Paper detail

Quantifying the Biases of Spectroscopically Selected Gravitational Lenses

Spectroscopic selection has been the most productive technique for the selection of galaxy-scale strong gravitational lens systems with known redshifts. Statistically significant samples of strong lenses provide a powerful method for measuring the mass-density parameters of the lensing population, but results can only be generalized to the parent population if the lensing selection biases are sufficiently understood. We perform controlled Monte Carlo simulations of spectroscopic lens surveys in order to quantify the bias of lenses relative to parent galaxies in velocity dispersion, mass axis ratio, and mass density profile. For parameters typical of the SLACS and BELLS surveys, we find: (1) no significant mass axis ratio detection bias of lenses relative to parent galaxies; (2) a very small detection bias toward shallow mass density profiles, which is likely negligible compared to other sources of uncertainty in this parameter; (3) a detection bias towards smaller Einstein radius for systems drawn from parent populations with group- and cluster-scale lensing masses; and (4) a lens-modeling bias towards larger velocity dispersions for systems drawn from parent samples with sub-arcsecond mean Einstein radii. This last finding indicates that the incorporation of velocity-dispersion upper limits of \textit{non-lenses} is an important ingredient for unbiased analyses of spectroscopically selected lens samples. In general we find that the completeness of spectroscopic lens surveys in the plane of Einstein radius and mass-density profile power-law index is quite uniform, up to a sharp drop in the region of large Einstein radius and steep mass density profile, and hence that such surveys are ideally suited to the study of massive field galaxies.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.

Institutions

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.