Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Constraints on the mass-concentration relation of cold dark matter halos with 11 strong gravitational lenses

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first sub-galactic measurement of the dark matter mass-concentration relation finds c=12 for 10^8 solar-mass halos.

desk verdict First observational constraint on sub-10^9 M_sun halo concentrations, with honest uncertainties, but the infall-time subhalo concentration assumption is an unquantified systematic that deserves a robustness test. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02573 v2 pith:S6Y3MJQN submitted 2019-09-05 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Daniel Gilman , Xiaolong Du , Andrew Benson , Simon Birrer , Anna Nierenberg , Tommaso Treu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords stronggravitationallensingmass-concentrationrelationcolddarkmattersubhalosfluxratiosquadruple-imagelensesNFWprofilesub-galacticscales
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

Using image positions and flux ratios from eleven quadruple-image gravitational lenses, the paper reports the first measurement of the dark matter mass-concentration relation on sub-galactic scales, for halo masses $10^6$--$10^{10}\,M_\odot$. Within the assumption of cold dark matter, the analysis jointly constrains the normalization and logarithmic slope of the relation together with the subhalo mass function, and finds that a $10^8\,M_\odot$ halo at $z=0$ has concentration $c = 12^{+6}_{-5}$ at 68% confidence. The inferred relation is consistent with theoretical predictions from CDM simulations, and establishes galaxy-scale strong lensing as a direct probe of dark halo structure across cosmological distance.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parameterized mass-concentration relation $c(M,z) = c_0(1+z)^\zeta [\nu(M,z)/\nu(10^8,0)]^{-\beta}$, written in terms of the peak height $\nu = \delta_c/\sigma(R,z)$, where $\sigma^2$ is the variance of the linear matter density field and $\delta_c = 1.686$ is the spherical-collapse threshold. The argument is carried by forward modeling of lens flux-ratio perturbations: a more concentrated halo has a larger magnification cross section (roughly 30% perturbations for $c = 22$ versus 10% for $c = 8$), so the population of subhalos and line-of-sight halos imprints the mass-concentration relation on observed flux ratios. A Bayesian forward-modeling procedure samples the dark-matter hyper-parameters jointly with lens nuisance parameters and compares simulated lens ensembles to the eleven lenses through a summary statistic, avoiding direct evaluation of an intractable likelihood.

What would settle it

Run a cosmological simulation that follows full tidal stripping of subhalos and generate mock realizations of the eleven lenses; if the inferred $c_0$ from these mocks differs from $12^{+6}_{-5}$ by more than the quoted uncertainties, the infall-only concentration treatment underlying the result is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is the constraint on $c_0$, the normalization of the mass-concentration relation defined as the median concentration of a $10^8\,M_\odot$ halo at $z=0$. At 68% (95%) confidence the authors find $c = 12^{+6}_{-5}$ ($c = 12^{+9}_{-15}$), marginalized over the subhalo mass function normalization, the line-of-sight halo abundance, the slope of the subhalo mass function, and lens nuisance parameters. Converting the hyper-parameter posterior to physical concentrations, a $10^7\,M_\odot$ halo has $c = 15^{+9}_{-8}$ ($15^{+11}_{-18}$ at 95%) and a $10^9\,M_\odot$ halo has $c = 10^{+7}_{-4}$ ($10^{+14}_{-7}$ at 95%). These values are consistent with CDM predictions from the literature and provide the first observed anchor for halo concentrations on scales where halos are expected to be mostly or entirely dark.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on assuming that each subhalo's density profile is set by the field mass-concentration relation at infall and is not subsequently reshaped by tidal stripping; if tides substantially alter subhalo inner profiles, the inferred concentration normalization would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central measurement holds, CDM's predicted halo concentrations are validated down to $10^6$--$10^{10}\,M_\odot$, where halos are expected to be mostly dark.
  • The constraint at $10^8\,M_\odot$ anchors the density profiles of low-mass halos used in predictions for dark matter annihilation signals and for the abundance of faint satellite galaxies.
  • The result establishes flux-ratio strong lensing as a cosmological probe of dark matter structure on sub-galactic scales, complementary to dynamical and stellar probes.
  • The reported degeneracies imply that substantially larger lens samples are needed to pin down the logarithmic slope $\beta$ and the subhalo mass function normalization $\Sigma_{\rm sub}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this measurement is right, cold dark matter remains viable at masses where warm or self-interacting dark matter models predict modified small-scale structure; a direct comparison of this measured relation with such model predictions would sharpen the test.
  • The authors evaluate subhalo concentrations at infall and do not model tidal stripping; a testable extension is to implement tidal-evolution prescriptions and check whether the inferred $c_0$ shifts outside the quoted interval.
  • Because $c_0$ and $\Sigma_{\rm sub}$ are covariant, independent substructure abundance measurements from the same lenses with deeper data could break the degeneracy and tighten the concentration constraint.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This letter uses 11 quadruply-imaged quasars to constrain, for the first time, the normalization and logarithmic slope of the cold dark matter mass-concentration relation on sub-galactic scales (10^6 to 10^10 Msun) at cosmological distances. The analysis assumes CDM, models both dark subhalos and line-of-sight halos, uses the Sheth-Tormen mass function and a power-law c(M,z) in peak height (Eq. 4), and performs Bayesian forward modeling with a summary statistic. The main result is c0 = 12^{+6}_{-5} at 68% confidence for 10^8 Msun halos at z=0, together with translated constraints c(10^7)=15^{+9}_{-8} and c(10^9)=10^{+7}_{-4}; these are reported as consistent with several literature mass-concentration relations.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, this is the first observational measurement of halo concentrations below 10^9 Msun at cosmological distance and demonstrates that flux-ratio statistics carry information on subhalo inner density structure, not only subhalo abundance. The comparison with theoretical c-M relations is a genuine comparison rather than a circular fit: c0 is inferred from lensing data through the population model, and the literature relations are not used to set c0. The paper is honest about the large uncertainties and uses public numerical tools, a forward model that includes finite source size, and a simultaneous treatment of subhalos and line-of-sight halos. Its main vulnerabilities are the deferred inference machinery and the uncontrolled treatment of tidal stripping of subhalos.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (4) and Eq. (6)] The subhalo rendering draws present-day subhalo masses from the mass function in Eq. (6), but Eq. (4) is then evaluated at the infall redshift. For a subhalo that has lost mass to tidal stripping since infall while approximately preserving its inner density profile, the assigned concentration does not correspond to the drawn present-day mass. Because flux-ratio perturbations are sensitive to concentration (Figure 2), this systematic misassignment can bias the inferred c0. The paper does not quantify the shift. I request a sensitivity test that replaces the infall-concentration prescription with an explicit tidal-stripping correction, or that samples infall masses before stripping, and a statement of the resulting systematic error on the headline c0 value.
  2. [Section 2.4 and Section 2 of Gilman et al. (2019b)] The central posterior for c0 is obtained from an approximate likelihood and a forward model whose details, including the exact definition of the summary statistic, the likelihood estimator, and validation on simulated data, are deferred to a companion paper. Since the claim that the inferred c0 is unbiased depends entirely on this machinery, the letter should either include the summary-statistic definition and a concise posterior-recovery test, or explicitly cite the validation results from the companion paper and state any known biases of the approximate likelihood.
  3. [Section 2.1, Eq. (4)] The prior on zeta is quoted as a Gaussian with mean -0.25 and variance 0.05, but the paper also states that zeta is unconstrained. If the data do not constrain zeta, the prior is effectively the posterior and, through the (1+z)^zeta factor, can propagate into the inferred z=0 normalization c0 for lenses at nonzero redshift. Please specify whether 0.05 is the variance or the standard deviation, and show the robustness of c0 to a wider prior on zeta.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'conclusively establish strong gravitational lensing by galaxies as perhaps the only probe' combines an absolute claim with a hedged qualifier; I suggest rewording to avoid the tension.
  2. [Section 2.1, Eq. (4)] Please state explicitly whether the scatter of 0.1 dex is applied in log10 c and whether the same scatter is assumed for subhalos, since subhalo concentrations may have a different population scatter than field halos.
  3. [Section 3] The sentence 'We assume the population mean halo mass on log10(Mhalo) of 13.3' should be rephrased, and the mass units should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The caption refers to a '30 pc background source'; please specify whether this is the radius or the full width of the source and state the source redshift in the caption text.
  5. [Section 2.4] The text says the parameter zeta is unconstrained; it would be clearer to state that the posterior on zeta equals its prior, given that it is not informed by the data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the c0 constraint is a direct Bayesian fit to independent strong-lensing data, not a renamed input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a measurement of the mass-concentration normalization c0 from the flux ratios and image positions of 11 quadruple lenses. This is a parameter-estimation problem: the forward model generates lensing observables as a function of c0, β, Σsub, and nuisance parameters, and the posterior is obtained by comparing simulated summary statistics to observed data. Equation 4 is a flexible parameterization of the mass-concentration relation, not a derived prediction, and the literature models in Figure 4 are used for comparison after the fit, not as inputs that determine c0. The subhalo-infall approximation in Section 2.2 is a physical modeling assumption that could bias the result, but it is not circular: the lensing likelihood still depends on the fitted concentrations through the forward model, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to Gilman et al. (2019a,b) provide the inference machinery and mass-function parameterizations, but the central constraint on c0 is driven by the external lensing data, so the argument does not reduce to those citations. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted quantity is repackaged as an independent prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a forward model that assumes standard CDM structure formation ingredients: NFW profiles, Sheth-Tormen mass functions, and a power-law mass-concentration relation. The most fragile assumption is the treatment of subhalo concentrations at infall, which the authors acknowledge. The model parameters c0, beta, zeta, and Sigma_sub are either fitted to the lensing data or assigned theory-informed priors. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • c0 = 12^{+6}_{-5} (68% CI)
    Normalization of the mass-concentration relation, anchored to the concentration of a 10^8 M_sun halo at z=0. Fitted to the lensing data.
  • beta = unconstrained; posterior peaked toward high end of prior 0.3-1.3
    Logarithmic slope of the mass-concentration relation in Equation 4. Fitted simultaneously with c0.
  • zeta = prior mean -0.25, variance 0.05; unconstrained by data
    Index for redshift evolution of the mass-concentration relation. Introduced as an empirical factor with a Gaussian prior informed by theory.
  • Sigma_sub = not reported numerically in this paper; covariant with c0
    Normalization of the subhalo mass function (Equation 6). Fitted simultaneously with c0 and beta.
  • alpha = prior mean -1.9, variance 0.025
    Logarithmic slope of the subhalo mass function. Assigned a Gaussian prior from Springel et al. 2008.
  • delta_los = prior from Gilman et al. 2019b
    Overall scaling of the line-of-sight Sheth-Tormen halo mass function (Equation 3).
  • k1, k2 = k1=0.88, k2=1.7
    Coefficients in the evolution of the differential projected number density of subhalos with host mass and redshift (Equation 7), fitted to simulated host halos from galacticus.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CDM halos follow the Navarro-Frenk-White density profile with concentration parameter c (Equation 1).
    Used throughout to compute the lensing signal of halos and subhalos.
  • domain assumption Field halo abundance follows the Sheth-Tormen mass function modified by delta_los and the two-halo term (Equation 3).
    Provides the number density of line-of-sight halos that perturb the lensed images.
  • ad hoc to paper The mass-concentration relation is a power law in peak height with pivot at 10^8 M_sun and z=0 (Equation 4), valid over 10^6 to 10^10 M_sun.
    This parametric form is chosen to enable a measurement of normalization and slope; it is not derived from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper Subhalo concentrations are set at infall using the field mass-concentration relation, ignoring subsequent tidal stripping (Section 2.2).
    A simplification acknowledged in the text; if tides significantly alter subhalo profiles, the inferred c0 could be biased.
  • domain assumption Concentration scatter about the median relation is 0.1 dex (Dutton and Maccio 2014).
    Assumed scatter affects the probability of high-concentration halos that produce strong flux perturbations.
  • domain assumption Cosmology is WMAP9 with Omega_m=0.28, sigma8=0.82, h=0.7.
    Determines the matter power spectrum and mass function used in the forward model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on the mass-concentration relation of cold dark matter halos with 11 strong gravitational lenses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S6Y3MJQN

@misc{pith2026190902573,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on the mass-concentration relation of cold dark matter halos with 11 strong gravitational lenses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S6Y3MJQN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02573}
}
abstract

The mass-concentration relation of dark matter halos reflects the assembly history of objects in hierarchical structure formation scenarios, and depends on fundamental quantities in cosmology such as the slope of the primordial matter power-spectrum. This relation is unconstrained by observations on sub-galactic scales. We derive the first measurement of the mass-concentration relation using the image positions and flux ratios from eleven quadruple-image strong gravitational lenses (quads) in the mass range $10^{6} - 10^{10} M_{\odot}$, assuming cold dark matter. Our analysis framework includes both subhalos and line of sight halos, marginalizes over nuisance parameters describing the lens macromodel, accounts for finite source effects on lensing observables, and simultaneously constrains the normalization and logarithmic slope of the mass-concentration relation, and the normalization of the subhalo mass function. At $z=0$, we constrain the concentration of $10^{8} M_{\odot}$ halos $c=12_{-5}^{+6}$ at $68 \%$ CI, and $c=12_{-9}^{+15}$ at $95 \%$ CI. For a $10^{7} M_{\odot}$ halo, we obtain $68 \%$ ($95 \%$) constraints $c=15_{-8}^{+9}$ ($c=15_{-11}^{+18}$), while for $10^{9} M_{\odot}$ halos $c=10_{-4}^{+7}$ ($c=10_{-7}^{+14}$). These results are consistent with the theoretical predictions from mass-concentration relations in the literature, and establish strong lensing by galaxies as a powerful probe of halo concentrations on sub-galactic scales across cosmological distance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02573 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnification perturbation cross section of a 108M halo at z = 0.5 with various concentrations for a 30 pc background source at z = 1.5. More concentrated halos are more efficient lenses, resulting in stronger flux perturbations. This letter is organized as follows. In Section 2, we re￾view the parameterizations of the subhalo and halo mass functions, and describe the parameterization of the mass￾concentration relat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Constraints on the normalization c0 and the logarith￾mic slope β of the mass-concentration relation in Equation 4. We include the constraints on the normalization of the subhalo mass function Σsub, as it is covariant with both c0 and β. Contours show 68% and 95% confidence intervals. The parameter ζ, for which we use a Gaussian prior N (−0.25, 0.05), is unconstrained. 2.1 A model for the CDM mass-concentration relat… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Constraints on the concentration-mass relation of CDM halos derived from the posterior distribution of hyper￾parameters shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Confirming HSC strong lens candidates with DESI Spectroscopy. I. Project overview and first results

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Serendipitous DESI DR1 spectra confirm 27 HSC strong-lens systems and add 76 candidates with lensing galaxies at z>0.8.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2011.07.004 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012NewA...17..175B 17, 175

    Benson A. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2011.07.004 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012NewA...17..175B 17, 175

    doi:10.1016/j.newast.2011.07.004 2012

  3. [3]

    Birrer S., Amara A., 2018, @doi [Physics of the Dark Universe] 10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PDU....22..189B 22, 189

    doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002 2018

  4. [4]

    Birrer S., Amara A., Refregier A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/05/037 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JCAP...05..037B 5, 037

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/05/037 2017

  5. [6]

    T., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...627...53C 627, 53

    Chiba M., Minezaki T., Kashikawa N., Kataza H., Inoue K. T., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...627...53C 627, 53

    doi:10.1086/430403 2005

  6. [7]

    S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340303 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...572...25D 572, 25

    Dalal N., Kochanek C. S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340303 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...572...25D 572, 25

    doi:10.1086/340303 2002

  7. [8]

    Diemer B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..239...35D 239, 35

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c 2018

  8. [9]

    Diemer B., Joyce M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafad6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..168D 871, 168

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafad6 2019

Show all 37 references
  1. [10]

    V., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766...25D 766, 25

    Diemer B., More S., Kravtsov A. V., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766...25D 766, 25

    2013 doi

  2. [11]

    A., Macci \`o A

    Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu742 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3359D 441, 3359

    2014 doi

  3. [12]

    R., Navarro J

    Eke V. R., Navarro J. F., Steinmetz M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554..114E 554, 114

    2001 doi

  4. [13]

    Errani R., Pe \ n arrubia J., Laporte C. F. P., G \'o mez F. A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465L..59E 465, L59

    2017 doi

  5. [14]

    Gilman D., Birrer S., Treu T., Nierenberg A., Benson A., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.1618G p. 1618

    doi

  6. [15]

    arXiv:1908.06983

    Gilman D., Birrer S., Nierenberg A., Treu T., Du X., Benson A., 2019b, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190806983G p. arXiv:1908.06983

    1908 arXiv

  7. [16]

    B., van den Bosch F

    Green S. B., van den Bosch F. C., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190808537G p. arXiv:1908.08537

    2019 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Hinshaw G., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013ApJS..208...19H 208, 19

    2013 doi

  9. [18]

    D., Despali G., Koopmans L

    Hsueh J.-W., Enzi W., Vegetti S., Auger M., Fassnacht C. D., Despali G., Koopmans L. V. E., McKean J. P., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190504182H p. arXiv:1905.04182

    2019 arXiv

  10. [19]

    A., Moore C

    Katz C. A., Moore C. B., Hewitt J. N., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303575 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...475..512K 475, 512

    1997 doi

  11. [20]

    Koopmans L. V. E., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/377434 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...595..712K 595, 712

    2003 doi

  12. [21]

    D., Navarro J

    Ludlow A. D., Navarro J. F., Angulo R. E., Boylan-Kolchin M., Springel V., Frenk C., White S. D. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441..378L 441, 378

    2014 doi

  13. [22]

    D., Bose S., Angulo R

    Ludlow A. D., Bose S., Angulo R. E., Wang L., Hellwing W. A., Navarro J. F., Cole S., Frenk C. S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1046 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.1214L 460, 1214

    2016 doi

  14. [23]

    Moore B., Ghigna S., Governato F., Lake G., Quinn T., Stadel J., Tozzi P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312287 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524L..19M 524, L19

    1999 doi

  15. [24]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177173 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...462..563N 462, 563

    1996 doi

  16. [25]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/304888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490..493N 490, 493

    1997 doi

  17. [26]

    M., Treu T., Wright S

    Nierenberg A. M., Treu T., Wright S. A., Fassnacht C. D., Auger M. W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu862 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.2434N 442, 2434

    2014 doi

  18. [27]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1400 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.2224N 471, 2224

    Nierenberg A. M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1400 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.2224N 471, 2224

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

    M., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190806344N p

    Nierenberg A. M., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190806344N p. arXiv:1908.06344

    2019 arXiv

  20. [29]

    J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16639.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.405.2579O 405, 2579

    Oguri M., Marshall P. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16639.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.405.2579O 405, 2579

    2010

  21. [30]

    A., Cuesta A

    Prada F., Klypin A. A., Cuesta A. J., Betancort-Rijo J. E., Primack J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21007.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.3018P 423, 3018

    2012

  22. [31]

    C., Marcaide J

    Ros E., Guirado J. C., Marcaide J. M., P \'e rez-Torres M. A., Falco E. E., Mu \ n oz J. A., Alberdi A., Lara L., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...362..845R 362, 845

    2000

  23. [32]

    K., Mo H

    Sheth R. K., Mo H. J., Tormen G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04006.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.323....1S 323, 1

    2001

  24. [33]

    Springel V., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14066.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391.1685S 391, 1685

    2008

  25. [34]

    E., Koushiappas S

    Strigari L. E., Koushiappas S. M., Bullock J. S., Kaplinghat M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.083526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PhRvD..75h3526S 75, 083526

    2007 doi

  26. [35]

    Treu T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2329 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.1041T 481, 1041

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    Vegetti S., Koopmans L. V. E., Auger M. W., Treu T., Bolton A. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu943 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.2017V 442, 2017

    2014 doi

  28. [37]

    H., Bullock J

    Wechsler R. H., Bullock J. S., Primack J. R., Kravtsov A. V., Dekel A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...568...52W 568, 52

    2002 doi

  29. [38]

    C., Jiang F., Hearin A., Campbell D., Watson D., Padmanabhan N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.1713V 445, 1713

    van den Bosch F. C., Jiang F., Hearin A., Campbell D., Watson D., Padmanabhan N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.1713V 445, 1713

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.