Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Six microlensing planets detected via sub-day signals during the 2023 -- 2024 season

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Six sub-day anomalies in microlensing light curves are all planets, from a seven-Earth-mass super-Earth to super-Jovians — and their short durations have four distinct geometric causes.

desk verdict Six new microlensing planets, but KMT-2024-BLG-1281 has a ρ/θE contradiction that undercuts its physical parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05522 v1 pith:5YMO7Y2Q submitted 2025-09-05 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA

Cheongho Han , Chung-Uk Lee , Andrzej Udalski , Ian A. Bond , Michael D. Albrow , Sun-Ju Chung , Andrew Gould , Youn Kil Jung
show 53 more authors
Kyu-Ha Hwang Yoon-Hyun Ryu Yossi Shvartzvald In-Gu Shin Jennifer C. Yee Weicheng Zang Hongjing Yang Sang-Mok Cha Doeon Kim Dong-Jin Kim Seung-Lee Kim Dong-Joo Lee Yongseok Lee Byeong-Gon Park Richard W. Pogge Przemek Mróz Micha{l} K. Szymański Jan Skowron Rados{l}aw Poleski Igor Soszyński Pawe{l} Pietrukowicz Szymon Koz{l}owski Krzysztof A. Rybicki Patryk Iwanek Krzysztof Ulaczyk Marcin Wrona Mariusz Gromadzki Mateusz J. Mróz Micha{l} Jaroszyński Marcin Kiraga Fumio Abe David P. Bennett Aparna Bhattacharya Akihiko Fukui Ryusei Hamada Stela Ishitani Silva Yuki Hirao Naoki Koshimoto Yutaka Matsubara 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.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords gravitationalmicrolensingplanetarycausticssub-dayanomalieslow-massexoplanetssuper-EarthbrowndwarfhostKMTNetsurveyexoplanetdemographics
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

Six microlensing events whose light curves showed anomalies lasting less than a day were flagged as possible low-mass planets; this paper argues that all six anomalies are in fact planets, and that the brevity of the signal has four different physical causes rather than one. The claimed haul spans a super-Earth about seven times Earth's mass orbiting a ~0.5 solar-mass M dwarf (KMT-2024-BLG-2059Lb), Neptune-mass and slightly-larger-than-Neptune worlds around M dwarfs, two super-Jovian planets, and a Uranus/Neptune-mass planet around a ~0.07 solar-mass primary that is likely a brown dwarf (KMT-2024-BLG-2242Lb). The result matters because short-duration anomalies are a fast-growing detection channel from high-cadence surveys, and the paper shows that duration alone does not tell you the planet is low-mass: wide separations, elongated caustics, and partial caustic crossings shorten signals too. It also adds four planets well below Jupiter's mass to the small sample used to map the demographics of cold exoplanets.

What carries the argument

The 2L1S (binary-lens single-source) microlensing model is the workhorse: the source star passes near a caustic, the region in the source plane where the magnification of a point source diverges, and the planet's signature is the brief perturbation produced by that passage. Caustic size rules the signal duration — the central caustic grows linearly with the planet-to-host mass ratio q (Chung et al. 2005) while the peripheral caustic grows as the square root of q (Han 2006) — which is why sub-day anomalies were flagged in the first place and why the paper must disentangle mass ratio from geometry. The modeling pipeline combines a grid search over separation s and mass ratio q with downhill re

What would settle it

Resolve the lens and source of each event with high-resolution imaging (for example, Keck adaptive optics or space-based imaging) a few years after the event, measure the lens brightness and the lens-source relative proper motion, and compare with the model predictions. For KMT-2023-BLG-0548 this would decide directly between the predicted ~0.12 solar-mass disk M dwarf and the ~0.72 solar-mass bulge K dwarf, and for KMT-2024-BLG-2242 it would test whether a ~0.07 solar-mass brown-dwarf primary is actually present. A bright bulge star where a faint disk dwarf was predicted, or a measured proper

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's claim is that six KMTNet events from the 2023–2024 seasons — all selected for anomalies shorter than one day — are unambiguously planetary: detailed 2L1S modeling attributes each perturbation to a companion with a planet-to-host mass ratio between roughly 2×10⁻⁵ and 1.2×10⁻², and the competing binary-source (1L2S) interpretations are statistically disfavored or physically implausible. The brevity of the anomalies is the central interpretive point: for KMT-2024-BLG-2059 and KMT-2024-BLG-2242 it reflects a genuinely small mass ratio, but for KMT-2023-BLG-0548 the caustic is small because the planet-star separation is far from the Einstein radius, for KMT-2023-BLG-

Load-bearing premise

For the three events without a measured angular Einstein radius (KMT-2023-BLG-0830, KMT-2023-BLG-0949, and KMT-2024-BLG-2059), the quoted host and planet masses are determined almost entirely by the adopted Galactic model and stellar mass-function priors together with the measured event timescale, so biased priors would shift every inferred mass and distance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Short-duration anomalies are a workable planet-selection channel: all six targets selected for sub-day anomalies turned out to be planetary, but the spread of causes — mass ratio, separation, caustic elongation, partial crossing — means anomaly duration cannot be used as a mass-ratio estimator on its own.
  • KMT-2024-BLG-2059Lb, a super-Earth near seven Earth masses, pushes the microlensing census into the super-Earth regime and shows low-mass planets can be recovered from sub-day signals with dense, quarter-hour cadence data.
  • KMT-2024-BLG-2242Lb adds a second brown-dwarf-host planet from this sample; with the paper's count of 16 microlensing planets around brown dwarfs, such systems appear common enough to constrain planet formation at the lowest host masses.
  • Four of the six planets are substantially less massive than Jupiter, so the sample directly feeds demographic studies of cold exoplanets, where the mass-ratio distribution is bimodal with super-Earth and gas-giant peaks (Zang et al. 2025).
  • High-resolution follow-up imaging (e.g., Keck adaptive optics or the future E-ELT) should resolve the lens and source, measure the relative proper motion, and decide between the bimodal KMT-2023-BLG-0548 solutions and more generally pin down masses for the events without a measured Einstein radius.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the same sub-day-anomaly screen could be run over older KMTNet, OGLE, and MOA seasons with little modification; the yield here — six planets from one screen, four well below Jupiter's mass — suggests a substantial untapped sample of short-duration planetary events in archival data.
  • Because three events lack a measured Einstein radius, their quoted masses are statistical products of the adopted priors rather than direct measurements; I would treat individual masses for KMT-2023-BLG-0830, KMT-2023-BLG-0949, and KMT-2024-BLG-2059 as indicative, while the ensemble still supports the qualitative picture of sub-Jovian companions with no stellar-mass binary contamination.
  • The heterogeneity of causes is a warning for survey selection functions: a 'sub-day anomaly' sample mixes low-mass-ratio planets with geometrically compressed signals, so demographic analyses built on such samples should model caustic geometry explicitly rather than assume a one-to-one mapping between duration and mass ratio.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the analysis of six short-duration (sub-day) anomalies in KMTNet 2023–2024 microlensing events, with OGLE/MOA supplementary data where available. For each event the authors perform 2L1S and, for most, 1L2S modeling, identify degenerate solutions (close/wide or inner/outer), estimate source colors and angular source radii, and use Bayesian analysis with Galactic model priors to infer host and planet masses, distances, and projected separations. They conclude that all six anomalies are caused by planets, with masses ranging from super-Earth to super-Jovian, and include a possible brown-dwarf host with a Uranus/Neptune-mass planet.

Significance. If sound, the paper adds six cold planets to the microlensing sample, including low-mass planets and a brown-dwarf-host system, which is relevant to mass-ratio demographics and to the interpretation of sub-day anomalies. Strengths include systematic modeling of competing 2L1S and 1L2S interpretations for most events, explicit treatment of close-wide and inner-outer degeneracies, combination of survey photometry, and a clear path to AO follow-up. However, the individual-event evidence is heterogeneous, and for one event the reported angular Einstein radius is internally inconsistent with the modeling table. The physical-parameter claims for several events are prior-dominated because θE is not measured, and this dependence is not always reflected in the abstract's language.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4/§5/Table 8] For KMT-2024-BLG-1281, §4.4 states "The normalized source radius could not be constrained because the anomaly was sparsely covered" and Table 4 lists ρ = '–' for all three solutions. However, §5 states ρ "was reliably measured" for this event and Table 8 quotes θE = 0.233 ± 0.069 mas. Since θE = θ*/ρ (Eq. 1), an unconstrained ρ cannot produce a measured θE. This is not merely notational: Eq. (6) includes θE in the Bayesian weight, and Table 9/abstract give host/planet masses and DL derived with this θE. The authors must either provide a ρ measurement (e.g., from the intermediate solution) or remove the θE term and recompute the posteriors, then revise Table 8, Table 9, and the abstract accordingly.
  2. [§4.4] No 1L2S (binary-source) model is reported for KMT-2024-BLG-1281, although §7 says the paper modeled "a faint source companion" for all events. The anomaly consists of roughly four deviant points (one negative KMTS point, two positive points, one marginal KMTC point), so a binary-source fit should be explicitly tested and its χ2/parameters reported as is done for the other five events. Without this test the planetary interpretation for this event does not have the same evidentiary basis as the others.
  3. [§4.1/Table 1] For KMT-2023-BLG-0548 the evidence for a planetary companion over a binary source is modest: the best 2L1S solution beats 1L2S by Δχ2 ≈ 12.6, and four degenerate 2L1S solutions are presented. The anomaly was captured by one site/field. Please state the Δχ2 of 2L1S relative to 1L1S, the number of anomalous data points, and estimate the significance after accounting for the search over solutions. If the improvement is not large, the abstract's unqualified "caused by planetary companions" for this event should be softened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title/Table 3] Title: "duri ng" is mis-spaced; Table 3 caption reads "Lensing parameters KMT-2023-BLG-0949" and should include "of".
  2. [§6, Eq. (4)] πrel = AU(1/DS − 1/DS) should read AU(1/D_L − 1/D_S); the current formula is self-cancelling and clearly a typo.
  3. [§4.4] "HJD′ = 60480.698" should be "HJD′ = 480.698" (extra leading 60).
  4. [§7] "KMT-2023-BLG-083Lb" should be "KMT-2023-BLG-0830Lb".
  5. [§4.5/Table 5] "captured by two KMTS data sets" likely means data points rather than data sets; also the q uncertainties in Table 5 are large (≈60%), and the abstract's "super-Earth" classification should be expressed as prior-dependent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; physical parameters rest on external Galactic priors. A stated ρ constraint for KMT-2024-BLG-1281 is internally inconsistent with §4.4, but this is a data-consistency error, not a circularity.

full rationale

The core detection chain is not circular. For each event the paper performs full 2L1S modeling and explicitly compares against 1L2S and close/wide binary interpretations; e.g., for KMT-2023-BLG-0548 the 1L2S model is disfavored by Δχ²=12.6, for KMT-2023-BLG-0830 by Δχ²=15.7, and for KMT-2024-BLG-2242 by Δχ²≥9.5. The planet-to-host mass ratio q and separation s are free parameters fit to the light curve; the planetary attribution is a model-selection claim, not a pre-supplied input. Physical masses and distances are obtained by weighting a synthetic Galactic population via Eq. (6), using priors from Jung et al. (2021, 2022). These are same-collaboration papers, but they supply external prior distributions (Galactic structure and mass function) that do not include the present events; no equation in the paper reduces the output to the input. The only serious issue found is an internal inconsistency for KMT-2024-BLG-1281: §4.4 states 'The normalized source radius could not be constrained because the anomaly was sparsely covered' and Table 4 lists ρ='–' for all solutions, yet §5 claims 'ρ was reliably measured for KMT-2023-BLG-0548, KMT-2024-BLG-1281, and KMT-2024-BLG-2242' and Table 8 gives θE=0.233±0.069 mas computed via Eq. (1) θE=θ*/ρ. If ρ is unconstrained, this θE is unsupported, and the Bayesian posterior for that event is weighted by a spurious constraint. This is a data-consistency/correctness defect, not a circular derivation: the alleged θE is not constructed from the posteriors it constrains. It lowers confidence in the KMT-2024-BLG-1281 physical parameters but does not make the planet detection itself circular. Self-citations (e.g., Han et al. 2025; Zang et al. 2025) are contextual and not load-bearing. Score 2 reflects the same-collaboration priors and the unresolved inconsistency, not a self-definitional or fitted-input circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, forces, or dimensions. The free parameters are the fitted microlensing parameters (q, s, and related quantities) for each event. The axioms are the standard theoretical and empirical tools of microlensing planet detection, with the notable load-bearing assumption being the Galactic model priors used for the Bayesian mass estimates.

free parameters (6)
  • q and s for KMT-2023-BLG-0548 (four degenerate solutions) = q ~ 4-5 x 10^-3, s ~ 0.39-0.42 (close) or 2.43-2.77 (wide)
    Planet-to-host mass ratio and projected separation from 2L1S light curve modeling (Table 1). These are fitted to the photometric data and define the planet interpretation.
  • q and s for KMT-2023-BLG-0830 = q ~ 0.24-0.25 x 10^-3, s ~ 0.93 or 1.10
    Planet-to-host mass ratio and separation from 2L1S fits (Table 2).
  • q and s for KMT-2023-BLG-0949 = q ~ 7.7-11.8 x 10^-3, s ~ 0.729 or 1.184
    Planet-to-host mass ratio and separation from 2L1S fits (Table 3).
  • q and s for KMT-2024-BLG-1281 = q ~ 1.75-2.87 x 10^-4, s ~ 0.948-1.018
    Planet-to-host mass ratio and separation for the inner, outer, and intermediate solutions (Table 4).
  • q and s for KMT-2024-BLG-2059 = q ~ 3.9-4.0 x 10^-5, s ~ 0.937 or 1.021
    Planet-to-host mass ratio and separation from inner/outer solutions (Table 5).
  • q and s for KMT-2024-BLG-2242 = q ~ 6.0-7.5 x 10^-4, s ~ 1.18-1.38
    Planet-to-host mass ratio and separation from inner/outer solutions (Table 6).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard binary-lens (2L1S) magnification model with finite-source ray-shooting and limb darkening
    Used throughout Section 3 and in computing model light curves. Assumes a point-mass lens with a companion and a limb-darkened background source.
  • domain assumption Galactic model and lens mass function of Jung et al. (2021, 2022) are correct priors
    Section 6 uses these priors for the Bayesian inference of mass and distance. If these priors are biased, the reported physical parameters are systematically affected.
  • domain assumption Color-magnitude calibration via the red clump centroid (Yoo et al. 2004) and the Kervella et al. (2004) surface brightness relation give the source angular radius theta_star
    Section 5 derives theta_E from rho using theta_star. This is a standard empirical calibration, but it carries systematic uncertainty that is not propagated fully into the reported error bars.
  • ad hoc to paper The 1L2S (binary-source) interpretation is rejected on physical grounds for KMT-2024-BLG-2242
    The 1L2S model gives a comparable chi-square (Table 6), and the authors reject it because the inferred companion is simultaneously extremely faint and large (giant). This rejection relies on stellar physics arguments rather than a decisive chi-square improvement.
  • domain assumption Photometric error rescaling following Yee et al. (2012) makes the chi-square statistics meaningful
    The comparison of competing models (2L1S vs 1L2S) depends on chi-square differences, which require reliable error bars. The rescaling procedure is standard but is an assumption about the data quality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Six microlensing planets detected via sub-day signals during the 2023 -- 2024 season." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5YMO7Y2Q

@misc{pith2026250905522,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Six microlensing planets detected via sub-day signals during the 2023 -- 2024 season},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5YMO7Y2Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05522}
}
abstract

We present analyses of six microlensing events: KMT-2023-BLG-0548, KMT-2023-BLG-0830, KMT-2023-BLG-0949, KMT-2024-BLG-1281, KMT-2024-BLG-2059, and KMT-2024-BLG-2242. These were identified in KMTNet data from the 2023 -- 2024 seasons, selected for exhibiting anomalies shorter than one day -- potential signatures of low-mass planetary companions. Detailed modeling of the light curves reveals that the anomalies in all six events are caused by planetary companions to the lenses. The brief durations of the anomalies are attributed to various factors: a low planet-to-host mass ratio (KMT-2024-BLG-2059, KMT-2024-BLG-2242), a wide planet-host separation (KMT-2023-BLG-0548), small and elongated caustics restricting the source's interaction region (KMT-2023-BLG-0830, KMT-2024-BLG-1281), and a partial caustic crossing (KMT-2023-BLG-0949). { For KMT-2023-BLG-0548, the Bayesian posterior distribution of the lens mass shows two distinct peaks: a low-mass solution indicating a sub-Jovian planet orbiting an M dwarf in the Galactic disk, and a high-mass solution suggesting a super-Jovian planet around a K-type dwarf in the bulge. KMT-2023-BLG-0830 hosts a Neptune-mass planet orbiting an M dwarf in the Galactic bulge. KMT-2023-BLG-0949 involves a super-Jovian planet orbiting a $\sim 0.5~M_\odot$ host located at $\sim 6$ kpc. KMT-2024-BLG-2059Lb is a super-Earth with a mass about seven times that of Earth, orbiting an early M dwarf of $\sim 0.5~M_\odot$. KMT-2024-BLG-1281L hosts a planet slightly more massive than Neptune, orbiting an M dwarf of $\sim 0.3~M_\odot$. The short timescale and small angular Einstein radius of KMT-2024-BLG-2242 suggest a $\sim 0.07~M_\odot$ primary, likely a brown dwarf, with a Uranus/Neptune-mass planet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05522 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light Curve of the microlensing event KMT-2023-BLG-0548. The bottom panel displays the full light curve, while the upper panels present a zoomed-in view of the peak region along with the residuals for four different models. The four insets in the bottom panel illustrate the lens-system configurations corresponding to the four degenerate 2L1S solutions. In each inset, the closed figure composed of concave curves repr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Lensing light curve of KMT-2023-BLG-0830. The notations are consistent with those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Light curve of KMT-2023-BLG-0949. We note that in addi￾tion to the strong anomaly near the peak, there are also additional weak extended negative deviations in the rising part of the light curve. 93.2, reaching a relatively high magnification of Apeak ∼ 40. The source is located in the KMTNet BLG14 field, where observa￾tions were carried out with an hourly cadence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: presents the light curve of KMT-2024-BLG-1281, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the lensing light curve of the event. Mod￾eling under the 1L1S configuration revealed that the observed flux is substantially influenced by blended light. As a result, although the event reached a relatively high magnification of Amax ∼ 20, the source brightened …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Lensing light curve of KMT-2024-BLG-2242. 4.6. KMT-2024-BLG-2242 The lensing event KMT-2024-BLG-2242 occurred on a source with a relatively bright baseline magnitude of Ibase = 16.68. The source is located at equatorial coordinates (RA, DEC)J2000 = (17:53:39.60, -29:33…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Locations of source stars (blue dots) with respect to the centroid of the red giant clump (RGC, red dots) in the instrumental color-magnitude diagrams of the six planetary lensing events. For events with measured blended flux, the positions of the blend (green dots) ar…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Posteriors for the mass of the lens systems. relation of Kervella et al. (2004), which links (V − K, I) to θ∗. Because this relation requires (V − K, K) as input, the observed (V − I, I) values were converted to (V − K, K) using the color￾color transformation provided …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, MichaelDAlbrow /pyDIA: Initial Release on Github,V ersionv1.0.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.268049

    Albrow, M. 2017, MichaelDAlbrow /pyDIA: Initial Release on Github,V ersionv1.0.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.268049

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.268049 2017

  2. [2]

    P ., & Rhie, S

    Bennett, D. P ., & Rhie, S. H. 1996, ApJ, 458, 293

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Y ee, J.C., Feltzing, S

    Bensby, T. Y ee, J.C., Feltzing, S. et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A147

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    S., & Brett, J

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

    work page 1988

  5. [5]

    A., Abe, F., Dodd, R

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

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    2005, ApJ, 630, 535

    Chung, S.-J., Han, C., Park, B.-G., et al. 2005, ApJ, 630, 535

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    L., Gaudi, B

    Dong, S., DePoy, D. L., Gaudi, B. S., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 842

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    1999, A&A, 349, 108

    Dominik, M. 1999, A&A, 349, 108

    work page 1999

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    S 1998, ApJ, 506, 533

    Gaudi, B. S 1998, ApJ, 506, 533

    1998

  2. [10]

    S., & Gould, A

    Gaudi, B. S., & Gould, A. 1997, ApJ, 486, 85

    1997

  3. [11]

    S., & Han, C

    Gaudi, B. S., & Han, C. 2004, ApJ, 611, 528

    2004

  4. [12]

    1992, ApJ, 396, 104

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

    1992

  5. [13]

    2022, A&A, 664, A13

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

    2022

  6. [14]

    1998, ApJ, 500, 37

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

    1998

  7. [15]

    Han, C., & Gaudi, B. S. 2008, ApJ, 689, 5

    2008

  8. [16]

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

    2023

  9. [17]

    A., Jung, Y

    Han, C., Bond, I. A., Jung, Y . K., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A90 Article number, page 12 of 13 Cheongho Han et al.: Microlensing planets with sub-day sign als

    2025

  10. [18]

    A., et al

    Hwang, K.-H., Choi, J.-Y ., Bond, I. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 55

    2013

  11. [19]

    2022, AJ, 163, 43

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

    2022

  12. [20]

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

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

    2021

  13. [21]

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

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

    2022

  14. [22]

    2004, A&A, 426, 29

    Kervella, P ., Thévenin, F., Di Folco, E., & Ségransan, D. 2004, A&A, 426, 29

    2004

  15. [23]

    2018, AJ, 155, 76

    Kim, D.-J., Kim, H.-W., Hwang, K.-H., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 76

    2018

  16. [24]

    2016, JKAS, 49, 37

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

    2016

  17. [25]

    1991, ApJ, 374, 37

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

    1991

  18. [26]

    M., Gould, A., Fouqué, P

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

    2013

  19. [27]

    A., et al

    Sumi, T., Abe, F., Bond, I. A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 204

    2003

  20. [28]

    K., & Szyma ´nski, G

    Udalski, A., Szyma ´nski, M. K., & Szyma ´nski, G. 2015, Acta Astron., 65, 1 Y ang, H., Y ee, J. C., Hwang, K.-H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 11 Y ee, J. C., Shvartzvald, Y ., Gal-Y am, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 102 Y ee, J. C., Zang, W., Udalski, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 180 ...

    2015

  21. [29]

    2024, AJ, 167, 162

    Zhai, R., Poleski, R., Zang, W., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 162

    2024

  22. [30]

    2021, AJ, 162, 163

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

    2021

  23. [31]

    K., Y ee, J

    Zang, W., Jung, Y . K., Y ee, J. C., et al. 2025, Science, 388, 400

    2025

  24. [32]

    S., & Bloom, J

    Zhang, K., Gaudi, B. S., & Bloom, J. S. 2022, Nat. Ast. 6, 782Z 1 Department of Physics, Chungbuk National University, Cheo ngju 28644, Republic of Korea 2 Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, Daejon 34055, Re- public of Korea 3 Astronomical Observatory, University of ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.