Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 94 references

Mass models of galaxy clusters from a non-parametric weak-lensing reconstruction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Using a weak-lensing reconstruction that does not assume a halo profile, the paper claims the CLASH clusters have approximately flat circular velocities at large radii and may fall on the same baryonic scaling relations as galaxies once…

desk verdict A solid, transparent methods paper with genuinely useful new mass profiles and a density reconstruction formula; the BTFR/RAR conclusions are conditional on gas extrapolations and a fitted missing-mass component, so they should be read as exploratory, not as independent tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13716 v2 pith:SW6EN6OD submitted 2025-06-16 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Tobias Mistele , Federico Lelli , Stacy McGaugh , James Schombert , Benoit Famaey This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords weakgravitationallensinggalaxyclustersnon-parametricmassreconstructionCLASHsurveyBaryonicTully-FisherRelationRadialAccelerationbaryonfractionclusterscalingrelations
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 is trying to establish that galaxy-cluster mass profiles can be measured from weak lensing without assuming any halo shape, and that the resulting profiles change what the cluster scaling relations imply. For the twenty CLASH clusters, the non-parametric circular velocities are consistent with being flat at large radii, like galaxy rotation curves. When the total masses are compared with baryonic masses from X-ray gas and stellar light, the clusters sit off the galaxy-scale Baryonic Tully-Fisher and Radial Acceleration Relations, but the offset shrinks or disappears if an additional positive baryonic component is included. The paper does not claim to detect such a component; it claims that the lensing data are consistent with it, so the longstanding cluster-versus-galaxy discrepancy need not force new gravitational dynamics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a non-parametric deprojection of the azimuthally averaged weak-lensing shear. Starting from $G_+ = \langle g_+\rangle/\langle\Sigma_{\rm crit}^{-1}\rangle$, the method converts the reduced shear into the excess surface density $\Delta\Sigma(R)$ through an integral equation, and then recovers the three-dimensional enclosed mass $M(r) = 4r^2\int_0^{\pi/2} d\theta\,\Delta\Sigma(r/\sin\theta)$ without fitting a profile. A companion integral formula gives the 3D density $\rho(r)$ directly, avoiding numerical derivatives. The method assumes spherical symmetry, and the paper argues that although an individual triaxial halo can be mis-measured by tens of percent, averaging over line-of-sight orientations recovers the true enclosed mass at radii where $\Sigma/\Sigma_{\rm crit}$ is small, with the same result holding for any mass distribution under a mild assumption on the source redshift distribution.

What would settle it

Take deep X-ray observations that trace the gas density of several CLASH clusters beyond the current $R_{\rm X}^{\rm max}$. If the actual gas density decays like $1/r^4$ or steeper, the low baryon fractions and large BTFR/RAR offsets persist, strengthening the missing-baryon interpretation; if it follows the $\beta$-model continuation, baryon fractions approach the cosmic value near $r_{200c}$ and the offsets nearly vanish, weakening that interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that non-parametric weak-lensing reconstruction of the CLASH clusters yields approximately flat circular velocities at large radii, and that the clusters can be made to fall on the same BTFR and RAR as galaxies by adding a suitable positive baryonic mass component. The flatness is presented as a data-driven result independent of any assumed density profile, in contrast to NFW-based fits whose circular velocities decline as $\sqrt{\ln r/r}$. The baryon fraction at large radii is found to depend strongly on how the X-ray gas profile is extrapolated beyond $R_{\rm X}^{\rm max}$, so the paper concludes it is currently unknown whether clusters reach the cosmic baryon fraction. The non-parametric masses are consistent with the stellar mass--halo mass relation expected in $\Lambda$CDM.

Load-bearing premise

The fragile step is trusting the X-ray gas mass profiles only out to $R_{\rm X}^{\rm max}$; the two extrapolations beyond that radius bracket very different baryon fractions and scaling-relation offsets, so if the true gas density lies outside that bracket the paper's main scaling conclusions shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cluster masses $M_{200c}$ from the non-parametric method agree with earlier NFW fits within the quoted uncertainties, while making no assumption about the shape of the total density profile.
  • If the circular velocities are truly flat, cluster scaling-relation offsets are not necessarily a signature of modified gravity; a missing baryonic component is an equally viable explanation within the lensing data.
  • The baryon fraction at $r_{200c}$ cannot be pinned down until the gas density is measured or constrained beyond $R_{\rm X}^{\rm max}$; the current data bracket values from well below the cosmic fraction to close to it.
  • The non-parametric density reconstruction is noise-limited for individual clusters but should become powerful when stacked across large weak-lensing samples.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the missing baryonic component is real, it should be searchable with multi-wavelength observations such as cold-gas tracers or dust in the inner few hundred kiloparsecs of clusters, where the RAR fit places most of the extra mass.
  • The line-of-sight averaging property suggests that stacked non-parametric mass profiles could provide nearly bias-free concentration and sparsity measurements for cluster cosmology, avoiding the triaxiality bias that affects parametric fits.
  • Because hydrostatic masses are also used to estimate cluster baryon fractions, a comparison of non-parametric lensing masses with hydrostatic masses outside the X-ray data edge would test whether the missing-mass effect is degenerate with hydrostatic bias.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper applies the non-parametric weak-lensing deprojection method of Mistele & Durakovic (2024) to 20 CLASH clusters, inferring 3D mass profiles and circular velocities without assuming a halo profile. It tests the spherical-symmetry and triaxiality assumptions, subtracts a Lambda-CDM two-halo term, combines the lensing masses with baryonic mass profiles from Famaey et al. (2025), and derives baryon fractions, the SMHM relation, the BTFR, and the RAR. The main findings are that the circular velocities are approximately flat at large radii, that baryon fractions at r200c depend strongly on the X-ray gas extrapolation, and that clusters may fall on the galaxy BTFR and RAR if a suitable positive baryonic mass component is added.

Significance. The non-parametric mass reconstruction is a genuinely useful contribution: it is validated on mock triaxial halos, includes detailed covariance propagation, releases code and data, and the flat-circular-velocity result is largely robust to shear extrapolation choices (Appendix E). If the mass profiles are accepted, the paper provides a profile-independent check on cluster halo models. The scaling-relation conclusions are less secure because they depend on unmeasured gas profiles beyond R_Xmax and on a missing-mass component fitted under the assumption that the galaxy-scale RAR holds. The paper is candid about many of these limitations, but the headline claims outrun the evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Figs. 10/13/15] The baryonic-mass treatment at large radii is the main carrier of the BTFR and baryon-fraction conclusions: the 1/r^4 tail and beta-face-value extrapolations bracket the gas mass, but the two choices move the clusters in opposite directions relative to the cosmic baryon fraction and the galaxy BTFR/RAR. The paper cites X-COP as evidence that the truth lies between these extremes, but X-COP is a different cluster sample; no direct measurement is used for the 16 CLASH clusters at r ~ r200c. To make the central scaling-relation claims load-bearing, the authors should either adopt a quantitative prior informed by X-COP or eROSITA stacking, or present all scaling-relation results as a function of the extrapolation bracket and state explicitly which claims are independent of that choice.
  2. [Sec. 4.7, Eq. (G1)] The missing-mass fit is a consistency check, not an independent test, because the galaxy-scale RAR is inserted as the assumed relation and a three-parameter component (M_mm_tot, r_s, Upsilon_b) is then fitted to g_obs. The agreement in Fig. 14 therefore cannot be cited as evidence that clusters fall on the RAR; it only shows that the data do not exclude the RAR plus a flexible baryonic component. The text acknowledges this in part, but the abstract and conclusion should be reworded to say "are consistent with the RAR under the hypothesis of a missing baryonic component" rather than "may fall on the same BTFR and RAR".
  3. [Sec. 4.7, Fig. 20] The abstract's "suitable positive baryonic mass component" is not positive under both extrapolations: for the beta-face-value gas extrapolation, the missing mass required to recover the RAR becomes negative at large radii for several clusters. This means the RAR consistency holds only under the 1/r^4 extrapolation, while the BTFR conclusion is supported only under the beta-face-value extrapolation (Fig. 13). The authors should quantify how many clusters and radial bins require negative missing mass and explicitly state that the positive-component interpretation is tied to one side of the bracketing range.
  4. [Sec. 2.2] The universal galaxy-to-gas fraction f_gal calibrated on MACS J1206 is a strong assumption that enters every baryonic mass at large radii. Since f_gal is set to roughly 8-12% beyond r200c, an error in this calibration propagates directly into the BTFR and RAR offsets. The discussion in footnote 2 is not enough for a load-bearing input; a sensitivity test varying f_gal by plausible factors (e.g., 0.5-2x) would show how much of the claimed offsets are driven by this assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.5, Fig. 4] The text writes "M infered"; this should be "M inferred".
  2. [Appendix E, Fig. 17 caption] The caption contains the typo "cirular velocities"; it should read "circular velocities".
  3. [Sec. 4.5, Eq. (13)] The definition of V_flat should state explicitly that the weights are statistical uncertainties only, and explain how the systematic band in Fig. 5 is propagated into the BTFR error bars.
  4. [Sec. 4.1] The claim that the circular velocities are "approximately flat" is made by visual inspection; reporting a slope fit or a chi-squared for a constant-V_c model over the quoted radial range would make the claim quantitative.
  5. [Sec. 2.2, footnote 2] The f_gal rescaling procedure is load-bearing for Secs. 4.5-4.7 and deserves a main-text equation rather than only a footnote.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Cluster RAR/BTFR reconciliation is obtained by assuming the galaxy-scale RAR and fitting a missing baryonic component, so that the 'may fall on the same relation' result is a consistency check rather than an independent test; the non-parametric mass reconstruction itself is not circular.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 4.7 and Appendix G (Eq. G1); abstract point (4)]
    "Assuming that the RAR is a universal relation, this may be a sign that there is a missing baryonic mass component ... To test this hypothesis, Kelleher & Lelli (2024) have fit the observed g_obs in clusters by adding a missing M_b component and assuming that the galaxy-scale RAR holds. ... G_N M_miss_b(r)/r^2 = mu(|g_obs(r)|/a0) g_obs(r) - g_bar(r). ... Contrary to some previous results based on hydrostatic equilibrium, we find that galaxy clusters may fall on the same BTFR and RAR as galaxies if one adds a suitable positive baryonic mass component."

    The missing baryonic component is not independently measured; Eq. G1 defines M_miss_b as exactly the residual needed to make the galaxy-scale RAR hold at each radius. Sec. 4.7 then fits a three-parameter missing-mass profile (plus a baryonic scaling Upsilon_b) to g_obs under the same RAR assumption. Reporting that clusters 'may fall on the same ... RAR ... if one adds a suitable positive baryonic mass component' therefore restates the input assumption: whenever the fit succeeds, the RAR is satisfied by construction. The only non-vacuous content is that the required residual is positive and reasonably fitted by the adopted profile (and that this fails for the beta-face-value gas extrapolation), which is a consistency check, not an independent confirmation.

full rationale

The core mass reconstruction is not circular: V_c(r) comes from a non-parametric deprojection of the CLASH shear profiles (Eqs. 7-8), is compared against independent NFW fits from Umetsu et al. (2014), and the flatness is robust to shear extrapolation choices (Appendix E). The SMHM consistency check uses literature stellar masses and an external relation (Moster et al. 2013). The triaxiality-averaging theorem is proved in Appendix D rather than assumed. The circularity is confined to the final scaling-relation claim: the 'suitable positive baryonic mass component' is defined and fitted so as to force RAR agreement (Eq. G1, Sec. 4.7). Because this step carries the headline claim that clusters may join the galaxy BTFR/RAR, the paper is partially circular (6). The gas-extrapolation uncertainty is a data limitation, not circularity, and the self-citations to Mistele & Durakovic (2024) and Famaey et al. (2025) are not load-bearing in a circular way because the method equations are reproduced and validated and the baryonic masses come from independent X-ray fits.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results depend on spherical deprojection, source-plane assumptions, a Lambda CDM two-halo estimate, and especially on gas mass profiles that are poorly constrained beyond R_Xmax. The fitted missing-mass component should not be counted as independent evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • Gas double-beta profile parameters (n0, r0, alpha, re0, beta0, n1, re1, beta1) per cluster = See Famaey et al. (2025); cluster-dependent values from Chandra X-ray fits
    Adopted, not fit here, but these parameters set M_gas(r), which determines baryonic masses, baryon fractions, and the BTFR/RAR offsets.
  • f_gal, the galaxy-to-gas mass fraction profile = Measured for MACS J1206 and rescaled by r_200c for other clusters
    Section 2.2: assumed universal across all clusters; contributes roughly 8-12 percent of baryonic mass beyond r_200c and is not independently measured per cluster.
  • V_flat radial averaging range = 750 kpc to 3 Mpc
    Eq. (13): a chosen radial range for defining the flat circular velocity; the authors verify that other reasonable choices do not change the conclusions.
  • Missing baryonic component parameters M_mm_tot, r_s, Upsilon_b = Posterior medians per cluster in Table 2, e.g. log10 M_mm_tot/Msun roughly 13.9 to 15.0
    Section 4.7: fitted to make clusters follow the galaxy RAR under broad flat priors on mass and scale radius and a log-normal prior around Upsilon_b = 1.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry of the cluster mass distribution for deprojection
    Used throughout Sec. 3.1; partially relaxed in Sec. 3.5 by showing the line-of-sight average is unbiased for triaxial halos, but individual clusters can still be off by tens of percent.
  • domain assumption Critical surface density factor f_c is constant across projected radius
    Adopted following Umetsu et al. (2014) and used in Eq. (7); the radially varying case is available from Mistele and Durakovic (2024) but is not used here.
  • domain assumption Source galaxy redshift distributions are independent of azimuth for the triaxial-averaging proof
    Required in Appendix D for the result that line-of-sight averaging recovers M_true; the paper notes that intrinsic alignments or selection effects could modify this.
  • domain assumption Two-halo term is estimated with the linear matter power spectrum from CAMB and the Tinker et al. (2010) bias
    Used in Appendix A to subtract the two-halo contribution; the subtraction is specific to Lambda CDM and is not available for MOND-like theories, though its effect on the main results is modest.
  • domain assumption X-ray gas density follows double-beta profiles fitted by Famaey et al. (2025), with f_gal scaled universally from MACS J1206
    Section 2.2: the baryonic mass model drives the BTFR/RAR offsets; f_gal is assumed identical across clusters when normalized to r_200c.
  • ad hoc to paper Gas density beyond R_Xmax follows either a 1/r^4 tail or the continued beta profile
    Section 2.2 and Figs. 3, 10, and 11: these two bracketing choices are not derived from data and produce the main divergence in baryon fraction and scaling relation results.
  • ad hoc to paper The galaxy-scale RAR holds for clusters when computing missing mass
    Equation (G1) and Sec. 4.7 assume the relation under test; this is the core circular step in the missing-mass interpretation.
invented entities (1)
  • Missing baryonic mass component M_mm(r)
    purpose: To reconcile cluster g_obs with the galaxy-scale RAR and BTFR; modeled with a cored profile proportional to (1 + r/r_s)^-4
    No direct detection is presented; the component is inferred only by fitting under the assumption that the galaxy-scale RAR is universal, so it has no falsifiable handle outside this paper, though the fitted scale radii could in principle motivate searches for cold gas clouds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mass models of galaxy clusters from a non-parametric weak-lensing reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SW6EN6OD

@misc{pith2026250613716,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mass models of galaxy clusters from a non-parametric weak-lensing reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SW6EN6OD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13716}
}
abstract

We study the CLASH sample of galaxy clusters using a new deprojection method for weak gravitational lensing observations. This method is non-parametric, allowing us to infer mass profiles, or equivalently circular velocities, without having to assume a specific halo profile. While this method assumes spherical symmetry, we show that, on average, triaxiality is unlikely to significantly affect our results. We use this method to study the total mass profiles of the CLASH clusters, as well as the relation between their total and baryonic components: (1) We find that the implied circular velocities are consistent with being approximately flat at large radii, akin to the rotation curves of galaxies. (2) We infer radially resolved baryonic mass fractions, finding that these vary significantly from cluster to cluster and depend strongly on the details of the X-ray gas mass profiles. Since the gas mass profiles are poorly constrained at large radii, it is unclear whether the CLASH clusters reach the cosmic baryon fraction expected in $\Lambda$CDM. (3) The non-parametric masses are consistent with the stellar mass--halo mass relation expected in $\Lambda$CDM. (4) Galaxy clusters systematically deviate from the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation (BTFR) and the Radial Acceleration Relation (RAR) defined by galaxies, but the magnitude of the offset depends strongly on the gas mass extrapolation at large radii. Contrary to some previous results based on hydrostatic equilibrium, we find that galaxy clusters may fall on the same BTFR and RAR as galaxies if one adds a suitable positive baryonic mass component.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13716 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — The reduced shear in terms of G+ = ⟨g+⟩/⟨Σ −1 crit⟩ for the 20 CLASH clusters from Umetsu et al. (2014). The error bars include contributions from the reduced shear ⟨g+⟩, the inverse critical surface density ⟨Σ −1 crit⟩, and from the LSS, see Sec. 3.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — The gas density of Abell 209 implied by the double beta fit from Famaey et al. (2025). The vertical dashed line indicates RX max, i.e. how far out this fit is reliable. We show two different ways of extrapolating beyond RX max: Assuming the best-fit param￾eters to be valid even beyond RX max (solid blue line) and assuming a 1/r4 tail (dashed red line). profile fits are reliable up to RX max 3 . At larger radii, be… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. — The mass profile of a prolate SIS, inferred from its reduced shear using our non-parametric deprojection method (Sec. 3.1), relative to the true mass profile (see Eq. (12)) for differ￾ent orientations of the line of sight. When averaged over all line of sight orientations, the inferred mass matches the true mass at large radii where Σ/Σcrit is negligible. At small radii, the non-linearity due to Σ/Σcrit (see Eq. (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — The circular velocities Vc = p GM(r)/r inferred from the shear profile shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Our non-parametric M200c measurements compared to the M200c implied by the NFW fits from Umetsu et al. (2014) with (left) and without (right) the two-halo term subtracted (Sec. 3.2). The NFW fits from Umetsu et al. (2014) do not take into account the two-halo term. A…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — The 3D density profiles inferred using the non-parametric deprojection method from Sec. 3.4. For simplicity, no two-halo term is subtracted. Negative inferred densities are indicated by arrowheads at the horizontal axis. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — The baryon fraction Mb(r)/M(r) implied by our non-parametric mass profiles as a function of radius. Blue lines indicate the radial range where weak-lensing and X-ray observations overlap, solid gray lines indicate radii beyond that but below r200c, and dashed gray l…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — The SMHM relation implied by our non-parametric mass profiles (white symbols). The shaded gray region indicates the Moster et al. (2013) relation in the redshift range of our cluster sample. Dashed gray lines indicate 0.2 dex scatter in the direction of M∗,MBCG arou…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: — The RAR implied by our non-parametric weak-lensing mass profiles and the baryonic mass estimates from Famaey et al. (2025). Blue circles indicate the radial range where X-ray and weak-lensing observations overlap. Beyond that range, we extrapolate the gas densities …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: — The correlation matrix of the two-halo-subtracted masses inferred for Abell 209. The correlation matrix is defined in terms of the covariance matrix as Cov(M(r), M(r ′ ))/σM(r)σM(r′) . the minimum and maximum mass achievable in this way. Schematically, M(r) max = ma…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: — The best-fit parameters obtained by fitting NFW profiles to our non-parametric mass profiles M(r) from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: — The missing baryonic mass implied by assuming that the galaxy-scale RAR holds also for galaxy clusters. Blue circles indicate the radial range where X-ray and weak-lensing observations overlap. Beyond that range, we extrapolate the gas densities assuming a 1/r4 tail…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_20.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adhikari S., Sakstein J., Jain B., Dalal N., Li B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/033 , 2018, 033

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

  2. [2]

    Aghanim N., et al., 2020, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , 641, A6

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  3. [3]

    Angelinelli M., Ettori S., Dolag K., Vazza F., Ragagnin A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245782 , 675, A188

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245782 2023

  4. [4]

    Bartelmann M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9412051 , 303, 643

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9412051 1995

  5. [5]

    Bartelmann M., Schneider P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00082-X , 340, 291

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(00)00082-x 2001

  6. [6]

    J.] 10.1086/162570 , 286, 7

    Bekenstein J., Milgrom M., 1984, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/162570 , 286, 7

    doi:10.1086/162570 1984

  7. [7]

    Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.103510 , D92, 103510

    Berezhiani L., Khoury J., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.103510 , D92, 103510

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.103510 2015

  8. [8]

    Blanchet L., Skordis C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/040 , 2024, 040

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/040 2024

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    v., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv417 , 449, 3171

    Bonamigo M., Despali G., Limousin M., Angulo R., Giocoli C., Soucail G. v., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv417 , 449, 3171

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    M., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040108 , 650, A113

    Brouwer M. M., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040108 , 650, A113

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Bulbul E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348264 , 685, A106

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Burke C., Hilton M., Collins C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv450 , 449, 2353

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Li P., Schombert J

    Chae K.-H., Lelli F., Desmond H., McGaugh S. S., Li P., Schombert J. M., 2020, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbb96 , 904, 51

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Schombert J

    Chae K.-H., Desmond H., Lelli F., McGaugh S. S., Schombert J. M., 2021, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bba , 921, 104

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L25 , 784, L25

    Covone G., Sereno M., Kilbinger M., Cardone V. F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L25 , 784, L25

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Di Cintio A., Lelli F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456L.127D 456, L127

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    V., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/1 , 789, 1

    Diemer B., Kravtsov A. V., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/1 , 789, 1

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    Donahue M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/136 , 794, 136

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    Donahue M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/36 , 819, 36

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Durakovic A., Skordis C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/040 , 2024, 040

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Macci \`o A

    Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., 2014, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stu742 , 441, 3359

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Eckert D., Ettori S., Pointecouteau E., Molendi S., Paltani S., Tchernin C., 2017, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201713345 , 338, 293

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Eckert D., Ettori S., Pointecouteau E., van der Burg R. F. J., Loubser S. I., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142507 , 662, A123

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Ettori S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833323 , 621, A39

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810 , 697, A1

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    arXiv:2501.17006

    Famaey B., Durakovic A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250117006F p. arXiv:2501.17006

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    D., 2024, arXiv e-prints, p

    Famaey B., Pizzuti L., Saltas I. D., 2024, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2410.02612

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    pp 1682--1690, http://proceedings.mlr.press/v84/ge18b.html; https:// dblp.org/rec/bib/conf/aistats/GeXG18

    Ge H., Xu K., Ghahramani Z., 2018, in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2018, 9-11 April 2018, Playa Blanca, Lanzarote, Canary Islands, Spain . pp 1682--1690, http://proceedings.mlr.press/v84/ge18b.html; https:// dblp.org/rec/bib/conf/...

    2018

  22. [30]

    Ghirardini V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...621A..41G 621, A41

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Guzik J., Seljak U., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04081.x , 321, 439

    2001

  24. [32]

    E., Zonoozi A

    Haghi H., Bazkiaei A. E., Zonoozi A. H., Kroupa P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw573 , 458, 4172

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    Jim \'e nez-Teja Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad701b , 974, 309

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    P., Suto Y., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341065 , 574, 538

    Jing Y. P., Suto Y., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341065 , 574, 538

    2002 doi

  27. [36]

    E., Sheldon E

    Johnston D. E., Sheldon E. S., Tasitsiomi A., Frieman J. A., Wechsler R. H., McKay T. A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510060 , 656, 27

    2007 doi

  28. [37]

    Kaiser N., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187730 , 439, L1

    1995 doi

  29. [38]

    Kelleher R., Lelli F., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449968 , 688, A78

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    Kluge M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349031 , 688, A210

    2024 doi

  31. [40]

    V., Vikhlinin A

    Kravtsov A. V., Vikhlinin A. A., Meshcheryakov A. V., 2018, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773717120015 , 44, 8

    2018 doi

  32. [41]

    arXiv:0912.0201

    LSST Science Collaboration et al., 2009, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201 , p. arXiv:0912.0201

    2009 doi arXiv

  33. [42]

    Laudato E., Salzano V., Umetsu K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac180 , 511, 1878

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    S., Schombert J

    Lelli F., McGaugh S. S., Schombert J. M., Pawlowski M. S., 2017, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/152 , 836, 152

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    S., Schombert J

    Lelli F., McGaugh S. S., Schombert J. M., Desmond H., Katz H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz205 , 484, 3267

    2019 doi

  36. [45]

    S., Schombert J

    Lelli F., Mistele T., McGaugh S. S., Schombert J. M., Li P., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02499 , p. arXiv:2411.02499

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [46]

    Lewis A., Bridle S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.103511 , 66, 103511

    2002 doi

  38. [47]

    Li P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346431 , 677, A24

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    Li P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451266 , 692, A253

    2024 doi

  40. [49]

    Ma C.-J., Ebeling H., Barrett E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/L56 , 693, L56

    2009 doi

  41. [50]

    V., Dutton A

    Macci \`o A. V., Dutton A. A., van den Bosch F. C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14029.x , 391, 1940

    2008

  42. [52]

    B., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3390 , 510, 131

    Mantz A. B., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3390 , 510, 131

    2022 doi

  43. [53]

    S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/143/2/40 , 143, 40

    McGaugh S. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/143/2/40 , 143, 40

    2012 doi

  44. [54]

    S., 2015, @doi [Canadian Journal of Physics] 10.1139/cjp-2014-0203 , 93, 250

    McGaugh S. S., 2015, @doi [Canadian Journal of Physics] 10.1139/cjp-2014-0203 , 93, 250

    2015 doi

  45. [55]

    S., Schombert J

    McGaugh S. S., Schombert J. M., Bothun G. D., de Blok W. J. G., 2000, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.1086/312628 , 533, L99

    2000 doi

  46. [56]

    S., Schombert J

    McGaugh S. S., Schombert J. M., de Blok W. J. G., Zagursky M. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/708/1/L14 , 708, L14

    2010 doi

  47. [57]

    Merten J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/4 , 806, 4

    2015 doi

  48. [58]

    J.] 10.1086/161130 , 270, 365

    Milgrom M., 1983a, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/161130 , 270, 365

    doi

  49. [59]

    J.] 10.1086/161131 , 270, 371

    Milgrom M., 1983b, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/161131 , 270, 371

    doi

  50. [60]

    J.] 10.1086/161132 , 270, 384

    Milgrom M., 1983c, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/161132 , 270, 384

    doi

  51. [61]

    Milgrom M., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162716 , 287, 571

    1984 doi

  52. [62]

    Milgrom M., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164314 , 306, 9

    1986 doi

  53. [63]

    Milgrom M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2008.03.023 , 51, 906

    2008 doi

  54. [64]

    Milgrom M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.104033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PhRvD.111j4033M 111, 104033

    2025 doi

  55. [65]

    Mistele T., Durakovic A., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.127612 , 7, 120

    2024 doi

  56. [66]

    Mistele T., McGaugh S., Hossenfelder S., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346025 , 676, A100

    doi

  57. [67]

    Mistele T., McGaugh S., Hossenfelder S., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/09/004 , 2023, 004

    2023 doi

  58. [68]

    Mistele T., McGaugh S., Lelli F., Schombert J., Li P., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad54b0 , 969, L3

    doi

  59. [69]

    Mistele T., McGaugh S., Lelli F., Schombert J., Li P., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/020 , 2024, 020

    2024 doi

  60. [70]

    Miyatake H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0af0 , 875, 63

    2019 doi

  61. [71]

    V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...36M 810, 36

    More S., Diemer B., Kravtsov A. V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...36M 810, 36

    2015 doi

  62. [72]

    More S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/39 , 825, 39

    2016 doi

  63. [73]

    P., Naab T., White S

    Moster B. P., Naab T., White S. D. M., 2013, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/sts261 , 428, 3121

    2013 doi

  64. [74]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177173 , 462, 563

    1996 doi

  65. [75]

    Oguri M., Hamana T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18481.x , 414, 1851

    2011

  66. [76]

    Oguri M., Takada M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.023008 , 83, 023008

    2011 doi

  67. [77]

    Planelles S., Borgani S., Dolag K., Ettori S., Fabjan D., Murante G., Tornatore L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt265 , 431, 1487

    2013 doi

  68. [78]

    Postman M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/25 , 199, 25

    2012 doi

  69. [79]

    arXiv:2505.21624

    Rasia E., et al., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250521624R p. arXiv:2505.21624

    2025

  70. [80]

    Revels J., Lubin M., Papamarkou T., 2016, arXiv:1607.07892 [cs.MS]

    2016 arXiv

  71. [81]

    H., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311865 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...512L..23S 512, L23

    Sanders R. H., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311865 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...512L..23S 512, L23

    1999 doi

  72. [82]

    H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06596.x , 342, 901

    Sanders R. H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06596.x , 342, 901

    2003

  73. [83]

    Skordis C., Z osnik T., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.161302 , 127, 161302

    2021 doi

  74. [84]

    arXiv:1503.03757

    Spergel D., et al., 2015, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757 , p. arXiv:1503.03757

    2015 doi arXiv

  75. [85]

    B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526773 , 580, A79

    Tessore N., Metcalf R. B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526773 , 580, A79

    2015 doi

  76. [86]

    N., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e3d , 896, 70

    Tian Y., Umetsu K., Ko C.-M., Donahue M., Chiu I. N., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e3d , 896, 70

    2020 doi

  77. [87]

    L., Robertson B

    Tinker J. L., Robertson B. E., Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A., Warren M. S., Yepes G., Gottl \"o ber S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/878 , 724, 878

    2010 doi

  78. [88]

    Umetsu K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-020-00129-w , 28, 7

    2020 doi

  79. [89]

    Umetsu K., Broadhurst T., Zitrin A., Medezinski E., Hsu L.-Y., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/127 , 729, 127

    2011 doi

  80. [90]

    Umetsu K., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/163 , 795, 163

    2014 doi

  81. [91]

    Umetsu K., Zitrin A., Gruen D., Merten J., Donahue M., Postman M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/116 , 821, 116

    2016 doi

  82. [92]

    J., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.04694 , p

    Umetsu K., Pizzardo M., Diaferio A., Geller M. J., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.04694 , p. arXiv:2505.04694

    2025 doi arXiv

  83. [93]

    Urban O., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2209 , 437, 3939

    2014 doi

  84. [94]

    A., Fabian A

    Walker S. A., Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., George M. R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21282.x , 424, 1826

    2012

  85. [95]

    A., Fabian A

    Walker S. A., Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., Simionescu A., Tawara Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt497 , 432, 554

    2013 doi

  86. [96]

    Wicker R., Douspis M., Salvati L., Aghanim N., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243922 , 674, A48

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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