Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 357

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Elliptic Mass Distributions versus Elliptic Potentials in Gravitational Lenses

Kassiola, Aggeliki, Kovner, Israel·1993·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

We present analytic expressions for deflections by gravitational lenses made of homoeoidal elliptic mass distributions (EMDs) with a variety of radial profiles. We study in detail pseudoisothermal elliptic mass distributions (PIEMDs) and give analytic formulae for their time delay, deflection, magnification matrix, sizes of caustics and critical lines, and parameters of umbilici. The analytic tractability makes elliptic mass lenses almost as convenient as lenses with elliptic potentials (EPs), both for computer simulations and for qualitative analysis. We compare the topography, critical behavior and imaging properties of PIEMDs and of lenses with a pseudoisothermal elliptic potential (PIEP). The two lenses are similar in many aspects, however: PIEMD can represent masses of any elongation, while physically meaningful PIEP lenses are limited to mass distributions with axis ratios b/a ≳ 0.5 and therefore cannot represent almost half of the galaxies and clusters in the universe. A notable difference between the imaging properties of the two lens models is that PIEMDs have much more freedom to form caustics with naked cusps. Naked cusps are involved in the formation of some of the giant arcs and in statistics of multiple QSO images. To study statistics of multiple imaging, we simulated altogether ∼2 × 106 multiple QSO cases imaged by isolated galaxies, identified seven types of image configurations, and obtained predictions for relative frequencies of these types for a variety of sampling conditions. The sampling conditions include thresholds for resolution, for next flux, and for flux ratio between the brightest and the faintest resolved images. Next, we adopted a requirement to be satisfied by our predictions for relative frequencies of two- and three-image cases, to fit observations. This requirement leads to constants on the central surface mass density of galaxies, which are stronger for PIEMDs than for PIEP models, largely because of the triple images of sources inside naked cusps. Finally, we demonstrate that galaxies responsible for QSO lens cases with four or five images are biased to larger ellipticities than galaxies in general. In addition to the simplest pseudoisothermal example, combinations of elementary analytic lens models with elliptic mass distributions have a considerable freedom to approximate gravitational lenses with variable radial profiles and ellipticities.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/173325

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 357

Metadata

Authors
Kassiola, A., & Kovner, I.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
1993-11
Volume
417
Pages
450
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W1997503716
Cited by
357
References
0
FWCI
5.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Elliptic Mass Distributions versus Elliptic Potentials in Gravitational Lenses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/173325
The paper
Kassiola, A., & Kovner, I. (1993). Elliptic Mass Distributions versus Elliptic Potentials in Gravitational Lenses. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1086/173325

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.