Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper establishes that radio emission from the galaxies themselves is a necessary contaminant in small-scale galaxy–tSZ cross-correlations, and that explicitly modeling it removes the apparent negative galaxy–hot-gas signal reported in

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 09:51 UTC pith:O6HD7U6O

load-bearing objection The Planck BIC case for radio contamination is solid and the sign-flip claim is credible, but the small-scale result rests on one power-law radio SED fitted at Planck scales and applied to ACT with no external radio check. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.28099 v2 pith:O6HD7U6O submitted 2026-06-26 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

Thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich cross-correlations with unWISE galaxies: disentangling radio contamination, dust properties, and electron pressure

Guandi Zhao , Alex Krolewski , Niayesh Afshordi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effectgalaxy-CMB cross-correlationradio contaminationcosmic infrared backgroundcomponent separationharmonic spaceunWISE galaxieselectron pressure profile
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that radio emission from the galaxies themselves has been contaminating measurements of the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (tSZ) effect on small angular scales, and that once this radio component is explicitly modeled, the apparent negative galaxy–tSZ cross-correlation reported in earlier ACT DR6 analyses disappears. Using the nine Planck frequency bands for model selection, the authors show that a three-component spectral fit — tSZ plus radio plus a cosmic infrared background (CIB) amplitude term — is overwhelmingly preferred over recipes that omit radio, at 9.5σ for their low-redshift unWISE sample and 11σ for the mid-redshift sample. Applying this recipe to ACT+Planck maps keeps the galaxy–tSZ signal positive out to ℓ ≈ 6000 and consistent with a conventional halo model with a two-parameter generalized NFW pressure profile. If correct, this means that the negative small-scale galaxy–y signal seen in NILC-based analyses is a foreground artifact, not a physical suppression of hot gas in low-mass halos.

Core claim

At its core, the paper establishes that radio contamination is a required component of any small-scale galaxy–tSZ cleaning procedure, not a subdominant correction. Using Planck's nine bands for model selection, a three-component recipe (tSZ + radio + CIB-amplitude) is preferred over radio-less recipes by BIC at 9.5σ (Low-z) and 11σ (Mid-z). Applied to ACT+Planck maps, the recipe removes the apparent negative galaxy–tSZ cross-correlation seen in the fiducial NILC reconstruction; cleaned spectra stay positive to ℓ ≈ 6000, match Planck-only results on overlapping scales, and fit a halo model with a two-parameter generalized NFW pressure profile.

What carries the argument

The central object is a harmonic-space component-separation model: each observed galaxy–temperature cross-spectrum is a linear combination of component cross-spectra times passband-averaged spectral responses. The tSZ response is fixed; the CIB is a modified blackbody with index β0 and temperature T0 (plus an optional first-order variation term); the radio component is a single power law with effective index βr. With fixed SED parameters, component amplitudes follow from a generalized least-squares estimate (Eq. 9); the SED parameters are fit to nine Planck bands, with BIC model selection. This selects tSZ + radio + CIB-amplitude, then applies it to three ACT+Planck bands to recover small-sc

Load-bearing premise

The cleaning assumes that the single radio spectral index fitted to Planck data on large scales (200 < ℓ < 2000) also describes radio emission on ACT's small scales (up to ℓ ≈ 6000), and that Planck and ACT masks remove the same sources; if the small-scale radio population has a different spectrum, power would be mis-attributed to tSZ.

What would settle it

Cross-match the unWISE Low-z and Mid-z galaxies to a deep radio catalog and measure the mean radio spectral index of matched sources between ~1 and 30 GHz, then extrapolate to 90–220 GHz with a physically motivated SED; alternatively, repeat the ACT+Planck component separation with the central galaxy regions masked. If the positive high-ℓ signal disappears when central pixels are masked, or if the fitted radio amplitude disagrees with radio source counts, the cleaning would be shown to over-attribute power to tSZ.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The apparent negative galaxy–tSZ cross-correlation reported from ACT DR6 NILC maps at ℓ > 2000 is an artifact of unmodeled radio foregrounds, not a real deficit of hot gas around low-mass halos.
  • Small-scale galaxy–tSZ measurements that rely on CIB deprojection alone should be re-examined; agreement with CIB-deprojected maps is not sufficient to certify radio-cleanness.
  • The cleaned spectra place positive constraints on the electron pressure profile around ~10^13 solar-mass halos, with a lower normalization and shallower outer slope than cluster-calibrated GNFW profiles, consistent with stronger feedback in low-mass halos.
  • The fitted effective radio spectral indices (β_r ≈ −2.18 for Low-z, −2.62 for Mid-z) imply a mixture of free-free and synchrotron emission correlated with the galaxy samples.
  • The same component-separation machinery yields galaxy–radio and galaxy–CIB cross-spectra that can be studied as physical probes in their own right.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the radio-cleaning recipe should be tested against external radio source counts; if the fitted radio amplitudes do not match the counts, the single-power-law spectral assumption would need revision.
  • Editorial inference: the strategy of using broad-frequency Planck-like coverage for SED selection before applying high-resolution maps is a generic template for future CMB surveys with more bands.
  • Editorial inference: if the positive high-ℓ signal is real, galaxy–tSZ cross-correlations may become a cleaner low-mass gas probe than previously thought, sharpening the profile comparison with clusters into a feedback diagnostic around 10^13 solar masses.
  • Editorial inference: because contamination is sample-dependent (higher-redshift samples would favor CIB-δβ over radio), the conclusions should not be blindly applied to other galaxy selections; each sample requires its own SED model selection.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper performs harmonic-space multi-frequency component separation of galaxy-temperature cross-spectra between two low-redshift unWISE samples (Low-z and Mid-z) and Planck PR4 plus ACT DR6 maps. Using the nine Planck bands, the authors compare spectral recipes and report that a three-component model (tSZ + radio + CIB amplitude) is strongly preferred over radio-less recipes, with ΔBIC ≈ 90 (Low-z) and 120 (Mid-z), corresponding to quoted significances of 9.5σ and 11σ. The fitted effective radio spectral indices (βr ≈ −2.18 and −2.62) lie between free-free and synchrotron values. Applying this recipe to ACT+Planck coadds yields tSZ×galaxy spectra that remain positive to ℓ ≈ 6000, removing the negative small-scale signal seen in the ACT DR6 NILC map and in no-radio fits. The cleaned spectra are then compared with a halo model using HOD-calibrated galaxy clustering and a two-parameter GNFW pressure profile.

Significance. If correct, the paper resolves an important discrepancy in low-mass tSZ measurements: the negative ACT DR6 galaxy–y cross-correlation at ℓ ≳ 2000 would be a foreground artifact rather than a real suppression, and the true low-halo-mass signal would be positive and consistent with ordinary pressure profiles. The analysis has real strengths: the harmonic-space method directly models correlated radio and CIB contributions; the BIC preference for a radio component is large; the fitted βr values are physically plausible; the radio parameters are stable when the CIB-δβ term is added; and Planck-only and ACT+Planck extractions are broadly consistent on overlapping scales. The main risk is that the cleaning step is built on a single radio SED template fitted at Planck scales and applied at ACT arcminute scales, with no external radio validation; the central conclusion would invert if that template is wrong. The halo-model interpretation is also more illustrative than constraining, as the authors partly acknowledge in Appendix C.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1.1, §4.2, Eq. (22)] The cleaning procedure assumes that the effective radio SED is a single power law, with βr fitted to Planck-only cross-spectra at 200<ℓ<2000 (Table 3) and then held fixed for ACT+Planck coadds at ℓ up to 6000. Because N_f=N_s=3, the GLS in Eq. (9) has exactly as many amplitudes as data per ℓ-bin; a mismatch between the true radio SED and this template is therefore not diluted but projected directly onto the tSZ and CIB amplitudes. The paper itself flags the source-masking consistency caveat in §6 but does not test it, and no external radio catalog or small-scale SED information is used. Given that the headline conclusion is that the ACT DR6 negative signal is a radio artifact and the true signal is positive, this single-template assumption is load-bearing. Please add a direct validation or an explicit bracketing of possible SED variation (e.g., radio-source stacking, a scale-dependent βr
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (10), Table 3] The error bars on the component-separated C_gy (Figs. 10–11) and the subsequent GNFW fits are computed for fixed best-fit SED parameters. Equation (10) gives the conditional covariance of the GLS amplitudes given (β0, T0, βr), so the uncertainties on β0, T0, and βr reported in Table 3 are not propagated. At 90–220 GHz the tSZ, radio, and CIB responses are strongly degenerate (Fig. 1), so this omission may be material to the claim that the cleaned signal 'remains positive to ℓ≃6000'. Please marginalize over the SED parameter posteriors (e.g., using the Fig. 8 MCMC samples) or quantify the resulting inflation of the error bars.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2] The paragraph beginning 'We now specify the frequency response coefficients...' appears twice verbatim, once before Eq. (11) and once after. Please remove the duplication.
  2. [Abstract and Table 3] The abstract quotes βr = −2.18 ± 0.24 for Low-z, while Table 3 lists −2.18 ± 0.26 for the adopted three-component recipe (and −2.18 ± 0.24 for the four-component recipe). Please make the quoted uncertainties consistent and clarify which value is used.
  3. [§4.1.1, Eq. (24)] The conversion from ΔBIC = 90/120 to '9.5σ'/'11σ' is not defined. BIC differences and Gaussian significances are not equivalent; please report the Δχ² for the nested comparison or the likelihood ratio, and state explicitly how the sigma values are obtained.
  4. [Fig. 11 and §4.2] The agreement between Planck-only and ACT+Planck extractions is not a fully independent cross-check, because the ACT+Planck maps are coadds containing Planck data and Planck dominates at ℓ ≲ 1500. This should be stated when the agreement is used as a validation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the radio-cleaned spectrum is a fitted extrapolation with acknowledged assumptions, not an identity or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: fit SED parameters (beta0, T0, beta_r) and choose a component recipe using the nine Planck cross-spectra (Sec. 4.1.1, Table 3), solve for per-multipole component amplitudes with the GLS estimator (Eq. 9), apply the preferred recipe to ACT+Planck coadds at higher multipoles, and then describe the cleaned C_gy with a halo model. At no point is a claimed prediction identical to a fitted input. The high-multipole ACT signal (ell > 2000) is new data, so the positive cleaned spectrum is not statistically forced by the Planck model selection; the radio template is an extrapolation, with a scale-dependent-SED risk that the authors themselves flag in Sec. 6 as an assumption about consistency of source removal and masking across surveys. That is a systematic limitation, not circularity. The halo-model section fits P0 and beta to the same cleaned C_gy, but the paper explicitly identifies the degeneracy P0_eff = (1 + rho_gy) P0 (Eq. C1) and labels the Y_SZ-M_h comparison a 'model-dependent diagnostic' rather than an independent constraint. Self-citations (Krolewski et al. 2020 for sample definitions, Afshordi et al. 2007 for motivation, LoVerde & Afshordi 2008 for the Limber approximation) are not load-bearing. The derivation is therefore self-contained in the relevant sense; the main caveats are model risk and extrapolation, not circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

11 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's contribution is a foreground-cleaning recipe plus a halo-model interpretation. Its free parameters are the SED shapes (β0, T0, βr), the per-ℓ component amplitudes, the HOD connection parameters, and the two GNFW shape parameters. The radio template is the least externally anchored ingredient: its amplitude and index are both fitted from the same data it cleans. The main assumptions are standard (Limber, Tinker HMF/bias, HOD form, GNFW shape from cluster samples), with the radio SED scale/cross-survey invariance being the one ad hoc-to-paper assumption. The pressure amplitude is explicitly degenerate with ρ_gy, so a physical pressure profile is not separately determined. No invented entities are introduced; the radio 'component' is a phenomenological template, and ρ_gy is a standard nuisance parameter.

free parameters (11)
  • CIB emissivity index β0 = 1.79±0.29 (Low-z); 1.41±0.13 (Mid-z)
    Free SED parameter fitted to the nine-band Planck cross-spectra (Table 3); sets the CIB amplitude response shape (Eq. 14).
  • CIB effective dust temperature T0 = 22.0±5.1 K (Low-z); 28.0±4.2 K (Mid-z)
    Free SED parameter fitted jointly with β0 (Table 3); higher than the ACT NILC fiducial 10.7 K, which the paper notes.
  • Effective radio spectral index βr = -2.18±0.24 (Low-z); -2.62±0.26 (Mid-z)
    Free SED parameter for the radio template (Eq. 22); fitted to the same Planck cross-spectra. Values land between free-free (-2.14) and synchrotron (-3.11).
  • Per-multipole-bin component amplitudes C_gS^i_ℓ (tSZ, radio, CIB) = solved per ℓ-bin via GLS (Eq. 9)
    The primary free quantities of the component separation; one amplitude per component per multipole bin.
  • HOD log10 Mmin,0 = 11.35±0.02 (Low-z); 11.42±0.04 (Mid-z)
    Central-galaxy mass threshold fitted to C_gg (Table 4).
  • HOD d log10 Mmin/da = -9.55±0.10 (Low-z); -5.91±0.16 (Mid-z)
    Redshift-evolution slope of the central mass threshold; large negative values absorb selection evolution (Table 4).
  • HOD log10 M1,0 = 11.86±0.06 (Low-z); 11.48±0.14 (Mid-z)
    Satellite mass threshold fitted to C_gg (Table 4).
  • HOD d log10 M1/da = -14.97±0.89 (Low-z); -13.21±1.57 (Mid-z)
    Redshift-evolution slope of the satellite threshold (Table 4).
  • GNFW pressure normalization P0 = 0.53+0.09/-0.07 (Low-z); 0.34±0.03 (Mid-z)
    Fitted to the cleaned C_gy (§5.3); actually constrains P0,eff = (1+ρ_gy)P0 (Eq. C1), flagged by authors.
  • GNFW outer slope β = 3.19+0.46/-0.36 (Low-z); 2.54+0.15/-0.14 (Mid-z)
    Fitted together with P0; other GNFW shape parameters fixed to Melin & Pratt (2023) values (Table 5).
  • Galaxy–pressure correlation ρ_gy = absorbed into P0,eff; 1+ρ_gy not separately constrained
    Phenomenological nuisance in the 1-halo term (Eq. 45); degenerate with P0; authors recommend reading the pressure amplitude only as the effective combination (Appendix C).
axioms (8)
  • standard math Limber approximation is accurate for the wide galaxy kernels (δz ~ 0.2)
    Invoked in §5.1 (Eq. 31) with a stated validity argument; the ℓ_min=200 scale cut also relies on it.
  • domain assumption Tinker et al. (2008) mass function and Tinker et al. (2010) bias describe the halo population
    Used in §5 for all halo-model integrals (Eq. 29); standard but unproven in-paper.
  • domain assumption HOD form of Zheng et al. (2007) with fixed σlogM=0.4, α=1, M0=10^7 M⊙ and fc=1
    §5.2; fixed values motivated by CMASS/DESI LRG fits; fc=1 justified by a prior-bound fit (footnote 3).
  • domain assumption GNFW pressure shape parameters c500=1.07, α=1.05, γ=0.55, αP=0.12 from z<0.6 cluster sample (Melin & Pratt 2023) apply to ~10^13 M⊙ halos
    §5.3, Table 5; an extrapolation of cluster-calibrated profile shapes to lower-mass halos; P0 and β are the only fitted shape parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper Radio emission correlated with the galaxy samples has a single power-law SED, scale-independent from ℓ=200 to 6000, and identical in Planck and ACT maps
    Eq. 22 and §4.2; the spectral index is fitted at 200<ℓ<2000 on Planck and applied to ℓ<6000 ACT+Planck; cross-survey source-masking consistency is flagged by the authors in §6, but SED scale-invariance is not tested.
  • domain assumption Gaussian beam approximations for Planck bands and adopted ACT passband assignments (PA5/PA4)
    §3.1–3.2; Appendix A tests the passband choice, showing sub-percent-level response changes.
  • standard math Component separation is identifiable when Nf ≥ Ns, with G block-diagonal over multipoles
    §2.1 (Eqs. 7–10); the block-diagonal assumption makes each ℓ-bin an independent linear solve.
  • domain assumption Covariance is well approximated by the NaMaster analytic window-convolved Gaussian using smooth fits to measured autospectra as templates
    §4; an approximation of the full non-Gaussian covariance, standard in the field.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23042 in / 28961 out tokens · 263934 ms · 2026-08-02T09:51:49.224387+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cross-correlations between the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (tSZ) effect and galaxy surveys provide a sensitive probe of hot gas in low-mass halos, but on the angular scales of greatest astrophysical interest they are also highly vulnerable to residual foreground contamination. We analyze the cross-correlation of two low-redshift unWISE galaxy samples with Planck PR4 and ACT DR6 microwave temperature sky maps directly in harmonic space, fitting simultaneously for correlated tSZ, cosmic infrared background (CIB), and radio emission. Using the nine Planck bands to perform model selection, we find that a three-component model consisting of tSZ, radio emission, and a CIB amplitude term is strongly preferred over a model that omits radio contamination, with a significance of $9.5\sigma$ for the unWISE Low-z sample and $11\sigma$ for the unWISE Mid-z sample respectively. For the unWISE Low-z sample ($\bar{z}=0.14$) the preferred Planck fit gives an effective CIB emissivity index $\beta_0=1.79\pm0.29$, an effective CIB dust temperature $T_0=22.0\pm5.1 K$, and a radio spectral index $\beta_r=-2.18\pm0.24$; for the unWISE Mid-z sample ($\bar{z}=0.23$) we find $\beta_0=1.41\pm0.13$, $T_0=28.0\pm4.2 K$, and $\beta_r=-2.62\pm0.26$. We apply this radio-inclusive recipe to the ACT+Planck 90, 150, and 220 GHz maps to obtain the best small-scale measurements. This removes the apparent negative galaxy-tSZ cross-correlation seen in the fiducial ACT DR6 NILC reconstruction and in no-radio fits. The cleaned tSZ cross unWISE spectra remain positive to $\ell \simeq 6000$ and are broadly consistent with the Planck-only reconstruction on overlapping scales. We show that these radio-cleaned spectra are well described by a conventional halo model calibrated to the galaxy population and a two-parameter generalized NFW electron pressure profile.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28099 by Alex Krolewski, Guandi Zhao, Niayesh Afshordi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: — Signal responses of the four components considered in this work. Responses that are negative are plotted with dashed curves. For the radio sources, the two scenarios βr = βff (free-free) and βr = βsyn (synchrotron) are both shown. The SED parameters for the CIB-amplitude and CIB-δβ response is taken as β0 = 1.7, T0 = 10.7 K, consistent with the fiducial values by Coulton et al. (2024). The responses are … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: — ACT+Planck source-subtracted coadded maps from ACT DR6, described in (Naess et al. 2025), and used in this work. The maps are shown in Galactic coordinates after applying the ACT footprint mask. 3.2. The Planck temperature map While ACT DR6 provides high angular resolution, it includes only three nominal frequency bands. To supplement the frequency information used for SED modeling, we also use the Planc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: — The beams used in this work for Planck and ACT frequency maps. The Planck beams are Gaussian with FWHM given in Sec. 3.2. The curves P-Frequency denote the Planck beams for nominal bands, and curves A-Frequency denote the ACT nominal bands. a constant W2 faint cut and a W1 − W2 cut drawn approximately along contours of constant redshift (parallel to the W1 − W2 cut for Blue, Green and Red), and picking s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Planck PR4 NPIPE inpainted maps with the dipole and monopole subtracted, as described in detail by McCarthy & Hill (2024), and used in this work. A footprint mask is applied to the maps shown here. of galaxies. We find that typically all groups with three or more galaxies are shreds, and prune them down to a single member. We measure the galaxy redshift distribution by cross-matching to DESI DR1 (DESI Co… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Galaxy overdensity δg = ng n¯g − 1 of the two samples from the unWISE catalog. A Galactic and source mask is applied to both maps. We measure the cross-correlation between unWISE galaxy samples and three ACT frequencies using the ACT+Planck coadd maps. We utilize the high angular resolution in ACT map using map resolution Nside = 2048 and calculate angular power spectrum for 200 < ℓ < 6000 with ∆ℓ = 100 … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — The NaMaster result for the pseudo-Cℓ of the unWISE Low-z galaxy overdensity cross-correlated with nine Planck single￾frequency temperature maps: 30, 44, 70, 100, 143, 217, 353, 545, and 857 GHz. (a) The angular cross-power spectrum C gTf ℓ in thermody￾namic units of K. (b) The correlation matrix C f1f2 ℓ1ℓ2 . Each block represents ℓ from 200 to 6000 for the frequency pair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — The NaMaster result for the pseudo-Cℓ of the unWISE Low-z galaxy overdensity cross-correlated with three ACT+Planck single-frequency temperature maps: 90 GHz, 150 GHz, and 220 GHz. includes a radio component is supported with ∆BIC = 90 in Low-z and ∆BIC = 120 in Mid-z, which translates to 9.5σ and 11.0σ respectively. The four component recipe tSZ + Radio + CIB-amplitude + CIB-δβ yields a better fit, but … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Posterior MCMC samples obtained by minimizing the cleaning statistic ˜χ 2 for the unWISE samples cross-correlated with nine Planck frequency maps. The statistic ˜χ 2 is derived from the residuals of the component separation in C gTf ℓ space. 4.2. Component separation in harmonic space Using the best-fit parameters for each recipe, we examine the separated components from Equation 9. In addition to the tS… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Component separation of the Planck-only × unWISE cross-correlations for different recipes, using the best-fit SED parameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — Component separation of the ACT+Planck × unWISE cross-correlations for different recipes, using the best-fit SED parameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — Comparison between the Planck and ACT+Planck component separation tSZ result with tSZ+Radio+CIB-amplitude recipe. In both the left and right panel, orange errorbars shows the component-separated Planck-only galaxy-y cross power spectra, and purple errorbars show the component-separated ACT+Planck cross power spectra. 5. HALO MODEL ANALYSIS We model the galaxy clustering C gg ℓ and galaxy-tSZ cross-corre… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — HOD calibration fits for the unWISE galaxy samples used in this work. We fit the logarithmic mass difference between the central and satellite mass parameters, µ = log10(M1/Mmin), and parameterize its time evolution as µ(a) = µ0 + (dµ/da)(a − 1). The central and satellite mass thresholds are determined by matching the HOD galaxy number density to the measured number density in each redshift bin. We then… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: — Component-separated ACT+Planck × unWISE cross-correlations obtained using the best-fit SED parameters derived from Planck, as listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: — Posterior distributions of the generalized NFW electron-pressure profile inferred from the component-separated C gy ℓ . The left two panels show the parameter posteriors sampled using emcee, while the right panel shows the posterior predictions for the real-space pressure-profile form factor defined in Equation 44. NILC cross-correlation from Coulton et al. (2024). This agreement suggests that the NILC-… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: — Comparison of passband-induced response systematics. β0 = 1.7, T0 = 10.7 to the harmonic-space component separation in this work using the same SED parameters. In the result shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: — Comparison between ACT DR6 NILC deprojected cross-correlation, described in details by Coulton et al. (2024). The CIB SED parameters are the same between our component separation and ACT NILC. The halo mass distribution associated with each galaxy sample is estimated from the best-fit HOD model, p(Mh) ∝ Z dz, dN dz , [Nc(M, a) + Ns(M, a)] nh(M, a), (C4) where nh(M, a) is the halo mass function (Tinker e… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: — Model-dependent comparison of the Y˜500–Mh relations for the Low-z and Mid-z samples. The left panel uses the unweighted HOD halo-mass distribution, while the right panel uses an M 5/3 h -weighted distribution to illustrate the halo masses that dominate the expected SZ flux. The shaded regions around the Low-z and Mid-z relations show the 1σ uncertainties from the GNFW fit. Because the one-halo cross-co… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Analytical covariances for catalogue-based pseudo-$C_\ell$s

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    A new analytic method computes disconnected covariance matrices for catalogue-based pseudo-Cℓ power spectra by smoothing source positions and treating self-pair shot noise exactly.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2019, , 2019, 056

    Ade , P., Aguirre , J., Ahmed , Z., et al. 2019, , 2019, 056

    2019

  4. [4]

    Afshordi , N., Lin , Y.-T., Nagai , D., & Sanderson , A. J. R. 2007, , 378, 293

    2007

  5. [5]

    2020, , 249, 3

    Ahumada , R., Allende Prieto , C., Almeida , A., et al. 2020, , 249, 3

    2020

  6. [6]

    2017, , 465, 4853

    Alam , S., Miyatake , H., More , S., Ho , S., & Mandelbaum , R. 2017, , 465, 4853

    2017

  7. [7]

    Alonso, D., Sanchez, J., Slosar, A., & Collaboration, L. D. E. S. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 4127

    2019

  8. [8]

    2018, , 473, 4318

    Ando , S., Benoit-L \'e vy , A., & Komatsu , E. 2018, , 473, 4318

    2018

  9. [9]

    W., Piffaretti , R., et al

    Arnaud , M., Pratt , G. W., Piffaretti , R., et al. 2010, , 517, A92

    2010

  10. [10]

    R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J

    Battaglia , N., Bond , J. R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J. L. 2012 a , , 758, 74

    2012

  11. [11]

    R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J

    Battaglia , N., Bond , J. R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J. L. 2012 b , , 758, 75

    2012

  12. [12]

    R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J

    Battaglia , N., Bond , J. R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J. L. 2013, , 777, 123

    2013

  13. [13]

    2024, , 534, 655

    Bigwood , L., Amon , A., Schneider , A., et al. 2024, , 534, 655

    2024

  14. [14]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.15822

    Bigwood , L., Yamamoto , M., Siegel , J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.15822

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    1999, , 310, 97

    Birkinshaw , M. 1999, , 310, 97

    1999

  16. [16]

    E., Holder , G

    Carlstrom , J. E., Holder , G. P., & Reese , E. D. 2002, , 40, 643

    2002

  17. [17]

    & Ostriker , J

    Cen , R. & Ostriker , J. P. 1999, , 514, 1

    1999

  18. [18]

    D., et al

    Chadayammuri , U., Bogd \'a n , \'A ., Oppenheimer , B. D., et al. 2022, , 936, L15

    2022

  19. [19]

    Chandran , J., Remazeilles , M., & Barreiro , R. B. 2023, , 526, 5682

    2023

  20. [20]

    Chandran , J., Remazeilles , M., & Barreiro , R. B. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.17799

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

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

    Chisari , N. E., Alonso , D., Krause , E., et al. 2019, , 242, 2

    2019

  22. [22]

    C., & Abitbol , M

    Chluba , J., Hill , J. C., & Abitbol , M. H. 2017, , 472, 1195

    2017

  23. [23]

    S., Duivenvoorden , A

    Coulton , W., Madhavacheril , M. S., Duivenvoorden , A. J., et al. 2024, , 109, 063530

    2024

  24. [24]

    de Graaff , A., Cai , Y.-C., Heymans , C., & Peacock , J. A. 2019, , 624, A48

    2019

  25. [25]

    G., et al

    DESI Collaboration , Abdul Karim , M., Adame , A. G., et al. 2026, , 171, 285

    2026

  26. [26]

    2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 293

    Eckert , D., Ettori , S., Pointecouteau , E., et al. 2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 293

    2017

  27. [27]

    Fixsen , D. J. 2009, , 707, 916

    2009

  28. [28]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  29. [29]

    2019, JCAP, 11, 043

    Garc \' a-Garc \' a, C., Alonso, D., & Bellini, E. 2019, JCAP, 11, 043

    2019

  30. [30]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

    G \'o rski , K. M., Hivon , E., Banday , A. J., et al. 2005, , 622, 759

    2005

  31. [31]

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

    Hadzhiyska , B., Ferraro , S., Farren , G. S., Sailer , N., & Zhou , R. 2025 a , , 112, 123507

    2025

  32. [32]

    2025 b , , 112, 083509

    Hadzhiyska , B., Ferraro , S., Ried Guachalla , B., et al. 2025 b , , 112, 083509

    2025

  33. [33]

    A., Puchwein, E., Sijacki, D., Schwope, A., & Klein, M

    Henden, N. A., Puchwein, E., Sijacki, D., Schwope, A., & Klein, M. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 2439

    2019

  34. [34]

    M., Netterfield , C

    Hivon , E., G \'o rski , K. M., Netterfield , C. B., et al. 2002, , 567, 2

    2002

  35. [35]

    A., et al

    Ishiyama , T., Prada , F., Klypin , A. A., et al. 2021, , 506, 4210

    2021

  36. [36]

    Koukoufilippas , N., Alonso , D., Bilicki , M., & Peacock , J. A. 2020, , 491, 5464

    2020

  37. [37]

    Kravtsov , A. V. & Borgani , S. 2012, , 50, 353

    2012

  38. [38]

    F., & White, M

    Krolewski, A., Ferraro, S., Schlafly, E. F., & White, M. 2020, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020, 047

    2020

  39. [39]

    J., Ilbert , O., et al

    Laigle , C., McCracken , H. J., Ilbert , O., et al. 2016, , 224, 24

    2016

  40. [40]

    2014, , 147, 108

    Lang , D. 2014, , 147, 108

    2014

  41. [41]

    H., Mo , H

    Lim , S. H., Mo , H. J., Li , R., et al. 2018, , 854, 181

    2018

  42. [42]

    Limber , D. N. 1953, , 117, 134

    1953

  43. [43]

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

    Liu , R. H., Ferraro , S., Schaan , E., et al. 2025, , 112, 083561

    2025

  44. [44]

    & Afshordi, N

    LoVerde, M. & Afshordi, N. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 123506

    2008

  45. [45]

    & Hill, J

    McCarthy, F. & Hill, J. C. 2024, , 109, 023528

    2024

  46. [46]

    & Hill, J

    McCarthy , F. & Hill, J. C. 2024, , 109, 023528

    2024

  47. [47]

    & Madhavacheril, M

    McCarthy, F. & Madhavacheril, M. S. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 103515

    2021

  48. [48]

    G., Schaye , J., Bird , S., & Le Brun , A

    McCarthy , I. G., Schaye , J., Bird , S., & Le Brun , A. M. C. 2017, , 465, 2936

    2017

  49. [49]

    & Pratt , G

    Melin , J.-B. & Pratt , G. W. 2023, , 678, A197

    2023

  50. [50]

    E., et al

    Naess , S., Aiola , S., Austermann , J. E., et al. 2020, , 2020, 046

    2020

  51. [51]

    J., et al

    Naess , S., Guan , Y., Duivenvoorden , A. J., et al. 2025, , 2025, 061

    2025

  52. [52]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1997, , 490, 493

    1997

  53. [53]

    2020, , 2020, 044

    Nicola , A., Alonso , D., S \'a nchez , J., et al. 2020, , 2020, 044

    2020

  54. [54]

    Planck Collaboration , Adam , R., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2016, , 594, A10

    2016

  55. [55]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2014, , 571, A30

    2014

  56. [56]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2013, , 557, A52

    2013

  57. [57]

    J., et al

    Planck Collaboration , Akrami , Y., Andersen , K. J., et al. 2020, , 643, A42

    2020

  58. [58]

    J., Ried Guachalla , B., Schaan , E., et al

    Qu , F. J., Ried Guachalla , B., Schaan , E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.19744

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    J., Sherwin , B

    Qu , F. J., Sherwin , B. D., Madhavacheril , M. S., et al. 2024, , 962, 112

    2024

  60. [60]

    L., Shaw , L., Zahn , O., et al

    Reichardt , C. L., Shaw , L., Zahn , O., et al. 2012, , 755, 70

    2012

  61. [61]

    2025, , 112, 103512

    Ried Guachalla , B., Schaan , E., Hadzhiyska , B., et al. 2025, , 112, 103512

    2025

  62. [62]

    Sarazin , C. L. 1986, Reviews of Modern Physics, 58, 1

    1986

  63. [63]

    F., Meisner , A

    Schlafly , E. F., Meisner , A. M., & Green , G. M. 2019, , 240, 30

    2019

  64. [64]

    2026 a , [ [arXiv] 2512.02954 ]

    Siegel , J., Bigwood , L., Amon , A., et al. 2026 a , [ [arXiv] 2512.02954 ]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    C., Amon , A., McCarthy , I

    Siegel , J. C., Amon , A., McCarthy , I. G., et al. 2026 b , , 1003, 151

    2026

  66. [66]

    Sunyaev , R. A. & Zeldovich , Y. B. 1972, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 4, 173

    1972

  67. [67]

    2019, , 625, A67

    Tanimura , H., Aghanim , N., Douspis , M., Beelen , A., & Bonjean , V. 2019, , 625, A67

    2019

  68. [68]

    V., Klypin , A., et al

    Tinker , J., Kravtsov , A. V., Klypin , A., et al. 2008, , 688, 709

    2008

  69. [69]

    L., Robertson , B

    Tinker , J. L., Robertson , B. E., Kravtsov , A. V., et al. 2010, , 724, 878

    2010

  70. [70]

    P., Schaye , J., Booth , C

    van Daalen , M. P., Schaye , J., Booth , C. M., & Dalla Vecchia , C. 2011, , 415, 3649

    2011

  71. [71]

    P., Wang , L., Zemcov , M., et al

    Viero , M. P., Wang , L., Zemcov , M., et al. 2013, , 772, 77

    2013

  72. [72]

    Voit , G. M. 2005, Reviews of Modern Physics, 77, 207

    2005

  73. [73]

    2019, , 215, 7

    Walker , S., Simionescu , A., Nagai , D., et al. 2019, , 215, 7

    2019

  74. [74]

    2021, , 651, A76

    Yan , Z., van Waerbeke , L., Tr \"o ster , T., et al. 2021, , 651, A76

    2021

  75. [75]

    J., et al

    Yuan , S., Zhang , H., Ross , A. J., et al. 2024, , 530, 947

    2024

  76. [76]

    2024 a , , 690, A267

    Zhang , Y., Comparat , J., Ponti , G., et al. 2024 a , , 690, A267

    2024

  77. [77]

    2024 b , , 690, A268

    Zhang , Y., Comparat , J., Ponti , G., et al. 2024 b , , 690, A268

    2024

  78. [78]

    L., & Zehavi , I

    Zheng , Z., Coil , A. L., & Zehavi , I. 2007, , 667, 760

    2007

  79. [79]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298

    2019