Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper shows that Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, powered by a differentiable binary-lens model, robustly samples the bimodal posterior of a microlensing event where traditional MCMC gets stuck, and reports two new planet/brown-dwarf candidate

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

2026-08-02 19:31 UTC pith:JVCRMMZB

load-bearing objection Competent analysis of two new events, but the HMC-outperforms-MCMC claim in the abstract is not supported by the evidence they present. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.01735 v1 pith:JVCRMMZB submitted 2026-03-02 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

KMT-2025-BLG-1314 and KMT-2025-BLG-1392: two microlensing planetary/brown-dwarf candidates analyzed with differentiable code

Haibin Ren , Weicheng Zang , Wei Zhu , Yoon-Hyun Ryu , Yuchen Tang , Jiyuan Zhang , Michael D. Albrow , Sun-Ju Chung
show 15 more authors
Andrew Gould Cheongho Han Kyu-Ha Hwang Youn Kil Jung In-Gu Shin Yossi Shvartzvald Hongjing Yang Jennifer C. Yee Dong-Jin Kim Chung-Uk Lee Byeong-Gon Park Yunyi Tang Dan Maoz Shude Mao Qiyue Qian
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords gravitational microlensingexoplanet detectionbrown dwarfsHamiltonian Monte CarloBayesian inferencedegeneracybinary lensposterior sampling
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 analyzes two microlensing events, KMT-2025-BLG-1314 and KMT-2025-BLG-1392, whose light curves indicate a small companion to a lens star. Its central claim is methodological: when the posterior distribution is bimodal, Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampling powered by a differentiable binary-lens model gives robust, reproducible parameter inference, while a traditional ensemble Markov chain Monte Carlo sampler becomes trapped in one mode. If true, gradient-based sampling is a practical tool for the many binary-lens events with close/wide, planet/binary, or point/finite degeneracies. The paper also finds that both events host planet or brown-dwarf candidates — mass ratios around log q ~ -3.5 and -1.3 respectively — and rejects the alternative single-lens binary-source interpretation for both.

Core claim

The core discovery is that HMC, enabled by a differentiable binary-lens magnification model, can navigate the bimodal posterior of KMT-2025-BLG-1314 and converge to the same distribution from different starting modes, whereas an ensemble MCMC sampler with 40 walkers fails to mix and produces chain-dependent posteriors (standard convergence diagnostic ~1.3 versus 1.0). This is presented as the first application of differentiable modeling to real binary-lens microlensing events. The analysis identifies ten viable 2L1S solutions for KMT-2025-BLG-1314 — four planetary and six binary — including newly recognized 'Point' planetary solutions, and close/wide solutions for KMT-2025-BLG-1392 with a co

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a differentiable binary-lens magnification model that computes accurate gradients of the light curve, enabling Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. The sampling is preconditioned by an information-matrix-based reparameterization: a triangular affine transformation of the latent parameters that approximates the local covariance and acts as a mass matrix, letting the HMC chains move efficiently across the strongly correlated posterior. An adaptive contour-integration error estimator keeps both the magnification and its derivatives accurate for planetary and extreme-binary configurations.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that HMC outperforms traditional MCMC assumes the traditional sampler was given a fair and adequately tuned run; the comparison in the paper uses one specific configuration, and a different tuning could narrow or erase the gap.

What would settle it

Run a synthetic binary-lens event with a known bimodal posterior, sample it with both HMC and a traditional ensemble MCMC given substantially more steps and careful tuning, and check whether both converge to the same posterior; if the traditional sampler also converges, the claimed advantage of HMC in this setting is not general.

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

If this is right

  • HMC becomes a practical option for the large fraction of binary-lens events whose posteriors are multimodal, reducing the risk of mode trapping and yielding reproducible uncertainties.
  • The 'Planet Point/Finite' sub-degeneracy is now seen in a third event, so future planet/binary analyses should explicitly search for both point-source and finite-source planetary solutions.
  • For KMT-2025-BLG-1314, the 1L2S explanation is strongly disfavored statistically and physically, so the planet/binary interpretation remains viable until resolved by high-resolution imaging.
  • For KMT-2025-BLG-1392, the companion lies near the planet/brown-dwarf boundary; close and wide solutions remain nearly degenerate, so the projected separation is uncertain.
  • The 'Planet Finite' solutions for KMT-2025-BLG-1314 predict a low relative proper motion (~1 mas/yr), testable with future high-resolution imaging.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same differentiable-model pipeline should transfer to other microlensing degeneracies, e.g., parallax versus xallarap or binary-source vs. binary-lens, where multi-modal posteriors are common.
  • If 'Planet Point' solutions prove common, previously published planet/binary events may need to be re-examined for missed point-source planetary solutions — a direct extension of the paper's finding.
  • The information-matrix reparameterization itself could be used to design observing strategies, since it reveals which parameter combinations are best constrained.
  • With next-generation surveys expected to deliver thousands of microlensing events, the computational cost of gradient-based sampling may make it the default, but its robustness on posteriors with more than two modes remains to be demonstrated.

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. This paper presents a light-curve analysis of two KMTNet microlensing events, KMT-2025-BLG-1314 and KMT-2025-BLG-1392, using the JAX-based differentiable code microlux and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (NUTS). Both events show close/wide degeneracies; the first additionally shows planet/binary and point/finite degeneracies. The authors report mass-ratio estimates, reject the 1L2S hypothesis for both events (for the first using a μ_rel prior), and derive physical parameters via a Bayesian analysis. The paper's central methodological claim is that HMC 'outperforms traditional MCMC' on the bimodal posterior of KMT-2025-BLG-1314, based on a comparison with emcee in Fig. 7.

Significance. If the modeling results and the HMC comparison hold, the paper would be a useful demonstration that a differentiable microlensing code can handle real binary-lens events with multimodal posteriors, and it would add two candidate planetary/brown-dwarf systems. The paper is careful in presenting many degenerate solutions and in using Fisher-matrix reparameterization for HMC. The use of a public differentiable code (microlux) and the clear tables are strengths. However, the HMC-versus-emcee comparison, the 1L2S-rejection statistics, and a likely Jacobian error in Eq. (13) currently prevent the results from being fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Figure 7] The claim that HMC 'outperforms traditional MCMC' rests on an emcee run with 40 walkers, 2000 warm-up and 4000 sample steps, with no tuning, tempering, or longer burn-in, and no effective-sample-size or wall-clock comparison. The observed Rhat≈1.3 for emcee shows non-convergence for this particular run, not a general property of ensemble MCMC. As the abstract's central methodological claim, this needs either a much more thorough benchmark (e.g., several emcee configurations, autocorrelation-time convergence, ESS/wall-clock) or substantial softening ('can be more robust in this instance').
  2. [Section 3.2, 1L2S rejection] The rejection of the 1L2S model for KMT-2025-BLG-1314 uses a prior probability of 5e-4 converted to 'effective Δχ²~15' and added to the model Δχ²~10 to give total Δχ²~25. A tail probability is not a log-likelihood; adding it to Δχ² on the same scale is not a statistically justified model comparison. The physical-unplausibility argument is independent, but as written the combined Δχ² statement is unsupported. A proper computation would be a Bayes factor or full posterior predictive under a μ_rel prior.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (13)] The Jacobian transformation from (D_L, log M_L, μ_rel) to (M_L, θ_E, μ_rel) appears to be incorrect. Using π_rel ≈ au/D_L, the correct result is dΓ/(dM_L dθ_E dμ_rel) ∝ n D_L^4 θ_E^2 μ_rel^2 M_L^{-2} f_μ dξ/dlog M_L (up to constants), not M_L^{-1} as in Eq. (13). The extra M_L factor would bias the Bayesian mass estimates in Tables 6 and 7 toward higher masses. Please verify the derivation and rerun the analysis if needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The code is referred to as 'VBMicrolensing'; the standard name is 'VBBinaryLensing.' Please correct.
  2. [Section 4.2] The prior cut logρ∈[-4,-2] for unconstrained ρ is introduced without justification; please explain or quantify its effect on the derived physical parameters.
  3. [Table 1, Section 3.2] The Δχ² between 'Planet Finite' and 'Planet Point' solutions is only ~2.5; the text calls the finite-source effect 'measurable.' Consider clarifying that the two classes are degenerate at this Δχ² level.
  4. [Figure 7 caption] For emcee, 'two independent chains' should clarify that each chain is an ensemble of 40 walkers; also report the effective sample size and computation time for both methods.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: parameters are fitted from data, physical properties are posterior-derived, and the HMC-vs-MCMC comparison is an empirical benchmark rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Light-curve parameters (s, q, alpha, t0, u0, tE, rho) are obtained from actual data via grid search and HMC posterior sampling; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Source size theta* is measured from CMD photometry, then theta_E = theta*/rho and mu_rel = theta_E/tE are propagated from the fitted values, and lens masses/distances come from Bayesian integrals against stated Galactic priors—standard propagation rather than self-justifying input. The central self-citations (microlux Ren & Zhu 2025; Zhang et al. 2026a,b classifications) are used as tools or prior terminology, not as definitions of the paper's new result. The HMC-outperforms-MCMC claim in Section 5/Figure 7 is an empirical comparison computed from the data in this paper; although the emcee setup appears under-tuned/short (40 walkers, 2000 warm-up, 4000 sample steps; Rhat~1.3) and no ESS or wall-clock times are reported, that is a benchmarking weakness, not an equation reducing to its own input. No quoted equation is identical by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation, so no specific circular step can be exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on standard microlensing model assumptions and literature priors. No new physical entities are introduced. The main hand-set inputs are limb-darkening coefficients and a logρ cutoff for non-finite-source solutions.

free parameters (3)
  • u_I (KMT-2025-BLG-1314) = 0.562
    Limb-darkening coefficient chosen from Claret & Bloemen (2011) under assumed T_eff~5000 K, logg~4.5, solar metallicity; affects finite-source modeling and derived θE and μrel.
  • u_I (KMT-2025-BLG-1392) = 0.582
    Same, for a source with T_eff~4800 K; affects the finite-source light-curve modeling.
  • logρ posterior cutoff = [-4,-2]
    Applied to 'Planet Point' and 'Binary' solutions without measurable finite-source effects to avoid unreasonable θE/μrel combinations; chosen by hand rather than derived from data.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The 2L1S magnification computed by microlux/VBMicrolensing (with Wang et al. 2025 polynomial coefficients) is accurate for planetary and extreme-binary regimes, including derivatives.
    Invoked throughout Section 3; if gradients are inaccurate, HMC posteriors and the HMC/MCMC comparison fail.
  • domain assumption A 1L2S model with common tE can mimic 2L1S bump anomalies (Gaudi 1998), and the implemented 1L2S model is adequate.
    Section 3.1; used to reject 1L2S for both events.
  • domain assumption The linear limb-darkening law with coefficients from Claret & Bloemen (2011) is adequate for both sources.
    Section 3.1/3.2; affects ρ, θE and μrel estimates.
  • domain assumption The galactic-model priors of Zhu et al. (2017), the adopted stellar mass functions, and the μrel distribution of Jung et al. (2022) describe the true lens population.
    Section 4.2; underpins lens mass/distance posteriors in Tables 6 and 7.
  • ad hoc to paper The conversion of a μrel p-value into an effective Δχ² and its addition to the model Δχ² is a valid way to compare 1L2S and 2L1S models.
    Section 3.2; used only to strengthen rejection of 1L2S for KMT-2025-BLG-1314; not a standard Bayesian evidence calculation.
  • domain assumption The Fisher-matrix soft-boundary reparameterization does not bias the HMC posterior.
    Section 3.1; necessary for the HMC 'robust inference' claim.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16786 in / 15394 out tokens · 132034 ms · 2026-08-02T19:31:27.780592+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Analysis of binary-lens microlensing events typically requires intensive computation because of the multimodal and complex posterior distributions. With the recent development of the JAX-based differentiable binary-lensing modeling package microlux, we present an analysis of two microlensing events with planet/brown-dwarf candidates, KMT-2025-BLG-1314 and KMT-2025-BLG-1392. Both events exhibit the "Close/Wide" degeneracy, and KMT-2025-BLG-1314 suffers from the "Planet/Binary" degeneracy and a recently recognized "Point/Finite" degeneracy among the planetary solutions. For KMT-2025-BLG-1314, the binary mass ratio is $\log q \sim -3.5$ for the planetary solutions and $\log q > -1.5$ for the binary solutions, while for KMT-2025-BLG-1392, we find $\log q \sim -1.3$. We show that for the analysis of KMT-2025-BLG-1314, Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC), enabled by microlux, provides robust parameter inference and outperforms traditional Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods in the presence of bimodal posteriors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.01735 by Andrew Gould, Byeong-Gon Park, Cheongho Han, Chung-Uk Lee, Dan Maoz, Dong-Jin Kim, Haibin Ren, Hongjing Yang, In-Gu Shin, Jennifer C. Yee, Jiyuan Zhang, Kyu-Ha Hwang, Michael D. Albrow, Qiyue Qian, Shude Mao, Sun-Ju Chung, Weicheng Zang, Wei Zhu, Yoon-Hyun Ryu, Yossi Shvartzvald, Youn Kil Jung, Yuchen Tang, Yunyi Tang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Light curve and the best-fit model of the microlensing event KMT-2025-BLG-1314. Different data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The χ 2 distribution projected onto the four planes of (log s, log q, α, log w) space from the grid search result of KMT-2025-BLG-1314. The grid points with ∆χ 2 > 49 are left blank. The different degen￾erate solutions are marked with their names. The gray dashed lines in the (log s, log w) and (log s, log q) panels represent the envelopes with constant value of log q and log w, respectively. The red and b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Trajectory configuration of 10 solutions for KMT-2025-BLG-1314. The red curves denote the caustic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Light curve and the best-fit model of the microlensing event KMT-2025-BLG-1392. The bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trajectory configuration of the event KMT-2025-BLG-1392. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Color magnitude diagram for the two events, constructed from the KMT field stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of posterior sampling between ensemble MCMC sampler ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_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.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Microlensing Detection and Inference via Learned Bayes Factors

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A unified transformer-based pipeline detects 99.9% of recoverable simulated microlensing events and outperforms literature hard cuts in the short-duration finite-source regime with amortized neural posterior inference.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D., Boyajian, T

    Adams, A. D., Boyajian, T. S., & von Braun, K. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3608 13

    2018

  2. [2]

    Alard, C., & Lupton, R. H. 1998, ApJ, 503, 325 4

    1998

  3. [3]

    D., Horne, K., Bramich, D

    Albrow, M. D., Horne, K., Bramich, D. M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 2099 4

    2009

  4. [4]

    An, J. H. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1409 2, 6, 10 Bartoli´c, F. 2023, Probabilistic Modelling of Astrophysical Time Series : Gravitational Microlensing and Occultation Mapping of Planets and Moons, Thesis, The University of St Andrews 3

    2005

  5. [5]

    P., Bond, I

    Bennett, D. P., Bond, I. A., Udalski, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 663 12

    2008

  6. [6]

    C., Feltzing, S., et al

    Bensby, T., Yee, J. C., Feltzing, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A147 13

    2013

  7. [7]

    Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., & Shah, V . B. 2017, SIAM Review, 59, 65 3

    2017

  8. [8]

    P., Jankowiak, M., et al

    Bingham, E., Chen, J. P., Jankowiak, M., et al. 2019, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 20, 28:1 16 18

    2019

  9. [9]

    2010, MNRAS, 408, 2188 3, 5

    Bozza, V . 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2188 3, 5

    2010

  10. [10]

    2024, A&A, 688, A83 2

    Bozza, V . 2024, A&A, 688, A83 2

    2024

  11. [11]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 5157 3, 5

    Bozza, V ., Bachelet, E., Bartoli´c, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5157 3, 5

    2018

  12. [12]

    2025, A&A, 694, A219 3, 5

    Bozza, V ., Saggese, V ., Covone, G., Rota, P., & Zhang, J. 2025, A&A, 694, A219 3, 5

    2025

  13. [13]

    2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs 3

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs 3

    2018

  14. [14]

    M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F

    Brown, T. M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 1031 3

    2013

  15. [15]

    2024, BlackJAX: Composable Bayesian inference in JAX, arXiv:2402.10797 3

    Cabezas, A., Corenflos, A., Lao, J., & Louf, R. 2024, BlackJAX: Composable Bayesian inference in JAX, arXiv:2402.10797 3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    D., et al

    Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M. D., et al. 2017, Journal of Statistical Software, 76, 1 3

    2017

  17. [17]

    1984, A&A, 132, 168 6

    Chang, K., & Refsdal, S. 1984, A&A, 132, 168 6

    1984

  18. [18]

    Y ., Shin, I

    Choi, J. Y ., Shin, I. G., Han, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 48 7

    2012

  19. [19]

    L., McElroy, D

    Christiansen, J. L., McElroy, D. L., Harbut, M., et al. 2025, Planetary Science Journal, 6, 186 2

    2025

  20. [20]

    2005, ApJ, 630, 535 6

    Chung, S.-J., Han, C., Park, B.-G., et al. 2005, ApJ, 630, 535 6

    2005

  21. [21]

    2011, A&A, 529, A75 5, 6

    Claret, A., & Bloemen, S. 2011, A&A, 529, A75 5, 6

    2011

  22. [22]

    1999, A&A, 349, 108 2, 6, 8, 10

    Dominik, M. 1999, A&A, 349, 108 2, 6, 8, 10

    1999

  23. [23]

    A., Gould, A., et al

    Dong, S., Bond, I. A., Gould, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1826 6

    2009

  24. [24]

    D., Pendleton, B

    Duane, S., Kennedy, A. D., Pendleton, B. J., & Roweth, D. 1987, Physics Letters B, 195, 216 2

    1987

  25. [25]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 16

    2013

  26. [26]

    2012, Computational Optimization and Applications, 51, 259 5

    Gao, F., & Han, L. 2012, Computational Optimization and Applications, 51, 259 5

    2012

  27. [27]

    Gaudi, B. S. 1998, ApJ, 506, 533 5

    1998

  28. [28]

    S., & Gould, A

    Gaudi, B. S., & Gould, A. 1997, ApJ, 486, 85 2

    1997

  29. [29]

    S., Bennett, D

    Gaudi, B. S., Bennett, D. P., Udalski, A., et al. 2008, Science, 319, 927 2

    2008

  30. [30]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.06693 2

    Ge, J., Zhang, H., Zang, W., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.06693 2

    arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457 17 Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P.-E., G¨ansicke, B. T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4570 14

    1992

  32. [32]

    1992, ApJ, 392, 442 2, 8

    Gould, A. 1992, ApJ, 392, 442 2, 8

    1992

  33. [33]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 785 4, 8

    Gould, A. 2000, ApJ, 542, 785 4, 8

    2000

  34. [34]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.12501 9

    Gould, A. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.12501 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    1992, ApJ, 396, 104 2

    Gould, A., & Loeb, A. 1992, ApJ, 396, 104 2

    1992

  36. [36]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 133 2

    Gould, A., Zang, W.-C., Mao, S., & Dong, S.-B. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 133 2

    2021

  37. [37]

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

    Gould, A., Jung, Y . K., Hwang, K.-H., et al. 2022, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 55, 173 2

    2022

  38. [38]

    1992, ApJ, 397, 362 2

    Griest, K., & Hu, W. 1992, ApJ, 397, 362 2

    1992

  39. [39]

    1998, ApJ, 500, 37 2, 10

    Griest, K., & Safizadeh, N. 1998, ApJ, 500, 37 2, 10

    1998

  40. [40]

    2019, CMA-ES/pycma on Github, Zenodo, DOI:10.5281/zenodo.2559634 5

    Hansen, N., Akimoto, Y ., & Baudis, P. 2019, CMA-ES/pycma on Github, Zenodo, DOI:10.5281/zenodo.2559634 5

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.2559634 2019

  41. [41]

    D., & Gelman, A

    Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1111.4246 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    A., Watson, A

    Holtzman, J. A., Watson, A. M., Baum, W. A., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1946 12

    1998

  43. [43]

    L., Bell, R

    Houdashelt, M. L., Bell, R. A., & Sweigart, A. V . 2000, AJ, 119, 1448 13 19

    2000

  44. [44]

    H., Choi, J

    Hwang, K. H., Choi, J. Y ., Bond, I. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 55 6

    2013

  45. [45]

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

    Jung, Y . K., Zang, W., Han, C., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 262 9

    2022

  46. [46]

    M., & Kenyon, S

    Kennedy, G. M., & Kenyon, S. J. 2008, ApJ, 673, 502 15

    2008

  47. [47]

    2018b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1806.07545 3

    Kim, H.-W., Hwang, K.-H., Shvartzvald, Y ., et al. 2018b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1806.07545 3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    2016, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 49, 37 2

    Kim, S.-L., Lee, C.-U., Park, B.-G., et al. 2016, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 49, 37 2

    2016

  49. [49]

    Kiziltan, B., Kottas, A., De Yoreo, M., & Thorsett, S. E. 2013, ApJ, 778, 66 14

    2013

  50. [50]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231 14

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231 14

    2001

  51. [51]

    Y ., Lu, J

    Lam, C. Y ., Lu, J. R., Udalski, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, L23 2

    2022

  52. [52]

    2026, AJ, 171, 41 3

    Li, H., Zhang, J., Han, C., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 41 3

    2026

  53. [53]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 1565 2

    Liebig, C., D’Ago, G., Bozza, V ., & Dominik, M. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1565 2

    2015

  54. [54]

    1991, ApJ, 374, L37 2

    Mao, S., & Paczynski, B. 1991, ApJ, 374, L37 2

    1991

  55. [55]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.02639 3, 5 Mr´oz, P., Udalski, A., & Gould, A

    Miyazaki, S., & Kawahara, H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.02639 3, 5 Mr´oz, P., Udalski, A., & Gould, A. 2022, ApJ, 937, L24 2 Mr´oz, P., , A., Skowron, J., et al. 2017, Nature, 548, 183 2

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    M., Gould, A., Fouqu´e, P., et al

    Nataf, D. M., Gould, A., Fouqu´e, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 88 13

    2013

  57. [57]

    2011, in Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo, ed

    Neal, R. 2011, in Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo, ed. S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. Jones, & X.-L

    2011

  58. [58]

    A., & Mead, R

    Nelder, J. A., & Mead, R. 1965, The Computer Journal, 7, 308 5

    1965

  59. [59]

    2020, A&A, 638, A94 14

    Olejak, A., Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., & Sobolewska, M. 2020, A&A, 638, A94 14

    2020

  60. [60]

    1986, ApJ, 304, 1 4

    Paczynski, B. 1986, ApJ, 304, 1 4

    1986

  61. [61]

    T., Gaudi, B

    Penny, M. T., Gaudi, B. S., Kerins, E., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 3 2

    2019

  62. [62]

    2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554 3, 16

    Phan, D., Pradhan, N., & Jankowiak, M. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554 3, 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    2025, AJ, 169, 170 3, 5

    Ren, H., & Zhu, W. 2025, AJ, 169, 170 3, 5

    2025

  64. [64]

    C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al

    Sahu, K. C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 83 2

    2022

  65. [65]

    2008, Experimental Astronomy, 22, 51 2

    Sako, T., Sekiguchi, T., Sasaki, M., et al. 2008, Experimental Astronomy, 22, 51 2

    2008

  66. [66]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 4089 2

    Shvartzvald, Y ., Maoz, D., Udalski, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4089 2

    2016

  67. [67]

    P., et al

    Sumi, T., Koshimoto, N., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 108 2

    2023

  68. [68]

    K., Bennett, D

    Terry, S. K., Bennett, D. P., Bhattacharya, A., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 217 8

    2022

  69. [69]

    B., & Crotts, A

    Tomaney, A. B., & Crotts, A. P. S. 1996, AJ, 112, 2872 4

    1996

  70. [70]

    K., & Szyma´nski, G

    Udalski, A., Szyma´nski, M. K., & Szyma´nski, G. 2015, Acta Astronomica, 65, 1 2

    2015

  71. [71]

    2021, Bayesian Analysis, 16, 667 17

    Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., Simpson, D., Carpenter, B., & B¨urkner, P.-C. 2021, Bayesian Analysis, 16, 667 17

    2021

  72. [72]

    2025, ApJS, 276, 40 5

    Wang, S., Wang, L., & Dong, S. 2025, ApJS, 276, 40 5

    2025

  73. [73]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 025006 2

    Yan, S., & Zhu, W. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 025006 2

    2022

  74. [74]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 1894 4

    Yang, H., Zang, W., Gould, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1894 4

    2022

  75. [75]

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

    Yang, H., Yee, J. C., Hwang, K.-H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 11 4

    2024

  76. [76]

    C., Zhang, J., et al

    Yang, H., Yee, J. C., Zhang, J., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 295 4

    2025

  77. [77]

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

    Yee, J. C., Shvartzvald, Y ., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 102 4

    2012

  78. [78]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 239 3 20

    Zang, W., Han, C., Kondo, I., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 239 3 20

    2021

  79. [79]

    K., Yee, J

    Zang, W., Jung, Y . K., Yee, J. C., et al. 2025, Science, 388, 400 2

    2025

  80. [80]

    2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.13276 7, 15

    Zhang, J., Zang, W., Udalski, A., et al. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.13276 7, 15

    arXiv

Showing first 80 references.