标题： 强引力透镜模型软件的比较 III. 对COSMOS J095930+023427、SDSS J1320+1644、SDSS J1430+4105和J1000+0021的直接和间接半独立透镜模型比较 显示英文标题

标题： Comparison of Strong Gravitational Lens Model Software III. Direct and indirect semi-independent lens model comparisons of COSMOS J095930+023427, SDSS J1320+1644, SDSSJ1430+4105 and J1000+0021

摘要： 强引力透镜数据分析在精确宇宙学时代具有重要意义。 本研究的目标是比较使用不同透镜模型软件和参数化相似模型对强引力透镜系统的分析，以了解由此产生的模型的差异和局限性。 使用的透镜模型转换工具 Hydralens 生成了四个强透镜系统的多个模型，包括 COSMOS J095930+023427、SDSS J1320+1644、SDSSJ1430+4105 和 J1000+0021。 所有四个透镜系统都使用 PixeLens、Lenstool、glafic 和 Lensmodel 进行建模。 每个透镜模型的输入数据和参数化对于用于突出输出结果差异的四个模型程序来说是相似的。 每个透镜模型的爱因斯坦半径和包含质量的计算是可比的。 如果多于一个透镜势的质量是自由参数，则结果更加不同。 软件的图像追踪算法不同，导致输出图像位置不同，以及时间延迟和放大倍数计算以及最终透镜模型的椭圆度和位置角的差异。 在使用相同模型输入文件比较不同软件版本时，使用同一软件的两个版本时结果存在显著差异。 这些结果进一步支持未来透镜研究需要包含多个透镜模型、开放软件的使用、提供研究中使用的透镜模型文件，并开发新的计算机挑战方法。 未来的研究所需要的是标准命名法和所用软件的规格说明，以改善结果的解释、可重复性和透明度。 显示英文摘要

摘要： Analysis of strong gravitational lensing data is important in this era of precision cosmology. The objective of the present study is to directly compare the analysis of strong gravitational lens systems using different lens model software and similarly parameterized models to understand the differences and limitations of the resulting models. The software lens model translation tool, HydraLens, was used to generate multiple models for four strong lens systems including COSMOS J095930+023427, SDSS J1320+1644, SDSSJ1430+4105 and J1000+0021. All four lens systems were modeled with PixeLens, Lenstool, glafic, and Lensmodel. The input data and parameterization of each lens model was similar for the four model programs used to highlight differences in the output results. The calculation of the Einstein radius and enclosed mass for each lens model was comparable. The results were more dissimilar if the masses of more than one lens potential were free-parameters. The image tracing algorithms of the software are different, resulting in different output image positions and differences in time delay and magnification calculations, as well as ellipticity and position angle of the resulting lens model. In a comparison of different software versions using identical model input files, results differed significantly when using two versions of the same software. These results further support the need for future lensing studies to include multiple lens models, use of open software, availability of lens model files use in studies, and computer challenges to develop new approaches. Future studies need a standard nomenclature and specification of the software used to allow improved interpretation, reproducibility and transparency of results.