pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.16706 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Novel insights into the Coma Cluster kinematics with DESI. I. Linking mass profile, orbital anisotropy, and galaxy populations

S. Pedratti (1) , L. Pizzuti (1 , 2) , M. Fossati (1 , 3) , A. Biviano (2 , 4) , A. Boselli (5)
show 15 more authors
A. Ragagnin (2) A. Carlin (1) ((1) Universit\`a di Milano-Bicocca Milano Italy (2) INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste Trieste Italy (3) INAF Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera Italy (4) IFPU Institute for Fundamental Physics of the Universe Italy (5) Aix Marseille Univ CNRS CNES LAM Marseille France)
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 09:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords Coma clustergalaxy kinematicsmass profileorbital anisotropyDESIgalaxy populationsNavarro-Frenk-WhiteJeans equation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Using DESI spectroscopy, the Coma cluster virial mass is measured as 1.04 × 10^15 solar masses assuming an NFW profile.

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

The paper applies the MG-MAMPOSSt code to a new large DESI sample of Coma member galaxies to solve the Jeans equation and recover both the total mass profile and the velocity anisotropy profile. Assuming a Navarro-Frenk-White shape, it reports a virial mass M_200 of 1.04 × 10^15 solar masses and r_200 of 2.07 Mpc, then subtracts the hot-gas and stellar components to isolate the dark-matter profile. The same data are split by galaxy color into red-sequence, green-valley, and blue-cloud subsamples, revealing that green-valley orbits are more radial near the center while blue-cloud orbits are more radial in the outskirts. These results tighten the kinematic mass constraint and show how orbital properties vary with galaxy type inside a massive cluster.

Core claim

By jointly fitting the mass and anisotropy profiles to DESI line-of-sight velocities under an NFW assumption, the analysis yields M_200 = 1.04_{-0.08}^{+0.07} (stat) ± 0.09 (syst) × 10^15 M_⊙ and r_200 = 2.07 ± 0.05 Mpc, with a dark-matter mass M_200^DM = 8.6^{+1.2}_{-0.8} × 10^14 M_⊙. Separate analysis of color-selected populations shows green-valley galaxies with more radial orbits in the inner regions and blue-cloud galaxies with more radial orbits at large radii, each subsample producing slightly different virial-mass estimates.

What carries the argument

The MG-MAMPOSSt code that solves the spherical Jeans equation for a joint mass-anisotropy fit, applied to the full sample and to color-selected subsamples of galaxies.

If this is right

  • The kinematic mass profile supplies the tightest robust constraint on Coma to date and can be used as a benchmark for cosmological simulations.
  • Differences in orbital anisotropy between green-valley and blue-cloud galaxies indicate that star-formation state correlates with dynamical history inside the cluster.
  • Blue-cloud galaxies analyzed alone return a higher virial mass, showing that population selection affects inferred cluster properties.
  • Consistency checks across radial ranges and rest-frame choices confirm that the main mass and anisotropy results are stable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The radial-orbit signature of blue galaxies at large radii may mark recent field infall that has not yet been fully processed by the cluster environment.
  • The observed link between color and anisotropy could be inserted into semi-analytic models to predict how quenching timescales depend on orbital parameters.
  • Repeating the identical analysis on other DESI clusters would test whether the green-valley versus blue-cloud orbital pattern is universal.

Load-bearing premise

The total mass follows a Navarro-Frenk-White density profile and the cluster is in dynamical equilibrium.

What would settle it

An independent weak-lensing or X-ray hydrostatic mass measurement falling outside the reported 1.04 × 10^15 solar-mass range at comparable precision would falsify the NFW-based kinematic result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.16706 by 2), 3), 4), A. Biviano (2, A. Boselli (5), A. Carlin (1) ((1) Universit\`a di Milano-Bicocca, A. Ragagnin (2), CNES, CNRS, France), Institute for Fundamental Physics of the Universe, Italy (2) INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste, Italy (3) INAF, Italy (4) IFPU, Italy (5) Aix Marseille Univ, LAM, L. Pizzuti (1, Marseille, M. Fossati (1, Milano, Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, S. Pedratti (1), Trieste.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Projected phase-space distribution of member galaxies in the Coma Cluster (grey dots) and interlopers removed by Clean (grey crosses). The black dashed line indicates the average ve￾locity of the cluster (Hubble + bulk motion), while coloured curves highlight iso-density contours (dashed and solid lines cor￾respond to 90th and 97th percentiles, respectively) for RS (red), GV (green) and BC (blue) galaxies.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (mg−mr) vs stellar mass diagram. The colour of the mark￾ers highlights the three colour classes: blue cloud (BC) in blue, red sequence (RS) in red and green valley (GV) in green. The solid line represents the best fit for RS galaxies, the dashed and dotted lines indicate the 2σ and 5σ limit, respectively. 2.2. Numerical density profile The distribution of galaxies in clusters is shaped by that of dark matt… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Projected surface density profile of the Coma Cluster fit￾ted with NFW (solid line) and Hernquist (dashed line) models. The error bars correspond to the Poisson uncertainties. rs = r−2 is the scale radius at which the logarithmic derivative of the profile equals −2. While initially proposed as a description of dark matter halos in N-body cosmological simulations, the NFW profile has been shown to provide a… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: LoS velocity distributions of RS (upper panel), GV (mid￾dle panel) and BC (lower panel) galaxies. The vertical dashed line indicates the average velocity of the cluster. 3. Kinematic analysis with MG-MAMPOSSt We perform a kinematic analysis of the Coma Cluster member galaxies by means of the MG-MAMPOSSt (Modified Gravity - Modelling Anisotropy and Mass Profiles of Observed Spher￾ical Systems) code of Pizzu… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: all the profiles are well within the 1σ uncertainty regions of the reference run. We therefore conclude that the mass-orbital modelling of Coma with MG-MAMPOSSt is very robust and only slightly affected by systematics. 4.3. Orbital anisotropy study for different colour classes We devote this Section to the comparison of the anisotropy pro￾files of RS, GV, and BC galaxies. In fact, even if the profile ob￾ta… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Estimated mass profiles in the MG-MAMPOSSt runs for the mixed components (1 and 2σ regions delimited by purple dashed lines), separated colour classes (RS in red, GV in green, BC in blue) and produced by the joint likelihood (1 and 2σ regions coloured in dark and light grey, respectively, and vertical dashed line corresponding to the virial radius). Right: Relative ratio between our best fit Mbest(r)… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Estimated anisotropy profile in the MG-MAMPOSSt run for the mixed components with the NFW mass model and gOM anisotropy model. The solid curve is the median profile of the MCMC chain. which the GV estimate is lower and the BC one is higher than that of the RS. This BC result supports the hypothesis proposed in Sect. 2.3, namely that a substantial fraction of BC galaxies be￾longs to a filamentary-like struc… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: r200 (left) and rs (right) estimates and confidence intervals (1 and 2σ) for the different runs, specified on the left, performed to check the robustness of the mass modelling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relative variation of the anisotropy profiles with respect to the reference profile (βref) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Estimated anisotropy profiles in NFW gOM runs with Gaussian priors on the mass (coming from the joint results of Sect. 4.1) for RS (left), GV (middle), and BC (right) galaxies, separately. The coloured and shaded regions indicate 1σ and 2σ confidence intervals, respectively. Solid curves are the median profiles of each MCMC chain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between M200 estimates from different studies (indicated on the left of the figure) and our best estimate from MG-MAMPOSSt with DESI dataset. trend, with a slightly more isotropic behaviour in the centre, as well as the orbits found for ram pressure stripped member galax￾ies in nearby clusters (Biviano et al. 2024). The parameter’s be￾haviour remains comparable between RS, GV, and BC galaxies; … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the kinematic properties of the Coma galaxy cluster using a new, large spectroscopic sample of member galaxies, from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI). By means of the MG-MAMPOSSt code, based on the Jeans equation, we jointly reconstruct the total cluster mass profile and the velocity anisotropy profile. Assuming a Navarro-Frenk-White model, we estimate a virial mass $M_{200}=1.04_{-0.08}^{+0.07}~({\rm stat})\pm 0.09~({\rm syst})\times 10^{15}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot $, corresponding to $r_{200}=2.07 \pm 0.05\,\mathrm{Mpc}$ and a scale radius for the mass profile $r_{\rm s}=0.73^{+0.24}_{-0.30}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$, which provides the tightest robust kinematic mass profile constraint to date. By considering separately the mass of the hot gas and the galaxy stellar mass, we determine the dark matter mass profile, with $M_{200}^{\rm DM}=8.6^{+1.2}_{-0.8}\times 10^{14}\,\text{M}_\odot$. We discuss the impact of the mass and number density parametrisations, the effect of different choices of the cluster's rest frame and of the radial range of the kinematic analysis, further comparing our results with previous estimates from the literature. The cluster dynamical state has also been assessed, using the spatial and line-of-sight velocity distributions of the members. We perform a kinematic study of different subsamples of galaxy populations, based on their colour (red sequence, green valley, and blue cloud), focusing on the anisotropy profiles and line-of-sight velocity distributions. The orbits of green valley and blue cloud galaxies appear to be more radial in the centre and in the outskirts, respectively, with the latter predicting a higher cluster virial mass. This study provides new insights on the interplay between dynamical and intrinsic properties of galaxies in massive structures, fundamental to verify the tight connection between galaxy evolution and environment.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the kinematics of the Coma galaxy cluster using a new large DESI spectroscopic sample of member galaxies. It employs the MG-MAMPOSSt code to solve the spherical Jeans equation and jointly reconstruct the total mass profile (assuming NFW) and velocity anisotropy profile, reporting M_{200} = 1.04_{-0.08}^{+0.07} (stat) ± 0.09 (syst) × 10^{15} M_⊙ with r_{200} = 2.07 ± 0.05 Mpc and r_s = 0.73^{+0.24}_{-0.30} Mpc. The work separates the dark matter mass component, assesses the cluster dynamical state via spatial and LOS velocity distributions, examines impacts of mass parametrizations, rest-frame choices and radial range, and performs a kinematic study of galaxy subpopulations by color (red sequence, green valley, blue cloud) focusing on anisotropy and velocity distributions.

Significance. If the NFW and equilibrium assumptions hold, the analysis supplies the tightest robust kinematic mass constraint for Coma to date from a large new spectroscopic dataset, cleanly separates the DM mass profile, and links orbital properties to galaxy populations, providing useful input for studies of cluster dynamics and environmental effects on galaxy evolution. The joint fitting of mass and anisotropy plus explicit discussion of systematic choices (radial range, rest frame) are strengths.

major comments (1)
  1. [dynamical state assessment and Jeans modeling sections] The assessment of dynamical equilibrium (stated in the abstract and the relevant results section) relies on qualitative inspection of spatial and line-of-sight velocity distributions but supplies no quantitative metric (Dressler-Shectman statistic, velocity kurtosis, or direct comparison to N-body mocks) demonstrating that deviations remain small enough not to shift the recovered M_{200} outside the quoted 0.09 systematic uncertainty. Because r_s is left free in the NFW fit, any violation of the spherical steady-state assumption in the Jeans equation couples directly into both mass normalization and concentration; this is therefore the single most load-bearing modeling choice for the headline M_{200} result.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract asserts 'the tightest robust kinematic mass profile constraint to date' without naming the specific prior works or samples used for the comparison; adding one sentence with the key reference values would improve context.
  2. [Tables and figures] Notation for the combined statistical and systematic errors on M_{200} is clear in the text, but ensure the same convention (sub/superscript placement and units) is used uniformly in all tables and figure captions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The single major comment raises an important point about quantifying the dynamical state assessment, which we address below by agreeing to strengthen the manuscript with additional metrics while defending the robustness of our quoted systematic uncertainty.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [dynamical state assessment and Jeans modeling sections] The assessment of dynamical equilibrium (stated in the abstract and the relevant results section) relies on qualitative inspection of spatial and line-of-sight velocity distributions but supplies no quantitative metric (Dressler-Shectman statistic, velocity kurtosis, or direct comparison to N-body mocks) demonstrating that deviations remain small enough not to shift the recovered M_{200} outside the quoted 0.09 systematic uncertainty. Because r_s is left free in the NFW fit, any violation of the spherical steady-state assumption in the Jeans equation couples directly into both mass normalization and concentration; this is therefore the single most load-bearing modeling choice for the headline M_{200} result.

    Authors: We agree that a more quantitative assessment of dynamical equilibrium would strengthen the paper. In the revised manuscript we will add the Dressler-Shectman statistic applied to the full DESI member sample and report the kurtosis of the line-of-sight velocity distribution; both quantities will be shown to be consistent with only mild deviations from equilibrium. We will explicitly link these metrics to the quoted 0.09 systematic uncertainty by demonstrating that the variations already explored (different radial ranges and rest-frame choices) produce mass shifts of comparable size. Regarding the free r_s parameter, we note that the joint mass-anisotropy fit already marginalizes over concentration, and our tests with alternative mass parametrizations (Section 4.2) provide a partial check on the coupling; we will expand the discussion to cite literature estimates of Jeans-equation bias in mildly unrelaxed clusters and argue that any residual effect remains within the reported systematic. We cannot, however, perform a new set of tailored N-body mocks for the exact DESI selection function within the scope of this work. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct comparison to tailored N-body mocks for the precise DESI sample selection and completeness

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Mass profile obtained by direct fit to independent DESI velocities; no reduction to inputs by construction

full rationale

The reported M200 is the direct output of fitting NFW parameters (M200, rs) and anisotropy profile inside MG-MAMPOSSt to the DESI line-of-sight velocity data under the Jeans equation. No equation in the paper equates the fitted mass to a prior fitted quantity or to an input parameter by definition. The dynamical-state assessment uses the same spatial and velocity distributions but is presented only as a consistency check, not as a load-bearing input that forces the mass value. No self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is invoked to justify the central result. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against the external spectroscopic dataset.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the NFW profile assumption and Jeans dynamical equilibrium applied to new spectroscopic data; free parameters are the fitted NFW scale radius and mass normalization.

free parameters (2)
  • NFW scale radius rs = 0.73 Mpc
    Fitted parameter in the mass profile reconstruction from kinematic data.
  • Virial mass M200 = 1.04e15 solar masses
    Primary fitted quantity derived from the Jeans analysis.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Navarro-Frenk-White density profile describes the total mass distribution
    Explicitly assumed for the cluster mass profile in the MG-MAMPOSSt modeling.
  • domain assumption Jeans equation holds under dynamical equilibrium
    Basis of the MG-MAMPOSSt code used to reconstruct mass and anisotropy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5830 in / 1452 out tokens · 67250 ms · 2026-05-15T09:52:44.836457+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

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    1998, A&A, 331, 439

    Adami, C., Biviano, A., & Mazure, A. 1998, A&A, 331, 439

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    2005, A&A, 443, 17

    Adami, C., Biviano, A., Durret, F., & Mazure, A. 2005, A&A, 443, 17

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Anderson, T. W. & Darling, D. A. 1952, Ann. Math. Stat., 23, 193

    work page 1952

  4. [4]

    2014, A&A, 571, A80

    Annunziatella, M., Biviano, A., Mercurio, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A80

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    W., Fritze, K., & Tiersch, H

    Baier, F. W., Fritze, K., & Tiersch, H. 1990, Astron. Nachr., 311, 89

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    1996, A&A, 313, 697

    Bartelmann, M. 1996, A&A, 313, 697

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.04135

    Benisty, D., Wagner, J., Haridasu, S., & Salucci, P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.04135

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    2020, in ASP Conf

    Bertocco, S., Goz, D., Tornatore, L., et al. 2020, in ASP Conf. Ser., ed. R. Pizzo, E. R. Deul, J. D. Mol, J. de Plaa, & H. Verkouter, V ol. 527, 303

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    1998, in Untangling Coma Berenices: A New Vision of an Old Clus- ter, ed

    Biviano, A. 1998, in Untangling Coma Berenices: A New Vision of an Old Clus- ter, ed. A. Mazure, F. Casoli, F. Durret, & D. Gerbal, 1

    work page 1998

  10. [10]

    1996, A&A, 311, 95

    Biviano, A., Durret, F., Gerbal, D., et al. 1996, A&A, 311, 95

    work page 1996

  11. [11]

    1992, ApJ, 396, 35

    Biviano, A., Girardi, M., Giuricin, G., Mardirossian, F., & Mezzetti, M. 1992, ApJ, 396, 35

    work page 1992

  12. [12]

    1997, A&A, 321, 84

    Biviano, A., Katgert, P., Mazure, A., et al. 1997, A&A, 321, 84

    work page 1997

  13. [13]

    A., Pizzuti, L., et al

    Biviano, A., Maraboli, E. A., Pizzuti, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.05195

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    M., Jaffé, Y ., et al

    Biviano, A., Poggianti, B. M., Jaffé, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 117

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    2013, A&A, 558, A1

    Biviano, A., Rosati, P., Balestra, I., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A1

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    & Salucci, P

    Biviano, A. & Salucci, P. 2006, A&A, 452, 75–81

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    2022, A&ARv, 30

    Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, A&ARv, 30

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    & Gavazzi, G

    Boselli, A. & Gavazzi, G. 2006, PASP, 118, 517–559

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    2014, A&A, 570, A69

    Boselli, A., V oyer, E., Boissier, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A69

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    M., Koposov, S

    Budzynski, J. M., Koposov, S. E., McCarthy, I. G., McGee, S. L., & Belokurov, V . 2012, MNRAS, 423, 104–121

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    1995, ApJL, 447, L25

    Burkert, A. 1995, ApJL, 447, L25

    work page 1995

  23. [23]

    A., Sharples, R

    Caldwell, N., Rose, J. A., Sharples, R. M., Ellis, R. S., & Bower, R. G. 1993, ApJ, 106, 473

    work page 1993

  24. [24]

    J., Hong, S

    Cha, S., Jee, M. J., Hong, S. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 52

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763–795

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763–795

    work page 2003

  26. [26]

    Churazov, E., Khabibullin, I., Lyskova, N., Sunyaev, R., & Bykov, A. M. 2021, A&A, 651, A41

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    & Dunn, A

    Colless, M. & Dunn, A. M. 1996, ApJ, 458, 435

    work page 1996

  28. [28]

    Collister, A. A. & Lahav, O. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 415

    work page 2005

  29. [29]

    Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

    Costa, A. P., Ribeiro, A. L. B., de Morais Neto, F. R., & dos Santos Junior, J. 2025, Universe, 11 DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Dixon, W. J. & Mood, A. M. 1946, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 41, 557

    work page 1946

  31. [31]

    J., et al

    Dressler, A., Oemler, Jr., A., Couch, W. J., et al. 1997, ApJ, 490, 577–591

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    2009, ApJ, 705, 1019

    Fusco-Femiano, R., Cavaliere, A., & Lapi, A. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1019

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    2010, A&A, 517, A73

    Gavazzi, G., Fumagalli, M., Cucciati, O., & Boselli, A. 2010, A&A, 517, A73

    work page 2010

  34. [34]

    2009, A&A, 498, L33–L36

    Gavazzi, R., Adami, C., Durret, F., et al. 2009, A&A, 498, L33–L36

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    J., Diaferio, A., & Kurtz, M

    Geller, M. J., Diaferio, A., & Kurtz, M. J. 1999, ApJ, 517, L23

    work page 1999

  36. [36]

    & Rubin, D

    Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Stat. Sci., 7, 457

    work page 1992

  37. [37]

    Gunn, J. E. & Gott, III, J. R. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1

    work page 1972

  38. [38]

    Hansen, S. H. & Moore, B. 2006, New Astron., 11, 333–338

    work page 2006

  39. [39]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    work page 1990

  40. [40]

    M., et al

    Ho, M., Ntampaka, M., Rau, M. M., et al. 2022, NatAs, 6, 936–941

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    2009, Nucl

    Host, O. 2009, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., 194, 111–115

    work page 2009

  42. [42]

    Hwang, H. S. & Lee, M. G. 2008, ApJ, 676, 218

    work page 2008

  43. [43]

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

    Kang, W., Hwang, H. S., Okabe, N., & Park, C. 2025, ApJS, 278, 51

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    & Percival, W

    Krolewski, A. & Percival, W. J. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 063526

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Kruskal, W. H. & Wallis, W. A. 1952, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 47, 583

    work page 1952

  46. [46]

    J., & Stanford, S

    Lin, Y .-T., Mohr, J. J., & Stanford, S. A. 2004, ApJ, 610, 745 Łokas, E. L. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 697 Łokas, E. L. & Mamon, G. A. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 401–412

    work page 2004

  47. [47]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 2922

    Lyskova, N., Churazov, E., Zhang, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2922

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    2020, A&A, 634, A30

    Malavasi, N., Aghanim, N., Tanimura, H., Bonjean, V ., & Douspis, M. 2020, A&A, 634, A30

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    A., Biviano, A., & Boué, G

    Mamon, G. A., Biviano, A., & Boué, G. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3079–3098

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    A., Biviano, A., & Murante, G

    Mamon, G. A., Biviano, A., & Murante, G. 2010, A&A, 520, A30

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    A., Cava, A., Biviano, A., et al

    Mamon, G. A., Cava, A., Biviano, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A131

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    1985, AJ, 90, 1027

    Merritt, D. 1985, AJ, 90, 1027

    work page 1985

  53. [53]

    Mirakhor, M. S. & Walker, S. A. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3204

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    & Dickens, R

    Moss, C. & Dickens, R. J. 1977, MNRAS, 178, 701

    work page 1977

  55. [55]

    V ., & Vikhlinin, A

    Nagai, D., Kravtsov, A. V ., & Vikhlinin, A. 2007, ApJ, 668, 1

    work page 2007

  56. [56]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493–508

    work page 1997

  57. [57]

    M., Arnaud, M., Gastaud, R., et al

    Neumann, D. M., Arnaud, M., Gastaud, R., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L74

    work page 2001

  58. [58]

    Osipkov, L. P. 1979, Sov. Astron. Lett., 5, 42

    work page 1979

  59. [59]

    2025, A&A, 699, A88

    Pizzuti, L., Barrena, R., Sereno, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A88

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    2024, JCAP, 2024, 014

    Pizzuti, L., Boumechta, Y ., Haridasu, S., et al. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 014

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    D., & Amendola, L

    Pizzuti, L., Saltas, I. D., & Amendola, L. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 595–612

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    D., Umetsu, K., & Sartoris, B

    Pizzuti, L., Saltas, I. D., Umetsu, K., & Sartoris, B. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4280

    work page 2022

  63. [63]

    2020, JCAP, 2020, 024–024

    Pizzuti, L., Sartoris, B., Borgani, S., & Biviano, A. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 024–024

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    I., Mamon, G

    Read, J. I., Mamon, G. A., Vasiliev, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 978

    work page 2021

  65. [65]

    Ribeiro, A. L. B., de Carvalho, R. R., Trevisan, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 784–795

    work page 2013

  66. [66]

    D., Parker, L

    Roberts, I. D., Parker, L. C., & Hlavacek-Larrondo, J. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4704–4716

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    M., de Carvalho, R

    Sampaio, V . M., de Carvalho, R. R., Aragón-Salamanca, A., et al. 2024, MN- RAS, 532, 982–994

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    Sarazin, C. L. 1980, ApJ, 236, 75

    work page 1980

  69. [69]

    2020, A&A, 637, A34

    Sartoris, B., Biviano, A., Rosati, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A34

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    2011, PASJ, 63, S991–S1007

    Sato, T., Matsushita, K., Ota, N., et al. 2011, PASJ, 63, S991–S1007

    work page 2011

  71. [71]

    Singh, A., Gulati, M., & Bagla, J. S. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5582 Sodré, L. J., Capelato, H. V ., Steiner, J. E., & Mazure, A. 1989, AJ, 97, 1279

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    Sunyaev, R. A. & Zeldovich, Y . B. 1972, Comments Astrophys. Space Phys., 4, 173

    work page 1972

  73. [73]

    2020, in ASP Conf

    Taffoni, G., Becciani, U., Garilli, B., et al. 2020, in ASP Conf. Ser., ed. R. Pizzo, E. R. Deul, J. D. Mol, J. de Plaa, & H. Verkouter, V ol. 527, 307

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    Tammann, G. A. 1972, A&A, 21, 355

    work page 1972

  75. [75]

    W., Famaey, B., & Zhao, H

    Tiret, O., Combes, F., Angus, G. W., Famaey, B., & Zhao, H. S. 2007, A&A, 476, L1

    work page 2007

  76. [76]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 116 Vallés-Pérez, D., Planelles, S., & Quilis, V

    Umetsu, K., Zitrin, A., Gruen, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 116 Vallés-Pérez, D., Planelles, S., & Quilis, V . 2025, A&A, 699, A1 V ollmer, B., Cayatte, V ., Balkowski, C., & Duschl, W. J. 2001, ApJ, 561, 708

    work page 2016

  77. [77]

    White, S. D. M., Briel, U. G., & Henry, J. P. 1993, MNRAS, 261, L8

    work page 1993

  78. [78]

    2025, A&A, 698, A73

    Xie, L., De Lucia, G., Fossati, M., F., F., & Hirschmann. 2025, A&A, 698, A73

    work page 2025

  79. [79]

    & Vidal, N

    Yahil, A. & Vidal, N. V . 1977, ApJ, 214, 347

    work page 1977

  80. [80]

    Zabludoff, A. I. & Franx, M. 1993, AJ, 106, 1314

    work page 1993

Showing first 80 references.