Paper detail

The systematics of strong lens modeling quantified: the effects of constraint selection and redshift information on magnification, mass, and multiple image predictability

Until now, systematic errors in strong gravitational lens modeling have been acknowledged but never been fully quantified. Here, we launch an investigation into the systematics induced by constraint selection. We model the simulated cluster Ares 362 times using random selections of image systems with and without spectroscopic redshifts and quantify the systematics using several diagnostics: image predictability, accuracy of model-predicted redshifts, enclosed mass, and magnification. We find that for models with $>15$ image systems, the image plane rms does not decrease significantly when more systems are added; however the rms values quoted in the literature may be misleading as to the ability of a model to predict new multiple images. The mass is well constrained near the Einstein radius in all cases, and systematic error drops to $<2\%$ for models using $>10$ image systems. Magnification errors are smallest along the straight portions of the critical curve, and the value of the magnification is systematically lower near curved portions. For $>15$ systems, the systematic error on magnification is $\sim2\%$. We report no trend in magnification error with fraction of spectroscopic image systems when selecting constraints at random; however, when using the same selection of constraints, increasing this fraction up to $\sim0.5$ will increase model accuracy. The results suggest that the selection of constraints, rather than quantity alone, determines the accuracy of the magnification. We note that spectroscopic follow-up of at least a few image systems is crucial, as models without any spectroscopic redshifts are inaccurate across all of our diagnostics.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

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.