Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Joint constraints on gravity and stellar orbital anisotropy in massive galaxies

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A hierarchical Bayesian analysis of 121 galaxy lenses finds gravity consistent with general relativity and 2σ evidence that stellar orbits became more radially biased over ~6 Gyr.

desk verdict Solid hierarchical method that cleanly separates γ_PPN from β(z) on 121 lenses; the GR result is robust, the 2σ anisotropy evolution is real but rests on a redshift-independent projection-bias correction the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06755 v1 pith:DVH7POJG submitted 2026-07-07 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Wei Du , Liping Fu , Gong-Bo Zhao , Yiping Shu , Shuo Yuan , Zuhui Fan , Huanyuan Shan , Chenggang Shu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords stronggravitationallensingstellardynamicstestsofgravityorbitalanisotropymassivegalaxieshierarchicalBayesianinferencepost-Newtonianparameter
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

Strong lensing and single-aperture stellar velocity dispersions are powerful but degenerate: mass profiles, orbital anisotropy, external mass sheets, and possible departures from general relativity all trade off against one another. This paper builds a hierarchical Bayesian framework that turns each lens into a two-dimensional likelihood in an effective mismatch parameter X and the stellar anisotropy β, then infers shared population parameters across 121 systems. The result is a simultaneous 10-percent-level test of gravity (γ_PPN ≈ 1) and a 2σ indication that the mean orbits of massive galaxies have grown more radially biased toward the present day. If the method holds up, future samples of order 100 000 lenses can deliver sub-percent gravity tests, precise orbital-evolution measurements, and complementary constraints on the matter density of the universe.

What carries the argument

The effective mismatch parameter X, which folds projection bias, external convergence, cosmological distance ratios and the post-Newtonian parameter γ_PPN into a single multiplicative factor that multiplies the lensing-predicted velocity dispersion; each lens then contributes a two-dimensional likelihood L(X, β) that is combined hierarchically.

What would settle it

A statistically large sample of lenses with integral-field stellar kinematics would allow independent, spatially resolved measurements of β at different redshifts; if those measurements showed no decline in radial bias toward low redshift, the hierarchical β(z) signal would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When the joint posterior of a flexible broken power-law lens mass model is propagated into predicted aperture velocity dispersions, each of 121 galaxy-scale lenses supplies a likelihood in the plane of stellar orbital anisotropy β and an effective mismatch factor X. Hierarchical combination of those likelihoods yields γ_PPN = 1.027^{+0.099}_{-0.095}, consistent with general relativity, together with a population trend β(z) = β_0 + β_z z that is more radially biased at low redshift (β_z < 0 at ~98.7 % posterior probability).

Load-bearing premise

The projection-bias correction applied to every lens is treated as independent of redshift, even though the paper notes that the true modelling bias may change with aperture size and the radial anisotropy profile.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Galaxy-scale lensing plus single-aperture dynamics can test gravity at the 10 % level today and at the sub-percent level with samples of order 10^5 lenses.
  • The same analysis simultaneously measures the cosmic evolution of stellar orbital structure in massive galaxies.
  • Large future samples can also return complementary constraints on the cosmological matter-density parameter Ω_m.
  • Population parameters describing line-of-sight density contrast become informative once sample sizes reach tens of thousands of systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the radial-orbit trend is physical, it supplies a dynamical counterpart to the two-phase assembly picture of massive galaxies and can be cross-checked against the redshift evolution of kinematic kurtosis h4.
  • Environment- or mass-dependent trends in γ_PPN, once sample sizes permit, would offer a direct route to testing screened modified-gravity models on kiloparsec scales.
  • Redshift-dependent spectroscopic apertures may themselves imprint a mild radial-bias evolution; quantifying that selection effect will be required before the β(z) signal can be read as pure assembly history.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a hierarchical Bayesian framework that converts single-aperture lensing+dynamics data into per-lens likelihoods in the plane of an effective mismatch parameter X and stellar orbital anisotropy β. X absorbs projection bias, external convergence, distance-ratio cosmology and the post-Newtonian parameter γ_PPN, while β is modelled at the population level as a linear redshift trend with intrinsic scatter. Applied to 121 SLACS/S4TM/BELLS lenses whose mass distributions are reconstructed with a flexible broken power-law model, the analysis yields γ_PPN = 1.027^{+0.099}_{-0.095} (consistent with GR) and a 2σ indication that mean anisotropy becomes more radially biased toward low redshift (β_0 = 0.60^{+0.14}_{-0.17}, β_z = -1.25^{+0.62}_{-0.79}). Sensitivity tests, mock recovery and forecasts for future large samples are provided.

Significance. If the modelling assumptions hold, the work supplies a clean population-level route for testing gravity on kiloparsec scales while simultaneously measuring the redshift evolution of stellar orbital structure in massive galaxies. The hierarchical construction that marginalizes mass-profile uncertainty into X–β likelihoods is a useful methodological advance for the many systems that possess only single-aperture kinematics. The mock recovery tests, the tabulated sensitivity to λ, subsample cuts and cosmology, and the explicit forecasts for O(10^5) lenses are concrete strengths that make the claims falsifiable and extensible. The result is of clear interest to both modified-gravity and galaxy-formation communities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Discussion] Methods (Dynamical modelling) and Discussion: the projection-bias correction b_σ = 1.015 q_⋆^{-0.07} is taken as redshift-independent and is calibrated solely on Illustris-1 galaxies at z ≈ 0.18. Because X ∝ 1/b_σ (Eq. 3) and X is anti-correlated with β along each lens’s likelihood ridge (Fig. 1), any unmodelled redshift dependence of b_σ is absorbed into the inferred β(z). The Discussion itself notes that a z = 0 Illustris-1 test shows b_σ > 1 and decreasing with physical aperture size; SDSS/BOSS fibres therefore sample systematically different physical radii across 0.06 < z < 0.66. The qualitative statement that this would strengthen rather than erase the trend is insufficient: a quantitative propagation of a plausible redshift-dependent b_σ into the hierarchical posterior (or an explicit upper bound on the induced shift in β_z) is required before the reported P(β_z < 0) ≈ 98.7 % can b
  2. [Lens sample] Lens sample section: four high-redshift BELLS systems are excluded because their observed velocity dispersions differ from isotropic BPL predictions by >100 km s^{-1}. The cut is applied after the fact and is not pre-specified as a selection criterion; three of the four already show failed or unphysical DR17 fits, but the fourth is retained only by the same threshold. Because the excluded objects lie at the high-z end of the sample, their removal can systematically affect the slope β_z. The paper should either re-include them with inflated uncertainties, demonstrate that the posterior on β_z is insensitive to their inclusion, or adopt a fully pre-defined outlier criterion and re-run the hierarchical inference.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Likelihood] Eq. (3) and surrounding text: the precise numerical value and justification of the 6 % intrinsic scatter τ_in ≃ 0.06 σ_∥,obs should be stated more clearly (is it taken from literature, from residual scatter after the hierarchical fit, or from the mocks?).
  2. [Results / Fig. 3] Fig. 3: the literature β points are useful for context, but the caption and text should emphasize more strongly that the apertures and definitions of β differ across studies, so the comparison is qualitative only.
  3. [Appendix A.2] Table A1: the maximum-a-posteriori values in parentheses are helpful; a short note on how they are obtained (mode of the 1-D marginal or joint MAP) would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Forecasts] Forecasts (Fig. 4): the rescaling of τ by √(121/N_eff) assumes that selection and modelling systematics remain identical to the present sample; a brief caveat that real future samples will also change the redshift and mass distributions would be useful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: γ_PPN and β(z) are free population parameters fit to external single-aperture kinematics; self-citations supply independently simulation-validated modeling ingredients, not the target results.

  1. self citation load bearing [Methods, Dynamical modelling; Eq. 3; Discussion]
    "For BPL-based models, this projection bias can be corrected empirically for each lens by the relation b_σ = 1.015 q_⋆^{-0.07} [26], where q_⋆ is the axial ratio of the lens light distribution. ... X = 1/b_σ √[(1−κ_ext)/(1−κ′_ext) · 2/(1+γ_PPN) · R/R′]"

    The only self-citation that enters the likelihood construction is the projection-bias formula taken from the authors’ prior BPL paper. It multiplies into X and therefore can shift the absolute calibration of γ_PPN (and, if redshift-dependent, the slope of β(z)). It is not, however, load-bearing circularity: b_σ was calibrated on Illustris-1 galaxies independently of the present γ_PPN/β(z) targets, and those targets remain free parameters constrained by external velocity-dispersion data. The step is recorded only as a minor self-cited modeling ingredient, not as a reduction of the claimed result to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper’s central results are hierarchical posterior constraints on free population parameters (γ_PPN, β_0, β_z, τ_β, and weaker δ_m parameters) obtained by comparing lensing-predicted aperture velocity dispersions to observed SDSS/BOSS dispersions for 121 systems. For each lens the mass-profile posterior is marginalized into a likelihood L(X, β); X is an explicit free mismatch factor that absorbs projection bias, κ_ext, distance ratios and γ_PPN (Eqs. 2–4), while β is an explicit anisotropy parameter. Population structure is then imposed only through shared priors (β(z)=β_0+β_z z with scatter; δ_m(z); Gaussian κ_ext prior), not by defining the observables in terms of the claimed answers. Mock-data recovery tests further show that input γ_PPN and β(z) are recovered rather than tautologically reproduced. Self-citations to the authors’ BPL mass model and the b_σ=1.015 q_⋆^{-0.07} projection-bias formula (refs. 26–27) supply modeling ingredients that were calibrated on hydrodynamical simulations and do not encode the present γ_PPN or β(z) targets; under the analyzer rules such citations are independent support, not a closed logical loop. Residual concerns about possible redshift dependence of b_σ are systematic/correctness issues, not circularity by construction. Score 1 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation of those modeling tools.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on a chain of modelling choices (BPL mass model with light-derived inner slope, constant stellar-mass-weighted β, Illustris-calibrated projection bias, Gaussian κ_ext prior, linear β(z) and δ_m(z) population models) plus six free population parameters sampled from the 121-lens likelihoods. None of these are pure mathematical identities; all are domain assumptions or fitted quantities.

free parameters (5)
  • γ_PPN = 1.027^{+0.099}_{-0.095}
    Post-Newtonian parameter treated as a free population constant; posterior median 1.027 is the gravity result.
  • β_0, β_z, τ_β = β_0=0.60^{+0.14}_{-0.17}, β_z=−1.25^{+0.62}_{-0.79}, τ_β=0.22^{+0.08}_{-0.06}
    Intercept, slope and intrinsic scatter of the linear anisotropy–redshift relation; the negative β_z is the evolution claim.
  • δ_m,0, δ_m,z = near zero with large errors
    Linear parameters of the mean line-of-sight density contrast that set the external-convergence prior; weakly constrained but still free.
  • λ (external-convergence prior weight) = 1 (fiducial)
    Ad-hoc scaling of the κ_ext prior strength used in sensitivity tests; fiducial λ=1.
  • τ_in ≃ 0.06 σ_∥,obs = 0.06
    Intrinsic scatter added in quadrature to the observed velocity-dispersion uncertainty; fixed by hand.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spherical Jeans equation with constant stellar-mass-weighted anisotropy β fully describes the single-aperture LOS velocity dispersion.
    Methods, Dynamical modelling; used for every lens.
  • domain assumption Inner BPL slope α_c and break radius r_c can be fixed from the F814W light profile under constant stellar M/L.
    Lens modelling section; baryons assumed to dominate the centre.
  • ad hoc to paper Projection bias is given by the Illustris-1 fit b_σ = 1.015 q_⋆^{−0.07} and is redshift-independent.
    Eq. after dynamical modelling; Discussion acknowledges possible redshift dependence.
  • domain assumption External convergence decomposes as κ_env (from redMaPPer NFW) + κ_LSS (from linear δ_m(z) and CAMB power spectrum).
    Prior on external convergence section.
  • ad hoc to paper Population anisotropy and density contrast evolve linearly with redshift: β(z)=β_0+β_z z, δ_m(z)=δ_m,0+δ_m,z z.
    Hierarchical Bayesian framework; chosen for simplicity.
invented entities (1)
  • Effective mismatch parameter X
    purpose: Encapsulates projection bias, external convergence, distance-ratio mismatch and γ_PPN into a single multiplicative factor so that each lens yields a 2-D likelihood in the X–β plane.
    Defined in Eq. (3); purely a reparameterization, not a new physical field, but central to the hierarchical construction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint constraints on gravity and stellar orbital anisotropy in massive galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DVH7POJG

@misc{pith2026260706755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint constraints on gravity and stellar orbital anisotropy in massive galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DVH7POJG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06755}
}
abstract

Strong gravitational lensing combined with stellar dynamics provides a complementary route for testing gravity on kiloparsec scales and probing the internal structure of massive galaxies. However, such studies remain limited by degeneracies among the mass-density profile, stellar orbital anisotropy and external convergence, and by modelling assumptions, especially when only single-aperture velocity dispersions are available. Here we develop a hierarchical Bayesian framework to disentangle gravity and stellar orbital anisotropy from other effects at the population level. By reconstructing the lens mass distribution with a flexible broken power-law model and propagating its posterior uncertainty into the predicted velocity dispersion, we obtain a likelihood for each lens in the plane of stellar orbital anisotropy and an effective mismatch parameter. This parameter encapsulates projection bias, external convergence, cosmological distance ratios and deviations from general relativity via the post-Newtonian parameter $\gamma_{\rm PPN}$. Applying this framework to 121 galaxy-scale lenses, we find $\gamma_{\rm PPN}=1.027^{+0.099}_{-0.095}$, consistent with general relativity, and obtain $2\sigma$ evidence that the stellar orbits of massive galaxies have become more radially biased over the past $\sim6$ Gyr. Forecasts show that future samples of order $10^5$ lenses could enable sub-percent tests of gravity, precise measurements of orbital-structure evolution and complementary constraints on the cosmological matter-density parameter.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Rappaport, S

    Bolton, A. S., Rappaport, S. & Burles, S. Constraint on the post-Newtonian parameterγon galactic size scales.Phys. Rev. D74, 061501 (2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Koopmans, L. V. E.et al.The Structure and Dynamics of Massive Early-Type Galaxies: On Homology, Isothermality, and Isotropy Inside One Effective Radius. Astrophys. J. Lett.703, L51–L54 (2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Schwab, J., Bolton, A. S. & Rappaport, S. A. Galaxy-Scale Strong-Lensing Tests of Gravity and Geometric Cosmology: Constraints and Systematic Limitations. Astrophys. J.708, 750–757 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    E.et al.A precise extragalactic test of General Relativity.Science 360, 1342–1346 (2018)

    Collett, T. E.et al.A precise extragalactic test of General Relativity.Science 360, 1342–1346 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Etherington, A.et al.Beyond the bulge-halo conspiracy? Density profiles of early- type galaxies from extended-source strong lensing.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 521, 6005–6018 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    E., Gorenstein, M

    Falco, E. E., Gorenstein, M. V. & Shapiro, I. I. On model-dependent bounds on H 0 from gravitational images : application to Q 0957+561 A, B.Astrophys. J. Lett.289, L1–L4 (1985)

    work page 1985

  7. [7]

    & Sluse, D

    Schneider, P. & Sluse, D. Mass-sheet degeneracy, power-law models and exter- nal convergence: Impact on the determination of the Hubble constant from gravitational lensing.Astron. Astrophys.559, A37 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    & Mamon, G

    Binney, J. & Mamon, G. A. M/L and velocity anisotropy from observations of spherical galaxies, or must M87 have a massive black hole ?Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.200, 361–375 (1982)

    work page 1982

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    & Minor, Q

    Verma, V. & Minor, Q. The Stellar Velocity Anisotropy of Strong Lensing Massive Elliptical Galaxies and Its Role in the Inference of the Hubble Parameter H 0 Using Spatially Resolved Kinematics.Astrophys. J.1000, 264 (2026)

    2026

  2. [10]

    Birrer, S.et al.TDCOSMO. IV. Hierarchical time-delay cosmography - joint inference of the Hubble constant and galaxy density profiles.Astron. Astrophys. 19 643, A165 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    A weak-lensing measurement of the external convergence in the field of the lensed quasar HE 0435-1223.Mon

    Tihhonova, O.et al.H0LiCOW VIII. A weak-lensing measurement of the external convergence in the field of the lensed quasar HE 0435-1223.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.477, 5657–5669 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    E.et al.H0LiCOW - III

    Rusu, C. E.et al.H0LiCOW - III. Quantifying the effect of mass along the line of sight to the gravitational lens HE 0435-1223 through weighted galaxy counts. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.467, 4220–4242 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    C.et al.H0LiCOW - XIII

    Wong, K. C.et al.H0LiCOW - XIII. A 2.4 per cent measurement of H 0 from lensed quasars: 5.3σtension between early- and late-Universe probes.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.498, 1420–1439 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    J.970, 86 (2024)

    Sahu, N.et al.AGEL: Is the Conflict Real? Investigating Galaxy Evolution Models Using Strong Lensing at 0.3<z<0.9.Astrophys. J.970, 86 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    II: Breaking Degeneracies with Lensing and Dynamical Models.arXiv e-prints arXiv:2604.12155 (2026)

    Knabel, S.et al.Spatially Resolved Kinematics of SLACS Lens Galaxies. II: Breaking Degeneracies with Lensing and Dynamical Models.arXiv e-prints arXiv:2604.12155 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  8. [16]

    H.et al.H0LiCOW - I

    Suyu, S. H.et al.H0LiCOW - I. H 0 Lenses in COSMOGRAIL’s Wellspring: program overview.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.468, 2590–2604 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Millon, M.et al.TDCOSMO. I. An exploration of systematic uncertainties in the inference of H0 from time-delay cosmography.Astron. Astrophys.639, A101 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Gerhard, O., Kronawitter, A., Saglia, R. P. & Bender, R. Dynamical Family Properties and Dark Halo Scaling Relations of Giant Elliptical Galaxies.Astron. J.121, 1936–1951 (2001)

    1936

  11. [19]

    Osipkov, L. P. Spherical systems of gravitating bodies with ellipsoidal velocity distribution.Pisma v Astronomicheskii Zhurnal5, 77–80 (1979)

    1979

  12. [20]

    Spherical stellar systems with spheroidal velocity distributions

    Merritt, D. Spherical stellar systems with spheroidal velocity distributions. Astron. J.90, 1027–1037 (1985)

    1985

  13. [21]

    S.et al.The BOSS Emission-Line Lens Survey

    Bolton, A. S.et al.The BOSS Emission-Line Lens Survey. II. Investigating Mass-density Profile Evolution in the SLACS+BELLS Strong Gravitational Lens Sample.Astrophys. J.757, 82 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Astrophys.694, A196 (2025)

    Geng, S.et al.Investigating the redshift evolution of lensing galaxy density slopes via model-independent distance ratios.Astron. Astrophys.694, A196 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Remus, R.-S.et al.The co-evolution of total density profiles and central dark matter fractions in simulated early-type galaxies.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.464, 3742–3756 (2017). 20

    2017

  16. [24]

    J.835, 92 (2017)

    Cao, S.et al.Test of Parameterized Post-Newtonian Gravity with Galaxy-scale Strong Lensing Systems.Astrophys. J.835, 92 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    & Cao, X

    Chen, Y., Li, R., Shu, Y. & Cao, X. Assessing the effect of lens mass model in cosmological application with updated galaxy-scale strong gravitational lensing sample.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.488, 3745–3758 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    J.892, 62 (2020)

    Du, W.et al.An Accurate Analytic Mass Model for Lensing Galaxies.Astrophys. J.892, 62 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    J.953, 189 (2023)

    Du, W.et al.Mass Reconstruction of Galaxy-scale Strong Gravitational Lenses Using a Broken Power-law Model.Astrophys. J.953, 189 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Collett, T. E. The Population of Galaxy-Galaxy Strong Lenses in Forthcoming Optical Imaging Surveys.Astrophys. J.811, 20 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Cao, X.et al.CSST strong lensing preparation: forecasting the galaxy-galaxy strong lensing population for the China space station telescope.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.533, 1960–1975 (2024)

    1960

  22. [30]

    & Koyama, K

    Zhao, G.-B., Li, B. & Koyama, K. Testing Gravity Using the Environmental Dependence of Dark Matter Halos.Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 071303 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    P., Naab, T., Johansson, P

    Oser, L., Ostriker, J. P., Naab, T., Johansson, P. H. & Burkert, A. The Two Phases of Galaxy Formation.Astrophys. J.725, 2312–2323 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    D’Eugenio, F.et al.Evolution in the orbital structure of quiescent galaxies from MAGPI, LEGA-C, and SAMI surveys: direct evidence for merger-driven growth over the last 7 Gyr.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.525, 2789–2805 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Gerhard, O. E. Line-of-sight velocity profiles in spherical galaxies: breaking the degeneracy between anisotropy and mass.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.265, 213 (1993)

    1993

  26. [34]

    Effects on outer kinematic structure.Mon

    Wang, Y.et al.Early-type galaxy density profiles from IllustrisTNG - III. Effects on outer kinematic structure.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.513, 6134–6151 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Xu, D.et al.The inner structure of early-type galaxies in the Illustris simulation. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.469, 1824–1848 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    S.et al.The Sloan Lens ACS Survey

    Bolton, A. S.et al.The Sloan Lens ACS Survey. V. The Full ACS Strong-Lens Sample.Astrophys. J.682, 964–984 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Shu, Y.et al.The Sloan Lens ACS Survey. XIII. Discovery of 40 New Galaxy-scale Strong Lenses.Astrophys. J.851, 48 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    R.et al.The BOSS Emission-Line Lens Survey (BELLS)

    Brownstein, J. R.et al.The BOSS Emission-Line Lens Survey (BELLS). I. A Large Spectroscopically Selected Sample of Lens Galaxies at Redshift ˜0.5. 21 Astrophys. J.744, 41 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Abdurro’ufet al.The Seventeenth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys: Complete Release of MaNGA, MaStar, and APOGEE-2 Data.Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.259, 35 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    W., Lang, D

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D. & Goodman, J. emcee: The MCMC Hammer.Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125, 306 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    & Tremaine, S.Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2008)

    Binney, J. & Tremaine, S.Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    The orbital anisotropy of elliptical and lenticular galaxies: revisiting the (V/σ,∈) diagram with integral-field stellar kinematics.Mon

    Cappellari, M.et al.The SAURON project - X. The orbital anisotropy of elliptical and lenticular galaxies: revisiting the (V/σ,∈) diagram with integral-field stellar kinematics.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.379, 418–444 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    S.et al.The RedMaPPer Galaxy Cluster Catalog From DES Science Verification Data.Astrophys

    Rykoff, E. S.et al.The RedMaPPer Galaxy Cluster Catalog From DES Science Verification Data.Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.224, 1 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    J.814, 120 (2015)

    Du, W.et al.Mass-Concentration Relation of Clusters of Galaxies from CFHTLenS.Astrophys. J.814, 120 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    & Refregier, A

    Birrer, S., Welschen, C., Amara, A. & Refregier, A. Line-of-sight effects in strong lensing: putting theory into practice.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2017, 049 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    & Soreq, Y

    Teodori, L., Blum, K., Castorina, E., Simonovi´ c, M. & Soreq, Y. Comments on the mass sheet degeneracy in cosmography analyses.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2022, 027 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    & Marchetti, L

    Johnson, D., Fleury, P., Larena, J. & Marchetti, L. Foreground biases in strong gravitational lensing.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2024, 055 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    & Challinor, A

    Howlett, C., Lewis, A., Hall, A. & Challinor, A. CMB power spectrum parameter degeneracies in the era of precision cosmology.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2012, 027 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Planck Collaborationet al.Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020)

    2018

  42. [50]

    J., Shu, Y

    Liang, Y., Xu, D., Shajib, A. J., Shu, Y. & Li, R. The Impact of Orbital Anisotropy Assumptions in Lensing-dynamics Modeling.Astrophys. J.998, 303 (2026)

    2026

  43. [51]

    Zhu, K.et al.MaNGA DynPop - I. Quality-assessed stellar dynamical modelling from integral-field spectroscopy of 10K nearby galaxies: a catalogue of masses, mass-to-light ratios, density profiles, and dark matter.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 522, 6326–6353 (2023). 22

    2023

  44. [52]

    Y.et al.Project Dinos I: A joint lensing-dynamics constraint on the deviation from the power law in the mass profile of massive ellipticals.Mon

    Tan, C. Y.et al.Project Dinos I: A joint lensing-dynamics constraint on the deviation from the power law in the mass profile of massive ellipticals.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.530, 1474–1505 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Sheu, W.et al.Project Dinos II: redshift evolution of dark and luminous matter density profiles in strong-lensing elliptical galaxies across 0.1<z<0.9.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.541, 1–27 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    J.853, 25 (2018)

    Wei, C.et al.Full-sky Ray-tracing Simulation of Weak Lensing Using ELU- CID Simulations: Exploring Galaxy Intrinsic Alignment and Cosmic Shear Correlations.Astrophys. J.853, 25 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    S., Becker, M., Reddick, R

    Rozo, E., Rykoff, E. S., Becker, M., Reddick, R. M. & Wechsler, R. H. redMaPPer - IV. Photometric membership identification of red cluster galaxies with 1 per cent precision.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.453, 38–52 (2015). 23 Appendix A Supplementary information A.1 Examples of len...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.