arXiv:1007.4555v2 [astro-ph.EP] 14 Sep 2010 aetsa hni h aei h oa ytm twudb of be would It system. (Struv solar objects.” such the any in are there case whether w the test reason Otto closer to is much 1952 interest compelling than be In no dis instances, star some 1995). be the parent in Queloz to to not, & should seems (Mayor prior the...planets Jupiter “...[T]here instance hot mused, published first Struve one the plan least of Jovian ery at short-period of in existence predicted the System, Solar the sn ailvlcte eas ftelre amplitude larger the of because velocities radial using Jhsne l 07 aoe l 08.A olre al. M et 1.5 Bowler of As stars side host either 2008). orbiting on AU populations al. different planet 0.6 et a the than Sato showed, for (2010) closer 2007; but orbiting al. planets et surprising, no (Johnson was are class there new reason: this in ets hr r 1paeskont ri intermediate- orbit to known ( planets stars 31 are there hw nFgr ,ilsrtn h rvlneo giant of prevalence the orbits close-in illustrating unexpectedly 1, in planets Figure in shown re,danfo h xpae ri Database Orbit the from drawn eries, ftegnrlkoldeo xpaesi 01 At axes orbit- semimajor mostly of known, ( 2001. distributions planets The in and 32 stars. were Sun-like of ing there knowledge time general that the of nemdaems ( intermediate-mass onAhrJohnson Asher John tt nvriy 50Jh .MritBv. o 9501, Box Blvd., Merritt 06511 A. John 37209 3500 TN Nashville, University, State 94720 CA Berkeley, 3411, Code 96822 HI Honolulu, Drive, lawn Science Exoplanet NASA 91125; (NExScI) CA Institute Pasadena, California. 249-17, of MC be University ogy, has the time and Keck NASA Calif Technology. both of of by University Institute granted the California by the jointly and operated is which vatory, [email protected] 8 7 ls-n oinpaesaerltvl ayt detect to easy relatively are planets Jovian Close-in, h urn tt fkoldeo lnt around planets of knowledge of state current The rpittpstuigL using 2018 typeset 29, Preprint October version Draft http://exoplanets.org hl nxetdbsdo h apeo n rvddby provided one of sample the on based unexpected While 6 5 4 3 2 1 oadIsaacson Howard eateto srnm,Yl nvriy e ae,CT Haven, New University, Yale Tennessee Astronomy, of Systems, Department Information in Excellence Mail of California, of Center University Astronomy, of Wood- Department 2680 Hawai’i, of University Astronomy, for Institute Techn of Institute California Astrophysics, of Department Obser- Keck W.M. the at obtained observations on Based M 0 ugat with nw oobtwti . Uo trmr asv hn15M 1.5 than massive more a star Jupiter, a hot of a AU harbor 0.6 to known within star orbit massive to most known the is 102956 HD act fpaeswt 0 with planets of paucity eso fte“eidvle”ta scaatrsi fpaesarou planets of characteristic is that headings: valley” Subject “period the of version D125.Tepae a eiao axis semimajor a has planet The 102956. HD ⋆ . U with AU) 1 erpr h eeto fagatpae na645 a ri around orbit day 6.4950 a in planet giant a of detection the report We > M 1 . M 5 P 1. sin ⊙ M INTRODUCTION i ,adtesmmjrae fplan- of axes semimajor the and ), A T M 2 fteeeryeolntdiscov- exoplanet early these of ) ⋆ 4 ⊙ E rna .Bowler P. Brendan , onMcalBrewer Michael John , O UIE RIIGTE17M 1.7 THE ORBITING JUPITER HOT A tl mltajv 11/10/09 v. emulateapj style X M & P r itnta h 4- the at distinct are ehius ailvlcte—tr:idvda H 102956)—plane (HD individual velocities—stars: radial techniques: ⋆ sin formation 1 > . M 5 > i 1 . 5M 45 ⊙ M 1 . tr sreminiscent is stars ) 1 < a < Jup ⊙ 8 so 00May 2010 of As . efidta .–.%o -yesashro ls-npae ( planet close-in a harbor stars A-type of 0.5–2.3% that find we ossetwt o-uie curnefrSnlk tr.Thu stars. Sun-like for occurrence hot-Jupiter with consistent , 1 3 rf eso coe 9 2018 29, October version Draft . σ nrwW Howard W. Andrew , Uaon nemdaems tr a ea exaggerated an be may stars intermediate-mass around AU 0 level. 6 er .Fischer A. Debra , otheir to 1952) e t was ets 7 are , ornia ABSTRACT cov- a ol- hy en 0 = . 8 Uadmnmmmass minimum and AU 081 ai oain( their to rotation due massive, targets rapid Doppler While poor are targets. stars main-sequence post-main-sequence re- to largely are the stricted stars intermediate-mass of of surveys effects Doppler the to stars. host related the instead of formation evolution planet or of whether process migration, clear the that of not and reflection axis is a appears semimajor is it effect it the However, this on Instead, planets. effect of dramatic distribution a periods. has longer mass stellar at population large the planets given cannot bias of observational therefore an to per absence due cycles Their be orbit baseline. of number time increased observing the and induce they in rnhsaemc lwrrttr ( rotators slower much sub- are and giant branches the giant on counterparts evolved their (2009)), nflycmae otoemaue rmDplrsur- 2005). Doppler al. from et mean- measured (Gaudi be those veys can to that compared rates ingfully occurrence to difficult accurate it com- measure inherent make to surveys the biases transit Unfortunately, selection wide-field ground-based, and engulfment. observational the plicated stellar is lack stars of intermediate-mass the evolved result that to close concern planets additional of These adding around dwarfs, 2010). exist al. A-type planets et close-in that Cameron demonstrate Collier detections 2009; al. et (Snellen ao axes around major Jupiters M WASP-33 surveys 1.5 hot and transit are OGLE2-TR-L9 of AU, 0.6 stars. examples of intermediate-mass two inward discovered stars have A around 2008). gion al. K-giants et around Sato planets also close-in (see of can clump-giants stars and lack and engulf- of the (2009) atmospheres the for expanding that account al. the suggested et by have Carlberg planets Simulations ment (2009) (2010), Livio planets. & al. their Villaver et of may Nordhaus and orbits by expand the atmospheres How- upon their encroach evolve measurements. stars Doppler as precise ever, for required lines ms km 5 tla vlto a ea motn atrbecause factor important an be may evolution Stellar hl ope uvy aeecutrdabre re- barren a encountered have surveys Doppler While ⊙ 6 4 − UGATH 102956 HD ioh .Morton D. Timothy , rgr .Henry W. Gregory , 1 ⊙ n hrfr aetenro absorption narrow the have therefore and ) a tr rie yJva lnt ihsemi- with planets Jovian by orbited stars dSnlk stars. Sun-like nd 0 = ⊙ V ae norsml f137 of sample our on Based . rot dispae sol h third the only is planet its nd . 4 Uad006A,respectively AU, 0.026 and AU 041 sin i h .8M 1.68 the & M P 0k s km 50 sin 5 2 efryW Marcy W. Geoffrey , utnR Crepp R. Justin , sadsatellites: and ts 1 i 0 = ⊙ − 1 . 6M 96 arnee al. et Lagrange ; subgiant ,the s, < a Jup V rot . sin 2 i 4 . , 2

exoplanets.org

14 First 32 RV−detected planets P = 6.4950 d HD 102956 First 31 around massive stars 100 K = 73.7 m s−1 Keck Obs. HD 102956 b

12 ] e = 0.048 −1

] i MPsin = 0.96 MJup Jup 10 50

8 0 6

Radial Velocity [m s −50

Minimum Mass [M 4

2 −100 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0 Orbit Phase 0.1 1.0 Semimajor Axis [AU] Fig. 2.— Doppler measurements of HD 102956 from Keck Obser- vatory phased at the of the planet. The error bars Fig. 1.— The semimajor axes and minimum masses (MP sin i ) of are the quadrature sum of the internal measurement uncertainties the first 32 Doppler-detected planets (gray circles). The majority and 5 m s−1 of jitter. The dashed line shows the best-fitting orbit of these planets orbit stars with M⋆ < 1.5 M⊙, and the planets solution of a single Keplerian orbit. The solution results in residu- −1 2 span a wide range of semimajor axes. Also shown are the first als with an rms scatter of 6.0 m s and pχν = 1.35, indicating 31 Doppler-detected planets around massive stars (M⋆ > 1.5 M⊙; a good fit to the data. open diamonds), and the sole , HD 102956 b (filled five- point star). Compared to the population of planets around Sun-like stars, there is a notable paucity of planets inward of 0.6 AU around the intermediate-mass stars. and Fischer & Valenti (2005) to estimate the spectro- scopic properties. To constrain the low surface gravi- ties of the evolved stars we used the iterative scheme of Among the various types of evolved stars, subgiants of- Valenti et al. (2009), which ties the SME-derived value fer a unique view of the population of hot Jupiters around of log g to the gravity inferred from the Yonsei-Yale intermediate-mass stars. The radii of subgiants have in- (Y2) stellar models. Our SME analysis gives T = flated by only a factor of ≈ 2 compared to their main- eff 5054 ± 44 K, [Fe/H] = +0.19 ± 0.04, log g = 3.5 ± 0.06 sequence values. The simulations of Villaver & Livio −1 and Vrot sin i = 0.30 ± 0.5 km s . We compared the (2009) show that planets with a & 0.1 AU should be safe 2 from the tidal influence of stars near the base of the RGB star’s temperature, luminosity and to the Y (see their Figure 2). It is only after stars start to ascend stellar model grids to estimate a M⋆ = the RGB and have their radii expand to an appreciable 1.68 ± 0.11 M⊙ and radius R⋆ = 4.4 ± 0.07 R⊙. All fraction of an AU that tidal influences become impor- of the stellar properties are summarized in Table 1. tant. The occurrence rates and semimajor axis distribu- We began monitoring the of HD 102956 tion of close-in planets around subgiants should therefore in 2007 April and we have gathered a total of 22 mea- surements. After two seasons of observing we noticed be representative of the properties of planets around A- −1 type dwarfs. RV variability with an rms scatter of 41 m s , which is We are conducting a Doppler survey of intermediate- much larger than the scatter predicted by the measure- mass subgiants at Keck and Lick Observatories to ment uncertainties and jitter levels typical of subgiants study the effects of stellar mass on the physical prop- (Fischer et al. 2003; Wright 2005; Johnson et al. 2010a). erties and orbital architectures of planetary systems. Table 2 lists our RV measurements, times of observa- tion and internal errors (without jitter). Johnson et al. Our survey has resulted in the detection of 14 plan- −1 ets around 12 intermediate-mass (M⋆ & 1.5 M⊙) stars, (2010a) estimate a typical jitter of 5 m s based on and 4 additional planets around less-massive subgiants their analysis of 382 RV observations of 72 stable sub- (Johnson et al. 2006, 2007, 2008; Bowler et al. 2010; giants observed at Keck with HIRES. We add this jitter Peek et al. 2009; Johnson et al. 2010a, Johnson et al. estimate in quadrature to the internal measurement er- 2010b, submitted). In this Letter we report the first rors to ensure proper weighting of the data in our orbit Doppler-detected planet within 0.6 AU of a “retired” analysis. (former) A star: a hot Jupiter around a 1.68 M⊙ sub- To search for the best-fitting orbit we used the RVLIN9 giant. partially-linearized Keplerian fitting code de- scribed by Wright & Howard (2009). As an alternative 2. STELLAR PROPERTIES, RADIAL VELOCITIES to a periodogram analysis, we first stepped through a AND ORBIT grid of orbital periods sampled from 1 to 100 days in 5000 equal, logarithmically-spaced intervals. At each step we HD 102956 (=HIP 57820) is listed in the Hipparcos fixed the period, searched for the best-fitting orbit and Catalog with V = 8.02, B − V = 0.971, a parallax– recorded the resulting10 χ2 . We found a minimum based distance of 126 pc, and an absolute magni- p ν V tude M = 2.5 (ESA 1997). Like most subgiants, 9 http://exoplanets.org/code/ HD 102956 is chromospherically–quiet with an average 10 2 ′ We use pχν to indicate the factor by which the observed S = 0.17 ± 0.02 and log RHK = −5.09 on the Mt. scatter about the best-fitting model differs from our expectation Wilson scale (Wright et al. 2004). We used the LTE based on the measurement errors. Thus, the scatter about our spectral synthesis described by Valenti & Fischer (2005) model is a factor of 1.35 larger than our average error bar. 3

the steps are drawn until we achieved a 30–40% accep- TABLE 1 tance rate in each parameter. The resulting “chains” of Stellar Properties and Orbital Solution for HD 102956 parameters form the posterior probability distribution, Parameter Value from which we select the 15.9 and 84.1 percentile levels in the cumulative distributions as the “one-sigma” con- ± V 8.02 0.05 fidence limits. In most cases the posterior probability B − V 0.971 ± 0.01 Distance (pc) 126 ± 13 distributions were approximately Gaussian. The orbital MV 2.5 ± 0.2 parameters and their uncertainties are listed in Table 1. [Fe/H] +0.19 ± 0.04 As an additional check on the nature of the RV Teff (K) 5054 ± 44 −1 variations, we acquired photometric observations of Vrot sin i (km s ) 0.30 ± 0.5 log g 3.5 ± 0.06 HD 102956 with the T3 0.4 m automatic photometric M⋆ (M⊙) 1.68 ± 0.11 telescope (APT) at Fairborn Observatory. A brief de- R⋆ (R⊙) 4.4 ± 0.1 scription of the T3 data acquisition and reduction pro- L⋆ (R⊙) 11.6 ± 0.5 ′ cedures, as well as the utility of the APT observations log RHK −5.09 Age (Gyr) 2.3 ± 0.5 for eliminating false positive detections, can be found in Johnson et al. (2010a). P (days) 6.4950 ± 0.0004 The APT collected two dozen observations in the John- K (m s−1) 73.7 ± 1.9 son V and B photometric bands between 2010 May ± e 0.048 0.027 30 and June 23, near the end of the 2010 observing TP (Julian Date) 2455346 ± 0.7 ω (degrees) 12 ± 40 season. The V observations scatter about their mean MP sin i (MJup) 0.96 ± 0.05 with a standard deviation of 0.0037 mag, consistent with a (AU) 0.081 ± 0.002 T3’s measurement precision for a single observation (e.g., R⋆/a 0.253 ± 0.008 Henry et al. 2000, Tables 2–3). A least-squares sine fit Nobs 22 rms (ms−1) 6.0 on the 6.4948-day radial velocity period yielded a semi- 2 pχν 1.35 amplitude of 0.0012 ± 0.0010 mag. Identical results were obtained for the B observations. This tight upper limit to photometric variability provides strong support for the planetary interpretation of the radial velocity variations. 2 (pχν =1.15) at periods near 6.5 days. The next lowest 3. THE FRACTION OF INTERMEDIATE-MASS 2 minimum (pχν =1.98) occurs at P =3.47 days. How- STARS WITH HOT JUPITERS ever, with a best-fitting eccentricity of 0.95, the orbit Our Keck and Lick Doppler surveys of subgiant stars solution is clearly unphysical. have time baselines of 3 and 6 , respectively, and the We then allowed the period to float in our RVLIN majority of the target stars have more than 6 observa- analysis with an initial guess of P = 6.5 days, and tions with jitter-limited measurement precision ranging found that a single-planet Keplerian model with a period from 3–6 m s−1. Our precision, cadence and time base- P =6.4950 ± 0.0004 days, eccentricity e =0.048 ± 0.027 line provide us with the opportunity to assess the frac- −1 and velocity semiamplitude K = 73.7±1.9ms . The fit tion of intermediate-mass stars with hot Jupiters, which produces RV residuals with a root-mean-squared (rms) we define as planets with a< 0.1 AU. This definition is −1 2 scatter of 6.0 m s and reduced pχν =1.35, indicating somewhat arbitrary, but it is consistent with definitions an acceptable fit. We used the false-alarm analysis of widely used by other studies of hot Jupiters, which typi- Howard et al. (2009) to calculate FAP < 0.001 (see also cally focus on Solar-mass stars and periods P . 10 days. Johnson et al. 2010b). The resulting minimum planet The most comprehensive study of this kind is that of mass is MP sin i =0.96 MJup, and the semimajor axis is Cumming et al. (2008), who measure an occurrence rate a =0.081 AU. The best-fitting solution is shown in Fig- of f =0.004 ± 0.003 for a< 0.1 AU, MP sin i ≥ 1 MJup ure 2, where the plotted error bars are the quadrature and primarily stars with masses M⋆ < 1.4 M⊙. Their sum of internal errors and 5 m s−1 of jitter. reported planet occurrence is consistent with f < 0.01 After identifying the best-fitting model, we use a at 95% confidence. Markov-Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm to esti- Within our sample we restrict our analysis to stars mate the parameter uncertainties (See, e.g. Ford 2005; with M⋆ > 1.45 M⊙ (the evolved counterparts of A-type −1 Winn et al. 2007; Bowler et al. 2010). MCMC is a stars), Nobs > 3, Vrot sin i < 20 km s and no evidence Bayesian inference technique that uses the data to ex- of double-lines indicative of an SB2. Our sample contains plore the shape of the likelihood function for each pa- 137 stars that meet these criteria. For each star we first rameter of an input model. At each step, one parameter perform a periodogram analysis and use RVLIN to search is selected at random and altered by drawing a random for orbit solutions near the strongest periodicities using variate from a normal distribution. If the resulting χ2 the same technique described by Marcy et al. (2005). We (not reduced by the number of free parameters ν) value then evaluate the FAP by estimating the likelihood of 2 2 for the new trial orbit is less than the previous χ value, improving χν over that of a linear fit (see Howard et al. then the trial orbital parameters are added to the chain. 2009, for further details). For solutions with FAP < 0.01, If not, then the probability of adopting the new value is we record the rms of the residuals about the best-fitting set by the difference in χ2 from the previous and cur- orbit. For larger FAP values we record the rms about rent trial steps. If the current trial is rejected then the the best-fitting linear fit to the RVs. parameters from the previous step are adopted. We ad- Next, we measure the largest velocity semiamplitude justed the width of the normal distributions from which Kup that is consistent with the observed rms scatter for 4

Period [days] 2.25 4.14 6.38 8.91 TABLE 2 10.0 Radial Velocities for HD 102956

JD RV Uncertainty −1 −1

-2440000 (m s ) (ms ) = 2 R a 14216.805 11.40 1.18 14429.150 5.77 1.39 ])

Jup HD 102956 b 14866.114 37.10 1.30

14986.851 -58.52 1.27 [M 1.0 15014.772 59.14 1.07 i 15016.870 -49.20 1.13 0.95 15284.917 -79.04 1.34 Msin 0.90 15285.993 -14.32 1.25 0.85 15313.915 43.48 1.25 0.80 15314.828 -10.25 1.18 15343.795 -66.93 1.17 15344.885 3.98 1.35 0.1 15350.786 -40.57 1.27 15351.880 34.14 1.19 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 15372.804 30.58 1.16 a [AU] 15373.796 -42.13 1.22 15374.753 -98.50 1.10 Fig. 3.— 15376.783 -28.67 1.12 Detection limits of the Keck Doppler survey of 15377.812 30.78 1.10 intermediate-mass subgiants as a function of semimajor axis. The 15378.749 50.22 1.12 contours indicate the minimum planet mass detectable with a given 15379.787 0.00 1.13 fractional completeness, which is labeled to the left of each contour. 15380.805 -70.40 1.13 The vertical dashed line shows the semimajor axis that is roughly equal to 2 stellar radii, assuming R⋆ =4R⊙, which is typical of stars in the Keck survey. The position of HD 102956 b is marked with a solid circle. simulated planets of various periods. Our method is sim- ilar to that of Lagrange et al. (2009) and Bowler et al. 10 days among a sample of 50 stars12, or f < 0.05 (2010). For each star we sample a range of orbital periods at 95% confidence. However, because their early-type corresponding to semimajor axes 0.04 ≤ a ≤ 0.10 AU11. stars are such rapid rotators, their achievable velocity At each fixed period we generate a sample of 3000 simu- precision only allowed them to rule out planets with lated orbits with random phases and circular orbits sam- MP sin i & 8 MJup. Thus, our estimate of the fraction of pled at the actual times of observation. For each sim- massive stars with hot Jupiters represents a significant ulated orbit we also add 5 m s−1 of random noise to refinement compared to the previous constraints. How- simulate jitter. We then record the distribution of 3000 ever, our sample size is still too small to provide a mean- simulated velocity rms values and compare the distribu- ingful comparison with the planet fraction measured by tion to the rms of the measurements. Finally, we adjust Cumming et al. (2008) for less massive stars. An ex- K until the measured rms is less than that of 99.7% of tension of our subgiants survey to the Southern sky is the simulated orbits, and record the semiamplitude as therefore warranted, and is currently underway at the Kup at that period. Anglo Australian Observatory (R. Wittenmyer, private Repeating this procedure for all 137 stars provides a communication). Additional constraints will be provided measure the completeness of our survey for planets above by the Kepler space-based transit survey (Borucki et al. a given MP sin i at each semimajor axis sampled in our 2004). simulations. Figure 3 shows contours of constant com- pleteness for our sample, together with the position of 4. SUMMARY HD102956, demonstrating that we are 95% complete for We report the discovery of a hot Jupiter (e =0.048 ± MP sin i > 1 MJup and a< 0.1 AU. 0.027, MP sin i =0.96 MJup, P =6.4950 days) orbiting Since each detection or nondetection of a hot Jupiter the subgiant HD 102956. At M⋆ =1.68 M⊙, HD102956 represents a Bernoulli trial, the fraction of stars with is the most massive star known to harbor a hot Jupiter, planets in our sampled range is given by the binomial and this short-period system is the first detected as part k N k distribution P(f|k,N) ∝ f (1 − f) − , where N = 137 of a Doppler survey of evolved, intermediate-mass stars. is the number of target stars containing k detections. The existence of this planet demonstrates that the ob- For our sample we measure an occurrence rate of f = served population of close-in planets around subgiants is +1.2 1.2−0.7, or f < 0.034 at 95% confidence for MP sin i ≥ largely representative of the “primordial” planet popu- 0.9 MJup, which includes a single detection, HD 102956 b lation, in that close-in planets have not been adversely with MP sin i =0.96 ± 0.05. Restricting our analysis to affected by the relatively mild, post-main-sequence ex- planets more massive than 1 MJup we find f < 0.025 at pansion of their host stars. This aspect of subgiants, to- 95% confidence. gether with their jitter-limited RV precision of ≈ 5ms−1, Based on their survey of main-sequence A-type stars, makes them ideally suited for studying the properties Lagrange et al. (2009) reported no planets with P < of short-period planets with a wide range of minimum

11 The lower limit of 0.04 AU corresponds to a/R⋆ = 2 for 12 Lagrange et al. (2009) do not report stellar masses, but in- a typical M⋆ = 1.7 M⊙ subgiant with R⋆ =4R⊙, which is the stead classify stars based on B − V colors. We selected stars from smallest scaled semimajor axis among the known hot Jupiters listed their Table 4 with colors 0.0 < B − V < 0.3 as representative of in the Exoplanet Orbit Database. main-sequence A-stars in our mass range (M⋆ > 1.45 M⊙). 5 masses around intermediate-mass stars. We gratefully acknowledge the efforts and dedica- Based on our current stellar sample we estimate that tion of the Keck Observatory staff, especially Grant 0.5–2.3% of A-type stars harbor a planet with a< 0.1 AU Hill, Scott Dahm and Hien Tran for their support of and MP sin i > 1 MJup, compared to the 0.4% occurrence HIRES and Greg Wirth for support of remote observ- rate around Sun-like stars (Cumming et al. 2008). While ing. We are also grateful to the time assignment com- planets with a< 1 AU are unusually rare around A stars, mittees of NASA, NOAO, Caltech, and the University it is possible that there exists a population of hot Jupiters of California for their generous allocations of observing (a < 0.1 AU) around intermediate-mass stars compara- time. A. W. H. gratefully acknowledges support from ble to what is found around Sun-like stars. If so, then a Townes Post-doctoral Fellowship at the U. C. Berke- the close-in desert around A stars may simply be an ex- ley Space Sciences Laboratory. G.W.M. acknowledges aggerated version of the “period valley” observed around NASA grant NNX06AH52G. G. W. H acknowledges sup- Sun-like stars, marked by a deficit of planets with periods port from NASA, NSF, Tennessee State University, and ranging from roughly 10–100 days, a sharp increase in the the State of Tennessee through its Centers of Excellence number of detected planets beyond 1 AU, and a pile-up program. Finally, the authors wish to extend special near P = 3 day (Udry & Santos 2007; Cumming et al. thanks to those of Hawaiian ancestry on whose sacred 2008; Wright et al. 2009). Doppler surveys of a larger mountain of Mauna Kea we are privileged to be guests. number of massive subgiants, together with careful anal- Without their generous hospitality, the Keck observa- yses of detections from transit surveys, will test this pos- tions presented herein would not have been possible. sibility.

REFERENCES Borucki, W., Koch, D., Boss, A., Dunham, E., Dupree, A., Geary, Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Henry, G. W., J., Gilliland, R., Howell, S., Jenkins, J., Kondo, Y., Latham, Wright, J. T., Isaacson, H., & McCarthy, C. 2006, ApJ, 652, D., Lissauer, J., & Reitsema, H. 2004, ESA Special Publication, 1724 Vol. 538, The Kepler mission: a technical overview, 177–182 Johnson, J. A., Winn, J. N., Narita, N., Enya, K., Williams, Bowler, B. P., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., Henry, G. W., Peek, P. K. G., Marcy, G. W., Sato, B., Ohta, Y., Taruya, A., Suto, K. M. G., Fischer, D. A., Clubb, K. I., Liu, M. C., Reffert, S., Y., Turner, E. L., Bakos, G., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Aoki, Schwab, C., & Lowe, T. B. 2010, ApJ, 709, 396 W., Tamura, M., Yamada, T., Yoshii, Y., & Hidas, M. 2008, Carlberg, J. K., Majewski, S. R., & Arras, P. 2009, ApJ, 700, 832 ApJ, 686, 649 Collier Cameron, A., Guenther, E., Smalley, B., McDonald, I., Lagrange, A., Desort, M., Galland, F., Udry, S., & Mayor, M. Hebb, L., Andersen, J., Augusteijn, T., Barros, S. C. C., Brown, 2009, A&A, 495, 335 D. J. A., Cochran, W. D., Endl, M., Fossey, S. J., Hartmann, Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Fischer, D. A., Henry, M., Maxted, P. F. L., Pollacco, D., Skillen, I., Telting, J., G. W., Laughlin, G., Wright, J. T., & Johnson, J. A. 2005, Waldmann, I. P., & West, R. G. 2010, ArXiv:1004.455 ApJ, 619, 570 Cumming, A., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Vogt, S. S., Wright, Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355 J. T., & Fischer, D. A. 2008, PASP, 120, 531 Nordhaus, J., Spiegel, D. S., Ibgui, L., Goodman, J., & Burrows, ESA, . 1997, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1239, 0 A. 2010, MNRAS, 1164 Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Henry, Peek, K. M. G., Johnson, J. A., Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., G. W., Pourbaix, D., Walp, B., Misch, A. A., & Wright, J. T. Henry, G. W., Howard, A. W., Wright, J. T., Lowe, T. B., 2003, ApJ, 586, 1394 Reffert, S., Schwab, C., Williams, P. K. G., Isaacson, H., & Fischer, D. A. & Valenti, J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102 Giguere, M. J. 2009, PASP, 121, 613 Ford, E. B. 2005, AJ, 129, 1706 Sato, B., Izumiura, H., Toyota, E., Kambe, E., Ikoma, M., Omiya, Gaudi, B. S., Seager, S., & Mallen-Ornelas, G. 2005, ApJ, 623, M., Masuda, S., Takeda, Y., Murata, D., Itoh, Y., Ando, H., 472 Yoshida, M., Kokubo, E., & Ida, S. 2008, PASJ, 60, 539 Henry, G. W., Fekel, F. C., Henry, S. M., & Hall, D. S. 2000, Snellen, I. A. G., Koppenhoefer, J., van der Burg, R. F. J., ApJS, 130, 201 Dreizler, S., Greiner, J., de Hoon, M. D. J., Husser, T. O., Howard, A. W., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Kr¨uhler, T., Saglia, R. P., & Vuijsje, F. N. 2009, A&A, 497, 545 Wright, J. T., Henry, G. W., Giguere, M. J., Isaacson, H., Struve, O. 1952, The Observatory, 72, 199 Valenti, J. A., Anderson, J., & Piskunov, N. E. 2009, ApJ, 696, Udry, S. & Santos, N. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 397 75 Valenti, J. A., Fischer, D., Marcy, G. W., Johnson, J. A., Henry, Johnson, J. A., Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., Wright, J. T., G. W., Wright, J. T., Howard, A. W., Giguere, M., & Isaacson, Driscoll, P., Butler, R. P., Hekker, S., Reffert, S., & Vogt, S. S. H. 2009, ApJ, 702, 989 2007, ApJ, 665, 785 Valenti, J. A. & Fischer, D. A. 2005, ApJS, 159, 141 Johnson, J. A., Howard, A. W., Bowler, B. P., Henry, G. W., Villaver, E. & Livio, M. 2009, ApJ, 705, L81 Marcy, G. W., Wright, J. T., Fischer, D. A., & Isaacson, H. Winn, J. N., Holman, M. J., & Fuentes, C. I. 2007, AJ, 133, 11 2010a, PASP, 122, 701 Wright, J. T. 2005, PASP, 117, 657 Johnson, J. A., Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., Bowler, B. P., Wright, J. T. & Howard, A. W. 2009, ApJS, 182, 205 Henry, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Apps, K., Isaacson, H., & Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., & Vogt, S. S. 2004, Wright, J. T. 2010b, PASP, 122, 149 ApJS, 152, 261 Wright, J. T., Upadhyay, S., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Ford, E. B., & Johnson, J. A. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1084