Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 147 references

Accelerating lensed quasar discovery and modeling with physics-informed variational autoencoders

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper presents VariLens, a physics-informed variational autoencoder that detects lensed quasars and estimates their singular-isothermal-ellipsoid mass parameters in a single forward pass, and reports 42 candidate systems from Hyper…

desk verdict A genuinely integrated VAE-based pipeline for lensed quasar detection and SIE parameter estimation, with solid mock-data results but weaker and partly circular real-data validation; worth refereeing with revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12709 v3 pith:FZLBEOHD submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMcs.CVcs.LG

Irham T. Andika , Stefan Schuldt , Sherry H. Suyu , Satadru Bag , Raoul Cañameras , Alejandra Melo , Claudio Grillo , James H. H. Chan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.IMcs.CVcs.LG
keywords gravitationallensinglensedquasarsvariationalautoencoderdeeplearningHyperSuprime-CamEinsteinradiusSIEmassmodelstronglensdetection
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

Strongly lensed quasars are powerful cosmological probes but are buried among tens of millions of ordinary sources. The paper presents VariLens, a physics-informed variational autoencoder in which one encoder feeds three heads: a decoder that reconstructs the five-band image, a regressor that outputs the parameters of a singular isothermal ellipsoid (SIE) mass model, and a classifier that returns the probability that an image is a lens. Trained entirely on mock lenses built by overlaying simulated quasar light on real SDSS galaxies, VariLens runs in milliseconds on a single CPU. For 22 confirmed lensed quasars with HSC images, the classifier recovers 16 (73% completeness), with a 5% false-positive rate and about 1% purity. On 20 known lensed quasars, its estimates agree with traditional lens modeling within $2\sigma$ for systems with $\theta_\mathrm{E}<3$ arcsec, and screening 710,966 photometrically preselected sources yields 42 grade A and B candidates awaiting spectroscopic confirmation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is VariLens, a physics-informed variational autoencoder whose 64-dimensional latent space is shared by three heads: a decoder that reconstructs the input image, a regressor that maps the latent vector to a Gaussian distribution over the SIE-plus-shear and source parameters, and a classification layer added after training. A singular isothermal ellipsoid is a standard mass profile whose Einstein radius sets the image scale of the lensed source. The physics-informed part is the Gaussian negative-log-likelihood loss on the predicted parameters, which forces the latent representation to encode the lens configuration while the reconstruction and KL terms keep it generative and regularized. This shared-latent design is what lets one forward pass return both a lens probability and a mass model in milliseconds.

What would settle it

The decisive observation is spectroscopic confirmation of the 42 grade A and B candidates plus high-resolution Einstein-radius measurements of the confirmed systems: if most of the grade A candidates turn out not to be lenses, or if confirmed systems at $\theta_\mathrm{E}<3$ arcsec disagree with VariLens by more than $2\sigma$, the central claim of fast, reliable end-to-end lens modeling is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a single physics-informed variational autoencoder can replace separate detection, classification, and modeling stages in strong-lens searches. Its encoder-decoder reconstructs five-band HSC cutouts, a regressor branch predicts 11 physical parameters (lens center, complex ellipticity, Einstein radius, external shear, deflector and source redshifts, and source position) from the latent vector, and a fine-tuned classification head turns the same encoder into a lens/non-lens classifier. The physics enters through the loss: reconstruction mean squared error plus Kullback-Leibler divergence plus a Gaussian negative log-likelihood that ties the latent representation to parameters of an SIE + external-shear lens model. On simulated test data the network recovers most parameters with $R^2 \gtrsim 0.8$, except external shear, which it pins near zero; on real data, VariLens and traditional modeling agree within $2\sigma$ for the Einstein radius and positions of systems with $\theta_\mathrm{E}<3$ arcsec, and the full pipeline yields 42 grade A and B candidates from 80 million HSC sources.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated training images—real galaxy cutouts with fake quasar point sources bent through a standard elliptical mass model—are representative enough of real HSC lensed quasars that the network's detection and parameter estimates carry over to survey data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One CPU can screen survey-scale catalogs: the 80-million-source HSC parent sample is reduced to 13,831 network-ranked candidates and then to 42 visually confirmed candidate lenses, making spectroscopic follow-up feasible.
  • For lenses with $\theta_\mathrm{E}\lesssim2$ arcsec, VariLens's Einstein radius, center, and source-position estimates can warm-start or cross-check traditional lens models, which otherwise take hours to weeks per system.
  • The same architecture transfers to upcoming wide surveys such as LSST and Euclid once retrained on their bandpasses, seeing, and pixel scale, with the learned Lyman-break feature giving more reliable source redshifts at $z\gtrsim3$.
  • Because external shear is not recoverable from ground-based HSC images with this approach, shear-sensitive time-delay cosmography targets would still need higher-resolution or deeper data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The training-set bias toward bright SDSS luminous red galaxies at $z\lesssim1$ likely limits completeness for compact, faint, or high-redshift deflectors; resampling the simulation to a uniform $\theta_\mathrm{E}$-$z_\mathrm{gal}$ distribution is an implicit, testable remedy the paper leaves for future work.
  • A natural extension is to use VariLens's latent vector itself as a ranking feature, since the t-SNE analysis shows lenses and contaminants separate in the learned representation even before classifier fine-tuning.
  • If the 42 candidates are confirmed, their predicted Einstein radii and source redshifts could immediately prioritize which objects enter time-delay monitoring, connecting the discovery pipeline to $H_0$ measurements.
  • Running the same network on known lenses with $\theta_\mathrm{E}>2$ arcsec would quantify how much of the reported underestimation at large Einstein radii comes from training-set scarcity versus the SIE prior itself.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents VariLens, a physics-informed variational autoencoder that jointly performs image reconstruction, lens/non-lens classification, and SIE+γext parameter estimation for lensed quasars in HSC imaging. The network is trained on 137,552 simulated lensed quasar images built from real HSC galaxy cutouts and SIMQSO quasar spectra. On a held-out mock test set, the model achieves high R² values for the Einstein radius, lens centers, ellipticities, and source positions, but fails to recover external shear. The paper then compares the network's parameter estimates with PyAutoLens models for 20 known GLQD lenses and reports consistency within 2σ for θ_E<3". Finally, applying a multiwavelength preselection (80 million to 710,966 sources) and the VariLens classifier yields 13,831 candidates, of which 42 are visually graded A or B.

Significance. If the accuracy claims hold, VariLens would be a valuable tool for rapid triage and preliminary modeling of lensed quasars in upcoming surveys such as LSST and Euclid, where traditional modeling is computationally expensive. The paper's strengths include the use of realistic simulations on actual HSC galaxy images, the explicit public release of candidate tables on Zenodo, and the candid discussion of known failure modes (external shear, source redshift, classifier purity). The integrated classification-plus-regression architecture is a useful engineering contribution. However, the current validation does not independently establish the headline accuracy, because the external comparison uses the same SIE+γext model shared by the training simulations and the traditional fitting, and the mock test set comes from the same simulator as the training data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.5.2, Fig. 12] The 2σ consistency between VariLens and PyAutoLens is not an independent accuracy check, because both methods assume the same SIE+γext mass model and the paper itself states that for doubly imaged quasars the point-source constraints are insufficient, producing fitting degeneracy. Agreement within 2σ can therefore hold even if both models are jointly biased. Please validate against independently measured quantities (e.g., stellar velocity dispersions, time-delay models, or spectroscopic source redshifts) or explicitly reframe the comparison as model consistency rather than accuracy.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (17)] The uncertainty calibration is performed on the same test set used to report the mock R² values and the 2σ consistency in Fig. 12. Because the scaling factors are derived from the empirical errors on that set, the calibrated uncertainties are not an out-of-sample test of calibration; this circularity should be acknowledged and, ideally, the calibration should be checked on an independent validation set or through recalibration on real data.
  3. [Sections 4.4 and 4.5.2, Figs. 10 and 12] The transfer from simulations to real data is incomplete for several headline parameters: external shear recovery is essentially absent (R²≈0.03–0.07), source redshift is systematically overestimated with R²=0.16 and MAE=0.95, and ellipticity R² drops to 0.26–0.47 on real data. The abstract and conclusions should state these performance limits explicitly rather than describing the key parameters as reliably determined; at minimum, the 'key parameters' claim should be scoped to θ_E, lens centers, and (with caveats) ellipticity.
  4. [Section 4.5.1, Fig. 11] The classifier's real-data performance (16 of 22 known lenses recovered, 73% completeness, ~1% purity) is substantially below the near-perfect mock AUROC of 0.998. The discovery claims should present these real-data rates in the abstract and conclusions alongside the 42 candidates, and the paper should discuss whether the 42 visually selected candidates are consistent with the expected purity and with the 68% recovery rate of the catalog-level preselection.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2] The text reports 22 GLQD systems with HSC images for the classifier evaluation, but the regression comparison in Section 4.5.2 uses 20 systems; please clarify how the two systems are excluded from the regression analysis.
  2. [Section 2.4, Eq. (8)] The piecewise definition of the external shear orientation uses the notation 's/2' without clear parentheses; since s is defined in Eq. (9) via an arcsine, the expression should be rewritten with explicit brackets to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Appendix C, Eq. (C.6)] There is a typo 'is is typically approximated', and the approximation for b_n should be described as an asymptotic or approximate expression rather than an equality over the full range of n.
  4. [Figure 12] The legend distinguishes doubles from quadruples, but the text does not discuss whether the agreement differs between these subclasses; adding one sentence would be useful because the degeneracy argument is specific to doubly imaged systems.
  5. [Section 2.3] The deflector sample is dominated by SDSS LRGs at z≲1, a bias that is acknowledged later in the paper; I recommend stating this bias when the training set is first introduced, since it directly affects the claimed transferability of the model.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Real-data parameter validation reduces to a same-model (SIE+gamma_ext) consistency check; classification retains independent GLQD support.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.5.2 (Regression performance); training setup in Section 2.4]
    "To evaluate the performance of our regression module compared to traditional, non-machine learning-based methods, we will utilize PyAutoLens for modeling the lensed quasars from GLQD. ... It is important to note that the number of data points for doubly imaged quasars in point-source lens modeling is insufficient to constrain the SIE + gamma_ext parameters, resulting in fitting degeneracy. Nonetheless, we adopt this approach for consistency in matching the output parameters predicted by VariLens."

    VariLens's training labels are SIE+gamma_ext parameters produced by the mock generator in Section 2.4, and the PyAutoLens benchmark fits the same SIE+gamma_ext model, with mass ellipticity and center fixed to the light profile and Sersic index fixed to 4. The paper explicitly concedes that doubly imaged quasars have insufficient point-source constraints to determine SIE+gamma_ext parameters, so 2-sigma agreement can hold even when VariLens is biased because the traditional posterior is degenerate. Thus the abstract's claim that VariLens parameter estimates are validated by traditional modeling is a same-ansatz consistency check, not an accuracy test against independent ground truth.

full rationale

The core network architecture and the classification claim are not circular: VariLens is trained on mocks built from real HSC galaxy images plus simulated quasars, and its classifier is tested on 22 independently catalogued GLQD lenses (73% completeness, ~1% purity). The held-out test-set R2 values in Section 4.4 are standard in-distribution machine-learning evaluation and are not by themselves circular. The circular element is the parameter-estimation benchmark: the paper validates millisecond SIE+gamma_ext parameter estimates by comparing with PyAutoLens fits that assume the same SIE+gamma_ext model, and it explicitly states that double-image constraints are degenerate. Agreement within 2-sigma therefore demonstrates consistency between two implementations of the same assumed model, not accuracy on real lenses. This is partial circularity; the classification and discovery side remains independently supported, so the score is 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; VariLens is a neural architecture, not a postulated physical object. The free parameters listed are modeling choices or calibration factors that affect the training set, the uncertainty claims, or the validation benchmark. The axioms are domain assumptions about mass profiles, spectral simulations, deflector representativeness, and the reliability of the traditional modeling benchmark.

free parameters (3)
  • External shear distribution width = σ=0.058 (Gaussian)
    Section 2.4, following Shu et al. (2022); used to sample γ_ext for simulated training images. The network cannot recover shear on real data, so the choice does not drive the main result, but it shapes the training set.
  • Uncertainty calibration scaling factors = per-parameter factors, values not tabulated
    Section 3.3: scaling factors derived by comparing empirical error percentiles on the test set to theoretical Gaussian percentiles; these calibrate the ση outputs and underpin the 2σ consistency claims.
  • Sérsic index in traditional modeling benchmark = n = 4 (de Vaucouleurs)
    Section 4.5.2: fixed to break degeneracy in the PyAutoLens fits used as ground truth for external validation; affects ellipticity and center comparisons.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SIE plus external shear describes real galaxy-scale lens mass distributions well enough for detection and first-pass modeling
    Section 2.4 uses SIE+γ_ext for all simulated training images; Section 4.5.2 uses the same model for the traditional comparison. Real lenses can have more complex mass profiles.
  • domain assumption Mass follows light: SIE ellipticity and center are taken from the HSC i-band light profile fit
    Section 2.4: determining x, y, ex, ey by modeling the deflector light profile assumes the mass distribution aligns with the stellar light.
  • domain assumption SIMQSO quasar spectra with broken power-law continuum, iron templates, emission lines, IGM absorption, and dust reddening are representative of the real quasar population
    Section 2.3; the simulated photometry determines the colors and morphologies VariLens learns from.
  • domain assumption The SDSS deflector sample with 50≤σ_v≤500 km/s, z<4, classified as galaxies, represents the real lens galaxy population in HSC
    Section 2.3; the authors note the sample is biased toward brighter, lower-redshift LRGs than the real lens population.
  • domain assumption The PyAutoLens fits with fixed Sérsic index and light-profile-fixed mass ellipticity provide a valid reference for VariLens parameters
    Section 4.5.2; the paper admits doubly imaged quasars cannot constrain SIE+γ_ext, causing fitting degeneracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accelerating lensed quasar discovery and modeling with physics-informed variational autoencoders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZLBEOHD

@misc{pith2026241212709,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accelerating lensed quasar discovery and modeling with physics-informed variational autoencoders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZLBEOHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12709}
}
abstract

Strongly lensed quasars provide valuable insights into the rate of cosmic expansion, the distribution of dark matter in foreground deflectors, and the characteristics of quasar hosts. However, detecting them in astronomical images is difficult due to the prevalence of non-lensing objects. To address this challenge, we developed a generative deep learning model called VariLens, built upon a physics-informed variational autoencoder. This model seamlessly integrates three essential modules: image reconstruction, object classification, and lens modeling, offering a fast and comprehensive approach to strong lens analysis. VariLens is capable of rapidly determining both (1) the probability that an object is a lens system and (2) key parameters of a singular isothermal ellipsoid (SIE) mass model -- including the Einstein radius ($\theta_\mathrm{E}$), lens center, and ellipticity -- in just milliseconds using a single CPU. A direct comparison of VariLens estimates with traditional lens modeling for 20 known lensed quasars within the Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) footprint shows good agreement, with both results consistent within $2\sigma$ for systems with $\theta_\mathrm{E}<3$ arcsecs. To identify new lensed quasar candidates, we begin with an initial sample of approximately 80 million sources, combining HSC data with multiwavelength information from various surveys. After applying a photometric preselection aimed at locating $z>1.5$ sources, the number of candidates was reduced to 710,966. Subsequently, VariLens highlights 13,831 sources, each showing a high likelihood of being a lens. A visual assessment of these objects results in 42 promising candidates that await spectroscopic confirmation. These results underscore the potential of automated deep learning pipelines to efficiently detect and model strong lenses in large datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12709 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of redshifts (zgal), stellar velocity dispersions (σv), Einstein radii (θE), and HSC i-band magnitudes (iHSC) for the galaxies used to simulate the lens systems. The orange histograms represent the mock lens configurations in all training, validation, and test datasets, while the mock lenses correctly identified by our classifier are highlighted with blue lines. Lens Plens = 1.00 Other Plens = 0.00 Othe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of mock lenses and other contaminants used for train￾ing the networks, with the inferred lens probability for each image in￾dicated. By overlaying the multiply imaged source’s light following an SIE+γext lens configuration onto a real galaxy image, we are able to construct realistic galaxy-quasar lens mocks. 3. Lens detection and parameter estimation with neural networks 3.1. Input data preparation and augm… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simplified overview of the VariLens architecture. The networks include three main components: the encoder, decoder, and regressor. The input consists of a batch of 5-band HSC images, initially sized at 70 × 70 pixels. The batch size is flexible, with “None” indicating it can vary based on user specifications. These images are cropped, clipped, and rescaled to standardize pixel values before reaching the encoder. The… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Loss and accuracy curves over training epochs for the VariLens model. The left panel shows optimizations for the physics-informed VAE, while the right panel displays the one for the classifier module. The metrics, evaluated on the training and validation datasets, are …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Image reconstruction examples. The original data containing mock lensed quasars, the reconstructed images predicted by VariLens, and the difference between them (i.e., residuals) are shown. These HSC grz images originate from sources within the test dataset. We then co…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dimensionality reduction using two-dimensional t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE) on the encoded data. Project￾ing the high-dimensional data into two embedding components allows t-SNE to effectively visualize distinct clusters, with lensed quasars (red…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Quasar selection function adopted in this work. The recov￾ery rate percentage indicates the fraction of mock quasars within each (M1450, z) bin that our classifier successfully recognizes. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of true and predicted physical parameters. The metrics R 2 , MSE, and MAE for sources in the test dataset are displayed in each panel. Darker regions indicate higher concentrations of sources within the 2D histogram bins. The red dashed line represents the …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Lensed quasar samples compiled from GLQD (refer to the main text). The images are generated from HSC grz-band cutouts with dimensions of 64 × 64 pixels (approximately 10′′ .8 on each side), colorized, and stretched using a square-root scale. The lens probabilities, de…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the derived SIE+γext parameters from traditional lens modeling using PyAutoLens (labeled “Trad.”) and the deep learning￾based approach with VariLens (“Net.”). Quadruply lensed quasars are indicated by red circles, while doubly lensed quasars are marked w…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.08695

    Abadi , M., Barham , P., Chen , J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.08695

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    C., Treu , T., & Marshall , P

    Agnello , A., Kelly , B. C., Treu , T., & Marshall , P. J. 2015, , 448, 1446

    2015

  5. [5]

    L., Morgan , N

    Agnello , A., Schechter , P. L., Morgan , N. D., et al. 2018, , 475, 2086

    2018

  6. [6]

    2019, , 71, 114

    Aihara , H., AlSayyad , Y., Ando , M., et al. 2019, , 71, 114

    2019

  7. [7]

    2022, , 74, 247

    Aihara , H., AlSayyad , Y., Ando , M., et al. 2022, , 74, 247

    2022

  8. [8]

    2018, , 70, S8

    Aihara , H., Armstrong , R., Bickerton , S., et al. 2018, , 70, S8

    2018

Show all 147 references
  1. [9]

    F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez , M., et al

    Almeida , A., Anderson , S. F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez , M., et al. 2023, , 267, 44

    2023

  2. [10]

    Andika , I. T. 2022, PhD thesis, Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg

    2022

  3. [11]

    T., Jahnke , K., Ba \ n ados , E., et al

    Andika , I. T., Jahnke , K., Ba \ n ados , E., et al. 2022, , 163, 251

    2022

  4. [12]

    T., Jahnke , K., Onoue , M., et al

    Andika , I. T., Jahnke , K., Onoue , M., et al. 2020, , 903, 34

    2020

  5. [13]

    T., Jahnke , K., van der Wel , A., et al

    Andika , I. T., Jahnke , K., van der Wel , A., et al. 2023 a , , 943, 150

    2023

  6. [14]

    T., Suyu , S

    Andika , I. T., Suyu , S. H., Ca \ n ameras , R., et al. 2023 b , , 678, A103

    2023

  7. [15]

    2021, , 500, 531

    Arcelin , B., Doux , C., Aubourg , E., Roucelle , C., & LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration . 2021, , 500, 531

    2021

  8. [16]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  9. [17]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  10. [18]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.05991

    Bank , D., Koenigstein , N., & Giryes , R. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.05991

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    1998, , 502, 531

    Barkana , R. 1998, , 502, 531

    1998

  12. [20]

    W., Moiseev , A., et al

    Belokurov , V., Evans , N. W., Moiseev , A., et al. 2007, , 671, L9

    2007

  13. [21]

    Best , W. M. J., Magnier , E. A., Liu , M. C., et al. 2018, , 234, 1

    2018

  14. [22]

    R., Bershady , M

    Blanton , M. R., Bershady , M. A., Abolfathi , B., et al. 2017, , 154, 28

    2017

  15. [23]

    H., et al

    Bonvin , V., Courbin , F., Suyu , S. H., et al. 2017, , 465, 4914

    2017

  16. [24]

    Boroson , T. A. & Green , R. F. 1992, , 80, 109

    1992

  17. [25]

    B., van Dokkum , P

    Brammer , G. B., van Dokkum , P. G., & Coppi , P. 2008, , 686, 1503

    2008

  18. [26]

    2021, , 653, L6

    Ca \ n ameras , R., Schuldt , S., Shu , Y., et al. 2021, , 653, L6

    2021

  19. [27]

    H., et al

    Ca \ n ameras , R., Schuldt , S., Suyu , S. H., et al. 2020, , 644, A163

    2020

  20. [28]

    C., et al

    Calzetti , D., Armus , L., Bohlin , R. C., et al. 2000, , 533, 682

    2000

  21. [29]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.03136

    Canameras , R., Schuldt , S., Shu , Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.03136

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2019, , 489, 5301

    Carnero Rosell , A., Santiago , B., dal Ponte , M., et al. 2019, , 489, 5301

    2019

  23. [31]

    A., Droettboom , M., Lee , A., et al

    Caswell , T. A., Droettboom , M., Lee , A., et al. 2021, matplotlib/matplotlib: REL: v3.5.1 , Zenodo

    2021

  24. [32]

    Chan , J. H. H., Lemon , C., Courbin , F., et al. 2022, , 659, A140

    2022

  25. [33]

    Chan , J. H. H., Suyu , S. H., Chiueh , T., et al. 2015, , 807, 138

    2015

  26. [34]

    Chan , J. H. H., Suyu , S. H., Sonnenfeld , A., et al. 2020, , 636, A87

    2020

  27. [35]

    Chan , J. H. H., Wong , K. C., Ding , X., et al. 2024, , 527, 6253

    2024

  28. [36]

    S., Kneib , J.-P., Percival , W

    Dawson , K. S., Kneib , J.-P., Percival , W. J., et al. 2016, , 151, 44

    2016

  29. [37]

    S., Schlegel , D

    Dawson , K. S., Schlegel , D. J., Ahn , C. P., et al. 2013, , 145, 10

    2013

  30. [38]

    2022, TensorFlow , Zenodo

    Developers , T. 2022, TensorFlow , Zenodo

    2022

  31. [39]

    2021, , 501, 269

    Ding , X., Treu , T., Birrer , S., et al. 2021, , 501, 269

    2021

  32. [40]

    2024, , 682, A47

    Dux , F., Lemon , C., Courbin , F., et al. 2024, , 682, A47

    2024

  33. [41]

    A., et al

    Dye , S., Lawrence , A., Read , M. A., et al. 2018, , 473, 5113

    2018

  34. [42]

    2013, The Messenger, 154, 32

    Edge , A., Sutherland , W., Kuijken , K., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 154, 32

    2013

  35. [43]

    H., et al

    Ertl , S., Schuldt , S., Suyu , S. H., et al. 2023, , 672, A2

    2023

  36. [44]

    W., Massey , R., et al

    Etherington , A., Nightingale , J. W., Massey , R., et al. 2022, , 517, 3275

    2022

  37. [45]

    J., et al

    Euclid Collaboration , Barnett , R., Warren , S. J., et al. 2019, , 631, A85

    2019

  38. [46]

    2022, , 662, A112

    Euclid Collaboration , Scaramella , R., Amiaux , J., et al. 2022, , 662, A112

    2022

  39. [47]

    Fan , X., Ba \ n ados , E., & Simcoe , R. A. 2023, , 61, 373

    2023

  40. [48]

    Fitzpatrick , E. L. 1999, , 111, 63

    1999

  41. [49]

    Flesch , E. W. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.12985

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  43. [51]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00211

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    E., Chen , G

    Glikman , E., Rusu , C. E., Chen , G. C. F., et al. 2023, , 943, 25

    2023

  45. [53]

    A., Boyce , M

    Gordon , Y. A., Boyce , M. M., O'Dea , C. P., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 175

    2020

  46. [54]

    A., Boyce , M

    Gordon , Y. A., Boyce , M. M., O'Dea , C. P., et al. 2021, , 255, 30

    2021

  47. [55]

    A., Rudnick , L., Andernach , H., et al

    Gordon , Y. A., Rudnick , L., Andernach , H., et al. 2023, , 267, 37

    2023

  48. [56]

    Green , G. M. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695

    2018

  49. [57]

    2022, , 935, 49

    Gu , A., Huang , X., Sheu , W., et al. 2022, , 935, 49

    2022

  50. [58]

    R., Millman , K

    Harris , C. R., Millman , K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, , 585, 357

    2020

  51. [59]

    D., Perreault Levasseur , L., & Marshall , P

    Hezaveh , Y. D., Perreault Levasseur , L., & Marshall , P. J. 2017, , 548, 555

    2017

  52. [60]

    H., Burles , S., et al

    Inada , N., Becker , R. H., Burles , S., et al. 2003, , 126, 666

    2003

  53. [61]

    H., et al

    Inada , N., Oguri , M., Becker , R. H., et al. 2008, , 135, 496

    2008

  54. [62]

    2012, , 143, 119

    Inada , N., Oguri , M., Shin , M.-S., et al. 2012, , 143, 119

    2012

  55. [63]

    2020, , 58, 27

    Inayoshi , K., Visbal , E., & Haiman , Z. 2020, , 58, 27

    2020

  56. [64]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111

    2019

  57. [65]

    G., Myers , S., et al

    Jackson , N., de Bruyn , A. G., Myers , S., et al. 1995, , 274, L25

    1995

  58. [66]

    O., & Oguri , M

    Jackson , N., Ofek , E. O., & Oguri , M. 2008, , 387, 741

    2008

  59. [67]

    2019, , 243, 17

    Jacobs , C., Collett , T., Glazebrook , K., et al. 2019, , 243, 17

    2019

  60. [68]

    T., More , A., Oguri , M., et al

    Jaelani , A. T., More , A., Oguri , M., et al. 2020, , 495, 1291

    2020

  61. [69]

    T., Rusu , C

    Jaelani , A. T., Rusu , C. E., Kayo , I., et al. 2021, , 502, 1487

    2021

  62. [70]

    Kingma , D. P. & Ba , J. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Kingma , D. P. & Welling , M. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.02691

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    J., Stern , D., et al

    Krone-Martins , A., Graham , M. J., Stern , D., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.08977

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    A., Chandler , C

    Lacy , M., Baum , S. A., Chandler , C. J., et al. 2020, , 132, 035001

    2020

  66. [74]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193

    Laureijs , R., Amiaux , J., Arduini , S., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193

    2011 arXiv

  67. [75]

    J., Almaini , O., et al

    Lawrence , A., Warren , S. J., Almaini , O., et al. 2007, , 379, 1599

    2007

  68. [76]

    W., et al

    Lemon , C., Anguita , T., Auger-Williams , M. W., et al. 2023, , 520, 3305

    2023

  69. [77]

    W., McMahon , R., et al

    Lemon , C., Auger , M. W., McMahon , R., et al. 2020, , 494, 3491

    2020

  70. [78]

    A., Auger , M

    Lemon , C. A., Auger , M. W., & McMahon , R. G. 2019, , 483, 4242

    2019

  71. [79]

    A., Auger , M

    Lemon , C. A., Auger , M. W., McMahon , R. G., & Ostrovski , F. 2018, , 479, 5060

    2018

  72. [80]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1911.03867

    Madireddy , S., Ramachandra , N., Li , N., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1911.03867

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    A., Treu , T., Schmidt , K

    Mason , C. A., Treu , T., Schmidt , K. B., et al. 2015, , 805, 79

    2015

  74. [82]

    D., Jiang , L., Fan , X., et al

    McGreer , I. D., Jiang , L., Fan , X., et al. 2013, , 768, 105

    2013

  75. [83]

    1992, GEMINI Newsletter Royal Greenwich Observatory, 36, 1

    McMahon , R., Irwin , M., & Hazard , C. 1992, GEMINI Newsletter Royal Greenwich Observatory, 36, 1

    1992

  76. [84]

    G., Banerji , M., Gonzalez , E., et al

    McMahon , R. G., Banerji , M., Gonzalez , E., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 154, 35

    2013

  77. [85]

    2024, , 682, A34

    Merloni , A., Lamer , G., Liu , T., et al. 2024, , 682, A34

    2024

  78. [86]

    2020, , 640, A105

    Millon , M., Courbin , F., Bonvin , V., et al. 2020, , 640, A105

    2020

  79. [87]

    1998, , 501, 15

    Miralda-Escud \'e , J. 1998, , 501, 15

    1998

  80. [88]

    Moffat , A. F. J. 1969, , 3, 455

    1969

  81. [89]

    T., et al

    More , A., Ca \ n ameras , R., Jaelani , A. T., et al. 2024, , 533, 525

    2024

  82. [90]

    2016, , 456, 1595

    More , A., Oguri , M., Kayo , I., et al. 2016, , 456, 1595

    2016

  83. [91]

    R., Hezaveh , Y

    Morningstar , W. R., Hezaveh , Y. D., Perreault Levasseur , L., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.00011

    2018 arXiv

  84. [92]

    2007, , 133, 214

    Morokuma , T., Inada , N., Oguri , M., et al. 2007, , 133, 214

    2007

  85. [93]

    2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4475

    Nightingale , J., Amvrosiadis , A., Hayes , R., et al. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4475

    2023

  86. [94]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 2825

    Nightingale , J., Hayes , R., Kelly , A., et al. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 2825

    2021

  87. [95]

    W., Dye , S., & Massey , R

    Nightingale , J. W., Dye , S., & Massey , R. J. 2018, , 478, 4738

    2018

  88. [96]

    2010, , 62, 1017

    Oguri , M. 2010, , 62, 1017

    2010

  89. [97]

    J., et al

    Oguri , M., Inada , N., Castander , F. J., et al. 2004, , 56, 399

    2004

  90. [98]

    2008, , 135, 520

    Oguri , M., Inada , N., Clocchiatti , A., et al. 2008, , 135, 520

    2008

  91. [99]

    & Marshall , P

    Oguri , M. & Marshall , P. J. 2010, , 405, 2579

    2010

  92. [100]

    & Loeb , A

    Pacucci , F. & Loeb , A. 2019, , 870, L12

    2019

  93. [101]

    2021, , 505, 4362

    Pearson , J., Maresca , J., Li , N., & Dye , S. 2021, , 505, 4362

    2021

  94. [102]

    D., & Wechsler , R

    Perreault Levasseur , L., Hezaveh , Y. D., & Wechsler , R. H. 2017, , 850, L7

    2017

  95. [103]

    2020, , 641, A6

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6

    2020

  96. [104]

    C., Newman , J

    Prakash , A., Licquia , T. C., Newman , J. A., et al. 2016, , 224, 34

    2016

  97. [105]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.09311

    Queirolo , G., Seitz , S., Riffeser , A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.09311

    2023

  98. [106]

    2022, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.4.2 , Zenodo

    Reback , J., jbrockmendel , McKinney , W., et al. 2022, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.4.2 , Zenodo

    2022

  99. [107]

    1964, , 128, 307

    Refsdal , S. 1964, , 128, 307

    1964

  100. [108]

    G., Yuan , W., Macri , L

    Riess , A. G., Yuan , W., Macri , L. M., et al. 2022, , 934, L7

    2022

  101. [109]

    2015, in Proceedings of the 14th Python in Science Conference, ed

    Rocklin, M. 2015, in Proceedings of the 14th Python in Science Conference, ed. K. Huff & J. Bergstra, 130--136

    2015

  102. [110]

    2022 a , , 668, A73

    Rojas , K., Savary , E., Cl \'e ment , B., et al. 2022 a , , 668, A73

    2022

  103. [111]

    2022 b , , 668, A73

    Rojas , K., Savary , E., Cl \'e ment , B., et al. 2022 b , , 668, A73

    2022

  104. [112]

    D., McKean , J

    Rumbaugh , N., Fassnacht , C. D., McKean , J. P., et al. 2015, , 450, 1042

    2015

  105. [113]

    2022, , 666, A1

    Savary , E., Rojas , K., Maus , M., et al. 2022, , 666, A1

    2022

  106. [114]

    Schlafly , E. F. & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103

    2011

  107. [115]

    F., Meisner , A

    Schlafly , E. F., Meisner , A. M., & Green , G. M. 2019, , 240, 30

    2019

  108. [116]

    J., Finkbeiner , D

    Schlegel , D. J., Finkbeiner , D. P., & Davis , M. 1998, , 500, 525

    1998

  109. [117]

    2023, , 518, 1260

    Schmidt , T., Treu , T., Birrer , S., et al. 2023, , 518, 1260

    2023

  110. [118]

    2023 a , , 671, A147

    Schuldt , S., Ca \ n ameras , R., Shu , Y., et al. 2023 a , , 671, A147

    2023

  111. [119]

    T., et al

    Schuldt , S., Canameras , R., Andika , I. T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.20383

    2024 arXiv

  112. [120]

    H., et al

    Schuldt , S., Chiriv \` , G., Suyu , S. H., et al. 2019, , 631, A40

    2019

  113. [121]

    H., Ca \ n ameras , R., et al

    Schuldt , S., Suyu , S. H., Ca \ n ameras , R., et al. 2023 b , , 673, A33

    2023

  114. [122]

    H., Meinhardt , T., et al

    Schuldt , S., Suyu , S. H., Meinhardt , T., et al. 2021, , 646, A126

    2021

  115. [123]

    S \'e rsic , J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41

    1963

  116. [124]

    J., Birrer , S., Treu , T., et al

    Shajib , A. J., Birrer , S., Treu , T., et al. 2020, , 494, 6072

    2020

  117. [125]

    J., Vernardos , G., Collett , T

    Shajib , A. J., Vernardos , G., Collett , T. E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.10790

    2022 arXiv

  118. [126]

    2022, , 662, A4

    Shu , Y., Ca \ n ameras , R., Schuldt , S., et al. 2022, , 662, A4

    2022

  119. [127]

    & Cowie , L

    Songaila , A. & Cowie , L. L. 2010, , 721, 1448

    2010

  120. [128]

    Sonnenfeld , A., Chan , J. H. H., Shu , Y., et al. 2018, , 70, S29

    2018

  121. [129]

    2020, , 642, A148

    Sonnenfeld , A., Verma , A., More , A., et al. 2020, , 642, A148

    2020

  122. [130]

    R., et al

    Spiniello , C., Agnello , A., Napolitano , N. R., et al. 2018, , 480, 1163

    2018

  123. [131]

    R., Costa , T., McKean , J

    Stacey , H. R., Costa , T., McKean , J. P., et al. 2022, , 517, 3377

    2022

  124. [132]

    2022, , 932, 107

    Stein , G., Blaum , J., Harrington , P., Medan , T., & Luki \'c , Z. 2022, , 932, 107

    2022

  125. [133]

    Taylor , M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 29

    2005

  126. [134]

    H., & Marshall , P

    Treu , T., Suyu , S. H., & Marshall , P. J. 2022, , 30, 8

    2022

  127. [135]

    Verde , L., Treu , T., & Riess , A. G. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 891

    2019

  128. [136]

    & Wilkes , B

    Vestergaard , M. & Wilkes , B. J. 2001, , 134, 1

    2001

  129. [137]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021

    Waskom , M. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021

    2021

  130. [138]

    R., Agnello , A., Treu , T., et al

    Williams , P. R., Agnello , A., Treu , T., et al. 2018, , 477, L70

    2018

  131. [139]

    C., Suyu , S

    Wong , K. C., Suyu , S. H., Chen , G. C. F., et al. 2020, , 498, 1420

    2020

  132. [140]

    J., et al

    Woodfinden , A., Nadathur , S., Percival , W. J., et al. 2022, , 516, 4307

    2022

  133. [141]

    & Prochaska , J

    Worseck , G. & Prochaska , J. X. 2011, , 728, 23

    2011

  134. [142]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

    Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868

    2010

  135. [143]

    2016, , 829, 33

    Yang , J., Wang , F., Wu , X.-B., et al. 2016, , 829, 33

    2016

  136. [144]

    2022, , 163, 139

    Yue , M., Fan , X., Yang , J., & Wang , F. 2022, , 163, 139

    2022

  137. [145]

    2023, , 165, 191

    Yue , M., Fan , X., Yang , J., & Wang , F. 2023, , 165, 191

    2023

  138. [146]

    2021, , 917, 99

    Yue , M., Yang , J., Fan , X., et al. 2021, , 917, 99

    2021

  139. [147]

    2022, , 511, 5492

    Zhao , C., Variu , A., He , M., et al. 2022, , 511, 5492

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.