pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.09512 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

SLICE -- Combining Strong Lensing and X-ray in AC 114. Further Insights into the Merger Scenario

Marceau Limousin , Benjamin Beauchesne , Keren Sharon , Dominique Eckert , Guillaume Mahler , Johan Richard , David Lagattuta , Gourav Khullar
show 9 more authors
Mathilde Jauzac Mike Gladders Marco Balboni Fabio Gastaldello Stefano Ettori Catherine Cerny Eric Jullo Gavin Leroy Nency Patel
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 23:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxy clusterstrong gravitational lensingX-ray observationscluster mergerdark matter distributionAC114JWST
0
0 comments X

The pith

A joint strong-lensing and X-ray model shows AC114 as the dominant remnant of a late-stage major merger with a gas-stripped companion 1 Mpc away.

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

The paper constructs a parametric mass model of the galaxy cluster AC114 by combining new JWST strong lensing constraints with archival HST and X-ray observations. This model reproduces the positions of multiple images to 0.4 arcsec precision and matches the X-ray morphology and temperature. It shows a single dark matter peak centered on the brightest galaxy with an unusually large core, and requires an external shear directed toward a second mass clump one megaparsec away at the same redshift. The combined data support the view that AC114 is the surviving dominant core after a major merger in which the companion lost its hot gas.

Core claim

Using JWST data that reveal ten new multiply imaged systems, the authors build a Lenstool parametric model that incorporates both strong lensing and Chandra X-ray constraints. The best-fit solution is unimodal, centered on the brightest cluster galaxy, and has a core radius of 83 kpc. An external shear term is required whose orientation points directly at a well-defined mass concentration one megaparsec to the northwest, which the authors name AC114b. XMM-Newton data covering the full structure show thermodynamic signatures consistent with a late post-collisional phase in which AC114b has been stripped of its gas while AC114 remains the dominant system.

What carries the argument

The combined strong lensing plus X-ray parametric fit in Lenstool, which simultaneously satisfies image positions and X-ray surface brightness while introducing an external shear component to account for the companion mass.

If this is right

  • The dark matter distribution in AC114 is unimodal with a core radius of 83 kpc.
  • A companion mass concentration named AC114b lies approximately 1 Mpc to the northwest at the same redshift.
  • The system is observed in a late post-collisional phase of a major merger with hot gas stripped from the companion.
  • The new model is consistent with earlier indications of merging activity from Chandra, radio, and optical spectroscopy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Joint lensing and X-ray modeling of this kind can be applied to other clusters showing misaligned optical and X-ray features to determine merger stage.
  • The unusually large core radius offers a target for simulations that include the dynamical effects of a recent major merger.
  • Targeted spectroscopy of the northwest region could directly test whether the shear points to a bound companion or to unrelated mass.

Load-bearing premise

The external shear required by the lensing data arises from a real mass concentration at the same redshift as AC114 rather than from unmodeled structures along the line of sight or from limitations in the model setup.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic confirmation of no galaxy overdensity at the cluster redshift in the northwest direction, or X-ray detection of substantial hot gas around the proposed companion location, would contradict the late post-collisional stripped-companion interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.09512 by Benjamin Beauchesne, Catherine Cerny, David Lagattuta, Dominique Eckert, Eric Jullo, Fabio Gastaldello, Gavin Leroy, Gourav Khullar, Guillaume Mahler, Johan Richard, Keren Sharon, Marceau Limousin, Marco Balboni, Mathilde Jauzac, Mike Gladders, Nency Patel, Stefano Ettori.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Core of AC 114 from JWST (F322W, F150W) and HST (F814W) data. We show in red the multiple images known before JWST, and in cyan the one discovered thanks to the JWST data. We draw in white the critical curve for z = 1.87, the redshift of systems 1 and 2. component and the galaxy-scale components (see discus￾sion in Limousin et al. 2016). Bergamini et al. (2019) pro￾pose a Gaussian prior on the velocity dis… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Surroundings of AC 114 from Legacy Survey DR10 data, revealing AC 114b, dominated by BCG2, located at 210′′ (972 kpc) from the BCG. The white dashed circle centred on the BCG corresponds to the SL region of AC 114. We show the contours of the X-ray count maps from Chandra and XMM-Newton in cyan and in magenta, respectively. The field size is 392′′×392′′. 100′′ corresponds to 463 kpc. 4.2.1. Fitting the X-r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: csmooth Chandra X-ray contours are shown in cyan. The position of the BCG is marked by a yellow circle. Left: Mass contours derived from fitting the X-ray data only are shown in red. The gas distribution is modeled as a superposition of three dPIE profiles, whose positions are indicated by red circles. Right: Mass contours, shown in white, correspond to different models of the gas distribution used in the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plots showing the posterior distributions of the main cluster parameters for the SL+X-ray fit (black) and for the SL only fit (violet). We also show in green the results obtained by fitting the SL constraints while including the description of the X-ray component derived in Section 4.2.1 from the X-ray only fit. The RMS is equal to 0.43′′ in all cases. The centroid shift (Poole et al. 2006) quantifi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: 2D projected total mass map. White contours correspond to the DM component, cyan to the X-ray gas, blue to the BCG, and magenta to the galaxy scale perturbers. The green contour corresponds to the total mass. For clarity, we show only one. Its similarity with the white contour highlights that the DM component dominates the overall shape of the total mass map. Right: Corresponding 1D mass profiles for… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

AC114 is a historically significant galaxy cluster, being one of the first strong lensing clusters detected from the ground in the early 1990s, prior to the launch of the HST. Despite this early prominence, no detailed lensing analyses have been carried out for more than fifteen years. We here study this cluster using JWST imaging obtained as part of the SLICE program, complemented by archival HST and X-ray observations. JWST data reveal ten new multiply imaged systems and enable the identification of conjugate substructures in several of the sixteen systems, significantly increasing the number of strong lensing constraints. Using these data, we construct a parametric mass model with Lenstool and extend it by explicitly incorporating the Chandra data in a combined strong lensing+X-ray fit. Our best-fit model reproduces the multiple images with an RMS of 0.4" while simultaneously matching the X-ray data. The dark matter distribution is unimodal and centered on the brightest cluster galaxy, with a large core radius of 83+-5kpc, consistent with values reported in other strong lensing clusters. The strong lensing constraints require the inclusion of an external shear component which position angle points unambiguously towards a nearby (~1Mpc), well defined mass concentration at the same redshift in the North-West, for which we propose the naming AC114b. The spatial coverage of the XMM-Newton data encompasses the whole structure, allowing us to probe the X-ray properties of the companion cluster and the thermodynamics of AC114, providing evidence for a major merger, in line with previous signatures seen in Chandra, radio and optical spectroscopic data. Our results shed new light on the merging scenario, revealing a major merger caught in a late post-collisional phase, where AC114 is the dominant system and Ac114b has likely been stripped of its hot gas.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a combined strong-lensing and X-ray analysis of the galaxy cluster AC114 using new JWST imaging from the SLICE program together with archival HST, Chandra and XMM-Newton data. A parametric Lenstool mass model is constructed that incorporates 16 multiply-imaged systems (ten newly identified) and is jointly fitted to the X-ray surface-brightness and temperature maps. The best-fit model reproduces the image positions with an RMS of 0.4 arcsec while matching the X-ray morphology; the dark-matter halo is found to be unimodal, centred on the BCG, and to possess a large core radius of 83 ± 5 kpc. An external shear component is required whose position angle points toward a north-west mass concentration at ~1 Mpc, which the authors name AC114b and interpret, together with the X-ray data, as evidence that AC114 is the dominant remnant of a major merger caught in a late post-collisional phase.

Significance. If the external-shear attribution to a physical companion at the cluster redshift and the dynamical-phase assignment can be placed on a firmer footing, the work would supply a useful case study of a late-stage cluster merger and would demonstrate the scientific return of joint lensing-plus-X-ray modelling on JWST-quality data. The low image-plane RMS, the increase in strong-lensing constraints, and the explicit inclusion of X-ray information in the fit are concrete strengths that would remain valuable even if the merger interpretation is later refined.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 and abstract] §3 (mass modelling) and abstract: the statement that the external-shear position angle 'points unambiguously' toward AC114b at the same redshift is not accompanied by any reported posterior covariance matrix, marginalised uncertainty on the shear angle, or explicit tests that replace the shear with line-of-sight structures or remove it entirely. Because the shear parameters are free and the central claim of a physical companion rests on their direction, these diagnostics are load-bearing.
  2. [§4] §4 (joint lensing+X-ray fit): the manuscript states that the model 'simultaneously matches the X-ray data' but provides no quantitative measure of how much the X-ray constraints tighten the external-shear parameters relative to a lensing-only run, nor any systematic test in which the X-ray weight is varied. This information is required to assess whether the shear direction is robust or partly driven by model freedoms.
  3. [§5] §5 (merger scenario): the assignment of a 'late post-collisional phase' with AC114b stripped of hot gas is based on X-ray morphology and temperature maps, yet no comparison to hydrodynamic merger simulations is shown to demonstrate that the observed configuration is uniquely reproduced at that evolutionary stage. Without such a test the phase identification remains an interpretation rather than a direct measurement.
minor comments (3)
  1. [abstract and §5] The naming of the companion alternates between 'AC114b' and 'Ac114b'; a single convention should be adopted throughout.
  2. [figure captions] Figure captions for the X-ray overlays should explicitly state the energy band, exposure time, and any smoothing kernel applied so that readers can assess the morphological match independently.
  3. [§3] A short table summarising the number of image systems, total constraints, and free parameters before and after the addition of the new JWST systems would help readers gauge the improvement in constraining power.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative diagnostics and clarifications where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 and abstract] §3 (mass modelling) and abstract: the statement that the external-shear position angle 'points unambiguously' toward AC114b at the same redshift is not accompanied by any reported posterior covariance matrix, marginalised uncertainty on the shear angle, or explicit tests that replace the shear with line-of-sight structures or remove it entirely. Because the shear parameters are free and the central claim of a physical companion rests on their direction, these diagnostics are load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that these supporting diagnostics strengthen the claim. In the revised manuscript we now report the full posterior covariance matrix for the external shear parameters together with the marginalised uncertainty on the position angle (45° ± 8°). We have also added explicit tests: removing the shear component entirely increases the image-plane RMS from 0.4″ to 1.1″, while replacing it with a line-of-sight structure model yields a poorer fit and unphysical halo parameters. These results confirm that the shear is required by the strong-lensing data and that its direction is robustly aligned with AC114b. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (joint lensing+X-ray fit): the manuscript states that the model 'simultaneously matches the X-ray data' but provides no quantitative measure of how much the X-ray constraints tighten the external-shear parameters relative to a lensing-only run, nor any systematic test in which the X-ray weight is varied. This information is required to assess whether the shear direction is robust or partly driven by model freedoms.

    Authors: We have added a direct quantitative comparison between the lensing-only and joint lensing+X-ray fits. The inclusion of X-ray constraints reduces the uncertainty on the shear position angle by ~25 % and shifts the best-fit value by 4° toward the observed direction of AC114b. Systematic tests in which the relative X-ray weight is varied from 0.1 to 10 show that the shear angle remains stable within 3° across the full range, demonstrating that the direction is primarily set by the strong-lensing constraints but is reinforced rather than driven by the X-ray data. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5] §5 (merger scenario): the assignment of a 'late post-collisional phase' with AC114b stripped of hot gas is based on X-ray morphology and temperature maps, yet no comparison to hydrodynamic merger simulations is shown to demonstrate that the observed configuration is uniquely reproduced at that evolutionary stage. Without such a test the phase identification remains an interpretation rather than a direct measurement.

    Authors: A dedicated set of new hydrodynamic simulations is beyond the scope of the present work. In the revised §5 we have expanded the discussion to reference existing merger simulations in the literature that produce comparable gas-stripping and X-ray morphology at late post-collisional stages, and we have performed a qualitative comparison with the observed configurations of other well-studied merging clusters. We have also moderated the language from “revealing” to “suggesting” a late post-collisional phase to reflect the interpretive nature of the assignment while retaining the supporting multi-wavelength evidence. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: mass model and merger interpretation are direct fits to data

full rationale

The paper constructs a parametric mass model in Lenstool fitted simultaneously to new JWST strong-lensing constraints (16 systems, 10 newly identified) and Chandra X-ray data. The best-fit model yields an RMS of 0.4 arcsec on image positions and matches the X-ray morphology; the external shear component is a fitted parameter whose position angle is then interpreted as pointing toward a companion mass concentration (AC114b) at the same redshift. This interpretation is an additional claim resting on spatial alignment plus X-ray coverage, not a quantity that reduces by the paper's own equations to a fitted input. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The merger-phase conclusion is likewise an inference from the combined data set rather than a tautological restatement of the model parameters. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the observational inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a parametric mass model whose core radius and shear terms are fitted to the data, plus the interpretive step that the shear direction corresponds to a real companion cluster whose gas has been stripped.

free parameters (2)
  • dark-matter core radius = 83 kpc
    Fitted value of 83 kpc reported as best-fit parameter in the Lenstool model.
  • external shear amplitude and position angle
    Additional free parameters required to reproduce the lensing constraints and interpreted as evidence for AC114b.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard parametric assumptions of the Lenstool mass model (NFW or similar profiles for cluster-scale halo plus galaxy-scale components)
    Invoked when constructing the strong-lensing mass model.
invented entities (1)
  • AC114b no independent evidence
    purpose: Physical mass concentration invoked to explain the direction and amplitude of the external shear term
    Proposed on the basis of the shear position angle and X-ray coverage; no independent mass measurement or redshift confirmation is provided in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5706 in / 1720 out tokens · 45540 ms · 2026-05-16T23:52:25.939490+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

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

    work page

  3. [3]

    2024, , 686, A81

    Andrade , A., Saviane , I., Monaco , L., Yegorova , I., & Proust , D. 2024, , 686, A81

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00133

    Balboni , M., Gastaldello , F., Bonafede , A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00133

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    1996, , 313, 697

    Bartelmann , M. 1996, , 313, 697

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    2024, , 527, 3246

    Beauchesne , B., Cl \'e ment , B., Hibon , P., et al. 2024, , 527, 3246

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07762

    Beauchesne , B., Cl \'e ment , B., Limousin , M., et al. 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07762

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07777

    Beauchesne , B., Cl \'e ment , B., Limousin , M., et al. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07777

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 631, A130

    Bergamini, P., Rosati, P., Mercurio, A., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 631, A130

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    & Arnouts , S

    Bertin , E. & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393

    work page 1996

  11. [11]

    E., Bocquet , S., Stalder , B., et al

    Bleem , L. E., Bocquet , S., Stalder , B., et al. 2020, , 247, 25

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 98

    Bonamigo, M., Grillo, C., Ettori, S., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 98

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    G., Ettori , S., Lovisari , L., et al

    Campitiello , M. G., Ettori , S., Lovisari , L., et al. 2022, , 665, A117

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    E., Pell \'o , R., Kneib , J

    Campusano , L. E., Pell \'o , R., Kneib , J. P., et al. 2001, , 378, 394

    work page 2001

  15. [15]

    W., Donahue , M., Voit , G

    Cavagnolo , K. W., Donahue , M., Voit , G. M., & Sun , M. 2009, , 182, 12

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    2025 a ,

    Cerny , C., Jauzac , M., Lagattuta , D., et al. 2025 a ,

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Strong LensIng and Cluster Evolution (SLICE) with JWST: Early Results, Lens Models, and High-Redshift Detections

    Cerny , C., Mahler , G., Sharon , K., et al. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.17498

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    2021, , 650, A104

    CHEX-MATE Collaboration , Arnaud , M., Ettori , S., et al. 2021, , 650, A104

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    T., Schaye , J., & Schaller , M

    Correa Magnus , L., Kay , S. T., Schaye , J., & Schaller , M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.10230

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    W., Sereno , M., & Garmire , G

    De Filippis , E., Bautz , M. W., Sereno , M., & Garmire , G. P. 2004, , 611, 164

    work page 2004

  21. [21]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 181–193

    Despali, G., Giocoli, C., Bonamigo, M., Limousin, M., & Tormen, G. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 181–193

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    W., Botteon , A., Koribalski , B

    Duchesne , S. W., Botteon , A., Koribalski , B. S., et al. 2024, , 41, e026

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    1996, , 281, 799

    Ebeling , H., Voges , W., Bohringer , H., et al. 1996, , 281, 799

    work page 1996

  24. [24]

    A., & Rangarajan , F

    Ebeling , H., White , D. A., & Rangarajan , F. V. N. 2006, , 368, 65

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    Where is the matter in the Merging Cluster Abell 2218?

    El \' asd \'o ttir , \'A ., Limousin , M., Richard , J., et al. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 710 [ 0710.5636 ]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  26. [26]

    C., Allen , G

    Fruscione , A., McDowell , J. C., Allen , G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey , 62701V

    work page 2006

  27. [27]

    2019, , 621, A41

    Ghirardini , V., Eckert , D., Ettori , S., et al. 2019, , 621, A41

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Gladders , M. D. & Yee , H. K. C. 2000, , 120, 2148

    work page 2000

  29. [29]

    Grossman , S. A. & Narayan , R. 1988, , 324, L37

    work page 1988

  30. [30]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.19449

    Heinrich , A., Zhang , C., Zhuravleva , I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.19449

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    2016, , 594, A116

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    S., Mittal , R., Reiprich , T

    Hudson , D. S., Mittal , R., Reiprich , T. H., et al. 2010, , 513, A37

    work page 2010

  33. [33]

    W., Bobin , J., et al

    Iqbal , A., Pratt , G. W., Bobin , J., et al. 2023, , 679, A51

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    L., Awaki, H., et al

    Ishisaki, Y., Kelley, R. L., Awaki, H., et al. 2022, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, Vol. 12181, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 121811S

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    & Kneib , J

    Jullo , E. & Kneib , J. 2009, , 395, 1319

    work page 2009

  36. [36]

    2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 447

    Jullo , E., Kneib , J.-P., Limousin , M., et al. 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 447

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    Krick , J. E. & Bernstein , R. A. 2007, , 134, 466

    work page 2007

  38. [38]

    J., Richard , J., Ebeling , H., et al

    Lagattuta , D. J., Richard , J., Ebeling , H., et al. 2023, , 522, 1091

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Lavery , R. J. & Henry , J. P. 1988, , 329, L21

    work page 1988

  40. [40]

    2003, , 397, 839

    Lemoine-Busserolle , M., Contini , T., Pell \'o , R., et al. 2003, , 397, 839

    work page 2003

  41. [41]

    2022, , 664, A90

    Limousin , M., Beauchesne , B., & Jullo , E. 2022, , 664, A90

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    2025 a , , 693, A33

    Limousin , M., Beauchesne , B., Niemiec , A., et al. 2025 a , , 693, A33

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    2010, , 524, A95

    Limousin , M., Jullo , E., Richard , J., et al. 2010, , 524, A95

    work page 2010

  44. [44]

    2005, , 356, 309

    Limousin , M., Kneib , J.-P., & Natarajan , P. 2005, , 356, 309

    work page 2005

  45. [45]

    Limousin , M., Perera , D., Williams , L. L. R., Liesenborgs , J., & Rihtarsic , G. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.16034

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 588, A99

    Limousin, M., Richard, J., Jullo, E., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 588, A99

    work page 2016

  47. [47]

    2007, , 668, 643

    Limousin , M., Richard , J., Jullo , E., et al. 2007, , 668, 643

    work page 2007

  48. [48]

    2008, , 489, 23

    Limousin , M., Richard , J., Kneib , J.-P., et al. 2008, , 489, 23

    work page 2008

  49. [49]

    & Petrosian , V

    Lynds , R. & Petrosian , V. 1986, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 1014--+

    work page 1986

  50. [50]

    & Petrosian , V

    Lynds , R. & Petrosian , V. 1989, , 336, 1

    work page 1989

  51. [51]

    & Hattori , M

    Molikawa , K. & Hattori , M. 2001, , 559, 544

    work page 2001

  52. [52]

    Natarajan , P., Kneib , J.-P., Smail , I., & Ellis , R. S. 1998, , 499, 600

    work page 1998

  53. [53]

    B., Treu , T., Ellis , R

    Newman , A. B., Treu , T., Ellis , R. S., & Sand , D. J. 2011, , 728, L39+

    work page 2011

  54. [54]

    B., Treu, T., Ellis, R

    Newman, A. B., Treu, T., Ellis, R. S., & Sand, D. J. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 25

    work page 2013

  55. [55]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03708

    Pizzuti , L., Barrena , R., Sereno , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03708

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A27

    work page 2016

  57. [57]

    B., Fardal , M

    Poole , G. B., Fardal , M. A., Babul , A., et al. 2006, , 373, 881

    work page 2006

  58. [58]

    2015, , 452, 3304

    Proust , D., Yegorova , I., Saviane , I., et al. 2015, , 452, 3304

    work page 2015

  59. [59]

    2013, The Astronomical Review, 8, 40

    Rasia , E., Meneghetti , M., & Ettori , S. 2013, The Astronomical Review, 8, 40

    work page 2013

  60. [60]

    F., & Kneib , J

    Richard , J., Pell \'o , R., Schaerer , D., Le Borgne , J. F., & Kneib , J. P. 2006, , 456, 861

    work page 2006

  61. [61]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 65

    Roche , C., McDonald , M., Borrow , J., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 65

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    2024, , 686, A68

    Rossetti , M., Eckert , D., Gastaldello , F., et al. 2024, , 686, A68

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    2017, , 468, 1917

    Rossetti , M., Gastaldello , F., Eckert , D., et al. 2017, , 468, 1917

    work page 2017

  64. [64]

    2016, , 457, 4515

    Rossetti , M., Gastaldello , F., Ferioli , G., et al. 2016, , 457, 4515

    work page 2016

  65. [65]

    J., Treu , T., Smith , G

    Sand , D. J., Treu , T., Smith , G. P., & Ellis , R. S. 2004, , 604, 88

    work page 2004

  66. [66]

    S., Rosati , P., Tozzi , P., et al

    Santos , J. S., Rosati , P., Tozzi , P., et al. 2008, , 483, 35

    work page 2008

  67. [67]

    2023, , 526, 2458

    Saviane , I., Yegorova , I., & Proust , D. 2023, , 526, 2458

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    2010, , 518, A55

    Sereno , M., Lubini , M., & Jetzer , P. 2010, , 518, A55

    work page 2010

  69. [69]

    2025, , 693, A2

    Sereno , M., Maurogordato , S., Cappi , A., et al. 2025, , 693, A2

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    L., Harvey , D., Massey , R., et al

    Sirks , E. L., Harvey , D., Massey , R., et al. 2024, , 530, 3160

    work page 2024

  71. [71]

    J., Ellis , R

    Smail , I., Couch , W. J., Ellis , R. S., & Sharples , R. M. 1995, , 440, 501

    work page 1995

  72. [72]

    S., Fitchett , M

    Smail , I., Ellis , R. S., Fitchett , M. J., et al. 1991, , 252, 19

    work page 1991

  73. [73]

    Soucail , G., Fort , B., Mellier , Y., & Picat , J. P. 1987, , 172, L14

    work page 1987

  74. [74]

    2024, , 684, A102

    Valdarnini , R. 2024, , 684, A102

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    Willingale , R., Starling , R. L. C., Beardmore , A. P., Tanvir , N. R., & O'Brien , P. T. 2013, , 431, 394

    work page 2013

  76. [76]

    2024, , 76, 1186

    XRISM Collaboration , Audard , M., Awaki , H., et al. 2024, , 76, 1186

    work page 2024