1: \documentclass{emulateapj}

2: 

3: \newcommand{\kepler}{{\it Kepler}}

4: \newcommand{\tpf}{{\it TPF}}

5: \newcommand{\hst}{{\it HST}}

6: \newcommand{\cmpss}{cm~s$^{-2}$}

7: \newcommand{\mps}{m~s$^{-1}$}

8: \newcommand{\mpstwo}{m~s$^{-2}$}

9: \newcommand{\kps}{km~s$^{-1}$}

10: \newcommand{\maspyr}{mas~yr$^{-1}$}

11: \newcommand{\Msun}{${\rm M_\odot}$}

12: \newcommand{\Rsun}{${\rm R_\odot}$}

13: \newcommand{\Mjup}{${\rm M_J}$}

14: \newcommand{\xonb}{XO-2b}

15: \newcommand{\xon}{XO-2}

16: \newcommand{\Rjup}{${\rm R_J}$}

17: \newcommand{\vMs}{0.98}		

18: \newcommand{\eMs}{0.02}

19: \newcommand{\vRs}{0.97}		

20: \newcommand{\epRs}{0.02}

21: \newcommand{\enRs}{0.01}

22: \newcommand{\sptype}{K0V}

23: \newcommand{\vrvK}{85} 

24: \newcommand{\ervK}{8}

25: \newcommand{\vrvR}{47.451} 

26: \newcommand{\ervR}{0.006} 

27: 

28: \newcommand{\vDs}{150}		

29: \newcommand{\epDs}{4}

30: \newcommand{\enDs}{2}

31: 

32: \newcommand{\vjd}{2454147.74902}	

33: \newcommand{\ejd}{0.0002}	

34: \newcommand{\vap}{0.0369}	

35: \newcommand{\eap}{0.0002}

36: 

37: \newcommand{\vperiod}{2.615857}	

38: \newcommand{\eperiod}{0.000005}

39: \newcommand{\vMp}{0.57}

40: \newcommand{\eMp}{0.06}	

41: \newcommand{\vRp}{0.98}		

42: \newcommand{\epRp}{0.03}

43: \newcommand{\enRp}{0.01}

44: \newcommand{\vincl}{88.9}

45: \newcommand{\eincl}{0.7}

46: \newcommand{\vDur}{2.68}

47: \newcommand{\eDur}{0.02}

48: \newcommand{\vUone}{0.74}

49: \newcommand{\eUone}{0.08}

50: \newcommand{\vUtwo}{-0.22}

51: \newcommand{\epUtwo}{0.2}

52: \newcommand{\enUtwo}{0.1}

53: \newcommand{\vAge}{5.3}

54: \newcommand{\epAge}{1.0}

55: \newcommand{\enAge}{0.7}

56: \newcommand{\vSepas}{31}

57: \newcommand{\vFeH}{0.45}

58: \newcommand{\eFeH}{0.02}

59: \newcommand{\vgp}{14.8}

60: \newcommand{\egp}{1.6}

61: 

62: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal}

63: 

64: 

65: \received{2007 Sep 14}

66: \begin{document}

67: 

68: \title{XO-2\lowercase{b}: Transiting Hot Jupiter in a Metal-rich Common Proper Motion Binary}

69: 

70: \author{

71: Christopher~J.~Burke\altaffilmark{1}

72: P.~R.~McCullough\altaffilmark{1},

73: Jeff~A.~Valenti\altaffilmark{1},

74: Christopher~M.~Johns-Krull\altaffilmark{2},

75: Kenneth~A.~Janes\altaffilmark{3},

76: J.~N.~Heasley\altaffilmark{4},

77: F.~J.~Summers\altaffilmark{1},

78: J.~E.~Stys\altaffilmark{1},

79: R.~Bissinger\altaffilmark{5},

80: Michael~L.~Fleenor\altaffilmark{6},

81: Cindy~N.~Foote\altaffilmark{7},

82: Enrique~Garc\'{i}a-Melendo\altaffilmark{8},

83: Bruce~L.~Gary\altaffilmark{9},

84: P.~J.~Howell\altaffilmark{3},

85: F.~Mallia\altaffilmark{10},

86: G.~Masi\altaffilmark{11},

87: B.~Taylor\altaffilmark{3},

88: T.~Vanmunster\altaffilmark{12}

89: }

90: 

91: \email{cjburke@stsci.edu}

92: 

93: \altaffiltext{1}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Dr., Baltimore MD 21218}

94: \altaffiltext{2}{Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, MS-108, Houston, TX 77005}

95: \altaffiltext{3}{Boston University, Astronomy Dept., 725 Commonwealth Ave.,Boston, MA 02215}

96: \altaffiltext{4}{Inst. for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680 Woodlawn Dr., Honolulu, HI 96822-1839}

97: \altaffiltext{5}{Racoon Run Observatory, Pleasanton, CA}

98: \altaffiltext{6}{Volunteer Observatory, Knoxville, TN}

99: \altaffiltext{7}{Vermillion Cliffs Observatory, Kanab, UT}

100: \altaffiltext{8}{Esteve Duran Observatory Foundation, Montseny 46, 08553 Seva, Spain}

101: \altaffiltext{9}{Hereford Arizona Observatory, Hereford, AZ}

102: \altaffiltext{10}{Campo Catino Astronomical Observatory, Guarcino, Italy}

103: \altaffiltext{11}{Virtual Telescope Project, Bellatrix Astronomical Observatory, Ceccano, Italy}

104: \altaffiltext{12}{CBA Belgium Observatory, Landen, Belgium}

105: 

106: 

107: \begin{abstract}

108: We report on a V=11.2 early K dwarf, \xon\ (GSC 03413-00005), that hosts a

109: $R_{p}$=\vRp$\pm^{\epRp}_{\enRp}$ \Rjup, $M_{p}$=\vMp$\pm$ \eMp\ \Mjup\

110: transiting extrasolar planet, \xonb, with an orbital period of

111: \vperiod$\pm$\eperiod\ days.  \xon\ has high metallicity,

112: [Fe/H]=\vFeH$\pm$\eFeH, high proper motion, $\mu_{tot}=157$

113: mas~yr$^{-1}$, and has a common proper motion stellar companion with

114: \vSepas $\arcsec$ separation.  The two stars are nearly identical

115: twins, with very similar spectra and apparent magnitudes.  Due to the

116: high metallicity, these early K dwarf stars have a mass and radius

117: close to solar, $M_{\star}=\vMs\pm

118: \eMs$ \Msun\ and $R_{\star}=\vRs\pm^{\epRs}_{\enRs}$ \Rsun .  The high

119: proper motion of \xon\ results from an eccentric orbit (Galactic

120: pericenter, $R_{per}<4$ kpc) well confined to the Galactic disk

121: ($Z_{max}\sim 100$ pc).  In addition, the phase space position of \xon\

122: is near the Hercules dynamical stream, which points to an origin of

123: \xon\ in the metal-rich, inner Thin Disk and subsequent dynamical

124: scattering into the solar neighborhood.  We describe an efficient

125: Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm for calculating the Bayesian

126: posterior probability of the system parameters from a transit light

127: curve.

128: \end{abstract}

129: 

130: \keywords{binaries: eclipsing -- planetary systems -- stars: individual

131: (GSC 34130-0005) -- techniques: photometric -- techniques: radial velocities}

132: 

133: \section{Introduction}

134: 

135: We announce the discovery of an extrasolar planet, \xonb, that

136: transits a bright, V=11.2, star.  With an orbital period, $P\sim 2.6$

137: days, planetary radius, $R_{\rm p}=$\vRp\ \Rjup, and planetary mass,

138: $M_{\rm p}=$\vMp\ \Mjup,

139: \xonb\ belongs to the growing class of transiting Hot Jupiter (HJ)

140: planets \citep{CHA07}.  Despite the increasing number of transiting

141: planets known, much work still remains to understand the observed

142: properties of planets.  The transiting planets HD209458b

143: \citep{CHA00,HEN00}, HAT-P-1b \citep{BAK07}, and WASP-1b \citep{CAM07,CHA07b} have anomalously large

144: radii compared to theoretical models and are thought to require an

145: external source of energy to remain inflated

146: \citep{BOD03,GUI02,WIN05}.  However, recently \citet{BUR06} explain

147: the radii of transiting planets without the need for an extra source

148: of energy by accounting for enhanced metallicity opacities and

149: properly comparing observed radii to theoretical radii.  In contrast,

150: HD149026b has an extremely high density and small radius

151: \citep{SAT05}.  There is general agreement that a pure H/He mixture

152: cannot explain the small radius of HD149026b, but a planet model

153: with a massive central core, $M_{c}\sim 70\ M_{\oplus}$, of heavy

154: elements along with a small H/He envelope can explain the

155: radius of HD149026b

156: \citep{SAT05,FORT06}.

157: 

158: Disentangling the effects of stellar irradiation, migration, central core mass,

159: and composition on the observed properties of planets requires discovering

160: more bright transiting planets \citep{CHA07,FORT06}.  \xonb\ is the

161: second contribution to the bright transiting planet sample provided by

162: the XO Project \citep{MCC05}; XO-1b being the first \citep{MCC06}.  Of

163: the bright transiting planet hosts ($V<12$), \xon\ has the highest metallicity ([Fe/H]=\vFeH\ see

164: \S~\ref{sec:sme}).  In addition, from a recent catalog of extrasolar planets

165: \citep{BUT06}, \xon\ has a higher metallicity than 96\% of all known

166: extrasolar planet hosts.

167: 

168: Metallicity plays a crucial

169: role in the formation of planets and the resulting HJ atmospheres.

170: The frequency of radial velocity detected planets is known to increase

171: with metallicity \citep{FIS05}.  In the core accretion planet

172: formation model, a high metallicity environment grows larger cores

173: and enables more objects to reach the critical mass necessary for

174: runaway gas accretion and transformation into a detectable gas giant

175: planet \citep{IDA04,BENZ06}.  Detailed fits to the mass and radius of

176: the known transiting planets yields a mass estimate for the central

177: refractory element core \citep{GUI06,BUR06}.  These investigations

178: derive a larger core mass for planets that transit higher

179: metallicity stars.  In addition to the bulk properties of extrasolar

180: planets, metallicity plays an important role in the planet's

181: atmosphere, especially for a HJ experiencing large stellar irradiation.

182: An increased metallicity results in a greater absorption of the stellar

183: irradiation and larger equilibrium temperatures than a comparable

184: planet of lower metallicity \citep{FORT06}.  The variations in equilibrium

185: temperature can lead to variations in the dominant observable features

186: in the planet's atmosphere.

187: 

188: Amongst the other transiting HJ planets, \xonb\ shares a common

189: characteristic with another transiting HJ, HAT-P-1b \citep{BAK07}.

190: Both planets orbit one member of a nearly-equal-mass, wide separation

191: stellar binary.  The \xon\ stellar binary system has a separation of

192: \vSepas $\arcsec$ ($\sim$ 4600 AU separation with a distance of $\sim$

193: 150 pc) and both components have an identical within the uncertainties

194: 157 mas\ yr$^{-1}$ proper motion vector as measured with Tycho-2

195: \citep{HOG00} and the high proper motion catalog of

196: \citep{LEP05}.  It is not unusual for planets to exist in binary

197: systems.  \citet{RAG06} find $>$23\% of stars with planets have a

198: stellar companion, however, they find evidence that the extrasolar

199: planet sample is deficient in stellar binaries when compared to the

200: field.  A stellar companion with a 4600 AU separation is not expected

201: to influence the planet formation process.  Even assuming an orbital

202: eccentricity, $e$=0.8, for the unknown eccentricity of the

203: \xon\ stellar binary, planets within $a_{c}\sim 170$ AU of \xon\ are

204: dynamically stable \citep{HOL99} (we assume the current measured

205: projected binary separation is close to the actual semi-major axis of

206: the orbit when calculating $a_{c}$).  Empirically, \citet{DES07} do not

207: find any statistically significant difference between planets around

208: single stars and planets in wide ($a>100$ AU) separation binaries.

209: However, understanding the influence of a stellar companion on the

210: planet formation process is complicated by the fact that the binary

211: configuration during planet formation may be vastly different than

212: what is currently observed \citep{MAR07,MAL07}.

213: 

214: The similar brightness of the \xon\ stellar binary components and

215: their angular separation provides an excellent opportunity for

216: detailed line abundance studies.  The higher metallicity of the known

217: planet host stars is thought to be of primordial origin rather than

218: heavy element pollution due to infalling planets \citep{FIS05,GON06}.

219: The infalling planet model for explaining the higher metallicity of

220: the known planet host stars has predominately come from observations

221: showing differing element abundances between common proper motion

222: binary components.  These element abundance differences have typically

223: been overturned by further independent analyses

224: \citep{GON06}.  The difficulty in reliable abundance differences

225: results from systematic effects in analyzing stars of different

226: $T_{eff}$ and evolutionary state \citep{SCH06}.  Such effects are

227: reduced for the \xon\ stellar binary.

228: 

229: On the sky, \xon\ and a line joining its stellar companion has a

230: position angle of 162$\degr$, nearly along the

231: North-South direction (see the finder chart in Figure~\ref{finder}).

232: \xon\ is the Northern component of the binary (indicated by the arrow

233: in Figure~\ref{finder}).  The magnitude difference between the

234: components is $\Delta V=0.05$ mag.  Thus, in the optical, \xon\ is

235: fainter than its Southern companion.  The traditional nomenclature for

236: binary stars designates \xon\ as \xon B and the planet

237: \xon Bb.  However, throughout this article we simply designate the

238: transiting HJ stellar host \xon\ and the planet around it

239: \xon b.  When it is unclear from the context we alternatively designate

240: \xon\ as \xon N and the Southern stellar companion as \xon S.  We adopt

241: this naming convention because the magnitude difference between the

242: stellar components is small and the spectra are nearly identical, both

243: of which make it difficult to distinguish the objects, whereas the

244: \vSepas $\arcsec$ separation readily distinguishes the stellar

245: components based on declination.  We refer to both stellar components

246: as a unit as the \xon\ stellar binary.

247: 

248: In \S~\ref{sec:obs}, we provide details of the discovery and follow up

249: photometry and spectroscopy.  The high resolution spectroscopy is

250: analyzed in \S~\ref{sec:sme} to determine the stellar properties of

251: \xon N and \xon S.  The high precision photometry is analyzed in

252: \S~\ref{sec:lcmcmc} employing an efficient Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm to

253: determine the properties of \xonb.  We confirm the planetary mass of

254: \xonb\ with radial velocity measurements in \S~\ref{sec:rv}.  The

255: ephemeris for \xonb\ is refined and the transit observations are

256: investigated for transit timing variations in \S~\ref{sec:ttv}.  There

257: is a brief discussion regarding the \xon\ stellar binary and its

258: Galactic orbit in \S~\ref{sec:disc}, and we summarize the article in

259: \S~\ref{sec:sum}.

260: 

261: \begin{figure}

262: \plotone{f1.eps}

263: \caption{Finder chart for \xon\ and its stellar companion at two epochs.  The arrow indicates \xon.  North is toward the top of the figure and East is toward the left of the figure.  ({\it Left}) Digital Sky Survey POSS I Red image

264: from 1953.  ({\it Right}) 2MASS H-band image from 2000.

265: The common proper motion is predominately directed South.\label{finder}}

266: \end{figure}

267: 

268: 

269: \section{Observations}\label{sec:obs}

270: 

271: \subsection{XO Project Photometry}

272: 

273: \xonb\ is the second transiting planet discovered by the XO survey after

274: XO-1b \citep{MCC06}.  \citet{MCC05} and \citet{MCC07} describe the

275: instrumentation, operation, and analysis in more detail than the

276: summary provided here.  The twin, 200mm XO cameras power drift scan in

277: declination over a $7\deg \times 62\deg$ strip every ten minutes on

278: clear nights for more than 2 months per season of visibility.  The XO

279: observations employ a broad (0.4$\mu$m to 0.7$\mu$m) passband.  The

280: star \xon\ comes from the XO strip centered on RA 8.0 hr and is one of

281: several thousands of bright (V$<12$) stars monitored in this strip

282: over the period September 2003 to September 2005.  The Box-fitting

283: Least Squares algorithm, BLS, \citep{KOV02} was employed to search the

284: nearly 3000 observations per star for repetitive transit events with

285: periods ranging from $P=0.5-10$ day.  We perform the transit search on

286: two realizations of the light curve.  One realization is the

287: calibrated light curves as described in \citet{MCC05} and the other

288: realization of the light curve has the SysRem algorithm \citep{TAM05}

289: applied to the calibrated light curve in order to further remove

290: systematics.  In the case of \xon, there were no substantive

291: improvements in the light curve quality after implementing SysRem and

292: both analyses identified the same transit period and phase.

293: 

294: \citet{MCC07} describe the selection of transit candidates for

295: followup.  In addition, for consideration the candidates must pass

296: selection criteria as described in \citet{BURK06}.  In brief, we

297: require observations covering more than 1.5 transit events, avoid 0.5

298: and 1.0 day periods where systematic aliases result in false-positive

299: detections, require the transit depth, $\delta m<0.1$ mag, and require

300: the transit to have higher significance than systematic errors (as

301: measured by the transit to anti-transit Ratio Statistic, RS, of

302: \citet{BURK06}).

303: 

304: Figure~\ref{xophased} shows the XO light curve phased on the detected

305: period as returned from BLS.  We achieved 0.7\% or 0.007 mag per

306: observation precision on this V=11.2 object.  The transit occurs at

307: $\Delta t=0.0$ day and any signature of a secondary eclipse would

308: occur at $\Delta t=1.3$ day for a circular orbit.  At the angular

309: resolution of the XO survey, both components of the \xon\ stellar

310: binary are within the photometry aperture leading to transit depth

311: dilution.  Light curves resolving the components of the \xon\ stellar

312: binary result in twice the transit depth (see Figure~\ref{et436}), but

313: in the discovery light curve the transit depth is 0.007 mag.  With the

314: XO cameras, we observed two nearly complete transits of \xonb\ at the end

315: of 2004, and beginning of 2005 (Julian dates 2453355 and

316: 2453376).  In addition, on seven other nights, XO cameras captured

317: partial ingress and egress events.  First occurrence of a partial

318: transit was at the end of 2003 on Julian date 24552994.

319: Table~\ref{table:lc} provides a sample of the photometry for \xon\

320: from the XO cameras.  The full table is available in the online

321: edition.

322: 

323: \begin{figure}

324: \plotone{f2.eps}

325: \caption{Discovery phased light curve from the XO Project data.    ({\it Top}) The phased light curve around the transit event.  ({\it Bottom}) The phased light curve over the full orbital period.  The individual measurements ({\it points}) are shown binned ({\it solid line}) to reduce noise.  The transit occurs at $\Delta t=0.0$ day and any secondary eclipse for a circular orbit would occur at $\Delta t=1.3$ day ({\it dotted line}).  No secondary eclipse is evident above the noise.  At the resolution of the XO cameras, both components of the \xon\ stellar binary are within the photometry aperture causing dilution of the transit depth.\label{xophased}}

326: \end{figure}

327: 

328: 

329: \subsection{Extended Team and Follow Up Photometry}\label{sec:etphot}

330: 

331: The Extended Team (E.T.) provides photometric follow up for XO

332: candidates.  The E.T.\ (R.~B., M.~F., C.~F., E.~G-M.,B.~G., P.~H.,

333: F.~M., G.~M., and T.~V.) is a collaboration of professional and

334: amateur astronomers \citep{MCC05,MCC06}.  We sent the candidate list

335: containing \xon\ to the E.T.\ on January 16, 2007.  On, January 18,

336: 2007, E.T.\ observations confirmed the transit events for \xonb\ in the

337: R-band using a 0.6-m telescope (solid green line in

338: Figure~\ref{et436}).  The initial observations were truncated due to

339: high air mass, but the observations confirmed the XO ephemeris, the

340: transit occurs in the Northern star of the \xon\ stellar binary, and

341: the undiluted transit depth is consistent with a planetary radius and

342: the XO photometry.  A complete transit was observed by the E.T. on

343: January 26, 2007 and the binned R-band light curve obtained with a

344: 0.35-m telescope is shown as the solid red line in Figure~\ref{et436}.

345: The light curves shown in Figure~\ref{et436} are used for refining the

346: ephemeris and looking for evidence of transit timing variations in

347: \S~\ref{sec:ttv}.  Based on observations of other transit candidates

348: by the E.T., repeat transit events in the same passband have a 0.2\%

349: or 0.002 mag standard deviation in deriving the transit depth.  At

350: this level of precision, the E.T.\ observations of

351: \xonb\ are consistent with a gray transit.  Table~\ref{table:lc}

352: provides E.T. photometry for \xon.  For the E.T. light

353: curves, the median differential magnitude out of transit provides the

354: flux normalization and the standard deviation out of transit provides

355: the uncertainty in the measurements.

356: 

357: On February 16, 2007 we observed a transit event of \xonb\ with the

358: 1.83-m Perkins Telescope at Lowell Observatory using the PRISM

359: instrument in imaging mode \citep{JAN04}.  The PRISM camera is a

360: 2048x2048 Fairchild CCD with 0.39$\arcsec$/pix resolution.  The

361: transit event was well positioned in the evening, occurring over the

362: airmass range 1.05$\lesssim X\lesssim$1.16.  To improve efficiency a

363: subframe containing \xon N and \xon S was read out with a 8-10 s

364: cadence.  The average seeing during the course of observations,

365: 3$\arcsec$, was poor for the site.  The final light curve is a

366: differential light curve for \xon N using \xon S as the comparison

367: shown in Figure~\ref{janeslc} employing aperture photometry and an

368: R-band filter.  The selected aperture size for photometry minimizes

369: the resulting rms scatter in the differential light curve.  In

370: addition to the R-band photometry, photometry in the BVI passbands was

371: obtained before the transit, at mid-transit, and after the transit.

372: The gap in the R-band data at mid-transit accommodates the multiple

373: filter data.  A computer failure resulted in the gap of R-band data at

374: the start of ingress.

375: 

376: 

377: 

378: To normalize the differential light curve, the average magnitude from

379: out of transit data was subtracted from the light curve.  This was

380: done independently for each half of the light curve separated by the

381: mid-transit gap.  There is a $\Delta m=0.001$ magnitude difference in

382: the normalization zeropoints between the data before and after the

383: transit.  This offset results from repositioning the telescope and

384: refocusing for the BVI data acquisition at mid-transit.  During an

385: uninterrupted R-band data series, a 0.3 pix rms positional accuracy was

386: maintained resulting in $\sim$0.0014 mag rms over 1 minute intervals.

387: Accurate positioning was not maintained for the BVI data resulting in

388: $\sim \Delta 0.005$ mag offsets between the data obtained before and

389: after the transit.  The average BVI passband data before transit was

390: subtracted from the BVI data obtained at mid-transit and after transit

391: to yield the differential light curve in these passbands as shown in

392: Figure~\ref{janeslc}.  Within the systematics resulting from

393: repositioning of the stars on the detector, the transit is gray.

394: 

395: We obtained photometric B, V, ${\rm R_C}$, and ${\rm I_C}$ magnitudes

396: for \xon N and \xon S using a 0.35-m telescope on

397: the photometric night of January 24, 2007 (Table~\ref{table:star}).  A single

398: Landolt area \citep{LAN92} was observed at the same airmass as \xon\ to

399: derive the zero point and color transformation coefficients.  The

400: color transformation coefficients were consistent with comprehensive

401: standard star measurements from four Landolt fields obtained two weeks

402: previous using the identical instrumental setup.  The color range of

403: Landolt standards was $-0.14\leq {\rm (B-V)} \leq 1.4$.  The B, V,

404: ${\rm R_C}$, and ${\rm I_C}$ absolute photometric accuracies are 0.04,

405: 0.04, 0.04, and 0.05 mag r.m.s., including both the rms scatter around

406: the photometric transformation model and an estimated systematic

407: error.  The Tycho-2 magnitudes for \xon\ listed in Table~\ref{table:star} transform

408: (via Table 2 of \citet{BES00}) to Johnson $V = 11.25$, i.e. 0.07 mag

409: (2-$\sigma$) fainter than our estimate.

410: In addition, we accurately measured the instrumental magnitude difference between \xon N and \xon S.  We find \xon N is fainter than \xon S by 0.07$\pm$0.008 mag in the B-band, 0.055$\pm$0.004 mag in the V-band, 0.040$\pm$0.004 mag in the R-band, and 0.030$\pm$0.003 mag in the I-band.

411: 

412: \begin{figure}

413: \plotone{f3.eps}

414: \caption{Binned light curves from the Extended Team for \xon.  The color of the text in the lower left corner indicates the date (2007), observer, and passband of the observations.  The passband labels are Johnson for the system except {\it Clr} indicates unfiltered observations and {\it BB} indicates a blue blocking ($>$ 0.5 $\micron$) filter. \label{et436}}

415: \end{figure}

416: 

417: \begin{figure}

418: \plotone{f4.eps}

419: \caption{Light curve from the 1.8m Perkins Telescope at Lowell Observatory in the R-band ({\it points}) for \xon N using \xon S as the comparison star.  The open symbols show the differential photometry in the B ({\it diamond}), V ({\it triangle}), and I ({\it square}) passbands using the average of the BVI observations obtained before the transit for the flux normalization level ({\it dotted line}).   Accurate positioning of the stellar image on the detector was not maintained during the BVI observations resulting in 0.5\% or 0.005 mag systematic offsets.  However, accurate positioning of the stellar image on the detector was maintained during the R-band light curve resulting in $\sim$0.0014 mag rms over 1 minute intervals.  Also shown is the best-fit transit model in a $\chi^{2}$ sense during the MCMC analysis. ({\it solid line}). \label{janeslc}}

420: \end{figure}

421: 

422: 

423: \subsection{Spectroscopy}\label{sec:spectroscopy}

424: After confirmation of the XO transit light curve from E.T.\

425: observations (see \S\ref{sec:etphot}), we initiated queue schedule

426: observations of \xon N and \xon S with the High-Resolution

427: Spectrograph (HRS), a fiber fed cross-dispersed echelle spectrograph

428: \citep{TUL98}, on the McDonald Observatory 11-m Hobby-Eberly Telescope

429: (HET) in order to measure the mass of the planet.  The first HRS

430: observations using an iodine gas cell for precision radial velocities

431: commenced on January 26, 2007.  Table~\ref{table:rv} provides dates of

432: the HRS observations along with the resulting radial velocities.  The

433: instrument setup provides R=60,000 resolution and wavelength coverage

434: over the range $4000<\lambda<7800$ $\AA$ with center at $\lambda=5900$

435: $\AA$.  We extracted the two-dimensional echelle spectra using

436: procedures described in \citet{HIN00}.  The resulting Signal-to-Noise

437: ratio (SNR) varied from 20-50 per extracted pixel at the blaze peak.

438: We calculate radial velocities for \xon N and \xon S in

439: \S~\ref{sec:rv}.

440: 

441: To measure the stellar parameters of \xon N and \xon S, we also

442: obtained spectra with the 2dCoud\'{e} echelle spectrometer

443: \citep{TUL95} on the McDonald Observatory 2.7-m Harlan J.\ Smith

444: Telescope (HJS).  We obtained two spectra of \xon N and a single

445: spectrum of \xon S with R=60,000 and wavelength coverage of 3900-9600

446: $\AA$.  We determine the stellar parameters in \S~\ref{sec:sme}.

447: 

448: \section{Analysis}

449: 

450: \subsection{Stellar Properties}\label{sec:sme}

451: 

452: We use the Spectroscopy Made Easy (SME) analysis package of

453: \citet{VAL96} with refinements from \citet{VAL05} on the HJS spectra

454: to measure the stellar properties of \xon N and \xon S.  We briefly

455: describe the process here.  The free parameters, $T_{eff}$, log$g$,

456: [M/H], $v\sin{i}$, [Na/H], [Si/H], [Ti/H], [Fe/H], and [Ni/H], are

457: varied in order to minimize the difference of the resulting synthetic

458: spectrum to the observed spectrum.  A quadratic continuum is fit over

459: 8 wavelength intervals for each unique set of the above free

460: parameters.  When generating the synthetic spectrum, the

461: pressure-temperature profile of the atmosphere comes from

462: interpolating the atmosphere grid of \citet{KUR92}.  The atomic line

463: list comes from the Vienna Atomic Line Database (VALD) \citep{PIS95}

464: and the molecular line list comes from \citet{KUR93}.  The line

465: strengths and van der Waals damping parameter of the line list

466: database were adjusted to improve agreement with the observed solar

467: spectrum, as described in \citet{VAL05}.

468: 

469: Table~\ref{table:sme} lists the stellar parameters for XO-2N and XO-2S

470: based on the SME analysis.  The results for \xon N are based on the

471: average from two spectra and the results for \xon S are based on a

472: single spectrum.  Both \xon N and \xon S independently result in a

473: metal enhanced abundance, [Fe/H]=\vFeH$\pm$\eFeH.  Using the primary

474: observables from the SME analysis ($T_{eff}$, abundances, and log$g$)

475: and the apparent magnitude in the V-band (\S~\ref{sec:etphot}), we

476: determine secondary stellar properties, $M_{\star}$, $R_{\star}$,

477: distance, and age using the Y$^{2}$ isochrones \citep{YI01} following the procedure

478: of \citet{VAL05}.  The distance to \xon\ is unknown, thus the

479: probability density function for $M_{\star}$, $R_{\star}$, and age are

480: calculated for a sequence of trial distances in steps of 10 pc.  The SME

481: isochrone analysis for select distances to \xon\ are listed in

482: Table~\ref{table:smeiso}.  We determine a distance, d=\vDs\ pc, to

483: \xon\ in \S~\ref{sec:lcmcmc} from a joint analysis of the SME analysis

484: and transit light curve.  We show the probability density for the \xon

485: N parameters in Figure~\ref{fig:smeiso} for the preferred distance to

486: \xon\ of \vDs\ pc.

487: 

488: The spectrum alone yields an estimate of the stellar gravity,

489: log$g_{sme}$.  Estimates of $M_{\star}$ and $R_{\star}$ from the

490: isochrone analysis provide an additional estimate of log$g_{iso}$ as a

491: function of distance to \xon.  The condition log$g_{sme}$=log$g_{iso}$

492: yields an approximate distance to \xon .  The data for \xon S provides

493: a consistency check, and ideally the condition

494: log$g_{sme}$=log$g_{iso}$ for \xon S is met for the same distance as

495: \xon N.  In practice, we find \xon S has log$g_{sme}=4.6$; too large a

496: value for log$g_{iso}$ to accommodate at any distance.  Also, \xon S

497: being brighter and thus more massive than \xon N implies log$g_{sme}$ for

498: \xon S should be lower than log$g_{sme}=4.5$ of \xon N, opposite of what is

499: measured.  Analysis of the transit light curve along with the physical

500: parameters for \xon N from the isochrone analysis in

501: \S~\ref{sec:lcmcmc}, yields log$g_{lc,iso}\sim 4.5$, confirming the

502: spectroscopic log$g_{sme}$ for \xon N is correct and the log$g_{sme}$

503: for \xon S is an overestimate.

504: 

505: The overestimate in log$g_{sme}$ for \xon S is not without precedent.

506: The SME based log$g$ can result in higher values than the Y$^{2}$

507: isochrones allow for some objects in the Spectroscopic Properties of

508: Cool Stars (SPOCS) catalog as a result of the numerous degeneracies

509: that exist between the spectral parameters (see Figure 16 of

510: \citet{VAL05}).  Despite individual cases of an overestimated log$g$,

511: comparing stars analyzed with SME in common with other independent

512: spectral analyses does not reveal a systematic offset in log$g$ (see Figure 20

513: of \citet{VAL05}).  The 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties in the stellar

514: parameters given in Table~\ref{table:sme} are based on the typical rms

515: scatter in parameters measured in independent, multiple spectra for

516: stars in the SPOCS catalog.  Based on the 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties in

517: Table~\ref{table:sme}, the difference in log$g$ between \xon N and

518: \xon S is significant.  However, the distribution of repeat

519: measurements for parameters in the SPOCS catalog (see Table 5 of

520: \citet{VAL05}) display extended wings and the Gaussian-based

521: uncertainties underestimate the possibility of outlying measurements.

522: Thus, we also provide the 99.7\% confidence intervals for the

523: parameters based on Table 5 of \citet{VAL05}.  Since, the \xon S

524: parameters are based on a single spectrum, the 99.7\% confidence

525: interval is more appropriate than relying solely on the 1-$\sigma$

526: error when deciding on the significance of any differences between the

527: properties of \xon N and \xon S.  

528: 

529: \begin{figure}

530: \plotone{f5.eps}

531: \caption{Distributions for four stellar parameters derived from the

532: SME analysis (see text) for a distance of 150 pc. The values of

533: the mean and limits containing $\pm34$\%\ of the distribution from the mean

534: are annotated on the figures and listed in

535: Table~\ref{table:sme} along with

536: corresponding values for distances of 140 pc and 170 pc.\label{fig:smeiso}}

537: \end{figure}

538: 

539: \subsection{Markov Chain Monte Carlo Light Curve Analysis}\label{sec:lcmcmc}

540: 

541: \citet{FORD05}, \citet{GRE05}, and references therein provide a

542: thorough discussion of the theory behind Markov Chain Monte Carlo

543: (MCMC) Bayesian analysis along with a practical MCMC implementation

544: for radial velocity planet detection.  In a multidimensional problem,

545: the MCMC algorithm is an efficient means of calculating the Bayesian

546: posterior probability for parameters.  \citet{HOL06} describe MCMC

547: analysis applied to determining the system properties for transiting

548: extrasolar planets.  In their analysis of the transit light curve for

549: XO-1b, \citet{HOL06} calculate the posterior probability using the

550: stellar radius, $R_{\star}$, planet radius, $R_{p}$, orbital

551: inclination, $i$, and the two coefficients of the quadratic limb

552: darkening law as free parameters.  In the transit fitting problem, the

553: relationship between $R_{\star}$, $R_{p}$, and $i$ has a high degree

554: of degeneracy and nonlinearity.  We illustrate the degeneracy and

555: nonlinearity between parameters in the top panels of

556: Figure~\ref{tranfig} for a MCMC calculation of the \xonb\ system

557: properties.  The nonlinear, ''banana-shaped'' degeneracy between

558: $R_{p}$ and $i$ slows the rate of convergence for MCMC algorithms.

559: MCMC algorithms work more efficiently when the relationship between

560: parameters is multi-normal without covariance

561: \citep{KOS02}.

562: 

563: \begin{figure}

564: \plotone{f6.eps}

565: \caption{Correlation between parameters for samples in a MCMC calculation of the \xonb\ posterior distribution.  The parameters $R_{\star}$, $R_{p}$, and $i$ are tightly correlated and the $R_{p}$ versus $i$ correlation is nonlinear ({\it Top}).  With the choice of parameters, $R_{\star}$, $\rho$, and $\tau$, the correlations between parameters are linear ({\it Middle}).  Solving for the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix from samples shown in the Middle Panel yields an eigenbasis set of parameters ({\it Lower}).  The eigenvector along the direction of largest variance, $e_{1}$ is predominately along $R_{\star}$.  Eigenvectors $e_{2}$ and $e_{3}$ are a mixture of $\rho$ and $\tau$.  The multi-normal without covariance properties of the eigenbasis set of parameters provides a more efficient MCMC calculation.\label{tranfig}}

566: \end{figure}

567: 

568: 

569: To remove the nonlinearity between parameters, we choose the following

570: set of free parameters: $R_{\star}$, $\rho=R_{p}/R_{\star}$, and the

571: total transit duration from 1$^{\rm st}$ to 4$^{\rm th}$ contact,

572: $\tau$.  With this nonlinear transformation, the degeneracy between

573: the new set of parameters is along a straight line as shown in the

574: middle panels of Figure~\ref{tranfig}.  A further linear

575: transformation between parameters yields an eigenbasis set of

576: parameters with a multi-normal non-covariant relationship that results

577: in an efficient MCMC calculation.  These transformations improve the

578: rate of convergence for the MCMC analysis by more than a factor of 100

579: when measured by the autocorrelation length of the samples in the MCMC

580: sequence.  Appendix~\ref{apx:mcmc} provides further details of the

581: MCMC implementation developed for this study.

582: 

583: We employ the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm with a normal proposal

584: distribution for calculating the Markov Chain.  We follow a Gibbs-like

585: sampling technique where each step in the chain consists of a number

586: of intra steps updating each individual parameter in turn.  Several

587: short, trial chains iteratively yield scale factors of the normal

588: proposal distribution for each parameter with a 25\% to 40\%

589: acceptance rate for the trial samples.  The likelihood function is

590: given by $e^{-0.5\chi^{2}}$, were we have assumed the errors are

591: normally distributed, and the data have uniform weights.  $\chi^{2}$

592: is the squared difference between observations and the analytic

593: transit model of \citet{MAN02}.  The model assumes negligible

594: eccentricity.  The observations are the R-band data from the 1.8m

595: Perkins Telescope shown in Figure~\ref{janeslc}.

596: 

597: The calculation has seven free parameters: $M_{\star}$, $R_{\star}$,

598: $\rho$, $\tau$, $t_{o}$, $u_{1}$, and $u_{2}$.  $t_{o}$ is the

599: mid-transit time offset from the ephemeris with a period given by the

600: XO observations and a mid-transit zeropoint near the mid-transit gap

601: of the light curve, HJD 2454147.75.  The limb darkening coefficients,

602: $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$, model the limb darkening with the quadratic law,

603: $I=1-u_{1}(1-\mu)-u_{2}(1-\mu)^{2}$, where $I$ is the specific

604: intensity normalized to unity at the center of the stellar disk and

605: $\mu$ is the cosine of the angle between the line of sight and the

606: surface normal.  In practice, we follow \citet{HOL06} by adopting

607: $a_{1}=u_{1}+2u_{2}$ and $a_{2}=2u_{1}-u_{2}$ as the parameters used

608: in the calculation.  This linear combination of limb darkening

609: coefficients reduces their mutual degeneracy.

610: 

611: The prior for $R_{\star}$, $\rho$, and $\tau$ is given by

612: Equation~\ref{eq:unipri}, which is equivalent to a prior uniform in

613: $R_{\star}$, $R_{p}$, $i$.  The priors for $R_{\star}$, $\rho$, and

614: $t_{o}$ have cutoff values well beyond values allowed by the data.

615: The prior on $\tau$ has an upper limit cutoff, $\tau<\tau_{max}$,

616: where $\tau_{max}$ is the longest transit duration possible for a

617: given $R_{\star}$, $M_{\star}$, and $\rho$.  We assume uniform priors for the

618: limb darkening coefficients with the following physically motivated

619: limits on the parameters.  We require the highest surface brightness

620: to be located at the disk center ($u_{1}\geq 0.0$), require the

621: specific intensity to remain above zero ($u_{1}+u_{2}\leq 1.0$), and

622: do not allow limb-brightened profiles ($u_{1}+2u_{2}\geq 0.0$).  The

623: form of the prior for $M_{\star}$ is a Gaussian where the central

624: value and standard deviation of the Gaussian are a function of

625: $R_{\star}$ as given by the SME isochrone analysis data given in

626: Table~\ref{table:smeiso} and described in \S~\ref{sec:sme}.  We employ

627: a spline interpolation over the grid of $M_{\star}$ and $\sigma_{M}$

628: as a function of $R_{\star}$.

629: 

630: The estimate of the posterior probability comes from 7 independent

631: chains of length $N_{chn}=60000$ with varying initial conditions.

632: This results in an effective length $N_{eff}=N_{chn}/N_{cor}=12000$

633: after taking into account the autocorrelation length $N_{cor}=5$.

634: Using these 7 chains, the largest Gelman-Rubin statistic amongst the

635: parameters, R=1.0002, where R$<$1.02 indicates convergence of the

636: chain \citep{GEL92}.  Figure~\ref{maspost} shows the resulting

637: posterior probability distribution for each parameter after

638: marginalization over the other parameters.  The posterior probability

639: is simply a normalized histogram of the MCMC sample values.  We adopt

640: the median as the best single point estimate of the posterior

641: probability.  To derive an $\alpha$\% credible interval for a

642: parameter, the $N$ MCMC samples are sorted by the parameter of

643: interest.  The lower limit of the credible interval is taken as the

644: $((1-\alpha)/2)N^{\rm th}$ sorted sample, and the upper limit of the

645: credible interval is taken as the $(1-(1-\alpha)/2)N^{\rm th}$ sorted

646: sample.  The arrow point along the abscissa in Figure~\ref{maspost}

647: indicates the median of the posterior probability, and the the

648: vertical solid lines in Figure~\ref{maspost} show the 68.3\% credible

649: interval.

650: 

651: \begin{figure}

652: \plotone{f7.eps}

653: \caption{Marginalized posterior probability for the \xon\ and \xonb\ parameters from MCMC samples.  We adopt the median of the posterior probability ({\it arrow}) as the point estimate of the parameter.  The {\it solid} lines indicate the 68.3\% credible interval.\label{maspost}}

654: \end{figure}

655: 

656: 

657: Figure~\ref{limbcontour} shows the joint posterior probability for the

658: stellar limb darkening coefficients, $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$.  The solid

659: contours are isoprobability contours containing 68\% and 90\% of the

660: MCMC samples.  The small points illustrate the remaining 10\% of the

661: samples lying outside the region of highest probability.  The region

662: of highest probability for the limb darkening coefficients differs

663: from the theoretically calculated limb darkening coefficients (open

664: triangle symbol) obtained from \citet{CLA00}.  The dash lines

665: illustrate the prior limits for the limb darkening coefficients.  The

666: lower dash line in Figure~\ref{limbcontour} corresponds to not

667: allowing limb brightened specific intensity profiles.

668: 

669: Using the SME isochrone analysis, we translate the MCMC samples for

670: $R_{\star}$ into distance to \xon\ and age estimates.  Similar to the

671: procedure that defines the prior on $M_{\star}$, we interpolate the

672: $R_{\star}$ versus trial distance and age relationships

673: given by the SME isochrone analysis (i.e., for a given stellar radius

674: estimate, the SME isochrone analysis has a best distance and age

675: estimate for the system).  The posterior probability for these two

676: parameters is shown in Figure~\ref{othpost}.  We repeated the

677: calculation assuming a prior uniform in $\cos{i}$, and this did not

678: materially affect the parameter estimates.    We

679: summarize the properties of \xonb\ in

680: Table~\ref{table:planet}.

681: 

682: The uncertainties given in Table~\ref{table:planet} for \xonb\ and

683: Table~\ref{table:star} for \xon\ represent the precision of our

684: experiment.  These uncertainties represent the expected scatter of

685: values obtained if the experiment was repeated with similar quality

686: data and identical procedures.  Other systematic sources of error

687: affect the accuracy of our measurement that are most likely comparable

688: or larger than our precision.  The sources of systematic error only

689: enter into our prior for $M_{\star}$.  Our adopted uncertainty in

690: $M_{\star}\sim$2\% follows from the uncertainty in $T_{eff}$ and

691: metallicity in the SME isochrone analysis (see \S~\ref{sec:sme}) aided

692: by the very weak dependence of $M_{\star}$ on the unknown distance to

693: \xon.  \citet{HIL04} show the Y$^{2}$ isochrones employed in this

694: study successfully predict stellar masses to within 1\%-3\% for main

695: sequence stars $M_{\star}>0.6$ \Msun\ with independent dynamical mass

696: estimates.  For the derived $T_{eff}$ and [Fe/H] for \xon, the

697: isochrones from \citet{GIR02} at maximum differ by 3\% in $M_{\star}$

698: from the Y$^{2}$ isochrone prediction.  \citet{COD02} find 7\%

699: systematic error in $M_{\star}$ for HD 209458 due to uncertainty in

700: Helium abundance and the treatment of convection.  In light of these

701: potential sources of systematic uncertainty, we increased the standard

702: deviation of the Gaussian prior on $M_{\star}$ to $\sigma=0.07$ \Msun.

703: This larger uncertainty on $M_{\star}$ resulted in more symmetric and

704: slightly broader posterior distributions for $R_{\star}$ ($\sigma \pm

705: 0.03$ \Rsun), $R_{p}$ ($\sigma \pm 0.03$ \Rjup), and age ($\sigma \pm

706: 1.4$ Gyr).  The surface gravity of the planet, $g_{\rm p}$, is independent

707: of $M_{\star}$ \citep{SOU07}.  From the measured radial velocity

708: semi-amplitude and light curve parameters, $g_{\rm p}=$\vgp $\pm$\egp\ \mpstwo\

709: for \xonb, where the uncertainty in $g_{\rm p}$ is dominated by the uncertainty

710: in the radial velocity semi-amplitude.  Other parameters weakly

711: dependent on $M_{\star}$ and available from the light curve

712: observations directly are $a/R_{\star}=8.2\pm^{0.1}_{0.2}$ and

713: $a/R_{\rm p}=79.0\pm^{0.9}_{2.5}$.

714: 

715: \begin{figure}

716: \plotone{f8.eps}

717: \caption{ Joint posterior

718: probability for the stellar limb darkening coefficients, $u_{1}$ and

719: $u_{2}$.  The

720: solid contours are isoprobability contours containing 68\% and 90\% of

721: the MCMC samples.  The remaining 10\% of the samples lying outside the

722: region of highest probability are also shown ({\it points}).

723: The region of highest probability differs from the theoretically calculated limb darkening

724: coefficients ({\it triangle}).  The prior limits for the limb

725: darkening coefficients are indicated with {\it dashed lines}.\label{limbcontour}}

726: \end{figure}

727: 

728: \begin{figure}

729: \plotone{f9.eps}

730: \caption{The marginalized posterior probability for the \xon\ that rely on the SME isochrone analysis. The SME isochrone analysis translates the posterior distribution for $R_{\star}$ into the posterior distribution for Distance and Age.\label{othpost}}

731: \end{figure}

732: 

733: 

734: \subsection{Radial Velocity Measurements}\label{sec:rv}

735: 

736: We measured the mass of \xonb\ using the radial velocity

737: technique described below and by \citet{MCC06}.

738: The 2-dimensional spectra obtained with

739: the HET were extracted to 1-dimensional spectra and associated

740: approximate wavelength solutions derived from ThAr spectra obtained

741: during twilight (\S~\ref{sec:spectroscopy}).

742: To account for optical distortions, the wavelength solution fits the

743: centroids of thousands of ThAr lines to a function of

744: the X and Y coordinates of the CCD that includes terms linear in X and

745: in Y plus the following

746: cross terms: XY, XXY, XYY, XXYY, XXXY, and XYYY.

747: Using a downhill simplex $\chi^2$ minimization algorithm, ``Amoeba,'' we

748: adjusted

749: the parameters of a synthetic spectrum to fit, in separate

750: $\sim$15 \AA\ sections, the stellar spectrum observed through an iodine absorption

751: cell. The requirement of strong iodine lines

752: limits radial velocity estimates to the wavelength range 5210 $< \lambda

753: <$ 5700 \AA.

754: The synthetic spectrum consists of a high-resolution spectrum of the

755: Sun, the Earth's atmosphere\footnote{Within the

756: wavelength range of interest, telluric absorption lines are negligible

757: but are included anyway.}

758: \citep{WAL98}, and a high-resolution spectrum of an iodine gas

759: cell \citep{COC00} convolved with

760: a Voigt profile to approximate the line-spread-function of the

761: instrument. In addition to the convolution,

762: we used a few additional free parameters to model specific physical or

763: instrumental characteristics:

764: the radial velocity of the star, a shift of the iodine spectrum

765: attributable to instrumental errors

766: in the approximate wavelength solution specific to the particular 15 \AA\

767: section, the continuum

768: level, and an exponent that adjusts the optical depths of the solar

769: absorption lines in order to better approximate the

770: (non-solar) stellar spectrum.

771: The difference of the parameters representing the radial velocity of the

772: star and

773: that attributable to the instrument from the iodine spectrum equals the

774: topocentric radial velocity of the star, which

775: we transform to the barycentric frame of the solar system.

776: We average the individual stellar radial velocity estimates from each of

777: the 15 \AA\ sections to determine

778: the stellar radial velocity measurement at each epoch and its associated

779: 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty (see Table~\ref{table:rv}).

780: 

781: Figure~\ref{rvnorth} shows the resulting radial velocity curve phased

782: with the \xonb\ ephemeris determined from the transits and assuming

783: zero eccentricity.  The typical uncertainty for each measurement,

784: $\sigma_{RV}=20$ \mps.  The radial velocity semi-amplitude,

785: K=\vrvK$\pm$\ervK\ \mps.  This amplitude results in

786: $M_{p}=$\vMp$\pm$\eMp\ \Mjup\ for \xonb, assuming $M_{\star}$=\vMs\

787: \Msun\ for \xon\ and a circular orbit for \xonb.  The six radial

788: velocities measured for \xon S (Table~\ref{table:rv}) are consistent

789: within the observational errors with no radial velocity variation and

790: show no significant evidence for a HJ orbiting \xon S.

791: 

792: 

793: \begin{figure}

794: \plotone{f10.eps}

795: \caption{a) The radial velocity of \xon\ oscillates sinusoidally with a

796: semi-amplitude K = \vrvK$\pm$\ervK\ \mps, implying \xonb's mass is

797: \vMp$\pm$\eMp\ \Mjup. b) The

798: period and phase of the radial velocities were fixed at values

799: determined by the transits. The mean stellar radial velocity with

800: respect to the solar system's barycenter has been subtracted.  In

801: order to determine K, we used the HET spectra calibrated with an

802: iodine absorption cell (filled circles).   c) In this representation

803: of the data, a circular orbit yields a straight line of slope $-$K.

804: \label{rvnorth}}

805: \end{figure}

806: 

807: 

808: \subsection{Ephemeris and Transit Timing Variations}\label{sec:ttv}

809: 

810: The database of E.T.\ transit light curves for \xonb\ enable us to

811: refine the ephemeris for \xonb\ and to quantify transit timing

812: variations from this ephemeris.  The transit light from the 1.8m

813: Perkins Telescope on February 16, 2007 provides a precise measurement

814: of the mid-transit zeropoint of \xonb.  From the best fitting transit

815: model in a $\chi^{2}$ sense during the MCMC calculation,

816: we find the ephemeris zeropoint is

817: \vjd\ with an uncertainty of 17 s.

818: 

819: To refine the orbital period of \xonb, we calculate mid-transit times

820: for the nearly complete transit events observed with the XO cameras on

821: 2453355 and 2453376 HJD and the E.T.\ transit events shown in

822: Figure~\ref{et436} with nearly complete ingress and egress coverage.

823: We compare the transit data with a limb-darkened transit model.  The

824: only free parameter of the transit model is the mid-transit time.  The

825: other parameters of the transit model are fixed at the best fitting

826: transit model in a $\chi^{2}$ sense during the MCMC calculation, and

827: the model employs theoretically calculated limb darkening coefficients

828: obtained from \citet{CLA00} in the appropriate passband of the

829: observations.  The transit model has a flux decrement of $\rho^{2}/2$

830: when applied to the XO survey data to account for the transit depth

831: dilution caused by the flux of \xon S in the photometric aperture.

832: 

833: Table~\ref{table:midpoints} provides the resulting mid-transit times.

834: The three independent mid-transit estimates on 2454168 HJD enables

835: estimating the typical uncertainty (1-$\sigma$=3 min) in the transit

836: timing.  To refine the orbital period we minimize the $\chi^{2}$

837: difference between the transit timing observations and ephemeris

838: model.  We keep the ephemeris zeropoint fixed at the value derived

839: from the 1.8m Perkins Telescope light curve.  The best-fit period,

840: \vperiod$\pm$\eperiod\ day, results in a $\chi^{2}_{min}=10.1$ for

841: $\nu$=11 degrees of freedom.  This suggests there are no significant

842: timing variations.  For the minimization we assumed a uniform error,

843: $\sigma$=3 min, on the transit timings.  The ephemeris for

844: \xonb\ accumulates a 5 min uncertainty by 2010.

845: 

846: \section{Discussion}\label{sec:disc}

847: 

848: The transit candidate of \citet{MAN05} illustrates the non-negligible

849: potential for triple stars to have transit light curves and radial

850: velocity variations consistent with a planet.  However, in the case of

851: \xonb, our attempts to explain the light curve and spectroscopy with a

852: physical stellar triple fail.  We employ the Y$^{2}$ isochrone

853: appropriate for the the physical properties of \xon\ supplemented with

854: the low-mass stellar isochrone between 0.072$<M_{\star}<$0.5 \Msun\

855: from \citet{CHAB00}, stellar limb darkening coefficients from

856: \citet{CLA00}, and the light curve synthesis routine of \citet{WIL93}

857: to model a stellar triple system.  The constraints on the transit

858: duration and transit depth from the light curve require

859: $M_{\star}>0.95$ \Msun\ for the primary in a stellar binary blended

860: with the light of \xon.  The required stellar binary has $>$75\% the

861: flux of \xon\ and has a radial velocity semi-amplitude, $K> 16$ \kps.

862: Such a binary would be readily apparent in the spectrum of \xon\ given

863: the narrow spectral features for \xon, $v\sin{i}<2.3$ \kps.  We cannot

864: completely rule out the possibility of a line-of-sight faint

865: background binary blended with the light of

866: \xon\ as an explanation for the observations.  However, the sinusoidal

867: shape of the radial velocity variations necessitate the line-of-sight

868: binary to have a systemic velocity similar to \xon\, otherwise the

869: radial velocity curve develops asymmetries that are not observed

870: \citep{TOR05}.  Given the large proper motion of \xon, ground-based

871: adaptive optics or space-based observations have the potential to

872: definitively rule out a background line-of-sight binary.

873: 

874: 

875: In addition to \xon, only HAT-P-1, HD 20782, HD 80606, HD 99492 (GJ

876: 429B), HD 178911B, and HD 186427 (16 Cyg B) have $\Delta V<$2.0 mag

877: difference between the stellar binary components \citep[][supplemented

878: by data from the SIMBAD database]{DES07} and can be considered

879: nearly-equal-mass stellar binaries hosting a known extrasolar planet.

880: In 5 out of the 7 binary systems, the planet orbits the lower mass

881: star of the binary.  In the remaining 2 systems, HD 20782 and HD

882: 80606, the planet orbits the more massive star, but the orbits for

883: these planets have the highest eccentricities amongst all known

884: planets, e=0.93 and e=0.92, respectively \citep{BUT06}.  Equivalently,

885: if we restrict the sample of extrasolar planets in nearly-equal-mass

886: stellar binaries to modest eccentricity (e$<$0.8), in 5 of the 5 known

887: systems, the planet orbits the lower mass star.  We offer several

888: speculative possibilities to explain the current pattern of planets in

889: nearly-equal-mass stellar binaries: 1) The pattern arises due to small

890: sample statistics, 2) Planets form more readily around the lower mass

891: component of a nearly-equal-mass stellar binary, 3) Planets form

892: equally likely around the components of a nearly-equal-mass stellar

893: binary, but planets orbiting the primary component have lower

894: detectability due to lower planet mass or higher orbital eccentricity

895: \citep{CUM04}.

896: 

897: The \xon\ stellar binary has a higher space velocity with respect to

898: the Local Standard of Rest (LSR), $v=\sqrt{U^2+V^2+W^2}\sim 100$

899: kms$^{-1}$, than most of the other known extrasolar planets

900: \citep{SAN03,ECU07}.  According to the purely kinematic classification

901: of \citet{BEN03} and \citet{BEN06}, \xon\ has $\sim$7 times higher

902: probability of belonging to the Thick Disk than the Thin Disk.  From a

903: chemical abundance perspective, a metallicity of [Fe/H]$<-0.3$ is

904: typically the upper limit for Thick Disk metallicities

905: \citep{MIS04,RED06}.  However, \citet{BEN06} has recently claimed

906: kinematically selected Thick Disk stars with [Fe/H]$\sim 0.0$ have a

907: chemical abundance pattern distinguishable from Thin Disk stars at the

908: same metallicity.  The sample of stars with kinematics suggestive of

909: the Thick Disk but Thin Disk metallicities, like \xon, is still too

910: small to determine their relationship to the traditional Thin/Thick

911: Disk populations.  However, \citet{MIS04} distinguishes between objects with

912: Thick Disk kinematics and Thin Disk metallicity by determining the

913: maximum height above the Galactic disk their orbit attains, $Z_{max}$.

914: Both the estimate of \citet{BEN05} for $Z_{max}$ and integrating the

915: orbit of \xon\ using the axi-symmetric, static Galaxy potential model

916: of \citet{ALL91} yield $Z_{max}\sim 100$ pc for the orbit of \xon.  Given

917: the much larger scale height for the Thick Disk, $\sigma_{TD}\sim 1000$

918: kpc, under the classification of \citet{MIS04}, \xon\ belongs to the

919: Thin Disk, since its orbit is well confined to the Galactic plane.

920: The high space velocity of \xon\ results from high eccentricity rather

921: than excursions from Galactic plane.  Using the simple model from

922: \citet{ALL91}, the orbit of \xon\ has a pericenter within $\sim$4 kpc of the

923: Galactic center and apocenter $\sim$9 kpc (e$\sim$0.4).

924: 

925: Currently, \xon\ lags the LSR by $V=-78$ kms$^{-1}$ and is moving away

926: from the Galactic center at $U=-71$ kms$^{-1}$.  This places \xon\ in

927: phase space near the Hercules stream

928: \citep{FAM05,ECU07} ($U=42$, $\sigma_{U}=28$, $V=-52$, $\sigma_{V}=9$

929: kms$^{-1}$), but is lagging the LSR more than the typical Hercules

930: stream member.  The possibility that \xon\ belongs to a dynamical

931: stream originating from the metal-rich inner Galaxy is an

932: example that supports the findings of \citet{FAM05} and \citet{ECU07}

933: that compared to field stars, metal-enhanced dynamical streams should

934: be over-abundant in detectable extrasolar planets.

935: 

936: 

937: \section{Summary}\label{sec:sum}

938: 

939: The star \xon, GSC 34130-0005, hosts an approximately Jupiter-size, 0.6 Jupiter-mass transiting extrasolar planet, \xonb, with an orbital

940: period $\sim$2.6 days.  \xon\ is a V=11.2 early K dwarf with high

941: metallicity, [Fe/H]=\vFeH, high proper motion, $\mu_{tot}=157$

942: mas~yr$^{-1}$, and has a common proper motion stellar companion with

943: \vSepas $\arcsec$ separation.  The followup high resolution

944: spectroscopy yields $M_{\star}$=\vMs $\pm$\eMs\ \Msun\ for the mass

945: of \xon\ and $M_{p}$=\vMp$\pm$\eMp\ \Mjup\ for the mass of \xonb.

946: The followup high precision photometry yields

947: $R_{\star}$=\vRs$\pm^{\epRs}_{\enRs}$ \Rsun\ for the radius of \xon\

948: and $R_{p}$=\vRp$\pm^{\epRp}_{\enRp}$ \Rjup\ for the radius of

949: \xonb.  Joint analysis of the light curve and spectroscopy yields an

950: isochrone based age of \xon\, $t$=\vAge$\pm^{\epAge}_{\enAge}$ Gyr,

951: and an isochrone based distance to \xon\,

952: $d$=\vDs$\pm^{\epDs}_{\enDs}$ pc.  The quoted values and their uncertainties are

953: Bayesian credible intervals encompassing 68\% of the marginalized

954: posterior probability.  For the Bayesian analysis we assume a

955: Gaussian-like prior on $M_{\star}$, derived from the spectroscopic and

956: isochrone analysis of

957: \xon\, and uniform priors on $R_{\star}$, $R_{p}$, orbital

958: inclination, and limb darkening coefficients.  We describe an

959: efficient Markov Chain Monte Carlo method to calculate the Bayesian

960: posterior probability for the system parameters from a transit light

961: curve.

962: 

963: \xonb\ adds to the sample of Jupiter-mass planets residing in

964: nearly-equal-mass stellar binaries.  In 5 of the 7 nearly-equal-mass

965: stellar binaries hosting a planet, the planet orbits the lower mass

966: stellar component.  In the remaining 2 stellar binaries where the

967: planet orbits the higher mass star, the planets' orbits are highly

968: eccentric (e$>$0.9).  Equivalently, if we restrict the sample of

969: extrasolar planets with modest eccentricity (e$<$0.8) orbits in

970: nearly-equal-mass stellar binaries, in 5 of the 5 known systems, the

971: planet orbits the lower mass star.  We speculate on possible

972: astrophysical reasons for this pattern beyond the simple fact that the

973: statistics are based upon a very small sample and thus may be

974: spurious.

975: 

976: With its high proper motion, \xon\ has kinematics suggestive of Thick

977: Disk membership but a Thin Disk metallicity.  In contrast to the typical

978: Thick Disk member, the high proper motion of \xon\ results from an

979: eccentric orbit (Galactic pericenter, $R_{per}<4$ kpc) well confined

980: to the Galactic disk, $Z_{max}\sim 100$ pc.  \xon\ may originate in

981: the metal-rich inner Thin Disk and was dynamically scattered into the

982: solar neighborhood.  Similar to the findings of

983: \citet{FAM05} and \citet{ECU07}, the discovery of

984: \xonb\ suggests metal-enhanced dynamical streams from the inner Galaxy

985: may be abundant in detectable extrasolar planets.

986: 

987: \acknowledgments

988: 

989: The University of Hawaii staff have made the operation on Maui possible; we

990: thank especially Jake Kamibayashi, Bill Giebink, Les Hieda,

991: Jeff Kuhn, Haosheng Lin, Mike Maberry, Daniel O'Gara, 

992: Joey Perreira, Kaila Rhoden, and the director of the IFA, Rolf-Peter Kudritzki.

993: The Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) is a joint project of the University of Texas at Austin, the Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"{a}t M\"{u}nchen, and Georg-August-Universit\"{a}t G\"{o}ttingen.  The HET is named in honor of its principal benefactors, William P. Hobby and Robert E. Eberly.  We thank the HET night-time and day-time support staff and the Resident Astronomer telescope operator; we especially thank John Caldwell, Frank Deglman, Heinz Edelmann, Stephen Odewahn, Vicki Riley, Sergey Rostopchin, Matthew Shetrone, and Chevo Terrazas.

994: 

995: We thank Dave Healy, Lisa Prato, and Marcos Huerta for assistance

996: observing.  We acknowledge helpful discussions with Julio Chaname, Ron

997: Gilliland, and Zheng Zheng.  We thank the referee for the insightful

998: suggestions and significant improvements to the manuscript.

999: 

1000: This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France;

1001: data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS),

1002: the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), and The Amateur Sky Survey (TASS);

1003: source code for transit light-curves (Mandel \& Agol 2002);

1004: and community access to the HET.

1005: 

1006: 

1007: XO is funded primarily by NASA Origins grant NNG06GG92G and the Director's

1008: Discretionary Fund of the STScI.

1009: 

1010: \appendix

1011: \section{Markov Chain Monte Carlo Details}\label{apx:mcmc}

1012: Care must be taken to properly assign prior probabilities for a

1013: nonlinear transformation in parameters \citep{CHU03}.  In particular,

1014: a uniform prior in $i$ is not the same as a uniform prior in $\tau$.

1015: The transformation law of probabilities provides the necessary prior

1016: probability to maintain the uniform prior in $R_{\star}$, $R_{p}$, and

1017: $i$ for our chosen set of free parameters: $R_{\star}$, $\rho$, and $\tau$, where

1018: 

1019: \begin{equation}

1020: \tau=\frac{P}{\pi}{\rm arcsin}\left(\frac{R_{\star}}{a}\left[\frac{(1+\rho)^{2}-(a/R_{\star}\cos{i})^{2}}{1-\cos{i}^{2}}\right]^{1/2}\right),

1021: \label{eq:tau}

1022: \end{equation}

1023: where $P$ is the orbital period, $a$ is the semi-major axis, and we

1024: have assumed zero eccentricity \citep{SEA03}.

1025: 

1026: The general transformation law

1027: with multiple dimensions states

1028: \begin{equation}

1029: p(y_{1},y_{2},...)dy_{1}dy_{2}...=p(x_{1},x_{2},...)\left\| \frac{\partial (x_{1},x_{2},...)}{\partial (y_{1},y_{2},...)} \right\| dy_{1}dy_{2}...,

1030: \end{equation}

1031: where the original joint probability distribution,

1032: $p(x_{1},x_{2},...)dx_{1}dx_{2}...$, is transformed into another

1033: probability distribution in terms of the new set of variables

1034: $(y_{1},y_{2},...)$ by multiplication with the absolute value of the

1035: Jacobian determinant, $\| \partial ()/\partial () \| $.  The new $y$

1036: variables must have the same number and be expressible in terms of the

1037: old $x$ variables \citep{PRE92}.  Writing the old variables in terms of the new variables, $R_{\star}=R_{\star}^{\prime}$, $R_{p}=\rho R_{\star}^{\prime}$, and

1038: \begin{equation}

1039: i=\arccos{\sqrt{\frac{(R_{\star}^{\prime}/a)^{2}(1+\rho)^{2}-\sin{\phi}^2}{(1-\sin{\phi}^{2})}}},

1040: \end{equation}

1041: where $\phi=\tau \pi/P$, the Jacobian matrix is written

1042: \begin{equation}

1043: \| \partial ()/\partial () \|=\left\| \begin{array}{ccc}

1044: \frac{\partial R_{\star}}{\partial R_{\star}^{\prime}}=1 & \frac{\partial R_{\star}}{\partial \rho}=0 & \frac{\partial R_{\star}}{\partial \tau}=0 \\

1045: \frac{\partial R_{p}}{\partial R_{\star}^{\prime}} & \frac{\partial R_{p}}{\partial \rho} & \frac{\partial R_{p}}{\partial \tau}=0 \\

1046: \frac{\partial i}{\partial R_{\star}^{\prime}} & \frac{\partial i}{\partial \rho} & \frac{\partial i}{\partial \tau} \\

1047: \end{array}\right\|,

1048: \end{equation}

1049: where we have indicated the trivial elements with value one or zero.  Overall, the Jacobian simplifies to

1050: \begin{equation}

1051: | (\partial R_{p}/\partial \rho)(\partial i/\partial \tau) |=\frac{\pi}{P} R_{\star}^{\prime}\sin{\phi}\sqrt{\frac{((R_{\star}^{\prime}/a)^{2}(1+\rho)^{2}-1)}{(\sin{\phi}^{2}-(R_{\star}^{\prime}/a)^{2}(1+\rho)^{2})}}.

1052: \label{eq:unipri}

1053: \end{equation}

1054: With our choice of parameters, the proper prior to maintain uniform

1055: priors in $R_{\star}$, $R_{p}$, and $i$ is the above Jacobian

1056: multiplied by the original joint probability distribution for uniform

1057: priors, which is a constant.  The prior probability goes to zero for $0<

1058: \tau <

1059: \tau_{max}$, where $\tau_{max}=P/\pi \arcsin{(R_{\star}/a)(1+\rho)}$.

1060: 

1061: A trial chain is necessary to define the covariance matrix for the

1062: final eigenbasis set of parameters.  $M_{\star}$, $R_{\star}$, $\rho$,

1063: $\tau$, $u_{1}$, and $u_{2}$ enter into the covariance matrix.  We

1064: find $t_{o}$ shows no significant correlation with respect to the

1065: other parameters.  To determine the necessary linear transformation,

1066: we determine the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix built from a

1067: trial chain \citep{TEG04}.  This is equivalent to a Principal

1068: Component Analysis.  The bottom panels in Figure~\ref{tranfig} show

1069: trial samples in terms of the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix.

1070: The eigenvector along the largest variance, $e_{1}$, is predominately

1071: along $R_{\star}$, and $e_{2}$ and $e_{3}$ are a mixture of $\rho$ and

1072: $\tau$.

1073: 

1074: The autocorrelation length of samples in the MCMC sequence is one

1075: method to quantify the efficiency of the calculation.  With the

1076: original set of parameters ($R_{\star}$, $R_{p}$, and $i$), the

1077: correlation length (when the autocorrelation drops by half) in the

1078: $R_{\star}$ parameter varied, $500<N_{cor}<1500$ steps.  Using our new

1079: set of parameters ($R_{\star}$, $\rho$, and $\tau$), $40<N_{cor}<60$

1080: steps.  Finally, with the eigenbasis parameters, $4<N_{cor}<5$ steps,

1081: where the correlation is measured in the physical variable

1082: $R_{\star}$.

1083: 

1084: \begin{thebibliography}

1085: 

1086: \bibitem[Allen \& Santillan(1991)]{ALL91} Allen, C., \& 

1087: Santillan, A.\ 1991, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, 22, 255 

1088: 

1089: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007)]{BAK07} Bakos, G.~{\'A}., et al.\ 

1090: 2007, \apj, 656, 552 

1091: 

1092: \bibitem[Bensby et al.(2003)]{BEN03} Bensby, T., Feltzing, 

1093: S., \& Lundstr{\"o}m, I.\ 2003, \aap, 410, 527 

1094: 

1095: \bibitem[Bensby et al.(2005)]{BEN05} Bensby, T., Feltzing, 

1096: S., Lundstr{\"o}m, I., \& Ilyin, I.\ 2005, \aap, 433, 185 

1097: 

1098: \bibitem[Bensby et al.(2006)]{BEN06} Bensby, T., Zenn, A.~R., 

1099: Oey, M.~S., \& Feltzing, S.\ 2006, in ASP Conf. Ser., From stars to galaxies: Building the pieces to build up the Universe, ed.\ A.\ Vallenari, R.\ Tantali, L.\ Portinari, A.\ Moretti (San Francisco:ASP), in press (astro-ph/0612459)

1100: 

1101: \bibitem[Benz et al.(2006)]{BENZ06} Benz, W., Alibert, Y., 

1102: Mordasini, C., \& Naef, D.\ 2006, IAU Colloq.~200: Direct Imaging of 

1103: Exoplanets: Science \& Techniques, 1 

1104: 

1105: \bibitem[Bessell(2000)]{BES00} Bessell, M.~S.\ 2000, \pasp, 

1106: 112, 961 

1107: 

1108: \bibitem[Bodenheimer et al.(2003)]{BOD03} Bodenheimer, P., 

1109: Laughlin, G., \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\ 2003, \apj, 592, 555 

1110: 

1111: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2006)]{BUR06} Burrows, A., Hubeny, 

1112: I., Budaj, J., \& Hubbard, W.~B.\ 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0612703) 

1113: 

1114: \bibitem[Burke et al.(2006)]{BURK06} Burke, C.~J., Gaudi, 

1115: B.~S., DePoy, D.~L., \& Pogge, R.~W.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 210 

1116: 

1117: \bibitem[Butler et al.(2006)]{BUT06} Butler, R.~P., et al.\ 

1118: 2006, \apj, 646, 505 

1119: 

1120: \bibitem[Cameron et al.(2007)]{CAM07} Cameron, A.~C., et al.\ 

1121: 2007, \mnras, 375, 951 

1122: 

1123: \bibitem[Chabrier et al.(2000)]{CHAB00} Chabrier, G., Baraffe, 

1124: I., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P.\ 2000, \apj, 542, 464 

1125: 

1126: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2000)]{CHA00} Charbonneau, D., 

1127: Brown, T.~M., Latham, D.~W., \& Mayor, M.\ 2000, \apjl, 529, L45 

1128: 

1129: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2002)]{CHA02} Charbonneau, D., 

1130: Brown, T.~M., Noyes, R.~W., \& Gilliland, R.~L.\ 2002, \apj, 568, 377 

1131: 

1132: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2005)]{CHA05} Charbonneau, D., et 

1133: al.\ 2005, \apj, 626, 523 

1134: 

1135: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2007)]{CHA07} Charbonneau, D., 

1136: Brown, T.~M., Burrows, A., \& Laughlin, G.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 

1137: 701 

1138: 

1139: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2007b)]{CHA07b} Charbonneau, D., 

1140: Winn, J.~N., Everett, M.~E., Latham, D.~W., Holman, M.~J., Esquerdo, G.~A., 

1141: \& O'Donovan, F.~T.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 1322 

1142: 

1143: \bibitem[Chu et al.(2003)]{CHU03} Chu, M., Kaplinghat, M., \& 

1144: Knox, L.\ 2003, \apj, 596, 725 

1145: 

1146: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{CLA00} Claret, A.\ 2000, \aap, 363, 

1147: 1081 

1148: 

1149: \bibitem[Cochran(2000)]{COC00} Cochran, W.\ 2000, FTS Spectrum of I2 Cell HRS3 At 69.9 C., ftp://nsokp.nso.edu/FTS\_cdrom/FTS50/001023R0.004

1150: 

1151: \bibitem[Cody \& Sasselov(2002)]{COD02} Cody, A.~M., \& 

1152: Sasselov, D.~D.\ 2002, \apj, 569, 451 

1153: 

1154: 

1155: \bibitem[Cumming et al.(1999)]{CUM99} Cumming, A., Marcy, 

1156: G.~W., \& Butler, R.~P.\ 1999, \apj, 526, 890 

1157: 

1158: \bibitem[Cumming(2004)]{CUM04} Cumming, A.\ 2004, \mnras, 

1159: 354, 1165 

1160: 

1161: \bibitem[Deming et al.(2005)]{DEM05} Deming, D., Seager, S., 

1162: Richardson, L.~J., \& Harrington, J.\ 2005, \nat, 434, 740 

1163: 

1164: \bibitem[Desidera \& Barbieri(2007)]{DES07} Desidera, S., \& 

1165: Barbieri, M.\ 2007, \aap, 462, 345 

1166: 

1167: \bibitem[Dravins et al.(1997)]{DRA97} Dravins, D., Lindegren, 

1168: L., Mezey, E., \& Young, A.~T.\ 1997, \pasp, 109, 173

1169: 

1170: \bibitem[Ecuvillon et al.(2007)]{ECU07} Ecuvillon, A., 

1171: Israelian, G., Pont, F., Santos, N.~C., \& Mayor, M.\ 2007, \aap, 461, 171 

1172: 

1173: \bibitem[Famaey et al.(2005)]{FAM05} Famaey, B., Jorissen, 

1174: A., Luri, X., Mayor, M., Udry, S., Dejonghe, H., \& Turon, C.\ 2005, ESA 

1175: SP-576: The Three-Dimensional Universe with Gaia, 129 

1176: 

1177: \bibitem[Fischer \& Valenti(2005)]{FIS05} Fischer, D.~A., \& 

1178: Valenti, J.\ 2005, \apj, 622, 1102 

1179: 

1180: \bibitem[Ford(2005)]{FORD05} Ford, E.~B.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 1706 

1181: 

1182: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2006)]{FORT06} Fortney, J.~J., Saumon, 

1183: D., Marley, M.~S., Lodders, K., \& Freedman, R.~S.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 495 

1184: 

1185: \bibitem[Gaudi(2000)]{GAU00} Gaudi, B.~S.\ 2000, \apjl, 539, 

1186: L59

1187: 

1188: \bibitem[Gelman \& Rubin(1992)]{GEL92} Gelman, A., \& Rubin, D.~B.\ 1992, Stat. Sci., 7, 457

1189: 

1190: \bibitem[Girardi et al.(2002)]{GIR02} Girardi, L., Bertelli, 

1191: G., Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., Groenewegen, M.~A.~T., Marigo, P., Salasnich, 

1192: B., \& Weiss, A.\ 2002, \aap, 391, 195 

1193: 

1194: \bibitem[Gonzalez(2006)]{GON06} Gonzalez, G.\ 2006, \pasp, 

1195: 118, 1494 

1196: 

1197: \bibitem[Gregory(2005)]{GRE05} Gregory, P.~C.\ 2005, \apj, 

1198: 631, 1198

1199: 

1200: \bibitem[Grillmair et al.(2007)]{GRI07} Grillmair, C.~J., 

1201: Charbonneau, D., Burrows, A., Armus, L., Stauffer, J., Meadows, V., Van 

1202: Cleve, J., \& Levine, D.\ 2007, \apjl, 658, L115 

1203: 

1204: \bibitem[Guillot \& Showman(2002)]{GUI02} Guillot, T., \& 

1205: Showman, A.~P.\ 2002, \aap, 385, 156 

1206: 

1207: \bibitem[Guillot et al.(2006)]{GUI06} Guillot, T., Santos, 

1208: N.~C., Pont, F., Iro, N., Melo, C., \& Ribas, I.\ 2006, \aap, 453, L21

1209: 

1210: \bibitem[Harrington et al.(2006)]{HAR06} Harrington, J., 

1211: Hansen, B.~M., Luszcz, S.~H., Seager, S., Deming, D., Menou, K., Cho, 

1212: J.~Y.-K., \& Richardson, L.~J.\ 2006, Science, 314, 623 

1213: 

1214: \bibitem[Henry et al.(2000)]{HEN00} Henry, G.~W., Marcy, 

1215: G.~W., Butler, R.~P., \& Vogt, S.~S.\ 2000, \apjl, 529, L41 

1216: 

1217: \bibitem[Hillenbrand \& White(2004)]{HIL04} Hillenbrand, 

1218: L.~A., \& White, R.~J.\ 2004, \apj, 604, 741 

1219: 

1220: \bibitem[Hinkle et al.(2000)]{HIN00} Hinkle, K.~H., Joyce, 

1221: R.~R., Sharp, N., \& Valenti, J.~A.\ 2000, \procspie, 4008, 720

1222: 

1223: \bibitem[H{\o}g et al.(2000)]{HOG00} H{\o}g, E., et al.\ 

1224: 2000, \aap, 355, L27 

1225: 

1226: \bibitem[Holman \& Wiegert(1999)]{HOL99} Holman, M.~J., \& 

1227: Wiegert, P.~A.\ 1999, \aj, 117, 621 

1228: 

1229: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2006)]{HOL06} Holman, M.~J., et al.\ 

1230: 2006, \apj, 652, 1715 

1231: 

1232: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin(2004)]{IDA04} Ida, S., \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\ 

1233: 2004, \apj, 616, 567 

1234: 

1235: \bibitem[Kosowsky et al.(2002)]{KOS02} Kosowsky, A., 

1236: Milosavljevic, M., \& Jimenez, R.\ 2002, \prd, 66, 063007

1237: 

1238: \bibitem[Kov{\'a}cs et al.(2002)]{KOV02} Kov{\'a}cs, G., 

1239: Zucker, S., \& Mazeh, T.\ 2002, \aap, 391, 369 

1240: 

1241: \bibitem[Kurucz(1992)]{KUR92} Kurucz, R.~L.\ 1992, IAU 

1242: Symp.~149, The Stellar Populations of Galaxies, ed.\ B.~Barbuy \& A.~Renzini (Dordrecht: Reidel), 225 

1243: 

1244: \bibitem[Kurucz(1993)]{KUR93} Kurucz, R.~L.\ 1993, SYNTHE 

1245: Spectrum Synthesis Programs and Line Data (Kurucz CD-ROM No.~18) (Cambridge: SAO)

1246: 

1247: \bibitem[Janes et al.(2004)]{JAN04} Janes, K.~A., Clemens, 

1248: D.~P., Hayes-Gehrke, M.~N., Eastman, J.~D., Sarcia, D.~S., \& Bosh, A.~S.\ 

1249: 2004, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 36, 672 

1250: 

1251: \bibitem[Landolt(1992)]{LAN92} Landolt, A.~U.\ 1992, \aj, 

1252: 104, 340 

1253: 

1254: \bibitem[L{\'e}pine \& Shara(2005)]{LEP05} L{\'e}pine, S., \& 

1255: Shara, M.~M.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 1483

1256: 

1257: \bibitem[Lewis \& Bridle(2002)]{LEW02} Lewis, A., \& Bridle, 

1258: S.\ 2002, \prd, 66, 103511 

1259: 

1260: 

1261: \bibitem[Malmberg et al.(2007)]{MAL07} Malmberg, D., Davies, 

1262: M.~B., \& Chambers, J.~E.\ 2007, \mnras, L18

1263: 

1264: \bibitem[Mamajek et al.(2002)]{MAM02} Mamajek, E.~E., Meyer, 

1265: M.~R., \& Liebert, J.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 1670

1266: 

1267: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{MAN02} Mandel, K., \& Agol, 

1268: E.\ 2002, \apjl, 580, L171 

1269: 

1270: \bibitem[Mandushev et al.(2005)]{MAN05} Mandushev, G., et 

1271: al.\ 2005, \apj, 621, 1061 

1272: 

1273: J., Seager, S., \& Barman, T.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 733 

1274: 

1275: \bibitem[Marzari \& Barbieri(2007)]{MAR07} Marzari, F., \& 

1276: Barbieri, M.\ 2007, \aap, in press (astro-ph/0702342)

1277: 

1278: \bibitem[McCullough et al.(2005)]{MCC05} McCullough, P.~R., 

1279: Stys, J.~E., Valenti, J.~A., Fleming, S.~W., Janes, K.~A., \& Heasley, 

1280: J.~N.\ 2005, \pasp, 117, 783 

1281: 

1282: \bibitem[McCullough et al.(2006)]{MCC06} McCullough, P.~R., 

1283: et al.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 1228 

1284: 

1285: \bibitem[McCullough \& Burke(2007)]{MCC07} McCullough, P.~R., 

1286: \& Burke, C.~J.\ 2007, ASP Conf. Ser., Transiting Extrasolar Planets Workshop, ed. C.\ Afonso, D.\ Weldrake, \& T.\ Henning (San Francisco:ASP), in press (astro-ph/0703331) 

1287: 

1288: \bibitem[Mihalas \& Binney(1981)]{MIH81} Mihalas, D., \& 

1289: Binney, J.\ 1981, Galactic Astronomy: Structure and Kinematics (2nd ed., San Francisco: W.~H.~Freeman and Co.)

1290: 

1291: \bibitem[Mishenina et al.(2004)]{MIS04} Mishenina, T.~V., 

1292: Soubiran, C., Kovtyukh, V.~V., \& Korotin, S.~A.\ 2004, \aap, 418, 551

1293: 

1294: \bibitem[Muller(1956)]{MUL56} Muller, D.~E.\ 1956, Mathematical Tables and Other Aids to Computations, 10, 208

1295: 

1296: \bibitem[Neal(2003)]{NEA03} Neal, R.~M.\ 2003, Annals of Statistics, 31, 705

1297: 

1298: \bibitem[Nordstr{\"o}m et al.(2004)]{NOR04} Nordstr{\"o}m, 

1299: B., et al.\ 2004, \aap, 418, 989 

1300: 

1301: \bibitem[Piskunov et al.(1995)]{PIS95} Piskunov, N.~E., 

1302: Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T.~A., Weiss, W.~W., \& Jeffery, C.~S.\ 1995, 

1303: \aaps, 112, 525 

1304: 

1305: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{PRE92} Press, W.~H., Teukolsky, 

1306: S.~A., Vetterling, W.~T., \& Flannery, B.~P.\ 1992, Cambridge: University 

1307: Press, |c1992, 2nd ed.

1308: 

1309: \bibitem[Raghavan et al.(2006)]{RAG06} Raghavan, D., Henry, 

1310: T.~J., Mason, B.~D., Subasavage, J.~P., Jao, W.-C., Beaulieu, T.~D., \& 

1311: Hambly, N.~C.\ 2006, \apj, 646, 523

1312: 

1313: \bibitem[Reddy et al.(2006)]{RED06} Reddy, B.~E., Lambert, 

1314: D.~L., \& Allende Prieto, C.\ 2006, \mnras, 367, 1329 

1315: 

1316: \bibitem[Santos et al.(2003)]{SAN03} Santos, N.~C., 

1317: Israelian, G., Mayor, M., Rebolo, R., \& Udry, S.\ 2003, \aap, 398, 363

1318: 

1319: \bibitem[Sato et al.(2005)]{SAT05} Sato, B., et al.\ 2005, 

1320: \apj, 633, 465 

1321: 

1322: \bibitem[Schuler et al.(2006)]{SCH06} Schuler, S.~C., Hatzes, 

1323: A.~P., King, J.~R., K{\"u}rster, M., \& The, L.-S.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1057

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[Seager \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas(2003)]{SEA03} Seager, 

1326: S., \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas, G.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 1038 

1327: 

1328: \bibitem[Skrutskie et al.(2006)]{SKR06} Skrutskie, M.~F., et 

1329: al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1163 

1330: 

1331: \bibitem[Southworth et al.(2007)]{SOU07} Southworth, J., 

1332: Wheatley, P.~J., \& Sams, G.\ 2007, \mnras, 379, L11 

1333: 

1334: \bibitem[Tamuz et al.(2005)]{TAM05} Tamuz, O., Mazeh, T., \& 

1335: Zucker, S.\ 2005, \mnras, 356, 1466 

1336: 

1337: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004)]{TEG04} Tegmark, M., et al.\ 

1338: 2004, \prd, 69, 103501

1339: 

1340: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2005)]{TOR05} Torres, G., Konacki, M., 

1341: Sasselov, D.~D., \& Jha, S.\ 2005, \apj, 619, 558 

1342: 

1343: \bibitem[Tull et al.(1995)]{TUL95} Tull, R.~G., MacQueen, 

1344: P.~J., Sneden, C., \& Lambert, D.~L.\ 1995, \pasp, 107, 251 

1345: 

1346: \bibitem[Tull(1998)]{TUL98} Tull, R.~G.\ 1998, \procspie, 

1347: 3355, 387 

1348: 

1349: \bibitem[Valenti \& Fischer(2005)]{VAL05} Valenti, J.~A., \& 

1350: Fischer, D.~A.\ 2005, \apjs, 159, 141 

1351: 

1352: \bibitem[Valenti \& Piskunov(1996)]{VAL96} Valenti, J.~A., \& 

1353: Piskunov, N.\ 1996, \aaps, 118, 595 

1354: 

1355: \bibitem[Wallace et al.(1998)]{WAL98} Wallace, L., Hinkle, 

1356: K., \& Livingston, W.\ 1998, An atlas of the spectrum of the solar 

1357: photosphere from 13,500 to 28,000 cm-1 (3570 to 7405 A), (Tucson, AZ: NOAO)

1358: 

1359: \bibitem[Wilson(1993)]{WIL93} Wilson, R.~E.\ 1993, New 

1360: Frontiers in Binary Star Research, 38, 91 

1361: 

1362: \bibitem[Winn \& Holman(2005)]{WIN05} Winn, J.~N., \& Holman, 

1363: M.~J.\ 2005, \apjl, 628, L159 

1364: 

1365: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2001)]{YI01} Yi, S., Demarque, P., Kim, 

1366: Y.-C., Lee, Y.-W., Ree, C.~H., Lejeune, T., \& Barnes, S.\ 2001, \apjs, 

1367: 136, 417

1368: 

1369: \end{thebibliography}

1370: 

1371: \clearpage

1372: 

1373: \clearpage

1374: 

1375: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

1376: \tabletypesize{\small}

1377: \tablewidth{0pt}

1378: \tablecaption{{\rm XO Survey \& E.T.\ Light Curve Data}\tablenotemark{a}}

1379: \startdata

1380: \hline

1381: \hline

1382: Heliocentric Julian Date & Light Curve & Uncertainty & Filter & N\tablenotemark{b} & Observatory \\

1383:                          &  [mag]      & (1-$\sigma$) [mag] & & & \\

1384: \hline

1385: 2452961.14380 & -0.0027 & 0.0039  &   W &  1 &  XO \\

1386: 2452961.14404 & -0.0002 & 0.0037  &   W &  1 &  XO \\

1387: 2452964.11621 & -0.0057 & 0.0034  &   W &  1 &  XO \\

1388: 2452964.11646 & -0.0018 & 0.0033  &   W &  1 &  XO \\

1389: 2452964.12329 &  0.0034 & 0.0034  &   W &  1 &  XO \\

1390: \hline

1391: \enddata

1392: \tablenotetext{a}{The complete version of this table is in the electronic edition of

1393: the Journal.  The printed edition contains only a sample.}

1394: \tablenotetext{b}{Average of N measurements}

1395: \label{table:lc}

1396: \end{deluxetable}

1397: 

1398: \begin{deluxetable}{lccl}

1399: \tabletypesize{\small}

1400: \tablewidth{0pt}

1401: \tablecaption{{\rm Stellar Properties}}

1402: \startdata

1403: \hline

1404: \hline

1405: Parameter & \xon N & \xon S & Reference\\

1406: \hline

1407: GSC ID        & 03413-00005                    & 03413-00210                     & a\\

1408: RA (J2000.0)  & $ 7^h48^m06^s.47 $             & $ 7^h48^m07^s.48 $              & a,b \\

1409: Dec (J2000.0) & +50\arcdeg13\arcmin33\arcsec.0 &  +50\arcdeg13\arcmin03\arcsec.3 & a,b \\

1410: Galactic Latitude b [deg]       & 29.33        &  ...                            & a \\

1411:   ''     Longitude l [deg]      & 168.29       &  ...                            & a \\

1412: V             & 11.18$\pm$0.03                 &  11.12$\pm$0.03                 & c \\

1413: (B-V)         & 0.82$\pm$0.05                  &  0.79$\pm$0.05                  & c \\

1414: (V-R$_{c}$)     & 0.49$\pm$0.05                  &  0.46$\pm$0.05                  & c \\

1415: (V-I$_{c}$)     & 0.86$\pm$0.05                  &  0.82$\pm$0.05                  & c \\

1416: V$_{T}$             & 11.24                          & 11.20                           & b,d \\

1417: (B-V)$_{T}$         & 0.70                           & 0.86                            & b,d \\

1418: J             & 9.74$\pm$0.02                  & 9.74$\pm$0.02                  & e \\

1419: (J-H)         & 0.40$\pm$0.03                  & 0.37$\pm$0.03                   & e \\

1420: (H-K)         & 0.03$\pm$0.03                  & 0.10$\pm$0.03                  & e \\

1421: Spectral Type & \sptype                        &  \sptype                        & c \\

1422: Distance [pc] & \vDs$\pm^{\epDs}_{\enDs}$               &  ...                            & c \\

1423: $\mu_{\alpha}$ [mas\ yr$^{-1}$] & -34.7$\pm$2.6& -33.1$\pm$2.9                   & b \\

1424: $\mu_{\delta}$ [mas\ yr$^{-1}$] &-153.6$\pm$2.4& -154.1$\pm$2.7                  & b \\ 

1425: Total $\mu$[mas\ yr$^{-1}$]   & 157            & 158                              & f \\

1426: Radial Velocity (Bary) [km\ s$^{-1}$] & 47.4$\pm$0.5   & ...                         & c \\

1427: U Space Velocity [km\ s$^{-1}$] & -72.0        &  ...                            & b,c,g,h \\

1428: V ''                           & -78.0        &  ...                            &  b,c,g \\

1429: W ''                            & -4.6         &  ...                            & b,c,g \\ 

1430: Stellar Mass [$M_{\odot}$] &  \vMs$\pm$\eMs       & ...                              & c \\

1431: Stellar Radius [$R_{\odot}$] & \vRs$\pm^{\epRs}_{\enRs}$    & ...                       & c \\

1432: \enddata

1433: \\

1434: References:\\

1435: a) SIMBAD\\

1436: b) Tycho-2 \citep{HOG00} \\

1437: c) this work \\

1438: d) Tycho-2 photometry on the Johnson system \citep{BES00,MAM02}\\

1439: e) 2MASS \citep{SKR06} \\

1440: f) LSPM \citep{LEP05} \\

1441: g) Space Velocity w.r.t. LSR after correction for Solar peculiar motion \citep{MIH81}. \\

1442: h) Negative U is away from the Galactic Center \\

1443: \label{table:star}

1444: \end{deluxetable}

1445: 

1446: 

1447: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}

1448: \tabletypesize{\small}

1449: \tablewidth{0pt}

1450: \tablecaption{{\rm Radial Velocity Shifts}}

1451: \startdata

1452: \hline

1453: \hline

1454: Object & Julian Date & Radial Velocity &  Uncertainty \\

1455:        &   -245000   &  Shift [\mps] &  (1-$\sigma$) [\mps]  \\

1456: \hline

1457: \xon N &           &           &       \\

1458:      &  4127.6626  &    -60.6  &    22 \\

1459:      &  4128.6459   &    99.5    &  18 \\

1460:      &  4134.8318   &   -34.0    &  15 \\

1461:      &  4135.8366   &   -57.8    &  19 \\

1462:      &  4136.6494   &    71.0    &  19 \\

1463:      &  4136.8477   &    64.6    &  20 \\

1464:      &  4158.7782   &   -78.5    &  19 \\

1465:      &  4159.7882   &    73.6    &  20 \\

1466:      &  4160.5891   &    27.3    &  23 \\

1467:      &  4160.7715   &    37.0    &  26 \\

1468: \xon S &            &           &      \\

1469:        & 4133.6383  &    -21.6  &    18 \\

1470:        & 4134.6257  &    -1.5   &   15 \\ 

1471:        & 4135.8481  &    -32.4  &    20 \\ 

1472:        & 4136.8599  &    -7.6   &   17 \\

1473:        & 4158.7932  &     30.6  &    17 \\

1474:        & 4168.7572  &     16.7  &    17 \\

1475: \enddata

1476: \label{table:rv}

1477: \end{deluxetable}

1478: 

1479: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}

1480: \tabletypesize{\small}

1481: \tablewidth{0pt}

1482: \tablecaption{{\rm Results of the SME Analysis}}

1483: \startdata

1484: \hline

1485: \hline

1486: Parameter & \xon N &  \xon S & Uncertainty (1-$\sigma$) & Uncertainty (99.7\%) \\

1487: \hline

1488: $T_{eff}$ [K]	&5340  &  5500 & 32     & 233 \\

1489: log$g$ [\cmpss]	&4.48  &  4.62 & 0.05	& 0.36 \\

1490: $v$~sin~$i$ [\kps]&1.4   &  1.2  & 0.3	& 2.1 \\

1491: \ [M/H]     	&0.44  &  0.45 & 0.02	& 0.20 \\

1492: \ [Na/H]	&0.49  &  0.63 & 0.02	& 0.18 \\

1493: \ [Si/H]	&0.39  &  0.47 & 0.02	& 0.12 \\

1494: \ [Ti/H]	&0.36  &  0.42 & 0.04	& 0.26 \\

1495: \ [Fe/H]	&0.45  &  0.47 & 0.02	& 0.22 \\

1496: \ [Ni/H]	&0.50  &  0.52 & 0.02	& 0.16 \\

1497: \ [Si/Fe]   	&-0.06 &  0.00 & 0.03	& 0.25 \\

1498: \enddata

1499: \label{table:sme}

1500: \end{deluxetable}

1501: 

1502: 

1503: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}

1504: \tabletypesize{\small}

1505: \tablewidth{0pt}

1506: \tablecaption{{\rm Spectroscopically Derived Stellar parameters}}

1507: \startdata

1508: \hline

1509: \hline

1510: Parameter	&	@ 140 pc&	@ 150 pc&	@ 170 pc\\

1511: \hline

1512:    		&	0.98	&	0.97	&	0.96	\\

1513: Mass [\Msun]   	&	0.99	&	0.98	&	0.98	\\

1514:     		&	1.00	&	1.00	&	0.99	\\

1515:     		&	    	&	    	&	    	\\

1516:     		&	0.90	&	0.95	&	1.07	\\

1517: Radius [\Rsun] 	&	0.91	&	0.97	&	1.10	\\

1518:     		&	0.93	&	0.98	&	1.12	\\

1519:     		&	    	&	    	&	    	\\

1520:     		&	4.49	&	4.42	&	4.32	\\

1521: Log(g) [\cmpss] &	4.51	&	4.45	&	4.34	\\

1522:     		&	4.53	&	4.48	&	4.37	\\

1523:     		&	    	&	    	&	    	\\

1524:     		&	0.77	&	3.55	&	8.35	\\

1525: Age [Gyr]     	&	2.04	&	5.27	&	9.49	\\

1526:     		&	3.68  	&	6.92	&	10.62	\\

1527: \enddata

1528: \\

1529: For each parameter, the middle row is the maximum likelihood value, and the\\

1530: values in the rows above and below span the 68\% likelihood of the probability\\

1531: distributions (cf. Figure~\ref{fig:smeiso}).  The three columns correspond to three assumed\\

1532: distances for \xon.\\

1533: \label{table:smeiso}

1534: \end{deluxetable}

1535: 

1536: \begin{deluxetable}{cc}

1537: \tabletypesize{\small}

1538: \tablewidth{0pt}

1539: \tablecaption{{\rm Mid-Transit Times}}

1540: \startdata

1541: \hline

1542: \hline

1543: Heliocentric Julian Date\tablenotemark{a} & Observatory ID\tablenotemark{b} \\

1544:  -2450000                &                              \\

1545: \hline

1546: 3355.14209 & XO \\

1547: 3376.07349 & XO \\

1548: 4126.82324 & MF \\

1549: 4126.82324 & BG \\

1550: 4134.66992 & MF \\

1551: 4142.51660 & EM \\

1552: 4147.75049 & BG \\

1553: 4160.82812 & BG \\

1554: 4168.67578 & BG \\

1555: 4168.68066 & CF \\

1556: 4168.67871 & MF \\

1557: \enddata

1558: \tablenotetext{a}{Based upon independent observations on 2454168 HJD, uncertainty in mid-transit time, $\sigma$=3 min.}

1559: \tablenotetext{b}{Observatory ID is author initials, except XO is XO survey data.}

1560: \label{table:midpoints}

1561: \end{deluxetable}

1562: 

1563: \begin{deluxetable}{lc}

1564: \tabletypesize{\small}

1565: \tablewidth{0pt}

1566: \tablecaption{{\rm The Planet \xonb}}

1567: \startdata

1568: \hline

1569: \hline

1570: Parameter & Value \\

1571: \hline

1572: $P $ 				& \vperiod$\pm$\eperiod\ d 		\\

1573: $t_c $	 			& \vjd$\pm$\ejd\ (HJD)			\\

1574: $K $ 				& \vrvK$\pm\ervK$\ \mps 	 	 \\

1575: $a $ 				& \vap$\pm$\eap\ A.U. 			 \\

1576: $i $  		                & \vincl$\pm$\eincl\ deg  		 \\

1577: $M_{\rm p} $ 			& \vMp$\pm$\eMp\ \Mjup		 	\\

1578: $R_{\rm p} $ 			& \vRp$\pm^{\epRp}_{\enRp}$ \Rjup       \\

1579: $g_{\rm p} $                    & \vgp$\pm$\egp           \mpstwo        \\

1580: \enddata

1581: \label{table:planet}

1582: \end{deluxetable}

1583: 

1584: \clearpage

1585: 

1586: 

1587: 

1588: 

1589: 

1590: 

1591: 

1592: 

1593: 

1594: \end{document}

1595: 

1596: