abstract: Landscape analyses often assume the existence of large numbers of fields, $N$, with all of the many couplings among these fields (subject to constraints such as local supersymmetry) selected independently and randomly from simple (say Gaussian) distributions. We point out that unitarity and perturbativity place significant constraints on behavior of couplings with $N$, eliminating otherwise puzzling results. In would-be flux compactifications of string theory, we point out that in order that there be large numbers of light fields, the compactification radii must scale as a positive power of $N$; scaling of couplings with $N$ may also be necessary for perturbativity. We show that in some simple string theory settings with large numbers of fields, for fixed $R$ and string coupling, one can bound certain sums of squares of couplings by order one numbers. This may argue for strong correlations, possibly calling into question the assumption of uncorrelated distributions. We consider implications of these considerations for classical and quantum stability of states without supersymmetry, with low energy supersymmetry arising from tuning of parameters, and with dynamical breaking of supersymmetry.
bibliography: jhep_revised_classical_and_quantum_stability.bib

# Introduction

The notion that there is an underlying landscape leads to a picture in which there is an ensemble of theories with varying types and number of degrees of freedom at a high energy scale, and with lagrangian parameters at that scale picked at random from an underlying distribution. Flux vacua in various theories have served as models for understanding these questions. If there are large numbers of quantized fluxes, each of which can take many values, the number of states can be exponentially large. Many analyses of this possibility have been conducted in string theory (e.g. IIB and F theory). In these theories, if the fluxes vanish, there are large numbers of moduli; moduli and fluxes are paired. Many of these fields may be stabilized and gain mass once fluxes are turned on, already at the level of the classical equations. The stabilization of these moduli is usually studied at the level of model effective field theories. In many cases the working assumption has been that one could describe the system with a locally supersymmetric lagrangian with a large number of fields, with Kahler potential and superpotential terms chosen from suitable (say Gaussian) distributions. Many of the results obtained from these studies appear robust, with a generic flavor. For example, distributions of supersymmetry breaking scales for small scales can be understood in terms of a low energy theory of a single chiral field, with parameters chosen from uniform distributions.

Another approach to modeling a landscape is to simply consider a field theory with a large number of fields, and make assumptions about the statistical distributions of lagrangian parameters. We will refer to this as the *large N* viewpoint. The relation noted above, between numbers of possible fluxes in string compactifications and moduli, suggests to many authors a connection between these two pictures. Much of our discussion in this paper will be in the context of systems with large numbers of fields. In such theories, it is relatively easy to formulate the problem of finding stationary points, and to consider issues of classical and quantum stability.

On the other hand, in a scenario in which most or all moduli are stabilized by a potential generated by fluxes, moduli masses typically scale as an inverse power of the compatification radius (for simplicity, we will think of a compatification with all compact dimensions of comparable size, $R$). In this case a large number of light pseudomoduli requires that $R$ be large; if this is not the case, it is not clear why the analysis in terms of many fields is sensible. We will argue that large $R$ is not likely to play a special role in determining the statistics of vacuum states, and that a priori one expects such states to be rare. In flux compactifications, then, reconciling large $N$ results, such as the fraction of stationary points exhibiting stability, with this expectation will provide consistency checks on assumptions about the underlying landscape.

In would-be vacua without supersymmetry, the questions of classical stability and quantum metastability have largely been explored in the large N framework (exceptions, for quantum tunneling, include). These analyses make various assumptions about the low energy field content and statistics of the effective action of such states. An often unstated assumption must be made from the start: the couplings at these stationary points must be sufficiently weak that a semiclassical analysis is sensible; otherwise the notion of "stationary points" is not meaningful. Accepting this (and the conditions for and plausibility of this assumption will be one of the topics of this paper), naively, one might expect that among non-supersymmetric stationary points, a fraction of order $(1/2)^N$ would be stable or metastable. Various studies, however, suggest far more severe suppression, possibly as $e^{-cN^2}$ or more generally $e^{-aN^p}$, for some constant positive constants, $a,~c$ and $p$. For approximately supersymmetric states, a high degree of metastability would seem almost assured, but the results of suggest that one should rethink this issue as well. As for quantum stability, among metastable states, without supersymmetry, one finds an exponential suppression of stability against tunneling, but the analyses make a number of assumptions, and it is not clear how general they are.

In this note we attempt to develop a more robust understanding of the question of stability. In section , we discuss some general aspects of $N$-field models. In section , under the assumption that couplings of fields are uncorrelated, we determine how couplings must scale with $N$ in order that there be a sensible perturbative expansion in the low energy effective field theory; more precisely that the low energy theory should not be in violent conflict with unitarity. In section , we consider implications of these scalings for actual string models. We first note that in flux compactifications, the existence of large numbers of relatively light fields requires that the compactification radius grow as a power of the coupling, and discuss the power with particular frameworks. We argue that it is not plausible, with or without supersymmetry, that the preponderance of metastable states lie at large radius, and consider the connection of this issue with the question of stability for large $N$. We also note the possibility that, independent of the coupling and radii, sums of (squared) couplings do not grow with $N$. This question can be investigated in critical string theories, and in section , we carry through a simple computational test, demonstrating that indeed certain sums of squared couplings are of order one rather than order $N$. We argue that this is an indication of strong correlations among couplings.

In section , we consider states with approximate supersymmetry, with a particular focus on questions of stability and the possible role of large numbers of fields. We first review two models for supersymmetry in a landscape, one in which the hierarchy is achieved by tuning (of fluxes), another where it arises due to dynamical breaking of supersymmetry (in some form). We explain why one expects that stability, both classical and quantum, in a landscape is a feature of an order one fraction of stationary points. In the tuned case, we review the result of , that stability is suppressed exponentially in the number of fields, $N$. We explain why this is surprising, and isolate the origin of the suppression. We argue that, if the requirements for unitarity (perturbativity) are satisfied, classical stability is typical. In section , we review ideas for different branches of the landscape, and discuss the implications of our observations. With small supersymmetry breaking, either through tuning or (especially for the case of) dynamical supersymmetry breaking, stability is not a significant constraint. In section , we conclude, with an overview and some final speculations on the possible role of supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric states in a landscape.

# Multiple Field Landscape Models

One picture for the emergence of a discretuum or landscape of states is that of Bousso and Polchinski, in which there are a large number of possible choices of fluxes, each defining a system with a unique (or small number of) (metastable) ground state(s). Another is that there are large numbers of fields, $N$, admitting a vast number of stationary points, some fraction of them stable. In Calabi-Yau compactifications of string theories, there would appear to be a connection. In the case of IIB theories, for example, the number of possible $(2,1)$ forms is related to the number of complex structure moduli, which are massless in the absence of fluxes. So if one number is large, the other is large.

Theories with many fields provide a relatively simple setting in which to address questions of classical and quantum stability. As a simple starting point, which illustrates a number of the main issues, consider a theory with $N$ scalars, where the potential is simply a sum of terms $$\begin{aligned}
V(\vec \phi) = \sum_{i=1}^N f_i(\phi_i)
\end{aligned}$$ Assume that the $f_i$'s are all bounded below, and grow without bound at infinity. If a typical $f_i$ has $n$ minima and $n-1$ maxima, then the system has $(2n-1)^N$ stationary points and $n^{N}$ minima. In other words, an exponentially small fraction of stationary points, ($2^{-N}$ if $n$ is large), are classically stable. This picture may change drastically, as discussed in , once couplings of the different fields to each other are considered. If all couplings between fields are of order the couplings in the $f_i$'s, an assumption we will refer to as *coupling democracy*, we might expect significantly more stationary points. At the same time, only an extremely tiny fraction would be true minima. This point was stressed in , The suppression of stability, these authors found, is of order $e^{-cN^{2}}$, for some constant $c$. If the couplings scale, instead, as some inverse power of $N$, or if only a few couplings are typically appreciable, then, without supersymmetry, the suppression of stability is only exponential.

Quantum stability can be addressed in a similar way. The authors of considered tunneling in a theory with many fields. Assuming the existence of a minimum, they took the coefficients of the Taylor series expansion about that point to be independent random numbers. In numerical simulations, they found an exponential suppression of states with (logs of) lifetimes greater than some fixed value. These results were understood analytically in . The analysis was particularly simple in the case where couplings between different fields were suppressed.

Ref. considered the question of classical stability in the framework of locally supersymmetric lagrangians. These authors selected Kahler potentials and superpotentials from plausible random distributions. Without approximate supersymmetry, they found a suppression with $N$ behaving as $e^{-c N^{1.3}}$. We will discuss their results in the case of approximate supersymmetry shortly. One might argue that the use of a supersymmetric effective lagrangian is a strong assumption. Unless the scale of supersymmetry breaking is small, it is not clear why one should cut off the derivative expansion for the effective field theory at terms with two derivatives. This corresponds to cutting off the theory at terms with at most two powers of auxiliary fields. At least in cases where the supersymmetry breaking scale does turn out to be low, however, one can argue that the analysis is self-consistent. This suggests that the truth might lie in between the results of and . In either case, this is a very substantial suppression, suggesting that metastable states, at least without some approximate supersymmetry, might be quite rare. We will comment more on this issue shortly.

# Scaling with $N$

In a theory with $N$ fields, the assumption that all couplings in an effective lagrangian are selected at random, from $N$-independent distributions, is not sensible as $N$ gets large. The theory will violate unitarity in perturbation theory. Radiative corrections will grow with powers of $N$ (in the supersymmetric case, we will discuss a potential violation of unitarity already at tree level shortly). Indeed this violent breakdown of perturbation theory will indicate a lack of even a qualitative understanding of the physics.

If we demand that couplings scale uniformly with $N$ so as to yield a sensible expansion, and assume, for simplicity, that the scale of non-renormalizable couplings is comparable to the ultraviolet cutoff (an assumption which we will assess later in the context of string theory), we can, by considering loop corrections, obtain scaling laws as a function of $N$. In particular, if we insist that successive terms in the perturbation expansion be as small or smaller by powers of $N$, and if there is just one characteristic mass scale, which we take , for simplicity, to be the Planck scale, $M_p$, we have

1.  Without supersymmetry, terms in the potential of the form $\phi^{a}$ (we will confine our attention to $a>2$) should have couplings which scale with inverse powers of $N$. Writing these as $$\begin{aligned}
    \gamma_{ijk\ell...} \phi^i \phi^j \phi^k \phi^\ell \dots
    \end{aligned}$$ then the scaling $$\begin{aligned}
    {\gamma^{(a)} \sim M_p^{-(a-4)}}~{ N^{-{a\over 2}}}.
    \label{gammascaling}
    \end{aligned}$$ yields systematically small perturbative corrections. To see this, it is helpful to first examine some examples. Consider corrections to the two point function. If we consider $<\phi_i \phi_i>$ ($i$ not summed), then there is a correction, quadratic in the four point couplings, proportional to $N^3$. With the scaling above, the result behaves as $N^{-1}$. If we have different indices, $<\phi_i \phi_j>$, we might expect the different contributions to add with random signs, and the result is further suppressed. Similarly, for the contribution from the six point, eight point functions. Corrections to the four point function are similarly suppressed.

    One can possibly allow a slightly weaker suppression with $N$. The $a$-point functions which receive the largest corrections are those with some indices identical. It is possible that these are larger, by powers of $N$, than those with all indices different. In particular, the scaling for the couplings with different values for the indices, $$\begin{aligned}
    {\gamma^{(a)} \sim M_p^{-(a-4)}}~{ N^{{1-a\over 2}}}.
    \label{gammascalingprime}
    \end{aligned}$$ while for those with indices equal in pairs: $$\begin{aligned}
    {\gamma^{(a)} \sim M_p^{-(a-4)}}~{ N^{{2-a\over 2}}}.
    \label{gammascalingequalindices}
    \end{aligned}$$ appears sensible. We will not pursue this further, adopting the stronger scaling if necessary.

2.  With supersymmetry, if the couplings in the superpotential with $a$ powers of chiral fields scale as $$\begin{aligned}
    \lambda^{(a)} \sim M_p^{3-a}~N^{-{(a-1) / 2}}.
    \label{nscalings}
    \end{aligned}$$

then perturbation theory appears under control. For example, the corrections to the Kahler potential scale as $N^0$. One can check that this coincides with a somewhat more severe suppression of scalar couplings in . The quartic coupling, for example, scales as $N^{-2}$. It should be stressed, again, that we are assuming here that there is just one relevant mass scale in the underlying theory, and that, apart from the scalings with $N$, there are no other parameterically very small parameters. Such parameters (small pure numbers or ratios of mass scales) could alter the considerations described here.

We can compare these behaviors with what one would expect if, in some basis for the fields, only the self couplings were of order one, while all of the others vanished (as some large power of $N$). We will refer to such couplings as *sparse*. For the case of real fields, for example, one could consider transforming the fields to another basis by a random $O(N)$ matrix, leading to couplings scaling as inverse powers of $N$. Then, for example, for the four point coupling, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{ijkl} = \sum_m O_{im} O_{jm} O_{km} O_{\ell m} \tilde \gamma_{mmmm}.
\end{aligned}$$ Typical entries in the orthogonal matrix $O$ would behave as $N^{-1/2}$, and assuming terms add with random signs, we would have $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{ijkl} \propto N^{-3/2}.
\end{aligned}$$ More generally, for a coupling involving $a$ real scalar fields, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{(a)} \propto N^{1 -a \over 2}.
\end{aligned}$$ This corresponds to our weaker condition, . For couplings with all indices paired, again we find a similar scaling as in equation .

# Lessons From String Theory

Modeling of landscapes has been heavily influenced by string theory; indeed, this is the only framework we have in which to make sense of higher dimensional theories, or even four dimensional theories with gravity. As we have stressed from the beginning, fluxes in string theory have provided both a key to how exponentially large numbers of states might arise, and to how large numbers of relatively light scalar fields might emerge. On the other hand, if the candidate light fields are the moduli which exist in the absence of fluxes, and these fields gain mass proportional to flux, it is not clear why, in general, these fields will be light compared to other string states. The standard (and most plausible) suggestion is that this will occur when compactification radii are large.

## Conditions on Radii and Couplings

In the IIB theory, for example, complex structure moduli acquire potentials in the presence of fluxes. If typical fluxes are of order $M$, there is a $2N\times 2 N$ mass matrix for the scalars, with typical entries $$\begin{aligned}
\left ( m_{csm}^2 \right )_{ij}  \propto {M^2 \over R^6}
\end{aligned}$$ (possibly with additional powers of $N$). If the matrix is very sparse, the eigenvalues are of order $M^2$, and we require $$\begin{aligned}
R^3 \gg M
\end{aligned}$$ while if the entries are random and independent of each other (and $N$), we have the requirement: $$\begin{aligned}
R^3 \gg \sqrt{N}M
\end{aligned}$$ In any case $R$ must be large, at least by powers of $M$, and quite possibly by powers of $N$ (this is certainly the case with the assumptions of ).

Requiring sufficiently weak coupling (perturbativity) is potentially an even stronger constraint. Couplings of complex structure moduli involving $n$ fields scale as $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^{(n)} \sim M^2 R^{-4 -n}
\end{aligned}$$ So if $R$ is the source of suppression of couplings, it appears one may require even larger $R$ as a function of $N$. Alternatively, suppression may result from $g_s$ or from features of the string amplitudes themselves, as we will discuss shortly.

The problem of fixing the radial moduli, especially without supersymmetry or approximate supersymmetry, is not well understood. Assuming that such large $R$ is required, it is natural to ask how typical this might be. It is hard to make general statements about the non-supersymmetric case, but models for fixing radii with fluxes were put forward in the large extra dimension scenario of . These involved playing off potentials due to fluxes with a bulk cosmological constant, curvature terms and possibly Casimir energies. The typical scalings were designed to allow very large extra dimensions and vanishing four dimensional cosmological constant. If terms of the first three types were of comparable importance, so as to allow cancellation of the c.c., then the typical radii satisfied $R \sim M^{1/3}$. This is not good enough to give rise to many light fields. Other scalings and tunings of parameters may allow more rapid growth of $R$ with $M$, but it seems that large radius with many light fields is not likely to be typical. In general, we might expect large $R$ to be associated with runaway behavior. An alternative approach is the exponentially large volume scenario of . While perhaps not evidence for any particular phenomenon, the instability of typical vacua in large N models is consistent with the expectation that there should not be vast numbers of states at very large $R$. We will return to this issue in section .

The KKLT model provides a scenario, tied to approximate supersymmetry, in which a small fraction of states lie at large $R$. (As a model of moduli fixing in a landscape, it is necessary that the actual number of such states still be substantial). In this model, there is a large hierarchy between the masses of the majority of the moduli (complex structure moduli) and the lightest (Kahler) moduli, controlled not only by $R$ but by the parameter $W_0$ (the expectation value of the superpotential). Specifically, the radii are controlled by the Kahler modulus, $\rho \sim R^4$, which is itself of order: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho = -{1 \over b} \log (W_0)
\end{aligned}$$ where $b$ is a number of order one. So we require $$\begin{aligned}
W_0 \approx e^{-b \rho}.
\end{aligned}$$ In the KKLT scenario, this *might* be of order the fraction of states with TeV scale supersymmetry breaking, for example. In any case, this might be a substantial set of states where large $R$ is self-consistent. But as we will argue, large radius is not likely to be a driving feature in the population of approximately supersymmetric states, and not a critical issue in stability.

An alternative picture, also with approximate supersymmetry *and* exponentially large volume was put forward in ref. . The framework was closely tied to string theory. A number of challenges for such a picture were discussed in , but if successfully met, this would fall in the general class of approximately supersymmetric theories we have discussed, and we would not expect any significant suppression of stability with the number of fields.

## Analogous Questions in Critical String Theory

We have seen that unitarity/perturbativity place restrictions on behavior of couplings with $N$. This might be enforced by large radius or weak string coupling. Alternatively, we have suggested a different possibility, that couplings might be "diagonal", in the sense that, for example, the set of substantial quartic couplings might be sparse. While it seems challenging to address this question in an actual flux landscape, we can consider similar issues in critical string theories with large numbers of fields.

We will consider supersymmetric theories, and suppose that we have a set of chiral fields, $\phi_i$, with Yukawa couplings (cubic superpotential couplings) among them. First, let's review the issue of unitarity/perturbativity in this context. Suppose $X$ is a particular chiral multiplet, and that it couples to a large number of chiral multiplets through couplings of the form $\gamma_i X^2 \phi_i$ (this will be relevant to the question of stability in the supersymmetric case shortly. Consider the process $X + X \rightarrow X + X$ (where here $X$ denotes the scalar in the multiplet) at energies high compared to the masses of the $N$ $\phi_i$'s. The potential includes a term $$\begin{aligned}
V(X) = \sum_{i=1}^N \vert \gamma_i \vert^2 \vert X \vert^4.
\label{vsusy}
\end{aligned}$$ The cross section, then, behaves as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(X + X \rightarrow X + X) = {(\sum_{i=1}^N \vert \gamma_i \vert^2)^2 \over s}.
\end{aligned}$$

With the assumption that all of the $\gamma_i$'s are chosen independently from the same distribution, the corresponding amplitude grows as $N^2$, and violates partial wave unitarity for large $N$ by a factor $N^2$; in other words, as one increases $N$, it would be necessary to take the string coupling small as a power of $N$. This would seem surprising.

## A String Calculation

An example, which is relatively simple to analyze, is provided by compactification of the heterotic string on a Calabi-Yau space with large Euler number. While there is not a systematic large $N$ computation (as is also true for most landscape constructions) we can still reasonably ask whether large numbers appear in perturbative computations. This would imply, in a manner analogous to our landscape discussion, that a valid perturbation theory would require a large radius or very small $g$ (scaling as a power of $N$). Here we can focus on the cubic terms in the superpotential. Consider, for example, the well-studied case of defined by the vanishing of a quintic polynomial in $CP^4$.There are $101$ $27$'s (corresponding to $101$ complex structure moduli). At the level of cubic superpotential terms, $27^3$, there are of order $10^5$ independent couplings. For special points in the moduli space, the actual number is much smaller, due to enhanced symmetries. For example, it is well known that there is a point with a $Z_5^4 \times S_5$ symmetry. At this point there are only a small number of non-vanishing couplings. If one considers, for example couplings of the type $(a,a,b)$, with fixed $a$, there is typically only one field ($b$) which can combine to form an invariant, rather than $101$. But at generic points in the moduli space, the symmetry is broken and one would expect all couplings to be non-vanishing.

On the other hand, there is a simple way to bound certain combinations of couplings, which we will see is relevant to this problem. This arises from considerations of two dimensional conformal field theory (analogous considerations may be applicable in the framework of four dimensional theories, e.g. ). In such theories, coupling constants can be extracted from correlation functions of *two dimensional* fields. Features of such correlation functions, even for rather complicated compactifications of the theory, can readily be extracted, particularly for large compactification radius, where the two-dimensional, "world-sheet" theory which governs the two dimensional dynamics, is weakly coupled.

Consider a four point function of vertex operators: $$\begin{aligned}
G(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)_{ab}=\langle V_a(z_1) V_b(z_2) V_a(z_3) V_b(z_4) \rangle
\end{aligned}$$ This correlator yields the $S$-matrix of the particles labeled by $a$ and $b$. If the leading term in the operator product expansion of $V_a$ and $V_b$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
V_a(z_1) V_b(z_2) = c_{abc} {V_c \over \vert z_1 - z_2 \vert^2},
\end{aligned}$$ the $c_{abc}$ (up to normalization) are the three point couplings of the particles $a$, $b$ and $c$. If we take $z_1 \rightarrow z_2$, $z_3 \rightarrow z_4$, $$\begin{aligned}
G(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)_{ab} = {\sum_{c=1}^N c_{abc}^2 \over \vert z_1 -z_3 \vert^2 \vert z_1 - z_2 \vert^2 \vert z_3 - z_4 \vert^4 }
\end{aligned}$$ So if we can estimate or bound the four point function, we can bound the couplings of the fields $a,b$ to other fields. In particular, if we consider a Calabi-Yau space, for example, with very large $N$, growth of the sum with $N$ would require comparable growth of the correlation function.

To illustrate the application of this type of analysis, consider the heterotic string compactified on a Calabi-Yau space. We consider this class of models because, as we will see, the computation of the correlators is particularly simple. We focus on cubic terms in the superpotential, i.e. terms of the type $27^3$ (we will comment on other string constructions in a future publication, as well as elaborating some technical aspects of the analysis below). Let's consider a Green's function which receives a contribution from the cubic superpotential terms, involving two fermions and two bosons. For definiteness and because of its simplicity, we work in the fermionic formulation for the gauge degrees of freedom of the string theory, and in the R-NS formulation for the right moving fermions. Then the spatial coordinates can be grouped as $y^i, y^{\bar i}, x^\mu$, where the $i$, $\bar i$ are complex indices for the six dimensional Kahler manifold, and $\mu$ are four dimensional Minkowski indices. The left moving fermions are $\lambda^i, \lambda^{\bar i}, \lambda^a$, where the $a$'s are $O(10)$ indices. Space-time spinor operators can be taken as $S^0_\alpha, S^i_\alpha,S^{\bar 0}_\alpha, S^{\bar i}_\alpha$, where $\alpha$ are four dimensional spinor indices. The $0$ and $\bar 0$ indices correspond to the covariantly constant spinor. At large radius, the theory is nearly free, and these operators reduce to their free field forms. Bosonizing the right moving fermions, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^i = e^{i \phi_i}
\end{aligned}$$ for the fermions with indices in the compact space, whereas for the $\psi$'s with Minkowski indices $$\begin{aligned}
(\psi_1 + i \psi_2) = e^{i \xi_1}~~(\psi_3 + i \psi_4) = e^{i \xi_2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
S^0 = c e^{{i \over 2} (\phi_1 + \phi_2 + \phi_3)}e^{{i \over 2} (\pm \xi_1 \pm \xi_2)}~~~S^{\bar 0} = c e^{-{i \over 2} (\phi_1 + \phi_2 + \phi_3)}e^{{i \over 2} (\pm \xi_1 \pm \xi_2)}
\end{aligned}$$ where in the first case there are an even number of plus signs, the second an odd number. The $S_i$'s are given by $$\begin{aligned}
S^i_\alpha = c e^{{i \over 2} (\phi_1 + \phi_2 -\phi_3)}e^{{i \over 2} (\pm \chi_1 \pm \chi_2)}~~~S^{\bar i}_\alpha = c e^{-{i \over 2} (\phi_1 + \phi_2 - \phi_3)}e^{{i \over 2} (\pm \xi_1 \pm \xi_2)}
\end{aligned}$$ (this is $S^3, ~S^{\bar 3}$; other values of the index are obtained by changing the placement of the minus sign in the first exponent). Decomposing the $27$ into representations of $O(10) \times U(1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
27 = 16_{-1/2} + 10_1 + 1_{-2}
\end{aligned}$$ the boson vertex operators for particles in the $1$ can be taken to be : $$\begin{aligned}
V_B = \lambda^{\bar i} \lambda^{\bar j} \psi^k \chi^{(\alpha)}_{k \bar i \bar j}
\end{aligned}$$ and its complex conjugate. $\chi^{(\alpha)}_{k \bar i \bar j}$ is a harmonic (2,1) form. It is related to the corresponding fluctuation in the metric, $\delta g_{ij}^{\alpha}$ through $$\begin{aligned}
\delta g^{(\alpha)}_{ij} = \chi_{~\bar k \bar l}^{\bar m {(\alpha)}} \Omega^{\bar k \bar l \bar n} g_{j \bar m}g_{i \bar n}.
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_{ijk}$ is the covariantly constant three form. We will write the fermion vertex operator, for particles in the $10$ representation, as: $$\begin{aligned}
V_F = \epsilon_\alpha^i\lambda^a \lambda^i S^j_\alpha \delta g^{(\alpha)}_{ij}
\end{aligned}$$ (it is also necessary to include suitable superconformal ghost fields in these vertex operators).

We consider the scattering of one fermion corresponding to the $(\alpha)$'th $(2,1)$ form with a scalar corresponding to the $\beta$'th $(2,1)$ form, to produce the same fermion and boson (elastic scattering). This arises through the cubic terms in the superpotential, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{\alpha \beta \gamma} \Phi^\alpha \Phi^\beta \Phi^\gamma.
\end{aligned}$$

In a sigma model description, at large $R$, the singular parts of the Green's function are readily evaluated, as the correlation functions of the $\phi_i$'s and $\chi_i$'s (as well as the ghosts, which we have suppressed) are those of free fields. The usual $\delta$ function for energy and momentum conservation in the compactified directions is replaced by an integral over the compact dimensions. The coefficient of $$\begin{aligned}
{1 \over \vert z_1 -z_3 \vert^4 \vert z_1 - z_2 \vert^2 \vert z_3 - z_4 \vert^2 }
\end{aligned}$$ is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A} = \int d^6 y  \delta g^{(\alpha)}_{ij} \delta g^{(\beta)}_{kl} \left ( \delta g^{*{(\alpha)}ij} \delta g^{*{(\beta)}kl} - \delta g^{*{(\alpha)}ik} \delta g^{*{(\beta)}jl} \right )
\end{aligned}$$ The $\delta g$'s are normalized to unity. As a result, the integral does not show growth with the number of complex structure moduli ($h_{2,1}$ of the manifold) unless the $\delta g$'s are singular. On the other hand $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A} = \sum_k \vert \gamma_{ijk} \vert^2,
\end{aligned}$$ which is now of order $1$ rather than of order $N$.

This argument might fail if $\cal A$ were enhanced with $N$. This in turn requires that the integral above be singular. Taking the $\delta g$'s to be normalized, we can bound ${\cal A}$ by ${\rm max}~ \vert \delta g \vert^2$. So we would require that the maximum be of order some power of $N$. At the highly symmetric point in the moduli space studied in , there is no such enhancement, and it would be surprising if it arose as we turned out various complex structure moduli.

Another argument for suppression comes from thinking about the mirror manifold[^1]. For the mirror, the Yukawa's we compute here are just intersection numbers. These are expected to be sparse. Applications of this type of analysis to other string theories and types of compactifications, as well as further investigations of possible loopholes, will be considered in a future publication.

# The Approximately Supersymmetric Case

For many years, supersymmetry has been viewed as a promising framework in which to resolve the hierarchy problem. In a landscape framework, it is not clear whether supersymmetry is particular important for questions of naturalness; it is simply possible that there are overwhelmingly more non-supersymmetric than supersymmetric states. Indeed, one might think that supersymmetry is exceptional among possible states in a landscape. The issue of stability, however, suggests a special role for supersymmetry. At least naively, one would expect that approximate supersymmetry would greatly increase the chances for stability, as exact supersymmetry guarantees exact stability. So given the possibly extreme suppression of stability we have seen without supersymmetry, it is conceivable that supersymmetric states are more common than non-supersymmetric states.

## Roads to Approximate Supersymmetry in Landscape Models

Approximate supersymmetry has been modeled in landscapes in various ways. Douglas and Denef, starting with an underlying supergravity theory, and making assumptions about distributions of parameters, argued that approximate supersymmetry was highly suppressed. This was shown to follow from the assumption that such theories are described, at low energies, by a single light chiral field, $Z$, with superpotential parameters uniformly distributed as complex numbers, and Kahler potential parameters as real numbers. This suppression, as the supersymmetry breaking scale, $F$, to the sixth power, was seen as an argument that such theories do not resolve the hierarchy problem in a natural way. Indeed, in this branch of the landscape, low energy supersymmetry, when it occurs, is an accident, arising from tuning fluxes to obtain a low energy theory with approximate supersymmetry. We will refer to models of this type as models with *tuned supersymmetry*.

Within theories with $N$ fields, on such a branch, one field is by assumption far lighter than the others. The "price" of this tuning is part of the $F^6$ suppression. *With this assumption*, it would seem surprising that there would be extreme suppression beyond that of from the requirement of stability. Indeed, as there is no requirement of an additional light chiral field, one would expect that all of the other moduli are typically heavy. For example, if almost all of the moduli have masses suppressed by powers of $R$, while the lightest modulus is far lighter, then we would not expect a dramatic, qualitative change as the radius becomes of order one. Indeed, we will argue in the next subsection that there is likely, at most, an order one suppression

A more plausible setting for supersymmetry arises if the breaking is dynamical. In this case, while very low energy breaking of supersymmetry is not necessarily favored, it is typically not disfavored. Such theories exhibit an exponential gap between the scales of supersymmetry breaking and other states. Certainly the presence of $N$ relatively heavy "moduli" should not have a strong bearing on questions of stability. We will understand these points in the next section.

## Classical Stability with Approximate Supersymmetry

Refs. , studied theories with approximate supersymmetry (in the sense of tuned supersymmetry, defined above) and $N$ massive fields. Here "massive" means heavy compared to any scale of supersymmetry breaking, but light compared to the string (or other fundamental) scale. They argued that one expects an exponential suppression of classical stability, i.e. only an order $e^{-cN}$ fraction of states are classically stable.

At first sight, this result is puzzling. In these cases, one would expect that there is a scale with approximate supersymmetry with only one chiral field. There would then be only a small number of important parameters in the effective action. While there would be some constraints on these parameters, it is surprising that the stability of a few light scalar fields is exponentially sensitivity to the number of heavy fields (indeed, any significant suppression with $N$).

Calling the Goldstino supermultiplet $X$, with the scalings with $N$ we have described in eqn. , we can take its superpotential to be $fX$, and its Kahler potential $X^\dagger X$, up to terms suppressed by powers of $N$. Requiring (nearly) vanishing c.c., would yield exactly the Polonyi model, for which the scalar fields have positive mass-squared. Negative mass-squared would seem not only unlikely but impossible.

It is easy, however, to identify where the sensitivity to the number of heavy fields arises. Assume that, in addition to $X$, there are $N$ heavy fields, $\Phi_i$. Suppose the superpotential for $X$ and $\Phi_i$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
W = X f + \sum_{i=1}^N \left ({1 \over 2} m_i^2 \Phi_i \Phi_i + \gamma_{i} X^2 \Phi_i \right ).
\end{aligned}$$ Integrating out the massive fields generates a correction to the Kahler potential: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta K = \sum_{i=1}^N{\vert \gamma_i^2\vert  \vert X^\dagger X \vert^2 \over m_i^2}.
\label{kahlercorrection}
\end{aligned}$$ This leads to a correction to the mass of $X$. One can calculate this easily by looking directly at the potential and integrating out the $\Phi_i$ fields by solving for the minimum of their potential as a function of $X$. The result is: $$m_X^2 = -\sum_{i=1}^N{ \vert \gamma_i \vert^2 \over 4 m_i^2}$$ in agreement with formulas in .

It is important to understand in this expression how the various couplings scale with $N$. If, for example, as suggested in , the $\gamma$'s scale as $1/\sqrt{N}$, given that there are $N$ positive terms in the sum, whether the $X$ mass is typically tachyonic depends on how $1/m_i^2$ behaves. The mass matrix is of the form $m^\dagger m$ (a *Wishart* matrix, see, e.g. ). These authors assumed that the the entries in $m$ are of order $1/\sqrt{N}$ As a result, the typical masses are of order $1$, but there are frequent fluctuations to low eigenvalues, and it is rare that the sum is small; indeed, a numerical study indicates that the sum is typically of order $N$. With these assumptions, only exponentially rare downward fluctuations will lead to stability.

We have advocated a different scaling above, one which is compatible with perturbativity (and also with diagonal couplings). With these scalings, there is an additional $1/N$ (the scaling of masses is the same, but the couplings at the vertices scale as $1/N$). As a result, the sum of terms is typically of order one, i.e. comparable to the leading Polonyi term. (Here, the couplings give $1/N^2$, the inverse mass squared factor gives a factor of order $N$, and the overall number of terms gives an additional $N$). So these affects don't grow with $N$. As a result, the chances of stability are of order one. Note that this extra contribution to the Kahler potential is soft, and so consistent with our scalings.

It should be noted that there might be additional suppression of masses. In the string context, this could arise due to large $R$, as we have discussed. In this case, however, there is additional, compensating dependence of couplings with $R$, and as a result one does not expect further difficulties with stability.

This does not change the fact that tuned supersymmetry is expected to be rare in a landscape. On the other hand, heavy fields do not pose any issue for dynamical supersymmetry breaking. In such theories, the mass of partners of the Goldstino (if such can be identified) are typically of order the scale of supersymmetry breaking, rather than the gravitino mass. So the contributions to the Kahler potential from integrating out very massive fields are totally inconsequential. .

# Landscape Statistics at Large $R$

We can ask whether the various speculations about stability are compatible with the picture of large numbers of fields arising at large $R$ in compactified string theories. The presumption of an exponentially large number of states at large $R$, we have already argued, is not terribly plausible. Another way to see the puzzle this raises is to consider how the distribution of states might behave with $R$. If for large $R$, there is an exponentially large number of states with some parameter $N$, do the majority of these simply disappear – along with the parameter $N$ – as $R$ decreases? This would seem particularly troubling in the supersymmetric case. If not, what would play the role of the parameter $N$ at small $R$?

The high level of instability in the non-supersymmetric case would seem to avoid this paradox. The exponential suppression could be take to indicate that there is typically at most of order one metastable state per flux choice. Assuming this is the case (and that the number is not significantly smaller than one), the question becomes: what is the rate for tunneling between states with different flux. In other words, quantum stability becomes the critical issue.

In the case of tuned supersymmetry, one does not expect particularly strong dependence on $R$ in the counting of states, and this is compatible with our arguments that there is no $N$ dependent suppression of stability. Such a picture, indeed, avoids any puzzles about discontinuous changes in the population of states as $R$ is varied; the same level of tuning is required in any case. With dynamical supersymmetry breaking, this issue does not arise.

# Quantum Stability

In the event that a state is classically stable, it is necessary to ask about quantum stability. This question takes on particular significance in a landscape context. In the flux vaccum picture, any would-be nearly Minkowski vacuum will be surrounded by vast numbers of states with negative cosmological constant. With large numbers of fields, there will be many possible tunneling trajectories. Every one of these must be significantly suppressed.

This problem has been discussed elsewhere, but the observations of and this paper permit one to make further statements about stability against tunneling. In , models with large numbers of fields were studied (without supersymmetry). Starting with a would-be classical ground state, the authors Taylor-expanded the potential, and assumed that the coefficients of the expansion were uniformly distributed random variables. In , the results of were understood in a simple way: roughly speaking, the most probable tunneling trajectory is a straight line in field space in the direction of the lightest field. Suppressing tunneling then requires that all masses be larger than some minimum value. More precisely, the ratio of $\mu^2 \over \gamma^2$, where $\gamma$ is the cubic coupling in the direction of the field of mass $\mu$, for every choice of field, must be larger than some minimum value. With the assumption of uniform distribution of couplings, with the intervals considered in , this leads to exponentially small probability for bounce actions all greater than some minimum, $B_0$.

This analysis must be rethought in light of these observations. First, the assumption that *all* couplings are chosen from the same, $N$-independent random distributions, runs afoul of unitarity and perturbativity. If we assume, instead, $N$-dependent distributions, with couplings falling as powers of $N$, then qualitatively different results than those of may emerge. In particular, if the cubic couplings fall off more rapidly than $\mu^2$ with $N$, then bounce actions may be enhanced and tunneling suppressed. Indeed, the scalings above would suggest that the typical bounce action grows rapidly with $N$. Alternatively, if couplings and masses are diagonal in the same basis, the analysis of implies significant further suppression of the tunneling. Indeed, it would seem surprising if classical stability were highly suppressed, but most classically stable vacua were highly metastable. Other than arguing that this is counterintuitive, however, we don't have a sharp argument for this type of alignment.

In flux landscapes, for $R \sim 1$, with an order one number of states per choice of flux, without supersymmetry, ref. argued that tunneling rates were fast, with bounce actions behaving as inverse powers of flux.

With approximate supersymmetry, as stressed in , the situation is different. In field directions with curvature much greater than $m_{3/2}$, tunneling is highly suppressed, either vanishing or scaling as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma \propto e^{-M_p^2/m_{3/2}^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that there are only a small number of fields with mass of order $m_{3/2}$ only a few tunneling amplitudes need to be suppressed ((roughly corresponding to tunneling in directions connected with the goldstino multiplet), so one does not expect to pay an exponential price. These statements hold not only for dynamical supersymmetry breaking, where classical stability is not a severe constraint, but also to the case where low energy supersymmetry is the result of tuning of parameters (fluxes).

# Conclusions

The existence of a landscape remains a subject of conjecture, based mainly on considerations of models of multiple fields and on the many candidate choices of flux in string theories. In this context, questions of stability, classical and quantum, can contribute both to assessment of the plausibility of the basic picture, and to understanding what features a putative landscape might exhibit. In the second category, from the beginning there has been a question: does supersymmetry play any role? Underlying this question is a view that supersymmetric states might be exceptional, a view which finds support in the work of Douglas and Denef, indicating that small supersymmetry breaking is rare.

The considerations of stability which we have reviewed and extended here provide insight into both classes of questions. The work of (and earlier ) indicates that, without supersymmetry, classical stability might be extraordinarily rare. Within flux vacua, this might mean that for a given choice of flux, there is at most one stable state (with runaway likely being typical). We have indicated that some of the assumptions which go into this analysis *might* not be correct; critical string theories give some evidence that couplings may be highly correlated, and perturbativity requires scalings of couplings similar to what one would expect were they diagonal in some basis. At the same time, we have argued that large numbers of fields (moduli) in string theory compactifications with fluxes require very large radius, and that this is likely to be very rare. But our remarks on this question are only conjectural.

Without supersymmetry, quantum stability potentially provides further constraints, but these are also dependent on assumptions about distributions of couplings. If we require perturbativity but assume couplings are uncorrelated, the additional suppression could be quite mild; but further exponential suppression is also a possibility.

Supersymmetry (i.e. supersymmetry broken at scales well below the fundamental scale) does appear to occupy a priviedged place in any would-be landscape. General principles suggest that stability should be typical of states found in any sort of analysis. We have distinguished tuned supersymmetry breaking and dynamical breaking. In the former case, we have understood a possible source of instability noted in , and that this is unlikely to yield further appreciable suppression. We have also noted that for dynamical supersymmetry breaking, it is irrelevant.

We have discussed the question of large numbers of fields *within* flux landscapes. We have noted that such a picture is only valid when the compactification radius is large, scaling with a power of the flux. The power itself depends on assumptions about the nature of the underlying effective action. From the start, the existence of exponentially larger numbers of states at *large* radius relative to those at smaller scale is not terribly plausible. We have put forward a consistency condition that the spectrum of *stable* states should not depend critically on $R$. For the non-supersymmetric states, this is consistent with a vast suppression. For the supersymmetric case, our discussion suggests that large $R$ is not special.

If there is of order one non-supersymmetric state, classically, for typical choices of fluxes, absent supersymmetry there remains the question of quantum stability. Arguments that instability is typical, in this case, were put forward in .

There are a few principled things one can say about the case of approximate supersymmetry.

1.  With zero cosmological constant and exact supersymmetry states are automatically stable.

2.  With approximate supersymmetry and small cosmological constant, there are only a small number of relevant light fields (i.e. we do not expect scaling with $N$), so one does not expect exponential suppression of either classical or quantum stability with $N$.

3.  Supersymmetry and approximate supersymmetry also guarantee stability in cases where, for a fixed choice of flux, there are only small numbers of states.

All of this suggests that supersymmetry, at a scale significantly below the fundamental scale, is likely to be important in a landscape. Stability does not, by itself, argue for TeV scale supersymmetry.

**Acknowledgements:** We thank Raphael Bousso, Shamit Kachru, Liam McAlister, Yasnori Nomura, Steve Shenker and Sonya Paban for sharing their insights into these questions. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy grant number DE-SC0010107.

[^1]: I thank S. Kachru for help in refining this argument


abstract: Ongoing microlensing observations by OGLE and MOA regularly identify and conduct high-cadence sampling of lensing events with Einstein diameter crossing time, $\tau_E,$ of $16$ or fewer days. Events with estimated values of $\tau_E$ of one to two days have been detected. Short duration events tend to be generated by low-mass lenses or by lenses with high transverse velocities. We compute the expected rates, demonstrate the expected ranges of parameters for lenses of different mass, and develop a protocol for observing and modeling short-duration events. Relatively minor additions to the procedures presently used will increase the rate of planet discovery, and also discover or place limits on the population of high-speed dim stars and stellar remnants in the vicinity of the Sun.
author: Rosanne Di Stefano
title:  Short-duration lensing events: II. Expectations and Protocols

# Introduction

The work described in this paper is inspired by the success achieved by the OGLE (Udalski 2003) and MOA (Bond et al.  2001) teams in discovering and monitoring events of short duration. Short-duration events now constitute a significant fraction of all event candidates. For example, approximately $9\%$ of $654$ recent events listed by the OGLE team on its *Early Warning Site* *(EWS; http://ogle.astrouw.edu.pl/ogle3/ews/ews.html)* have Einstein-diameter crossing times shorter than $8$ days. Twenty-seven percent of these short events have $\tau_E < 4$ days, and a handful have $\tau_E < 2$ days. While not all of the candidate events of short duration are likely to be lensing events, many of the light curves appear to be well fit by lensing models. The prospects for increasing the rate of discovery of short-duration events are good. Ongoing programs are continuing to implement improvements, while new projects are starting or being planned.

The value of $\tau_E$ is an estimate of the time during which the gravitational magnification would exceed $1.34$ for close approaches between the source and lens. Current observing programs are sensitive enough to detect ongoing events when the magnification is just a few percent, increasing the effective event duration by a factor that can be as large as $3.5$.[^1] These programs are therefore able to call alerts on ongoing events with small values of $\tau_E$. Just as alerts on events deemed likely to produce caustic crossings inspire world-wide "follow-up" with more frequent observations (see Griest & Safizadeh 1998), alerts on short-duration events can be accorded high priority. The goal is to collect enough data to permit detailed model fits.

The scientific advances made possible by studying short events are significant. The systematic study of short-duration events will yield information about brown dwarfs, planets orbiting stars, as well as free-floating planets[^2] and hypervelocity objects. In the companion paper we explored the benefits of selecting for intensive study events of short duration (DiStefano 2009). Here we develop strategies that can help monitoring programs to discover planets, brown dwarfs, and hypervelocity objects.

In §2 we estimate the rate of such events, relative to the rate of all detected events in both present and future monitoring programs. We demonstrate that the rate is high enough that existing data contain evidence of hundreds of interesting short-duration events. More important, every year an additional $> 100$ short-duration events should be detected. These can be followed in real time, maximizing the science return from each. In §3 we consider the relationship between event characteristics and the location of the lens, and give some explicit examples of model tests that are possible under ideal circumstances. These brief sketches integrate the measurements discussed in the companion paper. Section 4 reviews the prospects for optimizing, in the immediate future, what we can learn about planet lenses and the other intriguing masses that can generate events of short duration.

In the appendix we point out that short-duration events events caused by wide-orbit planets, free-floating planets, and hypervelocity objects will be augmented by short-duration events expected when the lens is a planetary system with close-in planets. The orbital separations in some of these additional cases put the planets in the habitable zone (Di Stefano & Night 2008).

# The Rate of Short-Duration Events

## Estimates

The populations producing short-duration events are comprised of objects that are not yet well-studied. Predictions of the rates at which they should produce events therefore have large uncertainties. We have used a simple and straightforward approach which allows the effects of each assumption to be traced, so that adjustments can be easily made if necessary.

We assumed that the majority of lensing events presently detected are generated by stars, and that the majority of stellar-lens events are generated by M dwarfs. If the rate at which M-dwarf events are detected is ${\cal R},$ then the rate of detected events caused by other types of lenses can be obtained by scaling according to lens mass, transverse velocity, and spatial density. This was carried out in Di Stefano 2008b for brown dwarfs and stellar remnants. Those calculations produced the relative rates of events shown in column 1 of Table 1, for brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes.

Main sequence stars more massive than $M$ dwarfs also cause lensing events. To compute the rate at which they generate events, relative to the rate at which M dwarfs generate events, we simulated a population of stars using the Miller-Scalo mass function. By using the fact that the rate at which each star produces lensing events scales as the square root of its mass, we found that stars with masses above $0.5\, M_\odot$ produce approximately as many events as stars of lower mass, even though the mass function declines with increasing mass. Because, however, more massive stars are more luminous than M dwarfs, events generated by them can be more difficult to detect, even if image differencing is employed. We therefore assume that, while events by both nearby and more distant M dwarfs contribute to the events discovered by the OGLE and MOA teams, only more distant stars of larger mass contribute. We therefore took the total rate of detectable lensing by stars to be $1.5\, {\cal R},$ with stars more massive than M dwarfs contributing $1/3$ of the total.

In addition, planets in wide orbits produce events. The average rate per star is $\sqrt{M_\ast}\, \sum_i \sqrt{q_i},$ where the sum is over the number of wide-orbit planets, and $q_i=M_{planet,i}/M_\ast$. Here we will assume that the rate of planet-lens events is $15\%$ the rate of M dwarf events. The rate at which the outer planets of our solar system generate events, compared to the rate of events due to a star of $0.25\, M_\odot$ is roughly $0.12.$ Many stars appear to have planets more massive than Jupiter, however, and some of these appear to be in very wide orbits[^3]. Free floating planets are likely to add a significant contribution. Although the value of $15\%$ is uncertain, the true rate seems likely to lie within a factor of $2$ of it.

As the companion paper demonstrates, planet-lens events are likely to be the shortest events. They are therefore more likely to be missed by present-day monitoring teams. In Table 1 we assume that the efficiency for detecting events by planet-mass lenses is only half that for longer-lasting events. As we will discuss in §4, however, some future programs will improve the efficiency of detecting short-duration events. In Table 1 we therefore include a column for "future" monitoring programs which achieve equally good efficiencies for short and long events.

Among high-velocity objects, we have included computations only for neutron stars, because we can make rough but reasonable estimates based on the inferred galactic population of neutron stars. Other high-velocity objects can be expected to supplement these numbers; these include dim halo stars and remnants of runaway and hypervelocity stars.

```latex
\begin{table*}
\centering{
%\small
\caption{Numbers of Short-Duration Events ($\tau_E < 16$~days)}
\smallskip
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
              &          &Number        &Number   &Number      &Number\\
              &Relative  &of events     &of short events&of events&of short events\\
 Lens         &Event     &per 1000      &per 1000 &per 1000    &per 1000\\
 Type         &Rate      &detected      &detected &detected    &detected\\
              &   &{\sl Present}$^{(1)}$&{\sl Present}&{\sl Future}$^{(2)}$&{\sl Future}\\
\hline
M dwarfs      &  $1.0$   &  $481$       &$5^{(3)}$ & $465$      &  $5$  \\
Other stars   &  $0.5$   &  $241$       &   $0$   & $233$      &  $0$  \\
Brown dwarfs  &  $0.19$  &  $92 $       &   $69$  & $88$       &  $66$ \\
White dwarfs  &  $0.17$  &  $82 $       &   $0$   & $79$       &  $0$  \\
Neutron stars &  $0.13$  &  $63 $       &   $13$  & $60$       &  $12$ \\
Black holes   &  $0.01$  &  $5  $       &   $0$   & $5$        &  $0$  \\
Wide-orbit planets&$0.15^{(4)}$& $36$    &   $36$  & $70$       &  $70$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\par
\medskip
\begin{minipage}{0.94\linewidth}
\footnotesize
\smallskip
NOTES:  $^{(1)}$ {\sl Present} refers to the number of events
generated by each type
of lens per $1000$ events detected by monitoring programs with the capability of
OGLE III.
$^{(2)}$ {\sl Future} refers to the number of events
generated by each type
of lens per $1000$ events detected by monitoring programs of the future which
will be more sensitive to events with $\tau_E < 2$~days.
$^{(3)}$ We assume that roughly $1\%$ of all events generated by M~dwarfs
will have $\tau_E < 16$~days). These correspond to very fast transverse
velocities or M-dwarf lenses very close to us. More massive stars
that are close to us may be too bright to generate events detectable
by the monitoring programs.
$^{(4)}$ We assume that only half of these are long enough to be detected
by today's monitoring programs, but that programs of the future,
such as KMTNet (see \S 4.2) will be able to detect most planet-lens events.
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
```

### Implications

The numbers of events predicted in Table 1, though approximate, provide guidance for what we can expect from existing and future data sets. Column 4 of Table 1 shows that we can expect $124$ short events among each $1000$ events (Column 3). We therefore expect that, at present, $\sim 12\%$ of all detected events should have $\tau_E < 16$ days. This is roughly consistent with the data on the OGLE team's web site, although we don't know the fraction of the posted events actually associated with lensing. Nevertheless, it is likely that existing data sets, which include more than $4000$ event candidates, contain evidence for roughly $500$ short-duration events. Seventy percent of these are likely to have durations in the range $8-16$ days. Of these, $\sim 80\%$ were caused by brown dwarf lenses, and the remainder by high-velocity stellar remnants. The majority of the shorter events were caused by planets.

Although we do not have an opportunity to improve upon the sampling of events that have already occurred, we can nevertheless conduct meaningful tests and identify the natures of at least some of the lenses. We should check existing multiwavelength catalogs and data sets at the position of each event well-sampled enough that we are reasonably confident (a) it corresponds to microlensing and (b) that the short duration is not due to blending. In at least some cases we should find evidence for an object that is not the lensed source, but which could instead be part of the lens system. In cases where there is a match, the possible contributions of additional observations, including some with HST, should be considered. It would be surprising if a comprehensive analysis of already-discovered short events does not reveal the presence of a set of interesting lenses.

The existing data sets are almost certainly minute in comparison with future data sets, which will discover more events per year. Column 6 of Table 1 shows that we can expect $150$ short events among each $1000$ events (Column 5) detected by monitoring programs sensitive to short events. The challenge ahead is, therefore, to institute real-time recognition of short-duration events to immediately identify those that are promising candidates for additional observations, We discuss this further in §6.

# Learning about the Lens

## Lens Location and Finite-Source Size

For each type of lens defined by a given mass range, the selection of short-duration events corresponds to a selection of lenses in one of two distance regimes. This is because the equation for $D_L$ is quadratic, generally admitting two solutions, $D_L^+$ and $D_L^-.$ $$D_L^{\pm} = \Bigg({{D_S}\over{2}}\Bigg)\,
\Bigg[1\, \pm \, \sqrt{1-4\,
\Big[{{\tau_E}\over{0.68\, {\rm d}}}\, {{v}\over{75\, {\rm {{km}\over{s}}}}}\Big]^2
\Big[{{8\, {\rm kpc}}\over{D_S}}\Big]\, \Big[{{M_\earth}\over{M}}\Big]}
\Bigg]$$ For lenses that are brown dwarfs, planets, and neutron stars, $D_L$ is shown as a function of $v$ in Figures $1$ through $3$, respectively. $D_L^-$ can be in the range of tens or hundreds of pc. When the lens system is this close to us, the probability of being able to detect it is large. As discussed in the companion paper, the degeneracy inherent in lensing can therefore often be broken. In fact, for a given lens, there may be several different ways of measuring the some key quantities, such as the mass of the planet-lens (see, e.g., §3.2).

Because nearby lenses can be so well studied, we can use them to make predictions for the population of distant lenses, with $D_L=D_L^+.$ Nearby lenses producing short-duration events can be identified as planets, brown dwarfs, or stellar remnants. If we assume that stellar populations in the dense source systems contain similar populations, we can predict the distributions of values of $\tau_E$ and also of values of $\theta_E.$ ($\theta_E$ is more likely to be measured for $D_L=D_L^+$). Comparisons between the predicted and observed distributions will allow us to test models.

Note, in addition, that for a given lens mass and speed, the requirement that $D_L$ be real, places an upper limit on the Einstein diameter crossing time. $$\tau_E< 0.34\, {\rm d}\, \Bigg({{75\, {\rm {{km}\over{s}}}}\over{v}}\Bigg)\,
\Bigg[{{M}\over{M_\earth}}\Bigg]^{{1}\over{2}}
\Bigg[{{D_S}\over{8\, {\rm kpc}}}\Bigg]^{{1}\over{2}}$$ Thus, for the values of $v$ expected for planets, Earth-mass planets (dwarf planets) can produce only events shorter than about a day (an hour), while events generated by Jupiter-mass planets should have $\tau_E$ less than roughly $18$ days. In order for higher-mass lenses (such as brown dwarfs) to produce short events, they must be very nearby or else very close to the source (Figures 1 and 3). Although there are fewer lenses in these small volumes, each of the nearby lenses has a relatively high probability of generating an event because values of both $\theta_E$ and $\omega$ tend to be high (DiStefano 2008b).

## Examples

In many cases, particularly for mesolenses, it is possible to productively follow several different lines of evidence to learn more about the lens system. In the companion paper we considered free-floating planets. Below we consider examples of brown dwarfs, bound planets, and high-velocity stars.

### Brown Dwarfs

The first examples we consider are nearby brown dwarf lenses. It is important to note that two particularly exciting candidate brown-dwarf events have been detected within $6$ months of each other, both with $\tau_E < 16$ days. The first of these was detected serendipitously by an amateur astronomer, A. Tago, searching for novae. The Tago event was the first lensing event discovered in a sparse field, through monitoring not specifically designed to find evidence of lensing. The lensed source is an ordinary A0 star located a kpc away, clearly indicating that the lens is nearby. The event was of short duration, with the Einstein-diameter crossing time estimated to be in the range $10-15$ days (Fukui et al.  2007) and an estimated peak magnification of about $50.$ Gaudi et al.  (2008) find that the most likely explanation for this event is lensing by a nearby brown dwarf with a proper motion greater than or approximately equal to $20$ mas yr$^{-1}$. Because the source star was so bright, Fukui et al.  (2007) were able to verify one of the fundamental properties of lensing predicted by Einstein's theory, that the spectrum is unchanged by lensing. In this case, we still know little about the lens, in spite of its apparent proximity. During the course of the next decade, however, the lens and lensed source should separate by a large enough angle that they can be resolved by JWST, which is scheduled to be launched within the next 5 years. The IR sensitivity of JWST, combined with its angular resolution will allow it to detect the lens, if the lens is a brown dwarf. The angular separation achieved at the time of the observation will provide a value of $\omega.$ The combination of $\omega$ and $\tau_E$ will yield the value of $\theta_E.$ If the flux and spectrum of the brown dwarf allow the photometric parallax to be determined, the brown dwarf's mass will be derived. Otherwise, a sequence of additional images will determine the geometric parallax, thereby allowing us to measure the lens mass.

Six months after the Tago event, a second short-duration event that was most likely caused by a brown dwarf was observed. This event had a peak magnification larger than $1000$. Both parallax and finite-source-size effects were detected, allowing the mass ($0.056 \pm 0.004\, M_\sun$) and distance to the lens ($525 \pm 40$ pc) to be determined. The transverse velocity of the lens is $113 \pm 21$ km s$^{-1}$ (Gould et al.  2009).

The discovery of these two brown dwarf events is remarkable because each event had a high magnification, and therefore required a very small distance of closest approach. Such events are therefore rare. Each of the two events therefore represents a large number of additional brown-dwarf events of short duration. It would be difficult to use the detection of these two events to formulate a realistic estimate of the total number of short-duration brown-dwarf-lens events presently expected. Nevertheless, these detections add plausibility to the estimates we have made above, based on rate calculations and the combined OGLE and MOA detection rates.

Figure 1 demonstrates that brown-dwarf events with $\tau_E$ in the range of $8-16$ days can take place at distances greater than a hundred pc for velocities in excess of $\sim 50~$ km s$^{-1}$. Note in addition, that the total volume, hence the number of possible lenses and the rate of lensing by any given population of lenses, increases with distance from us. (See, e.g., DiStefano 2008a, 2008b for details.) Therefore the largest number of brown-dwarf lenses generating $8-16$-day events should have velocities $> 50~$ km s$^{-1}$ and be located at distances larger than $100$ pc. This is consistent with the events observed to date.

### An ideal planet-lens case

Consider a planetary system in which one planet serves as a lens, producing a short-duration event with a measured value of $\tau_E.$ Suppose that the star orbited by the planet lens is detected. Suppose further, that a sequence of high-resolution measurements allows the geometric parallax, proper motion, and Einstein angle of the star to be measured (see, e.g., Di Stefano 2009). The combination of $D_L$ and $\theta_{E,\ast}$ produces a high-precision value of the gravitational mass, $M_\ast,$ of the star. In general, the stellar mass is estimated based on spectral and flux information. A direct measurement of the gravitational mass allows stellar models to be tested. In some cases, it may be possible to conduct subsequent transit or radial-velocity studies to measure the gravitational mass of the star in a second way, i.e., by studying the orbit of the planet that served as a lens and/or the orbits of other planets. Thus, for some stars orbited by planet lenses, we may be able to compare the gravitational mass measured via lensing with the gravitational mass measured via orbital dynamics.

Up to this point in our discussion, the planet has played only a peripheral role: (1) it produced a photometric event that alerted us to the possibility of measuring astrometric lensing by the star, and (2) it alerted us to the presence of at least one planet orbiting the star, thereby motivating subsequent transit and/or radial-velocity studies. The lensing event can of course teach us a good deal about the planet.

First, if finite-source-size effects are detected, then $\theta_{E,planet}$ can be directly measured. The distance to the planet is, to high precision, the same as the distance to the central star. The combination of $\theta_{E,planet}$ and $D_L$ measures the mass of the planet. With the gravitational masses of both the planet and star measured, the mass ratio $q$ can be computed.

If, in addition, the projected orbital separation, $a,$ between the central star and planet lens is less than roughly $3.5\, R_{E,\ast},$ or if the event "repeats", then $q$ and $a$ can both be estimated from a fit to the planet-lens light curve. The value of $q$ so measured can be checked for consistency with the measured values of the planet's and star's gravitational masses.

The projected orbital separation, $a,$ measured from the light curve, can be related to a combination of the true orbital separation at the time of the event and the orbital inclination: $a=a_{true} cos(\theta).$ The value of $a_{true}$ is related to the orbital speed at the time of the event: $v=30\, {\rm km/s} \times \sqrt{(M_\ast/M_\odot)\, ({\rm AU}/a_{true})}.$

The proper motion of the planet can be measured from a combination of $\theta_{E,planet}$ and $\tau_E$. With $D_L$ known, we can estimate the projected value of the planet's orbital velocity, $v\, cos(\theta),$ by comparing the values of $\omega_{planet}$ and $\omega_{\ast}.$ Combining the equations for $v$ and $a,$ yields a value for the inclination of the orbit.

This example illustrates that for nearby lenses, orbital solutions can be obtained, even for face-on orbits. Furthermore, there can be enough information to provide independent checks on the values of some physical parameters. Even planets in very wide orbits can be well studied with lensing, especially if there is a repeating event (DiStefano & Scalzo 1999b).

### High-velocity Stars

When high-velocity stellar-mass objects are nearby, their Einstein angles are large enough to be measured during the event by measuring the centroid shift in the lensed source. In general, this leaves a degeneracy between $D_L$ and $M$. The degeneracy can be resolved if the lens is detected. Consider, for example, a halo dwarf star with $M=0.25\, M_\odot$ and $v=180$ km s$^{-1}$. If this lens is $34.8$ pc away from us, it can cause an event with $\tau_E=5$ days. Assuming that $D_S>>D_L,$ The value of $\theta_E$ would be $7.6$ milliarcseconds, and the astrometric shift induced by the lens could be measured; the optimal case would be when the lensed source is a bright blue star. Such a halo dwarf would itself be easily detected after moving from the source position, and its proper motion and parallax could be directly measured. Its gravitational mass could therefore be measured to high precision. This lens would travel across the sky with an angular speed of $\sim 1^{\prime\prime}$ yr$^{-1}$. With such a high angular speed. it is very likely that, if the background field is dense, additional lensing events will occur over a time interval of $\sim 10$ years. Because the presence of the lens is already known, it is easier to identify future events with confidence, even if the angle of closest approach is larger. Once a second event is discovered, the general direction of the lens motion is known and future photometric and astrometric events are more easily predicted. If a sequence of events is detected, the proper motion and parallax can be computed by comparing the locations and times of the events. This means that even for dark high-speed lenses, mass measurements can be made. When the lens is a neutron star, it may radiate x-rays as it cools and/or accretes matter from the ISM; it may therefore be catalogued as a weak x-ray source. It is worth noting that repeating events have been observed (Skowron et al.  2009).

# Science, Strategies and Prospects

## Science Goals

Every event of short duration is likely to be associated with an interesting lens: a low-mass object, or a high-velocity mass. These events should therefore be high-priority targets for intense monitoring and follow-up, even when the value of the peak magnification is modest. The choice of the range of values of $\tau_E$ on which to spend the greatest resources must be governed by the science goals of the investigators.

### Planets

While any set of short events is likely to include planet-lens events, the set of the shortest events, those with $\tau_E$ less than roughly $4-8$ days, is likely to consist primarily of planet-lens events. The returns for studying these events of very short duration are potentially large. Because the numbers of planets with $a > 1.5\, R_{E,\ast}$ is larger than the numbers in the narrow annulus within which the so-called "resonant" events are generated, the rate of planet discovery by lensing will increase when concerted efforts to discover and study short events are made. We note further that the wide-orbit planets are almost certainly augmented by a significant number of free-floating planets.

The potentially large contribution of wide-orbit planets to short and repeating lensing events was noted more than a decade ago (Di Stefano & Scalzo 1999a, 1999b). At that time, however, the set up of the monitoring and alert observing programs was not well suited to the study of short-duration and repeating events. A decade of advances in the observing programs has put in place the ingredients needed to detect and identify short-duration and repeating events. Furthermore, the more sensitive photometry used today will play an important role in increasing the detection efficiency Di Stefano & Scalzo 1999a, 1999b).

In addition, as we note in the appendix, in the near future, short events could begin to be routinely identified in cases in which the planetary separation is small: $a<0.5\, R_{E,\ast}.$ These events present the exciting possibility of using lensing to find nearby planets in the habitable zones of their central stars (Di Stefano & Night 2008).

In fact, as we have shown in the companion paper, choosing short-duration events tends to select nearby lenses as well as lenses very close to the source star. The nearby planets that are identified through their actions as lenses can be among the best-studied and will become touchstones in the field of planetary studies.

### Brown Dwarfs and High-velocity Stars

Events of $8-20$ days are more likely to have been induced by brown dwarfs or fast moving stars. The discovery of nearby neutron stars would, by itself, be of great scientific value. The same is true of hypervelocity stars, runaway stars, and their remnants. Gravitational mass measurements of neutron stars and other stellar remnants, as well as of brown dwarfs, would advance our knowledge of fundamental science. The feasibility of mass measurements has been demonstrated in several cases (In addition to Gould 2009, see Alcock et al.  2001; Gould 2004; Gould, Bennett, & Alves 2004; Drake, Cook, & Keller 2004; Nguyen et al.  2004.) The mass functions of brown dwarfs and stellar remnants have not yet been well established. In addition, having a set of nearby objects would allow more detailed studies of the relevant equations of state.

## Observing Programs

Because monitoring teams are already identifying short-duration events, identification of planets, brown dwarfs, and high-velocity stars can start immediately. This is demonstrated by Gould et al.  (2009), although for an event that had a duration on the longer end of "short-duration" events. Current programs could discover, every year, $45-69$ short events caused by brown dwarfs, $23-36$ short events caused by wide-orbit planets, $8-13$ short events caused by high-speed neutron stars, and perhaps additional events caused by hypervelocity stars or their remnants. Comprehensive model tests of a large fraction of these events, including the planet events, will be possible. Nearby planetary systems (12-18 per year) may be susceptible to follow-up observations, including radial velocity or transit studies.

Pan-STARRS is about to begin taking data over a large region using several sampling strategies (Chambers et al.  2004). For example, regular monitoring will take place over roughly 70 square degrees in its Medium Deep Survey. Additional wide-field coverage will eventually be provided by LSST, which will cover $\sim 20,000$ sq.  degrees every three to four nights. While the cadence of these programs is not ideal for the detection of short events, the efficiency for the detection of events caused by brown dwarfs, high-velocity stars, and the most massive planets will be high. Once identified by wide-field monitoring programs, more frequent follow-up is required to fully characterize the light curve. For events of shorter duration, the efficiency of event detection and identification will be lower. If, however, as part of each independent scan, different filters are used in a sequence over a time interval during which the magnification is changing, even very short-duration events could be identified as targets for more frequent monitoring. The maximum value of the efficiency would be: $f\, \tau_E/\Delta t,$ where $f$ is a number in the range $0.1-1,$ $\Delta t$ is the time between distinct sequences of observations. In LSST and portions of the Pan-STARRs fields, $\Delta t$ will be $3-6$ days. Even efficiencies of a percent are significant, because the total area monitored will be large enough that many lensing events are expected, in front of both dense and sparse fields (Di Stefano 2008b, Han 2008).

It is likely that, within five years, a program ideal for the detection of short-duration events will begin. Funding was recently approved for the *Korean Microlensing Telescope Network (KMTNet)*, which plans to use $3$ telescopes across the Southern Hemisphere to provide monitoring with 10-minute cadence of approximately $16$ sq. degrees (Han 2009). As Figure 2 shows, KMTNet can provide excellent monitoring for Earth-mass planets. It could even discover dwarf planets with Einstein-diameter crossing times of less than an hour, although in such cases, follow-up by other observers would be required to obtain good sampling.

## Protocols

Below we summarize the steps that can be taken in the immediate future by monitoring teams already in action. At the end of the section we discuss work that could be conducted with archival data.

-   The first step is to increase the effective cadence, to increase the chances of identifying events of short duration. Cooperation among teams, e.g., the MOA and OGLE teams could effectively increase the cadence of monitoring in selected fields.

The philosophy of microlensing monitoring has been based on the premise that events are generated by lenses that are not known *a priori.* For mesolenses, though, this is not always the case. For example, when the lens producing a short-duration event happens to be a planet in orbit with a nearby star, there is a good chance that the star has already been detected, especially when the region has been monitored over an interval of years.

-   To facilitate the identification of all events in which radiation from a component of the lens system can be detected, it is important for monitoring programs to develop automatic links to multiwavelength data bases that catalogue objects that might correspond to the lens. Stellar remnants may have been detected at X-ray wavelengths, brown dwarfs in the infrared, stars orbited by planets at optical and/or infrared. We note that, although this step is important for short events, it is also potentially very useful even for longer events. Whatever the event duration, this step will identify those events caused by nearby lenses, facilitating high-precision measurement of the lens mass. Ideally, in addition to the catalogues, the monitoring teams should have quick access to the data taken at various wavelengths, since many nearby sources may not have been catalogued.

-   When a short-duration event is caused by a planet orbiting a star, and when the planet-star separation is less than roughly $3.5\, R_{E,\ast},$ the presence of the star would already have caused a gradual increase in the magnification, even before the short-duration event caused by the planet. Monitoring teams can test for such a prior trend at the start of what appears to be a short-duration event.

-   "Repeating" events in which a planet and its star serve as independent lenses are expected in as many as $\sim 10\%$ of events in which a star with a planetary system serves as a lens. (See DiStefano & Scalzo 1999b.) The most likely case is the one in which the planet lens producing the shorter event of the two events is the innermost "wide" planet. Roughly half the time, the star should have produced the first event. Any short duration event that follows a stellar-lens event has a good chance of having been produced by a planet in orbit with the star. It would be worthwhile to subject the declining portion of each stellar-lens event to monitoring capable of quickly identifying subsequent short events. For planets with masses comparable to or larger than the that of the Earth, monitoring $1-3$ times per day would be adequate to identify any additional perturbations that occur either as the stellar-lens event declines or with $\tau_E$ of the return to baseline. An alert should be called immediately when such deviations are detected. It is important to note that systematic monitoring of this type will either yield planet detections (the most likely outcome) or will allow meaningful limits on the structure of planetary systems to be derived.

-   High-resolution images can play an important role for a wide range of lenses producing short-duration events. The possible uses of such imaging are described in §3 and in the companion paper. In some cases, it is important to obtain an image soon after the event is identified. In others, images taken taken years after the event may be useful. By using the light curve sampling and archived data to identify the most promising models, observers can identify those cases in which HST or JWST may provide key information about the lens.

<!-- -->

-   When an ongoing event is identified as a possible short-duration event, an alert should be called. Ground-based multiwavelength observations with good angular resolution, taken as the magnification increases, can establish the amount of blending and determine if the short duration of the event is an artifact caused by blending. If so, monitoring for the reasons explored in this paper is no longer necessary. Events that are genuinely short should be subject to intensive monitoring by a global network of telescopes. In some cases, the monitoring programs may themselves sample the light curve frequently enough to allow good model fits. Model fits to a well-sampled light curve can determine the values of $\tau_E$, $b$, and discover whether finite-source-size effects, the existence of a companion, and even parallax effects influence the light curve shape. The cadence of monitoring should be greatest near peak, even if the magnification is not high.

Finally, we note that it is not always possible to follow each event as it unfolds. This is certainly the case for events that have already occurred. Even future monitoring programs, with their improved detection efficiencies, may not identify or be able to follow all short-duration events in real time. In these cases, light curve fits to the short-duration event, including possible long-term deviations from baseline that could "frame" the short-duration event, can be carried out. In addition, step 2 above (studying multiwavelength catalogs and data that cover the region around the event), can provide important information. In some cases, follow-up HST imaging can also be used to test models, e.g., allowing the lens mass to be determined in some cases.

# APPENDIX: Very Close Planets and the Habitable Zone

In the context of planetary systems, independent events of short duration were originally predicted for planets in wide orbits ($a$ greater than roughly $1.5\, R_{E,\ast}$). Recently, however, close orbits ($a<0.5\, R_{E,\ast}$) were studied, and a second class of short-duration event considered (Di Stefano & Night 2008).

For small $a$, there are two regions in the lens plane where the effects of the planet are significant. The first is close to the central star. Events in which the source track passes close to the star therefore exhibit short-lived deviations from the point-lens form. As the value of $a$ decreases below $0.5\, R_{E,\ast},$ the region of perturbations caused by the planet becomes smaller. Consequently the deviations in the light curve are shorter-lived and are also more easily washed out by finite-source-size effects. The second region is at a distance of roughly $1/a$ from the star, along the binary axis. (See Di Stefano & Night 2008). This region has a small caustic, which has little effect on most light curves. There is a region around the caustic, however, in which the deviation from the low-magnification effects of the star can be as large as a few percent, lasting from hours to days.

KMTNet will be very sensitive to these deviations. But even today's monitoring programs could find them. To do so would be important, because for nearby M dwarfs, orbital separations of $0.2-0.5\, R_{E,\ast}$ put the planet in the zone of habitability.

The teams could call alerts on such events with a high level of confidence because of the presence of the star along the line of sight and also because a low-magnification effects associated with the star, frame the short-duration deviation caused by the planet. This is in exact analogy to the situation in which a short-duration event is caused by a planet with $1.5\, R_{E,\ast} < a < 3.5\, R_{E,\ast}.$

There are several new features of lensing in this close-planet regime.

The deviation that signals the presence of the planet is not generally well approximated by a point-lens model.

The deviation that signals the presence of the planet occurs when the source is far from the central star ($\sim 1/a$).

Because the planet is close to the star, orbital motion can be significant during the event. This means that the regions of deviation are likely to swing into the path of the source star. We have found that the rate of these potentially important events can be comparable to the rate of stellar-lens events exhibiting $A>1.34$.

We therefore expect that, ultimately, events in which we can find evidence of a planet orbiting close to the central star, potentially in the habitable zone, could be an important addition to short-duration events.

This work benefited from discussions with Charles Alcock, Erin Arai, Mary Davies, Nitya Kallivayalil, M.J. Lehner, Christopher Night, Brandon Patel, Frank Primini, Pavlos Protopapas, Rohini Shivamoggi, Kailash Sahu, and Takahiro Sumi. I would also like to thank the anonymous referee for useful comments. The research was conducted under the aegis of NSF grants AST-0708924 and AST-0908878, and a grant from the Smithsonian endowment. I would like to thank the Aspen Center for Physics for its hospitality during the early phases of this work.

*References*

Alcock, C., et al. 2001, , 414, 617

Bond, I. A., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 868 https://it019909.massey.ac.nz/moa/

Chambers, K. C., & Pan-STARRS 2004, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 205,

Di Stefano, R.  2009, arXiv:0912.1611

Di Stefano, R.  2008a, ApJ, 684, 46

Di Stefano, R.  2008b, ApJ, 684, 59

Di Stefano, R., & Esin, A. A. 1995, , 448, L1

Di Stefano, R., & Scalzo, R. A. 1999b, , 512, 579

Di Stefano, R., & Scalzo, R. A. 1999a, , 512, 564

Di Stefano, R. & Night, C.  2008, ArXiv e-prints, 0801.1510

Drake, A. J., Cook, K. H., & Keller, S. C. 2004, ApJL, 607, L29

Fukui, A., et al. 2007, , 670, 423

Gaudi, B. S., et al. 2008, , 677, 1268

Gould, A., et al. 2009, arXiv:0904.0249

Gould, A., Bennett, D. P., & Alves, D. R. 2004, ApJ, 614, 404

Gould, A. 2004, ApJ, 606, 319

Griest, K., & Safizadeh, N. 1998, , 500, 37

Near-Field Han, C. 2008, , 681, 806

Han, C. 2009, private communication

Skowron, J., Wyrzykowski, Ł., Mao, S., & Jaroszyński, M. 2009, , 393, 999

Udalski, A.   2003, Acta Astron., 53, 291

[^1]: For heavily blended events, or events in which the peak magnification is low, the enhancement factor will be smaller (DiStefano & Esin 1995).

[^2]: Any planet-mass object not bound to a star will be referred to as a *free-floating planet* in the rest of the text. Some such low-mass objects may have been formed in and ejected from planetary systems, and others may have been formed in isolation.

[^3]: http://exoplanet.eu/