Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Dynamical analysis of stacked samples of asymmetric, non-static, self-gravitating systems

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that multiplying a stacked-cluster Jeans mass estimate by a product of two correction factors, $F_1$ and $F_2$, recovers the true mean mass profile without bias, correcting a typical 20 percent overestimate at the virial…

desk verdict A careful simulation study that identifies a real ~20% systematic in stacked dynamical masses and offers a workable correction, though the transfer to observed galaxies is the main caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19922 v2 pith:LR227H57 submitted 2025-04-28 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Yan-Chuan Cai , Nick Kaiser , Shaun Cole , Carlos Frenk This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyclustersJeansequationstackedclustersamplesdynamicalmassbiascorrectionfactorsF1andF2N-bodysimulationsweaklensingcomparisoninfall
open problems 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

Astronomers stack many galaxy clusters to measure an average mass profile, applying the Jeans equation to the combined velocity dispersion. This paper argues that such dynamical mass estimates are systematically too high, not only because of the known velocity-anisotropy problem but because a stacked system is not in equilibrium and because observed velocities are measured relative to cluster centres that are themselves accelerating. Using a large cosmological N-body simulation, the paper measures two correction factors, $F_1$ and $F_2$, and shows that multiplying the naive Jeans mass by $F_1F_2$ recovers the true mean mass profile without residual bias. The uncorrected bias is roughly 20 percent at the virial radius and can reach a factor of two for cumulative samples spanning a wide mass range. This matters because stacked dynamical masses are now being compared with weak-lensing masses to test gravity on cluster scales.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized Jeans equation for velocities measured in the free-falling rest frame of the cluster centre: $\partial_t n\langle v_i\rangle + \partial_j n\langle v_i v_j\rangle + n a_{0i} + n\partial_i \Phi = 0$. From it the paper forms the mass estimator $M(<r) = -r^2\tilde{g}(r) F_1(r)F_2(r)/G$. The factor $F_1 = 1 + \hat{r}_i\partial_t n\langle v_i\rangle / (\hat{r}_i\partial_j n\langle v_i v_j\rangle)$ corrects for the neglected rate of change of momentum density, i.e. infall; it is evaluated by differencing two simulation outputs separated in time. The factor $F_2$ is the ratio of the isotropically surface-averaged radial gravity to the galaxy-density-weighted radial gravity, absorbing both the nonsphericity of individual haloes and the non-zero acceleration $a_0$ of the centre; it is evaluated with spherical grids of massless test particles placed around each halo.

What would settle it

Take a real stacked cluster sample with measured velocity dispersions and weak-lensing masses; if, after applying the simulation-calibrated $F_1F_2$ correction, the ratio of dynamical mass to lensing mass at $r_{200}$ differs from unity by more than the combined measurement error, then the correction factors are incomplete or the freely-falling-centre assumption fails. A complementary simulation test is to rerun the same stacking analysis in a hydrodynamical simulation where the central galaxy experiences dynamical friction and baryonic feedback; a residual bias in the corrected mass profile would show that equation (3) needs an extra term.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the usual Jeans-equation mass estimate of a stacked cluster sample is biased high because two terms are neglected: the time-rate of change of radial momentum density, captured by $F_1$, and the difference between density-weighted and surface-averaged gravity, which includes the acceleration of the cluster centre, captured by $F_2$. The paper derives the corrected mass formula $M(<r) = -r^2 \tilde{g}(r) F_1(r) F_2(r)/G$ from the generalized Jeans equation $\partial_t n\langle v_i\rangle + \partial_j n\langle v_i v_j\rangle + n a_{0i} + n\partial_i \Phi = 0$, where $a_0$ is the acceleration of the freely falling centre. In the simulation, applying $F_1F_2$ to the pressure-gradient estimate brings it onto the true mean mass profile at all radii shown. The two effects are distinct: $F_1$ matters mainly outside the virial radius and grows with halo mass, while $F_2$ is already non-negligible inside $r_{200}$ and is amplified when the stacked sample contains a wide range of halo masses.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observable cluster centre---the most bound particle of the most massive subhalo, averaged over a $30\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{kpc}$ core---is a freely falling reference frame and that galaxies behave as collisionless dark-matter particles; if real brightest cluster galaxies are dragged by dynamical friction or feedback, or if galaxies are biased tracers of the velocity field, the generalized Jeans equation no longer describes the stack and the calibrated $F_1F_2$ values will not transfer to observations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stacked dynamical mass profiles from surveys should be multiplied by $F_1(r)F_2(r)$ before comparison with weak-lensing profiles; in the simulation this restores the true mean mass profile.
  • The uncorrected Jeans mass is biased high by about 20 percent at $r_{200}$ for narrow mass-selected samples, and by up to a factor of two for cumulative samples selected above a velocity-dispersion threshold.
  • Because $F_1$ grows with halo mass, the bias depends on sample selection; a mass estimate quoted without the stacking selection is incomplete.
  • Rescaling individual clusters by their velocity dispersions before stacking would largely remove the wide-mass-range part of the bias, as the paper notes for cumulative samples.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the same two-correction scheme should apply to other stacked dynamical probes such as caustic or virial-theorem mass estimates, but the numerical values of $F_1$ and $F_2$ would need to be re-calibrated for each estimator.
  • Inference: applied to real survey stacks, the correction factors cannot be measured directly and must be taken from simulations, so the calibration inherits any cosmological-model dependence of the simulated halo population; mismatched concentrations would shift the correction.
  • Inference: the gravitational-redshift signal in stacked clusters is sensitive to the same centre acceleration and density weighting, so it may carry a similar mass-dependent bias that could be isolated with the $F_2$-style weighting comparison.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates biases in dynamical mass estimates of stacked galaxy clusters obtained by applying the Jeans equation to the stacked pressure tensor. The authors derive two correction factors: F1 (equation 7), which accounts for the time derivative of the radial momentum density, and F2 (equation 8), which accounts for the acceleration of the cluster centre and for the difference between density-weighted and solid-angle-weighted gravity. Using the Millennium simulation, they stack tens of thousands of haloes in narrow mass bins and in cumulative velocity-dispersion-selected samples, measure the pressure tensor and the correction terms, and report that the naive Jeans estimate is biased high by about 20% at the virial radius and by up to a factor of two for broad mass-range samples. After applying F1F2, the estimated mass profiles match the true mean mass profiles (Figure 1).

Significance. The decomposition of the bias into an out-of-equilibrium term F1 and a weighting/centre-acceleration term F2 is clear and useful. Equations (3)-(8) are derived carefully, and the numerical evaluation in the simulation is a direct measurement of phase-space quantities rather than a fit to the true mass profile, with no free parameters beyond the core radius and the time step. The result that stacked dynamical masses are biased high by tens of percent, with a strong dependence on sample breadth, is important for upcoming cluster surveys and for comparisons of dynamical masses with weak-lensing masses. However, because F2 is defined so that F1F2 algebraically recovers the true mass, the agreement in Figure 1 is a consistency check rather than an independent validation. The principal quantitative content is the measured bias factor 1/(F1F2) and its dependence on sample selection, and those estimates currently lack error bars and an explicit test of the galaxy-tracer assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (8); Section 3.3] Equation (8) defines F2 as the ratio of the true enclosed mass to the density-weighted radial acceleration, so the product F1F2 recovers M(<r) by construction when the individual terms are measured exactly. The dotted curves in Figure 1 therefore verify the numerical implementation but do not independently confirm the physical model of the bias. The statement in Section 3.3 that the recovery is 'numerical justification of our reasoning' should be tempered, and the primary result should be presented as the measured bias factor 1/(F1F2) and its sample dependence.
  2. [Section 3 and Appendix A2] No uncertainties are reported for F1, F2, or the inferred bias factors. F1 is estimated from a single finite difference between a=1 and a=1.04, and F2 is described in Section 3.2 as 'quite noisy' beyond 3r200. Since the central quantitative claims (for example, the ~20% bias at r200 and the factor-of-two bias for cumulative samples) are calibrations intended for observational use, the paper should provide bootstrap or jackknife errors over haloes, and a convergence check on the time step Δa and on the angular binning used in Appendix A3.
  3. [Section 1, footnote 1; Appendix A1] The correction factors are evaluated from dark matter particles, with the most bound particle plus a 30 h^-1 kpc core average used as a proxy for a freely falling BCG. The abstract and Section 4 state that the bias can be used to correct dynamical mass estimates in surveys, but real galaxy tracers are not necessarily collisionless dark matter particles: galaxies can have a velocity bias relative to dark matter, and BCGs may be affected by dynamical friction or feedback-induced offsets. The transfer of F1F2 from this simulation to an observed cluster stack is therefore an untested assumption. The applicability claim should either be restricted to dark-matter tracers or the calibration should be repeated with subhalo or galaxy tracers.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Footnote 1] The footnote ends with the truncated phrase 'between the m.'; it should be completed (for example, 'between the mass distribution and the galaxies').
  2. [Title and Introduction] The title contains a stray space in 'non-s tatic', and the Introduction contains the typo 'deliever'. Both should be corrected.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption uses the typos 'Mesti' and 'Mcorct'; these should be written as, for example, 'M_est' and 'M_corct'.
  4. [Appendix A2] Appendix A2 refers to '30 h^-1 Mpc cores', but the core radius defined in Appendix A1 is 30 h^-1 kpc; this appears to be a unit error.
  5. [Section 3.3] The text mixes units by quoting r < 0.1 h^-1 Mpc in one place and r200 in nearby statements; please define the normalization consistently throughout.
  6. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgments contain 'a part for the first one', which should presumably read 'apart from', and 'we have made necessary revision', which should be plural.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The F1F2 corrected-mass recovery in Fig. 1 is a definitional identity because F2's numerator is the true mass, but the paper's main bias estimate remains an independent simulation measurement; overall circularity is low.

  1. self definitional [Eq. (8), Sec. 3.2; Sec. 3.3, Fig. 1]
    "The second is F2(r) = ∫ r̂_i[g_i(r) − a0_i]dΩ / [\bar n(r)^{-1} ∫ r̂_i[g_i(r) − a0_i]n(r)dΩ], (8) ... So by definition, the numerator is the same as −M(<r)/r^2, where M is now the averaged mass of the stacked cluster. ... Finally, we show with dotted lines in Fig. 1 that applying the correction term F1F2 does recover the true mass without any bias."

    Because F2 is defined with the true stacked mass M(<r) in its numerator, equation (6) is an algebraic rearrangement of equation (5) using equation (4): the product F1F2 converts the density-weighted pressure-gradient estimate into the solid-angle-averaged gravitational acceleration whose Gauss-law integral is M(<r) by definition. The recovery of the true mass in Fig. 1 is therefore a consistency check built into the construction, not an independent numerical prediction. This does not make the measured bias 1/(F1F2) or the 20 percent overestimate circular, since those are direct simulation measurements comparing the uncorrected Jeans estimate with the simulated true mass.

full rationale

The derivation of equations (3)-(8) is self-contained. F1 is constructed from the pressure tensor and the time derivative of the radial momentum density, and F2 from the simulated acceleration field and the central acceleration; neither is fitted to the mass profile. The central claim, that uncorrected Jeans estimates are biased high by about 20 percent at r200 and by up to a factor of two for cumulative samples, is an independent measurement from the simulation's phase-space data. The self-citation to Cai et al. 2017 is only a 'see also' in a qualitative discussion of neighbouring haloes and is not load-bearing. The one genuine reduction is the validation in Fig. 1: since F2's numerator is defined to be -M(<r)/r^2, the corrected profile must equal the true profile by construction. This is a mild self-definitional step rather than a fitted-input prediction, and it does not undermine the independent content of the bias estimate, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central result rests on standard kinetic theory, on the assumption that galaxies trace dark matter collisionlessly, on a specific freely-falling centre definition, and on the representativeness of the Millennium simulation. The hand-chosen core radius and time step are minor numerical choices with partial robustness checks.

free parameters (2)
  • BCG core radius r_c = 30 h^-1 kpc = 30 h^-1 kpc
    Chosen by hand to define the centre position, velocity, and acceleration proxy for each halo. The paper shows results are similar when using the centre of mass, but no dedicated sensitivity test is presented.
  • Scale-factor step Delta a = 0.04 = 0.04
    Used to approximate the time derivative of radial momentum density in F1. A single finite difference is used, and no convergence test is shown.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Tracers (galaxies and dark matter particles) are collisionless and obey the collisionless Boltzmann equation.
    The paper explicitly equates galaxies with collisionless dark matter particles in Section 1, ignoring possible biasing of galaxies relative to dark matter.
  • domain assumption The anisotropy of the velocity dispersion tensor is known or solved to adequate accuracy.
    Section 1 states 'we will assume that the anisotropy problem is solved to adequate accuracy'; the paper only treats the additional biases.
  • domain assumption The cluster centre (most bound particle of the most massive subhalo with a 30 h^-1 kpc core average) is a valid freely falling reference frame, so the acceleration a0 in equation (3) is the gravitational acceleration of the centre.
    This enters the derivation of equation (3) and the numerical evaluation of F2.
  • domain assumption The finite difference of momentum density between a = 1 and a = 1.04 accurately represents the time derivative.
    Used to compute F1; the accuracy of the derivative at a single 4% step is not demonstrated in the paper.
  • domain assumption The simulation ensemble (Millennium, Omega_m = 0.25, sigma8 = 0.9, FoF and r200 halo definition) is representative of real cluster samples for calibration.
    The correction values depend on the cosmology and halo finder, and transfer to observations assumes these choices are representative.
  • domain assumption Dynamics are Newtonian with the cosmological constant contributing to the acceleration.
    The Jeans equation and the simulation's gravity solver use Newtonian gravity, a background physics assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical analysis of stacked samples of asymmetric, non-static, self-gravitating systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LR227H57

@misc{pith2026250419922,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical analysis of stacked samples of asymmetric, non-static, self-gravitating systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LR227H57}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19922}
}
read the original abstract

We use numerical simulations to explore biases that arise in dynamical estimates of the mean mass profile for a collection of galaxy clusters that have been stacked to make a composite. There are three types of bias. One arises from anisotropy of the kinematic pressure tensor and has been already well studied; a second arises from departures from equilibrium; and a third arises because of heterogeneity of the clusters used, from their individual non-sphericity, and because velocities used are measured with respect to centres that are, in general, accelerating. Here we focus on the latter two. We stack clusters to measure the pressure tensor and density profiles and then estimate the dynamical mass profile using the Jeans equation, and compare to the actual mean mass profile. The main result of this paper is an estimate of the bias, that can be used to correct the dynamical mass estimate, and we show how it depends on the cluster sample selection. We find that Jeans equation typically overestimates the true mass by about 20\% at the virial radius.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19922 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The different coloured lines show masses estimated using dynamical analysis of a stack composed of clusters of different masses and velocity dispersions as a function of radius. The radius is expressed in units of r200, the radius interior to which the density is 200 times the critical density as calculated from the mean mass of each stacked cluster sample. They are 0.4, 0.8 and 1.4 h−1Mpc (0.8, 1.0 and 1.3 h−1Mpc) … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The top panels of A & B show the mean radial velocity profiles at two different output times, from which we calculate the correction term F1, which is plotted immediately below. Left panels show the results for samples of clusters selected in limited mass ranges, and right panels show the results for clusters within cumulative velocity dispersion ranges. The solid and dashed lines in A & B show the profiles at a = 1… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alam S., Zhu H., Croft R. A. C., Ho S., Giusarma E., Schneider D. P., 2017, , 470, 2822

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Amendola L., Appleby S., Avgoustidis A., Bacon D., Baker T., Baldi M., Bartolo N., Blanchard A. e. a., 2016, ArXiv e-prints

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Arnold C., Puchwein E., Springel V., 2014, , 440, 833

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    R., McKay T

    Becker M. R., McKay T. A., Koester B., Wechsler R. H., Rozo E., Evrard A., Johnston D., Sheldon E., Annis J., Lau E., Nichol R., Miller C., 2007, , 669, 905

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Biesiada M., Pi \'o rkowska A., Malec B., 2010, , 406, 1055

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    L., Norman M

    Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., 1998, , 495, 80

    1998

  7. [7]

    o ckmann K., Br \

    Bulbul E., Liu A., Kluge M., Zhang X., Sanders J. S., Bahar Y. E., Ghirardini V., Artis E., Seppi R., Garrel C., Ramos-Ceja M. E., Comparat J., Balzer F., B \"o ckmann K., Br \"u ggen M., Clerc N., Dennerl K., Dolag K., Freyberg M., Grandis S., Gruen D., Kleinebreil F., Krippendorf S., Lamer G., Merloni A., Migkas K., Nandra K., Pacaud F., Predehl P., Rei...

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Outer regions of galaxy clusters as a new probe to test modifications to gravity

    Butt M. A., Haridasu S., Diaferio A., Benetti F., Boumechta Y., Baccigalupi C., Lapi A., 2025, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2504.16685

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Cai Y.-C., Kaiser N., Cole S., Frenk C., 2017, , 468, 1981

    2017

  2. [10]

    Cappellari M., 2008, , 390, 71

    2008

  3. [11]

    G., Yee H

    Carlberg R. G., Yee H. K. C., Ellingson E., 1997, , 478, 462

    1997

  4. [12]

    G., Yee H

    Carlberg R. G., Yee H. K. C., Ellingson E., Morris S. L., Abraham R., Gravel P., Pritchet C. J., Smecker-Hane T., Hartwick F. D. A., Hesser J. E., Hutchings J. B., Oke J. B., 1997a, , 485, L13

  5. [13]

    G., Yee H

    Carlberg R. G., Yee H. K. C., Ellingson E., Morris S. L., Abraham R., Gravel P., Pritchet C. J., Smecker-Hane T., Hartwick F. D. A., Hesser J. E., Hutchings J. B., Oke J. B., 1997b, , 476, L7

  6. [14]

    J., Prada F., Klypin A., Moles M., 2008, , 389, 385

    Cuesta A. J., Prada F., Klypin A., Moles M., 2008, , 389, 385

    2008

  7. [15]

    S., White S

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

    1985

  8. [16]

    J., Andrade-Santos F., Ragone-Figueroa C., Rasia E., Forman W., Jones C., Kipper R., Borgani S., Lambas D

    De Propris R., West M. J., Andrade-Santos F., Ragone-Figueroa C., Rasia E., Forman W., Jones C., Kipper R., Borgani S., Lambas D. G., Romashkova E. A., Patra K. C., 2021, , 500, 310

    2021

  9. [17]

    E., Allende Prieto C., Annis J., Bailey S., Balland C., et al

    DESI Collaboration Aghamousa A., Aguilar J., Ahlen S., Alam S., Allen L. E., Allende Prieto C., Annis J., Bailey S., Balland C., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints

    2016

  10. [18]

    Falck B., Koyama K., Zhao G.-B., 2015, , 7, 049

    2015

  11. [19]

    A., Wojtak R., Hansen S

    Falco M., Mamon G. A., Wojtak R., Hansen S. H., Gottl \"o ber S., 2013, , 436, 2639

    2013

  12. [20]

    Fong M., Han J., 2021, , 503, 4250

    2021

  13. [21]

    I., Frenk C

    Genina A., Read J. I., Frenk C. S., Cole S., Ben \' tez-Llambay A., Ludlow A. D., Navarro J. F., Oman K. A., Robertson A., 2020, , 498, 144

    2020

  14. [22]

    M., Hivon E., Banday A

    G \'o rski K. M., Hivon E., Banday A. J., Wandelt B. D., Hansen F. K., Reinecke M., Bartelmann M., 2005, , 622, 759

    2005

  15. [23]

    F., Winther H

    Gronke M., Llinares C., Mota D. F., Winther H. A., 2015, , 449, 2837

    2015

  16. [24]

    J., Ruiz-Macias O., Cole S., Weinberg D

    Hahn C., Wilson M. J., Ruiz-Macias O., Cole S., Weinberg D. H., Moustakas J., Kremin A., Tinker J. L., Smith A., Wechsler R. H., DESI collaboration 2023, , 165, 253

    2023

  17. [25]

    A., Koester B

    Hao J., McKay T. A., Koester B. P., Rykoff E. S., Rozo E., Annis J., Wechsler R. H., Evrard A., Siegel S. R., Becker M., Busha M., Gerdes D., Johnston D. E., Sheldon E., 2010, , 191, 254

    2010

  18. [26]

    P., McCarthy I

    Harvey D., Courbin F., Kneib J. P., McCarthy I. G., 2017, , 472, 1972

    2017

  19. [27]

    Jain B., Taylor A., 2003, Physical Review Letters, 91, 141302

    2003

  20. [28]

    Jimeno P., Broadhurst T., Coupon J., Umetsu K., Lazkoz R., 2015, , 448, 1999

    2015

  21. [29]

    R., Postman M., Strauss M

    Lauer T. R., Postman M., Strauss M. A., Graves G. J., Chisari N. E., 2014, , 797, 82

    2014

  22. [30]

    H., Mo H

    Lim S. H., Mo H. J., Lu Y., Wang H., Yang X., 2017, , 470, 2982

    2017

  23. [31]

    Lombriser L., Koyama K., Zhao G.-B., Li B., 2012, , 85, 124054

    2012

  24. [32]

    A., Biviano A., Bou \'e G., 2013, , 429, 3079

    Mamon G. A., Biviano A., Bou \'e G., 2013, , 429, 3079

    2013

  25. [33]

    T., Collins C

    Mpetha C. T., Collins C. A., Clerc N., Finoguenov A., Peacock J. A., Comparat J., Schneider D., Capasso R., Damsted S., Furnell K., Merloni A., Padilla N. D., Saro A., 2021, , 503, 669

    2021

  26. [34]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, , 462, 563

    1996

  27. [35]

    A., Pearce F

    Old L., Skibba R. A., Pearce F. R., Croton D., Muldrew S. I., Mu \ n oz-Cuartas J. C., Gifford D., Gray M. E., von der Linden A., Mamon G. A., Merrifield M. R., M \"u ller V., Pearson R. J., Ponman T. J., Saro A., Sepp T., Sif \'o n C., Tempel E., Tundo E., Wang Y. O., Wojtak ...

    2014

  28. [36]

    M., Dossena S., Butt M

    Pizzuti L., Boumechta Y., Haridasu S., Pombo A. M., Dossena S., Butt M. A., Benetti F., Baccigalupi C., Lapi A., 2024, , 2024, 014

    2024

  29. [37]

    I., Steger P., 2017, , 471, 4541

    Read J. I., Steger P., 2017, , 471, 4541

    2017

  30. [38]

    Richardson T., Fairbairn M., 2013, , 432, 3361

    2013

  31. [39]

    Rosselli D., Marulli F., Veropalumbo A., Cimatti A., Moscardini L., 2023, , 669, A29

    2023

  32. [40]

    S., Rozo E., Busha M

    Rykoff E. S., Rozo E., Busha M. T., Cunha C. E., Finoguenov A., Evrard A., Hao J., Koester B. P., Leauthaud A., Nord B., Pierre M., Reddick R., Sadibekova T., Sheldon E. S., Wechsler R. H., 2014, , 785, 104

    2014

  33. [41]

    L., Lahav O., 2015, , 114, 071103

    Sadeh I., Feng L. L., Lahav O., 2015, , 114, 071103

    2015

  34. [42]

    Schmidt F., 2010, , 81, 103002

    2010

  35. [43]

    Shi R., Wang W., Li Z., Zhu L., Smith A., Cole S., Gao H., Chen X., Li Q., Han J., 2024, , 973, 82

    2024

  36. [44]

    S., Greene T., Guyon O

    Spergel D., Gehrels N., Breckinridge J., Donahue M., Dressler A., Gaudi B. S., Greene T., Guyon O. e. a., 2013, ArXiv e-prints

    2013

  37. [45]

    F., Frenk C

    Springel V., Wang J., Vogelsberger M., Ludlow A., Jenkins A., Helmi A., Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 2008, , 391, 1685

    2008

  38. [46]

    Springel V., White S. D. M., Jenkins A., Frenk C. S., Yoshida N., Gao L., Navarro J., Thacker R., Croton D., Helly J., Peacock J. A., Cole S., Thomas P., Couchman H., Evrard A., Colberg J., Pearce F., 2005, , 435, 629

    2005

  39. [47]

    J., 2012, aap, 540, A106

    Tempel E., Tago E., Liivam \"a gi L. J., 2012, aap, 540, A106

    2012

  40. [48]

    P., Magorrian J., Carlberg R

    van der Marel R. P., Magorrian J., Carlberg R. G., Yee H. K. C., Ellingson E., 2000, , 119, 2038

    2000

  41. [49]

    L., van de Ven G., den Brok M., van den Bosch R

    Watkins L. L., van de Ven G., den Brok M., van den Bosch R. C. E., 2013, , 436, 2598

    2013

  42. [50]

    L., Han J

    Wen Z. L., Han J. L., 2024, , 272, 39

    2024

  43. [51]

    L., Han J

    Wen Z. L., Han J. L., Liu F. S., 2012, , 199, 34

    2012

  44. [52]

    H., Hjorth J., 2011, , 477, 567

    Wojtak R., Hansen S. H., Hjorth J., 2011, , 477, 567

    2011

  45. [53]

    J., van den Bosch F

    Yang X., Mo H. J., van den Bosch F. C., Pasquali A., Li C., Barden M., 2007, , 671, 153

    2007

  46. [54]

    Yang X., Xu H., He M., Gu Y., Katsianis A., Meng J., Shi F., Zou H., Zhang Y., Liu C., Wang Z., Dong F., Lu Y., Li Q., Chen Y., Wang H., Mo H., Fu J., Guo H., Leauthaud A., Luo Y., Zhang J., Zu Y., 2021, , 909, 143

    2021

  47. [55]

    Zhang P., Liguori M., Bean R., Dodelson S., 2007, Physical Review Letters, 99, 141302

    2007

  48. [56]

    Zhao G.-B., Li B., Koyama K., 2011, Physical Review Letters, 107, 071303

    2011

  49. [57]

    H., Jennings E., Li B., Wyman M., 2014, , 445, 1885

    Zu Y., Weinberg D. H., Jennings E., Li B., Wyman M., 2014, , 445, 1885

    2014

  50. [58]

    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 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.