Validating Digital Twins of the Local Universe with the Thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Signal

Harry Desmond; Richard Stiskalek

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 12 references

The new CSiBORG-Manticore digital twins of the local universe reproduce the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich signals of nearby clusters and their masses well enough to serve as the foundation for future field-level CMB analyses.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 08:42 UTC pith:7UYTEFEE

load-bearing objection A solid, well-scoped tSZ validation of BORG digital twins — the headline improvement claim holds up, but the mass-calibration pillar rests on a small matched sample with a post-hoc exclusion that needs addressable fixes before I'd call it fully robust. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.15935 v2 pith:7UYTEFEE submitted 2026-01-22 astro-ph.CO

Validating Digital Twins of the Local Universe with the Thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Signal

Richard Stiskalek , Harry Desmond This is my paper

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effectconstrained simulationsdigital twinsBORGcluster mass calibrationCompton-y maplocal universeeROSITA

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that the latest generation of Bayesian 'digital twins' of the local universe—CSiBORG-Manticore (CBM)—reproduces the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich signals of nearby galaxy clusters accurately enough to be used as the structural backbone for future field-level analyses of the cosmic microwave background. To establish this, it develops a scoring framework that checks where simulated haloes appear in Planck Compton-y maps, stacks radial tSZ profiles by halo mass, and fits mass–observable scaling relations for matched clusters. It reports that most named nearby clusters, including Perseus and Coma, are placed at tSZ hotspots with high significance, and that CBM's halo masses agree with weak-lensing-calibrated eROSITA masses (0.5-sigma from one-to-one), an improvement over the previous CSiBORG2 generation. The authors conclude that future field-level CMB models informed by large-scale structure should use BORG—specifically Manticore—as their foundation.

Core claim

The central claim is that CSiBORG-Manticore, a suite of 50 posterior simulations driven by BORG initial conditions, is an improved generation of digital twins: it places the majority of well-known local clusters (Coma, Perseus, Shapley A3558, etc.) at significant hotspots in Planck's Compton-y map, yields an integrated-Compton-parameter–mass slope of m=1.79±0.28 (close to the self-similar 5/3), and produces halo masses that are statistically consistent with weak-lensing-calibrated eROSITA masses (slope 0.84±0.19, intercept 0.02±0.06, 0.5-sigma joint tension with one-to-one). By contrast, the earlier CSiBORG2 fails to reproduce Perseus and shows a shallower slope and offset masses. The author

What carries the argument

The central object is the BORG (Bayesian Origin Reconstruction from Galaxies) forward-modelling framework, which infers posterior initial conditions from the 2M++ galaxy catalogue and resimulates them as N-body 'digital twins'—CSiBORG-Manticore adds 50 posterior samples with high-resolution zoom-in regions. The validation machinery is a set of three tests: (i) a p_tSZ score that measures whether a simulated halo's sky position lies at a significant Compton-y hotspot relative to random positions; (ii) stacked radial tSZ profiles in mass-ranked bins; and (iii) Bayesian linear-regression fits of Y_tSZ–M and mass–mass relations that marginalise over the posterior distribution of halo masses. Hal

Load-bearing premise

The mass-calibration claims rest on the assumption that the small matched sample of clusters—chosen by strict angular and velocity cuts and then trimmed by removing Shapley A3558—is representative enough that selection does not bias the fitted slope and offset.

What would settle it

Recompute the mass–mass and Y–M scaling relations either including Shapley A3558 or with a completeness-corrected selection model; if the CBM–eROSITA agreement degrades to ≳2σ, the claimed improvement over CB2 would be an artifact of sample selection. Alternatively, verify that the 23/74 matched eROSITA clusters are a random subset of the parent population in mass, distance, and sky coverage.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

Future field-level models of CMB secondary anisotropies can use BORG/Manticore as a prior for the local large-scale structure, enabling joint fits with Planck and other CMB data.
The tSZ data can be used to calibrate the mass–observable relation without an external mass proxy, because the digital twins supply the mass side of the relation.
The validation framework gives a quantitative way to score future constrained simulations against tSZ observations, complementing velocity-based tests.
The positional accuracy of BORG twins (typical offsets <1 degree versus >10 degrees for velocity-based approaches) makes them superior anchors for object-by-object cluster studies.
If the mass calibration holds, BORG halo masses can be used to correct the known ~30% bias in Planck tSZ mass estimates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The strict matching criteria (60 arcmin, 300 km/s) likely bias the matched sample toward the most massive, best-reconstructed clusters; if this is not accounted for, the claimed 0.5-sigma agreement with eROSITA masses could overstate the true fidelity.
A natural next test would be to apply the same p_tSZ scoring to higher-resolution tSZ maps from other experiments, which would sharpen the positional test and reveal whether the sub-degree offsets hold on smaller scales.
The authors' suggestion to add tSZ data as a likelihood in BORG could be tested by checking whether the posterior contracts around known clusters in regions where galaxy surveys are sparse, such as the Zone of Avoidance.
The framework could be converted into a calibration pipeline for future cluster surveys that avoids both hydrostatic and tSZ mass biases, but only if the selection function of the matched sample is modelled explicitly.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

A solid, well-scoped tSZ validation of BORG digital twins — the headline improvement claim holds up, but the mass-calibration pillar rests on a small matched sample with a post-hoc exclusion that needs addressable fixes before I'd call it fully robust.

read the letter

This paper gives you the first serious tSZ-based validation channel for BORG digital twins. It introduces CSiBORG-Manticore, a higher-resolution resimulation of the Manticore-Local initial conditions, and a genuinely new scoring framework: per-cluster p_tSZ significance, stacked y-profiles, and mass-scaling fits against Planck and weak-lensing-calibrated eROSITA masses. That combination is new for constrained simulations, and the paper is honest about what it can and cannot show. The data and code are public, and the validation uses external Compton-y maps and eROSITA masses without fitting any simulation parameter to the tSZ data, so the circularity burden is low. The central claim that CBM improves on CB2 is supported by multiple independent metrics: Perseus appears, the Planck Y–M slope moves from 1.43 to 1.79, intrinsic scatter drops, and the eROSITA mass–mass intercept is consistent with zero. I take the reader's conditional verdict as about right, but I'd soften one thing: even if the A3558 exclusion is wrong, the improvement claim does not rest solely on that ﬁt. The position-validational evidence (p_tSZ, Perseus, Coma) is independent of it.

The load-bearing weak spot is the mass-calibration section. The matched samples are small — 23/74 eROSITA, 15/56 Planck — the angular/redshift cuts are strict, and no selection or completeness model is applied. Most concerning, Shapley A3558, the clearest counterexample to the CBM mass calibration, is excluded from the scaling fits post hoc. The authors give plausible physical reasons (2M++ edge, merger complexity, known disagreement between dynamical and lensing masses), but that exclusion is applied to the dependent variable of the fit, and the paper's justiﬁcation is brief. Without a fit including A3558 or an explicit selection model, the claimed 0.5σ agreement with the one-to-one relation is conditional on removing the most discrepant point. This is a weakness worth ﬁxing, not a fatal one: the direction of the result is robust, but the headline precision oversells what a 23-cluster, hand-cleaned sample can deliver.

Minor points: the p_tSZ test is a bit generous because the matching procedure already selects directions near known hotspots, and the conclusion that future CMB work should use Manticore as its foundation is more of a programmatic hope than something this paper proves. Both are acknowledged in the text.

Who gets value: anyone working on constrained simulations, tSZ cluster physics, or BORG-based digital twins. It deserves a serious referee — the machinery is reproducible, the results are testable, and the open questions are addressed with good judgment. I'd send it to review with a request to report the A3558-inclusive fits or explicitly frame the result as conditional on the matched subset.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CSiBORG-Manticore (CBM), a new suite of BORG-based constrained simulations of the local Universe, and validates it against Planck tSZ maps and eROSITA X-ray cluster masses in comparison with the previous CSiBORG2 (CB2) generation. Three tests are used: per-cluster angular alignment with Compton-y hotspots (p_tSZ), stacked radial tSZ profiles, and power-law scaling relations between halo mass and tSZ/X-ray observables. The central claims are that CBM places most named clusters at tSZ hotspots, yields a Y_tSZ–M slope closer to the self-similar expectation (m=1.79±0.28 vs m=1.43±0.31), and produces halo masses consistent with weak-lensing-calibrated eROSITA masses (m=0.84±0.19, c=0.02±0.06, 0.5σ from one-to-one). The paper concludes that future field-level CMB models informed by large-scale structure should use BORG/Manticore as their foundation.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a valuable new benchmark for constrained simulations and demonstrates a practical route to using digital twins for tSZ analyses. The introduction of CBM is a concrete advance in the BORG programme, and the validation framework (p_tSZ scoring, stacked profiles, mass-scaling fits) is well matched to the goal of object-level comparison. The manuscript provides reproducible code and data links, compares against the SLOW hydrodynamical constrained simulation, and is careful to separate the tSZ-based validation from the mass-calibration comparison. The paper explicitly acknowledges the absence of a formal Bayesian evidence comparison (Section 5.2), which is an honest statement of the current scope. The main quantitative pillar—the eROSITA mass–mass agreement—is genuinely informative if the selection effects and the exclusion of Shapley A3558 are addressed.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.3, Table 3, Fig. 6] Shapley A3558 is a well-matched cluster (3D separation 1.4 h^-1 Mpc, f_present=0.90, p_tSZ=8.2e-4) but is excluded from the mass-scaling fits because its CBM halo mass (log M=15.24±0.12) exceeds the eROSITA weak-lensing mass (14.81±0.04) by ~0.4 dex. This is a selection on the dependent variable of the fit. The reported 0.5σ agreement for CBM and the statement that 'CBM halo masses are well calibrated' are conditional on removing the clearest mass-calibration failure. Please provide the fits with A3558 included, or a formal selection/outlier model.
[Section 3.4, Eq. (9), Fig. 8] The matched samples are small (23/74 eROSITA, 15/56 Planck) and the matching fraction is strongly mass-dependent. The likelihood in Eq. (9) ignores the cluster selection; if the probability of passing Δθ<60′, Δcz<300 km/s and the ≥50% membership cut correlates with mass or with the tSZ/X-ray observable, the fitted slope and intercept are biased. A selection model, or at minimum a sensitivity test with looser thresholds and/or weighting by the inverse matching probability, is needed before claiming that the eROSITA agreement is not an artifact of sample selection. The paper itself notes (Section 5.2) that no Bayesian evidence comparison is performed; a selection-corrected fit would strengthen the claim.
[Section 4.3.1, Table 2] The headline improvement in the Y-M slope (CBM m=1.79±0.28 vs CB2 m=1.43±0.31) is not statistically significant: the difference is 0.36±0.42 (~0.9σ). The lower intrinsic scatter for CBM (0.08±0.07 vs 0.22±0.10) is suggestive, but the two simulations are consistent within uncertainties for both the slope and the mass-mass relations. The claim that CBM 'yields a slope closer to the expected value' should be moderated or supported by a joint fit/tension calculation that accounts for the covariance.
[Section 6 and Abstract] The concluding recommendation that 'future field-level models of the CMB ... should use BORG—specifically its latest incarnation as Manticore—as their foundation' is broader than the evidence presented. The paper validates cluster positions, stacked tSZ profiles, and mass scaling relations; it does not test field-level CMB modeling or compare against other possible foundations for such models. Please rephrase the conclusion to state what is actually demonstrated, and frame the CMB recommendation as a plausible implication rather than a demonstrated requirement.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.1] The mask used for the Compton-y photometry is described only qualitatively ('Galactic plane, point sources, pixels marked as unseen'). Please specify the mask version and the exact point-source mask used, since p_tSZ values depend directly on the random-pointing null distribution.
[Section 2.5 / Table 1] The text mentions Shapley (A3562) in the discussion of Fig. 2, but A3562 is not listed in Table 1. Clarify whether it is part of the selected cluster sample or just shown as a nearby reference.
[Section 4.1, Fig. 2] The figure caption states that the red dot marks the local peak of the tSZ map, but the algorithm for identifying that peak is not described in Section 3.1 or elsewhere. A brief description would help reproducibility.
[References] Some references in the text are abbreviated inconsistently (e.g., 'Collaboration 2016' without the Planck prefix, and 'P. Collaboration' in the bibliography). Please standardize to 'Planck Collaboration' throughout.
[Section 4.3 / Table 2] The intercept for the eROSITA CB2 L_X–M relation (c=1.46±0.08) looks surprising at first glance because the text does not state the pivot of the X-ray luminosity variable in the same place as the mass pivot. Please state the units and pivot explicitly in the table caption or in Section 3.6.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; validation uses external tSZ and weak-lensing-calibrated masses, with only mild self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central validations are performed against data that are not used to construct the simulations: the Planck Compton-y map and the eROSITA cluster masses, the latter calibrated via DES Y3 weak lensing (Grandis et al. 2024). The BORG/Manticore initial conditions are inferred from the 2M++ galaxy density field, not from tSZ or X-ray data, so the per-cluster p_tSZ tests, stacked radial profiles, and mass-scaling fits are external benchmarks rather than re-statements of the simulation inputs. The fitted Y_tSZ-M and mass-mass relations compare simulation halo masses to independent catalog observables; the self-similar slope (m=5/3) and one-to-one relation are external expectations, not fit-derived targets. Self-citations appear (McAlpine et al. 2025 for the Manticore initial conditions and Stiskalek et al. 2025 for velocity-field comparisons), and these are used to motivate the CBM suite and support the broader claim of BORG's fidelity, but the tSZ positional, stacked-profile, and eROSITA mass evidence presented here is newly derived and does not reduce to those citations. The post-hoc exclusion of Shapley A3558 and the small matched samples are legitimate selection-robustness concerns, but they are not circularity: the remaining relation is not equivalent to the simulation inputs by construction, and no parameter of the simulations is fitted to the validation data. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-by-citation, or renaming-as-unification pattern is present. Hence the derivation chain is substantially self-contained externally; the only mild circularity-adjacent feature is reliance on the authors' own prior work for the simulation suite's standing, which is not load-bearing for the independent tSZ validation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external catalogues and assumptions about mass proxies and the BORG inference; no new physical entities or forces are introduced. CSiBORG-Manticore is a simulation suite (a data product), not a postulated entity. The main free parameters are the fitted scaling relations and several hand-chosen analysis thresholds; the most consequential choice is the post-hoc exclusion of Shapley A3558 from mass-scaling fits.

free parameters (6)

Scaling relation slope m and intercept c for Y_tSZ-M, L_X-M, and mass-mass fits = CB2 Planck Y: 1.43±0.31, -1.51±0.13; CBM Planck Y: 1.79±0.28, -1.73±0.15; CBM eROSITA M-M: 0.84±0.19, 0.02±0.06; CBM Pla
Fitted via Bayesian linear regression (Eqs. 8-9) to matched cluster samples; the central mass-calibration claims depend on these fitted values.
Intrinsic scatter σ_int = CBM Planck Y: 0.08±0.07; CB2 Planck Y: 0.22±0.10; CBM eROSITA M-M: 0.14±0.04
Free parameter in the likelihood (Eq. 9); lower CBM scatter is cited as evidence of improvement.
Matching thresholds Δθ < 60 arcmin, Δcz < 300 km/s = 60 arcmin; 300 km/s
Chosen to minimise spurious matches (Section 3.4); the sample composition and all scaling fits depend on these choices.
Halo association parameters: DBSCAN ϵ=1.75 h^-1 Mpc, min membership 9, 0.3 dex mass outlier cut
Follows McAlpine 2025; defines which haloes across realisations are treated as the same object.
Aperture radius for Compton-y photometry = 2θ500c
Choice affects measured enclosed signal and p_tSZ; not varied in the paper.
Post-hoc exclusion of Shapley A3558 from mass-scaling fits = excluded
The most discrepant cluster (CBM logM=15.24 vs eROSITA 14.81); removing it substantially improves the reported eROSITA agreement, and no fit with it included is shown.

axioms (7)

domain assumption ΛCDM cosmology with Planck 2020 parameters for CB2 and DES Y3 3x2pt parameters for CBM
Taken as input from literature; sets initial conditions and distance/angular scale conversions.
domain assumption BORG forward model (2M++ galaxy density, Poisson likelihood, bias and selection modeling) correctly samples the posterior of initial conditions
The digital twins inherit all validity of BORG inference; cited from Jasche & Wandelt 2013 and follow-ups.
domain assumption Planck PR4 NILC Compton-y map (McCarthy & Hill 2024) traces true integrated electron pressure after CIB deprojection
Used as the observational ground truth for positional and scaling tests; residual foregrounds could bias small-scale signals.
domain assumption eROSITA DR1 X-ray masses are unbiased after DES-Y3 weak-lensing calibration
Used as the independent mass reference; if the weak-lensing calibration is biased, the mass-agreement claim changes.
domain assumption Dark-matter-only BORG halo masses can be compared directly to observed baryonic masses without baryon-feedback correction
No hydrodynamics or baryonification is applied; feedback can shift M500c by several percent and is not modelled.
domain assumption Self-similar scalings Y ∝ M^(5/3) and L_X ∝ M^(4/3) are the correct external expectations
Used to compute tension τ; these assume hydrostatic/virial equilibrium and constant gas fraction (Kaiser 1986).
domain assumption Y_5R500 = 1.81 Y_tSZ_500c conversion from the universal pressure profile (Arnaud et al. 2010)
Used to homogenise Planck PSZ2 Y measurements; a systematic error in this conversion propagates into the Y-M normalisation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27167 in / 15742 out tokens · 144450 ms · 2026-08-03T08:42:43.835007+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

The thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (tSZ) effect provides a powerful probe of the thermal pressure of ionised gas in galaxy clusters and the cosmic web; constrained simulations reconstruct the mass and velocity fields of the local Universe. We explore how these two may be mutually informative: the tSZ signal provides a benchmark for assessing the fidelity of constrained simulations, and constrained simulations contribute information on the positions, total masses and density profiles of cosmic web structures for use in tSZ studies. We focus on cluster predictions in the Bayesian Origin Reconstruction from Galaxies (BORG) paradigm, introducing CSiBORG-Manticore, a new state-of-the-art suite of digital twins -- data-constrained posterior simulations whose initial conditions are inferred via Bayesian forward modelling. We develop a framework for scoring constrained simulations on their ability to match measured Planck Compton-$y$ maps around clusters, and use it to demonstrate improvement from previous BORG reconstructions. We further validate halo masses against weak-lensing-calibrated X-ray masses from eROSITA. We also show how high-fidelity digital twins offer a practical route to extracting additional information from tSZ data through a novel calibration of the mass-observable relation, and provide a complementary framework to purely statistical analyses of Compton-$y$ maps. This paves the way for integrating the large-scale structure information inherent in constrained simulations into the study of CMB secondary anisotropies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.15935 by Harry Desmond, Richard Stiskalek.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: — Compton-y map cutouts centred on selected clusters. White dots mark the positions of CBM halo realisations, the green dot indicates the reported cluster centre from the optical catalogue, and the red dot marks the local peak of the tSZ map. For Shapley (A3558), the cyan dot marks the position of Shapley (A3562), which lies within the field of view. package (Bartlett and Desmond 2023), which implements Ma… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: — Comparison of Planck tSZ masses and eROSITA Xray masses for matched clusters; error bars show 1σ uncertainties. The dashed line shows the one-to-one relation. The Planck masses are systematically lower by ∼0.14 dex (∼30%), consistent with the known hydrostatic mass bias (Sereno et al. 2017). masses are systematically lower at the high-mass end. 5. DISCUSSION Bayesian reconstructions of the local Univers… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: — Stacked 1D radial tSZ profiles for haloes ranked by mass. Profiles are measured at normalised angular separations θ/(2θ500c) and stacked within cumulative mass bins: top 10, top 50, and top 100 most massive haloes per realisation, then combined across all realisations. Halo masses M200c are in units of h−1 M⊙. Solid lines show the mean stacked profile for CB2 and CBM, with shaded bands indicating the 1σ… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: — Planck cluster scaling relations. Top row: integrated Compton parameter Y tSZ 500c versus BORG halo mass for which we show the expected self-similar slope of 5/3 as a red dashed line. Bottom row: Planck-calibrated mass MtSZ 500c versus BORG halo mass, the one-to-one relation is shown as a red dashed line. 13.8 14.0 14.2 14.4 14.6 log MCBM 500c [h −1 M ] 13.6 13.8 14.0 14.2 14.4 14.6 log M X −ray 500c [h … view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: — eROSITA mass–mass relations comparing MX−ray 500c to the BORG halo mass. The one-to-one relation is shown as a red dashed line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: — Comparison of pLUM-values and ptSZ-values for selected clusters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: — Fraction of observed clusters matched to halo associations as a function of catalogue-reported mass M500c for eROSITA (left) and Planck (right). Clusters are divided into percentile bins above M500c = 1014 h−1 M⊙, with vertical dashed lines indicating bin edges. Error bars show Poisson uncertainties. The total matched fractions are indicated in the legend. Higher-mass clusters are more likely to be match… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith

[1]

R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Astrophysics and Space Science7, 3 (1970). R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics4, 173 (1972). T. Mroczkowski, D. Nagai, K. Basu, J. Chluba, J. Sayers, R. Adam, E. Churazov, A. Crites, L. Di Mascolo, D. Eckert, J. Macias-Perez, F. Mayet, L. Perotto, E. Pointecouteau, C. Romero, F. ...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1970
[2]

Barreiro, J. G. Bartlett,et al., A&A594, A24 (2016a), arXiv:1502.01597 [astro-ph.CO]. T. de Haan, B. A. Benson, L. E. Bleem, S. W. Allen, D. E

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[3]

Applegate, M. L. N. Ashby, M. Bautz, M. Bayliss, S. Bocquet, M. Brodwin,et al., ApJ832, 95 (2016), arXiv:1603.06522 [astro-ph.CO]. S. Bocquet, J. P. Dietrich, T. Schrabback, L. E. Bleem, M. Klein, S. W. Allen, D. E. Applegate, M. L. N. Ashby, M. Bautz, M. Bayliss,et al., ApJ878, 55 (2019), arXiv:1812.01679 [astro-ph.CO]. M. Hilton, C. Sif´ on, S. Naess, M...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[4]

van Waerbeke, and A

Shan, L. van Waerbeke, and A. H. Wright, A&A660, A27 (2022), arXiv:2109.04458 [astro-ph.CO]. N. Koukoufilippas, D. Alonso, M. Bilicki, and J. A. Peacock, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2022), arXiv:1909.09102 [astro-ph.CO]. A. La Posta, D. Alonso, N. E. Chisari, T. Ferreira, and C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, Physical Review D112, 043525 (202...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[5]

Hudson, D. J. Bartlett, and H. M. Courtois, MNRAS (2025), 10.1093/mnras/staf1960, arXiv:2502.00121 [astro-ph.CO]. S. McAlpine, J. Jasche, M. Ata, G. Lavaux, R. Stiskalek, C. S. Frenk, and A. Jenkins, MNRAS540, 716 (2025), arXiv:2505.10682 [astro-ph.CO]. T. M. C. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, S. ...

arXiv 2025
[6]

Banday, R. B. Barreiro,et al., A&A536, A8 (2011), arXiv:1101.2024 [astro-ph.CO]. M. Sereno, G. Covone, L. Izzo, S. Ettori, J. Coupon, and M. Lieu, MNRAS472, 1946 (2017), arXiv:1703.06886 [astro-ph.CO]. Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[7]

Bartolo,et al., A&A641, A6 (2020b), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

Barreiro, N. Bartolo,et al., A&A641, A6 (2020b), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. E. Bulbul, A. Liu, M. Kluge, X. Zhang, J. S. Sanders, Y. E

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[8]

Comparat, F

Ramos-Ceja, J. Comparat, F. Balzer, K. B¨ ockmann, M. Br¨ uggen, N. Clerc, K. Dennerl, K. Dolag, M. Freyberg, S. Grandis, D. Gruen, F. Kleinebreil, S. Krippendorf, G. Lamer, A. Merloni, K. Migkas, K. Nandra, F. Pacaud, P. Predehl, T. H. Reiprich, T. Schrabback, A. Veronica, J. Weller, and S. Zelmer, A&A685, A106 (2024), arXiv:2402.08452 [astro-ph.CO]. P. ...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[9]

Reinecke, and M

Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelmann, ApJ622, 759 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0409513 [astro-ph]. A. Zonca, L. Singer, D. Lenz, M. Reinecke, C. Rosset, E. Hivon, and K. Gorski, The Journal of Open Source Software4, 1298 (2019). S. Pfeifer, A. Valade, S. Gottl¨ ober, Y. Hoffman, N. I. Libeskind, and W. A. Hellwing, MNRAS523, 5985 (2023), arXiv:2305.05694 [ast...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[10]

Crawford, R. M. Johnstone, and K. Iwasawa, MNRAS366, 417 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0510476 [astro-ph]. C. P. Haines, G. Busarello, P. Merluzzi, K. A. Pimbblet, F. P. A

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[11]

Vogt, M. A. Dopita, A. Mercurio, A. Grado, and L. Limatola, MNRAS481, 1055 (2018), arXiv:1807.11525 [astro-ph.CO]. Y. Higuchi, N. Okabe, P. Merluzzi, C. P. Haines, G. Busarello, A. Grado, and A. Mercurio, MNRAS497, 52 (2020), arXiv:2006.08130 [astro-ph.CO]. M. Rossetti, S. Ghizzardi, S. Molendi, and A. Finoguenov, A&A 463, 839 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/06110...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[12]

Tully, MNRAS495, 4463 (2020), arXiv:2005.08074 [astro-ph.CO]. L. Doeser, M. Ata, and J. Jasche, MNRAS542, 1403 (2025), arXiv:2502.13243 [astro-ph.CO]. B. Horowitz and A. E. Bayer, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.26851 (2025), arXiv:2510.26851 [astro-ph.IM]. N. Battaglia, J. R. Bond, C. Pfrommer, and J. L. Sievers, ApJ 758, 75 (2012b), arXiv:1109.3711 [astro-p...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

[1] [1]

R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Astrophysics and Space Science7, 3 (1970). R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics4, 173 (1972). T. Mroczkowski, D. Nagai, K. Basu, J. Chluba, J. Sayers, R. Adam, E. Churazov, A. Crites, L. Di Mascolo, D. Eckert, J. Macias-Perez, F. Mayet, L. Perotto, E. Pointecouteau, C. Romero, F. ...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1970

[2] [2]

Barreiro, J. G. Bartlett,et al., A&A594, A24 (2016a), arXiv:1502.01597 [astro-ph.CO]. T. de Haan, B. A. Benson, L. E. Bleem, S. W. Allen, D. E

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[3] [3]

Applegate, M. L. N. Ashby, M. Bautz, M. Bayliss, S. Bocquet, M. Brodwin,et al., ApJ832, 95 (2016), arXiv:1603.06522 [astro-ph.CO]. S. Bocquet, J. P. Dietrich, T. Schrabback, L. E. Bleem, M. Klein, S. W. Allen, D. E. Applegate, M. L. N. Ashby, M. Bautz, M. Bayliss,et al., ApJ878, 55 (2019), arXiv:1812.01679 [astro-ph.CO]. M. Hilton, C. Sif´ on, S. Naess, M...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

[4] [4]

van Waerbeke, and A

Shan, L. van Waerbeke, and A. H. Wright, A&A660, A27 (2022), arXiv:2109.04458 [astro-ph.CO]. N. Koukoufilippas, D. Alonso, M. Bilicki, and J. A. Peacock, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2022), arXiv:1909.09102 [astro-ph.CO]. A. La Posta, D. Alonso, N. E. Chisari, T. Ferreira, and C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, Physical Review D112, 043525 (202...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

[5] [5]

Hudson, D. J. Bartlett, and H. M. Courtois, MNRAS (2025), 10.1093/mnras/staf1960, arXiv:2502.00121 [astro-ph.CO]. S. McAlpine, J. Jasche, M. Ata, G. Lavaux, R. Stiskalek, C. S. Frenk, and A. Jenkins, MNRAS540, 716 (2025), arXiv:2505.10682 [astro-ph.CO]. T. M. C. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, S. ...

arXiv 2025

[6] [6]

Banday, R. B. Barreiro,et al., A&A536, A8 (2011), arXiv:1101.2024 [astro-ph.CO]. M. Sereno, G. Covone, L. Izzo, S. Ettori, J. Coupon, and M. Lieu, MNRAS472, 1946 (2017), arXiv:1703.06886 [astro-ph.CO]. Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

[7] [7]

Bartolo,et al., A&A641, A6 (2020b), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

Barreiro, N. Bartolo,et al., A&A641, A6 (2020b), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. E. Bulbul, A. Liu, M. Kluge, X. Zhang, J. S. Sanders, Y. E

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[8] [8]

Comparat, F

Ramos-Ceja, J. Comparat, F. Balzer, K. B¨ ockmann, M. Br¨ uggen, N. Clerc, K. Dennerl, K. Dolag, M. Freyberg, S. Grandis, D. Gruen, F. Kleinebreil, S. Krippendorf, G. Lamer, A. Merloni, K. Migkas, K. Nandra, F. Pacaud, P. Predehl, T. H. Reiprich, T. Schrabback, A. Veronica, J. Weller, and S. Zelmer, A&A685, A106 (2024), arXiv:2402.08452 [astro-ph.CO]. P. ...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[9] [9]

Reinecke, and M

Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelmann, ApJ622, 759 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0409513 [astro-ph]. A. Zonca, L. Singer, D. Lenz, M. Reinecke, C. Rosset, E. Hivon, and K. Gorski, The Journal of Open Source Software4, 1298 (2019). S. Pfeifer, A. Valade, S. Gottl¨ ober, Y. Hoffman, N. I. Libeskind, and W. A. Hellwing, MNRAS523, 5985 (2023), arXiv:2305.05694 [ast...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

[10] [10]

Crawford, R. M. Johnstone, and K. Iwasawa, MNRAS366, 417 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0510476 [astro-ph]. C. P. Haines, G. Busarello, P. Merluzzi, K. A. Pimbblet, F. P. A

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

[11] [11]

Vogt, M. A. Dopita, A. Mercurio, A. Grado, and L. Limatola, MNRAS481, 1055 (2018), arXiv:1807.11525 [astro-ph.CO]. Y. Higuchi, N. Okabe, P. Merluzzi, C. P. Haines, G. Busarello, A. Grado, and A. Mercurio, MNRAS497, 52 (2020), arXiv:2006.08130 [astro-ph.CO]. M. Rossetti, S. Ghizzardi, S. Molendi, and A. Finoguenov, A&A 463, 839 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/06110...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

[12] [12]

Tully, MNRAS495, 4463 (2020), arXiv:2005.08074 [astro-ph.CO]. L. Doeser, M. Ata, and J. Jasche, MNRAS542, 1403 (2025), arXiv:2502.13243 [astro-ph.CO]. B. Horowitz and A. E. Bayer, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.26851 (2025), arXiv:2510.26851 [astro-ph.IM]. N. Battaglia, J. R. Bond, C. Pfrommer, and J. L. Sievers, ApJ 758, 75 (2012b), arXiv:1109.3711 [astro-p...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020