Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Unions with UNIONS: Using galaxy-galaxy lensing to probe galaxy mergers

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Post-merger galaxies and non-merging controls show statistically indistinguishable weak-lensing profiles (p = 0.41), and the fitted halo models rule out starbursts forming more than 60% of the post-merger stellar mass at 95% confidence.

desk verdict A careful null lensing measurement of post-mergers, but the paper's 60% starburst upper limit is asserted without derivation and looks inconsistent with its own model mapping. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00584 v2 pith:QALARO25 submitted 2025-02-01 astro-ph.GA

Isaac Cheng , Jack Elvin-Poole , Michael J. Hudson , Ruxin Barré , Sara L. Ellison , Robert W. Bickley , Thomas J. L. de Boer , Sébastien Fabbro
show 7 more authors
Leonardo Ferreira Sacha Guerrini Hendrik Hildebrandt Martin Kilbinger Alan W. McConnachie Ludovic van Waerbeke Anna Wittje
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy-galaxylensinggalaxymergerspost-mergersdarkmatterhaloesstellar-to-halomassratioNFWprofileUNIONSsurveyweakgravitational
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 whether galaxy mergers change the dark-matter haloes and stellar content of the merged product. To answer it, the authors stack the weak gravitational lensing signal around 1,623 post-merger galaxies and roughly 30,000 non-merging controls matched in stellar mass, redshift, and environment, all drawn from the UNIONS survey. They find no statistically significant difference between the two excess surface density profiles, and both are consistent with a model of a point-like stellar component plus a Navarro-Frenk-White dark-matter halo of mass about 4×$10^{12}$ solar masses. The ratio of stellar to halo mass implies that, at 95% confidence, merger-induced starbursts cannot have formed more than 60% of the final stellar mass. The result matters because it demonstrates that weak lensing can constrain merger-induced star formation, and it sets a target for next-generation surveys.

What carries the argument

The central observable is the excess surface density profile ΔΣ(R), the projected mass-density contrast around a lens, measured by stacking the tangential shears of background galaxies from the UNIONS ShapePipe catalogue. The analysis weights the control sample to match the post-mergers in stellar mass, redshift, and geometric-mean distance to the three nearest neighbours, restricts both samples to low-density environments to suppress the two-halo term, applies boost-factor and random-subtraction corrections, and fits a two-component model: a fixed point-like stellar mass plus an NFW dark-matter halo with free M_halo and concentration c. The stellar-to-halo mass ratio derived from these fits carries the starburst constraint.

What would settle it

An independent post-merger sample of roughly 15,000 objects, selected without the Mummi classifier, should yield a statistically significant separation in ΔΣ(R) and an SHMR ratio R above 1 if massive merger-induced starbursts are common; if the current null is real, the same sample would tighten the 95% upper limit on the burst fraction to about 10% while keeping the two profiles consistent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using galaxy-galaxy lensing excess surface density ΔΣ(R) measured around post-mergers and non-merger controls, the paper finds statistically indistinguishable lensing signals: the chi-square test over the full profile gives p = 0.41, and restricting to R ≤ 1 Mpc gives p = 0.34. Fitting a point-like stellar component plus an NFW dark-matter halo yields M_halo ≈ 4×$10^{12}$ M_sun for both samples, with a moderately negative correlation between M_halo and concentration, and the post-merger concentration is not significantly different from the control concentration. The derived stellar-to-halo mass ratio for post-mergers is 1.7% versus 2.96% for controls; interpreted with the Hudson et al. (2015) SHMR models, this rules out at 95% confidence a merger-induced starburst that forms more than 60% of the post-merger stellar mass. The paper concludes that weak lensing is a viable probe of merger properties and that a sample roughly ten times larger would be sensitive to starbursts at the ten percent level.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the Mummi neural-network classifier, trained on IllustrisTNG mock images, having identified true post-mergers in UNIONS data with high purity and on those identified post-mergers being representative of the post-merger population; the paper does not correct for the selection bias that Mummi post-mergers have higher stellar masses and redshifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the null signal is real, mergers do not, on average, produce markedly heavier dark-matter haloes or higher stellar fractions than non-merging galaxies of the same stellar mass and environment.
  • The 95% confidence upper limit of about 60% on the starburst fraction directly constrains models of merger-induced star formation at stellar masses near 10^11 M_sun.
  • With a post-merger sample roughly ten times larger, the same methodology is expected to detect the weak-lensing signatures of mergers and constrain starbursts at the ten percent level.
  • The weighting and environment-control procedure provides a template for isolating merger effects from selection effects and environment in future lensing analyses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, a direct test of the Mummi selection bias would be to rerun the analysis on post-mergers identified by an independent method, such as visual tidal-feature classification, and check whether the null ΔΣ result persists; if it does not, the current limit would apply only to the neural-network-selected subset.
  • The low concentrations relative to dark-matter-only simulation predictions leave room for an alternative explanation that the paper only sketches; splitting the sample by satellite likelihood, using deeper spectroscopic data, would test whether satellite contamination inflates the low-concentration signal.
  • An untested extension is to split post-mergers by time since coalescence: simulations predict the halo response decays over roughly a gigayear, so a stack spanning 0 to 1.7 Gyr may wash out a signal that finer time binning would reveal.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper measures galaxy-galaxy lensing around 1623 Mummi-selected post-mergers and roughly 30,000 matched non-merging controls drawn from UNIONS/SDSS. The samples are weighted to share stellar mass, redshift, and geometric-mean neighbour distance, and the excess surface density is estimated with boost correction, random subtraction, and jackknife uncertainties. Navarro-Frenk-White plus point-mass halo fits are performed to radii of 1 Mpc. The paper reports no significant difference between the two lensing profiles (chi-square p = 0.41), obtains similar halo masses of about 4 x 10^12 M_sun for both samples, and claims a 95% confidence upper limit of about 60% on the fraction of post-merger stellar mass formed in merger-induced starbursts.

Significance. If the starburst limit is correct, this is the first statistical weak-lensing constraint on merger-induced stellar mass growth, and the null lensing difference itself is a useful step for a sample this large. The matched-control weighting, random subtraction, boost correction, and jackknife covariance treatment are careful and largely transparent, and the paper makes its input catalogues publicly available. However, the headline quantitative claim, the 60% starburst upper limit, is not derived in the text and appears inconsistent with the paper's own numerical examples, so the significance of the central result currently rests on an unverified calculation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4 / Abstract] The 95% upper limit on the starburst fraction is asserted without a posterior calculation. After Table 1 the text states, "Using the models from M. J. Hudson et al. (2015)... our results rule out extreme (≳60%) bursts of SF at the 95% confidence level," but no formula maps the fitted R = 0.58+0.53-0.28 to a burst fraction f, and no posterior for f is shown. This is load-bearing because the Introduction says a 20% burst gives R ≈ 1.6 and Section 4 says a 10% burst gives R ≈ 1.4, while a Gaussian approximation to the quoted R uncertainty would place the 95% upper bound on R near 1.2-1.5, not near the R ≈ 4 that a 60% burst would require under the same mapping. The authors should present the R posterior, the Hudson et al. model mapping, and the resulting posterior or upper limit on f, and then reconcile the quoted 60% limit with their own examples.
  2. [Section 2.1] The paper explicitly states that Mummi post-mergers tend toward higher stellar masses and redshifts and that no correction for this selection effect is attempted. Because the Abstract and Conclusions interpret the null lensing signal and the starburst limit as constraining "the merger process" generally, this selection effect is load-bearing. If the Mummi-selected sample is not representative of post-mergers as a whole, the constraints apply only to the selected class. The authors should either quantify the selection using the IllustrisTNG mocks or explicitly qualify the Abstract and Conclusions to state that the results apply to Mummi-selected post-mergers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The notations "ND30048:76" and "ND2903" appear to be LaTeX errors for N = 30048.76 and N = 2903; please fix these labels.
  2. [Section 3.5] The statement that stellar mass uncertainties from 10,000 bootstrap iterations are under 2% would benefit from a one-sentence description of the bootstrap procedure, such as the resampling unit and whether it was applied to each lens sample separately.
  3. [Figure 7 caption] The caption says the fit uses only data points not in the shaded region, but the shaded region is not labelled in the figure; please add a legend or explicitly state that the excluded points are those with R > 1.0 Mpc.
  4. [Section 4] For the comparison chi-square quoted as chi2_1,2 = 14.50 with p = 0.41, the number of degrees of freedom used should be stated; this is especially useful because the two profiles are compared using a covariance matrix that is not described in detail.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical and typesetting issues, including the caption "R ΔΣ" in Figure 6 and the repeated use of "ND" in figure captions; a careful proofread would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lensing measurement and NFW/SHMR fits are genuinely fitted, and the starburst comparison uses an external empirical SHMR model; the 60% upper limit is underived but not circular.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity. The Delta-Sigma profiles are measured from UNIONS ShapePipe sources around Mummi-selected post-mergers and matched controls (Section 3.4); the NFW halo mass and concentration are free parameters fitted by MCMC to those measurements (Section 3.5, Eq. 10), and the SHMR ratio is the ratio of the fitted M_star/M_halo values (Table 1), not a number forced to reproduce a target. The comparison to starburst fractions uses M. J. Hudson et al. (2015), an externally calibrated SHMR relation, and independent estimates from Ferreira et al. (2024a) and Reeves & Hudson (2024) that are cited as context rather than used to construct the lensing signal. Self-citations are present: Mummi/Ferreira et al. (2024b) supplies the lens catalogue, and Hudson et al. (2015) supplies the SHMR mapping, but both are external tools with stated training/data inputs, and neither is justified only by the present paper's conclusion. The only flagged weakness is that the 'extreme (≳60%) bursts' exclusion in Section 4 is stated without displaying the posterior over the burst fraction, so the numerical upper limit is not independently checkable from the text. That is a transparency/correctness gap, not a circular reduction, because the observed R = 0.58+0.53-0.28 is a fitted output rather than an input chosen to yield the 60% bound.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four fitted NFW parameters (halo mass and concentration for each of the two samples), two hand-set analysis thresholds, standard cosmology, the NFW point-plus-halo model, the Mummi post-merger classification, the calibrated source redshift distribution, and the Hubble-flow distance assumption. No invented physical entities appear. The fitted parameters are the main cost: the post-merger constraints are very broad, and the burst-fraction upper limit inherits their uncertainty.

free parameters (6)
  • NFW halo mass M_halo, post-mergers = 7.3 +6.6 -3.4 x 10^12 M_sun
    Fitted to the post-merger Delta-Sigma profile; enters the SHMR ratio and the starburst upper limit.
  • NFW concentration c, post-mergers = 0.76 +1.04 -0.52
    Fitted jointly with M_halo; shows a strong degeneracy with halo mass and drives the low-concentration discussion.
  • NFW halo mass M_halo, controls = 4.05 +0.23 -0.22 x 10^12 M_sun
    Fitted to the control Delta-Sigma profile; used as the baseline for the SHMR comparison.
  • NFW concentration c, controls = 3.74 +0.39 -0.34
    Fitted jointly with M_halo; comparison to the post-merger concentration is part of the null result.
  • Isolation threshold R_avg > 2.25 Mpc = 2.25 Mpc
    Hand-selected as 1.5 times the 1.5 Mpc search radius to suppress the 2-halo term; changes which galaxies enter the lens samples.
  • Radial fit range R <= 1.0 Mpc = R <= 1.0 Mpc
    Hand-set to exclude scales where the 2-halo term matters; the NFW parameter values depend on this choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flat LambdaCDM cosmology with H0=70, Omega_m=0.3, Omega_b=0.049, sigma8=0.81, ns=0.95
    Invoked in Section 1 for all distance and critical surface density calculations; standard in the field but not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Single NFW halo plus point-like stellar mass describes the lensing signal for R <= 1.0 Mpc
    Section 3.5; necessary for mapping Delta-Sigma to M_halo and concentration. Post-mergers may not be relaxed single halos.
  • domain assumption Mummi classifier trained on IllustrisTNG mock images generalizes to real UNIONS galaxies with high purity
    Section 2.1; the post-merger sample relies on this. Lower purity would dilute the merger signal.
  • domain assumption SOM-calibrated source redshift distribution n(z_s) is unbiased
    Section 2.2; errors in n(z_s) shift Delta-Sigma amplitudes and the inferred halo masses.
  • domain assumption Peculiar velocities are negligible when converting redshifts to 3D distances
    Section 3.1; galaxies with large peculiar motions can be misclassified as isolated, weakening environment control.
  • domain assumption Shape measurement bias is a few percent and is captured by the quoted uncertainties
    Section 2.2; no scalar bias estimate is available for ShapePipe v1.3, and the stated few-percent effect is not formally propagated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unions with UNIONS: Using galaxy-galaxy lensing to probe galaxy mergers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QALARO25

@misc{pith2026250200584,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unions with UNIONS: Using galaxy-galaxy lensing to probe galaxy mergers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QALARO25}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00584}
}
abstract

We use galaxy-galaxy lensing to investigate how the dark matter (DM) haloes and stellar content of galaxies with $0.012 \leq z \leq 0.32$ and $10 \leq \log_{10}(M_\star/\mathrm{M}_\odot) \leq 12$ change as a result of the merger process. To this end, we construct two samples of galaxies obtained from the Ultraviolet Near Infrared Optical Northern Survey (UNIONS), comprising 1 623 post-mergers and $\sim$30 000 non-merging controls, that live in low-density environments to use as our lenses. These samples are weighted to share the same distributions of stellar mass, redshift, and geometric mean distance to a galaxy's three nearest neighbours to ensure differences in the lensing signal are due to the merger process itself. We do not detect a statistically significant difference in the excess surface density profile of post-mergers and non-merging controls with current data. Fitting haloes composed of a point-like stellar mass component and an extended DM structure described by a Navarro-Frenk-White profile to the lensing measurements yields, for both samples, halo masses of $M_\text{halo} \sim 4\times10^{12}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ and a moderately negative correlation between $M_\text{halo}$ and concentration $c$. This allows us to rule out, at the 95% confidence level, merger-induced starbursts in which more than 60% of the stellar mass is formed in the burst. The application of our methods to upcoming surveys that are able to provide samples $\sim$10$\times$ larger than our current catalogue are expected to detect the weak-lensing signatures of mergers and further constrain their properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00584 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Raw distributions of various galaxy properties in our lens catalogue (𝑀★ ≥ 1010 M⊙), before matching sample properties. (a) The raw stellar mass distribution. (b) The raw redshift distribution. (c) The raw distribution of the geometric mean distance to each galaxy’s three nearest neighbours. 2.1. Lens Galaxies To study the DM haloes of galaxy mergers, we use the cata￾logue from L. Ferreira et al. (2024b) that includ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The effective redshift distribution of the sources, 𝑛(𝑧𝑠), compared to the post-merger spectroscopic redshift distribution from Figure 4b. For cosmology calculations, the 𝑛(𝑧𝑠) redshifts are still blinded; the source redshift distribution in this plot is close, but not identical, to the source redshift catalogue used in this paper. are first cross-matched to the CFHTLenS (Canada-France￾Hawaii Telescope Lensing Surve… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 2D hexbin plots showing our metrics for environment density: the number of neighbouring galaxies within 1.5 Mpc and the geometric mean distance to the three nearest neighbours of each galaxy, 𝑅avg. The colouring represents the number of galaxies, 𝑁gal, in a hexbin. The vertical dashed line indicates 𝑅avg = 2.25 Mpc. We want to select galaxies that live in low-density environments (i.e., the bottom right region of th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The weighted distributions of our final lens samples’ galaxy properties. These galaxies are selected to live in low-density environments, as discussed in the text, and matched in (a) stellar mass, (b) redshift, and (c) the geometric mean distance to their three nearest…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sky coverage of the true lenses (left) and random lenses (right). is the standard (inverse) critical surface density that is depen￾dent only on angular diameter distances—that is, only depen￾dent on the geometry—between observer and lens, 𝐷A(𝑧), observer and source, 𝐷A…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 𝑅ΔΣ signal of our lenses (post-mergers and non-merging controls). 𝑅 is the distance from the centre of the lens and ΔΣ is the excess surface density. The lensing amplitudes include boost correction and random subtraction. the log-prior probabilities are zero for 𝑀h…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: NFW halo fits to the lensing signal and correlations in the fitted parameters. The lower panels show the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient 𝜌 between the concentration 𝑐 and the halo mass 𝑀halo, with the 68 and 95 percentile contours indicated. The nominal …

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. Performance of morphological classifiers for galaxy mergers compared to current machine learning methods

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Updated G-M20 and G-C morphological cuts achieve ~70% merger precision comparable to ML, with better high-z robustness, but only select pre-mergers.

  2. Measuring satellite galaxy subhalo masses in redMaPPer clusters with UNIONS weak lensing data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A large UNIONS weak-lensing sample finds an increasing subhalo-to-stellar-mass ratio with cluster-centric radius in redMaPPer clusters, qualitatively confirming tidal stripping of satellite dark matter halos.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    Bertin, E. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164 Lensing unions with UNIONS 13 Bickley,R.W.,Bottrell,C.,Hani,M.H.,etal.2021,MNRAS,504, 372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab806

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164 Lensing unions with UNIONS 13 Bickley,R.W.,Bottrell,C.,Hani,M.H.,etal.2021,MNRAS,504, 372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab806

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  3. [3]

    H., Teimoorinia, H., et al

    Bottrell, C., Hani, M. H., Teimoorinia, H., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2934

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2934 2019

  4. [4]

    H., Teimoorinia, H., et al

    Bottrell, C., Hani, M. H., Teimoorinia, H., et al. 2024,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2407.008

    work page 2024

  5. [6]

    L., & Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80, doi: 10.1086/305262

    doi:10.1086/305262 1998

  6. [7]

    Casteels, K. R. V., Conselice, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1799

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1799 2014

  7. [8]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  8. [9]

    2002, PhR, 372, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00276-4

    Cooray, A., & Sheth, R. 2002, PhR, 372, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00276-4

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00276-4 2002

Show all 66 references
  1. [10]

    J., Pontzen, A., & Crain, R

    Davies, J. J., Pontzen, A., & Crain, R. A. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1742

    2022 doi

  2. [11]

    J., et al

    Desai, S., Armstrong, R., Mohr, J. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/83

    2012 doi

  3. [12]

    2018, ApJS, 239, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c Dogruel,M.B.,Taylor,E.N.,Cluver,M.,etal.2023,ApJ,953,45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acde56

    Diemer, B. 2018, ApJS, 239, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c Dogruel,M.B.,Taylor,E.N.,Cluver,M.,etal.2023,ApJ,953,45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acde56

    2018 doi

  4. [13]

    L., Xu, C

    Domingue, D. L., Xu, C. K., Jarrett, T. H., & Cheng, Y. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1559, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1559

    2009 doi

  5. [14]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/57

    Du, W., & Fan, Z. 2014, ApJ, 785, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/57

    2014 doi

  6. [15]

    A., Brinks, E., Wink, J

    Duc, P. A., Brinks, E., Wink, J. E., & Mirabel, I. F. 1997, A&A, 326, 537

    1997

  7. [16]

    R., Schaye, J., Kay, S

    Duffy, A. R., Schaye, J., Kay, S. T., & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2008, MNRAS, 390, L64, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00537.x

    2008

  8. [17]

    R., Schaye, J., Kay, S

    Duffy, A. R., Schaye, J., Kay, S. T., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2161, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16613.x

    2010

  9. [18]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 121, doi: 10.33232/001c.127779

    Ellison, S., Ferreira, L., Wild, V., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 121, doi: 10.33232/001c.127779

    2024 doi

  10. [19]

    L., Mendel, J

    Ellison, S. L., Mendel, J. T., Patton, D. R., & Scudder, J. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1562

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    L., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, AJ, 135, 1877, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877

    2008 doi

  12. [21]

    L., Wilkinson, S., Woo, J., et al

    Ellison, S. L., Wilkinson, S., Woo, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, L92, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac109

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    2022, A&A, 664, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243970

    Farrens, S., Guinot, A., Kilbinger, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243970

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    L., Patton, D

    Ferreira, L., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06356, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06356

    doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    W., Ellison, S

    Ferreira, L., Bickley, R. W., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 533, 2547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1885

    doi

  16. [25]

    J., Rodriguez, F., Navarro-Gironés, D., et al

    Gonzalez, E. J., Rodriguez, F., Navarro-Gironés, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1350

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    2022, A&A, 666, A162, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141847 Gwyn,S.,McConnachie,A.W.,Cuillandre,J.-C.,etal.2025,arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.13783, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.13783

    Guinot, A., Kilbinger, M., Farrens, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A162, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141847 Gwyn,S.,McConnachie,A.W.,Cuillandre,J.-C.,etal.2025,arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.13783, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.13783

    2022 doi arXiv

  18. [27]

    2007, A&A, 464, 399, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066170

    Hartlap, J., Simon, P., & Schneider, P. 2007, A&A, 464, 399, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066170

    2007 doi

  19. [28]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, L95, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv073

    Harvey, D., & Courbin, F. 2015, MNRAS, 451, L95, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv073

    2015 doi

  20. [30]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 2355, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20468.x

    Hildebrandt, H., Erben, T., Kuijken, K., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2355, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20468.x

    2012

  21. [31]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1, doi: 10.1086/499298

    2006 doi

  22. [32]

    J., Gillis, B

    Hudson, M. J., Gillis, B. R., Coupon, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2367

    2015 doi

  23. [33]

    2015, ApJS, 221, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/221/1/8

    Huertas-Company, M., Gravet, R., Cabrera-Vives, G., et al. 2015, ApJS, 221, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/221/1/8

    2015 doi

  24. [34]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.02600, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.02600

    Huff, E., & Mandelbaum, R. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.02600, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.02600

    2017 doi arXiv

  25. [35]

    H., Penner, K., et al

    Jogee, S., Miller, S. H., Penner, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1971, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1971

    2009 doi

  26. [36]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18cb

    Kado-Fong, E., Robinson, A., Nyland, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18cb

    2024 doi

  27. [37]

    M., White, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x

    2003

  28. [38]

    1992, Journal of Official Statistics, 8, 183

    Kish, L. 1992, Journal of Official Statistics, 8, 183

    1992

  29. [39]

    H., Cisternas, M., & Querejeta, M

    Knapen, J. H., Cisternas, M., & Querejeta, M. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1742, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2135

    2015 doi

  30. [40]

    1982, Biological Cybernetics, 43, 59, doi: 10.1007/bf00337288

    Kohonen, T. 1982, Biological Cybernetics, 43, 59, doi: 10.1007/bf00337288

    1982 doi

  31. [41]

    2022,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2204.006

    Lange, J., & Huang, S. 2022,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2204.006

    2022

  32. [42]

    2024, ApJL, 969, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad58b0

    Li, Q., Kilbinger, M., Luo, W., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad58b0

    2024 doi

  33. [43]

    L., et al

    Liaudat, T., Bonnin, J., Starck, J. L., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039584 Macciò, A. V., Dutton, A. A., van den Bosch, F. C., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 55, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11720.x

    2021

  34. [45]

    J., Armstrong, R., Bertin, E., et al

    Mohr, J. J., Armstrong, R., Bertin, E., et al. 2012, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy II, Vol. 8451, SPIE, 121–132

    2012

  35. [46]

    L., et al

    Moreno, J., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz417

    2019 doi

  36. [47]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    2019 doi

  37. [48]

    R., & Atfield, J

    Patton, D. R., & Atfield, J. E. 2008, ApJ, 685, 235, doi: 10.1086/590542 14 I. Cheng et al

    2008 doi

  38. [49]

    R., Faria, L., Hani, M

    Patton, D. R., Faria, L., Hani, M. H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1493, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae608

    2024 doi

  39. [50]

    Tak, F. F. S. 2019a, A&A, 626, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935355

    doi

  40. [51]

    J., Wang, L., Alpaslan, M., et al

    Pearson, W. J., Wang, L., Alpaslan, M., et al. 2019b, A&A, 631, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936337

    doi

  41. [52]

    2022, PhRvD, 105, 083528, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.083528

    Prat, J., Blazek, J., Sánchez, C., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 083528, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.083528

    2022 doi

  42. [53]

    Reeves, A. M. M., & Hudson, M. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2037, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3211

    2024 doi

  43. [54]

    R., Bell, E

    Robaina, A. R., Bell, E. F., Skelton, R. E., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 324, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/324

    2009 doi

  44. [55]

    C., & Courteau, S

    Roediger, J. C., & Courteau, S. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1499

    2015 doi

  45. [56]

    S., Snyder, G

    Rose, C., Kartaltepe, J. S., Snyder, G. F., et al. 2024, ApJL, 976, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dd4

    2024 doi

  46. [57]

    B., Soifer, B

    Sanders, D. B., Soifer, B. T., Elias, J. H., et al. 1988, ApJ, 325, 74, doi: 10.1086/165983

    1988 doi

  47. [58]

    A., Kartaltepe, J

    Shah, E. A., Kartaltepe, J. S., Magagnoli, C. T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac96eb

    2022 doi

  48. [59]

    J., Anbajagane, D., & Chang, C

    Shao, M. J., Anbajagane, D., & Chang, C. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1620 Sheldon,E.S.,Johnston,D.E.,Frieman,J.A.,etal.2004,AJ,127, 2544, doi: 10.1086/383293

    2023 doi

  49. [60]

    2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    2005

  50. [61]

    A., Weinberg, D

    Strauss, M. A., Weinberg, D. H., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1810, doi: 10.1086/342343

    2002 doi

  51. [62]

    2010, A&A, 514, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913687

    Tago, E., Saar, E., Tempel, E., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913687

    2010 doi

  52. [63]

    R., et al

    Wang, K., Mao, Y.-Y., Zentner, A. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4450, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2733

    2020 doi

  53. [64]

    2002, ApJ, 568, 52, doi: 10.1086/338765

    Dekel, A. 2002, ApJ, 568, 52, doi: 10.1086/338765

    2002 doi

  54. [65]

    L., Bottrell, C., et al

    Wilkinson, S., Ellison, S. L., Bottrell, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae287

    2024 doi

  55. [66]

    H., Hildebrandt, H., van den Busch, J

    Wright, A. H., Hildebrandt, H., van den Busch, J. L., & Heymans, C. 2020, A&A, 637, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936782

    2020 doi

  56. [67]

    K., Zhao, Y., Scoville, N., et al

    Xu, C. K., Zhao, Y., Scoville, N., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/85

    2012 doi

  57. [68]

    J., van den Bosch, F

    Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1159, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11091.x

    2006

  58. [69]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2219

    Zuntz, J., Sheldon, E., Samuroff, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2219

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.