Table 2: Results for the length of the simulated tracks $l_{\rm upper}$ as a function of source size for different confidence levels; at the 90% theuncertainty is $\pm$ $0.02~r_{\rm E}$ .
C.L. Source sizes

$\sigma_Q=0.003~r_{\rm E}$ $\sigma_Q=0.01~r_{\rm E}$ $\sigma_Q=0.05~r_{\rm E}$

68% 0.06 $r_{\rm E}$ 0.06 $r_{\rm E}$ 0.07 $r_{\rm E}$

90% 0.13 $r_{\rm E}$ 0.13 $r_{\rm E}$ 0.13 $r_{\rm E}$

95% 0.17 $r_{\rm E}$ 0.18 $r_{\rm E}$ 0.18 $r_{\rm E}$

**Table 2:** Results for the length of the simulated tracks $l_{\rm upper}$ as a function of source size for different confidence levels; at the 90% theuncertainty is $\pm$ $0.02~r_{\rm E}$ .
C.L.	Source sizes
	$\sigma_Q=0.003~r_{\rm E}$	$\sigma_Q=0.01~r_{\rm E}$	$\sigma_Q=0.05~r_{\rm E}$
68%	0.06 $r_{\rm E}$	0.06 $r_{\rm E}$	0.07 $r_{\rm E}$
90%	0.13 $r_{\rm E}$	0.13 $r_{\rm E}$	0.13 $r_{\rm E}$
95%	0.17 $r_{\rm E}$	0.18 $r_{\rm E}$	0.18 $r_{\rm E}$

Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text

	1 Introduction
	2 Microlensing background
	3 The method
	4 Results
	5 Discussion
	6 Conclusions
	References