pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01389 · v1 · pith:6KAJBTWUnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Lensing-Reconstructed Dark Matter-Intracluster Medium Coherence as a Probe of Cluster Dynamical State: Application to HSTFF, RELICS, and CLASH Clusters

Giulia Cerini (1) , Sayan Saha (2) , Jacqueline McCleary (2) , Eric Habjan (2) , Nico Cappelluti (3) , Priyamvada Natarajan (4 , 5 , 6)
show 21 more authors
Sabina Khizroev (7) Jason Rhodes (1) Eric Huff (1) Nicole Chidester (2) Maya Amit (8) Andrew Robertson (9) Bryanne McDonough (10) Elena Bellomi (11) Erwin T. Lau (12) John ZuHone (11) ((1) Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology (2) Northeastern University (3) Department of Physics University of Miami (4) Department of Astronomy Yale University (5) Department of Physics Yale University (6) Black Hole Initiative Harvard University (7) Duke University (8) New York University (9) Carnegie Observatories (10) Adelphi University (11) Center for Astrophysics Harvard & Smithsonian (12) Nara Womens University)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 18:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxy clustersweak lensingintracluster mediumX-ray emissiondynamical statecoherence analysisdark matter
0
0 comments X

The pith

Coherence between lensing-reconstructed mass and X-ray gas maps shows only 16 percent of galaxy clusters are dynamically relaxed under a conservative threshold.

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

The paper measures scale-dependent alignment between dark-matter surface density from gravitational lensing and the hot gas traced by X-ray emission across 49 clusters drawn from HST Frontier Fields, CLASH, and RELICS programs. Relaxed clusters maintain high coherence down to small scales, producing short coherence lengths, while merging systems lose coherence at intermediate scales and produce longer coherence lengths. Applying the ratio of coherence length to r500 below 0.2 flags 16 percent of the sample as relaxed and below 0.4 flags 41 percent; the same sample shows 24 percent disagreement with earlier X-ray and morphological classifications, with the new method labeling more systems disturbed. The approach supplies a scale-resolved, complementary diagnostic that remains interpretable despite variations in lensing coverage and model assumptions.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Fourier-space coherence length l_CR between lensing-reconstructed projected mass and Chandra X-ray surface brightness, defined as the largest scale at which the maps stay at least 90 percent coherent, directly traces dynamical state: small l_CR/r500 marks relaxed clusters with aligned dark matter and gas, while larger values mark disturbed or merging clusters that have lost alignment on smaller scales. Across the 49-cluster sample this diagnostic yields a low relaxed fraction and identifies more disturbed systems than prior methods.

What carries the argument

The coherence length l_CR, the scale above which the lensing mass and X-ray maps remain at least 90 percent coherent in Fourier space.

If this is right

  • Relaxed clusters exhibit high coherence across a wide range of scales and correspondingly small l_CR/r500.
  • Disturbed and merging clusters lose coherence on intermediate and small scales, producing larger l_CR/r500.
  • A threshold l_CR/r500 less than 0.2 classifies 16 percent of the sample as relaxed, while less than 0.4 classifies 41 percent.
  • The coherence method disagrees with previous X-ray and morphological classifications on 24 percent of systems and flags more clusters as disturbed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Homogeneous wide-field weak-lensing maps would reduce the sensitivity to field-of-view and reconstruction systematics noted in the sample.
  • The method could be combined with velocity or Sunyaev-Zel'dovich data to test whether the coherence signal tracks merger history more cleanly than single-wavelength proxies.
  • Selecting clusters by small l_CR/r500 might improve cosmological samples by reducing contamination from unrelaxed systems whose mass estimates are biased.

Load-bearing premise

The 90-percent coherence length remains a physically meaningful diagnostic of dynamical state even when the lensing maps have uneven coverage and rest on different lens-model assumptions.

What would settle it

A direct comparison on the same clusters showing that l_CR/r500 fails to correlate with independent dynamical indicators such as line-of-sight velocity dispersion or clear merger signatures in multi-wavelength data would falsify the diagnostic.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01389 by (10) Adelphi University, (11) Center for Astrophysics Harvard & Smithsonian, (12) Nara Womens University), (2) Northeastern University, (3) Department of Physics University of Miami, (4) Department of Astronomy Yale University, 5, (5) Department of Physics Yale University, 6), (6) Black Hole Initiative Harvard University, (7) Duke University, (8) New York University, (9) Carnegie Observatories, Andrew Robertson (9), Bryanne McDonough (10), Elena Bellomi (11), Eric Habjan (2), Eric Huff (1), Erwin T. Lau (12), Giulia Cerini (1), Jacqueline McCleary (2), Jason Rhodes (1), John ZuHone (11) ((1) Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology, Maya Amit (8), Nico Cappelluti (3), Nicole Chidester (2), Priyamvada Natarajan (4, Sabina Khizroev (7), Sayan Saha (2).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: Convergence map κ(x) of the galaxy cluster ABELL2261 reconstructed with the zitrin ltm gauss v2 model. Central panel: Corresponding κ(x) uncertainty map. Right panel: Power spectrum of the convergence map (light blue), of the associated uncertainty map (turquoise), and of the cleaned signal (blue), obtained by subtracting the noise contribution from the raw power spectrum. (a) (b) (c) [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left panel: background-subtracted, exposure-corrected X-ray 1 2 (A + B) map of the galaxy cluster ABELL2261. Central panel: exposure-corrected X-ray 1 2 (A − B) map of ABELL2261. Right panel: corresponding power spectra of the 1 2 (A + B) map (orange), the 1 2 (A − B) map (salmon), and the cleaned signal (red), obtained by subtracting the noise power spectrum from the total. lensing), the galaxy component … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Point-source mask for the galaxy cluster MACSJ0416.1−2403, corresponding to the system shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: convergence map κ(x) of the galaxy cluster ABELL2261 (CLASH) reconstructed with the zitrin ltm gauss v2 model. Central panel: background-subtracted, exposure-corrected X-ray (A + B) map of ABELL2261. Right panel: coherence measured for ABELL2261 using the zitrin ltm gauss v2 and zitrin nfw v2 lensing reconstructions, shown here as an example of a highly relaxed system. missions (Shaaban et al. … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: convergence map κ(x) of the galaxy cluster MACSJ0416.1−2403 (HSTFF), reconstructed with the cats v4.1 model. Central panel: background-subtracted, exposure-corrected X-ray (A + B) map of the same cluster. Right panel: coherence measured for MACSJ0416.1−2403 across the available lensing models, shown here as an illustrative example of an unrelaxed system. Section 4 and 5, respectively. Throughou… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel: convergence map κ(x) of the galaxy cluster CLJ0152.7−1357 (RELICS), reconstructed with the lenstool v1 model. Central panel: background-subtracted, exposure-corrected X-ray (A + B) map of the same cluster. Right panel: coherence measured for CLJ0152.7−1357 across the available lensing models, shown here as an illustrative example of a highly disturbed (unrelaxed) system. with Dl , Ds and Dls th… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the normalized coherence length across the full cluster sample. Left: histogram of the mean ⟨ℓCR/r500⟩ computed for each cluster across all available lensing models. Middle: distribution of the model-to-model scatter, quantified by σmodels. Right: distribution of the relative scatter, expressed as σmodels/⟨ℓCR/r500⟩. The insets highlight clusters for which the coherence length cannot be rob… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of significant model-dependent variation in the coherence signal for the cluster SPT-CLJ0615−5746. The left and central panels show the κ maps obtained from two different lensing reconstructions, glafic v2 and lenstool v1, respectively. The right panel presents the corresponding coherence measurements, highlighting the differences in the inferred signal and coherence length between the two models. … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of the lensing map extent for all models analyzed in this work. The quantity L κ map denotes the side length of the convergence map, so that L κ map/2 cor￾responds to half of the map extent, measured from the map center. This value is normalized by r500 to show the spatial coverage of each lensing reconstruction relative to the cluster size. maps, an appropriate spectral weighting is adopted t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Adopting the threshold introduced in (Cerini et al. 2025), in which the most relaxed systems are identified by ℓCR/r500 < 0.2, we find that only 9 out of 49 clusters satisfy ⟨ℓCR/r500⟩ < 0.2. This corresponds to approx￾imately 16% of the sample. If the selection is broad￾ened to include clusters with ℓCR/r500 < 0.4, the re￾laxed or moderately regular fraction increases to 20 out of 49 systems, or approxima… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Coherence length, ℓCR, measured from progressively smaller centered cutouts of the original convergence maps for four clusters selected to have the largest available lensing map extents. Different colors correspond to different map sizes, normalized to the full map extent. The figure illustrates the impact of map size on the inferred coherence length. of the 49 clusters show small model-to-model scatter, … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Coherence measurements for the subset of 11 clusters selected to satisfy the map-size criterion L map κ /(2r500) > 0.8, for which the inferred coherence length is expected to be more robust. Each panel shows the coherence as a function of scale (normalized by r500) for all available lensing models of a given cluster, together with the corresponding coherence length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the first application of Fourier-space coherence analysis between the lensing-reconstructed projected mass distribution and the X-ray-emitting intracluster medium to a sample of 49 observed galaxy clusters. Using publicly available HST convergence maps from the Hubble Frontier Fields, CLASH, and RELICS programs, together with Chandra X-ray imaging, we measure the scale-dependent coherence between the dark-matter-dominated surface mass density and the hot baryonic gas. We use the coherence length, l_CR, defined as the scale above which the two maps remain at least 90% coherent, as a diagnostic of cluster dynamical state. Across the sample, dynamically relaxed systems exhibit high coherence over a broad range of scales and small l_CR/r500, while disturbed and merging systems show a loss of coherence on intermediate and small scales, yielding larger l_CR/r500. The inferred coherence lengths show sensitivity to lens-model assumptions and to the heterogeneous extent of the available convergence maps. Nevertheless, the coherence signal remains physically interpretable and provides a stringent measure of dark-matter-gas alignment. Applying a conservative threshold, l_CR/r500 < 0.2, we find that only 16% of the sample is relaxed; this fraction rises to 41% for a more permissive threshold of l_CR/r500 < 0.4. Relative to previous X-ray and morphological classifications, we find a 24% disagreement, with the coherence method identifying more systems as dynamically disturbed. These results demonstrate that lensing-X-ray coherence provides a complementary, scale-resolved probe of cluster dynamical state, while highlighting the need for homogeneous, wide-field weak-lensing maps to control reconstruction and field-of-view systematics.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first application of Fourier-space coherence analysis between lensing-reconstructed projected mass (from HST convergence maps in HSTFF, CLASH, RELICS) and X-ray intracluster medium (Chandra) for 49 galaxy clusters. It defines a coherence length l_CR (scale where coherence >=90%) normalized by r500 as a diagnostic of dynamical state, reporting that only 16% (41%) of the sample is relaxed for conservative (permissive) thresholds l_CR/r500 <0.2 (<0.4), with 24% disagreement to previous X-ray/morphological classifications, identifying more disturbed systems.

Significance. If the coherence length remains a reliable indicator despite acknowledged systematics, this work introduces a scale-resolved, physically interpretable probe of dark matter-gas alignment that complements existing morphological and X-ray classifications. The demonstration on a sizable sample and the explicit call for homogeneous wide-field lensing maps are strengths.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract, final paragraph: the reported relaxed fractions (16% and 41%) and 24% disagreement rate are presented as evidence that the coherence method identifies more disturbed systems, yet the text explicitly notes sensitivity to lens-model assumptions and heterogeneous map extent without providing any controlled tests (e.g., re-running the pipeline on alternate lens models or truncated common FOV) to demonstrate that these systematics do not drive the classification differences.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the 90% coherence threshold used to define l_CR and the specific relaxed cutoffs (l_CR/r500 < 0.2 and < 0.4) are introduced without accompanying justification or sensitivity tests; moving this discussion to the methods section with a brief robustness check would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for highlighting this important point regarding the presentation of our results. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract, final paragraph: the reported relaxed fractions (16% and 41%) and 24% disagreement rate are presented as evidence that the coherence method identifies more disturbed systems, yet the text explicitly notes sensitivity to lens-model assumptions and heterogeneous map extent without providing any controlled tests (e.g., re-running the pipeline on alternate lens models or truncated common FOV) to demonstrate that these systematics do not drive the classification differences.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of explicit controlled tests leaves open the possibility that the reported 24% disagreement and relaxed fractions could be influenced by the acknowledged systematics. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection (likely in Section 4 or 5) that performs two controlled tests on the available data: (1) for the subset of clusters with multiple independent lens models, we recompute l_CR and re-classify dynamical state to quantify model-to-model variation; (2) we truncate all convergence and X-ray maps to a common minimum field of view and repeat the full analysis pipeline, reporting the resulting changes in relaxed fractions and disagreement rate. These tests will be presented with quantitative metrics so readers can assess the robustness. The abstract will be updated to reference the new tests while retaining the existing caveats. We believe these additions directly address the concern without altering the core scientific conclusions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; coherence length derived independently from maps

full rationale

The paper defines l_CR as the scale at which Fourier coherence between independent lensing mass maps and X-ray gas maps reaches 90%, then applies hand-chosen thresholds (<0.2 or <0.4) to classify dynamical state. This computation uses external data products without fitting to prior labels or reducing the result to self-citations. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or ansatzes smuggled via citation appear in the derivation. The 24% disagreement with X-ray/morphological classifications is an external comparison, not a forced outcome. The method remains self-contained against the maps themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that lensing convergence maps faithfully trace projected mass and that the 90% coherence threshold defines a physically meaningful scale; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • coherence threshold
    Defined as the scale where maps remain at least 90% coherent; chosen to mark loss of alignment.
  • relaxed classification thresholds
    l_CR/r500 < 0.2 (conservative) and < 0.4 (permissive); selected to categorize dynamical state.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Lensing-reconstructed convergence maps accurately represent the projected total mass distribution
    Invoked when computing coherence with X-ray surface brightness maps.
  • domain assumption X-ray images trace the hot intracluster gas without significant projection or temperature biases affecting coherence
    Required for interpreting coherence loss as dynamical disturbance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6052 in / 1462 out tokens · 25133 ms · 2026-07-03T18:47:15.468209+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 99 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 628, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935984

    Lovisari, L. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 628, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935984

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935984 2019

  2. [3]

    2001, Phys

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

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

  3. [4]

    2008, Phys

    Bhattacharya, S., & Kosowsky, A. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 083004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.083004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.083004 2008

  4. [5]

    1994, ApJL, 427, L83, doi: 10.1086/187370 Bradaˇ c, M., Allen, S

    Bonnet, H., Mellier, Y., & Fort, B. 1994, ApJL, 427, L83, doi: 10.1086/187370 Bradaˇ c, M., Allen, S. W., Treu, T., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 687, 959, doi: 10.1086/591246

    work page doi:10.1086/187370 1994

  5. [6]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 621, 5388, doi: 10.1086/426494

    Broadhurst, T., Benitez, N., Coe, D., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 621, 5388, doi: 10.1086/426494

    work page doi:10.1086/426494 2005

  6. [7]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.11067, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2001.11067

    Brough, S., Collins, C., Demarco, R., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.11067, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2001.11067

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.11067 2020

  7. [8]

    J., et al

    Bulbul, E., Chiu, I.-N., Mohr, J. J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf230

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf230 2019

  8. [9]

    A., & Tsai, J

    Buote, D. A., & Tsai, J. C. 1995, The Astrohysical Journal, 452, 522, doi: 10.1086/176326

    work page doi:10.1086/176326 1995

  9. [10]

    , keywords =

    Cabr, A., Fosalba, P., Gaztaaga, E., & Manera, M. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 381, 1347, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12280.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12280.x 2007

  10. [11]

    G., Ettori, S., Lovisari, L., et al

    Campitiello, M. G., Ettori, S., Lovisari, L., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243470

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243470 2022

  11. [12]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 698, A201, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452649

    Capalbo, V., De Petris, M., Ferragamo, A., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 698, A201, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452649

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452649 2025

  12. [13]

    J., Hilker M., Baumgardt H., C \^o t \'e P., Grebel E

    Cappelluti, N., Ranalli, P., Roncarelli, M., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 651, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21867.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21867.x 2012

  13. [14]

    G., et al

    Cappelluti, N., Kashlinsky, A., Arendt, R. G., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 769, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/68

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/68 2013

  14. [15]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 847, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8acd

    Cappelluti, N., Arendt, R., Kashlinsky, A., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 847, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8acd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8acd 2017

  15. [16]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 967, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad41de

    Somboonpanyakul, T. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 967, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad41de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad41de 2024

  16. [17]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf744

    Cerini, G., Bellomi, E., Cappelluti, N., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf744

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf744 2025

  17. [18]

    2022, New metrics to probe the dynamical state of galaxy clusters, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2209.06831

    Cerini, G., Cappelluti, N., & Natarajan, P. 2022, New metrics to probe the dynamical state of galaxy clusters, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2209.06831

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.06831 2022

  18. [19]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe7b

    Cerny, C., Sharon, K., Andrade-Santos, F., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe7b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabe7b 2018

  19. [20]

    , keywords =

    Churazov, E., Vikhlinin, A., Zhuravleva, I., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 11231135, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20372.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20372.x 2012

  20. [21]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty621

    Cialone, G., De Petris, M., Sembolini, F., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty621

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty621 2018

  21. [22]

    H., et al

    Clowe, D., Brada, M., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 648, L109L113, doi: 10.1086/508162

    work page doi:10.1086/508162 2006

  22. [23]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 584, 585, doi: 10.1086/345714

    Coble, K., Dodelson, S., Dragovan, M., et al. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 584, 585, doi: 10.1086/345714

    work page doi:10.1086/345714 2003

  23. [24]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab412b De Luca, F., De Petris, M., Yepes, G., et al

    Coe, D., Salmon, B., Bradaˇ c, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab412b De Luca, F., De Petris, M., Yepes, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1073 Di Valentino, E., Mena, O., Pan, S., et al. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 153001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab412b 2019

  24. [25]

    , keywords =

    Diego, J. M., Tegmark, M., Protopapas, P., & Sandvik, H. B. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 958, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11380.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11380.x 2007

  25. [26]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7c1a

    Eckert, D., Gaspari, M., Vazza, F., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7c1a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7c1a 2017

  26. [27]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 1746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1762

    Eifler, T., Miyatake, H., Krause, E., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 1746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1762

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1762 2021

  27. [28]

    2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 524, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015271 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al

    Ettori, S., Gastaldello, F., Leccardi, A., et al. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 524, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015271 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 697, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015271 2010

  28. [29]

    E., Metzler, C

    Evrard, A. E., Metzler, C. A., & Navarro, J. F. 1996, ApJ, 469, 494, doi: 10.1086/177798 22

    work page doi:10.1086/177798 1996

  29. [30]

    , keywords =

    Fabjan, D., Borgani, S., Tornatore, L., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 1670, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15794.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15794.x 2010

  30. [31]

    1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 437, 56, doi: 10.1086/174974

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

    work page doi:10.1086/174974 1994

  31. [32]

    Finner, K., Faisst, A., Chary, R.-R., & Jee, M. J. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace1e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace1e6 2023

  32. [33]

    P., et al

    Finner, K., Cha, S., Scofield, Z. P., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 994, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d80

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d80 2025

  33. [34]

    Fisher, R. A. 1915, Biometrika, 10, 507, doi: 10.1093/biomet/10.4.507

    work page doi:10.1093/biomet/10.4.507 1915

  34. [35]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., & et al. 2006, in Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 6270, 62701V

    2006

  35. [36]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 621, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833325

    Ghirardini, V., Eckert, D., Ettori, S., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 621, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833325

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833325 2019

  36. [37]

    2024, The SRG/eROSITA All-Sky Survey: Cosmology Constraints from Cluster Abundances in the Western Galactic Hemisphere

    Ghirardini, V., Bulbul, E., Artis, E., et al. 2024, The SRG/eROSITA All-Sky Survey: Cosmology Constraints from Cluster Abundances in the Western Galactic Hemisphere. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08458

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [38]

    S., Benton, S

    Gill, A. S., Benton, S. J., Damaren, C. J., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5840

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad5840 2024

  38. [39]

    2015, Science, 347, 1462, doi: 10.1126/science.1261381

    Harvey, D., Massey, R., Kitching, T., Taylor, A., & Tittley, E. 2015, Science, 347, 1462, doi: 10.1126/science.1261381

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1261381 2015

  39. [40]

    2014, American Astronomical Society, 785, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/38

    Helgason, K., Cappelluti, N., Hasinger, G., Kashlinsky, A., & Ricotti, M. 2014, American Astronomical Society, 785, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/38

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/38 2014

  40. [41]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 646, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039063

    Heymans, Catherine, Trster, Tilman, Asgari, Marika, et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 646, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039063

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039063 2021

  41. [42]

    C., & Markevitch, M

    Hickox, R. C., & Markevitch, M. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 645, 95, doi: 10.1086/504070

    work page doi:10.1086/504070 2006

  42. [43]

    S., Mittal, R., Reiprich, T

    Hudson, D. S., Mittal, R., Reiprich, T. H., et al. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 513, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912377

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912377 2010

  43. [44]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  44. [45]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/12

    Ishigaki, M., Kawamata, R., Ouchi, M., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/12

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/12 2015

  45. [46]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1402

    Jauzac, M., Richard, J., Jullo, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1402

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1402 2015

  46. [47]

    , keywords =

    Joachimi, B., Taylor, A. N., & Kiessling, A. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 145, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19472.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19472.x 2011

  47. [48]

    1984, The Astrophysical Journal, 276, 38, doi: 10.1086/161591

    Jones, C., & Forman, W. 1984, The Astrophysical Journal, 276, 38, doi: 10.1086/161591

    work page doi:10.1086/161591 1984

  48. [49]

    , keywords =

    Jullo, E., & Kneib, J.-P. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 13191332, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14654.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14654.x 2009

  49. [50]

    2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 447447, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/447

    Jullo, E., Kneib, J.-P., Limousin, M., et al. 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 447447, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/447

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/447 2007

  50. [51]

    1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 404, 441, doi: 10.1086/172297

    Kaiser, N., & Squires, G. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 404, 441, doi: 10.1086/172297

    work page doi:10.1086/172297 1993

  51. [52]

    2018, Reviews of Modern Physics, 90, doi: 10.1103/revmodphys.90.025006

    Kashlinsky, A., Arendt, R., Atrio-Barandela, F., et al. 2018, Reviews of Modern Physics, 90, doi: 10.1103/revmodphys.90.025006

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.025006 2018

  52. [53]

    G., Mather, J., & Moseley, S

    Kashlinsky, A., Arendt, R. G., Mather, J., & Moseley, S. H. 2005, Nature, 438, 45, doi: 10.1038/nature04143

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04143 2005

  53. [54]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6cf

    Kawamata, R., Ishigaki, M., Shimasaku, K., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6cf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6cf 2018

  54. [55]

    2011, A&A Rv, 19, 47, doi: 10.1007/s00159-011-0047-3

    Kneib, J.-P., & Natarajan, P. 2011, A&A Rv, 19, 47, doi: 10.1007/s00159-011-0047-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-011-0047-3 2011

  55. [56]

    V., & Borgani, S

    Kravtsov, A. V., & Borgani, S. 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 353, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

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

  56. [57]

    T., Kravtsov, A

    Lau, E. T., Kravtsov, A. V., & Nagai, D. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 705, 1129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1129

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/2/1129 2009

  57. [58]

    P., D´ emocl` es, J., et al

    Lavoie, S., Willis, J. P., D´ emocl` es, J., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 4141, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1906

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1906 2016

  58. [59]

    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

  59. [60]

    G., et al

    Li, Y., Cappelluti, N., Arendt, R. G., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad55a 2018

  60. [61]

    , keywords =

    Liesenborgs, J., De Rijcke, S., & Dejonghe, H. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1209, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10040.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10040.x 2006

  61. [62]

    Lopes, P. A. A., Trevisan, M., Lagan´ a, T. F., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 5473, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1374

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1374 2018

  62. [63]

    M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al

    Lotz, J. M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/97

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/97 2017

  63. [64]

    R., Jones, C., et al

    Lovisari, L., Forman, W. R., Jones, C., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa855f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa855f 2017

  64. [65]

    B., von der Linden, A., Allen, S

    Mantz, A. B., von der Linden, A., Allen, S. W., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 2205, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2096

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2096 2014

  65. [66]

    H., Clowe, D., et al

    Markevitch, M., Gonzalez, A. H., Clowe, D., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 606, 819, doi: 10.1086/383178 23

    work page doi:10.1086/383178 2004

  66. [67]

    , keywords =

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Ponman, T. J., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 406, 822, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16750.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16750.x 2010

  67. [68]

    E., Everett, S

    McCleary, J. E., Everett, S. W., Shaaban, M. M., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace7ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace7ca 2023

  68. [69]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, 51–56

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, 51–56

    2010

  69. [70]

    1987, ApJ, 313, 121, doi: 10.1086/164953

    Merritt, D. 1987, ApJ, 313, 121, doi: 10.1086/164953

    work page doi:10.1086/164953 1987

  70. [71]

    J., Fabricant, D

    Mohr, J. J., Fabricant, D. G., & Geller, M. J. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 413, 492, doi: 10.1086/173019

    work page doi:10.1086/173019 1993

  71. [72]

    G., Koopmans, L

    Munshi, S., Mertens, F. G., Koopmans, L. V. E., et al. 2024, Astropnomy & Astrophysics, 687, C1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450465e

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450465e 2024

  72. [73]

    Nagai, D., Vikhlinin, A., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 655, 98, doi: 10.1086/509868 NASA High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC). 2024, HEASoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU, https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/heasoft/

    work page doi:10.1086/509868 2007

  73. [74]

    2010, PASJ, 62, 1017, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.4.1017 pandas development team

    Oguri, M. 2010, PASJ, 62, 1017, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.4.1017 pandas development team. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas:

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/62.4.1017 2010

  74. [75]

    Pandas, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134

  75. [76]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 575, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424123

    Holwerda, B. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 575, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424123

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424123 2015

  76. [77]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 199, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/25

    Postman, M., Coe, D., Bentez, N., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 199, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/25 2012

  77. [78]

    Rodney, S. A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1030, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2785

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2785 2017

  78. [79]

    W., Markevitch, M., Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A

    Randall, S. W., Markevitch, M., Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A. H., & Bradaˇ c, M. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 679, 1173, doi: 10.1086/587859

    work page doi:10.1086/587859 2008

  79. [80]

    2013, The Astronomical Review, 8, 40, doi: 10.1080/21672857.2013.11519713

    Rasia, E., Meneghetti, M., & Ettori, S. 2013, The Astronomical Review, 8, 40, doi: 10.1080/21672857.2013.11519713

    work page doi:10.1080/21672857.2013.11519713 2013

  80. [81]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2670

    Robertson, A., Massey, R., & Eke, V. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2670

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2670 2017

Showing first 80 references.