2021
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.211190
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dr. Sehgal et al reply

Abstract: We appreciate the interest of Wang et al1 in our case.2 We agree with several of their comments and would like to clarify a few details here.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For both models, the average redshift of all the clusters, z = 0.78, is used. tion et al 2011;Draper et al 2012;Sehgal et al 2013;Saro et al 2017), and we explore that possibility here. For example, Saro et al (2017) [S17] used a sample of DES redMaPPer clusters and measured their SZ signal by stacking in SPT (South Pole Telescope) data in multiple richness bins.…”
Section: Richness To Mass Scalingmentioning
confidence: 81%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…For both models, the average redshift of all the clusters, z = 0.78, is used. tion et al 2011;Draper et al 2012;Sehgal et al 2013;Saro et al 2017), and we explore that possibility here. For example, Saro et al (2017) [S17] used a sample of DES redMaPPer clusters and measured their SZ signal by stacking in SPT (South Pole Telescope) data in multiple richness bins.…”
Section: Richness To Mass Scalingmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…The SZ signals of low-richness, optically-selected clus-ters are smaller than expected from mass-richness relationships, which are usually calibrated with high-richness clusters (Planck Collaboration et al 2011;Draper et al 2012;Sehgal et al 2013;Saro et al 2017). Several possible explanations for this discrepancy are: radio or infrared point source contamination of the SZ signal, line-of-sight projections contaminating richness measurements, cluster miscentering, variable gas mass fractions in optically selected clusters, or more fundamentally, a lower amplitude for the massrichness relation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The lensing potential can be reconstructed using a minimum-variance quadratic estimator [7,8] using both CMB temperature and polarization maps. Ongoing and upcoming experiments, including Advanced ACT [9], SPT-3G [10], and Simons Observatory (SO) [11], have sensitivities for which temperature maps provide most of the statistical weight for lensing reconstruction; proposed future experiments such as CMB-S4 [12] and CMB-HD [13] will have high enough sensitivity so that polarization becomes the dominant channel for lensing reconstruction.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Along with the large angular scale measurements of the CMB signal, observations from the ongoing and upcoming high resolution ground-based CMB experiments (such as the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACTPol) (Thornton et al 2016), South Pole Telescope (SPT) (Benson et al 2014), Simons Observatory (Aguirre et al 2018), and CMB-S4 (Abazajian et al 2019)), can also explore the small angular scale anisotropies in CMB temperature and polarization field. Proposed CMB mission concepts (such as Probe of Inflation and Cosmic Origins (PICO) (Hanany et al 2019), CMB-Bharat 1 , CMB-HD (Sehgal et al 2020), and the proposal submitted to Voyage-2050 (Delabrouille et al 2019)) are also capable to probe secondary anisotropies in the CMB with high angular resolution. The small angular scale CMB anisotropies are rich source of information about secondary CMB anisotropies which are generated after the surface last scattering which is around z ∼ 1080.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%