1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{eso-pic}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4:
5: \newcommand{\kepler}{{\it Kepler}}
6: \newcommand{\tpf}{{\it TPF}}
7: \newcommand{\hst}{{\it HST}}
8: \newcommand{\cmpss}{cm~s$^{-2}$}
9: \newcommand{\mps}{m~s$^{-1}$}
10: \newcommand{\mpstwo}{m~s$^{-2}$}
11: \newcommand{\kps}{km~s$^{-1}$}
12: \newcommand{\maspyr}{mas~yr$^{-1}$}
13: \newcommand{\gpcmthree}{g~cm$^{-3}$}
14: \newcommand{\Msun}{${\rm M_\odot}$}
15: \newcommand{\Rsun}{${\rm R_\odot}$}
16: \newcommand{\Mjup}{${\rm M_J}$}
17: \newcommand{\xonb}{XO-5b}
18: \newcommand{\xon}{XO-5}
19: \newcommand{\Rjup}{${\rm R_J}$}
20: \newcommand{\vMs}{1.0}
21: \newcommand{\eMs}{0.03}
22: \newcommand{\vRs}{1.11}
23: \newcommand{\eRs}{0.09}
24: \newcommand{\sptype}{G8V}
25: \newcommand{\vrvK}{145}
26: \newcommand{\ervK}{10}
27:
28: \newcommand{\vDs}{270}
29: \newcommand{\eDs}{25}
30:
31: \newcommand{\vjd}{2454485.6664}
32: \newcommand{\ejd}{0.0004}
33: \newcommand{\vap}{0.0508}
34: \newcommand{\eap}{0.0005}
35:
36: \newcommand{\vperiod}{4.187732}
37: \newcommand{\eperiod}{0.00002}
38: \newcommand{\vMp}{1.15}
39: \newcommand{\eMp}{0.08}
40: \newcommand{\vRp}{1.15}
41: \newcommand{\eRp}{0.12}
42: \newcommand{\vincl}{86.8}
43: \newcommand{\eincl}{0.9}
44: \newcommand{\vDur}{3.13}
45: \newcommand{\eDur}{0.07}
46: \newcommand{\vUone}{0.28}
47: \newcommand{\eUone}{0.2}
48: \newcommand{\vUtwo}{0.38}
49: \newcommand{\eUtwo}{0.35}
50: \newcommand{\vAge}{8.5}
51: \newcommand{\eAge}{0.8}
52: \newcommand{\vFeH}{0.25}
53: \newcommand{\eFeH}{0.03}
54: \newcommand{\vgp}{22}
55: \newcommand{\egp}{5}
56:
57: \slugcomment{Submitted to Astrophysical Journal}
58:
59:
60: \received{2008 May 15}
61: \begin{document}
62:
63: \title{XO-5\lowercase{b}: A Transiting Jupiter-sized Planet With A Four Day Period}
64:
65: \author{
66: Christopher~J.~Burke\altaffilmark{1}
67: P.~R.~McCullough\altaffilmark{1},
68: Jeff~A.~Valenti\altaffilmark{1},
69: Doug~Long\altaffilmark{1},
70: Christopher~M.~Johns-Krull\altaffilmark{2},
71: P.~Machalek\altaffilmark{1,3},
72: Kenneth~A.~Janes\altaffilmark{4},
73: B.~Taylor\altaffilmark{4},
74: Michael~L.~Fleenor\altaffilmark{5},
75: Cindy~N.~Foote\altaffilmark{6},
76: Bruce~L.~Gary\altaffilmark{7},
77: Enrique~Garc\'{i}a-Melendo\altaffilmark{8},
78: J.~Gregorio\altaffilmark{9},
79: T.~Vanmunster\altaffilmark{10}
80: }
81:
82: \email{cjburke@stsci.edu}
83:
84: \altaffiltext{1}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Dr., Baltimore, MD 21218}
85: \altaffiltext{2}{Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, MS-108, Houston, TX 77005}
86: \altaffiltext{3}{Johns Hopkins University, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Baltimore, MD 21218}
87: \altaffiltext{4}{Boston University, Astronomy Dept., 725 Commonwealth Ave.,Boston, MA 02215}
88: \altaffiltext{5}{Volunteer Observatory, Knoxville, TN}
89: \altaffiltext{6}{Vermillion Cliffs Observatory, Kanab, UT}
90: \altaffiltext{7}{Hereford Arizona Observatory, Hereford, AZ}
91: \altaffiltext{8}{Esteve Duran Observatory Foundation, Montseny 46, 08553 Seva, Spain}
92: \altaffiltext{9}{Atalaia, Portugal}
93: \altaffiltext{10}{CBA Belgium Observatory, Landen, Belgium}
94:
95:
96: \begin{abstract}
97: The star \xon\ (GSC 02959-00729, V=12.1, \sptype) hosts a
98: Jupiter-sized, $R_{\rm p}$=\vRp$\pm$\eRp\ \Rjup, transiting extrasolar
99: planet, \xonb, with an orbital period of \vperiod$\pm$\eperiod\ days.
100: The planet mass ($M_{\rm p}$=\vMp$\pm$\eMp\ \Mjup) and surface gravity
101: ($g_{\rm p}$=22$\pm$5 \mpstwo) are significantly larger than expected
102: by empirical $M_{\rm p}$-P and $M_{\rm p}$-P-[Fe/H] relationships.
103: However, the deviation from the $M_{\rm p}$-P relationship for \xonb\
104: is not large enough to suggest a distinct type of planet as is
105: suggested for GJ 436b, HAT-P-2b, and XO-3b. By coincidence \xon\
106: overlies the extreme H I plume that emanates from the interacting galaxy
107: pair NGC 2444/NGC 2445 (Arp 143).
108: \end{abstract}
109:
110: \keywords{planetary systems -- stars: individual (GSC 02959-00729) -- galaxies: individual (NGC 2444, NGC 2445)}
111:
112: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
113:
114: We report the discovery of a Jupiter-sized planet, \xonb, that transits the
115: \sptype, V=12.1, star GSC 02959-00729 (\xon) with an orbital period, P$\sim$
116: 4 days. \xonb\ provides a valuable
117: addition to the empirical population trends amongst transiting extrasolar
118: planets \citep{TOR08}, especially at P$>$4 day periods where only four
119: other well characterized transiting planets are known
120: \citep[OGLE-TR-111b, HAT-P-1b, HAT-P-2b, \& HD 17156b, ][
121: respectively]{PON04,BAK07,BAK07B,BAR07}. With a sample of the first
122: six known transiting planets, \citet{MAZ05} pointed out the
123: possibility of a linearly decreasing trend of planet mass as a
124: function of increasing orbital period. \citet{TOR08} and
125: \citet{SOU08} have recently revisited this and other relationships
126: amongst the now larger sample of transiting planets analyzed in a
127: homogeneous fashion. As shown in Section~\ref{sec:disc}, \xonb\ is
128: one of the few planets that is inconsistent with general trends based
129: on the currently known sample of transiting Jupiter-sized planets.
130:
131: In Section~\ref{sec:obs} we describe the photometric and spectroscopic
132: observations that we used to discover and characterize the \xon,
133: \xonb\ system. Section~\ref{sec:sme} describes our spectroscopic
134: determination of the atmospheric properties of \xon, which we combine
135: with theoretical isochrones to constrain the stellar mass and radius.
136: The mass estimate of \xon\ is employed along with a high precision
137: transit light curve to measure the radius of \xonb\ in
138: Section~\ref{sec:lcmcmc}. Radial velocity measurements determine the
139: mass of \xonb\ as outlined in Section~\ref{sec:rv}. In
140: Section~\ref{sec:ttv}, the database of transit light curves enables
141: refining the transit ephemeris for \xonb. We conclude in
142: Section~\ref{sec:disc} how the discovery of \xonb\ adds to the
143: understanding of the population of transiting Jupiter-sized planets.
144:
145: \section{Observations}\label{sec:obs}
146:
147: \subsection{XO Survey Photometry}\label{sec:xophot}
148:
149: \citet{MCC05} provides details of the XO survey; additional details
150: of the candidate transiting planet selection process can be found in
151: \citet{MCC07}. \xonb\ is the fifth Hot Jupiter transiting planet
152: announced by the XO survey \citep{MCC06,BUR07,JOH08,MCC08}, and was
153: identified as a candidate from the 62$\degr\times 7\degr$ field of
154: view centered on 8$^{\rm h}$ RA. This field was observed at a 10 min
155: cadence with an overall rms noise, $\sigma=0.011$ mag, for this V=12.1
156: star during two seasons: Nov. 2003-Mar. 2004 and Nov. 2004-Mar. 2005.
157: \xon\ is well isolated; \xon\ contributes 90\% of the flux in the
158: 75$\arcsec$ radius aperture used for XO photometry.
159:
160: Figure~\ref{fig:xophased} shows the XO light curve phased to the
161: period with the most significant transit event identified by the
162: Box-fitting Least Squares algorithm \citep{KOV02}. In the phased
163: light curve, two full transit events and five partial events
164: contribute to the detection. After subtracting a transit model
165: (determined from the high precision light curve in
166: Figure~\ref{fig:lowell}), the average residual RMS during transit
167: nights is $\sigma=0.008$ mag (30\% lower noise than the average for
168: the entire light curve). Adding in quadrature the Signal to Noise
169: Ratio (SNR) for each transit yields an overall detection
170: SNR$_{Total}\sim 12$. It is not routine to follow up all candidates
171: with this low of SNR$_{Total}$. However, SNR$_{Total}$ is only one of
172: several criteria for selecting candidates
173: \citep{MCC07,BUR07}. The efficiency of photometric followup provided
174: by the XO Extended Team is an additional resource of the XO
175: project to aid in following up these lower SNR$_{Total}$ candidates.
176:
177: \begin{figure}
178: \plotone{f1.ps}
179: \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 $\Delta t=2.1$ day ({\it dotted line}). No secondary eclipse is evident above the noise.\label{fig:xophased}}
180: \end{figure}
181:
182:
183: \subsection{XO Extended Team and Follow Up Photometry}\label{sec:etphot}
184:
185: The Extended Team (E.T.) provides photometric follow up of XO
186: candidates. The E.T.\ (M.~F., C.~F., E.~G-M., J.~G., F.~M., G.~M.,
187: and T.~V.) is a collaboration of professional and amateur astronomers
188: \citep{MCC05,MCC06}. The E.T. obtains light curves of XO candidates
189: at higher angular resolution and guides the photometric and
190: spectroscopic follow up necessary to classify a candidate as a bona
191: fide planetary companion. Table~\ref{tab:lc} provides E.T. photometry
192: for \xon. For the E.T. light curves, the median differential
193: magnitude out of transit provides the flux normalization and the
194: standard deviation out of transit provides the uncertainty in the
195: measurements. Figure~\ref{fig:et} shows the E.T. light curves
196: obtained for \xonb.
197:
198: On 2008 January 20 we observed a transit event of \xonb\
199: with the 1.8-m Perkins Telescope at Lowell Observatory using the PRISM
200: instrument in imaging mode \citep{JAN04}. The observations are a
201: continuous series of R-band images covering a 10.8$\arcmin\times
202: 8.8\arcmin$ subarray field of view with 10s exposure time and 30s
203: readout resulting in an overall $t_{cad}=$40 s cadence. The detector
204: has 0.36$\arcsec$ pixels, and the FWHM seeing was 1.8$\arcsec$. The
205: target was observed over the airmass range, $1.12\leq X \leq 1.6$,
206: with observations commencing at high airmass. The evening was
207: nonphotometric; several percent transparency variations in raw
208: photometric magnitudes exist around the linear trend with airmass. To
209: remove the transparency variations a differential light curve is
210: calculated employing four other comparable bright stars as comparison.
211: The resulting differential light curve of \xon\ is shown in
212: Figure~\ref{fig:lowell}. The out of transit data are limited in
213: duration. Thus, minimizing the scatter during the flat, in-transit
214: portion of the light curve, guided the choice of photometric aperture
215: size and comparison stars. The resulting noise during the
216: in-transit portion is $\sigma_{exp}=0.002$ mag for each exposure.
217: This is $\sim 20\%$ higher noise than expected from Poisson,
218: scintillation \citep{DRA97}, sky, and read noise. More relevant for
219: transit detection and characterization is the photometric noise rate,
220: $\sigma_{pnr}=\sigma_{exp}\sqrt{t_{cad}/60 s}=0.0016$ mag mn$^{-1}$,
221: which takes into account the dead time of detector readout. The
222: calibration and photometry was performed in IRAF with a customization
223: in the IRAF phot task to report magnitudes to 10$^{-4}$ precision,
224: rather than the default of 10$^{-3}$ precision.
225:
226: We obtained photometric B, V, ${\rm R_C}$, and ${\rm I_C}$ magnitudes
227: for \xon\ using a 0.35-m telescope (Table~\ref{tab:star}).
228: Photometric observations were obtained on three separate nights with
229: 2-6 Landolt star fields \citep{LAN92} interspersed with the \xon\
230: field in order to define the color and airmass transformation from the
231: instrumental system to the standard system. Each night 20-40 Landolt
232: stars defined the transformation with rms scatter of 0.04, 0.03, 0.02,
233: 0.03 for the $BVRI$ passbands, respectively. The resulting standard
234: photometry in Table~\ref{tab:star} is the weighted average amongst the
235: three nights. Standard star photometry of \xon\ from {\it TASS}
236: \citep{DRO06} agrees with our photometry. Photometry from {\it 2MASS}
237: \citep{SKR06} is also given in Table~\ref{tab:star}. \xon\ is
238: saturated in {\it SDSS} \citep{ADE08} images and too faint for the
239: {\it TYCHO-2} \citep{HOG00} database.
240:
241: \begin{figure}
242: \plotone{f2.ps}
243: \caption{Binned light curves from the Extended Team for \xon. The text in color matches the corresponding light curve and indicates the date and passband of the observations.\label{fig:et}}
244: \end{figure}
245:
246: \begin{figure}
247: \plotone{f3.ps}
248: \caption{{\it Top}: Light curve from the 1.8m Perkins Telescope at Lowell Observatory in the R-band ({\it points}), along with the best-fit transit model in a $\chi^{2}$ sense during the MCMC analysis ({\it solid line}). {\it Bottom}: Residual of data from the best-fit transit model.\label{fig:lowell}}
249: \end{figure}
250:
251:
252: \subsection{Arp 143 - Potential Archival Measurements}\label{sec:arp143}
253: By coincidence, \xon\ lies near the line of sight to the interacting
254: galaxy pair NGC 2444/5 cataloged as Arp 143 in the 'Material Emanating
255: from E Galaxies' group \citep{ARP66}. Figure~\ref{fig:finder} shows a
256: false-color finder chart for \xon\ enclosed by the box along with the
257: Im peculiar galaxy NGC 2445 (patchy blue galaxy) and smoother S0
258: peculiar galaxy NGC 2444 three arcmin South of \xon. The VLA has
259: detected one of the largest known (14.5$\arcmin$ in extent) H I
260: plumes, which emanates from Arp 143 that directly coincides with \xon\
261: as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:HI} \citep{APP87,HIG97,HIB01}. With a
262: velocity shift of 4000 \kps, it is improbable that the H I emission
263: from Arp 143 can be attributed to XO-5. Archival observations of Arp
264: 143 may provide long term photometric monitoring or serendipitous
265: transit data for \xon, possibly constraining ephemeris variability.
266:
267: \begin{figure}
268: \plotone{f4.sml.ps}
269: \caption{False color image for finding \xon. The box encloses \xon, and the scale bar indicates 1 arcmin. The finder is $\sim$9 arcmin per side, and North is up and East is toward the left. The interacting galaxy pair Arp 143 is visible in the lower left.\label{fig:finder}}
270: \end{figure}
271:
272: \begin{figure}
273: \plotone{f5.sml.ps}
274: \caption{Digital Sky Survey image (Red band) of \xon\ ({\it arrow}) showing the coincidental H I plume ({\it contour}) that emanates from the interacting galaxies Arp 143. The H I emission contours are VLA observations from \citet{APP87}.\label{fig:HI}}
275: \end{figure}
276:
277: \subsection{Spectroscopy}\label{sec:spec}
278: After confirmation of the XO transit light curve from E.T.\
279: observations (see \S\ref{sec:etphot}), we initiated queue schedule
280: observations of \xon\ with the High-Resolution Spectrograph (HRS), a
281: fiber fed cross-dispersed echelle spectrograph
282: \citep{TUL98}, on the 11-m Hobby-Eberly Telescope
283: (HET) located at McDonald Observatory in order to measure the mass of
284: the planet. HRS observations with an iodine gas cell to yield precise
285: radial velocities commenced on 2007 December 7. Table~\ref{tab:rv}
286: provides dates of the HRS observations along with the resulting radial
287: velocities. The instrument setup provides R=63,000 resolution and
288: covered the wavelength range $4000<\lambda<7800$ $\AA$,
289: centered at $\lambda=5900$ $\AA$. The two-dimensional echelle spectra
290: are extracted using procedures described in \citet{HIN00}. Radial
291: velocities for \xon\ are determined in \S~\ref{sec:rv}.
292:
293: To measure the stellar parameters of \xon, we also obtained HRS HET
294: spectra without the iodine absorption cell, using the 5936 \AA\ and
295: 6948 \AA\ settings of the cross-disperser to cover the wavelength
296: intervals 5150 $< \lambda <5200$\AA\ and 6000 $< \lambda <6200$\AA\ at
297: R=63,000. Three spectra at each configuration were co-added for
298: analysis. The SNR is 35 and 50 for the co-added spectrum in the blue
299: and red configurations, respectively. The \xon\ stellar parameters
300: are determined in \S~\ref{sec:sme}.
301:
302: \section{Analysis}
303:
304: \subsection{Stellar Properties}\label{sec:sme}
305:
306: A transit light curve and radial velocity measurements do not
307: completely solve the system of stellar and planet properties; these
308: measurements determine the stellar density \citep{SEA03}. Solving for the
309: stellar and planet properties independently requires an additional
310: constraint. Following the procedure of \citep{BUR07} in analyzing the
311: transiting planet XO-2b, spectroscopic analysis combined with stellar
312: isochrones provides an estimate of the stellar mass, $M_{\star}$, and
313: its uncertainty. This prior constraint on $M_{\star}$ enables
314: solving the system completely. We used the Spectroscopy Made
315: Easy (SME) analysis package \citep{VAL96} with refinements from
316: \citet{VAL05} to determine the spectroscopic the properties of
317: \xon.
318:
319: Table~\ref{tab:star} lists \xon\ stellar parameters from the SME
320: analysis of a single coadded spectrum. The 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties
321: in the stellar parameters given in Table~\ref{tab:star} are based on
322: the typical rms scatter in parameters measured in independent,
323: multiple spectra for stars in the SPOCS catalog. \xon\ has an
324: enhanced metal abundance, [Fe/H]=\vFeH$\pm$\eFeH, and the effective
325: temperature, $T_{eff}$ and surface gravity, log$g$ are consistent with
326: a \sptype\ spectral type according to Appendix B of \citet{GRA92}.
327: The empirical $T_{eff}$, intrinsic color calibrations of \citet{WOR06}
328: predict a color excess, $E(B-V)=0.03\pm 0.04$ and $E(V-K)=0.03\pm
329: 0.03$ for \xon. This difference is negligible within the
330: uncertainties, and a typical reddening law predicts
331: $E(V-K)_{pred}=2.74\times E(B-V)=0.08$, lower than the measured excess
332: $E(V-K)$. The extinction map of \citet{SCH98} also measures a modest
333: $E(B-V)=0.05$ toward \xon. During the analysis we assume that the
334: standard photometry is free of reddening.
335:
336: Using the primary observables from the SME analysis ($T_{eff}$,
337: abundances, and log$g$) and the apparent V-band magnitude
338: (\S~\ref{sec:etphot}), we determined $M_{\star}$ and $R_{\star}$ from
339: Y$^{2}$ isochrones \citep{YI01}, using the procedure of \citet{VAL05}.
340: $M_{\star}$ and $R_{\star}$ depend on the unknown distance to \xon,
341: thus the probability density function for $M_{\star}$, $R_{\star}$,
342: and age are calculated for a sequence of trial distances in steps of
343: 10 pc. Estimates of $M_{\star}$ and $R_{\star}$ from this isochrone
344: analysis provide an additional estimate of log$g_{iso}$ as a function
345: of distance to \xon. Figure~\ref{fig:sme} shows $R_{\star}$ and
346: $M_{\star}$ as a function of log$g_{iso}$. A lower mass, lower
347: luminosity, younger age, and smaller distance star for \xon\
348: corresponds to higher surface gravity (left side of
349: Figure~\ref{fig:sme}); whereas, a higher mass, higher luminosity,
350: older age, and larger distance for \xon\ corresponds to lower surface
351: gravity (right side of Figure~\ref{fig:sme}).
352:
353: A primary goal of the SME analysis is to provide an estimate of
354: $M_{\star}$ and its uncertainty in order to provide a unique solution
355: when fitting the light curve and radial velocity data. The spectrum
356: alone yields an estimate of the stellar gravity, log$g_{sme}$ that is
357: independent of log$g_{iso}$. The condition log$g_{sme}$=log$g_{iso}$
358: and the uncertainty in log$g_{sme}$ directly yields $M_{\star}$ from
359: the data shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sme}. The solid vertical line in
360: Figure~\ref{fig:sme} shows log$g_{sme}$ which corresponds to
361: $M_{\star}=1.0 M_{\odot}$. The long dashed vertical line in
362: Figure~\ref{fig:sme} represents the uncertainty of log$g_{sme}$,
363: $\sigma_{lgg}=0.06$ dex. This uncertainty is an internal precision of
364: objects in the SPOCS catalog analyzed in a uniform manner. For the
365: purpose of estimating $M_{\star}$, a more appropriate uncertainty in
366: log$g$ is determined through comparison of log$g_{sme}$ from the SPOCS
367: catalog to independent log$g$ measurements from the literature.
368: \citet{VAL05} find rms scatter $\sigma_{lgg}=0.15$ dex by comparing
369: the SPOCS catalog to external catalogs. The dotted vertical line in
370: Figure~\ref{fig:sme} shows this larger uncertainty in log$g$.
371: $M_{\star}$ varies weakly with log$g$, and we adopt an uncertainty of,
372: $\sigma_{M}=0.03 M_{\odot}$ for $M_{\star}$, but also explore the
373: impact a larger, $\sigma_{M}=0.07 M_{\odot}$, has on the system
374: parameters.
375:
376: \begin{figure}
377: \plotone{f6.ps}
378: \caption{Parametric curves for the Radius ({\it Top}) and Mass ({\it Bottom}) of \xon\ as a function of the surface gravity from the SME isochrone analysis, respectively (see \S~\ref{sec:sme}). The SME spectroscopic determination of surface gravity for \xon\ ({\it solid}), the 1-$\sigma$ internal uncertainty ({\it dashed}), and the 1-$\sigma$ systematic uncertainty ({\it dotted}) are shown with vertical lines.\label{fig:sme}}
379: \end{figure}
380:
381:
382: \subsection{Markov Chain Monte Carlo Light Curve Analysis}\label{sec:lcmcmc}
383:
384: \citet{FORD05}, \citet{GRE05}, and references therein provide a
385: thorough discussion of the theory behind Markov Chain Monte Carlo
386: (MCMC) Bayesian analysis along with a practical MCMC implementation
387: for radial velocity planet detection, and \citet{HOL06} introduced
388: MCMC techniques to the analysis of a transiting planet light curve.
389: To analyze the \xonb\ light curve, we follow the MCMC implementation
390: of \citet{BUR07} where they analyzed the light curve of the transiting
391: planet XO-2b.
392:
393: To calculate the Bayesian posterior probability for the system
394: parameters, the likelihood function is given by $e^{-0.5\chi^{2}}$,
395: where we have assumed the errors are normally distributed, and the data
396: have uniform weights. $\chi^{2}$ is the squared difference between
397: observations and the analytic transit model of \citet{MAN02}. The
398: model assumes negligible eccentricity. The observations are the
399: R-band data from the 1.8m Perkins Telescope shown in Figure~\ref{fig:lowell}.
400: To provide the additional constraint necessary to uniquely determine
401: the planet properties, we adopt an informative prior on $M_{\star}$
402: that is a Gaussian with center $M_{\star}=1.0 M_{\odot}$ and standard
403: deviation $\sigma=0.03 M_{\odot}$ (see \S~\ref{sec:sme}). We adopt
404: uninformative priors for $R_{\star}$, $R_{p}$, and $i$ that are
405: uniform. To improve the efficiency of the MCMC calculation, the computation is done using the set of parameters $R_{\star}$,
406: $\rho=R_{p}/R_{\star}$, and the total transit duration from 1$^{\rm
407: st}$ to 4$^{\rm th}$ contact, $\tau$ instead of $R_{\star}$, $R_{p}$,
408: and $i$ \citep{BUR07}. Appendix A of \citet{BUR07} provides the form
409: of the priors necessary to maintain the uniform priors in $R_{\star}$,
410: $R_{p}$, and $i$ when the calculation is done using $R_{\star}$,
411: $\rho$, and $\tau$. The limb darkening coefficients,$u_{1}$ and
412: $u_{2}$, of the transit model are allowed to vary. Limb darkening is
413: described by a quadratic law, $I=1-u_{1}(1-\mu)-u_{2}(1-\mu)^{2}$,
414: where $I$ is the specific intensity normalized to unity at the center
415: of the stellar disk and $\mu$ is the cosine of the angle between the
416: line of sight and the surface normal. In practice, we follow
417: \citet{HOL06} by adopting $a_{1}=u_{1}+2u_{2}$ and
418: $a_{2}=2u_{1}-u_{2}$ as the parameters used in the calculation. The
419: limb darkening coefficients are constrained by requiring the highest
420: surface brightness to be located at the disk center ($u_{1}\geq 0.0$),
421: by requiring the specific intensity to remain above zero
422: ($u_{1}+u_{2}\leq 1.0$), and by not allowing limb-brightened profiles
423: ($u_{1}+2u_{2}\geq 0.0$). The final free parameter is the mid-transit
424: time offset, $t_{o}$, from the initial ephemeris with a period
425: obtained from analyzing the XO observations and E.T. observations (see
426: \S~\ref{sec:ttv}.
427:
428: The Markov Chain analysis employs the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm
429: with a normal proposal distribution and a multiple block sampling
430: technique where each step in the chain consists of a number of intra
431: steps updating each individual parameter in turn. Several short,
432: trial chains iteratively yield scale factors of the normal proposal
433: distribution for each parameter with a 25\% to 40\% acceptance rate
434: for the trial samples. In addition to the choice of $R_{\star}$,
435: $\rho$, and $\tau$ as the variables for the calculation, a linear
436: transformation between parameters yields an eigenbasis set of
437: parameters with a multi-normal non-covariant relationship that further
438: reduces the mutual degeneracy amongst the parameters \citep{BUR07}. These
439: transformations yield an efficient MCMC calculation with an
440: autocorrelation length $N_{cor}=5$ for the chain. The estimate of the
441: posterior probability comes from 7 independent chains of length
442: $N_{chn}=70000$ with varying initial conditions. This results in an
443: effective length $N_{eff}=N_{chn}/N_{cor}=14000$.
444:
445: Figure~\ref{fig:params} shows the resulting posterior probability
446: distribution for select system parameters after marginalization over
447: the other parameters. The posterior probability is simply a
448: normalized histogram of the MCMC sample values. We adopt the median
449: as the best single point estimate of the posterior probability. The
450: 1-$\sigma$ credible interval for a parameter is given by the
451: symmetrical interval around the median that contains 68\% of the
452: samples. Figure~\ref{fig:limbcontour} shows the joint posterior
453: probability for the stellar limb darkening coefficients, $u_{1}$ and
454: $u_{2}$. The constraints on the limb darkening coefficients are not
455: very constraining. Figure~\ref{fig:limbcontour} shows theoretically
456: calculated limb darkening coefficients in various photometric
457: passbands from \citet{CLA00} for a star with the physical properties
458: of \xon. The best estimates for limb darkening coefficients (diamond
459: symbol) from the R-band transit light curve is consistent with the
460: theoretical R-band coefficient (triangle symbol).
461:
462: Using the SME isochrone analysis, the MCMC samples for $R_{\star}$
463: translate into distance to and age estimates of \xon. Similar to the
464: procedure that defines the prior on $M_{\star}$, The SME isochrone
465: analysis provides a parametric relationship between $R_{\star}$ versus
466: trial distance and age (i.e., for a given stellar radius estimate, the
467: SME isochrone analysis has a best distance and age estimate for the
468: system).
469:
470: The theoretical planet models of \citet{FOR07} characterize
471: the amount of heavy elements (elements heavier than H \& He) for a
472: given orbital semi-major axis, $R_{\rm p}$, and $M_{\rm p}$. The best
473: estimate of $R_{\rm p}$ for \xonb\ is consistent with zero heavy
474: element content, and the 1-$\sigma$ upper limit is 5 $M_{\earth}$ of
475: heavy elements. Table~\ref{tab:planet} summarizes the properties of
476: \xonb.
477:
478: The uncertainties given in Table~\ref{tab:planet} for \xonb\ and
479: Table~\ref{tab:star} for \xon\ represent the internal precision of the
480: experiment. These uncertainties represent the expected scatter of
481: values obtained if the experiment was repeated with similar quality
482: data and identical procedures. Other systematic sources of error are
483: most likely comparable or larger than the internal precision. The
484: sources of systematic error only enter into the prior for $M_{\star}$.
485: In light of these potential sources of systematic uncertainty, the
486: analysis is repeated with an increased standard deviation of the
487: Gaussian prior on $M_{\star}$ to $\sigma=0.07$ \Msun. This larger
488: uncertainty on $M_{\star}$ did not increase the uncertainties in the
489: other parameters beyond the most significant digit as given in
490: Table~\ref{tab:star} and Table~\ref{tab:planet}. This indicates the
491: photometric noise rather than uncertainty in $M_{\star}$ dominates the
492: uncertainty in the system parameters.
493:
494: After fixing the prior on $M_{\star}$, the light curve analysis yields
495: an additional estimate of log$g_{mcmc}$ as given in
496: Table~\ref{tab:star}. log$g_{mcmc}$ does not differ significantly
497: from the SME based log$g_{sme}$. We redetermined the stellar
498: properties by fixing log$g_{sme}$=log$g_{mcmc}$ when analyzing the
499: spectra. This reduced $M_{\star}=0.02$ \Msun. This variation is
500: within our original uncertainty of $M_{\star}$. Thus, we did not iterate the MCMC analysis with the SME analysis \citep{SOZ07}.
501:
502: \begin{figure}
503: \plotone{f7.ps}
504: \caption{Marginalized posterior probability for the \xon\ and \xonb\ parameters from MCMC samples. We adopt the median of the posterior probability ({\it solid}) vertical line as the point estimate of the parameter. The {\it dashed} lines indicate the 68\% credible interval.\label{fig:params}}
505: \end{figure}
506:
507: \begin{figure}
508: \plotone{f8.ps}
509: \caption{ Joint posterior probability for the stellar limb darkening coefficients, $u_{1}$ and
510: $u_{2}$. The solid contours are isoprobability contours containing
511: 68\% and 90\% of the MCMC samples. The remaining 10\% of the samples
512: lying outside the region of highest probability are also shown ({\it
513: points}). The theoretically calculated limb darkening coefficients
514: are shown for various passbands ({\it triangle}) along with the best
515: estimate limb darkening coefficients from the MCMC analysis of the
516: R-band transit light curve ({\it diamond}). The R-band light curve
517: coefficients are consistent with the theoretically calculated R-band
518: coefficients. The prior limits for the limb darkening coefficients
519: are indicated with {\it dashed lines}.\label{fig:limbcontour}}
520: \end{figure}
521:
522:
523: \subsection{Radial Velocity Measurements}\label{sec:rv}
524:
525: We determined the mass of \xonb\ using the radial velocity techniques
526: described by \citet{MCC06}, \citet{BUR07}, and \citet{JOH08}. We
527: summarize the procedure here, where we derive radial velocity
528: information from the HET spectra (see
529: \S~\ref{sec:spec}). An iodine gas cell imprints iodine absorption lines
530: on the spectrum of \xon\, and this is compared to a model spectrum to
531: obtain radial velocity shifts with respect to the topocentric frame.
532: We construct model spectra by multiplying a very high-resolution FTS
533: spectrum of the Sun (scaled to better match the observed line depths
534: of \xon) times a very high-resolution FTS spectrum of an iodine gas
535: cell \citep{COC00} and then convolving the result with a Voigt profile
536: to approximate the line-spread function of the instrument. A radial
537: velocity shift is determined independently for each $\sim$15 \AA\ row
538: of the 2-D echelle spectrum of \xon\ over the wavelength range with
539: strong iodine absorption, 5210 $< \lambda <$ 5700 \AA. The individual
540: stellar radial velocity estimates from each of the 15 \AA\ sections
541: (after transformation to the barycentric frame) determines the stellar
542: radial velocity measurement at each epoch and its associated
543: 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty (see Table~\ref{tab:rv}).
544:
545: Figure~\ref{fig:rv} shows the resulting radial velocity curve phased
546: with the \xonb\ ephemeris determined from the transits and assuming
547: zero eccentricity. The typical uncertainty per epoch is
548: $\sigma_{RV}=20-40$ \mps, limited mainly by Poisson noise in the
549: spectrum. The radial velocity semi-amplitude, K=\vrvK$\pm$\ervK\
550: \mps. This amplitude results in $M_{p}=$\vMp$\pm$\eMp\ \Mjup\ for
551: \xonb, assuming $M_{\star}$=\vMs\ \Msun\ for \xon\ and a circular orbit for \xonb.
552:
553: \begin{figure}
554: \plotone{f9.ps}
555: \caption{a) The radial velocity of \xon\ oscillates sinusoidally with a
556: semi-amplitude K = \vrvK$\pm$\ervK\ \mps, implying \xonb's mass is
557: \vMp$\pm$\eMp\ \Mjup. b) The
558: period and phase of the radial velocities were fixed at values
559: determined by the transits. The mean stellar radial velocity with
560: respect to the solar system's barycenter has been subtracted. In
561: order to determine K, we used the HET spectra calibrated with an
562: iodine absorption cell (filled circles). c) In this representation
563: of the data, a circular orbit yields a straight line of slope $-$K.
564: \label{fig:rv}}
565: \end{figure}
566:
567:
568: \subsection{Ephemeris and Transit Timing Variations}\label{sec:ttv}
569:
570: The XO, E.T., and Perkins Telescope transit light curves enable
571: refining the ephemeris for \xonb. The high precision light curve from
572: the Perkins Telescope (see \S~\ref{sec:etphot}), provides the estimate
573: for the mid-transit zero point of the ephemeris as well as the transit
574: model employed to derive mid-transit timing for the other lower
575: precision light curves from the E.T. and XO survey. The MCMC samples
576: from the Perkins Telescope light curve analysis (lower right panel of
577: Figure~\ref{fig:params}) provide the best estimate and error for the
578: ephemeris zero point, $HJD_{o}=$\vjd$\pm$\ejd\ ($\sigma=35$ s).
579:
580: To refine the orbital period of \xonb, the remaining XO and E.T.\
581: light curves (E.T.\ light curves are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:et})
582: provide mid-transit timing estimates. The best fitting transit model
583: in a $\chi^{2}$ sense to the high precision Perkins Telescope light curve
584: (Figure~\ref{fig:lowell}) is fit to the other light curves with only
585: mid-transit time and out of transit flux zero point as the only free
586: parameters. The expected variations in the transit model as a
587: function of photometric bandpass is negligible compared to the
588: photometric noise in the E.T.\ and XO light curves, so the limb
589: darkening coefficients are fixed to the values from analyzing
590: the R-band Perkins light curve. Table~\ref{tab:midpoints} provides
591: mid-transit timings along with their uncertainty. The XO observations
592: have 10 min cadence and $\sim$1\% photometric noise making transit
593: timing uncertain to 28 min. This uncertainty comes from comparing
594: the a transit model fit a by-eye estimate
595: of the mid-transit timing. Within the uncertainties there is not a
596: significant systematic difference between mid-transit timings
597: estimated by-eye and from the model fit. The much higher quality
598: E.T.\ light curves have an uncertainty of 4.3 min in mid-transit
599: timing. This uncertainty is estimated from comparing the groups of
600: mid-transit timing observations for the same event but different
601: observers.
602:
603: With these uncertainties, an ephemeris model with period as the only
604: free parameter results in $\chi^{2}=12.6$ with $\nu=14$ degrees of
605: freedom indicating the timings are consistent with a fixed period,
606: $P=$\vperiod$\pm$\eperiod\ day. The ephemeris for \xonb\ accumulates
607: a 5 min uncertainty by 2010. Given the large uncertainty in transit
608: mid-point timing from the XO survey data, the period was calculated
609: using E.T.\ data alone. The earliest, and only, E.T.\ light curve
610: from the 2006-2007 observing season for \xonb\ provides the strongest
611: constraint on the orbital period. The remaining E.T.\ light curves
612: are from the 2007-2008 observing season for \xonb. The period derived
613: from E.T.\ data alone is within 1-$\sigma$ of the determination that
614: includes the XO survey data.
615:
616: \section{Discussion \& Conclusion}\label{sec:disc}
617: The transit candidate of \citet{MAN05} illustrates the non-negligible
618: potential for triple stars to have transit light curves and radial
619: velocity variations consistent with a planet. However, in the case of
620: \xonb, attempts to explain the light curve and spectroscopy with a
621: physical stellar triple fail. We employ the Y$^{2}$ isochrone
622: appropriate for the the physical properties of \xon\ supplemented with
623: the low-mass stellar isochrone between 0.072$<M_{\star}<$0.5 \Msun\
624: from \citet{CHAB00}, stellar limb darkening coefficients from
625: \citet{CLA00}, the light curve synthesis routine of \citet{WIL93}, and
626: assume any potential stellar binary has zero orbital eccentricity to
627: model a stellar triple system. The constraints on the transit
628: duration and transit depth from the light curve require
629: $M_{\star}>0.90$ \Msun\ for the primary of a stellar binary blended
630: with the light of \xon. The required primary of the stellar binary
631: has $>$45\% the flux of \xon\ and has a radial velocity
632: semi-amplitude, $K> 18$ \kps. Such a binary would be readily apparent
633: in the spectrum of \xon\ given the narrow spectral features for \xon,
634: $v\sin{i}<3.3$ \kps. We cannot completely rule out the possibility of
635: a line-of-sight faint background binary blended with the light of
636: \xon\ as an explanation for the observations. However, the sinusoidal
637: shape of the radial velocity variations necessitate the line-of-sight
638: binary to have a systemic velocity similar to \xon\, otherwise the
639: radial velocity curve develops asymmetries that are not observed
640: \citep{TOR05}.
641:
642: \citet{TOR08} and \citet{SOU08} recently derived transiting planet
643: properties in a uniform fashion in order to further test various
644: trends amongst the transiting planets that have previously been
645: examined with smaller and less homogeneous samples of transiting
646: planets \citep{MAZ05}. The larger sample of transiting planets in
647: \citet{TOR08} still shows a general trend for decreasing $M_{\rm p}$
648: with increasing orbital period, but there is significant scatter and
649: some very significant outliers (GJ 436b, HAT-P-2b, and XO-3b).
650: Furthermore, \citet{TOR08} find a $M_{\rm p}$-P-[Fe/H] relation that
651: reduces the scatter in the $M_{\rm p}$-P relation. At fixed period,
652: the more metal poor stars host higher mass planets. \xonb\ has
653: $\Delta M_{\rm p}=0.6\pm$\eMp\
654: \Mjup\ higher mass than then $M_{\rm p}$-P trend defined in
655: \citet{TOR08}. The metallicity correction to the $M_{\rm p}$-P trend found by \citet{TOR08}, $\Delta M_{\rm p}=-0.14$ \Mjup\ in the case of \xonb, is opposite sign from what is measured. As commented by \citet{TOR08}, the $M_{\rm p}$-P-[Fe/H] relation
656: does have a scatter larger than observational uncertainties. Thus,
657: additional physical conditions impact the $M_{\rm p}$-P relation, the
658: full variety of Jupiter-class extrasolar planets has not been fully
659: explored, or the trend is more relevant to shorter orbital periods
660: than \xonb. For instance, \citet{MAZ05} propose the $M_{\rm p}$-P
661: relation is setup by the thermal evaporation of planets too small to
662: survive the stellar host XUV flux.
663:
664: Related to $M_{\rm p}$, \citet{SOU07} and \citet{SOU08} show the
665: planet surface gravity, $g_{\rm p}$ is also correlated with P. The
666: scatter of the $g_{\rm p}$-P relation is also larger than the
667: observational uncertainties. \xonb\ has a higher $g_{\rm p}$ than the
668: trend based on previously known extrasolar planets. It is not clear
669: which parameter $M_{\rm p}$ or $g_{\rm p}$ is more fundamentally
670: correlated, if at all, with P. \citet{SOU07} suggests the $g_{\rm p}$-P
671: relation is more fundamental than the $M_{\rm p}$-P relation given the direct
672: role $g_{\rm p}$ has on the evaporation of highly irradiated gas giant
673: planets. \citet{TOR08} note that the scatter around their $g_{\rm
674: p}$-P trend does not correlate with metallicity.
675:
676: The previously known sample of transiting planets was shown by
677: \citet{HAN07} to separate into two classes by the Safronov
678: number of the planet. The Safronov number,
679: $\theta=1/2(V_{esc}/V_{orb})^2$, where $V_{esc}$ is the escape
680: velocity from surface of the planet and $V_{orb}$ is the planet
681: orbital velocity, is a measure of the ability of a planet to
682: gravitationally scatter other bodies. \citet{HAN07} and refined by
683: \citet{TOR08} find transiting planets fall into categories defined as
684: Class I, $\theta\sim0.07\pm0.01$ and Class II, $\theta\sim0.04\pm0.01$.
685: \xonb, $\theta=0.1\pm0.01$ does not appear to belong to either class,
686: yet it is not as discrepant as the other outlying transiting planets,
687: GJ 436b ($\theta=0.025$) and HAT-P-2b ($\theta=0.94$) \citep{TOR08}.
688: There is some overlap, but the planets with higher metallicity stellar
689: hosts tend to be the Class II objects with lower $\theta$, whereas
690: Class I objects have increasing $\theta$ toward lower metallicities.
691: \xonb\ does not follow this trend, but has high $\theta$ for higher
692: metallicity.
693:
694: A single object such as \xonb\ does not invalidate the trends amongst
695: the Jupiter-class of transiting planets, but illustrates the
696: importance of expanding the number of such objects to fully explore
697: the diversity of this population. Recently, the SuperWASP project
698: announced 10 new transiting
699: planets\footnote{http://www.superwasp.org}. We look forward to the
700: detailed analysis of these new transiting planets to amplify or
701: diminish the strength of the current trends amongst the close-in
702: transiting planets. The end goal of a large population of transiting
703: planets is to investigate any trends that may directly constrain
704: processes that affect planet formation, migration, and planet
705: survival.
706:
707:
708: \acknowledgments
709:
710: The University of Hawaii staff have made the operation on Maui
711: possible; we thank especially Jake Kamibayashi, Bill Giebink, Les
712: Hieda, Jeff Kuhn, Haosheng Lin, Mike Maberry, Daniel O'Gara, Joey
713: Perreira, Kaila Rhoden, and the director of the IFA, Rolf-Peter
714: Kudritzki. The Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) is a joint project of the
715: University of Texas at Austin, the Pennsylvania State University,
716: Stanford University, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"{a}t M\"{u}nchen,
717: and Georg-August-Universit\"{a}t G\"{o}ttingen. The HET is named in
718: honor of its principal benefactors, William P. Hobby and Robert
719: E. Eberly. We thank the HET night-time and day-time support staff and
720: the Resident Astronomer telescope operator; we especially thank John
721: Caldwell, Frank Deglman, Heinz Edelmann, Stephen Odewahn, Vicki Riley,
722: Sergey Rostopchin, Matthew Shetrone, and Chevo Terrazas.
723:
724: We thank Dave Healy, Lisa Prato, and Naved Mahmud for assistance
725: observing; Jim Heasley for assistance on the XO survey; Ron Bissinger,
726: Paul Howell, Franco Mallia, and Gianluca Masi for their contributions
727: in following up XO candidates; and John Hibbard and Phil Appleton for
728: kindly making the H I radio data of Arp 143 available.
729:
730: This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS,
731: Strasbourg, France; data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey
732: (2MASS), the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), and The Amateur Sky Survey
733: (TASS); source code for transit light-curves (Mandel \& Agol 2002);
734: and community access to the HET.
735:
736: XO is funded primarily by NASA Origins grant NNG06GG92G and the Director's
737: Discretionary Fund of the STScI.
738:
739: \begin{thebibliography}
740:
741: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al.(2008)]{ADE08} Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K., et al.\ 2008, \apjs, 175, 297
742:
743: \bibitem[Appleton et al.(1987)]{APP87} Appleton, P.~N., Ghigo, F.~D., van Gorkom, J.~H., Schombert, J.~M., \& Struck-Marcell, C.\ 1987, \nat, 330, 500
744:
745: \bibitem[Arp(1966)]{ARP66} Arp, H.\ 1966, \apjs, 14, 1
746:
747: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007)]{BAK07} Bakos, G.~{\'A}., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 656, 552
748:
749: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007b)]{BAK07B} Bakos, G.~{\'A}., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 670, 826
750:
751: \bibitem[Barbieri et al.(2007)]{BAR07} Barbieri, M., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 476, L13
752:
753: \bibitem[Burke et al.(2007)]{BUR07} Burke, C.~J., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 2115
754:
755: \bibitem[Chabrier et al.(2000)]{CHAB00} Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P.\ 2000, \apj, 542, 464
756:
757: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2007)]{CHA07} Charbonneau, D., Brown, T.~M., Burrows, A., \& Laughlin, G.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 701
758:
759: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{CLA00} Claret, A.\ 2000, \aap, 363, 1081
760:
761: \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
762:
763: \bibitem[Dravins et al.(1997)]{DRA97} Dravins, D., Lindegren, L., Mezey, E., \& Young, A.~T.\ 1997, \pasp, 109, 173
764:
765: \bibitem[Droege et al.(2006)]{DRO06} Droege, T.~F., Richmond, M.~W., Sallman, M.~P., \& Creager, R.~P.\ 2006, \pasp, 118, 1666
766:
767: \bibitem[Ford(2005)]{FORD05} Ford, E.~B.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 1706
768:
769: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2007)]{FOR07} Fortney, J.~J., Marley, M.~S., \& Barnes, J.~W.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 1661
770:
771: \bibitem[Gray(1992)]{GRA92} Gray, D.~F.\ 1992, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres, by David F.~Gray, pp.~470.~ISBN 0521408687.~Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, June 1992
772:
773: \bibitem[Gregory(2005)]{GRE05} Gregory, P.~C.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 1198
774:
775: \bibitem[Hansen \& Barman(2007)]{HAN07} Hansen, B.~M.~S., \& Barman, T.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 861
776:
777: \bibitem[Hibbard et al.(2001)]{HIB01} Hibbard, J.~E., van Gorkom, J.~H., Rupen, M.~P., \& Schiminovich, D.\ 2001, Gas and Galaxy Evolution, 240, 657
778:
779: \bibitem[Higdon et al.(1997)]{HIG97} Higdon, J.~L., Rand, R.~J., \& Lord, S.~D.\ 1997, \apjl, 489, L133
780:
781: \bibitem[Hinkle et al.(2000)]{HIN00} Hinkle, K.~H., Joyce, R.~R., Sharp, N., \& Valenti, J.~A.\ 2000, \procspie, 4008, 720
782:
783: \bibitem[H{\o}g et al.(2000)]{HOG00} H{\o}g, E., et al.\ 2000, \aap, 355, L27
784:
785: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2006)]{HOL06} Holman, M.~J., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 1715
786:
787: \bibitem[Kov{\'a}cs et al.(2002)]{KOV02} Kov{\'a}cs, G., Zucker, S., \& Mazeh, T.\ 2002, \aap, 391, 369
788:
789: \bibitem[Janes et al.(2004)]{JAN04} Janes, K.~A., Clemens, D.~P., Hayes-Gehrke, M.~N., Eastman, J.~D., Sarcia, D.~S., \& Bosh, A.~S.\ 2004, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 36, 672
790:
791: \bibitem[Johns-Krull et al.(2008)]{JOH08} Johns-Krull, C.~M., et al.\ 2008, \apj, 677, 657
792:
793: \bibitem[Landolt(1992)]{LAN92} Landolt, A.~U.\ 1992, \aj, 104, 340
794:
795: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{MAN02} Mandel, K., \& Agol, E.\ 2002, \apjl, 580, L171
796:
797: \bibitem[Mandushev et al.(2005)]{MAN05} Mandushev, G., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 621, 1061
798:
799: \bibitem[Mazeh et al.(2005)]{MAZ05} Mazeh, T., Zucker, S., \& Pont, F.\ 2005, \mnras, 356, 955
800:
801: \bibitem[McCullough et al.(2005)]{MCC05} McCullough, P.~R., Stys, J.~E., Valenti, J.~A., Fleming, S.~W., Janes, K.~A., \& Heasley, J.~N.\ 2005, \pasp, 117, 783
802:
803: \bibitem[McCullough et al.(2006)]{MCC06} McCullough, P.~R., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 1228
804:
805: \bibitem[McCullough et al.(2008)]{MCC08} McCullough, P.~R., et al.\ 2008, \apj, submitted
806:
807: \bibitem[McCullough \& Burke(2007)]{MCC07} McCullough, P.~R., \& 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)
808:
809: \bibitem[Pont et al.(2004)]{PON04} Pont, F., Bouchy, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N.~C., Melo, C., Mayor, M., \& Udry, S.\ 2004, \aap, 426, L15
810:
811:
812: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{SCH98} Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525
813:
814: \bibitem[Seager \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas(2003)]{SEA03} Seager, S., \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas, G.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 1038
815:
816: \bibitem[Skrutskie et al.(2006)]{SKR06} Skrutskie, M.~F., et al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1163
817:
818: \bibitem[Southworth et al.(2007)]{SOU07} Southworth, J., Wheatley, P.~J., \& Sams, G.\ 2007, \mnras, 379, L11
819:
820: \bibitem[Southworth(2008)]{SOU08} Southworth, J.\ 2008, \mnras, 386, 1644
821:
822: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al.(2007)]{SOZ07} Sozzetti, A., Torres, G., Charbonneau, D., Latham, D.~W., Holman, M.~J., Winn, J.~N., Laird, J.~B., \& O'Donovan, F.~T.\ 2007, \apj, 664, 1190
823:
824: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2005)]{TOR05} Torres, G., Konacki, M., Sasselov, D.~D., \& Jha, S.\ 2005, \apj, 619, 558
825:
826: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2008)]{TOR08} Torres, G., Winn, J.~N., \& Holman, M.~J.\ 2008, \apj, 677, 1324
827:
828: \bibitem[Tull et al.(1995)]{TUL95} Tull, R.~G., MacQueen, P.~J., Sneden, C., \& Lambert, D.~L.\ 1995, \pasp, 107, 251
829:
830: \bibitem[Tull(1998)]{TUL98} Tull, R.~G.\ 1998, \procspie, 3355, 387
831:
832: \bibitem[Valenti \& Fischer(2005)]{VAL05} Valenti, J.~A., \& Fischer, D.~A.\ 2005, \apjs, 159, 141
833:
834: \bibitem[Valenti \& Piskunov(1996)]{VAL96} Valenti, J.~A., \& Piskunov, N.\ 1996, \aaps, 118, 595
835:
836: \bibitem[Wilson(1993)]{WIL93} Wilson, R.~E.\ 1993, New Frontiers in Binary Star Research, 38, 91
837:
838: \bibitem[Worthey \& Lee(2006)]{WOR06} Worthey, G., \& Lee, H.~-.\ 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0604590
839:
840: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2001)]{YI01} Yi, S., Demarque, P., Kim, Y.-C., Lee, Y.-W., Ree, C.~H., Lejeune, T., \& Barnes, S.\ 2001, \apjs, 136, 417
841:
842: \bibitem[Zacharias et al.(2004)]{ZAC04} Zacharias, N., Urban, S.~E., Zacharias, M.~I., Wycoff, G.~L., Hall, D.~M., Monet, D.~G., \& Rafferty, T.~J.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 3043
843:
844: \end{thebibliography}
845:
846: \clearpage
847:
848: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
849: \tabletypesize{\small}
850: \tablewidth{0pt}
851: \tablecaption{{\rm XO, E.T., \& Perkins Light Curve Data}\tablenotemark{a}}
852: \startdata
853: \hline
854: \hline
855: Heliocentric Julian Date & Light Curve & Uncertainty & Filter & N\tablenotemark{b} & Observatory \\
856: & [mag] & (1-$\sigma$) [mag] & & & \\
857: \hline
858: 2452961.13135 & -0.0033 & 0.0113 & W & 1 & XO \\
859: 2452961.13135 & -0.0095 & 0.0113 & W & 1 & XO \\
860: 2452961.14526 & 0.0286 & 0.0113 & W & 1 & XO \\
861: 2452961.14526 & 0.0048 & 0.0113 & W & 1 & XO \\
862: 2452964.11816 & 0.0187 & 0.0100 & W & 1 & XO \\
863: \hline
864: \enddata
865: \tablenotetext{a}{The complete version of this table is in the electronic edition of
866: this article. The printed edition contains only a sample.}
867: \tablenotetext{b}{Average of N measurements}
868: \label{tab:lc}
869: \end{deluxetable}
870:
871: \begin{deluxetable}{lcl}
872: \tabletypesize{\small}
873: \tablewidth{0pt}
874: \tablecaption{{\rm Stellar Properties}}
875: \startdata
876: \hline
877: \hline
878: Parameter & Value of \xon & Reference\\
879: \hline
880: GSC ID & 02959-00729 & a \\
881: RA (J2000.0) & $ 7^h46^m51^s.98 $ & a \\
882: Dec (J2000.0) & +39\arcdeg05\arcmin40\arcsec.5 & a \\
883: Galactic Latitude b [deg] & 26.94 & a \\
884: '' Longitude l [deg] & 180.63 & a \\
885: V & 12.13$\pm$0.03 & b \\
886: (B-V) & 0.84$\pm$0.05 & b \\
887: (V-R$_{c}$) & 0.47$\pm$0.05 & b \\
888: (V-I$_{c}$) & 0.83$\pm$0.05 & b \\
889: V$_{\rm TASS}$ & 12.17$\pm$0.06 & c \\
890: (V-I$_{c}$)$_{\rm TASS}$ & 0.82$\pm$0.08 & c \\
891: J & 10.77$\pm$0.02 & d \\
892: (J-H) & 0.33$\pm$0.03 & d \\
893: (H-K) & 0.10$\pm$0.03 & d \\
894: Spectral Type & \sptype & b \\
895: Distance [pc] & \vDs$\pm$\eDs & b \\
896: $\mu_{\alpha}$ [mas\ yr$^{-1}$] & -32.3$\pm$2.7 & e \\
897: $\mu_{\delta}$ [mas\ yr$^{-1}$] & -24.4$\pm$5.6 & e \\
898: Stellar Mass [$M_{\odot}$] & \vMs$\pm$\eMs & b,f \\
899: Stellar Radius [$R_{\odot}$] & \vRs$\pm$\eRs & b \\
900: $T_{eff}$ [K] & 5510$\pm$44 & b,f \\
901: \ [Fe/H] & 0.25$\pm$0.03 & b,f \\
902: log$g$ [\cmpss] & 4.52$\pm$0.06 & b,f \\
903: log$g$ [\cmpss] & 4.34$\pm$0.07 & b,g \\
904: $v$~sin~$i$ [\kps] & 1.8$\pm$0.5 & b,f \\
905: \ [Na/H] & 0.18$\pm$0.03 & b,f \\
906: Stellar $\rho$ [\gpcmthree] & 1.02$\pm$0.2 & b \\
907: Age [Gyr] & \vAge$\pm$\eAge & b \\
908: \enddata
909: \\
910: References:\\
911: a) SIMBAD\\
912: b) this work \\
913: c) TASS \citep{DRO06} \\
914: d) 2MASS \citep{SKR06} \\
915: e) UCAC2 \citep{ZAC04} \\
916: f) SME Spectroscopic Determination (\S~\ref{sec:sme}) \\
917: g) Transit Light Curve Determination (\S~\ref{sec:lcmcmc}) \\
918: \label{tab:star}
919: \end{deluxetable}
920:
921:
922: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
923: \tabletypesize{\small}
924: \tablewidth{0pt}
925: \tablecaption{{\rm \xon\ Radial Velocity Shifts}}
926: \startdata
927: \hline
928: \hline
929: Julian Date & Radial Velocity & Uncertainty \\
930: -245000 & Shift [\mps] & (1-$\sigma$) [\mps] \\
931: \hline
932: 4442.7789 & 75.4 & 36 \\
933: 4452.7562 & -147.4 & 46 \\
934: 4456.7451 & -76.6 & 28 \\
935: 4458.9892 & 131.2 & 20 \\
936: 4461.7447 & -120.5 & 41 \\
937: 4464.7206 & 0.7 & 82 \\
938: 4466.7167 & -24.8 & 43 \\
939: 4476.6851 & 110.0 & 21 \\
940: 4478.6743 & -130.2 & 14 \\
941: 4479.6874 & 72.8 & 24 \\
942: \enddata
943: \label{tab:rv}
944: \end{deluxetable}
945:
946: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
947: \tabletypesize{\small}
948: \tablewidth{0pt}
949: \tablecaption{{\rm Mid-Transit Times}}
950: \startdata
951: \hline
952: \hline
953: Heliocentric Julian Date & Uncertainty & Observatory ID\tablenotemark{b} \\
954: -2450000 & (1-$\sigma$) [day] & \\
955: \hline
956: 2999.0114 & 0.02 & XO \\
957: 3354.9557 & 0.02 & XO \\
958: 3359.1669 & 0.02 & XO \\
959: 3375.9428 & 0.02 & XO \\
960: 3417.8079 & 0.02 & XO \\
961: 3438.7377 & 0.02 & XO \\
962: 3442.9195 & 0.02 & XO \\
963: 4129.7088 & 0.003 & MF \\
964: 4439.6022 & 0.003 & EGM \\
965: 4464.7268 & 0.003 & CF \\
966: 4464.7331 & 0.003 & CF \\
967: 4485.6730 & 0.003 & CF \\
968: 4485.6685 & 0.003 & JG \\
969: 4506.6061 & 0.003 & MF \\
970: 4527.5427 & 0.003 & JG \\
971: \enddata
972: \tablenotetext{a}{Observatory ID is author initials, except XO is XO survey data.}
973: \label{tab:midpoints}
974: \end{deluxetable}
975:
976: \begin{deluxetable}{lc}
977: \tabletypesize{\small}
978: \tablewidth{0pt}
979: \tablecaption{{\rm The Planet \xonb}}
980: \startdata
981: \hline
982: \hline
983: Parameter & Value \\
984: \hline
985: $P $ & \vperiod$\pm$\eperiod\ d \\
986: $t_c $ & \vjd$\pm$\ejd\ (HJD) \\
987: $K $ & \vrvK$\pm\ervK$\ \mps \\
988: $a $ & \vap$\pm$\eap\ A.U. \\
989: $i $ & \vincl$\pm$\eincl\ deg \\
990: $M_{\rm p} $ & \vMp$\pm$\eMp\ \Mjup \\
991: $R_{\rm p} $ & \vRp$\pm$\eRp\ \Rjup \\
992: $g_{\rm p} $ & \vgp$\pm$\egp\ \mpstwo \\
993: $a/R_{\star}$ & 9.81$\pm$0.8 \\
994: $R_{\rm p}/R_{\star}$ & 0.106$\pm$0.003 \\
995: $\tau$ & 3.13$\pm$0.07 hr \\
996: Impact parameter, b & 0.55$\pm$0.09 \\
997: log$g_{\rm p}$ & 3.35$\pm$0.09 cgs \\
998: $\rho_{\rm p}$ & 1.02$\pm$0.3 \gpcmthree \\
999: $T_{eq}=T_{eff}(R_{\star}/2a)^{1/2}$ & 1244$\pm$48 K \\
1000: Safronov & 0.10$\pm$0.01 \\
1001: \enddata
1002: \label{tab:planet}
1003: \end{deluxetable}
1004:
1005:
1006: \end{document}
1007:
1008: