Pith. Sign in

RECORD

The Massive and Distant Clusters of WISE Survey VI: Stellar Mass Fractions of a Sample of High-Redshift Infrared-selected Clusters

Astrophysics of Galaxies · Submitted 26 Mar 2019

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim We do not find a significant difference in mean $f_\star$ between the two selection methods, though we do find an unexpectedly large range in $f_\star$ for the SZ-selected clusters.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1903.11100 (version 1)
Pith IDA6FV25WD, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationAdam Mantz, Anthony H. Gonzalez, Bandon Decker, Brian Hayden, Christine O'Donnell, Daniel P. Marrone, Daniel Stern, Dominika Wylezalek, Emily Moravec, Greg Aldering, John E. Carlstrom, Kyle Boone, Mark Brodwin, Matthew L. N. Ashby, Michael A. McDonald, Nikhel Gupta, Peter R. M. Eisenhardt, S. A. Stanford, Wenli Mo, Zubair Abdulla. "The Massive and Distant Clusters of WISE Survey VI: Stellar Mass Fractions of a Sample of High-Redshift Infrared-selected Clusters." arXiv:1903.11100 (2019). https://pith.science/paper/A6FV25WD
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,582 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.33 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.82 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.97 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

We present measurements of the stellar mass fractions ($f_\star$) for a sample of high-redshift ($0.93 \le z \le 1.32$) infrared-selected galaxy clusters from the Massive and Distant Clusters of WISE Survey (MaDCoWS) and compare them to the stellar mass fractions of Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect-selected clusters in a similar mass and redshift range from the South Pole Telescope (SPT)-SZ Survey. We do not find a significant difference in mean $f_\star$ between the two selection methods, though we do find an unexpectedly large range in $f_\star$ for the SZ-selected clusters. In addition, we measure the luminosity function of the MaDCoWS clusters and find $m^*= 19.41\pm0.07$, similar to other studies of clusters at or near our redshift range. Finally, we present SZ detections and masses for seven MaDCoWS clusters and new spectroscopic redshifts for five MaDCoWS clusters. One of these new clusters, MOO J1521+0452 at $z=1.31$, is the most distant MaDCoWS cluster confirmed to date.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 We present measurements of the stellar mass fractions ($f_\star$) for a sample of high-redshift ($0.93 \le z \le 1.32$) infrared-selected galaxy clusters from the Massive and Distant Clusters of WISE Survey (MaDCoWS) and compare them to the stellar mass fractions of Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect-selected clusters in a similar mass and redshift range from the South Pole Telescope (SPT)-SZ Survey. contribution 1.00 0.97 0.09 asserted 1.00
s1 We do not find a significant difference in mean $f_\star$ between the two selection methods, though we do find an unexpectedly large range in $f_\star$ for the SZ-selected clusters. result 1.00 0.97 0.73 asserted 1.00
s2 In addition, we measure the luminosity function of the MaDCoWS clusters and find $m^*= 19.41\pm0.07$, similar to other studies of clusters at or near our redshift range. result 0.99 0.98 0.07 asserted 1.00
s3 Finally, we present SZ detections and masses for seven MaDCoWS clusters and new spectroscopic redshifts for five MaDCoWS clusters. contribution 0.70 0.97 0.04 asserted 1.00
s4 One of these new clusters, MOO J1521+0452 at $z=1.31$, is the most distant MaDCoWS cluster confirmed to date. result 0.92 0.91 0.04 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.74.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

We present measurements of the stellar mass fractions ($f_\star$) for a sample of high-redshift ($0.93 \le z \le 1.32$) infrared-selected galaxy clusters from the Massive and Distant Clusters of WISE Survey (MaDCoWS) and compare them to the stellar mass fractions of Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect-selected clusters in a similar mass and redshift range from the South Pole Telescope (SPT)-SZ Survey. We do not find a significant difference in mean $f_\star$ between the two selection methods, though we do find an unexpectedly large range in $f_\star$ for the SZ-selected clusters. In addition, we measure the luminosity function of the MaDCoWS clusters and find $m^*= 19.41\pm0.07$, similar to other studies of clusters at or near our redshift range. Finally, we present SZ detections and masses for seven MaDCoWS clusters and new spectroscopic redshifts for five MaDCoWS clusters. One of these new clusters, MOO J1521+0452 at $z=1.31$, is the most distant MaDCoWS cluster confirmed to date.

Human review

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.