pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.02502 · v1 · pith:4DPQ3IIRnew · submitted 2019-07-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA

Detection of anti-correlation of hot and cold baryons in galaxy clusters

Arya Farahi , Sarah L. Mulroy , August E. Evrard , Graham P. Smith , Alexis Finoguenov , Herve Bourdin , John E. Carlstrom , Chris P. Haines
show 5 more authors
Daniel P. Marrone Rossella Martino Pasquale Mazzotta Christine O'Donnell Nobuhiro Okabe
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 08:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy clustersbaryon fractionanti-correlationhot gasstellar masscovariance matrixX-ray observationshydrodynamic simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Multi-wavelength observations of 41 galaxy clusters detect anti-correlation between hot gas mass and stellar mass at fixed total mass.

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

Galaxy clusters contain dark matter halos plus baryons split between a dominant hot gas phase and a minority cold stellar phase. Hydrodynamic simulations predict that the highest-mass clusters retain the cosmic baryon fraction overall, which requires an anti-correlation: clusters with more hot gas must have less stellar mass at fixed total halo mass. This paper extracts a 9 by 9 covariance matrix from X-ray, optical, infrared and millimetre data on 41 clusters selected with explicit rules, then uses a hierarchical Bayesian model to isolate four covariance elements that show the predicted anti-correlation. The detection matches untuned simulation predictions, confirming that the observed clusters have not lost a net fraction of their baryons.

Core claim

We report observational detection of this anti-correlation based on 4 elements of a 9×9 element covariance matrix for nine cluster properties, measured from X-ray, optical, infrared and millimetre wavelength observations of 41 clusters from the Local Cluster Substructure Survey. These clusters were selected using explicit and quantitative selection rules that were then encoded in our hierarchical Bayesian model. Our detection of anti-correlation is consistent with predictions from contemporary hydrodynamic cosmological simulations that were not tuned to reproduce this signal.

What carries the argument

The 9×9 covariance matrix for nine cluster properties, extracted via hierarchical Bayesian modeling that encodes the survey selection function from multi-wavelength observations.

If this is right

  • The highest-mass clusters retain the full cosmic baryon fraction with no net loss.
  • Hydrodynamic simulations correctly partition baryons between hot and cold phases without tuning to this observable.
  • The anti-correlation supplies a new observational constraint on models of star formation and feedback inside clusters.
  • Scaling relations among cluster observables must incorporate this negative covariance when used for mass calibration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same anti-correlation may appear in lower-mass groups once selection effects are modeled at similar precision.
  • Future wide-field surveys could treat the measured covariance as a prior when inferring individual cluster masses from mixed observables.
  • The result tightens the link between total halo mass and retained baryons, which could affect interpretations of the missing-baryons problem at cluster scales.

Load-bearing premise

The hierarchical Bayesian model accurately encodes the survey selection rules and the measured cluster properties contain no unaccounted systematic errors that could create a spurious covariance signal.

What would settle it

Repeating the covariance measurement on an independent sample of clusters with different selection rules and finding the four relevant matrix elements consistent with zero or positive correlation would falsify the reported anti-correlation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.02502 by Alexis Finoguenov, Arya Farahi, August E. Evrard, Chris P. Haines, Christine O'Donnell, Daniel P. Marrone, Graham P. Smith, Herve Bourdin, John E. Carlstrom, Nobuhiro Okabe, Pasquale Mazzotta, Rossella Martino, Sarah L. Mulroy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Correlation coefficients of pairs of hot gas and galactic properties at fixed weak-lensing mass. Empirical results from the LoCuSS cluster sample are shown as box plots, and the background bands show stellar mass and hot gas mass correlation coefficients from two independent hydrodynamical simulations, the Adaptive Mesh Refinement (AMR)-based Rhapsody-G10 and the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH)-based… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Correlation coefficients of X-ray property pairs at fixed halo mass. Long lines with shaded boxes show the median and posterior 95 percentile constraints from the LoCuSS cluster sample (this work) while filled markers without error bars show expectations published from cosmological hydrodynamical simulations given in the legend. Measurements from previous observational studies given in the legend show cent… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Odds that the stellar–LX correlation is positive as a function of the minimum imposed stellar mass scatter. The blue dashed and green dotted lines shows the odds for stellar mass proxies of LK and λ, respectively. The red solid line shows the odds of having a positive correlation coefficient for both stellar mass proxies and LX . The shaded regions shows the odds of 5%, 1%, and 0.5%. References 1. Dodelson… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The effect of underestimating the slope of the scaling relation on the estimated property correlation. Sensitivity test of the estimated property correlation for synthetic samples patterned after the LoCuSS cluster sample. A posterior slope of 0.75 for both Mgas–MWL and LK,tot–MWL relations is assumed, while the input true slope takes the values specified in the legend. The shaded areas are 68% confidence … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The effect on the estimated property correlation of extrinsic scatter. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The effect of projection effect covariance on the estimated property correlation. We generate synthetic realizations of intrinsic quantities of a set of halos with an input property covariance – specified in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The largest clusters of galaxies in the Universe contain vast amounts of dark matter, plus baryonic matter in two principal phases, a majority hot gas component and a minority cold stellar phase comprising stars, compact objects, and low-temperature gas. Hydrodynamic simulations indicate that the highest-mass systems retain the cosmic fraction of baryons, a natural consequence of which is anti-correlation between the masses of hot gas and stars within dark matter halos of fixed total mass. We report observational detection of this anti-correlation based on 4 elements of a $9\times9$ element covariance matrix for nine cluster properties, measured from X-ray, optical, infrared and millimetre wavelength observations of 41 clusters from the Local Cluster Substructure Survey. These clusters were selected using explicit and quantitative selection rules that were then encoded in our hierarchical Bayesian model. Our detection of anti-correlation is consistent with predictions from contemporary hydrodynamic cosmological simulations that were not tuned to reproduce this signal.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims an observational detection of anti-correlation between the masses of hot gas and cold stellar baryons within galaxy clusters at fixed dark matter halo mass. This is based on nine cluster properties measured from X-ray, optical, infrared and millimetre observations of 41 clusters selected from the Local Cluster Substructure Survey according to explicit quantitative rules. A hierarchical Bayesian model encodes these selection rules to infer a 9×9 covariance matrix; four off-diagonal elements are reported as showing the anti-correlation, and the result is stated to be consistent with predictions from untuned hydrodynamic cosmological simulations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result would constitute the first observational confirmation of a baryon-partitioning prediction from cosmological hydrodynamical simulations. The multi-wavelength data set and the explicit encoding of the survey selection function are strengths that reduce certain classes of bias relative to simpler analyses.

major comments (2)
  1. [Hierarchical Bayesian model and covariance inference] The detection rests on four specific elements of the inferred 9×9 covariance matrix. The hierarchical Bayesian model must therefore correctly encode the survey selection function and treat all wavelength-dependent measurement errors as uncorrelated; with only 41 clusters the posterior is sensitive to even modest misspecification of either ingredient. The manuscript should present explicit validation (e.g., mock-data recovery tests) that residual selection bias or correlated systematics cannot produce the reported signal.
  2. [Results on the covariance matrix] Table or figure presenting the 9×9 covariance matrix: the statistical significance and robustness of the four highlighted off-diagonal elements should be quantified after marginalizing over all other parameters, including any possible wavelength-dependent systematics that could correlate hot-gas and stellar-mass proxies.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract describes the method at a high level but omits details on data quality, error propagation, and model-validation tests; adding one or two sentences on these points would improve accessibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the potential importance of the result. We respond to each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Hierarchical Bayesian model and covariance inference] The detection rests on four specific elements of the inferred 9×9 covariance matrix. The hierarchical Bayesian model must therefore correctly encode the survey selection function and treat all wavelength-dependent measurement errors as uncorrelated; with only 41 clusters the posterior is sensitive to even modest misspecification of either ingredient. The manuscript should present explicit validation (e.g., mock-data recovery tests) that residual selection bias or correlated systematics cannot produce the reported signal.

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation is warranted given the sample size. The hierarchical model was constructed to encode the survey selection function via the explicit quantitative rules described in Section 3, and wavelength-dependent measurement errors are modeled as uncorrelated following the independent data pipelines. To strengthen the presentation, the revised manuscript now includes a dedicated appendix with mock-data recovery tests. These tests inject known covariance matrices (including the target anti-correlations) into simulated clusters drawn from the same selection function and recover the input parameters without bias, confirming that neither residual selection effects nor the assumed error structure produce the reported signal. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results on the covariance matrix] Table or figure presenting the 9×9 covariance matrix: the statistical significance and robustness of the four highlighted off-diagonal elements should be quantified after marginalizing over all other parameters, including any possible wavelength-dependent systematics that could correlate hot-gas and stellar-mass proxies.

    Authors: The revised manuscript adds a new figure that displays the full 9×9 posterior covariance matrix, with posterior means and 68% credible intervals reported for every element. The four off-diagonal elements of interest are highlighted, and their fully marginalized posterior distributions (after integrating over all other covariance parameters) are shown explicitly. To address possible wavelength-dependent systematics, we have added a robustness section that introduces nuisance parameters allowing correlated errors between the X-ray and optical/infrared proxies; the anti-correlation signal remains significant (>3σ) under these extensions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; result from independent multi-wavelength data fit

full rationale

The paper infers a 9x9 covariance matrix (with 4 off-diagonal elements showing anti-correlation) directly from X-ray, optical, IR and mm observations of 41 clusters. The hierarchical Bayesian model encodes the survey's explicit selection rules as an input to the likelihood; the reported anti-correlation is an output of that fit, not a re-expression of the selection function or of any fitted parameter. Consistency with untuned hydrodynamic simulations is presented as external corroboration rather than a load-bearing premise. No self-citation, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results occurs in the derivation chain. The result is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on abstract; no specific free parameters, invented entities, or detailed axioms are described beyond the general modeling approach.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The survey selection function is properly modeled in the hierarchical Bayesian analysis.
    The abstract states that explicit selection rules were encoded in the model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5748 in / 1191 out tokens · 38224 ms · 2026-05-25T08:48:53.348346+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

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Modern cosmology (Elsevier, 2003)

    Dodelson, S. Modern cosmology (Elsevier, 2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Self-similar secondary infall and accretion in an Einstein-de Sitter universe

    Bertschinger, E. Self-similar secondary infall and accretion in an Einstein-de Sitter universe. Astrophys. J. Supp. 58, 39–65 (1985)

    work page 1985

  3. [3]

    Gunn, J. E. & Gott, J. R., III. On the Infall of Matter Into Clusters of Galaxies and Some Effects on Their Evolution. Astrophys. J. 176, 1 (1972)

    work page 1972

  4. [4]

    White, S. D. M., Navarro, J. F., Evrard, A. E. & Frenk, C. S. The baryon content of galaxy clusters: a challenge to cosmological orthodoxy. Nat. 366, 429–433 (1993)

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    Riess, A. G. et al. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant. The Astron. J. 116, 1009–1038 (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    & Mamon, G

    Silk, J. & Mamon, G. A. The current status of galaxy formation. Res. Astron. Astrophys. 12, 917–946 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    V oit, G. M.et al. A Global Model for Circumgalactic and Cluster-core Precipitation. Astrophys. J. 845, 80 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Vikhlinin, A. et al. Chandra Sample of Nearby Relaxed Galaxy Clusters: Mass, Gas Fraction, and Mass-Temperature Relation. Astrophys. J. 640, 691–709 (2006)

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    H., Sivanandam, S., Zabludoff, A

    Gonzalez, A. H., Sivanandam, S., Zabludoff, A. I. & Zaritsky, D. Galaxy Cluster Baryon Fractions Revisited. Astrophys. J. 778, 14 (2013)

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    RHAPSODY-G simulations: galaxy clusters as baryonic closed boxes and the covariance between hot gas and galaxies

    Wu, H.-Y .et al. RHAPSODY-G simulations: galaxy clusters as baryonic closed boxes and the covariance between hot gas and galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 452, 1982–1991 (2015)

    work page 1982

  11. [11]

    E., McCarthy, I., Barnes, D

    Farahi, A., Evrard, A. E., McCarthy, I., Barnes, D. J. & Kay, S. T. Localized massive halo properties in BAHAMAS and MACSIS simulations: scalings, log-normality, and covariance. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Sunyaev, R. A. & Zeldovich, I. B. Microwave background radiation as a probe of the contemporary structure and history of the universe. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 18, 537–560 (1980)

    work page 1980

  13. [13]

    Giodini, S. et al. Scaling Relations for Galaxy Clusters: Properties and Evolution. Space Sci. Rev. 177, 247–282 (2013)

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    W., Ebeling, H., Rapetti, D

    Mantz, A., Allen, S. W., Ebeling, H., Rapetti, D. & Drlica-Wagner, A. The observed growth of massive galaxy clusters - II. X-ray scaling relations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 406, 1773–1795 (2010)

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    Maughan, B. J. PICACS: self-consistent modelling of galaxy cluster scaling relations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 437, 1171–1186 (2014). 8/14

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    B., Allen, S

    Mantz, A. B., Allen, S. W., Morris, R. G. & Schmidt, R. W. Cosmology and astrophysics from relaxed galaxy clusters - III. Thermodynamic profiles and scaling relations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 456, 4020–4039 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    & Serra, A

    Andreon, S., Wang, J., Trinchieri, G., Moretti, A. & Serra, A. L. Variegate galaxy cluster gas content: Mean fraction, scatter, selection effects, and covariance with X-ray luminosity. Astron. Astrophys. 606, A24 (2017)

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    & Smith, G

    Okabe, N. & Smith, G. P. LoCuSS: weak-lensing mass calibration of galaxy clusters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 461, 3794–3821 (2016)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Mulroy, S. L. et al. LoCuSS: scaling relations between galaxy cluster mass, gas, and stellar content. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 484, 60–80 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    E., Arnault, P., Huterer, D

    Evrard, A. E., Arnault, P., Huterer, D. & Farahi, A. A model for multiproperty galaxy cluster statistics. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 441, 3562–3569 (2014)

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    Evolution and clustering of rich clusters

    Kaiser, N. Evolution and clustering of rich clusters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 222, 323–345 (1986)

    work page 1986

  22. [22]

    & Cohn, J

    Noh, Y . & Cohn, J. D. Disentangling correlated scatter in cluster mass measurements. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 426, 1829–1844 (2012)

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Borgani, S. & Kravtsov, A. Cosmological Simulations of Galaxy Clusters. Adv. Sci. Lett. 4, 204–227 (2011)

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    W., Schmidt, R

    Allen, S. W., Schmidt, R. W., Ebeling, H., Fabian, A. C. & van Speybroeck, L. Constraints on dark energy from Chandra observations of the largest relaxed galaxy clusters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 353, 457–467 (2004)

    work page 2004

  25. [25]

    & Mohr, J

    Lin, Y .-T. & Mohr, J. J. K-band Properties of Galaxy Clusters and Groups: Brightest Cluster Galaxies and Intracluster Light. Astrophys. J. 617, 879–895 (2004)

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

    Mulroy, S. L. et al. LoCuSS: the near-infrared luminosity and weak-lensing mass scaling relation of galaxy clusters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 443, 3309–3317 (2014)

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    Costanzi, M. et al. Modelling projection effects in optically selected cluster catalogues. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 482, 490–505 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    E., Pearce, F

    Stanek, R., Rasia, E., Evrard, A. E., Pearce, F. & Gazzola, L. Massive Halos in Millennium Gas Simulations: Multivariate Scaling Relations. Astrophys. J. 715, 1508–1523 (2010)

    work page 2010

  29. [29]

    Truong, N. et al. Cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of galaxy clusters: X-ray scaling relations and their evolution. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 474, 4089–4111 (2018)

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Mantz, A. B. et al. Weighing the giants- V . Galaxy cluster scaling relations.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 463, 3582–3603 (2016)

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Cross-calibration of cluster mass observables

    Cunha, C. Cross-calibration of cluster mass observables. Phys. Rev. D 79, 063009 (2009)

    work page 2009

  32. [32]

    Mantz, A. B. et al. Cosmology and astrophysics from relaxed galaxy clusters - II. Cosmological constraints. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 440, 2077–2098 (2014)

    work page 2077

  33. [33]

    Ebeling, H. et al. The ROSAT Brightest Cluster Sample - I. The compilation of the sample and the cluster log N-log S distribution. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 301, 881–914 (1998)

    work page 1998

  34. [34]

    Ebeling, H. et al. The ROSAT Brightest Cluster Sample - IV . The extended sample.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 318, 333–340 (2000)

    work page 2000

  35. [35]

    B¨ohringer, H. et al. The ROSAT-ESO Flux Limited X-ray (REFLEX) Galaxy cluster survey. V . The cluster catalogue. Astron. Astrophys. 425, 367–383 (2004)

    work page 2004

  36. [36]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S. & White, S. D. M. A Universal Density Profile from Hierarchical Clustering. Astrophys. J. 490, 493–508 (1997)

    work page 1997

  37. [37]

    Martino, R. et al. LoCuSS: hydrostatic mass measurements of the high-LX cluster sample - cross-calibration of Chandra and XMM-Newton. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 443, 2342–2360 (2014)

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    Rykoff, E. S. et al. redMaPPer. I. Algorithm and SDSS DR8 Catalog. Astrophys. J. 785, 104 (2014)

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    Alam, S. et al. The Eleventh and Twelfth Data Releases of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Final Data from SDSS-III. Astrophys. J. Supp. 219, 12 (2015)

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    Pillepich, A. et al. First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the stellar mass content of groups and clusters of galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 475, 648–675 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Chiu, I. et al. Baryon Content in a Sample of 91 Galaxy Clusters Selected by the South Pole Telescope at 0.2 ¡ z ¡ 1.25. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. (2018). 9/14

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    & Fonnesbeck, C

    Patil, A., Huard, D. & Fonnesbeck, C. J. Pymc: Bayesian stochastic modelling in python. J. statistical software 35, 1 (2010)

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    Kasun, S. F. & Evrard, A. E. Shapes and Alignments of Galaxy Cluster Halos. Astrophys. J. 629, 781–790 (2005)

    work page 2005

  44. [44]

    The effect of distant large scale structure on weak lensing mass estimates

    Hoekstra, H. The effect of distant large scale structure on weak lensing mass estimates. Astron. Astrophys. 370, 743–753 (2001)

    work page 2001

  45. [45]

    Tor Vergata

    Rozo, E. & Rykoff, E. S. redMaPPer II: X-Ray and SZ Performance Benchmarks for the SDSS Catalog. Astrophys. J. 783, 80 (2014). Acknowledgements We are grateful to Adam Mantz and Ben Maughan for useful discussions on population statistics. We thank Arif Babul and members of the LoCuSS, DES and XMM-XXL collaborations for their support. A.F. is supported by ...

    work page 2014