pith. the verified trust layer for science. sign in

arxiv: 2511.02323 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Weak-Lensing Analysis of the Galaxy Cluster Abell 85: Constraints on the Merger Scenarios of Its Southern Subcluster

Soojin Kim , Kim HyeongHan , Wonki Lee , Jong-In Park , Myungkook James Jee , Ho Seong Hwang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 01:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords weak gravitational lensinggalaxy clusterAbell 85major mergerdark matter substructuresNavarro-Frenk-White profilecool core
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Weak lensing reveals a 2:1 mass ratio showing Abell 85 is in a major merger with its southern subcluster.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper maps the dark matter in nearby galaxy cluster Abell 85 with weak gravitational lensing from Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam images. It detects three mass peaks aligned with galaxies: the main cluster, a southern subcluster, and a southwestern one. Fitting a multi-halo Navarro-Frenk-White profile to the shear field yields masses of roughly 2.9 and 1.2 times 10^14 solar masses for the main and southern components. This ratio leads the authors to conclude the system is undergoing a major merger that shapes its present dynamical state, including the sloshing cool core, while also examining star formation along a southeast filament.

Core claim

The weak-lensing mass reconstruction resolves three substructures with peak significances above 6 sigma for the main cluster, 5 sigma for the southern subcluster, and 4 sigma for the southwestern subcluster. Multi-halo Navarro-Frenk-White profile fits give M200c masses of 2.91 plus or minus 0.72 times 10^14 solar masses for the main component and 1.23 plus or minus 0.52 times 10^14 solar masses for the southern subcluster. The resulting approximately 2:1 mass ratio indicates that Abell 85 is experiencing a major merger actively shaping its current dynamical state.

What carries the argument

Multi-halo Navarro-Frenk-White profile fit to the weak-lensing shear field, which supplies the mass estimates for the main and southern components.

If this is right

  • The southern subcluster is undergoing a major merger with the main cluster that influences the overall dynamical state.
  • X-ray data can constrain the current merger phase of the southern subcluster.
  • Star-forming activity is present along the filament extending southeast of Abell 85.
  • The system functions as an active node within the larger Abell 85/87/89 complex.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The merger may help explain how a sloshing cool core can persist in a cluster that shows both relaxed and disturbed features.
  • Similar mass ratios observed in other clusters could serve as benchmarks for testing merger simulations of cool-core systems.
  • Deeper imaging or spectroscopic follow-up could test whether the southwestern subcluster participates in the same merger sequence.

Load-bearing premise

The multi-halo Navarro-Frenk-White profile fit to the weak-lensing shear field yields unbiased masses for the main and southern components even though the cluster is dynamically disturbed.

What would settle it

An independent mass measurement from galaxy velocity dispersions or X-ray hydrostatic equilibrium that gives a mass ratio far from 2:1 would falsify the major-merger interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.02323 by Ho Seong Hwang, Jong-In Park, Kim HyeongHan, Myungkook James Jee, Soojin Kim, Wonki Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Pseudo-color composite image of A85, over￾laid with the XMM-Newton X-ray relative deviation surface brightness map in magenta and the MGCLS 1.28 GHz ra￾dio emission map in green. The background pseudo-color composite image is constructed using the g-, g+i-, and i￾bands mapped to the blue, green, and red color channels, respectively. The X-ray relative deviation map is produced by dividing the X-ray surface… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: PSF model correction for i-band. The distribu￾tions of stellar ellipticities (e1–e2) before and after the PSF correction are shown in black and red dots, respectively. We denote the mean and standard deviation of the ellipticity components. In addition, the distribution of the residual size Rres is shown along with its corresponding mean and stan￾dard deviation. After applying the PSF correction, both the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Remaining systematic diagnosis in the PSF mod￾eling using the ρ statistics. The ρ1(r) (black) and ρ2(r) (blue) correlation functions are plotted as a function of the angular separation in arcmin for the i-band. The amplitudes of the correlation functions remain at the level of 10−6 , in￾dicating that the residual systematics in the PSF modeling are negligible. (2010), ρ1(r) = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Top) The i-band magnitude distributions of all detected galaxies in the COSMOS field (gray) and in the A85 field (green). The i-band magnitude cut at 23 mag for source selection is determined by comparing the two distributions, indicated by the leftmost orange dashed line. (Bottom) The color–magnitude diagram of the objects in the A85 field, using i-band magnitude and g − i color. The background density m… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between the WL convergence signal-to-noise (S/N) map and the relative deviation X-ray surface brightness map. The background shows the pseudo-color composite image of A85. The yellow contours represent the WL S/N map, ranging from 3σ to 6σ in 1σ intervals. The red contours indicate the relative deviation X-ray emission map, obtained by dividing a 2D elliptical β-model centered on the BCG. The re… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Member galaxy distributions in comparison with the WL S/N map. The white contours represent the WL S/N map, with levels from 3σ to 6σ in steps of 1σ, overlaid on two different maps: (a) a number density map of spectroscopically confirmed cluster members, (b) an i-band luminosity-weighted density map of the cluster members. The galaxy maps are smoothed with a 2D Gaussian kernel of σ = 1.5 arcmin. A white sc… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Tangential shear as a function of clustercentric distance. Top panel shows the measured tangential shear profile, gt in red dots with errorbars indicating the standard error. The blue curve represents the best-fit tangential shear profile from a single NFW halo model, with the correspond￾ing mass and concentration (M200c, c200c) indicated in a box. The gray hatched region on the left indicates the innermos… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial profiles of the star formation properties. The azimuthal bins are defined by four quadrants centered on the BCG. The red lines represent the radial trends in the southeastern quadrant with errorbars indicating standard er￾ror. The gray shaded regions represent the 1σ standard er￾ror range of profiles from all galaxies within the other three quadrants. The top panels show the specific star formation … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Zoom-in maps of the lensing peaks F, Fb, and NE. Each panel shows a ∼6 ′×6 ′ sky region, with the pseudo-color composite images as the background. The WL S/N map and the relative deviation X-ray surface brightness map are overlaid in white and red contours, respectively. Green circles mark the galaxies from the DESI Legacy Survey DR10 catalog that satisfy the z-band magnitude and photometric redshift cuts… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Galaxy number density maps for the reported background structures overlaid with white contours representing the WL convergence S/N maps. The top panel shows the spectroscopic redshift distribution of galaxies in the A85 field, with each redshift bin marked by a shaded region. The redshift and corresponding velocity range for each bin are indicated in the lower right corner of each panel. The galaxy maps a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Abell 85 is a nearby (z=0.055) galaxy cluster that hosts a sloshing cool core, a feature commonly reported in relaxed clusters. However, the presence of multiple past and ongoing mergers indicates that it is an active node within the Abell 85/87/89 complex. We present a weak gravitational lensing (WL) analysis using Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam imaging data to understand its assembly history by investigating the dark matter components of the substructures. Our mass reconstruction resolves three substructures associated with the brightest cluster galaxy (main), the southern (S) subcluster, and the southwestern (SW) subcluster, with WL peak significances of $> 6\sigma$, $> 5\sigma$, and $> 4\sigma$, respectively. The location of these mass peaks are consistent with those of the member galaxies. We estimate the masses of the main cluster ($M_{200c,main} = 2.91 \pm 0.72 \times 10^{14}\ M_\odot$) and the S subcluster ($M_{200c,S} = 1.23 \pm 0.52 \times 10^{14}\ M_\odot$) by fitting a multi-halo Navarro-Frenk-White profile. This $\sim$2:1 mass ratio indicates that the system is undergoing a major merger that is actively shaping the current dynamical state of Abell 85. Incorporating X-ray observations, we discuss the merger phase of the S subcluster and further examine the star-forming activity along the putative filament extending southeast of Abell 85.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a weak gravitational lensing analysis of the nearby galaxy cluster Abell 85 (z=0.055) using Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam imaging. It reconstructs the projected mass distribution and identifies three substructures with peak significances >6σ (main, associated with the BCG), >5σ (southern subcluster), and >4σ (southwestern subcluster), with locations consistent with member galaxies. Masses for the main and southern components are obtained by fitting a multi-halo Navarro-Frenk-White profile to the shear field, yielding M_{200c,main} = 2.91 ± 0.72 × 10^{14} M_⊙ and M_{200c,S} = 1.23 ± 0.52 × 10^{14} M_⊙. The resulting ~2:1 mass ratio is interpreted as evidence that the system is undergoing a major merger actively shaping its dynamical state, including the sloshing cool core. The analysis further incorporates X-ray observations to discuss the merger phase of the southern subcluster and examines star-forming activity along a putative southeast filament.

Significance. If the mass estimates hold, the work supplies concrete constraints on the merger history and dynamical state of Abell 85 within the Abell 85/87/89 complex. The high-significance alignment between lensing peaks and galaxy positions, together with the multi-probe (WL + X-ray) discussion of the southern subcluster's phase, adds useful observational detail to cluster assembly studies. The result could help calibrate expectations for how major mergers affect cool-core sloshing and filamentary star formation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and mass reconstruction paragraph] Abstract and mass reconstruction paragraph: The central claim that the ~2:1 mass ratio signals an ongoing major merger rests on the multi-halo NFW fit returning unbiased M_{200c} values. The manuscript itself notes a sloshing cool core plus multiple past and ongoing mergers, which violate the spherical symmetry and virial-equilibrium assumptions built into NFW. Standard merger simulations show projected lensing masses can be biased by 10-40% depending on phase, viewing angle, and separation. With the already large fractional uncertainties (~25% and ~42%), even a modest systematic shift could move the ratio across the major/minor boundary. A mock-based bias test or comparison to an alternative profile (e.g., Einasto) is required to support the headline interpretation.
  2. [Mass reconstruction paragraph] Mass reconstruction paragraph: The southwestern subcluster is reported at >4σ significance, yet its mass is neither quoted nor explicitly included in the two-component NFW fit described. Clarify whether the SW halo is modeled jointly, fixed, or omitted, and quantify any resulting covariance with the main and S mass estimates, as its presence could affect the reported 2:1 ratio.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'the putative filament extending southeast of Abell 85' without stating which photometric or spectroscopic data are used to identify star-forming galaxies along it; a brief sentence on the selection would improve clarity.
  2. Ensure uniform subscript notation (M_{200c,main} vs. M_{200c,S}) and consistent reporting of units and significance thresholds throughout the text and any tables.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered the comments and made revisions to the manuscript accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are provided below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and mass reconstruction paragraph] The central claim that the ~2:1 mass ratio signals an ongoing major merger rests on the multi-halo NFW fit returning unbiased M_{200c} values. The manuscript itself notes a sloshing cool core plus multiple past and ongoing mergers, which violate the spherical symmetry and virial-equilibrium assumptions built into NFW. Standard merger simulations show projected lensing masses can be biased by 10-40% depending on phase, viewing angle, and separation. With the already large fractional uncertainties (~25% and ~42%), even a modest systematic shift could move the ratio across the major/minor boundary. A mock-based bias test or comparison to an alternative profile (e.g., Einasto) is required to support the headline interpretation.

    Authors: We agree that the NFW assumptions of spherical symmetry and virial equilibrium are not strictly satisfied in Abell 85 given the evidence for mergers and the sloshing cool core. Multi-halo NFW fits remain a widely adopted method for estimating subcluster masses in weak-lensing studies of complex systems. The ~2:1 ratio is interpreted as indicating a major merger, supported by the high-significance mass peaks aligning with galaxy overdensities. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated paragraph discussing possible systematic biases in mass estimates for merging clusters, referencing relevant simulation studies. We will also fit an Einasto profile as an alternative to the NFW and compare the derived masses and ratio to assess sensitivity to the profile choice. This will provide additional support for the interpretation while acknowledging the limitations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Mass reconstruction paragraph] The southwestern subcluster is reported at >4σ significance, yet its mass is neither quoted nor explicitly included in the two-component NFW fit described. Clarify whether the SW halo is modeled jointly, fixed, or omitted, and quantify any resulting covariance with the main and S mass estimates, as its presence could affect the reported 2:1 ratio.

    Authors: The southwestern subcluster appears in the convergence map at >4σ but was not included in the two-halo NFW fit because its lower significance and more peripheral location make its contribution to the shear field smaller in the regions used for the fit. The fit focused on the main and southern components to derive their masses. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will clarify this modeling choice and include a mass estimate or upper limit for the SW subcluster based on the reconstruction. We will also perform an additional three-halo fit to quantify the covariance between the parameters and any changes to the main and southern masses, thereby addressing the potential impact on the mass ratio. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in mass ratio derivation

full rationale

The paper obtains M200c masses for the main cluster and southern subcluster by fitting a multi-halo NFW profile directly to the observed weak-lensing shear field from Subaru HSC data. The reported ~2:1 ratio is computed arithmetically from those two fitted values and used to classify the merger. No step reduces the ratio or the major-merger conclusion to an input parameter by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise rest on a self-citation whose content is itself unverified within the paper. The derivation chain remains independent of the target result and is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard weak-lensing assumptions and the NFW density profile; two masses are obtained by fitting to the data.

free parameters (2)
  • M200c,main = 2.91e14 solar masses
    Fitted mass of the main halo from multi-halo NFW model to the weak-lensing data
  • M200c,S = 1.23e14 solar masses
    Fitted mass of the southern subcluster from the same multi-halo NFW model
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Navarro-Frenk-White profile accurately describes the radial density distribution of dark-matter halos in this merging system
    Invoked when fitting the multi-halo model to obtain M200c values
  • domain assumption Weak-lensing shear measurements trace the projected mass distribution without significant contamination from intrinsic alignments or other systematics
    Foundation of the entire mass reconstruction

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5852 in / 1328 out tokens · 50258 ms · 2026-05-18T01:45:50.303770+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 122 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    S., Aguilar, G., et al

    Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a 2018

  3. [3]

    Agulli, I., Aguerri, J. A. L., S´ anchez-Janssen, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1590, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw422

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw422 2016

  4. [4]

    J., et al

    Ahn, E., Cho, H., Jee, M. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbc99

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbc99 2025

  5. [5]

    2011, ApJS, 193, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    Aihara, H., Allende Prieto, C., An, D., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29 2011

  6. [6]

    The Hyper Suprime-Cam SSP Survey: Overview and Survey Design

    Aihara, H., Arimoto, N., Armstrong, R., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S4, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx066

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/pasj/psx066 2018

  7. [7]

    F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  8. [8]

    2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Baba, H., Yasuda, N., Ichikawa, S.-I., et al. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI, ed. D. A. Bohlender, D. Durand, & T. H. Handley, 298

    work page 2002

  9. [9]

    2001, Physics Reports, 340, 291, 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00082-X

    Bartelmann, M., & Schneider, P. 2001, PhR, 340, 291, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00082-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(00)00082-x 2001

  10. [10]

    1991, AJ, 102, 1581, doi: 10.1086/115982

    Jones, C. 1991, AJ, 102, 1581, doi: 10.1086/115982

    work page doi:10.1086/115982 1991

  11. [11]

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164 WL Analysis of A8517 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 redshift (z) 100 101 102 N (a) (b) (c) 10°45' 30' 15' 00' 9°00' 15' 30' 45' ~15 arcmin 1 Mpc 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 10°45' 30' 15' 00' ~15 arcmin 1 Mpc 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 10°45' 30' 15' 00' 9°45' 30' 15' 00' ~15 arcmin 1 Mp...

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  12. [12]

    2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E., Mellier, Y., Radovich, M., et al. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI, ed. D. A. Bohlender, D. Durand, & T. H. Handley, 228

    work page 2002

  13. [13]

    R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D

    Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603, doi: 10.1038/380603a0

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1038/380603a0 1996

  14. [14]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  15. [15]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    Bosch, J., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx080 2018

  16. [16]

    An Overview of the LSST Image Processing Pipelines

    Bosch, J., AlSayyad, Y., Armstrong, R., et al. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben, M. W. Pound, B. A. Thomas, & E. M. Warner, 521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1812.03248 Bou´ e, G., Durret, F., Adami, C., et al. 2008, A&A, 489, 11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.03248 2019

  17. [17]

    2009, A&A, 495, 379, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810731

    Scott, T. 2009, A&A, 495, 379, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810731

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810731 2009

  18. [18]

    A., & Tsai, J

    Buote, D. A., & Tsai, J. C. 1996, ApJ, 458, 27, doi: 10.1086/176790

    work page doi:10.1086/176790 1996

  19. [19]

    Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B. J. T., & Frenk, C. S. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2923, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu768

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu768 2014

  20. [20]

    2015, ApJS, 219, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/8

    Chang, Y.-Y., van der Wel, A., da Cunha, E., & Rix, H.-W. 2015, ApJS, 219, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/8

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/8 2015

  21. [21]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac36c8 Chow-Mart´ ınez, M., Andernach, H., Caretta, C

    Cho, H., James Jee, M., Smith, R., Finner, K., & Lee, W. 2022, ApJ, 925, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac36c8 Chow-Mart´ ınez, M., Andernach, H., Caretta, C. A., &

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac36c8 2022

  22. [22]

    Trejo-Alonso, J. J. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 4073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1961

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1961 2014

  23. [23]

    A., Kaiser, N., & Gioia, I

    Clowe, D., Luppino, G. A., Kaiser, N., & Gioia, I. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 540, doi: 10.1086/309242

    work page doi:10.1086/309242 2000

  24. [24]

    S., Sodr´ e, Jr., L., Kneib, J.-P., & Campusano, L

    Cypriano, E. S., Sodr´ e, Jr., L., Kneib, J.-P., & Campusano, L. E. 2004, ApJ, 613, 95, doi: 10.1086/422896

    work page doi:10.1086/422896 2004

  25. [25]

    2018, PhR, 733, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.002

    Desjacques, V., Jeong, D., & Schmidt, F. 2018, PhR, 733, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.002 2018

  26. [26]

    J., Lang , D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  27. [27]

    M., Pringle, J

    Diaferio, A. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 610, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02864.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02864.x 1999

  28. [28]

    Diaferio, A., & Geller, M. J. 1997, ApJ, 481, 633, doi: 10.1086/304075

    work page doi:10.1086/304075 1997

  29. [29]

    The rich cluster of galaxies ABCG 85. III. Analyzing the ABCG 85/87/89 complex

    Durret, F., Forman, W., Gerbal, D., Jones, C., & Vikhlinin, A. 1998, A&A, 335, 41, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9802183 18Kim et al

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9802183 1998

  30. [30]

    B., & Forman, W

    Durret, F., Lima Neto, G. B., & Forman, W. 2005, A&A, 432, 809, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041666

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041666 2005

  31. [31]

    B., Forman, W., & Churazov, E

    Durret, F., Lima Neto, G. B., Forman, W., & Churazov, E. 2003, A&A, 403, L29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030424

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030424 2003

  32. [32]

    2014, A&A, 570, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424259

    Eckert, D., Molendi, S., Owers, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424259

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424259 2014

  33. [33]

    C., Stewart, G

    Edge, A. C., Stewart, G. C., Fabian, A. C., & Arnaud, K. A. 1990, MNRAS, 245, 559

    work page 1990

  34. [34]

    2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525

    Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077525 2007

  35. [35]

    S., et al

    Elbaz, D., Dickinson, M., Hwang, H. S., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117239 Euclid Collaboration, Giocoli, C., Meneghetti, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346058

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117239 2011

  36. [36]

    1994, ApJ, 437, 56, doi: 10.1086/174974

    Fahlman, G., Kaiser, N., Squires, G., & Woods, D. 1994, ApJ, 437, 56, doi: 10.1086/174974

    work page doi:10.1086/174974 1994

  37. [37]

    J., Cho, H., et al

    Finner, K., Jee, M. J., Cho, H., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adb0b6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adb0b6 2025

  38. [38]

    J., Golovich, N., et al

    Finner, K., Jee, M. J., Golovich, N., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa998c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa998c 2017

  39. [39]

    J., et al

    Finner, K., HyeongHan, K., Jee, M. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0d00

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0d00 2021

  40. [40]

    Fischer, P., & Tyson, J. A. 1997, AJ, 114, 14, doi: 10.1086/118447

    work page doi:10.1086/118447 1997

  41. [41]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67c6 Gal´ arraga-Espinosa, D., Garaldi, E., & Kauffmann, G

    Fu, S., Dell’Antonio, I., Escalante, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67c6 Gal´ arraga-Espinosa, D., Garaldi, E., & Kauffmann, G. 2023, A&A, 671, A160, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244935

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad67c6 2024

  42. [42]

    A., Romer, A

    Giles, P. A., Romer, A. K., Wilkinson, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3878, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2414

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2414 2022

  43. [43]

    Gruen, D., Seitz, S., & Bernstein, G. M. 2014, PASP, 126, 158, doi: 10.1086/675080

    work page doi:10.1086/675080 2014

  44. [44]

    F., Schmitz, M., et al

    Helou, G., Madore, B. F., Schmitz, M., et al. 1995, in Information & On-Line Data in Astronomy, ed. D. Egret & M. A. Albrecht, Vol. 203, 95, doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-0397-8 10

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-011-0397-8 1995

  45. [45]

    2000, ApJ, 532, 88, doi: 10.1086/308556

    Hoekstra, H., Franx, M., & Kuijken, K. 2000, ApJ, 532, 88, doi: 10.1086/308556

    work page doi:10.1086/308556 2000

  46. [46]

    Zahid, H. J. 2014, ApJ, 797, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/106

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/106 2014

  47. [47]

    E., Hoffman Y., Gottlöber S., Klypin A., Yepes G., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14885.x , 396, 1815–1824

    Hwang, H. S., & Lee, M. G. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 2111, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15100.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15100.x 2009

  48. [48]

    S., Park, C., Elbaz, D., & Choi, Y

    Hwang, H. S., Park, C., Elbaz, D., & Choi, Y. Y. 2012, A&A, 538, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117351

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117351 2012

  49. [49]

    J., Cha, S., & Cho, H

    HyeongHan, K., Jee, M. J., Cha, S., & Cho, H. 2024a, Nature Astronomy, 8, 377, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02164-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02164-w

  50. [50]

    J., Lee, W., et al

    HyeongHan, K., Jee, M. J., Lee, W., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02530-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02530-w 2025

  51. [51]

    J., Rudnick, L., et al

    HyeongHan, K., Jee, M. J., Rudnick, L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba742

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba742 2020

  52. [52]

    J., et al

    HyeongHan, K., Cho, H., Jee, M. J., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 962, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bcc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bcc

  53. [53]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 2971, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv217

    Ichinohe, Y., Werner, N., Simionescu, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2971, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv217

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv217 2015

  54. [54]

    H., Hwang, H

    Im, S. H., Hwang, H. S., Park, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d2 2024

  55. [55]

    A., et al

    Ishiyama, T., Prada, F., Klypin, A. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1755

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1755 2021

  56. [56]

    N., Heckman T

    Jauzac, M., Jullo, E., Kneib, J.-P., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3369, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21966.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21966.x 2012

  57. [57]

    J., Blakeslee, J

    Jee, M. J., Blakeslee, J. P., Sirianni, M., et al. 2007, PASP, 119, 1403, doi: 10.1086/524849

    work page doi:10.1086/524849 2007

  58. [58]

    J., Dawson, W

    Jee, M. J., Dawson, W. A., Stroe, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 179, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/179

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/179 2016

  59. [59]

    J., Hoekstra, H., Mahdavi, A., & Babul, A

    Jee, M. J., Hoekstra, H., Mahdavi, A., & Babul, A. 2014, ApJ, 783, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/78

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/78 2014

  60. [60]

    J., & Tyson, J

    Jee, M. J., & Tyson, J. A. 2011, PASP, 123, 596, doi: 10.1086/660137

    work page doi:10.1086/660137 2011

  61. [61]

    J., Tyson, J

    Jee, M. J., Tyson, J. A., Schneider, M. D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/74

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/1/74 2013

  62. [62]

    J., White, R

    Jee, M. J., White, R. L., Ben´ ıtez, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 618, 46, doi: 10.1086/425912

    work page doi:10.1086/425912 2005

  63. [63]

    1993, ApJ, 404, 441, doi: 10.1086/172297

    Kaiser, N., & Squires, G. 1993, ApJ, 404, 441, doi: 10.1086/172297

    work page doi:10.1086/172297 1993

  64. [64]

    S., Okabe, N., & Park, C

    Kang, W., Hwang, H. S., Okabe, N., & Park, C. 2025, ApJS, 278, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adcac8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adcac8 2025

  65. [65]

    S., Song, H., et al

    Kang, W., Hwang, H. S., Song, H., et al. 2024, ApJS, 272, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad390d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad390d 2024

  66. [66]

    Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08117.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08117.x 2004

  67. [67]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 66, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy056

    Kawanomoto, S., Uraguchi, F., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 66, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy056

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psy056 2018

  68. [68]

    C., Sarazin, C

    Kempner, J. C., Sarazin, C. L., & Ricker, P. M. 2002, ApJ, 579, 236, doi: 10.1086/342748

    work page doi:10.1086/342748 2002

  69. [69]

    S., Jeong, W.-S., et al

    Kim, E., Hwang, H. S., Jeong, W.-S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2090

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2090 2021

  70. [70]

    J., Finner, K., et al

    Kim, M., Jee, M. J., Finner, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d7c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d7c 2019

  71. [71]

    S., & Jeffrey, N

    Kim, S., Hwang, H. S., & Jeffrey, N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25836. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25836

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    D., Rudnick, L., et al

    Knowles, K., Cotton, W. D., Rudnick, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141488

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141488 2022

  73. [73]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx069 WL Analysis of A8519

    Komiyama, Y., Obuchi, Y., Nakaya, H., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx069 WL Analysis of A8519

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx069 2018

  74. [74]

    V., & Borgani , S

    Kravtsov, A. V., & Borgani, S. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 353, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502 2012

  75. [75]

    R., et al

    Kuchner, U., Arag´ on-Salamanca, A., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5473, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1083

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1083 2020

  76. [76]

    S., Kent, B

    Kwon, M., Hwang, H. S., Kent, B. R., et al. 2025, ApJS, 279, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ade0b8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ade0b8 2025

  77. [77]

    S., Lee, J., Shin, J., & Song, H

    Lee, G., Hwang, H. S., Lee, J., Shin, J., & Song, H. 2024, ApJ, 962, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5d 2024

  78. [78]

    J., et al

    Lee, W., Cha, S., Jee, M. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb76b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb76b 2023

  79. [79]

    R., Ma, C.-P., & Walsh, J

    Liepold, E. R., Ma, C.-P., & Walsh, J. L. 2025, ApJ, 980, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada4b0 L´ opez-Guti´ errez, M. M., Bravo-Alfaro, H., van Gorkom, J. H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1218, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2526

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada4b0 2025

  80. [80]

    H., Clowe, D., et al

    Markevitch, M., Gonzalez, A. H., Clowe, D., et al. 2004, ApJ, 606, 819, doi: 10.1086/383178

    work page doi:10.1086/383178 2004

Showing first 80 references.