Detecting low-mass haloes with strong gravitational lensing - II. Constraints on the density profiles of two detected subhaloes

Open Access

Table 1.

Summary of most relevant works in which the two systems considered here have been modelled – with or without the perturber.

Lens	Instrument	Band	M_sub [10⁹ M_⊙]	c_sub	Profile	Ref.
B1938	Keck/NIRC2+HST	K′+NICMOS	0.19 ± 0.01	–	PJ	V12
+666	Keck/NIRC2	K′	–	–	–	L12
			$0 . 508_{- 2.20}^{+ 3.86}$ $0.508^{+3.86}_{-2.20}$	$185_{- 65}^{+ 116}$ $185^{+116}_{-65}$ (z= $0 . 123_{- 0.056}^{+ 0.073}$ $0.123^{+0.073}_{-0.056}$ )	NFW	T25
	HST/NICMOS	F160W	–	–	–	K98
	HST/NICMOS	F160W	1	∼60 (γ_sub = 1.96±0.12)	tNFW	S22

J0946	HST/ACS	F814W	–	–	–	G08
+1006			3.51± 0.15	–	PJ	V10
			$5 . 01_{- 1}^{+ 1.4}$ $5.01^{+1.4}_{-1}$ , $30 . 2_{- 17.2}^{+ 9.8}$ $30.2^{+9.8}_{-17.2}$	$1560_{- 859}^{+ 1440}$ $1560^{+1440}_{-859}$ , $70 . 6_{- 11.9}^{+ 17.8}$ $70.6^{+17.8}_{-11.9}$	tNFW	M21
			$8_{- 59}^{+ 87}$ $8^{+87}_{-59}$ , $812_{- 583}^{+ 164}$ $812^{+164}_{-583}$	Ludlow et al. (2016)	NFW	N24
			$5 . 24_{- 1.72}^{+ 2.52}$ $5.24^{+2.52}_{-1.72}$	$354_{- 154}^{+ 370}$ $354^{+370}_{-154}$	tNFW	E25
			$17 . 8_{- 0.32}^{+ 0.36}$ $17.8^{+0.36}_{-0.32}$	$250_{- 53}^{+ 78}$ $250_{-53}^{+78}$ (z= $0 . 243_{- 0.016}^{0.018}$ $0.243^{0.018}_{-0.016}$ )	NFW	T25
	+MUSE	+F336W	$1 . 58_{- 0.33}^{+ 2.4}$ $1.58^{+2.4}_{-0.33}$	$251_{- 125}^{+ 543}$ $251^{+543}_{-125}$	tNFW	B24
	+HST/WFC3,WFPC2	+F(160,606,438)W	–	–	–	S12
	MUSE		–	–	–	C20

Notes. The data are shown in Fig. 1. For B1938+666, we report values from: Vegetti et al. (2012), Lagattuta et al. (2012), King et al. (1998), Şengül & Dvorkin (2022), and Tajalli et al. (2025). For J0946+1006: Gavazzi et al. (2008), Vegetti et al. (2010b), Minor et al. (2021), Nightingale et al. (2024), Enzi et al. (2025), Ballard et al. (2024), Sonnenfeld et al. (2012), Collett & Smith (2020), and Tajalli et al. (2025). Minor et al. (2021), Şengül & Dvorkin (2022), and Ballard et al. (2024) use a truncated NFW profile (tNFW) instead of the classic NFW model. Tajalli et al. (2025) considered the redshift of the perturber as an extra parameter, as reported together with the concentration. Additionally, Minor et al. (2021) model the mass distribution of the main lens with and without the inclusion of multipoles, the latter leading to a higher mass and concentration for the detected subhalo. Nightingale et al. (2024) use a set of four variations for the main lens mass model, which determine the range of values for M_sub, among which we report the minimum and maximum values.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.