Enhanced strong-lensing model of MACS J0138.0–2155 based on new JWST and VLT/MUSE observations

The absolute magnifications |μ| for predicted images 1d* and 1e* of SN Encore are nearly identical to [38].

“The absolute magnifications | µ | for predicted images 1d* and 1e* of SN Encore are nearly identical to [38] as well 7 .”

Our joint model's critical curves appear very consistent with the newest mass models.

“While the critical curves can only enable a qualitative comparison, we note that ours appear very consistent with the newest mass models, see Fig. 1 of [38] and Fig. 8 of [37].”

Acebron et al. [38] noted that their predicted magnifications strongly disagree with previously reported lens models in [30, 31].

“Acebron et al. [38] similarly noted that their predicted magnifications strongly disagree with previously reported lens models in [30, 31].”

Lens modeling choices still have a large effect on predicted magnifications near the critical curves: our model agrees more closely with Acebron et al. [38] than with Ertl et al. [37].

“Lens modeling choices still have a large effect on predicted magnifications near the critical curves: our model agrees more closely with Acebron et al. [38] (which similarly used one cluster halo and an external shear) than it does with Ertl et al. [37] (which used two halos to describe the cluster DM, and no external shear).”

[38] lists the demagnified central image 1e* as having opposite sign, with a negative magnification.

“Curiously, [38] lists the demagnified central image 1e* as having opposite sign, with a negative magnification.”

Our joint model magnifications are in clear agreement with those reported in Suyu et al. [86], including [37, 38], with the magnifications of all observed sources within the 1σ errors of those in [38], and slightly below the absolute magnifications predicted by [37].

“Our joint model magnifications are in clear agreement with those reported in Suyu et al. [86], including [37, 38], with the magnifications of all observed sources within the 1 σ errors of those in [38], and slightly below the absolute magnifications predicted by [37].”

Acebron et al. [38] suggests that the discrepancy between their reported magnifications and earlier work could be partly explained by the inclusion of newly identified sources at different redshift.

“Acebron et al. [38] suggests that the discrepancy between their reported magnifications and earlier work could be partly explained by the inclusion of newly identified sources at different redshift.”

Agreement between our predicted magnifications and those in [37, 38] does not exclude systematic effects distorting the true magnifications, but it is encouraging that these models agree with ours despite substantial differences in approach.

“While agreement between our predicted magnifications and those in [37, 38] does not exclude systematic effects distorting the true magnifications, it is encouraging that these models agree with ours despite substantial differences in approach.”