Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

Galaxy Cluster Mass Estimation Through The Splashback Radius

T0 review · 4 major / 8 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 The splashback radius of a galaxy cluster can be measured from its galaxy counts alone, and a new power-law relation turns that radius into a mass estimate with about 0.15 dex scatter.

desk verdict A useful new individual-cluster splashback radius measurement and Msp–Rsp calibration, but the mock is never used to check that the fitted feature actually recovers the true dark-matter splashback radius. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07425 v1 pith:3A46RITI submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.CO

Lucas Gabriel-Silva , Laerte Sodré Jr This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxyclusterssplashbackradiusclustermassestimationtruncatedNFWprofilecumulativecountSDSSmockcatalogmass-radiusscalingrelation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to show that a cluster's splashback radius — the physical boundary where infalling matter completes its first orbit — can be measured for individual galaxy clusters by modeling their cumulative galaxy counts, not just by stacking many clusters. Applying this to 60 SDSS clusters and 30 mock clusters, the authors find observed radii cluster at $R_{\rm sp}/R_{200m} \approx 1$, smaller than dark-matter-only simulations predict, reinforcing a known observational discrepancy. They then fit a power-law scaling relation between splashback mass and radius, $M_{\rm sp} = A\,R_{\rm sp}^{B}(1+z)^{C}$, with $A=1.48\pm0.21$, $B=1.77\pm0.12$, $C=2.31\pm1.41$ and about $0.15$ dex scatter, arguing this turns the easily observable splashback radius into a competitive cluster mass proxy. If the relation holds, cluster masses could be estimated from a single radius measurement in large galaxy surveys.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing model is the trunc-NFW cumulative number profile: an analytical projected Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) surface-density profile multiplied by a smooth exponential truncation function plus a two-halo term that accounts for the surrounding field. Each cluster's cumulative galaxy count $N(<R)$ is fit with this model via a Markov chain Monte Carlo sampler, and the splashback radius is read off as the minimum of the logarithmic slope of the surface density, converted to three dimensions by $r_{\rm sp} = \sqrt{\pi/2}\,R_{\rm sp}$. Splashback masses are then obtained by extending the tabulated $M_{200c}$ along the NFW profile out to $r_{\rm sp}$. This machinery lets the authors estimate both quantities for single clusters rather than stacked samples.

What would settle it

Compare the galaxy-traced splashback radii recovered by this pipeline with the true dark-matter splashback radii of the halos in the mock catalog; a systematic one-to-one disagreement would mean the observed $R_{\rm sp}/R_{200m}\approx 1$ and the fitted scaling relation are artifacts of galaxy-tracing bias rather than the physical boundary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central empirical claim is that observed splashback radii, measured in projection, are consistently smaller than predicted by dark matter simulations, with $R_{\rm sp}/R_{200m} \approx 1$, in line with earlier work. The second claim is a new mass calibration: for the SDSS sample, $\log(M_{\rm sp}/10^{14}\,M_\odot) = \log A + B\log(R_{\rm sp}/{\rm Mpc}) + C\log(1+z)$ with $A=1.48\pm0.21$, $B=1.77\pm0.12$, $C=2.31\pm1.41$ and a dispersion of about $0.15$ dex, consistent with mock results at $1\sigma$. The fitted slope is significantly below the $B=3$ expected if clusters had a constant density at $R_{\rm sp}$, which the authors interpret as the splashback radius tracing a physical, accretion-dependent boundary rather than a fixed overdensity. They also report significant redshift evolution, while cautioning that the low-redshift sample limits its confirmation.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the minimum in the logarithmic slope of the galaxy surface number density profile, inferred from the trunc-NFW model, marks the true dark-matter splashback radius of each individual cluster.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cluster masses can be estimated from a single observable radius with about $0.15$ dex scatter, competitive with mass-richness and mass-luminosity relations.
  • The persistent $R_{\rm sp}/R_{200m} \approx 1$ observed here means galaxy-tracing in projection falls short of cold-dark-matter simulation predictions; the physical cause (projection, dynamical friction, or accretion-rate effects) remains an open problem.
  • Splashback radius measurements are insensitive to center definition and magnitude limit across the ranges tested, so the method transfers to other galaxy surveys without per-survey recalibration.
  • The fitted slope $B\approx 1.77$ shows the splashback boundary does not enclose a constant mean density; mass calibrations must include this physical behavior rather than assuming $B=3$.
  • The claimed redshift evolution ($C=2.31\pm1.41$) points toward hierarchical assembly, but the low-redshift sample is too narrow to confirm it; higher-redshift data would test this directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the galaxy-traced splashback radius is biased relative to the true dark-matter splashback radius, the fitted scaling relation would calibrate that biased radius; a direct test is to run the same pipeline on a mock whose true $r_{\rm sp}$ is known.
  • The near-$B\approx 2$ slope hints that projection of an aspherical, accretion-dependent boundary shapes the observed relation; a three-dimensional deprojected or stacked-lensing version might recover a steeper slope.
  • With photometric redshifts, the same cumulative-profile method could give mass estimates for thousands of clusters in upcoming wide surveys, since the paper finds membership-interval variations change $R_{\rm sp}$ by only about 5%.
  • A clean test of the redshift term would apply the same fit to clusters at $z\gtrsim 0.3$, where the $(1+z)^C$ dependence becomes distinguishable from the intrinsic scatter.
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

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper uses a sample of 60 SDSS galaxy clusters with weak-lensing mass estimates and a 30-cluster mock catalog to measure individual splashback radii by fitting cumulative galaxy number profiles with truncated NFW and truncated Sersic models. The splashback radius is identified as the minimum of the logarithmic slope of the projected surface density, and the splashback mass is estimated by integrating the same fitted model anchored to catalog M200c values. The authors report that Rsp/R200m is close to unity, robust to center definition, magnitude limit, galaxy color, and velocity cuts, and they propose a new Msp-Rsp scaling relation with about 0.15 dex scatter. The central empirical claims are the observed 2D splashback radius being smaller than dark-matter simulation predictions (Rsp/R200m ~ 1) and the scaling relation in Eq. (24).

Significance. If the splashback identification is valid, the paper offers a practical route to individual cluster splashback radii from cumulative counts and a mass proxy that could be applied to large photometric surveys. The systematic exploration of center definitions, magnitude limits, galaxy colors, and velocity cuts is useful, and the use of a mock catalog as a control is a good idea. The model selection with chi-squared, AIC, and BIC is careful, and the authors are explicit about several limitations. However, the two headline results rest on assumptions that are not validated with the mock data, and the 2D/3D treatment of the splashback radius may affect the discrepancy claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (12); Figures 6-12] The paper defines r_sp = sqrt(pi/2) R_sp, so R_sp is a projected (2D) radius while r_sp is the corresponding 3D radius. Yet the ratio R_sp/R_200m is compared with dark-matter simulation predictions that in the cited literature refer to the 3D splashback radius. Applying Eq. (12) to the reported median R_sp/R_200m ~ 1 gives r_sp/R_200m ~ 1.25, which is compatible with the simulation expectation and removes the claimed discrepancy. The authors should clarify which definition is used in each comparison and re-derive the headline conclusion using r_sp/R_200m or, alternatively, project the simulation predictions consistently.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Section 3.1] The mock sample is never used to test the load-bearing assumption that the minimum of d ln Sigma / d ln R recovered from the trunc-NFW fit corresponds to the true splashback radius of the simulated halos. The mock is used only to show similarity of normalized profiles and of the R_sp/R_200m distributions, but because the mock pipeline shares the same galaxy-tracing and projection assumptions with the SDSS pipeline, this agreement is not an independent validation. The authors should compute true 3D splashback radii from the dark-matter distribution of the mock halos and compare them with the recovered r_sp, quantifying bias and scatter as a function of mass, redshift, and galaxy selection.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (17); Section 4.4] The M_sp-R_sp relation is partly built in by construction: M_sp is computed as M(<r_sp) using the same trunc-NFW fit that provides R_sp, anchored to the same M200c catalog. The strong correlation and the stated 0.15 dex scatter therefore do not by themselves establish an independent scaling relation. The authors should demonstrate that the relation survives when R_sp and M_sp are derived from independent fits or when an external mass calibration is used, and should report the correlation between the fitted parameters and the propagated covariance.
  4. [Section 3.1.1, Table 2; Section 3.1.2] The informative priors for individual fits (tau = 4 +/- 0.8, gamma = 1.7 +/- 0.4) are taken from the stacked fits of the same SDSS and Mock samples. Because the stacked and individual fits use overlapping data, the posterior distributions of R_sp are not fully independent of the stacking results. The authors should either motivate the priors from independent literature alone or test the sensitivity of R_sp and M_sp to the prior widths and central values.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.4] The abstract states that the M_sp-R_sp relation shows significant redshift evolution, but the fitted coefficient is C = 2.31 +/- 1.41 and the authors themselves note that setting C = 0 does not alter the other parameters significantly; the wording should be softened accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.2.4] The 5% trend in R_sp/R_200m with the width of the recession-velocity interval is discussed as possibly physical, but no quantitative interloper test or correction is applied; the mock catalog could be used to measure the effect directly.
  3. [Figure 3] The conclusion that the SDSS and Mock normalized cumulative profiles agree is based on visual inspection; a two-sample test such as a Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic would make the comparison quantitative.
  4. [Section 3.1.1] Stacked profiles are smoothed with a Savitzky-Golay filter while individual profiles are not; the authors should justify this difference or test whether the smoothing affects the recovered splashback radii.
  5. [Table 4] In several bins the non-truncated Sersic model outperforms the non-truncated NFW model; the text attributes this to stochastic fluctuations without a formal test, so a brief explanation of why these cases are not considered evidence for the Sersic form would be useful.
  6. [Eq. (12)] The origin of the sqrt(pi/2) conversion factor should be given explicitly, either as a short derivation or with a precise citation to the relevant equations in More et al. (2016), since this factor is used in all mass estimates.
  7. [Section 4.2.1] The center-comparison analysis uses only the 52 clusters with X-ray centers; the paper should state explicitly whether the remaining 8 clusters are excluded from that comparison and whether this changes any conclusions.
  8. [Throughout] There are minor typographical errors, including "ackowledges" in the Acknowledgements and "quantites" in Section 4.1; the units h70^-1 Mpc and 10^14 h70^-1 M_sun in Table 5 should be defined in the table caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The Rsp/R200m comparison is not circular, but the Msp-Rsp scaling relation is partially built into the same trunc-NFW fit that defines Rsp.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2 (Eqs. 14-17) and Section 3.1.2 (Rsp definition); result used in Eq. 24 (Section 4.4)]
    "We estimate the splashback radius by selecting the minimum in the logarithmic slope of the surface density within a range of ±0.5Rt (Sec. 3.1.2). ... By utilizing the fitted parameters rs, Rt, and τ, together with the tabulated M200c, we can estimate the mass at any radius, assuming the cluster follows an NFW profile. For instance, in the splashback radius: Msp ≡ M(< rsp). (Sec. 3.2, Eqs. 14-17)"

    Both Rsp and Msp are outputs of the same trunc-NFW fit. Rsp is defined as the minimum of dlnΣ/dlnR of the fitted surface-density model, i.e., a function of the fitted parameters (rs, Rt, τ). Msp is then computed as the enclosed mass of that same fitted NFW+truncation profile, evaluated at rsp = sqrt(pi/2) Rsp (Eq. 12). Consequently, the strong Msp-Rsp correlation reported in Eq. 24 is partly generated by the estimator itself: the relation largely recovers the assumed profile shape rather than an independent association between two separately measured quantities. The residual scatter (about 0.15 dex) still contains the external M200c errors and per-cluster fit variation, so the circularity is partial, but the slope B ≈ 1.77 is not an independent empirical discovery.

full rationale

The paper's headline result, Rsp/R200m ≈ 1, is not circular: Rsp is obtained from the fitted minimum of the logarithmic slope of the galaxy cumulative number profile, while R200m is derived from external weak-lensing M200c measurements via a literature mass-concentration relation, and the dark-matter-only simulation expectation is an external benchmark. The unvalidated assumption that the galaxy-tracing minimum coincides with the true matter splashback radius is a correctness/validation concern, not a definitional circularity; likewise, the fact that the mock sample is not used to check recovered Rsp against true halo splashback radii is an evidentiary gap, not a self-referential reduction. The one substantive circular element is the Msp-Rsp scaling relation: Msp is defined as the enclosed mass of the same trunc-NFW profile whose parameters define Rsp, so the strong correlation and slope in Eq. 24 are partially built into the construction of the two quantities. The informative priors for individual fits come from stacked fits of the same SDSS and Mock samples, but they are broad and literature-anchored (τ, γ priors), so they do not by themselves force the splashback radii. On balance, the central Rsp/R200m comparison stands independently, while the mass-radius relation carries a moderate degree of self-reference.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on a standard halo-model toolkit: NFW/Sersic projected profiles, a smooth truncation function, a two-halo term, and weak-lensing mass anchors. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the profile shape parameters fit per cluster and the additive parameters of the Msp-Rsp relation; several auxiliary constants (2D-3D conversion, rout, prior centers) are set by hand from literature.

free parameters (5)
  • trunc-NFW profile parameters (rho_s, r_s, R_t, tau, rho_m, gamma) per cluster = Not tabulated per cluster; priors in Table 2
    These six parameters are fit to each cumulative galaxy number profile via MCMC. The splashback radius is derived from the minimum of the logarithmic slope of the surface density model, so these fitted parameters directly determine Rsp.
  • rout (two-halo term outer radius) = 1.5 Mpc (fixed)
    Set to a fixed value to break degeneracy with the background density; the choice affects the two-halo term amplitude and could shift the outer profile shape.
  • Msp-Rsp scaling relation parameters (A, B, C) = A=1.48±0.21, B=1.77±0.12, C=2.31±1.41 (SDSS); A=1.56±0.33, B=1.62±0.18, C=2.10±2.06 (Mock)
    These are the output of an orthogonal distance regression fit to the derived Msp and Rsp values. They are free parameters in the empirical scaling relation, not predicted from theory.
  • Prior means and widths for tau and gamma = tau=4±0.8, gamma=1.7±0.4
    Gaussian priors adopted from literature and from the stacked fits. They constrain the individual fits and therefore influence the recovered Rsp values.
  • 2D-3D conversion factor sqrt(pi/2) = 1.253
    Assumed constant in Eq. 12 to convert projected Rsp to 3D rsp. This factor directly enters the Msp calculation and is not validated for individual clusters.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The galaxy number density profile traces the total matter density profile sufficiently well that the logarithmic slope minimum of the galaxy profile marks the splashback radius of the dark matter halo.
    Core of the method; enters in Section 3.1 where counts are used to locate Rsp. The paper discusses color and magnitude effects but does not calibrate the galaxy-to-matter offset for individual clusters.
  • domain assumption The surface density model with a smooth truncation exp[-(R/Rt)^tau] (Diemer & Kravtsov 2014) adequately describes the projected density of real clusters.
    The splashback radius is defined as the minimum of the logarithmic slope of this model, so the functional form strongly influences the derived Rsp. Only two functional forms are tested.
  • domain assumption The 3D splashback radius relates to the 2D projected radius as rsp = sqrt(pi/2) Rsp.
    Eq. 12, used to compute Msp. This is a crude deprojection that may not hold for individual clusters and is not verified against simulations in this work.
  • domain assumption The NFW profile with truncation, normalized to the weak-lensing M200c, can be extrapolated to estimate Msp.
    Eqs. 14-17 assume that the galaxy-fitted scale radius and truncation parameters describe the total mass profile. The paper acknowledges a possible bias but does not quantify it.
  • domain assumption The weak-lensing masses from Sereno (2015) and Herbonnet et al. (2020) are on a consistent mass scale and their uncertainties are Gaussian and independent.
    These masses set M200c and R200c for each cluster. Systematic offsets between samples would propagate into Msp and Rsp/R200m.
  • domain assumption The mass-concentration relation from Diemer & Joyce (2019) is valid for these clusters when converting M200c to M200m.
    Used in Section 2.1 to derive R200m for normalization and stacking. The relation is an external calibration and may not hold for all cluster dynamical states.
  • standard math Spherical symmetry and a Poisson likelihood for counts in annular bins are appropriate for the cumulative profiles.
    Standard assumptions in profile fitting, but real clusters are not perfectly spherical; the paper tests center definitions but does not model triaxiality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Galaxy Cluster Mass Estimation Through The Splashback Radius." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3A46RITI

@misc{pith2026250607425,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Galaxy Cluster Mass Estimation Through The Splashback Radius},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3A46RITI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07425}
}
abstract

We present an analysis of the splashback radius ($R_{\text{sp}}$) and the associated splashback mass ($M_{\text{sp}}$) for a sample of galaxy clusters using SDSS spectroscopic data and mock simulations. $R_{\text{sp}}$ marks a physical boundary between the virialized core and the outer infall regions of clusters, providing a robust measure of cluster mass accretion history without being affected by pseudo-evolution. We model the cumulative galaxy number profile of clusters, testing different halo density models and considering the impact of cluster properties, such as center definitions, magnitude limits, galaxy colors, and field contamination, on the estimation of splashback features. Our results show that observed splashback radii, measured in projection (2D), are consistently smaller than predicted by dark matter simulations, with $R_\text{sp}/R_{200m} \approx 1$, supporting previous discrepancies in the literature. We also explore the relationship between $M_{\text{sp}}$ and $R_{\text{sp}}$, proposing a new scaling relation for future cosmological studies, as $R_{\text{sp}}$ is easily observable. Our findings indicate that splashback masses strongly correlate with radii, with a dispersion of $\approx 0.15$ dex, competitive with other mass-observable relations. However, the fitted relation diverges from the constant density expectations of galaxy clusters around $R_\text{sp}$. Additionally, the $M_{\text{sp}} \textendash R_{\text{sp}}$ relation shows significant redshift evolution, though the predominantly low-redshift range of our sample limits our ability to confirm this trend conclusively. The approach developed here may play a key role in cluster characterization and cosmology in the era of large galaxy surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07425 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of N200c richness for the SDSS (yel￾low) and Mock (pink) cluster samples. due to their large sizes within the simulation box, caus￾ing even their inner regions to intersect the edges of the projected light cone. 3. METHODS In this section, we describe the models we tested and the process used to analyze cumulative and individual cluster profiles. We also outline how we estimate splash￾back masses from M… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distributions of M200m masses (left panel) and redshift (right panel) for our samples. SDSS clusters are shown in yellow, while Mock clusters are in pink [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized cumulative number profiles for SDSS (filled lines) and Mock (dashed lines) clusters, color-coded by redshift. effective. For the fitting, we also smooth the profiles using a Savitzky–Golay filter with a third-order poly￾nomial and a five-point window. This smoothing step helps mitigate noise, which primarily affects the smaller radii due to the low galaxy count in those regions. 3.1.2. Individual Profiles… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model fitting procedure for stacked SDSS clusters. Black points represent the stacked cumulative distributions. Rows represent different redshift bins, and columns represent mass bins. The fitted models are shown as dotted green lines for trunc-NFW and dashed purple li…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model fitting procedure for stacked Mock clus￾ters. Black points represent the stacked cumulative distri￾butions. Rows represent different redshift bins, and columns represent mass bins. The fitted models are shown as dot￾ted green lines for trunc-NFW and dashed purple…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized distributions of splashback radii for different center definitions (BCG, X-ray peak, and geomet￾ric) for the SDSS (yellow) and Mock (pink) clusters. Black box plot represents the distribution for both samples com￾bined. fact, given the low accretion rates ex…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized distributions of splashback radii for different magnitude limits in the r-band for the SDSS (yel￾low) and Mock (pink) clusters. Black box plot represents the distribution for both samples combined. in a smaller value than expected when considering the entire…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized distributions of splashback radii for different velocity dispersion intervals in the SDSS (yellow) and Mock (pink) clusters. Black box plot represents the distribution for both samples combined. Beck et al. 2016; Lima et al. 2022). This is a challenge we aim…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distributions of splashback masses (left panel) and radii (right panel) for our samples. SDSS clusters are shown in yellow, while Mock clusters are in pink [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of the ratio Rsp/R200m for SDSS (yellow) and Mock (pink) clusters. the cluster’s mass accretion rate, which may lead to a lower slope. Additionally, since our splashback radius measurements are, intrinsically, based on 2D projected quantities, projection …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Top-left panel: observed cumulative distribution for the Coma Cluster and model fit. Top-right panel: spatial distribution of galaxies, highlighting radii. Bottom panel: MCMC posterior distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. The role of filaments in the large-scale conformity signal

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Filamentary regions of the cosmic web are the primary contributors to the residual large-scale conformity signal of low-mass central galaxies in both SAG and TNG300.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    [ XmΝ; .\أDOfi 'i* RC = +qҥ ? bi O,sܹ-z) լ+ en Kk - (PZ ƽVSN;Syׯ? A-Q_EW_|WVVvu [/RGǩ#<b `2u*z ŋ133S ??zhg[e[=/ > SGJk\ڡ@w, l7x655 W^Ka-

    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...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., Armitage-Caplan, C., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 571, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 2014

  5. [5]

    Adhikari, S., Dalal, N., & Chamberlain, R. T. 2014, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2014, 019–019, 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/11/019

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/11/019 2014

  6. [6]

    2016, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016, 022, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/07/022

    Adhikari, S., Dalal, N., & Clampitt, J. 2016, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016, 022, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/07/022

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/07/022 2016

  7. [7]

    2018, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018, 033, 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/033

    Adhikari, S., Sakstein, J., Jain, B., Dalal, N., & Li, B. 2018, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018, 033, 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/033

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/033 2018

  8. [8]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0bbc

    Adhikari, S., hyeon Shin, T., Jain, B., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0bbc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0bbc 2021

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716, 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716, 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    1974

  2. [10]

    W., Evrard, A

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

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    W., et al

    Allen , S. W., et al. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353, 457

    2004

  4. [12]

    C., Sodré, Laerte, J., Overzier, R

    Araya-Araya, P., Vicentin, M. C., Sodré, Laerte, J., Overzier, R. A., & Cuevas, H. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 5054, 10.1093/mnras/stab1133

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 441, 893

    Arnaud , M., et al. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 441, 893

    2005

  6. [14]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Lim , P

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

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    V., Carrasco, E

    Astudillo, S. V., Carrasco, E. R., Castellón, J. L. N., Zenteno, A., & Cuevas, H. 2024, The effect of dynamical states on galaxy clusters populations. I. Classification of dynamical states. 2408.02519

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 841, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ff0

    Baxter, E., Chang, C., Jain, B., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 841, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ff0

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    S., & Csabai, I

    Beck, R., Dobos, L., Budavári, T., Szalay, A. S., & Csabai, I. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 1371, 10.1093/mnras/stw1009

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., Lu, Y., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 787, 156, 10.1088/0004-637x/787/2/156

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    1985, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 58, 39

    Bertschinger , E. 1985, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 58, 39

    1985

  14. [22]

    T., & Rogers, J

    Boggs, P. T., & Rogers, J. E. 1990, Contemporary Mathematics, 112, 186

    1990

  15. [23]

    2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 517, 10.1086/500691

    Boselli, A., & Gavazzi, G. 2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 517, 10.1086/500691

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    R., et al

    Carlberg , G. R., et al. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 478, 462

    1997

  17. [25]

    1943, Dynamical Friction

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1943, Dynamical Friction. I. General Considerations: the Coefficient of Dynamical Friction

    1943

  18. [26]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad5e7

    Chang, C., Baxter, E., Jain, B., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad5e7

    2018 doi

  19. [29]

    1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 352, 447, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911078

    Ciotti, L., & Bertin, G. 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 352, 447, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911078

    1999 doi arXiv

  20. [30]

    2019, Phys

    Contigiani, O., Vardanyan, V., & Silvestri, A. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 064030, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.064030

    2019 doi

  21. [31]

    S., Laerte Sodré, J., Kneib, J.-P., & Campusano, L

    Cypriano, E. S., Laerte Sodré, J., Kneib, J.-P., & Campusano, L. E. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 613, 95, 10.1086/422896

    2004 doi

  22. [33]

    Davis, M., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1983, Astrophysical Journal, 267, 465, 10.1086/160884

    1983 doi

  23. [34]

    1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 309, 610, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02864.x

    Diaferio, A. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 309, 610, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02864.x

    1999

  24. [35]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 239, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    Diemer, B. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 239, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    2018 doi

  25. [36]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 87, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf52

    ---. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 87, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf52

    2020 doi

  26. [37]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 3292, 10.1093/mnras/stac3778

    ---. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 3292, 10.1093/mnras/stac3778

    2022 doi

  27. [38]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafad6

    Diemer, B., & Joyce, M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafad6

    2019 doi

  28. [39]

    Diemer, B., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, 1, 10.1088/0004-637x/789/1/1

    2014 doi

  29. [40]

    Diemer, B., More, S., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 766, 25, 10.1088/0004-637x/766/1/25

    2013 doi

  30. [41]

    Dietrich, J. P. , Biviano, A. , Popesso, P. , et al. 2009, A&A, 499, 669, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811433

    2009 doi

  31. [42]

    Dressler, A., & Shectman, S. A. 1988, Astronomical Journal, 95, 985

    1988

  32. [43]

    , Gastaldello, F

    Ettori, S. , Gastaldello, F. , Leccardi, A. , et al. 2011, A&A, 526, C1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015271e

    2011 doi

  33. [45]

    A., & Goldreich , P

    Fillmore , J. A., & Goldreich , P. 1984, , 281, 1

    1984

  34. [46]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  35. [47]

    , Adami, C

    Gavazzi, R. , Adami, C. , Durret, F. , et al. 2009, A&A, 498, L33, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911841

    2009 doi

  36. [48]

    F., et al

    Giocoli, C., Palmucci, L., Lesci, G. F., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449561

    2024 doi

  37. [49]

    J., Rodriguez, F., García Lambas, D., et al

    Gonzalez, E. J., Rodriguez, F., García Lambas, D., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 1348, 10.1093/mnras/stw2803

    2016 doi

  38. [50]

    E., & Gott, J

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, J. R. 1972, Astrophysical Journal, 176, 1, 10.1086/151605

    1972 doi

  39. [51]

    T., et al

    Haggar, R., Amoura, Y., Mpetha, C. T., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cee

    2024 doi

  40. [52]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 553, 545

    Haiman , Z., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 553, 545

    2001

  41. [53]

    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

  42. [54]

    Henriques, B. M. B., White, S. D. M., Thomas, P. A., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 2663, 10.1093/mnras/stv705

    2015 doi

  43. [55]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 4684, 10.1093/mnras/staa2303

    Herbonnet, R., Sifón, C., Hoekstra, H., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 4684, 10.1093/mnras/staa2303

    2020 doi

  44. [56]

    2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python . http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  45. [57]

    G., & Kopylov, A

    Kopylova, F. G., & Kopylov, A. I. 2022, Astrophysical Bulletin, 77, 347–360

    2022

  46. [58]

    V., & Borgani, S

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

    2012 doi

  47. [59]

    M., Annis, J., Hardin, F

    Kubo, J. M., Annis, J., Hardin, F. M., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 702, L110, 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/L110

    2009 doi

  48. [60]

    1993, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 262, 627, 10.1093/mnras/262.3.627

    Lacey, C., & Cole, S. 1993, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 262, 627, 10.1093/mnras/262.3.627

    1993 doi

  49. [61]

    Lebeau, T., Ettori, S., Aghanim, N., & Sorce, J. G. 2024, A&A, 689, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450146

    2024 doi

  50. [62]

    2022, Astronomy and Computing, 38, 100510, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2021.100510

    Lima, E., Sodré, L., Bom, C., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Computing, 38, 100510, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2021.100510

    2022

  51. [63]

    Lopes, P. A. A., Trevisan, M., Laganá, T. F., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 5473, 10.1093/mnras/sty1374

    2018 doi

  52. [64]

    W., & Ebeling, H

    Mann, A. W., & Ebeling, H. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 420, 2120, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20170.x

    2012

  53. [65]

    F., Ludlow, A., & Jenkins, A

    Merritt, D., Navarro, J. F., Ludlow, A., & Jenkins, A. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 624, L85, 10.1086/430636

    2005 doi

  54. [66]

    More, S., Diemer, B., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 810, 36, 10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/36

    2015 doi

  55. [67]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 39, 10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/39

    More, S., Miyatake, H., Takada, M., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 39, 10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/39

    2016 doi

  56. [68]

    L., McGee, S

    Mulroy, S. L., McGee, S. L., Gillman, S., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 3246

    2017

  57. [69]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaab8

    Murata, R., Nishimichi, T., Takada, M., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaab8

    2018 doi

  58. [70]

    2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 72, 64, 10.1093/pasj/psaa041

    Murata, R., Sunayama, T., Oguri, M., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 72, 64, 10.1093/pasj/psaa041

    2020 doi

  59. [71]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 462, 563, 10.1086/177173

    1996 doi

  60. [72]

    Okabe, N., Takada, M., Umetsu, K., Futamase, T., & Smith, G. P. 2010, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 62, 811, 10.1093/pasj/62.3.811

    2010 doi

  61. [73]

    2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 60, 345, 10.1093/pasj/60.2.345

    Okabe, N., & Umetsu, K. 2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 60, 345, 10.1093/pasj/60.2.345

    2008 doi

  62. [74]

    M., Borrow, J., O'Neil, S., & Vogelsberger, M

    O'Shea, T. M., Borrow, J., O'Neil, S., & Vogelsberger, M. 2024, Dynamical friction and measurements of the splashback radius in galaxy clusters. 2405.18468

    2024

  63. [75]

    J., Vogelsberger, M., & Diemer, B

    O’Neil, S., Barnes, D. J., Vogelsberger, M., & Diemer, B. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 4649, 10.1093/mnras/stab1221

    2021 doi

  64. [76]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 835, 10.1093/mnras/stac850

    O’Neil, S., Borrow, J., Vogelsberger, M., & Diemer, B. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 835, 10.1093/mnras/stac850

    2022 doi

  65. [77]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 3310, 10.1093/mnras/stae990

    O’Neil, S., Borrow, J., Vogelsberger, M., Zhao, H., & Wang, B. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 3310, 10.1093/mnras/stae990

    2024 doi

  66. [78]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 667, 26, 10.1086/520945

    Pedersen, K., & Dahle, H. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 667, 26, 10.1086/520945

    2007 doi

  67. [79]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (Princeton University Press). http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvxrpz4n

    1980

  68. [80]

    , Arnaud, M

    Pointecouteau, E. , Arnaud, M. , & Pratt, G. W. 2005, A&A, 435, 1, 10.1051/0004-6361:20042569

    2005 doi

  69. [81]

    2007, A&A, 464, 451, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054708

    Popesso, P., Biviano, A., Böhringer, H., & Romaniello, M. 2007, A&A, 464, 451, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054708

    2007 doi

  70. [82]

    2005, A&A, 433, 431, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041915

    Popesso, P., Biviano, A., Böhringer, H., Romaniello, M., & Voges, W. 2005, A&A, 433, 431, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041915

    2005 doi

  71. [83]

    W., et al

    Pratt , G. W., et al. 2019, Space Science Reviews, 215, 25

    2019

  72. [84]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 4181, 10.1093/mnras/stad1239

    Rana, D., More, S., Miyatake, H., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 4181, 10.1093/mnras/stad1239

    2023 doi

  73. [85]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 917, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c14

    Ryu, S., & Lee, J. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 917, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c14

    2021 doi

  74. [86]

    Sanderson, A. J. R., Edge, A. C., & Smith, G. P. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1698, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15214.x

    2009

  75. [87]

    1978, The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461 , 10.1214/aos/1176344136

    Schwarz, G. 1978, The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461 , 10.1214/aos/1176344136

    1978

  76. [88]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 3665, 10.1093/mnras/stu2505

    Sereno, M. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 3665, 10.1093/mnras/stu2505

    2015 doi

  77. [89]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 241, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/241

    Shi, F., Yang, X., Wang, H., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 241, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/241

    2016 doi

  78. [90]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 3711, 10.1093/mnras/stw925

    Shi, X. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 3711, 10.1093/mnras/stw925

    2016 doi

  79. [91]

    J., et al

    Shin, T., Adhikari, S., Baxter, E. J., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 2900, 10.1093/mnras/stz1434

    2019 doi

  80. [92]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 5758, 10.1093/mnras/stab2505

    Shin, T., Jain, B., Adhikari, S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 5758, 10.1093/mnras/stab2505

    2021 doi

  81. [93]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 3103, 10.1093/mnras/stw3250

    Simet, M., McClintock, T., Mandelbaum, R., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 3103, 10.1093/mnras/stw3250

    2016 doi

  82. [95]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629–636, 10.1038/nature03597

    2005 doi

  83. [96]

    R., et al

    Strateva, I., Željko Ivezić, Knapp, G. R., et al. 2001, The Astronomical Journal, 122, 1861, 10.1086/323301

    2001 doi

  84. [97]

    A., Weinberg, D

    Strauss, M. A., Weinberg, D. H., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 124, 1810–1824, 10.1086/342343

    2002 doi

  85. [98]

    A., & Zeldovich, Y

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Zeldovich, Y. B. 1972, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 4, 173

    1972

  86. [99]

    Sérsic, J. L. 1963, Boletín de la Asociación Argentina de Astronomía, 6, 41

    1963

  87. [100]

    T., Schaye, J., et al

    Towler, I., Kay, S. T., Schaye, J., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 2017, 10.1093/mnras/stae654

    2024 doi

  88. [101]

    Tully, R. B. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 149, 54, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/54

    2015 doi

  89. [102]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 231, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c90

    Umetsu, K., & Diemer, B. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 231, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c90

    2017 doi

  90. [103]

    2020, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 28, 7

    Umetsu , K., et al. 2020, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 28, 7

    2020

  91. [104]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 2303, 10.1093/mnras/staa3035

    Vallés-Pérez, D., Planelles, S., & Quilis, V. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 2303, 10.1093/mnras/staa3035

    2020 doi

  92. [105]

    C., Lewis, G

    van den Bosch, F. C., Lewis, G. F., Lake, G., & Stadel, J. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 515, 50, 10.1086/307023

    1999 doi

  93. [106]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 692, 1060

    Vikhlinin , A., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 692, 1060

    2009

  94. [107]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 611, 10.1093/mnras/stt2481

    Wang, L., Yang, X., Shen, S., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 611, 10.1093/mnras/stt2481

    2014 doi

  95. [108]

    J., & Dolence, J

    Wang, Y., Brunner, R. J., & Dolence, J. C. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 1961, 10.1093/mnras/stt450

    2013 doi

  96. [109]

    R., Tinker, J

    Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., Conroy, C., & Bosch, F. C. v. d. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 2687, 10.1093/mnras/stu122

    2014 doi

  97. [110]

    Wojtak, R., & Łokas, E. L. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 2442, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17297.x

    2010

  98. [111]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad57c7

    Xu, W., Shan, H., Li, R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad57c7

    2024 doi

  99. [112]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 705, 10.1093/mnras/staa1157

    Zenteno, A., Hernández-Lang, D., Klein, M., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 705, 10.1093/mnras/staa1157

    2020 doi

  100. [113]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 184, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab08e8

    Zürcher, D., & More, S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 184, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab08e8

    2019 doi

  101. [114]

    L., & Mamon, G

    Łokas, E. L., & Mamon, G. A. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 321, 155, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04007.x

    2001

  102. [115]

    M., Tyson, J

    Željko Ivezić, Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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