pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24142 · v1 · pith:66B7OJBHnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA

CHEX-MATE: AMALGAM weak-lensing analysis of 41 Planck Sunyaev-Zel'dovich-selected galaxy clusters

Keiichi Umetsu , Raphael Gavazzi , Mauro Sereno , Nobuhiro Okabe , Emmanuel Bertin , Gianluca Castignani , Stefano Ettori , Fabio Gastaldello
show 15 more authors
Carlo Giocoli Scott T. Kay Junhan Kim Maggie Lieu Lorenzo Lovisari Ben J. Maughan Mario Nonino Lorenzo Pizzuti Etienne Pointecouteau Gabriel W. Pratt Mario Radovich Elena Rasia Mariachiara Rossetti Harshda Saxena Jack Sayers
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords weak lensinggalaxy clustersSunyaev-Zel'dovich effectmass calibrationconcentration-mass relationNFW profilescaling relationsPlanck
0
0 comments X

The pith

Weak-lensing analysis of 41 Planck SZ-selected clusters finds c200=3.53 at 10^15 solar masses and calibrates MSZ/M500 to 0.83 with 8% systematic uncertainty.

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

The paper performs a weak-lensing shear analysis on 41 galaxy clusters at redshifts 0.11 to 0.55 that were selected via their Sunyaev-Zel'dovich signal in Planck data. Azimuthally averaged lensing signals are detected around the X-ray peak of each cluster and modeled with Navarro-Frenk-White profiles to extract individual masses and concentrations. A hierarchical Bayesian regression then derives population-level scaling relations for concentration versus mass and redshift, and for the SZ mass proxy versus true mass and redshift, while correcting for selection effects, modeling biases, and calibration residuals. The resulting relations show values consistent with standard cosmological predictions for massive halos, and the work supplies calibrated mass estimates for multi-probe follow-up studies of the same sample.

Core claim

At M200=10^15 M_⊙ and z=0.25 the concentration is c200=3.53±0.71 with intrinsic scatter 0.22±0.04 dex, showing no significant mass or redshift dependence over the probed range and matching recent Lambda-CDM predictions. For the Planck SZ proxy the baseline relation gives MSZ/M500=0.83±0.09 at M500=7×10^14 M_⊙ and z=0.25 with intrinsic scatter 0.10±0.02 dex; a restricted model with fixed unit slope yields 1-b=0.72±0.11. The total systematic uncertainty on the weak-lensing mass calibration is assessed at 8%. Weak-lensing-calibrated posterior estimates of M500 are also provided for the sample.

What carries the argument

Navarro-Frenk-White profile fits to the excess surface mass density of each cluster, embedded in a hierarchical Bayesian regression that jointly accounts for sample selection, modeling biases, and residual calibration uncertainty when extracting the scaling relations.

If this is right

  • The concentration-mass relation shows no significant mass or redshift dependence across the sampled range.
  • A restricted model with fixed unit mass slope and no redshift evolution gives a hydrostatic bias factor of 1-b=0.72±0.11.
  • Weak-lensing calibrated posterior estimates of M500 are supplied for each cluster in the sample.
  • The derived relations supply an initial mass calibration for CHEX-MATE multi-probe cluster studies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the 8% systematic floor is dominated by shape measurement or photo-z errors rather than profile assumptions, repeating the analysis with deeper imaging or spectroscopic redshifts could tighten the calibration.
  • The measured scatter values imply that additional baryonic contributions to mass variance are modest for these high-mass systems.
  • Cross-matching the provided M500 posteriors with independent X-ray or SZ observables on the same clusters would test whether the reported scatter is intrinsic or partly residual calibration noise.

Load-bearing premise

The excess surface mass density profile of each cluster is accurately described by an NFW profile, and the hierarchical Bayesian framework fully accounts for sample selection effects, weak-lensing modelling biases, and residual calibration uncertainty when deriving the scaling relations.

What would settle it

An independent mass measurement of the same clusters (for example from X-ray hydrostatic equilibrium or strong lensing) that differs from the reported weak-lensing masses by more than 8% after known differences are subtracted would falsify the calibration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24142 by Ben J. Maughan, Carlo Giocoli, Elena Rasia, Emmanuel Bertin, Etienne Pointecouteau, Fabio Gastaldello, Gabriel W. Pratt, Gianluca Castignani, Harshda Saxena, Jack Sayers, Junhan Kim, Keiichi Umetsu, Lorenzo Lovisari, Lorenzo Pizzuti, Maggie Lieu, Mariachiara Rossetti, Mario Nonino, Mario Radovich, Mauro Sereno, Nobuhiro Okabe, Raphael Gavazzi, Scott T. Kay, Stefano Ettori.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of the CHEX-MATE parent sample in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stacked distribution of 339,014 magnitude- and signal-to-noise-selected galaxies in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of the WL signal-to-noise ratio, S [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Averaged projected mass distribution of the CHEX-MATE–AMALGAM sample of 41 galaxy clusters (left panel), derived [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram of the projected separation DX–WL between the X-ray peak and the maximum reconstructed E-mode mass peak for the 41 clusters in our sample. The black dashed vertical line marks the sample median, DX–WL = 0.54′ . The red dash￾dotted vertical line marks FWHM/2 = 2.0 ′ , corresponding to the one-sided half-width of the Gaussian smoothing kernel used in the mass reconstruction. The green dotted vertic… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of the fractional WL mass uncertainty, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Consistency of WL mass estimates derived from two di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of M500 estimates from this study with literature WL masses from version 3.9 of the LC2 meta-catalogues (Sereno 2015) for the CHEX-MATE–AMALGAM sample. The left and right panels show comparisons with and without including LC2 mass estimates from the Weighing the Giants program (WtG; Applegate et al. 2014; Herbonnet et al. 2020), respectively. Circles with error bars represent the measured masses… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Stacked excess surface mass density ∆Σstack + , shown as a function of cluster-centric comoving radius, R (upper panel; see also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Joint regression of the MSZ–Mtrue–z and MWL–Mtrue re￾lations for the full sample. Circles with error bars represent WL and Planck MMF3 mass estimates (M500,WL, MSZ) along with their 1σ uncertainties for individual clusters. Cluster redshifts are colour-coded according to the colour bar. The grey shaded region shows the marginalised 1σ credible interval for the pop￾ulation mean MSZ–Mtrue relation at zref =… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The concentration–mass relation for the CHEX-MATE–AMALGAM sample of 41 galaxy clusters from our WL analysis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a weak-lensing shear analysis of 41 Planck SZ-selected galaxy clusters at $0.11\le z\le 0.55$ from the CHEX-MATE sample, using wide-field Subaru/Suprime-Cam and CFHT/MegaPrime imaging from the AMALGAM project. We detect the azimuthally averaged weak-lensing signal around the X-ray peak of each cluster, achieving a median S/N of 6.5 per cluster. The $45^\circ$-rotated component has a median S/N of -0.1 and ranges from -1.8 to +1.8, consistent with zero. We model the excess surface mass density profile of each cluster with an NFW profile to infer weak-lensing mass and concentration constraints. The total systematic uncertainty in the weak-lensing mass calibration is assessed to be $8\%$. Using a hierarchical Bayesian framework, we then derive weak-lensing-calibrated scaling relations for the halo concentration, $c_{200}$, as a function of $M_{200}$ and redshift, and for the Planck SZ mass proxy, $M_{SZ}$, as a function of $M_{500}$ and redshift, while accounting for sample selection effects, weak-lensing modelling biases, and residual calibration uncertainty. At $M_{200}=10^{15}M_\odot$ and $z=0.25$, we find $c_{200}=3.53\pm0.71$ with an intrinsic scatter of $0.22\pm0.04$ dex. The inferred normalisation and scatter are consistent with recent $\Lambda$CDM predictions for massive haloes, with no significant mass or redshift dependence over the probed range. For the Planck mass proxy, our baseline regression yields $M_{SZ}/M_{500}=0.83\pm0.09$ at $M_{500}=7\times10^{14}M_\odot$ and $z=0.25$, with an intrinsic scatter of $0.10\pm0.02$ dex. A restricted model with fixed unit mass slope and no redshift evolution gives $1-b=0.72\pm0.11$. We also provide weak-lensing-calibrated posterior estimates of $M_{500}$ for the sample based on the baseline $M_{SZ}$--$M_{500}$--$z$ relation. These results provide an initial weak-lensing mass calibration for CHEX-MATE multi-probe cluster studies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a weak-lensing shear analysis of 41 Planck SZ-selected galaxy clusters (0.11 ≤ z ≤ 0.55) from the CHEX-MATE sample using Subaru/Suprime-Cam and CFHT/MegaPrime imaging. Azimuthally averaged excess surface mass density profiles centered on X-ray peaks are detected at median S/N = 6.5, with the 45°-rotated component consistent with zero. Each profile is modeled with an NFW form to obtain per-cluster mass and concentration constraints, with total systematic uncertainty assessed at 8%. A hierarchical Bayesian framework is then used to derive scaling relations for c200(M200, z) and MSZ/M500-z while accounting for selection effects, modeling biases, and calibration uncertainty, yielding c200 = 3.53 ± 0.71 (intrinsic scatter 0.22 ± 0.04 dex) at M200 = 10^15 M⊙, z = 0.25 and MSZ/M500 = 0.83 ± 0.09 (scatter 0.10 ± 0.02 dex) at M500 = 7 × 10^14 M⊙, z = 0.25; a restricted model gives 1-b = 0.72 ± 0.11. Weak-lensing-calibrated M500 posteriors are also provided.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies an important weak-lensing mass calibration for the CHEX-MATE multi-probe program and a direct test of the concentration-mass relation and Planck SZ mass bias for massive clusters. The median S/N = 6.5 detection, null rotated-component test, explicit 8% systematic budget, and use of a hierarchical Bayesian model that incorporates selection and bias marginalization are strengths that would make the reported normalizations, slopes, and scatters useful benchmarks for ΛCDM predictions and future SZ surveys.

major comments (2)
  1. [Modeling of excess surface mass density profiles] Modeling section (NFW fits to excess surface mass density): The central claims for c200 and MSZ/M500 rest on fitting an NFW profile to the azimuthally averaged excess surface mass density of each cluster. The manuscript must demonstrate, via mocks or alternative profile fits, that deviations from NFW due to triaxiality, substructure, or miscentering (beyond the rotated-component test) do not bias the per-cluster M and c values at a level comparable to the quoted 8% systematic or the reported intrinsic scatters of 0.22 and 0.10 dex.
  2. [Hierarchical Bayesian regression] Hierarchical Bayesian regression section: The statement that the framework fully accounts for sample selection effects, weak-lensing modelling biases, and residual calibration uncertainty when deriving the scaling relations is load-bearing for the quoted normalizations (c200 = 3.53 ± 0.71 and MSZ/M500 = 0.83 ± 0.09) and scatters. Explicit validation (e.g., recovery tests on simulated catalogs with known input relations and realistic NFW deviations) is required to confirm that correlated biases in the input M and c estimates are not absorbed into the fitted parameters.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and regression description] The abstract and methods should clarify the exact parameterization of the hierarchical model (priors on slopes, redshift evolution terms, and how the 8% systematic is propagated) to allow readers to reproduce the baseline versus restricted-model results.
  2. [Results presentation] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the pivot masses and redshifts used for the quoted normalizations to avoid ambiguity when comparing to other works.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and positive report. The comments highlight important aspects of robustness that we will address explicitly in revision. We respond point-by-point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Modeling of excess surface mass density profiles] Modeling section (NFW fits to excess surface mass density): The central claims for c200 and MSZ/M500 rest on fitting an NFW profile to the azimuthally averaged excess surface mass density of each cluster. The manuscript must demonstrate, via mocks or alternative profile fits, that deviations from NFW due to triaxiality, substructure, or miscentering (beyond the rotated-component test) do not bias the per-cluster M and c values at a level comparable to the quoted 8% systematic or the reported intrinsic scatters of 0.22 and 0.10 dex.

    Authors: We agree that explicit demonstration via mocks is valuable for confirming that NFW deviations do not introduce biases comparable to the 8% systematic budget or the reported scatters. The manuscript already reports the rotated-component test (median S/N = -0.1, range -1.8 to +1.8) as evidence against significant azimuthal bias and incorporates an 8% systematic uncertainty that draws on literature estimates for triaxiality, substructure, and miscentering. To directly address the request, we will add mock-based validation tests in the revised manuscript showing that any residual biases remain within the quoted uncertainties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Hierarchical Bayesian regression] Hierarchical Bayesian regression section: The statement that the framework fully accounts for sample selection effects, weak-lensing modelling biases, and residual calibration uncertainty when deriving the scaling relations is load-bearing for the quoted normalizations (c200 = 3.53 ± 0.71 and MSZ/M500 = 0.83 ± 0.09) and scatters. Explicit validation (e.g., recovery tests on simulated catalogs with known input relations and realistic NFW deviations) is required to confirm that correlated biases in the input M and c estimates are not absorbed into the fitted parameters.

    Authors: The hierarchical Bayesian framework is constructed to marginalize over selection effects, weak-lensing modeling biases, and calibration uncertainties, as stated in the manuscript. We recognize that recovery tests on simulated catalogs would provide stronger confirmation that input relations are recovered without bias absorption. We will therefore include such explicit validation tests (incorporating realistic NFW deviations) in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; reported relations are explicit Bayesian fits to weak-lensing data.

full rationale

The paper fits NFW profiles to measured excess surface density profiles to obtain per-cluster M and c values, then feeds those into a hierarchical Bayesian regression that explicitly returns the quoted normalizations, slopes, and scatters for c200(M,z) and MSZ/M500(M,z). These outputs are data-driven parameter estimates, not predictions or derivations claimed to be independent of the input measurements. No self-citation load-bearing steps, self-definitional loops, or fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction patterns appear. The analysis compares its fitted values to external ΛCDM expectations but does not import them as inputs. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract; full paper likely contains additional modeling details. The central results rest on fitting NFW profiles and a hierarchical regression whose outputs are the reported numbers.

free parameters (3)
  • normalization of c200-M200-z relation
    Fitted value 3.53 at reference mass and redshift
  • normalization of MSZ/M500-z relation
    Fitted value 0.83 at reference mass and redshift
  • intrinsic scatters
    0.22 dex and 0.10 dex fitted in the hierarchical model
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption NFW profile accurately describes the excess surface mass density of each cluster
    Invoked to infer mass and concentration from the lensing signal
  • domain assumption Hierarchical Bayesian model fully corrects for selection effects, lensing biases, and calibration uncertainty
    Required to derive the reported scaling relations

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6111 in / 1537 out tokens · 25016 ms · 2026-06-25T23:37:39.240878+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

125 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2022, , 74, 175

    Akino , D., Eckert , D., Okabe , N., et al. 2022, , 74, 175

    2022

  2. [2]

    W., Evrard , A

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

    2011

  3. [3]

    & Berg \'e , J

    Andreon , S. & Berg \'e , J. 2012, , 547, A117

    2012

  4. [4]

    E., von der Linden , A., Kelly , P

    Applegate , D. E., von der Linden , A., Kelly , P. L., et al. 2014, , 439, 48

    2014

  5. [5]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.02068

    Aymerich , G., Grandis , S., Douspis , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.02068

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    A., Marshall , P., & Oguri , M

    Baltz , E. A., Marshall , P., & Oguri , M. 2009, , 1, 15

    2009

  7. [7]

    2023, , 674, A179

    Bartalucci , I., Molendi , S., Rasia , E., et al. 2023, , 674, A179

    2023

  8. [8]

    & Schneider , P

    Bartelmann , M. & Schneider , P. 2001, , 340, 291

    2001

  9. [9]

    2016, , 2016, 013

    Battaglia , N., Leauthaud , A., Miyatake , H., et al. 2016, , 2016, 013

    2016

  10. [10]

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

    2011

  11. [11]

    C., Flynn , K., & Gebhardt , K

    Beers , T. C., Flynn , K., & Gebhardt , K. 1990, , 100, 32

    1990

  12. [12]

    2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin , E. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel, C. Arviset, D. Ponz, & S. Enrique , 112

    2006

  13. [13]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin , E. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX, ed. I. N. Evans , A. Accomazzi , D. J. Mink , & A. H. Rots , 435

    2011

  14. [14]

    & Arnouts , S

    Bertin , E. & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393

    1996

  15. [15]

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

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

    2002

  16. [16]

    2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin , E., Schefer , M., Apostolakos , N., et al. 2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 527, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIX, ed. R. Pizzo , E. R. Deul , J. D. Mol , J. de Plaa , & H. Verkouter , 461

    2020

  17. [17]

    2013, , 766, 32

    Bhattacharya , S., Habib , S., Heitmann , K., & Vikhlinin , A. 2013, , 766, 32

    2013

  18. [18]

    2013, , 558, A1

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

    2013

  19. [19]

    P., Schrabback , T., et al

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

    2019

  20. [20]

    S., Kolatt , T

    Bullock , J. S., Kolatt , T. S., Sigad , Y., et al. 2001, , 321, 559

    2001

  21. [21]

    A., Gastaldello , F., Humphrey , P

    Buote , D. A., Gastaldello , F., Humphrey , P. J., et al. 2007, , 664, 123

    2007

  22. [22]

    2025, , 699, A141

    Chappuis , L., Eckert , D., Sereno , M., et al. 2025, , 699, A141

    2025

  23. [23]

    2021, , 650, A104

    CHEX-MATE Collaboration , Arnaud , M., Ettori , S., et al. 2021, , 650, A104

    2021

  24. [24]

    L., Habib , S., Heitmann , K., et al

    Child , H. L., Habib , S., Heitmann , K., et al. 2018, , 859, 55

    2018

  25. [25]

    N., Ghirardini , V., Liu , A., et al

    Chiu , I. N., Ghirardini , V., Liu , A., et al. 2022, , 661, A11

    2022

  26. [26]

    H., et al

    Clowe , D., Brada c , M., Gonzalez , A. H., et al. 2006, , 648, L109

    2006

  27. [27]

    A., Wyithe , J

    Correa , C. A., Wyithe , J. S. B., Schaye , J., & Duffy , A. R. 2015, , 452, 1217

    2015

  28. [28]

    2018, , 480, 2898

    Cui , W., Knebe , A., Yepes , G., et al. 2018, , 480, 2898

    2018

  29. [29]

    J., et al

    Desai , S., Armstrong , R., Mohr , J. J., et al. 2012, , 757, 83

    2012

  30. [30]

    2018, , 239, 35

    Diemer , B. 2018, , 239, 35

    2018

  31. [31]

    & Joyce , M

    Diemer , B. & Joyce , M. 2019, , 871, 168

    2019

  32. [32]

    & Kravtsov , A

    Diemer , B. & Kravtsov , A. V. 2015, , 799, 108

    2015

  33. [33]

    P., Bocquet , S., Schrabback , T., et al

    Dietrich , J. P., Bocquet , S., Schrabback , T., et al. 2019, , 483, 2871

    2019

  34. [34]

    M., Mahdavi , A., et al

    Donahue , M., Voit , G. M., Mahdavi , A., et al. 2014, , 794, 136

    2014

  35. [35]

    R., Schaye , J., Kay , S

    Duffy , A. R., Schaye , J., Kay , S. T., & Dalla Vecchia , C. 2008, , 390, L64

    2008

  36. [36]

    2011, , 526, A79

    Eckert , D., Molendi , S., & Paltani , S. 2011, , 526, A79

    2011

  37. [37]

    2010, , 524, A68

    Ettori , S., Gastaldello , F., Leccardi , A., et al. 2010, , 524, A68

    2010

  38. [38]

    Gavazzi, R. et al. 2026, AMALGAM: a large sample of galaxy clusters for weak lensing from pixels in multi-band images to galaxy photometry and shape , in preparation

    2026

  39. [39]

    2026, , 710, A40

    Gavidia , A., Kim , J., Sayers , J., et al. 2026, , 710, A40

    2026

  40. [40]

    2024, , 687, A178

    Grandis , S., Ghirardini , V., Bocquet , S., et al. 2024, , 687, A178

    2024

  41. [41]

    R., Friedrich , O., & Mana , A

    Gruen , D., Seitz , S., Becker , M. R., Friedrich , O., & Mana , A. 2015, , 449, 4264

    2015

  42. [42]

    2014, , 442, 1507

    Gruen , D., Seitz , S., Brimioulle , F., et al. 2014, , 442, 1507

    2014

  43. [43]

    J., & Holder , G

    Haiman , Z., Mohr , J. J., & Holder , G. P. 2001, , 553, 545

    2001

  44. [44]

    A., Barnes , D

    Henson , M. A., Barnes , D. J., Kay , S. T., McCarthy , I. G., & Schaye , J. 2017, , 465, 3361

    2017

  45. [45]

    2020, , 497, 4684

    Herbonnet , R., Sif \'o n , C., Hoekstra , H., et al. 2020, , 497, 4684

    2020

  46. [46]

    2003, , 339, 1155

    Hoekstra , H. 2003, , 339, 1155

    2003

  47. [47]

    2015, , 449, 685

    Hoekstra , H., Herbonnet , R., Muzzin , A., et al. 2015, , 449, 685

    2015

  48. [48]

    A., et al

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

    2021

  49. [49]

    J., Rosati , P., Ford , H

    Jee , M. J., Rosati , P., Ford , H. C., et al. 2009, , 704, 672

    2009

  50. [50]

    & Squires , G

    Kaiser , N. & Squires , G. 1993, , 404, 441

    1993

  51. [51]

    Kelly , B. C. 2007, , 665, 1489

    2007

  52. [52]

    Kravtsov , A. V. & Borgani , S. 2012, , 50, 353

    2012

  53. [53]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.02428

    K \"u mmel , M., \'A lvarez-Ayll \'o n , A., Bertin , E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.02428

    arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    J., Ilbert , O., et al

    Laigle , C., McCracken , H. J., Ilbert , O., et al. 2016, , 224, 24

    2016

  55. [55]

    D., Bose , S., Angulo , R

    Ludlow , A. D., Bose , S., Angulo , R. E., et al. 2016, , 460, 1214

    2016

  56. [56]

    2015, , 450, 2963

    Mandelbaum , R., Rowe , B., Armstrong , R., et al. 2015, , 450, 2963

    2015

  57. [57]

    W., Rapetti , D., & Ebeling , H

    Mantz , A., Allen , S. W., Rapetti , D., & Ebeling , H. 2010, , 406, 1759

    2010

  58. [58]

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

    Mantz , A. B., von der Linden , A., Allen , S. W., et al. 2015, , 446, 2205

    2015

  59. [59]

    G., Bird , S., Schaye , J., et al

    McCarthy , I. G., Bird , S., Schaye , J., et al. 2018, , 476, 2999

    2018

  60. [60]

    G., Schaye , J., Bird , S., & Le Brun , A

    McCarthy , I. G., Schaye , J., Bird , S., & Le Brun , A. M. C. 2017, , 465, 2936

    2017

  61. [61]

    2018 a , , 70, S28

    Medezinski , E., Battaglia , N., Umetsu , K., et al. 2018 a , , 70, S28

    2018

  62. [62]

    2011, , 414, 1840

    Medezinski , E., Broadhurst , T., Umetsu , K., Ben \' tez , N., & Taylor , A. 2011, , 414, 1840

    2011

  63. [63]

    2010, , 405, 257

    Medezinski , E., Broadhurst , T., Umetsu , K., et al. 2010, , 405, 257

    2010

  64. [64]

    J., et al

    Medezinski , E., Oguri , M., Nishizawa , A. J., et al. 2018 b , , 70, 30

    2018

  65. [65]

    2017, , 469, 4899

    Melchior , P., Gruen , D., McClintock , T., et al. 2017, , 469, 4899

    2017

  66. [66]

    2014, , 797, 34

    Meneghetti , M., Rasia , E., Vega , J., et al. 2014, , 797, 34

    2014

  67. [67]

    2015, , 806, 4

    Merten , J., Meneghetti , M., Postman , M., et al. 2015, , 806, 4

    2015

  68. [68]

    2018, , 70, S22

    Miyaoka , K., Okabe , N., Kitaguchi , T., et al. 2018, , 70, S22

    2018

  69. [69]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.07697

    Miyatake , H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.07697

    arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    2019, , 875, 63

    Miyatake , H., Battaglia , N., Hilton , M., et al. 2019, , 875, 63

    2019

  71. [71]

    2023, , 108, 123517

    Miyatake , H., Sugiyama , S., Takada , M., et al. 2023, , 108, 123517

    2023

  72. [72]

    F., Frenk , C

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

    1996

  73. [73]

    F., Frenk , C

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

    1997

  74. [74]

    2015, , 67, 103

    Niikura , H., Takada , M., Okabe , N., Martino , R., & Takahashi , R. 2015, , 67, 103

    2015

  75. [75]

    & Hamana , T

    Oguri , M. & Hamana , T. 2011, , 414, 1851

    2011

  76. [76]

    & Takada , M

    Oguri , M. & Takada , M. 2011, , 83, 023008

    2011

  77. [77]

    H., Grandis , S., et al

    Okabe , N., Reiprich , T. H., Grandis , S., et al. 2025, , 700, A46

    2025

  78. [78]

    & Smith , G

    Okabe , N. & Smith , G. P. 2016, , 461, 3794

    2016

  79. [79]

    & Umetsu , K

    Okabe , N. & Umetsu , K. 2008, , 60, 345

    2008

  80. [80]

    2018, , 478, 1141

    Okabe , T., Nishimichi , T., Oguri , M., et al. 2018, , 478, 1141

    2018

Showing first 80 references.