Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 33 references

MOA-2022-BLG-033Lb, KMT-2023-BLG-0119Lb, and KMT-2023-BLG-1896Lb: Three low mass-ratio microlensing planets detected through dip signals

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three microlensing events with short central dips are best explained by very low mass-ratio planetary companions.

desk verdict Three new low-q microlensing planets with clean modeling, but the third event's planet/binary ambiguity and the conclusion's overstatement are the soft spots. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02193 v1 pith:K2EALAYH submitted 2025-01-04 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA

Cheongho Han , Ian A. Bond , Youn Kil Jung , Michael D. Albrow , Sun-Ju Chung , Andrew Gould , Kyu-Ha Hwang , Chung-Uk Lee
show 40 more authors
Yoon-Hyun Ryu Yossi Shvartzvald In-Gu Shin Jennifer C. Yee Hongjing Yang Weicheng Zang Sang-Mok Cha Doeon Kim Dong-Jin Kim Seung-Lee Kim Dong-Joo Lee Yongseok Lee Byeong-Gon Park Richard W. Pogge Fumio Abe Richard Barry David P. Bennett Aparna Bhattacharya Hirosame Fujii Akihiko Fukui Ryusei Hamada Yuki Hirao Stela Ishitani Silva Yoshitaka Itow Rintaro Kirikawa Naoki Koshimoto Yutaka Matsubara Shota Miyazaki Yasushi Muraki Greg Olmschenk Clément Ranc Nicholas J. Rattenbury Yuki Satoh Takahiro Sumi Daisuke Suzuki Mio Tomoyoshi Paul J. Tristram Aikaterini Vandorou Hibiki Yama Kansuke Yamashita
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords gravitationalmicrolensingexoplanetdetectionlowmass-ratioplanetscentralcausticdipsignalsinner-outerdegeneracyicegiantBayesiananalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Three microlensing events whose light curves show a brief dip near the peak of an otherwise normal brightening are interpreted as planets with very small mass ratios to their host stars: $q\sim 7.5\times 10^{-5}$ for MOA-2022-BLG-033, $q\sim 3.6\times 10^{-4}$ for KMT-2023-BLG-0119, and $q\sim 6.9\times 10^{-5}$ for KMT-2023-BLG-1896. The paper argues that all three dips come from the source passing through the negative-deviation region behind the central caustic along the planet-host axis, a geometry that produces a short smooth dip instead of a caustic-crossing bump. If correct, this adds three very low mass-ratio planets to the microlensing sample and shows that such planets can be recovered from a signal shape that is easy to overlook. A Bayesian analysis then converts the measured event timescales into physical systems: an ice giant of about 12 Earth masses around an early M dwarf, a Saturn-mass planet around a mid-K dwarf, and an ice giant of about 16 Earth masses around a mid-K dwarf, with one lens probably in the disk and the other two having comparable disk and bulge probabilities.

What carries the argument

The central object is the negative-deviation region behind the central caustic: a planet of mass ratio $q$ creates a small wedge-shaped caustic near the host star, and a source passing behind it along the planet-host axis produces a brief, smooth dip rather than a caustic-crossing spike. The quantitative check is the inner-outer degeneracy relation $(s_{\rm in}s_{\rm out})^{1/2}=s^\dagger$ with $s^\dagger=\sqrt{u_{\rm anom}^2+4}-u_{\rm anom}$ for dip-type anomalies, where $u_{\rm anom}$ is the source-lens separation at the time of the anomaly, and the paper verifies that each event's paired solutions satisfy this relation. The remaining machinery is the Bayesian simulation that turns the measured event timescales into masses and distances using assumed priors for the Galactic mass function and dynamics.

What would settle it

Measure the angular Einstein radius for any one of the three lenses by resolving the lens and source with high-resolution imaging years after the event; the Bayesian posteriors predict host masses of roughly 0.5-0.7 solar masses, so a confidently different measured value would show that the adopted priors are wrong. For KMT-2023-BLG-1896, a future high-cadence observation that resolves the caustic structure could also decide between the planetary solution and the binary-star solution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the short negative deviations in the three events are planetary signals with very low planet-to-host mass ratios, produced when the source traverses the back side of the central caustic rather than crossing the caustic itself. The solutions for each event come in inner-outer pairs whose projected separations differ (for example $s\sim0.90$ versus $s\sim0.97$ for MOA-2022-BLG-033), but the inferred mass ratios are consistent across the pairs. For KMT-2023-BLG-1896, the planetary interpretation is favored over a binary-companion interpretation by $\Delta\chi^2\sim10$, so the binary case is disfavored but not excluded. Because the angular Einstein radius was measured for none of the events and parallax for only one, the physical masses and distances come from a Bayesian weighting of synthetic events against the observed timescales, yielding ice-giant and Saturn-mass companions orbiting low-mass stellar hosts.

Load-bearing premise

The reported masses and distances depend on the assumed distribution of stellar masses, positions, and motions in the Galaxy, because the Einstein radius was not measured for any event and only one event had a measured parallax.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The three events establish a recurring signal morphology: a very short, smooth dip near the peak of a moderate-to-high-magnification event, all explained by the same central-caustic geometry.
  • The inferred mass ratios, roughly $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-5}$, show that very low mass-ratio planets produce detectable dips even when the source never crosses a caustic.
  • The common inner-outer degeneracy means the projected planet-host separation is ambiguous for each system, while the mass-ratio estimate is comparatively stable.
  • If the physical interpretation holds, the companions are ice giants and a Saturn-mass planet, adding to the population of low-mass planets around M and K dwarf hosts.
  • For KMT-2023-BLG-1896, the binary-companion scenario remains marginally possible, so that event's planetary status is less secure than the other two.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A systematic re-scan of archived high-magnification microlensing events for short negative deviations, rather than only for caustic-crossing bumps, could reveal many more planets in this mass-ratio range.
  • Counting dip-feature events in a large survey sample could provide a statistical test of how common very low mass-ratio planets are, independent of the Bayesian mass conversion.
  • If the ice-giant interpretation is correct, these systems are small-scale analogues of Neptune and Saturn around low-mass stars, and future high-resolution imaging that resolves the lens could directly verify the host masses.
  • The KMT-2023-BLG-1896 case offers a natural test bed for methods that distinguish planetary from binary lens models using the detailed shape of the negative deviation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports the discovery of three low-mass-ratio planets from dip anomalies in microlensing light curves. For MOA-2022-BLG-033 and KMT-2023-BLG-0119, it presents standard 2L1S modeling with inner-outer degenerate solutions and mass ratios q~7.5e-5 and q~3.6e-4; for KMT-2023-BLG-1896 it presents planetary solutions with q~6.9e-5 and binary solutions with q~0.1 that are disfavored by Delta-chi^2~10. It then derives physical parameters through Bayesian analysis with the Jung et al. (2021) mass function and Galaxy model, concluding that the hosts are an early M dwarf and two mid-K dwarfs with companion masses of about 12 Earth masses, 16 Earth masses, and Saturn mass. The paper emphasizes that theta_E was not measured for any event and that pi_E was measured only for MOA-2022-BLG-033.

Significance. This is a useful contribution to the growing sample of very low mass-ratio planets detected through non-caustic-crossing signals. The modeling is careful: it reports all degenerate local solutions, gives upper limits on rho, explicitly quantifies the binary alternative for KMT-2023-BLG-1896, and provides posterior distributions for physical parameters. If the planetary interpretation stands, the first two events are robust additions and the third is a plausible candidate. The main weaknesses are that the third event's planetary nature is marginal and the physical parameters are prior-dominated; these issues should be fixed before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 7 vs. Section 4.3/Table 4] The abstract and conclusion assert that 'all signals originated from planetary companions,' while Section 4.3 explicitly states that 'we cannot definitively rule out the binary interpretation' for KMT-2023-BLG-1896. Because the planetary-vs-binary discrimination rests on Delta-chi^2 ~ 10 for a ~4.5-hour anomaly, the unconditional 'all signals' claim overstates the evidence. Please qualify the third event (e.g., 'best explained by a planetary companion' or 'a candidate planetary signal') and ensure that demographic conclusions are not stated as if all three events are definite detections.
  2. [Section 6, Eq. (5), Table 6] The physical parameter estimates are prior-dominated: theta_E is not measured for any event, pi_E is measured only for MOA-2022-BLG-033, and the authors state that the theta_E,min constraint is insignificant. The posteriors therefore mostly reflect the adopted Jung et al. (2021) mass function and Galaxy model, but no sensitivity to alternative priors is reported. The quoted host masses, planet masses, distances, and disk/bulge probabilities in Table 6 and the abstract should either be accompanied by a systematic test using independent priors or be explicitly labeled as conditional on the adopted prior model. Without this, the quoted 1-sigma intervals understate the true uncertainty.
  3. [Section 4.3, Table 4] The preference for the planetary over the binary solution for KMT-2023-BLG-1896 should be tested against analysis choices. The anomaly is ~4.5 hours long and is effectively covered by the KMTA data set alone, so the reported Delta-chi^2 ~ 10 can be sensitive to the adopted error-bar renormalization and to a small number of high-leverage points. Please include a robustness check, such as varying the renormalization, removing individual high-leverage points or the anomaly-night data, or using an alternative photometry reduction, to demonstrate that the preference is stable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 4] The t0 values for the binary solutions are listed as '159.1039' and '159.0994', while the planetary solutions use '10159.1012' and '10159.1020'; the binary entries appear to be missing the leading '101' prefix.
  2. [Abstract vs. Table 4] The abstract quotes a single mass-ratio value for each planet, but for KMT-2023-BLG-1896 the uncertainty is roughly 50% (q = 8.31 +/- 3.97 x 10^-5 and 6.86 +/- 4.29 x 10^-5 in the inner and outer solutions). Quoting ranges or uncertainties would better represent the precision.
  3. [Section 6/Table 6 vs. Abstract] The abstract's phrases 'approximately 12 times the mass of Earth' and 'about the mass of Saturn' are more precise than the broad, asymmetric posteriors in Table 6 (e.g., M_p = 12.15^{+9.41}_{-6.25} M_E). Adding the 1-sigma ranges or softening the wording would be more accurate.
  4. [Section 5, Table 5] For KMT-2023-BLG-1896, the source color has a large uncertainty (V-I = 2.768 +/- 0.218) and the text notes heavy blended-light contamination; this caveat should be restated near Table 5 so that the K6V classification is not over-interpreted.
  5. [Section 4.1, Fig. 1] Four degenerate solutions are reported for MOA-2022-BLG-033, but only one model curve is displayed. A sentence clarifying which solution is plotted, and a residual panel for all four solutions, would make the degeneracy easier to assess.
  6. [Section 3, Eq. (2)] The unified use of 'inner-outer' to cover both the classical inner-outer and close-wide degeneracies is noted, but a short sentence connecting Eq. (2) to the classical terminology would help readers unfamiliar with the recent unification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the mass ratios come from direct light-curve model fitting, and the Bayesian physical parameters rest on external Galactic priors rather than on the paper's own target results.

full rationale

The detection chain is self-contained. For each event, the planet-to-host mass ratio q is obtained by 2L1S modeling of the photometric data (Section 4, Tables 2-4), with grid searches over s and q and MCMC refinement; no claim in the abstract or conclusions is obtained by re-inserting the same fitted quantity as a prediction. The physical parameter estimates in Section 6 are standard Bayesian posteriors built from measured tE, the measured microlens parallax for MOA-2022-BLG-033, the unmeasured (but lower-limited) θE, and the Jung et al. (2021) mass-function and Galaxy-model priors. Those priors come from prior work by overlapping authors, but they are external assumptions about the Galaxy and stellar mass function, do not contain the target events, and are not derived from the light curves analyzed here; relying on them is model dependence, not circularity. Self-citations such as Han et al. (2024a) are used to describe the dip-signal pattern and inner-outer degeneracy, but the modeling and model comparison are carried out independently in this paper. The only self-flagged weakness is the planet-binary ambiguity for KMT-2023-BLG-1896, where the paper explicitly states 'we cannot definitively rule out the binary interpretation' (Section 4.3, Table 4); that is a statistical robustness caveat about Δχ²≈10, not a circular step. No equation or fitted parameter reduces to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central detection of low mass ratios comes from fitted light curve parameters, which are standard observables. The physical parameter estimates rely heavily on external Galactic mass function priors and are therefore not free-standing measurements. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • MOA-2022-BLG-033 mass ratio q = 7.5e-5 (range 6.6 to 8.2e-5 across four solutions)
    Fitted from 2L1S light curve modeling (Table 2).
  • MOA-2022-BLG-033 projected separation s = 0.90 inner, 0.97 outer
    Fitted; inner-outer degeneracy (Table 2).
  • MOA-2022-BLG-033 microlens parallax pi_E = pi_E,N = -0.29 to 0.37, pi_E,E = 0.13 to 0.15
    Fitted; improves fit by delta-chi-square of about 290 (Section 4.1, Table 2).
  • KMT-2023-BLG-0119 mass ratio q = 3.5 to 3.7e-4
    Fitted from 2L1S modeling (Table 3).
  • KMT-2023-BLG-0119 projected separation s = 0.86 inner, 1.10 outer
    Fitted; inner-outer degeneracy (Table 3).
  • KMT-2023-BLG-1896 mass ratio q (planetary solutions) = 6.9 to 8.3e-5
    Fitted from 2L1S modeling (Table 4).
  • KMT-2023-BLG-1896 projected separation s (planetary solutions) = 0.79 inner, 1.27 outer
    Fitted; inner-outer degeneracy (Table 4).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Galactic mass function and Galaxy model priors from Jung et al. (2021) are accurate
    Used to convert lensing observables to physical parameters (Section 6, Eq. 5). Since theta_E is unmeasured for all events and pi_E only for MOA-2022-BLG-033, the mass and distance posteriors are largely determined by these priors.
  • domain assumption Source angular radii derived from CMD calibration relations (Bessell & Brett 1988; Kervella et al. 2004) are correct
    Used to set the theta_E,min constraints (Section 5, Table 5). The constraints are reported to be insignificant, so the impact on the central claim is small.
  • domain assumption The anomalies are not caused by a binary source, which would produce only positive deviations
    Used to rule out a companion to the source (Section 3). Standard microlensing result, checked against the sign of the deviation.
  • standard math The inner-outer degeneracy unification relation (Eq. 2) from prior literature applies
    Used to test the degeneracy between solutions (Section 3, Eq. 2). The geometric means measured from the data match the relation within uncertainties, a consistency check rather than an input to the fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MOA-2022-BLG-033Lb, KMT-2023-BLG-0119Lb, and KMT-2023-BLG-1896Lb: Three low mass-ratio microlensing planets detected through dip signals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K2EALAYH

@misc{pith2026250102193,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MOA-2022-BLG-033Lb, KMT-2023-BLG-0119Lb, and KMT-2023-BLG-1896Lb: Three low mass-ratio microlensing planets detected through dip signals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K2EALAYH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02193}
}
abstract

We examined the anomalies in the light curves of the lensing events MOA-2022-BLG-033, KMT-2023-BLG-0119, and KMT-2023-BLG-1896. We conducted detailed modeling of the light curves to uncover the nature of the anomalies. This modeling revealed that all signals originated from planetary companions to the primary lens. The planet-to-host mass ratios are very low: $q\sim 7.5\times 10^{-5}$ for MOA-2022-BLG-033, $q\sim 3.6\times 10^{-4}$ for KMT-2023-BLG-0119, and $q\sim 6.9\times 10^{-5}$ for KMT-2023-BLG-1896. The anomalies occurred as the source passed through the negative deviation region behind the central caustic along the planet-host axis. The solutions are subject to a common inner-outer degeneracy, resulting in variations in estimating the projected planet-host separation. For KMT-2023-BLG-1896, although the planetary scenario provides the best explanation of the anomaly, the binary companion scenario is marginally possible. We estimate the physical parameters of the planetary systems through Bayesian analyses based on the lensing observables. The analysis identifies MOA-2022-BLG-033L as a planetary system with an ice giant, approximately 12 times the mass of Earth, orbiting an early M dwarf star. The companion of KMT-2023-BLG-1896L is also an ice giant, with a mass around 16 Earth masses, orbiting a mid-K-type main-sequence star. The companion of KMT-2023-BLG-0119L, which has a mass about the mass of Saturn, orbits a mid-K-type dwarf star. The lens for MOA-2022-BLG-033 is highly likely to be located in the disk, whereas for the other events, the probabilities of the lens being in the disk or the bulge are roughly comparable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02193 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Scatter plots of points in the MCMC chain on the (πE,E, πE,N ) parameter plane. Colors are chosen to present points with ≤ 1σ (red), ≤ 2σ (yellow), ≤ 3σ (green), ≤ 4σ (cyan), and ≤ 5σ (blue) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Lens-system configurations for the four degenerate solutions of MOA-2022-BLG-033. In each panel, the red figure represents the caustic, and the arrowed curve indicates the source trajectory. The grey curves surrounding the caustic represent equi-magnification contours. The coordinates are centered on the position of the primary lens, and the lengths are scaled to the Einstein radius. anomaly. The zoomed-in view of t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Lens system configurations of KMT-2023-BLG-1896 for the inner and outer planetary solutions (upper two panels) and the wide binary solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the positions of the sources in the instru￾mental CMDs of the events, constructed from pyDIA photom￾etry of stars in the KMTC image. For KMT-2023-BLG-1896, for which the observed light curve was heavily influenced by flux from nearby blended stars, we also mark t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Posteriors of the mass of the planetary system. In each panel, the blue and red curves represent the distributions contributed by the disk and bulge lens populations, respectively, while the black curve rep￾resents the combined distribution from both lens populations. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alard, C., & Lupton, R. H. 1998, ApJ, 503, 325

    1998

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    Albrow, M., Horne, K., Bramich, D. M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397 , 2099

    2009

  3. [3]

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

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

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.268049 2017

  4. [4]

    Y ee, J.C., Feltzing, S

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

    2013

  5. [5]

    S., & Brett, J

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

    1988

  6. [6]

    A., Abe, F., Dodd, R

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

    2001

  7. [7]

    1979, Nature, 282, 561

    Chang, K., & Refsdal, S. 1979, Nature, 282, 561

    work page 1979

  8. [8]

    1984, A&A, 132, 168

    Chang, K., & Refsdal, S. 1984, A&A, 132, 168

    work page 1984

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    2005, ApJ, 630, 535

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

    2005

  2. [10]

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

    1998

  3. [11]

    S., & Gould, A

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

    1997

  4. [12]

    A., Rejkuba, M., Localize, M., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Rejkuba, M., Localize, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A13

    2012

  5. [13]

    2004, ApJ, 606, L319

    Gould, A. 2004, ApJ, 606, L319

    2004

  6. [14]

    2022, arXiv:2209.12501

    Gould, A. 2022, arXiv:2209.12501

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    1992, ApJ, 396, 104

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

    1992

  8. [16]

    2022, A&A, 664, A13

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

    2022

  9. [17]

    1998, ApJ, 500, 37

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

    1998

  10. [18]

    2022, A&A, 664, A33

    Han, C., Kim, D., Gould, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A33

    2022

  11. [19]

    2020, AJ , 159, 134

    Herrera-Martin, A., Albrow, A., Udalski, A., et al. 2020, AJ , 159, 134

    2020

  12. [20]

    2022, AJ, 163, 43

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

    2022

  13. [21]

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

    Jung, Y . K., Udalski, A., Gould, A., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 219

    2018

  14. [22]

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

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

    2021

  15. [23]

    K., Zang, W., Wang, H., et al

    Jung, Y . K., Zang, W., Wang, H., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 226

    2023

  16. [24]

    2004, A&A, 426, 29

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

    2004

  17. [25]

    2016, JKAS, 49, 37

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

    2016

  18. [26]

    1991, ApJ, 374, 37

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

    1991

  19. [27]

    M., Gould, A., Fouqué, P

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

    2013

  20. [28]

    C., Mao, S., & Paczy ´nski, B

    Smith, M. C., Mao, S., & Paczy ´nski, B. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 925

    2003

  21. [29]

    2011, ApJ, 738, 87

    Skowron, J., Udalski, A., Gould, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 87

    2011

  22. [30]

    A., et al

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

    2003

  23. [31]

    B., & Crotts, A

    Tomaney, A. B., & Crotts, A. P . S. 1996, AJ, 112, 2872 Y ang, H., Y ee, J. C., Hwang, K.-H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 11 Y ee, J. C., Shvartzvald, Y ., Gal-Y am, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 102 Y ee, J. C., Zang, W., Udalski, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 180

    1996

  24. [32]

    S., Bloom, J

    Zhang, K., Gaudi, B. S., Bloom, J. S. 2022, NatAs, 6, 782

    2022

  25. [33]

    Zhu, W., Penny, M., Mao, S., Gould, A., & Gendron, R. 2014, ApJ , 788, 73 1 Department of Physics, Chungbuk National University, Cheo ngju 28644, Republic of Korea 2 Institute of Natural and Mathematical Science, Massey Univ ersity, Auckland 0745, New Zealand 3 Korea Astronomy...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.