Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Time delay measurements with Broken Power Law model

Published 14 Jan 2026 in astro-ph.CO and astro-ph.GA | (2601.09369v1)

Abstract: One of the key challenges in strong gravitational lensing cosmography is the accurate measurement of time delays between multiple lensed images, which are essential for constraining the Hubble constant ($H_0$). We investigate how lens mass-profile assumptions affect time delays. Specifically, we implement a Broken Power Law (BPL) mass model within the Lenstronomy framework (Birrer & Amara 2018), which introduces additional flexibility in the radial mass distribution and can phenomenologically capture deviations from a single power-law profile. This model is combined with a numerical approach to compute time delays at the image positions. We validate the BPL implementation using simulated lenses and compare the results with those obtained from the elliptical power-law (EPL) model. We then apply both model families to the quadruply imaged quasar WGD~2038-4008. Both models fit the imaging and kinematic data comparably well, yet the greater radial freedom in the BPL model shifts the inferred time-delay distance -- and thus $H_0$ -- by an amount comparable to the current discrepancy between early- and late-universe $H_0$ estimates. In a flat $Λ$CDM cosmology, the $H_0$ inferred using the BPL lens model is $75{+23.1}_{-16.3} \ \mathrm{km \ s{-1} \ Mpc{-1}},$ while the EPL model gives $H_0 = 61{+19.2}_{-13.2} \ \mathrm{km \ s{-1} \ Mpc{-1}}.$ This difference is largely due to uncertainties in the inner mass profile ($θ<0.2''$), a region where point spread function (PSF) reconstruction is a critical factor -- a finding consistent with results reported in Shajib et al. (2022). This highlights how time-delay cosmography remains sensitive to assumptions about the lens mass profile. With current precision, this difference does not favor one cosmological scenario over another, but rather underscores the importance of flexible mass modeling and PSF modeling.

Authors (3)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.