pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.21686 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-25 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Adaptive Reconstruction of Cluster Halos (ARCH): Integrating Shear and Flexion for Substructure Detection

Jacob Shpiece , David M. Goldberg This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 13:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords gravitational lensinggalaxy clustersweak lensing shearflexionmass reconstructionAbell 2744El GordoJWST observations
0
0 comments X

The pith

The ARCH pipeline reconstructs galaxy cluster masses by jointly analyzing shear and flexion signals from JWST images without a global likelihood model.

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

The paper presents ARCH, a new gravitational lensing pipeline that integrates shear and flexion data to map the mass distribution in galaxy clusters. It uses a staged optimization process that generates halo candidates, optimizes them locally, filters results, performs forward selection, and refines global strengths via a combined fit metric weighted by signal uncertainties. This approach recovers convergence maps and subcluster masses for Abell 2744 and El Gordo that align with prior weak-plus-strong lensing studies, including a central core mass of 2.1 times 10^14 solar masses per h in Abell 2744 and clump masses around 2.5 times 10^14 solar masses per h in El Gordo. The work shows that flexion adds sensitivity to substructure when anchored by shear while preserving stable recovery of larger-scale masses. A reader would care because the method offers a flexible and computationally practical route to detailed dark matter maps in merging clusters.

Core claim

ARCH adopts a staged optimization strategy of candidate generation, local optimization, filtering, forward selection, and global strength refinement with a combined fit metric weighted by per-signal uncertainties. This produces stable convergence maps and subcluster masses for Abell 2744 and El Gordo that match published weak-plus-strong lensing results, with the central core mass within 300 h^{-1} kpc measured at 2.1 times 10^{14} M_odot h^{-1} and the El Gordo clumps at 2.6 and 2.3 times 10^{14} M_odot h^{-1}. Jackknife tests indicate 1-sigma uncertainties of 10^{12} to 10^{13} M_odot h^{-1}, and reconstructions using all signals or shear plus flexion prove most stable, demonstrating that

What carries the argument

The ARCH staged optimization pipeline, which incrementally filters and selects candidate halos through local fits and a combined fit metric rather than a single global likelihood model.

If this is right

  • Flexion anchored by shear increases sensitivity to cluster substructure while cluster-scale masses remain stable.
  • The all-signal and shear-plus-flexion combinations yield the most stable reconstructions across jackknife tests.
  • The method enables systematic comparison of different signal combinations within one framework for multiple clusters.
  • Typical uncertainties on subcluster masses fall in the 10^{12} to 10^{13} solar mass per h range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same staged pipeline could be applied to additional JWST clusters to test whether flexion routinely reveals merger remnants missed by shear alone.
  • Lower computational cost relative to full Bayesian methods may allow processing of larger cluster samples from upcoming surveys.
  • Recovered masses could be cross-checked against X-ray or Sunyaev-Zeldovich data to constrain the dynamical state of the clusters.
  • Simulated clusters with injected substructure would provide a direct test of the pipeline's ability to separate real subclumps from noise.

Load-bearing premise

The staged candidate generation, local optimization, filtering, forward selection, and global refinement steps can deliver stable mass maps using only a weighted combined fit metric without needing a global likelihood model or strong priors.

What would settle it

An independent strong-lensing mass map or N-body simulation with known substructure that shows the ARCH-recovered subcluster masses or convergence peaks deviating by more than the reported 10^{12}-10^{13} M_odot h^{-1} uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.21686 by David M. Goldberg, Jacob Shpiece.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Convergence map of Abell 2744 reconstructed with 𝛾 + F. The core halo is well constrained (𝜅 = 0.21–0.36), consistent with the all-signal case. The northern clump is not recovered in this combination, illustrating reduced sensitivity when G is excluded. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 RA offset (arcsec) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Dec offset (arcsec) levels: 0.26, 0.32, 0.38, 0.49, 0.59 N E 50 (234 kpc) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Convergence map of Abell 2744 reconstructed with 𝛾 + G. Both the core halo (peaks 1 and 2) and a northern clump (peak 3) are recovered, though the former takes a bimodal mass distribution, and the latter is overestimated relative to literature values. The inclusion of G improves substructure detection but introduces additional noise. reconstructions. Mass estimates are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Convergence map of El Gordo reconstructed with all three signals. The bimodal structure is clearly recovered, with both the NW (peak 4) and SE (peak 2) clumps identified at the expected locations, albeit with spurious detections near the image boundaries, and a mass peak in the center of the cluster (peak 3). Contours follow 𝜅 values from 0.18 to 0.37, consistent with previous weak-lensing studies. 0 20 40… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Convergence map of El Gordo reconstructed with 𝛾 + F. Both the NW and SE clumps are robustly detected, with morphologies and masses closely matching the all-signal case. This combination provides the most stable reconstruction aside from the full three-signal analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Convergence map of El Gordo reconstructed with 𝛾 + G. The bimodal structure remains visible, though the SE clump is enhanced relative to other combinations, indicating systematic amplification when G dominates. 7.0 × 1012 𝑀⊙ℎ −1 (2.6%) for NW and 8.4 × 1012 𝑀⊙ℎ −1 (3.7%) for SE. By contrast, 𝛾+G shifts both masses up￾ward but with smaller fractional scatters of 3.7×1012 𝑀⊙ℎ −1 (1.3%) for NW and 3.6 × 1012 … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present ARCH (Adaptive Reconstruction of Cluster Halos), a new gravitational lensing pipeline for cluster mass reconstruction that applies a joint shear-flexion analysis to JWST imaging. Previous approaches have explored joint shear+flexion reconstructions through forward modeling and Bayesian inference frameworks; in contrast, ARCH adopts a staged optimization strategy that incrementally filters and selects candidate halos rather than requiring a global likelihood model or strong priors. This design makes reconstruction computationally tractable and flexible, enabling systematic tests of multiple signal combinations within a unified framework. ARCH employs staged candidate generation, local optimization, filtering, forward selection, and global strength refinement, with a combined fit metric weighted by per-signal uncertainties. Applies to Abell 2744 and El Gordo, the pipeline recovers convergence maps and subcluster masses consistent with published weak+strong lensing results. In Abell 2744 the central core mass within 300$h^{-1}$ kpc is $2.1\times 10^{14} M_\odot h^{-1}$, while in El Gordo the northwestern and southeastern clumps are recovered at $2.6\times 10^{14} M_\odot h^{-1}$ and $2.3\times 10^{14} M_\odot h^{-1}$. Jackknife resampling indicates typical 1$\sigma$ uncertainties of $10^{12}-10^{13} M_\odot h^{-1}$, with the all signal and shear+$\mathcal{F}$ reconstructions providing the most stable results. These results demonstrate that flexion, when anchored by shear, enhances sensitivity to cluster substructure while maintaining stable cluster-scale mass recovery.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the ARCH pipeline for adaptive reconstruction of cluster halos via joint shear-flexion gravitational lensing analysis of JWST imaging. It uses a staged optimization strategy (candidate generation, local optimization, filtering, forward selection, and global strength refinement) with a combined fit metric weighted by per-signal uncertainties, rather than a global likelihood model or strong priors. Applied to Abell 2744 and El Gordo, the pipeline recovers convergence maps and subcluster masses stated to be consistent with prior weak+strong lensing results: a central core mass of 2.1×10^{14} M_⊙ h^{-1} within 300 h^{-1} kpc for Abell 2744, and northwestern/southeastern clump masses of 2.6×10^{14} and 2.3×10^{14} M_⊙ h^{-1} for El Gordo. Jackknife resampling yields 1σ uncertainties of 10^{12}–10^{13} M_⊙ h^{-1}, with all-signal and shear+flexion combinations reported as most stable. The central claim is that flexion, anchored by shear, enhances substructure sensitivity while preserving stable cluster-scale mass recovery.

Significance. If the staged pipeline produces unbiased and stable reconstructions, ARCH would offer a computationally tractable alternative to full Bayesian forward-modeling approaches, facilitating systematic tests of signal combinations in cluster lensing. The reported mass consistency with published results and the added substructure sensitivity from flexion would be useful for studies of cluster dynamics. Jackknife uncertainties provide a basic robustness check, but the absence of global optimality guarantees or mock-data validation limits the strength of the stability claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (pipeline description)] The staged pipeline (candidate generation through global strength refinement) is presented as producing stable mass reconstructions using only a combined fit metric weighted by per-signal uncertainties. However, without a global likelihood or strong priors, it is unclear whether sequential filtering and local optimization avoid path-dependent minima or selection biases that could affect the reported subcluster masses (e.g., the 2.6 and 2.3×10^{14} M_⊙ h^{-1} values for El Gordo). Tests on simulated clusters with known inputs are needed to confirm unbiased recovery.
  2. [Results (Abell 2744 and El Gordo)] The reported masses are described as consistent with published weak+strong lensing results. While useful for cross-checks, the results section should demonstrate that the pipeline outputs are derived from its own fitted parameters rather than tuned toward literature values, to strengthen the claim that the method independently recovers the quoted masses (2.1×10^{14} M_⊙ h^{-1} core in Abell 2744).
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'shear+ℱ' reconstructions; the flexion symbol ℱ should be explicitly defined at first use in the main text for clarity.
  2. [Results] A table directly comparing the recovered masses and uncertainties to the cited published values would improve readability and allow immediate assessment of the consistency claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which have prompted us to clarify several aspects of the ARCH pipeline and its application. We address each major comment below and have updated the manuscript accordingly to improve its clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (pipeline description)] The staged pipeline (candidate generation through global strength refinement) is presented as producing stable mass reconstructions using only a combined fit metric weighted by per-signal uncertainties. However, without a global likelihood or strong priors, it is unclear whether sequential filtering and local optimization avoid path-dependent minima or selection biases that could affect the reported subcluster masses (e.g., the 2.6 and 2.3×10^{14} M_⊙ h^{-1} values for El Gordo). Tests on simulated clusters with known inputs are needed to confirm unbiased recovery.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern about potential path-dependent minima or selection biases in the absence of a global likelihood framework. Our staged approach includes candidate generation followed by local optimization, filtering, forward selection, and global strength refinement, with the combined fit metric designed to balance contributions from different signals based on their uncertainties. This incremental process aims to build the model gradually while discarding poor candidates at each stage to reduce the likelihood of converging to suboptimal solutions. The jackknife resampling results, showing stability across signal combinations, provide empirical support for the robustness of the recovered masses. Nevertheless, we agree that validation on simulated data with known inputs would offer more definitive confirmation of unbiased recovery. We have therefore revised the manuscript to include an expanded discussion in the methods section on the safeguards against biases and added a new subsection in the conclusions outlining future work on mock cluster simulations for comprehensive validation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results (Abell 2744 and El Gordo)] The reported masses are described as consistent with published weak+strong lensing results. While useful for cross-checks, the results section should demonstrate that the pipeline outputs are derived from its own fitted parameters rather than tuned toward literature values, to strengthen the claim that the method independently recovers the quoted masses (2.1×10^{14} M_⊙ h^{-1} core in Abell 2744).

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's suggestion to more clearly demonstrate the independence of our results from literature values. The mass estimates for Abell 2744 and El Gordo were obtained by applying the ARCH pipeline directly to the JWST imaging data, with initial halo candidates generated from the data itself and optimized using the combined fit metric without reference to prior mass measurements. The reported consistency with previous weak+strong lensing studies is presented as a post-hoc validation rather than a target for the fitting procedure. To address this comment, we have revised the results section to explicitly describe the fitting process, including the data-driven nature of candidate selection and the absence of any tuning to match published masses. We have also added a statement clarifying that the optimization was performed independently. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are external consistency checks

full rationale

The paper describes a staged optimization pipeline (candidate generation, local optimization, filtering, forward selection, global refinement) applied to JWST data on Abell 2744 and El Gordo. Recovered masses are presented as consistent with independent published weak+strong lensing results rather than as first-principles predictions derived from the pipeline's own fitted parameters. No equations or steps reduce by construction to self-defined inputs, fitted subsets renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The method relies on a combined fit metric but does not claim uniqueness theorems or smuggle ansatzes via prior work by the same authors. This is a standard application paper whose central outputs are validated externally.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all technical details of the optimization stages and weighting scheme are absent.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5825 in / 1110 out tokens · 13276 ms · 2026-05-18T13:10:16.503198+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    ܓڽw]reV^W _>z_/5 // Ust]j@ ry y ^ 4ނ :>D5w3f0< =qk],y|=[E)z ?nf< _ ,n6<b]@ 9q#o; O !bhN; G ߇ /!/a, @G L ` DE9AZAEn

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -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 o...

    work page arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Arena, E. J. 2024, PhD thesis, Drexel U., 10.17918/00010656

    work page doi:10.17918/00010656 2024

  3. [3]

    K.\ 2005, , 359, 171

    Bacon, D. J., Goldberg, D. M., Rowe, B. T. P., & Taylor, A. N. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 365, 414, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09710.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09710.x 2006

  4. [4]

    1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 313, 697

    Bartelmann, M. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 313, 697. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...313..697B

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    2001, Physics Reports, 340, 291, 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00082-X

    Bartelmann, M., & Schneider, P. 2001, Physics Reports, 340, 291, 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00082-X

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

  6. [6]

    Flexion in Abell 2744

    Bird, J. P., & Goldberg, D. M. 2016, Flexion in Abell 2744. 1611.08054

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 437, 39, 10.1051/0004-6361:20042597

    Bradač, M., Schneider, P., Lombardi, M., & Erben, T. 2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 437, 39, 10.1051/0004-6361:20042597

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042597 2005

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Cain, B., Brada c , M., & Levinson, R. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 525, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17930.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17930.x 2011

  9. [9]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 4287–4300, 10.1093/mnras/stw2270

    Cain, B., Bradač, M., & Levinson, R. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 4287–4300, 10.1093/mnras/stw2270

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2270 2016

  10. [10]

    B., Grillo, C., Rosati, P., et al

    Caminha, G. B., Grillo, C., Rosati, P., et al. 2023, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 678, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244897

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244897 2023

  11. [11]

    H., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1086/508162 2006

  12. [12]

    , keywords =

    Diego, J. M., Tegmark, M., Protopapas, P., & Sandvik, H. B. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 375, 958, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11345.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11345.x 2007

  13. [13]

    M., Broadhurst, T., Benitez, N., et al

    Diego, J. M., Broadhurst, T., Benitez, N., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 356, 10.1093/mnras/stv2618

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2618 2016

  14. [14]

    M., Meena, A

    Diego, J. M., Meena, A. K., Adams, N. J., et al. 2023, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 672, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245238

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245238 2023

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafad6 2019

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    Duffy, A. R., Schaye, J., Kay, S. T., & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 390, L64–L68, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00537.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00537.x 2008

  17. [17]

    A., & Macci \`o , A

    Dutton, A. A., & Macci \`o , A. V. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 3359, 10.1093/mnras/stu742

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu742 2014

  18. [18]

    Er, X., Mao, S., & Schmidt, R. W. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 2012, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17042.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17042.x 2010

  19. [19]

    M., & Goldberg, D

    Fabritius, J. M., & Goldberg, D. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 10.48550/arXiv.2108.05453

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.05453 2022

  20. [20]

    M., Arena, E

    Fabritius II, J. M., Arena, E. J., & Goldberg, D. M. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 4103–4109, 10.1093/mnras/staa3928

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3928 2020

  21. [21]

    M., & Bacon, D

    Goldberg, D. M., & Bacon, D. J. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 619, 741, 10.1086/426781

    work page doi:10.1086/426781 2005

  22. [22]

    R., & Massey, R

    Harvey, D. R., & Massey, R. 2024, Weak gravitational lensing measurements of Abell 2744 using JWST and shear measurement algorithm pyRRG-JWST. 2401.16478

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    2008, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 58, 99–123, 10.1146/annurev.nucl.58.110707.171151

    Hoekstra, H., & Jain, B. 2008, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 58, 99–123, 10.1146/annurev.nucl.58.110707.171151

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.58.110707.171151 2008

  24. [24]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 10.1093/mnras/stw2251

    Jauzac, M., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 10.1093/mnras/stw2251

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2251 2016

  25. [25]

    J., Hughes, J

    Jee, M. J., Hughes, J. P., Menanteau, F., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 20, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/20

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/20 2014

  26. [26]

    and Kneib, J.-P

    Jullo, E., Kneib, J.-P., Limousin, M., et al. 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 447, 10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/447

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/447 2007

  27. [27]

    M., Haaga, J

    Leonard, A., Goldberg, D. M., Haaga, J. L., & Massey, R. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 666, 51, 10.1086/519989

    work page doi:10.1086/519989 2007

  28. [28]

    D., et al

    Ludlow, A. D., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 378, 10.1093/mnras/stu483

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu483 2013

  29. [29]

    V., & Aharonian, F

    Macciò, A. V., Dutton, A. A., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 391, 1940–1954, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14029.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14029.x 2008

  30. [30]

    2018, , 56, 393, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051928

    Mandelbaum, R. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 181, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051928

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051928 2020

  31. [31]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/24

    Medezinski, E., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/24

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/1/24 2016

  32. [32]

    , author Padovani, P

    Merten, J., Coe, D., Dupke, R., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 333, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19266.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19266.x 2011

  33. [33]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J., Frenk, C., & White, S. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 493, 10.1086/304888

    work page doi:10.1086/304888 1997

  34. [34]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 660, 995, 10.1086/513016

    Okura, Y., Umetsu, K., & Futamase, T. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 660, 995, 10.1086/513016

    work page doi:10.1086/513016 2007

  35. [35]

    2019, , 486, 4001, 10.1093/mnras/stz1103

    Ragagnin, A., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 4001, 10.1093/mnras/stz1103

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1103 2019

  36. [36]

    2006, Weak Gravitational Lensing (Springer), 269--451, 10.1007/978-3-540-30310-7_4

    Schneider, P. 2006, Weak Gravitational Lensing (Springer), 269--451, 10.1007/978-3-540-30310-7_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30310-7_4 2006

  37. [37]

    2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 485, 363, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078631

    Schneider, P., & Er, X. 2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 485, 363, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078631

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078631 2008

  38. [38]

    Sersic, J. L. 1963, Bolet \'i n de la Asociaci \'o n Argentina de Astronom \'i a, 6

    work page 1963

  39. [39]

    V., & Aharonian, F

    Springel, V., Wang, J., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 391, 1685, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14066.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14066.x 2008

  40. [40]

    2018, Physics Reports, 730, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004

    Tulin, S., & Yu, H.-B. 2018, Physics Reports, 730, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004 2018

  41. [41]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 2533, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21057.x17

    Vogelsberger, M., Zavala, J., & Loeb, A. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 423, 3740, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21182.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21182.x 2012