KMT-2021-BLG-0322: Severe Degeneracy Between Triple-Lens and Higher-Order Binary-Lens Interpretations

Cheongho Han,Andrew Gould,Yuki Hirao,Chung-Uk Lee,Michael D. Albrow,Sun-Ju Chung,Kyu-Ha Hwang,Youn Kil Jung,Doeon Kim,Shude Mao,Yoon-Hyun Ryu,In-Gu Shin,Yossi Shvartzvald,Jennifer C. Yee,Weicheng Zang,Sang-Mok Cha,Dong-Jin Kim,Hyoun-Woo Kim,Seung-Lee Kim,Dong-Joo Lee,Yongseok Lee,Byeong-Gon Park,Richard W. Pogge,Fumio Abe,Richard Barry,David P. Bennett,Aparna Bhattacharya,Ian Bond,Martin Donachie,Hirosane Fujii,Akihiko Fukui,Yoshitaka Itow,Rintaro Kirikawa,Iona Kondo,Naoki Koshimoto,Man Cheung Alex Li,Yutaka Matsubara,Yasushi Muraki,Shota Miyazaki,Clement Ranc,Nicholas J. Rattenbury,Yuki Satoh,Hikaru Shoji,Takahiro Sumi,Daisuke Suzuki,Yuzuru Tanaka,Paul J. Tristram,Tsubasa Yamawaki,Atsunori Yonehara
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202141939
2021-01-01
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Abstract:We investigate the microlensing event KMT-2021-BLG-0322, for which the light curve exhibits three distinctive sets of caustic-crossing features. It is found that the overall features of the light curve are approximately described by a binary-lens (2L1S) model, but the model leaves substantial residuals. We test various interpretations with the aim of explaining the residuals. We find that the residuals can be explained either by considering a nonrectilinear lens-source motion caused by the microlens-parallax and lens-orbital effects or by adding a low-mass companion to the binary lens (3L1S model). The degeneracy between the higher-order 2L1S model and the 3L1S model is very severe, making it difficult to single out a correct solution based on the photometric data. This degeneracy was known before for two previous events (MACHO-97-BLG-41 and OGLE-2013-BLG-0723), which led to the false detections of planets in binary systems, and thus the identification of the degeneracy for KMT-2021-BLG-0322 illustrates that the degeneracy can be not only common but also very severe, emphasizing the need to check both interpretations of deviations from 2L1S models. From the Bayesian analysis conducted with the measured lensing observables of the event timescale, angular Einstein radius, and microlens parallax, it was estimated that the binary lens components have masses $(M_1, M_2) =(0.62^{+0.25}_{-0.26}~M_\odot,0.07^{+0.03}_{-0.03}~M_\odot)$, for both 2L1S and 3L1S solutions, and the mass of the tertiary lens component according to the 3L1S solution is $M_3=6.40^{+2.64}_{-2.78}~M_{\rm J}$.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?