http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03871
We inspect 4 microlensing events KMT-2021-BLG-1968, KMT-2021-BLG-2010, KMT-2022-BLG-0371, and KMT-2022-BLG-1013, for which the light curves exhibit partially covered short-term central anomalies. We conduct detailed analyses of the events with the aim of revealing the nature of the anomalies. We test various models that can give rise to the anomalies of the individual events including the binary-lens (2L1S) and binary-source (1L2S) interpretations. Under the 2L1S interpretation, we thoroughly inspect the parameter space to check the existence of degenerate solutions, and if they exist, we test the feasibility of resolving the degeneracy. We find that the anomalies in KMT-2021-BLG-2010 and KMT-2022-BLG-1013 are uniquely defined by planetary-lens interpretations with the planet-to-host mass ratios of $q\sim 2.8\times 10^{-3}$ and $\sim 1.6\times 10^{-3}$, respectively. For KMT-2022-BLG-0371, a planetary solution with a mass ratio $q\sim 4\times 10^{-4}$ is strongly favored over the other three degenerate 2L1S solutions with different mass ratios based on the $\chi^2$ and relative proper motion arguments, and a 1L2S solution is clearly ruled out. For KMT-2021-BLG-1968, on the other hand, we find that the anomaly can be explained either by a planetary or a binary-source interpretation, making it difficult to firmly identify the nature of the anomaly. From the Bayesian analyses of the identified planetary events, we estimate that the masses of the planet and host are $(M_{\rm p}/M_{\rm J}, M_{\rm h}/M_\odot) = (1.07^{+1.15}{-0.68}, 0.37^{+0.40}{-0.23})$, $(0.26^{+0.13}{-0.11}, 0.63^{+0.32}{-0.28})$, and $(0.31^{+0.46}{-0.16}, 0.18^{+0.28}{-0.10})$ for KMT-2021-BLG-2010L, KMT-2022-BLG-0371L, and KMT-2022-BLG-1013L, respectively.
C. Han, C. Lee, W. Zang, et. al.
Tue, 11 Apr 23
34/63
Comments: 12 pages, 17 figures