Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Analyzing Line-of-sight selection biases in galaxy-scale strong lensing with external convergence and shear

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Unmodeled line-of-sight matter biases Hubble-constant measurements from strong lenses by 0.66% to 1.02%, and linear-only models still leave 0.03–0.1% residual bias.

desk verdict Useful LSST-era pipeline paper with honest limitations, but the headline H0 biases rest on an unquantified halo–LSS independence assumption that the authors themselves concede. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04201 v1 pith:5PCZF7NR submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Xianzhe TZ Tang , Simon Birrer , Anowar J. Shajib , Narayan Khadka , the LSST Strong Gravitational Lensing Science Collaboration , the LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords stronggravitationallensingline-of-sighteffectsexternalconvergenceshearnon-linearLOScorrectiontime-delaycosmographyHubbleconstantselectionbiases
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

The paper develops a method for predicting the external convergence and shear contributed by matter along the line of sight of a strong gravitational lens, and uses those predictions to measure selection biases in simulated lens populations. It reports that ignoring line-of-sight effects biases the inferred Hubble constant by about 0.66% for galaxy–galaxy lenses and up to 1.02% for galaxy–AGN lenses. Modeling the line of sight only to linear order and neglecting the non-linear coupling at the main deflector leaves residual biases of about 0.03% and 0.1%. The non-linear correction also slightly raises the ratio of quadruple to double lenses in the simulation, from about 5.13% to 5.24%. These numbers matter because upcoming wide-field surveys will produce large lens samples in which sub-percent Hubble-constant measurements need line-of-sight structure to be included.

What carries the argument

The central object is the joint distribution of external convergence $\kappa_{\rm ext}$ and external shear $\gamma_{\rm ext}$, the effective lensing distortions from all mass along the line of sight beyond the main deflector. The construction adds a smooth large-scale structure shear and convergence field to shear and convergence rendered from individual dark-matter halos, subtracting the halos' mean density to avoid double counting, then applies the non-linear correction of [23]: $1-\kappa^*_{\rm ext}=(1-\kappa_{\rm OD})(1-\kappa_{\rm OS})/(1-\kappa_{\rm DS})$ and $\gamma^*_{\rm ext}=[(\gamma_{\rm OD1}+\gamma_{\rm OS1}-\gamma_{\rm DS1})^2+(\gamma_{\rm OD2}+\gamma_{\rm OS2}-\gamma_{\rm DS2})^2]^{1/2}$, where OD, OS, and DS label structures between observer and deflector, observer and source, and deflector and source. This correction captures the non-additive lensing of structures in front of and behind the main lens. The $H_0$ bias is then carried by the relation $H_0=(1-\kappa_{\rm ext})H_0^{\rm obs}$, so the mean $\kappa_{\rm ext}$ of each lens population translates directly into a systematic error.

What would settle it

Hold the cosmology fixed and regenerate the same joint $\kappa_{\rm ext}$–$\gamma_{\rm ext}$ distributions using halo positions drawn from a clustering prescription or a full N-body light cone; then recompute the mean external convergence for galaxy–galaxy and galaxy–AGN lenses. If the mean $\kappa_{\rm ext}$ shifts by more than about 0.001 or the $H_0$ bias moves by more than about 0.1%, the uniform-halo independence assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a hybrid line-of-sight model — large-scale structure convergence and shear maps combined with high-resolution individual-halo renderings, then adjusted by the non-linear correction for the presence of the dominant deflector — yields statistically realistic joint distributions of $\kappa_{\rm ext}$ and $\gamma_{\rm ext}$ for strong lenses. Feeding these distributions through a strong-lensing population simulation shows that unaccounted line-of-sight convergence and shear bias $H_0$ by roughly 0.66% for galaxy–galaxy systems and up to 1.02% for galaxy–AGN systems. Using a linear-only line-of-sight model leaves residual $H_0$ biases of about 0.03% for galaxy–galaxy lenses and 0.1% for galaxy–AGN lenses, because the non-linear correction changes the mean external convergence by $\Delta\kappa_{\rm ext}=0.0003$ and $0.0010$ respectively. The same simulation shows the quadruple-to-double image ratio rises slightly when the correction is included, from about 5.13% to 5.24%.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated line-of-sight halos are placed uniformly, without angular clustering, and are assumed statistically independent of the large-scale structure shear field; if real halos cluster with each other and align with the surrounding matter distribution, the joint distributions and all derived bias numbers would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If line-of-sight convergence and shear are not modeled, $H_0$ estimates from strong lenses carry a population-level bias of about 0.66% for galaxy–galaxy systems and about 1.02% for galaxy–AGN systems.
  • Adopting a linear LOS model without the non-linear deflector coupling still leaves about 0.03% for galaxy–galaxy systems and about 0.1% for galaxy–AGN systems as residual $H_0$ biases.
  • The non-linear LOS correction changes image-multiplicity statistics, increasing the simulated quadruple-to-double ratio from about 5.13% to about 5.24%.
  • The method's LOS distributions show no statistically significant difference between the two tested cosmologies, suggesting the selection-bias predictions are robust to moderate changes in cosmological parameters.
  • The public code and datasets allow future lens samples to account for LOS structure at the population level without per-lens ray-tracing calculations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real halos are clustered and tidally aligned with the large-scale structure field, the independence assumption in the paper's map combination would likely broaden the tails of $\kappa_{\rm ext}$ and $\gamma_{\rm ext}$, so the quoted $H_0$ biases should be understood as the uniform-halo baseline rather than the full expectation.
  • Because the non-linear correction grows with the amount of matter between observer and deflector, surveys that push to higher source redshifts — where galaxy–AGN systems dominate time-delay samples — are the ones most likely to need the correction.
  • The same population simulation can be re-run with a clustering prescription, such as halo occupation modeling or N-body light cones, to turn the reported numbers into testable predictions for the quad-to-double ratio as a function of lens environment.
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 develops a hybrid method to construct joint distributions of external convergence (kappa_ext) and external shear (gamma_ext) for galaxy-scale strong lensing lines of sight. Large-scale structure maps from GLASS are combined with high-resolution NFW halo renderings generated with Colossus and lenstronomy, and non-linear LOS corrections from Fleury et al. (2021) are applied through Eqs. (2.3)-(2.4). The resulting (kappa_ext, gamma_ext) distributions are injected into the SLSim pipeline to simulate galaxy-galaxy and galaxy-AGN lens populations with LSST-like selection criteria. The headline results are that neglecting LOS effects biases H0 by about 0.66% for galaxy-galaxy lenses and up to 1.02% for galaxy-AGN lenses, that omitting only the non-linear correction leaves residual biases of about 0.03% and 0.1%, and that including the non-linear correction slightly increases the simulated quadruple-to-double ratio. The code and datasets are publicly available.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a modular and reproducible way to propagate LOS selection effects into strong-lensing population forecasts, which is directly relevant for LSST, Euclid, and Roman. The public SLSim integration and the downloadable kappa/gamma distributions are concrete community assets. However, the central quantitative claims rest on an unquantified independence/clustering assumption in the construction of the joint distributions, and the quad-to-double claim is presented without uncertainties. These issues need to be resolved before the numerical results can be used for precision cosmology; nevertheless, the framework itself is a useful contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [2.1.2, 2.2 (Eqs. 2.5-2.6)] The joint (kappa_ext, gamma_ext) distribution is built by adding halo shear to LSS shear as an independent random-angle vector and by placing halos with uniform angular positions. In CDM, halos are biased tracers of the same density field that produces gamma_LSS, so the missing two-halo term suppresses variance and coherent halo-LSS alignment introduces kappa-gamma covariance. Because the selection criteria in Section 2.3.4 are nonlinear, the mean kappa_ext of the selected sample, which is the quantity converted into an H0 bias in Section 3.5, depends on the tails of the joint distribution rather than only its mean. The Discussion explicitly concedes the simplification, but its impact is not quantified, and the quoted residual bias of 0.03-0.1% is the same order as the shift this omission could induce. I request a quantitative test: populate halos from the GLASS overdensity field, or add an analytic two-halo term, and report the resulting changes in the mean kappa_ext and in the H0 and quad/double numbers.
  2. [3.4 (Quad/Double ratios)] The headline comparison of quadruple-to-double ratios (4.61%, 5.13%, 5.24%) is quoted without uncertainties or the number of simulated lenses. A shift of 0.11 percentage points between the non-linear and linear LOS models could be a real physical effect or could be shot noise, so the Abstract claim that the non-linear correction 'slightly increases' the ratio is not quantitatively supported as written. Please report the raw lens counts and a Poisson or bootstrap uncertainty, and state whether the increase is statistically significant.
  3. [2.1.2, Eqs. (2.3)-(2.4)] The non-linear correction formulas are imported from Fleury et al. (2021), but the paper does not validate that these two-plane-like combinations reproduce full multi-plane ray tracing for the particular light-cone configurations used here. Since the residual H0 biases (0.03% and 0.1%) are defined as the difference between the model with and without these non-linear corrections, an error or approximation in this step propagates directly into the central result. I recommend adding a validation test that compares Eq. (2.4) directly with lenstronomy multi-plane output for a representative set of sightlines, including cases with a halo near the deflector.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The column labels 'With correction' and 'Without correction' are ambiguous, since both columns appear to include LOS effects and differ only in the non-linear correction. Please relabel them as 'With non-linear correction' and 'Linear-only LOS model'.
  2. [3.3] The statement that the two cosmologies show 'no statistically significant difference' appears without a test statistic, error estimate, or sample size. Please add a quantitative comparison, such as a KS test on the kappa_ext distributions or at least the number of lenses in each catalog.
  3. [3.5, Eq. (3.1)] In Eq. (3.1), H0^o is not defined in the notation; please define it explicitly as the Hubble constant inferred without accounting for kappa_ext.
  4. [4] The Discussion paragraph on the uniform halo placement correctly states the limitation, but it should clearly flag that this limitation affects the headline numerical claims, not just future refinements. The current wording ('conservative baseline') may understate the impact.
  5. [Various] There are several typos and stylistic issues: 'Secction' in Section 3.3, 'are are' in Section 3.4, inconsistent spacing in 'kappa_ext and gamma_ext', and the reference [43] is listed as 'In Preparation, 2025?' with an incomplete citation. Please copyedit throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the headline H0 biases and quad/double ratios are forward-model outputs from an explicit simulation chain, not fitted or self-citing inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are produced by a forward simulation pipeline. The joint (κ_ext, γ_ext) distributions are generated from GLASS large-scale-structure maps plus Colossus/lenstronomy halo renderings (Eqs 2.5–2.6), without tuning any downstream quantity. The non-linear LOS correction (Eqs 2.3–2.4) is imported from Fleury et al. (2021), an external derivation, and its effect is assessed by comparing otherwise identical simulations with and without that correction. The H0 bias relation (Eq. 3.1, H0 = (1 − κ_ext) H0^o) is the standard mass-sheet-transformed relation; the reported 0.66%/1.02% biases are simply 1 − ⟨κ_ext⟩ over the simulated selected double/quad samples, so they are outputs rather than inputs. Likewise, the quad/double ratios (∼4.61%/5.13%/5.24%) follow from running SLSim under different LOS prescriptions. SLSim is cited as [43] with co-author overlap, but the code is publicly available and the simulation is reproducible, which under the review rules counts as independent evidence; the SLSim citation is not load-bearing in a way that reduces any equation to itself. The Discussion's caveat about unclustered halos and independent shear orientations is an acknowledged modeling assumption (not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction), so it affects robustness or correctness of the physical model but is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of astrophysical modeling assumptions: the halo mass function, concentration-mass relation, galaxy population prescriptions, and the non-linear correction formulas are all imported from the literature. The paper adds no new fundamental physics, but it packages these ingredients into a new simulation pipeline. The main hand-chosen settings are the minimum halo mass, the image-separation cut, and the population parameters inherited from SLSim.

free parameters (4)
  • Minimum halo mass for rendering = 1e11 M_sun
    Halos below this mass are not rendered; the choice sets the small-scale contribution to kappa_ext and gamma_ext and is not varied in the paper.
  • Minimum image separation = 1.0 arcsec
    Selection cut applied to all simulated lenses; directly influences the quad/double ratio and the H0 bias estimates.
  • Concentration-mass relation parameters = A=75.4, d=-0.422, m=-0.089
    Adopted from Child et al. (2018) Eq 19 and Table 2; determines the NFW lensing efficiency of every rendered halo.
  • Deflector galaxy population parameters = SIE velocity dispersion from SDSS VDF; mass-light ellipticity scaling 1.135, scatter 0.127, orientation scatter 0.319
    Taken from Auger et al. (2010) and Sheu et al. (2024) through SLSim; sets the intrinsic lensing cross-sections that the LOS distributions act on.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Halo counts follow a Poisson distribution with mean from the Bhattacharya et al. mass function implemented in Colossus.
    Section 2.1.2: the number of halos along each line of sight is drawn from this prescription, which sets the normalization of all halo contributions.
  • domain assumption Halo positions are uniformly distributed in angle with no angular clustering.
    Section 2.1.2: the authors state this placement deliberately neglects halo angular clustering and tidal alignment with the LSS.
  • domain assumption Large-scale structure shear and halo shear are statistically independent and can be added in quadrature (Eq 2.5).
    Section 2.2: the vector sum formula treats the shear orientation difference as random, ignoring correlations between halos and the LSS field.
  • domain assumption The non-linear LOS correction formulas of Fleury et al. (2021) apply to this hybrid simulation.
    Eqs 2.3 and 2.4 are imported from the cited work without independent derivation or validation in this paper.
  • domain assumption The main deflector is modeled as a singular isothermal ellipsoid without a separate NFW host halo.
    Section 2.3.1: all host-halo effects are assumed to enter through the external convergence and shear, rather than through the deflector profile.
  • domain assumption Equation 3.1, H0 = (1-kappa_ext) H0_obs, captures the full impact of external convergence on inferred H0.
    Section 3.5: the analysis uses this standard relation without modeling covariances with lens structure, source population, or selection cuts.
  • domain assumption GLASS produces statistically correct large-scale convergence and shear maps at arcminute resolution.
    Section 2.1.1: the smooth background component is taken as given from the GLASS package and is not validated against N-body ray tracing here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analyzing Line-of-sight selection biases in galaxy-scale strong lensing with external convergence and shear." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5PCZF7NR

@misc{pith2026250604201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analyzing Line-of-sight selection biases in galaxy-scale strong lensing with external convergence and shear},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5PCZF7NR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04201}
}
abstract

The upcoming Vera Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) will dramatically increase the number of strong gravitational lensing systems, requiring precise modeling of line-of-sight (LOS) effects to mitigate biases in lensing observations and cosmological inferences. We develop a method to construct joint distributions of external convergence ($\kappa_{\mathrm{ext}}$) and shear ($\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}}$) for strong lensing LOS by aggregating large-scale structure simulations with high-resolution halo renderings and non-linear correction. Our approach captures both smooth background matter and perturbations from halos, enabling accurate modeling of LOS effects. We apply non-linear LOS corrections to $\kappa_{\mathrm{ext}}$ and $\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}}$ that address the non-additive lensing effects caused by objects along the LOS in strong lensing. We find that, with a minimum image separation of $1.0^{\prime\prime}$, non-linear LOS correction due to the presence of a dominant deflector slightly increases the ratio of quadruple to double lenses; this non-linear LOS correction also introduces systematic biases of $\sim 0.1\%$ for galaxy-AGN lenses in the inferred Hubble constant ($H_0$) if not accounted for. We also observe a $0.66\%$ bias for galaxy-galaxy lenses on $H_0$, and even larger biases up to $1.02\%$ for galaxy-AGN systems if LOS effects are not accounted for. These results highlight the importance of LOS for precision cosmology. The publicly available code and datasets provide tools for incorporating LOS effects in future analyses.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. JWST lensed quasar dark matter survey IV: Stringent warm dark matter constraints from the joint reconstruction of extended lensed arcs and quasar flux ratios

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adding extended lensed arcs to quasar flux ratios in 28 JWST lenses tightens the dark-matter free-streaming limit to m_hm < 10^7.4 M⊙ (galacticus prior) and gives the most precise lensing measurement of subhalo abundance.

  2. Disentangling the dark and stellar mass through precise lens modelling of the JWST observation of lensed quasar WFI2033--4723

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Composite time-delay lens modelling of JWST WFI2033–4723 yields intermediate stellar IMF normalisation and a steep gNFW inner slope γ_in≃1.3 that is robust to the choice of external cosmology.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Adelman-McCarthy, Marcel A

    Kevork Abazajian, Jennifer K. Adelman-McCarthy, Marcel A. Agüeros, Sahar S. Allam, Kurt S. J. Anderson, Scott F. Anderson, James Annis, Neta A. Bahcall, Ivan K. Baldry, Steven Bastian, Andreas Berlind, Mariangela Bernardi, Michael R. Blanton, John J. Bochanski, Jr., William N. Boroski, Howard J. Brewington, John W. Briggs, J. Brinkmann, Robert J. Brunner,...

    2005

  2. [2]

    Des y3+ kids-1000: Consistent cosmology combining cosmic shear surveys.The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6:1–40, 2023

    TMC Abbott, M Aguena, A Alarcon, O Alves, A Amon, F Andrade-Oliveira, M Asgari, S Avila, D Bacon, K Bechtol, et al. Des y3+ kids-1000: Consistent cosmology combining cosmic shear surveys.The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6:1–40, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Abe, Masamune Oguri, Simon Birrer, Narayan Khadka, Philip J

    Katsuya T. Abe, Masamune Oguri, Simon Birrer, Narayan Khadka, Philip J. Marshall, Cameron Lemon, Anupreeta More, and the LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. A halo model approach for mock catalogs of time-variable strong gravitational lenses.The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8:8, January 2025. doi: 10.33232/001c.128482

    doi:10.33232/001c.128482 2025

  4. [4]

    Planck 2018 results-vi

    Nabila Aghanim, Yashar Akrami, Mark Ashdown, Jonathan Aumont, Carlo Baccigalupi, Mario Ballardini, Anthony J Banday, RB Barreiro, N Bartolo, S Basak, et al. Planck 2018 results-vi. cosmological parameters.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641:A6, 2020

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Skypy: A package for modelling the universe.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.06172, 2021

    Adam Amara, Lucia F de la Bella, Simon Birrer, Sarah Bridle, Juan Pablo Cordero, Ginevra Favole, Ian Harrison, Ian W Harry, William G Hartley, Coleman Krawczyk, et al. Skypy: A package for modelling the universe.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.06172, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    The sloan lens acs survey

    MW Auger, T Treu, AS Bolton, R Gavazzi, LVE Koopmans, PJ Marshall, LA Moustakas, and S Burles. The sloan lens acs survey. x. stellar, dynamical, and total mass correlations of massive early-type galaxies.The Astrophysical Journal, 724(1):511, 2010. – 22 –

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Mass function predictions beyondλcdm.The Astrophysical Journal, 732(2): 122, 2011

    Suman Bhattacharya, Katrin Heitmann, Martin White, Zarija Lukić, Christian Wagner, and Salman Habib. Mass function predictions beyondλcdm.The Astrophysical Journal, 732(2): 122, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Tdcosmo-iv

    S Birrer, AJ Shajib, A Galan, M Millon, T Treu, A Agnello, M Auger, GC-F Chen, L Christensen, T Collett, et al. Tdcosmo-iv. hierarchical time-delay cosmography–joint inference of the hubble constant and galaxy density profiles.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643: A165, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    lenstronomy: Multi-purpose gravitational lens modelling software package.Physics of the Dark Universe, 22:189–201, 2018

    Simon Birrer and Adam Amara. lenstronomy: Multi-purpose gravitational lens modelling software package.Physics of the Dark Universe, 22:189–201, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Cosmic Shear with Einstein Rings.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 852(1):L14, January 2018

    Simon Birrer, Alexandre Refregier, and Adam Amara. Cosmic Shear with Einstein Rings.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 852(1):L14, January 2018. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa1de

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    lenstronomy ii: A gravitational lensing software ecosystem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05976, 2021

    Simon Birrer, Anowar J Shajib, Daniel Gilman, Aymeric Galan, Jelle Aalbers, Martin Millon, Robert Morgan, Giulia Pagano, Ji Won Park, Luca Teodori, et al. lenstronomy ii: A gravitational lensing software ecosystem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05976, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Assessing the effect of lens mass model in cosmological application with updated galaxy-scale strong gravitational lensing sample

    Yun Chen, Ran Li, Yiping Shu, and Xiaoyue Cao. Assessing the effect of lens mass model in cosmological application with updated galaxy-scale strong gravitational lensing sample. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488(3):3745–3758, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Halo profiles and the concentration–mass relation for aλcdm universe

    Hillary L Child, Salman Habib, Katrin Heitmann, Nicholas Frontiere, Hal Finkel, Adrian Pope, and Vitali Morozov. Halo profiles and the concentration–mass relation for aλcdm universe. The Astrophysical Journal, 859(1):55, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Compound lensing: Einstein zig-zags and high-multiplicity lensed images.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456(2): 2210–2220, 2016

    Thomas E Collett and David J Bacon. Compound lensing: Einstein zig-zags and high-multiplicity lensed images.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456(2): 2210–2220, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Observational selection biases in time-delay strong lensing and their impact on cosmography.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462(3):3255–3264, 2016

    Thomas E Collett and Steven D Cunnington. Observational selection biases in time-delay strong lensing and their impact on cosmography.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462(3):3255–3264, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Colossus: A python toolkit for cosmology, large-scale structure, and dark matter halos.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 239(2):35, 2018

    Benedikt Diemer. Colossus: A python toolkit for cosmology, large-scale structure, and dark matter halos.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 239(2):35, 2018

    2018

  9. [18]

    Hogg, Pierre Fleury, and Julien Larena

    Théo Duboscq, Natalie B. Hogg, Pierre Fleury, and Julien Larena. Weak lensing of strong lensing: beyond the tidal regime.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024(08): 021, aug 2024. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/021. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/021

    2024 doi

  10. [19]

    Gravitational lensing

    Jürgen Ehlers and Peter Schneider. Gravitational lensing. InRelativistic Gravity Research With Emphasis on Experiments and Observations: Proceedings of the 81 WE-Heraeus-Seminar Held at the Physikzentrum, Bad Honnef, Germany 2–6 September 1991, pages 1–45. Springer, 2005

    1991

  11. [20]

    On model-dependent bounds on h (0) from gravitational images application of q0957+ 561a, b.The Astrophysical Journal, 289:L1–L4, 1985

    EE Falco, MV Gorenstein, and II Shapiro. On model-dependent bounds on h (0) from gravitational images application of q0957+ 561a, b.The Astrophysical Journal, 289:L1–L4, 1985

    1985

  12. [21]

    C. D. Fassnacht, L. V. E. Koopmans, and K. C. Wong. Galaxy number counts and implications for strong lensing.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410(4):2167–2179, February 2011. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17591.x

    2011

  13. [22]

    Galaxy number counts and implications for strong lensing.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410(4):2167–2179, 2011

    CD Fassnacht, LVE Koopmans, and KC Wong. Galaxy number counts and implications for strong lensing.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410(4):2167–2179, 2011. – 23 –

    2011

  14. [23]

    Line-of-sight effects in strong gravitational lensing.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021(08):024, 2021

    Pierre Fleury, Julien Larena, and Jean-Philippe Uzan. Line-of-sight effects in strong gravitational lensing.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021(08):024, 2021

    2021

  15. [24]

    An overview of the hdf5 technology suite and its applications

    Mike Folk, Gerd Heber, Quincey Koziol, Elena Pourmal, and Dana Robinson. An overview of the hdf5 technology suite and its applications. InProceedings of the EDBT/ICDT 2011 workshop on array databases, pages 36–47, 2011

    2011

  16. [25]

    Daniel Gilman, Simon Birrer, Tommaso Treu, Anna Nierenberg, and Andrew Benson. Probing dark matter structure down to 107 solar masses: flux ratio statistics in gravitational lenses with line-of-sight haloes.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487(4):5721–5738, 2019

    2019

  17. [26]

    Healpix: A framework for high-resolution discretization and fast analysis of data distributed on the sphere.The Astrophysical Journal, 622(2):759, 2005

    Krzysztof M Gorski, Eric Hivon, Anthony J Banday, Benjamin D Wandelt, Frode K Hansen, Mstvos Reinecke, and Matthia Bartelmann. Healpix: A framework for high-resolution discretization and fast analysis of data distributed on the sphere.The Astrophysical Journal, 622(2):759, 2005

    2005

  18. [27]

    Improving the precision of time-delay cosmography with observations of galaxies along the line of sight.The Astrophysical Journal, 768(1):39, 2013

    Zach S Greene, Sherry H Suyu, Tommaso Treu, Stefan Hilbert, Matthew W Auger, Thomas E Collett, Philip J Marshall, Christopher D Fassnacht, Roger D Blandford, Maruša Bradač, et al. Improving the precision of time-delay cosmography with observations of galaxies along the line of...

    2013

  19. [28]

    Greene, Sherry H

    Zach S. Greene, Sherry H. Suyu, Tommaso Treu, Stefan Hilbert, Matthew W. Auger, Thomas E. Collett, Philip J. Marshall, Christopher D. Fassnacht, Roger D. Blandford, Maruša Bradač, and Léon V. E. Koopmans. Improving the Precision of Time-delay Cosmography with Observations of G...

  20. [29]

    Harris, K

    Charles R. Harris, K. Jarrod Millman, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Ralf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau, Eric Wieser, Julian Taylor, Sebastian Berg, Nathaniel J. Smith, Robert Kern, Matti Picus, Stephan Hoyer, Marten H. van Kerkwijk, Matthew Brett, Allan Haldane, Jaime Fe...

    2020

  21. [30]

    Hogg, Pierre Fleury, Julien Larena, and Matteo Martinelli

    Natalie B. Hogg, Pierre Fleury, Julien Larena, and Matteo Martinelli. Measuring line-of-sight shear with Einstein rings: a proof of concept.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520(4):5982–6000, April 2023. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad512

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    J. D. Hunter. Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment.Computing in Science & Engineering, 9 (3):90–95, 2007. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  23. [32]

    Foreground biases in strong gravitational lensing.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024(10):055, oct

    Daniel Johnson, Pierre Fleury, Julien Larena, and Lucia Marchetti. Foreground biases in strong gravitational lensing.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024(10):055, oct

    2024

  24. [33]

    Monte carlo control loops for cosmic shear cosmology with des year 1 data.Physical Review D, 101(8): 082003, 2020

    Tomasz Kacprzak, Jörg Herbel, Andrina Nicola, Raphaël Sgier, Federica Tarsitano, Claudio Bruderer, Adam Amara, Alexandre Refregier, SL Bridle, A Drlica-Wagner, et al. Monte carlo control loops for cosmic shear cosmology with des year 1 data.Physical Review D, 101(8): 082003, 2020

    2020

  25. [34]

    Charles R. Keeton. A Catalog of Mass Models for Gravitational Lensing.arXiv e-prints, art. astro-ph/0102341, February 2001. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0102341

    2001 doi arXiv

  26. [35]

    Shear and ellipticity in gravitational lenses.The Astrophysical Journal, 482(2):604, 1997

    CR Keeton, CS Kochanek, and U Seljak. Shear and ellipticity in gravitational lenses.The Astrophysical Journal, 482(2):604, 1997

    1997

  27. [36]

    – 24 – desihub/speclite: Initial doi

    David Kirkby, Andy Park, John Moustakas, Stephen Bailey, Benjamin Alan Weaver, Sergey Koposov, Marcelo Alvarez, Hélion Du Mas Des Bourboux, and Javier Sanchez. – 24 – desihub/speclite: Initial doi. mar 2023. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734526. URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/20...

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    Combining strong and weak lensing estimates in the Cosmos field.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021(4):010, April 2021

    Felix Arjun Kuhn, Simon Birrer, Claudio Bruderer, Adam Amara, and Alexandre Refregier. Combining strong and weak lensing estimates in the Cosmos field.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021(4):010, April 2021. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/010

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    The impact of line-of-sight structures on measuring h 0 with strong lensing time delays.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504(2): 2224–2234, 2021

    Nan Li, Christoph Becker, and Simon Dye. The impact of line-of-sight structures on measuring h 0 with strong lensing time delays.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504(2): 2224–2234, 2021

    2021

  30. [39]

    Cosmology from large populations of galaxy–galaxy strong gravitational lenses.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527(3):5311–5323, 2024

    Tian Li, Thomas E Collett, Coleman M Krawczyk, and Wolfgang Enzi. Cosmology from large populations of galaxy–galaxy strong gravitational lenses.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527(3):5311–5323, 2024

    2024

  31. [40]

    Galaxy density profiles and shapes–ii

    Rachel Mandelbaum, Glenn Van De Ven, and Charles R Keeton. Galaxy density profiles and shapes–ii. selection biases in strong lensing surveys.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398(2):635–657, 2009

    2009

  32. [41]

    Keeton, Kenneth C

    Curtis McCully, Charles R. Keeton, Kenneth C. Wong, and Ann I. Zabludoff. Quantifying Environmental and Line-of-sight Effects in Models of Strong Gravitational Lens Systems.The Astrophysical Journal, 836(1):141, February 2017. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/141

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    Quantifying environmental and line-of-sight effects in models of strong gravitational lens systems.The Astrophysical Journal, 836(1):141, 2017

    Curtis McCully, Charles R Keeton, Kenneth C Wong, and Ann I Zabludoff. Quantifying environmental and line-of-sight effects in models of strong gravitational lens systems.The Astrophysical Journal, 836(1):141, 2017

    2017

  34. [43]

    Slsim (strong lensing simulation) pipeline (in preparation).In Preparation, 2025?

    Anowar Shajib et al Narayan Khadka, Simon Birrer. Slsim (strong lensing simulation) pipeline (in preparation).In Preparation, 2025?

    2025

  35. [44]

    Gravitationally lensed quasars and supernovae in future wide-field optical imaging surveys.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405(4):2579–2593, 2010

    Masamune Oguri and Philip J Marshall. Gravitationally lensed quasars and supernovae in future wide-field optical imaging surveys.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405(4):2579–2593, 2010

    2010

  36. [45]

    Hierarchical inference of the lensing convergence from photometric catalogs with bayesian graph neural networks.The Astrophysical Journal, 953(2):178, 2023

    Ji Won Park, Simon Birrer, Madison Ueland, Miles Cranmer, Adriano Agnello, Sebastian Wagner-Carena, Philip J Marshall, Aaron Roodman, LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, et al. Hierarchical inference of the lensing convergence from photometric catalogs with bayesian graph ...

    2023

  37. [46]

    Richards, Michael A

    Gordon T. Richards, Michael A. Strauss, Xiaohui Fan, Patrick B. Hall, Sebastian Jester, Donald P. Schneider, Daniel E. Vanden Berk, Chris Stoughton, Scott F. Anderson, Robert J. Brunner, Jim Gray, James E. Gunn, Željko Ivezić, Margaret K. Kirkland, G. R. Knapp, Jon Loveday, Av...

    2006

  38. [47]

    Astropy: A community python package for astronomy.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558:A33, 2013

    Thomas P Robitaille, Erik J Tollerud, Perry Greenfield, Michael Droettboom, Erik Bray, Tom Aldcroft, Matt Davis, Adam Ginsburg, Adrian M Price-Whelan, Wolfgang E Kerzendorf, et al. Astropy: A community python package for astronomy.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558:A33, 2013

    2013

  39. [48]

    Rusu, Christopher D

    Cristian E. Rusu, Christopher D. Fassnacht, Dominique Sluse, Stefan Hilbert, Kenneth C. Wong, Kuang-Han Huang, Sherry H. Suyu, Thomas E. Collett, Philip J. Marshall, Tommaso Treu, and Leon V. E. Koopmans. H0LiCOW - III. Quantifying the effect of mass along the line of sight to...

    2017 doi

  40. [49]

    An analytic expression for the luminosity function for galaxies.Astrophysical Journal, Vol

    Paul Schechter. An analytic expression for the luminosity function for galaxies.Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 203, p. 297-306, 203:297–306, 1976

    1976

  41. [50]

    The cosmological lens equation and the equivalent single-plane gravitational lens.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 292(3):673–678, 1997

    Peter Schneider. The cosmological lens equation and the equivalent single-plane gravitational lens.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 292(3):673–678, 1997

    1997

  42. [51]

    Massive elliptical galaxies at z 0.2 live inside uncontracted nfw halos and follow the salpeter stellar imf

    A Shajib. Massive elliptical galaxies at z 0.2 live inside uncontracted nfw halos and follow the salpeter stellar imf. InAmerican Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, volume 53, pages 228–01, 2021

    2021

  43. [52]

    Tdcosmo-xii

    Anowar J Shajib, Pritom Mozumdar, Geoff C-F Chen, Tommaso Treu, Michele Cappellari, Shawn Knabel, Sherry H Suyu, Vardha N Bennert, Joshua A Frieman, Dominique Sluse, et al. Tdcosmo-xii. improved hubble constant measurement from lensing time delays using spatially resolved stel...

    2023

  44. [53]

    Shajib, Graham P

    Anowar J. Shajib, Graham P. Smith, Simon Birrer, Aprajita Verma, Nikki Arendse, and Thomas E. Collett. Strong gravitational lenses from the Vera C. Rubin Observatory.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2406.08919, June 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08919

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [54]

    Project dinos ii: Redshift evolution of dark and luminous matter density profiles in strong-lensing elliptical galaxies across0.1< z <0.9

    William Sheu, Anowar J Shajib, Tommaso Treu, Alessandro Sonnenfeld, Simon Birrer, Michele Cappellari, Lindsay J Oldham, and Chin Yi Tan. Project dinos ii: Redshift evolution of dark and luminous matter density profiles in strong-lensing elliptical galaxies across0.1< z <0.9. a...

    2024 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Strong lensing selection effects.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678:A4, 2023

    Alessandro Sonnenfeld, Shun-Sheng Li, Giulia Despali, Raphael Gavazzi, Anowar J Shajib, and Edward N Taylor. Strong lensing selection effects.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678:A4, 2023

    2023

  47. [56]

    S. H. Suyu, P. J. Marshall, M. W. Auger, S. Hilbert, R. D. Blandford, L. V. E. Koopmans, C. D. Fassnacht, and T. Treu. Dissecting the Gravitational lens B1608+656. II. Precision Measurements of the Hubble Constant, Spatial Curvature, and the Dark Energy Equation of State.The A...

    2010 doi

  48. [57]

    Dissecting the gravitational lens b1608+ 656

    SH Suyu, PJ Marshall, MW Auger, S Hilbert, RD Blandford, LVE Koopmans, CD Fassnacht, and T Treu. Dissecting the gravitational lens b1608+ 656. ii. precision measurements of the hubble constant, spatial curvature, and the dark energy equation of state.The Astrophysical Journal,...

    2010

  49. [58]

    GLASS: Generator for Large Scale Structure.The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6:11, March 2023

    Nicolas Tessore, Arthur Loureiro, Benjamin Joachimi, Maximilian von Wietersheim-Kramsta, and Niall Jeffrey. GLASS: Generator for Large Scale Structure.The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6:11, March 2023. doi: 10.21105/astro.2302.01942

    2023 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Tihhonova, F

    O. Tihhonova, F. Courbin, D. Harvey, S. Hilbert, A. Peel, C. E. Rusu, C. D. Fassnacht, V. Bonvin, P. J. Marshall, G. Meylan, D. Sluse, S. H. Suyu, T. Treu, and K. C. Wong. H0LiCOW - XI. A weak lensing measurement of the external convergence in the field of the lensed quasar B1...

    2020 doi

  51. [60]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, Andrew R. J. Nelson, E...

    2020

  52. [61]

    Patrick Wells, Christopher D Fassnacht, and CE Rusu. Tdcosmo xiv: Practical techniques for estimating external convergence of strong gravitational lens systems and applications to the sdss j0924+ 0219 system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03176, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Wells, Christopher D

    Patrick R. Wells, Christopher D. Fassnacht, Simon Birrer, and Devon Williams. TDCOSMO: XV. Population analysis of lines of sight of 25 strong galaxy-galaxy lenses with extreme value statistics.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689:A87, September 2024. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450002. – 27 –

    2024 doi

  54. [2013]

    doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/39

    doi

  55. [2024]

    URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/055

    doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/055. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/055

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.