English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The Hubble Frontier Fields data, along with multiple data sets obtained byother telescopes, have provided some of the most extensive constraints oncluster lenses to date. Multiple lens modeling teams analyzed the fields andmade public a number of deliverables. By comparing these results, we can thenundertake a unique and vital test of the state of cluster lens modeling.Specifically, we see how well the different teams can reproduce similarmagnifications and mass profiles. We find that the circularly averaged massprofiles of the fields are remarkably constrained (scatter <5%) at distances of1 arcmin from the cluster core, yet magnifications can vary significantly.Averaged across the six fields, we find a bias of -6% (-17%) and a scatter of~40% (~65%) at a modest magnification of 3 (10). Statistical errors reported byindividual teams are often significantly smaller than the differences among allthe teams, indicating the importance of continued systematics studies incluster lensing.

Systematic vs. Statistical Uncertainties in Masses and Magnifications of the Hubble Frontier Fields