1: %machos/mufun/05/ob071/letter16.tex

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

3: %\documentclass{emulateapj}

4: %\usepackage{lscape}

5: 

6: 

7: %\received{}

8: %\accepted{}

9: %\journalid{}{}

10: %\articleid{}{}

11: 

12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

13: % Be careful when : arXive <---> preprint

14: % 

15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

16: 

17: \newcommand{\msun}{{\rm \ M_\odot}}

18: %\newcommand{\bdv}[1]{{\bf{\textit{#1}}}}

19: \newcommand{\bdv}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}

20: \newcommand{\bd}[1]{{\rm #1}}

21: \def\au{{\rm AU}} 

22: \def\kms{{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}

23: \def\kpc{{\rm kpc}}

24: \def\pc{{\rm pc}}

25: \def\orb{{\rm orb}}

26: 

27: \begin{document}

28: \title{Hexadecapole Approximation in Planetary Microlensing}

29: 

30: \author{Andrew Gould}

31: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Ohio State University,

32: 140 W.\ 18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210, USA; 

33: gould@astronomy.ohio-state.edu}

34: 

35: \begin{abstract}

36: The frequency of microlensing planet detections, particularly

37: in difficult-to-model high-magnification events, is increasing.

38: Their analysis can require tens of thousands of processor hours

39: or more, primarily because of the high density and high precision

40: of measurements whose modeling requires time-consuming finite-source 

41: calculations.  I show that a large fraction of these measurements,

42: those that lie at least one source diameter from a caustic or the

43: extension from a cusp,

44: can be modeled using a very simple hexadecapole approximation,

45: which is one to several orders of magnitude faster than full-fledged

46: finite-source calculations.  Moreover,

47: by restricting the regions that actually require finite-source

48: calculations to a few isolated ``caustic features'',

49: the hexadecapole approximation will, for the first time, 

50: permit the powerful ``magnification-map''

51: approach to be applied to events for which the planet's orbital motion

52: is important.

53: 

54: 

55: 

56: \end{abstract}

57: 

58: \keywords{gravitational lensing -- planetary systems -- methods numerical}

59: 

60: 

61: 

62: \section{{Introduction}

63: \label{sec:intro}}

64: 

65: Microlensing planets are being discovered at an accelerating rate,

66: with one being reported in 2003 \citep{ob03235}, 

67: three in 2005 \citep{ob05071,ob05390,ob05169}, two in 2006

68: \citep{gaudi08}, and perhaps as

69: many as six in 2007.  It has been a huge challenge for modelers to

70: keep up with these discoveries, in large part because the computing

71: requirements are often daunting: the parameter space is large, the

72: $\chi^2$ surface is complex and generally contains multiple minima,

73: and the magnification calculations are computationally intensive.  

74: Proper treatment of individual events can require tens of 

75: thousands processor hours, or more.  Indeed, some potential planetary 

76: events have still not been fully modeled because of computational 

77: challenges.

78: 

79: Planetary microlensing events are recognized through two

80: broad channels, one in which

81: the lightcurve perturbation is generated by the so-called ``planetary caustic''

82: that is directly associated with the planet \citep{gouldloeb92} and the

83: other in which it is generated by the ``central

84: caustic'' that is associated with the host star \citep{griestsafi}.

85: The former events are relatively easy to analyze and indeed the event

86: parameters can be estimated reasonably well by inspection of the lightcurve.

87: The latter events are generally much more difficult. 

88: 

89: There are several interrelated reasons for this.  First, planets anywhere

90: in the system can perturb the central caustic.  This is why these events are

91: avidly monitored, but by the same token it is often not obvious

92: without an exhaustive search which planetary geometry 

93: or geometries are responsible for the perturbation.

94: Second, this very fact implies that several members of a multi-planet

95: system can be detected in central-caustic events \citep{gaudi98}.

96: Multiple planets create a larger, more complicated parameter space,

97: which can increase the computation time by a large factor.

98: Even if there are no obvious perturbations caused by a second planet,

99: an exhaustive search should be conducted to at least place upper limits

100: on their presence.  Third, if the source probes the central caustic, it

101: is ipso facto highly magnified.  Such events are brighter and more 

102: intensively monitored than typical events and so have more and higher-quality

103: data.  While such excellent data are of course a boon to planet searches,

104: they also require more and more-accurate computations, which requires

105: more computing time.  Fourth, central-caustic planetary events are basically

106: detectable in proportion to the size of the caustic, which roughly

107: scales $\propto q/|b-1|$, where $q$ is the planet/star mass ratio

108: and $b$ is the planet-star separation in units of the Einstein ring.

109: Thus, these events are heavily biased toward planets with characteristics

110: that make the caustic big.  Such big caustics can undergo subtle changes

111: as the planet orbits its host, and in principle these effects can be

112: measured, thus constraining the planet's properties.  Exploration of these

113: subtle variations requires substantial additional computing time.

114: Finally, there is also a bias toward long events, simply because

115: these unfold more slowly and so increase the chance that they will

116: be recognized in time to monitor them intensively over the peak.

117: Such long events often display lightcurve distortions in their wings

118: due to the Earth's orbital motion which, if measured, can further

119: constrain the planet properties.  However, probing this effect (called

120: ``microlens parallax'') requires yet another expansion of parameter space.

121: Moreover, the ``parallax'' signal must be distinguished from ``xallarap''

122: (effects of the source orbiting a companion), whose description

123: requires a yet larger expansion of parameter space.

124: 

125: There are two broad classes of binary-lens (or triple-lens)

126: magnification calculations: point-source and finite-source.  The

127: former can be used whenever the magnification is essentially constant

128: (or more precisely, well-characterized by a linear gradient) over

129: face of the source, while the latter must be used when this condition

130: fails.  Point-source magnifications can be derived from the solution

131: of a 5th (or 10th) order complex polynomial equation and are

132: computationally very fast.  When the point-source is well separated

133: from the caustics (as it must be to satisfy the linear-gradient condition)

134: then this calculation is also extremely robust and accurate.  

135: 

136: The main computational challenge in modeling planetary events comes

137: from the finite-source calculations.  Almost all integration schemes

138: use inverse-ray shooting, which avoids all the pathologies of the caustics

139: by performing an integration over the {\it image} plane (where the

140: rays behave smoothly) and simply asks which of the rays land on the

141: source.  The problem is that a large number of rays must be ``shot''

142: to obtain an accurate estimate of the magnification, which implies that

143: high-quality data demand proportionately longer computations.  Of course,

144: the higher the magnification, the larger the images, and so the more

145: rays are required.  There are various schemes to expedite inverse

146: ray-shooting, including clever algorithms for identifying the regions

147: that must be ``shot'' and pixelation of the source plane.  The

148: bottom line is, however, that the overwhelming majority of computation

149: time is spent on finite-source calculations.

150: 

151: Here I present a third class of binary-lens (or triple-lens) computation

152: that is intermediate between the two classes just described:

153: the hexadecapole approximation.  \citet{pejcha07} expand 

154: finite-source magnification to hexadecapole order and illustrate that

155: the quadrupole term by itself can give quite satisfactory numerical results.

156: In this paper, I develop a simple prescription for evaluating this

157: expansion.  While this algorithm

158: is about 10 times slower than point-source

159: calculations, it is one to several orders of magnitude faster than

160: finite-source calculations.  The method can be applied whenever

161: the source center is at least two source radii from a caustic

162: or the extension from a cusp.

163: Typically, well over half the non-point-source points satisfy this

164: condition, meaning that the method can reduce computation times by

165: a factor of several.  Moreover, by isolating the small regions of the 

166: lightcurve where finite-source calculations must be used, the method opens 

167: up the possibility that the finite-source computations themselves 

168: can be radically expedited for the special, but very interesting, class

169: of events in which planetary orbital motion is measured.

170: 

171: \section{Hexadecapole Approximation}

172: 

173: If the source does not straddle a caustic, then the magnification field 

174: can be Taylor expanded around the source center $(x_0,y_0)$ as a function of

175: coordinate position $(x,y)$ (all distances being expressed in units

176: of the Einstein radius),

177: \begin{equation}

178: A(x,y) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{i=0}^n A_{ni} (x-x_0)^i (y-y_0)^{n-i}.

179: \label{eqn:axy}

180: \end{equation}

181: We wish to evaluate $A_{\rm finite}(\rho)$, the magnification of a 

182: source of radius $\rho$,

183: \begin{equation}

184: A_{\rm finite}(\rho,x_0,y_0) 

185: \equiv {\int_0^\rho dw\,\int_0^{2\pi} d\eta \,A(w,\eta)\over \pi\rho^2},

186: \label{eqn:afinite0}

187: \end{equation}

188: in terms of the $A_{ni}$.  Here $(w,\eta)$ are polar coordinates:

189: $(w\cos\eta,w\sin\eta) \equiv (x-x_0,y-y_0)$.

190: To do so, we first average $A(x,y)$

191: over a ring of radius $w$ and obtain,

192: \begin{equation}

193: A(w) = {\int_0^{2\pi} d\eta\,A(w\cos\eta,w\sin\eta)\over 2\pi}

194: = A_0 + A_2 w^2 + A_4 w^4 + \ldots

195: \label{eqn:aofz}

196: \end{equation}

197: where

198: \begin{equation}

199: A_0\equiv A_{00};\qquad

200: A_2\equiv {A_{20} + A_{22}\over 2};\qquad

201: A_4\equiv {3A_{40} + A_{42} + 3A_{44}\over 8}.

202: \label{eqn:adefs}

203: \end{equation}

204: 

205: To evaluate $A_{\rm finite}$ in terms of $A_0$, 

206: $A_2$, $A_4\ldots$, we must

207: first specify a limb-darkening law for the surface

208: brightness $S(w)$, which for simplicity we take to be linear,

209: \begin{equation}

210: S(w)= \biggl[1 - \Gamma

211: \Biggl(1 - {3\over 2}\sqrt{1 - {w^2\over\rho^2}}\Biggr)\Biggr]

212: {F\over \pi\rho^2},

213: \label{eqn:limbdarken}

214: \end{equation}

215: where $\Gamma$ is the limb-darkening coefficient and $F$ is the

216: source flux.

217: We then substitute into equation (\ref{eqn:aofz}) to obtain

218: \begin{equation}

219: A_{\rm finite} \equiv {\int_0^\rho dw\,2\pi w\,A(w)S(w)\over F}

220: = A_0 + {A_2\rho^2\over 2}\biggl(1 - {1\over 5}\Gamma\biggr)

221: + {A_4\rho^4\over 3}\biggl(1 - {11\over 35}\Gamma\biggr) + \ldots

222: \label{eqn:afinite}

223: \end{equation}

224: Note that the ``limb-darkening factors'' in parentheses are

225: simply $(2\pi/F)\int_0^\rho dw\,S(w)w^{2n+1}$ \citep{pejcha07}, 

226: and therefore do not

227: depend on the magnification in any way.  Hence, for any given

228: adopted limb-darkening profile, these can be calculated just once.

229: 

230: Let us now assume that the field is adequately described by a 

231: hexadecapole.  Averaging over the four points on a $w$-ring that

232: are shifted by an arbitrary angle $\phi$ relative the cardinal directions,

233: we obtain

234: $$

235: A_{w,+} \equiv 

236: %{A(z\cos\phi,z\sin\phi)+

237: %A(-z\sin\phi,z\cos\phi)+

238: %A(-z\cos\phi,-z\sin\phi)+

239: %A(z\sin\phi,-z\cos\phi)\over 4} - A_0 

240: {1\over 4}\sum_{j=0}^3 A\biggl[w\cos\biggl(\phi+j{\pi\over 2}\biggr),

241: w\sin\biggl(\phi+j{\pi\over 2}\biggr)\biggr] - A_0

242: $$

243: \begin{equation}

244: = A_2 w^2 + {(A_{40}+A_{44})(1+\cos^2 2\phi)+ A_{42}\sin^2 2\phi\over 4}w^4,

245: \label{eqn:oplus}

246: \end{equation}

247: while rotating this geometry by $\pi/4$ gives,

248: \begin{equation}

249: A_{w,\times} 

250: = A_2 w^2 + {(A_{40}+A_{44})(1+\sin^2 2\phi)+ A_{42}\cos^2 2\phi\over 4}w^4.

251: %{A_{40} + A_{42} + A_{44}\over 8}w^4.

252: \label{eqn:otimes}

253: \end{equation}

254: For a given source of size $\rho$ and position $(x_0,y_0)$,

255: one can therefore

256: determine $A_0$, $A_{\rho,+}$, $A_{\rho/2,+}$, and $A_{\rho,\times}$,

257: from a total of 13 point-source calculations, 

258: and thus derive

259: \begin{equation}

260: A_2\rho^2 = {16 A_{\rho/2,+} -A_{\rho,+}\over 3},

261: \qquad

262: A_4\rho^4 = {A_{\rho,+} + A_{\rho,\times}\over 2} - A_2\rho^2,

263: \label{eqn:a2a4}

264: \end{equation}

265: which can then be substituted 

266: into equation (\ref{eqn:afinite}) to

267: obtain $A_{\rm finite}(\rho,x_0,y_0)$.

268: 

269: 

270: 

271: 

272: {\section{Range of Validity}

273: \label{sec:valid}}

274: 

275: Clearly, this approximation cannot be used when the source 

276: lies on a caustic, but how close can the source be before

277: the approximation breaks down?  The breakdown will be driven by the leading

278: term of the caustic's singularity, so it is sufficient to

279: examine idealized cases whose leading-order behavior is the

280: same as that of real caustics.  More formally, one can write the 

281: magnification field as the linear sum of an idealized singularity and

282: a more complicated, but well-behaved field.   Only the former will

283: contribute to the breakdown of the approximation.

284: Since equations (\ref{eqn:afinite}), (\ref{eqn:oplus}), (\ref{eqn:otimes}), 

285: and (\ref{eqn:a2a4})

286: are strictly linear, this decomposition is absolutely rigorous.

287: Caustic singularities come in two basic

288: varieties, fold caustics and cusps.  The former diverge

289: as $(\Delta u_\perp)^{-1/2}$ as one approaches the caustic from

290: the inside, where $\Delta u_\perp$ is the perpendicular

291: distance to the fold.  The latter are much more complex.  They

292: diverge as $(\Delta u)^{-1}$ in the immediate neighborhood of the

293: cusp as one approaches it from the outside.  However, at greater

294: distances, they develop into long ``fingers'' \citep{gouldloeb92,pejcha07}.

295: 

296: {\subsection{Fold Caustic}

297: \label{sec:fold}}

298: 

299: For simplicity, I consider a uniform source

300: that lies a distance $z\rho$ (where $\rho$ is the source radius) 

301: from the fold.  I begin by assuming that the magnification is dominated by 

302: the two ``new images'' that meet on the critical curve.  I then discuss

303: how the result is changed when this assumption is relaxed.

304: The magnified flux is then given by

305: \begin{equation}

306: {A(z)\over A_0} = {2\over \pi}\int_{-1}^1 d x \sqrt{1-x^2\over 1 + x/z}=

307: {2\over \pi}\int_{-1}^1 d x \sqrt{1-x^2}\sum_{m=0}^\infty

308: {(2m-1)!!\over 2^m m!}\biggl({x\over z}\biggr)^m,

309: \label{eqn:fold1}

310: \end{equation}

311: which after some algebra [e.g., 

312: $\int_0^1 dy y^m(1-y)^n=m!n!/(m+n+1)!$], 

313: simplifies to

314: \begin{equation}

315: {A(z)\over A_0} =\sum_{n=0}^\infty 

316: {(4n-1)!!(2n-1)!!\over 2^{3n}(2n)!(n+1)!}z^{-2n},

317: \label{eqn:fold4}

318: \end{equation}

319: where $n = m/2$.  That is,

320: \begin{equation}

321: {A(z)\over A_0} = 1 

322: + {3\over 2^5}z^{-2}

323: + {35\over 2^{10}}z^{-4}

324: + {1155\over 2^{16}}z^{-6}

325: + {45045\over 2^{22}}z^{-8} + \ldots

326: \label{eqn:fold5}

327: \end{equation}

328: Hence the error due to the hexadecapole approximation is

329: \begin{equation}

330: {\Delta A(z)\over A_0} = {1155\over 2^{16}}z^{-6} = 2.8\times 10^{-4}

331: \biggl({z\over 2}\biggr)^{-6}.

332: \label{eqn:fold6}

333: \end{equation}

334: 

335: If one is ``sufficiently near'' a fold caustic, the magnification

336: will always be dominated by the two ``new images''.  However,

337: for planetary caustics, this will generally no longer be the case even at

338: one or two source radii from the caustic.  The net effect is to ``dilute''

339: the caustic divergence and so to make the the

340: hexadecapole approximation valid at even closer separations than

341: indicated by equation (\ref{eqn:fold6}).  See \S~\ref{sec:example}.

342: 

343: \subsection{{Cusp}

344: \label{sec:cusp}}

345: 

346: For simplicity, I analyze the case of a $(\Delta u)^{-1}$ divergence

347: and then discuss how the results may be expected to change for real

348: cusps.  In this case, we have

349: %\begin{equation}

350: $$

351: {A(z)\over A_0} = {1\over 2\pi}\int_0^1 dx^2\int_0^{2\pi}d\theta

352: \biggl(1 + {2x\cos\theta\over z} + {x^2\over z^2}\biggr)^{-1/2}

353: $$

354: %\label{eqn:point1}

355: %\end{equation}

356: \begin{equation}

357: = {1\over 2\pi}\int_0^1 dx^2\int_0^{2\pi}d\theta

358: \sum_{m=0}^\infty (-1)^m{(2m-1)!!\over m! 2^m}\sum_{i=0}^m C^m_i

359: \biggl({2x\cos\theta\over z}\biggr)^i\biggl({x^2\over z^2}\biggr)^{m-i},

360: \label{eqn:point2}

361: \end{equation}

362: which after some algebra [e.g.,

363: $\langle (2\cos\theta)^{2k}\rangle = C^{2k}_k$] reduces to

364: \begin{equation}

365: {A(z)\over A_0} = 

366: \sum_{n=0}^\infty {z^{-2n} \over (n+1)}

367: \sum_{j=0}^{n} \biggl(-{1\over 2}\biggr)^{j+n}

368: {(2n+2j-1)!!\over (n-j)![j!]^2},

369: \label{eqn:point7}

370: \end{equation}

371: where, again, $n=m/2$.  That is,

372: \begin{equation}

373: {A(z)\over A_0} = 1 

374: + {1\over 2^3}z^{-2}

375: + {3\over 2^6}z^{-4}

376: + {25\over 2^{10}}z^{-6}

377: + {245\over 2^{14}}z^{-8} + \ldots,

378: \label{eqn:point8}

379: \end{equation}

380: so that the error due to the hexadecapole approximation is,

381: \begin{equation}

382: {\Delta A(z)\over A_0} = {25\over 2^{10}}z^{-6} = 3.8\times 10^{-4}

383: \biggl({z\over 2}\biggr)^{-6}.

384: \label{eqn:point9}

385: \end{equation}

386: 

387: Equation (\ref{eqn:point9}) gives a reasonable lower limit on how

388: closely one may approach a cusp using the hexadecapole approximation.

389: However,  because the cusp develops a linear, finger-like structure

390: at moderate distances, this approximation can fail well away

391: from the cusp.  Nevertheless, I find numerically that

392: the total duration of the failure is generally represented

393: reasonably well by equation (\ref{eqn:point9}).  See \S~\ref{sec:example}.

394: 

395: Thus, for both fold caustics and cusps, the hexadecapole approximation

396: can reduce the error below 0.1\%, except for intervals characterized

397: by $z=2.5$.  

398: 

399: {\section{Implementation}

400: \label{sec:implement}}

401: 

402: The main consideration when implementing this approximation is

403: to make certain that it is applied only in its range of validity.

404: This is easiest when one is probing an already-located minimum,

405: which is often the most time-consuming part of the investigation.

406: One can then simply plot the difference between the hexadecapole

407: approximation and the finite-source calculation for a {\it single model}

408: as a function of time, and so locate empirically the regions of

409: the former's range of validity.  If a ``safety zone'' is placed around

410: the finite-source regions, then there is little danger that it will

411: be crossed during the minor excursions that occur while probing

412: a minimum.  It is straightforward to determine automatically whether

413: such unexpected crossings are occurring simply by comparing

414: the finite-source and hexadecapole calculations for the first and last

415: points of each finite-source region.  If these do not agree, the

416: ``safety zone'' has been crossed.

417: 

418: One must be more careful when applying this method to blind searches

419: because it is harder to determine whether any particular

420: stretch of the lightcurve is either crossing or nearby a caustic.  In some

421: cases, this will be straightforward and in others more difficult.

422: The one general point to note is that the same ``safety zone''

423: check can be made.

424: 

425: Finally, I remark that in some of the lightcurve regions where the

426: hexadecapole approximation is valid, it may be overkill: the

427: quadrupole or even monopole (point-source) approximations may be perfectly

428: satisfactory.

429: Again, it is straightforward to find these subregions, simply

430: by mapping the hexadecapole/quadrupole and hexadecapole/monopole

431: differences for a single model.

432: 

433: {\section{An Illustration of the Method}

434: \label{sec:example}}

435: 

436: Figures \ref{fig:ex1} and \ref{fig:ex2} give a practical example

437: of the hexadecapole approximation.  The top panel of Figure \ref{fig:ex1}

438: shows a caustic geometry ({\it black}) that is based loosely on

439: the caustic in the planetary event OGLE-2005-BLG-071 

440: \citep{ob05071}, but with a different

441: source trajectory ({\it blue}) that has been chosen the maximize the

442: number of illustrative ``features'':  the source passes by two cusps

443: and then enters and exits the caustic.

444: 

445: The middle panel shows the resulting lightcurve ({\it black})

446: together with three successive levels of approximation:

447: monopole (i.e., point-source {\it blue}), quadrupole ({\it red}),

448: and hexadecapole ({\it green}).  The bottom panel shows the

449: residuals of the latter three relative to the first.

450: 

451: There are several points to note.  First, the hexadecapole approximation

452: works extremely well over the entire region shown except for a

453: few source-radius crossing times in the immediate vicinity of the

454: first cusp approach and the two caustic crossings.  Second, the

455: point-source approximation basically does not work at all over the

456: entire region shown, at least if one is attempting to achieve

457: precisions of 0.1\% (which is typically required). Third, there

458: are significant regions where the quadrupole approximation is adequate.

459: 

460: Figure \ref{fig:ex2} is a zoom of Figure \ref{fig:ex1}, focusing on the

461: region of the two caustic crossings.  The crosses in the bottom

462: panel show the predictions for the breakdown of the

463: quadrupole ({\it red}) and hexadecapole ({\it green}) approximation

464: inside the caustic (eqs.~[\ref{eqn:fold5}] and [\ref{eqn:fold6}]), 

465: assuming one is

466: trying to achieve a precision of 0.05\%.  The {\it black} crosses

467: indicate the prediction for breakdown outside the caustic, namely

468: one source radius from the caustic.

469: 

470: Both the quadrupole and hexadecapole approximations prove to be

471: too conservative in that the approximations remain valid substantially

472: closer to the caustic than expected.  The reason for this is

473: clear from the middle panel: at the points of the predicted breakdown,

474: the underlying magnification profile is no longer dominated by

475: the square-root singularity that is produced by the two ``new

476: images''.  Recall from \S~\ref{sec:fold} that equations 

477: (\ref{eqn:fold5}) and (\ref{eqn:fold6})

478: were specifically derived under the assumption these images would dominate

479: the magnification.

480: 

481: Returning to Figure \ref{fig:ex1}, the situation is more complex

482: for the cusp approaches.  Equation (\ref{eqn:point9}) predicts that

483: the hexadecapole approximation will break down from $-25.8$ to $-22.7$.

484: The actual breakdown is from $-27.6$ to $-23.2$.  This displacement

485: to the left reflects the ``finger'' of enhanced magnification that

486: extends from the cusp axis, as indicated in the top panel.  In fact,

487: I find that for trajectories passing farther from this caustic,

488: the breakdown occurs at even earlier times, again corresponding to

489: the intersection of the trajectory with the cusp axis (rather

490: than the point of closest approach).  Moreover, the breakdown

491: continues to occur even when the point of closest approach is

492: well beyond the separation predicted by equation (\ref{eqn:point9}).

493: Nevertheless, the full duration of the breakdown is never much 

494: greater than $2z$ as predicted by this equation.  In brief, for

495: cusps, the hexadecapole approximation does work except for brief

496: intervals whose duration is given by equation (\ref{eqn:point9}), but

497: the time of breakdown is not accurately predicted by this equation.

498: Similar remarks apply to the quadrupole approximation.

499: 

500: 

501: {\section{Application to Lenses With Orbital Motion}

502: \label{sec:orbits}}

503: 

504: While the hexadecapole approximation can save substantial computation

505: time in a wide range of cases, it may be especially useful for

506: planetary lenses with measurable orbital motion by rendering them 

507: accessible to the ``magnification map'' technique \citep{ob04343}.

508: Magnification maps are potentially very powerful.  One first

509: chooses ``map parameters'', i.e., $(b,q)$ for a single planet or 

510: $(b_1,q_1,b_2,q_2,\phi)$ for a triple system, where $\phi$

511: is the angle between the two planets.  Then one shoots the entire

512: Einstein ring (out to a specified width corresponding to, say,

513: magnification $A=100$).  One then both stores the individual

514: rays and tiles the source plane with hexagonal pixels, keeping

515: track of the number of rays landing in each pixel.  Pixels landing

516: wholly within the source are evaluated at their centroid,

517: while pixels that cross the boundary are evaluated on a ray-by-ray

518: basis.  Using this map, one can minimize over the remaining

519: microlensing variables (time of closest approach $t_0$, impact parameter

520: $u_0$, Einstein timescale $t_{\rm E}$, source trajectory angle $\alpha$,

521: source size $\rho$, as well as parallax and xallarap parameters, if

522: these are needed).  Each map can be created in a few seconds and

523: fully explored in a few minutes, thereby permitting 

524: a rapid Markov-chain walk through map space.

525: 

526: The drawback is that, to date, magnification maps have not been

527: applicable to lenses with significant orbital motion: to the

528: extent that the lens separation changes during the event, different

529: maps would be needed at different phases of the event, potentially

530: a very large number of them.  In some

531: cases, this problem is now completely resolved.  For example,

532: OGLE-2005-BLG-071 exhibits some signature of

533: rotation \citep{dong08}, which had been difficult to probe

534: simultaneously with finite-source effects.  Because the source

535: trajectory comes no closer than $z=10$ source radii from the

536: cusp, this event can now be handled completely in the hexadecapole

537: approximation.

538: 

539: However, even for events with one or several caustic features that

540: require finite-source calculations, it will now be possible to

541: evaluate these with maps.  Each caustic feature lasts only about

542: the time required for the source to cross its own diameter, which

543: is typically a few hours.  The orbital motion during these features

544: is negligible, implying that the lens geometry 

545: can be adequately represented by a single map.

546: Several maps can be created, one for each feature occurring at

547: different times.  The points ``between features'' can be evaluated

548: in the hexadecapole approximation, which allows a continuously

549: evolving lens geometry.

550: 

551: \section{{Conclusions}

552: \label{sec:conclude}}

553: 

554: I have identified an intermediate regime between the ones where

555: finite-source effects are dominant and negligible, respectively.

556: In this regime, magnifications can be evaluated with very

557: high precision using a simple hexadecapole approximation, for

558: which I give a specific prescription.  Outside of small

559: (few source-diameter crossing times) regions associated with

560: caustic crossings and cusp approaches,

561: the approximation has a fractional error of well under 0.1\%.

562: Some events can now be analyzed without any traditional finite-source

563: calculations, while for others these calculations will be drastically

564: reduced.  In particular, by restricting the regions that do absolutely 

565: require finite-source calculation to a few isolated zones, this

566: approximation opens the possibility of applying ``magnification maps''

567: to planetary systems experiencing significant orbital motion.

568: 

569: 

570: %\begin{equation}

571: %\label{eqn:}

572: %\end{equation}

573: 

574: \acknowledgments

575: 

576: I thank Subo Dong for seminal discussions.  The paper benefited greatly

577: from the suggestions of an anonymous referee.

578: This work was supported by NSF grant AST 042758.

579: 

580: 

581: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

582: 

583: \bibitem[Beaulieu et al.(2006)]{ob05390} Beaulieu, J.-P. et al. 2005,

584: Nature, 439, 437

585: 

586: 

587: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2004)]{ob03235} Bond, I.A., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 606, L155

588: 

589: 

590: \bibitem[Dong et al.(2006)]{ob04343} Dong, S., et al. 2006, \apj, 642, 842

591: 

592: \bibitem[Dong et al.(2008)]{dong08} Dong, S., et al. 2008, in preparation

593: 

594: \bibitem[Gaudi et al.(1998)]{gaudi98}

595: Gaudi, B. S., Naber, R.M. \& Sackett, P. D.\ 1998, \apj, 502, L33

596: 

597: \bibitem[Gaudi et al.(2008)]{gaudi08} Gaudi, B.S., et al. 2008, 

598: Science, 315, 927

599: 

600: \bibitem[Gould \& Loeb(1992)]{gouldloeb92} 

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

602: 

603: \bibitem[Gould et al.(2006)]{ob05169} Gould, A., et al. 2004, \apj, 644, L37

604: 

605: \bibitem[Griest \& Safizadeh(1998)]{griestsafi}

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

607: 

608: \bibitem[Pejcha \& Heyrovsk\'y(2007)]{pejcha07} Pejcha, O.\ \& Heyrovsk\'y, D. 

609: 2007, \apj, submitted (astroph/0712.2217)

610: 

611: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(2005)]{ob05071}

612: Udalski, A., et al. 2005, \apj, 628, L109

613: 

614: 

615: \end{thebibliography}

616: 

617: \begin{figure}

618: \plotone{f1.ps}

619: \caption{\label{fig:ex1}

620: Top: source trajectory ({\it blue}) through caustic geometry ({\it black})

621: of a simulated high-magnification microlensing event, in units of the

622: source radius.  Middle: resulting lightcurve as found from

623: full finite-source calculation ({\it black}) and the 

624: monopole ({\it blue}), quadrupole ({\it red}), and hexadecapole ({\it green})

625: approximations.  Bottom: residuals of the three approximations relative

626: to the full calculation.  See \S~\ref{sec:example} for full discussion.

627: }

628: \end{figure}

629: 

630: \begin{figure}

631: \plotone{f2.ps}

632: \caption{\label{fig:ex2}

633: Zoom of Fig.~\ref{fig:ex1}, focusing on region of the two caustic crossings.

634: Crosses in middle panel show predictions for range of validity of the

635: quadrupole ({\it red}) and hexadecapole ({\it green}) approximations

636: inside the caustic and for both ({\it black}) outside.  

637: See \S~\ref{sec:example} for full discussion.

638: }

639: \end{figure}

640: 

641: \end{document}

642: 

643: