Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 115 references

BASILISK: Bayesian Hierarchical Inference of the Galaxy-Halo Connection using Satellite Kinematics--I. Method and Validation

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 A Bayesian hierarchical likelihood that keeps raw satellite kinematics can recover unbiased halo-mass distributions and orbital anisotropy from galaxy survey data.

desk verdict Basilisk is a genuinely new likelihood for satellite kinematics with a solid three-tier validation, but the unbiasedness claim runs ahead of what the tests actually show and the Tier-3 mock is less adversarial than it looks; still, this deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07547 v1 pith:ZBMU5LVB submitted 2019-08-20 astro-ph.CO

Frank C. van den Bosch , Johannes U. Lange , Andrew R. Zentner This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords satellitekinematicsgalaxy-haloconnectionconditionalluminosityfunctionBayesianhierarchicalinferenceorbitalanisotropyhalomassJeansequationmockvalidation
open problems Dark Matter
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

Basilisk is a Bayesian hierarchical method for using the positions and line-of-sight velocities of satellite galaxies to infer how galaxies populate dark matter haloes. It claims to extract this information from raw central-satellite pairs, without stacking galaxies in luminosity bins and without reducing the data to a velocity dispersion, and it can use flux-limited rather than volume-limited samples. The paper argues this makes satellite kinematics competitive with galaxy-galaxy lensing while also recovering the full probability distribution of halo mass at fixed central luminosity and the orbital anisotropy of the satellites. Validation on three tiers of mock data is presented as evidence that the method returns unbiased constraints on the central galaxy-halo connection even when the analysis model is simplified.

What carries the argument

The engine is the hierarchical satellite-kinematics likelihood $L_{\rm SK}$ of Eqs. (5)-(11): for each primary, the number of secondaries and their $(\Delta V, R_p)$ coordinates constrain a latent halo mass through Bayes' theorem, with the halo-occupation statistics supplied by a conditional luminosity function and the kinematics supplied by a spherical Jeans-equation model of satellites with a Gaussian line-of-sight velocity distribution. The number of secondaries per primary enters as data, which is what lets the method constrain the scatter in the galaxy-halo relation and avoid the satellite-weighting bias. Interlopers are modeled with a parametric effective bias, and fibre collisions are corrected by down-weighting the expected secondary count. Together these pieces replace stacking and velocity-dispersion summary statistics with a full data likelihood.

What would settle it

Run Basilisk on a hydrodynamical cosmological simulation where satellite galaxies may be out of equilibrium, treating the simulation as a mock redshift survey, and compare the recovered $P(M|L_c)$ with the true distribution of its central galaxies; a significant offset would falsify the steady-state Jeans assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the full likelihood for the projected phase-space data, with each central's halo mass treated as a latent variable and marginalized over, yields unbiased constraints on the galaxy-halo connection. Specifically, Basilisk accurately recovers the conditional luminosity function parameters and the full PDF $P(M|L_c)$ for central luminosity versus halo mass, simultaneously constrains the satellite orbital anisotropy, and does so without binning or summary statistics. The validation shows this holds for idealized mocks, for mocks built from N-body haloes with realistic interlopers and fibre collisions, and for mocks in which satellites follow the phase-space distribution of subhaloes. The paper concludes that stacking-based analyses that ignore mass-mixing or assume isotropic orbits can be superseded by this approach.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that satellite galaxies behave as a virialized, steady-state tracer population of a spherical dark-matter halo, so their line-of-sight velocities follow the spherical Jeans equation with a Gaussian velocity distribution; if real satellites are recently accreted, aspherical, or out of equilibrium, the inferred halo masses could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Satellite kinematics can be applied to flux-limited surveys, enlarging the usable sample and dynamic range relative to volume-limited stacking analyses.
  • The method simultaneously constrains halo mass and orbital anisotropy, removing the need to assume isotropic satellite orbits.
  • Because scatter in the galaxy-halo connection is modeled, the inferred $P(M|L_c)$ is not biased by mass-mixing.
  • Individual halo masses for primaries are produced as by-products, allowing tests of how halo mass depends on secondary properties.
  • Mild central velocity bias and modest errors in the inferred satellite radial profile do not bias the galaxy-halo connection inference.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Basilisk's unbiased recovery survives on real surveys, satellite kinematics could serve as an independent check of galaxy-galaxy lensing without needing shape measurements, potentially probing gravity by comparing dynamical and lensing masses.
  • The framework extends naturally to stellar-mass-based occupation statistics, and the hierarchical setup could absorb uncertainty in stellar-mass estimates.
  • The paper's demonstrated insensitivity to the satellite radial profile suggests that adding satellite luminosities to the likelihood may be a low-risk way to tighten the satellite component of the conditional luminosity function.
  • One open extension is to let halo concentration enter the occupation model, since concentration correlates with satellite number and could feed back on the inferred halo masses.
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. This paper introduces Basilisk, a Bayesian hierarchical method that constrains the central and satellite conditional luminosity functions using the raw projected phase-space coordinates of primary-secondary galaxy pairs, without binning or velocity-dispersion summary statistics. Satellites are modelled as a relaxed tracer population in spherical NFW haloes with a Gaussian line-of-sight velocity distribution (Eqs. 44-50), and the likelihood marginalizes over halo mass as a latent variable (Eqs. 5-11). The method is validated on three mock tiers: idealized model mocks (Tier-1), N-body-based mocks with analytic satellite phase-space, realistic interlopers and fibre collisions (Tier-2), and N-body mocks in which satellites are placed on resolved subhaloes (Tier-3). The paper reports unbiased recovery of the central CLF parameters and the full P(M|Lc), plus an anisotropy constraint, and claims precision competitive with galaxy-galaxy lensing.

Significance. The method is conceptually a step forward: it avoids luminosity binning, exploits the Delta-V-Rp correlation, uses flux-limited samples, and includes the number of secondaries per primary as a constraint, which Appendix B shows is crucial. The three-tier validation, especially the Tier-3 subhalo mocks and the tests against central velocity bias and radial-profile errors, is a genuine strength. However, the load-bearing validation of the Jeans/Gaussian assumptions is weaker than the abstract's general unbiasedness claim, and the presented 'predicted halo masses' are not full posterior estimates. If the missing tests are supplied or the claims are appropriately qualified, this would be a valuable methods paper.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3 and §7] The Tier-3 mock is the only validation in which satellite phase space is not drawn from the same Jeans/Gaussian model used in the likelihood, and it is therefore load-bearing for the paper's unbiasedness claim. As described in §5.3, satellites are assigned to the N_sat subhaloes with the highest M_peak, which selects the oldest, most tidally relaxed subhaloes; when N_sat exceeds the resolved subhalo count, the missing phase-space coordinates are taken from subhaloes of other, similar-mass haloes, which breaks the physical host-satellite correlation. Moreover, the analysis still imposes a spherical NFW profile, a zero-scatter concentration-mass relation, and a Gaussian LOSVD (Assumptions I-III in §7). The paper's own §7 acknowledges that real satellite populations violate these assumptions via recent accretion, asphericity, and backsplash (citing Wang et al. 2017; Adhikari et al. 2019). A successful recovery on the most relaxed subhalo subset does not establish unbiasedness for the full range of disequilibrium expected in real data; the authors should either relax the subhalo selection (e.g., random subhaloes including recent infall), add a mock that violates the Jeans/Gaussian assumptions more strongly, or soften the general claim in the abstract.
  2. [Eq. (54) and §5.1-§5.3] The 'predicted halo mass' M_pred used in Figs. 4(f), 7(f), and 9(f) is computed from P(M|Lc,zc,Ns) alone, without conditioning on the satellite phase-space data (Delta-V, Rp). It is therefore not the full posterior mean of the latent halo mass under the Basilisk model, and the small offsets quoted (⟨log(Mpred/Mtrue)⟩ = 0.10-0.15 with scatter 0.31-0.37) cannot be used to validate the kinematic likelihood or to support the statement in §1 that Basilisk yields individual halo-mass estimates as a by-product. If individual halo masses are part of the claimed output, the paper should sample or approximate the latent masses from the full posterior and report the bias of those estimates; if not, Eq. (54) and the related text should be re-labelled as the population-level conditional expectation.
  3. [§4.2.3, §5, and Table 2] The reported posterior percentiles are conditional on the radial profile parameters (R,gamma) being fixed at their best-fit values; the MCMC is run separately for the best-fit (gamma,R) pair rather than marginalizing over these parameters. Table 2 therefore presents conditional intervals that understate the parameter uncertainty. The sensitivity analysis in §6.2 shows that the best-fit CLF parameters shift by less than the conditional 95% intervals when R and gamma are varied, which is reassuring, but it does not provide the fully marginalized posteriors. The authors should either marginalize over (R,gamma) in the MCMC or explicitly state that all quoted intervals are conditional and provide a marginalization check for at least one tier.
  4. [Table 2 and §5.2] The abstract claims 'unbiased constraints on the galaxy-halo connection' without restricting the claim to the central component, but Table 2 shows that the satellite CLF slope alpha_12 is not recovered in the Tier-2 or Tier-3 mocks: the input value -1.20 is outside the 95% intervals (-1.21,-0.32) and (-1.01,-0.37) respectively. The text in §5.2 openly acknowledges that parameters characterizing Phi_s(L|M) are often inconsistent with the input. Because the satellite component is part of the galaxy-halo connection, the paper should either qualify the unbiasedness claim to the central part Phi_c(L|M) or explain why the alpha_12 bias is not a violation of the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] The phrase 'the only available method that simultaneously solves for halo mass and orbital anisotropy' is too strong; Wojtak & Mamon (2013) already constrained anisotropy from satellite kinematics, as the paper itself notes later. Suggest rewording.
  2. [Figure 3] For the Tier-3 mock the best-fit gamma is 0, at the edge of the prior range; the authors should note that the recovery of a cored profile is partly prior-limited.
  3. [§3.5] No convergence diagnostics (e.g., Gelman-Rubin statistics or autocorrelation lengths) are reported for the MCMC chains; a brief statement would help the reader assess the quoted confidence intervals.
  4. [Table 2] The rows for log[ra/rs] report percentiles from a separate OM-model MCMC, but the table caption does not state whether these are conditional on the fixed (R,gamma) values; clarify.
  5. [§5.2] The text says the Tier-2 mock uses the measured concentration of each halo while the analysis assumes a zero-scatter concentration-mass relation; this is a strength of the test and could be stated more prominently in the summary of the validation strategy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: validation is staged, with the Tier-1 same-model mock explicitly labeled a sanity check and Tier-3 providing an independent subhalo phase-space benchmark.

full rationale

The central inference chain is not circular. The likelihood in Eqs. (5)-(11) is built from the CLF occupation model plus a spherical-NFW, Jeans-equation, Gaussian-LOSVD phase-space model, and the paper claims only that this likelihood recovers the input galaxy-halo connection in controlled mocks, not that the phase-space model is derived from first principles. The only mock tier that reuses exactly the same phase-space model as the likelihood is Tier-1, and the paper explicitly disclaims it as independent evidence: "this mock data set is generated using exactly the same model as used to compute the likelihood, and the results of the likelihood analysis discussed below therefore merely serves as a sanity check of Basilisk's inference procedure." Tier-2 adds N-body haloes, realistic interlopers, and survey incompleteness, but still assigns satellites with the same analytical Jeans/Gaussian prescription, so it tests selection and nuisance effects rather than the phase-space model. The load-bearing validation against an independent phase-space benchmark is Tier-3, where satellites are placed on subhaloes of the SMDPL simulation; as the paper states, "in the Tier-3 mocks the satellite galaxies only obey assumptions II and III in as far as subhaloes do." The fact that the CLF parameters are recovered from Tier-3 data is not circular: the likelihood still imposes a spherical, Gaussian, Jeans-equilibrium satellite model while the mock generates satellite kinematics from N-body subhalo orbits, so the CLF recovery is a nontrivial inversion test, not an identity. Self-citations to Lange et al. (2019a,b) and van den Bosch et al. (2004) supply selection criteria, incompleteness corrections, and prior methodology, but they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as proof of the unbiasedness claim; the unbiasedness is demonstrated against the mocks. The Maccio et al. (2008) concentration-mass relation is adopted as an explicit simplifying assumption, and the paper tests robustness to realistic concentration scatter via the Tier-2 and Tier-3 mocks. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to another by construction. The paper is method-validation work with an honest division between self-consistency checks and independent tests, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 17 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on the CLF parameterization, the Jeans/gNFW dynamical model, and the interloper model. These are inputs, not results derived in the paper. The three-tier validation tests robustness to some of these, but Tier-1 and Tier-2 mocks share the same CLF and (for Tier-2 satellite phase space) the same Jeans/Gaussian model as the likelihood, so the strongest independent test is Tier-3's subhalo phase space. No new physical entities are postulated; the effective interloper bias is a nuisance parameterization, not an invented entity.

free parameters (17)
  • log M1 (characteristic halo mass of central L-M relation)
    Central CLF parameter in Eq. (36); inferred from the joint likelihood.
  • log L0 (normalization of central L-M relation)
    Central CLF parameter in Eq. (36); inferred from the joint likelihood.
  • gamma1 (low-mass slope of central L-M relation)
    Central CLF parameter in Eq. (36); Gaussian prior N(3.5,0.2) imposed because low-mass data are sparse.
  • gamma2 (high-mass slope of central L-M relation)
    Central CLF parameter in Eq. (36); inferred from the joint likelihood.
  • sigma12 (central luminosity scatter at 10^12 h^-1 M_sun)
    Scatter parameter in Eq. (37); key for mass-mixing and full PDF recovery.
  • sigma14 (central luminosity scatter at 10^14 h^-1 M_sun)
    Scatter parameter in Eq. (37); inferred from the joint likelihood.
  • alpha12 (satellite CLF slope at 10^12 h^-1 M_sun)
    Satellite CLF parameter in Eq. (40); often biased in Tier-2/Tier-3 mocks.
  • alpha14 (satellite CLF slope at 10^14 h^-1 M_sun)
    Satellite CLF parameter in Eq. (40); inferred from the joint likelihood.
  • b0 (satellite CLF normalization)
    Normalization parameter in Eq. (41); inferred from the joint likelihood.
  • b1 (satellite CLF mass slope)
    Mass dependence in Eq. (41); inferred from the joint likelihood.
  • b2 (satellite CLF mass curvature)
    Mass curvature in Eq. (41); inferred from the joint likelihood.
  • eta0 (interloper bias normalization)
    Nuisance interloper parameter in Eq. (23); fitted from data.
  • eta1 (interloper bias luminosity slope)
    Nuisance interloper parameter in Eq. (23); fitted from data.
  • eta2 (interloper bias redshift slope)
    Nuisance interloper parameter in Eq. (23); poorly constrained, still treated as free.
  • beta (constant anisotropy) or log[ra/rs] (Osipkov-Merritt anisotropy radius)
    Orbital anisotropy of satellites; inferred from the shape of the LOSVD and R_p distribution.
  • R (ratio of satellite scale radius to halo scale radius)
    gNFW satellite profile parameter in Eq. (42); fixed at grid best-fit values rather than sampled in MCMC.
  • gamma (inner slope of satellite gNFW profile)
    gNFW satellite profile parameter in Eq. (42); fixed at grid best-fit values rather than sampled in MCMC.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Satellites are a virialized, steady-state tracer population; spherical Jeans equation applies.
    Assumption II in Section 7; used to derive sigma_r and sigma_los in Eqs. (48)-(52).
  • domain assumption Haloes are spherical NFW profiles with the Maccio et al. 2008 concentration-mass relation and zero scatter.
    Assumption I in Section 7; fixes the potential to a single parameter M.
  • domain assumption Line-of-sight velocity distribution of satellites is Gaussian with zero mean after normalization over |DeltaV| < DeltaV_max.
    Assumption III in Section 7; Eq. (45).
  • domain assumption Interlopers are uniform in projected radius and line-of-sight velocity.
    Assumption IV in Section 7; Eq. (26).
  • domain assumption The CLF functional forms (log-normal centrals, modified Schechter satellites) and their redshift independence over 0.02 < z < 0.15 describe the true galaxy-halo connection.
    Introduced in Section 4.1 and used throughout; not independently derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The primary completeness C(M|L,z) is independent of halo mass and can be set to unity.
    Stated and tested in Sections 3.2.1 and 5.2 (Fig. 5); if false, the P(M|L,z) prior would be biased.
  • standard math Numbers of satellites and interlopers are independent Poisson variables.
    Used in Section 3.2.2 to derive P(Ns|M,L,z), Eq. (14).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BASILISK: Bayesian Hierarchical Inference of the Galaxy-Halo Connection using Satellite Kinematics--I. Method and Validation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZBMU5LVB

@misc{pith2026190807547,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BASILISK: Bayesian Hierarchical Inference of the Galaxy-Halo Connection using Satellite Kinematics--I. Method and Validation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZBMU5LVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07547}
}
read the original abstract

We present a Bayesian hierarchical inference formalism (Basilisk) to constrain the galaxy-halo connection using satellite kinematics. Unlike traditional methods, Basilisk does not resort to stacking the kinematics of satellite galaxies in bins of central luminosity, and does not make use of summary statistics, such as satellite velocity dispersion. Rather, Basilisk leaves the data in its raw form and computes the corresponding likelihood. In addition, Basilisk can be applied to flux-limited, rather than volume-limited samples, greatly enhancing the quantity and dynamic range of the data. And finally, Basilisk is the only available method that simultaneously solves for halo mass and orbital anisotropy of the satellite galaxies, while properly accounting for scatter in the galaxy-halo connection. Basilisk uses the conditional luminosity function to model halo occupation statistics, and assumes that satellite galaxies are a relaxed tracer population of the host halo's potential with kinematics that obey the spherical Jeans equation. We test and validate Basilisk using mocks of varying complexity, and demonstrate that it yields unbiased constraints on the galaxy-halo connection and at a precision that rivals galaxy-galaxy lensing. In particular, Basilisk accurately recovers the full PDF of the relation between halo mass and central galaxy luminosity, and simultaneously constrains the orbital anisotropy of the satellite galaxies. Basilisk's inference is not affected by potential velocity bias of the central galaxies, or by slight errors in the inferred, radial profile of satellite galaxies that arise as a consequence of interlopers and sample impurity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07547 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the hierarchical nature of the problem. Middle row shows the latent variables (halo masses), lower row shows the data, and the upper row depicts the population model. Note how certain aspects of the data (Lc, zc and Ns) for each central are used to inform the prior on the latent variable, which is marginalized over when computing the likelihood for the satellite phase-space data {∆Vi j, Rp,i j |Lc,i … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Tier-1 mock data. The upper left-hand panel plots luminosity as a function of redshift, with black and cyan dots indicating primaries and secondaries, respectively. The solid red curve indicates the apparent magnitude limit of the (mock) survey, while the red dot-dashed lines mark the volume-limited subsample used in previous SDSS-based analyses of satellite kinematics (in particular More et al. 2009a, 2011; Lange e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Constraints on the two gNFW parameters, R and γ, that characterize the radial distribution of satellite galaxies. Different panels show results for different tier mocks, as indicated, and contours, from dark to light, correspond to the 68, 95 and 99 percent confidence levels obtained from ∆χ 2 tot as described in the text. Thick, solid black dots indicate the true input values, while filled pentagons indicate the be… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results for the analysis of the Tier-1 Mock data. In panels (a)-(e) solid dots always reflect the true input values of the mock, while shaded regions mark the 95% confidence interval inferred from the MCMC. Panel (a) plots the luminosity of central galaxies, Lc, as a f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: The completeness, C(M |L, z), in our Tier-2 mock for different bins of central luminosity (different colors, as indicated), and different redshifts bins; z = [0.02, 0.09] (dashed lines) and z = [0.09, 0.15] (solid lines). C(M |L, z) is defined as the fracti…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Interlopers in the Tier-1 (upper panels), Tier-2 (middle row of panels) and Tier-3 (lower panels) mocks. Panels on the left show the velocity distributions of secondaries around primaries with log[Lc] in the range indicated at the top of each columns. The contribution …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Marginalized posteriors obtained by Basilisk for the Tier-2 mock (assuming the best-fit radial profile for the satellites, with γ = 1 and R = 1.34). Results are shown for the 11 parameters that characterize the CLF, and for the anisotropy parameter, β. To avoid having …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Posterior distributions (normalized) for the anisotropy parameters inferred from the three tier mocks (different rows) for both the CA-model (left) and the OM-model (right). The Tier-1 and Tier-2 mocks were constructed with isotropic orbital distributions, correspondi…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The impact of changes in R and γ, characterizing nsat(r |M), on the inference of Basilisk . Each panel plots the best-fit values of a different CLF parameter as a function of R, with different colors corresponding to different values of γ (as indicated in the upper-le…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043526 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvD..98d3526A 98, 043526

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.043526 2018

  2. [2]

    Adhikari S., Dalal N., More S., Wetzel A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1a39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878....9A 878, 9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1a39 2019

  3. [5]

    G., Prada F., Zentner A

    Azzaro M., Patiri S. G., Prada F., Zentner A. R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00282.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.376L..43A 376, L43

    arXiv 2007

  4. [6]

    N., Tremaine S., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158756 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...244..805B 244, 805

    Bahcall J. N., Tremaine S., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158756 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...244..805B 244, 805

    doi:10.1086/158756 1981

  5. [7]

    L., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1332 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.2679B 443, 2679

    Balogh M. L., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1332 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.2679B 443, 2679

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1332 2014

  6. [8]

    R., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521920 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669..905B 669, 905

    Becker M. R., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521920 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669..905B 669, 905

    doi:10.1086/521920 2007

  7. [9]

    S., Wechsler R

    Behroozi P. S., Wechsler R. H., Wu H.-Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...762..109B 762, 109

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/109 2013

  8. [10]

    A., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376517 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...593....1B 593, 1

    Berlind A. A., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376517 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...593....1B 593, 1

    doi:10.1086/376517 2003

Show all 115 references
  1. [11]

    A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508170 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..167....1B 167, 1

    Berlind A. A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508170 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..167....1B 167, 1

    2006 doi

  2. [12]

    Princeton University Press

    Binney J., Tremaine S., 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition . Princeton University Press

    2008

  3. [13]

    Biviano A., Katgert P., Thomas T., Adami C., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020340 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A

    2002 doi

  4. [14]

    R., Lin H., Lupton R

    Blanton M. R., Lin H., Lupton R. H., Maley F. M., Young N., Zehavi I., Loveday J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/344761 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125.2276B 125, 2276

    2003 doi

  5. [15]

    R., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429803 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....129.2562B 129, 2562

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429803 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....129.2562B 129, 2562

    2005 doi

  6. [16]

    G., Specian M

    Brainerd T. G., Specian M. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378149 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...593L...7B 593, L7

    2003 doi

  7. [17]

    G., Blandford R

    Brainerd T. G., Blandford R. D., Smail I., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177537 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...466..623B 466, 623

    1996 doi

  8. [18]

    L., Norman M

    Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305262 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...495...80B 495, 80

    1998 doi

  9. [21]

    C., More S., Mo H., Yang X., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts525 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430..767C 430, 767

    Cacciato M., van den Bosch F. C., More S., Mo H., Yang X., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts525 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430..767C 430, 767

    2013 doi

  10. [22]

    F., Berlind A

    Calderon V. F., Berlind A. A., 2019, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190202680C ( @eprint arXiv 1902.02680 )

    2019 arXiv

  11. [23]

    C., Hearin A., Padmanabhan N., Berlind A., Mo H

    Campbell D., van den Bosch F. C., Hearin A., Padmanabhan N., Berlind A., Mo H. J., Tinker J., Yang X., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1091 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452..444C 452, 444

    2015 doi

  12. [24]

    G., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310801 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...485L..13C 485, L13

    Carlberg R. G., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310801 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...485L..13C 485, L13

    1997 doi

  13. [25]

    Chen J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20079018 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A

    2008 doi

  14. [26]

    H., Kravtsov A

    Conroy C., Wechsler R. H., Kravtsov A. V., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521425 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...668..826C 668, 826

    2007 doi

  15. [28]

    Cooray A., Milosavljevi \'c M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432259 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...627L..89C 627, L89

    2005 doi

  16. [29]

    Cuddeford P., Louis P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/275.4.1017 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.275.1017C 275, 1017

    1995 doi

  17. [31]

    F., Caldwell R

    Daniel S. F., Caldwell R. R., Cooray A., Melchiorri A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.103513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2008PhRvD..77j3513D 77, 103513

    2008 doi

  18. [32]

    Davies L. J. M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3393 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.5444D 483, 5444

    2019 doi

  19. [33]

    S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....145...10D 145, 10

    Dawson K. S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....145...10D 145, 10

    2013 doi

  20. [38]

    E., Mao Y.-Y., Newman J

    Fielder C. E., Mao Y.-Y., Newman J. A., Zentner A. R., Licquia T. C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1098 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.1041F

    2019 doi

  21. [39]

    Foreman-Mackey D., et al., 2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1303.002 )

    2013

  22. [42]

    Goodman J., Weare J., 2010, @doi [Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 65-80, 2010] 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010CAMCS...5...65G 5, 65

    2010 doi

  23. [43]

    Guo Q., Cole S., Eke V., Frenk C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21882.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427..428G 427, 428

    2012

  24. [44]

    Guo H., et al., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2120 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446..578G 446, 578

    doi

  25. [45]

    Guo H., et al., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1966 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.4368G 453, 4368

    doi

  26. [46]

    Guo H., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw845 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.3040G 459, 3040

    2016 doi

  27. [47]

    Han J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2178 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.1356H 446, 1356

    2015 doi

  28. [48]

    P., Zentner A

    Hearin A. P., Zentner A. R., van den Bosch F. C., Campbell D., Tollerud E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw840 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.2552H 460, 2552

    2016 doi

  29. [49]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa859f , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..190H 154, 190

    Hearin A. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa859f , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..190H 154, 190

    2017 doi

  30. [50]

    Hoekstra H., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318917 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...548L...5H 548, L5

    2001 doi

  31. [51]

    C., Harris W

    Hou A., Parker L. C., Harris W. E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu829 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442..406H 442, 406

    2014 doi

  32. [52]

    C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1979 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472..657J 472, 657

    Jiang F., van den Bosch F. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1979 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472..657J 472, 657

    2017 doi

  33. [53]

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

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

    2002 doi

  34. [54]

    Klypin A., Yepes G., Gottl \"o ber S., Prada F., He S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw248 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.4340K 457, 4340

    2016 doi

  35. [55]

    U., van den Bosch F

    Lange J. U., van den Bosch F. C., Zentner A. R., Wang K., Villarreal A. S., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2950 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.4824L 482, 4824

    doi

  36. [56]

    U., van den Bosch F

    Lange J. U., van den Bosch F. C., Zentner A. R., Wang K., Villarreal A. S., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1466 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.3112L 487, 3112

    doi

  37. [57]

    Leauthaud A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/159 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...744..159L 744, 159

    2012 doi

  38. [58]

    Leauthaud A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx258 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.3024L 467, 3024

    2017 doi

  39. [59]

    J., Stanford S

    Lin Y.-T., Mohr J. J., Stanford S. A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421714 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...610..745L 610, 745

    2004 doi

  40. [60]

    L., Mamon G

    okas E. L., Mamon G. A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04007.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.321..155L 321, 155

    2001

  41. [62]

    D., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/261.2.283 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993MNRAS.261..283L 261, 283

    Louis P. D., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/261.2.283 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993MNRAS.261..283L 261, 283

    1993 doi

  42. [65]

    A., Biviano A., Murante G., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913948 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...520A..30M 520, A30

    Mamon G. A., Biviano A., Murante G., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913948 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...520A..30M 520, A30

    2010 doi

  43. [66]

    M., Brinkmann J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10156.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368..715M 368, 715

    Mandelbaum R., Seljak U., Kauffmann G., Hirata C. M., Brinkmann J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10156.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368..715M 368, 715

    2006

  44. [67]

    M., Nakajima R., Reyes R., Smith R

    Mandelbaum R., Slosar A., Baldauf T., Seljak U., Hirata C. M., Nakajima R., Reyes R., Smith R. E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt572 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.1544M 432, 1544

    2013 doi

  45. [68]

    Mandelbaum R., Wang W., Zu Y., White S., Henriques B., More S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw188 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.3200M 457, 3200

    2016 doi

  46. [69]

    A., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341364 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...571L..85M 571, L85

    McKay T. A., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341364 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...571L..85M 571, L85

    2002 doi

  47. [70]

    Merritt D., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/113810 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AJ.....90.1027M 90, 1027

    1985 doi

  48. [71]

    J., White S

    Mo H. J., White S. D. M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/282.2.347 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.282..347M 282, 347

    1996 doi

  49. [74]

    C., Cacciato M., Skibba R., Mo H

    More S., van den Bosch F. C., Cacciato M., Skibba R., Mo H. J., Yang X., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17436.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410..210M 410, 210

    2011

  50. [75]

    N., Brownstein J

    More S., Miyatake H., Mandelbaum R., Takada M., Spergel D. N., Brownstein J. R., Schneider D. P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/2 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806....2M 806, 2

    2015 doi

  51. [77]

    S., Cole S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12583.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383..646N 383, 646

    Norberg P., Frenk C. S., Cole S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12583.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383..646N 383, 646

    2008

  52. [78]

    Nurmi P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1571 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436..380N 436, 380

    2013 doi

  53. [79]

    P., 1979, Pisma v Astronomicheskii Zhurnal, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979PAZh....5...77O 5, 77

    Osipkov L. P., 1979, Pisma v Astronomicheskii Zhurnal, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979PAZh....5...77O 5, 77

    1979

  54. [80]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..648P 475, 648

    2018 doi

  55. [81]

    D., Casas S., Amendola L., Biviano A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz825 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486..596P 486, 596

    Pizzuti L., Saltas I. D., Casas S., Amendola L., Biviano A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz825 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486..596P 486, 596

    2019 doi

  56. [82]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  57. [83]

    Prada F., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378669 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...598..260P 598, 260

    2003 doi

  58. [84]

    A., Seo H.-J., Leauthaud A., Tinker J

    Reid B. A., Seo H.-J., Leauthaud A., Tinker J. L., White M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1391 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444..476R 444, 476

    2014 doi

  59. [85]

    Robotham A. S. G., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19217.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.416.2640R 416, 2640

    2011

  60. [86]

    J., Turnrose B

    Rood H. J., Turnrose B. E., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149617 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...152.1057R 152, 1057

    1968 doi

  61. [87]

    N., Maller A

    Salcedo A. N., Maller A. H., Berlind A. A., Sinha M., McBride C. K., Behroozi P. S., Wechsler R. H., Weinberg D. H., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty109 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.4411S 475, 4411

    2018 doi

  62. [88]

    H., Frenk C

    Sawala T., Pihajoki P., Johansson P. H., Frenk C. S., Navarro J. F., Oman K. A., White S. D. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx360 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.4383S 467, 4383

    2017 doi

  63. [89]

    S., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383293 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AJ....127.2544S 127, 2544

    Sheldon E. S., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383293 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AJ....127.2544S 127, 2544

    2004 doi

  64. [90]

    A., McBride C

    Sinha M., Berlind A. A., McBride C. K., Scoccimarro R., Piscionere J. A., Wibking B. D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty967 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.1042S 478, 1042

    2018 doi

  65. [91]

    Sonnenfeld A., Leauthaud A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty935 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.tmp..910S

    2018 doi

  66. [93]

    Tempel E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423585 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  67. [94]

    V., Klypin A., Abazajian K., Warren M., Yepes G., Gottl \"o ber S., Holz D

    Tinker J., Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A., Abazajian K., Warren M., Yepes G., Gottl \"o ber S., Holz D. E., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591439 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688..709T 688, 709

    2008 doi

  68. [95]

    Velander M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2013 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437.2111V 437, 2111

    2014 doi

  69. [96]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2045 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.1088V 472, 1088

    Villarreal A. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2045 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.1088V 472, 1088

    2017 doi

  70. [97]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1536 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1518V 444, 1518

    2014 doi

  71. [99]

    Wang W., Han J., Cole S., Frenk C., Sawala T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1334 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2351W 470, 2351

    2017 doi

  72. [100]

    Wang W., Han J., Cole S., More S., Frenk C., Schaller M., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty706 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.5669W 476, 5669

    doi

  73. [101]

    Wang E., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860..102W 860, 102

    doi

  74. [102]

    F., Berlind A

    Watson D. F., Berlind A. A., McBride C. K., Masjedi M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/115 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...709..115W 709, 115

    2010 doi

  75. [103]

    F., Berlind A

    Watson D. F., Berlind A. A., McBride C. K., Hogg D. W., Jiang T., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/83 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...749...83W 749, 83

    2012 doi

  76. [104]

    H., Tinker J

    Wechsler R. H., Tinker J. L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051756 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ARA

    2018 doi

  77. [105]

    H., Bullock J

    Wechsler R. H., Bullock J. S., Primack J. R., Kravtsov A. V., Dekel A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338765 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...568...52W 568, 52

    2002 doi

  78. [106]

    H., Zentner A

    Wechsler R. H., Zentner A. R., Bullock J. S., Kravtsov A. V., Allgood B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507120 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652...71W 652, 71

    2006 doi

  79. [108]

    R., Tinker J

    Wetzel A. R., Tinker J. L., Conroy C., van den Bosch F. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt469 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432..336W 432, 336

    2013 doi

  80. [109]

    D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2258 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484..989W 484, 989

    Wibking B. D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2258 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484..989W 484, 989

    2019 doi

  81. [110]

    A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts203 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.2407W 428, 2407

    Wojtak R., Mamon G. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts203 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.2407W 428, 2407

    2013 doi

  82. [111]

    L., Mamon G

    Wojtak R., okas E. L., Mamon G. A., Gottl \"o ber S., Prada F., Moles M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066813 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A

    2007 doi

  83. [113]

    L., Mamon G

    Wojtak R., okas E. L., Mamon G. A., Gottl \"o ber S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15312.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399..812W 399, 812

    2009

  84. [114]

    Wojtak R., Gottl \"o ber S., Klypin A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1113 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.1576W 434, 1576

    2013 doi

  85. [118]

    J., van den Bosch F

    Yang X., Mo H. J., van den Bosch F. C., Pasquali A., Li C., Barden M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522027 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671..153Y 671, 153

    2007 doi

  86. [119]

    J., van den Bosch F

    Yang X., Mo H. J., van den Bosch F. C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/528954 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...676..248Y 676, 248

    2008 doi

  87. [120]

    J., van den Bosch F

    Yang X., Mo H. J., van den Bosch F. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/900 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...695..900Y 695, 900

    2009 doi

  88. [121]

    Ye J.-N., Guo H., Zheng Z., Zehavi I., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa70e7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841...45Y 841, 45

    2017 doi

  89. [122]

    G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120.1579Y 120, 1579

    York D. G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120.1579Y 120, 1579

    2000 doi

  90. [123]

    P., B \"o rner G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375148 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...590..654Y 590, 654

    Yoshikawa K., Jing Y. P., B \"o rner G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375148 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...590..654Y 590, 654

    2003 doi

  91. [124]

    Zaritsky D., White S. D. M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174840 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...435..599Z 435, 599

    1994 doi

  92. [125]

    Zehavi I., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431891 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...630....1Z 630, 1

    2005 doi

  93. [126]

    R., Berlind A

    Zentner A. R., Berlind A. A., Bullock J. S., Kravtsov A. V., Wechsler R. H., 2005a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428898 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...624..505Z 624, 505

    doi

  94. [127]

    R., Kravtsov A

    Zentner A. R., Kravtsov A. V., Gnedin O. Y., Klypin A. A., 2005b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431355 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...629..219Z 629, 219

    doi

  95. [128]

    R., Hearin A

    Zentner A. R., Hearin A. P., van den Bosch F. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1383 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.3044Z 443, 3044

    2014 doi

  96. [129]

    R., Hearin A., van den Bosch F

    Zentner A. R., Hearin A., van den Bosch F. C., Lange J. U., Villarreal A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz470 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.1196Z 485, 1196

    2019 doi

  97. [130]

    Zu Y., Mandelbaum R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw221 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.4360Z 457, 4360

    2016 doi

  98. [131]

    Zwicky F., 1933, Helvetica Physica Acta, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1933AcHPh...6..110Z 6, 110

    1933

  99. [132]

    C., Ogiya G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty084 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.4066V 475, 4066

    van den Bosch F. C., Ogiya G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty084 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.4066V 475, 4066

    2018 doi

  100. [133]

    C., Yang X., Mo H

    van den Bosch F. C., Yang X., Mo H. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06335.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.340..771V 340, 771

    2003

  101. [134]

    C., Norberg P., Mo H

    van den Bosch F. C., Norberg P., Mo H. J., Yang X., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08021.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.352.1302V 352, 1302

    2004

  102. [136]

    C., Weinmann S

    van den Bosch F. C., Weinmann S. M., Yang X., Mo H. J., Li C., Jing Y. P., 2005b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09260.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.361.1203V 361, 1203

    2005

  103. [137]

    C., Pasquali A., Yang X., Mo H

    van den Bosch F. C., Pasquali A., Yang X., Mo H. J., Weinmann S., McIntosh D. H., Aquino D., 2008a, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0805.0002V ( @eprint arXiv 0805.0002 )

    arXiv

  104. [138]

    C., Aquino D., Yang X., Mo H

    van den Bosch F. C., Aquino D., Yang X., Mo H. J., Pasquali A., McIntosh D. H., Weinmann S. M., Kang X., 2008b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13230.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387...79V 387, 79

    2008

  105. [139]

    C., More S., Cacciato M., Mo H., Yang X., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts006 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430..725V 430, 725

    van den Bosch F. C., More S., Cacciato M., Mo H., Yang X., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts006 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430..725V 430, 725

    2013 doi

  106. [140]

    C., Ogiya G., Hahn O., Burkert A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2956 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.3043V 474, 3043

    van den Bosch F. C., Ogiya G., Hahn O., Burkert A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2956 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.3043V 474, 3043

    2018 doi

  107. [141]

    P., Magorrian J., Carlberg R

    van der Marel R. P., Magorrian J., Carlberg R. G., Yee H. K. C., Ellingson E., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301351 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....119.2038V 119, 2038

    2000 doi

Pith tools

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