Hybrid-lenstool: a self-consistent algorithm to model galaxy clusters with strong- and weak-lensing simultaneously. Issue 3 (17th February 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Niemiec, Anna; Jauzac, Mathilde; Jullo, Eric; Limousin, Marceau; Sharon, Keren; Kneib, Jean-Paul; Natarajan, Priyamvada; Richard, Johan
• Is Part Of: Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Volume 493:Issue 3(2020)
• Page Start: 3331
• Page End: 3340
• Publication Date: 2020-02-17
• Subjects: gravitational lensing: strong -- gravitational lensing: weak -- galaxies: clusters: general; Astronomy -- Periodicals; Periodicals; 520.5
• DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa473
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0035-8711

Abstract

ABSTRACT: We present a new galaxy cluster lens modelling approach, hybrid -lenstool, that is implemented in the publicly available modelling software lenstool . hybrid -lenstool combines a parametric approach to model the core of the cluster, and a non-parametric (free-form) approach to model the outskirts. hybrid -lenstool optimizes both strong- and weak-lensing constraints simultaneously ( Joint-Fit ), providing a self-consistent reconstruction of the cluster mass distribution on all scales. In order to demonstrate the capabilities of the new algorithm, we tested it on a simulated cluster. hybrid- lenstool yields more accurate reconstructed mass distributions than the former Sequential-Fit approach where the parametric and the non-parametric models are optimized successively. Indeed, we show with the simulated cluster that the mass density profile reconstructed with a Sequential-Fit deviates from the input by 2–3σ at all scales while the Joint-Fit gives a profile that is within 1–1.5σ of the true value. This gain in accuracy is consequential for recovering mass distributions exploiting cluster lensing and therefore for all applications of clusters as cosmological probes. Finally we found that the Joint-Fit approach yields shallower slope of the inner density profile than the Sequential-Fit approach, thus revealing possible biases in previous lensing studies.