Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 21 references

Image-Constrained Modeling with Hubble and Keck Images Reveals that OGLE-2012-BLG-0563Lb is a Jupiter-Mass planet Orbiting a K Dwarf

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Hubble and Keck imaging shows OGLE-2012-BLG-0563Lb's host is a 0.80 solar-mass K dwarf at 5.5 kpc, correcting the original mass estimate upward by a factor of 2.4.

desk verdict Solid application of image-constrained modeling that fixes a bad distance for a known microlensing planet, though the two-star decomposition of the blended images is the load-bearing assumption to watch. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03651 v1 pith:JHUNTVE5 submitted 2024-12-04 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

David P. Bennett , Aparna Bhattacharya , Jean-Philippe Beaulieu , Naoki Koshimoto , Joshua W. Blackman , Ian A. Bond , Clement Ranc , Natalia Rektsini
show 2 more authors
Sean K. Terry Aikaterini Vandorou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords gravitationalmicrolensingexoplanetsimage-constrainedmodelingHubbleSpaceTelescopeadaptiveopticsstellarmassmeasurementOGLE-2012-BLG-0563systematicphotometryerrors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper uses high-resolution Hubble and Keck images to re-fit the microlensing light curve of OGLE-2012-BLG-0563, a Jupiter-mass planet candidate discovered in 2015. The authors claim that the host star is a K dwarf with mass 0.801±0.033 solar masses at a distance of 5.49±0.56 kpc, orbited by a planet of 1.116±0.087 Jupiter masses. This contradicts the discovery paper's host mass of about 0.34 solar masses and distance of about 1.3 kpc, which were wrong by factors of roughly 2.4 and 4. The cause is a systematic error in some ground-based light curve photometry that inflated the angular Einstein radius by about a factor of 2. The paper argues that image-constrained modeling—fitting the light curve with constraints from resolved images of the lens and source—is a general method for catching such systematics, including in the upcoming Roman Space Telescope survey.

What carries the argument

The central object is the image-constrained modeling method: a light-curve fitting code that adds Gaussian constraints on the lens and source magnitudes in K, I, and V, the combined lens-plus-source magnitudes, and the two components of the heliocentric relative proper motion. These constraints come from PSF fits to the partially resolved Keck and Hubble images of the blended source and lens. The method also uses a dust-extinction model that scales with lens distance and empirical mass-luminosity relations, so the measured brightness of the resolved lens can be converted into a host mass. The load-bearing quantity that the constraints correct is the source radius crossing time, which sets the angular Einstein radius; an inflated θE had pushed the mass-distance relation toward low masses and short distances.

What would settle it

Take a second-epoch image with higher resolution or at a later time when the lens and source have separated further, and fit a three-star PSF model; if a third star with significant flux lies between the two detected components, the two-star fit's magnitudes and proper motions are biased and the derived host mass and distance shift. A radial-velocity measurement of the resolved candidate host could also check whether it is a single K dwarf.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By combining HST WFC3 images in F814W and F555W with Keck adaptive-optics K-band images, the paper separates the microlensed source from the planetary host lens at a separation of about 23 milliarcseconds and measures their heliocentric relative proper motion (weighted mean 4.103±0.112 milliarcseconds per year) and magnitudes in three passbands. Feeding these measurements as Gaussian constraints into the light curve model reveals that the source radius crossing time is about twice as large as an unconstrained fit gives, so the angular Einstein radius is θE = 0.645±0.017 milliarcseconds instead of the previously claimed ~1.36 milliarcseconds. This changes the mass-distance intersection: the host is a 0.801±0.033 solar-mass K dwarf at 5.49±0.56 kpc, and the planet is 1.116±0.087 Jupiter masses. The close-wide degeneracy remains, giving projected star-planet separations of 1.50±0.16 AU (close model) or 8.41±0.87 AU (wide model). The discrepancy with the discovery paper is traced to systematic photometry errors in two ground-based follow-up datasets, which were excluded from the final fit.

Load-bearing premise

The fit assumes exactly two stars contribute to the blended light at the event position—the source and the lens—so any third star between them would be missed and would bias the derived magnitudes, and therefore the host mass and distance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the planet orbits a relatively massive K dwarf in the far Galactic disk, not a nearby low-mass star, which changes the interpretation of the apparently nearby microlens planet population.
  • The angular Einstein radius is about 0.645 milliarcseconds, roughly half the original estimate, and the implied lens-source relative proper motion of about 3.7 milliarcseconds per year is consistent with the resolved images.
  • The close-wide degeneracy is not resolved, so the projected star-planet separation is either about 1.5 AU or about 8.4 AU; future astrometric epochs could distinguish these.
  • The systematic error was found only because image constraints contradicted the light curve fit, suggesting that similar image-constrained fitting will be valuable for validating Roman Space Telescope microlensing photometry.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If other microlensing planets originally reported at distances under 2 kpc suffered the same kind of blend-induced photometry systematics, some published host masses and distances in statistical samples may be biased; targeted re-imaging of those targets would settle it.
  • A third star hiding between the two partially resolved components would break the two-star assumption; a future epoch at larger lens-source separation or a space-based PSF decomposition could test this directly.
  • The image-constrained approach could be applied to archival Hubble and Keck data of other microlensing events with candidate host detections, potentially revising more mass measurements.
  • For Roman, image-constrained modeling could also help calibrate new infrared detector systematics by comparing resolved source brightnesses from high-resolution images to light-curve source magnitudes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses Keck NIRC2 adaptive-optics and HST/WFC3 images of the microlensing event OGLE-2012-BLG-0563 to constrain a light-curve model of the planetary system. A two-star PSF decomposition of the K-, I-, and V-band images gives positions, proper motions, and magnitudes for the candidate lens and source; these are imposed as Gaussian constraints in image-constrained modeling of the OGLE/MOA and follow-up photometry. The resulting solution has t* ≈ 0.043 d, θE ≈ 0.65 mas, host mass 0.801 ± 0.033 M_sun, planet mass 1.116 ± 0.087 M_Jup, and lens distance 5.49 ± 0.56 kpc, in strong disagreement with the Fukui et al. (2015) values. The authors attribute the difference to systematic errors in the FTS and B&C data and argue that image-constrained modeling will be valuable for the Roman Space Telescope's exoplanet survey.

Significance. Should the result stand, it is significant: it removes a long-standing low-distance outlier identified by Penny et al. (2016), demonstrates a method for catching systematic photometry errors, and provides a concrete case study for Roman. The paper's strengths include public data availability, independent Keck and HST proper-motion measurements that agree (Table 1), an internal consistency check in which the OGLE chi^2 improves when image constraints are added (Table 2), and a multi-passband mass-distance consistency check (Figure 8). The central claim is nevertheless only as secure as the assumption that the blended light is exactly two stars; the paper itself notes that a third star could hide between the two components, and this is not quantitatively excluded.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.1, Table 1, Section 3] The load-bearing step of the analysis is the two-star PSF decomposition. The measured lens-source separation is 23.29 ± 0.98 mas, only 37% of the Keck FWHM, and Section 2.1 explicitly states that a third star located between the two components would be very difficult to detect. Such a star would bias the fitted source magnitude (and hence theta* and theta_E = theta* t_E/t*) and the lens magnitude (and hence M_host and D_L), and because all three passbands are reduced with the same two-component model, their cross-band agreement is not an independent validation of the assumption. Please perform explicit three-star fits or equivalent injection tests that place quantitative upper limits on possible third-star flux, and propagate any allowed bias into the reported masses, distance, and theta_E.
  2. [Section 5 and Eq. (6)] The quoted host mass uncertainty, ±0.033 M_sun (about 4%), is small compared with the Table 1 lens magnitude uncertainties of roughly 0.1-0.2 mag, and the lens mass is obtained from the Bennett et al. (2018b, 2020) empirical mass-luminosity relations. It is not stated whether the scatter and systematic uncertainty of those relations, and the h_dust = 0.10 ± 0.02 kpc uncertainty in Eq. (6), are propagated in the MCMC. Please state explicitly which input uncertainties are included and quantify the sensitivity of M_host, D_L, and m_pl to the mass-luminosity calibration and to the assumed extinction scaling.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (3)] In the sentence after Eq. (3), 'DS ≃ 1.3 kpc' should read 'DL ≃ 1.3 kpc', since it refers to the lens distance; also the notation v⊕E,N is confusing and should be defined more carefully.
  2. [Table 1 caption] The caption labels Star 1 as the lens and Star 2 as the source, but this identification is established later in Section 3; please label them as 'candidate lens' and 'candidate source' in the table and caption.
  3. [Section 2.1] The sentence 'F15 found K_LS = 17.071 ± 0.044, which is within 1 sigma of our value (if we combine the error bars)' should state the quadrature combination explicitly, since the two measurements have different systematics.
  4. [Section 4] The statement that 'B&C has also proved to be problematic for some previously analyzed events' lacks specific references or event names; please provide them so the reader can evaluate the precedent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the host mass and distance derive from independent image constraints, and the removal of FTS/B&C data is not load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The image-constrained model imposes Gaussian constraints from Table 1 (mu_rel,H North/East, lens and source magnitudes in K/I/V, combined ILS and VLS) plus a Galactic-model DS prior from Koshimoto et al. (2021a). The reported Mhost, DL, and mpl are then obtained by intersecting the lens-brightness mass-distance relation (via the empirical mass-luminosity relations of Bennett et al. 2018b, 2020) with the theta_E mass-distance relation, where theta_E follows from the measured mu_rel,G and the fitted t_E. These are independent measured or externally calibrated inputs, not re-fit to the output; the fit could in principle disagree with them, and indeed it does for the FTS/B&C data. Table 2, columns 4 and 5, shows that excluding the FTS and B&C photometry changes the best-fit parameters only slightly, so the systematic-error exclusion is not what forces the central result. The paper's own caveat in Section 2.1 that a third star located between the two partially resolved components would be very difficult to detect is a genuine modeling limitation that could bias the magnitude inputs, but a biased input is not a circular reduction: the output is not equal to the input by construction. The self-citations to Bennett et al. (2024), Bhattacharya et al. (2024), Bennett et al. (2018b, 2020), and Koshimoto et al. (2021a) provide the modeling method, the Keck analysis, the mass-luminosity calibration, and the Galactic prior; these are external to this target and are not re-derived from the target's fitted values, so they do not make the central claim circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model uses standard microlensing theory and external calibrations, with no new physical entities. The listed free parameters are fitted model parameters that directly determine the reported masses and distance. The central inference also rests on the assumed mass-luminosity relations, extinction law, and Galactic model prior.

free parameters (6)
  • t_E (Einstein crossing time) = 63.8 ± 2.1 days
    Fitted to the light curve; sets the event timescale and enters θ_E = θ_* t_E / t_*.
  • t_* (source radius crossing time) = 0.0431 ± 0.0019 days
    Fitted with image constraints; directly determines θ_E and is increased by a factor of about 2 relative to the unconstrained fit.
  • πE,N, πE,E (microlensing parallax) = 0.0583 ± 0.0060, 0.0801 ± 0.0046
    Fitted to the light curve; contributes to the mass/distance inference via the parallax relation.
  • q (planet-host mass ratio) = 1.331 ± 0.085 × 10^-3
    Fitted; combined with the host mass gives the planet mass.
  • s (projected separation in units of θ_E) = 0.423 (close), 2.376 (wide)
    Fitted; the close-wide degeneracy is unresolved, leading to two separation intervals.
  • D_S (source distance) = 8.48 ± 1.14 kpc
    Constrained by a Galactic model prior (Koshimoto et al. 2021a) and source brightness; enters the mass-distance relation.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The mass-distance relation M_L = (c^2/4G) θ_E^2 D_S D_L / (D_S - D_L) (Eq. 7) holds.
    Standard gravitational lensing relation used to convert θ_E and distances to mass.
  • domain assumption The empirical mass-luminosity relations of Bennett et al. (2018b, 2020) correctly map the lens star's K, I, and V magnitudes to its mass.
    Used in Section 5 to translate the measured star 1 magnitudes into the host mass; a biased MLR shifts the inferred mass.
  • domain assumption The dust extinction toward the lens is described by Eq. 6 with h_dust = 0.10 ± 0.02 kpc (Drimmel & Spergel 2001).
    Used to deredden the lens magnitudes; different scale heights change the inferred lens mass.
  • domain assumption The source distance prior from the Galactic model of Koshimoto et al. (2021a) is appropriate.
    Applied in Section 5 to constrain D_S; affects D_L through Eq. 7.
  • domain assumption The source angular radius θ_* follows from the color/surface-brightness relations of Kervella et al. (2004), Boyajian et al. (2014), and Adams et al. (2018).
    Used to convert t_* and the source magnitude/color into θ_E.
  • domain assumption The coordinate transformation between Keck and Hubble images (Eq. 5) is accurate and there is no significant third star in the blend.
    Underpins the relative proper motion and magnitude measurements; a third star would bias the two-star fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Image-Constrained Modeling with Hubble and Keck Images Reveals that OGLE-2012-BLG-0563Lb is a Jupiter-Mass planet Orbiting a K Dwarf." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JHUNTVE5

@misc{pith2026241203651,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Image-Constrained Modeling with Hubble and Keck Images Reveals that OGLE-2012-BLG-0563Lb is a Jupiter-Mass planet Orbiting a K Dwarf},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JHUNTVE5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03651}
}
abstract

We present high angular resolution imaging from the {\sl Hubble Space Telescope} combined with adaptive optics imaging results from the {\sl Keck}-II telescope to determine the mass of the OGLE-2012-BLG-0563L host star and planet to be $M_{\rm host} = 0.801\pm 0.033M_\odot$ and $M_{\rm planet} = 1.116 \pm 0.087 M_{\rm Jupiter}$, respectively, located at a distance of $D_L = 5.46\pm 0.56\,$kpc. There is a close-wide degeneracy in the light curve models that indicates star-planet projected separation of $1.50\pm 0.16\,$AU for the close model and $8.41\pm 0.87\,$AU for the wide model. We used the image-constrained modeling method to analyze the light curve data with constraints from this high angular resolution image analysis. This revealed systematic errors in some of the ground-based light curve photometry that led to an estimate of the angular Einstein Radius, $\theta_E$, that was too large by a factor of $\sim 2$. The host star mass is a factor of 2.4 larger than the value presented in the \citet{fukui15} discovery paper. Although most systematic photometry errors seen in ground-based microlensing light curve photometry will not be repeated in data from the {\sl Roman Space Telescope}'s Galactic Bulge Time Domain Survey, we argue that image constrained modeling will be a valuable method to identify possible systematic errors in {\sl Roman} photometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03651 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — (a) Comparison of the OGLE I-band reference frame image at the location of microlensing event OGLE-2012-BLG-0563 with the Hubble image of the same area of the sky. The source star with Is = 20.07 is not visible in the OGLE image, but a saturated star with I = 13.10 is very apparent at a separation of 2.2 ′′ is clearly visible (Fukui et al. 2015). The blended source plus lens stars are clearly visible in the Hubble… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Close up Keck K-band (panels a and d), and Hubble I (b and e) and V -band (c and f) images reveal lens-source separations of 24.62 ± 0.67 mas of the blended lens+source stars in green and red. The K-band data do not definitively indicate which is the lens and which is the source, and separation in the heliocentric frame measured by Keck is smaller than the separation predicted by Fukui et al. (2015) in the geocent… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — The CMD of OGLE-3 stars within 120 arc seconds of microlensing event OGLE-2012- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Comparison of the source star trajectory, the central caustic, and the source star size (in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — The best fit light curve with the constraints from the high angular resolution follow-up [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — A close-up comparison of the FTS data from the first and last two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Planetary system properties derived from out image-constrained modeling of light curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Mass-distance relations from Hubble and Keck host star brightness measurements and angular Einstein radius, θE, determinations from Fukui et al. (2015) (in green) and this paper (in black and grey). The lens star brightness mass-distance constraints in the V , I, and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Boyajian, T

    Adams, A. D., Boyajian, T. S., & von Braun, K. 2018, MNRAS, 473,

    work page 2018

  2. [8]

    A., Watson, A

    doi:10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/8 Holtzman, J. A., Watson, A. M., Baum, W. A., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1946 Janczak, J., Fukui, A., Dong, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, 731 Kervella, P., Th´ evenin, F., Di Folco, E., & S´ egransan, D. 2004, A&A, 426, 297 Kim, H.-W., Hwang, K.-H., Gould, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 162,

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/8 1998

  3. [11]

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abfc4a Koshimoto, N., Baba, J., & Bennett, D. P. 2021a, ApJ, 917,

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abfc4a

  4. [21]

    Unveiling MOA-2007-BLG-192: An M Dwarf Hosting a Likely Super-Earth

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace688 Surot, F., Valenti, E., Gonzalez, O. A., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A140. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/202038346 Suzuki, D., Bennett, D. P., Sumi, T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 145 Szyma´ nski, M. K., Udalski, A., Soszy´ nski, I., et al. 2011, Acta Astron., 61, 83 Terry, S. K., Beaulieu, J.-P., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2024, arXiv:2403.12118...

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.12118 2020

  5. [33]

    2015, arXiv:1503.03757 Street, R

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/33 Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv:1503.03757 Street, R. A., Udalski, A., Calchi Novati, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 93 Sumi, T., Koshimoto, N., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2023, AJ, 166,

    arXiv 2015

  6. [54]

    E., Coughlin, J

    doi:10.3847/1538- 3881/abcc60 Thompson, S. E., Coughlin, J. L., Hoffman, K., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 38 Udalski, A., Szyma´ nski, M. K., & Szyma´ nski, G. 2015a, Acta Astron., 65, 1 Zandian, M., Piquette, E., Farris, M., et al. 2023, Astronomische Nachrichten, 344, e20230058. doi:10.1002/asna.20230058 Zhang, K., Gaudi, B. S., & Bloom, J. S. 2022, Nature A...

    doi:10.3847/1538- 2018

  7. [61]

    The WFIRST Exoplanet Microlensing Survey

    doi:10.3390/universe4040061 Bennett, D.P. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1408 Bennett, D. P., Akeson, R., Anderson, J., et al. 2018a, (arXiv:1803.08564) Bennett, D. P., Anderson, J., Beaulieu, J.-P., et al. 2010a, RFI Response for the Astro2010 decadal survey, arXiv:1012.4486 Bennett, D.P., Anderson, J., & Gaudi, B.S. 2007, ApJ, 660, 781 Bennett, D. P., Batista, V., Bon...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  8. [64]

    & Rhie, S.H

    doi:10.1063/PT.3.2318 Bennett, D.P. & Rhie, S.H. 1996, ApJ, 472, 660 Bennett, D.P. & Rhie, S.H. 2002, ApJ, 574, 985 Bennett, D. P., Rhie, S. H., Nikolaev, S., et al. 2010b, ApJ, 713, 837 Bennett, D.P., Rhie, S.H., Udalski, A., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 125 Bennett, D. P., Sumi, T., Bond, I. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 119 Bennett, D. P., Udalski, A., Bond, I. ...

    work page doi:10.1063/pt.3.2318 1996

Show all 21 references
  1. [78]

    P., et al

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a8 Koshimoto, N., Sumi, T., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2023, AJ, 166,

    2023 doi

  2. [107]

    & Paczynski, B

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace689 Mao, S. & Paczynski, B. 1991, ApJ, 374, L37. doi:10.1086/186066 Mosby, G., Rauscher, B. J., Bennett, C., et al. 2020, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instru- ments, and Systems, 6, 046001. doi:10.1117/1.JATIS.6.4.046001 – 29 – Mr´ oz, P., Poles...

    1991 doi

  3. [108]

    2009b, ApJ, 695, 970 Drimmel, R., & Spergel, D

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9903014 Dong, S., Gould, A., Udalski, A., et al. 2009b, ApJ, 695, 970 Drimmel, R., & Spergel, D. N. 2001, ApJ, 556, 181 Fukui, A., Gould, A., Sumi, T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 74 Furusawa, K., Udalski, A., Sumi, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 91 Gaudi, B...

    2001 doi arXiv

  4. [121]

    P., et al

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaaae9 Mr´ oz, P., Udalski, A., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A201. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201834557 Muraki, Y., Han, C., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 22 Nataf, D. M., Gould, A., Fouqu´ e, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 88 Nishiyama, S., Na...

    2019 doi

  5. [126]

    2015, ApJ, 804,

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd55f Skowron, J., Shin, I.-G., Udalski, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804,

    2015 doi

  6. [150]

    B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

    doi:10.3847/0004- 637X/830/2/150 Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62 Poindexter, S., Afonso, C., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633,

    1996 doi

  7. [262]

    2018, AJ, 155,

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab8aeb Mr´ oz, P., Ryu, Y.-H., Skowron, J., et al. 2018, AJ, 155,

    2018 doi

  8. [272]

    A., Abe, F., Dodd, R

    doi:10.1038/s41586- 021-03869-6 Bond, I. A., Abe, F., Dodd, R. J., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 868 Bond, I. A., Bennett, D. P., Sumi, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469,

    2001 doi

  9. [782]

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022- 01671-6 This preprint was prepared with the AAS LATEX macros v5.2

    doi

  10. [839]

    T., Gaudi, B

    doi:10.1086/499038 Penny, M. T., Gaudi, B. S., Kerins, E., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 3 Penny, M. T., Henderson, C. B., & Clanton, C. 2016, ApJ, 830,

    2019 doi

  11. [914]

    H., Bennett, D

    doi:10.1086/468182 Rhie, S. H., Bennett, D. P., Becker, A. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 378 Ryu, Y.-H., Mr´ oz, P., Gould, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 161,

    2000 doi

  12. [2434]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1049 Boyajian, T.S., van Belle, G., & von Braun, K., 2014, AJ, 147, 47 Di Stefano, R., & Esin, A. A. 1995, ApJ, 448, L1 Dominik, M. 1999, A&A, 349,

    2014 doi

  13. [3608]

    1997, A&A, 321, 424 – 27 – Anderson, J

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2367 Alard, C. 1997, A&A, 321, 424 – 27 – Anderson, J. 2022, Instrument Science Report WFC3 2022-5, 55 pages Bachelet, E., Fouqu´ e, P., Han, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 547, A55 Batista, V., Beaulieu, J.-P., Bennett, D.P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 170 5 Beaulieu,...

    1997 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.