Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 179

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

DETECTION OF THE SPLASHBACK RADIUS AND HALO ASSEMBLY BIAS OF MASSIVE GALAXY CLUSTERS

Open access
More, Surhud, Miyatake, Hironao, Takada, Masahiro, Diemer, Benedikt, Kravtsov, Andrey V., Dalal, Neal K., More, Anupreeta, Murata, Ryoma, Mandelbaum, Rachel, Rozo, Eduardo, Rykoff, Eli S., Oguri, Masamune, Spergel, David N.·2016·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

We show that the projected number density profiles of Sloan Digital Sky Survey photometric galaxies around galaxy clusters display strong evidence for the splashback radius, a sharp halo edge corresponding to the location of the first orbital apocenter of satellite galaxies after their infall. We split the clusters into two subsamples with different mean projected radial distances of their members, , at fixed richness and redshift. The sample with smaller has a smaller ratio of the splashback radius to the traditional halo boundary than the subsample with larger , indicative of different mass accretion rates for these subsamples. The same subsamples were recently used by Miyatake et al. to show that their large-scale clustering differs despite their similar weak lensing masses, demonstrating strong evidence for halo assembly bias. We expand on this result by presenting a 6.6 σ difference in the clustering amplitudes of these samples using cluster–photometric galaxy cross-correlations. This measurement is a clear indication that halo clustering depends on parameters other than halo mass. If is related to the mass assembly history of halos, the measurement is a manifestation of the halo assembly bias. However, our measured splashback radii are smaller, while the strength of the assembly bias signal is stronger, than the predictions of collisionless Λ cold dark matter simulations. We show that dynamical friction, cluster mis-centering, or projection effects are not likely to be the sole source of these discrepancies. However, further investigations regarding unknown catastrophic weak lensing or cluster identification systematics are warranted.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/39

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 179

Metadata

Authors
More, S., Miyatake, H., Takada, M., Diemer, B., Kravtsov, A. V., Dalal, N. K., More, A., Murata, R., Mandelbaum, R., Rozo, E., Rykoff, E. S., Oguri, M., & Spergel, D. N.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
2016-06-27
Volume
825
Issue
1
Pages
39
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W2289541820
Cited by
179
References
4
FWCI
11.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: DETECTION OF THE SPLASHBACK RADIUS AND HALO ASSEMBLY BIAS OF MASSIVE GALAXY CLUSTERS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/39
The paper
More, S., Miyatake, H., Takada, M., Diemer, B., Kravtsov, A. V., Dalal, N. K., More, A., Murata, R., Mandelbaum, R., Rozo, E., Rykoff, E. S., Oguri, M., & Spergel, D. N. (2016). DETECTION OF THE SPLASHBACK RADIUS AND HALO ASSEMBLY BIAS OF MASSIVE GALAXY CLUSTERS. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/39

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.