Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Measurements of Locally Bright Galaxies with ACT DR6: Radio Source Contamination and Excess Compton-y Signal

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Galaxies with radio sources show double the hot-gas signal

desk verdict Solid tSZ measurement with a real systematic finding; the central excess claim is probably real but the physical interpretation is unresolved. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08721 v1 pith:GMO3U3GD submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Nicholas Battaglia , Jean-Baptiste Melin , J. Colin Hill , James Bartlett This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords thermalSunyaev-Zel'dovicheffectcircumgalacticmediumAGNfeedbackradiosourcesCompton-yparametergalaxystackingcomponentseparationhalomass
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 thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (tSZ) effect — a distortion of the cosmic microwave background caused by hot electrons in and around galaxies — lets astronomers measure the total thermal energy of gas in the circumgalactic medium. The paper re-examines a known power-law relation between galaxy stellar mass and tSZ signal using new, higher-resolution maps from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope. The central finding is that galaxies hosting co-spatial radio sources (most likely radio-loud active galactic nuclei) show roughly twice the tSZ signal compared to galaxies without radio sources, at the same stellar mass. This excess is not a compact point-source artifact: it persists out to at least 6 arcminutes from the galaxy center, indicating a halo-scale difference in thermal energy. The same excess appears in the original satellite data when the same galaxy subselection is applied. The paper identifies two possible explanations: either radio-loud galaxies live in systematically more massive dark matter halos (which would naturally produce more tSZ signal), or the active galactic nuclei themselves inject enough thermal energy into the surrounding gas to account for the difference. The paper cannot yet distinguish between these two explanations. Alongside this result, the paper identifies a previously uncharacterized few-percent-level contamination from residual radio source emission in the tSZ maps.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on compensated aperture photometry (CAP) applied to component-separated Compton-y maps, which extracts the tSZ signal without assuming a gas pressure profile. The factor-of-two excess is established by subdividing the Locally Bright Galaxy sample using a 1-arcminute cross-match to a 1.4 GHz radio survey, then comparing the tSZ flux of the two subsamples within matched stellar mass bins. An empirical contamination test using stellar radio sources (which have no intrinsic tSZ signal) confirms that spurious Compton-y from residual radio emission is subdominant at the relevant radii.

What would settle it

A galaxy-galaxy lensing measurement showing that the two subsamples have identical halo mass distributions at fixed stellar mass would not falsify the excess itself (which is directly measured) but would shift the interpretation decisively toward the AGN-feedback explanation. Conversely, a measurement showing that radio-loud galaxies are ~50% more massive in halo mass at fixed stellar mass would attribute the entire excess to halo mass differences rather than feedback.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At fixed stellar mass, galaxies hosting co-spatial radio sources produce approximately twice the cylindrical Compton-y signal as those without, an excess that persists to halo scales (≥6 arcminutes) and is recovered independently in both ACT and Planck data. This is either a signature of radio-loud galaxies residing in more massive halos or of AGN feedback heating the circumgalactic medium.

Load-bearing premise

The correction for central radio source contamination — which subtracts the flux difference within 2 arcminutes between the two subsamples — is acknowledged by the authors to carry systematic uncertainties of roughly 50%, and the headline factor-of-two excess depends on this correction being approximately right.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future tSZ cross-correlation studies must characterize and report the radio source fraction in their galaxy samples, or risk conflating an astrophysical signal with a systematic contaminant.
  • Galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements of the two subsamples (with and without radio sources) at fixed stellar mass would directly test whether the excess is a halo-mass difference or an AGN feedback effect.
  • Upcoming radio surveys at ~1 GHz (e.g., DSA-2000) could identify the full population of contaminating radio sources and enable cleaner tSZ measurements.
  • Higher-frequency CMB data from upcoming instruments (FYST, Simons Observatory) will reduce both dust contamination and the noise penalty of moment-based deprojection methods.
  • If the excess is confirmed as AGN feedback, it provides a direct observational constraint on the thermal energy budget that AGN inject into the circumgalactic medium.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the halo-mass explanation dominates, the result would imply that the stellar-to-halo mass relation has a previously unmeasured dependence on radio-loud AGN activity, which would affect how tSZ scaling relations are interpreted as mass proxies.
  • If the AGN-feedback explanation dominates, the persistence of the excess to 6 arcminutes would imply that AGN jets deposit thermal energy well beyond the interstellar medium and into the outer circumgalactic medium, constraining the spatial coupling efficiency of feedback.
  • The few-percent-level radio contamination, if uncorrected, could bias tSZ-derived scaling relations at a level comparable to current systematic-error budgets, particularly for galaxy samples selected at high stellar mass where the radio source fraction rises to ~30%.
  • The inability of CMB halo lensing to distinguish the halo masses of the two subsamples at current signal-to-noise suggests that the question is answerable with next-generation optical weak lensing surveys (LSST, Euclid) but not with current CMB data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper re-examines the Planck measurement of the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (tSZ) signal from the Locally Bright Galaxy (LBG) sample using the ACT DR6 component-separated Compton-$y$ maps, which offer higher angular resolution and lower noise than Planck. The authors recover a power-law scaling between cylindrical Compton-$y$ and stellar mass, consistent with the original Planck result. The central new finding is a factor-of-two excess in $Y^{3'}_{cyl}$ in LBGs hosting co-spatial radio sources (identified via NVSS cross-matching) relative to those without, at fixed stellar mass. This excess persists to at least 6 arcmin, suggesting a halo-scale effect rather than a central point-source artifact. The authors consider two explanations: a systematic difference in halo mass at fixed stellar mass (consistent with Mandelbaum et al. 2009), or thermal energy injected into the CGM by AGN feedback. The result is independently recovered in the original Planck data when the same radio-source subselection is applied. Systematic tests in Appendix A, including single-frequency checks, stellar radio source cross-correlations, and CIB SED parameter variations, support the interpretation that the excess is intrinsic rather than an ILC artifact.

Significance. The identification of residual radio source contamination in component-separated tSZ maps and, more importantly, the factor-of-two excess Compton-$y$ signal in radio-source-hosting LBGs, is a timely and broadly relevant result for tSZ cross-correlation science. The analysis is grounded in public data (ACT DR6 $y$-maps, LBG sample, NVSS) with no fitting to the target result, and the consistency across three ILC methods and independent Planck data lends credibility. The systematic tests are thorough: the stellar radio source cross-correlation (Appendix A.2) is a particularly clean null test, and the single-frequency second-derivative analysis (Appendix A.1) provides compelling spectral evidence that the central residual is synchrotron rather than dust. The discussion of AGN energetics (Section 5) is appropriately circumspect, acknowledging the inability to distinguish between the halo-mass and AGN-feedback explanations. The recommendation that radio-source subselection become a standard systematic check is well-motivated by the evidence presented.

major comments (1)
  1. The paper does not explicitly verify that the two subsamples (with and without co-spatial radio sources) have comparable redshift distributions within each stellar mass bin. Because the tSZ measurement is angular ($Y_{cyl}$ in arcmin$^2$), a systematic difference in redshift would produce an apparent excess in the radio-source subsample even if the physical halos were identical: lower-redshift halos subtend larger angles. Radio-loud AGN are known to preferentially reside in massive ellipticals in denser environments, which could correlate with redshift within a fixed stellar-mass bin. The authors state that the stellar mass distributions are 'practically identical' (Appendix A.4, Figure 8) and adopt $z=0.25$ for the $E_{th}$ calculation (Section 5), but no direct comparison of the redshift distributions of the two subsamples is shown. A simple histogram or Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of the红
minor comments (6)
  1. Section 2.2: The statement that the two most massive bins contain 40 and 131 galaxies and are dropped is slightly ambiguous — it would help to state the stellar mass ranges of these dropped bins explicitly.
  2. Figure 1 caption: The label 'CIB' for Row 2 is potentially confusing given that Row 3 is labeled 'CIB moment'; consider 'CIB deproj.' for Row 2 to match the text terminology.
  3. Table 1: The column header 'U' is described as 'estimate of the binding energy' but the caption does not specify the redshift or halo mass assumptions used beyond the reference to Planck Collaboration et al. (2013); a brief note in the caption would aid reproducibility.
  4. Section 5: The ADAF energetics estimate (Eq. for $E_{inj}$) uses fiducial values $f_{acc}=0.02$, $M_{BH}=10^9 M_*$, $Delta t=2$ Gyr, but the text does not discuss how sensitive the conclusion ($E_{inj}$ sufficient in most bins) is to these choices beyond stating they scale linearly. A sentence noting the range of plausible values would strengthen this.
  5. Appendix A.4: The CMB lensing cross-spectrum (Figure 9) has S/N~2 and cannot distinguish the two subsamples; this is honestly stated, but the text could note that this null result does not rule out a ~50% halo mass difference given the measurement precision.
  6. Minor typographical: 'Universi´ e Paris-Saclay' in the affiliation list should be 'Universit´ e Paris-Saclay'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: measurements derived directly from public data products, comparisons are genuine cross-checks, energetics uses standard physics

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from independent, publicly available data products: ACT DR6 Compton-y maps, the LBG galaxy sample (from SDSS/NYU-VAGC), and the NVSS radio catalog for subsample definition. The power-law scaling (Figure 2, left) is measured directly via compensated aperture photometry on stacked maps and compared to—not derived from—Planck results. The factor-of-two excess in radio-source LBGs (Figure 2, right; Figure 3; Table 1) is a direct differential measurement between two subsamples defined by an external catalog cross-match, and the paper explicitly states the qualitative excess exists even without the admittedly approximate radio contamination correction ('without these corrections, sources with co-spatial radio sources still show more Compton-y flux than those without'). The energetics calculation (Eqs. 5-7) uses standard SZ physics with stated assumptions (z=0.25, electron fraction, binding energy formula), and the stellar-to-halo mass relation is cited from Planck Collaboration et al. (2013) as an external input. The systematic tests in Appendix A use genuinely independent tracers (FIRST stellar radio sources as a null test, ACT CMB lensing maps for halo mass comparison, Planck MMF with different weights). Self-citations to Battaglia et al. (2010, 2012, 2017) provide methodological context but are not load-bearing for the measurement chain. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The two explanations for the excess (halo mass difference, AGN feedback) invoke known physics. The ADAF framework is from Narayan & Yi (1994). The paper is observational, not theoretical, so the parameter space is dominated by analysis choices rather than new physics.

free parameters (6)
  • Aperture radius theta_ap = 3 arcmin
    Chosen by hand to balance signal capture vs. background contamination (Section 3). Not fitted but a judgment call affecting the central measurement.
  • Radio contamination correction method = Difference in CAP fluxes within 2 arcmin between subsamples
    Ad hoc correction for central point-source contamination in the radio source subsample. Paper states ~50% systematic uncertainty (Section 4).
  • AGN accretion efficiency epsilon_acc = 0.02
    Fiducial assumption for ADAF energetics estimate (Section 5). Scales linearly with E_inj.
  • Black hole mass M_BH = 10^9 M_sun
    Fiducial assumption for energetics estimate (Section 5).
  • AGN duty cycle timescale Delta_t = 2 Gyr
    Fiducial assumption for energetics estimate (Section 5).
  • Redshift z for E_th calculation = 0.25
    Peak of LBG redshift distribution, used to convert Y to thermal energy (Section 5).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The tSZ spectral function f(nu) is known and relativistic corrections are negligible for galaxy-scale gas temperatures
    Section 1, Equation 1. Standard for CGM temperatures (<10^7 K), well-justified.
  • domain assumption The CAP filter with 3 arcmin aperture captures the majority of the tSZ signal while minimizing background
    Section 3. Justified by the radial profiles in Figure 3 showing signal plateau, but the choice affects absolute flux values.
  • domain assumption Radio sources identified by 1 arcmin NVSS cross-match are genuinely co-spatial with LBGs, not chance projections
    Section 2.2. The 17% match rate is plausible for genuine associations but chance superpositions are not quantified.
  • domain assumption The stellar radio sources from FIRST have no intrinsic Compton-y signal
    Appendix A.2. Used as null test for radio contamination. Reasonable since stars do not live in massive halos.
  • domain assumption The needlet ILC weights do not introduce scale-dependent radio leakage that mimics a halo-scale signal
    Appendix A.2. Tested empirically with stellar radio sources showing contamination is subdominant at >3 arcmin, but the test is not exhaustive.
  • domain assumption The universal pressure profile (UPP) from Arnaud et al. (2010) is adequate for converting Planck MMF fluxes to CAP-equivalent fluxes
    Section 3. The Le Brun et al. (2015) corrections are applied, but the UPP assumption introduces systematic uncertainty in the Planck comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Measurements of Locally Bright Galaxies with ACT DR6: Radio Source Contamination and Excess Compton-y Signal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GMO3U3GD

@misc{pith2026260708721,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Measurements of Locally Bright Galaxies with ACT DR6: Radio Source Contamination and Excess Compton-y Signal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GMO3U3GD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08721}
}
abstract

The Planck collaboration found a remarkable power-law relation between stellar mass and the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich (tSZ) signal for the Locally Bright Galaxy (LBG) sample, spanning over a decade in stellar mass. We re-examine this measurement using the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) DR6 component-separated Compton-$y$ maps, which provide lower noise and higher angular resolution than Planck, on a footprint spanning one-third of the sky. We recover a consistent power-law scaling between the cylindrical Compton-$y$ signal and stellar mass. Additionally, we identify residual contamination in the tSZ signal from radio sources at the few percent-level, which has not been considered previously. In parallel, we identify a factor-of-two excess in the Compton-$y$ signal in LBGs hosting co-spatial radio sources relative to those without, at fixed stellar mass. This excess persists to radii of at least 6 arcminutes, suggesting a halo-scale effect, and is recovered in the original Planck results when the same radio source subselection is applied. We consider two physical explanations: a systematic difference in halo mass at fixed stellar mass, or thermal energy injected into the circumgalactic medium by Active Galactic Nuclei, although we cannot currently distinguish between the two. This result has direct implications for tSZ cross-correlation measurements more broadly, and necessitates careful characterization of the radio source fraction in galaxy samples in future analyses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08721 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gallery of co-added, component-separated ACT(+Planck) Compton-y maps on the overlapping LBG sample galaxies. Each row illustrates a co-add of a given component-separated map: The top row are the fiducial ACT ILC Compton-y map co-adds (labeled ILC); the second row illustrates the de-projected CIB ILC Compton-y map co-adds (labeled CIB); the third row illustrates the moment-deprojected CIB ILC Compton-y map co-adds (l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cylindrically integrated Compton-y signal within 3 arcmin (Y 3 arcmin cyl ) as a function of stellar mass for LBGs. Left: Comparison of Compton-y measurements from different component-separated y￾maps for the full LBG sample: the nominal ILC (black crosses), CIB-deprojected ILC (orange circles), and moment-based CIB deprojection (purple squares), alongside the modified Planck MMF results from Planck Collaboration et… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the radial profile of Ycyl as a function of aperture radius for the full sample and both subsamples in the stellar mass bin 11.5 < log10(M⋆/M⊙) < 11.6. At radii of 1– 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rad [arcmin] 0.00000 0.00005 0.00010 0.00015 Y c yl[a r c min 2 ] All Radio Source Cut Radio Sources [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cylindrical Compton-y signal (Y 3 arcmin cyl ) as a function of stellar mass for the radio-source￾cut subsample (left) and the radio source subsample (right) of LBGs, measured using the moment-based CIB-deprojected y-maps with varying CIB SED parameters. Results are sh…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Co-added 30×30 arcminute cutouts of single-frequency ACT maps at 90, 150, and 220 GHz (columns) for LBGs without co-spatial radio sources (top row) and with co-spatial radio sources (bottom row), in the stellar mass bin 11.6 < log10(M⋆/M⊙) < 11.7. A central decre…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Radial profiles of the cylindrical Compton-y signal, Ycyl (arcmin2 ), as a function of aperture radius for LBGs in the bin 11.6 < log10(M⋆/M⊙) < 11.7 (purple), stellar radio sources from the FIRST catalog (cyan), and random sky locations (black). The stellar radi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cylindrical Compton-y signal (Y 3 ′ cyl) as a function of stellar mass for LBGs, measured using the Planck MMF method. Results are shown for the full sample from Planck Collaboration et al. (2013) (purple), and for the subsamples of galaxies without co-spatial radio so…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Normalized stellar mass distributions for LBGs with co-spatial radio sources (orange) and without (blue), spanning the range 11.1 ≲ log(M∗/M⊙) ≲ 11.8. Each pair of histograms corresponds to a stellar mass bin of width 0.1 dex. The two distributions are consistent acros…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: CMB lensing convergence cross-spectrum, LCκg ℓ (×105 ), as a function of multipole L for LBGs with co-spatial radio sources (orange circles) and without (blue squares). Error bars denote the 1σ uncer￾tainties. The two samples are consistent within the uncertainties acr…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The Seventh Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    2025, JCAP, 2025, 034, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/034 21

    Abitbol, M., Abril-Cabezas, I., Adachi, S., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 034, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/034 21

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/034 2025

  3. [3]

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

    Ade, P., Aguirre, J., Ahmed, Z., et al. 2019, JCAP, 2019, 056, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056

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

  4. [4]

    2020, JCAP, 2020, 047, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/047

    Aiola, S., Calabrese, E., Maurin, L., et al. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 047, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/047

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/047 2020

  5. [5]

    N., Sherwin, B

    Allison, R., Lindsay, S. N., Sherwin, B. D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 849, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv991

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv991 2015

  6. [6]

    2021, PhRvD, 103, 063514, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063514

    Amodeo, S., Battaglia, N., Schaan, E., et al. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 063514, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063514

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.063514 2021

  7. [7]

    MNRAS , author =

    Angulo, R. E., & White, S. D. M. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 143, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16459.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16459.x 2010

  8. [8]

    W., Piffaretti, R., et al

    Arnaud, M., Pratt, G. W., Piffaretti, R., et al. 2010, A&A, 517, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913416

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913416 2010

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Sievers, J. L. 2012, ApJ, 758, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/74

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Pfrommer, C., Sievers, J

    Battaglia, N., Bond, J. R., Pfrommer, C., Sievers, J. L., & Sijacki, D. 2010, ApJ, 725, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/91

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    Battaglia, N., Ferraro, S., Schaan, E., & Spergel, D. N. 2017, JCAP, 2017, 040, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/11/040

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Schlegel, D

    Blanton, M. R., Schlegel, D. J., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 2562, doi: 10.1086/429803

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Crawford, T

    Bleem, L. E., Crawford, T. M., Ansarinejad, B., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac35e9 CCAT-Prime Collaboration, Aravena, M.,

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    E., et al

    Austermann, J. E., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9838

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    C., & Abitbol, M

    Chluba, J., Hill, J. C., & Abitbol, M. H. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1982

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 510, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21741.x

    Chluba, J., Nagai, D., Sazonov, S., & Nelson, K. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 510, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21741.x

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, A&A, 666, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243101

    Comparat, J., Truong, N., Merloni, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243101

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1996, Astronomy Data Image Library

    1996

  11. [19]

    J., et al

    Duivenvoorden, A. J., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 063530, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063530

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Duivenvoorden, A

    Coulton, W. R., Duivenvoorden, A. J., Atkins, Z., et al. 2026, PhRvD, 113, 043520, doi: 10.1103/n7p5-pc66

    2026 doi

  13. [21]

    B., Hall, K., et al

    Crichton, D., Gralla, M. B., Hall, K., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1478, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw344

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    E., Lima, M., Oyaizu, H., Frieman, J., & Lin, H

    Cunha, C. E., Lima, M., Oyaizu, H., Frieman, J., & Lin, H. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 2379, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14908.x Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Abbott, T.,

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    B., et al

    Abdalla, F. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw641 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937 de Jong, J. T. A., Verdoes Kleijn, G. A., Kuijken, K. H., & Valentijn, E. A. 2013, Experimental ...

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    2003, MNRAS, 346, 1089, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07069.x

    Delabrouille, J., Cardoso, J.-F., & Patanchon, G. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1089, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07069.x

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Battistelli, E

    Dicker, S. R., Battistelli, E. S., Bhandarkar, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2600, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2679

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    R., Perez Sarmiento, K., Mason, B., et al

    Dicker, S. R., Perez Sarmiento, K., Mason, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4e35 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfd26

    Grayson, S., Scannapieco, E., & Dav´ e, R. 2023, ApJ, 957, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfd26

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 151, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/151

    Battaglia, N. 2015, ApJ, 808, 151, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/151

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18114.x

    Guo, Q., White, S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18114.x

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    S., Sailer, N., & Zhou, R

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Farren, G. S., Sailer, N., & Zhou, R. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 123507, doi: 10.1103/mdhz-fgj8

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Zakamska, N

    Hall, K. R., Zakamska, N. L., Addison, G. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2315, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2751

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648

    2019 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    W., Battaglia, N., et al

    Hand, N., Appel, J. W., Battaglia, N., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/39

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    J., White, R

    Helfand, D. J., White, R. L., & Becker, R. H. 2015, ApJ, 801, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/26 22

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 441, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/441

    Hu, W., DeDeo, S., & Vale, C. 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 441, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/441

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    1998, ApJ, 502, 7, doi: 10.1086/305876 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S

    Itoh, N., Kohyama, Y., & Nozawa, S. 1998, ApJ, 502, 7, doi: 10.1086/305876 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    1998 doi

  29. [37]

    Kadir, S., Ried Guachalla, B., Yuan, S., Schaan, E., & Wechsler, R. H. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.04397, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.04397

    2026 doi

  30. [38]

    Peacock, J. A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3351 Le Brun, A. M. C., McCarthy, I. G., & Melin, J.-B. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3868, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1172

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

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

    Liu, R. H., Ferraro, S., Schaan, E., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 083561, doi: 10.1103/jqn8-19gx

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    S., Qu, F

    Madhavacheril, M. S., Qu, F. J., Sherwin, B. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acff5f

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    White, S. D. M. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 377, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14235.x

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    McCarthy, F., & Hill, J. C. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 023528, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.023528

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Holder, G. P. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu543

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    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

  37. [45]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf2b4

    Meinke, J., B¨ ockmann, K., Cohen, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf2b4

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    G., & Delabrouille, J

    Melin, J.-B., Bartlett, J. G., & Delabrouille, J. 2006, A&A, 459, 341, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065034

    2006 doi

  39. [47]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cea

    Moser, E., Amodeo, S., Battaglia, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cea

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac70c6

    Moser, E., Battaglia, N., Nagai, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac70c6

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    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

  42. [50]

    1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press), doi: 10.17226/26141

    1994 doi

  43. [51]

    2022, PhRvD, 105, 123526, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.123526

    Pandey, S., Gatti, M., Baxter, E., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 123526, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.123526

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220941 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Arnaud, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 59...

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    2025, JCAP, 2025, 051, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/051

    Popik, C., Battaglia, N., Kusiak, A., Bolliet, B., & Colin Hill, J. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 051, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/051

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Sherwin, B

    Qu, F. J., Sherwin, B. D., Madhavacheril, M. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe06

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace0c6

    Raghunathan, S., & Omori, Y. 2023, ApJ, 954, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace0c6

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 467, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19497.x

    Remazeilles, M., Delabrouille, J., & Cardoso, J.-F. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 467, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19497.x

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 2478, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab648

    Remazeilles, M., Rotti, A., & Chluba, J. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2478, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab648

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    J., McQuinn, M., & Anderson, S

    Ruan, J. J., McQuinn, M., & Anderson, S. F. 2015, ApJ, 802, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/135 S´ anchez, J., Omori, Y., Chang, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3163, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1167

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    J., & Couchman, H

    Scannapieco, E., Thacker, R. J., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2008, ApJ, 678, 674, doi: 10.1086/528948

    2008 doi

  52. [60]

    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

  53. [61]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2419 23

    Schaye, J., Kugel, R., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2419 23

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    D., Das, S., Hajian, A., et al

    Sherwin, B. D., Das, S., Hajian, A., et al. 2012, PhRvD, 86, 083006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.083006

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3162

    Shirasaki, M. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3162

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    C., Amon, A., McCarthy, I

    Siegel, J. C., Amon, A., McCarthy, I. G., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1003, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5dc2

    2026 doi

  57. [65]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx492

    Puchwein, E., & Sijacki, D. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx492

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 128, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/128

    Spacek, A., Scannapieco, E., Cohen, S., Joshi, B., & Mauskopf, P. 2016, ApJ, 819, 128, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/128

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature03597

    2005 doi

  60. [68]

    A., & Zeldovich, Y

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Zeldovich, Y. B. 1970, Ap&SS, 7, 3, doi: 10.1007/BF00653471

    1970 doi

  61. [69]

    M., & Hill, J

    Surrao, K. M., & Hill, J. C. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 063509, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063509

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    G., et al

    Verdier, L., Melin, J.-B., Bartlett, J. G., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527431

    2016 doi

  64. [72]

    Worpel, H., Brown, M. J. I., Jones, D. H., Floyd, D. J. E., & Beutler, F. 2013, ApJ, 772, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/64

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    2024, A&A, 690, A267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449412

    Zhang, Y., Comparat, J., Ponti, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449412

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.