Paper detail

Hubble Space Telescope Combined Strong and Weak Lensing Analysis of the CLASH Sample: Mass and Magnification Models and Systematic Uncertainties

We present results from a comprehensive lensing analysis in HST data, of the complete CLASH cluster sample. We identify new multiple-images previously undiscovered allowing improved or first constraints on the cluster inner mass distributions and profiles. We combine these strong-lensing constraints with weak-lensing shape measurements within the HST FOV to jointly constrain the mass distributions. The analysis is performed in two different common parameterizations (one adopts light-traces-mass for both galaxies and dark matter while the other adopts an analytical, elliptical NFW form for the dark matter), to provide a better assessment of the underlying systematics - which is most important for deep, cluster-lensing surveys, especially when studying magnified high-redshift objects. We find that the typical (median), relative systematic differences throughout the central FOV are $\sim40\%$ in the (dimensionless) mass density, $κ$, and $\sim20\%$ in the magnification, $μ$. We show maps of these differences for each cluster, as well as the mass distributions, critical curves, and 2D integrated mass profiles. For the Einstein radii ($z_{s}=2$) we find that all typically agree within $10\%$ between the two models, and Einstein masses agree, typically, within $\sim15\%$. At larger radii, the total projected, 2D integrated mass profiles of the two models, within $r\sim2\arcmin$, differ by $\sim30\%$. Stacking the surface-density profiles of the sample from the two methods together, we obtain an average slope of $d\log (Σ)/d\log(r)\sim-0.64\pm0.1$, in the radial range [5,350] kpc. Lastly, we also characterize the behavior of the average magnification, surface density, and shear differences between the two models, as a function of both the radius from the center, and the best-fit values of these quantities.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access26 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.