Rubin-LSST

Abstract:

© 2020 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. The paper 'Tomographic measurement of the intergalactic gas pressure through galaxy-tSZ cross-correlations' was published inMNRAS, 491, 5464-5480 (2020). After publication a typographical error in our analysis pipeline code was discovered, which slightly affected some of our results. In particular, our implementation of the generalised NFW profile (GNFW) described in Arnaud et al. (2010) lacked a factor of 1 - bH in the calculation of R500. We have corrected this error, re-run our analysis and present our updated results and comments (where applicable) in this manuscript. (i) Table 3 is updated with new best-fitting values. (ii) Likewise, Figs 8 and 9 are also updated with the new values of the best-fitting 1 - bHand<bPe>. (iii) Finally, our combined constraint on bH following this procedure (equation 48) is 1 - bH= 0.75 ± 0.03. While the main conclusions remain unchanged, it is worth pointing out that the best-fitting mass bias value 1 - bH= 0.75 ± 0.03 is now at a ~3-4s tension with the results measured by Planck Collaboration et al. (2016a) (1 - bH= 0.58 ± 0.04), combining tSZ cluster number counts and the TT CMB power spectrum. Consequently, our results can no longer be viewed as evidence of compatibility between the best-fit cosmology and the clustering properties of galaxies in the datasets used. Further, the best-fitting value of the mass bias is no longer at odds with the one derived from hydrodynamical simulations (Biffi et al. 2016), the estimate from CMB lensing mass calibration (Zubeldia & Challinor 2019), and other direct calibration efforts (e.g. Smith et al. 2016; Eckert et al. 2019), which seem to prefer smaller missing mass fractions (1 - bH~ 0.8). Lastly, our results are in agreement with Chiang et al. (2020), who explore the cosmic thermal history using SZ tomography.

Abstract:

The ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider employs a two-level triggersystem to record data at an average rate of 1 kHz from physics collisions,starting from an initial bunch crossing rate of 40 MHz. During the LHC Run 2(2015-2018), the ATLAS trigger system operated successfully with excellentperformance and flexibility by adapting to the various run conditionsencountered and has been vital for the ATLAS Run-2 physics programme. Forproton-proton running, approximately 1500 individual event selections wereincluded in a trigger menu which specified the physics signatures and selectionalgorithms used for the data-taking, and the allocated event rate andbandwidth. The trigger menu must reflect the physics goals for a given datacollection period, taking into account the instantaneous luminosity of the LHCand limitations from the ATLAS detector readout, online processing farm, andoffline storage. This document discusses the operation of the ATLAS triggersystem during the nominal proton-proton data collection in Run 2 with examplesof special data-taking runs. Aspects of software validation, evolution of thetrigger selection algorithms during Run 2, monitoring of the trigger system anddata quality as well as trigger configuration are presented.Fil: Aad, G.. Aix-Marseille Université; FranciaFil: Abbott, B.. Oklahoma State University; Estados UnidosFil: Abbott, D.C.. University of Massachusetts; Estados UnidosFil: Abed Abud, A.. Cern - European Organization for Nuclear Research; SuizaFil: Abeling, K.. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Abhayasinghe, D.K.. Royal Holloway University of London; Reino UnidoFil: Abidi, S. H.. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: AbouZeid, O. S.. Czech Academy of Sciences; República ChecaFil: Abraham, N. L.. University of Sussex; Reino UnidoFil: Abramowicz, H.. Universitat Tel Aviv; IsraelFil: Abreu, H.. Technion - Israel Institute of Technology; IsraelFil: Abreu, R.. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Abulaiti, Y.. Argonne National Laboratory; Estados UnidosFil: Acharya, B. S.. Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; Italia. The Abdus Salam. International Centre for Theoretical Physics; ItaliaFil: Achkak, B.. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Adam, L.. University of Montreal; CanadáFil: Adam Bourdarios, C.. Universite Grenoble Alpes; Francia. Université Savoie Mont Blanc; FranciaFil: Adamczyk, L.. AGH University of Science and Technology; PoloniaFil: Adamek, L.. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Adelman, J.. Northern Illinois University; Estados UnidosFil: Adersberger, M.. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München; AlemaniaFil: Adiguzel, A.. Bogazici University; TurquíaFil: Adorni,S.. Université de Genève; SuizaFil: Adye, T.. Universite Paris-Saclay;Fil: Affolder, A. A.. University of California Santa Cruz; Estados UnidosFil: Afik, Y.. Technion - Israel Institute of Technology; IsraelFil: Agapopoulou, C.. Universite Paris-Saclay;Fil: Agaras, M. N.. Université Clermont Auvergne; Francia. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; FranciaFil: Aggarwal, A.. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen; Países BajosFil: Orellana, Gonzalo Enrique. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata. Instituto de Física La Plata. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas. Instituto de Física La Plata; Argentin