Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Lens Models Under the Microscope: Comparison of Hubble Frontier Field Cluster Magnification Maps

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1605.07621 v2 pith:YSHPGDJB submitted 2016-05-24 astro-ph.CO

classification astro-ph.CO
keywords modelsmagnificationmassabellclusterclusterscomparisonhubble
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

Using the power of gravitational lensing magnification by massive galaxy clusters, the Hubble Frontier Fields provide deep views of six patches of the high redshift Universe. The combination of deep Hubble imaging and exceptional lensing strength has revealed the greatest numbers of multiply-imaged galaxies available to constrain models of cluster mass distributions. However, even with $\mathcal{O}(100)$ images per cluster, the uncertainties associated with the reconstructions are not negligible. The goal of this paper is to show the diversity of model magnification predictions. We examine 7 and 9 mass models of Abell 2744 and MACS J0416, respectively, submitted to the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes for public distribution in September 2015. The dispersion between model predictions increases from 30% at common low magnifications ($\mu\sim2$) to 70% at rare high magnifications ($\mu\sim40$). MACS J0416 exhibits smaller dispersions than Abell 2744 for $2<\mu<10$. We show that magnification maps based on different lens inversion techniques typically differ from each other by more than their quoted statistical errors. This suggests that some models underestimate the true uncertainties, which are primarily due to various lensing degeneracies. Though the exact mass sheet degeneracy is broken, its generalized counterpart is not broken at least in Abell 2744. Other, local degeneracies are also present in both clusters. Our comparison of models is complementary to the comparison of reconstructions of known synthetic mass distributions. By focusing on observed clusters, we can identify those that are best constrained, and therefore provide the clearest view of the distant Universe.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Tilting at the Turnover: Modeling the Faint-End of the UV Luminosity Function Behind Abell s1063 with JWST

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using lensed JWST data behind Abell S1063, the UVLF at z~6-11 is fit with gradual quadratic turnover, yielding no evidence for turnover to M_UV=-13.5 at z=6, exclusion limits on turnover models, and lower bounds showi...

  2. The Jackknife method as a new approach to validate strong lens mass models

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A leave-one-source-out Jackknife cross-validation distinguishes accurate from overfitted strong lens mass models in cases where the reduced chi-square cannot.

Pith tools