Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 105 references

Strong Lensing analysis of SPT-CLJ2325$-$4111 and SPT-CLJ0049$-$2440, two Powerful Cosmic Telescopes ($R_E > 40''$) from the SPT Clusters Sample

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that SPT-CL J2325$-$4111 and SPT-CL J0049$-$2440 are strong-lensing clusters as strong as the Frontier Fields, with Einstein radii of 42 and 43 arcsec at $z=9$.

desk verdict Solid first lens models for two SPT clusters; the qualitative claim they are Frontier-Field-class lenses is robust, but the high chi2/nu and statistical-only errors mean the quantitative lensing-strength numbers need systematic tests before being used as calibrated cosmic telescopes. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03361 v1 pith:CYDWF3HA submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Guillaume Mahler , Keren Sharon , Matthew Bayliss , Lindsey. E. Bleem , Mark Brodwin , Benjamin Floyd , Raven Gassis , Michael D. Gladders
show 3 more authors
Gourav Khullar Juan D. Remolina Gonzalez Arnab Sarkar
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords galaxyclustersstronggravitationallensingEinsteinradiusmagnificationmapsdarkmatterdistributioncosmictelescopesSPTclustersurveyhigh-redshiftgalaxies
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 reports strong-lensing models of two massive clusters from the South Pole Telescope survey, SPT-CL J2325$-$4111 and SPT-CL J0049$-$2440, and argues that both are 'cosmic telescopes' as strong as the Frontier Fields. Using HST imaging and ground-based spectroscopy, the authors identify nine and eight secure multiply-imaged systems and fit parametric mass models with image-plane rms of 0.63 and 0.73 arcsec. The models give Einstein radii of 42 and 43 arcsec for a source at $z=9$, and lensing strengths of $4.93^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ and $3.64^{+0.14}_{-0.10}$ arcmin$^2$ for $\mu \ge 3$ magnification, placing them in the top tier of strong-lensing clusters. Each new well-calibrated sightline matters because it provides an independent magnified window on the faint high-redshift universe and helps beat down cosmic variance in studies of early galaxies.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is parametric strong-lens modeling with the public code Lenstool, which represents the cluster as a sum of dPIE (pseudo-isothermal elliptical mass distribution) halos: a few cluster-scale and galaxy-scale halos with optimized parameters, plus cluster-member galaxies whose positions and shapes are fixed to their light and whose masses are tied to luminosity through scaling relations. The models are constrained by the image-plane positions of secure multiply-imaged systems, several with spectroscopic redshifts, and optimized by Markov Chain Monte Carlo to minimize the image-plane scatter (0.63 and 0.73 arcsec). The Einstein radii and the lensing-strength metric $A^{\mathrm{lens}}_{|\mu|\ge3}$, defined as the image-plane area magnified by $\mu \ge 3$ for a source at $z=9$, carry the comparison to the Frontier Fields.

What would settle it

If an independent mass estimate within 500 kpc (for example from X-ray hydrostatic or weak-lensing measurements) disagreed with $7.30 \times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$ and $7.12 \times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$ by more than the quoted uncertainties, or if deep JWST imaging found predicted counter-images missing or new multiple-image families at positions the model cannot reproduce, the parametric model and its Einstein radii and magnification areas would be biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that these two clusters are additional well-calibrated, exceptionally strong gravitational lenses, comparable to the Frontier Fields. From the lens models, the projected masses within 500 kpc are $7.30 \pm 0.07 \times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$ and $7.12^{+0.16}_{-0.19} \times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$, with substructure mass fractions of $0.12 \pm 0.01$ and $0.21^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$. The effective Einstein radii for a $z=9$ source are 42 and 43 arcsec (32 and 36 arcsec at the redshifts of the main giant arcs), and the lensing strength, measured as the area where a $z=9$ source is magnified by $\mu \ge 3$, is $4.93^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ and $3.64^{+0.14}_{-0.10}$ arcmin$^2$. The projected mass density profiles are higher than those of the Frontier Fields clusters within roughly 200 kpc and comparable at larger radii, which the paper interprets as the origin of the high lensing efficiency. The paper concludes that these are top-tier sightlines with untapped potential for magnified studies of the early universe.

Load-bearing premise

The lensing potential is faithfully described by the assumed parametric model: a few dPIE halos plus cluster-member galaxy halos fixed to their light and scaled by luminosity, with no significant unmodeled line-of-sight structure or dark halos offset from the light.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • These two clusters become part of the small top tier of strong-lensing sightlines, with Einstein radii of 42 and 43 arcsec at $z=9$.
  • The lensing strengths of $4.93$ and $3.64$ arcmin$^2$ at $\mu \ge 3$ mean large image-plane areas are highly magnified, making them efficient hunting grounds for intrinsically faint galaxies at cosmic dawn.
  • The mass measurements within 500 kpc, $7.30 \times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$ and $7.12 \times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$, add new data points on the relation between cluster mass, core concentration, and lensing efficiency.
  • The two giant arcs (18 arcsec at $z=1.579$ and 31 arcsec at $z=3.022$, with median magnifications around 10) are concrete targets for JWST follow-up.
  • The substructure mass fractions of $0.12$ and $0.21$ can be compared with predictions for sub-halo populations in the standard cosmological model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the high core densities implied by these models are real, other SZ-selected clusters with large projected arc separations may host more Frontier-Field-class lenses; that selection hypothesis goes beyond what this paper tests.
  • JWST observations of the $z=3.022$ arc in SPT-CL J0049$-$2440 could resolve sub-kpc structure and independently check the predicted magnification of roughly 10, a test the paper does not perform.
  • Comparing these parametric masses with independent weak-lensing or X-ray/SZ mass estimates would show whether the dPIE model is missing line-of-sight structure or halo complexity; this is an external check, not a claim of the paper.
  • The similar lensing strength of the two clusters despite different substructure fractions hints that core concentration rather than substructure governs their efficiency, a connection the paper leaves implicit.
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. The paper presents strong-lensing analyses of two massive South Pole Telescope clusters, SPT-CL J2325-4111 and SPT-CL J0049-2440, based on new HST multiband imaging and Magellan/GMOS spectroscopy. Using the public Lenstool code, the authors construct parametric models with 9 secure multiply-imaged systems for J2325 and 8 for J0049, reaching image-plane rms values of 0.63'' and 0.73''. From these models they derive projected masses within 500 kpc of 7.30e14 and 7.12e14 M_sun, Einstein radii at z=9 of 42'' and 43'', and lensing strengths A_{|mu|>=3}=4.93 and 3.64 arcmin^2, respectively, placing the clusters in the top tier of known strong lenses, comparable to the Frontier Fields. The paper also highlights two giant arcs, provides detailed lensing and spectroscopic catalogs, and includes an appendix on a third cluster that did not yield a robust lens model.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper identifies two new powerful cosmic telescopes that would be highly valuable for magnified studies of high-redshift galaxies and for probing cluster mass distributions. The paper provides reproducible modeling inputs, public constraint tables (Table 2), spectroscopic catalogs (Tables 3-4), and full best-fit parameter lists (Table 1) using the widely used Lenstool code, which is a concrete asset to the community. The comparison with the Fox et al. (2022) lensing-strength sample is a useful quantitative framework. However, the headline quantities rely on a single parametric model with reduced chi-square values of 9-19, and two source redshifts are adopted largely because they improve the lens model, so the quoted statistical uncertainties likely understate the true systematic errors. The significance is therefore conditional on a robustness analysis that is not yet present.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2.2 / Table 1] Table 1 reports chi2/nu = 9.0 (dof=16) for SPT-CL J2325-4111 and chi2/nu = 19.0 (dof=8) for SPT-CL J0049-2440, while Section 3.2.2 uses the image-plane rms (0.63'' and 0.73'') to describe the results as 'well-calibrated cosmic telescopes.' If the positional uncertainties in the fit are at the typical 0.2''-0.5'' level, these reduced chi-square values indicate that the model residuals are several times larger than the assumed noise, i.e., that systematic modeling errors dominate the statistical errors quoted in the abstract and Section 5. The paper does not state the adopted positional uncertainties, nor does it discuss the discrepancy between the rms and chi2/nu values. Because the headline claims (M(<500 kpc), R_E(z=9), A_{|mu|>=3}) are all derived from this model, the authors should provide a systematic error estimate (e.g., residual-based scaling or alternative model setups) or explicitly state that the quoted uncertainties are statistical only and revise the 'well-calibrated' wording accordingly.
  2. [Section 2.3.2 / Table 2] The redshifts of Source 4 in SPT-CL J2325-4111 and Source 6 in SPT-CL J0049-2440 are set by lens-model preference rather than by secure spectroscopy. For Source 4, the single emission line is ambiguous between [OIII] at z=2.037 and Halpha at z=1.318, and the authors adopt z=1.318 because it yields a 5x lower chi2 and a factor of 10 reduction in source-plane rms; for Source 6, the alternative lower redshift is rejected because it fails to reproduce the observed radial arc and predicts unobserved counter-images. These model-selected redshifts are then used as constraints in the same lens model (Table 2), creating a circularity that is not quantified. The paper does not report how the central results (R_E(z=9), A_{|mu|>=3}, M(<500 kpc)) change when the alternative redshifts are used, nor does it propagate the redshift ambiguity into the quoted uncertainties. Since the comparative claims in Section 4.2 depend on the exact critical curve, a sensitivity test under the alternative redshift assignments is required before the 'as strong as the Frontier Fields' conclusion can be accepted.
  3. [Section 4.2 / Figure 6] The caption of Figure 6 states that the plotted error bars 'reflect the systematic uncertainties, determined from the range of measurements obtained by different lens modeling algorithms, where available.' For the two SPT clusters analyzed here with only Lenstool, the plotted uncertainties are MCMC statistical errors, not the algorithm-scatter systematics used for the comparison clusters. The paper itself acknowledges in Section 3.2.2 that statistical uncertainties underestimate the true uncertainty, and Fox et al. (2022) derived the systematic scatter by combining multiple independent models. As presented, the comparison of the SPT clusters to the Frontier Fields in Figure 6 is not on an equal footing. The authors should either compute an inter-model scatter for these two clusters (e.g., using a second algorithm or the approach of Johnson & Sharon 2016) or clearly label the plotted errors for the SPT points as statistical-only and discuss how the conclusion might change under an assumed systematic uncertainty comparable to the rest of the sample.
  4. [Section 3.1 / Table 1] The lens models do not include external shear or line-of-sight structure, and the reduced chi-square values in Table 1 suggest that the adopted combination of one cluster-scale dPIE halo plus member-galaxy halos is not fully consistent with the data. The high-magnification area A_{|mu|>=3} at z=9 is a second-order quantity that is sensitive to the exact shape and position of the critical curve, which in turn depends on the azimuthal structure of the potential. For clusters with R_E(z=9)=42''-43'', part of the critical curve lies near or beyond the region directly probed by the most distant secure image families in Table 2 (e.g., source 3.3 in J0049 at a projected separation of roughly 50''), making part of the lensing-strength calculation an extrapolation. The authors should test the stability of A_{|mu|>=3} and R_E(z=9) to the addition of an external shear and to reasonable variations of the outer density slope (e.g., rcut of Halo 1), and report the resulting variation as a systematic uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] The reported inner-slope values S50-200 are not expressed with clear statistical notation: 'S50−200 = −0.59−0.62/−0.56' and 'S50−200 = −0.67−0.69/−0.66' should be written as a central value with 68% confidence limits, e.g., -0.59^{+0.03}_{-0.03}, and the sign convention for steeper versus shallower slopes should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Table 2] The column header 'zspec or zmodel' is ambiguous because several systems have only model-derived redshifts, while others have secure spectroscopy. The table should distinguish the two categories (for instance with a flag, a separate column, or different formatting), especially since the model-selected redshifts are a central point of Section 2.3.2.
  3. [Section 2.3.1] There is a typographical error: 'theIMACS grism 200 disperser' should read 'the IMACS grism 200 disperser.'
  4. [References] In the reference list, 'Fruchter, A. S., & et al. 2010' should be formatted as 'Fruchter, A. S., et al. 2010.'
  5. [Section 3.2.2] The statement that the rms is 'in the same range of other clusters with similar richness of lensing evidence in the literature' is vague; citing specific clusters with comparable rms and chi2/nu values would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Einstein radii, lensing strength, and enclosed masses are derived from a parametric mass model fit to independent image-plane constraints; model-selected redshifts and poor chi2 are systematic risks, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims (theta_E, A_{|mu|>=3}, M(<500 kpc)) are outputs of a Lenstool dPIE model fit to the image-plane positions of multiply-imaged systems (Sec. 3.1, Table 1). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the optimized halo parameters (sigma_0, r_core, etc.) are not the reported A or theta_E, and A is computed from the model's critical curve via the lens equation, so it is not equal to any input by construction. Cluster-member halos are tied to observed light via scaling relations and are not tuned to reproduce the headline lensing strength. The ambiguous single-line redshifts of source 4 in J2325 and source 6 in J0049 were selected by the lens model between two spectroscopic line interpretations; this is a genuine endogeneity/selection risk that could bias the model, but it is not a tautology: the chosen redshifts enter an overdetermined fit with 9 and 8 secure systems, and the reported A is a derived functional of the fitted mass distribution, not the selection statistic. The paper explicitly cautions that the quoted uncertainties are statistical only (Sec. 3.2.2: 'statistical uncertainties underestimate the true uncertainty and do not take into account systematic errors'), and the high chi^2/nu values (9.0 and 19.0) are model-fit quality concerns, not evidence that the outputs were assumed in the inputs. The Fox et al. (2022) citation has overlapping authorship, but it is used only to define the comparison metric and supply the comparison sample; the A values reported here are computed from the present models, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No equation or derived quantity in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a parametric mass model with 30 and 24 free parameters, several model-derived source redshifts, and two redshift choices selected by model agreement. No new physical entities are postulated. The main assumptions are the dPIE parametrization, member-light scaling relations, and identification of multiple images by morphology and color.

free parameters (6)
  • Cluster-scale dPIE halo parameters for Halo 1 (sigma0, rcut, rcore, ellipticity, position angle, centroid) = J2325: sigma0=1332.2 km/s, rcore=39.9 kpc; J0049: sigma0=1145.5 km/s, rcore=16.9 kpc
    Best-fit parameters of the main dark matter halos, optimized against image positions by MCMC.
  • Galaxy-scale halo parameters (Halo 2, plus Halos 3-7 for J2325, Halo 3 for J0049) = J2325: 619, 407, 135, 287, 100, 19.7 km/s; J0049: 495, 267 km/s
    Additional mass clumps modeled as dPIE halos, with positions and ellipticities fixed to light and normalizations fitted.
  • L* fiducial galaxy parameters = J2325: sigma0=207.6 km/s, rcut=56.8 kpc; J0049: sigma0=273.5 km/s, rcut=175.6 kpc
    Parameters of a fiducial L* galaxy used in the scaling relations for cluster member galaxies.
  • Galaxy scaling relation parameters = Not reported numerically in the paper
    Slope parameters linking galaxy luminosity to sigma0, rcut, and rcore are optimized globally for the whole galaxy catalog (Section 3.1).
  • Model-derived source redshifts without secure spectroscopy = J2325: 1.29, 7.02, 3.00, 1.21; J0049: 1.52, 3.62, 3.03, 1.37, 2.30, 4.96
    Redshifts of multiply imaged sources solved by MCMC as part of the lens model fit, so they are not independent constraints.
  • Ambiguous single-line source redshifts chosen by model agreement = J2325 Source 4 z=1.318; J0049 Source 6 z=2.368
    Both choices were adopted because the lens model strongly preferred them, introducing feedback into the constraint set.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The lensing mass distribution is well approximated by a linear combination of dPIE halos with cluster-member galaxy halos tied to light via scaling relations.
    Invoked in Section 3.1; the derived masses, Einstein radii, and magnifications depend on this parametric form.
  • standard math Gravitational lens theory relating deflection, image positions, and magnifications as implemented in Lenstool is correct.
    Used implicitly throughout Section 3 as the forward model for the lensing fit.
  • domain assumption Multiply imaged systems identified by color, morphology, and iterative model convergence are genuine images of the same background source.
    Section 3.2; candidate systems are excluded to avoid confirmation bias, but secure assignments still rely on visual and model-based judgement.
  • domain assumption All images in a spectroscopically confirmed family share the redshift measured for one image.
    Section 3.2; if a family is misidentified, the shared redshift could bias the model.
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with Omega_Lambda=0.7, Omega_m=0.3, and H0=70 km/s/Mpc.
    Stated in Section 1; distances and physical radii depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption Lensing strength at z=9 can be extrapolated from models constrained mainly by arcs at lower redshift.
    Section 4.2; the mu>=3 areas depend on the assumed source redshift and on extrapolating the mass model beyond the observed configurations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong Lensing analysis of SPT-CLJ2325$-$4111 and SPT-CLJ0049$-$2440, two Powerful Cosmic Telescopes ($R_E > 40''$) from the SPT Clusters Sample." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CYDWF3HA

@misc{pith2026250103361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong Lensing analysis of SPT-CLJ2325$-$4111 and SPT-CLJ0049$-$2440, two Powerful Cosmic Telescopes ($R_E > 40''$) from the SPT Clusters Sample},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CYDWF3HA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03361}
}
abstract

We report the results from a study of two massive ($M_{500c} > 6.0 \times 10^{14} M_{\odot}$) strong lensing clusters selected from the South Pole Telescope cluster survey for their high Einstein radius ($R_E > 40''$), SPT-CLJ2325$-$4111 and SPT-CLJ0049$-$2440. Ground-based and shallow HST imaging indicated extensive strong lensing evidence in these fields, with giant arcs spanning 18\arcsec\ and 31\arcsec, respectively, motivating further space-based imaging followup. Here, we present multiband HST imaging and ground-based Magellan spectroscopy of the fields, from which we compile detailed strong lensing models. The lens models of SPT-CL\,J2325$-$4111 and SPT-CL\,J0049$-$2440 were optimized using 9, and 8 secure multiple-imaged systems with a final image-plane rms of 0\farcs63 and 0\farcs73, respectively. From the lensing analysis, we measure the projected mass density within 500~kpc of $M(<500 ~{\rm kpc}) = 7.30\pm0.07 \times 10^{14}$$M_{\odot}$, and $M(<500 ~{\rm kpc})=7.12^{+0.16}_{-0.19}\times 10^{14}$ $M_{\odot}$ for these two clusters, and a sub-halos mass ratio of $0.12\pm{0.01}$ and $0.21^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$, respectively. Both clusters produce a large area with high magnification ($\mu\geq 3$) for a source at $z=9$, $A^{lens}_{| \mu | \geq 3 }=4.93^{+0.03}_{-0.04} arcmin^2$, and $A^{lens}_{| \mu | \geq 3 }=3.64^{+0.14}_{-0.10} arcmin^2$ respectively, placing them in the top tier of strong lensing clusters. We conclude that these clusters are spectacular sightlines for further observations that will reduce the systematic uncertainties due to cosmic variance. This paper provides the community with two additional well-calibrated cosmic telescopes, as strong as the Frontier Fields, suitable for studies of the highly magnified background Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03361 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Composite color images of the field of SPT-CL J2325−4111, from HST imaging in WFC3IR/F140W (red), ACS/F814W (green), and ACS/F606W (blue). Multiple images of lensed features are labeled and color-coded by the source ID. The coordinates, redshifts (where available), and references of these strong lensing systems are presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Composite color images of the field of SPT-CL J0049−2440, from HST imaging in WFC3IR/F140W (red), ACS/F814W (green), and ACS/F606W (blue). Multiple images of lensed features are labeled and color-coded by the source ID. The coordinates, redshifts (where available), and references of these strong lensing systems are presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Redshift histogram of all the objects with spectroscopic redshift measurements in the field of view of SPT￾CL J2325−4111 (left) and SPT-CL J0049−2440 (right). The redshifts are tabulated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Color magnitude diagrams of SPT-CL J2325−4111 (left) and SPT-CL J0049−2440 (right). HST/ACS F606W￾F814W color vs F814W magnitude is plotted in black for galaxies within the ACS field of view. Spectroscopically-confirmed galaxies are color-coded by their redshift with r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Projected mass density profiles (left) and cumulative projected mass profiles (right) of SPT-CL J2325−4111 (orange) and SPT-CL J0049−2440 (red) plotted against distance from the BCG. Vertical dashed orange and dotted red lines mark the position of multiple images for S…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Lensing strength A lens |µ|≥3 plotted against the central slope of the projected mass density profile (S50−200). The data points are color-coded by their M500 mass. The comparison sample is from Fox et al. (2022) and references therein. The SPT-CL J2325−4111 and …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Zoom-in on Arc 1 in SPT-CL J2325−4111 (left) and on Arc 1 in SPT-CL J0049−2440 (right). Top: color composite (same data as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Composite color images of the field of SPT-CL J0512−3848, from HST imaging in WFC3IR/F140W (red), ACS/F814W (green), and ACS/F606W (blue). Circles labeled the spectroscopic redshift identified. Green circles correspond to high confidence identification while yellow cir…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Zoom-in on the multiple images of lensed galaxies in SPT-CL J2325−4111 (left) and SPT-CL J0049−2440 (right). Each square is 3. ′′0 × 3. ′′0 field of view, with the exception of images of sources 4 and 5 in SPT-CL J2325−4111, which are 4. ′′0 × 4. ′′0. Most images are c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.co...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

  3. [3]

    acknowledgments ... acknowledgments

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  4. [4]

    The Clusters Hiding in Plain Sight (CHiPS) survey: Complete sample of extreme BCG clusters

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    2017, , 470, 1809

    Acebron , A., Jullo , E., Limousin , M., et al. 2017, , 470, 1809

    2017

  6. [6]

    D., Vanzella , E., et al

    Adamo , A., Bradley , L. D., Vanzella , E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.03224

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  8. [8]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167

    2022

  2. [10]

    2015, , 800, 18

    Atek , H., Richard , J., Kneib , J.-P., et al. 2015, , 800, 18

    2015

  3. [11]

    J., et al

    Atek , H., Labb \'e , I., Furtak , L. J., et al. 2024, , 626, 975

    2024

  4. [12]

    Bah \'e , Y. M. 2021, , 505, 1458

    2021

  5. [13]

    B., Gladders , M

    Bayliss , M. B., Gladders , M. D., Oguri , M., et al. 2011 a , , 727, L26

    2011

  6. [14]

    B., Hennawi , J

    Bayliss , M. B., Hennawi , J. F., Gladders , M. D., et al. 2011 b , , 193, 8

    2011

  7. [15]

    B., Ruel , J., Stubbs , C

    Bayliss , M. B., Ruel , J., Stubbs , C. W., et al. 2016, , 227, 3

    2016

  8. [16]

    1996, , 117, 393

    Bertin , E., & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393

    1996

  9. [17]

    E., et al

    Bezanson , R., Labbe , I., Whitaker , K. E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.04026

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    E., Stalder , B., de Haan , T., et al

    Bleem , L. E., Stalder , B., de Haan , T., et al. 2015, , 216, 27

    2015

  11. [19]

    E., Bocquet , S., Stalder , B., et al

    Bleem , L. E., Bocquet , S., Stalder , B., et al. 2020, , 247, 25

    2020

  12. [20]

    P., Schrabback , T., et al

    Bocquet , S., Dietrich , J. P., Schrabback , T., et al. 2019, , 878, 55

    2019

  13. [21]

    J., Oesch , P

    Bouwens , R. J., Oesch , P. A., Illingworth , G. D., Ellis , R. S., & Stefanon , M. 2017, , 843, 129

    2017

  14. [22]

    Ca \ n ameras , R., Nesvadba , N. P. H., Guery , D., et al. 2015, , 581, A105

    2015

  15. [23]

    B., Suyu , S

    Caminha , G. B., Suyu , S. H., Mercurio , A., et al. 2022, , 666, L9

    2022

  16. [24]

    2018, , 859, 159

    Cerny , C., Sharon , K., Andrade-Santos , F., et al. 2018, , 859, 159

    2018

  17. [25]

    J., et al

    Chemerynska , I., Atek , H., Furtak , L. J., et al. 2024, , 531, 2615

    2024

  18. [26]

    2023, , 520, 2180

    Claeyssens , A., Adamo , A., Richard , J., et al. 2023, , 520, 2180

    2023

  19. [27]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.02002

    Coe , D., Salmon , B., Bradac , M., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.02002

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    D., Sharon , K., Bayliss , M

    Dahle , H., Gladders , M. D., Sharon , K., Bayliss , M. B., & Rigby , J. R. 2015, , 813, 67

    2015

  21. [29]

    2019, , 628, A3

    de La Vieuville , G., Bina , D., Pello , R., et al. 2019, , 628, A3

    2019

  22. [30]

    A., Eisenhardt , P

    de Propris , R., Stanford , S. A., Eisenhardt , P. R., Dickinson , M., & Elston , R. 1999, , 118, 719

    1999

  23. [31]

    M., Kaiser , N., Broadhurst , T., et al

    Diego , J. M., Kaiser , N., Broadhurst , T., et al. 2018, , 857, 25

    2018

  24. [32]

    T., Buckley-Geer , E

    Diehl , H. T., Buckley-Geer , E. J., Lindgren , K. A., et al. 2017, , 232, 15

    2017

  25. [33]

    2011, , 123, 288

    Dressler , A., Bigelow , B., Hare , T., et al. 2011, , 123, 288

    2011

  26. [34]

    C., & Henry , J

    Ebeling , H., Edge , A. C., & Henry , J. P. 2001, , 553, 668

    2001

  27. [35]

    2007, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:0710.5636

    El \' asd \'o ttir , \'A ., Limousin , M., Richard , J., et al. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:0710.5636

    2007 arXiv

  28. [36]

    C., Rigby , J

    Fischer , T. C., Rigby , J. R., Mahler , G., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.10403

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.01982

    Fitzpatrick , M., Placco , V., Bolton , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.01982

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Fox , C., Mahler , G., Sharon , K., & Remolina Gonz \'a lez , J. D. 2022, , 928, 87

    2022

  31. [39]

    S., & et al

    Fruchter , A. S., & et al. 2010, in 2010 Space Telescope Science Institute Calibration Workshop, 382--387

    2010

  32. [40]

    J., Zitrin , A., Weaver , J

    Furtak , L. J., Zitrin , A., Weaver , J. R., et al. 2023, , 523, 4568

    2023

  33. [41]

    2012, , 426, 1558

    Giocoli , C., Meneghetti , M., Ettori , S., & Moscardini , L. 2012, , 426, 1558

    2012

  34. [42]

    D., & Yee , H

    Gladders , M. D., & Yee , H. K. C. 2000, , 120, 2148

    2000

  35. [43]

    D., Allen , S

    Gladders , M. D., Allen , S. W., Barrientos , L. F., et al. 2019, Building the SPT-HST Legacy: Imaging Massive Clusters to z=1.5 , HST Proposal. Cycle 26, ID. \#16017, ,

    2019

  36. [44]

    J., Meena , A

    Golubchik , M., Furtak , L. J., Meena , A. K., & Zitrin , A. 2022, , 938, 14

    2022

  37. [45]

    2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook

    Gonzaga , S., Hack , W., Fruchter , A., & Mack , J. 2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook

    2012

  38. [46]

    H., Rosati , P., et al

    Grillo , C., Suyu , S. H., Rosati , P., et al. 2015, , 800, 38

    2015

  39. [47]

    H., et al

    Grillo , C., Rosati , P., Suyu , S. H., et al. 2018, , 860, 94

    2018

  40. [48]

    P., & McCarthy , I

    Harvey , D., Courbin , F., Kneib , J. P., & McCarthy , I. G. 2017, , 472, 1972

    2017

  41. [49]

    Y.-Y., Coe , D., Abdurro'uf , et al

    Hsiao , T. Y.-Y., Coe , D., Abdurro'uf , et al. 2023, , 949, L34

    2023

  42. [50]

    2021, , 909, 27

    Huang , X., Storfer , C., Gu , A., et al. 2021, , 909, 27

    2021

  43. [51]

    Inc., T. M. 2022, MATLAB version: 9.13.0 (R2022b), Natick, Massachusetts, United States: The MathWorks Inc. https://www.mathworks.com

    2022

  44. [52]

    2012, , 426, 3369

    Jauzac , M., Jullo , E., Kneib , J.-P., et al. 2012, , 426, 3369

    2012

  45. [53]

    2014, , 443, 1549

    Jauzac , M., Cl \'e ment , B., Limousin , M., et al. 2014, , 443, 1549

    2014

  46. [54]

    L., & Sharon , K

    Johnson , T. L., & Sharon , K. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1608.08713

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    L., Rigby , J

    Johnson , T. L., Rigby , J. R., Sharon , K., et al. 2017, , 843, L21

    2017

  48. [56]

    2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 447

    Jullo , E., Kneib , J.-P., Limousin , M., et al. 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 447

    2007

  49. [57]

    2010, Science, 329, 924

    Jullo , E., Natarajan , P., Kneib , J.-P., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 924

    2010

  50. [58]

    L., Diego , J

    Kelly , P. L., Diego , J. M., Rodney , S., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 334

    2018

  51. [59]

    J., et al

    Khullar , G., Gozman , K., Lin , J. J., et al. 2021, , 906, 107

    2021

  52. [60]

    C., Finkelstein , S

    Livermore , R. C., Finkelstein , S. L., & Lotz , J. M. 2017, , 835, 113

    2017

  53. [61]

    M., Koekemoer , A., Coe , D., et al

    Lotz , J. M., Koekemoer , A., Coe , D., et al. 2017, , 837, 97

    2017

  54. [62]

    2023 a , , 518, 54

    Mahler , G., Natarajan , P., Jauzac , M., & Richard , J. 2023 a , , 518, 54

    2023

  55. [63]

    2019, , 873, 96

    Mahler , G., Sharon , K., Fox , C., et al. 2019, , 873, 96

    2019

  56. [64]

    D., et al

    Mahler , G., Sharon , K., Gladders , M. D., et al. 2020, , 894, 150

    2020

  57. [65]

    2023 b , , 945, 49

    Mahler , G., Jauzac , M., Richard , J., et al. 2023 b , , 945, 49

    2023

  58. [66]

    W., Bayliss , M., et al

    McDonald , M., Allen , S. W., Bayliss , M., et al. 2017, , 843, 28

    2017

  59. [67]

    2017, , 472, 3177

    Meneghetti , M., Natarajan , P., Coe , D., et al. 2017, , 472, 3177

    2017

  60. [68]

    2020, Science, 369, 1347

    Meneghetti , M., Davoli , G., Bergamini , P., et al. 2020, Science, 369, 1347

    2020

  61. [69]

    2022 a , , 668, A188

    Meneghetti , M., Ragagnin , A., Borgani , S., et al. 2022 a , , 668, A188

    2022

  62. [70]

    2022 b , , 668, A188

    ---. 2022 b , , 668, A188

    2022

  63. [71]

    2023, , 678, L2

    Meneghetti , M., Cui , W., Rasia , E., et al. 2023, , 678, L2

    2023

  64. [72]

    2016, , 827, L5

    Munari , E., Grillo , C., De Lucia , G., et al. 2016, , 827, L5

    2016

  65. [73]

    2023, , 959, 134

    Napier , K., Sharon , K., Dahle , H., et al. 2023, , 959, 134

    2023

  66. [74]

    2017, , 468, 1962

    Natarajan , P., Chadayammuri , U., Jauzac , M., et al. 2017, , 468, 1962

    2017

  67. [75]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1996, , 462, 563

    1996

  68. [76]

    2017, COSMOS: Carnegie Observatories System for MultiObject Spectroscopy , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1705.001, ,

    Oemler , A., Clardy , K., Kelson , D., Walth , G., & Villanueva , E. 2017, COSMOS: Carnegie Observatories System for MultiObject Spectroscopy , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1705.001, ,

    2017

  69. [77]

    Ofek , E. O. 2014, MAAT: MATLAB Astronomy and Astrophysics Toolbox , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1407.005, , , ascl:1407.005

    2014

  70. [78]

    Oke , J. B. 1974, , 27, 21

    1974

  71. [79]

    R., Jauzac , M., Niemiec , A., et al

    Patel , N. R., Jauzac , M., Niemiec , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04577

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    2018, , 477, 18

    Patr \' cio , V., Richard , J., Carton , D., et al. 2018, , 477, 18

    2018

  73. [81]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 199, 25

    Postman , M., Coe , D., Ben \' tez , N., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 199, 25

    2012

  74. [82]

    2010, in WFC3 Data Handbook v

    Rajan , A. 2010, in WFC3 Data Handbook v. 2, Vol. 2, 2

    2010

  75. [83]

    Remolina Gonzàlez , J. D. 2021, The Concentration-Mass Relation Across Cosmic Time of Strong Lensing Galaxy Clusters , v1.0, Deep Blue, doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.7302/2889. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/169844

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    2011, , 414, L31

    Richard , J., Kneib , J.-P., Ebeling , H., et al. 2011, , 414, L31

    2011

  77. [85]

    R., Vieira , J

    Rigby , J. R., Vieira , J. D., Phadke , K. A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.10465

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    E., Dahle , H., Chisholm , J., et al

    Rivera-Thorsen , T. E., Dahle , H., Chisholm , J., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 738

    2019

  79. [87]

    2021 a , , 504, L7

    Robertson , A. 2021 a , , 504, L7

    2021

  80. [88]

    2021 b , , 504, L7

    ---. 2021 b , , 504, L7

    2021

  81. [89]

    2019, , 488, 3646

    Robertson , A., Harvey , D., Massey , R., et al. 2019, , 488, 3646

    2019

  82. [90]

    2014, , 792, 45

    Ruel , J., Bazin , G., Bayliss , M., et al. 2014, , 792, 45

    2014

  83. [91]

    2020, , 889, 189

    Salmon , B., Coe , D., Bradley , L., et al. 2020, , 889, 189

    2020

  84. [92]

    2021, , 505, 3923

    Schrabback , T., Bocquet , S., Sommer , M., et al. 2021, , 505, 3923

    2021

  85. [93]

    B., Dahle , H., et al

    Sharon , K., Bayliss , M. B., Dahle , H., et al. 2020, , 247, 12

    2020

  86. [94]

    A., Burgasser , A

    Simcoe , R. A., Burgasser , A. J., Schechter , P. L., et al. 2013, , 125, 270

    2013

  87. [95]

    L., Oman , K

    Sirks , E. L., Oman , K. A., Robertson , A., Massey , R., & Frenk , C. 2022, , 511, 5927

    2022

  88. [96]

    P., Kneib , J.-P., Smail , I., et al

    Smith , G. P., Kneib , J.-P., Smail , I., et al. 2005, , 359, 417

    2005

  89. [97]

    Somboonpanyakul , T., McDonald , M., Gaspari , M., Stalder , B., & Stark , A. A. 2021, , 910, 60

    2021

  90. [98]

    A., Amato , S

    Stalder , B., Stark , A. A., Amato , S. M., et al. 2014, in , Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, 91473Y

    2014

  91. [99]

    P., Auger , M., Belokurov , V., et al

    Stark , D. P., Auger , M., Belokurov , V., et al. 2013, , 436, 1040

    2013

  92. [100]

    2022, , 925, 145

    Tam , S.-I., Umetsu , K., & Amara , A. 2022, , 925, 145

    2022

  93. [101]

    M., Dutra , I., Natarajan , P., et al

    Tokayer , Y. M., Dutra , I., Natarajan , P., et al. 2024, , 970, 143

    2024

  94. [102]

    M., de Haan , T., et al

    Vanderlinde , K., Crawford , T. M., de Haan , T., et al. 2010, , 722, 1180

    2010

  95. [103]

    2022, , 940, L1

    Welch , B., Coe , D., Zackrisson , E., et al. 2022, , 940, L1

    2022

  96. [104]

    A., Cohen , S

    Windhorst , R. A., Cohen , S. H., Jansen , R. A., et al. 2023, , 165, 13

    2023

  97. [105]

    2017, , 839, L11

    Zitrin , A., Seitz , S., Monna , A., et al. 2017, , 839, L11

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.