Paper detail

Possible Solution of the long-standing discrepancy in the Microlensing Optical Depth Toward the Galactic Bulge by correcting the stellar number count

We find that significant incompleteness in stellar number counts results in a significant overestimate of the microlensing optical depth $τ$ and event rate per star per year $Γ$ toward the Galactic bulge from the first two years of the MOA-II survey. We find that the completeness in Red Clump Giant (RCG) counts $f_{\rm RC}$ decreases proportional to the galactic latitude $b$, as $f_{\rm RC}=(0.63\pm0.11)-(0.052\pm0.028)\times b$, ranging between 1 and 0.7 at $b=-6^\circ\sim-1.5^\circ$. The previous measurements using all sources by Difference Image Analysis (DIA) by MACHO and MOA-I suffer the same bias. On the other hand, the measurements using a RCG sample by OGLE-II, MACHO and EROS were free from this bias because they selected only the events associated with the resolved stars. Thus, the incompleteness both in the number of events and stellar number count cancel out. We estimate $τ$ and $Γ$ by correcting this incompleteness. In the central fields with $|l|<5^\circ$, we find $Γ=[18.74\pm0.91]\times10^{-6}\exp[(0.53\pm0.05)(3-|b|)]$ star$^{-1}$ yr$^{-1}$ and $τ_{200}=[1.84\pm0.14]\times10^{-6}\exp[(0.44\pm0.07)(3-|b|)]$ for the 427 events with $t_{\rm E}\leq200\,$days using all sources brighter than $I_s\leq20$ mag. Our revised all-source $τ$ measurements are about 2-$σ$ smaller than the other all-source measurements and are consistent with the RCG measurements within 1-$σ$. We conclude that the long-standing problem on discrepancy between the high $τ$ with all-source samples by DIA and low $τ$ with RCG samples can probably be explained by the incompleteness of the stellar number count. A model fit to these measurements predicts $Γ=4.60\pm0.25\times10^{-5}$ star$^{-1}$ yr$^{-1}$ at $|b|\sim-1^\circ.4$ and $-2^\circ.25<l<3^\circ.75$ for sources with $I<20$, where the future space mission WFIRST will observe.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.