abstract: Refereeing is a crucial component of publishing astronomical research, but few professional astronomers receive formal training on how to effectively referee a manuscript. In this article, we lay out considerations and best practices for referees. This document is intended as a tool for early career researchers to develop a fair, effective, and efficient approach to refereeing.
author: Michelle Ntampaka; Ana Bonaca; Sownak Bose; Daniel J. Eisenstein; Boryana Hadzhiyska; Charlotte Mason; Daisuke Nagai; Joshua S. Speagle (

)
bibliography: references.bib
title: A Referee Primer for Early Career Astronomers

# Introduction

Referees are responsible for assessing the quality and novelty of research and to provide feedback to the editor on whether the result is appropriate for the journal. They are also responsible to provide feedback on the framing and presentation of the results. An effective referee will respond with a fair, kind, and actionable report to the authors and to the journal editor.

Because they provide support and feedback for assessing new scientific results, referees are a vital part of scientific publication. And though this is an important part of our scientific careers, few astronomers receive formal training in the process.

In this document, we discuss the process of refereeing, including: understanding ethical conflicts, framing the referee report, avoiding common referee pitfalls, navigating rejections, and framing the final referee report. See , and references therein, for additional information and complementary perspectives on refereeing best practices.

This reference is intended primarily for referees-in-training as they learn how to referee journal articles. It may also be useful to mentors as a tool for coaching their early-career mentees through the process of becoming an effective referee.

# Understanding Ethical Conflicts

Before agreeing to referee a manuscript, consider ethical conflicts that might prevent a referee from being a fair referee or that might damage your professional reputation and relationships.

1.  Am I a close collaborator of any of the authors? Engaging in an anonymous, critical conversation with close collaborators may damage these professional relationships.

2.  Do I have a poor relationship with any of the authors? Even if you feel that you can give an unbiased assessment of their work, remember that there are other valid referees who would not be spending a large amount of emotional energy to fairly assess the work.

3.  Is it "too close to comfort"? If the research is so close to your own work in progress that you could not give honest feedback or suggestions for improvement, you should discuss this with the editor before proceeding.

4.  Do I have the expertise to properly assess this research? This can be particularly difficult in the case of work that draws from more than one discipline, and any concerns about interdisciplinary work should be directed to the editor before you agree to review the manuscript.

If you suspect that you cannot be a fair, objective, and fully invested referee for any reason, you should write a short note to the editor to discuss your concerns; the editor can help you to evaluate this.

# Questions for Consideration

Expectations and norms vary from journal to journal , and when possible, you should consult with the editorial staff about what qualities should be considered in your review. Assessment questions we have found useful to focus on are:

1.  Is the research sufficiently innovative? Does it bring something new to the field?

2.  Do the authors put the research in sufficient context? Is their literature review sufficient? Have they missed any citations?

3.  Are the data and methods clearly described? Is there enough information to recreate the authors' analysis?

4.  Have the authors provided sufficient information to make their results reproducible, including access to data and software? The referee should assess whether the authors have an adequate plan for sharing data and software with the community and should share this assessment with the editor.

5.  Are the methods used appropriately?

6.  Are there passages that are unclear or ambiguous?

7.  Have the authors provided sufficient evidence to support their claims? Have the authors made unsubstantiated claims? Have they overstated their results?

8.  Have the authors appropriately discussed caveats and limitations? Have they provided clear explanations for any results that seem too good to be true?

While it is not necessary to answer each of these questions explicitly, these are just some of the assessments that will frame your report.

# Avoiding Common Pitfalls

As a referee, you should not make unkind criticisms about topics outside of the research and manuscript you are assessing. Do not make statements about the authors or their qualifications.

You should not serve as a copy editor. If significant language issues make it difficult to assess the scientific content of the manuscript, pause your review. Recommending "proofreading by a native speaker" is inappropriate. Instead, you should immediately contact the editor, tell them your concerns, and let them reach out to the authors. If the main body of the manuscript is sufficiently understandable but there are typos or ambiguous passages, commenting on these is fine.

As a referee, you should not expand the scope of the manuscript or push the manuscript to deviate significantly from the authors' intentions. You are not the authors' academic advisor and it is inappropriate to change the direction or significantly expand the scope of the manuscript. There are two exceptions to this: 1. if the original scope is insufficient for publication, you can and should explain this and consider recommending ways to extend the work, and 2. If you see a golden opportunity for the authors to improve their work, you might offer this suggestion but be clear that this is not a requirement for publication.

You should not write meandering prose regarding your opinions on the topic. The authors will need to respond to each item in your report, and this report is most useful when it is focused on clear, actionable items.

# Navigating Rejections

It can be more difficult to recommend rejection than to recommend revision and resubmission. In the case of rejections, you will need to write a clear and kind note to the authors explaining the shortfalls of the manuscript, including strong evidence supporting your claim that it is not appropriate for the journal. This does not need to be exhaustive, but you do need to be specific about some critical flaws. It can be difficult to write this in a way that is both kind and constructive, but this should be your goal. Feedback that is not constructive can be included in the confidential response to the editor.

# Framing the Final Report

Begin your review by explicitly describing the strengths, aims, and results of the manuscript. This sets a good tone for the constructive criticism that follows and it communicates to the authors that you understand their research goals. By including a summary of the manuscript and listing its strengths (rather than focusing only on the manuscript's shortcomings), you communicate fairness. Using "the manuscript" instead of "the author" or "you" in your feedback is one way to keep your feedback neutral.

Organize your feedback. The following template is commonly used:

1.  State the aims and key results of manuscript.

2.  Summarize the strengths of the manuscript.

3.  Summarize your constructive feedback or assessment of the manuscript.

4.  State your recommendation for publication.

5.  List the major weaknesses (e.g., methodological issues or overstated results).

6.  List the minor weaknesses (e.g., missing references or figure formatting issues).

Clearly articulate your feedback. Refer to sections and line numbers where applicable, and provide sufficient publication information (or arxiv or ADS links) for the authors to quickly find references.

# Final Comments

Before you submit your report, you should edit the first draft of your report for tone. This is particularly important because emails often come across as more harsh than they are intended. Aim for polite discussion with constructive criticism and clear, actionable items. Your report should be courteous without compromising honesty.

Referees provide an important service to our scientific community: evaluating new research and providing feedback to ensure that the research is clearly presented and appropriately framed. As a referee, your goal should be to provide the type of report that you would want to receive. Strive to write a report that is a fair, kind, and actionable assessment of the research.

We thank the anonymous member of the AAS Publications Editorial Staff for reviewing this article and for providing valuable feedback. We also thank Néstor , Susan Mullally, and Laura Watkins for providing thoughtful feedback on this document.


abstract: I examine the topic of training scientific generalists. To focus the discussion, I propose the creation of a new graduate program, analogous in structure to existing MD/PhD programs, aimed at training a critical mass of scientific researchers with substantial intellectual breadth. In addition to completing the normal requirements for a PhD, students would undergo an intense, several year training period designed to expose them to the core vocabulary of multiple subjects at the graduate level. After providing some historical and philosophical context for this proposal, I outline how such a program could be implemented with little institutional overhead by existing research universities. Finally, I discuss alternative possibilities for training generalists by taking advantage of contemporary developments in online learning and open science.
author: Gopal P. Sarma
*firstname.lastname@example.com*
title: **Should we train scientific generalists?**

In the age of highly specialized science, the generalist is a long forgotten job description. We have come to assume that the role played by those intellectual titans of earlier eras, such as Da Vinci, Aristotle, or Gauss, to name just a few, is an impossibility given the massive explosion of scientific knowledge of recent decades and centuries.
There is a factual reality to this sentiment that is uncontroversial. Certainly, as a percentage of existing knowledge, one could not conceivably attain the breadth of understanding that one might have in previous centuries. However, it does seem worth considering if a more modest goal could be achieved which would serve an important stabilizing role for modern science and engineering. That goal would be to train a critical mass of scientific generalists, researchers, who in addition to the specialized training of an ordinary graduate program, would also have broad exposure to multiple subjects at the graduate level.
While the need for specialization might have been something of an inevitability, it is also worth considering that there may be negative ramifications to this kind of stratification of knowledge. With so much to know, how can we be confident that we are allocating our intellectual capital efficiently? How can we be confident in our collective understanding of global trends in science?
There is no doubt that in the coming years, data analytics of the scientific corpus will play a significant role in contributing to the creation of precisely such a global view of the scientific enterprise. The digitization of journals, the availability of open API's for accessing scientific meta-data, and the integration of reference management with social networking are all poised to transform our understanding of the scientific process at a high-level. However, it seems naive to imagine that data mining techniques alone will allow us to conceive of and test the most important hypotheses about the global structure and dynamics of science without some amount of guiding intuition. To complement and maximally take advantage of the availability of massive data sets about science, as well as the computational tools to analyze those data sets, we need a critical mass of scientific generalists whose training has been designed to encourage hypothesis generation about the scientific process itself.
Furthermore, another major trend in contemporary science is the move towards ambitious scientific agendas of substantially larger scope and project size . Whereas the pioneering theories of earlier eras were often crafted by solitary thinkers working in isolation, today's breakthroughs frequently come about from large international collaborations involving hundreds or thousands of people and research budgets in the billion dollar range. In this context, the question of how to ideally train an individual scientist might be re-conceptualized as the question of how to train a scientific team member. Scientific generalists could be pivotal members of such large collaborations and play critical organizational and leadership roles.
There are certainly scientific generalists today, although they are perhaps not thought of in this way. I would broadly (and informally) categorize them into thee types:

-   **The organic academic generalist**
    This is someone who has led a traditional academic career on the tenure track, and whose research has naturally led to developing significant breadth in multiple topics. Certainly many fields have researchers in this category.

-   **The academic-industrial wanderer**
    This is someone who has left academia, or possibly had extended post-doctoral or research scientist appointments in subjects different from their PhD, and ultimately came back to academia, or led significant efforts at major industrial research laboratories. For example, the growth of computational biology and theoretical neuroscience has been driven by many theoretical physicists who have gone on to do post-doctoral training in the biological sciences, or for example, physicists from the world of quantitative finance, who have returned to academia armed with a new set of skills quite different from their PhD training.

-   **The autodidact**
    The widespread availability of advanced scientific materials via the Internet has resulted in an organic trend towards the creation of generalists simply by lowering the barrier to accessing knowledge from a wide variety of fields, scientific or otherwise. Certainly, there are many brilliant scientists in industry and elsewhere who do not have PhD's and it is not uncommon these days to encounter truly first class thinkers on a variety of topics who are largely self-taught.

The question that motivates this essay is the following: should there be another category of generalist who has been trained from outset to play a different role in the modern scientific enterprise than researchers who set out to be specialists?
As a means to stimulate discussion, but as an idea unto its own as well, I propose the following: the creation of a new graduate program, roughly analogous in structure to an MD/PhD, where in addition to the normal research requirements for completing a PhD, students complete 5 or more qualifying examinations in subjects of their choosing. For adequately prepared students, I believe that after completion of the requirements for their home department in their first or second year, students would be able pass 4 additional qualifying examinations over the course of 2-3 years, after which they would resume their PhD research and complete their degree.[^1]
The choice of the qualifying examination as the focal point for this program is that it encapsulates the basic vocabulary of a field, the core knowledge required to conduct in depth research. The aim of this program is emphatically *not* to train researchers who have in depth, specialized knowledge of 5 different subjects– that would be an unreasonable, if not outright impossible goal. Rather, the aim is to train students who understand the culture, the basic tools, and broad perspectives of multiple subjects, so that they can contribute to strengthening the very foundations of the scientific establishment.
Certainly, universities who undertake the process of creating such a program might choose to begin with a fewer number of qualifying examinations. I chose this number because it would allow for individual students to engage with multiple, quite different subjects over the course of their graduate education, and because 6-8 month blocks per subject would create a program roughly on par with the length of an MD/PhD. Part of the value in creating such a program would be the message and the vision it would send to younger students who are aspiring to life-long careers as scientists. Just as undergraduates who aspire to careers as physician-scientists must adequately prepare themselves with appropriate exposure to both research and clinical work, aspiring scientific generalists would need to prepare themselves with advanced coursework of sufficient breadth to tackle the challenging initial years of this graduate program.
For an ambitious program such as this one to maximally benefit both the student and the scientific establishment at large, there would need to be a strong culture to support those students who choose to undergo such a rigorous and extended training. In particular, in order for the knowledge gained by these students to develop into something much more rich and robust than a massive list of facts and problem solving techniques from 5 different subjects, they would need to be part of a mentoring program in which the process of learning each of these different subjects was accompanied by historical and philosophical discussion. During each qualifying examination block, students would ideally also attend regular seminars in the department, and perhaps nominally be affiliated with a research group and attend group meetings. There would need to be a culture among the students and faculty mentors that supported reflection about problem solving strategies, about the structural differences between the vocabulary and subject matter across different fields. Ultimately, these observations and insights, whether in raw or more developed form would need to be communicated more broadly.
One possibility might be to accompany the qualifying examination process with a historical essay exploring some topic of interest to the student in consultation with a faculty mentor. For instance, a student whose PhD was in theoretical condensed matter physics and who passed examinations in physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, and computer science might write an in depth essay on the emergence of quantitative methods in the study of natural selection. A mathematics PhD student specializing in stochastic analysis and who passed qualifying examinations in mathematics, physics, statistics, computer science, and economics, might write about the contributions that mathematical finance pioneer Fisher Black made to macroeconomics.
While this program may seem daunting, I would like to emphasize that individuals who pursue MD/PhD degrees and ultimately become board certified in a medical specialty need to pass a similar array of hurdles– in addition to PhD requirements for their research training they have to pass multiple level of board examinations to become licensed physicians.
It is also important to keep in mind that the training program described here is a graduate level training program, and consequently, should be thought of as being the first step in a career-long trajectory. A person who completed this program is no more a mature scientific generalist than a person who completes an ordinary PhD program is a mature specialist. In order for the subsequent phases of growth and development to take place, there would need to be a supporting infrastructure overseeing the post-doctoral period of the students' training. Furthermore, it is certainly possible, and would be expected even, that a subset of students who successfully complete this training would simply choose to pursue tenure track jobs in their area of specialty. Again, the MD/PhD is something of a guide– certainly many dual-degree graduates become purely clinical practitioners or pure researchers and do not actively build careers bridging the two. Students who pursue the more traditional routes will not be at a disadvantage and one would hope that the unique and rigorous educational experience they went through would inform the remainder of their scientific careers both as researchers and as teachers. But for those that wish to mature into the novel role of scientific generalists that I am proposing, there would need to be special post-doctoral programs providing generous several year funding that would give them the freedom to develop their vision. For the initial batch of students, there would inevitably be some amount of trial and error while both students and faculty developed an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the program.
While one can only speculate about the contributions graduates of this program would ultimately come to make, I close by suggesting a few possibilities. We might imagine tenured professorships for generalists who have smaller research groups than they would otherwise have, but who are active members of several different groups led by other faculty. In addition to playing a critical organizational role, these faculty members would bring their considerable technical expertise and scientific breadth to each group in the capacity of something along the lines of a scientific consultant.
Venture capital might be another place where scientific generalists could have a significant impact, playing the role of bridge builders between academia and industry, and perhaps actively managing their own portfolios and overseeing scientific startup incubators.
One of the most important roles generalists could play would be to aid in the development of younger scientific institutions, particularly in the developing world. The specific aim of this program is to train scientists who have significant exposure to the cultural elements of advanced science in multiple disciplines, whose training allowed them to be both scientists as well as participatory anthropologists of the scientific process. For both younger universities in the developed world, as well as new institutions in the developing world, scientific generalists could be critical leaders and agenda setters, and perhaps, will be in a position to identify important research trajectories, or important cultural elements for executing those trajectories, that existing institutions have overlooked.
It would be incomplete and short-sighted to discuss novel educational initiatives without considering important contemporary developments in online education and open science. Furthermore, given that another major contemporary theme in graduate education is the over production of PhD's relative to the availability of faculty positions, it would be understandable if a lengthy and extremely demanding variant of the PhD program is difficult to mobilize. One possibility to balance these different factors would be to create an open system for crediting a student for having passed a qualifying examination. Just as universities (and private companies) now offer certificates for coursework completed in a non-degree granting context, an open certification for anyone who is able to pass a qualifying examination would be a valuable credential that an individual could earn to demonstrate competency at the beginning graduate level. For this certification to be available across all disciplines would be one step towards many different forms of educational innovation in the research world, including the training of scientific generalists.
Before closing, let me re-examine the choice of the qualifying examination as the focal point for this particular proposal and consider alternatives. Although the qualifying examination is an important rite of passage in graduate education, many will correctly point out that it is hardly something that contributes to depth of research maturity. This is certainly a valid point, and in response, I would argue that the purpose of the program is not to train individuals who have achieved the maturity of the best specialists in multiple subjects, but rather individuals who can appreciate and communicate the knowledge of specialists, and who therefore would make strong collaborators, bridge builders, program managers, and journal editors etc. The purpose of organizing a program for training generalists around the qualifying examination is in a large part analogous to why we have such examinations in the first place- they do contribute to some amount of intellectual and technical maturity and are an important experience to have early in one's education. Furthermore, it is a simply stated idea that would require little institutional overhead, and would circumvent the inevitably controversial process of otherwise designing a curriculum.[^2]
It is not difficult to imagine alternatives, however. One possibility would be a several year post-doctoral program where fellows rotated through several different laboratories and research groups in succession. Or, in the spirit of the newly emerging trend of "hacker schools" and data-science boot camps, we could imagine creating analogously structured mini-courses designed by experts in the field targeted at advanced graduates whose training was in another field entirely. Indeed, many academic research areas have highly topic specific summer schools and winter schools and one could imagine a several year post-doctoral program built around a handful of different sessions spread across multiple subjects. Perhaps there should be a component both at the beginning of the PhD, like the hybrid qualifying examination system I outline above, as well as a post-doctoral component. Ultimately, it is difficult to imagine that some trial and error would not be required in the design of such a program. In addition, one thing is certain- successfully executing a program like this would require an organization to support students' growth for many years, and given the fundamentally experimental nature of such an effort, several years longer than we are accustomed to supporting graduate students. Perhaps then, the ideal path forward would be to set into motion multiple efforts aimed at the common goal of training scientific generalists, so that over time, we can learn from our successes and mistakes. To do so, of course, would require long-term institutional efforts to scientifically investigate the efficacy and impact of different training programs.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Aaswath Raman, Doug Bemis, Venkatesh Narayanamurti, and Rob Spekkens for insightful discussions.

[^1]: Over 60 years ago, in the essay "The Education of a Scientific Generalist," Hendrik Bode, Frederick Mosteller, John Tukey, and Charles Winsor argued for a program of similar breadth, but at the undergraduate level . One wonders what their reaction would be to the current proposal given the enormous growth of science in the intervening decades.

[^2]: It is worth mentioning that even within the same subject, there are many different types of qualifying examinations. In the context of this essay, perhaps Caltech's Computation and Neural Systems program (CNS) provides a possible template. The model they employ is to give students a list of 100 questions that they use as preparatory material in the year leading up to an oral qualifying examination with 5 faculty members . In a sense, the program is aimed at training "generalists" within the computational and neurobiological sciences. It seems natural to ask if this model could be extended to incorporate other subjects as well. That is, what if a list of 500 questions were to be assembled spanning multiple subjects and a set of oral qualifying examinations were conducted by faculty spanning a number of different departments? Or a few thousand questions from which a student selected some subset to prepare?


abstract: The ABSTRACT is to be in fully-justified italicized text, at the top of the left-hand column, below the author and affiliation information. Use the word "Abstract" as the title, in 12-point Times, boldface type, centered relative to the column, initially capitalized. The abstract is to be in 10-point, single-spaced type. The abstract may be up to 3 inches (7.62 cm) long. Leave two blank lines after the Abstract, then begin the main text.
author: Paolo Ienne
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Microcomputing Laboratory
IN-F Ecublens, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
email@example.com
; Second Author
Institution2
First line of institution2 address
Second line of institution2 address
email@example.com
bibliography: ieee.bib
title: LaTeX Author Guidelines for $8.5 \times 11$-Inch Proceedings Manuscripts

# Introduction

Please follow the steps outlined below when submitting your manuscript to the IEEE Computer Society Press. Note there have been some changes to the measurements from previous instructions.

# Instructions

Please read the following carefully.

## Language

All manuscripts must be in English.

## Printing your paper

Print your properly formatted text on high-quality, $8.5 \times 11$-inch white printer paper. A4 paper is also acceptable, but please leave the extra 0.5 inch (1.27 cm) at the BOTTOM of the page.

## Margins and page numbering

All printed material, including text, illustrations, and charts, must be kept within a print area 6-7/8 inches (17.5 cm) wide by 8-7/8 inches (22.54 cm) high. Do not write or print anything outside the print area. Number your pages lightly, in pencil, on the upper right-hand corners of the BACKS of the pages (for example, 1/10, 2/10, or 1 of 10, 2 of 10, and so forth). Please do not write on the fronts of the pages, nor on the lower halves of the backs of the pages.

## Formatting your paper

All text must be in a two-column format. The total allowable width of the text area is 6-7/8 inches (17.5 cm) wide by 8-7/8 inches (22.54 cm) high. Columns are to be 3-1/4 inches (8.25 cm) wide, with a 5/16 inch (0.8 cm) space between them. The main title (on the first page) should begin 1.0 inch (2.54 cm) from the top edge of the page. The second and following pages should begin 1.0 inch (2.54 cm) from the top edge. On all pages, the bottom margin should be 1-1/8 inches (2.86 cm) from the bottom edge of the page for $8.5 \times 11$-inch paper; for A4 paper, approximately 1-5/8 inches (4.13 cm) from the bottom edge of the page.

## Type-style and fonts

Wherever Times is specified, Times Roman may also be used. If neither is available on your word processor, please use the font closest in appearance to Times that you have access to.

MAIN TITLE. Center the title 1-3/8 inches (3.49 cm) from the top edge of the first page. The title should be in Times 14-point, boldface type. Capitalize the first letter of nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs; do not capitalize articles, coordinate conjunctions, or prepositions (unless the title begins with such a word). Leave two blank lines after the title.

AUTHOR NAME(s) and AFFILIATION(s) are to be centered beneath the title and printed in Times 12-point, non-boldface type. This information is to be followed by two blank lines.

The ABSTRACT and MAIN TEXT are to be in a two-column format.

MAIN TEXT. Type main text in 10-point Times, single-spaced. Do NOT use double-spacing. All paragraphs should be indented 1 pica (approx. 1/6 inch or 0.422 cm). Make sure your text is fully justified—that is, flush left and flush right. Please do not place any additional blank lines between paragraphs. Figure and table captions should be 10-point Helvetica boldface type as in

Long captions should be set as in

Callouts should be 9-point Helvetica, non-boldface type. Initially capitalize only the first word of section titles and first-, second-, and third-order headings.

FIRST-ORDER HEADINGS. (For example, **1. Introduction**) should be Times 12-point boldface, initially capitalized, flush left, with one blank line before, and one blank line after.

SECOND-ORDER HEADINGS. (For example, **1.1. Database elements**) should be Times 11-point boldface, initially capitalized, flush left, with one blank line before, and one after. If you require a third-order heading (we discourage it), use 10-point Times, boldface, initially capitalized, flush left, preceded by one blank line, followed by a period and your text on the same line.

## Footnotes

Please use footnotes sparingly [^1] and place them at the bottom of the column on the page on which they are referenced. Use Times 8-point type, single-spaced.

## References

List and number all bibliographical references in 9-point Times, single-spaced, at the end of your paper. When referenced in the text, enclose the citation number in square brackets, for example . Where appropriate, include the name(s) of editors of referenced books.

## Illustrations, graphs, and photographs

All graphics should be centered. Your artwork must be in place in the article (preferably printed as part of the text rather than pasted up). If you are using photographs and are able to have halftones made at a print shop, use a 100- or 110-line screen. If you must use plain photos, they must be pasted onto your manuscript. Use rubber cement to affix the images in place. Black and white, clear, glossy-finish photos are preferable to color. Supply the best quality photographs and illustrations possible. Penciled lines and very fine lines do not reproduce well. Remember, the quality of the book cannot be better than the originals provided. Do NOT use tape on your pages!

## Color

The use of color on interior pages (that is, pages other than the cover) is prohibitively expensive. We publish interior pages in color only when it is specifically requested and budgeted for by the conference organizers. DO NOT SUBMIT COLOR IMAGES IN YOUR PAPERS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTED TO DO SO.

## Symbols

If your word processor or typewriter cannot produce Greek letters, mathematical symbols, or other graphical elements, please use pressure-sensitive (self-adhesive) rub-on symbols or letters (available in most stationery stores, art stores, or graphics shops).

## Copyright forms

You must include your signed IEEE copyright release form when you submit your finished paper. We MUST have this form before your paper can be published in the proceedings.

## Conclusions

Please direct any questions to the production editor in charge of these proceedings at the IEEE Computer Society Press: Phone (714) 821-8380, or Fax (714) 761-1784.

[^1]: Or, better still, try to avoid footnotes altogether. To help your readers, avoid using footnotes altogether and include necessary peripheral observations in the text (within parentheses, if you prefer, as in this sentence).


author: Dániel Kondor; Márton Pósfai; István Csabai; Gábor Vattay
date: 2024-10-03
title: Do the rich get richer? An empirical analysis of the Bitcoin transaction network

# Abstract

The possibility to analyze everyday monetary transactions is limited by the scarcity of available data, as this kind of information is usually considered highly sensitive. Present econophysics models are usually employed on presumed random networks of interacting agents, and only some macroscopic properties (e.g. the resulting wealth distribution) are compared to real-world data. In this paper, we analyze Bitcoin, which is a novel digital currency system, where the complete list of transactions is publicly available. Using this dataset, we reconstruct the network of transactions and extract the time and amount of each payment. We analyze the structure of the transaction network by measuring network characteristics over time, such as the degree distribution, degree correlations and clustering. We find that linear preferential attachment drives the growth of the network. We also study the dynamics taking place on the transaction network, i.e. the flow of money. We measure temporal patterns and the wealth accumulation. Investigating the microscopic statistics of money movement, we find that sublinear preferential attachment governs the evolution of the wealth distribution. We report a scaling law between the degree and wealth associated to individual nodes.

# Introduction

In the past two decades, network science has successfully contributed to many diverse scientific fields. Indeed, many complex systems can be represented as networks, ranging from biochemical systems, through the Internet and the World Wide Web, to various social systems . Economics also made use of the concepts of network science, gaining additional insight to the more traditional approach . Although a large volume of financial data is available for research, information about the everyday transactions of individuals is usually considered sensitive and is kept private. In this paper, we analyze Bitcoin, a novel currency system, where the complete list of transactions is accessible. We believe that this is the first opportunity to investigate the movement of money in such detail.

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital cash system, there is no single overseeing authority . The system operates as an online peer-to-peer network, anyone can join by installing a client application and connecting it to the network. The unit of the currency is one bitcoin (abbreviated as BTC), and the smallest transferable amount is $10^{-8} \, \textrm{BTC}$. Instead of having a bank account maintained by a central authority, each user has a Bitcoin address, that consists of a pair of public and private keys. Existing bitcoins are associated to the public key of their owner, and outgoing payments have to be signed by the owner using his private key. To maintain privacy, a single user may use multiple addresses. Each participating node stores the complete list of previous transactions. Every new payment is announced on the network, and the payment is validated by checking consistency with the entire transaction history. To avoid fraud, it is necessary that the participants agree on a single valid transaction history. This process is designed to be computationally difficult, so an attacker can only hijack the system if he possesses the majority of the computational power of participating parties. Therefore the system is more secure if more resources are devoted to the validation process. To provide incentive, new bitcoins are created periodically and distributed among the nodes participating in these computations. Another way to obtain bitcoins is to purchase them from someone who already has bitcoins using traditional currency; the price of bitcoins is completely determined by the market.

The Bitcoin system was proposed in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, and the system went online in January 2009 . For over a year, it was only used by a few enthusiasts, and bitcoins did not have any real-world value. A trading website called MtGox was started in 2010, making the exchange of bitcoins and conventional money significantly easier. More people and services joined the system, resulting a steadily growing exchange rate. Starting from 2011, appearances in the mainstream media drew wider public attention, which led to skyrocketing prices accompanied by large fluctuations (see Fig. ). Since the inception of Bitcoin over 17 million transactions took place, and currently the market value of all bitcoins in circulation exceeds 1 billion dollars. See the Methods section for more details of the system and the data used in our analysis.

We download the complete list of transactions, and reconstruct the transaction network: each node represents a Bitcoin address, and we draw a directed link between two nodes if there was at least one transaction between the corresponding addresses. In addition to the topology, we also obtain the time and amount of every payment. Therefore, we are able to analyze both the evolution of the network and the dynamical process taking place on it, i.e. the flow and accumulation of bitcoins. To characterize the underlying network, we investigate the evolution of basic network characteristics over time, such as the degree distribution, degree correlations and clustering. Concerning the dynamics, we measure the wealth statistics and the temporal patterns of transactions. To explain the observed degree and wealth distribution, we measure the microscopic growth statistics of the system. We provide evidence that preferential attachment is an important factor shaping these distributions. Preferential attachment is often referred to as the "rich get richer" scheme, meaning that hubs grow faster than low-degree nodes. In the case of Bitcoin, this is more than an analogy: we find that the wealth of already rich nodes increases faster than the wealth of nodes with low balance; furthermore, we find positive correlation between the wealth and the degree of a node.

# Results

## Evolution of the transaction network

Bitcoin is an evolving network: new nodes are added by creating new Bitcoin addresses, and links are created if there is a transaction between two previously unconnected addresses. The number of nodes steadily grows over time with some fluctuations; especially noticeable is the large peak which coincides with the first boom in the exchange rate in 2011 (Fig. ) . After five years Bitcoin now has $N=13,086,528$ nodes and $L=44,032,115$ links. To study the evolution of the network we measure the change of network characteristics in function of time. We identify two distinct phases of growth: (i) The *initial phase* lasted until the fall of 2010, in this period the system had low activity and was mostly used as an experiment. The network measures are characterized by large fluctuations. (ii) After the initial phase the Bitcoin started to function as a real currency, bitcoins gained real value. The network measures converged to their typical value by mid-2011 and they did not change significantly afterwards. We call this period the *trading phase*.

We first measure the degree distribution of the network. We find that both the in- and the outdegree distributions are highly heterogeneous, and they can be modeled with power-laws . Figures  and  show the distribution of indegrees and outdegrees at different points of time during the evolution of the Bitcoin network. In the initial phase the number of nodes is low, and thus fitting the data is prone to large error. In the trading phase, the exponents of the distributions do not change significantly, and they are approximated by power-laws $p_\text{in}(k_\text{in}) \sim k_\text{in}^{-2.18}$ and $p_\text{out}(k_\text{out}) \sim k_\text{out}^{-2.06}$.

To further characterize the evolution of the degree distributions we calculate the corresponding Gini coefficients in function of time (Fig. ). The Gini coefficient is mainly used in economics to characterize the inequality present in the distribution of wealth, but it can be used to measure the heterogeneity of any empirical distribution. In general, the Gini coefficient is defined as $$G = \frac{2 \sum_{i=1}^n i x_i}{n \sum_{i=1}^n x_i} -\frac{n+1}{n}$$ where $\{x_i\}$ is a sample of size $n$, and $x_i$ are monotonically ordered, i.e. $x_i \leq x_{i+1}$. $G=0$ indicates perfect equality, i.e. every node has the same wealth; and $G=1$ corresponds to complete inequality, i.e. the complete wealth in the system is owned by a single individual. For example, in the case of pure power-law distribution with $\alpha \geq 2$ exponent, the Gini coefficient is $G = 1 / (2 \alpha - 3)$ . This shows the fact that smaller $\alpha$ exponents yield more heterogeneous wealth distributions.

In the Bitcoin network we find that in the initial phase the Gini coefficient of the indegree distribution is close to 1 and for the outdegree distribution it is much lower. We speculate that in this phase a few users collected bitcoins, and without the possibility to trade, they stored them on a single address. In the second phase the coefficients quickly converge to $G^\text{in}\approx 0.629$ and $G^\text{out}\approx 0.521$, indicating that normal trade is characterized by both highly heterogeneous in- and outdegree distributions.

To characterize the degree correlations we measure the Pearson correlation coefficient of the out- and indegrees of connected node pairs: $$r = \frac{\sum_{e} ( j^{\textrm{out}}_e-\overline{j^{\textrm{out}}} )
        ( k^{\textrm{in}}_e-\overline{k^{\textrm{in}}} )}
    { L \sigma_\text{out}\sigma_\text{in} }.$$ Here $j^{\textrm{out}}_i$ is the outdegree of the node at the *beginning* of link $e$, and $k^{\textrm{in}}_i$ is the indegree of the node at the *end* of link $e$. The summation $\sum_{e }\cdot$ runs over all links, $\overline{k^{\textrm{in}}}= \sum_{e} k^{\textrm{in}}_e / L$ and $\sigma_\text{in}^2 = \sum_{e} ( k^{\textrm{in}}_e-\overline{k^{\textrm{in}}} )^2 / L$. We calculate $\sigma_\text{out}$ and $\overline{j^{\textrm{out}}}$ similarly.

We find that the correlation coefficient is negative, except for only a brief period in the initial phase. After mid-2010, the degree correlation coefficient stays between $-0.01$ and $-0.05$, reaching a value of $r\approx-0.014$ by 2013, suggesting that the network is disassortative (Fig. ). However, small values of $r$ are hard to interpret: it was shown that for large purely scale-free networks $r$ vanishes as the network size increases . Therefore we compute the average nearest neighbor degree function $k^\text{in}_\text{nn}(k^\text{out})$ for the final network; $k^\text{in}_\text{nn}(k^\text{out})$ measures the average indegree of the neighbors of nodes with outdegree $k^\text{out}$. We find clear disassortative behavior (Fig. ).

We also measure the average clustering coefficient $$C = \frac1N \sum_v \frac{\Delta_v}{d_v (d_v-1)/2},$$ which measures the density of triangles in the network. Here the sum $\sum_v\cdot$ runs over all nodes, and $\Delta_v$ is the number of triangles containing node $v$. To calculate $\Delta_v$ we ignored the directionality of the links; $d_v$ is the degree of node $v$ in the undirected network.

In the initial phase $C$ is high, fluctuating around $0.15$ (see Fig. ), possibly a result of transactions taking place between addresses belonging to a few enthusiasts trying out the Bitcoin system by moving money between their own addresses. In the trading phase, the clustering coefficient reaches a stationary value around $C\approx 0.05$, which is still higher than the clustering coefficient for random networks with the same degree sequence ($C_\text{rand} \approx 0.0037(9)$).

To explain the observed broad degree distribution, we turn to the microscopic statistics of link formation. Most real complex networks exhibit distributions that can be approximated by power-laws. Preferential attachment was introduced as a possible mechanism to explain the prevalence of this property . Indeed, direct measurements confirmed that preferential attachment governs the evolution of many real systems, e.g. scientific citation networks , collaboration networks , social networks  or language use . In its original form, preferential attachment describes the process when the probability of forming a new link is proportional to the degree of the target node . In the past decade, several generalizations and modifications of the original model were proposed, aiming to reproduce further structural characteristics of real systems . Here, we investigate the nonlinear preferential attachment model , where the probability that a new link connects to node $v$ is $$\label{eq:nonlinkernel}
 \pi(k_v) = \frac{k_v^\alpha}{\sum_w k_w^\alpha},$$ where $k_v$ is the indegree of node $v$, and $\alpha > 0$. The probability that the new link connects to *any* node with degree $k$ is $\Pi(k)\sim n_k (t) \pi(k)$, where $n_k (t)$ is the number of nodes with $k$ degree at the time of the link formation. We cannot test directly our assumption, because $\Pi(k)$ changes over time. To proceed we transform $\Pi(k)$ to a uniform distribution by calculating the rank function $R(k,t)$ for each new link given $\pi(k)$ and $n_k(t)$: $$R(k,t) = \frac{ \sum_{j=0}^k n_{j} (t) j^{\alpha} }{ \sum_{j=0}^{k_{\mathrm{max}}} n_{j} (t) j^{\alpha} } = %
    \frac{ \sum_{k_v < k} k_v^{\alpha} }{ \sum_v k_v^{\alpha} } \textrm{.}
    \label{erank}$$

If Eq.  holds, $R(k,t)$ is uniformly distributed in the interval $[0,1]$, independently of $t$. Therefore, if we plot the cumulative distribution function, we get a straight line for the correct exponent $\alpha$. To determine the best exponent, we compare the empirical distribution of the $R$ values to the uniform distribution for different exponents by computing the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff distance between the two distributions.

Evaluating our method for indegree distribution of the Bitcoin network, we find good correspondence between the empirical data and the presumed conditional probability function; the exponent giving the best fit is $\alpha \approx 1$ (Fig. ). This shows that the overall growth statistics agree well with the preferential attachment process. Of course, preferential attachment itself cannot explain the disassortative degree correlations and the high clustering observed in the network. We argue that preferential attachment is a key factor shaping the degree distribution, however, more detailed investigation of the growth process is necessary to explain the higher order correlations.

## Dynamics of transactions

In the this section, we analyze the detailed dynamics of money flow on the transaction network. The increasing availability of digital traces of human behavior revealed that various human activities, e.g. mobility patterns, phone calls or email communication, are often characterized by heterogeneity . Here we show that the handling of money is not an exception: we find heterogeneity in both balance distribution and temporal patterns. We also investigate the microscopic statistics of transactions.

The state of node $v$ at time $t$ is given by the balance of the corresponding address $b_v(t)$, i.e. the number of bitcoins associated to node $v$. The transactions are directly available, and we can infer the balance of each node based on the transaction list. Note that the overall quantity of bitcoins increases over time: Bitcoin rewards users devoting computational power to sustain the system.

We first investigate the temporal patterns of the system by measuring the distribution of inactivity times $T$. The inactivity time is defined as the time elapsed between two consecutive outgoing transactions from a node. We find a broad distribution that can be approximated by the power-law $P(T) \sim 1 / T$ (Fig. ), in agreement with the behavior widely observed in various complex systems .

It is well known that the wealth distribution of society is heterogeneous; the often cited –and quantitatively not precise– 80-20 rule of Pareto states that the top 20% of the population controls 80% of the total wealth. In line with this, we find that the wealth distribution in the Bitcoin system is also highly heterogeneous. The proper Pareto-like statement for the Bitcoin system would be that the 6.28% of the addresses posesses the 93.72% of the total wealth. We measure the distribution of balances at different points of time, and we find a stable distribution. The tail of wealth distribution is generally modeled with a power-law , following this practice we find a power-law tail $\sim x^{-1.984}$ for balances $\gtrsim 50 \textrm{BTC}$ (see Fig. ). However, visual inspection of the fit is not convincing: the scaling regime spans only the last few orders of magnitude, and fails to reproduce the majority of the distribution. Instead we find that the overall behavior is much better approximated by the stretched exponential distribution $P(b) \sim b^{-\gamma} e^{-(a b)^{1-\gamma}}$, where $\gamma = 0.873$ and $a = 8014 \, \textrm{BTC}^{-1}$.

To further investigate the evolution of the wealth distribution we measure the Gini coefficient over time. We find that the distribution is characterized by high values throughout the whole lifetime of the network, reaching a stationary value around $G\approx 0.985$ in the trading phase (see Fig. ).

To understand the origin of this heterogeneity, we turn to the microscopic statistics of acquiring bitcoins. Similarly to the case of degree distributions, the observed heterogeneous wealth distributions are often explained by preferential attachment. Moreover, preferential attachment was proposed significantly earlier in the context of wealth distributions than complex networks . In economics preferential attachment is traditionally called the Matthew effect or the "rich get richer phenomenon" . It states that the growth of the wealth of each individual is proportional to the wealth of that individual. In line with this principle, several statistical models were proposed to account for the heterogeneous wealth distribution .

To find evidence supporting this hypothesis, we first investigate the change of balances in fixed time windows. We calculate the difference between the balance of each address at the end and at the start of each month. We plot the differences in function of the starting balances (Fig. ). When the balance increases, we observe a positive correlation: the average growth increases in function of the starting balance, and it is approximated by the power-law $\sim b^{0.857}$. This indicates the "rich get richer" phenomenon is indeed present in the system. For decreasing balances, we find that a significant number of addresses lose all their wealth in the time frame of one month. This phenomenon is specific to Bitcoin: due to the privacy concerns of users, it is generally considered a good practice to move unspent bitcoins to a new address when carrying out a transaction .

To better quantify the preferential attachment, we carry out a similar analysis to the previous section. However, there is a technical difference: in the case of the evolution of the transaction network, for each event the degree of a node increases by exactly one. In the case of the wealth distribution there is no such constraint. To overcome this difficulty we consider the increment of a node's balance by one unit as an event, e.g. if after a transaction $b_v$ increased by $\Delta b_v$, we consider it as $\Delta b_v$ separate and simultaneous events. We only consider events when the balance associated to an address increases, i.e. the address receives a payment. We now calculate the rank function $R(b,t)$ defined in Eq. , and plot the cumulative distribution function of the $R$ values observed throughout the whole time evolution of the Bitcoin network (Fig. ). Visual inspection shows that no single exponent provides a satisfying result, meaning that $\pi(b_v)$ cannot be modeled by a simple power-law relationship like in Eq. . However, we do find that the "average" behavior is best approximated by exponents around $\alpha \approx 0.8$, suggesting that $\pi(b_v)$ is a sublinear function. In the context of network evolution, previous theoretical work found that sublinear preferential attachment leads to a stationary stretched exponential distribution , in line with our observations.

We have investigated the evolution of both the transaction network and the wealth distribution separately. However, it is clear that the two processes are not independent. To study the connection between the two, we measure the correlation between the indegree and balance associated to the individual nodes. We plot the average balance of addresses as a function of their degrees on Fig. . For degrees in the range of $1$–$3000$ (over $99.99\%$ of all nodes with nonzero balance), the average balance is a monotonously increasing function of the degree, and it is approximated by the power-law $b \sim k_\text{in}^{0.617}$, indicating that the accumulated wealth and the number of distinct transaction partners an individual has are inherently related. Similar scaling was reported by Tseng et al., who conducted an online experiment where volunteers traded on a virtual market .

# Methods

## The Bitcoin network

Bitcoin is based on a peer-to-peer network of users connected through the Internet, where each node stores the list of previous transactions and validates new transactions based on a proof-of-work system. Users announce new transactions on this network, these transactions are formed into *blocks* at an approximately constant rate of one block per 10 minutes; blocks contain a varying number of transactions. These blocks form the block-chain, where each block references the previous block. Changing a previous transaction (e.g. double spending) would require the recomputation of all blocks since then, which becomes practically infeasible after a few blocks. To send or receive bitcoins, each user needs at least one address, which is a pair of private and public keys. The public key can be used for receiving bitcoins (users can send money to each other referencing the recipient's public key), while sending bitcoins is achieved by signing the transaction with the private key. Each transaction consists of one or more *inputs* and *outputs*. In Fig.  we show a schematic view of a typical Bitcoin transaction. Readers interested in the technical details of the system can consult the original paper by Satoshi Nakamoto  or the various resources available on the Internet .

An important aspect of Bitcoin is how new bitcoins are created, and how new users can acquire bitcoins. New bitcoins are generated when a new block is formed as a reward to the users participating in block generation. The generation of a valid new block involves solving a reverse hash problem, whose difficulty can be set in a wide range. Participating in block generation is referred to as *mining* bitcoins. The nodes in the network regulate the block generation process by adjusting the difficulty to match the processing power currently available. As interest in the Bitcoin system grew, the effort required to generate new blocks, and thus receive the newly available bitcoins, has increased over 10 million fold; most miners today use specialized hardware, requiring significant investments. Consequently, an average Bitcoin user typically acquires bitcoins by either buying them at an exchange site or receiving them as compensation for goods or services.

Due to the nature of the system, the record of all previous transactions since its beginning are publicly available to anyone participating in the Bitcoin network. From these records, one can recover the sending and receiving addresses, the sum involved and the approximate time of the transaction. Such detailed information is rarely available in financial systems, making the Bitcoin network a valuable source of empirical data involving monetary transactions. Of course, there are shortcomings: only the addresses involved in the transactions are revealed, not the users themselves. While providing complete anonymity is not among the stated goals of the Bitcoin project , identifying addresses belonging to the same user can be difficult , especially on a large scale. Each user can have an unlimited number of Bitcoin addresses, which appear as separate nodes in the transaction records. When constructing the network of users, these addresses would need to be joined to a single entity.

Another issue arises not only for Bitcoin, but for most online social datasets: It is hard to determine which observed phenomena are specific to the system, and which results are general. We do not know to what extent the group of people using the system can be considered as a representative sample of the society. In the case of Bitcoin for example, due to the perceived anonymity of the system, it is widely used for commerce of illegal items and substances ; these types of transactions are probably overrepresented among Bitcoin transactions. Ultimately, the validity of our results will be tested if data becomes available from other sources, and comparison becomes possible.

## Data

We installed the open-source `bitcoind` client and downloaded the blockchain from the peer-to-peer network on May 7th, 2013. We modified the client to extract the list of all transactions in a human-readable format. We downloaded more precise timestamps of transactions from the `blockchain.info` website's archive. The data and the source code of the modified client program is available at the project's website  or through the Casjobs web database interface .

The data includes 235,000 blocks, which contain a total of 17,354,797 transactions. This dataset includes 13,086,528 addresses (i.e. addresses appearing in at least one transaction); of these, 1,616,317 addresses were active in the last month. The Bitcoin network itself does not store balances associated with addresses, these can be calculated from the sum of received and sent bitcoins for each address; preventing overspending is done by requiring that the input of a transaction corresponds to the output of a previous transaction. Using this method, we found that approximately one million addresses had nonzero balance at the time of our analysis.

# Discussion

We have preformed detailed analysis of Bitcoin, a novel digital currency system. A key difference from traditional currencies handled by banks is the open nature of the Bitcoin: each transactions is publicly announced, providing unprecedented opportunity to study monetary transactions of individuals. We have downloaded and compiled the complete list of transactions, and we have extracted the time and amount of each payment. We have studied the structure and evolution of the transaction network, and we have investigated the dynamics taking place on the network, i.e. the flow of bitcoins.

Measuring basic network characteristics in function of time, we have identified two distinct phases in the lifetime of the system: (i) When the system was new, no businesses accepted bitcoins as a form of payment, therefore Bitcoin was more of an experiment than a real currency. This initial phase is characterized by large fluctuations in network characteristics, heterogeneous indegree- and homogeneous outdegree distribution. (ii) Later Bitcoin received wider public attention, the increasing number of users attracted services, and the system started to function as a real currency. This trading phase is characterized by stable network measures, dissasortative degree correlations and power-law in- and outdegree distributions. We have measured the microscopic link formation statistics, finding that linear preferential attachment drives the growth of the network.

To study the accumulation of bitcoins we have measured the wealth distribution at different points in time. We have found that this distribution is highly heterogeneous through out the lifetime of the system, and it converges to a stable stretched exponential distribution in the trading phase. We have found that sublinear preferential attachment drives the accumulation of wealth. Investigating the correlation between the wealth distribution and network topology, we have identified a scaling relation between the degree and wealth associated to individual nodes, implying that the ability to attract new connections and to gain wealth is fundamentally related.

We believe that the data presented in this paper has great potential to be used for evaluating and refining econophysics models, as not only the bulk properties, but also the microscopic statistics can be readily tested. To this end, we make all the data used in this paper available online to the scientific community in easily accessible formats .

# Acknowledgments

The authors thank András Bodor and Philipp Hövel for many useful discussions and suggestions. This work has been supported by the European Union under grant agreement No. FP7-ICT-255987-FOC-II Project. The authors thank the partial support of the European Union and the European Social Fund through project FuturICT.hu (grant no.: TAMOP-4.2.2.C-11/1/KONV-2012-0013), the OTKA 7779 and the NAP 2005/KCKHA005 grants. EITKIC_12-1-2012-0001 project was partially supported by the Hungarian Government, managed by the National Development Agency, and financed by the Research and Technology Innovation Fund and the MAKOG Foundation.


author: B.-O. Demory$^{1}$, M. Gillon$^{2}$, D. Deming$^3$, D. Valencia$^1$, S. Seager$^1$, B. Benneke$^1$, C. Lovis$^4$, P. Cubillos$^5$, J. Harrington$^5$, K. B. Stevenson$^5$, M. Mayor$^4$, F. Pepe$^4$, D. Queloz$^4$, D. Ségransan$^4$, S. Udry$^4$
date: Received 3 May 2011 / Accepted 31 July 2011
title: Detection of a transit of the super-Earth 55 Cnc e with warm *Spitzer*[^1]

# Introduction

Radial velocity (RV), microlensing and transit surveys have revealed the existence in our Galaxy of a large population of planets with a mass of a few to $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}20 Earth masses (Lovis et al. 2009; Sumi et al. 2010; Borucki et al. 2011). Based on their mass (or minimum mass for RV planets), these planets are loosely classified as "super-Earths" ($M_p \le10\: M_\oplus$) and "Neptunes" ($M_p > 10\: M_\oplus$). This classification is based on the theoretical limit for gravitational capture of H/He, $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}10 $M_\oplus$ (e.g., Rafikov 2006), and thus implicitly assumes that Neptunes are predominantly ice giants with a significant H/He envelope, and that most super-Earths are massive terrestrial planets. Still, the diversity of this planetary population is probably much larger than sketched by this simple division, as we can expect from the stochastic nature of planetary formation.

The first transit of one of these low-mass planets, GJ 436 b, was detected in 2007 (Gillon et al. 2007). Thanks to its transiting nature, the actual mass ($M_p= 23.2 \pm 0.8\: M_\oplus$) and radius ($R_p=4.22 \pm 0.10\: R_\oplus$) of GJ 436 b could be accurately determined (Torres, 2007), indicating for this "hot Neptune" a mass, radius and density indeed very similar to the ice giant planets Uranus and Neptune. More recently, several other transiting low-mass planets were detected. While many more planet candidates detected by the $Kepler$ mission are waiting for confirmation (Borucki et al. 2011), the first confirmed low-mass transiting planets already show a large diversity. Some of these planets, like HAT-P-11 b (Bakos et al. 2010) and Kepler-4 b (Borucki et al. 2010b), are similar to Neptune and GJ 436 b. Kepler-11 c (Lissauer et al. 2011) seems to be a smaller version of Neptune, while HAT-P-26 b (Hartman et al. 2010) has a much lower density (0.4 $\pm$ 0.10 g cm$^{-3}$ $vs$ 1.64 g cm$^{-3}$ for Neptune) that is consistent with a significantly larger H/He fraction. The super-Earths CoRoT-7 b (Léger et al. 2009, Hatzes et al. 2010) and Kepler-10 b (Batalha et al. 2011) are probably massive rocky planets formed in the inner part of their protoplanetary disks. The super-Earth GJ 1214 b (Charbonneau et al. 2009) is still mysterious in nature. Its large radius ($R_p = 2.44 \pm 0.21\: R_{\oplus}$, Carter et al. 2011) suggests a significant gaseous envelope that could originate from the outgassing of the rocky/icy surface material of a terrestrial planet or that could be of primordial origin, making it a kind of "mini-Neptune" (Rogers & Seager 2010). Recent transit transmission spectrophotometric measurements for GJ 1214 b seem to rule out a cloud-free atmosphere composed primarily of hydrogen (Bean et al. 2010, Désert et al. 2011), but more atmospheric measurements are needed to determine the exact nature of its envelope. The case of GJ 1214 b shows nicely that understanding the true nature of a low-mass exoplanet could require not only precise measurements of its mass and radius, but also a study of its atmospheric properties.

Among all the low-mass transiting exoplanets detected so far, only GJ 1214 b and GJ 436 b, and to a lesser extent HAT-P-11 b and HAT-P-26 b, orbit around stars small enough and bright enough in the infrared to make possible a thorough atmospheric characterization with existing or future facilities like JWST (e.g., Shabram et al. 2011). Improving our understanding of the low-mass planet population orbiting around solar-type stars requires that such planets are detected in transit in front of much nearer/brighter host stars than the targets of surveys like CoRoT (Barge et al. 2008) or *Kepler* (Borucki et al. 2010a). This is the main goal of two ambitious space mission projects in development: PLATO (Catala et al. 2010) and TESS (Ricker et al. 2010). Still, another and more straightforward possibility exists. Doppler surveys target bright nearby stars, and they have now detected enough nearby low-mass planets to make highly probable that a few of them transit their parent stars. This motivated us to search with *Spitzer* for transits of low-mass Doppler planets having the highest transit probability. In a previous paper (Gillon et al. 2010, hereafer G10), we described the reasons that have led us to conclude that *Spitzer* and its Infra-Red Array Camera (IRAC, Fazio et al. 2004) were the best instrumental choice for this transit search, and presented the results of our *Spitzer* cycle 5 program targeting HD 40307 b (Mayor et al. 2009). The rest of our program consist of a cycle 6 DDT program (ID 60027) of 100 hours that targeted ten other low-mass planets. *Spitzer*'s cryogen was depleted at the end of cycle 5, and these observations were thus carried out in non-cryogenic mode ("warm *Spitzer*").

The recent announcement of 55 Cnc e transits detection by the *MOST* satellite (Winn et al. 2011) motivated the publication of this paper. Our initial analysis of the warm *Spitzer* data taken in last January concluded a transit detection but also that several sources of instrumental effects needed to be fully characterized before securing the detection. We only recently obtained a satisfactory instrumental model for warm *Spitzer* photometry, through a global analysis of calibration data and of all the observations of our cycle 6 program (Gillon et al., in prep.). Once applied to our 55 Cnc data, this instrumental model leads not only to the firm detection of the transit of , but also to a precise determination of its transit parameters.

Section 2 presents our derivation of the transit ephemeris from the published RVs. In Section 3, we present our data and their analysis that reveals the transiting nature of the planet. We discuss our transit detection and its implications in Section 4.

# Transit ephemeris estimation

We performed a global analysis of all the available RVs for 55 Cnc to estimate the most reliable transit ephemeris for 55 Cnc e. This analysis was done with the adaptative Markov Chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) algorithm described in G10. We assumed Keplerian orbits for the five planets orbiting 55 Cnc, after having checked that planet-planet interactions had negligible influence on our solutions, using for this purpose the *Systemic Console* software package (Meschiari et al. 2009). Our analysis was based on the orbital solution recently presented for 55 Cnc e by Dawson & Fabrycky (2010). As shown by these authors, the orbital period value initially reported for this planet, 2.8 days (McArthur et al. 2004; Fischer et al. 2008), was an alias of the true period, 0.74 day. We verified this result by making two independent MCMC analyses of the RVs, one assuming $P\sim 0.74$ day and the other assuming $P\sim 2.8$ days.

Using the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC; e.g. Carlin & Louis 2008) to estimate the marginal likelihood of both models, and assuming that these models have the same prior probability, we obtained an odds ratio of $\sim10^{16}$ in favor of the P = 0.74 day model, indicating a decisive strength of evidence for this model (Jeffreys 1961). The best-fitting model obtained from this analysis was used to estimate the jitter noise in the RV datasets. 6.0 for Lick, 4.3 for Keck, 5.5 for HET and 15 for ELODIE were added in quadrature to the published error bars to derive the uncertainties on the physical parameters of 55 Cnc e presented in Table 1.

In addition to some basic parameters for the host star, the origin of the RVs used as input data, and a description of our warm *Spitzer* observations, Table 1 provides the most relevant results of our MCMC analysis for 55 Cnc e. The large transit probability, $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}29%, and the very well constrained transit ephemeris (1$\sigma$ error $<$ 1 hour in 2011) of this super-Earth ($M_p = 7.8 \pm 0.6\: M_\oplus$) made it an extremely interesting target for our transit search program.

Basic data for the star 55 Cnc, relevant results of our MCMC analysis of the RVs, and description of the data (RVs + warm Spitzer observations) used in this work. 1Van Leeuwen (2007). 2Turon et al. (1993). 3Skrutskie et al. (2006). 4Fischer et al. (2008). 5Valenti & Fischer (2005). 6von Braun et al. (2011). 7Mac Arthur et al. (2004). 8Naef et al. (2004). aAssuming Mpsin i = Mp. The minimum and maximum values correspond, respectively, to a pure iron and a pure hydrogen planet (Seager et al. 2007). bAssuming a null albedo and a heat distribution factor f′ = 1/4 (Seager 2010). cAOR = Astronomical Observation Request = Spitzer observing sequence. dBCD = Basic Calibrated Data = block of 64 subarray exposures.

Star

55 Cnc

Distance d [parsec]

12.34 ± 0.121

V magnitude

5.96 ± 0.012

K magnitude

4.02 ± 0.033

Spectral type

K0V - G8V4

Effective temperature [K]

5234 ± 305

Surface gravity

4.45 ± 0.085

Metallicity Fe/H [dex]

+0.31 ± 0.045

Mass M* [M⊙]

0.905 ± 0.0156

Radius R* [R⊙]

0.943 ± 0.0106

RV data

250 Lick4

70 Keck4

119 HET7

48 ELODIE8

Planet (MCMC results)

55 Cnc e

Minimal Mass Mpsin i [M⊕]

7.80 ± 0.56

Expected Radius Rp [R⊕]a

1.3 - 5.7

Expected Area ratio (Rp/R*)2 [ppm]

150 - 3000

Equilibrium temperature Teq [K]b

1958 ± 15

Ttransit − 2450000 [HJD]

5568.011 ± 0.025

Toccultation − 2450000 [HJD]

5568.368 ± 0.030

Orbital period P [d]

0.7365437 ± 0.0000052

Central transit duration Wb = 0 [min]

98 ± 2

RV semi-amplitude K []

5.93 ± 0.42

Semi-major axis a [AU]

0.01544 ± 0.00009

Eccentricity e

0.061−0.043+0.065

Argument of periastron ω [deg]

202−70+88

Prior transit probability [%]

28.9 ± 1.5

Prior occultation probability [%]

29.3 ± 1.8

Warm Spitzer data

Channel [μm]

4.5

AORc

39524608

Exposure time [s]

0.01

NBCDd

5240

Duration [hr]

5

# Data analysis

## Data description

55 Cnc was observed by *Spitzer* on 6 January 2011 from 9h41 to 14h39 UT. The data consist of 5240 sets of 64 individual subarray images obtained by the IRAC detector at 4.5 $\mu$m with an integration time of 0.01s, and calibrated by the *Spitzer* pipeline version S18.18.0. They are available on the *Spitzer* Heritage Archive database[^2] under the form of 5240 Basic Calibrated Data (BCD) files. We first converted fluxes from the *Spitzer* units of specific intensity (MJy/sr) to photon counts, then performed aperture photometry on each subarray image with the `IRAF/DAOPHOT`[^3] software (Stetson, 1987). We tested different aperture radii and background annuli, the best result being obtained with an aperture radius of 3 pixels and a background annulus extending from 11 to 15.5 pixels from the PSF center. The center of the PSF was measured by fitting a Gaussian profile to each image. We discarded the first ten minutes of data to allow the detector to stabilize. The $x$-$y$ distribution of the measurements was then looked at, and we discarded the few measurements having a very different position than the bulk of the data. For each block of 64 subarray images, we then discarded measurements with discrepant values of flux, background, $x$ and $y$ positions using a $\sigma$ median clipping (5$\sigma$ for the flux and 10$\sigma$ for the other parameters), and the resulting values were averaged, the photometric error being taken as the error on the average flux measurement. At this stage, a 50$\sigma$ slipping median clipping was used on the resulting light curve to discard totally discrepant fluxes.

Figure 1 shows the resulting raw light curve, and the time-series for the background and the $x$ and $y$ positions. As can be seen in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, the measured background showed an unusual evolution during the run. It remained stable during $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}3.5 hrs, then it increased abruptly of a few %, and finally its scatter increased largely. Such a behavior is most probably of instrumental origin. We included this instrumental effect in our data modeling (see below).

## Modeling the systematics

The IRAC 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m detectors are composed of InSb arrays that show a strong intrapixel quantum efficiency (QE) variability, the QE being maximal in the middle of the pixel and decreasing towards the edges. The full-width at half maximum (FWHM) of the point-spread function (PSF) is $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}1.7 pixels. This undersampling of the PSF combined with the QE intrapixel variability leads to a strong dependance of the measured stellar flux on the exact location of the PSF center in a pixel. As *Spitzer*'s pointing wobbles with an amplitude of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}0.1 pixel and a period of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}1h, this leads to a severe systematic effect in the photometric time-series acquired at 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m, known as the "pixel-phase" effect. This effect was already present in the cryogenic part of the *Spitzer* mission and is very well-documented (e.g., Knutson et al. 2008 and references therein). It is the main limit to the photometric precision of warm *Spitzer* (e.g., Ballard et al. 2010). From a comprehensive analysis, the *Spitzer* engineering team identified recently the cause of the *Spitzer* pointing wobble as the thermal cycling of a heater used to keep a battery within its nominal temperature range[^4]. After extensive testing and review, it was decided to reduce by a factor of two the thermal amplitude of the cycling while increasing its frequency to make it differ more from the typical frequency of planetary transits and occultations. Our data were obtained after this heater change. The correlation between the measured fluxes and the stellar image position is clearly noticeable in the raw light curve, the resulting periodic pattern having a typical period $\sim$ 35 min, corresponding to a cycle of the heater after the engineering change. We modeled this "pixel-phase" effect with the following 2$^{nd}$-order $x$ and $y$ position polynomial: $$\begin{aligned}
A(dx,dy) & =  & a_1+a_2dx +a_3dx^2+a_4dy+a_5dy^2 \nonumber\\
              &       & +a_6dxdy \textrm{,}
\end{aligned}$$ where $dx$ and $dy$ are the distance of the PSF center to the center of the pixel. This model for the "pixel-phase" effect is quite classical in the exoplanet literature (e.g., Knutson et al. 2008, Désert et al. 2009). Correcting the light curve with the best-fit "pixel-phase" model lead to the light curve visible in Fig. 3. It shows a drop of brightness with an amplitude compatible with a transit of 55 Cnc e. It also shows some other low-amplitude flux modulations that are caused by other warm *Spitzer* systematic effects (see below).

One could argue that the transit-like pattern could be caused by the imperfect correction of the "pixel-phase" effect by the function shown in Eq. 1. This is very unlikely, as the duration of the transit-like structure does not correspond to the one of the wobbles of the stellar position on the chip. To discard firmly this possibility, we tried 3$^{rd}$ and 4$^{th}$-order version of Eq. 1 that led to very similar light curves. We also corrected the "pixel-phase" effect by a totally different method that relies only on the data themselves and not on any numerical function. We divided the pixel area sampled by the PSF center into $33\times33$ small boxes. If at least 5 subarray measurements felt into a given box, and if these measurements sampled at least 0.14 days (70% of the duration of the run) the corresponding measurements were divided by their mean value. If these two conditions were not met for a given box, its measurements were discarded. The reduction procedure was then identical to the one described above. The light curve obtained after this correction by an "intrapixel flatfield" was totally similar (pattern, scatter) to the one visible in Fig. 3. To assess the dependancy of the observed transit-like structure on the details of the reduction procedure several independent reductions of the data were performed by four of us (M. G., B.-O. D., D. D., P. C.), all using different reduction and detrending procedures. We also tested performing photometry on the 5240 images resulting from the averaging of the 64 subarray images of each BCD file, using a median filter to reject outlying pixels. Finally, we inspected the light curves obtained without background subtraction. In all cases, the obtained light curves were very similar to the one shown in Fig. 3, confirming the independence of the obtained photometry on the details of the reduction procedure.

At this stage, we performed a thorough MCMC analysis of our photometry to deduce the transit detection significance, using as input data the raw light curve obtained with an aperture of 3 pixels. Our model assumed a mass of $0.905 \pm 0.015 M_\odot$ for 55 Cnc (von Braun et al. 2011), and a circular orbit with $P=0.7365437$ days for 55 Cnc e (Sect. 2). We used the model of Mandel & Agol (2002) for the transit, in addition to the following model for the photometric variations of instrumental and stellar origin: $$\begin{aligned}
A(dx,dy,dt)  & =  & a_1+a_2dx +a_3dx^2+a_4dy+a_5dy^2 \nonumber\\
                   &    &  + a_6dxdy + a_7dt   \nonumber\\
                   &    &  +  a_8\sin \bigg( \frac{dt - a_{9}}{a_{10}} \bigg) \nonumber\\
                   &    &  + a_{11} \log{dt} + a_{12} \log{dt}^2 \textrm{,}
\end{aligned}$$ where $dt$ is the time elapsed since 2455568.05 BJD, i.e. the time at which the background increases sharply (Fig. 1 & 2). The $a_{11}$ and $a_{12}$ terms were only applied for $dt > 0$. The six first terms of this equation correspond to the "pixel-phase" model (Eq. 1). The purpose of the linear term in $dt$ is to model a possible smooth variation of the stellar brightness. The other terms result from our extensive analysis of our entire set of warm *Spitzer* data (Gillon et al., in prep.) and of available calibration data that lead us to conclude to a low-amplitude periodic variability of the effective gain of the detector, its typical period lying between 30 and 60 minutes and its amplitude being in average of a few dozens of ppm. Considering the challenging photometric precision required by our program, it is very important to take it into account, justifying the sine term in Eq. 2. We are currently working with the *Spitzer* engineering team to find the origin of this periodic variation. We also notice that a "background explosion" such as the one affecting the last part of our data is correlated to a sharp increase of the effective gain of the detector that is very well modeled by the last two terms of Eq. 2. The MCMC uses the whole dataset to simultaneously fit for the transit model and the baseline function presented in Eq. 2.

## MCMC analysis and model comparison

The following parameters were jump parameters[^5] in our analysis: the planet/star area ratio $(R_p /R_s )^2$, the transit width (from first to last contact) $W$, the impact parameter $b = a \cos{i}/R_\ast$, and the time of minimum light $T_0$. We assumed a uniform prior distribution for these jump parameters, but we imposed a Gaussian prior for the stellar radius $R_\ast$ based on $R_\ast = 0.943 \pm 0.010 R_\odot$ (Table 1). We assumed a quadratic limb-darkening law with coefficients $u_1=0.0706$ and $u_2=0.1471$. These values were drawn from the theoretical tables of Claret & Bloemen (2011) for the IRAC 4.5 $\mu$m bandpass and for = 5250 K, =4.5 and \[Fe/H\]=+0.3. The 12 coefficients of the baseline models (Eq. 2) were determined by least-square minimization at each steps of the Markov chains (see G10 and references therein for details). The correlated noise present in the LC was taken into account as described by G10, i.e., a scaling factor $\beta_r$ was determined from the standard deviation of the binned and unbinned residuals of a preliminary MCMC analysis, and it was applied to the error bars. Several binning intervals ranging from 10 to 90 minutes were tried in preliminary short Markov Chains, and the maximal value for $\beta_r$, 1.35, was used in our analysis.

We performed two new MCMC analyses, one with a transit of 55 Cnc e, and one without. Figure 4 shows the resulting best-fit transit model and its residuals. The odds ratio (Eq. 2 alone) $vs$ (Eq. 2 + transit) is $\sim 10^8$ in favor of the transit model. The transit of 55 Cnc e is thus firmly detected. The period of the sinusoid ($a_{10}$) derived from the MCMC is 51 minutes, well decoupled from the transit duration (96 minutes) and significantly longer than the pixel-phase timescale (35 minutes). Its amplitude is 115$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}27 ppm. We show in Fig. 5 the different contributions of the spatially- and time-dependent terms of Eq. 2. This shows that the time-dependent terms are well decoupled from the transit pattern. Table 2 presents the resulting transit and physical parameters and 1$\sigma$ error limits derived for 55 Cnc e.

Median and 1σ limits of the posterior distributions derived for 55 Cnc e from our MCMC analysis of our warm Spitzer photometry. The mass and mean density are derived from the parameters in Table 1.

(Rp/R*)2 [ppm]

410 ± 63

b = acos i/R* [R*]

0.16−0.10+0.13

Transit width W [d]

0.0665−0.0019+0.0011

T0 − 2450000 [BJD]

5568.0265−0.0010+0.0015

Rp/R*

0.0202−0.0016+0.0015

a/R*

3.517−0.040+0.041

Inclination i [deg]

87.3−2.1+1.7

Radius Rp [R⊕]

2.08−0.17+0.16

Mass Mp [M⊕]

7.81−0.53+0.58

Mean density ρp [g cm−3]

4.78−1.20+1.31

We also conducted a residual permutation bootstrap analysis, known as the prayer bead method (Gillon et al. 2006) to obtain an additional estimation of the residual correlated noise. We used for this purpose the lightcurve corrected from the systematic effects described in Eq. 2. The resulting parameters are in excellent agreement with the ones derived from the MCMC analysis (Table 2), while their error bars are significantly smaller. This result indicates that the error budget is dominated by the uncertainties on the parameters of the complex baseline model, and not by the residual correlated noise.

To test the robustness of our transit detection and of the resulting transit parameters, we performed $\sim$ 10 additional MCMC analyses as described above, each of them assuming a different set of time-dependent terms presented in Eq. 2. We used a binned lightcurve (per 30s) for the purpose of this comparison to speed up the analysis. Table 3 presents the baseline model, derived depth, BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) and Bayes factor obtained for 4 of those MCMC analyses.

```latex
\begin{table*}[h]\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline \noalign {\smallskip}
                                                  & $p$                  & $p + t$                       & $p + s + t$                  & $p + j + t$         & $p + s + j + t$   \\ \noalign {\smallskip}
\hline \noalign {\smallskip}
$(R_p/R_\ast)^2 $ [ppm]      & $590 \pm 72$ &  $665 \pm 70$         &  $683 \pm 87$          &  $428 \pm 62$ & $410 \pm 63$          \\ \noalign {\smallskip}
BIC                                           &          804          &  758                          &     758                            &       746                &         732          \\ \noalign {\smallskip}
Bayes factor                           &                           &     $9.8\times10^9$  &   $9.8\times10^{9}$  &   $3.9\times10^{12}$ &  $4.3\times10^{15}$     \\ \noalign {\smallskip}
\hline \noalign {\smallskip}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Transit depth, Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and Bayes factor from the MCMC obtained for 5 different model baselines. Model terms are described as follows : $p$ is the pixel phase correction ($a_2$, $a_3$, $a_4$, $a_5$ and $a_6$ in Eq.~2), $t$ is the time-dependent linear trend ($a_7$), $s$ is the sinusoidal ($a_8$, $a_9$ and $a_{10}$) and $j$ is the jump model ($a_{11}$ and $a_{12}$). The Bayes factor given in the table is relative to the $p$ model. Our adopted model described in Eq.~2 is the rightmost one.}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
```

While none of these models revealed to be better than our nominal model for representing our warm *Spitzer* data (Bayes factor between $10^3$ and $10^{15}$), each of these models lead to a decisive detection of the transit of 55 Cnc e (Bayes factor between $10^{10}$ and $10^{50}$). For all these alternatives models, the deduced values for the transit parameters agreed well with the ones deduced in our nominal analysis, except for the transit depth when the jump is not included. Nevertheless, our Bayesian model comparison makes these alternative models $>4\times10^5$ times less probable than our nominal model. Table 3 also illustrates how the jump and the sinusoidal variation terms improve the baseline model. We thus not only conclude to our firm detection of a transit of 55 Cnc e, but also to the robustness of the deduced results shown in Table 2.

# Discussion and conclusions

## Photometric precision of warm *Spitzer*

Because we have to take into account three different instrumental effects in addition to a possible smooth variation of the stellar flux, the complexity of our photometric baseline model is large (12 free parameters, Eq. 2). This illustrates well the challenge of ultra-precise time-series IR photometry, especially with a detector that is no longer actively cooled. By modeling this baseline in addition to the transit in our MCMC analysis, we naturally take into account its uncertainties and their impact on the deduced transit parameters. Despite the complexity of the baseline model, we reach a very good precision on these transit parameters. This is due not only to the extensive characterization of the warm *Spitzer* instrumental effects performed by the exoplanet community and the *Spitzer* Science Center, but also by the extremely high-cadence made possible by the IRAC subarray mode. Indeed, we have here more than 5,000 photometric measurements to constrain thoroughly the 12+4 parameters of our global model. We show here that warm *Spitzer* can not only detect an eclipse of a few hundreds of ppm (Ballard et al. 2010), it can also measure its depth with a precision of $\sim60$ ppm, leading to the conclusion that this space telescope has still an important role to play for the detection and characterization of transiting planets.

## Planetary radius

Our MCMC results (see Table 2) yield a planetary radius of $2.08_{-0.16}^{+0.17}\: R_{\oplus}$ as measured in IRAC 4.5$\mu$m channel. The error bars are determined from the posterior distribution function produced by the MCMC and includes the error on the stellar radius. The current planetary radius uncertainty is dominated by the error on the transit depth.

On its side, the radius of the star itself is now extremely well constrained, thanks to recent interferometric observations of 55 Cancri performed by van Braun et al. (2011) using the CHARA array. The resulting updated stellar radius value (Table 1) now yields a negligible contribution from the stellar radius to the planetary size uncertainty.

In the preprint version of this paper, we reported a planetary radius 30% larger than the one initially obtained by Winn et al. (2011) in the visible with MOST. After we submitted our paper, a new version of the Winn et al. (2011) analysis was made available that yields good agreement with our results (at the 1$\sigma$ level).

## Composition of 55 Cnc e

We used the internal structure model described in Valencia et al. (2010) suitable for rocky and gaseous planets. We considered four different rocky compositions that span the possible range in radius. The upper bound for the radius is set by the lightest rocky composition, which is one where there is no iron. A planet with a radius larger than this upper limit necessarily has volatiles. The lower bound for the radius is set by a pure iron composition. Both extreme compositions are unlikely to exist given that 1) iron, magnesium and silicate have similar condensation temperatures, with the latter two making up most of the mantle of the Earth (i.e. Mg$_{0.9}$Fe$_{0.1}$O+ SiO$_{2}$) and 2) a pure iron composition is unlikely even with maximal collisional stripping (Marcus et al. 2010). The other two rocky compositions are an Earth-like one (33% iron core, 67% silicate mantle with 0.1 of iron by mol) and a "super-Mercury" (63% iron core, 37% silicate mantle no iron). We also consider volatile compositions in which we added different amounts of H$_{2}$O or hydrogen and helium (H-He) at an equilibrium temperature of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}2000 K above an earth-like nucleus.

The data obtained in this study for the radius ($2.08^{+0.16}_{-0.17}\: R_\oplus$), and mass ($7.81_{-0.53}^{+0.58}\: M_\oplus$) place the composition of 55 Cnc e intersecting the threshold line between planets that necessarily require volatiles (above the "no-iron" line), and the ones that may be rocky (below the "no-iron" line). However, most of the combinations of mass and radius lie above the upper limit of a rocky planet, requiring that 55 Cnc e have volatiles in its composition. We find that an envelope of a few parts in 10,000 of H-He or of order of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}10% water above an Earth-like core can fit the data well. In Fig. 6 we show the mass-radius relationships for the different compositions considered and the different known transiting super-Earths. Based on the same arguments proposed by Valencia et al. (2010) for CoRoT-7 b, the timescale for evaporation of a H-He envelope would be too short ($\sim$ a few million years) for it to be considered as a plausible composition, whereas the timescale for water evaporation is of the same order of magnitude than that of the age of the system ($\sim$ a few billion years). Thus, according to the *Spitzer* data analysed in this study, we favor a composition of an envelope of supercritical water above a solid, perhaps earth-like, nucleus. The exact amount of volatiles will depend on the composition of the solid nucleus, with a reasonable estimate around $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}15%. However, a pure rocky composition cannot be ruled out, in which case the planet would be depleted in iron with respect to Earth.

Similarly, the data for 55 Cnc e reported by Winn et al. 2011 also lies at the threshold of these two types of planets, albeit with a denser composition.

Figure 7 shows the density as a function of mass of several transiting super-Earths. While CoRoT-7 b and Kepler-10 b have practically the same composition, 55 Cnc e, with its similar effective temperature and mass, has a much lighter composition. It lies between the high-density "super-Mercuries" and the volatile-rich planets Kepler-11 b and GJ 1214 b. Within a small range of masses, 4-9 $M_\oplus$, the known transiting super-Earths span a relatively large variety in compositions.

[^1]: The photometric time series used in this work are available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (18.104.22.168) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/

[^2]: http://sha.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/Spitzer/SHA

[^3]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.

[^4]: http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/warmmission/news/ 21oct2010memo.pdf

[^5]: Jump parameters are the parameters that are randomly perturbed at each step of the MCMC.