2010
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912971
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

COSMOGRAIL: the COSmological MOnitoring of GRAvItational Lenses

Abstract: Aims. We attempt to place very accurate positional constraints on seven gravitationally lensed quasars currently being monitored by the COSMOGRAIL collaboration, and shape parameters for the light distribution of the lensing galaxy. We attempt to determine simple mass models that reproduce the observed configuration and predict time delays. We finally test, for the quads, whether there is evidence of astrometric perturbations produced by substructures in the lensing galaxy, which may preclude a good fit with t… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
55
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

6
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
9
55
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For both doubles and quads, we accounted for the lens environment with an external shear term γ. We used the same modeling technique as in Chantry et al (2010) with slightly different observational constraints for the quads. In particular, we constrained the model with the relative astrometry of the lensed images and lensing galaxy, and with the flux ratio of the lensed images.…”
Section: Lens Modeling and Intrinsic Luminositiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For both doubles and quads, we accounted for the lens environment with an external shear term γ. We used the same modeling technique as in Chantry et al (2010) with slightly different observational constraints for the quads. In particular, we constrained the model with the relative astrometry of the lensed images and lensing galaxy, and with the flux ratio of the lensed images.…”
Section: Lens Modeling and Intrinsic Luminositiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(1) Wisotzki et al (2004); (2) Fadely & Keeton (2011); (3) Courbin et al (2011); (4) Schechter et al (1998); (5) Oguri et al (2004); (6) Morgan et al (2004); (7) Vuissoz et al (2008); (8) CASTLES; (9) Chantry et al (2010); (10) Sluse et al (2012); (11) Lehár et al (2000); (12) Inada et al (2005); (13) Sluse et al (2008b); (14) Falco et al (1999); (15) Burud et al (2002); (16) Blackburne et al (2011); (17) Eigenbrod et al (2006a); (18) Sluse et al (2006); (19) Falco et al (1996); (20) Chantry & Magain (2007); (21) MacLeod et al (2009). associated to intrinsic variability and, in a few cases, systematic errors associated to differential extinction and microlensing.…”
Section: Accuracy Of the Intrinsic Flux Ratiosmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They have been chosen amongst a larger sample of lenses, which were previously processed in Chantry et al (2010) and Sluse et al (2012). We have chosen to focus on quadruply lensed sources.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, the MCS measurements are based on a multi-step procedure where the image is first deconvolved by finding the best PSF and, then, a convolved model is fitted on the image. Motivated by the results of Schechter et al (2014), we re-analysed the data published in Chantry et al (2010) and Sluse et al (2012). We identified two likely sources of systematic errors with those data: on the one hand, the sky background was found to be underestimated, thus attributing too much luminosity to the galaxy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To model a lens mass distribution, it is necessary to derive accurate constraints on relative positions of the lensed quasar images and the main lensing galaxy, as well as information on the structure of the galaxy's light (e.g., Lehár et al 2000;Chantry et al 2010;Sluse et al 2012). Other important constraints are the flux ratios between quasar images.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%