tokens: but slightly lower mean ellipticity ⟨ε⟩ = 0.38 ± 0.05. Clampitt Jain ( 2016 ) used the technique to measure the quadrupole weak-lensing signal, and applied it to a sample of SDSS clusters. They corrected anisotropic PSF following Reyes et al. ( 2012 ) and Huff et al. ( 2014 ). They considered the noise from the intrinsic shape of galaxies and measurement on each background galaxy following Mandelbaum et al. ( 2013 ) and Sheldon et al. ( 2012 ). They obtained the best-fitting value of the mean ellipticity of ε = 0.19 with 1σ uncertainty of ∼0.05. They ascribed this smaller value to the misalignment between major axis of the BCG and that of cluster halo which is implicitly assumed to be aligned. Given the large uncertainty, their result is broadly consistent with our result. Shin et al. ( 2018 ) applied the quadrupole technique to SDSS clusters. They estimated anisotropic PSF, measurement noise, and noise from the intrinsic shape following Clampitt Jain ( 2016 ). The resulting mean ellipticity value with a prior of the satellite galaxydistribution is ⟨ε⟩ = 0.45 ± 0.09 after correcting for Poisson sampling. They also measured the ellipticity of satellite galaxy distribution as ⟨ε⟩ = 0.42 ± 0.04, and that derived from stacked weak lensing with a prior of the CG major axis as ⟨ε⟩ = 0.25 ± 0.06. By comparing these ellipticity values, they also estimated the rms misalignment angle of 30° between the CG and DM halo and 18° between satellite galaxies and DM halo. These misalignment values are in good agreement with our result (see also Section 6.2 ). van Uitert et al. ( 2017 ) used an estimator similar to Clampitt Jain ( 2016 ) and constrained the average ellipticity of galaxy groups obtained from Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey combined with the weak-lensing signal measured by Hildebrandt et al. ( 2017 ) from the Kilo Degree Survey (KiDS). They did not consider anisotropic PSF, but consider the intrinsic shape noise. They compared different priors for stacking analysis of weak-lensing signals at different scales. Their resulting values of the mean ellipticity are ε = 0.38 ± 0.12 (40 R 250 kpc) and ε = 0.05 ± 0.13 (250 kpc R 750 kpc) for the BCG prior, whereas ε = −0.04 ± 0.11 and 0.349 ± 0.13, respectively for the prior of the satellite galaxy distribution. They concluded that the BCG major axis (satellite galaxy distribution) is aligned (misaligned) with the DM halo orientation on small scales (250 kpc), whereas the BCG major axis (satellite galaxy distribution) is misaligned (aligned) with DM on large scales (>250 kpc). This result appears to be inconsistent with our result which indicates that the distribution of satellite galaxies is aligned better than the major axis of the CG at all scales, 100–1000 kpc. This discrepancies are partly because they use galaxy groups with M 200 ∼ 10 13 M ⊙ rather than galaxy clusters we considered in this paper, M 200 ∼ 10 14 M ⊙ . Nevertheless, further work is needed to explain this inconsistency, for
ner_tags: O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Survey O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O B-Survey O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O B-Survey I-Survey I-Survey I-Survey B-Survey O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Survey I-Survey I-Survey B-Survey O O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O