  Using neural networks, Belokurov, Evans & Le Du (2003, 2004) showed that 7
out of the 29 microlensing candidates towards the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC)
of the MACHO collaboration are consistent with blended microlensing and added
Gaussian noise. They then estimated the microlensing optical depth to the LMC
to be between 0.3 x 10^{-7} and 0.5 x 10^{-7}, lower by about a factor of two
than that found by the MACHO collaboration. There has been a recent independent
claim of a low optical depth to the LMC by the EROS collaboration, who find
0.15 x 10^{-7} from 3 candidates (Tisserand et al 2006). Griest & Thomas (2005)
have contested our calculations. Unfortunately, their paper contains a number
of scientific misrepresentations of our work. We stand by our application of
neural networks to microlensing searches and believe it to be a technique of
great promise. Rather, the main cause of the disparity between Griest & Thomas
and Belokurov et al. lies in the very different datasets through which these
investigators look for microlensing events. We don't exclude the possibility
that some of our non-microlensing designations may change with access to clean
data. Whilst not everything is understood about the microlensing datasets
towards the LMC, the latest downward revisions of the optical depth means that
Griest & Thomas' microlensing puzzle is a roughly 1 sigma effect. Efficiency
calculations can correct for the effects of false negatives, but they cannot
correct for the effects of false positives (variable stars that are mistaken
for microlensing). Therefore, the best strategy in a microlensing experiment is
to eschew a decision boundary altogether. Rather, each lightcurve should be
assigned a probability and the microlensing rate calculated by summing over the
probabilities of all such lightcurves.
