Revisiting the baryon fractions of galaxy clusters: a comparison with WMAP 3-yr results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The universal baryonic mass fraction (Ωb/Ωm) can be sensitively constrained using X-ray observations of galaxy clusters. In this paper, we compare the baryonic mass fraction inferred from measurements of the cosmic microwave background with the gas mass fractions (fgas) of a large sample of clusters taken from the recent literature. In systems cooler than 4 keV, fgas declines as the system temperature decreases. However, in higher temperature systems, fgas(r500) converges to ≈(0.12 ± 0.02)(h/0.72)−1.5, where the uncertainty reflects the systematic variations between clusters at r500. This is significantly lower than the maximum-likelihood value of the baryon fraction from the recently released Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) 3-yr results. We investigate possible reasons for this discrepancy, including the effects of radiative cooling and non-gravitational heating, and conclude that the most likely solution is that Ωm is higher than the best-fitting WMAP value (we find Ωm= 0.36+0.11−0.08), but consistent at the 2σ level. Degeneracies within the WMAP data require that σ8 must also be greater than the maximum likelihood value for consistency between the data sets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".