论文标题
第一个乘法成像超新星II的课程：Galaxy群集Mac的参数强镜模型J1149.5+2223
Lessons from the first multiply imaged supernova II: A parametric strong-lensing model for the galaxy cluster MACS J1149.5+2223
论文作者
论文摘要
我们为Galaxy群集MACS J1149.5+2223提供了一个基于参数的，网格的镜头模型，该模型集中在第一个倍增成像的超新星refsdal的属性上。该模型补充了我们更新的光跟踪质量（LTM）为该群集的强镜模型，并在伴侣纸中描述，并使用相同的管道生成但具有不同的参数化。这两个模型以相对自洽的方式探测了不同可能的解决方案，可用于检查两个参数化之间的系统不确定性和相关差异。我们从两种不同的方法中获得了相似的（在大多数情况下同意在$ \simeq1-3σ$之内）时间延迟和放大率，尽管LTM预测对于某些图像而言似乎更短/较小。 Most notably, the time delay [and 95\% CI] between the Einstein cross (in particular, image S1), and SX, the image that appeared about a year after the original discovery of the cross, differs substantially between the parametric method (326 [300 -- 359] days) and the LTM method (224 [198 -- 306] days), which seems to underestimates the true reappearance time.目前尚不清楚这种系统差异的原因。我们推测其可能的起源，并注意，SN Refsdal属性的精致测量应有助于更强烈地区分两种溶液，从而在两个描述之间，以了解基本问题分布的固有形状。我们还讨论了结果对哈勃常数的含义。
We present a parametric, grid-based lens model for the galaxy cluster MACS J1149.5+2223, concentrating on the properties of the first multiply imaged supernova Refsdal. This model complements our updated light-traces-mass (LTM) strong-lensing model for this cluster, described in a companion paper, and is generated using the same pipeline but with a different parametrization. Together these two models probe different possible solutions in a relatively self-consistent manner and can be used to examine systematic uncertainties and relevant differences between the two parameterizations. We obtain reasonably similar (agreeing to within $\simeq1-3σ$, in most cases) time delays and magnification ratios, with respect to S1, from the two different methods, although the LTM predictions seem to be systematically shorter/smaller for some of the images. Most notably, the time delay [and 95\% CI] between the Einstein cross (in particular, image S1), and SX, the image that appeared about a year after the original discovery of the cross, differs substantially between the parametric method (326 [300 -- 359] days) and the LTM method (224 [198 -- 306] days), which seems to underestimates the true reappearance time. The cause for this systematic difference is unclear at present. We speculate on its possible origin and note that a refined measurement of SN Refsdal's properties should help to more strongly discriminate between the two solutions, and thus between the two descriptions for the intrinsic shape of the underlying matter distribution. We also discuss the implications of our results for the Hubble constant.
