TDCOSMO IV: Hierarchical time-delay cosmography -- joint inference of the Hubble constant and galaxy density profiles

AI-generated keywords: Hubble Constant Expansion Rate Gravitational Lensing Mass Sheet Transform Stellar Kinematics

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.

  • The H0LiCOW collaboration has inferred a Hubble constant of $H_0=73.3^{+1.7}_{-1.8}$ km s$^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ using gravitational lensing time delays.
  • Mass-sheet transform (MST) is considered to be the dominant source of residual uncertainty in this measurement.
  • The team quantified MST with flexible mass models that are maximally degenerate with $H_0$.
  • They applied this method to the TDCOSMO sample of 7 lenses and then added imaging and spectroscopy for 33 strong gravitational lenses from the SLACS sample.
  • From their joint analysis of both samples assuming they are drawn from the same parent population, they measured $H_0=67.4^{+4.1}_{-3.2}$ km s$^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.
  • The blind H0LiCOW, TDCOSMO-only and TDCOSMO+SLACS analyses were found to be in mutual statistical agreement.
  • This study highlights the need for further research to better understand deflector mass profiles and reduce uncertainties in future measurements of Hubble Constant by physical or observational priors on the form of the mass profile, or by additional data such as spatially resolved kinematics of lens galaxies.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: S. Birrer, A. J. Shajib, A. Galan, M. Millon, T. Treu, A. Agnello, M. Auger, G. C. -F. Chen, L. Christensen, T. Collett, F. Courbin, C. D. Fassnacht, L. V. E. Koopmans, P. J. Marshall, J. -W. Park, C. E. Rusu, D. Sluse, C. Spiniello, S. H. Suyu, S. Wagner-Carena, K. C. Wong, M. Barnabè, A. S. Bolton, O. Czoske, X. Ding, J. A. Frieman, L. Van de Vyvere

arXiv: 2007.02941v1 - DOI (astro-ph.CO)
to be submitted to A&A, comments welcomed. Full analysis available at https://github.com/TDCOSMO/hierarchy_analysis_2020_public

Abstract: The H0LiCOW collaboration inferred via gravitational lensing time delays a Hubble constant $H_0=73.3^{+1.7}_{-1.8}$ km s$^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, describing deflector mass density profiles by either a power-law or stars plus standard dark matter halos. The mass-sheet transform (MST) that leaves the lensing observables unchanged is considered the dominant source of residual uncertainty in $H_0$. We quantify any potential effect of the MST with flexible mass models that are maximally degenerate with H0. Our calculation is based on a new hierarchical approach in which the MST is only constrained by stellar kinematics. The approach is validated on hydrodynamically simulated lenses. We apply the method to the TDCOSMO sample of 7 lenses (6 from H0LiCOW) and measure $H_0=74.5^{+5.6}_{-6.1}$ km s$^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. In order to further constrain the deflector mass profiles, we then add imaging and spectroscopy for 33 strong gravitational lenses from the SLACS sample. For 9 of the SLAC lenses we use resolved kinematics to constrain the stellar anisotropy. From the joint analysis of the TDCOSMO+SLACS sample, we measure $H_0=67.4^{+4.1}_{-3.2}$ km s$^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, assuming that the TDCOSMO and SLACS galaxies are drawn from the same parent population. The blind H0LiCOW, TDCOSMO-only and TDCOSMO+SLACS analyses are in mutual statistical agreement. The TDCOSMO+SLACS analysis prefers marginally shallower mass profiles than H0LiCOW or TDCOSMO-only. While our new analysis does not statistically invalidate the mass profile assumptions by H0LiCOW, and thus their $H_0$ measurement relying on those, it demonstrates the importance of understanding the mass density profile of elliptical galaxies. The uncertainties on $H_0$ derived in this paper can be reduced by physical or observational priors on the form of the mass profile, or by additional data, chiefly spatially resolved kinematics of lens galaxies.

Submitted to arXiv on 06 Jul. 2020

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: 2007.02941v1

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 H0LiCOW collaboration has made a significant breakthrough in understanding the universe's expansion rate, as they have inferred a Hubble constant of $H_0=73.3^{+1.7}_{-1.8}$ km s$^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ using gravitational lensing time delays. To address the potential effect of the mass-sheet transform (MST) on this measurement - which is considered to be the dominant source of residual uncertainty - the team has quantified it with flexible mass models that are maximally degenerate with $H_0$. They applied this method to the TDCOSMO sample of 7 lenses (6 from H0LiCOW), and then added imaging and spectroscopy for 33 strong gravitational lenses from the SLACS sample and used resolved kinematics to constrain stellar anisotropy for 9 of them. From their joint analysis of both samples assuming that they are drawn from the same parent population, they measured $H_0=67.4^{+4.1}_{-3.2}$ km s$^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. The blind H0LiCOW, TDCOSMO-only and TDCOSMO+SLACS analyses were found to be in mutual statistical agreement. This study provides valuable insights into the universe's expansion rate and highlights the need for further research to better understand deflector mass profiles and reduce uncertainties in future measurements of Hubble Constant by physical or observational priors on the form of the mass profile, or by additional data such as spatially resolved kinematics of lens galaxies.
Created on 15 May. 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.