Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Investigating the relation between environment and internal structure of massive elliptical galaxies using strong lensing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In 15 strong lenses, the offset between a galaxy's mass centroid and light centroid does not depend on its local galaxy density, keeping such offsets usable as dark-matter probes.

desk verdict Useful first lens models for 15 systems, but the 'robust null' for centroid offsets is statistically overstated and needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00361 v2 pith:FR3UF52M submitted 2024-11-30 astro-ph.GA

S M Rafee Adnan , Muhammad Jobair Hasan , Ahmad Al-Imtiaz , Sulyman H. Robin , Fahim R. Shwadhin , Anowar J. Shajib , Mamun Hossain Nahid , Mehedi Hasan Tanver
show 12 more authors
Tanjela Akter Nusrath Jahan Zareef Jafar Mamunur Rashid Anik Biswas Akbar Ahmed Chowdhury Jannatul Feardous Ajmi Rahaman Masuk Ridwan Rahul D. Sharma Zannat Chowdhury Mir Sazzat Hossain
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords stronggravitationallensinggalaxyenvironmentlocaldensitymass-lightalignmentcentroidoffsetellipticalgalaxiesdarkmatterresidualshear
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the internal mass structure of massive elliptical galaxies depends on how crowded their environment is. Using 15 strong gravitational lens systems observed with HST, the authors model each galaxy's total mass distribution and compare it with its starlight, then measure how both the centroid offset and the position-angle misalignment between mass and light vary with local galaxy density. The central result is a null: the mass-to-light centroid offset is uncorrelated with the local galaxy density across all density definitions tested. The relevance is that such offsets are proposed signatures of self-interacting dark matter, and this result removes the environment as a contaminant in that test. A secondary result is that the previously reported correlation between position-angle misalignment and density is not robust to the density definition, weakening the case that misalignments are environmentally produced.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by comparing three lens-model outputs — the centroid offset between the mass and light centroids, the misalignment angle between their major axes, and the residual shear magnitude — against the local galaxy density $\Sigma$. Here $\Sigma$ is the projected number of neighbor galaxies within the radius of the $n$th nearest neighbor, with $n=10$ as the baseline and $n=20$, flux cuts, and distance- or flux-weighted variants as robustness checks. The mechanism that gives the comparison force is that strong lensing maps the total mass while the photometry maps only the luminous mass, so a centroid offset isolates any displacement between dark and luminous matter; if that displacement were caused by the environment, it should grow with $\Sigma$, and the paper finds it does not.

What would settle it

Re-run the same analysis on a sample of roughly one hundred lenses with spectroscopic redshifts for every neighbor within the density radius; if the mass-light centroid offset then correlates with tenth-neighbor density at $r > 0.3$ with $>3\sigma$ significance, the null result would be an artifact of photo-z incompleteness, and if the position-angle misalignment correlation with $\Sigma_{10}$ persists under complete 3D densities, the environmental-origin interpretation would be restored.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a null result. In 15 massive elliptical lenses, the projected offset between the total-mass centroid measured by strong lensing and the light centroid is essentially independent of the local galaxy density: the correlation is $r = 0.21 \pm 0.07$ for the baseline tenth-neighbor density $\Sigma_{10}$ and drops to weak or very weak values for flux-selected, twentieth-neighbor, and weighted definitions. The paper reproduces the previously reported moderate-to-strong correlation between position-angle misalignment and the standard $\Sigma_{10}$ ($r = -0.57 \pm 0.08$) but shows that it disappears under alternative density definitions, so the environmental-origin reading of misalignment is not robust. The residual shear magnitude $\gamma_{\rm shear}$ also shows no correlation with density, consistent with the interpretation that this model component absorbs unmodeled angular structure of the deflector rather than external tidal fields.

Load-bearing premise

The result holds only if the local density estimates are complete and unbiased, meaning the photometric-redshift window correctly separates true neighbors from foreground and background galaxies, the HST field contains the tenth and twentieth neighbors, and the neural-network-selected lens sample is representative of massive ellipticals across environments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The null centroid-offset correlation supports using mass-light centroid offsets as observational tests of self-interacting dark matter, since environmental effects can be treated as negligible.
  • The fragility of the PA-misalignment correlation means the interpretation of mass-light position-angle misalignment as a sign of interaction with a crowded environment is not secure.
  • The absence of correlation between residual shear and density supports recent arguments that residual shear in lens models absorbs unmodeled angular structure of the deflector rather than external tidal fields.
  • The first-time lens models of these 15 systems provide a starting point for follow-up stellar-kinematic and dark-matter studies of group-scale lenses.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the null holds in larger samples, the absence of environment-dependent offsets will sharpen self-interacting-dark-matter constraints, because the population scatter of offsets could then be attributed to halo physics rather than to environment.
  • The fragility of the position-angle correlation suggests that sample selection, for instance lenses with large Einstein radii preferentially living in groups, could produce apparent environmental trends that vanish when density is defined more carefully.
  • Planned wide-area surveys will find group-scale lenses by the thousands; testing the same correlations with spectroscopic neighbor redshifts would distinguish a true null from photometric-redshift incompleteness.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents lens models for 15 galaxy–galaxy strong lenses observed with HST/WFC3 F140W, using lenstronomy. From the models, the authors measure mass–light centroid offsets, position-angle misalignments, and residual shear parameters, and correlate these quantities with local galaxy densities estimated from DESI Legacy Surveys photometric redshifts and projected neighbor counts. They report that the centroid offset is not correlated with any of several density definitions (baseline r = 0.21 ± 0.07 for Σ10), that PA misalignment correlates moderately/strongly with Σ10 and Σ20 but only weakly with alternative flux- or weight-based definitions, and that residual shear magnitude is uncorrelated with density. They conclude that centroid offsets can be used as an environment-independent probe of dark matter physics and that the environmental interpretation of PA misalignment is weakened.

Significance. If the central null result were established to high precision, the paper would strengthen the case for using mass–light centroid offsets to test dark matter models such as SIDM, and its systematic comparison of density definitions is a useful robustness test. The paper is also valuable for providing the first lens models of these systems and for being transparent about model choices and posterior exclusions. However, the statistical power of 15 systems and the lack of a stated uncertainty method for the correlations limit the evidential value of the central claim; the wording in the abstract currently overstates what the data can support.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3.1, Fig. 3] The reported correlation uncertainties are implausibly small for the sample sizes used. For N = 15, the Fisher-z standard error is 1/sqrt(N−3) ≈ 0.29, so the 95% confidence interval for r = 0.21 spans roughly −0.34 to +0.65; the data cannot exclude a moderate or even strong environmental correlation. No method is given for the quoted uncertainties anywhere in §4.3. The abstract's claim of robustly finding no correlation, and the repeated phrase 'robustly find no impact' in §4.3.1, are therefore not supported by the statistical precision presented. Please provide the uncertainty method, report a permutation/bootstrap test and an upper limit on |r|, and adjust the central wording accordingly.
  2. [§4.4, Fig. 7] The same sample-size issue affects the residual shear–PA misalignment correlation: after excluding systems with Δφ < 10°, only about six systems remain, for which the Fisher-z standard error is ≈0.58. The quoted r = 0.46 ± 0.14 thus substantially understates the uncertainty. This correlation is used in the Discussion to support the interpretation that large PA misalignments can originate from model inadequacy, so the precision of this secondary claim also needs to be re-estimated and reported with the sample size.
  3. [§4.2, Table 2 footnotes] The local galaxy densities rest on photometric redshifts from DESI Legacy Surveys DR8 with the slice δz = 0.03(1+z), but Table 2 shows large discrepancies for systems with spectroscopic redshifts: for DESI J165.4754 the tabulated photo-z is 0.33 ± 0.04 versus the reported spec-z of 0.483, and for DESI J234.4783 the photo-z is 0.65 ± 0.04 versus spec-z 0.478. These differences are several times the adopted slice width and much larger than the reported photo-z uncertainties. Because every density definition used in the paper depends on this slice, the authors should validate the neighbor selection against the available spectroscopic redshifts and propagate the photo-z uncertainties into the density estimates.
  4. [§5, outlier discussion] The sample contains a clear outlier, DESI J024.1631+00.1384, with a centroid offset of 6.1 ± 0.4 kpc and a morphology that appears to be a merger. Given N = 15, the reported correlations may be sensitive to this single system. The paper discusses the outlier but does not show whether the baseline r = 0.21 for centroid offset versus Σ10 changes materially when this system is excluded or when a rank-based or robust correlation estimator is used. Such a test is directly relevant to the 'robustly find no impact' conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 7] The axis label says 'r = 0.46 ± 14'; this should read 'r = 0.46 ± 0.14'.
  2. [§4.4, Fig. 6] The text reports r = −0.24 ± 0.09 for the logarithmic slope versus Σ10, while Fig. 6 shows r = 0.24 ± 0.09; please make the sign consistent or clarify the convention.
  3. [§4.3.2, Fig. 4] After excluding systems with qL > 0.9, the PA-misalignment analysis uses only N = 9 systems; this should be stated explicitly in the text and figure captions, since the confidence intervals depend directly on that sample size.
  4. [§4.3.2, Fig. 4] The reported correlations with Σ10 and Σ20 are negative (r = −0.57 and −0.72), but the text says the result 'agrees very well with Treu et al. (2009)' without stating whether that previous work reported the same sign; please clarify the sign convention for Δφ and the consistency.
  5. [§4.3.1] The 'bi-weight mid-correlation' is adopted as the correlation measure but is not defined or referenced; please add a definition or citation so the reader can reproduce the calculation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical measurement study whose correlations compare independently derived lens-model quantities with independently estimated environment densities.

full rationale

The paper makes no derivation-based claim whose output is equivalent to its input. Its central results are measured correlations: centroid offsets and PA misalignments come from HST lens modeling with an EPL mass profile, Sersic light profiles, residual shear, and MCMC sampling (Section 3), while local densities are estimated from HST neighbor counts and DESI Legacy Surveys photometric redshifts using the nth-nearest-neighbor definition (Section 4.2). Neither quantity is defined in terms of the other: Sigma_10 is built from neighbor positions and redshifts, not from the fitted mass centroid, and the centroid offset is built from the fitted mass and light centroids, not from neighbor counts. The PA-misalignment analysis applies an external quality cut (q_L > 0.9) and compares against the same independently defined densities, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only self-citations are non-load-bearing: Shajib et al. (2019, 2021) are used for systematic uncertainty conventions and an upper-limit comparison, and Shajib et al. (2024b) is cited only for the nomenclature 'residual shear'; the substantive physical argument that apparent external shear can arise from angular model inadequacy is attributed to the independent work of Etherington et al. (2024). The q_m > q_L prior is a modeling regularization justified by external literature (Schmidt et al. 2023; Sheu et al. 2024), and the paper states that it does not significantly alter the other major parameters, so it does not construct the reported correlations. The concern that N=15 correlations with quoted uncertainties around +-0.05 to +-0.12 may be statistically over-constrained is a robustness/uncertainty-calibration issue, not a circularity issue, because it does not make any reported correlation equal to its inputs by construction. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's text and equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper adds 15 new lens models and a correlation analysis. Its free parameters are the fitted lens-model parameters and the hand-chosen density definitions; its axioms are the standard modeling and photo-z assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • EPL mass profile parameters per lens (θE, γ, qm, φm, x_m, y_m) = Table 1
    Fitted to HST images with lenstronomy; define the mass centroid and mass PA used in the headline correlations.
  • Residual shear parameters per lens (γ_shear, φ_shear) = Table 1
    Fitted; γ_shear is the third headline quantity correlated with local density.
  • Deflector light profile parameters per lens (Reff, n, qL, φL, x_L, y_L) = Table 1
    Fitted; define the light centroid and light PA against which mass offsets and misalignments are measured.
  • Source light shapelet coefficients and optional extra Sérsic profiles = Not tabulated
    Fitted; source model complexity affects lens parameter recovery through degeneracies.
  • Satellite SIE parameters for systems with satellites = Not tabulated
    Fitted with a flux-scaled Einstein radius prior; affects the mass model around the primary lens.
  • Prior qm > qL (mass rounder than light) = N/A, constraint
    Ad hoc prior added for systems where initial fits gave implausibly elliptical mass; may influence the inferred mass PA and thus the PA misalignment.
  • Local density definition choices (Σ10 vs Σ20, 1% flux cutoff, 66 kpc weight in Definition D) = N/A, choices
    Chosen by hand; the central claims depend on these choices, and the paper tests sensitivity to them.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc and Ωm = 0.3
    Fiducial cosmology adopted for converting angular offsets to kpc and densities to Mpc^-2.
  • domain assumption The total mass distribution of each deflector is described by an EPL profile plus residual shear (and, where needed, SIE satellites and flexion)
    Central modeling assumption; the paper itself notes residual shear may absorb unmodeled angular structure.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts from DESI Legacy Surveys DR8 meet the neighbor-selection criterion δz = 0.03(1+z)
    Used in Section 4.2 to include or exclude neighbors; photo-z scatter and outliers directly change Σ.
  • domain assumption Masked or unmodeled nearby galaxies have negligible lensing effects
    Assumed for many systems in Section 3.3 based on size and distance; verified only by residual inspection.
  • domain assumption Source light is described by shapelets plus optional Sérsic profiles
    Basis choice; insufficient source flexibility can bias lens parameters (the paper tests this for one system, J246).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating the relation between environment and internal structure of massive elliptical galaxies using strong lensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FR3UF52M

@misc{pith2026241200361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating the relation between environment and internal structure of massive elliptical galaxies using strong lensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FR3UF52M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00361}
}
read the original abstract

Strong lensing by massive galaxies probes their mass distribution, thus providing a window to study their internal structure, i.e., the distributions of luminous and dark matter. In this paper, we investigate the relation between the internal structure of massive elliptical galaxies and their environment using a sample of 15 strong lensing systems. We performed lens modeling for them using Lenstronomy and constrained the mass and light distributions of the deflector galaxies. We adopt the local galaxy density as a metric for the environment and test our results against several alternative definitions of it. We robustly find that the centroid offset between the mass and light is not correlated with the local galaxy density. This result supports using centroid offsets as a probe of dark matter theories since the environment's impact on it can be treated as negligible. Although we find a moderate to strong correlation between the position angle offset and the standard definition of the local galaxy density, consistent with previous studies, the correlation becomes weaker for alternative definitions of the local galaxy density. This result weakens the support for interpreting the position angle misalignment as having originated from interaction with the environment. Furthermore, we find the 'residual shear' magnitude in the lens model to be uncorrelated with the local galaxy density, supporting the interpretation of the residual shear originating, in part, from the inadequacy in modeling the angular structure of the lensing galaxy and not solely from the structures present in the environment or along the line of sight.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00361 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Montage of 15 strong lensing systems modeled in this paper. These systems were identified as lens candidates using a deep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of lens models for the first five out of 15 systems in our sample. First column: Image cutouts of the lensing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of the centroid offset between mass and light and the local galaxy density Σ. The left-hand panel shows the distributions for variants of Σ10 based on a number of galaxies chosen and applying a flux selection. The right-hand panel illustrates the distributions for various weighting schemes in the Σ definition (i.e., definitions B, C, and D). The very weak to weak correlations for all the definitions of … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of the PA misalignment between the mass and light, and the local galaxy density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of the local galaxy density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The logarithmic slope γ vs. the distribution of the local galaxy density Σ10. We find only a weak correlation between the two, which is consistent with Treu et al. (2009). 20 40 60 80 PA misalignment, (°) 0.05 0.10 0.15 sh e ar r = 0.46 ± 0.14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The residual shear magnitude γshear vs. the distribution of the PA misalignment ∆ϕ. These two quantities are moderately correlated (r = 0.46 ± 14). Here, we excluded systems with low PA misalignment, that is, those with ∆ϕ ≲ 10◦ . angle to be moderately correlated with…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Bloch, A

    Adams, F. C., Bloch, A. M., Butler, S. C., Druce, J. M., & Ketchum, J. A. 2007, ApJ, 670, 1027

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    W., He, Q., et al

    Amvrosiadis, A., Nightingale, J. W., He, Q., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:2407.12983 Astropy Collaboration. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    W., Treu, T., Bolton, A

    Auger, M. W., Treu, T., Bolton, A. S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1099

    2009

  4. [4]

    J., Hack, W., Cara, M., et al

    Avila, R. J., Hack, W., Cara, M., et al. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 495, Astronomical Data Analysis Software an Systems XXIV (ADASS XXIV), ed. A. R. Taylor & E. Rosolowsky, 281

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    & Amara, A

    Birrer, S. & Amara, A. 2018, Physics of the Dark Universe, 22, 189

    2018

  6. [6]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 102

    Birrer, S., Amara, A., & Refregier, A. 2015, ApJ, 813, 102

    2015

  7. [7]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware, 6, 3283

    Birrer, S., Shajib, A., Gilman, D., et al. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware, 6, 3283

    2021

  8. [8]

    & Treu, T

    Birrer, S. & Treu, T. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2097–2103

    work page 2019

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    S., Burles, S., Koopmans, L

    Bolton, A. S., Burles, S., Koopmans, L. V . E., Treu, T., & Moustakas, L. A. 2006, ApJ, 638, 703

    2006

  2. [10]

    I., Coles, J

    Bruderer, C., Read, J. I., Coles, J. P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 870

    2016

  3. [11]

    Collett, T. E. 2015, ApJ, 811, 20

    2015

  4. [12]

    C., Newman, J

    Cooper, M. C., Newman, J. A., Madgwick, D. S., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 833

    2005

  5. [13]

    P., van den Bosch, F

    Debattista, V . P., van den Bosch, F. C., Roškar, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 4094

    2015

  6. [14]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    2019

  7. [15]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 5621

    Ding, X., Liao, K., Birrer, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5621

    2021

  8. [16]

    M., King, L

    Dobke, B. M., King, L. J., & Fellhauer, M. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1503

    2007

  9. [17]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    1980

  10. [18]

    Duncan, K. J. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3662

    2022

  11. [19]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, sub- mitted to AAS, arXiv:2410.10123

    Erickson, S., Wagner-Carena, S., Marshall, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, sub- mitted to AAS, arXiv:2410.10123

    2024

  12. [20]

    W., Massey, R., et al

    Etherington, A., Nightingale, J. W., Massey, R., et al. 2024, Strong gravitational lensing’s ’external shear’ is not shear

    2024

  13. [21]

    M., Bettoni, D., et al

    Fasano, G., Poggianti, B. M., Bettoni, D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3927

    2015

  14. [22]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  15. [23]

    J., Brault, F., & Ruff, A

    Gavazzi, R., Treu, T., Marshall, P. J., Brault, F., & Ruff, A. 2012, ApJ, 761, 170

    2012

  16. [24]

    2020, A&A, 642, A194

    Gilman, D., Birrer, S., & Treu, T. 2020, A&A, 642, A194

    2020

  17. [25]

    S., Suyu, S

    Greene, Z. S., Suyu, S. H., Treu, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 39

    2013

  18. [26]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 404

    Harvey, D., Tittley, E., Massey, R., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 404

    2014

  19. [27]

    W., Amvrosiadis, A., et al

    He, Q., Nightingale, J. W., Amvrosiadis, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2441

    2024

  20. [28]

    & Schwarzschild, M

    Heiligman, G. & Schwarzschild, M. 1979, ApJ, 233, 872

    1979

  21. [29]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, submitted to ApJ, arXiv:2502.03455

    Huang, X., Baltasar, S., Ratier-Werbin, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, submitted to ApJ, arXiv:2502.03455

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 78

    Huang, X., Storfer, C., Ravi, V ., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 78

    2020

  23. [31]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  24. [32]

    2001, SciPy: Open source scien- tific tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., & Others. 2001, SciPy: Open source scien- tific tools for Python

    2001

  25. [33]

    T., & Sarkar, S

    Kahlhoefer, F., Schmidt-Hoberg, K., Frandsen, M. T., & Sarkar, S. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 2865

    2014

  26. [34]

    R., Kochanek, C

    Keeton, C. R., Kochanek, C. S., & Falco, E. E. 1998, ApJ, 509, 561 Article number, page 12 of 16 Adnan et al.: Relation between environment and internal structure of massive ellipticals

    1998

  27. [35]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Pérez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Schmidt (IOS Press BV , Amsterdam, Netherlands), 87 – 90

    2016

  28. [36]

    Kochanek, C. S. 2002, in The Shapes of Galaxies and their Dark Halos, ed. P. Natarajan (WORLD SCIENTIFIC), 62–71

    2002

  29. [37]

    E., Hook, R

    Krist, J. E., Hook, R. N., & Stoehr, F. 2011, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8127, Proc. SPIE, 81270J

    2011

  30. [38]

    M., Fritz, J., et al

    Marasco, A., Poggianti, B. M., Fritz, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5359

    2023

  31. [39]

    & de Zeeuw, T

    Martinet, L. & de Zeeuw, T. 1988, A&A, 206, 269

    1988

  32. [40]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 669

    Massey, R., Harvey, D., Liesenborgs, J., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 669

    2018

  33. [41]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 3393

    Massey, R., Williams, L., Smit, R., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 3393

    2015

  34. [42]

    & Marshall, P

    Oguri, M. & Marshall, P. J. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2579

    2010

  35. [43]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2015, Guide to NumPy, 2nd edn. (USA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform)

    2015

  36. [44]

    2019, in AAS /High Energy Astrophysics Division, V ol

    Pelliccia, D. 2019, in AAS /High Energy Astrophysics Division, V ol. 17, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 107.05

    2019

  37. [45]

    K., Bekki, K., et al

    Pfeffer, J., Cavanagh, M. K., Bekki, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5260

    2023

  38. [46]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 467, 4719

    Robertson, A., Massey, R., & Eke, V . 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 467, 4719

    2017

  39. [47]

    G., & Eke, V

    Schaller, M., Robertson, A., Massey, R., Bower, R. G., & Eke, V . R. 2015, MN- RAS, 453, L58

    2015

  40. [48]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 1260

    Schmidt, T., Treu, T., Birrer, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1260

    2023

  41. [49]

    Schneider, P. & Er, X. 2008, A&A, 485, 363

    2008

  42. [50]

    J., Birrer, S., Treu, T., et al

    Shajib, A. J., Birrer, S., Treu, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 6072

    2020

  43. [51]

    J., Birrer, S., Treu, T., et al

    Shajib, A. J., Birrer, S., Treu, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5649

    2019

  44. [52]

    J., Smith, G

    Shajib, A. J., Smith, G. P., Birrer, S., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, accepted by Philosophical Transactions A, arXiv:2406.08919

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    J., Treu, T., Birrer, S., & Sonnenfeld, A

    Shajib, A. J., Treu, T., Birrer, S., & Sonnenfeld, A. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2380

    2021

  46. [54]

    J., Wong, K

    Shajib, A. J., Wong, K. C., Birrer, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A123

    2022

  47. [55]

    J., Treu, T., et al

    Sheu, W., Shajib, A. J., Treu, T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, submitted to MN- RAS, arXiv:2408.10316

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    S., Moustakas, L

    Shu, Y ., Bolton, A. S., Moustakas, L. A., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 43

    2016

  49. [57]

    H., Davé, R., et al

    Simha, V ., Weinberg, D. H., Davé, R., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 650

    2009

  50. [58]

    2012, A&A, 538, A99

    Sluse, D., Chantry, V ., Magain, P., Courbin, F., & Meylan, G. 2012, A&A, 538, A99

    2012

  51. [59]

    H., Treu, T., Hilbert, S., et al

    Suyu, S. H., Treu, T., Hilbert, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, L35 Sérsic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    2014

  52. [60]

    Y ., Shajib, A

    Tan, C. Y ., Shajib, A. J., Birrer, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1474

    2024

  53. [61]

    & Metcalf, R

    Tessore, N. & Metcalf, R. B. 2015, A&A, 580, A79

    2015

  54. [62]

    H., Harshan, A., Glazebrook, K., et al

    Tran, K.-V . H., Harshan, A., Glazebrook, K., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 164, 148

    2022

  55. [63]

    S., Kneib, J.-P., et al

    Treu, T., Ellis, R. S., Kneib, J.-P., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 53

    2003

  56. [64]

    2009, ApJ, 690, 670 Van de Vyvere, L., Gomer, M

    Treu, T., Gavazzi, R., Gorecki, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 670 Van de Vyvere, L., Gomer, M. R., Sluse, D., et al. 2022a, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 659, A127 Van de Vyvere, L., Sluse, D., Gomer, M. R., & Mukherjee, S. 2022b, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 663, A179

    2009

  57. [65]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 102

    Wang, E., Wang, H., Mo, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 102

    2018

  58. [66]

    Williams, L. L. R. & Saha, P. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 448

    2011

  59. [67]

    Zhu, J., Tonnesen, S., & Bryan, G. L. 2024, ApJ, 960, 54 Article number, page 13 of 16 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa53239-24 Appendix A: Model summary Here in Table A.1, we summarize the model setups for each of the 15 strong lensing systems, as a complement to Section 3.3. Ta...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.