Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 99 references

The Intracluster Light of Abell 3667: Unveiling an Optical Bridge in LSST Precursor Data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deep optical imaging of the merging cluster Abell 3667 reveals a faint stellar bridge spanning about 400 kpc between its two brightest galaxies, with a flat color profile that points to a recent major merger.

desk verdict A credible but unproven ICL bridge: the paper never subtracts the BCGs' own wings or tests a control axis, so the central detection is not yet secure, but the LSST-precursor coadd and honest pipeline work deserve referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23551 v2 pith:FRUS7674 submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Anthony Englert , Ian Dell'Antonio , Mireia Montes This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords intraclusterlightgalaxyclustersmergerslowsurfacebrightnessimagingAbell3667profilestidalstrippingLSSTprecursorsurveys
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 claims that Abell 3667, an actively merging galaxy cluster, contains a previously unseen optical bridge of intracluster starlight connecting its two brightest galaxies. The bridge sits at surface brightnesses fainter than 26 magnitudes per square arcsecond, extends about 400 kpc, and has a flat $g-r$ color profile, which the authors read as the signature of a recent near-radial first pass between the two galaxies rather than of slow stripping from smaller satellites. Because intracluster light records how a cluster assembled, a real bridge of this kind would be a nearby snapshot of the merger process, and it demonstrates that archival ground-based images, stacked to roughly the depth LSST will reach in its eighth year, can already uncover such features.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bridge itself, a faint rectangular-symmetric feature between BCG1 and BCG2 whose surface brightness and color are measured with rectangular bands running parallel to the line joining the two cores. The reduction that makes the measurement possible combines a sky-subtraction routine that preserves extended low-surface-brightness light, an extended scattered-light model built by splicing a Moffat core to an exponential wing from the brightest star, aggressive masking of galaxies, stars, and cirrus, and iterative Sersic subtraction for the galaxies. The flatness of the bridge's $g-r$ color profile is the key diagnostic: a negative gradient means gradual stripping, while a flat profile indicates merger mixing.

What would settle it

Subtract a scattered-light model that varies across the image from the two galaxy cores themselves in the same stacks; if the residual light between the cores drops below the reported bridge surface brightness or loses its flat $g-r$ color, the bridge is an artifact of unmodeled starlight wings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the paper's center is a detection: a low-surface-brightness optical bridge in the intracluster light of Abell 3667 that connects BCG1 and BCG2 over roughly 400 kpc. Measured in $g$ and $r$ bands from a deep coadd of archival exposures, the bridge reaches the survey's limiting surface brightness near 30 magnitudes per square arcsecond and shows a flat rest-frame $g-r$ color profile, matching the mixed stellar populations expected from merger-driven stripping. The authors hypothesize that Abell 3667 is in the early stages of a nearly radial merger, that the bridge is tidal debris from a first pass, and that its stars are being stripped from BCG2 and may be accreting onto BCG1; the disrupted outer profile and shells around BCG2 support this story. They also show that the inner regions of both BCGs retain negative color gradients consistent with gradual satellite stripping, so both intracluster-light formation channels appear in one cluster.

Load-bearing premise

The detection stands on the assumption that the model of stars' scattered light, built from one bright star and applied only to stars, removes almost all of the glare from the two galaxy cores, so the faint light between them is real stripped starlight rather than leftover glare.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the bridge is real, Abell 3667's two brightest galaxies have already undergone one near-radial pass, placing the cluster in an early merger stage and predicting ongoing accretion of stripped stars onto BCG1.
  • The coexistence of steep inner color gradients and a flat bridge color implies that gradual satellite stripping and merger-driven stripping can operate simultaneously in one cluster at different radii.
  • The success of this archival stack, reaching about the depth LSST will achieve in its eighth year, indicates that the upcoming all-sky survey should routinely detect similar bridges in local clusters.
  • With six-band LSST photometry, the ages and metallicities of such bridges could be measured, testing directly whether their stars come from one disrupted brightest cluster galaxy or from many smaller galaxies.
  • The bridge's orientation and extent, combined with the known radio relics and X-ray structure, would provide a new constraint on the merger's impact parameter and viewing geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the bridge, if confirmed, measures the amount of stellar mass a single brightest cluster galaxy can lose during a first pass, a quantity that simulations predict but observations rarely pin down.
  • A natural extension is to rerun the same rectangular-band analysis on a relaxed cluster at similar redshift; a null result there would strengthen the case that the bridge is merger debris rather than a generic processing artifact.
  • Because the scattered-light model was built from one bright star and not applied to the two galaxy cores themselves, a decisive follow-up is to subtract spatially varying scattered-light models of those cores and check whether the flat-color bridge survives.
  • If upcoming surveys find that such bridges preferentially point along radio-relic axes in merging clusters, low-surface-brightness optical bridges could become a purely photometric indicator of recent major mergers.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a DECam-based precursor LSST dataset for Abell 3667, processed with the LSST Science Pipelines plus a custom skycorr background subtraction and an extended-PSF star subtraction. Using g- and r-band coadds, the authors report the discovery of a low-surface-brightness optical bridge connecting the two brightest cluster galaxies BCG1 and BCG2, measure its surface brightness and g-r color profiles, and interpret the flat color and disrupted outer profile of BCG2 as evidence for a recent, nearly radial first passage that is stripping stars from BCG2. The analysis includes masking of foreground/background sources, a cirrus color check, S/N profiles, and isophotal fits for BCG1, BCG2, and LEDA 64218.

Significance. If the bridge is real, it is a striking ICL feature in a local merging cluster and a useful demonstration that LSST-pipeline-processed archival DECam data can reach the low-surface-brightness regime needed for ICL studies. The paper is careful in its masking strategy, skycorr adaptation, cirrus discrimination, and in defining a per-band signal-to-noise ratio. However, the central detection claim rests on the assumption that the measured flux along the BCG-BCG axis is not dominated by residual scattered light from the two BCGs themselves; this has not been tested, so the bridge's reality and its flat-color interpretation are not yet secure.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3 and Section 3.3] The extended PSF model is built from the brightest star and applied only to stars brighter than 14th magnitude in g; BCG1 and BCG2 are never PSF-subtracted. The bridge is measured in Section 3.3 using rectangular bands parallel to the line connecting the two BCG cores, i.e., along the axis where the sum of the two galaxies' scattered-light wings is maximal. At the claimed bridge surface brightness (26-30 mag/arcsec2) and with S/N only ~3 near 160 kpc, residual wings from BCG1 and BCG2 could plausibly produce a continuous, roughly rectangular excess whose color, dominated by the galaxies' red centers, might appear flat in g-r over the bridge region. The paper notes in Section 2.3 that the PSF model ignores focal-plane variations, but it never quantifies the residual BCG-wing contribution along the bridge axis. Please add a null test: either subtract a model of the BCGs' extended wings and remeasure the bridge, or measure a control axis perpendicular to the BCG-BCG line, or inject synthetic PSF wings into a control field and show that they cannot reproduce the observed bridge morphology and color.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figures 4 and 5] The surface brightness and color profiles in Figures 4 and 5 are plotted without error bars, and the text defines S/N per band but does not state the uncertainties on (g-r)_0 or how they were propagated. The flat color profile of the bridge is a central piece of evidence for the merger interpretation (Section 4.1), but without uncertainties it is impossible to test whether the profile is genuinely consistent with flat, or whether the apparent flattening in BCG2's outer region is significant. Please add error bars or a table of uncertainties that include not only photon noise but also background-subtraction systematics (e.g., skycorr residuals, flat-field variations) and PSF-subtraction residuals.
  3. [Abstract and Section 3.3] The abstract states that the bridge extends over ~400 kpc, but Section 3.3 reports that the bridge signal drops below the S/N~3 threshold at ~150 arcsec (160 kpc). These numbers can be reconciled only if the 400 kpc figure refers to the full end-to-end visual extent including sub-threshold regions, or if it is the BCG1-BCG2 separation rather than the detected bridge length. Please state explicitly what physical extent is claimed and how it is measured, so that the abstract does not overstate the S/N-supported detection.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1] There are two typos in the introduction: 'a complimentary tracer' should be 'a complementary tracer', and 'studying the the surface brightness profile' has a duplicated article.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figure 4] The bottom row of Figure 4 uses 'Height (kpc)' for the bridge profile; the text describes rectangular bands parallel to the BCG-BCG line, but it is not clear whether 'height' is the distance along the bridge from the midpoint, the perpendicular distance from the line, or something else. Please define this coordinate in the text or caption.
  3. [Section 3.3, Figure 3] The paper defines S/N = f/sigma_f but does not explain how sigma_f is estimated for the 16x16 pixel super-pixels after Gaussian smoothing. Since the smoothing correlates neighboring bins, the quoted S/N values in Figure 3 may be optimistic; please describe the noise estimation procedure explicitly.
  4. [Section 3.1] The cirrus check compares g-r ~ 0.36 for cirrus with g-r ~ 0.25 for the ICL, but this alone does not bound the contamination fraction in the bridge region. A quantitative statement of how much cirrus flux would be needed to shift the bridge color by 1 sigma, or a test of the bridge color after masking known cirrus, would strengthen the conclusion that the bridge is uncontaminated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the bridge and profile measurements are direct photometry; self-citations concern pipeline implementation and prior calibrations, not the central claim.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is observational: it builds coadds, subtracts stars, masks sources, measures surface brightness and color profiles, and interprets the resulting features using literature-based formation channels. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then reported as a prediction; the 'major-merger' and 'first-pass stripping' interpretations are hypotheses checked against the measured flat color profile and external simulation/literature expectations, not outputs of a model built from the same data. Self-citations (Englert et al. 2024, 2025; Fu et al. 2022) support the LSP pipeline adaptation and photometric calibration; these are implementation details, not load-bearing for the bridge discovery. The red-sequence comparison uses Fu et al. (2024), which shares authors with the present paper, but only as an external color reference for A3667. The paper explicitly discloses limitations, including that the PSF model does not account for focal-plane variations (Sec. 2.3), that bgmodel2 caused over-subtraction and was disabled (App. B), and that flat-field uncertainties are included in the quoted limiting surface brightness (Sec. 2.2). These are systematic-error caveats, not reductions of the conclusion to its inputs. No quoted equation or derivation makes the measured bridge equal to an input assumption, so no circular step is identified. The skeptical concern that BCG wings may mimic the bridge is a plausibility argument about residuals and systematics, not evidence of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on calibration parameters (zero points, PSF model) and a background-subtraction configuration chosen by hand. The adopted cosmology and literature-based color-gradient interpretations are standard. No new physical entities are introduced. The most fragile input is the PSF/background treatment, which is not validated against a no-bridge null test.

free parameters (3)
  • Zero-point corrections per band (u,g,r,i,z) = Derived from SkyMapper reference stars; exact values not quoted
    Calibrates the photometry; if wrong, colors shift, but the bridge's existence is less affected.
  • Extended PSF model parameters (Moffat core and exponential wings) = Fitted to the brightest star in each band; values not quoted
    Controls star subtraction; residual errors in the wings could inject or remove low surface brightness flux, so the bridge measurement depends on this fit.
  • skycorr super-pixel bin sizes (bg1=4096 px, sky=32 px, bg2=256 px) = Chosen by hand; disabled bgmodel2
    Affect the scale of background subtraction; if the bridge is an artifact of the background model, these choices matter. bgmodel2 was disabled to avoid over-subtraction, a post-hoc choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Concordance LCDM cosmology with H0=70, Omega_m=0.3, Omega_L=0.7
    Sets the physical scale (1.08 kpc/arcsec) used to convert angular sizes to kiloparsecs; a different cosmology would rescale the bridge's size, though the detection itself would not change.
  • domain assumption The skycorr algorithm, with bgmodel2 disabled, removes sky background without removing or creating LSB features at the bridge's scale
    The bridge is detected after this subtraction; no injected-source test is provided to show the pipeline preserves features of this size.
  • domain assumption Color-gradient formation channels from the literature (negative gradient from gradual stripping, flat gradient from merger) apply to A3667
    Used to interpret the flat bridge color as merger debris and the inner BCG color gradients as gradual stripping; these mappings are taken from prior theoretical work.
  • ad hoc to paper The extended PSF model built from the brightest star represents the PSF wings of all bright sources, including BCG1 and BCG2
    The model is fitted to a star and subtracted from stars only; applying it to BCGs is not tested, which is a key unaddressed systematic for the bridge detection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Intracluster Light of Abell 3667: Unveiling an Optical Bridge in LSST Precursor Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FRUS7674

@misc{pith2026250523551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Intracluster Light of Abell 3667: Unveiling an Optical Bridge in LSST Precursor Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FRUS7674}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23551}
}
abstract

Intracluster light, the diffuse glow of stars stripped from galaxies during a cluster's formation, is an established tracer of a cluster's dynamical history. The upcoming Vera C. Rubin Observatory's Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) is set to revolutionize studies of intracluster light by imaging the entire southern sky down to a limiting surface brightness $\mu \gtrsim 30\text{mag}/\text{arcsec}^2$ by year ten. In this letter, we create a precursor LSST dataset (reaching the equivalent of year eight depth) using DECam observations of Abell 3667 and study its intracluster light. We have discovered a low surface brightness ($ \mu \gtrsim 26\text{mag}/\text{arcsec}^2 $) optical bridge extending over $\sim 400\text{ kpc}$ which connects the two brightest galaxies (BCG1 and BCG2) in the cluster; the color and surface brightness of the bridge is consistent with formation via a major merger. The inner regions of BCG1 ($r < 200\text{ kpc}$) and BCG2 ($r < 50\text{ kpc}$) are consistent with formation via gradual stripping of satellite galaxies, but BCG2's outer profile appears disrupted by a recent merger. We hypothesize that the bridge is a relic of a recent first-pass between the two brightest galaxies and is composed of stars being stripped from BCG2. Future studies of intracluster light with LSST will discover new features such as the bridge in local clusters while enabling detailed studies of the stellar populations of these features with its six photometric bands.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23551 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: A grz cutout of our sky-corrected coadd centered on the midpoint between BCG1 (green) and BCG2 (blue). An intermediate galaxy whose profile we study, LEDA 64218, is also labeled (yellow). Right: A cutout of the same field from the sky-corrected and star-subtracted coadd with masked pixels (detections and stars) rendered in grz. The pixels rendered in grayscale show the r-band coadd with an aggressive stretch t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. LSB contours of the central region of our coadds in g-band (left) and r-band (right) drawn at surface brightnesses of 26, 28, and 30mag/arcsec2 . These are drawn over the corresponding inverted star-subtracted coadd for each band. The eastern LSB feature is the extended PSF of a bright star outside the central region; the northern-most, northwestern, and southernmost 30mag/arcsec2 contours are cirrus (the last two a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The signal-to-noise (SN) of the ICL-signal as a function of central distance for different features. The signal for LEDA 64218 is truncated since, beyond ∼ 100′′, the outer profile blends into the bridge. Due to the small number of pixels used to fit isophotes near the core of BCG1, BCG2, and LEDA 64218, the SN-profile fluctuates and can have a peak offset from center of the object. 3.3. Surface Brightness & Color P… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The calibrated surface brightness and color profiles for BCG1 (top), BCG2 (middle), and the bridge (bottom). The red shaded region in the color profiles covers the red sequence of A3667 (Fu et al. 2024) The isophotes and annuli are drawn over grz RGB cutouts and colore…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: The rest-frame g − r color and r-band surface brightness profiles; the dashed red curves in the bottom-left panel enclose the profile of LEDA 64218 minus the profile of the bridge. The color profiles have been truncated at smaller central distances for ease of vi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Detector 42 from DECam visit 1110874, binned into 8 px × 8 px super-pixels with an aggressive stretch, shown during different steps of skycorr. From left to right: the default calexp produced by the LSP with an aggressive background subtraction, the same calexp with th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Detector 42 from DECam visit 1110874, shown with the default mask produced by the LSP and the final mask created by skycorr overlayed in red. The final mask is significantly more aggressive, but still fails to mask the most extended features, such as the wings of brigh…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    K., Agüeros, M

    Abazajian, K., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 128, 502, 10.1086/421365

    doi:10.1086/421365 2004

  5. [5]

    2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S4, 10.1093/pasj/psx066

    Aihara, H., Arimoto, N., Armstrong, R., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S4, 10.1093/pasj/psx066

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx066 2018

  6. [6]

    2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 71, 114, 10.1093/pasj/psz103

    Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y., Ando, M., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 71, 114, 10.1093/pasj/psz103

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz103 2019

  7. [7]

    2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 74, 247, 10.1093/pasj/psab122

    ---. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 74, 247, 10.1093/pasj/psab122

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 2022

  8. [8]

    W., Evrard, A

    Allen, S. W., Evrard, A. E., & Mantz, A. B. 2011, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 49, 409, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514 2011

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    M., Barnes, D

    Alonso Asensio, I., Dalla Vecchia, C., Bahé, Y. M., Barnes, D. J., & Kay, S. T. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 1859, 10.1093/mnras/staa861

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Kelvin, L

    Bazkiaei, A. E., Kelvin, L. S., Brough, S., et al. 2024, Bright Star Subtraction Pipeline for LSST : Progress Review , arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04802

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M., Abbott, T

    Bernstein, G. M., Abbott, T. M. C., Desai, S., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 114502, 10.1088/1538-3873/aa858e

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    1996 doi

  5. [13]

    B., Ivezić, Z., Jones, R

    Bianco, F. B., Ivezić, Z., Jones, R. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 258, 1, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 621, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834312

    Borlaff, A., Trujillo, I., Román, J., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 621, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834312

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S5, 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    Bosch, J., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S5, 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bosch , J., AlSayyad , Y., Armstrong , R., et al. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben , M. W. Pound , B. A. Thomas , & E. M. Warner , 521, 10.48550/arXiv.1812.03248

    2019 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1609.011

    Bradley, L., Sipocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1609.011. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ascl.soft09011B

    2016

  10. [18]

    L., Bahé, Y

    Brough, S., Ahad, S. L., Bahé, Y. M., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 771, 10.1093/mnras/stad3810

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    A., et al

    Broughton, A., Utsumi, Y., Plazas Malagón, A. A., et al. 2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 136, 045003, 10.1088/1538-3873/ad3aa2

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 2353, 10.1093/mnras/stv450

    Burke, C., Hilton, M., & Collins, C. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 2353, 10.1093/mnras/stv450

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 1414, 10.1093/mnras/stt002

    Carretti, E., Brown, S., Staveley-Smith, L., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 1414, 10.1093/mnras/stt002

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    Y., Joo, H., et al

    Cha, S., Cho, B. Y., Joo, H., et al. 2025, A High - Caliber View of the Bullet Cluster Through JWST Strong and Weak Lensing Analyses , arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.21870

    2025 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    V., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I

    Chilingarian, I. V., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I. Y. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405, 1409, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16506.x

    2010

  16. [24]

    V., & Zolotukhin, I

    Chilingarian, I. V., & Zolotukhin, I. Y. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 1727, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19837.x

    2012

  17. [25]

    H., et al

    Clowe, D., Bradač, M., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 648, L109, 10.1086/508162

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    Collaboration, D. E. S., Abbott, T., Abdalla, F. B., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 1270, 10.1093/mnras/stw641

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Price-Whelan, A

    Collaboration, T. A., Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Collaboration, T. L. D. E. S., Mandelbaum, R., Eifler, T., et al. 2021, The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration ( DESC ) Science Requirements Document , arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.1809.01669

    2021 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 60, 10.3390/galaxies9030060

    Contini, E. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 60, 10.3390/galaxies9030060

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    K., & Kang, X

    Contini, E., Yi, S. K., & Kang, X. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 932, 10.1093/mnras/sty1518

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Armstrong, R., Smith, K

    Coulton, W. R., Armstrong, R., Smith, K. M., Lupton, R. H., & Spergel, D. N. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 258, 10.3847/1538-3881/aac08d

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    H., Zabludoff, A., Zaritsky, D., & Bradač, M

    DeMaio, T., Gonzalez, A. H., Zabludoff, A., Zaritsky, D., & Bradač, M. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 1162, 10.1093/mnras/stv033

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    H., Zabludoff, A., et al

    DeMaio, T., Gonzalez, A. H., Zabludoff, A., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 3009, 10.1093/mnras/stx2946

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Pascale, M., Frye, B., et al

    Diego, J. M., Pascale, M., Frye, B., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 679, A159, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345868

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038419

    Ellien, A., Slezak, E., Martinet, N., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038419

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    L., et al

    Ellien, A., Montes, M., Ahad, S. L., et al. 2025, Euclid: Early Release Observations -- The Intracluster Light of Abell 2390, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.07484

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, LoVoCCS: Applications of LSST Science Pipeline Processed DECam Observations

    Englert , A., Dell'Antonio , I., Fu , S., et al. 2024, LoVoCCS: Applications of LSST Science Pipeline Processed DECam Observations . https://project.lsst.org/meetings/rubin-2024/galaxies-science-dwarfs-clusters

    2024

  30. [38]

    2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Englert , A., Dell'Antonio , I., Fu , S., et al. 2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 245, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 412.07

    2025

  31. [39]

    J., Mihos , J

    Feldmeier , J. J., Mihos , J. C., Morrison , H. L., Rodney , S. A., & Harding , P. 2002, , 575, 779, 10.1086/341472

    2002 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Cho, H., et al

    Finner, K., Jee, M. J., Cho, H., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 277, 28, 10.3847/1538-4365/adb0b6

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 150, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac68e8

    Fu, S., Dell’Antonio, I., Chary, R.-R., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac68e8

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67c6

    Fu, S., Dell'Antonio, I., Escalante, Z., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67c6

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    d., Rudnick, L., Finoguenov, A., et al

    Gasperin, F. d., Rudnick, L., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 659, A146, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142658

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    H., George, T., Connor, T., et al

    Gonzalez, A. H., George, T., Connor, T., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 963, 10.1093/mnras/stab2117

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    H., Zabludoff, A

    Gonzalez, A. H., Zabludoff, A. I., & Zaritsky, D. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 618, 195, 10.1086/425896

    2005 doi

  40. [48]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2015, Science, 347, 1462, 10.1126/science.1261381

    Harvey, D., Massey, R., Kitching, T., Taylor, A., & Tittley, E. 2015, Science, 347, 1462, 10.1126/science.1261381

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  43. [51]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5317, 10.1093/mnras/stz3111

    Infante-Sainz, R., Trujillo, I., & Román, J. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5317, 10.1093/mnras/stz3111

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 851, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b30

    Iodice, E., Spavone, M., Cantiello, M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 851, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b30

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab70f

    Jiménez-Teja, Y., Dupke, R., Benítez, N., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab70f

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 694, A216, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452384

    Jiménez-Teja, Y., Román, J., HyeongHan, K., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 694, A216, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452384

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    S., Hasan , I., & Tyson , J

    Kelvin , L. S., Hasan , I., & Tyson , J. A. 2023, , 520, 2484, 10.1093/mnras/stad180

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 43, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab733b

    Kluge, M., Neureiter, B., Riffeser, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 43, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab733b

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    V., & Borgani, S

    Kravtsov, A. V., & Borgani, S. 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 353, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 686, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348194

    Lee, W., Pillepich, A., ZuHone, J., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 686, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348194

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 5335, 10.1093/mnras/stac2121

    Li, J., Huang, S., Leauthaud, A., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 5335, 10.1093/mnras/stac2121

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    G., et al

    Liu, Q., Abraham, R., Martin, P. G., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b25

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 508, 191, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912933

    Lovisari, L., Kapferer, W., Schindler, S., & Ferrari, C. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 508, 191, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912933

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 4988, 10.1093/mnras/stae925

    Luo, Y., Leauthaud, A., Greene, J., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 4988, 10.1093/mnras/stae925

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    S., Sarrouh, G

    Martis, N. S., Sarrouh, G. T. E., Willott, C. J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7735

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J., & Morrison, H

    Mihos, J. C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J., & Morrison, H. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 631, L41, 10.1086/497030

    2005 doi

  57. [65]

    C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J

    Mihos, J. C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J. J., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/16

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    Moffat, A. F. J. 1969, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 3, 455. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969A&A.....3..455M

    1969

  59. [67]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 308, 10.1038/s41550-022-01616-z

    Montes, M. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 308, 10.1038/s41550-022-01616-z

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    S., & Santucci, G

    Montes, M., Brough, S., Owers, M. S., & Santucci, G. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 45, 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb6

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 137, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/137

    Montes, M., & Trujillo, I. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 137, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/137

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 917, 10.1093/mnras/stx2847

    ---. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 917, 10.1093/mnras/stx2847

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 2838, 10.1093/mnras/sty2858

    ---. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 2838, 10.1093/mnras/sty2858

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, L51, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac98c5

    ---. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, L51, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac98c5

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    E., Treu, T., et al

    Morishita, T., Abramson, L. E., Treu, T., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8403

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 266, 713, 10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  67. [75]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 689, A173, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449992

    Omiya, Y., Nakazawa, K., Tamura, T., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 689, A173, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449992

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M

    Onken, C. A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 36, e033, 10.1017/pasa.2019.27

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    S., Couch, W

    Owers, M. S., Couch, W. J., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 693, 901, 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/901

    2009 doi

  70. [78]

    W., Pointecouteau, E., & Melin, J

    Piffaretti, R., Arnaud, M., Pratt, G. W., Pointecouteau, E., & Melin, J. B. 2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 534, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015377

    2011 doi

  71. [79]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 644, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936111

    Román, J., Trujillo, I., & Montes, M. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 644, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936111

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141631

    Salvato, M., Wolf, J., Dwelly, T., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141631

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    Sampaio-Santos, H., Zhang, Y., Ogando, R. L. C., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 1300, 10.1093/mnras/staa3680

    2021 doi

  74. [82]

    Sarazin, C. L. 1986, Reviews of Modern Physics, 58, 1, 10.1103/RevModPhys.58.1

    1986 doi

  75. [83]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 500, 525, 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  76. [84]

    A., Savchenko, S

    Smirnov, A. A., Savchenko, S. S., Poliakov, D. M., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 4735, 10.1093/mnras/stac3765

    2023 doi

  77. [85]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 553, 10.1093/mnras/sty1435

    Storm, E., Vink, J., Zandanel, F., & Akamatsu, H. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 553, 10.1093/mnras/sty1435

    2018 doi

  78. [86]

    A., & Zeldovich, I

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Zeldovich, I. B. 1980, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 537, 10.1146/annurev.aa.18.090180.002541

    1980

  79. [87]

    A., & Zeldovich, Y

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Zeldovich, Y. B. 1970, Astrophysics and Space Science, 7, 3, 10.1007/BF00653471

    1970 doi

  80. [88]

    1972, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 4, 173

    ---. 1972, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 4, 173. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972CoASP...4..173S

    1972

  81. [89]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 123, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/123

    Trujillo, I., & Fliri, J. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 123, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/123

    2016 doi

  82. [90]

    M., & Remus, R.-S

    Valenzuela, L. M., & Remus, R.-S. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 686, A182, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244758

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    J., de Gasperin, F., Akamatsu, H., et al

    van Weeren, R. J., de Gasperin, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2019, Space Science Reviews, 215, 16, 10.1007/s11214-019-0584-z

    2019 doi

  84. [92]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  85. [93]

    T., Applegate, D

    von der Linden, A., Allen, M. T., Applegate, D. E., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 2, 10.1093/mnras/stt1945

    2014 doi

  86. [94]

    E., Kaviraj, S., Collins, C

    Watkins, A. E., Kaviraj, S., Collins, C. C., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 4289, 10.1093/mnras/stae236

    2024 doi

  87. [95]

    W., Rest, A., Stalder, B., & Challis, P

    William High, F., Stubbs, C. W., Rest, A., Stalder, B., & Challis, P. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 138, 110, 10.1088/0004-6256/138/1/110

    2009 doi

  88. [96]

    G., et al

    Yoo, J., Ko, J., Sabiu, C. G., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 261, 28, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7142

    2022 doi

  89. [97]

    G., et al

    Yoo, J., Park, C., Sabiu, C. G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2df8

    2024 doi

  90. [98]

    G., Cloutier, R., et al

    Zhang, J., Martin, P. G., Cloutier, R., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc177

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 165, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0dfd

    Zhang, Y., Yanny, B., Palmese, A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 165, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0dfd

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.