Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 127 of the 127 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE COMBINED STRONG AND WEAK LENSING ANALYSIS OF THE CLASH SAMPLE: MASS AND MAGNIFICATION MODELS AND SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES

Open access
Zitrin, Adi, Fabris, Agnese, Merten, Julian, Melchior, Peter, Meneghetti, Massimo, Koekemoer, Anton, Coe, Dan, Maturi, Matteo, Bartelmann, Matthias, Postman, Marc, Umetsu, Keiichi, Seidel, Gregor, Sendra, Irene, Broadhurst, Tom, Balestra, Italo, Biviano, Andrea, Grillo, Claudio, Mercurio, Amata, Nonino, Mario, Rosati, Piero, Bradley, Larry, Carrasco, Mauricio, Donahue, Megan, Ford, Holland, Frye, Brenda L., Moustakas, John·2015·The Astrophysical Journal
DOI 10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/44
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We present results from a comprehensive lensing analysis in Hubble Space Telescope ( HST ) data of the complete Cluster Lensing And Supernova survey with Hubble cluster sample. We identify previously undiscovered multiple images, allowing improved or first constraints on the cluster inner mass distributions and profiles. We combine these strong lensing constraints with weak lensing shape measurements within the HST field of view (FOV) to jointly constrain the mass distributions. The analysis is performed in two different common parameterizations (one adopts light-traces-mass for both galaxies and dark matter while the other adopts an analytical, elliptical Navarro–Frenk–White form for the dark matter) to provide a better assessment of the underlying systematics—which is most important for deep, cluster-lensing surveys, especially when studying magnified high-redshift objects. We find that the typical (median), relative systematic differences throughout the central FOV are ∼40% in the (dimensionless) mass density, κ, and ∼20% in the magnification, μ. We show maps of these differences for each cluster, as well as the mass distributions, critical curves, and two-dimensional (2D)-integrated mass profiles. For the Einstein radii ( z s = 2) we find that all typically agree within 10% between the two models, and Einstein masses agree, typically, within ∼15%. At larger radii, the total projected, 2D-integrated mass profiles of the two models, within r ∼ 2', differ by ∼30%. Stacking the surface-density profiles of the sample from the two methods together, we obtain an average slope of d log (Σ)/ d log ( r ) ∼ −0.64 ± 0.1, in the radial range [5350] kpc. Last, we also characterize the behavior of the average magnification, surface density, and shear differences between the two models as a function of both the radius from the center and the best-fit values of these quantities. All mass models and magnification maps are made publicly available for the community.

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 · 10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/44

Cites

127 of 127 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 127 references

Cited by

See all 278

Metadata

Authors
Zitrin, A., Fabris, A., Merten, J., Melchior, P., Meneghetti, M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., Maturi, M., Bartelmann, M., Postman, M., Umetsu, K., Seidel, G., Sendra, I., Broadhurst, T., Balestra, I., Biviano, A., Grillo, C., Mercurio, A., Nonino, M., Rosati, P., Bradley, L., Carrasco, M., Donahue, M., Ford, H., Frye, B. L., & Moustakas, J.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Published
2015-03-02
Volume
801
Issue
1
Pages
44
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
DOI
10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/44
OpenAlex
W2018921091
Cited by
278
References
127
FWCI
21.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE COMBINED STRONG AND WEAK LENSING ANALYSIS OF THE CLASH SAMPLE: MASS AND MAGNIFICATION MODELS AND SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/44
The paper
Zitrin, A., Fabris, A., Merten, J., Melchior, P., Meneghetti, M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., Maturi, M., Bartelmann, M., Postman, M., Umetsu, K., Seidel, G., Sendra, I., Broadhurst, T., Balestra, I., Biviano, A., Grillo, C., Mercurio, A., Nonino, M., . . . Moustakas, J. (2015). HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE COMBINED STRONG AND WEAK LENSING ANALYSIS OF THE CLASH SAMPLE: MASS AND MAGNIFICATION MODELS AND SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/44

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.