Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Weak-Lensing Detection of Intercluster Filaments in Three Nearby Cluster Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using a matched filter built for the shear pattern of a straight, flat-topped mass ridge, this paper reports the first >5-sigma weak-lensing detections of intercluster filaments — dark matter bridges — connecting four cluster pairs in three

desk verdict First individual WL filament detections in A401 and A2029 look plausible, but the A2029–SIG and A3558–A3556 peaks sit on top of secondary halos whose contamination is not convincingly cut. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.26318 v2 pith:PN2EVUSP submitted 2025-10-30 astro-ph.CO

Rahul Shinde , Ian Dell'Antonio This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords weakgravitationallensingcosmicfilamentsgalaxyclustersdarkmattermatchedfilterweblarge-scalestructure
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 aims to establish that cosmic filaments of dark matter between galaxy clusters can be detected individually, not just in stacked averages, through the tiny gravitational lensing shear they imprint on background galaxies. Applying an optimal matched filter to wide-field shape catalogs of three nearby cluster systems, it reports strong (>5 sigma) detections of the bridges connecting Abell 401/399, Abell 2029/2033, Abell 2029/SIG, and Abell 3558/3556, plus additional filaments at 4–5 sigma. If correct, these are the first direct weak-lensing detections of total-matter filaments, confirming the cosmic web at the density-fluctuation level rather than through baryonic tracers. The method also yields physical properties: peak convergence κ0 ≈ 0.015–0.053 and characteristic width hc ≈ 0.11–0.45 Mpc, consistent with simulation expectations. The study validates the technique with mock catalogs and a null field, and shows that a B-mode (cross-shear-gradient) statistic can in principle separate genuine filaments from cluster contamination, though it is noise-limited for this dataset.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is an optimal matched filter (Eqs. 5–9) whose template is the tangential shear of a straight filament with a flat-top convergence profile (Eq. 4): κ = κ0 for h ≤ hc, falling as κ0/[1 + ((h - hc)/hc)^2] beyond. The filter is scanned in polar angle θ, and the tangential statistic Γ+ peaks when the filter aligns with a real filament, while cluster shear produces a quadrupolar pattern and a local 3σ peak that can be suppressed by the cross-gradient residual R (the identity B = 2A + R). A Fourier cutoff frequency, tuned on mocks (k_cut = 0.21 arcmin^-1), balances resolution against shape noise.

What would settle it

Run the matched filter on the same data after rotating the orientation of the shear catalog by 45 degrees (which should destroy a genuine filament signal while preserving noise) and check whether any peak above 5σ survives; alternatively, fit a curved or tilted filament model to the detected peaks and see if the significance remains >5σ.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a matched filter constructed from the predicted tangential-shear pattern of an infinitely long, flat-topped filament can extract the weak-lensing signal of individual intercluster filaments from ground-based shape noise. Applying it to three massive cluster systems at z<0.1, the paper detects two filaments per system at 4.0–7.3 sigma, including the >5-sigma bridges between A401/A399, A2029/A2033, A2029/SIG, and A3558/A3556. The detected orientations align with spectroscopic members and red-sequence galaxy distributions, and the inferred peak convergences and widths match N-body simulation expectations. The authors further show that a negative cross-gradient statisti

Load-bearing premise

Each filament is modeled as an infinitely long, straight, sky-plane structure with a flat-top density profile and the same redshift as the primary cluster; if real filaments curve, tilt out of the plane, or differ in profile, the matched-filter peaks and inferred κ0 and hc could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the detections hold, individual cosmic filaments can be mapped in projection around clusters, turning filaments from statistical stackings into discrete objects for study.
  • The measured κ0 and hc for six filaments provide first constraints on the peak surface density and transverse size of low-redshift intercluster filaments, testable against simulations.
  • The method's success on ground-based data with ~7–12 galaxies/arcmin^2 implies that upcoming deeper wide surveys should detect many more filaments and begin mapping the cosmic web directly.
  • The B-mode/negative cross-gradient statistic, though noise-limited here, offers a route to suppress cluster shear contamination in higher-source-density data (e.g., space-based imaging).
  • Orientation agreement with galaxy and X-ray tracers strengthens the interpretation that the lensing signal traces the same structures seen in baryons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the flat-top model is replaceable by a more realistic curved or tapered profile, the inferred widths might shift; one could test by fitting a truncated Gaussian or a power-law cusp and seeing if the signal-to-noise changes materially.
  • The technique could be applied to other cluster pairs in the same survey to build a sample of dozens of filaments, enabling an ensemble measurement of the filament mass function and a test of the role of filament orientation relative to the line of sight.
  • The reported κ0 values imply linear mass densities of roughly 10^13–10^14 solar masses per Mpc; if corroborated by future independent analyses using different shear catalogs, these would be among the first direct mass measurements of filaments.
  • A cross-check: stack the detected filaments in cosmic-shear maps from a different survey; if the signal persists, it would rule out systematic shear-calibration errors as the source.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies a matched-filter technique to DECam/LoVoCCS weak-lensing shear catalogs to search for intercluster filaments in three nearby cluster systems (Abell 401, Abell 2029, and Abell 3558) and a control field (Abell 2351). The filter is based on a parametric filament convergence model (Eq. 4) and is optimized using mock catalogs and a null field. The authors report >5σ detections of four intercluster bridges (A401/399, A2029/2033, A2029/SIG, A3558/3556) and infer filament convergence amplitudes and widths via MCMC. They also explore a B-mode-based combined statistic to suppress cluster contamination, but note that it is unusable at LoVoCCS source density.

Significance. If the detections hold, this would be a valuable direct probe of dark-matter filaments in individual systems, complementing stacking analyses and baryonic tracers. The paper has several strengths: mock validation of the filter, a null-field control (A2351) that yields no >2σ peaks, publicly available code, and a careful treatment of shape noise and LSS noise. The central claim, however, relies on the radial-cutoff scheme being effective at removing secondary-cluster shear, and on the interpretation of angular maxima as genuine filament signals.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Table 5] The threshold radii r_t do not satisfy the stated γ_+<0.02 criterion. For A3556 (M_WL=1.62e14), Table 5 gives r_t=0.06 Mpc; a standard NFW halo of this mass (R200≈0.9 Mpc, r_s≈0.2 Mpc) has tangential shear of order 0.1 at 0.06 Mpc, not 0.02. Since r2=min{R_i-r_t,i}=2.75 Mpc and the A3558–A3556 separation is 2.81 Mpc, the filter annulus excludes only the inner 0.06 Mpc around A3556, so a large fraction of the annulus is contaminated by secondary-cluster shear above the stated criterion. The same issue affects SIG in A2029 (r_t=0.18 Mpc). Because the A3558-W and A2029-S peaks are aligned with these secondary clusters, and because the mock in §6.3 demonstrates that a secondary cluster inside the filter region produces a spurious 3σ filament, the 5.8σ and 7.3σ detections may be dominated by NFW-halo leakage rather than intercluster matter. Please recompute r_t using the actual NFW profile an
  2. [Section 8, Tables 2–4] Quoted significances are peak values from a full 360° angular scan of Γ_+(θ) without a look-elsewhere correction. The pure-noise test in §6.3 (10 realizations, no >2σ peaks) is reassuring but does not directly give the false-alarm probability of a 5–7σ maximum over the ~effective number of independent angles. The authors should report the distribution of the maximum S/N from mocks (or an explicit trials factor) and quote corrected significances. This is particularly important for the weaker 4σ detections, which may become marginal after correction.
  3. [Section 6.4 and Appendix B] The combined B-mode statistic is explicitly stated to be unusable at LoVoCCS source density ('the negative cross gradient is unusable in our case'). Therefore, the radial cutoffs in Appendix B are the only quantitative barrier between secondary-cluster shear and the matched-filter statistic. Given the inconsistency in Table 5 identified above, the current analysis has no validated contamination barrier for the high-significance peaks aligned with secondary clusters. This makes the central >5σ claim (Abstract, Section 9) difficult to support as it stands.
  4. [Section 6.1–6.3, Eq. (4)] The mock validation uses the same parametric filament model (Eq. 4) that defines the matched-filter template, so it does not test the method's robustness to realistic filament morphology (curvature, line-of-sight inclination, varying density profile). The null test on A2351 is a valuable control against false positives, but it does not establish completeness or unbiasedness in a complex field. The claim of 'robust' detections would be strengthened by testing on a mock with more realistic filament shapes, e.g., extracted from cosmological simulations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 7] The text refers to 'Abell 2023 (A2033)'; elsewhere the cluster is called Abell 2033. Please correct the name consistently.
  2. [Section 5.2.1, Eq. (10)] The exponential term in P_g(k) has a positive argument; if it represents a Gaussian low-pass window, the exponent should have a negative sign (or the expression should be reconciled with Maturi et al. 2010). Please check and clarify.
  3. [Table 5] The column headers use M_X200m, M_WL200c, and M'_WL200c without fully specifying that all masses are in units of 10^14 M_sun. Also, the WL mass of A2351 is a private communication; consider flagging this more prominently or using a published value if available.
  4. [Section 9] The limitation section acknowledges the Gaussian noise approximation and small sample. It would also be helpful to note that the radial-cutoff calculation depends on the accuracy of WL mass estimates for every secondary cluster; mass errors propagate directly into r_t and hence into the contamination barrier.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the filament detections and inferred parameters come from fitting a fixed template to independent shear data, not from re-using the fitted values as predictions.

full rationale

The core derivation chain is not circular under the rubric. The matched-filter statistic Γ+(θ) is built from the filament template in Eq. (4), but it is applied to the LoVoCCS shear catalog, an external observable data product; its S/N is evaluated with the data-driven variance in Eq. (7), not from the fitted model parameters. The inferred κ0 and hc are posterior measurements obtained by MCMC fitting of Eq. (4) to the galaxy shear data, which is standard parameter estimation, not a case where a prediction is equal to its input by construction. The mock tests in §6.3 generate mock data from the same model and then recover the input κ0 and hc; those tests are explicitly presented as pipeline validation, not as evidence for the astrophysical detection, so they do not constitute a fitted input being called a prediction. The cited same-team works (Fu et al. 2022, 2024; Shinde et al. 2025) either provide the shear catalog, which is an independent observational product, or are used for consistency comparisons; no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation or a uniqueness theorem. The radial-cutoff prescription in Appendix B is a calibration/contamination control, and even if the skeptical objection about the 2% threshold were correct, that would be a systematic-error concern, not a circularity in which the output is equivalent to the input by definition. No specific reduction of the form 'Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction' or 'fitted parameter renamed as prediction' can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard cosmological weak-lensing theory and an empirical filament profile from simulations. The only fitted quantities are filter tuning and filament parameters; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • k_cut (filter cutoff frequency) = 0.21 arcmin^-1
    Tuned on mock catalogs to maximize detection S/N; used for all real-data filters. The theoretical value sqrt(n_g ln2)=2.63 arcmin^-1 was abandoned after mocks showed lower S/N.
  • h_c,filter (template filament width) = 0.15 Mpc
    Chosen filter width; S/N varies by ≤3% for 0.05-0.25 Mpc, so robust.
  • sigma_gamma (shape noise in mocks) = 0.45
    Assumed intrinsic ellipticity dispersion used to generate mock catalogs for filter calibration; not directly measured from the real catalog in this paper.
  • Secondary cluster WL masses (M'_WL,i) = Scaled from primary WL mass and X-ray mass ratio (e.g., A399: 12.2e14 Msun)
    Used to set radial cutoffs r1, r2 such that cluster shear <2%; the scaling M'_WL,i = M_WL,p * M_X,i/M_X,p is an approximation.
  • kappa0 and hc for six filaments = kappa0=0.015-0.053, hc=0.11-0.45 Mpc
    MCMC fits to real data; these are measured properties, not independent predictions, and depend on the assumed profile model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Filament convergence profile follows Eq. (4): flat-top κ0 for h ≤ hc, then κ0/(1+((h-hc)/hc)^2) for h > hc.
    Motivated by Colberg et al. (2005) N-body profiles; used to build both the matched filter and the MCMC fits. If real filaments differ, S/N and parameters are biased.
  • domain assumption Filaments are infinite, straight, lie in the plane of the sky, and the entire cluster-filament system lies at the primary cluster's redshift.
    Section 2.1, assumptions 1-3. Any line-of-sight inclination or curvature weakens the matched-filter response.
  • domain assumption Clusters are spherical NFW halos for shear modeling.
    Section 2.1, used to set radial cutoffs and to distinguish cluster contamination in mocks.
  • domain assumption Shear noise is a zero-mean isotropic Gaussian field; LSS noise is negligible after measurement.
    Section 3.1 and 5.2.2; LSS noise estimated from κTNG maps to be ~20x smaller than shape noise.
  • domain assumption Flat-sky approximation is valid for fields <2 degrees.
    Section 2.1, just before the assumptions.
  • standard math Matched-filter variance formula (Eq. 7) is unbiased for the statistic.
    From Schirmer (2004); standard in aperture/matched-filter WL statistics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weak-Lensing Detection of Intercluster Filaments in Three Nearby Cluster Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PN2EVUSP

@misc{pith2026251026318,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weak-Lensing Detection of Intercluster Filaments in Three Nearby Cluster Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PN2EVUSP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.26318}
}
abstract

Direct detection of intercluster filaments is challenging due to their low surface density, resulting in a weak deflection field. We present weak-lensing detections of intercluster filaments using wide-field Dark Energy Camera (DECam) observations from the Local Volume Complete Cluster Survey (LoVoCCS). A matched-filter method was applied to identify filamentary structures in three nearby ($z < 0.1$) systems centered on Abell 401, Abell 2029, and Abell 3558. We discover two prominent filaments ($\geq 4\sigma$) in each system, with the strongest detections ($6.4\sigma - 7.3\sigma$) around Abell 401 and Abell 2029. In particular, we report the first robust weak-lensing detections $(>5 \sigma)$ of the intercluster bridges connecting the cluster pairs Abell 401/399, Abell 2029/2033, Abell 2029/SIG, and Abell 3558/3556. Adopting a filament convergence model motivated by numerical simulations, we infer the maximum convergence ($\kappa_0$) and characteristic width ($h_{\mathrm{c}}$) for all six filaments, yielding $\kappa_0 \sim 0.015 - 0.053$ and $h_{\mathrm{c}} \sim 0.11 - 0.45 \ \mathrm{Mpc}$. The performance of the matched-filter technique is validated using mock shear catalogs and further tested on a null field around Abell 2351. We also explore the potential of using the B-mode lensing signal of filaments to suppress cluster-induced shear contamination. These results demonstrate the feasibility of directly mapping dark matter filaments with current and future wide-field weak-lensing datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.26318 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Convergence field, κ(x), and binned shear pattern, ⟨γ(x)⟩∆x, for the mock catalog. Left: Convergence map of the mock model overlaid with the binned shear pattern, computed using a pixel size of ∆x = 1.53 arcmin. White circles indicate the radial cutoffs (r1 = 0.91 Mpc, r2 = 3.64 Mpc) used to restrict the filter. The legend in the bottom-left corner provides a mapping between the shear length in the plot to the physi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the coordinate system and reference frames used in this work. The original frame (black) ˆx1–ˆx2 is centered on the primary cluster. The decomposition axis or rotated frame (green) ˆx1′–ˆx2′ subtends a CCW angle θ with the positive ˆx1 axis. The filament (red) is oriented at angle θf. Any point in the field (blue) can be represented by its Cartesian angular position x = {x1, x2} or corresponding polar c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Constructed matched filter and optimal matched filter in real space. Left: Matched filter modeled after a template filament with characteristic width hc,filter = 0.15 Mpc and normalization κ0 = 1. We note that the choice of κ0 does not affect the analysis. White dashed circles indicate the radial cutoffs (r1 = 0.91 Mpc, r2 = 3.64 Mpc), and the red arrow marks the filter orientation (θ = 135◦ ). Right: Corresponding … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Filament detection results for the mock catalog. Left: Matched-filter statistics Γ×(θ) and Γ+(θ) as a function of the search angle θ. The blue and red solid lines correspond to the tangential and cross components, respectively, with the light blue shade indicating the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Orthogonal decomposition of the negative cross gradient. The blue, red and green solid lines represent the tangential statistic, A(θ), negative cross gradient, B(θ), and the residual, R(θ). The corresponding shaded regions represent the 1σ uncertainty in each statistic…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) for linear combinations of the tangential statistic, A(θ), and the residual, R(θ). The free parameter α ∈ [0, 1] is mapped according to the color bar. The corresponding locus of S/N curves representing the combined statistic L(α) = 2A + αR i…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mock Catalog: Posterior distributions of the fila￾ment parameters obtained via MCMC sampling. The inner (solid) and outer (dashed) contours in the joint distribution enclose the 68% (1σ) and 95% (2σ) credible regions, respec￾tively. Dashed vertical lines indicate the m…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A401: Posterior distributions of the filament pa￾rameters obtained via MCMC sampling. The inner (solid) and outer (dashed) contours in the joint distribution en￾close the 68% (1σ) and 95% (2σ) credible regions, respec￾tively. Dashed vertical lines indicate the median v…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Filament detection results for the A401 system. Top: Matched-filter statistics Γ+(θ) and Γ×(θ) as a function of the search angle θ. The blue and red solid lines correspond to the tangential and cross components, respectively, with the light blue shade indicating the 1σ…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A2029: Posterior distributions of the filament parameters obtained via MCMC sampling. The inner (solid) and outer (dashed) contours in the joint distribution en￾close the 68% (1σ) and 95% (2σ) credible regions, respec￾tively. Dashed vertical lines indicate the median …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Filament detection results for the A2029 system. Top: Matched-filter statistics Γ+(θ) and Γ×(θ) as a function of the search angle θ. The blue and red solid lines correspond to the tangential and cross components, respectively, with the light blue shade indicating the …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A3558: Posterior distributions of the filament parameters obtained via MCMC sampling. The inner (solid) and outer (dashed) contours in the joint distribution en￾close the 68% (1σ) and 95% (2σ) credible regions, respec￾tively. Dashed vertical lines indicate the median …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Filament detection results for the A3558 system. Top: Matched-filter statistics Γ+(θ) and Γ×(θ) as a function of the search angle θ. The blue and red solid lines correspond to the tangential and cross components, respectively, with the light blue shade indicating the …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Filament detection results for A2351. Left: Matched-filter statistics Γ×(θ) and Γ+(θ) as a function of the search angle θ. The blue and red solid lines correspond to the tangential and cross components, respectively, with the light blue shade indicating the 1σ uncerta…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Performance of the optimal matched filter as a function of the cutoff frequency, kcut, evaluated using multiple realizations of mock shear data. Left: Mean signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of filament detections plotted against the cutoff frequency. The S/N profile exhibit…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. LoVoCCS. III. Third Generation Pipeline & The Hercules Supercluster

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

    A new LSST-pipeline-based reduction and multi-plane weak-lensing analysis measures the Hercules supercluster at 8.9 x 10^14 solar masses and attributes Abell 2147's inflated dynamical mass to a recent pericenter passage.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2017, A&A, 606, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730497 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Akamatsu, H., Fujita, Y., Akahori, T., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730497 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboratio...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730497 2017

  2. [2]

    2001, PhR, 340, 291, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00082-X 22 Ben ´ ıtez, N., Ford, H., Bouwens, R., et al

    Bartelmann, M., & Schneider, P. 2001, PhR, 340, 291, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00082-X 22 Ben ´ ıtez, N., Ford, H., Bouwens, R., et al. 2004, ApJS, 150, 1, doi: 10.1086/380120

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

  3. [3]

    R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D

    Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603, doi: 10.1038/380603a0

    doi:10.1038/380603a0 1996

  4. [4]

    2018, A&A, 609, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731699

    Beelen, A. 2018, A&A, 609, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731699

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731699 2018

  5. [5]

    Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B. J. T., & Frenk, C. S. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2923, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu768

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu768 2014

  6. [6]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 2391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw142

    Clampitt, J., Miyatake, H., Jain, B., & Takada, M. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw142

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw142 2016

  7. [8]

    2001, MNRAS, 328, 1039, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04902.x DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A

    Colless, M., Dalton, G., Maddox, S., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 1039, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04902.x DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14745

    arXiv 2001

  8. [9]

    P., Werner, N., Clowe, D., et al

    Dietrich, J. P., Werner, N., Clowe, D., et al. 2012, Nature, 487, 202, doi: 10.1038/nature11224

    doi:10.1038/nature11224 2012

Show all 57 references
  1. [10]

    2006, MNRAS, 370, 656, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10511.x

    Bonaldi, A. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 656, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10511.x

    2006

  2. [11]

    D., & Hudson, M

    Epps, S. D., & Hudson, M. J. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2605, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx517

    2017 doi

  3. [12]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150

    2015 doi

  4. [13]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  5. [14]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  6. [15]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac68e8

    Fu, S., Dell’Antonio, I., Chary, R.-R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac68e8

    2022 doi

  7. [16]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67c6

    Fu, S., Dell’Antonio, I., Escalante, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67c6

    2024 doi

  8. [17]

    P., Busarello, G., Merluzzi, P., et al

    Haines, C. P., Busarello, G., Merluzzi, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1055, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2338

    2018 doi

  9. [18]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  10. [19]

    F., Schmitz, M., et al

    Helou, G., Madore, B. F., Schmitz, M., et al. 1991, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 171, Databases and On-line Data in Astronomy, ed. M. A. Albrecht & D. Egret, 89–106, doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-3250-3 10

    1991 doi

  11. [20]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 745, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu583

    Higuchi, Y., Oguri, M., & Shirasaki, M. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 745, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu583

    2014 doi

  12. [21]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 52, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1766

    Higuchi, Y., Okabe, N., Merluzzi, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 52, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1766

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    D., Radiconi, F., Romero, C., et al

    Hincks, A. D., Radiconi, F., Romero, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3335, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3391

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    2003, MNRAS, 343, 459, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06683.x

    Hirata, C., & Seljak, U. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 459, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06683.x

    2003

  15. [24]

    2001, A&A, 370, 743, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010293

    Hoekstra, H. 2001, A&A, 370, 743, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010293

    2001 doi

  16. [25]

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

    2007 doi

  17. [26]

    J., Cha, S., & Cho, H

    HyeongHan, K., Jee, M. J., Cha, S., & Cho, H. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 377, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02164-w

    2024 doi

  18. [29]

    Nishizawa, A. J. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3695, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1390

    2020 doi

  19. [30]

    1999, A&A, 341, 23, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9812319 M

    Kull, A., & B¨ ohringer, H. 1999, A&A, 341, 23, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9812319 M. Schirmer. 2004, PhD thesis, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universit¨ at Bonn. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/2017

    1999 doi arXiv

  20. [31]

    M., Seljak, U., et al

    Mandelbaum, R., Hirata, C. M., Seljak, U., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 1287, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09282.x

    2005

  21. [32]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S25, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx130

    Mandelbaum, R., Miyatake, H., Hamana, T., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S25, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx130

    2018 doi

  22. [33]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  23. [34]

    2010, A&A, 519, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912866

    Maturi, M., Angrick, C., Pace, F., & Bartelmann, M. 2010, A&A, 519, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912866

    2010 doi

  24. [35]

    2005, A&A, 442, 851, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042600

    Moscardini, L. 2005, A&A, 442, 851, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042600

    2005 doi

  25. [36]

    2013, A&A, 559, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322007

    Maturi, M., & Merten, J. 2013, A&A, 559, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322007

    2013 doi

  26. [37]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7c58

    McCleary, J., dell’Antonio, I., & von der Linden, A. 2020, ApJ, 893, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7c58

    2020 doi

  27. [38]

    Mead, J. M. G., King, L. J., & McCarthy, I. G. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2257, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15840.x

    2010

  28. [39]

    P., et al

    Merluzzi, P., Busarello, G., Haines, C. P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2085

    2015 doi

  29. [40]

    2025, A&A, 698, A270, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554944

    Migkas, K., Pacaud, F., Tuominen, T., & Aghanim, N. 2025, A&A, 698, A270, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554944

    2025 doi

  30. [41]

    S., Walker, S

    Mirakhor, M. S., Walker, S. A., & Runge, J. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2979

    2022 doi

  31. [42]

    Y., et al

    Mitsuishi, I., Gupta, A., Yamasaki, N. Y., et al. 2012, PASJ, 64, 18, doi: 10.1093/pasj/64.1.18 23

    2012 doi

  32. [43]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618 NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED). 2019, IPAC, doi: 10.26132/NED1

    2018 doi

  33. [44]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  34. [46]

    2018b, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    doi

  35. [47]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 5593, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab395

    Osato, K., Liu, J., & Haiman, Z. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5593, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab395

    2021 doi

  36. [48]

    Clarke, T. E. 2013, ApJ, 773, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/114

    2013 doi

  37. [49]

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

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

    2011 doi

  38. [50]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    2018 doi

  39. [51]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 5232, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3015

    Radiconi, F., Vacca, V., Battistelli, E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5232, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3015

    2022 doi

  40. [52]

    Rowe, B. T. P., Jarvis, M., Mandelbaum, R., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 10, 121, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002

    2015 doi

  41. [53]

    2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Shinde, R., Winkler, A., & Dell’Antonio, I. 2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 245, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #245, 472.03

    2025

  42. [54]

    J., Walker, S

    Sohn, J., Geller, M. J., Walker, S. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1cc

    2019 doi

  43. [55]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature03597 The pandas development Team. 2025,, v2.3.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2005 doi

  44. [56]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 211, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/211

    Ursino, E., Galeazzi, M., Gupta, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 211, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/211

    2015 doi

  45. [57]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  46. [58]

    A., Fabian, A

    Walker, S. A., Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., George, M. R., & Tawara, Y. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 3503, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20860.x

    2012

  47. [59]

    S., et al

    Werner, N., Finoguenov, A., Kaastra, J. S., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, L29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809599 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2008 doi

  48. [60]

    2020, A&A, 633, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936678

    Xia, Q., Robertson, N., Heymans, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936678

    2020 doi

  49. [61]

    H., et al

    Zehavi, I., Zheng, Z., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/59

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.