$ \pm 0.03$ & —\
Facula radius ratio$^a$ & $r/R_{*}$ & — & 0.20 $^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$ & —\
Facula contrast & $\rho$ & 1.119 $\pm 0.007$ & 1.089 $\pm 0.008$ & $1.08 \pm 0.01$\
\
\
\
\
\
\

Discussion
==========

Spots or faculae? {#sec:spots_vs_faculae}
-----------------

It is difficult to distinguish between the spot and facula models of sections \[sec:spot\_model\] and \[sec:facula\_model\] using the quality of the fits alone. Application of the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC; given by $BIC = \chi^2 + k\ln N$ with $k$ free parameters and $N$ data points) favours the facula model because of the similar $\chi^2$ and 6 fewer free parameters, with a value of $> 10$ lower than that of the spot model. However, our prior knowledge of transit light curves tends to favour the spot model because spots are more commonly detected (e.g. e.g. @Pont2007; @Sing2011; @Mancini2013; @Reed2013) than faculae or bright regions (e.g. @Mohler2013).

A second approach to distinguishing between these models is to compare our fitted planet radius with that from independent studies. It can be seen in the model light curves of Fig. \[fig:spots\] and \[fig:plages\] that our spot and facula models imply different underlying depths of transit. In the 