Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 37 references

HST imaging, pipeline modeling, and time-delay predictions of 2 triply-imaged and 15 quadruply-imaged lensed quasars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A uniform modeling pipeline turns 17 newly found lensed quasars into ranked time-delay cosmography targets.

desk verdict Useful candidate-ranking pipeline for time-delay cosmography, with honest caveats, but the headline uncertainty classifications rest on model-family posterior widths that J1651 already contradicts. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07470 v2 pith:S5IA5VI3 submitted 2026-08-07 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

William Sheu , Tommaso Treu , Adriano Agnello , Timo Anguita , Simon Birrer , Daniel Gilman , Xiaosheng Huang , Richard G. McMahon
show 5 more authors
Nicholas D. Morgan Veronica Motta Anna Nierenberg Kenneth C. Wong Ioana Zelko
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords stronggravitationallensinglensedquasarstime-delaycosmographyHubbleconstanttensionFermatpotentialpipelinelensmodelingHSTF160Wimaging
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 paper aims to show that a single uniform modeling pipeline can turn recently discovered lensed quasars into cosmography-ready targets. It models all 17 systems (2 triply imaged, 15 quadruply imaged) from high-resolution near-infrared space imaging, predicts each system's Fermat potential differences and time delays under a fiducial cosmology, and estimates the uncertainty those models would contribute to the time-delay distance if a state-of-the-art monitoring campaign measured delays to 2 days. On that basis it grades the systems: six excellent ($\leq 3\%$), five good ($3\%$-$7\%$), three suitable ($7\%$-$12\%$), and three impractical ($>12\%$). The payoff is a recommendation to spend scarce follow-up time on the 11 excellent and good systems so that time-delay cosmography can produce an independent, geometric handle on the Hubble-Lema\^itre tension.

What carries the argument

The engine is the Fermat potential difference $\Delta\Phi$ between image pairs, related to the observed time delay by $\Delta t = D_{\Delta t}\,\Delta\Phi \,/\, c$, where $D_{\Delta t}$ is the time-delay distance that carries the cosmology. The pipeline predicts $\Delta\Phi$ from the lens model and converts it into time-delay predictions; the error budget then combines the Fermat-potential modeling uncertainty in quadrature with a fiducial 2-day monitoring uncertainty, expressed through $\sigma_{D_{\Delta t}}$ in percent. The mass-sheet degeneracy is the reason the analysis stops at predictions: an overall rescaling of the mass profile changes the inferred $H_0$, so converting these targets into cosmological constraints requires stellar kinematics and line-of-sight information that this imaging-only study does not provide.

What would settle it

Monitor the 11 recommended systems for time delays and compare the measured delays with the Table 4 predictions; a factor-of-three discrepancy of the kind already seen for GRALJ1651-0417 would show the modeled error budget is not the true one, and systematic discrepancies across several systems would falsify the ranking.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 17 recently discovered lensed quasars can be carried through one largely automated modeling path to deliver predicted time delays, Fermat potential differences, and a quantified cosmography-readiness ranking. Using a power-law-plus-external-shear mass model with joint S\'ersic light profiles and a shapelet source basis, the pipeline converges for every system, including rare triply imaged configurations and dual-lens systems. Assuming a fiducial cosmology ($H_0 = 70\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, $\Omega_{m,0} = 0.3$) and a fiducial 2-day monitoring error, the combined time-delay distance uncertainties place six systems in the excellent tier (J0316-4106, J0719+5255, SDSSJ1640+1932, GRALJ1651-0417, DECALSJ2157-4201, DESIJ2321-0330) and five in the good tier (J0457-7820, J0608+4229, J0803+3908, J0833+2612, DELVEJ1258-0319). The paper is explicit that the mass-sheet degeneracy is not broken here and that the quoted uncertainties are conditional on the single power-law assumption for the mass profile.

Load-bearing premise

The ranking assumes that a single power-law mass profile describes each lens's full radial mass distribution and that the pipeline's quoted parameter uncertainties, combined with a fiducial 2-day monitoring error, are the entire error budget.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The six excellent and five good systems are the most observationally efficient additions to the time-delay cosmography effort, with predicted uncertainties at or below the few-percent level.
  • Monitoring campaigns can use the predicted time delays in Table 4 to design cadence, duration, and baseline image choices before observing begins.
  • The three impractical systems (PSJ0429+1428, J2017+6204, GRALJ2103-0850) can be safely deprioritized for dedicated H0 follow-up under the assumed error budget.
  • The per-image convergence and shear values reported for each system provide ready inputs for microlensing studies of the same targets.
  • For the 11 recommended systems, the next step is to obtain stellar kinematics and line-of-sight constraints, which would break the mass-sheet degeneracy and turn these predictions into H0 measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims: the factor-of-three disagreement already reported for GRALJ1651-0417 between an external time-delay measurement and the pipeline prediction suggests that the true systematic floor for group-scale lenses may be far above the quoted few percent, so the excellent tier should not be read as final until kinematics or external delays confirm it.
  • Beyond the paper's claims: the pipeline's success on rare configurations hints that automated modeling could scale to the hundreds of known lensed quasars, but the acknowledged spiral-like residuals in three systems indicate that a broader sample would need richer light-profile or multipole components in the template.
  • Beyond the paper's claims: for the systems with unknown redshifts, such as DECALSJ2157-4201, the classification could move substantially once spectra are obtained; its excellent-tier ranking rests on assumed mean redshifts.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a uniform pipeline analysis of HST WFC3/IR F160W imaging for 17 recently discovered lensed quasars (2 triply-imaged and 15 quadruply-imaged). Using Lenstronomy, the authors fit elliptical power-law mass profiles with external shear, a two-component Sérsic description of the lens light, and a Sérsic-plus-shapelets source model, selecting the shapelet order with the BIC and marginalizing over nearby orders. The paper reports the resulting mass and light parameters, predicted Fermat potential differences and time delays under a fiducial cosmology, and estimates a combined time-delay distance uncertainty for each system. On this basis the systems are classified as 'excellent' (≤3%), 'good' (3–7%), 'suitable' (7–12%), or 'impractical' (>12%), and the authors recommend the 11 'excellent' and 'good' systems for priority follow-up toward H0 cosmography.

Significance. The manuscript is a potentially valuable resource for the strong-lensing community: it provides uniformly processed HST imaging for 17 systems, detailed model tables and residual figures in appendices, and a transparent pipeline built on the well-tested Lenstronomy framework. The authors are explicit about many system-specific modeling difficulties, including spiral-like light residuals, a missing multipole, and the factor-of-three time-delay discrepancy for GRALJ1651-0417. However, the central prioritization claim rests on the σ_DΔt values in Table 4, which are derived from posterior widths within a single model family and do not include model-family systematics or the mass-sheet degeneracy. The only external time-delay check (GRALJ1651-0417) contradicts the quoted 'excellent' classification, so the classification should be interpreted as a lower bound on achievable precision within the adopted model family rather than as a validated ranking for H0 follow-up. With a substantive revision of the uncertainty treatment and a more cautious framing, the paper could become a useful catalog and prioritization guide.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Table 4] GRALJ1651-0417 is classified 'excellent' with σ_DΔt = 2.13% in Table 4, yet Section 5 reports that the measured ZTF time delays (Núñez-Pizarro et al. 2026) are approximately three times larger than the predictions from this model, with the fitted power-law slope γ_pl ≈ 1.2 being attributed to the inadequacy of a single power-law on group/cluster scales. This is an internal empirical contradiction: the within-pipeline posterior uncertainty underestimates the modeling error by a factor of order three for this system. The authors should either exclude or reclassify J1651, add a systematic-error term informed by this discrepancy, or explicitly state that the classification reflects only statistical precision within the adopted model family and not the total modeling error.
  2. [Section 5.1, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) combines the assumed observational time-delay uncertainty σ_Δt = 2 days in quadrature with σ_ΔΦ from the MCMC posteriors, but those posteriors sample only one model family (elliptical power-law plus external shear with Sérsic and shapelets light). The paper itself documents that this family leaves correlated residuals for DELVEJ1258-0319, J2017+6204, and GRALJ2103-0850, and that SDSSJ1640+1932 requires a multipole component not available in the pipeline (Section 5). Since the mass-sheet degeneracy is discussed in the Introduction and mentioned again in Section 6 ('neglecting the effects of the MSD') but is not included in σ_ΔΦ, the quoted σ_DΔt is not the 'total contribution from time-delay and Fermat potential modeling errors' claimed in the abstract. Without a model-family systematic term or external validation, the 3%/7%/12% thresholds cannot be interpreted as expected uncertainties on the time-delay distance.
  3. [Section 5.1, Table 4] For systems without spectroscopic redshifts (e.g., J0719+5255, J0722-3901, DECALSJ0756+0553, and DECALSJ2157-4201, marked with a dagger in Table 4), the predictions assume z_d,mean = 0.645 and z_s,mean = 2.410 without propagating the uncertainty in these assumed values into σ_DΔt. Since D_Δt is a strong function of both the lens and source redshifts, the quoted uncertainties for these systems are conditional on possibly incorrect redshifts. The authors should propagate a redshift prior uncertainty (for example, the scatter of the known sample) or list these systems separately, because for some of them the redshift uncertainty may dominate the error budget.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4 (after Figure 2)] 'whihc' should be 'which'.
  2. [Section 5.1] 'campaigs' should be 'campaigns'.
  3. [Table 4 caption] The phrase 'the of our known sample' should read 'the mean of our known sample'.
  4. [Section 4.2] The sentence describing the BIC comparison, 'If we find that the BIC is lower than that of the previous nmax model', is slightly ambiguous; please clarify whether the comparison is between the current and previous shapelet-order fits.
  5. [Table 3 caption] For the secondary galaxies with slope fixed to γ_pl = 2, the table lists γ_pl,s = 2 without uncertainties; it would be helpful to note explicitly in the caption that these values are fixed by assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: time-delay predictions are genuine model outputs, not refits of the predicted quantities; the J1651 mismatch is an external accuracy check rather than a circular step.

full rationale

I traced the derivation chain from the HST images through the lens-model fit to the Fermat-potential differences, predicted time delays, and the sigma_Ddelta_t classification. The lens models are constrained by image positions, quasar point-source photometry, and extended source light; no time-delay data are used to fit any model. The Delta Phi and Delta t values in Table 4 are outputs of the best-fit Lenstronomy models, computed via Eq. (1) under a fiducial cosmology. The uncertainties entering Eq. (3) are MCMC posterior widths on Delta Phi plus an assumed 2-day observational term, so sigma_Ddelta_t is a precision estimate within the adopted model family, not a quantity obtained by fitting the predicted time delays to themselves. The only system with an external time-delay measurement, GRALJ1651-0417, is explicitly compared with the prediction and found to disagree by roughly a factor of three; this comparison is a genuine non-circular test of the model, and although it undermines the accuracy of that system's 'excellent' classification, it is a correctness/systematics issue, not a circularity. The reliance on Lenstronomy and the TDCOSMO-style pipeline is supported by external blind challenges and detailed cross-checks cited in the paper, not by an unverified self-citation chain. I found no step where a claimed prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renaming of a known result as a new prediction. The limitations the paper itself acknowledges (single power-law mass assumption, correlated residuals in several systems, unknown redshifts replaced by sample means) affect the robustness of the prioritization but do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. It relies on standard lens modeling assumptions, several assumed redshifts, an assumed time-delay measurement uncertainty, and fiducial cosmology choices. The mass-sheet degeneracy is the largest known omitted systematic and is acknowledged in the text.

free parameters (4)
  • Fiducial mean lens redshift z_d,mean = 0.645
    Assumed for systems without measured lens redshift; used to compute time delays and the time-delay distance uncertainty, directly affecting the ranking. It is the mean of the known sample, not a fit to the target system.
  • Fiducial mean source redshift z_s,mean = 2.410
    Assumed for systems without measured source redshift; used to compute time delays and uncertainties. It is a sample mean, not a fit, but it is still an assumed input.
  • Assumed time-delay measurement uncertainty sigma_dt = 2 days
    Fiducial uncertainty representing a state-of-the-art monitoring campaign; the ranking thresholds depend on this assumed value. No error is attached to it.
  • Classification thresholds = 3%, 7%, 12%
    Chosen to compare the time-delay and Fermat potential terms with other error terms such as kinematics and line-of-sight convergence. The category labels, and the headline count of excellent/good systems, depend on these choices.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Fiducial cosmology H0=70 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m=0.3 when converting Fermat potentials to time delays.
    Stated in Section 5; the delays are not intended as cosmology-independent predictions, but the ranking partly depends on them because systems with unknown redshifts use them.
  • domain assumption The deflector mass is described by a single elliptical power-law profile plus external shear for each galaxy.
    Core modeling assumption of the pipeline. The paper itself notes in Section 5 that this fails for GRALJ1651-0417 and that a more complex profile is needed for cluster-scale lenses.
  • domain assumption Secondary galaxies are placed on the same redshift plane as the primary lens.
    Stated in Section 3. Redshift differences between the primary and secondary would change the lensing effect and the predicted time delays.
  • ad hoc to paper For systems without spectroscopy, the mean redshifts of the known sample are representative.
    Used in Section 5 for six or more systems with unknown source and/or lens redshift. Real redshifts can differ substantially from the means, which shifts the predicted delays and rankings.
  • domain assumption The PSF can be constructed by stacking 106 stars across all 17 fields and is representative per field.
    Described in Section 4.1. The assumed PSF enters all photometric and lensing fits.
  • domain assumption The plotted 68% credible intervals from MCMC captures the full modeling uncertainty.
    The error budget combines MCMC posteriors over three shapelet orders with an assumed 2-day time-delay error. It does not include model-family uncertainty or the mass-sheet degeneracy, as acknowledged in Section 6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HST imaging, pipeline modeling, and time-delay predictions of 2 triply-imaged and 15 quadruply-imaged lensed quasars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S5IA5VI3

@misc{pith2026260807470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HST imaging, pipeline modeling, and time-delay predictions of 2 triply-imaged and 15 quadruply-imaged lensed quasars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S5IA5VI3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07470}
}
abstract

The Hubble-Lema\^{\i}tre tension remains a significant challenge in modern cosmology, exhibiting a discrepancy between early-Universe cosmic microwave background measurements and local distance ladder observations. Strong lensing time-delay cosmography provides an independent, geometric probe of $H_0$ that can help resolve this discrepancy. Although hundreds of lensed quasars have been discovered, only a handful have been analyzed due to the resource-intensive follow-up required to measure precise time delays and break degeneracies. We present uniform gravitational lens modeling of 17 recently discovered lensed quasar systems (2 triply-imaged and 15 quadruply-imaged) to identify and prioritize the most promising candidates for future cosmological study. Using high-resolution near-infrared Hubble Space Telescope WFC3/IR F160W imaging (PID: 17916, PI: T. Treu), we perform uniform pipeline modeling with Lenstronomy. We constrain the mass and light profiles of the deflector galaxies, and assuming a fiducial cosmology, we predict their Fermat potential differences and expected time delays. Our pipeline successfully yields models and time-delay predictions for all 17 systems. Assuming ideal monitoring conditions, we estimate the total contribution from time-delay and Fermat potential modeling errors to the time-delay distance. From this, we classify the systems by estimated time-delay distance uncertainties: six "excellent" ($\leq 3\%$), five "good" ($3\%$-$7\%$), three "suitable" ($7\%$-$12\%$), and three "impractical" ($>12\%$). We recommend prioritizing follow-up campaigns on the 11 "excellent" and "good" systems, which have the potential to deliver high-precision, independent constraints on $H_0$ to help resolve the Hubble-Lema\^{\i}tre tension.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07470 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our 17 lensed quasar sample, displayed in the HST F160W IR band. Our sample includes two triply-lensed, and 15 quadruply-lensed systems. All images are orientated such that up is North, and left is East. hibits a fourth faint quasar image on the opposing side of the primary lens; this observation was only made possible by the resolution provided by HST. This system was initially identified by D23 and independently i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our modeling block diagram, illustrating the pipeline used for our sample. Each step is discussed further in detail in Section 4. Our modeling pipeline is proven to be robust even against the most unconventional lens systems in our sample. ponential light profile, with the quasar point source fixed to the center of the profile. We opt to use an exponential profile over the more flexible Sérsic since we introduce add… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references

  1. [1]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 4345

    Agnello, A., Lin, H., Kuropatkin, N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4345

    2018

  2. [2]

    & Spiniello, C

    Agnello, A. & Spiniello, C. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 2525–2535

    2019

  3. [3]

    & Amara, A

    Birrer, S. & Amara, A. 2018, Physics of the Dark Universe, 22, 189

    2018

  4. [4]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware, 6, 3283 Bradaˇc, M., Schneider, P., Lombardi, M., et al

    Birrer, S., Shajib, A., Gilman, D., et al. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware, 6, 3283 Bradaˇc, M., Schneider, P., Lombardi, M., et al. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 423, 797–809

    2021

  5. [5]

    2026, TDCOSMO XXVI: Uniform lens modeling of eight doubly imaged quasars

    Brady, R., Huang, X.-Y ., Birrer, S., et al. 2026, TDCOSMO XXVI: Uniform lens modeling of eight doubly imaged quasars

    2026

  6. [6]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2019, The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    2019

  7. [7]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 269, 61 de Vaucouleurs, G

    Dawes, C., Storfer, C., Huang, X., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 269, 61 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948, Annales d’Astrophysique, 11, 247

    2023

  8. [8]

    2019, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 622, A165 DESI Collaboration, Karim, M

    Delchambre, L., Krone-Martins, A., Wertz, O., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 622, A165 DESI Collaboration, Karim, M. A., Adame, A. G., et al. 2026, Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

    2019

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    W., et al

    Desira, C., Shu, Y ., Auger, M. W., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 738

    2022

  2. [10]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    2019

  3. [11]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 503, 1096–1123

    Ding, X., Treu, T., Birrer, S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 503, 1096–1123

    2021

  4. [12]

    Dutton, A. A. & Treu, T. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 3594–3602

    2014

  5. [13]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 697, A139

    Dux, F., Millon, M., Galan, A., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 697, A139

    2025

  6. [14]

    H., et al

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

    2023

  7. [15]

    W., Massey, R., et al

    Etherington, A., Nightingale, J. W., Massey, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 6005

    2023

  8. [16]

    E., Gorenstein, M

    Falco, E. E., Gorenstein, M. V ., & Shapiro, I. I. 1985, ApJ, 289, L1 Gaia Collaboration, Krone-Martins, A., Ducourant, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A130 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1

    1985

  9. [17]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A123

    He, Z., Li, N., Cao, X., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A123

    2023

  10. [18]

    E., Nierenberg, A

    Keeley, R. E., Nierenberg, A. M., Gilman, D., et al. 2025, JWST Lensed Quasar Dark Matter Survey III: Dark Matter Sensitive Flux Ratios and Warm Dark Matter Constraint from the Full Sample

    2025

  11. [19]

    W., et al

    Lemon, C., Anguita, T., Auger-Williams, M. W., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 3305–3328

    2022

  12. [20]

    B., Ellis, R

    Newman, A. B., Ellis, R. S., & Treu, T. 2015, ApJ, 814, 26 Núñez-Pizarro, C., Arévalo, P., Ávila-Vera, F., & Motta, V . 2026, A&A, 706, L12 O’Donnell, J. H., Williams, D. Y ., Jeltema, T. E., et al. 2026, The Carousel Lens I: A Spectroscopic Survey of the Carousel Lens Field P...

    2015

  13. [21]

    1964, MNRAS, 128, 307

    Refsdal, S. 1964, MNRAS, 128, 307

    1964

  14. [22]

    G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 934, L7

    2022

  15. [23]

    L., Sluse, D., Zaborowski, E

    Schechter, P. L., Sluse, D., Zaborowski, E. A., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 241

    2025

  16. [24]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 518, 1260–1300

    Schmidt, T., Treu, T., Birrer, S., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 518, 1260–1300

    2022

  17. [25]

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

    Shajib, A. J., Birrer, S., Treu, T., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 483, 5649–5671

    2018

  18. [26]

    J., Mozumdar, P., Chen, G

    Shajib, A. J., Mozumdar, P., Chen, G. C. F., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A9

    2023

  19. [27]

    J., Wong, K

    Shajib, A. J., Wong, K. C., Birrer, S., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 667, A123

    2022

  20. [28]

    J., Treu, T., et al

    Sheu, W., Shajib, A. J., Treu, T., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 541, 1–27

    2025

  21. [29]

    soup-to-nuts

    Sheu, W., Treu, T., Millon, M., et al. 2026, TDCOSMO XXV: A "soup-to-nuts" 6.5

    2026

  22. [30]

    G., Krone-Martins, A., et al

    Stern, D., Djorgovski, S. G., Krone-Martins, A., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 42

    2021

  23. [31]

    2024, ApJS, 274, 16

    Storfer, C., Huang, X., Gu, A., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 16

    2024

  24. [32]

    Y ., Shajib, A

    Tan, C. Y ., Shajib, A. J., Birrer, S., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 1474–1505 TDCOSMO Collaboration, Birrer, S., Buckley-Geer, E. J., et al. 2025, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 704, A63

    2024

  25. [33]

    A., et al

    Treu, T., Agnello, A., Baumer, M. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1041

    2018

  26. [34]

    2026, The Carousel Lens II: Cosmologi- cal Constraints with GIGA-Lens

    Urcelay, F., Huang, X., Sheu, W., et al. 2026, The Carousel Lens II: Cosmologi- cal Constraints with GIGA-Lens

    2026

  27. [35]

    D., Mena, O., Pan, S., et al

    Valentino, E. D., Mena, O., Pan, S., et al. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 153001

    2021

  28. [36]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 3757–3763

    Wang, L., Shu, Y ., Li, R., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 3757–3763

    2017

  29. [37]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics & As- tronomy, 66 Article number, page 12 W

    Xu, H., Li, H., Zhang, J., et al. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics & As- tronomy, 66 Article number, page 12 W. Sheu et al.:HSTimaging and modeling of 17 lensed quasars Fig. A.1.The best-fitting lens models for the first six (of 17) lensed quasars in our sample, using th...

    2023

Pith tools

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