The contribution of stars, dust, neutral gas and supermassive black holes in galaxies to the cosmic baryon inventory

Aaron S. G. Robotham; Andrew Battisti; Claudia del P. Lagos; Elisabete da Cunha; Jordan C. J. D'Silva; Luke J. M. Davies; Simon P. Driver; Stephen Eales

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The contribution of stars, dust, neutral gas and supermassive black holes in galaxies to the cosmic baryon inventory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using spectral energy distribution fits to about 800,000 galaxies, this paper argues that stars, dust, neutral gas, and supermassive black holes inside galaxies account for only about 5% of the universe's baryons.

desk verdict A genuinely useful self-consistent baryon census from GAMA+DEVILS, but the dust-mass scale calibration is too fragile to trust the quantitative CDMH/CGMH without caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.08112 v3 pith:JMLBACYE submitted 2026-01-13 astro-ph.GA

Jordan C. J. D'Silva , Simon P. Driver , Aaron S. G. Robotham , Andrew Battisti , Elisabete da Cunha , Luke J. M. Davies , Stephen Eales , Claudia del P. Lagos This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA PACS 98.62.-g

keywords cosmicbaryoninventorydustmasshistoryneutralgassupermassiveblackholesspectralenergydistributionfittingProSpectgalaxysurveysdust-to-gasratio

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 builds a self-consistent census of the baryons confined inside galaxies over the last 12 billion years, using SED fits to about 800,000 galaxies from two large surveys. It finds that stars, dust, neutral gas, and supermassive black holes within the optical radii of galaxies add up to about 5% of the cosmic baryon budget at z=0, rising from roughly 1% at z≈3. The cosmic dust mass history peaks at z≈1–2 and declines more slowly than the cosmic star formation history, and the dust-traced neutral gas density is about 0.6 dex lower than 21-cm HI measurements. A sympathetic reader would take this as the first homogeneous, data-driven accounting of galaxy-bound baryons that can be compared directly against simulations and against searches for the ionized 'missing' baryons.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by ProSpect, an SED-fitting code that enforces energy balance between stellar attenuation (Charlot & Fall) and dust re-emission (Dale et al.), yielding a dust mass for every galaxy. Because ProSpect's default constant dust-to-hydrogen ratio produces dust masses about 2.5 times higher than the MAGPHYS code, the authors apply a wavelength-dependent dust-to-hydrogen weighting with a PAH+very-small-grain mass fraction of q=0.14, calibrated on 218 bright far-infrared-detected galaxies, to bring ProSpect into agreement with MAGPHYS. A metallicity-dependent dust-to-gas ratio (from Rémy-Ruyer et al.) then converts dust to neutral gas, and double Schechter function fits to the

What would settle it

Measure dust masses for a sample of faint, high-redshift galaxies using far-infrared or submillimeter data that directly constrain the cold-dust component (e.g., ALMA), without imposing the q=0.14 scaling. If these directly constrained dust masses are systematically about 2.5 times higher than the scaled ProSpect values, the global correction is over-applied and the 5% figure is too low; if they agree, the absolute scale is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that galaxies as bounded systems contain only about 5% of the universe's baryons. The authors derive this by fitting FUV-to-FIR spectral energy distributions with the ProSpect code to obtain stellar and dust masses for ~800,000 galaxies in GAMA and DEVILS at 0<z<3, converting dust masses to neutral gas masses using a metallicity-dependent dust-to-gas ratio, and folding in a supermassive black hole mass history inferred from the same data. The resulting cosmic dust mass history peaks at z≈1–2 and falls more gently than the cosmic star formation history, indicating that dust growth and destruction timescales lengthen as star formation declines. The neutral gas density infe

Load-bearing premise

The entire absolute scale of the dust, neutral gas, and the 5% census rests on one global correction: dust masses from ProSpect are divided by about 2.5 so that they match MAGPHYS on a sample of 218 bright, far-infrared-detected galaxies, using an assumed mass fraction of q=0.14 for PAHs and very small grains; if that correction is wrong or does not apply to the faint, high-redshift galaxies that dominate the sample, every derived mass density shifts by the same factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The cosmic dust mass history peaks at z≈1–2 and declines roughly half as steeply as star formation, implying that dust growth and destruction processes respond to the declining star formation rate over several gigayears.
The dust-traced neutral gas density is ~0.6 dex lower than 21-cm HI measurements, confirming that HI extends well beyond the optical radii within which the dust emission is measured.
The baryon fraction locked in galaxies grows from ~1% at z≈3 to ~5% today, meaning the overwhelming majority of baryons have never been incorporated into galaxies at any time in the last 12 billion years.
With roughly 95% of baryons omitted, the census directly motivates searches for warm-hot ionized gas in haloes and the cosmic web, such as via fast radio burst dispersion measures or X-ray absorption.
Comparisons with galaxy formation simulations show broad agreement at z≲0.4 but reveal ~0.1 dex higher observed dust density at higher redshift, providing a constraint on feedback and dust destruction implementations.

Reading between the lines

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

The q=0.14 dust-mass correction is calibrated on 218 bright, mostly low-redshift galaxies but is applied uniformly to all ~800,000 galaxies; spatially resolved dust maps from ALMA or JWST across a wider redshift range could test whether the correction varies with environment or redshift.
If the global dust correction is over-applied at high redshift, the neutral gas history and the 5% figure would also shift, since the neutral gas masses are dust masses divided by a metallicity-dependent dust-to-gas ratio.
The paper's self-consistent design (all four mass densities from the same data and SED fits) means future observational or theoretical comparisons can isolate astrophysical evolution without worrying about cross-survey systematic offsets.
One could re-scale the neutral gas history using CO-based molecular gas observations without redoing the SED fits, since the underlying dust mass distributions are already provided.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a solid, useful measurement paper that does something new — a single-survey-consistent census of stars, dust, neutral gas, and SMBHs — but the absolute scale of the dust and gas histories is set by a calibration choice that carries more weight than the error bars admit. The headline "≈5 per cent of baryons in galaxies" is robust; the CDMH and CGMH shapes are less so.

What's genuinely new: they combine ~800,000 ProSpect SED fits from GAMA and DEVILS to produce redshift-resolved stellar, dust, and neutral-gas mass functions, then integrate to cosmic histories. That is a real step beyond prior literature, which mixed codes, surveys, and fitting assumptions. The LSS correction is reasonable, the comparison to simulations is informative, and the paper is clearly written. The authors are unusually explicit about their systematics — they state in §3.2 that the scaling is sensitive to q and that q=0.1 gives 3.1× lower dust masses. Credit where due.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The global ≈2.5 dust down-scaling is calibrated on 218 bright, local, FIR-detected galaxies, then applied uniformly to the whole sample, including the ~99% of DEVILS galaxies at z>2 without FIR detections. For those, the dust mass is controlled by a Gaussian prior on α. The paper shows in Fig. 2 that adding FIR shifts dust masses by ~0.7 dex, so the high-redshift CDMH points are effectively prior-dominated. That scale uncertainty is not propagated into Table A5, where the quoted errors are ~0.05 dex. The neutral-gas history, being dust mass divided by a metallicity-dependent DTG, inherits the same scale problem — which means the ~0.6 dex deficit versus 21cm measurements is not a purely astrophysical statement. Also, the agreement with MAGPHYS-based literature is by construction, since the scaling was chosen to match MAGPHYS; that's circular and should be acknowledged more directly. One minor inconsistency: the abstract says 0.7 dex lower than 21cm, the body says 0.6.

None of this kills the central claim. Stars dominate the baryon budget in galaxies, so the 5% figure survives even a factor of 3 in dust. The paper is honest about its weaknesses. I'd send it to a knowledgeable referee rather than desk reject. A serious referee should push for a per-object treatment of the variable DTH (or at least a systematic error term for q and the α prior), and for a clear statement that the CDMH/CGMH normalization is calibration-limited, not random-error-limited. With those revisions, this would be a reference point for the field. For a reading group, it's actually a great case study in how SED-fitting systematics percolate through to cosmic inventories.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses ProSpect SED fits of approximately 800,000 galaxies from GAMA and DEVILS at 0<z<3 to construct stellar, dust, and neutral gas mass distribution functions, integrate them into cosmic mass densities, and combine them with a previously derived SMBH mass density to present a galaxy baryon census. The authors report that the cosmic dust mass history (CDMH) peaks at z≈1–2 and declines more slowly than the cosmic star formation history; that dust-traced neutral gas is on average about 0.6 dex below 21cm HI measurements; and that stars, neutral gas, SMBHs, and dust within optical radii make up approximately 5 per cent of the cosmic baryon budget. The central caveats are that the absolute dust scale is set by calibrating ProSpect dust masses to MAGPHYS using 218 low-redshift FIR-bright galaxies, and that high-redshift DEVILS dust masses rely on a Gaussian prior on the Dale et al. (2014) alpha parameter.

Significance. If the dust-scale uncertainty is addressed, the paper makes a valuable contribution: it provides a homogeneous census of galaxy-bound baryons at 0<z<3, with tabulated Schechter fits, public code and data, and a falsifiable headline statement (the 5 per cent galactic baryon fraction) that is robust because stars dominate the budget and dust plus neutral gas contribute less than about 1 per cent. The comparisons of the CDMH with simulations and of the CGMH with 21cm measurements are also useful. However, the CDMH amplitude and shape, and the reported 0.6 dex CGMH deficit relative to HI surveys, are not as secure as the quoted ~0.05 dex statistical errors imply, because they inherit the global dust-mass calibration and the alpha prior. These issues do not undermine the 5 per cent census, but they do affect two of the paper's other headline results.

major comments (3)

[§3.2, Eq. (4); Table A5] The dust-mass scale is set by a global q=0.14 variable-DTH correction calibrated on 218 low-redshift, FIR-bright GAMA galaxies and then applied uniformly to all ~800,000 galaxies, including DEVILS galaxies at z>2 where almost none have FIR detections. The paper itself notes that q=0.1 gives ~3.1 times lower dust masses, and §3.3 shows that plausible changes in the opacity coefficient can change dust masses by factors of a few. These are systematic uncertainties, but Table A5 quotes CDMH and CGMH uncertainties of only ~0.05 dex and appears not to include them. Because the CGMH is just the dust mass divided by a metallicity-dependent DTG, the reported 0.6 dex offset from 21cm measurements could absorb a rescaling of this order. I ask for a per-object or at least redshift-dependent correction, and for a propagated systematic error envelope in Table A5 and Fig. 9 covering the plausible range
[§3.1, Fig. 2; Fig. 9, Table A5] For z>2, Fig. 1 shows that only about 1 per cent of DEVILS sources have MIR/FIR photometry. Their dust masses are therefore controlled by the Gaussian prior on alpha with mean 2 and sigma 1, rather than by direct FIR constraints. Fig. 2 demonstrates that including FIR data shifts the dust-mass posterior by about 0.7 dex because the fit prefers alpha≈3. The high-redshift CDMH points in Fig. 9 and Table A5 (e.g. z=2.311 and 3.090) and the location of the peak at z≈1–2 are thus prior-dominated to a significant degree. Please quantify this sensitivity by rerunning the high-redshift CDMH with an alpha prior centred at 3, or with no prior, and reporting the resulting shape; if this is not possible, the claims about the peak and the high-z decline should be softened.
[§6, Fig. 12; references to D'Silva et al. (2023, 2025)] The term 'self-consistent' overstates the case for the dust and SMBH components. The dust scale is calibrated to make ProSpect agree with MAGPHYS on 218 galaxies, so the subsequent agreement of the CDMH with MAGPHYS-based literature values is partly by construction. The SMBH mass density is not derived in this paper but is imported from D'Silva et al. (2023, 2025). The 5 per cent baryon census remains a useful aggregation, but the text should describe it as homogeneous in data and fitting infrastructure, while acknowledging that the dust absolute scale is inherited from a MAGPHYS-based calibration and that the SMBH curve is taken from the authors' earlier analysis.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract vs. §6] The abstract states the neutral gas deficit is on average ≈0.7 dex lower than 21cm measurements, while the full text and Section 6 say ≈0.6 dex. Please make these consistent.
[Caption of Fig. 12] The caption says 'baron density' in the bottom panel; this should be 'baryon density'.
[§7, item (iii)] The conclusions say ProSpect gives '≈3 times higher dust masses' than MAGPHYS, while §3.2 says the correction is '≈2.5 times'. Please reconcile these numbers or clarify that 3 refers to the uncorrected code comparison and 2.5 to the adopted correction.
[§3.3, opacity discussion] The opacity coefficient discussion would benefit from a quantitative statement of how much of the factor-of-three offset remains after applying the variable DTH correction, since the paper currently leaves the reader with two partially degenerate explanations for the ProSpect-MAGPHYS offset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dust-mass rescaling is an openly described calibration, the SMBH density is an independent prior result, and the 5% census is an aggregation of measured components.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is linear and not self-referential: stellar masses come from ProSpect SED fits, which give the SMFs and CSMH; dust masses come from the same fits, giving the DMFs and CDMH; neutral gas masses are dust masses divided by a metallicity-dependent DTG, giving the CGMH; and the SMBH density is imported from prior published work. The only step that could look circular is the Section 3.2 dust-mass rescaling, where q = 0.14 is chosen so that ProSpect dust masses agree with MAGPHYS on 218 FIR-bright galaxies, and the resulting factor of about 2.5 is then applied globally. But the paper presents this explicitly as a calibration, not as a prediction: it states that the scaling is sensitive to q and that q = 0.1 would give about 3.1 times lower dust masses. The redshift-dependent shape of the CDMH and CGMH is produced by the SED fits themselves, not by this multiplicative constant, so the comparison to MAGPHYS-based literature is a consistency check rather than a derivation forced by construction. The SMBH density is taken from D'Silva et al. 2023, 2025, which is a self-citation, but those are previously published, externally reviewed measurements using the same data and methods; they are not derived from equations in this paper, and the SMBH term is a minor contributor to the final 5% figure. No self-definition, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renaming of a known result was found. The paper's own caveat about the q-sensitivity of the absolute dust/gas scale is a robustness limitation, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the a priori scale of dust masses and the conversion to gas: q and the global 2.5 correction set the whole dust/gas/baryon scale; the α prior stabilizes high-z fits without FIR; the SMBH term is imported from the same group's earlier work. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

PAH+VSG mass fraction q = 0.14
Chosen so that ProSpect dust masses agree with MAGPHYS; q=0.1 would give ≈3.1× lower dust masses. Sets the absolute dust mass scale.
Global dust-mass correction factor = ≈2.5
Applied to all galaxies to down-scale ProSpect dust masses, independent of α and per-galaxy dust properties.
Gaussian prior on Dale et al. α parameters = mean=2, σ=1
Used to constrain dust temperatures for galaxies without FIR photometry; strongly affects high-z DEVILS dust masses where FIR detection is rare.
SMBH radiative efficiency = 0.1
Assumed to convert the cosmic AGN luminosity history into SMBH mass density in the adopted prior work (D'Silva et al. 2023, 2025).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption ProSpect energy-balance SED fitting maps absorbed starlight to reradiated dust emission, with dust mass from template mass-to-light ratios.
Invoked throughout §2.2–3 to convert fitted attenuation and IR luminosity into dust mass.
domain assumption Dale et al. (2014) dust emission templates and Charlot & Fall (2000) attenuation describe the dust SED; the α prior constrains the radiation field.
Section 3.1: without FIR data, dust mass is highly sensitive to dust temperature and the α prior is required.
domain assumption A solar-metallicity DTH=0.0073, modified by a q-weighted wavelength-dependent DTH, sets the dust mass scale.
Section 3.2: the q=0.14 weighting is calibrated to match MAGPHYS dust masses.
domain assumption The Rémy-Ruyer et al. (2014) broken power-law dust-to-gas ratio applies as a function of ProSpect Zfinal to convert dust to neutral gas for all galaxies and redshifts.
Section 6: authors note the DTG is measured within the dust aperture and does not account for neutral gas beyond the optical radius.
domain assumption The SMBH mass history from D'Silva et al. (2023, 2025), based on a 10% radiative efficiency and integration of the AGN luminosity history, is adopted unchanged.
Section 6 and Fig. 12: same-group prior result used as an input without re-derivation.
ad hoc to paper Quadratic polynomials in redshift for the double-Schechter parameters provide the smooth underlying evolution whose residual versus direct fits gives the LSS correction.
Section 4 and Figs. 6–7: smoothness by construction is a modeling choice specific to this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The contribution of stars, dust, neutral gas and supermassive black holes in galaxies to the cosmic baryon inventory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JMLBACYE

@misc{pith2026260108112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The contribution of stars, dust, neutral gas and supermassive black holes in galaxies to the cosmic baryon inventory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JMLBACYE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.08112}
}

abstract

We compute the cosmic stellar, dust and neutral gas mass history at $0<z\lesssim3$ using ProSpect spectral energy distribution modelling of $\approx 800 \, 000$ galaxies in the Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey and the Deep Extragalactic VIsible Legacy Survey (DEVILS). The cosmic dust mass history broadly follows the shape of the cosmic star formation history; though, the decline is slower, suggestive of a slowing rate of dust growth and destruction as the star formation declines past its peak at $z\approx 2$. Neutral gas masses were estimated by scaling the dust masses by the metallicity-dependent dust-to-gas ratio. The neutral gas mass density as traced by the dust is an average of $\approx 0.7$ dex lower than that measured from $21$cm experiments, most likely due to differences in the spatial scales inhabited by dust and HI. Folding in measurements of the supermassive black hole mass density obtained previously with similar data and methods, we present a self-consistent census of the baryons confined to galaxies. Stars, neutral gas, SMBHs and dust contained within the optical radii of galaxies account for $\approx 5$ per cent of the baryons. Most of the remaining $\approx 95$ per cent of baryons must be ionised and dispersed throughout the interstellar, circumgalactic and intergalactic media within, around and between galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.08112 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Fraction of sources with FIR photometric observations in the DEVILS sample. UV-MIR counterpart in the initial 𝑌 < 21.2 mag sample. For these sources, a likely counterpart was assigned by cross matching the source coordinates against the positions in the full UV-MIR catalogue (including 𝑌 > 21.2 mag objects). The 𝑌 − 24𝜇m colour was also cross matched against 𝑌 − 24𝜇m ≈ 3 mag, which was identified as the typical co… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Posterior distributions of the dust mass from ProSpect fits to the inverse-variance weighted stack of a sample of 𝑧 ≈ 0.05 galaxies with 𝑆/𝑁 > 5 FIR Herschel 𝑃100, 𝑃160, 𝑆250, 𝑆350, 𝑆500 photometric measurements. The blue curve shows the results when including the FIR measurements and a Gaussian prior on 𝛼 with mean 𝜇 = 2 and dispersion 𝜎 = 1. The orange curve shows the results including when including the FIR measu… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** shows the comparison between ProSpect and MAGPHYS for this robust sample. The top panel shows an inverse-variance weighted stack of the SED of the robust sample, showing relative consistency between the two photometry tools. The bottom panel shows the histogram of the differences between the dust masses. Even with robust constraints on the FIR emission, ProSpect infers ≈ 0.5 dex higher dust masses than MAGPHYS, me… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Top: MAGPHYS standard SED model. The thick grey line is for the total luminosity while the brown, dotted line is only the mass contributing part of the SED. Middle: variable DTH as a function of wavelength. The left axis denotes the DTH per wavelength while the right a…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of the dust mass from fitting 218, FIR detected galaxies with single-temperature greybody functions. We show the distributions of the ratio of dust masses when varying the emissivity index, 𝛽, compared to a fixed value of 𝛽 = 2, which is similar to the assum…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Top left: SMFs (points with 1𝜎 uncertainties, in some bins the size of the error bar is smaller than the points) and double Schechter function fits (dashed lines) from 𝑧 ≈ 0 (yellow-red) to 𝑧 ≈ 3 (blue). Bottom: redshift evolution and 1𝜎 uncertainties of log10 (𝑀∗ ) (l…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Top: the CSMH. The black circles with error bars are the values and 1𝜎 uncertainties from the direct double Schechter function fits to the SMF). The hatched grey line is the CSMH and 1𝜎 uncertainties from the regressed SMFs. The coloured stars and error bars are the va…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The DMF at 0 < 𝑧 ≲ 3 as indicated in the legend. In every panel, the solid points with 1𝜎 error bars are the combined binned quantities from GAMA and DEVILS. The filled curves show the double Schechter functions and the 1𝜎 uncertainty range. The fit parameters are pres…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The CDMH. The coloured stars with error bars are the values and 1𝜎 uncertainties using the Pro − Hybrid SED fits. This CDMH was both scaled down by a factor of ≈ 2.5 and corrected for the metallicity dependent DTH as per the discussion in Section 3.2. This has been cor…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The dust-traced GMFs at 0 < 𝑧 ≲ 3, as indicated in the legend, for Pro − Hybrid. The filled curves show the double Schechter functions and the 1𝜎 uncertainty range. The fit parameters are presented in Table A4. that this census of the baryons is self-consistent. The r…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Top: cosmic mass densities and the baryon inventory. The blue curve shows the CSMH from the regressed fits of the SMFs. The orange filled curve shows the results of the CDMH. The green filled curve is the CGMH. All of these have had the LSS correction applied. The red…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

The evolution of galaxy dust scaling relations in the COLIBRE simulations
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The COLIBRE simulations reproduce the broad evolution of galaxy dust scaling relations from z=15 to 0, but overproduce the z<1 cosmic dust mass density and miss the most extreme sub-millimeter galaxies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

2 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

A., Gomez H

Aghanim N., et al., 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6 Aniano G., et al., 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 150 BaldryI.K.,etal.,2012,MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety, 421, 621 Beeston R. A., Gomez H. L., Dunne L., Maddox S., Eales S. A., Smith M. W. L., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 3162 BellagambaF.,Ma...

arXiv 2020
[12]

MNRAS000, 1–14 (2026)

Each of these columns and the uncertainties factor in the LSScorrectionsandtheirassociateduncertainties,whicharethemselvespresentedintherightmostcolumn.TheCDMHandCGMHincludecorrectionsforthe metallicity-dependent DTH and have been lowered by≈2.5as per the discussion in Section 3.2. MNRAS000, 1–14 (2026)

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A., Gomez H

Aghanim N., et al., 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6 Aniano G., et al., 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 150 BaldryI.K.,etal.,2012,MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety, 421, 621 Beeston R. A., Gomez H. L., Dunne L., Maddox S., Eales S. A., Smith M. W. L., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 3162 BellagambaF.,Ma...

arXiv 2020

[2] [12]

MNRAS000, 1–14 (2026)

Each of these columns and the uncertainties factor in the LSScorrectionsandtheirassociateduncertainties,whicharethemselvespresentedintherightmostcolumn.TheCDMHandCGMHincludecorrectionsforthe metallicity-dependent DTH and have been lowered by≈2.5as per the discussion in Section 3.2. MNRAS000, 1–14 (2026)

2026