Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 78 references

NIKA2 Cosmological Legacy Survey: Blind detection of galaxy clusters in the COSMOS field via the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper reports the first blind detection of galaxy clusters via the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect at 18.5-arcsecond resolution, finding 16 candidates in the COSMOS field.

desk verdict First blind tSZ cluster search with NIKA2 at 18″ is a real capability milestone; the completeness/purity numbers are simulation-limited and likely optimistic, but the core result stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18231 v1 pith:FBLYUGI3 submitted 2025-06-23 astro-ph.CO

D. Chérouvrier , J.F. Macias-Perez , F.X. Désert , R. Adam , P. Ade , H. Ajeddig , S. Amarantidis , P. André
show 54 more authors
H. Aussel R. Barrena A. Beelen A. Benoit S. Berta M. Béthermin A. Bongiovanni J. Bounmy O. Bourrion L. -J. Bing M. Calvo A. Catalano M. De Petris S. Doyle E.F.C. Driessen G. Ejlali A. Ferragamo M. Fernandez-Torreiro A. Gomez J. Goupy C. Hanser S. Katsioli F. Kéruzoré C. Kramer B. Ladjelate G. Lagache S. Leclercq J.-F. Lestrade S.C. Madden A. Maury F. Mayet J. -B. Melin A. Monfardini A. Moyer-Anin M. Mu noz-Echeverria I. Myserlis R. Neri A. Paliwal L. Perotto G. Pisano E. Pointecouteau N. Ponthieu G.W. Pratt V. Reveret A.J. Rigby A. Ritacco H. Roussel F. Ruppin M. Sanchez-Portal S. Savorgnano K. Schuster A. Sievers C. Tucker R. Zylka
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxyclustersthermalSunyaev-Zel'dovicheffectNIKA2COSMOSfieldmatchedfilterblinddetectionmillimeterastronomylarge-scalestructure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims the first blind detection of galaxy clusters at millimeter wavelengths through the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect at 18.5-arcsecond angular resolution, using 195 hours of NIKA2 2 mm data over $877\,\mathrm{arcmin}^2$ of the COSMOS field. A matched filter built on the universal pressure profile yields 16 candidates above signal-to-noise 4, eight of which coincide with previously known optical or X-ray clusters and groups. Simulation-based completeness and purity arguments place the sample above 80% complete for $M_{500} > 2\times10^{14}\,M_\odot$ and give a median candidate mass near $1.5\times10^{14}\,M_\odot$ at median redshift $z\approx0.74$. If the detections are real, high-angular-resolution tSZ cameras can populate a region of the cluster mass-redshift plane that arcminute-resolution surveys cannot reach.

What carries the argument

The matched filter is the load-bearing object: the optimal linear filter of Haehnelt & Tegmark (1996) applied to the single 2 mm map, with a cluster template built from the universal pressure profile of Arnaud et al. (2010), a generalized Navarro-Frenk-White model of the intracluster electron pressure with all shape parameters fixed and only mass and redshift free. Fifteen templates spanning $\theta_{500}$ from $18.5''$ to $185''$ are scanned over the map, each convolved with the NIKA2 beam and corrected by the pipeline transfer function so that the large-scale filtering of the data reduction is modeled rather than ignored. The same filter is run on jackknife null maps for the noise statistics and on simulated maps that combine the Tinker et al. (2008) mass function, the SIDES dusty-galaxy sky model, and null-map noise to produce the completeness and purity curves; an MCMC fit to the same template then converts detections into $Y_{500}$, $\theta_{500}$, and $M_{500}$ estimates.

What would settle it

Pointed follow-up of the eight unmatched candidates would settle the purity claim: if most show no galaxy overdensity, X-ray emission, or 2 mm decrement at the fitted position, the simulated ~60% purity at S/N > 5 overstates reality. A second decisive check is the paper's own flagged gap (Section 4.1): primary CMB power at $\ell > 10^4$ is unmeasured and was extrapolated with a power law, so a direct measurement of small-scale CMB fluctuations would confirm that CMB confusion is indeed negligible in these 18.5-arcsecond maps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that blind tSZ cluster detection works at sub-arcminute resolution: in a single 2 mm NIKA2 map of the COSMOS field, the authors find 16 cluster candidates with S/N > 4, of which eight match known clusters, and they argue from end-to-end simulations that such a survey is more than 80% complete for $M_{500} > 2\times10^{14}\,M_\odot$ and reaches masses near $10^{14}\,M_\odot$ at $z > 1$. The matched candidates carry derived masses between about 1 and $3\times10^{14}\,M_\odot$ at intermediate and high redshift, with median sample mass $M_{500} = 1.5^{+0.8}_{-0.3}\times10^{14}\,M_\odot$; the highest-S/N candidate, NK2-CL J100045.8+020514.3, has no cataloged counterpart and is proposed as a follow-up target. The paper argues that at $18.5''$ scales primary CMB anisotropies are negligible while dusty galaxies remain point-like, so a single-frequency matched filter suffices, and that a dedicated survey with this camera would extend tSZ cluster catalogs into a low-mass, high-redshift regime where deviations from self-similarity can be tested.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that the universal pressure profile of Arnaud et al. (2010), with shape parameters fixed from massive nearby clusters, describes the gas in the low-mass, high-redshift clusters being sought, and that simulated maps built from that model, null-map noise, and the SIDES galaxy sky faithfully reproduce the real COSMOS field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A dedicated NIKA2 survey would add a new low-mass, high-redshift region to the mass-redshift plane covered by Planck, ACT, and SPT tSZ catalogs, because the compact beam limits dilution of distant clusters and keeps the completeness contours steep at high redshift.
  • The eight candidates without known counterparts, especially the brightest one, become concrete targets for optical, X-ray, and interferometric follow-up; confirming even a fraction of them would validate the purity model.
  • At the angular scales probed, primary CMB fluctuations are negligible, so cluster detection can proceed with a single 2 mm band and a matched filter rather than requiring multifrequency component separation.
  • The completeness threshold of roughly $M_{500} \sim 2\times10^{14}\,M_\odot$ at all redshifts is set by survey depth rather than resolution, so deeper integration in the same fields would push the detectable mass floor lower.
  • Mass estimates for the confirmed candidates place the sample at $M_{500}$ roughly $1$ to $3\times10^{14}\,M_\odot$ and redshift $z\approx0.24$ to $1.42$, a regime of interest for testing deviations from cluster self-similarity at low mass.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the unmatched candidates are confirmed, the sample's count of low-mass, high-redshift clusters could be compared against the Tinker mass function used in the simulations; a mismatch would indicate either a biased completeness model or new astrophysics, a test the paper does not perform.
  • Because the fixed universal pressure profile is the main systematic, measuring resolved pressure profiles of the confirmed candidates in X-rays would show whether the mass estimates are biased near $10^{14}\,M_\odot$ and would calibrate the profile shape at high redshift.
  • Applying the identical pipeline to the other N2CLS field, GOODS-N, would provide an independent reproducibility check: the detected counts and masses should match the COSMOS-based completeness predictions if the simulation framework is sound.
  • The single-band approach leaves radio source contamination as a residual; adding the 1.2 mm channel as a contaminant screen or masking radio catalogs more aggressively could raise purity above the reported values without much extra observing time.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a blind search for galaxy clusters via the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (tSZ) effect in the NIKA2 2 mm map of the COSMOS field, covering 877 arcmin^2 at 18.5 arcsec angular resolution. The authors reduce 195 hours of N2CLS data with a dedicated pipeline, measure the map transfer function, and apply a matched filter based on the Arnaud et al. (2010) universal pressure profile to extract cluster candidates. They report 16 candidates at S/N > 4, of which eight have optical or X-ray counterparts in the literature. Completeness and purity are characterized with 1000 simulated cluster catalogs plus null-map noise and SIDES point sources, yielding completeness above 80% for M500 > 2e14 solar masses and a median candidate mass of about 1.54e14 solar masses. The paper concludes that NIKA2 provides first blind tSZ cluster detection at this angular resolution and demonstrates sensitivity to low-mass, intermediate/high-redshift clusters.

Significance. If the quantitative sensitivity claims survive scrutiny, this is a significant technical milestone: it is a first blind tSZ cluster search at 18 arcsec resolution, with a candidate sample that occupies a region of the mass-redshift plane not probed by Planck, ACT, or SPT. The manuscript is not circular in the narrow sense: the cluster templates are externally motivated, the detection is applied to real maps, jackknife maps are used to check the noise, and the cross-match rates against external catalogs are explicitly compared with random association rates. Strengths include the transfer-function-corrected matched filtering, the 1000-map simulation suite, the public data products, and a careful external validation of the matched candidates. The central caveat is that the completeness, purity, and mass sensitivity are calibrated with simulations that inject the same universal pressure profile used for detection and that omit radio sources; the quantitative claim of low-mass/high-redshift sensitivity is therefore not yet independently anchored.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Figs. 4 and 9] The quantitative sensitivity claims — 80% completeness for M500 > 2e14 solar masses, the completeness contours in Fig. 9, and the median mass M500 = 1.54e14 solar masses — rest on a simulation setup in which the injected cluster signal and the matched-filter template both use the Arnaud et al. (2010) universal pressure profile with fixed shape parameters and the same scaling relation (Eqs. 4-6). The filter is therefore matched to the injected population by construction, and the simulations do not test the effect of real cluster profile scatter. This concern is not merely formal: Sec. 4.1 reports 26 ± 5 predicted detections at S/N > 4 while the real map yields 16, a difference that is formally inside 2 sigma but is in the direction expected if the simulated sky is more optimistic than the real one, and the simulations explicitly omit radio sources and component cross-correlations. I ask the authors to quantify the robustness of the completeness and purity to (i) pressure-profile shape variations, for example mass-dependent or simulation-based profiles, (ii) a radio-source population in the mock sky, and (iii) the S/N distribution of detected peaks rather than only the total count; the completeness contours and the median mass should be revised if these tests change the detection rate.
  2. [Sec. 6.2 and Table 1] The mass estimates presented in Table 1 and Fig. 9 are derived by fitting the same UPP model used for detection, with the Arnaud et al. (2010) scaling relation enforced through Eq. 6; as the authors acknowledge, these estimates are only valid within that model. The quoted uncertainties are therefore conditional on the UPP and do not include shape-parameter, scaling-relation, or hydrostatic-mass-calibration systematics. In support of the central claim that NIKA2 detects low-mass (M500 around 1-3e14 solar masses) intermediate/high-redshift clusters, at least for the eight matched candidates with redshift priors I ask for an external mass check using weak-lensing or X-ray hydrostatic estimates available in the COSMOS field, or alternatively an explicit statement in the abstract and conclusions that the low-mass sensitivity and median mass are model-dependent predictions rather than externally calibrated measurements.
  3. [Sec. 3.3-3.4 and Sec. 5.1] The candidate list mixes detections with and without external counterparts, and the paper does not quantify how many of the eight unmatched candidates could be produced by point-source ringing or noise. The random-detection estimate in Sec. 3.4 (2.36 detections per null map above S/N = 4) deliberately excludes point sources, yet Fig. 3 shows that the real filtered map has a pronounced negative S/N tail due to point sources, and Sec. 4.3 notes that point sources degrade purity. For the unmatched candidates, particularly the highest-S/N object NK2-CL J100045.8+020514.3, I ask for the local noise level, the angular distance to the nearest bright 2 mm source used in the masking step, and a point-source-only simulation estimate of the expected number of S/N > 4 peaks; without this, the statement that eight candidates have counterparts should be presented as an upper bound on the confirmed fraction rather than as the main validation of the sample.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.1] The phrase 'we produced 104 simulated maps' appears to have lost a superscript; the intended number of simulated maps per catalog and the total number should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Table 1] In the last row of Table 1, the matching distance '14,8' uses a comma as a decimal separator; it should be '14.8' for consistency with the other rows.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption 'Pixel negative S/N distribution' is confusing because the figure shows the full S/N distribution including both positive and negative tails; the caption should be reworded and the relationship between the 'negative S/N tail' due to point sources and the 'positive tail' attributed to cluster candidates should be clarified.
  4. [Sec. 2.2] The sentence reporting Nharms = 8 and stating that this is equivalent to high-pass filtering above 1/3 Hz deserves a short justification or a reference, because the harmonic cutoff alone does not obviously define a 1/3 Hz high-pass filter.
  5. [Sec. 5.2] The 'semi-public spectroscopic redshift catalog' of Khostovan et al. (2025) is not described; since it is used to identify redshift peaks around candidates, the survey, selection function, and redshift range should be specified.
  6. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The claim of a 'first blind detection at 18 arcsec' would benefit from one sentence stating the scope of the search and the absence of prior blind SZ cluster searches at this angular resolution, in order to make the priority claim precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the blind detection is empirical and externally anchored; completeness/purity are model-dependent in the standard matched-filter sense, not input-output identity.

full rationale

The blind detection claim is empirical and externally anchored: 16 candidates are identified in real NIKA2 2 mm maps by a matched filter (§3.3), and eight have optical or X-ray counterparts in independent catalogs (§5.1). The matched-filter template uses the universal pressure profile of Arnaud et al. (2010), an external empirical model with fixed parameters; the paper does not fit any parameter to the 16 detections and then report it as a prediction. Masses from the MCMC fit (§6.1) explicitly carry the caveat that they 'are only valid within the context of the assumed model', so this is a stated conditional estimate rather than a disguised input-output identity. The completeness/purity simulation (§4) injects the same UPP model into null maps plus SIDES and detects with the same template, so the resulting contours (e.g., 80% completeness at M500 > 2e14 Msun) are model-dependent selection functions; the paper acknowledges omissions ('Contributions from radio sources and the spatial correlation between simulated components were not taken into account'), and the 26 ± 5 simulated vs 16 observed detections is a validation mismatch worth noting as a correctness risk, not as circularity. Self-citations to NIKA2 pipeline and instrument papers are methodological and not load-bearing for the central detection claim, which is anchored by external catalogs and by the random-match comparison (24.6% vs 50%). Hence no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on standard cosmological tools, external cluster models, and simulations that share the same assumptions as the detection template.

free parameters (3)
  • Cluster mass M500 = Masses listed in Table 1, e.g., 1.51, 1.38, 1.56 x 10^14 M_sun
    Free parameter in the UPP model and MCMC fits; constrained by the tSZ signal and redshift priors, not by an independent derivation.
  • Cluster redshift z = Redshifts in Table 1, e.g., 0.74, 0.94, 1.42
    Free parameter in the MCMC fits; for unmatched candidates, constrained only by the 2 mm signal, leading to large uncertainties.
  • CMB power-law extrapolation = Not explicitly quoted
    The CMB anisotropy contribution is estimated by fitting a power law to the Planck CMB power spectrum and extrapolating to high ell. This is a fitted function used to demonstrate that CMB contamination is negligible.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flat LCDM cosmology with Omega_m=0.31, Omega_lambda=0.69, H0=67.7
    Used throughout to convert angles and masses to physical quantities.
  • domain assumption Universal pressure profile (UPP) of Arnaud et al. (2010) with fixed parameters
    Used to model the cluster tSZ signal in templates, simulations, and MCMC fits. The accuracy of this profile at low mass and high redshift is unknown.
  • domain assumption Arnaud et al. (2010) Y500-M500 scaling relation
    Used to convert fitted tSZ flux to mass; the relation is calibrated on local, massive clusters and may not hold for the targeted population.
  • domain assumption Tinker et al. (2008) mass function
    Used to generate mock cluster catalogs for completeness and purity simulations.
  • domain assumption SIDES sky model represents the real dusty galaxy population
    Used in simulations of point source contamination; radio sources and cross-correlations are not included, which may bias the simulated purity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NIKA2 Cosmological Legacy Survey: Blind detection of galaxy clusters in the COSMOS field via the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FBLYUGI3

@misc{pith2026250618231,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NIKA2 Cosmological Legacy Survey: Blind detection of galaxy clusters in the COSMOS field via the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FBLYUGI3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18231}
}
abstract

(Abridged) Clusters of galaxies, formed in the latest stages of structure formation, are unique cosmological probes. With the advent of large CMB surveys like those from the Planck satellite, the ACT and SPT telescopes, we now have access to a large number of galaxy clusters detected at millimeter wavelengths via the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (tSZ) effect. Nevertheless, it is interesting to complement them with high-angular-resolution (tens of arcseconds) observations to target the lowest-mass and highest-redshift clusters. This is the case of observations with the NIKA2 camera, which is installed on the IRAM 30--m telescope in Pico Veleta, Spain. We used the existing 150 GHz (2 mm) data from the NIKA2 Cosmological Legacy Survey (N2CLS) Large Program to blindly search for galaxy clusters in the well-known COSMOS field, across a 877 arcmin$^2$ region centered on (R.A., Dec.)$_{J2000}$ = (10h00m28.81s, +02d17m30.44s). We first developed a dedicated data reduction pipeline to construct NIKA2 maps at 2 mm. We then used a matched-filter algorithm to extract cluster candidates assuming a universal pressure profile to model the expected cluster tSZ signal. We computed the purity and completeness of the sample by applying the previous algorithm to simulated maps of the sky signal in the COSMOS field. We find a total of 16 cluster candidates at S/N > 4, from which eight have either an optical or X-ray cluster (or group of galaxies) counterpart. This is the first blind detection of clusters of galaxies at mm wavelengths at 18" angular resolution. From this analysis, we confirm that NIKA2 and the IRAM 30--m telescope should be sensitive to low-mass clusters at intermediate and high redshift, complementing current and planned large tSZ-based cluster surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18231 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Transfer function as a function of angular scale for the pipeline used to construct the NIKA2 2 mm COSMOS maps discussed in this paper. The shaded gray regions represent the NIKA2 FoV (left) and instrumental beam (right). 2.3. Final sky maps The final 2 mm map was constructed combining the signal from all available observation scans for the final iteration step of the pipeline. In addition, null maps, or jackknife (… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. S/N map of the matched-filtered 2 mm COSMOS map. Positive S/N values corresponding to cluster candidates are shown in blue, matching the colors in Figs. 7 and A.1, as ex￾pected for tSZ emission. The angular size of the applied matched filter is equal to the size of the NIKA2 beam at 2 mm (18.5′′). The black contour shows the high-quality region discussed in Sect. 2.3. Cluster candidates are highlighted in black squa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pixel negative S/N distribution in the match-filtered N2CLS 2 mm signal map (blue) and null map (red). The high negative S/N tail is due to point sources. The hatched gray area shows a small positive S/N tail up to S/N ∼ 5, indicating strong negative signal in the 2 mm signal map, as expected for the SZ sources. 3.4. Random detection rate To estimate the expected number of random detections in the survey area, we ge… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) Completeness as a function of the mass, M500, for different redshift ranges. We reach 80% completeness at all redshift for M500 > 2 × 1014M⊙. (Right) Purity as a function of S/N for different redshift ranges. The purity rises quickly with S/N and reaches 60% at …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Color-coded completeness defined as the probability for a cluster of mass M500 and redshift z to be detected. The number of true clusters detected with respect to the total number of sim￾ulated clusters is given for each bin in mass and redshift. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) gri image of NK2-CL J100004.4+021148.4. The image is 200′′ on a side, with north at the top and east at the left. The contours in white show S/N levels in the match-filtered map from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results of the fit of 200′′ × 200′′ cutouts of the NIKA2 COSMOS 2 mm map centered on two cluster candidates. NK2-CL J100004.4+021148.4 (top) has a known redshift z = 0.94. In contrast, for NK2-CL J100045.8+020514.3 (bottom) we found no counterpart. The left map corresp…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: θ500- Y500 68% confidence values, for each cluster candi￾date in the NIKA2 sample. Matched and unmatched candidates (see Sect. 5) are depicted in red and blue, respectively. The red￾shift of matched counterparts is illustrated with the red colorbar. As an illustration,…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Left) NIKA2 matched cluster sample in the mass-redshift plane. Cluster samples from other blind tSZ surveys such as PSZ2 (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016), ACT DR5 (Hilton et al. 2021), SPT-ECS (Bleem et al. 2020), SPTpol (Huang et al. 2020), and SPT-SZ (Bocquet et a…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abell , G. O. 1958, , 3, 211

    work page 1958

  2. [2]

    Adam , R., Adane , A., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2018, , 609, A115

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    2020, , 644, A70

    Adam , R., Goksu , H., Leing \"a rtner-Goth , A., et al. 2020, , 644, A70

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    2010, , 509, A81

    Adami , C., Durret , F., Benoist , C., et al. 2010, , 509, A81

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    2018, , 620, A5

    Adami , C., Giles , P., Koulouridis , E., et al. 2018, , 620, A5

    2018

  6. [6]

    W., Evrard , A

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

    2011

  7. [7]

    W., Piffaretti , R., et al

    Arnaud , M., Pratt , G. W., Piffaretti , R., et al. 2010, , 517, A92

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    2015, , 452, 549

    Ascaso , B., Ben \' tez , N., Fern \'a ndez-Soto , A., et al. 2015, , 452, 549

    work page 2015

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167

    2022

  2. [10]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  3. [11]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  4. [12]

    2011, , 413, 1145

    Bellagamba , F., Maturi , M., Hamana , T., et al. 2011, , 413, 1145

    2011

  5. [13]

    2022, , 667, A156

    B \'e thermin , M., Gkogkou , A., Van Cuyck , M., et al. 2022, , 667, A156

    2022

  6. [14]

    2017, , 607, A89

    B \'e thermin , M., Wu , H.-Y., Lagache , G., et al. 2017, , 607, A89

    2017

  7. [15]

    2023, aap, 677, A66

    Bing , L., B \'e thermin , M., Lagache , G., et al. 2023, aap, 677, A66

    2023

  8. [16]

    E., Bocquet , S., Stalder , B., et al

    Bleem , L. E., Bocquet , S., Stalder , B., et al. 2020, , 247, 25

    2020

  9. [17]

    E., Klein , M., Abbot , T

    Bleem , L. E., Klein , M., Abbot , T. M. C., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 13

    2024

  10. [18]

    E., Stalder , B., Brodwin , M., et al

    Bleem , L. E., Stalder , B., Brodwin , M., et al. 2015 a , , 216, 20

    2015

  11. [19]

    E., Stalder , B., de Haan , T., et al

    Bleem , L. E., Stalder , B., de Haan , T., et al. 2015 b , , 216, 27

    2015

  12. [20]

    P., Schrabback , T., et al

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

    2019

  13. [21]

    2016, Journal of Instrumentation , 11, P11001, 19 pages; 15 figures

    Bourrion, O., Benoit, A., Bouly, J., et al. 2016, Journal of Instrumentation , 11, P11001, 19 pages; 15 figures. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1204.1415

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0

    Bradley, L., Sip o cz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0

    2023

  15. [23]

    2016, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 184, 816

    Calvo , M., Beno \^ t , A., Catalano , A., et al. 2016, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 184, 816

    2016

  16. [24]

    2014, , 569, A9

    Catalano , A., Calvo , M., Ponthieu , N., et al. 2014, , 569, A9

    2014

  17. [25]

    E., Basu , K., & Bertoldi , F

    Erler , J., Ramos-Ceja , M. E., Basu , K., & Bertoldi , F. 2019, , 484, 1988

    2019

  18. [26]

    2007, , 172, 182

    Finoguenov , A., Guzzo , L., Hasinger , G., et al. 2007, , 172, 182

    2007

  19. [27]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  20. [28]

    & Rubin , D

    Gelman , A. & Rubin , D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457

    1992

  21. [29]

    M., Maccacaro , T., Schild , R

    Gioia , I. M., Maccacaro , T., Schild , R. E., et al. 1990, , 72, 567

    1990

  22. [30]

    2023, aap, 670, A16

    Gkogkou , A., B \'e thermin , M., Lagache , G., et al. 2023, aap, 670, A16

    2023

  23. [31]

    H., Gettings , D

    Gonzalez , A. H., Gettings , D. P., Brodwin , M., et al. 2019, , 240, 33

    2019

  24. [32]

    Gull , S. F. & Northover , K. J. E. 1976, , 263, 572

    1976

  25. [33]

    Haehnelt , M. G. & Tegmark , M. 1996, , 279, 545

    1996

  26. [34]

    A., et al

    Hasselfield , M., Hilton , M., Marriage , T. A., et al. 2013, , 2013, 008

    2013

  27. [35]

    L., Hobson , M

    Herranz , D., Sanz , J. L., Hobson , M. P., et al. 2002, , 336, 1057

    2002

  28. [36]

    2018, , 235, 20

    Hilton , M., Hasselfield , M., Sif \'o n , C., et al. 2018, , 235, 20

    2018

  29. [37]

    2021, , 253, 3

    Hilton , M., Sif \'o n , C., Naess , S., et al. 2021, , 253, 3

    2021

  30. [38]

    E., Stalder , B., et al

    Huang , N., Bleem , L. E., Stalder , B., et al. 2020, , 159, 110

    2020

  31. [39]

    2016, , 592, A78

    Iovino , A., Petropoulou , V., Scodeggio , M., et al. 2016, , 592, A78

    2016

  32. [40]

    A., et al

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

    2021

  33. [41]

    W., et al

    K \'e ruzor \'e , F., Mayet , F., Pratt , G. W., et al. 2020, , 644, A93

    2020

  34. [42]

    A., Kartaltepe , J

    Khostovan , A. A., Kartaltepe , J. S., Salvato , M., et al. 2025, submitted to ApJ

    2025

  35. [43]

    J., et al

    Klein , M., Grandis , S., Mohr , J. J., et al. 2019, , 488, 739

    2019

  36. [44]

    J., Iovino , A., et al

    Knobel , C., Lilly , S. J., Iovino , A., et al. 2009, , 697, 1842

    2009

  37. [45]

    E., Rykoff , E

    Kornoelje , K., Bleem , L. E., Rykoff , E. S., et al. 2025, submitted to ApJ

    2025

  38. [46]

    J., Ilbert , O., et al

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

    2016

  39. [47]

    F., Nanni , L., Marulli , F., et al

    Lesci , G. F., Nanni , L., Marulli , F., et al. 2022, , 665, A100

    2022

  40. [48]

    A., Acquaviva , V., Ade , P

    Marriage , T. A., Acquaviva , V., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2011, , 737, 61

    2011

  41. [49]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1606.00497

    McIntosh , A. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1606.00497

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    K., Hilton , M., et al

    Mehrtens , N., Romer , A. K., Hilton , M., et al. 2012, , 423, 1024

    2012

  43. [51]

    B., Bartlett , J

    Melin , J. B., Bartlett , J. G., & Delabrouille , J. 2006, , 459, 341

    2006

  44. [52]

    S., et al

    Miyazaki , S., Hamana , T., Ellis , R. S., et al. 2007, , 669, 714

    2007

  45. [53]

    F., Pratt , G

    Mu \ n oz-Echeverr \' a , M., Mac \' as-P \'e rez , J. F., Pratt , G. W., et al. 2023, , 671, A28

    2023

  46. [54]

    V., & Vikhlinin , A

    Nagai , D., Kravtsov , A. V., & Vikhlinin , A. 2007, , 668, 1

    2007

  47. [55]

    2018, , 70, S20

    Oguri , M., Lin , Y.-T., Lin , S.-C., et al. 2018, , 70, S20

    2018

  48. [56]

    Pariiskii , Y. N. 1973, , 16, 1048

    1973

  49. [57]

    F., et al

    Perotto , L., Ponthieu , N., Mac \' as-P \'e rez , J. F., et al. 2020, , 637, A71

    2020

  50. [58]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2014, , 571, A29

    2014

  51. [59]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2015, , 581, A14

    2015

  52. [60]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2011, , 536, A8

    2011

  53. [61]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A27

    2016

  54. [62]

    2020, , 641, A6

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6

    2020

  55. [63]

    X., Beelen , A., et al

    Ponthieu , N., D \'e sert , F. X., Beelen , A., et al. 2025, submitted to A&A

    2025

  56. [64]

    2022, submitted to MNRAS

    Pop , A.-R., Hernquist , L., Nagai , D., et al. 2022, submitted to MNRAS

    2022

  57. [65]

    W., et al

    Ruppin , F., Mayet , F., Pratt , G. W., et al. 2018, , 615, A112

    2018

  58. [66]

    2007, , 172, 1

    Scoville , N., Aussel , H., Brusa , M., et al. 2007, , 172, 1

    2007

  59. [67]

    K., Coldwell , G

    S \"o chting , I. K., Coldwell , G. V., Clowes , R. G., Campusano , L. E., & Graham , M. J. 2012, , 423, 2436

    2012

  60. [68]

    Staniszewski , Z., Ade , P. A. R., Aird , K. A., et al. 2009, , 701, 32

    2009

  61. [69]

    Sunyaev , R. A. & Zeldovich , Y. B. 1972, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 4, 173

    1972

  62. [70]

    V., Klypin , A., et al

    Tinker , J., Kravtsov , A. V., Klypin , A., et al. 2008, , 688, 709

    2008

  63. [71]

    Voit , G. M. 2005, Reviews of Modern Physics, 77, 207

    2005

  64. [72]

    R., Kauffmann , O

    Weaver , J. R., Kauffmann , O. B., Ilbert , O., et al. 2022, , 258, 11

    2022

  65. [73]

    L., Han , J

    Wen , Z. L., Han , J. L., & Liu , F. S. 2012, , 199, 34

    2012

  66. [74]

    L., Han , J

    Wen , Z. L., Han , J. L., & Yang , F. 2018, , 475, 343

    2018

  67. [75]

    A., High , F

    Williamson , R., Benson , B. A., High , F. W., et al. 2011, , 738, 139

    2011

  68. [76]

    J., Wolf , C., Hippelein , H., & Falter , S

    Zatloukal , M., R \"o ser , H. J., Wolf , C., Hippelein , H., & Falter , S. 2007, , 474, L5

    2007

  69. [77]

    2021, , 253, 56

    Zou , H., Gao , J., Xu , X., et al. 2021, , 253, 56

    2021

  70. [78]

    2013, MOPSIC: Extended Version of MOPSI , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.011

    Zylka , R. 2013, MOPSIC: Extended Version of MOPSI , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.011

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.