Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/170650
COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
logo share SHARE logo core CORE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE

Invitar a revisión por pares abierta
Título

The Frontier Fields lens modelling comparison project

AutorMeneghetti, M.; Natarajan, Priyamvada; Coe, Dan; Contini, T.; De Lucia, G.; Giocoli, C.; Acebron, Ana; Borgani, S.; Bradač, Maruša; Diego, José María CSIC ORCID ; Hoag, A.; Ishigaki, M.; Johnson, T.L.; Jullo, E.; Kawamata, Ryota; Lam, Daniel; Limousin, M.; Liesenborgs, J.; Oguri, Masamune; Sebesta, K.; Sharon, Keren; Williams, L.L.R.; Zitrin, Adi
Palabras claveGalaxies: clusters: general
Galaxies: high-redshift
Gravitational lensing: strong
Gravitational lensing: weak
Fecha de publicación2017
EditorRoyal Astronomical Society
Oxford University Press
CitaciónMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 472(3): 3177-3216 (2017)
ResumenGravitational lensing by clusters of galaxies offers a powerful probe of their structure and mass distribution. Several research groups have developed techniques independently to achieve this goal. While these methods have all provided remarkably high-precision mass maps, particularly with exquisite imaging data from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), the reconstructions themselves have never been directly compared. In this paper, we present for the first time a detailed comparison of methodologies for fidelity, accuracy and precision. For this collaborative exercise, the lens modelling community was provided simulated cluster images that mimic the depth and resolution of the ongoing HST Frontier Fields. The results of the submitted reconstructions with the un-blinded true mass profile of these two clusters are presented here. Parametric, free-form and hybrid techniques have been deployed by the participating groups and we detail the strengths and trade-offs in accuracy and systematics that arise for each methodology. We note in conclusion that several properties of the lensing clusters are recovered equally well by most of the lensing techniques compared in this study. For example, the reconstruction of azimuthally averaged density and mass profiles by both parametric and freeform methods matches the input models at the level of ~10 per cent. Parametric techniques are generally better at recovering the 2D maps of the convergence and of the magnification. For the best-performing algorithms, the accuracy in the magnification estimate is ~10 per cent at μtrue = 3 and it degrades to ~30 per cent at μtrue ~ 10.
Versión del editorhttps://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx2064
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/170650
DOI10.1093/mnras/stx2064
Identificadoresdoi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2064
e-issn: 1365-2966
issn: 0035-8711
Aparece en las colecciones: (IFCA) Artículos




Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato
FFproj.pdf11,46 MBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Mostrar el registro completo

CORE Recommender

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

157
checked on 11-abr-2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

148
checked on 24-feb-2024

Page view(s)

304
checked on 18-abr-2024

Download(s)

307
checked on 18-abr-2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.