Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

MOA-2022-BLG-091Lb and KMT-2024-BLG-1209Lb: Microlensing planets detected through weak caustic-crossing signals

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two weak caustic-crossing signals in microlensing events reveal giant planets two to four times Jupiter's mass.

desk verdict Two new giant-planet microlensing candidates, one solid and one that needs a 1L2S/outlier check before the planetary claim is secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22951 v1 pith:VEEF3VQM submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

Cheongho Han , Chung-Uk Lee , Andrzej Udalski , Ian A. Bond , Hongjing Yang , Michael D. Albrow , Sun-Ju Chung , Andrew Gould
show 61 more authors
Youn Kil Jung Kyu-Ha Hwang Yoon-Hyun Ryu Yossi Shvartzvald In-Gu Shin Jennifer C. Yee Weicheng Zang Tanagodchaporn Inyanya Sang-Mok Cha Doeon Kim Dong-Jin Kim Seung-Lee Kim Dong-Joo Lee Yongseok Lee Byeong-Gon Park Richard W. Pogge Przemek Mróz Micha{l} K. Szymański Jan Skowron Rados{l}aw Poleski Igor Soszyński Pawe{l} Pietrukowicz Szymon Koz{l}owski Krzysztof A. Rybicki Patryk Iwanek Krzysztof Ulaczyk Marcin Wrona Mariusz Gromadzki Mateusz J. Mróz Micha{l} Jaroszyński Marcin Kiraga Fumio Abe Ken Bando David P. Bennett Aparna Bhattacharya Akihiko Fukui Ryusei Hamada Shunya Hamada Naoto Hamasaki Yuki Hirao Stela Ishitani Silva Naoki Koshimoto Yutaka Matsubara Shota Miyazaki Yasushi Muraki Tutumi Nagai Kansuke Nunota Greg Olmschenk Clément Ranc Nicholas J. Rattenbury Yuki Satoh Takahiro Sumi Daisuke Suzuki Sean K. Terry Paul J. Tristram Aikaterini Vandorou Hibiki Yama Yunyi Tang Shude Mao Dan Maoz Wei Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationalmicrolensingexoplanetdetectioncausticcrossingdegeneracygiantplanetsGalacticdiskK-typestarsRomanRGES
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 analyzes two microlensing events whose light curves show nearly identical weak anomalies near their peaks: brief, low-amplitude spikes consistent with the source crossing a caustic but with almost no distortion while the source is inside it. Through binary-lens modeling, the authors conclude that both anomalies are planetary in origin, produced when the source crosses the resonant caustic of a giant planet nearly perpendicular to the planet-host axis. The planets are estimated to be roughly two to four times Jupiter's mass, orbiting early K-type main-sequence stars in the Galactic disk at about 4 kiloparsecs. The analysis also uncovers a previously unrecognized four-solution degeneracy in one event, tied to the uncertain angle of the source trajectory, that is expected to be broken by future space-based microlensing surveys.

What carries the argument

The central object is the resonant (six-cusp) caustic formed when a giant planet sits near the Einstein ring of its host, together with the source trajectory's incidence angle $\alpha$. A trajectory crossing the cusps that are perpendicular to the planet-host axis produces the weak caustic-crossing spikes with minimal in-caustic deviation; different $\alpha$ values give rise to the new four-way degeneracy. For KMT-2024-BLG-1209, the argument is carried by the inner-outer degeneracy relation $\langle s\rangle = \sqrt{s_{\mathrm{in}} s_{\mathrm{out}}} = s^{\dagger} = \sqrt{u_{\mathrm{anom}}^2 + 4} + u_{\mathrm{anom}}$, which the paper verifies numerically and uses to show the two solutions are intrinsically indistinguishable in caustic structure.

What would settle it

A re-reduction of the MOA-2022-BLG-091 images with an independent photometric pipeline, or any archival coverage of the same anomaly region, that shows the single deviant KMTA point and the four KMTC points to be noise or artifacts would eliminate the claimed planetary interpretation; likewise, a future high-cadence observation of a similar weak-caustic event whose spikes are resolved as non-caustic would challenge the identification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the anomalies in MOA-2022-BLG-091 and KMT-2024-BLG-1209, which consist of weak caustic-crossing spikes with minimal in-caustic deviation, are produced by planetary companions rather than by single-lens or stellar-binary configurations. Modeling yields four nearly equally good solutions for the first event and inner-outer degenerate solutions for the second; all solutions have mass ratios q ~ 3-5 x $10^{-3}$, i.e., giant planets, with the source crossing a single resonant caustic at an incidence angle close to right angle. Bayesian estimates place both systems in the Galactic disk at about 4 kpc, with 2-4 Jupiter-mass planets beyond the snow line of early K-type hosts. The paper also claims a new degeneracy type for MOA-2022-BLG-091, arising by chance from similar source trajectories relative to cusps, as opposed to the intrinsic inner-outer degeneracy of the other event.

Load-bearing premise

For MOA-2022-BLG-091 the planetary interpretation hangs on a handful of photometric points - one KMTA point and four KMTC points - being genuine caustic crossings; if those points are corrupted by systematics, the planetary parameters and the new degeneracy would not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Both systems add two giant planets (roughly 2-4 Jupiter masses) to the census of microlensing planets in the Galactic disk, each beyond its host's snow line.
  • The newly identified trajectory-angle degeneracy implies that similar weak-caustic events analyzed with sparse ground-based data may harbor multiple solutions and should not be treated as unique parameter determinations.
  • The MOA-2022-BLG-091 degeneracy is predicted to be lifted by the future Roman RGES survey's continuous high-cadence sampling, providing a testable forecast.
  • The inner-outer degeneracy in KMT-2024-BLG-1209 is intrinsic to the caustic structure and will remain unresolved even with better data, so the planet's separation is only known up to the $\sqrt{}$-relation.
  • The common morphology of the two anomalies suggests a recognizable class of planetary signals - weak caustic crossings near the peak of moderately high magnification events - that future searches can target.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's identification of a chance degeneracy tied to $\alpha$ implies that other published planetary microlensing detections based on sparse caustic spikes could carry similar hidden ambiguities; re-checking archived events for four-way solutions may turn up additional degenerate cases.
  • If the new degeneracy is as common as the two similar anomalies suggest, the Roman survey's cadence will not only resolve this event but also statistically calibrate how often ground-based sampling underdetermines planet-host geometry.
  • The similarity between the two anomalies hints at a selection effect: events viewed almost perpendicular to the planet-host axis are the most likely to show weak, easily missed caustic crossings, so the true rate of such giant planets near the Einstein ring may be higher than current ground-based detection statistics imply.
  • One could test the planetary interpretation further by checking whether the implied relative proper motion and source color/radius are consistent with a single epoch of adaptive-optics or HST imaging resolving the lens-source blended light.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes two microlensing events, MOA-2022-BLG-091 (KMT-2022-BLG-0114) and KMT-2024-BLG-1209 (OGLE-2024-BLG-0777), whose peak-region light curves show similar weak caustic-crossing anomalies. The authors perform a standard 2L1S grid-plus-MCMC modeling search and find, for the first event, four degenerate solutions attributed to a newly proposed cusp-crossing degeneracy, and for the second event, the previously known inner-outer degeneracy. Using Bayesian analysis with a Galactic model, they estimate host masses near 0.75 M_Sun, planet masses of about 2-4 M_Jup, distances around 4 kpc, and disk-dominance probabilities near 87%. The paper concludes that both anomalies are of planetary origin and that the MOA-2022-BLG-091 degeneracy should be resolvable by the Roman RGES survey.

Significance. If the planetary interpretation holds, the paper adds two giant planets around early K-type main-sequence stars and identifies a new class of weak caustic-crossing anomalies. The analysis of KMT-2024-BLG-1209 is reasonably supported: the caustic crossings appear to be resolved (Table 3), and the inner-outer degeneracy check via Eq. (1) is quantitative and appropriate. The paper is also honest about its degenerate solutions and presents the physical parameters with credible intervals. However, the evidence for MOA-2022-BLG-091 is substantially weaker: the anomaly is defined by a single KMTA point and four KMTC points, the four 2L1S solutions are separated by Delta-chi-squared < 6.7, and only an upper limit on the normalized source radius is obtained. Binary-source models and outlier-rejection tests are not reported, so the planetary origin of that event is not uniquely established. The proposed new degeneracy is interesting but needs robustness checks before it can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Fig. 1, Table 2] The planetary-origin claim in Section 8 ('the anomalies in both lensing events indicate a planetary origin') rests, for MOA-2022-BLG-091, on a sparse anomaly: one KMTA point before the peak and four KMTC points after it. With Delta-chi-squared less than 6.7 among four 2L1S solutions and only an upper limit on the normalized source radius, the data do not uniquely constrain a resonant-caustic crossing. The paper does not report a 1L2S (binary-source) model, nor a test with the single KMTA point removed or with the KMTC points checked for systematics. The authors should model these alternatives and quantify the robustness of the four 2L1S solutions; if these alternatives cannot be excluded, the conclusion for this event should be weakened to a candidate planetary anomaly and the physical parameters presented as conditional on the 2L1S model.
  2. [Section 7, Eq. (5), Table 5] The Bayesian posteriors for MOA-2022-BLG-091 are treated on the same footing as those for KMT-2024-BLG-1209, even though the former event has only a lower limit on theta_E (Table 4). Because Eq. (5) is applied with the one-sided constraint theta_E,i > theta_E,min, the median and 16-84 percentile ranges quoted in Table 5 are largely prior-dominated. The text should state this explicitly, show the sensitivity of the posteriors to the adopted mass function and Galactic model, and avoid presenting the physical parameters of the two events as equally secure in the abstract and Section 8.
  3. [Section 4, Fig. 2] The claim of a newly identified four-fold degeneracy for MOA-2022-BLG-091 is not yet fully supported. The four solutions are formally separated by less than 6.7 in chi-squared, but with sparse sampling and an unconstrained source radius, the apparent separation into four distinct alpha values could reflect under-sampling rather than a true four-fold cusp-crossing degeneracy. The authors should demonstrate that the distinct minima are stable under removal of individual anomaly points and under alternative photometric reductions, and should explain which features in the data select these four specific trajectories rather than a continuous family.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] The phrase 'as as positive deviations' should be corrected to 'as positive deviations'.
  2. [Section 8] The event MOA-2022-BLG-091 is referred to as KMT-2022-BLG-0114 in the opening sentence, which is inconsistent with the naming convention stated in Section 2 that the MOA designation is adopted throughout.
  3. [Table 2, Sol D] The uncertainty on u0 for solution D is given as 0.84, which appears to be a decimal typo; the other rows suggest 0.084 was intended.
  4. [Section 3] The sentence 'A planet-induced caustic take different shape' should be 'A planet-induced caustic takes different shapes', and the abstract should use 'space-based' rather than 'space based'.
  5. [Eq. (1)] The notation <s> is defined as the geometric mean in the text, but for readability it would help to also state in words that <s> = sqrt(s_in * s_out) immediately after the equation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the planet interpretation follows from fitted mass ratios, and the physical parameters come from a Bayesian posterior that uses the measured tE and theta_E as constraints, not as outputs of the claim.

full rationale

Walked the claimed derivation chain. The planetary interpretation for each event is a 2L1S model fit to the photometric anomalies: the mass ratio q is a fitted parameter (Tables 2 and 3), and the statement that the companions are planetary follows from q ~ (3-4) x 10^-3, not from any quantity defined in terms of the conclusion. The physical parameters are obtained from a Bayesian posterior (Eq. 5) that uses the independently measured tE and theta_E as likelihood constraints and literature mass-function/Galactic-model priors (Jung et al. 2021, 2022); these priors do not contain the target event's values, so the posterior is not an identity. The inner-outer degeneracy check (Eq. 1, citing Hwang et al. 2022 and Gould et al. 2022) is applied after fitting to verify that the two KMT-2024-BLG-1209 solutions satisfy the known geometric relation; it is not used to generate the solutions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Sparse sampling and the absence of a reported 1L2S model are model-selection/robustness concerns, not circularity. Accordingly no load-bearing circular step is found; score 1 reflects only minor self-citations in prior/model references that are not themselves derived from the target claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard microlensing fitting with prior-dependent Bayesian parameter estimation; no new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the lensing model parameters fitted to the light curves, and the axioms are the standard physical assumptions plus adopted Galactic priors.

free parameters (5)
  • mass ratio q (MOA-2022-BLG-091) = 3.38 to 4.55 x 10^-3 across four solutions
    Fitted to the light curve anomaly; the four degenerate solutions have slightly different q values.
  • separation s (MOA-2022-BLG-091) = 1.0029 to 1.0195
    Fitted to the light curve; all solutions place the planet near the Einstein ring.
  • incidence angle alpha (MOA-2022-BLG-091) = 3.4 to 4.8 rad
    Fitted; the newly identified degeneracy is a four-way ambiguity in this angle.
  • mass ratio q (KMT-2024-BLG-1209) = 2.90 to 3.33 x 10^-3
    Fitted for the inner and outer degenerate solutions.
  • normalized source radius rho (KMT-2024-BLG-1209) = 0.73 to 0.75 x 10^-3
    Fitted from the caustic crossing; for MOA-2022-BLG-091 only an upper limit of 1.5 x 10^-3 is available.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Galactic model priors (Jung et al. 2022) and mass function (Jung et al. 2021) used in Bayesian analysis
    Physical parameters are derived from a Bayesian posterior that weights simulated events from these models; the results depend on these priors.
  • domain assumption RGC intrinsic color and magnitude from Bensby et al. 2013 and Nataf et al. 2013 for source calibration
    Source angular radius and Einstein radius depend on the calibrated source color, which uses the red giant clump reference.
  • standard math 2L1S point-source model with finite source effects
    The light curve modeling assumes a single background source and a binary lens with the standard microlensing formalism.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MOA-2022-BLG-091Lb and KMT-2024-BLG-1209Lb: Microlensing planets detected through weak caustic-crossing signals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VEEF3VQM

@misc{pith2026250522951,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MOA-2022-BLG-091Lb and KMT-2024-BLG-1209Lb: Microlensing planets detected through weak caustic-crossing signals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VEEF3VQM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22951}
}
read the original abstract

The light curves of the microlensing events MOA-2022-BLG-091 and KMT-2024-BLG-1209 exhibit anomalies with very similar features. These anomalies appear near the peaks of the light curves, where the magnifications are moderately high, and are distinguished by weak caustic-crossing features with minimal distortion while the source remains inside the caustic. To achieve a deeper understanding of these anomalies, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the lensing events. We carried out binary-lens modeling with a thorough exploration of the parameter space. This analysis revealed that the anomalies in both events are of planetary origin, although their exact interpretation is complicated by different types of degeneracy. In the case of MOA-2022-BLG-091, the main difficulty in the interpretation of the anomaly arises from a newly identified degeneracy related to the uncertain angle at which the source trajectory intersects the planet-host axis. For KMT-2024-BLG-1209, the interpretation is affected by the previously known inner-outer degeneracy, which leads to ambiguity between solutions in which the source passes through either the inner or outer caustic region relative to the planet host. Bayesian analysis indicates that the planets in both lens systems are giant planets with masses about 2 to 4 times that of Jupiter, orbiting early K-type main-sequence stars. Both systems are likely located in the Galactic disk at a distance of around 4 kiloparsecs. The degeneracy in KMT-2024-BLG-1209 is challenging to resolve because it stems from intrinsic similarities in the caustic structures of the degenerate solutions. In contrast, the degeneracy in MOA-2022-BLG-091, which occurs by chance rather than from inherent characteristics, is expected to be resolved by the future space based Roman RGES microlensing survey.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22951 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Model curves of MOA-2022-BLG-091 in the region around the anomaly. The insets in the top panel provide blowup of the regions around the anomalies induced by the source’s caustic crossings. The lower panels present the residuals corresponding to the four solutions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Configurations of lens system for the four degenerate solutions of MOA-2022-BLG-091. In each panel, the cuspy closed curve repre￾sents the caustic, while the arrowed line denotes the source trajectory. The gray contours surrounding the caustic represent equi-magnification contours. The blue filled circle presents the location of the planet host. sents the caustic, the blue filled circle marks the position of the pla… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ∆χ 2 maps on the log s–log q (left panel) and log s–α for KMT￾2024-BLG-1209. Notations are same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Locations of source stars (blue filled dots) in the instrumen￾tal color-magnitude diagrams for nearby stars around the source stars of MOA-2022-BLG-091 (left panel) and KMT-2024-BLG-1209 (right panel). Also marked are the centroids of red giant clump (RGC, red filled d…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Posterior of the lens mass and distance for KMT-2024-BLG￾1209. Notations are same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., et al

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

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    Y ee, J.C., Feltzing, S

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

    2013

  4. [4]

    S., & Brett, J

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

    1988

  5. [5]

    A., Abe, F., Dodd, R

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

    2001

  6. [6]

    2005, ApJ, 630, 535

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

    2005

  7. [7]

    S, 2012, ARA&A, 50m 411

    Gaudi, B. S, 2012, ARA&A, 50m 411

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    S., & Gould, A

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

    1997

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    1992, ApJ, 396, 104

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

    1992

  2. [10]

    2022, A&A, 664, A13

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

    2022

  3. [11]

    2020, AJ, 159, 91

    Han, C., Udalsk, A., Gould, A., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 91

    2020

  4. [12]

    K., Bond, I

    Han, C., Jung, Y . K., Bond, I. A. 2023, A&A, 675, A36

    2023

  5. [13]

    D., Lee, C.-U., et al

    Han, C., Albrow, M. D., Lee, C.-U., et al. 2024b, A&A, 689, A20 9 Article number, page 8 of 9 Cheongho Han et al.: MOA-2022-BLG-091Lb and KMT-2024-BLG- 1209Lb

    2022

  6. [14]

    A., Jung, Y

    Han, C., Bond, I. A., Jung, Y . K., et al. 2025, A&A, in press, ar Xiv:2501.0

    2025

  7. [15]

    2022, AJ, 163, 43

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

    2022

  8. [16]

    A., Penny, M., Gaudi, B

    Johnson, S. A., Penny, M., Gaudi, B. S., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 1 23

    2020

  9. [17]

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

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

    2021

  10. [18]

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

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

    2022

  11. [19]

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

    Jung, Y . K., Hwang, K.-H., Y ang, H., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 152

    2024

  12. [20]

    2004, A&A, 426, 29

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

    2004

  13. [21]

    2021, AJ, 162, 15

    Kim, H.-W., Hwang, K.-H., Gould, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 15

    2021

  14. [22]

    2016, JKAS, 49, 37

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

    2016

  15. [23]

    2023, AJ, 165, 54

    Kondo, I., Sumi, T., Koshimoto, N., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 54

    2023

  16. [24]

    1991, ApJ, 374, 37 Mróz, P ., Ryu, Y .-H., Skowron, J., et al

    Mao, S., & Paczy ´nski, B. 1991, ApJ, 374, 37 Mróz, P ., Ryu, Y .-H., Skowron, J., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 121 Mróz, P ., Udalski, A., Bennett, D. P ., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A201 Mróz, P ., Poleski, R., Han, C., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 262

    1991

  17. [25]

    M., Gould, A., Fouqué, P

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

    2013

  18. [26]

    T., Gaudi, B

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

    2019

  19. [27]

    2020, AJ, 159, 26 1

    Poleski, R., Suzuki, D., Udalski, A., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 26 1

    2020

  20. [28]

    C., et al

    Ryu, Y .-H., Udalski, A., Y ee, J. C., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 88

    2024

  21. [29]

    A., et al

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

    2003

  22. [30]

    2003, Acta Astron., 53, 291

    Udalski, A. 2003, Acta Astron., 53, 291

    2003

  23. [31]

    K., & Szyma ´nski, G

    Udalski, A., Szyma ´nski, M. K., & Szyma ´nski, G. 2015, Acta Astron., 65, 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 Y ...

    2015

  24. [32]

    Zhai, R., Poleski, R., Zang, W., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 162 1 Department of Physics, Chungbuk National University, Cheo ngju 28644, Republic of Korea 2 Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, Daejon 34055, Re- public of Korea 3 Astronomical Observatory, University of Warsa...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.