Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Joint X-ray, kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich, and weak lensing measurements: toward a consensus picture of efficient gas expulsion from groups and clusters

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Joint kSZ, X-ray, and galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements show that groups and clusters expel roughly twice as much gas as the fiducial FLAMINGO simulation predicts, with the strongest-feedback variant matching the data and implying ~10%…

desk verdict A strong multi-probe case that feedback depletes gas more than fiducial FLAMINGO, but the 'consensus' headline overreaches the mass range that the data actually support. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10455 v1 pith:NCYZEK6L submitted 2025-09-12 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Jared Siegel , Alexandra Amon , Ian G. McCarthy , Leah Bigwood , Masaya Yamamoto , Esra Bulbul , Jenny E. Greene , Jamie McCullough
show 2 more authors
Matthieu Schaller Joop Schaye
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords kineticSunyaev-ZeldovicheffecteROSITAX-raygasfractionsgalaxy-galaxylensingbaryonfeedbackmatterpowerspectrumsuppressionFLAMINGOsimulationsgalaxygroupsandclustersAGN
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

The paper aims to establish how much gas active galactic nuclei and other feedback processes expel from galaxy groups and clusters, and how far that gas travels. It combines three observational probes—stacked kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (kSZ) profiles, eROSITA X-ray gas fractions, and galaxy-galaxy lensing—and anchors each sample to a mean halo mass using the lensing signal. The authors find that the fiducial FLAMINGO simulation, calibrated to pre-eROSITA gas fractions, leaves halos too gas-rich: eROSITA gas fractions are about twice as low as the simulation, and the kSZ profiles disagree by more than $8\sigma$ combined. A FLAMINGO variant with the strongest feedback, produced by more powerful but less frequent AGN outbursts, matches the gas distribution out to several $R_{500}$ across halo masses $10^{13}$–$10^{14}\,M_\odot$ and redshifts $0

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the GGL-calibrated sample selection: for each observed kSZ stack or X-ray sample, the authors choose simulated galaxies above a minimum stellar mass, or halos above a minimum mass, so that the predicted galaxy-galaxy lensing profile $\Delta\Sigma(R)$ matches the measurement, marginalizing over the observed redshift distribution. This fixes the mean halo mass and satellite fraction, breaking the degeneracy between feedback strength and sample composition. The kSZ prediction then stacks Doppler-$b$ parameter maps through the same compensated aperture filter and Gaussian beam convolution as the observations, while the X-ray comparison uses eROSITA-reported gas masses at the GGL-calibrated halo masses.

What would settle it

Recompute the eROSITA gas fractions using an independent X-ray flux calibration and hydrostatic or lensing mass estimates; if the gas fractions rise to the fiducial FLAMINGO relation, or if the GGL-calibrated halo masses shift by more than roughly $0.4$ dex, the claimed discrepancy would disappear. A complementary check is to apply the exact kSZ velocity-reconstruction pipeline to simulated FLAMINGO skies: if the recovered amplitudes match the fiducial simulation rather than the data, the inferred feedback strength is an artifact of velocity bias.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that gas expulsion beyond $R_{500}$ is much more efficient than most hydrodynamical simulations produce. The authors achieve a like-with-like comparison by selecting simulated FLAMINGO galaxies or halos whose stacked galaxy-galaxy lensing profile reproduces the observed one, fixing the mean halo mass and satellite fraction before comparing gas probes. Under that calibration, the fiducial FLAMINGO simulation overpredicts the kSZ amplitude for all five primary stacks and overpredicts eROSITA gas fractions by roughly a factor of two; the combined kSZ discrepancy is $>8\sigma$. The strongest feedback variant ($f_{\rm gas}-8\sigma$) reproduces the kSZ and X-ray measurements to within about $2\sigma$, simultaneously matching the gas distribution out to several $R_{500}$ across $M_{500}=10^{13}{-}10^{14}\,M_\odot$ and $0<z<1$. The authors take this as indirect evidence that baryon feedback suppresses the matter power spectrum by roughly $10\%$ at $k=1\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ relative to a dark-matter-only universe.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that selecting FLAMINGO galaxies to match the observed galaxy-galaxy lensing profile yields the same mean halo mass and satellite fraction as the real samples, which relies on the simulation's stellar mass-to-halo mass mapping being unbiased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fiducial FLAMINGO simulation, calibrated to pre-eROSITA gas fractions, overpredicts the hot gas content of groups and clusters and is excluded by the five primary kSZ stacks at $>8\sigma$ combined.
  • The strongest-feedback variant ($f_{\rm gas}-8\sigma$) matches both the eROSITA gas fractions and the kSZ profiles to about $2\sigma$, so the data favor more powerful but less frequent AGN outbursts.
  • Gas expulsion in this picture extends beyond several $R_{500}$, not just in the core, implying the baryon feedback effect on the matter power spectrum is about $10\%$ at $k=1\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$.
  • The agreement spans $M_{500}=10^{13}$ to $10^{14}\,M_\odot$ and $0<z<1$, so low-redshift clusters and higher-redshift groups are consistent with the same feedback efficiency.
  • The two highest-mass DESI LRG bins are omitted from the primary comparison because spectroscopic and photometric kSZ measurements disagree there; both still disfavor the fiducial simulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the inferred $\sim10\%$ suppression at $k=1\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ holds, weak-lensing analyses of the nonlinear matter distribution will need stronger baryon-feedback corrections than most current simulation-based models provide.
  • Forward-modeling the eROSITA X-ray selection function into FLAMINGO would test whether selection bias contributes to the low gas fractions; if it does, the required feedback strength could weaken.
  • Running the same peculiar-velocity reconstruction pipeline on simulated skies, rather than using true velocities, is a direct test of whether the inferred feedback strength is an artifact of velocity-reconstruction bias.
  • The spectroscopic-versus-photometric kSZ disagreement at $M_{500}\gtrsim2\times10^{13}\,M_\odot$ could be resolved by an independent measurement of the same luminous red galaxies; whichever survives decides whether even the strongest FLAMINGO variant is sufficient.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a joint analysis of stacked kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich (kSZ) profiles from SDSS+ACT and DESI+ACT, eROSITA X-ray gas mass fractions, and new galaxy-galaxy lensing (GGL) measurements for the kSZ and X-ray samples. The authors select simulated FLAMINGO galaxies and halos that reproduce the observed GGL profiles, thereby fixing the mean halo mass and satellite fraction in a like-with-like comparison, and then compare the observed and simulated kSZ and gas fraction profiles across M500 = 10^13-10^14 Msun and z < 1. They find that the fiducial FLAMINGO simulation overpredicts gas content by >8 sigma in kSZ and by roughly a factor of two in eROSITA gas fractions, and that the strongest-feedback FLAMINGO variant (fgas -8sigma) matches the lower-mass kSZ samples and the eROSITA gas fractions, implying about 10% suppression of the matter power spectrum at k = 1 h/Mpc. The fiducial analysis excludes the two highest-mass DESI LRG kSZ bins (M3 and M4) because the spectroscopic and photometric pipelines disagree there; the spectroscopic M3/M4 profiles require even stronger feedback than fgas -8sigma.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a valuable multi-probe constraint: it combines three independent observables, uses GGL to break the mass-feedback degeneracy, and provides a concrete simulation benchmark. The paper's strengths include the detailed systematics checks in Appendices A and B, the independent kSZ versus X-ray evidence, and the transparent discussion of exclusions and limitations. The claimed ~10% power suppression, if correct, has direct implications for weak-lensing cosmology and for the interpretation of upcoming surveys. However, the high-mass kSZ inconsistency and the partial calibration of fgas -8sigma to shifted pre-eROSITA gas fractions mean that the 'consensus' claim in the abstract and conclusions is stronger than the evidence in the fiducial analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.1, Appendix C, Table 1] The fiducial kSZ comparison excludes the two highest-mass DESI LRG bins, M3 and M4, because the spectroscopic and photometric pipelines disagree there. This exclusion is made after inspecting the data, and it removes exactly the bins where the strongest-feedback model fails: Table 1 reports deviations of 4.34 sigma and 5.81 sigma for the spectroscopic M3 and M4 profiles against fgas -8sigma, while the photometric profiles are consistent with that model. The abstract and Section 7 nonetheless state that fgas -8sigma 'provides a good description' of the gas distribution across M500 = 10^13-10^14 Msun and z < 1. That statement is not supported by the fiducial sample: at the upper end of the quoted range (log M500 approximately 13.4-13.8), the spectroscopic data demand even stronger gas expulsion and the two pipelines are mutually inconsistent. The claimed mass range should be restricted to log M500 less than about 13.3, or the high-mass bins should be presented as an unresolved systematic requiring even stronger feedback, and the combined >8 sigma significance should be reported both with and without the excluded bins.
  2. [Sections 3, 5.2, and 7] The X-ray agreement is partly calibrated, not an independent confirmation. Section 3 states that the fgas -8sigma variant was produced by calibrating FLAMINGO to gas-fraction relations shifted down by 8 sigma, and Section 5.2 then shows that eROSITA gas fractions agree with that variant. The eROSITA comparison is therefore a consistency check of the calibration shift, not an independent test. The genuinely independent constraints are the kSZ profiles, which were not used in any FLAMINGO calibration, and the GGL mass calibration. The paper does acknowledge this in Sections 6.2 and 7, but the abstract's 'consistent picture' and the statement that joint kSZ, X-ray, and lensing measurements form a consistent picture should be rephrased so that the X-ray agreement is explicitly labeled as partially built-in. Otherwise, readers may overcount the evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Equation (6)] The notation for the velocity reconstruction bias is inconsistent: the text introduces rv,bias, while Eqs. (6) and (7) use rv,bias and rv; please define these symbols consistently and clarify the relationship between them.
  2. [Figure 4] The lower-right panel of Figure 4 usefully shades the region M500 greater than about 2e13 Msun where the spectroscopic and photometric measurements disagree; consider adding the same shading to the profile panels in Figures 4 and 8 so that the excluded bins are visually identifiable.
  3. [Figure 6] The label 'Even Stronger?' in the right panel of Figure 6 is vague; specify that it refers to the spectroscopic M3 and M4 kSZ profiles, which require stronger feedback than fgas -8sigma.
  4. [Appendix C] The footnote stating that photometric goodness-of-fit uses only diagonal uncertainties is easy to miss; please restate this when quoting photometric sigma values in the main text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

X-ray agreement with fgas−8σ is partly built into the calibration, while the kSZ comparison provides independent support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (FLAMINGO Simulations) and Section 5.2 (X-ray gas fractions); relied on in the Abstract and Section 7.]
    "Variants with stronger (weaker) baryon feedback were produced by calibrating to gas fraction measurements shifted down (up) by Nσ, where σ is the observational uncertainty on the mean gas fraction relation and N∈[2,4,8]. ... The eROSITA gas fractions agree remarkably well with the strongest feedback FLAMINGO simulation."

    The fgas−8σ variant is defined by shifting the calibration gas-fraction relation down by 8σ, so the gas fraction is the same quantity used to construct the model. Reporting that eROSITA gas fractions agree with this variant is therefore a calibrated-model selection rather than an out-of-sample prediction: the low gas fractions are partly built into the simulation by construction. The abstract and conclusions fold this agreement into the claim that the strongest feedback model 'provides a good description of how much gas is expelled,' without noting that the X-ray part is a regression to a shifted version of the fitted relation. The kSZ profiles are not part of FLAMINGO's calibration, so the kSZ comparison retains independent content.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is mostly self-contained: the GGL matching uses gravity-dominated lensing profiles to set mean halo masses and satellite fractions, and the kSZ predictions from the matched samples are not calibrated to any kSZ data. The FLAMINGO fiducial and feedback variants are external simulation products whose calibration is described, and the paper is explicit that fgas−8σ was calibrated to pre-eROSITA gas fractions shifted down by Nσ. The partial circularity is confined to the X-ray comparison: a model constructed to have lower gas fractions naturally matches a data set with lower gas fractions, so the eROSITA agreement does not independently confirm the X-ray part of the consensus claim. However, the kSZ comparison, which is the other pillar of the central claim, is genuinely independent, and the paper also discloses the high-mass LRG kSZ disagreement and the spec/photo pipeline inconsistency. The self-citations to McCarthy et al. (2025) are methodological and are re-tested in Appendix B, so they are not load-bearing circularity. Overall, the central conclusion has substantial independent grounding, but the X-ray agreement is partly forced by construction, giving a score of 3 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on the GGL-based sample matching and on the fidelity of the FLAMINGO simulations as a benchmark. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the mass cuts used to match simulated samples to observed GGL profiles; these are fitted per sample but are calibration parameters, not physical constants.

free parameters (2)
  • Minimum stellar mass cut (per kSZ sample) = e.g., BGS, LRG M1, M2, LOWZ, CMASS (Tables 1, 2)
    Fitted by chi-square to match the observed GGL profile; determines the mean halo mass and satellite fraction of the simulated sample.
  • Minimum halo mass cut (per eROSITA cluster bin) = Tables 3
    Fitted to match the observed GGL profile for each eROSITA bin; insensitive to feedback strength and shear catalog choices.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption FLAMINGO simulations provide an accurate galaxy-halo connection (stellar mass-halo mass relation, satellite fractions)
    The GGL matching selects simulated galaxies by stellar mass and assumes this reproduces the observed halo masses and satellite fractions (Section 4.2.1).
  • domain assumption The observed kSZ velocity reconstruction biases (r_v) are correctly transferred to simulated velocities
    Simulated kSZ uses true velocities while observed stacks are divided by r_v; any mismatch biases the comparison (Sections 2.1 and 5.1).
  • domain assumption eROSITA gas mass measurements and weak-lensing-calibrated masses are unbiased at the claimed level
    Gas masses from MBProj2D fits and masses from the scaling relation are taken at face value; the paper validates masses with its own GGL but not the gas mass modeling (Section 2.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint X-ray, kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich, and weak lensing measurements: toward a consensus picture of efficient gas expulsion from groups and clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NCYZEK6L

@misc{pith2026250910455,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint X-ray, kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich, and weak lensing measurements: toward a consensus picture of efficient gas expulsion from groups and clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NCYZEK6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10455}
}
abstract

There is no consensus on how baryon feedback shapes the underlying matter distribution from either simulations or observations. We confront the uncertain landscape by jointly analyzing new measurements of the gas distribution around groups and clusters -- DESI+ACT kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (kSZ) effect profiles and eROSITA X-ray gas masses -- with mean halo masses characterized by galaxy-galaxy lensing. Across a wide range of halo masses ($M_{500}=10^{13-14}M_\odot$) and redshifts ($0<z<1$), we find evidence of more efficient gas expulsion beyond several $R_{500}$ than predicted by most state-of-the-art simulations. A like-with-like comparison reveals all kSZ and X-ray observations are inconsistent with the fiducial 1 Gpc$^{3}$ hydrodynamical FLAMINGO simulation, which was calibrated to reproduce pre-eROSITA X-ray gas fractions: eROSITA X-ray gas fractions are $2\times$ lower than the simulation, and the kSZ measurements are combined $>8 \sigma$ discrepant. The FLAMINGO simulation variant with the most gas expulsion, and therefore the most suppression of the matter power spectrum relative to a dark matter only simulation, provides a good description of how much gas is expelled and how far it extends; the enhanced gas depletion is achieved by more powerful but less frequent AGN outbursts. Joint kSZ, X-ray, and lensing measurements form a consistent picture of gas expulsion beyond several $R_{500}$, implying a more suppressed matter power spectrum than predicted by most recent simulations. Complementary observables and next-generation simulations are critical to understanding the physical mechanism behind this extreme gas expulsion and mapping its impact on the large-scale matter distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10455 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulated kSZ effect profiles from FLAMINGO for a range of redshifts (left), halo masses (center), and feedback strengths (right). For each kSZ stack, we select simulated halos by a minimum stellar mass cut. For the left and center panels, we present the kSZ effect from the fiducial FLAMINGO simulation. On the right, we compare four FLAMINGO simulations of varying feedback strength at a fixed redshift and minimum st… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: The measured GGL profiles (black) of the DESI kSZ samples, alongside the best-fitting FLAMINGO ∆Σ profiles from the four simulations we consider. The FLAMINGO GGL profiles are calculated by stacking all simulated galaxies above a minimum stellar mass. At the top of each panel, we report the mean halo mass for the best-fitting selection of simulated galaxies from the fiducial FLAMINGO simulation. The dotted line… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. GGL halo mass inference for the eROSITA clusters. Left: measured GGL profiles for 0.05 < z < 0.1 (bottom) and 0.1 < z < 0.2 (top); for each redshift range, we consider two mass bins, defined in terms of the reported eRASS1 halo masses. The transparent points are omitted from the GGL fits (Section 4.2.2). The best-fitting FLAMINGO ∆Σ profiles are presented alongside the observations; for clarity, we only show the fid… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The kSZ measurements (black) compared with the GGL-selected predictions from the four FLAMINGO simulations we consider. We report the number of standard deviations by which each simulation prediction deviates from the observations. The kSZ effect measurement is highly …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The hot gas fraction fgas within R500 as a func￾tion of halo mass M500 in groups and clusters. Our indepen￾dent halo masses for bins of eROSITA detected clusters are shown as diamonds, with the colors following [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Across a wide range of redshift (z < 1) and halo mass (log10 M500/M⊙ = 13 − 14), the gas distribution is well described by the strongest feedback FLAMINGO simulation (fgas −8σ). Left: demonstration of how the different FLAMINGO feedback prescriptions impact the gas dis…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper left: the footprint of the DESI DR1 data (the BGS and LRG samples are shown in light blue), eRASS1 (gray), and the three imaging surveys: DES (blue), KiDS (red), and HSC (yellow). Upper right: the redshift distributions n(z) of the lenses for our galaxy-galaxy-le…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the photometric (bottom) and spectroscopic (top) kSZ measurements for LRG stellar mass bins. The stacked kSZ profiles for the selection of simulated galaxies that best-fits the GGL are shown for the four FLAMINGO simulations we consider. We report the num…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Evidence for a thermal pressure deficit in galaxy groups from the tSZ effect and weak lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Stacked tSZ measurements around DESI LRGs show FLAMINGO simulations overpredict the thermal pressure of galaxy groups by about a factor of two, including the feedback variant that matches kSZ gas densities.

  2. Interpreting the stacked kinetic SZ effect I: velocity reconstruction and non-linear velocity effects

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Non-linear velocity terms cancel in real-space linear reconstruction, but redshift-space distortions reintroduce a 10–20% small-scale suppression of the stacked kSZ signal.

  3. A new measurement of the FRB DM-galaxy cross correlation and a first joint analysis with the kinematic SZ effect

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The FRB DM-galaxy cross-correlation is detected at 6.5 sigma and disfavors a no-feedback baryon distribution at about 9 sigma.

  4. What's Missing in AGN Feedback? Lessons learnt from Magneticum, IllustrisTNG and Simba

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    No current simulation simultaneously reproduces observed halo hot-gas fractions and local galaxy star-formation/quenching demographics; strong AGN feedback overquenches, weak feedback retains too much gas.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., Alarcon, A., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 023520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520 2022

  2. [2]

    G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al

    Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 012, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/012

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/012 2025

  3. [3]

    P., Alexandroff, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Ahn, C. P., Alexandroff, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2012, ApJS, 203, 21, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21 —. 2014, ApJS, 211, 17, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/17

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21 2012

  4. [4]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S4, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx066

    Aihara, H., Arimoto, N., Armstrong, R., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S4, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx066

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx066 2018

  5. [5]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  6. [6]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 175, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab115

    Akino, D., Eckert, D., Okabe, N., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 175, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab115

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab115 2022

  7. [7]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 5355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2429

    Amon, A., & Efstathiou, G. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2429

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2429 2022

  8. [8]

    C., Miyatake, H., et al

    Amon, A., Robertson, N. C., Miyatake, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2938

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2938 2023

Show all 141 references
  1. [9]

    E., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V., et al

    Bahar, Y. E., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449399

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Battaglia, N., Ferraro, S., Schaan, E., & Spergel, D. N. 2017, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2017, 040–040, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/11/040

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Irsic, V., Amon, A., & Sijacki, D

    Bigwood, L., Bourne, M. A., Irsic, V., Amon, A., & Sijacki, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16983, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16983

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, Weak lensing combined with the kinetic Sunyaev Zel’dovich effect: A study of baryonic feedback

    Bigwood, L., Amon, A., Schneider, A., et al. 2024, Weak lensing combined with the kinetic Sunyaev Zel’dovich effect: A study of baryonic feedback. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06098

    2024 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Braspenning, J., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., Kugel, R., & Kay, S. T. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 3784, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2798

    2025 doi

  6. [15]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 2656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1436

    Braspenning, J., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1436

    2024 doi

  7. [16]

    2024, A&A, 685, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348264

    Bulbul, E., Liu, A., Kluge, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348264

    2024 doi

  8. [17]

    E., Smith, R

    Bulbul, G. E., Smith, R. K., Foster, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/32

    2012 doi

  9. [18]

    2015, ApJS, 221, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/221/1/15

    Bundy, K., Leauthaud, A., Saito, S., et al. 2015, ApJS, 221, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/221/1/15

    2015 doi

  10. [19]

    E., Mead, A

    Chisari, N. E., Mead, A. J., Joudaki, S., et al. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 4, doi: 10.21105/astro.1905.06082

    2019 arXiv

  11. [20]

    N., Ghirardini, V., Liu, A., et al

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

    2022 doi

  12. [21]

    P., Naab, T., & Johansson, P

    Choi, E., Ostriker, J. P., Naab, T., & Johansson, P. H. 2012, ApJ, 754, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/125

    2012 doi

  13. [22]

    Conroy, C., & Ostriker, J. P. 2008, ApJ, 681, 151, doi: 10.1086/587861

    2008 doi

  14. [23]

    S., Duivenvoorden, A

    Coulton, W., Madhavacheril, M. S., Duivenvoorden, A. J., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 063530, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063530

    2024 doi

  15. [24]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.04476, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.04476 Dalla Vecchia, C., & Schaye, J

    Dalal, N., To, C.-H., Hirata, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.04476, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.04476 Dalla Vecchia, C., & Schaye, J. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 140, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21704.x de Jong, J. T. A., Kuijken, K., Applegate, D., et al. 2013, The Messenge...

    2025 doi

  16. [25]

    Debackere, S. N. B., Schaye, J., & Hoekstra, H. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2285, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3446 DESI Collaboration, Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.12020, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12020

    2020 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    P., Bocquet, S., Schrabback, T., et al

    Dietrich, J. P., Bocquet, S., Schrabback, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3088

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac472

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    Eckert, D., Gaspari, M., Gastaldello, F., Le Brun, A. M. C., & O’Sullivan, E. 2021, Universe, 7, 142, doi: 10.3390/universe7050142

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    2016, A&A, 592, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527293

    Eckert, D., Ettori, S., Coupon, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527293

    2016 doi

  21. [30]

    2019, A&A, 621, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833324 Multi-wavelength constraints on feedback23 T able 1.DESI GGL Calibration Summary

    Eckert, D., Ghirardini, V., Ettori, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833324 Multi-wavelength constraints on feedback23 T able 1.DESI GGL Calibration Summary. Name Simulation Satellites Selection Halo Mass GGLχ 2 ν kSZχ 2 ν BGS Fiducial Feedback✓One sid...

    2025 doi

  22. [31]

    J., Seo, H.-J., Sirko, E., & Spergel, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Seo, H.-J., Sirko, E., & Spergel, D. N. 2007, ApJ, 664, 675, doi: 10.1086/518712 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810

    2007 doi

  23. [32]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 Fenech Conti, I., Herbonnet, R., Hoekstra, H., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx200

    2012 doi

  24. [33]

    W., Niemack, M

    Fowler, J. W., Niemack, M. D., Dicker, S. R., et al. 2007, ApOpt, 46, 3444, doi: 10.1364/AO.46.003444

    2007 doi

  25. [34]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0970-1

    Gaspari, M., Tombesi, F., & Cappi, M. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0970-1

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 4312–4336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab918

    Gatti, M., Sheldon, E., Amon, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4312–4336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab918

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

    2024, A&A, 689, A298, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348852

    Ghirardini, V., Bulbul, E., Artis, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A298, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348852

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    cosmology

    Giblin, B., Heymans, C., Asgari, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038850 Multi-wavelength constraints on feedback25 T able 3.eROSITA GGL Calibration. Redshift Selection Halo Mass Selection eRASS1 Catalog Shape Catalog Selection eRASS1 Mass GGL Mass lo...

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    K., & Schneider, A

    Giri, S. K., & Schneider, A. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 046, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/12/046

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    Gitti, M., Brighenti, F., & McNamara, B. R. 2012, Advances in Astronomy, 2012, 950641, doi: 10.1155/2012/950641

    2012 doi

  31. [40]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/14 G´ orski, K

    Zaritsky, D. 2013, ApJ, 778, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/14 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    2024a, MNRAS, 528, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae259

    Grandis, S., Aric` o, G., Schneider, A., & Linke, L. 2024a, MNRAS, 528, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae259

    doi

  33. [42]

    2024b, A&A, 687, A178, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348615

    Grandis, S., Ghirardini, V., Bocquet, S., et al. 2024b, A&A, 687, A178, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348615

    doi

  34. [43]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 1507, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu949

    Gruen, D., Seitz, S., Brimioulle, F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1507, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu949

    2014 doi

  35. [44]

    R., Schaan, E., Hadzhiyska, B., et al

    Guachalla, B. R., Schaan, E., Hadzhiyska, B., et al. 2025, Backlighting extended gas halos around luminous red galaxies: kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect from DESI Y1 x ACT. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19870

    2025

  36. [45]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14136, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14136

    Zhou, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14136, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14136

    2025 doi arXiv

  37. [46]

    2024a, PhRvD, 109, 103534, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103534 26

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Ried Guachalla, B., & Schaan, E. 2024a, PhRvD, 109, 103534, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103534 26

    doi

  38. [47]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07152, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07152

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Ried Guachalla, B., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07152, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07152

    doi arXiv

  39. [48]

    J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al

    Hahn, C., Wilson, M. J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accff8

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    2014 doi

  41. [50]

    A., Puchwein, E., Shen, S., & Sijacki, D

    Henden, N. A., Puchwein, E., Shen, S., & Sijacki, D. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1780

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    W., Allison, R., Austermann, J., et al

    Henderson, S. W., Allison, R., Austermann, J., et al. 2016, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 184, 772, doi: 10.1007/s10909-016-1575-z

    2016 doi

  43. [52]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.21677, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.21677

    Heydenreich, S., Leauthaud, A., Blake, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.21677, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.21677

    2025 doi arXiv

  44. [53]

    L., et al

    Hildebrandt, H., K¨ ohlinger, F., van den Busch, J. L., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834878

    2020 doi

  45. [54]

    2003, MNRAS, 343, 459, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06683.x

    Hirata, C., & Seljak, U. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 459, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06683.x

    2003

  46. [55]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv275

    Hoekstra, H., Herbonnet, R., Muzzin, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv275

    2015 doi

  47. [56]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 1298, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22072.x

    Hoekstra, H., Mahdavi, A., Babul, A., & Bildfell, C. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1298, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22072.x

    2012

  48. [57]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.02600, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.02600 Huˇ sko, F., Lacey, C

    Huff, E., & Mandelbaum, R. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.02600, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.02600 Huˇ sko, F., Lacey, C. G., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., & Nobels, F. S. J. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3750, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2278 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, A...

    2017 doi arXiv

  49. [58]

    2019, A&A, 624, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834714

    Johnston, H., Georgiou, C., Joachimi, B., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834714

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    2025, A&A, 695, A216, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449599

    Kleinebreil, F., Grandis, S., Schrabback, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A216, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449599

    2025 doi

  51. [60]

    2024, A&A, 688, A210, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349031

    Kluge, M., Comparat, J., Liu, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A210, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349031

    2024 doi

  52. [61]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 Kovaˇ c, M., Nicola, A., Bucko, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07991, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07991

    2013 doi arXiv

  53. [62]

    V., Vikhlinin, A

    Kravtsov, A. V., Vikhlinin, A. A., & Meshcheryakov, A. V. 2018, Astronomy Letters, 44, 8, doi: 10.1134/S1063773717120015

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 6103, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2540

    Kugel, R., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 6103, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2540

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    2019, A&A, 625, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834918 La Posta, A., Alonso, D., Chisari, N

    Kuijken, K., Heymans, C., Dvornik, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834918 La Posta, A., Alonso, D., Chisari, N. E., Ferreira, T., & Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.12081, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.12081 Lagan´ a, T. F., Martinet, ...

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    2022, dsigma: Galaxy-galaxy lensing Python package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2204.006

    Lange, J., & Huang, S. 2022, dsigma: Galaxy-galaxy lensing Python package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2204.006

    2022

  57. [66]

    U., Blake, C., Saulder, C., et al

    Lange, J. U., Blake, C., Saulder, C., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, doi: 10.33232/001c.121260

    2024 doi

  58. [67]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 421, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac006

    Li, X., Miyatake, H., Luo, W., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 421, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac006

    2022 doi

  59. [68]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 123518, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123518

    Li, X., Zhang, T., Sugiyama, S., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 123518, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123518

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    A., Eisenhardt, P

    Lin, Y.-T., Stanford, S. A., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., et al. 2012, ApJL, 745, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/1/L3

    2012 doi

  61. [70]

    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

  62. [71]

    H., Ferraro, S., Schaan, E., et al

    Liu, R. H., Ferraro, S., Schaan, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.08850, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.08850

    2025 doi

  63. [72]

    H., & Schellenberger, G

    Lovisari, L., Reiprich, T. H., & Schellenberger, G. 2015, A&A, 573, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423954

    2015 doi

  64. [73]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7997

    Lovisari, L., Schellenberger, G., Sereno, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7997

    2020 doi

  65. [74]

    R., McCullough, J., et al

    MacCrann, N., Becker, M. R., McCullough, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3371, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2870

    2022 doi

  66. [75]

    2023, Physical Review D, 108, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.108.023516

    Mallaby-Kay, M., Amodeo, S., Hill, J., et al. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.108.023516

    2023 doi

  67. [76]

    J., et al

    Manera, M., Scoccimarro, R., Percival, W. J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts084

    2013 doi

  68. [77]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2465

    Manera, M., Samushia, L., Tojeiro, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2465

    2015 doi

  69. [78]

    2024, A&A, 689, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450442

    Marini, I., Popesso, P., Lamer, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450442

    2024 doi

  70. [79]

    J., Jones, C., Forman, W., & Van Speybroeck, L

    Maughan, B. J., Jones, C., Forman, W., & Van Speybroeck, L. 2008, ApJS, 174, 117, doi: 10.1086/521225

    2008 doi

  71. [80]

    G., Schaye, J., Bird, S., & Le Brun, A

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Bird, S., & Le Brun, A. M. C. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2792

    2017 doi

  72. [81]

    G., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1965, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18033.x

    2011

  73. [82]

    G., Amon, A., Schaye, J., et al

    McCarthy, I. G., Amon, A., Schaye, J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf731

    2025 doi

  74. [83]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.22272, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.22272

    McCullough, J., Amon, A., Legnani, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.22272, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.22272

    2024 doi arXiv

  75. [84]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625 Multi-wavelength constraints on feedback27

    2007 arXiv

  76. [85]

    2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    2024 doi

  77. [86]

    D., et al

    Miller, L., Heymans, C., Kitching, T. D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2858, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts454

    2013 doi

  78. [87]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 123520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123520

    More, S., Sugiyama, S., Miyatake, H., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 123520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123520

    2023 doi

  79. [88]

    Khederlarian, A. 2023, FastSpecFit: Fast spectral synthesis and emission-line fitting of DESI spectra, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2308.005 Mu˜ noz-Echeverr´ ıa, M., Mac´ ıas-P´ erez, J. F., Pratt, G. W., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347584

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    L., Farahi, A., Evrard, A

    Mulroy, S. L., Farahi, A., Evrard, A. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 60, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3484

    2019 doi

  81. [90]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 4249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1515

    Myles, J., Alarcon, A., Amon, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1515

    2021 doi

  82. [91]

    J., et al

    Naess, S., Guan, Y., Duivenvoorden, A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14451, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14451

    2025 doi arXiv

  83. [92]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2307

    Nandra, K., Barret, D., Barcons, X., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2307

    2013 doi arXiv

  84. [93]

    H., Grandis, S., et al

    Okabe, N., Reiprich, T. H., Grandis, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.09952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.09952

    2025 doi arXiv

  85. [94]

    P., et al

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V., Coles, J. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3620

    2023 doi

  86. [95]

    C., Alarcon, A., et al

    Pandey, S., Hill, J. C., Alarcon, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.07432, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.07432

    2025 doi

  87. [96]

    J., Ponman, T

    Pearson, R. J., Ponman, T. J., Norberg, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3489, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1081 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833880

    2017 doi

  88. [97]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16555, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16555

    Popesso, P., Biviano, A., Marini, I., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16555, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16555

    doi

  89. [98]

    2024b, MNRAS, 527, 895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3253

    Popesso, P., Biviano, A., Bulbul, E., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3253

    doi

  90. [99]

    W., Arnaud, M., Piffaretti, R., et al

    Pratt, G. W., Arnaud, M., Piffaretti, R., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913309

    2010 doi

  91. [100]

    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

  92. [101]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5554, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2573

    Preston, C., Amon, A., & Efstathiou, G. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5554, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2573

    2023 doi

  93. [102]

    Quataert, E., & Hopkins, P. F. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 66, doi: 10.33232/001c.138772

    2025 doi

  94. [103]

    Rasmussen, J., & Ponman, T. J. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 239, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15244.x

    2009

  95. [104]

    M., Dalal, R., Zhang, T., et al

    Rau, M. M., Dalal, R., Zhang, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1962

    2023 doi

  96. [105]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17742, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17742 Ried Guachalla, B., Schaan, E., Hadzhiyska, B., & Ferraro, S

    Reischke, R., & Hagstotz, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17742, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17742 Ried Guachalla, B., Schaan, E., Hadzhiyska, B., & Ferraro, S. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 103533, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103533

    2025 doi arXiv

  97. [107]

    J., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al

    Ross, A. J., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 125, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/125

    2025 doi

  98. [108]

    Rowe, B. T. P., Jarvis, M., Mandelbaum, R., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 10, 121, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002

    2015 doi

  99. [109]

    S., Rozo, E., Busha, M

    Rykoff, E. S., Rozo, E., Busha, M. T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/104

    2014 doi

  100. [110]

    S., Rozo, E., Hollowood, D., et al

    Rykoff, E. S., Rozo, E., Hollowood, D., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 1, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/1

    2016 doi

  101. [111]

    Font, A. S. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1474

    2023 doi

  102. [112]

    S., Fabian, A

    Sanders, J. S., Fabian, A. C., Russell, H. R., & Walker, S. A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1065, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2796

    2018 doi

  103. [113]

    Sanderson, A. J. R., O’Sullivan, E., Ponman, T. J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3288, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts586

    2013 doi

  104. [114]

    2016, Physical Review D, 93, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.93.082002

    Schaan, E., Ferraro, S., Vargas-Maga˜ na, M., et al. 2016, Physical Review D, 93, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.93.082002

    2016 doi

  105. [115]

    2021, PhRvD, 103, 063513, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063513

    Schaan, E., Ferraro, S., Amodeo, S., et al. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 063513, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063513

    2021 doi

  106. [116]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2015 doi

  107. [117]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2419

    Schaye, J., Kugel, R., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2419

    2023 doi

  108. [118]

    K., Amodeo, S., & Refregier, A

    Schneider, A., Giri, S. K., Amodeo, S., & Refregier, A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 3802, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1493

    2022 doi

  109. [119]

    2022, A&A, 665, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243824

    Seppi, R., Comparat, J., Bulbul, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243824

    2022 doi

  110. [120]

    2025, A&A, 699, A206, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553977

    Seppi, R., Eckert, D., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A206, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553977

    2025 doi

  111. [121]

    2021, ApJS, 254, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abeb66

    Sevilla-Noarbe, I., Bechtol, K., Carrasco Kind, M., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abeb66

    2021 doi

  112. [122]

    S., & Huff, E

    Sheldon, E. S., & Huff, E. M. 2017, ApJ, 841, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa704b

    2017 doi

  113. [123]

    S., Johnston, D

    Sheldon, E. S., Johnston, D. E., Frieman, J. A., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 2544, doi: 10.1086/383293

    2004 doi

  114. [124]

    Silk, J., & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013 28

    1998 doi arXiv

  115. [125]

    2024, A&A, 691, A308, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451761

    Siudek, M., Pucha, R., Mezcua, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A308, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451761

    2024 doi

  116. [126]

    2005, ApJL, 620, L79, doi: 10.1086/428772

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, ApJL, 620, L79, doi: 10.1086/428772

    2005 doi

  117. [127]

    M., Donahue, M., et al

    Sun, M., Voit, G. M., Donahue, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1142

    2009 doi

  118. [128]

    2021, A&A, 656, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141179

    Sunyaev, R., Arefiev, V., Babyshkin, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141179

    2021 doi

  119. [129]

    A., & Zeldovich, Y

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Zeldovich, Y. B. 1972, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 4, 173 —. 1980, MNRAS, 190, 413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/190.3.413

    1972 doi

  120. [130]

    S., Ade, P

    Swetz, D. S., Ade, P. A. R., Amiri, M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 41, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/41 The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration. 2005, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0510346

    2011 doi arXiv

  121. [131]

    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

  122. [132]

    1982, Advances in Space Research, 2, 241, doi: 10.1016/0273-1177(82)90070-9

    Truemper, J. 1982, Advances in Space Research, 2, 241, doi: 10.1016/0273-1177(82)90070-9

    1982 doi

  123. [133]

    2020, A&A, 638, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936915 van Daalen, M

    Unruh, S., Schneider, P., Hilbert, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936915 van Daalen, M. P., McCarthy, I. G., & Schaye, J. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2424, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3199 van Daalen, M. P., Schaye, J., Booth, C. M., & Dalla

    2020 doi

  124. [134]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 3649, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18981.x

    Vecchia, C. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3649, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18981.x

    2011

  125. [135]

    N., DeRose, J., Gruen, D., et al

    Varga, T. N., DeRose, J., Gruen, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2511, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2185

    2019 doi

  126. [136]

    P., Schaye, J., et al

    Velliscig, M., van Daalen, M. P., Schaye, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1044

    2014 doi

  127. [137]

    2006, ApJ, 640, 691, doi: 10.1086/500288

    Vikhlinin, A., Kravtsov, A., Forman, W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 691, doi: 10.1086/500288

    2006 doi

  128. [138]

    1999, A&A, 349, 389, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909315 von Wietersheim-Kramsta, M., Joachimi, B., van den

    Voges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al. 1999, A&A, 349, 389, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909315 von Wietersheim-Kramsta, M., Joachimi, B., van den

    1999 doi arXiv

  129. [139]

    L., et al

    Busch, J. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1000

    2021 doi

  130. [140]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 3822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv842

    White, M. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv842

    2015 doi

  131. [141]

    2020, A&A, 637, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936782

    Heymans, C. 2020, A&A, 637, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936782

    2020 doi

  132. [142]

    A., et al

    Zhou, R., Dey, B., Newman, J. A., et al. 2023a, AJ, 165, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca5fb

    doi

  133. [143]

    2023b, JCAP, 2023, 097, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/097

    Zhou, R., Ferraro, S., White, M., et al. 2023b, JCAP, 2023, 097, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/097

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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