Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 116 references

Probing Cosmology and Cluster Astrophysics with Multi-Wavelength Surveys I. Correlation Statistics

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The joint analysis of tSZ, X-ray, and weak-lensing power spectra from upcoming wide-area surveys can measure the dark energy equation-of-state parameter $w_0$ to about 8% while simultaneously constraining the gas physics inside galaxy…

desk verdict Solid framework for joint tSZ+X-ray+lensing forecasts, but inconsistent fiducial parameters make the headline w0=8% forecast non-reproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02179 v2 pith:P5AO7EDY submitted 2019-09-05 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Masato Shirasaki , Erwin T. Lau , Daisuke Nagai This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyclustersSunyaev-Zel'dovicheffectX-rayastronomyweakgravitationallensingintraclustermediumdarkenergyequationofstateangularpowerspectraFisherforecast
topics Dark Energy
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

This paper argues that the auto- and cross-angular power spectra of three cluster observables—the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (tSZ) signal, the hot-gas imprint in the cosmic microwave background; X-ray emission from ionized gas; and weak gravitational lensing—can simultaneously pin down both cosmology and the astrophysics of the intracluster medium. Using a semi-analytic gas model and a halo-model description of the spectra, the authors forecast that a joint analysis over 20,000 square degrees with upcoming surveys would measure the dark energy equation-of-state parameter $w_0$ to about 8% (1σ), comparable to cluster abundance counts, while marginalizing over nine gas-physics parameters. The appeal is that these correlation statistics are less sensitive to selection effects than cluster counts and can reach faint, distant, and small clusters that individual detections miss. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's central claim to be that one data vector can separate what the Universe is made of from how cluster gas behaves.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a semi-analytic model of the intracluster medium: a polytropic gas in hydrostatic equilibrium inside Navarro-Frenk-White dark-matter halos, with a two-zone polytropic index separating a cool core from the outskirts, energy injection from mergers and from stellar/AGN feedback, a radially dependent non-thermal pressure fraction, and a generalized NFW clumping factor that boosts the X-ray emissivity. This model supplies the three-dimensional pressure, emissivity, and density profiles whose Hankel transforms enter the 1-halo and 2-halo terms of the power spectra, and the forecasts are made by a Fisher matrix acting on the Gaussian covariance of binned spectra.

What would settle it

Re-run the same Fisher pipeline on synthetic sky maps generated from cosmological hydrodynamical simulations and check whether the simulated tSZ, X-ray, and lensing auto/cross spectra fall within the Gaussian covariance assumed here; if the simulated spectra scatter beyond the forecast 1σ errors at $\ell\lesssim 2000$, the claimed constraints are over-optimistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery on the paper's own terms is that the degeneracy between cosmology and intracluster-medium physics is breakable with multi-wavelength correlation statistics. Including the X-ray observables $C_{xx}$, $C_{xy}$, and $C_{x\kappa}$ alongside the tSZ and lensing spectra at $\ell\le 3000$ over 20,000 square degrees yields a marginalized 1σ error of $\sigma(w_0)=0.080$ and constrains the non-thermal pressure normalization, the gas clumping amplitude, and the feedback parameters at roughly 4.4σ, 2.0σ, and 1σ, respectively. The X-ray band is what does the work: without it, most ICM constraints are dominated by priors, while with it the same data set measures gas clumping, which tSZ alone cannot see, and breaks the feedback–non-thermal-pressure degeneracy that otherwise hides cosmology.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes that one simplified model of the hot gas in clusters—set by a handful of tuned parameters, including how the gas is distributed and how clumpy it is—describes every cluster that contributes to the measured power spectra, and that there is no extra signal from diffuse gas outside clusters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Over 20,000 square degrees, the joint analysis measures $w_0$ with a marginalized 1σ error of about 0.08, a precision comparable to cluster abundance counts.
  • Including the X-ray spectra breaks the cosmology–gas degeneracy: non-thermal pressure normalization is detected at roughly 4.4σ, gas clumping amplitude at about 2σ, and the no-feedback model is excluded at about 1σ.
  • At $r\simeq r_{200m}$, the non-thermal pressure fraction and the clumping factor are constrained to about 22% and 50% (1σ), which no other single method currently provides for a statistical cluster sample.
  • The constraints improve with small-scale information: raising $\ell_{\max}$ from 3000 to 5000 improves the non-thermal pressure error by about 12%, while cutting to $\ell_{\max}=1000$ degrades it by roughly a factor of two.
  • Imperfect subtraction of the tSZ reconstruction noise is the leading systematic risk: a 0.1% residual shifts parameters by less than about 0.1σ, and 1% lensing calibration errors shift parameters by only about 0.005–0.01σ.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Gaussian covariance assumption is relaxed, the 8% $w_0$ forecast should be treated as an upper bound on precision; the paper itself notes that non-Gaussian covariance could raise the X-ray auto-spectrum error by up to an order of magnitude.
  • The same halo-model machinery should transfer to lower-mass systems (groups and galaxies) and to non-standard cosmologies such as modified gravity or massive neutrinos, but the transfer needs a new calibration of the gas model in those regimes.
  • A near-term test is to apply the same auto/cross-spectrum measurement to existing all-sky X-ray and CMB maps with ground-based lensing catalogs; if those spectra deviate from the semi-analytic model at the level of the forecast errors, the gas model, not the power-spectrum formalism, would be the place to look.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a semi-analytic halo-model framework for predicting auto- and cross-angular power spectra of the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, X-ray surface brightness, and weak lensing convergence from galaxy clusters. It extends earlier ICM models by adding a parametric gas clumping profile, constructs a Fisher forecast for hypothetical CMB-S4, eROSITA, and LSST surveys covering 20,000 square degrees, and claims that the joint spectra can constrain the dark energy equation-of-state parameter w0 to about 8% (1 sigma) while simultaneously constraining non-thermal pressure, gas clumping, and feedback parameters.

Significance. If the quantitative forecasts hold, this framework is a useful contribution: it demonstrates a route to break degeneracies between cosmology and ICM physics using only correlation statistics, and it provides concrete survey-oriented predictions that can be tested with forthcoming multiwavelength data. The paper is generally clearly written, uses standard halo-model and Fisher-matrix formalism, and is honest about several limitations, including Gaussian covariance, the neglect of diffuse filament gas, and the reliance on an unpublished clumping model. However, the headline numerical results are currently not reproducible because the fiducial parameter vector is defined inconsistently across tables, and one load-bearing input (the gas clumping model) is not yet available in a citable form. These issues must be resolved before the stated constraints can be used for survey design or as a reference forecast.

major comments (4)
  1. [Tables 1, 3, 4; Fig. 5; Eq. (45)] The fiducial parameter vector used to evaluate the Fisher matrix is not uniquely defined. Table 3 lists S* = 0.37, epsilon_f/10^-6 = 1.00, and epsilon_DM = 0.050, while Table 1, Table 4, and Fig. 5 use S* = 0.12, epsilon_f = 4 x 10^-6, and epsilon_DM = 0.010. Because the derivatives entering the Fisher matrix in Eq. (45) are evaluated at the fiducial model, the quoted marginalized errors (including the w0 error of 0.080, the Ant error of 0.078, and the C0 error of 0.61) are not tied to a single reproducible setup. Please unify the fiducial values across the paper, rerun the Fisher analysis, and state explicitly which parameter vector generates each quoted constraint; if any headline numbers change, the conclusions should be revised accordingly.
  2. [Sec. 3.4; Eq. (26); Sec. 5.2.2; Table 3] The gas clumping model and its fiducial parameters (C0, alpha_C, beta_C, gamma_C) are said to be derived from an unpublished companion paper (Lau et al., in prep.) and from ROSAT measurements. Since X-ray power spectra depend on the clumping factor, and this is a newly introduced ingredient compared with earlier ICM models, the forecast for gas clumping and for the X-ray-based cosmological constraints is not independently checkable. Please provide the derivation and validation of the clumping model, or otherwise quantify the sensitivity of the headline constraints to alternative clumping parameterizations.
  3. [Sec. 7.4; Eq. (38)] The authors acknowledge that the Gaussian covariance in Eq. (38) may underestimate the X-ray auto-power-spectrum covariance by up to a factor of about 10. Because X-ray information is the key new ingredient claimed to break degeneracies, the paper should quantify how non-Gaussian covariance would affect the Fisher errors, for example by rescaling the covariance of Cxx or by using a simulation-based covariance, before presenting the 4.4-sigma, 2.0-sigma, and 1-sigma constraints on cluster astrophysics as robust.
  4. [Sec. 7.1] The model neglects contributions from diffuse gas outside halos and ignores the dependence of gas profiles on mass assembly history; these are acknowledged limitations, but they are not tested for their impact on the forecasted parameter errors. A synthetic-observation test based on hydrodynamical simulations would clarify whether the quoted constraints are biased or over-optimistic, and this test is currently listed as future work.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B3)] The integral in Eq. (B3) appears to have identical lower and upper limits, "E_min,ref" in both places; this is likely a typo for E_min,ref to E_max,ref and should be corrected.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including "lening" in Sec. 6.2, "lenisng" in Sec. 6.3.1, "covariamce" in Sec. 6.3.4, "clumpng" in Sec. 8, and "metallicty" in Sec. 3.4; these should be cleaned up.
  3. [Sec. 6.1, Fig. 5 caption] The caption says the black points show the fiducial model, but in the text the same model is also described as a line; the figure legend should be made consistent so the reader can distinguish the fiducial model from the parameter-variation cases.
  4. [Sec. 5.3, Table 3] The statement that there are 15+2N parameters is correct by the table, but the table header could more clearly separate the 6 cosmological parameters from the 9 ICM parameters, and the fixed parameters (xbreak, Bnt, gamma_nt, alpha_C, beta_C, gamma_C) should be listed in a separate block to avoid confusion with the vary list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the w0=8% result is a Fisher forecast conditional on an external ICM model, not a fit renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a Fisher forecast: it asks what future tSZ, X-ray, and lensing power spectra could measure, given a semi-analytic ICM model. The model ingredients are taken from prior works (Shaw et al. 2010; Flender et al. 2017; Nelson et al. 2014b), and the clumping parametrization is attributed to a companion paper, with parameters 'derived from X-ray angular power spectrum measurements from ROSAT All-Sky Survey (Lau et al. in prep.)'. These are external inputs, not quantities the paper derives from the same data it claims to predict. The headline constraint, w0 = 0.080 (1 sigma), is an expected marginalized error computed from Eqs. (45)-(46), not a measured constraint obtained by fitting the model to the future observables and then renaming the fit a prediction. No equation in the derivation is self-definitional: the tSZ, X-ray, and lensing spectra are defined from physical gas and mass profiles and the halo model, not from each other. The main self-citation is the Lau et al. in prep. clumping model; it sets the fiducial C0, but the logical content of the forecast does not reduce to that value, and Section 7 explicitly concedes model limitations (diffuse gas outside halos, mass assembly history, non-Gaussian covariance). I therefore find no circular derivation. Separately, the fiducial values of S*, epsilon_f, and epsilon_DM differ between Table 3 and Tables 1/4 (e.g., Table 3 lists S*=0.37, epsilon_f/10^-6=1.00, epsilon_DM=0.050, while Tables 1 and 4 use S*=0.12, epsilon_f=4x10^-6, epsilon_DM=0.010); this is a reproducibility and correctness issue for the quoted numbers, but not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on 15+ ICM and gas model parameters, most calibrated from earlier simulations and observations, plus standard cosmological inputs. The gas clumping parameters come from an unpublished companion paper (Lau et al. in prep.), and several fiducial values are inconsistent across Tables 1, 3, and 4. These are model choices and nuisance parameters, not new physical entities.

free parameters (14)
  • AC (concentration normalization) = 1.0
    Normalization of the halo concentration-mass relation; set to dark-matter-only prediction, varied with prior 0.50.
  • GammaTilde (inner polytropic index) = 0.10
    Inner polytropic index from X-ray density profile fits (Flender et al. 2017); varied with prior 0.10.
  • gamma (cooling redshift evolution) = 1.72
    Redshift evolution of the core cooling effect; varied with prior 1.72.
  • epsilon_DM (merger feedback) = 0.01 (Table 1) / 0.05 (Table 3)
    Energy from dynamical friction heating; values are internally inconsistent across tables.
  • epsilon_f (SN/AGN feedback) = 4e-6 (Table 1, text) / 1e-6 (Table 3)
    Energy injected by SNe and AGN in units of stellar rest mass energy; table inconsistency.
  • f_star (stellar mass fraction at pivot) = 0.026
    Stellar-to-halo mass fraction at M500 = 3e14 Msun; varied with prior 0.026.
  • S_star (mass slope of stellar fraction) = 0.12 (Table 1) / 0.37 (Table 3)
    Power-law index of the stellar-to-halo mass relation; fiducial value inconsistent across tables.
  • Ant (non-thermal pressure amplitude) = 0.452
    Amplitude of the non-thermal pressure fraction; varied with prior 0.452.
  • C0 (gas clumping amplitude) = 0.90
    Amplitude of the gas clumping factor profile; from ROSAT-based companion paper.
  • Bnt (non-thermal pressure shape radius) = 0.841 (fixed)
    Shape parameter in units of r200m; fixed to simulation-calibrated value.
  • gamma_nt (non-thermal pressure slope) = 1.628 (fixed)
    Radial slope index; fixed to simulation-calibrated value.
  • alphaC, betaC, gammaC (clumping profile shapes) = 1.0, 6.0, 3.0 (fixed)
    Shape parameters of the clumping profile; fixed from Omega500 simulations and companion paper.
  • m_i (lensing multiplicative bias, i=1..N) = 0.00 (prior 0.10)
    Multiplicative bias in each tomographic lensing bin; nuisance parameters with Gaussian priors.
  • zb_i (photometric redshift bias, i=1..N) = 0.00 (prior 0.05)
    Photo-z bias in each tomographic bin; nuisance parameters with Gaussian priors.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Halo model decomposition (1-halo + 2-halo terms) for projected power spectra.
    Used in Section 4.1; standard assumption in large-scale structure clustering.
  • standard math Limber approximation for the lensing auto-spectrum.
    Used in Eq. (35) for C_kappa_kappa; standard flat-sky approximation.
  • domain assumption Gaussian covariance for all measured power spectra.
    Eq. (38); the paper notes in Section 7.4 that non-Gaussian covariance may be important, potentially underestimating X-ray errors by up to a factor of 10.
  • domain assumption ICM is in hydrostatic equilibrium and follows a polytropic relation.
    Eqs. (14)-(17); a standard but approximate description, invalid in cluster cores and near the virial boundary.
  • domain assumption No diffuse gas outside halos contributes to the tSZ, X-ray, or lensing signals.
    Stated as a limitation in Section 7.1; diffuse filament gas is ignored.
  • domain assumption Non-thermal pressure and clumping profiles have universal shapes independent of mass and redshift.
    Sections 3.3 and 3.4 fix shape parameters based on simulations; the forecast does not marginalize over shape uncertainty.
  • standard math Fisher information matrix correctly approximates the likelihood for parameter constraints.
    Used in Section 5.3; standard for forecasts, but assumes Gaussian likelihood and small parameter shifts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Cosmology and Cluster Astrophysics with Multi-Wavelength Surveys I. Correlation Statistics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5AO7EDY

@misc{pith2026190902179,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Cosmology and Cluster Astrophysics with Multi-Wavelength Surveys I. Correlation Statistics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5AO7EDY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02179}
}
read the original abstract

Upcoming multi-wavelength astronomical surveys will soon discover all massive galaxy clusters and provide unprecedented constraints on cosmology and cluster astrophysics. In this paper, we investigate the constraining power of the multi-band cluster surveys, through a joint analysis of three observables associated with clusters of galaxies, including thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (tSZ) effect in cosmic microwave background (CMB), X-ray emission of ionized gas, and gravitational weak lensing effect of background galaxies by the cluster's gravitational potential. We develop a theoretical framework to predict and interpret two-point correlation statistics among the three observables using a semi-analytic model of intracluster medium (ICM) and halo-based approach. In this work, we show that the auto- and cross-angular power spectra in tSZ, X-ray and lensing statistics from upcoming missions (eROSITA, CMB-S4, and LSST) can help break the degeneracy between cosmology and ICM physics. These correlation statistics are less sensitive to selection biases, and are able to probe ICM physics in distant, faint and small clusters that are otherwise difficult to be detected individually. We show that the correlation statistics are able to provide cosmological constraints comparable to the conventional cluster abundance measurements, while constraining cluster astrophysics at the same time. Our results indicate that the correlation statistics can significantly enhance the scientific returns of upcoming multi-wavelength cluster surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02179 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The differential contributions to auto power spectra with respect to redshift (top panels) and halo mass (bottom panels). The left panels shows the result for one-halo term of Cy y , while the right is for one-halo term of Cx x . In left and right panels, the upper panel represents the derivative of one-halo power spectra in redshift and the lower is the derivative in virial halo mass. In each panel, different color… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Noise power spectrum of the tSZ analysis in a hypo￾thetical CMB-S4 measurement. The black line shows the fiducial model of tSZ auto power spectrum, while other lines are the mod￾els of noise power spectrum with different parameters in the beam size and pivot angular scale in atmospheric noise. square of the intrinsic ellipticity in the source catalogue of “a”, and ngal,a represents the angular number density in the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The source redshift distribution in a hypothetical imaging survey with 10 tomographic bins and its corresponding lensing kernel. certainties in the photometric redshift zph with the following probability distribution for a given true redshift z: Prob(zph|z) = 1 p 2πσz …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The parameter dependence on power spectra. Each panel show the power spectrum when one vary the parameters of cosmology and ICM. Top-left: tSZ auto power spectrum, Top-middle: X-ray auto power spectrum, Top-right: tSZ-X cross power spectrum, Bottom￾left: tSZ-WL cross p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The summary of parameter forecasts with a joint analysis of tSZ, X-ray and lensing observables. The orange error contours assume the analysis with the power spectra related with tSZ and lensing (Cy y and Cyκ ), while the purple one shows the results by the joint analys…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The corner plot of 6 cosmological parameters by different combinations of power spectra. In this figure, different colored lines show the parameter constraints with a 68% confidence level by various combination of tSZ, X-ray and lensing observables (as shown in the leg…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The dependence of survey/analysis setup on the 1σ marginalized error in the parameter of non-thermal pressure, Ant. The gray region shows the error with our fiducial setup. (C0). Even if we can determine those parameters with an un￾precedented accuracy, the joint analy…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The bias in parameter estimation if the noise power spectrum in tSZ cannot be removed perfectly. The horizontal axis represents the residual of noise power spectrum and the vertical axis shows the parameter bias with respect to the 1σ marginalized error. The left pane…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Abazajian K., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190704473A

    2019

  3. [4]

    W., Evrard A

    Allen S. W., Evrard A. E., Mantz A. B., 2011, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011ARA&A..49..409A 49, 409

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

  4. [5]

    T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/227 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..227A 833, 227

    Avestruz C., Nagai D., Lau E. T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/227 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..227A 833, 227

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/227 2016

  5. [6]

    Bartelmann M., Schneider P., 2001, @doi [Physics Reports] 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00082-X , 340, 291

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(00)00082-x 2001

  6. [7]

    R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J

    Battaglia N., Bond J. R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J. L., Sijacki D., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...725...91B 725, 91

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/91 2010

  7. [8]

    R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J

    Battaglia N., Bond J. R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J. L., 2012a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012ApJ...758...75B 758, 75

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/75

  8. [9]

    R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J

    Battaglia N., Bond J. R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J. L., 2012b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758...74B 758, 74

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/74

Show all 116 references
  1. [10]

    R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J

    Battaglia N., Bond J. R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J. L., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/43 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806...43B 806, 43

    doi

  2. [11]

    C., Murray N., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/154 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812..154B 812, 154

    Battaglia N., Hill J. C., Murray N., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/154 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812..154B 812, 154

    doi

  3. [12]

    Biffi V., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827..112B 827, 112

    2016 doi

  4. [13]

    L., Fadili J., Aghanim N., 2008, @doi [Statistical Methodology] 10.1016/j.stamet.2007.10.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2008StMet...5..307B 5, 307

    Bobin J., Moudden Y., Starck J. L., Fadili J., Aghanim N., 2008, @doi [Statistical Methodology] 10.1016/j.stamet.2007.10.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2008StMet...5..307B 5, 307

    2008 doi

  5. [14]

    Bocquet S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878...55B 878, 55

    2019 doi

  6. [15]

    F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty823 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.477.4957B 477, 4957

    Bolliet B., Comis B., Komatsu E., Mac \' as-P \'e rez J. F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty823 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.477.4957B 477, 4957

    2018 doi

  7. [16]

    L., Norman M

    Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1998ApJ...495...80B 495, 80

    1998 doi

  8. [17]

    Cappelluti N., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013ApJ...769...68C 769, 68

    2013 doi

  9. [18]

    E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.480.3962C 480, 3962

    Chisari N. E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.480.3962C 480, 3962

    2018 doi

  10. [20]

    Chown R., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aae694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJS..239...10C 239, 10

    2018 doi

  11. [21]

    Cooray A., Sheth R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00276-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2002PhR...372....1C 372, 1

    2002 doi

  12. [22]

    V., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789....1D 789, 1

    Diemer B., Kravtsov A. V., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789....1D 789, 1

    2014 doi

  13. [23]

    V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/108 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..108D 799, 108

    Diemer B., Kravtsov A. V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/108 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..108D 799, 108

    2015 doi

  14. [25]

    Dunkley J., et al., 2013, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/07/025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013JCAP...07..025D 2013, 025

    2013 doi

  15. [26]

    R., Hearin A

    Eifler T., Krause E., Dodelson S., Zentner A. R., Hearin A. P., Gnedin N. Y., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2000 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2015MNRAS.454.2451E 454, 2451

    2015 doi

  16. [27]

    C., Barcons X., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002241 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ARA

    Fabian A. C., Barcons X., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002241 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ARA

    1992

  17. [28]

    Fedeli C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21302.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012MNRAS.424.1244F 424, 1244

    2012

  18. [29]

    J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/916 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...707..916F 707, 916

    Fixsen D. J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/916 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...707..916F 707, 916

    2009 doi

  19. [30]

    Flender S., Nagai D., McDonald M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa60bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837..124F 837, 124

    2017 doi

  20. [31]

    Y., Kravtsov A

    Gnedin O. Y., Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A. A., Nagai D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2004ApJ...616...16G 616, 16

    2004 doi

  21. [32]

    P., Hill J

    Greco J. P., Hill J. C., Spergel D. N., Battaglia N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808..151G 808, 151

    2015 doi

  22. [33]

    Hikage C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psz010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASJ...71...43H 71, 43

    2019 doi

  23. [34]

    Hildebrandt H., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2805 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017MNRAS.465.1454H 465, 1454

    2017 doi

  24. [35]

    C., Pajer E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.063526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013PhRvD..88f3526H 88, 063526

    Hill J. C., Pajer E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.063526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013PhRvD..88f3526H 88, 063526

    2013 doi

  25. [36]

    C., Spergel D

    Hill J. C., Spergel D. N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/02/030 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014JCAP...02..030H 2, 030

    2014 doi

  26. [37]

    C., Baxter E

    Hill J. C., Baxter E. J., Lidz A., Greco J. P., Jain B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.083501 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvD..97h3501H 97, 083501

    2018 doi

  27. [38]

    Hilton M., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa6cb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJS..235...20H 235, 20

    2018 doi

  28. [39]

    Hinshaw G., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013ApJS..208...19H 208, 19

    2013 doi

  29. [40]

    Hojjati A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1659 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.1565H 471, 1565

    2017 doi

  30. [41]

    Horowitz B., Seljak U., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017MNRAS.469..394H 469, 394

    2017 doi

  31. [42]

    V., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345846 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...584..702H 584, 702

    Hu W., Kravtsov A. V., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345846 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...584..702H 584, 702

    2003 doi

  32. [43]

    Hurier G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/ 575, L11

    2015 doi

  33. [44]

    F., Hildebrandt S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321891 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    Hurier G., Mac \' as-P \'e rez J. F., Hildebrandt S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321891 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  34. [45]

    arXiv:1702.00075

    Hurier G., Aghanim N., Douspis M., 2017, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017arXiv170200075H p. arXiv:1702.00075

    2017 arXiv

  35. [46]

    L., 2018, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/1361-6633/aa997e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018RPPh...81a6901H 81, 016901

    Huterer D., Shafer D. L., 2018, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/1361-6633/aa997e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018RPPh...81a6901H 81, 016901

    2018 doi

  36. [47]

    Huterer D., Takada M., Bernstein G., Jain B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09782.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366..101H 366, 101

    2006

  37. [48]

    Itoh N., Kohyama Y., Nozawa S., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305876 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...502....7I 502, 7

    1998 doi

  38. [49]

    P., Zhang P., Lin W

    Jing Y. P., Zhang P., Lin W. P., Gao L., Springel V., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503547 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2006ApJ...640L.119J 640, L119

    2006 doi

  39. [50]

    Johnston H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A

    2019 doi

  40. [51]

    Khatri R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2015MNRAS.451.3321K 451, 3321

    2015 doi

  41. [52]

    Komatsu E., Kitayama T., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312364 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1999ApJ...526L...1K 526, L1

    1999 doi

  42. [53]

    Komatsu E., Seljak U., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05889.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.336.1256K 336, 1256

    2002

  43. [54]

    arXiv:0912.0201

    LSST Science Collaboration et al., 2009, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2009arXiv0912.0201L p. arXiv:0912.0201

    2009 arXiv

  44. [55]

    arXiv:1902.08268

    Lakey V., Huffenberger K., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190208268L p. arXiv:1902.08268

    2019 arXiv

  45. [56]

    T., Kravtsov A

    Lau E. T., Kravtsov A. V., Nagai D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705.1129L 705, 1129

    2009 doi

  46. [57]

    T., Nagai D., Nelson K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777..151L 777, 151

    Lau E. T., Nagai D., Nelson K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777..151L 777, 151

    2013 doi

  47. [58]

    T., Nagai D., Avestruz C., Nelson K., Vikhlinin A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806...68L 806, 68

    Lau E. T., Nagai D., Avestruz C., Nelson K., Vikhlinin A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806...68L 806, 68

    2015 doi

  48. [59]

    Le Brun A. M. C., McCarthy I. G., Schaye J., Ponman T. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3361 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.4442L 466, 4442

    2017 doi

  49. [60]

    D., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012ApJ...752...46L 752, 46

    Lehmer B. D., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012ApJ...752...46L 752, 46

    2012 doi

  50. [61]

    G., Hasinger G., Kashlinsky A., Helgason K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJ...864..141L 864, 141

    Li Y., Cappelluti N., Arendt R. G., Hasinger G., Kashlinsky A., Helgason K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJ...864..141L 864, 141

    2018 doi

  51. [62]

    N., 1954, ApJ, 119, 655

    Limber D. N., 1954, ApJ, 119, 655

    1954

  52. [63]

    Ma Y.-Z., Van Waerbeke L., Hinshaw G., Hojjati A., Scott D., Zuntz J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/09/046 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JCAP...09..046M 9, 046

    2015 doi

  53. [64]

    S., Battaglia N., Miyatake H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017PhRvD..96j3525M 96, 103525

    Madhavacheril M. S., Battaglia N., Miyatake H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017PhRvD..96j3525M 96, 103525

    2017 doi

  54. [65]

    Makiya R., Ando S., Komatsu E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2031 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.480.3928M 480, 3928

    2018 doi

  55. [66]

    arXiv:1907.07870

    Makiya R., Hikage C., Komatsu E., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190707870M p. arXiv:1907.07870

    2019 arXiv

  56. [67]

    Mandelbaum R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S..25M 70, S25

    2018 doi

  57. [68]

    McDonald M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013ApJ...774...23M 774, 23

    2013 doi

  58. [69]

    arXiv:1209.3114

    Merloni A., et al., 2012, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012arXiv1209.3114M p. arXiv:1209.3114

    2012 arXiv

  59. [70]

    Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad3b1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJ...863..173M 863, 173

    Mohammed I., Gnedin N. Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad3b1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJ...863..173M 863, 173

    2018 doi

  60. [71]

    Morrison R., McCammon D., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270..119M 270, 119

    1983 doi

  61. [72]

    T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/731/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011ApJ...731L..10N 731, L10

    Nagai D., Lau E. T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/731/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011ApJ...731L..10N 731, L10

    2011 doi

  62. [73]

    V., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...655...98N 655, 98

    Nagai D., Vikhlinin A., Kravtsov A. V., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...655...98N 655, 98

    2007 doi

  63. [74]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177173 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...462..563N 462, 563

    1996 doi

  64. [75]

    T., Nagai D., Rudd D

    Nelson K., Lau E. T., Nagai D., Rudd D. H., Yu L., 2014a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/107 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782..107N 782, 107

    doi

  65. [76]

    T., Nagai D., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792...25N 792, 25

    Nelson K., Lau E. T., Nagai D., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792...25N 792, 25

    doi

  66. [77]

    Osato K., Flender S., Nagai D., Shirasaki M., Yoshida N., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3215 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..532O 475, 532

    2018 doi

  67. [78]

    P., Bode P., Babul A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2005ApJ...634..964O 634, 964

    Ostriker J. P., Bode P., Babul A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2005ApJ...634..964O 634, 964

    2005 doi

  68. [79]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220941 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...557A..52P 557, A52

    2013 doi

  69. [80]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    doi

  70. [81]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527418 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/ 594, A23

    doi

  71. [82]

    L., Ragone-Figueroa C., Dolag K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2141 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438..195P 438, 195

    Planelles S., Borgani S., Fabjan D., Killedar M., Murante G., Granato G. L., Ragone-Figueroa C., Dolag K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2141 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438..195P 438, 195

    2014 doi

  72. [83]

    W., Arnaud M., Biviano A., Eckert D., Ettori S., Nagai D., Okabe N., Reiprich T

    Pratt G. W., Arnaud M., Biviano A., Eckert D., Ettori S., Nagai D., Okabe N., Reiprich T. H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-019-0591-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SSRv..215...25P 215, 25

    2019 doi

  73. [84]

    Ptak A., Mobasher B., Hornschemeier A., Bauer F., Norman C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520824 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2007ApJ...667..826P 667, 826

    2007 doi

  74. [85]

    Puchwein E., Sijacki D., Springel V., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/593352 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...687L..53P 687, L53

    2008 doi

  75. [86]

    Rasia E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...96R 791, 96

    2014 doi

  76. [87]

    Remazeilles M., Delabrouille J., Cardoso J.-F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17624.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011MNRAS.410.2481R 410, 2481

    2011

  77. [88]

    Remazeilles M., Aghanim N., Douspis M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430..370R 430, 370

    2013 doi

  78. [89]

    H., Zentner A

    Rudd D. H., Zentner A. R., Kravtsov A. V., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2008ApJ...672...19R 672, 19

    2008 doi

  79. [90]

    Samuroff S., et al., 2018, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181106989S

    2018

  80. [91]

    D., Bridle S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15956.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2010MNRAS.402.2127S 402, 2127

    Schneider M. D., Bridle S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15956.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2010MNRAS.402.2127S 402, 2127

    2010

  81. [92]

    Schneider A., Teyssier R., 2015, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2015JCAP...12..049S 2015, 049

    2015 doi

  82. [93]

    D., Nagai D., Bhattacharya S., Lau E

    Shaw L. D., Nagai D., Bhattacharya S., Lau E. T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...725.1452S 725, 1452

    2010 doi

  83. [94]

    Shi X., Komatsu E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu858 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442..521S 442, 521

    2014 doi

  84. [95]

    Shi X., Komatsu E., Nelson K., Nagai D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.1020S 448, 1020

    2015 doi

  85. [96]

    T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.2936S 455, 2936

    Shi X., Komatsu E., Nagai D., Lau E. T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.2936S 455, 2936

    2016 doi

  86. [97]

    Shirasaki M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019MNRAS.483..342S 483, 342

    2019 doi

  87. [98]

    Shirasaki M., Hamana T., Yoshida N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psv105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASJ...68....4S 68, 4

    2016 doi

  88. [99]

    T., Nagai D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.477.2804S 477, 2804

    Shirasaki M., Lau E. T., Nagai D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.477.2804S 477, 2804

    2018 doi

  89. [100]

    Simionescu A., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1200331 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...331.1576S 331, 1576

    2011 doi

  90. [101]

    Singh S., Mandelbaum R., More S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2015MNRAS.450.2195S 450, 2195

    2015 doi

  91. [102]

    Takahashi R., Sato M., Nishimichi T., Taruya A., Oguri M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012ApJ...761..152T 761, 152

    2012 doi

  92. [103]

    Tanaka M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S...9T 70, S9

    2018 doi

  93. [104]

    V., Klypin A., Abazajian K., Warren M., Yepes G., Gottl \"o ber S., Holz D

    Tinker J., Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A., Abazajian K., Warren M., Yepes G., Gottl \"o ber S., Holz D. E., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591439 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688..709T 688, 709

    2008 doi

  94. [105]

    L., Robertson B

    Tinker J. L., Robertson B. E., Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A., Warren M. S., Yepes G., Gottl \"o ber S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/878 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..878T 724, 878

    2010 doi

  95. [106]

    Tozzi P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042592 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2006A&A...451..457T 451, 457

    2006 doi

  96. [107]

    M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2006ApJ...652L..79T 652, L79

    Treister E., Urry C. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2006ApJ...652L..79T 652, L79

    2006 doi

  97. [108]

    A., Ishak M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.11.001 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhR...558....1T 558, 1

    Troxel M. A., Ishak M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.11.001 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhR...558....1T 558, 1

    2015 doi

  98. [109]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018PhRvD..98d3528T 98, 043528

    Troxel M. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018PhRvD..98d3528T 98, 043528

    2018 doi

  99. [110]

    G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2014ApJ...786..104U 786, 104

    Ueda Y., Akiyama M., Hasinger G., Miyaji T., Watson M. G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2014ApJ...786..104U 786, 104

    2014 doi

  100. [111]

    Van Waerbeke L., Hinshaw G., Murray N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.023508 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvD..89b3508V 89, 023508

    2014 doi

  101. [112]

    Vazza F., Eckert D., Simionescu A., Br \"u ggen M., Ettori S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429..799V 429, 799

    2013 doi

  102. [113]

    Vikram V., Lidz A., Jain B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.2315V 467, 2315

    2017 doi

  103. [114]

    A., Fabian A

    Walker S. A., Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., Simionescu A., Tawara Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt497 , http://ads.nao.ac.jp/abs/2013MNRAS.432..554W 432, 554

    2013 doi

  104. [115]

    Walker S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-018-0572-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SSRv..215....7W 215, 7

    2019 doi

  105. [116]

    H., Bullock J

    Wechsler R. H., Bullock J. S., Primack J. R., Kravtsov A. V., Dekel A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338765 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...568...52W 568, 52

    2002 doi

  106. [117]

    Young M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012ApJ...748..124Y 748, 124

    2012 doi

  107. [118]

    Zandanel F., Weniger C., Ando S., 2015, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/09/060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2015JCAP...09..060Z 2015, 060

    2015 doi

  108. [119]

    R., Semboloni E., Dodelson S., Eifler T., Krause E., Hearin A

    Zentner A. R., Semboloni E., Dodelson S., Eifler T., Krause E., Hearin A. P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.043509 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013PhRvD..87d3509Z 87, 043509

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.