Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

The intracluster light as an estimator of the cluster mass profile

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The intracluster light alone, converted through a simulation-calibrated power law, recovers a galaxy cluster's total mass profile.

desk verdict A genuinely useful extension of the ICL-mass idea, but the missing deprojection step means the Perseus mass profile and its comparison to other tracers are on shaky ground. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05404 v2 pith:M7PHJ23Q submitted 2025-07-07 astro-ph.GA

Isaac Alonso Asensio , Ana Contreras-Santos This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords intraclusterlightgalaxyclustermassprofilesC-EAGLEsimulationsPerseusHubbleFrontierFieldspower-lawestimatorEuclidobservationsICLsurfacebrightness
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

This paper proposes that the intracluster light (ICL)—the diffuse starlight from stars stripped out of their galaxies—can serve as a standalone tracer of a galaxy cluster's total mass distribution. In the C-EAGLE simulations, the ratio of projected ICL stellar mass to projected total matter density follows a power law, and the authors calibrate that relation with realistic scatter using 30 simulated clusters at z<0.5. Applying it to the Euclid observations of Perseus recovers M200 = 2.4(+1.3/-0.9) × $10^{15}$ solar masses, matching velocity-dispersion estimates while sitting roughly twice the X-ray value. The paper concludes that ICL profiles alone can give cluster mass profiles whenever the observed ICL steepens past a logarithmic slope of about -3; shallower profiles leave the recovered mass formally unbounded.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the power-law ratio between the projected intracluster stellar mass density Σ⋆ (including the brightest central galaxy) and the projected total matter density Σtot, written as log10 Σtot = log10 Σ⋆ - a log10 r - b. It is calibrated from three projections of each of 30 C-EAGLE clusters at several redshifts below z = 0.5, with the scatter described by a multivariate normal distribution in (a, b) rather than the unrealistically small errors of the earlier fit. The same relation also defines the method's practical limit: because total mass within radius r grows as Σtot(r) $r^{2}$, a power-law extrapolation of an observed ICL profile with logarithmic slope n only gives a finite cluster mass if the slope is steeper than about -3.1, which is exactly why Perseus works and the shallower HFF profiles do not.

What would settle it

For a cluster with an ICL profile measured beyond r200, compare the projected total mass profile predicted by the calibrated power law with an independent weak-lensing shear profile: a deviation larger than the quoted covariance, or an M200 mismatch beyond 2σ, would falsify the central claim. A second test is to apply the calibration to matched samples of relaxed and merging clusters at the same redshift and mass and check whether the recovered masses scatter symmetrically around the lensing values; a systematic offset with dynamical state would indicate the relation is not universal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the projected intracluster stellar mass density and the projected total matter density are related by log10 Σtot = log10 Σ⋆ - a log10 r - b, with the simulation-calibrated parameters a = -1.139 and b = 0.316, plus a covariance matrix that encodes cluster-to-cluster and projection scatter. This turns any observed ICL+BCG surface-density profile into a total mass profile without lensing, X-ray, or dynamical data. The paper shows the method works for Perseus—recovering M200 = 2.4(+1.3/-0.9) × $10^{15}$ solar masses in agreement with velocity-dispersion estimates—and fails in a controlled way for the four Hubble Frontier Fields clusters, whose shallow ICL slopes force power-law extrapolations that leave the mass unbounded. It presents the relation as an observationally accessible, independent mass estimator whose error budget is dominated by the simulated scatter in the calibration.

Load-bearing premise

The entire method rests on assuming that the power-law ratio of intracluster stellar mass to total matter density calibrated from 30 simulated clusters at z<0.5—with parameters a = -1.139 and b = 0.316—applies unchanged to every real cluster, regardless of mass, redshift, or dynamical state, and continues to hold beyond the observed ICL radius; the paper's own z = 0.54 fit is much wider, and the HFF clusters with shallow slopes return unphysical masses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deep ICL observations that reach a logarithmic slope of -3 or steeper can yield a full cluster mass profile to the virial radius using no other tracer.
  • For Perseus, the ICL-based M200 = 2.4(+1.3/-0.9) × 10^15 solar masses agrees with velocity-dispersion estimates while exceeding the X-ray value by roughly a factor of two, positioning the ICL as an independent arbiter in the disagreement between mass tracers.
  • When the observed ICL profile stops at a shallow slope, a power-law extrapolation leaves the total mass unbounded, so those clusters cannot yet be measured this way.
  • All four Hubble Frontier Fields clusters yield unphysically large masses from the extrapolation, indicating that the method's current limitation is observational depth rather than the calibration itself.
  • Euclid's planned sample of hundreds of clusters with ICL detected beyond 500 kpc out to z = 0.7 is the dataset that can test and exploit this estimator at scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the calibrated power law holds in the outskirts, single-band deep imaging could become a cheap mass estimator for clusters, bypassing the expensive spectroscopy, lensing, and X-ray campaigns that other tracers require.
  • The factor-of-two excess over the Perseus X-ray mass could indicate hydrostatic bias in X-ray estimates or an overestimate from the simulation calibration; a sample of clusters with both deep ICL and X-ray data would separate the two.
  • The markedly wider scatter in the z = 0.54 calibration suggests the relation should be redshift-dependent, and Euclid data to z = 0.7 could produce a stratified calibration.
  • The slope criterion n ≲ -3.1 might double as a dynamical-state indicator: clusters with shallow observed ICL profiles are plausibly still assembling their ICL, which would make the criterion a physical selection effect rather than a purely technical one.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper calibrates, using 30 C-EAGLE zoom-in cluster simulations, a power-law relation between the projected ICL+BCG stellar mass density and the projected total matter density (Eq. 1), and it provides fit parameters and covariances at several redshifts (Table A.1). The authors then apply this relation to the Euclid Early Release Observations of the Perseus cluster and to four Hubble Frontier Fields clusters, claiming to recover cluster mass profiles and M200 values. For Perseus they report M200 = 2.4(+1.3/-0.9) x 10^15 M_sun, which is compatible with velocity-dispersion estimates but a factor of two above the X-ray value; for the HFF clusters the recovered M200 values are unphysically large, which the authors attribute to insufficient radial extent of the observed ICL profiles.

Significance. If the missing deprojection step is supplied and the Perseus result survives, the method would be a useful complement to traditional cluster mass estimators, particularly given Euclid's ability to measure ICL to large radii. The paper's strengths are its use of high-resolution simulations, the explicit propagation of calibration scatter through a multivariate normal distribution and bootstrap, and the honest reporting of the HFF failures. However, the method is currently demonstrated for only one cluster, the four HFF applications do not produce meaningful M200 values, and the redshift and dynamical-state dependence of the calibration is not quantified. The authors are transparent about these limitations, which is commendable, but the abstract and conclusions overstate the current demonstration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (1)] The paper calibrates a relation between projected surface densities but never shows how Sigma_tot(R) is converted into the spherical enclosed mass M(<r), M200, and R200. The only mass expression in the text, 'mass ∝ Σtot(r) r^2 ∝ Σ⋆ r^{3.1}' (Section 3), is a cylindrical cumulative-mass approximation and is used only for the slope-cutoff argument; it does not define the profiles plotted in Figures 3 and 4. As written, the comparison of the Perseus M200 = 2.4e15 M_sun with X-ray and dynamical masses, which use spherical mass definitions, is unsupported. Please specify the deprojection (Abel inversion or an equivalent model assumption), state how R200 is identified from the projected profile, and label the mass definition on the figure axes.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 1] The HFF applications do not support the method as presented: the recovered M200 values for A2744, AS1063, A370, and MACSJ0717.5+3745 are 3.5e16, 1.1e16, 1.8e15, and 5.8e17 M_sun, respectively, and the paper's own note says only Perseus can provide an accurate mass estimation. Since four of five applications fail at the level of the headline quantity, the abstract and conclusions should be qualified to state that the method is presently demonstrated only for clusters with ICL profiles measured beyond the radius where the logarithmic slope falls below about -3.1, rather than claiming a general independent approach.
  3. [Appendix A, Section 5] The universality of the calibration is not established beyond the C-EAGLE mass range [10^14, 10^15.4] M200/M_sun and redshifts z<0.5. The z=0.54 row of Table A.1 has a substantially different mean intercept (b=0.165 vs 0.316) and larger covariance, and Section 5 states that the relaxation-state dependence is unexplored. The application to MACSJ0717.5+3745 at z=0.545 uses the z<0.5 calibration despite this evidence, and the poor agreement for that cluster is attributed to redshift without a quantitative test. A statement of the domain of validity, or a sensitivity test to the calibration choice, is needed for the central claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (1)] The notation log10(r[kpc]) is dimensionally sloppy; write log10(r/1 kpc) or define r as dimensionless in units of kpc.
  2. [Section 4.2] The fICL values (e.g., 7.7±3.1) are reported without a definition or units; please specify what fraction is being measured.
  3. [Table 1] The cluster label 'MACS07017' does not match the text and Figure 4, which use 'MACSJ0717.5+3745'.
  4. [Section 3, Figure 2] The text quotes n=-4.4 while the legend shows n=-4.43; make the values consistent.
  5. [Section 4.1] The assumed M/L = 1.02 from Vazdekis et al. (2016) is quoted without stating the wavelength band or IMF; a brief justification would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Appendix A] The conclusion that there is no redshift evolution for z<0.5 rests on overlapping 1σ contours; a quantitative test (e.g., likelihood ratio) would be more convincing, especially given the differing covariance matrices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: cluster masses are obtained from a simulation-calibrated power-law relation applied to independent ICL observations, not fitted to the reported mass values.

full rationale

The derivation chain runs from observed ICL surface brightness to Sigma_star, through Eq. (1) with parameters fitted on C-EAGLE simulations, to a total projected density and then to a mass profile and M200; the reported Perseus and HFF masses are compared with, not used to determine, independent lensing, dynamical, and X-ray estimates. Equation (1) is a calibration on simulations, and the target quantities (observed cluster masses) never enter the fit of a and b, so the predictions are not forced by construction. The repeated citation of Alonso Asensio et al. (2020) is self-citation, but it is not load-bearing because the present paper reanalyzes the 30 C-EAGLE clusters with three projections per cluster, adds covariance estimates, and supplies new epoch-dependent parameters (Table A.1), rather than importing the earlier fit as an unexamined premise. The paper candidly lists limitations—relaxation-state dependence unexplored, a broader z = 0.54 fit, and unphysical HFF masses when the ICL slope is shallower than about -3.1—but these are calibration, extrapolation, and validity concerns, not circularity. The missing explicit Abel/deprojection step between projected Sigma_tot and spherical M200 would be an internal consistency gap; it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. I therefore identify no circular step.

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

The method's free parameters are the power-law slope and intercept fitted to C-EAGLE simulations, plus the assumed mass-to-light ratio used to convert observed ICL brightness to stellar mass. The key axioms are the representativeness of the simulations and the universality of the calibrated relation across mass, redshift, and dynamical state; the paper itself documents that the z=0.54 calibration is wider, and that the power-law extrapolation beyond the observed radius is what makes HFF mass estimates unphysical.

free parameters (4)
  • a (power-law slope) = -1.139 (z<0.5 aggregate)
    Slope of log10(Sigma_star/Sigma_tot) vs log10 r, fitted to projected profiles of 30 C-EAGLE clusters; it sets the radial shape of the inferred mass profile.
  • b (power-law intercept) = 0.316 (z<0.5 aggregate)
    Normalization of the Sigma_star/Sigma_tot ratio, fitted to the same simulations; it sets the overall mass scale.
  • M/L ratio for ICL = 1.02 (assumed, not fit)
    Conversion from ICL surface brightness to stellar mass (Vazdekis et al. 2016, used as in Kluge et al. 2025); adopted as a fixed constant with no propagated uncertainty.
  • Extrapolation outer-fit range = 50 kpc to data edge (500 kpc for Perseus)
    Chosen range for measuring the logarithmic slope used in the power-law extrapolation; the slope threshold for a bounded mass follows from the fitted value of a.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption C-EAGLE simulations reproduce the ICL-stellar mass assembly of real galaxy clusters.
    The calibration of Eq. 1 and its application to Perseus and HFF clusters assumes the simulated intracluster stellar component traces the simulated total matter in the same way as in nature (Sect. 2).
  • domain assumption The power-law ratio fitted from z<0.5 simulations is universal across cluster mass, redshift, and dynamical state.
    The derived mass profiles assume the same (a,b) parameters for all observed clusters, despite the authors noting no mass dependence within a narrow range and a wider fit at z=0.54 (Sect. 2, Appendix A-B).
  • domain assumption Observed ICL+BCG surface brightness corresponds to the simulated ICL+BCG component.
    The method maps observed profiles (Montes & Trujillo 2018; Kluge et al. 2025) onto the simulation definition of intracluster particles, including the BCG (Sect. 2 and 4.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Beyond the observed radius, the ICL profile continues as a single power law.
    The extrapolation in Sect. 3 is a choice the authors adopt; they show it produces unphysical unbounded masses when the measured outer slope is shallower than about -3 (Sect. 4.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The intracluster light as an estimator of the cluster mass profile." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M7PHJ23Q

@misc{pith2026250705404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The intracluster light as an estimator of the cluster mass profile},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M7PHJ23Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05404}
}
read the original abstract

Context. The intracluster light (ICL) comprises stars that are not bound to individual galaxies within a galaxy cluster, and it provides insights into the cluster mass distribution, evolutionary history, and dynamical state. Aims. We study the viability of the intracluster stellar mass as a proxy for computing the total mass profiles of galaxy clusters. Methods. High-resolution simulations from the C-EAGLE project were used to study the ratio of the intracluster stellar mass and total matter projected densities. This ratio follows a power law, and we present a model for its fit parameters and associated errors. Results. We used this relation to estimate the mass profile of the Perseus cluster based on Euclid observations that extend up to one-third of the virial radius. The obtained cluster mass is compatible with other measurements from galaxy velocity dispersion, but it is overestimated by a factor of two compared to X-ray mass estimates. We repeated this process for four clusters in the Hubble Frontier Fields, finding compatibility with weak- and strong-lensing mass estimates. Conclusions. This method provides an independent approach to cluster mass estimation that is based solely on the observed ICL and a simulation-calibrated relation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05404 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Corner plot of the fit parameters of equation 1. The contours show the 1 and 2σ regions of the multivariate normal distribution of the fits. contours are drawn at the 1 and 2σ deviations of the resulting multivariate normal distributions. As reference, the best-fit from Alonso Asensio et al. (2020) is shown as a star. Although it lies within the 1σ region, the error estimate given by Alonso Asen￾sio et al. (2020) wa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Projected density profiles of the ICL+BCG for AS1063 (blue, Montes & Trujillo 2018) and Perseus (green, Kluge et al. 2025). The profiles are extrapolated (dotted line) at large radii following the loga￾rithmic slope in the regions marked with vertical lines. The observations of Perseus by Euclid reach the outskirts of the cluster, where n ⪅ −3, and the extrapolated profiles do not produce unphysical massive clus￾ter… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Same as figure 3, but for the HFF clusters. Because the ICL observations do not reach large enough radii, the mass of the cluster remains unbound. on both ideal and suboptimal ICL observations. The application to high-quality Euclid data of the Perseus cluster (Kluge et al. 2025) showed the potential to recover a robust cluster mass pro￾file that extends to the outskirts, constraining the virial mass and radius of t… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The Treble Clef radio phoenix and its old nonthermal filaments

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    VLSS J0318.9+5755 (the Treble Clef) is a radio phoenix with ultra-steep spectrum in a massive merging cluster at z≈0.117 in the Zone of Avoidance, shaped by ICM gas motions that may also power a candidate radio halo.

  2. The topology of the magnetic field in Abell 2255 out to its virial radius. Results from the LOFAR Galaxy Cluster Ultra-Deep Field

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

    The magnetic field in Abell 2255 shows ordered, region-dependent orientations inferred from synchrotron intensity gradients, with radial fields in bridges and tangential fields in relics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aguerri, J. A. L., Girardi, M., Agulli, I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1681 Alonso Asensio, I., Dalla Vecchia, C., Bahé, Y . M., Barnes, D. J., & Kay, S. T. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1859 Bahé, Y . M., Barnes, D. J., Dalla Vecchia, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4186

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    J., Kay, S

    Barnes, D. J., Kay, S. T., Bahé, Y . M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1088

    2017

  3. [3]

    D., & Solanes, J

    Bilata-Woldeyes, B., Perea, J. D., & Solanes, J. M. 2025, A&A, 695, A234

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    2006, A&A, 449, 461

    Boschin, W., Girardi, M., Spolaor, M., & Barrena, R. 2006, A&A, 449, 461

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    A., et al

    Butler, J., Martin, G., Hatch, N. A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2279

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 60

    Contini, E. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 60

    2021

  7. [7]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, 3787

    Contini, E., De Lucia, G., Villalobos, Á., & Borgani, S. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3787

    2014

  8. [8]

    Contini, E. & Gu, Q. 2020, ApJ, 901, 128

    2020

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    2024, A&A, 683, A59

    Contreras-Santos, A., Knebe, A., Cui, W., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A59

    2024

  2. [10]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1937

    2015

  3. [11]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, 816

    Cui, W., Murante, G., Monaco, P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 816

    2014

  4. [12]

    2025, A&A, 697, A11

    Cuillandre, J.-C., Bolzonella, M., Boselli, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A11

    2025

  5. [13]

    M., Pascale, M., Frye, B., et al

    Diego, J. M., Pascale, M., Frye, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A159

    2023

  6. [14]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 497 Euclid Collaboration

    Dolag, K., Borgani, S., Murante, G., & Springel, V . 2009, MNRAS, 399, 497 Euclid Collaboration. 2025, A&A, 698, A14

    2009

  7. [15]

    J., Ragone-Figueroa, C., Donzelli, C

    Gonzalez, E. J., Ragone-Figueroa, C., Donzelli, C. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1280 Jiménez-Teja, Y ., Dupke, R., Benítez, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 79

    2021

  8. [16]

    2021, ApJ Supplement Series, 252, 27

    Kluge, M., Bender, R., Riffeser, A., et al. 2021, ApJ Supplement Series, 252, 27

    2021

  9. [17]

    A., Montes, M., et al

    Kluge, M., Hatch, N. A., Montes, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A13

    2025

  10. [18]

    J., Richard, J., Bauer, F

    Lagattuta, D. J., Richard, J., Bauer, F. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS

    2019

  11. [19]

    M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al

    Lotz, J. M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 97

    2017

  12. [20]

    R., Hatch, N

    Martin, G., Pearce, F. R., Hatch, N. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2375

    2024

  13. [21]

    2020, A&A, 640, A30

    Meusinger, H., Rudolf, C., Stecklum, B., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A30

    2020

  14. [22]

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

    Mihos, J. C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J., & Morrison, H. 2005, ApJ, 631, L41

    2005

  15. [23]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 3954

    Montenegro-Taborda, D., Avila-Reese, V ., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Manuwal, A., & Cervantes-Sodi, B. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3954

    2025

  16. [24]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 308

    Montes, M. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 308

    2022

  17. [25]

    & Trujillo, I

    Montes, M. & Trujillo, I. 2014, ApJ, 794

    2014

  18. [26]

    & Trujillo, I

    Montes, M. & Trujillo, I. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 917

    2018

  19. [27]

    & Trujillo, I

    Montes, M. & Trujillo, I. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2838

    2019

  20. [28]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 2883

    Niemiec, A., Jauzac, M., Eckert, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2883

    2023

  21. [29]

    2023, A&A, 670, L20

    Ragusa, R., Iodice, E., Spavone, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L20

    2023

  22. [30]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 268

    Richard, J., Jauzac, M., Limousin, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 268

    2014

  23. [31]

    Sampaio-Santos, H., Zhang, Y ., Ogando, R. L. C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 501, 1300

    2020

  24. [32]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521

    2015

  25. [33]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 43

    Shin, J., Chul Lee, J., Seong Hwang, H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 43

    2022

  26. [34]

    W., Mantz, A., et al

    Simionescu, A., Allen, S. W., Mantz, A., et al. 2011, Science, 331, 1576

    2011

  27. [35]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3409

    Vazdekis, A., Koleva, M., Ricciardelli, E., Röck, B., & Falcón-Barroso, J. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3409

    2016

  28. [36]

    A., High, F

    Williamson, R., Benson, B. A., High, F. W., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 139

    2011

  29. [37]

    2021, MNRAS, 16, 1

    Yoo, J., Ko, J., Kim, J.-W., & Kim, H. 2021, MNRAS, 16, 1

    2021

  30. [38]

    G., et al

    Yoo, J., Park, C., Sabiu, C. G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 145

    2024

  31. [39]

    B., Ogando, R

    Zhang, Y ., Golden-Marx, J. B., Ogando, R. L. C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 510 Article number, page 6 of 7 I. Alonso Asensio and A. Contreras-Santos : The intracluster light as an estimator of the cluster mass profile Table A.1. Fit parameters to a multivariate normal distribu...

    2024

Pith tools

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