MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3001574593 · doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1649

A versatile tool for cluster lensing source reconstruction – I. Methodology and illustration on sources in the Hubble Frontier Field Cluster MACS J0717.5+3745

2020· article· en· W3001574593 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lilan Yang, Simon Birrer, Tommaso Treu

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Association of Thoracic SurgeonsSpace Telescope Science InstituteChina Scholarship CouncilNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsWeak gravitational lensingGravitational lensStrong gravitational lensingPoint spread functionGravitational lensing formalismGalaxyAstrophysicsGalaxy clusterPoint sourceRedshiftOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We describe a general-purpose method to reconstruct the intrinsic properties of sources lensed by the gravitational potential of foreground clusters of galaxies. The tool lenstruction is implemented in the publicly available multipurpose gravitational lensing software lenstronomy, in order to provide an easy and fast solution to this common astrophysical problem. The tool is based on forward modelling the appearance of the source in the image plane, taking into account the distortion by lensing and the instrumental point spread function. For singly imaged sources, a global lens model in the format of the Hubble Frontier Fields (HFF) lensing maps is required as a starting point. For multiply imaged sources, the tool can also fit and apply first- (deflection), second- (shear, convergence), and third-order (flexion) corrections to the local gravitational potential to improve the reconstruction, depending on the quality of the data. We illustrate the performance and features of the code with two examples of multiply imaged systems taken from the HFF, starting from five different publicly available cluster models. We find that, after our correction, the relative magnification – and other lensing properties – between the multiple images becomes robustly constrained. Furthermore, we find that scatter between models of the reconstructed source size and magnitude is reduced. The code and Jupyter notebooks are publicly available.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→