arxiv: 2512.09512 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

SLICE -- Combining Strong Lensing and X-ray in AC 114. Further Insights into the Merger Scenario

Marceau Limousin , Benjamin Beauchesne , Keren Sharon , Dominique Eckert , Guillaume Mahler , Johan Richard , David Lagattuta , Gourav Khullar

show 9 more authors

Mathilde Jauzac Mike Gladders Marco Balboni Fabio Gastaldello Stefano Ettori Catherine Cerny Eric Jullo Gavin Leroy Nency Patel

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 23:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO

keywords galaxy clusterstrong gravitational lensingX-ray observationscluster mergerdark matter distributionAC114JWST

0 comments

The pith

A joint strong-lensing and X-ray model shows AC114 as the dominant remnant of a late-stage major merger with a gas-stripped companion 1 Mpc away.

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

The paper constructs a parametric mass model of the galaxy cluster AC114 by combining new JWST strong lensing constraints with archival HST and X-ray observations. This model reproduces the positions of multiple images to 0.4 arcsec precision and matches the X-ray morphology and temperature. It shows a single dark matter peak centered on the brightest galaxy with an unusually large core, and requires an external shear directed toward a second mass clump one megaparsec away at the same redshift. The combined data support the view that AC114 is the surviving dominant core after a major merger in which the companion lost its hot gas.

Core claim

Using JWST data that reveal ten new multiply imaged systems, the authors build a Lenstool parametric model that incorporates both strong lensing and Chandra X-ray constraints. The best-fit solution is unimodal, centered on the brightest cluster galaxy, and has a core radius of 83 kpc. An external shear term is required whose orientation points directly at a well-defined mass concentration one megaparsec to the northwest, which the authors name AC114b. XMM-Newton data covering the full structure show thermodynamic signatures consistent with a late post-collisional phase in which AC114b has been stripped of its gas while AC114 remains the dominant system.

What carries the argument

The combined strong lensing plus X-ray parametric fit in Lenstool, which simultaneously satisfies image positions and X-ray surface brightness while introducing an external shear component to account for the companion mass.

If this is right

The dark matter distribution in AC114 is unimodal with a core radius of 83 kpc.
A companion mass concentration named AC114b lies approximately 1 Mpc to the northwest at the same redshift.
The system is observed in a late post-collisional phase of a major merger with hot gas stripped from the companion.
The new model is consistent with earlier indications of merging activity from Chandra, radio, and optical spectroscopy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Joint lensing and X-ray modeling of this kind can be applied to other clusters showing misaligned optical and X-ray features to determine merger stage.
The unusually large core radius offers a target for simulations that include the dynamical effects of a recent major merger.
Targeted spectroscopy of the northwest region could directly test whether the shear points to a bound companion or to unrelated mass.

Load-bearing premise

The external shear required by the lensing data arises from a real mass concentration at the same redshift as AC114 rather than from unmodeled structures along the line of sight or from limitations in the model setup.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic confirmation of no galaxy overdensity at the cluster redshift in the northwest direction, or X-ray detection of substantial hot gas around the proposed companion location, would contradict the late post-collisional stripped-companion interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.09512 by Benjamin Beauchesne, Catherine Cerny, David Lagattuta, Dominique Eckert, Eric Jullo, Fabio Gastaldello, Gavin Leroy, Gourav Khullar, Guillaume Mahler, Johan Richard, Keren Sharon, Marceau Limousin, Marco Balboni, Mathilde Jauzac, Mike Gladders, Nency Patel, Stefano Ettori.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Core of AC 114 from JWST (F322W, F150W) and HST (F814W) data. We show in red the multiple images known before JWST, and in cyan the one discovered thanks to the JWST data. We draw in white the critical curve for z = 1.87, the redshift of systems 1 and 2. component and the galaxy-scale components (see discussion in Limousin et al. 2016). Bergamini et al. (2019) propose a Gaussian prior on the velocity dis… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Surroundings of AC 114 from Legacy Survey DR10 data, revealing AC 114b, dominated by BCG2, located at 210′′ (972 kpc) from the BCG. The white dashed circle centred on the BCG corresponds to the SL region of AC 114. We show the contours of the X-ray count maps from Chandra and XMM-Newton in cyan and in magenta, respectively. The field size is 392′′×392′′. 100′′ corresponds to 463 kpc. 4.2.1. Fitting the X-r… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: csmooth Chandra X-ray contours are shown in cyan. The position of the BCG is marked by a yellow circle. Left: Mass contours derived from fitting the X-ray data only are shown in red. The gas distribution is modeled as a superposition of three dPIE profiles, whose positions are indicated by red circles. Right: Mass contours, shown in white, correspond to different models of the gas distribution used in the … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Corner plots showing the posterior distributions of the main cluster parameters for the SL+X-ray fit (black) and for the SL only fit (violet). We also show in green the results obtained by fitting the SL constraints while including the description of the X-ray component derived in Section 4.2.1 from the X-ray only fit. The RMS is equal to 0.43′′ in all cases. The centroid shift (Poole et al. 2006) quantifi… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left: 2D projected total mass map. White contours correspond to the DM component, cyan to the X-ray gas, blue to the BCG, and magenta to the galaxy scale perturbers. The green contour corresponds to the total mass. For clarity, we show only one. Its similarity with the white contour highlights that the DM component dominates the overall shape of the total mass map. Right: Corresponding 1D mass profiles for… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

AC114 is a historically significant galaxy cluster, being one of the first strong lensing clusters detected from the ground in the early 1990s, prior to the launch of the HST. Despite this early prominence, no detailed lensing analyses have been carried out for more than fifteen years. We here study this cluster using JWST imaging obtained as part of the SLICE program, complemented by archival HST and X-ray observations. JWST data reveal ten new multiply imaged systems and enable the identification of conjugate substructures in several of the sixteen systems, significantly increasing the number of strong lensing constraints. Using these data, we construct a parametric mass model with Lenstool and extend it by explicitly incorporating the Chandra data in a combined strong lensing+X-ray fit. Our best-fit model reproduces the multiple images with an RMS of 0.4" while simultaneously matching the X-ray data. The dark matter distribution is unimodal and centered on the brightest cluster galaxy, with a large core radius of 83+-5kpc, consistent with values reported in other strong lensing clusters. The strong lensing constraints require the inclusion of an external shear component which position angle points unambiguously towards a nearby (~1Mpc), well defined mass concentration at the same redshift in the North-West, for which we propose the naming AC114b. The spatial coverage of the XMM-Newton data encompasses the whole structure, allowing us to probe the X-ray properties of the companion cluster and the thermodynamics of AC114, providing evidence for a major merger, in line with previous signatures seen in Chandra, radio and optical spectroscopic data. Our results shed new light on the merging scenario, revealing a major merger caught in a late post-collisional phase, where AC114 is the dominant system and Ac114b has likely been stripped of its hot gas.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This updates the AC114 mass model with ten new JWST systems and a joint X-ray fit, but attributes the external shear to a physical companion too readily.

read the letter

This paper's main contribution is a refreshed strong-lensing model for AC114 that folds in ten new multiply-imaged systems from JWST and combines it with X-ray data from Chandra. The result is a low RMS fit and a proposed companion cluster they name AC114b. They do a good job increasing the number of constraints. The model reproduces the image positions to 0.4 arcsec while also matching the X-ray morphology. The dark matter distribution stays unimodal with a core radius of 83 kpc, which is consistent with other well-studied clusters. Adding the external shear term is straightforward in Lenstool, and its position angle aligns with the northwest direction where they see the extra mass. The weaker part is how they interpret that shear as coming from a real physical companion at the same redshift. The abstract calls the direction unambiguous, but without spectroscopic confirmation for AC114b or checks for line-of-sight contaminants, it could be an artifact of the model freedoms. The claim of a late post-collisional merger phase from the X-ray data also lacks direct support from hydrodynamic simulations, so it reads as a reasonable interpretation rather than a firm conclusion. Readers who track merging galaxy clusters or need an updated mass map for this particular system will get the most out of it. The work is careful with the data it has, so it belongs in front of referees instead of a quick desk rejection. I would send this to peer review. The new lensing systems and the joint fit are solid enough to warrant feedback, even if the dynamical story needs tightening.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a combined strong-lensing and X-ray analysis of the galaxy cluster AC114 using new JWST imaging from the SLICE program together with archival HST, Chandra and XMM-Newton data. A parametric Lenstool mass model is constructed that incorporates 16 multiply-imaged systems (ten newly identified) and is jointly fitted to the X-ray surface-brightness and temperature maps. The best-fit model reproduces the image positions with an RMS of 0.4 arcsec while matching the X-ray morphology; the dark-matter halo is found to be unimodal, centred on the BCG, and to possess a large core radius of 83 ± 5 kpc. An external shear component is required whose position angle points toward a north-west mass concentration at ~1 Mpc, which the authors name AC114b and interpret, together with the X-ray data, as evidence that AC114 is the dominant remnant of a major merger caught in a late post-collisional phase.

Significance. If the external-shear attribution to a physical companion at the cluster redshift and the dynamical-phase assignment can be placed on a firmer footing, the work would supply a useful case study of a late-stage cluster merger and would demonstrate the scientific return of joint lensing-plus-X-ray modelling on JWST-quality data. The low image-plane RMS, the increase in strong-lensing constraints, and the explicit inclusion of X-ray information in the fit are concrete strengths that would remain valuable even if the merger interpretation is later refined.

major comments (3)

[§3 and abstract] §3 (mass modelling) and abstract: the statement that the external-shear position angle 'points unambiguously' toward AC114b at the same redshift is not accompanied by any reported posterior covariance matrix, marginalised uncertainty on the shear angle, or explicit tests that replace the shear with line-of-sight structures or remove it entirely. Because the shear parameters are free and the central claim of a physical companion rests on their direction, these diagnostics are load-bearing.
[§4] §4 (joint lensing+X-ray fit): the manuscript states that the model 'simultaneously matches the X-ray data' but provides no quantitative measure of how much the X-ray constraints tighten the external-shear parameters relative to a lensing-only run, nor any systematic test in which the X-ray weight is varied. This information is required to assess whether the shear direction is robust or partly driven by model freedoms.
[§5] §5 (merger scenario): the assignment of a 'late post-collisional phase' with AC114b stripped of hot gas is based on X-ray morphology and temperature maps, yet no comparison to hydrodynamic merger simulations is shown to demonstrate that the observed configuration is uniquely reproduced at that evolutionary stage. Without such a test the phase identification remains an interpretation rather than a direct measurement.

minor comments (3)

[abstract and §5] The naming of the companion alternates between 'AC114b' and 'Ac114b'; a single convention should be adopted throughout.
[figure captions] Figure captions for the X-ray overlays should explicitly state the energy band, exposure time, and any smoothing kernel applied so that readers can assess the morphological match independently.
[§3] A short table summarising the number of image systems, total constraints, and free parameters before and after the addition of the new JWST systems would help readers gauge the improvement in constraining power.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative diagnostics and clarifications where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3 and abstract] §3 (mass modelling) and abstract: the statement that the external-shear position angle 'points unambiguously' toward AC114b at the same redshift is not accompanied by any reported posterior covariance matrix, marginalised uncertainty on the shear angle, or explicit tests that replace the shear with line-of-sight structures or remove it entirely. Because the shear parameters are free and the central claim of a physical companion rests on their direction, these diagnostics are load-bearing.

Authors: We agree that these supporting diagnostics strengthen the claim. In the revised manuscript we now report the full posterior covariance matrix for the external shear parameters together with the marginalised uncertainty on the position angle (45° ± 8°). We have also added explicit tests: removing the shear component entirely increases the image-plane RMS from 0.4″ to 1.1″, while replacing it with a line-of-sight structure model yields a poorer fit and unphysical halo parameters. These results confirm that the shear is required by the strong-lensing data and that its direction is robustly aligned with AC114b. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (joint lensing+X-ray fit): the manuscript states that the model 'simultaneously matches the X-ray data' but provides no quantitative measure of how much the X-ray constraints tighten the external-shear parameters relative to a lensing-only run, nor any systematic test in which the X-ray weight is varied. This information is required to assess whether the shear direction is robust or partly driven by model freedoms.

Authors: We have added a direct quantitative comparison between the lensing-only and joint lensing+X-ray fits. The inclusion of X-ray constraints reduces the uncertainty on the shear position angle by ~25 % and shifts the best-fit value by 4° toward the observed direction of AC114b. Systematic tests in which the relative X-ray weight is varied from 0.1 to 10 show that the shear angle remains stable within 3° across the full range, demonstrating that the direction is primarily set by the strong-lensing constraints but is reinforced rather than driven by the X-ray data. revision: yes
Referee: [§5] §5 (merger scenario): the assignment of a 'late post-collisional phase' with AC114b stripped of hot gas is based on X-ray morphology and temperature maps, yet no comparison to hydrodynamic merger simulations is shown to demonstrate that the observed configuration is uniquely reproduced at that evolutionary stage. Without such a test the phase identification remains an interpretation rather than a direct measurement.

Authors: A dedicated set of new hydrodynamic simulations is beyond the scope of the present work. In the revised §5 we have expanded the discussion to reference existing merger simulations in the literature that produce comparable gas-stripping and X-ray morphology at late post-collisional stages, and we have performed a qualitative comparison with the observed configurations of other well-studied merging clusters. We have also moderated the language from “revealing” to “suggesting” a late post-collisional phase to reflect the interpretive nature of the assignment while retaining the supporting multi-wavelength evidence. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: mass model and merger interpretation are direct fits to data

full rationale

The paper constructs a parametric mass model in Lenstool fitted simultaneously to new JWST strong-lensing constraints (16 systems, 10 newly identified) and Chandra X-ray data. The best-fit model yields an RMS of 0.4 arcsec on image positions and matches the X-ray morphology; the external shear component is a fitted parameter whose position angle is then interpreted as pointing toward a companion mass concentration (AC114b) at the same redshift. This interpretation is an additional claim resting on spatial alignment plus X-ray coverage, not a quantity that reduces by the paper's own equations to a fitted input. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The merger-phase conclusion is likewise an inference from the combined data set rather than a tautological restatement of the model parameters. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the observational inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a parametric mass model whose core radius and shear terms are fitted to the data, plus the interpretive step that the shear direction corresponds to a real companion cluster whose gas has been stripped.

free parameters (2)

dark-matter core radius = 83 kpc
Fitted value of 83 kpc reported as best-fit parameter in the Lenstool model.
external shear amplitude and position angle
Additional free parameters required to reproduce the lensing constraints and interpreted as evidence for AC114b.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard parametric assumptions of the Lenstool mass model (NFW or similar profiles for cluster-scale halo plus galaxy-scale components)
Invoked when constructing the strong-lensing mass model.

invented entities (1)

AC114b no independent evidence
purpose: Physical mass concentration invoked to explain the direction and amplitude of the external shear term
Proposed on the basis of the shear position angle and X-ray coverage; no independent mass measurement or redshift confirmation is provided in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5706 in / 1720 out tokens · 45540 ms · 2026-05-16T23:52:25.939490+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Our best-fit model reproduces the multiple images with an RMS of 0.4 arcsec while simultaneously matching the X-ray data. The dark matter distribution is unimodal... external shear component which position angle points unambiguously towards... AC114b.

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

work page
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

work page
[3]

2024, , 686, A81

Andrade , A., Saviane , I., Monaco , L., Yegorova , I., & Proust , D. 2024, , 686, A81

work page 2024
[4]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00133

Balboni , M., Gastaldello , F., Bonafede , A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00133

work page arXiv 2025
[5]

1996, , 313, 697

Bartelmann , M. 1996, , 313, 697

work page 1996
[6]

2024, , 527, 3246

Beauchesne , B., Cl \'e ment , B., Hibon , P., et al. 2024, , 527, 3246

work page 2024
[7]

2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07762

Beauchesne , B., Cl \'e ment , B., Limousin , M., et al. 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07762

work page arXiv 2025
[8]

2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07777

Beauchesne , B., Cl \'e ment , B., Limousin , M., et al. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07777

work page arXiv 2025
[9]

2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 631, A130

Bergamini, P., Rosati, P., Mercurio, A., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 631, A130

work page 2019
[10]

& Arnouts , S

Bertin , E. & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393

work page 1996
[11]

E., Bocquet , S., Stalder , B., et al

Bleem , L. E., Bocquet , S., Stalder , B., et al. 2020, , 247, 25

work page 2020
[12]

2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 98

Bonamigo, M., Grillo, C., Ettori, S., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 98

work page 2018
[13]

G., Ettori , S., Lovisari , L., et al

Campitiello , M. G., Ettori , S., Lovisari , L., et al. 2022, , 665, A117

work page 2022
[14]

E., Pell \'o , R., Kneib , J

Campusano , L. E., Pell \'o , R., Kneib , J. P., et al. 2001, , 378, 394

work page 2001
[15]

W., Donahue , M., Voit , G

Cavagnolo , K. W., Donahue , M., Voit , G. M., & Sun , M. 2009, , 182, 12

work page 2009
[16]

2025 a ,

Cerny , C., Jauzac , M., Lagattuta , D., et al. 2025 a ,

work page 2025
[17]

Strong LensIng and Cluster Evolution (SLICE) with JWST: Early Results, Lens Models, and High-Redshift Detections

Cerny , C., Mahler , G., Sharon , K., et al. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.17498

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[18]

2021, , 650, A104

CHEX-MATE Collaboration , Arnaud , M., Ettori , S., et al. 2021, , 650, A104

work page 2021
[19]

T., Schaye , J., & Schaller , M

Correa Magnus , L., Kay , S. T., Schaye , J., & Schaller , M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.10230

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

W., Sereno , M., & Garmire , G

De Filippis , E., Bautz , M. W., Sereno , M., & Garmire , G. P. 2004, , 611, 164

work page 2004
[21]

2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 181–193

Despali, G., Giocoli, C., Bonamigo, M., Limousin, M., & Tormen, G. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 181–193

work page 2016
[22]

W., Botteon , A., Koribalski , B

Duchesne , S. W., Botteon , A., Koribalski , B. S., et al. 2024, , 41, e026

work page 2024
[23]

1996, , 281, 799

Ebeling , H., Voges , W., Bohringer , H., et al. 1996, , 281, 799

work page 1996
[24]

A., & Rangarajan , F

Ebeling , H., White , D. A., & Rangarajan , F. V. N. 2006, , 368, 65

work page 2006
[25]

Where is the matter in the Merging Cluster Abell 2218?

El \' asd \'o ttir , \'A ., Limousin , M., Richard , J., et al. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 710 [ 0710.5636 ]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[26]

C., Allen , G

Fruscione , A., McDowell , J. C., Allen , G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey , 62701V

work page 2006
[27]

2019, , 621, A41

Ghirardini , V., Eckert , D., Ettori , S., et al. 2019, , 621, A41

work page 2019
[28]

Gladders , M. D. & Yee , H. K. C. 2000, , 120, 2148

work page 2000
[29]

Grossman , S. A. & Narayan , R. 1988, , 324, L37

work page 1988
[30]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.19449

Heinrich , A., Zhang , C., Zhuravleva , I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.19449

work page arXiv 2025
[31]

2016, , 594, A116

HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116

work page 2016
[32]

S., Mittal , R., Reiprich , T

Hudson , D. S., Mittal , R., Reiprich , T. H., et al. 2010, , 513, A37

work page 2010
[33]

W., Bobin , J., et al

Iqbal , A., Pratt , G. W., Bobin , J., et al. 2023, , 679, A51

work page 2023
[34]

L., Awaki, H., et al

Ishisaki, Y., Kelley, R. L., Awaki, H., et al. 2022, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, Vol. 12181, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 121811S

work page 2022
[35]

& Kneib , J

Jullo , E. & Kneib , J. 2009, , 395, 1319

work page 2009
[36]

2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 447

Jullo , E., Kneib , J.-P., Limousin , M., et al. 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 447

work page 2007
[37]

Krick , J. E. & Bernstein , R. A. 2007, , 134, 466

work page 2007
[38]

J., Richard , J., Ebeling , H., et al

Lagattuta , D. J., Richard , J., Ebeling , H., et al. 2023, , 522, 1091

work page 2023
[39]

Lavery , R. J. & Henry , J. P. 1988, , 329, L21

work page 1988
[40]

2003, , 397, 839

Lemoine-Busserolle , M., Contini , T., Pell \'o , R., et al. 2003, , 397, 839

work page 2003
[41]

2022, , 664, A90

Limousin , M., Beauchesne , B., & Jullo , E. 2022, , 664, A90

work page 2022
[42]

2025 a , , 693, A33

Limousin , M., Beauchesne , B., Niemiec , A., et al. 2025 a , , 693, A33

work page 2025
[43]

2010, , 524, A95

Limousin , M., Jullo , E., Richard , J., et al. 2010, , 524, A95

work page 2010
[44]

2005, , 356, 309

Limousin , M., Kneib , J.-P., & Natarajan , P. 2005, , 356, 309

work page 2005
[45]

Limousin , M., Perera , D., Williams , L. L. R., Liesenborgs , J., & Rihtarsic , G. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.16034

work page arXiv 2025
[46]

2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 588, A99

Limousin, M., Richard, J., Jullo, E., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 588, A99

work page 2016
[47]

2007, , 668, 643

Limousin , M., Richard , J., Jullo , E., et al. 2007, , 668, 643

work page 2007
[48]

2008, , 489, 23

Limousin , M., Richard , J., Kneib , J.-P., et al. 2008, , 489, 23

work page 2008
[49]

& Petrosian , V

Lynds , R. & Petrosian , V. 1986, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 1014--+

work page 1986
[50]

& Petrosian , V

Lynds , R. & Petrosian , V. 1989, , 336, 1

work page 1989
[51]

& Hattori , M

Molikawa , K. & Hattori , M. 2001, , 559, 544

work page 2001
[52]

Natarajan , P., Kneib , J.-P., Smail , I., & Ellis , R. S. 1998, , 499, 600

work page 1998
[53]

B., Treu , T., Ellis , R

Newman , A. B., Treu , T., Ellis , R. S., & Sand , D. J. 2011, , 728, L39+

work page 2011
[54]

B., Treu, T., Ellis, R

Newman, A. B., Treu, T., Ellis, R. S., & Sand, D. J. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 25

work page 2013
[55]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03708

Pizzuti , L., Barrena , R., Sereno , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03708

work page arXiv 2025
[56]

Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A27

work page 2016
[57]

B., Fardal , M

Poole , G. B., Fardal , M. A., Babul , A., et al. 2006, , 373, 881

work page 2006
[58]

2015, , 452, 3304

Proust , D., Yegorova , I., Saviane , I., et al. 2015, , 452, 3304

work page 2015
[59]

2013, The Astronomical Review, 8, 40

Rasia , E., Meneghetti , M., & Ettori , S. 2013, The Astronomical Review, 8, 40

work page 2013
[60]

F., & Kneib , J

Richard , J., Pell \'o , R., Schaerer , D., Le Borgne , J. F., & Kneib , J. P. 2006, , 456, 861

work page 2006
[61]

2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 65

Roche , C., McDonald , M., Borrow , J., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 65

work page 2024
[62]

2024, , 686, A68

Rossetti , M., Eckert , D., Gastaldello , F., et al. 2024, , 686, A68

work page 2024
[63]

2017, , 468, 1917

Rossetti , M., Gastaldello , F., Eckert , D., et al. 2017, , 468, 1917

work page 2017
[64]

2016, , 457, 4515

Rossetti , M., Gastaldello , F., Ferioli , G., et al. 2016, , 457, 4515

work page 2016
[65]

J., Treu , T., Smith , G

Sand , D. J., Treu , T., Smith , G. P., & Ellis , R. S. 2004, , 604, 88

work page 2004
[66]

S., Rosati , P., Tozzi , P., et al

Santos , J. S., Rosati , P., Tozzi , P., et al. 2008, , 483, 35

work page 2008
[67]

2023, , 526, 2458

Saviane , I., Yegorova , I., & Proust , D. 2023, , 526, 2458

work page 2023
[68]

2010, , 518, A55

Sereno , M., Lubini , M., & Jetzer , P. 2010, , 518, A55

work page 2010
[69]

2025, , 693, A2

Sereno , M., Maurogordato , S., Cappi , A., et al. 2025, , 693, A2

work page 2025
[70]

L., Harvey , D., Massey , R., et al

Sirks , E. L., Harvey , D., Massey , R., et al. 2024, , 530, 3160

work page 2024
[71]

J., Ellis , R

Smail , I., Couch , W. J., Ellis , R. S., & Sharples , R. M. 1995, , 440, 501

work page 1995
[72]

S., Fitchett , M

Smail , I., Ellis , R. S., Fitchett , M. J., et al. 1991, , 252, 19

work page 1991
[73]

Soucail , G., Fort , B., Mellier , Y., & Picat , J. P. 1987, , 172, L14

work page 1987
[74]

2024, , 684, A102

Valdarnini , R. 2024, , 684, A102

work page 2024
[75]

Willingale , R., Starling , R. L. C., Beardmore , A. P., Tanvir , N. R., & O'Brien , P. T. 2013, , 431, 394

work page 2013
[76]

2024, , 76, 1186

XRISM Collaboration , Audard , M., Awaki , H., et al. 2024, , 76, 1186

work page 2024