CaltechAUTHORS
  A Caltech Library Service

The Frontier Fields lens modelling comparison project

Meneghetti, M. and Natarajan, P. and Coe, D. and Contini, E. and De Lucia, G. and Giocoli, C. and Acebron, A. and Borgani, S. and Bradač, M. and Diego, J. M. and Hoag, A. and Ishigaki, M. and Johnson, T. L. and Jullo, E. and Kawamata, R. and Lam, D. and Limousin, M. and Liesenborgs, J. and Oguri, M. and Sebesta, K. and Sharon, K. and Williams, L. L. R. and Zitrin, A. (2017) The Frontier Fields lens modelling comparison project. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472 (3). pp. 3177-3216. ISSN 0035-8711. https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20171102-134316375

[img] PDF - Published Version
See Usage Policy.

11Mb
[img] PDF - Submitted Version
See Usage Policy.

12Mb

Use this Persistent URL to link to this item: https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20171102-134316375

Abstract

Gravitational 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 free-form 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 μ_(true) = 3 and it degrades to ∼30 per cent at μ_(true) ∼ 10.


Item Type:Article
Related URLs:
URLURL TypeDescription
https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx2064DOIArticle
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/472/3/3177/4083623/The-Frontier-Fields-lens-modelling-comparisonPublisherArticle
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04548arXivDiscussion Paper
ORCID:
AuthorORCID
Coe, D.0000-0001-7410-7669
Zitrin, A.0000-0002-0350-4488
Additional Information:© 2017 The Authors Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society. Accepted 2017 August 9. Received 2017 August 8; in original form 2016 June 9. Published: 17 August 2017. We thank T. Treu for the helpful discussion. MM acknowledges support from the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Directorate General for Country Promotion, from INAF via PRIN-INAF 2014 C.R.A. 1.05.01.94.02, and from ASI via contract ASI/INAF/I/023/12/0. This work was supported in part by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 26800093 and 15H05892. AZ is supported by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant #HST-HF2-51334.001-A awarded by STScI, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. JMD acknowledges support of the consolider project CSD2010-00064 and AYA2012-39475-C02-01 funded by the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Spain. We acknowledge the lens modelling community for enthusiastically participating in this collaborative project to compare and contrast mass models. Finally, we want to thank the anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions that helped to improve the quality of the manuscript significantly.
Funders:
Funding AgencyGrant Number
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF)PRIN-INAF 2014
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF)C.R.A. 1.05.01.94.02
Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI)ASI/INAF/I/023/12/0
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)26800093
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)15H05892
NASA Hubble FellowshipHST-HF2-51334.001-A
NASANAS 5-26555
Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad (MINECO)CSD2010-00064
Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad (MINECO)AYA2012-39475-C02-01
Subject Keywords:gravitational lensing: strong – gravitational lensing: weak – galaxies: clusters: general – galaxies: high-redshift
Issue or Number:3
Record Number:CaltechAUTHORS:20171102-134316375
Persistent URL:https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20171102-134316375
Official Citation:M. Meneghetti, P. Natarajan, D. Coe, E. Contini, G. De Lucia, C. Giocoli, A. Acebron, S. Borgani, M. Bradac, J. M. Diego, A. Hoag, M. Ishigaki, T. L. Johnson, E. Jullo, R. Kawamata, D. Lam, M. Limousin, J. Liesenborgs, M. Oguri, K. Sebesta, K. Sharon, L. L. R. Williams, A. Zitrin; The Frontier Fields lens modelling comparison project, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 472, Issue 3, 11 December 2017, Pages 3177–3216, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx2064
Usage Policy:No commercial reproduction, distribution, display or performance rights in this work are provided.
ID Code:82903
Collection:CaltechAUTHORS
Deposited By: Tony Diaz
Deposited On:02 Nov 2017 21:31
Last Modified:03 Oct 2019 18:59

Repository Staff Only: item control page