MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954686561 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2f74

OGLE-2018-BLG-1011Lb,c: Microlensing Planetary System with Two Giant Planets Orbiting a Low-mass Star

2019· article· en· W2954686561 on OpenAlexaff
Cheongho Han, D. P. Bennett, A. Udalski, Andrew Gould, I. A. Bond, Yossi Shvartzvald, Kay-Sebastian Nikolaus, M. Hundertmark, V. Bozza, A. Cassan, Yuki Hirao, E. Bachelet, P. Fouqué, Michael D. Albrow, Sun‐Ju Chung, Kyeongsoo Hong, Kyu‐Ha Hwang, Chung‐Uk Lee, Yoon-Hyun Ryu, In-Gu Shin, Jennifer C. Yee, Youn Kil Jung, Sang-Mok Cha, Doeon Kim, Dong-Jin Kim, Hyoun-Woo Kim, Seung‐Lee Kim, Dong-Joo Lee, Yongseok Lee, Byeong-Gon Park, Richard W. Pogge, P. Mróz, M. K. Szymański, J. Skowron, I. Soszyński, P. Pietrukowicz, S. Kozłowski, K. Ulaczyk, Krzysztof A. Rybicki, Patryk Iwanek, Marcin Wrona, Fumio Abe, Richard Barry, Aparna Bhattacharya, M. Donachie, Akihiko Fukui, Y. Itow, Kohei Kawasaki, Iona Kondo, Naoki Koshimoto, Man Cheung Alex Li, Y. Matsubara, Yasushi Muraki, Shota Miyazaki, M. Nagakane, ‪Clément Ranc, Nicholas J. Rattenbury, Haruno Suematsu, D. J. Sullivan, Takahiro Sumi, Daisuke Suzuki, P. J. Tristram, Atsunori Yonehara, Shude Mao, Tianshu Wang, Weicheng Zang, Wei Zhu, Matthew T. Penny, Charles A. Beichman, S. Calchi Novati, B. Scott Gaudi, Calen B. Henderson, Savannah Jacklin, Keivan G. Stassun

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersKorea Research Environment Open NetworkScience and Technology Facilities CouncilKorea Institute of Science and Technology InformationNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationKorea Institute of Science and TechnologyChinese Academy of SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGravitational microlensingPhysicsPlanetPlanetary systemLight curveAstrophysicsMass ratioBinary numberStar (game theory)Lens (geology)Einstein radiusGravitational lensStarsGalaxyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We report a multiplanetary system found from the analysis of microlensing event OGLE-2018-BLG-1011, for which the light curve exhibits a double-bump anomaly around the peak. We find that the anomaly cannot be fully explained by the binary-lens or binary-source interpretations and its description requires the introduction of an additional lens component. The 3L1S (three lens components and a single source) modeling yields three sets of solutions, in which one set of solutions indicates that the lens is a planetary system in a binary, while the other two sets imply that the lens is a multiplanetary system. By investigating the fits of the individual models to the detailed light curve structure, we find that the multiple-planet solution with planet-to-host mass ratios ∼9.5 × 10−3 and ∼15 × 10−3 are favored over the other solutions. From the Bayesian analysis, we find that the lens is composed of two planets with masses and around a host with a mass and located at a distance . The estimated distance indicates that the lens is the farthest system among the known multiplanetary systems. The projected planet–host separations are ( ) and , where the values of a ⊥,2 inside and outside the parenthesis are the separations corresponding to the two degenerate solutions, indicating that both planets are located beyond the snow line of the host, as with the other four multiplanetary systems previously found by microlensing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207