Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

High-resolution imaging of the microlensing event OGLE-2014-BLG-0676 breaks the light-curve degeneracy and shows the system is a 3.11-Jupiter-mass planet around a 0.60-solar-mass star at 1.88 kpc.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Keck imaging resolves the lens and source of OGLE-2014-BLG-0676 and, when folded into the light-curve fit, gives a 0.60-solar-mass host at 1.88 kpc with a 3.11-Jupiter-mass planet.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection The Keck-constrained fit is not actually consistent with the Keck data — χ²_Keck ≈ 27–34 for 4 constraints is a ~5σ problem the paper never acknowledges. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18408 v2 pith:H26JFKBE submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA

Characterizing Microlensing Planetary System OGLE-2014-BLG-0676L with High-Resolution Image Constrained Light Curve Modeling

Asahi Idei , Naoki Koshimoto , Daisuke Suzuki , Kansuke Nunota , David P. Bennett , Ian A. Bond , Jean-Philippe Beaulieu , Takahiro Sumi
show 7 more authors
Aparna Bhattacharya Joshua W. Blackman Ryusei Hamada Tsutsumi Nagai Takuto Tamaoki Sean K. Terry Aikaterini Vandorou
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA
keywords gravitational microlensingexoplanetsadaptive opticshigh-angular-resolution imaginglight-curve modelingOGLE-2014-BLG-0676mass-luminosity relationdegeneracy breaking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that follow-up high-resolution imaging of a microlensing event can do more than refine parameters—it can expose a biased light-curve model and correct it. For the planetary event OGLE-2014-BLG-0676, adaptive-optics images taken 6.3 years after the event resolved the lens and source separately. The measured source brightness disagreed with the previously published model, and the paper shows that the earlier long-timescale solution was an artifact of degeneracies. Re-fitting the light curve with the imaging constraints incorporated yields a self-consistent solution: a 3.11-Jupiter-mass planet orbiting a 0.60-solar-mass M/K dwarf at about 1.9 kpc. The result matters because it demonstrates a general strategy for breaking microlensing degeneracies without relying on higher-order effects.

Core claim

Incorporating the resolved-lens measurements—the lens's K-band magnitude, the source's K-band magnitude, and the lens–source relative proper motion—directly into the microlensing light-curve modeling removes the degeneracy that plagued earlier fits. The imaging data show the K-band source flux is 0.52 magnitudes brighter than predicted by the previous model and the relative proper motion is about 6 mas/yr, larger than the roughly 4 mas/yr assumed. With these constraints added as a penalty term to the fit, the best-fit Einstein timescale shortens from about 100–130 days to about 90 days, and the resulting physical parameters are a host mass of 0.60+0.17−0.14 solar masses, a lens distance of 1

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is image-constrained light-curve modeling: a combined chi-square (χ²_total = χ²_lc + χ²_Keck) that penalizes light-curve models whose predicted source flux, lens flux, and geocentric relative proper motion disagree with the measured resolved-imaging values. The lens-flux prediction uses an empirical main-sequence mass–luminosity relation, while the proper-motion constraint converts the measured heliocentric separation into the geocentric frame used by the light-curve model. This combined penalty breaks the Einstein-timescale/source-flux degeneracy that left the earlier model biased.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the brighter resolved component is the lens and that it is a single main-sequence star following the adopted mass–luminosity relation; if the lens is a white dwarf, an unresolved binary, or the adopted extinction values are incorrect, the derived host mass and distance would not hold.

What would settle it

A future high-resolution observation of this field that measures the lens and source in multiple near-infrared bands: if the lens appears more than ~1 magnitude fainter than predicted for a 0.6-solar-mass main-sequence star at 1.88 kpc (K_L ≈ 16.7), or if the source flux is inconsistent with the model's prediction, the claimed mass and distance would be refuted.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The system is a 3.11-Jupiter-mass planet around a 0.60-solar-mass M/K dwarf, a benchmark for planet formation around low-mass stars.
  • The earlier 100–130 day timescale solution is disfavored; the true timescale is about 90 days, showing that sparsely covered light-curve wings can bias t_E when blending is unconstrained.
  • Resolving the lens and source directly eliminates the need to assume that unresolved blended light originates from the lens, a simplification earlier work was forced to make.
  • The image-constrained fits shrink the uncertainties on host mass, planet mass, distance, and separation compared with Bayesian-only or unresolved-imaging analyses.
  • Future survey observations of this field can confirm the predicted lens and source magnitudes and separation, and refine the parameters with multi-band photometry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same approach can be applied to other microlensing events with archival or future high-resolution follow-up imaging, potentially revising published planet masses where light-curve-only models are degenerate.
  • The quoted masses are conditional on the resolved brighter star being a single main-sequence lens; if it is a white dwarf or unresolved binary, the mass–distance relation shifts and the host mass and distance would change.
  • A second epoch of high-resolution imaging would directly test the predicted relative proper motion and check for a bound companion, the main remaining alternative interpretation.
  • The 0.52-magnitude source-flux discrepancy implies that other parameters derived from the same light-curve data set (e.g., the angular Einstein radius) may also carry hidden biases that resolved imaging can expose.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes the planetary microlensing event OGLE-2014-BLG-0676 by combining Keck/OSIRIS adaptive-optics imaging obtained 6.3 years after the event with MOA, OGLE, and Wise light-curve modeling. The authors resolve the lens and source, measure their K-band magnitudes and relative proper motion, and add these measurements as chi-square constraints in an MCMC light-curve fit. Their adopted solution gives a host mass M_host = 0.60^{+0.17}_{-0.14} Msun, lens distance D_L = 1.88^{+0.63}_{-0.35} kpc, and planet mass m_p = 3.11^{+1.11}_{-0.63} MJ, and they argue that the previous longer-timescale solution was biased. They also predict separation and magnitudes for future Roman observations.

Significance. If the measurement is correct, the paper is a valuable demonstration of how high-resolution imaging can break light-curve degeneracies in planetary microlensing events. The direct resolution of lens and source, the careful PSF modeling, the jackknife treatment of frame-to-frame systematics, and the concrete Roman predictions are genuine strengths. The central claim, however, is not supported by the model's own reported chi-square values: the Keck constraints are jointly inconsistent with the light-curve model at the 4-5 sigma level, and the prior on the source distance appears to have been calibrated using the same Keck data that later enter the likelihood. The headline masses and distances therefore cannot be considered robust at the claimed confidence without a substantial revision of the treatment of the imaging constraints.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 4, Eq. (11)-(12)] The reported chi-square values for the Keck constraints are chi2_Keck = 27.4-34.0 for four measurements (K_S, K_L, mu_rel,HN, mu_rel,HE). With 4 degrees of freedom, these correspond to p ~ 1e-5 to 1e-7 (about 4-5 sigma), meaning the light-curve model and the Keck imaging are not simultaneously consistent. The paper does not discuss this tension, and the 'd.o.f.' column in Table 4 includes only the light-curve data points, not the Keck terms. This directly undermines the claim in Sections 6.2-6.3 that the solution is 'self-consistent' and 'physically reliable'. The authors should report the p-value of chi2_Keck, identify which constraint(s) dominate the discrepancy, and either propagate the tension into the parameter uncertainties or correct the systematic error budget in the Keck measurements.
  2. [Section 4.2.1] The prior on the source distance is described as 'constructed using a Galactic model implemented via genulens, and calibrated to be consistent with the observational constraints from the Keck image analysis, as described in Section 3.' If this means the D_S prior was adjusted to match the same Keck measurements that are later used in chi2_Keck, then the imaging information is used twice, biasing the posterior and artificially narrowing the quoted uncertainties. This is a load-bearing circularity. The authors must either demonstrate that the D_S prior was derived from the Galactic model alone, or re-run the fit with a prior that is not informed by the Keck data.
  3. [Sections 3 and 4.2.2, Eqs. (3)-(5), (8)-(9)] The derived lens mass and distance depend on converting the measured K-band lens brightness to a mass through a main-sequence mass-luminosity relation, and on the adopted extinction values A_K,rc = 0.37 and A_I,rc = 2.50. The paper acknowledges that a white-dwarf lens cannot be entirely excluded, but it does not propagate this as an alternative model. Given that the Keck constraints are already in tension with the light curve, the mass-luminosity and extinction assumptions are plausible sources of the discrepancy. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis that allows the lens to be a white dwarf (or an unresolved binary) and that varies the extinction parameters over their full ranges, and show how the resulting M_L-D_L posteriors change.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Equations (6)-(7)] The photometric transformations in Eqs. (6)-(7) need a clearer statement of the photometric systems and the covariance among the coefficients. The presence of the -1.00+/-0.29 mag offset in Eq. (7) is large and should be justified explicitly.
  2. [Section 3 and Table 2] In Section 3 the lens brightness is quoted as K_L = 16.98 +/- 0.05 mag, while Table 2 lists K_L = 16.982 +/- 0.080 mag. The uncertainty differs; please reconcile the two values.
  3. [Table 4] The 'MCMC Averages' column appears to contain two entries for several parameters (e.g., s and alpha) within a single cell. This makes the table difficult to read; separate the close and wide values into distinct rows or columns.
  4. [Section 2.1] The text says the adopted pixel scale is 10 mas/pixel while the measured scale is 9.952 mas/pixel, and that 'the difference does not affect our result.' Given that the measured separations are at the few-mas level, a brief quantitative statement of the resulting shift would be useful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

D_S prior is calibrated to the same Keck constraints used as likelihood, double-counting the imaging data.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 4.2.1 (Source Flux), D_S prior sentence]
    "The prior distribution for D_S was constructed using a Galactic model implemented via genulens (Koshimoto & Ranc 2022), and calibrated to be consistent with the observational constraints from the Keck image analysis, as described in Section 3. The D_S prior is 8.2±0.6 kpc..."

    D_S is an MCMC parameter that enters the model-predicted Keck observables: the source K-band magnitude (via the I→K main-sequence conversion) and the geocentric proper-motion conversion, and it sets D_L through Eq. (9). Calibrating the D_S prior to the Keck measurements and then applying the same measurements as χ2_Keck in Eq. (11) uses the imaging data twice. The posterior agreement with Keck is therefore partly enforced by construction, so the quoted D_L (and the claimed 'confirmation' of the solution) is not an independent outcome of the joint fit.

full rationale

The main derivation is a joint fit: Keck measurements of K_S, K_L, and μ_rel,H enter a penalty term χ2_Keck alongside the light curve, and the final masses/distances are posterior medians, not first-principles predictions. That in itself is legitimate data use. The one circular element is the D_S prior: the text says it was 'calibrated to be consistent with the observational constraints from the Keck image analysis,' and D_S feeds the model-predicted source K magnitude, the geocentric proper-motion conversion, and Eq. (9) for D_L. This double-counts the Keck data (also used in χ2_Keck) and means the reported agreement with Keck is partly built into the prior rather than demonstrated. Section 5's reference to 'incorporating the Keck-derived priors' reinforces this reading. The effect is partial: M_host = θ_E/(κπ_E) (Eq. 8) does not directly depend on D_S, so the central mass and planet mass retain independent light-curve content. The large χ2_Keck = 27–34 for 4 dof is a correctness/tension concern, not a circularity, and is not scored here. No other load-bearing self-citation or definitional circularity was found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard microlensing fit parameters plus a chain of astrophysical conversions. The most fragile point is the D_S prior, which appears to have been adjusted using the same Keck data that are then used as likelihood constraints, potentially overstating the precision of the final masses.

free parameters (6)
  • D_S (source distance) = 8.07 +0.48/-0.58 kpc (median)
    Appended to the MCMC parameter set; prior from a Galactic model calibrated to Keck constraints (Section 4.2.1). This is the parameter most directly entangled with the circularity concern.
  • t_E (Einstein timescale) = 88.9 +10.7/-10.4 days (MCMC average)
    Fitted to the light curve; changes from the 126-day value of Rattenbury et al. (2017) under the Keck constraints (Section 5, Table 4).
  • q (planet-to-host mass ratio) = 5.17e-3 (MCMC average)
    Fitted binary-lens parameter; multiplied by host mass to derive the planet mass.
  • rho (normalized source radius) = 2.96e-4 (MCMC average)
    Fitted; used with theta_star to compute theta_E in Section 4.2.2.
  • pi_EE, pi_EN (microlensing parallax components) = pi_EE=-0.205, pi_EN=0.206 (MCMC averages)
    Fitted; used in Eqs. 8-9 to derive lens mass and distance.
  • Other binary-lens parameters (t0, u0, s, alpha) = See Table 4 for close/wide and +/-u0 solutions
    Standard microlensing fit parameters; their posterior controls the caustic geometry and separation estimates.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The main-sequence mass-luminosity relation of Bennett et al. (2015) applies to both the lens and the source.
    Used to convert lens K magnitude to mass (Section 3 red curve; Section 4.2.2) and to convert source I to K. If the lens is a white dwarf or unresolved binary, the derived host mass shifts.
  • domain assumption The extinction model and adopted parameters (h_dust=164 pc, A_K,rc=0.37 mag, A_I,rc=2.50 mag, D_rc=8166 pc) are correct.
    Eq. 4 and Section 4.2.1 use these for both source and lens; systematic errors propagate directly into absolute magnitudes and hence into masses.
  • domain assumption The empirical OGLE/MOA color relations (Eqs. 6 and 7) transfer source flux to the K band accurately.
    The model-predicted source K-band brightness relies on this conversion; the color-term uncertainties are not fully propagated into the Keck chi-square.
  • domain assumption The brighter resolved component is the lens and the fainter is the source.
    Based on magnitude agreement with Xie et al. (2021); if reversed, the mass-distance relations in Figure 2 would intersect differently.
  • domain assumption The Boyajian et al. (2014) relation gives the source angular radius theta_star.
    theta_E = theta_star/rho in Section 4.2.2; used with pi_E to compute lens mass via Eq. 8.
  • ad hoc to paper The D_S prior is independent of the Keck imaging constraints.
    Required for a valid posterior; the text says the prior was 'calibrated to be consistent with the observational constraints from the Keck image analysis' (Section 4.2.1), which would double-count the data.
  • domain assumption No unrelated field star or bound companion lies within roughly 20 mas of the lens/source position.
    A third star would be absorbed by the two-star PSF fit; the paper estimates the chance probability as ~2e-4 but cannot fully exclude it (Section 6.3).

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterizing Microlensing Planetary System OGLE-2014-BLG-0676L with High-Resolution Image Constrained Light Curve Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H26JFKBE

@misc{pith2026260718408,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterizing Microlensing Planetary System OGLE-2014-BLG-0676L with High-Resolution Image Constrained Light Curve Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H26JFKBE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18408}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We present an analysis that incorporates high-resolution Keck adaptive optics (AO) imaging into microlensing light-curve modeling for the planetary microlensing event OGLE-2014-BLG-0676. Using Keck AO observations obtained 6.3 years after the event, we directly resolved the lens and source. The Keck images reveal a tension, in that the $K$-band source flux is $0.52 \pm 0.22$ magnitudes brighter than predicted by previously reported light-curve models. By incorporating the Keck imaging constraints into the light-curve modeling, we find a host star mass of $M_{\rm host} = 0.60^{+0.17}_{-0.14}\,M_{\odot}$, a lens distance of $D_{\rm L} = 1.88^{+0.63}_{-0.35}$ kpc, a planet mass of $m_{\rm p} = 3.11^{+1.11}_{-0.63}\,M_{\rm J}$, and a projected separation of $a_{\perp} = 2.04^{+0.44}_{-0.35}$ au and $a_{\perp} = 3.72^{+0.92}_{-0.72}$ au for the close and wide solution, respectively. These results demonstrate the power of combining high-angular-resolution imaging with microlensing light-curve modeling to mitigate potential systematic effects and modeling degeneracies, enabling robust determinations of the physical properties of microlensing planetary systems. The results presented here can be confirmed by future observations from the \textit{Roman}'s Galactic Plane Survey.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18408 by Aikaterini Vandorou, Aparna Bhattacharya, Asahi Idei, Daisuke Suzuki, David P. Bennett, Ian A. Bond, Jean-Philippe Beaulieu, Joshua W. Blackman, Kansuke Nunota, Naoki Koshimoto, Ryusei Hamada, Sean K. Terry, Takahiro Sumi, Takuto Tamaoki, Tsutsumi Nagai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top Left: Co-added image of 6 Keck OSIRIS camera images, with an exposure time of 59.011 seconds each. The target is indicated by the square outline. Top Right: Zoomed image of the OB140676 in which source and lens stars are blended. The source-lens separation in this epoch is 41.22 ± 1.27 mas. Bottom Left: Residual image of a 1-star PSF fit. a resultant dipole residual indicates that it is not a single st… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The mass-distance relation for OB140676. The red curve represents the relation derived from the mass-luminosity relation based on the lens brightness, KL measurement from the Keck image analysis, with a 0.09 mag uncertainty taken into account when converting the brightness to mass. The blue curves represent the relation derived from tE from Rattenbury et al. (2017) and the measured µrel. The deeper blue cu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The light curve data for OB140676 from MOA, OGLE and Wise. The best fit close and wide models are plotted in the red and blue lines, respectively. The bottom panels show the residual from the close model. The right panel is the zoom-in around the planetary anomaly. that both models provide comparably good fits to the data. We then carried out full MCMC analyses for these models under the same Keck constrai… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The caustics and source trajectories for the close (top) and wide (bottom) models with ±u0 solutions. The inset shows a magnified view around the central caustic, highlighting the two caustic crossings. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Lens Distance (pc) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Lens Mass ( M ⊙ ) µrel, H, tE πE KL Mass-Distance Relations from Keck-Constrained Light-Curve Modeling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Lens mass–distance relation computed from the combined weighted posterior distributions of our Keck-constrained MCMC light-curve analysis. The red curve shows the constraint from the lens brightness, the blue curve represents the constraint based on the Einstein timescale tE combined with the heliocentric relative proper motion µrel,H, and the cyan curve corresponds to the constraint from the microlensing … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The posterior probability distributions for the host mass (Mhost), the planetary companion mass (mp), their separation (a⊥), and the distance to the lens system (DL) are shown. The red histograms represent the combined weighted posterior distributions obtained in this work using light-curve modeling with Keck imaging constraints. The deep red shaded region corresponds to the ±1σ credible interval of our po… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al.\ 2013, , 125, 930, 989

    Akeson, R. L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al.\ 2013, , 125, 930, 989. doi:10.1086/672273

    doi:10.1086/672273 2013

  2. [2]

    P., et al.\ 2015, , 808, 2, 170

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/170 2015

  3. [3]

    Bennett, D. P. & Rhie, S. H.\ 1996, , 472, 660. doi:10.1086/178096

    doi:10.1086/178096 1996

  4. [4]

    P., Anderson, J., & Gaudi, B

    Bennett, D. P., Anderson, J., & Gaudi, B. S.\ 2007, , 660, 1, 781. doi:10.1086/513013

    doi:10.1086/513013 2007

  5. [5]

    P., Sumi, T., Bond, I

    Bennett, D. P., Sumi, T., Bond, I. A., et al.\ 2012, , 757, 2, 119. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/119

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/119 2012

  6. [6]

    P., Batista, V., Bond, I

    Bennett, D. P., Batista, V., Bond, I. A., et al.\ 2014, , 785, 2, 155. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/155

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/155 2014

  7. [7]

    P., Bhattacharya, A., Anderson, J., et al.\ 2015, , 808, 169

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/169 2015

  8. [8]

    P., Bhattacharya, A., Beaulieu, J.-P., et al.\ 2020, , 159, 2, 68

    Bennett, D. P., Bhattacharya, A., Beaulieu, J.-P., et al.\ 2020, , 159, 2, 68. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab6212

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab6212 2020

  9. [9]

    P., Bhattacharya, A., Beaulieu, J.-P., et al.\ 2024, , 168, 15

    Bennett, D. P., Bhattacharya, A., Beaulieu, J.-P., et al.\ 2024, , 168, 15. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad4880

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad4880 2024

  10. [10]

    P., et al.\ 2018, , 156, 6, 289

    Bhattacharya, A., Beaulieu, J.-P., Bennett, D. P., et al.\ 2018, , 156, 6, 289. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaed46

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaed46 2018

  11. [11]

    P., Beaulieu, J

    Bhattacharya, A., Bennett, D. P., Beaulieu, J. P., et al.\ 2021, , 162, 2, 60. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abfec5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abfec5 2021

  12. [12]

    W., Beaulieu, J

    Blackman, J. W., Beaulieu, J. P., Bennett, D. P., et al.\ 2021, , 598, 7880, 272. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03869-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03869-6 2021

  13. [13]

    A., Abe, F., Dodd, R

    Bond, I. A., Abe, F., Dodd, R. J., et al.\ 2001, , 327, 3, 868. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04776.x

    arXiv 2001

  14. [14]

    A., Bennett, D

    Bond, I. A., Bennett, D. P., Sumi, T., et al.\ 2017, , 469, 2, 2434. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1049

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1049 2017

  15. [15]

    S., van Belle, G., & von Braun, K.\ 2014, , 147, 47

    Boyajian, T. S., van Belle, G., & von Braun, K.\ 2014, , 147, 47. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/3/47

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/3/47 2014

  16. [16]

    doi:10.1038/nature10684

    Cassan, A., Kubas, D., Beaulieu, J.-P., et al.\ 2012, , 481, 7380, 167. doi:10.1038/nature10684

    doi:10.1038/nature10684 2012

  17. [17]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0010586

    Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., S \'e gransan, D., et al.\ 2000, , 364, 217. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0010586

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0010586 2000

  18. [18]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/970

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/2/970 2009

  19. [19]

    W., Lang, D., et al.\ 2013, , 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., et al.\ 2013, , 125, 306. doi:10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  20. [20]

    Freeman, M. S. R., Lu, J. R., Lyke, J., et al.\ 2023, , 166, 3, 125. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aceaf7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aceaf7 2023

  21. [21]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/91

    Furusawa, K., Udalski, A., Sumi, T., et al.\ 2013, , 779, 2, 91. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/91

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/91 2013

  22. [22]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.07494

    Galactic Plane Survey Definition Committee, R.\ 2025, , arXiv:2511.07494. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.07494

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.07494 2025

  23. [23]

    doi:10.1086/171443

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

    doi:10.1086/171443 1992

  24. [24]

    & Loeb, A.\ 1992, , 396, 104

    Gould, A. & Loeb, A.\ 1992, , 396, 104. doi:10.1086/171700

    doi:10.1086/171700 1992

  25. [25]

    Henry, T. J. & McCarthy, D. W.\ 1993, , 106, 773. doi:10.1086/116685

    doi:10.1086/116685 1993

  26. [26]

    J., Franz, O

    Henry, T. J., Franz, O. G., Wasserman, L. H., et al.\ 1999, , 512, 864. doi:10.1086/306793

    doi:10.1086/306793 1999

  27. [27]

    P., Suzuki, D., et al.\ 2021, , 918, 1, L8

    Koshimoto, N., Bennett, D. P., Suzuki, D., et al.\ 2021, , 918, 1, L8. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac17ec

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac17ec 2021

  28. [28]

    P.\ 2021, , 917, 78

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a8 2021

  29. [29]

    & Ranc, C.\ 2022, Zenodo.4784948

    Koshimoto, N. & Ranc, C.\ 2022, Zenodo.4784948. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4784948

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4784948 2022

  30. [30]

    Lu, J.\ 2022, Zenodo

    2022

  31. [31]

    & Paczynski, B.\ 1991, , 374, L37

    Mao, S. & Paczynski, B.\ 1991, , 374, L37. doi:10.1086/186066

    doi:10.1086/186066 1991

  32. [32]

    2020, Planetary Systems, Version: 2025-02-03 14:20, IPAC, doi:10.26133/NEA12 https://doi.org/10.26133/NEA12

    NASA Exoplanet Archive . 2020, Planetary Systems, Version: 2025-02-03 14:20, IPAC, doi:10.26133/NEA12 https://doi.org/10.26133/NEA12

    doi:10.26133/nea12 2020

  33. [33]

    M., Gould, A., Fouqu \'e , P., et al.\ 2013, , 769, 88

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

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

  34. [34]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3cdc

    Nunota, K., Koshimoto, N., Suzuki, D., et al.\ 2024, , 967, 2, 77. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3cdc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3cdc 2024

  35. [35]

    & Community Survey Definition Committees, C.\ 2025, , arXiv:2505.10574

    Observations Time Allocation Committee, R. & Community Survey Definition Committees, C.\ 2025, , arXiv:2505.10574. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505 2025

  36. [36]

    H.\ 1949, Ann

    Quenouille, M. H.\ 1949, Ann. Math. Stat., 20, 355

    1949

  37. [37]

    H.\ 1956, Biometrika, 43, 353

    Quenouille, M. H.\ 1956, Biometrika, 43, 353

    1956

  38. [38]

    J., Bennett, D

    Rattenbury, N. J., Bennett, D. P., Sumi, T., et al.\ 2017, , 466, 2710. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3185

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3185 2017

  39. [39]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al.\ 2015, , arXiv:1503.03757. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1503.03757 2015

  40. [40]

    B.\ 1987, , 99, 191

    Stetson, P. B.\ 1987, , 99, 191. doi:10.1086/131977

    doi:10.1086/131977 1987

  41. [41]

    A., et al.\ 2003, , 591, 1, 204

    Sumi, T., Abe, F., Bond, I. A., et al.\ 2003, , 591, 1, 204. doi:10.1086/375212

    doi:10.1086/375212 2003

  42. [42]

    P., Bond, I

    Sumi, T., Bennett, D. P., Bond, I. A., et al.\ 2010, , 710, 2, 1641. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1641

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/1641 2010

  43. [43]

    P., Sumi, T., et al.\ 2016, , 833, 2, 145

    Suzuki, D., Bennett, D. P., Sumi, T., et al.\ 2016, , 833, 2, 145. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/145

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/145 2016

  44. [44]

    K., Udalski, A., Soszy \'n ski, I., et al.\ 2011, , 61, 2, 83

    Szyma \'n ski, M. K., Udalski, A., Soszy \'n ski, I., et al.\ 2011, , 61, 2, 83. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1107.4008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1107.4008 2011

  45. [45]

    K., Bhattacharya, A., Bennett, D

    Terry, S. K., Bhattacharya, A., Bennett, D. P., et al.\ 2021, , 161, 2, 54. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abcc60

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abcc60 2021

  46. [46]

    K., Beaulieu, J.-P., Bennett, D

    Terry, S. K., Beaulieu, J.-P., Bennett, D. P., et al.\ 2024, , 168, 2, 72. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ 2024

  47. [47]

    K., Bachelet, E., Zohrabi, F., et al.\ 2025, , arXiv:2510.13974

    Terry, S. K., Bachelet, E., Zohrabi, F., et al.\ 2025, , arXiv:2510.13974. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.13974

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.13974 2025

  48. [48]

    Med., 18, 2507

    Tierney, L., & Mira, A.\ 1999, Stat. Med., 18, 2507

    1999

  49. [49]

    W.\ 1958, Ann

    Tukey, J. W.\ 1958, Ann. Math. Stat., 29, 614

    1958

  50. [50]

    K., & Szyma \'n ski, G.\ 2015, , 65, 1, 1

    Udalski, A., Szyma \'n ski, M. K., & Szyma \'n ski, G.\ 2015, , 65, 1, 1. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1504.05966

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1504.05966 2015

  51. [51]

    P., Beaulieu, J.-P., et al.\ 2020, , 160, 3, 121

    Vandorou, A., Bennett, D. P., Beaulieu, J.-P., et al.\ 2020, , 160, 3, 121. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba2d3

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba2d3 2020

  52. [52]

    & Chen, X.\ 2019, , 877, 2, 116

    Wang, S. & Chen, X.\ 2019, , 877, 2, 116. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61 2019

  53. [53]

    Witt, H. J. & Mao, S.\ 1994, , 430, 505. doi:10.1086/174426

    doi:10.1086/174426 1994

  54. [54]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac2a09

    Xie, X.-J., Dong, S., Shvartzvald, Y., et al.\ 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 303. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac2a09

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac2a09 2021

  55. [55]

    K., Yee, J

    Zang, W., Jung, Y. K., Yee, J. C., et al.\ 2025, Science, 388, 6745, 400. doi:10.1126/science.adn6088

    doi:10.1126/science.adn6088 2025

  56. [56]

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02375-9

    Zhang, K., Zang, W., El-Badry, K., et al.\ 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1575. doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02375-9

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02375-9 2024

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.