Systematic versus statistical uncertainties in masses and magnifications of the Hubble Frontier Fields. Issue 4 (7th April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Raney, Catie A; Keeton, Charles R; Brennan, Sean; Fan, Hsin
• Is Part Of: Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Volume 494:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: 4771
• Page End: 4793
• Publication Date: 2020-04-07
• Subjects: gravitational lensing: strong -- galaxies: high-redshift, clusters: general -- individual: (Abell 2744, MACS J0416.1+2403, MACS J1149.5+2223, MACS J0717.5+3745, Abell S1063, Abell 370); Astronomy -- Periodicals; Periodicals; 520.5
• DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa921
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0035-8711

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The Hubble Frontier Fields data, along with multiple data sets obtained by other telescopes, have provided some of the most extensive constraints on cluster lenses to date. Multiple lens modelling teams analyzed the fields and made public a number of deliverables. By comparing these results, we can then undertake a unique and vital test of the state of cluster lens modelling. Specifically, we see how well the different teams can reproduce similar magnifications and mass profiles. We find that the circularly averaged mass profiles of the fields are remarkably constrained (scatter $\lt 5{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ ) at distances of 1 arcmin from the cluster core, yet magnifications can vary significantly. Averaged across the six fields, we find a bias of −6 per cent (−17 per cent) and a scatter of ∼40 per cent (∼65 per cent) at a modest magnification of 3 (10). Statistical errors reported by individual teams are often significantly smaller than the differences among all the teams, indicating the importance of continued systematics studies in cluster lensing.