<i>HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE</i>COMBINED STRONG AND WEAK LENSING ANALYSIS OF THE CLASH SAMPLE: MASS AND MAGNIFICATION MODELS AND SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES

Adi Zitrin, Agnese Fabris, Julian Merten, P. Melchior, M. Meneghetti, Anton M. Koekemoer, Dan Coe, M. Maturi, Matthias Bartelmann, Marc Postman,

The Astrophysical Journal · 2015 · 263 citations · 133 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Abstract

We present results from a comprehensive lensing analysis in HST data, of the\ncomplete CLASH cluster sample. We identify new multiple-images previously\nundiscovered allowing improved or first constraints on the cluster inner mass\ndistributions and profiles. We combine these strong-lensing constraints with\nweak-lensing shape measurements within the HST FOV to jointly constrain the\nmass distributions. The analysis is performed in two different common\nparameterizations (one adopts light-traces-mass for both galaxies and dark\nmatter while the other adopts an analytical, elliptical NFW form for the dark\nmatter), to provide a better assessment of the underlying systematics - which\nis most important for deep, cluster-lensing surveys, especially when studying\nmagnified high-redshift objects. We find that the typical (median), relative\nsystematic differences throughout the central FOV are $\\sim40\\%$ in the\n(dimensionless) mass density, $\\kappa$, and $\\sim20\\%$ in the magnification,\n$\\mu$. We show maps of these differences for each cluster, as well as the mass\ndistributions, critical curves, and 2D integrated mass profiles. For the\nEinstein radii ($z_{s}=2$) we find that all typically agree within $10\\%$\nbetween the two models, and Einstein masses agree, typically, within\n$\\sim15\\%$. At larger radii, the total projected, 2D integrated mass profiles\nof the two models, within $r\\sim2\\arcmin$, differ by $\\sim30\\%$. Stacking the\nsurface-density profiles of the sample from the two methods together, we obtain\nan average slope of $d\\log (\\Sigma)/d\\log(r)\\sim-0.64\\pm0.1$, in the radial\nrange [5,350] kpc. Lastly, we also characterize the behavior of the average\nmagnification, surface density, and shear differences between the two models,\nas a function of both the radius from the center, and the best-fit values of\nthese quantities.\n

References

133