HATS-60b–HATS-69b: 10 Transiting Planets from HATSouth^*

All 10 systems presented here were initially detected as transiting planet candidates based on observations by the HATSouth network. The operations of the network are described in Bakos et al. (2013), while our methods for reducing the data to trend-filtered light curves (filtered using the method of Kovács et al. 2005) and identifying transiting planet signals (using the box-fitting least-squares [BLS] method; Kovács et al. 2002) are described in Penev et al. (2013). The HATSouth observations of each system are summarized in Table 1, while the light-curve data are made available in Table 6.

We also searched the light curves for other periodic signals using the generalized Lomb–Scargle (GLS) method (Zechmeister & Kürster 2009) and for additional transit signals by applying a second iteration of BLS. Both of these searches were performed on the residual light curves after subtracting the best-fit primary transit models.

Table 2 gives the GLS results for each target, including the peak period, false-alarm probability, semi-amplitude, and 95% confidence upper bound on the semi-amplitude of the highest-significance periodic signal in the light curves. Here the false-alarm probabilities are calculated by performing bootstrap simulations. HATS-61 shows evidence for a $P=28.54$ day periodic signal with a semi-amplitude of 0.32 mmag. The false-alarm probability of this detection is ${10}^{-3.7}$. This may correspond to the photometric rotation period of this $5630\pm 71$ K star. The star has $v\sin i=3.52\pm 0.42$ km s⁻¹, which gives an upper limit of 24.0 ± 3.2 days on the equatorial rotation period. The photometric period of 28.54 days is above the limit at the $\sim 1.4\sigma$ level and so would be consistent with $v\sin i$ if it has been slightly overestimated and the planet orbital axis is aligned with the stellar rotation axis, or if there is modest differential rotation and the spots are at a more slowly rotating latitude on the star. None of the other targets show a statistically significant sinusoidal periodic signal.

Table 2.  GLS Search for Periodic Signals in HATSouth Light Curves

System	Peak Period	${\mathrm{log}}_{10}(\mathrm{FAP})$	Amplitude	Amplitude 95% Upper Limit
	(days)		(mmag)	(mmag)
HATS-60	0.46558049	−0.35	0.43	0.57
HATS-61	28.53996289	−3.70	0.32	0.43
HATS-62	0.01724177	−1.03	0.78	1.1
HATS-63	0.14945790	−0.25	1.1	1.6
HATS-64	0.07413442	−0.43	0.92	1.2
HATS-65	0.01288701	−0.33	0.42	0.65
HATS-66	0.01274483	−0.02	0.94	1.4
HATS-67	8.85543462	−0.61	0.63	0.94
HATS-68	0.99279159	−0.79	0.43	0.61
HATS-69	0.06501927	−0.57	0.86	1.1

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

Table 3 gives the BLS results for additional transit signals that may be present in the HATSouth light curve of each target, including the period, transit depth, transit duration, and signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) for the top peak in the BLS spectrum. HATS-62 shows a possible transit signal with a period of 12.9395 days, duration of 0.339 days, and depth of 5.5 mmag. The S/N is a modest 7.5, and the signal is most likely a false alarm. Observations of this system already carried out by the NASA TESS mission will confirm or refute it. The reference midtransit time is ${T}_{C}=2455099.556$ BJD. None of the other objects show evidence for additional transit signals in their HATSouth light curves.

The spectroscopic observations carried out to confirm and characterize each of the transiting planet systems are summarized in Table 4. The facilities used include FEROS on the MPG 2.2 m (all 10 targets, 138 observations total; Kaufer & Pasquini 1998), Coralie on the Euler 1.2 m (5 targets, 28 observations total; Queloz et al. 2001), HARPS on the ESO 3.6 m (4 targets, 27 observations total; Mayor et al. 2003), WiFeS on the ANU 2.3 m (5 targets, 18 observations total; Dopita et al. 2007), PFS on the Magellan 6.5 m (1 target, 10 observations; Crane et al. 2010), UVES on the VLT UT2 8 m (3 targets, 3 observations; Dekker et al. 2000), and CYCLOPS on the AAT 3.9 m (1 target, 3 observations; Horton et al. 2012).

Table 4.  Summary of Spectroscopy Observations

Instrument	UT Date(s)	No. 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-60
ESO 3.6 m/HARPS	2017 Apr 23–28	5	115	9–24	28.396	30
MPG 2.2 m/FEROS	2017 Jun–Aug	11d	48	32–67	28.381	22
HATS-61
MPG 2.2 m/FEROS	2016 Nov–Dec	7	48	32–59	54.078	26
Euler 1.2 m/Coralie	2016 Nov 15–18	4	60	12–15	54.106	67
HATS-62
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2012 Apr 10	1	3	88	⋯	⋯
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2012 Apr 11–13	3	7	20–26	−12.0	4000
AAT 3.9 m/CYCLOPS	2012 May 8–11	3	70	⋯	−10.681	110
MPG 2.2 m/FEROS	2012 May–2013 Sep	26d	48	26–64	−10.489	78
Euler 1.2 m/Coralie	2012 Jun–Aug	10d	60	11–17	−10.525	69
Magellan 6.5 m/PFS+I2	2013 May 20–25	8d	76	⋯	⋯	32
Magellan 6.5 m/PFS	2013 May 23	2	76	⋯	⋯	⋯
VLT UT2 8 m/UVES	2017 Oct 3–6	6	60	60–63	−10.5	⋯
HATS-63
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2014 Dec 28	1	3	80	⋯	⋯
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2014 Dec 30–31	2	7	65–102	−3.1	4000
MPG 2.2 m/FEROS	2017 Jan–Oct	14d	48	27–42	−4.171	44
VLT UT2 8 m/UVES	2017 Nov 14	3	60	64–67	−4.2	⋯
HATS-64
MPG 2.2 m/FEROS	2013 Nov–2017 Feb	18d	48	45–80	7.354	70
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2013 Dec 26	1	3	49	⋯	⋯
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2013 Dec–2014 Feb	4	7	2–73	8.0	4000
Euler 1.2 m/Coralie	2014 Mar–2016 Jan	4d	60	18–22	7.22	490
ESO 3.6 m/HARPS	2015 Feb–2016 Nov	13	115	12–28	7.216	114
HATS-65
MPG 2.2 m/FEROS	2016 Nov–2017 Apr	6	48	49–65	−12.324	43
ESO 3.6 m/HARPS	2016 Nov–2017 Apr	5d	115	17–29	−12.314	29
Euler 1.2 m/Coralie	2016 Nov 16–17	2d	60	15–17	−12.44	165
HATS-66
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2015 Jan 5	1	3	93	⋯	⋯
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2015 Oct 3–5	2	7	53–55	42.6	4000
MPG 2.2 m/FEROS	2016 Jan–Dec	13d	48	18–44	39.940	161
VLT UT2 8 m/UVES	2017 Nov 19	6	60	53–58	38.4	⋯
HATS-67
MPG 2.2 m/FEROS	2017 Mar–Apr	13	48	15–42	−23.371	42
HATS-68
ESO 3.6 m/HARPS	2016 Sep–2017 Feb	4	115	7–24	11.901	25
Euler 1.2 m/Coralie	2016 Sep–Nov	8	60	19–31	11.836	81
MPG 2.2 m/FEROS	2016 Nov–2017 Oct	11	48	26–71	11.896	40
HATS-69
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2014 Oct 4	1	3	63	⋯	⋯
ANU 2.3 m/WiFeS	2015 Oct 6–7	2	7	38–58	0.6	4000
MPG 2.2 m/FEROS	2015 Jul–2017 Jun	19d	48	15–47	4.087	116

Notes.

^aS/N per resolution element near 5180 Å. This was not measured for all of the instruments. ^bFor high-precision RV observations included in the orbit determination this is the zero-point RV from the best-fit orbit. For other instruments it is the mean value. We only provide this quantity when applicable. ^cFor high-precision RV observations included in the orbit determination this is the scatter in the RV 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 only provide this quantity when applicable. ^dWe list here the total number of spectra collected for each instrument, including observations that were excluded from the analysis owing to very low S/N or substantial sky contamination.

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

The FEROS, Coralie, HARPS, and UVES observations were reduced to wavelength-calibrated spectra and high-precision RV and BS measurements using the CERES pipeline (Brahm et al. 2017a). We note that the RV and BS uncertainties do not include potential systematic errors due to sky contamination, which are particularly large for the faint, rapidly rotating star HATS-66. We also used the FEROS and UVES observations to determine high-precision stellar atmospheric parameters, including the effective temperature ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$, surface gravity $\mathrm{log}g$, metallicity $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$, and $v\sin i$ via the ZASPE package (Brahm et al. 2017b). The UVES observations were used for this purpose for HATS-62, HATS-63, and HATS-66, while the FEROS observations were used for this purpose for the other seven systems. The UVES observations were obtained solely for measuring these atmospheric parameters and were not included in the RV analysis of each system.

The WiFeS observations, which were used for reconnaissance of the targets, were reduced following Bayliss et al. (2013). For each target observed, we obtained a single spectrum at resolution R ≡ Δ λ/λ ≈ 3000 from which we estimated the effective temperature, $\mathrm{log}g$, and $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$ of the star. Two to four observations at $R\approx 7000$ were also obtained to search for any large-amplitude radial velocity variations at the ∼4 $\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$ level, which would indicate a stellar mass companion.

The PFS observations of HATS-62 include eight observations through an I₂ cell and two observations without the cell used to construct a spectral template. The observations were reduced to spectra and used to determine high-precision relative RV measurements following Butler et al. (1996). Spectral line BSs and their uncertainties were measured as described by Jordán et al. (2014) and Brahm et al. (2017a).

The CYCLOPS observations of HATS-62 were reduced to spectra and RV measurements following Addison et al. (2013).

The high-precision RV and BS measurements are given in Table 5 for all 10 systems at the end of the paper.

Follow-up higher-precision ground-based photometric transits observations were obtained for all 10 systems, as summarized in Table 1. The facilities used for this purpose include the Chilean-Hungarian Automated Telescope (CHAT) 0.7 m telescope at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile (six transits of four targets; A. Jordán et al. 2018 in preparation); 1 m telescopes from the Las Cumbres Observatory (LCO) network, including units at McDonald Observatory (MCD) in Texas, at Cerro Telolo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) in Chile, at Siding Spring Observatory (SSO) in Australia, and at the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO) in South Africa (21 transits of six targets altogether; Brown et al. 2013); the 2 m Faulkes Telescope South (FTS) operated at SSO by LCO (one transit of one target); the SMARTS CTIO 0.9 m telescope (two transits of one target; Subasavage et al. 2010); the 0.3 m Perth Exoplanet Survey Telescope in Australia (PEST; five transits of four targets)²⁷ ; the Danish 1.54 m telescope at La Silla Observatory in Chile (one transit of one target; Andersen et al. 1995); and the Swope 1 m telescope at Las Campanas Observatory in Chile (one transit of one target).

Our methods for carrying out the observations with most of these facilities and reducing the data to light curves have been described in our previous papers (Bayliss et al. 2013; Mohler-Fischer et al. 2013; Penev et al. 2013; Jordán et al. 2014; Hartman et al. 2015; Rabus et al. 2016). The CHAT 0.7 m telescope is a newly commissioned robotic facility at Las Campanas Observatory, built by members of the HATSouth team and dedicated to the follow-up of transit candidates, especially from HATSouth. The observations from this facility were reduced using the same pipeline that we have applied to the LCO 1 m observations (more description will be provided in N. Espinoza et al. 2019, in preparation). A more detailed description of this facility will be published at a future date (A. Jordán et al. 2019, in preparation).

The time-series photometry data are available in Table 6 and are plotted for each object in Figures 1–10.

Table 5.  Relative Radial Velocities and Bisector Spans for HATS-60 through HATS-69

System	BJD	RVa	σRVb	BS	σBS	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-60	7866.89844	−71.80	15.60	37.0	21.0	0.205	HARPS
HATS-60	7867.92159	−25.00	17.70	−29.0	23.0	0.493	HARPS
HATS-60	7868.88460	36.50	34.20	60.0	45.0	0.763	HARPS
HATS-60	7870.88835	−71.70	10.30	1.0	13.0	0.326	HARPS
HATS-60	7871.90927	73.50	10.40	21.0	13.0	0.613	HARPS
HATS-60	7910.85820	24.95	9.10	−27.0	13.0	0.551	FEROS
HATS-60	7911.83630	65.75	11.80	−41.0	17.0	0.825	FEROS
HATS-60	7914.78684	64.15	9.80	12.0	14.0	0.654	FEROS
HATS-60	7915.82677	34.05	7.90	−36.0	12.0	0.946	FEROS
HATS-60	7967.78362	58.35	10.60	−27.0	15.0	0.537	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 3.2.

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 Gaia DR2 catalog provides the highest spatial resolution imaging for all of these targets, except HATS-64. Gaia DR2 is sensitive to neighbors with $G\lesssim 20$ mag down to a limiting resolution of $\sim 1^{\prime\prime}$ (e.g., Ziegler et al. 2018). Table 7 lists the neighbors from Gaia DR2 that are within 10'' of the planetary systems presented in this paper. For each neighbor we list the separation from the planetary system in arcseconds and the difference in G magnitude. We also indicate whether the target is potentially a wide binary companion to the planetary host. The latter determination is based on the parallax, proper motion, and BP − RP color and G magnitude of the neighbor and the planet host. A total of eight neighbors are found within 10'' of six of the systems, but all of these neighbors are too faint and/or too distant from the planetary host stars to be responsible for the transits or to have any significant impact on the system parameters. HATS-65 has a 5'' neighbor with a parallax and proper motion that are consistent, within the rather large uncertainties, with those of HATS-65, and with a BP − RP color and G magnitude consistent with falling on the same isochrone. If this were a bound companion, it would be an early M dwarf with a mass of ∼0.5 ${M}_{\odot }$ at a projected orbital separation of 2460 ± 50 au from HATS-65. None of the other neighbors identified in Gaia DR2 are compatible with being bound companions to the planetary host stars.

Table 7.  Neighboring Sources in Gaia DR2

System	Separation	${\rm{\Delta }}G$	Bound Companion?
	$^{\prime\prime}$	(mag)
HATS-61	5.63	5.98	no
HATS-64	7.04	6.41	no
HATS-65	5.01	5.78	maybe
HATS-65	8.81	3.45	no
HATS-66	8.09	6.55	no
HATS-67	9.76	2.59	no
HATS-69	7.00	6.10	no
HATS-69	9.48	6.37	no

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

For HATS-64 we also have obtained $z^{\prime}$-band high spatial resolution lucky imaging observations with the Astralux Sur imager (Hippler et al. 2009) on the New Technology Telescope (NTT) on the night of 2015 December 23. The observations were reduced as in Espinoza et al. (2016), and no neighbors were detected. The effective FWHM of the reduced image is 79.10 ± 5.51 mas. Figure 11 shows the resulting 5σ contrast curve. We may exclude neighbors with ${\rm{\Delta }}z^{\prime} \lt 3$ at $0\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 2$ and ${\rm{\Delta }}z^{\prime} \lt 4.8$ at 1''.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

High-precision stellar atmospheric parameters, including ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$, $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$, $\mathrm{log}{g}_{\star }$, and $v\sin i$, were measured from the FEROS (HATS-60, HATS-61, HATS-64, HATS-65, HATS-67, HATS-68, and HATS-69) or UVES (HATS-62, HATS-63, and HATS-66) spectra of each target using ZASPE (Brahm et al. 2017b). This code compares the observed high-resolution spectra to a grid of synthetic spectra only in the most sensitive spectral zones and then uses the systematic differences between the observed spectra and best-fit model to estimate realistic parameter uncertainties. In our previous work we combined the atmospheric parameters from ZASPE with the stellar density ${\rho }_{\star }$, determined through modeling the light curves and RV curves, to determine other parameters of the host star, such as its mass, radius, age, and luminosity, by comparison with stellar evolution models. In this work we perform the comparison to stellar evolution models simultaneously with the light-curve and RV-curve fitting, rather than treating these as separate steps. We do, however, continue our practice of performing multiple iterations of the ZASPE analysis. In the first iteration we vary the four above-mentioned parameters. We then perform the joint modeling of the data, described in Section 3.2, which provides an isochrone-based estimate of the stellar surface gravity $\mathrm{log}{g}_{\star }$. We use this to carry out a second iteration of ZASPE with $\mathrm{log}{g}_{\star }$ fixed to the value, to determine revised estimates of ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$, $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$, and $v\sin i$. These revised parameters are then incorporated into a second iteration of the joint modeling to arrive at our final adopted parameters for the system. The spectroscopic parameters measured for HATS-60 through HATS-63 are listed, together with catalog astrometry and photometry, in Table 8. Table 9 lists these values for HATS-64 through HATS-67, and Table 10 lists the values for HATS-68 and HATS-69.

Table 8.  Astrometric, Spectroscopic, and Photometric Parameters for HATS-60, HATS-61, HATS-62, and HATS-63

	HATS-60	HATS-61	HATS-62	HATS-63
Parameter	Value	Value	Value	Value	Source
Astrometric Properties and Cross-identifications
2MASS-ID	22452736-1459303	04063786-2520589	20494783-2418124	04294044-2811501
TIC-ID	145750719	44745133	336732544	178879588
Gaia DR2-ID	2596986648798061952	4890849134501995392	6806639397331208320	4891362198412001408
R.A. (J2000)	${22}^{{\rm{h}}}{45}^{{\rm{m}}}27\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 3643$	${04}^{{\rm{h}}}{06}^{{\rm{m}}}37\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 8676$	${20}^{{\rm{h}}}{49}^{{\rm{m}}}47\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 8333$	${04}^{{\rm{h}}}{29}^{{\rm{m}}}40\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 4529$	Gaia DR2
Decl. (J2000)	$-14^\circ 59^{\prime} 30\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 3457$	$-25^\circ 20^{\prime} 58\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 9560$	$-24^\circ 18^{\prime} 12\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 4965$	$-28^\circ 11^{\prime} 50\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 2340$	Gaia DR2
${\mu }_{{\rm{R}}.{\rm{A}}.}$ ($\mathrm{mas}\,{\mathrm{yr}}^{-1}$)	$3.481\pm 0.067$	$3.997\pm 0.022$	$0.489\pm 0.054$	$5.777\pm 0.022$	Gaia DR2
${\mu }_{\mathrm{Decl}.}$ ($\mathrm{mas}\,{\mathrm{yr}}^{-1}$)	$-2.787\pm 0.052$	$9.892\pm 0.032$	$-8.074\pm 0.035$	$16.810\pm 0.029$	Gaia DR2
Parallax (mas)	$2.027\pm 0.035$	$1.442\pm 0.018$	$1.884\pm 0.037$	$1.576\pm 0.015$	Gaia DR2
Spectroscopic Properties
${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$ (K)	$5698\pm 58$	$5630\pm 71$	$5536\pm 33$	$5637\pm 46$	ZASPEa
$[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$	$0.320\pm 0.028$	$0.220\pm 0.043$	$0.120\pm 0.024$	$0.060\pm 0.040$	ZASPE
$v\sin i$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$3.84\pm 0.43$	$3.52\pm 0.42$	$0.50\pm 0.27$	$1.77\pm 0.45$	ZASPE
${v}_{\mathrm{mac}}$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$3.869\pm 0.088$	$3.76\pm 0.11$	$3.620\pm 0.050$	$3.775\pm 0.070$	Assumedb
${v}_{\mathrm{mic}}$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$1.036\pm 0.032$	$0.999\pm 0.037$	$0.952\pm 0.016$	$1.003\pm 0.024$	Assumedb
${\gamma }_{\mathrm{RV}}$ (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$28379.9\pm 6.7$	$54079\pm 14$	$-10489\pm 13$	$-4171\pm 13$	FEROSc
Photometric Properties
G (mag)d	$12.50040\pm 0.00030$	$13.06820\pm 0.00030$	$13.83210\pm 0.00030$	$13.72130\pm 0.00020$	Gaia DR2
BP (mag)d	$12.8894\pm 0.0024$	$13.4659\pm 0.0012$	$14.2608\pm 0.0012$	$14.0919\pm 0.0014$	Gaia DR2
RP (mag)d	$11.9719\pm 0.0017$	$12.52090\pm 0.00060$	$13.2562\pm 0.0012$	$13.2011\pm 0.0011$	Gaia DR2
B (mag)	$13.394\pm 0.023$	$14.020\pm 0.036$	$14.862\pm 0.027$	$14.595\pm 0.049$	APASSe
V (mag)	$12.641\pm 0.028$	$13.233\pm 0.024$	$14.015\pm 0.037$	$13.8920\pm 0.0090$	APASSe
g (mag)	$12.987\pm 0.030$	$13.593\pm 0.046$	$14.421\pm 0.058$	$14.183\pm 0.057$	APASSe
r (mag)	$12.439\pm 0.040$	$13.014\pm 0.021$	$13.776\pm 0.019$	$13.674\pm 0.024$	APASSe
i (mag)	$12.288\pm 0.046$	$12.854\pm 0.056$	$13.591\pm 0.011$	$13.482\pm 0.032$	APASSe
J (mag)	$11.377\pm 0.023$	$11.875\pm 0.028$	$12.573\pm 0.021$	$12.631\pm 0.024$	2MASS
H (mag)	$11.070\pm 0.022$	$11.565\pm 0.024$	$12.196\pm 0.027$	$12.290\pm 0.025$	2MASS
Ks (mag)	$10.988\pm 0.023$	$11.478\pm 0.025$	$12.109\pm 0.026$	$12.216\pm 0.024$	2MASS

Notes.

^aZASPE = Zonal Atmospherical Stellar Parameter Estimator routine for the analysis of high-resolution spectra (Brahm et al. 2017b), applied to the FEROS or UVES spectra of each system. These parameters rely primarily on ZASPE but have a small dependence also on the iterative analysis incorporating the isochrone search and global modeling of the data. ^bThe macro- and microturbulence parameters adopted in a given iteration of ZASPE are calculated from the trial effective temperature using the polynomial relations given in Brahm et al. (2017b). The uncertainties listed here on these parameters give the scatter in the adopted values propagated from the uncertainty on the effective temperature and do not include the uncertainty in the assumed polynomial relations themselves. ^cThe error on ${\gamma }_{\mathrm{RV}}$ is determined from the orbital fit to the RV 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. ^dThe listed uncertainties for the Gaia DR2 photometry are taken from the catalog. For the analysis we assume additional systematic uncertainties of 0.002, 0.005, and 0.003 mag for the G, BP, and RP bands, respectively. ^eFrom APASS DR6 as listed in the UCAC 4 catalog (Zacharias et al. 2013).

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

Table 9.  Astrometric, Spectroscopic, and Photometric Parameters for HATS-64, HATS-65, HATS-66, and HATS-67

	HATS-64	HATS-65	HATS-66	HATS-67
Parameter	Value	Value	Value	Value	Source
Astrometric Properties and Cross-identifications
2MASS-ID	09370902-2948015	19314555-2644246	06453475-3352540	12005011-4608110
TIC-ID	189625051	169504920	52689469	272212970
Gaia DR2-ID	5632704511826797824	6766134630213144704	5582647836223843840	6144060260072337024
R.A. (J2000)	${09}^{{\rm{h}}}{37}^{{\rm{m}}}09\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 0299$	${19}^{{\rm{h}}}{31}^{{\rm{m}}}45\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 5518$	${06}^{{\rm{h}}}{45}^{{\rm{m}}}34\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 7574$	${12}^{{\rm{h}}}{00}^{{\rm{m}}}50\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 1183$	Gaia DR2
Decl. (J2000)	$-29^\circ 48^{\prime} 01\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 5746$	$-26^\circ 44^{\prime} 24\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 7250$	$-33^\circ 52^{\prime} 54\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 1300$	$-46^\circ 08^{\prime} 11\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 1247$	Gaia DR2
${\mu }_{{\rm{R}}.{\rm{A}}.}$ ($\mathrm{mas}\,{\mathrm{yr}}^{-1}$)	$-3.127\pm 0.070$	$-3.495\pm 0.081$	$-3.369\pm 0.026$	$-6.082\pm 0.030$	Gaia DR2
${\mu }_{\mathrm{Decl}.}$ ($\mathrm{mas}\,{\mathrm{yr}}^{-1}$)	$-1.527\pm 0.067$	$-0.158\pm 0.076$	$2.549\pm 0.029$	$0.801\pm 0.022$	Gaia DR2
Parallax (mas)	$0.897\pm 0.035$	$2.000\pm 0.050$	$0.648\pm 0.016$	$1.013\pm 0.025$	Gaia DR2
Spectroscopic Properties
${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$ (K)	$6635\pm 85$	$6660\pm 110$	$6500\pm 78$	$6570\pm 100$	ZASPE
$[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$	$0.220\pm 0.042$	$0.180\pm 0.062$	$0.000\pm 0.044$	$0.380\pm 0.056$	ZASPE
$v\sin i$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$12.65\pm 0.22$	$7.83\pm 0.30$	$12.86\pm 0.17$	$5.19\pm 0.38$	ZASPE
${v}_{\mathrm{mac}}$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$5.31\pm 0.13$	$5.34\pm 0.16$	$5.10\pm 0.19$	$5.20\pm 0.15$	Assumed
${v}_{\mathrm{mic}}$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$1.96\pm 0.14$	$2.00\pm 0.18$	$1.76\pm 0.11$	$1.85\pm 0.15$	Assumed
${\gamma }_{\mathrm{RV}}$ (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$7358\pm 16$	$-12318\pm 12$	$39938\pm 58$	$-23368\pm 13$	FEROS
Photometric Properties
G (mag)	$12.83900\pm 0.00020$	$12.37930\pm 0.00040$	$14.00860\pm 0.00030$	$13.55960\pm 0.00020$	Gaia DR2
BP (mag)	$13.0978\pm 0.0014$	$12.6817\pm 0.0020$	$14.2831\pm 0.0012$	$13.8512\pm 0.0013$	Gaia DR2
RP (mag)	$12.4265\pm 0.0015$	$11.92130\pm 0.00080$	$13.57490\pm 0.00090$	$13.11670\pm 0.00070$	Gaia DR2
B (mag)	$13.416\pm 0.030$	$13.067\pm 0.020$	$14.630\pm 0.030$	$14.207\pm 0.030$	APASS
V (mag)	$12.924\pm 0.030$	$12.497\pm 0.020$	$14.095\pm 0.030$	$13.653\pm 0.010$	APASS
g (mag)	$13.130\pm 0.030$	$12.747\pm 0.030$	$14.344\pm 0.010$	$13.882\pm 0.020$	APASS
r (mag)	$12.813\pm 0.030$	$12.375\pm 0.040$	$14.015\pm 0.020$	$13.551\pm 0.030$	APASS
i (mag)	$12.763\pm 0.060$	$12.14\pm 0.11$	$13.890\pm 0.030$	$13.428\pm 0.080$	APASS
J (mag)	$11.968\pm 0.024$	$11.405\pm 0.023$	$13.083\pm 0.023$	$12.638\pm 0.026$	2MASS
H (mag)	$11.780\pm 0.026$	$11.145\pm 0.025$	$12.827\pm 0.023$	$12.346\pm 0.024$	2MASS
Ks (mag)	$11.705\pm 0.021$	$11.095\pm 0.023$	$12.761\pm 0.026$	$12.327\pm 0.026$	2MASS

Note. Same notes as for Table 8.

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

Table 10.  Astrometric, Spectroscopic, and Photometric Parameters for HATS-68 and HATS-69

Parameter	HATS-68 Value	HATS-69 Value	Source
Astrometric Properties and Cross-identifications
2MASS-ID	01000141-5854172	19171138-6053301
TIC-ID	322307342	467971286
Gaia DR2-ID	4904279261014267648	6445881974332225536
R.A. (J2000)	${01}^{{\rm{h}}}{00}^{{\rm{m}}}01\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 4134$	${19}^{{\rm{h}}}{17}^{{\rm{m}}}11\buildrel{\rm{s}}\over{.} 3641$	Gaia DR2
Decl. (J2000)	$-58^\circ 54^{\prime} 17\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 1247$	$-60^\circ 53^{\prime} 30\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 0584$	Gaia DR2
${\mu }_{{\rm{R}}.{\rm{A}}.}$ ($\mathrm{mas}\,{\mathrm{yr}}^{-1}$)	$22.522\pm 0.049$	$8.699\pm 0.027$	Gaia DR2
${\mu }_{\mathrm{Decl}.}$ ($\mathrm{mas}\,{\mathrm{yr}}^{-1}$)	$7.594\pm 0.041$	$-17.887\pm 0.023$	Gaia DR2
Parallax (mas)	$1.627\pm 0.028$	$2.384\pm 0.020$	Gaia DR2
Spectroscopic Properties
${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$ (K)	$6300\pm 110$	$5276\pm 59$	ZASPE
$[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$	$0.180\pm 0.057$	$0.350\pm 0.035$	ZASPE
$v\sin i$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$7.42\pm 0.29$	$2.55\pm 0.90$	ZASPE
${v}_{\mathrm{mac}}$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$4.79\pm 0.16$	$3.220\pm 0.090$	Assumed
${v}_{\mathrm{mic}}$ ($\mathrm{km}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$1.51\pm 0.12$	$0.831\pm 0.027$	Assumed
${\gamma }_{\mathrm{RV}}$ (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$11894.6\pm 5.9$	$4087\pm 29$	FEROS
Photometric Properties
G (mag)	$12.16310\pm 0.00020$	$13.76430\pm 0.00020$	Gaia DR2
BP (mag)	$12.4545\pm 0.0017$	$14.2527\pm 0.0011$	Gaia DR2
RP (mag)	$11.72880\pm 0.00090$	$13.13730\pm 0.00090$	Gaia DR2
B (mag)	$12.799\pm 0.010$	$14.916\pm 0.020$	APASS
V (mag)	$12.276\pm 0.020$	$13.945\pm 0.010$	APASS
g (mag)	$12.484\pm 0.020$	$14.401\pm 0.030$	APASS
r (mag)	$12.137\pm 0.010$	$13.622\pm 0.020$	APASS
i (mag)	$12.050\pm 0.030$	$13.598\pm 0.030$	APASS
J (mag)	$11.250\pm 0.026$	$12.413\pm 0.024$	2MASS
H (mag)	$10.985\pm 0.024$	$11.968\pm 0.025$	2MASS
Ks (mag)	$10.949\pm 0.019$	$11.875\pm 0.023$	2MASS

Note. Same notes as for Table 8.

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

In our previous work we carried out a joint analysis of all available high-precision RVs (fit using a Keplerian orbit) and light curves (fit using a Mandel & Agol 2002 transit model with fixed quadratic limb-darkening coefficients from Claret 2004) to measure the stellar density, as well as the orbital and planetary parameters. The fit was performed using a differential evolution Markov chain Monte Carlo procedure (DEMCMC; ter Braak 2006). In this work we performed a similar analysis for each transiting planet system, but now including the ZASPE ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$ and $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$ measurements, the Gaia DR2 parallax, and the Gaia DR2 and 2MASS broadband photometry (G, BP, RP, J, H, and K_S) as observations to be modeled in the fit, together with the RV curve and light curves. The discrepancies between the predicted and measured values for each of these parameters contribute to the overall likelihood computed for a given model. To model these observations, we introduce four new model parameters that are allowed to vary in the fit: the distance modulus ${(m-M)}_{0}$, the V-band extinction A_V, and the stellar atmospheric parameters ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$ and $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$. Table 11 lists all of the parameters that are varied in the fit, together with the assumed priors. In constructing the likelihood function we assume that the observations are independent with Gaussian uncertainties. Each link in the Markov chain yields a combination of (${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$, ${\rho }_{\star }$, $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$), which we use to determine the stellar mass, radius, $\mathrm{log}g$, luminosity, and absolute magnitude in the G, BP, RP, J, H, and K_S bandpasses by comparison with stellar evolution models. Note that ${\rho }_{\star }$ is not varied directly in the fit, but rather can be computed from the other transit and orbital parameters that are varied. These absolute magnitudes, together with the model distance modulus and polynomial relations for ${A}_{G}({A}_{V},{T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star })$, ${A}_{{BP}}({A}_{V},{T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star })$, ${A}_{{RP}}({A}_{V},{T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star })$, ${A}_{J}({A}_{V})$, ${A}_{H}({A}_{V})$, and ${A}_{{K}_{S}}({A}_{V})$, are used to compute model values for the broadband photometry measurements to be compared to the observations. Here we assume systematic errors of 0.002, 0.005, and 0.003 mag on the G, BP, and RP photometry, respectively, following Evans et al. (2018). These systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainties on the measurements listed in the Gaia DR2 catalog.

We use the PARSEC stellar evolution models (specifically PARSEC release v1.2S + CLIBRI release PR16, as in Marigo et al. 2017), which we generated using the CMD 3.0 web interface by L. Girardi.²⁸ This differs from our previous work, in which we used the Yonsei-Yale (Y²; Yi et al. 2001) models. We chose the PARSEC models because they have incorporated bolometric corrections for the Gaia DR2, Sloan Digital Sky Survey, and Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) bandpasses. A sequence of isochrones was generated from $\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})=6.6$ to $\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})=10.13$ in steps of ${\rm{\Delta }}(\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr}))=0.05$ for metallicities of $Z=$ 0.0001, 0.0002, 0.0005, 0.001, 0.002, 0.004, 0.006, 0.008, 0.009, 0.01, 0.014, 0.015, 0.016, 0.018, 0.02, 0.03, 0.032, 0.036, 0.04, and 0.042, where ${Z}_{\odot }=0.0152$ for these isochrones. We produced a set of isochrones both at ${A}_{V}=0$ and at ${A}_{V}=1$. Given a combination of values (${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$, ${\rho }_{\star }$, $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$), we generate a model isochrone via trilinear interpolation over these parameters in the tabulated ${A}_{V}=0$ models. We use the same code for this procedure that we have made use of in our previous work with the Y² isochrones. When a proposed link in the Markov chain falls outside of the parameter values spanned by the models (e.g., if a star with a density greater than what is allowed by the stellar evolution models at a given temperature and metallicity is proposed), the proposed link is rejected and the previous link is retained. In this manner the fitting procedure used here forces the solutions to match the theoretical stellar evolution models. We used the ${A}_{V}=1$ models to fit polynomial relations for the extinction in each bandpass as functions of A_V and ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$.

We assumed uniform priors on the new model parameters ${(m-M)}_{0}$, ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$, and $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$ that we introduced into the fit. For A_V we found that using a uniform prior often led to values that are inconsistent with the expected extinction toward the direction of the source, so we instead made use of the MWDUST 3D Galactic extinction model (Bovy et al. 2016) to tabulate the extinction in 0.1 kpc steps in the direction of the source. For a given ${(m-M)}_{0}$ we then perform linear interpolation among these values to estimate the expected A_V at that distance. We treat this expected value as a Gaussian prior, with a 1σ uncertainty of 0.025 mag for all stars, which we found to be the typical discrete change in the predicted A_V when moving toward nearby lines of sight.

In addition to the method described above, we also attempted to model the observations of each target using an empirical method for determining the masses and radii of the host stars similar to that proposed by Stassun et al. (2018). This method makes use of the Gaia DR2 parallax, the broadband photometry, and the spectroscopically determined ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$ to directly determine the radius of the star, and then it combines this with the density constrained from the transits to directly determine the mass of the star. We applied this method by following a similar procedure to that detailed above, except that instead of comparing a given proposed combination of (${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$, ${\rho }_{\star }$, $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$) to the theoretical stellar evolution models, we introduced the stellar radius as a new free parameter in the model (adopting a uniform prior on $\mathrm{log}{R}_{\star }$) and used a combination of (${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$, $\mathrm{log}{g}_{\star }$, $[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$) to determine the bolometric correction (reverse engineered from the PARSEC models) to apply to the bolometric magnitude to model the observed magnitude in each bandpass. This method has the benefit that it does not force the parameters of the system to agree with the theoretical stellar evolution models, which may have undetermined systematic errors, but in practice we found that for many of the systems it leads to a poor constraint on the stellar mass spanning a wide parameter range that is certainly unphysical. This is demonstrated in Table 12, where we compare the stellar masses and radii inferred for each system using the isochrone and empirical models. While the radii from both methods are comparable, the masses from the empirical modeling have uncertainties that are typically an order of magnitude larger than the mass uncertainties from the isochrone-based method.

Figure 1–10 include comparisons between the broadband photometric measurements of each system and the models from our isochrone-based analysis. The plots include absolute G magnitude versus dereddened BP − RP color and observed broadband spectral energy distributions (SEDs). We find that the Gaia photometry and parallaxes and the 2MASS photometry are consistent with the models for all 10 systems.

Our final sets of adopted stellar parameters derived from this analysis are listed in Table 13 for HATS-60–HATS-63, in Table 14 for HATS-64–HATS-67, and in Table 15 for HATS-68 and HATS-69. The parameters listed here are from the isochrone-based analysis (Section 3.2), which we adopt for the remainder of the paper. Ordered from least to most massive, the stars have masses and radii of

$$\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{lrr}\mathrm{HATS} \mbox{-} 69 & {0.892}_{-0.016}^{+0.011}\,{M}_{\odot } & 0.8785\pm 0.0077\,{R}_{\odot }\\ \mathrm{HATS} \mbox{-} 62 & {0.896}_{-0.010}^{+0.015}\,{M}_{\odot } & {0.933}_{-0.013}^{+0.019}\,{R}_{\odot }\\ \mathrm{HATS} \mbox{-} 63 & 0.931\pm 0.019\,{M}_{\odot } & 1.070\pm 0.012\,{R}_{\odot }\\ \mathrm{HATS} \mbox{-} 61 & 1.076\pm 0.014\,{M}_{\odot } & 1.664\pm 0.024\,{R}_{\odot }\\ \mathrm{HATS} \mbox{-} 60 & {1.097}_{-0.016}^{+0.010}\,{M}_{\odot } & 1.460\pm 0.024\,{R}_{\odot }\\ \mathrm{HATS} \mbox{-} 65 & 1.257\pm 0.028\,{M}_{\odot } & 1.310\pm 0.027\,{R}_{\odot }\\ \mathrm{HATS} \mbox{-} 68 & 1.351\pm 0.014\,{M}_{\odot } & 1.748\pm 0.026\,{R}_{\odot }\\ \mathrm{HATS} \mbox{-} 66 & 1.411\pm 0.022\,{M}_{\odot } & 1.841\pm 0.041\,{R}_{\odot }\\ \mathrm{HATS} \mbox{-} 67 & 1.435\pm 0.021\,{M}_{\odot } & 1.441\pm 0.026\,{R}_{\odot }\\ \mathrm{HATS} \mbox{-} 64 & 1.564\pm 0.028\,{M}_{\odot } & 2.113\pm 0.071\,{R}_{\odot }.\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$$

Table 11.  Parameters Varied in Joint Analysis

Parameter	Prior	Notes
TA	uniform	Midtransit time of first observed transit
TB	uniform	Midtransit time of last observed transit
K	uniform, $K\gt 0$	RV semi-amplitude
$\sqrt{e}\cos \omega$	uniform, $0\leqslant e\lt 1$	Eccentricity parameter, either fixed to zero or varied
$\sqrt{e}\sin \omega$	uniform, $0\leqslant e\lt 1$	Eccentricity parameter, either fixed to zero or varied
${R}_{p}$/${R}_{\star }$	uniform	Ratio of planetary to stellar radius
${b}^{2}$	uniform, ${b}^{2}\geqslant 0$	Impact parameter squared
$\zeta /{R}_{\star }$	uniform	Reciprocal of the half-duration of the transit
${\gamma }_{i}$	uniform	Systemic velocity for RV instrument i
${\sigma }_{\mathrm{jit},{\rm{i}}}$	$-\mathrm{log}({\sigma }_{\mathrm{jit},{\rm{i}}})$, ${\sigma }_{\mathrm{jit},{\rm{i}}}\gt 0$	Jitter for RV instrument i
${m}_{0,{HS},i}$	uniform	Out-of-transit magnitude for HS light curve i
${d}_{{HS},i}$	uniform, $0\lt {d}_{{HS},i}\leqslant 1$	Transit dilution factor for HS light curve i
${m}_{0,{LC},i}$	uniform	Out-of-transit magnitude for follow-up light curve i
${m}_{1,{LC},i}$	uniform	Linear trend to out-of-transit magnitude for follow-up light curve i
${m}_{2,{LC},i}$	uniform	Quadratic trend to out-of-transit magnitude for follow-up light curve i
${S}_{0,{LC},i}$	uniform	EPD coefficient for PSF shape parameter S for follow-up light curve i
${D}_{0,{LC},i}$	uniform	EPD coefficient for PSF shape parameter S for follow-up light curve i
${K}_{0,{LC},i}$	uniform	EPD coefficient for PSF shape parameter S for follow-up light curve i
${d}_{\mathrm{mod}}$	$2\mathrm{ln}\left(\tfrac{{d}_{\mathrm{mod}}+5}{5}\right)-\tfrac{{d}_{\mathrm{mod}}+5}{7650}$	Distance modulus
	Gaussian with $\sigma =0.25$ mag
AV	mean based on MWDUST model	Extinction
	${A}_{V}\geqslant 0$
${T}_{\mathrm{eff}}$	uniform, ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}}\gt 0$	Host star effective temperature
$[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$	uniform	Host star metallicity
		Host star radius, only used for method in Section 3.3,
${R}_{\star }$	$\mathrm{log}{R}_{\star }$, ${R}_{\star }\gt 0$	not for method in Section 3.2

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

Table 12.  Comparison between Isochrone and Empirical Model Results for Stellar Mass and Radius

System	Isoc. ${M}_{\star }$	Empir. ${M}_{\star }$	Isoc. ${R}_{\star }$	Empir. ${R}_{\star }$
	(${M}_{\odot }$)	(${M}_{\odot }$)	(${R}_{\odot }$)	(${R}_{\odot }$)
HATS-60	${1.097}_{-0.016}^{+0.010}$	${0.91}_{-0.30}^{+0.23}$	$1.460\pm 0.024$	$1.448\pm 0.028$
HATS-61	$1.076\pm 0.014$	${0.99}_{-0.24}^{+0.16}$	$1.664\pm 0.024$	$1.649\pm 0.025$
HATS-62	${0.896}_{-0.010}^{+0.015}$	$1.06\pm 0.11$	${0.933}_{-0.013}^{+0.019}$	$0.956\pm 0.023$
HATS-63	$0.931\pm 0.019$	$0.86\pm 0.20$	$1.070\pm 0.012$	$1.066\pm 0.015$
HATS-64	$1.564\pm 0.028$	${1.60}_{-0.15}^{+0.22}$	$2.113\pm 0.071$	$2.136\pm 0.071$
HATS-65	$1.257\pm 0.028$	$1.62\pm 0.13$	$1.310\pm 0.027$	$1.320\pm 0.029$
HATS-66	$1.411\pm 0.022$	$1.27\pm 0.27$	$1.841\pm 0.041$	$1.850\pm 0.049$
HATS-67	$1.435\pm 0.021$	${1.47}_{-0.19}^{+0.14}$	$1.441\pm 0.026$	$1.431\pm 0.042$
HATS-68	$1.351\pm 0.014$	${0.87}_{-0.16}^{+0.21}$	$1.748\pm 0.026$	$1.764\pm 0.067$
HATS-69	${0.892}_{-0.016}^{+0.011}$	${0.747}_{-0.055}^{+0.097}$	$0.8785\pm 0.0077$	$0.864\pm 0.018$

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

Table 13.  Derived Stellar Parameters for HATS-60, HATS-61, HATS-62, and HATS-63

	HATS-60	HATS-61	HATS-62	HATS-63
Parameter	Value	Value	Value	Value
${M}_{\star }$ (${M}_{\odot }$)	${1.097}_{-0.016}^{+0.010}$	$1.076\pm 0.014$	${0.896}_{-0.010}^{+0.015}$	$0.931\pm 0.019$
${R}_{\star }$ (${R}_{\odot }$)	$1.460\pm 0.024$	$1.664\pm 0.024$	${0.933}_{-0.013}^{+0.019}$	$1.070\pm 0.012$
$\mathrm{log}{g}_{\star }$ (cgs)	$4.148\pm 0.014$	$4.028\pm 0.012$	$4.451\pm 0.019$	$4.349\pm 0.015$
${\rho }_{\star }$ (${\rm{g}}\,{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$)	$0.496\pm 0.023$	$0.330\pm 0.014$	$1.556\pm 0.095$	$1.071\pm 0.047$
${L}_{\star }$ (${L}_{\odot }$)	$1.996\pm 0.066$	$2.340\pm 0.063$	${0.671}_{-0.019}^{+0.029}$	$1.028\pm 0.022$
${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$ (K)	$5688\pm 20$	$5542\pm 21$	${5416}_{-13}^{+19}$	$5627\pm 18$
$[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$	$0.335\pm 0.028$	$0.247\pm 0.037$	$0.133\pm 0.023$	$0.081\pm 0.038$
Age (Gyr)	${7.55}_{-0.30}^{+0.70}$	${8.90}_{-0.41}^{+0.31}$	${9.55}_{-1.55}^{+0.99}$	$10.3\pm 1.1$
AV (mag)	$0.156\pm 0.014$	$0.137\pm 0.013$	$0.170\pm 0.011$	$0.081\pm 0.011$
Distance (pc)	$494.3\pm 7.8$	$694.0\pm 8.8$	${516.8}_{-6.1}^{+10.9}$	$634.8\pm 6.2$

Note. The listed parameters are those determined through the joint differential evolution Markov chain analysis described in Section 3.2. For all four 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 here.

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

Our final sets of adopted planetary parameters derived from the isochrone-based method are listed in Table 16 for HATS-60b–HATS-63b, in Table 17 for HATS-64b–HATS-67b, and in Table 18 for HATS-68b and HATS-69b. We considered both models where the eccentricity of the planetary orbit was allowed to vary and models where it was fixed to zero. We find that for all 10 systems the observations are consistent with zero eccentricity, and we adopt the fixed circular orbit solutions. We list the 95% confidence upper limit on the eccentricity for each planet.

Table 14.  Derived Stellar Parameters for HATS-64, HATS-65, HATS-66, and HATS-67

	HATS-64	HATS-65	HATS-66	HATS-67
Parameter	Value	Value	Value	Value
${M}_{\star }$ (${M}_{\odot }$)	$1.564\pm 0.028$	$1.257\pm 0.028$	$1.411\pm 0.022$	$1.435\pm 0.021$
${R}_{\star }$ (${R}_{\odot }$)	$2.113\pm 0.071$	$1.310\pm 0.027$	$1.841\pm 0.041$	$1.441\pm 0.026$
$\mathrm{log}{g}_{\star }$ (cgs)	$3.982\pm 0.024$	$4.303\pm 0.020$	$4.057\pm 0.017$	$4.278\pm 0.015$
${\rho }_{\star }$ (${\rm{g}}\,{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$)	$0.234\pm 0.020$	$0.788\pm 0.052$	$0.318\pm 0.019$	$0.677\pm 0.035$
${L}_{\star }$ (${L}_{\odot }$)	$7.37\pm 0.52$	$2.38\pm 0.11$	$5.85\pm 0.28$	$3.52\pm 0.16$
${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$ (K)	$6554\pm 27$	$6277\pm 30$	$6626\pm 35$	$6594\pm 33$
$[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$	$0.220\pm 0.039$	$0.199\pm 0.055$	$-0.017\pm 0.043$	$0.332\pm 0.052$
Age (Gyr)	${1.861}_{-0.180}^{+0.097}$	$1.78\pm 0.55$	${2.17}_{-0.11}^{+0.16}$	$0.51\pm 0.24$
AV (mag)	$0.230\pm 0.014$	$0.243\pm 0.014$	$0.390\pm 0.019$	$0.385\pm 0.018$
Distance (pc)	$1083\pm 36$	$495\pm 10$	$1538\pm 34$	$982\pm 19$

Note. Same notes as for Table 13.

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

Table 15.  Derived Stellar Parameters for HATS-68 and HATS-69

	HATS-68	HATS-69
Parameter	Value	Value
${M}_{\star }$ (${M}_{\odot }$)	$1.351\pm 0.014$	${0.892}_{-0.016}^{+0.011}$
${R}_{\star }$ (${R}_{\odot }$)	$1.748\pm 0.026$	$0.8785\pm 0.0077$
$\mathrm{log}{g}_{\star }$ (cgs)	$4.083\pm 0.012$	$4.501\pm 0.013$
${\rho }_{\star }$ (${\rm{g}}\,{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$)	$0.356\pm 0.015$	$1.854\pm 0.070$
${L}_{\star }$ (${L}_{\odot }$)	$3.91\pm 0.13$	$0.4813\pm 0.0084$
${T}_{\mathrm{eff}\star }$ (K)	$6147\pm 22$	$5137\pm 16$
$[\mathrm{Fe}/{\rm{H}}]$	$0.210\pm 0.043$	$0.377\pm 0.034$
Age (Gyr)	$3.02\pm 0.11$	${8.0}_{-1.3}^{+1.8}$
AV (mag)	$0.062\pm 0.012$	$0.155\pm 0.012$
Distance (pc)	$618.2\pm 9.3$	$420.3\pm 3.2$

Note. Same notes as for Table 13.

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

Table 16.  Orbital and Planetary Parameters for HATS-60b–HATS-64b

	HATS-60b	HATS-61b	HATS-62b	HATS-63b
Parameter	Value	Value	Value	Value
Light-curve Parameters
P (days)	$3.560829\pm 0.000032$	$7.817953\pm 0.000024$	$3.2768837\pm 0.0000033$	$3.0566527\pm 0.0000049$
Tc ($\mathrm{BJD}$)a	$2458015.72358\pm 0.00085$	$2457673.0611\pm 0.0014$	$2455808.05158\pm 0.00043$	$2457659.93755\pm 0.00089$
T14 (days)a	$0.1608\pm 0.0019$	$0.2304\pm 0.0029$	$0.11522\pm 0.00093$	$0.1020\pm 0.0017$
${T}_{12}={T}_{34}$ (days)a	$0.01485\pm 0.00083$	$0.0209\pm 0.0013$	$0.01348\pm 0.00060$	$0.0206\pm 0.0012$
$a/{R}_{\star }$	$6.93\pm 0.11$	$10.23\pm 0.14$	$9.59\pm 0.19$	$8.09\pm 0.12$
$\zeta /{R}_{\star }$ b	$13.69\pm 0.17$	$9.54\pm 0.13$	${19.64}_{-0.14}^{+0.11}$	$24.14\pm 0.61$
${R}_{p}$/${R}_{\star }$	$0.0811\pm 0.0033$	$0.0738\pm 0.0040$	$0.1159\pm 0.0011$	$0.1159\pm 0.0032$
b2	${0.202}_{-0.035}^{+0.032}$	${0.258}_{-0.027}^{+0.026}$	${0.121}_{-0.032}^{+0.036}$	${0.525}_{-0.028}^{+0.030}$
$b\equiv a\cos i/{R}_{\star }$	${0.450}_{-0.041}^{+0.034}$	${0.508}_{-0.027}^{+0.025}$	${0.348}_{-0.049}^{+0.048}$	${0.724}_{-0.020}^{+0.020}$
i (deg)	$86.28\pm 0.35$	$87.15\pm 0.18$	$87.92\pm 0.35$	$84.86\pm 0.19$
HATSouth Dilution Factorsc
Dilution factor 1	$0.788\pm 0.082$	$0.796\pm 0.098$	$0.962\pm 0.025$	$0.962\pm 0.039$
Dilution factor 2	$0.494\pm 0.089$	⋯	⋯	⋯
Limb-darkening Coefficientsd
${c}_{1},r$	$0.3914$	$0.3961$	$0.4133$	$0.3863$
${c}_{2},r$	$0.3109$	$0.3057$	$0.2925$	$0.3084$
${c}_{1},R$	⋯	⋯	$0.3853$	$0.3601$
${c}_{2},R$	⋯	⋯	$0.2977$	$0.3120$
${c}_{1},i$	⋯	$0.2954$	$0.3127$	$0.2917$
${c}_{2},i$	⋯	$0.3220$	$0.3078$	$0.3181$
${c}_{1},z$	⋯	⋯	$0.2427$	⋯
${c}_{2},z$	⋯	⋯	$0.3129$	⋯
RV Parameters
K (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$82.6\pm 6.9$	$330\pm 13$	$10.2\pm 7.8$	$140\pm 18$
ee	$\lt 0.191$	$\lt 0.092$	$\lt 0.298$	$\lt 0.136$
RV jitter FEROS (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)f	$16.9\pm 5.7$	$26\pm 11$	$56\pm 14$	$43\pm 10$
RV jitter HARPS (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$\lt 10.0$	⋯	$34\pm 15$	⋯
RV jitter Coralie (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	⋯	$67\pm 55$	$2.0\pm 1.7$	⋯
RV jitter PFS (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	⋯	⋯	$34\pm 15$	⋯
RV jitter CYCLOPS (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	⋯	⋯	$1\pm 29$	⋯
Planetary Parameters
${M}_{p}$ (${M}_{{\rm{J}}}$)	$0.662\pm 0.055$	$3.40\pm 0.14$	$\lt 0.179$	$0.96\pm 0.12$
${R}_{p}$ (${R}_{{\rm{J}}}$)	$1.153\pm 0.053$	$1.195\pm 0.067$	$1.055\pm 0.025$	$1.207\pm 0.039$
$C({M}_{p},{R}_{p})$ g	$0.14$	$-0.00$	$0.39$	$-0.03$
${\rho }_{p}$ (${\rm{g}}\,{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$)	${0.537}_{-0.070}^{+0.100}$	$2.47\pm 0.44$	$0.076\pm 0.053$	$0.67\pm 0.11$
$\mathrm{log}{g}_{p}$ (cgs)	$3.093\pm 0.050$	$3.770\pm 0.052$	${2.20}_{-0.49}^{+0.25}$	$3.211\pm 0.065$
a (au)	${0.04708}_{-0.00023}^{+0.00015}$	$0.07908\pm 0.00033$	${0.04163}_{-0.00016}^{+0.00024}$	$0.04026\pm 0.00028$
${T}_{\mathrm{eq}}$ (K)	$1528\pm 11$	$1226.1\pm 7.3$	$1237\pm 12$	$1398.3\pm 9.0$
Θh	$0.0493\pm 0.0044$	$0.415\pm 0.029$	$0.0062\pm 0.0046$	$0.0681\pm 0.0090$
${\mathrm{log}}_{10}\langle F\rangle$ (cgs)i	$9.090\pm 0.013$	$8.707\pm 0.010$	${8.722}_{-0.014}^{+0.019}$	$8.936\pm 0.011$

Notes. For all systems we adopt a model in which the orbit is assumed to be circular. See the discussion in Section 3.2.

^aTimes are in Barycentric Julian Date calculated directly from UTC without correction for leap seconds. ${T}_{c}$: reference epoch of midtransit that minimizes the correlation with the orbital period. ${T}_{12}$: total transit duration, time between first and 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 overfiltering of the light curve. These factors are varied in the fit, with independent values adopted for each HATSouth light curve. The factors listed for HATS-61, HATS-62, and HATS-63 are for the G548.4, G582.1, and G597.2 light curves, respectively. For HATS-60 we list the factors for the G537.3 and G537.4 light curves in order. ^dValues for a quadratic law, adopted from the tabulations by Claret (2004) according to the spectroscopic (ZASPE) parameters listed in Table 8. ^eThe 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 its 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 17.  Orbital and Planetary Parameters for HATS-64b–HATS-67b

	HATS-64b	HATS-65b	HATS-66b	HATS-67b
Parameter	Value	Value	Value	Value
Light-curve Parameters
P (days)	$4.908897\pm 0.000013$	$3.1051610\pm 0.0000016$	$3.1414391\pm 0.0000074$	$1.6091788\pm 0.0000040$
Tc ($\mathrm{BJD}$)	$2457769.82287\pm 0.00082$	$2457520.96130\pm 0.00041$	$2457603.0514\pm 0.0014$	$2457796.88127\pm 0.00043$
T14 (days)	$0.2419\pm 0.0020$	$0.1202\pm 0.0013$	$0.1893\pm 0.0027$	$0.0811\pm 0.0011$
${T}_{12}={T}_{34}$ (days)	$0.0202\pm 0.0014$	$0.0214\pm 0.0012$	$0.0149\pm 0.0011$	$0.0303\pm 0.0054$
$a/{R}_{\star }$	$6.68\pm 0.20$	$7.38\pm 0.16$	$5.50\pm 0.11$	$4.526\pm 0.077$
$\zeta /{R}_{\star }$	$9.026\pm 0.063$	$20.02\pm 0.16$	$11.47\pm 0.18$	$34.77\pm 0.61$
${R}_{p}$/${R}_{\star }$	$0.0817\pm 0.0024$	$0.1181\pm 0.0025$	$0.0787\pm 0.0043$	$0.1201\pm 0.0020$
b2	${0.103}_{-0.054}^{+0.059}$	${0.445}_{-0.024}^{+0.024}$	${0.080}_{-0.045}^{+0.049}$	${0.742}_{-0.012}^{+0.011}$
$b\equiv a\cos i/{R}_{\star }$	${0.321}_{-0.101}^{+0.082}$	${0.667}_{-0.019}^{+0.018}$	${0.283}_{-0.095}^{+0.076}$	${0.8613}_{-0.0071}^{+0.0065}$
i (deg)	$87.24\pm 0.85$	$84.82\pm 0.26$	$87.06\pm 0.92$	$79.03\pm 0.26$
HATSouth Dilution Factors
Dilution factor 1	$0.658\pm 0.066$	$0.755\pm 0.039$	$0.608\pm 0.098$	$0.973\pm 0.030$
Dilution factor 2	⋯	⋯	⋯	$0.934\pm 0.039$
Limb-darkening Coefficients
${c}_{1},r$	$0.2300$	$0.2032$	$0.2432$	$0.2437$
${c}_{2},r$	$0.3919$	$0.3475$	$0.3853$	$0.4008$
${c}_{1},R$	$0.2087$	$0.2104$	⋯	⋯
${c}_{2},R$	$0.3913$	$0.3885$	⋯	⋯
${c}_{1},i$	$0.1561$	$0.1394$	$0.1693$	$0.1660$
${c}_{2},i$	$0.3827$	$0.3395$	$0.3766$	$0.3962$
RV Parameters
K (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$85\pm 18$	$97.7\pm 9.9$	$586\pm 75$	$194\pm 16$
e	$\lt 0.151$	$\lt 0.062$	$\lt 0.064$	$\lt 0.057$
RV jitter FEROS (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$62\pm 14$	$\lt 30.7$	$\lt 259.3$	$37\pm 11$
RV jitter HARPS (${\rm{m}}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$)	$78\pm 28$	$\lt 2.7$	⋯	⋯
Planetary Parameters
${M}_{p}$ (${M}_{{\rm{J}}}$)	$0.96\pm 0.20$	$0.821\pm 0.083$	$5.33\pm 0.68$	$1.45\pm 0.12$
${R}_{p}$ (${R}_{{\rm{J}}}$)	$1.679\pm 0.081$	$1.501\pm 0.050$	$1.411\pm 0.084$	$1.685\pm 0.047$
$C({M}_{p},{R}_{p})$	$0.11$	$0.15$	$0.06$	$-0.12$
${\rho }_{p}$ (${\rm{g}}\,{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$)	${0.245}_{-0.050}^{+0.068}$	$0.300\pm 0.039$	${2.34}_{-0.43}^{+0.56}$	$0.374\pm 0.047$
$\mathrm{log}{g}_{p}$ (cgs)	$2.92\pm 0.10$	$2.953\pm 0.050$	$3.820\pm 0.075$	$3.101\pm 0.045$
a (au)	$0.06562\pm 0.00039$	$0.04497\pm 0.00033$	$0.04714\pm 0.00025$	$0.03032\pm 0.00015$
${T}_{\mathrm{eq}}$ (K)	$1793\pm 27$	$1634\pm 18$	$1998\pm 21$	$2193\pm 22$
Θ	$0.048\pm 0.010$	$0.0390\pm 0.0040$	$0.251\pm 0.035$	$0.0355\pm 0.0032$
${\mathrm{log}}_{10}\langle F\rangle$ (cgs)	$9.367\pm 0.026$	$9.205\pm 0.019$	$9.555\pm 0.019$	$9.716\pm 0.017$

Note. Same notes as for Table 16. The HATSouth dilution factors listed for HATS-64, HATS-65, and HATS-66 are for the G606.3, G625.2, and G601.1 light curves, respectively. For HATS-67 we list the factors for the G698.1 and G698.4 light curves in order.

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image