Table 3: Result of the parametric lens modeling.
Name Comp. Mass e, $\theta_e$ $\gamma$, $\theta_{\gamma}$ #d.o.f. $\chi^{2}$ h Comments
SIE+$\gamma$   b=0.96 0.21, (20.8) 0.187, 7.4 1 15.3 - Time delays not used
SIE+$\gamma$   b=0.94 0.13, (30.5) 0.063, 24.6 2 3.6 $\rm0.79^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$ $G_{\rm group}$ included
SIE+$\gamma$   b=0.97 0.16, 84.4 0.059, 46.9 1 0.30 $\rm0.63^{+0.07}_{-0.03}$ $G_{\rm group}$ included
dVC+$\gamma$   b=2.71 0.20, (20.1) 0.305, 9.7 1 34.4 - Time delays not used
dVC+$\gamma$   b=2.83 0.18, 83.1 0.116, 64.5 1 0.01 $\rm0.92^{+0.06}_{-0.03}$ $G_{\rm group}$ included
NFW+$\gamma$   $\kappa_{\rm s}=0.20$ 0.16, (27.4) 0.070, -3.6 1 0.38 - $r_{\rm s}=10\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$ }$ (fixed); time delays not used
NFW+$\gamma$   $\kappa_{\rm s}=0.21$ 0.15, 85.7 0.079, 9.5 1 0.06 $\rm0.29^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ $r_{\rm s}=10\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$ }$ (fixed); $G_{\rm group}$ included
NFW+$\gamma$   $\kappa_{\rm s}=0.09$ 0.15, 85.4 0.076, 30.6 1 0.01 $\rm0.63^{+0.10}_{-0.08}$ $r_{\rm s}=1\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$ }$ (fixed); $G_{\rm group}$ included
dVC+NFW+$\gamma$ Light b=1.56 (0.17), (29.3) 0.057, 37.0 - - - $R_{\rm e}=0.608$ $^{\prime \prime }$(fixed)
  Halo $\kappa_{\rm s}=0.082$ 0.065, (29.3)   1 6.33 $\rm0.78^{+0.12}_{-0.10}$ $r_{\rm s}=10\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$ }$ (fixed); $G_{\rm group}$ included
dVC+NFW+$\gamma$ Light b=1.53 (0.16), (26.4) 0.075, 27.5 - - - same model as above, with
  Halo $\kappa_{\rm s}=0.10$ 0.43, 89.8   3 3.2 $\rm0.69^{+0.20}_{-0.10}$ flux ratios included


Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text