Mapping dark matter in the Bullet Cluster using JWST imaging and spectroscopy

Andrea Biviano; Andrew Robertson; Anishya Harshan; Annika H. G. Peter; Anthony H. Gonzalez; Brian C. Lemaux; Carla Cornil-Baiotto; Chris J. Willott; Christine Jones; Danilo Marchesini

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Mapping dark matter in the Bullet Cluster using JWST imaging and spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Bullet Cluster's subcluster dark-matter halo lies 4 kpc from its brightest galaxy — a threefold tighter constraint than before — sharpening the key observational test of dark-matter self-interaction.

desk verdict A substantial step forward for Bullet Cluster lensing, with the 4 kpc DM–BCG offset still tied to the symmetric-halo assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.22245 v2 pith:MHM64FD3 submitted 2026-01-29 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Gregor Rihtaršič , Maruša Bradač , Guillaume Desprez , Anishya Harshan , Nicholas S. Martis , Chris J. Willott , Yoshihisa Asada , Ghassan T. E. Sarrouh

show 18 more authors

Carla Cornil-Baiotto Andrea Biviano Douglas Clowe Anthony H. Gonzalez Christine Jones Jon Judež Stacy Y. Kim Brian C. Lemaux Marco Lombardi Danilo Marchesini Maxim Markevitch Vladan Markov Gaël Noirot Annika H. G. Peter Scott W. Randall Andrew Robertson Marcin Sawicki Roberta Tripodi

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA PACS 95.35.+d98.62.Sb

keywords stronggravitationallensingdarkmatterBulletClusterJWSTNIRSpecspectroscopygalaxyclustersmassdistributionself-interaction

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

This paper builds a new gravitational-lens model of the Bullet Cluster from JWST imaging and spectroscopy, anchored by 135 securely multiply-imaged features from 27 background galaxies, all with spectroscopic redshifts. Its central result is that the dark-matter halo of the bullet subcluster is closely aligned with the subcluster's brightest galaxy, displaced by only 4+4−2 kpc, a threefold precision gain over the same model without the JWST data. The main cluster, by contrast, is resolved into a double-peaked, elongated dark-matter distribution bridging its two brightest galaxies. The paper argues that the tight subcluster alignment is the most direct available constraint on how far dark matter can lag behind galaxies in a high-velocity merger, and therefore on how strongly dark-matter particles interact with one another. The new spectroscopic catalogue also exposes small, spatially coherent redshift biases in earlier, sparsely calibrated lens models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing measurement is the displacement between the subcluster's dark-matter halo, modelled as a single smooth PIEMD profile (a pseudo-isothermal elliptical mass distribution with a core and an outer cutoff), and the subcluster's brightest galaxy. The paper isolates the effect of the new JWST data by re-optimising the identical parametric model with and without the newly added multiple-image systems: the offset tightens from 9+14−1 kpc to 4+4−2 kpc. Surrounding this are 135 spectroscopically confirmed multiple images from 27 background galaxies, a fixed X-ray gas map, roughly 219 cluster-member halos following luminosity scaling relations, and several group-scale halos fixed by clus

What would settle it

Re-fit the same 135-image catalogue with a free-form lensing method that allows arbitrary asymmetric mass distributions in the subcluster: if the recovered mass centroid shifts by substantially more than 4 kpc, or the best-fit density map shows substantial asymmetry around the brightest galaxy, then the measured alignment is an artefact of the assumed single symmetric halo rather than a physical constraint on dark-matter self-interaction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that with 135 spectroscopically confirmed multiple images, the subcluster's single large-scale dark-matter halo is centred 4+4−2 kpc from BCG3, the subcluster's brightest galaxy — three times more precise than the 9+14−1 kpc recovered using only pre-JWST systems, and systematically lower. Because the expected separation between dark matter and galaxies in a merger scales with the self-interaction cross-section, this measurement sharpens the upper limit on that cross-section, provided the parametric model captures the true mass distribution. The authors also find that the main cluster's dark matter is a single elongated, double-peaked structure with elevated density between t

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes the subcluster's dark matter is one smooth, symmetric blob centred near the galaxy; if the true dark-matter distribution is lopsided or differently shaped by the merger, the measured 4-kpc offset is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The 4+4−2 kpc subcluster dark-matter–galaxy offset is the tightest model-based measurement in the Bullet Cluster to date, directly feeding upper limits on the dark-matter self-interaction cross-section.
With 27 spectroscopic systems (8 in the subcluster, where there was previously 1), the new model substantially reduces the systematic errors in mass profiles, magnifications, and multiple-image predictions that sparse redshift information caused in earlier models.
The main cluster's dark-matter distribution is double-peaked and elongated along the axis connecting its two brightest galaxies, with elevated density between the peaks; adding group-scale substructures along the two merger axes improves the fit over models without them.
Aperture masses agree across three independent lens models within roughly 60 kpc of the brightest cluster galaxies, establishing a robust scale at which the cluster's total enclosed mass is model-independent.
The new spectroscopic redshifts reveal small but spatially coherent deviations from redshifts predicted by earlier models, showing where sparse spectroscopy had biased the mass reconstruction.

Reading between the lines

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

The precision gain comes almost entirely from the sheer number of new multiple-image constraints rather than from the redshift information itself: re-optimising with new images but leaving redshifts free already sharpens the offset, while the new redshifts mainly pull the best-fit value from 7 kpc to 4 kpc. This suggests future gains on the displacement may come more from wider/deeper imaging than
Because the quoted offset is small (4+4−2 kpc) and depends on a symmetric single-halo parametrisation, the measurement is best read as an upper envelope on possible dark-matter–galaxy separation rather than evidence for a large offset; a free-form lensing reconstruction on the same catalogue would test this directly.
The paper's own prescription — re-running the same strong-lensing analysis on hydrodynamical simulations of Bullet-like mergers — is the decisive next step: only if simulations with a given self-interaction cross-section reproduce both the image positions and the recovered displacement can the offset be converted into a cross-section limit.
The close agreement of aperture masses at 60 kpc across parametric and free-form models suggests that 60-kpc enclosed masses are a robust anchor for cluster mass calibration and magnification estimates, even where the detailed mass maps diverge.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is the new reference strong-lensing model of the Bullet Cluster, built on 27 spectroscopic systems instead of 5. The 4+4−2 kpc DM–BCG offset in the subcluster is a real improvement in precision, but it remains tied to the choice of a single symmetric PIEMD halo for the subcluster—the authors say so themselves. Worth refereeing and worth citing, but not the last word on SIDM.

What is actually new: the JWST NIRCam/NIRSpec data, a gold catalogue of 135 images from 27 galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts, a redshift range from 0.9 to 6.7, and uniform coverage of both subclusters. The catalogue alone is a resource for the community. The lens model is carefully built and documented: Lenstool with large-scale haloes, cluster members, gas, and group-scale substructures from B23, plus a fair comparison against constant shear and against the earlier R21 and C25 models. The Figure 9 comparison of predicted versus spectroscopic redshifts for systems not used in R21 is a genuine out-of-sample test, and it highlights where the older model fails. That is honest and useful.

The soft spots, in proportion:

First, the headline offset depends on H3 being a single symmetric PIEMD. Section 5.1 acknowledges this, citing Robertson et al. (2017) on aperture-dependence of the inferred displacement. C25's free-form plus weak lensing gives 17.78±0.66 kpc; the paper calls the two measurements 'not strictly equivalent' but does not provide a conversion from H3 centre to an aperture-mass centroid. For an SIDM interpretation, you need that mapping. The threefold precision gain is computed by re-optimising the same parametrisation, so it does not constrain this systematic.

Second, the substructure masses from B23 carry uncertainties that often exceed 100%. Most are fixed, only S1 and S7 are free, and those uncertainties are not propagated. That is acceptable if the substructures are treated as a better-than-constant-shear approximation, but it means the formal halo-position uncertainties probably underestimate the true systematic. Constant shear actually gives a slightly better Δrms (0.40″ vs 0.43″), which is another reminder that the substructure implementation is convenient, not proven.

Third, the promised data products are not shipped with the preprint—they 'will be made available'. For a catalogue-driven paper, that should happen before acceptance.

None of this is fatal. The central lens model and the redshift catalogue are solid, the comparisons are fair, and the caveats are out in the open rather than buried. I would send this to a strong referee; the main request would be to test the stability of the H3–BCG3 offset under different subcluster halo parametrisations (e.g., allowing asymmetry or running a free-form reconstruction on the same constraints) and to release the catalogue and maps. My recommendation: accept after moderate revision, pending data release.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents an updated strong-lensing model of the Bullet Cluster (1E 0657-56) based on JWST NIRCam imaging and NIRSpec prism spectroscopy. The gold sample comprises 135 secure multiple images from 27 spectroscopically confirmed lensed galaxies, with redshifts spanning z = 0.9-6.7, roughly quadrupling the number of spectroscopic systems previously available. The lens model is built with Lenstool and includes four PIEMD large-scale halos, 213 cluster members with luminosity scaling relations, a fixed X-ray gas map, and seven group-scale substructures whose parameters are anchored to the B23 kinematic analysis. The headline result is that the subcluster dark-matter halo H3 aligns with the subcluster BCG BCG3 to within 4^{+4}_{-2} kpc, a threefold improvement in precision over a re-optimised version of the same parametrisation without the JWST systems. The paper also provides a catalogue of 199 multiple-image candidates, compares aperture masses with the R21 and C25 models, and shows that earlier models produce small but spatially coherent redshift-prediction offsets relative to the new NIRSpec redshifts.

Significance. If the subcluster DM-BCG offset measurement is robust, this is the tightest model-based constraint on the DM-galaxy displacement in the Bullet Cluster and is directly relevant to dark-matter self-interaction limits. The paper's empirical assets are substantial: 27 spectroscopic systems with uniform spatial coverage, an extensive and carefully graded multiple-image catalogue, explicit comparison against alternative parametrisations, and genuine out-of-sample redshift predictions from the pre-JWST R21 model. These are real strengths and go well beyond simply adding more image positions. However, the central displacement claim rests on a single, symmetric PIEMD component for the subcluster, and the paper itself acknowledges that this parametrisation cannot capture self-interaction-induced asymmetries. Because the threefold improvement is measured against the same parametrisation, it does not yet bound the dominant systematic uncertainty. The result is therefore promising but not yet at the level of a robust SIDM constraint.

major comments (3)

[Section 5.1, Table 2, Table C.2] The central offset measurement is not assessed against the best-fitting model in Table 2. The constant-shear model has lower χ² (86 vs 101), lower BIC (250 vs 266), and lower Δrms (0.40" vs 0.43"), and only marginally lower log evidence. Because the authors favour the substructure model on physical grounds, the displacement should be reported for both models, or at minimum a sensitivity test should show how much H3-BCG3 changes when substructures are replaced by constant shear. Without this, the quoted 4^{+4}_{-2} kpc is conditional on one specific environmental parametrisation.
[Section 4.4, Table 1] The mass estimates M^σ_200 and M^r_200 in Table 1 differ by up to an order of magnitude, yet the adopted average is used as a fixed parameter. The paper notes the uncertainties are 'not considered in our lens model'. This is a significant omission for a model that uses these substructures as a physically motivated replacement for constant shear, especially since the fiducial and constant-shear models produce different mass distributions in the inner region (Fig. 6). I would like to see the H3-BCG3 offset recomputed with substructure masses drawn from the full range of Table 1, or a clear argument why the offset is insensitive to these choices.
[Section 5.1, Fig. 8] The claim of a threefold precision improvement is computed by re-optimising the same parametrisation without JWST systems. This tells us about the constraining power of the new data within that parametrisation, but not about the systematic error from the assumed functional form. Given the explicit caveat about symmetric halos, the paper should be explicit that the improvement is a precision gain conditional on the model family, not a reduction of the dominant model systematic. I would phrase the abstract and summary accordingly, or add an explicit systematic term to the quoted uncertainty.

minor comments (5)

[Table A.1] The 'Class' column uses g, s, b but the text only defines 'gold', 'silver', 'bronze'. Please define the single-letter abbreviations in the table caption or the main text.
[Section 4.5, Eq. (6)] The adopted positional uncertainty σp = 0.5" is justified, but the resulting χ²/DoF = 0.7 suggests that the uncertainties are conservative. This is fine for parameter estimation, but it means the quoted parameter uncertainties (e.g., the 4^{+4}_{-2} kpc offset) may be overestimated. A brief sentence noting that the offset uncertainty should not be interpreted as a pure statistical error would help.
[Section 5.2] The discussion of the constant-shear model reports that it 'provides a better fit' while also stating it 'provides no increase in evidence'. The two statements are both shown in Table 2, but the text could be clearer that the evidence and BIC are in tension and which metric the authors regard as decisive.
[Appendix B] For sources with asymmetrical uncertainties (e.g., K9a.1, N7, N11), the convention for reporting upper/lower errors is not defined. Please state whether these are 68% credible intervals from the redshift posterior.
[Figure 1] The figure legend and main text describe the colour coding of multiple images by grade, but the plot is dense and the squares/diamonds/circles/stars symbols are hard to distinguish at the printed size. A larger inset or a zoomed version would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lens-model displacement is a fitted parameter from independent JWST image/spectroscopic constraints, and the claimed improvement is a controlled re-optimization comparison, not a construction-level identity.

full rationale

The central result—the H3–BCG3 displacement of 4+4−2 kpc—is a free parameter of a Lenstool PIEMD model fitted to 135 multiply imaged positions with 27 spectroscopic system redshifts (Section 4.5, Eq. 6; Table C.2). It is an inference from data, not a quantity defined in terms of itself or fitted to a closely related output that is then called a prediction. The 'threefold improvement in precision' is obtained by re-optimizing the same parametrization on the pre-JWST subset and on the full JWST catalogue (Section 5.1); this is a legitimate controlled comparison of two fits, not a circular prediction. The redshift tests in Figure 9 are genuine out-of-sample checks for the R21 model: the paper explicitly distinguishes systems used to optimize R21 (diamonds) from JWST-discovered systems not used (squares). For C25, the paper notes that C25 included some of those systems as constraints, so no in-sample effect is hidden. The group-scale substructures are taken from the independent kinematic analysis B23, with masses from external velocity-dispersion/richness relations, and their addition is tested against a constant-shear alternative; this is independent input, not a self-referential construction. The cluster gas map originates from Chandra X-ray data (Bradač et al. 2006, Clowe et al. 2006) and is fixed; removing it changes the offset to 10.6 kpc, consistent with the fiducial value, so the central result does not rest on that self-citation. The paper's own Section 5.1 caveat—'Our simplified parametrisation, which assumes a symmetric large-scale halo, lacks the flexibility to capture self-interaction-induced asymmetries'—flags a genuine model-bias/systematics risk, as does the comparison with C25's 17.78 kpc weak-lensing-inclusive offset. These are external correctness concerns, not circularity: no load-bearing claim is reduced to its own input by definition, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The derivation chain is self-contained against the new JWST data and against independent external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is a parametric fit: eight PIEMD halo parameter sets, three BCG and three galaxy dispersions, two scaling-relation normalizations, and two substructure normalizations are fitted to the data. The main assumptions are the PIEMD form, the B23 substructure priors, the fixed X-ray gas map, and the adopted positional uncertainty. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)

H1 PIEMD parameters = x0=6.9", y0=7.1", e=0.69, θ=60°, σ_lt=586 km/s, r_core=12" (best-fit)
Fitted to multiple-image positions to describe the elongated main-cluster mass distribution.
H2 PIEMD parameters = x0=39.6", y0=39.9", e=0.44, θ=71°, σ_lt=541 km/s, r_core=20" (best-fit)
Second main-cluster halo, fitted to reproduce the northeastern mass tail.
H3 PIEMD parameters = x0=185.0", y0=49.7", e=0.49, θ=1°, σ_lt=683 km/s, r_core=11" (best-fit)
Subcluster halo; its centroid defines the DM–BCG displacement of 4 kpc.
H4 PIEMD parameters = e=0.66, θ=28°, σ_lt=510 km/s, r_core=31" (best-fit)
South extension halo; position fixed, shape and normalization fitted.
BCG1/BCG2/BCG3 velocity dispersions = 217, 213, 189 km/s (best-fit)
Free σ_lt for the three BCGs, separately from scaling relations.
G5, G9, G10 velocity dispersions = 160, 148, 133 km/s (best-fit)
Individually modeled cluster members near lensed systems.
Scaling-relation normalizations = σ_ref_lt=247 km/s, r_ref_cut=23" (best-fit)
Normalize the luminosity–mass scaling relations for 213 cluster members.
S1 and S7 velocity-dispersion normalizations = 300 km/s and 566 km/s (best-fit)
Free normalizations for the two most influential substructures.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Mass distribution is a superposition of PIEMD halos with fixed r_cut=2 Mpc for large halos
Section 4: parametric form chosen for flexibility, but the true DM distribution may deviate; central displacement result depends on this.
domain assumption Cluster members follow luminosity scaling relations with α=0.25, β_cut=0.5
Eq. 5: assumed scaling based on prior work; normalization fitted, slopes fixed.
domain assumption Substructure positions and masses from B23 are correct
Section 4.4: substructures fixed to B23 kinematic estimates with high unpropagated uncertainty.
domain assumption Chandra X-ray gas map is fixed and accurate to ~10%
Section 4.2: gas map from prior work used as fixed mass component.
domain assumption Multiple-image identifications and NIRSpec redshifts are correct to Δz/(1+z)≈0.002
Appendix B: redshift estimates verified against MUSE; misidentifications could bias the model.
ad hoc to paper Adopted position uncertainty σp=0.5″ is appropriate
Section 4.5: deliberately inflated from ~20 mas astrometric precision to account for model systematics; does not affect best fit but sets parameter uncertainties.
standard math Flat ΛCDM cosmology with Ωm=0.3, ΩΛ=0.7, H0=70 km/s/Mpc
Assumed throughout for distance conversions and lensing efficiencies.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mapping dark matter in the Bullet Cluster using JWST imaging and spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MHM64FD3

@misc{pith2026260122245,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mapping dark matter in the Bullet Cluster using JWST imaging and spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MHM64FD3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.22245}
}

abstract

We present an updated gravitational lens model of the Bullet cluster (1E 0657-56) by combining JWST NIRCam imaging and NIRSpec spectroscopy. Although previous lens models relied on many multiply imaged galaxies, only six systems had spectroscopic redshifts prior to this work. Our lens model is constrained by a catalogue of 135 secure multiple images from 27 background galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts, uniformly covering both subclusters and a wide redshift range of 0.9 - 6.7. We also provide a catalogue of 199 multiple image candidates. We modelled the cluster with Lenstool and incorporated several large-scale haloes, cluster members, the intracluster gas, and group-scale haloes surrounding the cluster core, motivated by spectroscopic studies of cluster member kinematics. We describe the main cluster component with a complex, elongated double-peaked distribution, and the subcluster with a single large-scale halo aligning closely with the brightest cluster galaxy ($4_{-2}^{+3}$ kpc). The uncertainty of the displacement has been improved threefold thanks to the addition of JWST systems. The addition of group-scale substructures, roughly following the two axes of cluster assembly, improves the fit to the multiple image positions and provides a physically motivated alternative to constant shear. Our lens model shows the closest agreement with previous studies in aperture mass profiles at $\sim60$ kpc from the brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs), but exhibits significant differences in the detailed mass distribution as a result of different lens-modelling strategies and adopted constraints. The differences are reflected in small but spatially coherent deviations between the new spectroscopic redshifts and redshifts predicted by earlier lens models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.22245 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** JWST/NIRCam image of the Bullet cluster with multiply imaged systems. The RGB image is composed of several NIRCam filters (F444W, F277W and F356W in red, F200W and F150W in green, and F115W and F090W in blue). A smoothed Chandra X-ray image, showing cluster gas, is shown in pink. The colour of multiple images represents their quality grades (gold, silver or bronze) and whether they were used in the pre-JWST models (… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Spectroscopic redshift distribution of multiply lensed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The three multiple images of system K17. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The inverted grayscale image (F277W) of the Bullet cluster covering the full NIRCam FOV, with indicated photometric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left panel: Convergence (total density) from our best-fit fiducial model, covering a large FOV with indicated positions of substructure halos with fixed (red) or free (orange) normalisation σlt . The contour values indicate the values of κ while the colourmap shows log…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Density κ, overplotted with the line field indicating the lensing shear, contributed by the group-scale substructures on the cluster outskirts. The lines indicate the shear orientation, and their length is proportional to the strength of the shear in each grid point. I…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The κ map differences between our model and the lens models of R21 (upper panel) and C25 (lower panel), overplotted with multiple images with newly obtained NIRSpec redshifts. The colours of multiple images indicate the relative difference between the model-predicted a…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Upper panel: cumulative mass in the 2D aperture r as a function of the distance from BCG1 in the main cluster (labelled as "M") and the BCG3 in the subcluster (labelled as "S") in kpc. The plot shows the mass distributions in R21, C25 and our fiducial model. We show t…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Upper panel: Comparison between the NIRSpec spectroscopic redshifts and the lens-model predicted redshifts from R21 and C25 as a function of spectroscopic redshifts. For R21, we plot the pre-JWST systems used for model optimisation (diamonds) with statistical uncerta…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

A clear detection of proper motion confirms that the claimed $\mathbf{z\simeq32}$ galaxy candidate, "Capotauro'', is a Y-type brown dwarf
astro-ph.GA 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Capotauro, previously a candidate galaxy at z about 32, is confirmed as a Y-type brown dwarf near 730 pc by a 6.2 sigma proper motion measured over 3.5 years.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

2 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

J., et al

Asada, Y ., Desprez, G., Willott, C. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, L2 Barrena, R., Biviano, A., Ramella, M., Falco, E. E., & Seitz, S. 2002, A&A, 386, 816 Beauchesne, B., Clément, B., Hibon, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3246 Beauchesne, B., Clément, B., Richard, J., & Kneib, J.-P. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2002 Benavides, J. A., Biviano, A., & Abadi, M. G. 2023, A&A...

arXiv 2025
[2024]

uncertainty, we compared the redshifts between different (secure) multiple images of a single system and between NIRSpec and MUSE redshifts from R21 where available. Based on the redshift scatter among 11 systems with several NIRSpec redshift measurements, we estimate the redshift uncertainty ∆z/(1+z)∼0.002, which we use for most NIRSpec redshifts in this...

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J., et al

Asada, Y ., Desprez, G., Willott, C. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, L2 Barrena, R., Biviano, A., Ramella, M., Falco, E. E., & Seitz, S. 2002, A&A, 386, 816 Beauchesne, B., Clément, B., Hibon, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3246 Beauchesne, B., Clément, B., Richard, J., & Kneib, J.-P. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2002 Benavides, J. A., Biviano, A., & Abadi, M. G. 2023, A&A...

arXiv 2025

[2] [2024]

uncertainty, we compared the redshifts between different (secure) multiple images of a single system and between NIRSpec and MUSE redshifts from R21 where available. Based on the redshift scatter among 11 systems with several NIRSpec redshift measurements, we estimate the redshift uncertainty ∆z/(1+z)∼0.002, which we use for most NIRSpec redshifts in this...

2025