# TOI 4201 b and TOI 5344 b: Discovery of Two Transiting Giant Planets Around
M Dwarf Stars and Revised Parameters for Three Others

J. D. Hartman Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, 4 Ivy Lane, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA  G. Á. Bakos Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, 4 Ivy Lane, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA  Z. Csubry  Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, 4 Ivy Lane, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA  A. W. Howard Department of Astronomy, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA  H. Isaacson Department of Astronomy, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA  S. Giacalone Department of Astronomy, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA  A. Chontos Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, 4 Ivy Lane, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA  N. Narita Komaba Institute for Science, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan  Astrobiology Center, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan  Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain  A. Fukui Komaba Institute for Science, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan  Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain  J. P. de Leon Department of Multi-Disciplinary Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan  N. Watanabe Department of Multi-Disciplinary Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan  M. Mori Department of Multi-Disciplinary Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan  T. Kagetani Department of Multi-Disciplinary Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan  I. Fukuda Department of Multi-Disciplinary Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan  Y. Kawai Department of Multi-Disciplinary Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan  M. Ikoma Division of Science, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan  E. Palle Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain  Departamento de Astrofísica, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain  F. Murgas  Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain  Departamento de Astrofísica, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain  E. Esparza-Borges Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain  Departamento de Astrofísica, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain  H. Parviainen Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain  Departamento de Astrofísica, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain  L. G. Bouma Department of Astronomy, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA  M. Cointepas  Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IPAG, F-38000 Grenoble, France  Observatoire de Genève, Département d’Astronomie, Université de Genève, Chemin Pegasi 51b, 1290 Versoix, Switzerland  X. Bonfils Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IPAG, F-38000 Grenoble, France  J.M. Almenara Observatoire de Genève, Département d’Astronomie, Université de Genève, Chemin Pegasi 51b, 1290 Versoix, Switzerland  Karen A. Collins Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA  Kevin I. Collins George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, 22030 USA  Howard M. Relles Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA  Khalid Barkaoui Astrobiology Research Unit, Université de Liège, 19C Allée du 6 Août, 4000 Liège, Belgium  Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA  Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain  Richard P. Schwarz Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA  Ghachoui Mourad  Oukaimeden Observatory, High Energy Physics and Astrophysics Laboratory, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco  Mathilde Timmermans  Astrobiology Research Unit, University of Liège, Allée du 6 août, 19, 4000 Liège (Sart-Tilman), Belgium  Georgina Dransfield  School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom  Artem Burdanov Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA  Julien de Wit Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA  Emmanuël Jehin  Space Sciences, Technologies and Astrophysics Research (STAR) Institute, Université de Liège, Allée du 6 Août 19C, B-4000 Liège, Belgium  Amaury H.M.J. Triaud School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom  Michaël Gillon Astrobiology Research Unit, University of Liège, Allée du 6 août, 19, 4000 Liège (Sart-Tilman), Belgium  Zouhair Benkhaldoun Oukaimeden Observatory, High Energy Physics and Astrophysics Laboratory, Faculty of sciences Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco  Keith Horne SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews KY16 9SS, Scotland, UK  Ramotholo Sefako South African Astronomical Observatory, P.O. Box 9, Observatory, Cape Town 7935, South Africa  A. Jordán Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Av. Diagonal las Torres 2640, Peñalolén, Santiago, Chile  Millennium Institute for Astrophysics, Chile  Data Observatory Foundation, Chile  El Sauce Observatory—Obstech, Chile  R. Brahm Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Av. Diagonal las Torres 2640, Peñalolén, Santiago, Chile  Millennium Institute for Astrophysics, Chile  Data Observatory Foundation, Chile  V. Suc Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Av. Diagonal las Torres 2640, Peñalolén, Santiago, Chile  El Sauce Observatory—Obstech, Chile  Steve B. Howell NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA  E. Furlan NASA Exoplanet Science Institute, Caltech/IPAC, Mail Code 100-22, 1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91125, USA  J.E. Schlieder NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA  D. Ciardi NASA Exoplanet Science Institute, Caltech/IPAC, Mail Code 100-22, 1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91125, USA  T. Barclay NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA  E.J. Gonzales Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA  I. Crossfield Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Kansas, KS 66045, USA  C. D. Dressing Department of Astronomy, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA  M. Goliguzova Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Universitetskii, 13, Moscow, Russia  A. Tatarnikov Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Universitetskii, 13, Moscow, Russia  George R. Ricker Department of Physics and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA  Roland Vanderspek Department of Physics and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA  David W. Latham Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA  S. Seager Department of Physics and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA  Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA  Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA  Joshua N. Winn Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, 4 Ivy Lane, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA  Jon M. Jenkins NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA  Stephanie Striegel SETI Institute, 189 Bernardo Ave, Suite 200, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA  NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA  Avi Shporer Department of Physics and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA  Andrew Vanderburg Department of Physics and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA  Alan M. Levine Department of Physics and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA  Veselin B. Kostov NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA  SETI Institute, 189 Bernardo Ave, Suite 200, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA  David Watanabe Planetary Discoveries in Valencia, CA 91354, USA

###### Abstract

We present the discovery from the TESS mission of two giant planets transiting
M dwarf stars: TOI 4201 b and TOI 5344 b. We also provide precise radial
velocity measurements and updated system parameters for three other M dwarfs
with transiting giant planets: TOI 519, TOI 3629 and TOI 3714. We measure
planetary masses of $0.525\pm 0.064$ $M_{\rm J}$, $0.243\pm 0.020$ $M_{\rm
J}$, $0.689\pm 0.030$ $M_{\rm J}$, $2.57\pm 0.15$ $M_{\rm J}$, and $0.412\pm
0.040$ $M_{\rm J}$ for TOI 519 b, TOI 3629 b, TOI 3714 b, TOI 4201 b, and TOI
5344 b, respectively. The corresponding stellar masses are $0.372\pm 0.018$
$M_{\sun}$, $0.635\pm 0.032$ $M_{\sun}$, $0.522\pm 0.028$ $M_{\sun}$,
$0.625\pm 0.033$ $M_{\sun}$ and $0.612\pm 0.034$ $M_{\sun}$. All five hosts
have super-solar metallicities, providing further support for recent findings
that, like for solar-type stars, close-in giant planets are preferentially
found around metal-rich M dwarf host stars. Finally, we describe a procedure
for accounting for systematic errors in stellar evolution models when those
models are included directly in fitting a transiting planet system.

planetary systems — stars: individual ( TOI 519, TOI 3629, TOI 3714, TOI 4201,
TOI 5344, ) techniques: spectroscopic, photometric

††facilities: TESS, Keck:I, LCOGT, Sanchez, FTN, TRAPPIST, Subaru, HET, WIYN,
Gaia, Exoplanet Archive††software: VARTOOLS (Hartman & Bakos, 2016), MWDUST
(Bovy et al., 2016), Astropy (Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, 2018),
AstroImageJ (Collins et al., 2017), TAPIR (Jensen, 2013)

##  1 Introduction

M dwarf stars are the most common type of star in the Galaxy, making up
approximately 70% of the local stellar population (Henry et al., 2018). These
stars often host short-period Earth-size planets (Dressing & Charbonneau,
2015), but they are not expected to be common hosts of giant planets.
Theoretical predictions based on the core-accretion model of planet formation
suggest that the occurrence rate of giant planets around $0.5$ $M_{\sun}$
stars is only 10% that of giant planets around G dwarfs, and that it drops to
essentially zero for stars with masses less than $\sim 0.4$ $M_{\sun}$ (Burn
et al., 2021). However, other work by Mercer & Stamatellos (2020) has
indicated that the formation of giant planets via gravitational instabilities
may actually be enhanced around M dwarfs.

The vast majority of stars currently known to host giant planets have F, G or
K spectral types. Based on the NASA Exoplanet Archive (NASA Exoplanet Archive,
2023)111Accessed on 2023-06-22 at 14:16, only 18 of the 733 giant planets with
$M_{p}\sin i>0.1$ MJ discovered to date by the radial velocity (RV) method
orbit M dwarf stars222For the purposes of this discussion we take M dwarfs to
be stars with $T_{\rm eff\star}<4000$ K, which may include late K dwarfs as
well., and only 16 of the 621 confirmed giant planets discovered to date by
the transit method orbit M dwarfs. The low representation of M dwarf hosts
within the current sample of giant planets suggests that giant planets are not
common around M dwarfs. However, such observations can be misleading because
the current sample derives from surveys that are biased toward solar-type host
stars.

Statistical analyses of early RV surveys found hints that the occurrence rate
of giant planets is indeed smaller for M dwarfs than for solar-type stars
(Johnson et al., 2010), but the small sample size left large uncertainties on
the occurrence estimate. More recently, Sabotta et al. (2021) and Pass et al.
(2023) have reported, based on RV surveys, occurrence rates for giant planets
around M dwarfs that are below that for solar mass host stars. Occurrence
rates for giant planets around M dwarfs have also been determined from
observations by the NASA TESS mission (Ricker et al., 2015) by Bryant et al.
(2023) and Gan et al. (2023), with these limits being focused on much shorter
period planets ($P<10$ d) than the RV surveys which are often sensitive out to
$P\sim 1000$ d. Bryant et al. (2023) find an occurrence rate of $0.194\pm
0.072$% for close-in giant planets around M dwarfs, while Gan et al. (2023)
find a rate of $0.27\pm 0.09$%. The rate of hot Jupiters around M dwarfs thus
appears to be lower than the rate for solar-type stars by a factor of $\sim
2.5$–$5$. For mid-to-late M dwarfs, the rate is still $\gtrsim 0.1$%, which is
perhaps larger than theoretical predictions.

The very large population of M dwarfs in the Galaxy, coupled with a giant
planet occurrence rate that is small, but not vanishingly small, means that
there should be a substantial number of giant planets hosted by such stars.
Assuming the occurrence rate of giant planets around M dwarfs is 1/5th that of
giant planets around G stars, we might expect $\sim$1/3rd of giant planets in
the Galaxy to orbit M dwarfs, whereas only 2–3% of the existing sample of
giant planets have M dwarf hosts.

Finding this missing population of giant planets around M dwarfs would not
only allow for a better determination of the occurrence rate of these planets,
and thus better tests of planet formation theories, it would also create
better opportunities to characterize the physical properties of a poorly
studied class of exoplanets. This could include leveraging the very deep
transits of giant planets that transit M dwarfs to study the atmospheres of
these planets via transmission spectroscopy (Charbonneau et al., 2002), or
leveraging starspot crossing events in transiting systems to measure the
obliquities of the stellar hosts in these systems (e.g., Sanchis-Ojeda & Winn,
2011). To date no such studies have been published for the currently small
sample of giant planets known to transit M dwarfs.

In recent years there has been an increase in the rate of finding giant
planets around M dwarfs. This increase is due in part to RV surveys focused on
M dwarfs (Reiners et al., 2018), as well as transiting systems discovered by
Kepler (Johnson et al., 2012), HATSouth (Hartman et al., 2015; Bakos et al.,
2018; Jordán et al., 2022), NGTS (Bayliss et al., 2018), and TESS (Cañas et
al., 2020; Artigau et al., 2021; Kanodia et al., 2021; Parviainen et al.,
2021; Gan et al., 2022; Cañas et al., 2022; Hobson et al., 2023; Kanodia et
al., 2022, 2023). Key factors contributing to the recent yield of such systems
have been the development of IR sensitive high-precision RV instruments (e.g.,
Tamura et al., 2012; Artigau et al., 2014; Quirrenbach et al., 2014), transit
surveys that cover a larger number of faint M dwarf stars compared to earlier
surveys, efforts to use RV instruments on large telescopes, such as
Keck-I/HIRES, VLT/ESPRESSO, Subaru/IRD, and Magellan/PFS, to provide RV
confirmation of candidate transiting giant planets around these faint M
dwarfs, and the development of instruments capable of simultaneous, multi-
band, time-series photometry.

In this paper we present the discovery of two new transiting giant planets
around M dwarf stars by the TESS mission: TOI 4201 b and TOI 5344 b. These
planets were identified by TESS, followed up with a variety of ground-based
photometric time-series facilities, and confirmed via precise RV observations
with Keck-I/HIRES. We also present new Keck-I/HIRES RV observations for three
other previously confirmed transiting giant planets around M dwarf stars
designated as TOI 519 (Parviainen et al., 2021), and TOI 3629 and TOI 3714
(Cañas et al., 2022). We combine the new RVs with new photometric time-series
observations presented here, and with previously published observations, to
update the physical parameters for these three systems.

In analyzing these systems we follow a typical method of utilizing theoretical
stellar evolution models to constrain the properties of the host stars. This
method can yield higher precision parameter values than purely empirical
techniques, however it can also lead to parameter constraints that are much
tighter than systematic errors in the evolution models themselves (e.g., Tayar
et al., 2022; Hobson et al., 2023). Systematic uncertainties are often
reported along with the statistical uncertainties (Hobson et al., 2023), but
sometimes the systematic uncertainties are overestimates for parameters with
empirical constraints, such as the mean stellar density (Eastman et al.,
2022). In this paper we also describe a method for incorporating systematic
errors in stellar evolution models into the analysis of transiting planet
systems in a manner that self-consistently allows for tighter empirical
constraints on parameters when available.

In the following section we discuss the observations that are used to confirm
and characterize each planetary system. In section 3 we describe the analysis
methods. In section 4 we discuss the results.

##  2 Observations

All five of the systems presented here were first detected as transiting
planet candidates based on observations by the NASA TESS mission. Additional
ground-based light curves and high-precision RV measurements were gathered for
each system and combined with catalog astrometric and photometric data to
determine the parameters of the system (Section 3). Three of the systems
discussed here (TOI 519, TOI 3629 and TOI 3714) have already been studied in
the literature. For these systems we briefly describe the published data that
we employed and then describe our new RV observations and light curves. For
the two systems that are new discoveries (TOI 4201 and TOI 5344) we describe
in greater detail the space-based and ground-based light curves as well as the
RV observations used to confirm the objects as transiting planet systems. The
light curves used in the analysis of each system are summarized in Table 1,
while the RV data are summarized in Table 2.

###  2.1 TOI 519

Parviainen et al. (2021) announced the discovery of TOI 519 b, and Kagetani et
al. (2023) published a mass measurement for the planet based on Subaru/IRD RV
measurements. Transits of this system were first detected in the Sector 7
observations from TESS. The TESS observations were obtained at 120 s cadence,
and reduced to trend-filtered light curves by the NASA Science Processing
Operations Center (SPOC) Pipeline at NASA Ames Research Center (Jenkins et
al., 2016, 2010). Multiple threshold crossing events were detected and the
target passed all of the data validation tests conducted by the pipeline. The
Sector 7 light curve was combined with a variety of multi-band ground-based
light curves to rule out a stellar mass companion to TOI 519. Here we combine
the light curves that were previously used by Parviainen et al. (2021) with
new RV observations from Keck-I/HIRES to determine the parameters of the
system.

####  2.1.1 High-Contrast Imaging

High-contrast imaging observations to search for resolved stellar companions
of TOI 519 have been reported on ExoFOP-
TESS333https://exofop.ipac.caltech.edu/tess/index.php, but were not included
in Parviainen et al. (2021). These observations include Adaptive Optics (AO)
imaging in the $K$-band with the NIRC2 instrument on the Keck-II 10 m
telescope on the night of 2019 Apr 7, speckle imaging at 692 nm and 880 nm
with the DSSI instrument on the LDT 4.3 m telescope on 2020 Feb 10, and
speckle imaging at 562 nm and 832 nm with the Álopeke instrument on the Gemini
8 m telescope on the night of 2020 Feb 18. No companions were detected in any
of these observations. The LDT/DSSI observations were reported in Clark et al.
(2022). The NIRC2 observations and reductions followed the approach described
by Schlieder et al. (2021). The estimated PSF width of the resulting image is
0$\farcs$103, and a contrast of $\Delta K=7.742$ mag at 0$\farcs$5 separation
is achieved. For the Álopeke observations, data were reduced as described in
Howell et al. (2011) and the $5\sigma$ contrast achieved is $\Delta m=4.86$
mag at 0$\farcs$5 for the 832 nm observation, and $\Delta m=4.01$ mag at
0$\farcs$5 for the 562 nm observation.

####  2.1.2 Light Curves

In addition to the 120 s cadence TESS light curve from Sector 7 that was
produced by SPOC and included in the analysis of Parviainen et al. (2021), TOI
519 was also observed by TESS at 120 s cadence during Sectors 34 and 61, as
well as at 30 min cadence via the full-frame-images (FFIs) gathered during
Sector 8. We obtained the 120 s cadence SPOC light curves from MAST for the
three relevant sectors, while for Sector 8 an FFI light curve for this source
was not publicly available, so we do not include those data in the analysis.
We used the Pre-search Data Conditioning (PDC) light curves from the SPOC
project (Stumpe et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2012; Stumpe et al., 2012).

Ground-based follow-up light curves of TOI 519 obtained with the Las Cumbres
Observatory Global Telescope (LCOGT) 1 m network (Brown et al., 2013) and with
the MuSCAT2 multicolor imager (Narita et al., 2019) on the 1.52 m Telescopio
Carlos Sánchez (TCS) at Teide Observatory have all been presented and
discussed by Parviainen et al. (2021), who made these data available to us.

A light curve of TOI 519 was obtained with the Chilean-Hungarian Automated
Telescope (CHAT) 0.7 m telescope at Las Campanas Observatory in Chile. These
observations were carried out through an $i$-band filter on the night of 24
March 2019, and were reduced to trend-filtered light curves following Jordán
et al. (2019).

A total of six distinct transit events of TOI 519 b were observed with the
Exoplanets in Transits and their Atmospheres (ExTrA) facility (Bonfils et al.,
2015). Five of the events were observed by two of the three 0.6 m ExTrA
telescopes, leading to a total of eleven independent transit lights curves
from ExTrA that we include in the analysis of this system. Spectro-photometric
observations were carried out over a wavelength range of 0.85 $\mu$m to 1.55
$\mu$m, and were reduced to light curves integrated over the full bandpass
following Cointepas et al. (2021).

An additional transit of TOI 519 b was observed in $r$ and $z_{s}$-bands on
2022 Mar 19 with MuSCAT2. These data were reduced to light curves following
Parviainen et al. (2020).

####  2.1.3 Radial Velocities

We obtained Keck-I/HIRES (Vogt et al., 1994) observations of TOI 519 between
2021 Oct 26 and 2022 Jan 08. A total of seven observations were obtained
through the I2 cell, together with a single I2-free template exposure.
Observations were carried out through the California Planet Search (CPS;
Howard et al., 2010; Howard & Fulton, 2016) queue, and were made using the C2
decker with an exposure time of 900 s. The seeing ranged between 0$\farcs$9
and 1$\farcs$7, and the total counts recorded by the HIRES exposure meter for
each observation were between 600 and 3200.

The HIRES spectra were reduced to relative radial velocity measurements and
corrected for barycentric motion following standard CPS procedures. Spectral-
line bisector span (BS) measurements were determined following Torres et al.
(2007). The data are included in Table 5 and plotted in Figure 1.

Kagetani et al. (2023) published 18 RVs of TOI 519 derived from mid-IR spectra
obtained with Subaru/IRD (Tamura et al., 2012; Kotani et al., 2018). We
incorporated these RV measurements into our joint analysis of this system.

###  2.2 TOI 3629

TOI 3629 was identified as as a transiting planet candidate by Cañas et al.
(2022) who carried out a custom reduction of the 30 min cadence TESS
observations performed during Sector 17 of the mission. This object was also
independently selected as a transiting planet candidate by the TESS Quick Look
Pipeline (QLP) (Huang et al., 2020). TOI 3629 was also confirmed as a
transiting planet by Cañas et al. (2022) based on RV observations with the
Habitable-zone Planet Finder (HPF; Mahadevan et al., 2012, 2014) and NEID
(Halverson et al., 2016; Schwab et al., 2016) spectrographs.

We obtained Keck-I/HIRES observations TOI 3629. Here we combine the light
curves and RVs for this system from Cañas et al. (2022) with the new
Keck-I/HIRES RVs, and an additional Sector of TESS observations, and a set of
ground-based light curves not analyzed by Cañas et al. (2022) to update the
parameters for the system.

####  2.2.1 High-Contrast Imaging

High-contrast imaging of TOI 3629 was reported by Cañas et al. (2022), who
ruled out bright companions with a magnitude difference $\Delta{\rm m}<4$ at
separations between 0$\farcs$2 and 1$\farcs$2 from TOI 3629.

####  2.2.2 Light Curves

We make use of the 30 min cadence TESS Sector 17 light curve of TOI 3629
produced by the QLP, and made accessible on MAST. For our analysis we use the
detrended time series denoted with the keyword KSPSAP (i.e., it was produced
through the Kepler Spline Simple Aperture Photometry method). In addition to
the Sector 17 observations, TOI 3629 was also observed at 120 s cadence during
Sector 57 of the TESS mission. We make use of the PDC light curve produced by
SPOC from these data, which we obtained from MAST.

Ground-based follow-up light curves of TOI 3629 have been made available on
the ExoFOP-TESS archive maintained by the NASA Exoplanet Archive at IPAC. None
of these light curves were previously included in the analysis of Cañas et al.
(2022), so we describe these here. We do not include light curves that did not
cover the transit event in this discussion.

An ingress was observed in $i^{\prime}$ with the SINISTRO imager on one of the
LCOGT 1 m telescopes at Teide Observatory, in Spain, on the night of 17 Oct
2021. Light curves were derived from these observations using AstroImageJ
(Collins et al., 2017).

A full transit of TOI 3629 was observed using the MuSCAT2 imager on the 1.52 m
TCS on the night of 24 Oct 2021. Observations were performed simultaneously in
$g$, $r$, $i$, and $z_{s}$. Light curves were produced from the observations
in a similar fashion to TOI 519 (Section 2.1.2).

While we restrict our analysis to the light curves discussed above, we note
that Cañas et al. (2022) presented additional follow-up transit light curves
of TOI 3629 from the RBO 0.6 m telescope, and the 1.55 m Kuiper Telescope.

####  2.2.3 Radial Velocities

Cañas et al. (2022) published RV observations of TOI 3629 from HPF and NEID.
These include a total of 23 HPF RVs obtained between 2021 Jan 18 and 22 Jan
14, and five NEID RVs obtained between 2021 Sep 21 and 2021 Nov 28. We
included these published RVs in the re-analysis of the system presented in
Section 3.

We carried out spectroscopic observations of TOI 3629 with Keck-I/HIRES
between 2022 Jun 07 and 2022 Sep 18. A total of nine spectra were gathered
through the I2 cell, and a single I2-free template spectrum was also obtained.
Observations were made through the C2 decker with seeing between 0$\farcs$9
and 1$\farcs$3\. The template spectrum had an exposure time of 1200 s, while
most of the I2-in observations had exposure times of 900 s. Two of the I2-in
observations had shorter exposure times of 748 s and 796 s. The exposure meter
recorded between 4600 and 10,000 counts during each observation. The
observations were reduced to high-precision RVs and BS measurements following
the same methods as discussed for TOI 519.

###  2.3 TOI 3714

TOI 3714 was selected as a candidate transiting planet system by the QLP
project based on 30 min cadence TESS FFI observations carried out in Sector
19. Like TOI 3629, TOI 3714 was also previously confirmed by Cañas et al.
(2022) based on HPF and NEID RVs. We independently observed TOI 3714 with
Keck-I/HIRES. Here we revise the parameters for this system by combining the
data from Cañas et al. (2022) with the new RVs.

####  2.3.1 High-Contrast Imaging

High-contrast imaging of TOI 3714 was reported by Cañas et al. (2022), who
ruled out bright companions with $\Delta{\rm m}<4$ at separations between
0$\farcs$2 and 1$\farcs$2 from TOI 3714. TOI 3714, however, does have a white
dwarf companion that is reported in Gaia DR3 (Gaia Collaboration et al., 2022)
at a separation of 2$\farcs$67, and with $\Delta G=4.56$ relative to TOI 3714.
Cañas et al. (2022) measure a mass of $\sim 1.07$ $M_{\sun}$ and a cooling age
of $\sim 2.4$ Gyr for this white dwarf. They adopted this as the age of the
TOI 3714 system.

####  2.3.2 Light Curves

At the time of our analysis the only TESS observations available for TOI 3714
were the Sector 19 FFI data. We made use of the QLP light curve derived from
these data, and available on MAST, and used the KSPSAP detrended time series
in our analysis.

An ingress of TOI 3714 was observed using the MUSCAT3 instrument (Narita et
al., 2020) on the LCOGT 2.0 m telescope at Haleakala on the night of 2021 Sep
03\. Observations were gathered simultaneously through $g^{\prime}$,
$r^{\prime}$, $i^{\prime}$ and $z_{s}$ filters. The data reduction and
differential photometry was performed using the pipeline described in Fukui et
al. (2011).

An egress was observed using MuSCAT2 on 2021 Aug 28 through $g$, $i$ and
$z_{s}$ bands, while a full transit was observed with this instrument on 2021
Sep 25 in the $g$, $r$, $i$ and $z_{s}$ bands. These data were reduced to
light curves in a similar fashion to the MuSCAT2 observations of TOI 519.

Two full transits of TOI 3714 were observed on the nights of 2022 Sep 21 and
2022 Oct 30 using the 0.6 m TRAPPIST-North (TRAnsiting Planets and
PlanetesImals Small Telescope, Jehin et al., 2011; Gillon et al., 2011;
Barkaoui et al., 2019) telescope. The first night of observations were carried
out in the $I+z$-band, while the observations on the second night were
performed using a $z$-band filter. Observations were scheduled using the tools
of Jensen (2013), and the data were reduced to light curves following Garcia
et al. (2022).

Two full transits of TOI 3714 were observed using the SPECULOOS-North 1.0 m
telescope (Delrez et al., 2018; Sebastian et al., 2021; Burdanov et al., 2022)
and an Andor ikon-L imager on the nights of 2022 Oct 19 and 2022 Oct 30\. The
first transit was observed in $g^{\prime}$, while the second was observed in
$r$. The observations were scheduled following Sebastian et al. (2021), and
reduced to light curves following Murray et al. (2020) and Garcia et al.
(2021, 2022).

In addition to the above transit observations, Cañas et al. (2022) also
reported RBO 0.6 m observations of TOI 3714 on the nights of 2021 Aug 16 and
2021 Nov 19, and observations with the ARCTIC imager on the ARC 3.5 m
telescope at Apache Point Observatory on the night of 2021 Nov 21. These data
have not been published in an electronically accessible form, and we do not
include them in our analysis of the system.

####  2.3.3 Radial Velocities

Cañas et al. (2022) published RV observations of TOI 3714 from HPF and NEID.
These include a total of 12 HPF RVs obtained between 2021 Aug 24 and 2021 Dec
23, and eight NEID RVs obtained between 2021 Sep 22 and 2022 Jan 01. We
included these published RVs in the re-analysis of the system presented in
Section 3.

We carried out spectroscopic observations of TOI 3714 with Keck-I/HIRES
between 2021 Sep 21 and 2021 Nov 28. A total of seven spectra were gathered
through the I2 cell, and a single I2-free template spectrum was also obtained.
Observations were made through the C2 decker with seeing between 1$\farcs$0
and 1$\farcs$6\. The template spectrum had an exposure time of 619 s, while
most of the I2-in observations had exposure times of 900 s. One of the I2-in
observations had an exposure time of 945 s. The exposure meter recorded
between 2200 and 5000 counts during each observation. The observations were
reduced to high-precision RVs and BS measurements following the same methods
as discussed for TOI 519 (Section 2.1.3).

###  2.4 TOI 4201

TOI 4201 was identified as a transiting planet candidate by QLP based on a
search of the TESS FFI observations gathered during Sector 6 of the mission.
The TESS Science Office (TSO) reviewed the vetting information and issued an
alert on 2021 July 12 following the process described by Guerrero et al.
(2021). Since confirmation of this object as a transiting planet has not yet
been published, we describe all of the RV and photometric observations that we
use to confirm the existence of this planet.

####  2.4.1 High-Contrast Imaging

High-contrast speckle imaging was performed with the Zorro instrument on the
Gemini 8 m telescope (Scott et al., 2021). Observations were obtained at 832
nm and 562 nm on 2023 Apr 24. The data were processed following the methods of
(Howell et al., 2011). No companions were detected, and contrast limits of
5.28 mag and 3.52 mag are achieved at separations greater than 0$\farcs$5 in
the 832 nm and 562 nm filters respectively. Furthermore, no neighbors are
listed within 10″ of TOI 4201 in the Gaia DR3 catalog either.

####  2.4.2 Light Curves

We extracted an image-subtraction-based light curve from the TESS FFI Sector 6
observations of TOI 4201 following the methods of the CDIPS project (Bouma et
al., 2019). We decorrelated against trends in the time-series using a
B-spline, and then applied the TFA algorithm to filter additional systematic
variations from the data.

TOI 4201 was observed by the LCOGT 1 m telescopes at Siding Spring Observatory
(SSO), the South Africa Astronomical Observatory (SAAO) and Cerro Tololo
Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) on the nights of 2021 Sep 1, 2021 Sep 26,
and 2021 Oct 3, respectively. The first night was observed using an
$i^{\prime}$ filter, while observations on the second and third nights were
obtained using both $i^{\prime}$ and $g^{\prime}$ filters. Observations on the
first night were out of transit, so we do not include these data in the
analysis. The second night covered an ingress, while the third night covered a
full transit event. These data were reduced to light curves using AstroImageJ
(Collins et al., 2017).

An full transit of TOI 4201 was observed in $z^{\prime}$ on 2023 Feb 24 using
the SPECULOOS-North 1 m telescope. These observations and reductions were
carried out in a similar fashion to the SPECULOOS observations of TOI 3714
(Section 2.3.2).

A full transit was observed on 2022 Jan 30 in $g$, $r$, and $z$-bands with
MuSCAT (Narita et al., 2015). These were reduced to light curves in a similar
fashion to the reduction of the MuSCAT3 observation of TOI 3714 (Section
2.3.2).

Transits were observed with the ExTrA facility on 2022 Nov 2, 2022 Dec 15,
2023 Jan 20, and 2023 Mar 4. A total of eight independent $0.85$ $\mu$m–1.55
$\mu$m light curves were obtained with the various telescopes from this
facility. The data were reduced in a similar manner as TOI 519 (Section
2.1.2).

####  2.4.3 Radial Velocities

We carried out spectroscopic observations of TOI 4201 with Keck-I/HIRES
between 2022 Sep 7 and 2023 Jan 10. A total of twelve exposures were taken
through the I2 cell, and a single I2-free template spectrum was also obtained.
Observations were made through the C2 decker with seeing between 1$\farcs$0
and 1$\farcs$8\. The template spectrum had an exposure time of 1200 s, while
the I2-in observations had exposure times between 900 s and 1300 s. The
exposure meter recorded between 2500 and 5,000 counts during each observation.
The observations were reduced to high-precision RVs and BS measurements
following the same methods as discussed for TOI 519 (Section 2.1.3).

###  2.5 TOI 5344

TOI 5344 was identified as a transiting planet candidate by the QLP based on a
search of the TESS FFI observations gathered for this target during Sectors 43
and 44 of the mission. The TSO reviewed the vetting information and issued an
alert on 2022 Feb 28. Since confirmation of this object as a transiting planet
has not yet been published, we describe all of the RV and photometric
observations that we use to confirm the existence of the planet.

####  2.5.1 High-Contrast Imaging

High-contrast speckle interferometric $I$-band imaging of TOI 5344 was
obtained with the 2.5 m telescope at the Caucasian Observatory of Sternberg
Astronomical Institute (SAI) of Lomonosov Moscow State University (Strakhov et
al., 2023) on 2023 Jan 27. No companion is detected to a contrast limit of
$\Delta I<4$ mag at separations of 0$\farcs$2 or more and $\Delta I<7$ mag at
separations of 1″or more.

####  2.5.2 Light Curves

We use the QLP light curves of TOI 5344 derived from the TESS FFI observations
from Sectors 43 and 44 of the mission. We accessed these data from MAST, and
make use of the KSPSAP detrended time series for each sector.

A full transit of TOI 5344 was observed using the SBIG imager on the LCOGT 0.4
m telescope at Teide Observatory on the night of 2022 Mar 1. The observations
were performed using an $i^{\prime}$ filter, and were reduced to light curves
using AstroImageJ (Collins et al., 2017).

A full transit was also observed using the TRAPPIST-North 0.6 m telescope and
an $I+z$ filter on the night of 2022 Aug 26\. Observations were scheduled and
reduced in a similar manner to TRAPPIST-North observations of TOI 3714
(Section 2.3.2).

Two transits were observed with the ExTrA facility on 2022 Dec 15 and 2023 Jan
22. A total of five independent $0.85$ $\mu$m–1.55 $\mu$m light curves were
obtained with the various telescopes from this facility. The data were reduced
in a similar fashion as TOI 519 (Section 2.1.2).

A full transit was observed with MuSCAT2 simultaneously in the $g$, $r$, $i$,
and $z_{s}$ bands on 2022 Dec 18. The observations were carried out and
reduced in a similar manner to TOI 519 (Section 2.1.2).

Finally, a full transit was observed with the SPECULOOS-North 1.0 m telescope
through a $g^{\prime}$ filter on 2023 Jun 6. The observations and reductions
were carried out in a similar fashion to the SPECULOOS observations and
reductions of TOI 3714 (Section 2.3.2).

####  2.5.3 Radial Velocities

We carried out spectroscopic observations of TOI 5344 with Keck-I/HIRES
between 2022 Sep 1 and 2023 Jan 10. A total of thirteen exposures were taken
through the I2 cell, and a single I2-free template spectrum was also obtained.
Observations were made through the C2 decker with seeing between 0$\farcs$9
and 1$\farcs$6\. The template spectrum had an exposure time of 1200 s, while
the I2-in observations had exposure times between 900 s and 1200 s. The
exposure meter recorded between 3,000 and 5,000 counts during each
observation. The observations were reduced to high-precision RVs and BS
measurements following the same methods as discussed for TOI 519 (Section
2.1.3).

Table 1:  Summary of photometric observations  Instrument/Fieldaa For TESS data we list the Sector from which the observations are taken.  | Date(s) | # Imagesbb Excluding any outliers or other data not included in the modelling.  | Cadencecc The median time between consecutive images rounded to the nearest second. Due to factors such as weather, the day–night cycle, guiding and focus corrections the cadence is only approximately uniform over short timescales.  | Filter | Precisiondd The RMS of the residuals from the best-fit model. Note that in the case of TESS observations the transit may appear artificially shallower due to over-filtering and/or blending from unresolved neighbors. As a result the S/N of the transit may be less than what would be calculated from $R_{p}/R_{\star}$ and the RMS estimates given here.
---|---|---|---|---|---
|  |  | (sec) |  | (mmag)
TOI 519
TESS/Sector 7 | 2019 Jan–2019 Feb | 16,240 | 120 | $T$ | 32.1
TESS/Sector 34 | 2021 Jan–2021 Feb | 16,835 | 120 | $T$ | 21.5
TESS/Sector 61 | 2023 Jan–2023 Feb | 15,453 | 120 | $T$ | 21.4
CHAT 0.7 m | 2019 Mar 24 | 31 | 258 | $i$ | 7.3
LCOGT 1.0 m | 2019 Mar 29 | 108 | 86 | $g^{\prime}$ | 20.4
LCOGT 1.0 m | 2019 Apr 1 | 53 | 176 | $i^{\prime}$ | 7.0
LCOGT 1.0 m | 2019 Apr 16 | 51 | 176 | $B$ | 26.9
LCOGT 1.0 m | 2019 Apr 16 | 77 | 176 | $z_{s}$ | 4.3
MuSCAT2 | 2019 Nov 23 | 166 | 63 | $g$ | 19.4
MuSCAT2 | 2019 Nov 23 | 166 | 63 | $r$ | 9.4
MuSCAT2 | 2019 Nov 23 | 166 | 63 | $i$ | 5.9
MuSCAT2 | 2019 Nov 23 | 166 | 63 | $z_{s}$ | 5.2
MuSCAT2 | 2020 Jan 9 | 118 | 63 | $g$ | 56.5
MuSCAT2 | 2020 Jan 9 | 116 | 63 | $r$ | 16.8
MuSCAT2 | 2020 Jan 9 | 119 | 63 | $i$ | 8.3
MuSCAT2 | 2020 Jan 9 | 118 | 63 | $z_{s}$ | 6.2
MuSCAT2 | 2020 Jan 14 | 130 | 63 | $g$ | 53.9
MuSCAT2 | 2020 Jan 14 | 131 | 63 | $r$ | 16.3
MuSCAT2 | 2020 Jan 14 | 131 | 63 | $i$ | 8.0
MuSCAT2 | 2020 Jan 14 | 131 | 63 | $z_{s}$ | 4.7
MuSCAT2 | 2020 Feb 29 | 525 | 16 | $g$ | 60.2
MuSCAT2 | 2020 Feb 29 | 137 | 60 | $r$ | 11.8
MuSCAT2 | 2020 Feb 29 | 138 | 60 | $i$ | 7.5
MuSCAT2 | 2020 Feb 29 | 137 | 60 | $z_{s}$ | 6.2
ExTrA - tel2 | 2021 Jan 30 | 164 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 15.5
ExTrA - tel3 | 2021 Jan 30 | 163 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 11.8
ExTrA - tel2 | 2021 Feb 9 | 178 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 18.6
ExTrA - tel3 | 2021 Feb 9 | 179 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 13.4
ExTrA - tel2 | 2021 Mar 4 | 188 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 12.1
ExTrA - tel3 | 2021 Mar 4 | 189 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 11.5
ExTrA - tel2 | 2021 Mar 9 | 149 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 11.5
ExTrA - tel3 | 2021 Mar 9 | 147 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 11.6
ExTrA - tel2 | 2021 Mar 23 | 190 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 14.9
ExTrA - tel3 | 2021 Mar 23 | 191 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 12.2
ExTrA - tel2 | 2021 Apr 16 | 186 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 16.9
MuSCAT2 | 2022 Mar 19 | 150 | 91 | $r$ | 25.5
MuSCAT2 | 2022 Mar 19 | 152 | 91 | $z_{s}$ | 7.2
TOI 3629
TESS/Sector 17 | 2019 Oct 9–31 | 693 | 1800 | $T$ | 2.0
TESS/Sector 57 | 2022 Sep–2022 Oct | 17,966 | 120 | $T$ | 5.9
LCOGT 1.0 m | 2021 Oct 17 | 244 | 90 | $i^{\prime}$ | 1.7
MuSCAT2 | 2021 Oct 25 | 176 | 60 | $g$ | 4.4
MuSCAT2 | 2021 Oct 25 | 215 | 51 | $r$ | 2.9
MuSCAT2 | 2021 Oct 25 | 677 | 16 | $i$ | 3.9
MuSCAT2 | 2021 Oct 25 | 420 | 26 | $z_{s}$ | 3.2
TOI 3714
TESS/Sector 19 | 2019 Nov–2019 Dec | 812 | 1800 | $T$ | 3.9
MuSCAT2 | 2021 Aug 28 | 96 | 91 | $g$ | 46.1
MuSCAT2 | 2021 Aug 28 | 100 | 91 | $i$ | 19.5
MuSCAT2 | 2021 Aug 28 | 72 | 91 | $z_{s}$ | 20.6
MuSCAT3/LCOGT 2.0 m | 2021 Sep 3 | 35 | 303 | $g^{\prime}$ | 1.6
MuSCAT3/LCOGT 2.0 m | 2021 Sep 3 | 98 | 111 | $r^{\prime}$ | 2.0
MuSCAT3/LCOGT 2.0 m | 2021 Sep 3 | 186 | 59 | $i^{\prime}$ | 1.9
MuSCAT3/LCOGT 2.0 m | 2021 Sep 3 | 184 | 60 | $z_{s}$ | 1.6
MuSCAT2 | 2021 Sep 25 | 422 | 35 | $g$ | 8.6
MuSCAT2 | 2021 Sep 25 | 214 | 71 | $r$ | 4.6
MuSCAT2 | 2021 Sep 25 | 577 | 26 | $i$ | 4.0
MuSCAT2 | 2021 Sep 25 | 581 | 26 | $z_{s}$ | 3.7
TRAPPIST-North | 2022 Sep 21 | 256 | 70 | $I+z$ | 3.1
SPECULOOS-North | 2022 Oct 19 | 149 | 130 | $g^{\prime}$ | 4.0
SPECULOOS-North | 2022 Oct 30 | 222 | 67 | $r^{\prime}$ | 3.3
TRAPPIST-North | 2022 Oct 30 | 160 | 100 | $z$ | 3.5
TOI 4201
TESS/Sector 6 | 2018 Dec–2019 Jan | 977 | 1800 | $T$ | 8.7
LCOGT 1.0 m | 2021 Sep 26 | 23 | 545 | $g^{\prime}$ | 9.1
LCOGT 1.0 m | 2021 Sep 26 | 24 | 545 | $i^{\prime}$ | 6.5
LCOGT 1.0 m | 2021 Oct 3 | 26 | 546 | $g^{\prime}$ | 3.7
LCOGT 1.0 m | 2021 Oct 3 | 25 | 546 | $i^{\prime}$ | 4.2
MuSCAT | 2022 Jan 30 | 124 | 121 | $g$ | 3.7
MuSCAT | 2022 Jan 30 | 300 | 51 | $r$ | 2.4
MuSCAT | 2022 Jan 30 | 298 | 51 | $z$ | 2.0
ExTrA - tel2 | 2022 Nov 2 | 162 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 6.5
ExTrA - tel1 | 2022 Dec 15 | 152 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 5.5
ExTrA - tel2 | 2022 Dec 15 | 152 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 6.5
ExTrA - tel3 | 2022 Dec 15 | 152 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 6.5
ExTrA - tel3 | 2023 Jan 20 | 210 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 7.1
SPECULOOS-North | 2023 Feb 24 | 513 | 30 | $z^{\prime}$ | 3.9
ExTrA - tel1 | 2023 Mar 4 | 184 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 6.6
ExTrA - tel2 | 2023 Mar 4 | 182 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 7.8
ExTrA - tel3 | 2023 Mar 4 | 184 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 10.1
TOI 5344
TESS/Sector 43 | 2021 Sep–2021 Oct | 2815 | 600 | $T$ | 7.5
TESS/Sector 44 | 2021 Oct–2021 Nov | 2756 | 600 | $T$ | 6.0
LCOGT 0.4 m | 2022 Mar 1 | 26 | 417 | $i^{\prime}$ | 4.6
TRAPPIST-North | 2022 Aug 26 | 150 | 80 | $I+z$ | 3.1
ExTrA - tel1 | 2022 Dec 15 | 161 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 5.1
ExTrA - tel2 | 2022 Dec 15 | 160 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 4.8
ExTrA - tel3 | 2022 Dec 15 | 161 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 4.7
MuSCAT2 | 2022 Dec 18 | 341 | 41 | $g$ | 7.7
MuSCAT2 | 2022 Dec 18 | 340 | 41 | $r$ | 4.5
MuSCAT2 | 2022 Dec 18 | 649 | 21 | $i$ | 4.8
MuSCAT2 | 2022 Dec 18 | 652 | 21 | $z_{s}$ | 5.3
SPECULOOS-North | 2023 Jan 6 | 108 | 170 | $g^{\prime}$ | 4.0
ExTrA - tel2 | 2023 Jan 22 | 103 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 5.8
ExTrA - tel3 | 2023 Jan 22 | 102 | 62 | 0.85–1.55 $\mu$m | 5.1

Figure 1:  Observations incorporated into the analysis of the transiting
planet system TOI 519. Top: Transit light curves with fitted model
overplotted. The dates, filters and instruments used are indicated. Additional
light curves for this system are shown in Figure 2. (Caption continued on next
page.)  Figure 1:  (Caption continued from previous page.) For TESS we phase-
fold the data, and plot the un-binned observations in grey, with the phase-
binned values overplotted in blue. The residuals for each light curve are
shown on the right-hand-side in the same order as the original light curves.
The error bars represent the photon and background shot noise, plus the
readout noise. Note that these uncertainties are increased by a common factor
in the fitting procedure to achieve a reduced $\chi^{2}$ of unity, but the
uncertainties shown in the plot have not been scaled. Bottom Left: High-
precision RVs phased with respect to the mid-transit time. The top panel shows
the phased measurements together with the best-fit model. The center-of-mass
velocity has been subtracted. The middle panel shows the velocity $O\\!-\\!C$
residuals. The error bars include the estimated jitter, which is varied as a
free parameter in the fitting. The bottom panel shows the spectral line
bisector spans Bottom Right: Color-magnitude diagram (CMD) and spectral energy
distribution (SED). The top panel shows the absolute $G$ magnitude vs. the de-
reddened $G-K_{S}$ color compared to theoretical isochrones (black lines) and
stellar evolution tracks (green lines) from the MIST models interpolated at
the best-estimate value for the metallicity of the host. The age of each
isochrone is listed in black in Gyr, while the mass of each evolution track is
listed in green in solar masses. The solid red lines show isochrones at higher
and lower metallicities than the best-estimate value, with the metallicity and
age in Gyr of each isochrone labelled on the plot. The filled blue circle
shows the measured reddening- and distance-corrected values from Gaia DR2 and
2MASS, while the blue lines indicate the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ confidence
regions, including the estimated systematic errors in the photometry. The
middle panel shows the SED as measured via broadband photometry through the
listed filters. Here we plot the observed magnitudes without correcting for
distance or extinction. Overplotted are 200 model SEDs randomly selected from
the MCMC posterior distribution produced through the global analysis (gray
lines). The model makes use of the predicted absolute magnitudes in each
bandpass from the MIST isochrones, the distance to the system (constrained
largely via Gaia DR2) and extinction (constrained from the SED with a prior
coming from the mwdust 3D Galactic extinction model). The bottom panel shows
the $O\\!-\\!C$ residuals from the best-fit model SED. The errors listed in
the catalogs for the broad-band photometry measurements are shown with black
lines, while the errors including an assumed 0.02 mag systematic uncertainty,
which is added in quadrature to the listed uncertainties, are shown with red
lines. These latter uncertainties are what we use in the fit.  Figure 2:
Additional light curves used in the analysis of TOI 519 displayed in the same
manner as the other light curves shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 3:  Same as Figure 1, here we show the observations of TOI 3629
together with our best-fit model.

Figure 4:  Same as Figure 1, here we show the observations of TOI 3714
together with our best-fit model.

Figure 5:  Same as Figure 1, here we show the observations of TOI 4201
together with our best-fit model.

Figure 6:  Same as Figure 1, here we show the observations of TOI 5344 together with our best-fit model.  Table 2:  Summary of radial velocity observations.  Instrument | UT Date(s) | # Spec. | S/N Rangeaa S/N from the exposure meter for the Keck-I/HIRES observation.  | RV Precisionbb The scatter in the RV residuals from the best-fit orbit which may include astrophysical jitter. We do not an RV precision estimate for the Keck-I/HIRES template I2-free template observations.  | Source
---|---|---|---|---|---
|  |  |  | ($\rm m\,s^{-1}$) |
TOI 519
Subaru/IRD | 2021 May 4 – 2022 Jan 24 | 18 | $\cdots$ | $42$ | Kagetani et al. (2023)
Keck-I/HIRES | 2021 Oct 26 | 1 | $44$ | $\cdots$ | this paper
Keck-I/HIRES+I2 | 2021 Nov 19 – 2022 Jan 8 | 7 | 24–57 | $70$ | this paper
TOI 3629
Hobby-Eberly/HPF | 2021 Jan 18 – 2022 Jan 14 | 23 | $\cdots$ | $18$ | Cañas et al. (2022)
WIYN 3.5m/NEID | 2021 Sep 21 – 2021 Nov 28 | 5 | $\cdots$ | $13$ | Cañas et al. (2022)
Keck-I/HIRES | 2022 Jun 7 | 1 | $100$ | $\cdots$ | this paper
Keck-I/HIRES+I2 | 2022 Aug 11 – 2022 Sep 18 | 9 | 68–77 | $16$ | this paper
TOI 3714
Hobby-Eberly/HPF | 2021 Aug 24 – 2021 Dec 23 | 12 | $\cdots$ | $33$ | Cañas et al. (2022)
Keck-I/HIRES+I2 | 2021 Sep 21 | 1 | $71$ | $\cdots$ | this paper
WIYN 3.5m/NEID | 2021 Sep 22 – 2022 Jan 8 | 8 | $\cdots$ | $11$ | Cañas et al. (2022)
Keck-I/HIRES+I2 | 2021 Sep 24 – 2021 Nov 28 | 7 | 47–70 | $18$ | this paper
TOI 4201
Keck-I/HIRES | 2022 Sep 7 | 1 | $66$ | $\cdots$ | this paper
Keck-I/HIRES+I2 | 2022 Sep 9 – 2023 Jan 10 | 12 | 50–71 | $41$ | this paper
TOI 5344
Keck-I/HIRES+I2 | 2022 Sep 1 – 2023 Jan 10 | 13 | 55–71 | $15$ | this paper
Keck-I/HIRES | 2022 Sep 7 | 1 | $68$ | $1$ | this paper

##  3 Analysis

###  3.1 Derivation of Stellar Atmospheric Parameters

The stellar atmospheric parameters $T_{\rm eff\star}$ and $\rm[Fe/H]$ were
adopted or derived for each system as follows. We did not determine $v\sin{i}$
values for any of the stars studied here, as the processes used to determine
the atmospheric parameters do not yield reliable $v\sin{i}$ values for M dwarf
stars. We visually confirm that none of the spectra show notable rotational
broadening, from which we estimate an upper limit of $v\sin{i}\lesssim 10$
$\rm km\,s^{-1}$ for each system.

##### TOI 519:

We applied the SpecMatch-Empirical procedure (Yee et al., 2017) to the HIRES
spectra of TOI 519 to measure $T_{\rm eff\star}=3367\pm 70$ K and
$\rm[Fe/H]=-0.010\pm 0.090$. For comparison, Parviainen et al. (2021) list
$T_{\rm eff\star}=3350\pm 200$ K. They obtained this value by determining a
spectral type of M3.0–M4.5 based on a low-resolution spectrum from the
Alhambra Faint Object Spectrograph and Camera (ALFOSC) on the Nordic Optical
Telescope (NOT). This was then translated to an estimate of the effective
temperature using the spectral type–$T_{\rm eff\star}$ relation from Houdebine
et al. (2019).

##### TOI 3629:

We adopted $T_{\rm eff\star}=3870\pm 90$ K and $\rm[Fe/H]=0.40\pm 0.10$ from
Cañas et al. (2022) who applied the HPF-SpecMatch package (Stefansson et al.,
2020) to the HPF spectra of TOI 3629. For comparison, applying the SpecMatch-
Empirical procedure to the HIRES spectra gives $T_{\rm eff\star}=3789\pm 70$ K
and $\rm[Fe/H]=0.48\pm 0.09$, consistent with the HPF values.

##### TOI 3714:

We adopted $T_{\rm eff\star}=3660\pm 90$ K and $\rm[Fe/H]=0.10\pm 0.10$ from
Cañas et al. (2022) who measured these parameters for TOI 3714 in the same
fashion as they did for TOI 3629. For comparison, applying the SpecMatch-
Empirical procedure to the HIRES spectra gives $T_{\rm eff\star}=3594\pm 70$ K
and $\rm[Fe/H]=0.12\pm 0.09$, consistent with the HPF values.

##### TOI 4201:

We applied the SpecMatch-Empirical procedure to the HIRES spectra of TOI 4201
to measure $T_{\rm eff\star}=3937\pm 70$ K and $\rm[Fe/H]=0.390\pm 0.090$.

##### TOI 5344:

We applied the SpecMatch-Empirical procedure to the HIRES spectra of TOI 5344
to measure $T_{\rm eff\star}=3766\pm 70$ K and $\rm[Fe/H]=0.390\pm 0.090$.

###  3.2 Transiting Planet Modelling

We performed a joint analysis for each system of the light curves, RV
observations, astrometric parallaxes, catalog broad-band photometric
measurements, and spectroscopic atmospheric parameters (Tables 3 and 4). To do
this we followed the methods of Hartman et al. (2019) and Bakos et al. (2020),
but with a significant modification to account for systematic errors in the
theoretical stellar evolution models used in the fit. We discuss this
modification in more detail below.

We model the light curves using the model of Mandel & Agol (2002), assuming a
quadratic limb darkening law for the host star. We vary the limb darkening
coefficients in the fit, with Gaussian priors based on the theoretical
tabulations of Claret et al. (2012, 2013); Claret (2018). The RV observations
are modeled assuming a Keplerian orbit. We use version 1.2 of the MIST
theoretical stellar evolution models (Paxton et al., 2011, 2013, 2015; Choi et
al., 2016; Dotter, 2016) to model the broad-band photometry and atmospheric
parameters, and to provide a constraint on the allowed combinations of the
stellar bulk density, effective temperature and metallicity. We also use the
MWDUST 3D Galactic extinction model (Bovy et al., 2016) to place a Gaussian
prior on the line-of-sight extinction $A_{V}$ as a function of distance, and
to set a maximum allowed extinction. The extinction in each band-pass is
calculated from $A_{V}$ assuming a $R_{V}=3.1$ law. For each system we perform
an analysis assuming the orbit is circular and a separate analysis allowing
$\sqrt{e}\sin\omega$ and $\sqrt{e}\cos\omega$ to vary in the fit. A
differential evolution Markov Chain Monte Carlo procedure is used to fit the
observations and determine the uncertainties on the varied parameters (see
Hartman et al. (2019) for a list of parameters, and priors).

For M dwarf stars, which have main sequence lifetimes that exceed the current
age of the Universe, the spread in the theoretical main sequence is typically
much smaller than the observational uncertainties. As a result, using
theoretical stellar evolution models in the joint analysis of a transiting
planet system can lead to very small uncertainties on the stellar and
planetary masses and radii, which are often well below the estimated
systematic uncertainties in the evolution models themselves (Tayar et al.,
2022; see also Hobson et al., 2023 for an example). As argued by Eastman et
al. (2022), the uncertainties on the stellar masses and radii may be smaller
than the estimates of Tayar et al. (2022) when using $\rho_{\star}$, as
determined from the transit light curves, to self-consistently determine the
other stellar parameters. The argument of Eastman et al. (2022) holds for a
purely empirical determination of the system parameters, however when
theoretical stellar evolution models are used in constraining the fit to the
observations, the systematic errors on the models must still be accounted for.

The key parameters that we vary in the fit which directly impact the stellar
physical parameters are: (1) $T_{\rm eff\star}$, (2) $\rm[Fe/H]$, (3) the
square of the impact parameter $b^{2}$, (4) $\zeta/R_{\star}$, (5)
$R_{p}/R_{\star}$, (6) $\sqrt{e}\cos\omega$, (7) $\sqrt{e}\sin\omega$, (8)
$T_{c,0}$ and (9) $T_{c,N}$. Here $T_{c,0}$ is the time of transit center for
some initial epoch, and $T_{c,N}$ is the time of transit center for a final
epoch. Together $T_{c,0}$ and $T_{c,N}$ determine the orbital period. The
parameter $\zeta/R_{\star}$ is explained in a footnote to Table 8. The
parameters (3) through (9) together determine $\rho_{\star}$ which is the
parameter that is used, together with $T_{\rm eff\star}$ and $\rm[Fe/H]$, to
determine the stellar physical parameters via interpolation within a pre-
computed grid of MIST stellar evolutionary models. In addition to these
parameters, the distance modulus $\mu$ and extinction $A_{V}$ are also varied,
and are used to determine the predicted magnitude in each bandpass to be
compared to the catalog magnitudes.

Here we augment the above parameters with four new systematic error
parameters: $\Delta$[Fe/H]sys, $\Delta T_{\rm eff,sys}$, $\Delta
M_{\rm\star,sys}$, and $\Delta M_{\rm bol,sys}$. Here $\Delta$[Fe/H]sys
represents the systematic error on $\rm[Fe/H]$, in dex, $\Delta T_{\rm
eff,sys}$ is the fractional systematic error in $T_{\rm eff\star}$, $\Delta
M_{\rm\star,sys}$ is the fractional systematic error in $M_{\star}$, and
$\Delta M_{\rm bol,sys}$ is the systematic error in the bolometric magnitude,
in units of magnitude. These act as hidden parameters that allow broader
distributions in $\rm[Fe/H]$, $T_{\rm eff\star}$, $M_{\star}$, and $M_{\rm
bol}$ beyond what would be allowed by the stellar evolution model. The
systematic error parameters are allowed to vary in the fit assuming Gaussian
priors with mean values of $0$, and standard deviations of $0.08$ dex,
$0.024$, $0.05$, and 0.021 mag, respectively. These values for the systematic
uncertainties are adopted from Tayar et al. (2022), and are based on current
uncertainties on the measured interferometric angular diameters and bolometric
fluxes of stars, and comparisons between different grids of stellar evolution
models.

Within each link in the Markov Chain we take the combination of ($T_{\rm
eff\star}$, $\rm[Fe/H]$, $\rho_{\star}$, $\Delta$[Fe/H]sys, $\Delta T_{\rm
eff,sys}$, and $\Delta M_{\rm\star,sys}$) and perform the look-up in the
isochrone at the values ($T_{\rm eff\star}(1+\Delta T_{\rm eff,sys})$,
$\rm[Fe/H]$$+\Delta$[Fe/H]sys, $\rho_{\star}$). This yields the following set
of predicted, isochrone-based, stellar parameters: ($M_{\rm\star,iso}$,
$R_{\rm\star,iso}$, $L_{\rm\star,iso}$, $\log g_{\rm\star,iso}$, $V_{\rm
mag,iso}$, $T_{\rm eff,iso}$).

We then correct the predicted, isochrone-based, stellar parameters for $\Delta
M_{\rm\star,sys}$, and $\Delta T_{\rm eff,sys}$ to obtain the adopted
parameters as follows:

$\displaystyle M_{\rm\star,adopted}$ $\displaystyle=(1.0+\Delta
M_{\rm\star,sys})M_{\rm star,iso}$ (1) $\displaystyle R_{\rm\star,adopted}$
$\displaystyle=(1.0+\Delta M_{\rm\star,sys})^{1/3}R_{\rm star,iso}$ (2)
$\displaystyle\log L_{\rm\star,adopted}$ $\displaystyle=\log
L_{\rm\star,iso}+\frac{2}{3}\log(1.0+\Delta M_{\rm\star,sys})$
$\displaystyle+4.0(\log(T_{\rm eff\star})-\log(T_{\rm eff,iso}))$ (3)
$\displaystyle\log g_{\rm\star,adopted}$ $\displaystyle=\log
g_{\rm\star,iso}+\frac{1}{3}\log(1.0+\Delta M_{\rm\star,sys})$ (4)
$\displaystyle V_{\rm mag,adopted}$ $\displaystyle=V_{\rm
mag,iso}-\frac{5}{3}\log(1.0+\Delta M_{\rm\star,sys})$
$\displaystyle-10(\log(T_{\rm eff\star})-\log(T_{\rm eff,iso}))$ (5)
$\displaystyle T_{\rm eff,adopted}$ $\displaystyle=T_{\rm eff\star}$ (6)

The adopted values are used to calculate the posterior distributions for the
various stellar parameters. To account for $\Delta M_{\rm bol,sys}$ we add
this parameter to the predicted magnitudes in each filter before determining
$\chi^{2}$ for the model. Here $\Delta M_{\rm bol,sys}$ accounts for the
systematic uncertainty in calculating the bolometric magnitude from the
theoretical luminosity of the star.

This procedure forces the model to have $\rho_{\star}$ equal to the value
determined from the transit parameters, but allows $M_{\star}$ and $R_{\star}$
to differ from the values predicted from the theoretical stellar evolution
model. Because we adjust the values for $L_{\rm\star,adopted}$, and the
associated magnitudes, accordingly, it is possible that the measured catalog
photometry and parallax values will constrain $R_{\star}$, and thus
$M_{\star}$ (through $\rho_{\star}$), to better than what one would calculate
simply from the a priori systematic uncertainty on $M_{\star}$. The method
that we employ here is able to self-consistently handle both systematic
uncertainties present in stellar models, and the full set of observations that
might provide empirical constraints that are tighter than those systematic
uncertainties. One limitation to our approach is that this procedure assumes
that $\Delta T_{\rm eff,sys}$, $\Delta M_{\rm\star,sys}$, $\Delta$[Fe/H]sys
and $\Delta M_{\rm bol,sys}$ are uncorrelated, whereas the systematic errors
in the stellar evolution models may very well be strongly correlated.

Figures 1–6 compares the best-fit models to the observational data. The
adopted stellar parameters are listed in Tables 6 and 7, while the adopted
planetary parameters are listed in Tables 8 and 9.

##  4 Discussion

In this paper we have presented the discovery of two new transiting giant
planets that orbit M dwarf stars, and have updated the parameters for three
other systems with new RVs and light curves. The system parameters are
compared to the parameters of other transiting planet systems from the NASA
Exoplanet Archive in Figures 7 and 8. Here the planet equilibrium temperature
$T_{\rm eq}$ is calculated assuming zero albedo, and full redistribution of
heat, making it effectively a proxy for the incoming flux from the star at the
orbital distance of the planet. We find that, like other giant planets found
around M dwarfs, these planets’ radii are consistent with theoretical mass-
radius relationships and show no evidence of inflation. Neither would we
expect radius inflation for these planets; radius inflation has only been
observed for planets with $T_{\rm eq}\gtrsim 1000$ K (e.g., Thorngren et al.,
2016), and due to the low luminosities of M dwarf host stars all giant planets
found so far around such stars have $T_{\rm eq}\lesssim 1000$ K.

The two newly discovered planets, TOI 4201 b and TOI 5344 b, are both around
high-metallicity host stars. TOI 4201 has a spectroscopically measured
$\rm[Fe/H]$$=0.390\pm 0.090$, and an a posteriori value of
$\rm[Fe/H]$$=0.432\pm 0.085$ based on the joint analysis, while TOI 5344 has a
spectroscopic metallicity of $\rm[Fe/H]$$=0.390\pm 0.090$ and an a posteriori
value of $\rm[Fe/H]$$=0.425\pm 0.088$. We also confirm high metallicities for
the re-analyzed systems, with spectroscopic metallicities from HIRES of
$-0.010\pm 0.090$, $0.48\pm 0.09$, and $0.12\pm 0.09$ for TOI 519, TOI 3629
and TOI 3714, respectively, and a posteriori values of $0.264\pm 0.083$,
$0.549\pm 0.093$, and $0.390\pm 0.086$. As shown in Fig. 8 other giant-planet-
hosting M dwarf stars also tend to have super-solar metallicities, and in fact
there may be a trend toward higher metallicities for cooler short-period
giant-planet hosting stars. A strong correlation between host star metallicity
and short-period giant planet occurrence has previously been established for
FGK host stars (Fischer & Valenti, 2005). The emerging set of giant-planet-
hosting M dwarfs appears to show this trend as well (e.g., Hirano et al.,
2018; Gan et al., 2022; Kagetani et al., 2023). The newly discovered systems
bolster this conclusion. A caveat is that the metallicities that are shown in
Fig. 8 are taken directly from the NASA Exoplanet Archive, and have been
measured in an inhomogeneous fashion. Moreover, the determination of M dwarf
metallicities from optical spectra may be subject to systematic errors.
Indeed, the systematic differences between the metallicities measured from the
optical spectra and the a posteriori metallicities for the five targets
studied in this paper are typical for M dwarfs, and indicative of the
difficulty of accurately measuring metallicities for M dwarfs based on either
of these methods. An effort to homogeneously measure the metallicities of
giant-planet-hosting M dwarfs using NIR spectra might allow for a more robust
conclusion.

Table 10 compares the stellar and planetary masses and radii for TOI 519, TOI
3629 and TOI 3714 to the previously published values. We find that for TOI
3629 and TOI 3714 our values are within the error bars of the previous
measurements. For both of these systems the planetary radius uncertainties are
reduced slightly, but the stellar mass uncertainties are larger due to our
method of treating systematic uncertainties. For TOI 519, our stellar mass
estimate is approximately $2\sigma$ higher than that of Kagetani et al. (2023)
(when using our uncertainty; it is $4.6\sigma$ higher when using their
uncertainty), but consistent within the uncertainty of the value from
Parviainen et al. (2021). The other values are consistent within the
uncertainties, which are now somewhat smaller. We note that the stellar mass
estimate from Kagetani et al. (2023) is close to the value of $0.3398\pm
0.0086$ $M_{\sun}$ that comes from using the empirical relation between
stellar mass, absolute $K_{S}$ magnitude, and metallicity determined by Mann
et al. (2019).

The uncertainties on the parameters that we measure for all of the systems
studied in this paper account for systematic uncertainties in the stellar
evolution models, in a manner that self-consistently allows for empirical
constraints on the parameters that may reduce the uncertainties below the
systematic errors. We measure stellar masses of $0.372\pm 0.018$ $M_{\sun}$,
$0.635\pm 0.032$ $M_{\sun}$, $0.522\pm 0.028$ $M_{\sun}$, $0.625\pm 0.033$
$M_{\sun}$, and $0.612\pm 0.034$ $M_{\sun}$, for TOI 519, TOI 3629, TOI 3714,
TOI 4201, and TOI 5344, respectively. The relative uncertainties on the masses
are thus 4.8%, 5.0%, 5.4%, 5.3%, and 5.6%, respectively, and comparable to the
assumed 5% systematic uncertainty on the stellar masses. For comparison, we
find typical uncertainties of $\sim 1$–$2$% when we do not account for
systematic errors in the analysis.

We can also compare the stellar masses to the values predicted from the
empirical relation between stellar mass, absolute $K_{S}$ magnitude, and
metallicity determined by Mann et al. (2019). Using this relation we find
masses of $0.3398\pm 0.0086$ $M_{\sun}$, $0.604\pm 0.016$, $0.503\pm 0.012$
$M_{\sun}$, $0.603\pm 0.016$ $M_{\sun}$, and $0.574\pm 0.015$ $M_{\sun}$ for
TOI 519, TOI 3629, TOI 3714, TOI 4201, and TOI 5344, respectively. The masses
from the empirical relations are systematically lower than the masses that we
adopt based on the MIST isochrones. They are consistent with our values to
within $1\sigma$ to $2\sigma$. Our adopted uncertainties are also about twice
as large as the uncertainty estimates based on the empirical relations.

The stellar effective temperatures that come from our modelling are more
tightly constrained than the assumed systematic uncertainty. We measure
respective a posteriori temperatures of $3354\pm 63$ K, $3865\pm 79$ K,
$3652\pm 81$ K, $3932\pm 65$ K and $3747\pm 64$ K, with corresponding
fractional uncertainties of 1.9%, 2.0%, 2.2%, 1.7%, and 1.7%, whereas the
assumed systematic uncertainty is 2.4%. This uncertainty is still much higher
than the typical $\sim 0.2$% uncertainty that results when systematic errors
are not accounted for in the modelling. The constraints on $\rho_{\star}$ from
the transit observations, together with constraints on the luminosity from the
observed magnitudes and parallaxes, allows the effective temperature to be
more tightly constrained than the assumed systematic error on this parameter
in the stellar evolutionary models.

The systematic errors feed in to most of the other parameters as well. The
median stellar radius and planetary radius fractional uncertainties are 1.9%,
and 2.0%, respectively, whereas we typically find $\sim 0.5$% and 1.0%
respective uncertainties when not including systematic errors. For comparison,
Tayar et al. (2022) suggest a systematic stellar radius uncertainty of 4.2%,
which would set a comparable uncertainty on the planetary radius, however this
uncertainty does not account for other empirical constraints that can reduce
the uncertainty below this limit, as we do here. We find that the planetary
mass uncertainties are largely set by the uncertainty on the RV semiamplitude
$K$, which exceeds the stellar mass uncertainty for most of the systems. The
only exception is TOI 3714 b for which the fractional uncertainty on $K$ is
2.5%, so that the planetary mass fractional uncertainty of 4.4% is largely set
by the stellar mass uncertainty.

Due to the small radii of the host stars, giant planets transiting M dwarfs
are among the most favorable targets for performing transmission spectroscopy
on low equilibrium temperature giant planets. Fig 9 compares the Transmission
Spectroscopy Metric (TSM; Kempton et al., 2018) of the five systems discussed
in this paper to other transiting giant planets from the NASA Exoplanet
Archive. When compared against other planets of comparable mass, giant planets
around M dwarfs do not have particularly high values of TSM. This is because
the relatively small scale heights of these cool, uninflated planets lead to
lower TSM values compared to highly inflated hot Jupiters. However, when
comparing against other planets with T${}_{\rm eq}\lesssim 1000$ K, giant
planets around M dwarfs tend to have relatively high values of TSM. Among the
targets discussed in this paper, TOI 519 b is the most favorable target for
transmission spectroscopy, with TSM$=186\pm 28$, while the more massive planet
TOI 4201 b is relatively unfavorable with TSM$=20\pm 2$.

Figure 7:  Left: Planet radius vs. mass. The two new planet discoveries and
the three other systems that we re-analyze are indicated. Small grey points
show all transiting giant planets with $M_{p}>0.1$ $M_{\rm J}$ and $R_{p}>0.5$
$R_{\rm J}$ from the NASA Exoplanet Archive. Right: Planet radius vs.
equilibrium temperature for transiting giant planets. The equilibrium
temperature is estimated assuming zero albedo and full redistribution of heat,
so that it is effectively a proxy for the flux received from the star. The
small black points show planets that orbit M dwarfs ($T_{\rm eff\star}<4000$
K), while the gray points show all other planets. None of the transiting giant
planets discovered around M dwarfs to date appear to be inflated, but all have
low equilibrium temperatures where planet inflation has not been observed for
hotter host stars either.

Figure 8:  Left: Planet mass vs. host star mass. The two new planet
discoveries and the three other systems that we re-analyze are indicated.
Small gray points show all transiting planets with host star masses less than
$1$ $M_{\sun}$ from the NASA Exoplanet Archive. Right: Metallicity vs.
effective temperature for the host stars of transiting short period giant
planets with $P<10$ d, $R_{P}>0.5$ $R_{\rm J}$ and $M_{p}>0.1$ $M_{\rm J}$
(small gray points). The host stars of the five systems analyzed in this paper
are indicated with the same colors as in the left panel. The black points show
the median $\rm[Fe/H]$ vs. $T_{\rm eff}$ when binning the sample into bins of
25 stars. The vertical error bars show the standard deviation within the bin,
while the horizontal error bars show the width of the bin. We confirm high
metallicities for the three re-analyzed systems, and find the two newly
discovered systems also have high metallicities. This supports earlier
findings that giant-planet-hosting M dwarfs have high metallicity, and that
the metallicity–giant planet occurrence relation may be even stronger for M
dwarfs than for hotter host stars.

Figure 9:  Left: Transmission Spectroscopy Metric (TSM) vs. planet mass. The
two new planet discoveries and the three other systems that we re-analyze are
indicated. Small gray points show all transiting planets with measured masses
$>0.1$ $M_{\rm J}$ and radii $>0.5$ $R_{\rm J}$ from the NASA Exoplanet
Archive, while small black points highlight those planets that orbit M dwarf
stars. Right: TSM vs. planet Teq computed assuming zero albedo and full
redistribution of heat. The symbols are the same as in the left plot. TOI 519
b is the most favorable of the planets discussed in this paper for
transmission spectroscopy. In general, giant planets transiting M dwarfs are
among the highest TSM systems with T${}_{\rm eq}<1000$ K.

JH, GB and ZC acknowledge funding from NASA grant 80NSSC22K0315. This work is
based in part on observations made with the Keck-I telescope at Mauna Kea
Observatory, HI. Time on this facility was awarded through NASA. We would like
to acknowledge the following individuals who contributed to gathering the
Keck-I/HIRES observations presented in this paper: I. Angelo, A. Polanski, S.
Yee, D. Tyler, C. Beard, J. Van Zandt, J. Akana Murphy, A. Mayo, E. Petigura,
L. Weiss, G. Gilbert, L. Handley, M. MacDougall, F. Dai, A. Householder, M.
Rice, N. Saunders, J. Zhang, C. Brinkman, M. He, A. Langford, D.
Pidhorodetska, J. Lubin, S. Blunt, E. Turtelboom, E. Louden, S. Dulz, and D.
Shaw. The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant
cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within
the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the
opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain. We acknowledge T. Gan
for contributing to the data reduction of observations from the LCOGT
facilities. This work is partly supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers
JP17H04574, JP18H05439, JP21K20376, and JST CREST Grant Number JPMJCR1761. E.
P. acknowledges funding from the Spanish Ministry of Economics and
Competitiveness through project PID2021-125627OB-C32. E. E-B. acknowledges
financial support from the European Union and the State Agency of
Investigation of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN) under
the grant PRE2020-093107 of the Pre-Doc Program for the Training of Doctors
(FPI-SO) through FSE funds. This article is based on observations made with
the MuSCAT2 instrument, developed by ABC, at Telescopio Carlos Sánchez
operated on the island of Tenerife by the IAC in the Spanish Observatorio del
Teide. This paper is based on observations made with the MuSCAT3 instrument,
developed by the Astrobiology Center and under financial supports by JSPS
KAKENHI (JP18H05439) and JST PRESTO (JPMJPR1775), at Faulkes Telescope North
on Maui, HI, operated by the Las Cumbres Observatory. A.J. acknowledges
support from ANID – Millennium Science Initiative – ICN12_009 and from
FONDECYT project 1210718. R.B. acknowledges support ANID – Millennium Science
Initiative – ICN12_009 and from FONDECYT project 11200751. H.P. acknowledges
support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation with the Ramon y
Cajal fellowship number RYC2021-031798-I. Funding from the University of La
Laguna and the Spanish Ministry of Universities is acknowledged. Based on data
collected under the ExTrA project at the ESO La Silla Paranal Observatory.
ExTrA is a project of Institut de Planétologie et d’Astrophysique de Grenoble
(IPAG/CNRS/UGA), funded by the European Research Council under the ERC Grant
Agreement n. 337591-ExTrA. ExTrA has been supported by Labex OSUG@2020
(Investissements d’avenir – ANR10 LABX56), the ”Programme National de Physique
Stellaire” (PNPS) and the “Programme National de Palnétologie of CNRS/INSU,
co-funded by CEA and CNES. We thank the Swiss National Science Foundation
(SNSF) and the Geneva University for their continuous support to our planet
search programs. This work has been in particular carried out in the frame of
the National Centre for Competence in Research ‘PlanetS’ supported by the
Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). This research has made use of the
NASA Exoplanet Archive, which is operated by the California Institute of
Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration under the Exoplanet Exploration Program. M.G. and A.T.
acknowledge the support of M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University Program of
Development. This work makes use of observations from the LCOGT network. Part
of the LCOGT telescope time was granted by NOIRLab through the Mid-Scale
Innovations Program (MSIP). MSIP is funded by NSF. This research has made use
of the Exoplanet Follow-up Observation Program (ExoFOP; DOI: 10.26134/ExoFOP5)
website, which is operated by the California Institute of Technology, under
contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the
Exoplanet Exploration Program. Funding for the TESS mission is provided by
NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. KAC acknowledges support from the TESS
mission via subaward s3449 from MIT. This publication makes use of data
products from the TRAPPIST project. TRAPPIST is funded by the Belgian National
Fund for Scientific Research (F.R.S.-FNRS) under grant PDRT.0120.21. TRAPPIST-
North is a project funded by the University of Liege (Belgium), in
collaboration with Cadi Ayyad University of Marrakech (Morocco). EJ is
F.R.S.-FNRS Senior Research Associate. MG is F.R.S.-FNRS Research Director.
The postdoctoral fellowship of KB is funded by F.R.S.-FNRS grant T.0109.20 and
by the Francqui Foundation. The ULiege’s contribution to SPECULOOS has
received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s
Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) (grant Agreement n∘
336480/SPECULOOS), from the Balzan Prize and Francqui Foundations, from the
Belgian Scientific Research Foundation (F.R.S.-FNRS; grant n∘ T.0109.20), from
the University of Liege, and from the ARC grant for Concerted Research Actions
financed by the Wallonia-Brussels Federation. SPECULOOS-North has received
financial support from the Heising-Simons Foundation and from Dr. and Mrs.
Colin Masson and Dr. Peter A. Gilman. This research received funding from the
European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme (grant agreement n∘ 803193/BEBOP), and from
the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC; grant n∘ ST/S00193X/1).
This publication benefits from the support of the French Community of Belgium
in the context of the FRIA Doctoral Grant awarded to MT. We acknowledge the
use of public TESS data from pipelines at the TESS Science Office and at the
TESS Science Processing Operations Center. Resources supporting this work were
provided by the NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA
Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division at Ames Research Center for the
production of the SPOC data products. This paper made use of data collected by
the TESS mission and are publicly available from the Mikulski Archive for
Space Telescopes (MAST) operated by the Space Telescope Science Institute
(STScI). Funding for the TESS mission is provided by NASA’s Science Mission
Directorate.

## References

  * Artigau et al. (2014) Artigau, É., Kouach, D., Donati, J.-F., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 914715
  * Artigau et al. (2021) Artigau, É., Hébrard, G., Cadieux, C., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 144
  * Astropy Collaboration et al. (2013) Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33
  * Astropy Collaboration et al. (2018) Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123
  * Bakos et al. (2010) Bakos, G. Á., Torres, G., Pál, A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1724
  * Bakos et al. (2018) Bakos, G. Á., Bayliss, D., Bento, J., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.09406
  * Bakos et al. (2020) —. 2020, AJ, 159, 267
  * Barkaoui et al. (2019) Barkaoui, K., Burdanov, A., Hellier, C., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 43
  * Bayliss et al. (2018) Bayliss, D., Gillen, E., Eigmüller, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4467
  * Bonfils et al. (2015) Bonfils, X., Almenara, J. M., Jocou, L., et al. 2015, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9605, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets VII, ed. S. Shaklan, 96051L
  * Bouma et al. (2019) Bouma, L. G., Hartman, J. D., Bhatti, W., Winn, J. N., & Bakos, G. Á. 2019, ApJS, 245, 13
  * Bovy et al. (2016) Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Green, G. M., Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2016, ApJ, 818, 130
  * Brown et al. (2013) Brown, T. M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 1031
  * Bryant et al. (2023) Bryant, E. M., Bayliss, D., & Van Eylen, V. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3663
  * Burdanov et al. (2022) Burdanov, A. Y., de Wit, J., Gillon, M., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 105001
  * Burn et al. (2021) Burn, R., Schlecker, M., Mordasini, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A72
  * Cañas et al. (2020) Cañas, C. I., Stefansson, G., Kanodia, S., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 147
  * Cañas et al. (2022) Cañas, C. I., Kanodia, S., Bender, C. F., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 50
  * Charbonneau et al. (2002) Charbonneau, D., Brown, T. M., Noyes, R. W., & Gilliland, R. L. 2002, ApJ, 568, 377
  * Choi et al. (2016) Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102
  * Claret (2018) Claret, A. 2018, A&A, 618, A20
  * Claret et al. (2012) Claret, A., Hauschildt, P. H., & Witte, S. 2012, A&A, 546, A14
  * Claret et al. (2013) —. 2013, A&A, 552, A16
  * Clark et al. (2022) Clark, C. A., van Belle, G. T., Ciardi, D. R., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 232
  * Cointepas et al. (2021) Cointepas, M., Almenara, J. M., Bonfils, X., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A145
  * Collins et al. (2017) Collins, K. A., Kielkopf, J. F., Stassun, K. G., & Hessman, F. V. 2017, AJ, 153, 77
  * Cutri et al. (2021) Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/328
  * Delrez et al. (2018) Delrez, L., Gillon, M., Queloz, D., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10700, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VII, ed. H. K. Marshall & J. Spyromilio, 107001I
  * Dotter (2016) Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8
  * Dressing & Charbonneau (2015) Dressing, C. D., & Charbonneau, D. 2015, ApJ, 807, 45
  * Eastman et al. (2022) Eastman, J. D., Diamond-Lowe, H., & Tayar, J. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.14301
  * Fischer & Valenti (2005) Fischer, D. A., & Valenti, J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102
  * Fukui et al. (2011) Fukui, A., Narita, N., Tristram, P. J., et al. 2011, PASJ, 63, 287
  * Gaia Collaboration et al. (2022) Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00211
  * Gan et al. (2022) Gan, T., Lin, Z., Wang, S. X., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 83
  * Gan et al. (2023) Gan, T., Wang, S. X., Wang, S., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 17
  * Garcia et al. (2021) Garcia, L. J., Timmermans, M., Pozuelos, F. J., et al. 2021, prose: FITS images processing pipeline, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2111.006, , , ascl:2111.006
  * Garcia et al. (2022) —. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4817
  * Gillon et al. (2011) Gillon, M., Jehin, E., Magain, P., et al. 2011, EPJ Web of Conferences, 11, 06002\.  https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20101106002
  * Guerrero et al. (2021) Guerrero, N. M., Seager, S., Huang, C. X., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 39
  * Halverson et al. (2016) Halverson, S., Terrien, R., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 99086P
  * Hansen & Barman (2007) Hansen, B. M. S., & Barman, T. 2007, ApJ, 671, 861
  * Hartman & Bakos (2016) Hartman, J. D., & Bakos, G. Á. 2016, Astronomy and Computing, 17, 1
  * Hartman et al. (2015) Hartman, J. D., Bayliss, D., Brahm, R., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 166
  * Hartman et al. (2019) Hartman, J. D., Bakos, G. Á., Bayliss, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 55
  * Henry et al. (2018) Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., Winters, J. G., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 265
  * Hirano et al. (2018) Hirano, T., Dai, F., Gandolfi, D., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 127
  * Hobson et al. (2023) Hobson, M. J., Jordán, A., Bryant, E. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, L4
  * Houdebine et al. (2019) Houdebine, É. R., Mullan, D. J., Doyle, J. G., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 56
  * Howard & Fulton (2016) Howard, A. W., & Fulton, B. J. 2016, PASP, 128, 114401
  * Howard et al. (2010) Howard, A. W., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1467
  * Howell et al. (2011) Howell, S. B., Everett, M. E., Sherry, W., Horch, E., & Ciardi, D. R. 2011, AJ, 142, 19
  * Huang et al. (2020) Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., Pál, A., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 204
  * Jehin et al. (2011) Jehin, E., Gillon, M., Queloz, D., et al. 2011, The Messenger, 145, 2
  * Jenkins et al. (2010) Jenkins, J. M., Caldwell, D. A., Chandrasekaran, H., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, L87
  * Jenkins et al. (2016) Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, 99133E
  * Jensen (2013) Jensen, E. 2013, Tapir: A web interface for transit/eclipse observability, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1306.007, , , ascl:1306.007
  * Johnson et al. (2010) Johnson, J. A., Aller, K. M., Howard, A. W., & Crepp, J. R. 2010, PASP, 122, 905
  * Johnson et al. (2012) Johnson, J. A., Gazak, J. Z., Apps, K., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 111
  * Jordán et al. (2019) Jordán, A., Brahm, R., Espinoza, N., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 100
  * Jordán et al. (2022) Jordán, A., Hartman, J. D., Bayliss, D., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 125
  * Kagetani et al. (2023) Kagetani, T., Narita, N., Kimura, T., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.14703
  * Kanodia et al. (2021) Kanodia, S., Stefansson, G., Cañas, C. I., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 135
  * Kanodia et al. (2022) Kanodia, S., Libby-Roberts, J., Cañas, C. I., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 81
  * Kanodia et al. (2023) Kanodia, S., Mahadevan, S., Libby-Roberts, J., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 120
  * Kempton et al. (2018) Kempton, E. M. R., Bean, J. L., Louie, D. R., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 114401
  * Kotani et al. (2018) Kotani, T., Tamura, M., Nishikawa, J., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 1070211
  * Mahadevan et al. (2012) Mahadevan, S., Ramsey, L., Bender, C., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84461S
  * Mahadevan et al. (2014) Mahadevan, S., Ramsey, L. W., Terrien, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91471G
  * Mandel & Agol (2002) Mandel, K., & Agol, E. 2002, ApJ, 580, L171
  * Mann et al. (2019) Mann, A. W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 63
  * Mercer & Stamatellos (2020) Mercer, A., & Stamatellos, D. 2020, A&A, 633, A116
  * Murray et al. (2020) Murray, C. A., Delrez, L., Pedersen, P. P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2446
  * Narita et al. (2015) Narita, N., Fukui, A., Kusakabe, N., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 045001
  * Narita et al. (2019) —. 2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 015001
  * Narita et al. (2020) Narita, N., Fukui, A., Yamamuro, T., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 114475K
  * NASA Exoplanet Archive (2023) NASA Exoplanet Archive. 2023, Planetary Systems, vVersion: 2023-06-22 14:16, NExScI-Caltech/IPAC, doi:10.26133/NEA12.  https://catcopy.ipac.caltech.edu/dois/doi.php?id=10.26133/NEA12
  * Parviainen et al. (2020) Parviainen, H., Palle, E., Zapatero-Osorio, M. R., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A28
  * Parviainen et al. (2021) —. 2021, A&A, 645, A16
  * Pass et al. (2023) Pass, E. K., Winters, J. G., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.19357
  * Paxton et al. (2011) Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3
  * Paxton et al. (2013) Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4
  * Paxton et al. (2015) Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15
  * Quirrenbach et al. (2014) Quirrenbach, A., Amado, P. J., Caballero, J. A., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91471F
  * Reiners et al. (2018) Reiners, A., Zechmeister, M., Caballero, J. A., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A49
  * Ricker et al. (2015) Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003
  * Sabotta et al. (2021) Sabotta, S., Schlecker, M., Chaturvedi, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A114
  * Sanchis-Ojeda & Winn (2011) Sanchis-Ojeda, R., & Winn, J. N. 2011, ApJ, 743, 61
  * Schlieder et al. (2021) Schlieder, J. E., Gonzales, E. J., Ciardi, D. R., et al. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 63
  * Schwab et al. (2016) Schwab, C., Rakich, A., Gong, Q., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 99087H
  * Scott et al. (2021) Scott, N. J., Howell, S. B., Gnilka, C. L., et al. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 138
  * Sebastian et al. (2021) Sebastian, D., Gillon, M., Ducrot, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A100
  * Skrutskie et al. (2006) Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163
  * Smith et al. (2012) Smith, J. C., Stumpe, M. C., Van Cleve, J. E., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 1000
  * Stefansson et al. (2020) Stefansson, G., Cañas, C., Wisniewski, J., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 100
  * Strakhov et al. (2023) Strakhov, I. A., Safonov, B. S., & Cheryasov, D. V. 2023, Astrophysical Bulletin, 78, 235
  * Stumpe et al. (2014) Stumpe, M. C., Smith, J. C., Catanzarite, J. H., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 100
  * Stumpe et al. (2012) Stumpe, M. C., Smith, J. C., Van Cleve, J. E., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 985
  * Tamura et al. (2012) Tamura, M., Suto, H., Nishikawa, J., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84461T
  * Tayar et al. (2022) Tayar, J., Claytor, Z. R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 31
  * Thorngren et al. (2016) Thorngren, D. P., Fortney, J. J., Murray-Clay, R. A., & Lopez, E. D. 2016, ApJ, 831, 64
  * Torres et al. (2007) Torres, G., Bakos, G. Á., Kovács, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, L121
  * Vogt et al. (1994) Vogt, S. S., Allen, S. L., Bigelow, B. C., et al. 1994, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 2198, Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII, ed. D. L. Crawford & E. R. Craine, 362
  * Yee et al. (2017) Yee, S. W., Petigura, E. A., & von Braun, K. 2017, ApJ, 836, 77
  * Zacharias et al. (2013) Zacharias, N., Finch, C. T., Girard, T. M., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 44

Table 3:  Astrometric, Spectroscopic and Photometric parameters for newly discovered systems TOI 4201 and TOI 5344  | TOI 4201 | TOI 5344 |
---|---|---|---
Parameter | Value | Value | Source
Astrometric properties and cross-identifications
2MASS-ID | 06015391-1327410 | 04130384+2054550 |
TIC-ID | 95057860 | 16005254 |
TOI-ID | 4201 | 5344 |
GAIA DR2-ID | 2997312063605005056 | 52359538285081728 |
R.A. (J2000) | $06^{\mathrm{h}}01^{\mathrm{m}}53.9212{\mathrm{s}}$ | $04^{\mathrm{h}}13^{\mathrm{m}}03.8474{\mathrm{s}}$ | GAIA DR3
Dec. (J2000) | $-13{\arcdeg}27{\arcmin}41.0292{\arcsec}$ | $+20{\arcdeg}54{\arcmin}54.9086{\arcsec}$ | GAIA DR3
$\mu_{\rm R.A.}$ ($\rm mas\,yr^{-1}$) | $11.731\pm 0.017$ | $40.325\pm 0.028$ | GAIA DR3
$\mu_{\rm Dec.}$ ($\rm mas\,yr^{-1}$) | $6.053\pm 0.018$ | $-22.194\pm 0.020$ | GAIA DR3
parallax (mas) | $5.291\pm 0.019$ | $7.305\pm 0.023$ | GAIA DR3
Spectroscopic properties
$T_{\rm eff\star}$ (K) | $3937\pm 70$ | $3367\pm 70$ | see Section 3.1
$\rm[Fe/H]$ | $0.390\pm 0.090$ | $0.390\pm 0.090$ | see Section 3.1
Photometric propertiesaa We only include in the table catalog magnitudes that
were included in our analysis of each system.
$G$ (mag)bb The listed uncertainties for the Gaia DR3 photometry are taken from the catalog. For the analysis we assume an additional systematic uncertainty of 0.02 mag for each bandpass.  | $14.4805\pm 0.0028$ | $14.3186\pm 0.0028$ | GAIA DR3
$BP$ (mag)bb The listed uncertainties for the Gaia DR3 photometry are taken from the catalog. For the analysis we assume an additional systematic uncertainty of 0.02 mag for each bandpass.  | $15.4724\pm 0.0034$ | $15.5037\pm 0.0037$ | GAIA DR3
$RP$ (mag)bb The listed uncertainties for the Gaia DR3 photometry are taken from the catalog. For the analysis we assume an additional systematic uncertainty of 0.02 mag for each bandpass.  | $13.4948\pm 0.0039$ | $13.2419\pm 0.0039$ | GAIA DR3
$B$ (mag) | $16.70\pm 0.14$ | $16.880\pm 0.069$ | APASScc From APASS DR6 as listed in the UCAC 4 catalog (Zacharias et al., 2013).
$V$ (mag) | $15.297\pm 0.024$ | $15.275\pm 0.069$ | APASScc From APASS DR6 as listed in the UCAC 4 catalog (Zacharias et al., 2013).
$g$ (mag) | $16.001\pm 0.055$ | $16.106\pm 0.055$ | APASScc From APASS DR6 as listed in the UCAC 4 catalog (Zacharias et al., 2013).
$r$ (mag) | $14.655\pm 0.064$ | $14.622\pm 0.043$ | APASScc From APASS DR6 as listed in the UCAC 4 catalog (Zacharias et al., 2013).
$i$ (mag) | $13.911\pm 0.084$ | $13.603\pm 0.062$ | APASScc From APASS DR6 as listed in the UCAC 4 catalog (Zacharias et al., 2013).
$J$ (mag)dd From the 2MASS catalog (Skrutskie et al., 2006).  | $12.258\pm 0.021$ | $11.799\pm 0.021$ | 2MASS
$H$ (mag)dd From the 2MASS catalog (Skrutskie et al., 2006).  | $11.564\pm 0.024$ | $11.087\pm 0.022$ | 2MASS
$K_{s}$ (mag)dd From the 2MASS catalog (Skrutskie et al., 2006).  | $11.368\pm 0.025$ | $10.860\pm 0.018$ | 2MASS
$W1$ (mag)ee From the 2021 Feb 16 ALLWISE Data release of the WISE mission (Cutri et al., 2021).  | $11.272\pm 0.024$ | $10.739\pm 0.024$ | WISE
$W2$ (mag)ee From the 2021 Feb 16 ALLWISE Data release of the WISE mission (Cutri et al., 2021).  | $11.301\pm 0.021$ | $10.728\pm 0.020$ | WISE
$W3$ (mag)ee From the 2021 Feb 16 ALLWISE Data release of the WISE mission (Cutri et al., 2021).  | $11.28\pm 0.15$ | $10.55\pm 0.11$ | WISE
Table 4:  Astrometric, Spectroscopic and Photometric parameters for previously discovered systems TOI 519, TOI 3629 and TOI 3714  | TOI 519 | TOI 3629 | TOI 3714 |
---|---|---|---|---
Parameter | Value | Value | Value | Source
Astrometric properties and cross-identifications
2MASS-ID | 08182567-1939465 | 23591015+3918514 | 04381253+3927299 |
TIC-ID | 218795833 | 455784423 | 155867025 |
TOI-ID | 519 | 3629 | 3714 |
GAIA DR2-ID | 5707485527450614656 | 2881820324294985856 | 178924390478792320 |
R.A. (J2000) | $08^{\mathrm{h}}18^{\mathrm{m}}25.6680{\mathrm{s}}$ | $23^{\mathrm{h}}59^{\mathrm{m}}10.3200{\mathrm{s}}$ | $04^{\mathrm{h}}38^{\mathrm{m}}12.5354{\mathrm{s}}$ | GAIA DR3
Dec. (J2000) | $-19{\arcdeg}39{\arcmin}46.5010{\arcsec}$ | $+39{\arcdeg}18{\arcmin}51.3200{\arcsec}$ | $+39{\arcdeg}27{\arcmin}29.9093{\arcsec}$ | GAIA DR3
$\mu_{\rm R.A.}$ ($\rm mas\,yr^{-1}$) | $-41.959\pm 0.029$ | $185.707\pm 0.012$ | $19.826\pm 0.025$ | GAIA DR3
$\mu_{\rm Dec.}$ ($\rm mas\,yr^{-1}$) | $29.074\pm 0.027$ | $1.010\pm 0.012$ | $-70.762\pm 0.020$ | GAIA DR3
parallax (mas) | $8.681\pm 0.037$ | $7.667\pm 0.017$ | $8.838\pm 0.022$ | GAIA DR3
Spectroscopic properties
$T_{\rm eff\star}$ (K) | $3367\pm 70$ | $3870\pm 90$ | $3660\pm 90$ | see Section 3.1
$\rm[Fe/H]$ | $-0.010\pm 0.090$ | $0.40\pm 0.10$ | $0.10\pm 0.10$ | see Section 3.1
Photometric propertiesaa We only include in the table catalog magnitudes that
were included in our analysis of each system.
$G$ (mag)bb The listed uncertainties for the Gaia DR3 photometry are taken from the catalog. For the analysis we assume an additional systematic uncertainties of 0.02 mag for all bandpasses.  | $15.6770\pm 0.0028$ | $13.8226\pm 0.0028$ | $14.2908\pm 0.0028$ | GAIA DR3
$BP$ (mag)bb The listed uncertainties for the Gaia DR3 photometry are taken from the catalog. For the analysis we assume an additional systematic uncertainties of 0.02 mag for all bandpasses.  | $17.1927\pm 0.0057$ | $14.8939\pm 0.0031$ | $15.5114\pm 0.0035$ | GAIA DR3
$RP$ (mag)bb The listed uncertainties for the Gaia DR3 photometry are taken from the catalog. For the analysis we assume an additional systematic uncertainties of 0.02 mag for all bandpasses.  | $14.4819\pm 0.0039$ | $12.7937\pm 0.0038$ | $13.1948\pm 0.0039$ | GAIA DR3
$B$ (mag) | $\cdots$ | $16.093\pm 0.041$ | $16.86\pm 0.13$ | APASScc From APASS DR6 as listed in the UCAC 4 catalog (Zacharias et al., 2013).
$V$ (mag) | $\cdots$ | $14.639\pm 0.061$ | $15.278\pm 0.020$ | APASScc From APASS DR6 as listed in the UCAC 4 catalog (Zacharias et al., 2013).
$g$ (mag) | $\cdots$ | $15.380\pm 0.022$ | $15.99\pm 0.18$ | APASScc From APASS DR6 as listed in the UCAC 4 catalog (Zacharias et al., 2013).
$r$ (mag) | $\cdots$ | $14.055\pm 0.057$ | $14.737\pm 0.011$ | APASScc From APASS DR6 as listed in the UCAC 4 catalog (Zacharias et al., 2013).
$i$ (mag) | $\cdots$ | $13.111\pm 0.032$ | $13.70\pm 0.14$ | APASScc From APASS DR6 as listed in the UCAC 4 catalog (Zacharias et al., 2013).
$J$ (mag)dd From the 2MASS catalog (Skrutskie et al., 2006).  | $12.847\pm 0.027$ | $11.424\pm 0.027$ | $11.788\pm 0.020$ | 2MASS
$H$ (mag)dd From the 2MASS catalog (Skrutskie et al., 2006).  | $12.226\pm 0.027$ | $10.733\pm 0.030$ | $11.109\pm 0.015$ | 2MASS
$K_{s}$ (mag)dd From the 2MASS catalog (Skrutskie et al., 2006).  | $11.951\pm 0.024$ | $10.553\pm 0.020$ | $10.906\pm 0.017$ | 2MASS
$W1$ (mag)ee From the 2021 Feb 16 ALLWISE Data release of the WISE mission (Cutri et al., 2021).  | $11.790\pm 0.024$ | $10.484\pm 0.022$ | $10.779\pm 0.023$ | WISE
$W2$ (mag)ee From the 2021 Feb 16 ALLWISE Data release of the WISE mission (Cutri et al., 2021).  | $11.642\pm 0.021$ | $10.516\pm 0.020$ | $10.744\pm 0.019$ | WISE
$W3$ (mag)ee From the 2021 Feb 16 ALLWISE Data release of the WISE mission (Cutri et al., 2021).  | $11.59\pm 0.17$ | $10.375\pm 0.067$ | $10.546\pm 0.097$ | WISE

Table 5:  HIRES relative radial velocities and bisector spans for TOI 519, TOI 3629, TOI 3714, TOI 4201 and TOI 5344.  System | BJD | RVaa The zero-point of these velocities is arbitrary. An overall offset $\gamma_{\rm rel}$ fitted to the orbit has been subtracted for each system.  |  $\sigma_{\rm RV}$bb Internal errors excluding the component of astrophysical jitter allowed to vary in the fit.  | BS | $\sigma_{\rm BS}$ | Phase
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
| (2,450,000$+$) | ($\rm m\,s^{-1}$) | ($\rm m\,s^{-1}$) | ($\rm m\,s^{-1}$) | ($\rm m\,s^{-1}$) |
TOI-519 | $9514.10954$ |  $\cdots$ |  $\cdots$ | $272.5$ | $717.8$ | $0.940$
TOI-519 | $9538.02709$ | $186.28$ | $19.67$ | $-13.1$ | $620.4$ | $0.844$
TOI-519 | $9543.01980$ | $208.48$ | $25.99$ | $152.7$ | $723.1$ | $0.790$
TOI-519 | $9545.01639$ | $-50.05$ | $18.86$ | $-289.7$ | $960.0$ | $0.368$
TOI-519 | $9546.03311$ | $-155.93$ | $21.90$ | $-558.1$ | $1558.5$ | $0.172$
TOI-519 | $9547.08385$ | $-134.06$ | $21.11$ | $-57.3$ | $1562.9$ | $0.002$
TOI-519 | $9565.95401$ | $119.69$ | $21.98$ | $1498.4$ | $850.2$ | $0.917$
TOI-519 | $9587.87529$ | $-236.07$ | $24.08$ | $-10.4$ | $1451.2$ | $0.244$
TOI-3629 | $9738.09644$ |  $\cdots$ |  $\cdots$ | $0.0$ | $147.1$ | $0.303$
TOI-3629 | $9803.11442$ | $61.65$ | $5.94$ | $0.0$ | $378.5$ | $0.820$
TOI-3629 | $9822.95907$ | $23.33$ | $4.06$ |  $\cdots$ |  $\cdots$ | $0.861$
TOI-3629 | $9827.06494$ | $12.29$ | $4.30$ | $-61.9$ | $148.5$ | $0.904$
TOI-3629 | $9831.96255$ | $-28.53$ | $4.59$ | $2.1$ | $259.3$ | $0.148$
TOI-3629 | $9833.99319$ | $24.30$ | $6.21$ | $416.8$ | $529.0$ | $0.664$
TOI-3629 | $9835.01084$ | $-7.34$ | $4.48$ | $116.3$ | $690.1$ | $0.922$
TOI-3629 | $9835.87585$ | $-31.10$ | $4.21$ | $10.6$ | $869.7$ | $0.142$
TOI-3629 | $9838.85563$ | $12.97$ | $3.86$ | $-75.2$ | $177.1$ | $0.899$
TOI-3629 | $9840.79082$ | $-14.30$ | $4.18$ | $-122.8$ | $228.9$ | $0.391$
TOI-3714 | $9479.00748$ |  $\cdots$ |  $\cdots$ | $-904.2$ | $649.4$ | $0.307$
TOI-3714 | $9481.98350$ | $126.75$ | $5.84$ | $0.0$ | $783.0$ | $0.688$
TOI-3714 | $9506.91898$ | $-162.97$ | $6.70$ | $4173.0$ | $1295.6$ | $0.260$
TOI-3714 | $9508.90928$ | $-171.54$ | $7.05$ | $825.9$ | $1581.3$ | $0.184$
TOI-3714 | $9513.94311$ | $11.75$ | $6.59$ | $-2557.9$ | $1283.5$ | $0.520$
TOI-3714 | $9537.93945$ | $159.89$ | $6.29$ | $18.6$ | $485.2$ | $0.656$
TOI-3714 | $9543.78921$ | $-103.68$ | $6.49$ | $1551.1$ | $631.4$ | $0.371$
TOI-3714 | $9547.11122$ | $88.57$ | $7.75$ | $0.0$ | $794.6$ | $0.912$
TOI-4201 | $9830.11551$ |  $\cdots$ |  $\cdots$ | $262.9$ | $619.0$ | $0.448$
TOI-4201 | $9832.09351$ | $36.47$ | $8.40$ |  $\cdots$ |  $\cdots$ | $0.001$
TOI-4201 | $9835.11032$ | $413.78$ | $7.00$ |  $\cdots$ |  $\cdots$ | $0.843$
TOI-4201 | $9890.00349$ | $-333.41$ | $11.29$ |  $\cdots$ |  $\cdots$ | $0.168$
TOI-4201 | $9891.02938$ | $-174.50$ | $6.63$ | $-1048.0$ | $1197.2$ | $0.454$
TOI-4201 | $9896.08512$ | $345.02$ | $7.33$ | $-733.1$ | $552.5$ | $0.866$
TOI-4201 | $9896.96372$ | $-290.74$ | $10.31$ | $-1051.1$ | $1155.6$ | $0.111$
TOI-4201 | $9897.93348$ | $-385.68$ | $7.83$ | $-870.7$ | $831.8$ | $0.382$
TOI-4201 | $9928.05123$ | $468.67$ | $8.06$ | $259.0$ | $760.1$ | $0.790$
TOI-4201 | $9943.90169$ | $-436.74$ | $6.84$ | $-178.0$ | $281.4$ | $0.215$
TOI-4201 | $9944.89630$ | $-75.76$ | $7.46$ | $269.0$ | $289.7$ | $0.493$
TOI-4201 | $9953.89179$ | $-33.09$ | $6.64$ | $29.0$ | $514.8$ | $0.004$
TOI-4201 | $9954.99279$ | $-414.34$ | $7.11$ | $0.0$ | $202.4$ | $0.312$
TOI-5344 | $9824.02822$ | $-68.52$ | $5.52$ |  $\cdots$ |  $\cdots$ | $0.418$
TOI-5344 | $9830.05085$ |  $\cdots$ |  $\cdots$ | $-729.3$ | $494.3$ | $0.006$
TOI-5344 | $9832.00717$ | $6.71$ | $5.95$ |  $\cdots$ |  $\cdots$ | $0.522$
TOI-5344 | $9834.07972$ | $-29.60$ | $5.18$ |  $\cdots$ |  $\cdots$ | $0.069$
TOI-5344 | $9835.07406$ | $-45.75$ | $5.03$ | $-1709.3$ | $1481.1$ | $0.331$
TOI-5344 | $9870.98245$ | $70.01$ | $5.06$ | $135.2$ | $277.5$ | $0.799$
TOI-5344 | $9889.95704$ | $65.59$ | $5.51$ |  $\cdots$ |  $\cdots$ | $0.802$
TOI-5344 | $9890.96999$ | $-27.01$ | $5.68$ | $-589.5$ | $320.9$ | $0.069$
TOI-5344 | $9897.81740$ | $68.08$ | $5.19$ | $277.1$ | $556.2$ | $0.874$
TOI-5344 | $9927.95984$ | $85.65$ | $6.03$ | $227.0$ | $361.7$ | $0.822$
TOI-5344 | $9943.85965$ | $-10.02$ | $5.42$ | $163.1$ | $387.4$ | $0.014$
TOI-5344 | $9944.91861$ | $-72.49$ | $6.29$ | $56.8$ | $602.7$ | $0.293$
TOI-5344 | $9953.84656$ | $32.62$ | $6.39$ | $60.4$ | $302.3$ | $0.647$
TOI-5344 | $9954.96159$ | $29.88$ | $8.25$ | $-27.8$ | $1339.0$ | $0.941$
Table 6:  Adopted derived stellar parameters for newly discovered systems TOI
4201, and TOI 5344.

| TOI 4201 | TOI 5344
---|---|---
Parameter | Value | Value
$M_{\star}$ ($M_{\sun}$) | $0.625\pm 0.033$ | $0.612\pm 0.034$
$R_{\star}$ ($R_{\sun}$) | $0.616\pm 0.012$ | $0.588\pm 0.011$
$\log{g_{\star}}$ (cgs) | $4.6543\pm 0.0099$ | $4.686\pm 0.014$
$\rho_{\star}$ ($\rm g\,cm^{-3}$) | $3.763\pm 0.078$ | $4.24\pm 0.14$
$L_{\star}$ ($L_{\sun}$) | $0.0816\pm 0.0063$ | $0.0613\pm 0.0049$
$T_{\rm eff\star}$ (K) | $3932\pm 65$ | $3747\pm 64$
$\rm[Fe/H]$ | $0.432\pm 0.085$ | $0.425\pm 0.088$
Age (Gyr) | $17.1_{-4.2}^{+2.0}$ | $10.9\pm 5.8$
$A_{V}$ (mag) | $0.053\pm 0.018$ | $0.536\pm 0.068$
Distance (pc) | $189.19\pm 0.65$ | $136.88\pm 0.44$

Note. — The listed parameters are those determined through the joint
differential evolution Markov Chain analysis, including systematic errors in
the stellar evolution models, described in Section 3.2. For all systems the RV
observations are consistent with a circular orbit, and we assume a fixed
circular orbit in generating the parameters listed here.

Table 7:  Adopted derived stellar parameters for previously discovered systems
TOI 519, TOI 3629, and TOI 3714.

| TOI 519 | TOI 3629 | TOI 3714
---|---|---|---
Parameter | Value | Value | Value
$M_{\star}$ ($M_{\sun}$) | $0.372\pm 0.018$ | $0.635\pm 0.032$ | $0.522\pm 0.028$
$R_{\star}$ ($R_{\sun}$) | $0.3578\pm 0.0063$ | $0.6103\pm 0.0099$ | $0.4958_{-0.0079}^{+0.0104}$
$\log{g_{\star}}$ (cgs) | $4.9016\pm 0.0085$ | $4.670\pm 0.013$ | $4.7638\pm 0.0097$
$\rho_{\star}$ ($\rm g\,cm^{-3}$) | $11.45\pm 0.18$ | $3.922_{-0.096}^{+0.138}$ | $6.01\pm 0.12$
$L_{\star}$ ($L_{\sun}$) | $0.0146\pm 0.0012$ | $0.0750\pm 0.0068$ | $0.0392\pm 0.0038$
$T_{\rm eff\star}$ (K) | $3354\pm 63$ | $3865\pm 79$ | $3652\pm 81$
$\rm[Fe/H]$ | $0.264\pm 0.083$ | $0.549\pm 0.093$ | $0.390\pm 0.086$
Age (Gyr) | $0.55_{-0.19}^{+0.75}$ | $9.8_{-4.8}^{+6.6}$ | $12.5_{-6.5}^{+4.9}$
$A_{V}$ (mag) | $0.0110_{-0.0070}^{+0.0100}$ | $0.163\pm 0.029$ | $0.046\pm 0.015$
Distance (pc) |  $114.88\pm 0.48$0 | $130.34\pm 0.30$ | $113.12\pm 0.30$

Note. — The listed parameters are those determined through the joint
differential evolution Markov Chain analysis, including systematic errors in
the stellar evolution models, described in Section 3.2. For all systems the RV
observations are consistent with a circular orbit, and we assume a fixed
circular orbit in generating the parameters listed here.

Table 8: Adopted orbital and planetary parameters for newly discovered planets
TOI 4201 b, and TOI 5344 b

| TOI 4201b | TOI 5344b
---|---|---
Parameter | Value | Value
Light curve parameters
$P$ (days) | $3.5819111\pm 0.0000017$ | $3.7926220\pm 0.0000062$
$T_{c}$ (${\rm BJD\\_{}TDB}$) aa Times are in Barycentric Julian Date calculated on the Barycentric Dynamical Time (TDB) system. $T_{c}$: Reference epoch of mid transit that minimizes the correlation with the orbital period. $T_{12}$: 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.  | $2459860.74636\pm 0.00011$ | $2459848.99030\pm 0.00019$
$T_{14}$ (days) aa Times are in Barycentric Julian Date calculated on the Barycentric Dynamical Time (TDB) system. $T_{c}$: Reference epoch of mid transit that minimizes the correlation with the orbital period. $T_{12}$: 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.  | $0.09296\pm 0.00040$ | $0.07388\pm 0.00062$
$T_{12}=T_{34}$ (days) aa Times are in Barycentric Julian Date calculated on the Barycentric Dynamical Time (TDB) system. $T_{c}$: Reference epoch of mid transit that minimizes the correlation with the orbital period. $T_{12}$: 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.  | $0.01735\pm 0.00038$ | $0.02077\pm 0.00072$
$a/R_{\star}$ | $13.684\pm 0.094$ | $14.78\pm 0.16$
$\zeta/R_{\star}$ bb Reciprocal 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).  |  $26.33\pm 0.18$0 |  $36.10\pm 0.42$0
$R_{p}/R_{\star}$ | $0.1890\pm 0.0014$ | $0.1653\pm 0.0014$
$b^{2}$ | $0.169_{-0.018}^{+0.016}$ | $0.540_{-0.017}^{+0.014}$
$b\equiv a\cos i/R_{\star}$ | $0.410_{-0.023}^{+0.020}$ | $0.7348_{-0.0113}^{+0.0094}$
$i$ (deg) |  $88.280\pm 0.099$0 |  $87.150\pm 0.067$0
Limb-darkening coefficients cc Values for a quadratic law. The limb darkening
parameters were directly varied in the fit, using the tabulations from Claret
et al. (2012, 2013); Claret (2018) to place Gaussian prior constraints on
their values, assuming a prior uncertainty of $0.2$ for each coefficient.
$c_{1},g$ | $0.42\pm 0.11$ | $0.22\pm 0.13$
$c_{2},g$ | $0.35\pm 0.15$ | $0.14\pm 0.16$
$c_{1},r$ | $0.533\pm 0.091$ | $0.25\pm 0.13$
$c_{2},r$ | $0.19\pm 0.14$ | $0.29\pm 0.15$
$c_{1},i$ | $0.36\pm 0.13$ | $0.22\pm 0.12$
$c_{2},i$ | $0.31\pm 0.17$ | $0.13\pm 0.15$
$c_{1},zs$ | $0.129\pm 0.073$ | $0.18\pm 0.12$
$c_{2},zs$ | $0.42\pm 0.13$ | $0.21\pm 0.15$
$c_{1},I+z$ | $\cdots$ | $0.31\pm 0.14$
$c_{2},I+z$ | $\cdots$ | $0.33\pm 0.16$
$c_{1},z$–$H$ | $0.179\pm 0.091$ | $0.18\pm 0.12$
$c_{2},z$–$H$ | $0.17\pm 0.14$ | $0.02\pm 0.14$
$c_{1},T$ | $0.39\pm 0.16$ | $0.21\pm 0.13$
$c_{2},T$ | $0.34\pm 0.17$ | $0.17\pm 0.17$
RV parameters
$K$ ($\rm m\,s^{-1}$) |  $466\pm 21$00 |  $74.4\pm 6.8$00
$e$ dd 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.  | $<0.062$ | $<0.054$
RV jitter HIRES ee Term added in quadrature to the formal RV uncertainties for each instrument. This is treated as a free parameter in the fitting routine.  ($\rm m\,s^{-1}$) | $43\pm 12$ | $15.2\pm 4.6$
Planetary parameters
$M_{p}$ ($M_{\rm J}$) | $2.57\pm 0.15$ | $0.412\pm 0.040$
$R_{p}$ ($R_{\rm J}$) | $1.133\pm 0.024$ | $0.946\pm 0.021$
$C(M_{p},R_{p})$ ff Correlation coefficient between the planetary mass $M_{p}$ and radius $R_{p}$ estimated from the posterior parameter distribution.  | $0.51$ | $0.25$
$\rho_{p}$ ($\rm g\,cm^{-3}$) | $2.19\pm 0.13$ | $0.604\pm 0.063$
$\log g_{p}$ (cgs) | $3.696\pm 0.022$ | $3.058\pm 0.042$
$a$ (AU) | $0.03923\pm 0.00070$ | $0.04041\pm 0.00075$
$T_{\rm eq}$ (K) | $751\pm 13$ | $689\pm 12$
$\Theta$ gg The Safronov number is given by $\Theta=\frac{1}{2}(V_{\rm esc}/V_{\rm orb})^{2}=(a/R_{p})(M_{p}/M_{\star})$ (see Hansen & Barman, 2007).  | $0.284\pm 0.014$ | $0.0574\pm 0.0054$
$\log_{10}\langle F\rangle$ (cgs) hh Incoming flux per unit surface area, averaged over the orbit.  | $7.859\pm 0.029$ | $7.709\pm 0.031$

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

Table 9: Adopted orbital and planetary parameters for previously discovered
planets TOI 519 b, TOI 3629 b, and TOI 3714 b

| TOI 519b | TOI 3629b | TOI 3714b
---|---|---|---
Parameter | Value | Value | Value
Light curve parameters
$P$ (days) | $1.26523248\pm 0.00000012$ | $3.9365578\pm 0.0000043$ | $2.15484802\pm 0.00000075$
$T_{c}$ (${\rm BJD\\_{}TDB}$) aa Times are in Barycentric Julian Date calculated on the Barycentric Dynamical Time (TDB) system. $T_{c}$: Reference epoch of mid transit that minimizes the correlation with the orbital period. $T_{12}$: 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.  | $2459013.152990\pm 0.000036$ | $2459662.10795\pm 0.00019$ | $2459687.365240\pm 0.000075$
$T_{14}$ (days) aa Times are in Barycentric Julian Date calculated on the Barycentric Dynamical Time (TDB) system. $T_{c}$: Reference epoch of mid transit that minimizes the correlation with the orbital period. $T_{12}$: 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.  | $0.05149\pm 0.00020$ | $0.09139\pm 0.00050$ | $0.06776\pm 0.00029$
$T_{12}=T_{34}$ (days) aa Times are in Barycentric Julian Date calculated on the Barycentric Dynamical Time (TDB) system. $T_{c}$: Reference epoch of mid transit that minimizes the correlation with the orbital period. $T_{12}$: 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.  | $0.01310\pm 0.00023$ | $0.01119\pm 0.00030$ | $0.01382\pm 0.00028$
$a/R_{\star}$ | $9.901\pm 0.053$ | $14.76_{-0.12}^{+0.17}$ | $11.391\pm 0.078$
$\zeta/R_{\star}$ bb Reciprocal 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).  |  $51.77\pm 0.35$0 |  $24.92\pm 0.17$0 |  $36.85\pm 0.23$0
$R_{p}/R_{\star}$ | $0.3040\pm 0.0021$ | $0.1247\pm 0.0014$ | $0.2057\pm 0.0013$
$b^{2}$ | $0.098_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$ | $0.106_{-0.024}^{+0.021}$ | $0.188_{-0.016}^{+0.015}$
$b\equiv a\cos i/R_{\star}$ | $0.313_{-0.024}^{+0.022}$ | $0.325_{-0.039}^{+0.030}$ | $0.433_{-0.020}^{+0.017}$
$i$ (deg) |  $88.19\pm 0.14$0 |  $88.74\pm 0.14$0 |  $87.830\pm 0.098$0
Limb-darkening coefficients cc Values for a quadratic law. The limb darkening
parameters were directly varied in the fit, using the tabulations from Claret
et al. (2012, 2013); Claret (2018) to place Gaussian prior constraints on
their values, assuming a prior uncertainty of $0.2$ for each coefficient.
$c_{1},B$ | $0.24\pm 0.14$ | $\cdots$ | $\cdots$
$c_{2},B$ | $0.21\pm 0.18$ | $\cdots$ | $\cdots$
$c_{1},g$ | $0.51\pm 0.11$ | $0.39\pm 0.12$ | $0.55\pm 0.11$
$c_{2},g$ | $0.35\pm 0.16$ | $0.35\pm 0.15$ | $0.26\pm 0.16$
$c_{1},r$ | $0.53\pm 0.10$ | $0.49\pm 0.12$ | $0.55\pm 0.10$
$c_{2},r$ | $0.22\pm 0.15$ | $0.14\pm 0.16$ | $0.16\pm 0.15$
$c_{1},i$ | $0.404\pm 0.089$ | $0.370\pm 0.093$ | $0.389\pm 0.096$
$c_{2},i$ | $0.18\pm 0.14$ | $0.26\pm 0.15$ | $0.30\pm 0.15$
$c_{1},zs$ | $0.329\pm 0.081$ | $0.254\pm 0.096$ | $0.288\pm 0.081$
$c_{2},zs$ | $0.11\pm 0.14$ | $0.26\pm 0.15$ | $0.23\pm 0.13$
$c_{1},I+z$ | $\cdots$ | $\cdots$ | $0.38\pm 0.11$
$c_{2},I+z$ | $\cdots$ | $\cdots$ | $0.15\pm 0.16$
$c_{1},z$–$H$ | $0.141\pm 0.080$ | $\cdots$ | $\cdots$
$c_{2},z$–$H$ | $0.32\pm 0.13$ | $\cdots$ | $\cdots$
$c_{1},T$ | $0.233\pm 0.097$ | $0.29\pm 0.11$ | $0.18\pm 0.12$
$c_{2},T$ | $0.46\pm 0.15$ | $0.22\pm 0.17$ | $0.16\pm 0.16$
RV parameters
$K$ ($\rm m\,s^{-1}$) |  $191\pm 22$00 |  $42.2\pm 3.2$00 |  $167.1\pm 4.1$00
$e$ dd 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.  | $<0.048$ | $<0.056$ | $<0.047$
RV jitter HIRES ee Term added in quadrature to the formal RV uncertainties for each instrument. This is treated as a free parameter in the fitting routine.  ($\rm m\,s^{-1}$) | $73\pm 28$ | $15.2\pm 5.7$ | $18.1\pm 6.7$
RV jitter IRD ee Term added in quadrature to the formal RV uncertainties for each instrument. This is treated as a free parameter in the fitting routine.  ($\rm m\,s^{-1}$) | $23.8\pm 9.6$ | $\cdots$ | $\cdots$
RV jitter HPF ee Term added in quadrature to the formal RV uncertainties for each instrument. This is treated as a free parameter in the fitting routine.  ($\rm m\,s^{-1}$) | $\cdots$ | $<7.2$ | $<30.2$
RV jitter NEID ee Term added in quadrature to the formal RV uncertainties for each instrument. This is treated as a free parameter in the fitting routine.  ($\rm m\,s^{-1}$) | $\cdots$ | $<7.2$ | $<10.4$
Planetary parameters
$M_{p}$ ($M_{\rm J}$) | $0.525\pm 0.064$ | $0.243\pm 0.020$ | $0.689\pm 0.030$
$R_{p}$ ($R_{\rm J}$) | $1.059\pm 0.020$ | $0.740\pm 0.014$ | $0.994\pm 0.020$
$C(M_{p},R_{p})$ ff Correlation coefficient between the planetary mass $M_{p}$ and radius $R_{p}$ estimated from the posterior parameter distribution.  | $0.23$ | $0.28$ | $0.69$
$\rho_{p}$ ($\rm g\,cm^{-3}$) | $0.551\pm 0.067$ | $0.743\pm 0.064$ | $0.871\pm 0.039$
$\log g_{p}$ (cgs) | $3.066\pm 0.053$ | $3.042\pm 0.035$ | $3.238\pm 0.015$
$a$ (AU) | $0.01648\pm 0.00027$ | $0.04194\pm 0.00071$ | $0.02630\pm 0.00046$
$T_{\rm eq}$ (K) | $754\pm 14$ | $711\pm 15$ | $764\pm 17$
$\Theta$ gg The Safronov number is given by $\Theta=\frac{1}{2}(V_{\rm esc}/V_{\rm orb})^{2}=(a/R_{p})(M_{p}/M_{\star})$ (see Hansen & Barman, 2007).  | $0.0439\pm 0.0052$ | $0.0432\pm 0.0033$ | $0.0694\pm 0.0023$
$\log_{10}\langle F\rangle$ (cgs) hh Incoming flux per unit surface area, averaged over the orbit.  | $7.865\pm 0.033$ | $7.763\pm 0.036$ | $7.888\pm 0.040$

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

Table 10:  Comparison to Literature Parameters for TOI 519, TOI 3629 and TOI 3714  | TOI 519 | TOI 519 | TOI 519 | TOI 3629 | TOI 3629 | TOI 3714 | TOI 3714
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Parameter | This paper | (Kagetani et al., 2023) | (Parviainen et al., 2021) | This paper | (Cañas et al., 2022) | This paper | (Cañas et al., 2022)
$M_{\star}$ ($M_{\sun}$) | $0.372\pm 0.018$ | $0.335\pm 0.008$ | $0.369^{+0.026}_{-0.097}$ | $0.635\pm 0.032$ | $0.63\pm 0.02$ | $0.522\pm 0.028$ | $0.53\pm 0.02$
$R_{\star}$ ($R_{\sun}$) | $0.3578\pm 0.0063$ | $0.350\pm 0.010$ | $0.373^{+0.020}_{-0.088}$ | $0.6103\pm 0.0099$ | $0.60^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ | $0.4958_{-0.0079}^{+0.0104}$ | $0.51\pm 0.01$
$M_{p}$ ($M_{\rm J}$) | $0.525\pm 0.064$ | $0.463^{+0.082}_{-0.088}$ | $\cdots$ | $0.243\pm 0.020$ | $0.26\pm 0.02$ | $0.689\pm 0.030$ | $0.70\pm 0.03$
$R_{p}$ ($R_{\rm J}$) | $1.059\pm 0.020$ | $1.03\pm 0.03$ | $1.06\pm 0.17$ | $0.740\pm 0.014$ | $0.74\pm 0.02$ | $0.994\pm 0.020$ | $1.01\pm 0.03$