Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 8 minor 112 references

The Three Hundred Project: Validating $H_0$ inference from mock X-ray and millimetre analyses of galaxy clusters

T0 review · 1 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Galaxy-cluster X-ray and millimetre data, calibrated with hydrodynamical simulations, can deliver unbiased Hubble-constant estimates with percent-level precision.

desk verdict A careful simulation-only validation of the K19 H0 pipeline with morphology-dependent B priors; the unbiasedness claim is solid within the simulated world, but the systematic floor should not be read as a complete error budget for real clusters. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08613 v2 pith:MOGHPROE submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.CO

F. De Luca , H. Bourdin , P. Mazzotta , E. Rasia , A. Kozmanyan , W. Cui , M. De Petris , D. de Andres
show 1 more author
G. Yepes
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords HubbleconstantgalaxyclustersX-rayandmillimetrejointanalysisclustermorphologyBayesianinferencehydrodynamicalsimulationsintraclustermediumstandardrulermethod
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 argues that a persistent nuisance in cluster cosmology—the mismatch between ICM temperatures inferred from X-ray spectroscopy and from joint X-ray plus millimetre data—can be modelled rather than avoided. Using mock observations built from a large hydrodynamical simulation suite, the authors show that this mismatch (the cluster-structure bias B) follows a log-normal distribution whose mean and scatter shift with cluster dynamical and morphological state. When that distribution is used as an informative prior in a Bayesian analysis of synthetic cluster samples, the recovered Hubble constant is unbiased, with about 4% precision for 100 clusters and 1.5% for 1000 clusters, and a systematic floor of 0.6–0.8 km/s/Mpc. The payoff is that large, morphologically mixed cluster samples—not just rare relaxed ones—could constrain H0 from joint X-ray and millimetre surveys.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is B, the ratio of the X-ray spectroscopic temperature normalisation to the temperature derived from the millimetre-derived pressure divided by the X-ray-derived density (in the paper's notation, ηT = bn·C·B). B encodes all departures of real clusters from the smooth, spherical, homogeneous profile models used in the reconstruction: asphericity, gas clumpiness, and template mismatch. The paper measures B from mock projected profiles, finds it log-normal and morphology-dependent, and then builds informative priors in two ways: a discrete three-class log-normal mixture and continuous Gaussian-process regressions that map the X-ray morphological indicator MX to the mean

What would settle it

Re-run the pipeline with B distributions measured from an independent hydrodynamical code (or from a redshift beyond the sampled range) and compare the inferred H0: a shift larger than the 0.6–0.8 km/s/Mpc floor, or posterior coverage on an observed cluster sample that falls below nominal, would falsify the unbiasedness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the cluster-structure bias B, which quantifies the mismatch between spectroscopic-like X-ray temperatures and temperatures reconstructed from the combination of millimetre and X-ray signals, is statistically predictable rather than an irreducible error. In a sample of 972 mock projections drawn from a hydrodynamical cluster simulation, B is positively skewed and leptokurtic, approximately log-normal overall but better described by three class-conditional log-normals (relaxed, hybrid, disturbed) or by Gaussian-process regressions against the X-ray morphological indicator MX. Injected into a Bayesian pipeline as informative priors, these descriptions produce H0 poster

Load-bearing premise

The B distribution measured from the redshift-zero snapshot of this hydrodynamical simulation is representative of real clusters at 0.05 < z < 0.6; if the simulated gas physics, morphology, or redshift evolution are unrealistic, the quoted unbiasedness, precision, and systematic floor do not transfer to real data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A sample of 100 clusters yields about 4% precision on H0; 1000 clusters yield about 1.5%, with no significant mean bias in the mock tests.
  • The variance scales as σ²(N) = σ0²/N + σs² with a non-zero systematic floor σs ≈ 0.6–0.8 km/s/Mpc, so beyond roughly 1200–1850 clusters additional clusters no longer improve H0.
  • The probe is primarily an H0 probe: Ωm and the helium abundance are prior-dominated, and a 5% shift in the centres of those priors moves H0 by less than 1%.
  • Posterior calibration is close to nominal for all three prior models, supporting the use of the method on real data without ad hoc inflation of uncertainties.
  • The morphology-dependent prior is statistically preferred over a single global distribution for B, so including dynamical-state information strengthens the analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: because the mock catalogues draw B from the same simulation that provides the prior, the quoted unbiasedness is partly closed-loop; a decisive test is to apply the pipeline to observed clusters or to a simulation with different baryonic physics, where the paper itself flags that a residual dependence on the simulation model cannot be excluded.
  • Extension: if the B–morphology relation holds in nature, morphology becomes a cheap conditioning variable, and H0 analyses need no longer throw away disturbed clusters; the useful sample for cluster standard-ruler cosmology would expand substantially.
  • Extension: combining this probe, which scales as the inverse square root of angular diameter distance, with a probe scaling as a higher power of distance (for example gas fraction) could break the H0–helium degeneracy and let the same cluster data additionally constrain Ωm.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper extends the Kozmanyan et al. (2019) X-ray/SZ 'standard-ruler' pipeline for H0 to a substantially larger simulation sample: 324 clusters from The300 gadget-x at z=0, projected along three lines of sight (972 mock objects). The cluster-structure bias B between X-ray spectroscopic-like and joint X-ray/SZ temperature reconstructions is measured from mock projected profiles, and its dependence on cluster dynamics/morphology is modelled in three ways: a single log-normal, a class-conditional mixture ('3DS', relaxed/hybrid/disturbed), and two Gaussian-process regressions against the X-ray morphology indicator MX. These distributions enter a Bayesian cosmological pipeline as informative priors — with analytic marginalisation over B (Eq. 27) — to infer H0 from mock ηT catalogues (Eq. 26) under flat ΛCDM with Planck-based priors on Ωm and Y. The pipeline is validated through 1000 bias realisations, a variance-scaling fit (σ² = σ0²/N + σs², with σ0 ≈ 26.6–26.9 km/s/Mpc and σs = 0.6–0.8), and simulation-based calibration (200 draws; 68%/95% coverage 0.69–0.70/0.94–0.95). Headline claims: unbiased H0 estimates with ~4% precision at N=100, ~1.5% at N=1000, and a systematic floor of 0.6–0.8 km/s/Mpc.

Significance. If the headline result holds, this is a valuable, careful step toward making cluster standard-ruler H0 constraints robust to ICM morphology, and a significant upgrade over K19 in sample size, in the morphology-aware priors, and above all in the rigour of the internal validation: LOS-length checks (App. A), projection-independence resampling with 10^6 draws (App. B), prior-sensitivity/disentanglement analyses (App. D), R-hat < 1.01 convergence, and a proper simulation-based calibration with reported 68%/95% coverage. Additional strengths are the analytic marginalisation of Eq. (27), the use of two GP implementations that agree where it matters, and the candid §5.1 disclosure of the residual dependence on the simulation model and the z=0 snapshot. The principal limitation is that the validation is closed-loop: the mock data are drawn from the same simulation sample that generates the priors, so the tests certify internal consistency but cannot bound the absolute accuracy of the B prior. Practical significance is therefore conditional; the quoted 0.6–0.8 km/s/Mpc 'ultimate' floor should not be read as the full systematic budget for real data.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract; §4.4.2–4.4.3; §5.1] The headline claims are established only in a closed loop: the mock catalogues of §4.4 (Eq. 26) draw ln B from the same 972-point gadget-x z=0 sample whose fitted log-normals (Table 1) and GP regressions (§4.3) define the informative priors (Table 2). The small MAP bias, the σs = 0.6–0.8 km/s/Mpc floor, and the SBC coverage therefore certify the pipeline's internal consistency given the prior; they cannot bound a global offset between the simulation's B distribution and that of real clusters. Because ln ηT = (1/2) ln H0 + ln B + const. (Eqs. 12–13), the quoted floor demands ~0.4% accuracy in the prior mean of ln B, and a constant offset δ in ln B would translate into a −2δ bias in ln H0 that no §4.4 test can detect. The §5.1 caveats are explicit but the abstract's 'unbiased' and 'ultimately limited by systematic uncertainties' are unconditional. Please qualify the headline claims and, pr
minor comments (8)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (27)] For the GP models, μB and σB enter the marginal likelihood as the GP-predicted mean and scatter. Please state whether these are plug-in point predictions (e.g., posterior means) or whether GP predictive uncertainty is marginalised over. The SBC of §4.4.3 draws from the prior as implemented, so it checks calibration at fixed prior and does not test propagation of GP learning uncertainty; a short estimate of the GP posterior width of μ(MX) over the sampled MX range would settle the point.
  2. [§3.3, §4.4.2] The 3DS validation assigns clusters to classes with the 3D dynamical indicator χ, which is unavailable for observed clusters; in application the classes would have to come from morphological proxies, carrying the misclassification/projection risk the paper itself notes in §3.3. Since the 3DS and GP results agree, the impact is likely small, but please state explicitly how the 3DS prior is intended to be applied to real data and whether the class-conditional parameters are stable under the morphological (rather than 3D-dynamical) classification.
  3. [§4.4.2, Fig. 7] σ0 and σs are quoted without uncertainties. With only about six sample sizes in Fig. 7, the floor 0.6–0.8 km/s/Mpc — a headline number — has a non-negligible uncertainty; report confidence intervals for the fit parameters.
  4. [§4.4.1, Eq. (26)] Mock redshifts are drawn uniformly over 0.05–0.6. Since the H0–Ωm degeneracy depends on the redshift distribution (§4.4.1, App. D), the robustness of the quoted 4%/1.5% precision to a realistic, selection-driven redshift distribution (e.g., CHEX-MATE, which motivates the range) should be tested or justified.
  5. [§4.4.2] Please clarify the sampling details: are (B, MX) pairs for the GP mock catalogues drawn jointly from the 972-point sample with replacement, and are the 3DS class fractions fixed to the simulation values (57/25/18)? This matters for reproducing the variance-scaling numbers.
  6. [§5.1] The statement σMX ≲ 0.11 being 'well below' the GP length scales ℓµ ≃ 2, ℓσ ≃ 3 compares MX units with length scales on the Φ-transformed input x. Report the comparison in the transformed coordinate (δx ≃ δMX/σ(MX) at the peak of the normal density) or give the GP length scales in MX units.
  7. [Throughout] Proofreading: line-break artifacts such as 'di fferences' appear throughout the text, and the abstract has '1 .5%'. Also check author-name spacing in the reference list (e.g., 'V oit 2005'). A data/code availability statement for the PyMC and GP pipeline would support reproducibility.
  8. [§2, §5.1] The sample is high-mass-selected (median 7.7×10^14 M⊙). Although B is not significantly correlated with mass, a sentence in §5.1 on the expected portability of the B prior to lower-mass, survey-selected samples would strengthen the discussion of applicability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partially circular validation: mock catalogues draw B from the same gadget-x z=0 sample used to build the informative B priors, so the quoted H0 unbiasedness and systematic floor are self-consistency results, with prior fidelity untested.

  1. self definitional [§4.4, Eq. (26); informative priors in Table 2 from fits in Table 1 and §4.3; limitation acknowledged in §5.1]
    "For these tests, we generated mock ηmock T catalogues as follows. Given a sample size N, we randomly extracted B values from the simulated sample. … lnηmock T = ln h C(z; Href 0 , Ωref m , Yref) i + lnB +N(0, 0.14), (26)"

    The mock catalogues draw ln B from the same 972-projection gadget-x z=0 sample whose empirical distribution is fitted in Table 1 and GP-regressed in §4.3, and these fits are exactly the informative priors in Table 2 (Bi ∼ LN(µi,σi), B(MX) ∼ LN[µGP,σGP]). Therefore the generative distribution for B is, by construction, the prior used in the inference. The resulting 'unbiased' H0 MAPs, the σ0 and σs ≈ 0.6–0.8 km/s/Mpc scaling, and the SBC coverage are prior-predictive self-consistency checks: they verify that the pipeline recovers parameters when the prior is correct, but cannot detect prior misspecification. The paper concedes: 'a residual dependence of the inferred B distribution on the adopted simulation model cannot be excluded,' so the headline precision/systematic floor is conditional

full rationale

Walked the derivation chain. The central load-bearing step is the §4.4 validation: mock ηT catalogues are generated with Eq. (26) by drawing B from the gadget-x z=0 sample, while the informative priors in Table 2 are the log-normal/GP fits to that same sample (§4.1, §4.3). Thus the validation measures posterior self-consistency under the assumption that the prior is exactly the true generative distribution. The reported unbiasedness, 4%/1.5% scaling, and 0.6–0.8 km/s/Mpc floor are conditional on that assumption and are not tests of the prior against real clusters. The paper itself states this in §5.1: residual simulation-model dependence 'cannot be excluded' and no explicit redshift-evolution test was made. I therefore flag this as partial circularity. However, the H0 part of the inference is not definitionally forced: H0 enters through C(z,ϑ), has a wide uniform prior, and the marginal-likelihood computation and variance scaling are nontrivial. The simulation's realism is also supported by external observational comparisons (Bartalucci et al. 2023; Campitiello et al. 2022; Rossetti et al. 2024; Lovisari et al. 2024), and the K19 self-citation is for the method being validated rather than an unverified uniqueness claim. Hence score 5, not higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated (no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities). The analysis relies on 5 fitted/chosen parameters (log-normal prior hyperparameters, GP hyperparameters, variance-scaling coefficients, 14% noise, reference mock cosmology) and 9 axioms, of which the crucial domain assumptions are the simulation fidelity of gadget-x at z=0 and the factorization ηT = bn·C·B. The free-parameter count is moderate for a Bayesian pipeline-validation paper; the main epistemic weight sits on the untested assumption that the simulated B distribution matches real clusters.

free parameters (5)
  • Log-normal prior parameters (µ, σ) for B in each dynamical class = µ: 1.08e-2 (single LN), -0.98e-2 (relaxed), -1.38e-2 (hybrid), 11.04e-2 (disturbed); σ: 13.29e-2, 9.68e-2, 13.28e-2, 18.
    Fitted to the 972 simulated B values (Table 1) and injected into the cosmological inference as informative priors (Table 2, Eq. 23–28). The H0 posterior widths depend directly on these fitted values.
  • GP kernel hyperparameters (amplitude, length scales, noise terms) = ℓµ ≃ 2, ℓσ ≃ 3; other hyperparameters not fully reported
    The GPkernel and GPhetero regressions of ln B vs MX are fit to the simulated sample (§4.3); these hyperparameters determine the morphology-dependent prior predictive used in the pipeline.
  • σ0 and σs (statistical and systematic variance scaling) = σ0 ≈ 26.6–26.9 km/s/Mpc; σs ≈ 0.6–0.8 km/s/Mpc
    Fitted to the dispersion of MAP H0 estimates as a function of sample size using σ²(N) = σ0²/N + σs² (§4.4.2, Fig. 7). The systematic floor is a headline result but is reported without uncertainty.
  • Per-cluster log-normal noise (14%) = 14% (chosen)
    Assigned to each mock ηT in Eq. (26) to mimic observational uncertainty; not derived from data.
  • Reference mock cosmology (H0=74, Ωm=0.3153, Y=0.242) = h_ref = 0.74, Ωm_ref = 0.3153, Y_ref = 0.242
    Chosen as the 'true' cosmology for mock generation (§4.4); not fitted, but the pipeline's bias diagnostics are defined relative to it.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption ηT factorizes as bn·C·B with bn=1 in simulations (Eq. 11)
    The entire cluster-structure-bias framework rests on this factorization, with the cosmology term C and cluster term B separable; in simulations C=1 and bn=1 (§3).
  • domain assumption Vikhlinin et al. (2006) and Nagai et al. (2007) parametric profiles adequately describe projected ICM density, temperature, and pressure
    Eqs. (18)–(20): the B measurement is defined as the mismatch between these smooth spherical templates and the projected mock data (§3.1).
  • domain assumption Spectroscopic-like temperature weighting (Mazzotta et al. 2004) is the correct projection for X-ray temperature
    Eq. (16) and §3.1: TX, and hence B, is computed with this weighting; a different weighting would change B.
  • domain assumption Three orthogonal projections of the same 324 halos can be treated as independent objects
    §3.1 inflates the sample to 972; Appendix B checks this via Monte Carlo resampling, but the assumption is still used to set prior widths.
  • domain assumption B is log-normally distributed
    Selected by BIC among skewed distributions (§4.1); used for the analytic marginalisation in Eq. (27). The paper notes observational ηT posteriors are asymmetric and log-normal-like.
  • domain assumption The gadget-x simulation of The300 reproduces the observed ICM properties needed for B
    §2 and §5.1: the B distribution inherits all simulation inaccuracies; the paper explicitly cautions that a residual dependence on the simulation model cannot be excluded.
  • domain assumption B does not evolve with redshift over 0.05 < z < 0.6
    B is measured at z=0 only, while mock data span z up to 0.6 (§4.4, §5.1). The paper argues self-similarity and observational consistency but does not measure B(z).
  • standard math Gaussian likelihood for ln ηT and analytic marginalisation over ln B
    Eq. (27): valid if ln B and the noise are Gaussian; this is a standard Gaussian integral used to speed up the MCMC.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian priors on the class-conditional mean parameters µi, centred on the simulation-fit values
    Table 2: the 3DS model injects the simulation calibration into the cosmological analysis via N(µ_fit, σ_fit) priors on µi; this is a direct channel for the fitted B distribution to influence H0.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Three Hundred Project: Validating $H_0$ inference from mock X-ray and millimetre analyses of galaxy clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MOGHPROE

@misc{pith2026260708613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Three Hundred Project: Validating $H_0$ inference from mock X-ray and millimetre analyses of galaxy clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MOGHPROE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08613}
}
abstract

Measurements of thermodynamical quantities in galaxy clusters are differently affected by simplified modelling of radially averaged observables in the X-ray and millimetre bands. This includes assumptions about the cosmological model and the morphology of the cluster intracluster medium (ICM). Within a large sample of clusters extracted from The Three Hundred hydrodynamical simulations, we assess the systematic differences expected from the morphological assumptions between ICM temperatures as inferred from X-ray spectroscopy or joint X-ray and millimetre imaging. We find that these differences show a well-defined statistical behaviour that correlates with the cluster dynamical and morphological indicators. We then investigate how joint inferences of cluster temperature profiles, a priori informed by this statistical behaviour, allow us to constrain cosmological parameters inferred from the apparent cluster sizes. Assuming a flat $\Lambda$ cold dark matter ($\Lambda$CDM) cosmology and priors on $\Omega_\mathrm{m}$ and the helium abundance, this method provides us with unbiased estimates of the Hubble constant, $H_0$, characterised with a precision of about $4\%$ and $1.5\%$ for samples of 100 and 1000 clusters, respectively, and ultimately limited by systematic uncertainties of about $0.6$--$0.8\, {\rm km\, s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}}$. This work highlights the potential of joint X-ray and millimetre observations of galaxy cluster samples to place tight constraints on $H_0$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08613 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall distributions (grey histograms) of M500 (left panel), the spectroscopic-like temperatures (centre), and the dynamical indicator χ (right). Relaxed, hybrid, and disturbed subsamples are shown with red, green, and blue colours, respectively. Currently, The300 collects the results produced with gadget￾music (Sembolini et al. 2012), gadget-x (Rasia et al. 2015), and gizmo-simba (Cui et al. 2022) suites. For this… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distributions of B for the full sample (grey histogram) and the relaxed (red), hybrid (green), and disturbed (blue) subsamples, together with their best fitting log-normal models (solid curves). The black line shows the combined 3DS class-based model, obtained from the three log-normal components fitted to the dynamical subsamples. A compar￾ison between the K19 distribution and our findings is shown in the inset pan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Correlations between B and the cluster temperature, mass, and the dynamical (χ) and morphological (MSZ, for SZ maps) indicators, respectively from upper to lower panels. Relaxed clusters are shown as red circles, while green triangles and blue squares are used for hybrid and disturbed systems. The χ axis is reversed to match the relaxation ordering of MSZ. MX ≲ −2.5), which should be closer to the spherical shape as… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of the GP regressions with 1σ and 2σ dispersions for the GPkernel (muted teal) and GPhetero (muted amber) models. The trichoto￾mous classification is shown with red circles for relaxed, green triangles for hybrid, and blue squares for disturbed systems, respect…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fractional differences in the H0 MAP estimates with respect to the reference value adopted in the test for the 3DS (black), GPhetero (blue) and GPkernel (red) models of the informative priors, respectively. of the standard deviations always close to unity. In a flat ΛC…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Empirical cumulative distribution of the normalised ranks for the 3DS (black dashed line), GPkernel (red), and GPhetero (blue) models. The solid black line and the grey envelopes show the expectation for a uniform distribution and the confidence intervals at 68% and 95…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2025, Phys

    Abdul Karim, M., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083515

    2025

  2. [2]

    2023, PeerJ Comput

    Abril-Pla, O., Andreani, V ., Carroll, C., et al. 2023, PeerJ Comput. Sci., 9

    2023

  3. [3]

    W., Evrard, A

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

    2011

  4. [4]

    Angulo, R. E. & Hahn, O. 2022, Living Rev. Comput. Astrophys., 8, 1

    2022

  5. [5]

    2020, A&A, 634, A113

    Ansarifard, S., Rasia, E., Biffi, V ., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A113

    2020

  6. [6]

    W., Piffaretti, R., et al

    Arnaud, M., Pratt, G. W., Piffaretti, R., et al. 2010, A&A, 517, A92 Astropy Collaboration. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

    2010

  7. [7]

    W., Démoclès, J., & Lovisari, L

    Bartalucci, I., Arnaud, M., Pratt, G. W., Démoclès, J., & Lovisari, L. 2019, A&A, 628, A86

    2019

  8. [8]

    2023, A&A, 674, A179

    Bartalucci, I., Molendi, S., Rasia, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A179

    2023

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    R., Pfrommer, C., & Sievers, J

    Battaglia, N., Bond, J. R., Pfrommer, C., & Sievers, J. L. 2012, ApJ, 758, 74

    2012

  2. [10]

    M., Murante, G., Arth, A., et al

    Beck, A. M., Murante, G., Arth, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 455, 2110

    2015

  3. [11]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 3545

    Biffi, V ., Dolag, K., Böhringer, H., & Lemson, G. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3545

    2012

  4. [12]

    1999, Phys

    Birkinshaw, M. 1999, Phys. Rep., 310, 97

    1999

  5. [13]

    E., et al

    Bocquet, S., Grandis, S., Bleem, L. E., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 083510 Böhringer, H., Dolag, K., & Chon, G. 2012, A&A, 539, A120 Böhringer, H. & Werner, N. 2010, A&A Rev., 18, 127

    2024

  6. [14]

    K., LaRoque, S

    Bonamente, M., Joy, M. K., LaRoque, S. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 25

    2006

  7. [15]

    2017, ApJ, 843, 72

    Bourdin, H., Mazzotta, P., Kozmanyan, A., Jones, C., & Vikhlinin, A. 2017, ApJ, 843, 72

    2017

  8. [16]

    Buote, D. A. & Tsai, J. C. 1995, ApJ, 452, 522

    1995

  9. [17]

    G., Ettori, S., Lovisari, L., et al

    Campitiello, M. G., Ettori, S., Lovisari, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A117

    2022

  10. [18]

    E., Holder, G

    Carlstrom, J. E., Holder, G. P., & Reese, E. D. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 643

    2002

  11. [19]

    1979, A&A, 75, 322

    Cavaliere, A., Danese, L., & de Zotti, G. 1979, A&A, 75, 322

    1979

  12. [20]

    2025, A&A, 699, A141 CHEX-MATE Collaboration

    Chappuis, L., Eckert, D., Sereno, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A141 CHEX-MATE Collaboration. 2021, A&A, 650, A104

    2025

  13. [21]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 139

    Cialone, G., De Petris, M., Sembolini, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 139

    2018

  14. [22]

    R., Gelman, A., & Rubin, D

    Cook, S. R., Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. 2006, J. Comput. Graph. Stat., 15, 675

    2006

  15. [23]

    Cowie, L. L. & Perrenod, S. C. 1978, ApJ, 219, 354

    1978

  16. [24]

    M., Evrard, A

    Crone, M. M., Evrard, A. E., & Richstone, D. O. 1996, ApJ, 467, 489

    1996

  17. [25]

    Croton, D. J. 2013, PASA, 30, e052

    2013

  18. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 977

    Cui, W., Dave, R., Knebe, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 977

    2022

  19. [27]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 2898

    Cui, W., Knebe, A., Yepes, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2898

    2018

  20. [28]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 2502 De Luca, F., Bourdin, H., Mazzotta, P., et al

    Cui, W., Power, C., Borgani, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2502 De Luca, F., Bourdin, H., Mazzotta, P., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A32 De Luca, F., De Petris, M., Yepes, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5383 Di Valentino, E., Said, J. L., Riess, A., et al. 2025, Phys. Dark Universe, 49, 101965

    2017

  21. [29]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 2198

    Eckert, D., Roncarelli, M., Ettori, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2198

    2015

  22. [30]

    2013, Space Sci

    Ettori, S., Donnarumma, A., Pointecouteau, E., et al. 2013, Space Sci. Rev., 177, 119

    2013

  23. [31]

    2020, Astron

    Ettori, S., Ghirardini, V ., & Eckert, D. 2020, Astron. Nachr, 341, 210

    2020

  24. [32]

    2014, ApJ, 783, L10

    Gaspari, M., Brighenti, F., Temi, P., & Ettori, S. 2014, ApJ, 783, L10

    2014

  25. [33]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 169

    Gaspari, M., Eckert, D., Ettori, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 169

    2019

  26. [34]

    & Rubin, D

    Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Stat. Sci., 7, 457

    1992

  27. [35]

    2024, A&A, 689, A298

    Ghirardini, V ., Bulbul, E., Artis, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A298

    2024

  28. [36]

    2019, A&A, 621, A41

    Ghirardini, V ., Eckert, D., Ettori, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A41

    2019

  29. [37]

    2022, MNRAS, 518, 4238

    Gianfagna, G., Rasia, E., Cui, W., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 518, 4238

    2022

  30. [38]

    J., Klein, M., & Dolag, K

    Grandis, S., Bocquet, S., Mohr, J. J., Klein, M., & Dolag, K. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5671

    2021

  31. [39]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 1031

    Haggar, R., De Luca, F., De Petris, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 1031

    2024

  32. [40]

    E., Pearce, F

    Haggar, R., Gray, M. E., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 6074

    2020

  33. [41]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362

    2020

  34. [42]

    Hastings, W. K. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 97

    1970

  35. [43]

    A., Barnes, D

    Henson, M. A., Barnes, D. J., Kay, S. T., McCarthy, I. G., & Schaye, J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3361

    2017

  36. [44]

    Hoffman, M. D. & Gelman, A. 2014, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 15, 1593

    2014

  37. [45]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90

    2007

  38. [46]

    1986, MNRAS, 222, 323

    Kaiser, N. 1986, MNRAS, 222, 323

    1986

  39. [47]

    2008, ApJ, 674, 11

    Kawahara, H., Kitayama, T., Sasaki, S., & Suto, Y . 2008, ApJ, 674, 11

    2008

  40. [48]

    2024, A&A, 686, A97

    Kim, J., Sayers, J., Sereno, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A97

    2024

  41. [49]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340

    Klypin, A., Yepes, G., Gottlöber, S., Prada, F., & Heß, S. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340

    2016

  42. [50]

    Knollmann, S. R. & Knebe, A. 2009, ApJS, 182, 608

    2009

  43. [51]

    2019, A&A, 621, A34

    Kozmanyan, A., Bourdin, H., Mazzotta, P., Rasia, E., & Sereno, M. 2019, A&A, 621, A34

    2019

  44. [52]

    Kravtsov, A. V . & Borgani, S. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 353

    2012

  45. [53]

    V ., Vikhlinin, A., & Nagai, D

    Kravtsov, A. V ., Vikhlinin, A., & Nagai, D. 2006, ApJ, 650, 128

    2006

  46. [54]

    Kumar, R., Carroll, C., Hartikainen, A., & Martin, O. 2019, J. Open Source Softw., 4, 1143

    2019

  47. [55]

    T., Hearin, A

    Lau, E. T., Hearin, A. P., Nagai, D., & Cappelluti, N. 2020, MNRAS, 500, 1029

    2020

  48. [56]

    T., Nagai, D., Avestruz, C., Nelson, K., & Vikhlinin, A

    Lau, E. T., Nagai, D., Avestruz, C., Nelson, K., & Vikhlinin, A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 68

    2015

  49. [57]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1228

    Li, Q., Cui, W., Yang, X., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1228

    2023

  50. [58]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 2930 Article number, page 11 of 16 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Li, Q., Cui, W., Yang, X., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2930 Article number, page 11 of 16 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa60643-26

    2020

  51. [59]

    2024, A&A, 682, A45

    Lovisari, L., Ettori, S., Rasia, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A45

    2024

  52. [60]

    V ., Dutton, A

    Maccio, A. V ., Dutton, A. A., Van Den Bosch, F. C., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 55

    2007

  53. [61]

    H., Clowe, D., et al

    Markevitch, M., Gonzalez, A. H., Clowe, D., et al. 2004, ApJ, 606, 819

    2004

  54. [62]

    E., & Mohr, J

    Mathiesen, B., Evrard, A. E., & Mohr, J. J. 1999, ApJ, 520, L21

    1999

  55. [63]

    2004, MNRAS, 354, 10

    Mazzotta, P., Rasia, E., Moscardini, L., & Tormen, G. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 10

    2004

  56. [64]

    W., Bayliss, M., et al

    McDonald, M., Allen, S. W., Bayliss, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 28

    2017

  57. [65]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 56 – 61

    2010

  58. [66]

    2010, A&A, 514, A93

    Meneghetti, M., Rasia, E., Merten, J., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A93

    2010

  59. [67]

    W., Rosenbluth, M

    Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., & Teller, E. 1953, J. Chem. Phys., 21, 1087

    1953

  60. [68]

    2024, A&A, 688, A107

    Migkas, K., Kox, D., Schellenberger, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A107

    2024

  61. [69]

    2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics (First Edition), first edition edn., ed

    Miyatake, H. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics (First Edition), first edition edn., ed. I. Mandel (Oxford: Elsevier), 410–430

    2026

  62. [70]

    J., Fabricant, D

    Mohr, J. J., Fabricant, D. G., & Geller, M. J. 1993, ApJ, 413, 492

    1993

  63. [71]

    V ., & Vikhlinin, A

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

    2007

  64. [72]

    Neal, R. M. 2003, Ann. Stat., 31, 705

    2003

  65. [73]

    F., Gao, L., Bett, P., et al

    Neto, A. F., Gao, L., Bett, P., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1450

    2007

  66. [74]

    2010, A&A, 523, A22

    Nevalainen, J., David, L., & Guainazzi, M. 2010, A&A, 523, A22

    2010

  67. [75]

    A., et al

    Nurgaliev, D., McDonald, M., Benson, B. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 5 Pandas development team. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas

    2017

  68. [76]

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 12, 2825 Planck Collaboration VI. 2020, A&A, 641, A6 Planck Collaboration XIII. 2016, A&A, 594, A13 Planck Collaboration XXIV. 2016, A&A, 594, A24

    2011

  69. [77]

    Planelles, S., Schleicher, D. R. G., & Bykov, A. M. 2015, Space Sci. Rev., 188, 93

    2015

  70. [78]

    W., Arnaud, M., Biviano, A., et al

    Pratt, G. W., Arnaud, M., Biviano, A., et al. 2019, Space Sci. Rev., 215, 25

    2019

  71. [79]

    2015, ApJ, 813, L17

    Rasia, E., Borgani, S., Murante, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, L17

    2015

  72. [80]

    2013, Astron

    Rasia, E., Meneghetti, M., & Ettori, S. 2013, Astron. Rev., 8, 40

    2013

  73. [81]

    2012, New J

    Rasia, E., Meneghetti, M., Martino, R., et al. 2012, New J. Phys., 14, 055018

    2012

  74. [82]

    2025, A&A, 702, A182

    Rasia, E., Tripodi, R., Borgani, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A182

    2025

  75. [83]

    Rasmussen, C. E. & Williams, C. K. I. 2005, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (The MIT Press)

    2005

  76. [84]

    Reese, E. D. 2004, in Measuring and Modeling the Universe, ed. W. L. Freed- man, 138

    2004

  77. [85]

    D., Kawahara, H., Kitayama, T., et al

    Reese, E. D., Kawahara, H., Kitayama, T., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 653

    2010

  78. [86]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 3030

    Roncarelli, M., Ettori, S., Borgani, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3030

    2013

  79. [87]

    2024, A&A, 686, A68

    Rossetti, M., Eckert, D., Gastaldello, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A68

    2024

  80. [88]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 1917

    Rossetti, M., Gastaldello, F., Eckert, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1917

    2017

  81. [89]

    S., Rosati, P., Tozzi, P., et al

    Santos, J. S., Rosati, P., Tozzi, P., et al. 2008, A&A, 483, 35

    2008

  82. [90]

    S., Tozzi, P., Rosati, P., & Böhringer, H

    Santos, J. S., Tozzi, P., Rosati, P., & Böhringer, H. 2010, A&A, 521, A64

    2010

  83. [91]

    J., Crampton, D., et al

    Schade, D., Lilly, S. J., Crampton, D., et al. 1995, ApJ, 451

    1995

  84. [92]

    H., Lovisari, L., Nevalainen, J., & David, L

    Schellenberger, G., Reiprich, T. H., Lovisari, L., Nevalainen, J., & David, L. 2015, A&A, 575, A30

    2015

  85. [93]

    W., Allen, S

    Schmidt, R. W., Allen, S. W., & Fabian, A. C. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1413

    2004

  86. [94]

    2012, MNRAS, 429, 323

    Sembolini, F., Yepes, G., De Petris, M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 429, 323

    2012

  87. [95]

    2018, ApJ, 860, L4

    Sereno, M., Umetsu, K., Ettori, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, L4

    2018

  88. [96]

    & White, S

    Silk, J. & White, S. D. M. 1978, ApJ, 226, L103

    1978

  89. [97]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    2005

  90. [98]

    Sulkanen, M. E. 1999, ApJ, 522, 59

    1999

  91. [99]

    2024, Phys

    Sunayama, T., Miyatake, H., Sugiyama, S., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 083511

    2024

  92. [100]

    Sunyaev, R. A. & Zeldovich, I. B. 1980, ARA&A, 18, 537

    1980

  93. [101]

    Sunyaev, R. A. & Zeldovich, Y . B. 1972, Com. Ap&SS, 4, 173

    1972

  94. [102]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1804.06788

    Talts, S., Betancourt, M., Simpson, D., Vehtari, A., & Gelman, A. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1804.06788

    2018 arXiv

  95. [103]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 4089

    Truong, N., Rasia, E., Mazzotta, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4089

    2018

  96. [104]

    2021, Bayesian Anal., 16, 667

    Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., Simpson, D., Carpenter, B., & Bürkner, P.-C. 2021, Bayesian Anal., 16, 667

    2021

  97. [105]

    2006, ApJ, 640, 691

    Vikhlinin, A., Kravtsov, A., Forman, W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 691

    2006

  98. [106]

    V ., Burenin, R

    Vikhlinin, A., Kravtsov, A. V ., Burenin, R. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1060

    2009

  99. [107]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nat. Methods, 17, 261 V ogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., Torrey, P., & Puchwein, E. 2020, Nat. Rev. Phys., 2, 42 V oit, G. M. 2005, Rev. Mod. Phys., 77, 207

    2020

  100. [108]

    T., Mantz, A

    Wan, J. T., Mantz, A. B., Sayers, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1062

    2021

  101. [109]

    Waskom, M. L. 2021, J. Open Source Softw., 6, 3021

    2021

  102. [110]

    H., Mortonson, M

    Weinberg, D. H., Mortonson, M. J., Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2013, Phys. Rep., 530, 87

    2013

  103. [111]

    A., Bi ffi, V ., Hallman, E

    ZuHone, J. A., Bi ffi, V ., Hallman, E. J., et al. 2014, in Proceedings of the 13th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Bergstra, 98–104

    2014

  104. [112]

    ZuHone, J. A. & Hallman, E. J. 2016, pyXSIM: Synthetic X-ray observations generator Article number, page 12 of 16 F. De Luca et al.: The300 Project: Validating H0 inference from mock X-ray and millimetre analyses of galaxy clusters Appendix A: Dependence on LOS integration 0.5...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.