Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Gravitational microlensing reveals two Uranus-mass planets orbiting beyond the snow line.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 02:56 UTC pith:PY2P63HW

load-bearing objection The KMT-0975 planet is securely detected; KMT-1160's planet claim is not, because the binary-source alternative is dismissed with a false argument and never actually fitted. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25259 v1 pith:PY2P63HW submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA

KMT-2025-BLG-0975Lb and KMT-2025-BLG-1160Lb: Two Uranus-Mass Planets Beyond the Snow Line Discovered by Microlensing

Cheongho Han , Chung-Uk Lee , Andrzej Udalski , Andrew Gould , Michael D. Albrow , Sun-Ju Chung , Youn Kil Jung , Kyu-Ha Hwang
show 22 more authors
Yoon-Hyun Ryu Yossi Shvartzvald In-Gu Shin Jennifer C. Yee Weicheng Zang Hongjing Yang Doeon Kim Dong-Jin Kim Byeong-Gon Park Richard W. Pogge Przemek Mr\'oz Micha{\l} K. Szyma\'nski Jan Skowron Rados{\l}aw Poleskim 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
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA
keywords gravitational microlensingexoplanetsUranus-mass planetsice giantssnow lineBayesian analysisclose-wide degeneracyplanetary mass function
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 paper reports that two planetary microlensing events from the 2025 bulge season, KMT-2025-BLG-0975 and KMT-2025-BLG-1160, each host a companion with a mass comparable to Uranus: about 30 and 25 Earth masses. In both systems the projected planet–host separation falls beyond the expected snow-line distance of the host—the radius where water ice can condense—placing the planets in the cold ice-giant regime. This matters because microlensing is one of the few techniques that can detect such planets around faint, low-mass stars at wide separations, and these systems add to the sparse census of cold ice giants. The paper further argues that ice-giant formation can occur around hosts as different as a low-mass M dwarf and a late K dwarf. The masses and distances come from Bayesian analysis constrained by the light-curve observables, since no microlens parallax was measured.

Core claim

The central claim is that two short-lived anomalies near the peaks of two 2025 microlensing light curves are caused by planetary companions with mass ratios q = 8.6 × 10⁻⁴ and q = 1.3 × 10⁻⁴. For KMT-2025-BLG-0975, two resolved caustic crossings in the anomaly fix the geometry and yield a measured angular Einstein radius θE = 0.108 ± 0.017 mas. For KMT-2025-BLG-1160, a high-magnification event (Amax ≈ 133) shows a purely negative deviation, but finite-source effects are not detected, so only a lower limit θE > 0.20 mas is obtained and a close–wide degeneracy remains (Δχ² = 0.3). Using Bayesian analysis with the measured timescales and Einstein radii, the paper infers planet masses of 29.8 an

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the binary-lens single-source (2L1S) model, in which a foreground star with a planetary companion acts as two gravitational lenses and produces the short anomaly near the peak of a background source's light curve. The model yields the planet-to-host mass ratio q and the normalized separation s; the physical scale is set by the angular Einstein radius θE = θ*/ρ, where ρ is the normalized source radius. When the source crosses a caustic, finite-source effects measure ρ, as in the first event; when it only approaches a caustic, ρ is unconstrained and θE becomes a lower limit. With neither event showing a measurable parallax, Bayesian analysis with Galactic-model priors

Load-bearing premise

Neither event gave a direct distance measurement (no microlens parallax), and one event produced only a lower limit on the Einstein ring size, so the planet masses and snow-line placements come from Bayesian priors; if those priors misrepresent the true lens populations, the Uranus-mass and snow-line conclusions could shift.

What would settle it

Resolve the lens and source with high-resolution follow-up imaging after the events fade: if the host of KMT-2025-BLG-0975 is measured to be more massive than roughly 0.3 solar masses, or the host of KMT-2025-BLG-1160 is not a roughly 0.4–0.9 solar-mass K dwarf, the Bayesian-derived masses—and with them the Uranus-mass interpretation—would be ruled out.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The two planets join the microlensing census of cold ice giants, strengthening statistics on how often intermediate-mass planets form beyond the snow line.
  • The systems show that Uranus-mass planets can form and survive around a low-mass M dwarf and a late K dwarf, not only around solar-type stars.
  • The inferred snow-line location supports the core-accretion expectation that ice-giant cores grow most efficiently where ices condense.
  • With next-generation telescopes, these systems are candidates for direct-imaging follow-up that could turn the measured mass ratios into direct planet masses.
  • For KMT-2025-BLG-1160, either the close or wide solution places the planet beyond the snow line, so the cold-ice-giant conclusion is robust to the degeneracy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: high-resolution imaging a few years after the events could resolve the lens and source; the measured host mass would independently check the Bayesian masses and, for KMT-2025-BLG-1160, would break the close–wide degeneracy.
  • If the host of KMT-2025-BLG-0975 actually sits at the brown-dwarf end of its posterior, the system would be a rare planet-brown-dwarf case and the snow-line comparison would be even more extreme.
  • The broader claim that ice-giant formation is common across host masses is suggestive rather than statistical; combining these detections with other microlensing planets would allow a quantitative test of whether cold ice-giant occurrence depends on host mass.
  • If the Galactic-model priors overestimate the lens distance, the projected separations could shift inward, but the paper's stated snow-line conclusion remains robust within the quoted uncertainties.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports two planetary microlensing events from the 2025 bulge season. For KMT-2025-BLG-0975, two resolved caustic crossings yield a unique 2L1S solution with q = 8.6e-4, a measured Einstein radius (θE = 0.108 ± 0.017 mas), and a planet mass of ~30 M⊕ around a low-mass M dwarf or brown dwarf at a projected separation of ~0.8 au. For KMT-2025-BLG-1160, a short negative dip near the peak of a high-magnification event yields close and wide solutions with q ~1.3e-4 and Δχ² = 0.3; only an upper limit on ρ (hence a lower limit on θE) is obtained, and the derived planet mass is ~25 M⊕ around a late K dwarf at ~2.6–3.3 au. The abstract claims both planets are Uranus-mass objects beyond the expected snow lines of their hosts.

Significance. If the KMT-1160 planetary interpretation holds, the paper adds two cold ice giants to the microlensing census, one around an M dwarf and one around a K dwarf, which would be a useful contribution to planet-formation demographics. The KMT-0975 detection is robust: the caustic crossings break the close–wide degeneracy (Δχ² = 267 against wide) and the finite-source effect gives a θE measurement. The Bayesian mass estimates are prior-dominated for both events (no parallax; for KMT-1160 only a θE lower limit), but the uncertainties are honestly reported. The main weakness is that the binary-source alternative for KMT-1160 is not properly excluded, leaving its planetary nature unproven.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3, binary-source paragraph] The premise that a binary-source companion can only increase the observed magnification is false; the flux-weighted sum of two magnified sources can yield negative residuals relative to a best-fit 1L1S model. For KMT-2025-BLG-0975 the caustic crossings independently rule out a 1L2S model, but for KMT-2025-BLG-1160 the smooth negative dip is exactly the regime where a binary-source model can mimic a planetary perturbation. No 1L2S fit or Δχ² comparison is reported. The authors must fit a 1L2S model to KMT-1160 and demonstrate that the planetary interpretation is preferred; otherwise the derived planet mass, snow-line placement, and 'Uranus-mass' classification for this event are unsupported.
  2. [§5, Table 5 (snow-line claim)] The statement that both planets lie beyond the snow line is based on a point comparison of the medians of a⊥ and the scaling law asl ≃ 2.7 AU (Mh/M⊙). Given the broad posterior of Mh (e.g., Mh = 0.58+0.35−0.32 M⊙ for KMT-1160) and the unresolved close–wide degeneracy, the posterior probability that a⊥ > asl should be computed and stated. The abstract's wording ('located beyond the expected snow-line distances') is stronger than what the median values alone establish.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. Table 5] The abstract uses 'inner' for KMT-2025-BLG-1160's close solution, while Table 5 uses 'close'; unify the terminology.
  2. [Author list] The author list contains LaTeX artifacts such as 'Micha/suppress l' and 'Rados/suppress law'; these should be corrected before submission.
  3. [References] In the reference for Kim et al. 2016, 'Lee, C.-U.and Park' is missing a period after 'C.-U.'.
  4. [Bayesian analysis] The paper refers to previous studies for the Galactic-model priors but does not specify the mass function, velocity dispersions, or spatial model used. A brief summary or explicit citation of the prior model would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: planet masses and snow-line placement are derived from fitted microlensing parameters plus external Galactic priors; the Han et al. (2025) self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at the level of the paper's claims. The mass ratio q is a free parameter fitted to the observed anomaly (Tables 2 and 3); the angular Einstein radius is obtained from independent source-color/magnitude data via θE = θ∗/ρ (Eq. 1), not from the planet conclusion. Physical masses come from a Bayesian analysis that combines the measured tE and θE constraints with Galactic-model priors explicitly described as external ('Galactic model priors describing the spatial, kinematic, and mass distributions of potential lens populations'), and no prior is derived from the target claim that these are Uranus-mass planets beyond the snow line. The snow-line comparison (asl ≃ 2.7 AU (Mh/M⊙)) is applied after the mass inference, so it does not feed back into q or Mp. The two self-citations to Han et al. (2025) — the 'negative anomalies indicative of planetary perturbations' heuristic in §3.2 and the Bayesian-procedure reference in §5 — are not load-bearing: the planetary mass ratios are fit to the present light curves, and the Bayesian framework is a standard external-prior method. The main risk in the paper is not circularity but a possible correctness gap: for KMT-2025-BLG-1160 the binary-source interpretation is dismissed with the claim that 'a binary-source companion can only increase the observed magnification,' and no binary-source fit or Δχ² is reported. That omission affects whether the smooth negative dip is securely planetary, but it does not make any result equal to its input by construction. Accordingly, the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central physical conclusions rest on standard microlensing modeling plus external calibrations and Galactic-model priors. The only explicit adopted constant introduced without citation is the snow-line scaling. No new physical entities are posited.

free parameters (1)
  • Snow-line scaling coefficient = 2.7 AU/M_sun (adopted, no citation)
    Used in Section 6 to conclude both planets are beyond the snow line (asl ≃ 2.7 AU × Mh/Msun). The conclusion is directly sensitive to this adopted constant, which is stated without source or uncertainty.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Galactic-model priors (host mass function, disk/bulge spatial and kinematic distributions) used in Section 5 are representative of the true lens population.
    Physical masses for both planets are obtained from Bayesian analysis with these priors. For KMT-2025-BLG-1160, where θE is only a lower limit and πE is absent, the planet mass is almost entirely prior-driven.
  • domain assumption Binary-source companions are excluded because they produce only positive deviations; the planetary 2L1S interpretation is therefore adopted.
    Section 3 states that binary-source companions can only increase the observed magnification, citing Gaudi (1998) and Gaudi & Han (2004). The anomalies in both events include negative deviations, which is used to justify the exclusion.
  • domain assumption Empirical color-surface-brightness relations (Kervella et al. 2004; Bessell & Brett 1988) correctly convert the measured source color and magnitude to θ*.
    Section 4 uses these relations to derive θ* and hence θE. An error in the calibration would propagate directly into the physical parameter estimates.
  • domain assumption The snow-line distance scales as asl ≈ 2.7 AU (Mh/Msun).
    Section 6 uses this scaling to state that both planets are beyond the snow line. The scaling is presented without citation or uncertainty, yet it underpins the headline 'beyond the snow line' claim.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13498 in / 13753 out tokens · 140561 ms · 2026-08-01T02:56:06.867928+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of KMT-2025-BLG-0975Lb and KMT-2025-BLG-1160Lb: Two Uranus-Mass Planets Beyond the Snow Line Discovered by Microlensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PY2P63HW

@misc{pith2026260725259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: KMT-2025-BLG-0975Lb and KMT-2025-BLG-1160Lb: Two Uranus-Mass Planets Beyond the Snow Line Discovered by Microlensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PY2P63HW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25259}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present the analysis of two planetary microlensing events, KMT-2025-BLG-0975 and KMT-2025-BLG-1160, discovered during the 2025 Galactic bulge microlensing season through high-cadence survey observations. In both events, short-duration anomalies near the peaks of the lensing light curves reveal the presence of planetary companions. Light-curve modeling yields planet-to-host mass ratios of $q = 8.6 \times 10^{-4}$ for KMT-2025-BLG-0975 and $1.3 \times 10^{-4}$ for KMT-2025-BLG-1160. For KMT-2025-BLG-0975, finite-source effects are detected, enabling a measurement of the angular Einstein radius, whereas only a lower limit on this quantity is obtained for KMT-2025-BLG-1160. We estimate the physical parameters of the lens systems through Bayesian analyses constrained by the measured microlensing observables. The results indicate that the planetary companions have masses of $M_{\rm p}=29.8^{+50.5}_{-16.0}~M_\oplus$ for KMT-2025-BLG-0975Lb and $25.4^{+15.5}_{-14.1}~M_\oplus$ for KMT-2025-BLG-1160Lb. Both planets have masses comparable to that of Uranus. The host stars are inferred to be a low-mass M dwarf with a mass of $M_{\rm h}=0.10^{+0.18}_{-0.06}~M_\odot$ for KMT-2025-BLG-0975L and a late K dwarf with a mass of $M_{\rm h}=0.58^{+0.35}_{-0.32}~M_\odot$ for KMT-2025-BLG-1160L. The projected planet--host separations are $a_\perp=0.81^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$~au for KMT-2025-BLG-0975Lb and $a_\perp=2.56^{+0.48}_{-0.71}$~au and $3.29^{+0.61}_{-0.92}$~au for the inner and wide solutions, respectively, of KMT-2025-BLG-1160Lb. In both systems, the planets are located beyond the expected snow-line distances of their hosts, placing them in the cold ice-giant regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25259 by Andrew Gould, Andrzej Udalski, Byeong-Gon Park, Cheongho Han, Chung-Uk Lee, Doeon Kim, Dong-Jin Kim, Hongjing Yang, In-Gu Shin, Jan Skowron, Jennifer C. Yee, Krzysztof A. Rybicki, Krzysztof Ulaczyk, Kyu-Ha Hwang, Marcin Wrona, Mariusz Gromadzki, Mateusz J. Mr\'oz, Michael D. Albrow, Micha{\l} K. Szyma\'nski, Patryk Iwanek, Pawe{\l} Pietrukowicz, Przemek Mr\'oz, Rados{\l}aw Poleskim Igor Soszy\'nski, Richard W. Pogge, Sun-Ju Chung, Szymon Koz{\l}owski, Weicheng Zang, Yoon-Hyun Ryu, Yossi Shvartzvald, Youn Kil Jung.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Lensing light curve of KMT-2025-BLG-0975. The bottom panel shows the full light curve, while the upper panels present enlarged views of the peak region and the residuals from the best-fit planetary model. The dotted and solid curves overlaid on the data represent the best-fit single-lens single-source (1L1S) and binary-lens single-source (2L1S) models, respectively. whereas the anomalies in both events inc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Configuration of the lens system for KMT-2025-BLG-0975. The lower panel shows the complete caustic topology, including both the central and planetary caustics, while the upper panel provides a magnified view of the planetary caustics. In each panel, the red cuspy curves represent the caustics, and the arrowed curve indicates the source trajectory. The dashed circle of unit radius centered at the origin den… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Light curve of the lensing event KMT-2025-BLG-1160. Among the two degenerate 2L1S solutions, the close solution is shown as the representative model. The notation is identical to that used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Configuration of the lens system for KMT-2025-BLG-1160. The upper and lower panels corre￾spond to the close and wide solutions, respectively. The in￾sets display the full lens geometry, including the central and planetary caustics, the positions of the lens components, and the Einstein ring. The gray curves denote contours of con￾stant magnification. eracy commonly encountered in planetary microlensing eve… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bayesian posterior probability distributions of the host-star mass, lens distance, and source distance for the microlensing event KMT-2025-BLG-0975. In each panel, the red and blue curves represent the contributions from the disk and bulge lens populations, respectively, while the black curve shows their combined distribution. The solid vertical line marks the median of the posterior distribution, and the … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Posterior distributions of the host-star mass, lens distance, and source distance derived from the Bayesian analysis of KMT-2025-BLG-1160. The curves and vertical lines follow the same notation as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] 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

43 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

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

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

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.268049 2017

  2. [2]

    D., Horne, K., Bramich, D

    Albrow, M. D., Horne, K., Bramich, D. M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15098.x

    arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    P., et al

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

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

  4. [4]

    P., Bhattacharya, A., Anderson, J., et al

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

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

  5. [5]

    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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220678 2013

  6. [6]

    S., & Brett, J

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

    doi:10.1086/132281 1988

  7. [7]

    W., Beaulieu, J

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

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

  8. [8]

    Gaudi, B. S. 1998, ApJ, 506, 533, doi: 10.1086/306256

    doi:10.1086/306256 1998

  9. [9]

    S., & Han, C

    Gaudi, B. S., & Han, C. 2004, ApJ, 611, 528, doi: 10.1086/421971

    doi:10.1086/421971 2004

  10. [10]

    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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219222 2012

  11. [11]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 785, doi: 10.1086/317037

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

    doi:10.1086/317037 2000

  12. [12]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.12501, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.12501

    Gould, A. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.12501, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.12501

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.12501 2022

  13. [13]

    1992, ApJ, 396, 104, doi: 10.1086/171700

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

    doi:10.1086/171700 1992

  14. [14]

    2006, ApJ, 644, L37, doi: 10.1086/505421 Two Uranus-Mass Microlensing Planets 11

    Gould, A., Udalski, A., An, D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, L37, doi: 10.1086/505421 Two Uranus-Mass Microlensing Planets 11

    doi:10.1086/505421 2006

  15. [15]

    1998, ApJ, 500, 37, doi: 10.1086/305729

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

    doi:10.1086/305729 1998

  16. [16]

    2006, ApJ, 638, 1080, doi: 10.1086/498937

    Han, C. 2006, ApJ, 638, 1080, doi: 10.1086/498937

    doi:10.1086/498937 2006

  17. [17]

    A., Jung, Y

    Han, C., Bond, I. A., Jung, Y. K., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452027

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452027 2025

  18. [18]

    K., Udalski, A., et al

    Han, C., Jung, Y. K., Udalski, A., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/38

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/1/38 2013

  19. [19]

    Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2004, ApJ, 604, 388, doi: 10.1086/381724

    doi:10.1086/381724 2004

  20. [20]

    K., Udalski, A., Gould, A., et al

    Jung, Y. K., Udalski, A., Gould, A., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabb51

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabb51 2018

  21. [21]

    2004, A&A, 426, 29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035930

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20035930 2004

  22. [22]

    2016, JKAS, 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

    doi:10.5303/jkas.2016.49.1.37 2016

  23. [23]

    2017, A&A, 606, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731014

    Lambrechts, M., & Lega, E. 2017, A&A, 606, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731014

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731014 2017

  24. [24]

    J., & Chiang, E

    Lee, E. J., & Chiang, E. 2015, ApJ, 811, L41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/41

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/1/41 2015

  25. [25]

    2009, A&A, 501, 1139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810301

    Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y., & Benz, W. 2009, A&A, 501, 1139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810301

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810301 2009

  26. [26]

    2012, A&A, 541, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117350

    Henning, T. 2012, A&A, 541, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117350

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117350 2012

  27. [27]

    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

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

  28. [28]

    D., Gould, A., & Fernandes, R

    Pascucci, I., Mulders, G. D., Gould, A., & Fernandes, R. 2018, ApJL, 856, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab6ac

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab6ac 2018

  29. [29]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9 2013

  30. [30]

    T., Gaudi, B

    Penny, M. T., Gaudi, B. S., Kerins, E., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aafb6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aafb6 2019

  31. [31]

    2021, Acta Astron., 71, 1, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/71.1.1

    Poleski, R., Skowron, J., Mr´ oz, P., et al. 2021, Acta Astron., 71, 1, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/71.1.1

    doi:10.32023/0001-5237/71.1.1 2021

  32. [32]

    B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    arXiv 1996

  33. [33]

    P., Bond, I

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

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

  34. [34]

    P., Ida, S., et al

    Suzuki, D., Bennett, D. P., Ida, S., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf577

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf577 2018

  35. [35]

    P., Sumi, T., et al

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

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

  36. [36]

    2003, Acta Astron., 53, 291, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/040112

    Udalski, A. 2003, Acta Astron., 53, 291, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/040112

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/040112 2003

  37. [37]

    K., & Szyma´ nski, G

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

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

  38. [38]

    2018, Acta Astron., 68, 1, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/68.1.1

    Udalski, A., Ryu, Y.-H., Sajadian, S., et al. 2018, Acta Astron., 68, 1, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/68.1.1

    work page doi:10.32023/0001-5237/68.1.1 2018

  39. [39]

    Wozniak, P. R. 2000, Acta Astron., 50, 421, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0012143

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0012143 2000

  40. [40]

    C., Hwang, K.-H., et al

    Yang, H., Yee, J. C., Hwang, K.-H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 11, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3672

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3672 2024

  41. [41]

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

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/2/102 2012

  42. [42]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/381241 2004

  43. [43]

    K., Yee, J

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

    doi:10.1126/science.adn6088 2025