Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Estimating Dark Matter Halo Masses in Simulated Galaxy Clusters with Graph Neural Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A graph neural network predicts galaxy cluster dark matter masses from stellar masses, projected positions, and line-of-sight velocities, cutting the prediction error of the best random forest baseline by roughly a third.

desk verdict In-sample GNN gains are real, but the 'independent TNG300' test likely shares clusters with training, so the generalization claim needs a disjoint-cluster rerun. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12629 v1 pith:H6FENZKQ submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMcs.AI

Nikhil Garuda , John F. Wu , Dylan Nelson , Annalisa Pillepich This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.IMcs.AI
keywords graphneuralnetworksdarkmatterhalosgalaxyclustersIllustrisTNGstellar-halomassrelationhaloestimationmachinelearningcosmologicalsimulations
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

The paper sets out to show that a graph neural network can estimate the dark matter halo mass of galaxies in clusters from their stellar masses, projected positions, and line-of-sight velocities, and that it does so markedly better than random forest baselines. On the TNG300 test set the GNN achieves an RMSE of 0.242 dex and $R^2=0.785$, compared with 0.344 dex and $R^2=0.567$ for the best random forest, which also receives an overdensity parameter. The GNN represents each cluster as a graph, letting the model use pairwise spatial and kinematic information rather than a scalar density. A sympathetic reader would care because cluster halo masses are hard to measure and are usually estimated from crude proxies; the paper suggests that the substructure already visible in galaxy positions and velocities carries a large part of the answer.

What carries the argument

The central object is the graph built from the cluster galaxy sample. Each node is a galaxy with stellar mass $M_*$ as its feature; edges connect galaxies separated by less than 3 Mpc, and each edge carries two features: the squared Euclidean distance between the projected positions and the squared relative line-of-sight velocity. The GNN processes this graph with eight unshared layers of two-layer MLPs, max-pools the edge information back to each node, concatenates the node's original stellar mass, and passes the result through a three-layer output MLP that predicts both $\log M_{\rm halo}$ and a log-variance. This construction is what allows the model to use the spatial and kinematic arrangement of neighbours, instead of a hand-crafted scalar overdensity.

What would settle it

Cross-match the 352 TNG-Cluster zoom-in halos against the TNG300 halo catalog at $z=0$; if a substantial fraction of the TNG300 test galaxies belong to halos that are also the targets of the TNG-Cluster zooms, the independence premise is false, and a clean generalisation test would need to train on clusters absent from the test volume.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a graph neural network, trained on the TNG-Cluster zoom-in simulations and tested on the independent TNG300 simulation, predicts galaxy cluster halo masses with RMSE $0.242$ dex and $R^2 = 0.785$, compared with $0.344$ dex and $R^2 = 0.567$ for the best random forest baseline. The GNN uses each galaxy's stellar mass as the sole node feature and builds edges to galaxies within 3 Mpc, carrying the squared projected separation and the squared line-of-sight velocity difference. It outperforms the random forest on every metric in Table 1, and its error stays low near cluster centres, where the random forest degrades. The paper interprets this as evidence that the graph representation captures substructure that matters for the stellar–halo mass relation.

Load-bearing premise

The generalisation claim rests on the premise that TNG300 is an independent simulation from TNG-Cluster; if the zoom-in clusters were selected from the TNG300 volume, then the TNG300 test would only show transfer across resolution, not generalisation to unseen clusters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the TNG-Cluster cross-validation, the GNN reaches RMSE 0.273 dex, reducing the best random forest's 0.385 dex by about 29 percent.
  • The GNN's advantage over the random forest persists at all cluster-centric distances, with the largest gap in the dense central regions where tidal stripping weakens the stellar–halo mass relation.
  • Because the model takes projected positions and line-of-sight velocities as inputs, the same graph construction transfers directly to spectroscopic galaxy surveys, which provide exactly these observables.
  • Training with a Gaussian negative log-likelihood loss gives the model a per-galaxy predicted variance, so each halo mass estimate comes with an uncertainty.
  • The comparable performance between the TNG-Cluster validation set and the TNG300 test set suggests the model is robust to domain shift within the IllustrisTNG suite.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's 'independent test' claim would be overturned if the TNG-Cluster zoom-in halos were originally selected from the TNG300 volume; testing whether the two halo populations are disjoint is a necessary check before interpreting the TNG300 numbers as generalisation.
  • The paper does not isolate the contributions of the spatial edge feature from the velocity edge feature; an ablation on the same data would show which piece of cluster substructure carries the predictive gain.
  • The same graph representation could be applied to observed cluster catalogs with spectroscopic redshifts, where the GNN's per-galaxy variance could flag galaxies whose halo masses are poorly constrained by the environment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper trains a graph neural network (GNN) on TNG-Cluster zoom-in simulations to predict dark matter halo masses from stellar mass, projected positions, and line-of-sight velocities, and tests it on galaxies within 10 Mpc of massive clusters in TNG300. The authors report that the GNN outperforms random forest baselines, including an RF augmented with a stellar-mass overdensity feature, on both the TNG-Cluster cross-validation set and the TNG300 test set (RMSE 0.242 dex and R2 0.785 for the GNN, versus 0.344 dex and R2 0.567 for the best RF baseline). The central claim is that the GNN generalizes across the IllustrisTNG simulation suite.

Significance. If the generalization result is correct, the paper demonstrates a useful practical route to using cluster substructure, encoded as spatial and kinematic edges in a graph, to improve halo mass estimates relative to non-graph baselines. The paper has clear strengths: cross-validation splits based on cluster IDs, reported k-fold scatter, a public code repository, and an explicit discussion of domain shift and future observational tests. The main limitation is that the independence of the TNG300 test set from the TNG-Cluster training set is asserted but not demonstrated; because TNG-Cluster is a zoom-in suite selected from the parent TNG300 volume, the headline test may measure resolution transfer rather than generalization to unseen clusters. This makes the central generalization claim currently unverified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 6] The claim that TNG-Cluster and TNG300 are 'otherwise independent' is not established and is likely false: TNG-Cluster is a zoom-in suite whose target halos were selected from the TNG300 volume and re-simulated at higher resolution. The TNG300 test set, defined as galaxies within 10 Mpc of clusters with Mhalo > 1e14 Msun, therefore probably contains lower-resolution realizations of the same clusters used in training. The headline numbers in Table 1 (RMSE 0.242 dex, R2 0.785 on TNG300) would then conflate generalization to unseen halos with transfer across numerical resolution of already-seen halos. Please provide a cluster-ID cross-match between the TNG-Cluster sample and the TNG300 cluster population, and report the test-set metrics restricted to TNG300 clusters that are absent from the TNG-Cluster sample.
  2. [Section 3, Random Forest Baseline Models] The overdensity radius Rmax is introduced as a free parameter for the RF baseline, but its value is never stated anywhere in the text, tables, or appendix. Since the RF+M*+DeltaG model is the principal baseline in Table 1, the experiment is not reproducible and the sensitivity of the baseline comparison to Rmax is unknown. Please specify Rmax (and any tuning procedure), or report results for a range of Rmax values.
  3. [Section 2 and Table 2] The selection criteria for the training and test samples are not matched in a way that is clear from the text. Table 2 gives the TNG-Cluster selection as log(Mhalo/Msun) > 11 and within 10 Mpc of the cluster halo, while the TNG300 test sample is described as galaxies within 10 Mpc of clusters with Mhalo > 1e14 Msun, with no stated lower mass cut. Please state the exact cuts applied to both samples and verify that the two selections define comparable galaxy populations; otherwise the comparison between the TNG-Cluster cross-validation metrics and the TNG300 test metrics in Table 1 is difficult to interpret.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'galaxy neighbour' should be 'galaxy neighbors' or 'neighboring galaxies'.
  2. [Table 1] In the TNG300 test-set block, the first random forest row is labeled 'RF' while the corresponding TNG-Cluster row is labeled 'RF:M*'; these labels should be made consistent.
  3. [Figure 2] The scatter plots are colored by distance from cluster center, but no color bar is shown; please add a color bar and clear panel labels identifying each model.
  4. [Section 3 and Table 1] Please define R2, NMAD, Bias, and outlier fraction explicitly, and state that all metrics are computed on log10 Mhalo rather than linear Mhalo.
  5. [Section 3 and Appendix A] Please specify whether the projected positions (x, y) are cluster-centric and whether the line-of-sight velocity vz is the peculiar velocity or includes the Hubble flow; the units of x, y, and vz should also be stated.
  6. [Section 3 and Figure 3] The statement that the GNN uses 'unshared layers' is ambiguous; please clarify what is unshared across layers, and in Figure 3 specify whether the distance is projected three-dimensional distance and whether the RMSE is computed per galaxy or per distance bin.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline results are empirical train/test evaluations against fixed simulation labels, and no claimed quantity is defined in terms of a fitted parameter.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a supervised learning experiment. The target Mhalo comes from SUBFIND catalogs; the features (M*, projected positions, line-of-sight velocities) are fixed simulation outputs; the GNN and random forest baselines are trained with standard losses and evaluated on held-out data. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to its inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The GNN architecture and Gaussian negative log-likelihood loss are taken from prior work, including co-authored references [18], [40], and [41], but this is method reuse rather than a load-bearing circular premise: the central performance comparison is measured, not implied by those citations. The only substantive concern is the Section 2 assertion that TNG-Cluster and TNG300 are 'otherwise independent.' Since TNG-Cluster is a zoom-in suite, if its target halos were selected from the TNG300 volume, the TNG300 test set could overlap with training clusters at lower resolution, making the test closer to a resolution-transfer experiment than a pure generalization test. That is a validity and correctness risk, not circularity: the reported RMSE and R2 values are empirical outcomes and are not forced by the construction of the features or labels. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the simulation labels and the asserted independence of the test set. The main hand-chosen numbers are the graph edge radius, the unstated overdensity radius, and the sample selection thresholds.

free parameters (3)
  • Overdensity radius Rmax = not stated
    RF baseline feature Delta_G sums stellar masses within Rmax; the value is not reported, so the baseline result is not reproducible and could depend on an arbitrary scale.
  • Graph edge radius = 3 Mpc (chosen, from [41])
    Edges connect galaxy pairs separated by less than 3 Mpc; this hyperparameter controls the receptive field of the GNN and is adopted without ablation.
  • Sample selection thresholds = N*>50; log(M*/Msun)>9.5; log(Mhalo/Msun)>10.5 or 11; within 10 Mpc
    Table 2 cuts are hand-chosen completeness thresholds that define the training and test samples; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption SUBFIND subhalo masses are reliable labels for dark matter halo mass in both TNG-Cluster and TNG300.
    All training and test labels come from SUBFIND catalogs; if the subhalo finder biases masses differently in zoom-in versus periodic-box simulations, the transfer result is affected. Invoked in Section 2.
  • domain assumption The TNG300 test set is independent of the TNG-Cluster training clusters.
    Section 2 asserts 'the two simulations are otherwise independent'; this is the load-bearing premise for the generalization claim and is not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Projected coordinates plus line-of-sight velocities are sufficient observables for recovering halo mass.
    Appendix A projects clusters along z to mimic observations; the method assumes that the lost radial information is not essential, or that the GNN can compensate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimating Dark Matter Halo Masses in Simulated Galaxy Clusters with Graph Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H6FENZKQ

@misc{pith2026241112629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimating Dark Matter Halo Masses in Simulated Galaxy Clusters with Graph Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H6FENZKQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12629}
}
abstract

Galaxies grow and evolve in dark matter halos. Because dark matter is not visible, galaxies' halo masses ($\rm{M}_{\rm{halo}}$) must be inferred indirectly. We present a graph neural network (GNN) model for predicting $\rm{M}_{\rm{halo}}$ from stellar mass ($\rm{M}_{*}$) in simulated galaxy clusters using data from the IllustrisTNG simulation suite. Unlike traditional machine learning models like random forests, our GNN captures the information-rich substructure of galaxy clusters by using spatial and kinematic relationships between galaxy neighbour. A GNN model trained on the TNG-Cluster dataset and independently tested on the TNG300 simulation achieves superior predictive performance compared to other baseline models we tested. Future work will extend this approach to different simulations and real observational datasets to further validate the GNN model's ability to generalise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12629 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow diagram of GNN architecture used for halo mass prediction. The GNN processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. For each subfigure, we show results for the RF with only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Validation set RMSE as a function of distance from cluster center. Results shown for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatial distribution of halos within the TNG-Cluster simulation. The middle panel shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Learning from galactic rotation curves: a neural network approach

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Neural networks trained on simulated rotation curves can infer ultra-light dark matter and baryonic parameters from SPARC dwarf galaxies, with uncertainties comparable to MCMC.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Painting galaxies into dark matter haloes using machine learning

    Shankar Agarwal, Romeel Davé, and Bruce A Bassett. Painting galaxies into dark matter haloes using machine learning. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478(3):3410–3422, August 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    The Sunyaev–Zel’dovich effect

    Mark Birkinshaw. The Sunyaev–Zel’dovich effect. Physics Reports, 310(2):97–195, March 1999

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    L. E. Bleem, B. Stalder, T. de Haan, K. A. Aird, S. W. Allen, D. E. Applegate, M. L. N. Ashby, M. Bautz, M. Bayliss, B. A. Benson, S. Bocquet, M. Brodwin, J. E. Carlstrom, C. L. Chang, I. Chiu, H. M. Cho, A. Clocchiatti, T. M. Crawford, A. T. Crites, S. Desai, J. P. Dietrich, M. A. Dobbs, R. J. Foley, W. R. Forman, E. M. George, M. D. Gladders, A. H. Gonz...

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Bullock and Michael Boylan-Kolchin

    James S. Bullock and Michael Boylan-Kolchin. Small-Scale Challenges to the Λ CDM Paradigm. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 55(1):343–387, August 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Urmila Chadayammuri, Michelle Ntampaka, John ZuHone, Ákos Bogdán, and Ralph P. Kraft. Painting baryons on to N-body simulations of galaxy clusters with image-to-image deep learning. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526(2):2812–2829, December 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Cluster- GCN: An Efficient Algorithm for Training Deep and Large Graph Convolutional Networks

    Wei-Lin Chiang, Xuanqing Liu, Si Si, Yang Li, Samy Bengio, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. Cluster- GCN: An Efficient Algorithm for Training Deep and Large Graph Convolutional Networks. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 257–266, July 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    ´Ciprijanovi´c, D

    A. ´Ciprijanovi´c, D. Kafkes, K. Downey, S. Jenkins, G. N. Perdue, S. Madireddy, T. Johnston, G. F. Snyder, and B. Nord. DeepMerge - II. Building robust deep learning algorithms for merging galaxy identification across domains. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506(1):677–691, September 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Gonzalez, Maxim Markevitch, Scott W

    Douglas Clowe, Maruša Brada ˇc, Anthony H. Gonzalez, Maxim Markevitch, Scott W. Randall, Christine Jones, and Dennis Zaritsky. A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter. The Astrophysical Journal, 648(2):L109–L113, September 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Large Synoptic Survey Telescope: Dark Energy Science Collaboration, November 2012

    LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. Large Synoptic Survey Telescope: Dark Energy Science Collaboration, November 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases, 2020

    Miles Cranmer, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Peter Battaglia, Rui Xu, Kyle Cranmer, David Spergel, and Shirley Ho. Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geomet- ric, 2019

    Matthias Fey and Jan Eric Lenssen. Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geomet- ric, 2019. 5

    2019

  4. [12]

    Gaussian Error Linear Units (GELUs), 2016

    Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. Gaussian Error Linear Units (GELUs), 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Benchmarks and explanations for deep learning estimates of X-ray galaxy cluster masses

    Matthew Ho, John Soltis, Arya Farahi, Daisuke Nagai, August Evrard, and Michelle Ntampaka. Benchmarks and explanations for deep learning estimates of X-ray galaxy cluster masses. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524(3):3289–3302, September 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Random decision forests

    Tin Kam Ho. Random decision forests. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, volume 1, pages 278–282 vol.1, August 1995

    1995

  7. [15]

    Niall Jeffrey and Benjamin D. Wandelt. Solving high-dimensional parameter inference: Marginal posterior densities & Moment Networks, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Kamdar, Matthew J

    Harshil M. Kamdar, Matthew J. Turk, and Robert J. Brunner. Machine learning and cosmological simulations – I. Semi-analytical models. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455(1):642–658, January 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Kouw and Marco Loog

    Wouter M. Kouw and Marco Loog. An introduction to domain adaptation and transfer learning, January 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Larson, John F

    Austin J. Larson, John F. Wu, and Craig Jones. Predicting dark matter halo masses from simulated galaxy images and environments, July 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization, January 2019

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization, January 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    J. M. Lotz, A. Koekemoer, D. Coe, N. Grogin, P. Capak, J. Mack, J. Anderson, R. Avila, E. A. Barker, D. Borncamp, G. Brammer, M. Durbin, H. Gunning, B. Hilbert, H. Jenkner, H. Khan- drika, Z. Levay, R. A. Lucas, J. MacKenty, S. Ogaz, B. Porterfield, N. Reid, M. Robberto, P. Ro...

    2017

  13. [21]

    Lovell, Stephen M

    Christopher C. Lovell, Stephen M. Wilkins, Peter A. Thomas, Matthieu Schaller, Carlton M. Baugh, Giulio Fabbian, and Yannick Bahé. A machine learning approach to mapping baryons on to dark matter haloes using the EAGLE and C-EAGLE simulations. Monnthly Notices of the Royal Ast...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Marriage, Viviana Acquaviva, Peter A

    Tobias A. Marriage, Viviana Acquaviva, Peter A. R. Ade, Paula Aguirre, Mandana Amiri, John William Appel, L. Felipe Barrientos, Elia S. Battistelli, J. Richard Bond, Ben Brown, Bryce Burger, Jay Chervenak, Sudeep Das, Mark J. Devlin, Simon R. Dicker, W. Bertrand Doriese, Joann...

    2008

  15. [23]

    GalaxyNet: Connecting galaxies and dark matter haloes with deep neural networks and reinforcement learning in large volumes

    Benjamin P Moster, Thorsten Naab, Magnus Lindström, and Joseph A O’Leary. GalaxyNet: Connecting galaxies and dark matter haloes with deep neural networks and reinforcement learning in large volumes. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507(2):2115– 2136, October 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Introducing the TNG-Cluster simulation: Overview and the physical properties of the gaseous intracluster medium

    Dylan Nelson, Annalisa Pillepich, Mohammadreza Ayromlou, Wonki Lee, Katrin Lehle, Eric Rohr, and Nhut Truong. Introducing the TNG-Cluster simulation: Overview and the physical properties of the gaseous intracluster medium. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 686:A157, June 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    The IllustrisTNG simulations: Public data release

    Dylan Nelson, V olker Springel, Annalisa Pillepich, Vicente Rodriguez-Gomez, Paul Torrey, Shy Genel, Mark V ogelsberger, Ruediger Pakmor, Federico Marinacci, Rainer Weinberger, Luke Kelley, Mark Lovell, Benedikt Diemer, and Lars Hernquist. The IllustrisTNG simulations: Public ...

    2019

  18. [26]

    Ntampaka, J

    M. Ntampaka, J. ZuHone, D. Eisenstein, D. Nagai, A. Vikhlinin, L. Hernquist, F. Marinacci, D. Nelson, R. Pakmor, A. Pillepich, P. Torrey, and M. V ogelsberger. A Deep Learning Approach to Galaxy Cluster X-Ray Masses. The Astrophysical Journal, 876(1):82, May 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python

    Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, Jake Vander- plas, Alexandre Passos, David Cournapeau, Matthieu Brucher, Matthieu Perrot, and Édouard Duches...

    2011

  20. [28]

    P. J. E. Peebles. Tests of cosmological models constrained by inflation. The Astrophysical Journal, 284:439, September 1984

    1984

  21. [29]

    Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Bacci- galupi, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, J. G. Bartlett, N. Bartolo, E. Battaner, R. Battye, K. Benabed, A. Benoît, A. Benoit-Lévy, J.-P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J. J. Bock, ...

    2015

  22. [30]

    E. S. Rykoff, E. Rozo, M. T. Busha, C. E. Cunha, A. Finoguenov, A. Evrard, J. Hao, B. P. Koester, A. Leauthaud, B. Nord, M. Pierre, R. Reddick, T. Sadibekova, E. S. Sheldon, and R. H. Wechsler. redMaPPer. I. Algorithm and SDSS DR8 Catalog. The Astrophysical Journal, 785(2):104...

    2014

  23. [31]

    Sampaio-Santos, Y

    H. Sampaio-Santos, Y . Zhang, R. L. C. Ogando, T. Shin, Jesse B. Golden-Marx, B. Yanny, K. Herner, M. Hilton, A. Choi, M. Gatti, D. Gruen, B. Hoyle, M. M. Rau, J. De Vicente, J. Zuntz, T. M. C. Abbott, M. Aguena, S. Allam, J. Annis, S. Avila, E. Bertin, D. Brooks, D. L. Burke,...

    2021

  24. [32]

    Scarselli, M

    F. Scarselli, M. Gori, Ah Chung Tsoi, M. Hagenbuchner, and G. Monfardini. The Graph Neural Network Model. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 20(1):61–80, January 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Helly, Joey Braspenning, Willem Elbers, Ian G

    Joop Schaye, Roi Kugel, Matthieu Schaller, John C. Helly, Joey Braspenning, Willem Elbers, Ian G. McCarthy, Marcel P. van Daalen, Bert Vandenbroucke, Carlos S. Frenk, Juliana Kwan, Jaime Salcido, Yannick M. Bahé, Josh Borrow, Evgenii Chaikin, Oliver Hahn, Filip Huško, Adrian J...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Spergel, N

    D. Spergel, N. Gehrels, C. Baltay, D. Bennett, J. Breckinridge, M. Donahue, A. Dressler, B. S. Gaudi, T. Greene, O. Guyon, C. Hirata, J. Kalirai, N. J. Kasdin, B. Macintosh, W. Moos, S. Perlmutter, M. Postman, B. Rauscher, J. Rhodes, Y . Wang, D. Weinberg, D. Benford, M. Hudso...

    2015

  27. [35]

    V olker Springel, Simon D. M. White, Giuseppe Tormen, and Guinevere Kauffmann. Populating a cluster of galaxies - I. Results at \fontshape{it}{z}=0.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 328(3):726–750, December 2001

    2001

  28. [36]

    Return of frustratingly easy domain adaptation

    Baochen Sun, Jiashi Feng, and Kate Saenko. Return of frustratingly easy domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI’16, pages 2058–2065, Phoenix, Arizona, February 2016. AAAI Press

    2016

  29. [37]

    Vegetti, S

    S. Vegetti, S. Birrer, G. Despali, C. D. Fassnacht, D. Gilman, Y . Hezaveh, L. Perreault Levasseur, J. P. McKean, D. M. Powell, C. M. O’Riordan, and G. Vernardos. Strong Gravitational Lensing as a Probe of Dark Matter. Space Science Reviews, 220(5):58, July 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Weaver, Sam E

    John R. Weaver, Sam E. Cutler, Richard Pan, Katherine E. Whitaker, Ivo Labbé, Sedona H. Price, Rachel Bezanson, Gabriel Brammer, Danilo Marchesini, Joel Leja, Bingjie Wang, Lukas J. Furtak, Adi Zitrin, Hakim Atek, Iryna Chemerynska, Dan Coe, Pratika Dayal, Pieter van Dokkum, R...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Wechsler and Jeremy L

    Risa H. Wechsler and Jeremy L. Tinker. The Connection Between Galaxies and Their Dark Matter Halos. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56(1):435–487, September 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Wu and Christian Kragh Jespersen

    John F. Wu and Christian Kragh Jespersen. Learning the galaxy-environment connection with graph neural networks, June 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Wu, Christian Kragh Jespersen, and Risa H

    John F. Wu, Christian Kragh Jespersen, and Risa H. Wechsler. How the Galaxy-Halo Connection Depends on Large-Scale Environment, February 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Galaxy cluster mass estimation with deep learning and hydrodynamical simulations

    Z Yan, A J Mead, L Van Waerbeke, G Hinshaw, and I G McCarthy. Galaxy cluster mass estimation with deep learning and hydrodynamical simulations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499(3):3445–3458, November 2020. 8 Figure 4: Spatial distribution of halos within ...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.