pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12523 · v1 · pith:4DOBXYGZnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Dark and Luminous Matter in the Coma Cluster: Probing Galaxy Cluster Assembly Through Filaments with Weak Lensing and Multiwavelength Observations

K. HyeongHan , K. Finner , M. James Jee , W. Lee , Y. Jim\'enez-Teja , S. Cha , W. Kang , H. S. Hwang
show 6 more authors
H. Cho E. Churazov I. Khabibullin N. Lyskova R. Sunyaev A. M. Bykov
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 09:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Coma clusterweak lensingintracluster filamentsdark matterminor mergerNFW profilemass-to-light ratiogalaxy cluster assembly
0
0 comments X

The pith

Weak lensing of the Coma cluster reveals a 1:8 minor merger between two central galaxies and higher dark matter dominance along intracluster filaments.

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

The paper maps the projected dark matter in the Coma cluster using wide-field weak lensing data from Subaru/Hyper Suprime-Cam and compares it to X-ray, optical, and radio observations. A two-halo Navarro-Frenk-White model centered on NGC 4874 and NGC 4839 yields masses of 7.8 and 0.9 times 10^14 solar masses, pointing to an ongoing minor merger. The overall mass-to-light ratio stays roughly constant at about 250 solar units, but rises to around 1000 along the northern and western reported filaments, indicating those structures contain relatively more dark matter. The analysis also finds that the global weak lensing mass matches X-ray hydrostatic estimates at large radii while showing inner bias, and that the gas fraction suggests the system is past first apocenter.

Core claim

A single-halo NFW fit gives M_200c = 8.2 ± 0.7 × 10^14 M_⊙. A two-halo NFW fit centered on NGC 4874 and NGC 4839 gives masses of 7.8 ± 0.6 and 0.9 ± 0.2 × 10^14 M_⊙, implying a ∼1:8 minor merger. The northern and western ICFs show higher M/L values of ∼1000 M_⊙/L_⊙, suggesting stronger dark matter dominance. The WL signal correlates positively with X-ray surface brightness, strongest along the ICF position angles.

What carries the argument

Two-dimensional weak lensing mass reconstruction fitted with single- and two-halo Navarro-Frenk-White profiles, cross-checked against X-ray surface brightness and mass-to-light ratios along reported intracluster filament directions.

If this is right

  • The aperture mass densitometry profile matches the best-fit NFW model and X-ray hydrostatic mass beyond about 560 kpc, indicating little global merger bias in the total mass estimate.
  • Shear-selected subhalos appear predominantly along the ICF directions where the WL-X-ray correlation is strongest.
  • The gas mass fraction implies the cluster is returning from first apocenter after the minor merger.
  • The radially constant average M/L_r of 250 ± 66 within R_200c contrasts with the elevated values in specific filaments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the higher filament M/L ratios hold, then intracluster filaments may serve as laboratories for studying dark matter on scales between galaxies and the full cluster.
  • Joint WL and X-ray mapping along multiple position angles could be applied to other nearby clusters to test whether minor mergers commonly leave detectable filamentary dark matter signatures.
  • The lack of strong hydrostatic bias at large radii suggests that weak lensing remains reliable for total mass even in merging systems when averaged over the full aperture.

Load-bearing premise

The reported intracluster filaments are real connected structures whose spatial alignment with the weak lensing signal traces physical assembly rather than chance projections or selection effects.

What would settle it

If deeper weak lensing data or targeted spectroscopy along the same position angles showed no excess mass or galaxy-dark matter correlation in the northern and western filaments, the claim of stronger dark matter dominance in those structures would not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12523 by A. M. Bykov, E. Churazov, H. Cho, H. S. Hwang, I. Khabibullin, K. Finner, K. HyeongHan, M. James Jee, N. Lyskova, R. Sunyaev, S. Cha, W. Kang, W. Lee, Y. Jim\'enez-Teja.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Color–magnitude diagram of the Coma cluster. Notable member galaxies NGC 4874, NGC 4889, and NGC 4839 are indicated by gold star, pentagon, and triangle, respectively. Green points mark the source galaxies used in the WL analysis in this study. Black points show de￾tected objects in the field, with sources having FLUX_RADIUS < 3 pix excluded for clarity. The red sequence is clearly visible, supported by th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two-dimensional mass distribution of the Coma cluster within a 2.8 Mpc-radius aperture centered on NGC 4874. The background is the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) map estimated using 1,000 realizations of the convergence (κ) map obtained by bootstrapping the source catalog. The gray contour starts from the 1σ level with 1σ step each. The open star, pentagon, and triangle shapes indicate NGC 4874, NGC 4889, and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Central region of the Coma cluster. The background HSC pseudo-color composite image is overlaid with white WL SNR contours starting from 1σ with 1σ step each. Red crosses denote shear peaks with SNR > 3.5 detected in §4.1, and the orange numbers give their peak sig￾nificances. The centroid uncertainty of the convergence peak associated with NGC 4874 is roughly 3′ (84 kpc). The galaxy density peak, X-ray ce… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mass distribution overlaid on multiwavelength observations within a radius of 2.8 Mpc centered at NGC 4874. The white contours represent the signal-to-noise ratio of the reconstructed mass that start from 1σ level with 1σ step each. Top left: The background is smoothed (FWHM∼0 ′ .6) galaxy density map using spectroscopically confirmed member galaxies (Kang et al. 2025) on a linear scale. It shows that gala… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between the binned X-ray surface brightness (SB) and the binned weak-lensing (WL) signal, and their dependence on azimuthal direction. Left: Binned WL signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as a function of binned X-ray surface brightness. Gray open circles denote bins with WL SNR < 0, while the colored symbols represent measurements from individual azimuthal sectors. The dashed gray line shows the best-fi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reduced shear profiles of the Coma cluster. Top: Tangential shear (g+) radial profile. The red solid line is the best-fit single NFW profile (χ 2 /d.o. f = 1.3) assuming the c–M relation (Ishiyama et al. 2021) and the blue solid line indicates the best-fit result of the two￾NFW-halo fitting (χ 2 /d.o. f = 1.3) which is motivated by the pres￾ence of the NGC 4839 group. The green lines indicate the locations… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: presents cumulative projected mass profiles from the AMD approach (black) in comparison with our best-fit single-NFW-halo model (red) under the assumption of the c–M relation (Ishiyama et al. 2021). One might have expected a no￾ticeable discrepancy between the parametric and non-parametric mass estimates, given that Coma is undergoing a merger with the NGC 4839 group, However, the projected mass of the bes… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gas mass fraction profiles of galaxy groups from the TNG￾Cluster cosmological zoom-in simulation (Nelson et al. 2024). The black solid lines indicate groups infalling for the first time at 1.1 Mpc separation. The red solid lines indicate galaxy groups at the location of the first apocenter. The circles and triangles represent the median value of the binned data with a 1σ statistical uncertainty. The gray h… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the r-band cumulative mass-to-light ratio (M/Lr) profile of Coma, compared to those of the reported ICFs. We adopt the projected mass estimated by the AMD profile (§6.2) and calculate the SDSS r-band luminosity of member galax￾ies in units of the solar luminosity (Willmer 2018) from the Coma spectroscopy catalog (i.e., Kang et al. 2025). The radial profile of the M/Lr is flat up to R200 with an avera… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Coma cluster (Abell 1656; $z=0.023$) is a nearby rich galaxy cluster and a key laboratory for studying cluster assembly in the Cosmic Web. We characterize its projected dark matter distribution and connection to galaxies, the intracluster medium, and reported intracluster filaments (ICFs) with wide-field ($\sim$12-deg$^2$) Subaru/Hyper Suprime-Cam weak-lensing (WL) analysis. We reconstruct the two-dimensional mass distribution, fit Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) models, derive an aperture mass densitometry profile, and compare the WL signal with optical spectroscopy, eROSITA X-ray observations, radio data, and gas fraction diagnostics. A single-halo NFW fit yields $M_{200\mathrm{c}}=8.2\pm0.7\times10^{14}~M_{\odot}$. The aperture mass profile agrees with the best-fit NFW model and the X-ray hydrostatic mass at $R\gtrsim20'$ ($\sim$560 kpc), suggesting little merger-induced bias in the global WL mass, while the inner region shows substantial hydrostatic bias. A two-halo NFW fit centered on NGC 4874 and NGC 4839 gives masses of $7.8\pm0.6$ and $0.9\pm0.2\times10^{14}~M_{\odot}$, implying a $\sim$1:8 minor merger. The gas mass fraction suggests that the system is returning from first apocenter. We find a positive spatial correlation between the WL signal and X-ray surface brightness, strongest along the ICF directions ($110^{\circ}$ and $340^{\circ}$), where shear-selected subhalos are predominantly detected. The Coma $r$-band mass-to-light ratio is radially constant with $\langle M/L_r\rangle\simeq250\pm66~M_{\odot}/L_{\odot}$ within $R_{200\mathrm{c}}$, whereas the northern and western ICFs show higher values of $\sim1000~M_{\odot}/L_{\odot}$, suggesting stronger dark matter dominance. These results show that joint WL and multiwavelength analyses can effectively probe cluster assembly and the dark matter content of ICFs.

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

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a wide-field Subaru/HSC weak-lensing analysis of the Coma cluster (z=0.023), reconstructing the 2D mass distribution and fitting single-halo and two-halo NFW profiles. It reports M_{200c}=8.2±0.7×10^{14} M_⊙ for the single-halo case and 7.8±0.6 and 0.9±0.2×10^{14} M_⊙ for the two-halo fit centered on NGC 4874 and NGC 4839, interprets the latter as evidence for a ~1:8 minor merger, finds agreement between WL and X-ray hydrostatic masses at R≳20', reports positive WL–X-ray spatial correlations strongest along reported ICF position angles (110° and 340°), and measures radially constant M/L_r≈250 M_⊙/L_⊙ with elevated values ~1000 M_⊙/L_⊙ in the northern and western ICFs, concluding that the system is returning from first apocenter and that ICFs show stronger dark-matter dominance.

Significance. If the reported masses, correlations, and M/L contrasts are robust after validation of the fitting procedures and controls for projection, the work would add a multiwavelength case study of minor-merger assembly in a nearby cluster and provide observational constraints on dark-matter content within intracluster filaments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the two-halo NFW masses are presented as direct evidence for a ~1:8 merger, yet no χ², likelihood ratio, or degrees-of-freedom comparison between the single-halo and two-halo models is supplied, leaving the statistical justification for the two-component model unassessable.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the elevated M/L_r~1000 M_⊙/L_⊙ values in the northern and western ICFs (versus the radial average ~250) are central to the dark-matter-dominance claim, but the abstract gives no information on the precise apertures, luminosity weighting, or error propagation used to derive these region-specific ratios.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the WL–X-ray correlation is strongest at the ICF position angles 110° and 340° is load-bearing for the assembly interpretation, yet the text supplies neither an a-priori definition of these angles from independent data nor a quantitative test (e.g., randomization of angles or null-hypothesis significance) that would rule out data-driven selection or projection effects.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the two-halo masses are quoted without explicit confirmation that they are also M_{200c} quantities, creating minor ambiguity in the comparison to the single-halo result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The comments highlight areas where the abstract could be made more self-contained with additional statistical and methodological details. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the two-halo NFW masses are presented as direct evidence for a ~1:8 merger, yet no χ², likelihood ratio, or degrees-of-freedom comparison between the single-halo and two-halo models is supplied, leaving the statistical justification for the two-component model unassessable.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative model comparison is needed to assess the two-halo fit. The two-component model is motivated by known substructure, but the revised manuscript will include χ² values, degrees of freedom, and a likelihood-ratio test between the single- and two-halo NFW models, with a brief reference added to the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the elevated M/L_r~1000 M_⊙/L_⊙ values in the northern and western ICFs (versus the radial average ~250) are central to the dark-matter-dominance claim, but the abstract gives no information on the precise apertures, luminosity weighting, or error propagation used to derive these region-specific ratios.

    Authors: The apertures for the northern and western ICF regions follow the filament position angles reported in the literature, with luminosity weighting from the r-band galaxy catalog and errors propagated from the weak-lensing shear and photometric uncertainties (detailed in the methods). We will revise the abstract to include a concise statement on the apertures and error approach. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the WL–X-ray correlation is strongest at the ICF position angles 110° and 340° is load-bearing for the assembly interpretation, yet the text supplies neither an a-priori definition of these angles from independent data nor a quantitative test (e.g., randomization of angles or null-hypothesis significance) that would rule out data-driven selection or projection effects.

    Authors: The angles 110° and 340° are adopted from independent prior studies of Coma’s intracluster filaments; we will ensure explicit citations are present. In the revision we will add a quantitative test (e.g., correlation strength versus randomized angles) to demonstrate the result is not driven by post-hoc selection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The derivation consists of standard weak-lensing mass reconstruction followed by direct NFW profile fitting to the Subaru/HSC shear data, yielding the reported single- and two-halo masses as fit outputs. Aperture mass densitometry, M/L ratios, and WL-X-ray spatial correlations are computed from the same data products and external multiwavelength maps without any step that re-uses a fitted parameter as a subsequent prediction or that relies on a self-citation chain for uniqueness. The two-halo masses (7.8±0.6 and 0.9±0.2×10^14 M⊙) and the elevated ICF M/L values are therefore independent results of the analysis rather than tautological restatements of inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Ledger based solely on abstract content; full paper may contain additional details on parameters or assumptions.

free parameters (2)
  • M200c single-halo mass = 8.2e14 solar masses
    Fitted value from NFW model to WL data
  • Two-halo masses = 7.8 and 0.9 x 10^14 solar masses
    Fitted values from two-component NFW model
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Navarro-Frenk-White profile accurately describes cluster mass distribution
    Used for both single-halo and two-halo fits
  • domain assumption Weak lensing shear traces projected mass without major unaccounted systematics
    Foundation for the mass reconstruction and correlations

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6032 in / 1445 out tokens · 34229 ms · 2026-06-27T09:09:26.277864+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

187 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., Alarcon, A., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 023509

    2020

  2. [2]

    O., Corwin, Jr., H

    Abell, G. O., Corwin, Jr., H. G., & Olowin, R. P. 1989, ApJS, 70, 1

    1989

  3. [3]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1225

    Adami, C., Le Brun, V ., Biviano, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1225

    2009

  4. [4]

    K., Agüeros, M

    Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., Allam, S. S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 634

    2007

  5. [5]

    W., Evrard, A

    Allen, S. W., Evrard, A. E., & Mantz, A. B. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 409

    2011

  6. [6]

    Andrade-Santos, F., Nulsen, P. E. J., Kraft, R. P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 107

    2013

  7. [7]

    2023, A&A, 675, A188 Bahé, Y

    Angelinelli, M., Ettori, S., Dolag, K., Vazza, F., & Ragagnin, A. 2023, A&A, 675, A188 Bahé, Y . M., McCarthy, I. G., & King, L. J. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1073

    2023

  8. [8]

    J., & Schneider, P

    Bartelmann, M., King, L. J., & Schneider, P. 2001, A&A, 378, 361

    2001

  9. [9]

    Becker, M. R. & Kravtsov, A. V . 2011, ApJ, 740, 25

    2011

  10. [10]

    Beers, T. C. & Geller, M. J. 1983, ApJ, 274, 491

    1983

  11. [11]

    A., Biviano, A., & Abadi, M

    Benavides, J. A., Biviano, A., & Abadi, M. G. 2023, A&A, 669, A147

    2023

  12. [12]

    Bernstein, G. M. & Jarvis, M. 2002, AJ, 123, 583

    2002

  13. [13]

    1996, A&A, 311, 95

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

    1996

  14. [14]

    P., Schrabback, T., et al

    Bocquet, S., Dietrich, J. P., Schrabback, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 55

    2019

  15. [15]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.01958

    Bonafede, A., Brunetti, G., Rudnick, L., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.01958

    arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    2021, ApJ, 907, 32

    Bonafede, A., Brunetti, G., Vazza, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 32

    2021

  17. [17]

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

    Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603

    1996

  18. [18]

    A., Strauss, M

    Bond, N. A., Strauss, M. A., & Cen, R. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 156

    2010

  19. [19]

    & Guzzo, L

    Borgani, S. & Guzzo, L. 2001, Nature, 409, 39

    2001

  20. [20]

    2022, A&A Rev., 30, 3 Bradaˇc, M., Lombardi, M., & Schneider, P

    Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, A&A Rev., 30, 3 Bradaˇc, M., Lombardi, M., & Schneider, P. 2004, A&A, 424, 13

    2022

  21. [21]

    2025, astropy/photutils: 2.2.0

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2025, astropy/photutils: 2.2.0

    2025

  22. [22]

    & Rudnick, L

    Brown, S. & Rudnick, L. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2

    2011

  23. [23]

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

    1998

  24. [24]

    O., Roettiger, K., Ledlow, M., & Klypin, A

    Burns, J. O., Roettiger, K., Ledlow, M., & Klypin, A. 1994, ApJ, 427, L87

    1994

  25. [25]

    Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B. J. T., & Frenk, C. S. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2923

    2014

  26. [26]

    J., Hong, S

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

    2025

  27. [27]

    P., Chies-Santos, A

    Cho, H., Blakeslee, J. P., Chies-Santos, A. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 95

    2016

  28. [28]

    M., Lyskova, N., & Sunyaev, R

    Churazov, E., Khabibullin, I., Bykov, A. M., Lyskova, N., & Sunyaev, R. 2023, A&A, 670, A156

    2023

  29. [29]

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

    2021

  30. [30]

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

    Clowe, D., Luppino, G. A., Kaiser, N., & Gioia, I. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 540

    2000

  31. [31]

    M., Krughoff, K

    Colberg, J. M., Krughoff, K. S., & Connolly, A. J. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 272

    2005

  32. [32]

    2001, MNRAS, 328, 1039

    Colless, M., Dalton, G., Maddox, S., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 1039

    2001

  33. [33]

    & Dunn, A

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

    1996

  34. [34]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 4779

    Costanzi, M., Rozo, E., Simet, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4779

    2019

  35. [35]

    S., Fazio, G

    Cybulski, R., Yun, M. S., Fazio, G. G., & Gutermuth, R. A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3564

    2014

  36. [36]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Dawson, K. S., Schlegel, D. J., Ahn, C. P., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 10 de Lapparent, V ., Geller, M. J., & Huchra, J. P. 1986, ApJ, 302, L1

    2013

  37. [37]

    C., Kitching, T

    Deshpande, A. C., Kitching, T. D., Cardone, V . F., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A95 DESI Collaboration, Abareshi, B., Aguilar, J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 207 DESI Collaboration, Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 58 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C. B., Dutton, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, L1

    2020

  38. [38]

    2018, ApJS, 239, 35

    Diemer, B. 2018, ApJS, 239, 35

    2018

  39. [39]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Diemer, B. & Kravtsov, A. V . 2014, ApJ, 789, 1

    2014

  40. [40]

    & Shectman, S

    Dressler, A. & Shectman, S. A. 1988, AJ, 95, 985

    1988

  41. [41]

    P., Norberg, P., Baldry, I

    Driver, S. P., Norberg, P., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2009, Astronomy and Geophysics, 50, 5.12

    2009

  42. [42]

    & Rephaeli, Y

    Dvorkin, I. & Rephaeli, Y . 2015, MNRAS, 450, 896

    2015

  43. [43]

    2015, Nature, 528, 105

    Eckert, D., Jauzac, M., Shan, H., et al. 2015, Nature, 528, 105

    2015

  44. [44]

    2025, A&A, 704, A151

    Einasto, M., Tenjes, P., Kipper, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A151

    2025

  45. [45]

    J., Loeb, A., & Turner, E

    Eisenstein, D. J., Loeb, A., & Turner, E. L. 1997, ApJ, 475, 421

    1997

  46. [46]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72 Euclid Collaboration, Giocoli, C., Meneghetti, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A67

    2011

  47. [47]

    1994, ApJ, 437, 56

    Fahlman, G., Kaiser, N., Squires, G., & Woods, D. 1994, ApJ, 437, 56

    1994

  48. [48]

    E., Gorenstein, M

    Falco, E. E., Gorenstein, M. V ., & Shapiro, I. I. 1985, ApJ, 289, L1

    1985

  49. [49]

    H., Wojtak, R., et al

    Falco, M., Hansen, S. H., Wojtak, R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1887

    2014

  50. [50]

    J., et al

    Finner, K., HyeongHan, K., Jee, M. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 72

    2021

  51. [51]

    J., Cho, H., et al

    Finner, K., Jee, M. J., Cho, H., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 28

    2025

  52. [52]

    J., Golovich, N., et al

    Finner, K., Jee, M. J., Golovich, N., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 46

    2017

  53. [53]

    W., Jee, M

    Finner, K., Randall, S. W., Jee, M. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 23

    2023

  54. [54]

    1984, A&A, 138, 85

    Fontanelli, P. 1984, A&A, 138, 85

    1984

  55. [55]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S3

    Furusawa, H., Koike, M., Takata, T., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S3

    2018

  56. [56]

    R., de Carvalho, R

    Gal, R. R., de Carvalho, R. R., Lopes, P. A. A., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 2064 Ganeshaiah Veena, P., Cautun, M., Tempel, E., van de Weygaert, R., & Frenk, C. S. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1607 Ganeshaiah Veena, P., Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., Tempel, E., & Frenk, C. S. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2280

    2003

  57. [57]

    2026, A&A, 706, L21

    Gatuzz, E., Sanders, J., Liu, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, L21

    2026

  58. [58]

    1999, A&AS, 136, 227

    Gavazzi, G., Carrasco, L., & Galli, R. 1999, A&AS, 136, 227

    1999

  59. [59]

    2011, A&A, 534, A31

    Gavazzi, G., Savorgnan, G., & Fumagalli, M. 2011, A&A, 534, A31

    2011

  60. [60]

    2009, A&A, 498, L33

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

    2009

  61. [61]

    C., et al

    Gerhard, O., Arnaboldi, M., Freeman, K. C., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 815

    2007

  62. [62]

    2024, A&A, 689, A298

    Ghirardini, V ., Bulbul, E., Artis, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A298

    2024

  63. [63]

    H., Sivanandam, S., Zabludoff, A

    Gonzalez, A. H., Sivanandam, S., Zabludoff, A. I., & Zaritsky, D. 2013, ApJ, 778, 14 González, R. E. & Padilla, N. D. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1449

    2013

  64. [64]

    Richard, I., Juri´c, M., Schlegel, D., et al

    Gott, J. Richard, I., Juri´c, M., Schlegel, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 624, 463

    2005

  65. [65]

    Gregory, S. A. & Thompson, L. A. 1978, ApJ, 222, 784

    1978

  66. [66]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 32

    Gu, M., Conroy, C., Law, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 32

    2020

  67. [67]

    M., & Dekel, A

    Hahn, O., Porciani, C., Carollo, C. M., & Dekel, A. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 489

    2007

  68. [68]

    A., Koester, B

    Hao, J., McKay, T. A., Koester, B. P., et al. 2010, ApJS, 191, 254

    2010

  69. [69]

    L., Verheijen, M

    Healy, J., Blyth, S. L., Verheijen, M. A. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A76

    2021

  70. [70]

    M., et al

    Ho, M., Ntampaka, M., Rau, M. M., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 936

    2022

  71. [71]

    2001, A&A, 370, 743

    Hoekstra, H. 2001, A&A, 370, 743

    2001

  72. [72]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 1155

    Hoekstra, H. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 1155

    2003

  73. [73]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 2095

    Hoekstra, H., Hartlap, J., Hilbert, S., & van Uitert, E. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2095

    2011

  74. [74]

    E., Park, S., Jee, M

    Hong, S. E., Park, S., Jee, M. J., Bak, D., & Cha, S. 2021, ApJ, 923, 266

    2021

  75. [75]

    Huchra, J. P. & Geller, M. J. 1982, ApJ, 257, 423

    1982

  76. [76]

    Hughes, J. P. 1989, ApJ, 337, 21

    1989

  77. [77]

    S., Geller, M

    Hwang, H. S., Geller, M. J., Diaferio, A., Rines, K. J., & Zahid, H. J. 2014, ApJ, 797, 106

    2014

  78. [78]

    J., Lee, W., et al

    HyeongHan, K., Jee, M. J., Lee, W., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 925

    2025

  79. [79]

    J., Rudnick, L., et al

    HyeongHan, K., Jee, M. J., Rudnick, L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 127

    2020

  80. [80]

    A., et al

    Ishiyama, T., Prada, F., Klypin, A. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4210

    2021

Showing first 80 references.