Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A galaxy's rotation map can pin down the lensing critical curve to sub-arcsecond precision.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 20:42 UTC pith:C66ETMOP

load-bearing objection A genuinely new kinematic method for locating critical curves, but the 0.23" precision on the real Dragon Arc likely understates systematic errors from unmodeled source-plane kinematics. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.18479 v3 pith:C66ETMOP submitted 2025-11-23 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Kinematic Mapping of Giant Arcs: A New Method to Locate Lensing Critical Curves

Ruwen Zhou , Liang Dai , Lingyuan Ji , Massimo Pascale , Jose M. Diego , Fengwu Sun , Yoshinobu Fudamoto This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO PACS 98.62.Sb
keywords gravitational lensingcritical curvesgiant arcsintegral field spectroscopydisk rotationAbell 370Dragon Arcdark matter substructure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that the continuous line-of-sight velocity pattern of a lensed spiral galaxy, as mapped by integral-field spectroscopy, encodes the position of the lensing critical curve independently of global mass modeling. Fitting a flat-rotation disk model together with a third-order polynomial deflection field to archival VLT/MUSE Hβ data of the Dragon Arc in Abell 370, the authors locate the critical curve in a highly magnified region to a 1σ half-width of 0.23 arcsec. Mock tests show unbiased recovery at MUSE-like resolution (0.25 arcsec) and predict 0.08–0.12 arcsec for JWST/NIRSpec IFU observations. If correct, the method provides an empirical, model-independent way to pin down where extreme magnification occurs, and with future space-based data could reveal wiggles in the critical curve caused by dark-matter substructure.

Core claim

The central claim is that a velocity map of a caustic-crossing giant arc can serve as a precision probe of the local lens mapping, replacing reliance on global cluster mass models. Under the assumption that the source galaxy is a rotating disk with constant circular velocity, the fold-symmetric velocity pattern observed across the arc determines where the Jacobian of the lens map becomes degenerate—i.e., where the critical curve lies. Applied to the Dragon Arc, the method recovers the critical curve to 0.23″ (1σ) from archival MUSE data, a band whose orientation is steeper than two published macro models and whose location places about two-thirds of the recently discovered microlensed stars

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the coupled pair of a source-plane disk rotation model and a local lens model. The disk model has five parameters—kinematic center, inclination, position angle, and a constant circular velocity v_rot—giving the intrinsic line-of-sight velocity at any source point. The lens model is a third-order polynomial deflection field (20 coefficients reduced to 12 by requiring it derive from a lensing potential), which maps source-plane velocity onto the image plane through the ray equation. The critical curve is the zero-contour of the Jacobian determinant of the resulting lens map; the fold symmetry of the mapped velocity field supplies the constraint. Wiener deconvolution of

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the source-plane velocity field in the fitted region is a single rotating disk with constant circular velocity and negligible random or turbulent motion, so that any real clumpiness or warps are not confused with the lens mapping.

What would settle it

A high-SNR JWST/NIRSpec IFU observation of the same Dragon Arc region that recovers a critical curve differing from the MUSE-based 0.23″ band by more than the combined uncertainties—or a recovered curve inconsistent with the surface-brightness fold symmetry—would falsify the kinematic method's core assumption.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Giant arcs with IFU coverage of a nebular line can now have their critical curves located to ~0.2″ from ground-based data, without input from any global mass model.
  • A JWST/NIRSpec IFU observation of the same Dragon Arc region, with ~8–29 hr exposure, should improve the constraint to 0.08–0.12″, a regime where small-scale wiggles from dark-matter substructure become detectable.
  • The derived critical curve places the recently discovered microlensed stars preferentially on the negative-parity side, supporting the intracluster-microlensing interpretation and distinguishing it from a diffuse-substructure origin.
  • The method is general: any galaxy with measurable rotational kinematics, including quiescent galaxies via absorption lines or dusty galaxies via molecular lines, can be used as a kinematic probe of the caustic.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The correlated ~10 km/s residuals shown in the paper's residual map hint that the flat-rotation plus polynomial model does not fully capture the source-plane velocity field; if this systematic is absorbed by the lens parameters, the quoted 0.23″ band may understate the true uncertainty.
  • A natural test is to apply the same fitting procedure to two independent emission lines (e.g., Hβ and [O III]) and require consistency of the recovered critical curve; disagreement would flag source-plane kinematic complexity.
  • If a future NIRSpec observation at 0.08″ precision finds a critical curve that shifts relative to the MUSE-derived one, that shift would itself be a signal of sub-arcsecond lensing perturbations, turning a current systematic into a science measurement.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a kinematic method to locate the lensing critical curve crossing a giant arc. The model combines a flat-rotation disk on the source plane (Eq. 2) with a third-order polynomial deflection field for the local lens map (Eqs. 3–4, with potential constraints in Eq. 5) and an ad hoc Gaussian smoothing scale. The method is validated on mocks built by taking MUSE Hα data of M74, imposing a constant v_rot = 200 km/s inclined disk, lensing with the BUFFALO cluster model, and simulating VLT/MUSE and JWST/NIRSpec observations (§4). Applying the method to archival VLT/MUSE Hβ data of the Dragon Arc in Abell 370 yields a 1σ half-width of 0.23″ for the critical curve (§5.1, Fig. 10). The paper also reports that the inferred critical curve places about two-thirds of the microlensed star candidates on the negative-parity side, consistent with intracluster microlensing expectations, and forecasts NIRSpec precision of 0.08–0.12″ (§5.2).

Significance. If the quoted 0.23″ uncertainty is reliable, this is a novel and valuable empirical constraint on critical-curve location that is substantially independent of global cluster lens models. The mock-generation procedure, use of real M74 data, explicit Bayesian inference with a high-dimensional lens model, and the demonstration that PSF deconvolution is critical are useful contributions. The negative-parity asymmetry test adds an independent application. However, the central claim rises and falls on whether the source-plane kinematic model is adequate for the real Dragon Arc and whether the quoted uncertainty includes correlated systematics; those points are not currently established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2 / Eq. (9)] The mock validation is a self-consistency check, not a test of the source kinematic model. The mock source is assigned a constant v_rot=200 km/s rotator with no random component (§4.2), which is exactly the model in Eq. (2) that the likelihood in Eq. (9) fits. Unbiased recovery in Figs. 9 and 11 therefore demonstrates that the inference machinery works when the data are generated from the assumed family, but says little about the real Dragon Arc if its kinematics include warps, radial flows, clumpy/turbulent motions, or a non-flat rotation curve. This matters because the local polynomial deflection field has 12 free parameters (§3.3.2) and can partially absorb source-plane kinematic misspecification. The real-data residual map (Fig. 10) shows correlated ~10 km/s residuals on 0.5–1″ scales, which the paper attributes to possible disk-model deficiency, unrecognized lens-map distortions, or
  2. [§5.1 / Fig. 10] The likelihood treats individual pixels as independent with variances σ_obs,i (Eq. 9). Wiener deconvolution and the Moffat PSF introduce spatially correlated errors in the measured velocity map, and the best-fit residuals in Fig. 10 are visibly correlated on 0.5–1″ scales. Under correlated noise, the effective number of independent constraints is reduced, so the posterior width of 0.23″ is likely an underestimate of the true statistical uncertainty. The paper should either include a noise covariance matrix in the likelihood, or re-fit mock realizations with correlated noise to quantify the effect. At minimum, report the critical-curve band after inflating σ_obs by the residual correlation structure.
  3. [§3.3.2 / §5.1] The quoted 0.23″ result uses the imposed prior that the degenerate direction of the local lens map lies in [0°, 15°] relative to the arc elongation. The paper states that relaxing this constraint inflates the 1σ half-width to 0.30″ (§5.1). Because this constraint is derived from the observed morphology rather than from the kinematic data themselves, its uncertainty should be mapped. If the true degenerate direction lies outside the assumed range, the critical curve could be biased, not merely broadened. I ask for a sensitivity test over a wider range of this prior or a data-driven determination of the elongation angle with uncertainty.
  4. [§5.1 / App. A] The inferred v_rot = 304 km/s (267–329) is far above the independent Vmax = 207±7 km/s from Patrício et al. (2018), and the authors note the posterior piles up near the high end of the prior. Appendix A shows that a narrow prior v_rot = 195–205 km/s gives a similar critical-curve band, which is reassuring. However, this test only varies the value of a constant rotation velocity; it does not address the more dangerous degeneracy between the shape of the source-plane velocity field and the polynomial lens coefficients. A model with, e.g., a linearly rising rotation curve or an extra velocity-dispersion term could trade against the 12 deflection coefficients and shift the critical curve. I request a broader source-model family in the mock tests to quantify this degeneracy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.1] “the line of slight passing any point” appears to be a typo for “line of sight”.
  2. [Eq. (1) / §3.3.2] The symbol α is used both for the Moffat scale radius in Eq. (1) and for the deflection-angle vector in Eqs. (3)–(4) and Fig. 5. These are different quantities and the notation should be disambiguated.
  3. [§2 / §3.2] The observing mode is called “WFM-NOAO-N” in §2 but “NFM-NOAO” in §3.2; the manuscript should use a consistent name.
  4. [§4.3] “Webbpsftool” should be written as “WebbPSF” for the package name, with consistent capitalization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the critical-curve constraint is an empirical fit to an independent velocity map; the mock test is a conditional self-consistency check, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The central result is an empirical Bayesian fit of a disk-rotation model plus a local polynomial deflection field to archival MUSE velocity measurements (Eq. 9, Fig. 10). The critical curve is then derived from the fitted deflection field via det A = 0 (Eq. 7), not from any prior critical-curve input. The only externally imposed lens constraint is the arc-elongation direction (§3.3.2), which is an independent morphological observable, not the target location. The mock validation (§4.2–4.4) does use the same flat-rotation source model in both data generation and inference: the mock's Doppler shifts are 'computed assuming a constant rotation curve of v_rot = 200 km/s', and the model uses Eq. (2) with constant v_rot. This makes the mock a self-consistency test of the inference pipeline and PSF treatment, not an independent certification of the source-velocity model. That is a real limitation and a systematic-risk caveat, but it is not a circular derivation: the mock recovery is not an input to the real-data result, and the real-data 0.23'' band is not statistically forced by the mock construction. The authors explicitly acknowledge the source-model deficiency and possible residuals (§5.1: 'residuals of ~10 km/s and correlated on ~0.5–1 arcsec scales', §6.2: 'Improved Disk Rotation Model'), and Appendix A shows the critical-curve result is robust to the v_rot prior. Self-citations such as Venumadhav et al. (2017), Fudamoto et al. (2025), and Diego et al. (2025a) are used for published theory, archival data, or model comparison, not as the load-bearing justification of the localization method. No equation reduces to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The central claim rests on standard lensing theory plus a set of modeling choices: flat rotation, polynomial deflection field, and smoothness of the local lens map. The free parameters are fit to the velocity data, and the paper's Appendix checks robustness to one of them (v_rot).

free parameters (7)
  • Disk rotation velocity v_rot = posterior median 304 km/s; 68% CI 267-329 km/s (broad prior 150-350 km/s)
    Free parameter in the source-plane rotation model; posterior piles near the prior edge, indicating weak constraint. Appendix A shows the critical-curve result is robust to this parameter.
  • Disk inclination i = 68% CI 57-78 deg
    Free geometric parameter of the disk rotation model.
  • Disk position angle phi = 68% CI -43 to -32 deg
    Free geometric parameter of the disk rotation model.
  • Kinematic center (RA0, DEC0) = posterior not tabulated
    Free parameters degenerate with constant deflection terms a00 and b00; fitted to the velocity field.
  • Local polynomial deflection coefficients (12) = posterior not tabulated
    Free coefficients in the third-order polynomial lens model; gradients constraints reduce the original 20 parameters to 12.
  • Ad hoc Gaussian smoothing width sigma = not tabulated
    Free smearing parameter added after Wiener deconvolution to absorb residual PSF effects.
  • Moffat PSF parameters alpha, beta = alpha ~ 0.5 arcsec, beta ~ 1.4
    Empirically determined from foreground stars; enters Wiener deconvolution and mock generation, and the paper shows results depend on deconvolution.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Static gravitational lens does not change photon wavelength, producing mirror-symmetric velocity patterns across the critical curve.
    Basis of the method; introduced in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption The deflection field is the gradient of a lensing potential, imposing coefficient constraints (Eq. 5).
    Standard lensing theory; used to reduce polynomial parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper A third-order polynomial deflection field adequately describes the local lens map in the ROI.
    Validated against BUFFALO residuals <0.005" in Fig. 5, but cannot capture substructure wiggles, as acknowledged in Section 6.5.
  • ad hoc to paper The source galaxy's kinematics are described by a constant flat rotation curve with no random velocity component.
    Motivated by flat rotation curves at large radii; the paper itself reports residuals suggesting this may be deficient.
  • domain assumption The Dragon Arc is a rotating disk with inclination 45-60 deg and H-beta traces its kinematics.
    Required applicability condition; [O III] was rejected as too clumpy.
  • ad hoc to paper The arc elongation direction constrains the degenerate direction of the local lens map to [0,15] deg.
    Imported from observed morphology; not enforced by the polynomial model otherwise.
  • ad hoc to paper No significant dark-matter subhalo perturbations are present inside the fitted ROI.
    A smooth polynomial cannot capture wiggles; if present, they could bias the inferred critical curve (Section 6.5).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20346 in / 11626 out tokens · 118903 ms · 2026-08-03T20:42:53.939383+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinematic Mapping of Giant Arcs: A New Method to Locate Lensing Critical Curves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C66ETMOP

@misc{pith2026251118479,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinematic Mapping of Giant Arcs: A New Method to Locate Lensing Critical Curves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C66ETMOP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.18479}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The vicinity of lensing critical curves features highly magnified portions of lensed galaxies. Accurate knowledge of the location and shape of the critical curve will be useful for understanding the nature of highly magnified stellar sources near critical curves and for revealing sub-galactic dark matter structures within the lens. In galaxy-cluster lenses, however, prediction of critical curves can be uncertain due to complexity in global mass modeling. We explore and validate a kinematics-based method for locating the critical curve. This method leverages the continuous line-of-sight velocity profile of the lensed galaxy mapped through integral field spectroscopy of emission lines, and combines an agnostic local lens model and a disk rotation model. Applying our method to a highly magnified region of the Dragon Arc in the Abell 370 cluster lensing field using archival VLT/MUSE IFU mapping of the H$\beta$ line, we constrain the critical curve to an uncertainty band with a half-width of 0.23" ($1\sigma$). This result reveals locations of recently detected extremely magnified stars biased toward the negative-parity side of the critical curve, as predicted for intracluster microlensing. With future JWST/NIRSpec IFU mapping of the H$\alpha$ line at SNR $\simeq$ 10 (20), uncertainty could improve to 0.12" (0.08"). A measurement of this type with sufficiently small uncertainty may reveal small-scale wiggles in the shape of the critical curve, which can arise from the lensing perturbation of sub-galactic dark matter substructure. Our approach is generally applicable to caustic-crossing giant arcs and can be incorporated into global lens modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.18479 by Fengwu Sun, Jose M. Diego, Liang Dai, Lingyuan Ji, Massimo Pascale, Ruwen Zhou, Yoshinobu Fudamoto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: JWST NIRCam F090W image of Dragon Arc in the lensing field of galaxy cluster Abell 370. Bright foreground galaxies and stars are masked in yellow. Critical curves for the source redshift zs = 0.725 (Richard et al. 2010) are overlaid following the prediction of four lens models: Williams v4.1 (dashed white; Sebesta et al. 2016), Zitrin-Gauss v1.0 (dashed purple; Zitrin et al. 2009, 2013) based on the Light-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Line-of-sight velocity profile on the Dragon Arc derived from the Hβ line using MUSE IFU data. Red and blue regions trace H ii regions redshifted and blueshifted with respect to the reference velocity, respectively. Some pixels near the arc edge showing anomalous velocity values are likely contaminated by foreground galaxies. The red solid line shows the critical curve at zs = 0.725 from the BUFFALO lens m… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of Gaussian line profile fitting of the Hβ line with continuum subtraction applied to one partic￾ular pixel. The blue curve shows the original MUSE spec￾trum, and the dashed green line is a linear fit to the local continuum. The smooth red curve is the Gaussian fit to the continuum-subtracted spectrum (cyan), whose centroid (purple dot) is used to calculate the line-of-sight velocity. Given that th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: VLT/MUSE IFU data reveals variation of the line-of-sight velocity across the Dragon Arc. Surface bright￾ness varies across the arc as one scans through the Hβ line from 4863 ˚A to 4858.5 ˚A (rest frame). The red solid line shows the critical curve in the BUFFALO lens model (Niemiec et al. 2023). The behavior of the spatial surface brightness profile reveals roughly symmetric velocity patterns on both sides… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fitting a 3rd-order polynomial deflection field to the BUFFALO lens model (Niemiec et al. 2023) in a 2.5 ′′ ×1.3 ′′ vicinity of the critical curve. The magnitude of the deflec￾tion angle, α = p α 2 1 + α 2 2 , is color-coded. The upper panel shows the original BUFFALO deflection field and the model critical curve (blue), while the middle panel shows the best￾fit polynomial deflection field and the correspo… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hα (observed at 657.7 nm) image of M74 (NGC 628) resolved down to ∼ 30 pc, derived from archival MUSE IFU data. This galaxy is chosen as the source galaxy for creating mocks due to its grand-design spiral morphology, well-resolved H ii regions, and nearly face-on orientation that simplifies kinematic analysis. Powered primarily by sites of star formation, the underlying spatial profile of Hα surface bright… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mock IFU data of the Dragon Arc created for observational conditions appropriate for JWST/NIRSpec. See Section 3 for details. This mock data is used to validate the method of kinematic mapping in this work. Panels show flux map at the Hα line (left) and the measured line-of-sight velocity (right), at two different noise levels (SNR ≃ 10 and 20). The fold symmetry in the velocity value is visible on both si… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulated MUSE IFU data for a lensed spiral that resembles the Dragon Arc. Panels show the Hβ flux per pixel (left) and the measured line-of-sight velocity field (right). The critical curve from the BUFFALO lens model is drawn. Bayesian modeling of disk rotation and lensing will be applied within the orange dashed rectangle (3.8′′× 1.6′′). instrumental sampling at 0.1 ′′ per pixel, is achievable through a … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mock measurements performed for the simu￾lated lensed spiral galaxy and for the observational quality of VLT/MUSE IFU. The mean half width of the 1σ (2σ) con￾fidence band is 0.25′′(0.50′′). While recovery is less accurate near the upper and lower edges due to insufficient pixels, the band is consistent with the true critical curve in the central part of the arc. Compared with the JWST NIRSpec IFU case, the… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Upper panel: JWST NIRCam F090W image zoomed into the orange rectangular region marked in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Mock JWST NIRSpec IFU measurement corre￾sponding to the SNR ≃ 20 case in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Constraints on the critical curve location from mock JWST NIRSpec IFU measurements, derived for the same simulated lensed spiral galaxy that resembles the Dragon Arc as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Critical curve constraints derived using a narrow prior on the rotation velocity (vrot = 195–205 km s−1 ). The resulting confidence band is nearly identical to that obtained with a broad prior (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. First Statistical Study of Over 100 Magnified Stellar Events at Redshift $z \approx 0.725$ with JWST

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Over 100 caustic-crossing stellar events identified in the Dragon galaxy at z≈0.725 with JWST data yield a stellar luminosity function slope β=2.18 and confirm parity asymmetry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7 2024

  2. [2]

    1986, ApJ, 310, 568, doi: 10.1086/164709

    Blandford, R., & Narayan, R. 1986, ApJ, 310, 568, doi: 10.1086/164709

    doi:10.1086/164709 1986

  3. [3]

    K., Alfred, A., et al

    Broadhurst, T., Li, S. K., Alfred, A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9aa8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9aa8 2025

  4. [4]

    L., Diego, J

    Chen, W., Kelly, P. L., Diego, J. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab297d 16 Figure 13.Critical curve constraints derived using a narrow prior on the rotation velocity (v rot = 195–205 km s−1). The resulting confidence band is nearly identical to that obtained with a broad prior (see Figure 10), demonstrating the robustness of the crit...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab297d 2019

  5. [5]

    E., Dahle, H., et al

    Choe, S., Rivera-Thorsen, T. E., Dahle, H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06953, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.06953

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.06953 2024

  6. [6]

    2020, AJ, 159, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5e83

    Dai, L., & Miralda-Escud´ e, J. 2020, AJ, 159, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5e83

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5e83 2020

  7. [7]

    A., & Miralda-Escud, J

    Dai, L., Venumadhav, T., Kaurov, A. A., & Miralda-Escud, J. 2018, ApJ, 867, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae478

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae478 2018

  8. [8]

    A., Sharon, K., et al

    Dai, L., Kaurov, A. A., Sharon, K., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3192, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1355 de Blok, W. J. G., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2648, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2648 Di Teodoro, E. M., Grillo, C., Fraternali, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 804, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty175

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1355 2020

  9. [9]

    Diego, J. M. 2019, A&A, 625, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833670 17

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833670 2019

  10. [10]

    M., Pascale, M., Kavanagh, B

    Diego, J. M., Pascale, M., Kavanagh, B. J., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243605

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243605 2022

  11. [11]

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

    Diego, J. M., Kaiser, N., Broadhurst, T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab617

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab617 2018

  12. [12]

    M., Meena, A

    Diego, J. M., Meena, A. K., Adams, N. J., et al. 2023a, A&A, 672, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245238

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245238

  13. [13]

    M., Sun, B., Yan, H., et al

    Diego, J. M., Sun, B., Yan, H., et al. 2023b, A&A, 679, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347556

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347556

  14. [14]

    M., Li, S

    Diego, J. M., Li, S. K., Meena, A. K., et al. 2024a, A&A, 681, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346761

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346761

  15. [15]

    M., Li, S

    Diego, J. M., Li, S. K., Amruth, A., et al. 2024b, A&A, 689, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450474

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450474

  16. [16]

    M., Sun, F., Palencia, J

    Diego, J. M., Sun, F., Palencia, J. M., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11207, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11207 —. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11207, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11207

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.11207

  17. [17]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11952

    Eid, L., & Keeton, C. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11952

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.11952

  18. [18]

    Eid, L., & Keeton, C. R. 2025b, ApJ, 990, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf4cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf4cb

  19. [19]

    2022, A&A, 659, A191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141727

    Emsellem, E., Schinnerer, E., Santoro, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141727

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141727 2022

  20. [20]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306–312, doi: 10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  21. [21]

    L., Pascale, M., Pierel, J., et al

    Frye, B. L., Pascale, M., Pierel, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1034

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1034 2024

  22. [22]

    M., et al

    Fudamoto, Y., Sun, F., Diego, J. M., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 428, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02432-3

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02432-3 2025

  23. [23]

    J., Meena, A

    Furtak, L. J., Meena, A. K., Zackrisson, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad135

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad135 2024

  24. [24]

    2019, A&A, 631, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935896

    Girard, M., Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Combes, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935896

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935896 2019

  25. [25]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad684a

    Gledhill, R., Strait, V., Desprez, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad684a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad684a 2024

  26. [26]

    E., Rudisel, M., Wagner, J., et al

    Griffiths, R. E., Rudisel, M., Wagner, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1595, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1375

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1375 2021

  27. [27]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b6a

    Han, X., & Dai, L. 2024, ApJ, 964, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b6a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b6a 2024

  28. [28]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada76a

    Ji, L., & Dai, L. 2025, ApJ, 980, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada76a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada76a 2025

  29. [29]

    A., Dai, L., Venumadhav, T., Miralda-Escud´ e, J., & Frye, B

    Kaurov, A. A., Dai, L., Venumadhav, T., Miralda-Escud´ e, J., & Frye, B. 2019, ApJ, 880, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2888

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2888 2019

  30. [30]

    L., Diego, J

    Kelly, P. L., Diego, J. M., Rodney, S., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 334, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0430-3

    doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0430-3 2018

  31. [31]

    L., Chen, W., Alfred, A., et al

    Kelly, P. L., Chen, W., Alfred, A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.02670, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.02670

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.02670 2022

  32. [32]

    J., Richard, J., Cl´ ement, B., et al

    Lagattuta, D. J., Richard, J., Cl´ ement, B., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1079

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1079 2017

  33. [33]

    S., & Schombert, J

    Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., & Schombert, J. M. 2016, AJ, 152, 157, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/157

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/157 2016

  34. [34]

    K., Diego, J

    Li, S. K., Diego, J. M., Meena, A. K., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 988, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade4bd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade4bd

  35. [35]

    K., Palencia, J

    Li, S. K., Palencia, J. M., Diego, J. M., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.17565, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.17565

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.17565

  36. [36]

    M., & Welch, B

    Lundqvist, E., Zackrisson, E., Hawcroft, C., Amarsi, A. M., & Welch, B. 2024, A&A, 690, A291, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450403 Miralda-Escud´ e, J. 1991, ApJ, 379, 94, doi: 10.1086/170486 M¨ uller, C. V., & Miralda-Escud´ e, J. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2652

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450403 2024

  37. [37]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563, doi: 10.1086/177173

    doi:10.1086/177173 1996

  38. [38]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 2883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1999

    Niemiec, A., Jauzac, M., Eckert, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1999

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1999 2023

  39. [39]

    2018, PhRvD, 97, 023518, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.023518

    Broadhurst, T. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 023518, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.023518

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.023518 2018

  40. [40]

    2010, Journal of the Optical Society of America

    Orieux, F., Giovannelli, J.-F., & Rodet, T. 2010, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A Optics, Image Science, and Vision, 1593, doi: 10.1364/JOSAA.27.001593

    work page doi:10.1364/josaa.27.001593 2010

  41. [41]

    M., Diego, J

    Palencia, J. M., Diego, J. M., Kavanagh, B. J., & Mart ´ ınez-Arrizabalaga, J. 2024, A&A, 687, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347492

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347492 2024

  42. [42]

    M., Diego, J

    Palencia, J. M., Diego, J. M., Dai, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A295, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555447

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555447 2025

  43. [43]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7732

    Pascale, M., & Dai, L. 2024, ApJ, 976, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7732

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7732 2024

  44. [44]

    L., & Beverage, A

    Pascale, M., Dai, L., Frye, B. L., & Beverage, A. G. 2025a, ApJL, 988, L76, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aded93

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aded93 2041

  45. [45]

    F., & Tsang, B

    Pascale, M., Dai, L., McKee, C. F., & Tsang, B. T. H. 2023, ApJ, 957, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf75c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf75c 2023

  46. [46]

    L., Pierel, J

    Pascale, M., Frye, B. L., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 979, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9928 Patr ´ ıcio, V., Richard, J., Carton, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 18, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty555

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9928 2018

  47. [47]

    Perera, D., Gilman, D., Williams, L. L. R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.04748. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.04748

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, & H. A. MacEwen, 91433X, doi: 10.1117/12.2056689 18

    doi:10.1117/12.2056689 2014

  49. [49]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Newman, A. B., Dhawan, S., et al. 2024, ApJL, 967, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4648

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4648 2024

  50. [50]

    V., Bergamini, P., Meneghetti, M., et al

    Pignataro, G. V., Bergamini, P., Meneghetti, M., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.10286. https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.10286

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    M., Pickering, T

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Pickering, T. E., Laidler, V. G., et al. 2016, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI, 9910, 991016, doi: 10.1117/12.2231768

    doi:10.1117/12.2231768 2016

  52. [52]

    P., Limousin, M., Edge, A., & Jullo, E

    Richard, J., Kneib, J. P., Limousin, M., Edge, A., & Jullo, E. 2010, MNRAS, 402, L44, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00796.x

    arXiv 2010

  53. [53]

    A., Balestra, I., Bradac, M., et al

    Rodney, S. A., Balestra, I., Bradac, M., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 324, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0405-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0405-4 2018

  54. [54]

    Schneider, P., Ehlers, J., & Falco, E. E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-03758-4

    doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03758-4 1992

  55. [55]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 2126, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1433

    Liesenborgs, J. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2126, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1433

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1433 2016

  56. [56]

    E., et al

    Sharon, K., Mahler, G., Rivera-Thorsen, T. E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.03417. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.03417

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    2001, ARA&A, 39, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.137

    Sofue, Y., & Rubin, V. 2001, ARA&A, 39, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.137

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.137 2001

  58. [58]

    H., Acebron, A., Grillo, C., et al

    Suyu, S. H., Acebron, A., Grillo, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.12319, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.12319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.12319 2025

  59. [59]

    Trujillo, I., Aguerri, J. A. L., Cepa, J., & Guti´ errez, C. M. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 977, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04937.x

    arXiv 2001

  60. [60]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, L67, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa163

    Vanzella, E., Meneghetti, M., Pastorello, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, L67, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa163

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa163 2020

  61. [61]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a

    Vanzella, E., Claeyssens, A., Welch, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a 2023

  62. [62]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9575

    Venumadhav, T., Dai, L., & Miralda-Escud´ e, J. 2017, ApJ, 850, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9575

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9575 2017

  63. [63]

    2017, A&A, 601, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630200

    Wagner, J. 2017, A&A, 601, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630200

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630200 2017

  64. [64]

    2019, Universe, 5, 177, doi: 10.3390/universe5070177 —

    Wagner, J. 2019, Universe, 5, 177, doi: 10.3390/universe5070177 —. 2022, Astron. Astrophys., 663, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243562

    doi:10.3390/universe5070177 2019

  65. [65]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.08094, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.08094

    Weisenbach, L., Anguita, T., Miralda-Escud´ e, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.08094, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.08094

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.08094 2024

  66. [66]

    M., et al

    Welch, B., Coe, D., Diego, J. M., et al. 2022, Nature, 603, 815, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04449-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04449-y 2022

  67. [67]

    1949, Extrapolation, Interpolation, and Smoothing of Stationary Time Series: With Engineering Applications (The MIT Press), doi: 10.7551/mitpress/2946.001.0001

    Wiener, N. 1949, Extrapolation, Interpolation, and Smoothing of Stationary Time Series: With Engineering Applications (The MIT Press), doi: 10.7551/mitpress/2946.001.0001

    doi:10.7551/mitpress/2946.001.0001 1949

  68. [68]

    Williams, L. L. R., Kelly, P. L., Treu, T., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.06064, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.06064

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.06064 2023

  69. [69]

    A., Timmes, F

    Windhorst, R. A., Timmes, F. X., Wyithe, J. S. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa760

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa760 2018

  70. [70]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0298

    Yan, H., Ma, Z., Sun, B., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0298

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad0298 2023

  71. [71]

    J., Keeton, C

    Young, A. J., Keeton, C. R., & Baker, A. J. 2022, ApJ, 929, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac59af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac59af 2022

  72. [72]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add72a

    Zheng, W., Fu, X., Chen, Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add72a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add72a 2025

  73. [73]

    2009, MNRAS, 396, 1985, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14899.x

    Zitrin, A., Broadhurst, T., Umetsu, K., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1985, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14899.x

    arXiv 2009

  74. [74]

    2013, ApJL, 762, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/L30

    Zitrin, A., Meneghetti, M., Umetsu, K., et al. 2013, ApJL, 762, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/L30

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/l30 2013