Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Shapes and alignments of dark matter haloes and their brightest cluster galaxies in 39 strong lensing clusters

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2005.11469 v1 pith:62WO6VE5 submitted 2020-05-23 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords haloesclusterlensingdarkmattershapesaveragebcgs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

We study shapes and alignments of 45 dark matter (DM) haloes and their brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) using a sample of 39 massive clusters from Hubble Frontier Field (HFF), Cluster Lensing And Supernova survey with Hubble (CLASH), and Reionization Lensing Cluster Survey (RELICS). We measure shapes of the DM haloes by strong gravitational lensing, whereas BCG shapes are derived from their light profiles in Hubble Space Telescope images. Our measurements from a large sample of massive clusters presented here provide new constraints on dark matter and cluster astrophysics. We find that DM haloes are on average highly elongated with the mean ellipticity of $0.482\pm 0.028$, and position angles of major axes of DM haloes and their BCGs tend to be aligned well with the mean value of alignment angles of $22.2\pm 3.9$ deg. We find that DM haloes in our sample are on average more elongated than their BCGs with the mean difference of their ellipticities of $0.11\pm 0.03$. In contrast, the Horizon-AGN cosmological hydrodynamical simulation predicts on average similar ellipticities between DM haloes and their central galaxies. While such a difference between the observations and the simulation may well be explained by the difference of their halo mass scales, other possibilities include the bias inherent to strong lensing measurements, limited knowledge of baryon physics, or a limitation of cold dark matter.

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. The Jackknife method as a new approach to validate strong lens mass models

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

    A leave-one-source-out Jackknife cross-validation distinguishes accurate from overfitted strong lens mass models in cases where the reduced chi-square cannot.

Pith tools