Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Directional miscentering dependence in weak lensing mass bias

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Switching galaxy-cluster mass reference from the potential minimum to the center of mass reduces the directional weak lensing mass bias to about one percent.

desk verdict Practical, new idea — use the center of mass as the reference for weak lensing mass calibration — but the sub-percent claim rests on a randomization test that confounds distance resampling with direction, so it needs a rotation-only check before it enters the calibration literature. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13883 v2 pith:URKAYX7B submitted 2024-12-18 astro-ph.CO

Martin W. Sommer , Tim Schrabback , Sebastian Grandis This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords weakgravitationallensinggalaxyclustersmiscenteringmassbiasSunyaev-Zeldovicheffectcenterofhydrodynamicalsimulationsclustercalibration
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

Weak lensing estimates of galaxy cluster masses are biased when the adopted cluster center is slightly off, and when centers come from X-ray or Sunyaev-Zeldovich observations the bias carries a directional component that standard isotropic miscentering corrections miss. The paper uses hydrodynamical cosmological simulations to test a simple remedy: redefine the reference center of a cluster as its center of mass instead of the bottom of the gravitational potential. With the center-of-mass reference, the mass overcorrection produced by applying an isotropic miscentering correction drops from about 6 percent to a value consistent with zero at the one-percent level. This matters because miscentering is currently a dominant systematic in cluster mass calibration, and the proposed change keeps the usual isotropic correction machinery intact while removing most of the directional bias.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a randomization scheme that separates directional from scalar miscentering. For each halo, the absolute miscentering distance $|\Theta_{\mathrm{SZE}}-\Theta_{\mathrm{G}}|$ (or the corresponding distance relative to $\Theta_{\mathrm{CoM}}$) is drawn and paired with a uniformly random angle $\varphi\in[0,2\pi)$, creating an isotropic comparison distribution that has the same radial miscentering statistics but no preferred direction. The overcorrection $\tau = \langle (M_{\mathrm{biased}}-M_{\mathrm{unbiased}})/M_{\mathrm{unbiased}}\rangle$ then measures the mass bias introduced purely by the directional structure of the real miscentering. The second ingredient is the iterative center-of-mass definition, obtained by mass-weighting particles inside $r_{500}$ and recomputing $M_{500}$ and $r_{500}$ at each step until convergence, which reduces the absolute SZE miscentering by about half. The fact that $\tau$ is consistent with zero when the reference center is $\Theta_{\mathrm{CoM}}$ is what carries the conclusion.

What would settle it

A direct check is to measure the distribution of angles between the vector $\Theta_{\mathrm{SZE}}-\Theta_{\mathrm{CoM}}$ (or $\Theta_{\mathrm{SZE}}-\Theta_{\mathrm{G}}$) and the projected elongation axis of the cluster or the surrounding large-scale structure. If that angular distribution is not uniform, the isotropic-randomization null model erases real directional information and the quoted sub-percent $\tau$ is not the full anisotropic bias. A sharper version: repeat the mass fits with miscentering offsets artificially aligned along the cluster major axis and compare $\tau$ with the minor-axis-aligned case; any difference means the center-of-mass reference does not remove the directional dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the non-isotropic component of the weak lensing mass bias can be reduced to within one percent of the cluster mass by choosing the center of mass $\Theta_{\mathrm{CoM}}$ as the reference center rather than the gravitational potential minimum $\Theta_{\mathrm{G}}$. For the 275 most massive halos of a hydrodynamical cosmological simulation snapshot at $z=0.67$, projected along three orthogonal axes, the peak of a one-arcminute-convolved Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZE) image serves as the observed center proxy. Comparing mass fits centered on the actual SZE position with fits centered on randomized isotropic miscentering, the overcorrection $\tau$ is about 6 percent when $\Theta_{\mathrm{G}}$ is the reference, but becomes $\tau=-0.2\pm0.8$ percent (log-normal model) or $\tau=-0.3\pm0.9$ percent (Gaussian model) when $\Theta_{\mathrm{CoM}}$ is the reference. Because $\tau$ is consistent with zero in the center-of-mass frame, the paper concludes that standard isotropic miscentering distributions remain adequate provided the halo center is defined by the center of mass, and that the halo mass function need not be redefined.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that pairing each observed miscentering distance with a uniformly random angle creates a fair isotropic baseline; if real SZE miscentering directions are correlated with the surrounding structure or the shear field, the randomization destroys that correlation and the measured $\tau$ underestimates the true directional bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adopting the center of mass as the reference center reduces the residual anisotropic miscentering systematic in weak lensing mass calibration to about one percent, comparable to the statistical goals of current and planned cluster surveys.
  • Standard isotropic empirical miscentering distributions can still be used for simulation-based corrections; only the reference center used to measure them needs to change.
  • The halo mass function does not need to be recomputed for the new center definition, since $M_{500,\mathrm{CoM}}$ differs from $M_{500,\mathrm{G}}$ by only about 5 percent on average.
  • Because SZE peaks and X-ray centroids showed similar overcorrections in earlier work, and X-ray emission traces gas density, the same center-of-mass reference is expected to reduce biases for X-ray-determined centers, though this is not demonstrated here.
  • The result is insensitive to the SZE smoothing scale between 0.5 and 1 arcminute and to the concentration-mass relation, so the sub-percent conclusion does not depend on these modeling choices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not recompute mass-observable relations, but a practical consequence is that survey calibrations built on simulations with gravitational-center references carry a roughly 6 percent directional correction that would disappear if the calibrations were re-derived with center-of-mass references; this could shift inferred cluster counts and cosmological parameters.
  • A stronger test of the null model would preserve the angle between the miscentering vector and the projected shear field when randomizing; if the directional bias is produced by correlated structure rather than by the scalar distance distribution, the sub-percent conclusion may be specific to the angle-averaged comparison.
  • The same center-of-mass prescription likely applies to optical and X-ray centroid proxies: X-ray centroids trace gas density and earlier work found X-ray and SZE overcorrections similar, so the bias reduction should transfer, and the prediction is testable with the same simulation pipeline.
  • A falsifiable prediction follows for real surveys: using SZE-selected clusters, masses calibrated with center-of-mass references should show no dependence of the weak lensing mass bias on the position angle of the SZE centroid relative to cluster elongation, whereas gravitational-center calibrations should show such a dependence.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether the choice of the reference center used to define a cluster's 'true' mass affects the directional (anisotropic) part of the weak-lensing mass bias caused by miscentered observational centers. Using a z=0.67 snapshot of the Magneticum box2b-hr simulation, the authors select 275 massive halos and project them along three axes, identifying the gravitational center (most bound particle), the iterative center of mass, and the SZE peak in noiseless, 1-arcmin-smoothed Compton-y maps. They fit NFW weak-lensing masses centered on the actual SZE peaks and on randomized miscentering positions drawn from the empirical absolute offset distributions with random angles. The difference between the two is summarized by the overcorrection tau. They find tau of about 6% when the gravitational center is the reference and tau consistent with zero when the center of mass is the reference, concluding that using the center of mass removes the non-isotropic component of the mass bias to within about one percent.

Significance. If the conclusion survives the methodological concerns below, this is a valuable result for cluster cosmology: miscentering is a leading systematic in lensing mass calibration, and a simulation-side change of reference center would be inexpensive to implement. The paper is clearly written and has useful built-in robustness tests, including a constant concentration, no mass recalibration, and 0.5-arcmin SZE smoothing. The central quantitative claim, however, depends on the definition of the isotropic baseline; as argued in the major comments, the current randomization procedure conflates directional anisotropy with resampling effects, so the sub-percent claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3 and 2.4, Table 1 rows 4, 6, 8] The randomization does not isolate the directional (anisotropic) component. Drawing a new absolute miscentering with replacement from the global empirical distance distribution and coupling it with a uniform angle changes more than the direction: it breaks the association between the offset magnitude and the individual halo's properties (mass, concentration, dynamical state, orientation). The weak-lensing mass bias b is a nonlinear function of the offset distance and of the halo's density profile, so the mean of b over the randomized sample is not the same as the mean over the same halos with their own offsets rotated by uniform angles, even if every halo's true miscentering were perfectly isotropic. Hence tau can be nonzero purely because of the resampling step. The correct null for the stated question is a rotation-only randomization that keeps each target's absolute offset fixed and randomizes only the angle. Without this control, the reported tau of about 6% for the gravitational-center reference and tau consistent with zero for the center-of-mass reference do not measure the non-isotropic component of the mass bias, and the sub-percent conclusion in the abstract is not established. Please rerun the analysis with rotation-only randomization, and if desired report the resampling-based baseline separately.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Table 1] The 825 targets are not independent. Each of the 275 halos is projected along three mutually orthogonal lines of sight, so the three shear images of the same halo share the same three-dimensional density field and are correlated. The quoted 1-sigma uncertainties on the fitted distribution parameters and on tau appear to treat all 825 targets as independent draws; if so, they are underestimated. This matters for the central statement that the residual is consistent with zero at the one-percent level. Please provide a halo-level bootstrap (resampling the 275 halos, not the 825 projections) or otherwise quantify the effective number of independent targets.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Section 5] The analysis uses a single snapshot at z=0.67 from one simulation box. The abstract's claim that the non-isotropic component 'can be reduced to within one percent' is therefore demonstrated only for this mass range and redshift. Since the proposed remedy is intended to inform survey calibration across a range of redshifts, either add at least one additional snapshot (or a redshift-binned sample) or explicitly restrict the abstract and conclusions to the tested regime.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5] The first sentence contains a typo ('UsingssnapshotoftheMagneticumsimulations') and gives the redshift as z=0.7 while the body uses z=0.67; please fix and harmonize.
  2. [Table 1 and Section 2.4] The table header appears to place the symbols mu_b, sigma_b and mu_log b, sigma_log b under the wrong distribution blocks. For example, row 0 lists -0.024 and 0.167 before 0.991 and 0.179, which is inconsistent with the text's definitions of the normal and log-normal fit parameters. Please use separate column groups labeled 'log-normal fit' and 'normal fit' and define the parameters explicitly in the caption.
  3. [Section 2.3 and Figure 3] The schematic would be clearer if the caption stated explicitly that the randomized SZE centers are generated from the empirical absolute-distance distributions with independent uniform angles, not from the full two-dimensional offset distribution.
  4. [Section 4] The statement that an isotropic broadening of the SZE miscentering distribution 'would not be expected to cause anisotropic effects' is plausible but is asserted rather than demonstrated; one sentence of justification or a reference would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CoM-vs-G reference comparison is an independent simulation-based measurement, and the tau result is not forced by any fitted parameter or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical: it measures weak lensing mass bias distributions from Magneticum simulations for actual SZE centers and for randomized miscentering, then compares the mean bias (tau). The center of mass is defined directly from the simulated 3D particle distribution (Section 2.3), independently of the lensing mass fit, so the small tau is a measured outcome rather than an identity. The randomized baseline is generated by resampling the empirical offset distances with random angles; this provides a non-identical comparison distribution, and the paper reports tau consistent with zero only for the CoM-referenced randomization, not for the gravitational-center randomization. No parameter is fitted to the final tau values, and the conclusion is robust to the two distribution models (log-normal and normal) and to changes in the concentration-mass relation and SZE smoothing, as reported in Section 4. Self-citations to Sommer et al. (2024) supply context, noise broadening, and the choice of distribution model, but the central tau numbers are computed in this paper from the simulations and are not imported from that work. The distance-resampling in Section 2.3 could in principle create a confounding 'resampling artifact' if the mass-bias response correlates with halo properties, but this is a methodological limitation, not a circular reduction: the randomized and actual mass bias distributions are not equal by construction, and the sub-percent result is an empirical finding that could have come out differently. Therefore no specific circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on five domain assumptions about the simulation, the randomization baseline, the center-of-mass definition, the density model, and the SZE proxy. No new physical entities are introduced, and no parameters are fitted to external data; the modeling choices in the fit (radial range, SZE smoothing scale) are hand-chosen and only partially varied. The main burden is the narrow simulation evidence base.

free parameters (2)
  • Radial fit range r_min, r_max = 0.5 Mpc to 1.7 Mpc
    Hand-chosen in Section 2.4 to excise the cluster core and reduce the two-halo term; the absolute bias and possibly tau depend on this choice, and it is not varied in the main analysis.
  • SZE smoothing FWHM = 1 arcmin
    Chosen in Section 2.2 to emulate ground-based SZE resolution; a 0.5 arcmin test gives consistent overcorrection but a broader miscentering distribution.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Magneticum Pathfinder box2b-hr simulation at z=0.67 accurately represents the mass distribution, SZE signal, and center offsets of massive galaxy clusters.
    All central measurements come from this single simulation snapshot (Section 2.2); if the subgrid physics or halo finder is unrepresentative, the reported tau values may not hold in the real universe.
  • domain assumption Randomizing empirical absolute miscentering distances with uniformly random angles yields the correct isotropic null model for measuring anisotropic miscentering effects.
    Section 2.3 and Fig. 3; the overcorrection tau is defined as the difference between actual and randomized centers. This assumes the scalar distance distribution is the only relevant information and that direction is uniformly random in the null model.
  • domain assumption The center of mass, computed iteratively from particles within r500 of the most bound particle, is a well-defined and physically meaningful reference center for a halo.
    Section 2.3; the CoM is derived from the same simulated matter distribution that generates the lensing signal, so the observed reduction in anisotropic bias is partly built into the definition.
  • domain assumption The NFW density profile with the Diemer and Kravtsov (2015) concentration-mass relation, fit over 0.5 to 1.7 Mpc, is an adequate model for the projected shear of simulated clusters.
    Section 2.4; the absolute mass bias depends on this model choice. The paper shows the overcorrection tau is robust to a constant concentration but does not vary the radial fit range.
  • domain assumption The peak of a noiseless SZE image smoothed to 1 arcmin FWHM is a valid observational proxy for the SZE center used in surveys.
    Section 2.2; real SZE observations include CMB, dusty galaxy, and instrument noise. The authors omit noise, arguing from S+24 that isotropic broadening would not induce anisotropic effects, but this is not re-demonstrated here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Directional miscentering dependence in weak lensing mass bias." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/URKAYX7B

@misc{pith2026241213883,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Directional miscentering dependence in weak lensing mass bias},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/URKAYX7B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13883}
}
read the original abstract

Galaxy cluster masses estimated from parametric modeling of weak lensing shear observations are known to be biased by inaccuracies in observationally determined centers. It has recently been shown that such systematic effects can be non-isotropic when centers are derived from X-ray or Compton-Y (Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect) observations, which is often the case in practice. This fact challenges current methods of accurately correcting for weak lensing mass biases using simulations paired with isotropic empirical miscentering distributions, in particular as the effect on determined masses is currently a dominant source of systematic uncertainty. We use hydrodynamical cosmological simulations taken from the Magneticum Pathfinder simulations to show that the non-isotropic component of the mass bias can be reduced to within one percent of the mass when considering the center of mass, rather than the bottom of the gravitational potential, as the reference center of a galaxy cluster.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13883 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Azimuthally averaged miscentering distributions, shown as the estimated probability 𝑃(> 𝑟 ) that the miscentering amplitude of a given target is greater than a radius 𝑟. The black solid line and the green dashed line show the miscentering of the SZE peak and the center of mass, respectively, from the gravitational center. The miscentering distribution of the SZE peak with respect to the center of mass is indicated b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: projected center offsets of SZE peaks vs. centers of mass, both with respect to the gravitational center, for the 825 targets in the sample. The dotted line indicates the one-to-one-relation. Middle: histogram of the projected offsets between 𝚯SZE and 𝚯CoM, decomposed into components respectively parallel and perpendicular to the vector 𝚯CoM − 𝚯G. Right: Distribution of mass ratios. SZE center Center of mass (… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Overcorrection in percent, using different combinations of refer￾ence center and mass bias model. centers and its randomized counterpart, we define 𝜏 = ⟨(𝑀biased − 𝑀unbiased)/𝑀unbiased⟩ as the expectancy value of the relative over￾correction induced by using random miscentering (a negative value of 𝜏 thus corresponds to an under-correction). Here, the subscript ’unbiased’ refers only to the anisotropic miscentering.… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W., Evrard A

    Allen S. W., Evrard A. E., Mantz A. B., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ARA&A..49..409A 49, 409

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514 2011

  2. [2]

    E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439...48A 439, 48

    Applegate D. E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439...48A 439, 48

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2129 2014

  3. [3]

    E., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.1522A 457, 1522

    Applegate D. E., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.1522A 457, 1522

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw005 2016

  4. [5]

    Bartelmann M., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    work page 1996

  5. [6]

    R., Kravtsov A

    Becker M. R., Kravtsov A. V., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...740...25B 740, 25

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/1/25 2011

  6. [7]

    Bocquet S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878...55B 878, 55

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f10 2019

  7. [8]

    Bocquet S., Heitmann K., Habib S., Lawrence E., Uram T., Frontiere N., Pope A., Finkel H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abac5c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901....5B 901, 5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abac5c 2020

  8. [9]

    arXiv:2310.12213

    Bocquet S., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231012213B p. arXiv:2310.12213

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.12213 2023

Show all 64 references
  1. [10]

    arXiv:2401.02075

    Bocquet S., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.02075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240102075B p. arXiv:2401.02075

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [11]

    R., Cole S., Efstathiou G., Kaiser N., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...379..440B 379, 440

    Bond J. R., Cole S., Efstathiou G., Kaiser N., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...379..440B 379, 440

    1991 doi

  3. [13]

    L., Habib S., Heitmann K., Frontiere N., Finkel H., Pope A., Morozov V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859...55C 859, 55

    Child H. L., Habib S., Heitmann K., Frontiere N., Finkel H., Pope A., Morozov V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859...55C 859, 55

    2018 doi

  4. [14]

    N., Klein M., Mohr J., Bocquet S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.tmp..949C

    Chiu I. N., Klein M., Mohr J., Bocquet S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.tmp..949C

    2023 doi

  5. [15]

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

    2019 doi

  6. [16]

    V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..108D 799, 108

    Diemer B., Kravtsov A. V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..108D 799, 108

    2015 doi

  7. [17]

    P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.2871D 483, 2871

    Dietrich J. P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.2871D 483, 2871

    2019 doi

  8. [19]

    Dolag K., Jubelgas M., Springel V., Borgani S., Rasia E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/420966 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...606L..97D 606, L97

    2004 doi

  9. [22]

    Dolag K., Komatsu E., Sunyaev R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.1797D 463, 1797

    2016 doi

  10. [24]

    arXiv:2402.08458

    Ghirardini V., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2402.08458 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240208458G p. arXiv:2402.08458

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [25]

    J., Dietrich J

    Grandis S., Mohr J. J., Dietrich J. P., Bocquet S., Saro A., Klein M., Paulus M., Capasso R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.2041G 488, 2041

    2019 doi

  12. [26]

    J., Klein M., Dolag K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.5671G 507, 5671

    Grandis S., Bocquet S., Mohr J. J., Klein M., Dolag K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.5671G 507, 5671

    2021 doi

  13. [27]

    Grandis S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A.178G 687, A178

    2024 doi

  14. [28]

    J., Dolag K., Liu J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.3069G 469, 3069

    Gupta N., Saro A., Mohr J. J., Dolag K., Liu J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.3069G 469, 3069

    2017 doi

  15. [29]

    J., Holder G

    Haiman Z., Mohr J. J., Holder G. P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320939 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...553..545H 553, 545

    2001 doi

  16. [30]

    Heitmann K., Higdon D., Nakhleh C., Habib S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...646L...1H 646, L1

    2006 doi

  17. [31]

    A., Barnes D

    Henson M. A., Barnes D. J., Kay S. T., McCarthy I. G., Schaye J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.3361H 465, 3361

    2017 doi

  18. [32]

    Hirschmann M., Dolag K., Saro A., Bachmann L., Borgani S., Burkert A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.2304H 442, 2304

    2014 doi

  19. [33]

    Hoekstra H., Hartlap J., Hilbert S., van Uitert E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18053.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412.2095H 412, 2095

    2011

  20. [34]

    S., White S

    Jenkins A., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., Colberg J. M., Cole S., Evrard A. E., Couchman H. M. P., Yoshida N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04029.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.321..372J 321, 372

    2001

  21. [35]

    Kaiser N., Squires G., Broadhurst T., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...449..460K 449, 460

    1995 doi

  22. [36]

    Kilbinger M., 2015, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/78/8/086901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015RPPh...78h6901K 78, 086901

    2015 doi

  23. [37]

    arXiv:2402.08456

    Kleinebreil F., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2402.08456 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240208456K p. arXiv:2402.08456

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [38]

    Klypin A., Yepes G., Gottl \"o ber S., Prada F., He S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw248 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.4340K 457, 4340

    2016 doi

  25. [39]

    Komatsu E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192...18K 192, 18

    2011 doi

  26. [40]

    E., Le Brun A

    Lee B. E., Le Brun A. M. C., Haq M. E., Deering N. J., King L. J., Applegate D., McCarthy I. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479..890L 479, 890

    2018 doi

  27. [42]

    B., Allen S

    Mantz A. B., Allen S. W., Morris R. G., Rapetti D. A., Applegate D. E., Kelly P. L., von der Linden A., Schmidt R. W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu368 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.2077M 440, 2077

    2014 doi

  28. [43]

    McClintock T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2711 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.1352M 482, 1352

    2019 doi

  29. [44]

    Meneghetti M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797...34M 797, 34

    2014 doi

  30. [45]

    F., Frenk C

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

    1997 doi

  31. [46]

    Oguri M., Hamana T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18481.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414.1851O 414, 1851

    2011

  32. [47]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..24P 594, A24

    2016 doi

  33. [48]

    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

  34. [49]

    H., Schechter P., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...187..425P 187, 425

    Press W. H., Schechter P., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...187..425P 187, 425

    1974 doi

  35. [50]

    J., Krukau A., Petkova M., Steinborn D., 2017, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2017.05.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&C....20...52R 20, 52

    Ragagnin A., Dolag K., Biffi V., Cadolle Bel M., Hammer N. J., Krukau A., Petkova M., Steinborn D., 2017, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2017.05.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&C....20...52R 20, 52

    2017 doi

  36. [51]

    Schrabback T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2666 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.2635S 474, 2635

    2018 doi

  37. [52]

    Schrabback T., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.3923S 505, 3923

    2021 doi

  38. [53]

    Seitz C., Schneider P., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...318..687S 318, 687

    1997

  39. [54]

    Seljak U., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03715.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.318..203S 318, 203

    2000

  40. [55]

    K., Tormen G., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02692.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.308..119S 308, 119

    Sheth R. K., Tormen G., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02692.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.308..119S 308, 119

    1999

  41. [56]

    W., Schrabback T., Applegate D

    Sommer M. W., Schrabback T., Applegate D. E., Hilbert S., Ansarinejad B., Floyd B., Grandis S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3052 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.1127S 509, 1127

    2022 doi

  42. [57]

    W., Schrabback T., Ragagnin A., Rockenfeller R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3359S 532, 3359

    Sommer M. W., Schrabback T., Ragagnin A., Rockenfeller R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3359S 532, 3359

    2024 doi

  43. [59]

    Springel V., Hernquist L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06207.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.339..312S 339, 312

    2003

  44. [60]

    Springel V., White M., Hernquist L., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/319473 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...549..681S 549, 681

    2001 doi

  45. [61]

    Springel V., Di Matteo T., Hernquist L., 2005a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.361..776S 361, 776

    2005

  46. [62]

    Springel V., et al., 2005b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.435..629S 435, 629

    doi

  47. [63]

    A., Zeldovich Y

    Sunyaev R. A., Zeldovich Y. B., 1970, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970CoASP...2...66S 2, 66

    1970

  48. [64]

    A., Zeldovich I

    Sunyaev R. A., Zeldovich I. B., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.18.090180.002541 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ARA

    1980

  49. [65]

    F., Remus R.-S., Dolag K., Beck A

    Teklu A. F., Remus R.-S., Dolag K., Beck A. M., Burkert A., Schmidt A. S., Schulze F., Steinborn L. K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812...29T 812, 29

    2015 doi

  50. [66]

    Tollet E., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2856 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.3542T 456, 3542

    2016 doi

  51. [67]

    Tornatore L., Borgani S., Dolag K., Matteucci F., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12070.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.382.1050T 382, 1050

    2007

  52. [68]

    Wiersma R. P. C., Schaye J., Theuns T., Dalla Vecchia C., Tornatore L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15331.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399..574W 399, 574

    2009

  53. [69]

    O., Brainerd T

    Wright C. O., Brainerd T. G., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...534...34W 534, 34

    2000 doi

  54. [70]

    Zohren H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142991 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668A..18Z 668, A18

    2022 doi

  55. [71]

    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.stat...

  56. [72]

    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.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.