RECORD
Galaxy Number Counts and Implications for Strong Lensing
Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics · Submitted 23 Sep 2009
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim Thus, the overdensity of galaxies seen along a typical line of sight to a lens can be explained mostly by the natural clustering of galaxies, rather than being due to lenses lying along otherwise biased lines of sight.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
We compare galaxy number counts in HST/ACS fields containing moderate-redshift (0.2<z<1.0) strong gravitational lenses with those in two control samples: (1) the first square degree of the COSMOS survey, comprising 259 ACS fields and (2) 20 "pure parallel" fields randomly located on the sky. Through a Bayesian analysis we determine the expectation values (mu_0) and confidence levels of the underlying number counts for a range of apertures and magnitude bins. Our analysis has produced the following results: (i) We infer that our control samples are not consistent, with the number counts in the COSMOS sample being significantly higher than in the pure parallel sample for 21 <= F814W <= 23. This result matches those found in previous analyses of COSMOS data using different techniques. (ii) We find that small-size apertures, centered on strong lenses, are overdense compared with randomly placed apertures in the control samples, even compared to the COSMOS sample. Correcting for the local clustering of elliptical galaxies, based on the average two-point correlation function reduces this overdensity to the 1-2 sigma level. Thus, the overdensity of galaxies seen along a typical line of sight to a lens can be explained mostly by the natural clustering of galaxies, rather than being due to lenses lying along otherwise biased lines of sight. However, a larger sample of lenses is needed to see if the remaining bias persists when the lens-field uncertainties are smaller. (iii) There is considerable scatter in the lines of sight to _individual_ lens systems, but quantities that are linearly dependent on the external convergence (e.g., H_0) should become unbiased if the extra galaxies that cause the bias can be accounted for in the lens models either through direct modeling or via an informed prior on the external convergence. The number counts can used to set such an informed prior.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | We compare galaxy number counts in HST/ACS fields containing moderate-redshift (0.2<z<1.0) strong gravitational lenses with those in two control samples: (1) the first square degree of the COSMOS survey, comprising 259 ACS fields and (2) 20 "pure parallel" fields randomly located on the sky. | method 0.82 | 0.90 | 0.03 | asserted 0.85 |
| s1 | Through a Bayesian analysis we determine the expectation values (mu_0) and confidence levels of the underlying number counts for a range of apertures and magnitude bins. | method 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.03 | asserted 0.98 |
| s2 | Our analysis has produced the following results: (i) We infer that our control samples are not consistent, with the number counts in the COSMOS sample being significantly higher than in the pure parallel sample for 21 <= F814W <= 23. | result 1.00 | 0.95 | 0.17 | asserted 0.98 |
| s3 | This result matches those found in previous analyses of COSMOS data using different techniques. | result 0.40 | 0.09 | 0.04 | asserted 0.99 |
| s4 | (ii) We find that small-size apertures, centered on strong lenses, are overdense compared with randomly placed apertures in the control samples, even compared to the COSMOS sample. | result 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.16 | asserted 1.00 |
| s5 | Correcting for the local clustering of elliptical galaxies, based on the average two-point correlation function reduces this overdensity to the 1-2 sigma level. | result 0.93 | 0.88 | 0.10 | asserted 1.00 |
| s6 | Thus, the overdensity of galaxies seen along a typical line of sight to a lens can be explained mostly by the natural clustering of galaxies, rather than being due to lenses lying along otherwise biased lines of sight. | interpretation 1.00 | 0.88 | 0.64 | asserted 0.92 |
| s7 | However, a larger sample of lenses is needed to see if the remaining bias persists when the lens-field uncertainties are smaller. | future work 0.70 | 0.18 | 0.05 | hedged possibility 0.52 |
| s8 | (iii) There is considerable scatter in the lines of sight to _individual_ lens systems, but quantities that are linearly dependent on the external convergence (e.g., H_0) should become unbiased if the extra galaxies that cause the bias can be accounted for in the lens models either through direct modeling or via an informed prior on the external convergence. | interpretation 0.80 | 0.45 | 0.16 | hedged possibility 0.76 |
| s9 | The number counts can used to set such an informed prior. | interpretation 0.78 | 0.39 | 0.07 | asserted 0.88 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v2
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
We compare galaxy number counts in HST/ACS fields containing moderate-redshift (0.2<z<1.0) strong gravitational lenses with those in two control samples: (1) the first square degree of the COSMOS survey, comprising 259 ACS fields and (2) 20 "pure parallel" fields randomly located on the sky. Through a Bayesian analysis we determine the expectation values (mu_0) and confidence levels of the underlying number counts for a range of apertures and magnitude bins. Our analysis has produced the following results: (i) We infer that our control samples are not consistent, with the number counts in the COSMOS sample being significantly higher than in the pure parallel sample for 21 <= F814W <= 23. This result matches those found in previous analyses of COSMOS data using different techniques. (ii) We find that small-size apertures, centered on strong lenses, are overdense compared with randomly placed apertures in the control samples, even compared to the COSMOS sample. Correcting for the local clustering of elliptical galaxies, based on the average two-point correlation function reduces this overdensity to the 1-2 sigma level. Thus, the overdensity of galaxies seen along a typical line of sight to a lens can be explained mostly by the natural clustering of galaxies, rather than being due to lenses lying along otherwise biased lines of sight. However, a larger sample of lenses is needed to see if the remaining bias persists when the lens-field uncertainties are smaller. (iii) There is considerable scatter in the lines of sight to _individual_ lens systems, but quantities that are linearly dependent on the external convergence (e.g., H_0) should become unbiased if the extra galaxies that cause the bias can be accounted for in the lens models either through direct modeling or via an informed prior on the external convergence. The number counts can used to set such an informed prior.
Human review
References
How the literature uses it
5 arXiv papers cite this in 6 sentences
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.