The Impact of Halo Properties, Energy Feedback, and Projection Effects on the Mass‐SZ Flux Relation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a detailed analysis of the intrinsic scatter in the integrated SZ effect - cluster mass (Y-M) relation, using semi-analytic and simulated cluster samples. Specifically, we investigate the impact on the Y-M relation of energy feedback, variations in the host halo concentration and substructure populations, and projection effects due to unresolved clusters along the line of sight (the SZ background). Furthermore, we investigate at what radius (or overdensity) one should measure the integrated SZE and define cluster mass so as to achieve the tightest possible scaling. We find that the measure of Y with the least scatter is always obtained within a smaller radius than that at which the mass is defined; e.g. for M_{200} (M_{500}) the scatter is least for Y_{500} (Y_{1100}). The inclusion of energy feedback in the gas model significantly increases the intrinsic scatter in the Y-M relation due to larger variations in the gas mass fraction compared to models without feedback. We also find that variations in halo concentration for clusters of a given mass may partly explain why the integrated SZE provides a better mass proxy than the central decrement. Substructure is found to account for approximately 20% of the observed scatter in the Y-M relation. Above M_{200} = 2x10^{14} h^{-1} msun, the SZ background does not significantly effect cluster mass measurements; below this mass, variations in the background signal reduce the optimal angular radius within which one should measure Y to achieve the tightest scaling with M_{200}.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".