The GAPS Programme at TNG^††thanks: Based on observations made with the Italian Telescopio Nazionale Galileo (TNG) operated by the Fundación Galileo Galilei (FGG) of the Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF) at the Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos (La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain).

We trimmed the Kepler light curves around the transits and occultations, whose central times are predicted using the ephemeris of Huber et al. (2017). The width of each time interval is equal to three times the transit duration $T_{14}$ and is large enough to include the time of the eclipses for both the orbital solutions discussed above. We discard all the transits and occultations that, due to gaps in the Kepler light curve, do not cover the whole time interval of $3\,T_{14}$.

Many transits of HAT-P-11 b show clear signs of starspot crossings (see, e.g. Sanchis-Ojeda & Winn 2011; Béky et al. 2014; Morris et al. 2017b; Scandariato et al. 2017 for a detailed analysis of the transit anomalies of HAT-P-11 b), which may bias the fit of the light curve. For this reason, we adopted an iterative approach aimed at selecting the transits with minimum evidence of anomalies. Using the orbital period derived by Huber et al. (2017), we phase-folded the planetary transits and we processed the phase-folded data using a running median average. The width of the running window was 15 s, which is less than the cadence of the light curves. This guarantees that the averaged transit profile is negligibly time-smoothed by our approach.

Once the average transit profile was obtained, we computed the Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) of the data with respect to it. We then rejected all the transits with at least one data point located more than 6 MAD above the averaged transit profile. We iteratively repeated this process until no additional transit was rejected. At the end of this process, we noticed that a few transits passed our selection despite showing correlated noise due to either bad data detrending or stellar activity. We therefore refined the selection of the transits in the following way. For each transit, we first computed the residuals with respect to the averaged profile. Then, we associated each transit with the standard deviation of the corresponding residuals. Finally, we rejected the 10% transits with the largest standard deviations. This produced a final list of 64 bona fide transits free from anomalies above the noise level. Of course, the possible presence of non-crossed starspots can influence the stellar flux level and therefore the measured transit depth; however, this effect mainly affects the value of the planetary radius (with an over-estimation of $\approx 1\,\%$⁴⁴4This value is computed using Eq. (12) in  Ballerini et al. (2012) with a maximum out-of-transit HAT-P-11 flux modulation of 2% (see the top panel of Fig. 1 in  Béky et al. 2014).) rather than the orbital parameters and is therefore negligible for the main scope of this work.

For the occultations, we adopted a similar approach. The only difference is that we do not expect anomalies during the eclipses, and therefore the first iterative selection of “unspotted” light curves is skipped. The final selection is made up of 196 occultations.

In summary, the dataset that we used to fit the orbit of the planet is composed of two subsets of data, centred on the transits and occultations respectively. To save computation time, we fit the phase-folded and rebinned data (1 min). The timestamps of the rebinned light curve were defined so that the time of transit provided by Huber et al. (2017) corresponds to the origin of the time axis.

The transit profile was modelled with the quadratic limb darkening (LD) law provided by Mandel & Agol (2002), with the reparametrisation of the coefficients proposed by Kip** (2013). Similarly, the occultation profile was modelled following Mandel & Agol (2002), but assuming that the planetary dayside is uniformly bright (Singh et al., 2022; Scandariato et al., 2022). Since we have operated a different data rejection with respect to Huber et al. (2017), we re-derived all the orbital parameters except for the orbital period, which we fixed to the best estimate of Huber et al. (2017) to phase-fold the data. The free parameters of the model are the stellar density $\rho_{\star}$, the time of transit $T_{0}$, the planet-to-star radius ratio $R_{\rm p}/R_{\star}$, the impact parameter $b$, the LD coefficients $q_{1}$ and $q_{2}$, the $e_{\rm c}=e\cos{\omega_{\star}}$ and $e_{\rm s}=e\sin{\omega_{\star}}$ parameters (where $e$ and $\omega_{\star}$ are the orbital eccentricity and the stellar argument of periastron, respectively) and the occultation depth $\delta_{\rm ecl}$.

In the model, we also included a jitter term and a renormalisation coefficient independently for the transit and eclipse subcurves. The two jitter terms take into account the fact that the two subcurves have different noise properties, being the combination of a different number of transits/eclipses. The renormalisation coefficients fix the preliminary normalisation of the transit and eclipse subcurves computed by the extraction pipeline.

We adopted a maximum-likelihood Bayesian approach where the data were fitted by running a Monte Carlo sampling of the parameter space. The parameter space was defined by the priors listed in Table 2. We remark that we have used uniform priors for all the parameters. The priors on $e_{\rm c}$ and $e_{\rm s}$ have been conveniently set to span a large range around the expected values and include both the orbital solutions of Huber et al. (2017) and Yee et al. (2018), while saving computation time.

For the log-likelihood maximisation, we first searched the parameter space for the global maximum position using the python package PyDE⁵⁵5https://github.com/hpparvi/PyDE. Afterwards, we sampled the posterior probability distribution of the model parameters using the emcee package version 3.1.3 (Foreman-Mackey et al., 2013). Given the demand for resources for the model fitting, we ran the code in the HOTCAT computing infrastructure (Bertocco et al., 2020; Taffoni et al., 2020). We let the chains run for 250 000 steps, long enough to ensure formal convergence. The best-fitting model of the light curve, together with the corresponding residuals, is shown separately in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, for the transit and the occultation, respectively. The list of the free parameters and their corresponding priors and best-fitting $1\,\sigma$ confidence interval is given in Table 2. Our estimates are consistent with previous analyses within 2$\sigma$.

The day-side flux of an exoplanet is a combination of reflected starlight off the planet’s illuminated hemisphere and its thermal irradiation. The former is parameterised by the geometric albedo $A_{\rm g}$ while the latter is parameterised by the brightness temperature $T_{\rm d}(\Delta\lambda)$, which is a measure of the day-side temperature in a given wavelength interval $\Delta\lambda$ (Santerne et al., 2011; Singh et al., 2022). Consequently, the occultation depth can be expressed as the following:

where $h$ is the Planck constant, $k_{\rm B}$ the Boltzmann constant, $c$ the speed of light, $d_{\rm sec}$ the distance of the planet from the star during the secondary eclipse and $S_{\lambda}^{\rm CK}$ is the stellar Kurucz flux (Castelli & Kurucz, 2003) (computed for $T_{\rm eff}=4750$ K, $\log{g}=4.5$, and [Fe/H]$=0.2$). Both the planetary and the stellar fluxes are integrated over the Kepler passband $\Delta\lambda$ with the corresponding response function $\Omega_{\lambda}$.

For the derived occultation depth, the relationship between the geometric albedo and the brightness temperature is shown in Fig. 3. For HAT-P-11 b, the thermal contribution to the observed depth in optical passbands is practically negligible given the low temperature of its atmosphere. Therefore, the occultation depth is the result of a highly reflective atmosphere. We derive a geometric albedo of $A_{\rm g}=0.440^{+0.044}_{-0.049}$ corresponding to the occultation depth of $\delta_{\rm ecl}=6.95^{+0.66}_{-0.64}$ ppm reported in Table 2. We therefore confirm and improve the results obtained by Huber et al. (2017). Following Han et al. (2014), we assume that the geometric albedo and Bond albedo are related via $A_{\rm b}=\frac{3}{2}A_{\rm g}$. We use this $A_{\rm b}$ to estimate the planet’s day-side equilibrium temperature⁷⁷7We equate the optical brightness temperature with the planet’s equilibrium temperature, which is reasonable if the planetary emission spectrum closely resembles a Planck distribution at temperature $T_{\rm d}$. as a function of time following (Cowan & Agol, 2011):

where $\epsilon$ is the heat re-circulation efficiency and $d(t)$ the distance of the planet from the star as a function of the time (to take into account the eccentricity of the orbit).

We considered two extreme scenarios: one with inefficient ($\epsilon=0$) and another with complete ($\epsilon=1$) heat re-circulation. We report in the plot the equilibrium temperature estimates at the occultation position. As a result of the varying stellar irradiation, the temperature estimates at the periastron are: $970^{+52}_{-62}$ K and $759^{+41}_{-49}$ K for $\epsilon=0$ and $\epsilon=1$, respectively, and at the apoastron are $750^{+41}_{-47}$ K and $587^{+32}_{-37}$ K for $\epsilon=0$ and $\epsilon=1$, respectively. During the transit, the planet-to-star separation distance is $d_{\rm tr}=13.33\pm 0.26$ $R_{\star}$ and therefore, the corresponding day-side temperatures are $894^{+48}_{-57}$ K and $699^{+38}_{-44}$ K assuming no changes in planetary albedo throughout the eccentric orbit. The pairs of $T_{\rm d}$ values we report represent the extremes of the range in which the planet’s equilibrium temperature is expected to be at different planet positions along its orbit. At the transit position, we consider the scenario $\epsilon=1$, that is, a uniform temperature distribution throughout the planet, so that we can use $T_{\rm eq}=699^{+38}_{-44}$ K as the equilibrium temperature around the day-night terminator to build our atmospheric transmission spectrum models described in Sect. 3.3.

The HIRES RVs show a clear long-term trend (Fig. 7, left panel), which was attributed by Yee et al. (2018) to a second planet companion, HAT-P-11 c, with $P_{\rm orb}\sim 3410$ d (9.3 yr), $M_{\rm p}\sin{i}\approx 1.6\,M_{\rm J}$, and $e\approx 0.6$, and, to a lesser extent, to the stellar magnetic activity cycle. Despite the very similar behaviour of the trend in both the S-index and the RVs (see Fig. 4), the stellar activity cycle was not deemed sufficient by Yee et al. (2018) to account for the RV variations in the long term for three main reasons (see their Sect. 3 for more details): $(i$) the large RV semi-amplitude ($\sim 30$  m s${}^{-1}$) of the long-term signal compared to semi-amplitudes of $\lesssim 10$ m s${}^{-1}$ observed by Lovis et al. (2011) for magnetic activity cycles in $\sim 300$ solar-type stars; $(ii$) the presence of a shift of $\sim 500$ days between the minimum of the S-index and that of the RVs (Fig. 4); and $(iii$) the relatively weak correlation between the S-index and RV measurements with a Pearson’s coefficient of $\sim 0.34$.

In our view, these three motivations do not provide strong evidence that the long-term signal is planetary in origin. Indeed, concerning $(i$), HAT-P-11 is considerably more active than the stars in the sample studied by Lovis et al. (2011), with a $\log{R^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm HK}}$ of $-4.35$ (Morris et al., 2017a) higher than the typical $\log{R^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm HK}}$ of $-4.8$ – $-5.0$ of that stellar sample. Since one of those stars, namely HD 21693, shows a semi-amplitude of $\sim 10$  m s${}^{-1}$ for $\log{R^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm HK}}=-4.89$ (see Fig. 16 in Lovis et al. 2011), a semi-amplitude of $\sim 30$  m s${}^{-1}$ for the RV variation associated with the activity cycle is certainly possible for an unusually active star such as HAT-P-11 (Morris et al., 2017a).

Regarding $(ii$), detailed studies of the correlation between RV and S-index measurements by Meunier et al. (2019) (therefore subsequent to Yee et al. 2018) showed that a combination of geometrical effects (stellar inclinations and butterfly diagrams) and variations of magnetic activity level over time may easily produce hysteresis patterns, and hence temporal shifts of a few hundreds of days in the minima of the RV and S-index variations (see Fig. 8 in Meunier et al. 2019). For example, the minimum of the long-term RV variations of the above-mentioned star HD 21693, which are caused by the magnetic activity cycle, also leads the minimum of the $\log{R^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm HK}}$ variations by $\sim 500$ d, similarly to HAT-P-11 (Lovis et al., 2011; Meunier et al., 2019). Given the high inclination $i_{\star}=100\pm 2$ deg of the host star HAT-P-11 and a starspot latitudinal distribution similar to the solar butterfly diagrams, as unveiled from the occultations of starspots by HAT-P-11 b during transits (Morris et al., 2017b), the temporal difference in the minima of the RV and S-index variations could be due to the hysteresis patterns described by Meunier et al. (2019). After all, the fact that the magnetic activity cycle from the S-index was found to have the same periodicity as the hypothetical planet c (Morris et al., 2017a) remains suspicious.

Last but not least, even the absence of a strong correlation between the S-index and RV measurements does not necessarily lean towards the planetary origin of the RV long-term signal; this is because a relatively low correlation, at least partly, ensues from the temporal shift between the S-index and RV variations, while it is much higher in the first $\sim 1000$ d of observations (Knutson et al., 2014b). Since we observed HAT-P-11 in GIARPS mode, we extracted the HAT-P-11 RVs and activity indicators from the HARPS-N spectra of the four transits of HAT-P-11 b to look at their behaviour. For that purpose, we used the online v3.7 data reduction software and cross-correlated the HARPS-N spectra with a K5 V synthetic stellar template (Pepe et al., 2002). The variations of the HARPS-N RVs, S-index and full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the cross-correlation function show an almost identical behaviour (Fig. 5): the Pearson’s correlation coefficient is 0.94 between RVs and S-index, and 0.98 between RVs and FWHM. This suggests that the $\sim 9-10$ yr long-term RV signal is more likely due to the stellar activity cycle than to the long-period eccentric companion HAT-P-11 c. Moreover, if the RV measurements of the last transit night actually caught the minimum of the activity cycle, given that the HARPS-N RV peak-to-peak variation of $\sim 60$  m s${}^{-1}$ is the same as that observed by Yee et al. (2018), temporal shifts between the RV and S-index minima as caused by hysteresis phenomena may not have occurred in the current activity cycle.

Even though our data suggest that the magnetic activity cycle is the most plausible origin of the long-term RV signal, Hipparcos-Gaia absolute astrometry still provides hints that a long-period companion may actually exist. The catalogues of astrometric accelerations produced by Brandt (2018, 2021) and Kervella et al. (2019, 2022) indicate the presence of a proper motion anomaly (PMA) at the mean Gaia epoch, whose signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) grows from S/N$\simeq 2.1$ to S/N$\simeq 4.7$ and from S/N$\simeq 2.8$ to S/N$\simeq 4.3$ between the Gaia DR2 and Gaia EDR3 editions of the former and latter catalogue, respectively. Indeed, Xuan & Wyatt (2020) used the Hipparcos-Gaia DR2 PMA values in combination with the Bakos et al. (2010) RVs of HAT-P-11 to constrain the true mass and inclination of the putative companion HAT-P-11 c. Fig. 6 shows the Hipparcos-Gaia DR2 and DR3 PMA sensitivity curves based on Eq. (15) of Kervella et al. (2019), along with the minimum-mass value of HAT-P-11 c derived by Yee et al. (2018) and the best-fit true mass obtained by Xuan & Wyatt (2020). The Hipparcos-Gaia DR3 PMA sensitivity curve indicates that, at the orbital separation of HAT-P-11 c, a companion inducing a statistically significant PMA should have a mass of $\sim 3.5$ $M_{\mathrm{Jup}}$. In the Xuan & Wyatt (2020) analysis, the true mass value of HAT-P-11 c falls below the PMA sensitivity curve, with a companion having true mass equal to the minimum mass from Yee et al. (2018) compatible at $\sim 1.4\,\sigma$. This is somewhat surprising as such a companion is not expected to produce a PMA with S/N$\gtrsim 3$. As the PMA technique heavily relies on the constraints from the RVs in order to successfully provide inferences on the mass and inclination of a companion, it is therefore possible that, if the long-term modulation in the RVs is actually dominated by the activity cycle, then HAT-P-11 c exists at larger separation and with a different mass than those inferred by Xuan & Wyatt (2020).

In the lack of strong evidence that the RV long-term trend is caused by the planet c with the orbital parameters given in Yee et al. (2018) for the reasons explained above, we modelled the HIRES RVs with a Keplerian orbit for the transiting planet HAT-P-11 b only, which has six free parameters: $T_{0}$, $P$, $e_{c}$, $e_{s}$, the RV semi-amplitude, $K_{\star}$, and the RV zero point, $\gamma$.

To account for non-stationary stellar variations produced by magnetic activity phenomena, we used Gaussian-process (GP) regression (e.g. Haywood et al. 2014; Haywood 2015; Grunblatt et al. 2015) with three different kernels, namely the squared-exponential (SE) kernel:

We employed Bayesian differential evolution Markov chain Monte Carlo (DE-MCMC; Ter Braak 2006; Eastman et al. 2013; Bonomo et al. 2015) techniques to derive the posterior distributions of the model parameters, by using the same prescriptions for the number and convergence of the DE-MCMC chains given in Eastman et al. (2013) and Ford (2006). We imposed Gaussian priors on $T_{0}$ and $P$ from the Kepler transit ephemeris and uniform priors on $K_{\star}$ and $\gamma$ as well as on the GP hyper-parameters $h$, $\lambda$, $P_{\rm rot}$, and $w$, with the boundaries specified in Table 3 for each GP kernel. As for the eccentricity and stellar argument of periastron, we ran two analyses per kernel: in the first one, we used uninformative priors on $e$ and $\omega_{\star}$, while in the second one we adopted Gaussian priors from the results of the modelling of the optical secondary eclipse (Sect. 2.1). We took the medians and the 15.87%-84.14% quantiles of the posterior distributions as the values and $1\,\sigma$ uncertainties of the fitted and derived parameters.

In the first analysis with uniform priors on $e$ and $\omega$, we determined $e=0.277\pm 0.025$ and $\omega_{\star}=26.8\pm 8.6$ with the SE kernel, $e=0.288\pm 0.022$ and $\omega_{\star}=27.9\pm 7.0$ with the QP kernel, and $e=0.290\pm 0.021$ and $\omega_{\star}=29.2\pm 6.7$ with the QP-SE kernel. These are consistent with the $e$ and $\omega$ values derived in Sect. 2.1 at $\lesssim 1.5\,\sigma$ and $\lesssim 2.3\,\sigma$, respectively. In the second analysis, we found $e=0.2608\pm 0.0086$ and $\omega_{\star}=13.5\pm 2.7$ deg with the SE kernel, $e=0.2638\pm 0.0090$ and $\omega_{\star}=14.2\pm 2.6$ deg with the QP kernel, and $e=0.2654\pm 0.0091$ and $\omega_{\star}=14.7\pm 2.6$ deg with the QP-SE kernel. These $e$ and $\omega$ determinations are closer to the values from the secondary eclipse ($\sim 0.6\,\sigma$ and $\sim 0.8\,\sigma$, respectively) as expected from the use of the Gaussian priors on them. The radial-velocity semi-amplitude, $K_{\star}$, does not vary from the first to the second analysis for a given kernel, but was found to be slightly higher for the SE kernel, that is, $K_{\star}=11.20\pm 0.50$ m s${}^{-1}$, to be compared to $K_{\star}=10.75\pm 0.41$ m s${}^{-1}$ and $K_{\star}=10.78\pm 0.42$ m s${}^{-1}$ for the QP and QP-SE kernels, respectively (see Table 3).

By using the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) as a proxy for the Bayesian evidence, we found that the model with the QP-SE kernel is the most favoured, while that with the SE kernel is highly disfavoured. We therefore adopted the orbital parameters of the former (QP-SE) model (Table 3), which has also a more physical rationale because the rotation and activity cycle signals were modelled with two different (QP and SE) kernels. On the other hand, the QP kernel had to adapt to fit the activity cycle long-term variation in addition to the rotational signal, with its hyper-parameters $h$ and $\lambda$ taking intermediate values between $h_{\rm rot}$ and $h_{\rm cycle}$, and $\lambda_{\rm rot}$ and $\lambda_{\rm cycle}$ in the third kernel (Eq. 5). We note that the GP models with both the QP and QP-SE kernels properly retrieved a stellar rotation period of $P_{\rm rot}\sim 32-33$ d, close to $P_{\rm rot}\sim 29-30$ d as estimated from the Kepler photometry, despite the large uniform prior adopted (see Table 3). We show the best-fit GP+Keplerian models as a function of time in the left panel of Fig. 7, and the Keplerian orbit due to HAT-P-11 b as a function of the orbital phase, after the removal of the GP activity model, in the right panel of the same figure.

For the rest of our analysis, we decided to use the orbital solution that we obtained from the analysis of transits and occultations due to the higher precision/accuracy in the determination of $e$ and $\omega$. We combined the stellar parameters, the transit parameters from the Kepler light curve (Sect. 2.1.1), and the RV parameters to derive a mass of $M_{\rm p}=0.0787\pm 0.0048\leavevmode\nobreak\ M_{\rm J}$ ($M_{\rm p}=25.0\pm 1.5\,M_{\oplus}$) and a mean density of $\rho_{\rm p}=1.172\pm 0.085$ g cm${}^{-3}$, for HAT-P-11 b. Finally, by knowing both the mass of the star and the planet, we computed the value of the planetary RV semi-amplitude $K_{\rm p}$, which we used for the atmospheric characterisation in Sect. 3. All the derived parameters of the HAT-P-11 planetary system are reported in Table 1.