Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Using white dwarf lensing to resolve accretion flows

T0 review · 4 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 White dwarf microlensing can imprint black hole spin and accretion disk temperature structure on multi-band light curves, and M31 should produce enough events to observe this.

desk verdict The rate estimate for X-ray microlensing of M31 by halo white dwarfs is a useful first step, but the central claim that a single event can recover black hole spin and disk temperature profile fails: the disk is orders of magnitude smaller than the Einstein radius, placing the source safely in the point-source regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10674 v1 pith:Y4WKAC4K submitted 2025-09-12 astro-ph.GA

Sophie L. Newman , Matthew J. Middleton , Adam McMaster This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords microlensingwhitedwarfsM31accretiondisksblackholespinX-raybinariesfinite-sourcelensingmulti-bandobservations
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 argues that X-ray emitting sources in M31, such as accreting black holes and neutron stars, are regularly lensed by white dwarfs in M31's halo, and that these lensing events are frequent enough to be detected in existing and future surveys. The central claim is that the shape of the lensing light curve depends on the radial structure of the accretion disk, so a single event observed in multiple bands could reveal both the black hole spin and the disk's temperature profile. If correct, this would give astronomers a new way to measure properties of accretion flows that are otherwise impossible to resolve directly. The paper also predicts specific event rates: about 2.6 lensing events per year within the Swift XRT field of view and 6.3 per year across the whole galaxy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the finite-source microlensing magnification formula, applied ring-by-ring to band-limited flux maps of an accretion disk. Each ring of the disk has its own surface brightness, and the total magnified flux is the sum over rings of the magnification factor times the ring flux; the formula uses elliptic integrals and a near-alignment approximation. The Einstein radius of the white dwarf sets the angular scale, the Kerr ISCO formula sets the inner edge of the disk, and the thin-disk temperature profile sets the radial flux distribution, so the resulting light curve encodes both spin and temperature structure.

What would settle it

Compute the finite-source magnification light curves for the paper's exact parameters but with the true disk angular size: a 0.6 solar-mass white dwarf at 780 kpc has an Einstein radius of about 9 microarcsec, while a 10 solar-mass black hole at 780 kpc has an X-ray emitting disk region of roughly 10 gravitational radii, subtending about 1.3e-7 arcsec (0.014 of the Einstein radius). If the resulting light curves for different spin values and temperature indices are nearly identical, the paper's central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a white dwarf passing in front of an X-ray binary in M31 acts as a finite-source microlens: the accretion disk is not a point source, and different radii of the disk contribute to the magnified flux differently. Using the standard finite-source magnification integral applied to band-limited flux maps of a geometrically thin, optically thick disk around a 10 solar-mass black hole, the authors show that the spin-dependent location of the innermost stable circular orbit and the power-law temperature profile of the disk produce distinct signatures in the light curve. High-energy X-ray emission, originating close to the black hole, is most sensitive to spin, especially at small impact parameters, while lower-energy optical and infrared emission, originating farther out, is more sensitive to the temperature profile. The paper concludes that multi-band observations of a single lensing event could robustly constrain both parameters, and it predicts that such events occur at a rate of about 2.6 per year in the mean Swift field of view and 6.3 per year across all of M31, with roughly 31% of events bright enough for Swift to detect.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim holds only if the accretion disk subtends an angular size comparable to the white dwarf's Einstein radius, so that different disk radii are magnified differently; if the disk is effectively a point source, the light curve cannot distinguish spin or temperature profile.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing Swift observations towards M31, spanning about 16 years, may already contain roughly a dozen detectable lensing events, making the prediction testable with archival data.
  • If a high-magnification event with impact parameter between 1e-3 and 1e-2 is caught in multiple bands, the black hole spin and disk temperature profile can be jointly constrained from the light curve shape alone.
  • Because only about 40% of M31's X-ray sources are expected to harbor accretion disks, the practically useful event rate is around 1 per year in Swift data and 2.5 per year for the whole galaxy.
  • Rare, very high-magnification events with impact parameters near 1e-4, such as those seen in OGLE-2008-BLG-279, would probe the innermost disk and could be caught by next-generation high-cadence surveys like the Roman Space Telescope's Galactic Bulge Time-Domain Survey.
  • The technique naturally separates stellar from disk lensing because accreting sources are lensed in X-rays, where stellar lensing is absent, avoiding the source-blending problem of crowded optical fields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The feasibility of recovering spin and temperature profile rests on an assumption the paper does not explicitly check: that the accretion disk subtends an angular size comparable to the white dwarf's Einstein radius. Using the paper's own parameters (a 0.6 solar-mass white dwarf at 780 kpc gives an Einstein radius of about 9 microarcsec, while a 10 solar-mass black hole disk at 780 kpc has an X-ra
  • If the source is unresolved, the primary observable would be achromatic point-source magnification, and multi-band light curves would not distinguish spin or temperature-profile variations; a color-change measurement would only work if the source is at least marginally extended relative to the Einstein radius.
  • The same finite-source framework could be applied to AGN disks, where the source is much larger relative to the Einstein radius of a solar-mass lens, potentially making the spin and temperature signatures stronger, though the lens population and event rates would be different.
  • A direct numerical test—computing the finite-source light curves for the paper's parameters but with the true disk angular size—would settle whether the claimed spin and temperature sensitivity actually exists in the M31 geometry.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper estimates the rate of X-ray microlensing events of M31 sources caused by white dwarfs in the Milky Way and M31 halos, predicting 6.3 events per year for the whole galaxy and 2.6 events per year within the Swift XRT field of view. It further proposes that the time-dependent light curves of such events, computed with a finite-source lensing prescription applied to model accretion-disk flux maps, can be used to recover the black hole spin and the accretion disk temperature profile from multi-band observations.

Significance. If the rate estimates were robust and the finite-source sensitivity were real, this would be a novel and interesting probe of accretion flows in X-ray binaries, with concrete predictions and publicly available code. The forward-modeling approach and the public code repository are strengths. However, the central resolution claim is not supported for the X-ray band because the X-ray emitting region is point-like compared with the Einstein radius, and the rate estimates contain internal inconsistencies. The paper therefore does not currently establish the proposed method as a viable probe of accretion physics.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Eq. (13) and Figs. 9–12] The central claim that the light-curve shape depends on black hole spin and temperature profile is not supported for the X-ray band, because the X-ray emitting region is effectively point-like. For a 10 M_sun black hole at 780 kpc, the X-ray emitting region of about 10 R_g subtends an angle of roughly 10^-12 arcsec, while the Einstein radius of a 0.6 M_sun white dwarf in the M31 halo is a few times 10^-6 arcsec, giving a source-to-Einstein radius ratio of about 10^-7. In this regime all disk annuli experience essentially the same point-source magnification A(u(t)), so the magnified flux is A(u(t)) times the band-integrated unlensed flux; spin and the temperature parameter change only the normalization. The paper plots magnified flux rather than magnification, so the differences in Figs. 9 and 11 do not demonstrate sensitivity of the light-curve shape. A normalized light curve or the magnification profile should be shown; for the X-ray band it will be independent of disk structure for the impact parameters considered. For the JWST and UVOT bands, where the outer disk can reach a source-to-Einstein ratio of about 0.03, finite-source effects may be present for b around 0.05, but this does not rescue the X-ray claim.
  2. [§4, Eq. (9)] The parameter alpha, described as determining the temperature profile, enters Eq. (9) as a multiplicative factor in the denominator of the effective temperature expression, so it changes the normalization by alpha^{-1/4} and does not alter the radial dependence of the temperature profile. Varying alpha between 2.6 and 3 is therefore degenerate with changing the accretion rate or color correction, not with the temperature profile shape. If the intended model was T proportional to R^{-alpha} or a modified radial slope, Eq. (9) and the text must be corrected and Figs. 11–12 recomputed; as written, the temperature-profile sensitivity claim is not established.
  3. [§3.1 and §2.1] The event-rate calculation is internally inconsistent. Section 2.1 derives 127 WD lenses in the Milky Way halo within the Swift field of view from N_total,MW = 10^8, yet Section 3.1 simulates 3 x 10^8 lenses and resamples to a population of 3 x 10^6 Milky Way halo lenses, finding 0.81 events per 16 years. The relationship between 3 x 10^6 and the earlier 127 is unexplained. Consequently the scaling in Eq. (8) and the headline rates of 6.3 events per year and 2.6 events per year are not reproducible from the stated inputs. The authors should provide a single consistent population number and show the intermediate values in Eq. (8).
  4. [§3, Eq. (8) and Fig. 4b] The geometry for M31-halo lenses is not specified correctly. For a source at D_S = 780 kpc, a lens in the M31 halo has D_L close to D_S, so the Einstein radius depends on the lens-source separation Delta D through theta_E^2 proportional to (4GM/c^2) Delta D / D_S^2, and cannot be obtained by substituting D_L = 780 kpc into the D_L much less than D_S limit. The statement in Fig. 4b that the crossing time is scaled with an M31 lens distance of 780 kpc using t_E proportional to sqrt(d) is therefore ambiguous or incorrect, and this affects the event-rate scaling and the stated rates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (1)] The fraction of the sky should be theta^2/(4 pi) with theta in radians, so the equation should read N_lenses,MW = N_total,MW theta^2/(4 pi); the current notation is ambiguous and dimensionally inconsistent.
  2. [§3, Eq. (8)] The symbol mu_E is used for both the proper-motion ratio and the Einstein-time ratio; this notation should be clarified.
  3. [§4, Figs. 9–12] The plotted quantity is called magnification but is actually the magnified flux in erg/s/cm^2; the distinction matters because the normalization carries most of the spin and temperature dependence.
  4. [§5] The paper would benefit from a quantitative detectability estimate for the required small impact parameters of b ~ 10^-3 to 10^-2 in X-ray; the cited optical events do not directly imply the probability of X-ray events with such alignments.
  5. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption states the outermost radius is about 10^6 R_g except for XMM-Newton; the text should state whether the lensing integration for the X-ray band uses the full 10^6 R_g map or a truncated map.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a self-contained forward-modeling study using independent external inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard forward model: WD lens numbers, masses, and velocities are drawn from external published samples (Ruiter et al. 2007; Torres et al. 2019, 2021); the X-ray source population comes from the independent Chandra catalog of Vulic et al. (2016); the lensing rate uses standard microlensing formulae (Eqs. 5-8); and the accretion-disk light curves are computed from a stated thin-disk temperature profile (Eq. 9), Kerr ISCO radii (Eqs. 10-12), and the external Heyrovsky (2003) finite-source magnification formula (Eq. 13). No quantity is defined in terms of the result it is used to predict, and no fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The only self-citations are ordinary literature references (e.g., Middleton 2016 review; Wiktorowicz et al. 2021) and are not load-bearing for the paper's claims. The conclusion that spin and temperature profile could be recovered is an inference from forward-model sensitivity, not a reduction of the output to the input by construction. Concerns about whether the disk is effectively point-like relative to the Einstein radius in this geometry are physical and quantitative validity concerns, not circularity; they do not make the derivation circular. The paper is therefore assigned a circularity score of 0.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The lensing objects are standard halo white dwarfs and the sources are standard X-ray binaries with Shakura-Sunyaev disks. The central claim rests on population assumptions and on the scale assumption that the disk is extended relative to the Einstein radius, which is not satisfied for the parameters used.

free parameters (7)
  • Total MW halo white dwarf count Ntotal,MW = 1e8 (conservative; Ruiter et al. 2007)
    Scales linearly into the lens counts in Eqs 1-2 and hence into the predicted event rates. The paper notes the uncertain range extends to >1e11.
  • M31 to MW stellar mass ratio and lens count ratio = 10
    Adopted from Licquia & Newman 2015 and Yuan et al. 2022 to claim M31 has 10x the WD lens population (Eq 2); drives the 2.6-6.3/year rates.
  • WD mass and velocity Gaussian parameters = Mean mass 0.58 Msun; velocity distribution from Torres+2019/2021
    Best-fit two-dimensional Gaussian to the Gaia-DR2 halo WD sample (Figure 1); used to draw all simulated lens masses and velocities.
  • Color correction f_col = 1.7
    Sets the normalization of the disk flux map in Eq 9; adopted from Shimura & Takahara 1995 and not varied.
  • Temperature index alpha = 3 nominal, varied 2.6-3.0
    Exponent in Eq 9 controlling the radial temperature profile; one of the two target parameters the paper claims to recover.
  • Black hole mass and accretion rate = 10 Msun, 1e18 g/s
    Canonical choices for the feasibility study (Section 4); fix the overall scale of the flux maps and the ISCO radii.
  • Outer integration radius rmax = 1e6 Rg (10 Rg for XMM-Newton)
    Sets the angular scale of the flux map used in the finite-source integral Eq 13.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard point lens and Paczynski magnification formulas (Eqs 5-7).
    Used unchanged from the gravitational lensing literature to compute event rates and crossing times.
  • domain assumption MW and M31 share similar IMF and star formation history, and M31 has 10x the stellar mass of MW.
    Section 2.1, used to justify the factor-of-10 scaling in Eq 2.
  • domain assumption The 795 Chandra X-ray sources of Vulic et al. (2016) are persistent and representative of the M31 X-ray population.
    Sections 2.2 and 5; the rate estimate assumes no time dependence, and the authors acknowledge this is inaccurate for LMXBs.
  • domain assumption The accretion flow is a face-on, geometrically thin, optically thick Shakura-Sunyaev disk with only gravitational redshift included among relativistic effects.
    Section 4, Eq 9 and surrounding text; used to construct the flux maps and lensing profiles.
  • ad hoc to paper The disk is an extended source whose angular radius is comparable to the Einstein radius, so that finite-source magnification depends on the disk brightness profile.
    Implied by the use of Eq 13 with epsilon = theta_E/rmax and by the claimed spin/temperature sensitivity in Figures 9-12. For the stated WD lens parameters, the disk is 0.014 (outer) to 1e-7 (X-ray) of theta_E, so this premise is not satisfied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Using white dwarf lensing to resolve accretion flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y4WKAC4K

@misc{pith2026250910674,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Using white dwarf lensing to resolve accretion flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y4WKAC4K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10674}
}
read the original abstract

Microlensing is one of the most powerful tools for probing the nature of dark halo objects and the sources they lens. As our nearest massive galaxy, M31 provides a rich source population with many potential lenses in its halo crossing our field of view at any one time. In this paper we explore the probability that X-ray sources in M31 will be lensed by white dwarfs in M31's halo. We find an expected lensing rate of 2.6/year within the mean archival Swift XRT field-of-view, and 6.3/year for the whole galaxy. For X-ray emitting sources harboring accreting neutron stars and black holes, we find that microlensing offers a unique opportunity to constrain the properties of the inner accretion flow. Our results demonstrate that it is feasible to recover both the spin of the black hole and the temperature profile of the accretion disk by discerning their effects upon the profile of the microlensing magnification. We show that these parameters have a significant effect on the shape of the light curve, with the effect of spin being more pronounced at smaller impact parameters and higher energies, while the effect of the temperature profile is larger at lower energies and larger impact parameters. This suggests that multi-band observations of a single lensing event could be used to robustly constrain both parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10674 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sample MW halo WD masses and velocities drawn from a 2D Gaussian distribution, derived from data from Torres et al. (2019) and Torres et al. (2021). Here dark blue crosses and corresponding error bars show the original data derived by Torres with photometric methods. Lighter lilac circles show points randomly sampled from the Gaussian distribution. well established differences in total stellar mass and distance. Fin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The flux distribution of X-ray sources in the stacked M31 observa￾tions by Vulic et al. (2016) within the mean FOV of Swift. features along the major axis of the bulge of M31, out to a distance of ≈ 800 pc and found an implied IMF for the M31 bulge consistent with a MW-like distribution. Whilst it is unknown how the star formation history compares between the two galaxies, we will also assume them to be similar. Kno… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure a) shows the number of lensing events per year for a total lensing population of 7.7 × 106 WD lenses in the halo of the M31. Figure b) shows the magnification 𝐴 and 𝑡E for each simulated event after the crossing times are scaled for a population of lenses in the halo of M31 using 𝑡𝐸 ∝ √ 𝑑 with an M31 lens distance of 780 kpc and 10 kpc for MW lenses. The inset zoom highlights the higher density of events with… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Map of the M31 Chandra sources from the catalogue by Vulic et al. (2016) and the Swift pointing positions from September 2006 to March 2023. All of the observations available at the time of writing are shown, and the Swift XRT FOV is overlaid around the mean Swift XRT …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Characteristics of the Swift observations towards M31 from September 2006 to March 2023 (all of the observations available at the time of writing), within the mean Swift pointing position shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A selection of simulated microlensing events by WD lenses in the halo of M31. The dashed black line indicates Swift’s sensitivity for an average exposure time of 2270 seconds. 1 sigma errors, based on the inferred count rates, are shown. Event characteristics are provi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Flux maps of a geometrically thin, optically thick accretion disc around a 10𝑀⊙ black hole with zero spin (𝑎 = 0) and a temperature coefficient of 𝛼 = 3. Maps are presented for wavelength bands accessible to JWST, ZTF, Swift UVOT, and XMM-Newton. The innermost radius p…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulated lensing events in the X-ray band, illustrating how impact parameter and spin affect the magnification over time. whilst this will not be strictly the case for HMXBs, we should still be able to explore the disc structure, as the lensed profiles should be separ…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulated lensing events in the JWST band, illustrating how impact parameter and spin affect the magnification over time. Blaineau T., et al., 2022, A&A, 664, A106 Burrows D. N., et al., 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 165 Calchi Novati S., 2012, in Journal of Physics Con…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Simulated lensing events in the X-ray band, illustrating how impact parameter and temperature profile affect the magnification over time. Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 99–151, doi:10.1007/978-3- 662-52859-4_3 Moniez M., 2001, Cosmological physics with grav…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Simulated lensing events in the JWST band, illustrating how impact parameter and temperature profile affect the magnification over time. Wyrzykowski Ł., Mandel I., 2020, A&A, 636, A20 Wyrzykowski Ł., et al., 2023, A&A, 674, A23 Yee J. C., et al., 2009, ApJ, 703, 2082 …

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alcock C., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542..281A 542, 281

    doi:10.1086/309512 2000

  2. [2]

    J., Enzi W

    Ballard D. J., Enzi W. J. R., Collett T. E., Turner H. C., Smith R. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.7564B 528, 7564

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae514 2024

  3. [3]

    P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature04441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.439..437B 439, 437

    Beaulieu J. P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature04441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.439..437B 439, 437

    doi:10.1038/nature04441 2006

  4. [4]

    A., Taam R

    Belczynski K., Kalogera V., Rasio F. A., Taam R. E., Zezas A., Bulik T., Maccarone T. J., Ivanova N., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..174..223B 174, 223

    doi:10.1086/521026 2008

  5. [5]

    C., et al., 2018, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe , 131, 018002

    Bellm E. C., et al., 2018, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe , 131, 018002

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2018

  6. [6]

    Birrer S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038861 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...643A.165B 643, A165

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038861 2020

  7. [7]

    Blaineau T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664A.106B 664, A106

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243430 2022

  8. [8]

    N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    Burrows D. N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Calchi Novati S., 2012, in Journal of Physics Conference Series. p. 012001 ( @eprint arXiv 1201.5262 ), @doi 10.1088/1742-6596/354/1/012001

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    C., McLure R

    Carnall A. C., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Dav \'e R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4379C 480, 4379

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Chan J. H. H., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...636A..87C 636, A87

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Dai X., Poindexter S., Garmire G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693..174C 693, 174

    Chartas G., Kochanek C. S., Dai X., Poindexter S., Garmire G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693..174C 693, 174

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    arXiv:2506.20914

    Chung S.-J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250620914C p. arXiv:2506.20914

    2025 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    E., Auger M

    Collett T. E., Auger M. W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443..969C 443, 969

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Connors R. M. T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ff2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..118C 935, 118

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Crotts A. P. S., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...399L..43C 399, L43

    1992 doi

  9. [17]

    W., Garmire G

    Dai X., Chartas G., Agol E., Bautz M. W., Garmire G. P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/374548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...589..100D 589, 100

    2003 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Chartas G., Koz owski S., Morgan C

    Dai X., Kochanek C. S., Chartas G., Koz owski S., Morgan C. W., Garmire G., Agol E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...709..278D 709, 278

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    Done C., Gierli \'n ski M., Kubota A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&ARv..15....1D 15, 1

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    Etherington A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad582 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.6005E 521, 6005

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf2b2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913...30F 913, 30

    Fantin N. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf2b2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913...30F 913, 30

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Chatterjee K., Ingram A., Middleton M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525L..82F 525, L82

    Fragile P. C., Chatterjee K., Ingram A., Middleton M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525L..82F 525, L82

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    García-Berro E., Torres S., Isern J., Burkert A., 1999, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02115.x , 302, 173

    1999

  17. [25]

    Gilman D., Du X., Benson A., Birrer S., Nierenberg A., Treu T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492L..12G 492, L12

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Gould A., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177861 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...470..201G 470, 201

    1996 doi

  19. [27]

    Gould A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542..785G 542, 785

    2000 doi

  20. [28]

    Han C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A.221H 692, A221

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Heyrovsk \'y D., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376787 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...594..464H 594, 464

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529L..95H 529, L95

    Hogg N. B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529L..95H 529, L95

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    arXiv:2506.04336

    Iglesias-Navarro P., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.04336 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250604336I p. arXiv:2506.04336

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    Jansen F., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...365L...1J 365, L1

    2001 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Leja J., Conroy C., Speagle J

    Johnson B. D., Leja J., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...22J 254, 22

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    S., Dai X., Morgan C., Morgan N., Poindexter S

    Kochanek C. S., Dai X., Morgan C., Morgan N., Poindexter S. Chartas G., 2007, in Babu G. J., Feigelson E. D., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 371, Statistical Challenges in Modern Astronomy IV. p. 43 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0609112 ), @doi 10.4...

    2007 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    Koopmans L. V. E., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09523.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.363.1136K 363, 1136

    2005

  28. [36]

    Kruszy \'n ska K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A..28K 692, A28

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    La Barbera F., Vazdekis A., Ferreras I., Pasquali A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505..415L 505, 415

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Lazzarini M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb2a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862...28L 862, 28

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    Leauthaud A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...744..159L 744, 159

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    E., Krawczyk C

    Li T., Collett T. E., Krawczyk C. M., Enzi W., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5311L 527, 5311

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    C., Newman J

    Licquia T. C., Newman J. A., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96 , 806, 96

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    C., Acquaviva V., Thomas P

    Lovell C. C., Acquaviva V., Thomas P. A., Iyer K. G., Gawiser E., Wilkins S. M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2851 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.5503L 490, 5503

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    M., Brinkmann J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10156.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368..715M 368, 715

    Mandelbaum R., Seljak U., Kauffmann G., Hirata C. M., Brinkmann J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10156.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368..715M 368, 715

    2006

  36. [44]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 99--151, @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-52859-4_3

    Middleton M., 2016, Black Hole Spin: Theory and Observation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 99--151, @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-52859-4_3

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    Moniez M., 2001, Cosmological physics with gravitational lensing: proceedings of the XXXVth Rencontres de Moriond, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001cpgl.conf....3M pp 3--11

    2001

  38. [46]

    W., Kochanek C

    Morgan C. W., Kochanek C. S., Dai X., Morgan N. D., Falco E. E., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592767 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689..755M 689, 755

    2008 doi

  39. [47]

    L., 1996, in Morrison H

    Morrison H. L., 1996, in Morrison H. L., Sarajedini A., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 92, Formation of the Galactic Halo...Inside and Out. p. 453

    1996

  40. [48]

    Mr \'o z P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab426b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..244...29M 244, 29

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    O., Birrer S., Gilman D., Wechsler R

    Nadler E. O., Birrer S., Gilman D., Wechsler R. H., Du X., Benson A., Nierenberg A. M., Treu T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf9a3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...917....7N 917, 7

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Neustadt J. M. M., Kochanek C. S., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac888 , 513, 1046

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    Nunota K., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ada352 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...979..123N 979, 123

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    Paulin-Henriksson S., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...405...15P 405, 15

    2003 doi

  45. [53]

    Y., Impey C

    Peng C. Y., Impey C. D., Rix H.-W., Kochanek C. S., Keeton C. R., Falco E. E., Leh \'a r J., McLeod B. A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506266 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...649..616P 649, 616

    2006 doi

  46. [54]

    P \'e rigois C., Belczynski C., Bulik T., Regimbau T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.103d3002P 103, 043002

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    S., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12563.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383..627P 383, 627

    Poole T. S., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12563.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383..627P 383, 627

    2008

  48. [56]

    A., Rappaport S., Schechter P

    Pooley D., Blackburne J. A., Rappaport S., Schechter P. L., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/512115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661...19P 661, 19

    2007 doi

  49. [57]

    S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-035022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ARA&A..59..117R 59, 117

    Reynolds C. S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-035022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ARA&A..59..117R 59, 117

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135b8001R 135, 028001

    Rieke M. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135b8001R 135, 028001

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Belczynski K., Benacquista M., Holley-Bockelmann K., 2007, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.0712.0847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007arXiv0712.0847R p

    Ruiter A. J., Belczynski K., Benacquista M., Holley-Bockelmann K., 2007, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.0712.0847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007arXiv0712.0847R p. arXiv:0712.0847

    2007 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933...83S 933, 83

    Sahu K. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933...83S 933, 83

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe6e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983..104S 983, 104

    Sahu K. C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe6e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983..104S 983, 104

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    Sajadian S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.2587S 452, 2587

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    E., et al., 2024, in Coyle L

    Schlieder J. E., et al., 2024, in Coyle L. E., Matsuura S., Perrin M. D., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. p. 130920S, @doi 10.1117/12.3020622

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    J., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2210.10790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221010790S p

    Shajib A. J., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2210.10790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221010790S p. arXiv:2210.10790

    2022 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    Shimura T., Takahara F., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...445..780S 445, 780

    1995 doi

  58. [66]

    H., Marshall P

    Sonnenfeld A., Treu T., Gavazzi R., Suyu S. H., Marshall P. J., Auger M. W., Nipoti C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777...98S 777, 98

    2013 doi

  59. [67]

    Starkey D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835...65S 835, 65

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    Sumi T., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...778..150S 778, 150

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    M., Solano E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.5573T 485, 5573

    Torres S., Cantero C., Rebassa-Mansergas A., Skorobogatov G., Jim \'e nez-Esteban F. M., Solano E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.5573T 485, 5573

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    E., Raddi R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.1753T 502, 1753

    Torres S., Rebassa-Mansergas A., Camisassa M. E., Raddi R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.1753T 502, 1753

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    Udalski A., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9407014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994AcA....44..165U 44, 165

    1994 doi arXiv

  64. [72]

    Uttley P., et al., 2021, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-021-09724-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ExA....51.1081U 51, 1081

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    C., Barmby P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.3443V 461, 3443

    Vulic N., Gallagher S. C., Barmby P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.3443V 461, 3443

    2016 doi

  66. [74]

    G., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810534 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...493..339W 493, 339

    Watson M. G., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810534 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...493..339W 493, 339

    2009 doi

  67. [75]

    Wiktorowicz G., Middleton M., Khan N., Ingram A., Gandhi P., Dickinson H., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2135 , 507, 374

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa862a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..145W 846, 145

    Williams B. F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa862a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..145W 846, 145

    2017 doi

  69. [77]

    F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aae37d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..239...13W 239, 13

    Williams B. F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aae37d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..239...13W 239, 13

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    Wyrzykowski ., Mandel I., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...636A..20W 636, A20

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    Wyrzykowski ., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243756 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A..23W 674, A23

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    C., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.2082Y 703, 2082

    Yee J. C., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.2082Y 703, 2082

    2009 doi

  73. [81]

    Yoo J., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...603..139Y 603, 139

    2004 doi

  74. [82]

    Yuan S., Zhu L., Liu C., Qu H., Fan Z., 2022, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/ac7af9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022RAA....22h5023Y 22, 085023

    2022 doi

  75. [83]

    Zinn R., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163249 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...293..424Z 293, 424

    1985 doi

  76. [84]

    de Jong J. T. A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053812 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...446..855D 446, 855

    2006 doi

Pith tools

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