Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A ubiquitous unifying degeneracy in two-body microlensing systems

Nature Astronomy volume 6, pages 782–787 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

While gravitational microlensing by planetary systems1,2 provides unique vistas on the properties of exoplanets3, observations of a given two-body microlensing event can often be interpreted with multiple distinct physical configurations. Such ambiguities are typically attributed to the close–wide4,5 and inner–outer6 types of degeneracy, which arise from transformation invariances and symmetries of microlensing caustics. However, there remain unexplained inconsistencies (see, for example, ref. 7) between the aforementioned theories and observations. Here, leveraging a fast machine learning inference framework8, we present the discovery of the offset degeneracy, which concerns a magnification-matching behaviour on the lens axis and is formulated independently of caustics. This offset degeneracy unifies the close–wide and inner–outer degeneracies, generalizes to resonant topologies and, upon reanalysis, not only appears ubiquitous in previously published planetary events with twofold degenerate solutions, but also resolves prior inconsistencies. Our analysis demonstrates that degenerate caustics do not strictly result in degenerate magnifications and that the commonly invoked close–wide degeneracy essentially never arises in actual events. Moreover, it is shown that parameters in offset-degenerate configurations are related by a simple expression. This suggests the existence of a deeper symmetry in the equations governing two-body lenses than previously recognized.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The manifestation of the offset degeneracy in source-plane magnification difference maps (top) and light curves (bottom).
Fig. 2: Deviation (Δxnull) of numerically derived, exact null position from the analytic form (equation (1)) for changing sA against three values of fixed sB < 1, normalized to the separation between the two (implied) planetary caustics: ∣(sA − 1/sA) − (sB − 1/sB)∣.
Fig. 3: Offset degeneracy reanalysis of 23 systematically selected events in the literature with twofold degenerate solutions.

Data availability

Source data for Figures 2 and 3 have been made available online. Figure 3 data are also partially available in the NASA microlensing exoplanet archive, https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu.

Code availability

This work utilized the public microlensing code, MulensModel47, available at https://github.com/rpoleski/MulensModel.

References

  1. Mao, S. & Paczyński, B. Gravitational microlensing by double stars and planetary systems. Astrophys. J. Lett. 374, L37 (1991).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gould, A. & Loeb, A. Discovering planetary systems through gravitational microlenses. Astrophys. J. 396, 104–114 (1992).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gaudi, B. S. Microlensing surveys for exoplanets. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 50, 411–453 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Griest, K. & Safizadeh, N. The use of high-magnification microlensing events in discovering extrasolar planets. Astrophys. J. 500, 37 (1998).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dominik, M. The binary gravitational lens and its extreme cases. Astron. Astrophys. 349, 108–125 (1999).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Han, C. et al. MOA-2016-BLG-319Lb: microlensing planet subject to rare minor-image perturbation degeneracy in determining planet parameters. Astron. J. 156, 226 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Yee, J. C. et al. OGLE-2019-BLG-0960 Lb: the smallest microlensing planet. Astron. J. 162, 180 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang, K. et al. Real-time likelihood-free inference of Roman binary microlensing events with amortized neural posterior estimation. Astron. J. 161, 262 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Choi, J.-Y. et al. A new type of ambiguity in the planet and binary interpretations of central perturbations of high-magnification gravitational microlensing events. Astrophys. J. 756, 48 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cranmer, K., Brehmer, J. & Louppe, G. The frontier of simulation-based inference. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 30055–30062 (2020).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Penny, M. T. et al. Predictions of the WFIRST microlensing survey I: bound planet detection rates. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241, 3 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Campello, R. J. G. B., Moulavi, D. & Sander, J. in Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (eds Pei, J. et al.) 160–172 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2013).

  13. Herrera-Martin, A. et al. OGLE-2018-BLG-0677Lb: a super-Earth near the Galactic bulge. Astron. J. 159, 256 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. An, J. On the condition for the central caustic degeneracy of the planetary microlensing. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.07950 (2021).

  15. Chang, K. & Refsdal, S. Star disturbances in gravitational lens galaxies. Astron. Astrophys. 132, 168–178 (1984).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gaudi, B. S. & Gould, A. Planet parameters in microlensing events. Astrophys. J. 486, 85–99 (1997).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Zang, W. et al. KMT-2016-BLG-1397b: KMTNET-only discovery of a microlens giant planet. Astron. J. 156, 236 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gould, A. et al. Frequency of Solar-like systems and of ice and gas giants beyond the snow line from high-magnification microlensing events in 2005–2008. Astrophys. J. 720, 1073–1089 (2010).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Davies, A. et al. Advancing mathematics by guiding human intuition with AI. Nature 600, 70–74 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bennett, D. P. & Rhie, S. H. Simulation of a space-based microlensing survey for terrestrial extrasolar planets. Astrophys. J. 574, 985–1003 (2002).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Yeo, I.-K. A new family of power transformations to improve normality or symmetry. Biometrika 87, 954–959 (2000).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Gerber, F. & Furrer, R. optimParallel: an R package providing a parallel version of the L-BFGS-B optimization method. R J. 11, 352–358 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Byrd, R. H., Lu, P., Nocedal, J. & Zhu, C. A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization. SIAM J. Sci. Comput 16, 1190–1208 (1995).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Skowron, J. et al. OGLE-2017-BLG-0373Lb: a Jovian mass-ratio planet exposes a new accidental microlensing degeneracy. Acta Astron. 68, 43–61 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Janczak, J. et al. Sub-Saturn planet MOA-2008-BLG-310Lb: likely to be in the Galactic bulge. Astrophys. J. 711, 731–743 (2010).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hirao, Y. et al. OGLE-2012-BLG-0724Lb: a Saturn-mass planet around an M dwarf. Astrophys. J. 824, 139 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Nagakane, M. et al. MOA-2012-BLG-505Lb: a super-Earth-mass planet that probably resides in the Galactic bulge. Astron. J. 154, 35 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Suzuki, D. et al. MOA-2008-BLG-379Lb: a massive planet from a high magnification event with a faint source. Astrophys. J. 780, 123 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. Dong, S. et al. Microlensing event MOA-2007-BLG-400: exhuming the buried signature of a cool, Jovian-mass planet. Astrophys. J. 698, 1826–1837 (2009).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. Herrera-Martín, A. et al. OGLE-2018-BLG-0677Lb: a super-Earth near the Galactic bulge. Astron. J. 159, 256 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rattenbury, N. J. et al. Faint-source-star planetary microlensing: the discovery of the cold gas-giant planet OGLE-2014-BLG-0676Lb. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 466, 2710–2717 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bond, I. A. et al. The lowest mass ratio planetary microlens: OGLE 2016-BLG-1195Lb. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 469, 2434–2440 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bennett, D. P. et al. MOA data reveal a new mass, distance, and relative proper motion for planetary system OGLE-2015-BLG-0954L. Astron. J. 154, 68 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hirao, Y. et al. OGLE-2013-BLG-1761Lb: a massive planet around an M/K dwarf. Astron. J. 154, 1 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Han, C. et al. OGLE-2016-BLG-0263Lb: microlensing detection of a very low-mass binary companion through a repeating event channel. Astron. J. 154, 133 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hwang, K.-H. et al. KMT-2016-BLG-1107: a new Hollywood-planet close/wide degeneracy. Astron. J. 157, 23 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  37. Han, C. et al. Four microlensing planets with faint-source stars identified in the 2016 and 2017 season data. Astron. Astrophys. 642, A110 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ranc, C. et al. OGLE-2015-BLG-1670Lb: a cold Neptune beyond the snow line in the provisional WFIRST microlensing survey field. Astron. J. 157, 232 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  39. Nucita, A. A. et al. Discovery of a bright microlensing event with planetary features towards the Taurus region: a super-Earth planet. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 476, 2962–2967 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. Han, C. et al. Three microlensing planets with no caustic-crossing features. Astron. Astrophys. 650, A89 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim, Y. H. et al. KMT-2019-BLG-0371 and the limits of Bayesian analysis. Astron. J. 162, 17 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  42. Han, C. et al. OGLE-2016-BLG-1227l: a wide-separation planet from a very short-timescale microlensing event. Astron. J. 159, 91 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  43. Han, C. et al. KMT-2019-BLG-1339L: an M dwarf with a giant planet or a companion near the planet/brown dwarf boundary. Astron. J. 160, 64 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  44. Miyazaki, S. et al. MOA-2015-BLG-337: a planetary system with a low-mass brown dwarf/planetary boundary host, or a brown dwarf binary. Astron. J. 156, 136 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  45. Hwang, K.-H. et al. Systematic KMTNet Planetary Anomaly Search, paper II: five new q  <  2 × 10−4 mass-ratio planets. Astron. J. 163, 43 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. Bozza, V. Perturbative analysis in planetary gravitational lensing. Astron. Astrophys. 348, 311–326 (1999).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  47. Poleski, R. & Yee, J. C. Modeling microlensing events with MulensModel. Astron. Comput. 26, 35–49 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

K.Z. thanks the LSSTC Data Science Fellowship Program, which is funded by LSSTC, NSF Cybertraining grant 1829740, the Brinson Foundation and the Moore Foundation; his participation in the programme has benefited this work. K.Z. and J.S.B are supported by a Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Data-Driven Discovery grant. Work by B.S.G. is supported by NASA grant NNG16PJ32C and the Thomas Jefferson Chair for Discovery and Space Exploration. We thank E. Agol and J. Lu for helpful comments on a draft of this Letter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Keming Zhang & Joshua S. Bloom

  2. Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    B. Scott Gaudi

Authors
  1. Keming Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Scott Gaudi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joshua S. Bloom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.Z. and J.S.B. conceived of the degeneracy-finding search. K.Z. implemented the search and identified the offset degeneracy. J.S.B. designed and wrote the code for the cluster-finding approach. B.S.G. aided in the study and interpretation of the LFI-derived posteriors of microlensing events and helped to develop the interpretation of the offset degeneracy and place it in the context of results from the literature. K.Z., B.S.G. and J.S.B. co-wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keming Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Astronomy thanks Przemek Mróz and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Caustics shown in green atop of maps of magnification differences from a 1-body lens, for wide (top), resonant (middle), and close (bottom) caustic topologies.

Red dots indicate locations of the planet, with separations s = 1/0.8, 1, 0.8 from the host star, located at the origin. The mass-ratio is fixed at q = 2 × 10−3. Blue dashed lines represent the Einstein ring θE, the angular size to which the projected separation (s) is normalised. Caustic topologies are delineated by values of s for a given q. In the wide regime (s ≳ 1 + (3/2)q1/3), there is one central caustic located near the host star and one asteroid-shaped ‘planetary’ caustic towards the location of the planet. In the close regime (s ≲ 1 − (3/4)q1/3), there are two small, triangular shaped ‘planetary’ caustics in addition to the central caustic that appears similar to the wide central caustic, due to the close-wide degeneracy. For values of s in between these regimes, there is one six-cusped ‘resonant’ caustic. For all cases, there are lobes of excess magnification compared to a point lens near caustic cusps, and lobes of de-magnification towards the back-end of the central/resonant caustic.

Extended Data Fig. 2 The manifestation of the offset degeneracy in source-plane magnification difference maps (top) and light curves (bottom) for fixed sB = 1.18 > 1.

This completes the resonant-close (b) and wide-topology inner-outer (d) cases.

Extended Data Fig. 3 The manifestation of the offset degeneracy in source-plane magnification difference maps (top) and light curves (bottom) for fixed sB = 1.

(i)–(p) shows logarithmic deviations from PSPL on arbitrary scales, where green dashed curves are the changing lens A and sold blue curves are for fixed lens B. (a)–(d) and (e)–(h) show the same sequence of sA but for q = 10−3 and q = 10−2 to illustrate how the offset degeneracy generalises to larger mass-ratios. (a,e) reveals that the ring structure of the null is composed of two distinct null segments, where one appears to originate from the centre of the central/resonant caustic and the other from the left two cusps of the same caustic. Closer inspection shows that the null rings for (a) and (e) have different topologies: for (a) it is the left part of the null that intersects on the star–planet axis but for (e) it is the right part. This disjoint topology of the null is also seen in Fig. 1 and Extended Data Figure 4&5. The topology transition point, presumably a function of s and q, may have mathematical implications for the offset degeneracy. Furthermore, we observe that the null segment near the star–planet axis becomes increasingly curved for \(| \log (s)| \gg 0\) and q → 1, which may explain how Equation 1 and the offset degeneracy in general, may break down in those limits.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Magnification difference maps zoomed-in on the central caustic. Same sB = 1/1.1 as Fig. 1.

Cyan arrows indicate the location of the null. For (b) and (c), the null always crosses the two caustics at their intersection.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Magnification difference maps which demonstrates the offset degeneracy independence on q for q ≪ 1.

Lens B shares the same fixed sB = 1.1 as in Fig. 1. Each row shows cases of sA = 0.95, 1, 1.16 for q = 10−2, 10−4, 10−6. The null location predicted from Equation 1 is shown in cyan crosses. For q = 10−4 and q = 10−6, the null shape largely remains constant where the null intersection on the star–planet axis is well predicted by the analytic prescription (Equation 1). The three cases of q = 10−2 demonstrate how the behaviour of the null changes as q → 1. In the case of sA = 1.16, the null is split into two disconnected segments inside and outside of the caustic, where the analytic prediction is close to their mean location. For sA = 0.95, the discrepancy from the analytic prediction may be attributed to the curvature of the null near the star–planet axis.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 2

Source Data.

Source Data Fig. 3

Source Data.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, K., Gaudi, B.S. & Bloom, J.S. A ubiquitous unifying degeneracy in two-body microlensing systems. Nat Astron 6, 782–787 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01671-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01671-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing