1: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{latexsym,graphicx,natbib}
3: %\usepackage{apjfonts,emulateapj5,psfig}
4: %\usepackage{apjfonts,emulateapj5}
5:
6: \shortauthors{Winn et al.~2008}
7: \shorttitle{Smaller Radius of XO-3b}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: % ------------------------------------------------------------------------
12: % New commands
13: %
14: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
15: \def\lsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
16: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
17: \def\gsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
18: \def\lam{\lambda=-1\fdg4 \pm 1\fdg1}
19:
20: \def\jk{JK}
21: % -------------------------------------------------------------------------
22: %
23:
24: \bibliographystyle{apj}
25:
26: \title{
27: The Transit Light Curve Project.\\
28: IX.~Evidence for a Smaller Radius of the Exoplanet XO-3b
29: }
30:
31: \author{
32: Joshua N.\ Winn\altaffilmark{1},
33: Matthew J.\ Holman\altaffilmark{2},
34: Guillermo Torres\altaffilmark{2},
35: Peter McCullough\altaffilmark{3},
36: Christopher Johns-Krull\altaffilmark{4},
37: David W.\ Latham\altaffilmark{2},
38: Avi Shporer\altaffilmark{5},
39: Tsevi Mazeh\altaffilmark{5},
40: Enrique Garcia-Melendo\altaffilmark{6},
41: Cindy Foote\altaffilmark{7},
42: Gil Esquerdo\altaffilmark{2},
43: Mark Everett\altaffilmark{8}
44: }
45:
46: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute for
47: Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of
48: Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA}
49:
50: \altaffiltext{2}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60
51: Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}
52:
53: \altaffiltext{3}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin
54: Dr., Baltimore, MD 21218}
55:
56: \altaffiltext{4}{Dept.\ of Physics and Astronomy, Rice University,
57: 6100 Main Street, MS-108, Houston, TX 77005}
58:
59: \altaffiltext{5}{Wise Observatory, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty
60: of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel}
61:
62: \altaffiltext{6}{Esteve Duran Observatory, El Montanya, 08553 Seva,
63: Barcelona, Spain}
64:
65: \altaffiltext{7}{Vermillion Cliffs Observatory, 4175 E.~Red Cliffs
66: Drive, Kanab, Utah, 84741}
67:
68: \altaffiltext{8}{Planetary Science Institute, 1700 E.~Fort Lowell Rd.,
69: Suite 106, Tucson, AZ 85719}
70:
71: \begin{abstract}
72:
73: We present photometry of 13 transits of XO-3b, a massive transiting
74: planet on an eccentric orbit. Previous data led to two inconsistent
75: estimates of the planetary radius. Our data strongly favor the
76: smaller radius, with increased precision: $R_p = 1.217 \pm
77: 0.073$~$R_{\rm Jup}$. A conflict remains between the mean stellar
78: density determined from the light curve, and the stellar surface
79: gravity determined from the shapes of spectral lines. We argue the
80: light curve should take precedence, and revise the system parameters
81: accordingly. The planetary radius is about $1\sigma$ larger than the
82: theoretical radius for a hydrogen-helium planet of the given mass
83: and insolation. To help in planning future observations, we provide
84: refined transit and occultation ephemerides.
85:
86: \end{abstract}
87:
88: \keywords{planetary systems --- stars:~individual (XO-3,
89: GSC~03727--01064)}
90:
91: \section{Introduction}
92:
93: The most intimate details about exoplanets have come from observations
94: of transits and occultations, as recently reviewed by Charbonneau et
95: al.~(2007a), Ksanfomality~(2007), and Seager~(2008). This is the ninth
96: publication of the Transit Light Curve (TLC) project, a series of
97: photometric investigations of transiting exoplanets. The short-term
98: goal of this project is the accurate determination of planetary radii
99: and other system parameters (Holman et al.~2007, Winn et al.~2007a),
100: the intermediate-term goal is detecting reflected light or thermal
101: emission with ground-based observations (Winn et al.~2008), and the
102: longer-term goal is seeking evidence for additional planets or
103: satellites in the pattern of measured transit times (Holman \& Murray
104: 2005, Agol et al.~2005).
105:
106: This paper is concerned with the determination of system parameters
107: for XO-3, which was discovered by Johns-Krull et al.~(2008; hereafter,
108: \jk), as part of the XO Project (McCullough et al.~2005). In this
109: system, a planet with a mass near the deuterium-burning limit of
110: 13~M$_{\rm Jup}$ orbits an F5V star, with a period of 3.19~d and an
111: eccentricity of 0.26. The planet is the most massive transiting planet
112: yet reported. It is also one of only 4 transiting planets with an
113: obviously noncircular orbit. How such a massive planet formed, how it
114: achieved its tight orbit, and why the orbit is eccentric, are
115: interesting unanswered questions, and precise determinations of the
116: basic system parameters may help to answer them.
117:
118: \jk\ found that a key parameter---the planetary radius---was
119: especially uncertain, with an allowed range from 1.17 to 2.10 times
120: the radius of Jupiter. This wide range encompassed the results of two
121: different methods for determining the planetary radius that gave
122: discrepant values. They found that if the true radius is near the low
123: end of this range, it can be accommodated by ordinary models for gas
124: giants of solar composition with the given mass and degree of
125: insolation, while if the radius is near the high end of the allowed
126: range, more complex and interesting models would require consideration
127: (see, e.g., Guillot \& Showman 2002, Bodenheimer et al.~2003, Chabrier
128: \& Baraffe 2007, Hansen \& Barman 2007, Burrows et al.~2007).
129:
130: High-precision photometry of transits is one avenue for improving the
131: precision of the radius measurement. In \S~2, we describe our
132: observations and the production of the light curves. In \S~3, we
133: describe the procedure with which we estimated the system parameters
134: from the light curves. In \S~4, we present the results for the
135: planetary, stellar, and orbital parameters, as well as the transit
136: times and updated transit and occultation ephemerides, which are
137: useful for planning future observations. In \S~5 we summarize, and
138: revisit the issue of the planetary radius and its theoretical
139: interpretation, in light of the new data.
140:
141: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
142:
143: We observed XO-3 on 12 nights when transits were predicted to occur
144: according to the ephemeris of \jk. The observing dates and other
145: pertinent characteristics of the observations are given in Table~1.
146:
147: On six of those nights, we used the 1.2m telescope at the Fred L.\
148: Whipple Observatory (FLWO) on Mt.\ Hopkins, Arizona. We used KeplerCam
149: (Szentgyorgi et al.~2005), which has a monolithic 4096$^2$ CCD
150: detector giving a $23\farcm1 \times 23\farcm 1$ field of view. We
151: binned the images $2\times 2$, giving a scale of $0\farcs 68$ per
152: binned pixel. We used a Sloan $z$ filter, the reddest broad band
153: filter available, to minimize the effects of stellar limb darkening on
154: the transit light curves. On each night we attempted to observe as
155: much of the transit as possible, preferably starting at least 1~hr
156: prior to ingress and ending at least 1~hr after egress, although this
157: was not always possible. We defocused the telescope slightly to permit
158: exposure times of 10-15~s without saturating the brightest star in the
159: field. We also obtained dome-flat exposures and bias exposures for
160: calibration purposes.
161:
162: On the other 6 nights, data were obtained with smaller telescopes. On
163: the night of 2008~Feb~10, we used the 0.5m telescope at Wise
164: Observatory, in Israel. We used a Santa Barbara Instrument Group
165: (SBIG) ST-10 XME CCD detector with $2148\times 1472$~pixels, giving a
166: field of view of $40\farcm 5 \times 27\farcm 3$ and a scale of
167: $1\farcs 1$ per pixel. No filter was used. More details about this
168: telescope and instrument are given by Brosch et al.~(2008). On
169: 2007~Oct~9, we used two different telescopes at Vermillion Cliffs
170: Observatory, in Kanab, Utah: a 0.4m telescope with an SBIG ST-7e CCD
171: ($1530\times 1020$~pixels, $0\farcs 87$~pixel$^{-1}$, $22\farcm 2
172: \times 14\farcm 8$~FOV), and a 0.6m telescope with an SBIG ST-8xe CCD
173: ($765\times 510$~pixels, $1\farcs 31$~pixel$^{-1}$, $16\farcm 8 \times
174: 11\farcm 2$~FOV). We used an $I$-band filter on the 0.4m telescope and
175: an $R$-band filter on the 0.6m telescope. Each telescope was used to
176: produce an independent light curve. On 2007~Sep~16, Oct~18, Oct~21,
177: and Nov~6, we used a 0.6m telescope with an SBIG ST-9XE CCD, located
178: at Esteve Duran Observatory in Seva, Spain. An $I$-band filter was
179: used for the first three of these events, and a $V$-band filter was
180: used for the Nov~06 event.
181:
182: We used standard procedures for the overscan correction, trimming,
183: bias subtraction, and flat-field division. For the FLWO and Wise data,
184: we performed aperture photometry of XO-3 and 15-20 comparison
185: stars. The flux of XO-3 was divided by the sum of the fluxes of the
186: comparison stars, and then divided by a constant to give a unit mean
187: flux outside of transit. For the other data, only 2 comparison stars
188: were used. It was found in almost all cases that the out-of-transit
189: (OOT) flux was not a constant over the course of the night, perhaps
190: due to the effects of differential atmospheric extinction or slow
191: drifts in focus, pixel position, or other external variables. To
192: compensate, we solved for the ``OOT baseline function,'' a linear
193: function of time, as part of the fitting process described in the next
194: section. Figures~1 and 2 show the final light curves. Figure~3 is a
195: composite $z$-band light curve based on all of the FLWO data. Table~2
196: provides all of the data in numerical form.
197:
198: %\clearpage
199: \begin{figure}[p]
200: \epsscale{1.0}
201: \plotone{f1.eps}
202: \caption{ Relative $z$-band photometry of XO-3,
203: based on observations with the FLWO~1.2m telescope.
204: \label{fig:1}}
205: \end{figure}
206:
207: \begin{figure}[p]
208: \epsscale{1.0}
209: \plotone{f2.eps}
210: \caption{ Relative photometry of XO-3,
211: based on observations with 0.4--0.6m telescopes.
212: \label{fig:2}}
213: \end{figure}
214:
215: \begin{figure}[bp]
216: \epsscale{1.0}
217: \plotone{f3.eps}
218: \caption{ Composite $z$-band light curve of XO-3,
219: calculated by
220: subtracting the midtransit time from each time stamp,
221: and then averaging into 1~min bins.
222: \label{fig:3}}
223: \end{figure}
224: %\clearpage
225:
226: \section{Determination of System Parameters}
227:
228: In order to determine the stellar, planetary, and orbital parameters,
229: we fitted a parametric model to the 13 photometric time series, as
230: well as the 21 radial velocity measurements of \jk. Our model and
231: fitting method were similar to those described in previous TLC papers
232: (see, e.g., Holman et al.~2006, Winn et al.~2007a). It is based on a
233: Keplerian orbit of two spherical bodies. The physical parameters were
234: the stellar mass and radius ($M_\star$ and $R_\star$); the planetary
235: mass and radius ($M_p$, $R_p$); the orbital period, inclination,
236: eccentricity, and argument of pericenter ($P$, $i$, $e$, $\omega$);
237: and a particular midtransit time ($T_c$). In addition, for each of the
238: two velocity data sets presented by \jk~(from the Hobby-Eberly
239: Telescope and the Harlan J.~Smith telescope), we allowed for an
240: arbitrary additive constant velocity. As mentioned in the previous
241: section, we also fitted for a linear function of time describing the
242: OOT flux (2 parameters per light curve).
243:
244: A well-known degeneracy involves both of the bodies' masses and radii.
245: Only 3 of those 4 parameters can be determined independently. Three
246: parameters that {\it can}\, be determined independently are
247: $R_p/R_\star$, $M_\star/R_\star^3$ (Seager \& Mallen-Ornelas~2003),
248: and $M_p/R_p^2$ (Southworth et al.~2007). Rather than reparameterizing
249: in terms of those variables, we find it more convenient to fix the
250: stellar mass at some fiducial value and then use the scaling relations
251: $R_\star\propto M_\star^{1/3}$, $R_p\propto M_\star^{1/3}$, and
252: $M_p\propto M_\star^{2/3}$ as needed.
253:
254: To calculate the relative flux as a function of the projected
255: separation of the planet and the star, we employed the analytic
256: formulas of Mandel \& Agol~(2002) to compute the integral of the
257: intensity over the unobscured portion of the stellar disk. We assumed
258: the limb darkening law to be quadratic. In some previous studies,
259: including our own, the limb-darkening coefficients have been fixed at
260: the tabulated values based on stellar-atmosphere models. A more
261: conservative approach is to fit for the limb-darkening law, since the
262: actual stellar brightness distribution is not known and may differ
263: from the tabulated limb-darkening law. However, it is generally not
264: possible to constrain more than one free parameter in the
265: limb-darkening law. Following the suggestion by Southworth~(2008), our
266: approach was to allow the linear coefficient ($a$) to vary freely, and
267: to fix the quadratic coefficient ($b$) at the appropriate value
268: tabulated by Claret~(2004). To determine the ``theoretical'' values of
269: the limb-darkening coefficients, we interpolated the ATLAS tables for
270: the stellar parameters $T_{\rm eff} = 6429$~K, $\log g = 4.244$~(cgs),
271: [Fe/H]$=-0.177$ and $v_t = 2.0$~km~s$^{-1}$. The interpolated values
272: are given in Table~4, as well as the results for the fitted linear
273: coefficient.
274:
275: The fitting statistic was
276: \begin{equation}
277: \chi^2 =
278: \sum_{j=1}^{21}
279: \left[
280: \frac{v_j({\mathrm{obs}}) - v_j({\mathrm{calc}})}{\sigma_{v,j}}
281: \right]^2 +
282: \sum_{j=1}^{6104}
283: \left[
284: \frac{f_j({\mathrm{obs}}) - f_j({\mathrm{calc}})}{\sigma_{f,j}}
285: \right]^2
286: ,
287: \label{eq:chi2}
288: \end{equation}
289: where $v_j$(obs) is the radial velocity observed at time $j$,
290: $\sigma_{v,j}$ is the corresponding uncertainty, and $v_j$(calc) is
291: the calculated radial velocity. A similar notation applies to the
292: fluxes $f$. For the velocity uncertainties, we used the values
293: reported by \jk. For the flux uncertainties, we used a procedure that
294: attempts to account for time-correlated (``red'') noise, at least
295: approximately. For each of the 13 observed transits, we set the
296: uncertainty of each data point equal to the root-mean-squared (rms)
297: relative flux observed out of transit, multiplied by a factor
298: $\beta\geq 1$. The factor $\beta$ was determined using two different
299: methods (described at the end of this section), and the larger of the
300: two results was used in our final analysis.
301:
302: We found the ``best fitting'' values of the model parameters, and
303: their uncertainties, using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm
304: [see Tegmark et al.~(2004) for applications to cosmological data, Ford
305: (2005) for radial-velocity data, Holman et al.~(2006) or Winn et
306: al.~(2007) for our particular implementation, and Burke et al.~(2007)
307: for a similar approach]. This algorithm creates a chain of points in
308: parameter space by iterating a jump function, which in our case was
309: the addition of a Gaussian random deviate to a randomly-selected
310: single parameter. If the new point has a lower $\chi^2$ than the
311: previous point, the jump is executed; if not, the jump is executed
312: with probability $\exp(-\Delta\chi^2/2)$. We set the sizes of the
313: random deviates such that $\sim$40\% of jumps are executed. We create
314: a number of chains from different starting conditions to verify they
315: all converge to the same basin in parameter space, and then we merge
316: them for our final results. The phase-space density of points in the
317: chain is an estimate of the joint {\it a posteriori}\, probability
318: distribution of all the parameters, from which may be calculated the
319: probability distribution for an individual parameter by marginalizing
320: over all of the others.
321:
322: The fitting procedure had 4 basic steps. First, we performed a joint
323: fit of all the light curves along with the radial velocities, to
324: determine provisional values of the orbital period and physical
325: parameters. Second, we measured individual midtransit times, by
326: performing a MCMC analysis of each light curve with only three free
327: parameters: the zero point and slope of the linear function describing
328: the out-of-transit flux, and the midtransit time. We fixed $R_p$,
329: $R_\star$, and $i$ at the best-fitting values determined from the
330: ensemble. There is no need to fit the midtransit times simultaneously
331: with $\{R_p, R_\star, i\}$ because the errors in those parameters are
332: uncorrelated with the error in the midtransit time. Third, we
333: recomputed the transit ephemeris using the newly measured midtransit
334: times (see \S~\ref{subsec:ephemeris} for more details on this step).
335: Fourth, we fixed the orbital period and midtransit times at the values
336: just determined, and performed another joint fit of all the
337: radial-velocity and photometric data, to obtain final estimates of the
338: model parameters and their uncertainties. The results from this final
339: computation did not differ significantly from the results of the
340: initial joint fit.
341:
342: As mentioned previously, we used two different methods to estimate the
343: factor $\beta$ by which time-correlated noise effectively increases
344: the flux uncertainties. We refer to the first method as the
345: ``time-averaging'' method, which has been described previously by Winn
346: et al.~(2007b) and is closely related to a method used by Gillon et
347: al.~(2006). For each light curve we found the best-fitting model and
348: calculated $\sigma_1$, the standard deviation of the unbinned
349: residuals between the observed and calculated fluxes. Next we averaged
350: the residuals into $M$ bins of $N$ points and calculated the standard
351: deviation $\sigma_N$ of the binned residuals. In the absence of red
352: noise, we would have expected\footnote{We thank G.~Kovacs for pointing
353: out that we erroneously neglected the factor $\sqrt{M/(M-1)}$ in
354: previous analyses. Typically $M>5$ and this factor is smaller than
355: 1.12.}
356: \begin{equation}
357: \sigma_N = \frac{\sigma_1}{\sqrt{N}} \sqrt{\frac{M}{M-1}},
358: \end{equation}
359: but often $\sigma_N$ is larger than this by a factor $\beta$. We found
360: that $\beta$ depends only weakly on the choice of averaging time
361: $\tau$, generally rising to an asymptotic value at $\tau\approx
362: 10$~min. We denote by $\beta_1$ the median of these factors when using
363: averaging times ranging from 15-30~min (the approximate duration of
364: ingress or egress).
365:
366: We refer to the second method as the ``rosary-bead'' method, which has
367: been used previously by many investigators (e.g., Bouchy et al.~2005,
368: Southworth~2008). For each light curve, we found the best-fitting
369: model and computed the time series of $N$ residuals. We then added
370: these residuals to the model light curve after time-shifting them by
371: $M$ samples with a periodic boundary condition, i.e., the $i$th
372: residual was assigned to the time stamp $(i+M)$~mod~$N$. We repeated
373: this for all $M<N$, then fitted each of these synthetic light curves
374: and took the standard deviation of the results to be the error
375: estimates for the parameters. This is a variant of the well-known
376: bootstrap technique that preserves the temporal correlations among the
377: residuals. We denote by $\beta_2$ the ratio between the error estimate
378: returned by the rosary-bead method, and the error estimate assuming
379: uncorrelated errrors.
380:
381: In general $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ are specific to each parameter of
382: the model, but for simplicity we assumed they are the same for all
383: parameters, and to calculate them we focused on the determination of
384: midtransit times. For each of the 13 light curves we compared the
385: error bar in $T_c$ as obtained through the time-averaging method, and
386: as obtained with the rosary-bead method. For the 13 light curves,
387: $\beta_2 / \beta_1$ varied from 0.86 to 1.47, with a mean of 1.13 and
388: a standard deviation of 0.21. Thus the two methods gave similar
389: results, and the rosary-bead method tended to produce larger error
390: estimates. For our final results, we assigned each light curve the
391: value $\beta = \max(\beta_1,\beta_2)$. These choices of $\beta$ are
392: given in Table~1. All of these procedures may be fairly criticized for
393: lacking statistical rigor, but experience has shown that the more
394: common procedure of setting $\sigma_{f,i} = \sigma_1$ results in
395: underestimated uncertainties in the model parameters, as demonstrated
396: by a lack of agreement between the results of different but presumably
397: equivalent data sets.
398:
399: \section{Results}
400:
401: Table~1 gives all of the newly measured transit times. Table~3 gives
402: the results for the planetary, stellar, and orbital parameters, as
403: well as many other quantities of intrinsic interest or importance for
404: planning follow-up observations. As an example of the latter, the
405: quantity $(R_p/a)^2$ is the planet-to-star flux ratio at opposition,
406: for a geometric albedo of unity, and as such it is relevant to
407: pursuing observations of reflected light from the planet. Another
408: example is the amplitude of the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, given by
409: $(R_p/R_\star)^2 (v\sin i_\star)$, where $v\sin i_\star$ is the
410: projected rotation rate of the star (see, e.g., Gaudi \& Winn
411: 2007). The labels A--E, explained in the table caption, are an attempt
412: to clarify which quantities are determined independently from our
413: analysis, which quantities are functions of those independent
414: parameters, and which quantities depend on our isochrone analysis to
415: break the fitting degeneracy between the stellar mass and radius.
416: Table~4 gives the results for the limb-darkening coefficients.
417:
418: \subsection{The stellar and planetary radii}
419:
420: As discussed in the previous section, the joint analysis of the light
421: curves and velocities cannot independently determine the masses and
422: radii of both bodies. Some external information about the star or the
423: planet must be introduced to break the fitting degeneracies
424: $M_p\propto M_\star^{2/3}$ and $R_p \propto R_\star \propto
425: M_\star^{1/3}$. Our approach was to seek consistency between the
426: observed spectroscopic properties of the star, the stellar mean
427: density that is derived from the transit light curves, and theoretical
428: models of stellar evolution. This is the same approach (and uses the
429: same software) that was described in detail by Sozzetti et al.~(2007)
430: and Torres et al.~(2008). Here we summarize the procedure, and refer
431: the reader to those papers for more details.
432:
433: There were two sets of inputs. First, we used the values of the
434: effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}$, surface gravity $\log g$, and
435: metallicity [Fe/H] of the host star, as reported by \jk, based on a
436: parametric fit to the optical spectrum of XO-3 using the {\it
437: Spectroscopy Made Easy}\, (SME) program (Valenti \& Piskunov 1996,
438: Valenti \& Fischer 2005). Second, we used the scaled semimajor axis
439: $a/R_\star$ and the orbital parameters from our joint analysis of the
440: photometry and radial-velocity data. Given $a/R_\star$ and the orbital
441: parameters, it is possible to derive the mean stellar density, using
442: Kepler's Law (Seager \& Mallen-Ornelas~2003). We use the symbol
443: $\rho_\star$ to refer to the mean density determined in this fashion.
444:
445: We used the Yonsei-Yale (Y$^2$) stellar evolution models by Yi et
446: al.~(2001) and Demarque et al.~(2004). We computed isochrones for the
447: full range of metallicities allowed by the data, and for stellar ages
448: ranging from 0.1 to 14~Gyr, seeking points that gave agreement with
449: the observed $T_{\rm eff}$ and one of the two gravity indicators
450: ($\log g$ and $\rho_\star$). For each stellar property (mass, radius,
451: and age), we took a weighted average of the points on each
452: isochrone. The weights were based on the agreement with the observed
453: temperature, metallicity, and gravity indicator, and a factor taking
454: into account the number density of stars along each isochrone
455: (assuming a Salpeter mass function).
456:
457: In almost all of the 23 cases examined by Torres et al.~(2008), the
458: results when using either $\log g$ or $\rho_\star$ as the gravity
459: indicator were in agreement, and greater precision was obtained with
460: $\rho_\star$, often by a factor of 2 or more. Torres et al.~(2008) did
461: not consider the case of XO-3, but using the same technique we find
462: poor agreement between the results of using the two independent
463: gravity indicators. Using $\rho_\star$ results in a less massive and
464: smaller star, with a higher mean density and a stronger surface
465: gravity. This in turn gives a less massive and smaller planet. One way
466: to frame the discrepancy is that by using $\rho_\star$ as the gravity
467: indicator, the isochrone analysis gives a stellar surface gravity of
468: $(\log g)_{\rm phot} = 4.244\pm 0.041$, as compared to the SME-derived
469: value of $\log g = 3.950\pm 0.062$. The difference is $0.294 \pm
470: 0.074$, which is inconsistent with zero at the 4$\sigma$
471: level. Clearly something is amiss with either our interpretation of
472: the light curve, or the SME determination of $\log g$, or both. The
473: same conflict was already apparent between the light-curve analysis
474: and the isochrone analysis of \jk. We have improved the precision of
475: the light-curve parameters by factors of 3 or more, and the conflict
476: with the spectroscopic determination of $\log g$ has been sharpened.
477:
478: Some further thoughts on the tension between $\rho_\star$ and $\log g$
479: are given in \S~5. For the results given in Table~3, we proceeded
480: under the assumption that the error in the spectroscopic determination
481: of $\log g$ was greatly underestimated. We disregarded the
482: spectroscopic $\log g$ while performing the isochrone analysis, and we
483: also increased the error bars on $T_{\rm eff}$ and [Fe/H], since the
484: errors in those three quantities are highly correlated when fitting
485: models to the features observed in optical spectra. We increased the
486: error in $T_{\rm eff}$ from 50~K to 100~K, and in [Fe/H] from
487: 0.023~dex to 0.08~dex, which we believe to be conservative choices,
488: and are consistent with similar judgments made by Torres et al.~(2008)
489: in their homogeneous analysis of transiting systems.
490:
491: \subsection{The transit and occultation ephemerides}
492: \label{subsec:ephemeris}
493:
494: We calculated a photometric ephemeris for the transits of XO-3 using
495: the 13 midtransit times given in Table~1 and the 16 midtransit times
496: measured by the XO Extended Team and reported previously by \jk. We
497: fitted a linear function of transit epoch $E$,
498: \begin{equation}
499: T_c(E) = T_c(0) + E P.
500: \label{eq:ephemeris}
501: \end{equation}
502: The fit had $\chi^2=29.6$ with 27 degrees of freedom, or $\chi^2/N_{\rm
503: dof} = 1.10$. The results were $T_c(0) = 2454449.86816 \pm
504: 0.00023$~[HJD] and $P = 3.1915239\pm 0.0000068$~days. Our derived
505: period agrees with the value $3.19154\pm 0.00014$~days determined by
506: \jk\, and is about 20 times more precise. Figure~4 is the O$-$C
507: (observed minus calculated) diagram for the transit times. In this
508: calculation, we did not use the 4 midtransit times that were based on
509: data from the XO survey instrument, because those data had
510: unquantified and apparently large uncertainties. Nevertheless, all of
511: the observed times are plotted in Figure~3, and are seen to be at
512: least roughly consistent with the new ephemeris.
513:
514: To help in planning observations of occultations (secondary eclipses)
515: of XO-3b, we have also used our model results to predict the timing,
516: duration, and impact parameter of the occultations. Because of the
517: eccentric orbit, occultations and transits are not separated by
518: exactly one-half of the orbital period, and do not have the same
519: duration or impact parameter. Based on our model of the system, we
520: expect occultations to occur $2.109\pm 0.034$~days after transits. The
521: predicted occultation ephemeris is given in Table~3.
522:
523: %\clearpage
524: \begin{figure}[ht]
525: \epsscale{1.0}
526: \plotone{f4.eps}
527: \caption{Transit timing residuals for XO-3b. The calculated times,
528: using the ephemeris derived in \S~4.2, have been subtracted from the
529: observed times. The filled symbols are the data from
530: this work and from the XO Extended Team observations reported by
531: \jk. Those data were used to calculate the transit ephemeris.
532: The unfilled symbols are the data from the XO Survey instruments,
533: which were not used to calculate the transit ephemeris.
534: \label{fig:4}}
535: \end{figure}
536: %\clearpage
537:
538: \section{Summary and Discussion}
539:
540: We have presented new photometry spanning transits of the exoplanet
541: XO-3. The photometry greatly improves the precision with which the
542: light-curve parameters are known. In particular, the planet-to-star
543: radius ratio is known to within 0.6\%, an improvement by a factor of
544: 6. The inclination angle is now known to within 0.54~deg, an
545: improvement by a factor of 2.5. A third light-curve parameter, the
546: scaled semimajor axis ($a/R_\star$), has also been refined by a factor
547: of a few, and was used (along with the orbital period and Kepler's
548: Law) to calculate $\rho_\star$, the stellar mean density. We found
549: that the photometric result for $\rho_\star$ is incompatible (at the
550: 4$\sigma$ level) with the previous spectroscopic determination of
551: $\log g$, in the sense that theoretical stellar-evolution models
552: cannot accommodate both values along with the observed effective
553: temperature and metallicity of the star.
554:
555: Because of this conflict, it is worth reviewing how $\rho_\star$ and
556: $\log g$ were determined. The photometric determination of
557: $\rho_\star$ is based on a fit to the light curve with 3 relevant free
558: parameters, and the application of Kepler's Law (Seager \&
559: Mallen-Ornelas 2003). The spectroscopic determination of $\log g$ is
560: based on the interpretation of pressure-sensitive features of the
561: stellar spectrum, especially the widths of the wings of selected
562: absorption lines. The interpretation is performed by comparison to
563: theoretical models of stellar atmospheres. For XO-3 this comparison
564: was performed with SME (Valenti \& Piskunov~1996, Valenti \&
565: Fischer~2005), an automated analysis program that fits a model to an
566: optical spectrum by adjusting many free parameters, of which the most
567: relevant are the effective temperature, surface gravity, projected
568: rotation rate, and metal abundances. The model is based on
569: plane-parallel stellar atmosphere models in local thermodynamic
570: equilibrium, and reasonable assumptions regarding instrumental
571: broadening and turbulent broadening mechanisms. Empirical corrections
572: are applied to the parameters based on an SME analysis of the Solar
573: spectrum.
574:
575: The spectroscopic method for determining $\log g$ is more complex than
576: the photometric method for determining $\rho_\star$. In addition, it
577: is important to recognize that the quoted error in the spectroscopic
578: determination of \jk\ ($\log g = 3.950\pm 0.062$) represents the
579: standard error of the mean of the results of fitting 10 independent
580: spectra of XO-3. Thus, the error bar refers to the repeatability or
581: precision of the result, and not its accuracy. Valenti \&
582: Fischer~(2005) assessed the accuracy of SME by comparing two methods
583: of determining surface gravity: (1) the purely spectroscopic method
584: described in the previous paragraph; (2) the surface gravity that
585: follows from the observed stellar luminosity (for stars with measured
586: parallaxes), effective temperature, and metallicity, by requiring
587: consistency with theoretical isochrones of stellar-evolution
588: models. They found a systematic offset of 0.1~dex and a large scatter
589: (see \S~7.4 of that work). \jk\, repeated this comparison for stars
590: with similar temperatures to XO-3, finding a scatter of about 0.1~dex
591: and some cases in which the discrepancy is $\approx$0.3~dex. Valenti
592: \& Fischer~(2005) also compared the SME results for $\log g$ with
593: spectroscopic results that have been obtained by other authors,
594: finding a scatter of about 0.15~dex, and discrepancies as large as
595: 0.3~dex. These general comparisons cannot speak to the specific case
596: of XO-3, but they suggest that the 4$\sigma$ discrepancy between the
597: spectroscopic and photometric methods in the present study is not as
598: serious as it may seem. The true error in the spectroscopic
599: determination of $\log g$ is probably larger than 0.062.
600:
601: An upward revision of the stellar $\log g$ corresponds to a downward
602: revision of the planetary radius, to $1.217\pm 0.073$~$R_{\rm Jup}$.
603: How does this result compare to the radius that is expected on
604: theoretical grounds? Fortney et al.~(2007) have computed models for
605: planets over a wide range of masses, compositions, ages, and
606: irradiation levels, and provided the results in a convenient tabular
607: form. Interpolation of those tables for a coreless, pure
608: hydrogen-helium planet with properties appropriate for the XO-3 system
609: ($M_p = 11.8$~$M_{\rm Jup}$, $a=0.045$~AU, $L_\star = 2.9$~$L_\odot$,
610: age~2.82~Gyr) gives a theoretical radius of 1.14~$R_{\rm Jup}$.
611:
612: Adding as much as $\sim$100~$M_\oplus$ of heavy elements would
613: decrease the theoretical radius by a few per cent. On the other hand,
614: the models of Fortney et al.~(2008) define the planetary surface as
615: the 1~bar pressure level, whereas a much lower pressure is appropriate
616: for comparison to transit observations. This ``transit radius effect''
617: will increase the theoretical radius by a few per cent (Burrows et
618: al.~2007). Assuming the combination of these effects to be small, the
619: observed radius is 1$\sigma$ larger than the theoretical radius. Thus,
620: the photometric analysis leads to a planetary radius that is only a
621: little larger than the models of Fortney et al.~(2007) would predict,
622: similar to the case of HAT-P-1b (Winn et al.~2007b), and not nearly as
623: ``inflated'' as some other examples in the literature such as
624: HD~209458b (Charbonneau et al.~2000, Henry et al.~2000), WASP-1b
625: (Collier Cameron et al.~2007, Charbonneau et al.~2007b), and TrES-4b
626: (Mandushev et al.~2007).
627:
628: Although we have argued that the photometric determination of
629: $\rho_\star$ should take precedence over the spectroscopic
630: determination of $\log g$, it would be more definitive to settle the
631: issue by measuring the trigonometric parallax of XO-3, as suggested by
632: \jk. Our photometric analysis predicts that the distance will be found
633: to be $174\pm 18$~pc, based on the stellar luminosity inferred from
634: theoretical isochrones, the $V$ magnitude of $9.80\pm 0.03$, and the
635: assumption of negligible extinction. The spectrosopic analysis of
636: \jk~predicted a greater distance, $260\pm 23$~pc. An interesting but
637: more challenging prospect for determining the stellar mass (and hence
638: its radius) is to measure the general-relativistic periastron
639: precession of $2\arcmin$~yr$^{-1}$ by precise long-term timing of
640: transits and occultations (Heyl \& Gladman 2007).
641:
642: In addition to pinning down the correct value of the radius, there are
643: other reasons to pursue further observations of XO-3, of which many
644: are related to its sizable orbital eccentricity. One consequence of
645: the eccentricity is that the planet experiences significant variations
646: in stellar insolation over the 3.2~d orbital period. The time-variable
647: response of the planet's atmosphere may be detectable through
648: mid-infrared photometry (Langton \& Laughlin 2008). Whatever mechanism
649: produced the large eccentricity may also have produced a large
650: inclination angle relative to the stellar equatorial plane, an angle
651: that can be measured through observations of the Rossiter-McLaughlin
652: effect. Narita et al.~(2007) have presented this type of evidence for
653: a significant orbital tilt in the HD~17156 system.
654:
655: If, on the other hand, the stellar rotation axis is well-aligned with
656: the orbital axis, then the combination of the measurements of $v\sin
657: i$, $i$, and $R_\star$ give a stellar rotation period of $P_{\rm rot}
658: = 3.73\pm 0.23$~days. This is not too far from the orbital period of
659: 3.19~days, suggesting that spin-orbit interactions may be unusually
660: strong, perhaps even strong enough to excite the orbital eccentricity
661: to the observed value.
662:
663: Another way to produce an eccentricity is through stable long-term
664: gravitational interactions with another planet. Although the
665: midtransit times we have recorded are nearly consistent with a
666: constant period, and hence do not provide {\it prima facie}\, evidence
667: for any additional bodies in the system, we have achieved a precision
668: of 1-2~min using relatively small telescopes. After a few more
669: seasons, a pattern may yet emerge.
670:
671: \acknowledgments We thank the anonymous referee for several insightful
672: suggestions. We are grateful for partial support for this work from
673: NASA Origins grants NNG06GH69G (to M.J.H.), NNG04LG89G (to G.T.),
674: 05-SSO05-86 (to C.M.J.-K.), and NAG5-13130 (to P.R.M.). This work was
675: also partly supported by Grant no.~2006234 from the United
676: States--Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), Jerusalem,
677: Israel. KeplerCam was developed with partial support from the Kepler
678: Mission under NASA Cooperative Agreement NCC2-1390 and the Keplercam
679: observations described in this paper were partly supported by grants
680: from the Kepler Mission to SAO and PSI.
681:
682: \begin{thebibliography}{}
683:
684: \bibitem[Agol et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.359..567A} Agol, E., Steffen,
685: J., Sari, R., \& Clarkson, W.\ 2005, \mnras, 359, 567
686:
687: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...656..552B} Bakos, G.~{\'A}., et
688: al.\ 2007, \apj, 656, 552
689:
690: \bibitem[Bodenheimer et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...592..555B} Bodenheimer,
691: P., Laughlin, G., \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\ 2003, \apj, 592, 555
692:
693: \bibitem[Bouchy et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...431.1105B} Bouchy, F., Pont,
694: F., Melo, C., Santos, N.~C., Mayor, M., Queloz, D., \& Udry, S.\
695: 2005, \aap, 431, 1105
696:
697: \bibitem[Brosch et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0802.0821B} Brosch, N.,
698: Polishook, D., Shporer, A., Kaspi, S., Berwald, A., \& Manulis, I.\
699: 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 802, arXiv:0802.0821
700:
701: \bibitem[Burke et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...671.2115B} Burke, C.~J., et
702: al.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 2115
703:
704: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...661..502B} Burrows, A.,
705: Hubeny, I., Budaj, J., \& Hubbard, W.~B.\ 2007, \apj, 661, 502
706:
707: \bibitem[Cameron et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.375..951C} Cameron, A.~C., et
708: al.\ 2007, \mnras, 375, 951
709:
710: \bibitem[Chabrier \& Baraffe(2007)]{2007ApJ...661L..81C} Chabrier, G.,
711: \& Baraffe, I.\ 2007, \apjl, 661, L81
712:
713: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...529L..45C} Charbonneau,
714: D., Brown, T.~M., Latham, D.~W., \& Mayor, M.\ 2000, \apjl, 529, L45
715:
716: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2007a)]{2007prpl.conf..701C} Charbonneau,
717: D., Brown, T.~M., Burrows, A., \& Laughlin, G.\ 2007a, Protostars
718: and Planets V, 701
719:
720: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2007b)]{2007ApJ...658.1322C} Charbonneau,
721: D., Winn, J.~N., Everett, M.~E., Latham, D.~W., Holman, M.~J.,
722: Esquerdo, G.~A., \& O'Donovan, F.~T.\ 2007b, \apj, 658, 1322
723:
724: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{2000A&A...363.1081C} Claret, A.\ 2000, \aap,
725: 363, 1081
726:
727: \bibitem[Claret(2004)]{Claret.2004} Claret 2004, \aap, 428, 1001
728:
729: \bibitem[Demarque et al.(2004)]{2004ApJS..155..667D} Demarque, P.,
730: Woo, J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., \& Yi, S.~K.\ 2004, \apjs, 155, 667
731:
732: \bibitem[Ford(2005)]{2005AJ....129.1706F} Ford, E.~B.\ 2005, \aj, 129,
733: 1706
734:
735: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...659.1661F} Fortney, J.~J.,
736: Marley, M.~S., \& Barnes, J.~W.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 1661
737:
738: \bibitem[Gaudi \& Winn(2007)]{2007ApJ...655..550G} Gaudi, B.~S., \&
739: Winn, J.~N.\ 2007, \apj, 655, 550
740:
741: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...459..249G} Gillon, M., Pont,
742: F., Moutou, C., Bouchy, F., Courbin, F., Sohy, S., \& Magain, P.\
743: 2006, \aap, 459, 24
744:
745: \bibitem[Guillot \& Showman(2002)]{2002A&A...385..156G} Guillot, T.,
746: \& Showman, A.~P.\ 2002, \aap, 385, 156
747:
748: \bibitem[Hansen \& Barman(2007)]{2007ApJ...671..861H} Hansen,
749: B.~M.~S., \& Barman, T.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 861
750:
751: \bibitem[Henry et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...529L..41H} Henry, G.~W., Marcy,
752: G.~W., Butler, R.~P., \& Vogt, S.~S.\ 2000, \apjl, 529, L41
753:
754: \bibitem[Heyl \& Gladman(2007)]{2007MNRAS.377.1511H} Heyl, J.~S., \&
755: Gladman, B.~J.\ 2007, \mnras, 377, 1511
756:
757: \bibitem[Holman \& Murray(2005)]{2005Sci...307.1288H} Holman, M.~J.,
758: \& Murray, N.~W.\ 2005, Science, 307, 1288
759:
760: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...652.1715H} Holman, M.~J., et
761: al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 1715
762:
763: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...664.1185H} Holman, M.~J., et
764: al.\ 2007, \apj, 664, 1185
765:
766: \bibitem[Johns-Krull et al.(2008)]{2007arXiv0712.4283J} Johns-Krull,
767: C.~M., et al.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 712, arXiv:0712.4283 [\jk]
768:
769: \bibitem[Ksanfomality(2007)]{2007SoSyR..41..463K} Ksanfomality, L.~V.\
770: 2007, Solar System Research, 41, 463
771:
772: \bibitem[Langton \& Laughlin(2008)]{2008ApJ...674.1106L} Langton, J.,
773: \& Laughlin, G.\ 2008, \apj, 674, 1106
774:
775: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{2002ApJ...580L.171M} Mandel, K., \&
776: Agol, E.\ 2002, \apjl, 580, L171
777:
778: \bibitem[Mandushev et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...667L.195M} Mandushev, G.,
779: et al.\ 2007, \apjl, 667, L195
780:
781: \bibitem[McCullough et al.(2005)]{2005PASP..117..783M} McCullough,
782: P.~R., Stys, J.~E., Valenti, J.~A., Fleming, S.~W., Janes, K.~A., \&
783: Heasley, J.~N.\ 2005, \pasp, 117, 783
784:
785: \bibitem[Narita et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0712.2569N} Narita, N., Sato,
786: B., Ohshima, O., \& Winn, J.~N.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 712,
787: arXiv:0712.2569
788:
789: \bibitem[Seager(2008)]{2008SSRv..tmp...11S} Seager, S.\ 2008, Space
790: Science Reviews, 11
791:
792: \bibitem[Seager \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas(2003)]{2003ApJ...585.1038S}
793: Seager, S., \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas, G.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 1038
794:
795: \bibitem[Southworth et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.379L..11S} Southworth, J.,
796: Wheatley, P.~J., \& Sams, G.\ 2007, \mnras, 379, L11
797:
798: \bibitem[Southworth(2008)]{2008arXiv0802.3764S} Southworth, J.\ 2008,
799: ArXiv e-prints, 802, arXiv:0802.3764
800:
801: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...664.1190S} Sozzetti, A.,
802: Torres, G., Charbonneau, D., Latham, D.~W., Holman, M.~J., Winn,
803: J.~N., Laird, J.~B., \& O'Donovan, F.~T.\ 2007, \apj, 664, 1190
804:
805: \bibitem[Szentgyorgyi et al.(2005)]{2005AAS...20711010S} Szentgyorgyi,
806: A.~H., et al.\ 2005, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society,
807: 37, 1339
808:
809: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004)]{2004PhRvD..69j3501T} Tegmark, M., et
810: al.\ 2004, \prd, 69, 103501
811:
812: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0801.1841T} Torres, G., Winn,
813: J.~N., \& Holman, M.~J.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 801, arXiv:0801.1841
814:
815: \bibitem[Valenti \& Piskunov(1996)]{1996A&AS..118..595V} Valenti,
816: J.~A., \& Piskunov, N.\ 1996, \aaps, 118, 595
817:
818: \bibitem[Valenti \& Fischer(2005)]{2005ApJS..159..141V} Valenti,
819: J.~A., \& Fischer, D.~A.\ 2005, \apjs, 159, 141
820:
821: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007)]{tr111} Winn, J.~N., et al.\ 2007a, AJ,
822: 133, 11
823:
824: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007b)]{hat1} Winn, J.~N., et al.\ 2007b, \aj, 134,
825: 1707
826:
827: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2008)]{xo3-albedo} Winn, J.~N., et al.\ 2008, AJ,
828: submitted
829:
830: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2001)]{2001ApJS..136..417Y} Yi, S., Demarque, P.,
831: Kim, Y.-C., Lee, Y.-W., Ree, C.~H., Lejeune, T., \& Barnes, S.\
832: 2001, \apjs, 136, 417
833:
834: \end{thebibliography}
835:
836: %\clearpage
837: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
838: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
839: \tablecaption{Journal of Observations of XO-3\label{tbl:journal}}
840: \tablewidth{0pt}
841:
842: \tablehead{
843: \colhead{Date} &
844: \colhead{Telescope} &
845: \colhead{Filter} &
846: \colhead{Cadence} &
847: \colhead{RMS} &
848: \colhead{Red noise factor} &
849: \colhead{Effective noise} &
850: \colhead{Midtransit time} \\
851: \colhead{[UT]} &
852: \colhead{} &
853: \colhead{} &
854: \colhead{$\Gamma$~[min$^{-1}$]} &
855: \colhead{$\sigma$} &
856: \colhead{$\beta$} &
857: \colhead{$\sigma\beta/\sqrt{\Gamma}$} &
858: \colhead{[HJD]}
859: }
860:
861: \startdata
862: 2007~Sep~16 & E.~Duran 0.6m & $I$ & $0.96$ & $0.0024$ & $2.02$ & $0.0049$ & $2454360.50866 \pm 0.00173$ \\ % 10
863: 2007~Oct~09 & V.~Cliffs 0.4m & $I$ & $0.54$ & $0.0023$ & $3.06$ & $0.0096$ & $2454382.84500 \pm 0.00265$ \\ % 8
864: 2007~Oct~09 & V.~Cliffs 0.6m & $R$ & $1.82$ & $0.0022$ & $1.58$ & $0.0026$ & $2454382.84523 \pm 0.00112$ \\ % 9
865: 2007~Oct~18 & E.~Duran 0.6m & $I$ & $0.96$ & $0.0027$ & $1.18$ & $0.0033$ & $2454392.41999 \pm 0.00130$ \\ % 11
866: 2007~Oct~21 & E.~Duran 0.6m & $I$ & $0.96$ & $0.0022$ & $1.93$ & $0.0043$ & $2454395.61179 \pm 0.00167$ \\ % 12
867: 2007~Oct~24 & FLWO 1.2m & $z$ & $2.08$ & $0.0023$ & $1.10$ & $0.0017$ & $2454398.80332 \pm 0.00066$ \\ % 1
868: 2007~Nov~06 & E.~Duran 0.6m & $V$ & $0.96$ & $0.0021$ & $1.42$ & $0.0030$ & $2454411.56904 \pm 0.00161$ \\ % 13
869: 2007~Dec~14 & FLWO 1.2m & $z$ & $2.08$ & $0.0020$ & $1.63$ & $0.0023$ & $2454449.86742 \pm 0.00067$ \\ % 2
870: 2007~Dec~30 & FLWO 1.2m & $z$ & $2.08$ & $0.0011$ & $1.00$ & $0.0008$ & $2454465.82610 \pm 0.00038$\tablenotemark{a} \\ % 3
871: 2008~Jan~12 & FLWO 1.2m & $z$ & $2.50$ & $0.0020$ & $1.31$ & $0.0017$ & $2454478.59308 \pm 0.00119$\tablenotemark{a} \\ % 4
872: 2008~Jan~15 & FLWO 1.2m & $z$ & $2.50$ & $0.0018$ & $1.57$ & $0.0018$ & $2454481.78455 \pm 0.00070$ \\ % 5
873: 2008~Feb~10 & Wise 0.5m & none &$1.61$ & $0.0030$ & $1.18$ & $0.0028$ & $2454507.31319 \pm 0.00118$ \\ % 7
874: 2008~Feb~16 & FLWO 1.2m & $z$ & $2.50$ & $0.0022$ & $1.69$ & $0.0024$ & $2454513.69768 \pm 0.00090$ % 6
875: \enddata
876:
877: \tablenotetext{a}{Only a partial transit was observed.}
878:
879: \tablecomments{Column 1 gives the UT date at the start of the night.
880: Column 4 gives $\Gamma$, the median number of data points per
881: minute. Column 5 gives $\sigma$, the root-mean-squared (RMS)
882: relative flux after subtracting the best-fitting model. Column 6
883: gives the scaling factor $\beta$ that was applied to the
884: single-point flux uncertainties to account for red noise (see
885: \S~3). Column 7 gives the effective noise per minute, defined as
886: $\sigma\beta/\sqrt{\Gamma}$.}
887:
888: \end{deluxetable}
889:
890: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
891: \tabletypesize{\normalsize}
892: \tablecaption{Photometry of XO-3\label{tbl:photometry}}
893: \tablewidth{0pt}
894:
895: \tablehead{
896: \colhead{Observatory Code\tablenotemark{a}} &
897: \colhead{Filter} &
898: \colhead{Heliocentric Julian Date} &
899: \colhead{Relative flux}
900: }
901:
902: \startdata
903: %\input table2.tex
904: $ 1$ & z & $ 2454398.70513$ & $ 0.9977$ \\
905: $ 1$ & z & $ 2454398.70546$ & $ 1.0000$ \\
906: $ 1$ & z & $ 2454398.70578$ & $ 0.9994$ \\
907: $ 1$ & z & $ 2454398.70611$ & $ 0.9970$ \\
908: $ 1$ & z & $ 2454398.70644$ & $ 0.9975$ \\
909: $ 1$ & z & $ 2454398.70676$ & $ 1.0008$
910: \enddata
911:
912: \tablenotetext{a}{
913: (1) Fred L.~Whipple Observatory 1.2m telescope, Arizona, USA.
914: (2) Wise Observatory 0.5m telescope, Israel.
915: (3) Vermillion Cliffs Observatory 0.4m telescope, Utah, USA.
916: (4) Esteve Duran Observatory 0.6m telescope, Seva, Spain.
917: }
918:
919: \tablecomments{The time stamps represent the Heliocentric Julian Date
920: at the time of mid-exposure. We intend for this Table to appear in
921: entirety in the electronic version of the journal. An excerpt is
922: shown here to illustrate its format. The data are also available
923: from the authors upon request.}
924:
925: \end{deluxetable}
926:
927: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
928: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
929: \tablecaption{System Parameters of XO-3\label{tbl:params}}
930: \tablewidth{0pt}
931:
932: \tablehead{
933: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value} & \colhead{68.3\% Conf.~Limits} & \colhead{Comment}
934: }
935:
936: \startdata
937: {\it Transit parameters:} & & & \\
938: Orbital period, $P$~[d] & $3.1915239$ & $\pm 0.0000068$ & A \\
939: Midtransit time~[HJD] & $2454449.86816$ & $\pm 0.00023$ & A \\
940: Planet-to-star radius ratio, $R_p/R_\star$ & $0.09057$ & $\pm 0.00057$ & A \\
941: Orbital inclination, $i$~[deg] & $84.20$ & $\pm 0.54$ & A \\
942: Scaled semimajor axis, $a/R_\star$ & $7.07$ & $\pm 0.31$ & A \\
943: Transit impact parameter & $0.705$ & $\pm 0.023$ & B \\
944: Transit duration~[hr] & $2.989$ & $\pm 0.029$ & B \\
945: Transit ingress or egress duration~[hr] & $0.466$ & $\pm 0.033$ & B \\
946: RM figure of merit, $(v\sin i_\star)(R_p/R_\star)^2$~[m~s$^{-1}$] & $152.2$ & $\pm 2.3$ & B,C \\
947: & & & \\
948: {\it Occultation parameters (predicted):} & & & \\
949: Midoccultation time~[HJD] & $2454451.977$ & $\pm 0.034$ & B \\
950: Occultation duration~[hr] & $2.86$ & $-0.014$,$+0.080$ & B \\
951: Occultation ingress or egress duration~[hr] & $0.353$ & $-0.027$,$+0.067$ & B \\
952: Occultation impact parameter & $0.614$ & $\pm 0.050$ & B \\
953: Reflected-light figure of merit, $(R_p/a)^2$ & $0.000164$ & $\pm 0.000015$ & B \\
954: & & & \\
955: {\it Other orbital parameters:} & & & \\
956: Orbital eccentricity, $e$ & $0.260$ & $\pm 0.017$ & A \\
957: Argument of pericenter, $\omega$~[deg] & $345.8$ & $\pm 7.3$ & A \\
958: Velocity semiamplitude, $K$~[m~s$^{-1}$] & $1463$ & $\pm 53$ & A \\
959: Planet-to-star mass ratio, $M_p/M_\star$ & $0.00927$ & $\pm 0.00036$ & E \\
960: Semimajor axis~[AU] & $0.0454$ & $\pm 0.00082$ & E \\
961: & & & \\
962: {\it Stellar parameters:} & & & \\
963: Mass, $M_\star$~[M$_{\odot}$] & $1.213$ & $\pm 0.066$ & E \\
964: Radius, $R_\star$~[R$_{\odot}$] & $1.377$ & $\pm 0.083$ & E \\
965: Mean density, $\rho_\star$~[g~cm$^{-3}$] & $0.650$ & $\pm 0.086$ & B \\
966: Effective temperature, $T_{\rm eff}$~[K] & $6429$ & $\pm 100$ & D \\
967: Surface gravity, $\log g_\star$~[cgs] & $4.244$ & $\pm 0.041$ & E \\
968: Projected rotation rate, $v\sin i_\star$~[km~s$^{-1}$] & $18.54$ & $\pm 0.17$ & C \\
969: Metallicity, [Fe/H] & $-0.177$ & $\pm 0.080$ & D \\
970: Luminosity [L$_\odot$] & $2.92$ & $-0.48$, $+0.59$ & E \\
971: Age [Gyr] & $2.82$ & $-0.82$, $+0.58$ & E \\
972: Distance [pc] & $174$ & $\pm 18$ & E \\
973: & & & \\
974: {\it Planetary parameters:} & & & \\
975: $M_p$~[M$_{\rm Jup}$] & $11.79$ & $\pm 0.59$ & E \\
976: $R_p$~[R$_{\rm Jup}$] & $1.217$ & $\pm 0.073$ & E \\
977: Surface gravity, $\log g_p$~[cgs] & $4.295$ & $\pm 0.042$ & B \\
978: Mean density, $\rho_p$~[g~cm$^{-3}$] & $8.1$ & $-1.3$, $+1.7$ & E \\
979: Equilibrium temperature, $T_{\rm eff}(R_\star/a)^{1/2}$~[K] & $1710$ & $\pm 46$ & E
980: \enddata
981:
982: \tablecomments{ (A) Determined independently from our joint analysis
983: of the photometric and radial-velocity data. (B) Functions of group
984: A parameters. (C) From \jk. (D) From \jk, with enlarged error bars
985: (see \S~4.1). (E) Functions of group A parameters, supplemented by
986: results of the isochrone analysis (see \S~4.1) to break the
987: degeneracies $M_p\propto M_\star^{2/3}$, $R_p \propto R_\star
988: \propto M_\star^{1/3}$.}
989:
990: \end{deluxetable}
991:
992: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
993: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
994: \tablecaption{Limb-Darkening Parameters for XO-3\label{tbl:ldark}}
995: \tablewidth{0pt}
996:
997: \tablehead{
998: \colhead{Bandpass} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Tabulated Values} & \colhead{Fitted Value of} \\
999: \colhead{} & \colhead{Linear Coefficient} & \colhead{Quadratic Coefficient} & \colhead{Linear Coefficient}
1000: }
1001:
1002: \startdata
1003: $z$ & $0.13$ & $0.35$ & $0.11 \pm 0.07$ \\
1004: $I$ & $0.16$ & $0.36$ & $0.06 \pm 0.15$ \\
1005: $R$ & $0.23$ & $0.37$ & $0.16 \pm 0.14$ \\
1006: $V$ & $0.31$ & $0.36$ & $0.47 \pm 0.14$ \\
1007: Clear\tablenotemark{a} & \nodata & $0.33$ & $0.47 \pm 0.13$
1008: \enddata
1009:
1010: \tablecomments{The assumed limb-darkening law was $I_\mu/I_0 = 1 -
1011: a(1-\mu) - b(1-\mu)^2$. The tabulated coefficients in Columns 2 and
1012: 3 are based on interpolation the ATLAS tables of Claret~(2000,
1013: 2004), for the stellar parameters $T_{\rm eff} = 6429$~K, $\log g =
1014: 4.244$~(cgs), [Fe/H]$=-0.177$ and $v_t = 2.0$~km~s$^{-1}$. Column 4
1015: gives the results of fitting for the linear coefficient when the
1016: quadratic coefficient is fixed at the tabulated value.}
1017:
1018: \tablenotetext{a}{This entry refers to the (unfiltered) Wise data, for
1019: which we used the tabulated quadratic coefficient $b=0.33$
1020: appropriate for the SDSS $g$ band.}
1021:
1022: \end{deluxetable}
1023:
1024: \end{document}
1025: