pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.00753 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Impact of projection-induced optical selection bias on the weak lensing mass calibration of galaxy clusters

Titus Nyarko Nde , Hao-Yi Wu , Shulei Cao , Gladys Muthoni Kamau , Andrius Tamosiunas , Chun-Hao To , Conghao Zhou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 10:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxy clustersweak lensingselection biasoptical richnessmass calibrationcosmologyprojections
0
0 comments X

The pith

Projection effects cause optical galaxy cluster samples to overestimate weak lensing masses by 20-50 percent.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper demonstrates that selecting galaxy clusters by optical richness introduces a selection bias because halo triaxiality and galaxies projected along the line of sight increase both the apparent cluster richness and the measured weak lensing signal. As a result, the average lensing mass inferred for a richness-selected sample exceeds the true average mass. The authors use two simulations with different galaxy models and cluster finders to measure this overestimation at the 20-50 percent level overall and 20-80 percent for lensing signals on scales larger than 3 Mpc. A reader would care because the bias is larger than other known systematics in cluster weak lensing and currently limits the accuracy of cosmological parameters extracted from optical cluster surveys.

Core claim

Using two simulations with different galaxy models and cluster finders, the selection bias leads to an overestimation of lensing mass at the 20-50% level, with a larger bias (20-80%) for large-scale lensing (>3 Mpc). Even with a moderate projection model, this selection bias significantly outweighs other currently known cluster lensing systematics.

What carries the argument

the projection-induced optical selection bias in which halo triaxiality and line-of-sight large-scale structure simultaneously boost both cluster richness and the weak lensing signal

If this is right

  • This bias must be corrected in future optical cluster cosmology analyses to obtain accurate cosmological parameters.
  • The overestimation is substantially larger when weak lensing is measured on scales greater than 3 Mpc.
  • The bias exceeds other known systematics in cluster lensing even when only moderate projections are assumed.
  • Mitigation strategies are required to reduce the impact of this selection effect in upcoming surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Correcting for the bias could bring optical cluster constraints into better agreement with results from other cosmological probes such as the cosmic microwave background.
  • Similar projection biases may appear in mass calibrations for optically selected galaxy groups or in weak lensing studies of large-scale filaments.
  • Multi-wavelength follow-up of the same clusters could offer an independent test of the size of the bias and the effectiveness of proposed corrections.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations accurately reproduce the combined effects of halo triaxiality and line-of-sight projections on both cluster richness and weak lensing signals.

What would settle it

A comparison of weak lensing masses from real richness-selected clusters against independent mass estimates from X-ray or thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich observations that shows a much smaller bias than 20 percent would indicate the effect has been overstated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.00753 by Andrius Tamosiunas, Chun-Hao To, Conghao Zhou, Gladys Muthoni Kamau, Hao-Yi Wu, Shulei Cao, Titus Nyarko Nde.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Stacked lensing signal derived from the MiniUchuu-based mock (black) in four richness bins at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Analogous to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Fractional mass bias resulted from projection-induced selection bias, for the MiniUchuu mock (left) and Cardinal (right). We fit the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Weak gravitational lensing signals of optically identified clusters are impacted by a selection bias -- halo triaxiality and large-scale structure along the line of sight simultaneously boost the lensing signal and richness (the inferred number of galaxies associated with a cluster). As a result, a cluster sample selected by richness has a mean lensing signal higher than expected from its mean mass, and the inferred mass will be biased high. This selection bias is currently limiting the accuracy of cosmological parameters derived from optical clusters. In this paper, we quantify the bias in mass calibration due to this selection bias. Using two simulations, MiniUchuu and Cardinal, with different galaxy models and cluster finders, we find that the selection bias leads to an overestimation of lensing mass at the 20-50% level, with a larger bias (20-80%) for large-scale lensing (>3 Mpc). Even with a moderate projection model, this selection bias significantly outweighs other currently known cluster lensing systematics. This work confirms the need to account for this bias in future optical cluster cosmology analyses, and we discuss strategies for mitigating this bias.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript quantifies the impact of projection-induced selection bias on weak lensing mass calibration for optically selected galaxy clusters. Using two simulations (MiniUchuu and Cardinal) with differing galaxy models and cluster finders, the authors report that richness selection leads to a 20-50% overestimation of lensing-inferred masses, rising to 20-80% for large-scale lensing signals (>3 Mpc). They argue this bias exceeds other known systematics and discuss mitigation approaches for future optical cluster cosmology analyses.

Significance. If the reported bias amplitudes hold under realistic conditions, the result is significant for cluster cosmology: it identifies a substantial systematic that could bias cosmological parameter constraints from optical cluster samples. The dual-simulation strategy with independent models and finders provides partial robustness and is a strength. The direct, simulation-based quantification (rather than a fitted parameter) is also a positive feature. However, the significance is limited by the absence of external validation of the simulated projection effects against observations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulation and measurement methodology (likely §3-4)] The central claim of 20-50% (and up to 80% at large scales) mass overestimation rests on the fidelity of the MiniUchuu and Cardinal runs to real halo triaxiality plus line-of-sight structure effects on both richness and the lensing convergence field. The manuscript should include quantitative validation tests (e.g., comparison of simulated vs. observed richness-mass scatter or projected galaxy density profiles) to support transferability to surveys; without this, the bias amplitudes cannot be confidently applied to data.
  2. [Discussion and conclusions] The paper states that the selection bias 'significantly outweighs other currently known cluster lensing systematics' even with a moderate projection model. This comparison requires explicit numerical values for the other systematics (e.g., from prior literature or the same simulations) and a clear definition of the 'moderate projection model' to be load-bearing; otherwise the relative importance claim is not fully substantiated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the precise definition of 'richness-selected samples' versus 'true mass' samples used for the bias ratio, including any cuts on redshift, richness threshold, or radial scales applied in the lensing measurement.
  2. [Results] Add error bars or uncertainty ranges to the quoted bias percentages (20-50%, 20-80%) and specify whether these reflect statistical errors, sample variance across the two simulations, or model variations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We have addressed each major point below and will revise the paper to incorporate the suggested improvements, which will strengthen the presentation of our results on projection-induced selection bias.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation and measurement methodology (likely §3-4)] The central claim of 20-50% (and up to 80% at large scales) mass overestimation rests on the fidelity of the MiniUchuu and Cardinal runs to real halo triaxiality plus line-of-sight structure effects on both richness and the lensing convergence field. The manuscript should include quantitative validation tests (e.g., comparison of simulated vs. observed richness-mass scatter or projected galaxy density profiles) to support transferability to surveys; without this, the bias amplitudes cannot be confidently applied to data.

    Authors: We agree that additional quantitative validation would improve the transferability of our findings. While the dual-simulation approach with independent galaxy models and finders already provides some robustness against model-specific artifacts, we will add explicit comparisons in the revised manuscript. These will include the richness-mass scatter in both simulations versus observational constraints from DES and SDSS, as well as projected galaxy density profiles around clusters. The new material will be placed in Section 3 or an appendix to directly support application of the reported bias amplitudes to survey data. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion and conclusions] The paper states that the selection bias 'significantly outweighs other currently known cluster lensing systematics' even with a moderate projection model. This comparison requires explicit numerical values for the other systematics (e.g., from prior literature or the same simulations) and a clear definition of the 'moderate projection model' to be load-bearing; otherwise the relative importance claim is not fully substantiated.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. In the revised discussion and conclusions, we will add a table compiling typical amplitudes of other cluster lensing systematics drawn from the literature (e.g., miscentering at the 5-15% level, intrinsic triaxiality without selection bias at ~10%, and baryonic effects at a few percent). We will also explicitly define the 'moderate projection model' as the fiducial richness-based selection applied in our simulations, which incorporates line-of-sight structure at levels matching observed optical cluster samples. These additions will make the relative importance of the selection bias quantitatively clear. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: bias quantified via direct simulation comparison

full rationale

The paper measures the projection-induced selection bias by running two independent simulations (MiniUchuu and Cardinal) that employ distinct galaxy models and cluster finders, then directly compares the weak-lensing signal of richness-selected samples against the known true halo masses. The reported 20-50% (up to 80% at >3 Mpc) overestimation is obtained from this explicit contrast rather than from any fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or load-bearing self-citation. No equations or steps in the provided text reduce the central result to its own inputs by construction; the derivation remains self-contained against the external simulation benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the two named simulations in modeling projection effects; no free parameters are explicitly fitted to the bias result itself, and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption MiniUchuu and Cardinal simulations with their galaxy models and cluster finders correctly capture the combined impact of triaxiality and line-of-sight structure on richness and lensing.
    The reported bias percentages are derived directly from these simulations; any mismatch between simulated and real projection statistics would scale the bias numbers.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5759 in / 1306 out tokens · 43237 ms · 2026-05-18T10:51:26.037699+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Euclid preparation. CosmoPostProcess: A simulation calibrated framework for weak lensing selection bias in richness-selected galaxy clusters

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CosmoPostProcess delivers simulation-calibrated radial corrections for projection-induced selection bias (20-40% amplitude near 1 h^{-1} Mpc) and baryonic effects in Euclid richness-selected cluster weak lensing profiles.

  2. Forward analytical model for the optical selection bias on galaxy cluster lensing profiles

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A scale-dependent parametrization of optical cluster bias combined with two-halo terms from off-axis halos quantifies projection-induced selection bias on cluster lensing profiles and recovers the bias relative to mas...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 44 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    For halos with massabove10 12ℎ−1 𝑀⊙,weassignacentralgalaxytothehalo center

    to assign galaxies to halos in MiniUchuu. For halos with massabove10 12ℎ−1 𝑀⊙,weassignacentralgalaxytothehalo center. For the number of satellite galaxies, we draw an𝑁sat value based on a Poisson distribution with mean ⟨𝑁sat|𝑀⟩= 𝑀−𝑀 0 𝑀1 𝛼 .(8) Weusetheparametervaluesfrom[27], whicharedesignedto reproduce the DES cluster abundance:𝑀0 =10 11.7 ℎ−1 𝑀⊙, 𝑀1 =...

    work page doi:10.18122/oit/3/boisestate

  2. [2]

    Constraints on Cosmological Parameters from Future Galaxy Cluster Surveys

    Z. Haiman, J. J. Mohr, and G. P. Holder, Astrophys. J.553, 545 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0002336

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    G.P.Holder,Z.Haiman,andJ.J.Mohr,Astrophys.J.Lett.560, L111 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0105396

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    Lima and W

    M. Lima and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D70, 043504 (2004), astro- ph/0401559

    work page arXiv 2004

  5. [5]

    G. M. Voit, Reviews of Modern Physics77, 207 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0410173

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    S. W. Allen, A. E. Evrard, and A. B. Mantz, ARAA49, 409 (2011), arXiv:1103.4829 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    D. H. Weinberg, M. J. Mortonson, D. J. Eisenstein, C. Hi- rata, A. G. Riess, and E. Rozo, Phys. Rep.530, 87 (2013), arXiv:1201.2434

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, arXiv e-prints , astro- ph/0510346 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0510346 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2005

  9. [9]

    R.Laureijs,J.Amiaux,S.Arduini,J..Auguères,J.Brinchmann, R. Cole, M. Cropper, C. Dabin, L. Duvet, A. Ealet, et al., arXiv:1110.3193 (2011), arXiv:1110.3193 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  10. [10]

    LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1211.0310 (2012), arXiv:1211.0310 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s

    R. Akeson, L. Armus, E. Bachelet, V. Bailey, L. Bar- tusek, A. Bellini, D. Benford, D. Bennett, A. Bhattacharya, R. Bohlin, et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1902.05569 (2019), arXiv:1902.05569 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  12. [12]

    Eifler, H

    T. Eifler, H. Miyatake, E. Krause, C. Heinrich, V. Miranda, C. Hirata, J. Xu, S. Hemmati, M. Simet, P. Capak, et al., Mon. Not.R.Astron.Soc.507,1746(2021),arXiv:2004.05271[astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    E. Rozo, R. H. Wechsler, E. S. Rykoff, J. T. Annis, M. R. Becker,A.E.Evrard,J.A.Frieman,S.M.Hansen,J.Hao,D.E. Johnston,etal.,Astrophys.J.708,645(2010),arXiv:0902.3702 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

    Costanzi, E

    M. Costanzi, E. Rozo, M. Simet, Y. Zhang, A. E. Evrard, A. Mantz, E. S. Rykoff, T. Jeltema, D. Gruen, S. Allen, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron.Soc.488,4779(2019),arXiv:1810.09456 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  15. [16]

    DES Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D102, 023509 (2020), arXiv:2002.11124 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  16. [17]

    G. F. Lesci, F. Marulli, L. Moscardini, M. Sereno, A. Veropalumbo, M. Maturi, C. Giocoli, M. Radovich, F. Bel- lagamba, M. Roncarelli, et al., Astron. Astrophys.659, A88 (2022), arXiv:2012.12273 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  17. [18]

    Sunayama, H

    T. Sunayama, H. Miyatake, S. Sugiyama, S. More, X. Li, R.Dalal,M.M.Rau,J.Shi,I.n.Chiu,M.Shirasaki,etal.,Phys. Rev. D110, 083511 (2024), arXiv:2309.13025 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [19]

    Combining cluster observables and stacked weak lensing to probe dark energy: Self-calibration of systematic uncertainties

    M. Oguri and M. Takada, Phys. Rev. D83, 023008 (2011), arXiv:1010.0744 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [20]

    Joint Analysis of Gravitational Lensing, Clustering and Abundance: Toward the Unification of Large-Scale Structure Analysis

    J. Yoo and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D86, 083504 (2012), arXiv:1207.2471 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [21]

    H.-Y. Wu, D. H. Weinberg, A. N. Salcedo, and B. D. Wibking, Astrophys. J.910, 28 (2021), arXiv:2012.01956 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  21. [22]

    Weak-lensing mass calibration of redMaPPer galaxy clusters in Dark Energy Survey Science Verification data

    P. Melchior, D. Gruen, T. McClintock, T. N. Varga, E. Shel- don, E. Rozo, A. Amara, M. R. Becker, B. A. Benson, A. Bermeo, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.469, 4899 (2017), arXiv:1610.06890 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [24]

    Constraints on the mass-richness relation from the abundance and weak lensing of SDSS clusters

    R. Murata, T. Nishimichi, M. Takada, H. Miyatake, M. Shi- rasaki, S. More, R. Takahashi, and K. Osato, Astrophys. J.854, 120 (2018), arXiv:1707.01907

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [25]

    The galaxy cluster mass scale and its impact on cosmological constraints from the cluster population

    G.W.Pratt,M.Arnaud,A.Biviano,D.Eckert,S.Ettori,D.Na- gai, N. Okabe, and T. H. Reiprich, Space Sci. Rev.215, 25 (2019), arXiv:1902.10837 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [26]

    R. E. Angulo, V. Springel, S. D. M. White, A. Jenkins, C. M. Baugh, and C. S. Frenk, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.426, 2046 (2012), arXiv:1203.3216 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2046

  25. [27]

    Assembly Bias and Splashback in Galaxy Clusters

    P. Busch and S. D. M. White, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.470, 4767 (2017), arXiv:1702.01682 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [28]

    Soc.496, 4468 (2020), arXiv:2002.03867 [astro-ph.CO]

    T.Sunayama, Y.Park, M.Takada, Y.Kobayashi, T.Nishimichi, T.Kurita,S.More,M.Oguri,andK.Osato,Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc.496, 4468 (2020), arXiv:2002.03867 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  27. [29]

    H.-Y. Wu, M. Costanzi, C.-H. To, A. N. Salcedo, D. H. Wein- berg, J. Annis, S. Bocquet, M. E. da Silva Pereira, J. DeRose, J. Esteves, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.515, 4471 (2022), arXiv:2203.05416 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  28. [31]

    Myles, D

    J. Myles, D. Gruen, A. B. Mantz, S. W. Allen, R. G. Morris, E.Rykoff,M.Costanzi,C.To,J.DeRose,R.H.Wechsler,etal., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.505, 33 (2021), arXiv:2011.07070 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  29. [32]

    Lee, H.-Y

    A. Lee, H.-Y. Wu, A. N. Salcedo, T. Sunayama, M. Costanzi, J.Myles,S.Cao,E.Rozo,C.-H.To,D.H.Weinberg,etal.,Phys. Rev. D111, 063502 (2025), arXiv:2410.02497 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [33]

    Cao, H.-Y

    S. Cao, H.-Y. Wu, M. Costanzi, A. Farahi, S. Grandis, D. H. Weinberg,A.E.Evrard,E.Rozo,A.N.Salcedo,C.-H.To,etal., Phys. Rev. D112, 043517 (2025), arXiv:2506.17526 [astro- ph.CO]. 7

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [34]

    Myles, D

    J. Myles, D. Gruen, T. Jeltema, S. Fu, A. Kremin, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, F. J. Castander, et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.06249 (2025), arXiv:2506.06249 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [35]

    M. R. Becker and A. V. Kravtsov, Astrophys. J.740, 25 (2011), arXiv:1011.1681 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  33. [36]

    Y. M. Bahé, I. G. McCarthy, and L. J. King, Mon. Not. R. Astron.Soc.421,1073(2012),arXiv:1106.2046[astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  34. [37]

    Umetsu, AAPR28, 7 (2020), arXiv:2007.00506 [astro- ph.CO]

    K. Umetsu, AAPR28, 7 (2020), arXiv:2007.00506 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  35. [38]

    Costanzi, R

    Z.Zhang,H.-Y.Wu,Y.Zhang,J.Frieman,C.-H.To,J.DeRose, M. Costanzi, R. H. Wechsler, S. Adhikari, E. Rykoff, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron.Soc.523,1994(2023),arXiv:2202.08211 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 1994

  36. [39]

    A.A.BerlindandD.H.Weinberg,Astrophys.J.575,587(2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0109001

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  37. [40]

    Cooray and R

    A. Cooray and R. Sheth, Phys. Rep.372, 1 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0206508 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2002

  38. [41]

    Theoretical Models of the Halo Occupation Distribution: Separating Central and Satellite Galaxies

    Z. Zheng, A. A. Berlind, D. H. Weinberg, A. J. Benson, C. M. Baugh,S.Cole,R.Davé,C.S.Frenk,N.Katz,andC.G.Lacey, Astrophys. J.633, 791 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0408564 [astro- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  39. [42]

    Galaxy Clustering in the Completed SDSS Redshift Survey: The Dependence on Color and Luminosity

    I. Zehavi, Z. Zheng, D. H. Weinberg, et al., Astrophys. J.736, 59 (2011), arXiv:1005.2413 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  40. [43]

    C.Zeng, A.N.Salcedo, H.-Y.Wu,andC.M.Hirata,Mon.Not. R. Astron. Soc.523, 4270 (2023), arXiv:2210.16306 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  41. [44]

    A. N. Salcedo, H.-Y. Wu, E. Rozo, D. H. Weinberg, C.-H. To, T. Sunayama, and A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 221002 (2024), arXiv:2310.03944 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [45]

    C.-H. To, J. DeRose, R. H. Wechsler, E. Rykoff, H.-Y. Wu, S.Adhikari,E.Krause,E.Rozo,andD.H.Weinberg,Astrophys. J.961, 59 (2024), arXiv:2303.12104 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [46]

    R. H. Wechsler, J. DeRose, M. T. Busha, M. R. Becker, E. Rykoff, and A. Evrard, Astrophys. J.931, 145 (2022), arXiv:2105.12105 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  44. [47]

    redMaPPer I: Algorithm and SDSS DR8 Catalog

    E.S.Rykoff,E.Rozo,M.T.Busha,C.E.Cunha,A.Finoguenov, A. Evrard, J. Hao, B. P. Koester, A. Leauthaud, B. Nord, et al., Astrophys. J.785, 104 (2014), arXiv:1303.3562 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  45. [48]

    E. S. Rykoff, E. Rozo, D. Hollowood, A. Bermeo-Hernandez, T. Jeltema, J. Mayers, A. K. Romer, P. Rooney, A. Saro, C.VergaraCervantes,etal.,Astrophys.J.Suppl.224,1(2016), arXiv:1601.00621 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [49]

    Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Weak Lensing Mass Calibration of redMaPPer Galaxy Clusters

    T. McClintock, T. N. Varga, D. Gruen, E. Rozo, E. S. Rykoff, T. Shin, P. Melchior, J. DeRose, S. Seitz, J. P. Dietrich, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron.Soc.482,1352(2019),arXiv:1805.00039

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [50]

    J.F.Navarro,C.S.Frenk,andS.D.M.White,TheAstrophysical Journal490, 493 (1997)

    work page 1997

  48. [51]

    C. O. Wright and T. G. Brainerd, Gravitational lensing by nfw halos (1999)

    work page 1999

  49. [52]

    J. L. Tinker, B. E. Robertson, A. V. Kravtsov, A. Klypin, M. S. Warren, G. Yepes, and S. Gottlöber, Astrophys. J.724, 878 (2010), arXiv:1001.3162 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  50. [53]

    Revising the Halofit Model for the Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum

    R.Takahashi,M.Sato,T.Nishimichi,A.Taruya,andM.Oguri, Astrophys. J.761, 152 (2012), arXiv:1208.2701 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  51. [54]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2011, 034 (2011), arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  52. [55]

    Y. Zu, D. H. Weinberg, E. Rozo, E. S. Sheldon, J. L. Tinker, andM.R.Becker,Mon.Not.R.Astron.Soc.439,1628(2014), arXiv:1207.3794 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [56]

    Ishiyama, F

    T. Ishiyama, F. Prada, A. A. Klypin, M. Sinha, R. B. Metcalf, E. Jullo, B. Altieri, S. A. Cora, D. Croton, S. de la Torre, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron.Soc.506,4210(2021),arXiv:2007.14720 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  54. [57]

    Transients from Initial Conditions in Cosmological Simulations

    M. Crocce, S. Pueblas, and R. Scoccimarro, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.373, 369 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0606505

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  55. [58]

    T.Ishiyama,T.Fukushige,andJ.Makino,PASJ61,1319(2009), arXiv:0910.0121 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  56. [59]

    P.S.Behroozi,R.H.Wechsler,andH.-Y.Wu,Astrophys.J.762, 109 (2013), arXiv:1110.4372 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [60]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, et al., Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [61]

    Dark Matter Halo Profiles of Massive Clusters: Theory vs. Observations

    S. Bhattacharya, S. Habib, K. Heitmann, and A. Vikhlinin, As- trophys. J.766, 32 (2013), arXiv:1112.5479 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  59. [62]

    Modeling projection effects in optically-selected cluster catalogues

    M. Costanzi, E. Rozo, E. S. Rykoff, A. Farahi, T. Jeltema, A. E. Evrard,A.Mantz,D.Gruen,R.Mandelbaum,J.DeRose,etal., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.482, 490 (2019), arXiv:1807.07072 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  60. [63]

    E. S. Rykoff et al., Astrophys. J.746, 178 (2012), arXiv:1104.2089 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  61. [64]

    Sinha and L

    M. Sinha and L. Garrison, Corrfunc: Blazing fast correla- tion functions on the CPU, Astrophysics Source Code Library (2017), ascl:1703.003

    work page 2017

  62. [65]

    G. L. Bryan and M. L. Norman, Astrophys. J.495, 80 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9710107

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  63. [66]

    T. N. Varga, J. DeRose, D. Gruen, T. McClintock, S. Seitz, E. Rozo, M. Costanzi, B. Hoyle, N. MacCrann, A. A. Plazas, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.489, 2511 (2019), arXiv:1812.05116 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  64. [67]

    emcee: The MCMC Hammer

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, PASP125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  65. [68]

    The effect of baryons on the inner density profiles of rich clusters

    M. Schaller, C. S. Frenk, R. G. Bower, T. Theuns, J. Tray- ford, R. A. Crain, M. Furlong, J. Schaye, C. Dalla Vecchia, and I. G. McCarthy, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.452, 343 (2015), arXiv:1409.8297

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [69]

    M. A. Henson, D. J. Barnes, S. T. Kay, I. G. McCarthy, and J. Schaye, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.465, 3361 (2017), arXiv:1607.08550 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  67. [70]

    B. E. Lee, A. M. C. Le Brun, M. E. Haq, N. J. Deering, L. J. King, D. Applegate, and I. G. McCarthy, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.479, 890 (2018), arXiv:1805.12186 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [71]

    Astropart

    D.Cromer,N.Battaglia,H.Miyatake,andM.Simet,J.Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2022, 034 (2022), arXiv:2104.06925 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  69. [72]

    S. K. Giri and A. Schneider, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2021, 046 (2021), arXiv:2108.08863 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  70. [73]

    Grandis, S

    S. Grandis, S. Bocquet, J. J. Mohr, M. Klein, and K. Dolag, Mon.Not.R.Astron.Soc.507,5671(2021),arXiv:2103.16212 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  71. [74]

    Sunayama, Mon

    T. Sunayama, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.521, 5064 (2023)

    work page 2023

  72. [75]

    C.-H. To, S. Pandey, E. Krause, N. Dalal, D. Anbajagane, and D. H. Weinberg, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2024, 037 (2024), arXiv:2402.00110 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  73. [76]

    Dalal, C.-H

    N. Dalal, C.-H. To, C. Hirata, T. Hyeon-Shin, M. Hilton, S. Pandey, and J. R. Bond, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2507.04476 (2025), arXiv:2507.04476 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [77]

    D. E. Johnston et al., arXiv:0709.1159 (2007)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  75. [78]

    Statistical uncertainties and systematic errors in weak lensing mass estimates of galaxy clusters

    F.Köhlinger,H.Hoekstra,andM.Eriksen,Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc.453, 3107 (2015), arXiv:1508.05308 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  76. [79]

    Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Calibration of Cluster Mis-centering in the redMaPPer Catalogs

    Y. Zhang, T. Jeltema, D. Hollowood, S. Everett, E. Rozo, A. Farahi, A. Bermeo, S. Bhargava, P. Giles, A. Romer, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron.Soc.487,2578(2019),arXiv:1901.07119 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [80]

    M. W. Sommer, T. Schrabback, D. E. Applegate, S. Hilbert, B.Ansarinejad,B.Floyd,andS.Grandis,Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc.509, 1127 (2022), arXiv:2105.08027 [astro-ph.CO]. 8

    work page arXiv 2022

  78. [81]

    Bocquet, S

    S. Bocquet, S. Grandis, L. E. Bleem, M. Klein, J. J. Mohr, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, S. W. Allen, O. Alves, et al., Phys. Rev. D110, 083509 (2024), arXiv:2310.12213 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  79. [82]

    Yang, H.-Y

    L. Yang, H.-Y. Wu, et al., arXiv e-prints , in prep (2025)

    work page 2025

  80. [83]

    C.-H. To, E. Krause, E. Rozo, H.-Y. Wu, D. Gruen, J. DeRose, E. Rykoff, R. H. Wechsler, M. Becker, M. Costanzi, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron.Soc.502,4093(2021),arXiv:2008.10757 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.