Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Photometric analysis of the intracluster light in the TNG300 simulation and wide-field observations

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TNG300 and wide-field observations agree the intracluster light fraction of massive clusters is about 30 percent under identical photometric methods, even though the simulated central systems are twice as extended and a magnitude brighter.

desk verdict Solid forward-modeling comparison; ICL fraction agreement holds up, but the simulation-derived correction factors deserve a sensitivity test before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02105 v1 pith:SQGF4S5E submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.GA

Daniel Montenegro-Taborda , Vicente Rodriguez-Gomez , Vladimir Avila-Reese , Bernardo Cervantes-Sodi , Matthias Kluge , Aditya Manuwal , Annalisa Pillepich , Lars Hernquist This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords methods:numericaltechniques:imageprocessinggalaxies:clusters:generalhaloesformationphotometryintraclusterlightICLfraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to settle whether the diffuse starlight that floats between galaxies inside massive clusters—the intracluster light, or ICL—looks the same in a large cosmological simulation as it does in deep telescope images. The authors generate synthetic $g'$-band images of 40 massive clusters from the TNG300 simulation that reproduce the pixel scale, point-spread function, noise, depth, and satellite masking of the Wendelstein Wide Field Imager survey, and then run identical photometric routines on the synthetic and real images. They find that the fraction of the central light budget held by the ICL is about 0.3 in both simulation and observations for three of the four standard ICL definitions, so the ICL fraction is not where theory and data diverge. What does diverge is the absolute light distribution: the simulated brightest-cluster-galaxy-plus-ICL systems are about twice as extended and roughly 1 magnitude per square arcsecond brighter than observed ones. The result matters because it isolates the genuine discrepancy for galaxy-formation models and indicates that measured ICL fractions near 0.3 are robust to the choice of definition.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is a forward-modeling comparison pipeline: every TNG300 cluster is rendered as a synthetic $g'$-band image with the same pixel scale (0.2 arcsec), point-spread function (1.2 arcsec FWHM), Poisson shot noise, background noise, 30 $g'$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ depth, and satellite-masking recipe used on the WWFI frames, so that any remaining difference between the two data sets is a physical difference rather than a methodological one. The identity doing the quantitative work is the ICL fraction $f_{\rm ICL} = F_{\rm ICL} / F_{\rm BCG+ICL}$, evaluated through four competing definitions, together with the simulation-derived correction factors $C_{r_{\rm half}} \approx 1.3$–$1.4$ and $C_{\rm flux} \approx 1.15$–$1.17$ (equations 2–5 of the paper) that convert 'SB-limited' observed measurements into estimates of the total light out to $r_{\rm 200,crit}$.

What would settle it

Take deeper observations of the same clusters—longer exposures or stacking that reach 32 $g'$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ or fainter—and measure their surface brightness profiles directly past the old 30 $g'$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ cutoff; if the observed profiles fall below the TNG300-based extrapolations by more than the stated uncertainties, the $f_{\rm ICL}$ agreement would shrink or vanish. A complementary check is to measure $f_{\rm ICL}$ for the same clusters by a route that never extrapolates through the simulations, such as planetary-nebulae kinematics or globular-cluster counts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that an 'apples-to-apples' comparison—synthetic TNG300 images run through exactly the same masking, background subtraction, and photometric analysis as the WWFI observations—yields median intracluster light fractions that are consistent between simulation and observations for most definitions: $f_{\rm ICL} = 0.33 \pm 0.02$ (TNG300) versus $0.34 \pm 0.19$ (WWFI) for the 27 $g'$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ surface-brightness cut; $0.28 \pm 0.05$ versus $0.26 \pm 0.19$ for the de Vaucouleurs excess; and $0.33$–$0.34$ for the $2 r_{\rm half}$ method on both sides. The same pipeline shows that the simulated BCG+ICL is about twice as extended (median half-light radius of 74 kpc versus 34 kpc for circular apertures) and about 1 $g'$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ brighter in surface brightness. The larger observed scatter in $f_{\rm ICL}$ is attributed primarily to observational uncertainties in the total BCG+ICL luminosity near the 30 $g'$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ detection limit rather than to genuine cluster-to-cluster variation in the real Universe.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the correction factors for light hidden below the 30 $g'$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ limit, measured from the TNG300 synthetic images, apply to real galaxy clusters; if actual clusters place a different fraction of their light below that isophote, the corrected observed ICL fractions are biased toward agreement with the simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the agreement holds, the ICL fraction is a stable, method-independent observable: roughly 30% of the BCG+ICL light in massive clusters is diffuse across three independent definitions.
  • The factor-of-two size offset and ~1 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ brightness offset—not the ICL budget—become the target for improving galaxy-formation models at the cluster scale, pointing to the amount and distribution of accreted (ex situ) stars.
  • If the large observed scatter in $f_{\rm ICL}$ is mostly measurement noise near the detection limit, deeper or stacked observations should reveal intrinsic scatter in real clusters as narrow as the simulation's.
  • The convergence of most definitions near $f_{\rm ICL} \approx 0.3$ supports $2 r_{\rm half}$ (roughly a 100 kpc aperture in this mass range) as a practical BCG/ICL boundary that observers can adopt without profile fitting.
  • Fixed-aperture definitions of 30 or 50 kpc inherit the systematic size offset and should not be used for direct simulation–observation comparisons of ICL fractions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the same matched-pipeline correction scheme could be applied to other cosmological simulations, or to TNG300 with a different resolution, to test whether the ~0.3 ICL fraction and the factor-of-two size offset are generic properties of current galaxy-formation models or specific to TNG300.
  • My inference: if the observational scatter in $f_{\rm ICL}$ is truly dominated by the detection limit, then upcoming deeper surveys should measure scatter consistent with the simulation when pushed to comparable depth—a direct, testable consequence the paper does not itself state.
  • My inference: the mass-independence of $f_{\rm ICL}$ found here, together with the transition radius near $2 r_{\rm half}$, suggests the ICL fraction may be approximately scale-invariant down to galaxy groups; checking TNG300's lower-mass haloes would test that.
  • My inference: since the fractional ICL budget matches while the absolute profile does not, the ratio of diffuse to bound stellar light appears to track the dark-matter halo shape, whereas the profile normalization is set by the feedback model—a separation that could help diagnose the stellar-mass-to-halo-mass relation at the cluster scale.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper forward-models 40 massive TNG300 clusters at z≈0.06 into synthetic g'-band images that mimic Wendelstein Wide Field Imager (WWFI) observations, and applies identical satellite masking, background subtraction, and photometric measurements to synthetic and real images. The authors compare BCG+ICL sizes, surface brightness profiles, and the intracluster light fraction fICL under four definitions: SB cut at 27 g' mag arcsec^-2, de Vaucouleurs excess light, light beyond 2rhalf, and fixed circular apertures of 30, 50, and 100 kpc. They report that simulated BCG+ICL systems are roughly twice as extended and ~1 g' mag arcsec^-2 brighter than observed ones, but that the median fICL is consistent between simulation and observation for the SB27, deV, and 2rhalf definitions, with the fixed-aperture method showing a ~15% excess in TNG300. The larger observed scatter in fICL is attributed primarily to observational uncertainties in the total BCG+ICL flux.

Significance. If the central result holds, it is valuable: it separates the ICL fraction, a relative quantity, from the absolute normalization offset of the simulated BCG+ICL light, and it demonstrates that forward-modeling with identical processing can yield meaningful apples-to-apples comparisons. The paper is transparent about its pipeline, tests the effect of image smoothing in Appendix B, and compares with prior work quantitatively. However, the main claim of fICL consistency rests on simulation-derived correction factors applied to the observed images, and on a modified de Vaucouleurs fit threshold; these choices require robustness checks before the claim can be considered fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eq. (7)] The correction factors C_flux and C_rhalf (equations 2-5) are measured from TNG300 raw synthetic images and applied to the WWFI observations through equation (7), but they are validated only by checking that the corrected 'SB-limited' measurements recover the 'full' measurements in the simulation itself (solid versus dashed red lines in Figures 8-11). This does not test whether real clusters contain the same fraction of light below the 30 g' mag arcsec^-2 isophote. The paper itself notes that Kluge et al. (2020) obtained a flux correction of 1.09 from Sérsic extrapolation, while the TNG300-based C_flux,circ is 1.17, implying that the simulated outer profiles are shallower than observed extrapolations. Consequently, applying the TNG300 corrections to observations could bias the observed fICL toward the simulated values. The central claim of median consistency for most definitions depends on these corrections. The authors should present a version of Figures 9-12 without the corrections or with the alternative Sérsic-based corrections, and estimate the systematic uncertainty in fICL from the correction-factor calibration.
  2. [Section 4.2] The de Vaucouleurs inner fit threshold is changed from 23 g' mag arcsec^-2 (as in Kluge et al. 2021) to 27 g' mag arcsec^-2 because the lower threshold is too close to the TNG300 resolution limit. This change alone moves the observed fICL,deV from 0.48±0.20 (Kluge et al. 2021) to 0.26±0.19. Because the threshold is chosen partly to accommodate the simulation's resolution, the comparison is no longer based on an observationally motivated, fixed definition. To establish that the simulated-observed agreement for this method is not a coincidence of the chosen threshold, the authors should show how fICL,deV varies with the fit threshold (e.g., 23, 25, 27, 28 g' mag arcsec^-2) for both the TNG300 and WWFI samples.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4 (footnote 4)] The satellite-mask threshold T0 is changed from 0.15 (Kluge et al. 2020) to 0.3 without a stated reason; please justify this choice or show that the results are insensitive to T0.
  2. [Section 3.4] The sentence beginning 'The latter are somewhat larger than...' is ambiguous, because both circular and elliptical correction factors were listed immediately before; please specify which set is being compared.
  3. [Section 4.5 / Figure 12] The median fICL values are reported without uncertainties on the medians; given the modest sample sizes (40 simulated and 38 observed clusters), bootstrap or jackknife confidence intervals would strengthen the comparison.
  4. [Section 4.1] The claim that the observed scatter in fICL,SB27 is 'about an order of magnitude' larger than in the simulation is based on the 16-84 percentile range; consider also reporting a robust dispersion measure such as the median absolute deviation to ensure this is not driven by a few outliers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TNG300-based correction factors are a transparent extrapolation assumption, not a construction that forces the observed fICL to equal the simulation.

full rationale

The paper is a forward-modeling comparison rather than a derivation, and its central claim is not constructed from its inputs. The correction factors in Eqs. (2)-(5) are measured from TNG300 raw synthetic images and applied through Eq. (7) to both synthetic and real sigma-clipped images. This is a transparent extrapolation assumption about light below the 30 mag arcsec^-2 limit, not a definition of the observed fICL in terms of the simulated fICL. Observed fluxes still enter the numerator and denominator, and the fixed-aperture method in Section 4.4 yields a disagreement, showing that the correction does not force agreement. The paper validates the correction only on the simulation itself (solid versus dashed red lines in Figs. 8-11), and the lack of independent observational validation is a robustness or correctness concern, which the instructions direct to correctness risk rather than circularity. Self-citations, such as the reference to Montenegro-Taborda et al. (2025) for the 2rhalf interpretation, are contextual and not load-bearing for the simulation-observation comparison. No step reduces by construction to its inputs.

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

The central claim rests on six analysis parameters, two of which (flux and half-light corrections) are derived from the same TNG300 simulations and applied to the observations, plus domain assumptions about SED conversion, dust, mass matching, masking transfer, and correction-factor transferability. No new physical entities or forces are postulated; the comparison is built from published WWFI images and public TNG data.

free parameters (6)
  • Circular aperture flux correction factor C_flux,circ = 1.17 +/- 0.07
    Equation (3): median ratio F_BCG+ICL,200c / F_BCG+ICL,30 measured on raw TNG300 images; applied to observed total light via equation (7).
  • Elliptical aperture flux correction factor C_flux,ellip = 1.15 +/- 0.06
    Equation (5): same construction as the circular factor but for elliptical apertures; used in the de Vaucouleurs and 2rhalf ICL fraction calculations.
  • Circular aperture half-light radius correction C_rhalf,circ = 1.39 +/- 0.20
    Equation (2): ratio of half-light radius measured to r200,crit versus to the 30 g' mag arcsec^-2 limit, used to correct observed half-light radii.
  • Elliptical aperture half-light radius correction C_rhalf,ellip = 1.32 +/- 0.14
    Equation (4): elliptical analogue used for the 2rhalf ICL fraction measurements.
  • Satellite mask S/N threshold T0 = 0.3
    Equation (1) in Section 2.4; Kluge et al. used 0.15, so the adopted threshold changes the masked area and therefore the ICL flux; the paper does not calibrate this choice.
  • de Vaucouleurs inner fit threshold = 27 g' mag arcsec^-2
    Section 4.2; changed from Kluge et al.'s 23 g' mag arcsec^-2 fit boundary to avoid TNG300 resolution effects, and the authors acknowledge this changes fICL_deV from 0.48 to 0.26 for the same observations.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption TNG300 stellar particles with Bruzual-Charlot SEDs faithfully reproduce g'-band surface brightness of real clusters.
    Section 2.3 turns every stellar particle into an SSP and adds all light; if the simulated stellar populations or the stellar mass-to-light conversion are wrong, the SB comparison is systematically biased.
  • domain assumption The observational satellite-masking procedure, including manual remasking, transfers to synthetic images and removes halo-finder biases.
    Section 2.4 applies the same mask recipe to both data sets and visually redefines BCGs in 2 of 40 cases; the manual step is not fully algorithmic, so masks may differ between samples.
  • ad hoc to paper The median correction factors measured from TNG300 raw images apply to the WWFI observations.
    Equations (2)-(5) are measured on TNG300 images out to r200,crit and applied via equation (7) to observed fluxes; no independent observational validation is provided.
  • domain assumption WWFI gravitational masses are comparable to TNG300 M200,crit.
    Section 2.2 and Figure 1 compare M_vir from Bryan and Norman with gravitational masses from Kluge et al.; any systematic mass offset could bias the matched samples.
  • domain assumption Dust attenuation is negligible for the BCG+ICL component.
    Section 2.3 footnote; dust may affect satellite luminosities, but satellites are masked, so the assumption matters only for the diffuse light included in the analysis.
  • standard math Projection along the box z-axis is a random orientation for each cluster.
    Section 2.3; valid if the simulation box is statistically isotropic, but each cluster is seen from only one projection, adding orientation noise to the comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper The de Vaucouleurs inner fit region can be changed from 23 to 27 g' mag arcsec^-2 without invalidating the ICL excess-light definition.
    Section 4.2 changes the fit boundary for consistency with the SB27 method and to avoid simulation resolution limits; the resulting median shifts substantially, showing definition sensitivity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photometric analysis of the intracluster light in the TNG300 simulation and wide-field observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SQGF4S5E

@misc{pith2026250702105,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photometric analysis of the intracluster light in the TNG300 simulation and wide-field observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SQGF4S5E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02105}
}
abstract

We present a robust, apples-to-apples comparison between the photometric properties of the intracluster light (ICL) in the TNG300 magnetohydrodynamic cosmological simulation and those in Wendelstein Wide Field Imager (WWFI) observations. This is accomplished by generating synthetic $g'$-band images of 40 massive ($\log\left(M_{\rm 200, crit}/{\rm M}_{\odot}\right) > 14.5$) TNG300 clusters at $z \approx 0.06$, closely mimicking WWFI observations, and then performing identical photometric calculations on the synthetic and real images. Importantly, we apply the same observationally motivated satellite-masking procedure to both data-sets, which effectively removes any possible biases introduced by the halo finder. We first analyze the light distribution of the `smooth' stellar component of each cluster, composed of the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) plus the ICL, and find that it tends to be about twice as extended in TNG300 than in observations, while also being approximately 1 $g'$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ brighter. We then quantify $f_{\rm ICL}$, the ICL fraction relative to the BCG+ICL, by considering several ICL definitions: (i) the light dimmer than a surface brightness cut at 27 $g'$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$, (ii) the excess light over a de Vaucouleurs profile, (iii) the light beyond twice the half-light radius ($2 r_{\rm half}$), and (iv) the light beyond a fixed circular aperture of 30, 50, or 100 kpc. For most definitions, the median $f_{\rm ICL}$ is consistent between simulation and observations. However, the observations exhibit larger scatter in $f_{\rm ICL}$, which we attribute primarily to observational uncertainties in the total BCG+ICL luminosity rather than `true' cluster-to-cluster variation in the real Universe. We also find that most methods yield median $f_{\rm ICL}$ values near 0.3, which is consistent with a BCG/ICL transition radius around $2 r_{\rm half}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02105 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histogram showing the virial masses of the simulated (red) and observed (black) galaxy cluster samples at z = 0.0585 and z¯ = 0.059, respectively. The vertical dashed lines indicate the corresponding medians. Note that Kluge et al. (2021) report masses for only 38 out of the 170 clusters. population (SSP) located at z = 0.0585, and its g ′ -band flux in the observer’s frame is calculated using GALAXEV models (Bruzua… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Idealized (left), realistic (middle), and masked (right) g ′ -band synthetic images of the most massive cluster in the TNG300 simulation at z = 0.0585, as described in Sections 2.3 and 2.4. The field of view is 2r200,crit. 3120 s, we obtain an effective gain of 45.1 e− (ADU/s)−1 , i.e. the multiplicative factor used to convert the image units from ADU s−1 to electrons. We then replace each pixel value with a sample … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Median surface brightness (SB) profiles of the synthetic images, where the background levels have been obtained via sigma clipping within circular annuli at r 1/4 = 4.95–5 arcsec1/4 (red), r 1/4 = 5.45–5.5 arcsec1/4 (magenta), and r 1/4 = 5.95–6 arcsec1/4 (blue). The black line represents the ‘raw’ SB profile obtained for the unmodified background (which is centred at zero, by construction). The grey shaded re… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ellipticities (left), sizes (middle), and Sérsic indices (right) obtained from fitting 2D Sérsic models to the synthetic (red) and real (black) BCG+ICL images, plotted against cluster mass. The solid lines and shaded regions indicate the medians and 16th-84th percentil…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Median surface brightness (SB) profiles of the simulated (red) and observed (black and blue) BCG+ICL systems, shown both for circular (left) and elliptical (right) apertures. In the case of the observations, the main (consisting of the 38 observed clusters with mass es…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Petrosian radii of the simulated (red) and observed (black) BCG+ICL systems, plotted against cluster mass. The left- and right-hand panels show measurements for circular and elliptical apertures, respectively. Solid lines indicate the medians, while shaded regions repr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Correction factors for half-light radii (top) and BCG+ICL fluxes (bottom), i.e. the multiplicative factors required to convert a ‘SB-limited’ measure￾ment (where all quantities are measured within the observational limit of 30 g ′ mag arcsec−2 ) into a ‘full’ measureme…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Half-light radii of the simulated (red) and observed (black) BCG+ICL systems, plotted against cluster mass. The left- and right-hand panels correspond to circular and elliptical apertures, respectively. The dots show the corrected, ‘SB-limited’ measurements (see Sectio…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The ICL fraction that results from defining the ICL as the light with SB dimmer than 27 g ′ mag arcsec−2 (left) and as the excess of light with respect to an outwardly extrapolated 2D de Vaucouleurs profile fitted to the inner region brighter than 27 g ′ mag arcsec−2 (…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The ICL fraction for TNG300 (red) and WWFI (black), where the ICL is defined as the light beyond twice the half-light radius, plotted against cluster mass. The left- and right-hand panels show results for circular and elliptical apertures, respectively. Dots represent…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The ICL fraction for TNG300 (red) and WWFI (black), where the ICL consists of the light beyond a fixed circular aperture of radius 30 kpc (left), 50 kpc (middle), and 100 kpc (right), shown as a function of cluster mass. The dots, solid and dashed lines, and shaded re…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: ICL fraction distributions for the various methods presented in Sections 4.1–4.4. The black and red bars correspond to the observational (main WWFI sample, composed of 38 clusters) and simulated (TNG300, 40 clusters) cluster populations, respectively. The dashed blue …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    O., Corwin Jr

    Abell G. O., Corwin Jr. H. G., Olowin R. P., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJS...70....1A 70, 1

    doi:10.1086/191333 1989

  2. [2]

    G., Tanvir N

    Abraham R. G., Tanvir N. R., Santiago B. X., Ellis R. S., Glazebrook K., van den Bergh S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/279.3.L47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.279L..47A 279, L47

    doi:10.1093/mnras/279.3.l47 1996

  3. [3]

    L., Bah \'e Y

    Ahad S. L., Bah \'e Y. M., Hoekstra H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.3685A 518, 3685

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3357 2023

  4. [4]

    A., Blakeslee J

    Alamo-Mart \' nez K. A., Blakeslee J. P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...849....6A 849, 6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f44 2017

  5. [5]

    Ardila F., et al., 2021, , 500, 432

    2021

  6. [6]

    Arnaboldi M., Gerhard O., 2022, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2022.872283 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022FrASS...972283A 9, 403

    work page arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  8. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Behroozi P., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3020B 454, 3020

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Bender R., Moellenhoff C., 1987, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987A&A...177...71B 177, 71

    1987

  3. [11]

    Bradley L., et al., 2021, astropy/photutils: 1.3.0 , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.5796924

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Brough S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3810 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528..771B 528, 771

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, , 344, 1000

    2003

  6. [14]

    L., Norman M

    Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...495...80B 495, 80

    1998 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Welker C., Lagos C

    Ca \ n as R., Elahi P. J., Welker C., Lagos C. d. P., Power C., Dubois Y., Pichon C., 2019, , 482, 2039

    2019

  8. [16]

    Ca \ n as R., Lagos C. d. P., Elahi P. J., Power C., Welker C., Dubois Y., Pichon C., 2020, , 494, 4314

    2020

  9. [17]

    Castro-Rodrigu \'e z N., Arnaboldi M., Aguerri J. A. L., Gerhard O., Okamura S., Yasuda N., Freeman K. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200809774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...507..621C 507, 621

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    Chen X., Zu Y., Shao Z., Shan H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1456 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.2692C 514, 2692

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Bershady M

    Conselice C. J., Bershady M. A., Jangren A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...529..886C 529, 886

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

    Contini E., 2021, Galaxies, 9, 60

    2021

  13. [21]

    K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452741 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692L...9C 692, L9

    Contini E., Spavone M., Ragusa R., Iodice E., Yi S. K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452741 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692L...9C 692, L9

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    P., Gao L., Guo Q., Frenk C

    Cooper A. P., Gao L., Guo Q., Frenk C. S., Jenkins A., Springel V., White S. D. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1042 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2703C 451, 2703

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Cui W., et al., 2014, , 437, 816

    2014

  16. [24]

    Da Rocha C., Mendes de Oliveira C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09641.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364.1069D 364, 1069

    2005

  17. [25]

    S., White S

    Davis M., Efstathiou G., Frenk C. S., White S. D., 1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 292, 371

    1985

  18. [26]

    H., Zabludoff A., Zaritsky D., Brada c M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.1162D 448, 1162

    DeMaio T., Gonzalez A. H., Zabludoff A., Zaritsky D., Brada c M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.1162D 448, 1162

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    DeMaio T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/MNRAS/STZ3236 , 491, 3751

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A.159D 679, A159

    Diego J. M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A.159D 679, A159

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Dolag K., Borgani S., Murante G., Springel V., 2009, , 399, 497

    2009

  22. [30]

    Dolag K., Murante G., Borgani S., 2010, , 405, 1544

    2010

  23. [31]

    Ellien A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A..38E 649, A38

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Mihos J

    Feldmeier J. J., Mihos J. C., Morrison H. L., Harding P., Kaib N., Dubinski J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...609..617F 609, 617

    2004 doi

  25. [33]

    E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.2419F 502, 2419

    Furnell K. E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.2419F 502, 2419

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    S., Ostriker J

    Gallagher III J. S., Ostriker J. P., 1972, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/111280 , 77, 288

    1972 doi

  27. [35]

    Genel S., et al., 2014, , 445, 175

    2014

  28. [36]

    Genel S., et al., 2018, , 474, 3976

    2018

  29. [37]

    H., Zabludoff A

    Gonzalez A. H., Zabludoff A. I., Zaritsky D., 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 618, 195

    2005

  30. [39]

    A., Ostriker J

    Hausman M. A., Ostriker J. P., 1978, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/156380 , 224, 320

    1978 doi

  31. [40]

    A., Puchwein E., Sijacki D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2235 , 498, 2114

    Henden N. A., Puchwein E., Sijacki D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2235 , 498, 2114

    2020 doi

  32. [41]

    Kluge M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab733b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..247...43K 247, 43

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    Kluge M., Bender R., Riffeser A., Goessl C., Hopp U., Schmidt M., Ries C., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 252, 27

    2021

  34. [43]

    Kosyra R., G \"o ssl C., Hopp U., Lang-Bardl F., Riffeser A., Bender R., Seitz S., 2014, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-014-9414-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ExA....38..213K 38, 213

    2014 doi

  35. [44]

    V., Vikhlinin A

    Kravtsov A. V., Vikhlinin A. A., Meshcheryakov A. V., 2018, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773717120015 , 44, 8

    2018 doi

  36. [45]

    Marinacci F., et al., 2018, , 480, 5113

    2018

  37. [46]

    Mart \' nez-Lombilla C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.1195M 518, 1195

    2023 doi

  38. [47]

    Merritt A., Pillepich A., van Dokkum P., Nelson D., Hernquist L., Marinacci F., Vogelsberger M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.4570M 495, 4570

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    V., Rodr \' guez-Puebla A., Hernquist L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..800M 521, 800

    Montenegro-Taborda D., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Pillepich A., Avila-Reese V., Sales L. V., Rodr \' guez-Puebla A., Hernquist L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..800M 521, 800

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    Montenegro-Taborda D., Avila-Reese V., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Manuwal A., Cervantes-Sodi B., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf271 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.537.3954M 537, 3954

    2025 doi

  41. [50]

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

    2022

  42. [51]

    Montes M., Trujillo I., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474..917M 474, 917

    2018 doi

  43. [52]

    Montes M., Trujillo I., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2858 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.2838M 482, 2838

    2019 doi

  44. [53]

    E., Treu T., Schmidt K

    Morishita T., Abramson L. E., Treu T., Schmidt K. B., Vulcani B., Wang X., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..139M 846, 139

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    I., Pearce F

    Muldrew S. I., Pearce F. R., Power C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17636.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410.2617M 410, 2617

    2011

  46. [55]

    P., et al., 2018, , 477, 1206

    Naiman J. P., et al., 2018, , 477, 1206

    2018

  47. [56]

    Nelson D., et al., 2018, , 475, 624

    2018

  48. [57]

    Nelson D., et al., 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 1

    2019

  49. [58]

    Onions J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20947.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.1200O 423, 1200

    2012

  50. [59]

    P., Tremaine S

    Ostriker J. P., Tremaine S. D., 1975, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/181992 , 202, L113

    1975 doi

  51. [60]

    Petrosian V., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/18230110.1086/182253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...209L...1P 210, L53

    1976

  52. [61]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 , 473, 4077

    doi

  53. [62]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2018b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 , 475, 648

    doi

  54. [63]

    Planck Collaboration XIII 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A13

    2016

  55. [64]

    L., Lagos C

    Proctor K. L., Lagos C. d. P., Ludlow A. D., Robotham A. S. G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2624P 527, 2624

    2024 doi

  56. [65]

    L., 2017, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies5030049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Galax...5...49R 5, 49

    Remus R.-S., Dolag K., Hoffmann T. L., 2017, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies5030049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Galax...5...49R 5, 49

    2017 doi

  57. [66]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [Nature Reviews Physics] 10.1038/s42254-019-0067-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatRP...1..450R 1, 450

    Robertson B. E., et al., 2019, @doi [Nature Reviews Physics] 10.1038/s42254-019-0067-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatRP...1..450R 1, 450

    2019 doi

  58. [67]

    Rodriguez-Gomez V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4140R 483, 4140

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    S., Mihos J

    Rudick C. S., Mihos J. C., McBride C. K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...732...48R 732, 48

    2011 doi

  60. [69]

    Sampaio-Santos H., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3680 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.1300S 501, 1300

    2021 doi

  61. [70]

    L., 1968, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968BAICz..19..105S 19, 105

    S \'e rsic J. L., 1968, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968BAICz..19..105S 19, 105

    1968

  62. [71]

    Springel V., White S. D. M., Tormen G., Kauffmann G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x , 328, 726

    2001

  63. [72]

    Springel V., et al., 2018, , 475, 676

    2018

  64. [73]

    Tang L., Lin W., Cui W., Kang X., Wang Y., Contini E., Yu Y., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd78 , 859, 85

    2018 doi

  65. [74]

    Tang L., Lin W., Wang Y., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8292 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893...87T 893, 87

    2020 doi

  66. [75]

    R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3321T 508, 3321

    Tang L., Lin W., Wang Y., Napolitano N. R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3321T 508, 3321

    2021 doi

  67. [76]

    Tang L., Lin W., Wang Y., Li J., Lan Y., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad05ca , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959..104T 959, 104

    2023 doi

  68. [77]

    Weinberger R., et al., 2017, , 465, 3291

    2017

  69. [78]

    White S. D. M., 1976, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/177.3.717 , 177, 717

    1976 doi

  70. [79]

    Yoo J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2df8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..145Y 965, 145

    2024 doi

  71. [80]

    Zibetti S., White S. D. M., 2005, in Jerjen H., Binggeli B., eds, IAU Colloq. 198: Near-fields cosmology with dwarf elliptical galaxies. pp 337--341 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0504459 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921305004011

    2005 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Zwicky F., 1951, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 63, 61

    1951

  73. [82]

    de Vaucouleurs G., 1948, Annales d'Astrophysique, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1948AnAp...11..247D 11, 247

    1948

Pith tools

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