Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

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

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that satellite galaxies in clusters lose dark matter as they fall inward: the subhalo-to-stellar mass ratio rises from about 12 near the core to 53 in the outskirts.

desk verdict A large-sample UNIONS measurement confirms the tidal-stripping trend in direction, but the fitting model is formally rejected by the data, so the quoted HSMR amplitudes are model-dependent. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14207 v1 pith:QGJ7FFEN submitted 2026-07-15 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Roman Akhmetshyn , Jack Elvin-Poole , Michael J. Hudson , Isaac Cheng , Thomas de Boer , Sébastien Fabbro , Sam Farrens , Sacha Guerrini
show 8 more authors
Axel Guinot Stephen Gwyn Hendrik Hildebrandt Martin Kilbinger Charlie T. Mpetha Calum Murray Ludovic Van Waerbeke Anna Wittje
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyclusterssatellitegalaxiessubhalomassestidalstrippingweakgravitationallensinggalaxy-galaxyexcesssurfacedensitydarkmatter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that satellite galaxies lose dark matter, but not stars, as they fall into galaxy clusters. It stacks weak-lensing measurements around roughly 330,000 cluster satellites and fits a model with a subhalo, a mis-centred host halo, and a stellar point mass. The resulting subhalo-to-stellar mass ratio is 11.99, 33.68, and 53.02 in the three cluster-centric bins, a strong positive radial trend. If correct, this is direct observational confirmation of tidal stripping and supports the hierarchical picture in which dark halos are shredded while the galaxies' stellar bodies survive.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is the combined excess surface density model ΔΣ(R) = A·ΔΣ_host + ΔΣ_sub + ΔΣ_*, applied to stacked lensing. The host-halo term is generated by Monte-Carlo point masses following an NFW profile centred on a brightest cluster galaxy whose offset from the catalogue position is drawn from a Rayleigh distribution with a fitted scale σ; the subhalo term is a projected NFW profile with free mass M_sub; the stellar term is a point mass. This decomposition isolates the subhalo's own lensing contribution from the dominant cluster halo, which is what allows a mass to be assigned to the satellite halos.

What would settle it

Re-fit the same lensing signal for the outer bins using cluster centres from X-ray observations or including a two-halo term; if the subhalo-to-stellar mass ratios in those bins drop to the inner-bin value, the reported tidal-stripping trend is an artifact of the offset-host model. The paper's own alternative two-centre host model gives ratios of 4, 13, and 32, so the trend's amplitude is sensitive to host-offset modelling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the dark-matter halos of cluster satellites are progressively stripped toward the cluster centre, and that this can be measured cleanly in stacked galaxy-galaxy lensing. From the excess surface density signal it infers median subhalo masses log M_sub/M_sun = 12.02, 12.45, and 12.58 in the 0.143-0.43, 0.43-0.86, and 0.86-1.29 Mpc bins, giving subhalo-to-stellar mass ratios of 11.99, 33.68, and 53.02. The monotonic increase is the result the paper wants to be judged on; it is presented as confirmation that tidal stripping or similar environmental processes remove dark matter from infalling galaxies while their stellar mass remains intact.

Load-bearing premise

The host-halo subtraction assumes the true cluster centre is offset from the catalogued brightest cluster galaxy by a single Rayleigh distribution with a fitted scale per bin; the paper itself notes (Section 6) that this scale disagrees with X-ray-based estimates in the outer bins and that a two-halo term is omitted beyond roughly 0.6 Mpc. If the offset model is wrong, the inferred subhalo masses and the radial trend are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the trend is real, an inner satellite carries roughly a quarter of the dark-matter-to-stellar mass ratio of an outer satellite, quantifying how much dark matter cluster tides remove.
  • The result confirms the standard hierarchical picture: satellite galaxies' dark halos are stripped preferentially near the cluster centre while their stellar mass stays intact.
  • With roughly 330,000 lens satellites and 4.5 million source galaxies, the inner-bin measurement is far tighter than earlier work and anchors the radial subhalo-to-stellar mass relation at low radius.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: a natural next split is by satellite stellar mass or host richness; if stripping efficiency depends on mass, low-mass satellites should show a steeper HSMR trend, testable with the same lens-source pairs.
  • Inference: the fitted Rayleigh σ growing with cluster-centric radius may be absorbing a missing two-halo term or an anisotropic mis-centring distribution rather than a true physical offset; comparing with X-ray-centred cluster samples would discriminate.
  • Inference: if the trend survives such tests, stellar-mass-based halo estimates for cluster members are environmentally biased, and cluster-centric radius should enter abundance-matching calibrations for satellites.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper measures the galaxy-galaxy lensing signal (excess surface density) around ~330,000 redMaPPer satellite galaxies in three cluster-centric radius bins, using UNIONS/ShapePipe source shapes. The lensing signal is modelled as the sum of a point-mass stellar term, an NFW subhalo term with free subhalo mass M_sub, and an offset NFW host-halo term with a free amplitude A and a Rayleigh-distributed BCG mis-centring scale sigma. The key result is a claimed strong positive trend in subhalo-to-stellar mass ratio (HSMR) with cluster-centric radius: M_sub/M* = 11.99, 33.68, 53.02 in the three bins, interpreted as observational confirmation of tidal stripping of satellite dark matter halos. The paper also presents an alternative 'admixture' host-halo model in Appendix B that fits the data better and yields lower HSMR values (4.0, 13.4, 32.1), while preserving the trend.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper would provide a high-S/N observational confirmation of tidal stripping of satellite subhalos in clusters, using a large and valuable data combination (UNIONS sources, redMaPPer lenses). The data volume is a genuine strength: ~4.5 million source galaxies and ~330,000 satellite lenses. The authors are transparent about their modelling choices and include an appendix with an alternative host-halo model. The trend with cluster-centric radius is plausible and broadly consistent with earlier work. However, the significance of the paper is undermined by the fact that the adopted model is statistically rejected by the data (reduced chi-square 3.59, 2.77, 3.39 for 11 dof in Table 1), and by the strong model-dependence of the HSMR values (Appendix B). The conclusion 'confirm tidal stripping' is therefore not yet supported at the level claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Table 1] The adopted model is statistically rejected by the data. The reduced chi-square values are 3.59, 2.77, and 3.39 for 11 degrees of freedom in the three bins, corresponding to very small p-values. This contradicts the abstract's claim that the model 'effectively reproduces the observed lensing signal'. The paper itself documents large residual features, including an unexplained 'hump' near 0.5 Mpc in the outermost bin (Section 6, Figure 4). Since the central claim is based on parameters derived from this model, the poor fit is a load-bearing problem: the quoted M_sub and HSMR values are derived from a model that does not describe the data.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (6), Table 2] The mis-centring model is a single Rayleigh distribution with a free scale sigma, fitted independently in each bin. The best-fit sigma increases from 83.5 to 347.7 kpc across the three bins, and the outer two bins are inconsistent with the external Zhang et al. (2019) estimates by factors of ~1.6 and ~4 (Table 2). A large sigma smooths the negative host-halo trough and can be partially degenerate with a larger M_sub, especially in the outer bin. The authors acknowledge the divergence but do not quantify how much of the HSMR trend is driven by this freedom. A concrete test would be to impose a prior on sigma from Zhang et al. (2019) or a more flexible mis-centring distribution and show the effect on M_sub.
  3. [Appendix B, Table B1] The paper's own alternative 'admixture' model fits the data substantially better (reduced chi-square 1.72, 1.17, 1.76) and yields HSMR values (4.0, 13.4, 32.1) that are a factor of ~1.6–3 lower than the primary model (11.99, 33.68, 53.02) in the corresponding bins. This demonstrates that the reported HSMR amplitudes—and by extension the quantitative strength of the 'strong positive trend'—are strongly model-dependent. The trend itself persists in the admixture model, but the paper does not provide a model-comparison or a formal test of whether the trend is significant under both models. The central claim of a 'strong' trend is therefore not robust to reasonable changes in the host-halo treatment.
  4. [§2, §6] The two-halo term is omitted but is expected to be non-negligible beyond ~0.6 Mpc, as the authors state in Section 2 and discuss in Section 6. The outermost cluster-centric bin (0.86–1.29 Mpc) is exactly where such a term matters. An omitted positive large-scale contribution can bias the fitted host-halo amplitude A and, through degeneracy with M_sub, bias the outer-bin HSMR. Since the two-halo term is a known, physical contribution rather than a nuisance, the analysis should either include it or restrict the fitting range to scales where it is negligible. At minimum, the paper should quantify the systematic shift in M_sub and HSMR when a two-halo term is added.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'confirm tidal stripping' is too strong given the modelling caveats; the analysis shows consistency with tidal stripping, not a direct confirmation. Consider softening to 'are consistent with'.
  2. [§1] Typo: 'partially loosing mass' should be 'losing mass'.
  3. [§2.1] Typo: 'the former is is easier'.
  4. [§6] In the discussion of the common-halo test, the sigma values are reported with asymmetric errors that are not all in the same convention; ensure consistency and state the median and 16th/84th percentiles throughout.
  5. [Table 1] The column header 'Pmem' is described in the caption as 'median cluster membership probability', but the text in Section 3.1 refers to a threshold of 0.8. Clarify the definition and whether the values in the table are medians of the lens sample.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the HSMR trend is a fitted measurement, not a prediction forced by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: measure ΔΣ(R) from UNIONS/redMaPPer lens-source pairs; model it as Eq. (3), ΔΣ(R) = A·ΔΣ_host + ΔΣ_sub + ΔΣ_*; fit M_sub, A, and the Rayleigh mis-centering scale σ per radial bin by MCMC; then form HSMR = M_sub/M_* using independent stellar masses from Zou et al. (2019). No stage defines a target quantity in terms of itself: M_sub is obtained from the lensing signal, not from the stated trend, and the trend is an interpretation of the fitted masses. The host-halo term is precomputed from the richness–mass relation and redMaPPer BCG positions, and the stellar term uses external stellar masses; neither is redefined to force the HSMR trend. The mis-centering Rayleigh form is adopted from external Kumar & More (2024) and compared with external Zhang et al. (2019). The high reduced χ² and the Appendix B admixture model show model dependence and possible bias, but model-dependence is not circularity: the alternative model still yields a radial trend and the main result is not an identity. Self-citations (UNIONS survey, ShapePipe, Cheng et al. 2025 n(z) calibration) are data/methodology sources, not uniqueness theorems or ansatz smuggled in to force the conclusion. Thus no circular step is evident, and the paper is best treated as a self-contained measurement with model-systematics caveats.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces three free parameters per bin (Msub, A, sigma), relies on standard NFW/mass-richness/cosmology inputs, and makes two significant modeling assumptions: a single Rayleigh BCG mis-centering form and an unvalidated photometric-redshift substitution. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (3)
  • log10(Msub/Msun) per cluster-centric bin = 12.02, 12.45, 12.58
    Central subhalo mass fitted independently in each of the three rp bins; drives the HSMR trend.
  • Host halo rescaling factor A per bin = 0.66, 0.77, 1.19
    Multiplies the Monte-Carlo offset NFW host profile; absorbs richness-to-mass and off-centering inaccuracies.
  • Rayleigh BCG mis-centering scale sigma per bin = 83.5, 132.7, 347.7 kpc
    Free parameter in Eq. 6; smears the host-halo term and grows strongly with bin, indicating model strain.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption NFW profile describes both cluster host halos and satellite subhalos
    Used throughout Sections 2.1 and 2.3 to construct ΔΣ_host and ΔΣ_sub; standard but not universal.
  • domain assumption Mass-concentration relation from Duffy et al. (2008)
    Adopted in Section 2.1 to set host halo concentration from mass; affects the shape of the offset halo term.
  • domain assumption Mass-richness relation from Rykoff et al. (2012) (Eq. 5)
    Converts redMaPPer richness to M200m; errors here propagate into the host halo amplitude, partially absorbed by A.
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc, OmegaM=0.3, sigma8=0.81, ns=0.95
    Adopted in Section 1 for distance and critical surface density calculations.
  • ad hoc to paper BCG mis-centering follows a single Rayleigh distribution with free sigma (Eq. 6)
    The fitted sigma values grow from 83 to 348 kpc across bins and diverge from external Zhang et al. (2019) estimates in the outer bins; the form of the distribution is not independently validated.
  • domain assumption Cluster photometric redshift assigned to satellites without spectroscopic redshift
    Appendix A; ~94% of the outer-bin lenses lack spec-z. The authors state no bias investigation was performed.
  • domain assumption No two-halo term is included for satellites
    Section 2 states R<0.6 Mpc focus, but the paper acknowledges it could influence the outermost bin and the large-R slope.
  • domain assumption Membership probability threshold Pmem > 0.8 ensures clean satellite selection
    Sections 3.1/6; the authors cite Sunayama & More (2019) that interlopers remain even at Pmem>0.8, so the sample is likely contaminated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring satellite galaxy subhalo masses in redMaPPer clusters with UNIONS weak lensing data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGJ7FFEN

@misc{pith2026260714207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring satellite galaxy subhalo masses in redMaPPer clusters with UNIONS weak lensing data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGJ7FFEN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14207}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we present the observed galaxy-galaxy lensing signal of satellite galaxies in rich clusters obtained from the Ultraviolet Near-Infrared Optical Northern Survey (UNIONS). Such observations are crucial for understanding dark matter halo physics and interaction dynamics in the cluster environment. Our goal is to investigate the tidal stripping of cluster subhalos. Theoretical predictions, supported by recent studies, suggest that as satellite galaxies fall into clusters, their dark matter halos are stripped and dispersed into the cluster's main halo, while their stellar mass remains relatively intact. A robust method to probe this phenomenon is through statistical measurements of the excess surface mass density of satellite galaxies at different cluster-centric distances. Our results reveal a significant lensing signal, with strong statistical power from the large number of lens-source pairs. A simple model used in the fitting process to constrain subhalo masses effectively reproduces the observed lensing signal at relevant satellite-centric distances. However, it lacks the complexity to accurately fit the excess surface density at larger distances, where the host cluster halo dominates. We measure the subhalo-to-stellar mass ratio as a function of cluster-centric radius and find a strong positive trend. These results confirm tidal stripping or other environmental processes that impact the relative masses of a satellite galaxy's stellar component and its dark matter halo.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14207 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Demonstration of the offset halo profile simulation. The colour gradient represents Monte-Carlo point masses that follow the enclosed mass profile with a centre (0,0) at the cluster centre. Black concentric rings, centred at a given cluster-satellite distance (r), are used to calculate Σ(R) and Σ(< R), where R is satellite￾centric distance. The width of each ring for Σ(R) calculation is 1.4 kpc, and the distance bet… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Offset halo term for each cluster-centric distance bin, indicated by the blue text beside, generated using 2 methods. Black dashed lines show the halo profile computed with absolute cluster￾satellite distances reported by the redMaPPer catalog. The solid red line is for a Rayleigh-distributed BCG position with a σ = 143 kpc applied. using the cosine law: rnew = q r 2 cat + R2 off − 2RcatRoff cos θ, θ ∼ U(0, 2π) (7) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. From left to right: histograms of lensing galaxy stellar masses (log M*), satellite and cluster redshifts (z), cluster-centric distances (rp), and richness (λ) values associated with each satellite galaxy used to compute the offset halo term for the 3 bins. These bins are in the same units and cosmological dependency as in Rykoff et al. (2016), Li et al. (2016), and Wang et al. (2024) for convenience. Dashed histogr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Satellite-centric lensing signal and best fit result for each cluster-centric rp bin. The error bars are estimated using jackknif￾ing with 100 regions. The red solid line is the combined signal that is a sum of 3 terms in our model: stellar (orange dashed), subhalo (bl…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Corner plot of the best-fit model for each bin. Grey for the closest cluster-centric bin, red for the intermediate, and blue for the furthest. Solid contours around scattered samples indicate 68% and 95% of samples, and histograms are marginalized poste￾rior distributi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Subhalo mass to stellar mass ratio inferred from this study (green triangles) compared to previous results cited in the legend. The cluster-centric distance is in the same units and cos￾mology as adopted in those works. Note that Kumar & More (2024) binned lenses by lu…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Measuring subhalo mass in redMaPPer clusters with CFHT Stripe 82 Survey. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw494 , archivePrefix =. 1507.01464 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Assessing mass-loss and stellar-to-halo mass ratio of satellite galaxies: a galaxy-galaxy lensing approach utilizing DECaLS DR8 data. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae121 , archivePrefix =. 2305.13694 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  3. [5]

    and White, S

    Gao, L. and White, S. D. M. and Jenkins, A. and Stoehr, F. and Springel, V. , title = ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =. 2004 , month =. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08360.x , url =

    arXiv 2004

  4. [6]

    and De Lucia, G

    Contini, E. and De Lucia, G. and Villalobos, A. and Borgani, S. , title = ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =. 2013 , month =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2174 , url =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2174 2013

  5. [7]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =

    van den Bosch, Frank C and Ogiya, Go and Hahn, Oliver and Burkert, Andreas , title = ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =. 2017 , month =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2956 , url =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2956 2017

  6. [8]

    Pullen and Andrew J

    Anthony R. Pullen and Andrew J. Benson and Leonidas A. Moustakas , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , abstract =. 2014 , month =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/24 , url =

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/24 2014

  7. [9]

    , title = "

    Du, Xiaolong and Behrens, Christoph and Niemeyer, Jens C. , title = ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =. 2016 , month =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2724 , url =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2724 2016

  8. [11]

    Springel, Volker and White, Simon D. M. and Tormen, Giuseppe and Kauffmann, Guinevere , title = ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =. 2001 , month =. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x , url =

    arXiv 2001

Show all 54 references
  1. [12]

    Bower, R. G. and Benson, A. J. and Malbon, R. and Helly, J. C. and Frenk, C. S. and Baugh, C. M. and Cole, S. and Lacey, C. G. , title = ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =. 2006 , month =. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x , url =

    2006

  2. [13]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =

    Xie, Lizhi and Gao, Liang , title = ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =. 2015 , month =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2077 , url =

    2015 doi

  3. [14]

    Evidence for substructure in lens galaxies?

    Mao, Shu-de and Schneider, Peter. Evidence for substructure in lens galaxies?. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 1998. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01319.x. arXiv:astro-ph/9707187

    1998

  4. [15]

    Benton Metcalf and Piero Madau , title =

    R. Benton Metcalf and Piero Madau , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , abstract =. 2001 , month =. doi:10.1086/323695 , url =

    2001 doi

  5. [16]

    Ostriker and Jochen Weller , title =

    Shude Mao and Yipeng Jing and Jeremiah P. Ostriker and Jochen Weller , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , abstract =. 2004 , month =. doi:10.1086/383413 , url =

    2004 doi

  6. [17]

    Xu, D. D. and Mao, Shude and Wang, Jie and Springel, V. and Gao, Liang and White, S. D. M. and Frenk, Carlos S. and Jenkins, Adrian and Li, Guoliang and Navarro, Julio F. , title = ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =. 2009 , month =. doi:10.1111/j.1...

    2009

  7. [18]

    Nierenberg, A. M. and Treu, T. and Wright, S. A. and Fassnacht, C. D. and Auger, M. W. , title = ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =. 2014 , month =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu862 , url =

    2014 doi

  8. [19]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Hubble Space Telescope observations of the lensing cluster Abell 2218 , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 1996 , publisher=

    1996

  9. [20]

    The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review , volume=

    Cluster lenses , author=. The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  10. [21]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Gravitational imaging of cold dark matter substructures , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  11. [22]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Detection of a dark substructure through gravitational imaging , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  12. [23]

    nature , volume=

    Gravitational detection of a low-mass dark satellite galaxy at cosmological distance , author=. nature , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  13. [24]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    First galaxy--galaxy lensing measurement of satellite halo mass in the CFHT Stripe-82 Survey , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  14. [25]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The masses of satellites in GAMA galaxy groups from 100 square degrees of KiDS weak lensing data , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  15. [26]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The galaxy--subhalo connection in low-redshift galaxy clusters from weak gravitational lensing , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  16. [27]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The stellar-to-halo mass relation of GAMA galaxies from 100 deg2 of KiDS weak lensing data , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  17. [28]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Stellar-to-halo mass relation of cluster galaxies , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  18. [29]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=

    KiDS+ GAMA: The weak lensing calibrated stellar-to-halo mass relation of central and satellite galaxies , author=. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  19. [30]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=

    ShapePipe: A new shape measurement pipeline and weak-lensing application to UNIONS/CFIS data , author=. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  20. [31]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=

    The RedMaPPer galaxy cluster catalog from DES science verification data , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  21. [32]

    Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia , volume=

    Damn you, little h!(or, real-world applications of the hubble constant using observed and simulated data) , author=. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  22. [33]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The assembly of galaxies in a hierarchically clustering universe , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 1995 , publisher=

    1995

  23. [34]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters , volume=

    Dark matter halo concentrations in the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe year 5 cosmology , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  24. [35]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=

    COLOSSUS: A python toolkit for cosmology, large-scale structure, and dark matter halos , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  25. [36]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: weighing distant clusters with the most ancient light , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  26. [37]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=

    The eighth data release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: first data from SDSS-III , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  27. [38]

    2016 , journal=

    The DESI experiment part I: science, targeting, and survey design , author=. 2016 , journal=

    2016

  28. [39]

    Astrophysics Source Code Library , pages=

    dsigma: Galaxy-galaxy lensing Python package , author=. Astrophysics Source Code Library , pages=

  29. [40]

    Unbiased estimation of the inverse covariance matrix , author=

    Why your model parameter confidences might be too optimistic. Unbiased estimation of the inverse covariance matrix , author=. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  30. [41]

    Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , volume=

    Analytic models of plausible gravitational lens potentials , author=. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  31. [42]

    redmapper. i. algorithm and sdss dr8 catalog , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  32. [43]

    , keywords =

    Photometric Redshifts and Stellar Masses for Galaxies from the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab1847 , adsurl =

    doi

  33. [44]

    Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , volume=

    emcee: the MCMC hammer , author=. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  34. [45]

    The Astronomical Journal , volume=

    Sdss-iii: Massive spectroscopic surveys of the distant universe, the milky way, and extra-solar planetary systems , author=. The Astronomical Journal , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  35. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.05560 , year=

    The pan-starrs1 surveys , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.05560 , year=

    arXiv

  36. [47]

    The Astronomical Journal , volume=

    Redshift measurement and spectral classification for eboss galaxies with the redmonster software , author=. The Astronomical Journal , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  37. [48]

    2024 , eprint=

    Environmental dependence on galaxy-halo connections for satellites using HSC weak lensing , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  38. [49]

    , keywords =

    Core condensation in heavy halos: a two-stage theory for galaxy formation and clustering. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/183.3.341 , adsurl =

    doi

  39. [50]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Unions with UNIONS: Using galaxy-galaxy lensing to probe galaxy mergers. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.00584 , archivePrefix =. 2502.00584 , primaryClass =

    doi arXiv

  40. [51]

    , keywords =

    Robust Optical Richness Estimation with Reduced Scatter. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/178 , archivePrefix =. 1104.2089 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  41. [52]

    , keywords =

    Black Hole Halo Mass Relation from UNIONS Weak Lensing. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad58b0 , archivePrefix =. 2402.10740 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  42. [53]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    UNIONS: The Ultraviolet Near-Infrared Optical Northern Survey. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.13783 , archivePrefix =. 2503.13783 , primaryClass =

    doi arXiv

  43. [54]

    , keywords =

    The Dark Energy Survey: more than dark energy - an overview. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw641 , archivePrefix =. 1601.00329 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  44. [55]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Cross-correlation Weak Lensing of SDSS galaxy Clusters II: Cluster Density Profiles and the Mass--Richness Relation. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.0709.1159 , archivePrefix =. 0709.1159 , primaryClass =

    doi arXiv

  45. [56]

    , keywords =

    On the measurements of assembly bias and splashback radius using optically selected galaxy clusters. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2832 , archivePrefix =. 1905.07557 , primaryClass =

    1905 arXiv

  46. [57]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Dark Energy Surveyed Year 1 results: calibration of cluster mis-centring in the redMaPPer catalogues , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.