrones between low–mass horizontal branch stars and high–mass stars on their first ascent to the giant branch.

The H–R diagram of our full sample is illustrated in Figure \[sg\_hr\], along with the mass tracks of @girardi02. The mass range of our sample is $1.2 < M_*
\lesssim 2.5$, with a mean of 1.5 . We are observing 115 of the brightest and northernmost of these stars at Lick Observatory and the remaining 44 at Keck Observatory. Figure \[sg\_hr\] also shows the approximate search domains of other programs containing evolved, intermediate–mass stars. These surveys include searches for planets around clump giants [@sato03; @setiawan03], red giants [@frink02; @hatzes05] and the subgiants included in the CCPS. As evidenced from Figure \[sg\_hr\], HG stars occupy a unique and unexplored region in the H–R diagram.

Properties of  {#properties}
==============

 (=HIP 96507) is a G0IV subgiant with $V=\vmag$, $B-V = \bv$, a parallax–based distance of 47.6 pc, and an absolute magnitude $M_V = \mv$ [@hipp]. Its position in the H–R diagram in relation to other stars in our sample is shown in Figure \[sg\_hr\]. lies 1.1 mag above the mean Hipparcos main–sequence of stars in the solar neighborhood [@wright04], confirming its subgiant classification. This star is chromospherically–quiet with $S = \sval$ and $R^\prime_{HK} = \rhk$, from which we estimate a  d rotation period. We used the LTE spectral synthesis described by @valenti05 to calculate $T_{eff} = \teff$ K, $\rm [Fe/H] = \fe$, $\log{g} = \logg$ and $V_{rot}\sin{i} = \vsini$ . We interpolated the star’s color, absolute magnitude and metallicity onto the stellar model grids of @girardi02 using the Bayesian methodology detailed by @pont04b. Our interpolation yields an estimated stellar mass $M_* = \mstar$0.1 , radius $R_* = \rstar$ 0.07 ; in agreement with $M_* = 1.31$  and $R_* = 1.74$ estimated by @allende99. All of the stellar properties are summarized in Table \[star\_table\].

Observations and Orbit {#orbit}
======================

We began observing  in 2004 May at Lick Observatory using the 0.6 m Coude Auxiliary Telescope (CAT) and the 3 m Shane telescope. Both telescopes feed the Hamilton echelle spectrograph, thus no offset correction is needed for the velocities. We measured radial velocities from the high–resolution ($\lambda/\delta\lambda = 50,000$) spectral observations using the @butler96 iodine cell method. Traditionally, this method requires an additional reference observation, or template, made without the iodine cell. These template observations require higher signal and resolution than normal radial velocity observations, which leads to increased exposure times. Given our large target list and the small aperture of the CAT, obtaining an observed template for each star would represent a prohibitive cost in observing time. We instead analyze the initial observations of all our targets using synthetic (or “morphed”) templates, following the method described by @johnson06. Stars showing excess RMS scatter are reanalyzed using a high–quality observed template, obtained with the 3 m Shane telescope, to achieve improved long–term velocity precision.

The first five observations of  spanned 1 yr and had an RMS scatter of 53 , prompting us to initiate follow–up observations with an increased sampling rate to search for a short–period signal. Our radial velocity measurements are listed in Table \[vel\_table\] along with the Julian dates and internal measurement uncertainties. A periodogram analysis of the velocities reveals a  periodicity with a false alarm probability $<0.001$%. To search for a full orbital solution, we augmented our measurement uncertainties with a jitter estimate of  , based on the star’s chromospheric activity index, absolute magnitude and color [@saar98; @wright05]. The best–fit Keplerian orbital solution yields an orbital period $P = \period$ d, velocity semi–amplitude $K
= \kamp$  and eccentricity $e = \ecc$. Using our stellar mass estimate of  , we derive $M_P\sin{i} = \msini$  and $a =
\a$ AU. Figure \[phased\_orbit\] shows our velocities and orbital solution phased with the  d period. The full orbital solution and parameter uncertainties are listed in Table \[orbit\_table\].

We estimate the parameter uncertainties using a Monte Carlo method. For each of 100 trials the best–fit Keplerian is subtracted from the measured velocities. The residuals are then scrambled and added back to the original measurements, and a new set of orbital parameters is obtained. The standard deviations of the parameters derived from all trials are adopted as the 1$\sigma$ uncertainties listed in Table \[orbit\_table\].

Photometric Observations {#photometry}
========================

@queloz01 and @paulson04 have shown that active regions such as spots and plages on the photospheres of solar-type stars can cause low-amplitude, radial velocity variations (jitter) by distorting the stellar line profiles as the spots are carried across the stellar disk by rotation. If a large active region exists for several stellar rotations (not an unusual circumstance for stars younger and more active than the Sun), then periodic rotational modulation of the spectral line profiles can mimic the presence of a planetary companion. Therefore, precision photometric measurements can be an important complement to Doppler observations. For radial velocity variations caused by surface magnetic activity, the star will exhibit low-level photometric variability [e.g., @henry95] on the radial velocity period. If the radial velocity variability is the result of true reflex motion caused by a planetary companion in orbit around the star, the star in general will not show photometric variability on the radial velocity period [e.g., @henry00a]. Photometric observations of planetary-candidate stars can also detect transits of planetary companions with inclinations near 90 and so allow the determination of a planet’s true mass, radius, density, and composition [e.g., @henry00b; @sato05; @bouchy05].

We observed  with the T11 0.8 m automatic photometric telescope (APT) at Fairborn Observatory during May and June of 2006, obtaining a total of 207 brightness measurements. The T11 APT is equipped with a two-channel precision photometer employing two EMI 9124QB bi-alkali photomultiplier tubes to make simultaneous measurements in the Strömgren $b$ and $y$ passbands. The APT measures the difference in brightness between a program star and a nearby constant comparison star or stars with a typical precision of 0.0015 mag for bright stars ($V < 8.0$). For , we used the two comparison stars HD184151 ($V$ = 6.87, $B-V$ = 0.46, F5 V) and HD184381 ($V$ = 6.70, $B-V$ = 0.45, F5 V). Differential magnitudes between the two comparison stars showed them both to be constant to 0.0012 mag or better on a night-to-night timescale. We created Strömgren $b$ and $y$ differential magnitudes of  with respect to the [*average*]{} of the two comparison stars to improve our photometric precision. The differential magnitudes were reduced with nightly extinction coefficients and transformed to the Strömgren system with yearly mean transformation coefficients. To improve precision still further, we combined the separate $b$ and $y$ differential magnitudes into a single $(b+y)/2$ pass band. Additional information on the telescope, photometer, observing procedures, and data reduction techniques employed with the T11 APT can be found in @henry99 and @eaton03.

The 207 combined $(b+y)/2$ differential magnitudes of  are plotted in the top panel of Figure \[phot\_fig\]. The observations are phased with the planetary orbital period and the time of mid transit given in Table \[orbit\_table\]. The standard deviation of the observations from the mean brightness level is 0.0011 mag, suggesting that  as well as its comparison stars are all highly constant. Period analysis does not reveal any periodicity between 0.03 and 100 days. A least-squares sine fit of the observations phased to the radial velocity period gives a semi-amplitude of 0.00015 $\pm$ 0.00012 mag. This very low limit to possible photometric variability supports planetary-reflex motion as the cause of the radial velocity variations.

In the bottom panel of Figure \[phot\_fig\], the observations near phase 0.0 are replotted with an expanded scale on the abscissa. The solid curve in each of the two panels approximates the predicted transit light curve assuming a planetary orbital inclination of 90 (central transits). The out-of-transit light level corresponds to the mean brightness of the observations. The predicted transit duration is calculated from the orbital elements, while the predicted transit depth of 0.003 mag is derived from the stellar radius of 1.88 R$_{\sun}$ from Table \[star\_table\] and an assumed planetary radius of 1.0 R$_{Jup}$. Thus, any transits of the planet across the subgiant star are expected to be very shallow, as was the case with the transits of HD149026 [@sato05]. The horizontal bar below the predicted transit window represents the approximate uncertainty in the time of mid transit, computed from the orbital elements. The vertical error bar to the right of the transit window corresponds to the $\pm$ 0.0011 mag measurement uncertainties for a single observation. The geometric probability of transits in this system is $\sim$12%, computed from the orbital elements in Table \[orbit\_table\] and equation 1 of @seagroves03. Although the uncertainty in the time of mid transit is slightly larger than the predicted duration of any transits, the observations nonetheless rule out the existence of transits except perhaps for short events occurring around phase 0.97. In the absence of transits, the orbital inclination must be less than $\sim83\arcdeg$.

Summary and Discussion {#discussion}
======================

We are monitoring the radial velocities of a sample of 159 intermediate–mass Hertzsprung Gap (HG) stars in order to study the relationship between stellar mass and planet occurrence rate. We present the detection of a   planet in an eccentric,  d orbit around the   subgiant .

Compared to other planets with orbital separations $a<0.1$ AU (also known as “hot jupiters”), b has an unusually large eccentricity. Figure \[ecc\_plot\] shows the distribution of eccentricities for the 33 planets having $a < 0.1$ AU [@butler06]. With $e = \ecc$,  b stands out from the distribution as one of only three hot jupiters with eccentricities in excess of 0.2. The other two planets are HD 162020 b [$e =
  0.277$; @udry02] and HD 118203 b [$e = 0.309$; @dasilva06].

The origin of eccentricities amongst single exoplanets is not well understood, but the gravitational influence of additional companions can drive the eccentricities of planets in multicomponent systems. An as–yet undetected second planet is likely the cause of the large eccentricity of HD 118203b—@dasilva06 report a linear trend with a 49.7  yr$^{-1}$ slope. However, we do not see evidence of a linear trend in our observations of , nor significant periodicities in the Keplerian fit residuals. We are continuing to monitor this star at Keck and Lick Observatories to search for additional low–mass companions.

It is thought that the nearly circular orbits of most hot jupiters is a result of tidal circularization. This leaves open the possibility that the tidal circularization timescale at the orbital distance of b is longer than the age of the star. Indeed, theoretical predictions of the circularization timescale have a strong dependence with semi–major axis, typically $t_{circ} \propto
a^{13/3}$ [@terquem98]. Eight of the 10 planets with $a >
0.055$ AU have eccentricities greater than 0.1, which may indicate that the timescale for tidal circularization at distances beyond $\sim 0.055$ AU is longer than the age of most FGK stars. The detection of additional hot jupiters by programs such as the N2K Consortium [@fischer05a] will help shed light on the relationship between the eccentricity and orbital separation of short–period planets.

Other searches for planets around intermediate–mass stars have so far focused on the red giant branch [@frink02; @hatzes05] and clump regions of the H–R diagram [@sato03; @setiawan03]. These programs have to date discovered a total of 6 sub-stellar objects orbiting giant stars, proving that planets do form and can be detected around evolved stars more massive than $\sim 1.5$ . However, stars in the clump and red giant branches follow closely–spaced and often overlapping evolutionary tracks, making precise stellar mass estimations from isochrone interpolation difficult (see Figure \[sg\_hr\]). By contrast, HG stars have mass tracks that are nearly parallel and widely–spaced in $M_V$, enabling precise mass determinations. HG stars also exhibit lower velocity jitter and have smaller radii than red giants [@frink01; @hekker06], which enables the detection of a wider range of planet masses and orbital separations. We will present the stellar characteristics and velocity behavior of our sample in a forthcoming paper.

We extend our gratitude to the many CAT observers who have helped with this project, including Shannon Patel, Julia Kregenow, Karin Sandstrom, Katie Peek and Bernie Walp. Special thanks to Conor Laver and Franck Marchis for lending a portion of their 3m time to observe this star before it set in 2005. We also gratefully acknowledge the efforts and dedication of the Lick Observatory staff. We appreciate funding from NASA grant NNG05GK92G (to GWM) for supporting this research. DAF is a Cottrell Science Scholar of Research Corporation and acknowledges support from NASA Grant NNG05G164G that made this work possible. GWH acknowledges support from NASA grant NCC5-511 and NSF grant HRD-9706268.

[50]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}

, Y., [Mordasini]{}, C., [Benz]{}, W., & [Winisdoerffer]{}, C. 2005, , 434, 343

, C. & [Lambert]{}, D. L. 1999, , 352, 555

, F., [Udry]{}, S., [Mayor]{}, M., [Moutou]{}, C., [Pont]{}, F., [Iribarne]{}, N., [da Silva]{}, R., [Ilovaisky]{}, S., [Queloz]{}, D., [Santos]{}, N. C., [S[é]{}gransan]{}, D., & [Zucker]{}, S. 2005, , 444, L15

, R. P., [Marcy]{}, G. W., [Williams]{}, E., [McCarthy]{}, C., [Dosanjh]{}, P., & [Vogt]{}, S. S. 1996, , 108, 500

, R. P., [Wright]{}, J. T., [Marcy]{}, G. W., [Fischer]{}, D. A., [Vogt]{}, S. S., [Tinney]{}, C. G., [Jones]{}, H. R. A., [Carter]{}, B. D., [Johnson]{}, J. A., [McCarthy]{}, C., [Munoz]{}, M., & [Penny]{}, A. J. 2006, , submitted

, R., [Udry]{}, S., [Bouchy]{}, F., [Mayor]{}, M., [Moutou]{}, C., [Pont]{}, F., [Queloz]{}, D., [Santos]{}, N. C., [S[é]{}gransan]{}, D., & [Zucker]{}, S. 2006, , 446, 717

, J. D., [Canto Martins]{}, B. L., [Melo]{}, C. H. F., [Porto de Mello]{}, G., & [De Medeiros]{}, J. R. 2003, , 405, 723

, J. D., [Charbonnel]{}, C., [L[è]{}bre]{}, A., [de Laverny]{}, P., & [De Medeiros]{}, J. R. 2000, , 357, 931

, J. A., [Henry]{}, G. W., & [Fekel]{}, F. C. 2003, The Future of Small Telescopes In The New Millennium. Volume II - The Telescopes We Use, 189

, M., [Cochran]{}, W. D., [Kuerster]{}, M., [Paulson]{}, D. B., [Wittenmyer]{}, R. A., [MacQueen]{}, P. J., & [Tull]{}, R. G. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

, . 1997, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1239, 0

, D. A., [Laughlin]{}, G., [Butler]{}, P., [Marcy]{}, G., [Johnson]{}, J., [Henry]{}, G., [Valenti]{}, J., [Vogt]{}, S., [Ammons]{}, M., [Robinson]{}, S., [Spear]{}, G., [Strader]{}, J., [Driscoll]{}, P., [Fuller]{}, A., [Johnson]{}, T., [Manrao]{}, E., [McCarthy]{}, C., [Mu[ñ]{}oz]{}, M., [Tah]{}, K. L., [Wright]{}, J., [Ida]{}, S., [Sato]{}, B., [Toyota]{}, E., & [Minniti]{}, D. 2005, , 620, 481

, D. A. & [Valenti]{}, J. 2005, , 622, 1102

, S., [Mitchell]{}, D. S., [Quirrenbach]{}, A., [Fischer]{}, D. A., [Marcy]{}, G. W., & [Butler]{}, R. P. 2002, , 576, 478

, S., [Quirrenbach]{}, A., [Fischer]{}, D., [R[ö]{}ser]{}, S., & [Schilbach]{}, E. 2001, , 113, 173

, F., [Lagrange]{}, A.-M., [Udry]{}, S., [Chelli]{}, A., [Pepe]{}, F., [Queloz]{}, D., [Beuzit]{}, J.-L., & [Mayor]{}, M. 2005, , 443, 337

, L., [Bertelli]{}, G., [Bressan]{}, A., [Chiosi]{}, C., [Groenewegen]{}, M. A. T., [Marigo]{}, P., [Salasnich]{}, B., & [Weiss]{}, A. 2002, , 391, 195

, G. 1997, , 285, 403

, D. F. & [Nagar]{}, P. 1985, , 298, 756

, A. P., [Guenther]{}, E. W., [Endl]{}, M., [Cochran]{}, W. D., [D[ö]{}llinger]{}, M. P., & [Bedalov]{}, A. 2005, , 437, 743

, S., [Reffert]{}, S., [Quirrenbach]{}, A., [Mitchell]{}, D. S., [Fischer]{}, D. A., [Marcy]{}, G. W., & [Butler]{}, R. P. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

, G. W. 1999, , 111, 845

, G. W., [Baliunas]{}, S. L., [Donahue]{}, R. A., [Fekel]{}, F. C., & [Soon]{}, W. 2000, , 531, 415

, G. W., [Fekel]{}, F. C., & [Hall]{}, D. S. 1995, , 110, 2926

, G. W., [Marcy]{}, G. W., [Butler]{}, R. P., & [Vogt]{}, S. S. 2000, , 529, L41

, S. & [Lin]{}, D. N. C. 2005, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 158, 68

—. 2005, , 626, 1045

, J. A., [Marcy]{}, G. W., [Fischer]{}, D. A., [Laughlin]{}, G., [Butler]{}, R. P., [Henry]{}, G. W., [Valenti]{}, J. A., [Ford]{}, E. B., [Vogt]{}, S. S., & [Wright]{}, J. T. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

, K., [Wolf]{}, S., & [Rozyczka]{}, M. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

, G., [Bodenheimer]{}, P., & [Adams]{}, F. C. 2004, , 612, L73

, C., [Gonzalez]{}, G., [Walker]{}, K. M., [Tyagi]{}, S., [Dodsworth]{}, J., [Snider]{}, K., & [Suntzeff]{}, N. B. 2003, , 125, 2664

, G. W., [Butler]{}, R. P., [Fischer]{}, D., [Vogt]{}, S. S., [Lissauer]{}, J. J., & [Rivera]{}, E. J. 2001, , 556, 296

, D. B., [Saar]{}, S. H., [Cochran]{}, W. D., & [Henry]{}, G. W. 2004, , 127, 1644

, J. B., [Hubickyj]{}, O., [Bodenheimer]{}, P., [Lissauer]{}, J. J., [Podolak]{}, M., & [Greenzweig]{}, Y. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62

, F. & [Eyer]{}, L. 2004, , 351, 487

, D., [Henry]{}, G. W., [Sivan]{}, J. P., [Baliunas]{}, S. L., [Beuzit]{}, J. L., [Donahue]{}, R. A., [Mayor]{}, M., [Naef]{}, D., [Perrier]{}, C., & [Udry]{}, S. 2001, , 379, 279

, S. H., [Butler]{}, R. P., & [Marcy]{}, G. W. 1998, , 498, L153+

, N. C., [Israelian]{}, G., & [Mayor]{}, M. 2004, , 415, 1153

, B., [Ando]{}, H., [Kambe]{}, E., [Takeda]{}, Y., [Izumiura]{}, H., [Masuda]{}, S., [Watanabe]{}, E., [Noguchi]{}, K., [Wada]{}, S., [Okada]{}, N., [Koyano]{}, H., [Maehara]{}, H., [Norimoto]{}, Y., [Okada]{}, T., [Shimizu]{}, Y., [Uraguchi]{}, F., [Yanagisawa]{}, K., & [Yoshida]{}, M. 2003, , 597, L157

, B., [Fischer]{}, D. A., [Henry]{}, G. W., [Laughlin]{}, G., [Butler]{}, R. P., [Marcy]{}, G. W., [Vogt]{}, S. S., [Bodenheimer]{}, P., [Ida]{}, S., [Toyota]{}, E., [Wolf]{}, A., [Valenti]{}, J. A., [Boyd]{}, L. J., [Johnson]{}, J. A., [Wright]{}, J. T., [Ammons]{}, M., [Robinson]{}, S., [Strader]{}, J., [McCarthy]{}, C., [Tah]{}, K. L., & [Minniti]{}, D. 2005, , 633, 465

, C. J. & [Pols]{}, O. R. 1993, , 278, 51

, S., [Harker]{}, J., [Laughlin]{}, G., [Lacy]{}, J., & [Castellano]{}, T. 2003, , 115, 1355

, J., [Hatzes]{}, A. P., [von der L[" u]{}he]{}, O., [Pasquini]{}, L., [Naef]{}, D., [da Silva]{}, L., [Udry]{}, S., [Queloz]{}, D., & [Girardi]{}, L. 2003, , 398, L19

, C., [Papaloizou]{}, J. C. B., [Nelson]{}, R. P., & [Lin]{}, D. N. C. 1998, , 502, 788

, S., [Mayor]{}, M., [Clausen]{}, J. V., [Freyhammer]{}, L. M., [Helt]{}, B. E., [Lovis]{}, C., [Naef]{}, D., [Olsen]{}, E. H., [Pepe]{}, F., [Queloz]{}, D., & [Santos]{}, N. C. 2003, , 407, 679

, S., [Mayor]{}, M., [Naef]{}, D., [Pepe]{}, F., [Queloz]{}, D., [Santos]{}, N. C., & [Burnet]{}, M. 2002, , 390, 267

, J. A. & [Fischer]{}, D. A. 2005, , 159, 141

, J. T. 2004, , 128, 1273

—. 2005, , 117, 657

, J. T., [Marcy]{}, G. W., [Butler]{}, R. P., & [Vogt]{}, S. S. 2004, , 152, 261

[ll]{} V &\
$M_V$ &  (0.08)\
B-V &\
Spectral Type &\
Distance (pc) &  (1.0)\
${\rm [Fe/H]}$ &  (0.05)\
$T_{eff}$ (K) &  (50)\
$V_{rot}\sin{i}$ () &  (0.5)\
$\log{g}$ &  (0.07)\
$M_{*}$ () &  (0.1)\
$R_{*}$ () &  (0.1)\
$S_{HK}$ &\
$\log R'_{HK}$ &\
$P_{rot}$ (d) &\
Age (Gyr) &\
Jitter () &\

[lrr]{} 13155.980 & -6.5 & 5.8\
13211.839 & 30.7 & 6.2\
13522.875 & -107.0 & 5.6\
13576.840 & -34.9 & 7.2\
13619.734 & -100.0 & 5.7\
13629.661 & 51.7 & 6.2\
13668.621 & -21.5 & 6.7\
13718.641 & 49.6 & 6.3\
13720.587 & -34.3 & 6.9\
13866.932 & -23.5 & 6.4\
13867.878 & 11.8 & 4.3\
13868.806 & 38.9 & 5.9\
13868.996 & 44.3 & 5.6\
13869.982 & 32.4 & 6.8\
13879.841 & -63.7 & 5.4\
13880.912 & 16.0 & 7.1\
13884.918 & -50.7 & 5.6\
13885.924 & -148.0 & 5.5\
13891.795 & -66.5 & 6.9\
13891.963 & -85.7 & 7.0\
13894.908 & 32.8 & 4.9\
13895.895 & 44.6 & 5.0\
13896.895 & 42.2 & 4.5\
13897.908 & -13.8 & 5.1\
13898.905 & -78.0 & 12.0\
13900.929 & -31.9 & 5.2\
13901.947 & 26.7 & 5.7\
13902.915 & 40.5 & 4.6\
13903.936 & 29.1 & 5.6\
13904.888 & -25.6 & 6.0\

[lll]{} P (d) &  ()\
T$_p$ (JD) &  ()\
T$_{transit}$ (JD) &  ()\
e &  ()\
K$_1$ () &  ()\
$\omega$ (deg) &  ()\
$M_P\sin{i}$ ($M_{Jup}$) &\
$a$ (AU) &\
Fit RMS () &\
$\sqrt{\chi_\nu^2}$ &\
$N_{obs}$ &\

[^1]: For the updated catalog of extrasolar planet and their parameters see http://exoplanets.org.
