1: % For ApJ submission -----------------------------------------
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\def\baselinestretch{1.3}
4:
5: \documentclass{emulateapj}
6: \usepackage{apjfonts}
7: \lefthead{LEE ET AL.}
8: \righthead{PLANETS IN BINARIES}
9:
10: %==== CUSTOMIZED LATEX MACROS ========================================
11:
12: \newcommand{\vect}[1]{\ensuremath{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}}
13: \newcommand{\zetavec}{\mbox{\boldmath $\zeta$}}
14:
15:
16: \newcommand{\te}{t_{\rm E}}
17: \newcommand{\re}{r_{\rm E}}
18: \newcommand{\rh}{r_{\rm H}}
19: \newcommand{\retilde}{\tilde{r}_{\rm E}}
20: \newcommand{\thetae}{\theta_{\rm E}}
21:
22:
23:
24: % Equation align
25: \def\eqalign#1{\null\,\vcenter{\openup\jot
26: \ialign{\strut\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$
27: \displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil \crcr#1\crcr}}\,}
28:
29: %=======================================================================
30:
31:
32: \begin{document}
33: \title{Microlensing Detections of Planets in Binary Stellar Systems}
34:
35:
36: \author{
37: Dong-Wook Lee\altaffilmark{1},
38: Chung-Uk Lee\altaffilmark{1},
39: Byeong-Gon Park\altaffilmark{1},
40: Sun-Ju Chung\altaffilmark{2},
41: Young-Soo Kim\altaffilmark{1},
42: Ho-Il Kim\altaffilmark{1},
43: Cheongho Han\altaffilmark{2, 3}
44: }
45: \altaffiltext{1}{Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, Hwaam-Dong,
46: Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 305-348, Korea}
47: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute for Basic Science Research, Program of Brain
48: Korea 21, Department of Physics, Chungbuk National University, Chongju
49: 361-763, Korea}
50: \altaffiltext{3}{Corresponding author}
51:
52:
53:
54: % ==================================================================
55:
56: %\submitted{Submitted to The Astrophysical Journal}
57:
58: \begin{abstract}
59: We demonstrate that microlensing can be used for detecting planets
60: in binary stellar systems. This is possible because in the
61: geometry of planetary binary systems where the planet orbits one of
62: the binary component and the other binary star is located at a large
63: distance, both planet and secondary companion produce perturbations
64: at a common region around the planet-hosting binary star and thus
65: the signatures of both planet and binary companion can be detected
66: in the light curves of high-magnification lensing events. We find
67: that identifying planets in binary systems is optimized when the
68: secondary is located in a certain range which depends on the type
69: of the planet. The proposed method can detect planets with masses
70: down to one tenth of the Jupiter mass in binaries with separations
71: $\lesssim 100$ AU. These ranges of planet mass and binary separation
72: are not covered by other methods and thus microlensing would be able
73: to make the planetary binary sample richer.
74: \end{abstract}
75:
76: \keywords{gravitational lensing -- planets and satellites: general}
77:
78:
79: \section{Introduction}
80:
81: A binary star system is the most common result of star formation
82: process. As the majority of stars belong to double or multiple
83: star systems \citep{duquennoy91, eggenberger04a}, it is important
84: to study the frequency of planets in binary systems and the properties
85: of these planets for better understanding of the process of planet
86: formation and evolution.
87:
88:
89: Planets in binaries have been discovered mainly through two channels.
90: The first one is to perform dedicated surveys looking for planets
91: in known visual or spectroscopic binaries \citep{konacki05, desidera06,
92: eggenberger06}. The second approach is to study the binarity of
93: the hosts of planets discovered in planet surveys \citep{patience02,
94: eggenberger04b}. We now know $\sim 40$ planets in binaries or
95: multiple systems.\footnote{See \citet{haghighipour06} for an
96: up-to-date list of planets in binary systems.} These systems are
97: mostly wide binaries with separations of several hundred to several
98: thousand AU.
99:
100:
101: However, the sample of planets in binaries is not still large enough
102: for the statistical analysis of their properties. This is because
103: binaries with separations $\lesssim 100$ AU are difficult targets
104: for radial velocity surveys, which is the most productive technique
105: among those currently being used for planet searches, and thus were
106: often rejected from the samples. In addition, due to the limitations
107: of the available observational techniques, most detected objects are
108: giant (Jupiter-like) planets, implying that the existence of smaller
109: mass planets in multiple star systems is still an open question.
110:
111:
112: In this paper, we demonstrate that microlensing technique can be
113: used for detecting planets in binary systems, especially for
114: low-mass planets in binaries with separations $\lesssim 70$ AU.
115: In the geometry of planets in binary systems where the planet orbits
116: one component of a binary and the other binary star is located at
117: a large distance, perturbations induced by the planet and binary
118: companion can occur in the same region around the planet-hosting
119: binary component. Then, the signatures of both planet and binary
120: companion can be identified in the light curve of a lensing event
121: produced by the source star's passage close to the star hosting the
122: planet.
123:
124:
125: The paper is organized as follows. In \S\ 2, we describe lensing
126: properties in various cases of lens geometry, including binary,
127: planetary, and triple lensing. In \S\ 3, we describe the channels
128: of lensing events from which planets in binaries can be detected.
129: We illustrate signatures of planets in binary stellar systems and
130: investigate the range of binary separations within which detections
131: of planets are optimized. We also discuss about possible complications
132: in the interpretation of the signals. We summarize and conclude
133: in \S\ 4.
134:
135:
136:
137:
138: % Figure 1 --------------------------------------------------------------
139: \begin{figure*}[ht]
140: \epsscale{0.92}
141: %\plotone{f1.eps}
142: \caption{\label{fig:one}
143: Magnification patterns of triple lens systems composed of a
144: planet and binary stars. The coordinates are centered at the
145: position of the planet-hosting star ({\it primary}) and the
146: $x$-axis is aligned with the line connecting the primary and
147: the other binary star ({\it secondary}). All lengths are in
148: units of the Einstein radius corresponding to the mass of the
149: primary star, $\theta_{\rm E,1}$. The secondary is on the
150: right side and the position angle of the planet measured from
151: the primary-secondary axis is $60^\circ$. The projected distances
152: of the planet ($\hat{s}_{\rm p}$) and secondary ($\hat{s}_{\rm b}$)
153: from the primary are marked in each panel. Note that notations
154: with the {\it hat} represent length scales normalized by
155: $\theta_{\rm E,1}$. Also marked are the mass ratios of the
156: planet-primary ($q_{\rm p}$) and secondary-primary ($q_{\rm b}$)
157: pairs. Panels in each {\it column} show the magnification
158: patterns of lens systems with a common planet but with different
159: separations to the secondary star. Panels in each {\it row}
160: show the cases where the size of the planet-induced caustic
161: $\Delta\xi_{\rm c,p}$ is two times smaller (upper row),
162: equivalent (middle row), and two times larger (lower row) than
163: the size of the secondary-induced caustic $\Delta\xi_{\rm c,b}$,
164: respectively. Brighter greyscale represents the region of higher
165: magnifications. The figures drawn in soild curves are the caustics.
166: The straight lines with arrows represent source trajectories and
167: the light curves of the resulting events are presented in the
168: corresponding panels of Figure~\ref{fig:three} (solid curves).
169: }\end{figure*}
170: % --------------------------------------------------------------------
171:
172:
173:
174: \section{Multiple Lensing}
175:
176: The lensing behavior of a planet in a binary stellar system requires
177: the formalism of a triple lens with two equivalent-mass components
178: and a very low-mass third body. If a source star is gravitationally
179: lensed by a lens system composed of $N$ point-masses, the equation
180: of lens mapping from the lens plane to the source plane (lens equation)
181: is expressed as \citep{witt90}
182: \begin{equation}
183: \zeta = z - \sum_{j=1}^N {m_j/M \over \bar{z}-\bar{z}_{{\rm L},j}},
184: \label{eq1}
185: \end{equation}
186: where $\zeta=\xi+i\eta$, $z_{{\rm L},j}=x_{{\rm L},j}+ iy_{{\rm L},j}$,
187: and $z=x+iy$ are the complex notations of the source, lens, and image
188: positions, respectively, $\bar{z}$ denotes the complex conjugate of
189: $z$, $m_j$ are the masses of the individual lens components, and
190: $M=\sum_j m_j$ is the total mass of the system. Here all lengths
191: are normalized to the Einstein radius corresponding to the total
192: mass of the lens system, i.e.
193: \begin{equation}
194: \thetae = \left[ {4GM\over c^2}
195: \left( {1\over D_{\rm L}} - {1\over D_{\rm S}} \right)
196: \right]^{1/2},
197: \label{eq2}
198: \end{equation}
199: where $D_{\rm L}$ and $D_{\rm S}$ are the distances to the lens and
200: source, respectively. Finding the locations of images for a given
201: positions of the lens and source requires inversion of the lens
202: equation. The lensing process conserves the source surface brightness
203: and thus the magnifications $A_i$ of the individual images correspond
204: to the ratios between the areas of the images and source. For each
205: image located at $z_i$, this ratio corresponds to the Jacobian of
206: the lens equation, i.e.
207: \begin{equation}
208: A_i = \left\vert \left( 1-{\partial\zeta\over\partial\bar{z}}
209: {\overline{\partial\zeta}\over\partial\bar{z}} \right)_{z=z_i}^{-1}
210: \right\vert.
211: \label{eq3}
212: \end{equation}
213: For Galactic microlensing events, the typical separation between
214: images is of the order of 0.1 mill-arcsec and thus the individual
215: images cannot be resolved. However, events can be noticed by
216: the variation of the source star flux \citep{paczynski86}, where
217: the magnification corresponds to the sum of the magnifications of
218: the individual images, i.e.\ $A=\sum_i A_i$.
219:
220:
221: For a single-lens case, the lens equation is simply inverted to
222: solve the image positions. This yields two images located at
223: \begin{equation}
224: {\bf u}_{{\rm I},\pm}={1\over 2}\left[ u \pm (u^2 +4)^{1/2}\right]
225: {{\bf u} \over u},
226: \label{eq4}
227: \end{equation}
228: where ${\bf u}=\zetavec-{\bf z}_{\rm L}$ is the separation
229: vector between the lens and source. The magnifications of the
230: individual images are
231: \begin{equation}
232: A_\pm= {1\over 2} \left[ {u^2+2\over u(u^2+4)^{1/2}} \pm 1 \right],
233: \label{eq5}
234: \end{equation}
235: yielding a total magnification of
236: \begin{equation}
237: A=A_{+} + A_{-}={u^2+2 \over u(u^2+4)^{1/2}}.
238: \label{eq6}
239: \end{equation}
240:
241:
242: If a lens system is composed of more than two masses, the lens
243: equation cannot be inverted algebraically. One way to investigate
244: the lensing optics for a multiple-lens system is expressing the
245: lens equation as a polynomial in $z$ and finding the image
246: positions by numerically solving the polynomial \citep{witt95}.
247: The advantage of this method is that it allows semi-analytic
248: description of the lensing behavior and saves computation
249: time. However, the order of the polynomial increases as $N^2+1$
250: and thus solving the polynomial becomes difficult as the number
251: of lenses increases. In this case, one can still obtain the
252: magnification patterns by using the inverse ray-shooting technique
253: \citep{schneider86, kayser86, wambsganss90}. In this method, a
254: large number of light rays are uniformly shot backwards from the
255: observer plane through the lens plane and then collected (binned)
256: in the source plane. Then, the magnification pattern is obtained
257: by the ratio of the surface brightness (i.e., the number of rays
258: per unit area) on the source plane to that on the observer plane.
259: Once the magnification pattern is constructed, the light curve
260: resulting from a particular source trajectory corresponds to the
261: one-dimensional cut through the constructed magnification pattern.
262: Although this methods requires a large amount of computation time
263: for the construction of the detailed magnification pattern, it
264: has the advantage that the lensing behavior can be investigated
265: regardless of the number of lenses.
266:
267:
268:
269: % Figure 2 --------------------------------------------------------------
270: \begin{figure*}[ht]
271: \epsscale{0.92}
272: %\plotone{f2.eps}
273: \caption{\label{fig:two}
274: Magnification patterns of lens systems composed of binary stars
275: but without planets. The notations are same as those in
276: Figure~\ref{fig:one}. The light curves resulting from the source
277: trajectories marked in the individual panels are presented in the
278: corresponding panels of Figure~\ref{fig:three} (dotted curves).
279: }\end{figure*}
280: % --------------------------------------------------------------------
281:
282:
283:
284:
285: The number of images, their locations, and the resulting magnification
286: pattern vary greatly depending on the number of lenses, their individual
287: mass fractions, and the geometry of the lens system. A multiple-lens
288: system has a maximum of $N^2+1$ images and a minimum of $N+1$ images.
289: One common important characteristic of multiple lensing is the formation
290: of caustics. Caustics represent the set of source positions at which
291: the magnification of a point source becomes infinite. For a binary-lens
292: case, the caustic form a single or multiple sets of closed curves each
293: of which is composed of concave curves (fold caustics) that meet at
294: points (cusps). Unlike the caustics of binary lensing, caustics of
295: multiple lensing can exhibit self-intersecting and nesting. The number
296: of images changes by a multiple of two as the source crosses a caustic
297: \citep{rhie97}.
298:
299:
300:
301: \section{Signatures of Planet and Binary Companion}
302:
303: \subsection{Perturbation Approach}
304:
305: We consider the geometry of planets in binary stellar systems where
306: the planet is orbiting one of the star in the binary and the other
307: binary star is located at a larger distance.\footnote{Some planets
308: are known to orbit around close binaries such as the planet orbiting
309: the pulsar binary PSR 1620-26 in the globular cluster M4
310: \citep{sigurdsson93}. The microlensing method is inefficient in
311: detecting planets in such systems and thus we do not consider this
312: geometry.} Hereafter we refer the star hosting the planet as
313: {\it primary} and the other binary star as {\it secondary}. In this
314: lens geometry, the resulting lensing behavior can be approximated as
315: the superposition of those of the binary lens pairs composed of the
316: primary-secondary stars and primary-planet. This is possible because
317: the lensing effects caused by the secondary star and the planet in
318: the region around the primary star are small and thus can be treated
319: as perturbations. For the primary-secondary pair, the effect of the
320: secondary is small because of the large distance to the secondary star
321: \citep{dominik99}. For the primary-planet pair, on the other hand,
322: the effect of the planet is small because of the small mass ratio of
323: the planet \citep{bozza99}.
324:
325:
326: % Figure 3 --------------------------------------------------------------
327: \begin{figure*}[ht]
328: \epsscale{0.92}
329: \plotone{f3.eps}
330: \caption{\label{fig:three}
331: Light curves of events resulting from the source star trajectories
332: marked on the magnification pattern maps in Figure~\ref{fig:one} and
333: \ref{fig:two}. Solid and dotted curves are the light curves with
334: and without the planet, respectively. For the construction of the
335: light curves, finite-source effect is taken into consideration by
336: assuming that the source star radius normalized by the Einstein
337: radius is $\rho_\star=0.002$. Time scale is normalized by the
338: Einstein time scale corresponding to the mass of the primary.
339: }\end{figure*}
340: % --------------------------------------------------------------------
341:
342:
343:
344:
345: In the limiting case of a binary lens where the projected separation
346: between the lens components is much larger than the Einstein radius,
347: the lensing behavior in the vicinity of the primary star is approximated
348: by the equation of the Chang-Refsdal lensing \citep{chang79, chang84,
349: dominik99}, i.e.
350: \begin{equation}
351: \hat{\zeta} = \hat{z} - {1\over \hat{z}} + \gamma \hat{z}.
352: \label{eq7}
353: \end{equation}
354: Here the notations with the `{\it hat}' represent length scales
355: normalized by the Einstein radius corresponding to the mass of
356: the primary star, $\theta_{{\rm E},1}=\theta_{\rm E}[m_1/(m_1+
357: m_2)]^{1/2}$, $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the masses of the primary and
358: companion stars, respectively, and $\gamma$ represents the shear
359: induced by the secondary star. The shear is related to the
360: binary parameters by
361: \begin{equation}
362: \gamma=
363: {q_{\rm b}\over \hat{s}_{\rm b}^2};
364: \qquad q_{\rm b}={m_2\over m_1},
365: \label{eq8}
366: \end{equation}
367: where $\hat{s}_{\rm b}$ is the separation between the binary stars
368: normalized by $\theta_{\rm E,1}$. The validity of equation~(\ref{eq7})
369: implies that if the binary separation is sufficiently wide ($s_{\rm b}
370: \gg 1.0$), the lensing behavior in the region around the primary star
371: can be approximated as that of a single point-mass lens superposed on
372: a uniform background shear $\gamma$. The result of the external shear
373: is manifested as the formation of a small caustic around the primary
374: with the shape of a hypocycloid with four cusps. The width of the
375: caustic as measured by the separation between the two cusps located
376: on the binary axis is
377: \begin{equation}
378: \Delta \xi_{\rm c,b} \simeq
379: {4\gamma\over (1-\gamma)^{1/2}}=
380: {4q_{\rm b}\over \hat{s}_{\rm b}^2} \left( 1+{q_{\rm b}
381: \over 2\hat{s}_{\rm b}^2}\right).
382: \label{eq9}
383: \end{equation}
384: The caustic is tiny for a wide-separation binary because its size
385: shrinks as $\Delta \xi_{\rm c,b} \propto \hat{s}_{\rm b}^{-2}$.
386: However, a perturbation can occur if the source trajectory approaches
387: close enough to the primary lens around which the caustic is located.
388: During the time of perturbation, the source star is close to the
389: primary lens and thus the magnification of the resulting event is
390: very high. Then, the signature of a wide-separation secondary is a
391: short-duration perturbation near the peak of the light curve of a
392: high-magnification event \citep{han03}.
393:
394:
395: Because of the small mass ratio of the planet, the light curve
396: of a planetary lensing event is also well described by that of
397: a single lens of the primary star for most of the event duration.
398: For a planetary case, there exist two sets of disconnected
399: caustics. Among them, one is located away from the primary star.
400: The other caustic, on the other hand, is located close to the
401: primary lens. The caustic located close to the primary (central
402: caustic) has a wedge-like shape and its size as measured by the
403: width along the star-planet axis \citep{chung05} is related to
404: the planet parameters by
405: \begin{equation}
406: \Delta \xi_{\rm c,p} \simeq {4q_{\rm p} \over
407: (s_{\rm p}-1/s_{\rm p})^2};\qquad
408: q_{\rm p}={m_{\rm p}\over m_1},
409: \label{eq10}
410: \end{equation}
411: where $s_{\rm p}$ is the separation between the primary and planet
412: measured in units of $\theta_{\rm E}$ and $m_{\rm p}$ is the mass
413: of the planet. We note that for the case of a planetary lensing
414: where $q_{\rm p}\ll 1.0$, $\theta_{\rm E} \sim \theta_{\rm E,1}$
415: and thus $s_{\rm p}\sim \hat{s}_{\rm p}$. The size of the caustics
416: is maximized when the planet is located close to the Einstein ring
417: of the primary star, $s_{\rm p}\sim 1.0$. Since the central caustic
418: is located close to the primary lens, the perturbation region around
419: the central caustic induced by the planet overlaps with the perturbation
420: region induced by the wide-separation binary companion.
421:
422:
423:
424:
425:
426: \subsection{Optimal Lens Geometry}
427:
428: Because the planet-induced perturbation region overlaps with the
429: perturbation region caused by a wide-separation secondary, the
430: deviation induced by the planet can be additionally perturbed
431: by the binary companion. This makes it possible to use the
432: microlensing technique as a tool to identify planets in binary
433: systems.
434:
435:
436: To illustrate the feasibility of the microlensing detection of planets
437: in binary stars, we present magnification patterns of triple lens
438: systems composed of a planet and binary stars in Figure~\ref{fig:one}.
439: In each map, the coordinates are centered at the position of the
440: primary and the $x$-axis is aligned with the primary-secondary axis.
441: Since the perturbation occurs near the peak of a seemingly single-lens
442: event caused by the primary, we normalize all lengths in units of
443: the Einstein radius corresponding to the mass of the primary star.
444: The secondary is on the right side and the position angle of the
445: planet measured from the primary-secondary axis is $60^\circ$.
446: The separations to the planet ($\hat{s}_{\rm p}$) and secondary
447: ($\hat{s}_{\rm b}$) are marked in each panel. Also marked are the
448: mass ratios of the planet-primary ($q_{\rm p}$) and secondary-primary
449: ($q_{\rm b}$) pairs. Panels in each {\it column} show the magnification
450: patterns of lens systems with a common planet but with different
451: projected distances to the secondary star. Panels in each {\it row}
452: show the cases where the size of the planet-induced caustic $\Delta
453: \xi_{\rm c,p}$ is two times smaller (upper row), equivalent (middle
454: row), and two times larger (lower row) than the size of the
455: secondary-induced caustic $\Delta\xi_{\rm c,b}$, respectively.
456: Brighter greyscale represents the region of higher magnifications.
457: The figures drawn in solid curves represent the caustics. Note that
458: the caustic curves exhibit self-intersecting and nesting, that are
459: the characteristics of multiple lensing. In Figure~\ref{fig:two}, we
460: also present maps of binary lenses without planet for the comparison
461: of the patterns with the triple-lens systems. The straight lines
462: with arrows in the magnification pattern maps represent source
463: trajectories and the light curves of the resulting events are presented
464: in the corresponding panels of Figure~\ref{fig:three}. Since both
465: caustics induced by the planet and secondary companion are small,
466: finite size of the source star would be important in lensing light
467: curves. We therefore consider the finite-source effect by assuming
468: that the source star has a radius equivalent to the Sun, i.e. $r_\star
469: =1\ R_\odot$. For a typical Galactic event caused by a low-mass
470: stellar object of $m_1=0.3\ M_\odot$ and with distances to the lens
471: and source stars of $D_{\rm L}=6$ kpc and $D_{\rm L}=8$ kpc, respectively,
472: the angular Einstein radius is $\theta_{\rm E} =0.32$ mas and the
473: radius of the source star normalized to the Einstein radius is
474: $\rho_\star \sim 0.002$. For other combinations of the lens and
475: source parameters, the normalized source size is
476: \begin{equation}
477: \rho_\star = 0.0009 \left( {r_\star\over R_\odot}\right)
478: \left( {0.3\ M_\odot\over M}\right)^{1/2}
479: \left( {D_{\rm L}\over 6\ {\rm kpc}}\right)^{1/2}
480: \left( 1-{D_{\rm L}\over D_{\rm S}}\right)^{-1/2}.
481: \label{eq11}
482: \end{equation}
483: For the construction of the magnification maps and light curves,
484: we use the inverse ray-shooting technique due to the difficulty in
485: solving tenth-order triple-lens polynomial lens equation incorporating
486: finite-source effect.
487:
488:
489:
490: % Figure 4 --------------------------------------------------------------
491: \begin{figure}[t]
492: \epsscale{1.2}
493: \plotone{f4.eps}
494: \caption{\label{fig:four}
495: Size ratio between the caustics induced by the planet ($\Delta
496: \xi_{\rm c,p}$) and secondary companion ($\Delta \xi_{\rm c,b}$)
497: in triple lens systems composed of a planet and binary stars as
498: a function of the separation between the primary and secondary
499: star. The shaded area represents the region where the ratio is
500: $1/3\leq \Delta \xi_{\rm c,b}/\Delta\xi_{\rm c,p} \leq 3$.
501: The binary separation $\hat{s}_{\rm b}$ is normalized by the Einstein
502: radius corresponding to the mass of the primary star. To draw the
503: curve, we adopt a distance to the planet of $\hat{s}_{\rm p}=1.2$
504: and a secondary/primary mass ratio of $q_{\rm b}=0.5$ as representative
505: values. Note that notations with {\it hat} represent length scales
506: normalized to the Einstein radius corresponding to the mass of the
507: planet-hosting star.
508: }\end{figure}
509: % --------------------------------------------------------------------
510:
511:
512:
513: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
514: \tablecaption{Optimal Binary Separation\label{table:one}}
515: \tablewidth{0pt}
516: \tablehead{
517: \multicolumn{1}{c}{planet} &
518: \multicolumn{2}{c}{optimal range of secondary separation} \\
519: \multicolumn{1}{c}{mass ratio} &
520: \multicolumn{1}{c}{normalized unit} &
521: \multicolumn{1}{c}{physical unit}
522: }
523: \startdata
524: $5.0\times 10^{-3}$ & $2.1\lesssim \hat{s}_{\rm b}\lesssim 6.7$ & $4.2\ {\rm AU}\lesssim d_{\rm b} \lesssim 13.4\ {\rm AU}$ \\
525: $1.0\times 10^{-3}$ & $4.8\lesssim \hat{s}_{\rm b}\lesssim 14.2$ & $9.2\ {\rm AU}\lesssim d_{\rm b} \lesssim 28.4\ {\rm AU}$ \\
526: \smallskip
527: $5.0\times 10^{-4}$ & $6.7\lesssim \hat{s}_{\rm b}\lesssim 20.1$ & $13.4\ {\rm AU}\lesssim d_{\rm b} \lesssim 65.2\ {\rm AU}$
528: \enddata
529: \tablecomments{
530: Ranges of binary separation for optimal microlensing detections
531: of planets in binaries. Here $\hat{s}_{\rm b}$ represents the
532: binary separation normalized by the Einstein radius corresponding
533: to the mass of the planet-hosting star. The physical separation
534: $d_{\rm b}$ is determined by assuming that the physical Einstein
535: radius is $r_{\rm E}=2.0$ AU.
536: }
537: \end{deluxetable}
538:
539:
540: From the figures, one finds that the magnification pattern of the
541: binary star with a planet is different from either the primary-secondary
542: or primary-planet pair and thus the resulting light curve can produce
543: distinctive signatures in the lensing light curves. One also finds
544: that identifying planets in binary systems is optimized when the
545: secondary is located in a certain range of separation from the primary.
546: This optimal separation range varies depending on the type of the
547: planet. To produce noticeable planetary signature, planets should be
548: located close to the Einstein ring of the primary star. Under this
549: lens geometry, if the secondary is located not far enough from the
550: primary, the perturbation induced by the secondary dominates over the
551: planet-induced perturbation. If the secondary is located too far away
552: from the primary, on the contrary, its signature would be too small
553: to be noticed. Then, identifying the signatures of both planet and
554: secondary would be optimized when the companion is located at a
555: separation where the amount of secondary-induced perturbation is
556: equivalent to that of the planet-induced perturbation. When the
557: planet is located within this optimal range, we find that planets
558: can be detected with mass ratios down to $q\sim 5\times 10^{-4}$,
559: which corresponds to one tenth of the mass of the Jupiter.
560:
561:
562: In Figure~\ref{fig:four}, we present the size ratio between the
563: caustics induced by the planet and secondary companion as a function
564: of the binary separation. The curves with different line types show
565: the ratios for planets with different mass ratios. To draw the curve,
566: we adopt a planetary separation of $\hat{s}_{\rm p}=1.2$ and a binary
567: mass ratio of $q_{\rm b}=0.5$ as representative values. The shaded
568: area represents the region where the sizes of the two caustics induced
569: by the planet and secondary are comparable and thus the chance of
570: detecting the signatures of both planet and secondary is relatively
571: high. In Table~\ref{table:one}, we also present the optimal range of
572: binary separations both in normalized and physical units. The physical
573: separation is determined by assuming that the physical Einstein radius
574: is $r_{\rm E}=D_{\rm L} \theta_{\rm E} =2.0$ AU. We find that although
575: varies depending on the planet type, the optimal range of the binary
576: separation for planet detection is $\lesssim 70$ AU. Binaries
577: with separations in this range is not being covered by the current
578: radial velocity method.
579:
580:
581:
582:
583: \subsection{Interpretation of Signatures}
584:
585: Since the perturbations caused by the planet and the wide-separation
586: binary companion occur in a common region and at a similar location of
587: the lensing light curve, one might question whether the light curve
588: produced by a binary lens with a planet could be mimicked by that of
589: a simple binary-lens or a single planetary event by appropriate
590: modification of the lens parameters. However, we note that although
591: the perturbation regions induced by the planet and the companion are
592: similar, they are not identical. As a result, the characteristic
593: shape of the perturbation such as the multiple-peak features shown
594: in Figure~\ref{fig:three} cannot be produced by a single companion.
595:
596:
597: Another related question would be whether the light curve could be
598: mimicked by that of an event caused by a single stellar lens with
599: multiple planets \citep{gaudi98}. In this case, the light curve can
600: exhibit multiple-peak features. However, the perturbations induced
601: by planets in general have different characteristics from those
602: induced by wide-separation companions and the two different types of
603: perturbation can be well distinguished as demonstrated in practice
604: for the case of the lensing event MACHO 99-BLG-47 \citep{albrow02}.
605: In addition, the individual perturbations are in many cases well
606: separated, allowing investigation of the individual perturbations
607: \citep{han05}. Therefore, it would be possible to distinguish the
608: two possible degenerate cases.
609:
610:
611:
612:
613: \section{Conclusion}
614:
615: We demonstrated that microlensing technique can be used for
616: the detections of planets in binary stellar systems, especially
617: for low-mass planets in binaries with small separations. The
618: signatures of both planet and binary companion can be detected
619: in the light curve of a high-magnification lensing event.
620: High-magnification events are the prime target of high-cadence
621: follow-up microlensing observations currently being conducted to
622: search for extrasolar planets \citep{abe04, cassan04, park04}
623: and two planets were actually detected through this channel
624: \citep{udalski05, gould06}. We found that identifying planets
625: in binary systems is optimized when the secondary is located in
626: a certain range which depends on the type of the planet. The
627: proposed method can detect planets with masses down to one tenth
628: of the Jupiter mass in binaries with binary separations $\lesssim
629: 100$ AU. These ranges of planet mass and binary separation are
630: not covered by other methods and thus microlensing would be able
631: to make the planetary binary sample richer.
632:
633:
634:
635:
636: \acknowledgments
637:
638: D-WL, C-UL, Y-SK, and H-IK acknowledge the support from Korea
639: Astronomy and Space Science Institute. CH and B-GP are supported
640: by the grant (KRF-2006-311-C00072) of the Korea Research Foundation.
641: We would like to thank M. Dominik for making helpful comments
642: on the paper.
643:
644: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
645: \frenchspacing
646:
647: \bibitem[Abe et al.(2004)]{abe04}
648: Abe, F., et al.\ 2004, Science, 305, 1264
649:
650: \bibitem[Albrow et al.(2002)]{albrow02}
651: Albrow, M. D., et al.\ 2002, \apj, 572, 1031
652:
653: \bibitem[Bozza(1999)]{bozza99}
654: Bozza, V.\ 1999, \aap, 348, 311
655:
656: \bibitem[Cassan et al.(2004)]{cassan04}
657: Cassan, A., et al.\ 2004, \aap, 419, L1
658:
659: \bibitem[Chang \& Refsdal(1979)]{chang79}
660: Chang, K., \& Refsdal, S.\ 1979, Nature, 282, 561
661:
662: \bibitem[Chang \& Refsdal(1984)]{chang84}
663: Chang, K., \& Refsdal, S.\ 1984, \aap, 132, 168
664:
665: \bibitem[Chung et al.(2005)]{chung05}
666: Chung, S.-J., et al.\ 2005, ApJ, 630, 535
667:
668: \bibitem[Desidera et al.(2006)]{desidera06}
669: Desidera, S., et al. 2006, Proc. of the conference Tenth Anniversary
670: of 51 Peg-b: Status of and Prospects for Hot Jupiter Studies, 119
671:
672: \bibitem[Dominik(1999)]{dominik99}
673: Dominik, M.\ 1999, \aap, 349, 108
674:
675: \bibitem[Duquennoy \& Mayor (1991)]{duquennoy91}
676: Duquennoy, A., \& Mayor, M. 1991, \aap, 248, 485
677:
678: \bibitem[Eggenberger et al.(2004)]{eggenberger04a}
679: Eggenberger, A., Halbwachs, J., Udry, S., \& Mayor, M. 2004,
680: Proc. of IAU Colloquium 191, 21, 28
681:
682: \bibitem[Eggenberger et al.(2004)]{eggenberger04b}
683: Eggenberger, A., Udry, S., \& Mayor, M. 2004, \aap, 417, 353
684:
685: \bibitem[Eggenberger et al.(2006)]{eggenberger06}
686: Eggenberger, A., Mayor, M., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D.,
687: Santos, N. C., Udry, S., \& Lovis, C.\ 2006, \aap, 447, 1159
688:
689: \bibitem[Gaudi et al.(1998)]{gaudi98}
690: Gaudi, B. S., Naber, R. M., \& Sackett, P. D.\ 1998, \apj, 502, L33
691:
692: \bibitem[Gould et al.(2006)]{gould06}
693: Gould, A., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 644, L37
694:
695: \bibitem[Haghighipour(2006)]{haghighipour06}
696: Haghighipour, N. 2006, \apj, 644, 543
697:
698: \bibitem[Han(2005)]{han05}
699: Han, C.\ 2005, \apj, 629, 1102
700:
701: \bibitem[Han \& Kang(2003)]{han03}
702: Han, C., \& Kang, Y.\ W.\ 2003, \apj, 596, 1320
703:
704: \bibitem[Kayser, Refsdal \& Stabell(1986)]{kayser86}
705: Kayser R., Refsdal S., \& Stabell R.\ 1986, \aap, 166, 36
706:
707: \bibitem[Konacki(2005)]{konacki05}
708: Konacki, M. 2005, Nature, 436, 230
709:
710: \bibitem[Paczy\'nski(1986)]{paczynski86}
711: Paczy\'nski, B.\ 1986, 304, 1
712:
713: \bibitem[Park et al.(2004)]{park04}
714: Park, B.-G., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 609, 166
715:
716: \bibitem[Patience et al.(2002)]{patience02}
717: Patience, J., et al. 2002, \apj, 581, 654
718:
719: \bibitem[Rhie(1997)]{rhie97}
720: Rhie, S.\ H.\ 1997, \apj, 484, 63
721:
722: \bibitem[Schneider \& Weiss(1986)]{schneider86}
723: Schneider P., \& Weiss A.\ 1986, \aap, 164, 237
724:
725: \bibitem[Sigurdsson(1993)]{sigurdsson93}
726: Sigurdsson, S.\ 1993, \apj, 415, L43
727:
728: \bibitem[Wambsganss, Paczy\'nski \& Schneider(1990)]{wambsganss90}
729: Wambsganss J., Paczy\'nski B., \& Schneider P.\ 1990, \apj, 358, L33
730:
731: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(2005)]{udalski05}
732: Udalski, A., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 628, L109
733:
734: \bibitem[Witt(1990)]{witt90}
735: Witt, H.\ J.\ 1990, \aap, 236, 311
736:
737: \bibitem[Witt \& Mao(1995)]{witt95}
738: Witt, H.\ J., \& Mao, S.\ 1995, \apj, 447, L105
739:
740:
741: \end{thebibliography}
742:
743: \end{document}
744: