Strong gravitational lensing's `external shear' is not shear

AI-generated keywords: Gravitational Lensing External Shear Model Complexity Galaxy Evolution Dark Matter Physics

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Distribution of mass in galaxy-scale strong gravitational lenses is often modelled as an elliptical power law plus 'external shear'
  • External shear accounts for neighbouring galaxies and cosmic shear
  • Recent study by Amy Etherington et al. shows that external shear is not physically meaningful but rather a fudge to compensate for lack of model complexity
  • Best-fit values of external shear do not correlate with independent measurements of shear from weak lensing in 45 Hubble Space Telescope images or in 50 mock images of lenses with complex distributions of mass, except in rare systems
  • Best-fit shear is aligned with the major or minor axis of 88% of lens galaxies, and the amplitude of the external shear increases if that galaxy is disky
  • This finding has significant implications since it biases other model parameters that are interpreted as physically meaningful in several science analyses such as measuring galaxy evolution, dark matter physics, or cosmological parameters
  • Future studies should employ more flexible mass models instead of relying on the current power law plus external shear model to ensure accurate results from these science analyses.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Amy Etherington, James W. Nightingale, Richard Massey, Sut-Ieng Tam, XiaoYue Cao, Anna Niemiec, Qiuhan He, Andrew Robertson, Ran Li, Aristeidis Amvrosiadis, Shaun Cole, Jose M. Diego, Carlos S. Frenk, Brenda L. Frye, David Harvey, Mathilde Jauzac, Anton M. Koekemoer, David J. Lagattuta, Marceau Limousin, Guillaume Mahler, Ellen Sirks, Charles L. Steinhardt

arXiv: 2301.05244v1 - DOI (astro-ph.CO)
13 pages, 11 figures, submitted to MNRAS

Abstract: The distribution of mass in galaxy-scale strong gravitational lenses is often modelled as an elliptical power law plus `external shear', which notionally accounts for neighbouring galaxies and cosmic shear. We show that it does not. Except in a handful of rare systems, the best-fit values of external shear do not correlate with independent measurements of shear: from weak lensing in 45 Hubble Space Telescope images, or in 50 mock images of lenses with complex distributions of mass. Instead, the best-fit shear is aligned with the major or minor axis of 88% of lens galaxies; and the amplitude of the external shear increases if that galaxy is disky. We conclude that `external shear' attached to a power law model is not physically meaningful, but a fudge to compensate for lack of model complexity. Since it biases other model parameters that are interpreted as physically meaningful in several science analyses (e.g. measuring galaxy evolution, dark matter physics or cosmological parameters), we recommend that future studies of galaxy-scale strong lensing should employ more flexible mass models.

Submitted to arXiv on 12 Jan. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2301.05244v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

The distribution of mass in galaxy-scale strong gravitational lenses is often modelled as an elliptical power law plus `external shear', which accounts for neighbouring galaxies and cosmic shear. However, a recent study by Amy Etherington et al., published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS), shows that this external shear is not physically meaningful but rather a fudge to compensate for lack of model complexity. The paper includes 13 pages and 11 figures providing evidence for their claims about external shear's lack of physical meaning. The best-fit values of external shear do not correlate with independent measurements of shear from weak lensing in 45 Hubble Space Telescope images or in 50 mock images of lenses with complex distributions of mass, except in rare systems. Instead, the best-fit shear is aligned with the major or minor axis of 88% of lens galaxies, and the amplitude of the external shear increases if that galaxy is disky. This finding has significant implications since it biases other model parameters that are interpreted as physically meaningful in several science analyses such as measuring galaxy evolution, dark matter physics, or cosmological parameters. Therefore, future studies should employ more flexible mass models instead of relying on the current power law plus external shear model to ensure accurate results from these science analyses.
Created on 19 Apr. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.