DESI Strong Lens Foundry V: A Sample of HST-Observed Strong Lenses Modeled with GIGA-Lens
Extracted source text · arXiv 2512.07823
\PassOptionsToPackage{dvipsnames}{xcolor}
% \documentclass[manuscript, linenumbers]{aastex631}
% \documentclass[preprint, linenumbers]{aastex631}
\documentclass[preprint]{aastex631}
\usepackage{placeins}
% \documentclass[twocolumn,linenumbers]{aastex631}
% \pdfoutput\ed1
%\documentclass[iop,revtex4]{emulateapj}
\usepackage{amsmath}
% \usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{capt-of} % don't use the package caption -- it causes some kind of conflict. This is a smaller package 7/29/15
% See this: https://texdoc.org/serve/caption/0
% It seems that if I want to change figure caption size, I have to use the caption package
%\usepackage[font=footnotesize,skip=-15pt]{caption}
% specifically, LaTeX Error: Command \longtable* already defined. 10/7/23
% \usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{svg}
\usepackage{empheq}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{hhline}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{numprint}
% \usepackage{pifont}
\usepackage{listings}
\usepackage{xspace}
% \usepackage{placeins}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{mwe}
\usepackage{MnSymbol}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{pythonhighlight}
\lstnewenvironment{mypython}[1][]{\lstset{style=mypython,#1}}{}
%\usepackage{adjustbox}
%\usepackage{lineno}
%\linenumbers
%\usepackage{float}
%\restylefloat{table}
\raggedbottom
% \usepackage[section]{placeins}
\newcommand{\ang}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\AA}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\nparams}{41\xspace}
\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
\newcommand\aastex{AAS\TeX}
\newcommand\latex{La\TeX}
\newcommand{\rf}{\textcolor{black}}
\newcommand{\rff}{\textcolor{black}}
\newcommand{\ed}{\textcolor{red}}
\newcommand{\nb}{\textcolor{red}}
\newcommand{\projname}{DESI Strong Lens Foundry\xspace}
\newcommand{\progname}{Strong Lensing Secondary Target Program\xspace}
\newcommand{\ho}{\ensuremath{H_0}\xspace}
\newcommand{\lcdm}{$\Lambda$CDM\xspace}
\newcommand{\desionefivefour}{DESI~J154.6972-01.3590\xspace}
\newcommand{\desionesixfive}{DESI~J165.6876-06.0423\xspace}
\newcommand{\desizeroninefour}{DESI~J094.5639+50.3059\xspace}
\newcommand{\desitwothreefour}{DESI~J234.4783+14.7232\xspace}
\newcommand{\desitwofiveseven}{DESI~J257.4348+31.9046\xspace}
\newcommand{\desitwothreeeight}{DESI~J238.5690+04.7276\xspace}
\newcommand{\desitwofoursix}{DESI~J246.0062+01.4836\xspace}
\newcommand{\chisqnu}{$\chi^2_\nu$\xspace}
\newcommand{\gigal}{\texttt{GIGA-Lens}\xspace}
\newcommand{\thetaEfit}{\ensuremath{2.646\pm0.002\twopr}\xspace}
\newcommand{\gammafit}{\ensuremath{1.37\pm0.02}\xspace}
\newcommand{\lamlam}{\ensuremath{\lambda\lambda}\xspace}
\newcommand{\Refit}{\ensuremath{1.89\pm0.02\twopr}\xspace}
\newcommand{\Refitkpc}{\ensuremath{11.3\pm0.1}~kpc\xspace}
\newcommand{\rhat}{\ensuremath{\hat{R}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\exetime}{{{3~\rm{hrs.} 13~\rm{min}}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\rojascutout}{{\color{blue}120~\rm{pixels}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\cutoutsize}{{\color{red}128~\rm{pixels}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\HST}{\emph{Hubble Space Telescope}\xspace}
\newcommand{\euc}{\emph{Euclid}\xspace}
\newcommand{\hst}{\emph{HST}\xspace}
\newcommand{\JWST}{\emph{James Webb Space Telescope}\xspace}
\newcommand{\jwst}{\emph{JWST}\xspace}
\newcommand{\rst}{\emph{Roman Space Telescope}\xspace}
\newcommand{\photutils}{\href{https://photutils.readthedocs.io/en/stable/}{\texttt{Photutils}}}
\newcommand{\Ia}{SN~Ia\xspace}
\newcommand{\Iae}{SNe~Ia\xspace}
\newcommand{\tractor}{\textit{The Tractor}\xspace}
\newcommand{\numsys}{seven\xspace}
\newcommand{\micro}{\ensuremath{\/micron}\xspace}
\newcommand\pound{\scalebox{0.8}{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\#}}}
\newcommand{\tf}{\texttt{TensorFlow}\xspace}
\newcommand{\coverage}{20,000\xspace}
\newcommand{\decalscover}{9000\xspace}
\newcommand{\mzlscover}{5000\xspace}
\newcommand{\crosschaindims}{\texttt{cross\_chain\_dims}\xspace}
\newcommand{\nser}{\ensuremath{n_{ser}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ser}{S{\'e}rsic\xspace}
\newcommand{\sigv}{\ensuremath{\sigma_v}\xspace}
%\newcommand{\twopr}\ensuremath{{^{\prime \prime}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\twopr}{\ensuremath{^{\prime \prime}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\tE}{\ensuremath{\theta_E}\xspace}
\newcommand{\gma}{\ensuremath{\gamma}\xspace}
\newcommand{\zd}{\ensuremath{z_d\xspace}}
\newcommand{\zs}{\ensuremath{z_s\xspace}}
%% Reintroduced the \received and \accepted commands from AASTeX v5.2
%\received{July xx, 2020}
%\revised{December, xx, 2023}
% \revised{October 12, 2017}
% \accepted{December 22, 2020}
%% Command to document which AAS Journal the manuscript was submitted to.
%% Adds "Submitted to " the arguement.
\submitjournal{ApJ}
\shorttitle{\projname V}
\shortauthors{Huang, \'{A}lvarez, \'{U}beda, Bhamre, Xu et al.}
\begin{document}
\title{\projname V:\\
A Sample of \hst-Observed Strong Lenses Modeled with \gigal}
% and Galaxy Mass Profile Evolution}
%%%% DECaLS Imaging Survey
\correspondingauthor{Xiaosheng Huang}
\email{xhuang22@usfca.edu}
%, august.muench@aas.org}
\author[0000-0001-8156-0330]{Xiaosheng~Huang}
\affiliation{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117, USA}
\affiliation{Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author[0009-0006-0284-3863]{David~\'{A}lvarez-Garc\'{i}a}
\affiliation{Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\affiliation{Department of Physics,
Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain}
\author[0009-0005-4355-0293]{M\'{o}nica~\'{U}beda}
\affiliation{Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\affiliation{Department of Physics,
Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain}
\author[0009-0007-3732-5211]{Vikram~Bhamre}
\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author[0009-0006-4623-3629]{Sean~Xu}
\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\affiliation{Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author[0009-0003-4697-7079]{S.~Baltasar}
\affiliation{Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\affiliation{Department of Physics,
Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain}
\author[0009-0009-8206-0325]{N.~Ratier-Werbin}
\affiliation{Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\affiliation{Department of Physics,
Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain}
\author[0009-0009-0407-2419]{F.~Urcelay}
\affiliation{Institute of Astrophysics, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile}
\author[0000-0002-2350-4610]{S.~Agarwal}
\affiliation{University of Chicago, Department of Astronomy, Chicago, IL 60615, USA}
% \author{G.~Aldering}
% \affiliation{Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
% \author[0000-0002-9836-603X]{A.~Bolton}
% \affiliation{NSF's National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA}
\author[0000-0001-7101-9831]{A.~Cikota}
\affiliation{Gemini Observatory / NSF's NOIRLab, Casilla 603, La Serena, Chile}
% \author[0000-0002-4928-4003]{A.~Dey}
% \affiliation{NSF's National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA}
% \author[0000-0003-2748-7333]{A.~Gu}
% \affiliation{Quantum Science and Engineering, Harvard University,
% Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}
\author[0000-0002-6876-8492]{Yuan-Ming~Hsu}
\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Section 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei 106319, Taiwan}
\author[0009-0006-5989-4899]{E.~Lin}
\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
% \author[0000-0002-4436-4661]{S.~Perlmutter}
% \affiliation{Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
% \affiliation{Department of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
% \author[0000-0001-5402-4647]{D.~Rubin}
% \affiliation{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of Hawai'i at M\~{a}noa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA}
% \affiliation{Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author[0000-0002-5042-5088]{D.~J.~Schlegel}
\affiliation{Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author[0000-0002-1804-3960]{E.~Silver}
\affiliation{Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}
\author[0000-0002-0385-0014]{C.~J.~Storfer}
\affiliation{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawai'i, Honolulu, HI 96822-1897, USA}
% \author[0000-0001-7266-930X]{N.~Suzuki}
% \affiliation{Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author[0009-0008-0518-8045]{M.~Tamargo-Arizmendi}
\affiliation{Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\begin{abstract}
\input{abstr}
\end{abstract}
\keywords{galaxies: high-redshift -- gravitational lensing: strong
}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\input{intro}
\FloatBarrier
\section{\HST SNAP Program}\label{sec:ls-hst}
\input{ls-hst-snap}
\section{Spectroscopic Observations}\label{sec:spect}
\input{spect}
\section{Lens Modeling}\label{sec:lens-model}
\input{lens-model}
\newpage
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
\input{discussion}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
\input{conclusion}
\newpage
\section*{Acknowledgment}\label{sec:acknowledgement}
\input{acknowledgement}
\software{
TensorFlow \citep{TensorFlow},
TensorFlow Probability \citep{dillon2017a},
JAX \citep{bradbury2018a},
Optax \citep{optax2020},
lenstronomy \citep{birrer2018a},
Matplotlib \citep{hunter2007a},
photutils \citep{bradley2023a}
seaborn \citep{waskom2021a},
corner.py \citep{foreman2016a},
NumPy \citep{harris2020a}
}
\bibliographystyle{aasjournal}
% \bibliography{dustarchive}
\bibliography{DLF-papre-V}
\appendix
\section{Effective PSF generation}\label{sec:psf_section}
\input{psf.tex}
\section{Lens Modeling Results}\label{sec:lens-models-app}
\input{lens-models-app}
\end{document}
We present six galaxy-scale strong lenses with \emph{HST} imaging modeled using \texttt{GIGA-Lens}. This is Paper~V of the DESI Strong Lens Foundry series. These systems were discovered in the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys using ML/AI methods and confirmed with DESI, Keck/NIRES, and VLT/MUSE spectroscopy. They span $z_d = 0.39\, \text{ --}\, 1.1$ and $z_s = 1.4\, \text{--}\, 3.3$.
This is the first \emph{HST} strong lens sample modeled with full forward modeling---all lens and source parameters sampled simultaneously in a single inference---with explicit convergence validation using both $\hat{R}$ and effective sample size (ESS) for each system.
All inferred parameters satisfy $\hat{R} < 1.1$ and ${\rm ESS} \gtrsim 10{,}000$, demonstrating that \texttt{GIGA-Lens} achieves statistically robust inference even for some of the most complex galaxy-scale lenses known.
These results pave the way for scaling to much larger, high-resolution strong lens samples from \emph{HST}, \emph{Euclid}, \emph{JWST}, and \emph{Roman}. Convergence-validated modeling will be critical for key science goals, including constraining the mass-density profile of galaxies, detecting low-mass dark matter (sub)halos, and delivering precise and accurate cosmological constraints.
Strong gravitational lensing systems
are a powerful tool for astrophysics and cosmology.
They have been used to study how dark matter is distributed in galaxies and \rf{galaxy} clusters
\citep[e.g.,][]{kochanek1991a, blandford1992a, broadhurst2000a, koopmans2002a,
bolton2006a, koopmans2006a, bradac2008a, vegetti2009a, huang2009a, jullo2010a,
tessore2016a, jauzac2018a,
shajib2019a, meneghetti2020a, odonell2025}.
Furthermore, carefully modeling the mass profiles of galaxy-scale strong lenses for a large number of lensing systems
%(which can be combined with dynamical mass measurements)
over a wide range of redshifts makes it possible to study the structural evolution
%of the internal structure
of massive elliptical galaxies \citep[e.g., ][]{bolton2012b, filipp2023a}.
They are uniquely suited to probe
%\rf{low mass dark matter halos
dark matter substructure beyond the local universe and line-of-sight low-mass halos
%in the lensing galaxies and along the line of sight} and
\citep[e.g.,][]{vegetti2014a, hezaveh2016a, vegetti2018a, ritondale2019a, diazrivero2020a, cagan-sengul2022a, nierenberg2023a},
to test the predictions of the cold dark matter (CDM) model.
%%%% Add this here: galaxy mass profile modeling (gas, star, DM) and evolution (may not mention the added benefit to lensed QSO modeling)
% For redshifts beyond the range that lensing galaxies can typically probe,
% together with high resolution imaging (from adaptive optics and space telescopes),
% % \HST, the \textit{James Webb Space Telescope},
% % or the \emph{Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope} in the near future),
% strong lensing as an cosmic telescope magnifies spectral \citep[e.g.,][]{cornachione2018a}
% and spatial features \citep[e.g.,][]{marshall2007a, patricio2019a, vanzella2020a} of the lensed distant galaxies,
% providing the only way to study the morphology and internal structures of galaxies at sub-kpc scales at high redshifts that can extend to $z > 2$.
%sometimes at physical scales only possible through lensing.}
%for comparisons with
%sometimes to a physical scale comparable to
%studies of local galaxies.}
Recent measurements of the Hubble constant \ho span a range of $\sim$10\% \citep[e.g.,][]{abbott2017a, abbott2018b, riess2019a, wong2019a, freedman2019a, freedman2020a, planck2020a, khetan2020a, philcox2020a, choi2020a, dhawan2023a},
and significant tension between predictions for \ho based on early-universe observables
%% don't remove: Planck -- sound horizon; Philcox -- matter-rad equality scale
and direct late-universe measurements remain \citep[e.g.,][]{verde2019a}.
%%%% with due to unidentified systematics or new physics.
%with the value inferred from CMB by assuming \lcdm at the low end and some of the most precise local measurements at the other \citep{riess2019a}.
% direct measurement from Cepheid-calicbrated SNe~Ia and the value inferred from \lcdm from CMB (riess, Planck).
%The time delays of multiply-lensed QSOs provide one of the most competitive direct measurement of \ho that have the potential to address this
%discrepancy \citep[e.g.,][]{wong2019a}}.
Multiply-lensed supernovae (SNe) and quasars have been used for measuring time delays and \ho \citep{refsdal1964a, treu2010a, oguri2010a, wong2019a, suyu2023a, kelly2023a, pascale2025a}.
Furthermore time delay \ho measurements are a powerful complement to other independent measurements of the dark energy equation of state
%, including BAO, CMB, and SNe~Ia
\citep[e.g.,][]{linder2011a, treu2016a, pierel2021a}.
In addition, multi-source-plane systems can constrain cosmology by providing angular diameter distance ratios along a single line of sight \citep[e.g.,][]{collett2014a, sharma2022a, sharma2023a}.
Finally, for nearby strong lensing galaxies,
extra-galactic tests of General Relativity can be performed
by combining lens modeling with
%rotation curves %or other
spatially resolved
%dynamic and
stellar kinematic observations \citep{collett2018a}.
The DESI Legacy Surveys\footnote{\url{http://www.legacysurvey.org/}}
\citep[][Schlegel et al. in prep]{dey2019a},
for which at least $z$ band is observed with a 4-m telescope,
covers $>$\coverage~deg$^2$,
four times the size of the Dark Energy Survey \citep{des2005a} footprint.
We identified $\sim 4000$ new strong lenses in the Legacy Surveys Data Release~7, 8, 9, and 10 \citep[][respectively]{huang2020a, huang2021a, storfer2024a, inchausti2025} by using residual neural networks (and EfficientNet for the DR10 search).
We have also found 436 lensed quasars \citep{dawes2023a} using autocorrelation for a lensed quasar candidate sample.
Very recently, we have found over 6000 lens candidates in the DESI spectroscopic data \citep[][]{hsu2025, karp2025}.
The entire catalog of these lens candidates can be found on our project website.\footnote{\url{https://sites.google.com/usfca.edu/neuralens/}}
With so many lens discoveries,
a fast and robust modeling pipeline is needed.
We therefore developed \gigal \citep{gu2022a}.
A GPU-accelerated, fully forward-modeling Bayesian pipeline that can speed up the lens modeling time by two orders of magnitude.
In \citet{cikota2023a}, we applied \gigal to a observed lensing system, DESI~J253.2534+26.8843.
It was then applied to a group-scaled strong lens (DES~J0248-3955), also using ground-based imaging data \citep{Urcelay2025}.
% ,
% making it the first real lens to be modeled by GPUs.
Most recently we applied it to a system with \hst data, DESI~J165.4754-06.0423
\citep[][Paper~I in this series]{huang2025a}.
This is paper V of the \projname paper series.
In this paper, we present six lensing systems that have been fully confirmed with both spectroscopy and \hst imaging.
These systems were first identified as lens candidates in \citep[][henceforth, H20, H21]{huang2020a, huang2021a}.
As mentioned in \citet{huang2025b}, Paper~II of this series, for systems with candidate status, we follow the naming convention of ``DESI-'' followed by the RA and Dec (with a sign prefix) in decimal format to the fourth decimal place (with rounding) for both coordinates. Such a naming scheme is easy to parse and precise to $< 1''$.
With full confirmation, which is the case for the systems in this work, we follow the official DESI naming convention of ``DESI J'' (note the space) followed by RA and Dec (with a sign prefix) in decimal format to the fourth decimal place (with truncation) for both coordinates.
Simply put, the presence of ``J" indicates a system has now been fully confirmed.
This paper is organized as follows.
% We describe our lens discoveries in \S~\ref{sec:discovery}.
The six systems from our \HST SNAP program to be modeled in this work are presented in
\S~\ref{sec:ls-hst}, followed by a brief description of the spectroscopic observations in \S~\ref{sec:spect}.
In \S~\ref{sec:lens-model}, we highlight two representative systems modeled with \gigal,
while the results for the remaining systems are provided in Appendix~\ref{sec:lens-models-app} (with the effective PSF generation described in Appendix~\ref{sec:psf_section}).
% , the first \hst system to be modeled on GPUs.
We discuss our results in \S~\ref{sec:discussion} and conclude in \S~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
%\vfill
% In this section, we briefly describe our lens discoveries in the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys in \S~\ref{sec:discovery} and present the follow-up \hst SNAP program observations in \S~\ref{sec:hst-obs}.
% \subsection{Lens Discoveries in the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys }\label{sec:discovery}
% \input{discovery}
% \subsection{\HST Observations}\label{sec:hst-obs}
% \input{hst-observations}
We presented our \emph{Hubble} SNAP program GO-15867 (PI: X.~Huang) in Paper~I in this series.
This program followed up on a subset of the lens candidates found in H20 and H21, using the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys data.
All targets have $3 \times$399.23~sec exposure,
for a total of 1197.7~sec,
on WFC3 using the F140W filter in the NIR channel.
% There should be two exposures per visit, one visit per target, and identical specifications for all.
The targets were approximately centered in the WFC3 aperture, with no CR split, because we wanted to keep read noise down.
Of the 112 systems submitted to \hst,
a total of 53 were targeted.
Two of them were not successfully observed due to the loss of the guide star.
% These exposures do not pack the orbit, but rather minimize the visit time within acceptable limits so as to achieve the best possible snapshot execution likelihood.
% Of the 51 systems successfully observed, \hst confirmed all but one of them to be strong lenses (Paper~I),
% by revealing one or more arcs in each.
The native pixel size is $0.13\twopr$, and each image is drizzled to $0.065''$.
The six systems that will be modeled in the paper are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:hs-6}.
% In Figure~\ref{fig:desi165}
% We have further confirmed a large fraction of them spectroscopically through the on-going DESI observations.
% The first batch of DESI strong lens spectroscopic results will be presented in Huang et al. (in prep).
% Among the targets in this program, the arcs were the faintest in the first system in Figure~\ref{fig:gal-lenses}, \href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer?ra=25.4848&dec=30.7583&layer=ls-dr9&pixscale=0.262&zoom=16}{DESI-025.4848+30.7585}.
% \citet{talbot2021a} provided SDSS redshifts for the lens ($z_d = 0.524$) and one of the lensed sources ($z_{s, 1} = 1.216$).
% DESI confirms this source redshift and provides redshift for a second source ($z_{s, 2} = 1.2223$; Huang et al. in prep).
% Among the galaxy-scale lenses (Figure~\ref{fig:gal-lenses}),
\begin{minipage}[H]{\linewidth}
\makebox[\linewidth]{ \includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,scale=.75]{figs/hst_panel1.png}}
\captionof{figure}{
Six systems observed by the \hst SNAP program GO-15867 modeled in this paper.
The naming convention is RA and Dec in decimal format.
% There are a number of striking systems (see text).
% One of the 26 systems with a single galaxy as the main lens ... The left panel shows the Legacy Surveys image for DESI-165.4754-06.0423 (discovery images).
North is up, and East to the left.
The systems are arranged in ascending RA.
}
% The first one at top left has the faintest arcs (see text).
% \S~\ref{sec:lens-model} presents the lens model for this system.}
\label{fig:hs-6}
\end{minipage}
The DESI Strong Lens Secondary Target program (introduced in Paper~II in this series) has observed a large fraction of our lens candidates.
% However, some of the candidates have source redshifts difficult to measure for DESI when the [O II] doublet feature is beyond the optical range, or $z_s > 1.66$.
The success rate of obtaining redshifts for lensing galaxies by DESI is high.
These are nearly always bright elliptical galaxies with a number of identifiable features in the optical range,
typically absorption lines
% (e.g. Ca H\&K, G, Mg I, and Na absorption lines)
and the 4000 \ang break.
For lensed sources,
some of the spectra have no clear features,
likely due to the fact that they are too faint and/or their redshifts place key spectral features outside the optical range.
Lensed sources are typically star forming galaxies for which the [\ion{O}{2}] doublet emission feature is often used to anchor redshift fits.
This makes redshift measurements in the optical range for $z_s \gtrsim 1.6$ challenging.\footnote{It is true that for $z_s \gtrsim 2.0$,
Ly-$\alpha$ will
be in the optical range,
though
% In our experience,
this feature is not always present.}
% Thus for some systems obtaining $z_s$
% may require NIR spectroscopic follow-up observations.
For these systems, we determine their redshifts from our on-going Keck NIRES program \citep[][Paper~III in this series; and Storfer, Tamargo et al., Paper~VI, in prep.]{agarwal2025}.
Finally some of our systems are being observed by a VLT MUSE program (PI: A.~Cikota). Most of these are only observable from the southern hemisphere.
But our MUSE program does target some systems that are in the DESI strong lens program but not yet observed by DESI, because they are of high priority \citep[e.g.,][]{cikota2023a}.
% , e.g., because they have \hst observations \citep[for an example,][]{sheu2024}.
The MUSE results are presented in Paper~IV of this series \citep{lin2025}.
In Paper~I, as a demonstration, we used the open-source \gigal\footnote{\url{https://github.com/giga-lens/gigalens}} framework \citep[][Gu22]{gu2022a} to model one lens system with \hst data, \href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer/?ra=165.4753&dec=-6.0424&layer=ls-dr9&pixscale=0.262&zoom=16}{\desionesixfive}.
In the following, we present lens models for this and six additional systems in Table~\ref{tab:model-sys}, arranged in increasing lens redshift.
The effective PSF generation is described in Appendix~\S~\ref{sec:psf_section}.
In this section, we present the lens modeling results for two systems. For \desitwothreefour\ (\S~\ref{sec:desi234}), we fix five light profile parameters for a field galaxy based on preliminary modeling, and then optimize and sample the remaining 36 parameters \emph{simultaneously} in the main modeling process. Such a field galaxy has little to no impact on the lensing of the background source. To emphasize this, we refer to these field galaxies as “environmental” galaxies throughout this work.
For \desitwothreeeight\ (\S~\ref{sec:desi238}), we do not even fix the parameters of an environmental galaxy: all 38 are modeled and sampled simultaneously.
The remaining systems are presented in Appendix~\ref{sec:lens-models-app}.
% A summary of all seven systems (including \desionesixfive) is provided in Table~\ref{tab:model-sys}.
\gigal is a fully forward-modeling Bayesian lens modeling pipeline.
Briefly, it consists of three stages: finding the maximum a posteriori (MAP) for the lensing parameters via multi-start gradient descent, determining a surrogate multidimensional Gaussian covariance matrix for these parameters using stochastic variational inference (SVI), and finally sampling with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC).
All three stages use gradient descent with automatic differentiation and take advantage of GPU acceleration.
Our mass model consists of an elliptical power law (EPL) for the lens mass profile and external shear.
% ($\gamma_{ext}$).
The Einstein radius is denoted $\theta_E$ (arcsec), and $\gamma$ is the EPL mass-slope parameter.
$(x, y)$ denote the center coordinates, specified independently for the lens mass, lens light, and source light. %in arcsec,
($\gamma_{1, \text{ext}}$, $\gamma_{2, \text{ext}}$) are the external shear components.
The parameters $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ specify the eccentricities.
We model lens light with one or more \ser profiles.
For source light, we use \ser profiles and/or shapelets \citep{birrer2015a}.
For the lens and source surface brightness scaling, we either model the light intensities as parameters or solve for them by linear inversion.
Both are mathematically justified.
A systematic, side-by-side evaluation of these approaches---particularly their impact on uncertainties---will be explored in a future study.
We aim for 1) full forward modeling (the modeling of all lens and source parameters at the same time, instead of taking a staged approach) and 2) statistical convergence.
Both goals have been achieved for all seven systems (including \desionesixfive from Paper~I).
% The second goal has been achieved for three of the seven. For the remaining four systems, we fix only the light profile parameters of one or more environmental galaxies; except for the especially complex case of \desitwofoursix\ (\S~\ref{sec:desi246}), this involves fixing just 5-6 parameters.
% That is, \emph{all parameters---lens mass and lens/source light---are optimized and sampled together in a single inference.}
% Unlike with other lens modeling pipelines,
% we do not take a staged approach,
% which may first fit for and then subtract the lens light,
% followed by initializing with a simple model and gradually increasing the model complexity, typically fixing the values of some parameters in this process, e.g., \ser index values).
% % \citep[e.g.,][]{shajib2021a, etherington2022a}.
% Instead we perform full forward modeling.
% It is robust and very fast.
% and, in the systems studied here, yield consistent results.
% We therefore choose the method on a per-system basis depending on data quality and morphology.
We apply the two widely used diagnostics for convergence.
1) the potential scale reduction factor (PSRF, or \rhat), also known as the Gelman-Rubin statistic, which compares the inter- and intra-chain estimates for model parameters.
2) The effective sample size (ESS).
To achieve good convergence \rhat needs to be below 1.1 \citep{gelman1992a, gelman2014a}.
This indicates that the between- and within-chain estimates are in good agreement, or the chains have ``mixed well''.
In addition, the ESS generally needs to be higher than 1000 \citep[e.g.,][]{mandel2022a}.
For all seven systems, we achieve $\rhat < 1.1$ and ESS $\gtrsim 10,000$, satisfying the convergence criteria. We will present each system in turn.
% than 100 per chain \citep[][end of their \S~3.2]{vehtari2021a}.
% In fact, one should not assess \rhat unless one has reached $\text{ESS/chain} 100$.
% \textcolor{red}{In point source we said 50.}
% In addition to being robust, our modeling approach is also fast.
% Considering that we take a fully forward modeling Bayesian approach with typically $\gtrsim 40$ model parameters for a highly nonlinear problem,
% this is remarkably fast.
% It is not clear at this point, the advantages of using linear inversion vs. directly modeling light intensity. Mathematically either approach is valid. In this work, we take different approaches for different systems. They appear to work equally well. In a future study, we may perform a side-by-side comparison of these two methods.
\begin{center}
\begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccc}[H]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Seven Modeled Systems \label{tab:model-sys}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{System} &
\colhead{\zd} &
\colhead{\zs} &
\colhead{\tE $('')$} &
\colhead{\gma} &
%\colhead{\sigv (km/v)} &
\colhead{Modelers} &
\colhead{$\rhat_\mathrm{ceiling}$} &
\colhead{Sec} &
\colhead{Source Model} &
\colhead{Params (tot/fix)}\\[-6pt]
\colhead{[1]} & \colhead{[2]} & \colhead{[3]} & \colhead{[4]} & \colhead{[5]} &
\colhead{[6]} & \colhead{[7]} & \colhead{[8]} & \colhead{[9]} & \colhead{[10]}
}
\startdata
\href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer/?ra=154.6972&dec=-01.3590&layer=ls-dr10-grz&pixscale=0.262&zoom=16}
{\desionefivefour}
& 0.3884$^\S$ & 1.4304* & 2.8982$^{0.0010}_{0.0011}$ & 1.411$\pm0.016$ & MU & $ 1.005$& \ref{sec:desi154} & 4 \ser's & 44/6 \\
\href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer/?ra=165.6876&dec=-06.0423&layer=ls-dr10-grz&pixscale=0.262&zoom=16}
{\desionesixfive}
& 0.4834* & 1.6748 & $2.6263^{+0.0017}_{-0.0016}$ & $1.372^{+0.023}_{-0.022}$ &
SB, NRW & $ 1.06$ & \ref{sec:desi165} & S\'{e}rsic+shapelets & 35/0\\
& & & & & & & & & ($n_{max} = 6$) & \\
\href{https://www..legacysurvey.org/viewer/?ra=094.5639&dec=+50.3059&layer=ls-dr10-grz&pixscale=0.262&zoom=16}
{\desizeroninefour}
& 0.552*$^\ddag$ & 3.3332 & 2.295$\pm0.001$ & 2.548$^{+0.043}_{-0.042}$ & VB & 1.09 & \ref{sec:desi094} & 2 \ser's & 44/6 \\
\href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer/?ra=234.4783&dec=+14.7232&layer=ls-dr10-grz&pixscale=0.262&zoom=16}
{\desitwothreefour}
& 0.7313* & 2.4780 & $1.548_{-0.003}^{+0.004}$&
$2.057_{-0.032}^{+0.028}$& DA & $ 1.009 $ & \ref{sec:desi234} & 2 \ser's & 41/5\\
\href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer/?ra=257.4348&dec=31.9046&layer=ls-dr10-grz&zoom=16}
{\desitwofiveseven}
& 0.7464* & 2.1200 & 1.9899$\pm$0.0024 & 2.066$\pm0.023$ & DA & $ 1.001$ & \ref{sec:desi257} & shapelets & 29/0\\
& & & & & & & & & ($n_{max} = 3$) & \\
\href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer/?ra=238.5690&dec=+04.7276&layer=ls-dr10-grz&pixscale=0.262&zoom=16}
{\desitwothreeeight}
& 0.7768* & 1.7210 & 1.475$^{+0.003}_{-0.002}$ & 1.937$^{+0.019}_{-0.020}$ & SX & $ 1.08$ & \ref{sec:desi238} & 2 \ser's & 38/0\\
\href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer/?ra=246.0062&dec=+01.4836&layer=ls-dr10-grz&pixscale=0.262&zoom=16}
{\desitwofoursix}
& 1.092$^\diamond$ & 2.3685 & 2.698$\pm0.001$ & 2.616$\pm0.017$ & DA, SX & $ 1.037$ & \ref{sec:desi246} & 5 \ser's & 78/28\\
\enddata
\tablecomments{Column [1]: System names arranged in ascending order of lens redshifts. [2] and [3] show lens redshifts (\zd) and source redshifts (\zs), respectively.
% In the last two columns, we show the $\hat{R}$ and ESS for \tE and \gma, respectively.
The redshifts without a superscript are obtained from Keck NIRES, with the
facilities used to obtain the rest shown at the bottom of these notes.
% [3]: Source redshifts, \zs. Except for \desionefivefour (from DESI, also indicated with *), the rest were obtained from Keck~NIRES.
[4]: Best-fit Einstein radii.
[5]: Best-fit mass density slope.
[6]: Modelers, with XH for every system.
[7]: The ceiling of \rhat for each system, i.e., the \rhat for all parameters are lower than the value shown for that system.
% [8]: The floor of ESS for each system, i.e., the ESS for all parameters are higher than the value shown for that system.
[8]: The section that describes the modeling of each system. The model for \desionesixfive was presented in Paper~I and was summarized in this work.
[9]: Source light model.
For the cases where we use shapelets, $n_{max}$ is given.
[10]:
% For some systems, we fix the light profile parameters of certain environmental galaxies in their cutout image.
% The number of fixed parameters depends on the number of galaxies whose parameters are fixed.
\emph{We emphasize that only the light profile parameters of environmental galaxies in the cutout image are fixed based on preliminary modeling, and only for four of the systems.} In each of these cases, 5 - 6 parameters are fixed, except for \desitwofoursix, which has an especially complex environment. For \desionesixfive and \desitwothreeeight, even the environmental galaxies are included in the full forward modeling. \desitwofiveseven does not have environmental galaxies bright enough to require modeling.
Finally, the effective sample size (ESS) for HMC is $\gtrsim 10,000$ for all systems.\\
* DESI; $^\S$ SDSS;
% $^\dag$Keck~NIRES;
$^\ddag$ Lick~Kast; and
$^\diamond$ VLT~MUSE. \\
%$^\medstar$photometric redshift \citep{zhou2020a}.
}
\end{deluxetable}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.25cm}
\subsection{\desitwothreefour}\label{sec:desi234}
\input{desi234+14.tex}
\vspace{-1.cm}
\subsection{\desitwothreeeight}\label{sec:desi238}
\input{desi238+04.tex}
\href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer/?ra=234.4783&dec=14.7231&layer=ls-dr10-grz&zoom=16}{\desitwothreefour}\footnote{The first mention of each system in the text is hyperlinked to the Legacy Surveys’ \href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer}{skyviewer web portal}.} was discovered in H21, with a ResNet probability of 0.98, and a human score of 3.0 (out of 4.0), corresponding to a B grade.
The lens redshift, \zd = 0.7313 is from DESI (based on the 4000 \ang break, Ca~H\&K, and [\ion{O}{2}] emission).
The source redshift, \zs = 2.477 is from Keck NIRES (Storfer, Tamargo et al., in prep; Paper~VI).
This system has an Einstein radius of \(1.55''\).
% This results in the observed image having $64 \times 64= 4096$ pixels, fewer than the other systems modeled in this paper.
We use a cutout with $64\times64$ pixels and a $33\times33$ pixel empirical PSF, generated using the procedure outlined in Section~\ref{sec:psf_section}.
\desitwothreefour is shown in Figure \ref{fig:234mask}. We model the lens light with two elliptical \ser profiles.
We mask a region around its center,
with a brightness threshold of 1.0 (100 pixels, or 0.4225~arcsec$^2$). We model the source using two elliptical \ser profiles.
In addition, we mask four small and faint objects, indicated in Figure~\ref{fig:234mask} by small circles: two to the northwest of image C, one to the south of image C, and one to the northeast of image A. We also mask a very bright object near the top right corner.
% We tried masking the bright galaxy in the top left corner. However, this resulted in the parameter $\epsilon_{l,2}$ for the less focused component of the lens reaching the upper limit of its prior distribution, hiding part of the \ser light intensity behind the mask of this bright galaxy. Thus, we had to
We model the light of the galaxy (blue arrow in Figure~\ref{fig:234mask}) to the upper left of the lensing galaxy with a circular \ser profile.
% This improved the model and provided a physical value for $\epsilon_{l,2}$.
Throughout this work, the first figure for each system uses blue arrows to mark environmental galaxies whose light is modeled (but whose mass is not), while blue circles mark objects that are masked and not modeled. For four of the systems, including this one (see Table~\ref{tab:model-sys}), these light parameters are then held fixed in the main inference. For two others, these parameters are sampled together with the rest of the model parameters. Finally, for \desitwofiveseven, there are no environmental galaxies bright enough to be modeled.
% ---these are the only fixed parameters.
% For the systems in which we fix the light profile parameters of environmental galaxies (four systems in total, including this one), the first figure for each uses arrows to mark objects whose light is initially modeled and then held fixed in the main inference,
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={0.45cm 0.45cm 0.45cm 0.52cm}, clip,width=0.48\linewidth]{figs/234figs/234observed_image.png}
\captionof{figure}{
\desitwothreefour.
The four lensed images are labeled counterclockwise as A, B, C and D. We mask out the light from five faint objects (blue circles). We model the light of the environmental galaxy (blue arrow) to the upper left of the lensing galaxy and then fix its parameters in the main modeling process. }
\label{fig:234mask}
\end{figure}
We fit for the light intensities, $I_e$ (instead of using linear inversion).
We achieved a reduced $\chi^2~=~0.8789$.
% , which is $<1$ but not too small to suggest that it is merely fitting the noise.
The residuals are excellent (Figure \ref{fig:bestfitmodeldavid}).
The best-fit lens and external shear parameters are presented in Table \ref{tab:234best-fit-mass-params} and their sampling results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:234cornerplotmass}.
The best-fit light parameters are presented in Table~\ref{tab:234best-fit-light-params}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={0.4cm 0.65cm 0.4cm 0.25cm}, clip,scale=0.62]{figs/234figs/234finalmodel.png}
\caption{Best-fit Model \desitwothreefour. From left to right, we show: the observed Hubble image, our best-fit model with the critical curve, the reduced residual, and the unlensed source with the caustic.}
\label{fig:bestfitmodeldavid} % Se coloca después de \caption{}
\end{figure} % Se cierra correctamente el entorno
\vspace{-.3cm}
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}[H]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Best-fit mass parameters for \desitwothreefour.
%for the lens mass profile and the external shear.
\label{tab:234best-fit-mass-params}}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\tablehead{
\colhead{$\theta_E$} &
\colhead{$\gamma$} &
\colhead{$\epsilon_1$} &
\colhead{$\epsilon_2$} &
\colhead{$x$} &
\colhead{$y$} &
\colhead{$\gamma_{ext, 1}$} &
\colhead{$\gamma_{ext, 2}$}
}
\startdata
$1.5466_{-0.0043}^{+0.0062}$&
$2.054_{-0.071}^{+0.055}$&
$-0.139\pm0.010$&
$-0.0324_{-0.0046}^{+0.0045}$&
$-0.0550_{-0.0046}^{+0.0045}$&
$0.115_{-0.014}^{+0.017}$&
$0.046_{-0.013}^{+0.010}$&
$-0.0509_{-0.0038}^{+0.0039}$ \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
%\vspace{-1.8cm}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{figs/234figs/234cornermass_optimized.png}
\caption{Corner plot of the eight mass parameters for \desitwothreefour}
\label{fig:234cornerplotmass}
\end{figure}
\begin{deluxetable}{l|rr|rr}[H]
\tablecaption{Best-fit light parameters for \desitwothreefour.}
\label{tab:234best-fit-light-params}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{8pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Parameter} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Lens light} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Source light} \\
\colhead{} & \colhead{Comp 1} & \colhead{Comp 2} & \colhead{Comp 1} & \colhead{Comp 2}
}\startdata
$\bm{R_e}$ &
$3.87_{-0.28}^{+0.33}$&$0.422_{-0.035}^{+0.039}$&$0.0341^{+0.0027}_{-0.0026}$&$0.0475_{-0.0044}^{+0.0048}$\\[4pt]
$\bm{n}$ &
$2.22_{-0.17}^{+0.19}$&$5.80_{-0.26}^{+0.28}$&$5.71_{-0.42}^{+0.22}$&
$7.82_{-0.30}^{+0.14}$\\[4pt]
$\bm{\epsilon_{1}}$ &
$0.047_{-0.012}^{+0.013}$&$-0.0969_{-0.0035}^{+0.0034}$&$0.196\pm0.022$&
$0.255^{+0.029}_{-0.039}$\\[4pt]
$\bm{\epsilon_{2}}$ &
$-0.259_{-0.021}^{+0.020}$&$0.0217_{-0.0047}^{+0.0049}$&$0.216_{-0.027}^{+0.026}$&
$0.2962^{+0.0029}_{-0.0060}$\\[4pt]
$\bm{x}$ &
$0.136_{-0.019}^{+0.022}$&$-0.0020\pm0.0005$&$-0.0385_{-0.0047}^{+0.0045}$&
$-0.0939_{-0.0074}^{+0.0071}$\\[4pt]
$\bm{y}$ &
$0.0706_{-0.0087}^{+0.0091}$&$0.0340\pm0.0006$&$-0.298_{-0.024}^{+0.033}$&
$-0.281_{-0.024}^{+0.032}$\\[4pt]
$\bm{I_e}$ &
$2.05_{-0.25}^{+0.28}$ & $111_{-15}^{+17}$ & $198_{-28}^{+34}$ & $14.7_{-2.2}^{+2.6}$ \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
Figure \ref{fig:234components} shows the two components of the source, with the first one (left column) being considerably brighter than the second (right column).
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={0.45cm 0.45cm 0.45cm 0.4cm}, clip,width=0.7\linewidth]{figs/234figs/234components.png}
\caption{Source light \ser components in the lensed and unlensed plane for \desitwothreefour from left to right, component 1 and 2, respectively.}
\label{fig:234components}
\end{figure}
For MAP, we used 10,000 samples ($n_\mathrm{MAP}$ in Gu22) and 2000 steps.
% , with a linear transition over 1600 steps from an initial learning rate of $-3 \times 10^{-2}$ to a final learning rate of $-1 \times 10^{-3}$.
It ran for 2 minutes and 33 seconds.
% In our experience, running MAP with more particles or steps did not further lower $\chi^2$, which was $0.8904$ after this step.
SVI was configured with 4000 samples ($n_\mathrm{VI}$ in Gu22) and 4000 steps, using a quadratic transition through the first 3500 steps from an initial learning rate of $0$ to a $-3 \times 10^{-3}$ final rate (for details, see Gu22). It ran for 2 minutes and 41 seconds.
For HMC, we used 8 chains, 1500 burn-in steps, and 30,000 total results, with 20 steps between samples. The target acceptance probability was set at 0.75, the initial step size at $\epsilon = 0.03$, $L = 3$ initial leapfrog steps, and a maximum of 30 leapfrog steps. It ran for 11 hours and 43 minutes.
\emph{All \rhat values are below 1.01.} We achieve an average $\hat{R}$ of 1.0020, with the maximum value being 1.0087.
We note that for this system we tested how low we could drive $\hat{R}$. If we were satisfied with merely “presentable’’ corner plots, or even simply requiring $\hat{R} < 1.1$, the total execution time would have been an order of magnitude lower.
We determine the Einstein radius of the lens to be $\theta_E = 1.5466''$$^{+0.0062}_{-0.0043}$ and the slope of the power law mass profile to be $\gamma = 2.0540^{+0.0553}_{-0.0714}$. The total mass within the critical curve is $8.312^{+0.108}_{-0.062} \times 10^{11} M_{\odot}$.
The magnification
% (Appendix~\ref{sec:append-mag})
results using the three methods in the Appendix of Paper~I are shown in Table~\ref{tab:magnifications_234}.
The uncertainties for the magnification values of image B are the largest due to its proximity to the critical curve.
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}[H]
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablecaption{Magnification estimates for \desitwothreefour using three methods. Values are shown for images A through D. \label{tab:magnifications_234}}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Method} & \colhead{$A$} & \colhead{$B$} & \colhead{$C$} & \colhead{$D$} & \colhead{Total}
}
\startdata
$1^{\text{st}}$ & $19.8\pm2.2$ & $38.5\pm8.2$ & $7.13\pm0.22$ & $0.49\pm0.22$ & $67.6\pm8.5$ \\
$2^{\text{nd}}$ & $17.3 \pm1.3$ & $28.7\pm5.2$ & $8.14\pm0.91$ & $0.23\pm0.15$ & $54.6\pm5.4$ \\
$3^{\text{rd}}$ & $18.8 \pm2.0$ & $34.7\pm5.3$ & $7.17\pm0.49$ & $0.49\pm0.09$ & $62.3\pm5.7$ \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
% Image C appears brighter than Image B, even with lower magnification. This is because, as we observe Figure~\ref{fig:234components}, the first component supplies substantial flux exclusively to C, whereas the second component contributes roughly equally to both images.
% and lowest 1.00006, respectively.
% All mass parameters have an ESS per chain above 100 (calculated with the parameter \crosschaindims in \tf set to 1; see \S~\ref{sec:essdetail}).
% Only one ESS per chain was smaller than 100 ($n_{s}$ for one of the lens components). This unsatisfactory value (ESS of 54) can be explained by the central mask for the lens light.
% The total ESS for the rest of the parameters ranges from 840 to 30,834 with a mean of 8270.
\href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer/?ra=238.5690&dec=+04.7276&layer=ls-dr10-grz&pixscale=0.262&zoom=16}{\desitwothreeeight} was discovered in H21, with a ResNet probability of 1.00, and a human score of 2.5 (out of 4.0), corresponding to a C grade. As stated in H21, all candidates with a human inspection score $\geq 2.5$ are likely lensing systems. The lens redshift, \zd = 0.7768 is from DESI DR1 (based on the 4000 \ang break, Ca~H\&K absorption). The source redshift, \zs = 1.72 is from Keck NIRES (Paper~VI, in prep.).
This system has an Einstein radius of $\theta_E=1.5''$, slightly larger than the \tE values of the simulated systems in the original \gigal paper ($1.1''$). Due to its relatively small size in the set of systems modeled in this work, uncluttered environment
% (just one nearby galaxy to the southeast corner of the cutout;
(Figure~\ref{fig:238cutout}), it is relatively straightforward to model. We use a cutout with $120\times 120$ pixels and a $27\times27$ pixel empirical PSF, generated using the procedure outlined in Section~\ref{sec:psf_section}.
We model the lens light with two elliptical \ser profiles.
We mask out two small objects, one to the northwest (upper right) and another near a lensed arc (circles in Figure~\ref{fig:238cutout}). We model the source using two elliptical \ser profiles. In addition, we model the light but not mass of an environmental galaxy to the southeast with an elliptical \ser profile (arrow in Figure~\ref{fig:238cutout}), for a total of 38 parameters.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={0cm 0cm 0cm 0.4cm}, clip, width=0.637\linewidth]{figs/238figs/cutout.png}
\caption{\desitwothreeeight. We mask out pixels in the two circles, and model the light of the environmental galaxy in the lower left (blue arrow). The two sources are lensed into a quad (images labeled 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D) and a double (2A and 2B).}
\label{fig:238cutout}
\end{figure}
This system is modeled with linear inversion to solve for the light intensities.
We achieved a reduced $\chi^2=0.95$ with superb residuals (Figure \ref{fig:238model}).
The best-fit lens and external shear parameters are presented in Table \ref{tab:238mass} and their sampling results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:238masscorner}.
The best-fit light parameters are presented in Table~\ref{tab:238light}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={6.2cm 10.4cm 4.5cm 0.9cm}, clip, width=1.02\linewidth]{figs/238figs/HMCoutput.png}
\caption{Best-fit Model \desitwothreeeight. From left to right, we show: the observed Hubble image, our best-fit model with the critical curve, the reduced residuals, and the unlensed source with the caustic. For calculating $\chi^2$ we mask a circular region with a width of 12~pixels ($0.8''$) at the center of the lensing galaxy. This area is not masked during modeling. The unmasked $\chi^2$ is 1.004. Only the two circles in Figure~\ref{fig:238cutout} are masked during modeling.}
\label{fig:238model}
\end{figure}
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}[H]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Best-fit mass parameters for \desitwothreeeight.
%for the lens mass profile and the external shear.
\label{tab:238mass}}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\tablehead{
\colhead{$\theta_E$} &
\colhead{$\gamma$} &
\colhead{$\epsilon_1$} &
\colhead{$\epsilon_2$} &
\colhead{$x$} &
\colhead{$y$} &
\colhead{$\gamma_{ext, 1}$} &
\colhead{$\gamma_{ext, 2}$}
}
\startdata
$1.475_{-0.003}^{+0.002}$& %theta_E
$1.89\pm0.02$& %gamma
$0.037\pm0.006$& %epsilon_1
$0.011_{-0.006}^{+0.005}$& %epsilon_2
$-0.123\pm0.003$& %x
$-0.139\pm0.003$& %y
$-0.161\pm0.004$& %gamma_1
$-0.024\pm0.004$\\ %gamma_2
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{figs/238figs/masscorner.png}
\caption{Corner plot of the eight mass parameters for \desitwothreeeight.}
\label{fig:238masscorner}
\end{figure}
\begin{deluxetable}{l|rr|rr|c}[H]
\tablecaption{Best-fit light parameters for \desitwothreeeight}
\label{tab:238light}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{8pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Parameter} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Lens} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Source} &
\colhead{Environmental galaxy} \\
\colhead{} &
\colhead{Comp 1} & \colhead{Comp 2} &
\colhead{Comp 1} & \colhead{Comp 2} &
\colhead{}
}
\startdata
$\bm{R_e}$ & $0.452_{-0.006}^{+0.007}$ & $0.63\pm{0.01}$ & $0.072\pm{0.002}$ & $0.247\pm{0.007}$ & $0.058\pm{0.002}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{n}$ & $2.375_{-0.06}^{+0.09}$ & $3.884_{-0.06}^{+0.05}$ & $0.31_{-0.05}^{+0.07}$ & $1.18\pm{0.04}$ & $9.95_{-0.08}^{+0.04}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{\epsilon_{1}}$ & $-0.122\pm{0.006}$ & $-0.095\pm{0.003}$ & $0.30\pm{0.02}$ & $-0.053\pm{0.009}$ & $-0.133\pm{0.006}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{\epsilon_{2}}$ & $0.147\pm{0.005}$ & $0.103_{-0.002}^{+0.003}$ & $-0.06\pm{0.02}$ & $0.207\pm{0.008}$ & $0.289_{-0.006}^{+0.005}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{x}$ & $-0.0975\pm{0.0003}$ & $-0.108\pm{0.001}$ & $0.33\pm{0.01}$ & $0.042\pm{0.003}$ & $-3.3155\pm{0.0004}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{y}$ & $-0.0330_{-0.0010}^{+0.0004}$ & $-0.067\pm0.002$ & $0.013\pm0.005$ & $-0.151\pm0.003$ & $-3.0873\pm0.0006$ \\[2pt]
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
We show the two \ser components for the source in (Figure~\ref{fig:238-comps}). One source (component 1) is lensed into a double, while the other (component 2) is lensed into an Einstein cross.
The redshift for component 2 is $\zs = 1.7210$. Component~1 was targeted by DESI and Keck~NIRES; however, so far we have not detected any clear spectral features. Given the proximity of the unlensed positions of these two components, they possibly indicate a source with two components or a pair of merging galaxies.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{figs//238figs/HMCdeconstructed.png}
\caption{From left to right, source component 1 and 2, respectively, in the lensed and unlensed plane for \desitwothreeeight.}
\label{fig:238-comps}
\end{figure}
For MAP, we used $n_\mathrm{MAP}$ = 4000 samples over 1000 steps, with square root transition over all 1000 iterations from an initial learning rate of $-1\times10^{-2}$ to a final value of $-1\times10^{-4}$. It ran for five minutes and 55 seconds.
For SVI, we used $n_\mathrm{VI}=500$ samples over 6000 iterations, with a square root transition
% over all 12000 steps
from an initial learning rate of $1\times10^{-6}$ to a final value of $1\times10^{-3}$. This stage lasted 10 minutes.
% The ELBO loss as a function of iterations is shown in [figure].
Finally, for HMC we employed 16 chains over 160,000 steps, sampling every 100 steps for a total of 1,200 samples per chain after the 400 sample burn-in. We also discard the first half of the samples and only use the latter 600/chain for reporting the posterior distribution. The target acceptance probability was set at 0.75, with an initial step size of \( \epsilon = 0.03, L = 3 \) initial leapfrog steps, and a maximum of 30 leapfrog steps. HMC ran for 193 minutes and 36 seconds. The total execution time for all three modeling steps was 209 minutes and 31 seconds.
We have successfully sampled this system with $\hat R$ values below 1.1 for all parameters.
% The corner plot for the mass parameters is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:238masscorner}.
The best-fit Einstein radius $\theta_E=1.475''$$_{-0.003}^{+0.002}$ and the mass profile slope, $\gamma=1.89\pm0.02$. The total projected mass within the critical curve is $9.91\pm0.04\times10^{11}M_{\odot}$. For magnifications, we use three different methods as described in the Appendix of Paper~I. The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:238magnification}.
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccc||ccc}[H]
\label{tab:238magnification}
\tablecaption{Magnifications for \desitwothreeeight using three methods. We drew 250 random samples from the HMC chains for the calculation.}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Method} &
\colhead{$1A$} &
\colhead{$1B$} &
\colhead{$1C$} &
\colhead{$1D$} &
\colhead{Total 1} &
\colhead{$2A$} &
\colhead{$2B$} &
\colhead{Total 2}
}
\startdata
$1^{\text{st}}$ & $8.4\pm0.4$ & $-5.9\pm0.4$ & $3.7\pm0.1$ & $-3.9\pm0.2$ & $22.0\pm1.1$ & $-2.4\pm0.1$ & $2.9\pm0.1$ & $5.3\pm0.2$\\
$2^{\text{nd}}$ & $8.5\pm0.4$ & $-6.0\pm0.4$ & $3.8\pm0.2$ & $-4.1\pm0.2$ & $22.5\pm1.1$ & $-2.5\pm0.1$ & $2.9\pm0.1$ & $5.4\pm0.2$ \\
$3^{\text{rd}}$ & $8.1\pm0.4$ & $-5.8\pm0.3$ & $3.7\pm0.1$ & $-3.9\pm0.2$ & $21.5\pm1.0$ & $-2.4\pm0.1$ & $2.9\pm0.1$ & $5.3\pm0.2$ \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\newpage
Finally, for this system, we even include the environmental galaxy in the fully forward modeling, with all 38 parameters sampled simultaneously, with no fixed parameters. The complete posterior distributions are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:238full-corner}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/238figs/238full-corner.png}
\caption{Corner plot of all 38 model parameters for \desitwothreeeight}
\label{fig:238full-corner}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Full Forward Modeling and Convergence Metrics}
In this work, we have achieved two main goals: 1) full forward modeling for all six systems---all parameters describing the lens and the source are sampled simultaneously in a single inference.
2) All six systems meet explicit, quantitative criteria for statistical convergence based on both the Gelman--Rubin statistic ($\hat{R}$) and effective sample size (ESS).
This is despite the fact that the systems modeled in this work span a wide range of image morphology, Einstein radii, and environmental complexity (Table~\ref{tab:model-sys}).
Together with the system in Paper~I, this brings the total to seven.
This demonstrates that fully Bayesian modeling of complex, bright, galaxy-scale lenses with high-resolution space-based imaging can yield robust inferences, even for highly nonlinear strong-lensing models with $\gtrsim40$ parameters determined \emph{simultaneously}. These results underscore the steadily increasing maturity of strong gravitational lens modeling and provide a foundation for exploiting the thousands of high-quality lenses with high resolution soon to arrive from \hst, \euc, \emph{Roman}, and \jwst \citep[e.g.,][]{nightingale2025, silver2025}.
This approach stands in contrast to ``staged'' modeling strategies (e.g., optimize lens light first, then fix those parameters before optimizing mass, and so on). While computationally convenient, such sequential procedures have two major drawbacks: 1) they effectively impose more restrictive priors and risk converging to a local rather than global optimum, where the posterior probability mass is the greatest; and
2) they can artificially suppress the posterior variance of key quantities such as the mass density slope, \gma. By jointly modeling and sampling \emph{all} parameters pertaining to the lens mass, lens and source light, and external shear, our posterior space is not constrained by the order in which individual components are optimized.
\subsection{Incorporation of Environmental Galaxies in Full Forward Modeling}
We have, in fact, gone beyond simultaneously modeling the lens and source parameters in this work. For two systems in this sample---\desionesixfive and \desitwothreeeight---we also include the light of the environmental galaxies directly in the full forward modeling. \desitwofiveseven does not have an environmental galaxy bright enough to be modeled. For each of the remaining four systems, we fix only five or six light profile parameters associated with a single environmental galaxy, except in the most complex case, \desitwofoursix (\S~\ref{sec:desi246}), which has 78 parameters in total. For this system, 28 light profile parameters for three environmental galaxies are fixed for sampling tractability, while the 50 parameters pertaining to the lens and the source are sampled simultaneously---an unprecedented scale for a galaxy-scale lens using \hst-quality imaging.
Our next step is to incorporate the environmental galaxies in these four systems into full forward modeling, then extend this approach to all 26 galaxy-scale lenses in our \hst\ program (see Paper~I), and ultimately to group- and cluster-scale lenses \citep[e.g.,][]{sheu2024}.
\subsection{Mass Slope Evolution}
The predicted evolution of $\gma$ with redshift is subtle, and robust inference requires reliable characterization of the intrinsic scatter in these measurements. Published $\gma$--$z$ distributions, including the recent AGEL results of \citet{sahu2024}, reveal a tight locus of slopes near the isothermal value at $z_d \lesssim 0.3$, but a wider distribution at $0.5 \lesssim z_d \lesssim 0.8$. Our results reinforce this broader picture: lenses in this redshift range span $\gma = 1.4$--$2.5$, comparable to the full range seen in the literature.
We also report the mass density slope for an elliptical galaxy at $z_d > 1$: $\gma = 2.616 \pm 0.17$ for DESI~J246.0062+01.4836 at $\zd = 1.092$.
\subsection{Lens Modeling Time}
Finally, we note that the modeling times quoted in this work reflect the time required to achieve convergence for all parameters sampled according to the $\hat{R}$ and ESS criteria. If only ``presentable'' corner plots and reasonable residuals were desired,
execution times would be an order of magnitude or more shorter. The timing benchmarks presented here should therefore be interpreted as practical estimates for rigorous, convergence-validated modeling.
Together, these advances establish a framework that can support a new generation of precision strong lensing studies. With validated posteriors, the data presented here---and especially larger samples to come---can confidently address high-impact questions in galaxy evolution and cosmology.
% is to minimize the number of fixed parameters.
% , as fixing parameters can artificially suppress the posterior variance of key quantities such as the mass-density slope~$\gma$.
% Full forward modeling is the most reliable method to propagate covariances among deflector mass, deflector light, and source light parameters.
% In this paper---Paper V of the DESI Strong Lens Foundry series---we have presented the first convergence-validated sample of DESI strong gravitational lenses with high-resolution \hst\ imaging. By adopting full forward modeling wherever feasible, minimizing the number of fixed parameters, and enforcing explicit sampling diagnostics for every parameter, we establish a methodological standard for future, large-sample investigations. In our sample of seven systems, we likewise observe increased scatter in $\gamma$ at intermediate redshifts, consistent with earlier reports.
In this Paper V of the DESI Strong Lens Foundry series,
we present the first sample of strong lenses with \hst modeled with full forward modeling and quantitative convergence validation ($\hat{R}$ and ESS).
We use the open-source \gigal.
% we have presented the first convergence-validated lens models for a sample of strong lenses with high-resolution \hst\ imaging, using \gigal.
% By adopting full forward modeling
% % wherever feasible, minimizing the number of fixed parameters,
% and enforcing explicit sampling diagnostics for every parameter,
For each of the seven systems in this sample, we achieve $\hat{R} < 1.1$ and ESS $> 10{,}000$ for every lens and source parameter and establish a methodological foundation for large-sample studies of galaxy-scale strong lenses.
Reporting quantitative sampling-convergence diagnostics such as $\hat{R}$ and ESS has become standard in cosmological inference, and strong-lensing analyses are now positioned to benefit from the same transparent practices.
In this sample, we observe increased scatter in $\gamma$ at intermediate redshifts ($z \sim 0.5\, \text{--}\, 0.8$), consistent with earlier reports.
Our sample also extends mass density slope inference for elliptical galaxies beyond $z =1$, with a convergence-validated measurement of $\gma = 2.62 \pm 0.17$ for DESI~J246.0062+01.4836 at $\zd = 1.092$.
In our view, a more definitive conclusion on the mass slope evolution awaits a uniform, convergence-tested, and full forward modeling effort across a large sample of systems---including the known lenses---so that statistical uncertainties are robustly characterized and intrinsic redshift evolution can then be distinguished from modeling systematics and galaxy-to-galaxy diversity.
Modeling real systems with high-resolution data is inherently more challenging than fitting simulated systems (Gu22), as we previously demonstrated in our application of \gigal\ to \hst\ observations \citep[][Paper~I]{huang2025a}. The present analysis further shows that large \tE, complex environments, and source light structure
% and PSF systematics
can significantly increase the cutout size and number of model parameters, making efficient sampling more challenging.
% and inhibit sampling efficiency.
We nevertheless confirm that with \gigal, as in Paper~I, convergence-validated, full forward modeling is scalable to the dimensionality required by real systems. Continued improvements in GPU-parallel inference and adaptive covariance learning (N.~Ratier-Werbin et al. in prep.)
will further expand feasibility to much larger lens samples.
With continued hardware and software advances in GPU-accelerated modeling and flexible parameterizations, strong lensing is poised to deliver precision constraints on galaxy evolution, dark matter physics, and cosmology in the era of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of high-quality strong lenses.
% We emphasize this as recognition of how far strong lens modeling has come and of the precision science now within reach.
% Joint inference avoids the risk of staged parameter freezing---which restricts the accessible posterior volume and may converge to a local rather than global optimum. With continued advances in GPU-accelerated modeling and flexible parameterizations, strong lensing is poised to deliver precision constraints on galaxy evolution, dark matter physics, and cosmology in the era of thousands of high-quality strong lenses.
% This work provides a crucial stepping stone, illustrating both the feasibility and the necessity of convergence-validated inference as the community enters the era of thousands of high-quality strong lenses.
%%%% We thank
%%%% We are grateful to Joel Brownstein and Lexi Moustakas for granting us access to the Master Lens Database (\url{http://admin.masterlens.org/index.php}).
We thank Peter Harrington, Nestor Demeure, Steve Farrell, and Rollin Thomas at the National Energy Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) for their consultation and advice.
This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility operated under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 and the Computational HEP program in The Department of Energy's Science Office of High Energy Physics provided resources through the ``Cosmology Data Repository" project (Grant \#KA2401022).
X.H. acknowledges the University of San Francisco Faculty Development Fund.
A.D.'s research is supported by National Science Foundation's National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory,
which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
This paper is based on observations at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical
Astronomy Observatory (NOAO Prop. ID: 2014B-0404; co-PIs: D. J. Schlegel and A. Dey), which is operated by the Association of
Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the
National Science Foundation.
This project used data obtained with the Dark Energy Camera (DECam),
which was constructed by the Dark Energy Survey (DES) collaboration.
Funding for the DES Projects has been provided by
the U.S. Department of Energy,
the U.S. National Science Foundation,
the Ministry of Science and Education of Spain,
the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom,
the Higher Education Funding Council for England,
the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
the Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago,
the Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State University,
the Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas A\&M University,
Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos, Funda{\c c}{\~a}o Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo {\`a} Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro,
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient{\'i}fico e Tecnol{\'o}gico and the Minist{\'e}rio da Ci{\^e}ncia, Tecnologia e Inovac{\~a}o,
the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,
and the Collaborating Institutions in the Dark Energy Survey.
The Collaborating Institutions are
Argonne National Laboratory,
the University of California at Santa Cruz,
the University of Cambridge,
Centro de Investigaciones En{\'e}rgeticas, Medioambientales y Tecnol{\'o}gicas-Madrid,
the University of Chicago,
University College London,
the DES-Brazil Consortium,
the University of Edinburgh,
the Eidgen{\"o}ssische Technische Hoch\-schule (ETH) Z{\"u}rich,
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
the Institut de Ci{\`e}ncies de l'Espai (IEEC/CSIC),
the Institut de F{\'i}sica d'Altes Energies,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
the Ludwig-Maximilians Universit{\"a}t M{\"u}nchen and the associated Excellence Cluster Universe,
the University of Michigan,
{the} National Optical Astronomy Observatory,
the University of Nottingham,
the Ohio State University,
the OzDES Membership Consortium
the University of Pennsylvania,
the University of Portsmouth,
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory,
Stanford University,
the University of Sussex,
and Texas A\&M University.
%%https://www.nersc.gov/users/accounts/user-accounts/acknowledge-nersc/
%%http://legacysurvey.org/
This section describes the empirical point spread function (PSF) used for lens modeling.
% For all systems, we use an empirical PSF.
% had better modeling results than using standardized PSF models (for example, a Gaussian PSF). The empirical PSF was generated for each system as follows.
The PSF for each system is generated from stars
% captured
extracted from the respective fits file containing the strong lensing system.
% The \hst image has a size of around 2000 by 2000 pixels.
We show the image containing \desionefivefour as an example in figure \ref{fig:psf_cutout}.
% Unlike in the modeling process, this image is not cropped.
With the aim of selecting several stars in the \hst image, we specify an appropriate pixel value threshold.
% We find a threshold of around 100 works well. This step is done using the \texttt{find\_peaks} function of the \photutils{} module.
% Typically, a star will occupy more than a single pixel in the HST image, so multiple brightest pixels may belong to the same bright object. Moreover,
Pixels belonging to other kinds of objects (e.g., galaxies) may be
% accounted for
included in the list of brightest pixels.
We therefore compare this list
% the fits file to
with the pixel positions in the image, and only keep the pixels that belong to stars.
Moreover, we avoid very bright, saturated stars.
% Finally, each of the chosen pixels ought to correspond to different stars. This can be easily done by visual inspection.
% electing 4 to 6 different stars is enough for our purpose. Figure \ref{fig:psf_cutout} shows blue circles around the four selected stars for \desionefivefour.
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\makebox[\linewidth]{
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,scale=0.63]{figs/154figs/whole_cutout.png}}
\captionof{figure}{\hst image containing \desionefivefour (near the center of the image). Circled in blue are the four stars used to generate the empirical PSF.}
\label{fig:psf_cutout}
\end{minipage}
Finally, the empirical PSF is generated from these cutouts using the \texttt{EPSFBuilder} function of \texttt{photutils}\footnote{\url{https://photutils.readthedocs.io/en/stable/}}.
As an example, Figure \ref{fig:psf_result} shows an empirical PSF for \desionefivefour.
% Next, we extract cutout images centered on the the selected stars.
% We use the \texttt{extract\_stars} function of \photutils{} by supplying the fits image,
% the pixel coordinates of each star, and the size of the cutout.
% It is important to set the cutout image size to a value that encompasses the core of the star. For most systems, choosing a side of around 25 to 35 pixels is sufficient to capture the diffraction pattern.
% Figure \ref{fig:psf_stars} displays the four chosen stars for \desionefivefour.
% \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
% \makebox[\linewidth]{
% \includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,scale=0.35]{figs/154figs/stars_plot.png}}
% \captionof{figure}{Cutout images (31 pixel on the side) of the four selected stars for \desionefivefour,
% used to generate the empirical PSF.}
% \label{fig:psf_stars}
% \end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\makebox[\linewidth]{
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,scale=0.75]{figs/154figs/psf154_paper.png}}
\captionof{figure}{Empirical PSF for \desionefivefour, with 31 pixels on the side.}
\label{fig:psf_result}
\end{minipage}
Below we present the modeling results of \desionefivefour (\S~\ref{sec:desi154}),
\desionesixfive (modeled in Paper ~I, briefly summarized in \S~\ref{sec:desi165}),
\desizeroninefour (\S~\ref{sec:desi094}),
\desitwofiveseven (\S~\ref{sec:desi257}),
and \desitwofoursix (\S~\ref{sec:desi246}),
ordered by increasing lens redshift.
\subsection{\desionefivefour}\label{sec:desi154}
\input{desi154-01.tex}
\vspace{-1cm}
\subsection{\desionesixfive }\label{sec:desi165}
\input{desi165-06.tex}
\subsection{\desizeroninefour}\label{sec:desi094}
\input{desi094+50.tex}
\vspace{-0.4 cm}
\subsection{\desitwofiveseven}\label{sec:desi257}
\input{desi257+31.tex}
\newpage
\subsection{\desitwofoursix}\label{sec:desi246}
\input{desi246+01.tex}
\section{Convergence Metrics}\label{sec:append-converg}
\input{appendix-rhat-ess}
% \section{Magnification} \label{sec:append-mag}
% \input{appendix_magnif}
\href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer/?ra=154.6972&dec=-01.3590&layer=ls-dr10-grz&pixscale=0.26&size=101&zoom=16}{\desionefivefour} was discovered in H20, with a ResNet probability of 1.000, and a human grade of A.
The lens redshift,
$\zd = 0.3884$, is from SDSS~DR16 \citep{ahumada2020a} and
DESI obtained its source redshift, \zs = 1.4304 with a strong [\ion{O}{2}] detection.\footnote{There are actually two DESI spectra targeting the brightest knot of the main arc, yielding two slightly different redshifts at 1.4303 and 1.4305. This is within the redshift uncertainty of DESI (Paper~II).
In this work, we use the average of these two values, $\zs = 1.4304$.}
Figure \ref{fig:system154} shows \desionefivefour.
% and its surroundings. T
The Legacy Surveys image for this system features an elliptical galaxy as the lens.
To its right, there is a long lensed arc with a bright ``knot'' near the top (denoted with the letter ``A'' in Figure~\ref{fig:system154}).
To the left of the lens is the counter image of the same lensed source, referred to by the letter ``B''.
The cutout for this system has a size of $120 \times 120$ pixels. Besides the central elliptical galaxy and the lensed source, the cutout also contains other objects.
There is a small environmental galaxy to the upper left of the main lensed arc (arrow in Figure~\ref{fig:system154}).
We include it as part of the lens model, and we will refer to it as the ``nearby galaxy'' (we only model its light).
There are a few other even dimmer objects.
% Furthermore, there is also light from other galaxies in the vicinity of the lensing system inside the cutout.
The light and mass of these objects are not included in the lens model.
They are masked out during the modeling process (circles in Figure \ref{fig:system154}).
Finally, there is a bright object at about 5.5\twopr from the lensing galaxy, to its upper left (also circled in Figure~\ref{fig:system154}).
DESI DR1 \citep{desidrone2025a} reveals it to be a galaxy at $z = 0.7640$.
% It is about twice as far away from the lens compared with the Einstein radius,
It is far enough away that we do not model its mass and simply mask out its light.
% A blue arrow points to the nearby galaxy.
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\makebox[\linewidth]{
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,scale=0.90]{figs/154figs/system_observed_image.png}}
\captionof{figure}{\hst image of \desionefivefour.
The brightest parts of the lensed images are labeled as A and B.
Fainted objects circled in blue are masked and not modeled.
% during the modeling process.
We model the light of the small environmental galaxy (arrow) north of image A, and then fix its parameters (see text).}
\label{fig:system154}
\end{minipage}
This is a challenging system to model, for three reasons. Firstly, its size. With an Einstein radius of nearly $\tE \sim 3''$, it stands at the limit between galaxy and group scale strong lensing \citep[e.g.,][]{limousin2009a}.
For group/cluster lenses, the modeling is usually done only using the images positions and not at the pixel level \citep[e.g.,][]{verdugo2011a}.
% The large size means that we need to use a large cutout of 120 $\times$ 120 pixels. This substantially increases the computational cost.
In addition, given that the area enclosed by \tE is $\sim 9\times$ larger than typical galaxy-scale strong lens with a $\tE \sim 1''$, it is not a surprise that there are more environmental galaxies near the arcs.
Each of these needs to be properly treated.
% surrounding objects appear near the system, and the light of some of these has been an inconvenience while modeling the system. %of them are dim and far enough so that masking them is sufficient. In other cases, they are so bright that, if given enough flexibility, the model will try to replicate their light, even if they have been masked##.
Secondly, the lens is very bright.
This is expected given that it is a massive lensing galaxy with a large \tE.
It is so luminous that faint diffraction spikes are visible out to $\sim 1.5''$ from the center of the lensing galaxy.
Thus, we need to use a large PSF size of $59 \times 59$ pixels ($\sim 4\times$ larger than for the other systems in this work) to properly model its light at large radii.
% \footnote{Using a more typical PSF size results in cross pattern to appear around the lensing galaxy}
% surrounded by areas of blue residual.}
% capture the lens light psf spikes.
% This increases the computational cost in the modeling process.
Thirdly, the lensed images are also very bright.
In fact, their peak flux values are comparable to those of the lens; this is unusual.
Typically, the lensed arcs are considerably fainter than the lens, which is certainly the case for the other systems in this work.
% , the brightness of the lensed images is significantly smaller compared to that of the lens.
But for this system, the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the lensed images is very high.
In fact, image B has an SNR around 250, and image A around 225, calculated by averaging flux value of the top 5\% pixels.
For comparison, the SNR's of the top 5\% brightest pixels of the four images for \desitwothreefour (\S~\ref{sec:desi234}) range between 63.1 and 84.3.
It is well known that source structure can be difficult to model well.
With a very high SNR for the ``knots'' in the lensed images in this system,
this poses a significant challenge to lens modeling.
%The PSF was constructed empirically using Photutils.
Our model consists of four elliptical \ser's for the source light.
% Simpler configurations of source light profiles failed to fit the observed image and pass the statistical convergence tests. More complex and flexible source models were tested as well. From shapelets with $n_{max}$ from 2 to 8, to different combinations of shapelets and sersics. However, these models always presented the following problem.
% With all the previous premises, we present the model specification for this system, as well as its prior.
%The mass model consists of an elliptical power law (EPL) for the lens with external shear.
For lens light, we mask the center of the lens and model it with a single elliptical \ser.
% This decision was made after trying other parametric models (with more \ser) for the lens light. The results indicated that two elliptical \ser were still not enough to correctly capture its light structure. Given that the rest of the system's components already make this a high-dimensional modeling problem (38 parameters), instead of adding more \ser profiles to model the lens light, we chose the mentioned strategy.
% The source light profile consists of four elliptical \ser profiles.
Finally, for the nearby galaxy, we do not model its mass and its light is modeled by a single elliptical \ser profile.
% The reader can observe that the light parameters of this galaxy are fixed.
Initially, the six light parameters of this galaxy were modeled together with the rest of the model's parameters.
% (or, full forward modeling).
Once a good residual was achieved in that area,
their values were fixed. This helps reduce the dimensionality of the model parameter space.
This system is modeled with linear inversion to solve for the light intensities. The final model after sampling from HMC is shown in Figure \ref{fig:model154}. The final reduced $\chi^{2}$ is $0.786$. The best-fit mass parameters for the lens appear in Table \ref{tab:best-fit-mass-params154}, and their posterior distribution in Figure \ref{fig:cornermass154}.
The best-fit values for the light parameters appear in Table~\ref{tab:light_params_154}.
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\makebox[\linewidth]{
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,scale=0.53]{figs/154figs/best_HMC.png}}
\captionof{figure}{
Our best-fit model.
From left to right, we show:
the observed \emph{Hubble} image (the orientation is the same as in Figure \ref{fig:system154}), our best-fit model with critical curves. Note that since $\gamma<2 $,
there are two critical curves and two caustics),
the reduced residual,
and the unlensed source with caustics.
}
\label{fig:model154}
\end{minipage}
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}[H]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Best-fit mass parameters for \desionefivefour.
%for the lens mass profile and the external shear.
\label{tab:best-fit-mass-params154}}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\tablehead{
\colhead{$\theta_E$} &
\colhead{$\gamma$} &
\colhead{$\epsilon_1$} &
\colhead{$\epsilon_2$} &
\colhead{$x$} &
\colhead{$y$} &
\colhead{$\gamma_{ext, 1}$} &
\colhead{$\gamma_{ext, 2}$}
}
\startdata
$2.8982_{-0.0011}^{+0.0010}$&
$1.411\pm{0.016}$&
$0.0196_{-0.0020}^{+0.0022}$&
$-0.0322\pm{0.0017}$&
$-0.1649_{-0.0035}^{+0.0033}$&
$-0.0287\pm{0.0019}$&
$-0.0076_{-0.0022}^{+0.0024}$&
$-0.0027\pm{0.0015}$ \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\vspace{-1.9cm}
\begin{deluxetable}{l|c|cccc}[H]
\tablecaption{Best-fit light parameters for \desionefivefour}
\label{tab:light_params_154}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{8pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Parameter} &
\colhead{Lens light} &
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Source light} \\
\colhead{} &
\colhead{} &
\colhead{Comp 1} & \colhead{Comp 2} & \colhead{Comp 3} & \colhead{Comp 4}
}
\startdata
$\bm{R_e}$ & $2.954_{-0.062}^{+0.064}$ & $0.0680\pm{0.0035}$ & $0.0533_{-0.0069}^{+0.0073}$ & $0.0110_{-0.0004}^{+0.0005}$ & $0.0520_{-0.0020}^{+0.0021}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{n}$ & $7.334\pm{0.093}$ & $2.57_{-0.13}^{+0.15}$ & $7.14_{-0.48}^{+0.27}$ & $0.709_{-0.045}^{+0.049}$ & $0.344_{-0.029}^{+0.030}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{\epsilon_{1}}$ &
$0.0881\pm{0.0008}$ & $-0.099_{-0.012}^{+0.011}$ & $0.010^{+0.024}_{-0.023}$ & $0.039\pm{0.022}$ & $0.375_{-0.015}^{+0.014}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{\epsilon_{2}}$ &
$-0.0519\pm{0.0008}$ &
$-0.073\pm{0.017}$ & $-0.2564^{+0.027}_{-0.029}$ & $-0.246\pm{0.017}$ &
$0.402\pm{0.014}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{x}$ &
$-0.1814\pm{0.0009}$ & $0.0178^{+0.0080}_{-0.0083}$ & $-0.0307_{-0.0068}^{+0.0062}$ & $-0.0116_{-0.0074}^{+0.0070}$ & $-0.0228_{-0.0074}^{+0.0071}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{y}$ & $-0.0893\pm{0.0009}$ & $-0.0553_{-0.0020}^{+0.0021}$ & $0.0171\pm{0.0025}$ &
$-0.0236\pm{0.0020}$ & $-0.0460_{-0.0022}^{+0.0021}$ \\[2pt]
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{figs/154figs/hmc_mass_corner_plot_5_12_2025.png}
\caption{Corner plot for the eight mass parameters for \desionefivefour.}
\label{fig:cornermass154}
\end{figure}
The \rhat values for all parameters satisfy the convergence criterion, $\rhat<1.1$. In fact, the mean $\rhat$ is $1.0011$ and the maximum $1.0047$.
From the HMC results, we estimate the magnification and the mass enclosed inside the critical curve. For the former, we use three different methods as described in the Appendix of Paper~I. In particular, we computed the magnification for lensed images A (including the main lensed arc) and B separately (see Figure \ref{fig:system154}). The results appear in Table \ref{tab:magnifications_154}. We find the projected enclosed mass within the \tE to be $M (< \tE) =1.8203\pm_{0.0014}^{0.0013}\times 10^{12}M_{\odot}$.
\begin{deluxetable}{lccc}[H]
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\tablecaption{Magnification calculations for \desionefivefour using three approaches, for images A and B, and the total magnification, respectively.}
\label{tab:magnifications_154}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Method} &
\colhead{$A$} &
\colhead{$B$} &
\colhead{Total}
}
\startdata
$1^{\text{st}}$ & $88.88\pm^{7.82}_{7.87}$ & $19.66\pm^{1.59}_{1.86}$ & $108.55\pm^{9.42}_{9.55}$\\
$2^{\text{nd}}$ & $82.19\pm^{7.27}_{7.87}$ & $21.83\pm^{1.67}_{1.98}$ & $104.02\pm^{8.74}_{9.95}$\\
$3^{\text{rd}}$ & $80.85\pm^{6.15}_{7.75}$ & $19.97\pm^{1.56}_{2.00}$ & $100.82\pm^{7.57}_{9.87}$\\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\desionesixfive was discovered in H21 and modeled in Paper~I.
Based on color and photo-$z$,
this galaxy appears to be at the center,
and the brightest member, of a small group.
The lens and source redshifts are $z_d = 0.4834$ and $z_s = 1.6748$.
The Legacy Surveys image of \desionesixfive shows an elliptical galaxy surrounded by what appears to be an almost complete Einstein ring, with
the \hst image revealing that it is a quadruply lensed system.
Similar to five other systems in this work (with the exception of \desionefivefour), we used a $27 \times 27$ pixel empirical PSF.
Our mass model comprises an elliptical power law (EPL) for the main lens with external shear.
We model the lens light with two elliptical \ser profiles,
and the source light with an elliptical S\'{e}rsic profile and a shapelets with $n_{max} = 6$ \citep{birrer2015a}.
We determined the Einstein radius to be $\theta_E = \thetaEfit$,
the slope of the power-law mass profile, $\gamma = \gammafit$,
and the total mass within the critical curve, $M(< \tE) = 1.7390_{-0.0043}^{+0.0046} \times 10^{12} \, M_{\odot}$.
All \rhat values are below 1.06.
It is one of three systems in which even an environmental galaxy is included in the full forward modeling.
% , we also presented the full posterior corner plot for this system in Paper~I.
% On a GPU node on the \emph{Perlmutter} supercomputer at NERSC,\footnote{\url{https://www.nersc.gov/}}
% which has four A100 GPUs,
% the total execution time is 3 hrs.\ and 13 min.,
% with the MAP, SVI, and HMC stages taking 1 hr.\ 9 min., 1 hr.\ 52 min, and 12 min., respectively.
For more details, we refer the reader to Paper~I.
\href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer/?ra=94.5639&dec=+50.3059&layer=ls-dr10-grz&pixscale=0.262&zoom=16}{\desizeroninefour}
was discovered in H21, with a ResNet probability of 1.000, and a human grade of A.
The spectroscopic lens redshift, \zd = 0.552 is from Lick and DESI and source redshift, \zs = 3.3332, from Keck NIRES (both were reported in Paper~III).
Figure~\ref{fig:system094} shows \desizeroninefour in a cutout with 120 pixels on the side.
The image consists of a foreground elliptical galaxy with a large lensed arc and a counter-arc on the opposite side of the lens. There is also a small environmental galaxy towards the lower left of the main arc (arrow in Figure~\ref{fig:system094}).
As with \desionefivefour, we will refer to this object as the nearby galaxy.
% image is modeled separately from the lensing system.
We also identify and mask out several faint objects in the cutout image (circles in Figure~\ref{fig:system094}).
\begin{minipage}[H]{\linewidth}
\makebox[\linewidth]{
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,scale=0.70]{figs/094figs/desi094.png}}
\captionof{figure}{\hst image of \desizeroninefour.
Faint objects circled in blue are masked out and not modeled.
% during the modeling process.
We model the light of the small environmental galaxy (arrow) and then fix its parameters.}
\label{fig:system094}
\end{minipage}
This system is challenging to model due to several factors. First, its Einstein radius of around $\tE \approx 2.3''$ is relatively large.
Furthermore, we find that a single \ser profile is inadequate for modeling the source.
% The brightest parts of the lensed image also manifest themselves in irregular ways, suggesting complexity in the unlensed source galaxy.
Lastly, the light of the bright environmental galaxy (arrow in Figure~\ref{fig:system094}) overlaps slightly with the lensed image.
% , which makes sampling more difficult.
% Additionally, an obstacle we ran into originally was that the lensed arcs were noncircular and cannot be explained by a low-order\ser model. We also use a reconstructed PSF that makes the modeling process more computationally expensive.
% We now detail the model specification for the system.
% The lens mass model consists of an EPL for the lens with external shear.
The lens light is modeled with two \ser profiles, and the source light with three \ser's.
% , and the environmental galaxy with one \ser.
% In our modeling stages, we note that satisfying convergence statistics is considerably harder when we leave the environmental galaxy specific parameters as distributions.
We model the light of the nearby galaxy separately, ahead of the main modeling process, using a \ser profile. We then fix its parameters.
% , which greatly improves the rhat convergence statistic.
For the HMC step, the \rhat values for all parameters are below 1.1; in fact, the average \rhat is 1.02.
The best-fit mass parameter for the lens appear in Table~\ref{tab:VBbest-fit-mass-params}, and their sampled posterior distribution in Figure~\ref{fig:cornermass094}.
We also show the best-fit values for the light parameters in Table~\ref{tab:light_params_094}.
We achieve a reduced $\chi^2$ of 1.049 (Figure~\ref{fig:bestfit094}).
\vspace{-.15cm}
\begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccc}[h]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Best-fit mass parameters for \desizeroninefour.
%for the lens mass profile and the external shear.
\label{tab:VBbest-fit-mass-params}}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\tablehead{
\colhead{$\theta_E$} &
\colhead{$\gamma$} &
\colhead{$\epsilon_1$} &
\colhead{$\epsilon_2$} &
\colhead{$x$} &
\colhead{$y$} &
\colhead{$\gamma_{ext, 1}$} &
\colhead{$\gamma_{ext, 2}$}
}
\startdata
$2.2866\pm0.0004$&
$2.540_{-0.040}^{+0.043}$&
$0.0633_{-0.0060}^{+0.0068}$&
$-0.0980_{-0.0089}^{+0.0073}$&
$0.4234\pm0.0015$&
$0.1215\pm0.0010$&
$-0.0274\pm0.0019$&
$-0.0648_{-0.0012}^{+0.0013}$\\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable*}
\vspace{-2.2cm}
\begin{deluxetable}{c|cc|ccc}[H]
\tablecaption{Best-fit light parameters for \desizeroninefour}
\label{tab:light_params_094}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{8pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Parameter} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Lens light} &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Source light} \\
\colhead{} &
\colhead{Comp 1} & \colhead{Comp 2} &
\colhead{Comp 1} & \colhead{Comp 2} & \colhead{Comp 3}
}
\startdata
$\bm{R_e}$ & $2.032_{-0.028}^{+0.038}$ & $1.413_{-0.095}^{+0.055}$ & $0.658_{-0.061}^{+0.068}$ & $0.544_{-0.047}^{+0.051}$ & $0.623_{-0.050}^{+0.055}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{n}$ & $0.531_{-0.025}^{+0.079}$ & $7.43_{-0.14}^{+0.12}$ & $9.24_{-0.79}^{+0.54}$ & $9.75_{-0.34}^{+0.18}$ & $2.40\pm{0.10}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{\epsilon_{1}}$ & $0.0090_{-0.0076}^{+0.0099}$ & $0.1060_{-0.0011}^{+0.0012}$ & $-0.141\pm{0.018}$ & $-0.257_{-0.015}^{+0.016}$ & $-0.288_{-0.023}^{+0.024}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{\epsilon_{2}}$ & $0.084_{-0.011}^{+0.010}$ & $-0.0553_{-0.0014}^{+0.0012}$ & $0.2974_{-0.0042}^{+0.0019}$ & $0.083\pm{0.014}$ & $0.170_{-0.018}^{+0.017}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{x}$ &
$0.571\pm{0.012}$ & $0.4700_{-0.0008}^{+0.0007}$ & $0.2595_{-0.0048}^{+0.0047}$ & $0.3210_{-0.0033}^{+0.0031}$ & $0.3577_{-0.0026}^{+0.0023}$ \\[2pt]
$\bm{y}$ & $0.002_{-0.016}^{+0.025}$ & $0.1846_{-0.0006}^{+0.0007}$ & $0.1595_{-0.0012}^{+0.0013}$ & $0.0235_{-0.0037}^{+0.0036}$ & $0.0955_{-0.0019}^{+0.0017}$ \\[2pt]
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\vspace{-1cm}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,scale=0.52]{figs/094figs/094finalmodel.png}
\caption{Best Fit Model \desizeroninefour. From left to right, we show: the observed Hubble image, our best-fit model with critical curve, the reduced residual, and the unlensed source with caustic.}
\label{fig:bestfit094}
\end{figure}
% We now move the discussion to convergence criteria, and determining whether the sampling has sufficiently converged. In this system, we were successfully able to bring the Gelman-Rubin statistic ($\hat{r}$) values
% , much smaller than the threshold of 1.1 considered.
% We also consider the Effective Sample Size (ESS) per chain of each parameter. The commonly cited convergence criterion of (ESS $>$ 100) was very well satisfied, with no parameter having an ESS of under 78,000.
Magnifications are computed for lensed images A (including the main lensed arc) and B separately (Figure~\ref{fig:system094}). The results appear in Table~\ref{tab:magnifications_094}.
Finally, we found the projected mass within \tE to be
$M(< \tE) =
1.1231 \pm 0.0023 \times 10^{12} M_{\odot}.$
\begin{deluxetable}{lccc}[H]
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\tablecaption{Magnification calculations for \desizeroninefour using three approaches, for images A and B, and the total magnification, respectively.}
\label{tab:magnifications_094}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Method} &
\colhead{$A$} &
\colhead{$B$} &
\colhead{Total}
}
\startdata
$1^{\text{st}}$ & $2.58^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$ & $9.30^{+0.92}_{-1.21}$ & $11.88^{+1.03}_{-1.34}$ \\
$2^{\text{nd}}$ & $2.34^{+0.16}_{-0.20}$ & $12.86^{+1.01}_{-1.25}$ & $15.20^{+1.17}_{-1.45}$ \\
$3^{\text{rd}}$ & $2.98^{+0.09}_{-0.14}$ & $11.68^{+1.10}_{-1.15}$ &
$14.66\pm{1.19}$ \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,width=0.85\linewidth]{figs/094figs/mass_corner_plot_094.png}
\caption{Sampled posterior distribution of mass parameters for system \desizeroninefour.}
\label{fig:cornermass094}
\end{figure}
\href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer/?ra=257.434789999999&dec=31.9046&layer=ls-dr8&pixscale=0.26&size=101&zoom=16}{\desitwofiveseven} was discovered in H21, with a numerical grade of 3.0 (out of 4), corresponding to a B~grade.
% The photometric redshift for the lens is 0.838$\pm$0.08 \citep{zhou2020a}.
The lens and source redshifts of $z_d = 0.7464$ and
$z_s = 2.1200$ are obtained from DESI and Keck NIRES, respectively (Paper~III).
The Legacy Surveys image of this system shows an elliptical galaxy surrounded by an arc-counterarc pair, with an Einstein radius of approximately $\sim 2\twopr$.
The \hst image resolves the main arc to be triple images, labeled as A (encompassing two merging images) and B, with the counter image labeled as C (Figure~\ref{fig:desi257mask}).
There is a very faint object south of the lensing system (small blue circle in Figure~\ref{fig:desi257mask}). This object is masked during the modeling process.
We also mask the brightest part of a diffraction spike (from a bright star, indicated by the big blue circle in Figure~\ref{fig:desi257mask}) that extends to the vicinity of image C.
% into the cutout from the star to the lower left corner
The mask has a brightness threshold of $2\times$ the background noise.
We use a $33 \times 33$ pixel empirical PSF, generated using the procedure outlined in Section~\ref{sec:psf_section}.
We model the lens light with two elliptical \ser profiles. The source is modeled using an elliptical \ser profile and a shapelets component with \( n_{max} = 3 \) \citep{birrer2015a}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figs/257figs/257observed_image.png}
\captionof{figure}{
\desitwofiveseven.
The three lensed images are labeled counterclockwise as A, B and C. To model this system, we mask out the light from a faint object in the bottom right corner (circle) and the brightest part of its diffraction spike (blue ellipse aligned with the dashed white line).
}
\label{fig:desi257mask}
% \label{fig:257mask}
\end{figure}
This system is modeled using linear inversion to solve for the light intensities.
Our best-fit model, with a reduced $\chi^2$ of 0.813, is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:desi257bestfitmodel}.
The best-fit mass and light parameters after HMC are shown in Tables~\ref{tab:desi257best-fit-mass-params} and \ref{tab:desi257best-fit-light-params} respectively.
% Note that the effect of the diffraction spike of the bright star (Figure~\ref{fig:desi257mask}) can be seen as the diagonal pattern of positive residual (in the third panel of Figure~\ref{fig:desi257bestfitmodel}) extending from the mask for the brightest part of the diffraction pattern in the lower left and continuing in the direction of the diffraction pike.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,scale=0.605]{figs/257figs/257bestfitmodel.png}
\caption{Best Fit Model for \desitwofiveseven. From left to right, we show: the observed Hubble image, our best-fit model with critical curve, the reduced residual, and the unlensed source with caustic.}
\label{fig:desi257bestfitmodel}
\end{figure}
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}[H]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Best-fit mass parameters for \desitwofiveseven.
\label{tab:desi257best-fit-mass-params}}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\tablehead{
\colhead{$\theta_E$} &
\colhead{$\gamma$} &
\colhead{$\epsilon_1$} &
\colhead{$\epsilon_2$} &
\colhead{$x$} &
\colhead{$y$} &
\colhead{$\gamma_{ext, 1}$} &
\colhead{$\gamma_{ext, 2}$}
}
\startdata
$1.9899\pm0.0024$ &
$2.066\pm0.023$ &
$-0.0162\pm0.0028$ &
$-0.1408_{-0.0066}^{+0.0064}$ &
$-0.0111_{-0.0030}^{+0.0029}$ &
$0.3386_{-0.0038}^{+0.0039}$ &
$-0.0148\pm0.0015$ &
$0.0520\pm0.0043$ \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\vspace{-1.5cm}
\begin{deluxetable}{l|rr|rr}[H]
\tablecaption{Best-fit light parameters for \desitwofiveseven.}
\label{tab:desi257best-fit-light-params}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{8pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Parameter} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Lens light} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Source light} \\
\colhead{} & \colhead{Comp 1} & \colhead{Comp 2} & \colhead{Comp 1} & \colhead{Comp 2}
}
\startdata
$\bm{R_e}$ &
$1.973_{-0.027}^{+0.028}$ & $0.241_{-0.011}^{+0.012}$ & $0.2146_{-0.0075}^{+0.0080}$ & - \\[4pt]
$\bm{n}$ &
$1.207_{-0.056}^{+0.060}$ & $2.78\pm0.12$ & $2.096_{-0.093}^{+0.099}$ & - \\[4pt]
$\bm{\epsilon_{1}}$ &
$0.0243_{-0.0026}^{+0.0025}$ & $0.0711\pm0.0024$ & $-0.2242\pm0.0077$ & - \\[4pt]
$\bm{\epsilon_{2}}$ &
$-0.2345_{-0.0022}^{+0.0023}$ & $-0.2387\pm0.0022$ & $-0.0469\pm0.0098$ & - \\[4pt]
$\bm{x}$ &
$0.0422_{-0.0044}^{+0.0047}$ & $-0.0132\pm0.0005$ & $-0.2156\pm0.0047$ & $-0.1861_{-0.0043}^{+0.0045}$ \\[4pt]
$\bm{y}$ &
$0.3445_{-0.0038}^{+0.0036}$ & $0.3817\pm0.0004$ & $-0.1539_{-0.0098}^{+0.0095}$ & $0.0393_{-0.0068}^{+0.0065}$ \\[4pt]
$\bm{\beta_{shp}}$ & - & - & - & $0.0495\pm0.0011$ \\[4pt]
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\vspace{-0.9cm}
We successfully sampled this system with $\hat{R}$ values well below 1.01 for all parameters, achieving an average $\hat{R}$ of 1.0002, with the maximum being 1.0012.
% and 0.99999, respectively.
% ESS per chain is above 100 (calculated with the parameter \crosschaindims in \tf set to 1; see \S~\ref{sec:essdetail}). The total ESS ranges from 3622.93 to 209,890, with a mean of 73,151. The mass parameters have an ESS above 18,000, with $\theta_E$ (30,740.35) and $\gamma$ (18,044.94) standing out.
% The results presented in this paper were obtained after a 13.5-hour run. We reached ESS per chain $> 100$ and $\hat{R} < 1.1$ for all parameters in just 763 seconds of HMC sampling.
% For the MAP run, we used 5000 particles and 2500 steps, with a linear transition over 1000 steps from an initial learning rate of $-2 \times 10^{-2}$ to a final learning rate of $-1 \times 10^{-5}$.
% SVI was configured with 2000 particles and 5000 steps, utilizing a quadratic transition through 1000 steps from an initial learning rate of $0$ to a final rate of $-3 \times 10^{-3}$.
% For HMC, we employed 8 chains, 10,000 burn-in steps, and 30,000 total results, with 50 steps between samples.
% % The target acceptance probability was set at 0.6, with
% We use an initial step size of 0.3, 3 initial leapfrog steps, and a maximum of 30 leapfrog steps.
% We observe $\gamma$ and $\theta_E$ traces in Fig.~\ref{fig:257traces}.
The mass parameter corner plot is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:masscornerplot257} and
the magnification results are presented in Table \ref{tab:magnifications_257}.
% The critical curves pass through image A, leading to a higher magnification. Lenstronomy calculates magnifications exceeding 200 at certain points due to its precision, as it derives values directly from an equation. However, our resolution is insufficient to capture such extreme magnifications. Hence, using the median of Lenstronomy's values provides a more reliable estimate than the mean.
The total mass within the critical curve is $M(< \tE) = 1.5140^{+0.0074}_{-0.0078} \times 10^{12} M_{\odot}$.
\vspace{-2cm}
\begin{deluxetable*}{lcccc}[h!]
\tablecaption{Magnification estimates for \desitwofiveseven using three methods. Values are shown for images A through C. \label{tab:magnifications_257}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Method} &
\colhead{$A$} &
\colhead{$B$} &
\colhead{$C$} &
\colhead{Total}
}
\startdata
$1^{\text{st}}$ & $22.7 \pm 2.7$ & $3.21 \pm 0.26$ & $2.71 \pm 0.22$ & $28.6 \pm 2.7$ \\
$2^{\text{nd}}$ & $18.9 \pm 1.7$ & $3.09 \pm 0.28$ & $2.57 \pm 0.21$ & $24.6 \pm 1.7$ \\
$3^{\text{rd}}$ & $20.4 \pm 2.3$ & $3.16 \pm 0.29$ & $2.64 \pm 0.19$ & $26.2 \pm 2.3$ \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable*}
\vspace{-2cm}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{figs/257figs/257cornerplotmass_optimized.png}
\caption{Corner plot for 8 mass parameters for \desitwofiveseven.}
\label{fig:masscornerplot257}
\end{figure}
\newpage
This system has no environmental galaxies bright enough to require modeling.
The full posterior for all 29 lens and source parameters is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:257full-corner}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/257figs/257cornerplot_optimized.png}
\caption{Corner plot of all 29 model parameters for \desitwofiveseven.}
\label{fig:257full-corner}
\end{figure}
\href{https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer?ra=246.0062&dec=1.4836&layer=ls-dr10-grz&zoom=16}{\desitwofoursix} was discovered in H21, with a ResNet probability of 1.00, and a human score of 3.5 (out of 4.0), corresponding to an A grade.
The lens redshift, \zd = 1.092, is obtained from VLT/MUSE, based on the 4000 \ang break and Ca~H\&K \citep[][Paper VI]{lin2025}.
This is one of the highest lens redshift galaxy-scale strong lensing systems \citep[][\zd = 1.004]{koopmans2002a}.
This is certainly the highest lens redshift among the confirmed systems in the DESI Strong Lens Foundry project thus far.
The source redshift, \zs = 2.368, was first determined from Keck NIRES spectra (Paper~III).
In Paper~IV, we further identify multiple weak absorption lines
for different parts of the arc and thus show that they belong to the same source.
The lensing galaxy appears to be at the center and is the brightest member of a small galaxy group (Figure~\ref{fig:246mask}). This system has an Einstein radius of around $\theta_E \approx 2.7''$.
% This allows us to test the \gigal pipeline in a challenging scenario, as it was originally designed to model more typical galaxy-scale strong lensing systems (with $\tE \sim 1''$).
% whereas this system requires a cutout of $110\times 110 = 12,100$ pixels, nearly five times larger.
We use a $31 \times 31$ pixel empirical PSF, generated using the procedure outlined in Section~\ref{sec:psf_section}.
We model the lens light with an elliptical \ser profile. We mask out a region around its center with a flux threshold of $0.40$, as the central region of an elliptical galaxy is not always well described by a \ser profile \citep[see, e.g., Paper~I;][]{shajib2020b}. We model the source using five elliptical \ser profiles. This system has the most complex source structure (Figure \ref{fig:246mask}) in this work.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.58\linewidth]{figs/246figs/246observed_image.png}
\caption{\desitwofoursix. The two lensed arcs are labeled as A and B. To model this system, we mask out the light from the central region of the lensing galaxy (oval).
We further mask out one faint galaxy to the upper left of the lensing galaxy and two galaxies near the lower left corner (all three are marked with circles). For $g1$, $g2$, and $g3$ (arrows), we model their light and fix their parameters in the subsequent main modeling process.
$g3$ is also also circled because we mask out its central region.}
\label{fig:246mask}
\end{figure}
We now briefly discuss the objects $g1$, $g2$, and $g3$ (Figure~\ref{fig:246mask}).
From MUSE data (Paper~VI),
for $g1$, it is possible that we have detected the \ion{O}{2} doublet (\lamlam~3726, 3729~\ang). If this is a real detection, $g1$ is at a redshift of 1.07.
For $g2$, we determine its redshift to be 1.441 based on a convincingly detected \ion{O}{2} doublet.
For $g3$, the spectrum does not have clear enough emission or absorption features for us to securely determine its redshift.
However, the MUSE image has a slightly better seeing than the Legacy Surveys, and as a result, $g3$ is deblended from the lensed arc, and it clearly has a different color from the lensed arcs, and thus is not part of them.
In addition, based on the surface brightness, $g1$ does not appear to be part of the lensed arcs either.
In this work, we model the light of $g1$ with two elliptical \ser's. For each of $g2$ and $g3$, we use an elliptical \ser profile. % We have tried to model the lensing effects of these two objects, and they do not improve the residual.
% As for $g2$, we only model its light
Then, we freeze these 28 parameters.
We further mask out the central region of $g3$.
It is possible that modeling the mass of $g1$ and $g2$ will further improve the model. We leave this for further work.
In addition, we mask a small and dim object (small blue circle just to the east of the main lens in Figure~\ref{fig:246mask}; note the orientation of the compass).
We also mask two objects near the bottom left corner.
We determine the brighter of the two,
from the MUSE datacube, to be a group member, based on the 4000 \ang break and Ca H\&K absorption (Paper VI).
%(\ed{I confirmed that based on \href{https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1mtuwxdDOTP0fAwX9aSAoUsT7azcNhX1G}{EL slides} --- asked her to add it to her paper})
For the modeling of \desitwofoursix, we do not use linear inversion to solve for the light intensities for this system. Instead, we explicitly fit for the light intensities ($I_e$).
For the \ser index ($n_{s}$) of the first
source light component,
we initially used a lower bound of 0.5 (Gu22).
However, in the modeling process, we find that this parameter is consistently pushed towards its lower limit.
When we lower the lower bound to $0.2$, this behavior stops.
We find the best-fit value for $n_s$ of the first source component to be $0.234^{+0.016}_{-0.15}$. We note that \citet{tamm2006a} reported a similarly low $n_s=0.3\pm0.05$ for a galaxy.
Moreover, this is just one component of the source light, which as we show below has a complex structure.
% As stated before, the design principle of \gigal is indeed full forward modeling.
% To attempt full forward modeling for a large, complex system such as this one, we find that considerable computational resource and time are required.
To achieve convergence in a reasonable amount of time,
we freeze the 28 parameters describing the environmental galaxies $g1$, $g2$, and $g3$. It is important to note that these belong to neither the lens nor the source.
We do not observe significant correlation between the mass parameters of the main lens (the main goal of the lens modeling effort) and these fixed parameters.
% (2) We rely on guidance from experience gained in the modeling process to set the prior.
% As our experience with using the sophisticate \gigal pipeline grows and GPU capabilities improve, we will revisit this system and attempt full forward modeling.
In modeling this system, we have significantly advanced the frontier of galaxy-scale strong lens modeling: this is a system with a large \tE, very complex source structure, and a large number of environmental galaxies in the cutout, which, given the large cutout, is not unexpected.
In our model, we simultaneously optimize and sample 50 parameters!
To the best of our knowledge, for a galaxy-scale strong lens, this is unprecedented.
% Keep in mind that we do straight pixel-level modeling without using position modeling as an initial step.
% It is possible that for even deeper images (e.g., from \jwst), the number of environmental galaxies will be even higher.
% Therefore, freezing some of the relative brighter ones (we can mask the faintest ones) is not unreasonable.
% On the other hand, given the interest in studying the gravitational lensing effect of these less massive galaxies as a way to test CDM (see, E. Silver et al. ApJ submitted), the full forward-modeling remain highly valuable.
% The main goal for this work is to constrain the mass parameters of the main lens; regarding this, we are satisfied with our modeling result,
% as we show below.
We achieve very good residuals (Figure \ref{fig:246model}), with a reduced $\chi^2=1.1299$.
% The worst structure in the residuals represent $\sim 4\,\sigma$ (red-blue dipole in arc~A, the arc's tip over 3 pixels).
The central region of {\it g3} is masked when displaying the residuals and computing $\chi^2$, but not during the modeling process.
% , as previously stated.
% This is done for the same reason as for the central part of the lens light, arising from the fact that the core of an elliptical galaxy is not always well described by a \ser profile.
% , as mentioned before.
We present the best-fit mass parameters in Table~\ref{tab:246best-fit-mass-params}, and light parameters in \ref{tab:246best-fit-light-params}. We show the five \ser components for the source in Figure~\ref{fig:246sources}.
We successfully sampled this system with $\hat{R}$ values well below 1.1 for all parameters, achieving an average $\hat{R}$ of 1.003, with the maximum being 1.037.
% and 1.00044, respectively.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering \includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,scale=0.60]{figs/246figs/246bestmodel.png}
\caption{Best Fit Model for DESI-246.0062+01.4836. From left to right, we show: the observed Hubble image, our best-fit model with critical curve, the reduced residual, and the unlensed source with caustic.}
\label{fig:246model}
\end{figure}
Notably, each \ser component contributes to both arcs.
% This is evident in Figure~\ref{fig:246sources}, where every source component influences both arcs.
This consistency reinforces the reliability of our results, as the five components align coherently, indicating that they belong to the same object.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={0cm 1.8cm 0cm 1cm},clip,scale=0.407]{figs/246figs/246sources.png}
\caption{Source light \ser components in the lensed (top row) and unlensed (bottom row) plane for \desitwofoursix. We label them as component 1 to 5 from left to right.}
\label{fig:246sources}
\end{figure}
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}[H]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Best-fit mass parameters for DESI-246.0062+01.4836.
\label{tab:246best-fit-mass-params}}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\tablehead{
\colhead{$\theta_E$} &
\colhead{$\gamma$} &
\colhead{$\epsilon_1$} &
\colhead{$\epsilon_2$} &
\colhead{$x$} &
\colhead{$y$} &
\colhead{$\gamma_{ext, 1}$} &
\colhead{$\gamma_{ext, 2}$}
}
\startdata
$2.6982\pm0.0007$ &
$2.616\pm0.017$&
$0.0537_{-0.0027}^{+0.0029}$ &
$0.1789_{-0.0069}^{+0.0070}$ &
$0.3664\pm0.0007$ &
$0.1028\pm0.0006$ &
$-0.0521\pm0.0006$ &
$0.0307_{-0.0005}^{+0.0004}$ \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\vspace{-1.8cm}
\begin{deluxetable}{l|r|rrrrr}[H]
\tablecaption{Best-fit light parameters for DESI-246.0062+01.4836.
\label{tab:246best-fit-light-params}}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{8pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Lens light} &
\multicolumn{5}{c}{Source light}
\\
\colhead{} &
\colhead{} & \colhead{Comp 1} &
\colhead{Comp 2} & \colhead{Comp 3} & \colhead{Comp 4} & \colhead{Comp 5}
}
\startdata
$\bm{R_e}$ &
$2.158_{-0.090}^{+0.096}$ &
$0.5005_{-0.012}^{+0.010}$ &
$0.3464_{-0.0072}^{+0.0076}$ &
$0.0345_{-0.0009}^{+0.0010}$ &
$0.0671_{-0.0043}^{+0.0048}$ &
$0.0356\pm0.0008$ \\[4pt]
$\bm{n}$ &
$6.97_{-0.31}^{+0.32}$ &
$0.234_{-0.015}^{+0.016}$ &
$1.046_{-0.046}^{+0.048}$ &
$0.527_{-0.050}^{+0.056}$ &
$0.522_{-0.017}^{+0.037}$ &
$0.644_{-0.054}^{+0.062}$ \\[4pt]
$\bm{\epsilon_{1}}$ &
$0.1749\pm0.0017$ &
$-0.1645\pm+0.0085$ &
$0.114\pm+0.011$ &
$0.5149_{-0.0088}^{+0.0087}$ &
$-0.148_{-0.051}^{+0.054}$ &
$-0.4395\pm0.0038$ \\[4pt]
$\bm{\epsilon_{2}}$ &
$0.0085\pm0.0016$ &
$-0.4660_{-0.0064}^{+0.0065}$ &
$-0.101\pm0.015$ &
$-0.5955_{-0.0033}^{+0.0062}$ &
$0.0239\pm0.047$ &
$-0.8516_{-0.0029}^{+0.0032}$ \\[4pt]
$\bm{x}$ &
$0.1885\pm0.0019$ &
$0.094\pm0.010$ &
$-0.1945\pm0.0086$ &
$0.1222\pm0.0031$ &
$0.5136_{-0.0039}^{+0.0041}$ &
$0.2042_{-0.0026}^{+0.0025}$ \\[4pt]
$\bm{y}$ &
$0.063\pm0.0013$ &
$-0.227_{-0.017}^{+0.016}$ &
$0.6497_{-0.0060}^{+0.0059}$ &
$0.1110\pm0.0017$ &
$-0.3990_{-0.0095}^{+0.0094}$ &
$-0.3530_{-0.0066}^{+0.0069}$ \\[4pt]
$\bm{I_e}$ &
$10.50_{-0.83}^{+0.87}$ &
$11.59_{-0.26}^{+0.27}$ &
$11.93\pm0.52$ &
$143\pm7.8$ &
$23.0_{-2.1}^{+2.3}$ &
$462_{-27}^{+29}$ \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\vspace{-1.3cm}
% For the MAP stage, we used 15000 samples and 3000 iterations, with a linear transition over 2625 iterations from an initial learning rate of $-7 \times 10^{-2}$ to a final value of $-3 \times 10^{-3}$. It ran for 25 minutes and 8 seconds.
% SVI was configured with 2000 samples and 4000 iterations, with a quadratic transition through 1000 iterations from an initial learning rate of $0$ to a final rate of $-3 \times 10^{-3}$. It ran for 4 minutes and 51 seconds.
% For HMC, we employed 48 chains, 1,200 burn-in steps, and 2,500 total samples, with 5 steps between samples. The target acceptance probability was set at 0.6, with an initial step size of $\epsilon = 0.03$, $L = 3$ initial leapfrog steps, and a maximum of 30 leapfrog steps. It ran for 20 minutes and 54 seconds.
% Therefore, the total execution time is 50~min and 53~sec, just under 51 minutes. This is remarkable for such a complex system with a total of 50 model parameters.
The corner plot for the mass parameters is displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:246cornermass}.
The best-fit Einstein radius is $\theta_E = 2.6982''$$\pm0.0007$, and the mass profile slope, $\gamma = 2.616\pm0.017$. The projected total mass within the critical curve is $M (<\tE) = 4.0735^{+0.0109}_{-0.0089} \times 10^{12} M_{\odot}$.
The magnification results for each of the three methods are shown in Table \ref{tab:magnifications_246}.
\begin{deluxetable*}{lccc}[h]
\tablecaption{Magnification estimates for \desitwofoursix using three methods. Values are shown for components A and B. \label{tab:magnifications_246}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Method} &
\colhead{$A$} &
\colhead{$B$} &
\colhead{Total}
}
\startdata
$1^{\text{st}}$ & $7.60\pm1.79$ & $2.87\pm0.54$ & $10.1\pm1.9$ \\
$2^{\text{nd}}$ & $5.50\pm1.63$ & $2.11\pm0.54$ & $7.6\pm1.7$ \\
$3^{\text{rd}}$ & $6.2\pm1.4$ & $2.51\pm0.52$ & $8.7\pm1.5$ \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{figs/246figs/246cornermass_optimized.png}
\caption{Corner plot for the eight mass parameters for \desitwofoursix.}
\label{fig:246cornermass}
\end{figure}
% The ESS per chain exceeded 100 for all parameters (calculated with the parameter \crosschaindims in \tf set to 1; see \S~\ref{sec:essdetail}). The total ESS ranged from $696.88$ to $47,731$, with an average of $16,444$.
% Here's the TF implementation:
% \texttt{R-hat = ( E[Var[X | chain]] + Var[E[X | chain]] ) / E[Var[X | chain]]},
% from \url{https://www.tensorflow.org/probability/api_docs/python/tfp/mcmc/potential_scale_reduction}
% example test code from Harsh (?)
% \texttt{\#\#\#\# Examples\\
% Diagnosing convergence by monitoring 10 chains that each attempt to sample from a 2-variate normal.}
% \begin{python}[language=Python, caption=Example Python Code]
% import tensorflow as tf
% import tensorflow_probability as tfp
% tfd = tfp.distributions
% target = tfd.MultivariateNormalDiag(scale_diag=[1., 2.])
% # Get 10 (2x) overdispersed initial states.
% initial_state = target.sample(10) * 2.
% ==> (10, 2)
% # Get 1000 samples from the 10 independent chains.
% chains_states = tfp.mcmc.sample_chain(
% num_burnin_steps=200,
% num_results=1000,
% current_state=initial_state,
% trace_fn=None,
% kernel=tfp.mcmc.HamiltonianMonteCarlo(
% target_log_prob_fn=target.log_prob,
% step_size=0.05,
% num_leapfrog_steps=20))
% chains_states.shape
% ==> (1000, 10, 2)
% rhat = tfp.mcmc.diagnostic.potential_scale_reduction(
% chains_states, independent_chain_ndims=1)
% # The second dimension needed a longer burn-in.
% rhat.eval()
% ==> [1.05, 1.3]
% \end{python}
\subsection{\rhat Definitional Differences}
Following \citet[][BG98]{brooks1998a}, Equation~(1.1)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bg98rhat}
\hat{R}_{BG98} = \frac{\hat{V}} {W}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vhat}
\hat{V} = \hat{\sigma}_+^2 + \frac{B}{mn}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sigplus}
\hat{\sigma}_+^2 = \frac{n-1}{n} W + \frac{B}{n}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $m$ is the number of chains and $n$ is the number of samples.
The definition of $\hat{\sigma}_+^2$ (Equation~\ref{eq:sigplus}) is the same as in \citet[][G14]{gelman2014a}, Equation~(11.3), written as $\widehat{\mathrm{var}}^+$.
The definitions of $W$ and $B$ (not given here) are also the same in BG98 and G14.
In G14, \rhat is defined as the following, in their Equation~(11.4),
\begin{equation}\label{eq:g14rhat}
\hat{R}_{G14} = \sqrt{\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{var}}^+} {W}}
\end{equation}
Comparing Equations~\ref{eq:bg98rhat} and \ref{eq:g14rhat}, which are the definitions of \rhat in BG98 and G14, respectively, there are two differences.
First, BG98 deals with variances (as explicitly pointed out in their Section~1.2), thus no square root; whereas G14 deals with the actual ``scale" (the ``scale'' in the Potential \emph{Scale} Reduction Factor), and thus the square root is applied.
Second, in BG98, there is an extra term in the numerator of the \rhat definition: $\frac{B}{mn}$ (the second term in Equation~\ref{eq:vhat}).
% If the number of chains is large (we typically use $m = 8$~-~48),
The product of $mn$ tends to be very large, and this represents a small correction.
Therefore, the main difference results from whether the square root is applied.
% \tf implements the BG98 version of \rhat.
% Below (Code Listing~\ref{bg98-rhat}) is from their source code\footnote{\url{https://github.com/tensorflow/probability/blob/v0.23.0/tensorflow_probability/python/mcmc/diagnostic.py\#L339-L473}}:
%%%% DO NOT DELETE until problem is solved: Feb 16, 2025: I made a copy of this project: test-python2 and the label would show up amd can be correctly referenced. We should fix all the other errors first and then fix the code label issue here.
% \begin{python}[caption={\tf Code for Calculating \rhat},label=bg98-rhat]
% sigma_2_plus = ((n - 1) / n) * w + b_div_n
% return ((m + 1.) / m) * sigma_2_plus / w - (n - 1.) / (m * n)
% \end{python}
The \tf documentation states that using the BG98 definition,
$\rhat < 1.2$ (without the square root) indicates approximate convergence\footnote{See \url{https://www.tensorflow.org/probability/api_docs/python/tfp/mcmc/potential_scale_reduction}} (BG98, p.\ 444\footnote{Somewhat confusingly, in Section 3.2 of BG98, when introducing the threshold of 1.2, they \emph{put \rhat under the square root}. However, that does not change the fact that the definitions of \rhat in BG98 and G14 differ by the square root and that \tf implemented the BG98 version without the square root.}).
% which is the one widely used today,
\citet[][G14]{gelman2014a} provides the current definition of \rhat, which is approximately the square root of the definition that BG98 (and \tf) used.\footnote{See also the Stan Reference Manual Section 15.3.1, \url{https://mc-stan.org/docs/2_18/reference-manual/notation-for-samples-chains-and-draws.html}.}
and the recommended threshold $\rhat < 1.1$ for convergence (G14, p.\ 287; consistent with BG98).
This is the definition we use in this paper.
Finally, in Paper~I, we used the G14 definition for \rhat. However, in \citet{cikota2023a}, we used the BG98 definition (i.e., the \rhat value as reported by \tf), without taking its square root --- this was before we realized the definitional difference discussed in this section.
Therefore, using the G14 definition of \rhat, all parameters in \citet{cikota2023a} are below the threshold of 1.1.
% This, e.g., was implemented in ArviZ\footnote{\url{https://python.arviz.org/}} and NumPyro\footnote{\url{https://num.pyro.ai/}} (check!!!).
% Also, see the \href{https://mc-stan.org/docs/2_18/reference-manual/notation-for-samples-chains-and-draws.html}{Stan Reference Manual}, Sec 15.3.1, which also recommends $\rhat < 1.1$, citing \citet{gelman1992a}:
% ``Gelman and Rubin's recommendation is that the independent Markov chains be initialized with diffuse starting values for the parameters and \emph{sampled until} all values for \rhat are below 1.1.''
% The emphasis is ours. For at least one of the systems presented in this work, we find it necessary to sample for 13 hours to reach this threshold.
% The ArviZ implementation uses V21\footnote{ \url{https://python.arviz.org/en/latest/_modules/arviz/stats/diagnostics.html##rhat}. Note: there are different methods:``rank" (recommended by V21), ``split'', ``folded'',
% ``z\_scale'', ``identity''.
% In this work, we will use ``identity'', for straightforward cases with well-behaved, symmetric distributions
% (can I find the defintions for these from V21 or somewhere else?)
% which is mostly true for our parameters. Also note, the Stan Reference Manual, 15.3.2, suggests ``split''.}
% The implementation of ESS in NumPyro is from G11.
% as shown below \footnote{
% see also \url{https://mc-stan.org/docs/reference-manual/analysis.html##estimation-of-effective-sample-size}}
% ['add the equation from G11 for autocorrelation and constrast it with the one from S97, which was used in G22.'].
% \subsection{Autocorrelation}
% \emph{Autocorrelation} \,\ Definitional differences -- between G22's citation of S97 vs.\ G11 (?)
% In \citet{gu2022a} the autocorrelation defined in their equation (19) [`copy equation for G22 below'].
% This definition was adopted from \citet{sokal1997a}.
% However there is an updated definition from \citet[][G11]{geyer2011a}.
% \subsubsection{What We Use}