HOLISMOKES :  IV. Efficient mass modeling of strong lenses through deep learning

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Modeling the mass distributions of strong gravitational lenses is often necessary in order to use them as astrophysical and cosmological probes. With the large number of lens systems (≳10 ⁵) expected from upcoming surveys, it is timely to explore efficient modeling approaches beyond traditional Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques that are time consuming. We train a convolutional neural network (CNN) on images of galaxy-scale lens systems to predict the five parameters of the singular isothermal ellipsoid (SIE) mass model (lens center x and y, complex ellipticity e _x and e _y, and Einstein radius θ _E). To train the network we simulate images based on real observations from the Hyper Suprime-Cam Survey for the lens galaxies and from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field as lensed galaxies. We tested different network architectures and the effect of different data sets, such as using only double or quad systems defined based on the source center and using different input distributions of θ _E. We find that the CNN performs well, and with the network trained on both doubles and quads with a uniform distribution of θ _E > 0.5″ we obtain the following median values with 1 σ scatter: Δ x = (0.00 _−0.30 ^+0.30)″, Δ y = (0.00 _−0.29 ^+0.30)″, Δ θ _E = (0.07 _−0.12 ^+0.29)″, Δ e _x = −0.01 _−0.09 ^+0.08, and Δ e _y = 0.00 _−0.09 ^+0.08. The bias in θ _E is driven by systems with small θ _E. Therefore, when we further predict the multiple lensed image positions and time-delays based on the network output, we apply the network to the sample limited to θ _E > 0.8″. In this case the offset between the predicted and input lensed image positions is (0.00 _−0.29 ^+0.29)″ and (0.00 _−0.31 ^+0.32)″ for the x and y coordinates, respectively. For the fractional difference between the predicted and true time-delay, we obtain 0.04 _−0.05 ^+0.27. Our CNN model is able to predict the SIE parameter values in fractions of a second on a single CPU, and with the output we can predict the image positions and time-delays in an automated way, such that we are able to process efficiently the huge amount of expected galaxy-scale lens detections in the near future.

Related collections

Most cited references 85

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Planck 2018 results: VI. Cosmological parameters

N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M Ashdown … (2020)

We present cosmological parameter results from the final full-mission Planck measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies, combining information from the temperature and polarization maps and the lensing reconstruction. Compared to the 2015 results, improved measurements of large-scale polarization allow the reionization optical depth to be measured with higher precision, leading to significant gains in the precision of other correlated parameters. Improved modelling of the small-scale polarization leads to more robust constraints on many parameters, with residual modelling uncertainties estimated to affect them only at the 0.5 σ level. We find good consistency with the standard spatially-flat 6-parameter ΛCDM cosmology having a power-law spectrum of adiabatic scalar perturbations (denoted “base ΛCDM” in this paper), from polarization, temperature, and lensing, separately and in combination. A combined analysis gives dark matter density Ω c h 2 = 0.120 ± 0.001, baryon density Ω b h 2 = 0.0224 ± 0.0001, scalar spectral index n s = 0.965 ± 0.004, and optical depth τ = 0.054 ± 0.007 (in this abstract we quote 68% confidence regions on measured parameters and 95% on upper limits). The angular acoustic scale is measured to 0.03% precision, with 100 θ * = 1.0411 ± 0.0003. These results are only weakly dependent on the cosmological model and remain stable, with somewhat increased errors, in many commonly considered extensions. Assuming the base-ΛCDM cosmology, the inferred (model-dependent) late-Universe parameters are: Hubble constant H 0 = (67.4 ± 0.5) km s −1 Mpc −1 ; matter density parameter Ω m = 0.315 ± 0.007; and matter fluctuation amplitude σ 8 = 0.811 ± 0.006. We find no compelling evidence for extensions to the base-ΛCDM model. Combining with baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements (and considering single-parameter extensions) we constrain the effective extra relativistic degrees of freedom to be N eff = 2.99 ± 0.17, in agreement with the Standard Model prediction N eff = 3.046, and find that the neutrino mass is tightly constrained to ∑ m ν < 0.12 eV. The CMB spectra continue to prefer higher lensing amplitudes than predicted in base ΛCDM at over 2 σ , which pulls some parameters that affect the lensing amplitude away from the ΛCDM model; however, this is not supported by the lensing reconstruction or (in models that also change the background geometry) BAO data. The joint constraint with BAO measurements on spatial curvature is consistent with a flat universe, Ω K = 0.001 ± 0.002. Also combining with Type Ia supernovae (SNe), the dark-energy equation of state parameter is measured to be w 0 = −1.03 ± 0.03, consistent with a cosmological constant. We find no evidence for deviations from a purely power-law primordial spectrum, and combining with data from BAO, BICEP2, and Keck Array data, we place a limit on the tensor-to-scalar ratio r 0.002 < 0.06. Standard big-bang nucleosynthesis predictions for the helium and deuterium abundances for the base-ΛCDM cosmology are in excellent agreement with observations. The Planck base-ΛCDM results are in good agreement with BAO, SNe, and some galaxy lensing observations, but in slight tension with the Dark Energy Survey’s combined-probe results including galaxy clustering (which prefers lower fluctuation amplitudes or matter density parameters), and in significant, 3.6 σ , tension with local measurements of the Hubble constant (which prefer a higher value). Simple model extensions that can partially resolve these tensions are not favoured by the Planck data.