Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 59 references

Challenges and Opportunities for time-delay cosmography with multi-messenger gravitational lensing

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ultra-precise lensed gravitational-wave delays can substitute for astrometry and lens-model knowledge in measuring H0.

desk verdict A well-hedged forecast that 1 ms GW time delays can partially compensate for poor astrometry inside a power-law lens model; the compensation is real but model-dependent, and the authors say so. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04472 v1 pith:A257LTLK submitted 2025-02-06 astro-ph.CO

Simon Birrer , Graham P. Smith , Anowar J. Shajib , Dan Ryczanowski , Nikki Arendse This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords time-delaycosmographystronggravitationallensingwavesHubbleconstantmass-sheetdegeneracyastrometrysmallEinsteinradiuslenseswave-optics
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 review argues that lensed gravitational waves can do time-delay cosmography with an advantage electromagnetic sources lack: their arrival times can be measured to about a millisecond, millions of times sharper than optical monitoring. The central forecast is that in a typical quadruply lensed system, such precise delays supply enough information about image positions and the mass model that they simultaneously overcome the astrometric and lens-model noise floors for a power-law plus shear deflector. If true, a single well-observed lensed GW could reach about 0.1% Hubble constant precision with 1 ms timing and 0.1 mas astrometry, and still about 10% even when image positions are known only to an arcsecond. The paper identifies the mass-sheet degeneracy and more complex mass structure as the dominant remaining obstacles.

What carries the argument

The Fermat potential $\phi(\vec\theta,\vec\beta)=(\vec\theta-\vec\beta)^2/2-\psi(\vec\theta)$ maps image positions to arrival times, and the time-delay distance $D_{\Delta t}\propto H_0^{-1}$ is the cosmological ruler the method reads. The forecast's machinery is a joint posterior inference over lens parameters, image positions, and $D_{\Delta t}$ that combines imaging-like priors with astrometric and time-delay measurements. Ultra-precise delays constrain Fermat-potential differences tightly, and through the lens equation $\vec\beta=\vec\theta-\vec\nabla\psi$ those constraints propagate back to image positions and mass-model parameters, which is the compensation effect that lets time delays stand in for missing astrometry and lens-model knowledge.

What would settle it

Run the same mock inference with the same 0.5 arcsecond quad, but inject a small subhalo or a mass-sheet transformation into the true lens; if the recovered $H_0$ shifts by more than the quoted uncertainty when time delays are 1 ms, the claim that delays beat the lens-model noise floor fails for realistic lenses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that with ultra-precise time-delay measurements, the time delays can provide sufficient information on the astrometry and the lens model, effectively beating the noise floors of the astrometry and the lens model priors simultaneously. In the forecast of Figure 3, a quadruply lensed GW event with 1 ms timing and 0.1 mas astrometry reaches roughly 0.1% precision on $H_0$ under an elliptical power-law mass distribution with external shear, while even 1 arcsec astrometry with 1 ms delays yields about 10% precision. The paper is explicit that this result holds for that model complexity and that the mass-sheet degeneracy is likely to remain the dominant source of uncertainty in time-delay cosmography.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes the deflector is an elliptical power-law mass distribution plus external shear, with priors mimicking HST/JWST imaging constraints; if the true mass distribution has substructure, multipoles, or mass-sheet-like degeneracies, the compensating power of millisecond delays is reduced.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Millisecond timing makes the arrival-time error term negligible, setting an $H_0$ measurement floor near 10 km/s/Mpc from timing alone.
  • Small-separation lenses with hour-scale delays, normally poor for optical time-delay cosmography, become usable for lensed-GW systems and open access to lower-mass deflectors.
  • Astrometric requirements relax: with 1 ms delays, the forecast gives about 10% $H_0$ precision at 1 arcsec astrometry and about 0.1% at 0.1 mas.
  • Wave-optics interference in lensed GW events may break the mass-sheet degeneracy with a single waveform, removing the dominant remaining systematic.
  • Ratios of time-delay distances between multiple lenses remain invariant under a joint mass-sheet transformation, so ultra-precise delays can measure relative distance ratios even while the degeneracy is unresolved.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the compensation effect holds, lensed-GW time delays become an astrometric instrument: with the lens model known, a quad's relative image positions could be pinned to roughly $10^{-7}$ mas, a level that would enable transverse cosmological-parallax tests.
  • The same millisecond sensitivity that beats noise floors should register delay perturbations from dark-matter subhalos; residuals from the paper's power-law model fit could be recast as a substructure statistic.
  • The per-event 0.1% precision suggests the eventual bottleneck is model uniqueness rather than timing or astrometry; injecting a deliberately wrong radial mass slope into the mock analysis would quantify how much the compensation depends on the assumed family of mass models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reviews the prospects for time-delay cosmography using strongly lensed gravitational-wave events in place of, or in addition to, electromagnetic variable sources. It summarizes the standard time-delay formalism, compares GW and EM measurement characteristics, and identifies relative astrometry of the lensed images as a key challenge. The central quantitative contribution is a numerical forecast in Section 4: a quadruply imaged mock with an elliptical power-law mass distribution plus external shear, imaging-like priors, and a grid of assumed astrometric and time-delay precisions. The forecast indicates that with millisecond time-delay precision, the time delays themselves can constrain the lens model and image astrometry strongly enough to yield about 0.1% H0 precision within that model family, even when the astrometry is poor. The paper is careful to state that this result holds only for the assumed model complexity and that the mass-sheet degeneracy and substructure remain dominant systematics.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper identifies a qualitatively new feature of lensed-GW time-delay cosmography: ultra-precise arrival times can partially substitute for high-precision astrometry and tight lens-model priors, and they open the small-separation lens regime that is difficult to exploit with EM time-delay surveys. The forecast is a forward simulation with transparent priors and a public code (lenstronomy), and the paper explicitly separates measurement noise from model systematics. The numerical results are conditional on the elliptical power-law plus shear family, and the authors state this limitation in the text; the MSD is correctly identified as a dominant remaining uncertainty. The manuscript is therefore a useful roadmap, although the 0.1% numbers should be read as an information-theoretic limit within a stated model family rather than as an end-to-end realistic precision forecast.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4(b), Figure 3 caption] The Figure 3 caption states that ultra-precise time delays can 'effectively beat the noise floors of the astrometry and the lens model priors, simultaneously,' without the qualifier that this is demonstrated only for the elliptical power-law plus external shear model family and without including the mass-sheet degeneracy or substructure-induced time-delay fluctuations; the same caveat that appears in the body text should be added to the caption because the caption is the most likely part to be quoted.
  2. [Section 4(a), Section 4(b)] The forecast uses a single mock lens configuration and a single realization; the quoted percentages should be described explicitly as illustrative of one typical configuration, since the exact numbers may depend on image geometry, source position, and the assumed priors.
  3. [Section 4(a)] The description of the likelihood used in the lenstronomy posterior inference is sparse; please specify how the astrometric and time-delay measurements enter the likelihood (for example, Gaussian errors with covariances) and, if possible, release the mock and fitting script to make the forecast reproducible.
  4. [Section 4(a)] The sentence describing the one-hour precision as corresponding to substructure fluctuations conflates detector timing precision with a physical noise floor in the time-delay prediction; consider clarifying that the Figure 3 grid is a measurement-precision grid and that the substructure floor is discussed separately in Section 4(b).
  5. [Section 3(a)] The sentence 'The detected in gamma rays or radio do not require a further detection in gravitational waves' is missing a subject and should be rephrased.
  6. [Section 4(a)] The word 'mimique' should be 'mimic'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the forecast is a self-contained forward simulation whose H0 precisions are posterior outputs, not inputs, and the model dependence of the headline claim is explicitly disclosed.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is a mock forecast. The simulated lens is generated with an elliptical power-law plus external shear model (Section 4(a)), and the posterior inference is run with lenstronomy over the same parametric family. This self-consistency is a limitation in model realism, but it is not circular: the H0 precision values in Figures 2 and 3 are outputs of the posterior, not inputs, and the time-delay and astrometric data are simulated measurements, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The claim that 1 ms time delays can simultaneously constrain astrometry and lens model parameters is derived from the Fermat-potential structure of the assumed model, not assumed by construction. The paper explicitly qualifies the result: 'The result presented in Figure 3 holds for the model complexity of an elliptical power-law mass density with external shear,' and it flags the mass-sheet degeneracy as likely remaining dominant. The cited Birrer and Treu (2019) astrometric formula is an analytic propagation relation, and the lenstronomy software is open-source code, so these self-citations are independent support rather than load-bearing circularity. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the quantity it purports to predict, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on assumed lens model priors and a mock configuration rather than on new physical postulates. No invented entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the hand-chosen prior widths that mimic HST/JWST imaging constraints; the forecast maps H0 precision over assumed astrometric and time-delay precision grids.

free parameters (8)
  • power-law slope prior width = sigma_gamma = 0.1
    Chosen in Section 4(a) to mimic imaging constraints; the forecast H0 precision depends on this width.
  • Einstein radius prior uncertainty = 0.01 arcsec
    Assumed measurement precision on the Einstein radius in the mock forecast.
  • deflector centroid prior uncertainty = 0.01 arcsec per direction
    Assumed knowledge of the lens light centroid; drives Fermat potential uncertainty.
  • ellipticity component prior uncertainty = 0.05
    Assumed precision on the two ellipticity components of the power-law model.
  • external shear component prior uncertainty = 0.01
    Assumed precision on the two external shear components.
  • mock Einstein radius = 0.5 arcsec
    Chosen as typical for galaxy-scale lenses; sets the time-delay scale of about 2 days.
  • astrometric precision grid = 1 arcsec, 0.1 arcsec, 5 mas, 0.1 mas
    Assumed scenarios, not fitted values; the central result maps H0 precision over these choices.
  • time-delay precision grid = 1 day, 1 hour, 1 min, 1 ms
    Assumed measurement scenarios; 1 ms is motivated by GW detector timing.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Fermat potential and time-delay distance formalism of strong lensing applies unchanged to gravitational waves when the lens size exceeds the GW wavelength.
    Invoked in Section 3 opening: 'All equations presented in Section 2... are valid in wave optics for GWs on scales of galaxies...'
  • domain assumption The deflector mass distribution is an elliptical power-law with external shear, with priors mimicking HST/JWST imaging constraints.
    Section 4(a) model setup; the forecast and its conclusions rely on this model family.
  • domain assumption A lensed GW event is detected with sufficient SNR in all four images to achieve the assumed time-delay precision.
    Section 3(a) states arrival time precision of order milliseconds for images detected with sufficient SNR; rates and SNR feasibility are not modeled here.
  • domain assumption The mass-sheet degeneracy can be ignored for the numerical forecast or handled separately.
    Section 4(b) states the forecast 'did not include the effect of the MSD' and calls it the likely dominant uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The mock forecast uses a typical redshift configuration, though explicit redshifts are not specified.
    The paper gives no lens and source redshifts for the mock; fractional H0 precision is assumed to be representative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Challenges and Opportunities for time-delay cosmography with multi-messenger gravitational lensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A257LTLK

@misc{pith2026250204472,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Challenges and Opportunities for time-delay cosmography with multi-messenger gravitational lensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A257LTLK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04472}
}
read the original abstract

Strong gravitational lensing of variable sources, such as quasars or supernovae, can be used to constrain cosmological parameters through a technique known as "time-delay cosmography''. Competitive constraints on the Hubble constant have been achieved with electromagnetic observations of lensed quasars and lensed supernovae. Gravitational wave (GW) astronomy may open up a new channel for time-delay cosmography with GW signal replacing the electromagnetic (EM) one. We highlight the similarities of using GW signals to be applied to time-delay cosmography compared to EM signal. We then discuss key differences between GW and EM signals and their resulting advantages and inconveniences from the angle of the current state-of-the-art using quasars and lensed supernovae for time-delay cosmography. We identify the astrometric precision requirement of the images as a key challenge to overcome and highlight the potentially significant impact that near-perfect time-delay measurements of lensed GWs can bring to the table.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04472 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Lensing configuration used for the forecast. The lens has an Einstein radius of 0.5”. The lensing configuration results in relative time delays of order ∼ 3 days between the images. For the astrometric position of the arriving images of the time-variable event we use a set of different assumptions with one-sigma precision in the range of [1”, 0.1”, 5 mas, 0.1 mas]. The 1” precision effectively ereases any meaningful… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Forecast on H0 precision of a typical quadruply lensed configuration with an Einstein radius of 0.5” as a function of astrometric precision in the lensed images and the time-delay measurement precision, only accounting for the astrometric and time-delay uncertainties, under perfect knowledge of the lens model. 5. Summary In this manuscript we have highlighted key challenges and opportunities of using multiply￾imaged… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Forecast on H0 precision of a typical quadruply lensed configuration with an Einstein radius of 0.5” as a function of astrometric precision in the lensed images and the time-delay measurement precision including lens model uncertainties. With ultra-precise time-delay measurements, the time delays can provide sufficient information on the astrometry and the lens model, effectively beating the noise floors of the astr… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1964 On the possibility of determining Hubble’s parameter and the masses of galaxies from the gravitational lens effect

    Refsdal S. 1964 On the possibility of determining Hubble’s parameter and the masses of galaxies from the gravitational lens effect. MNRAS 128, 307. (10.1093/mnras/128.4.307)

    doi:10.1093/mnras/128.4.307 1964

  2. [2]

    2022 A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team

    Riess AG, Yuan W, Macri LM, Scolnic D, Brout D, Casertano S, Jones DO, Murakami Y, Anand GS, Breuval L, Brink TG, Filippenko AV , Hoffmann S, Jha SW, D’arcy Kenworthy W, Mackenty J, Stahl BE, Zheng W. 2022 A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Tea...

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b 2022

  3. [3]

    2020 Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim N, Akrami Y, Ashdown M, Aumont J, Baccigalupi C, Ballardini M, Banday AJ, Barreiro RB, Bartolo N, Basak S, Battye R, Benabed K, Bernard JP , Bersanelli M, Bielewicz P , Bock JJ, Bond JR, Borrill J, Bouchet FR, Boulanger F, Bucher M, Burigana C, Butler RC, Calabrese E, Cardoso JF, Carron J, Challinor A, Chiang HC, Chluba J, Co...

    2020

  4. [4]

    2021 Cosmology Intertwined II: The hubble constant tension

    Di Valentino E, Anchordoqui LA, Akarsu Ö, Ali-Haimoud Y, Amendola L, Arendse N, Asgari M, Ballardini M, Basilakos S, Battistelli E, Benetti M, Birrer S, Bouchet FR, Bruni M, Calabrese E, Camarena D, Capozziello S, Chen A, Chluba J, Chudaykin A, Colgáin EÓ, Cyr-Racine FY, de Bernardis P , de Cruz Pérez J, Delabrouille J, Dunkley J, Escamilla-Rivera C, Fert...

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Abdalla E, Abellán GF, Aboubrahim A, Agnello A, Akarsu Ö, Akrami Y, Alestas G, Aloni D, Amendola L, Anchordoqui LA, Anderson RI, Arendse N, Asgari M, Ballardini M, Barger V , Basilakos S, Batista RC, Battistelli ES, Battye R, Benetti M, Benisty D, Berlin A, de Bernardis P , Berti E, Bidenko B, Birrer S, Blakeslee JP , Boddy KK, Bom CR, Bonilla A, Borghi N...

    2022

  6. [6]

    2010 Dissecting the Gravitational lens B1608+656

    Suyu SH, Marshall PJ, Auger MW, Hilbert S, Blandford RD, Koopmans LVE, Fassnacht CD, Treu T. 2010 Dissecting the Gravitational lens B1608+656. II. Precision Measurements of the Hubble Constant, Spatial Curvature, and the Dark Energy Equation of State. Astrophysical Journal 711, 201–221. (10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/201)

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/711/1/201 2010

  7. [7]

    2020 H0LiCOW - XIII

    Wong KC, Suyu SH, Chen GCF, Rusu CE, Millon M, Sluse D, Bonvin V , Fassnacht CD, Taubenberger S, Auger MW, Birrer S, Chan JHH, Courbin F, Hilbert S, Tihhonova O, Treu T, Agnello A, Ding X, Jee I, Komatsu E, Shajib AJ, Sonnenfeld A, Blandford RD, Koopmans LVE, Marshall PJ, Meylan G. 2020 H0LiCOW - XIII. A 2.4 per cent measurement of H 0 from lensed quasars...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3094 2020

  8. [8]

    2020 TDCOSMO

    Birrer S, Shajib AJ, Galan A, Millon M, Treu T, Agnello A, Auger M, Chen GCF, Christensen L, Collett T, Courbin F, Fassnacht CD, Koopmans LVE, Marshall PJ, Park JW, Rusu CE, Sluse D, Spiniello C, Suyu SH, Wagner-Carena S, Wong KC, Barnabè M, Bolton AS, Czoske O, Ding X, Frieman JA, Van de Vyvere L. 2020 TDCOSMO. IV . Hierarchical time-delay cosmography - ...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038861 2020

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    2023 Constraints on the Hubble constant from supernova Refsdal’s reappearance

    Kelly PL, Rodney S, Treu T, Oguri M, Chen W, Zitrin A, Birrer S, Bonvin V , Dessart L, Diego JM, Filippenko AV , Foley RJ, Gilman D, Hjorth J, Jauzac M, Mandel K, Millon M, Pierel J, Sharon K, Thorp S, Williams L, Broadhurst T, Dressler A, Graur O, Jha S, McCully C, Postman M,...

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2024 SN H0pe: The First Measurement of H0 from a Multiply-Imaged Type Ia Supernova, Discovered by JWST

    Pascale M, Frye BL, Pierel JDR, Chen W, Kelly PL, Cohen SH, Windhorst RA, Riess AG, Kamieneski PS, Diego JM, Meena AK, Cha S, Oguri M, Zitrin A, Jee MJ, Foo N, Leimbach R, Koekemoer AM, Conselice CJ, Dai L, Goobar A, Siebert MR, Strolger L, Willner SP . 2024 SN H0pe: The First...

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    2021 TDCOSMO

    Birrer S, Treu T. 2021 TDCOSMO. V . Strategies for precise and accurate measurements of the Hubble constant with strong lensing. Astronomy & Astrophysics 649, A61. (10.1051/0004- 6361/202039179)

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    2019 Magnified or multiply imaged? - Search strategies for gravitationally lensed supernovae in wide-field surveys

    Wojtak R, Hjorth J, Gall C. 2019 Magnified or multiply imaged? - Search strategies for gravitationally lensed supernovae in wide-field surveys. MNRAS 487, 3342–3355. (10.1093/mnras/stz1516)

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Arendse N, Dhawan S, Sagués Carracedo A, Peiris HV , Goobar A, Wojtak R, Alves 12royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 0000000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

    2023 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    2021 The Hubble constant from strongly lensed supernovae with standardizable magnifications

    Birrer S, Dhawan S, Shajib AJ. 2021 The Hubble constant from strongly lensed supernovae with standardizable magnifications. arXiv e-prints p. arXiv:2107.12385

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    2020 HOLISMOKES

    Suyu SH, Huber S, Cañameras R, Kromer M, Schuldt S, Taubenberger S, Yıldırım A, Bonvin V , Chan JHH, Courbin F, Nöbauer U, Sim SA, Sluse D. 2020 HOLISMOKES. I. Highly Optimised Lensing Investigations of Supernovae, Microlensing Objects, and Kinematics of Ellipticals and Spiral...

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    2024 Strong Gravitational Lensing and Microlensing of Supernovae

    Suyu SH, Goobar A, Collett T, More A, Vernardos G. 2024 Strong Gravitational Lensing and Microlensing of Supernovae. Space Science Reviews 220, 13. (10.1007/s11214-024-01044-7)

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    2017 Precision cosmology from future lensed gravitational wave and electromagnetic signals

    Liao K, Fan XL, Ding X, Biesiada M, Zhu ZH. 2017 Precision cosmology from future lensed gravitational wave and electromagnetic signals. Nature Communications 8, 1148. (10.1038/s41467-017-01152-9)

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    2017 Strongly lensed gravitational waves and electromagnetic signals as powerful cosmic rulers

    Wei JJ, Wu XF. 2017 Strongly lensed gravitational waves and electromagnetic signals as powerful cosmic rulers. MNRAS 472, 2906–2912. (10.1093/mnras/stx2210)

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    2019 Constraining Cosmological Parameters in the FLRW Metric with Lensed GW+EM Signals

    Li Y, Fan X, Gou L. 2019 Constraining Cosmological Parameters in the FLRW Metric with Lensed GW+EM Signals. Astrophysical Journal 873, 37. (10.3847/1538-4357/ab037e)

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2020 Gravitational wave interference via gravitational lensing: Measurements of luminosity distance, lens mass, and cosmological parameters

    Hou S, Fan XL, Liao K, Zhu ZH. 2020 Gravitational wave interference via gravitational lensing: Measurements of luminosity distance, lens mass, and cosmological parameters. Physical Review D 101, 064011. (10.1103/PhysRevD.101.064011)

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2023 Cosmography Using Strongly Lensed Gravitational Waves from Binary Black Holes

    Jana S, Kapadia SJ, Venumadhav T, Ajith P . 2023 Cosmography Using Strongly Lensed Gravitational Waves from Binary Black Holes. Physical Review Letter 130, 261401. (10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.261401)

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    2022 Time-Delay Cosmography: Measuring the Hubble Constant and other cosmological parameters with strong gravitational lensing

    Birrer S, Millon M, Sluse D, Shajib AJ, Courbin F, Koopmans LVE, Suyu SH, Treu T. 2022 Time-Delay Cosmography: Measuring the Hubble Constant and other cosmological parameters with strong gravitational lensing. arXiv e-prints p. arXiv:2210.10833. (10.48550/arXiv.2210.10833)

    2022 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    2022 Strong lensing time-delay cosmography in the 2020s

    Treu T, Suyu SH, Marshall PJ. 2022 Strong lensing time-delay cosmography in the 2020s. The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 30, 8. (10.1007/s00159-022-00145-y)

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2024 Essentials of Strong Gravitational Lensing

    Saha P , Sluse D, Wagner J, Williams LLR. 2024 Essentials of Strong Gravitational Lensing. Space Science Reviews 220, 12. (10.1007/s11214-024-01041-w)

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    1964 Fourth Test of General Relativity

    Shapiro II. 1964 Fourth Test of General Relativity. PRL 13, 789–791. (10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.789)

    1964 doi

  18. [26]

    2023 The Magnificent Five Images of Supernova Refsdal: Time Delay and Magnification Measurements.Astrophysical Journal 948,

    Kelly PL, Rodney S, Treu T, Birrer S, Bonvin V , Dessart L, Foley RJ, Filippenko AV , Gilman D, Jha S, Hjorth J, Mandel K, Millon M, Pierel J, Thorp S, Zitrin A, Broadhurst T, Chen W, Diego JM, Dressler A, Graur O, Jauzac M, Malkan MA, McCully C, Oguri M, Postman M, Schmidt KB...

    2023

  19. [27]

    2024 JWST Photometric Time-delay and Magnification Measurements for the Triply Imaged Type Ia “SN H0pe” at z = 1.78

    Pierel JDR, Frye BL, Pascale M, Caminha GB, Chen W, Dhawan S, Gilman D, Grayling M, Huber S, Kelly P , Thorp S, Arendse N, Birrer S, Bronikowski M, Cañameras R, Coe D, Cohen SH, Conselice CJ, Driver SP , D´Silva JCJ, Engesser M, Foo N, Gall C, Garuda N, Grillo C, Grogin NA, He...

    2024

  20. [28]

    2024 JWST Spectroscopy of SN H0pe: Classification and Time Delays of a Triply-imaged Type Ia Supernova at z = 1.78.arXiv e-prints p

    Chen W, Kelly PL, Frye BL, Pierel J, Willner SP , Pascale M, Cohen SH, Conselice CJ, Engesser M, Furtak LJ, Gilman D, Grogin NA, Huber S, Jha SW, Johansson J, Koekemoer AM, Larison C, Meena AK, Siebert MR, Windhorst RA, Yan H, Zitrin A. 2024 JWST Spectroscopy of SN H0pe: Class...

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    2019 Astrometric requirements for strong lensing time-delay cosmography

    Birrer S, Treu T. 2019 Astrometric requirements for strong lensing time-delay cosmography. MNRAS 489, 2097–2103. (10.1093/mnras/stz2254)

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    2023 Discovering gravitationally lensed gravitational waves: predicted 13royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil

    Smith GP , Robertson A, Mahler G, Nicholl M, Ryczanowski D, Bianconi M, Sharon K, Massey R, Richard J, Jauzac M. 2023 Discovering gravitationally lensed gravitational waves: predicted 13royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 0000000. . . . . . . . . . ....

    2023

  23. [31]

    Abbott BP , Abbott R, Abbott TD, Acernese F, Ackley K, Adams C, Adams T, Addesso P , Adhikari RX, Adya VB, Affeldt C, Afrough M, Agarwal B, Agathos M, Agatsuma K, Aggarwal N, Aguiar OD, Aiello L, Ain A, Ajith P , Allen B, Allen G, Allocca A, Altin PA, Amato A, Ananyeva A, Ande...

    2017

  24. [32]

    Graham MJ, Ford KES, McKernan B, Ross NP , Stern D, Burdge K, Coughlin M, Djorgovski SG, Drake AJ, Duev D, Kasliwal M, Mahabal AA, van Velzen S, Belecki J, Bellm EC, Burruss R, Cenko SB, Cunningham V , Helou G, Kulkarni SR, Masci FJ, Prince T, Reiley D, Rodriguez H, 16royalsoc...

    2020

  25. [33]

    2019 LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products.Astrophysical Journal 873, 111

    Ivezi´ c Ž, Kahn SM, Tyson JA, Abel B, Acosta E, Allsman R, Alonso D, AlSayyad Y, Anderson SF, Andrew J, Angel JRP , Angeli GZ, Ansari R, Antilogus P , Araujo C, Armstrong R, Arndt KT, Astier P , Aubourg É, Auza N, Axelrod TS, Bard DJ, Barr JD, Barrau A, Bartlett JG, Bauer AE,...

    2019

  26. [34]

    2018 Target of Opportunity 17royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil

    Margutti R, Cowperthwaite P , Doctor Z, Mortensen K, Pankow CP , Salafia O, Villar VA, Alexander K, Annis J, Andreoni I, Baldeschi A, Balmaverde B, Berger E, Bernardini MG, Berry CPL, Bianco F, Blanchard PK, Brocato E, Carnerero MI, Cartier R, Cenko SB, Chornock R, Chomiuk L, ...

    2018 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    2019 Discovery of Strongly-lensed Gravitational Waves - Implications for the LSST Observing Strategy

    Smith GP , Robertson A, Bianconi M, Jauzac M. 2019 Discovery of Strongly-lensed Gravitational Waves - Implications for the LSST Observing Strategy. arXiv e-prints p. arXiv:1902.05140. (10.48550/arXiv.1902.05140)

    2019 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    2022 Target-of-opportunity Observations of Gravitational- wave Events with Vera C

    Andreoni I, Margutti R, Salafia OS, Parazin B, Villar VA, Coughlin MW, Yoachim P , Mortensen K, Brethauer D, Smartt SJ, Kasliwal MM, Alexander KD, Anand S, Berger E, Bernardini MG, Bianco FB, Blanchard PK, Bloom JS, Brocato E, Bulla M, Cartier R, Cenko SB, Chornock R, Copperwh...

    2022

  29. [37]

    2023 TDCOSMO

    Ertl S, Schuldt S, Suyu SH, Schmidt T, Treu T, Birrer S, Shajib AJ, Sluse D. 2023 TDCOSMO. X. Automated modeling of nine strongly lensed quasars and comparison between lens-modeling software. Astronomy & Astrophysics 672, A2. (10.1051/0004-6361/202244909)

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    2019 Transverse Extragalactic Motions: a New Method for Constraining Cosmological Parameters

    Pierce M, Dell’antonio I, Myers A, Birrer S. 2019 Transverse Extragalactic Motions: a New Method for Constraining Cosmological Parameters. Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 51, 344

    2019

  31. [39]

    2020 What does strong gravitational lensing? The mass and redshift distribution of high-magnification lenses

    Robertson A, Smith GP , Massey R, Eke V , Jauzac M, Bianconi M, Ryczanowski D. 2020 What does strong gravitational lensing? The mass and redshift distribution of high-magnification lenses. MNRAS 495, 3727–3739. (10.1093/mnras/staa1429)

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    2015 The Population of Galaxy-Galaxy Strong Lenses in Forthcoming Optical Imaging Surveys

    Collett TE. 2015 The Population of Galaxy-Galaxy Strong Lenses in Forthcoming Optical Imaging Surveys. Astrophysical Journal 811, 20. (10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/20)

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    2017 iPTF16geu: A multiply imaged, gravitationally lensed type Ia supernova

    Goobar A, Amanullah R, Kulkarni SR, Nugent PE, Johansson J, Steidel C, Law D, Mörtsell E, Quimby R, Blagorodnova N, Brandeker A, Cao Y, Cooray A, Ferretti R, Fremling C, Hangard L, Kasliwal M, Kupfer T, Lunnan R, Masci F, Miller AA, Nayyeri H, Neill JD, Ofek EO, Papadogiannaki...

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    2023 Uncovering a population of gravitational lens galaxies with magnified standard candle SN Zwicky

    Goobar A, Johansson J, Schulze S, Arendse N, Carracedo AS, Dhawan S, Mörtsell E, Fremling C, Yan L, Perley D, Sollerman J, Joseph R, Hinds KR, Meynardie W, Andreoni I, Bellm E, Bloom J, Collett TE, Drake A, Graham M, Kasliwal M, Kulkarni SR, Lemon C, Miller AA, Neill JD, Nordi...

    2023

  35. [43]

    1985 On model-dependent bounds on H 0 from gravitational images : application to Q 0957+561 A, B

    Falco EE, Gorenstein MV , Shapiro II. 1985 On model-dependent bounds on H 0 from gravitational images : application to Q 0957+561 A, B.. Astrophysical Journal Letter 289, L1–L4. (10.1086/184422)

    1985 doi

  36. [44]

    2018 The impact of microlensing on the standardization of strongly lensed Type Ia supernovae

    Foxley-Marrable M, Collett TE, Vernardos G, Goldstein DA, Bacon D. 2018 The impact of microlensing on the standardization of strongly lensed Type Ia supernovae. MNRAS 478, 5081–5090. (10.1093/mnras/sty1346)

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2002 The internal structure of the lens PG1115+080: breaking degeneracies in the value of the Hubble constant

    Treu T, Koopmans LVE. 2002 The internal structure of the lens PG1115+080: breaking degeneracies in the value of the Hubble constant. MNRAS 337, L6–L10. (10.1046/j.1365- 8711.2002.06107.x)

    2002

  38. [46]

    2003 The Hubble Constant from the Gravitational Lens B1608+656

    Koopmans LVE, Treu T, Fassnacht CD, Blandford RD, Surpi G. 2003 The Hubble Constant from the Gravitational Lens B1608+656. Astrophysical Journal 599, 70–85. (10.1086/379226)

    2003 doi

  39. [47]

    2023 TDCOSMO

    Shajib AJ, Mozumdar P , Chen GCF, Treu T, Cappellari M, Knabel S, Suyu SH, Bennert VN, Frieman JA, Sluse D, Birrer S, Courbin F, Fassnacht CD, Villafaña L, Williams PR. 2023 TDCOSMO. XII. Improved Hubble constant measurement from lensing time delays using spatially resolved st...

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    1998 Gravitational lensing of type IA supernovae by galaxy clusters

    Kolatt TS, Bartelmann M. 1998 Gravitational lensing of type IA supernovae by galaxy clusters. MNRAS 296, 763–772. (10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01466.x)

    1998

  41. [49]

    2003 Gravitational lens time delays for distant supernovae: breaking 18royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil

    Oguri M, Kawano Y. 2003 Gravitational lens time delays for distant supernovae: breaking 18royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 0000000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

    2003

  42. [50]

    2024 Breaking the mass-sheet degeneracy in strong lensing mass modeling with weak lensing observations

    Khadka N, Birrer S, Leauthaud A, Nix H. 2024 Breaking the mass-sheet degeneracy in strong lensing mass modeling with weak lensing observations. arXiv e-prints p. arXiv:2404.01513. (10.48550/arXiv.2404.01513)

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    2021 Breaking the mass-sheet degeneracy with gravitational wave interference in lensed events

    Cremonese P , Ezquiaga JM, Salzano V . 2021 Breaking the mass-sheet degeneracy with gravitational wave interference in lensed events. Physical Review D 104, 023503. (10.1103/PhysRevD.104.023503)

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    2020 TDCOSMO

    Millon M, Courbin F, Bonvin V , Buckley-Geer E, Fassnacht CD, Frieman J, Marshall PJ, Suyu SH, Treu T, Anguita T, Motta V , Agnello A, Chan JHH, Chao DCY, Chijani M, Gilman D, Gilmore K, Lemon C, Lucey JR, Melo A, Paic E, Rojas K, Sluse D, Williams PR, Hempel A, Kim S, Lachaum...

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    2009 A New Channel for Detecting Dark Matter Substructure in Galaxies: Gravitational Lens Time Delays

    Keeton CR, Moustakas LA. 2009 A New Channel for Detecting Dark Matter Substructure in Galaxies: Gravitational Lens Time Delays. ApJ 699, 1720–1731. (10.1088/0004- 637X/699/2/1720)

    2009 doi

  46. [54]

    2020 TDCOSMO

    Gilman D, Birrer S, Treu T. 2020 TDCOSMO. III. Dark matter substructure meets dark energy. The effects of (sub)halos on strong-lensing measurements of H 0. A&A 642, A194. (10.1051/0004-6361/202038829)

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    2018 lenstronomy: Multi-purpose gravitational lens modelling software package

    Birrer S, Amara A. 2018 lenstronomy: Multi-purpose gravitational lens modelling software package. Physics of the Dark Universe 22, 189–201. (10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002)

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    2021 lenstronomy II: A gravitational lensing software ecosystem

    Birrer S, Shajib A, Gilman D, Galan A, Aalbers J, Millon M, Morgan R, Pagano G, Park J, Teodori L, Tessore N, Ueland M, Van de Vyvere L, Wagner-Carena S, Wempe E, Yang L, Ding X, Schmidt T, Sluse D, Zhang M, Amara A. 2021 lenstronomy II: A gravitational lensing software ecosys...

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    2024 Lens Modeling of STRIDES Strongly Lensed Quasars using Neural Posterior Estimation.arXiv e-prints p

    Erickson S, Wagner-Carena S, Marshall P , Millon M, Birrer S, Roodman A, Schmidt T, Treu T, Schuldt S, Shajib A, Venkatraman P , The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. 2024 Lens Modeling of STRIDES Strongly Lensed Quasars using Neural Posterior Estimation.arXiv e-prints p...

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    2021 Improved time-delay lens modelling and H0 inference with transient sources

    Ding X, Liao K, Birrer S, Shajib AJ, Treu T, Yang L. 2021 Improved time-delay lens modelling and H0 inference with transient sources. MNRAS 504, 5621–5628. (10.1093/mnras/stab1240)

    2021 doi

  51. [93]

    (10.3847/1538-4357/ac4ccb)

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.