Nonminimally coupled Dark Matter in Clusters of Galaxies: a fully comprehensive analysis

Dario Bettoni; Saboura Zamani; Vincenzo Salzano

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Nonminimally coupled Dark Matter in Clusters of Galaxies: a fully comprehensive analysis

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that combined strong and weak lensing of 19 galaxy clusters constrains the disformal dark-matter–gravity coupling length to be typically consistent with zero, with a $1\sigma$ upper limit around 100 kpc, so the modified…

desk verdict A careful, honest extension of the authors' earlier cluster-lensing analysis, whose qualitative conclusion (no detectable disformal coupling) survives, but whose headline numbers are prior-dominated and need a proper profile-likelihood treatment. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19569 v1 pith:65LYAWNJ submitted 2024-12-27 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

Saboura Zamani , Vincenzo Salzano , Dario Bettoni This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th

keywords non-minimaldarkmattercouplingdisformalgalaxyclustersgravitationallensingmodifiedPoissonequationlengthconstraintsdensityprofilesBayesianmodelcomparison

topics 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

Galaxy clusters are the largest structures where a non-minimal coupling between dark matter and gravity would show up as an extra term in the Poisson equation. This paper tests that idea with combined strong and weak lensing of 19 clusters, using eight dark matter density profiles and three statistical setups: fits to each cluster separately, a joint fit with one universal coupling length, and stacked profiles. The paper's central result is that the characteristic coupling length is typically very small, so the model is fully consistent with general relativity, and the only defensible constraint is an upper limit at $1\sigma$ around $100$ kpc. The earlier reported relation between the coupling length and the NFW scale radius is thereby recast as an upper limit rather than a physical correlation. If this is right, cluster-scale lensing does not yet provide evidence for the modified Poisson term, and standard general-relativistic mass reconstructions of clusters remain valid.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified lensing convergence, Eq. (2.16): $\kappa(R)=\Sigma_{\rm cr}^{-1}\int[\rho-(\epsilon L^2/2)\nabla_r^2\rho_{\rm DM}]\,dz$. The new Laplacian term carries the signal because it responds to how sharply the dark matter density changes along the line of sight, so the constraint on $L$ comes from clusters whose convergence profiles rise steeply or dip near the center. The statistical machinery is the combination of three analysis routes (single, joint, stacked) across eight analytic halo profiles, with MCMC sampling and nested-sampling Bayes factors used to compare the model against general relativity.

What would settle it

Measure convergence and surface density at projected radii below roughly 40 kpc for a stack of relaxed clusters with errors several times smaller than the current data. If a reproducible downturn below the general-relativistic prediction appears, with amplitude tracking $\epsilon L^2\nabla^2\rho_{\rm DM}$ for $L\sim r_s$, the central claim fails; if no such downturn appears, the $1\sigma$ upper limit would drop below 100 kpc, strengthening the conclusion that the coupling is negligible on cluster scales.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the disformal coupling term $\epsilon L^2\nabla^2\rho_{\rm DM}$ added to the Poisson equation leaves no statistically required imprint in cluster lensing. In the single-cluster fits, the posterior medians for $L$ are very small and the Bayes factors favour neither the non-minimally coupled model nor general relativity; where larger values $L\sim r_s$ remain allowed, filtering points within $\Delta\chi^2=1$ shows they act only as upper limits. The joint analysis with a universal $L$ finds a well-constrained larger value only for $\epsilon=+1$ with the NFW profile, and the stacked analysis mostly confirms small $L$ or upper limits. The authors conclude that clusters are probably not the best probe of this coupling, because the correction is small at cluster scales while the lensing errors are large.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes a flat prior on $\log L$ while reporting that the $\chi^2$ landscape in $L$ is basically flat, so the small median values are largely set by that prior choice rather than by the lensing data alone, whereas the upper limit remains data-supported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The non-minimal coupling correction to cluster lensing is subdominant to current measurement errors, so mass and concentration estimates from the CLASH sample can continue to be interpreted within general relativity.
The previously claimed $L\propto r_s$ relation should be downgraded to an upper bound; it is not evidence for a physical connection between the coupling length and the NFW scale radius.
The sign of the coupling matters: $\epsilon=-1$ forces $L$ to very small values in almost every profile and analysis, while $\epsilon=+1$ leaves room for $L\sim r_s$ only in clusters whose convergence shows a central plateau or downturn, such as MACSJ0717.
Because the conformal-coupling and Einstein-tensor variants produce nearly identical lensing signals, lensing alone cannot separate the allowed variants of the model; a dynamical probe that isolates one gravitational potential would be needed.
The paper's own conclusion points to smaller astrophysical scales, such as galaxy kinematics and dynamics, as the next place where the coupling could leave a detectable signature.

Reading between the lines

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

The small median values of $L$ are not strongly data-driven: the paper describes the $\chi^2$ landscape in $L$ as almost flat, so with a flat prior on $\log L$ the posterior median mostly reflects the prior volume rather than the likelihood; the upper limit is the robust part of the claim.
A decisive test would be to push lensing or kinematic measurements inward of roughly 40 kpc for a stack of relaxed clusters: a systematic negative correction matching $\epsilon L^2\nabla^2\rho_{\rm DM}$ with $L$ of order $r_s$ would vindicate the large-$L$ branch, while its absence would cut the upper limit well below 100 kpc.
Applied to galaxy-scale data, where density gradients are steeper relative to the observable radii, the same Laplacian correction could become comparatively more visible and turn an upper limit into either a detection or a stronger exclusion.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is the reinterpretation of Paper I's L ~ rs signal. By going to both coupling signs, eight density profiles, joint fits, and stacked profiles, they show that the earlier correlation was not a robust detection: the chi-squared landscape is nearly flat in L, and the large-L values are really only upper limits. That is a real step forward, and the paper is commendably transparent about it, including the long chains, brute-force filtering, and the flatness.

I agree with the stress-test note. The "typically very small" part of the central claim is set by the log-uniform prior over a flat likelihood, not by the data. The paper admits the landscape is almost flat from very low to large L, and it never reports the prior bounds on log L. In that regime the posterior median is essentially the prior median, so the small median values are not informative. The upper limits are on slightly better footing as a qualitative statement, but the specific 1-sigma bound of ~100 kpc is not a valid confidence interval: it comes from the range of MCMC samples within Delta-chi^2 = 1 on a flat surface, which is controlled by sampling density and prior boundaries. A profile likelihood or a properly defined credible region would be needed to quote that number.

Other soft spots are minor but real: gas density parameters are fixed from external fits with no error propagation, and the code and reduced data are not released. The citation pattern is fine; the Bettoni-Liberati papers are the origin of the model and Paper I is their own, which is appropriate given how directly this extends it.

That said, the main qualitative conclusion holds: CLASH lensing data do not require the disformal coupling, and GR is consistent. The paper is honest, careful, and the multi-profile consistency check is a useful robustness argument. The flaws are addressable, not load-bearing.

I would send this to a serious referee, but I would insist on a prior-independent bound on L and a report of the prior range. I would not cite the small-L median; I might cite the upper-limit reinterpretation with a caveat.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constrains the characteristic length L of a disformal non-minimal coupling between dark matter and gravity, using strong and weak lensing convergence profiles of 19 CLASH clusters. The analysis treats the Einstein-frame Newtonian limit in which the lensing convergence receives a correction proportional to ϵ L^2 ∇^2 ρ_DM (Eq. 2.16), and considers eight dark matter density profiles, three statistical procedures (single-cluster fits, joint fit with a universal L, and stacked profiles), and both polarities ϵ = ±1. The main reported results are that L is typically very small, consistent with general relativity, and that a 1σ upper limit on L is of order 100 kpc, while the earlier Paper I correlation L ∝ r_s is reinterpreted as an upper limit rather than a detection.

Significance. If established, the result would be a valuable null test of an alternative gravity theory at cluster scales, showing that current CLASH lensing data cannot discriminate the disformal NMC correction from GR and setting an upper limit on the coupling length. The paper is thorough in its model coverage and is transparent about the flat χ² landscape, the long MCMC chains, and the brute-force Δχ²=1 filtering. It also usefully extends Paper I by checking profile-dependence and by adding joint and stacked analyses. However, the central quantitative claim is not yet robust because the analysis does not demonstrate that the reported small L values and upper limits are independent of the prior placed on log L, and because the abstract's numerical upper limit is not clearly supported by the tabulated constraints.

major comments (4)

[Sec. IV A and Sec. V A] The paper states in Sec. V A that the χ² landscape is 'basically almost flat, or at the most with a very small curvature' over a wide range of L, while the MCMC samples log L with no stated bounds (Sec. IV A). In this regime the posterior distribution of log L is nearly equal to the prior, so the reported 'typically very small' median values of L are set by the prior range rather than by the CLASH data. Please state the prior bounds on log L explicitly and provide a profile-likelihood curve for L (or an equivalent prior-independent statistic) to support the claim that the data prefer small L.
[Sec. V A and Table I] The 'brute-force filtering' that selects MCMC points within Δχ²=1 of the minimum and then reads off the range of L does not yield a valid 1σ confidence interval when the likelihood is flat: the extent of that range is controlled by the MCMC sampling density and by the prior boundaries, not by a likelihood-ratio criterion. Consequently, the abstract's statement of an 'upper limit at 1σ which is of the order of 100 kpc' is not quantitatively supported. Please replace these upper limits with profile-likelihood-based confidence intervals or, if Bayesian intervals are used, compute them from an explicitly stated prior and acknowledge their prior dependence.
[Sec. III B] The gas density parameters {ρe,0, ρe,1, r0, re,0, re,1, α, β0, β1} in Eq. (3.5) are fixed from external fits and their uncertainties are not propagated into the covariance matrix used in Eq. (4.1). Because ρgas enters directly into the modeled convergence in Eq. (2.16), this neglect underestimates the error budget and could alter the flatness of the χ² landscape in L. Please include a sensitivity test that varies these parameters within their quoted uncertainties.
[Table I and Abstract] The table header 'logL (kpc)' does not specify the base of the logarithm. If the entries are log10 L, the reported upper limits (e.g., A383 < 3.57) correspond to L ≲ 3700 kpc, which is several orders of magnitude larger than the abstract's 'of the order of 100 kpc'; if they are ln L, the same entry gives L ≲ 35 kpc. Please specify the logarithm base and ensure the abstract's numeric claim is consistent with the reported constraints.

minor comments (3)

[Eq. (3.5)] The second term of the double β-model is written as ρe,1 [(r/re,1)^2]^{-3β1/2}, which appears to be missing the '1 +' factor inside the bracket; it should presumably read [1 + (r/re,1)^2]^{-3β1/2}.
[Sec. VI and Fig. 1 caption] The text writes 'the additional term ϵL²∇rρDM' and the Fig. 1 caption writes 'L²|ϵ∇rρDM|', but Eq. (2.16) has ϵ L²/2 ∇²_r ρDM; these expressions are dimensionally and notationally inconsistent. Please harmonize them.
[Sec. IV A] The sentence 'We did not consider any priors for the characteristic length L' is misleading because choosing log L as the sampled parameter with a bounded range is equivalent to adopting a uniform prior on log L. Please state the prior range explicitly and describe it as a prior.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: L is fitted to external CLASH data; the imported model equation is an assumption, not a self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: take the modified Poisson equation from the Bettoni-Liberati non-minimal coupling model (Eqs. 2.5-2.16), adopt a set of DM density profiles and a gas model, then fit the free parameters—including the coupling length L—to CLASH strong and weak lensing convergence data. L is a free parameter estimated from external data, not derived from the quantity it is used to constrain. Equation (2.16) expresses the convergence kappa in terms of rho_DM and L; fitting L to kappa does not reduce to an input by construction because the data are independent of the model. The central claim that L is typically very small is a posterior statement from MCMC sampling over log L, and the paper itself notes in Sec. V A that the chi-squared landscape is 'basically almost flat, or at the most with a very small curvature', which weakens the quantitative strength of the small-L conclusion. However, that is a statistical limitation concerning prior dependence and confidence-interval validity, not circularity. The model equation and the ansatz F_i(rho) proportional to rho_DM are imported from papers coauthored by one of the present authors, but they are explicitly stated assumptions used to generate predictions, and the test against CLASH data is independent of whether those assumptions are true. Paper I's L proportional to r_s result is explicitly revisited and re-interpreted as an upper limit rather than being used as an input to force the new result. No equation-to-equation reduction and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction was found; the analysis is self-contained against an external benchmark.

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

No new particles, forces, or degrees of freedom are introduced; the disformal coupling and the length L are parameters from prior literature, not new entities. The main external inputs are the gas model parameters and the lensing covariance matrices, neither of which is derived in this paper.

free parameters (5)

L (disformal coupling length) = Upper limits typically log L < 3.5 to 3.8 (natural log, kpc) per cluster; joint and stacked NFW epsilon = +1 gives log…
Free parameter in the modified Poisson equation Eq. (2.5); fitted to CLASH convergence profiles. The central claim about L being small is this fitted value.
c200 (concentration) = Various per cluster, for example A383 c200 = 6.52(+2.75, -1.93) in GR
NFW and generalized NFW concentration parameter, fitted simultaneously with L.
M200 (virial mass) = Various per cluster, for example A383 M200 = 0.69(+0.29, -0.22) x 10^15 solar masses
Mass within r200, fitted simultaneously with L.
gamma (inner slope for gNFW, DARK-exp, Einasto, GPI) = For example stacked gNFW gamma = 0.44(+0.20, -0.21)
Shape parameter for generalized profiles, fitted in single, joint, and stacked analyses for those models.
Gas double beta-model parameters (rho_e,0, rho_e,1, r0, r_e,0, r_e,1, alpha, beta0, beta1) = Fixed from Donahue et al. (2014) fits
External fits to Chandra data; not free in this analysis, and their uncertainties are not propagated, so they are inputs the reader does not see.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Modified Poisson equation for disformal coupling, Eq. (2.5): nabla^2 Phi = 4 pi G [rho_tot - epsilon L^2 / 2 nabla^2 rho_DM]
Imported from Bettoni et al. (2011, 2015); the paper does not re-derive it and it is the core model being tested.
domain assumption The disformal case has Phi = Psi, so convergence is sourced by the Weyl potential as in Eq. (2.16)
Follows from the Newtonian limit in Bettoni et al.; this justifies using lensing to test the model.
domain assumption DM density profiles calibrated to GR N-body simulations remain valid functional forms within the NMC model
The paper uses NFW and variants even though the NMC model modifies gravity; it acknowledges in Sec. III A that NFW might not be the best model for the NMC scenario.
domain assumption Gas density parameters and lensing covariance matrices from the literature are accurate and independent
The analysis fixes the gas model from Donahue et al. (2014) and uses Umetsu et al. (2016) covariance; errors on these inputs are not propagated.
ad hoc to paper Log-uniform prior on L is appropriate
Introduced in Sec. IV A to sample a large range of scales; because the chi-squared landscape is nearly flat, this prior shapes the posterior median.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonminimally coupled Dark Matter in Clusters of Galaxies: a fully comprehensive analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/65LYAWNJ

@misc{pith2026241219569,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonminimally coupled Dark Matter in Clusters of Galaxies: a fully comprehensive analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/65LYAWNJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19569}
}

abstract

In this study, we explore how a non-minimal coupling between dark matter and gravity can affect the behavior of dark matter in galaxy clusters. We have considered the case of a disformal coupling, which leads to a modification of the Poisson equation. Building on an earlier work, we expand the analysis considering all possible disformal coupling scenarios and employing various dark matter density profiles. In doing so, we aim to constrain the key parameter in our model, the characteristic coupling length. To achieve this, we analyze data from a combination of strong and weak lensing using three statistical approaches: a single cluster fitting procedure, a joint analysis, and one with stacked profiles. Our findings show that the coupling length is typically very small, thus being fully consistent with general relativity, although with an upper limit at $1\sigma$ which is of the order of $100$ kpc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19569 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Stacked surface density profiles. Black points with error bars: stacked (averaged) densities at the new normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.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

Exploring Non-minimal coupling using ultra-diffuse galaxies
astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A Bayesian Jeans analysis of three ultra-diffuse galaxies finds no preference for a non-minimal dark-matter-gravity coupling and yields weak upper limits on its length scale.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

for each cluster: (a) we rescale the original radii base R at which the convergence κ(R) is measured ( N = 15 elements) with respect to the spherical radius r−2,i, getting R → R ≡ R/r−2,i. We have chosen to normalize the profiles of each clus- ter at their corresponding r−2,i obtained from a GR analysis assuming a NFW profile, but we emphasize here that t...
[2]

The matrix elements are unambiguously determined via mass conservation, provided that the mass density is taken to be con- stant in each radial bin

we construct the projection matrix Pji ∈ RM ×N , which allows changing basis from the original dataset ( Ri, i = {1, ..., N}) to the newly defined one ( ˜Rj, j = {1, ..., M}). The matrix elements are unambiguously determined via mass conservation, provided that the mass density is taken to be con- stant in each radial bin
[3]

each convergence profile is projected onto the com- mon basis through the following relation: ˜κj = Pji κi , (4.3) while the projected covariance matrix is given by ˜Ckl = Pki Cij P T jl ; (4.4)
[4]

For each cluster, we calculate the projected mass density ˜Σ( ˜R) profile. We have decided to use Σ( ˜R), instead of ˜κ( ˜R), because it depends mostly on the astrophysical properties of the system, and not on strongly-cosmological-dependent terms such as the critical density Σ c. The stacked ˜Σ( ˜R) is defined as ⟨ ˜Σ⟩ = X n ˜C−1 n ω−2 n −1 X n ˜C−1 n ω−...
[5]

Eqs. (4.5) and (4.6) represent the new data that will enter in the χ2, χ2(θ) = ∆ ˜Σ(θ) · ˜C−1 · ∆ ˜Σ(θ) , (4.7) and that have to be compared with the theoretical definition of ˜Σ( ˜R) represented by the numerator of Eq. (2.12)
[6]

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaci´ on

the χ2 minimization has been performed using our MCMC algorithm and the constraints on the pa- rameters θ = {M200, c200, γ, L} for each DM pro- file. The conversion from dimensionless R/r−2 to physical radii R required to calculate the numera- tor of Eq. (2.12), needs the definition of the angular diameter distance to a lens. For that, we have eval- uated...

2000
[7]

Cirelli, A

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024
[8]

Zwicky, Helv

F. Zwicky, Helv. Phys. Acta 6, 110 (1933)

1933

Show all 87 references

[9]

Zwicky, Astrophys

F. Zwicky, Astrophys. J. 86, 217 (1937)

1937
[10]

V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford, Jr., Astrophys. J. 159, 379 (1970)

1970
[11]

V. C. Rubin, W. K. Ford, Jr., and N. Thonnard, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 225, L107 (1978)

1978
[12]

V. C. Rubin, N. Thonnard, and W. K. Ford, Jr., Astro- phys. J. 238, 471 (1980)

1980
[13]

T. G. Brainerd, R. D. Blandford, and I. Smail, Astro- phys. J. 466, 623 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9503073

1996 arXiv
[14]

Paraficz, J

D. Paraficz, J. P. Kneib, J. Richard, A. Morandi, M. Limousin, E. Jullo, and J. Martinez, Astron. Astro- phys. 594, A121 (2016), arXiv:1209.0384 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[15]

Clowe, M

D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky, Astrophys. J. Lett. 648, L109 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608407

2006 arXiv
[16]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[17]

Perivolaropoulos and F

L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[18]

Abdalla et al., JHEAp 34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

E. Abdalla et al., JHEAp 34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[19]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[20]

Alam et al

S. Alam et al. (eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[21]

T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D 105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[22]

T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D 105, 043512 (2022), arXiv:2107.04646 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[23]

Bull et al

P. Bull et al. , Phys. Dark Univ. 12, 56 (2016), arXiv:1512.05356 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[24]

Di Valentino, O

E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[25]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rept. 692, 1 (2017), arXiv:1705.11098 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[26]

Clifton, P

T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Sko- rdis, Phys. Rept. 513, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.2476 [astro- ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[27]

Koyama, Rept

K. Koyama, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 046902 (2016), arXiv:1504.04623 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[28]

Ishak, Living Rev

M. Ishak, Living Rev. Rel. 22, 1 (2019), arXiv:1806.10122 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[29]

Capozziello and M

S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept. 509, 167 (2011), arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[30]

Milgrom, APJ 270, 365 (2012)

M. Milgrom, APJ 270, 365 (2012)

2012
[31]

J. D. Bekenstein, Part of Particle dark matter , 99 (2010), arXiv:1001.3876 [astro-ph.CO]

2010 arXiv
[32]

Milgrom, Phys

M. Milgrom, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104036 (2018), arXiv:1810.03089 [astro-ph.GA]

2018 arXiv
[33]

Milgrom, Phys

M. Milgrom, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044041 (2019), arXiv:1811.12233 [astro-ph.GA]

2019 arXiv
[34]

Kelleher and F

R. Kelleher and F. Lelli, Astron. Astrophys. 688, A78 (2024), arXiv:2405.08557 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[35]

Richtler, Y

T. Richtler, Y. Schuberth, M. Hilker, B. Dirsch, L. Bassino, and A. J. Romanowsky, Astron. Astrophys. 478, L23 (2008), arXiv:0711.4077 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[36]

Bruneton, S

J.-P. Bruneton, S. Liberati, L. Sindoni, and B. Famaey, JCAP 03, 021 (2009), arXiv:0811.3143 [astro-ph]

2009 arXiv
[37]

Bettoni, S

D. Bettoni, S. Liberati, and L. Sindoni, JCAP 11, 007 (2011), arXiv:1108.1728 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[38]

Bettoni and S

D. Bettoni and S. Liberati, JCAP 08, 023 (2015), arXiv:1502.06613 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[39]

Benetti, A

F. Benetti, A. Lapi, S. Silveravalle, and S. Liberati, (2024), arXiv:2412.07533 [gr-qc]

2024
[40]

Bettoni, V

D. Bettoni, V. Pettorino, S. Liberati, and C. Baccigalupi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 07, 027 (2012), arXiv:1203.5735 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[41]

Gandolfi, A

G. Gandolfi, A. Lapi, and S. Liberati, Astrophys. J. 929, 48 (2022), arXiv:2203.00572 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[42]

Gandolfi, B

G. Gandolfi, B. S. Haridasu, S. Liberati, and A. Lapi, Astrophys. J. 952, 105 (2023), arXiv:2305.13974 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[43]

Zamani, V

S. Zamani, V. Salzano, and D. Bettoni, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 618 (2024), arXiv:2401.02221 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[44]

Bettoni, M

D. Bettoni, M. Colombo, and S. Liberati, JCAP 02, 004 (2014), arXiv:1310.3753 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[45]

Ivanov and S

D. Ivanov and S. Liberati, JCAP 07, 065 (2020), arXiv:1909.02368 [gr-qc]. 13

2020 arXiv
[46]

Beltran Jimenez, L

J. Beltran Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, G. J. Olmo, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Phys. Rept. 727, 1 (2018), arXiv:1704.03351 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[47]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3641 (1993), arXiv:gr- qc/9211017

1993
[48]

J. D. Brown, Class. Quant. Grav. 10, 1579 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9304026

1993 arXiv
[49]

Gandolfi, A

G. Gandolfi, A. Lapi, and S. Liberati, Astrophys. J. 910, 76 (2021), arXiv:2102.03873 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[50]

C. G. Boehmer and T. Harko, JCAP 06, 025 (2007), arXiv:0705.4158 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[51]

Kneib and P

J.-P. Kneib and P. Natarajan, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 19, 47 (2011), arXiv:1202.0185 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[52]

Diaferio, S

A. Diaferio, S. Schindler, and K. Dolag, Space Sci. Rev. 134, 7 (2008), arXiv:0801.0968 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[53]

A. H. Gonzalez, S. Sivanandam, A. I. Zablud- off, and D. Zaritsky, Astrophys. J. 778, 14 (2013), arXiv:1309.3565 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[54]

Schneider, J

P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E. E. Falco, Gravitational Lenses (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1992)

1992
[55]

Meneghetti, Introduction to Gravitational Lens- ing: With Python Examples , Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer International Publishing, 2021)

M. Meneghetti, Introduction to Gravitational Lens- ing: With Python Examples , Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer International Publishing, 2021)

2021
[56]

Narayan and M

R. Narayan and M. Bartelmann, in 13th Jerusalem Win- ter School in Theoretical Physics: Formation of Structure in the Universe (1996) arXiv:astro-ph/9606001

1996 arXiv
[57]

G. M. Voit, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 207 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0410173

2005
[58]

J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, The Astrophysical Journal 462, 563 (1996)

1996
[59]

Hernquist, Astrophys

L. Hernquist, Astrophys. J. 356, 359 (1990)

1990
[60]

Burkert, Astrophys

A. Burkert, Astrophys. J. Lett. 534, L143 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0002409

2000 arXiv
[61]

Mori and A

M. Mori and A. Burkert, Astrophys. J. 538, 559 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0001422

2000 arXiv
[62]

A. B. Newman, T. Treu, R. S. Ellis, D. J. Sand, C. Nipoti, J. Richard, and E. Jullo, Astrophys. J. 765, 24 (2013), arXiv:1209.1391 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[63]

A. B. Newman, T. Treu, R. S. Ellis, and D. J. Sand, Astrophys. J. 765, 25 (2013), arXiv:1209.1392 [astro- ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[64]

Umetsu, A

K. Umetsu, A. Zitrin, D. Gruen, J. Merten, M. Don- ahue, and M. Postman, Astrophys. J. 821, 116 (2016), arXiv:1507.04385 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[65]

Zhao, Mon

H. Zhao, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 278, 488 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9509122

1996 arXiv
[66]

Hjorth, L

J. Hjorth, L. L. R. Williams, R. Wojtak, and M. McLaughlin, Astrophys. J. 811, 2 (2015), arXiv:1508.02195 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[67]

Einasto, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata 5, 87 (1965)

J. Einasto, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata 5, 87 (1965)

1965
[68]

Retana-Montenegro, E

E. Retana-Montenegro, E. Van Hese, G. Gentile, M. Baes, and F. Frutos-Alfaro, Astron. Astrophys. 540, A70 (2012), arXiv:1202.5242 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[69]

Donahue et al

M. Donahue et al. , Astrophys. J. 794, 136 (2014), arXiv:1405.7876 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[70]

Cavaliere and R

A. Cavaliere and R. Fusco-Femiano, aap 70, 677 (1978)

1978
[71]

Postman et al

M. Postman et al. , The Astrophysical Journal Supple- ment Series 199, 25 (2012)

2012
[72]

Umetsu et al

K. Umetsu et al. , Astrophys. J. 795, 163 (2014), arXiv:1404.1375 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[73]

Merten et al

J. Merten et al. , Astrophys. J. 806, 4 (2015), arXiv:1404.1376 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[74]

Zitrin, A

A. Zitrin, A. Fabris, J. Merten, P. Melchior, M. Meneghetti, A. Koekemoer, D. Coe, M. Maturi, M. Bartelmann, M. Postman, K. Umetsu, G. Sei- del, I. Sendra, T. Broadhurst, I. Balestra, A. Bi- viano, C. Grillo, A. Mercurio, M. Nonino, P. Rosati, L. Bradley, M. Carrasco, M. Donah...

2015 arXiv
[75]

Meneghetti et al

M. Meneghetti et al. , Astrophys. J. 797, 34 (2014), arXiv:1404.1384 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[76]

Umetsu and B

K. Umetsu and B. Diemer, Astrophys. J. 836, 231 (2017), arXiv:1611.09366 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[77]

Umetsu, Astron

K. Umetsu, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 28, 7 (2020), arXiv:2007.00506 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[78]

Dunkley, M

J. Dunkley, M. Bucher, P. G. Ferreira, K. Moodley, and C. Skordis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 356, 925 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0405462

2005 arXiv
[79]

Mukherjee, D

P. Mukherjee, D. Parkinson, and A. R. Liddle, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 638, L51 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0508461

2006 arXiv
[80]

R. E. Kass and A. E. Raftery, J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 90, 773 (1995)

1995
[81]

Jeffreys, The Theory of Probability (Oxford University Press, 1998)

H. Jeffreys, The Theory of Probability (Oxford University Press, 1998)

1998
[82]

Okabe, M

N. Okabe, M. Takada, K. Umetsu, T. Futamase, and G. P. Smith, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 62, 811 (2010), arXiv:0903.1103 [astro-ph.CO]

2010 arXiv
[83]

Wilcox et al., Mon

H. Wilcox et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 452, 1171 (2015), arXiv:1504.03937 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[84]

Sakstein, H

J. Sakstein, H. Wilcox, D. Bacon, K. Koyama, and R. C. Nichol, JCAP 07, 019 (2016), arXiv:1603.06368 [astro- ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[85]

Umetsu, T

K. Umetsu, T. Broadhurst, A. Zitrin, E. Medezin- ski, and L.-Y. Hsu, Astrophys. J. 729, 127 (2011), arXiv:1011.3044 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[86]

G´ omez-Valent, Phys

A. G´ omez-Valent, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063506 (2022), arXiv:2203.16285 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[87]

Trotta (2017) arXiv:1701.01467 [astro-ph.CO]

R. Trotta (2017) arXiv:1701.01467 [astro-ph.CO]. 14 Table I. CLASH clusters ordered by redshift. Our results regarding c200, M200 and L are presented for both GR and modified Disformal case (Φ = Ψ), considering the combined contributions of DM and gas. Both single-fit and join...

2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

for each cluster: (a) we rescale the original radii base R at which the convergence κ(R) is measured ( N = 15 elements) with respect to the spherical radius r−2,i, getting R → R ≡ R/r−2,i. We have chosen to normalize the profiles of each clus- ter at their corresponding r−2,i obtained from a GR analysis assuming a NFW profile, but we emphasize here that t...

[2] [2]

The matrix elements are unambiguously determined via mass conservation, provided that the mass density is taken to be con- stant in each radial bin

we construct the projection matrix Pji ∈ RM ×N , which allows changing basis from the original dataset ( Ri, i = {1, ..., N}) to the newly defined one ( ˜Rj, j = {1, ..., M}). The matrix elements are unambiguously determined via mass conservation, provided that the mass density is taken to be con- stant in each radial bin

[3] [3]

each convergence profile is projected onto the com- mon basis through the following relation: ˜κj = Pji κi , (4.3) while the projected covariance matrix is given by ˜Ckl = Pki Cij P T jl ; (4.4)

[4] [4]

For each cluster, we calculate the projected mass density ˜Σ( ˜R) profile. We have decided to use Σ( ˜R), instead of ˜κ( ˜R), because it depends mostly on the astrophysical properties of the system, and not on strongly-cosmological-dependent terms such as the critical density Σ c. The stacked ˜Σ( ˜R) is defined as ⟨ ˜Σ⟩ = X n ˜C−1 n ω−2 n −1 X n ˜C−1 n ω−...

[5] [5]

Eqs. (4.5) and (4.6) represent the new data that will enter in the χ2, χ2(θ) = ∆ ˜Σ(θ) · ˜C−1 · ∆ ˜Σ(θ) , (4.7) and that have to be compared with the theoretical definition of ˜Σ( ˜R) represented by the numerator of Eq. (2.12)

[6] [6]

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaci´ on

the χ2 minimization has been performed using our MCMC algorithm and the constraints on the pa- rameters θ = {M200, c200, γ, L} for each DM pro- file. The conversion from dimensionless R/r−2 to physical radii R required to calculate the numera- tor of Eq. (2.12), needs the definition of the angular diameter distance to a lens. For that, we have eval- uated...

2000

[7] [7]

Cirelli, A

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Zwicky, Helv

F. Zwicky, Helv. Phys. Acta 6, 110 (1933)

1933