spot model the anomaly is treated as two bumps (bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:spots\]), and so the underlying transit is deeper than in the facula model, where the anomaly is treated as a single dip (Fig. \[fig:plages\]). This difference can be seen in our fitted planet/star radius ratios (Table \[tab:fit\_results\]) where the spot model implies a planet radius that is 15 sigma larger than the value from the facula model. The planet/star radius ratio has been previously measured by [@Hebrard2013] using 6 individual transits, and found to be $0.1646 \pm 0.0012$. This is consistent with our value from the facula model (within 1 sigma), and inconsistent with our value from the spot model ($>6$ sigma discrepancy).

While this paper was under review, another study of WASP-52b was published on arXiv [@Mancini_wasp52] including a further 8 transits. Spots were clearly detected in 5 of these light curves and the system parameters measured accounted for these spots. Again, we find that the planet/star radius ratio is consistent with a facula model (within 1 sigma) and inconsistent with our spot model (12 sigma discrepancy).

We also consider the possibility that unocculted spots could be the cause of the discrepant $R_P/R*$ values we derive 