Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Sensitive 3mm Imaging of Discrete Sources in the Fields of X-ray-Selected Galaxy Clusters

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Compact radio sources near cluster centers can push X-ray-selected clusters out of tSZ surveys, and this paper measures the effect at 4.5%.

desk verdict A careful new 90 GHz survey of X-ray-selected clusters that likely finds a real contamination effect, but the headline 4.5% missed-cluster figure is a proxy, not a measured fraction, and the paper contradicts itself between abstract and conclusions. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00904 v1 pith:XXNTCNJF submitted 2026-08-02 astro-ph.CO

Simon R Dicker , Mark Devlin , Luca Di Mascolo , Saianeesh Haridas , Matt Hilton , Joshiwa van Marrewijk , Brian S. Mason , Emily Moravec
show 4 more authors
Tony Mroczkowski John Orlowski-Scherer Charles Romero Craig Sarazin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxyclustersSunyaev-ZeldovicheffectX-raysurveyscompactradiosourcestSZsurveycompletenessmatchedfilterMUSTANG2eFEDS
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 investigates why some galaxy clusters that should be detectable by millimeter-wave tSZ surveys are missing from tSZ catalogs. Using high-resolution 90 GHz observations of 138 X-ray-selected clusters from eFEDS, it finds 11 compact radio sources, distributed closer to cluster centers than sources in a comparable tSZ-selected sample. When each source is run through the matched-filter response of the ACT DR5 survey (Equation 1), 4.5% of the X-ray-selected clusters have their measured Compton-y suppressed by more than 25%, enough to push them below the detection threshold. The same calculation gives 1.5% for tSZ-selected clusters and the Websky simulation. The paper concludes that compact source contamination creates a small but non-random incompleteness in tSZ cluster surveys, more pronounced for X-ray-selected systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is Equation 1, $\Delta \tilde{y}_0 = I \, \delta\tilde{y}_0 \, N(r) \, A(\alpha)$, which converts a point source's 90 GHz flux $I$, its projected radius $r$ from the cluster center, and its spectral index $\alpha$ into the resulting change in the ACT DR5 central Compton-$y$. The functions $N(r)$ and $A(\alpha)$ (Figure 1, from D2021) encode how the survey's matched filter responds to a point source; $N(r)$ has a null at 104 arcseconds, so sources inside this radius suppress the measured tSZ signal while sources outside add to it. This sign change is what makes centrally located sources dangerous for cluster detection and determines the 4.5% missed fraction.

What would settle it

Re-run the ACT DR5 cluster-detection pipeline on the same 138 eFEDS clusters after subtracting the 11 detected compact sources from the maps; if the number of new detections is not consistent with the predicted 4.5% fraction (about 6 clusters), the matched-filter response model underlying the estimate is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central discovery: A blind 90 GHz survey of 138 X-ray-selected eFEDS clusters with MUSTANG2 found 11 compact sources, all with radio counterparts. Crucially, the sources in X-ray-selected clusters are concentrated near cluster centers, where their positive flux cancels the negative tSZ decrement. Applying the ACT DR5 matched-filter response functions (Equation 1) to each detected source predicts that 4.5% of the X-ray-selected sample has a measured Compton-y more than 25% below its true value—enough to miss these clusters—versus 1.5% for tSZ-selected clusters and the Websky simulation. The paper also shows the X-ray masses that placed these clusters above ACT detection limits are biased high

Load-bearing premise

The 4.5% missed-cluster fraction depends on the accuracy of the matched-filter response functions N(r) and A(α) from Dicker et al. (2021) in representing the actual ACT DR5 pipeline; if those curves are wrong for real data (for instance, if the filter response changes with angular resolution or source extension), the missed fraction changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • tSZ cluster surveys like ACT DR5 have a source-induced incompleteness of order 4.5% for X-ray-selected clusters and 1.5% for tSZ-selected clusters, which must be folded into cluster count cosmology.
  • The missed clusters are not uniformly distributed: they preferentially have compact radio sources near their centers, so any cosmological analysis using tSZ cluster samples carries a selection bias tied to radio-loud active galactic nuclei.
  • The X-ray mass estimates used to build the eFEDS sample are biased high by a factor of 1.9 compared to weak-lensing masses, meaning X-ray-selected samples contain many lower-mass clusters than their X-ray masses suggest.
  • The source distributions in X-ray- and tSZ-selected clusters differ: X-ray clusters have more central flux, tSZ clusters have more flux at radii >104 arcsec where sources boost the measured signal; this explains why the two selection methods see different contamination patterns.
  • The 4.5% estimate is consistent with the 2–3% missed-cluster estimate from recent ACT DR6 analyses, suggesting the effect persists even with deeper data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The true missed fraction is likely a lower bound: the survey reaches 5σ at 1 mJy, and fainter sources below this threshold will also suppress $y$; deeper 90 GHz imaging of the same fields would test this.
  • The filter-specific $N(r)$ and $A(\alpha)$ mean the 4.5% number applies to ACT DR5-like pipelines; other tSZ surveys with different matched filters need their own high-resolution source surveys to quantify equivalent incompleteness.
  • If central radio sources preferentially trace active galactic nuclei, then the missed clusters may be biased toward systems with recent feedback or merging activity, which could affect scatter in scaling relations.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a blind 90 GHz MUSTANG2 survey of 138 X-ray-selected eFEDS galaxy clusters, of which 96 are new observations, with the goal of quantifying how compact radio sources can suppress the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (tSZ) signal and thereby cause clusters to be missed in surveys such as ACT DR5/DR6. The survey reaches a central 5-sigma detection limit near 1 mJy, detects 11 discrete sources (all with radio counterparts), and compares their fluxes and radial distribution with the tSZ-selected M2-ACT sample and with the Websky simulation. Using the D2021 response functions (Equation 1) to convert source flux, projected radius, and spectral index into a change in the measured central Compton-y, the paper reports that 4.5% of the X-ray-selected clusters have measured Compton-y more than 25% below the true value, versus 1.5% for the tSZ-selected and Websky samples, and frames this as a cluster-missed fraction for tSZ surveys.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a useful empirical constraint on a known systematic in cluster cosmology: compact-source contamination of tSZ signals. The observational design is a strength: the survey is blind, uses signal-free noise maps and explicit false-positive control, and the source SED matching is careful. The comparison between an X-ray-selected sample and a tSZ-selected sample is well motivated and helps separate selection effects. However, the headline 4.5% figure is currently a proxy for missed clusters rather than a measured detection-completeness loss, it has no quoted uncertainty, and it is inconsistent with the 3% figure in the Conclusions. The result is therefore better viewed as an indication of a few-percent-level effect that needs further qualification and validation before it can support the strong abstract wording.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 5; Section 6] The headline number is internally inconsistent. The abstract and Section 5 state that 4.5% of the X-ray-selected sample have a measured tSZ signal more than 25% below the true value, while the Conclusions state that the extra central sources 'would result in 3% of clusters having measured tSZ signals lower than their true value by 25%.' This is the same quantity presented as 4.5% and 3% with no explanation. The paper must reconcile these numbers and state explicitly which sample and definition each percentage refers to.
  2. [Abstract; Section 5] The leap from y0/ytrue < 0.75 to 'clusters being missed' is not supported. Section 5 defines the 25% suppression threshold and calls those clusters 'potentially missed'; the abstract drops the qualifier and converts this proxy into a definite missed fraction. A cluster with a high true y can lose 25% and still be detected, while a cluster near the detection threshold could be lost with less suppression. No end-to-end simulation of the ACT DR5/DR6 matched-filter detection pipeline is provided. At minimum the abstract must say 'potentially missed' or 'would have measured signals suppressed by >25%,' and ideally the paper should estimate the actual completeness loss using the survey selection function.
  3. [Equation (1); Figure 1; Section 5] The calculation relies on the response functions N(r) and A(alpha) taken from Dicker et al. (2021) for the ACT DR5 matched filter. Figure 1 itself acknowledges that 'the exact shape depends on the matched filters used by a given tSZ survey,' yet the paper applies these functions to the new sample and then compares with the DR6-based estimate from ACT DES HSC Collaboration et al. (2025). No sensitivity analysis is given for plausible changes in N(r) or A(alpha), or for a DR6-specific response. Since the null at 104 arcsec and the sign of the response determine the central result, this is a load-bearing systematic that needs to be quantified or justified.
  4. [Table 2; Section 4.1; Section 5] The key comparison of 4.5% (X-ray-selected) versus 1.5% (tSZ-selected and Websky) is based on only 11 detected sources, and the M2-eFEDS sample includes 42 clusters that also appear in the M2-ACT sample, so the two observational samples are not independent. No statistical uncertainty is quoted for the percentages. With 138 clusters, each source corresponds to roughly 0.7%, so the internal 4.5% vs 3% discrepancy and the cross-sample 4.5% vs 1.5% difference may be marginal. The paper should quote Poisson/bootstrap uncertainties and account for the sample overlap when making the comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1; Section 6] The number of eFEDS clusters missing from DR5 is given as 96 in the abstract and Section 2.1, but Section 6 says '27 of the 98 clusters seen in eFEDS but not DR5'. Please make the count consistent.
  2. [Section 2.2] There is a typo: 'with with the same mapmaker settings' should read 'with the same mapmaker settings'. Also 'medium noise' should presumably be 'median noise'.
  3. [Equation (1)] The factor w appears in Equation (1) but is not defined in the text. Please define all symbols explicitly, including its value and role.
  4. [Figure 3] The figure caption states that solid and dashed parts of the response line represent regions where the source reduces or increases the measured Compton-y, but it would be clearer to spell this out directly in the caption rather than only in the text.
  5. [Table 3] The table lists tSZ masses of 0.00 or 'neg Y' for many clusters. The text explains that negative Compton-y values are set to zero, but it would be helpful to clarify how these entries are treated in the mass comparisons and whether they enter the analysis at all.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 4.5% suppression estimate is a model-based projection using a prior published response function, not a fit or a self-referential prediction.

full rationale

Section 5's estimate that 4.5% of the X-ray-selected sample has a measured Compton-y more than 25% below the true value is not circular. Equation 1 uses the response functions N(r) and A(α) from Dicker et al. (2021), a previously published model of the ACT DR5 matched filter, to convert the MUSTANG2-measured 90 GHz fluxes and positions into a change in central Compton-y. These functions are not fitted to the present eFEDS data; they are an independent input taken from prior work, and the paper explicitly notes their matched-filter dependence ('The exact shape depends on the matched filters used by a given tSZ survey but will be similar to these examples from ACT DR5'). The comparison to the Websky simulation and to the M2-ACT sample provides external benchmarks. The abstract's wording 'missed by tSZ surveys' overstates Section 5's actual criterion ('potentially missed' clusters with >25% suppression), and the Conclusions give 3% rather than 4.5% for the same quantity; these are internal consistency/communication issues, not instances where a prediction reduces to its inputs by construction. No parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction, and no load-bearing claim rests solely on an unverified self-citation. The central derivation chain—observed source fluxes, Equation 1, suppression fraction—is self-contained given the cited response model.

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

The analysis is an observational survey; it introduces no new physical entities. Its quantitative conclusions rest on adopted filter response functions, completeness corrections, mass estimates from external surveys, and the Websky simulation, each assumed rather than derived in this paper.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The matched-filter response functions N(r) and A(alpha) from Dicker et al. (2021) correctly predict the change in measured ACT DR5 Compton-y from a point source (Equation 1, Figure 1).
    The central 4.5% missed-cluster estimate is computed using these functions; they are not derived in this paper and are stated to depend on the specific matched filters of ACT DR5.
  • domain assumption The MUSTANG2 survey completeness as a function of flux and radius, estimated by injecting simulated sources into real data (Section 4.2), accurately describes the selection function, and sources below the 1 mJy detection threshold do not alter the conclusions.
    The Websky comparison applies this completeness to simulated sources; faint undetected sources are assumed to have a minor effect on the y0/ytrue distribution.
  • domain assumption The eFEDS X-ray masses and the Chiu et al. (2022) weak-lensing masses are accurate, so the median ratio of 1.9 indicates a genuine overestimation of X-ray masses rather than a selection effect.
    The claim that most ACT non-detections are due to X-ray mass overestimation relies on this comparison; WL masses are available for only a subset of the sample.
  • domain assumption The Websky simulation (Stein et al. 2020; Li et al. 2022) is a valid model of the compact source population in clusters, with sources placed in cluster centers, and is an appropriate benchmark.
    Used as the main theoretical comparison in Section 4.2 and Figure 6 to validate the observed radial source distribution.
  • domain assumption The noise in the central 3 arcmin of the MUSTANG2 maps is Gaussian, and the 5-sigma (7-sigma outside 3 arcmin) SNR cuts give a false-positive rate below 10% for the whole sample.
    The source catalog and the 11 detections rely on these statistical thresholds, verified with signal-free noise maps.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitive 3mm Imaging of Discrete Sources in the Fields of X-ray-Selected Galaxy Clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XXNTCNJF

@misc{pith2026260800904,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitive 3mm Imaging of Discrete Sources in the Fields of X-ray-Selected Galaxy Clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XXNTCNJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00904}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we present the results of a blind survey for compact sources in 138 galaxy clusters from the eFEDS X-ray survey. Of these clusters, 96 are new observations. These targets have X-ray mass estimates and redshifts that formally place them above the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (tSZ) survey limits from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT, DR5), yet were not detected. Compact sources with apparent locations close to (<104") the center of a galaxy cluster can in-fill the tSZ flux decrement, resulting in tSZ surveys missing clusters. To quantify the number of missing clusters from ACT, we carried out a survey at 90GHz using MUSTANG2 on the Green Bank Telescope and achieved a 5-sigma detection limit of 1mJy in the center of each cluster. We detected 11 discrete sources, which when scaled, is slightly lower than our previous tSZ selected sample, M2-ACT (8.0% vs 9.9%). All had radio counterparts. However, unlike the M2-ACT sample, the sources in X-ray selected clusters were concentrated closer to the cluster centers. When their effect on the measured tSZ signal is taken into account the sources we found would result in 4.5% of clusters being missed by tSZ surveys - a result similar to the estimate in recent ACT results. Most of the 96 clusters in eFEDS but not in ACT are a result of noise and overestimation of mass from X-ray measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00904 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. How a source of fixed amplitude at 90 GHz affects the recovered Compton-y parameter varies depend￾ing on its projected distance from the cluster center and the source spectral index. [Reproduced from Dicker et al. (2021)]. This can be represented by the functions N(r) (up￾per panel) which has a null at 104′′ and A(α) (lower panel). The exact shape depends on the matched filters used by a given tSZ survey but will be… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histograms of the signal-to-noise ratios of pix￾els in the MUSTANG2 maps. Inside a radius of 3′ the his￾tograms fall off rapidly and a 5σ cut should produce less than one false positive in our survey which has O105 independent beams. Outside this radius, there are fewer observations per pixel and the noise statistics have a significant non-Gaussian tail. Consequently, a 7σ cut was needed to obtain the same false-pos… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The fluxes and distances from the cluster centers of sources found in this survey compared to our previous tSZ selected sample M2-ACT. Shown in red is the response of the ACT DR5 cluster pipeline to a compact source. Solid parts of this line are regions where a source reduces the measured Compton-y while in the dashed region a source increases the measured value. The black dashed line represents the 50% completeness… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An SNR plot of one of our sources (top) and the corresponding SED plot (bottom). On the SNR plot, the MUSTANG2 source is shown as the red circle along with its detected SNR value. Sources from other point-source cata￾logs are shown as the same symbols used on the SED p…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The average 90 GHz flux from point sources as a function of radius for M2-eFEDS, M2-ACT from D2024, and the Websky simulation. Plotted on top is the response function of the matched filter used to find the tSZ clusters with the dashed line representing a negative respo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative plots of the fractional change in mea￾sured Compton-y caused by sources calculated using Equa￾tion 1. The red curve is for M2-eFEDS while the blue curve is for the tSZ selected sample, M2-ACT (from D2024). Results using sources from the Websky simulation are…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.21459, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.21459

    ACT DES HSC Collaboration, Aguena, M., Aiola, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.21459, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.21459

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21459 2025

  2. [2]

    2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 056–056, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056

    Ade, P., Aguirre, J., Ahmed, Z., et al. 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 056–056, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056 2019

  3. [3]

    2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 55863, doi: 10.33232/001c.155863

    Aguena, M., Aiola, S., Allam, S., et al. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 55863, doi: 10.33232/001c.155863

    doi:10.33232/001c.155863 2026

  4. [4]

    W., Evrard, A

    Allen, S. W., Evrard, A. E., & Mantz, A. B. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 409, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514 2011

  5. [5]

    N., von der Linden, A., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T

    Best, P. N., von der Linden, A., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., & Kaiser, C. R. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 894, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11937.x

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

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

    Bleem, L. E., Bocquet, S., Stalder, B., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6993

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6993 2020

  7. [7]

    E., Klein, M., Abbot, T

    Bleem, L. E., Klein, M., Abbot, T. M. C., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 13, doi: 10.21105/astro.2311.07512

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    E., et al

    Bocquet, S., Grandis, S., Bleem, L. E., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 083510, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083510

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.083510 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    2022, A&A, 661, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141755

    Chiu, I.-N., Ghirardini, V., Liu, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141755

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    E., et al

    Coble, K., Bonamente, M., Carlstrom, J. E., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 897, doi: 10.1086/519973

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2012, Explanatory Supplement to the WISE All-Sky Data Release Products

    2012

  4. [12]

    R., Battistelli, E

    Dicker, S. R., Battistelli, E. S., Bhandarkar, T., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 2600, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2679

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Sarmiento, K

    Dicker, S. R., Sarmiento, K. P., Mason, B., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 970, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4e35

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Boyce, M

    Gordon, Y. A., Boyce, M. M., O’Dea, C. P., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    B., & Marriage, T

    Gralla, M. B., & Marriage, T. A. 2020, ApJ, 893, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7916

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, ApJS, 253, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd023

    Hilton, M., Sif´ on, C., Naess, S., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd023

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K

    Intema, H. T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K. P., & Frail, D. A. 2017, A&A, 598, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628536

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., et al

    Jarrett, T. H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 2498, doi: 10.1086/301330

    2000 doi

  11. [19]

    S., & Alvarez, M

    Li, Z., Puglisi, G., Madhavacheril, M. S., & Alvarez, M. A. 2022, JCAP, 2022, 029, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/08/029

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Lin, Y.-T., & Mohr, J. J. 2007, ApJS, 170, 71, doi: 10.1086/513565

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    2022, A&A, 661, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141120

    Liu, A., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141120

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Aird, K

    McMahon, J. J., Aird, K. A., Benson, B. A., et al. 2009, in AIP Conf. Proc., Vol. 1185, LTD13, ed. B. Young, B. Cabrera, & A. Miller, 511–514, doi: 10.1063/1.3292391

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    2019, SSRv, 215, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11214-019-0581-2

    Mroczkowski, T., Nagai, D., Basu, K., et al. 2019, SSRv, 215, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11214-019-0581-2

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    E., Sievers, J., Ghirardini, V., et al

    Romero, C. E., Sievers, J., Ghirardini, V., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d70

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Schulz, B., Marton, G., Valtchanov, I., et al. 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 231, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #231, 361.21

    2018

  19. [27]

    2020, JCAP, 2020, 012, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/10/012 9

    Battaglia, N. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 012, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/10/012 9

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Ade, P

    Thornton, R. J., Ade, P. A. R., Aiola, S., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/21

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Becker, R

    White, R. L., Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J., & Gregg, M. D. 1997, ApJ, 475, 479, doi: 10.1086/303564

    1997 doi

  22. [30]

    2013, WISE All-Sky Release Catalog SCS, VO resource provided by the GA VO Data Center

    Wright, E., Cutri, R., & et al. 2013, WISE All-Sky Release Catalog SCS, VO resource provided by the GA VO Data Center. http://dc.zah.uni-heidelberg.de/wise/q/s/info 1 APPENDIX 2 Figure 4a.On-line Extra: Signal to noise plots of our sources and their corresponding spectral ener...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.