Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

The probability distribution of 3-D shapes of galaxy clusters from 2-D X-ray images

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the 3-D shape distribution of 89 galaxy clusters can be recovered from single 2-D X-ray images, using filamentarity stereology.

desk verdict Clever forward model and a possible radial shape trend, but the inverse step is underconstrained and the reported axis ratios lack error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04454 v3 pith:KJYCVR7W submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HE

Swapnil Shankar , Rishi Khatri This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords galaxyclustersX-rayobservationsstereologyfilamentarityshapedistributiontriaxialellipsoidsdeprojectioncosmology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the 3-D shape distribution of a population of galaxy clusters can be recovered statistically from single 2-D X-ray images, one per cluster, using a stereological deprojection based on filamentarity. The authors build a theoretical library of filamentarity probability distributions by projecting model ellipsoids from many random orientations, then match the observed filamentarity histogram of 89 well-resolved clusters to a mixture of such templates. They find that two ellipsoid shapes suffice to describe the data, with the dominant component near axis ratios $(\ell,w)=(1.41,1.30)$, and that the recovered shape PDF shifts from prolate in the innermost parts to oblate-preferred in the outer parts. If correct, the method turns large single-probe surveys into a statistical test of cluster shapes against cosmological predictions, without needing the multi-probe modelling used for individual clusters.

What carries the argument

The central object is the filamentarity $F=(P^2-4\pi S)/(P^2+4\pi S)$, a dimensionless shape descriptor built from the perimeter $P$ and area $S$ of an X-ray isocontour, which is 0 for a circle and approaches 1 for a line. For each candidate shape $(\ell,w)$, the authors project a self-similar triaxial ellipsoidal emissivity model (generalized NFW density with a universal temperature profile) from roughly 150,000 isotropically distributed lines of sight, fit an ellipse to each projected isocontour, and thereby build the conditional PDF $P(F|\ell,w)$. The observed filamentarity PDF is then written as a mixture $\sum_i a_i P(F|\ell_i,w_i)$; minimizing chi-square over the weights and shape pairs, or a Monte Carlo point-removal scheme, recovers the shape PDF $P(\ell,w)$. This ratio-symmetric projection library is what converts an ensemble of single 2-D images into a statistical statement about 3-D shapes.

What would settle it

Generate mock X-ray images from cosmological hydrodynamical simulations whose 3-D axis-ratio profiles are known, apply the filamentarity-PDF method to hundreds of projected images, and compare the recovered P(\ell,w) with the input distribution; a systematic mismatch, especially a shift toward the two-shape mixture, would show the self-similar-ellipsoid assumption fails. Alternatively, compare the inferred P(\ell,w) for the same clusters with axis ratios obtained from joint X-ray/SZ/lensing triaxial fits; disagreement beyond the quoted errors would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the probability distribution of filamentarity $F$ measured from the X-ray surface-brightness contours of 89 galaxy clusters is adequately described by a superposition of two conditional distributions $P(F|\ell,w)$, i.e. two discrete ellipsoidal shapes, and that the deprojected shape PDF $P(\ell,w)$ describes the X-ray gas as prolate in the inner region and progressively oblate in the outer region. For the 60%, 80%, and 90% enclosed-flux contours, the dominant shape sits at $(\ell,w)=(1.41,1.30)$, corresponding to principal-axis ratios about $1.4:1.3:1$, with weights around 0.75--0.84; a second, less probable more elongated shape contributes to the high-filamentarity tail. The authors further claim the recovered PDF is insensitive to the assumed radial density and temperature profiles, and that the ellipsoidal assumption is not essential to the approach.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the X-ray-emitting gas in every cluster is stratified on concentric, similar ellipsoids, so that the emissivity depends on scale radius through a single self-similar coordinate; if real clusters have radially varying axis ratios, twisting isophotes, or non-ellipsoidal substructure, the inferred shape PDF is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed filamentarity PDF can be matched by two ellipsoidal shapes, so a single average shape is insufficient and cluster shapes must vary from cluster to cluster.
  • The recovered shape PDF varies with enclosed flux: the X-ray gas is prolate in the inner parts and shows an oblate preference in the outer parts.
  • The method requires only one X-ray (or SZ) image per cluster and a large sample, so it is directly applicable to future surveys of hundreds of thousands of clusters.
  • The inferred shape PDF is insensitive to the radial density and temperature profiles used to model the X-ray emission.
  • The same formalism extends to non-ellipsoidal shapes and to optical or SZ data, since filamentarity is defined for any contour.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If cluster gas has axis ratios that vary continuously with radius or isophotes that twist, the two-shape mixture would be a projection artifact; a natural stress test is to run the method on simulated clusters with known radial shape profiles.
  • Applied to a sample large enough to split by mass or redshift, the shape PDF could map how cluster elongation evolves with cosmic time, something the present 89-cluster sample cannot do.
  • The contrast with lensing-based shape measurements suggests baryons and dark matter may have different axis-ratio distributions; that comparison becomes decisive once both methods are applied to the same clusters.
  • Because the method treats only the population PDF, it can also serve as a cheap complement to individual-cluster triaxial fits, flagging samples where single-object reconstruction is likely to be biased.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a stereological method to recover the probability distribution of intrinsic triaxial shapes of galaxy clusters from the distribution of filamentarity measured on 2-D X-ray images. A forward library P(F|l,w) is generated by projecting randomly oriented ellipsoids with a generalized NFW emissivity; the observed filamentarity PDF of 89 Chandra clusters is then fitted by a superposition of a small number of delta-function shapes (Eq. 11), and a Monte Carlo variant is used to map the shape PDF. The authors report that two shape components suffice, with a dominant component near (l,w) = (1.41, 1.30), and that the gas is prolate in the inner regions and becomes more oblate/triaxial outward. They claim the method is insensitive to density and temperature profiles and extendable to non-ellipsoidal shapes.

Significance. If the recovered shape PDF were identifiable, the method would be a valuable complement to per-object triaxial fitting: it requires only one band and is computationally cheap, making it scalable to eROSITA-era samples. The forward-model checks in Fig. 4 and the error-propagation appendix are useful, and the presentation is generally clear. However, the central inference is currently undermined by the non-uniqueness of the 1-D-to-2-D inversion and by an internal inconsistency between the assumed self-similar ellipsoidal model and the claimed radial shape variation; these issues must be resolved before the method's scientific results can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (8)-(11), Table 2] The inversion from the 1-D filamentarity PDF to the 2-D shape PDF is not identifiable as posed. For a spheroid, P(F|l=w=s) and P(F|l=s,w=1) are identical, because the orientation-averaged projected axis-ratio distribution depends only on the ratio of the unique axis to the circular axes; this is the classical oblate-prolate degeneracy. Consequently, any allocation of probability between the degenerate pair (s,s) and (s,1) leaves P(F) unchanged, so the shape PDF is non-unique even with infinite data. The search over a fixed random grid of 100 points and the delta-function ansatz in Eq. (9) do not address this non-uniqueness, and Table 2 provides errors only on a1, not on the shapes (l1,w1,l2,w2). The claim that the data prefer a dominant oblate component at (1.41,1.30) therefore requires either an identifiability analysis (e.g., mock recovery tests), an explicit and justified prior over P(l,w), or a restriction to identifiable shape combinations.
  2. [Section 2.1 and Section 3, Eqs. (4)-(5), Table 2] Under the assumed self-similar ellipsoidal model, all X-ray isocontours of a cluster have the same projected axis ratio, because the surface brightness depends only on a single quadratic form in the projected coordinates after integrating along the line of sight. The conditional PDFs P(F|l,w) are therefore independent of the enclosed-flux fraction. The differences among the five observed PDFs in Fig. 6, and the different best-fit (l,w) values in Table 2, are thus not predictions of this model; they indicate either that the model is rejected by the data or that the differences are noise. Interpreting the separate fits as evidence for radial variation of the 3-D shape (Section 3.3 and the abstract) is not self-consistent. A radially varying shape requires a forward model in which the axis ratios depend on radius, and a joint fit to all enclosed-flux PDFs.
  3. [Table 1 and Section 3.1] The claim that n=2 is adequate is not supported by the reported chi^2 values. Table 1 gives chi^2/d.o.f. = 2.61 for the 40% enclosed-flux case and 1.19 for the 25% case at n=2, contradicting the statement that chi^2_min/d.o.f becomes approximately 1 at n=2 for all cases. The decision to prefer n=2 over n=3 at 40% flux is justified only by asserting that chi^2/d.o.f. = 0.07 indicates overfitting; no formal model-selection criterion (AIC, BIC, cross-validation, or posterior model probabilities) is supplied. The absence of uncertainties on l_i and w_i in Table 2 means that even if the model selection were sound, the reported shape values and the prolate-to-oblate radial trend would lack error bars.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (14)-(17), Figs. 8-9] The Monte Carlo procedure is not a validated estimator of P(l,w). It greedily removes points from a uniform grid whenever chi^2 improves, so the final density depends on the initial sample, the order of removal, and the stopping rule; no convergence proof or mock-data calibration is given. The uniform sampling of l in [1,2.6] and w in [1,l] imposes a triangular prior that biases the recovered distribution toward larger l, and this prior dependence is not discussed. The resulting density maps in Figs. 8-9 therefore cannot be interpreted as an unbiased estimate of the shape PDF without substantial validation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "principle axes" should be "principal axes".
  2. [Section 2.2, text before Fig. 4] The labels (l=w=16) and (l=16,w=1) are reversed: l=w=16 corresponds to an oblate spheroid and l=16,w=1 to a prolate spheroid.
  3. [Table 4] The Reference column entries such as "L2013Abell 383" are concatenated and should be separated into the reference key and the cluster name.
  4. [Section 3 and Appendix A] The number of clusters used decreases from 89 (25% and 40% flux) to 78 (90% flux) after rejecting distorted isocontours; the possible selection bias in the outer-flux PDFs is discussed only qualitatively, and the Appendix A rejection criterion should be applied or justified in the main analysis.
  5. [Abstract and Section 4] The statement that the method is "directly applicable to non-ellipsoidal shapes" is not demonstrated anywhere in the paper, since the theoretical library P(F|l,w) is built entirely from ellipsoidal projections.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the recovered shape PDF is an explicitly fitted inverse-problem output, not a prediction equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not claim to derive the cluster shape PDF from first principles independent of data; it performs a forward-model inversion of an observed filamentarity distribution. The conditional PDFs P(F|l,w) are precomputed from an explicit ellipsoidal emissivity model (Eqs. 2-7, Sec. 2), and the paper explicitly tests the sensitivity of these library PDFs to the assumed density and temperature profiles against Vikhlinin et al. profiles (Fig. 4). These theoretical kernels are not fitted to the Chandra data before use. The observed P_obs(F) is then decomposed into a mixture of these fixed kernels by minimizing chi^2 (Eqs. 9-12, Sec. 3.1), and the output (l_i, w_i, a_i) is presented as the fitted recovery of P(l,w), not as an independent prediction. The only external method citation, Makarenko et al. (2015), introduces filamentarity as a shape descriptor and is not a load-bearing self-citation. The restriction to 100 random (l,w) grid points, the uniform prior on [1,2.6], and the possible projection degeneracy between oblate and prolate shapes are model-selection and identifiability limitations rather than circular reductions: they affect the robustness or interpretation of the fit, but the chain from model kernels to data to fitted shape PDF is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forward model is a self-similar triaxial ellipsoid with an NFW-like density profile and a universal temperature profile. The shape parameters and mixture amplitudes are fitted to the observed filamentarity histogram, while the number of components, the l range, and the smoothing scale are chosen ad hoc. The inversion from a 1-D observable to a 2-D shape distribution is underdetermined, so the prior (uniform in l,w) partly determines the result.

free parameters (5)
  • a1 (mixture amplitude of dominant shape) = 0.55 to 0.84 depending on enclosed flux
    Fitted to the observed filamentarity PDF via chi-square minimization; the error is reported in Table 2 but the derivation is not described.
  • (l1, w1) and (l2, w2) = e.g., (1.41, 1.30) and (1.99, 1.62) for 60% flux
    Selected from a fixed set of 100 randomly drawn shapes; effectively free parameters of the mixture model.
  • n (number of shape components) = 2
    Chosen as the smallest n with chi^2/dof <= 1; for 40% flux n=3 gives chi^2/dof=0.07 and is rejected as overfitting.
  • l_max (upper limit of l grid) = 2.6
    Chosen ad hoc to cover observed Fc <= 0.15; excludes more elongated shapes from the recovery.
  • sigma (Gaussian smoothing scale) = 3 pixels
    Applied to X-ray images to suppress noise; no sensitivity test is presented.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption X-ray gas is stratified on concentric, similar ellipsoids, so emissivity depends only on R^2 = x^2/L^2 + y^2/W^2 + z^2/T^2.
    This is the core geometric assumption used to build P(F|l,w); the claim of insensitivity to density/temperature profiles is valid only within this family.
  • domain assumption Cluster orientations are isotropic for the purpose of building the theoretical PDF.
    A single projection per cluster is used; any preferential alignment with filaments or the line of sight would bias the recovered shape distribution. Stated in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Each cluster is an ellipsoid with l >= w >= 1.
    The shape parameterization and the definition of l,w assume triaxial ellipsoids; the abstract's claim that the ellipsoidal assumption is not essential is not demonstrated.
  • standard math The observed filamentarity histogram follows Poisson statistics.
    Used to define sigma_j in the chi-square (Eq. 12); reasonable for count data but sensitive to empty bins.
  • domain assumption The NFW plus universal temperature profile is representative for generating X-ray surface brightness maps.
    The authors show insensitivity by comparing to two Vikhlinin profiles, but the comparison is within the same similar-ellipsoid framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The probability distribution of 3-D shapes of galaxy clusters from 2-D X-ray images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJYCVR7W

@misc{pith2026190804454,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The probability distribution of 3-D shapes of galaxy clusters from 2-D X-ray images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJYCVR7W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04454}
}
read the original abstract

We present a new method to determine the probability distribution of the 3-D shapes of galaxy clusters from the 2-D images using stereology. In contrast to the conventional approach of combining different data sets (such as X-rays, Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect and lensing) to fit a 3-D model of a galaxy cluster for each cluster, our method requires only a single data set, such as X-ray observations or Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect observations, consisting of sufficiently large number of clusters. Instead of reconstructing the 3-D shape of an individual object, we recover the probability distribution function (PDF) of the 3-D shapes of the observed galaxy clusters. The shape PDF is the relevant statistical quantity which can be compared with the theory and used to test the cosmological models. We apply this method to publicly available \emph{Chandra} X-ray data of 89 well resolved galaxy clusters. Assuming ellipsoidal shapes, we find that our sample of galaxy clusters is a mixture of prolate and oblate shapes, with a preference for oblateness with the most probable ratio of principle axes 1.4 : 1.3 : 1. The ellipsoidal assumption is not essential to our approach and our method is directly applicable to non-ellipsoidal shapes. Our method is insensitive to the radial density and temperature profiles of the cluster. Our method is sensitive to the changes in shape of the X-ray emitting gas from inner to outer regions and we find evidence for variation in the 3-D shape of the X-ray emitting gas with distance from the centre.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04454 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Adaptive refinement search for the isocontours: We start with an initial low resolution grid (∆x = ∆y = 2.26×10−1 in this example). We refine the grid several times, each time increasing the resolution close to the desired isocontour, which in turn refines the isocontour. After a few refinements, we get the isocontour at high resolution (∆x = ∆y = 7.48 × 10−3 ). We then rotate the plane back to the XY-plane. This gi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Conditional filamentarity PDFs, P(F|`, w), for ` = 16 and w ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10}. The PDF has been obtained using ≈ 150, 000 isotropic random projections binned into 120 intervals of F between [0, 1]. The labels refer to the values of w. It can be seen that peak filamentarity(Fp) decreases with increase in w. 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 16/1 16/4 16/7 16/10 Probability Density Filamentarity,… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of our NFW + universal temperature pro￾file model with temperature and density profile models from Vikhlinin et al. (2006), for two clusters with very different pa￾rameter values: A383 and A1795. We have made the comparison for three different shapes: one prolate (` = w = 16), one oblate (` = 16, w = 1) and one intermediate (` = 6, w = 3) shape. We find a general agreement of our model with that of Vikhli… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Smoothed X-ray surface brightness maps of Chandra clusters A1835 and A2204. The X-ray count is in log scale. The best-fitting isocontours of X-ray counts (in black color) for 25%,40%,60%,80% and 90% enclosed flux are shown, along with the fit points. 0.1 1 10 100 0 0.0…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PDF of filamentarity, Pobs(F), from Chandra X-ray clus￾ters, obtained using up to 89 clusters and binned with a bin-width of 1/120 in F. We calculate the PDF separately for the isocon￾tours enclosing 25%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 90% of flux. The PDF for 80% and 90% flux has …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The comparison of Observational PDF (Pobs) , best fit PDF P(F) as well as the two conditional PDFs P(F|`i, wi), for 60% and 90% enclosed flux. We also mention the weights ai in the legend. The shape (` = 1.41, w = 1.30) contributes to the low F part of both PDFs, while…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 2-D probability density of shapes in the (`, w) plane obtained using the Monte Carlo method, for 25%, 40% and 60% enclosed flux. The 4 red triangles and 3 brown diamonds corre￾spond to the shapes of individual clusters obtained by Limousin et al. (2013) and Chiu et al.…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as 8, but for 80% and 90% enclosed flux. Cluster ` w T Reference Abell 1835 1.69 1.20 0.76 (prolate) L2013 Abell 383 1.82 1.29 0.71 (prolate) Abell 1689 1.79 1.34 0.64 (triaxial) MACS 1423 1.61 1.16 0.78 (prolate) Abell 209 1.96 1.30 0.76 (prolate) C2018 MACS J032…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the results obtained by us with the re￾sults of Limousin et al. (2013) and Chiu et al. (2018) in the (`, w) plane. The blue square points obtained in this work are the ap￾proximation for the shape PDF, P(`, w), of 87−89 Chandra clus￾ters with the numbers…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as 10, but for 80% and 90% enclosed flux. Analysis for these two cases has been performed with 78 − 81 clusters. ies. To illustrate our method we have used X-ray images from publicly available Chandra data. Our method can also be ap￾plied to optical as well as SZ…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    A., van de Weygaert R., Jones B

    Arag \'o n-Calvo M. A., van de Weygaert R., Jones B. J. T., van der Hulst J. M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...655L...5A 655, L5

    doi:10.1086/511633 2007

  2. [3]

    Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics & Applied Probability, CRC Press, Boca Raton, @doi 10.1201/9780203496817

    Baddeley A., Jensen E., 2004, Stereology for Statisticians. Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics & Applied Probability, CRC Press, Boca Raton, @doi 10.1201/9780203496817

    doi:10.1201/9780203496817 2004

  3. [4]

    Bailin J., Steinmetz M., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/430397 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...627..647B 627, 647

    doi:10.1086/430397 2005

  4. [5]

    R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J

    Battaglia N., Bond J. R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J. L., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758...74B 758, 74

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/74 2012

  5. [7]

    S., Shandarin S

    Bharadwaj S., Sahni V., Sathyaprakash B. S., Shandarin S. F., Yess C., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/308163 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...528...21B 528, 21

    doi:10.1086/308163 2000

  6. [8]

    Binggeli B., 1982, Astronomy and Astrophysics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982A\

    work page 1982

  7. [9]

    R., Thomas P

    Brunino R., Trujillo I., Pearce F. R., Thomas P. A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11282.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375..184B 375, 184

    arXiv 2007

  8. [10]

    A., Canizares C

    Buote D. A., Canizares C. R., 1992, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#180. p. 823

    work page 1992

Show all 62 references
  1. [11]

    A., Canizares C

    Buote D. A., Canizares C. R., 1996, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/176753 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...457..565B 457, 565

    1996 doi

  2. [12]

    Carter D., Metcalfe N., 1980, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/191.2.325 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980MNRAS.191..325C 191, 325

    1980 doi

  3. [13]

    V., Lau E

    Chen H., Avestruz C., Kravtsov A. V., Lau E. T., Nagai D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2776 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.2380C 490, 2380

    2019 doi

  4. [14]

    Chiu I.-N., Umetsu K., Sereno M., Ettori S., Meneghetti M., Merten J., Sayers J., Zitrin A., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860..126C 860, 126

    2018 doi

  5. [15]

    Clowe D., De Lucia G., King L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07723.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.350.1038C 350, 1038

    2004

  6. [16]

    Colless M., et al., 2001, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04902.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328.1039C 328, 1039

    2001

  7. [17]

    L., King L

    Corless V. L., King L. J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12018.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380..149C 380, 149

    2007

  8. [18]

    S., White S

    Davis M., Efstathiou G., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..371D 292, 371

    1985 doi

  9. [19]

    G., 1991, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/170451 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...378..496D 378, 496

    Dubinski J., Carlberg R. G., 1991, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/170451 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...378..496D 378, 496

    1991 doi

  10. [20]

    Evans A. K. D., Bridle S., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1446 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...695.1446E 695, 1446

    2009 doi

  11. [21]

    Fabricant D., Rybicki G., Gorenstein P., 1984, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/162586 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...286..186F 286, 186

    1984 doi

  12. [23]

    S., White S

    Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., Davis M., Efstathiou G., 1988b, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/166213 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...327..507F 327, 507

    doi

  13. [24]

    Gavazzi R., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...443..793G 443, 793

    2005 doi

  14. [25]

    J., Huchra J

    Geller M. J., Huchra J. P., 1989, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.246.4932.897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Sci...246..897G 246, 897

    1989 doi

  15. [26]

    Gott J. Richard I., Juri \'c M., Schlegel D., Hoyle F., Vogeley M., Tegmark M., Bahcall N., Brinkmann J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...624..463G 624, 463

    2005 doi

  16. [27]

    B., Ntampaka M., Nagai D., Lovisari L., Dolag K., Eckert D., ZuHone J

    Green S. B., Ntampaka M., Nagai D., Lovisari L., Dolag K., Eckert D., ZuHone J. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab426f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884...33G 884, 33

    2019 doi

  17. [28]

    U ber Inhalt, Oberfl \

    Hadwiger H., 1957, Vorlesungen \"U ber Inhalt, Oberfl \"a che und Isoperimetrie . Berlin : Springer, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-94702-5

    1957 doi

  18. [29]

    P., Suto Y., 2002, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/341065 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574..538J 574, 538

    Jing Y. P., Suto Y., 2002, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/341065 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574..538J 574, 538

    2002 doi

  19. [30]

    K. N. Abazajian et al. 2016, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161002743A ( @eprint arXiv 1610.02743 )

    2016 arXiv

  20. [31]

    F., Evrard A

    Kasun S. F., Evrard A. E., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/430811 , 629, 781

    2005 doi

  21. [32]

    Kawahara H., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1926 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719.1926K 719, 1926

    2010 doi

  22. [33]

    A., Shandarin S

    Klypin A. A., Shandarin S. F., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/204.3.891 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983MNRAS.204..891K 204, 891

    1983 doi

  23. [34]

    Lee J., Suto Y., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601..599L 601, 599

    2004 doi

  24. [35]

    J., 1932, @doi [ The Mathematical Gazette ] 10.2307/3606857 , 16

    Lidstone G. J., 1932, @doi [ The Mathematical Gazette ] 10.2307/3606857 , 16

    1932 doi

  25. [36]

    Limousin M., Morandi A., Sereno M., Meneghetti M., Ettori S., Bartelmann M., Verdugo T., 2013, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-013-9980-y , 177, 155

    2013 doi

  26. [37]

    L., Nelson E., Burns J., Bryan G

    Loken C., Norman M. L., Nelson E., Burns J., Bryan G. L., Motl P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...579..571L 579, 571

    2002 doi

  27. [38]

    Makarenko I., Fletcher A., Shukurov A., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu169 , 447, L55

    2015 doi

  28. [39]

    B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2096 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.2205M 446, 2205

    Mantz A. B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2096 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.2205M 446, 2205

    2015 doi

  29. [40]

    Merloni A., German eROSITA Consortium 2012, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012arXiv1209.3114M ( @eprint arXiv 1209.3114 )

    2012 arXiv

  30. [41]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/177173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1996ApJ...462..563N 462, 563

    1996 doi

  31. [42]

    A., Mead R., 1965, @doi [The Computer Journal] 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 , 7, 308

    Nelder J. A., Mead R., 1965, @doi [The Computer Journal] 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 , 7, 308

    1965 doi

  32. [43]

    P., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16622.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.405.2215O 405, 2215

    Oguri M., Takada M., Okabe N., Smith G. P., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16622.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.405.2215O 405, 2215

    2010

  33. [44]

    B., Dahle H., Sharon K., Gladders M

    Oguri M., Bayliss M. B., Dahle H., Sharon K., Gladders M. D., Natarajan P., Hennawi J. F., Koester B. P., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20248.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.3213O 420, 3213

    2012

  34. [45]

    G., Cuesta A

    Patiri S. G., Cuesta A. J., Prada F., Betancort-Rijo J., Klypin A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652L..75P 652, L75

    2006 doi

  35. [46]

    Peter A. H. G., Rocha M., Bullock J. S., Kaplinghat M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430..105P 430, 105

    2013 doi

  36. [47]

    Piffaretti R., Jetzer P., Schindler S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021648 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...398...41P 398, 41

    2003 doi

  37. [48]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..24P 594, A24

    2016 doi

  38. [49]

    B., Lightman A

    Rybicki G. B., Lightman A. P., 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics . Wiley-Interscience, New York

    1979

  39. [50]

    H., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...748...21S 748, 21

    Samsing J., Skielboe A., Hansen S. H., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...748...21S 748, 21

    2012 doi

  40. [51]

    R., Ameglio S., Pierpaoli E., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/39 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728...39S 728, 39

    Sayers J., Golwala S. R., Ameglio S., Pierpaoli E., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/39 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728...39S 728, 39

    2011 doi

  41. [52]

    R., Provenzale A., eds, Dark Matter in the Universe, ProceedingsInternational School of Physics, Enrico Fermi , Course 132

    Schmalzing J., Kerscher M., Buchert T., 1996, in Bonometto S., Primack J. R., Provenzale A., eds, Dark Matter in the Universe, ProceedingsInternational School of Physics, Enrico Fermi , Course 132. IOS press, Amsterdam, p. 281 ( @eprint astro-ph/9508154 )

    1996 arXiv

  42. [53]

    F., Zeldovich Y

    Shandarin S. F., Zeldovich Y. B., 1989, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.61.185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989RvMP...61..185S 61, 185

    1989 doi

  43. [54]

    S., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/758/1/l16 , 758, L16

    Skielboe A., Wojtak R., Pedersen K., Rozo E., Rykoff E. S., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/758/1/l16 , 758, L16

    2012 doi

  44. [55]

    P., 1987, Astronomy and Astrophysics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987A 172, L14

    Soucail G., Fort B., Mellier Y., Picat J. P., 1987, Astronomy and Astrophysics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987A 172, L14

    1987

  45. [56]

    J., Melott A

    Splinter R. J., Melott A. L., Linn A. M., Buck C., Tinker J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...479..632S 479, 632

    1997 doi

  46. [57]

    Springel V., et al., 2005, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature03597 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.435..629S 435, 629

    2005 doi

  47. [58]

    A., Zeldovich Y

    Sunyaev R. A., Zeldovich Y. B., 1972, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972CoASP...4..173S 4, 173

    1972

  48. [59]

    S., Van Speybroeck L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640..691V 640, 691

    Vikhlinin A., Kravtsov A., Forman W., Jones C., Markevitch M., Murray S. S., Van Speybroeck L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640..691V 640, 691

    2006 doi

  49. [60]

    S., Quinn P

    Warren M. S., Quinn P. J., Salmon J. K., Zurek W. H., 1992, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/171937 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...399..405W 399, 405

    1992 doi

  50. [61]

    B., 1970, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970A

    Zeldovich Y. B., 1970, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970A

    1970

  51. [62]

    B., Sunyaev R

    Zeldovich Y. B., Sunyaev R. A., 1969, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science] 10.1007/BF00661821 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969Ap\

    1969 doi

  52. [63]

    de Haan T., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/95 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...832...95D 832, 95

    2016 doi

  53. [64]

    van Haarlem M., van de Weygaert R., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173416 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...418..544V 418, 544

    1993 doi

  54. [65]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.