Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Systematic vs. Statistical Uncertainties in Masses and Magnifications of the Hubble Frontier Fields

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 2004.05952 v1 pith:JWDTSK6I submitted 2020-04-13 astro-ph.CO

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

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Hubble Frontier Fields data, along with multiple data sets obtained by other telescopes, have provided some of the most extensive constraints on cluster lenses to date. Multiple lens modeling teams analyzed the fields and made public a number of deliverables. By comparing these results, we can then undertake a unique and vital test of the state of cluster lens modeling. Specifically, we see how well the different teams can reproduce similar magnifications and mass profiles. We find that the circularly averaged mass profiles of the fields are remarkably constrained (scatter <5%) at distances of 1 arcmin from the cluster core, yet magnifications can vary significantly. Averaged across the six fields, we find a bias of -6% (-17%) and a scatter of ~40% (~65%) at a modest magnification of 3 (10). Statistical errors reported by individual teams are often significantly smaller than the differences among all the teams, indicating the importance of continued systematics studies in cluster lensing.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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