pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.02418 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: no theorem link

Supernova 2025wny: High-angular resolution Keck/NIRC2 observations and preliminary lens modeling

Christopher J. Storfer , Kenneth C. Wong , Ana Acebron , Claudio Grillo , Willem B. Hoogendam , Xiaosheng Huang , David O. Jones , Eugene A. Magnier
show 5 more authors
Kaisey S. Mandel Nicolas Ratier-Werbin David Rubin Benjamin J. Shappee Oscar Soler-Perez
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 20:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords lensed supernovagravitational lens modelingadaptive opticsKeck telescopetime-delay cosmographysuperluminous supernovagalaxy mass
0
0 comments X

The pith

High-resolution Keck imaging yields precise astrometry for the five images of lensed supernova 2025wny and consistent mass models from two independent codes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents Kp-band adaptive optics imaging of supernova 2025wny taken with Keck/NIRC2 at 0.065 arcsecond resolution. Precise positions of the five multiple images serve as constraints for lens models that parameterize the total mass as a singular isothermal ellipsoid or sphere plus external shear. Two separate modeling packages produce nearly identical results that fit the observed positions to sub-milliarcsecond accuracy. The models return projected masses of 4.44 and 0.96 times 10 to the eleventh solar masses inside the Einstein radii of the primary and secondary galaxies, together with a velocity dispersion for the main lens that matches an independent DESI spectroscopic value. The work also reproduces an earlier report of excess flux in one image that exceeds the smooth-model prediction by a factor of two to three.

Core claim

High-angular resolution Kp-band adaptive optics imaging from Keck/NIRC2 determines the precise astrometric positions of the five multiple images of SN 2025wny. Lens mass models using a singular isothermal ellipsoid, a singular isothermal sphere, and external shear in two independent codes reproduce the positions with sub-milli-arcsecond residuals. The inferred masses are M1 = 4.44^{+0.06}_{-0.05} x 10^{11} solar masses and M2 = 0.96^{+0.02}_{-0.02} x 10^{11} solar masses, with the primary lens velocity dispersion of 277.4^{+0.9}_{-0.7} km/s consistent with the DESI value of 298 +/- 37 km/s.

What carries the argument

Singular isothermal ellipsoid or sphere with external shear, constrained by sub-arcsecond astrometric positions from adaptive optics imaging and fitted independently in two lens modeling codes.

If this is right

  • The system is suitable for time-delay cosmography studies.
  • The inferred masses and velocity dispersion are consistent with prior LBT-based modeling using the same codes.
  • One image shows an anomalous flux excess by a factor of 2-3 not accounted for by the smooth mass models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Precise time-delay measurements in this system could supply an independent route to cosmological parameters.
  • The flux anomaly may indicate microlensing or substructure that future monitoring could isolate.
  • The dual-code, high-resolution approach demonstrated here can be applied to additional galaxy-scale lensed transients.

Load-bearing premise

The lens mass distribution can be adequately described by a singular isothermal ellipsoid or sphere plus external shear.

What would settle it

A direct dynamical or weak-lensing mass measurement that deviates by more than the reported uncertainties from the modeled values, or image-position residuals that remain larger than sub-milliarcseconds after the same modeling procedure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02418 by Ana Acebron, Benjamin J. Shappee, Christopher J. Storfer, Claudio Grillo, David O. Jones, David Rubin, Eugene A. Magnier, Kaisey S. Mandel, Kenneth C. Wong, Nicolas Ratier-Werbin, Oscar Soler-Perez, Willem B. Hoogendam, Xiaosheng Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Keck/NIRC2 imaging data of SN Winny in the Kp band. Following the convention introduced by previous works, we label the two lens galaxies with G1 and G2. The multiple images of SN Winny are identified with A–E. Both images are 5.2 ′′ × 5.2 ′′, North is up and East is left. Left: The fully reduced image of SN Winny with no alterations. Right: The image of SN Winny convolved with a Gaussian kernel with a σ w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Keck/NIRC2 imaging data (left panel), the best-fit light model from Glee (middle panel), and the normalized residual image within a range between −3σ and 3σ with boxes centered on the multiple images A−E (right panel). The primary panels are 5.2 ′′ ×5.2 ′′. North is up and East is left. Shown on the right-most end of the figure, are 0.4 ′′ ×0.4 ′′ zoom-in cutouts of the normalized-residual image, centered … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Posterior distributions for the ten free parameters used in the modeling procedure for lenstronomy and Glee. Above each posterior distribution, we show the median value with the 16th and 84th percentile range. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Convergence map of the final lenstronomy model. The caustic (green line) and unlensed-source position (yellow star) are shown on the source-plane and the critical curve (red line), predicted (grey diamonds), and observed image positions (blue points) are shown on the lens-plane along with the light centroids (pink points) of G1 and G2. The marker size for the predicted multiple image positions is sca… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Flux-to-magnification ratios for each of the five lensed images, normalized to image B with a horizontal dashed line at unity (1). We show the ratios for both the lenstronomy and Glee model predicted magnifications with 1 and 2σ intervals for each. While we do not report time-delays in this work, it is worth noting that images A and C (and E) are roughly in-phase with relative time-delays between them on t… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The significance of the discrepancy in units of σ between the ten lens mass parameters from each of the two lens models reported here and in E26. This pair-wise comparison metric is defined in Equation 1. All parameters are consistent to less than 2σ. The parameter with the largest discrepancy is y1, the y position of the primary lens, G1. In particular, the lenstronomy model reported here is in tension wi… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Multiply imaged, gravitationally lensed supernovae are rare but powerful tools for providing independent measurements on cosmological parameters. Supernova (SN) 2025wny ("SN Winny") is the first gravitationally-lensed Type I superluminous supernova and the first lensed supernova in a galaxy-scale system that is suitable for time-delay cosmography studies. In this work, we present high-resolution $K_p$-band adaptive optics imaging of SN Winny obtained with the near-infrared camera (NIRC2) on the W. M. Keck II telescope. With exquisite image quality (FWHM$\approx0.^{\prime\prime}065$) we determine and make use of the precise astrometric positions of the five multiple images as constraints for our lens mass models. With lenstronomy and Glee, we parameterize the total mass of the system with a singular isothermal ellipsoid, a singular isothermal sphere, and external shear. The two independent models are in excellent agreement and reproduce the observed image positions with sub-milli-arcsecond residuals. The inferred projected total masses enclosed within the Einstein radii of the primary and secondary lens galaxies are M$_1$ = 4.44$^{+0.06}_{-0.05}\times10^{11} M_\odot$ and M$_2$ = 0.96$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}\times10^{11} M_\odot$, respectively. Likewise, the inferred effective velocity dispersion of the primary lens is $\sigma_{1} = $ 277.4$^{+0.9}_{-0.7}$ km/s, consistent with the independent spectroscopic measurement made by DESI of $\sigma_{\star,1} = $ 298$\,\pm\,37$ km/s. Our modeling results are also consistent with previous results for the same system with data from the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT), using the same lens modeling codes. We also corroborate their finding that the SN multiple image A has an anomalous excess of flux by a factor of ~2-3 beyond what our smooth mass models predict.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports high-resolution Keck/NIRC2 adaptive-optics imaging of the gravitationally lensed Type I superluminous supernova SN 2025wny, providing precise astrometric positions for its five multiple images. These positions are used to constrain parametric lens models (singular isothermal ellipsoid and singular isothermal sphere plus external shear) implemented independently in lenstronomy and Glee. The models agree to sub-milliarcsecond residuals and yield projected enclosed masses M1 = 4.44^{+0.06}_{-0.05}×10^{11} M_⊙ and M2 = 0.96^{+0.02}_{-0.02}×10^{11} M_⊙ within the Einstein radii together with an effective velocity dispersion σ1 = 277.4^{+0.9}_{-0.7} km s^{-1} that is consistent with the DESI spectroscopic value. The results are also stated to be consistent with earlier LBT-based modeling of the same system.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the work supplies the first galaxy-scale lensed superluminous supernova suitable for time-delay cosmography, with mass and velocity-dispersion measurements that can serve as anchors for future cosmological analyses once time delays are measured. The use of two independent codes, sub-mas residuals, and cross-checks with spectroscopy and prior data constitute concrete strengths that increase the reliability of the reported quantities.

major comments (3)
  1. [Modeling section] Modeling section (lens parameterization): The analysis restricts the total mass distribution to singular isothermal ellipsoid and sphere profiles (γ = 2 exactly). No power-law or composite profiles with free density slope are explored. Because the enclosed mass within the Einstein radius scales directly with the slope for a fixed image configuration, even modest deviations (γ = 1.8 or 2.2) would rescale the reported M1 and M2 while still reproducing the observed positions to sub-mas precision.
  2. [Results] Results and error analysis: The abstract and summary provide no quantitative error budget separating statistical uncertainties from systematics arising from profile choice, external shear parameterization, or the unmodeled flux anomaly in image A. The quoted ±0.06/0.05 and ±0.02 uncertainties on M1 and M2 therefore cannot be assessed for robustness against the weakest assumption identified in the stress test.
  3. [Results] Consistency check with spectroscopy: The reported agreement between the modeled σ1 = 277.4 km s^{-1} and the DESI value 298 ± 37 km s^{-1} lies well within the large spectroscopic uncertainty. This comparison therefore supplies only weak validation of the isothermal assumption and does not mitigate the need for explicit tests with non-isothermal profiles.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Discussion] The flux excess in image A (factor 2–3) is acknowledged but not folded into the mass model; a brief quantitative statement on whether this excess could be absorbed by small adjustments to the shear or by adding a substructure component would improve completeness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the analysis and clarify the limitations of the current modeling.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Modeling section] Modeling section (lens parameterization): The analysis restricts the total mass distribution to singular isothermal ellipsoid and sphere profiles (γ = 2 exactly). No power-law or composite profiles with free density slope are explored. Because the enclosed mass within the Einstein radius scales directly with the slope for a fixed image configuration, even modest deviations (γ = 1.8 or 2.2) would rescale the reported M1 and M2 while still reproducing the observed positions to sub-mas precision.

    Authors: We agree that the isothermal assumption (γ = 2) is a limitation and that allowing a free power-law slope would better quantify systematic uncertainties on the enclosed masses. In the revised manuscript we will add power-law models (with free γ) implemented in both lenstronomy and Glee, using the same image positions as constraints. This will demonstrate the sensitivity of M1 and M2 to the density slope and provide a more robust error budget. We note that the isothermal profiles were chosen for consistency with prior LBT modeling and because they are standard for preliminary time-delay cosmography work, but we accept the referee’s point that explicit tests with non-isothermal profiles are needed. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results and error analysis: The abstract and summary provide no quantitative error budget separating statistical uncertainties from systematics arising from profile choice, external shear parameterization, or the unmodeled flux anomaly in image A. The quoted ±0.06/0.05 and ±0.02 uncertainties on M1 and M2 therefore cannot be assessed for robustness against the weakest assumption identified in the stress test.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current error bars reflect only the statistical uncertainties from the MCMC sampling under the isothermal assumption. In the revised manuscript we will expand the results section to present a quantitative error budget that separates statistical and systematic contributions. This will include the impact of profile choice (from the new power-law runs), variations in external shear parameterization, and a discussion of the flux anomaly in image A. The revised text will clearly state that the quoted uncertainties are statistical only and will report the additional systematic range obtained from the expanded model suite. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Consistency check with spectroscopy: The reported agreement between the modeled σ1 = 277.4 km s^{-1} and the DESI value 298 ± 37 km s^{-1} lies well within the large spectroscopic uncertainty. This comparison therefore supplies only weak validation of the isothermal assumption and does not mitigate the need for explicit tests with non-isothermal profiles.

    Authors: We agree that the large spectroscopic uncertainty makes the comparison a relatively weak validation of the isothermal assumption. In the revised manuscript we will clarify this point in the text, noting that the agreement is consistent but does not strongly constrain the density slope. The addition of power-law models will allow us to compare the inferred velocity dispersions across different slopes and thereby provide a stronger internal test of the modeling assumptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to prior LBT modeling; central mass inference from image-position fits remains independent

full rationale

The derivation fits standard SIE/SIS+shear profiles in lenstronomy and Glee directly to the five observed image positions, yielding enclosed masses and velocity dispersion as free parameters of the fit. Image-position residuals are minimized by construction, but the reported masses (M1, M2) and σ1 are outputs, not inputs. The only self-reference is a consistency statement with prior LBT results using the same codes; this is not load-bearing for the Keck-derived values. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided text. The isothermal assumption is an explicit modeling choice whose bias risk is noted separately from circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central results rest on fitting two standard parametric lens models to new astrometric positions; the models introduce several free parameters whose values are determined by the data.

free parameters (3)
  • Einstein radius of primary lens
    Fitted parameter that sets the scale of the primary lens mass model
  • External shear components
    Fitted parameters describing the uniform external tidal field
  • Velocity dispersion scaling
    Derived from the fitted Einstein radius under the isothermal assumption
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Lens mass distribution follows a singular isothermal ellipsoid or sphere profile
    Standard simplifying assumption invoked for both modeling codes
  • domain assumption External shear is spatially uniform
    Common approximation in simple lens models

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5759 in / 1413 out tokens · 34914 ms · 2026-05-13T20:39:45.090531+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Quadruply Lensed Supernova SN 2025wny: Implications for LSST

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A protocol is outlined for maximizing LSST quadruply lensed supernova science through pre-listed hosts, real-time modeling, and immediate follow-up to capture all images and time delays.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The Open Journal of Astrophysics , keywords =

    Abe, K. T., Oguri, M., Birrer, S., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 8, doi: 10.33232/001c.128482

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.128482 2025

  2. [2]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3509, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1356

    Arendse, N., Dhawan, S., Sagu´ es Carracedo, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3509, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1356

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1356 2024

  3. [3]

    W., Lee, Y

    Aryan, A., Chen, T. W., Lee, Y. H., et al. 2025, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 330, 1

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18787, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.18787

    Baltasar, S., Ratier-Werbin, N., Huang, X., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18787, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.18787

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.18787 2026

  5. [5]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  6. [6]

    2018, Physics of the Dark Universe, 22, 189, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002

    Birrer, S., & Amara, A. 2018, Physics of the Dark Universe, 22, 189, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002 2018

  7. [7]

    2025, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 383, 20240130, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2024.0130

    Arendse, N. 2025, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 383, 20240130, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2024.0130

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2024.0130 2025

  8. [8]

    J., Galan, A., et al

    Birrer, S., Shajib, A. J., Galan, A., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.02941. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.02941

    work page arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    2024, SSRv, 220, 48, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01079-w

    Birrer, S., Millon, M., Sluse, D., et al. 2024, SSRv, 220, 48, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01079-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-024-01079-w 2024

  10. [10]

    S., Burles, S., Koopmans, L

    Bolton, A. S., Burles, S., Koopmans, L. V. E., et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 964, doi: 10.1086/589327

    work page doi:10.1086/589327 2008

  11. [11]

    Burke, W. L. 1981, ApJL, 244, L1, doi: 10.1086/183466 Ca˜ nameras, R., Schuldt, S., Suyu, S. H., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.13048. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.13048

    work page doi:10.1086/183466 1981

  12. [12]

    C.-F., Suyu, S

    Chen, G. C.-F., Suyu, S. H., Wong, K. C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3457, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw991

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw991 2016

  13. [13]

    Chen, J., Rozo, E., Dalal, N., & Taylor, J. E. 2007, ApJ, 659, 52, doi: 10.1086/512002

    work page doi:10.1086/512002 2007

  14. [14]

    Dobler, G., & Keeton, C. R. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1243, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09809.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09809.x 2006

  15. [15]

    2025, A&A, 697, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553807

    Dux, F., Millon, M., Galan, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553807

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553807 2025

  16. [16]

    R., Schweinfurth, A

    Ecker, L. R., Schweinfurth, A. G., Saglia, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.16620, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.16620

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.16620 2026

  17. [17]

    R., et al

    Goobar, A., Amanullah, R., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2017, Science, 356, 291, doi: 10.1126/science.aal2729

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aal2729 2017

  18. [18]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.00656

    Goobar, A., Johansson, J., Schulze, S., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.00656. https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.00656

    work page arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    S., et al

    Grayling, M., Thorp, S., Mandel, K. S., et al. 2026, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag340

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag340 2026

  20. [20]

    2008, A&A, 477, 397, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077534

    Grillo, C., Lombardi, M., & Bertin, G. 2008, A&A, 477, 397, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077534

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077534 2008

  21. [21]

    Grillo, C., Pagano, L., Rosati, P., & Suyu, S. H. 2024, A&A, 684, L23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449278 15

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449278 2024

  22. [22]

    and Storfer, C

    Huang, X., Storfer, C., Ravi, V., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 894, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ffb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ffb 2020

  23. [23]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd62b

    Huang, X., Storfer, C., Gu, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd62b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd62b 2021

  24. [24]

    Inoue, K. T. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1270

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1270 2016

  25. [25]

    , keywords =

    Jacobs, C., Collett, T., Glazebrook, K., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab26b6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab26b6 2019

  26. [26]

    A., Goobar, A., et al

    Johansson, J., Perley, D. A., Goobar, A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 995, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d61

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d61 2025

  27. [27]

    L., Rodney, S

    Kelly, P. L., Rodney, S. A., Treu, T., et al. 2015, Science, 347, 1123, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa3350

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaa3350 2015

  28. [28]

    L., Rodney, S., Treu, T., et al

    Kelly, P. L., Rodney, S., Treu, T., et al. 2023, Science, 380, abh1322, doi: 10.1126/science.abh1322

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abh1322 2023

  29. [29]

    2020, A&A, 640, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037740

    Millon, M., Courbin, F., Bonvin, V., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037740

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037740 2020

  30. [30]

    2022, emolter/nirc2 reduce: pre-alpha, 0.0.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6584662

    Molter, N. 2022, emolter/nirc2 reduce: pre-alpha, 0.0.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6584662

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6584662 2022

  31. [31]

    L., Pierel, J

    Pascale, M., Frye, B. L., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9928

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9928 2025

  32. [32]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Frye, B. L., Pascale, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3c43

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3c43 2024

  33. [33]

    2022, PhRvD, 106, 023520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023520

    Qi, J.-Z., Cui, Y., Hu, W.-H., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 106, 023520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023520

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.023520 2022

  34. [34]

    A., Brammer, G

    Rodney, S. A., Brammer, G. B., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1118, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01450-9 Sainz de Murieta, A., Collett, T. E., Magee, M. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2486

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01450-9 2021

  35. [35]

    L., & Wambsganss, J

    Schechter, P. L., & Wambsganss, J. 2002, ApJ, 580, 685, doi: 10.1086/343856

    work page doi:10.1086/343856 2002

  36. [36]

    R., Campbell, R., et al

    Service, M., Lu, J. R., Campbell, R., et al. 2016, PASP, 128, 095004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/967/095004

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/967/095004 2016

  37. [37]

    J., Mozumdar, P., Chen, G

    Shajib, A. J., Mozumdar, P., Chen, G. C.-F., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345878

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345878 2023

  38. [38]

    2024, ApJS, 274, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad527e

    Storfer, C., Huang, X., Gu, A., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad527e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad527e 2024

  39. [39]

    J., Magnier, E

    Storfer, C. J., Magnier, E. A., Huang, X., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae381c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae381c 2026

  40. [40]

    H., & Halkola, A

    Suyu, S. H., & Halkola, A. 2010, A&A, 524, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015481

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015481 2010

  41. [41]

    H., Hensel, S

    Suyu, S. H., Hensel, S. W., McKean, J. P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/10

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/10 2012

  42. [42]

    Takahashi, R., & Inoue, K. T. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu328

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu328 2014

  43. [43]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.21694, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.21694 TDCosmo Collaboration, Birrer, S., Buckley-Geer, E

    Taubenberger, S., Acebron, A., Ca˜ nameras, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.21694, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.21694 TDCosmo Collaboration, Birrer, S., Buckley-Geer, E. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555801

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.21694 2025

  44. [44]

    A 2.4 per cent measurement of H _ 0 from lensed quasars: 5.3 tension between early- and late-Universe probes

    Wong, K. C., Suyu, S. H., Chen, G. C.-F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1420, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3094

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3094 2020

  45. [45]

    R., Ghez, A

    Yelda, S., Lu, J. R., Ghez, A. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 331, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/331

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/331 2010