Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 97 references

A Comparative Study of Halo Mass Estimates from Group Catalogs and Lensing Signals

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using stacked weak lensing, this paper finds catalog halo masses track lensing masses linearly, with redMaPPer closest, Yang21 reasonable except at low mass, and Zou21 systematically high.

desk verdict New side-by-side lensing calibration of RM, Y21, and Z21 group catalogs with a novel center-split diagnostic; Z21 overestimation rests on an unmeasured boost factor. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20294 v1 pith:FASFX2FO submitted 2025-07-27 astro-ph.CO

Xinyue Chen , Weiwei Xu , Ran Li , Huanyuan Shan , Ji Yao , Chunxiang Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxygroupshalomassestimatesweakgravitationallensinggalaxy-galaxyredMaPPermass-richnessrelationgroupcatalogsmiscentering
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 asks how far catalog-assigned dark matter halo masses can be trusted, using weak gravitational lensing as an independent scale. It stacks galaxy-galaxy lensing signals around groups from three catalogs built by different methods and fits each stacked profile to extract a lensing mass. The authors claim that in all cases the catalog mass and the lensing mass are linearly related, and that the redMaPPer catalog agrees best, especially at lower redshift. Yang21 is the only catalog that reaches low-mass groups and is broadly reasonable except in its lowest mass bin, while Zou21 systematically overestimates halo mass. Cross-matching RM and Y21 shows that the accuracy of Y21's masses depends on whether the two catalogs pick the same central galaxy.

What carries the argument

The measuring instrument is stacked galaxy-galaxy lensing. The excess surface mass density $\Delta\Sigma(R)$ is computed from the tangential shear of DECaLS DR8 source galaxies behind group lenses, with jackknife covariance, boost-factor, photo-$z$ dilution, and multiplicative shear-bias corrections. Each stacked profile is fit with a model combining a Navarro-Frenk-White main halo, a miscentered halo term, and a two-halo term, with free halo mass, concentration, miscentering length, miscentering fraction, and multiplicative bias, and with concentration priors anchored to an external mass-concentration relation. Catalog masses are converted to a common $M_{200c}$ definition and compared with the lensing mass through a linear relation.

What would settle it

Compute the Z21 boost factor $B(\theta)$ using a random lens catalog matched to Z21, or use spectroscopic redshifts to remove physically associated source-lens pairs, then refit the stacked profiles. If $B(\theta)$ is appreciably above unity at small radii, the inferred lensing masses rise and the reported Z21 overestimate is reduced or reversed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a ranking and a diagnosis. In matched mass bins, the median of $\log_{10}(M_{200c,\mathrm{cat}}) - \log_{10}(M_{200c,\mathrm{lens}})$ is $0.013$ dex for RM, $0.118$ dex for Y21, and $0.297$ dex for Z21, so redMaPPer's mass-richness estimates sit closest to the lensing scale, Yang21 runs moderately high, and Zou21 overestimates by about $0.3$ dex. RM's lower-redshift bins match lensing better than its higher-redshift bins, indicating redshift-dependent calibration is needed. In samples cross-matched between RM and Y21, RM stays within about $0.05$ dex of the lensing mass in every matching scenario, whereas Y21 underestimates masses for groups whose central galaxy agrees with RM and overestimates for groups with a different center or found only by Y21; the paper attributes this to stronger projection and miscentering effects in the Y21 abundance-matching assignment.

Load-bearing premise

For the Zou21 comparison, the load-bearing premise is that the missing boost-factor correction would not change the conclusion that Z21 overestimates halo mass; if the boost factor is non-negligible, the lensing masses shift upward and the overestimate shrinks or disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users of the Zou21 catalog should expect its masses to run roughly $0.3$ dex high against a lensing scale and should apply a mass-dependent calibration before using them for cosmology.
  • The redMaPPer mass-richness relation needs a redshift-dependent calibration: low-redshift bins agree with lensing, while higher-redshift bins deviate.
  • Yang21's low-mass coverage is unique and useful, but its lowest mass bin and any sample where the central galaxy is ambiguous should be treated as biased.
  • Group-catalog comparisons should separate same-center and different-center cross-matches, because Y21's mass bias flips sign between the two cases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a non-negligible boost factor for Z21 is measured with a random catalog, the reported Z21 overestimate could shrink or reverse; this is the paper's own caveat turned into a testable prediction.
  • Re-running the Yang21 abundance-matching pipeline using redMaPPer-determined centers would directly test whether the opposite-sign biases in same-center and different-center samples are caused by central-galaxy misassignment.
  • Fitting a redshift-dependent mass-richness relation of the form used here to a lensing-calibrated sample could turn the observed RM redshift trend into a recalibrated cluster mass function for cosmology.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper compares halo mass estimates from three galaxy group catalogs—RM (redMaPPer), Yang21, and Zou21—using stacked weak-lensing signals from DECaLS DR8. The authors bin each catalog in mass-proxy and redshift, measure excess surface density profiles with swot, and fit an NFW plus miscentering plus two-halo model with MCMC, including multiplicative shear bias, photo-z dilution, and boost-factor corrections for RM and Y21. They report a linear correlation between catalog and lensing masses, with RM showing the best agreement, Y21 reasonable except at the lowest mass bin, and Z21 overestimating halo mass. Cross-matching RM and Y21 reveals that Y21 underestimates mass when it shares the central galaxy with RM and overestimates when centers differ or the group is unique to Y21. The paper explicitly acknowledges several caveats, most notably the missing boost factor for Z21.

Significance. Comparative catalog validation against lensing is a useful contribution for cluster cosmology and group physics, and the paper adopts a standard, well-established analysis pipeline with jackknife covariances, MCMC parameter estimation, and explicit treatment of several systematics. The cross-matching analysis and the distinction between same-center and different-center subsamples are constructive. However, the central ranking of the catalogs, particularly the claim that Z21 overestimates halo mass, relies on a correction that is not measured, and the linear-fit parameters are quoted without uncertainties. The quantitative strength of the conclusions is therefore not yet fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Appendix B, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The conclusion that Z21 'systematically overestimates' halo mass (Sec. 4.3, Fig. 9, median offset 0.297 dex) is load-bearing but is based on lensing masses measured without the boost-factor correction in Eq. (9). The boost factor multiplies Delta-Sigma at small radii, and its omission biases the inferred Z21 lensing mass low. The paper states in Appendix B that the Z21 boost factor is 'expected to be smaller than Y21' but presents no measurement or upper bound. If the true boost factor is non-negligible, the Z21 lensing masses would shift upward and the offset could shrink or vanish. Please estimate the Z21 boost factor, for example by constructing a random catalog, using the Y21 boost factor as a template, or forward-modeling the contamination, and propagate the correction into the inferred lensing mass. At minimum, show the maximum plausible boost correction and demonstrate that the claimed Z21 overestimation remains significant under that correction.
  2. [§4.3, Eq. (18), Table 4] The linear correlation is one of the paper's central results, but the best-fit parameters A and B are reported without uncertainties, and the text states that 'Y21(m1)' is excluded because of 'obvious deviation' without a quantitative criterion. The fits use only six or seven bins, and for Y21 the three high-mass bins (m4-1, m4-2, m4-3) cover a narrow mass range, so the effective number of independent constraints is small. Please report the uncertainties on A and B, describe the fitting procedure (weighting, covariance, treatment of x-axis errors), and show that the correlation and slope are robust to including Y21(m1) and to alternative binnings. The shaded 1-sigma regions in Fig. 9 also need a definition or a reference to the table entries.
  3. [§4.3] The headline offsets, quoted as median log10(M200c,cat.) - log10(M200c,lens.) = 0.013 for RM, 0.118 for Y21, and 0.297 for Z21, are given without error bars. Because the individual lensing masses have MCMC uncertainties and the bins overlap in redshift and mass, these offsets need uncertainties, for example from bootstrap resampling of the bins or from the posterior distributions, to establish whether the differences between catalogs are significant. Without this, statements such as 'RM shows the best agreement' and 'Z21 systematically overestimates' are not quantitatively supported.
  4. [§4.1, §4.3, Fig. 10] For the unmatched samples, Y21(un.) is selected to have M > 10^14 M_sun/h while RM(un.) has no mass cut. This asymmetry could drive the conclusion that Y21 overestimates mass for unique groups, since mass-dependent biases are known to vary with mass. Please either match the mass ranges of the two unmatched samples or demonstrate that the conclusion is unchanged when consistent cuts are applied. In addition, the dichotomy between Y21 under- and overestimation in the cross-matched samples rests on only four points in the left panel of Fig. 10; please provide numerical values and error bars for the plotted offsets and a statistical test of the difference.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that Zou21 systematically overestimates halo mass without the caveat, acknowledged in Sec. 4.3 and the Conclusion, that this is evaluated in the absence of a boost-factor correction; please add a qualifier.
  2. [§3.2 and §4.2] Section 3.2 says the model has four parameters (Mvir, c, Rmis, pcen), while Sec. 4.2 says it has five free parameters, adding the multiplicative bias m; please reconcile the two statements.
  3. [Table 1] The row labeled 'Y2(m3z2)' should be 'Y21(m3z2)'.
  4. [Fig. 9, Table 4] The shaded regions around the best-fit lines in Fig. 9 are not described in the text; if they represent 1-sigma uncertainties from the linear fit, the corresponding errors on A and B should be given in Table 4.
  5. [§4.3, Fig. 9] The 'Z21(X-ray/SZ)' sample is plotted in Fig. 9 but is not defined in the binning table or in the fitting section; state how this subsample is selected and how its lensing mass is measured.
  6. [Eq. (12)] The notation in the fbias definition, Sigma_crit,lp and Sigma_crit,ls, should be clarified; the subscript 'lp' appears to refer to the lens photometric redshift and 'ls' to the true source redshift, but this is not stated.
  7. [References] There are two entries for Coupon et al. (2012) with inconsistent author spellings ('Kilalinger' in one and 'Kilbinger' in the other), and the Zwicky et al. (1968) reference is incomplete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: lensing masses are independently fitted from shear data and compared against externally calibrated catalog masses.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is between catalog halo masses and lensing-derived halo masses that are not constructed from the catalog masses. The lensing masses come from an MCMC fit to stacked tangential shear profiles using an NFW profile with miscentering and two-halo terms (Eq. 7), with priors on concentration taken from Shan et al. (2017), a published observational relation that is external to this paper's fitted values and not the quantity being tested. The catalog masses are taken from three independent, externally constructed catalogs: redMaPPer's richness-based relation, Yang21's abundance matching, and Zou21's luminosity calibration (Eqs. 16 and 17). The observed linear correlation (Eq. 18) is a descriptive fit to the resulting scatter plot, not a predicted quantity derived from the same fitted parameters. The acknowledged omission of a boost-factor correction for Z21 (Sec. 4.3 and Appendix B) is a stated systematic uncertainty that could shift the inferred Z21 lensing masses, but it is a limitation in the external measurement, not a circularity in the logic. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no load-bearing claim depends on a self-citation chain. The comparison is therefore self-contained and not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison is empirical and rests on the lensing model, the concentration priors, the ignored Z21 boost factor, and the mass conversion conventions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Per-bin lensing model parameters (log10 M200c,lens, c, Rmis, pcen, m) = Table 3 lists values for 22 bins
    The lensing mass, concentration, miscentering length, miscentering fraction, and multiplicative bias are simultaneously fitted to the stacked shear profiles. The fitted masses are the reference against which catalog masses are compared, so the central claim depends on these fits.
  • Linear relation slope A and intercept B = RM A=0.97 B=0.45; Y21 A=0.93 B=0.77; Z21 A=1.71 B=-10.29 (Table 4)
    The linear correlation between catalog and lensing mass is quantified by these fitted parameters, but no uncertainties are reported.
  • Bin boundaries in richness, mass proxy, and redshift = Table 1
    The division into mass and redshift bins is chosen by hand to produce comparable sample sizes; the binning affects the slope of the linear relation and the median offsets.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The stacked weak lensing signal is described by Eq. 7: pcen*NFW + (1-pcen)*miscentered NFW + 2-halo term
    The standard model for stacked lensing; if the miscentering model is wrong, the recovered masses are biased. Invoked in Sec. 3.2.
  • domain assumption The concentration prior from Shan et al. (2017) is applicable to all samples
    A Gaussian prior on c is set from Shan et al. (2017) for every bin (Table A1); if the mass-concentration relation is incorrect for these group samples, the fitted mass may be biased. Invoked in Sec. 4.2 and Appendix A.
  • ad hoc to paper The boost factor for Z21 is small enough to be ignored
    The paper does not compute a boost factor for Z21 because no random catalog is available, and states in Appendix B that it is expected to be smaller than for Y21. The authors admit this may cause a slight low bias in lensing mass (Sec. 4.3), which directly affects the Z21 overestimation conclusion.
  • domain assumption Jackknife with 64 subregions of equal area yields a reliable covariance matrix for the 10 radial bins
    The covariance is used to fit the lensing model; large-scale systematics not captured by jackknife would underestimate errors. Invoked in Sec. 3.1.
  • domain assumption The mass conversions from richness, M180, and M500 to M200c via Colossus are accurate
    Catalog masses are converted to a common definition using NFW with Colossus (Sec. 4.3); systematic errors in this conversion shift the x-axis of the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comparative Study of Halo Mass Estimates from Group Catalogs and Lensing Signals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FASFX2FO

@misc{pith2026250720294,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comparative Study of Halo Mass Estimates from Group Catalogs and Lensing Signals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FASFX2FO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20294}
}
read the original abstract

We compare halo mass estimates from three galaxy group catalogs (redMaPPer, Yang21, and Zou21) with those derived from gravitational lensing measurements. Each catalog employs distinct methodologies, including mass-richness relations, abundance matching, and luminosity-based calibration. A linear correlation is observed between catalog-estimated and lensing-derived masses. The redMaPPer catalog shows the best agreement, especially for lower-redshift groups, with minor deviations in higher-redshift bins. Yang21 is the only catalog containing low mass groups, which gives a reasonably good mass estimation, except for the lowest mass bin. Cross-matched groups between redMaPPer and Yang21 reveal the former catalog provides more accurate mass estimation, while the Yang21 makes under-estimation of halo mass for those sharing the central galaxy with redMaPPer and over-estimation of halo mass for those with different center determination with redMaPPer and for the unique Yang21 groups. These findings emphasize the importance of redshift-dependent calibration and refined group definitions for accurate mass estimation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, Physical Review D, 102, 023509

    Abbott, T., Aguena, M., Alarcon, A., et al. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 023509

    2020

  2. [2]

    H., Klypin, A., & Wilson, G

    Abdullah, M. H., Klypin, A., & Wilson, G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 90 20 Chen et al

    2020

  3. [3]

    Abell, G. O. 1958, ApJS, 3, 211, doi: 10.1086/190036

    doi:10.1086/190036 1958

  4. [4]

    O., Corwin, Jr., H

    Abell, G. O., Corwin, Jr., H. G., & Olowin, R. P. 1989, ApJS, 70, 1, doi: 10.1086/191333

    doi:10.1086/191333 1989

  5. [5]

    A., Almeida, A., et al

    Ahumada, R., Prieto, C. A., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 3

    2020

  6. [6]

    W., Evrard, A

    Allen, S. W., Evrard, A. E., & Mantz, A. B. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 409, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514 2011

  7. [7]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17674

    Anbajagane, D., Chang, C., Zhang, Z., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17674

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 517, A92

    Arnaud, M., Pratt, G., Piffaretti, R., et al. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 517, A92

    2010

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 1598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz090

    Bellagamba, F., Sereno, M., Roncarelli, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz090

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    1997, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9712115

    Bernardeau, F. 1997, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9712115

    1997 arXiv

  3. [11]

    D., Burleigh, K., Dey, A., et al

    Blum, R. D., Burleigh, K., Dey, A., et al. 2016, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts# 228, Vol. 228, 317–01

    2016

  4. [12]

    E., et al

    Bocquet, S., Grandis, S., Bleem, L. E., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 083509, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083509

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Churazov, E

    Bykov, A. M., Churazov, E. M., Ferrari, C., et al. 2015, SSRv, 188, 141, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0129-4

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    C., More, S., et al

    Cacciato, M., Van Den Bosch, F. C., More, S., et al. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 394, 929

    2009

  7. [15]

    2011, PhRvD, 84, 043516, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.043516

    Challinor, A., & Lewis, A. 2011, PhRvD, 84, 043516, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.043516

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    N., Klein, M., Mohr, J., & Bocquet, S

    Chiu, I. N., Klein, M., Mohr, J., & Bocquet, S. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad957

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    N., Ghirardini, V., Liu, A., et al

    Chiu, I. N., Ghirardini, V., Liu, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141755

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 328, 1039

    Colless, M., Dalton, G., Maddox, S., et al. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 328, 1039

    2001

  11. [19]

    2021, Physical Review D, 103, 043522

    Costanzi, M., Saro, A., Bocquet, S., et al. 2021, Physical Review D, 103, 043522

    2021

  12. [20]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 542, A5

    Coupon, J., Kilbinger, M., McCracken, H., et al. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 542, A5

    2012

  13. [21]

    J., et al

    Coupon, J., Kilalinger, M., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117625 Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Abbott, T., Abdalla, F. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw641 De Haan, T., Benson, B., Bleem, L., et al. 2016, The...

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 168

    2019

  15. [23]

    2018, ApJS, 239, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    Diemer, B. 2018, ApJS, 239, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Schaye, J., Kay, S

    Duffy, A. R., Schaye, J., Kay, S. T., & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 390, L64

    2008

  17. [25]

    J., & Hu, W

    Eisenstein, D. J., & Hu, W. 1998, ApJ, 496, 605, doi: 10.1086/305424

    1998 doi

  18. [26]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    2013

  19. [27]

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

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

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    S., & White, S

    Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. 2012, Annalen der Physik, 524, 507

    2012

  21. [29]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 4312

    Gatti, M., Sheldon, E., Amon, A., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 4312

    2021

  22. [30]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08458, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.08458

    Ghirardini, V., Bulbul, E., Artis, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08458, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.08458

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 687, A178

    Grandis, S., Ghirardini, V., Bocquet, S., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 687, A178

    2024

  24. [32]

    T., Thion, A., et al

    Hamana, T., Colombi, S. T., Thion, A., et al. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330, 365

    2002

  25. [33]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 1454

    Hildebrandt, H., Viola, M., Heymans, C., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 1454

    2017

  26. [34]

    2012, JCAP, 1204, 027, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/027

    Howlett, C., Lewis, A., Hall, A., & Challinor, A. 2012, JCAP, 1204, 027, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/027

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    E., Sheldon, E

    Johnston, D. E., Sheldon, E. S., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2007, arXiv preprint arXiv:0709.1159

    2007 arXiv

  28. [36]

    2025, A&A, 695, A216, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449599

    Kleinebreil, F., Grandis, S., Schrabback, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A216, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449599

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    1982, Biological cybernetics, 43, 59

    Kohonen, T. 1982, Biological cybernetics, 43, 59

    1982

  30. [38]

    W., & Schlegel, D

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., & Schlegel, D. J. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 36

    2016

  31. [39]

    U., Blake, C., Saulder, C., et al

    Lange, J. U., Blake, C., Saulder, C., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 57, doi: 10.33232/001c.121260

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2010, ApJ, 709, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/97

    Leauthaud, A., Finoguenov, A., Kneib, J.-P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/97

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    F., Marulli, F., Moscardini, L., et al

    Lesci, G. F., Marulli, F., Moscardini, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040194

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    2002, PhRvD, 66, 103511, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.103511

    Lewis, A., & Bridle, S. 2002, PhRvD, 66, 103511, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.103511

    2002 doi

  35. [43]

    2000, ApJ, 538, 473, doi: 10.1086/309179

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A. 2000, ApJ, 538, 473, doi: 10.1086/309179

    2000 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcda3

    Li, H., Zhang, J., Liu, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcda3

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 394, 1016

    Li, R., Mo, H., Fan, Z., et al. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 394, 1016

    2009

  38. [46]

    J., Fan, Z., Yang, X., & Bosch, F

    Li, R., Mo, H. J., Fan, Z., Yang, X., & Bosch, F. C. v. d. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt133

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    J., et al

    Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Cool, R. J., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 372, 758 comparison of group catalogs 21

    2006

  40. [48]

    N., Gruen, D., et al

    McClintock, T., Varga, T. N., Gruen, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 1352

    2019

  41. [49]

    2014, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, Vol

    Moraes, B., Kneib, J.-P., Leauthaud, A., et al. 2014, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, Vol. 44, 202–203

    2014

  42. [50]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 3240

    Nakajima, R., Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., & et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3240

    2012

  43. [51]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 493

    1997

  44. [52]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 1643

    Phriksee, A., Jullo, E., Limousin, M., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 1643

    2020

  45. [53]

    Planck, P. C. 2016, Astron. Astrophys, 594, A24 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    2019, Space Science Reviews, 215, 1

    Pratt, G., Arnaud, M., Biviano, A., et al. 2019, Space Science Reviews, 215, 1

    2019

  47. [55]

    2014, science, 344, 1492

    Rodriguez, A., & Laio, A. 2014, science, 344, 1492

    2014

  48. [56]

    S., Koester, B

    Rozo, E., Rykoff, E. S., Koester, B. P., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 601

    2009

  49. [57]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 178

    Rykoff, E., Koester, B., Rozo, E., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 178

    2012

  50. [58]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 104

    Rykoff, E., Rozo, E., Busha, M., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 104

    2014

  51. [59]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 224, 1

    Rykoff, E., Rozo, E., Hollowood, D., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 224, 1

    2016

  52. [60]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 104

    Shan, H., Kneib, J.-P., Li, R., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 104

    2017

  53. [61]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 3103

    Simet, M., McClintock, T., Mandelbaum, R., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 3103

    2017

  54. [62]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 3827

    Singh, S., Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Slosar, A., & Vazquez Gonzalez, J. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 3827

    2017

  55. [63]

    E., Peacock, J

    Smith, R. E., Peacock, J. A., Jenkins, A., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1311, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06503.x

    2003

  56. [64]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3548, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac138

    Sun, Z., Yao, J., Dong, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3548, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac138

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 3548

    Sun, Z., Yao, J., Dong, F., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 3548

    2022

  58. [66]

    2012, ApJ, 761, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/152

    Oguri, M. 2012, ApJ, 761, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/152

    2012 doi

  59. [67]

    2021, Physical review letters, 126, 141301

    To, C., Krause, E., Rozo, E., et al. 2021, Physical review letters, 126, 141301

    2021

  60. [68]

    L., et al

    Tomooka, P., Rozo, E., Wagoner, E. L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2841

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    2020, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 28, 7

    Umetsu, K. 2020, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 28, 7

    2020

  62. [70]

    2014, ApJ, 795, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/163

    Umetsu, K., Medezinski, E., Nonino, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/163

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    N., DeRose, J., Gruen, D., et al

    Varga, T. N., DeRose, J., Gruen, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 2511

    2019

  64. [72]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 692, 1060

    Vikhlinin, A., Kravtsov, A., Burenin, R., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 692, 1060

    2009

  65. [73]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 4020

    Wang, C., Li, R., Gao, L., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 4020

    2018

  66. [74]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 2728

    Wang, C., Li, R., Shan, H., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 2728

    2024

  67. [75]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 161

    Wang, J., Yang, X., Zhang, J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 161

    2022

  68. [76]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 199, 34

    Wen, Z., Han, J., & Liu, F. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 199, 34

    2012

  69. [77]

    L., & Han, J

    Wen, Z. L., & Han, J. L. 2015, ApJ, 807, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/178

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    L., Han, J

    Wen, Z. L., Han, J. L., & Yang, F. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 343, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3189

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    D., & Rees, M

    White, S. D., & Rees, M. J. 1978, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 183, 341

    1978

  72. [80]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 637, A100

    Heymans, C. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 637, A100

    2020

  73. [81]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 4471

    Wu, H.-Y., Costanzi, M., To, C.-H., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 4471

    2022

  74. [82]

    2023, Science China

    Xu, H., Li, H., Zhang, J., et al. 2023, Science China

    2023

  75. [83]

    2024, A&A, 691, A300, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451064

    Xu, W., Jiang, L., Li, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A300, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451064

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 157

    Xu, W., Shan, H., Li, R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 157

    2024

  77. [85]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1b9e

    Xu, W., Shan, H., Li, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1b9e

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    C., et al

    Yang, X., Mo, H., Van den Bosch, F. C., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, 153

    2007

  79. [87]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 143

    Yang, X., Xu, H., He, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 143

    2021

  80. [88]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 135

    Yao, J., Shan, H., Zhang, P., Kneib, J.-P., & Jullo, E. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 135

    2020

  81. [89]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson Jr, J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson Jr, J. E., et al. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 120, 1579

    2000

  82. [90]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 803, 46

    Yu, Y., Zhang, P., Lin, W., & Cui, W. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 803, 46

    2015

  83. [91]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 511, L30 22 Chen et al

    Zhang, Y., & Annis, J. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 511, L30 22 Chen et al

    2022

  84. [92]

    A., Mao, Y.-Y., et al

    Zhou, R., Newman, J. A., Mao, Y.-Y., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3764

    2021 doi

  85. [93]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 242, 8

    Zou, H., Gao, J., Zhou, X., & Kong, X. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 242, 8

    2019

  86. [94]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 253, 56

    Zou, H., Gao, J., Xu, X., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 253, 56

    2021

  87. [95]

    Zu, Y., Mandelbaum, R., Simet, M., Rozo, E., & Rykoff, E. S. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1264

    2017 doi

  88. [96]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 5117

    Zu, Y., Shan, H., Zhang, J., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 5117

    2021

  89. [97]

    1968, Pasadena: California Institute of Technology (CIT

    Zwicky, F., Herzog, E., & Wild, P. 1968, Pasadena: California Institute of Technology (CIT

    1968

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.