pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.08174 · v1 · pith:V3ATX3PLnew · submitted 2019-06-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

Optical follow-up study of 32 high-redshift galaxy cluster candidates from Planck with the William Herschel Telescope

Hannah Zohren (1) , Tim Schrabback (1) , Remco F. J. van der Burg (2 , 3) , Monique Arnaud (3 , 4) , Jean-Baptiste Melin (3) , Jan Luca van den Busch (1
show 34 more authors
5) Henk Hoekstra (6) Matthias Klein (7 8) ((1) Argelander-Institut f\"ur Astronomie Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelm Universit\"at Bonn Auf dem H\"ugel 71 Bonn Germany (2) European Southern Observatory Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2 Garching (3) IRFU CEA Universit\'e Paris-Saclay F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette France (4) Universit\'e Paris Diderot AIM Sorbonne Paris Cit\'e CNRS Gif-sur-Yvette (5) Astronomisches Institut Ruhr-Universit\"at Bochum Universit\"atsstr. Bochum (6) Leiden Observatory Leiden University Leiden The Netherlands (7) Faculty of physics Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"at Munich (8) Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics Giessenbachstrasse Germany)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 20:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxy clustersSunyaev-Zeldovich effecthigh-redshift clustersoptical follow-upcluster richnessPlanck detectionsphotometric redshifts
0
0 comments X

The pith

Optical observations confirm 18 of 32 Planck high-redshift cluster candidates as massive systems.

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

The paper analyzes r-, i-, and z-band imaging plus some spectroscopy for 32 Planck SZ candidates preselected as likely distant clusters. Red-sequence fitting yields photometric redshifts and richness values that are then compared to the SZ signal strength using scaling relations calibrated at low redshifts. Many candidates show lower richness than expected, which the authors attribute to Eddington bias, projection effects, or noise. Still, 18 candidates above z = 0.5 (seven above z = 0.8) reach at least half the predicted richness, establishing them as genuine massive clusters. This supplies an independent optical verification step that complements SZ selection and identifies targets for further study.

Core claim

Red-sequence analysis of William Herschel Telescope data shows that 18 of the 32 Planck SZ candidates at z > 0.5 (seven at z > 0.8) possess optical richness at least half as large as expected from low-redshift SZ-mass scaling relations, thereby confirming these objects as real massive clusters even though the sample as a whole often appears poorer than the scaling relations predict.

What carries the argument

Optical richness measured from red-sequence galaxies in r-, i-, and z-band imaging, compared directly to the SZ-inferred mass via low-redshift scaling relations.

If this is right

  • The 18 confirmed clusters provide a ready sample for targeted X-ray, weak-lensing, or spectroscopic follow-up at z ≳ 0.7.
  • Optical richness serves as a practical filter that flags which low-significance SZ detections are likely real clusters.
  • Preselection with SDSS, WISE, and Pan-STARRS images successfully isolates high-redshift candidates worth observing.
  • SZ-only catalogs at low detection significance require optical confirmation to avoid contamination by noise or projections.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future Planck or similar SZ surveys may need systematic optical campaigns to measure the full selection function before using the sample for cosmology.
  • If the SZ-richness relation evolves at high redshift, the confirmed fraction could shift and change estimates of cluster abundance.
  • These validated high-redshift clusters can be used to test how galaxy populations and star formation behave inside dense environments at z ~ 0.7-1.

Load-bearing premise

The scaling relation between SZ signal strength and optical richness calibrated at low redshifts continues to apply without large evolution or extra scatter at redshifts above 0.5.

What would settle it

Deeper imaging or spectroscopy that finds the majority of the 18 candidates have richness well below half the expected value or redshifts significantly below z = 0.5.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.08174 by (2) European Southern Observatory, 3), (3) IRFU, 4), (4) Universit\'e Paris Diderot, 5), (5) Astronomisches Institut, (6) Leiden Observatory, (7) Faculty of physics, 8) ((1) Argelander-Institut f\"ur Astronomie, (8) Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, AIM, Auf dem H\"ugel 71, Bonn, CEA, CNRS, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France, Garching, Germany, Germany), Giessenbachstrasse, Gif-sur-Yvette, Hannah Zohren (1), Henk Hoekstra (6), Jan Luca van den Busch (1, Jean-Baptiste Melin (3), Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2, Leiden, Leiden University, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"at, Matthias Klein (7, Monique Arnaud (3, Munich, Remco F. J. van der Burg (2, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelm Universit\"at Bonn, Ruhr-Universit\"at Bochum, Sorbonne Paris Cit\'e, The Netherlands, Tim Schrabback (1), Universit\"atsstr. Bochum, Universit\'e Paris-Saclay.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: Filtered richness λMCMF versus redshift with Gaussian fit in green for cluster candidate PSZ2 G032.31+66.07. The blue bars display λMCMF at the different redshift steps. The red error bars display the uncertainties that emerge from the background subtraction. Bottom: Diagram of (r − z) colour ver￾sus i-band magnitude for cluster candidate PSZ2 G032.31+66.07. The grey points mark all galaxies observed … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of red-sequence redshifts (obtained through the analysis steps described in this work) after recali￾bration of the red-sequence models and spectroscopic redshifts from this work, Buddendiek et al. (2015), Burenin et al. (2018), Streblyanska et al. (2018) and Amodeo et al. (2018). The error bars show the statistical 68 per cent errors, which result from a bootstrapping according to equation 3.13.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectrum of the BCG candidate in cluster PLCK G58.14–72.7. The vertical, dashed blue lines indicate where at￾mospheric absorption lines caused by water and oxygen molecules are to be expected. The vertical, solid black lines represent the position of emission lines. The vertical, solid red lines represent the position of absorption lines that may occur especially in ellip￾tical galaxies. The original wavel… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the richness λ obtained from our optical data and the SZ-based mass M500c,SZ from the Planck measure￾ments. The solid line marks the richness-mass relation from Rozo et al. (2015). The dashed (dash-dotted) line marks, where the richness is 50 per cent (25 per cent) of what is expected from the scaling relation. Red squares mark PSZ2 cluster candidates with two potential optical counterparts. … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the mass ratio M500c,λ/M500c,SZ ver￾sus S/N (top) of the Planck SZ detection, versus the distance between the optical centre and the SZ peak coordinates of the blind detection (middle) and versus Qneural (bottom). We only plot the candidates that have the corresponding information available in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Planck satellite has detected cluster candidates via the Sunyaev Zel'dovich (SZ) effect, but the optical follow-up required to confirm these candidates is still incomplete, especially at high redshifts and for SZ detections at low significance. In this work we present our analysis of optical observations obtained for 32 Planck cluster candidates using ACAM on the 4.2-m William Herschel Telescope. These cluster candidates were preselected using SDSS, WISE, and Pan-STARRS images to likely represent distant clusters at redshifts $z \gtrsim 0.7$. We obtain photometric redshift and richness estimates for all of the cluster candidates from a red-sequence analysis of $r$-, $i$-, and $z$-band imaging data. In addition, long-slit observations allow us to measure the redshifts of a subset of the clusters spectroscopically. The optical richness is often lower than expected from the inferred SZ mass when compared to scaling relations previously calibrated at low redshifts. This likely indicates the impact of Eddington bias and projection effects or noise-induced detections, especially at low SZ-significance. Thus, optical follow-up not only provides redshift measurements, but also an important independent verification method. We find that 18 (7) of the candidates at redshifts $z > 0.5$ ($z > 0.8$) are at least half as rich as expected from scaling relations, thereby clearly confirming these candidates as massive clusters. While the complex selection function of our sample due to our preselection hampers its use for cosmological studies, we do provide a validation of massive high-redshift clusters particularly suitable for further astrophysical investigations.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports optical follow-up of 32 Planck SZ cluster candidates preselected as likely high-redshift (z ≳ 0.7) systems using SDSS/WISE/Pan-STARRS imaging. ACAM imaging on the William Herschel Telescope yields r/i/z photometry from which photometric redshifts and red-sequence richnesses are derived; long-slit spectra provide spectroscopic redshifts for a subset. Richness values are compared to expectations from the SZ-inferred masses via scaling relations calibrated at low redshift. The authors conclude that 18 candidates at z > 0.5 (and 7 at z > 0.8) reach at least half the expected richness and are therefore confirmed as massive clusters, while noting that richness is frequently lower than predicted, which they attribute to Eddington bias, projection effects, or noise.

Significance. If the half-richness confirmation threshold remains robust, the work supplies an independent optical validation of a sample of high-redshift massive clusters that is suitable for targeted astrophysical follow-up. The demonstration that optical richness can serve as a useful cross-check on low-significance SZ detections at z ≳ 0.7 is a clear strength.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 18 (7) candidates at z > 0.5 (z > 0.8) are 'clearly confirming these candidates as massive clusters' is based on richness ≥ 50 % of the value predicted from the Planck SZ mass using low-redshift scaling relations. The text states that richness is 'often lower than expected' and lists Eddington bias, projection, or noise as explanations, yet still adopts the low-z calibration and the 50 % threshold without any high-z recalibration, evolution correction, or quantitative assessment of how much the threshold would shift under plausible changes in normalization or scatter.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The description of the preselection criteria and how they affect the final sample completeness and selection function could be expanded for clarity, even though the paper already notes that the selection precludes cosmological use.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the single major comment below, agreeing that the abstract language merits clarification while defending the core approach as the most appropriate given available calibrations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 18 (7) candidates at z > 0.5 (z > 0.8) are 'clearly confirming these candidates as massive clusters' is based on richness ≥ 50 % of the value predicted from the Planck SZ mass using low-redshift scaling relations. The text states that richness is 'often lower than expected' and lists Eddington bias, projection, or noise as explanations, yet still adopts the low-z calibration and the 50 % threshold without any high-z recalibration, evolution correction, or quantitative assessment of how much the threshold would shift under plausible changes in normalization or scatter.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the scaling relations are extrapolated from low-redshift calibrations and that no dedicated high-z recalibration or explicit evolution correction is performed in this work. The manuscript already highlights that richness is frequently lower than predicted and attributes this to Eddington bias, projection effects, and noise, which are expected to be pronounced at low SZ significance. The 50% threshold is deliberately conservative to identify systems that remain consistent with being massive clusters even after these effects. Nevertheless, we agree that the abstract's phrasing ('clearly confirming') could be read as overly definitive without quantifying possible shifts in the relation. We will therefore revise the abstract to replace 'clearly confirming these candidates as massive clusters' with 'providing strong support for these candidates as massive clusters, subject to the assumptions of the low-redshift scaling relations' and add a short parenthetical note referencing the discussed biases. This is a partial revision; a full quantitative assessment of evolution would require a larger, homogeneously selected high-z sample that is beyond the scope of the present optical follow-up study. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; direct comparison to external low-z scaling relations

full rationale

The paper performs optical imaging and spectroscopy to measure photometric redshifts and richness for 32 Planck SZ candidates. It then compares these richness values to expectations derived from Planck SZ masses using scaling relations calibrated at low redshifts by prior external work. No parameters are fitted within this paper, no model is derived that reduces to its own inputs, and no self-citation chain supports the central confirmation threshold. The analysis is a straightforward observational test against independent benchmarks; the assumption that the low-z relations hold at high z is an external prior (not a self-referential step) and does not trigger any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Paper relies on prior low-redshift scaling relations and standard red-sequence assumptions; no new free parameters fitted in this work.

free parameters (1)
  • richness confirmation threshold
    Choice of 'at least half as rich as expected' used to declare confirmation; selected rather than derived from data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Red-sequence fitting in r,i,z bands yields reliable photometric redshifts and richness at z ≳ 0.7
    Central to all redshift and richness estimates reported.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6092 in / 1307 out tokens · 26425 ms · 2026-05-25T20:09:20.846227+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Aghanim N., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424963 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424963 2015

  2. [2]

    Aihara H., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..193...29A 193, 29

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29 2011

  3. [3]

    W., Evrard A

    Allen S. W., Evrard A. E., Mantz A. B., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ARA

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

  4. [4]

    Amodeo S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa98dd , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853...36A 853, 36

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa98dd 2018

  5. [5]

    Andreon S., Congdon P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423616 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423616 2014

  6. [6]

    Barrena R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732315 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732315 2018

  7. [7]

    Bartelmann M., 1996, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    Benn C., Dee K., Ag \'o cs T., 2008, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II. p. 70146X, @doi 10.1117/12.788694

    work page doi:10.1117/12.788694 2008

  9. [9]

    N., Accomazzi A., Mink D

    Bertin E., 2011, in Evans I. N., Accomazzi A., Mink D. J., Rots A. H., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX. p. 435

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1996164 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  11. [11]

    E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..216...27B 216, 27

    Bleem L. E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..216...27B 216, 27

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/27 2015

  12. [12]

    High Confidence Optical Confirmations Among the High Signal-to-Noise Planck Cluster Candidates

    Boada S., Hughes J. P., Menanteau F., Doze P., Barrientos L. F., Infante L., 2018, ArXiv e-prints accepted for publication in , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180906378B p. arXiv:1809.06378

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    G., Lucey J

    Bower R. G., Lucey J. R., Ellis R. S., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/254.4.601 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.254..601B 254, 601

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/254.4.601 1992

  14. [14]

    Buddendiek A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv783 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.4248B 450, 4248

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv783 2015

  15. [15]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773718050018 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AstL...44..297B 44, 297

    Burenin R. A., et al., 2018, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773718050018 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AstL...44..297B 44, 297

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773718050018 2018

  16. [16]

    E., Holder G

    Carlstrom J. E., Holder G. P., Reese E. D., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093803 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ARA

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093803 2002

  17. [17]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers K. C., et al., 2016, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161205560C ( @eprint arXiv 1612.05560 )

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    S., 1913, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1913MNRAS..73..359E 73, 359

    Eddington A. S., 1913, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1913MNRAS..73..359E 73, 359

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 1913

  19. [19]

    Erben T., et al., 2005, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.200510396 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AN....326..432E 326, 432

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.200510396 2005

  20. [20]

    D., L \'o pez-Cruz O., Yee H

    Gladders M. D., L \'o pez-Cruz O., Yee H. K. C., Kodama T., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305858 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...501..571G 501, 571

    work page doi:10.1086/305858 1998

  21. [21]

    M., McKay T

    Hansen S. M., McKay T. A., Wechsler R. H., Annis J., Sheldon E. S., Kimball A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/444554 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633..122H 633, 122

    work page doi:10.1086/444554 2005

  22. [22]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa6cb 2018

  23. [23]

    Hinshaw G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208...19H 208, 19

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 2013

  24. [24]

    Horne K., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/131801 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986PASP...98..609H 98, 609

    work page doi:10.1086/131801 1986

  25. [25]

    arXiv:1702.00075

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

    work page arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Ilbert O., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321100 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321100 2013

  27. [27]

    Klein M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2929 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.3324K 474, 3324

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2929 2018

  28. [28]

    Klein M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1463 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.1397K p. 1397

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1463 2019

  29. [29]

    J., Stanford S

    Lin Y.-T., Mohr J. J., Stanford S. A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421714 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...610..745L 610, 745

    work page doi:10.1086/421714 2004

  30. [30]

    J., Gonzalez A

    Lin Y.-T., Mohr J. J., Gonzalez A. H., Stanford S. A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508940 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650L..99L 650, L99

    work page doi:10.1086/508940 2006

  31. [31]

    Liu J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv458 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3370L 449, 3370

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv458 2015

  32. [32]

    G., Delabrouille J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065034 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    Melin J.-B., Bartlett J. G., Delabrouille J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065034 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065034 2006

  33. [33]

    Melin J.-B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015689 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015689 2012

  34. [34]

    Miyazaki S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S..27M 70, S27

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx120 2018

  35. [35]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..206....8M 206, 8

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8

  36. [36]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/18 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777...18M 777, 18

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/18

  37. [37]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304888 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490..493N 490, 493

    work page doi:10.1086/304888 1997

  38. [38]

    Pacaud F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526891 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...592A...2P 592, A2

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526891 2016

  39. [39]

    W., Pointecouteau E., Melin J

    Piffaretti R., Arnaud M., Pratt G. W., Pointecouteau E., Melin J. B., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...534A.109P 534, A109

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015377 2011

  40. [40]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321523 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321523 2014

  41. [41]

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

  42. [42]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525823 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525823

  43. [43]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-019-0591-0 2019

  44. [44]

    Rozo E., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/601 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703..601R 703, 601

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/601 2009

  45. [45]

    S., Bartlett J

    Rozo E., Rykoff E. S., Bartlett J. G., Melin J.-B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv605 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..592R 450, 592

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv605 2015

  46. [46]

    S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/178 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..178R 746, 178

    Rykoff E. S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/178 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..178R 746, 178

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/178 2012

  47. [47]

    S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/104 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785..104R 785, 104

    Rykoff E. S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/104 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785..104R 785, 104

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/104 2014

  48. [48]

    S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..224....1R 224, 1

    Rykoff E. S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..224....1R 224, 1

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/1 2016

  49. [49]

    Saro A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2141 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.2305S 454, 2305

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2141 2015

  50. [50]

    Schirmer M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/209/2/21 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..209...21S 209, 21

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/209/2/21 2013

  51. [51]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  52. [52]

    A., van der Burg R

    Streblyanska A., Barrena R., Rubi \ n o-Mart \' n J. A., van der Burg R. F. J., Aghanim N., Aguado-Barahona A., Ferragamo A., Lietzen H., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...617A..71S 617, A71

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732306 2018

  53. [53]

    A., Tramonte D., Genova-Santos R

    Streblyanska A., Aguado-Barahona A., Ferragamo A., Barrena R., Rubino-Martin J. A., Tramonte D., Genova-Santos R. T., Lietzen H., 2019, arXiv e-prints submitted to , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190513661S p. arXiv:1905.13661

    work page arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/591439 2008

  55. [55]

    L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/99 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...750...99T 750, 99

    Tonry J. L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/99 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...750...99T 750, 99

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/99 2012

  56. [56]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 2010

  57. [57]

    G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323894 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1420V 113, 1420

    van Dokkum P. G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323894 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1420V 113, 1420

    work page doi:10.1086/323894 2001

  58. [58]

    G., Hoekstra H., Semboloni E., Gladders M

    van Uitert E., Gilbank D. G., Hoekstra H., Semboloni E., Gladders M. D., Yee H. K. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526719 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526719 2016

  59. [59]

    van der Burg R. F. J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527299 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527299 2016