Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

KMT-2022-BLG-0086: Another binary-lens binary-source microlensing event

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read KMT-2022-BLG-0086 is best explained by a binary lens acting on two source stars, not by a triple-lens system.

desk verdict A careful, honest single-event microlensing analysis whose 2L2S-vs-3L1S verdict rests on a weak Δχ² and a proper-motion prior tail; worth refereeing, but the conclusion should stay hedged. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20914 v1 pith:LBWTEQQV submitted 2025-06-26 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA

Sun-Ju Chung , Kyu-Ha Hwang , Jennifer C. Yee , Andrew Gould , Ian A. Bond , Hongjing Yang , Michael D. Albrow , Youn Kil Jung
show 35 more authors
Cheongho Han Yoon-Hyun Ryu In-Gu Shin Yossi Shvartzvald Weicheng Zang Sang-Mok Cha Dong-Jin Kim Seung-Lee Kim Chung-Uk Lee Dong-Joo Lee Yongseok Lee Byeong-Gon Park Richard W. Pogge Fumio Abe David P. Bennett Aparna Bhattacharya Akihiko Fukui Ryusei Hamada Yuki Hirao Stela Ishitani Silva Naoki Koshimoto Shota Miyazaki Yasushi Muraki Tutumi Nagai Kansuke Nunota Greg Olmschenk Clément Ranc Nicholas J. Rattenbury Yuki Satoh Takahiro Sumi Daisuke Suzuki Sean K. Terry Paul J. Tristram Aikaterini Vandorou Hibiki Yama
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords gravitationallensing:micromicrolensingeventKMT-2022-BLG-0086binary-lensbinary-source(2L2S)triple-lenssingle-source(3L1S)relativelens-sourcepropermotionGalacticmodelprior
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 analyzes the microlensing event KMT-2022-BLG-0086 and argues that its light curve is best explained by a binary-lens binary-source (2L2S) model—a binary star acting as lens on two background stars—rather than a triple-lens single-source (3L1S) model of a brown dwarf or giant planet in a low-mass binary. The two models fit the data almost equally well, with the 2L2S preferred by $\Delta\chi^2 \simeq 9$, so the discrimination rests on a physical consistency argument. The 3L1S solution requires a relative lens-source proper motion of at least $18.9\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$, more than three times the typical disk value of about $6\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$, and the Bayesian analysis assigns it a relative weight of only $0.00004$. If correct, the event is a binary star of about $(0.46,\,0.75)\,M_\odot$ at $\sim 5.9\,\mathrm{kpc}$ acting on two late-G dwarf sources, adding to the small catalog of confirmed 2L2S events and supporting the view that residuals in binary-lens events often come from extra sources rather than extra lenses.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the comparison of two degenerate models: a binary-lens binary-source (2L2S) model and a triple-lens single-source (3L1S) model. The 3L1S search exploits the superposition approximation [Bozza 1999; Han et al. 2001] that the two anomalies are independent binary-lens perturbations, and the close-wide degeneracy [Griest & Safizadeh 1998] is handled by grid searches in $(s,q,\alpha)$. The decisive argument is the relative-weight estimate of Gould et al. (2022), which multiplies the Bayesian weight from the Galactic model of Jung et al. (2021) by $\exp(-\Delta\chi^2/2)$; this gives the 3L1S solution a relative weight of $0.00004$, driven by its high minimum proper motion $\mu_{\rm rel,min} \simeq 18.9\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$. The angular Einstein radius is only bounded from below ($\theta_{\rm E,min}$ from $\rho_{\max}$ and the source angular radius $\theta_\star$), which propagates into lower limits on proper motion.

What would settle it

Measure the relative lens-source proper motion directly. The two models predict $\mu_{\rm rel} \gtrsim 4.6\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$ (2L2S) versus $\mu_{\rm rel} \gtrsim 18.9\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$ (3L1S). High-resolution imaging taken a few years apart can resolve the source and lens and measure the angular separation change; a measured $\mu_{\rm rel}$ near $18.9\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$ or above would favor the triple-lens interpretation, while a value near $4$–$6\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$ would confirm the binary-source interpretation. Alternatively, re-running the Bayesian analysis with an alternative Galactic model that includes a faster-disk population would directly test whether the $0.00004$ relative weight persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

KMT-2022-BLG-0086 is best described as a binary-lens binary-source event: the observed light curve, including two caustic-crossing anomalies near the peak, is reproduced by a binary lens (a star of $\sim 0.46\,M_\odot$ plus a companion of $\sim 0.75\,M_\odot$) acting on two late-G dwarf source stars, at a lens distance of about $5.9\,\mathrm{kpc}$. The competing triple-lens single-source model, in which the lens is a low-mass binary hosting a brown dwarf or a $\sim 21\,M_{\rm J}$ giant planet, fits the data almost as well ($\Delta\chi^2 \simeq 9$ worse), but requires a relative lens-source proper motion of at least $18.9\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$. Because the Bayesian Galactic model yields typical disk proper motions near $6\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$, the triple-lens solution is given a relative weight of $0.00004$ and is rejected as physically implausible. Since the anomalies were not densely covered, only a lower limit on the angular Einstein radius $\theta_{\rm E,min}$ could be measured, and the conclusion rests on combining that limit with the Galactic-model prior on proper motions.

Load-bearing premise

The rejection of the triple-lens model rests on the assumption that the Galactic model's distribution of lens-source proper motions is correct, in particular that a proper motion of at least $18.9\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$ is extremely rare for a disk lens; if fast-moving disk lenses are more common than the model says, the 3L1S solution becomes viable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 2L2S interpretation is correct, the lens is a $\sim 5.9\,\mathrm{kpc}$ binary star with masses $(0.46,\,0.75)\,M_\odot$, and the source is a binary of two late-G dwarfs.
  • The event adds another case where binary-lens residuals are explained by an extra source rather than an extra lens, strengthening the need to consider 2L2S models in analyses of anomalous microlensing light curves.
  • The measured lower limit $\theta_{\rm E,min}$ and adopted masses imply a projected separation of the binary lens of either $\sim 0.5\,\mathrm{au}$ (close solution) or $\sim 7.7\,\mathrm{au}$ (wide solution), which can be tested by future high-resolution astrometry.
  • The fact that $\Delta\chi^2 \simeq 9$ separates the two models shows that moderate $\chi^2$ differences are insufficient to decide between an extra source and an extra lens, so physical priors such as the proper-motion distribution carry the decision.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The relative-weight argument leans on the Galactic model's disk proper-motion distribution; if that distribution under-represents fast disk lenses, the 3L1S weight could rise above $0.00004$, so the conclusion should be re-checked with alternative priors.
  • The same 2L2S-versus-3L1S degeneracy may be common in sparsely sampled survey events, suggesting that a systematic re-analysis of archived anomalies with this relative-weight test could uncover a population of similar ambiguous cases.
  • A direct measurement of the lens-source relative proper motion over a few years (from the angular separation rate in high-resolution images) would settle the interpretation without relying on the Galactic prior; the prediction is $\mu_{\rm rel} \sim 4$–$6\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$ if the 2L2S model is right.
  • Even though the 3L1S solution is disfavored, its inferred $\sim 21\,M_{\rm J}$ tertiary is a plausible brown-dwarf or giant-planet candidate that would be worth pursuing if independent evidence for a fast lens emerges.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 analyzes the microlensing event KMT-2022-BLG-0086, whose peak anomalies are not fit by standard 2L1S models. The authors model the event as a binary-lens binary-source (2L2S) system and as a triple-lens single-source (3L1S) system, finding that 2L2S is preferred by only Δχ² ≈ 9. Because the anomalous regions are not well covered, the normalized source radius is only upper-limited, so the analysis yields lower limits θ_E,min and μ_rel,min for each model. A Bayesian analysis with the Jung et al. (2021) Galactic model gives a binary-star lens at ~5.9 kpc for 2L2S and a low-mass binary hosting a brown dwarf or giant planet at ~4.1 kpc for 3L1S. The 3L1S solution is then assigned a relative weight of 0.00004, mostly because its μ_rel,min ≈ 18.9 mas/yr is far above the typical disk value of ~6 mas/yr. The paper concludes that the event is likely caused by the 2L2S model.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the event adds to the small sample of 2L2S microlensing events and illustrates how an extra-source interpretation can compete with an extra-lens interpretation. The paper is transparent about the main weakness: the Δχ² preference is only ~9 and θ_E is not measured. The relative-weight calculation is explicit enough to be scrutinized and reproduced, and the authors clearly separate the data-driven and prior-driven parts of the argument. However, the central 2L2S conclusion depends on a Galactic-model prior that is not independently tested, so the paper's value is partly as a cautionary case rather than as a secure new 2L2S identification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (3) and Table 5] The rejection of the 3L1S model is driven by the adopted Galactic-model prior rather than by the light curve. The relative weight 0.00004 is the product 0.004 × 0.01, where the 0.004 factor is the fraction of simulated events satisfying θ_E,i > θ_E,min at t_E ≈ 10.5 d, i.e., μ_rel ≥ 18.9 mas/yr under the Jung et al. (2021) prior. Since Section 4 only sets a lower limit on θ_E, the data never measure μ_rel for the 3L1S model; the statement that this solution is 'inconsistent with the Bayesian result' is a statement about the tail of the prior. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of the 3L1S relative weight to the prior, for example by repeating the calculation with alternative Galactic-model parameters or with a flat or differently peaked μ_rel distribution, and should present the model preference as conditional on the prior.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5] The claim that μ_rel ≥ 18.9 mas/yr is 'more than three times larger than that of a typical disk object' conflates a lower limit with a measurement. A lower limit above a typical value does not imply that the true proper motion is inconsistent with the typical value. The conclusion should be recast as: under the adopted prior, the 3L1S solution requires a rare high proper motion; without independent kinematic constraints on the disk lens population, the 3L1S interpretation cannot be excluded at the claimed level.
  3. [Abstract and Section 6] The wording that the event is 'best explained by' and 'likely caused by' the 2L2S model overstates the evidence, given that the Δχ² preference is only about 9 and the peak anomalies were not well covered. The close/wide and ±u0 degeneracies are also not fully resolved. The paper should report the 2L2S identification as a marginal, prior-dependent preference and should explicitly note that it is tentative pending additional observations such as high-resolution imaging or astrometric follow-up.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'The lensing parameters of the two standard models are presented in Table 2' should refer to Table 1, which contains the 2L1S parameters; Table 2 contains the 2L2S parameters.
  2. [Abstract] There are minor typos: 'that that' appears twice in the abstract, and the title in the draft has a spurious space in 'microle nsing'.
  3. [Section 4] The text contains 'KMCT CMD', which should be 'KMTC CMD'.
  4. [Keywords] The keyword line is truncated to 'gravitational lensing: micro' and should be 'gravitational lensing: microlensing'.
  5. [Section 5, Eq. (3)] The description of the simulated events should specify how t_E,i and θ_E,i are drawn from the Galactic model; currently only the weighting scheme is given.
  6. [Figure 8 caption] The caption would benefit from labeling which panels correspond to the 2L2S model and which to the 3L1S model, rather than mentioning them only in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No structural circularity: the 2L2S preference is a data-driven model comparison, though the 3L1S rejection depends on a Galactic-model prior whose tail shape does much of the work.

full rationale

The paper's central inference is a posterior model comparison, not a 'prediction' built from its own inputs. The 2L1S failure is judged from photometric residuals; the 2L2S and 3L1S models are independently searched by grid plus MCMC and compared by Delta-chi^2 about 9 computed from the same data, and theta_E,min is obtained from CMD-based source radii plus upper limits on rho, all standard and data-driven. Equation (3) conditions the Bayesian simulations on the measured tE and theta_E,min; the resulting masses and distances are outputs of a prior update, not restatements of the inputs. The 3L1S relative weight of 0.00004 is a legitimate Bayesian product of the photometric exp(-Delta-chi^2/2) factor (about 0.01) and the Galactic-model prior fraction for mu_rel >= 18.9 mas/yr (about 0.004). That the prior tail drives the disfavoring of the high-proper-motion 3L1S solution is a robustness concern about the Jung et al. (2021) Galactic model, not a circular derivation: the model is external to this event and was not fitted to it here. The paper also openly reports the small Delta-chi^2 and the lower-limit nature of theta_E, so the central claim is transparently prior-dependent rather than equivalently constructed from its own outputs. The cited Gould et al. (2022) and Jung et al. (2021) works do overlap with the author list, but they supply a general weighting method and an external prior, not the fitted result itself. I therefore find no significant circularity; the score of 2 reflects the load-bearing role of a team-owned Galactic model whose high-velocity tail controls the 3L1S rejection, which is a prior-sensitivity concern rather than a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted constraints (ρ_max and θ_⋆) and on four adopted modeling assumptions, of which the Jung et al. (2021) Galactic model is the most consequential because it, rather than the data, carries the weight that rejects the 3L1S interpretation. The microlensing fit parameters (t0, u0, tE, s, q, α, qF, ρ, and the 3L1S extras) are the measured quantities themselves, and the close-wide and ecliptic degeneracies are explored rather than fixed, so they are not listed as separate free parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • ρ_max (upper limit on normalized source radius) = 0.002 (2L2S primary), 0.003 (3L1S), 3σ upper limits
    Drives θ_E,min = θ_⋆/ρ_max, the quantity feeding the proper-motion argument that rejects 3L1S. The peak anomalies were not densely covered, so only upper limits could be set (Section 4, Figure 8).
  • θ_⋆ source angular radius = 0.615 ± 0.056 µas (2L2S primary); 1.63 ± 0.31 µas (3L1S)
    Derived in Section 4 from clump-calibrated CMD positions, VIK conversion (Bessell & Brett 1988) and surface-brightness relations (Kervella et al. 2004). The source color is not directly measured due to sparse V-band data and is matched from HST CMD stars.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Jung et al. (2021) Galactic model correctly describes the disk and bulge mass, distance, and proper-motion distributions, including the fraction of disk lenses with μ_rel ≥ 18.9 mas/yr.
    Invoked in Section 5 for the Bayesian posteriors (Eq. 3 weighting) and for the relative weights that assign 3L1S a probability of 0.00004. The 3L1S rejection depends on this prior.
  • domain assumption The source and the red clump experience identical extinction and reddening (Yoo et al. 2004 method).
    Used in Section 4 to derive intrinsic source colors and magnitudes from the observed CMD offset, Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption Bessell & Brett (1988) VIK color relations and Kervella et al. (2004) color-surface-brightness relations apply to these late-G dwarf sources.
    Used in Section 4 to convert dereddened colors and magnitudes into angular source radii θ_⋆.
  • domain assumption The caustic superposition approximation (Bozza 1999; Han et al. 2001) can seed the 3L1S search by fitting 2L1S models to each anomaly region separately.
    Used in Section 3.3 to set initial parameters for the triple-lens grid search; the final 3L1S models are refined against the full data set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of KMT-2022-BLG-0086: Another binary-lens binary-source microlensing event." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LBWTEQQV

@misc{pith2026250620914,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: KMT-2022-BLG-0086: Another binary-lens binary-source microlensing event},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LBWTEQQV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20914}
}
abstract

We present the analysis of a microlensing event KMT-2022-BLG-0086 of which the overall light curve is not described by a binary-lens single-source (2L1S) model, which suggests the existence of an extra lens or an extra source. We found that the event is best explained by the binary-lens binary-source (2L2S) model, but the 2L2S model is only favored over the triple-lens single-source (3L1S) model by $\Delta\chi^{2} \simeq 9$. Although the event has noticeable anomalies around the peak of the light curve, they are not enough covered to constrain the angular Einstein radius $\theta_{\rm E}$, thus we only measure the minimum angular Einstein radius $\theta_{\rm E,min}$. From the Bayesian analysis, it is found that that the binary lens system is a binary star with masses of $(m_1,m_2)=(0.46^{+0.35}_{-0.25}\, M_\odot, 0.75^{+0.67}_{-0.55}\, M_\odot)$ at a distance of $D_{\rm L}=5.87^{+1.21}_{-1.79}$ kpc, while the triple lens system is a brown dwarf or a massive giant planet in a low-mass binary-star system with masses of $(m_1,m_2,m_3)=(0.43^{+0.41}_{-0.35}\, M_\odot, 0.056^{+0.055}_{-0.047}\, M_\odot, 20.84^{+20.20}_{-17.04}\, M_{\rm J})$ at a distance of $D_{\rm L}=4.06^{+1.39}_{-3.28}$ kpc, indicating a disk lens system. The 2L2S model yields the relative lens-source proper motion of $\mu_{\rm rel} \geqslant 4.6\, \rm mas\, yr^{-1}$ that is consistent with the Bayesian result, whereas the 3L1S model yields $\mu_{\rm rel} \geqslant 18.9\, \rm mas\, yr^{-1}$, which is more than three times larger than that of a typical disk object of $\sim 6\, \rm mas\, yr^{-1}$ and thus is not consistent with the Bayesian result. This suggests that the event is likely caused by the binary-lens binary-source model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20914 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. presents the observed light curve of KMT￾2022-BLG-0086, which has a U-shape feature in the peak that appears to be caused by caustic-crossing. We thus conduct a standard binary-lens single-source (2L1S) modeling. 3.1. 2L1S model The standard 2L1S modeling requires seven parame￾ters: three single lensing parameters (t0, u0, tE), three binary lensing parameters (s, q, α), and ρ. Here, t0 is the time of the closest sou… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Light curves of two different 2L1S models with and without high-order effects. “Model 1” is the best-fit model and “Model 2” is the alternative model with a different source trajectory. The black solid and dashed curves represent the light curves of the “Model 1” with and without high-order effects, respectively, while the gray dotted and dash-dotted curves represent the light curves for “Model 2” . The lower four p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Geometries of the two best-fit 2L1S models. The blue dots represent the lens components of each model and the black closed curve represents the caustic. The straight line with an arrow denotes the source trajectory. wide solutions for each 2L1S model. From the modeling, we find that the best-fit 2L2S solution is the wide model based on “Model 2”, and it describes all the anomalies in the lensing light curve better t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Light curves of the best-fit 2L2S and 3L1S models. The black solid and gray dashed curves represent the close and wide solutions of the 2L2S model, while the black dotted curve represents the light curve of the 3L1S model. mary and the tertiary components, q3 is the te…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Light curves of the 2L1S solutions where the anomaly regions 1 and 2 (AR1 and AR2) are individually excluded. The AR1 and AR2 represent the ranges of 9664 < HJD′ < 9666.3 and 9666.5 < HJD′ < 9670.0, respectively the light curve that provide a better fit throughout the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Geometries of the best-fit 2L2S and 3L1S mod￾els. For the 2L2S model, S1 and S2 denote the primary and secondary sources. The dotted circle represents the Einstein ring and the other notations are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Instrumental color-magnitude diagram (CMD) of stars in the observed field, which is constructed from com￾bining KMTC and HST observations. The KMTC and HST CMDs are plotted as black and green dots, respectively. The blue and cyan dots represent the positions of the pri…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Bayesian posteriors for the mass and distance of the host lens star for the 2L2S and 3L1S models. The red and blue lines for the 2L2S model represent the distributions of the close and wide solutions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2019, arXiv:1902.05569

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv:1902.05569

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    D., 2017, MichaelDAlbrow/pyDIA: Initial Release on Github, Versionv1.0.0, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.268049

    Albrow, M. D., 2017, MichaelDAlbrow/pyDIA: Initial Release on Github, Versionv1.0.0, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.268049

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.268049 2017

  3. [3]

    D., Beaulieu, J.-P., Caldwell, J

    Albrow, M. D., Beaulieu, J.-P., Caldwell, J. A. R., et al. 2000, ApJ, 534, 894

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    D., Horne, K., Bramich, D

    Albrow, M. D., Horne, K., Bramich, D. M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 2099

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

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

    1998

  6. [6]

    P., Rhie, S

    Bennett, D. P., Rhie, S. H., Becker, A. C., et al. 1999, Nature, 402, 57

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    P., & Rhie, S

    Bennett, D. P., & Rhie, S. H., 2002, ApJ, 574, 985

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    P., Rhie, S

    Bennett, D. P., Rhie, S. H., Udalski, A., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 125

    work page 2016

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    P., Udalski, A., Bond, I

    Bennett, D. P., Udalski, A., Bond, I. A., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 72

    2020

  2. [10]

    2011, A&A, 533, 134

    Bensby, T., Ad´ en, D., Mel´ endez, J., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, 134

    2011

  3. [11]

    S., & Brett, J

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

    1988

  4. [12]

    A., Abe, F., Dodd, R

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

    2001

  5. [13]

    1992, ApJ, 396, 104

    Gould, A., & Loeb, A. 1992, ApJ, 396, 104

    1992

  6. [14]

    , Han, C., Zang, W

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

    2022

  7. [15]

    Gould, A., Udalski, A., Shin, I.-G., et al.2014, Science, 34 5, 46

    2014

  8. [16]

    1998, ApJ, 500, 37

    Griest, K., & Safizadeh, N. 1998, ApJ, 500, 37

    1998

  9. [17]

    P., Udalski, A., et al

    Han, C., Bennett, D. P., Udalski, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 8

    2016

  10. [18]

    H., et al

    Han, C., Chang, H.-Y., An, J. H., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 986

    2001

  11. [19]

    2021, A&A, 655, A24

    Han, C., Gould, A., Hirao, Y., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A24

    2021

  12. [20]

    2020, AJ, 159, 48

    Han, C., Lee, C.-U., Udalski, A., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 48

    2020

  13. [21]

    2017, AJ, 154, 223

    Han, C., Udalski, A., Gould, A., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 223

    2017

  14. [22]

    K., et al

    Han, C., Udalski, A., Jung, Y. K., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A172

    2023

  15. [23]

    A., Watson, A

    Holtzman, J. A., Watson, A. M., Baum, W. A., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1946

    1998

  16. [24]

    Depoy, D

    Jiang, G. Depoy, D. L., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 1307

    2004

  17. [25]

    A., Penny, M., Gaudi, B

    Johnson, S. A., Penny, M., Gaudi, B. S., et al., 2020, AJ, 160, 123

    2020

  18. [26]

    K., Han, C., Gould, A., et al

    Jung, Y. K., Han, C., Gould, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, L7

    2013

  19. [27]

    K., Han, C., Udalski, A., et al

    Jung, Y. K., Han, C., Udalski, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 293

    2021

  20. [28]

    A., Raymond, S

    Kaib, N. A., Raymond, S. N., & Duncan, M. 2013, Nature, 493, 381

    2013

  21. [29]

    2004, A&A, 426, 297

    Kervella, P., Th´ evenin, F., Di Folco, E., & S´ egransan, D. 2004, A&A, 426, 297

    2004

  22. [30]

    2016, JKAS, 49, 37

    Kim, S.-L., Lee, C.-U., Park, B.-G., et al. 2016, JKAS, 49, 37

    2016

  23. [31]

    B., & Heggie, D

    Malmberg, D., Davies, M. B., & Heggie, D. C. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 859

    2011

  24. [32]

    1991, ApJ, 374, 37

    Mao, S., & Paczy´ nski, B. 1991, ApJ, 374, 37

    1991

  25. [33]

    M., Gould, A., Fouqu´ e, P., et al

    Nataf, D. M., Gould, A., Fouqu´ e, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 88

    2013

  26. [34]

    S., Kerins, E., et al

    Penny, M., Gaudi, B. S., Kerins, E., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 3

    2019

  27. [35]

    P., et al

    Poindexter, S., Afonso, C., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2005,ApJ, 633, 914

    2005

  28. [36]

    2014, ApJ, 795, 42

    Poleski, R., Skowron, J., Udalski, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 42

    2014

  29. [37]

    A., & Ford, E

    Rasio, F. A., & Ford, E. B. 1996, Science, 274, 954

    1996

  30. [38]

    H., Becker, A

    Rhie, S. H., Becker, A. C., & Bennett, D. P. 1999, ApJ, 522, 1037

    1999

  31. [39]

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al., 2015, arXiv:1503.03757

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    K., Han, C., et al

    Udalski, A., Jung, Y. K., Han, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 47

    2015

  33. [41]

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

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

    2012

  34. [42]

    L., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Yoo, J., DePoy, D. L., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 603, 139 13

    2004

  35. [43]

    2021, RAA, 21, 239 Zhang, K ., Zang, W., El-Badry, K., et al

    Zang, W., Han, C., Kondo, I., et al. 2021, RAA, 21, 239 Zhang, K ., Zang, W., El-Badry, K., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1575

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.