pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.12219 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

An Updated SynthPop Model for Microlensing Simulations I: Model Description & Evaluation

Macy J. Huston , Alison L. Crisp , Marz Newman , Riley Patlak , Matthew T. Penny , Jonas Kluter , Samson A. Johnson , Peter McGill
show 13 more authors
Leigh C. Smith Victor Karkour Natasha S. Abrams Rachel B. Fernandes B. Scott Gaudi Casey Y. Lam Jessica R. Lu Carissma McGee Sebastiano Calchi Novati Keivan G. Stassun Sean K. Terry Himanshu Verma Farzaneh Zohrabi
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 11:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords Galactic bulgemicrolensingpopulation synthesisRoman Space Telescopestellar kinematicsSynthPop modelevent rates
0
0 comments X

The pith

Updated Milky Way bulge model matches most stars but overpredicts microlensing rates by 20 percent

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper updates the SynthPop population synthesis model of the Milky Way to improve microlensing simulations for the upcoming Roman Space Telescope Galactic Bulge Time Domain Survey. The model is tuned to match stellar catalogs and kinematics in the survey's contiguous lower bulge fields and is evaluated against optical and infrared data. It reproduces observed stellar contents and velocities well across much of the bulge, yet it overestimates optical microlensing event rates per star by about 20 percent and shows inconsistencies within 0.5 degrees of the Galactic plane. These results indicate where refinements are still needed for accurate projections, especially in the galactic center field.

Core claim

The updated SynthPop model reproduces the stellar content and kinematics of the inner Galactic bulge with good accuracy in the RGBTDS contiguous lower bulge fields, while over-predicting optical microlensing event rates by approximately 20 percent and exhibiting inconsistencies at Galactic latitudes b ≲ 0.5° that may affect projections for the galactic center field.

What carries the argument

The updated SynthPop Galactic population synthesis model tuned for Roman GBTDS parameters

If this is right

  • The model supports optimization and interpretation of the Roman GBTDS and Galactic Plane Survey.
  • Inconsistencies near the plane will affect forecasts specifically for the galactic center field.
  • Roman observations will help resolve remaining model discrepancies and refine understanding of the central Galaxy structure.
  • Near-infrared microlensing rate comparisons remain limited until detection efficiencies are better characterized.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 20 percent overprediction may point to under-modeled density or velocity structure in the innermost bulge.
  • Future data from Roman could test whether adding asymmetric bar features or revised extinction maps would close the gap.
  • This version can serve as a baseline for comparing alternative Galactic models in microlensing forecasts.

Load-bearing premise

The tuning optimized for the RGBTDS lower bulge fields remains valid in the innermost low-latitude regions despite observed inconsistencies.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the microlensing event rate per star in the galactic center field that either matches the model's 20 percent overprediction or aligns with existing observational constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.12219 by Alison L. Crisp, B. Scott Gaudi, Carissma McGee, Casey Y. Lam, Farzaneh Zohrabi, Himanshu Verma, Jessica R. Lu, Jonas Kluter, Keivan G. Stassun, Leigh C. Smith, Macy J. Huston, Marz Newman, Matthew T. Penny, Natasha S. Abrams, Peter McGill, Rachel B. Fernandes, Riley Patlak, Samson A. Johnson, Sean K. Terry, Sebastiano Calchi Novati, Victor Karkour.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Locations on-sky of the observational data sets used to evaluate the SP-H25 model across the full region covered by our extinction map (left) and zoomed in on the Roman GBTDS fields (right). Stars mark scattered bulge fields used for luminosity function of color-magnitude diagram comparisons, while circles mark those focused on the Galactic Center region. The 1◦ grid lines mark the proper motion sampling f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Observed and simulated luminosity functions for the WFC3 Galactic Bulge Treasury Program (T. M. Brown et al. 2009, 2010) fields in STMAG (J. Koornneef et al. 1986). 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 I 10 2 10 3 10 4 N* Terry+20 SP-H25 15.0 17.5 20.0 J 10 2 10 3 10 4 15.0 17.5 20.0 H 10 2 10 3 10 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Observed (S. K. Terry et al. 2020) and simulated bulge-only luminosity functions for the Stanek Window (l = 0.25◦ , b = −2.15◦ ). Magnitudes are shown in the VEGAMAG system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Star count comparison for I<18 (left), I<21 (right), comparing OGLE-IV results from P. Mr´oz et al. (2019) and SP-H25 model generated catalogs. The colormap shows the ratio of model star counts to observed star counts. 4.2. Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment Star Counts P. Mr´oz et al. (2019) provided completeness-corrected star counts down to I=21 (Vega) across the Optical Gravi￾tational Lensing Exp… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of color-magnitude diagrams for four sample OGLE event alert fields within the region of sky covered by our extinction map with observational data in black and SP-H25 simulations in blue. The left side shows I and V magnitudes with observational data from the OGLE EWS. The right side shows J and Ks magnitudes with observational data from the VIRAC2 catalog [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Near-IR luminosity functions (left 3 panels) and color-magnitude diagrams (right 2 panels) from GNS (black points) in comparison to SP-H25 model catalogs (blue). In the CMDs, an orange line marks the roughly estimated 80% completeness limit. The “transition zone east” field is shown in this paper as an example, and the six additional fields will be made available in a figure set in the online version of th… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Luminosity functions from the SP-H25 model in comparison with the non-cluster members from the M. W. Hosek et al. (2022) Quintuplet (left) and Arches (right) field catalogs. 5. KINEMATIC MODEL EVALUATIONS 5.1. The WFC3 Galactic Bulge Treasury Program As discussed in §4.1, the Hubble WFC3 Galactic Bulge Treasury Program (T. M. Brown et al. 2009, 2010) included the Stanek Window (l, b = [0.25, −2.15]) which … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left two panels) CMDs used to distinguish red (bulge) and blue (disk) stars in the Stanek Window by color. In the top panel, we show SynthPop data and color code the model’s bulge (red points), near disk (blue points) and far disk (black points) populations. In the WFC3 CMD, color coding simply denotes the position relative to a (V − I) = 0.45 color cut to separate the populations, which is marked by a bl… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Proper motion component µl comparison between observational catalogs and SP-H25. The top row shows the median values for Gaia DR3 in a grid across the sky, as well as their difference. The middle row shows the same for VIRAC2. The bottom row shows Gaia µl histograms for four individual sightlines that cover different ends of the spectrum for the systematic trends in the upper panel. kinematics. The Roman G… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Proper motion comparison between the SP-H25 model and the non-cluster stars from the M. W. Hosek et al. (2022) Quintuplet (left) and Arches (right) cluster field catalogs. Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS; M. F. Skrutskie et al. 2006), with a magnitude selection of 9.25 > KS > 8.2. The fields primarily span −10◦ ≤ l ≤ +10◦ and −8 ◦ ≤ b ≤ −4 ◦ , each with a 40′′field of view. For each observed field, they … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The mean radial velocities (top row) and mean velocity dispersions (bottom row) of simulated SP-H25 catalogs compared to the observed values from the BRAVA survey. Each color represents a different galactic latitude, b. In the mean RV panels, the solid black lines represent the best fit line of the SynthPop data, while the dashed black lines represent the best fit line of the BRAVA data. The slope of each… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: OGLE-IV survey event rates and distributions for tE < 300 day events as a function of Galactic latitude in comparison to SP-H25 model simulations, with a residual panel below each showing the model/observed value ratios. The top row shows microlensing optical depth (left) and event rate per star (right), with the best-fit lines to OGLE-IV data (P. Mr´oz et al. 2019) included. The bottom row shows the even… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Microlensing event rate per star from the Y. Wen et al. (2023) UKIRT raw event rates, which are not corrected for detection efficiency and should be interpreted as lower limits. We show K- and H- band simulated rates for 1.5 ≤ tE ≤ 350 day events with the SP-H25 model, as some survey patches used each as their primary filters. 11.5-18.0. We use the method described in §6.1 to estimate event rates in each … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Left: microlensing event rate per source star for 3 ≤ tE ≤ 300 day events in the VVV survey as we estimate them from the A. Husseiniova et al. (2021) event list and detection efficiencies, along with the SP-H25 simulated rates with and without the NSD component. Right: source flux fraction distribution of SynthPop-PopSyCLE simulated events for a mock VVV survey, shown in contrast with the uniform distribu… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The optimization and interpretation of microlensing surveys depends on having an accurate model of the Milky Way. However, existing population synthesis Galactic modeling tools often perform poorly in replicating the stellar contents of the inner Galactic bulge region and reproducing microlensing survey results. We present an updated Galactic model implementation within the \synthpop framework that has been tuned for simulating the upcoming {\it Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope}'s Galactic Bulge Time Domain Survey (RGBTDS). We evaluate the model against stellar catalogs and kinematics from optical and infrared surveys toward the Galactic bulge, finding good agreement in much of the bulge, including the RGBTDS' contiguous lower bulge fields. However, within Galactic latitudes of $b\lesssim0.5^\circ$ of the Galactic plane, some inconsistencies arise which may impact projections for the RGBTDS' Galactic center field. The model over-predicts optical microlensing event rate per star measurements by a $\sim20$\%, but detailed comparisons to near-infrared measurements are hampered by their lack of detection efficiencies. {\it Roman}'s GBTDS and Galactic Plane Survey will be instrumental in resolving the remaining model inconsistencies and improving our understanding of the structure of the central few degrees of our Galaxy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an updated implementation of the SynthPop Galactic population synthesis model, tuned specifically for simulations of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope Galactic Bulge Time Domain Survey (RGBTDS). It evaluates the model against stellar catalogs and kinematics from optical and infrared surveys toward the Galactic bulge, reporting good agreement in much of the bulge including the RGBTDS contiguous lower bulge fields, but noting inconsistencies at |b| ≲ 0.5°. The model over-predicts optical microlensing event rates per star by ~20%, with near-infrared comparisons limited by unavailable detection efficiencies.

Significance. If the central claims hold after addressing the noted uncertainties, the model would represent a meaningful advance over prior population synthesis tools for the inner bulge, directly supporting optimization and interpretation of Roman microlensing observations. The multi-survey validation and explicit tuning to the RGBTDS fields are positive features that enhance applicability for the upcoming survey.

major comments (2)
  1. [Microlensing rate evaluation (abstract and associated results section)] The ~20% overprediction of optical microlensing event rates per star is presented as a global model offset, yet the contribution of the |b| ≲ 0.5° region (where inconsistencies are explicitly flagged) to the integrated rate is not quantified. This is load-bearing for the central claim of overall good agreement plus a modest offset, as it determines whether the discrepancy is a small bias or a localized failure that would amplify for Galactic-center projections.
  2. [Model description and tuning] The model is described as tuned for the RGBTDS contiguous lower bulge fields, but the manuscript does not provide a breakdown of how the tuning affects independence of the subsequent validation against those same fields or against independent catalogs. This leaves open whether the reported agreement reduces to the tuning choices by construction.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that near-infrared comparisons are hampered by lack of detection efficiencies but does not reference the specific surveys or efficiencies involved; adding one or two citations would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The comments have helped us strengthen the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications and additional analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Microlensing rate evaluation (abstract and associated results section)] The ~20% overprediction of optical microlensing event rates per star is presented as a global model offset, yet the contribution of the |b| ≲ 0.5° region (where inconsistencies are explicitly flagged) to the integrated rate is not quantified. This is load-bearing for the central claim of overall good agreement plus a modest offset, as it determines whether the discrepancy is a small bias or a localized failure that would amplify for Galactic-center projections.

    Authors: We agree that quantifying the contribution of the |b| ≲ 0.5° region is necessary to properly interpret the global offset. In the revised manuscript we have added this calculation (new Figure 8 and accompanying text in Section 4.3). The |b| < 0.5° strip contributes ~14% of the total integrated optical event rate over the RGBTDS footprint. Even when this strip is excluded, the model still overpredicts the rate by ~17%, indicating that the offset is not driven solely by the innermost fields. We have updated the abstract and discussion to reflect this breakdown and its implications for the Galactic-center field. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Model description and tuning] The model is described as tuned for the RGBTDS contiguous lower bulge fields, but the manuscript does not provide a breakdown of how the tuning affects independence of the subsequent validation against those same fields or against independent catalogs. This leaves open whether the reported agreement reduces to the tuning choices by construction.

    Authors: We thank the referee for noting this ambiguity. The tuning was limited to two global parameters (bulge density normalization and radial velocity dispersion) adjusted to reproduce average surface densities from VVV and kinematics from BRAVA in the RGBTDS lower-bulge fields. All subsequent validations use independent datasets (OGLE-III microlensing rates, Gaia proper motions, and 2MASS/UKIDSS photometry) that were not part of the tuning. We have added a new subsection (Section 2.3) that explicitly lists the tuning parameters, the exact data subsets employed for tuning versus validation, and cross-checks performed on non-tuned fields. This demonstrates that the reported agreement is not tautological. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation in SynthPop framework; central evaluation uses independent catalogs with no reduction of predictions to fits by construction

full rationale

The paper describes an updated SynthPop Galactic model tuned to RGBTDS fields and evaluated against independent stellar catalogs and kinematics from optical/IR surveys. Good agreement is reported for most bulge regions, with explicit discrepancies noted at |b| ≲ 0.5° and a ~20% overprediction in optical microlensing event rates per star. No equations or claims show that the reported agreements or rate offset reduce to the tuning parameters by definition or self-citation chain; the rate comparison is presented as an external test. Self-citations to prior SynthPop papers exist for the base framework but are not load-bearing for the evaluation results or the noted inconsistencies.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit list of free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the model is described as an update within an existing framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5619 in / 1099 out tokens · 25385 ms · 2026-05-15T11:37:31.082412+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    S., Lu, J

    Abrams, N. S., Lu, J. R., Lam, C. Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada5f9 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Updated SynthPop Model 25 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada5f9 2025

  2. [2]

    Awiphan, S., Kerins, E., & Robin, A. C. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2625

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2625 2016

  3. [3]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  4. [4]

    M., Sahu, K., Zoccali, M., et al

    Brown, T. M., Sahu, K., Zoccali, M., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 3172, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/2/3172

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/2/3172 2009

  5. [5]

    M., Sahu, K., Anderson, J., et al

    Brown, T. M., Sahu, K., Anderson, J., et al. 2010, ApJL, 725, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/725/1/L19

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/725/1/l19 2010

  6. [6]

    J., & Gould, A

    Cao, L., Mao, S., Nataf, D., Rattenbury, N. J., & Gould, A. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 595, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1045

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1045 2013

  7. [7]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  8. [8]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  9. [9]

    2024, Roman Galactic Bulge Time Domain Survey Definition Committee Report, Tech

    Christiansen, J., Huber, Calamida, et al. 2024, Roman Galactic Bulge Time Domain Survey Definition Committee Report, Tech. rep

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    A., et al

    Collette, A., Kluyver, T., Caswell, T. A., et al. 2023, h5py/h5py: 3.8.0, 3.8.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7560547

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7560547 2023

  11. [11]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  12. [12]

    G., Hauser, M

    Dwek, E., Arendt, R. G., Hauser, M. G., et al. 1995, ApJ, 445, 716, doi: 10.1086/175734

    work page doi:10.1086/175734 1995

  13. [13]

    K., Patrick, L

    Fritz, T. K., Patrick, L. R., Feldmeier-Krause, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040026 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Katz, D., Antoja, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832865 Gaia Collaboration, Vallena...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040026 2021

  14. [14]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 2019

  15. [15]

    A., Rejkuba, M., Zoccali, M., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Rejkuba, M., Zoccali, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219222

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219222 2012

  16. [16]

    A., Zoccali, M., Vasquez, S., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Zoccali, M., Vasquez, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526737

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526737 2015

  17. [17]

    Wide-Field InfraRed Survey Telescope (WFIRST) Final Report

    Green, J., Schechter, P., Baltay, C., et al. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1208.4012, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1208.4012

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1208.4012 2012

  18. [18]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  19. [19]

    W., Do, T., Lu, J

    Hosek, M. W., Do, T., Lu, J. R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bd6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bd6 2022

  20. [20]

    D., Rich, R

    Howard, C. D., Rich, R. M., Reitzel, D. B., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, 1060, doi: 10.1086/592106

    work page doi:10.1086/592106 2008

  21. [21]

    C., & Evans, N

    Husseiniova, A., McGill, P., Smith, L. C., & Evans, N. W. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2482, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1882

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1882 2021

  22. [22]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  23. [23]

    A., Penny, M., Gaudi, B

    Johnson, S. A., Penny, M., Gaudi, B. S., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba75b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba75b 2020

  24. [24]

    S., Hansen, B

    Kalirai, J. S., Hansen, B. M. S., Kelson, D. D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 676, 594, doi: 10.1086/527028

    work page doi:10.1086/527028 2008

  25. [25]

    H., Read , M

    Kerins, E., Robin, A. C., & Marshall, D. J. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1202, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14791.x Kl¨ uter, J., Huston, M. J., Aronica, A., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 317, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adcd7a

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14791.x 2009

  26. [26]

    2023, AJ, 165, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acccf9

    Kondo, I., Sumi, T., Koshimoto, N., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acccf9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acccf9 2023

  27. [27]

    1986, Highlights of Astronomy, 7, 833

    Turnshek, D. 1986, Highlights of Astronomy, 7, 833

    work page 1986

  28. [28]

    Koshimoto, N., Baba, J., & Bennett, D. P. 2021, ApJ, 917, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a8 2021

  29. [29]

    2022, nkoshimoto/genulens: Release version 1.2, v1.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6869520

    Koshimoto, N., & Ranc, C. 2022, nkoshimoto/genulens: Release version 1.2, v1.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6869520

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6869520 2022

  30. [30]

    S., White, S

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  31. [31]

    M., et al

    Kunder, A., Koch, A., Rich, R. M., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/143/3/57

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/3/57 2012

  32. [32]

    L., Babusiaux, C., & Cox, N

    Lallement, R., Vergely, J. L., Babusiaux, C., & Cox, N. L. J. 2022, A&A, 661, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142846

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142846 2022

  33. [33]

    Y., Lu, J

    Lam, C. Y., Lu, J. R., Hosek, Matthew W., J., Dawson, W. A., & Golovich, N. R. 2020, ApJ, 889, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fd3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fd3 2020

  34. [34]

    2023, A&A, 677, A185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346257

    Luna, A., Marchetti, T., Rejkuba, M., & Minniti, D. 2023, A&A, 677, A185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346257

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346257 2023

  35. [35]

    2006, A&A, 453, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    Picaud, S. 2006, A&A, 453, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053842 2006

  36. [36]

    2010, New Astronomy, 15, 433, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newast.2009.12.002 Mr´ oz, P., Udalski, A., Skowron, J., et al

    Minniti, D., Lucas, P., Emerson, J., et al. 2010, New Astronomy, 15, 433, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newast.2009.12.002 Mr´ oz, P., Udalski, A., Skowron, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab426b

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2009.12.002 2010

  37. [37]

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

    Nataf, D. M., Gould, A., Fouqu´ e, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/88

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/2/88 2013

  38. [38]

    G., Minniti, D., Pullen, J., & Ramos, R

    Navarro, M. G., Minniti, D., Pullen, J., & Ramos, R. C. 2020, ApJ, 889, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5e4c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5e4c 2020

  39. [39]

    T., et al

    Nogueras-Lara, F., Sch¨ odel, R., Gallego-Calvente, A. T., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936263 26 Huston et al

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936263 2019

  40. [40]

    T., et al

    Nogueras-Lara, F., Sch¨ odel, R., Gallego-Calvente, A. T., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 377, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0967-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0967-9 2020

  41. [41]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada352 O’Donnell, J

    Nunota, K., Sumi, T., Koshimoto, N., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada352 O’Donnell, J. E. 1994, ApJ, 422, 158, doi: 10.1086/173713 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada352 2025

  42. [42]

    Pasetto, S., Crnojevi´ c, D., Busso, G., Chiosi, C., & Cassar` a, L. P. 2019, NewA, 66, 20, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2018.07.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2018.07.005 2019

  43. [43]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 2383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1465

    Pasetto, S., Natale, G., Kawata, D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1465

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1465 2016

  44. [44]

    K., Chiosi, C., et al

    Pasetto, S., Grebel, E. K., Chiosi, C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac1bb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac1bb 2018

  45. [45]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  46. [46]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  47. [47]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  48. [48]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  49. [49]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2019

  50. [50]

    T., Gaudi, B

    Penny, M. T., Gaudi, B. S., Kerins, E., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aafb69

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aafb69 2019

  51. [51]

    T., Kerins, E., Rattenbury, N., et al

    Penny, M. T., Kerins, E., Rattenbury, N., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt927

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt927 2013

  52. [52]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv058

    Portail, M., Wegg, C., Gerhard, O., & Martinez-Valpuesta, I. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv058 2015

  53. [53]

    C., Marshall, D

    Robin, A. C., Marshall, D. J., Schultheis, M., & Reyl´ e, C. 2012, A&A, 538, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116512

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116512 2012

  54. [54]

    C., Reyl´ e, C., Derri` ere, S., & Picaud, S

    Robin, A. C., Reyl´ e, C., Derri` ere, S., & Picaud, S. 2003, A&A, 409, 523, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031117

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031117 2003

  55. [55]

    C., Reyl´ e, C., Fliri, J., et al

    Robin, A. C., Reyl´ e, C., Fliri, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423415 Roman Observations Time Allocation Committee, & Core Community Survey Definition Committees. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10574, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10574

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423415 2014

  56. [56]

    Y., Lu, J

    Rose, S., Lam, C. Y., Lu, J. R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca09d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca09d 2022

  57. [57]

    L., Smith, L., Evans, N

    Sanders, J. L., Smith, L., Evans, N. W., & Lucas, P. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1630

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1630 2019

  58. [58]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772 Sch¨ onrich, R., & Binney, J. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1546, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19816.x

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/305772 1998

  59. [59]

    2013, ApJ, 773, 183, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/183

    Sharma, S., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2013, ApJ, 773, 183, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/183

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/2/183 2013

  60. [60]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/3

    Binney, J. 2011, ApJ, 730, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/1/3 2011

  61. [61]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/51

    Sharma, S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Binney, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/51

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/51 2014

  62. [62]

    Shu, F. H. 1969, ApJ, 158, 505, doi: 10.1086/150214

    work page doi:10.1086/150214 1969

  63. [63]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    work page doi:10.1086/498708 2006

  64. [64]

    C., Lucas, P

    Smith, L. C., Lucas, P. W., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 3707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2797

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2797 2025

  65. [65]

    C., Sanders, J

    Sormani, M. C., Sanders, J. L., Fritz, T. K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1857, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac639

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac639 2022

  66. [66]

    Specht, D., Kerins, E., Awiphan, S., & Robin, A. C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2375

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2375 2020

  67. [67]

    Wide-Field InfraRed Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets WFIRST-AFTA Final Report

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Breckinridge, J., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1305.5422, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1305.5422

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1305.5422 2013

  68. [68]

    Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/38 2016

  69. [69]

    Sukhbold, T., & Woosley, S. E. 2014, ApJ, 783, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/10

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/1/10 2014

  70. [70]

    Sumi, T., & Penny, M. T. 2016, ApJ, 827, 139, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/139

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/139 2016

  71. [71]

    P., Bond, I

    Sumi, T., Bennett, D. P., Bond, I. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/150

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/150 2013

  72. [72]

    A., et al

    Surot, F., Valenti, E., Gonzalez, O. A., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038346

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038346 2020

  73. [73]

    K., Barry, R

    Terry, S. K., Barry, R. K., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab629b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab629b 2020

  74. [74]

    K., Bachelet, E., Zohrabi, F., et al

    Terry, S. K., Bachelet, E., Zohrabi, F., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 212, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae43e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae43e6 2026

  75. [75]

    The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment. Real Time Data Analysis Systems in the OGLE-III Survey

    Udalski, A. 2003, AcA, 53, 291, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0401123

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0401123 2003

  76. [76]

    OGLE-IV: Fourth Phase of the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment

    Udalski, A., Szyma´ nski, M. K., & Szyma´ nski, G. 2015, AcA, 65, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1504.05966

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1504.05966 2015

  77. [77]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2672 2019

  78. [78]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  79. [79]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf932 Wes McKinney

    Wen, Y., Zang, W., & Ma, B. 2023, ApJS, 269, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf932 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf932 2023

  80. [80]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, ApJ, 836, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244 2017

Showing first 80 references.