1:
2: % For ApJ submission -----------------------------------------
3: %\documentclass[11pt]{/home/cheongho/LatexStyle/AAS5.02/aastex}
4: %\def\baselinestretch{1.3}
5:
6: \documentclass{emulateapj}
7: \usepackage{apjfonts}
8:
9:
10: \lefthead{HAN} \righthead{MICROLENSING MULTIPLE-PLANET ANALYSIS}
11:
12: %==== CUSTOMIZED LATEX MACROS =================================
13: % Italic bold font
14: \def\dslash{\mathbin{/\mkern-4mu/}}
15:
16: \newcommand{\rvec}{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}
17: \newcommand{\xvec}{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}
18: \newcommand{\yvec}{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}
19: \newcommand{\zvec}{\mbox{\bf z}}
20: \newcommand{\zetavec}{\mbox{\boldmath $\zeta$}}
21: \newcommand{\svec}{\bold s}
22:
23: \newcommand{\te}{t_{\rm E}}
24: \newcommand{\re}{r_{\rm E}}
25: \newcommand{\rh}{r_{\rm H}}
26: \newcommand{\retilde}{\tilde{r}_{\rm E}}
27: \newcommand{\thetae}{\theta_{\rm E}}
28:
29: % Equation align
30: \def\eqalign#1{\null\,\vcenter{\openup\jot
31: \ialign{\strut\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$
32: \displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil \crcr#1\crcr}}\,}
33:
34:
35:
36: %=======================================================================
37:
38:
39:
40:
41: \begin{document}
42: \title{Analysis of Microlensing Light Curves Induced by Multiple-Planet Systems}
43:
44: \author {Cheongho Han}
45: \affil{Department of Physics, Institute for Basic Science
46: Research, Chungbuk National University, Chongju 361-763, Korea,
47: cheongho@astroph.chungbuk.ac.kr}
48: %\email{cheongho@astroph.chungbuk.ac.kr}
49:
50: %\author{Sun-Ju Chung, Cheongho Han}
51: %\affil{Department of Physics, Institute for Basic Science
52: %Research, Chungbuk National University, Chongju 361-763, Korea;
53: %sjchung,cheongho@astroph.chungbuk.ac.kr}
54:
55:
56: %\submitted{Submitted to The Astrophysical Journal}
57:
58: \begin{abstract}
59: To maximize the number of planet detections by increasing efficiency,
60: current microlensing follow-up observation experiments are focusing on
61: high-magnification events to search for planet-induced perturbations
62: near the peak of lensing light curves. It was known that by monitoring
63: high-magnification events, it is possible to detect multiplicity signatures
64: of planetary systems. However, it was believed that the interpretation
65: of the signals and the characterization of the detected multiple-planet
66: systems would be difficult due to the complexity of the magnification
67: pattern in the central region combined with the large number of lensing
68: parameters required to model multiple-planet systems. In this paper,
69: we demonstrate that in many cases the central planetary perturbations
70: induced by multiple planets can be well approximated by the superposition
71: of the single planetary perturbations where the individual planet-primary
72: pairs act as independent binary lens systems (binary superposition).
73: The validity of the binary-superposition approximation implies that the
74: analysis of perturbations induced by multiple planets can be greatly
75: simplified because the anomalies produced by the individual planet
76: components can be investigated separately by using relatively much
77: simpler single-planetary analysis, and thus enables better characterization
78: of these systems.
79: \end{abstract}
80:
81: \keywords{planetary systems -- planets and satellites: general --
82: gravitatinal lensing}
83:
84:
85: \section{Introduction}
86:
87: Microlensing is one of the most important methods that can detect and
88: characterize extrasolar planets (see the review of Perryman 2000).
89: Microlensing planet detection is possible because planets can induce
90: perturbations to the standard lensing light curves produced by primary
91: stars. Once the perturbation is detected and analyzed, one can determine
92: the mass ratio, $q$, and the projected separation, $s$ (normalized by the
93: Einstein ring radius $r_{\rm E}$), between the planet and host star
94: \citep{mao91}. Recently, a clear-cut microlensing detection of an
95: exoplanet was reported by \citet{bond04}.
96:
97:
98: Planet detection via microlensing is observationally challenging. One of
99: the most important difficulties in detecting planets via microlensing lies
100: in the fact that planet-induced perturbations last for a short period of
101: time. For a Jupiter-mass planet, the duration is only a few days and it
102: decreases as $\propto \sqrt{q}$. To achieve high monitoring frequency
103: required for planet detections, current lensing experiments are employing
104: early warning system to issue alerts of ongoing events in the early stage
105: of lensing magnification \citep{soszynski01, bond01} and follow-up observation
106: programs to intensively monitor the alerted events \citep{bond02, park04,
107: cassan04}. However, follow-up is generally done with small field-of-view
108: instrument, and thus events should be monitored sequentially. As a result,
109: only a handful number of events can be followed at any given time, limiting
110: the number of planet detections.
111:
112:
113: An observational strategy that can dramatically increase the planet
114: detection efficiency was proposed by \citet{griest98}. When a microlensing
115: event is caused by a star possessing a planet, two sets of caustics are
116: produced. Among them, one is located away from the primary lens (planetary
117: caustic) and the other is located close to the primary lens (central caustic).
118: The location of the planetary caustic varies depending on the planetary
119: separation $s$, which is not known, and thus it is impossible to predict
120: the time of planetary perturbation in advance. On the other hand, the
121: central caustic is always located very close to the primary lens, and thus
122: the central perturbation occurs near the peak of high-magnification events.
123: Therefore, by focusing on high-magnification events, it is possible to
124: dramatically increase the planet detection efficiency, enabling one to
125: maximize the number of planet detections with a limited use of resources
126: and time \citep{han01b, rattenbury02, yoo04}.
127:
128:
129: An additional use of high magnification events was noticed by \citet{gaudi98}.
130: They pointed out that multiple planets with separations $\sim 0.6$ -- $1.6$
131: of the Einstein ring radius $r_{\rm E}$ significantly affect the central
132: region of the magnification pattern regardless of the orientation and thus
133: microlensing can be used to detect multiple-planet systems. They noted,
134: however, that characterizing the detected multiple-planet systems by
135: analyzing the central perturbations would be difficult due to the complexity
136: of the magnification pattern combined with the large number of lensing
137: parameters required to model multiple-planet systems.
138:
139:
140:
141:
142: % Figure 1 --------------------------------------------------------------
143: \begin{figure*}[htb]
144: \epsscale{0.85}
145: %\plotone{f1.eps}
146: \caption{\label{fig:one}
147: Contour maps of magnification excess from the single-mass lensing as a
148: function of the source position $(\xi,\eta)$ for a lens system containing
149: two planets. The parameters of planet 1 (located on the left-side $\xi$
150: axis) are held fixed at $q_1=0.001$, $s_1=1.4$, while the projected
151: separation $s_2$ and the angle between the axes, $\Delta\theta$, are
152: varied for a second planet with $q_2=0.0003$. Greyscale is used to
153: represent positive (bright) and negative (dark) deviation regions. The
154: two sets of contours drawn in black and white are for the maps constructed
155: by exact triple lensing and binary-superposition approximation, respectively.
156: Contours are drawn at the levels of $|\epsilon|=2$\%, 5\%, and 10\%. The
157: straight line with an arrow in each panel is the source trajectory where
158: the resulting light curve is presented in the corresponding panel of
159: Fig.~\ref{fig:four}. Lengths are scaled by the Einstein ring radius
160: $\theta_{\rm E}$. The coordinates are centered at the effective position
161: of the primary lens [see eq.~(\label{eq7}) for definition]. The orientation
162: is such that $\Delta\theta=0^\circ$ implies the two planets are on the same
163: side.
164: }\end{figure*}
165:
166:
167: In this paper, we demonstrate that in many cases the central planetary
168: perturbations induced by multiple planets can be well approximated by the
169: superposition of the single-planetary perturbations where the individual
170: planet-primary pairs act as independent binary lens systems (binary
171: superposition). The validity of the binary-superposition approximation
172: implies that a simple single-planet lensing model is possible for the
173: description of the anomalies produced by the individual planet components,
174: enabling better characterization of these systems.
175:
176:
177: The layout of the paper is as follows. In \S\ 2, we describe the
178: multiple-planetary lensing and magnification pattern in the central region.
179: In \S\ 3, we illustrate the validity of th binary-superposition approximation
180: in describing the central magnification pattern of multiple-planet systems.
181: In \S\ 4, we discuss the usefulness of the superposition approximation in
182: the interpretation of the multiple planetary signals.
183:
184:
185:
186: % Figure 2 --------------------------------------------------------------
187: \begin{figure*}[htb]
188: \epsscale{0.85}
189: %\plotone{f2.eps}
190: \caption{\label{fig:two}
191: Enlargement of the excess magnification maps presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:one}.
192: The figures drawn in solid black and white lines are the caustics for the
193: cases of the exact triple lensing and binary-superposition approximation,
194: respectively. Contours and greyscale are drawn by the same way as in
195: Fig.~\ref{fig:one}.
196: }\end{figure*}
197:
198:
199:
200: \section{Multiple Planetary Lensing}
201:
202:
203: The equation of lens mapping from the lens plane to the source plane (lens
204: equation) of an $N$ point masses is expressed as
205: \begin{equation}
206: \zeta = z - \sum_{j=1}^N {m_j/M \over \bar{z}-\bar{z}_{L,j}},
207: \label{eq1}
208: \end{equation}
209: where $\zeta=\xi + i\eta$, $z_{L,j}=x_{L,j}+iy_{L,j}$, and $z=x+iy$ are the
210: complex notations of the source, lens, and image positions, respectively,
211: $\bar{z}$ denotes the complex conjugate of $z$, $m_j$ are the masses of
212: the individual lens components, $M=\sum_j m_j$ is the total mass of the
213: system, and thus $m_j/M$ represent the mass fractions of the individual
214: lens components. Here all angles are normalized to the Einstein ring
215: radius of the total mass of the system, $M$, i.e.
216: \begin{equation}
217: \thetae={r_{\rm E} \over D_{\rm OL}}=\left[ {4GM\over c^2}
218: \left( {1\over D_{\rm OL}} - {1\over D_{\rm OS}} \right)
219: \right]^{1/2},
220: \label{eq2}
221: \end{equation}
222: where $D_{\rm OL}$ and $D_{\rm OS}$ are the distances to the lens and
223: source, respectively. The lensing process conserves the source surface
224: brightness, and thus the magnifications $A_i$ of the individual images
225: correspond to the ratios between the areas of the images and source.
226: For an infinitesimally small source element, the magnification is,
227: \begin{equation}
228: A_i = \left\vert \left( 1-{\partial\zeta\over\partial\bar{z}}
229: {\overline{\partial\zeta}\over\partial\bar{z}} \right)^{-1} \right\vert.
230: \label{eq3}
231: \end{equation}
232: The total magnification is the sum over all images, $A=\sum_i A_i$.
233:
234:
235: For a single lens ($N=1$), the lens equation is simply inverted to solve
236: the image positions $(x,y)$ and magnifications for given lens $(x_L,y_L)$
237: and source $(\xi,\eta)$ positions. This yields the familiar result that
238: there are two images with magnifications and separations from the lens of
239: $A_\pm=0.5(A \pm 1)$ and $u_{I,\pm}=|z_\pm-z_L|= 0.5[u \pm (u^2 +4)^{1/2}]$,
240: respectively, where $u\equiv |\zeta-z_{L}|$ is the separation between the
241: lens and source and $A=A_{+} + A_{-}=(u^2+2)/[u(u^2+4)^{1/2}]$ is the
242: total magnification.
243:
244:
245: A planetary lensing with a single planet is described by the formalism of
246: a binary ($N=2$) lens. In this case, the lens equation cannot be inverted
247: algebraically. However, it can be expressed as a fifth-order polynomial
248: in $z$ and the image positions are then obtained by numerically solving
249: the polynomial \citep{witt95}. One important characteristic of binary
250: lensing is the formation of caustics, which represent the set of source
251: positions at which the magnification of a point source becomes infinite.
252: Planetary perturbations on lensing light curves occur when the source
253: approaches close to the caustics. The location and size of these
254: caustics depend on the projected separation $s$ and the mass ratio $q$.
255: For a planetary case, there exist two sets of disconnected caustics.
256: The planetary caustic(s) is (are) located away from the primary star on
257: or very close to the star-planet axis with a separation from the primary
258: star of $\xi_{\rm pc} \simeq s-1/s$. The central caustic, on the other
259: hand, is located close to the primary lens with a size of
260: $\Delta \xi_{\rm cc} \simeq 4q/(s-1/s)^2$ \citep{chung05}. Caustics are
261: located within the Einstein ring when the planetary separation is within
262: the range of $0.6 \lesssim s \lesssim 1.6$. The size of the caustic,
263: which is directly proportional to the planet detection efficiency, is
264: maximized when the planet is located within this range, and thus this
265: range is referred as ``lensing zone''
266: \citep{gould92}.
267:
268:
269: For a multiple-lens system, the lens equation is equivalent to a polynomial
270: with an order of ($N^2+1)$. Therefore, a multiple-lens system produces a
271: maximum of $N^2+1$ and a minimum of $N+1$ images, with the number of images
272: changing by multiple of two as the source crosses a caustic \citep{rhie97}.
273: For a system with two planets (and thus $N=3$), there are thus a maximum of
274: 10 images and a minimum of 4 images. Unlike the caustics of binary lensing,
275: those of multiple lensing can exhibit self-intersecting and nesting.
276:
277:
278:
279:
280: % Figure 3 --------------------------------------------------------------
281: \begin{figure*}[htb]
282: \epsscale{0.85}
283: \plotone{f3.eps}
284: \caption{\label{fig:three}
285: Greyscale maps of the difference between the magnification excesses
286: of the triple lensing and binary approximation. i.e.\ $\Delta\epsilon=
287: \epsilon_{\rm bs}-\epsilon_{\rm tri}=(A_{\rm bs}-A_{\rm tri})/A_0$.
288: Greyscales brighter and darker than background represent the region
289: where $A_{\rm tri}>A_{\rm bs}$ and vice versa, respectively, and the
290: scale changes at $|\epsilon_{\rm bs}|=2\%$ and $5\%$.
291: }\end{figure*}
292:
293:
294:
295: % Figure 4 --------------------------------------------------------------
296: \begin{figure*}[htb]
297: \epsscale{0.85}
298: %\plotone{f4.eps}
299: \caption{\label{fig:four}
300: Example microlensing light curves produced by multiple-planet systems.
301: The parameters of the planets are identical to those in Fig.~\ref{fig:one}.
302: The source trajectories responsible for the events are marked also in
303: Fig.~\ref{fig:one}. For all events, the impact parameter of the
304: trajectories is $u_0=0.03$. In each panel, there are five curves,
305: where the curves drawn in thick solid black, thin magenta, cyan, and red
306: lines are those of exact triple lensing, binary lensing with the pairs
307: of the primary and the individual planets, and binary-superposition
308: approximation, respectively, and the dashed curve is that of a single-mass
309: lensing of the primary alone. The curve in the lower part of each panel
310: shows the difference between the excesses of the exact triple lensing
311: and binary-superposition approximation.
312: }\end{figure*}
313:
314:
315:
316:
317: \section{Binary-Superposition Approximation}
318:
319: The mass ratio of a planet to its primary star is very small, and thus
320: the lensing behavior of planet-induced anomalies can be treated as
321: perturbation \citep{gould92, bozza99, asada02, dominik99, an05}. Due
322: to the perturbative nature of planetary anomalies, it was known that
323: the magnification pattern in the region around {\it planetary} caustics
324: of multiple-planet systems can be described by the superposition of those
325: of the single-planet systems where the individual planet-primary pairs
326: acts as independent binary lens systems \citep{han01a}, i.e.,
327: \begin{equation}
328: A_{\rm mul}\sim A_{\rm bs}=\sum_{i=1}^{N-1} A_{{\rm bi},i} - A_0,
329: \label{eq4}
330: \end{equation}
331: where $A_{\rm mul}$, $A_{\rm bs}$, $A_{{\rm bi},i}$, and $A_0$ represent
332: the magnifications of the exact multiple lensing, binary-superposition
333: approximation, binary lensing with the pairs of the primary and individual
334: planets, and single-mass lensing of the primary alone, respectively.
335: By contrast, it was believed that the binary-superposition approximation
336: would not be adequate to describe the magnification pattern in the central
337: region because the central caustics produced by the individual planet
338: components reside at the same central region and thus non-linear
339: interference of the perturbations would be large.
340:
341:
342: Unlike this belief about the magnification pattern in the central
343: perturbation region, we find that non-linear interference between the
344: perturbations produced by the individual planets of a multiple-planet
345: system is important only in a small confined region very close to the
346: central caustics. This implies that in many cases binary-superposition
347: approximation can also be used for the description of the magnification
348: pattern in the central perturbation region.
349:
350:
351: To demonstrate the validity of the binary-superposition approximation
352: in the central region, we construct a set of {\it magnification excess}
353: maps of example multiple-planet systems containing two planets with
354: various orientations. The magnification excess represents the deviation
355: of the magnification from the single-mass lensing as a function of the
356: source position $(\xi,\eta)$, and it is computed by
357: \begin{equation}
358: \epsilon_{\rm tri}={A_{\rm tri}-A_{0} \over A_{\rm 0}},
359: \label{eq5}
360: \end{equation}
361: where $A_{\rm tri}$ is the magnification of the triple (primary star
362: plus two planets) lensing.
363:
364:
365: In Figure~\ref{fig:one}, we present the constructed contour (drawn by
366: black lines) maps of magnification excess. In the map, the parameters
367: of planet 1 are held fixed at $q_1=0.001$ and $s_1=1.4$, while the
368: projected separation $s_2$ and the angle between the position vectors
369: to the individual planets from the primary star (orientation angle),
370: $\Delta\theta$, are varied for a second planet with $q_2=0.0003$.
371: Greyscale is used to represent positive (bright, $\epsilon_{\rm tri}>0$)
372: and negative (dark) deviation regions. Also drawn are the contours
373: (drawn in white lines) of magnification excess based on binary-superposition
374: approximation, i.e.,
375: \begin{equation}
376: \epsilon_{\rm bs}=\sum _{i=1}^{2} {A_{{\rm bi},i}-A_{0} \over A_{\rm 0}}.
377: \label{eq6}
378: \end{equation}
379: For the maps based on binary superposition, we consider slight shift of
380: the effective lensing position of the primary star ($\zvec_{L,\ast}$)
381: toward the individual planets ($\zvec_{L,p_{i}}$) with an amount of
382: \citep{distefano96}
383: \begin{equation}
384: \delta \zvec_{L,\ast} = \sum_{i=1}^2
385: {{q_i}\over s_i+1/s_i} {\zvec_{L,p_{i}} - \zvec_{L,\ast}\over
386: |\zvec_{L,p_{i}} - \zvec_{L,\ast}| }.
387: \label{eq7}
388: \end{equation}
389: To better show the magnification pattern in the very central region and
390: the detailed caustic structure, we enlarge the maps and presented them
391: in Figure~\ref{fig:two}. In each map, the figures drawn in thick black
392: and white lines represent the caustics for the cases of the exact triple
393: lensing and binary superposition, respectively.
394:
395:
396: From the comparison of the excess maps constructed by the exact triple
397: lensing and binary-superposition approximation, one finds that binary
398: superposition is a good approximation in most of the central perturbation
399: region as demonstrated by the good match between the two sets of contours.
400: Slight deviation of the binary-superposition approximation from the exact
401: lensing magnification occurs (a) in a small region very close to the
402: central caustics and (b) in the narrow regions along the primary-planet
403: axes. This can be better seen in Figure~\ref{fig:three}, where we present
404: the greyscale maps for the difference between the excesses of the triple
405: lensing and binary-superposition approximation, i.e.,
406: \begin{equation}
407: \Delta\epsilon = \epsilon_{\rm tri}-\epsilon_{\rm bs}.
408: \label{eq8}
409: \end{equation}
410: The difference in the region close to the central caustics is caused by
411: the non-linear interference between the perturbations produced by the
412: individual planets. On the other hand, the difference along the
413: primary-planet axes is caused by the slight positional shift of the
414: triple-lensing caustics due to the introduction of an additional planet.
415: However, the area of the deviation region, in general, is much smaller
416: than the total area of the perturbation region, and thus the binary
417: superposition approximation is able to well describe most part of
418: planetary anomalies in lensing light curves. This can be seen in
419: Figure~\ref{fig:four}, where we present example light curves of
420: multiple-planetary lensing events and compare them to those obtained by
421: binary superposition.
422:
423:
424: % Figure 5 --------------------------------------------------------------
425: \begin{figure}[htb]
426: \epsscale{1.1}
427: \plotone{f5.eps}
428: \caption{\label{fig:five}
429: Dependence of the binary-superposition validity (${\cal R}$) on the
430: angle between the position vectors to the component planets from the
431: host star ($\Delta\theta$). See eq.~(\ref{eq9}) for the definition of
432: ${\cal R}$. To see the dependence only on $\Delta\theta$, we fix
433: $(q_1,s_1)$ and $(q_2,s_2)$ and their values are marked in the panel.
434: }\end{figure}
435:
436:
437:
438: % Figure 6 --------------------------------------------------------------
439: \begin{figure}[htb]
440: \epsscale{1.1}
441: \plotone{f6.eps}
442: \caption{\label{fig:six}
443: A contour map of the binary-superposition validity (${\cal R}$) as a
444: function of the planet mass ratios of a multiple planetary system
445: composed of two planets. To see the dependence only on the mass ratios,
446: we fix $s_1$, $s_2$ and $\Delta\theta$ and their values are marked in
447: the panel.
448: }\end{figure}
449:
450:
451: The lensing behavior of a multiple planetary system is determined by many
452: parameters including $q_1$, $q_2$, $s_1$, $s_2$, and $\Delta\theta$, and
453: binary-superposition might not be a good approximation in some space region
454: of these parameters. We therefore investigate the region of parameter
455: space where binary-superposition is a poor approximation. Due to the
456: numerousness of the parameters, we choose a method of investigation where
457: we inquire the validity of the approximation on the individual parameters
458: by varying one parameter and fixing other parameters. The validity of the
459: approximation is quantified by the ratio of
460: \begin{equation}
461: {\cal R}={\Sigma_{\Delta\epsilon} \over \Sigma_{\epsilon}},
462: \label{eq9}
463: \end{equation}
464: where $\Sigma_{\epsilon}$ and $\Sigma_{\Delta\epsilon}$ represent the area
465: of the central perturbation region and the area of the difference region
466: between the exact triple lensing and the binary-superposition approximation,
467: respectively. In some cases, the perturbation regions caused by the
468: planetary and central caustics are connected, making the boundary between
469: the two regions ambiguous. We thus define the central perturbation region
470: as the region within the lens-source impact parameter of $u=0.1$
471: (corresponding to the region with magnifications $A\gtrsim 10$). The
472: areas $\Sigma_{\Delta\epsilon}$ and $\Sigma_{\epsilon}$ are computed by
473: setting the threshold values of $|\Delta\epsilon_{th}|=5\%$ and
474: $|\epsilon_{th}|=5\%$, respectively.
475:
476:
477:
478:
479: In Figures~\ref{fig:five}, \ref{fig:six}, and \ref{fig:seven}, we present
480: the dependence of ${\cal R}$ on the orientation angle ($\Delta\theta$),
481: the mass ratios of the component planets ($q_1$ and $q_2$), and the
482: separations to them ($s_1$ and $s_2$), respectively. From the variation
483: of ${\cal R}$ depending on the orientation angle, we find that the
484: difference between the exact lensing and binary-superposition approximation
485: becomes bigger as $\Delta\theta$ decreases and thus the two planets are
486: located closer to each other. We interpret this tendency as the increase
487: of the non-linear interference between the perturbations caused by the two
488: planets as the separation between them decreases. From the dependence on
489: the mass ratio and separation, we find that binary superposition becomes
490: a poor approximation as either the planet mass increases or the separation
491: approaches to unity. These tendencies are the natural results of the
492: breakdown of the perturbation treatment for companions with high mass
493: ratios and (or) separations of $s\sim 1$, because the perturbation treatment
494: is valid when $q\ll 1$ and $|s-1|\gg q$. Besides these extreme regions of
495: parameter space, however, we find that $R\lesssim 5\%$ in most regions,
496: implying that binary-superposition approximation well describes the lensing
497: behavior of most multiple planetary systems.
498:
499:
500:
501:
502:
503: % Figure 7 --------------------------------------------------------------
504: \begin{figure}[htb]
505: \epsscale{1.1}
506: \plotone{f7.eps}
507: \caption{\label{fig:seven}
508: A contour map of the binary-superposition validity (${\cal R}$) as a
509: function of the separations to the planets from the host star of a
510: multiple planetary system composed of two planets. To see the dependence
511: only on the separations, we fix $q_1$, $q_2$ and $\Delta\theta$ and their
512: values are marked in the panel.
513: }\end{figure}
514:
515:
516:
517:
518: \section{Implication and Conclusion}
519:
520: In the previous section, we demonstrated that lensing magnification
521: patterns of multiple-planet systems can be described by using
522: binary-superposition approximation not only in the region around planetary
523: caustics but also in most part of the central perturbation region. In
524: this section, we discuss the importance of the binary-superposition
525: approximation in the analysis and characterization of multiple-planet
526: systems to be detected via microlensing.
527:
528:
529: Exact description of lensing behavior of events caused by multiple-planet
530: systems requires a large number of parameters. Even for the simplest case
531: of a two-planet system, the number of parameters is ten, including four
532: single-lensing parameters of the Einstein timescale $t_{\rm E}$, time of
533: the closest lens-source approach $t_0$, lens-source impact parameter $u_0$,
534: and blended light fraction $f_B$, and another four parameters of the two
535: sets of the planetary separation and mass ratio, $(s_1,q_1)$ and $(s_2,q_2)$,
536: and the source trajectory angle $\alpha$ and the orientation angle
537: $\Delta\theta$. As a result, it was believed that analyzing anomalies
538: produced by multiple planets would be a daunting task.
539:
540:
541: With the validity of binary-superposition approximation, however, the
542: analysis can be greatly simplified because the anomalies induced by the
543: individual planets can be investigated separately by using relatively
544: much simpler single-planetary lensing analysis. Anomalies for which this
545: type of analysis is directly applicable are those where the perturbations
546: induced by the individual planets are well separated, e.g., the anomalies
547: in the lensing light curves presented in Figure~\ref{fig:four} with
548: $(s_2,\Delta\theta)=(0.7, 60^\circ)$, $(0.7, 120^\circ)$, $(0.9, 60^\circ)$,
549: $(0.9, 120^\circ)$, $(1.3, 60^\circ)$, and $(1.3, 120^\circ)$.
550:
551:
552: In some cases, the region of perturbations caused by the individual
553: planets are located close together and thus part of the anomalies in
554: lensing light curves can be blended together. However, even in these
555: cases, the non-linear interference between the anomalies is important
556: only in small confined regions and thus the superposition approximation
557: would still be valid for a large portion of the anomalies, allowing
558: rough estimation of the separations and mass ratios of the individual
559: planets. Once these rough parameters are determined, then fine tuning of
560: the parameters by using exact multiple-planet analysis will be possible
561: by exploring the parameter space that was greatly narrowed down.
562:
563:
564: However, care is required for the case when the two perturbations caused
565: by the individual planets happen to locate at the same position (or very
566: close to each other). This case occurs when the two planets are aligned
567: ($\Delta\theta=180^\circ$) or anti-aligned ($\Delta\theta=0^\circ$). In
568: this case, the anomaly appears to be caused by a single planet and thus
569: naive analysis of the anomalies can result in wrong characterization of
570: the planet system. However, this type of anomalies will be very rare.
571:
572:
573:
574: \acknowledgments
575: We would like to thank A. Gould for making useful comments on the paper.
576: This work was supported by the Astrophysical Research Center for the
577: Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC") of Korea Science \&
578: Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through Science Research Program (SRC)
579: program.
580:
581:
582: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
583: \frenchspacing
584:
585: \bibitem[An(2005)]{an05}
586: An, J.\ H..\ 2005, \mnras, 356, 1409
587:
588: \bibitem[Asada(2002)]{asada02}
589: Asada, H.\ 2002, \apj, 573, 825
590:
591: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2001)]{bond01}
592: Bond, I.\ A., et al.\ 2001, \mnras, 327, 868
593:
594: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2002)]{bond02}
595: Bond, I.\ A., et al.\ 2002, \mnras, 333, 71
596:
597: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2004)]{bond04}
598: Bond, I.\ A., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 606, L155
599:
600: \bibitem[Bozza(1999)]{bozza99}
601: Bozza, V.\ 1999, \aap, 348, 311
602:
603: \bibitem[Cassan et al.(2004)]{cassan04}
604: Cassan, A., et al.\ 2004, \aap, 419, L1
605:
606: \bibitem[Chung et al.(2005)]{chung05}
607: Chung, S.-J., et al.\ 2005, ApJ, submitted
608:
609: \bibitem[Di Stefano \& Mao(1996)]{distefano96}
610: Di Stefano, R., \& Mao, S.\ 1996, \apj, 457, 93
611:
612: \bibitem[Dominik(1999)]{dominik99}
613: Dominik, M.\ 1999, \apj, 349, 108
614:
615: \bibitem[Gaudi, Naber, \& Sackett(1998)]{gaudi98}
616: Gaudi, B.\ S., Naber, R.\ M., \& Sackett, P.\ D.\ 1998, \apj, 502, L33
617:
618: \bibitem[Gould \& Loeb(1992)]{gould92}
619: Gould, A., \& Loeb, A.\ 1992, \apj, 396, 104
620:
621: \bibitem[Griest \& Safizadeh(1998)]{griest98}
622: Griest, K., \& Safizadeh, N.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 37
623:
624: \bibitem[Han et al.(2001)]{han01a}
625: Han, C., Chang, H.-Y., An, J.\ H., \& Chang, K.\ 2001, \mnras, 328, 986
626:
627: \bibitem[Han \& Kim(2001)]{han01b}
628: Han, C., Kim, Y.-G.\ 2001, \apj, 546, 975
629:
630: \bibitem[Mao \& Paczy\'nski(1991)]{mao91}
631: Mao, S., \& Paczy\'nski, B.\ 1991, \apj, 374, L37
632:
633: \bibitem[Park et al.(2004)]{park04}
634: Park, B.-G., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 609, 166
635:
636: \bibitem[Perryman(2000)]{perryman00}
637: Perryman, M.\ A.\ C.\ 2000, Rep.\ Prog.\ Phys., 63, 1209
638:
639: \bibitem[Rattenbury et al.(2002)]{rattenbury02}
640: Rattenbury, N.\ J., Bond, I.\ A., Skuljan, J., \& Yock, P.\ C.\ M.\ 2002,
641: \mnras, 335, 159
642:
643: \bibitem[Rhie(1997)]{rhie97}
644: Rhie, S.\ H.\ 1997, \apj, 484, 63
645:
646: \bibitem[Soszy\'nski et al.(2001)]{soszynski01}
647: Soszy\'nski, I., et al.\ 2001, \apj, 552, 731
648:
649: \bibitem[Witt \& Mao(1995)]{witt95}
650: Witt, H.\ J., \& Mao, S.\ 1995, \apj, 447, L105
651:
652: \bibitem[Yoo et al.(2004)]{yoo04}
653: Yoo, J., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 616, 1204
654:
655:
656: \end{thebibliography}
657:
658: \end{document}
659: