Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

On the Separation Between the Brightest Cluster Galaxy and the Intracluster Light

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An aperture set at a fixed fraction of the virial radius separates the brightest cluster galaxy from intracluster light, recovering both components with only a few percent bias.

desk verdict A clean, novel balance criterion for BCG–ICL apertures, but the headline 0.045 and the recovery numbers are properties of the FEGA25 model, not independent measurements. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17616 v1 pith:MD75F5YN submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.GA

Emanuele Contini , Sukyoung K. Yi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords intraclusterlightbrightestclustergalaxyapertureseparationhalomassscalingvirialradiussemi-analyticmodelICLrecoveryclusters
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 tries to establish that there is an observationally usable, physically motivated aperture radius for separating the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) from the intracluster light (ICL). It argues that the optimal cut is not a fixed physical radius but one that tracks the host halo: roughly 4.5% of the virial radius at a halo mass of 10^14 solar masses. With this aperture, the intrinsic BCG mass is recovered to better than 8% and the ICL mass to within a few percent, with the trends stable out to redshift 2. The method therefore gives observers a simple, halo-scaled rule for interpreting aperture-based BCG and ICL measurements.

What carries the argument

The central object is the balance condition M_BCG,out = M_ICL,in, which defines the aperture where contamination of the extracted ICL by BCG stars cancels the loss of true ICL inside the cut. The system is represented analytically: BCG as a Jaffe bulge plus exponential disk, ICL as an NFW-like profile normalized within the virial radius. Varying the ICL concentration or BCG size shifts the inferred aperture by tens of percent, so the absolute calibration depends on these structural assumptions.

What would settle it

Compare the predicted r_cut/Rvir ≈ 0.045 against a cosmological hydrodynamical simulation in which star particles are classified as BCG or ICL by binding energy or a structure finder, independent of any assumed analytic profile. If the radius that minimizes ICL mass bias differs from 0.045 Rvir by more than the model's own scatter, the calibration fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For each simulated halo, the paper defines the optimal separation radius as the point where the BCG stellar mass falling outside the aperture exactly balances the ICL mass enclosed inside it. At z=0 this optimal radius grows with halo mass as roughly r_cut ∝ M_halo^0.28, close to the virial scaling; when normalized by the virial radius it becomes nearly mass-independent, with r_cut/Rvir ≈ 0.045 at 10^14 M_sun. Both a physical-aperture fit and a halo-scaled fit recover the intrinsic ICL mass with median ratios close to unity and roughly ±3% scatter, and the BCG mass within a few percent. The same behavior holds at z=1 and z=2, with the scaled-aperture normalization staying near 0.05.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calibration rests on the assumption that the analytic profiles used to represent the BCG (Jaffe bulge plus exponential disk) and the ICL (NFW-like) faithfully describe the true three-dimensional stellar distribution in real clusters; the paper's own tests show the inferred aperture shifts by tens of percent when these structural assumptions are varied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observers can replace fixed apertures (30, 50, 70, 100 kpc) with a halo-scaled aperture and remove a major source of mass-dependent bias in measured ICL fractions.
  • At a given halo mass, a single ratio r_cut/Rvir ≈ 0.045 gives a reproducible BCG/ICL boundary that can be compared across surveys and redshifts.
  • The BCG mass recovered inside this aperture is nearly complete, so studies that need both components simultaneously can use the same cut.
  • The stability of the scaling from z=0 to z=2 suggests the same aperture rule can be applied to high-redshift cluster observations where the ICL is faint and hard to separate.
  • Because the aperture is tied to the virial radius, the framework offers a direct link between photometric measurements and the intrinsic halo-scaled components predicted by galaxy formation models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this result is confirmed with independent structural models, a halo-scaled aperture could become a standard 'operational definition' of the BCG/ICL boundary, similar to how R200 or Rvir are standard halo boundaries.
  • The balance-condition logic could be extended to other embedded components, such as the stellar halo vs. disk in isolated galaxies, by replacing the ICL profile with the relevant diffuse component.
  • The paper's own robustness tests imply that the 0.045 normalization is not a universal constant but a function of ICL concentration and BCG size; a testable prediction is that clusters with unusually compact or diffuse ICL will require systematically different cuts.
  • Applying this prescription to real observations would require measuring or estimating the host halo mass first, which may introduce a practical limitation that the idealized model avoids.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an aperture-based method to separate BCG and ICL stellar mass in halos, using the FEGA25 semi-analytic model. For each halo, the intrinsic BCG and ICL masses are distributed using analytic profiles (Jaffe+exponential disk for the BCG, NFW-like for the ICL), and the optimal aperture r_cut is defined by the balance condition M_BCG,out = M_ICL,in (Eq. 4). Fitting these per-halo optimal radii against halo mass yields r_cut ∝ M_halo^0.28 at z=0 and r_cut/Rvir ≈ 0.045 at 10^14 M_sun, with weak mass dependence. The authors then apply the fitted prescriptions and report recovery of intrinsic BCG mass to better than 8% and ICL mass to within ±3% scatter. The analysis is extended to z=1 and z=2, and robustness tests vary ICL concentration, BCG size, B/T, and profile shapes. The paper is clearly written and the analytic integration is straightforward, but the headline quantitative claims are subject to in-sample fitting and to significant sensitivity to the assumed structural model.

Significance. If the calibration were robust and externally validated, the paper would provide a useful, physically motivated aperture definition that connects observational BCG/ICL measurements to intrinsic model components. The main strength is the transparent formulation of the balance condition and the exploration of profile variations and fixed-aperture alternatives. However, the current evidence does not support the abstract-level precision: the recovery statistics are in-sample and partly guaranteed by construction (Eq. 4), and Figure 5 shows that the absolute normalization can shift by roughly a factor of two under plausible variations of the ICL concentration or BCG size. The paper would be strengthened substantially by an out-of-sample validation, for example against a hydrodynamical simulation with an explicit 3D particle-based ICL classification, or by presenting the calibration as explicitly model-dependent with a prescribed uncertainty range. As it stands, the significance is that of a self-consistent model-based prescription, not an empirically pinned universal relation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (4)] The ICL recovery in Figs. 3 and 7 is largely guaranteed by construction. For the per-halo optimal cut, Eq. (4) gives M_ICL_ext = M_ICL_out + M_BCG_out = M_ICL_out + M_ICL_in = M_ICL_true. Thus the reported recovery statistics measure how well the power-law fits reproduce the individually optimized r_cut, not how accurately the method recovers the true ICL mass in an independent system. The abstract's 'better than 8%' and '±3% scatter' should be stated as in-sample fit quality. Please add an out-of-sample test (e.g., split the halo sample by mass or apply to a different SAM/hydro simulation) or explicitly restrict the claim.
  2. [§2.2, Fig. 5] The absolute calibration is highly sensitive to the assumed structure. Varying the ICL concentration c_ICL by a factor 0.6–2.0 changes A_R = r_cut/Rvir at 10^14 M_sun from ~0.030 to ~0.060 (Fig. 5a); rescaling the BCG size produces a similar spread (Fig. 5b). The paper's own robustness test therefore shows that the headline value r_cut/Rvir ≃ 0.045 is uncertain by roughly a factor of two. Since the ICL concentration and BCG size are taken from FEGA25 without direct observational or hydrodynamical validation, the quantitative normalization is not robust at the level implied by the abstract. The qualitative conclusion that r_cut scales with the halo radius is less affected, but the absolute value and its quoted precision need to be presented with this uncertainty.
  3. [§3.1, Figs. 2–4] The power-law fit and the recovery test are performed on the same FEGA25 halos. This in-sample evaluation means the reported scatter (±3% in ICL mass) tests the quality of the r_cut(M_halo) fitting formula, not the transferability of the aperture method to unseen systems. I recommend a train/test split, cross-validation, or validation on a different simulation (e.g., a cosmological hydrodynamical run with explicit 3D ICL classification) to demonstrate that the prescription is not overfit to the particular structural relations of FEGA25.
  4. [§2.2] The paper explicitly excludes projection, PSF convolution, sky subtraction, and surface-brightness limits. This is a clearly stated limitation, but it conflicts with the stated goal of 'connecting observational BCG–ICL measurements to intrinsic model components' (abstract, §4). An aperture that is optimal for intrinsic 3D mass need not be optimal for realistic photometric data; projected light, PSF wings, and depth limits can shift the effective balance radius. Please either discuss how these effects would modify the balance condition or soften the abstract's claim of direct observational applicability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typos: 'outsider' should be 'outside' in several places (e.g., §2.2, Eq. 1, Fig. 1).
  2. [Eq. (8), footnote 2] The equation 'c_ICL = γ Rvir/rs 2' is ambiguous. Please clarify the definition of c_ICL and the role of γ (a parameter between 1 and 3); as written, the symbols appear inconsistent with the standard relation c = R_vir/r_s.
  3. [§3.1, Fig. 2] The slope of the r_cut/Rvir fit is reported as -0.007 per dex. Please specify the statistical uncertainty and whether this slope is consistent with zero, since 'nearly independent of halo mass' is a key conclusion.
  4. [Figures 5 and 8] The panel labels in the robustness figures are small; consider enlarging fonts and using clearer axis labels for A_R.
  5. [References] Brown et al. 2026 is a preprint; if a published version exists, please cite it instead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the aperture definition is an explicit modeling criterion, and the scaling relations are derived consequences of stated analytic profiles, with sensitivity quantified.

full rationale

The paper is transparently model-based: it defines an operational BCG/ICL separation and studies the behavior of that definition within the FEGA25 SAM. Eq. (4) (M_BCG,out = M_ICL,in) is the stated criterion for the per-halo optimal aperture; combined with Eq. (1) it does make the extracted ICL mass equal the true ICL mass by construction, but this is the intended definition of the method, not a hidden prediction. The central quantitative claims (r_cut ∝ M_halo^0.28 and r_cut/Rvir ≈ 0.045) are nontrivial consequences of the assumed Jaffe+exponential BCG and NFW-like ICL profiles and the FEGA25 masses; Fig. 5 explicitly quantifies the sensitivity of the normalization to ICL concentration and BCG size. The recovery tests in Figs. 3, 4, and 7 use global fitted prescriptions, which are not exact by construction, so they provide an in-sample consistency check of whether a simple power law reproduces the individual optimal cuts. Self-citations to FEGA25 supply the input model rather than a circular justification of the output scaling. Model dependence and the omission of observational effects are explicitly acknowledged limitations in Sec. 2.2, making them correctness risks rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the FEGA25 model's inherent BCG/ICL masses and on a set of analytic profile assumptions. All free parameters are tied to this SAM or to imposed profile choices; there are no new physical entities, but the 'optimal aperture' is a new methodological construct. The main unvalidated input is the model itself.

free parameters (4)
  • ICL concentration c_ICL = z=0: ~9.98; z=1: 8.03; z=2: 6.56
    Sets the NFW-like ICL scale radius (c_ICL = γ R_vir/r_s^2). The robustness test varies it by a factor 0.6–2.0; the inferred aperture is most sensitive to this parameter.
  • BCG Jaffe scale radius a = not stated numerically; only a/R_vir ~ 1.75e-3 at z=0 mentioned for z=2 comparison
    Controls the outer BCG envelope and hence the amount of BCG mass outside the aperture; varied in robustness via a 'BCG-size multiplier'.
  • Disk scale length R_d = not specified
    Exponential disk extent contributes to BCG mass at large radii; part of the BCG-size variations.
  • Bulge-to-total ratio B/T = 0.84 (z=0), 0.64 (z=2)
    Imposed in the model; robustness test ranges 0.5–1.0 and shows a weaker but non-negligible effect.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The FEGA25 SAM's intrinsic BCG and ICL masses are the true components of each halo.
    The entire framework treats these model masses as ground truth; no external observational or independent simulation benchmark is used. (Section 2.1)
  • domain assumption The BCG mass is distributed as a Jaffe bulge plus an exponential disk, and the ICL follows an NFW-like profile.
    Used to compute mass fractions inside/outside the aperture. Robustness tests swap profile shapes, but no data constrain the choice. (Section 2.2, Eqs. 6–8)
  • ad hoc to paper The optimal aperture is defined by the balance condition M_BCG,out = M_ICL,in.
    A reasonable but not strictly required definition; a different criterion (e.g., minimizing surface-brightness mismatch) would yield different cuts. (Eq. 4)
  • domain assumption The ICL scale radius is related to the virial radius by c_ICL = γ R_vir/r_s^2 with γ in [1,3].
    Calibrated inside their SAM; this choice drives the concentration sensitivity shown in Figure 5. (Footnote 2)
  • domain assumption Halos below log M_halo,min = 13.0 (YS200) or 14.0 (YS300) are excluded for numerical resolution.
    The sample selection affects the fitted relations; thresholds are simulation-dependent and applied at all redshifts. (Section 2.1)

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Separation Between the Brightest Cluster Galaxy and the Intracluster Light." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MD75F5YN

@misc{pith2026260717616,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Separation Between the Brightest Cluster Galaxy and the Intracluster Light},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MD75F5YN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17616}
}
abstract

We present a model-based framework to define an aperture separation between the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) and the intracluster light (ICL). Using the intrinsic BCG and ICL components predicted by the semi-analytic model \texttt{FEGA25}, we determine, for each halo, the aperture radius that minimizes the bias in the recovered ICL mass. The optimal radius is obtained by balancing the BCG stellar mass lying outside the aperture with the ICL mass enclosed within it. At $z=0$, the optimal aperture in physical units increases with halo mass approximately as $r_{\rm cut}\propto M_{\rm halo}^{0.28}$, close to the expected virial scaling. When expressed in units of the virial radius, the aperture becomes nearly independent of halo mass, with $r_{\rm cut}/R_{\rm vir}\simeq 0.045$ at $10^{14}M_\odot$. Applying the resulting aperture prescriptions, we recover the intrinsic BCG mass to better than 8\% (lowest percentile), while the ICL mass is recovered with median values very close to unity, and an average scatter of $\pm 3\%$. Extending the analysis to $z=1$ and $z=2$, we find that the mass trends remain similar, with the slope and intercept of $r_{\rm cut}/R_{\rm vir}$ that stay stable. Robustness tests show that the inferred aperture is most sensitive to the ICL concentration and BCG size, but the main trends are preserved. Our results provide a physically motivated aperture definition for connecting observational BCG--ICL measurements to intrinsic model components.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17616 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the aperture-based BCG–ICL separation adopted in this work. The system is modelled as the superposition of a central BCG component and a diffuse ICL component extending within the virial ra￾dius, Rvir. The aperture radius, rcut, is allowed to lie within the outer stellar envelope of the BCG. As a result, the ex￾tracted ICL contains the true ICL mass outside the aperture plus the fraction … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optimal aperture radius as a function of halo mass at z = 0. Panel (a) shows the best value of rcut in physical units, while panel (b) shows the corresponding aperture normalized to the virial radius, rcut/Rvir. Solid blue lines show the median relation, and dashed blue lines indicate the 16–84 percentile range. In the left panel, the orange dot-dashed line shows a power-law fit of the form rcut ∝ M0.28 halo , while… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Recovery of the ICL mass at z = 0 obtained by applying the two aperture prescriptions derived from the individual optimal cuts. In each panel, the equation shown at the top specifies how rcut is assigned to each halo as a function of halo mass before measuring the recovered ICL mass. In panel (a), rcut is computed from the best-fitting relation in physical units, log10(rcut/kpc) = 1.615 + 0.284 log10(Mhalo/1014M⊙). … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Recovery of the BCG mass at z = 0 obtained by applying the two aperture prescriptions derived from the individual optimal cuts. In each panel, the equation shown at the top specifies how rcut is assigned to each halo as a function of halo mass before measuring the reco…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Robustness of the optimal aperture with respect to the assumed structural properties of the BCG and ICL components at z = 0. The quantity shown is the normalization of the scaled-aperture relation, rcut/Rvir, evaluated at the pivot halo mass 1014M⊙. The horizontal dash…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Optimal aperture radius as a function of halo mass at z = 1 and z = 2. Panels (a) and (c) show the best value of rcut in physical units for z = 1 and z = 2, respectively, while panels (b) and (d) show the corresponding aperture normalized to the virial radius, rcut/Rvi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Recovery of the ICL and BCG masses at z = 1 and z = 2 obtained by applying the best-fitting aperture prescriptions derived from the individual optimal cuts at each redshift. Panels (a) and (c) show the ICL recovery at z = 1 and z = 2, respectively, while panels (b) and…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Robustness of the scaled optimal aperture at z = 1 and z = 2 with respect to the assumed structural properties of the BCG and ICL components. The quantity shown is AR, defined as the value of rcut/Rvir at the pivot halo mass 1014M⊙. Orange and green curves refer to z =…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 403, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.872283

    Arnaboldi, M., & Gerhard, O. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 403, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.872283

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    L., Bah´ e, Y

    Brough, S., Ahad, S. L., Bah´ e, Y. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3810

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3810 2024

  3. [3]

    J., Martin, G., Pearce, F

    Brown, H. J., Martin, G., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.20175. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20175

    arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    J., Martin, G., Pearce, F

    Brown, H. J., Martin, G., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 431, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2084

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2084 2024

  5. [5]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 2353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv450

    Burke, C., Hilton, M., & Collins, C. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv450

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv450 2015

  6. [6]

    A., et al

    Butler, J., Martin, G., Hatch, N. A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf615

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf615 2025

  7. [7]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  8. [8]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 2692, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1456

    Chen, X., Zu, Y., Shao, Z., & Shan, H. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2692, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1456

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1456 2022

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 60, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9030060

    Contini, E. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 60, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9030060

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Z., & Gu, Q

    Contini, E., Chen, H. Z., & Gu, Q. 2022, ApJ, 928, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac57c4

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, 3787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2174

    Contini, E., De Lucia, G., Villalobos, ´A., & Borgani, S. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2174

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    Contini, E., Jeon, S., Rhee, J., Han, S., & Yi, S. K. 2023, ApJ, 958, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfd25

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Contini, E., Rhee, J., Han, S., Jeon, S., & Yi, S. K. 2024a, AJ, 167, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0894

    doi

  6. [14]

    Contini, E., Seo, C., Rhee, J., Jeon, S., & Yi, S. K. 2025a, ApJS, 281, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae060f 14Contini and Yi 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1Recovered / true mass (a) rcut = 30 kpc Mext ICL/Mtrue ICL Mext BCG/Mtrue BCG 16-84% Perfect recovery (b) rcut = 50 kpc 13.25 13.50 13.7...

    doi

  7. [15]

    Contini, E., Spavone, M., Ragusa, R., Iodice, E., & Yi, S. K. 2024b, A&A, 692, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452741

    doi

  8. [16]

    Contini, E., Spavone, M., Ragusa, R., Iodice, E., & Yi, S. K. 2026, A&A, 708, A360, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557921

    2026 doi

  9. [17]

    K., & Jeon, S

    Contini, E., Yi, S. K., & Jeon, S. 2024c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.01560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.01560

    doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    K., Jeon, S., & Rhee, J

    Contini, E., Yi, S. K., Jeon, S., & Rhee, J. 2024d, ApJS, 274, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad70ac

    doi

  11. [19]

    K., & Kang, X

    Contini, E., Yi, S. K., & Kang, X. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 932, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1518

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    K., Rhee, J., & Jeon, S

    Contini, E., Yi, S. K., Rhee, J., & Jeon, S. 2025b, ApJS, 279, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/addb4b

    doi

  13. [21]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 2897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac275

    Contreras-Santos, A., Knebe, A., Pearce, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac275

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, A&A, 683, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348474

    Contreras-Santos, A., Knebe, A., Cui, W., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348474

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    H., Zabludoff, A., Zaritsky, D., & Bradaˇ c, M

    DeMaio, T., Gonzalez, A. H., Zabludoff, A., Zaritsky, D., & Bradaˇ c, M. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv033

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    H., Zabludoff, A., et al

    DeMaio, T., Gonzalez, A. H., Zabludoff, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3009, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2946

    2018 doi

  17. [26]

    1965, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata, 5, 87

    Einasto, J. 1965, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata, 5, 87

    1965

  18. [27]

    2021, A&A, 649, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038419

    Ellien, A., Slezak, E., Martinet, N., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038419

    2021 doi

  19. [28]

    Freeman, K. C. 1970, ApJ, 160, 811, doi: 10.1086/150474

    1970 doi

  20. [29]

    B., Zhang, Y., Ogando, R

    Golden-Marx, J. B., Zhang, Y., Ogando, R. L. C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf277

    2025 doi

  21. [30]

    H., George, T., Connor, T., et al

    Gonzalez, A. H., George, T., Connor, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2117 BCG and ICL Separation15

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/14

    Zaritsky, D. 2013, ApJ, 778, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/14

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    H., Zabludoff, A

    Gonzalez, A. H., Zabludoff, A. I., & Zaritsky, D. 2005, ApJ, 618, 195, doi: 10.1086/425896

    2005 doi

  24. [33]

    Loubser, S. I. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx340

    2017 doi

  25. [34]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    1990 doi

  26. [35]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b30

    Iodice, E., Spavone, M., Cantiello, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b30

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

    1983, MNRAS, 202, 995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.995

    Jaffe, W. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.995

    1983 doi

  28. [37]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2eaa Jim´ enez-Teja, Y., Dupke, R., Ben ´ ıtez, N., et al

    Jeon, S., Contini, E., Han, S., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2eaa Jim´ enez-Teja, Y., Dupke, R., Ben ´ ıtez, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab70f

    2026 doi

  29. [38]

    Joo, H., & Jee, M. J. 2023, Nature, 613, 37, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05396-4

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    2021, ApJS, 252, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abcda6

    Kluge, M., Bender, R., Riffeser, A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abcda6

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/48 Mart ´ ınez-Lombilla, C., Brough, S., Montes, M., et al

    Martel, H., Barai, P., & Brito, W. 2012, ApJ, 757, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/48 Mart ´ ınez-Lombilla, C., Brough, S., Montes, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3119

    2012 doi

  32. [41]

    J., G´ omez, F

    Mayes, R. J., G´ omez, F. A., & Monachesi, A. 2026, A&A, 708, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556019

    2026 doi

  33. [42]

    C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J., & Morrison, H

    Mihos, J. C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J., & Morrison, H. 2005, ApJL, 631, L41, doi: 10.1086/497030

    2005 doi

  34. [43]

    C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J

    Mihos, J. C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/16

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    2006, ApJL, 652, L89, doi: 10.1086/510236

    Monaco, P., Murante, G., Borgani, S., & Fontanot, F. 2006, ApJL, 652, L89, doi: 10.1086/510236

    2006 doi

  36. [45]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, 2162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1094

    Avila-Reese, V., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 2162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1094

    2025 doi

  37. [46]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 308, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01616-z

    Montes, M. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 308, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01616-z

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/137

    Montes, M., & Trujillo, I. 2014, ApJ, 794, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/137

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2847

    Montes, M., & Trujillo, I. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2847

    2018 doi

  40. [50]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563, doi: 10.1086/177173

    1996 doi

  41. [51]

    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

  42. [52]

    2014, A&A, 565, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323251

    Presotto, V., Girardi, M., Nonino, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 565, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323251

    2014 doi

  43. [53]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 936, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16786.x

    Puchwein, E., Springel, V., Sijacki, D., & Dolag, K. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 936, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16786.x

    2010

  44. [54]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 852810, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.852810

    Ragusa, R., Mirabile, M., Spavone, M., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 852810, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.852810

    2022

  45. [55]

    2023, A&A, 670, L20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245530

    Ragusa, R., Iodice, E., Spavone, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245530

    2023 doi

  46. [56]

    Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., & Hoffmann, T. L. 2017, Galaxies, 5, 49, doi: 10.3390/galaxies5030049

    2017 doi

  47. [57]

    S., Mihos, J

    Rudick, C. S., Mihos, J. C., Frey, L. H., & McBride, C. K. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1518, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1518

    2009 doi

  48. [58]

    S., Mihos, J

    Rudick, C. S., Mihos, J. C., & McBride, C. K. 2011, ApJ, 732, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/48

    2011 doi

  49. [59]

    S., Graham, A

    Seigar, M. S., Graham, A. W., & Jerjen, H. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 1575, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11899.x

    2007

  50. [60]

    2011, ApJ, 733, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/87

    Shi, Y., Helou, G., Yan, L., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/87

    2011 doi

  51. [61]

    2006, MNRAS, 369, 958, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10352.x

    Sommer-Larsen, J. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 958, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10352.x

    2006

  52. [62]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6e9

    Spavone, M., Iodice, E., Capaccioli, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6e9

    2018 doi

  53. [63]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd78

    Tang, L., Lin, W., Cui, W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd78

    2018 doi

  54. [64]

    V., Hatch, N

    Werner, S. V., Hatch, N. A., Matharu, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 91, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1410

    2023 doi

  55. [65]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0dfd

    Zhang, Y., Yanny, B., Palmese, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0dfd

    2019 doi

  56. [66]

    2005, MNRAS, 358, 949, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08817.x

    Brinkmann, J. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 949, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08817.x

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.