REVIEW 1 cited by
Foreground biases in strong gravitational lensing
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Foreground biases in strong gravitational lensing
read the original abstract
Strong gravitational lensing is a competitive tool to probe the dark matter and energy content of the Universe. However, significant uncertainties can arise from the choice of lens model, and in particular the parameterisation of the line of sight. In this work, we consider the consequences of ignoring the contribution of foreground perturbers in lens modelling. We derive the explicit form of the degeneracy between the foreground shear and the ellipticity of a power law lens, which renders the former quantity effectively unmeasurable from strong lensing observables, and biases measurements of the latter by a few percent. Nonetheless, we demonstrate that this degeneracy does not affect measurements of the Einstein radius. Foreground tidal effects are also not expected to bias the slope of the potential, and any biases in this slope should not affect the recovery of the Hubble constant. The foreground convergence term adds an additional uncertainty to the measurement of $H_0$, and we show that this uncertainty will be on the order of $1\%$ for lensing systems located along random lines of sight. There is evidence to indicate that the probability of strong lensing is higher towards overdense lines of sight, and this could result in a small systematic bias towards overestimations of $H_0$.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Line-of-sight shear in SLACS strong lenses II: validation tests with an extended sample
Line-of-sight shear in 45 SLACS lenses is often larger than N-body expectations (mean |γ_LOS| ≈ 0.085–0.11), and adding mass octupoles or checking image properties does not remove the excess.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.