Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Quasar Microlensing Statistics and Flux-Ratio Anomalies in Lens Models

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 2404.09865 v1 pith:22XT7RVF submitted 2024-04-15 astro-ph.CO

Quasar Microlensing Statistics and Flux-Ratio Anomalies in Lens Models

classification astro-ph.CO
keywords microlensinganomaliesflux-ratiomodelshistogramlensmodelmagnitudes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Precise lens modeling is a critical step in time delay studies of multiply imaged quasars, which are key for measuring some important cosmological parameters (specially $H_0$). However, lens models (in particular those semi-automatically generated) often show discrepancies with the observed flux-ratios between the different quasar images. These flux-ratio anomalies are usually explained through differential effects between images (mainly microlensing) that alter the intrinsic magnification ratios predicted by the models. To check this hypothesis, we collect direct measurements of microlensing to obtain the histogram of microlensing magnifications. We compare this histogram with recently published model flux-ratio anomalies and conclude that they cannot be statistically explained by microlensing. The average value of the model anomalies ($0.74\,$magnitudes) significantly exceeds the mean impact of microlensing ($0.33\,$magnitudes). Moreover, the histogram of model anomalies presents a significant tail with high anomalies ($|\Delta m| \ge 0.7$ magnitudes) which is completely unexpected from the statistics of microlensing observations. Microlensing simulations neither predict the high mean nor the fat tail of the histogram of model anomalies. We perform several statistical tests which exclude that microlensing can explain the observed flux-ratio anomalies (although Kolmogorov-Smirnov, which is less sensitive to the tail of the distributions, is not always conclusive). Thus, microlensing cannot statistically explain the bulk of flux-ratio anomalies, and models may explore different alternatives to try to reduce them. In particular, we propose to complement photometric observations with accurate flux ratios of the broad emission lines obtained from integral field spectroscopy to check and, ideally, constrain lens models.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Microlensing of Microlensing: Effects of Random Stars on the Double-Source-Plane Gravitational Lens

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    First numerical ray-shooting simulation of compound (two-plane) quasar microlensing in the double-source-plane lens J1721+8842 shows new caustic morphologies — convexity violations and lip caustics — that do not occur...