Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Machine learning and Kolmogorov analysis to reveal gravitational lenses

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the Kolmogorov stochasticity parameter can flag sub-regions containing gravitational-lens arcs, and that PCA classification then labels the retrieved objects as lens candidates.

desk verdict A transparent but under-validated feasibility study: the KSP prefilter is sensible, but the lens-detection claim rests on one tuned field. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02517 v2 pith:7MNOHKVN submitted 2019-08-07 astro-ph.IM

S. S. Mirzoyan , H. Khachatryan , G. Yegorian , V.G. Gurzadyan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationallensingKolmogorovstochasticityparameterprincipalcomponentanalysisautomatedsourcedetectionastronomicalimageprocessingSDP.81eccentricityclassificationlow-significancestructures
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

The paper sets out to show that an automated three-step pipeline can find gravitational-lens arcs in astronomical images without visual inspection. First a per-sub-region Kolmogorov stochasticity parameter flags the few patches whose intensity statistics deviate most from a Gaussian background; then connected-pixel analysis isolates individual objects; finally principal component analysis measures each object's elongation and labels it as a lens candidate. The authors demonstrate the pipeline on the strong lens SDP.81, where six of thirty-two sub-regions pass the statistical filter and the objects recovered include the lensing arc, and on simulations in which arcs only 0.5 sigma above the background level are retrieved even though they are invisible by eye. If the claim holds, large surveys can concentrate expensive lens-search effort on a tiny fraction of each field while still catching faint, arc-like structures that visual inspection would miss.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Kolmogorov stochasticity parameter, $\lambda_n = \sqrt{n}\,\sup_x |F_n(x)-F(x)|$, where $F_n$ is the empirical distribution of pixel intensities in a sub-region and $F$ is the theoretical cumulative distribution. Because the paper first establishes Gaussianity of the SDP.81 data, $F$ is taken to be Gaussian, and each sub-region's $\lambda$ is compared with a map-wide cutoff $\lambda_0 + n\sigma$ with $n=1$ chosen empirically. Two further components carry the rest of the pipeline: a Moore-neighborhood connectivity search that assembles surviving pixels into isolated objects after an intensity cutoff, and principal component analysis of the intensity covariance matrix, whose eigenvalues give an eccentricity $e = (\lambda_1-\lambda_2)/\lambda_1$ and a thickness $\lambda_2$; objects with $e \geq e_{\mathrm{thresh}}$ and $\lambda_2 \leq d_{\mathrm{thick}}$ are kept in the final catalog. The KSP step is what makes the search tractable, restricting detailed shape analysis to a few sub-regions instead of the whole field.

What would settle it

Apply the identical pipeline to a simulated or real lens field whose background is deliberately non-Gaussian, for example Poisson sky noise or a heavy-tailed detector background, and check whether the arc-containing sub-regions still pass the $\lambda_0 + 1\sigma$ filter while noise-only sub-regions do not. A cleaner test of the same assumption is to vary only the multiplier $n$ across a set of fields with known arcs: if no single $n$ keeps the arcs without flooding the candidate list, the empirical threshold rule is the failure point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Kolmogorov stochasticity parameter (KSP) separates the signal of a lensed object from its surrounding field, and that the separation is enough to drive a fully automated lens-candidate search. In the SDP.81 field, sub-regions containing parts of the lensing arc have anomalously high KSP values against a Gaussian cumulative distribution, with the field's mean KSP around 1.9 and most sub-regions between 0.5 and 2.2. Applying the threshold $\lambda_{\mathrm{thresh}} = \lambda_0 + 1\sigma$ keeps six of thirty-two sub-regions, and every object in the output catalog--with centers, eccentricities, and field numbers--lies inside them. A simulated lens whose arc pixels are only 0.5$\sigma$ above background, invisible to the eye, is still recovered as connected elongated objects. The paper therefore concludes that the method is an automated tool for finding isolated objects and revealing low-significance structures, producing a catalog of possible lensing objects for later inspection.

Load-bearing premise

The whole prefilter rests on the assumption that the SDP.81 intensity field is Gaussian enough for the KSP to be measured against a Gaussian cumulative distribution, and that the empirically chosen one-sigma cutoff will still flag arc-containing sub-regions on other fields; if either fails, real arcs can be discarded before any shape analysis begins.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The KSP prefilter can reduce a full survey field to a handful of sub-regions worth detailed lens-shape analysis, saving computation before any pixel-connectivity or PCA work begins.
  • Arcs with surface brightness only 0.5 sigma above the background, effectively invisible to the eye, can still be recovered as connected elongated objects, extending the detectable population of lens candidates.
  • The pipeline outputs a candidate catalog with object centers, eccentricities, and field numbers, so the surviving candidates can be handed directly to spectroscopic or higher-resolution follow-up.
  • Because the eccentricity and thickness thresholds classify by shape alone, the same software can separate elongated arc candidates from more regular galaxies and star clusters in the same field.
  • The conclusion suggests the Kolmogorov approach could be applied to other large-survey problems, such as testing the isotropy of gamma-ray burst sky distributions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to compute the KSP against a locally estimated background distribution on each sub-region instead of a global Gaussian; the threshold would then follow from goodness-of-fit quantiles rather than an empirically chosen $n$, and the prefilter would gain a built-in false-alarm rate.
  • The paper notes that spiral arms can be mistaken for arcs; a natural cheap follow-up is to feed the eccentricity candidates into a color or photometric-redshift classifier, since lensed background sources typically have different colors from foreground disk galaxies.
  • The visible arc in SDP.81 splits into several fragments at higher intensity cutoffs, which the paper attributes to intensity variation along the arc; the method's own output suggests a merging step over neighboring sub-regions could reconstruct full arcs automatically, something the paper leaves for later grouping.
  • Because the KSP responds to any deviation from the assumed background, the pipeline should also flag dust filaments, image artifacts, and other elongated non-lenses; measuring how often such false candidates survive on blank fields would convert the demonstration into a usable survey search.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an automated three-stage pipeline for detecting elongated objects, in particular gravitational arcs/lenses, in astronomical images. In the first stage, the image is divided into sub-regions and the Kolmogorov stochasticity parameter (KSP) is computed against a Gaussian theoretical cumulative distribution; sub-regions with lambda above lambda_thresh = lambda_0 + n*sigma are kept, with n chosen empirically. In the second stage, an intensity cut-off and a Moore-neighborhood connected-component labeling algorithm isolate objects. In the third stage, PCA eigenvalues are used to compute eccentricity, and objects satisfying e >= e_thresh and lambda_2 <= d_thick are retained. The pipeline is demonstrated on the SDP.81 strong-lens field (Table 1, Figs. 3-4) and on a simulated low-significance image (Fig. 5), and the authors conclude that the method is an automated search tool for isolated objects that can reveal low-significance lensing structures.

Significance. The paper has some strengths: the pipeline is simple, transparent, and built from standard tools (KSP, connected-component labeling, PCA); the arithmetic appears correctly applied; and the idea of a statistical prefilter to reduce the search space is attractive. The authors also explicitly concede several limitations, such as the empirical choice of thresholds and the possibility of retrieving non-lensing structures. However, the significance of the central claim as presented is limited. The only real-data demonstration is one known lens field, the thresholds are chosen on that same field, and there are no detection metrics such as completeness, false-positive rate, or comparison with existing arc finders (Alard 2006; Seidel & Bartelmann 2007). The simulated test in Fig. 5 shows qualitative retrieval but provides no quantitative recovery statistics. The paper is therefore better characterized as a proof-of-concept than as a validated lens-search method; the general claim that the method 'reveals gravitational lenses' is not yet supported by the evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (2)] The prefilter threshold is lambda_thresh = lambda_0 + n*sigma with n=1, and the text states that this multiplier 'should rather be decided empirically' and that n=1 is chosen because of the data spread. Since the same SDP.81 field is used both to set n and to demonstrate detection, the demonstration does not establish that the prefilter generalizes; a cross-validation test, or a test on an independent field with thresholds fixed in advance, is needed before the method can be claimed to reveal gravitational lenses.
  2. [Section 3] The Gaussianity of the data, which justifies using the Gaussian theoretical CDF in the KSP, is checked only by inspecting the histogram of 32 sub-region lambda values (Fig. 2). The statement that the histogram 'confirms the correctness of our assumption' is not backed by a quantitative goodness-of-fit test (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smirnov or Anderson-Darling on the intensity distribution). Without such a test, the calibration of lambda and the meaning of the threshold in Eq. (2) for non-Gaussian fields remain unsupported.
  3. [Section 6, Table 1 and Fig. 5] The evaluation contains no detection metrics. Table 1 lists components from a single known field, with the lens arc split across sub-regions, but gives no completeness or false-positive counts; the simulation in Fig. 5 has no ground-truth recovery statistics, and the authors themselves note that 'other structures may be retrieved as well... should be investigated additionally.' The paper also does not compare against the arc finders cited in the Introduction (Alard 2006; Seidel & Bartelmann 2007). The central claim that the pipeline reveals lenses is therefore not quantified by either completeness or purity.
  4. [Sections 5-6] The eccentricity and thickness criteria in Eqs. (12)-(13) use e_thresh=0.35 and d_thick, and the object-identification step uses a 2-sigma intensity cut-off. All of these are empirical, no sensitivity analysis or error estimates are provided, and d_thick is not assigned a numerical value in the text. Because the final catalog is exactly the set of components satisfying these inequalities, the output is strongly dependent on these choices, so the table cannot be interpreted as a robust lensing catalog without a stability assessment.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains an ungrammatical sentence: 'We show the capability of our automated method to identify distinct objects, including of and to classify them based on the input parameters.' This needs to be rewritten.
  2. [Figures 1-2] The captions of Figures 1 and 2 are essentially identical; the two figures should be described separately so that the reader can understand what each panel shows.
  3. [Section 5, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) contains garbled typesetting ('M/summationdisplay.1'), and the indices in Eqs. (6)-(7) are not consistent with Eq. (5). These should be cleaned up.
  4. [Section 6, Fig. 5] The simulation underlying Fig. 5 is not described in sufficient detail: the lens model, PSF, noise realization, and number of trials are not given, which prevents reproducibility of the claimed low-significance retrieval.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Thresholds tuned on SDP.81 define the output list, so the lens-candidate demonstration is partially circular; KSP and PCA method retain independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eq. (2), and Section 6 (Table 1)]
    "λthr es = λ0 + n ∗ σ, (2) ... This multiplier should rather be decided empirically. Due to the data spread we get large value of standard deviation, therefore n = 1 is a good choice for multiplier. This results in 6 sub-regions to pass our filter."

    The paper's stated test is whether KSP 'can distinguish the signal of a lensed object from that of the surrounding field.' The distinguishing cut λ_thresh is fixed by choosing n = 1 on the same SDP.81 field used for the demonstration. The six sub-regions that 'pass' are then, by Eq. (2), exactly those with λ > λ0 + σ; no independent threshold selection or held-out field is used. The successful separation is therefore a restatement of the chosen cut rather than an out-of-sample prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sections 5-6, Eqs. (12)-(13) and Table 1]
    "Our software includes threshold parameter for eccentricity and thickness of the elongated object. So, depending on data we study, those threshold values vary and might be induced empirically. ... We set the threshold value for eccentricity 0.35, therefore in the table we have objects with small eccentricities. The reason we keep objects with small eccentricities is that, in the first step we split the whole field into smaller sub-regions, and as it has been shown in Table 1, the lensing structure is separated between parts."

    Eq. (12) (e ≥ e_thresh) and Eq. (13) (λ2 ≤ d_thick) define exactly which objects appear in the final list. The threshold e_thresh = 0.35 is explicitly lowered so that the separated pieces of the known lensing structure remain in the table. Thus the 'catalog of possible lensing objects' includes the lens components because the threshold was chosen to include them; the claimed retrieval is imposed by construction rather than independently predicted. The authors also state that thresholds 'might be induced empirically,' confirming that the output is a function of the tuned parameters.

full rationale

The core statistical descriptor, KSP, is grounded in Kolmogorov's theorem and is not itself circular, and the many self-citations to prior KSP applications are not load-bearing in the threshold choices. However, the demonstration of lens-detection capability is partially circular. The paper's own equations define the final candidate list as the set of objects passing thresholds in Eqs. (12) and (13), and its own text says those thresholds 'might be induced empirically.' For the SDP.81 demonstration, the eccentricity threshold is lowered specifically because the lensing structure is fragmented across sub-regions, making the inclusion of the lens components a consequence of the chosen cut rather than an independent detection. Similarly, the KSP prefilter's n = 1 multiplier is chosen empirically on the same field, so the six surviving sub-regions are the arithmetic consequence of Eq. (2) with that choice. These are not mathematical derivations from first principles, and the paper does not compare against external benchmarks or a labeled test set. The method may still have genuine independent content in its use of KSP and PCA, but the specific demonstration on SDP.81 reduces in part to fitted parameters renamed as retrieved objects, warranting a partial circularity score of 6.

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

The central claim rests on several user-chosen numbers: the KSP threshold multiplier n, the intensity cutoff, the eccentricity threshold, and the thickness threshold, all selected empirically on the test field. The main domain assumptions are Gaussianity of the pixel intensities and the equation of high KSP plus high eccentricity with lensing candidates. No new physical or statistical entities are posited. Because the thresholds are tuned to the SDP.81 field, the ledger is prominent and the independent-evidence content is low.

free parameters (5)
  • KSP threshold multiplier n = 1
    In Eq. (2), lambda_thresh = lambda_0 + nσ; n=1 is chosen 'empirically' in Section 3 because of the large data spread, yielding 6 subregions. This value is tuned to the SDP.81 field.
  • Intensity cut-off level = 2σ for Table 1; 1σ, 1.5σ, 2σ, 3σ in Fig. 4
    Object identification depends on thresholding survived pixels; no cut-off is derived from a detection criterion, and results change with the threshold (Section 6, Fig. 4).
  • Eccentricity threshold e_thresh = 0.35
    Objects with e >= e_thresh appear in the final list; 0.35 is set without justification and the text says such thresholds 'might be induced empirically' (Sections 5 and 6).
  • Thickness threshold d_thick = not specified
    The software includes a thickness threshold in Eq. (13), but no numeric value or criterion is given anywhere in the paper, so exact reproduction is impossible without contacting the authors.
  • Subregion size = 84 x 110 pixels
    The 672 x 440 field is split into 32 subregions of 84 x 110 pixels; the choice affects KSP maps and arc splitting, and it is not optimized or justified against alternative sizes.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Kolmogorov's theorem: lambda_n = sqrt(n) sup|F_n - F| converges in distribution to a distribution-free function Phi(lambda).
    Used to define the KSP and to justify its applicability to short sequences; invoked in Section 3 with the Kolmogorov (1933) and Arnold references.
  • domain assumption The pixel intensity distribution of the SDP.81 field is Gaussian.
    Section 3 states 'The detailed analysis revealed the Gaussianity of the data, hence the theoretical cumulative function was taken as Gaussian'; this is based on histogram inspection, not a formal test.
  • domain assumption High KSP subregions preferentially contain gravitational arcs.
    The KSP filter keeps subregions with lambda above lambda_0 + σ, implicitly equating anomalous KSP with lensing structure rather than with other regular features; no independent validation is provided in Section 3.
  • domain assumption Lensing arcs are elongated, connected, one-component objects with high eccentricity and small thickness.
    The classifier uses e >= e_thresh and lambda_2 <= d_thick in Eqs. (12) and (13), equating morphological elongation with lensing candidates; Section 5 acknowledges that spiral arms can be confused with arcs.
  • standard math Moore-neighborhood connectivity defined by Eq. (3) is sufficient for object identification.
    The connected-component algorithm uses orthogonal and diagonal adjacency; this is a standard image-processing convention, cited to Moore (1964).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machine learning and Kolmogorov analysis to reveal gravitational lenses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7MNOHKVN

@misc{pith2026190802517,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machine learning and Kolmogorov analysis to reveal gravitational lenses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7MNOHKVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02517}
}
read the original abstract

We present an automated approach to detect and extract information from the astronomical datasets on the shapes of such objects as galaxies, star clusters and, especially, elongated ones such as the gravitational lenses. First, the Kolmogorov stochasticity parameter is used to retrieve the sub-regions that worth further attention. Then we turn to image processing and machine learning Principal Component Analysis algorithm to retrieve the sought objects and reveal the information on their morphologies. We show the capability of our automated method to identify distinct objects, including of and to classify them based on the input parameters. A catalog of possible lensing objects is retrieved as an output of the software, then their inspection is performed for the candidates that survive the filters applied.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02517 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The field of about [Dec=9”, RA=10”] of the galaxy SDP.81. The sub-regions of (84 x 110)-pixels with the highest values of the KSP are shown. Arnold ( 2009a), which is not the case for most of statisti￾cal methods and is rather sensitive to the deviation from randomness. These features of the descriptor appear to be efficient at non-linear data analysis, see Atto et al ( 2013); Rossmanith ( 2013). We then applied KSP… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The field of [Dec=9”, RA=10”] of the galaxy SDP.81. The sub-regions of (84 x 110)-pixels with the highest values of the KSP are shown. where λ0 is either mean or modal value of the entire field, σ is the standard deviation, and finally n multiplier indicates how many σ-s we want to cut above the mean or modal value. This multiplier should rather be decided empirically. Due to the data spread we get large value of st… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The identified objects are shown. Blue contours show approximate structures of objects above 3-σ, some of the objects are combined together. steps it is crucial to know the data distribution, as well as its mean or modal values, and to perform a proper cut-off to avoid loosing valuable information. Additionally, the ability of the suggested method to re￾veal ”low visibility” structures can be seen from the following… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Objects identified for different intensity thresholds. Reconstruction of lensing event by identified objects. Each image corresponds to different intensity thresholds (1-σ, 1.5-σ, 2-σ, 3- σ.) identify elongated objects ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulated image of lensing with 0.5-σ above background level (left plot). The right plot shows the results of the search algorithm. Except clearly exhibited lensing arcs the method identifies other elongated objects, which should be investigated separately. Some of mos…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alard C., 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0606757

    arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    et al, 2015, ApJL, 808, L4

    ALMA Partnership, Vlahakis, C. et al, 2015, ApJL, 808, L4

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Andrade U., Bengaly C.A.P., Alcaniz J.S., Capozziello S., 2019, arXiv:1905.08864

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Arnold V.I., 2008, Uspekhi Mat.Nauk, 63, 5

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Moscow Math

    Arnold V.I., 2009a, Trans. Moscow Math. Soc., 70, 31

    work page

  6. [6]

    Arnold V.I., 2009b, Funct. An. Other Math. 2, 139

    work page

  7. [7]

    Atto A.M., Berthoumieu Y., Megret R., 2013, Entropy, 15, 4782

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Frey, S., Mosoni, L., Paragi, Z., and Gurvits, L. I. 2003, MNRAS, 343, L20

    work page 2003

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    & Kocharyan A.A., 2008, A&A 492, L33

    Gurzadyan V.G. & Kocharyan A.A., 2008, A&A 492, L33

    2008

  2. [10]

    & Kocharyan A.A., 2009, A&A, 493, L61

    Gurzadyan V.G. & Kocharyan A.A., 2009, A&A, 493, L61

    2009

  3. [11]

    Gurzadyan V.G., Stepanian A., 2018, Eur. Phys. J. C, 78, 869

    2018

  4. [12]

    Gurzadyan V.G., Stepanian A., 2019, Eur. Phys. J. C, 79, 568

    2019

  5. [13]

    Gurzadyan V.G., Starobinsky A.A., et al, 2008, A&A, 490, 929

    2008

  6. [14]

    et al, 2009, A&A, 497, 343

    Gurzadyan V.G., Allahverdyan A.E. et al, 2009, A&A, 497, 343

    2009

  7. [15]

    et al, 2011, Europhys

    Gurzadyan V.G., Durret F. et al, 2011, Europhys. Lett. 95, 69001

    2011

  8. [16]

    et al, 2013, Europhys

    Gurzadyan V.G., Ciufolini I. et al, 2013, Europhys. Lett., 102, 60002

    2013

  9. [17]

    et al, 2014, A&A, 566, A135

    Gurzadyan V.G., Kashin A.L. et al, 2014, A&A, 566, A135

    2014

  10. [18]

    et al, 2015, Roy

    Gurzadyan V.G., Yan H. et al, 2015, Roy. Soc. Open Science, 2, 150143

    2015

  11. [19]

    D., Dalal, N

    Hezaveh, Y. D., Dalal, N. et al, 2016, ApJ, 823, id. 37

    2016

  12. [20]

    Hezaveh, Y. D. et al, 2017, Nature, 548, 555

    2017

  13. [21]

    T., Minezaki, T., Matsushita, S., and Chiba, M

    Inoue, K. T., Minezaki, T., Matsushita, S., and Chiba, M. 2015, arXiv:1510.00150

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kolmogorov A.N., 1933, G.Ist.Ital.Attuari, 4, 83

    1933

  15. [23]

    Lenzen, F., Schindler, S., Scherzer, O., 2004, A&A, 416, 391

    2004

  16. [24]

    et al, 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1566

    Lopez-Caniego, M., Gonzalez-Nuevo, J. et al, 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1566

    2013

  17. [25]

    Mediavilla E., Munoz J., Garzon F., Mahoney T.J., (Eds.), Astrophysical Applications of Gravitational Lensing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Moore E.F., Sequential Machines, Selected Papers (1964)

    1964

  19. [27]

    et al, 2017, arXiv:1701.05188

    Nierenberg, A.M., Treu, T. et al, 2017, arXiv:1701.05188

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    E., Tortora, C., 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1129

    Petrillo, C. E., Tortora, C., 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1129

    2017

  21. [29]

    Ripa J., Shafieloo A., 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3027

    2019

  22. [30]

    Rossmanith G., Non-linear Data Analysis on the Sphere, Springer (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Ruggeri A.C., Capozziello S., 2016, ApSS, 361, 279

    2016

  24. [32]

    E., Gravitational Lenses

    Schneider, P., Ehlers, J., Falco, E. E., Gravitational Lenses. Springer, Berlin (1992)

    1992

  25. [33]

    , Kochanek C., Wambsganss J., 2006, Gravitational Lensing: Strong, Weak and Micro: Saas-Fee Advanced Course 33, Springer, Berlin (2006)

    Schneider P. , Kochanek C., Wambsganss J., 2006, Gravitational Lensing: Strong, Weak and Micro: Saas-Fee Advanced Course 33, Springer, Berlin (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    Seidel, G., Bartelmann, M., 2007, A&A, 472, 341

    2007

  27. [35]

    Soille, P., Morphological Image Analysis, (Springer) (2003)

    2003

  28. [36]

    Straumann, N., Jetzer, Ph., Kaplan, J., Topics on gravitational Lensing, Napoli series on Physics and Astrophysics, 1, Naples (1998)

    1998

  29. [37]

    et al, 2015, PASJ, 67, id.727

    Tamura Y., Oguri M. et al, 2015, PASJ, 67, id.727

    2015

  30. [38]

    Treu, T., 2010, ARAA, 48, 87

    2010

  31. [39]

    Wisotzki, L., Schechter, P. L. et al, 2002, A&A, 395, 17

    2002

  32. [40]

    1937, Phys

    Zwicky F. 1937, Phys. Rev. 51, 290

    1937

  33. [41]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.