Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

This paper shows that the higher-order angular structure of galactic bars—specifically the boxy/peanut (m=4) and hexapole (m=6) Fourier components—is tightly correlated with strong-lensing flux ratio anomalies, implying that bars alone can

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 12:38 UTC pith:XJAICXT2

load-bearing objection A plausible first systematic correlation between bar higher-order Fourier modes and cusp flux ratio anomalies, but the headline correlation is partly built into the MGE-based lensing setup rather than independently established. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.02805 v2 pith:XJAICXT2 submitted 2025-10-03 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Gravitational lensing by a spiral galaxy I: the influence from bar's structure to the flux ratio anomaly

Xikai Shan , Yunpeng Jin , Shude Mao This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords gravitational lensingflux ratio anomalygalactic barsboxy/peanut bulgehexapole modecusp caustic relationcosmological simulationsdark matter subhalos
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that the bar-shaped central structures common in spiral galaxies can, on their own, produce strong-lensing flux ratio anomalies—the same kind of deviations usually interpreted as evidence for dark matter subhalos. Using 21 barred galaxies from high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulations, the authors construct smooth lens models, simulate cusp lens configurations, and quantify how much the three-image flux ratios deviate from the ideal cusp-caustic relation. They report a very strong statistical correlation between this anomaly measure and the strength of the bar's higher-order even Fourier modes—the m=4 boxy/peanut and m=6 hexapole components—with Spearman coefficients of 0.85 and 0.89 and p-values around 10^-6 and 10^-8. If correct, this means that ignoring bars in lens models could lead to overestimates of the dark matter subhalo population, and that flux ratio anomalies could serve as a new probe of bar morphology in distant galaxies.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the cusp flux ratio anomaly, quantified as R_cusp at an opening angle of 60 degrees, correlates strongly with the higher-order angular structure of galactic bars: the maximum of A_4/A_0 and A_6/A_0 within the bar region shows Spearman r = 0.85 and 0.89, with p ≈ 10^-6 and 10^-8, across 21 barred galaxies from cosmological zoom-in simulations viewed in two projections (with 21 cases passing the magnification threshold). This is the first systematic demonstration that non-axisymmetric bar features—not just dark matter subhalos or microlensing—can set the magnitude of flux ratio anomalies in spiral galaxy lenses. The authors also find that tangential caustic area c

What carries the argument

The argument rests on three components. First, a Multi-Gaussian Expansion (MGE) fits the projected surface mass density as a sum of concentric, co-elliptical Gaussians, smoothing away particle shot noise and dark matter substructure while preserving the bar. Second, a Fourier decomposition of the deprojected surface density in the bar region yields amplitudes A_m(r) for m = 0, 1, 2, ...; the maximum over radius of A_m/A_0 measures the strength of each angular component, with m=2 the bar itself, m=4 the boxy/peanut shape, and m=6 the hexapole distortion. Third, the cusp-caustic relation R_cusp = |Σμ| / Σ|μ|, measured via a linear fit at an opening angle of 60 degrees, quantifies the flux rati

Load-bearing premise

The Multi-Gaussian fit used to smooth each galaxy's mass map is assumed to preserve the bar's true higher-order Fourier amplitudes while removing noise and dark-matter substructure; since both the anomaly and the bar-strength measure come from that same smoothed map, a distortion in the smoothing could create the correlation by itself.

What would settle it

Recompute R_cusp from the raw, unsmoothed projected particle maps (or from MGE fits with different Gaussian decompositions) across the same 21 galaxies and check whether the Spearman r = 0.85/0.89 for m = 4/6 persists; if the correlation weakens substantially, the result is an artifact of the smoothing. Additionally, applying the same MGE pipeline to a sample of non-barred spiral galaxies should yield no significant correlation between these Fourier modes and R_cusp.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Flux ratio anomalies in spiral galaxy lenses can be produced by the bar alone, so they cannot be uniquely attributed to dark matter subhalos unless bar morphology is explicitly modeled.
  • Measurements of R_cusp, combined with image opening angles, can serve as a quantitative indicator of the presence and strength of boxy/peanut and hexapole structures in high-redshift barred galaxies.
  • Stronger and more complex bars lead to larger tangential caustic areas, increasing the probability of strong lensing in such systems.
  • Existing and upcoming samples of spiral lens galaxies will require realistic baryonic components—especially bars—in mass models to avoid biased dark matter constraints.
  • The linear relation between R_cusp and opening angle offers a standardized, observationally accessible proxy for flux ratio anomalies across systems with opening angles roughly 30–80 degrees.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the correlation holds in real observations, then archival flux ratio measurements for spiral lenses could be re-examined to infer bar morphology without needing high-resolution imaging of the bar itself.
  • A direct extension would be to check whether the correlation strengthens for edge-on, side-on bars compared to face-on views, which would offer a testable projection-dependent prediction beyond the paper's two-projection sample.
  • The same Fourier-mode framework could be applied to non-barred disks to verify that the anomaly signal vanishes when no bar is present, sharpening the causal interpretation.
  • Modeling m=4 and m=6 multipoles as free parameters in lens potential fits might capture most of the bar-induced anomaly, reducing the need for dark substructure in some systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses 21 barred galaxies from the Auriga simulations, projects each galaxy into two orientations, fits the projected mass distributions with MGE, constructs lens potentials, and computes the cusp-caustic flux ratio R_cusp(60°) as a measure of flux ratio anomaly. It also computes Fourier amplitudes A_m/A0 within each bar region. The central result is a strong Spearman correlation between the peak higher-order even mode amplitudes, max(A4/A0) and max(A6/A0), and R_cusp(60°), with r=0.85 and 0.89 and p-values ~10^-6 and ~10^-8. The paper interprets this as evidence that bar morphology, especially boxy/peanut and hexapole components, can produce flux ratio anomalies and that ignoring such structure may bias dark matter subhalo inferences.

Significance. If the reported correlation is robust, the paper makes a useful and timely contribution by showing that a common baryonic component — galactic bars — can generate cusp flux ratio anomalies that are usually attributed to dark substructure. The study is systematic, uses a sample of 21 Auriga galaxies, and applies MGE smoothing to suppress numerical noise; the correlation itself is not produced by fitting constants to reproduce R_cusp, which is a genuine strength. However, the lensing observable and the bar-strength metric are both computed from the same MGE-fitted density map, and only 21 of 42 initial lensing cases survive the magnification cut. These issues make the headline correlation less decisive than the abstract suggests, and they need to be addressed before the broader conclusion about subhalo bias is quantitatively supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, §4.3, Fig. 6] Both R_cusp(60°) and max(A_m/A0) are derived from the same MGE-fitted convergence map. R_cusp is a measure of how much the lens potential deviates from a smooth model, while A_4 and A_6 measure specific non-axisymmetric deviations of that same map. The correlation in Fig. 6 may therefore partly reflect the internal consistency of the MGE model rather than an independent physical relation. The authors' statement in §2.1 that they use a 'self-consistent method' acknowledges this. I request a cross-check: recompute A_m/A0 from a different density reconstruction (e.g., direct SPH projection or a non-parametric smoothing), vary the number of MGE Gaussians, and quantify the MGE reconstruction errors on A_4 and A_6. Without such a test, the claim that bars (rather than the MGE fit) cause the anomalies is not fully established.
  2. [§4.3, magnification cut] The paper states that only 21 of 42 lensing cases survived the magnification threshold μ<100, but it does not discuss whether the excluded cases are randomly distributed or preferentially selected by bar strength, projection angle, or central density. If the surviving subsample is biased, the Spearman coefficients and p-values in Fig. 6 are not representative of the full population. Please report the number of surviving cases per projection, compare the bar-mode amplitudes and R_cusp distributions of survivors and non-survivors, and test sensitivity to the magnification threshold. Also clarify whether the 21 cases are statistically independent; if both projections of a galaxy can enter, the effective sample size is smaller than 21 and the p-values are overoptimistic.
  3. [§5, Conclusion] The concluding claim that ignoring bar morphology can lead to overestimating the dark matter subhalo population is not quantitatively supported by the presented analysis. The paper shows that bars in these MGE models produce nonzero R_cusp, but it does not compare the magnitude of bar-induced R_cusp(60°) with the anomalies produced by subhalo populations in the same lenses or with observed lens systems (e.g., Xu et al. 2013). Please add such a comparison, or temper the conclusion to state that bars are a potentially important contaminant whose relative contribution to observed flux ratio anomalies remains to be quantified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3, Fig. 5 text] The text says 'the p-values for all six correlations are extremely low (p<0.01)', but the legend lists m=1 radial P=1.4e-02 and m=5 radial P=1.6e-02. Also the statement that correlation strength increases with mode number is not true for the radial caustic area (m=2 has r=0.54 while m=6 has r=0.35). Please correct these statements.
  2. [Eq. (10), §4.2] A_m(r) is defined as a complex Fourier coefficient, but the text later refers to 'amplitude' as if real. Specify that |A_m(r)| is used for the strength, and note the normalization by A_0(r) is for the m=0 mode.
  3. [§2.1] The test with fewer nearest neighbors is mentioned but not quantified. Provide the number of neighbors tested and a table or figure showing the stability of R_cusp and A_m/A0.
  4. [§4.1, Fig. 3] The analysis uses only minor cusp regions. Please define the major/minor cusps explicitly and justify, beyond resolution, why the major cusp results are excluded. This is relevant because the cusp relation can depend on which cusp is used.
  5. [§3.2, Fig. 2] The definition of the opening angle Δφ could be made more precise in the text; currently it is described only in the caption of Fig. 2 and in a sentence in §3.2. A concise mathematical definition would help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: R_cusp and A_m/A0 are independent functionals of the same MGE map, not fitted to each other.

full rationale

The paper's central correlation (Fig. 6) is between R_cusp(60°), obtained by solving the Poisson/lensing equations for the MGE convergence map and applying the cusp relation (Eq. 9), and max(A_m/A0), obtained by Fourier decomposing the same MGE surface density (Eq. 10). Although both quantities are derived from the same MGE-fitted map, this is not definitional circularity: neither quantity is defined in terms of the other, and no parameter is fitted to reproduce R_cusp. The MGE coefficients are fitted to the projected density, not to the lensing observable. The paper's own phrase 'self-consistent method' (Sec. 2.1) flags that the smoothing scale enters both the bar metric and the anomaly metric; this is a modeling caveat about external validity (whether MGE preserves the real bar's high-order Fourier modes), not a case of Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction. The sample selection (21 of 42 lensing cases surviving the μ<100 threshold) is also a robustness concern, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation is used: references to Mao & Schneider 1998 and Xu et al. are background citations on flux-ratio anomalies, while the bar classification and MGE method are external (Blázquez-Calero et al. 2020; Cappellari 2002). Hence no circular step meets the quoted-reduction standard; score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central correlation is a simulation-based empirical result that imports Auriga's assumed galaxy formation model, the MGE representation, and several analysis thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced; the paper interprets existing baryonic structures. The main unstated costs are the fidelity of MGE smoothing and the independence of the surviving lensing cases.

free parameters (5)
  • MGE Gaussian parameters per galaxy (κ_j, σ'_j, q'_j, ψ_j, N) = not tabulated (per galaxy)
    Eq. 1: fitted to the SPH-projected density map; both the lensing observable and the Fourier amplitudes depend on this representation.
  • SPH smoothing neighbor count and maximum smoothing length = 640 nearest neighbors; cap 1 kpc
    Section 2.1: chosen by hand; affects the density map used for MGE fitting and therefore all downstream quantities.
  • Magnification threshold = μ < 100
    Section 3.1: imposed due to finite map resolution; discards 21 of 42 lensing cases and thereby shapes the analyzed sample.
  • Linear fit slope/intercept of R_cusp(Δφ) = not reported per case
    Section 4.1: R_cusp(60°) is read from a fitted line, so the anomaly metric is a fit-derived quantity.
  • Reference opening angle = 60°
    Section 4.1: chosen as a representative cusp opening; robustness tested at 30° and 90°.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Auriga z=0 barred galaxy models approximate real spiral lens galaxies at z_l=0.5
    Section 2.1 places z=0 snapshots at z_l=0.5 without redshift evolution; if bar morphology evolves significantly, the correlations may not transfer to observed lenses.
  • domain assumption MGE fit preserves the relevant bar Fourier amplitudes while removing shot noise and subhalos
    Sections 2.2 and 4.2: both R_cusp and max(A_m/A0) are computed from the MGE density, so the central correlation depends on this representation being faithful.
  • domain assumption FFT Poisson solver with 20 kpc truncation and external shear ≈10^-2 is negligible
    Section 3.1: truncation and boundary effects can bias caustic structure and the cusp relation; the paper assumes the shear is small enough to ignore.
  • standard math Cusp relation R_cusp → 0 for smooth potentials
    Eq. 9: standard strong-lensing result used as the baseline for defining flux ratio anomalies.
  • domain assumption The 21 surviving lensing cases are statistically independent for Spearman p-values
    Section 4.3: multiple projections of the same galaxy may be correlated; the paper does not test or account for clustering by parent halo.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14306 in / 11465 out tokens · 347144 ms · 2026-08-04T12:38:01.586316+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gravitational lens flux ratio anomalies are a powerful probe of small-scale mass structures, often attributed to dark matter subhalos. However, baryonic components can also play a significant role. This study investigates, for the first time, the impact of bars on flux ratio anomalies. We conduct a systematic analysis using barred galaxies from the Auriga simulations. First, we model the projected mass distribution with the Multi-Gaussian Expansion formalism. This method yields smooth lens potentials that preserve the primary bar structure while mitigating numerical noise. We then perform strong lensing simulations and quantify flux ratio anomalies by measuring their deviation from the theoretical cusp-caustic relation, denoted as $R_{\text{cusp}}$. Our primary finding is a strong, statistically significant correlation between the flux ratio anomaly magnitude and the strength of higher-order even Fourier modes. Specifically, the strengths of the boxy/peanut and hexapole components show an exceptionally tight correlation with $R_{\text{cusp}}$, with Spearman correlation coefficients of $r = 0.85$ and $0.89$, and p-values on the order of $10^{-6}$ and $10^{-8}$, respectively. This demonstrates that flux ratio anomalies are highly sensitive to complex, non-axisymmetric bar features. We conclude that flux ratio anomalies can be powerful indicators of bar morphology. Failing to account for such morphology can lead to misinterpreting lensing signatures and potentially overestimating the dark matter subhalo population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.02805 by Shude Mao, Xikai Shan, Yunpeng Jin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: This figure displays the dimensionless surface density maps (κ = Σ/Σcrit) for Au 10 from the Auriga simulation. The columns show two different galactic projections: a face on view (left) and an edge on view with the bar oriented side-on (right). The top panels present the density maps derived from the direct projection using an SPH kernel, while the bottom panels show the corresponding maps reconstructed u… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The left panel shows a tangential caustic (where the source image is stretched along the tangential direction) in the source plane, and the red star indicates a source located near the cusp region. The right panel shows the critical curve in the image plane, where one can see four strong lensing images corresponding to the source. Note that the size of the star does not represent the strong lensing magnifi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: This figure displays the source sampling and Rcusp result for Au 10 from the Auriga simulation. The top pan￾els illustrate the tangential (diamond-shaped, where the source image is stretched along the tangential direction) and radial (elliptical-shaped, where the source image is stretched along the radial direction) caustics. The columns correspond to different galaxy projections: the left panel shows a fa… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure shows the profiles of the relative Fourier amplitudes, Am/A0, for Au 10 from the Auriga simulation. These profiles are measured in the bar’s region, as determined in Bl´azquez-Calero et al. (2020). The amplitudes are shown as a function of radius in kiloparsecs (kpc). The left and right columns correspond to different galaxy projections: a face on view and an edge on view with the bar is side o… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This figure shows the correlation between the peak Fourier amplitudes in the bar region, max(Am/A0), representing the strength of the bar’s angular complexity, and the lensing caustic area. The top panel displays the results for the tangential caustic area. The tangential caustic has a diamond shape, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: This figure shows the correlation between the peak Fourier amplitudes in the bar region, max(Am/A0), and the cusp￾caustic flux ratio, Rcusp(60◦ ). The Fourier amplitudes represent the strength of the bar’s angular complexity. The definition of Rcusp(60◦ ) is in Eq. (9). Each color represents a different Fourier component, from m = 1 to m = 6. The legend provides the Spearman correlation coefficient (r) and… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., Cl´ ement, B., Courbin, F., et al

    Acevedo Barroso, J. A., Cl´ ement, B., Courbin, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.10610, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.10610

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.10610 2025

  2. [2]

    Aguerri, J. A. L., M´ endez-Abreu, J., & Corsini, E. M. 2009, A&A, 495, 491, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810931

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810931 2009

  3. [3]

    1984, PhR, 114, 319, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(84)90156-X

    Athanassoula, E. 1984, PhR, 114, 319, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(84)90156-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-1573(84)90156-x 1984

  4. [6]

    D., Jogee, S., & Marinova, I

    Barazza, F. D., Jogee, S., & Marinova, I. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1194, doi: 10.1086/526510

    doi:10.1086/526510 2008

  5. [7]

    D., & Narayan, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Narayan, R. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 311, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.30.1.311 Bl´ azquez-Calero, G., Florido, E., P´ erez, I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3125

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.30.1.311 1992

  6. [8]

    L., Puerari, I., Knapen, J

    Block, D. L., Puerari, I., Knapen, J. H., et al. 2001, A&A, 375, 761, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010775

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010775 2001

  7. [9]

    J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al

    Buta, R. J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 32, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/32

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/32 2015

  8. [10]

    B., Suyu, S

    Caminha, G. B., Suyu, S. H., Mercurio, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244517

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244517 2022

  9. [11]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 1960, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1865

    Cao, X., Li, R., Li, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1960, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1865

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1865 2024

  10. [13]

    Combes, F., & Sanders, R. H. 1981, A&A, 96, 164

    1981

  11. [14]

    B., & Keeton, C

    Congdon, A. B., & Keeton, C. R. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1459, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09699.x CSST Collaboration, Gong, Y., Miao, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.04618, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.04618

    arXiv 2005

  12. [15]

    Dalal, N., & Kochanek, C. S. 2002, ApJ, 572, 25, doi: 10.1086/340303

    doi:10.1086/340303 2002

  13. [17]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3117

    Erwin, P. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3117

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3117 2018

  14. [18]

    B., Frogel, J

    Eskridge, P. B., Frogel, J. A., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 536, doi: 10.1086/301203 Euclid Collaboration, Walmsley, M., Holloway, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15324, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15324

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.15324 2000

  15. [19]

    W., & Witt, H

    Evans, N. W., & Witt, H. J. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1351, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07057.x

    arXiv 2003

  16. [20]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 2438, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3320

    Hsueh, J.-W., Despali, G., Vegetti, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2438, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3320

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3320 2018

  17. [21]

    W., Fassnacht, C

    Hsueh, J. W., Fassnacht, C. D., Vegetti, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw146

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw146 2016

  18. [22]

    W., Oldham, L., Spingola, C., et al

    Hsueh, J. W., Oldham, L., Spingola, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1082

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1082 2017

  19. [24]

    J., Webster, R

    Irwin, M. J., Webster, R. L., Hewett, P. C., Corrigan, R. T., & Jedrzejewski, R. I. 1989, AJ, 98, 1989, doi: 10.1086/115272

    work page doi:10.1086/115272 1989

  20. [25]

    Recovering the pattern speeds of edge-on barred galaxies via an orbit-superposition method

    Jin, Y., Zhu, L., Tahmasebzadeh, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02917, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02917

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.02917 2025

  21. [26]

    R., & Kochanek, C

    Keeton, C. R., & Kochanek, C. S. 1998, ApJ, 495, 157, doi: 10.1086/305272

    doi:10.1086/305272 1998

  22. [27]

    H., Shlosman, I., & Peletier, R

    Knapen, J. H., Shlosman, I., & Peletier, R. F. 2000, ApJ, 529, 93, doi: 10.1086/308266 14

    doi:10.1086/308266 2000

  23. [28]

    Kormendy, J., & Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024

    arXiv 2004

  24. [29]

    Lines, N. E. P., Li, T., Collett, T. E., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1116, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02616-5 LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0912.0201 2025

  25. [30]

    H., Simard, L., Guhathakurta, P., et al

    Maller, A. H., Simard, L., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 194, doi: 10.1086/308641

    work page doi:10.1086/308641 2000

  26. [31]

    1998, MNRAS, 295, 587, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01319.x

    Mao, S., & Schneider, P. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 587, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01319.x

    arXiv 1998

  27. [32]

    2007, ApJ, 659, 1176, doi: 10.1086/512355

    Marinova, I., & Jogee, S. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1176, doi: 10.1086/512355

    doi:10.1086/512355 2007

  28. [33]

    L., Nichol, R

    Masters, K. L., Nichol, R. C., Hoyle, B., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2026, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17834.x Men´ endez-Delmestre, K., Sheth, K., Schinnerer, E., Jarrett, T. H., & Scoville, N. Z. 2007, ApJ, 657, 790, doi: 10.1086/511025

    arXiv 2011

  29. [34]

    B., & Madau, P

    Metcalf, R. B., & Madau, P. 2001, ApJ, 563, 9, doi: 10.1086/323695

    doi:10.1086/323695 2001

  30. [35]

    Monaghan, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 543, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551

    arXiv 1992

  31. [36]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.08777, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.08777 O’Riordan, C

    Nightingale, J., Mahler, G., McCleary, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.08777, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.08777 O’Riordan, C. M., & Vegetti, S. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae153

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.08777 2025

  32. [37]

    2025, PhRvD, 111, 123014, doi: 10.1103/d14h-f5mn

    Paugnat, H., & Gilman, D. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 123014, doi: 10.1103/d14h-f5mn

    doi:10.1103/d14h-f5mn 2025

  33. [38]

    1995, ApJ, 447, 82, doi: 10.1086/175858

    Rix, H.-W., & Zaritsky, D. 1995, ApJ, 447, 82, doi: 10.1086/175858

    doi:10.1086/175858 1995

  34. [39]

    Schneider, P., Ehlers, J., & Falco, E. E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-03758-4

    doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03758-4 1992

  35. [40]

    M., Elmegreen, B

    Sheth, K., Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1141, doi: 10.1086/524980

    doi:10.1086/524980 2008

  36. [41]

    H., Marshall, P

    Suyu, S. H., Marshall, P. J., Auger, M. W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, 201, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/201

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

  37. [42]

    H., Hensel, S

    Suyu, S. H., Hensel, S. W., McKean, J. P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/10

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/10 2012

  38. [43]

    A., Auger, M

    Treu, T., Dutton, A. A., Auger, M. W., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19378.x

    arXiv 2011

  39. [44]

    M., & Webster, R

    Trott, C. M., & Webster, R. L. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 621, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05542.x Van de Vyvere, L., Sluse, D., Mukherjee, S., Xu, D., &

    arXiv 2002

  40. [45]

    2020, A&A, 644, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038942

    Birrer, S. 2020, A&A, 644, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038942

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038942 2020

  41. [46]

    D., Mao, S., Cooper, A

    Xu, D. D., Mao, S., Cooper, A. P., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2553, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20484.x —. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1721, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17235.x

    arXiv 2012

  42. [47]

    How well can cold-dark-matter substructures account for the observed lensing flux-ratio anomalies?

    Xu, D. D., Sluse, D., Gao, L., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1307.4220, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1307.4220

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1307.4220 2013

  43. [48]

    D., Mao, S., Wang, J., et al

    Xu, D. D., Mao, S., Wang, J., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1235, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15230.x

    arXiv 2009

  44. [49]

    1997, ApJ, 477, 118, doi: 10.1086/303692

    Zaritsky, D., & Rix, H.-W. 1997, ApJ, 477, 118, doi: 10.1086/303692

    doi:10.1086/303692 1997