Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Automated detection and modeling of binary microlensing events in OGLE-IV data. I. Events with well-separated bumps

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An automated search of ten years of OGLE-IV data finds 107 binary microlensing events with flat mass-ratio and flux-ratio distributions.

desk verdict A genuinely useful catalog and pipeline paper; the headline tE peak is prior-driven, so treat the abstract's numbers as sample stats, not measurements. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21085 v2 pith:JPE2KCGS submitted 2025-04-29 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

R. A. P. Oliveira , R. Poleski , P. Mróz , A. Udalski , J. Skowron , M. Mróz , M. K. Szymański , I. Soszyński
show 6 more authors
K. Ulaczyk P. Pietrukowicz K. Rybicki P. Iwanek M. Wrona M. Gromadzki
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords binarymicrolensingOGLE-IVGalacticbulgeinitialmassfunctionratiodistributionautomatedeventdetectionEinsteintimescalesource
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

The paper claims that binary microlensing events with two well-separated bumps can be found automatically, without visual scanning, in ten years of OGLE-IV bulge observations, and that the resulting sample is large enough to begin measuring bulge binary statistics. It reports 107 such events from 121 fields, with 59 better fit by a binary-lens model and 48 by a binary-source model. The Einstein timescales of the sample cluster near 35–40 days, and the mass-ratio and source-flux-ratio distributions are consistent with being flat between 0 and 1. This matters because the bulge initial mass function can be recovered from luminosity functions only if the unresolved binary fraction and mass-ratio distribution are known; the authors position this catalog as the ingredient that supplies those statistics after detection-efficiency corrections.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-bump detection pipeline built on the previous single-bump OGLE search, with three additions: two moving 360-day windows chosen to minimize baseline scatter, a linear slope correction to the baseline flux, and time-binned bump durations with iterative bump removal (up to three bumps). Detection thresholds on significance, amplitude, and duration are tuned separately for high- and low-cadence fields to recover all 29 benchmark events. The fitting half of the pipeline uses an algebraic mapping from two independent PSPL fits to the starting parameters of a 2L1S model — mass ratio q = (tE,2)^2 / (tE,1)^2, combined tE, separation s, and trajectory angle α — and then refines both 1L2S and 2L1S solutions with MCMC and nested sampling, choosing between them by χ² difference aided by Bayesian evidence. This combination converts a search for 'two bumps in a noisy light curve' into a catalog of physically parameterized binary events.

What would settle it

Re-run the detection on the same 121 fields with the secondary-bump significance threshold lowered (e.g., from χ>60 to χ>40 in high-cadence fields) and inspect all newly added candidates by eye; if the added events are numerous and shift the mass-ratio or timescale distributions, the reported flat distributions are an artifact of the tuned cuts, and if they are absent the sample is robust to small threshold changes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a method and its demonstration: a modified version of the OGLE-IV event-finding algorithm, retargeted to find two bumps instead of one and tuned against 29 visually selected benchmark events, recovers a bona-fide sample of 107 binary microlensing events with well-separated bumps and no caustic crossings. For every candidate the pipeline fits both a single-lens/binary-source (1L2S) and a binary-lens/single-source (2L1S) model using MCMC and nested sampling, choosing the preferred model by goodness of fit supplemented by Bayesian evidence, blending flux, and timescale. The paper's headline results are that the two model classes split nearly evenly (59 vs 48), that the Einstein timescale distribution peaks around 35–40 days in both classes, and that the mass ratio (for lenses) and source flux ratio (for sources) are approximately flat over the range 0–1. These distributions are explicitly preliminary: the authors state that detection-efficiency corrections will be applied in later papers before the binary fraction and mass-ratio statistics are used to constrain the bulge IMF.

Load-bearing premise

The 29 benchmark events, chosen by eye from an internal alert compilation, are a correct and representative set of binary microlensing events; the detection thresholds were tuned to recover exactly these events, so any error or incompleteness in that list propagates into the 107-event sample and the reported distributions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 107-event catalog itself is the largest homogeneous OGLE-IV sample of well-separated-bump binary events; its fitted parameters are the raw material for binary fraction and mass-ratio measurements.
  • A flat mass-ratio distribution over q in (0,1) means that, among detectable wide-separation binary lenses, low-mass companions are as common as equal-mass companions, contrary to a peaked preference.
  • The 59/48 split between 2L1S and 1L2S shows that for well-separated bumps the two physical interpretations are nearly equally frequent, so population studies that ignore binaries must account for both.
  • Because the tE distribution peaks at 35–40 days, matching previous PSPL results, binary events should not skew the overall event-timescale distribution once counted.
  • After the planned detection-efficiency corrections, the binary fraction and mass-ratio distribution can be combined with the observed bulge luminosity function to constrain the low-mass end of the bulge IMF.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the flat mass-ratio distribution survives efficiency corrections, it would imply that the bulge's binary lens population has essentially no preference for equal masses over the range 0–1, a property that could be compared with local binary surveys to test whether bulge binaries resemble disk binaries.
  • The same pipeline, applied to other wide-field surveys with different cadence or to caustic-crossing light curves, could produce a homogeneous binary fraction across the bulge instead of the mixed literature sample used here.
  • The slope-correction step may systematically add long-baseline events that previous searches missed; if so, reapplying it to single-lens searches would revise the high-tE tail of the ordinary event sample.
  • The nearly equal 1L2S/2L1S split suggests that binary-source events contribute as much as binary-lens events to the separated-bump morphology; a future measurement of the 1L2S fraction could directly probe the binary fraction of bulge source stars, a separate population from the lenses.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a fully automated pipeline for detecting binary microlensing events with two well-separated bumps in ten years of OGLE-IV bulge data. The detection algorithm modifies the Mróz et al. (2017, 2019) event finder with two moving windows, baseline slope correction, and time binning, with thresholds tuned on a 29-event benchmark sample. The authors fit 1L2S and 2L1S models to each candidate with MCMC and nested sampling, report 107 events (59 with preferred 2L1S and 48 with preferred 1L2S), and cross-match against OGLE, MOA, and KMTNet alerts. They report tE distributions peaking around 35–40 d and flat mass-ratio and source-flux-ratio distributions, and state that after efficiency corrections these will constrain the bulge IMF.

Significance. The paper's main value, if the sample is accepted, is as a large, homogeneously selected catalog of well-separated binary microlensing events, with a documented pipeline and public fit parameters. The cross-match with external alert systems and the explicit description of detection modifications are strengths. However, the headline population claims are not supported as stated: the tE peak is prior-dominated, and the flat ratio histograms are raw sample statistics without efficiency corrections. Because the catalog is useful and the issues can be fixed by reframing the statistical claims, the paper merits revision rather than rejection.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4; Section 5, Fig. 7; Abstract] The tE histograms are prior-dominated rather than measured. The text states that a Gaussian prior in tE follows the Mróz et al. (2020) distribution peaking around 30 d, and the 1L2S/2L1S tie-breaker explicitly favors the solution with tE closer to the prior peak. The paper itself notes in Section 5 that the histograms "closely follow the adopted prior," and the post-fit cuts tE < 200 d and tE < 120 d (Tables 2 and 3) further truncate the tail. The abstract's "distribution of Einstein timescales around 35–40 d" therefore reports a prior-weighted posterior summary, not a measured distribution. Please report the data-constrained information (e.g., likelihood profiles or fits with a weakly informative prior) or explicitly reframe the statement as a consistency check with the adopted prior, and adjust the abstract accordingly.
  2. [Section 5, Fig. 7; Tables 7–8; Abstract] The flat mass-ratio and source-flux-ratio distributions are presented as results without detection-efficiency corrections or model-classification uncertainty. The paper explicitly defers efficiency corrections to future work, and the classification of several events with |Δχ2/dof| < 0.001 required additional evidence, blending-flux, and tE criteria. The abstract's "flat distributions" thus overstates what has been measured. Please present these as observed-sample histograms, add uncertainty estimates (e.g., Poisson uncertainties or classification probabilities), and state clearly that population-level flatness will be tested once efficiency corrections are applied.
  3. [Section 3.2, Tables 2 and 3] The detection thresholds were optimized to recover all 29 benchmark events of Table 1, and those same benchmark events are included in the reported 107-event sample. This makes the claim that the tools were effective partly circular: recovery of the benchmark subset is guaranteed by construction. Please quantify the detection statistics for benchmark versus non-benchmark events, or use a held-out validation set, and wherever possible compare the final sample against external alert catalogs independently of the tuned thresholds.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2] The axis labels contain truncated text: "ag/yr" should be "mag/yr," and the magnitude axis label appears to be missing an "n".
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The word "analy ed" should be "analyzed."
  3. [References] The reference for Skowron and Gould (2012) is listed as arXiv:2310.12069, which does not match the 2012 work (ApJ, 744, 129; arXiv:1203.1034); please correct it.
  4. [Section 5, paragraph on K2/Spitzer data] The text contains the typo "Y eeet al." and should read "Yee et al."
  5. [Tables 5 and 6] Only the first 15 rows of each table are printed; please state explicitly that the full tables are available in the journal archive and consider also providing a machine-readable version in the arXiv source.
  6. [Table 1 caption] The caption explains the HJD format, but the text should state consistently that times are HJD−2450000, since this convention is used in later tables and fits.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported tE peak is partly a re-statement of the adopted Mróz et al. (2020) Gaussian prior, and the benchmark validation is a train-on-the-test-set circularity; the q and source-flux-ratio flatness are raw sample statistics and are not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (Model Fitting) and Section 5 (Results and Discussion); echoed in the Abstract]
    "A Gaussian prior in tE follows the distribution derived in Mróz et al. (2020), which peaks around 30 d. ... The tE histograms closely follow the adopted prior from Mróz et al. (2020), with peaks around 35–40 d."

    The abstract's claim of 'a distribution of Einstein timescales around 35–40 d' is the posterior output of fits in which a Gaussian tE prior peaking near 30 d was imposed on every event. The paper itself states that the resulting histograms 'closely follow' that adopted prior, so the stated peak is not an independent measurement from the OGLE data alone but a prior-weighted echo. The same prior also enters the 1L2S/2L1S model tie-break ('derived tE closer to the peak of the prior'), further channeling model selection toward the prior's shape. Because the prior is taken from Mróz et al. (2020), a paper with overlapping authorship, the headline tE result largely re-imports a self-cited input and presents it as a detection outcome.

  2. other [Section 2 (Data: OGLE-IV and Benchmark Sample), Section 3.2 (threshold selection), and the validation paragraph after Table 4]
    "The thresholds were also optimized to detect this sample and minimize the number of false positives. ... With very few genuine events removed, we conclude that the automated pipeline was effective in detecting the benchmark events, and that the thresholds did a good compromise between the size and purity of the sample."

    The 29 benchmark events in Table 1 form the training set on which the detection thresholds in Tables 2 and 3 were explicitly optimized ('the thresholds were selected to optimize the detection of benchmark events in testing fields'). Those same benchmark events are then included in the final 107-event sample and used to conclude that the pipeline was 'effective in detecting the benchmark events.' This is a train-on-the-test-set circularity: the benchmarks are recovered because the thresholds were set to recover them, so their recovery cannot independently validate detection efficacy. The effect is mitigated because most final events are non-benchmark and are cross-matched with external alert systems, but the stated effectiveness claim is not fully independent.

full rationale

The detection and modeling pipeline is largely self-contained: the 107-event sample is extracted from OGLE photometry by a modified bump-finding algorithm and fitted with MulensModel, and the 1L2S/2L1S classification is based on chi-square, Bayesian evidence, blending, and tE. The flat mass-ratio and source-flux-ratio histograms are raw observed sample statistics and are not constructed from any imposed prior. The circularity is concentrated in two places. First, the tE histogram is explicitly acknowledged to 'closely follow' the adopted Gaussian tE prior from Mróz et al. (2020), a paper with overlapping authorship; therefore the abstract's '35–40 d' peak is partly a prior-weighted reflection rather than a fresh measurement, and the same prior is used as a model-selection tie-breaker. Second, the benchmark sample used to tune the detection thresholds is then counted in the final sample and used to certify the pipeline's effectiveness, a mild training-on-the-test-set effect. Neither issue invalidates the sample or the q/flux-ratio findings, but because the headline tE claim is prior-dominated, the overall circularity score is 6 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the sample selection depends on hand-tuned thresholds (Tables 2 and 3), a visually selected benchmark sample, and the standard MulensModel magnification calculations. No new physical entities are introduced, and the per-event model parameters are fitted outputs, not free inputs.

free parameters (3)
  • High-cadence detection thresholds = nstars>=7; chi2_base/dof<=1.5; chi_bump>100; A>0.15 mag; duration1>=5 d; duration2>=2 d; nbump=2
    Selected in Section 3.2 and Table 2 to maximize recovery of the 29 benchmark events in testing fields BLG505/BLG501/BLG504 while minimizing false positives; values are hand-tuned, not derived from theory.
  • Low-cadence detection thresholds = nstars>=5; chi2_base/dof<=1.4; chi_bump>50; A>0.12 mag; duration1>=5 d; duration2>=3 d; nbump=2
    Selected in Table 3 by degrading high-cadence benchmark data to about 500 epochs and tuning thresholds to recover degraded benchmark events; hand-tuned.
  • Model selection delta-chi2 threshold = 0.001 in chi2_fit/dof
    Section 4: if 1L2S and 2L1S fits differ by less than 0.001 in chi2/dof, the preferred model is chosen using Bayesian evidence, blending flux, and tE closeness to the prior; this arbitrary threshold affects the 59/48 split.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math MulensModel computes 2L1S and 1L2S magnifications correctly, including the fifth-order polynomial root solver (Skowron and Gould 2012, via Bozza et al. 2018).
    Section 4 relies entirely on MulensModel for model fitting; no independent verification of the magnification calculations is presented.
  • domain assumption Static 1L2S and 2L1S models without parallax, orbital motion, or extended-source effects adequately describe the selected two-bump light curves.
    Section 4 fits only these models; the selection cuts on tE and impact parameters are intended to exclude caustic events, but higher-order effects are not modeled.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian prior on tE from Mróz et al. (2020), peaking near 30 d, is appropriate for the bulge event population.
    Section 4 applies this prior; the resulting tE distribution is reported as peaking at 35-40 d, so the prior partly shapes the histogram in Fig. 7.
  • ad hoc to paper The 29 benchmark events (Table 1) are correctly identified binary microlensing events and representative of the target population.
    Section 3.2 uses visual inspection of an internal alert compilation to define the benchmark; thresholds are optimized to recover them, making the sample definition hinge on this judgment.
  • ad hoc to paper Visual inspection of candidates reliably identifies false positives (12 events in Table 4) without removing genuine events.
    Section 5 removes 12 candidates by eye after automated selection; the final 107-event sample depends on this manual step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automated detection and modeling of binary microlensing events in OGLE-IV data. I. Events with well-separated bumps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JPE2KCGS

@misc{pith2026250421085,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automated detection and modeling of binary microlensing events in OGLE-IV data. I. Events with well-separated bumps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JPE2KCGS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21085}
}
read the original abstract

Gravitational microlensing depends primarily on the lens mass and presents a larger occurrence rate in crowded regions, which makes it the best tool to uncover the initial mass function (IMF) of low-mass stars in the Galactic bulge. The bulge IMF can be obtained from the luminosity function measured with the Hubble Space Telescope if one knows the statistics of binary stellar systems in the bulge. We aim to analyse a statistically significant number of binary-lens/single-source and single-lens/binary-source events, in order to explore the lower-mass end of the bulge IMF even in unresolved binary systems. This paper deals with events with clearly separated bumps and no caustic crossing or approach, whereas other types will be analysed in following works. A fully-automated approach in the search and modeling of binary events was implemented. Event detection was carried out with a modified version of the algorithm used in previous studies. Model fitting was carried out with Markov chain Monte Carlo and nested sampling methods, in order to find the most probable solution among binary lens or binary source models. We retrieved 107 binary events in Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE) light curves spanning ten years in 9 high-cadence and 112 low-cadence fields towards the bulge. Several criteria were applied to reduce false positives, resulting in 59 most likely binary lenses and 48 binary sources. The tools were effective in detecting a bona-fide sample of binary events, with a distribution of Einstein timescales around 35-40 days and flat distributions for mass ratio and source flux ratio. After proper consideration of detection efficiency, the statistics for binary fraction and mass ratio will provide valuable constraints for the bulge IMF.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21085 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution in galactic coordinates of the 121 anal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Light curve of the two benchmark events with largest s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Light curve around the two bumps detected for BLG504. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of data separation for BLG511.14.135138, us [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Result for the event BLG615.27.39817 (alerted as OB1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Result for the benchmark event BLG505.03.213693 (al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the physically relevant parameters de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, ApJ, 980,

    Abrams, N.S., Lu, J.R., Lam, C.Y ., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980,

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    1992, ApJ, 397,

    Griest, K., and Hu, W. 1992, ApJ, 397,

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    2014, ApJ, 795,

    Poleski, R., Skowron, J., Udalski, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795,

    work page 2014

  4. [8]

    2008, A&A, 480,

    Calchi Novati, S., de Luca, F., Jetzer, P ., Mancini, L., and Scarpetta, G. 2008, A&A, 480,

    work page 2008

  5. [12]

    2015, ApJ, 802,

    Yee, J.C., Udalski, A., Calchi Novati, S, et al. 2015, ApJ, 802,

    work page 2015

  6. [20]

    2012, Nature, 484,

    Cappellari, M., McDermid, R.M., Alatalo, K., et al. 2012, Nature, 484,

    work page 2012

  7. [29]

    2022, ApJS, 260,

    Golovich, N., Dawson, W., Bartoli ´c, F., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260,

    work page 2022

  8. [34]

    2020, ApJ, 903, L11

    Mróz, P ., Poleski, R., Gould, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, L11. Navarro, M.G., Minniti, D., and Contreras Ramos, R. 2017, ApJ, 851, L13. Paczy´nski, B. 1986, ApJ, 304,

    work page 2020

Show all 50 references
  1. [35]

    2019, ApJS, 241,

    Penny, M.T., Gaudi, B.S., Kerins, E., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241,

    2019

  2. [37]

    1994, ApJ, 430, L101

    Kiraga, M., and Paczy ´nski, B. 1994, ApJ, 430, L101. Li, S.S., Zang, W., Udalski, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488,

    1994

  3. [38]

    2009, MNRAS, 393,

    Skowron, J., Wyrzykowski, Ł., Mao, S., and Jaroszy ´nski, M. 2009, MNRAS, 393,

    2009

  4. [42]

    2019, Astronomy and Computing, 26,

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

    2019

  5. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 973, L32

    van Dokkum, P ., and Conroy, C. 2024, ApJ, 973, L32. Wegg, C., Gerhard, O., and Portail, M. 2017, ApJ, 843, L5. Woodrum, C., Rieke, M., Ji, Z., et al. 2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science , 121, e2317375121. Wo´ zniak, P .R. 2000,Acta Astron., 50,

    2024

  6. [55]

    1998, A&A, 333,

    Dominik, M. 1998, A&A, 333,

    1998

  7. [76]

    2000, ApJ, 530, 418

    Zoccali, M., Cassisi, S., Frogel, J.A., et al. 2000, ApJ, 530, 418

    2000

  8. [87]

    2012, arXiv e-prints, , arXiv:2310.12069

    Skowron, J., and Gould, A. 2012, arXiv e-prints, , arXiv:2310.12069. Steinhardt, C.L., Kokorev, V ., Rusakov, V ., Garcia, E., andSneppen, A. 2023, ApJ, 951, L40. Sumi, T., Kamiya, K., Bennett, D.P ., et al. 2011, Nature, 473,

    2012 arXiv

  9. [103]

    1998, ApJ, 503,

    Alard, C., and Lupton, R.H. 1998, ApJ, 503,

    1998

  10. [110]

    2016, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 49,

    Kim, S.-L., Lee, C.-U., Park, B.-G., et al. 2016, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 49,

    2016

  11. [123]

    2013, ApJ, 763,

    Kalirai, J.S., Anderson, J., Dotter, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763,

    2013

  12. [145]

    2009, MNRAS, 397,

    Wyrzykowski, Ł., Kozłowski, S., Skowron, J., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397,

    2009

  13. [183]

    2019, ApJS, 244,

    Mróz, P ., Udalski, A., Skowron, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244,

    2019

  14. [197]

    2015, ApJ, 798,

    Jung, Y .K., Udalski, A., Sumi, T.,et al. 2015, ApJ, 798,

    2015

  15. [223]

    2010, Ann

    Bastian, N., Covey, K.R., and Meyer, M.R. 2010, Ann. Rev. Astron. and Astrophys., 48,

    2010

  16. [231]

    2016, PASP, 128, 124401

    Henderson, C.B., Poleski, R., Penny, M., et al. 2016, PASP, 128, 124401. Holtzman, J.A., Watson, A.M., Baum, W.A., et al. 1998, AJ, 115,

    2016

  17. [253]

    2003, Acta Astron., 53,

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

    2003

  18. [291]

    2015, Acta Astron., 65,

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

    2015

  19. [306]

    2013, ApJ, 771,

    Geha, M., Brown, T.M., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771,

    2013

  20. [313]

    2017, Nature, 548,

    Mróz, P ., Udalski, A., Skowron, J., et al. 2017, Nature, 548,

    2017

  21. [325]

    2000, ApJ, 541,

    Alcock, C., Allsman, R.A., Alves, D.R., et al. 2000, ApJ, 541,

    2000

  22. [339]

    2001, MNRAS, 327,

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

    2001

  23. [349]

    1996,AJ, 112,

    Tomaney, A.B., and Crotts, A.P .S. 1996,AJ, 112,

    1996

  24. [362]

    1996, ApJ, 467,

    Han, C., and Gould, A. 1996, ApJ, 467,

    1996

  25. [383]

    2019, PASP, 131, 108005

    Buchner, J. 2019, PASP, 131, 108005. Buchner, J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software , 6,

    2019

  26. [421]

    2006, Acta Astron., 56,

    Wyrzykowski, Ł., Udalski, A., Mao, S., et al. 2006, Acta Astron., 56,

    2006

  27. [485]

    2008, ApJ, 684,

    Clarkson, W., Sahu, K., Anderson, J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684,

    2008

  28. [528]

    1997, ApJ, 488,

    Di Stefano, R., and Perna, R. 1997, ApJ, 488,

    1997

  29. [540]

    1998, MNRAS, 301,

    Han, C., and Jeong, Y . 1998, MNRAS, 301,

    1998

  30. [723]

    2015, ApJ, 804,

    Calchi Novati, S., Gould, A., Udalski, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804,

    2015

  31. [734]

    2018, Ann

    Barbuy, B., Chiappini, C., and Gerhard, O. 2018, Ann. Rev. Astron. and Astrophys., 56,

    2018

  32. [868]

    2018, MNRAS, 479,

    Bozza, V ., Bachelet, E., Bartoli´c, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479,

    2018

  33. [893]

    2013, Ann

    Duchêne, G., and Kraus, A. 2013, Ann. Rev. Astron. and Astrophys, 51,

    2013

  34. [999]

    2011, ApJ, 738,

    Skowron, J., Udalski, A., Gould, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738,

    2011

  35. [1110]

    2009, ApJ, 696,

    Da Rio, N., Gouliermis, D.A., and Henning, T. 2009, ApJ, 696,

    2009

  36. [1228]

    2015, ApJS, 216,

    Wyrzykowski, Ł., Rynkiewicz, A.E., Skowron, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 216,

    2015

  37. [1565]

    1991, ApJ, 374, L37

    Mao, S., and Paczy ´nski, B. 1991, ApJ, 374, L37. Mróz, P ., Udalski, A., Poleski, R., et al. 2015, Acta Astron., 65,

    1991

  38. [1946]

    2010, Acta Astron., 60,

    Jaroszy´nski, M., Skowron, J., Udalski, A., et al. 2010, Acta Astron., 60,

    2010

  39. [2872]

    75 25 Udalski, A., Szyma ´nski, M., Kaluzny, J., Kubiak, M., and Mateo, M

    V ol. 75 25 Udalski, A., Szyma ´nski, M., Kaluzny, J., Kubiak, M., and Mateo, M. 1992, Acta Astron., 42,

    1992

  40. [3001]

    2015, ApJ, 810,

    Calamida, A., Sahu, K.C., Casertano, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810,

    2015

  41. [3308]

    2015, MNRAS, 450,

    Liebig, C., D’Ago, G., Bozza, V ., and Dominik, M. 2015, MNRAS, 450,

    2015

  42. [5157]

    2016, Statistics and Computing, 26,

    Buchner, J. 2016, Statistics and Computing, 26,

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.