HATS-31B THROUGH HATS-35B: FIVE TRANSITING HOT JUPITERS DISCOVERED BY THE HATSOUTH SURVEY^*

The HATSouth survey is a global network of homogeneous, completely automated wide-field telescopes located at three sites in the Southern Hemisphere: the Las Campanas Observatory (LCO) in Chile, the High Energy Stereoscopic Survey (H.E.S.S.) site in Namibia, and the Siding Spring Observatory (SSO) in Australia. Observations are performed using a Sloan-r filter with four-minute exposures. The HATSouth network was commissioned in 2009 and since then has proved to be a robust system for the monitoring of time-variable phenomena. Each HATSouth unit consists of four Takahashi E180 astrographs with an aperture of 18 cm and an f/2.8 focal ratio on a common mount, equipped with Apogee 4096 × 4096 U16M ALTA cameras. The observations and aperture photometry reduction pipeline used by the HATSouth survey have been described comprehensively in Bakos et al. (2013) and Penev et al. (2013).

Below, we describe specific details of the observations leading to the discovery of HATS-31b, HATS-32b, HATS-33b, HATS-34b, and HATS-35b. The HATSouth raw data were reduced to trend-filtered light curves using the External Parameter Decorrelation method (EPD; Bakos et al. 2010) and the Trend Filtering Algorithm (TFA; Kovács et al. 2005) to correct for systematic variations in the photometry before searching for transit signals. We searched the light curves for periodic box-shaped signals using the Box-fitting Least-Squares (BLS; Kovács et al. 2002) algorithm, and detected periodic transit signals in the light curves as shown in Figure 1. The reduced data are available in Table 3. We summarize below the transits detected in the light curves of the stars HATS-31 through HATS-35.

• 1.  
  HATS-31 (2MASS 12464866-2425385; $\alpha ={12}^{{\rm{h}}}{46}^{{\rm{m}}}48\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 72$, $\delta =-24^\circ 25^{\prime} 38\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 5;$ J2000; V = $13.105\pm 0.030$). A signal was detected with an apparent depth of ∼$6.1$ mmag at a period of $P\,=$ $\,3.3780$ day.
• 2.  
  HATS-32 (2MASS 23041801-2116189; $\alpha ={23}^{{\rm{h}}}{04}^{{\rm{m}}}18\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 12$, $\delta =-21^\circ 16^{\prime} 19\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 0;$ J2000; V = $14.384\pm 0.010$). A signal was detected with an apparent depth of ∼$15.3$ mmag at a period of $P\,=$ $2.8127$ day.
• 3.  
  HATS-33 (2MASS 19383207-5519483; $\alpha ={19}^{{\rm{h}}}{38}^{{\rm{m}}}31\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 92$, $\delta =-55^\circ 19^{\prime} 48\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 4;$ J2000; V = $11.911\pm 0.070$). A signal was detected with an apparent depth of ∼$14.0$ mmag at a period of $P\,=$ $2.5496$ day.
• 4.  
  HATS-34 (2MASS 00030587-6228096; $\alpha ={00}^{{\rm{h}}}{03}^{{\rm{m}}}05\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 88$, $\delta =-62^\circ 28^{\prime} 09\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 6;$ J2000; V=$13.849\pm 0.010$). A signal was detected with an apparent depth of ∼$13.4$ mmag at a period of $P\,=$ $2.1062$ day.
• 5.  
  HATS-35 (2MASS 19464518-6333561; $\alpha ={19}^{{\rm{h}}}{46}^{{\rm{m}}}45\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 12$, $\delta =-63^\circ 33^{\prime} 56\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 2;$ J2000; V = $12.56\pm 0.10$). A signal was detected with an apparent depth of ∼$13.1$ mmag at a period of $P\,=$ $1.8210$ day.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Subsequent spectroscopic and photometric follow-up observations for the five systems were carried out to confirm the transit signal and the planetary nature of these objects as described in the following sections.

In Table 2, we summarize all spectroscopic observations taken for HATS-31 to HATS-35.

Table 2.  Summary of Spectroscopy Observations

Instrument	UT Date(s)	# Spec.	Res.	S/N Rangea	${\gamma }_{\mathrm{RV}}$ b	RV Precisionc
			${\rm{\Delta }}\lambda$/λ/1000		($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	(${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)
HATS-31
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2014 Dec 30–31	2	7	45–56	−9.3	4000
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2015 Jan 1	1	3	77	⋯	⋯
ESO 3.6 m/HARPS	2015 Feb 14–19	6	115	12–22	−8.705	17
HATS-32
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2014 Jun 3–5	3	7	19–61	9.1	4000
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2014 Jun 4	1	3	69	⋯	⋯
MPG 2.2 m/FEROS	2014 Jul–2015 Jun	8	48	20–45	12.423	30
HATS-33
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2014 Dec–2015 Mar	4	7	51–71	11.420	4000
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2015 Mar 4	1	3	44	⋯	⋯
Euler 1.2 m/Coralie	2015 Mar–Jun	5	60	18–25	11.056	42
ESO 3.6 m/HARPS	2015 Apr 6–8	3	115	19–27	11.077	2
AAT 3.9 m/CYCLOPS2	2015 May 7–13	11	70	17–44	11.066	23
MPG 2.2 m/FEROS	2015 May–Jul	4	48	40–73	11.057	38
HATS-34
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2014 Oct 4	1	3	50	⋯	⋯
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2014 Oct 4–10	3	7	55–95	16.4	4000
MPG 2.2 m/FEROSd	2015 Jun–Jul	10	48	16–43	17.734	23
HATS-35
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2014 Oct 5	1	3	99	⋯	⋯
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2014 Oct 11	1	7	102	−14.3	4000
Euler 1.2 m/Coralie	2014 Nov–2015 Jun	5	60	16–21	−14.173	110
ESO 3.6 m/HARPS	2015 Apr 7–8	2	115	15–23	−14.245	42
MPG 2.2 m/FEROS	2015 Jun–Jul	10	48	41–63	−14.185	20

Notes.

^aS/N per resolution element near 5180 Å. ^bFor high-precision radial velocity observations included in the orbit determination, this is the zero-point velocity from the best-fit orbit. For other instruments, it is the mean value. We do not provide this quantity for the lower resolution WiFeS observations, which were only used to measure stellar atmospheric parameters. ^cFor high-precision radial velocity observations included in the orbit determination, this is the scatter in the residuals from the best-fit orbit (which may include astrophysical jitter); for other instruments, this is either an estimate of the precision (not including jitter) or the measured standard deviation. We do not provide this quantity for low-resolution observations from the ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS. ^dThree of the MPG 2.2 m/FEROS observations of HATS-34 were excluded from the analysis due to having low S/N or high sky contamination.

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

2.2.1. Reconnaissance Spectroscopy

2.2.2. High-resolution Spectroscopy

Following reconnaissance spectroscopy to reject possible false positives like blended binary systems and to obtain first estimates of stellar parameters, stable and high-precision spectroscopic measurements are obtained to collect high-precision radial velocity (RV) variations and line bisector (BS) time series for each of the candidates. Several high-resolution spectra were acquired for these objects with a combination of the FEROS (Kaufer & Pasquini 1998), HARPS (Mayor et al. 2003), Coralie (Queloz et al. 2001), and CYCLOPS2+UCLES spectrographs (Horton et al. 2012) between 2014 July and 2015 July.

Altogether, we obtained 11 spectra using CYCLOPS2+UCLES at the 3.9 m Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT), 11 spectra using HARPS at the ESO 3.6 m telescope, 10 spectra using CORALIE at the Euler 1.2 m telescope, and 32 spectra with FEROS at the MPG 2.2 m telescope. The data from the FEROS, HARPS, and Coralie instruments were reduced homogeneously with an automated pipeline for echelle spectrographs described in detail in Jordán et al. (2014). The CYCLOPS2 observations were reduced and analyzed following Addison et al. (2013). Combined high-precision RV and BS measurements are shown for each system folded with the period of the transit signal in Figure 2. Note that BS measurements from CYCLOPS2 for HATS-33 are missing due to not having a BS pipeline for this instrument. The high-resolution spectroscopic data are provided in Table 8 at the end of the paper.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

All the candidates show clear sinusoidal variation in RV that are in phase with the observed transits. From these observations, we estimate orbital parameters, as well as confirm the mass of the companion for systems that host planets, and measure precisely the stellar atmospheric parameters.

To obtain higher precision light curves of the transit event, we photometrically followed up all the planets using facilities with larger apertures than the HATSouth telescopes. Photometric follow-up observations are summarized in Table 1, including the cadence, filter, and photometric precision, and plotted in Figure 3. For all objects, the follow-up light curves were consistent with the discovery observations. These observations allow us to refine the transit ephemeris of the systems and their physical parameters.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

The egress of HATS-31b was observed on 2015 February 28 and 2015 April 02 with the Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope (LCOGT) 1 m telescope network (Brown et al. 2013) and the Swope 1 m telescopes, respectively. Additionally, an almost full transit of HATS-31b was observed with LCOGT on 2015 March 6. Another three partial transits of HATS-32b were observed with the PEST 0.3 m, DK 1.54 m, and the Swope 1 m telescopes. The egress of HATS-33 was measured with the 1 m LCOGT at CTIO on 2015 May 20. Both ingress and egress of HATS-34b were observed by the PEST 0.3 m and DK 1.54 m telescopes. Finally, five partial transit events of HATS-35b were obtained between 2015 June 12 and 2015 July 24 using the LCOGT network at CTIO, SAAO, and SSO. The data analysis procedure of these photometric observations has been described comprehensively in previous papers of HATSouth planet discoveries (see, e.g., Brahm et al. 2015; Hartman et al. 2015; Mancini et al. 2015).

We also monitored HATS-34 in the infrared K_S-band during the time of predicted secondary eclipse using the AAT+IRIS2. Observations and data reduction were carried out in the manner described in Zhou et al. (2015). Details of this observation are set out in Table 1, and the observations are used to help rule out blend scenarios in Section 3.2.

High-spatial-resolution (or "lucky") imaging observations of HATS-31 and HATS-34 candidates were obtained using the Astralux Sur camera on the New Technology Telescope (NTT) at the La Silla Observatory (Hippler et al. 2009). Data were reduced and contrast curves generated as described in Espinoza et al. (2016). We show the resulting combination of the best 10% of the images acquired for each target for HATS-31 and HATS-34 in Figure 4. The resulting images show an asymmetric extended profile for HATS-31 that is visible in all of the Astralux images. This object was observed during twilight and the observations were obtained out of focus. The profile is more symmetric for HATS-34.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

In Figure 5, we show the generated $5-\sigma$ contrast curves for HATS-31 and HATS-34. We simulate the point spread function (PSF) for our targets as a weighted sum of a Moffat profile and an asymmetric Gaussian following the model description in Espinoza et al. (2016). The effective full width at half maximum (FWHM) of this model was measured numerically at different angles by finding the points at which the model has half of the peak flux. The median of these measurements is taken as the resolution limit of our observations. For HATS-31, the effective FWHM is 6.58 ± 0.36 pixels, which corresponds to a resolution limit of 151.4 ± 8.3 milli-arcseconds (mas). In the case of HATS-34, the effective FWHM is 4.17 ± 0.33 pixels, which gives a resolution limit of 96.0 ± 7.5 mas.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

To derive the physical properties of their planetary companions, we first obtained the atmospheric parameters of the host stars. We used high-resolution spectra of HATS-31 through HATS-35 obtained with FEROS, together with the Zonal Atmospherical Stellar Parameter Estimator code (ZASPE; Brahm et al. 2016) to determine the effective temperature (${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$), surface gravity ($\mathrm{log}{g}_{\star }$), metallicity ($[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$), and projected equatorial rotation velocity ($v\sin i$) for each star.

${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$ and $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$ values obtained using ZASPE were used with the stellar density ${\rho }_{\star }$, which was determined from the combined light-curve and RV analysis to determine a first estimate of the stellar physical parameters following the method described in Sozzetti et al. (2007). We used the Yonsei-Yale isochrones (Y2; Yi et al. 2001) to search for the parameters (stellar mass, radius, and age) that best match our estimated ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$, $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$, and ${\rho }_{\star }$ values. Based on this comparison, we determine a revised value of $\mathrm{log}{g}_{\star }$ and then perform a second iteration of ZASPE, holding $\mathrm{log}{g}_{\star }$ fixed to this value while fitting for ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$ $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$ and $v\sin i$. These are then combined with ${\rho }_{\star }$ and once again compared to the Y2 isochrones to produce our final adopted values for the physical stellar parameters.

Table 3.  Light-curve Data for HATS-31–HATS-35

Objecta	BJDb	Magc	${\sigma }_{\mathrm{Mag}}$	Mag(orig)d	Filter	Instrument
	(2,400,000+)
HATS-31	56441.63105	0.00775	0.00473	⋯	r	HS
HATS-31	56330.15845	−0.00143	0.00435	⋯	r	HS
HATS-31	56424.74146	0.00333	0.00446	⋯	r	HS
HATS-31	56448.38748	−0.00568	0.00425	⋯	r	HS
HATS-31	56357.18277	0.01570	0.00450	⋯	r	HS
HATS-31	56417.98607	−0.00175	0.00432	⋯	r	HS
HATS-31	56404.47434	−0.00078	0.00556	⋯	r	HS
HATS-31	56401.09654	−0.00630	0.00440	⋯	r	HS
HATS-31	56414.60840	0.00526	0.00417	⋯	r	HS
HATS-31	56390.96315	−0.00847	0.00457	⋯	r	HS

Notes.

^aEither HATS-31, HATS-32, HATS-33, HATS-34, or HATS-35. ^bBarycentric Julian Date is computed directly from the UTC time without correction for leap seconds. ^cThe out-of-transit level has been subtracted. For observations made with the HATSouth instruments (identified by "HS" in the "Instrument" column), these magnitudes have been corrected for trends using the EPD and TFA procedures applied prior to fitting the transit model. This procedure may lead to an artificial dilution in the transit depths. The blend factors for the HATSouth light curves are listed in Tables 6 and 7. For observations made with follow-up instruments (anything other than "HS" in the "Instrument" column), the magnitudes have been corrected for a quadratic trend in time, and for variations correlated with three PSF shape parameters, fit simultaneously with the transit. ^dRaw magnitude values without correction for the quadratic trend in time, or for trends correlated with the shape of the PSF. These are only reported for the follow-up observations.

Only a portion of this table is shown here to demonstrate its form and content. A machine-readable version of the full table is available.

Download table as:  DataTypeset image

The adopted parameters for HATS-31, HATS-32, and HATS-33 are given in Table 4, and for HATS-34 and HATS-35 in Table 5. We show the locations of each of the stars on the ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$–${\rho }_{\star }$ diagram (similar to a Hertzsprung–Russell diagram) in Figure 6. This analysis shows that HATS-31 has a mass of $1.275\pm 0.096$ ${M}_{\odot }$, a radius of $1.87\pm 0.18$ ${R}_{\odot }$, and an age of $4.3\pm 1.1$ Gyr. HATS-32 has a mass of $1.099\pm 0.044$ ${M}_{\odot }$, a radius of ${1.097}_{-0.063}^{+0.098}$ ${R}_{\odot }$, and an age of $3.5\pm 1.8$ Gyr. HATS-33 has a mass of $0.955\pm 0.031$ ${M}_{\odot }$, a radius of $0.980\pm 0.047$ ${R}_{\odot }$, and an age of $7.7\pm 2.7$ Gyr. HATS-34 has a mass of $0.955\pm 0.031$ ${M}_{\odot }$, a radius of $0.980\pm 0.047$ ${R}_{\odot }$, and an age of $7.7\pm 2.7$ Gyr. Finally, HATS-35 has a mass of $1.317\pm 0.040$ ${M}_{\odot }$, a radius of ${1.433}_{-0.038}^{+0.056}$ ${R}_{\odot }$, and an age of $2.13\pm 0.51$ Gyr. Distances for each star are calculated by comparing the broadband photometry of Table 4 to the predicted magnitudes in each filter from the isochrones. To determine the extinction, we assumed a ${R}_{V}=3.1$ extinction law (Cardelli et al. 1989). The distances for these systems range between $255\pm 12$ pc to $872\pm 84$ pc for HATS-33 and HATS-31, respectively.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Table 4.  Stellar Parameters for HATS-31, HATS-32 and HATS-33

	HATS-31	HATS-32	HATS-33
Parameter	Value	Value	Value	Source
Astrometric properties and cross-identifications
2MASS-ID	2MASS 12464866-2425385	2MASS 23041801-2116189	2MASS 19383207-5519483
GSC-ID	GSC 6688-00298	GSC 6400-00924	GSC 8778-01635
R.A. (J2000)	${12}^{{\rm{h}}}{46}^{{\rm{m}}}48\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 72$	${23}^{{\rm{h}}}{04}^{{\rm{m}}}18\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 12$	${19}^{{\rm{h}}}{38}^{{\rm{m}}}31\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 92$	2MASS
Decl. (J2000)	$-24^\circ 25^{\prime} 38\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 5$	$-21^\circ 16^{\prime} 19\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 0$	$-55^\circ 19^{\prime} 48\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 4$	2MASS
${\mu }_{{\rm{R}}.{\rm{A}}.}$ ($\mathrm{mas}\,{\mathrm{yr}}^{-1}$)	$1.2\pm 1.0$	$2.9\pm 1.9$	$7.1\pm 1.1$	UCAC4
${\mu }_{\mathrm{Decl}.}$ ($\mathrm{mas}\,{\mathrm{yr}}^{-1}$)	$-0.4\pm 1.1$	$-20.3\pm 1.9$	$-40.6\pm 1.3$	UCAC4
Spectroscopic properties
${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$ (K)	6050 ± 120	5700 ± 110	5659 ± 85	ZASPEa
$[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$	$0.000\pm 0.070$	$0.390\pm 0.050$	$0.290\pm 0.050$	ZASPE
$v\sin i$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$7.01\pm 0.50$	$3.56\pm 0.69$	$3.87\pm 0.42$	ZASPE
${v}_{\mathrm{mac}}$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	3.90	4.44	5.01	Assumed
${v}_{\mathrm{mic}}$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	1.27	1.04	1.01	Assumed
${\gamma }_{\mathrm{RV}}$ (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$-8704.5\pm 8.9$	$12423\pm 13$	$11077\pm 12$	FEROS or HARPSb
Photometric properties
B (mag)	$13.687\pm 0.030$	$15.106\pm 0.030$	$12.633\pm 0.070$	APASSc
V (mag)	$13.105\pm 0.030$	$14.384\pm 0.010$	$11.911\pm 0.070$	APASSc
g (mag)	$13.356\pm 0.030$	$14.694\pm 0.010$	$12.174\pm 0.040$	APASSc
r (mag)	$12.950\pm 0.030$	$14.130\pm 0.010$	$11.704\pm 0.040$	APASSc
i (mag)	$12.775\pm 0.080$	$14.035\pm 0.010$	$11.52\pm 0.11$	APASSc
J (mag)	$11.912\pm 0.021$	$13.090\pm 0.022$	$10.659\pm 0.024$	2MASS
H (mag)	$11.618\pm 0.025$	$12.768\pm 0.027$	$10.337\pm 0.026$	2MASS
Ks (mag)	$11.572\pm 0.023$	$12.699\pm 0.033$	$10.287\pm 0.027$	2MASS
Derived properties
${M}_{\star }$ (${M}_{\odot }$)	$1.275\pm 0.096$	$1.099\pm 0.044$	$1.062\pm 0.032$	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPEd
${R}_{\star }$ (${R}_{\odot }$)	$1.87\pm 0.18$	${1.097}_{-0.063}^{+0.098}$	${1.022}_{-0.037}^{+0.050}$	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
$\mathrm{log}{g}_{\star }$ (cgs)	$4.000\pm 0.065$	$4.396\pm 0.057$	$4.445\pm 0.036$	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
${\rho }_{\star }$ (${\rm{g}}\,{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$)	${0.275}_{-0.061}^{+0.082}$	$1.19\pm 0.23$	$1.42\pm 0.17$	Light curves
${\rho }_{\star }$ (${\rm{g}}\,{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$)e	${0.275}_{-0.059}^{+0.082}$	$1.17\pm 0.22$	$1.40\pm 0.16$	YY+Light curves+ZASPE
${L}_{\star }$ (${L}_{\odot }$)	$4.16\pm 0.95$	${1.14}_{-0.18}^{+0.24}$	$0.96\pm 0.12$	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
MV (mag)	$3.25\pm 0.24$	$4.69\pm 0.21$	$4.89\pm 0.14$	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
MK (mag,ESO)	$1.88\pm 0.21$	$3.10\pm 0.17$	$3.270\pm 0.099$	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
Age (Gyr)	$4.3\pm 1.1$	$3.5\pm 1.8$	$3.0\pm 1.7$	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
AV (mag)	$0.154\pm 0.092$	${0.064}_{-0.064}^{+0.085}$	$0.000\pm 0.058$	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
Distance (pc)	$872\pm 84$	${839}_{-55}^{+77}$	$255\pm 12$	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE

Notes. For all three systems, the fixed-circular-orbit model has higher Bayesian evidence than the eccentric-orbit model. We therefore assume a fixed circular orbit in generating the parameters listed for these systems.

^aZASPE = Zonal Atmospherical Stellar Parameter Estimator routine for the analysis of high-resolution spectra (Brahm et al. 2016), applied to the HARPS spectra of HATS-31, and the FEROS spectra of the other systems. These parameters rely primarily on ZASPE, but also have a small dependence on the iterative analysis incorporating the isochrone search and global modeling of the data. ^bFrom HARPS for HATS-31 and HATS-33 and from FEROS for HATS-32. The error on ${\gamma }_{\mathrm{RV}}$ is determined from the orbital fit to the velocity measurements, and does not include the systematic uncertainty in transforming the velocities to the IAU standard system. The velocities have not been corrected for gravitational redshifts. ^cFrom APASS DR6 (Henden et al. 2009), as listed in the UCAC 4 catalog (Zacharias et al. 2012). ^dYY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE = based on the YY isochrones (Yi et al. 2001), ${\rho }_{\star }$ as a luminosity indicator, and the ZASPE results. ^eIn the case of ${\rho }_{\star }$, we list two values. The first value is determined from the global fit to the light curves and RV data, without imposing a constraint that the parameters match the stellar evolution models. The second value results from restricting the posterior distribution to combinations of ${\rho }_{\star }$+${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$+$[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$ that match a YY stellar model.

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

Table 5.  Stellar Parameters for HATS-34 and HATS-35

	HATS-34	HATS-35
Parameter	Value	Value	Source
Astrometric properties and cross-identifications
2MASS-ID	2MASS 00030587-6228096	2MASS 19464518-6333561
GSC-ID	GSC 8840-01777	GSC 9089-00775
R.A. (J2000)	${00}^{{\rm{h}}}{03}^{{\rm{m}}}05\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 88$	${19}^{{\rm{h}}}{46}^{{\rm{m}}}45\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 12$	2MASS
Decl. (J2000)	$-62^\circ 28^{\prime} 09\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 6$	$-63^\circ 33^{\prime} 56\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 2$	2MASS
${\mu }_{{\rm{R}}.{\rm{A}}.}$ ($\mathrm{mas}\,{\mathrm{yr}}^{-1}$)	2.1±1.4	16.7±1.3	UCAC4
${\mu }_{\mathrm{Decl}.}$ ($\mathrm{mas}\,{\mathrm{yr}}^{-1}$)	4.7±1.5	−12.1±1.3	UCAC4
Spectroscopic properties
${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$ (K)	5380 ± 73	6300 ± 100	ZASPEa
$[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$	0.250±0.070	0.210±0.060	ZASPE
$v\sin i$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	4.07±0.58	8.66±0.34	ZASPE
${v}_{\mathrm{mac}}$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	3.56	3.83	Assumed
${v}_{\mathrm{mic}}$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	0.88	1.51	Assumed
${\gamma }_{\mathrm{RV}}$ (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	17735.1±9.3	−14175±13	FEROS or HARPSb
Photometric properties
B (mag)	14.595±0.010	13.26±0.10	APASSc
V (mag)	13.849±0.010	12.56±0.10	APASSc
g (mag)	14.182±0.010	⋯	APASSc
r (mag)	13.650±0.010	⋯	APASSc
i (mag)	13.459±0.050	⋯	APASSc
J (mag)	12.513±0.024	11.439±0.025	2MASS
H (mag)	12.139±0.022	11.192±0.023	2MASS
Ks (mag)	12.095±0.019	11.118±0.025	2MASS
Derived properties
${M}_{\star }$ (${M}_{\odot }$)	0.955±0.031	1.317±0.040	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPEd
${R}_{\star }$ (${R}_{\odot }$)	0.980±0.047	${1.433}_{-0.038}^{+0.056}$	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
$\mathrm{log}{g}_{\star }$ (cgs)	4.435±0.043	4.244±0.023	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
${\rho }_{\star }$ (${\rm{g}}\,{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$)	1.44±0.25	${0.627}_{-0.060}^{+0.046}$	Light curves
${\rho }_{\star }$ (${\rm{g}}\,{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$)e	1.44±0.22	${0.628}_{-0.061}^{+0.045}$	YY+Light Curves+ZASPE
${L}_{\star }$ (${L}_{\odot }$)	0.724±0.089	2.92±0.31	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
MV (mag)	5.26±0.15	3.58±0.12	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
MK (mag,ESO)	3.41±0.11	2.399±0.073	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
Age (Gyr)	7.7±2.7	2.13±0.51	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
AV (mag)	0.0000±0.0063	0.25±0.14	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE
Distance (pc)	$532\pm 32$	${557}_{-17}^{+22}$	YY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE

Notes. For HATS-34 and HATS-35, the fixed-circular-orbit model has higher Bayesian evidence than the eccentric-orbit model. We therefore assume a fixed circular orbit in generating the parameters listed for both systems.

^aZASPE = Zonal Atmospherical Stellar Parameter Estimator routine for the analysis of high-resolution spectra (Brahm et al. 2016), applied to the FEROS spectra of each star. These parameters rely primarily on ZASPE, but also have a small dependence on the iterative analysis incorporating the isochrone search and global modeling of the data. ^bFrom FEROS for both objects. The error on ${\gamma }_{\mathrm{RV}}$ is determined from the orbital fit to the velocity measurements and does not include the systematic uncertainty in transforming the velocities to the IAU standard system. The velocities have not been corrected for gravitational redshifts. ^cFrom APASS DR6 (Henden et al. 2009) as listed in the UCAC 4 catalog (Zacharias et al. 2012). ^dYY+${\rho }_{\star }$+ZASPE = based on the YY isochrones (Yi et al. 2001), ${\rho }_{\star }$ as a luminosity indicator, and the ZASPE results. ^eIn the case of ${\rho }_{\star }$, we list two values. The first value is determined from the global fit to the light curves and RV data, without imposing a constraint that the parameters match the stellar evolution models. The second value results from restricting the posterior distribution to combinations of ${\rho }_{\star }$+${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$+ $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$ that match a YY stellar model.

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

In order to exclude blend scenarios, we carried out an analysis following Hartman et al. (2012). We attempt to model the available photometric data (including light curves and catalog broadband photometric measurements) for each object as a blend between an eclipsing binary star system and a third star along the line of sight. The physical properties of the stars are constrained using the Padova isochrones (Girardi et al. 2000), while we also require that the brightest of the three stars in the blend have atmospheric parameters consistent with those measured with ZASPE. We also simulate composite cross-correlation functions (CCFs) and use them to predict velocities and BSs for each blend scenario considered.

Based on this analysis, we rule out blended stellar eclipsing binary scenarios for all five systems. However, in general, we cannot rule out the possibility that one or more of these objects may be an unresolved binary star system with one component hosting a transiting planet. The results for each object are as follows.

• 1.  
  HATS-31: all blend models tested can be rejected with at least $3\sigma$ confidence based solely on the photometry. Those blend models that cannot be rejected based on the photometry with at least $5\sigma$ confidence predict large amplitude radial valocity and/or BS variations (i.e., greater than 1 $\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$, which is well above what is observed).
• 2.  
  HATS-32: all blend models tested yield higher ${\chi }^{2}$, based solely on the photometry, than the model of a single star with a transiting planet. Those blend models that cannot be rejected with $5\sigma$ confidence predict either velocity scatter above 200 ${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$ (and a variation that does not look like the observed Keplerian variation), or a BS variation above 300 ${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$.
• 3.  
  HATS-33: all blend models tested can be rejected with at least $3\sigma$ confidence based solely on the photometry. Those models that are not rejected with at least $5\sigma$ confidence would have been easily identified as composite systems based on the CCFs computed from their spectra.
• 4.  
  HATS-34: all blend models tested can be rejected with at lest $3\sigma$ confidence based solely on the photometry. In particular, the best-fit blend model predicts a 5 mmag secondary eclipse in the K_S-band which was not seen in the AAT/IRIS2 observations. Our blend analysis allows for a quadratic trend in the follow-up light curves when fitting the data, and the best-fit model includes a trend that cancels to some degree the predicted secondary eclipse. If we do not allow for such a trend in fitting the data, then the blend models are actually rejected with greater than $5\sigma$ confidence. Some of the blend models that are rejected at 4–5σ confidence (when the trend is included) do predict velocity and BS variations that have comparable amplitudes to the observed variations. In detail, however, the simulated blend velocities do not fit the data nearly as well as a single star with a planet. The BS variation is, however, captured somewhat better by the blend model. Nonetheless, given the constraints set by the photometry and radial velocities, we consider the blended stellar eclipsing binary model to be ruled out, and conclude that the observed BS variation must be due to some other cause (e.g., sky contamination or the presence of an unresolved star diluting the transiting planet system).
• 5.  
  HATS-35: all blend models tested can be rejected with greater than $8\sigma$ confidence based on the photometry alone. This is primarily driven by the large amplitude out-of-transit variation predicted for blend models capable of fitting the primary transit. The HATSouth light curve strongly excludes any such out-of-transit variation.

We modeled the HATSouth photometry, the follow-up photometry, and the high-precision RV measurements following Pál et al. (2008), Bakos et al. (2010),  and Hartman et al. (2012). We fit Mandel & Agol (2002) transit models to the light curves, allowing for a dilution of the HATSouth transit depth as a result of blending from neighboring stars and over-correction by the trend-filtering method. For the follow-up light curves, we include a quadratic trend in time, and linear trends with up to three parameters describing the shape of the PSF in our model for each event to correct for systematic errors in the photometry. We fit Keplerian orbits to the radial velocity data allowing the zero-point for each instrument to vary independently in the fit, and allowing for RV noise, which we also vary as a free parameter for each instrument. We used a Differential Evolution Markov Chain Monte Carlo procedure to explore the fitness landscape and to determine the posterior distribution of the parameters. Note that we tried fitting both fixed-circular-orbits and free-eccentricity models to the data. We estimate the Bayesian evidence for the fixed-circular and free-eccentricity models for each system, and find that for HATS-31b through HATS-35b the fixed-circular-orbit models have higher evidence than the free-eccentricity models. For these systems, we therefore adopt the parameters that come from the fixed-circular-orbit models. The resulting parameters for HATS-31b, HATS-32b, and HATS-33b are listed in Table 6, while for HATS-34b and HATS-35b they are listed in Table 7.

Table 6.  Orbital and Planetary Parameters for HATS-31b, HATS-32b, and HATS-33b

	HATS-31b	HATS-32b	HATS-33b
Parameter	Value	Value	Value
Light-curve parameters
P (days)	3.377960±0.000012	2.8126548±0.0000055	2.5495551±0.0000061
Tc ($\mathrm{BJD}$)a	2456960.1476±0.0011	2456454.6252±0.0011	2456497.23181±0.00050
T14 (days)a	0.1914±0.0043	0.1189±0.0036	0.1115±0.0018
${T}_{12}={T}_{34}$ (days)a	0.0202±0.0042	0.0145±0.0025	0.0135±0.0016
$a/{R}_{\star }$	5.49±0.43	${7.88}_{-0.61}^{+0.46}$	7.83±0.32
$\zeta /{R}_{\star }$ b	11.67±0.16	19.18±0.52	20.45±0.23
${R}_{p}$/${R}_{\star }$	0.0908±0.0049	0.1171±0.0039	0.1237±0.0080
b2	${0.23}_{-0.16}^{+0.11}$	${0.16}_{-0.10}^{+0.12}$	${0.107}_{-0.065}^{+0.081}$
$b\equiv a\cos i/{R}_{\star }$	${0.48}_{-0.21}^{+0.11}$	${0.40}_{-0.16}^{+0.13}$	${0.33}_{-0.12}^{+0.11}$
i (deg)	${85.0}_{-1.6}^{+2.5}$	87.1±1.2	87.62±0.92
HATSouth blend factorsc
Blend factor	0.648±0.071	0.822±0.068	0.769±0.099
Limb-darkening coefficientsd
${c}_{1},R$	⋯	$0.3723$	⋯
${c}_{2},R$	⋯	$0.3122$	⋯
${c}_{1},r$	$0.3000$	$0.4005$	$0.4016$
${c}_{2},r$	$0.3587$	$0.3061$	$0.3030$
${c}_{1},i$	$0.2195$	$0.2989$	$0.3013$
${c}_{2},i$	$0.3558$	$0.3243$	$0.3193$
RV parameters
K (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$102\pm 13$	$124\pm 14$	170.1±6.8
ee	$\lt 0.233$	$\lt 0.471$	$\lt 0.080$
RV jitter FEROS (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)f	⋯	$27\pm 14$	$\lt 86.5$
RV jitter HARPS (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$\lt 0.1$	⋯	$\lt 19.2$
RV jitter Coralie (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	⋯	⋯	$46\pm 31$
RV jitter CYCLOPS2 (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	⋯	⋯	19.4±7.2
Planetary parameters
${M}_{p}$ (${M}_{{\rm{J}}}$)	0.88±0.12	0.92±0.10	1.192±0.053
${R}_{p}$ (${R}_{{\rm{J}}}$)	1.64±0.22	${1.249}_{-0.096}^{+0.144}$	${1.230}_{-0.081}^{+0.112}$
$C({M}_{p},{R}_{p})$ g	$0.10$	$0.12$	$0.03$
${\rho }_{p}$ (${\rm{g}}\,{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$)	${0.243}_{-0.088}^{+0.124}$	0.58±0.16	0.79±0.19
$\mathrm{log}{g}_{p}$ (cgs)	2.90±0.12	3.158±0.092	3.289±0.072
a (au)	0.0478±0.0012	0.04024±0.00053	0.03727±0.00037
${T}_{\mathrm{eq}}$ (K)	1823±81	1437±58	1429±38
Θh	0.0396±0.0079	0.0531±0.0076	0.0675±0.0061
${\mathrm{log}}_{10}\langle F\rangle$ (cgs)i⋯	9.397±0.076	8.984±0.070	8.973±0.046

Notes. For all three systems, the fixed-circular-orbit model has a higher Bayesian evidence than the eccentric-orbit model. We therefore assume a fixed circular orbit in generating the parameters listed for these systems.

^aTimes are in Barycentric Julian Date calculated directly from UTC without correction for leap seconds. ${T}_{c}$: reference epoch of mid-transit that minimizes the correlation with the orbital period. ${T}_{14}$: total transit duration, time between first to last contact; ${T}_{12}={T}_{34}$: ingress/egress time, time between first and second, or third and fourth contact. ^bReciprocal of the half duration of the transit used as a jump parameter in our Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis in place of $a/{R}_{\star }$. It is related to $a/{R}_{\star }$ by the expression $\zeta /{R}_{\star }=a/{R}_{\star }(2\pi (1+e\sin \omega ))/(P\sqrt{1-{b}^{2}}\sqrt{1-{e}^{2}})$ (Bakos et al. 2010). ^cScaling factor applied to the model transit that is fit to the HATSouth light curves. This factor accounts for dilution of the transit due to blending from neighboring stars and over-filtering of the light curve. These factors are varied in the fit, and we allow independent factors for observations obtained with different HATSouth camera and field combinations. ^dValues for a quadratic law, adopted from the tabulations by Claret (2004) according to the spectroscopic (ZASPE) parameters listed in Table 4. ^eFor fixed-circular-orbit models, we list the 95% confidence upper limit on the eccentricity determined when $\sqrt{e}\cos \omega$ and $\sqrt{e}\sin \omega$ are allowed to vary in the fit. ^fTerm added in quadrature to the formal RV uncertainties for each instrument. This is treated as a free parameter in the fitting routine. In cases where the jitter is consistent with zero, we list the 95% confidence upper limit. ^gCorrelation coefficient between the planetary mass ${M}_{p}$ and radius ${R}_{p}$ estimated from the posterior parameter distribution. ^hThe Safronov number is given by ${\rm{\Theta }}=\tfrac{1}{2}{({V}_{\mathrm{esc}}/{V}_{\mathrm{orb}})}^{2}=(a/{R}_{p})({M}_{p}/{M}_{\star })$ (see Hansen & Barman 2007). ⁱIncoming flux per unit surface area, averaged over the orbit.

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

Table 7.  Orbital and Planetary Parameters for HATS-34b and HATS-35b

	HATS-34b	HATS-35b
Parameter	Value	Value
Light-curve parameters
P (days)	2.1061607±0.0000047	1.8209993±0.0000016
Tc ($\mathrm{BJD}$)a	2456634.85732±0.00075	2456981.80199±0.00041
T14 (days)a	0.0648±0.0029	0.1299±0.0010
${T}_{12}={T}_{34}$ (days)a	0.081±0.011	0.01314±0.00083
$a/{R}_{\star }$	6.96±0.34	${4.79}_{-0.16}^{+0.11}$
$\zeta /{R}_{\star }$ b	61±11	17.13±0.11
${R}_{p}$/${R}_{\star }$	0.150±0.014	0.1051±0.0012
b2	${0.879}_{-0.063}^{+0.041}$	${0.068}_{-0.054}^{+0.066}$
$b\equiv a\cos i/{R}_{\star }$	${0.937}_{-0.034}^{+0.022}$	${0.26}_{-0.14}^{+0.11}$
i (deg)	${82.28}_{-0.59}^{+0.43}$	$86.9\pm 1.3$
HATSouth blend factorsc
Blend factor	$0.822\pm 0.086$	1 ± 0
Limb-darkening coefficientsd
${c}_{1},R$	$0.4277$	⋯
${c}_{2},R$	$0.2728$	⋯
${c}_{1},r$	$0.4588$	$0.2746$
${c}_{2},r$	$0.2646$	$0.3780$
${c}_{1},i$	⋯	$0.1962$
${c}_{2},i$	⋯	$0.3739$
RV parameters
K (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$152\pm 11$	$170\pm 10$
ee	$\lt 0.108$	$\lt 0.306$
ω (deg)	⋯	$0\pm 0$
$\sqrt{e}\cos \omega$ (deg)	⋯	$0\pm 0$
$\sqrt{e}\sin \omega$ (deg)	⋯	$0\pm 0$
$e\cos \omega$ (deg)	⋯	$0\pm 0$
$e\sin \omega$ (deg)	⋯	$0\pm 0$
RV jitter FEROS (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)f	$\lt 31.3$	$\lt 50.5$
RV jitter HARPS (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	⋯	$\lt 96.3$
RV jitter Coralie (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	⋯	$2\pm 52$
Planetary parameters
${M}_{p}$ (${M}_{{\rm{J}}}$)	$0.941\pm 0.072$	$1.222\pm 0.078$
${R}_{p}$ (${R}_{{\rm{J}}}$)	$1.43\pm 0.19$	${1.464}_{-0.044}^{+0.069}$
$C({M}_{p},{R}_{p})$ g	$-0.00$	$0.18$
${\rho }_{p}$ (${\rm{g}}\,{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$)	${0.40}_{-0.13}^{+0.19}$	${0.484}_{-0.070}^{+0.042}$
$\mathrm{log}{g}_{p}$ (cgs)	3.05±0.12	${3.151}_{-0.053}^{+0.025}$
a (au)	0.03166±0.00034	0.03199±0.00033
${T}_{\mathrm{eq}}$ (K)	1445±42	2037±43
Θ h	0.0430±0.0068	${0.0405}_{-0.0036}^{+0.0020}$
${\mathrm{log}}_{10}\langle F\rangle$ (cgs)i	8.994±0.050	9.590±0.037

Notes. For HATS-34 and HATS-35, the fixed-circular-orbit model has higher Bayesian evidence than the eccentric-orbit model.

^aTimes are in Barycentric Julian Date calculated directly from UTC without correction for leap seconds. ${T}_{c}$: reference epoch of mid-transit that minimizes the correlation with the orbital period. ${T}_{14}$: total transit duration, time between first to last contact; ${T}_{12}={T}_{34}$: ingress/egress time, time between first and second, or third and fourth contact. ^bReciprocal of the half duration of the transit used as a jump parameter in our MCMC analysis in place of $a/{R}_{\star }$. It is related to $a/{R}_{\star }$ by the expression $\zeta /{R}_{\star }=a/{R}_{\star }(2\pi (1+e\sin \omega ))/(P\sqrt{1-{b}^{2}}\sqrt{1-{e}^{2}})$ (Bakos et al. 2010). ^cScaling factor applied to the model transit that is fit to the HATSouth light curves. This factor accounts for dilution of the transit due to blending from neighboring stars and over-filtering of the light curve. These factors are varied in the fit, and we allow independent factors for observations obtained with different HATSouth camera and field combinations. For HATS-35, we run TFA in signal-reconstruction mode and have also confirmed that there are no diluting neighbors on the HATSouth images. We therefore fix the blend factor to unity for this system. ^dValues for a quadratic law, adopted from the tabulations by Claret (2004) according to the spectroscopic (ZASPE) parameters listed in Table 5. ^eFor fixed-circular-orbit models, we list the 95% confidence upper limit on the eccentricity determined when $\sqrt{e}\cos \omega$ and $\sqrt{e}\sin \omega$ are allowed to vary in the fit. ^fTerm added in quadrature to the formal radial velocity uncertainties for each instrument. This is treated as a free parameter in the fitting routine. In cases where this noise term is consistent with zero, we list the 95% confidence upper limit. ^gCorrelation coefficient between the planetary mass ${M}_{p}$ and radius ${R}_{p}$ estimated from the posterior parameter distribution. ^hThe Safronov number is given by ${\rm{\Theta }}=\tfrac{1}{2}{({V}_{\mathrm{esc}}/{V}_{\mathrm{orb}})}^{2}=(a/{R}_{p})({M}_{p}/{M}_{\star })$ (see Hansen & Barman 2007). ⁱIncoming flux per unit surface area, averaged over the orbit.

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

Table 8.  Relative Radial Velocities and Bisector Spans for HATS-31–HATS-35

Star	BJD	RVa	${\sigma }_{\mathrm{RV}}$ b	BS	${\sigma }_{\mathrm{BS}}$	Phase	Instrument
	(2,450,000+)	(${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	(${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	(${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	(${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)
HATS-31
HATS-31	7067.77200	68.51	29.00	−8.0	58.0	0.861	HARPS
HATS-31	7068.80731	−111.49	22.00	138.0	44.0	0.167	HARPS
HATS-31	7069.83756	5.51	35.00	98.0	66.0	0.472	HARPS
HATS-31	7070.78858	89.51	22.00	64.0	44.0	0.754	HARPS
HATS-31	7071.81170	−38.49	15.00	34.0	32.0	0.057	HARPS
HATS-31	7072.81373	−87.49	18.00	46.0	40.0	0.353	HARPS
HATS-32
HATS-32	6857.88391	−65.26	11.00	−2.0	15.0	0.373	FEROS
HATS-32	6858.83608	142.74	11.00	43.0	16.0	0.712	FEROS
HATS-32	7183.82218	−157.26	23.00	−13.0	30.0	0.256	FEROS
HATS-32	7184.92441	96.74	16.00	47.0	22.0	0.648	FEROS
HATS-32	7186.82299	−67.26	20.00	61.0	26.0	0.323	FEROS
HATS-32	7187.92768	119.74	13.00	−43.0	18.0	0.716	FEROS
HATS-32	7189.81850	−121.26	13.00	−22.0	18.0	0.388	FEROS
HATS-32	7190.90671	102.74	13.00	−18.0	18.0	0.775	FEROS
HATS-33
HATS-33	7109.90663	−115.04	11.00	16.0	18.0	0.307	Coralie
HATS-33	7118.90238	150.99	7.00	1.0	28.0	0.835	HARPS
HATS-33	7119.85968	−166.01	9.00	−22.0	38.0	0.211	HARPS
HATS-33	7120.89565	120.99	6.00	−2.0	24.0	0.617	HARPS
HATS-33	7150.22296	−94.90	12.00	⋯	⋯	0.120	CYCLOPS2
HATS-33	7150.23892	−138.80	12.40	⋯	⋯	0.126	CYCLOPS2
HATS-33	7150.25487	−101.70	12.60	⋯	⋯	0.133	CYCLOPS2
HATS-33	7151.26648	56.90	11.80	⋯	⋯	0.529	CYCLOPS2
HATS-33	7151.28183	62.40	14.80	⋯	⋯	0.535	CYCLOPS2
HATS-33	7151.29714	54.70	12.20	⋯	⋯	0.541	CYCLOPS2
HATS-33	7152.18422	87.60	10.40	⋯	⋯	0.889	CYCLOPS2
HATS-33	7152.19954	81.50	8.60	⋯	⋯	0.895	CYCLOPS2
HATS-33	7152.21486	75.50	7.40	⋯	⋯	0.901	CYCLOPS2
HATS-33	7156.17139	−38.60	19.80	⋯	⋯	0.453	CYCLOPS2
HATS-33	7156.18735	−57.70	17.20	⋯	⋯	0.459	CYCLOPS2
HATS-33	7166.75718	119.88	10.00	13.0	14.0	0.605	FEROS
HATS-33	7179.83946	219.96	13.00	5.0	22.0	0.736	Coralie
HATS-33	7180.77062	−154.04	14.00	53.0	24.0	0.102	Coralie
HATS-33	7181.85831	17.96	14.00	41.0	22.0	0.528	Coralie
HATS-33	7182.81335	123.96	13.00	34.0	22.0	0.903	Coralie
HATS-33	7187.78052	160.88	10.00	4.0	12.0	0.851	FEROS
HATS-33	7187.79155	132.88	10.00	12.0	11.0	0.855	FEROS
HATS-33	7212.69884	59.88	12.00	−63.0	17.0	0.625	FEROS
HATS-34
HATS-34	7181.90516	156.41	12.00	16.0	17.0	0.737	FEROS
HATS-34	7188.87902	−25.59	17.00	16.0	23.0	0.048	FEROS
HATS-34	7211.86173	16.41	14.00	−20.0	19.0	0.960	FEROS
HATS-34	7222.87045	−161.59	15.00	−147.0	20.0	0.187	FEROS
HATS-34	7223.79478	85.41	19.00	−53.0	25.0	0.626	FEROS
HATS-34	7224.81561	−62.59	18.00	−10.0	24.0	0.111	FEROS
HATS-34	7229.67888	−83.59	12.00	−92.0	16.0	0.420	FEROS
HATS-35
HATS-35	6971.53689	−83.38	41.00	−61.0	29.0	0.363	Coralie
HATS-35	7119.91638	116.74	30.00	99.0	27.0	0.846	HARPS
HATS-35	7120.91245	−119.26	17.00	−38.0	18.0	0.393	HARPS
HATS-35	7179.85943d	400.62	44.00	⋯	⋯	0.763	Coralie
HATS-35	7180.79013	−129.38	53.00	⋯	38.0	0.274	Coralie
HATS-35	7181.87795	87.62	46.00	⋯	35.0	0.872	Coralie
HATS-35	7182.85998	−153.38	47.00	⋯	35.0	0.411	Coralie
HATS-35	7190.83382	224.82	22.00	67.0	14.0	0.790	FEROS
HATS-35	7191.72420	−155.18	20.00	36.0	14.0	0.279	FEROS
HATS-35	7192.65831	209.82	21.00	58.0	14.0	0.792	FEROS
HATS-35	7196.92836	−124.18	24.00	60.0	16.0	0.137	FEROS
HATS-35	7218.84882	−112.18	22.00	91.0	15.0	0.174	FEROS
HATS-35	7223.62885	170.82	25.00	91.0	17.0	0.799	FEROS
HATS-35	7224.52818	−131.18	22.00	50.0	15.0	0.293	FEROS
HATS-35	7226.86401	14.82	23.00	−41.0	15.0	0.576	FEROS
HATS-35	7229.85682	−170.18	23.00	1.0	15.0	0.219	FEROS
HATS-35	7230.84273	178.82	18.00	35.0	12.0	0.761	FEROS

Notes.

^aThe zero-point of these velocities is arbitrary. An overall offset ${\gamma }_{\mathrm{rel}}$ fitted independently to the velocities from each instrument has been subtracted. ^bInternal errors excluding the component of astrophysical jitter considered in Section 3.3.

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset images: 1 2

HATS-31b, HATS-32b, and HATS-34b have a mass that is smaller than Jupiter, between $0.88\pm 0.12$ ${M}_{{\rm{J}}}$ and $0.941\pm 0.072$ ${M}_{{\rm{J}}}$, whereas the other two objects are slightly more massive than Jupiter. All planets have radii larger than Jupiter within the range ${1.230}_{-0.081}^{+0.112}$ to $1.64\pm 0.22$ ${R}_{{\rm{J}}}$. These planets are moderately irradiated hot Jupiters with HATS-31b and HATS-35b having relatively high equilibrium temperatures of $1823\pm 81$ K and $2037\pm 43$ K, respectively.