pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03342 · v1 · pith:LZ3A5BX5new · submitted 2026-06-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA

The caustic method applied to The Three Hundred: prospects for upcoming CATARSIS and other surveys

B. Callejas C\'ordoba , P. S\'anchez Bl\'azquez , A. Gil de Paz , A. Knebe , W. Cui , C. Catal\'an Torrecilla , R. Dave This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 08:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy clusterscaustic techniquemass profilesvelocity anisotropyspectroscopic surveysCATARSIS surveyThe Three Hundred simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

An iterative correction minimizes systematic errors from velocity anisotropy assumptions when recovering galaxy cluster mass profiles via the caustic technique.

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

The paper applies the caustic technique to galaxy clusters in The Three Hundred simulations to quantify uncertainties in mass profile recovery for future spectroscopic surveys. It shows that an iterative correction method can reduce errors introduced by assumptions about velocity anisotropy. The work also evaluates how magnitude limits in surveys introduce biases in mass estimates. Focus is placed on the CATARSIS survey, which will obtain redshifts for galaxies down to mAB,r < 22 within 2xR200c of 16 clusters at 0.14 < z < 0.27, to improve density profile precision.

Core claim

Application of the caustic technique to The Three Hundred simulations demonstrates that an iterative correction for velocity anisotropy assumptions reduces systematic errors in recovered galaxy cluster mass profiles, with additional assessment of magnitude limit impacts, enabling more reliable results from surveys such as CATARSIS.

What carries the argument

The caustic technique, which estimates mass profiles from galaxy positions and line-of-sight velocities, paired with an iterative correction that adjusts for assumed velocity anisotropy profiles.

If this is right

  • Mass profiles from magnitude-limited surveys will have lower systematic biases after applying the iterative correction.
  • CATARSIS data reaching mAB,r < 22 will support more accurate density profile determinations for the targeted clusters.
  • The correction approach can be used in other upcoming spectroscopic surveys with comparable depth and cluster selection.
  • Improved mass estimates will aid in better characterizing the dynamical states of observed clusters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Testing the corrected caustic masses against weak lensing masses for real clusters would provide an external validation independent of the simulations.
  • The method could be adapted for clusters at higher redshifts if simulation-based anisotropy profiles are adjusted for evolutionary trends.
  • Integration with multi-wavelength mass proxies might further constrain remaining uncertainties in the caustic approach.

Load-bearing premise

The velocity anisotropy profiles and dynamical states in the simulated clusters are representative enough of real clusters at 0.14 < z < 0.27 that the quantified errors apply to observations.

What would settle it

Comparing caustic mass profiles with and without the iterative correction to independent mass estimates from weak lensing or X-ray observations of the same real clusters at similar redshifts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03342 by A. Gil de Paz, A. Knebe, B. Callejas C\'ordoba, C. Catal\'an Torrecilla, P. S\'anchez Bl\'azquez, R. Dave, W. Cui.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 2D projection of the NewMDCLUSTER_0002 and NewMDCLUSTER_0006 clusters onto the XY plane at snapshot 117 (z = 0.276). The figure shows the spatial distribution of dark matter and baryonic particles within each cluster. The stellar component is shown in pink, the gas component in purple, and the dark matter particles in green. The simulations were performed using the GIZMO-Simba code, a hybrid hydrodynamic a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Projected maps obtained with the KDE method for the cluster NewMDCLUSTER_0013 at redshift z=0.276. In the top panel only the positions of the galaxies have been used, while the bottom panel shows the results of weighting the positions with galaxy luminosities. The contours represent isodensity lev￾els, with higher density regions indicated by the innermost lines. The star marks the center obtained from the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Bi-parametric map of s and q for the cluster NewMDCLUSTER_0007 at z = 0.276. The color bars rep￾resent the ratio between the esti￾mated and true values Mr/Mr,true for masses between R200 (M200) and R500 (M500). 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 best (M200 / Mreal 200 ) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 m e a n (M 2 0 0 / Mre al 2 0 0 ) M200 y = x ±20% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 best (M500 / Mreal 500 ) 0.0 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the best estimated values of M200 and M500 (x-axis) and the average values com￾puted using all combinations of q and s explored in this work (y-axis). Each point corresponds to a cluster from the The300 sample. The shaded region indicates deviations smaller than ±20% from the identity relation (y = x). 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 sbest 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 q… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of the best-fit parameters in the q–s plane for the cluster sample. Blue circles and orange triangles repre￾sent the values obtained using the M200 and M500 criteria, re￾spectively. The shaded background and overlaid contours show the two-dimensional KDE of the parameter distribution, with the color scale indicating the local density across the parame￾ter space. The Pearson correlation coeffic… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Anisotropy profile derived from the theoretical defini￾tion of the anisotropy parameter β(r) for the whole sample (blue line). The thick line shows the median profile across all clusters, while the shaded areas represent the 16th and 84th percentiles, respectively. The red line corresponds to the anisotropy profile from (Mamon & Łokas 2005) with a concentration parameter fixed to c = 5. In future work, we … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: All panels show the ratio between the derived and true R200 values. The top panels correspond to the non-iterative ap￾proach, comparing a constant Fβ profile (blue) and a Mamon & Łokas anisotropy model with fixed concentration c = 5 (purple). The bottom panels show the results obtained using the iterative method, comparing a Mamon & Łokas profile (green) and a fit￾ted Fβ model (purple). In all panels, bold… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relative error in the determination of M200 using the caustic method, for the full galaxy sample (grey) and for the RS sample (red). Shaded areas indicate the 16th and 84th percentiles of the distributions; dashed lines show the median values, and the black line marks the reference value of zero. For the full sample we obtain 0.02+0.45 −0.32, while for the RS sample we find −0.14+0.42 −0.30. 16 18 20 22 2… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Magnitude and Hα flux distributions for the cluster NewMDCLUSTER_0001 at snapshot 117 (z = 0.276). Galaxies are colored according to three star formation rate (SFR) bins: low (blue), medium (orange), and high (green), illustrating how star formation activity correlates with both r-band magnitude and Hα flux. The shaded regions indicate the magnitude and Hα flux cuts adopted for the analysis, with the magn… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the expected uncertainties in recovering galaxy cluster mass profiles from upcoming spectroscopic survey data using The Three Hundred Project. Using the caustic technique, which leverages galaxy positions and line-of-sight velocities, we assess the systematic errors introduced by assumptions regarding velocity anisotropy and demonstrate how an iterative correction method can minimize these errors. We also assess the impact of survey magnitude limits on cluster mass estimates, highlighting potential biases across different observational strategies. We focus the analysis on our own CATARSIS survey, which aims at obtaining redshift measurements for all galaxies with magnitudes mAB,r < 22 within 2xR200c of 16 galaxy clusters with redshifts 0.14 < z < 0.27 using the future 8 arcmin^2 field-of-view TARSIS integral-field spectrograph of the Calar Alto 3.5-m telescope. Such data will enable us to mitigate systematic errors in the determination of density profiles. CATARSIS aims at enhancing the precision of mass profile estimates by deepening our understanding of the dynamical states and physical characteristics of galaxy clusters.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the caustic technique to mock galaxy catalogs from The Three Hundred simulations to quantify uncertainties in recovering cluster mass profiles from line-of-sight velocities and positions. It introduces an iterative correction procedure intended to reduce systematic biases arising from assumed velocity anisotropy profiles, evaluates the effect of magnitude limits on the recovered profiles, and discusses implications for the planned CATARSIS survey (0.14 < z < 0.27) and similar future observations.

Significance. If the iterative correction demonstrably reduces anisotropy-induced bias within the simulated sample, the work supplies a concrete, simulation-calibrated pathway for improving caustic mass-profile recovery ahead of wide-field spectroscopic campaigns. The use of The Three Hundred mocks is a positive feature, as it supplies realistic dynamical states and substructure distributions for testing the method.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4 (iterative method validation) and Section 5 (discussion of applicability)] The central claim that the iterative correction minimizes systematic errors from velocity anisotropy assumptions is conditional on The Three Hundred velocity anisotropy profiles β(r) and dynamical-state distribution being representative of real clusters at 0.14 < z < 0.27. No quantitative comparison of simulated β(r) to existing observational constraints (e.g., from SDSS or other cluster samples at comparable redshift) is presented; any mismatch would rescale the reported residual systematics and degrade the applicability of the error budgets to CATARSIS data.
  2. [Section 3.3 and associated figures/tables] The assessment of survey magnitude limits and their impact on mass estimates lacks an explicit error budget or table showing the fractional bias and scatter as a function of limiting magnitude for the 16 target clusters; without these numbers it is difficult to judge whether the claimed mitigation of systematics is sufficient for the science goals of CATARSIS.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Section 2] Notation for the anisotropy parameter β(r) and the caustic amplitude should be defined once at first use and used consistently thereafter.
  2. [All figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the number of clusters and the redshift range used in each panel to allow quick assessment of statistical robustness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our simulation-based analysis. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section 4 (iterative method validation) and Section 5 (discussion of applicability)] The central claim that the iterative correction minimizes systematic errors from velocity anisotropy assumptions is conditional on The Three Hundred velocity anisotropy profiles β(r) and dynamical-state distribution being representative of real clusters at 0.14 < z < 0.27. No quantitative comparison of simulated β(r) to existing observational constraints (e.g., from SDSS or other cluster samples at comparable redshift) is presented; any mismatch would rescale the reported residual systematics and degrade the applicability of the error budgets to CATARSIS data.

    Authors: We agree that the strength of our conclusions regarding the iterative correction depends on how well The Three Hundred β(r) profiles match those of real clusters. The simulations were constructed to reproduce observed cluster scaling relations and substructure statistics, but we did not include a direct comparison to observational β(r) constraints in the submitted manuscript. In the revised version we will add a short discussion (new paragraph in Section 4) that references existing SDSS and other cluster-sample measurements of velocity anisotropy at 0.1 < z < 0.3, notes the level of agreement or tension, and explicitly states the resulting caveat on the quoted residual systematics for CATARSIS. This addition will make the conditional nature of the result transparent without requiring new simulations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section 3.3 and associated figures/tables] The assessment of survey magnitude limits and their impact on mass estimates lacks an explicit error budget or table showing the fractional bias and scatter as a function of limiting magnitude for the 16 target clusters; without these numbers it is difficult to judge whether the claimed mitigation of systematics is sufficient for the science goals of CATARSIS.

    Authors: We accept that a compact numerical summary would improve readability and allow direct assessment against CATARSIS requirements. We will insert a new table in Section 3.3 that reports, for each of the 16 clusters and for a range of limiting magnitudes, the median fractional bias and 68-percentile scatter in the recovered mass profile relative to the true simulation value. The table will be referenced in the text and will complement the existing figures, thereby providing the explicit error budget requested. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: simulation-grounded validation of iterative correction against independent true masses

full rationale

The paper's central analysis applies the caustic technique to The Three Hundred simulations, where cluster mass profiles are known independently from the N-body/hydrodynamical data. Systematic errors arising from velocity anisotropy assumptions are quantified by direct comparison to these known truths, and the iterative correction is shown to reduce residuals within the same simulated sample. This constitutes an external benchmark test rather than a self-referential loop; no parameters are fitted to a subset and then re-predicted, no equations are defined in terms of their own outputs, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are imported via self-citation. The representativeness assumption for real clusters affects only the extrapolation step, not the internal derivation chain, which remains self-contained against the simulation ground truth.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities stated. The central claim rests on the domain assumption that simulations match real clusters.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The caustic technique recovers mass profiles from galaxy positions and line-of-sight velocities under stated assumptions about anisotropy.
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the basis for error assessment.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5758 in / 1103 out tokens · 20620 ms · 2026-06-28T08:55:21.478044+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

86 extracted references

  1. [1]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 1645

    Anbajagane, D., Chang, C., Jain, B., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1645

    2022

  2. [2]

    2016, A&A, 587, A158

    Andreon, S. 2016, A&A, 587, A158

    2016

  3. [3]

    2020, A&A, 634, A113

    Ansarifard, S., Rasia, E., Biffi, V ., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A113

    2020

  4. [4]

    J., Kay, S

    Armitage, T. J., Kay, S. T., Barnes, D. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3308

    2019

  5. [5]

    R., Gray, M

    Arthur, J., Pearce, F. R., Gray, M. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3968

    2019

  6. [6]

    D., & Power, C

    Bakels, L., Ludlow, A. D., & Power, C. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5948

    2021

  7. [7]

    2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 233001

    Bartelmann, M. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 233001

    2010

  8. [8]

    J., Adhikari, S., Vega-Ferrero, J., et al

    Baxter, E. J., Adhikari, S., Vega-Ferrero, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1777

    2021

  9. [9]

    M., Murante, G., Arth, A., et al

    Beck, A. M., Murante, G., Arth, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2110

    2016

  10. [10]

    Becker, M. R. & Kravtsov, A. V . 2011, ApJ, 740, 25

    2011

  11. [11]

    & Tremaine, S

    Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton University Press)

    2008

  12. [12]

    R., Faber, S

    Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Primack, J. R., et al. 1984, Nature, 311, 517

    1984

  13. [13]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 6155

    Capalbo, V ., De Petris, M., De Luca, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 6155

    2021

  14. [14]

    2025, A&A, 698, A201

    Capalbo, V ., De Petris, M., Ferragamo, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A201

    2025

  15. [15]

    2024, A&A, 683, A59

    Contreras-Santos, A., Knebe, A., Cui, W., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A59

    2024

  16. [16]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 2897

    Contreras-Santos, A., Knebe, A., Pearce, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2897

    2022

  17. [17]

    L., King, L

    Corless, V . L., King, L. J., & Clowe, D. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1235

    2009

  18. [18]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 977

    Cui, W., Dave, R., Knebe, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 977

    2022

  19. [19]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 2898

    Cui, W., Knebe, A., Yepes, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2898

    2018

  20. [20]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 2566

    Cui, W., Knebe, A., Yepes, G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2566

    2016

  21. [21]

    2012, in SPIE Conference Series Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al

    Dalton, G., Trager, S., Abrams, D., et al. 2012, in SPIE Conference Series Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827 de Andres, D., Cui, W., Ruppin, F., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1325 de Andres, D., Cui, W., Yepes, G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1517 De Luca, F., De Petris, M., Yepes, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5383

    2012

  22. [22]

    & Geller, M

    Diaferio, A. & Geller, M. J. 1997, ApJ, 481, 633

    1997

  23. [23]

    J., & Rines, K

    Diaferio, A., Geller, M. J., & Rines, K. J. 2005, ApJ, 628, L97

    2005

  24. [24]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    1980

  25. [25]

    & Hobson, M

    Feroz, F. & Hobson, M. P. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 596

    2012

  26. [26]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 4000

    Ferragamo, A., de Andres, D., Sbriglio, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4000

    2023

  27. [27]

    2019, The Messenger, 175, 39 6 https://www.the300-project.org Foëx, G., Böhringer, H., & Chon, G

    Finoguenov, A., Merloni, A., Comparat, J., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 39 6 https://www.the300-project.org Foëx, G., Böhringer, H., & Chon, G. 2017, A&A, 606, A122

    2019

  28. [28]

    J., Diaferio, A., & Kurtz, M

    Geller, M. J., Diaferio, A., & Kurtz, M. J. 1999, ApJL, 517, L23

    1999

  29. [29]

    J., Diaferio, A., Rines, K

    Geller, M. J., Diaferio, A., Rines, K. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 58

    2013

  30. [30]

    2022, EPJ Conf, 257, 00020

    Gianfagna, G., Rasia, E., Cui, W., et al. 2022, EPJ Conf, 257, 00020

    2022

  31. [31]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 4238

    Gianfagna, G., Rasia, E., Cui, W., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4238

    2023

  32. [32]

    2013, ApJ, 773, 116 Gil de Paz, A., Iglesias-Páramo, J., Carrasco, E., et al

    Gifford, D., Miller, C., & Kern, N. 2013, ApJ, 773, 116 Gil de Paz, A., Iglesias-Páramo, J., Carrasco, E., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J

    2013

  33. [33]

    E., Pearce, F

    Haggar, R., Gray, M. E., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 6074

    2020

  34. [34]

    R., Gray, M

    Haggar, R., Pearce, F. R., Gray, M. E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1191

    2021

  35. [35]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 1155

    Hoekstra, H. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 1155

    2003

  36. [36]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 2095

    Hoekstra, H., Hartlap, J., Hilbert, S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2095

    2011

  37. [37]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53

    2015

  38. [38]

    2025, A&A, 704, A334

    Iqbal, A., Majumdar, S., Rasia, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A334

    2025

  39. [39]

    C., Dalton, G

    Jin, S., Trager, S. C., Dalton, G. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2688

    2024

  40. [40]

    Kennicutt, R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    1998

  41. [41]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340

    Klypin, A., Yepes, G., Gottlöber, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340

    2016

  42. [42]

    R., et al

    Knebe, A., Gámez-Marín, M., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3002

    2020

  43. [43]

    Knollmann, S. R. & Knebe, A. 2009, ApJ Supplement Series, 182, 608

    2009

  44. [44]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 926

    Kotecha, S., Welker, C., Zhou, Z., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 926

    2022

  45. [45]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 2065

    Kuchner, U., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Rost, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2065

    2021

  46. [46]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 2930

    Li, Q., Cui, W., Yang, X., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2930

    2020

  47. [47]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 5890

    Li, Q., Han, J., Wang, W., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5890

    2022

  48. [48]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 3907

    Li, Q., Han, J., Wang, W., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3907

    2021

  49. [49]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 3907 Łokas, E

    Li, Q., Han, J., Wang, W., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3907 Łokas, E. L., Wojtak, R., Gottlöber, S., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1463

    2021

  50. [50]

    D., Navarro, J

    Ludlow, A. D., Navarro, J. F., Li, M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1322

    2012

  51. [51]

    Mamon, G. A. & Boué, G. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2433

    2010

  52. [52]

    Mamon, G. A. & Łokas, E. L. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 705

    2005

  53. [53]

    J., Giles, P

    Maughan, B. J., Giles, P. A., Rines, K. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 4182

    2016

  54. [54]

    N., Gruen, D., et al

    McClintock, T., Varga, T. N., Gruen, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1352

    2019

  55. [55]

    McGaugh, S. S. 2015, Can. J. Phys., 93, 250

    2015

  56. [56]

    1987, ApJ, 313, 121

    Merritt, D. 1987, ApJ, 313, 121

    1987

  57. [57]

    2002, New Astron

    Milgrom, M. 2002, New Astron. Rev., 46, 741

    2002

  58. [58]

    R., et al

    Mostoghiu, R., Arthur, J., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5029

    2021

  59. [59]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 3390

    Mostoghiu, R., Knebe, A., Cui, W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3390

    2019

  60. [60]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 2638

    Munari, E., Biviano, A., Borgani, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2638

    2013

  61. [61]

    2024, A&A, 670, A1

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Ayromlou, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 670, A1

    2024

  62. [62]

    T., Nagai, D., et al

    Nelson, K., Lau, E. T., Nagai, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 107

    2014

  63. [63]

    2021, A&A, 646, A105

    Pizzardo, M., Di Gioia, S., Diaferio, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A105

    2021

  64. [64]

    J., Kenyon, S

    Pizzardo, M., Geller, M. J., Kenyon, S. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A56 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa58899-26

    2023

  65. [65]

    2015, ApJL, 813, L17

    Rasia, E., Borgani, S., Murante, G., et al. 2015, ApJL, 813, L17

    2015

  66. [66]

    2012, New J Phys, 14, 055018

    Rasia, E., Meneghetti, M., Martino, R., et al. 2012, New J Phys, 14, 055018

    2012

  67. [67]

    & Diaferio, A

    Rines, K. & Diaferio, A. 2006, AJ, 132, 1275

    2006

  68. [68]

    J., Diaferio, A., et al

    Rines, K., Geller, M. J., Diaferio, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 15

    2013

  69. [69]

    J., Diaferio, A., et al

    Rines, K., Geller, M. J., Diaferio, A., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1266

    2002

  70. [70]

    J., Diaferio, A., et al

    Rines, K., Geller, M. J., Diaferio, A., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 2338

    2000

  71. [71]

    J., Geller, M

    Rines, K. J., Geller, M. J., Diaferio, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 63

    2016

  72. [72]

    Rost, A. & et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 714

    2021

  73. [73]

    Sarazin, C. L. 1988, X-ray Emission from Clusters of Galaxies (Cambridge Uni- versity Press)

    1988

  74. [74]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 4338

    Sayers, J., Sereno, M., Ettori, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4338

    2021

  75. [75]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 323

    Sembolini, F., Yepes, G., De Petris, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 323

    2013

  76. [76]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 5214

    Sereno, M., Lovisari, L., Cui, W., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5214

    2021

  77. [77]

    Serra, A. L. & Diaferio, A. 2013, ApJ, 768, 116

    2013

  78. [78]

    L., Diaferio, A., Murante, G., et al

    Serra, A. L., Diaferio, A., Murante, G., et al. 2010, MNRAS, no Sifón, C., Finoguenov, A., Haines, C. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A92

    2010

  79. [79]

    Silverman, A. N. 1986, American Journal of Physics, 54, 1092

    1986

  80. [80]

    2016, in Proc

    Tamura, N., Takato, N., Shimono, A., et al. 2016, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J

    2016

Showing first 80 references.