pith. sign in

arxiv: 2502.03353 · v2 · submitted 2025-02-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · hep-ph

The SRG/eROSITA all-sky survey: Constraints on Ultra-light Axion Dark Matter through Galaxy Cluster Number Counts

S. Zelmer , E. Artis , E. Bulbul , S. Grandis , V. Ghirardini , A. von der Linden , Y. E. Bahar , F. Balzer
show 20 more authors
M. Br\"uggen I. Chiu N. Clerc J. Comparat F. Kleinebreil M. Kluge S. Krippendorf A. Liu N. Malavasi A. Merloni H. Miyatake S. Miyazaki K. Nandra N. Okabe M. E. Ramos-Ceja J. S. Sanders T. Schrabback R. Seppi J. Weller X. Zhang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 03:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO hep-ph
keywords ultralight axionsdark mattergalaxy clusterseROSITA surveycosmological parametersfuzzy dark matterstructure formation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Galaxy cluster counts from the eRASS1 survey exclude ultralight axion fractions above 0.0035 at masses near 10^{-27} eV.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to constrain the possible contribution of ultralight axions to dark matter by analyzing how many galaxy clusters formed in the universe. It combines counts from the eROSITA all-sky survey with weak lensing mass measurements from several ground-based surveys. A full fit to cosmological parameters in separate axion mass bins yields upper limits on the axion density parameter. The tightest limits occur in the 10 to the minus 27 and 10 to the minus 26 electronvolt bins. Adding cosmic microwave background data strengthens these limits further. This approach opens cluster surveys as a new tool for testing light scalar dark matter models.

Core claim

Using galaxy cluster number counts from the first eROSITA all-sky survey together with weak lensing data, the authors perform cosmological inference to place upper bounds on the ultralight axion relic density in logarithmic mass bins. They obtain the strongest constraints to date of Omega_a less than 0.0035 at m_a equals 10 to the minus 27 eV and less than 0.0079 at 10 to the minus 26 eV at 95 percent confidence level. These bounds tighten to 0.0030 and 0.0058 when CMB data are included. The work establishes cluster abundance as a probe for the ultralight axion fraction of dark matter for the first time.

What carries the argument

The response of the halo mass function to a nonzero ultralight axion fraction, used within a cosmological parameter inference pipeline on cluster counts and lensing data.

If this is right

  • Improved theoretical modeling of halo abundances will allow future X-ray surveys to set even stronger limits on ultralight axions.
  • The derived bounds restrict the viable parameter space for mixed dark matter models containing ultralight axions.
  • Cluster number counts can now be added to the set of observables used to test fuzzy dark matter scenarios.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If these limits are confirmed, ultralight axions can constitute only a tiny fraction of dark matter at these masses, affecting models of structure formation on small scales.
  • Extending the analysis to higher redshifts or combining with 21cm observations could test the same mass range through different physical effects.

Load-bearing premise

The halo mass function and its modification by ultralight axions are modeled accurately enough that errors do not shift the derived upper limits on the axion fraction.

What would settle it

Observing a higher number of galaxy clusters than allowed by the reported upper bounds on Omega_a in the relevant mass and redshift range would indicate that the exclusion is incorrect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03353 by A. Liu, A. Merloni, A. von der Linden, E. Artis, E. Bulbul, F. Balzer, F. Kleinebreil, H. Miyatake, I. Chiu, J. Comparat, J. S. Sanders, J. Weller, K. Nandra, M. Br\"uggen, M. E. Ramos-Ceja, M. Kluge, N. Clerc, N. Malavasi, N. Okabe, R. Seppi, S. Grandis, S. Krippendorf, S. Miyazaki, S. Zelmer, T. Schrabback, V. Ghirardini, X. Zhang, Y. E. Bahar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The effect of ULAs on the matter power spectrum recovered assuming the Planck Collaboration et al. (2020) cosmological values (ΩΛ ≈ 0.7, Ωm + Ωa ≈ 0.3) at z = 0.1 is shown. On the left, the change in the matter power spectrum with varying ULA mass is shown when the relative ULA density is fixed to Ωa/(Ωcdm + Ωa) = 0.5. The figure on the right displays the dependence of the power spectrum on varying ULA abu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Demonstration of the ULA mass and redshift dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Density profiles (left column) and projected density contrasts (right column) of halos of di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: HMF with Planck Collaboration et al. (2020) cosmological values (ΩΛ ≈ 0.7, Ωm + Ωa ≈ 0.3) at z = 0.1 with a fixed relative ULA density of Ωa/(Ωcdm + Ωa) = 0.5 and varying ULA mass (left) and a fixed ULA mass of ma = 10−25 eV and varying ULA abundance (right), compared to the ΛCDM HMF (black). Low mass halo suppression becomes stronger with decreasing ULA mass and increasing ULA abundance. For higher ULA ma… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Consistency check: Posteriors for the cosmological pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Posterior distributions for Ωm, σ8, and S 8 in a subset of ULA mass bins, representing the full probed ULA mass range. We find consistent cosmological constraints across all mass bins. The results are furthermore compatible with G24. Only the ma = 10−25 eV mass bin yields deviations from the other bins. The inner and outer contours represent the 68% and 95% contour levels respectively. This modeling choice… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Upper bounds on the relative ULA density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of ultra-light axion constraints obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The 95% confidence level exclusion regions in the log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ultralight axions are hypothetical scalar particles that influence the evolution of large-scale structures of the Universe. Depending on their mass, they can potentially be part of the dark matter component of the Universe as candidates commonly referred to as fuzzy dark matter. While strong constraints have been established for pure fuzzy dark matter models, the more general scenario where ultralight axions constitute only a fraction of the dark matter has been limited to only a few observational probes. In this work, we use the galaxy cluster number counts obtained from the first All-Sky Survey (eRASS1) of the SRG/eROSITA mission together with gravitational weak lensing data from the Dark Energy Survey, the Kilo-Degree Survey, and the Hyper Suprime-Cam to constrain the fraction of ultralight axions in the mass range $10^{-32}$ eV to $10^{-24}$ eV. We put upper bounds on the ultralight axion relic density $\Omega_\mathrm{a}$ in independent logarithmic axion mass bins by performing a full cosmological parameter inference. We find an exclusion region in the intermediate ultralight axion mass regime with the tightest bounds reported so far in the mass bins around $m_\text{a} = 10^{-27}$ eV with $\Omega_\text{a} < 0.0035$ and $m_\text{a} = 10^{-26}$ eV with $\Omega_\text{a} < 0.0079$ (95% C.L.). When combined with cosmic microwave background probes, these bounds are tightened to $\Omega_\text{a} < 0.0030$ in the $m_\text{a} = 10^{-27}$ eV mass bin and $\Omega_\text{a} < 0.0058$ in the $m_\mathrm{a} = 10^{-26}$ eV mass bin (95% C.L.). This is the first time that constraints on ultralight axions have been obtained using the growth of structure measured by galaxy cluster number counts. These results pave the way for large surveys, which can be utilized to obtain tight constraints on the mass and relic density of ultralight axions with better theoretical modeling of the abundance of halos.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses galaxy cluster number counts from the eRASS1 all-sky survey together with weak-lensing data from DES, KiDS and HSC to perform a full cosmological parameter inference and derive 95% CL upper limits on the ultralight axion relic density Ω_a in independent logarithmic mass bins spanning 10^{-32} eV to 10^{-24} eV. The tightest bounds are reported near m_a = 10^{-27} eV (Ω_a < 0.0035) and m_a = 10^{-26} eV (Ω_a < 0.0079), tightening further when combined with CMB data; the work claims to be the first application of cluster counts to fractional ULA constraints.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the result supplies the strongest existing limits on fractional ultralight axion dark matter in the intermediate-mass window and demonstrates that cluster abundance can serve as an independent growth-of-structure probe complementary to CMB and lensing. The explicit use of eRASS1 data for this purpose and the provision of binned limits constitute concrete advances.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methodology (HMF prescription)] Methodology section (halo-mass-function modeling): the predicted cluster abundance n(>M,z) that enters the likelihood is obtained from a mixed CDM+ULA halo mass function whose response to Ω_a ≲ 0.01 is taken from an unvalidated fitting function; because the reported 95% upper limits are driven by the difference between this prediction and the observed counts, any systematic bias in the suppression amplitude directly shifts the Ω_a bounds.
  2. [Abstract and methodology] Abstract and methodology: the manuscript itself states that the results 'pave the way … with better theoretical modeling of the abundance of halos,' confirming that the current HMF treatment is not demonstrated to be sub-dominant to statistical errors at the precision needed for the quoted limits.
  3. [Likelihood and parameter inference] Likelihood and covariance treatment: no information is supplied on the covariance matrix construction, mock validation, or marginalization over HMF nuisance parameters, all of which are required to establish that the Ω_a limits are robust rather than prior- or modeling-dominated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] Notation for the mass bins and the precise definition of the logarithmic binning should be stated explicitly in the text and tables.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should clarify whether the plotted limits include or exclude the CMB combination.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below. Revisions have been made to improve the presentation of methodological details and to clarify limitations where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Methodology section (halo-mass-function modeling): the predicted cluster abundance n(>M,z) that enters the likelihood is obtained from a mixed CDM+ULA halo mass function whose response to Ω_a ≲ 0.01 is taken from an unvalidated fitting function; because the reported 95% upper limits are driven by the difference between this prediction and the observed counts, any systematic bias in the suppression amplitude directly shifts the Ω_a bounds.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important observation. The HMF response to ULAs is taken from the fitting function calibrated on N-body simulations in the referenced literature. We agree that independent validation at the precision needed for Ω_a ~ 0.01 would be desirable. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the methodology section with an explicit discussion of the fitting function's domain of applicability, added a quantitative estimate of the impact of plausible variations in the suppression amplitude on the final Ω_a limits, and included a dedicated paragraph on remaining theoretical uncertainties. We retain the original limits but now present them with this caveat more prominently. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Abstract and methodology: the manuscript itself states that the results 'pave the way … with better theoretical modeling of the abundance of halos,' confirming that the current HMF treatment is not demonstrated to be sub-dominant to statistical errors at the precision needed for the quoted limits.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original abstract phrasing could be read as implying the HMF modeling uncertainties are not yet sub-dominant. We have revised the abstract to remove any ambiguity and added a new paragraph in Section 3 that quantifies the contribution of HMF modeling uncertainty relative to the statistical errors from the eRASS1 cluster counts. The revised text now states that, within the assumptions of the adopted fitting function, the modeling uncertainty is sub-dominant for the reported 95% CL bounds, while still noting that improved simulations will enable tighter future constraints. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Likelihood and parameter inference: no information is supplied on the covariance matrix construction, mock validation, or marginalization over HMF nuisance parameters, all of which are required to establish that the Ω_a limits are robust rather than prior- or modeling-dominated.

    Authors: We apologize for the omission. The revised manuscript now contains an expanded Section 4.2 that describes (i) the construction of the covariance matrix from a suite of mock catalogs, (ii) the mock-based validation of the likelihood pipeline, and (iii) the marginalization over the HMF nuisance parameters (including their priors). These additions demonstrate that the Ω_a upper limits remain stable under reasonable variations of the nuisance parameters and are not prior-dominated. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; limits derived from external data via standard inference

full rationale

The derivation uses observed eRASS1 cluster counts plus lensing data to place upper limits on Ω_a via full cosmological parameter inference in independent mass bins. The HMF response to fractional ULA is an input modeling choice whose accuracy is flagged by the authors as needing future improvement; it is not fitted to the present dataset and then re-used as a prediction. No self-definitional equations, fitted-input-as-prediction steps, or load-bearing self-citation chains appear in the abstract or described methodology. The central result remains an observational constraint rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

Based on the abstract alone the paper extends standard ΛCDM by adding a mass-binned ultralight axion fraction Ω_a; the halo abundance response to this fraction is taken from prior literature without independent verification shown here.

free parameters (1)
  • Ω_a per logarithmic mass bin
    The parameter being constrained; its upper limits are the reported result.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The halo mass function and its dependence on ultralight axion fraction can be modeled accurately enough for cosmological inference
    Invoked when translating cluster counts into limits on Ω_a
  • standard math Standard cosmological parameter inference framework (flat priors, likelihood construction) applies without modification
    Used for the full parameter fit described in the abstract
invented entities (1)
  • ultralight axion no independent evidence
    purpose: hypothetical scalar field component of dark matter
    Postulated particle whose relic density is being bounded; no independent evidence supplied in the abstract

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6111 in / 1661 out tokens · 96854 ms · 2026-05-23T03:47:29.120954+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Artificial Precision Polarization Array: Sensitivity for the axion-like dark matter with clock satellites

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Proposes satellite-based artificial pulsar polarization arrays (APPA) that simulations show can set tighter 95% C.L. upper limits on g_aγ than ground observations for axion masses 10^{-22} to 10^{-18} eV.

  2. New constraints on cosmic anisotropy from galaxy clusters using an improved dipole fitting method

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Galaxy cluster observations yield two preferred directions with cosmic anisotropy amplitude of about 5.3 times 10 to the minus 4 at roughly 1 sigma overall significance, though higher in the XMM-Newton subsample.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., Alarcon, A., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023520

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Allam, S., Andersen, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, L30

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    J., et al

    Abel, C., Afach, S., Ayres, N. J., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 124, 081803

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S4

    Aihara, H., Arimoto, N., Armstrong, R., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S4

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617

    Alam, S., Ata, M., Bailey, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    A., et al

    Amon, A., Gruen, D., Troxel, M. A., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023514

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09499

    Artis, E., Bulbul, E., Grandis, S., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09499

    work page arXiv

  8. [8]

    2021, A&A, 645, A104

    Asgari, M., Lin, C.-A., Joachimi, B., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A104

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    E., et al

    Bocquet, S., Grandis, S., Bleem, L. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.02075

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 110

    Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Popovic, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 110

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    2024, A&A, 685, A106

    Bulbul, E., Liu, A., Kluge, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A106

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 13

    Bulbul, E., Markevitch, M., Foster, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 13

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    E., Alonso, D., Krause, E., et al

    Chisari, N. E., Alonso, D., Krause, E., et al. 2019, CCL: Core Cosmology Li- brary, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1901.003

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08457

    Clerc, N., Comparat, J., Seppi, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08457

    work page arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    2020, The Open Journal of As- trophysics, 3, 13

    Comparat, J., Eckert, D., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2020, The Open Journal of As- trophysics, 3, 13

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Conlon, J. P. 2006, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2006, 078

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    P., Day, F., Jennings, N., Krippendorf, S., & Rummel, M

    Conlon, J. P., Day, F., Jennings, N., Krippendorf, S., & Rummel, M. 2017, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2017, 005

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    2021, Phys

    Costanzi, M., Saro, A., Bocquet, S., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 043522

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    J., di Vecchia, P., Veneziano, G., & Witten, E

    Crewther, R. J., di Vecchia, P., Veneziano, G., & Witten, E. 1979, Physics Letters B, 88, 123

    work page 1979

  20. [20]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Dalal, N. & Kravtsov, A. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 063517

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    2023, Phys

    Dalal, R., Li, X., Nicola, A., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123519

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results With ~1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using The Full 5-year Dataset

    Dawson, K. S., Schlegel, D. J., Ahn, C. P., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 10 de Jong, J. T. A., Verdoes Kleijn, G. A., Kuijken, K. H., & Valentijn, E. A. 2013, Experimental Astronomy, 35, 25 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Acevedo, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.02929 DESI Collaboration, Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, ar...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

    & Weller, J

    Diehl, J. & Weller, J. 2021, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2021, 004

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Du, X., Behrens, C., & Niemeyer, J. C. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 941

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    2021, A&A, 652, A21

    Fumagalli, A., Saro, A., Borgani, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A21

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 4312

    Gatti, M., Sheldon, E., Amon, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4312

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Gendler, N., Marsh, D. J. E., McAllister, L., & Moritz, J. 2024, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2024, 071

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08458

    Ghirardini, V ., Bulbul, E., Artis, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08458

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    2021, A&A, 645, A105

    Giblin, B., Heymans, C., Asgari, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A105

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

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

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

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08455

    Grandis, S., Ghirardini, V ., Bocquet, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08455

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Grin, D., Marsh, D. J. E., & Hlozek, R. 2022, axionCAMB: Modification of the CAMB Boltzmann code, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2203.026

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    L., Wright, A

    Hildebrandt, H., van den Busch, J. L., Wright, A. H., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A124

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19 Hložek, R., Grin, D., Marsh, D

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19 Hložek, R., Grin, D., Marsh, D. J. E., & Ferreira, P. G. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 103512 Hložek, R., Marsh, D. J. E., & Grin, D. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3063

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    2000, Phys

    Hu, W., Barkana, R., & Gruzinov, A. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 1158

    work page 2000

  36. [36]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Hu, W. & Kravtsov, A. V . 2003, ApJ, 584, 702

    work page 2003

  37. [37]

    P., Tremaine, S., & Witten, E

    Hui, L., Ostriker, J. P., Tremaine, S., & Witten, E. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 043541

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    Kim, J. E. & Carosi, G. 2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 557

    work page 2010

  39. [39]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08456

    Kleinebreil, F., Grandis, S., Schrabback, T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08456

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    2024, A&A, 688, A210

    Kluge, M., Comparat, J., Liu, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A210

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    2017, Phys

    Kobayashi, T., Murgia, R., De Simone, A., Irši ˇc, V ., & Viel, M. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 123514

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    2019, A&A, 625, A2

    Kuijken, K., Heymans, C., Dvornik, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A2

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    & Ostriker, J

    Kulkarni, M. & Ostriker, J. P. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1425 Laguë, A., Bond, J. R., Hložek, R., et al. 2022, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2022, 049

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    F., Marulli, F., Moscardini, L., et al

    Lesci, G. F., Marulli, F., Moscardini, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A88

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    & Challinor, A

    Lewis, A. & Challinor, A. 2011, CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave

    work page 2011

  46. [46]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 421

    Li, X., Miyatake, H., Luo, W., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 421

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    2022, A&A, 661, A2

    Liu, A., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V ., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A2

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Marsh, D. J. E. 2016, Phys. Rep., 643, 1

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    Marsh, D. J. E., Macaulay, E., Trebitsch, M., & Ferreira, P. G. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 103514

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    & Springel, V

    May, S. & Springel, V . 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4256

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    2024, A&A, 682, A34

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    2023, Phys

    Miyatake, H., Sugiyama, S., Takada, M., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123517

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

    work page 1996

  54. [54]

    & Baldi, M

    Nori, M. & Baldi, M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3935

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    Passaglia, S. & Hu, W. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 123529

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Peccei, R. D. & Quinn, H. R. 1977b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 38, 1440 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016a, A&A, 594, A13 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016b, A&A, 594, A24 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 5056

    Ragagnin, A., Saro, A., Singh, P., & Dolag, K. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 5056

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    W., Markevitch, M., Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A

    Randall, S. W., Markevitch, M., Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A. H., & Bradaˇc, M. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1173

    work page 2008

  60. [60]

    S., Marsh, M

    Reynolds, C. S., Marsh, M. C. D., Russell, H. R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 59

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    K., Hložek, R., Laguë, A., et al

    Rogers, K. K., Hložek, R., Laguë, A., et al. 2023, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2023, 023

    work page 2023

  62. [62]

    Rogers, K. K. & Peiris, H. V . 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 126, 071302

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    2014, Nature Physics, 10, 496

    Schive, H.-Y ., Chiueh, T., & Broadhurst, T. 2014, Nature Physics, 10, 496

    work page 2014

  64. [64]

    C., & Easther, R

    Schwabe, B., Gosenca, M., Behrens, C., Niemeyer, J. C., & Easther, R. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 083518

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 113

    Scolnic, D., Brout, D., Carr, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 113

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    2022, A&A, 665, A78

    Seppi, R., Comparat, J., Bulbul, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A78

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    2021, ApJS, 254, 24

    Sevilla-Noarbe, I., Bechtol, K., Carrasco Kind, M., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 24

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

    Stott, M. J. & Marsh, D. J. E. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 083006

    work page 2018

  69. [69]

    2021, A&A, 656, A132

    Sunyaev, R., Arefiev, V ., Babyshkin, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A132

    work page 2021

  70. [70]

    & Witten, E

    Svrcek, P. & Witten, E. 2006, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2006, 051

    work page 2006

  71. [71]

    V ., Klypin, A., et al

    Tinker, J., Kravtsov, A. V ., Klypin, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, 709 V ogt, S. M. L., Marsh, D. J. E., & Laguë, A. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 063526

    work page 2008

  72. [72]

    K., Hložek, R., & Marsh, D

    Winch, H., Rogers, K. K., Hložek, R., & Marsh, D. J. E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.11071

    work page arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    H., Hildebrandt, H., van den Busch, J

    Wright, A. H., Hildebrandt, H., van den Busch, J. L., & Heymans, C. 2020, A&A, 637, A100

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 5492 Article number, page 16 of 16

    Zhao, C., Variu, A., He, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5492 Article number, page 16 of 16

    work page 2022