Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 84 references

From Matter Density to Deflection Angle and Gravitational Lensing Using a Perturbative Method

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A perturbative method derives gravitational lensing straight from a galaxy's mass-density profile.

desk verdict A useful perturbative pipeline from density to deflection for SSS perfect fluids, with honest numerics, but the central claim is a validated conjecture rather than a proven procedure because the series remainder is uncontrolled. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02037 v2 pith:M37PHKMO submitted 2025-02-04 gr-qc

Peiran Liu , Xiaotian Zhang , Junji Jia This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 98.62.Sb
keywords gravitationallensingdeflectionangleTolman-Oppenheimer-VolkoffequationsperturbativemethodsNavarro-Frenk-WhiteprofileHernquistperfectfluidtimelikegeodesics
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 establish a direct, step-by-step link between the density distribution of a spherical galaxy or cluster and the images it produces as a gravitational lens. Starting from a density profile, the authors solve the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations as series, use those series to write the bending angle of null or timelike rays as a power series in the impact parameter, and then solve the lens equation to get the apparent positions of the two images. The point is that for a wide family of realistic profiles—gNFW, NFW, Hernquist, power-law, pseudo-isothermal, and uniform—the whole chain can be carried out analytically, where previously one would need a numerical spacetime solution. The paper checks the series against numerical integration for several choices of the profile parameters and finds agreement where the impact parameter is at or beyond the halo scale.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a double-series ansatz for the pressure, $P(r)=\sum_{n,m} P_{n,m}(\ln r)^m/r^n$ for asymptotically flat profiles and $P(r)=\sum_n P_n(r-R)^n$ for profiles with a finite boundary, together with the matching series for the metric functions $A(r)$ and $B(r)$. Inserting these into the TOV equations fixes the coefficients by undetermined coefficients, and a change of variables reduces the geodesic bending integral to integrals $I_{n,m}$ that obey a recurrence; the master formulas (43), (52), and (61) then deliver the deflection as a series whose terms are the density coefficients.

What would settle it

Take a truncated model with an exact solution, such as the uniform-density sphere or the singular isothermal sphere already treated in the paper, and compare the series deflection from Eq. (103) to the exact numerical deflection at an impact parameter just above $R/2$, increasing the truncation order. If the series does not converge to the numerical value as the order grows, the central claim that density coefficients determine the deflection fails in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the deflection angle in a static, spherically symmetric perfect-fluid spacetime is a quasi-series in $1/b$ and $\ln b$ whose coefficients are fixed by the expansion coefficients of the density. A nonzero $\rho_3$ term in the density's asymptotic expansion produces logarithms in the metric and hence in the deflection; the same perturbative machinery also handles non-integer power-law tails, whose leading deflection behaves as $b^{-\delta}$, and finite matter distributions, for which the deflection splits into a Schwarzschild part outside the boundary and a series inside. Feeding the deflection into the lens equation gives the impact parameters $b_\pm$ and the apparent angles $\beta_\pm$ of the two images, with finite source and detector distances included.

Load-bearing premise

The method stands on the assumption that the pressure and metric admit the postulated series ansatze and that these series can be integrated term-by-term to give a deflection angle accurate for impact parameters at least of order the halo scale; if a realistic density profile produced pressure outside these ansatze, or the series stopped converging before the integration range, the density-to-deflection link would break.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any density profile that fits the three-parameter family of Eq. (62), lensing observables—deflection, image positions, their dependence on halo parameters—can be written down analytically to arbitrary order in $1/b$ instead of being extracted from a numerical metric.
  • The appearance of $\ln b$ terms tied to $\rho_3$ means that the logarithmic mass divergence of profiles like gNFW is encoded directly in the deflection, and the paper's formulas show exactly which density coefficients drive the logarithms.
  • Timelike signals (with velocity $v<1$) are treated on the same footing as light, so the same series gives lensing of relativistic particles as well as photons.
  • Finite source and detector distances appear naturally in the deflection, which turns the lens equation into a solvable polynomial or quasi-polynomial for $b_\pm$ and yields the apparent angles $\beta_\pm$.
  • For truncated profiles, the method automatically combines the exterior Schwarzschild bending with the interior matter contribution, so it applies to realistic halos cut off at a virial or truncation radius.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the series are asymptotic rather than proven convergent, a natural testable extension is to push the truncation order up for impact parameters just inside the halo scale and see whether the predicted deflection keeps tracking numerical integration or begins to diverge.
  • The paper's treatment of the logarithmic $\rho_3$ term reroutes the total mass through a length scale $l$; a reader could infer that strong-lensing observables in gNFW halos carry a weak sensitivity to the mass-assembly history or truncation of the profile, which might be probed with stacked lensing data.
  • The same coefficient-matching machinery should apply to other observables the paper names as future work, notably time delays in strong lensing, since the metric series is already in hand.
  • One could test the boundary-expansion method's reliability by using the exact uniform-density and SIS solutions already cited in the paper as benchmarks, comparing the series deflection at $b\approx R/2$ to the exact result.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a perturbative pipeline that starts from a static, spherically symmetric perfect-fluid density profile ρ(r), solves the TOV equations by series methods, and then computes the weak-field deflection angle of null or timelike signals as a quasi-series in the impact parameter b and ln b. Two styles of solution are treated: asymptotic series for densities extending to infinity (integer and rational fractional powers) and Taylor expansions around a finite boundary for truncated models. The resulting master formula, Eq. (43), is applied to the gNFW/NFW, Hernquist, power-law, SIS, PIS, and uniform-density profiles. The deflection formulas are then fed into the lens equation to obtain apparent image angles, and the analytical results are compared with numerical integration of the TOV equations and geodesic equations for a range of model parameters.

Significance. If the method is fully justified, it provides a useful and efficient map from density-profile coefficients to observable lensing quantities, unifying null and timelike signals and including finite source/detector distance effects. The derivations are explicit and the series coefficients are shown to reduce correctly in the point-mass limit. The numerical comparisons in Figs. 2-8 cover several standard astrophysical profiles and show good agreement over the displayed ranges. At the same time, the central claim is stronger than what is rigorously established: the term-by-term integration that produces the master deflection formula is not supplied with an error estimate, and the pressure ans"atze are assumptions rather than proven consequences of the TOV equations. The paper therefore currently establishes a well-tested numerical method for a class of profiles, with the 'direct connection' between density and lensing holding conditionally on those unproved steps.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.A, Eq. (43)] The master formula (43) is obtained by expanding y(u/b) about u=0, i.e., about r→∞, and integrating term by term up to u=1, i.e., down to r=b. For b≳rm, which is exactly the range displayed in Figs. 3, 4(c), and 6, the asymptotic metric expansions (12) are not uniformly small over the entire integration interval, so the remainder of the truncated series is uncontrolled. The paper states that the series are asymptotic and that the method is valid for b≳O(rm), but no error bound or convergence check at increasing truncation order is provided. Because Eq. (43) is the bridge from density coefficients to deflection and lensing, this is a load-bearing gap. I request an explicit remainder estimate, or at minimum a systematic truncation-order convergence study for b/rm near unity, and a corresponding softening of the claim that the procedure 'establishes' the density-to-deflection connection in that regime.
  2. [II.A, Eqs. (8) and (16)] The perturbative solution of the TOV equation relies on the assumption that the pressure admits the double-logarithmic ansatz (8) in the integer-power case and the fractional-power ansatz (16) in the rational-δ case. No existence or uniqueness statement is given for solutions of Eq. (3a) in these classes, nor is a characterization provided of the density coefficients for which the ansatz is consistent. The abstract's phrase 'fairly arbitrary density distributions' is therefore broader than what is demonstrated. Please state these ans"atze explicitly as assumptions on ρ(r), and verify that each model in Section IV satisfies the required structure; otherwise the central formulas should be presented as conditional on the ansatz rather than as a general result.
  3. [IV.A, Figs. 3, 4(c), and 6] The numerical validation is carried out at very low compactness: for the gNFW and Hernquist plots M0/rm ≈ 6×10^{-6}, and the power-law cases are comparable. In this regime the pressure and nonlinear terms in the TOV solution are extremely small, so the comparison does not stress the pressure ansatz or the nonlinear structure of the equations. I ask the authors to test at least one case with substantially larger M0/rm (while remaining in the weak-deflection regime) or to explicitly restrict the validated claim to the low-compactness regime. Without such a test, the demonstrated agreement is evidence for the series method only in a narrow part of the parameter space relevant to the claimed general connection.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (44) and (46)] The notation 'ln b 2' should read '(ln b)/2', and 'O(ε)3' should be 'O(ε^3)'; as typeset these expressions are confusing and could be misread as powers of the logarithm.
  2. [Figs. 7 and 8] The captions of Figs. 7 and 8 label the perturbative curves as dashed and the numerical curves as solid, while the main text says the analytical results are solid and the numerical results are dashed; these should be made consistent.
  3. [Section III.A, Eq. (44)] The symbol ε is used collectively for M/b, b/rs,d, and logarithmic higher-order terms without a precise definition; please define the ordering explicitly so that the claimed truncation order is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: density coefficients are inputs, deflection and image angles are forward-derived, and numerical checks are independent.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a forward derivation chain: given a density profile rho(r), the TOV equations are solved perturbatively by coefficient matching to obtain the metric functions; the exact geodesic deflection integral is then transformed and expanded in powers of the impact parameter; and the lens equation is solved for b+/- and converted to apparent angles. Nowhere is a deflection or image angle used to fit or define a density parameter. The metric coefficients in Eqs. (13), (66), (72), (86) etc. are determined from the density expansion coefficients by substitution into the TOV equations, not by matching to deflection outputs. The numerical comparisons in Figs. 3-10 are independent validations, not calibrations. The citations to the authors' earlier perturbative formalism [32,33] supply the geodesic-integral transformation, but the paper re-derives the essential change of variables and integrand expansion in Eqs. (34)-(43), so the argument does not reduce to an unverified self-citation. The pressure ansaetze in Eqs. (8), (16), and (23) are explicitly stated assumptions about the form of the solution, not hidden imports of the predicted deflection quantities. The skeptic's concern about uncontrolled term-by-term integration near b ~ r_m is a convergence/error-bound issue for the approximation, not a circularity: the deflection is still derived from the density through the stated series, even if the remainder is not rigorously controlled. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks (exact mass functions, numerical TOV integration, numerical geodesic deflection), and the claimed density-to-deflection connection is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

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

No parameters are fitted to data. Density parameters (ρc, rm, γ) are model inputs; integration constants M, P0, Φ0 are fixed by boundary conditions (asymptotic flatness, P(R)=0, matching to Schwarzschild). The method relies on several unproven but numerically validated series ansatze. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The spacetime is described by a static, spherically symmetric perfect fluid satisfying the TOV equations (3a)-(3c).
    Central modeling assumption; the paper's application to galaxies treats them as isotropic perfect fluids, which is an approximation to collisionless halos.
  • domain assumption The density admits an asymptotic expansion of the form Eq. (4) (with ρ1=ρ2=0 for asymptotic flatness) or a Taylor expansion Eq. (20) around a finite boundary R.
    The method requires the density to be expandable in these series; exponentially decreasing profiles would have a vanishing asymptotic series and the method would miss exponentially small corrections.
  • ad hoc to paper The pressure P(r) admits the ansatz forms Eq. (8) (double series in ln r/r^n), Eq. (16) (fractional powers), and Eq. (23) (Taylor series near R).
    The ansatze are the key assumption enabling the method of undetermined coefficients. They are validated numerically for the models considered but not proven generally.
  • domain assumption The asymptotic series for the metric functions can be integrated term-by-term to give a quasi-series for the deflection angle valid for b ≳ O(rm).
    Term-by-term integration of asymptotic expansions is used without a rigorous convergence proof; the paper validates by numerical comparison for specific parameter choices.
  • domain assumption Boundary conditions: P(∞)=0 for extended profiles; P(R)=0 and continuous matching to Schwarzschild for truncated profiles.
    These fix the integration constants M, P0, Φ0. For truncated profiles, only first-order matching at R is imposed, causing non-smooth transitions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Matter Density to Deflection Angle and Gravitational Lensing Using a Perturbative Method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M37PHKMO

@misc{pith2026250202037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Matter Density to Deflection Angle and Gravitational Lensing Using a Perturbative Method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M37PHKMO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02037}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we develop a perturbative method to compute the deflection angle of null or timelike signals in spacetimes filled with a static and spherically symmetric (SSS) perfect fluid with fairly arbitrary density distributions. After solving the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations, the metric functions of the spacetime are obtained either as asymptotic series or as expansions around a finite boundary. The deflection angles of null or timelike signals in the weak-field limit in such spacetimes can then be expressed as series expansions in terms of the impact parameter, with coefficients determined by the metric expansions and, in turn, the density distribution function. Gravitational lensing equations are also solved perturbatively to derive the apparent angles of the lensed images. Comparing our analytical formulas with numerical results demonstrates the validity and efficiency of our method and results. This procedure establishes a direct connection between the mass density, the deflection angle, and the apparent angles of gravitationally lensed images. We apply these methods and results to the generalized Navarro-Frenk-White model and some other density profiles to analyze the influence of the density parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02037 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A schematic diagram of the deflection and lensing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mass and metric functions in the gNFW model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The Hernquist model results. (a) Mass function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mass and metric functions in power-law models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Deflection angle truncated to the 3rd order in power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Perturbative (dashed line) and numerical (solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Perturbative (dashed lines) and numerical (solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (4) with δ = 0 into Eq

    Density with integer power Substituting Eq. (4) with δ = 0 into Eq. (3b), the mass function can be obtained as m(r) = M + 4π  ρ3 ln r − ∞X n=1,n̸=3 ρn (n − 3) rn−3   (5) where M is an integration constant. Since our focus is on asymptotically flat spacetimes, which requires that lim r→∞ m(r)/r = 0, it follows that the first two coefficients ρ1, ρ2 in ...

  2. [2]

    (4) takes the form of a non-integer power series, as in the case of the general three-parameter model in Eq

    Density with non-integer power When the density profile in Eq. (4) takes the form of a non-integer power series, as in the case of the general three-parameter model in Eq. (62) for certain choices of parameters ( α, β, γ), the solution for m(r), P(r) and A(r), B(r) will differ slightly. For the spacetime to be asymptotically flat in this case, ρ1 in Eq. (...

    work page

  3. [3]

    For the potential Φ( r), we can simply substitute Eqs

    (9d) Higher-order terms can also be easily obtained. For the potential Φ( r), we can simply substitute Eqs. (7) and (8) into Eq. (3c) to derive its series expansion. It takes the form given in Φ(r) = ∞X n=1 nX m=0 Φn,m (ln r)m rn , (10) where Φ n,m are the coefficients. Their first few orders are provided by Φ1,0 = −M − 4πρ3, Φ1,1 = −4πρ3, (11a) Φ2,0 = 1 ...

  4. [4]

    (11), along with the so- lution from Eq

    (11d) By substituting the solution Eq. (11), along with the so- lution from Eq. (7), into Eq. (2), we derive the asymp- totic solutions of the metric functions A(r) and B(r) as A(r) = 1 + ∞X n=1 n−1+δ1nX m=0 an,m (ln r)m rn , (12a) B(r) = 1 + ∞X n=1 nX m=0 bn,m (ln r)m rn , (12b) where an,m and bn,m are the coefficients, and δ1n is the Kronecker delta. Th...

  5. [5]

    It is worth noting that all the coefficients Pn,m in Eq

    (13d) Again, higher-order terms can be derived straightfor- wardly. It is worth noting that all the coefficients Pn,m in Eq. (9), as well as an,m, bn,m in Eq. (13) for m >1, are proportional to at least first order of ρ3. This indicates that these coefficients vanish when ρ3 = 0, as expected. The parameter ρ3 = 0 eliminates the logarithmic term in m(r), w...

  6. [6]

    II A, if the logarithmic terms are absent, the results for the integrals in Eq

    Asymptotic case with integer power For the asymptotic metric solutions presented in Sec. II A, if the logarithmic terms are absent, the results for the integrals in Eq. (32) have already been obtained in [32, 33]. Therefore, in this work, we extend those results to the case where logarithmic terms are present. For this case, we simply perform a Taylor exp...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The coefficients yn,m can be determined by the metric functions A(r) and B(r), or by their ex- pansions in Eqs

    Asymptotic case with non-integer power For this case, we perform a Taylor expansion of the integrand y(u/b) for small u/b, and find that y u b = ∞X n=0 t−1X m=0 yn,m u b n+mδ , (49) where δ = s/t. The coefficients yn,m can be determined by the metric functions A(r) and B(r), or by their ex- pansions in Eqs. (18a) and (18b). Since t is not fixed, the upper...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Due to the pres- ence of a nonzero ρ3, the metric functions for this model inherently contain logarithmic terms

    The gNFW and NFW models For simplicity, we list only the first few coefficients of the metric functions A(r) and B(r) for the gNFW model, which includes the NFW model as a special case and has become increasingly popular in recent years for modeling galaxy (or cluster) matter distributions. Due to the pres- ence of a nonzero ρ3, the metric functions for t...

    work page

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    (62) and Eq

    The Hernquist model For the Hernquist model, by substituting the indices (α, β, γ) = (1 , 4, 1) into the density expression given by Eq. (62) and Eq. (63), and then using Eqs. (7) and (13), we can obtain the series expansions for the mass function m(r), and the metric function...

  2. [10]

    For m(r) in the Hernquist model, the density allows for a straightforward analytical solution m(r) = M0r2 (r + rm)2 . (74) It is observed that the series solutions for both the mass function and the metric functions agree very well with the numerical solutions when r is larger...

  3. [11]

    (75) If γ ≤ 2, the mass function m(r) diverges as r → ∞, and the metric function B(r) and A(r) also blow up

    power-law model with γ >2 For the power-law density ρ(r) = ρcrγ m/rγ, a straight- forward integration yields the following mass m(r) = Z r 0 4πx2 ρcrγ m xγ dx + Cm. (75) If γ ≤ 2, the mass function m(r) diverges as r → ∞, and the metric function B(r) and A(r) also blow up. If ...

  4. [12]

    Its density pro- file within the nonzero range takes the form of ρPIS(r) = ρcr2 m r2m + r2 , r ≤ R

    PIS model The PIS model is widely applied in gravitational lens- ing and dark matter studies [36, 38, 65]. Its density pro- file within the nonzero range takes the form of ρPIS(r) = ρcr2 m r2m + r2 , r ≤ R. (88) Using the procedure outlined in Sec. II B, the metric functions c...

  5. [13]

    1 rs,d + a1,0 + a1,1 ln rs,d 2v2r2 s,d + O ln2 rs,d r3 s,d !# =b±

    The power-law model with γ ≤ 3 Similar to the truncated PIS model, the density func- tion in this case must also be truncated for the method to work effectively, particularly for γ <2, where the met- ric functions would otherwise diverge. Notably, power- law models with γ ≤ 3 ...

  6. [14]

    Einstein, Science 84, 506 (1936)

    A. Einstein, Science 84, 506 (1936)

    1936

  7. [15]

    F. W. Dyson, A. S. Eddington, and C. Davidson, Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Phys- ical Character 220, 291 (1920)

    1920

  8. [16]

    Bartelmann and P

    M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Physics Reports 340, 291 (2001)

    2001

  9. [17]

    Collaboration et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics594, A15 (2016)

    P. Collaboration et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics594, A15 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Refregier, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics 41, 645 (2003)

    A. Refregier, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics 41, 645 (2003)

    2003

  11. [19]

    Lewis and A

    A. Lewis and A. Challinor, Physics Reports 429, 1 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    C. S. Kochanek, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 373, June 1, 1991, p. 354-368. 373, 354 (1991)

    1991

  13. [21]

    Refsdal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 128, 307 (1964)

    S. Refsdal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 128, 307 (1964)

    1964

  14. [22]

    Keeton and C

    C. Keeton and C. Kochanek, The Astrophysical Journal 487, 42 (1997)

    1997

  15. [23]

    Falco, C

    E. Falco, C. Kochanek, and J. Munoz, The Astrophysical Journal 494, 47 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    Bartelmann and P

    M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, arXiv preprint astro- ph/9902152 (1999)

    1999

  17. [25]

    Maoz and H.-W

    D. Maoz and H.-W. Rix, Astrophysical Journal v. 416, p. 425 416, 425 (1993)

    1993

  18. [26]

    Kneib, R

    J.-P. Kneib, R. S. Ellis, I. Smail, W. Couch, and R. Sharples, The Astrophysical Journal 471, 643 (1996)

    1996

  19. [27]

    Hoekstra, M

    H. Hoekstra, M. Franx, K. Kuijken, and G. Squires, New Astronomy Reviews 42, 137 (1998)

    1998

  20. [28]

    R. B. Metcalf and P. Madau, The Astrophysical Journal 563, 9 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    I. Z. Stefanov, S. S. Yazadjiev, and G. G. Gyulchev, Phys- ical review letters 104, 251103 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    C. R. Keeton and A. Petters, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 72, 104006 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    Joyce, L

    A. Joyce, L. Lombriser, and F. Schmidt, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 66, 95 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Perlick, Living reviews in relativity 7, 1 (2004)

    V. Perlick, Living reviews in relativity 7, 1 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Bozza, F

    V. Bozza, F. De Luca, G. Scarpetta, and M. Sereno, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 72, 083003 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Pugliese, H

    D. Pugliese, H. Quevedo, and R. Ruffini, Physical Re- view D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 83, 104052 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    P. Das, R. Sk, and S. Ghosh, The European Physical Journal C 77, 1 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Pugliese, H

    D. Pugliese, H. Quevedo, and R. Ruffini, The European Physical Journal C 77, 1 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Abdujabbarov and B

    A. Abdujabbarov and B. Ahmedov, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 81, 044022 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Al Zahrani, V

    A. Al Zahrani, V. P. Frolov, and A. A. Shoom, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmol- ogy 87, 084043 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Tursunov, Z

    A. Tursunov, Z. Stuchl ´ ık, and M. Koloˇ s, Phys. Rev. D 93, 084012 (2016), 1603.07264

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    X. Xu, T. Jiang, and J. Jia, JCAP 08, 022 (2021), 2105.12413

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Crisnejo, E

    G. Crisnejo, E. Gallo, and J. R. Villanueva, Phys. Rev. D 100, 044006 (2019), 1905.02125

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J. 490, 493 (1997), astro-ph/9611107

    1997 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hernquist, Astrophys

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

    1990

  36. [44]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativity (Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984)

    1984

  37. [45]

    Huang and J

    K. Huang and J. Jia, JCAP 08, 016 (2020), 2003.08250

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Jia, Eur

    J. Jia, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 242 (2020), 2001.02038

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    X. Liu, J. Jia, and N. Yang, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 175014 (2016), 1512.04037

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Narayan and S

    R. Narayan and S. D. White, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 231, 97P (1988)

    1988

  41. [49]

    A. B. Congdon and C. R. Keeton, Astronomy and Plane- tary Sciences, Springer International Publishing 10, 978 (2018). 23

    2018

  42. [50]

    C. S. Kochanek, Astrophys. J. 453, 545 (1995), astro- ph/9411082

    1995

  43. [51]

    S. M. Kent and E. E. Falco, Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256), vol. 96, Nov. 1988, p. 1570-1574. 96, 1570 (1988)

    1988

  44. [52]

    C. S. Kochanek, E. E. Falco, C. D. Impey, J. Lehar, H. W. Rix, B. A. McLeod, C. R. Keeton, J. A. Munoz, and C. Y. Peng, Astrophys. J. 543, 131 (2000), astro-ph/9909018

    2000 arXiv

  45. [53]

    D. J. Rusin, C. S. Kochanek, E. E. Falco, C. R. Keeton, B. A. McLeod, C. D. Impey, J. Lehar, J. A. Munoz, C. Y. Peng, and H. W. Rix, Astrophys. J. 587, 143 (2003), astro-ph/0211229

    2003 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Zhao, Mon

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

    1996 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Weber and W

    M. Weber and W. de Boer, Astron. Astrophys. 509, A25 (2010), 0910.4272

    2010 arXiv

  48. [56]

    A. V. Kravtsov, A. A. Klypin, J. S. Bullock, and J. R. Primack, Astrophys. J. 502, 48 (1998), astro- ph/9708176

    1998

  49. [57]

    Zhao, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety 278, 488 (1996)

    H. Zhao, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety 278, 488 (1996)

    1996

  50. [58]

    Kazantzidis, J

    S. Kazantzidis, J. Magorrian, and B. Moore, The Astro- physical Journal 601, 37 (2004)

    2004

  51. [59]

    Knudson, K

    A. Knudson, K. U. Ratnatunga, and R. E. Griffith, As- tron. J. 122, 103 (2001), astro-ph/0104123

    2001 arXiv

  52. [60]

    C. R. Keeton, C. S. Kochanek, and E. E. Falco, Astro- phys. J. 509, 561 (1998), astro-ph/9708161

    1998 arXiv

  53. [61]

    D. J. Mortlock and R. L. Webster, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 319, 872 (2000), astro-ph/0008081

    2000 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Donaldson, M

    K. Donaldson, M. S. Petersen, and J. Pe˜ narrubia, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 513, 46 (2022), 2111.15440

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    A. S. Kulessa and D. Lynden-Bell, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 255, 105 (1992)

    1992

  56. [64]

    K.-H. Chae, M. Bernardi, and A. V. Kravtsov, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 437, 3670 (2014), 1305.5471

    2014 arXiv

  57. [65]

    A. B. Newman, T. Treu, R. S. Ellis, D. J. Sand, C. Nipoti, J. Richard, and E. Jullo, Astrophys. J. 765, 24 (2013), 1209.1391

    2013 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Courteau et al., Rev

    S. Courteau et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 47 (2014), 1309.3276

    2014 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Baxter, C

    E. Baxter, C. Chang, B. Jain, S. Adhikari, N. Dalal, A. Kravtsov, S. More, E. Rozo, E. Rykoff, and R. K. Sheth, Astrophys. J. 841, 18 (2017), 1702.01722

    2017 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Chemin, W

    L. Chemin, W. J. G. de Blok, and G. A. Mamon, Astron. J. 142, 109 (2011), 1109.4247

    2011 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Kravtsov and S

    A. Kravtsov and S. Borgani, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astro- phys. 50, 353 (2012), 1205.5556

    2012 arXiv

  62. [70]

    G. W. Pratt, M. Arnaud, A. Biviano, D. Eckert, S. Et- tori, D. Nagai, N. Okabe, and T. H. Reiprich, Space Sci. Rev. 215, 25 (2019), 1902.10837

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Merten et al., Astrophys

    J. Merten et al., Astrophys. J. 806, 4 (2015), 1404.1376

    2015 arXiv

  64. [72]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J. 462, 563 (1996), astro-ph/9508025

    1996 arXiv

  65. [73]

    E. L. Lokas and G. A. Mamon, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 321, 155 (2001)

    2001

  66. [74]

    Lilleengen et al., Mon

    S. Lilleengen et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 518, 774 (2023), 2205.01688

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    G. N. Remmen, Gen. Rel. Grav. 53, 101 (2021), 2111.08713

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Bollati, A

    F. Bollati, A. Lupi, M. Dotti, and F. Haardt, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 520, 3696 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    Begeman, A

    K. Begeman, A. Broeils, and R. Sanders, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 249, 523 (1991)

    1991

  70. [78]

    Y. Yang, D. Liu, A. ¨Ovg¨ un, G. Lambiase, and Z.-W. Long, The European Physical Journal C 84, 1 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    Randriamampandry and C

    T. Randriamampandry and C. Carignan, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 439, 2132 (2014), 1401.5619

    2014 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Burkert, The Astrophysical Journal 447, L25 (1995)

    A. Burkert, The Astrophysical Journal 447, L25 (1995)

    1995

  73. [81]

    V. A. Acciari et al. (VERITAS), Astrophys. J. 720, 1174 (2010), 1006.5955

    2010 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Bozza, Physical Review D 66, 103001 (2002)

    V. Bozza, Physical Review D 66, 103001 (2002)

    2002

  75. [83]

    K. S. Virbhadra and G. F. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 62, 084003 (2000), astro-ph/9904193

    2000 arXiv

  76. [84]

    K. S. Virbhadra and G. F. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 65, 103004 (2002)

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.