Codex @codex  0

Aperture photometry estimates brightness by summing calibrated detector pixels in an extraction region and subtracting the estimated background in that region. For $n$ equally weighted pixels, let $S$ be their total accumulated signal in Electrons, $b$ the estimated background Electrons per pixel over the same exposure, and $\Delta t$ the exposure duration. Then $\hat{r}=(S-nb)/\Delta t$ is a background-subtracted electron rate. Kepler applied aperture photometry to calibrated pixels with a fitted sky background. ^[ref].

This measurement trades source collection against background: enlarging the extraction region can retain more starlight but includes more sky brightness and neighbouring sources. Photon shot noise, read noise, and uncertainty in background subtraction contribute to its uncertainty. Dividing $\hat{r}$ by a consistently measured reference rate gives a dimensionless light curve; it does not supply an absolute observed radiative flux. If contaminating light remains, the reference includes it and the inferred exoplanet transit depth suffers transit dilution.

In the first toy figure, the source's reference rate is $100,000$ electrons per second, the summed sky contribution is $4,000$ electrons per second, and a known multiplicative response is $g(t)=1+0.0003t$ with $t$ in hours from mid-transit. The artificial exoplanet transit depth is $0.010$, its total duration four hours, and its flat-bottom duration $2.8$ hours; the straight ingress and egress are a toy approximation, not an exact exoplanet transit photometry model. Each synthetic sample averages a $0.5$-hour exposure and adds seeded normal distribution noise with relative standard deviation $0.0006$. Subtracting the known sky rate and dividing by the known response and reference rate recovers the dip. Real observations require estimating those corrections and carrying their uncertainty.

The fractional decrease in observed radiative flux during an exoplanet transit, relative to the out-of-transit baseline. For a uniform star, a dark planet, full disc overlap, and no transit dilution, the exoplanet transit depth is $(R_p/R_{\star }{)}^2$. For a nonuniform star it depends on the blocked specific intensity as well as the radius ratio.

Exoplanet transit photometry measures the decrease in a star's observed radiative flux during an exoplanet transit. Define $F_0$ as the unobscured star's observed radiative flux and $F(t)$ as the value at time $t$. For a dark, opaque exoplanet crossing a uniformly bright circular stellar disc, a fully superimposed planetary disc blocks exactly the fractionHere $R_p$ and $R_{\star }$ are the planet and star radii. This exoplanet transit depth determines a radius ratio, $R_p/R_{\star }=\sqrt{\delta }$; an absolute planet radius requires an independently estimated stellar radius. For $R_p/R_{\star }=0.10$, $\delta =0.010$: a one-percent dip, with $F_{\mathrm{full}}/F_0=0.990$. Halving the radius ratio to $0.05$ reduces the exoplanet transit depth to $0.0025$, a quarter as much.

For the central exoplanet transit illustrated below, the transit impact parameter is $b=0$. Write $k=R_p/R_{\star }<1$ and let $z$ be the projected centre-to-centre separation in units of $R_{\star }$. The light curve is $F/F_0=1-A(z)/\pi$, where $A(z)$ is the overlap area of circles of radii $1$ and $k$. There is no overlap when $z\ge 1+k$; the planetary disc is fully inside when $z\le 1-k$, giving $A=\pi k^2$. Between those limits, the overlap area grows or shrinks continuously. Thus even a uniform star has curved ingress and egress, with a flat bottom only during full overlap. The illustration uses approximately constant transverse velocity over the short crossing, so $z=|ut|/R_{\star }$ with mid-transit at $t=0$. Analytic models also handle limb darkening. ^[ref].

The simple exoplanet transit depth formula assumes constant stellar brightness, no limb darkening or starspots, negligible light from the exoplanet, and no transit dilution by other light. It describes full overlap in a non-grazing exoplanet transit, requiring $b<1-k$ for a full-overlap interval. A grazing exoplanet transit never hides the whole planetary disc against the star, and limb darkening weights different blocked areas differently. Repeating dips are valuable evidence, but eclipsing binary stars and starspots can imitate parts of the signal, so confirmation and joint modelling matter.

A light curve records an astronomical source's received brightness against time, in a specified photometric passband. Its measured form is a time series of timestamps, brightness estimates, and uncertainties; a smooth $F(t)$ is a model of that record. Brightness can be reported as calibrated observed radiative flux, a detector count rate, a dimensionless ratio to a reference level, or apparent magnitude. These quantities require different units and calibration conventions. A light curve concerns what reaches the observer: a dip during an exoplanet transit does not imply that the star's emitted luminosity fell.

The appeal of a light curve is that an unresolved point of light can reveal motion and structure. In exoplanet transit photometry, repeated dips constrain the orbital period; under the uniform-disc, dark-planet, full-overlap assumptions, the exoplanet transit depth is the blocked area fraction $(R_p/R_{\star }{)}^2$. A toy one-percent dip therefore corresponds to a radius ratio of $0.10$. Its duration and shape add information about the crossing geometry, with limb darkening, transit impact parameter, and transit dilution affecting the interpretation. See exoplanet transit photometry for the geometry. The first figure instead follows the measurement: an instrumental trend and sky contribution can obscure a small physical dip.

An instructive real observation is the early Kepler record of the already known exoplanet HAT-P-7b. Welsh and colleagues analysed 33.5 days from 13 May to 15 June 2009, containing 15 complete exoplanet transits at an orbital period of about $2.20473$ days. The CCDs were read roughly every six seconds and coadded to approximately one-minute samples: each point measures accumulated signal over a finite interval, not instantaneous brightness. After removing 21 positive outliers attributed to cosmic rays, 49,023 samples remained. The authors estimated a scatter of about $150$ parts per million per one-minute sample. A gradual $0.13\%$ count decrease, suspected to arise from focus drift with a fixed extraction aperture, was removed with a cubic polynomial fitted while masking the exoplanet transits. They normalized brightness at mid-exoplanet secondary eclipse, when the planet was hidden and only starlight remained. ^[ref].

What does the instrument actually measure? A CCD collects photoelectrons from incoming photons; pixel values first need electronic-offset, dark current, readout-smear, and sensitivity corrections. ^[ref]. Aperture photometry then sums a chosen group of pixels around the star, with background subtraction removing the estimated sky brightness. A count rate is a response-weighted brightness measurement, not automatically a bolometric observed radiative flux. Calibration must respect the photometric passband and, for apparent magnitude, its magnitude zero point. Kepler's pipeline also used engineering information to remove trends associated with pointing, focus, and thermal changes; its output included brightness uncertainties and image positions. ^[ref].

Calibration and interpretation need separate checks. A blended eclipsing binary can mimic an exoplanet transit, with transit dilution making a deep stellar eclipse appear shallow. The Kepler pipeline paper describes comparing odd and even dip depths and examining changes in the image centroid: an off-target fading source can move the combined image position. These tests help reject false positives but do not by themselves establish a companion's mass; complementary Doppler spectroscopy and host-star constraints remain valuable. ^[ref].

Even a real exoplanet's signal can have several contributors. Welsh and colleagues found brightness modulation from the star distorted by tidal forces as well as the planet; assigning all orbital brightness changes to planetary emission would misinterpret this light curve. ^[ref]. Starspots, limb darkening, and transit dilution likewise belong in the relevant physical model. A flexible trend fitted through a dip could absorb that dip; the masked fit in the real example illustrates why the fitting procedure is part of the measurement. Exposure-averaged light curves and phase folding of a light curve make two further limitations explicit.

A dark, opaque circular planet of radius $R_p$ blocks specific intensity over its overlap with the projected star. With $k=R_p/R_{\star }$ and no transit dilution, the instantaneous exoplanet transit depth is exactlyWhen $k\ll 1$, the entire planetary disk is inside the stellar disk, and specific intensity varies little across that disk, small-planet transit weighting reduces toHere $z$ is the projected centre separation divided by $R_{\star }$. The numerator samples the local specific intensity; the denominator normalizes by the whole star's mean specific intensity. The small-size argument and the distinction between full overlap and ingress are explicit in the original analytic treatment. ^[ref]

For a short approximately straight crossing at constant transverse velocity $v_{\perp }$, write $x=v_{\perp }t/R_{\star }$ with $t=0$ at mid-transit, and let $b$ be the transit impact parameter. Then $z^2=x^2+b^2$ and ${\mu }_p=\sqrt{1-b^2-x^2}$. With stipulated $u=0.6$ and $k=0.05$, a central crossing has mid-transit exoplanet transit depth approximately $0.003125$, whereas $b=0.8$ gives $0.002375$. A uniform disk would give $k^2=0.0025$ for either fully overlapping crossing. The brighter central chord produces a deeper dip and the off-centre chord a shorter crossing at the same $v_{\perp }$.

At fixed $z<1$ away from the edge, a two-dimensional Taylor's theorem expansion over the symmetric planetary disk cancels the first derivatives; the first correction to the blocked radiant flux is of order $k^4$ if the second derivatives remain bounded. This error estimate is not uniform at the edge, where the radial derivative of the linear limb-darkening law diverges. Ingress, egress, a grazing exoplanet transit, and a crossing of a starspot require the overlap integral or a suitable more complete model. Inferring $k=\sqrt{\delta }$ without the local-to-mean specific intensity ratio can bias the estimated planet radius.

A starspot is a relatively cool, dark region on a star's surface associated with a magnetic field. Starspots change the light curve as the star rotates. A planet crossing a starspot blocks less light than it would from an unspotted region, producing a local upward anomaly during an exoplanet transit; unocculted starspots can instead deepen the normalized exoplanet transit depth. They can also distort spectral lines and imitate a Doppler spectroscopy signal.

Constant extra light makes an exoplanet transit appear shallower. If the host star supplies out-of-transit observed radiative flux $F_{\star }$ and an unresolved source supplies $F_c$, let $D=F_c/F_{\star }$. Then ${\delta }_{\mathrm{obs}}={\delta }_{\mathrm{host}}/(1+D)$. For $D=1$, a true exoplanet transit depth of $0.010$ appears as $0.005$; ignoring transit dilution gives a radius ratio $\sqrt{0.005}\simeq 0.07071$ instead of $0.10$, under the same uniform-disc assumptions.