Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Milli-arcsec X-ray positions and X-ray varstrometry for the strongly lensed AGN HE 0435-1223

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gravitational lensing can push X-ray source positions to sub-milliarcsec precision at high redshift, and for the quadruply lensed quasar HE 0435-1223 it reveals that the X-ray emission sits $3.0 \pm 0.5$ mas from the optical core.

desk verdict A careful lensing-based X-ray astrometry measurement that reports a plausible 3 mas optical-X-ray offset, but the quoted significance is statistical only and the lens-model systematic deserves a proper error budget. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08077 v1 pith:EJYWSTXF submitted 2025-05-12 astro-ph.HE

Alysa Rogers (1 , 2) , Daniel Schwartz (3) , Cristiana Spingola (4) , Anna Barnacka (3) ((1) Brandeis University , (2) Physics Department University of Wisconsin , Madison , (3) Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian
show 3 more authors
(4) Istituto di Radioastronomia Bologna Italy)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationallensingX-rayastrometryactivegalacticnucleiHE0435-1223GaiaDR3varstrometryChandraObservatorymilliarcsecond
topics Dark Matter
open problems 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

Gravitational lensing magnifies and stretches the image plane, effectively giving X-ray telescopes far better angular resolution than their mirrors alone. This paper applies that idea to the quadruply lensed quasar HE 0435-1223, combining Gaia DR3 optical astrometry with eleven Chandra observations spanning 14 years. It finds that the X-ray centroid is displaced from the optical AGN core by $3.0 \pm 0.5$ milliarcsec (about $26 \pm 4$ pc at $z=1.689$), at $3.36\sigma$ confidence, indicating a distinct X-ray-emitting region such as a jet knot or outflow. The paper also performs the first X-ray varstrometry search — using variability-induced centroid jitter to look for unresolved companions — and finds no detectable jitter, bounding an equal-flux companion to within about 47 mas (410 pc). If true, this is a general route to measuring where X-rays originate in high-redshift AGN that are otherwise unresolved.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the achromatic, astigmatic gravitational lens mapping: gravitational deflection does not depend on wavelength, so the same mass model that turns a trial source position into the four optical image positions must also turn the X-ray source position into the X-ray image positions. The paper couples this mapping to a two-stage maximum-likelihood estimator: first a raster search corrects the Chandra aspect solution by registering simulated X-ray images against the observed counts, then a grid of trial source-plane positions is evaluated by Poisson likelihood ($C = -2\ln L$) and converted to confidence regions via the likelihood-ratio theorem, so likelihood differences follow $\chi^2$ with two degrees of freedom. The choice of a quadruply lensed source close to the caustic is what makes the spatial amplification large enough for the few-mas offset to be measurable.

What would settle it

Refit the lens with a free power-law slope and include independent image positions from very long baseline radio interferometry or HST astrometry, then re-run the X-ray source-plane search; if the inferred X-ray-to-optical offset drops below about 2 mas or its significance falls below $3\sigma$, the offset is a mass-model artifact. A deep Chandra observation with independent aspect calibration could also check whether the X-ray centroid of the individual lensed images moves relative to the Gaia positions as predicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a singular isothermal ellipsoid plus external shear lens model fitted to the four Gaia DR3 image positions, the authors map trial X-ray source-plane positions through the lens to predicted Chandra image locations and fit high-fidelity simulated point-spread functions to the observed counts with a double maximum-likelihood procedure. Summed over all eleven observations, the X-ray source position lies $3.0 \pm 0.5$ mas from the Gaia optical position, a $3.36\sigma$ deviation; the projected separation is $26 \pm 4$ pc at the source redshift. The offset survives an alternative Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) dark-matter lens model cross-check, which shifts the X-ray position by about 1 mas, keeps the 90% confidence contours overlapping, and still excludes the optical position at $3.76\sigma$. The authors interpret this as evidence that part of the X-ray emission comes from a region disjoint from the optical core, most plausibly an X-ray jet or outflow, with a binary or offset AGN possible but less probable.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the parametric lens mass model — a singular isothermal ellipsoid with external shear — is accurate enough at the sub-milliarcsec level that its imperfections, including a 0.852 mas residual on image D, shift the optical and X-ray source reconstructions equally rather than creating a false relative offset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any quadruply lensed AGN with sub-milliarcsec optical astrometry, X-ray emission can now be located to roughly half a milliarcsec in the source plane, a resolution gain of hundreds over Chandra's native point-spread function.
  • HE 0435-1223 becomes a target for radio and optical follow-up: a jet or outflow explanation predicts X-ray emission aligned with a radio axis, while a binary AGN predicts split emission lines, which are not seen.
  • X-ray varstrometry is feasible: eleven epochs over 14 years already exclude equal-flux dual AGN separations out to about 47 mas, and more epochs or intrinsically more variable quasars will probe smaller separations.
  • With roughly 3000 quadruply imaged AGN expected from upcoming surveys, the method can map the relative locations of optical and X-ray emission across cosmic time instead of only in nearby resolved objects.
  • The 14-year X-ray light curve, with microlensing modulating individual images, reinforces that image positions rather than flux ratios are the safe constraints for this kind of astrometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 0.852 mas residual on image D does not fully cancel between the optical and X-ray reconstructions, the true offset could differ by up to about 1 mas; jointly fitting Gaia with radio interferometric positions of all four images would settle this without new X-ray data.
  • Because only sources near the caustic get strong spatial amplification, a survey of the future ~3000 quadruple lenses will have a wide spread in achievable precision; selection should be based on caustic geometry, not just four-image configuration.
  • A jet interpretation predicts a stable centroid and possibly correlated radio/X-ray behavior; comparing the 3 mas offset direction with a radio interferometry-derived jet axis would test this, a step the paper leaves implicit.
  • The varstrometry bound is only a $1\sigma$ upper limit; if X-ray variability fractions are as large as suggested, the same jitter formula implies future X-ray monitoring could detect dual AGN at separations of a few mas rather than tens of mas.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a technique for milli-arcsecond X-ray astrometry of strongly lensed AGN by combining Gaia DR3 optical positions with Chandra X-ray imaging, and applies it to the quadruple lens HE 0435-1223. A parametric SIE+shear lens model fitted to the Gaia positions is used to map a grid of trial X-ray source positions into predicted Chandra image positions; a maximum likelihood fit with SAOTrace/Marx PSF simulations gives the X-ray source position. The authors report a 3.0 +/- 0.5 mas (26 +/- 4 pc) offset between the X-ray and optical source positions at a statistical significance of 3.36 sigma, and interpret it as likely X-ray emission from a jet or outflow, with a dual AGN less probable. They also perform a first X-ray varstrometry analysis, place a 1-sigma upper limit of 47 mas on a hypothetical second source, and outline future applications to thousands of lensed AGN.

Significance. If the offset is real, the method provides a unique route to sub-kpc X-ray-optical astrometry at high redshift, complementing microlensing and time-delay studies. The statistical analysis is thorough: the likelihood machinery, PSF simulations, Wilks-theorem confidence regions, and the NFW cross-check are appropriate and clearly described. The use of Gaia DR3 positions to constrain the lens model independently of the X-ray data avoids circularity. The paper also introduces X-ray varstrometry as a new observable and identifies a sample of ~60 existing Chandra lensed quasars for future application. However, the central claim's robustness hinges on quantifying the lens-model systematic uncertainty, which is acknowledged but not propagated into the quoted significance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, 6.1] The quoted 3.0 +/- 0.5 mas offset and 3.36 sigma significance are statistical only, from the X-ray likelihood. The NFW cross-check in Sec. 6.1 shifts the best-fit X-ray position by about 1 mas relative to the SIE model, which is comparable to the 0.5 mas statistical error. Adding a ~1 mas systematic in quadrature gives a total uncertainty of ~1.1 mas and reduces the significance of the 3 mas offset to roughly 2.7 sigma. The abstract and conclusions present the offset without this caveat. I request that the systematic uncertainty from lens-model choice be quantified and propagated into the quoted uncertainty, or that the strength of the claim be softened accordingly.
  2. [Sec. 3, Table 2] The SIE+shear model leaves image D with a 0.852 mas residual, larger than its Gaia 3-sigma uncertainty. The paper argues in Sec. 3 and Sec. 6.1 that this systematic cancels between the optical and X-ray source reconstructions because the same model is used for both. This cancellation is not exact: the model error can vary across the source plane over the ~3 mas separation, and the NFW model comparison demonstrates a ~1 mas source-plane shift. Please provide a quantitative systematic error estimate obtained by varying the mass model within plausible freedom (e.g., the power-law slope alpha, the external shear, or including the known perturbers) and use that estimate in the final significance.
  3. [Sec. 5.2, Table 4] The varstrometry analysis reports sigma_perp = 3.3 mas perpendicular to the separation axis and sigma_x = 2.4 mas along it. For a jittering two-source model, the astrometric scatter should be larger along the line connecting the sources than perpendicular to it; the opposite ordering suggests the scatter is dominated by systematic or statistical noise rather than source variability. The derived 47 mas upper limit should therefore be presented with a caveat, or the analysis should be revisited to test whether the perpendicular scatter is consistent with the expected measurement noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3] The phrase 'mass model model' should be 'mass model'.
  2. [Table 2] The header 'T able' should be 'Table'.
  3. [Sec. 4, Eq. (1)] The symbol P in the likelihood expression is not explicitly defined as the Poisson probability; please clarify that C = -2 ln L where L is the product of Poisson probabilities, and define the relation to the observed counts n_i and predicted rates lambda_i.
  4. [Sec. 6.1] The reference to 'nfwpot from Keeton (2001) Table 3.3' would benefit from giving the equation number or a more complete description of the adopted NFW potential.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. 7] Minor wording: 'we show how we can exploit' could be 'we show how to exploit', and 'Chandraarchive' in Sec. 7 should be 'Chandra archive'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the X-ray offset is measured from Chandra data via a lens model fitted to independent Gaia positions, so no prediction reduces to its input by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the circularity patterns checked. The lens mass model is optimized exclusively on Gaia DR3 image positions (Section 3, Table 2), and the X-ray source position is a free parameter of a Poisson maximum-likelihood fit to Chandra counts, with the fixed lens model used only to map trial source-plane positions to image-plane predictions (Section 4 and Appendix A). The claimed 3.0 +/- 0.5 mas offset is therefore a measured difference between two independently fitted source-plane quantities, not an input or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper's self-citations (Barnacka 2017, 2018; Schwartz et al. 2021; Spingola et al. 2022) introduce the lensing-astrometry technique, but the present analysis is described in full algorithmic detail in Appendix A and is cross-checked against an NFW lens model in Section 6.1; the central result does not rest solely on those citations. The paper explicitly acknowledges that systematic uncertainties from the choice of mass model may be large and even reports that the NFW model shifts the deduced X-ray position by about 1 mas, concluding only that the offset robustly excludes the Gaia position while allowing additional uncertainty. That is a legitimate systematic-error discussion rather than a circular step. The concern that the quoted 0.5 mas error omits this ~1 mas model systematic is a correctness-robustness issue, not a circularity issue, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central offset claim rests on the lens model fitted to Gaia DR3 positions, augmented by assumptions about achromatic lensing, point-source nature of the emission, and the accuracy of Chandra PSF simulations. No new physical entities are introduced; the possible jet or outflow is an interpretation, not a required entity.

free parameters (8)
  • Lens mass strength b = 1.19778 +/- 0.0002 arcsec
    Fitted to Gaia DR3 image positions as part of the lens model; the source-plane mapping used for both optical and X-ray positions depends on this value.
  • Lens galaxy centroid offsets Delta_xL, Delta_yL = -1.17655, -0.55342 arcsec
    Fitted to Gaia DR3 positions; defines the lens model geometry.
  • Lens ellipticity e = 0.0801 +/- 0.002
    Fitted to Gaia DR3 positions; affects caustic structure and the image-to-source mapping.
  • External shear strength gamma = 0.088 (fixed)
    Fixed from Ducourant et al. (2018b), not re-fit in this work.
  • Ellipticity position angle theta_e = 290.5 deg (fixed)
    Fixed from the prior Ducourant model.
  • Shear position angle theta_gamma = 15.9 deg (fixed)
    Fixed from the prior Ducourant model.
  • Source position Delta_xs, Delta_ys = -1.181640, -0.5218143 arcsec
    Fitted to Gaia DR3 image positions; the optical source position used as the reference for the X-ray offset.
  • NFW model surface density kappa_s = 0.95195
    Fitted in the cross-check lens model to reproduce the Gaia positions; used to test the robustness of the offset.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gravitational lensing is achromatic: the lens mapping is identical at optical and X-ray wavelengths.
    Used in Sec 1 to justify referencing X-ray images to optical images via the same lens model.
  • domain assumption The SIE plus external shear parametric profile adequately represents the mass distribution of the lensing galaxy and environment.
    Sec 3 and Sec 6.1; the lens model is the basis for mapping image positions to source positions.
  • domain assumption The X-ray and optical emissions can be modeled as point sources in the source plane for astrometric purposes.
    Sec 1 and Sec 4; the maximum-likelihood fit assumes point-source images.
  • domain assumption The Chandra PSF simulation via SAOTrace and Marx with the actual aspect solution and dither is accurate enough for sub-mas astrometry.
    Sec 2.1 and Appendix A; simulated images are the templates for the likelihood fit.
  • standard math Wilks theorem applies to the likelihood ratio for deriving confidence regions on the two astrometric parameters.
    Sec 4 and Appendix A; used to convert delta(C) to confidence levels.
  • domain assumption Microlensing, absorption, and source structure do not perturb the position of a given emission region by more than a microarcsecond.
    Footnote 1; the paper relies on this to treat relative image positions as purely gravitationally lensed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Milli-arcsec X-ray positions and X-ray varstrometry for the strongly lensed AGN HE 0435-1223." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EJYWSTXF

@misc{pith2026250508077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Milli-arcsec X-ray positions and X-ray varstrometry for the strongly lensed AGN HE 0435-1223},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EJYWSTXF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08077}
}
abstract

Active galactic nuclei (AGN) are some of the most powerful objects in the Universe. For this reason, they can be observed up to high redshifts (z), giving valuable insights into the evolution of our Universe. However, high-z AGN are too distant to be spatially resolved with current or upcoming X-ray facilities. In this paper we show how we can exploit gravitationally lensed AGN to significantly increase spatial resolution even at high-z. We combine astrometric data from Gaia DR3 with imaging from the Chandra X-ray Observatory of the quadruply-lensed quasar HE 0435--1223 to measure for the first time possible offsets between the optical and the X-ray emissions. We measure the X-ray source position for HE 0435-1223 within a 1$\sigma$ quasi-elliptical region of 0.5 x 1.3 milli-arcsecond (mas), about 150 pc$^2$ at the redshift of the source (z=1.689). We find evidence for the X-ray emission being offset by a projected 3 mas from the Gaia (optical) emission. The positional offset is most likely associated to a portion of the X-ray emission arising from an X-ray jet or outflow. We also discuss how this method can be used to indicate the presence of a binary/offset AGN system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08077 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: RGB image using HST NICMOS F160W (red), WFPC2 F814W (green) and WFPC3 F275W (blue) filters. We label the galaxies that Wong et al. (2017) identified as most relevant perturbers to HE 0435-1223. The cutout is 23′′×23′′ . North is up, East is left. Right: Chandra 0.5 – 7.0 keV image of HE 0435-1223 field, binned into 0. ′′492 pixels. This is the merged image from the eleven observations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Offsets between the model-predicted and ob￾served positions in units of mas for each image (as indicated in the legend shown in the top right). The error bars are the 3σ astrometric uncertainties on the lensed images position as measured by Gaia DR3 and reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Lens mass model for HE0435. The lens critical curve is shown by the black dotted line, while the source plane caustics are indicated by the dashed blue lines. The red star indicates the best optical source position (listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Position contours derived from each of the 11 separate ObsID’s, in the respective order given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Likelihood contours for the X-ray source position (red “X”) from all observations, assuming it has remained fixed. Contours include the X-ray emission centroid to a confidence equivalent to 1, 2, 3 σ, respectively, moving outwards. The blue, red and green contours at (…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Measured 0.5 to 7 KeV flux of each image of HE0435 vs time since the initial observation. Fluxes are corrected for the predicted magnification at the best image position. Image A, B, C, and D fluxes are blue, yellow, purple, and pink, respectively. Error bars are deriv…

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. Speeding up Gravitational Lens Mass Models with Machine Learning: Applications in X-ray Astronomy

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

    A fully connected network trained on millions of simulated quads predicts SIE lens mass and ellipticity from four image positions, cutting optimisation time for real and simulated quadruply lensed quasars to minutes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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 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.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ,# (7),01444 '9=82<.342C 2! !22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 F

    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...

    1998

  4. [4]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [5]

    Auger , M. W. 2008, , 383, L40, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00408.x

    arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    W., Treu , T., Bolton , A

    Auger , M. W., Treu , T., Bolton , A. S., et al. 2010, , 724, 511, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/511

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/511 2010

  7. [7]

    Awad , P., Chan , J. H. H., Millon , M., Courbin , F., & Paic , E. 2023, , 673, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245615

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245615 2023

  8. [8]

    2017, , 846, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa86ec

    Barnacka , A. 2017, , 846, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa86ec

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa86ec 2017

Show all 118 references
  1. [9]

    2018, Phys

    ---. 2018, Phys. Rep., 778, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.10.001

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Dell'Antonio , I

    Barnacka , A., Geller , M. J., Dell'Antonio , I. P., & Benbow , W. 2015, ApJ, 809, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/100

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Dell'Antonio , I

    Barnacka , A., Geller , M. J., Dell'Antonio , I. P., & Zitrin , A. 2016, ApJ, 821, 58, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/58

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    D., Browne , I

    Biggs , A. D., Browne , I. W. A., Jackson , N. J., et al. 2004, , 350, 949, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07701.x

    2004

  5. [13]

    A., Sparks , W

    Biretta , J. A., Sparks , W. B., & Macchetto , F. 1999, , 520, 621, 10.1086/307499

    1999 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Treu , T., Koopmans , L

    Bolton , A. S., Treu , T., Koopmans , L. V. E., et al. 2008, , 684, 248, 10.1086/589989

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    2016, , 585, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526704

    Bonvin , V., Tewes , M., Courbin , F., et al. 2016, , 585, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526704

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    1979, , 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    1979 doi

  9. [17]

    2016, , 824, 53, 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/53

    Chartas , G., Cappi , M., Hamann , F., et al. 2016, , 824, 53, 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/53

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    S., et al

    Chen , B., Dai , X., Kochanek , C. S., et al. 2012, , 755, 24, 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/24

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, , 925, 162, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac401b

    Chen , Y.-C., Hwang , H.-C., Shen , Y., et al. 2022, , 925, 162, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac401b

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, , 616, 45, 10.1038/s41586-023-05766-6

    Chen , Y.-C., Liu , X., Foord , A., et al. 2023, , 616, 45, 10.1038/s41586-023-05766-6

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Price-Whelan, A

    Collaboration, T. A., Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Collett , T. E. 2015, , 811, 20, 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/20

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    2005, in Gravitational Lensing Impact on Cosmology, ed

    Courbin , F., Eigenbrod , A., Vuissoz , C., Meylan , G., & Magain , P. 2005, in Gravitational Lensing Impact on Cosmology, ed. Y. Mellier & G. Meylan , Vol. 225, 297--303, 10.1017/S1743921305002097

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    2011, , 536, A53, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015709

    Courbin , F., Chantry , V., Revaz , Y., et al. 2011, , 536, A53, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015709

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    E., Bautz , M

    Davis , J. E., Bautz , M. W., Dewey , D., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi , S. S. Murray , & J.-W. A. den Herder , 8443...

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    2019, New Astronomy Reviews, 86, 101525, 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101525

    De Rosa , A., Vignali , C., Bogdanovi \'c , T., et al. 2019, New Astronomy Reviews, 86, 101525, 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101525

    2019

  19. [27]

    2023, , 519, 5149, 10.1093/mnras/stac3664

    De Rosa , A., Vignali , C., Severgnini , P., et al. 2023, , 519, 5149, 10.1093/mnras/stac3664

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    M., & Lockman , F

    Dickey , J. M., & Lockman , F. J. 1990, , 28, 215, 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.001243

    1990

  21. [29]

    2018 a , in Astrometry and Astrophysics in the Gaia Sky, ed

    Ducourant , C., Delchambre , L., Finet , F., et al. 2018 a , in Astrometry and Astrophysics in the Gaia Sky, ed. A. Recio-Blanco , P. de Laverny , A. G. A. Brown , & T. Prusti , Vol. 330, 59--62, 10.1017/S1743921317006445

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2018 b , , 618, A56, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833480

    Ducourant , C., Wertz , O., Krone-Martins , A., et al. 2018 b , , 618, A56, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833480

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    2006 a , , 451, 747, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054423

    Eigenbrod , A., Courbin , F., Dye , S., et al. 2006 a , , 451, 747, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054423

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    2006 b , , 451, 759, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054454

    Eigenbrod , A., Courbin , F., Meylan , G., Vuissoz , C., & Magain , P. 2006 b , , 451, 759, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054454

    2006 doi

  25. [33]

    2019, , 875, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1141

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2019, , 875, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1141

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2017, , 842, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7551

    Fabbiano , G., Elvis , M., Paggi , A., et al. 2017, , 842, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7551

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    2018 a , , 855, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab1f4

    Fabbiano , G., Paggi , A., Karovska , M., et al. 2018 a , , 855, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab1f4

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    2018 b , , 869, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf73e

    Fabbiano , G., Paggi , A., Siemiginowska , A., & Elvis , M. 2018 b , , 869, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf73e

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    2020, , 890, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab67bd

    Feruglio , C., Fabbiano , G., Bischetti , M., et al. 2020, , 890, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab67bd

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Allen , G

    Fruscione , A., McDowell , J. C., Allen , G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey , 62701V, 10.111...

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2016 a , , 595, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016 b , , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Dominguez , A., Gelmis , K., et al

    Gaskin , J. A., Dominguez , A., Gelmis , K., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10699, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , & K. Nakazawa , 1069...

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    2012, , 538, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218794

    Giroletti , M., Hada , K., Giovannini , G., et al. 2012, , 538, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218794

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    E., Blake , R

    Graessle , D. E., Blake , R. L., Burek , A. J., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3444, X-Ray Optics, Instruments, and Missions, ed. R. B. Hoover & A. B. Walker , 140--159, 10.1117/12.331233

    1998 doi

  38. [46]

    E., Soufli , R., Aquila , A

    Graessle , D. E., Soufli , R., Aquila , A. L., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5165, X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy XIII, ed. K. A. Flanagan & O. H. W. Siegmund , 469--481, 10.1117/12.506132

    2004 doi

  39. [47]

    J., & Croston , J

    Hardcastle , M. J., & Croston , J. H. 2020, , 88, 101539, 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101539

    2020

  40. [48]

    E., Biretta , J

    Harris , D. E., Biretta , J. A., Junor , W., et al. 2003, , 586, L41, 10.1086/374773

    2003 doi

  41. [49]

    E., Cheung , C

    Harris , D. E., Cheung , C. C., Biretta , J. A., et al. 2006, , 640, 211, 10.1086/500081

    2006 doi

  42. [50]

    E., Cheung , C

    Harris , D. E., Cheung , C. C., Stawarz , ., Biretta , J. A., & Perlman , E. S. 2009, , 699, 305, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/305

    2009 doi

  43. [51]

    R., & Vives-Arias , H

    Hartley , P., Jackson , N., Sluse , D., Stacey , H. R., & Vives-Arias , H. 2019, , 485, 3009, 10.1093/mnras/stz510

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    Hwang , H.-C., Liu , X., Shen , Y., & Zakamska , N. L. 2019, Discovery of Sub-kpc Dual Active Galactic Nuclei from Gaia , HST Proposal

    2019

  45. [53]

    2020, , 888, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5c1a

    Hwang , H.-C., Shen , Y., Zakamska , N., & Liu , X. 2020, , 888, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5c1a

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    S., Roberts , C., et al

    Jackson , N., Tagore , A. S., Roberts , C., et al. 2015, , 454, 287, 10.1093/mnras/stv1982

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    H., Tibbetts , M

    Jerius , D., Donnelly , R. H., Tibbetts , M. S., et al. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4012, X-Ray Optics, Instruments, and Missions III, ed. J. E. Truemper & B. Aschenbach , 17--27, 10.1117/12.391555

    2000 doi

  48. [56]

    H., Cohen , L., Edgar , R

    Jerius , D. H., Cohen , L., Edgar , R. J., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5165, X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy XIII, ed. K. A. Flanagan & O. H. W. Siegmund , 402--410, 10.1117/12.509378

    2004 doi

  49. [57]

    L., Fabbiano , G., Elvis , M., et al

    Jones , M. L., Fabbiano , G., Elvis , M., et al. 2020, , 891, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76c8

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    L., Parker , K., Fabbiano , G., et al

    Jones , M. L., Parker , K., Fabbiano , G., et al. 2021, , 910, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe128

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    A., & Mandel , E

    Joye , W. A., & Mandel , E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E. Payne , R. I. Jedrzejewski , & R. N. Hook , 489

    2003

  52. [60]

    1993, , 417, 450, 10.1086/173325

    Kassiola , A., & Kovner , I. 1993, , 417, 450, 10.1086/173325

    1993 doi

  53. [61]

    Keeton , C. R. 2001, arXiv e-prints, astro. astro-ph/0102340

    2001 arXiv

  54. [62]

    R., & Kochanek , C

    Keeton , C. R., & Kochanek , C. S. 1998, , 495, 157, 10.1086/305272

    1998 doi

  55. [63]

    Z., Haiman , Z., Sesana , A., & Hernquist , L

    Kelley , L. Z., Haiman , Z., Sesana , A., & Hernquist , L. 2019, , 485, 1579, 10.1093/mnras/stz150

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    S., Morgan , N

    Kochanek , C. S., Morgan , N. D., Falco , E. E., et al. 2006, , 640, 47, 10.1086/499766

    2006 doi

  57. [65]

    Koopmans , L. V. E., Browne , I. W. A., & Jackson , N. J. 2004, , 48, 1085, 10.1016/j.newar.2004.09.047

    2004 doi

  58. [66]

    Koopmans , L. V. E., Bolton , A., Treu , T., et al. 2009, , 703, L51, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/L51

    2009 doi

  59. [67]

    1994, , 284, 285

    Kormann , R., Schneider , P., & Bartelmann , M. 1994, , 284, 285

    1994

  60. [68]

    , Sobolewska , M., Stawarz , ., et al

    Kr \'o l , D. ., Sobolewska , M., Stawarz , ., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.13418. 2312.13418

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    A., Hern \'a ndez , J., et al

    Lindegren , L., Klioner , S. A., Hern \'a ndez , J., et al. 2021, , 649, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    E., & Strauss , M

    Liu , X., Guo , H., Shen , Y., Greene , J. E., & Strauss , M. A. 2018, , 862, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9cb

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    P., Elvis , M., Fabbiano , G., et al

    Maksym , W. P., Elvis , M., Fabbiano , G., et al. 2023, , 951, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd7f1

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    2017, , 470, 4039, 10.1093/mnras/stx1551

    Marinucci , A., Bianchi , S., Fabbiano , G., et al. 2017, , 470, 4039, 10.1093/mnras/stx1551

    2017 doi

  65. [73]

    Marinucci , A., Bianchi , S., Nicastro , F., Matt , G., & Goulding , A. D. 2012, , 748, 130, 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/130

    2012 doi

  66. [74]

    2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 84

    McKean , J., Jackson , N., Vegetti , S., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 84. 1502.03362

    2015 arXiv

  67. [75]

    P., Koopmans , L

    McKean , J. P., Koopmans , L. V. E., Flack , C. E., et al. 2007, , 378, 109, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11744.x

    2007

  68. [76]

    P., Auger , M

    McKean , J. P., Auger , M. W., Koopmans , L. V. E., et al. 2010, , 404, 749, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16334.x

    2010

  69. [77]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.03472, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.03472

    Melo , A., Motta , V., Mej \' a-Restrepo , J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.03472, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.03472

    2023 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    T., Sparks , W

    Meyer , E. T., Sparks , W. B., Biretta , J. A., et al. 2013, , 774, L21, 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L21

    2013 doi

  71. [79]

    C., et al

    Migliori , G., Siemiginowska , A., Kelly , B. C., et al. 2014, , 780, 165, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/165

    2014 doi

  72. [80]

    W., Kochanek , C

    Morgan , C. W., Kochanek , C. S., Morgan , N. D., & Falco , E. E. 2010, , 712, 1129, 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/1129

    2010 doi

  73. [81]

    D., Kochanek, C

    Morgan, N. D., Kochanek, C. S., Pevunova, O., & Schechter, P. L. 2005, The Astronomical Journal, 129, 2531, 10.1086/430145

    2005 doi

  74. [82]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Mushotzky , R. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10699, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , & K. Nakazawa , 1069929, 10.1117/12.2310003

    2018 doi

  75. [83]

    2015, , 53, 365, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    Netzer , H. 2015, , 53, 365, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    2015 doi

  76. [84]

    L., & Weisskopf , M

    O'Dell , S. L., & Weisskopf , M. C. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3444, X-Ray Optics, Instruments, and Missions, ed. R. B. Hoover & A. B. Walker , 2--18, 10.1117/12.331231

    1998 doi

  77. [85]

    M., Assef , R

    Padovani , P., Alexander , D. M., Assef , R. J., et al. 2017, , 25, 2, 10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9

    2017 doi

  78. [86]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade, P. A. R. , Aghanim, N. , et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2016 doi

  79. [87]

    A., Schechter , P

    Pooley , D., Rappaport , S., Blackburne , J. A., Schechter , P. L., & Wambsganss , J. 2012, , 744, 111, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/111

    2012 doi

  80. [88]

    P., et al

    Powell , D., Vegetti , S., McKean , J. P., et al. 2021, , 501, 515, 10.1093/mnras/staa2740

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    M., Vegetti , S., McKean , J

    Powell , D. M., Vegetti , S., McKean , J. P., et al. 2022, , 516, 1808, 10.1093/mnras/stac2350

    2022 doi

  82. [90]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., G \"u nther , H. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  83. [91]

    2021, , 917, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0909

    Schwartz , D., Spingola , C., & Barnacka , A. 2021, , 917, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0909

    2021 doi

  84. [92]

    2019, , 885, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4b54

    Shen , Y., Hwang , H.-C., Zakamska , N., & Liu , X. 2019, , 885, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4b54

    2019 doi

  85. [93]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 569, 10.1038/s41550-021-01323-1

    Shen , Y., Chen , Y.-C., Hwang , H.-C., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 569, 10.1038/s41550-021-01323-1

    2021 doi

  86. [94]

    2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Spectra of 13 lensed quasars (Sluse+, 2012) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/544/A62

    Sluse , D., Hutsemekers , D., Courbin , F., Meylan , G., & Wambsganss , J. 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Spectra of 13 lensed quasars (Sluse+, 2012) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/544/A62. Originally published in: 2012A&A...544A..62S, 10.26093/cds/vizier.35440062

    2012 doi

  87. [95]

    Snios , B., Nulsen , P. E. J., Kraft , R. P., et al. 2019, , 879, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2119

    2019 doi

  88. [96]

    2024, , 690, A325, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451341

    Sonnenfeld , A. 2024, , 690, A325, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451341

    2024 doi

  89. [97]

    H., Treu , T., & Marshall , P

    Sonnenfeld , A., Gavazzi , R., Suyu , S. H., Treu , T., & Marshall , P. J. 2013, , 777, 97, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/97

    2013 doi

  90. [98]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 2312, 10.1093/mnras/staa870

    Spingola , C., & Barnacka , A. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2312, 10.1093/mnras/staa870

    2020 doi

  91. [99]

    P., Auger , M

    Spingola , C., McKean , J. P., Auger , M. W., et al. 2018, , 478, 4816, 10.1093/mnras/sty1326

    2018 doi

  92. [100]

    2022, , 931, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac68eb

    Spingola , C., Schwartz , D., & Barnacka , A. 2022, , 931, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac68eb

    2022 doi

  93. [101]

    C., et al

    Stawarz , ., Ostorero , L., Begelman , M. C., et al. 2008, , 680, 911, 10.1086/587781

    2008 doi

  94. [102]

    H., Bonvin , V., Courbin , F., et al

    Suyu , S. H., Bonvin , V., Courbin , F., et al. 2017, , 468, 2590, 10.1093/mnras/stx483

    2017 doi

  95. [103]

    A., & Markoff , S

    Thimmappa , R., Neilsen , J., Haggard , D., Nowak , M. A., & Markoff , S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.19272, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.19272

    2024 doi arXiv

  96. [104]

    Trindade Falcao , A., Fabbiano , G., Elvis , M., Paggi , A., & Maksym , W. P. 2023 a , , 950, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd052

    2023 doi

  97. [105]

    2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.00782, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.00782

    Trindade Falcao , A., Fabbiano , G., Elvis , M., et al. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.00782, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.00782

    2023 doi arXiv

  98. [106]

    M., & Padovani , P

    Urry , C. M., & Padovani , P. 1995, , 107, 803, 10.1086/133630

    1995 doi

  99. [107]

    P., Jerius , D., Edgar , R

    van Speybroeck , L. P., Jerius , D., Edgar , R. J., et al. 1997, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3113, Grazing Incidence and Multilayer X-Ray Optical Systems, ed. R. B. Hoover & A. B. Walker , 89--104, 10.1117/12.278890

    1997 doi

  100. [108]

    2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 732, 10.1038/s42254-021-00364-9

    Volonteri , M., Habouzit , M., & Colpi , M. 2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 732, 10.1038/s42254-021-00364-9

    2021 doi

  101. [109]

    M., & Dotti , M

    Volonteri , M., Miller , J. M., & Dotti , M. 2009, , 703, L86, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/L86

    2009 doi

  102. [110]

    C., & O'Dell , S

    Weisskopf , M. C., & O'Dell , S. L. 1997, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3113, Grazing Incidence and Multilayer X-Ray Optical Systems, ed. R. B. Hoover & A. B. Walker , 2--17, 10.1117/12.278838

    1997 doi

  103. [111]

    1996, , 314, 679

    Wielen , R. 1996, , 314, 679

    1996

  104. [112]

    Wilks , S. S. 1938, Ann. Math Stat., 9, 60

    1938

  105. [113]

    2000, , 358, 77, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0004162

    Wisotzki , L., Christlieb , N., Bade , N., et al. 2000, , 358, 77, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0004162

    2000 doi arXiv

  106. [114]

    L., Bradt , H

    Wisotzki , L., Schechter , P. L., Bradt , H. V., Heinm \"u ller , J., & Reimers , D. 2002, , 395, 17, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021213

    2002 doi

  107. [115]

    C., Suyu , S

    Wong , K. C., Suyu , S. H., Auger , M. W., et al. 2017, , 465, 4895, 10.1093/mnras/stw3077

    2017 doi

  108. [116]

    M., Giommi , P., Tananbaum , H., & Zamorani , G

    Worrall , D. M., Giommi , P., Tananbaum , H., & Zamorani , G. 1987, , 313, 596, 10.1086/164999

    1987 doi

  109. [117]

    N., Miller , B

    Wu , J., Brandt , W. N., Miller , B. P., et al. 2013, , 763, 109, 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/109

    2013 doi

  110. [118]

    P., Maccacaro , T., et al

    Zamorani , G., Henry , J. P., Maccacaro , T., et al. 1981, , 245, 357, 10.1086/158815

    1981 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.