1: % For ApJ submission -----------------------------------------

2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: %\def\baselinestretch{1.3}

4: 

5: \documentclass{emulateapj}

6: \usepackage{apjfonts}

7: \lefthead{HAN} 

8: \righthead{MICROLENSING FOLLOW-UP CRITERIA}

9: 

10: %==== CUSTOMIZED LATEX MACROS ========================================

11: % Italic bold font

12: \def\dslash{\mathbin{/\mkern-4mu/}}

13: 

14: \newcommand{\vvec}{\bf v}

15: \newcommand{\svec}{\bold s}

16: \newcommand{\rvec}{\bold r}

17: 

18: 

19: \newcommand{\te}{t_{\rm E}}

20: \newcommand{\re}{r_{\rm E}}

21: \newcommand{\rh}{r_{\rm H}}

22: \newcommand{\retilde}{\tilde{r}_{\rm E}}

23: \newcommand{\thetae}{\theta_{\rm E}}

24: 

25: 

26: % Equation align

27: \def\eqalign#1{\null\,\vcenter{\openup\jot

28:         \ialign{\strut\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$

29:         \displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil \crcr#1\crcr}}\,}

30: 

31: %=======================================================================

32: 

33: 

34: \begin{document}

35: \title{Criteria in the Selection of Target Events for Planetary Microlensing 

36: Follow-Up Observations}

37: 

38: 

39: \author{Cheongho Han}

40: \affil{

41: Program of Brain Korea 21,

42: Institute for Basic Science Research, 

43: Department of Physics,\\

44: Chungbuk National University, Chongju 361-763, Korea;

45: cheongho@astroph.chungbuk.ac.kr}

46: 

47: 

48: 

49: 

50: % ==================================================================

51: 

52: 

53: %\submitted{Submitted to The Astrophysical Journal}

54: 

55: 

56: 

57: \begin{abstract}

58: 

59: To provide criteria in the selection of target events preferable for 

60: planetary lensing follow-up observations, we investigate the variation 

61: of the probability of detecting planetary signals depending on the 

62: observables of the lensing magnification and source brightness.   

63: In estimating the probability, we consider variation of the photometric 

64: precision by using a quantity defined as the ratio of the fractional 

65: deviation of the planetary perturbation to the photometric precision.  

66: From this investigation, we find consistent result from previous studies 

67: that the probability increases with the increase of the magnification.  

68: The increase rate  is boosted at a certain magnification at which 

69: perturbations caused by central caustic begin to occur.  We find this 

70: boost occurs at moderate magnifications of $A\lesssim 20$, implying that 

71: probability can be high even for events with moderate magnifications.  

72: The probability increases as the source brightness increases.  We find 

73: that the probability of events associated with stars brighter than clump 

74: giants is not negligible even at magnifications as low as $A\sim 5$.  

75: In the absence of rare the prime target of very high-magnification events, 

76: we, therefore, recommend to observe events with brightest source stars 

77: and highest magnifications among the alerted events.  Due to the increase 

78: of the source size with the increase of the brightness, however, the 

79: probability rapidly drops off beyond a certain magnification, causing 

80: detections of low mass ratio planets ($q\lesssim 10^{-4}$) difficult from 

81: the observations of events involved with giant stars with magnifications 

82: $A\gtrsim 70$.

83: \end{abstract}

84: 

85: \keywords{gravitational lensing -- planets and satellites: general}

86: 

87: 

88: \section{Introduction}

89: 

90: With the advantages of being able to detect very low-mass planets and 

91: those with separations from host stars that cannot be covered by other 

92: methods, microlensing is one of the most important methods that can 

93: detect and characterize extrasolar planets \citep{mao91, gould92}.  The 

94: microlensing planetary signal is a short duration perturbation to the 

95: standard lensing light curve produced by the primary star.  To achieve 

96: high monitoring frequency required for the detection of the short-lived 

97: planetary signal, current lensing experiments are employing early-warning 

98: system to issue alerts of ongoing events in the early stage of lensing 

99: magnification \citep{udalski94, bond02} and follow-up observations to 

100: intensively monitor the alerted events \citep{dominik02, yoo04}.  Under 

101: current surveys, there exist in average $\gtrsim 50$ alerted events at 

102: a certain time \citep{dominik02}.  Then, an important issue related to 

103: the follow-up observation is which event should be monitored for better 

104: chance of planet detections.

105: 

106: 

107: There have been several estimates of microlensing planet detection 

108: efficiencies \citep{bolatto94, bennett96, gaudi00, peale01}.   Most of 

109: these works estimated the efficiency as a function of the instantaneous 

110: angular star-planet separation normalized by the angular Einstein radius, 

111: $s$, and planet/star mass ratio, $q$.  However, the efficiency determined 

112: in this way is of little use in the point of view of observers who are 

113: actually carrying out follow-up observations of lensing events.  This is 

114: because the planet parameters $s$ and $q$ are not known in the middle of

115: lensing magnification and thus they cannot be used as criteria in the 

116: selection of target events for follow-up observations.  Related to the 

117: target selection, \citet{griest98} proposed a useful criterion to observers.  

118: They pointed out that by focusing on very high-magnification ($A\gtrsim 100$) 

119: events, the probability of detecting planets in the lensing zone could be 

120: very high.  However, these events are rare and thus they cannot be usually 

121: found in the list of alerted events.  Therefore, it is necessary to have 

122: criteria applicable to general lensing events in the absence of very 

123: high-magnification events.  To provide such criteria, we investigate 

124: the dependency of the probability of detecting planetary signals on the 

125: observables such as the lensing magnification and source type.

126: 

127: 

128: The paper is organized as follows.  In \S\ 2, we briefly describe the 

129: basics of planetary microlensing.  In \S\ 3, we investigate the variation 

130: of the probability of detecting planetary signals depending on the lensing 

131: magnification and source type for events caused by planetary systems with 

132: different masses and separations.  We analyze the result and qualitatively 

133: explain the tendencies found from the investigation.  Based on the result 

134: of the investigation, we then present criteria for the selection of target 

135: events preferable for follow-up observations.  In \S\ 4, we summarize the 

136: results and conclude.

137: 

138: 

139: 

140: 

141: \section{Basics of Planetary Lensing}

142: 

143: The lensing behavior of a planetary lens system is described by the 

144: formalism of a binary lens with a very low-mass companion.  Because of 

145: the very small mass ratio, planetary a lensing light curve is well 

146: described by that of a single lens of the primary star for most of the 

147: event duration.  However, a short-duration perturbation can occur when 

148: the source star passes the region around the caustics, that are the set 

149: of source positions at which the magnification of a point source becomes 

150: infinite.  The caustics of binary lensing form a single or multiple sets 

151: of closed curves where each of which is composed of concave curves (fold 

152: caustics) that meet at points (cusps).  

153: 

154: 

155: For a planetary case, there exist two sets of disconnected caustics: 

156: `central' and `planetary' caustics.  The single central caustic is located 

157: close to the host star.  It has a wedge shape with four cusps and its size 

158: (width along the star-planet axis) is related to the planet parameters by 

159: \citep{chung05}

160: \begin{equation}

161: \Delta\xi_{\rm cc} \propto {q\over (s-1/s)^2}.

162: \label{eq1}

163: \end{equation}

164: For a given mass ratio, a pair of central caustics with separations $s$ 

165: and $s^{-1}$ are identical to the first order of approximation 

166: \citep{dominik99, griest98,an05}.  The planetary caustic is located away 

167: from the host star.  The center of the planetary caustic is located on 

168: the star-planet axis and the position vector to the center of the planetary 

169: caustic measured from the primary lens position is related to the lens-source 

170: separation vector, ${\bf s}$, by 

171: \begin{equation}

172: {\bf r}_{\rm pc}={\bf s}\left(1-{1 \over s^2}\right).

173: \label{eq2}

174: \end{equation}

175: Then, the planetary caustic is located on the planet side, i.e.\ ${\rm sign} 

176: ({\bf r}_{\rm pc})= {\rm sign}({\bf s})$, when $s>1$, and on the opposite 

177: side, i.e.\ ${\rm sign} ({\bf r}_{\rm pc})=-{\rm sign}({\bf s})$, when 

178: $s<1$.  When $s>1$, there exists a single planetary caustic and it has a 

179: diamond shape with four cusps.  When $s<1$, there are two caustics and 

180: each caustic has a triangular shape with three cusps.  The size of the 

181: planetary caustic is related to the planet parameters by

182: \begin{equation}

183: \Delta\xi_{\rm pc} \propto 

184: \cases{

185: q^{1/2}/(s\sqrt{s^2-1})                                & for $s > 1$,\cr

186: q^{1/2}(\kappa_0-1/\kappa_0+\kappa_0/s^2)\cos\theta_0  & for $s < 1$,\cr

187: }

188: \label{eq3}

189: \end{equation}

190: where $\kappa (\theta) = \left\{[\cos 2\theta\pm (s^4-\sin^2 2\theta)^{1/2}]

191: / (s^2-1/s^2) \right\}^{1/2}$, $\theta_0 = [\pi \pm \sin^{-1}(3^{1/2}s^2/2)]

192: /2$, and $\kappa_0=\kappa(\theta_0)$ \citep{han06}.  The planetary caustic 

193: is always bigger than the central caustic and the size ratio between the 

194: two types of caustics, $\Delta\xi_{\rm cc}/\Delta \xi_{\rm pc}$, becomes 

195: smaller as the mass of the planet becomes smaller and the planet is located 

196: further away from the Einstein ring.  The planetary caustic is located 

197: within the Einstein ring of the primary when the planet is located in 

198: the range of separation from the star of $0.6\lesssim s\lesssim 1.6$.  

199: The size of the caustic, which is directly proportional to the planet 

200: detection efficiency, is maximized when the planet is located in this 

201: range, and thus this range is called as the `lensing zone'.  As the position 

202: of the planet approaches to the Einstein ring radius, $s\rightarrow 1$, 

203: the location of the planetary caustic approaches the position of the 

204: central caustic. Then, the two types of caustic eventually merge together, 

205: forming a single large one.

206: 

207: 

208: 

209: 

210: 

211: \section{Variation of Detectability}

212: 

213: \subsection{Quantification of Detectability}

214: 

215: The quantity that has been often used in the previous estimation of the 

216: planet detection probability is the `fractional deviation' of the planetary 

217: lensing light curve from that of the single lensing event of the primary, 

218: i.e.,

219: \begin{equation}

220: \epsilon = {A-A_0 \over A_0}.

221: \label{eq4}

222: \end{equation}

223: With this quantity, however, one cannot consider the variation of the 

224: photometric precision depending on the lensing magnification.  In addition, 

225: it is difficult to consider the variation of the detectability depending 

226: on the source type.  

227: 

228: 

229: To consider the effect of source star brightness and its lensing-induced 

230: variation on the planet detection probability, we carry out our analysis 

231: based on a new quantity defined as the ratio of the fractional deviation, 

232: $\epsilon$, to the photometric precision, $\sigma_\nu$, i.e, 

233: \begin{equation}

234: {\cal D}={\left\vert \epsilon\right\vert \over \sigma_\nu};\qquad

235: \sigma_\nu = { ( AF_{\nu,{\rm S}}+F_{\nu,{\rm B}})^{1/2} 

236: \over (A-1)F_{\nu,{\rm S}}},

237: \label{eq5}

238: \end{equation}

239: where $F_{\nu,{\rm S}}$ 

240: and $F_{\nu,{\rm B}}$ represent the fluxes from the source star and 

241: blended background stars, respectively.  Here we assume that photometry 

242: is carried out by using the difference imaging method \citep{tomaney96, 

243: alard99}.  In this technique, photometry of the lensed source star is 

244: conducted on the subtracted image obtained by convolving two images taken 

245: at different times after geometrically and photometrically aligning them.  

246: Then the signal from the lensed star measured on the subtracted image is 

247: the flux variation of the lensed source star, $(A-1) F_{\nu,{\rm S}}$, 

248: while the noise originates from both the source and background blended 

249: stars, $ AF_{\nu, {\rm S}}+ F_{\nu,{\rm B}}$.  Under this definition of 

250: the planetary signal detectability, ${\cal D}=1$ implies that the planetary 

251: signal is equivalent to the photometric precision.  Hereafter we refer the 

252: quantity ${\cal D}$ as the `detectability'.

253: 

254: 

255: 

256: % Figure 1 --------------------------------------------------------------

257: \begin{figure*}[t]

258: \epsscale{1.0}

259: %\plotone{fig1.eps}

260: \caption{\label{fig:one}

261: Contour maps of the detectability of the planetary signal, ${\cal D}$, 

262: as a function of the position in the source plane for events caused by 

263: planetary systems with various lens-source separations and mass ratios.  

264: The detectability represents the ratio of the fractional deviation of 

265: the planetary lensing light curve from the single lensing light curve of 

266: the primary to the photometric precision.  All lengths are normalized by 

267: the angular Einstein radius and $\xi$ and $\eta$ represent the coordinates 

268: parallel with and normal to the star-planet axis, respectively.  The 

269: individual sets of panels show the maps for events associated with different 

270: types of source stars.  Contours (yellow curve) are drawn at the level 

271: of ${\cal D}=3.0$.  The maps are centered at the position of the primary 

272: lens star and the planet is located on the left.  The dotted arc in each 

273: panel represents the Einstein ring of the primary star.  The closed figures 

274: drawn by red curves represent the caustics.  For the details about the 

275: assumed lens parameters and observational conditions, see \S\ 3.2.

276: }\end{figure*}

277: 

278: 

279: 

280: \subsection{Contour Maps of Detectability}

281: 

282: To see the variation of the detectability depending on the separation 

283: parameter $s$, mass ratio $q$, and the types of involved source star, we 

284: construct maps of detectability as a function of the position in the 

285: source plane.  Figure~\ref{fig:one} shows example maps.  The individual 

286: sets of panels show the maps for events associated with different types 

287: of source stars.  All lengths are normalized by the angular Einstein radius 

288: and $\xi$ and $\eta$ represent the coordinates parallel with and normal 

289: to the star-planet axis, respectively.  A contours (yellow curve) is drawn 

290: at the level of ${\cal D}=3.0$.  The maps are centered at the position of 

291: the primary lens star and the planet is located on the left.  The dotted 

292: arc in each panel represents the Einstein ring of the primary star.  The 

293: closed figures drawn by red curves represent the caustics. 

294: 

295: 

296: For the construction of the maps, we assume a mass of the primary lens 

297: star of $m=0.3\ M_\odot$ and distances to the lens and source of $D_{\rm L}

298: =6$ kpc and $D_{\rm S}=8$ kpc, respectively.  Then, the corresponding 

299: Einstein radius is $r_{\rm E}=\left\{ (4Gm/c^2) [(D_{\rm L}(D_{\rm S}-

300: D_{\rm L})/D_{\rm S}] \right\}^{1/2}=1.9$ AU.  For the source stars, we 

301: test three different types of giant, clump giant, and main-sequence stars.  

302: The assumed $I$-band absolute magnitudes of the individual types of stars 

303: are $M_I=0.0$, 1.5, and 3.6, respectively.  With the assumed amount of 

304: extinction toward the Galactic bulge field of $A_I=1.0$, these correspond 

305: to the apparent magnitudes of $I=15.5$, 17, and 19.1, respectively.  As 

306: the source type changes, not only the brightness but also the size of the 

307: star changes.  Source size affects the planetary signal in lensing light 

308: curves \citep{bennett96} and thus we take account the finite source effect 

309: into consideration.  The assumed source radii of the individual types of 

310: source stars are 10.0 $R_\odot$, 3.0 $R_\odot$, and 1.1 $R_\odot$, 

311: respectively.  We assume that events are affected by blended flux equivalent 

312: to that of a star with $I=20$.  We note that the adopted lens and source 

313: parameters are the typical values of Galactic bulge events that are being 

314: detected by the current lensing surveys \citep{han03}.

315: 

316: 

317: For the observational condition, we assume that images are obtained by 

318: using 1 m telescopes, which are typical ones being used in current 

319: follow-up observations.  We also assume that the photon acquisition 

320: rate of each telescope is 10 photons per second for an $I=20$ star and a 

321: combined image with a total exposure time of 5 minutes is obtained from 

322: each set of observations. 

323: 

324: 

325: 

326: 

327: % Figure 2 --------------------------------------------------------------

328: \begin{figure}[t]

329: \epsscale{1.25}

330: \plotone{fig2.eps}

331: \caption{\label{fig:two}

332: Geometric representation of the probability of detecting planetary signals, 

333: $P$.  Under the definition of $P$ as {\it the average probability of 

334: detecting planetary signals with a detectability greater than a threshold 

335: value $D_{\rm th}$ at the time of observation with a magnification $A$}, 

336: the probability corresponds to the portion of the arclet(s) where the 

337: detectability is greater than a threshold value out of a circle around 

338: the primary with a radius equal to the lens-source separation corresponding 

339: to the magnification at the time of observation.  The individual circles 

340: in the upper panel correspond to the source positions at which the lensing 

341: magnifications are $A=1.5$ (pink), 3.0 (cyan), 5.0 (green), and 10.0 (red), 

342: respectively.  The curves in the bottom panels show the variation of the 

343: detectability as a function of the position angle ($\theta$) of points on 

344: the circles with corresponding colors in the upper panel.  We set the 

345: threshold detectability as ${\cal D}_{\rm th}=3.0$, i.e.\ $3\sigma$ 

346: detection of the planetary signal.  The dashed circle represents the 

347: Einstein ring.

348: }\end{figure}

349: 

350: 

351: 

352: % Figure 3 --------------------------------------------------------------

353: \begin{figure}[t]

354: \epsscale{1.2}

355: \plotone{fig3.eps}

356: \caption{\label{fig:three}

357: Probability of detecting planetary signals as a function of lensing 

358: magnification.  The individual panels show the probabilities for events 

359: involved with different types of source stars.  The curves in each panel 

360: show the variation of the probability for planets with different mass 

361: ratios and separations.  We note that although not presented, the 

362: probabilities for planets with separations $s<1$ are similar to those of 

363: the corresponding planets with $s^{-1}$.  The probability is defined the 

364: average probability of detecting planetary signals with a detectability 

365: greater than a threshold value $D_{\rm th}$ at the time of observation 

366: with a magnification $A$.  We set the threshold detectability as 

367: ${\cal D}_{\rm th}=3.0$, i.e.\ $3\sigma$ detection of the planetary signal.

368: We note that there is a maximum magnification specific to the angular size 

369: of the source star and thus the curves stop at certain magnifications.

370: }\end{figure}

371: 

372: 

373: 

374: 

375: \subsection{Probability of Detecting Planetary Signals}

376: 

377: Based on the maps of detectability, we then investigate the probability

378: of detecting planetary signals as a function of the lensing magnification.  

379: We define the probability $P$ as {\it the average probability of detecting 

380: planetary signals with a detectability greater than a threshold value 

381: $D_{\rm th}$ at the time of observation with a magnification $A$}.  

382: Geometrically, this probability corresponds to the portion of the arclet(s) 

383: where the detectability is greater than a threshold value out of a circle 

384: around the primary with a radius equal to the lens-source separation 

385: corresponding to the magnification at the time of observation.  This is 

386: illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:two}.  We note that the magnification is 

387: a unique function of the absolute value of the lens-source separation 

388: $u$\footnote{Strictly speaking, the magnification depends additionally 

389: on the size of the source star.}, and thus $A={\rm const}$ corresponds 

390: to a circle around the lens.  The lens-source separation is related to 

391: the magnification by 

392: \begin{equation}

393: u(A) = 

394: \left[ {2\over (1-A^{-2})^{1/2}}-2 \right]^{1/2}.  

395: \label{eq6}

396: \end{equation}

397: We set the threshold detectability as $D_{\rm th}=3.0$, i.e.\ $3\sigma$ 

398: detection of the planetary signal.

399: 

400: 

401: In Figure~\ref{fig:three}, we present the resulting probability as a 

402: function of magnification.  The individual panels show the probabilities 

403: for events involved with different types of source stars.  In each panel, 

404: we present the variations of the probability for planets with different 

405: mass ratios and separations.  We test six different planetary separations 

406: of $s=1/1.6$, 1/1.4, 1/1.2, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6 as representative values 

407: for planets in the lensing zone.  For the mass ratio, we test five values 

408: of $q=5\times 10^{-3}$, $10^{-3}$, $5\times 10^{-4}$, $10^{-4}$, 

409: and $5\times 10^{-5}$.  

410: 

411: 

412: 

413: \begin{deluxetable}{ll}

414: \tablecaption{Limitation by Finite-Source Effect\label{table:one}}

415: \tablewidth{0pt}

416: \tablehead{

417: \colhead{source type} &

418: \colhead{event type} 

419: }

420: \startdata

421: giant         & $A\gtrsim 70$ for planets with $q\lesssim 10^{-3}$ \\

422: clump giant   & $A\gtrsim 200$ for planets with $q\lesssim 5\times 10^{-4}$ \\

423: main-sequence & $A\gtrsim 500$ for planets with $q\lesssim 10^{-4}$ \\

424: \enddata 

425: \tablecomments{ 

426: Cases of planetary microlensing events where detection of planetary 

427: signal is limited by finite source effect.  We note that ``-'' means 

428: the respective configuration cannot be realized. 

429: }

430: \end{deluxetable}

431: 

432: 

433: 

434: 

435: \begin{deluxetable*}{llccccc}

436: \tablecaption{Critical Magnifications of Central Perturbation\label{table:two}}

437: \tablewidth{0pt}

438: \tablehead{

439: \multicolumn{1}{l}{source} &

440: \multicolumn{1}{c}{planetary} &

441: \multicolumn{5}{c}{mass ratio} \\

442: \multicolumn{1}{l}{type} &

443: \multicolumn{1}{c}{separation} &

444: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$q=5\times 10^{-3}$} &

445: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$q=10^{-3}$} &

446: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$q=5\times 10^{-4}$} &

447: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$q=10^{-4}$} &

448: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$q=5\times 10^{-5}$} 

449: }

450: \startdata

451:               & $s=1.2$, 1/1.2  & $A\sim 2.2$  & $A\sim 7$  & $A\sim 8$   & $A\sim 22$     & $A\sim 22$  \\

452: giant         & $s=1.4$, 1/1.4  & $A\sim 2.5$  & $A\sim 8$  & $A\sim 12$  & --             & --          \\

453: \smallskip

454:               & $s=1.6$, 1/1.6  & $A\sim 3.5$  & $A\sim 9$  & $A\sim 18$  & --             & --          \\

455: 

456: clump         & $s=1.2$, 1/1.2  & $A\sim 7$    & $A\sim 8$    & $A\sim 11$  & $A\sim 30$   & $A\sim 60$  \\

457: giant         & $s=1.4$, 1/1.4  & $A\sim 8$    & $A\sim 12$   & $A\sim 17$  & $A\sim 60$   & $A\sim 80$  \\

458: \smallskip

459:               & $s=1.6$, 1/1.6  & $A\sim 9$    & $A\sim 16$   & $A\sim 20$  & $A\sim 745$  & --          \\

460: 

461: main          & $s=1.2$, 1/1.2  & $A\sim 6$    & $A\sim 11$   & $A\sim 20$  & $A\sim 55$   & $A\sim 100$  \\

462: sequence      & $s=1.4$, 1/1.4  & $A\sim 8$    & $A\sim 20$   & $A\sim 30$  & $A\sim 100$  & $A\sim 150$  \\

463:               & $s=1.6$, 1/1.6  & $A\sim 11$   & $A\sim 30$   & $A\sim 40$  & $A\sim 150$  & $A\sim 200$  \\

464: \enddata 

465: \tablecomments{ 

466: Critical magnifications at which transition from the regime of perturbations 

467: induced by planetary caustics into the one of perturbations induced by 

468: central caustics occur. We note that the critical magnifications are 

469: $\lesssim 20$ in many cases.

470: }

471: \end{deluxetable*}

472: 

473: 

474: 

475: From the variation of the probability, we find the following tendencies.  

476: First, we find that the probability increases with the increase of the 

477: lensing magnification.  This is consistent with the result of K.\ Horne 

478: (private communication).  This tendency is due to three factors.  First, 

479: the size of the planetary caustic increases as it is located closer to 

480: the primary star.  This can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:four}, where we 

481: present the relation between the location of the planetary caustic and 

482: its size, which is obtained by using equations (\ref{eq2}) and (\ref{eq3}).  

483: Then, higher chance of planetary perturbation is expected when the source 

484: is located closer to the primary during which the lensing magnification 

485: is high.  Second, perturbation regions of the same size cover a larger 

486: range of angle as the planetary caustic moves closer to the lens.  This 

487: also contributes to the higher probability.  Third, the photometric 

488: precision improves with the increasing brightness of the source star due 

489: to lensing magnification.  As the photometric precision improves, it is 

490: easier to detect small deviations induced by planets.  The same reason 

491: can explain the considerable size of the perturbation region induced by 

492: central caustics.  Perturbations induced by the central caustics occur 

493: at high magnifications during which the photometric precision is high.  

494: As a result, despite much smaller size of the central caustic than that 

495: of the planetary caustic, the central perturbation region is considerable 

496: and can even be comparable to the perturbation region induced by the 

497: planetary caustic.  This can be seen in the detectability maps presented 

498: in Figure~\ref{fig:one}.  

499: 

500: 

501: % Figure 4 --------------------------------------------------------------

502: \begin{figure}[bht]

503: \epsscale{1.15}

504: \plotone{fig4.eps}

505: \caption{\label{fig:four}

506: Variation of the size of the planetary caustic as a function of its location.  

507: The value $r_{\rm pc}$ represents the separation between the center of 

508: the planetary caustic and the primary lens star.  The sign of $r_{\rm pc}$ 

509: is positive when the caustic is on the planet side and vice versa.  We note 

510: that the caustic size at around $r_{\rm pc}$ is not presented because the 

511: analytic expression in eq.~(\ref{eq1}) is not valid in this region.  In 

512: addition, there is no distinction between the planetary and central caustics 

513: in this region.

514: }\end{figure}

515: 

516: 

517: 

518: However, the probability does not continue to increase with the increase

519: of the magnification.  Instead, the probability drops off rapidly beyond a 

520: certain magnification.  This critical value corresponds to the magnification 

521: at which finite-source effect begins to wash out the planetary signal.

522: In Table~\ref{table:one}, we present the cases where finite source effect 

523: limits planet detections.  As a result, detections of planets with low 

524: mass ratios would be difficult for events involved with giant source stars 

525: with magnifications $A\gtrsim 70$.  We note that the finite source effect 

526: also limits the maximum magnifications of events and thus the curves in 

527: Figure~\ref{fig:three} discontinue at a certain value.

528: 

529: 

530: Second, as the magnification increases, the probability of detecting 

531: planetary signal increases with two dramatically different rates of 

532: $dP/d \log A$.  We find that this abrupt change of $dP/d \log A$ occurs 

533: due to the transition from the regime of perturbations induced by planetary 

534: caustics into the one of perturbations induced by central caustics.  The 

535: perturbation region induced by the central caustic forms around the primary 

536: lens and thus the probability becomes very high once the source star is in 

537: the central perturbation regime.  The boost of the increase rate occurs at 

538: different magnifications depending on the planetary parameters and the 

539: types of involved source stars.  The critical magnification becomes lower 

540: as the mass ratio of the planet increases and the separation of the planet 

541: approaches the Einstein ring radius.  In Table~\ref{table:two}, we present 

542: these critical magnifications.  An important finding to be noted is that 

543: the critical magnification occurs at moderate magnifications of $\lesssim 

544: 20$ for a significant fraction of events caused by planetary systems with 

545: planets located in the lensing zone.  This implies that probability of 

546: detecting planetary signal can be high even for events with moderate 

547: magnifications.

548: 

549: 

550: Third, the probability is higher for events involved with brighter source 

551: stars.  This is because of the improved photometric precision with the 

552: increase of the source brightness.  The difference in the probability

553: depending on the source type is especially important at low magnifications.  

554: For example, the probabilities at a magnification of $A=5$ for events 

555: caused by a common planetary system with $q=10^{-3}$ and $s=1.2$ but 

556: associated with different source stars of giant, clump giant, and 

557: main-sequence are $P\sim 20\%$, 10\%, and 1\%, respectively.  In the 

558: absence of high magnification events, therefore, the second prime candidate 

559: event for follow-up observation is the one involved with brightest source 

560: star.  As the magnification further increases and once the source star 

561: enters the central perturbation region, the difference becomes less 

562: important.

563: 

564: 

565: 

566: 

567: 

568: \section{Summary and Conclusion}

569: 

570: 

571: For the purpose of providing useful criteria in the selection of target 

572: events preferable for planetary lensing follow-up observations, we 

573: investigated the variation of the probability of detecting planetary 

574: lensing signals depending on the observables of the lensing magnification 

575: and source brightness.   From this investigation, we found consistent 

576: result from previous studies that the probability increases with the 

577: increase of the lensing magnification due to the improvement of the 

578: photometric precision combined with the expansion of the perturbation 

579: region.  The increase rate of the probability is boosted at a certain 

580: magnification at which perturbation caused by the central caustic begins 

581: to occur.  We found that this boost occurs at moderate magnifications of 

582: $A\lesssim 20$ for a significant fraction of events caused by planetary 

583: systems with planets located in the lensing zone, implying that 

584: probabilities can be high even for events with moderate magnifications.  

585: The probability increases with the increase of the source star brightness.

586: We found that the probability of events associated with source stars 

587: brighter than clump giants is not negligible even at magnifications as 

588: low as $A\sim 5$.  In the absence of rare prime target of very 

589: high-magnification events ($A\gtrsim 100$), we, therefore, recommend 

590: to observe events with brightest source stars and highest magnifications 

591: among the alerted events.  Due to the increase of the source size with 

592: the increase of the brightness, however, the probability rapidly drops 

593: off beyond a certain magnification.  As a result, detections of planets 

594: with low mass ratios ($q\lesssim 10^{-4}$) would be difficult for events 

595: involved with giant source stars with magnifications $A\gtrsim 70$.

596: 

597: \acknowledgments 

598: %This work was supported by the Astrophysical Research Center for the 

599: %Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC) of Korea Science and 

600: %Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through Science Research Program (SRC) 

601: %program.  

602: 

603: This work was supported by the Astrophysical Research Center for the

604: Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC) of Korea Science and

605: Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through Science Research Program (SRC)

606: program.

607: 

608: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

609: \frenchspacing

610: 

611: \bibitem[Alard(1999)]{alard99}

612: Alard, C.\ 1999, \aap, 343, 10

613: 

614: \bibitem[An(2005)]{an05}

615: An, J.\ H.\ 2005, \mnras, 356, 1409

616: 

617: \bibitem[Bennett \& Rhie(1996)]{bennett96}

618: Bennett, D.\ P., \& Rhie, S.\ H.\ 1996, \apj, 472, 660

619: 

620: \bibitem[Bolatto \& Falco(1994)]{bolatto94}

621: Bolatto, D.\ B., \& Falco, E.\ E.\ 1994, \apj, 436, 112

622: 

623: %\bibitem[Bond et al.(2002a)]{bond02}

624: %Bond, I., et al.\  2002a, \mnras, 330, 137

625: 

626: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2002)]{bond02}

627: Bond, I., et al.\  2002, \mnras, 331, L19

628: 

629: \bibitem[Chung et al.(2005)]{chung05}

630: Chung, S.\ J., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 630, 535

631: 

632: \bibitem[Dominik(1999)]{dominik99}

633: Dominik, M.\ 1999, \aap, 349, 108

634: 

635: \bibitem[Dominik et al.(2002)]{dominik02}

636: Dominik, M., et al.\ 2002, Planetary and Space Science, 50, 299

637: 

638: \bibitem[Gould \& Loeb(1992)]{gould92}

639: Gould, A., \& Loeb, A.\ 1992, \apj, 396, 104

640: 

641: \bibitem[Griest \& Safizadeh(1998)]{griest98}

642: Griest, K., \& Safizadeh, N.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 37

643: 

644: \bibitem[Gaudi \& Sackett(2000)]{gaudi00}

645: Gaudi, B.\ S., \& Sackett, P.\ D.\ 2000, \apj, 532, 340

646: 

647: \bibitem[Han(2006)]{han06}

648: Han, C.\ 2006, \apj, 638, 1080

649: 

650: \bibitem[Han \& Gould(2003)]{han03}

651: Han, C., \& Gould, A.\ 2003, \apj, 592, 172

652: 

653: \bibitem[Mao \& Paczy\'nski(1994)]{mao91}

654: Mao, S., \& Paczy\'nski, B.\ 1991, \apj, 374, L37

655: 

656: \bibitem[Peale(2001)]{peale01}

657: Peale, S.\ J.\ 2001, \apj, 552, 889

658: 

659: \bibitem[Tomaney \& Crotts(1996)]{tomaney96}

660: Tomaney, A.\ B., \& Crotts, A.\ P.\ S.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 2872

661: 

662: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(1994)]{udalski94}

663: Udalski, A., Szyma\'nski, M., Ka\l u\.zny, J., Kubiak, M., Mateo, M., 

664: Krzemi\'nski, W., \& Paczy\'nski, B.\ 1994, 44, 227

665: 

666: \bibitem[Yoo et al.(2004)]{yoo04}

667: Yoo, J., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 616, 1204

668: 

669: 

670: \end{thebibliography}

671: 

672: \end{document}

673: