1: %\documentclass[12pt,letterpaper]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \def \evt {OGLE-2003-BLG-095}
7: \def \bpie {\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\mathrm E}}
8: \def \pie {\pi_{\mathrm E}}
9: \def \piee {\pi_{{\mathrm E},e}}
10: \def \pien {\pi_{{\mathrm E},n}}
11: \def \rte {\tilde{r}_{\mathrm E}}
12:
13: \title{The repeating microlensing event OGLE-2003-BLG-095: A plausible case
14: of microlensing of a binary source}
15: \shorttitle{OGLE-2003-BLG-095: Microlensing of a binary source}
16:
17: \author{Matthew J. Collinge}
18: \affil{Princeton University Observatory, Princeton, New Jersey 08544\\
19: collinge@astro.princeton.edu}
20: \shortauthors{M. J. Collinge}
21:
22: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
23: \begin{abstract}
24:
25: The apparently repeating microlensing event OGLE-2003-BLG-095 is
26: analyzed. Data were obtained from the OGLE Internet
27: archive and exist in the public domain. The source is relatively bright,
28: with an unmagnified (but possibly blended)
29: $I$-band magnitude of 15.58, and the signal-to-noise
30: ratio of the data is excellent.
31: The light curve shows two distinct, smooth peaks
32: characteristic of a double microlensing event.
33: It can be modeled as either (1) microlensing by a binary lens or
34: (2) microlensing of a binary source, with the latter model providing
35: a statistically superior fit. However due to apparent low-amplitude
36: variability of the source, the interpretation is somewhat ambiguous.
37: OGLE-2003-BLG-095 is only the second possible case in the literature for
38: microlensing of a well-resolved binary source.
39:
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42: \keywords{binaries: general --- gravitational lensing}
43:
44: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
45:
46: \section{Introduction}
47:
48: Gravitational microlensing surveys were originally suggested
49: by \citet{pacz86} as a means
50: of detecting dark matter in the Galaxy in the form of massive compact
51: objects, commonly abbreviated as MACHOs following \citet{grie91}.
52: Various efforts were undertaken to search for such objects, including
53: the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE; \citealt{udal92}),
54: the MACHO project (e.g., \citealt{alco93}), and several others.
55: Currently ongoing
56: projects, most notably OGLE and MOA \citep{bond01}, are detecting
57: hundreds and dozens of new microlensing events each year, respectively.
58: The new events found by these groups are made public in real time
59: to maximize scientific gain by enabling follow-up of interesting
60: objects by the astronomical community.
61:
62: In addition to the possibility of detecting dark matter MACHOs,
63: microlensing surveys also offer the interesting opportunity
64: to study the populations of stellar lenses (which constitute
65: at least a significant fraction of all events) and sources.
66: Since most stars are located in multiple systems, many microlensing
67: events show deviations from the standard Paczy{\'n}ski (point lens,
68: point source)
69: light curve. For example, some events show the effects of caustic
70: crossings \citep{mao91,goul92};
71: this provides clear evidence of lens binarity and
72: can be used to constrain the combination of the distances
73: to the source and lens, the source-lens
74: relative motion, and the physical extent of the source, as
75: well as revealing the mass ratio of the lens system.
76: A small additional fraction of microlensing
77: events should show clear signatures of source binarity in multiple
78: peaks and color shifts; this fraction was estimated to be
79: 2--5\% by \citet{grie92}. To date no convincing example of such an event
80: has been reported in the literature; the best case is MACHO-96-BLG-4,
81: but the light curve of this event can be equally well fit by a binary
82: source or binary lens model, with the binary lens
83: providing the most natural interpretation \citep{alco00}.
84: Several authors
85: \citep{domi98,han98,dist00} have
86: proposed explanations for the lack of such clear binary source microlensing
87: events. Essentially, a variety of different effects including
88: blending, unequal luminosity of binary components, and simple coincidence
89: conspire to make most binary source microlensing light curves resemble
90: single source, single lens events.
91: A handful of other events, such as MACHO-96-LMC-2 \cite{alco01},
92: show signatures of
93: binary orbital motion of the source; in this particular case, it is not clear
94: whether both components of the binary contribute significantly to the
95: total source flux. In any case the light curves of such events do not match the
96: expectation of having multiple distinct, well-resolved peaks as
97: described above.
98:
99: This work analyzes the light curve of \evt, which shows two distinct
100: microlensing peaks. The light curve can be fit by a binary lens or a
101: binary source model; however, the binary source model is
102: statistically preferred.
103: The light curve is presented in \S\ref{sec:data},
104: \S\ref{sec:model} contains a description of the models and fitting
105: procedure, and the results are analyzed in \S\ref{sec:disc}.
106:
107: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
108:
109: \section{OGLE data}
110: \label{sec:data}
111:
112: An $I$-band light curve of \evt\ was obtained from the OGLE Internet
113: archive\footnote{http://sirius.astrouw.edu.pl/\~{}ogle/} (cf.~\citealt{udal03}),
114: and is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:lc}. The source is located at
115: $(\alpha_{\mathrm J2000},\delta_{\mathrm J2000})=(17$:59:03.04, $-27$:11:$19.8)$;
116: a finding chart is also available from the OGLE web site.
117: The data set consists of 109 observations from three observing seasons
118: spanning a period of 2.2~yr, from August 2001 through 17 October 2003.
119: The light curve from the 2001 and 2002 observing seasons
120: (seasons I and II hereafter)
121: is relatively constant (to within $\pm 3$\% excluding the highest point
122: and the lowest point), with a mean $I$-band magnitude of 15.58.
123: However, due to the high stellar surface number density in the field,
124: some blending seems likely.
125: The light curve from the
126: 2003 season (III) shows two very distinct smooth peaks, with maximum
127: magnification factors of $\approx 1.9$ and $\approx 1.7$. For both peaks, the
128: rise and fall in source intensity are well covered by observations.
129:
130: In order to simplify the fitting procedure, the light curve
131: was converted to units of relative flux by adopting the mean
132: intensity from seasons I and II
133: as the base flux level. Thus the mean relative flux from seasons I and II is unity
134: by construction. Even for relatively bright sources like the one in consideration,
135: the photometric error estimates reported by the OGLE data reduction pipeline
136: (cf.~\citealt{udal02}) are typically somewhat too small to account for the
137: observed scatter in the light curves of sources that do not vary intrinsically
138: (B.~Paczy{\'n}ski 2004, private communication). In the \evt\ light
139: curve from seasons I and II, the standard deviation $s$ in flux is larger
140: than the mean quoted error $\bar{\sigma}$ by a factor $s/\bar{\sigma}=2.65$,
141: a ratio which nevertheless is significantly
142: too large to be readily explained by underestimation of uncertainties.
143: This is probably an indication that the source (or at least one component of
144: it, if it is a blend) is variable at the level of at least a few percent.
145: A careful inspection of the season II light curve
146: indicates that variations are correlated from night to night.
147: However, no periodic signal
148: is present at a level of significance above 50\% in a Lomb-Scargle
149: normalized periodogram (cf.~\citealt{pres92,schw98})
150: computed for seasons I and II.
151:
152: Such non-periodic variability substantially complicates the modeling
153: process, causing greatest confusion for model effects that
154: produce variations with similar amplitudes
155: and time scales. See \S\ref{sec:disc} for
156: further discussion. To aid in interpreting fit results, the
157: errors were scaled so that $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom $\nu$ (DOF),
158: also known as the reduced $\chi^2$ and denoted $\chi^2_{\nu}$, is unity for a
159: constant fit to the light curve from seasons I and II. This required
160: scaling all relative flux errors by a factor of 2.49. The scaling factor
161: is similar to the ratio $s/\bar{\sigma}$ quoted in the previous paragraph; the
162: fact that these two quantities differ could either be attributed to a non-Gaussian
163: error distribution (which seems likely given the apparent systematic variations) or
164: to the limited number of data points.
165:
166: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
167:
168: \section{Modeling the light curve}
169: \label{sec:model}
170:
171: Since the intensity of the source during seasons I and II was taken to
172: be constant, microlensing models were applied to the 50 data points
173: from season III only. Two classes of models were considered:
174: (1) models with a coplanar binary lens consisting of two point masses,
175: in which the source was taken to be a small (but finite) disk of
176: uniform surface brightness (``binary lens'' or ``double lens'' models);
177: (2) models with a single point mass lens and two distinct point
178: sources (``binary source'' or ``double source'' models).
179: The source was treated as finite in the former case due to the
180: possibility of caustic crossings; although there is no direct
181: evidence of such in the \evt\ light curve, the possibility was
182: considered in order not to restrict the exploration of parameter space
183: (e.g., a case in which a brief caustic crossing event occurs in a
184: gap between observations). In the latter case, such caution was not
185: needed since the smooth, low-magnification light curve precludes
186: any possibility of very small (close to zero) impact parameters.
187:
188: The light curve of \evt\ suggests that the two binary components (whether of the
189: lens or of the source) are separated by an angular distance of at
190: least twice the angular Einstein radius $\theta_{\mathrm E}$. For
191: a typical value of $\theta_{\mathrm E}\approx 0.5$~milli-arcseconds (mas)
192: and a distance to the binary (lens or source) of at least a few kiloparsecs (kpc),
193: which is very likely for an event in the direction of the Galactic bulge,
194: the implied projected separation of binary components is
195: several Astronomical Units (AU). Assuming the masses to be not too different
196: from a Solar mass ($M_{\odot}$), the minimum orbital period of the system
197: is several years.
198: Therefore, both classes of models were restricted to the static case; that is,
199: any relative motion of binary components (lens or source) was neglected.
200:
201: \subsection{Parallax effect}
202: \label{sec:parallax}
203:
204: For both classes of models, two parameters are needed to characterize
205: the vector microlens parallax $\bpie$ (e.g., \citealt{goul00}). One
206: parameter can be chosen to be the parallax magnitude $\pie$, whose inverse
207: gives the projected size $\rte$ of
208: the Einstein radius in the observer plane. A second parameter $\psi$ then
209: gives the lens-source proper motion angle on the sky (measured
210: counter-clockwise from North).
211: Following the method recently proposed by \citet{goul03}, all parallax fitting
212: is done in geocentric reference frames defined with respect to the position and
213: velocity of Earth at times very close to one of the light curve peaks.
214:
215: \subsection{Binary lens model}
216: \label{sec:modellens}
217:
218: Binary lens models are characterized by eight parameters, in addition
219: to the two components of the microlens parallax.
220: Four parameters describe the trajectory of the lens relative to the source:
221: the time $t_0$ of closest approach to the more massive binary
222: component (corresponding roughly to one of the two event maxima),
223: the Einstein time scale $t_{\mathrm E}$, the angle $\phi$ between the lens line
224: of centers and the lens trajectory with respect to the source position,
225: and the impact parameter $u_0$ to the more massive binary component.
226: The remaining four parameters describe the lens and source properties:
227: the binary mass ratio $q$ and separation $a$, the
228: fraction $f_{\mathrm{bl}}$ of the baseline intensity due to the source,
229: and the ratio of the angular source radius to the angular Einstein radius,
230: $\xi_{\star,\mathrm E}\equiv \theta_{\star}/\theta_{\mathrm E}$.
231: All length scales ($a, u_0$) are in terms of the Einstein
232: radius $r_{\mathrm E}$ of a lens with mass equal to the total mass of the binary.
233:
234: For events in which it has been possible to measure or estimate
235: the ratio $\xi_{\star,\mathrm E}$ due to caustic crossings,
236: typical values for microlensing
237: toward the Galactic bulge are found to be on the order of 0.001--0.01
238: \citep{alco00, jaro02}.
239: In the absence of caustic crossings and at low magnification, as in
240: the case of \evt, binary lens model light curves are very insensitive to the
241: precise value of $\xi_{\star,\mathrm E}$ provided it is smaller than a
242: few tens of percent. Hence this parameter is poorly constrained by
243: the available data, and its value is fixed at 0.01 in the subsequent analysis.
244:
245: For a binary lens the model flux can conveniently be found numerically
246: for a given lens-source configuration by finding the
247: (multiple) image locations for a set of points on the source boundary
248: (e.g., \citealt{goul97}).
249: This procedure gives 3--5 new sets of points defining the image boundaries,
250: depending on whether the source is outside, crossing, or inside a caustic.
251: Since the surface brightness of the source is taken to be constant, the
252: magnification is given by the ratio of the sum of the (appropriately
253: signed) areas enclosed by the image boundaries to the area of the source.
254:
255: \subsection{Binary source model}
256: \label{sec:modelsource}
257:
258: The static binary source model is constructed from a
259: linear combination of two point lens, point source models
260: with Einstein time scales and vector parallaxes
261: constrained to be the same
262: for each source component.
263: This model has seven parameters in addition to parallax:
264: two for the fraction of the baseline intensity due to each source
265: ($f_{{\mathrm{bl}},i}$, where $i=1,2$), three for the trajectory
266: ($u_0,t_0,\phi$ as in the previous case except that the reference
267: point is defined by the closest approach of the lens to the source
268: responsible for the first peak in the light curve), source
269: separation $a$,
270: and the Einstein time scale $t_{\mathrm E}$.
271:
272: The model flux $m(t)$ at time $t$ can be expressed as
273: \begin{equation}
274: \label{eq:modelflux}
275: m(t) = 1+\sum_{i=1}^{2} f_{{\mathrm{bl}},i}[A(u_i)-1]
276: \end{equation}
277: where
278: \begin{equation}
279: \label{eq:mag}
280: A(u)=\frac{{u^2+2}}{u(u^2+4)^{1/2}}
281: \end{equation}
282: gives the total magnification for a point source, point lens system with
283: separation $u$ (in units of $r_{\mathrm E}$). In this parametrization, the
284: condition $f_{{\mathrm{bl}},1}+f_{{\mathrm{bl}},2}\leq 1$
285: must clearly be met in order for
286: the model to be physically meaningful.
287:
288: \subsection{Fitting procedure}
289: \label{sec:modelfitproc}
290:
291: The $\chi^2$--minimization was performed using MINUIT,
292: a function minimization package available as part of the
293: CERN program library\footnote{http://cernlib.web.cern.ch/cernlib/index.html}.
294: For each class of models, the fitting algorithm was initialized in
295: several different realizations with different sets of initial parameter
296: values. All such sets were chosen to produce an initial model light curve
297: that was qualitatively similar to the observed one
298: (two well-separated smooth peaks with approximately the correct amplitude
299: and width). For the
300: binary lens model, four different initial source trajectories were chosen:
301: two in which the source encountered the more massive lens first; two in
302: which the source encountered the less massive lens first. For each of these
303: pairs, one trajectory was chosen to pass in between the two lenses, and
304: one was chosen not to pass in between the two lenses. The initial values
305: of the other parameters were chosen appropriately to reproduce qualitatively
306: the light curve shape for each of these cases. For the binary
307: source model, an equivalent variety of initial parameter guesses were used,
308: subject again to the requirement that the model light curve be qualitatively
309: similar to the observations.
310: After the best fit solutions were obtained for models in which the
311: parallax was fixed at zero,
312: full nine parameter fits (including parallax)
313: were performed using the previous solutions as the initial guesses.
314:
315: \subsection{Fitting results}
316: \label{sec:modelfitres}
317:
318: The best fit no-parallax model light curves and fit residuals
319: are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fit}.
320: Tables~\ref{tab:doublelens} and~\ref{tab:doublesource} contain the
321: best fit results for the binary lens and binary source models, respectively.
322: For the same number of DOF, the
323: no-parallax double source model is preferred over the no-parallax double
324: lens model by a highly significant
325: margin of $\Delta\chi^2=13.3$, and furthermore this model satisfies
326: the criterion that $\chi^2_{\nu}\approx 1$ (with the caveat that the
327: overall error scaling is rather uncertain).
328: However, the lower panels of Figure~\ref{fig:fit}
329: both show evidence of systematic residuals, indicating that unmodeled
330: complexity is present in both fits. This is not at all surprising
331: in light of the evidence for
332: low-amplitude source variability mentioned in \S\ref{sec:data}, and
333: considering that parallax has been neglected.
334:
335: Including the parallax effect adds two more free model parameters and
336: results in $\Delta\chi^2=-25.7$ and
337: $\Delta\chi^2=-16.5$ for the binary lens and binary source models,
338: respectively. These large $\Delta\chi^2$ values formally indicate that
339: the parallax effect is detected with a high level of statistical significance.
340: The inclusion of parallax brings both models into the
341: $\chi^2_{\nu}<1$ regime, for the adopted error scaling. It also
342: reduces the difference in the statistical
343: quality of the two model fits, though the double source model remains
344: superior by $\Delta\chi^2 = 4.15$ for the same number of DOF.
345:
346: It is worthwhile to note that although the overall
347: error scaling is rather arbitrary as discussed in
348: \S\ref{sec:data} (and hence the precise value of $\chi^2$
349: is far from rigorous), $\Delta \chi^2$ is still a
350: meaningful quantity. The low values of $\chi^2_{\nu}=0.783$ and
351: $\chi^2_{\nu}=0.682$ respectively obtained
352: for the best fit double lens and double source models indicate that the errors
353: have probably been scaled by too large a factor, resulting in values of
354: $\chi^2$ that are systematically low. In principle, the errors could be
355: rescaled so that $\chi^2_{\nu}=1$ for the best fitting model, but this
356: does not seem warranted, especially in view of the complications
357: introduced by the likely source variability. Regardless, if the errors had been
358: scaled by a smaller factor, $\Delta \chi^2$ values would increase
359: correspondingly.
360:
361: Additionally, there are a number of degeneracies in the problem that are
362: important to consider. In the absence of parallax, that is, when the apparent
363: lens-source relative trajectory is (modeled as being) strictly linear,
364: there are two fully degenerate
365: binary lens models and four fully degenerate binary source
366: models. The degenerate models differ only by the sign of the impact
367: parameter $u_0$ and the orientation angle $\phi$. There
368: are only two equivalent binary lens solutions because trajectories on
369: which the two lens components pass on opposite sides of the source
370: produce fundamentally different light curves (due to proximity to caustics)
371: from trajectories on which the two lens components
372: pass on the same side of the source. The same does not hold for the binary
373: source models, and hence in this case there exist four degenerate trajectories.
374:
375: These degeneracies are somewhat alleviated when the parallax effect is included.
376: For the binary lens model the degeneracy is broken; the two solutions
377: separate by $\Delta\chi^2=2.79$ (only the preferred solution is given in
378: Table~\ref{tab:doublelens}). For the binary source model the degeneracy
379: is largely broken as well; only the solution with the lowest $\chi^2$ is
380: given in Table~\ref{tab:doublesource}. The three solutions not included
381: in Table~\ref{tab:doublesource} all fall within the range $1<\Delta\chi^2<2$
382: of the preferred solution. Regardless, the differences among these
383: near-degenerate solutions
384: are largely immaterial, since the best fit parameters (neglecting the sign
385: of the impact parameter $u_{0}$ and the orientation angle $\phi$) lie within
386: or very near the 1-$\sigma$ error ranges quoted in
387: Tables~\ref{tab:doublelens} and~\ref{tab:doublesource}.
388: For all the solutions, the parallax magnitudes $\pie$ are consistent within
389: 1-$\sigma$ with the values from the best fit solutions.
390:
391: There is a further possible degeneracy discovered recently by \citet{goul03}.
392: This ``jerk-parallax'' degeneracy can produce multiple parallax solutions
393: for a given sign of the impact parameter. In an effort to find any such
394: solutions, a detailed search of
395: the $\bpie$ plane was performed for the
396: double source model (which is more computationally tractable than
397: the double lens model). The results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fitcon}.
398: No fully degenerate solution is present,
399: although the contours are highly elongated in a direction
400: perpendicular to the projected acceleration vector of Earth at the time
401: of the first event maximum, when the geocentric reference frame is defined
402: (as expected for this degeneracy).
403: Numerical searches for other parameter combinations that produce
404: similar trajectories were also performed (by solving eqs.~12--14
405: from \citealt{goul03}) for both classes of models. No further degenerate
406: solutions were discovered.
407:
408: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
409:
410: \section{Discussion}
411: \label{sec:disc}
412:
413: An extremely relevant question is whether the parallax effect can
414: be disentangled from the likely variability of the source (regardless
415: of whether the variability is inherent or due to
416: a hitherto unrecognized systematic effect). To
417: address this issue, Figure~\ref{fig:modeldiff} compares
418: the deviations from constant flux in the season II light curve
419: with the magnitude of the effect of parallax on the model light curves
420: for season III. It is apparent that the modulations
421: of the model light curves due to the parallax effect have
422: similar amplitudes and variation time scales to the observed
423: variability of the source, rendering the parallax measurements
424: rather untrustworthy.
425:
426: Further support for the notion of ``contaminated'' parallax measurements
427: comes from examining the implications of the best fit parallax-included
428: models. There is a simple relationship between the projected Einstein
429: radius $\rte$, the lens mass $M$, and the lens-source relative distance
430: $D_{\mathrm{rel}}\equiv (D_l^{-1}-D_s^{-1})^{-1}$, where $D_l$ and $D_s$
431: are the distances from the observer to the lens and source; this
432: relation is given by
433: \begin{equation}
434: \label{eq:drel}
435: D_{\mathrm{rel}}=\frac{c^2 \tilde{r}^2_{\mathrm E}}{4GM}
436: \end{equation}
437: \citep{goul00}. It is plausible to assume the source to be located in
438: the Galactic bulge at a distance of approximately 8~kpc
439: and to assume the lens to have a total mass of approximately one
440: Solar mass. Substituting the measured values of
441: $\pie$ from the best fit binary lens and binary source models, one
442: obtains $D_{\mathrm{rel}}\approx 0.25$~kpc and
443: $D_{\mathrm{rel}}\approx 0.06$~kpc, respectively.
444: In both cases $D_{\mathrm{rel}}^{-1}\gg D_s^{-1}$, indicating that
445: $D_l\approx D_{\mathrm{rel}}$. Even accounting for the substantial
446: additional uncertainties introduced by assuming the lens mass and source
447: distance, such a nearby lens seems unlikely.
448:
449: Since the apparent variability of the source limits the degree to
450: which the binary lens and binary source models can be statistically
451: distinguished, a definitive interpretation of \evt\ will probably require
452: further observations. At the least, future OGLE observations of the
453: source will allow better constraints on its variability. A simple
454: (though not necessarily straightforward) test which might clearly confirm the
455: binary source model could be performed through moderate resolution optical
456: spectroscopy to see if the source exhibits double absorption lines or radial
457: velocity variations. An alternative possibility would be to obtain
458: deep, high resolution imaging of the field to see if the lens can be
459: observed directly.
460:
461: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
462:
463: \section{Conclusion}
464: \label{sec:conc}
465:
466: The light curve of \evt\ shows two well-separated smooth peaks that can
467: be modeled as either microlensing by a binary lens or microlensing of
468: a binary source. Both models are physically plausible and can possibly be
469: tested by future observations of the source and/or lens.
470: The binary lens model provides a more
471: familiar explanation of the event since such phenomena have been observed
472: many times in the past, while the binary source
473: model is preferred on statistical grounds. Given the apparent
474: low-amplitude variability
475: of the source (or at least one component of it) however, statistical
476: distinctions of the magnitude that separate the two models are somewhat
477: suspect, especially considering the improbably large microlens parallaxes
478: indicated by the best fit models. Despite these complications,
479: \evt\ remains a plausible candidate for microlensing of a
480: well-resolved binary source -- one of only two such observed to date.
481:
482: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
483:
484: \acknowledgements
485: The author wishes to thank B.~Paczy{\'n}ski and T. Sumi for helpful comments and
486: suggestions, M. Jaroszy{\'n}ski for providing routines (originally
487: developed by S.~Mao) to calculate binary lens light curves,
488: A. Gould for helpful discussion, and the OGLE collaboration
489: for making microlensing data publicly available in real time. This research
490: was supported in part by a NDSEG Fellowship award to the author.
491:
492: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
493:
494: \begin{thebibliography}{}
495:
496: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(1993)]{alco93} Alcock, C., et al. 1993, \nat, 365, 621
497:
498: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(2000)]{alco00} Alcock, C., et al. 2000, \apj, 541, 270
499:
500: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(2001)]{alco01} Alcock, C., et al. 2001, \apj, 552, 259
501:
502: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2001)]{bond01} Bond, I. A. 2001, \mnras, 327, 868
503:
504: \bibitem[Di Stefano(2000)]{dist00} Di Stefano, R. 2000, \apj, 541, 587
505:
506: \bibitem[Dominik(1998)]{domi98} Dominik, M. 1998, \aap, 333, 893
507:
508: \bibitem[Gould(2000)]{goul00} Gould, A. 2000, \apj, 542, 785
509:
510: \bibitem[Gould(2003)]{goul03} Gould, A. 2003, astro-ph/0311548
511:
512: \bibitem[Gould \& Gaucherel(1997)]{goul97} Gould, A., \& Gaucherel, C. 1997,
513: \apj, 477, 580
514:
515: \bibitem[Gould \& Loeb(1992)]{goul92} Gould, A., \& Loeb, A. 1992, \apj, 396, 104
516:
517: \bibitem[Griest(1991)]{grie91} Griest, K. 1991, \apj, 366, 412
518:
519: \bibitem[Griest \& Hu(1992)]{grie92} Griest, K, \& Hu, W. 1992, \apj, 397, 362
520:
521: \bibitem[Han \& Jeong(1998)]{han98} Han, C., \& Jeong, Y. 1998, \mnras, 301, 231
522:
523: \bibitem[Jaroszy{\'n}ski(2002)]{jaro02} Jaroszy{\'n}ski, M. 2002, AcA, 52, 39
524:
525: \bibitem[Mao \& Paczy{\'n}ski(1991)]{mao91} Mao, S., \& Paczy{\'n}ski, B. 1991, \apjl, 374, 37
526:
527: \bibitem[Paczy{\'n}ski(1986)]{pacz86} Paczy{\'n}ski, B. 1986, \apj, 304, 1
528:
529: \bibitem[Press et~al.(1992)]{pres92} Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A.,
530: Vetterling, W. T., \& Flannery, B. P. 1992, {\it Numerical Recipes}
531: (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge)
532:
533: \bibitem[Schwarzenberg-Czerny(1998)]{schw98} Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A. 1998,
534: \mnras, 301, 831
535:
536: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(1992)]{udal92} Udalski, A., et al. 1992, AcA, 42, 253
537:
538: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(2002)]{udal02} Udalski, A., et al. 2002, AcA, 52, 1
539:
540: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(2003)]{udal03} Udalski, A., et al. 2003, AcA, 53, 291
541:
542: \end{thebibliography}
543:
544: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
545:
546: %----------------------------------%
547: \begin{figure}[htb]
548: \epsscale{1.0}
549: \plotone{f1.eps}
550: \figcaption{\label{fig:lc}
551: $I$-band light curve of \evt\ with nominal uncertainties from the
552: OGLE data reduction pipeline. The observing seasons referred to in the
553: text are labeled. The source is relatively constant
554: during the first two seasons, with the deviations due to microlensing confined
555: to the third season.
556: }
557: \end{figure}
558: %----------------------------------%
559: %----------------------------------%
560: \begin{figure}[htb]
561: \epsscale{1.0}
562: \plotone{f2.eps}
563: \figcaption{\label{fig:fit}
564: Panel (a): Best fit no-parallax binary lens (dotted curve)
565: and binary source (dashed curve) models for the light curve of \evt.
566: To the eye, there is little difference
567: in the qualities of the two fits. Panel (b): Fit residuals in units of
568: sigmas for the best fit binary lens model (not including parallax).
569: Panel (c): Same as panel (b), but for the
570: binary source model. The residuals in both of the lower panels display
571: a somewhat systematic character.
572: }
573: \end{figure}
574: %----------------------------------%
575: %----------------------------------%
576: \begin{figure}[htb]
577: \epsscale{1.0}
578: \plotone{f3.eps}
579: \figcaption{\label{fig:fitcon}
580: $\chi^2$ contours in the $\bpie$ plane for the double source model.
581: `X' marks the best fit solution; contours corresponding to
582: $\Delta\chi^2=1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64$ are shown.
583: The subscripts $n,e$ refer to the North and East
584: components of the parallax vector.
585: The symbols $\parallel$ and $\perp$ refer to the projected direction of the
586: Earth's acceleration vector at the time of the first event maximum (which is
587: the reference point of the geocentric frame in which parallax fitting is done).
588: Although the contours are elongated in the expected direction,
589: no fully degenerate solution
590: is found as in \citet{goul03}.
591: }
592: \end{figure}
593: %----------------------------------%
594: %----------------------------------%
595: \begin{figure}[htb]
596: \epsscale{1.0}
597: \plotone{f4.eps}
598: \figcaption{\label{fig:modeldiff}
599: The curves do not represent fits to the data.
600: Points with errorbars show deviations from constant relative flux from season II
601: with nominal OGLE data reduction pipeline uncertainties.
602: The dotted line is the binary lens parallax-included fit minus no-parallax fit from
603: season III; the dashed line is the same, but for the binary source model.
604: The qualitative similarities between the season II light curve and the season III
605: ``model-difference'' curves are striking, especially considering that they refer to
606: different observing seasons.
607: The time scales for variation are similar,
608: and notably, the amplitude of deviations from constant
609: flux during season II is comparable to or
610: greater than the differences between the
611: parallax-included and no-parallax fits, even though no scaling has
612: been applied to account for the fact that the source was brighter during
613: season III (and thus relative flux deviations due to intrinsic source
614: variability should be magnified as well).
615: }
616: \end{figure}
617: %----------------------------------%
618:
619: \clearpage
620: %----------------------------------%
621: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
622: \tablecolumns{4}
623: \tablewidth{0pc}
624: \tablecaption{\label{tab:doublelens}Parameters of best fit double lens model}
625: \setcounter{table}{0}
626: \tablehead{\colhead{Quantity} & \colhead{No-parallax} & \colhead{Parallax included} & \colhead{Units} \\
627: \colhead{} & \colhead{best fit value} & \colhead{best fit value} & \colhead{}}
628: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
629: \startdata
630: $\pie$ & 0.0\tablenotemark{a} & $0.7\pm0.2$ & AU$^{-1}$ \\
631: $\psi$ & 0.0\tablenotemark{a} & $-0.2^{+0.2}_{-0.4}$ & rad \\
632: $q$ & $1.28\pm0.05$ & $1.3\pm0.1$ & \nodata \\
633: $a$ & $2.90\pm0.07$ & $3.1\pm0.1$ & $r_{\mathrm E}$ \\
634: $\phi$ & $0.048^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$ & $0.25^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ & rad \\
635: $u_0$ & $-0.49\pm 0.02$ & $-0.51^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $r_{\mathrm E}$ \\
636: $t_0$ & $884.3\pm 0.3$ & $884.5\pm0.5$ & days\tablenotemark{b} \\
637: $t_{\mathrm E}$ & $39\pm 1$ & $38\pm2$ & days \\
638: $f_{\mathrm{bl}}$ & $0.92^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & $0.95^{+0.05}_{-0.08}$ & \nodata \\
639: $\xi_{\star,\mathrm E}$ & 0.01\tablenotemark{a} & 0.01\tablenotemark{a} & $\theta_{\mathrm E}$ \\
640: \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
641: $\chi^2$ & 57.76 & 32.10 & \nodata \\
642: DOF & 43 & 41 & \nodata \\
643: $\chi^2_{\nu}$ & 1.34 & 0.783 & \nodata \\
644: \enddata
645: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
646: \tablecomments{Parameter values for the no-parallax fit refer to a heliocentric frame; those for the parallax-included fit refer to a geocentric frame. Uncertainties are quoted at the $\Delta\chi^2=1$ level.}
647: \tablenotetext{a}{fixed}
648: \tablenotetext{b}{HJD-2452000}
649: \end{deluxetable}
650: %----------------------------------%
651: %----------------------------------%
652: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
653: \tablecolumns{4}
654: \tablewidth{0pc}
655: \tablecaption{\label{tab:doublesource}Parameters of best fit double source model}
656: \tablehead{\colhead{Quantity} & \colhead{No-parallax} & \colhead{Parallax included} & \colhead{Units} \\
657: \colhead{} & \colhead{best fit value} & \colhead{best fit value} & \colhead{}}
658: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
659: \startdata
660: $\pie$ & 0.0\tablenotemark{a} & $1.4^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$ & AU$^{-1}$ \\
661: $\psi$ & 0.0\tablenotemark{a} & $0.07^{+0.12}_{-0.20}$ & rad \\
662: $f_{{\mathrm{bl}},1}$ & $0.28\pm0.03$ & $0.34\pm0.04$ & \nodata \\
663: $u_{0}$ & $0.23\pm0.02$ & $0.28\pm0.03$ & $r_{\mathrm E}$ \\
664: $t_{0}$ & $775.4\pm0.1$ & $775.3\pm0.2$ & days\tablenotemark{b} \\
665: $t_{\mathrm E}$ & $44\pm2$ & $41^{+3}_{-2}$ & days \\
666: $f_{{\mathrm{bl}},2}$ & $0.33\pm0.04$ & $0.28^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$ & \nodata \\
667: $a$ & $2.4\pm0.1$ & $2.3^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ & $r_{\mathrm E}$ \\
668: $\phi$ & $-0.046\pm0.005$ & $0.03^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ & rad \\
669: \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
670: $\chi^2$ & 44.45 & 27.95 & \nodata \\
671: DOF & 43 & 41 & \nodata \\
672: $\chi^2_{\nu}$ & 1.03 & 0.682 & \nodata \\
673: \enddata
674: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
675: \tablecomments{Parameter values for the no-parallax fit refer to a heliocentric frame; those for the parallax-included fit refer to a geocentric frame defined by the position and velocity of Earth near the time $t_0$. Uncertainties are quoted at the $\Delta\chi^2=1$ level.}
676: \tablenotetext{a}{fixed}
677: \tablenotetext{b}{HJD-2452000}
678: \end{deluxetable}
679: %----------------------------------%
680:
681:
682: \end{document}
683:
684:
685:
686: