skip to main content


Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Tak, Hyungsuk"

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Abstract

    Cosmological parameters encoding our understanding of the expansion history of the universe can be constrained by the accurate estimation of time delays arising in gravitationally lensed systems. We propose TD-CARMA, a Bayesian method to estimate cosmological time delays by modeling observed and irregularly sampled light curves as realizations of a continuous auto-regressive moving average (CARMA) process. Our model accounts for heteroskedastic measurement errors and microlensing, an additional source of independent extrinsic long-term variability in the source brightness. The semiseparable structure of the CARMA covariance matrix allows for fast and scalable likelihood computation using Gaussian process modeling. We obtain a sample from the joint posterior distribution of the model parameters using a nested sampling approach. This allows for “painless” Bayesian computation, dealing with the expected multimodality of the posterior distribution in a straightforward manner and not requiring the specification of starting values or an initial guess for the time delay, unlike existing methods. In addition, the proposed sampling procedure automatically evaluates the Bayesian evidence, allowing us to perform principled Bayesian model selection. TD-CARMA is parsimonious, and typically includes no more than a dozen unknown parameters. We apply TD-CARMA to six doubly lensed quasars HS2209+1914, SDSS J1001+5027, SDSS J1206+4332, SDSS J1515+1511, SDSS J1455+1447, and SDSS J1349+1227, estimating their time delays as −21.96 ± 1.448, 120.93 ± 1.015, 111.51 ± 1.452, 210.80 ± 2.18, 45.36 ± 1.93, and 432.05 ± 1.950, respectively. These estimates are consistent with those derived in the relevant literature, but are typically two to four times more precise.

     
    more » « less