AWhat changed
Bond and colleagues analyzed an event independently observed by the OGLE and MOA surveys. Both light curves showed a roughly seven-day deviation from a single-lens profile, including a caustic feature. Their binary-lens fit favored an extreme mass ratio of about 0.0039, supporting a planetary companion to the foreground lens. A later Hubble analysis reported excess blended light and a color-dependent centroid shift consistent with a main-sequence lens star, and combined those data with the microlensing fit to estimate the system properties.
Scientific scope
Bond and colleagues analyzed an event independently observed by the OGLE and MOA surveys. Both light curves showed a roughly seven-day deviation from a single-lens profile, including a caustic feature. Their binary-lens fit favored an extreme mass ratio of about 0.0039, supporting a planetary companion to the foreground lens. A later Hubble analysis reported excess blended light and a color-dependent centroid shift consistent with a main-sequence lens star, and combined those data with the microlensing fit to estimate the system properties. The planet is inferred from a lensing light curve, not directly imaged. The original mass ratio was more directly constrained than individual masses; the original host and companion mass estimates assumed a main-sequence primary and Galactic model, while alternative primary types and another planetary fit were considered. The later Hubble source and lens were not separately resolved: both excess flux and centroid evidence were relatively weak, and a source companion and extinction were included in the Bayesian analysis. The later authors reported an error in the previous lens-mass range; neither estimate is a direct dynamical mass. Some mathematical symbols and signs in the later v1 render incompletely, so precise numerical transcription requires independent version or font verification. The reports have different author lists; the full list of individual contributors is not shown.
Evidence
The linked original works support the scoped statement and contribution attribution. WRS has not independently replayed experiments or reconstructed a full mathematical proof. The planet is inferred from a lensing light curve, not directly imaged. The original mass ratio was more directly constrained than individual masses; the original host and companion mass estimates assumed a main-sequence primary and Galactic model, while alternative primary types and another planetary fit were considered. The later Hubble source and lens were not separately resolved: both excess flux and centroid evidence were relatively weak, and a source companion and extinction were included in the Bayesian analysis. The later authors reported an error in the previous lens-mass range; neither estimate is a direct dynamical mass. Some mathematical symbols and signs in the later v1 render incompletely, so precise numerical transcription requires independent version or font verification. The reports have different author lists; the full list of individual contributors is not shown.
Contributors
- The named authors in the research record · SCIENCE: These are the listed authors of the cited contribution sources. Paper authorship does not quantify individual effort. An incomplete list is explicitly marked; same names are not automatically merged.
- OGLE 2003–BLG–235/MOA 2003–BLG–53: A planetary microlensing event
- Identification of the OGLE-2003-BLG-235/MOA-2003-BLG-53 Planetary Host Star
Provisional WRS assessment, edition 2026-10-28.1. Independent expert calibration is pending. This grade does not certify correctness or assign ownership.
Full scientific record · Browse contribution grades · Request a correction