MOA-2010-BLG-311: A planetary candidate below the threshold of reliable detection
J. C. Yee, L.-W. Hung, I. A. Bond, W. Allen, L. A. G. Monard, M. D., Albrow, P. Fouque, M. Dominik, Y. Tsapras, A. Udalski, A. Gould, R. Zellem,, M. Bos, G. W. Christie, D. L. DePoy, Subo Dong, J. Drummond, B. S. Gaudi, E., Gorbikov, C. Han, S. Kaspi, N. Klein, C.-U. Lee

TL;DR
This study analyzes a high-magnification microlensing event to evaluate the evidence for a planetary companion, highlighting the challenges in reliably detecting planets due to data systematics.
Contribution
It demonstrates that even with a candidate planetary signal, data systematics can prevent a secure detection, informing the threshold for reliable planet identification.
Findings
The event favors a planetary model with a low mass ratio.
Data systematics can obscure genuine planetary signals.
The study helps define the detection threshold in high-magnification microlensing events.
Abstract
We analyze MOA-2010-BLG-311, a high magnification (A_max>600) microlensing event with complete data coverage over the peak, making it very sensitive to planetary signals. We fit this event with both a point lens and a 2-body lens model and find that the 2-body lens model is a better fit but with only Delta chi^2~80. The preferred mass ratio between the lens star and its companion is $q=10^(-3.7+/-0.1), placing the candidate companion in the planetary regime. Despite the formal significance of the planet, we show that because of systematics in the data the evidence for a planetary companion to the lens is too tenuous to claim a secure detection. When combined with analyses of other high-magnification events, this event helps empirically define the threshold for reliable planet detection in high-magnification events, which remains an open question.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
