Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Systematic KMTNet Planetary Anomaly Search. VIII. Complete Sample of 2019 Subprime Field Planets

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2302.13544 v1 pith:ZROJCRJA submitted 2023-02-27 astro-ph.EP

classification astro-ph.EP
keywords planetsanomalyfindercompletefieldssamplestatisticalsubprimeequal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

We complete the publication of all microlensing planets (and ``possible planets'') identified by the uniform approach of the KMT AnomalyFinder system in the 21 KMT subprime fields during the 2019 observing season, namely KMT-2019-BLG-0298, KMT-2019-BLG-1216, KMT-2019-BLG-2783, OGLE-2019-BLG-0249, and OGLE-2019-BLG-0679 (planets), as well as OGLE-2019-BLG-0344, and KMT-2019-BLG-0304 (possible planets). The five planets have mean log mass-ratio measurements of $(-2.6,-3.6,-2.5,-2.2,-2.3)$, median mass estimates of $(1.81,0.094,1.16,7.12,3.34)\, M_{\rm Jup}$, and median distance estimates of $(6.7,2.7,5.9,6.4,5.6)\, {\rm kpc}$, respectively. The main scientific interest of these planets is that they complete the AnomalyFinder sample for 2019, which has a total of 25 planets that are likely to enter the statistical sample. We find statistical consistency with the previously published 33 planets from the 2018 AnomalyFinder analysis according to an ensemble of five tests. Of the 58 planets from 2018-2019, 23 were newly discovered by AnomalyFinder. Within statistical precision, half of all the planets have caustic crossings while half do not (as predicted by Zhu et al. 2014), an equal number of detected planets result from major-image and minor-image light-curve perturbations, and an equal number come from KMT prime fields versus subprime fields.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools