Table 1: Results of the stability analysis on the INT data extension of the selected MDM microlensing candidates. For each MDM light curve (T and C stand respectively for Target, where we use the same numeration used in Paper I, and Control) for which we find an astrometrically compatible INT bump, we report the number of standard deviation within which the position and the bump parameters (duration and flux deviation in both bands as calculated from independent Paczynski fits on each of the MDM and INT light curves), of the two variations are compatible.
id $\sigma$ (position) $\sigma(t_{1/2})$ $\sigma(\Delta\Phi_R)$ $\sigma(\Delta\Phi_I)$

T1 1 1 2 2

T2 1 1 1 2

T3 1 4 4 3

T4 1 4 5 3

T5 1 3 2 3

T6 1 2 1 1

C1 1 1 2 4

C2 1 2 2 2

**Table 1:** Results of the stability analysis on the INT data extension of the selected MDM microlensing candidates. For each MDM light curve (T and C stand respectively for Target, where we use the same numeration used in Paper I, and Control) for which we find an astrometrically compatible INT bump, we report the number of standard deviation within which the position and the bump parameters (duration and flux deviation in both bands as calculated from independent Paczynski fits on each of the MDM and INT light curves), of the two variations are compatible.
id	$\sigma$ (position)	$\sigma(t_{1/2})$	$\sigma(\Delta\Phi_R)$	$\sigma(\Delta\Phi_I)$
T1	1	1	2	2
T2	1	1	1	2
T3	1	4	4	3
T4	1	4	5	3
T5	1	3	2	3
T6	1	2	1	1
C1	1	1	2	4
C2	1	2	2	2

Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text