Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 83 references

KMT-2016-BLG-1836Lb: A Super-Jovian Planet From A High-Cadence Microlensing Field

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 1-day bump in a microlensing light curve is a 2.2-Jupiter-mass planet around a small, distant star.

desk verdict A competent super-Jovian microlensing discovery whose planet interpretation rests on single-band data; valuable but needs a V-band joint fit before the 1L2S alternative is closed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10011 v2 pith:DRNE2L6F submitted 2019-08-27 astro-ph.EP

Hongjing Yang , Xiangyu Zhang , Kyu-Ha Hwang , Weicheng Zang , Andrew Gould , Tianshu Wang , Shude Mao , Michael D. Albrow
show 19 more authors
Sun-Ju Chung Cheongho Han Youn Kil Jung Yoon-Hyun Ryu In-Gu Shin Yossi Shvartzvald Jennifer C. Yee Wei Zhu Matthew T. Penny Pascal Fouqué Sang-Mok Cha Dong-Jin Kim Hyoun-Woo Kim Seung-Lee Kim Chung-Uk Lee Dong-Joo Lee Yongseok Lee Byeong-Gon Park Richard W. Pogge
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords gravitationalmicrolensingexoplanetssuper-JovianplanetmassratioGalacticbulgeplanetaryanomalybinary-sourcedegeneracyhigh-cadencesurvey
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

The paper reports a gravitationally lensed bump in the otherwise smooth brightening of a background star, and argues that it is the signal of a planet roughly 2.2 times Jupiter's mass orbiting a low-mass star about 7 kiloparsecs away. The claim is built from high-cadence light-curve data that caught a planetary perturbation lasting about a day, with a planet-host mass ratio of $q \sim 0.004$. The authors show that a binary-source star cannot explain the anomaly as well as a planet does, and they convert the dimensionless light-curve fit into physical masses and distance using a Galactic model. The discovery matters because it adds a cold giant planet beyond the snow line to the microlensing census, and it hints at a gap in the planet-to-star mass-ratio distribution that planet-formation theory may explain.

What carries the argument

The central object is the planet-host mass ratio $q$, read directly from the light curve through binary-lens microlensing theory. In this theory a planetary companion creates a caustic or cusp-approach feature whose duration scales roughly as $t_{\rm E}\,\sqrt{q}$; here $q \approx 0.004$ turns a roughly 55-day event into the observed one-day perturbation. The argument is carried by fitting competing models, with the binary-lens planetary model winning over the binary-source model by $\Delta\chi^2 \approx 38$, and then by a Bayesian weighting over a Galactic model, an initial mass function, and the measured source angular radius $\theta_*$ to convert the dimensionless fit into masses, distance, and projected separation.

What would settle it

High-resolution imaging of KMT-2016-BLG-1836 in the late 2020s, when the lens and source should be separated by roughly 40 milliarcseconds, can measure the lens's light directly and compare its brightness and motion with the Bayesian prediction of a roughly 0.5 solar-mass star at about 7 kiloparsecs; a disagreement would show that the prior-dominated masses are wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the microlensing event KMT-2016-BLG-1836, a roughly one-day perturbation near the peak of an otherwise ordinary point-lens light curve is best explained as a planetary companion with mass ratio $q \approx 0.004$ to its host star. The paper favors the 'wide' binary-lens solution over the 'close' solution, and disfavors the binary-source (1L2S) interpretation by $\Delta\chi^2 \approx 38$. Adding microlens parallax does not significantly improve the fit. A Bayesian analysis that weights the surviving solutions by their $ chi^2$ and by a Galactic model yields a host mass of $0.49^{+0.38}_{-0.25}\,M_\odot$, a planet mass of $2.2^{+1.9}_{-1.1}\,M_{\rm J}$, a distance of $7.1^{+0.8}_{-2.4}\,{\rm kpc}$, and a projected planet-host separation of $3.5^{+1.1}_{-0.9}\,{\rm AU}$, placing the planet beyond the snow line of what is probably an M or K dwarf.

Load-bearing premise

The reported mass and distance are not measured directly; they come from a Bayesian average over a model of the Milky Way's stellar density, velocities, and masses, so if that model misrepresents the lens population, the physical properties of the planet shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the planet is real, a cold giant planet exists beyond the snow line of a small M/K dwarf star, reinforcing that such stars can host Jupiter-class planets at wide orbits.
  • The apparent gap in the KMTNet mass-ratio distribution near $\log q \approx -3.7$ to $-3.0$ would match the predicted scarcity of roughly 30 to 100 Earth-mass cores from runaway core accretion, providing a test of planet-formation theory.
  • High-cadence survey observations alone can discover and characterize such planets without follow-up telescopes, which improves the completeness of the microlensing planet census.
  • Future adaptive-optics imaging can potentially measure the lens brightness and break the remaining close/wide degeneracy, turning the prior-dominated mass and distance estimates into direct measurements.
  • The close/wide degeneracy leaves two possible projected separations, and a resolved lens would choose between them, pinning down the orbital configuration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because neither the Einstein radius nor the microlens parallax is measured, the quoted masses and distance come largely from the assumed Galactic model and stellar initial mass function; the firm result is the mass ratio, not the physical masses.
  • The apparent 'mass-ratio desert' may well be a publication artifact, since the paper notes that incompleteness from unpublished events could create the gap; a completeness-corrected reanalysis of the same survey season would settle this without waiting for new data.
  • If other high-cadence microlensing events show the same gap, the feature would become a strong test of planet-formation models; if not, it will fade once selection and detection biases are modeled fully.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports the discovery and characterization of the microlensing planet KMT-2016-BLG-1836Lb, with a planet-host mass ratio q ≈ 0.004. The analysis uses KMTNet high-cadence observations, mostly in I band, with a small fraction of V-band images used for color measurement. A 2L1S grid search yields four minima; the best 'Wide' solution (s ≈ 1.3) is preferred over the 'Close' solution by Δχ² ≈ 16, over the two remaining solutions by Δχ² ≳ 235, and over a 1L2S binary-source model by Δχ² ≈ 38 in I band. Because neither θ_E nor π_E is unambiguously measured, a Bayesian analysis with a Galactic model gives M_host = 0.49(+0.38/−0.25) M_Sun, M_planet = 2.2(+1.9/−1.1) M_J, D_L = 7.1(+0.8/−2.4) kpc, and projected separation r_perp = 3.5(+1.1/−0.9) AU. CFHT imaging shows that the blended light is from unrelated stars. The paper also discusses a possible 'mass ratio desert' in the published KMTNet sample, with explicit caveats about detection efficiency and publication bias.

Significance. If the planetary interpretation holds, this is a well-characterized super-Jovian planet found by a high-cadence survey, adding to the growing KMTNet sample and to the microlensing mass-ratio distribution. The paper has several strengths: it explicitly treats the close-wide degeneracy, tests microlensing parallax, considers the 1L2S binary-source alternative, checks the blend with CFHT images, and is transparent about the prior-dominated nature of the physical-parameter estimates and about the preliminary status of the mass-ratio desert. The core detection, the mass ratio q ≈ 0.004, is supported by a stable MCMC solution and a clear anomaly in the light curve. The main weaknesses are the absence of a V-band test of the 1L2S hypothesis and the presentation of prior-dependent physical parameters in the abstract without the caveats given in the text.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Table 3; §2] The exclusion of the binary-source (1L2S) model is a single-band result. Section 2 states that about 10% of KMTC and 5% of KMTS images are in V-band, and Section 4.1 uses those data only for the CMD; Section 3.2's Eqs. (4)-(5) define a wavelength-dependent flux ratio qf,λ, and Table 3 reports qf,I only. Because a second source with a different V-I color would produce a V-band bump different from the achromatic 2L1S prediction, the Δχ² ≈ 38 in I band does not by itself rule out 1L2S. I recommend a joint I+V fit with free qf,V, or a quantitative statement of why the V-band data cannot constrain it, especially because the 1L2S solution has u0,2 ≈ 0.002, a nearly perfect alignment of the second source.
  2. [§5.1, Eqs. (10)-(11), Table 4; Abstract] The reported physical parameters are prior-dominated. The text states that neither θ_E nor π_E is unambiguously measured, Table 1 gives only upper limits on ρ (≤ 2.0 × 10^-3 and ≤ 2.8 × 10^-3), and Table 2 shows parallax values consistent with zero within 1σ. Consequently M_host = 0.49(+0.38/−0.25) M_Sun, M_planet = 2.2(+1.9/−1.1) M_J, D_L = 7.1(+0.8/−2.4) kpc, and r_perp = 3.5(+1.1/−0.9) AU are largely outputs of the adopted Galactic model, Kroupa IMF capped at 1.3 M_Sun, and the Gaia proper-motion prior, rather than direct measurements. The Abstract presents 'super-Jovian M_planet = 2.2...' and 'beyond the snowline' without this caveat. I request either a sensitivity test of the posteriors to the priors or a clear statement in the Abstract that these values are prior-dependent; the mass ratio q ≈ 0.004 itself is not affected.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] The labels in the sentence 'we label them by "Close" (solution B, s < 1) and "Wide" (solution A, s > 1)' are reversed relative to Table 1, where solution A has s = 0.90 and solution B has s = 1.29; swap the labels.
  2. [§3.1] The sentence 'we fix logq, logs, ρ = 0.001, and free t0, u0, tE, α' lists α both as a fixed grid coordinate and as a free parameter; please clarify which parameters are varied at each stage.
  3. [§6] The claim that the mass-ratio desert 'cannot be caused by the detection efficiency of KMTNet because eight planets with logq < −3.7 have been detected' is too strong, since detection efficiency in a narrow intermediate-q range need not be bracketed by detections at lower q; the subsequent acknowledgement of publication bias is more cautious and should be reflected in this sentence.
  4. [§3.1, Table 2] The statement that the east component of the parallax vector is 'well constrained' is not supported by Table 2, where πE,E ≈ 0.08 ± 0.08 for W+ and comparable for other solutions; consider rephrasing to something like 'less poorly constrained than πE,N'.
  5. [References] The reference entry for Mróz et al. (2017) contains a stray 'and' in the author list ('Han, C., and, et al.').
  6. [Figure 5 caption] The caption phrase 'Accumulate 2' should probably read 'Cumulative Δχ²' or 'Accumulated χ²'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the light-curve fit, 1L2S exclusion, and Bayesian posteriors do not reduce to fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that KMT-2016-BLG-1836 shows a q~0.004 binary-lens anomaly, comes from an MCMC grid search over standard 2L1S parameters (Section 3.1), with the 1L2S alternative explicitly tested and rejected by Delta-chi^2 ~ 38 (Section 3.2). The 1L2S rejection is a single-band (I) test, since V-band data are used only for the CMD (Section 4.1), but that is a robustness limitation, not a circular reduction: the planet model is not defined in terms of the 1L2S fit, nor vice versa. The physical parameters in Section 5.1 are derived by weighting simulated events from the external Galactic model of Zhu et al. (2017) with likelihoods of the measured t_E, pi_E, and theta_*; although Wei Zhu is a coauthor, the Galactic model is an independent prior, not fitted to this event, and the paper explicitly states that neither theta_E nor pi_E is unambiguously measured, so the Bayesian output is presented as prior-dependent rather than as a prediction forced by the data. The 'mass ratio desert' in Section 6 is an explicitly caveated sample description: the authors state that the sample may suffer publication bias and that verification requires a full statistical analysis including detection efficiency and selection biases, so no derived quantity is disguised as an independent result. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain, and the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks for the core detection, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The microlensing model parameters are fitted to the light curve and are standard observational quantities; no new physical entity is introduced. The Bayesian physical parameter estimates are the main place where external priors (Galactic model, IMF, source proper motion) enter, and those are listed as domain assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • q (planet-host mass ratio) = about 0.004 (3.8 to 4.6 times 10^-3 depending on solution)
    Fitted to the light-curve anomaly; this is the central discovery parameter.
  • s (projected separation in Einstein radii) = about 1.30 for Wide, 0.89 for Close
    Fitted; the close-wide degeneracy is not resolved.
  • t_E (Einstein timescale) = about 50 to 56 days
    Fitted; used in the Bayesian weighting and in estimating physical scale.
  • rho (normalized source radius) = upper limit 2.0 to 2.8 times 10^-3
    Only an upper limit; without a measured rho, theta_E is not determined and physical parameters rely on priors.
  • theta_* (source angular radius) = 0.32 to 0.34 microarcsec
    Derived from CMD and color-surface brightness relation; enters the Bayesian likelihood for theta_E.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard point-lens and binary-lens microlensing magnification equations
    Used throughout Section 3; these are established in the cited literature.
  • domain assumption Galactic model of Zhu et al. (2017) as the prior for lens populations
    Section 5.1 uses this model to generate simulated events and weight the MCMC results; the physical parameter posteriors inherit this prior.
  • domain assumption Kroupa (2001) initial mass function with upper mass cutoff at 1.3 M_sun
    Section 5.1; the assumed IMF drives the host mass distribution and hence the planet mass estimates.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR2 based source proper motion prior derived from bulge red giants
    Section 4.2; the source proper motion is unmeasurable directly, so a Gaussian from nearby bulge stars is used in the Bayesian weighting.
  • domain assumption Snowline distance relation r_SL = 2.7 (M/M_sun) AU
    Section 5.1; used to interpret the projected separation as beyond the snowline, not needed for the detection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of KMT-2016-BLG-1836Lb: A Super-Jovian Planet From A High-Cadence Microlensing Field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DRNE2L6F

@misc{pith2026190810011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: KMT-2016-BLG-1836Lb: A Super-Jovian Planet From A High-Cadence Microlensing Field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DRNE2L6F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10011}
}
read the original abstract

We report the discovery of a super-Jovian planet in the microlensing event KMT-2016-BLG-1836, which was found by the Korea Microlensing Telescope Network's high-cadence observations (\Gamma ~ 4~{hr}^{-1}). The planet-host mass ratio q ~ 0.004. A Bayesian analysis indicates that the planetary system is composed of a super-Jovian M_{planet} = 2.2_{-1.1}^{+1.9} M_{J} planet orbiting an M or K dwarf M_{\rm host} = 0.49_{-0.25}^{+0.38} M_{Sun}, at a distance of D_{L} = 7.1_{-2.4}^{+0.8} kpc. The projected planet-host separation is 3.5^{+1.1}_{-0.9} AU, implying that the planet is located beyond the snowline of the host star. Future high-resolution images can potentially strongly constrain the lens brightness and thus the mass and distance of the planetary system. Without considering detailed detection efficiency, selection or publication biases, we find a potential "mass ratio desert" at -3.7 \lesssim \log q \lesssim -3.0 for the 31 published KMTNet planets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10011 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The data of KMT-2016-BLG-1836 together with the best-fit models of the binary-lens “Wide”, binary-lens “Close”, and binary￾source (1L2S) model. The upper panel shows a zoom of the anomaly. The residuals for each model are shown separately. The light curve and data have been calibrated to standard I-band magnitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. χ 2 surface in the (log s, log q) plane drawn from the grid search. The upper panel shows the space that is equally divided on a (21×51) grid with ranges of −1.0 ≤ log s ≤ 1.0 and −5.0 ≤ log q ≤ 0, respectively. The lower panel shows the space that is equally divided on a (61 × 41) grid with ranges of −0.3 ≤ log s ≤ 0.3 and −5.0 ≤ log q ≤ −1.0, respectively. The labels “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” in the lower panel show f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Magnification maps of the standard “Wide” (upper panel) and “Close” (lower panel) models shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Likelihood distributions for πE derived from MCMC for W± and C± solutions (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative distribution of χ 2 differences (∆χ 2 = χ 2 model − χ 2 Wide) between the “Close”, binary-source (1L2S), and the “Wide” models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Color-magnitude diagram of a 2×2 square centered on KMT-2016-BLG-1836. The black dots show the stars from pyDIA photometry of KMTC02 data which are calibrated to OGLE-III star catalog (Szymanski et al. ´ 2011), and the green dots show the HST CMD of Holtzman et al. (19…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bayesian posterior distributions of the lens host-mass Mhost for each solution of C± and W± (top two rows) and the combined distributions for C± and W± (bottom row). In each panel, the red solid vertical line represents the median value and the two red dashed lines rep…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Bayesian posterior distributions of the lens distance DL. The plot is similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The combined Bayesian distributions of the lens host-mass Mhost, the lens distance DL, the planet-mass Mplanet, and the projected separation r⊥ of the planet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: i-band CFHT images within 4.9 00 × 3.0 00 around the event. The red cross indicates the source position derived from an astrometric transformation of the highly magnified KMTC02 images. The blue and magenta crosses indicate the I = 18.18±0.02 star and I = 19.43±0.05 s…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cumulative distributions of 31 published KMTNet microlensing planets from 2016–2018 by log q (upper panel) and 13 published KMTNet microlensing planets from 2016 by log q (lower panel). In each panel, the red and green lines represent the distributions for planets obs…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    a! / C>q Eߒ_`! / C>qH85 U&-e`' F-

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    D., Boyajian , T

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

    2018

  3. [3]

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

    1998

  4. [4]

    D., Horne , K., Bramich , D

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

    2009

  5. [5]

    P., et al

    Batista , V., Beaulieu , J.-P., Bennett , D. P., et al. 2015, , 808, 170

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    P., Bond , I

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

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

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

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

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    C., Feltzing , S., et al

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

    work page 2013

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    P., Bennett , D

    Bhattacharya , A., Beaulieu , J. P., Bennett , D. P., et al. 2018, , 156, 289

    2018

  2. [10]

    A., Udalski , A., Jaroszy \'n ski , M., et al

    Bond , I. A., Udalski , A., Jaroszy \'n ski , M., et al. 2004, , 606, L155

    2004

  3. [11]

    2015, , 804, 20

    Calchi Novati , S., Gould , A., Udalski , A., et al. 2015, , 804, 20

    2015

  4. [12]

    K., et al

    Calchi Novati , S., Skowron , J., Jung , Y. K., et al. 2018, , 155, 261

    2018

  5. [13]

    2019, , 157, 121

    Calchi Novati , S., Suzuki , D., Udalski , A., et al. 2019, , 157, 121

    2019

  6. [14]

    1999, , 349, 108

    Dominik , M. 1999, , 349, 108

    1999

  7. [15]

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

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

    2013

  8. [16]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  9. [17]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1

    2018

  10. [18]

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

    1998

  11. [19]

    1992, , 392, 442

    Gould , A. 1992, , 392, 442

    1992

  12. [20]

    2000, , 542, 785

    ---. 2000, , 542, 785

    2000

  13. [21]

    2013, Spitzer Microlens Planets and Parallaxes , Spitzer Proposal, ,

    Gould , A., Carey , S., & Yee , J. 2013, Spitzer Microlens Planets and Parallaxes , Spitzer Proposal, ,

    2013

  14. [22]

    2014, Galactic Distribution of Planets from Spitzer Microlens Parallaxes , Spitzer Proposal, ,

    ---. 2014, Galactic Distribution of Planets from Spitzer Microlens Parallaxes , Spitzer Proposal, ,

    2014

  15. [23]

    2016, Galactic Distribution of Planets Spitzer Microlens Parallaxes , Spitzer Proposal, ,

    ---. 2016, Galactic Distribution of Planets Spitzer Microlens Parallaxes , Spitzer Proposal, ,

    2016

  16. [24]

    2013, , 779, L28

    Gould , A., & Horne , K. 2013, , 779, L28

    2013

  17. [25]

    1992, , 396, 104

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

    1992

  18. [26]

    2015 a , Degeneracy Breaking for K2 Microlens Parallaxes , Spitzer Proposal, ,

    Gould , A., Yee , J., & Carey , S. 2015 a , Degeneracy Breaking for K2 Microlens Parallaxes , Spitzer Proposal, ,

    2015

  19. [27]

    2015 b , Galactic Distribution of Planets From High-Magnification Microlensing Events , Spitzer Proposal, ,

    ---. 2015 b , Galactic Distribution of Planets From High-Magnification Microlensing Events , Spitzer Proposal, ,

    2015

  20. [28]

    2018, The Galactic Distribution of Planets via Spitzer Microlensing Parallax , Spitzer Proposal, ,

    Gould , A., Yee , J., Carey , S., & Shvartzvald , Y. 2018, The Galactic Distribution of Planets via Spitzer Microlensing Parallax , Spitzer Proposal, ,

    2018

  21. [29]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.11183

    Gould , A., Ryu , Y.-H., Calchi Novati , S., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.11183

    2019

  22. [30]

    1998, , 500, 37

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

    1998

  23. [31]

    2002, , 564, 1015

    Han , C. 2002, , 564, 1015

    2002

  24. [32]

    2017 a , , 154, 133

    Han , C., Udalski , A., Gould , A., et al. 2017 a , , 154, 133

    2017

  25. [33]

    2017 b , , 154, 223

    ---. 2017 b , , 154, 223

    2017

  26. [34]

    A., Gould , A., et al

    Han , C., Bond , I. A., Gould , A., et al. 2018 a , , 156, 226

    2018

  27. [35]

    2018 b , , 155, 211

    Han , C., Hirao , Y., Udalski , A., et al. 2018 b , , 155, 211

    2018

  28. [36]

    2019 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1911.11953

    Han , C., Udalski , A., Gould , A., et al. 2019 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1911.11953

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    P., Udalski , A., et al

    Han , C., Bennett , D. P., Udalski , A., et al. 2019 b , , 158, 114

    2019

  30. [38]

    2019 c , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.04854

    Han , C., Lee , C.-U., Udalski , A., et al. 2019 c , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.04854

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    C., Udalski , A., et al

    Han , C., Yee , J. C., Udalski , A., et al. 2019 d , , 158, 102

    2019

  32. [40]

    B., Gaudi , B

    Henderson , C. B., Gaudi , B. S., Han , C., et al. 2014, , 794, 52

    2014

  33. [41]

    B., Poleski , R., Penny , M., et al

    Henderson , C. B., Poleski , R., Penny , M., et al. 2016, , 128, 124401

    2016

  34. [42]

    A., Watson , A

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

    1998

  35. [43]

    H., Kim , H

    Hwang , K. H., Kim , H. W., Kim , D. J., et al. 2018 a , Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 51, 197

    2018

  36. [44]

    2018 b , , 155, 20

    Hwang , K.-H., Udalski , A., Shvartzvald , Y., et al. 2018 b , , 155, 20

    2018

  37. [45]

    2019, , 157, 23

    Hwang , K.-H., Ryu , Y.-H., Kim , H.-W., et al. 2019, , 157, 23

    2019

  38. [46]

    Ida , S., & Lin , D. N. C. 2004, , 604, 388

    2004

  39. [47]

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

    Jung , Y. K., Hwang , K.-H., Ryu , Y.-H., et al. 2018 a , , 156, 208

    2018

  40. [48]

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

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

    2018

  41. [49]

    K., Gould , A., Zang , W., et al

    Jung , Y. K., Gould , A., Zang , W., et al. 2019 a , , 157, 72

    2019

  42. [50]

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

    Jung , Y. K., Gould , A., Udalski , A., et al. 2019 b , , 158, 28

    2019

  43. [51]

    M., & Kenyon , S

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

    2008

  44. [52]

    2018 a , , 155, 76

    Kim , D.-J., Kim , H.-W., Hwang , K.-H., et al. 2018 a , , 155, 76

    2018

  45. [53]

    2018 b , ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1804.03352

    Kim , H.-W., Hwang , K.-H., Kim , D.-J., et al. 2018 b , ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1804.03352

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    2018 c , , 155, 186

    ---. 2018 c , , 155, 186

    2018

  47. [55]

    2016, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 49, 37

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

    2016

  48. [56]

    2001, , 322, 231

    Kroupa , P. 2001, , 322, 231

    2001

  49. [57]

    S., Zang , W., Udalski , A., et al

    Li , S. S., Zang , W., Udalski , A., et al. 2019, , 488, 3308

    2019

  50. [58]

    1991, , 374, L37

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

    1991

  51. [59]

    2017, , 153, 143

    Mr \'o z , P., Han , C., and , et al. 2017, , 153, 143

    2017

  52. [60]

    2019, , 244, 29

    Mr \'o z , P., Udalski , A., Skowron , J., et al. 2019, , 244, 29

    2019

  53. [61]

    M., Gonzalez , O

    Nataf , D. M., Gonzalez , O. A., Casagrande , L., et al. 2016, , 456, 2692

    2016

  54. [62]

    1986, , 304, 1

    Paczy \'n ski , B. 1986, , 304, 1

    1986

  55. [63]

    C., Udalski , A., et al

    Ryu , Y.-H., Yee , J. C., Udalski , A., et al. 2018, , 155, 40

    2018

  56. [64]

    G., Gould , A., et al

    Ryu , Y.-H., Navarro , M. G., Gould , A., et al. 2019 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.04870

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    2019 b , , 158, 151

    Ryu , Y.-H., Hwang , K.-H., Gould , A., et al. 2019 b , , 158, 151

    2019

  58. [66]

    C., et al

    Ryu , Y.-H., Udalski , A., Yee , J. C., et al. 2019 c , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.08148

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    L., Mateo , M., & Saha , A

    Schechter , P. L., Mateo , M., & Saha , A. 1993, , 105, 1342

    1993

  60. [68]

    G., Ryu , Y

    Shin , I. G., Ryu , Y. H., Yee , J. C., et al. 2019, , 157, 146

    2019

  61. [69]

    C., Calchi Novati , S., et al

    Shvartzvald , Y., Yee , J. C., Calchi Novati , S., et al. 2017, , 840, L3

    2017

  62. [70]

    C., Skowron , J., et al

    Shvartzvald , Y., Yee , J. C., Skowron , J., et al. 2019, , 157, 106

    2019

  63. [71]

    2011, , 738, 87

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

    2011

  64. [72]

    2018, , 68, 43

    Skowron , J., Ryu , Y.-H., Hwang , K.-H., et al. 2018, , 68, 43

    2018

  65. [73]

    A., Udalski , A., Calchi Novati , S., et al

    Street , R. A., Udalski , A., Calchi Novati , S., et al. 2016, , 819, 93

    2016

  66. [74]

    P., Bond , I

    Sumi , T., Bennett , D. P., Bond , I. A., et al. 2013, , 778, 150

    2013

  67. [75]

    P., Sumi , T., et al

    Suzuki , D., Bennett , D. P., Sumi , T., et al. 2016, , 833, 145

    2016

  68. [76]

    P., Ida , S., et al

    Suzuki , D., Bennett , D. P., Ida , S., et al. 2018, , 869, L34

    2018

  69. [77]

    K., Udalski , A., Soszy \'n ski , I., et al

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

    2011

  70. [78]

    2005, , 628, L109

    Udalski , A., Jaroszy \'n ski , M., Paczy \'n ski , B., et al. 2005, , 628, L109

    2005

  71. [79]

    2018, , 68, 1

    Udalski , A., Ryu , Y.-H., Sajadian , S., et al. 2018, , 68, 1

    2018

  72. [80]

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

    Yoo , J., DePoy , D. L., Gal-Yam , A., et al. 2004, , 603, 139

    2004

  73. [81]

    2018 a , , 156, 236

    Zang , W., Hwang , K.-H., Kim , H.-W., et al. 2018 a , , 156, 236

    2018

  74. [82]

    T., Zhu , W., et al

    Zang , W., Penny , M. T., Zhu , W., et al. 2018 b , , 130, 104401

    2018

  75. [83]

    2017, , 154, 210

    Zhu , W., Udalski , A., Calchi Novati , S., et al. 2017, , 154, 210

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.