1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
4:
5: \shorttitle{Estimation of Microlensing Magnifications}
6: \shortauthors{Albrow}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{Early Estimation of Microlensing Event Magnifications}
11:
12: \author{Michael D. Albrow}
13: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury,
14: Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand}
15: \email{Michael.Albrow@canterbury.ac.nz}
16:
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: Gravitational microlensing events with high peak magnifications
20: provide a much enhanced sensitivity
21: to the detection of planets around the lens star. However,
22: estimates of peak
23: magnification during the early stages of an event by
24: means of $\chi^2$ minimization frequently involve an
25: overprediction, making observing campaigns with
26: strategies that rely on these predictions inefficient.
27:
28: I show that a rudimentary Bayesian formulation,
29: incorporating the known statistical characteristics
30: of a detection system, produces much more accurate predictions
31: of peak magnification than $\chi^2$ minimisation.
32: Implementation of this system
33: will allow efficient follow-up observing programs that
34: focus solely on events that contribute to planetary
35: abundance statistics.
36: \end{abstract}
37:
38: \keywords{gravitational lensing --- methods: data analysis}
39:
40: \section{Introduction}
41:
42:
43: Following the suggestion of \citet{Paczynski86}, several
44: collaborations, notably MACHO and EROS, began to search for
45: gravitational microlensing towards the Magellanic Clouds as an
46: indicator of compact objects in the halo of the Milky Way
47: \citep{Alcock93, Aubourg93}. At about the same time, the OGLE
48: collaboration began a survey in the direction of the Galactic
49: bulge \citep{Udalski92,Udalski93}.
50: It was soon found that a much higher event rate occurred
51: in fields towards the Galactic bulge relative to the rate
52: towards the Magellanic Clouds \citep{Udalski94a,
53: Alcock95,Alcock97a}.
54: Since 1990, approximately
55: 1000 such events have been detected \citep{Alcock00,Udalski00}.
56:
57:
58: Several groups including PLANET (Probing Lensing Anomalies NETwork,
59: \citealt{Albrow98,Albrow01,Dominik02,Gaudi02}),
60: MPS (Microlensing Planet Search, \citealt{Rhie99}) and $\mu$FUN
61: (Microlensing Follow-Up Network, \citealt{Yoo03}) monitor events much
62: more intensively than the survey groups in order to identify anomalous
63: behavior that can signal the presence of a planet associated with the
64: lens star.
65: High-magnification events in particular (those with $A_{\rm 0} \gtrsim 10$)
66: attract the attention of follow-up groups
67: since it is these that are most likely to give
68: detectable planetary signals
69: \citep{Griest98,Gaudi98}. In addition, for high magnification events the
70: angular size of the source star may be non-negligible in comparison to the
71: lens-source angular separation. In these cases the lightcurves of the events
72: can provide the possibility
73: to determine the lens-source relative proper motion
74: \citep{Gould94,Alcock97b}
75: and atmospheric properties of the source \citep{Heyrovsky03}.
76:
77:
78: In the first years of operation, when microlensing alerts came
79: primarily from the MACHO collaboration, detected event rates were low
80: enough that PLANET could monitor almost all potentially interesting
81: events with ease. For the last two years (the 2002 and 2003 Bulge
82: seasons), this has not been the case, due to the much
83: improved alert
84: rate since the advent of the OGLE III early warning system (EWS),
85: \url{http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/~ogle/ogle3/ews/ews.html}
86: \citep{Udalski94b,Udalski03}. In excess of 400 events were alerted by
87: the EWS in
88: each of these years. In addition, approximately 75 events were alerted
89: in 2003 by the MOA collaboration \citep{Bond02} although some of these
90: were duplicates of EWS events. We are now in an era in which a careful
91: selection of events is necessary to optimize planet detection and
92: exclusion productivity. For this reason, follow-up groups require
93: accurate predictions of eventual maximum amplications in the early
94: days following a detection. For the remainder of this paper I will
95: focus exclusively on events detected by the OGLE III EWS.
96:
97: \section{Fitting microlensing lightcurves}
98:
99: Most microlensing events are well fitted by a point-source
100: point-mass-lens (PSPL) model for the magnification $A(t)$ at time $t$,
101: \begin{eqnarray}
102: A(u) & = & \frac{u^2+2}{u \sqrt{u^2+4}} , \\
103: u(\tau) & = & \sqrt{u_{\rm 0}^2+\tau^2} , \\
104: \tau(t) & = & \frac{t-t_{\rm 0}}{t_{\rm E}} .
105: \end{eqnarray}
106: The impact parameter $u$ is the angular separation
107: between the source and lens
108: measured in units of the angular Einstein radius,
109: \begin{equation}
110: \theta_{\rm E} = \sqrt{\frac{4GMD_{\rm LS}}{c^2 D_{\rm L} D_{\rm S}}},
111: \end{equation}
112: where $M$ is the mass of the lens, $D_{\rm S}$ is the observer-source distance, $D_{\rm L}$ the
113: observer-lens distance, $D_{\rm LS}$ the source-lens distance and
114: $u_{\rm 0}$ is the impact parameter at $t_{\rm 0}$, the time of maximum
115: magnification.
116: The Einstein radius crossing time,
117: \begin{equation}
118: t_{\rm E} = \frac{\theta_{\rm E}}{\mu_{\rm rel}},
119: \end{equation}
120: where $\mu_{\rm rel}$ is the relative proper motion between the
121: lens and source.
122:
123: The lightcurve of a PSPL
124: event can thus be characterised by $3+2n$ parameters, ($t_{\rm 0},
125: u_{\rm 0}, t_{\rm E}$) plus for each $n$ telescope + filter combinations,
126: the unmagnified (baseline)
127: magnitude of the source star $m_{\rm base}$ and the blending parameter
128: $f_{\rm bl}$,
129: where $1 - f_{\rm bl}$ is the fraction of blended (non-lensed) light.
130: The maximum magnification,
131: $A_{\rm 0} = A(u_{\rm 0})$ frequently replaces $u_{0}$ as a parameter.
132:
133: The conventional method for predicting peak magnifications is to use
134: $\chi^2$ minimization techniques to fit PSPL models to data from
135: OGLE III (possibly supplemented by a follow-up group's own data) as they
136: become available. Such fits are continuously updated and the subsequent
137: predictions revised as data accumulate. Experience has shown that
138: early predictions of eventual maximum magnification using these methods
139: systematically yield overpredictions, strongly limiting the
140: usefulness of such estimates.
141: In particular, very large maximum magnifications (with large uncertainties)
142: are often predicted for events that turn out to be of rather low
143: amplitude. Valuable observing time is often wasted monitoring such events
144: in order to confirm their nature.
145:
146: The reason for this overprediction of values for $A_{\rm 0}$ is that
147: in using $\chi^2$ minimization for a predictive purpose, one
148: implicitly assumes that all parameter values are equally
149: likely. However, for microlensing events this is far from being the
150: case. From a purely geometrical perspective, high magnification events
151: are exceedingly rare. In practice, being of high magnification, they
152: have a higher probability of detection by a survey group. It is the
153: individual detection efficiency of a survey convolved with the
154: intrinsic event rates (both of these as a function of event
155: parameters) that determines the magnification probability, given that
156: an event has been detected.
157:
158: These ideas can be given a quantitative basis in a Bayesian
159: formulation of the problem. The merits of the Bayesian approach to
160: statistical analysis have been discussed at length elsewhere and will
161: not be reargued \citep{Loredo90,Sivia96}. Here we simply note that a
162: Bayesian formulation with appropriate priors should produce an
163: unbiased estimate of the eventual microlensing event parameters during
164: the rising part of a lightcurve.
165:
166: From Bayes' theorem, the probability density for a microlensing event
167: to have a certain set of parameter values ${\underline \theta}$, given
168: the fact, $O$, that it has been detected by the OGLE III EWS and that
169: data $D$ have been acquired,
170: \begin{equation}
171: p({\underline \theta}|D,O) \propto
172: p(D|{\underline \theta, O}) \; p({\underline \theta}|O),
173: \end{equation}
174: where ${\underline \theta} = (A_{\rm 0},t_{\rm E},t_{\rm 0},m^{\rm j}_{\rm base},
175: f^{\rm j}_{\rm bl},j=1..n)$.
176: The second term on the right hand side of
177: equation (6), $p({\underline
178: \theta}|O)$ (known as the prior), is the underlying probability
179: density for ${\underline \theta}$ given a detection, i.e.
180: $p({\underline \theta}|O) d{\underline \theta}$ is the probability
181: that ${\underline \theta}$ is in the range
182: $[{\underline \theta},{\underline \theta}+d{\underline\theta}]$.
183: It is this
184: function that incorporates both the natural event occurrence
185: probability and the particular parameter sensitivities of the
186: detection system. The first term, $p(D|{\underline \theta},O) = {\cal
187: L}({\underline \theta}|D)$, the likelihood function for ${\underline
188: \theta}$ given $D$. Data from the OGLE III survey consist of
189: $I$-band magnitudes and their uncertainties $(m_{\rm i},\sigma_{\rm i})$ at
190: time $t_{\rm i}$ (i.e. $n=1$).
191: I assume each $m_{i}$ to be drawn randomly from a
192: normal distribution $N(m_{\rm i,0},\sigma_{\rm i})$ where the true
193: value of the magnitude at time $t_{\rm i}$ is $m_{\rm i,0}$. This
194: implies that
195: \begin{equation}
196: {\cal L}({\underline \theta}|D) \propto e^{-\chi^2/2}
197: \end{equation}
198: where
199: \begin{equation}
200: \chi^2 = \sum_{i} \left( \frac{m_{i}-m(t_{\rm i},{\underline \theta})}
201: {\sigma_{i}} \right)^2,
202: \end{equation}
203: and $m(t_{\rm i},{\underline \theta})$ is the magnitude evaluated from
204: the model parameterised by ${\underline \theta}$.
205:
206: Analagous to a $\chi^2$ minimization, the value of ${\underline
207: \theta}$ that maximises $p({\underline \theta}|D,O)$ (i.e. the posterior
208: mode) is taken as the
209: best estimator of ${\underline \theta_{\rm 0}}$, the true value of
210: ${\underline \theta}$. In the absence of a prior, this solution
211: reduces to the minimum $\chi^2$ solution. We stress here that when
212: sufficient data are available to constrain a fit to a certain event,
213: e.g. when the event is over, the Bayesian and $\chi^2$ minimization
214: techniques give the same parameter values and the choice of prior is
215: largely irrelevant. In other words, the solution is not driven by
216: prior probabilities when sufficent empirical information is available
217: (see \citealt{Sivia96}, Chapter 2 for a discussion of this point).
218:
219:
220:
221: If the parameters ${\underline \theta}$ are statistically independent
222: quantities\footnote{ This is not necessarily the case given that a
223: detection system may preferentially select events with parameter
224: corelations, however inspection of EWS-detected events has not revealed
225: any such corelations as yet.}, $p({\underline \theta}|O)$ factorizes as
226: \begin{equation}
227: p({\underline \theta}|O) = p(A_{\rm 0}) \; p(t_{\rm E}) \; p(t_{\rm 0})
228: \; p(m_{\rm b}) \; p(f_{\rm bl}),
229: \end{equation}
230: where for brevity I have omitted "$|O$" in the probability densities
231: on the right hand side of
232: the equation.
233: It is often more convenient to work in decadic logarithmic units for
234: several of these quantities, in which case
235: \begin{equation}
236: p({\underline \theta}|O) = \frac{p(\lg A_{\rm 0}) \; p(\lg(t_{\rm E}/t^{*}))
237: \; p(\lg(\Delta t_{\rm 0}/t^{*})) \; p(m_{\rm b})p(f_{\rm bl})}
238: {(\ln 10)^{3} \; A_{\rm 0} \; (t_{\rm E}/t^{*}) \;
239: (\Delta t_{\rm 0}/t^{*})} ,
240: \end{equation}
241: with $t^{*}$ being an arbitrary unit of time.
242: Here I define $\Delta t_{\rm 0}$ to be the time
243: to peak magnification from an initial ``alert date''.
244: For the remainder of this paper I adopt $t^{*} = 1\;{\rm d}$.
245:
246: It is worth noting that even if each parameter in ${\underline \theta}$
247: is independent in $p({\underline \theta}|O)$, they are not independent
248: in the
249: likelihood function $p(D|{\underline \theta},O)$ and hence
250: not independent in $p({\underline \theta}|D,O)$. Thus
251: when fitting a model to a lightcurve, particularly when only early
252: data are available, the fitted maximum magnification is affected
253: not only by the prior on $A_{\rm 0}$ but also by the priors on the other
254: other parameters.
255:
256:
257: \subsection{Inclusion of a blending parameter}
258:
259:
260: The criterion used by the OGLE III EWS
261: is that a blending parameter is only used when it is more than 3-$\sigma$
262: less than unity and is larger than its formal uncertainty.
263: In this paper I use the odds ratio test,
264: a natural way to decide between two different models. I define the
265: odds ratio
266: \begin{equation}
267: \label{OReqn1}
268: \frac{p(\tilde{\underline \theta}|D,O)}{p({\underline \theta}|D,O)} =
269: \frac{p(D|\tilde{\underline \theta},O)}{p(D|{\underline \theta},O)}
270: \frac{p(\tilde{\underline \theta}|O)}{p({\underline \theta}|O)},
271: \end{equation}
272: where $\tilde{\underline \theta} = (A_{\rm 0},t_{\rm E},t_{\rm 0},m^{\rm j}_{\rm base},j=1..n)$
273: indicates the set of model parameters without blending
274: ($n=1$ when considering only EWS data).
275: Having no {\it a priori} indication about whether to include blending I choose
276: $p(\tilde{\underline \theta}|O) = p({\underline \theta}|O)$.
277: If we assume a unform prior probability density
278: for $f_{\rm bl}$ in the range $0 < f_{\rm bl} \leq 1$ and zero
279: outside this range, and assuming a Gaussian probability density
280: function for $f_{\rm bl}$ about $f_{\rm bl,0}$, it can be shown (see
281: for instance \citealt{Sivia96} Ch 4) that equation (\ref{OReqn1}) reduces to
282: \begin{equation}
283: \frac{p(\tilde{\underline \theta}|D,O)}{p({\underline \theta}|D,O)} =
284: \frac{p(D|\tilde{\underline \theta}_{\rm 0})}{p(D|{\underline \theta}_{\rm 0})}
285: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma_{f_{\rm bl}}}
286: \end{equation}
287: for cases in which $f_{\rm bl,0}$ is more than several $\sigma_{f_{\rm bl}}$
288: away from the cutoffs imposed by the prior. Otherwise, for $f_{\rm bl,0}$
289: close to 1, equation (\ref{OReqn1}) becomes
290: \begin{equation}
291: \frac{p(\tilde{\underline \theta}|D,O)}{p({\underline \theta}|D,O)} =
292: \frac{p(D|\tilde{\underline \theta}_{\rm 0})}
293: {p(D|{\underline \theta}_{\rm 0})}
294: \frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \sigma_{f_{\rm bl}}
295: \left(1 + {\rm erf}\left(\frac{1-f_{\rm bl,0}}{\sqrt{2} \sigma_{f_{\rm bl}}} \right) \right) } ,
296: \end{equation}
297: while for $f_{\rm bl,0}$ close to 0
298: \begin{equation}
299: \frac{p(\tilde{\underline \theta}|D,O)}{p({\underline \theta}|D,O)} =
300: \frac{p(D|\tilde{\underline \theta}_{\rm 0})}
301: {p(D|{\underline \theta}_{\rm 0})}
302: \frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \sigma_{f_{\rm bl}}
303: \left(1 + {\rm erf}\left(\frac{f_{\rm bl,0}}{\sqrt{2} \sigma_{f_{\rm bl}}} \right) \right) } .
304: \end{equation}
305: The odds ratio is then made up of two terms. The first of these
306: represents a relative ``goodness of fit'' between the two models
307: while the second is the ``Occam penalty'' for introducing a new
308: parameter. Only when $f_{\rm bl,0} < 1$
309: and the odds ratio is less than unity is a blending parameter used in this
310: analysis.
311:
312: \section{Statistical properties of the 2002 OGLE events}
313:
314: I have used the set of microlensing events detected by
315: the EWS in 2002 to determine the parameter priors. Since our interest
316: is in the set of PSPL events, I have removed 41 events that showed
317: deviations from PSPL behavior from this analysis. Excluded events were
318: numbered
319: 18, 23, 40, 51, 68, 69, 77, 80, 81, 99, 113, 119, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 135,
320: 143, 149, 159, 175, 194, 202, 203, 205, 215, 228, 229, 232, 238, 254, 255, 256, 266, 273,
321: 307, 315, 339, 348, 360, out of the complete set of 389 alerts.
322:
323: Parameter values have been obtained for these events using a simplex
324: downhill method to minimise $\chi^2$ (EWS estimates of $A_{\rm 0}$,
325: $t_{\rm E}$, $m_{\rm b}$, $f_{\rm bl}$ can also be obtained from the
326: EWS web page).
327: For $\Delta
328: t_{\rm 0}$ we require an objective definition of an ``alert date''
329: that can be applied to all events. I have arbitrarily chosen a working
330: definition of an alert date as being the date at which three
331: successive data points have been more than 1-$\sigma$ brighter than
332: $m_{\rm b}$, the baseline magnitude. In practice, $m_{\rm b}$ can be
333: determined separately from and in advance of the other parameters.
334:
335: The distributions of $\lg A_{\rm 0}$, $\lg t_{\rm E}$ and
336: $\lg \Delta t_{\rm 0}$ are shown
337: in Figure~\ref{fig1}.
338: For the purposes of obtaining Bayesian prior probability densities for these
339: quantities, the distribution functions are adequately represented
340: by the following empirically-chosen functions, also shown in Figure~\ref{fig1}:
341: \begin{eqnarray}
342: p(\lg A_{\rm 0}) & = & 0.660 \exp \left[ -1.289 \lg A_{\rm 0} \right] \\
343: p(\lg (t_{\rm E}/t^{*})) & = & 0.476 \exp \left[ -(\lg (t_{\rm E}/t^{*}) - 1.333)^2 /0.330 \right] \\
344: p(\lg (\Delta t_{\rm 0}/t^{*})) & = & 0.156 \exp \left[ -(\lg (\Delta t_{\rm 0}/t^{*}) - 1.432)^2 /0.458 \right].
345: \end{eqnarray}
346:
347: It is also instructive to examine the distribution of $u_{\rm 0}$,
348: shown in Figure~\ref{fig2}(a). In the absence of any selection effects,
349: this distribution should be uniform. In fact, there is an enhanced
350: sensitivity to detection of high magnification (low $u_{\rm 0}$)
351: events and a rapid decrease in sensitivity for $u_{\rm 0} \gtrsim 0.85$.
352: Figure ~\ref{fig2}(a) also shows the shape of the adopted prior on
353: $\lg A_{\rm 0}$ (eq.~15) when transformed to $u_{\rm 0}$.
354:
355: Figure~\ref{fig2}(b) shows the same data but excluding those events
356: where $A_{\rm 0}$ has a formal uncertainty greater than 50\%. This
357: illustrates that many high amplification events have maxima that are
358: poorly constrained from OGLE data alone.
359:
360: \section{Application to 2003 OGLE alerts}
361:
362: As a test of the Bayesian method, I have applied a fitting procedure that
363: maximises $p({\underline \theta}|D,O)$ to a sample of the
364: PSPL events alerted in real time by the
365: OGLE III EWS in 2003. These consist of events OGLE-2003-BUL-138 to
366: OGLE-2003-BUL-462 and excluding events numbered 145, 160, 168, 170,
367: 176, 192, 200, 230, 236, 252, 260, 266, 267, 271, 282, 286, 293, 303,
368: 306, 311, 359, 380, 419 that do not appear to be due to PSPL microlensing
369: and 188, 197, 245, 263, 274, 297, 387, 399, 407, 412, 413, 417, 420, 422, 429,
370: 430, 432, 433, 435, 437, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 449, 450, 452, 453, 454, 455,
371: 457, 459, 461, 462 that were still ongoing at the time of writing.
372: Events OGLE-2003-BUL-137 and
373: earlier were anounced by the EWS in a single email at the beginning of
374: the 2003 Bulge season and thus not alerted in real time.
375: OGLE-2003-BUL-238 (A. Gould 2004, private communication)
376: and 262 \citep{Yoo03} are events in which the lens is known to
377: have transited the
378: source and OGLE-2003-BUL-208 and 222 may also involve
379: finite source effects. These events have not been excluded.
380: For the remaining
381: sample of 267 events, I have used only the OGLE III data taken
382: before the EWS alert time, defined as the reception of the
383: alert email by the author.
384: For the zero point of $\Delta t_{\rm 0}$ for each event, I have used
385: the definition in \S~2 except for cases in which this has not
386: occured before
387: the EWS alert time in which case the latter has been used
388: as
389: the zero point.
390:
391: As mentioned in \S~1, different fitting codes can produce
392: different estimates of maximum magnifications, particularly for
393: high-magnification events for which blending may be involved. In
394: particular, there is a concern that a direct comparison of predictions
395: with the EWS alert predictions may suffer from such differences. In
396: order to compare the maximum magnifications predicted by the Bayesian
397: method with those predicted using $\chi^2$ fitting, I have thus used
398: very similar computer codes to make $p({\underline \theta}|D,O)$ and
399: $\chi^2$ optimisations, electing not to use the EWS-fitted parameters.
400: To avoid the problem of slightly different blending parameters
401: resulting in large differences in derived magnifications, for each event I
402: compute the brightness increase, $\Delta m = m_{\rm base} - m(t_{\rm 0})$,
403: where
404: $m(t_{\rm 0})$ is the magnitude at $t_{\rm 0}$. The predicted values of
405: $\Delta m$ using only the pre-alert data for an event are compared
406: with the values determined using all the data. When all the data are
407: available, the parameters derived using $\chi^2$ and
408: $p({\underline\theta}|D,O)$ are almost always identical.
409: Exceptions
410: to this are in a few cases for which there are no data over the peak to
411: constrain
412: the fits.
413:
414:
415: \subsection{Comparison of Bayesian and $\chi^2$ predictions}
416:
417: The predictive performances of the Bayesian and $\chi^2$ models at the
418: time of EWS alert are illustrated in Figures~\ref{fig3} -- \ref{fig5}.
419: Figure~\ref{fig3} shows the distributions of predicted peak
420: magnifications for both models and compares these with the eventual
421: values. Figure~\ref{fig4} shows the same data as a function of $u_{\rm 0}$.
422: For the $\chi^2$ models, there is clearly a population of low $u_{\rm 0}$
423: events with predicted brightenings of more than 10 magnitudes that do
424: not eventuate. Such overpredictions are not present in the Bayesian
425: fitted models. On the other hand, there is a tendency for the
426: Bayesian models to underpredict the peak, and at alert time to
427: fail to predict the small population of high magnification events
428: in Figure~\ref{fig3}(a).
429: In Figure~\ref{fig5} I compare the distribution of the differences in
430: predicted vs actual
431: brightenings for both models. Again, the tendency for the $\chi^2$
432: fits to overestimate the peak is obvious.
433:
434:
435:
436:
437: \section{Case studies}
438:
439: As pointed out in \S~4.1, Baysesian
440: solutions to early lightcurve data often fail to indicate
441: the nature of high magnification events. It would be of
442: concern if high magnification events were not observed due
443: to this tendency. To illustrate in more detail the behavior
444: of Bayesian vs $\chi^2$ models, I consider here examples
445: of low and high magnification events.
446: These examples
447: show several generic aspects of how Bayesian vs $\chi^2$
448: solutions evolve as data accumulate.
449:
450: OGLE-2003-BLG-171 was a low magnification event ($A_{\rm 0} =
451: 1.37$). At this magnification, the source star barely passes within
452: one Einstein radius of the lens and the event is unsuitable for detecting
453: a planetary
454: anomaly.
455: This is typical of the type of event that a follow-up program
456: should avoid observing.
457: Figure~\ref{fig6} shows $\chi^2$ and Bayesian fitted
458: lightcurves at 5 day intervals as the event evolves from its alert
459: date. The predicted maximum magnifications corresponding to
460: each panel are listed in Table~\ref{tbl1}.
461: At alert, the event is predicted to be of low magnification but
462: by JD 2452785 (panel d in Fig.~\ref{fig6}), the $\chi^2$ solution
463: suggests a high magnification, albeit with a large uncertainty.
464: Since the lightcurve appears to be rising rapidly, follow-up
465: programs may well begin observing the event in order to improve
466: on the high uncertainty in the predicted peak magnification.
467: As
468: more data accumulate, the low-magnification nature of the event
469: becomes apparent. Although the true nature of the event
470: would be identified relatively quickly by a follow-up observing
471: program, there is a not-insignificant overhead associated
472: with adding the event to the program.
473: In contrast to the $\chi^2$ fit, the predicted peak
474: magnification for the Bayesian solution changes steadily with time.
475: At no time is a high-magnification event suggested and a follow-up
476: strategy based on this method would ignore the event.
477:
478: OGLE-2003-BLG-208 (Fig.~\ref{fig7}, Table~\ref{tbl2}) reached a moderately high
479: magnification ($A_{\rm 0} \approx 45$, $A_{\rm 0,unblended} \approx
480: 17$). The projected source trajectory passed as close as 0.02 $\theta_{\rm
481: E}$ to the lens and thus had a high probability of intersecting a
482: central caustic if it were present. The alert date for this event
483: corresponds to panel (c) in Figure \ref{fig7} at which time
484: the predictions of peak
485: magnification are $2 \times 10^5$ and 4.4 for the $\chi^2$ and
486: Bayesian solutions respectively.
487: The Bayesian prediction of $A_{\rm 0} = 4.4$ is sufficiently
488: high to warrant the
489: attention of a follow-up observing program such as PLANET.
490: As data acumulate, the $\chi^2$
491: predicted peak
492: magnification rises until reaching $5 \times 10^6$ in panel (g).
493: The true peak magnification ($A_{\rm 0} \simeq 48$ starts to become
494: apparent from panel (h) as
495: the event peaks. In contrast, the Bayesian predicted peak magnification
496: rises steadily until the true peak magnification is identified
497: from around the time of panels (f) -- (g).
498:
499: The behavior illustrated by these two examples is typical. For low
500: magnification events, the Bayesian model never indicates them as being
501: worthy of observational follow-up. For high magnification events that
502: should be observed, the peak magnification is initially underestimated
503: but adjusts to an appropriate prediction as soon as the data
504: indicate. In all cases examined, this occurs relatively early in the
505: event when the magnification, $A \lesssim 3$. For both high and low
506: magnification events, the Bayesian predicted peak magnification
507: changes smoothly while the $\chi^2$ prediction is prone to
508: large changes as new data points are included. The Bayesian
509: solutions usually converge to the correct amplification earlier
510: than the $\chi^2$ solutions.
511:
512: \section{Summary}
513:
514: High magnification events provide the best
515: opportunity for detecting signals of planets around lens stars
516: and for obtaining upper limits on their abundances.
517: Intensive photometric monitoring programs are
518: hampered currently by difficulties in identifying high magnification
519: events well before peak. Systems that use $\chi^2$ minimization
520: to fit PSPL models to early data are prone to exagerated
521: predictions of peak magnification. Such prections
522: induce observers to spend their time monitoring events that
523: ultimately have little statistical power.
524:
525: I have shown here that a predictive system based on a Bayesian
526: formalism that takes account of the characteristics of a
527: detection system is immune to such behavior. Although such
528: a Bayesian system tends to initially underpredict the peak
529: for high magnification events, accurate prediction occurs as
530: soon as sufficient data accumulate to justify the assertion.
531: In all cases examined, this occurs well ahead of peak in their
532: associated lightcurves and early enough for the events
533: to be targeted for observation. Implementation of such a
534: system based on the OGLE Early Warning System should result
535: in much improved observing productivity for the 2004 season.
536:
537: \acknowledgments
538: I am grateful to Martin Dominik for his comments on an earlier
539: version of this paper. I think the referee, Andy Gould, for
540: his suggested improvements to the manuscript. This work was supported by
541: the Marsden Fund under contract UOC302.
542:
543:
544: \begin{thebibliography}{}
545: \bibitem[Albrow et al.(1998)]{Albrow98}
546: Albrow, M.D., et al., 1998, \apj, 509, 687
547: \bibitem[Albrow et al.(2001)]{Albrow01}
548: Albrow, M.D., et al., 2001, \apj, 556, 113
549: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(1993)]{Alcock93}
550: Alcock, C., et al., 1993, \nat, 365, 621
551: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(1995)]{Alcock95}
552: Alcock, C., et al., 1995, \apj, 445, 133
553: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(1997a)]{Alcock97a}
554: Alcock, C., et al., 1997a, \apj, 479, 119
555: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(1997b)]{Alcock97b}
556: Alcock, C., et al., 1997b, \apj, 491, 436
557: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(2000)]{Alcock00}
558: Alcock, C., et al., 2000, \apj, 541, 734
559: \bibitem[Aubourg et al.(1993)]{Aubourg93}
560: Aubourg, E., et al., 1993, \nat, 365, 623
561: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2002)]{Bond02}
562: Bond, I.A., et al, 2002, \mnras, 331, 19
563: \bibitem[Dominik et al.(2002)]{Dominik02}
564: Dominik, M., et al, 2002, Planetary and Space Science, 50, 299
565: \bibitem[Gaudi, Naber \& Sackett(1998)]{Gaudi98}
566: Gaudi, B.S., Naber, R.M., Sackett, P.D., 1998, \apj, 500, 33
567: \bibitem[Gaudi et al.(2002)]{Gaudi02}
568: Gaudi, B.S., et al., 2002, \apj, 566, 463
569: \bibitem[Gould(1994)]{Gould94}
570: Gould, A., 1994, \apj, 421, L71
571: \bibitem[Griest \& Safizadeh(1998)]{Griest98}
572: Griest, K., Safizadeh, N., 1998, \apj, 500, 37
573: \bibitem[Heyrovsk\'y(2003)]{Heyrovsky03}
574: Heyrovsk\'y, D., 2003, \apj, 594, 464
575: \bibitem[Loredo(1990)]{Loredo90}
576: Loredo, T.J., 1990, in P.F. Fougere, ed, Maximum Entropy and Bayesian
577: Methods, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp81-142
578: \bibitem[Paczy{\'n}ski(1986)]{Paczynski86}
579: Paczynski, B., 1986, \apj, 304, 1
580: \bibitem[Rhie et al.(1999)]{Rhie99}
581: Rhie, S.H., 1999, \apj, 522, 1037
582: \bibitem[Sivia(1996)]{Sivia96}
583: Sivia, D.S., 1996, Data Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford
584: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(1992)]{Udalski92}
585: Udalski, A., et al., 1992, Acta Astron., 42, 253
586: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(1993)]{Udalski93}
587: Udalski, A., et al., 1993, Acta Astron., 43, 289
588: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(1994a)]{Udalski94a}
589: Udalski, A., et al., 1994a, Acta Astron., 44, 165
590: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(1994b)]{Udalski94b}
591: Udalski, A., et al., 1994b, Acta Astron., 44, 227
592: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(2000)]{Udalski00}
593: Udalski, A., et al., 2000, Acta Astron., 50, 1
594: \bibitem[Udalski(2003)]{Udalski03}
595: Udalski, A., 2003, Acta Astron., 53, 291
596: \bibitem[Yoo et al.(2004)]{Yoo03}
597: Yoo, J., et al., 2004, \apj, in press, astro-ph/0309302
598: \end{thebibliography}
599:
600:
601: \begin{figure}
602: \plotone{f1.eps}
603: \caption{Distributions of (a) peak magnifications
604: (b) Einstein timescales and (c) times from alert
605: to peak magnification
606: from my own fits to the 2002 OGLE event data.
607: The solid lines are the adopted
608: Bayesian priors based on these distributions. \label{fig1}}
609: \end{figure}
610:
611: \begin{figure}
612: \plotone{f2.eps}
613: \caption{Fractional distribution of $u_{\rm 0}$ for the 2002 OGLE
614: PSPL events. Panel (a) includes the entire data set while
615: panel (b) excludes events for which the uncertainty in $A_{\rm 0}$
616: is greater than 50\%. The solid line in panel (a) represents the
617: Bayesian prior on $\lg A_{\rm 0}$ transformed to $u_{\rm 0}$
618: and scaled to the first data point. \label{fig2}}
619: \end{figure}
620:
621: \begin{figure}
622: \plotone{f3.eps}
623: \caption{Fractional distributions of (a) OGLE peak magnifications with
624: (b) $\chi^{2}$ predictions and (c) Bayesian predictions at
625: the time of alert. In panel (a) the solid line represents the
626: $\chi^{2}$ fits and the (mostly overplotted) dotted line
627: represents the Bayesian fits. \label{fig3}}
628: \end{figure}
629:
630: \begin{figure}
631: \plotone{f4.eps}
632: \caption{Fractional distributions of $u_{\rm 0}$ for the 2003 OGLE
633: PSPL events. Panel (a) shows the values derived using all
634: the data while panels (b) and (c) are respectively the
635: $\chi^{2}$ and Bayesian predictions at the time of alert.
636: \label{fig4}}
637: \end{figure}
638:
639: \begin{figure}
640: \plotone{f5.eps}
641: \caption{Fractional distributions of predicted peak magnitudes minus
642: eventual peak
643: magnitudes for (a) $\chi^{2}$ and (b) Bayesian
644: models. \label{fig5}}
645: \end{figure}
646:
647: \begin{figure}
648: \plotone{f6.eps}
649: \caption{Evolution of Bayesian (solid line) and $\chi^{2}$ (dashed line)
650: fits to OGLE-2003-BLG-171. In panels (b), (c), (i) and (j) the
651: dashed line
652: is overprinted by the solid line. Axis ranges are the same for all
653: panels.
654: \label{fig6}}
655: \end{figure}
656:
657: \begin{figure}
658: \plotone{f7.eps}
659: \caption{Evolution of Bayesian (solid line) and $\chi^{2}$ (dashed line)
660: fits to OGLE-2003-BLG-208. In panels (h) -- (j) the dashed line
661: is overprinted by the solid line. Axis ranges are the same for all
662: panels.
663: \label{fig7}}
664: \end{figure}
665:
666: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrrrrrr}
667: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
668: \tablecolumns{12}
669: \tablecaption{Peak magnifications for the $\chi^2$ and Bayesian
670: fits to OGLE-2003-BLG-171 corresponding to the panels in Figure~\ref{fig4}.
671: \label{tbl1}}
672: \tablehead{
673: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{$\chi^2$} & \colhead{} &
674: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Bayesian} \\
675: \cline{2-6} \cline{8-12} \\
676: \colhead{Panel} & \colhead{$A$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{A}$} & \colhead{$f_{\rm bl}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{f_{\rm bl}}$} & \colhead{$A_{unblended}$} & \colhead{} &
677: \colhead{$A$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{A}$} & \colhead{$f_{\rm bl}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{f_{\rm bl}}$} & \colhead{$A_{unblended}$}
678: }
679: \startdata
680: a & 1.240 & 0.670 & 1.000 & -- & 1.240 & & 1.053 & 0.014 & 1.000 & -- & 1.053 \\
681: b & 1.050 & 0.009 & 1.000 & -- & 1.050 & & 1.051 & 0.009 & 1.000 & -- & 1.051 \\
682: c & 1.050 & 0.009 & 1.000 & -- & 1.050 & & 1.051 & 0.009 & 1.000 & -- & 1.051 \\
683: d & 34934.748 & -- & 1.000 & -- & 34934.748 & & 1.300 & 0.314 & 1.000 & -- & 1.300 \\
684: e & 1.449 & 0.557 & 1.000 & -- & 1.449 & & 1.273 & 0.150 & 1.000 & -- & 1.273 \\
685: f & 1.459 & 0.330 & 1.000 & -- & 1.459 & & 1.367 & 0.169 & 1.000 & -- & 1.367 \\
686: g & 1.539 & 0.353 & 1.000 & -- & 1.539 & & 1.446 & 0.199 & 1.000 & -- & 1.446 \\
687: h & 1.404 & 0.082 & 1.000 & -- & 1.404 & & 1.392 & 0.072 & 1.000 & -- & 1.392 \\
688: i & 2.524 & 1.366 & 0.233 & 0.206 & 1.355 & & 1.356 & 0.019 & 1.000 & -- & 1.356 \\
689: j & 1.374 & 0.005 & 1.000 & -- & 1.374 & & 1.374 & 0.005 & 1.000 & -- & 1.374 \\
690: \enddata
691: \end{deluxetable}
692:
693:
694: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrrrrrr}
695: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
696: \tablecolumns{12}
697: \tablecaption{Peak magnifications, blend fractions and deblended peak magnifications for the
698: $\chi^2$ and Bayesian
699: fits to OGLE-2003-BLG-208 corresponding to the panels in Figure~\ref{fig5}.
700: \label{tbl2}}
701: \tablehead{
702: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{$\chi^2$} & \colhead{} &
703: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Bayesian} \\
704: \cline{2-6} \cline{8-12} \\
705: \colhead{Panel} & \colhead{$A$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{A}$} & \colhead{$f_{\rm bl}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{f_{\rm bl}}$} & \colhead{$A_{unblended}$} & \colhead{} &
706: \colhead{$A$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{A}$} & \colhead{$f_{\rm bl}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{f_{\rm bl}}$} & \colhead{$A_{unblended}$}
707: }
708: \startdata
709: a & 63601.415 & -- & 1.000 & -- & 63601.415 & & 2.055 & 0.657 & 1.000 & -- & 2.055 \\
710: b & 138528.609 & -- & 0.209 & 0.349 & 28987.904 & & 2.150 & 0.700 & 1.000 & -- & 2.150 \\
711: c & 226215.441 & -- & 0.170 & 0.168 & 38337.850 & & 4.362 & 3.407 & 1.000 & -- & 4.362 \\
712: d & 224373.536 & -- & 0.382 & 0.324 & 85643.167 & & 5.934 & 4.681 & 1.000 & -- & 5.934 \\
713: e & 778431.912 & -- & 0.438 & 0.232 & 340873.531 & & 15.425 & 14.683 & 1.000 & -- & 15.425 \\
714: f & 1669005.679 & -- & 0.412 & 0.159 & 687516.769 & & 41.122 & 31.856 & 0.452 & 0.007 & 19.150 \\
715: g & 4966165.089 & -- & 0.586 & 0.138 & 2912064.088 & & 46.816 & 12.146 & 0.456 & 0.004 & 21.888 \\
716: h & 55.641 & 15.221 & 0.293 & 0.076 & 17.022 & & 49.816 & 1.378 & 0.326 & 0.002 & 16.893 \\
717: i & 53.452 & 13.513 & 0.303 & 0.073 & 16.916 & & 48.446 & 1.356 & 0.333 & 0.002 & 16.813 \\
718: j & 48.204 & 8.750 & 0.334 & 0.056 & 16.740 & & 45.814 & 1.096 & 0.350 & 0.002 & 16.661 \\
719: \enddata
720: \end{deluxetable}
721:
722: \end{document}
723:
724: