Constraint on dark matter self-interaction from combined strong lensing and stellar kinematics in MACS J0138-2155
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Self-Interacting Dark Matter (SIDM) represents a compelling alternative to collisionless dark matter, with diverse phenomenological signals from dwarf galaxy to galaxy cluster scales. We present new constraints on the SIDM cross section from the galaxy cluster MACS J0138-2155, host to the strongly lensed supernovae Requiem and Encore. Our analysis combines strong gravitational lensing with spatially resolved stellar kinematics of the central galaxy, employing several methodological advances over previous cluster-scale SIDM studies. The result is a self-consistent measurement of the density profile of MACS J0138-2155 across two orders of magnitude in radius. Our lensing and kinematics analyses individually yield highly consistent results, and from their combination we report a 95% confidence upper limit on the SIDM cross section of $σ/m < 0.613$ cm$^2$/g, at an interaction velocity of $\langle v_\text{pair}\rangle < 2090$ km/s. This constraint, derived from the most detailed single-system analysis to date, is competitive with previous cluster-scale limits while demonstrating the power of combining complementary gravitational probes. The methodology developed here advances precision cluster lens modeling and will inform future studies of dark matter physics, as well as time-delay cosmography in this unique strong lensing system. Additionally, our results imply SN Requiem will reappear sooner than previously reported, with a 1$σ$ CL between January 2027 and November 2028 at H$_0 = 67.7$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
Verified 2026-11-01 · 4 references not checked yet
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper combines strong gravitational lensing and spatially resolved stellar kinematics of MACS J0138-2155 to constrain self-interacting dark matter, reporting a 95% CL upper limit of σ/m < 0.613 cm²/g at ⟨v_pair⟩ < 2090 km/s. The joint model also predicts SN Requiem will reappear sooner than previously reported, with a 1σ range of January 2027–November 2028 at H₀ = 67.7 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹.
Key findings
- The joint strong-lensing + kinematics model gives a 95% CL upper limit on the SIDM cross section of σ/m < 0.613 cm²/g at an interaction velocity ⟨v_pair⟩ < 2090 km/s; the joint posterior on σ/m is 0.02⁺⁰·¹⁸₋₀.₀₂ cm²/g.
- Lensing-only and kinematics-only results are highly consistent; the joint model tightens constraints, yielding log₁₀(M₂₀₀m/M⊙) = 14.8 ± 0.1, c₂₀₀m = 10 ± 2, log₁₀(r₁/kpc) = 1.6⁺⁰·⁷₋₁.₀, and log₁₀Υ∗ = 0.5⁺⁰·²₋₀.₄.
- The joint model predicts the next image of SN Requiem (feature d) with a delay of 4245⁺³⁴³₋₃₂₂ days relative to the southernmost image, median November 2027; the abstract gives a 1σ range of January 2027–November 2028 at H₀ = 67.7 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹. SN Encore’s next image (d) is predicted at median February 2033.
- The joint posterior shows bimodality and a strong Υ∗–σ/m degeneracy, with higher cross sections occurring exclusively at high Υ∗; the inferred halo concentration is ∼2σ higher than the Ludlow et al. mass–concentration relation, which the paper attributes to strong-lensing selection for concentrated, elongated halos.
Methods
- Data include HST ACS/WFC F555W and WFC3/IR imaging, JWST NIRCam F115W/F150W/F200W imaging, and VLT MUSE IFU spectroscopy (three 970 s pointings). Strong-lensing constraints use 29 measured positions of 10 source features from JWST NIRCam plus three SN Requiem positions from HST; kinematics use 25 Voronoi bins from MUSE, binned to target S/N 23 Å⁻¹ between 5035 and 5160 Å, fitted with ppxf and XSL templates.
- The shared SIDM mass model uses the isothermal Jeans method with a prolate 3D halo and seven shared parameters. Lensing is modeled with PyAutoLens using Cored Steep Ellipsoid decomposition, dPIE member galaxies, and external shear; kinematics are forward-modeled with JAM using an MGE light profile from MGEFit. Posteriors are sampled with emcee, with kinematics covariance built from 108 analysis settings × 1000 realizations.
Limitations
- Paper-stated: the isothermal Jeans method only describes the core-expansion phase and fails to describe core-collapse; the analysis is a single system; strong-lensing selection effects favor concentrated and line-of-sight-elongated halos; kinematics systematics are limited by using only the XSL template library, and statistical uncertainties are large because of a less stringent S/N target; the Υ∗–σ/m degeneracy limits the ability to distinguish baryonic from dark mass; pixel-level strong-lensing modeling is beyond scope.
- Evident from the text: the joint posterior is bimodal, and the external shear term may absorb lens mass structure not properly described by the parametric model; the SIDM cross section is not directly sampled but derived from r₁ with a likelihood weighting to enforce a flat prior on ln(σ/m).
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
56 of 71 cited sources checked · 44 supported · 2 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation§ A. Self-Interacting Dark Matter · p. 2
Currently, the most stringent absolute constraints on the SIDM cross section come from strong lensing of galaxy clusters, suggesting σ/m ≲ 0.1 cm^2/g.
“Currently, the most stringent absolute constraints on the SIDM cross section come from strong lensing of galaxy clusters, which suggest σ/m ≲ 0 . 1 cm 2 / g [17, 18].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [17] L. Sagunski, S. Gad-Nasr, B. Colquhoun, A. Robertson, and S. Tulin, Velocity-dependent self-interacting dark matter from groups and clusters of galaxies, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 , 024. source
In the discussion following Table III (page unavailable), the paper says strong-lensing-only studies constrained σ/m < 1 cm²/g and describes earlier 0.1 cm²/g limits as overestimated. Its own stronger cluster limit is σ/m < 0.35 cm²/g at 95% confidence and also uses stellar kinematics, so it does not support the claimed strong-lensing limit of ≲0.1 cm²/g. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [18] K. E. Andrade, J. Fuson, S. Gad-Nasr, D. Kong, Q. Minor, M. G. Roberts, and M. Kaplinghat, A stringent upper limit on dark matter self-interaction cross-section from cluster strong lensing, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 510 , 54 (2022). source
- Interpretationown data§ A Constraint on Dark Matter Self-Interaction from Combined Strong Lensing and Stellar Kinematics in MACS J0138-2155 · p. 1
The SIDM cross-section constraint is competitive with previous cluster-scale limits.
“This constraint, derived from the most detailed single-system analysis to date, is competitive with previous cluster-scale limits while demonstrating the power of combining complementary gravitational probes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [17] L. Sagunski, S. Gad-Nasr, B. Colquhoun, A. Robertson, and S. Tulin, Velocity-dependent self-interacting dark matter from groups and clusters of galaxies, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 , 024. source
- cites [18] K. E. Andrade, J. Fuson, S. Gad-Nasr, D. Kong, Q. Minor, M. G. Roberts, and M. Kaplinghat, A stringent upper limit on dark matter self-interaction cross-section from cluster strong lensing, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 510 , 54 (2022). source
- Premisecitation§ 1. Mass Model · p. 6
An independent team reported a similar Faber-Jackson slope in MACSJ0138 of α ∼ 0.25 ± 0.05 using newer, deeper MUSE observations.
“These results, published in Granata et al. [34], used different methodology on different data, yet yielded the highly consistent measurement of α ∼ 0 . 25 ± 0 . 05.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Granata et al. [34] G. Granata, G. B. Caminha, S. Ertl, C. Grillo, S. Schuldt, S. H. Suyu, A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, R. Ca˜ nameras, A. M. Koekemoer, P. Rosati, and S. Taubenberger, Cosmology with supernova Encore in the strong lensing cluster MACS J0138-2155: Spectroscopy with MUSE, Astronomy and Astrophysics 697 , A94 (2025). source
- Premisecitation§ C. Lensing Cluster MACS J0138.0-2155 · p. 3
The primary lensed source of MACSJ0138 is a quiescent galaxy at z = 1.95 known as MRG-0138.
“whose primary source is a quiescent galaxy at z=1.95 known as MRG-0138 Newman et al. [30].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Newman et al. [30] A. B. Newman, S. Belli, R. S. Ellis, and S. G. Patel, Resolving Quiescent Galaxies at z ≥ 2. I. Search for Gravitationally Lensed Sources and Characterization of Their Structure, Stellar Populations, and Line Emission, The Astrophysical Journal 862 , 125 (2018). source
- Premisecitation§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18
Strong lensing-selected halos are biased to high concentrations.
“It is widely known that strong lensing-selected halos are biased to high concentrations, see for example Meneghetti et al. [83].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Meneghetti et al. [83] M. Meneghetti, E. Rasia, J. Vega, J. Merten, M. Postman, G. Yepes, F. Sembolini, M. Donahue, S. Ettori, K. Umetsu, I. Balestra, M. Bartelmann, N. Ben´ ıtez, A. Biviano, R. Bouwens, L. Bradley, T. Broadhurst, D. Coe, N. Czakon, M. De Petris, H. Ford, C. Giocoli, S. Gottl¨ ober, C. Grillo, L. Infante, S. Jouvel, D. Kelson, A. Koekemoer, O. Lahav, D. Lemze, E. Medezinski, P. Melchior, A. Mercurio, A. Molino, L. Moscardini, A. Monna, J. Moustakas, L. A. Moustakas, M. Nonino, J. Rhodes, P. Rosati, J. Sayers, S. Seitz, W. Zheng, and A. Zitrin, The MUSIC of CLASH: Predictions on the Concentration-Mas source
- Premisecitation§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18
Dynamically relaxed halos are expected to have higher concentrations.
“Additionally, dynamically relaxed halos are expected to have higher concentrations [83-85]; our result on c 200m may be further evidence of MACSJ0138's relaxed state.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked- cites [83] M. Meneghetti, E. Rasia, J. Vega, J. Merten, M. Postman, G. Yepes, F. Sembolini, M. Donahue, S. Ettori, K. Umetsu, I. Balestra, M. Bartelmann, N. Ben´ ıtez, A. Biviano, R. Bouwens, L. Bradley, T. Broadhurst, D. Coe, N. Czakon, M. De Petris, H. Ford, C. Giocoli, S. Gottl¨ ober, C. Grillo, L. Infante, S. Jouvel, D. Kelson, A. Koekemoer, O. Lahav, D. Lemze, E. Medezinski, P. Melchior, A. Mercurio, A. Molino, L. Moscardini, A. Monna, J. Moustakas, L. A. Moustakas, M. Nonino, J. Rhodes, P. Rosati, J. Sayers, S. Seitz, W. Zheng, and A. Zitrin, The MUSIC of CLASH: Predictions on the Concentration-Mas source
- cites [84] H. L. Child, S. Habib, K. Heitmann, N. Frontiere, H. Finkel, A. Pope, and V. Morozov, Halo Profiles and the Concentration-Mass Relation for a ΛCDM Universe, The Astrophysical Journal 859 , 55 (2018). source
- cites [85] E. Darragh-Ford, A. B. Mantz, E. Rasia, S. W. Allen, R. G. Morris, J. Foster, R. W. Schmidt, and G. Wenrich, The Concentration-Mass relation of massive, dynamically relaxed galaxy clusters: Agreement between observations and ΛCDM simulations, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 521 , 790 (2023). source
- Premisecitation§ 1. Mass Model · p. 6
The Faber-Jackson relation measured in MACSJ0138 has a slope α ∼ 0.26 ± 0.06 at a reference velocity dispersion of ∼220 km/s.
“This measurement was previously reported in Flowers et al. [33], yielding a slope of α ∼ 0 . 26 ± 0 . 06 at a reference velocity dispersion of ∼ 220 km/s.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Flowers et al. [33] A. Flowers, J. H. O'Donnell, T. E. Jeltema, V. Wetzell, and M. G. Roberts, Spectroscopic and X-ray Modeling of the Strong Lensing Galaxy Cluster MACS J0138.0-2155, The Open Journal of Astrophysics 8 , 75 (2025). source
- Interpretationreasoning§ A. Self-Interacting Dark Matter · p. 2
The SIDM cross-section must be velocity-dependent if dwarf rotation curves are to be explained by this mechanism.
“The discrepancy in the size of the cross-section implied by cluster and dwarf galaxy observations suggests that the SIDM cross-section must necessarily be a velocitydependent interaction if we wish to explain dwarf rotation curves through this mechanism.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim4 of 4 sources checked- cites [17] L. Sagunski, S. Gad-Nasr, B. Colquhoun, A. Robertson, and S. Tulin, Velocity-dependent self-interacting dark matter from groups and clusters of galaxies, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 , 024. source
The Conclusions say that cluster results combined with galaxy-scale observations are consistent with a cross-section that decreases as scattering velocity increases. The Cross sections section says velocity-dependent models are favored over contact-type interactions and gives a model consistent with dwarf rotation curves. Neither section establishes that velocity dependence is strictly necessary, so “must necessarily” overstates the paper’s conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [18] K. E. Andrade, J. Fuson, S. Gad-Nasr, D. Kong, Q. Minor, M. G. Roberts, and M. Kaplinghat, A stringent upper limit on dark matter self-interaction cross-section from cluster strong lensing, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 510 , 54 (2022). source
- cites [19] T. Ren, A. Kwa, M. Kaplinghat, and H.-B. Yu, Reconciling the Diversity and Uniformity of Galactic Rotation Curves with Self-Interacting Dark Matter, Physical Review X 9 , 031020 (2019), arXiv:1808.05695 [astroph.GA]. source
Section II (page unavailable) says galaxy-cluster constraints imply the cross-section may have a mild velocity dependence, but it does not say velocity dependence is necessary. The authors fit the SPARC rotation curves using a constant cross-section, so their results do not establish the claimed requirement for explaining dwarf rotation curves. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [20] M. G. Roberts, M. Kaplinghat, M. Valli, and H.-B. Yu, Gravothermal collapse and the diversity of galactic rotation curves, Physical Review D 111 , 103041 (2025). source
In §F, “Particle physics models” (page not available), the paper combines a favored cross section of 20–40 cm²/g at dwarf-galaxy velocities with an adopted cluster-scale upper bound of 0.13 cm²/g; satisfying both calls for velocity dependence. But the Conclusions say further simulations are needed to validate the inferred range, so the paper does not establish that velocity dependence is strictly necessary to explain dwarf rotation curves. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingcitation§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21
This degeneracy resembles that of the aggregate sample of clusters in Andrade et al. [18], though offset in ⟨v pair⟩-σ/m space.
“This degeneracy resembles that of the aggregate sample of clusters in Andrade et al. [18], though offset in ⟨ v pair ⟩ -σ/m space.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Andrade et al. [18] K. E. Andrade, J. Fuson, S. Gad-Nasr, D. Kong, Q. Minor, M. G. Roberts, and M. Kaplinghat, A stringent upper limit on dark matter self-interaction cross-section from cluster strong lensing, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 510 , 54 (2022). source
- Premisecitation§ Appendix B: Triaxiality and Concentration Bias · p. 22
This triaxial bias is likely to artificially inflate the apparent concentration of lens halos, potentially as much as +60%.
“In addition, this triaxial bias is likely to artificially inflate the apparent concentration of lens halos, potentially as much as +60% (Andrade et al. [18], Appendix C).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Andrade et al. [18] K. E. Andrade, J. Fuson, S. Gad-Nasr, D. Kong, Q. Minor, M. G. Roberts, and M. Kaplinghat, A stringent upper limit on dark matter self-interaction cross-section from cluster strong lensing, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 510 , 54 (2022). source
- Findingown data§ A Constraint on Dark Matter Self-Interaction from Combined Strong Lensing and Stellar Kinematics in MACS J0138-2155 · p. 1
The lensing and kinematics analyses individually yield highly consistent results.
“Our lensing and kinematics analyses individually yield highly consistent results”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ A Constraint on Dark Matter Self-Interaction from Combined Strong Lensing and Stellar Kinematics in MACS J0138-2155 · p. 1
The combination of strong lensing and stellar kinematics yields a 95% confidence upper limit on the SIDM cross section of σ/m < 0.613 cm^2/g at an interaction velocity of ⟨v_pair⟩ < 2090 km/s.
“from their combination we report a 95% confidence upper limit on the SIDM cross section of σ/m < 0 . 613 cm 2 /g, at an interaction velocity of ⟨ v pair ⟩ < 2090 km/s.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ A Constraint on Dark Matter Self-Interaction from Combined Strong Lensing and Stellar Kinematics in MACS J0138-2155 · p. 1
The combined strong lensing and stellar kinematics analysis yields a self-consistent measurement of the density profile of MACS J0138-2155 across two orders of magnitude in radius.
“The result is a self-consistent measurement of the density profile of MACS J0138-2155 across two orders of magnitude in radius.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 15
The predicted magnification at the conjugate points differs between the joint and lensing-only models.
“The predicted magnification at the conjugate points, however, differs between the joint and lensingonly models; see Section IV E for further discussion.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ A. Lensing-Only Results · p. 13
The lensing-only model constrains the BCG stellar mass-to-light ratio to log10 Υ∗ = 0.5+0.1-0.2.
“The lensing only model gives constraints on the massto-light ratio, mass, and concentration of log 10 Υ ∗ = 0 . 5 +0 . 1 -0 . 2 , log 10 ( M 200m /M ⊙ ) = 14 . 9 ± 0 . 2, c 200m = 10 +2 -3 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ A. Lensing-Only Results · p. 13
The lensing-only model constrains the overall halo NFW mass to log10(M200m/M⊙) = 14.9 ± 0.2.
“The lensing only model gives constraints on the massto-light ratio, mass, and concentration of log 10 Υ ∗ = 0 . 5 +0 . 1 -0 . 2 , log 10 ( M 200m /M ⊙ ) = 14 . 9 ± 0 . 2, c 200m = 10 +2 -3 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ D. External Shear · p. 17
The data clearly prefer a substantial mass at the location of the LRG, with a mass up to approximately 10^14.4 solar masses.
“The data clearly prefer a substantial mass at the location of the LRG, with a mass up to ∼ 10 14 . 4 M ⊙ .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21
Our combined kinematics and lensing model places considerably tighter constraints on SIDM interactions than either measurement alone.
“Our combined kinematics and lensing model places considerably tighter constraints on SIDM interactions than either measurement alone.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 16
The joint model constrains the overall halo NFW concentration to c200m = 10 ± 2.
“This joint model yields constraints of log 10 Υ ∗ = 0 . 5 +0 . 2 -0 . 4 , log 10 ( M 200m /M ⊙ ) = 14 . 8 ± 0 . 1, c 200m = 10 ± 2, and log 10 ( r 1 / kpc) = 1 . 6 +0 . 7 -1 . 0 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 15
The preference for βsph < 0 strengthens when lensing constraints are included.
“This preference only strengthens when lensing constraints are included, see Table II.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21
The lensing results alone exhibit a bimodality in σ/m, with a marked preference for the higher mode near σ/m = 1 cm2/g.
“The lensing results alone exhibit a bimodality in σ/m , with a marked preference for the higher mode near σ/m = 1 cm 2 /g.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ A. Lensing-Only Results · p. 13
The lensing-only model constrains the overall halo NFW concentration to c200m = 10+2-3.
“The lensing only model gives constraints on the massto-light ratio, mass, and concentration of log 10 Υ ∗ = 0 . 5 +0 . 1 -0 . 2 , log 10 ( M 200m /M ⊙ ) = 14 . 9 ± 0 . 2, c 200m = 10 +2 -3 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 19
The variation of the model explicitly representing the mass of a nearby bright galaxy yielded minimal change to our key parameters, chiefly Υ∗, M200m, c200m, and σ/m.
“While this choice yielded minimal change to our key parameters (chiefly Υ ∗ , M 200m , c 200m , and σ/m ), implying our results are robust, our likelihood nonetheless strongly preferred the presence of another halo.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 14
The kinematics-only model constrains the overall halo NFW mass to log10(M200m/M⊙) = 14.5 ± 0.6.
“This model provides constraints of log 10 Υ ∗ = 0 . 4 +0 . 2 -0 . 3 , log 10 ( M 200m /M ⊙ ) = 14 . 5 ± 0 . 6, c 200m = 11 ± 3, and log 10 ( r 1 / kpc) = 1 . 7 +0 . 6 -1 . 0 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ D. External Shear · p. 17
Our lensing constraints show a clear preference for the presence of the other mass.
“Our lensing constraints additionally show a clear preference for the presence of this other mass: this test yielded a minimum lensing χ 2 of 3.5, significantly lower than the best lensing χ 2 of 4.08 produced by the fiducial joint model.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 15
The critical curves from the joint model are very consistent with those derived from the lensing-only model.
“These curves are very consistent with those derived from the lensing-only model, which is not overlaid to improve the clarity of the plot.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 16
The joint model constrains the overall halo NFW mass to log10(M200m/M⊙) = 14.8 ± 0.1.
“This joint model yields constraints of log 10 Υ ∗ = 0 . 5 +0 . 2 -0 . 4 , log 10 ( M 200m /M ⊙ ) = 14 . 8 ± 0 . 1, c 200m = 10 ± 2, and log 10 ( r 1 / kpc) = 1 . 6 +0 . 7 -1 . 0 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ D. External Shear · p. 17
The lensing-only model yielded external shear magnitude |γext| = 0.09 ± 0.02.
“The lensing-only and joint models above yielded external shear with magnitude | γ ext | of 0 . 09 ± 0 . 02 and 0 . 07 ± 0 . 01, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 19
Our likelihood strongly preferred the presence of another halo.
“While this choice yielded minimal change to our key parameters (chiefly Υ ∗ , M 200m , c 200m , and σ/m ), implying our results are robust, our likelihood nonetheless strongly preferred the presence of another halo.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 16
The joint model constrains the isothermal Jeans radius to log10(r1/kpc) = 1.6+0.7-1.0.
“This joint model yields constraints of log 10 Υ ∗ = 0 . 5 +0 . 2 -0 . 4 , log 10 ( M 200m /M ⊙ ) = 14 . 8 ± 0 . 1, c 200m = 10 ± 2, and log 10 ( r 1 / kpc) = 1 . 6 +0 . 7 -1 . 0 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingcitation§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20
Our results imply a very different time-delay baseline from [31], which predicted a roughly 20-year delay between the observed images of SN Requiem and the next predicted image, placing the recurrence in the mid-2030s.
“Intriguingly, our results in this work also imply a very different time-delay baseline from [31], which predicted a roughly 20-year delay between the observed images of SN Requiem and the next predicted image, placing the recurrence in the mid-2030s.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [31] S. A. Rodney, G. B. Brammer, J. D. R. Pierel, J. Richard, S. Toft, K. F. O'Connor, M. Akhshik, and K. E. Whitaker, A gravitationally lensed supernova with an observable two-decade time delay, Nature Astronomy 10.1038/s41550-021-01450-9 (2021).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Findingown data§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 14
The kinematics-only model constrains the BCG stellar mass-to-light ratio to log10 Υ∗ = 0.4+0.2-0.3.
“This model provides constraints of log 10 Υ ∗ = 0 . 4 +0 . 2 -0 . 3 , log 10 ( M 200m /M ⊙ ) = 14 . 5 ± 0 . 6, c 200m = 11 ± 3, and log 10 ( r 1 / kpc) = 1 . 7 +0 . 6 -1 . 0 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 16
The bimodality is most evident in the Υ∗-M200m space.
“This is most evident in the Υ ∗ -M 200m space, see Fig. 11.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ A. Lensing-Only Results · p. 13
The lensing-only model constrains the isothermal Jeans radius to log10(r1/kpc) = 2.3+0.3-0.9.
“The isothermal radius is constrained to be log 10 ( r 1 / kpc) = 2 . 3 +0 . 3 -0 . 9 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 14
The kinematics-only constraints are fully consistent with the lensing-only model.
“These are fully consistent with the lensing-only model.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 14
The kinematics-only model constrains the overall halo NFW concentration to c200m = 11 ± 3.
“This model provides constraints of log 10 Υ ∗ = 0 . 4 +0 . 2 -0 . 3 , log 10 ( M 200m /M ⊙ ) = 14 . 5 ± 0 . 6, c 200m = 11 ± 3, and log 10 ( r 1 / kpc) = 1 . 7 +0 . 6 -1 . 0 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18
Our inferred NFW concentration on the cluster dark matter halo is approximately 2σ higher than the predicted cosmological mass-concentration relation.
“Notably, our inferred NFW concentration on the cluster dark matter halo is ∼ 2 σ higher than the predicted cosmological mass-concentration relation (see Fig. 12).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 14
Lensing alone prefers markedly higher values of the SIDM cross section σ/m than kinematics.
“A larger difference can be seen in the SIDM cross section σ/m , where the lensing alone prefers markedly higher values.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18
The lensing and kinematics data vectors provided similar data degrees of freedom, at 25 and 38 respectively.
“In this work, the lensing and kinematics data vectors provided similar data degrees of freedom (d.o.f.), at 25 and 38 respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 16
The joint model constrains the BCG stellar mass-to-light ratio to log10 Υ∗ = 0.5+0.2-0.4.
“This joint model yields constraints of log 10 Υ ∗ = 0 . 5 +0 . 2 -0 . 4 , log 10 ( M 200m /M ⊙ ) = 14 . 8 ± 0 . 1, c 200m = 10 ± 2, and log 10 ( r 1 / kpc) = 1 . 6 +0 . 7 -1 . 0 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18
The constraints on parameters of interest, chiefly the stellar mass-to-light ratio Υ∗, halo mass and concentration, and SIDM cross-section, are remarkably consistent between the individual probes.
“The constraints on parameters of interest (chiefly the stellar mass-to-light ratio Υ ∗ , halo mass and concentration, and SIDM cross-section) are remarkably consistent between the individual probes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ A. Lensing-Only Results · p. 13
Lensing favors an overall dark matter halo with ellipticity closely aligned to the axis of the central galaxy, with position angle φ = 44.3+1.8-1.7 degrees East-of-North.
“The lensing favors an overall DM halo with ellipticity closely aligned to the axis of the central galaxy, yielding ϕ = 44 . 3 +1 . 8 -1 . 7 degrees East-of-North, compared to the BCG's position angle of 42 ◦ .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 14
The kinematics-only model constrains the isothermal Jeans radius to log10(r1/kpc) = 1.7+0.6-1.0.
“This model provides constraints of log 10 Υ ∗ = 0 . 4 +0 . 2 -0 . 3 , log 10 ( M 200m /M ⊙ ) = 14 . 5 ± 0 . 6, c 200m = 11 ± 3, and log 10 ( r 1 / kpc) = 1 . 7 +0 . 6 -1 . 0 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ D. External Shear · p. 17
The joint model yielded external shear magnitude |γext| = 0.07 ± 0.01.
“The lensing-only and joint models above yielded external shear with magnitude | γ ext | of 0 . 09 ± 0 . 02 and 0 . 07 ± 0 . 01, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 17
The joint model prefers a halo concentration around approximately 2σ higher than the L16 relation.
“The joint model prefers a halo concentration around ∼ 2 σ higher than the L16 relation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Strong lensing has a strong selection function for halos that are massive, elongated along the line-of-sight, or highly concentrated.
- Findingown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 16
The joint posteriors exhibit a strong bimodality absent from either the kinematics-only or lensing-only models.
“Curiously, the joint posteriors exhibit a strong bimodality absent from either the kinematics- or lensing-only models.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21
The inclusion of kinematics constraints suppresses this mode.
“The inclusion of kinematics constraints suppresses this mode.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 19
Our results are robust to the inclusion of the nearby bright galaxy's mass.
“While this choice yielded minimal change to our key parameters (chiefly Υ ∗ , M 200m , c 200m , and σ/m ), implying our results are robust, our likelihood nonetheless strongly preferred the presence of another halo.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Study design and conductnone given§ 1. Mass Model · p. 7
The SIDM-modified density profile approximation is accurate to within 1.5% across the radii shown.
“In both cases, the approximation is accurate to within 1.5% across the radii shown.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductown data§ A. Lensing-Only Results · p. 13
The lensing-only results are robust because the two independent samplers produced quantitatively and qualitatively consistent posteriors.
“Nevertheless, we consider these results to be robust: the two independent samplers produced posteriors which are quantitatively and qualitatively consistent.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductnone given§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21
This work is the first to leverage spatially resolved stellar kinematics to model the MACSJ0138 cluster.
“This work is the first to leverage spatially resolved stellar kinematics to model the MACSJ0138 cluster.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data§ D. External Shear · p. 17
The nearby mass can only partly explain the observed shear.
“Allowing for the nearby mass slightly decreases the derived shear magnitude, suggesting this mass can only partly explain the observed shear.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18
These modes correspond to a strong degeneracy between Υ∗ and σ/m.
“These modes correspond to a strong degeneracy between Υ ∗ and σ/m .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18
This does not represent a significant tension with conventional cosmological theory.
“However, this does not represent a significant tension with conventional cosmological theory.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ E. Supernovae Requiem and Encore · p. 18
The next observed image will be feature (d) of SN Requiem in late 2027 with approximately 1 year uncertainty.
“These results imply the next observed image will be feature (d) of SN Requiem in late 2027 with ∼ 1 year uncertainty, approximately two years from the date of this publication.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18
A high stellar mass atop a cored DM density may resemble a low stellar mass in a steep, cuspy DM density profile, yielding this degeneracy.
“A high stellar mass atop a cored DM density may resemble a low stellar mass in a steep, cuspy DM density profile, yielding this degeneracy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18
Our method's ability to distinguish baryonic and dark mass is limited.
“Therefore, our method's ability to distinguish baryonic and dark mass is limited.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation§ 2. Systematics Test and Covariance · p. 11
The systematic uncertainty from the template library is well below the approximately 10% uncertainty per bin measured in this work.
“This is well below the ≈ 10% uncertainty per bin measured in this work.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationcitation§ Appendix B: Triaxiality and Concentration Bias · p. 23
A common approach taking a spherical density profile and introducing an elliptical radius fails to preserve important properties of the halo: the total halo mass is now Me = q^2 Msph.
“Likewise, a common approach takes a spherical density profile ρ sph ( r ), and introduces an elliptical radius r 2 e = x 2 q 2 + y 2 q 2 + z 2 such that ρ e ( ⃗ x ) = ρ sph ( r e ). 8 However, this similarly fails to preserve important properties of the halo: the total halo mass is now M e = q 2 M sph .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- May combine two claims. 48
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 61
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ Appendix C: Robustness of the Measured Stellar Kinematics · p. 24The same paper demonstrated such an effect on measurements using MUSE spectra was typically of order approximately 3-4%, well below the statistical uncertainty in this work, and of similar scale to the systematic uncertainty we observe.
“However, the same paper demonstrated such an effect on measurements using MUSE spectra was typically of order ≈ 3 -4%, well below the statistical uncertainty in this work, and of similar scale to the systematic uncertainty we observe.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [64] S. Knabel, P. Mozumdar, A. J. Shajib, T. Treu, M. Cappellari, C. Spiniello, and S. Birrer, TDCOSMO XIX: Measuring stellar velocity dispersion with sub-percent accuracy for cosmography (2025), arXiv:2502.16034 [astroph]. source
Section 6.1 (p. 15) reports about 2% average statistical uncertainty for MUSE measurements, sub-percent systematic error from template choice, and other potential errors of 0.2–0.5%. Section 6.4 (p. 16) assigns the 3–4% average random errors to SDSS, not MUSE. The comparison with uncertainties in the citing authors’ own work is their assessment, not a result this source could establish. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21Weak lensing alone is unlikely to provide meaningful constraints on SIDM, but is highly useful in combination with the other probes here to ensure the inferred cluster mass is accurate on larger scales.
“Weak lensing alone is unlikely to provide meaningful constraints on SIDM [28], but is highly useful in combination with the other probes here to ensure the inferred cluster mass is accurate on larger scales.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [28] A. Robertson, E. Huff, and K. Markoviˇ c, Why weak lensing cluster shapes are insensitive to self-interacting dark matter, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 521 , 3172 (2023). source
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Our 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].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked- cites Suyu et al. [86] S. H. Suyu, A. Acebron, C. Grillo, P. Bergamini, G. B. Caminha, S. Cha, J. M. Diego, S. Ertl, N. Foo, B. L. Frye, Y. Fudamoto, G. Granata, A. Halkola, M. J. Jee, P. S. Kamieneski, A. M. Koekemoer, A. K. Meena, A. B. Newman, S. Nishida, M. Oguri, P. Rosati, S. Schuldt, A. Zitrin, R. Ca˜ nameras, E. E. Hayes, C. Larison, E. Mamuzic, M. Millon, J. D. R. Pierel, L. Tortorelli, and H. Wang, Cosmology with supernova Encore in the strong lensing cluster MACS J0138-2155: Lens model comparison and H0 measurement (2025), arXiv:2509.12319 [astro-ph]. source
- cites [37] S. Ertl, S. H. Suyu, S. Schuldt, G. Granata, C. Grillo, G. B. Caminha, A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, R. Ca˜ nameras, S. Cha, J. M. Diego, N. Foo, B. L. Frye, Y. Fudamoto, A. Halkola, M. J. Jee, P. S. Kamieneski, A. M. Koekemoer, A. K. Meena, S. Nishida, M. Oguri, J. D. R. Pierel, P. Rosati, L. Tortorelli, H. Wang, and A. Zitrin, Cosmology with supernova Encore in the strong lensing cluster MACS J0138-2155: Photometry, cluster members, and lens mass model, Astronomy and Astrophysics 702 , A157 (2025). source
- cites [38] A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, P. Rosati, P. Tozzi, M. Meneghetti, G. B. Caminha, S. Ertl, G. Granata, A. M. Koekemoer, C. Grillo, S. Schuldt, B. L. Frye, and J. M. Diego, Enhanced strong-lensing model of MACS J0138.0-2155 based on new JWST and VLT/MUSE observations, Astronomy and Astrophysics 699 , A101 (2025). source
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ A. Shared SIDM Mass Model · p. 4The BCG of MACSJ0138 has a V-band absolute luminosity of 4.94 × 10^11 L⊙ and a stellar mass-to-light ratio Υ∗,V of 2.05.
“This yields a V-band absolute luminosity of 4 . 94 × 10 11 L ⊙ with a corresponding Υ ∗ ,V of 2 . 05.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [51] M. R. Blanton and S. Roweis, K-Corrections and Filter Transformations in the Ultraviolet, Optical, and NearInfrared, The Astronomical Journal 133 , 734 (2007). source
Section 6 describes tools for calculating solar absolute magnitudes and converting between filters, and Figure 18 discusses V-band mass-to-light ratios for galaxies generally. Searches for MACSJ0138, its BCG, and the quoted values found no passage reporting a V-band luminosity of 4.94 × 10^11 L⊙ or a stellar mass-to-light ratio of 2.05. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [52]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingcitation§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Our 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].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [38] A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, P. Rosati, P. Tozzi, M. Meneghetti, G. B. Caminha, S. Ertl, G. Granata, A. M. Koekemoer, C. Grillo, S. Schuldt, B. L. Frye, and J. M. Diego, Enhanced strong-lensing model of MACS J0138.0-2155 based on new JWST and VLT/MUSE observations, Astronomy and Astrophysics 699 , A101 (2025). source
- cites [37] S. Ertl, S. H. Suyu, S. Schuldt, G. Granata, C. Grillo, G. B. Caminha, A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, R. Ca˜ nameras, S. Cha, J. M. Diego, N. Foo, B. L. Frye, Y. Fudamoto, A. Halkola, M. J. Jee, P. S. Kamieneski, A. M. Koekemoer, A. K. Meena, S. Nishida, M. Oguri, J. D. R. Pierel, P. Rosati, L. Tortorelli, H. Wang, and A. Zitrin, Cosmology with supernova Encore in the strong lensing cluster MACS J0138-2155: Photometry, cluster members, and lens mass model, Astronomy and Astrophysics 702 , A157 (2025). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 4. JAM Model and Likelihood · p. 12JAM models with spherical and cylindrical alignment have been found to generally agree.
“As noted in Birrer et al. [65], JAM models with spherical and cylindrical alignment have been found to generally agree [72, 73], and both Shajib et al. [62], Birrer et al. [65] use the spherical alignment in joint models of lensing and dynamics.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim4 of 4 sources checked- cites Birrer et al. [65] S. Birrer, E. J. Buckley-Geer, M. Cappellari, F. Courbin, F. Dux, C. D. Fassnacht, J. A. Frieman, A. Galan, D. Gilman, X.-Y. Huang, S. Knabel, D. Langeroodi, H. Lin, M. Millon, T. Morishita, V. Motta, P. Mozumdar, E. Paic, A. J. Shajib, W. Sheu, D. Sluse, A. Sonnenfeld, C. Spiniello, M. Stiavelli, S. H. Suyu, C. Y. Tan, T. Treu, L. V. de Vyvere, H. Wang, P. Wells, D. M. Williams, and K. C. Wong, TDCOSMO 2025: Cosmological constraints from strong lensing time delays (2025), arXiv:2506.03023 [astro-ph]. source
- cites [72] M. Cappellari, Efficient solution of the anisotropic spherically aligned axisymmetric Jeans equations of stellar hydrodynamics for galactic dynamics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 494 , 4819 (2020). source
- cites [73] K. Zhu, S. Lu, M. Cappellari, R. Li, S. Mao, and L. Gao, MaNGA DynPop - I. Quality-assessed stellar dynamical modelling from integral-field spectroscopy of 10K nearby galaxies: A catalogue of masses, mass-to-light ratios, density profiles, and dark matter, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 522 , 6326 (2023). source
- cites Shajib et al. [62] A. J. Shajib, P. Mozumdar, G. C. F. Chen, T. Treu, M. Cappellari, S. Knabel, S. H. Suyu, V. N. Bennert, J. A. Frieman, D. Sluse, S. Birrer, F. Courbin, C. D. Fassnacht, L. Villafa˜ na, and P. R. Williams, TDCOSMO. XII. Improved Hubble constant measurement from lensing time delays using spatially resolved stellar kinematics of the lens galaxy, Astronomy and Astrophysics 673 , A9 (2023). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Acebron 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].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked- cites Acebron et al. [38] A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, P. Rosati, P. Tozzi, M. Meneghetti, G. B. Caminha, S. Ertl, G. Granata, A. M. Koekemoer, C. Grillo, S. Schuldt, B. L. Frye, and J. M. Diego, Enhanced strong-lensing model of MACS J0138.0-2155 based on new JWST and VLT/MUSE observations, Astronomy and Astrophysics 699 , A101 (2025). source
- cites [30] A. B. Newman, S. Belli, R. S. Ellis, and S. G. Patel, Resolving Quiescent Galaxies at z ≥ 2. I. Search for Gravitationally Lensed Sources and Characterization of Their Structure, Stellar Populations, and Line Emission, The Astrophysical Journal 862 , 125 (2018). source
Section 5.1.2, “Magnification Uncertainties” (page unavailable), reports differences between Newman et al.’s own lens models, but does not address Acebron et al.’s predictions or their comparison with the previously reported models in [30, 31]. Searches for Acebron and for disagreement with previous lens models found no passage establishing the attributed statement. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [31] S. A. Rodney, G. B. Brammer, J. D. R. Pierel, J. Richard, S. Toft, K. F. O'Connor, M. Akhshik, and K. E. Whitaker, A gravitationally lensed supernova with an observable two-decade time delay, Nature Astronomy 10.1038/s41550-021-01450-9 (2021). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingreasoning§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21There is good agreement between our results and those of [17, 18].
“We also note that there is good agreement between our results and those of [17, 18].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [17] L. Sagunski, S. Gad-Nasr, B. Colquhoun, A. Robertson, and S. Tulin, Velocity-dependent self-interacting dark matter from groups and clusters of galaxies, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 , 024. source
- cites [18] K. E. Andrade, J. Fuson, S. Gad-Nasr, D. Kong, Q. Minor, M. G. Roberts, and M. Kaplinghat, A stringent upper limit on dark matter self-interaction cross-section from cluster strong lensing, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 510 , 54 (2022). source
May combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Lens 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).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites Acebron et al. [38] A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, P. Rosati, P. Tozzi, M. Meneghetti, G. B. Caminha, S. Ertl, G. Granata, A. M. Koekemoer, C. Grillo, S. Schuldt, B. L. Frye, and J. M. Diego, Enhanced strong-lensing model of MACS J0138.0-2155 based on new JWST and VLT/MUSE observations, Astronomy and Astrophysics 699 , A101 (2025). source
- cites Ertl et al. [37] S. Ertl, S. H. Suyu, S. Schuldt, G. Granata, C. Grillo, G. B. Caminha, A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, R. Ca˜ nameras, S. Cha, J. M. Diego, N. Foo, B. L. Frye, Y. Fudamoto, A. Halkola, M. J. Jee, P. S. Kamieneski, A. M. Koekemoer, A. K. Meena, S. Nishida, M. Oguri, J. D. R. Pierel, P. Rosati, L. Tortorelli, H. Wang, and A. Zitrin, Cosmology with supernova Encore in the strong lensing cluster MACS J0138-2155: Photometry, cluster members, and lens mass model, Astronomy and Astrophysics 702 , A157 (2025). source
Section 5.1.2 (p. 12) confirms that Ertl et al. modeled the cluster dark matter with two halo components. Our copy does not establish the citing authors’ comparison with Acebron et al. or explicitly state that Ertl et al. used no external shear. Section 6.2 (p. 15) says Ertl et al.’s models yielded mostly consistent magnifications within 1σ, rather than documenting a large effect near critical curves. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ D. External Shear · p. 17Etherington et al. demonstrated in galaxy-galaxy lenses that the magnitude and direction of strong-lensing-derived γext shows little correlation with known weak lensing shear, and is instead highly correlated with the elliptical orientation of the lens itself.
“While the motivation of this approach is to generically capture and account for any such perturbations, Etherington et al. [82] has demonstrated in galaxy-galaxy lenses that the magnitude and direction of SL-derived γ ext shows little correlation with known weak lensing shear, and is instead highly correlated with the elliptical orientation of the lens itself.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Etherington et al. [82] A. Etherington, J. W. Nightingale, R. Massey, S.-I. Tam, X. Cao, A. Niemiec, Q. He, A. Robertson, R. Li, A. Amvrosiadis, S. Cole, J. M. Diego, C. S. Frenk, B. L. Frye, D. Harvey, M. Jauzac, A. M. Koekemoer, D. J. Lagattuta, S. Lange, M. Limousin, G. Mahler, E. Sirks, and C. L. Steinhardt, Strong gravitational lensing's 'external shear' is not shear, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 531 , 3684 (2024). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductcitation§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Our group has independently measured the Faber-Jackson relation of the members of MACSJ0138, chosen cluster members to include in the SL mass model, identified multiply imaged features to use as constraints, and uses an entirely different modeling code and parametrized mass model from other work on MACSJ0138.
“We stress that our group has independently measured the Faber-Jackson relation of the members of MACSJ0138[33], chosen cluster members to include in the SL mass model, identified multiply imaged features to use as constraints, and uses an entirely different modeling code and parametrized mass model from other work on MACSJ0138.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [33] A. Flowers, J. H. O'Donnell, T. E. Jeltema, V. Wetzell, and M. G. Roberts, Spectroscopic and X-ray Modeling of the Strong Lensing Galaxy Cluster MACS J0138.0-2155, The Open Journal of Astrophysics 8 , 75 (2025). source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ A. Self-Interacting Dark Matter · p. 2Constraints on dwarf and LSB mass scales from fitting rotation curves suggest a higher SIDM cross section, around O(1-10) cm^2/g.
“Constraints on dwarf and LSB mass scales from fitting rotation curves suggest a higher value, around O (1 -10) cm 2 / g [19].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [19] T. Ren, A. Kwa, M. Kaplinghat, and H.-B. Yu, Reconciling the Diversity and Uniformity of Galactic Rotation Curves with Self-Interacting Dark Matter, Physical Review X 9 , 031020 (2019), arXiv:1808.05695 [astroph.GA]. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 2. Systematics Test and Covariance · p. 11Knabel et al. demonstrated that the leading systematic uncertainty comes from the choice of template library, and that this uncertainty is at most O(3-4%) in fits to MUSE spectra.
“Note that while Knabel et al. [64] have demonstrated the leading systematic uncertainty comes from the choice of template library, and advocate comparing a wide array of such libraries, they demonstrate this uncertainty is at most O (3-4%) in fits to MUSE spectra.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Knabel et al. [64] S. Knabel, P. Mozumdar, A. J. Shajib, T. Treu, M. Cappellari, C. Spiniello, and S. Birrer, TDCOSMO XIX: Measuring stellar velocity dispersion with sub-percent accuracy for cosmography (2025), arXiv:2502.16034 [astroph]. source
Section 4.4.1 (p. 9) identifies template choice as the dominant potential systematic error, and the Summary (p. 17) recommends comparing all three clean libraries. The claimed 3–4% ceiling does not describe the MUSE results: Section 6.1 (p. 15) reports a template-choice error well below 1% with BIC weighting, while Section 4.3 (p. 9) says differences between full and clean libraries for some MUSE fits reach 5% or more. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Acebron 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.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Acebron et al. [38] A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, P. Rosati, P. Tozzi, M. Meneghetti, G. B. Caminha, S. Ertl, G. Granata, A. M. Koekemoer, C. Grillo, S. Schuldt, B. L. Frye, and J. M. Diego, Enhanced strong-lensing model of MACS J0138.0-2155 based on new JWST and VLT/MUSE observations, Astronomy and Astrophysics 699 , A101 (2025). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Compared to [37], we predict |μ| approximately 20% lower for the observed image groups (a,b,c).
“Compared to [37], we predict | µ | approximately 20% lower for the observed image groups (a,b,c).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [37] S. Ertl, S. H. Suyu, S. Schuldt, G. Granata, C. Grillo, G. B. Caminha, A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, R. Ca˜ nameras, S. Cha, J. M. Diego, N. Foo, B. L. Frye, Y. Fudamoto, A. Halkola, M. J. Jee, P. S. Kamieneski, A. M. Koekemoer, A. K. Meena, S. Nishida, M. Oguri, J. D. R. Pierel, P. Rosati, L. Tortorelli, H. Wang, and A. Zitrin, Cosmology with supernova Encore in the strong lensing cluster MACS J0138-2155: Photometry, cluster members, and lens mass model, Astronomy and Astrophysics 702 , A157 (2025). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20[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.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [38] A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, P. Rosati, P. Tozzi, M. Meneghetti, G. B. Caminha, S. Ertl, G. Granata, A. M. Koekemoer, C. Grillo, S. Schuldt, B. L. Frye, and J. M. Diego, Enhanced strong-lensing model of MACS J0138.0-2155 based on new JWST and VLT/MUSE observations, Astronomy and Astrophysics 699 , A101 (2025). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Agreement 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.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [37] S. Ertl, S. H. Suyu, S. Schuldt, G. Granata, C. Grillo, G. B. Caminha, A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, R. Ca˜ nameras, S. Cha, J. M. Diego, N. Foo, B. L. Frye, Y. Fudamoto, A. Halkola, M. J. Jee, P. S. Kamieneski, A. M. Koekemoer, A. K. Meena, S. Nishida, M. Oguri, J. D. R. Pierel, P. Rosati, L. Tortorelli, H. Wang, and A. Zitrin, Cosmology with supernova Encore in the strong lensing cluster MACS J0138-2155: Photometry, cluster members, and lens mass model, Astronomy and Astrophysics 702 , A157 (2025). source
- cites [38] A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, P. Rosati, P. Tozzi, M. Meneghetti, G. B. Caminha, S. Ertl, G. Granata, A. M. Koekemoer, C. Grillo, S. Schuldt, B. L. Frye, and J. M. Diego, Enhanced strong-lensing model of MACS J0138.0-2155 based on new JWST and VLT/MUSE observations, Astronomy and Astrophysics 699 , A101 (2025). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18Wang et al. [68] do not combine stellar kinematics with pixel-level image modeling, and only present joint posteriors for a conjugate point likelihood with kinematics.
“Wang et al. [68] therefore do not combine stellar kinematics with pixel-level image modeling, and only present joint posteriors for a conjugate point likelihood with kinematics, similar to what was done here.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Wang et al. [68] H. Wang, R. Ca˜ nameras, G. B. Caminha, S. H. Suyu, A. Yıldırım, G. Chiriv` ı, L. Christensen, C. Grillo, and S. Schuldt, Constraining the multi-scale dark-matter distribution in CASSOWARY 31 with strong gravitational lensing and stellar dynamics, Astronomy and Astrophysics 668 , A162 (2022). source
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ C. Lensing Cluster MACS J0138.0-2155 · p. 3MACSJ0138 is a relaxed, non-merging cluster with close to spherical symmetry.
“It is known to be a relaxed, non-merging cluster, whose primary lensed source is a bright, quiescent galaxy at redshift 1.95. This source appears in at least 5 separate images, surrounding the cluster's center; furthermore, Xray data show it to be a relaxed system, exhibiting close to spherical symmetry [33].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [33] A. Flowers, J. H. O'Donnell, T. E. Jeltema, V. Wetzell, and M. G. Roberts, Spectroscopic and X-ray Modeling of the Strong Lensing Galaxy Cluster MACS J0138.0-2155, The Open Journal of Astrophysics 8 , 75 (2025). source
The Abstract (p. 1) and X-ray Properties (p. 7) describe MACS0138 as relaxed and report nearly circular X-ray emission within the lensing region (ellipticity 0.12 ± 0.03). They do not establish that the cluster is non-merging or close to spherical in three dimensions; the Discussion (p. 8) notes that a lens model finds a highly elliptical dark-matter halo. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ A. Self-Interacting Dark Matter · p. 2Roberts et al. [20] suggests that σ/m could be as high as 20-40 cm^2/g at dwarf/LSB mass scales when SIDM-induced core collapse is accounted for.
“However, Roberts et al. [20] suggests that σ/m could be as high as 20 -40 cm 2 / g at this mass scale, when SIDM-induced core collapse is accounted for.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [20] M. G. Roberts, M. Kaplinghat, M. Valli, and H.-B. Yu, Gravothermal collapse and the diversity of galactic rotation curves, Physical Review D 111 , 103041 (2025). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ C. Lensing Cluster MACS J0138.0-2155 · p. 3MACSJ0138 is the first known lens system to host multiple strongly-lensed supernovae.
“making this the first known lens system to host multiple strongly-lensed SNe.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [32] J. D. R. Pierel, A. B. Newman, S. Dhawan, M. Gu, B. A. Joshi, T. Li, S. Schuldt, L. G. Strolger, S. H. Suyu, G. B. Caminha, S. H. Cohen, J. M. Diego, J. C. J. D´ Silva, S. Ertl, B. L. Frye, G. Granata, C. Grillo, A. M. Koekemoer, J. Li, A. Robotham, J. Summers, T. Treu, R. A. Windhorst, A. Zitrin, S. Agarwal, A. Agrawal, N. Arendse, S. Belli, C. Burns, R. Ca˜ nameras, S. Chakrabarti, W. Chen, T. E. Collett, D. A. Coulter, R. S. Ellis, M. Engesser, N. Foo, O. D. Fox, C. Gall, N. Garuda, S. Gezari, S. Gomez, K. Glazebrook, J. Hjorth, X. Huang, S. W. Jha, P. S. Kamieneski, P. Kelly, C. Larison, L source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingcitation§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20The 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 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [38] A. Acebron, P. Bergamini, P. Rosati, P. Tozzi, M. Meneghetti, G. B. Caminha, S. Ertl, G. Granata, A. M. Koekemoer, C. Grillo, S. Schuldt, B. L. Frye, and J. M. Diego, Enhanced strong-lensing model of MACS J0138.0-2155 based on new JWST and VLT/MUSE observations, Astronomy and Astrophysics 699 , A101 (2025). source
Section 4.4 (pp. 9–10) reports model-predicted magnifications for SN Encore images 1d and 1e, including μ₁ₑ ≈ −0.4. That supports citing this paper as a source of comparison values, but our copy cannot establish that the citing authors’ values are nearly identical to them. It also qualifies the 1e prediction: it appears in only 15% of the model chains. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18Wang et al. [68] notes that combining strong lensing and kinematics measurements is a potential difficulty.
“Wang et al. [68], which also studied a strong lensing cluster, notes this as a potential difficulty in combining strong lensing and kinematics measurements.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Wang et al. [68] H. Wang, R. Ca˜ nameras, G. B. Caminha, S. H. Suyu, A. Yıldırım, G. Chiriv` ı, L. Christensen, C. Grillo, and S. Schuldt, Constraining the multi-scale dark-matter distribution in CASSOWARY 31 with strong gravitational lensing and stellar dynamics, Astronomy and Astrophysics 668 , A162 (2022). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ B. Cluster SIDM constraints · p. 2Sagunski et al. [17] found a clear preference for non-zero SIDM cross-sections, with σ/m = 0.19 ± 0.09 cm^2/g at cluster scales and σ/m = 0.5 ± 0.2 cm^2/g at group scales.
“Their results show a clear preference for non-zero cross-sections, with σ/m = 0 . 19 ± 0 . 09 cm 2 / g at cluster scales, and σ/m = 0 . 5 ± 0 . 2 cm 2 / g at group scales.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [17] L. Sagunski, S. Gad-Nasr, B. Colquhoun, A. Robertson, and S. Tulin, Velocity-dependent self-interacting dark matter from groups and clusters of galaxies, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 , 024. source
The table reproduced in V. Conclusions gives the quoted group and cluster cross-sections and uncertainties. But that section calls the preference for a nonzero cross-section “mild,” not clear; B. Cross sections likewise says it is “not very strong.” No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ Appendix C: Robustness of the Measured Stellar Kinematics · p. 24Knabel et al. [64] demonstrated that the choice of stellar template library is often the dominant source of systematic uncertainty in similar measurements.
“Knabel et al. [64] has rigorously explored systematic uncertainty in similar measurements with the goal of subpercent precision σ v measurements, and demonstrated that the choice of stellar template library is often the dominant source of systematic uncertainty.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Knabel et al. [64] S. Knabel, P. Mozumdar, A. J. Shajib, T. Treu, M. Cappellari, C. Spiniello, and S. Birrer, TDCOSMO XIX: Measuring stellar velocity dispersion with sub-percent accuracy for cosmography (2025), arXiv:2502.16034 [astroph]. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductcitation§ Appendix C: Robustness of the Measured Stellar Kinematics · p. 23Measurements of stellar kinematics can be highly sensitive to analysis choices, and we have drawn on recent work, particularly [62, 64], to ensure our measurements are as robust as possible.
“Measurements of stellar kinematics can be highly sensitive to analysis choices, and we have drawn on recent work, particularly [62, 64], to ensure our measurements are as robust as possible.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [62] A. J. Shajib, P. Mozumdar, G. C. F. Chen, T. Treu, M. Cappellari, S. Knabel, S. H. Suyu, V. N. Bennert, J. A. Frieman, D. Sluse, S. Birrer, F. Courbin, C. D. Fassnacht, L. Villafa˜ na, and P. R. Williams, TDCOSMO. XII. Improved Hubble constant measurement from lensing time delays using spatially resolved stellar kinematics of the lens galaxy, Astronomy and Astrophysics 673 , A9 (2023). source
- cites [64] S. Knabel, P. Mozumdar, A. J. Shajib, T. Treu, M. Cappellari, C. Spiniello, and S. Birrer, TDCOSMO XIX: Measuring stellar velocity dispersion with sub-percent accuracy for cosmography (2025), arXiv:2502.16034 [astroph]. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductcitation§ Appendix C: Robustness of the Measured Stellar Kinematics · p. 24Our statistical uncertainty is large compared to [62, 64] in part because we use a less stringent SNR target inspired by [21].
“However, our statistical uncertainty is large compared to [62, 64] in part because we use a less stringent SNR target inspired by [21].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked- cites [62] A. J. Shajib, P. Mozumdar, G. C. F. Chen, T. Treu, M. Cappellari, S. Knabel, S. H. Suyu, V. N. Bennert, J. A. Frieman, D. Sluse, S. Birrer, F. Courbin, C. D. Fassnacht, L. Villafa˜ na, and P. R. Williams, TDCOSMO. XII. Improved Hubble constant measurement from lensing time delays using spatially resolved stellar kinematics of the lens galaxy, Astronomy and Astrophysics 673 , A9 (2023). source
- cites [64] S. Knabel, P. Mozumdar, A. J. Shajib, T. Treu, M. Cappellari, C. Spiniello, and S. Birrer, TDCOSMO XIX: Measuring stellar velocity dispersion with sub-percent accuracy for cosmography (2025), arXiv:2502.16034 [astroph]. source
- cites [21] A. B. Newman, T. Treu, R. S. Ellis, D. J. Sand, C. Nipoti, J. Richard, and E. Jullo, The Density Profiles of Massive, Relaxed Galaxy Clusters. I. The Total Density Over Three Decades in Radius, The Astrophysical Journal 765 , 24 (2013).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ Appendix B: Triaxiality and Concentration Bias · p. 22The majority of cluster halos in the universe are expected to be roughly prolate.
“The majority of cluster halos in the universe are expected to be roughly prolate [94]; as such, we allow for a prolate, rather than oblate or fully triaxial ellipticity.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [94] M. Bonamigo, G. Despali, M. Limousin, R. Angulo, C. Giocoli, and G. Soucail, Universality of dark matter haloes shape over six decades in mass: Insights from the Millennium XXL and SBARBINE simulations, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 449 , 3171 (2015). source
May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ E. Supernovae Requiem and Encore · p. 18The lensing-only model provides very poor constraints on the magnifications, while our joint model including kinematics yields clear predictions.
“While the lensing-only model provides very poor constraints on the magnifications, our joint model including kinematics yields clear predictions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 17While the kinematics and lensing models alone both prefer a cluster halo with relatively high concentration, the significance of this preference increases in the joint model.
“While the kinematics and lensing models alone both prefer a cluster halo with relatively high concentration, the significance of this preference increases in the joint model.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 15The kinematics model prefers an anisotropy βsph < 0, implying σθ/σr > 1.
“Our kinematics model prefers an anisotropy β sph < 0, implying σ θ /σ r > 1.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Considerable uncertainty exists on the value of the velocity anisotropy β.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 15The PSF size σPSF is entirely unconstrained but demonstrates almost no degeneracy with any other parameters.
“While the PSF size σ PSF is entirely unconstrained, it fortunately demonstrates almost no degeneracy with any other parameters.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The PSF is a single-component Gaussian.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingcitation§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Our model predicted value of Δt1a,1b = 41 ± 4 days is consistent with Pierel et al.'s measurement.
“Additionally, Pierel et al. [87] reported a measurement of the time delay between SN Encore images 1a and 1b of ∆ t 1 b, 1 a = -39 . 8 +3 . 9 -3 . 3 days, consistent with our model predicted value of ∆ t 1 a, 1 b = -∆ t 1 b, 1 a = 41 ± 4 days (see Table III).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ D. External Shear · p. 17The nearby mass has a significant effect on the position angle of the shear, extending the posteriors to include the orientation of the central galaxy of MACSJ0138.
“While the effect on the shear magnitude | γ ext | is slight, the nearby mass has a significant effect on the position angle of the shear, extending the posteriors to include the orientation of the central galaxy of MACSJ0138.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 16The stellar mass-to-light ratio Υ∗ is strongly degenerate with the SIDM cross section σ/m, with higher cross sections occurring exclusively at high Υ∗.
“In addition, the stellar mass-to-light ratio Υ ∗ is strongly degenerate with the SIDM cross section σ/m , with higher cross sections occurring exclusively at high Υ ∗ .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ 1. Measuring the Kinematics Map · p. 9The central galaxy of MACS J0138-2155 exhibits strong emission lines.
“We note that this central galaxy exhibits strong emission lines, potentially associated with an AGN and star formation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18The joint model provides notably tighter constraints on the mass and concentration, and a more stringent upper limit on the SIDM interaction cross-section.
“The joint model provides notably tighter constraints on the mass and concentration, and a more stringent upper limit on the SIDM interaction crosssection.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ D. External Shear · p. 17The test with the extra mass yielded a minimum lensing χ2 of 3.5, significantly lower than the best lensing χ2 of 4.08 from the fiducial joint model.
“Our lensing constraints additionally show a clear preference for the presence of this other mass: this test yielded a minimum lensing χ 2 of 3.5, significantly lower than the best lensing χ 2 of 4.08 produced by the fiducial joint model.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 15The radial critical curve divides the central and North-East images near a point where their light is dimmest.
“As expected, the tangential critical curve divides the southern arc neatly into two images of positive and negative magnification, and the radial critical curve divides the central and North-East images near a point where their light is dimmest.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Our predictions for (d,e) are more discrepant, where our predictions are 60% higher and approximately 2-5x lower respectively.
“Our predictions for (d,e) are more discrepant, where our predictions are 60% higher and ∼ 2-5x lower respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 14The best-fit kinematics-only model yields a reduced χ2 of 2.76.
“The best-fit model yields a reduced χ 2 of 2.76.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 15The tangential critical curve divides the southern arc neatly into two images of positive and negative magnification.
“As expected, the tangential critical curve divides the southern arc neatly into two images of positive and negative magnification, and the radial critical curve divides the central and North-East images near a point where their light is dimmest.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21Our joint results still exhibit a clear bimodality, with one mode at high values of Υ∗, σ/m, and ⟨v pair⟩, and one at lower values of those three parameters.
“Notably, our joint results still exhibit a clear bimodality, with one mode at high values of Υ ∗ , σ/m , and ⟨ v pair ⟩ , and one at lower values of those three parameters.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ 3. BCG Light Profile · p. 11The best-fit Multi-Gaussian Expansion of the central galaxy's light profile contains 6 Gaussian components.
“Using an initial ngauss of 30, the resulting best-fit MGE contains 6 Gaussian components.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Both our lensing-only and joint models yield a small, best-fit RMS of 0.11 arcsec.
“Nevertheless, both our lensing-only and joint models yield a small, best-fit RMS of 0.11 arcsec.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ A. Lensing-Only Results · p. 13The position of the overall dark matter halo is consistent with the center of the BCG, although lensing alone favors a halo centered slightly to the south.
“The position of the overall DM halo is also consistent with the center of the BCG, although the lensing alone favors a DM halo centered slightly to the south.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ 1. Measuring the Kinematics Map · p. 9The stellar component of the central galaxy shows negligible rotation.
“The stellar component shows negligible rotation, as expected in a BCG.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 15The best-fit kinematics map from the joint model is nearly identical to that of the kinematics-only model, with a non-reduced χ2 of 45.5 compared to 44.3 for the kinematics model.
“The best-fit kinematics map from this joint model is nearly identical to that of the kinematics-only model, with a (non-reduced) χ 2 of 45.5, compared to 44.3 for the kinematics model shown in Figure 9.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 14The kinematics model alone yields parameters highly consistent with the lensing-only model: the posteriors on Υ∗ are similar, and in M200m-c200m space the 1σ posteriors of the lensing-only model lie almost entirely within those of the kinematics-only model.
“It is reassuring, however, that the kinematics model alone yields parameters that are highly consistent with the lensing-only model: the posteriors on Υ ∗ are similar, and in M 200m -c 200m space, the 1 σ posteriors of the lensing-only model lie almost entirely within those of the kinematics-only model.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18Our results exhibit a strong bimodality in the stellar mass-to-light ratio Υ∗, and less so in the SIDM cross section.
“Our results exhibit a strong bimodality in the stellar mass-to-light ratio Υ ∗ , and less so in the SIDM cross section.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ D. External Shear · p. 17Allowing for the nearby mass slightly decreases the derived shear magnitude.
“Allowing for the nearby mass slightly decreases the derived shear magnitude, suggesting this mass can only partly explain the observed shear.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ D. External Shear · p. 17The presence of the extra mass results in little change to our parameters of interest compared to the joint model; the posteriors on Υ∗, M200m, c200m, and σ/m are all consistent within 1σ.
“Nevertheless, the presence of the extra mass results in little change to our parameters of interest compared to the joint model; the posteriors on Υ ∗ , M 200m , c 200m , and σ/m are all consistent within 1 σ .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingreasoning§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 15emcee was able to sample the joint model more efficiently than the lensing-only model, despite the joint model having slightly higher dimensionality and a more expensive likelihood.
“Reassuringly, emcee was able to sample the joint model more efficiently than the lensing-only model, despite having slightly higher dimensionality and a more expensive likelihood.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21The kinematics map measured in this work was computed from MUSE observations.
“While the kinematics map measured in this work was computed from MUSE observations, there exist newer, deeper MUSE observations on this system.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Our results disagree significantly with the earlier model in Rodney et al. [31], which gave |μ| of observed images roughly 3-5x lower than ours, and a significantly longer time-delay.
“Our results, however, disagree significantly with the earlier model in Rodney et al. [31], which gave | µ | of observed images roughly 3-5x lower than ours, and a significantly longer time-delay.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rodney et al. [31] S. A. Rodney, G. B. Brammer, J. D. R. Pierel, J. Richard, S. Toft, K. F. O'Connor, M. Akhshik, and K. E. Whitaker, A gravitationally lensed supernova with an observable two-decade time delay, Nature Astronomy 10.1038/s41550-021-01450-9 (2021). source
May combine two claims.
Findingcitation§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21While there is some velocity offset, each constraint is assumed to be velocity-independent locally, but all constraints are consistent with the typical 1/v4 global velocity-dependent behavior of SIDM theory curves in this large velocity limit [1].
“While there is some velocity offset, each constraint is assumed to be velocityindependent locally, but all constraints are consistent with the typical 1 /v 4 global velocity-dependent behavior of SIDM theory curves in this large velocity limit [1].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Each SIDM constraint is velocity-independent locally.
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ Appendix C: Robustness of the Measured Stellar Kinematics · p. 24Total uncertainty is of order approximately 10% in each Voronoi bin, and systematic uncertainty is subdominant to statistical uncertainty in all bins save for bin 9, the northernmost bin.
“Total uncertainty is of order ∼ 10% in each bin, and systematic uncertainty is subdominant to statistical uncertainty in all bins save for bin 9, the northernmost bin.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 15The joint model posteriors were estimated with two separate emcee samplers of 48 walkers each to verify robustness.
“As in Section IV A, we run two separate emcee samplers of 48 walkers each to verify the robustness of these results.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Our mass model is higher quality than that in [31], which predicted an unreasonably large ellipticity for the overall halo and a BCG more massive than the overall halo.
“We do not consider this problematic, as we believe our mass model to be higher quality than that in [31], which predicted an unreasonably large ellipticity for the overall halo and a BCG more massive than the overall halo.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [31] S. A. Rodney, G. B. Brammer, J. D. R. Pierel, J. Richard, S. Toft, K. F. O'Connor, M. Akhshik, and K. E. Whitaker, A gravitationally lensed supernova with an observable two-decade time delay, Nature Astronomy 10.1038/s41550-021-01450-9 (2021). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationreasoning§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21The density profile inferred from X-ray observations of the ICM could be particularly powerful for SIDM studies, as it constrains the cluster halo at similar radii as SL.
“The density profile inferred from X-ray observations of the ICM could be particularly powerful for SIDM studies, as it constrains the cluster halo at similar radii as SL.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown data§ 2. Systematics Test and Covariance · p. 11The resulting kinematics map is consistent across all settings, with systematic uncertainty subdominant to statistical uncertainty in all but one spatial bin.
“We find our resulting kinematics map to be consistent across all settings, with systematic uncertainty subdominant to statistical uncertainty in all but one spatial bin.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Measurements of stellar velocity dispersions can be highly sensitive to the wavelength range used, the choice of template library, and the degree of the polynomial used to model background.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown data§ A. Lensing-Only Results · p. 13The lensing-only model posteriors were estimated with two independent emcee samplers of 48 walkers each to verify robustness.
“As stated above, two independent emcee samplers of 48 walkers each were run for this model, in order to verify the robustness of posteriors.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationnone given§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21Extending the methodology in this work to a sample of clusters would greatly improve constraints on SIDM.
“Extending the methodology in this work to a sample of clusters would greatly improve constraints on SIDM.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Premisenone given§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18Both probes used here, lensing and kinematics, are indifferent to any distinction between baryonic and dark mass, and measure the total mass present.
“Both probes used here (lensing and kinematics) are indifferent to any distinction between baryonic and dark mass, and measure the total mass present.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20This is unlikely to be true, as our model agrees with theirs despite not using the newly discovered sources.
“However, this is unlikely to be true, as our model agrees with theirs despite not using the newly discovered sources.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationnone given§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 14The stellar kinematics is most sensitive to the total mass within approximately 20 kpc, and has only weak constraining power on the mass and concentration of the overall halo.
“As expected, the stellar kinematics is most sensitive to the total mass within ∼ 20kpc, and has only weak constraining power on the mass and concentration of the overall halo.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 15Shajib et al. similarly found σθ/σr > 1 in both ground- and space-based IFU measurements of a galaxy-scale lens.
“Shajib et al. [66] similarly found σ θ /σ r > 1 in both groundand space-based IFU measurements of a galaxy-scale lens.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Shajib et al. [66] A. J. Shajib, T. Treu, S. H. Suyu, D. Law, A. Yıldırım, M. Cappellari, A. Galan, S. Knabel, H. Wang, S. Birrer, F. Courbin, C. D. Fassnacht, J. A. Frieman, A. Melo, T. Morishita, P. Mozumdar, D. Sluse, and M. Stiavelli, TDCOSMO XXIII. First spatially resolved kinematics of the lens galaxy obtained using JWST-NIRSpec to improve time-delay cosmography (2025), arXiv:2506.21665 [astro-ph]. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ A Constraint on Dark Matter Self-Interaction from Combined Strong Lensing and Stellar Kinematics in MACS J0138-2155 · p. 1The results imply SN Requiem will reappear sooner than previously reported, with a 1σ CL between January 2027 and November 2028 at H0 = 67.7 km s−1 Mpc−1.
“imply SN Requiem will reappear sooner than previously reported, with a 1 σ CL between January 2027 and November 2028 at H 0 = 67 . 7 km s -1 Mpc -1 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Interpretationnone given§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21Observations of these images would enable a time-delay measurement of the Hubble constant of unprecedented precision from a single system.
“Observations of these images would enable a time-delay measurement of the Hubble constant of unprecedented precision from a single system.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21The study which discovered SN Requiem [31] predicted a approximately 20 year time delay, with the next images appearing in the mid to late 2030s.
“The study which discovered SN Requiem [31] predicted a ∼ 20 year time delay, with the next images appearing in the mid to late 2030s.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [31] S. A. Rodney, G. B. Brammer, J. D. R. Pierel, J. Richard, S. Toft, K. F. O'Connor, M. Akhshik, and K. E. Whitaker, A gravitationally lensed supernova with an observable two-decade time delay, Nature Astronomy 10.1038/s41550-021-01450-9 (2021). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationcitation§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18Combining lensing data with hundreds of data d.o.f. with kinematics likelihoods of typically a few dozen d.o.f. can yield minimal change over a lensing-only model, as the χ2 of the lensing data will typically dwarf the χ2 of the much smaller kinematics data vector.
“Combining lensing data with hundreds of data d.o.f., with kinematics likelihoods of typically a few dozen d.o.f., can therefore yield minimal change over a lensing-only model, as the χ 2 of the lensing data will typically dwarf the χ 2 of the much smaller kinematics data vector.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ B. Kinematics-Only Results · p. 14The lensing-only and kinematics-only SIDM cross section values are consistent, justifying a combination of both lensing and kinematics constraints.
“Nevertheless, they are consistent, justifying a combination of both lensing and kinematics constraints.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Pierel et al. [87] reported a measurement of the time delay between SN Encore images 1a and 1b of Δt1b,1a = -39.8+3.9-3.3 days.
“Additionally, Pierel et al. [87] reported a measurement of the time delay between SN Encore images 1a and 1b of ∆ t 1 b, 1 a = -39 . 8 +3 . 9 -3 . 3 days, consistent with our model predicted value of ∆ t 1 a, 1 b = -∆ t 1 b, 1 a = 41 ± 4 days (see Table III).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Pierel et al. [87] J. D. R. Pierel, E. E. Hayes, M. Millon, C. Larison, E. Mamuzic, A. Acebron, A. Agrawal, P. Bergamini, S. Cha, S. Dhawan, J. M. Diego, B. L. Frye, D. Gilman, G. Granata, C. Grillo, M. J. Jee, P. S. Kamieneski, A. M. Koekemoer, A. K. Meena, A. B. Newman, M. Oguri, E. Padilla-Gonzalez, F. Poidevin, P. Rosati, S. Schuldt, L. G. Strolger, S. H. Suyu, S. Thorp, and A. Zitrin, Cosmology with supernova Encore in the strong lensing cluster MACS J0138-2155: Time delays & Hubble constant measurement (2025), arXiv:2509.12301 [astro-ph]. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Suyu et al. [86] and Pierel et al. [87] reported constraints on H0 from both lensed SNe in this system, combining seven independent models using six different codes.
“Shortly after the completion of this work, Suyu et al. [86] and Pierel et al. [87] reported constraints on H 0 from both lensed SNe in this system, combining seven independent models using six different codes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Suyu et al. [86] S. H. Suyu, A. Acebron, C. Grillo, P. Bergamini, G. B. Caminha, S. Cha, J. M. Diego, S. Ertl, N. Foo, B. L. Frye, Y. Fudamoto, G. Granata, A. Halkola, M. J. Jee, P. S. Kamieneski, A. M. Koekemoer, A. K. Meena, A. B. Newman, S. Nishida, M. Oguri, P. Rosati, S. Schuldt, A. Zitrin, R. Ca˜ nameras, E. E. Hayes, C. Larison, E. Mamuzic, M. Millon, J. D. R. Pierel, L. Tortorelli, and H. Wang, Cosmology with supernova Encore in the strong lensing cluster MACS J0138-2155: Lens model comparison and H0 measurement (2025), arXiv:2509.12319 [astro-ph]. source
- cites Pierel et al. [87] J. D. R. Pierel, E. E. Hayes, M. Millon, C. Larison, E. Mamuzic, A. Acebron, A. Agrawal, P. Bergamini, S. Cha, S. Dhawan, J. M. Diego, B. L. Frye, D. Gilman, G. Granata, C. Grillo, M. J. Jee, P. S. Kamieneski, A. M. Koekemoer, A. K. Meena, A. B. Newman, M. Oguri, E. Padilla-Gonzalez, F. Poidevin, P. Rosati, S. Schuldt, L. G. Strolger, S. H. Suyu, S. Thorp, and A. Zitrin, Cosmology with supernova Encore in the strong lensing cluster MACS J0138-2155: Time delays & Hubble constant measurement (2025), arXiv:2509.12301 [astro-ph]. source
May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 15Both independent joint sampling runs yielded nearly identical posteriors, and the posteriors are robust.
“Both independent sampling runs yielded nearly identical posteriors, and we consider these posteriors to be robust.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisenone given§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21Other probes of the cluster density profile exist with very different systematics, such as X-ray observations of the hot intracluster medium (ICM) and weak lensing measurements.
“Fortunately, other probes of the cluster density profile exist with very different systematics, such as X-ray observations of the hot intracluster medium (ICM) and weak lensing measurements.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 15The two joint samplers ran for over 660,000 iterations, yielding mean autocorrelation times of approximately 21,400 and 22,900 iterations, substantially shorter than for the lensing-only model.
“The two joint samplers both ran for over 660,000 iterations, yielding a mean autocorrelation time across all parameters of ∼ 21 , 400 and ∼ 22 , 900 iterations, substantially shorter than for the lensing-only model.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationreasoning§ A. Lensing-Only Results · p. 13The long autocorrelation time suggests that emcee struggled to efficiently sample the lensing-only parameter space, likely due to a complex likelihood surface.
“This extremely long autocorrelation time suggests that emcee struggled to efficiently sample this parameter space, likely due to a complex likelihood surface.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationcitation§ V. DISCUSSION · p. 18Our result on c200m may be further evidence of MACSJ0138's relaxed state.
“Additionally, dynamically relaxed halos are expected to have higher concentrations [83-85]; our result on c 200m may be further evidence of MACSJ0138's relaxed state.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone given§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20We consider this to likely be a mistake, demagnified central images always have positive parity.
“We consider this to likely be a mistake, demagnified central images always have positive parity.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationreasoning§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21Improved knowledge of the true stellar mass-to-light ratio of BCGs could break this degeneracy, providing tighter constraints on the inner dark matter halo.
“Improved knowledge of the true stellar mass-to-light ratio of BCGs could therefore break this degeneracy, providing tighter constraints on the inner dark matter halo.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone given§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21The selection effects inherent in such a sample remain a concern, as strong lensing halos are preferentially concentrated and elongated along the line-of-sight.
“The selection effects inherent in such a sample remain a concern, as strong lensing halos are preferentially concentrated and elongated along the line-of-sight.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationown data§ C. Combined Strong Lensing and Kinematics Results · p. 15The kinematics constraints contribute to a smoothing-out of the likelihood surface.
“This suggests the kinematics constraints contribute to a 'smoothing-out' of the likelihood surface.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Reliable estimates of the lensing magnification are essential to any study of lensed sources and for accurate photometric classification of the observed SNe.
“Reliable estimates of the lensing magnification are essential to any study of lensed sources, such as [36], and for accurate photometric classification of the observed SNe [31].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [36]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [31] S. A. Rodney, G. B. Brammer, J. D. R. Pierel, J. Richard, S. Toft, K. F. O'Connor, M. Akhshik, and K. E. Whitaker, A gravitationally lensed supernova with an observable two-decade time delay, Nature Astronomy 10.1038/s41550-021-01450-9 (2021). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown data§ A. Lensing-Only Results · p. 13The two independent samplers for the lensing-only model yielded consistent estimates of the mean autocorrelation time.
“Both samplers ran for over 1,220,000 iterations, and yielded consistent estimates of the mean autocorrelation time of ∼ 52 , 450 and ∼ 52 , 270 iterations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ A. Consistency with Other Mass Models · p. 20Our model yields a much lower delay of roughly 12 years, in which case SN Requiem would be seen again in the next few years, likely before 2030.
“Our model yields a much lower delay of roughly ∼ 12 years, in which case SN Requiem would be seen again in the next few years, likely before 2030 (see Table III).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21Our results differ significantly, implying a baseline of roughly 12 years, with SNe Requiem and Encore likely reappearing in 2027-2028 and 2033-2034, respectively.
“Our results differ significantly, implying a baseline of roughly 12 years, with SNe Requiem and Encore likely reappearing in 2027-2028 and 2033-2034, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationcitation§ Appendix B: Triaxiality and Concentration Bias · p. 23While this correctly inflates the observed lensing, the mass and concentration of the halo are no longer meaningful: the apparent lensing now corresponds to a halo of mass M/s.
“While this correctly inflates the observed lensing, the mass and concentration of the halo are no longer meaningful: the apparent lensing now corresponds to a halo of mass M/s .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationreasoning§ Appendix C: Robustness of the Measured Stellar Kinematics · p. 24A higher target spectral SNR threshold would yield fewer Voronoi bins, with lower statistical uncertainties.
“A higher target spectral SNR threshold would yield fewer Voronoi bins, with lower statistical uncertainties.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Premisenone given§ Appendix B: Triaxiality and Concentration Bias · p. 22Strong lensing selected halos are biased to high concentrations and additionally exhibit a severe triaxial bias: halos elongated along the line-of-sight are more likely to exhibit strong lensing.
“While it is well known that strong lensing selected halos are biased to high concentrations, they additionally exhibit a severe triaxial bias: halos elongated along the line-of-sight are more likely to exhibit strong lensing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown data§ Appendix C: Robustness of the Measured Stellar Kinematics · p. 24In this work we exclusively used the XSL template library, limiting our ability to characterize this uncertainty.
“In this work we exclusively used the XSL template library, limiting our ability to characterize this uncertainty.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone given§ VI. CONCLUSIONS · p. 21There exist newer, deeper MUSE observations on this system.
“While the kinematics map measured in this work was computed from MUSE observations, there exist newer, deeper MUSE observations on this system.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown data§ Appendix C: Robustness of the Measured Stellar Kinematics · p. 24We conducted several informal tests varying the spatial mask used to Voronoi bin the BCG, and increasing the spectral SNR target: in all cases, the kinematics maps produced were qualitatively consistent with the fiducial map used in this work.
“We conducted several informal tests varying the spatial mask used to Voronoi bin the BCG, and increasing the spectral SNR target: in all cases, the kinematics maps produced were qualitatively consistent with the fiducial map used in this work.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The authors state this as an assumption.
The PSF is a single-component Gaussian.
“We thus assume a single-component Gaussian PSF, and adopt a prior on its size σ PSF ∼ U (0 . 35' , 0 . 5'), spanning FWHM values of approximately 0.5' to 1.2'.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The first velocity moment is negligible.
“As in Shajib et al. [62], we take the first velocity moment to be negligible, leaving ⟨ σ 2 los ⟩ = ⟨ v 2 los ⟩ . (See also Figure 6.)”
The paper relies on this without support.
Strong lensing has a strong selection function for halos that are massive, elongated along the line-of-sight, or highly concentrated.
“Strong lensing has a strong selection function for halos that are massive, elongated along the line-of-sight, or, indeed, highly concentrated, so this result is not surprising.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Measurements of stellar velocity dispersions can be highly sensitive to the wavelength range used, the choice of template library, and the degree of the polynomial used to model background.
“Measurements of stellar velocity dispersions can be highly sensitive to the wavelength range used, the choice of template library, and even the degree of the polynomial used to model background.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Considerable uncertainty exists on the value of the velocity anisotropy β.
“Considerable uncertainty, however, exists on the value of the velocity anisotropy β ; in this work, we adopt a flat prior on β sph ∼ U ( -0 . 4 , 0 . 4), slightly wider than the allowed values in [62, 65].”
The paper relies on this without support.
The luminous red galaxy approximately 2.5 arcminutes to the south is associated with the MACSJ0138 cluster and may host a significant dark matter halo of its own.
“In the MACSJ0138 field, there is a luminous red galaxy ∼ 2 . 5 ′ to the south, which is likely associated with the MACSJ0138 cluster and may host a significant DM halo of its own.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The expected pairwise particle velocity is ⟨v pair⟩ = 4σ0/√π.
“We make the same assumption as in [50] and [17] that the expected pairwise particle velocity is ⟨ v pair ⟩ = 4 σ 0 √ π .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Each SIDM constraint is velocity-independent locally.
“While there is some velocity offset, each constraint is assumed to be velocityindependent locally, but all constraints are consistent with the typical 1 /v 4 global velocity-dependent behavior of SIDM theory curves in this large velocity limit [1].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
PSF prior has conflicting lower bounds
MinorThe methods specify a positive lower bound of 0.35 arcseconds for the PSF size, whereas Table II prints a negative lower bound for the same prior.
“σ PSF ∼ U (0 . 35' , 0 . 5')”
“| σ PSF | Gaussian PSF size, arcsec | U ( - 0 . 35 , 0 . 5) |”
Lensing and kinematics data counts are reversed
MinorThe paper assigns 25 data degrees of freedom to lensing and 38 to kinematics, respectively. Elsewhere it says the kinematics measurement has 25 Voronoi bins; the 38 therefore cannot be its stated data-vector count.
“In this work, the lensing and kinematics data vectors provided similar data degrees of freedom (d.o.f.), at 25 and 38 respectively.”
“The kinematics model has nine parameters (the seven shared parameters describing the BCG and cluster DM halo, and β sph and σ PSF ), and is constrained by the measured velocity dispersion in 25 Voronoi bins.”
BCG extraction ellipse exceeds the stated MUSE field of view
MinorAn ellipse with axes of 8.5′ and 5′ cannot be selected from a MUSE observation whose stated field of view is approximately 1′ by 1′. The ellipse dimensions appear to have been given in the wrong angular units.
“We use all pixels within an ellipse tracing the BCG, with a major axis of 8.5' and a minor axis of 5'.”
“These observations used MUSE in wide-field mode, which has a field-of-view of approximately 1'x1', without adaptive optics.”
Cites
Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment
Hunter, J. D. (2007) · Computing in Science & Engineering · doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 · Cited by 39,249 · see citing works
SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., et al. (2020) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 · Cited by 38,430 · see citing works
Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N. J., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 · Cited by 23,826 · see citing works
Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy
The Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., Droettboom, M., Bray, E., Aldcroft, T., Davis, M., Ginsburg, A., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. (2013) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 · Cited by 14,620 · see citing works
Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. (2013) · Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific · doi:10.1086/670067 · Cited by 13,362 · see citing works
Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., Arnaud, M., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Banday, A. J., Barreiro, R. B., Bartlett, J. G., Bartolo, N., et al. (2016) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 · Cited by 10,685 · see citing works
The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package
Price-Whelan, A., Sipőcz, B., Günther, H. M., Lim, P., Crawford, S., Conseil, S., Shupe, D., Craig, M., Dencheva, N., Ginsburg, A., et al. (2018) · Astronomical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f · Cited by 6,858 · see citing works
The Dust Content and Opacity of Actively Star‐forming Galaxies
Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., Kinney, A. L., Koornneef, J., & Storchi‐Bergmann, T. (2000) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/308692 · Cited by 5,707 · see citing works
Ensemble samplers with affine invariance
Goodman, J. B., & Weare, J. (2010) · Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science · doi:10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 · Cited by 3,075 · see citing works
Cappellari, M., & Emsellem, É. (2004) · Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific · doi:10.1086/381875 · Cited by 2,215 · see citing works
corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in Python
Foreman-Mackey, D. T. (2016) · The Journal of Open Source Software · doi:10.21105/joss.00024 · Cited by 2,183 · see citing works
Overview of the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys
Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., Blum, R., Burleigh, K., Fan, X., Findlay, J. R., Finkbeiner, D. P., Herrera, D., Juneau, S., et al. (2019) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d · Cited by 1,881 · see citing works
<i>K</i> -Corrections and Filter Transformations in the Ultraviolet, Optical, and Near-Infrared
Blanton, M. R., & Roweis, S. (2007) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.1086/510127 · Cited by 1,579 · see citing works
Improving the full spectrum fitting method: accurate convolution with Gauss–Hermite functions
Cappellari, M. (2016) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3020 · Cited by 1,324 · see citing works
Adaptive spatial binning of integral-field spectroscopic data using Voronoi tessellations
Cappellari, M., & Copin, Y. (2003) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x · Cited by 1,309 · see citing works
Dark matter self-interactions and small scale structure
Tulin, S., & Yu, H.-B. (2018) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004 · Cited by 1,111 · see citing works
ter Braak, C. J. F. (2006) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/s11222-006-8769-1 · Cited by 939 · see citing works
de Blok, W. J. G. (2009) · Advances in Astronomy · doi:10.1155/2010/789293 · Cited by 789 · see citing works
A Bayesian approach to strong lensing modelling of galaxy clusters
Jullo, E., Kneib, J., Limousin, M., Elíasdóttir, Á., Marshall, P. J., & Verdugo, T. (2007) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/447 · Cited by 615 · see citing works
COLOSSUS: A Python Toolkit for Cosmology, Large-scale Structure, and Dark Matter Halos
Diemer, B. (2018) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c · Cited by 529 · see citing works
Efficient multi-Gaussian expansion of galaxies
Cappellari, M. (2002) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05412.x · Cited by 518 · see citing works
Cappellari, M. (2008) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13754.x · Cited by 514 · see citing works
The unexpected diversity of dwarf galaxy rotation curves
Oman, K. A., Navarro, J. F., Fattahi, A., Frenk, C. S., Sawala, T., White, S. D. M., Bower, R. G., Crain, R. A., Furlong, M., Schaller, M., et al. (2015) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1504 · Cited by 477 · see citing works
The data processing pipeline for the MUSE instrument
Weilbacher, P. M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., Bacon, R. M., Urrutia, T., Wisotzki, L., Conseil, S., Husemann, B., Jarno, A., Kelz, A., et al. (2020) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037855 · Cited by 368 · see citing works
Feng, J. L., Kaplinghat, M., & Yu, H.-B. (2010) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.151301 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
The mass–concentration–redshift relation of cold and warm dark matter haloes
Ludlow, A. D., Bose, S., Angulo, R. E., Wang, L., Hellwing, W. A., Navarro, J. F., Cole, S., & Frenk, C. S. (2016) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1046 · Cited by 341 · see citing works
Sand, D. J., Treu, T., Smith, G. P., & Ellis, R. S. (2004) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/382146 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Newman, A. B., Treu, T., Ellis, R. S., & Sand, D. J. (2013) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/1/25 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
Newman, A. B., Treu, T., Ellis, R. S., Sand, D. J., Nipoti, C., Richard, J., & Jullo, E. (2013) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/1/24 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Dwarf galaxies in CDM and SIDM with baryons: observational probes of the nature of dark matter
Vogelsberger, M., Zavala, J., Simpson, C. M., & Jenkins, A. R. (2014) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1713 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
Scattering in the Attractive Yukawa Potential in the Limit of Strong Interaction
Khrapak, S. A., Ivlev, A. V., Morfill, G. E., & Zhdanov, S. K. (2003) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.225002 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES FROM ULTRA-STRONGLY SELF-INTERACTING DARK MATTER
Pollack, J., Spergel, D. N., & Steinhardt, P. J. (2015) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/2/131 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
THE MUSIC OF CLASH: PREDICTIONS ON THE CONCENTRATION-MASS RELATION
Meneghetti, M., Rasia, E., Vega, J., Merten, J., Postman, M., Yepes, G., Sembolini, F., Donahue, M., Ettori, S., Umetsu, K., et al. (2014) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/1/34 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Ren, T., Kwa, A., Kaplinghat, M., & Yu, H.-B. (2019) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031020 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Velocity-dependent self-interacting dark matter from groups and clusters of galaxies
Sagunski, L., Gad-Nasr, S., Colquhoun, B., Robertson, A., & Tulin, S. (2021) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/01/024 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Halo Profiles and the Concentration–Mass Relation for a ΛCDM Universe
Child, H. L., Habib, S., Heitmann, K., Frontiere, N., Finkel, H., Pope, A., & Morozov, V. (2018) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabf95 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
AutoLens: automated modeling of a strong lens’s light, mass, and source
Nightingale, J. W., Dye, S., & Massey, R. J. (2018) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1264 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Self-citationA gravitationally lensed supernova with an observable two-decade time delay
Rodney, S. A., Brammer, G. B., Pierel, J. D. R., Richard, J., Toft, S., O’Connor, K. F., Akhshik, M., & Whitaker, K. E. (2021) · Nature Astronomy · doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01450-9 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Shajib, A. J., Mozumdar, P., Chen, G. C.-F., Treu, T., Cappellari, M., Knabel, S., Suyu, S. H., Bennert, V. N., Frieman, J. A., Sluse, D., et al. (2023) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345878 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Nelson, B. E., Ford, E. B., & Payne, M. J. (2013) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/11 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Harvey, D., Robertson, A., Massey, R. J., & McCarthy, I. G. (2019) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1816 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
A stringent upper limit on dark matter self-interaction cross-section from cluster strong lensing
Andrade, K. E., Fuson, J., Gad-Nasr, S., Kong, D., Minor, Q., Roberts, M. G., & Kaplinghat, M. (2021) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3241 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Self-citationCappellari, M. (2020) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/staa959 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Enhanced cluster lensing models with measured galaxy kinematics
Bergamini, P., Rosati, P., Mercurio, A., Grillo, C., Caminha, G. B., Meneghetti, M., Agnello, A., Biviano, A., Calura, F., Giocoli, C., et al. (2019) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935974 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
PyAutoLens: Open-Source Strong Gravitational Lensing
Nightingale, J. W., Hayes, R., Kelly, A. J., Amvrosiadis, A., Etherington, A., He, Q., Li, N., Cao, X., Frawley, J., Cole, S., et al. (2021) · The Journal of Open Source Software · doi:10.21105/joss.02825 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Self-citationSeeding Supermassive Black Holes with Self-interacting Dark Matter: A Unified Scenario with Baryons
Feng, W.-X., Yu, H.-B., & Zhong, Y.-M. (2021) · The Astrophysical Journal Letters · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac04b0 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Bonamigo, M., Despali, G., Limousin, M., Angulo, R., Giocoli, C., & Soucail, G. (2015) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stv417 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Where is the matter in the Merging Cluster Abell 2218?Preprint
Elíasdóttir, Á., Limousin, M., Richard, J., Hjorth, J., Kneib, J., Natarajan, P., Pedersen, K., Jullo, E., & Paraficz, D. (2007) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0710.5636 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Early formation of supermassive black holes via dark matter self-interactions
Choquette, J., Cline, J. M., & Cornell, J. M. (2019) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/07/036 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Robertson, A., Massey, R. J., Eke, V. R., Schaye, J., & Theuns, T. (2020) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3954 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Newman, A. B., Belli, S., Ellis, R. S., & Patel, S. G. (2018) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacd4d · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Astrophysical tests of dark matter self-interactions
Adhikari, S., Banerjee, A., Boddy, K. K., Cyr-Racine, F.-Y., Desmond, H., Dvorkin, C., Jain, B., Kahlhoefer, F., Kaplinghat, M., Nierenberg, A., et al. (2025) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/m2vm-59y3 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Oguri, M. (2021) · Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific · doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac12db · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Pierel, J. D. R., Newman, A. B., Dhawan, S., Gu, M., Joshi, B. A., Li, T., Schuldt, S., Strolger, L. G., Suyu, S. H., Caminha, G. B., et al. (2024) · The Astrophysical Journal Letters · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4648 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Zhu, K., Lu, S., Cappellari, M., Li, R., Mao, S., & Gao, L. (2023) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1299 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
TDCOSMO 2025: Cosmological constraints from strong lensing time delays
TDCOSMO Collaboration, Birrer, S., Buckley-Geer, E. J., Cappellari, M., Courbin, F., Dux, F., Fassnacht, C. D., Frieman, J. A., Galan, A., Gilman, D., et al. (2025) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555801 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Outmezguine, N. J., Boddy, K. K., Gad-Nasr, S., Kaplinghat, M., & Sagunski, L. (2023) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1705 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Nightingale, J. W., Massey, R. J., Harvey, D., Cooper, A. P., Etherington, A., Tam, S.-I., & Hayes, R. G. (2019) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2220 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Self-citationStrong gravitational lensing’s ‘external shear’ is not shear
Etherington, A., Nightingale, J. W., Massey, R., Tam, S.-I., Cao, X., Niemiec, A., He, Q., Robertson, A., Li, R., Amvrosiadis, A., et al. (2024) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1375 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Self-citationDianoga SIDM: Galaxy cluster self-interacting dark matter simulations
Ragagnin, A., Meneghetti, M., Calura, F., Despali, G., Dolag, K., Fischer, M. S., Giocoli, C., & Moscardini, L. (2024) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449872 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Examining the self-interaction of dark matter through central cluster galaxy offsets
Cross, D., Thoron, G., Jeltema, T. E., Swart, A., Hollowood, D. L., Adhikari, S., Bocquet, S., Eiger, O., Everett, S., Jobel, J., et al. (2024) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stae442 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citationGravothermal collapse and the diversity of galactic rotation curves
Roberts, M. G., Kaplinghat, M., Valli, M., & Yu, H.-B. (2025) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.103041 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationWang, H., Cañameras, R., Caminha, G. B., Suyu, S. H., Yıldırım, A., Chirivì, G., Christensen, L., Grillo, C., & Schuldt, S. (2022) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243600 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Darragh-Ford, E., Mantz, A. B., Rasia, E., Allen, S. W., Morris, R. G., Foster, J., Schmidt, R. W., & Wenrich, G. (2023) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stad585 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Suyu, S. H., Acebron, A., Grillo, C., Bergamini, P., Caminha, G. B., Cha, S., Diego, J. M., Ertl, S., Foo, N., Frye, B. L., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.12319 · Cited by 17
Properties and observables of massive galaxies in self-interacting dark matter cosmologies
Mastromarino, C., Despali, G., Moscardini, L., Robertson, A., Meneghetti, M., & Maturi, M. (2023) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1853 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
A New Galaxy Cluster Merger Capable of Probing Dark Matter: A56
Wittman, D., Stancioli, R., Finner, K., Bouhrik, F., van Weeren, R. J., & Botteon, A. (2023) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdb73 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Dhawan, S., Pierel, J. D. R., Gu, M., Newman, A. B., Larison, C., Siebert, M. R., Petrushevska, T., Poidevin, F., Jha, S. W., Chen, W., et al. (2024) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2434 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Pierel, J. D. R., Hayes, E. E., Millon, M., Larison, C., Mamuzic, E., Acebron, A., Agrawal, A., Bergamini, P., Cha, S., Dhawan, S., et al. (2026) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3159 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
TDCOSMO: XIX. Measuring stellar velocity dispersion with sub-percent accuracy for cosmography
Knabel, S., Mozumdar, P., Shajib, A. J., Treu, T., Cappellari, M., Spiniello, C., & Birrer, S. (2025) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554229 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Ertl, S., Suyu, S. H., Schuldt, S., Granata, G., Grillo, C., Caminha, G. B., Acebron, A., Bergamini, P., Cañameras, R., Cha, S., et al. (2025) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554477 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Why weak lensing cluster shapes are insensitive to self-interacting dark matter
Robertson, A., Huff, E., & Markovič, K. (2023) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stad655 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Foreman-Mackey, D. T., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., et al. (2012) · Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1202.3665 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
A possible challenge for cold and warm dark matter
Vegetti, S., White, S. D. M., McKean, J. P., Powell, D., Spingola, C., Massari, D., Despali, G., & Fassnacht, C. D. (2026) · Nature Astronomy · doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02746-w · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Granata, G., Caminha, G. B., Ertl, S., Grillo, C., Schuldt, S., Suyu, S. H., Acebron, A., Bergamini, P., Cañameras, R., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. (2025) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453486 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Roberts, M. G., Braff, L., Garg, A., Profumo, S., Jeltema, T., & O’Donnell, J. H. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/060 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationSpatially Resolved Kinematics of SLACS Lens Galaxies. I. Data and Kinematic Classification
Knabel, S., Treu, T., Cappellari, M., Shajib, A. J., Chen, C.-F., Birrer, S., & Bennert, V. N. (2025) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adea94 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Shajib, A. J., Treu, T., Suyu, S. H., Law, D., Yıldırım, A., Cappellari, M., Galan, A., Knabel, S., Wang, H., Birrer, S., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.21665 · Cited by 8
Gravity.jl: Fast and accurate gravitational lens modeling in Julia
Lombardi, M. (2024) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451214 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Enhanced strong-lensing model of MACS J0138.0–2155 based on new JWST and VLT/MUSE observations
Acebron, A., Bergamini, P., Rosati, P., Tozzi, P., Meneghetti, M., Caminha, G. B., Ertl, S., Granata, G., Koekemoer, A. M., Grillo, C., et al. (2025) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554468 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
The “Little Dark Dot”: Evidence for Self-interacting Dark Matter in the Strong Lens SDSS J0946+1006?
Li, S. Z., Li, R., Wang, K., Jia, Z., Cao, X., Frenk, C. S., Jiang, F., Amvrosiadis, A., Cole, S., He, Q., et al. (2025) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1462 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citationTam, S.-I., Umetsu, K., Robertson, A., & McCarthy, I. G. (2023) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace33f · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Turner, H. C., Smith, R. J., & Collett, T. E. (2024) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stae263 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
McKean, J. P., Spingola, C., Powell, D., & Vegetti, S. (2025) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters · doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf039 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Gonzalez, E. J., Rodríguez-Medrano, A. M., Pereyra, L., & Lambas, D. G. (2024) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stae099 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., Earl, N., Starkman, N., Bradley, L., Shupe, D. L., Patil, A. A., Corrales, L., Brasseur, C. E., Nöthe, M., et al. (2022) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Pierel, J. D. R., Hayes, E. E., Millon, M., Larison, C., Mamuzic, E., Acebrón, A., Agrawal, A., Bergamini, P., Cha, S., Dhawan, S., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.12301 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
The Kaleidoscope survey: strong gravitational lensing in galaxy clusters with radial arcs
Cerny, C., Jauzac, M., Lagattuta, D. J., Niemiec, A., Mahler, G., Edge, A. C., Massey, R. J., & Allingham, J. F. V. (2025) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1076 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Spectroscopic and X-ray Modeling of the Strong Lensing Galaxy Cluster MACS J0138.0-2155
Flowers, A., O'Donnell, J. H., Jeltema, T. E., Wetzell, V., & Roberts, M. G. (2025) · The Open Journal of Astrophysics · doi:10.33232/001c.141234 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationWang, H., Cañameras, R., Suyu, S. H., Galan, A., Grillo, C., Caminha, G. B., & Christensen, L. (2024) · Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449910 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Gibson, C. C., O’Donnell, J. H., & Jeltema, T. (2026) · The Open Journal of Astrophysics · doi:10.33232/001c.160280 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationThe X-shooter Spectral Library (XSL): Data Release 3
Verro, K., Trager, S. C., Peletier, R. F., Lançon, A., Gonneau, A., Vazdekis, A., Prugniel, P., Chen, Y.-P., Coelho, P., Sánchez–Blázquez, P., et al. (2022) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142388
Gravitational Lensing by Clusters of Galaxies
Kneib, J.-P. (n.d.) · Lecture Notes in Physics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6941-3_7
Early formation of supermassive black holes via dark matter self-interactions
Choquette, J., Cline, J. M., & Cornell, J. M. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.05088
Ren, T., Kwa, A., Kaplinghat, M., & Yu, H.-B. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1808.05695
The Kaleidoscope Survey: Strong Gravitational Lensing in Galaxy Clusters with Radial Arcs
Cerny, C., Jauzac, M., Lagattuta, D., Niemiec, A., Mahler, G., Edge, A., Massey, R., & Allingham, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.21531
AutoLens: Automated Modeling of a Strong Lens's Light, Mass and Source
Nightingale, J., Dye, S., & Massey, R. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.07377
Self-citationNightingale, J. W., Massey, R. J., Harvey, D. R., Cooper, A. P., Etherington, A., Tam, S.-I., & Hayes, R. G. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.07801
Self-citationGibson, C. C., O'Donnell, J. H., & Jeltema, T. E. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.20173
Self-citationGravity.jl: fast and accurate gravitational lens modeling in Julia
Lombardi, M. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.15280
Spatially Resolved Kinematics of SLACS Lens Galaxies. I: Data and Kinematic Classification
Knabel, S., Treu, T., Cappellari, M., Shajib, A. J., Chen, C.-F., Birrer, S., & Bennert, V. N. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.10631
TDCOSMO XIX. Measuring stellar velocity dispersion with sub-percent accuracy for cosmography
Knabel, S., Mozumdar, P., Shajib, A. J., Treu, T., Cappellari, M., Spiniello, C., & Birrer, S. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.16034
TDCOSMO 2025: Cosmological constraints from strong lensing time delays
Birrer, S., Buckley-Geer, E. J., Cappellari, M., Courbin, F., Dux, F., Fassnacht, C. D., Frieman, J. A., Galan, A., Gilman, D., Huang, X.-Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03023
A. B. Newman et al., A stellar dynamical mass measure of an inactive black hole in the distant universe (2025).
(n.d.)
UnresolvedGround-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III
Bacon, R. (2010)
UnresolvedM. Cappellari, Anisotropic Jeans models of stellar kinematics: Second moments including proper motions and radial velocities (2012).
(n.d.)
Unresolvedgithub.com/jhod0/sidm_halos
(n.d.)
Unresolvedhttps://doi.eso.org/10.18727/archive/41.
(n.d.)
Unresolvedhttps://mast.stsci.edu/portal/Mashup/Clients/Mast/Portal.html.
(n.d.)
Unresolvedhttps://archive.eso.org/wdb/wdb/eso/muse/form.
(n.d.)
Unresolved
Flagged first, then by citations
7 of the 95 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cosmology with supernova Encore in the strong lensing cluster MACS J0138–2155
Suyu, S. H., Acebrón, A., Grillo, C., Bergamini, P., Caminha, G. B., Cha, S., Diego, J. M., Ertl, S., Foo, N., Frye, B., et al. (2026) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557235 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Using strong lensing to detect subhaloes with steep inner density profiles
Kollmann, K. E., Nightingale, J. W., Lisanti, M., Robertson, A., & Slone, O. (2026) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stag066 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationJia, Z., Jiang, F., Li, S., Li, R. K., Wang, J., & Zhu, L. (2026) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stag969 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Infrared freeze-in of magnetic dipole dark matter
Berlin, A., Chang, J. H., & Trickle, T. (2026) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep07(2026)246
Zeng, Z. C., Hartl, O. V., Strigari, L. E., Peter, A. H. G., Du, X., Mace, C., & Benson, A. (2026) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/4fjp-82qg
- Authors
- O’Donnell, J. H., Jeltema, T. E., Roberts, M. G., Nightingale, J., Flowers, A., & Aldas, D.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- University of Zurich (CH)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Physical Review D
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2026-03-16
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 2470-0010 (ISSN-L)
- 2470-0029
- OpenAlex
- W4414431458
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 95
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5
- FWCI
- 14.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Physical review. D/Physical review. D. (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (AST 1828315)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
- Keywords
- self-interacting dark matter, dark matter cross section, strong gravitational lensing, stellar kinematics, cluster density profiles, time-delay cosmography, Hubble constant, dark matter physics
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-01.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-01.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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
