arxiv: 2604.07932 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

Recognition: no theorem link

Candidate Microlensing Brown Dwarfs in Binary Lens Systems from the 2023--2025 Observing Seasons

Cheongho Han , Andrzej Udalski , Ian A. Bond , Chung-Uk Lee , Michael D. Albrow , Sun-Ju Chung , Andrew Gould , Youn Kil Jung

show 57 more authors

Kyu-Ha Hwang Yoon-Hyun Ryu Yossi Shvartzvald In-Gu Shin Jennifer C. Yee Weicheng Zang Hongjing Yang Doeon Kim Dong-Jin Kim Seung-Lee Kim Dong-Joo Lee Sang-Mok Cha Yongseok Lee Byeong-Gon Park Richard W. Pogge Przemek Mr\'oz Micha{\l} K. Szyma\'nski Jan Skowron Rados{\l}aw Poleski Igor Soszy\'nski Pawe{\l} Pietrukowicz Szymon Koz{\l}owski Krzysztof A. Rybicki Patryk Iwanek Krzysztof Ulaczyk Marcin Wrona Mariusz Gromadzki Mateusz J. Mr\'oz Fumio Abe David P. Bennett Aparna Bhattacharya Ryusei Hamada Yuki Hirao Asahi Idei Stela Ishitani Silva Shuma Makida Shota Miyazaki Yasushi Muraki Tutumi Nagai Togo Nagano Seiya Nakayama Mayu Nishio Kansuke Nunota Ryo Ogawa Ryunosuke Oishi Yui Okumoto Greg Olmschenk Cl\'ement Ranc Nicholas J. Rattenbury Yuki Satoh Takahiro Sumi Daisuke Suzuki Takuto Tamaoki Sean K. Terry Paul J. Tristram Aikaterini Vandorou Hibiki Yama

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

keywords brown dwarfsmicrolensingbinary lensesGalactic bulgemass estimationlight curve modeling

0 comments

The pith

Analyses of ten microlensing events place all lens companions in the brown-dwarf mass range, with two events consistent with brown-dwarf binaries.

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

This paper models the light curves of ten binary-lens microlensing events from 2023 to 2025 and estimates the physical properties of the lenses. For nine events it uses Bayesian methods with Galactic priors on populations, distances, and velocities; for one event it measures the microlens parallax directly. The resulting mass posteriors indicate that the companion in every system falls in the brown-dwarf regime. Two events yield posteriors in which both lens components are brown dwarfs. The sample spans wide separations and distances, showing how high-cadence surveys can detect faint companions unreachable by other techniques.

Core claim

Detailed light-curve modeling of the ten selected events, followed by Bayesian estimation of lens masses and distances for most systems and a direct parallax measurement for one, produces posterior distributions in which every companion lens has a median mass inside the brown-dwarf range; the two events KMT-2025-BLG-0922 and KMT-2025-BLG-1056 are consistent with both components lying in that range.

What carries the argument

Binary-lens light-curve modeling combined with Bayesian inference of physical lens parameters from Galactic priors on populations, distances, and velocities.

If this is right

The ten events add ten new systems to the census of brown-dwarf companions detected by microlensing.
Two events are consistent with both lens components being brown dwarfs.
The detections occur at a wide range of projected separations and distances, including systems too faint and distant for flux-limited surveys.
High-cadence microlensing surveys can systematically identify such companions when binary-lens signatures are present.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If the mass posteriors hold under different priors, the frequency of brown-dwarf binaries may be higher than current samples suggest.
Repeating the analysis on future events could test whether the brown-dwarf companion fraction varies with Galactic location.
Direct parallax measurements for additional events would replace Bayesian estimates and tighten the mass constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The Galactic priors used in the Bayesian mass estimates accurately describe the actual distribution of brown-dwarf lenses.

What would settle it

A direct mass measurement, for example via microlens parallax or high-resolution imaging, that places any companion outside the 13-80 Jupiter-mass brown-dwarf interval would falsify the claim for that system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07932 by Aikaterini Vandorou, Andrew Gould, Andrzej Udalski, Aparna Bhattacharya, Asahi Idei, Byeong-Gon Park, Cheongho Han, Chung-Uk Lee, Cl\'ement Ranc, Daisuke Suzuki, David P. Bennett, Doeon Kim, Dong-Jin Kim, Dong-Joo Lee, Fumio Abe, Greg Olmschenk, Hibiki Yama, Hongjing Yang, Ian A. Bond, Igor Soszy\'nski, In-Gu Shin, Jan Skowron, Jennifer C. Yee, Kansuke Nunota, Krzysztof A. Rybicki, Krzysztof Ulaczyk, Kyu-Ha Hwang, Marcin Wrona, Mariusz Gromadzki, Mateusz J. Mr\'oz, Mayu Nishio, Michael D. Albrow, Micha{\l} K. Szyma\'nski, Nicholas J. Rattenbury, Patryk Iwanek, Paul J. Tristram, Pawe{\l} Pietrukowicz, Przemek Mr\'oz, Rados{\l}aw Poleski, Richard W. Pogge, Ryo Ogawa, Ryunosuke Oishi, Ryusei Hamada, Sang-Mok Cha, Sean K. Terry, Seiya Nakayama, Seung-Lee Kim, Shota Miyazaki, Shuma Makida, Stela Ishitani Silva, Sun-Ju Chung, Szymon Koz{\l}owski, Takahiro Sumi, Takuto Tamaoki, Togo Nagano, Tutumi Nagai, Weicheng Zang, Yasushi Muraki, Yongseok Lee, Yoon-Hyun Ryu, Yossi Shvartzvald, Youn Kil Jung, Yui Okumoto, Yuki Hirao, Yuki Satoh.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: displays the light curve of the OGLE-2023- BLG-0249. It shows the characteristic morphology of a 2L1S event, including caustic-crossing features consisting of two sharp spikes at HJD′ ≃ 93.7 and ≃ 99.0, with a characteristic U-shaped trough between them. Both caustic spikes are well resolved by the combined data from multiple observatories. In addition, the light curve exhibits a low-amplitude bump center… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Light curve of KMT-2023-BLG-1246. The two insets in the bottom panel show the lens-system configuration of the inner and outer solutions. online data and was confirmed after rereduction. The two caustic spikes at HJD′ ≃ 102 and 120 are partially resolved by the combined MOA and KMTA data. Light-curve modeling indicates that the anomaly is well described by a 2L1S interpretation with a very small mass rati… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Light curve of OGLE-2023-BLG-0079. The notations are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Lensing light curve of KMT-2024-BLG-0072. lensing parameters for this solution is listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Lensing light curve of KMT-2024-BLG-0897. The insets in the bottom panel show the lens-system configuration. The left inset presents the full caustic structure, while the right inset provides a zoomed-in view of the region around the source’s caustic crossings. with the short timescale, makes the lens companion a BD candidate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Lensing light curve of KMT-2024-BLG-2379. The two insets in the bottom panel show the configuration for the close and wide solutions. spike is covered by the KMTC data, while the second is resolved by the KMTS data, with the intervening Ushaped trough covered by the KMTA data. Modeling the light curve yields a pair of solutions arising from the close–wide degeneracy, which results from the similarity in t… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Light curve of KMT-2025-BLG-1056. The insets in the bottom panel adopt the same layout as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Light curve of KMT-2025-BLG-2427. In the inset showing the lens-system configuration, the red and blue caustics correspond to two epochs HJD′ = 926 and 937. For this event, lens orbital motion plays an important role. This is indicated by the fact that the standard model predicts the source trajectory to pass near the upper peripheral caustic, which should produce an anomaly around HJD′ ∼ 926, yet no su… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Locations of the source stars and the red giant clump (RGC) centroid in the instrumental color–magnitude diagrams. For events with measurable blended flux, the blend positions are also indicated. For KMT-2024-BLG-0072, KMT-2024-BLG-0897, and KMT-2025-BLG-1056, the CMDs constructed by combining ground-based and HST observations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Feasibility of mass and distance measurements from future AO observations on the European Extremely Large Telescope. 7. We exclude OGLE-2023-BLG-0079 because neither has its proper motion been measured nor is an upper limit. For each event we calculated the separation in 2030 (estimated first light of EELT) and also a decade later, in 2040. We used the (V − I, I)0 columns from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present detailed light-curve analyses of ten binary-lens microlensing events observed during the 2023--2025 seasons and selected as candidates for hosting brown-dwarf companions. The sample includes OGLE-2023-BLG-0249, KMT-2023-BLG-1246, OGLE-2023-BLG-0079, KMT-2024-BLG-0072, KMT-2024-BLG-0897, KMT-2024-BLG-1876, KMT-2024-BLG-2379, KMT-2025-BLG-0922, KMT-2025-BLG-1056, and KMT-2025-BLG-2427. For each event, we carry out modeling of the light curve, explore relevant degeneracies, and, when finite-source effects are present, determine the angular Einstein radius. For OGLE-2023-BLG-0249, we additionally measure the microlens parallax, which allows a direct determination of the lens masses and distance. For the remaining events, we estimate the physical lens properties via Bayesian analyses incorporating Galactic priors. The resulting posteriors show that the lens companions in all systems have median masses in the brown-dwarf regime, and the lenses of two events (KMT-2025-BLG-0922 and KMT-2025-BLG-1056) are consistent with binaries in which both lens components fall within the brown-dwarf mass range. Spanning a wide range of projected separations and distances, these detections illustrate the power of high-cadence microlensing surveys to build a census of brown-dwarf companions, including faint and distant systems beyond the reach of flux-limited methods.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Ten new microlensing brown-dwarf companion candidates, but nine mass estimates rest on untested Galactic priors.

read the letter

This paper reports light-curve analyses for ten binary-lens events from the 2023-2025 seasons and flags them as brown-dwarf companion candidates. Two events look consistent with both components being brown dwarfs. One event has a measured parallax that gives a direct mass and distance, which is the cleanest part of the work. For the rest they run standard modeling, check degeneracies, extract Einstein radii from finite-source effects where available, and then apply Bayesian inference with the usual Galactic priors on mass function, distances, and kinematics to get physical parameters. The sample covers a useful range of separations and distances, showing what high-cadence surveys can reach for faint lenses. That incremental addition to the census is the real value here. The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note flags: nine of the ten mass posteriors depend on those priors. If the actual brown-dwarf lens population has a different low-mass slope or scale height, the median masses can move out of the 13-80 Jupiter-mass window without any change in the light curves. The abstract gives no sign of prior-variation runs or alternative mass-function tests, so the robustness of the main claim is not demonstrated. The light-curve work itself looks competent and the events are new, but the physical interpretation for most of the sample is only as strong as the model assumptions. This is the sort of catalog paper that microlensing and low-mass object people will want to see for sample building. It deserves peer review so referees can check the modeling details and ask for the missing sensitivity tests.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes ten binary-lens microlensing events from the 2023-2025 seasons selected as brown-dwarf companion candidates. It performs light-curve modeling, degeneracy exploration, and finite-source measurements of the angular Einstein radius where present. For OGLE-2023-BLG-0249 a microlens parallax is measured, enabling direct lens mass and distance determination. For the remaining nine events, physical lens properties are estimated via Bayesian analyses that incorporate standard Galactic priors on lens mass function, spatial distribution, and kinematics. The resulting posteriors indicate that all ten lens companions have median masses in the brown-dwarf regime, with two events (KMT-2025-BLG-0922 and KMT-2025-BLG-1056) consistent with both components being brown dwarfs.

Significance. If the mass posteriors are robust, the work adds ten new candidates to the microlensing census of brown-dwarf companions and binaries. Microlensing is uniquely able to detect faint, low-mass objects at a range of distances and separations inaccessible to flux-limited surveys. The direct parallax measurement for one system supplies a valuable anchor point, and the sample's span in projected separation and distance illustrates the reach of high-cadence surveys.

major comments (1)

[Physical lens properties estimation] The Bayesian mass estimation for the nine events lacking parallax (described in the section on physical lens properties) relies on standard Galactic priors without any reported sensitivity tests to plausible variations in the brown-dwarf mass-function slope, scale height, or binary fraction. Because the headline claim that all companions lie in the brown-dwarf regime rests on these medians, the absence of such tests leaves the result vulnerable to shifts outside the 13–80 M_Jup window if the priors do not match the true population.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comment. We address the point raised below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Physical lens properties estimation] The Bayesian mass estimation for the nine events lacking parallax (described in the section on physical lens properties) relies on standard Galactic priors without any reported sensitivity tests to plausible variations in the brown-dwarf mass-function slope, scale height, or binary fraction. Because the headline claim that all companions lie in the brown-dwarf regime rests on these medians, the absence of such tests leaves the result vulnerable to shifts outside the 13–80 M_Jup window if the priors do not match the true population.

Authors: We agree that the absence of explicit sensitivity tests to variations in the adopted Galactic priors represents a limitation in the current analysis. While the priors used are the standard ones employed in the microlensing literature for Bayesian mass estimation, we acknowledge that demonstrating robustness against plausible changes in the brown-dwarf mass-function slope, scale height, and binary fraction would strengthen the conclusions. In the revised manuscript we will add these tests, varying the relevant parameters over ranges consistent with existing observational constraints, and show that the median companion masses remain within the brown-dwarf regime. The updated results will be presented in the physical lens properties section together with a brief discussion of the tests. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; masses derived from light-curve fits plus external Galactic priors

full rationale

The paper's chain begins with direct light-curve modeling to extract t_E, (where available) θ_E, and for one event a measured parallax that yields direct masses. For the other nine events, physical properties are obtained via standard Bayesian inference that folds in independent Galactic priors on the lens mass function, spatial distribution, and kinematics. These priors are external inputs, not quantities defined by or fitted from the current data set, so the posterior medians are not equivalent to the inputs by construction. No self-definitional loops, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claim to a tautology appear in the described derivation. The result is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard microlensing light-curve modeling techniques and Bayesian inference that incorporates external Galactic priors on stellar populations. No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5975 in / 1203 out tokens · 31379 ms · 2026-05-10T18:01:49.323604+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[1]

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

Albrow, M. D., Beaulieu, J.-P., Caldwell, J. A. R., et al. 2000, ApJ, 534, 894, doi: 10.1086/308798

work page doi:10.1086/308798 2000
[2]

An, J. H. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1409, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08449.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08449.x 2005
[3]

, keywords =

Batista, V., Beaulieu, J.-P., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 170, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/170

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/170 2015
[4]

F., Henry, T

Benedict, G. F., Henry, T. J., Franz, O. G., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 141, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/141

work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/141 2016
[5]

, keywords =

Bennett, D. P., Bhattacharya, A., Anderson, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 169, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/169

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/169 2015
[6]

C., Feltzing, S., et al

Bensby, T., Yee, J. C., Feltzing, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A247, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220678 18

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220678 2013
[7]

, keywords =

Bessell, M. S., & Brett, J. M. 1988, PASP, 100, 1134, doi: 10.1086/132281

work page doi:10.1086/132281 1988
[8]

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

Bond, I. A., Abe, F., Dodd, R. J., & et al. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 868, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04776.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04776.x 2001
[9]

2000, ARA&A, 38, 337, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.337

Chabrier, G., & Baraﬀe, I. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 337, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.337

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.337 2000
[10]

2013, ApJ, 768, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/129

Choi, J.-Y., Han, C., Udalski, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/129

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/129 2013
[11]

, keywords =

Chung, S.-J., Han, C., Park, B.-G., et al. 2005, ApJ, 630, 535, doi: 10.1086/432048

work page doi:10.1086/432048 2005
[12]

Collaboration, G., Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 2023
[13]

1998, A&A, 329, 361, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9702039

Dominik, M. 1998, A&A, 329, 361, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9702039

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9702039 1998
[14]

1999, A&A, 349, 108, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9903014

Dominik, M. 1999, A&A, 349, 108, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9903014

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9903014 1999
[15]

, keywords =

Dong, S., Gould, A., Udalski, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 970, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/970

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/2/970 2009
[16]

S., & Gould, A

Gaudi, B. S., & Gould, A. 1997, ApJ, 486, 85, doi: 10.1086/304491

work page doi:10.1086/304491 1997
[17]

, keywords =

Gould, A. 1992, ApJ, 392, 442, doi: 10.1086/171443

work page doi:10.1086/171443 1992
[18]

, eprint =

Gould, A. 2000, ApJ, 542, 785, doi: 10.1086/317037

work page doi:10.1086/317037 2000
[19]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12501 , year=

Gould, A. 2022, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.12501

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.12501 2022
[20]

, archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

Gould, A., Udalski, A., Monard, B., et al. 2009, ApJL, 698, L147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/L147

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/l147 2009
[21]

2022a, A&A, 664, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243744

Gould, A., Han, C., Zang, W., et al. 2022a, A&A, 664, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243744

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243744
[22]

Journal of Korean Astronomical Society , keywords =

Gould, A., Jung, Y. K., Hwang, K.-H., et al. 2022b, JKAS, 55, 173, doi: 10.5303/JKAS.2022.55.5.173

work page doi:10.5303/jkas.2022.55.5.173 2022
[23]

, eprint =

Griest, K., & Saﬁzadeh, N. 1998, ApJ, 500, 37, doi: 10.1086/305729

work page doi:10.1086/305729 1998
[24]

2003, ApJ, 592, 172, doi: 10.1086/375706

Han, C., & Gould, A. 2003, ApJ, 592, 172, doi: 10.1086/375706

work page doi:10.1086/375706 2003
[25]

, keywords =

Han, C., Lee, C.-U., Udalski, A., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6f66

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab6f66 2020
[26]

, archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

Han, C., Udalski, A., Gould, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/82

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/82 2017
[27]

K., Kim, D., et al

Han, C., Jung, Y. K., Kim, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245455

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245455 2023
[28]

A., Udalski, A., et al

Han, C., Bond, I. A., Udalski, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A237, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451416

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451416 2024
[29]

A., et al

Han, C., Lee, C.-U., Bond, I. A., et al. 2025a, A&A, 704, A236, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555605

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555605
[30]

2025b, A&A, 699, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554182

Han, C., Lee, C.-U., Udalski, A., et al. 2025b, A&A, 699, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554182

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554182
[31]

, eprint =

Holtzman, J. A., Watson, A. M., Baum, W. A., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1946, doi: 10.1086/300336

work page doi:10.1086/300336 1998
[32]

2022, AJ, 163, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac38ad

Hwang, K.-H., Zang, W., Gould, A., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac38ad

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac38ad 2022
[33]

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

Jung, Y. K., Han, C., Udalski, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 293, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf8bd

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf8bd 2021
[34]

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

Jung, Y. K., Zang, W., Han, C., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9c5c

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9c5c 2022
[35]

Surface brightness relations calibrated by interferometry

Kervella, P., Th´ evenin, F., Di Folco, E., & S´ egransan, D. 2004, A&A, 426, 29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035930

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20035930 2004
[36]

, archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

Kim, D.-J., Kim, H.-W., Hwang, K.-H., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa47b

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaa47b 2018
[37]

2016, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 49, 37, doi: 10.5303/JKAS.2016.49.1.37

Kim, S.-L., Lee, C.-U.and Park, B.-G., Kim, D.-J., et al. 2016, JKAS, 49, 37, doi: 10.5303/JKAS.2016.49.1.37

work page doi:10.5303/jkas.2016.49.1.37 2016
[38]

Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 195, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134017

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134017 2005
[39]

S., & Robinson, T

Marley, M. S., & Robinson, T. D. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 279, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122522

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122522 2015
[40]

, keywords =

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
[41]

, keywords =

Poindexter, S., Afonso, C., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 914, doi: 10.1086/468182

work page doi:10.1086/468182 2005
[42]

, keywords =

Shvartzvald, Y., Maoz, D., Udalski, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 408, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw191

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw191 2016
[43]

, archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

Skowron, J., Udalski, A., Gould, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/87

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/87 2011
[44]

, keywords =

Sumi, T., Abe, F., Bond, I. A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 204, doi: 10.1086/375212

work page doi:10.1086/375212 2003
[45]

Sumi, T., Buckley, D. A. H., Kutyrev, A. S., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 338, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae14f5

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae14f5 2025
[46]

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

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

work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1504.05966 2015
[47]

, keywords =

Yee, J. C., Shvartzvald, Y., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/102

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/2/102 2012
[48]

, keywords =

Yee, J. C., Zang, W., Udalski, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1582

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac1582 2021
[49]

, eprint =

Yoo, J., DePoy, D. L., A., G.-Y., et al. 2004, ApJ, 603, 139, doi: 10.1086/381241

work page doi:10.1086/381241 2004
[50]

Science , keywords =

Zang, W., Jung, Y. K., Yee, J. C., et al. 2025, Science, 388, 400, doi: 10.1126/science.adn6088

work page doi:10.1126/science.adn6088 2025
[51]

2025, ApJL, 995, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae25fb

Zhang, K. 2025, ApJL, 995, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae25fb

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae25fb 2025
[52]

S., & Bloom, J

Zhang, K., Gaudi, B. S., & Bloom, J. S. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 782, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01671-6

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01671-6 2022