Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 54 references

OGLE-2015-BLG-1609Lb: Sub-jovian planet orbiting a low-mass stellar or brown dwarf host

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 This paper establishes that the microlensing event OGLE-2015-BLG-1609 contains a sub-Jovian planet of about $0.24\,M_{\rm Jup}$ around a very low-mass host of about $0.17\,M_\odot$, which is most likely an M-dwarf but has a 34% chance of…

desk verdict A robust new microlensing planet whose host-mass claim is a prior-dependent estimate, not a measurement: the 34% brown-dwarf probability rests on a weakly constrained source radius and Galactic-model evidence weights. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09676 v2 pith:EGWOPYFZ submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

M.J. Mróz , R. Poleski , A. Udalski , T. Sumi , Y. Tsapras , M. Hundertmark , P. Pietrukowicz , M.K. Szymański
show 65 more authors
J. Skowron P. Mróz M. Gromadzki P. Iwanek S. Koz{l}owski M. Ratajczak K.A. Rybicki D.M. Skowron I. Soszyński K. Ulaczyk M. Wrona (OGLE Collaboration) F. Abe K. Bando D.P. Bennett A. Bhattacharya I.A. Bond A. Fukui R. Hamada S. Hamada N. Hamasaki Y. Hirao S. Ishitani Silva Y. Itow N. Koshimoto Y. Matsubara S. Miyazaki Y. Muraki T. Nagai K. Nunota G. Olmschenk C. Ranc N.J. Rattenbury Y. Satoh D. Suzuki S.K. Terry P.J. Tristram A. Vandorou H. Yama (MOA Collaboration) R.A. Street E. Bachelet M. Dominik A. Cassan R. Figuera Jaimes K. Horne R. Schmidt C. Snodgrass J. Wambsganss I.A. Steele J. Menzies (RoboNet Collaboration) U.G. J{o}rgensen P. Longa-Peña N. Peixinho J. Skottfelt J. Southworth M.I. Andersen V. Bozza M.J. Burgdorf G. D'Ago T.C. Hinse E. Kerins H. Korhonen M. Küffmeier L. Mancini M. Rabus S. Rahvar (MiNDSTEp Collaboration)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords microlensingexoplanetbrowndwarfhostlow-massstarplanetaryanomalyOGLE-2015-BLG-1609GalacticmodelpriorBayesiancomparison
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 reports the discovery and characterization of the planetary microlensing event OGLE-2015-BLG-1609, caught by two independent survey telescopes during the anomaly. The planet has a mass ratio $q \approx 0.0013$ to its host in the favored 'wide' solution, corresponding to a companion of about $0.24$ Jupiter masses around a host of about $0.17$ solar masses. The host is probably a low-mass M-dwarf (66% probability) but could be a brown dwarf (34% probability). Because the planetary signal is visible in survey data alone, the event can be added to homogeneous samples used to measure how often planets occur around the lowest-mass stars, a regime that is hard to probe by other methods.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the binary-lens single-source (2L1S) microlensing model: the transient brightening of a background star by a foreground star-plus-planet system, described by the projected separation $s$, mass ratio $q$, trajectory angle $\alpha$, and the source radius in Einstein units $\rho$, together with the microlensing parallax vector $\pi_E$. A grid search over $\log s$ and $\log q$ isolates three anomaly topologies ('close', 'medium', 'wide'), and a Galactic-model prior built from simulated events keeps the poorly measured parallax component astrophysically plausible. The source's angular radius $\theta_*$ is derived from its dereddened color and brightness, so the Einstein radius is $\theta_E = \theta_*/\rho$; the lens mass then follows from $M_L = \theta_E/(\kappa\pi_E)$ with $\kappa \simeq 8.144\,{\rm mas}\,M_\odot^{-1}$. Bayesian evidence computed with the same Galactic model is used to compare the topologies.

What would settle it

Take a high-angular-resolution image of the field in 2027 or later, when the lens should be offset from the source by roughly $60$ mas. If the lens is detected with a near-infrared flux matching a main-sequence star above $80\,M_{\rm Jup}$, the brown-dwarf hypothesis is refuted; a flux below that boundary supports it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the anomaly in OGLE-2015-BLG-1609 is unambiguously planetary and that the system consists of a sub-Jovian companion orbiting a host whose mass straddles the stellar/substellar boundary. For the favored 'wide' topology, $M_h = 0.17^{+0.63}_{-0.12}\,M_\odot$ and $M_c = 0.24^{+0.90}_{-0.17}\,M_{\rm Jup}$, derived by combining the finite-source radius with the microlensing parallax. Because the Bayesian evidence for the 'close' and 'wide' topologies is comparable, the host is assessed as an M-dwarf with 66% probability and a brown dwarf with 34% probability. The paper positions this as one of a small set of planet candidates around a suspected brown-dwarf host and as an event detectable by survey data alone, which makes it usable in survey-based occurrence-rate studies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the source star is a bulge red giant at $D_S = 8.54$ kpc whose angular radius follows the adopted color-radius relation; the finite-source size $\rho$ is only weakly constrained in the favored topology, so if the source distance or the color-radius conversion is wrong, the host mass estimate could shift entirely into the stellar or entirely into the substellar regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The planet is securely detected, with the binary-lens model favored over the single-lens model by $\Delta\chi^2 \approx 460$ in the new survey reductions, so it can enter planetary occurrence-rate samples built from survey data alone.
  • For the favored wide solution, the companion mass is about a quarter of Jupiter's mass, placing the system in the sub-Jovian regime that microlensing is uniquely sensitive to.
  • The host is more likely a low-mass M-dwarf (66%) than a brown dwarf (34%), so the system straddles the stellar/substellar boundary and is one of very few microlensing planets with a suspected brown-dwarf host.
  • Because the three topologies have similar photometric quality, additional observations, not more modeling of the current light curve, are needed to pin down the physical parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A future direct measurement of the source distance would tighten the host mass enough to decide whether this is a star or a brown dwarf; the current 34% probability is almost entirely driven by the adopted $D_S=8.54$ kpc and the weakly constrained $\rho$.
  • Because 'close' and 'wide' topologies carry nearly equal evidence, other survey-detected planetary anomalies without caustic crossings may hide the same host-mass ambiguity; grouping such events could reveal how often microlensing masses land on the stellar/substellar boundary.
  • If adaptive-optics imaging resolves the lens at the predicted offset, the measured lens brightness would turn the 34% brown-dwarf probability into a near-certainty either way, and would also provide an independent check of the color-radius relation used for bulge red giants.
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 paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the microlensing event OGLE-2015-BLG-1609, whose planetary anomaly was detected independently by the OGLE and MOA surveys. The authors model the light curve with binary-lens single-source (2L1S) models including parallax and finite-source effects, using data from OGLE, MOA, RoboNet, and MiNDSTEp. They identify three viable topologies (close, medium, wide), with the medium topology favored by Δχ² ≈ 10 but driven by a single night of OGLE data that the authors themselves suspect is overfit. For the favored wide topology they derive θ_E = 0.46^{+1.06}_{-0.24} mas from a weakly constrained finite-source radius ρ = 0.0085^{+0.0089}_{-0.0060}, leading to a host mass M_h = 0.17^{+0.63}_{-0.12} M_sun and a companion mass M_c = 0.24^{+0.90}_{-0.17} M_Jup. Combining topology-specific substellar probabilities with Bayesian evidence weights from a Galactic model, they report an overall 34% probability that the host is a brown dwarf and 66% that it is a low-mass star.

Significance. If the planet detection alone is considered, this is a valuable addition to the small sample of microlensing planets detected from survey data only, with a robust 2L1S-versus-1L1S Δχ² exceeding 230 in each dataset (Table 2). The paper also demonstrates careful data-reduction work, including new OGLE reference images, error renormalization with per-dataset coefficients, and explicit handling of systematics. However, the central physical claim—the host being a brown dwarf with 34% probability or a low-mass star with 66%—is not supported at the same level of robustness. The finite-source radius for the favored topology is only marginally detected, and the topology weighting relies on Bayesian evidence computed from the same Galactic-model family used to construct the parallax priors. The true value of the paper lies in the unambiguous planet detection and in its methodological transparency, but the host-mass probability should be presented as a prior-dependent estimate rather than a measured result.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2.4, Eq. (22) and Table 5] The lens mass and the derived substellar probability are controlled by the finite-source radius ρ, which is only weakly detected for the favored wide topology: Table 5 gives ρ = 0.0085^{+0.0089}_{-0.0060}, i.e., about 1.4σ above zero. This propagates directly into θ_E = 0.46^{+1.06}_{-0.24} mas and M_h = 0.17^{+0.63}_{-0.12} M_sun, whose posterior straddles the hydrogen-burning limit. As a result, the 25% substellar probability for the wide topology is effectively set by the prior—both the adopted color–angular-radius relation (Eq. 17) and the Galactic parallax prior—rather than by a strong data constraint. The authors should explicitly quantify how the substellar probability changes under alternative θ_* relations and alternative parallax priors, and the abstract should be reworded so that the 34% figure is not presented as a robust measurement.
  2. [§4.3, Eq. (27) and Table 8] The overall 34% brown-dwarf probability is obtained by weighting the three topologies with Bayesian evidence Z computed from a Galactic-model simulation (Eq. 27), using input settings from Table 3. Those settings include t_E, I_S, (V-I)_S, and extinction values derived from the same analysis that produced the parallax priors in §3.3. Additionally, the authors state that the medium topology's Δχ² advantage comes from a single night (HJD 2457267) and that the perfect fit there 'indicates overfitting'. Because the evidence weighting is both model-dependent and potentially sensitive to this one night, the 34% is not a robust number. I request a sensitivity analysis: recompute the evidence and the substellar probability after (a) excluding the HJD 2457267 OGLE points, and (b) varying the Galactic-model prior broadening factor. Without such tests, the claimed overall probability is not defensible as a central result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption refers to the 'OGLE-2016-BLG-1609 event', but the event is OGLE-2015-BLG-1609; please correct the year.
  2. [§3.3] The text contains the typo 'xarallap' twice; this should be 'xallarap'.
  3. [Table 8 and Eq. (27)] Table 8 reports logZ values (e.g., 6.46), while Eq. (27) uses Z as a linear weight; please clarify the notation or specify that weights are exp(logZ).
  4. [§5] The statement that 80 M_J is the hydrogen-burning mass limit is made without a reference; please add a citation for this substellar boundary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the planet detection and mass ratio come directly from the light curve, and the prior-dependent 34% brown-dwarf probability is a transparent Bayesian estimate, not a by-construction reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The planet detection is established by the photometry itself: the 2L1S models beat the 1L1S models by Delta-chi^2 = 461.5 (OGLE new reductions) and 236.2 (MOA) in Table 2, and the mass ratio q is fitted from the anomaly light curve without input from the conclusions. The host mass comes from the standard relations M_L = theta_E/(kappa*pi_E) (Eq. 23) and theta_E = theta_*/rho (Eq. 22); rho and pi_E are fitted from the light curve (Table 5), theta_* follows from the externally calibrated Adams et al. (2018) color-radius relation (Eq. 17), and the limb-darkening coefficients use Claret & Bloemen (2011). The assumed source distance D_S = 8.54 kpc enters only D_L (Eq. 26), not M_L (Eq. 23), so the host-mass probability does not inherit that assumption. The co-authored Koshimoto et al. (2021a) Galactic model is used twice, as a deliberately 4x-broadened parallax prior (Section 3.3) and as the simulation for the topology evidence Z (Eq. 27), but both uses are declared, and that model is independent support in the sense of rule 4: it is peer-reviewed, its genulens code is open source, and its assumptions (Milky Way structure, mass function, event rates) do not embed the target result that this host is a brown dwarf. The final multi-instrument host-mass values quoted in Table 8 do not use the Section 3.3 prior. The headline 34% is admittedly weakly anchored: rho is only about 1.4 sigma above zero for the wide topology (Table 5), so theta_E and M_L are broad, and the per-topology substellar fractions (25-85%) combined with the Z weights dominate the mixture. That is a statistical-robustness caveat, and the paper is explicit that the host may be a star (66%), not a self-definitional or by-construction reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim (a sub-jovian planet with a possible brown-dwarf host) depends on the fitted mass ratio q, the poorly constrained source-radius parameter rho, the fitted parallax pi_E, the assumed source distance DS = 8.54 kpc, the adopted color-radius relations, and the Galactic model used for priors and evidence weighting. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • q (mass ratio) = close: 0.00123, medium: 0.000225, wide: 0.00133
    Central parameter of the planet detection; fitted directly to the light curve.
  • s (projected separation) = close: 1.069, medium: 1.211, wide: 1.416
    Geometry of the binary lens; fitted from the anomaly.
  • rho (source radius in Einstein units) = close: 0.018, medium: 0.0469, wide: 0.0085
    Needed to convert source radius into Einstein radius (theta_E = theta_*/rho); poorly constrained for the wide topology.
  • pi_E,N and pi_E,E (parallax components) = Table 5: pi_E,N ~ 0.2 +/- 0.6, pi_E,E ~ -0.03 to -0.06
    Fitted from the light curve; combined with theta_E gives absolute mass and distance.
  • Galactic prior broadening parameters (mu, sigma scaled by 4) = mu_N=0.05, sigma_N=0.30, mu_E=0.03, sigma_E=0.28 (after scaling)
    Hand-chosen to widen the simulated pi_E distributions for use as a prior; affects the parallax posterior in the OGLE-only analysis.
  • Per-dataset error-bar scaling k and e_min = See Table 6, varies by dataset and topology
    Fitted as free parameters in the likelihood (Eq. 1-2); fixed after the first fit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The source star is at DS = 8.54 kpc
    Assumed in Section 4.2.4 to convert relative parallax to lens distance; if wrong, the lens mass scale shifts.
  • domain assumption Color-radius relation of Adams et al. (2018) and color-color transformation of Bessell & Brett (1988) are valid for the source
    Used in Eq. 17 to convert dereddened color to source angular radius, from which theta_E is derived.
  • domain assumption Galactic model of Koshimoto et al. (2021a) describes the priors on lens distance, velocity, and mass
    Used in Section 3.3 to construct the parallax prior and in Section 4.3 to compute Bayesian evidence for topologies.
  • standard math Standard binary-lens microlensing theory (Paczynski 1986; Mao & Paczynski 1991) applies
    The light curve interpretation assumes the magnification is described by the 2L1S model with finite-source and parallax effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OGLE-2015-BLG-1609Lb: Sub-jovian planet orbiting a low-mass stellar or brown dwarf host." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGWOPYFZ

@misc{pith2026241209676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OGLE-2015-BLG-1609Lb: Sub-jovian planet orbiting a low-mass stellar or brown dwarf host},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGWOPYFZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09676}
}
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive analysis of a planetary microlensing event OGLE-2015-BLG-1609. The planetary anomaly was detected by two survey telescopes, OGLE and MOA. Each of these surveys collected enough data over the planetary anomaly to allow for an unambiguous planet detection. Such survey detections of planetary anomalies are needed to build a robust sample of planets that could improve studies on the microlensing planetary occurrence rate by reducing biases and statistical uncertainties. In this work, we examined different methods for modeling microlensing events using individual datasets, particularly we incorporated a Galactic model prior to better constrain poorly defined microlensing parallax. Ultimately, we fitted a comprehensive model to all available data, identifying three potential typologies, with two showing comparably high Bayesian evidence. Our analysis indicates that the host of the planet is a brown dwarf with a probability of 34%, or a low-mass stellar object (M-dwarf) with the probability of 66%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09676 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light curves of the microlensing event OGLE-2015-BLG-1609 with three microlensing model topologies for positive values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Light curve of the planetary anomaly in the microlensing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Source trajectory and caustics of OGLE-2015-BLG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: ∆χ 2 map in (log s, log q) parameter space for OGLE￾2016-BLG-1609 event. We named three visible topologies ac￾cording to the projected separation: “close”–"A", dashed green line; “medium” – "B", dot-dashed orange line; and "wide" – "C", dotted blue line. Crosses mark t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the posterior distribution of the microlensing parallax vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Probability density functions of the two components of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Color-magnitude diagram for stars in the OGLE-IV data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Boyajian, T

    Adams, A. D., Boyajian, T. S., & von Braun, K. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3608

    2018

  2. [2]

    & Lupton, R

    Alard, C. & Lupton, R. H. 1998, ApJ, 503, 325

    1998

  3. [3]

    An, J. H. & Gould, A. 2001, ApJ, 563, L111

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Berdyugina, S. V . & Savanov, I. S. 1994, Astronomy Letters, 20, 755

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    Bessell, M. S. & Brett, J. M. 1988, PASP, 100, 1134

    work page 1988

  6. [6]

    W., Beaulieu, J

    Blackman, J. W., Beaulieu, J. P., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 272

    2021

  7. [7]

    A., Abe, F., Dodd, R

    Bond, I. A., Abe, F., Dodd, R. J., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 868

    2001

  8. [8]

    Bramich, D. M. 2008, MNRAS, 386, L77

    work page 2008

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    & Bloemen, S

    Claret, A. & Bloemen, S. 2011, A&A, 529, A75

    2011

  2. [10]

    Crotts, A. P. S. & Tomaney, A. B. 1996, ApJ, 473, L87

    1996

  3. [11]

    G., Rattenbury, N

    Dominik, M., Jørgensen, U. G., Rattenbury, N. J., et al. 2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 671

    2010

  4. [12]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2013

  5. [13]

    & Weare, J

    Goodman, J. & Weare, J. 2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65

    2010

  6. [14]

    S., et al

    Gould, A., Dong, S., Gaudi, B. S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1073

    2010

  7. [15]

    2022, A&A, 664, A13

    Gould, A., Han, C., Zang, W., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A13

    2022

  8. [16]

    2024, A&A, 692, A106

    Han, C., Ryu, Y ., Lee, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A106

    2024

  9. [17]

    L., Bell, R

    Houdashelt, M. L., Bell, R. A., & Sweigart, A. V . 2000, AJ, 119, 1448

    2000

  10. [18]

    2022, AJ, 163, 43

    Hwang, K.-H., Zang, W., Gould, A., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 43

    2022

  11. [19]

    K., Gould, A., Zang, W., et al

    Jung, Y . K., Gould, A., Zang, W., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 72

    2019

  12. [20]

    K., Zang, W., Han, C., et al

    Jung, Y . K., Zang, W., Han, C., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 262

    2022

  13. [21]

    K., Zang, W., Wang, H., et al

    Jung, Y . K., Zang, W., Wang, H., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 226

    2023

  14. [22]

    & Ranc, C

    Koshimoto, N. & Ranc, C. 2022, nkoshimoto/genulens: Release version 1.2

    2022

  15. [23]

    Y ., Lu, J

    Lam, C. Y ., Lu, J. R., Hosek, Matthew W., J., Dawson, W. A., & Golovich, N. R. 2020, ApJ, 889, 31

    2020

  16. [24]

    S., Zang, W., Udalski, A., et al

    Li, S. S., Zang, W., Udalski, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3308

    2019

  17. [25]

    & Paczynski, B

    Mao, S. & Paczynski, B. 1991, ApJ, 374, L37 Mróz, M., Pietrukowicz, P., Poleski, R., et al. 2023, Acta Astron., 73, 127 Mróz, P. & Poleski, R. 2024, Exoplanet Occurrence Rates from Microlensing Surveys (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1–23

    1991

  18. [26]

    M., Gonzalez, O

    Nataf, D. M., Gonzalez, O. A., Casagrande, L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2692

    2016

  19. [27]

    M., Gould, A., Fouqué, P., et al

    Nataf, D. M., Gould, A., Fouqué, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 88

    2013

  20. [28]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 77

    Nunota, K., Koshimoto, N., Suzuki, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 77

    2024

  21. [29]

    1986, ApJ, 304, 1

    Paczynski, B. 1986, ApJ, 304, 1

    1986

  22. [30]

    T., Henderson, C

    Penny, M. T., Henderson, C. B., & Clanton, C. 2016, ApJ, 830, 150

    2016

  23. [31]

    & Yee, J

    Poleski, R. & Yee, J. C. 2019, Astronomy and Computing, 26, 35

    2019

  24. [32]

    C., et al

    Ryu, Y .-H., Udalski, A., Yee, J. C., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 88

    2024

  25. [33]

    1968, ApJ, 151, 393

    Schmidt, M. 1968, ApJ, 151, 393

    1968

  26. [34]

    C., Zang, W., et al

    Shin, I.-G., Yee, J. C., Zang, W., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 269

    2024

  27. [35]

    C., Zang, W., et al

    Shin, I.-G., Yee, J. C., Zang, W., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 104

    2023

  28. [36]

    M., Hundertmark, M., et al

    Skottfelt, J., Bramich, D. M., Hundertmark, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A54

    2015

  29. [37]

    2016, Acta Astron., 66, 1

    Skowron, J., Udalski, A., Kozłowski, S., et al. 2016, Acta Astron., 66, 1

    2016

  30. [38]

    P., Sumi, T., et al

    Suzuki, D., Bennett, D. P., Sumi, T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 145

    2016

  31. [39]

    K., Beaulieu, J.-P., Bennett, D

    Terry, S. K., Beaulieu, J.-P., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 72

    2024

  32. [40]

    2018, Geosciences, 8, 365

    Tsapras, Y . 2018, Geosciences, 8, 365

    2018

  33. [41]

    2009, Astronomische Nachrichten, 330, 4

    Tsapras, Y ., Street, R., Horne, K., et al. 2009, Astronomische Nachrichten, 330, 4

    2009

  34. [42]

    2003, Acta Astron., 53, 291

    Udalski, A. 2003, Acta Astron., 53, 291

    2003

  35. [43]

    H., Sajadian, S., et al

    Udalski, A., Ryu, Y . H., Sajadian, S., et al. 2018, Acta Astron., 68, 1

    2018

  36. [44]

    K., Soszynski, I., & Poleski, R

    Udalski, A., Szymanski, M. K., Soszynski, I., & Poleski, R. 2008, Acta Astron., 58, 69

    2008

  37. [45]

    K., & Szyma´nski, G

    Udalski, A., Szyma´nski, M. K., & Szyma´nski, G. 2015, Acta Astron., 65, 1

    2015

  38. [46]

    P., et al

    Vandorou, A., Dang, L., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.01168

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 1778

    Wang, H., Zang, W., Zhu, W., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1778

    2022

  40. [48]

    Wozniak, P. R. 2000, Acta Astron., 50, 421 Wyrzykowski, Ł., Kruszy´nska, K., Rybicki, K. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A23

    2000

  41. [49]

    2020, AJ, 159, 98

    Yang, H., Zhang, X., Hwang, K.-H., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 98

    2020

  42. [50]

    C., Shvartzvald, Y ., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Yee, J. C., Shvartzvald, Y ., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 102

    2012

  43. [51]

    2021, AJ, 162, 163

    Zang, W., Hwang, K.-H., Udalski, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 163

    2021

  44. [52]

    K., Yang, H., et al

    Zang, W., Jung, Y . K., Yang, H., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 103

    2023

  45. [53]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 928 1 Astronomical Observatory, University of Warsaw, Al

    Zang, W., Yang, H., Han, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 928 1 Astronomical Observatory, University of Warsaw, Al. Ujazdowskie 4, 00-478 Warszawa, Poland 2 Department of Earth and Space Science, Graduate School of Sci- ence, Osaka University,Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan 3 Zent...

    2022

  46. [54]

    Copenhagen, Jagtvej 155, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark 30 Centro de Astronomía (CITEV A), Universidad de Antofagasta, Avda. U. de Antofagasta 02800, Antofagasta, Chile 31 Instituto de Astrofísica e Ciências do Espaço, Universidade de Coimbra, 3040-004 Coimbra, Portugal 32 Centre fo...

    2015

Pith tools

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