text:
# Atmospheric Lensing and Oblateness Effects During an Extrasolar Planetary Transit

## 1 Introduction

The exciting discovery of the transit of HD 209458 (Charbonneau et al. 2000a, Henry et al. 2000, Jha et al. 2000) allowed the first direct measurement of the physical properties of an extrasolar planet, including its radius, and together with radial velocity measurements, its absolute mass and average density. Photometric followup of radial velocity planet candidates, and future ground- and space-based surveys are expected to discover hundreds more transiting planets. Planned or proposed space-based missions, in particular (MOST, MONS, COROT, the Eddington Telescope, the Kepler Mission), are expected to be able to detect flux variations at the $`10^5`$ level. Recent Hubble Space Telescope observations of the HD 209458b transit (Brown et al. 2001), with an accuracy of $`10^4`$, illustrate the capability of high precision space based photometry. With the anticipated large number of transiting planets, and the high accuracy with which they can be monitored, it is important to explore small variations in the transit light curve that might be detectable and allow us to deduce further properties of the transiting planets.

In this paper we focus on how atmospheric refraction, which we also refer to as atmospheric lensing or lensing for short, modifies the transit light curve. We treat the general case of an ellipsoidal planet, and the same calculation also allows us to examine the effects of (projected) planet oblateness/ellipticity, regardless of whether or not lensing is important. We examine under what conditions atmospheric lensing and oblateness signatures might be significant, detectable, and distinguishable from other effects.

We develop the lensing formalism in §2, and contrast atmospheric lensing with gravitational lensing. For readers with a background in the latter, we point out several places where intuition gained from gravitational lensing fails for atmospheric lensing. In §3 we give a complete list of all the parameters employed in our model. The condition under which atmospheric lensing produces strong lensing (i.e. existence of caustics) is taken up in §4. An analytic expression describing this condition is given. We emphasize the connections between atmospheric lensing by extrasolar planets and atmospheric lensing by solar system bodies during their occultations of distant stars; the latter has long been observed (see e.g. Elliot & Olkin 1996; Hubbard 1997, and references therein). The difference is: in the extrasolar case, the lens-source distance is much smaller than the lens-observer distance, and the source is extended compared to the lens, while the opposite is true in the solar system case. In §5.1, we examine how the lensing modifications to the light curve vary with the model parameters. In §5.2, we address the question: to what extent can a lensed light curve be confused with a nonlensed light curve with different parameters? Similarly, in §5.3 we isolate characteristic modifications by the planet’s oblateness to the transit light curve. The issue of how absorption affects the color dependence of lensing is taken up in §6, where we also discuss how lensing impacts the planet transmission spectrum. Finally, we conclude in §7 with a summary and with a list of other effects that might be of comparable magnitude to the lensing and oblateness signatures.

An interesting paper by Hubbard et al. (2001) recently appeared as our paper was nearing completion. They discussed some of the same issues addressed here, but focused mainly on detailed predictions for the case of HD 209458b. They also presented calculations of atmospheric glow from Rayleigh scattering which we do not treat in this paper, although we do discuss extinction by Rayleigh scattering.

## 2 The Lensing Model

### 2.1 Formalism

Much of the formalism presented here closely parallels that used for gravitational lensing, and the similarities and differences are discussed in §2.2. Equivalent techniques have been applied to lensing of distant stars by solar system bodies (Elliot & Olkin 1996; see also Draine 1998 for a treatment of gaseous lensing by large spherical clouds). Ray optics provides the following starting point for lensing:

$$𝜽_𝑺=𝜽_𝑰+𝜽_𝑫\frac{D_{\mathrm{LS}}}{D_{\mathrm{OL}}+D_{\mathrm{LS}}},$$
(1)
where $`𝜽_𝑫`$ is the angle of deflection, $`𝜽_𝑺`$ and $`𝜽_𝑰`$ are the source and image positions, $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}`$ denotes the distance between the lens and the source, and $`D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$ is the separation between the lens and the observer. The angle of deflection is determined by spatial gradient of the refractive index $`n`$:

$`𝜽_𝑫={\displaystyle \mathbf{}n\times 𝚫\mathbf{}\times \widehat{\mathbf{}}},`$ (2)
where the sum is over individual segments of the ray $`𝚫\mathbf{}`$ with $`\widehat{\mathbf{}}`$ as the unit vector, and where $`\mathbf{}`$ is the spatial gradient.

For atmospheric lensing, $`n=1+\alpha \rho `$ where $`\rho `$ is the gas density and $`\alpha `$ is a refractive coefficient that depends on both gas composition and wavelength. A common parametrization, known as Cauchy’s formula, gives $`\alpha \rho =A_1(1+B_1/\lambda ^2)`$ where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength, and $`A_1`$, $`B_1`$ for common gases are given in Table 1 (Born & Wolf 1999 p. 101). For a $`\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{He}`$ mixture with $`24\%`$ He by mass, $`\alpha =1.243\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{g}^1`$ at $`4400`$ Å, and $`\alpha =1.214\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{g}^1`$ at $`6700`$ Å.

We are interested in cases where the deflection angle is small, and the lens is thin (i.e. distances over which significant deflection occurs is small compared to $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$). Suppose the axis connecting the observer and (the center of) the lens points in the z direction. We have

$$𝜽_𝑫=\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}n𝑑z=\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha \rho 𝑑z,$$
(3)
where $`\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}`$ is the spatial gradient in the x and y directions. We use $`𝐛=(b_1,b_2)`$ to denote the impact vector—the vector in x-y plane from the lens center to the point of impact.

The inverse of the magnification matrix is

$`A_{ij}^1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _S^i}{\theta _I^j}}`$
$`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{D_{\mathrm{OL}}D_{\mathrm{LS}}}{D_{\mathrm{OL}}+D_{\mathrm{LS}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{b_jb_i}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\alpha \rho 𝑑z,`$
where we have used $`𝐛=D_{\mathrm{OL}}𝜽_𝑰`$.

We are interested in a density profile $`\rho `$ which is ellipsoidal in general, in the sense that $`\rho =\rho (r)`$ where $`r^2=x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/a_1^2+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/a_2^2+z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/a_3^2`$. 111A spherical planet is simply a special case within the class of models we study here. The axes denoted by $`x^{}`$, $`y^{}`$, and $`z^{}`$ are generally not lined up with the $`x`$, $`y`$, and $`z`$ axes defined before. We show in Appendix A that

* such a profile is well-motivated;
* in the simple case of an isothermal atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium, the density profile is $`\rho (r)=\rho _0\mathrm{exp}[(rR_0)/H]`$ where $`R_0`$ is a reference radius whose choice will be fixed below, $`\rho _0`$ is the density at $`R_0`$, and $`H=(k_bT/g\mu m_H)`$ is the atmospheric scale height where $`k_b`$ is Boltzmann’s constant, $`T`$ is the temperature, $`g`$ the surface gravity, $`\mu `$ the mean molecular weight, and $`m_H`$ the mass of the hydrogen atom;
* The quantity $`r`$, which we loosely refer to as “radius”, can be written as $`r=`$ $`\sqrt{(1ϵ)b_1^2+(1+ϵ)b_2^2+z^2}`$ by a suitable rotation of axes, along with rescaling of the density field—as long as the deviation from spherical symmetry is small: $`ϵ1`$, or $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ are not too different from each other. The projected oblateness $`ϵ`$ is related to the actual oblateness of the planet, $`ϵ_A(a_1a_3)/a_1`$ (assuming it is axially symmetric with $`a_1=a_2`$), by $`ϵ=ϵ_A(1\mathrm{cos}^2\beta )`$ where $`\beta `$ is an Euler rotation angle.222In this paper, we use the terms oblateness and ellipticity interchangeably. $`\beta `$ is the angle between the axis of rotation of the planet and the line of sight (see Appendix A for details). Assuming $`\beta `$ is randomly distributed implies $`ϵ=ϵ_A/2`$ on average.

We also work under the simplification that $`\alpha `$, the density-independent refractive coefficient, is independent of position on the planet. This is a simplification because the atmospheric composition—hence the net value of $`\alpha `$—is expected to vary with atmospheric depth.

Putting the above together, and using $`\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}\rho (r)=(1ϵ)(𝐛/r)\rho /r`$ (upper/lower sign for $`b_1`$/$`b_2`$) in equation (2), the lensing equation (equation (1)) can be written as

$`\theta _S^1=\theta _I^1+(1ϵ)\theta _I^1\psi (u),\theta _S^2=\theta _I^2+(1+ϵ)\theta _I^2\psi (u)`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{where}\psi (u)\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{D_{\mathrm{LS}}D_{\mathrm{OL}}}{D_{\mathrm{OL}}+D_{\mathrm{LS}}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{r}}`$
$`\rho =\rho _0\mathrm{exp}[(rR_0)/H]`$
$`r^2=D_{\mathrm{OL}}^2u^2+z^2,u^2(1ϵ)\theta _{I}^{1}{}_{}{}^{2}+(1+ϵ)\theta _{I}^{2}{}_{}{}^{2}.`$
With the above form, the problem of predicting image position(s) given a source position can be reduced to solving a simple single variable equation—this and associated computational tricks are discussed in Appendix B.

The magnification is given by (equation (2.1)):

$`A\mathrm{det}A_{ij}=[1+2\psi +(1ϵ^2)\psi ^2+(1ϵ^2)u^2\psi \stackrel{~}{\psi }+(u^2+ϵv)\stackrel{~}{\psi }]^1`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{where}v(1ϵ)\theta _{I}^{1}{}_{}{}^{2}+(1+ϵ)\theta _{I}^{2}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`u^2(1ϵ)\theta _{I}^{1}{}_{}{}^{2}+(1+ϵ)\theta _{I}^{2}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(u){\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{u}}=\alpha D_{\mathrm{OL}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{D_{\mathrm{OL}}D_{\mathrm{LS}}}{D_{\mathrm{OL}}+D_{\mathrm{LS}}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho }{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{r}}\right]𝑑z,`$
and where $`u`$, $`\psi `$ and $`\rho `$ are as described in equation (5). The caustic is defined by source positions where $`A`$ diverges. The critical curve is the image of the caustic. We discuss in Appendix B how to find both, if they exist—a situation referred to as strong lensing.

Finally, the observed flux from a star during an extrasolar planet transit is given by:

$`F(t)={\displaystyle d^2\theta _SAI(𝜽_𝑺𝜽_{\mathbf{}}(t))W(𝜽_𝑰)}`$ (7)
where $`I(𝜽_𝑺𝜽_{\mathbf{}}(t))`$ is the surface brightness of the star as a function of source position. The symbol $`𝜽_{\mathbf{}}(t)`$ denotes the position of the star’s center as a function of time. We have chosen the origin of $`𝜽_𝑺`$ and $`𝜽_𝑰`$ to be centered at the planet. The sum is over all images for a given source position. The kernel $`W(𝜽_𝑰)`$ describes the occultation and absorption; in this paper, we focus on a simple model in which $`W(𝜽_𝑰)`$ is a step function,

$`W(𝜽_𝑰)`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{if}\sqrt{(1ϵ)\theta _{I}^{1}{}_{}{}^{2}+(1+ϵ)\theta _{I}^{2}{}_{}{}^{2}}>R_0/D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$
$`=`$ $`0\mathrm{otherwise}.`$
This step function specifies $`R_0`$. It is the (elliptic) radius below which the projected density exceeds some value such that the atmosphere becomes completely opaque, or it is the radius at the rocky surface of a planet. A more realistic treatment of absorption will have $`W`$ changing more gradually than this step function, and also changing with wavelength; this will be discussed in §6. As we will see, our step function model is actually a good approximation to reality. Note that both $`I`$ and $`A`$ above are functions of wavelength. Finally, for most purposes, we are only interested in the normalized $`F(t)`$ i.e. $`F(t)`$ (equation(7)) divided by its asymptotic value well away from the transit — the stellar flux: $`d^2\theta _SI(𝜽_𝑺)`$. From now on we use $`F(t)`$ to refer to the normalized value, and whenever we refer to “flux” in this paper, we always mean the stellar flux normalized by its pre- or post-transit value.

To summarize, equations (5), (6), and (7) completely specify the problem of atmospheric lensing during a planetary transit, for an isothermal atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium with an ellipsoidal density profile.

### 2.2 Atmospheric versus Gravitational Lensing

Gravitational lensing can be described by essentially the same equations presented above, except that the refractive index $`n`$ in equation (3) is equal to $`12\varphi `$, where $`\varphi `$ is the gravitational potential, instead of $`1+\alpha \rho `$. That $`\alpha `$ is wavelength dependent implies atmospheric lensing is color dependent whereas gravitational lensing is achromatic.

Similarly, gravitational lensing by an elliptic potential obeys equations (5), (6), and (7) with $`\alpha \rho `$ replaced by $`2\varphi `$. It is interesting to note, however, that a well known theorem in gravitational lensing, the magnification theorem, does not hold in atmospheric lensing. The magnification theorem states that for a given source position, the magnification of all images must sum to at least unity. This can be traced back to the fact that $`^2\varphi `$ is proportional to the mass density which is positive definite. For atmospheric density, the relevant quantity, $`^2\rho `$, is not guaranteed to be positive definite. In other words, in atmospheric lensing the magnification need not sum to unity, and thus a net suppression of flux can occur.

Another important difference between gravitational and atmospheric lensing is that gravitational lensing is almost never significant when the lens is very close to the source or the observer. This arises from the fact that the combination of distances $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}D_{\mathrm{OL}}/(D_{\mathrm{OL}}+D_{\mathrm{LS}})`$ becomes small (dominated by the smaller of the two distances) if $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$ or $`D_{\mathrm{OL}}D_{\mathrm{LS}}`$. While the same factor applies to both types of lensing, atmospheric lensing has the advantage of having available an exponential density field (or nearly so: see Appendix A). The analog for gravitational lensing, an exponential potential, almost never occurs in nature; power-law fall off is far more prevalent. An exponential density profile allows large gradients to offset an unfavorable combination of distances. To be more precise, while a power-law profile would result in factors of $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}D_{\mathrm{OL}}/[(D_{\mathrm{OL}}+D_{\mathrm{LS}})R_0]`$ in the relevant expressions (e.g. $`\psi (u)`$ in equation (5)), an exponential profile gives $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}D_{\mathrm{OL}}/[(D_{\mathrm{OL}}+D_{\mathrm{LS}})H]`$, which is considerably larger (because atmospheric scale height $`H`$ $``$ planet radius $`R_0`$). Nature offers a nice existence proof: atmospheric lensing of distant stars by the solar system planets have been observed, in spite of the fact that $`D_{\mathrm{OL}}D_{\mathrm{LS}}`$ (see §4.3). The extrasolar case we are interested in can be viewed as the symmetrical opposite with $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$.

## 3 Parameter Accounting

Several parameters enter into the problem of planetary atmospheric refraction during a transit. However, most of them appear in a few combinations. It is helpful to list them explicitly.

The quantities $`\psi (u)`$ and $`u^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }(u)`$ in the lens mapping equation (5) can be well approximated by the following expressions if $`uD_{\mathrm{OL}}/H1`$. This is true in realistic cases because $`uD_{\mathrm{OL}}`$ is constrained to be larger than $`R_0`$ in order for an image not to be obscured (occulted or absorbed) by the planet.

$`\psi (u)=B\sqrt{\pi /2}(uD_{\mathrm{OL}}/H)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}[(uD_{\mathrm{OL}}R_0)/H]`$ (9)
$`u^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }(u)=B\sqrt{\pi /2}(uD_{\mathrm{OL}}/H)^{1/2}[1+(uD_{\mathrm{OL}}/H)^1]\mathrm{exp}[(uD_{\mathrm{OL}}R_0)/H]`$
$`B2\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{H}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_{\mathrm{LS}}D_{\mathrm{OL}}}{D_{\mathrm{OL}}+D_{\mathrm{LS}}}}.`$
Note that refraction is important (or the magnification $`A`$ is significantly different from unity) only if $`uD_{\mathrm{OL}}`$ is close to $`R_0`$. Therefore, as far as the gross lensing behavior (or lack thereof) is concerned, only three parameters are important, $`B`$ as defined above, $`R_0/H`$, and $`ϵ`$.

In addition to the three lensing parameters, we have three transit parameters. They are the transit impact parameter (as opposed to the lensing impact parameter) $`\theta _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}`$ (the distance of closest approach between the center of the planet and the center of the star in angular units),333The parameter $`\theta _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}`$ is related to the planet orbital inclination $`i`$ by $`\theta _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}=[D_{\mathrm{LS}}/D_{\mathrm{OL}}]\mathrm{cos}i`$. the transit-impact-angle $`\gamma _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}`$ (the angle between the major axis of the projected planetary ellipse and the direction of transit motion), and the transit velocity $`w`$ in angular units per unit time. See Figure 2 for an illustration. Since $`w`$ basically rescales the time axis in our prediction of the transit light curve, we do not treat it as a free parameter in our predictions. We estimate it by using $`w=\sqrt{GM_{}/D_{\mathrm{LS}}}/D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$.

Finally, there are the parameters that describe the star: the stellar radius $`R_{}`$, and the surface brightness of the star, or its limb darkening function, which is often parametrized as:

$`I(𝜽_𝑺𝜽_{\mathbf{}})`$ $`=`$ $`1u_{}(1s)v_{}(1s^2)\mathrm{if}|𝜽_𝑺𝜽_{\mathbf{}}|D_{\mathrm{OL}}R_{}`$
$`=`$ $`0\mathrm{otherwise},`$
$`\mathrm{where}`$ $`s\sqrt{1(|𝜽_𝑺𝜽_{\mathbf{}}|D_{\mathrm{OL}}/R_{})^2},`$
and where $`𝜽_{\mathbf{}}`$ is the angular position of the star’s center (recall that we have chosen the origin to be at the center of the lens, the planet). The limb darkening parameters $`u_{}`$ and $`v_{}`$ are generally wavelength dependent. Typical values are $`u_{}=0.8`$, $`v_{}=0.225`$ in red bands, $`u_{}=0.99`$, $`v_{}=0.17`$ in blue bands, and $`u_{}=0.93`$, $`v_{}=0.23`$ in intermediate yellow bands (Cox 2000). Clearly, as far as the gross features of the transit are concerned, it is the ratio $`R_{}/R_0`$ that is important, not the absolute size of $`R_{}`$ (other than a rescaling in the overall duration of the transit).

In summary, we have: three lensing parameters, $`ϵ`$, $`B`$, and $`R_0/H`$; two transit parameters, $`\theta _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}`$, and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}`$; and three stellar parameters, $`R_{}/R_0`$, $`u_{}`$, and $`v_{}`$. In the case of a spherical planet the total number of parameters is reduced by two because the lensing paramter $`ϵ`$ and the transit parameter $`\gamma _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}`$ are not needed. We will not perform an exhaustive study of the full parameter space in this paper, but will be content with a mostly qualitative (with a few exceptions) description of the dependence of the transit light curve on these parameters. Some of these parameters are likely degenerate. For instance, changing $`\theta _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}`$ means the transit is sampling a different part of the stellar profile, which might be mimicked by a different limb darkening law (e.g. a different $`u_{}`$ and $`v_{}`$). Finally, note that for extrasolar systems, $`D_{\mathrm{OL}}D_{\mathrm{LS}}`$ and so $`D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$ drops out of the lensing equation (e.g. equation (5)), and appears only as an unobservable overall scaling of angular separations.

## 4 Strong Lensing and Caustic Structure

### 4.1 Condition for Strong Lensing

The first question we would like to address is when strong lensing—i.e. the existence of caustics or multiple images (which may be unresolved)—occurs. The existence of caustics could lead to significant modifications in transit light curves.

Caustics in the source plane, or critical curves in the image plane, can be obtained by solving for divergent magnification, $`A^1=0`$ (equation (6)). In the spherical case, with $`ϵ=0`$, this is straightforward. Recall that images must have $`u>R_0/D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$ to be visible, otherwise they are blocked (occulted or absorbed) by the planet (equation (2.1)). Therefore, the condition for strong atmospheric lensing by a spherical planet is

$$1+2\psi (u)+\psi (u)^2+u^2\psi (u)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(u)+u^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }(u)=[1+\psi (u)][1+\psi (u)+u^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }(u)]<0,u=R_0/D_{\mathrm{OL}}.$$
(11)
This guarantees that some images with $`u>R_0/D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$ will have $`A^1=0`$. Using the results in §3, the above condition imposes a relation between only two parameters: $`B`$ and $`R_0/H`$.

Since $`ϵ`$ is small, the condition for strong lensing by an elliptic atmosphere will not be too different from the spherical case described above. We estimate it using results proved in Appendix B (equation (37) and the following paragraph), replacing the above condition with the following:

$$1+2\psi (u)+(1ϵ^2)\psi (u)^2+(1ϵ^2)u^2\psi (u)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(u)+(1ϵ)u^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }(u)<0,u=R_0/D_{\mathrm{OL}}.$$
(12)
Using equation (9), this imposes a condition on three parameters, $`ϵ`$, $`B`$ and $`R_0/H`$,

$`1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{H}{R_0}}}Bϵ<0,`$ (13)
where we have used $`H/R_01`$ and $`ϵ1`$. This is a main result of our paper.

The above condition for strong lensing is depicted in Figure 3. We show in the same figure the relevant parameters for several known planets. We assume $`\alpha =1.2\mathrm{cm}^3/\mathrm{g}`$ for all of them. Mars (M) has $`R_03400`$ km, $`D_{\mathrm{OL}}D_{\mathrm{LS}}/(D_{\mathrm{OL}}+D_{\mathrm{LS}})1.5`$ AU, $`\rho _01.5\times 10^6\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`H8.7`$ km (Jones 1999 p. 314). Jupiter (J) has $`R_071000`$ km, $`D_{\mathrm{OL}}D_{\mathrm{LS}}/(D_{\mathrm{OL}}+D_{\mathrm{LS}})5.2`$ AU, $`\rho _03.5\times 10^5\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`H21.7`$ km (Jones 1999 p. 341). The extrasolar planet HD 209458b (HD) has $`R_010^5`$ km, $`D_{\mathrm{OL}}D_{\mathrm{LS}}/(D_{\mathrm{OL}}+D_{\mathrm{LS}})0.05`$ AU, $`\rho _016\times 10^6\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`H500700`$ km (Charbonneau et al. 2000, Henry et al. 2000, Mazeh et al. 2000, Jha et al. 2000, Burrows et al. 2000). The density $`\rho _0`$ is obtained by computing the density at which the optical depth for Rayleigh scattering is unity (at $`\lambda =6500`$ Å; see §6), or in the case of Mars, $`\rho _0`$ is the density at the base of its atmosphere, just above its solid surface. For a gaseous planet or a rocky planet with a thick atmosphere, $`\rho _0`$ (and $`R_0`$) is wavelength-dependent. For example, our own solar system planets have much stronger molecular absorption in the UV and IR compared to the optical. Strong absorption bands make $`\rho _0`$ smaller (where, again, $`\rho _0`$ is the density and $`R_0`$ the radius at which the optical depth $`=1`$), in some cases to the point where atmospheric lensing is no longer strong (recall that $`B\rho _0`$). This is illustrated by the point $`J^{}`$ where we show Jupiter observed at a waveband where the absorption cross-section is 600 times larger e.g. Rayleigh scattering observed at $`\lambda =1300`$ Å instead of $`6500`$ Å. The main effect is a dramatic decrease in $`B`$. The increase in $`R_0/H`$ is very small, because the radius varies only logarithmically with the density. We will discuss the color dependence of lensing in more detail in §6.

There is clearly a wide range of possibilities in the two-dimensional parameter space of $`B`$ and $`R_0/H`$. J and HD, which have a similar mass, occupy very different parts of the diagram primarily because they are situated at very different distances from their parent stars. Higher temperature in the latter leads to a much larger atmospheric scale height. To investigate how variables such as stellar luminosity, albedo, planet mass and composition control the lensing behavior is outside the scope of this paper. In fact, the radial velocity detections of extrasolar planets have taught us that planet orbital characteristics can be quite different from expectations based on the solar system. We therefore adopt the philosophy that the parameters spanned by the above three examples are all possible and interesting, and our goal is to understand the importance of atmospheric lensing under these conditions. We will briefly discuss the physical motivations for the choice of some parameters in §7.

### 4.2 Caustic Structure and Magnification

The lower panel of Figure 4 shows the caustic (solid line) and the critical curve (dotted line) for a fiducial model with projected oblateness $`ϵ=0.05`$ denoted by the solid square in Figure 3 (see §5 for details). A point source situated within the caustic produces 4 images.444It is interesting to note that lensing by an elliptic potential or density profile generally produces two sets of caustic curves (e.g. Schneider, Ehlers & Falco 1992), whereas we see only one here. The origin can be traced to the fact that $`\psi (u)`$ in equation (5), which is proportional to the deflection angle, is monotonic. We do not expect small local deviations from the exponential density profile to change this conclusion, because $`\psi (u)`$ involves an integral over many layers of the atmosphere.

The upper panel of Figure 4 shows the magnification as a function of source position for a point source situated on the x-axis. This figure shows that lensing has two effects. First, it suppresses the flux originating from source positions just outside $`R_0`$ ($`uD_{\mathrm{OL}}>R_0`$). Second, it brings in additional photons from source positions behind $`R_0`$ ($`uD_{\mathrm{OL}}<R_0`$)—photons which would otherwise be blocked (occulted or absorbed) by the planet. Which effect dominates can be calculated by integrating over the star (regarded here as a collection of point sources) and depends on details of the magnification profile and the limb-darkening profile (i.e. the lensing parameters, transit parameters, and stellar parameters described in §3). We can derive a simple result from equation (7) for the limiting case of a completely flat and constant $`I`$. Taking $`I`$ out of the integral in equation (7), $`F`$ can be rewritten as $`Id^2\theta _IW(𝜽_𝑰)`$, which is identical to the result if no lensing takes place. It is not hard to see that the same conclusion follows if $`I`$ is constant within some region, and if the planet is well within this region. In other words, if there is strictly no limb darkening, there will be no net gain or loss of stellar flux from atmospheric lensing, provided the projected planet is well within the stellar disk.

Realistic stellar profiles are never exactly constant. Refraction therefore generally modifies the dimming or deficit of the stellar flux during a transit, especially during ingress and egress. The sign of the modification depends on the exact transit and lensing parameters. The size of the modification can be crudely estimated from the ratio of the projected area of the atmosphere to that of the planet: $``$$`H/R_0`$, if strong lensing occurs.

### 4.3 Application to Solar System Occultations

Figure 4 also represents an occultation of a point-source background star by a solar system planet. The dotted line shows what one would expect for an atmosphereless planet (ignoring diffraction): the stellar intensity is constant and vanishes instantaneously when the star passes behind the planet as viewed by the observer. The dashed line shows the magnification from equation (6) when refraction by the atmosphere is significant. The magnification curve can be understood qualitatively as follows. (1) The diminution of starlight during ingress and egress is due to atmospheric differential refraction (not by absorption which occurs at much lower depths in this model), which causes stellar light rays to diverge away from the planet-observer line-of-sight. This is a consequence of the radial density gradient in the atmosphere. (2) When the star is behind the opaque part of the planet, the occultation light curve is not zero, because some of the stellar light rays are refracted into the observer’s line-of-sight. (3) When the point source is near the geometric center of the planet, the stellar flux is symmetrically refractively focused causing an increase in brightness. The solid line in Figure 4 shows the occultation light curve that includes the flux from the planet from reflected sunlight if the occulted star has an intensity 20% of the planet. The solid curve shows that the planet’s reflected light dominates the light curve during the stellar occultation. Hence the minimum observed brightness corresponds to the planet alone and the full extent of refractive focusing and defocusing is not observed for bright solar system planet occultations of background stars. The magnification peaks have been observed for most solar system planets (and with the multiple images even resolved in the case of Saturn; see Nicholson, McGhee, & French, 1995). Note that the magnification peaks are generally reduced due to atmospheric absorption or scattering and to the finite size of the star. Note also that if the star does not move along the axes of symmetry of the solar system planet, the two magnification peaks will generally be of different heights and widths. Also, the two peaks will merge into one if the planet’s oblateness is sufficiently small. Refractive occultations of all of the solar system planets (except Mercury) have been observed and in some cases well studied (see Elliot & Olkin 1996 and references therein). Models of them can provide temperature ($`T`$), pressure ($`P`$), and density ($`\rho `$) as a function of atmospheric depth.

## 5 The Transit Light Curve

### 5.1 Exploring the $`R_0/HB`$ Plane

Figure 5 shows the transit light curve with or without lensing for a fiducial model denoted by the solid square in Figure 3: $`B=40.3`$, $`R_0/H=117.3`$, $`ϵ=0.05`$, together with $`R_0/R_{}=0.084`$, $`R_{}/\sqrt{GM_{}/D_{\mathrm{LS}}}=233.66`$ minutes, $`u_{}=0.8`$ and $`v_{}=0.225`$, $`\theta _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}=2R_0/D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}=45^0`$. The last six parameters define the overall light deficit and rough duration of transit, the limb darkening profile, and the geometry of the transit. We emphasize that a different value for $`R_{}/\sqrt{GM_{}/D_{\mathrm{LS}}}`$3) can be easily accommodated by rescaling the time axis of all light curves shown below.

To better isolate the effect of lensing, we define and show in Figure 6 the following quantity (solid line):

$$f(t)=[\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{lens}}(t)\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{lens}}(t)]/\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{lens}}^{\mathrm{max}.},$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }F(t)1F(t)`$ represents the light deficit, and the subscripts denote whether or not lensing is taken into account (with all other parameters fixed). We choose to normalize by the maximum deficit, which can be estimated roughly by $`(R_0/R_{})^2`$.555We could normalize by the maximum deficit in the nonlensed case, but it would only modify $`f(t)`$ to higher order ($`O(f(t)^2)`$). The quantity $`f`$ is therefore a fractional difference. This gives us a nice way to estimate the absolute size of the deficit for a transit with any given $`R_0/R_{}`$: it is roughly $`(R_0/R_{})^2(1+f)`$. As we have discussed in §4, $`f`$ can be estimated by $`H/R_0`$, which is around $`1\%`$ for our fiducial model. This is in rough agreement with the results of our numerical integration. The absolute change in flux due to lensing is therefore $`1\%\times (R_0/R_{})^2`$, which for the example shown with $`R_0/R_{}0.1`$, is $`10^4`$—a potentially significant effect.

The solid line in Figure 7 shows the same quantity $`f`$ for a transiting planet with the same $`H/R_0`$, but a smaller $`B`$ ($`=14.9`$)—denoted by an open square in Figure 3. The overall magnitude of $`f`$ is a little smaller but not too dissimilar from the fiducial model above. The sign of the lensing effect as the transit progresses, however, is quite different. As we have previously discussed, two opposing lensing effects are competing. One is the suppression of flux from source positions just above $`R_0`$. The other is the addition of photons from source positions in the planet’s shadow. For the model with a larger $`B`$, the first dominates over the second effect at all times. For the model here with a smaller $`B`$, the second effect dominates, at least temporarily towards the end of ingress or beginning of egress. At mid-transit, however, the first effect still dominates. Interestingly, a search through a whole range of limb-darkening parameters reveals that lensing almost always causes a net suppression of flux at mid-transit, except when the stellar profile is very spikey at the center.

When $`B`$ is decreased further so that caustics no longer exist, the first effect, suppression of flux, will dominate. This is illustrated by the dotted line in Figure 7, which is the model denoted by a cross in Figure 3 and is chosen to resemble HD 209458b (see §4.1).666The projected ellipticity is chosen to be $`10^3`$, although its precise magnitude does not affect our conclusions here. The small oblateness is expected due to the tidal locking of rotational and orbital motions, given the proximity of HD 209458b to its companion star (see Hui & Seager, in preparation). Clearly, atmospheric lensing is weak for the close-in extrasolar giant planets like HD 209458b. This is no surprise since, as we have pointed out in §4.1 and Figure 3, there are no caustics in the case of HD 209458b. This is due to the low $`B`$ which is mainly caused by a small lens-source distance because $`B`$ is proportional to $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}`$. A second, less direct effect of the small $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}`$ is that the planet’s temperature is hotter and thus $`H`$ is higher, further decreasing $`B`$. However, it is interesting that even though the combination of parameters does not allow the existence of caustics in the case of HD 209458b, refraction nonetheless could modify the light curve at a (fractional) level of $`5\times 10^4`$ (depending on the actual atmospheric structure; see §7 for details). Note also that because $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}=0.05`$ AU for this close-in gas giant (compared to $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}=1`$ AU we adopt in previous cases); the shorter orbital radius leads to a higher velocity (the parameter $`w`$; see §3), hence a shorter transit. Finally, the dashed line in Figure 7 $`f(t)`$ shows the model shown by a triangle in Figure 3. The behavior is similar to the solid line of Figure 6, except that the overall effect is weaker. This is due to a larger $`R_0/H`$, $`700`$, from which one expects $`f`$ of the order of $`1.5\times 10^3`$, in agreement with what we find.

### 5.2 The Lensing Signal

The previous section shows that lensing can modify the transit light curve to an extent that is potentially detectable in some cases. If so, high precision photometric observations of extrasolar planet transits can provide planet atmosphere parameters such as scale height and density, both of which affect the lensing behavior. What is not clear, however, is whether a transit light curve from a planet with lensing can be distinguished from a transit light curve from a planet with slightly different parameters, but with no lensing. This is what we investigate here.

As shown in the last section, the modification introduced by atmospheric lensing is qualitatively quite different for models with or without caustics. For models with caustics, such as those shown in Figure 6, $`f(t)`$ experiences a significant dip in the light deficit around ingress and egress (the same holds for solid and dashed lines in Figure 7). This dip is caused by the additional photons brought in from the planet’s shadow due to lensing which causes the light deficit to drop temporarily. In other words, the inexorable dimming of star light at ingress is temporarily slowed down by the additional photons that are refracted into view. This effect is much weakened if caustics do not exist, as in the case of the dotted line in Figure 7, which is our model for HD 209458b. This dip, or slight reduction in the rate of dimming, introduces a distinct shape to the transit light curve during ingress and egress, which one might hope to observe.

The dotted line in Figure 6 shows the following fractional difference:

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(t)=[\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{lens}}(t,P)\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{nolens}}(t,P^{})]/\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{lens}}^{\mathrm{max}}(P),$$
(15)
where the extra argument $`P`$ denotes the whole set of parameters that determine the transit characteristics. We use $`P^{}`$ for the second term (which does not take into account lensing) to emphasize that the second term has a different set of parameters from the first term. The question is how small one can make $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ by choosing $`P^{}`$ appropriately. If $`\stackrel{~}{f}(t)`$ is too small to be detectable, then for practical purposes, one cannot tell from the observed lightcurve whether or not refraction plays a role, and therefore cannot determine useful parameters from refraction effects.

The dotted line in Figure 6 shows the result of our effort of searching for the appropriate $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{nolens}}(t,P^{})`$ that would minimize $`\stackrel{~}{f}(t)`$ for our fiducial model (solid square in Figure 3). We systematically vary a host of parameters, including $`R_0`$, $`u_{}`$, $`v_{}`$, $`w`$, $`\theta _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}`$. The minimum fractional difference we can come up with is a model that brings $`\stackrel{~}{f}(t)`$ down to about $`10^3`$ during mid-transit, but still almost $`5\times 10^3`$ at ingress and egress. It should be emphasized, however, that it is conceivable a different limb darkening law from the one we have adopted (equation (3)) could be chosen to further decrease $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$. Nonetheless, within the range of simple models we consider, it appears that the lensing signal (i.e. the caustic signal) cannot be completely masked by a clever choice of parameters. A discrepancy in $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ of $`5\times 10^3`$ is potentially observable; this fractional difference of $`5\times 10^3`$ means, for a transit where $`R_0^2/R_{}^210^2`$ say, the absolute difference in the light deficit would be $`0.5\times 10^4`$. We will discuss other nonlensing effects that might be of similar magnitude in §7.

We find that the same conclusion holds for other cases with caustics, such as those shown as solid and dashed lines in Figure 7. For cases without caustics, on the other hand, such as that shown with a dotted line in Figure 7, we find that a suitable choice of $`R_0`$ for the second term in equation (15) is generally sufficient to make $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ quite small and undetectable.

The time derivative $`dF/dt`$ provides another way to illustrate the effect of refraction. Figure 8 shows the time derivative $`dF/dt`$ for our fiducial model, with (solid line) or without (dotted line) lensing. The bottom panel focuses on the part of ingress where $`dF/dt`$ reaches its minimum value before increasing. This corresponds roughly to when half of the planet has crossed the stellar limb. What is interesting is that the presence of caustics introduces a distinct enhancement in $`dF/dt`$ (solid over dotted curve) around $`t=230`$ min. This is due to the additional photons brought about by the caustic. From Figure 4, we can see that the caustic has a size of about $`0.2R_0/D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$. Dividing it by $`w`$, the angular velocity, we obtain $`5`$ minutes, in rough agreement with the duration of the enhancement seen in Figure 8. Since the size of the caustic scales with $`ϵ`$, this offers a direct way of measuring the projected oblateness of the planet. However, it appears that one needs to be able to detect differences in $`dF/dt`$ at the level of at least one part per million per minute, which is likely difficult to achieve in the near future. Therefore, while the derivative $`dF/dt`$ offers an interesting way to look at the effect of lensing, the integral fractional differences $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ or $`f`$ might be a more practical probe.

### 5.3 The Oblateness Signal

The projected oblateness or ellipticity of a planet can affect the transit light curve. Here we explore the fractional difference

$$f_e(t)=[\mathrm{\Delta }F(t,ϵ=0.1)\mathrm{\Delta }F(t,ϵ=0)]/\mathrm{\Delta }F^{\mathrm{max}}(ϵ=0.1)$$
(16)
to determine the magnitude of the effect. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ can either have lensing taken into account or not because we would like to investigate how oblateness affects the light curve irrespective of whether or not refraction is present. Figure 9 shows $`f_e`$ for the fiducial model (solid square in Figure 3). The solid line denotes a case with lensing, and the dotted line without. It is interesting that oblateness introduces a modification to the light curve that is quite similar in the two cases.

Next we pursue the same exercise as before and ask if parameters $`P^{}`$ can be found such that the following can be minimized:

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_e(t)=[\mathrm{\Delta }F(t,ϵ=0.1,P)\mathrm{\Delta }F(t,ϵ=0,P^{})]/\mathrm{\Delta }F^{\mathrm{max}}(ϵ=0.1,P),$$
(17)
where $`P`$ denotes the parameters for our fiducial model. Figure 10 shows the results. We cannot find combinations of parameters $`P^{}`$ to reduce $`\stackrel{~}{f}_e`$ below $`10^3`$ at ingress and egress, suggesting that we might be able to distinguish light curves caused by ellipsoidal versus spherical planets. The $`P^{}`$ that minimizes $`\stackrel{~}{f}_e`$, as shown in Figure 10, turns out to correspond to a spherical planet with slightly larger $`R_0`$, and essentially the same area as the ellipse in the fiducial model. In other words, the curves in Figure 10 basically show the fractional difference between the light deficit of a spherical planet and an oblate planet ($`ϵ=0.1`$) with the same area (with or without lensing). This is a detectable signature.

How large is the lensing signature compared to the oblateness signature for the same stellar parameters? For our fiducial planet model, a comparison between Fig. 6 and (dotted line of) Fig. 10 shows that the two effects are of a comparable magnitude. Note, however, the oblateness signature can persist even if the parameters are not right for strong lensing.

The reader might have noticed that some of the previous light curves are not symmetric around $`t=0`$ (which is chosen to be the point of mid-transit or minimum flux). This is due to the fact that the major/minor axis of the planet is misaligned with the direction of motion (see Figure 2) i.e. only $`\gamma _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}=0`$ or $`\gamma _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}=90^0`$ would produce a light curve that is symmetric around $`t=0`$. In the presence of a general misalignment, the asymmetry provides another useful diagnostic of oblateness because a spherical planet can only produce symmetric lightcurves. We show in Figure 11 the following fractional difference,

$$f_{\mathrm{asym}}(t)=[\mathrm{\Delta }F(t)\mathrm{\Delta }F(t)]/\mathrm{\Delta }F^{\mathrm{max}}.$$
(18)
The solid line denotes the case for $`ϵ=0.1`$, and the dashed line for $`ϵ=0.05`$, both for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}=45^0`$. The dotted line shows the same for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}=0`$, verifying that the asymmetry vanishes for exact alignment of major (or minor) axis with the direction of motion. The lower panel shows $`f_{\mathrm{asym}}(t)`$ where all quantities are evaluated with lensing, while the upper panel shows the same without lensing. The sets of curves are almost identical. This means the degree of asymmetry in the light curve is determined by the size of the oblateness and angle $`\gamma _{\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{imp}.}`$ alone, and is insensitive to lensing.

## 6 Absorption and Color Dependence

### 6.1 More Accurate Modeling of Absorption and its Effects on Lensing

So far we have been using a crude step function model of absorption that turns abruptly on and off at $`u=R_0/D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$. Here we use absorption to refer to extinction by either absorption or scattering. Taking into account absorption in a more realistic way is in principle straightforward. For each image position, there is an associated optical depth:

$`\tau (𝜽_𝑰)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\mu m_H}}𝑑z`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{\mu m_H}}\sigma \sqrt{2\pi uD_{\mathrm{OL}}H}\mathrm{exp}[(uD_{\mathrm{OL}}R_0)/H],`$
where $`u`$ is defined in terms of $`𝜽_𝑰`$ as in equation (6), and we have used the condition that $`uD_{\mathrm{OL}}/H1`$. The symbol $`\mu m_H`$ denotes the mean molecular weight. To compute the light curve with absorption, $`W(𝜽_𝑰)`$ should be replaced by $`e^{\tau (𝜽_𝑰)}`$ in equation (7).

The absorption cross-section $`\sigma `$ can vary significantly depending on the composition of the planet atmosphere and the wavelength of interest, and is essentially infinite at the surface of a rocky planet. To demonstrate concretely the effect of more accurate, gradual absorption, we adopt the cross-section appropriate for Rayleigh scattering (Jackson 1999):

$$\sigma =10^{27}\mathrm{cm}^2(5000\AA /\lambda )^4,$$
(20)
where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength of interest.

We recompute predictions for the fiducial model (solid square in Figure 3) using the model outlined above. In Figure 12, we show the following fractional difference,

$$f_a(t)=[\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{ab}}(t)\mathrm{\Delta }F(t)]/\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{max}}$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{ab}}(t)`$ represents the deficit computed when a gradual change in absorption is used, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }F(t)`$ denotes the same computed with a step function approximation for $`W`$ (equation (2.1)). The upper solid and dotted lines in Figure 12 give the above quantity with or without lensing. Gradual absorption produces light curves that are different from a step function absorption/occultation at about the $`1\%`$ level. The above uses the same planet radius $`R_0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{ab}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$. This difference can be much diminished, however, if one chooses an appropriate $`R_0`$ for the step function model. The lower solid and dotted lines in Figure 12 are the minimized fractional difference:

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_a(t)=[\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{ab}}(t,R_0)\mathrm{\Delta }F(t,R_0^{})]/\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{max}}(R_0),$$
(22)
for cases with and without lensing respectively, where we tune $`R_0^{}`$ to make $`\stackrel{~}{f}_a`$ small. The small value of $`\stackrel{~}{f}_a(t)`$ in Figure 12 shows that our step function absorption model is actually a good approximation to reality—a suitable $`R_0`$ can always be found such that it approximates a gradual absorption model to high accuracy. This works primarily because $`e^\tau `$ does behave almost like a step function, due to the fact that $`\rho `$ and therefore $`\tau `$ varies exponentially with radius.

With the above results we can proceed to discuss the color dependence of a transit light curve. There are three main factors. First, the stellar profile changes with wavelength, generally flatter as one considers redder wavebands (see §3). Second, the refractive coefficient $`\alpha `$ varies with wavelength. The variation depends on atmosphere composition, and some examples are given in Table 1. Third, the absorption cross-section $`\sigma `$ also varies with wavelength. In fact, for Rayleigh scattering for instance (equation (20)), absorption varies much more strongly with wavelength compared to both the index of refraction and limb darkening. This can have a dramatic consequence for the existence of caustics. Consider a model like the open square in the $`BR_0/H`$ plane as shown in Figure 3. Recall that $`B=[2\alpha \rho _0/H][D_{\mathrm{OL}}D_{\mathrm{LS}}/(D_{\mathrm{OL}}+D_{\mathrm{LS}})]`$ (equation (9)). As one considers shorter wavelengths or bluer colors, $`\sigma `$ becomes larger, increasing the optical depth (equation (6.1)). In our step function model, this is equivalent to lowering $`\rho _0`$ (defined to be the density at which $`\tau =1`$), in other words lowering $`B`$.777Changing $`\sigma `$ also changes our definition of $`R_0`$ which is where $`\tau 1`$. While this does affect the transit light curve somewhat, its effect on lensing is smaller compared with that due to $`\rho _0`$. This is because varying $`\sigma `$ typically changes $`R_0`$ by a few scale heights $`H`$, and that represents a small change to $`R_0/H`$ (since $`R_0H`$), which is the other parameter that controls the lensing behavior. For sufficiently blue colors, the model would shift down from the open square in Figure 3 and cross the strong lensing threshold (the solid line), erasing the caustics, and making the lensing signal much weaker (as discussed in §5.2). The same also holds true at wavebands where other kinds of absorption are important, such as molecular electronic absorption bands in the UV, and rotational-vibrational bands in the IR of species such as H2O, CO2, and CH4. This is a well known result for solar system planet occultations of distant stars where lensing effects are strong in the optical but nonexistent in the UV and within strong absorption bands in the IR.

In summary, for extrasolar planet transits where caustics exist, we expect the lensing signal to disappear, or at least weaken, at wavebands with high extinction.

### 6.2 Planetary Atmosphere Transmission Spectrum and Stellar Spectrum

Extrasolar planet transit transmission spectra have been described in several papers for both the close-in extrasolar giant planets (Seager & Sasselov 2000; Brown, 2001; Hubbard et al. 2001) and Earth-like planets (Schneider 1994; Webb & Wormleaton 2001). For parameters with strong lensing (Figure 2) the transmission spectrum could be significantly affected by atmospheric refraction. At wavebands corresponding to the transparent continuum, strong lensing can lower the flux (recall from §5.1 that lensing generally causes a net suppression of flux during most of the transit), while as we have discussed in the last subsection, at wavebands corresponding to strong planetary absorption bands, lensing has negligible effects. The contrast between continuum and absorption lines is therefore decreased, and effective line-strengths are therefore altered.

The magnitude of this effect can be estimated as follows. Atmospheric lensing effect generally introduces a decrease in absolute flux that is approximately $`(R_0/R_{})^2\times (H/R_0)`$ for planets with caustics. Strong planetary atmosphere absorption lines on the other hand cause a change in absolute flux that is approximately $`(R_0/R_{})^2\times x\times (H/R_0)`$, where $`x`$ a few. Therefore, in a planetary transmission spectrum, the effective line strength is reduced from $`x\times (H/R_0)`$ to $`(x1)\times (H/R_0)`$. The exact size of this effect depends on details of the atmospheric structure, composition as well as the limb-darkening function.

As noted in our Figure 3, and commented on previously (Seager & Sasselov 2000; Hubbard et al. 2001; Brown 2001) the transmission spectra of the close-in extra-solar giant planets (EGPs) —including the only known transiting EGP HD 209458b—will be little affected by refraction because caustics do not exist due to the small planet-star distance (see §5.1).

Finally, we end this section by briefly commenting on the stellar spectrum. During a planetary transit, the stellar spectrum changes with time, a phenomenon referred to as a spectroscopic transit. There are at least two different effects. The first has been discussed and observed by Queloz et al. (2000). The planet blocks different parts of the rotating stellar disk as the transit progresses, causing red-shifting or blue-shifting of the stellar lines during the transit. The second effect arises from the fact that different parts of spectral lines and different lines are formed at different depths in the stellar atmosphere. As the planet transits different parts of the limb-darkened stellar disk, the stellar line shapes and strengths changes. Atmospheric lensing introduces modifications to both of the above effects, because flux from different parts of the star is magnified compared to the nonlensed case.

## 7 Discussion

Our findings are summarized as follows.

* The importance of atmospheric lensing is mainly controlled by two parameters: $`R_0/H`$ (the ratio of planet radius to atmospheric scale height) and $`B2\alpha \rho _0D_{\mathrm{LS}}/H`$ (product of the refractive coefficient, atmospheric density, and star-planet separation divided by the scale height).888 In the solar system case, $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}`$ is replaced by $`D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$, see §4.3. The condition for strong lensing—the existence of caustics—is described by equation (13) and depicted in Figure 3.
* Strong lensing generally introduces a fractional change in the light deficit of the order of $`H/R_0`$ during a planetary transit. We choose to discuss changes induced by lensing in terms of fractional changes in the light deficit ($`f(t)`$ as defined in equation (14) and shown in e.g. Figure 6) so that the absolute change in observed flux can be easily estimated for any planet-to-star size ratio.999The observed stellar flux here is always normalized by its pre- or post-transit value. It works as follows. The drop in flux during a nonlensed transit is about $`(R_0/R_{})^2`$ where $`R_{}`$ is the radius of the star. Strong lensing introduces an additional absolute change in flux that is therefore about $`(R_0/R_{})^2\times (H/R_0)`$.
* Lensing produces a characteristic slowing down in the dimming of the star light at ingress (reversed at egress). This is due to the additional photons refracted into view from the planet’s shadow. The light curve of a lensed transit can be mimicked to some extent by one of a nonlensed transit, if parameters for the latter are appropriately tuned. We find, however, that the difference between the two can remain significant especially during ingress and egress. For example, the dotted line in Figure 6 shows a fractional difference in the light deficit of $`0.5(H/R_0)`$ at ingress or egress. When this difference is larger than the observational uncertainties, we should be able to constrain the lensing signal parameters such as the atmospheric scale height, density and refractive coefficient (parameters such as $`R_0`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}`$ can be learned from other features of the light curve or other observations). The scale height and refractive coefficient will in turn give us useful information on the temperature and chemical composition of the planet.
* The strength of lensing is expected to vary significantly with color. The primary reason is the variation of absorption and scattering with wavelength. In wavebands where absorption or scattering is significant, caustics are effectively hidden by extinction. Therefore, the optimal wavebands for detecting atmospheric lensing is towards the red or near infrared, where the inevitable Rayleigh scattering is less strong, but away from strong absorption bands such as gaseous H2O or CH4. Optically thick clouds (such as enstatite in hotter planets or H2O or CH4 ice in cooler planets) might contribute significant opacity. See Hubbard et al. (2001) for a detailed treatment of HD 209458b.
* Several conditions are therefore advantageous for detecting the lensing signal: 1) observations at wavebands where absorption and scattering is weak; 2) a high temperature of the planet atmosphere due to a nearby hot star, which raises the atmospheric scale height (thereby increasing $`H/R_0`$); 3) $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}`$ large enough to keep $`B2\alpha \rho _0D_{\mathrm{LS}}/H`$ above the strong-lensing threshold. Our fiducial model (solid square in Figure 3) provides an example where lensing induces a fractional change in the light deficit of around $`1\%`$. For a planet that has an area about $`1\%`$ of the star, this implies lensing causes an absolute change of about $`10^4`$ in the normalized flux—an observationally relevant effect. This model can be realized by a gaseous giant (similar to Jupiter in mass, but with a slightly inflated radius due to high temperature) about an AU away from an A star, with observations done in red wavebands ($`\lambda 10^4`$ Å), but away from possible strong absorption bands such as water. We should emphasize there is considerable uncertainty in the size of such a planet, because the radius of a hot gaseous giant varies significantly with time (Burrows et al. 2000; see also Murray et al. 1998 and Lin et al. 1998 on change in orbital characteristics over time).
* Oblateness of the planet induces an asymmetry to the transit light curve (about the point of minimum flux), which vanishes only when the semi-major or semi-minor axis of the planet is exactly aligned with the direction of relative motion. The asymmetry is about $`0.5\%`$, as measured in fractional light deficit (equation (18) and Figure (11)), for a projected oblateness or ellipticity of $`ϵ=0.1`$, and an angle of $`45^0`$ between the semi-major axis and direction of motion. The absolute difference in flux between ingress and egress is therefore about $`0.5\%\times (R_0/R_{})^2`$, and is for example $`5\times 10^4`$ for a planet that is a tenth the size of the star.
* For HD 209458b, the only currently known transiting extrasolar planet, caustics and therefore strong lensing is absent, because of the very small lens-source separation (and the resulting large scale height due to a high temperature). Its oblateness is expected to be small, $`\text{ }<10^3`$, due to the tidal locking of its rotation to orbital motion.

In this paper, we have focused on the effects of atmospheric lensing and planet oblateness on the transit light curve. It is worthwhile to briefly list other possible “secondary” fluctuations to the light curve—variations in the observed flux other than those due to the standard spherical occultation of a star with a smooth limb darkening profile. They can be divided into three categories.

The first category is due to close companions of the planet. Rings and moons, if present, induce an asymmetry to the light curve that may be confused with oblateness. They also introduce additional parameters that control the light curve, making it perhaps more difficult to discern the lensing signal. Taking Jupiter as an example, the largest moon Ganymede has a radius of $`2635`$ km, about $`3.7\%`$ the size of Jupiter. The same moon of a Jupiter-like planet orbiting another star would induce a fractional change of about $`10^3`$ in the light deficit. This is about $`510`$ times smaller than the lensing or oblateness effects we found for our most optimistic models (Figures 6 and 11). If the moon is sufficiently far from the planet, it might also introduce distinct signatures at ingress or egress (e.g. Sartoretti & Schneider, 1998) that can be disentangled from oblateness or lensing effects. An opaque ring 1/2 the size of Saturn’s rings for a gaseous giant with $`R_p`$ = 1.4 $`R_J`$ orbiting a sun-like star would deepen the planet transit light curve by 0.05% - 1.2% depending on the inclination of the ring (Seager & Hui 2000). Ring effects might be isolated by looking for distinct shapes in the transit light curve (see Brown et al. 2001), and possibly rescattered star light.

The second category is due to the planet itself. The planet atmosphere can have persistent or transient disturbances that modify the transit light curve. Such disturbances have to be large in extent to change the light curve significantly. For instance, small uniformly distributed clouds would not introduce an asymmetry to the light curve. Something like the Great Red Spot on Jupiter could conceivably be large enough. But such disturbances cannot introduce a fractional change in the light deficit that is larger than the ratio of the projected atmospheric area to total planetary area i.e. $`H/R_0`$. It is important to emphasize that perturbations to the atmosphere that only change the effective radius of the planet $`R_0`$ are not sufficient to wash out the lensing signal; as we have shown in §5.2, just tuning $`R_0`$ is not enough to confuse a lensed transit with a nonlensed transit that has different parameters. Hubbard et al. (2001) pointed out that Rayleigh scattering, in addition to causing extinction, also produces a glow around the planet, which changes its effective size (fractional variation in size about $`1\%`$ between different wavelengths). It would be interesting to explore how both Rayleigh and condensate rescattered stellar photons affect the detailed shape of the transit light curve (i.e. aside from a simple change in $`R_0`$). Lastly, we have also ignored diffraction in this paper. Diffraction is likely unimportant for most extrasolar cases of interest, for two reasons. First, the relevant parameter combination $`(R/H)^{1/2}BD_{\mathrm{OL}}/D_{\mathrm{LS}}`$ is greater than unity (see Fig. 3), and is therefore not favorable for diffraction (see e.g. French & Gierasch 1976, Elliot et al. 1975). Second, the observed flux comes from a sum over incoherent sources distributed over the stellar surface.

The third category of secondary fluctuations is due to complications in the star. Stellar oscillations are expected to produce absolute changes in the flux at a $`10^5`$ level on the time-scale of a transit (see e.g. website for the proposed Kepler mission http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/). Also, realistic stellar profiles might have bumps and wiggles on top of the smooth profile we have assumed (§3). For instance, the light curve would be modified if a planet happens to transit over a star spot (e.g. Seager & Hui 2000). The largest effect is obtained if the spot has a size that is comparable to the planet, and the planet happens to overlap completely with the spot during the transit. At the point where the planet and spot coincide, the flux would basically return to unity, its pre-transit value. For example, an Earth-sized planet which happens to cross over an Earth-sized star spot would produce this behavior, as illustrated in the upper panel of Figure 13. This kind of situation is probably rare, however, particularly if the planet considered is a gaseous giant i.e. much larger than typical star spot (lower panel of Figure 13). Then, the absolute change in flux in such coincident transits will be roughly the ratio of the spot area to star area, $`\text{ }<10^5`$ borrowing from the example of the Sun. Note also that while lensing or oblateness effects are most easily recognized at ingress or egress, changes to the light curve due to imperfections in the stellar profile can occur throughout the transit. More detailed studies would be required to see if spots produce different signatures from lensing or oblateness, if the planet crosses them at ingress or egress. Note also that effects due to star spots are likely not repeatable over many planetary periods.

It is also worth emphasizing that even in cases where the lensing or oblateness signal is weak and therefore not easily isolated, it could still act as an important contaminant in confusing other signals one might be interested in, such as detection of moons and planetary rings. From the above discussions, it is clear future high precision measurements of extrasolar planetary transits will present a very interesting challenge—there are several sources of small secondary fluctuations (change in flux of $`10^4`$ or less) which are within observational reach and which would require some effort to disentangle. The rewards of such efforts will be substantial—from detection of moons and rings, to measuring the (projected) planet oblateness and therefore constraining its rotational period; from studies of the stellar atmosphere to studies of the planetary atmosphere, constraining for instance its scale height, temperature, density and composition.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to John Bahcall, Bruce Draine, Scott Gaudi, Joe Patterson, and Penny Sackett for useful discussions. SS is supported by the W. M. Keck foundation, and LH is supported by the Taplin Fellowship at the IAS and an Outstanding Junior Investigator Award from the DOE.

## Appendix A

Here, we would like to motivate the density profile we adopt in this paper. We begin by the following statement of hydrostatic equilibrium of the atmosphere:

$$\mathbf{}P=\rho \mathbf{}\varphi _{\mathrm{eff}.}$$
(23)
where $`P`$ is the pressure, and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{eff}.}`$ is an effective potential which is the sum of the gravitational potential $`\varphi `$ and a potential to take into account rotation:

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{eff}.}=\varphi \frac{1}{2}\omega ^2(x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})$$
(24)
where $`z^{}`$ is the axis of rotation, $`x^{}`$ and $`y^{}`$ are the perpendicular axes (we will use $`x_i^{}`$, $`i=3,1,2`$ to denote them) and $`\omega `$ is the angular speed. For an isothermal atmosphere where $`P\rho `$, the above implies

$$\rho \mathrm{exp}[\varphi _{\mathrm{eff}.}]$$
(25)
We note that planetary atmospheres are only approximately isothermal. Deviations such as temperature inversion are known to exist (e.g. Jones 1999).

The question then reduces to what kind of gravitational potential one expects for a general rotating figure of equilibrium. For bodies that are not too aspherical, we can expand the gravitational potential using the Legendre polynomials (see e.g. Danby 1962, Chandrasekhar 1969)

$$\varphi =\frac{GM_p}{r^{}}\left(1\frac{J_2}{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\frac{1}{2}(3\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{s}^2\theta 1)\mathrm{}\right)$$
(26)
where $`M_p`$ is the planet mass, $`J_2`$ is some constant coefficient which is presumably small, $`\theta `$ is the angle between the radial vector and the $`z^{}`$ axis, and $`r^{}=\sqrt{x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$. It is sufficient to illustrate our argument using only the first term – it is possible to generalize to include higher order terms in the potential expansion.

We are interested in the form of $`\varphi _{\mathrm{eff}.}`$ when $`r^{}=R(1+\eta )`$ with $`\eta 1`$, where $`R`$ is approximately the planet radius. We are also interested in cases where the angular speed $`\omega `$ is in some sense small — the relevant parameter to consider is $`R^3\omega ^2/(2GM_p)\delta 1`$. One can then express $`\varphi _{\mathrm{eff}.}`$ as

$`\varphi _{\mathrm{eff}.}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{GM_p}{r^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega ^2(x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$
$``$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{GM_p}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{GM_p}{R^2}}\sqrt{x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega ^2(x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$
$``$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{GM_p}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{GM_p}{R^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{(1+\delta )^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{(1+\delta )^2}}+z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right]^{1/2}`$
which is exact up to terms of first order in $`\eta `$ and $`\delta `$. Clearly, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{eff}.}`$ is a function of $`r`$ alone, where $`r^2_ix_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, where $`a_1=a_2=1+\delta `$, $`a_3=1`$. In the above derivation $`a_1=a_2a_3`$. A rotating body of self-gravitating fluid can actually be triaxial in general, but triaxiality is likely unimportant for the rotational velocities of interest here (see Chandrashekhar 1969, Bertotti & Fasinella 1990).

Putting the above into equation (25), we obtain

$$\rho =\rho _0\mathrm{exp}[(rR_0)/H]$$
(28)
where $`H^1`$ is the derivative of the effective potential, and $`\rho _0`$ is the atmospheric density at $`r=R_0`$. The choice of $`R_0`$ is arbitrary at this point. In §2.1, we choose it to be the radius below which the atmosphere is completely opaque.

Finally, note that the principle axes defined by $`x_i^{}`$ are not necessarily lined up with the axes defined by $`x_i`$ in §2.1 by the lensing geometry. The two sets are generally related by a rotation. Since there is freedom in rotating $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ (i.e. the lensing geometry only picks out $`x_3`$ or the z direction), we can without loss of generality relate the two sets of coordinates by two rotation matrices: $`𝐱^{}=𝐑_𝐳^{}(\gamma )𝐑_𝐱^{}(\beta )𝐱`$, where $`𝐑_𝐳^{}(\gamma )`$ is a rotation about $`x_3^{}`$ by angle $`\gamma `$, and $`𝐑_𝐱^{}(\beta )`$ is a rotation about $`x_1^{}`$ by angle $`\beta `$. Using $`a_1=a_3(1+ϵ_A)`$ and $`a_2=a_3(1+ϵ_B)`$, and assuming $`ϵ_A`$ and $`ϵ_B`$ are small (in our above derivation, $`ϵ_A=ϵ_B=\delta `$ i.e. an oblate spheroid; our derivation below continues to work even if this were violated), we can write

$`r^2=\stackrel{~}{z}^2+(12ϵ_A\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma 2ϵ_B\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma )x^2+4(ϵ_Aϵ_B)xy+(12ϵ_A\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma \mathrm{cos}^2\beta 2ϵ_B\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma \mathrm{cos}^2\beta )y^2`$ (29)
where $`\stackrel{~}{z}=[1+O(ϵ_A,ϵ_B)][z+O(ϵ_A,ϵ_B)x+O(ϵ_A,ϵ_B)y]`$.

Now, recall that the quantity that we are interested in, the deflection angle $`\theta _D`$, is given by equation (2): $`\theta _D=\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha \rho (r)𝑑z`$. One can clearly change the variable of integration from $`z`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$: $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha \rho _0\mathrm{exp}[(rR_0)/H]𝑑z=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha \rho _0\mathrm{exp}[(rR_0)/H]𝑑\stackrel{~}{z}`$ where we have absorbed the slight change in multiplicative factor into a redefinition of $`\rho _0`$. Moreover, since $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ is a dummy integration variable, we could as well rename $`\stackrel{~}{z}z`$ in equation (29).

Consider next the terms involving $`x`$ and $`y`$ in equation (29). We could easily perform a rotation to put them in the simple form: $`(1ϵ)x^2+(1+ϵ)y^2`$ if we absorb multiplicative factors into a redefinition of $`H`$ (such multiplicative factors would affect $`z`$ also, but they can once again be absorbed into redefinition of $`\rho _0`$). To be more specific, let us consider the important case where $`ϵ_A=ϵ_B`$. Then, the $`x`$ and $`y`$ terms reduce to

$`(12ϵ_A)x^2+(12ϵ_A\mathrm{cos}^2\beta )y^2=[1ϵ_A(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\beta )][(1ϵ)x^2+(1+ϵ)y^2]`$ (30)
where

$`ϵ=ϵ_A(1\mathrm{cos}^2\beta )`$ (31)
For a random distribution of angle $`\beta `$, we expect on the average $`ϵ=ϵ_A/2`$. It is unclear, however, if $`\beta `$ should be randomly distributed. The solar system planets do seem to have rotational axes pointing in all kinds of directions with respect to their orbital planes. The quantity $`ϵ_A`$ describes directly the shape of the planet: contours of constant density obey $`z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+(x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})/(1+ϵ_A)^2=`$ constant. In other words, oblateness, defined by the ratio $`(a_1a_3)/(a_1+a_3)`$, is given by $`ϵ_A/2`$ to the lowest order. One can view $`ϵ`$ as a kind of projected ellipticity or oblateness.

To summarize, with suitable rescaling of $`z`$, $`H`$ and $`\rho _0`$, we have

$`\theta _D={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\alpha \rho _0\mathrm{exp}[(rR_0)/H]dz,r^2=(1ϵ)b_1^2+(1+ϵ)b_2^2+z^2`$ (32)
where we have equated $`x`$ and $`y`$ with impact parameters $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ as defined in §2.1.

## Appendix B

We discuss here how to solve equation (5) and how to find the caustic and critical curve. Equation (5) has a form that is exactly analogous to elliptic potentials sometimes used in modeling gravitational lenses. The main trick for solving this type of lensing equation is taken directly from Schneider, Falco & Ehlers (1992), but we provide additional comments here for cases that require special attention.

Equation (5) is a set of two equations for $`\theta _I^1`$ and $`\theta _I^2`$, given the source position $`𝜽_𝑺`$. Eliminating $`\psi (u)`$ from the two equations, one obtains

$$\theta _I^2=\frac{(1ϵ)\theta _I^1\theta _S^2}{(1+ϵ)\theta _S^12ϵ\theta _I^1}$$
(33)
This gives us $`\theta _I^2`$ as a function of $`\theta _I^1`$, and substituting into the first component of the lensing equation leaves us with a single equation for $`\theta _I^1`$:

$$\theta _S^1=\theta _I^1+(1ϵ)\theta _I^1\psi (u)$$
(34)
where $`u`$ is a function of $`\theta _I^1`$ and $`\theta _I^2`$ (now function of $`\theta _I^1`$) as well. The lensing problem is therefore no more complicated than one with spherical symmetry. Once $`\theta _I^1`$ is solved for, $`\theta _I^2`$ can be obtained from equation (33).

For the case of $`\theta _S^2=0`$, the above solution always puts $`\theta _I^2=0`$. There is, however, another possibility when multiple images are allowed. Examining the analog of equation (34) for the second component, one can see that the other option for a vanishing $`\theta _S^2`$ is to have

$$1+(1+ϵ)\psi (u)=0$$
(35)
This gives a single equation for $`\theta _I^2`$ if one uses the fact that $`\theta _I^1=(1+ϵ)\theta _S^1(2ϵ)^1`$. This is obtained from eliminating $`\psi (u)`$ from the two components of equation (5), but noting $`\theta _S^2=0`$ and assuming $`\theta _I^20`$.

There is another special case: $`\theta _S^1=0`$. In this case, equation (34) tells us that there are two possibilities: $`1+(1ϵ)\psi (u)=0`$ or $`\theta _I^1=0`$. The former is handled automatically with the computational procedure above. The latter requires more care: one can solve

$$\theta _S^2=\theta _I^2+(1+ϵ)\theta _I^2\psi (u)$$
(36)
for $`\theta _I^2`$ by setting $`\theta _I^1=0`$. Doing so ensures all possible images are uncovered.

To find the caustic and critical curve, we solve $`A^1=0`$ using equation (6):

$`v={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\stackrel{~}{\psi }}}[1+2\psi +(1ϵ^2)\psi ^2+(1ϵ^2)u^2\psi \stackrel{~}{\psi }+u^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }]`$ (37)
This gives us $`v`$ for a given $`u`$. However, from the definition of $`v`$ and $`u`$ in equation (6), it is clear only $`|v|u^2`$ is physical. Therefore, the caustic or critical curve corresponds to solutions of $`v`$ given $`u`$ that satisfies $`|v|u^2`$. Strong lensing occurs when such solutions exist. For each pair of $`v`$ and $`u`$, it is easy to solve for $`\theta _I^i`$ from their definitions:

$`\theta _I^1=\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{u^2v}{2(1ϵ)}}},\theta _I^2=\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{u^2+v}{2(1+ϵ)}}}`$ (38)
Given the critical curve defined by $`\theta _I^i`$, one can then solve for the caustic using the lens mapping (equation (5)). We note that the above two expressions were interchanged by mistake in Schneider et al. (1992).