REVIEW 1 cited by
Microlensing Optical Depth Revisited with Recent Star Counts
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
read the original abstract
More reliable constraints on the microlensing optical depth comes from a better understanding of the Galactic model. Based on well-constrained Galactic bulge and disk models constructed from survey observations, such as, HST, 2MASS, and SDSS, we calculate the microlensing optical depths toward the Galactic bulge fields, and compare them with recent results of microlensing surveys. We test chi^2 statistics of microlensing optical depths expected from those models, as well as previously proposed models, using two types of data: optical depth map in (l, b) and averaged optical depth over the Galactic longitude l as a function of the latitude b. From this analysis, we find that the Galactic bulge models of 2MASS, Han & Gould (2003), and G2 of Stanek et al. (1997) show a good agreement with the microlensing optical depth profiles for all the microlensing observations, compared with E2 of Stanek et al. (1997). We find, on the other hand, that models involving an SDSS disk model produce relatively higher chi^2 values. It should be noted that modeled microlensing optical depths diverge in the low Galactic latitude, |b| < 2 arcdeg. Therefore, we suggest the microlensing observation toward much closer to central regions of the Galaxy to further test the proposed Galactic models, if it is more technically feasible than waiting for large data set of microlensing events.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Diversity of Fuzzy Dark Matter Solitons
Environmental effects, especially a central black hole and baryonic matter, can substantially alter fuzzy dark matter soliton profiles, while the soliton's own gravitomagnetic field is negligible.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.