FERMILAB-PUB-19-429-AE

DES-2018-0395

A Detection of CMB-Cluster Lensing using Polarization Data from SPTpol

S. Raghunathan,1, 2, ∗ S. Patil,2 E. Baxter,3 B. A. Benson,4, 5, 6 L. E. Bleem,7, 5 T. M. Crawford,5, 6

G. P. Holder,8, 9, 10 T. McClintock,11 C. L. Reichardt,2 T. N. Varga,12, 13 N. Whitehorn,1 P. A. R. Ade,14
S. Allam,15 A. J. Anderson,4 J. E. Austermann,16 S. Avila,17 J. S. Avva,18 D. Bacon,19 J. A. Beall,16
A. N. Bender,7, 5 F. Bianchini,2 S. Bocquet,20, 7, 5 D. Brooks,21 D. L. Burke,22, 23 J. E. Carlstrom,5, 24, 7, 6, 25
J. Carretero,26 F. J. Castander,27, 28 C. L. Chang,5, 7, 6 H. C. Chiang,29 R. Citron,30 M. Costanzi,31
A. T. Crites,5, 6, 32 L. N. da Costa,33, 34 S. Desai,35 H. T. Diehl,15 J. P. Dietrich,36, 37 M. A. Dobbs,38, 10 P. Doel,21
arXiv:1907.08605v2 [astro-ph.CO] 25 Sep 2019

S. Everett,39 A. E. Evrard,40, 41 C. Feng,8, 9 B. Flaugher,15 P. Fosalba,27, 28 J. Frieman,15, 42 J. Gallicchio,5, 43

J. García-Bellido,17 E. Gaztanaga,27, 28 E. M. George,44, 18 T. Giannantonio,45, 46 A. Gilbert,38 R. A. Gruendl,47, 48
J. Gschwend,33, 34 N. Gupta,2 G. Gutierrez,15 T. de Haan,18, 49 N. W. Halverson,50, 51 N. Harrington,18
J. W. Henning,7, 5 G. C. Hilton,16 D. L. Hollowood,39 W. L. Holzapfel,18 K. Honscheid,52, 53 J. D. Hrubes,30
N. Huang,18 J. Hubmayr,16 K. D. Irwin,54, 55 T. Jeltema,39 M. Carrasco Kind,47, 48 L. Knox,56 N. Kuropatkin,15
O. Lahav,21 A. T. Lee,18, 49 D. Li,16, 54 M. Lima,57, 33 A. Lowitz,6 M. A. G. Maia,33, 34 J. L. Marshall,58
J. J. McMahon,59 P. Melchior,60 F. Menanteau,47, 48 S. S. Meyer,5, 24, 6, 25 R. Miquel,61, 26 L. M. Mocanu,5, 6
J. J. Mohr,36, 37, 12 J. Montgomery,38 C. Corbett Moran,62 A. Nadolski,8, 9 T. Natoli,6, 5, 63 J. P. Nibarger,16
G. Noble,38 V. Novosad,64 R. L. C. Ogando,33, 34 S. Padin,5, 6, 32 A. A. Plazas,60 C. Pryke,65 D. Rapetti,50, 66
A. K. Romer,67 A. Roodman,22, 23 A. Carnero Rosell,68, 33 E. Rozo,11 J. E. Ruhl,69 E. S. Rykoff,22, 23
B. R. Saliwanchik,69, 70 E. Sanchez,68 J.T. Sayre,50, 51 V. Scarpine,15 K. K. Schaffer,5, 25, 71 M. Schubnell,41
S. Serrano,27, 28 I. Sevilla-Noarbe,68 C. Sievers,30 G. Smecher,38, 72 M. Smith,73 M. Soares-Santos,74 A. A. Stark,75
K. T. Story,76, 55 E. Suchyta,77 M. E. C. Swanson,48 G. Tarle,41 C. Tucker,14 K. Vanderlinde,63, 78 T. Veach,79
J. De Vicente,68 J. D. Vieira,8, 9 V. Vikram,80 G. Wang,7 W. L. K. Wu,5 V. Yefremenko,7 and Y. Zhang15
1
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095
2
School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
3
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
4
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, MS209, P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510
5
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago,
5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL, USA 60637
6
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago,
5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL, USA 60637
7
High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory,
9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL, USA 60439
8
Astronomy Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1002 W. Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
9
Department of Physics, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 1110 W. Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
10
Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, CIFAR Program in
Gravity and the Extreme Universe, Toronto, ON, M5G 1Z8, Canada
11
Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
12
Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Giessenbachstrasse, 85748 Garching, Germany
13
Universitäts-Sternwarte, Fakultät für Physik, LudwigMaximilians
Universität München, Scheinerstr. 1, 81679 München, Germany
14
Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3XQ, United Kingdom
15
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P. O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA
16
NIST Quantum Devices Group, 325 Broadway Mailcode 817.03, Boulder, CO, USA 80305
17
Instituto de Fisica Teorica UAM/CSIC, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
18
Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA 94720
19
Institute of Cosmology & Gravitation, University of Portsmouth,
Dennis Sciama Building, Burnaby Road, Portsmouth PO1 3FX, UK
20
Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Scheinerstr. 1, 81679 Munich, Germany
21
Department of Physics & Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
22
Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics & Cosmology,
P. O. Box 2450, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
23
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA
24
Department of Physics, University of Chicago,
5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL, USA 60637
25
Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL, USA 60637
 2

26
Institut de Física d’Altes Energies (IFAE), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology,
Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona) Spain
27
Institut d’Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (IEEC), 08034 Barcelona, Spain
28
Institute of Space Sciences (ICE, CSIC), Campus UAB,
Carrer de Can Magrans, s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
29
School of Mathematics, Statistics & Computer Science,
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
30
University of Chicago, 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL, USA 60637
31
Universitäts-Sternwarte, Fakultät für Physik, Ludwig-Maximilians
Universität München, Scheinerstr. 1, 81679 München, Germany
32
California Institute of Technology, MS 249-17,
1216 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA, USA 91125
33
Laboratório Interinstitucional de e-Astronomia - LIneA,
Rua Gal. José Cristino 77, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - 20921-400, Brazil
34
Observatório Nacional, Rua Gal. José Cristino 77, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - 20921-400, Brazil
35
Department of Physics, IIT Hyderabad, Kandi, Telangana 502285, India
36
Excellence Cluster Origins, Boltzmannstr. 2, 85748 Garching, Germany
37
Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Scheinerstr. 1, 81679 Munich, Germany
38
Department of Physics, McGill University, 3600 Rue University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T8, Canada
39
Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
40
Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
41
Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
42
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
43
Harvey Mudd College, 301 Platt Blvd., Claremont, CA 91711
44
European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2, 85748 Garching bei München, Germany
45
Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK
46
Kavli Institute for Cosmology, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK
47
Department of Astronomy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1002 W. Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
48
National Center for Supercomputing Applications, 1205 West Clark St., Urbana, IL 61801, USA
49
Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA 94720
50
Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences,
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA 80309
51
Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA 80309
52
Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
53
Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
54
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025
55
Dept. of Physics, Stanford University, 382 Via Pueblo Mall, Stanford, CA 94305
56
Department of Physics, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, USA 95616
57
Departamento de Física Matemática, Instituto de Física,
Universidade de São Paulo, CP 66318, São Paulo, SP, 05314-970, Brazil
58
George P. and Cynthia Woods Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy,
and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
59
Department of Physics, University of Michigan, 450 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI, USA 48109
60
Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Peyton Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
61
Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, E-08010 Barcelona, Spain
62
TAPIR, Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics,
California Institute of Technology, 1200 E California Blvd, Pasadena, CA, USA 91125
63
Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of Toronto,
50 St George St, Toronto, ON, M5S 3H4, Canada
64
Materials Sciences Division, Argonne National Laboratory,
9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL, USA 60439
65
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota,
116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, USA 55455
66
NASA Postdoctoral Program Senior Fellow, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA
67
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Pevensey Building, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK
68
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
69
Physics Department, Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics,
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA 44106
70
Department of Physics, Yale University, P.O. Box 208120, New Haven, CT 06520-8120
71
Liberal Arts Department, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, 112 S Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL, USA 60603
72
Three-Speed Logic, Inc., Vancouver, B.C., V6A 2J8, Canada
73
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
74
Brandeis University, Physics Department, 415 South Street, Waltham MA 02453
 3

75
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138
76
Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology,
Stanford University, 452 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94305
77
Computer Science and Mathematics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
78
Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of Toronto,
50 St George St, Toronto, ON, M5S 3H4, Canada
79
Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland College Park, MD, USA 20742
80
Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Lemont, IL 60439, USA
(Dated: Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ)
We report the first detection of gravitational lensing due to galaxy clusters using only the po-
larization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The lensing signal is obtained using a new
estimator that extracts the lensing dipole signature from stacked images formed by rotating the
cluster-centered Stokes Q/U map cutouts along the direction of the locally measured background
CMB polarization gradient. Using data from the SPTpol 500 deg2 survey at the locations of roughly
18,000 clusters with richness λ ≥ 10 from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year-3 full galaxy cluster
catalog, we detect lensing at 4.8σ. The mean stacked mass of the selected sample is found to be
(1.43 ± 0.40) × 1014 M which is in good agreement with optical weak lensing based estimates using
DES data and CMB-lensing based estimates using SPTpol temperature data. This measurement is
a key first step for cluster cosmology with future low-noise CMB surveys, like CMB-S4, for which
CMB polarization will be the primary channel for cluster lensing measurements.

Introduction. — Galaxy clusters are the most massive both temperature and polarization anisotropies of the
gravitationally bound structures in the Universe. Mea- CMB. As the amplitude of the lensing signal is propor-
suring their abundance as a function of mass and redshift tional to the local CMB gradient, lensing of the brighter
can provide tight constraints on the cosmological parame- CMB temperature anisotropies yields a higher S/N com-
ters that influence the geometry and growth of structures pared to polarization. A number of experiments have
in the Universe [see 1, for a review] that are complemen- now detected the CMB-cluster lensing signal in temper-
tary to baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) or cosmic mi- ature [9, 18–23], yielding mass constraints at the 10%
crowave background (CMB) datasets. The independent level [20]. However, CMB temperature data are suscep-
measurements of cluster abundance, BAO, and CMB, tible to foregrounds that set an effective noise floor for
which have different parameter degeneracies, can be com- future measurements. CMB polarization, on the other
bined to obtain even stronger constraints [2–12]. How- hand, is robust to foregrounds as contaminating signals
ever, the cluster abundance measurements rely on precise from the galaxy cluster itself and other foregrounds are
mass measurements, which are currently limited by un- much lower in polarization than temperature [see Fig. 2
certainties in the conversion of the survey observable to of 24]. As a result, polarized CMB-cluster lensing will be
cluster mass [13]. Upcoming large surveys are forecasted crucial to the cluster mass constraints from next genera-
to detect tens of thousands of galaxy clusters, an order of tion low-noise surveys [24].
magnitude more than current surveys [14–16]. Of these, Several polarized CMB-cluster lensing estimators have
CMB surveys, in which galaxy clusters are observed via been proposed [17, 25, 26], however none have yet been
redshift-independent Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect, will demonstrated on data. In this work we detect, for the
return >∼ 10, 000 clusters above z ≥ 1 [16]. Given such first time, the CMB-cluster lensing signal from polariza-
an enormous increase in the sample size compared to the tion data alone. We develop a new estimator that ex-
current surveys, it is crucial to develop robust methods tracts the lensing dipole signature from the CMB maps
to measure cluster masses accurately. by rotating the cluster-centered cutouts along the direc-
In contrast to other cluster observables (optical rich- tion of the local background CMB polarization gradient.
ness, SZ flux, and X-ray flux), gravitational lensing of The method is easy to implement and computationally
galaxies or the CMB offers an unbiased mass measure- much less expensive compared to the traditional maxi-
ment since lensing exactly traces the underlying mat- mum likelihood estimator [17, 19, 24, 27] which models
ter distribution. Weak lensing measurements of galaxies the lensing signal using a large suite of simulations. We
have high signal-to-noise (S/N ) at low redshifts, but the apply this estimator to the SPTpol 500 deg2 polariza-
S/N falls steeply at high redshifts with the number of tion Stokes Q/U maps at the location of clusters from
distant lensed background galaxies observed with suffi- the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year-3 catalog. We re-
ciently high S/N to facilitate lensing. ject the null hypothesis of no lensing at 4.8σ in the com-
By contrast, since the CMB originates behind all of bined Q/U maps. This result demonstrates the viability
the clusters, lensing of the CMB by clusters is a highly of achieving sub-percent level mass constraints [24] from
promising tool for measuring masses of clusters above next-generation CMB surveys like CMB-S4 [16].
z ≥ 1 [17]. The CMB-cluster signal can be observed with Throughout this work, we use the Planck 2015 best-
 4

fit ΛCDM cosmology [28] with h = 0.67, and assume this CMB gradient field, it produces a dipole-like pattern
the absence of primordial B-modes. The lensed CMB [17, 39] that is oriented along the direction of the gradi-
power spectra were obtained using CAMB [29]. All the halo ent [see Fig. 1 of 17]. This is the basis for the lensing
quantities are defined with respect to a sphere within estimator developed here which uses the following steps
which the average mass density is 200 times the mean to extract the lensing dipole and constrain the cluster
density of the Universe at the halo redshift. masses:
Dataset I: The SPTpol 500 deg2 survey. — We use two
1. Extract 100 × 100 Nclus cluster-centered or Nrand
datasets in this work. The first is the 150 GHz Stokes
random cutouts d̃ from the Stokes Q/U maps.
Q/U polarization maps of a 500 deg2 region (R.A. = 22h
to 2h; Decl. = -65◦ to -50◦ ) from the SPTpol sur- 2. Determine the median value of the gradient direc-
vey. The South Pole Telescope (SPT) is a 10-m tele- tion θ∇ = tan−1 (∇y /∇x ) in every Q/U cutout.
scope located at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole sta-
tion [30, 31] and SPTpol was the second camera on the 3. Rotate ith cluster cutout d̃i along θ∇,i to obtain di .
SPT. It has 1176 polarization-sensitive transition-edge-
4. Determine weights w (see below) for each cutout
sensor bolometers [32] and roughly a 1.0 2 FWHM beam
and stack the mean-subtracted cutouts to obtain
at 150 GHz. The white noise level of the polarization
the weighted stacked signal sc (sr ) at the cluster
maps is ∆P ∼ 7 µK-arcmin. The maps used in this anal-
(random) locations.
ysis were made in the Sanson-Flamsteed flat-sky projec-
tion with a pixel resolution of 10 . From these Stokes 5. Obtain the final lensing dipole signal as: s = sc −sr .
Q/U maps, we remove an estimate of the temperature-
to-polarization leakage (T → P ) as X = X − X T where The gradient direction determination in step 2 is lim-
X ∈ [Q, U ], Q = 1.65%, and U = 0.71%. Unaccounted ited to a 60 × 60 region in each cutout and to reduce
for, T → P would introduce temperature signal from the noise penalty in the gradient estimation, we apply a
the galaxy clusters, such as the SZ effects [33, 34] or Wiener filter of the form
C` (C` + N` )−1 , ` ≤ 2000

emission from radio galaxies and dusty galaxies, into the
W` = (1)
polarization maps. More details about the map making 0 , otherwise
procedure can be found in Henning et al. [35].
where N` is the noise spectrum and C` corresponds to
Dataset II: DES cluster catalog. — The second data
C`QQ , C`U U calculated from C`EE , C`BB . Note that we use
product used in the analysis is a sample of optically
Eq.(1) only for the gradient angle determination and the
selected clusters from the DES, which is an optical to
stack is obtained from the unfiltered, rotated 100 × 100
near-infrared survey from the Atacama region in north-
cutouts. We observe no significant change in our results
ern Chile. In this work, we use a cluster catalog selected
when we replace N` in Eq.(1) by the full 2D noise power
by the redMaPPer (RM) algorithm [36] using DES Year-3
spectral density.
observations of ∼ 3000 deg2 , specifically we use the full
The weight wi = wi,n wi,g assigned to cluster i while
flux-limited catalog version: y3_gold:v6.4.22+2. We
stacking in step 4 can be decomposed into two pieces:
select all clusters with richness λ ≥ 10 within the SPT-
one based on the inverse noise variance σi2 at the location
pol survey area, where we exclude any cluster within 300
i; and the other using qthe median value of the magnitude
of the survey boundary or within 100 of a source with
S150GHz > 6.4 mJy. In total we work with 17,661 clus- of the local gradient ∇2yi + ∇2xi . The latter serves to
ters, of which 3,868 have richness λ ≥ 20. The cluster improve the S/N since the lensing amplitude is propor-
redshifts are estimated photometrically with uncertain- tional to the gradient amplitude.
ties of σ̂z = 0.01(1 + z) [37]. We neglect redshift uncer- The stack sc from cluster locations, however, is domi-
tainties in this work since the impact of photo−z errors nated by the mean large-scale CMB polarization gradient
on CMB-lensing masses is negligible [24]. The redshifts that we call the background. We estimate and subtract
span 0.1 ≤ z ≤ 0.95 with a median value of zmed = 0.72. the background sr from a similar set of operations on
The low-richness (λ < 20) haloes are included to im- Nrand = 50, 000 random locations. The final rotated,
prove the lensing S/N as the goal here is only to make the background subtracted signal stack is constructed as
first measurement of the polarized CMB-cluster lensing PNclus PNrand
signal. Since these low mass objects are not well charac- c wc [dc − hdc i] wr [dr − hdr i]
s ≡ sc −sr = PNclus − r PNrand
terized by the RM algorithm, we caution the reader when c wc r wr
using results from the low-richness objects in this work (2)
for any cosmological analysis. where d represents the Q/U cutout at a cluster loca-
Lensing estimator. — On scales corresponding to the tion c or a random location r. Along with the lensing
angular size of a galaxy cluster, the primordial CMB is dipole, s includes contribution from other sources: fore-
exponentially damped [38] and the field can be well ap- grounds, instrumental noise, and the residual large-scale
proximated by a gradient. When a galaxy cluster lenses CMB gradient.
 5

Simulations: Stacked Q Simulations: Stacked U M ∈ [0, 4] × 1014 M and divide the parameter grid lin-
4 early in bins ∆M = 0.1 × 1014 M . From the likelihood,
we measure the median mass and 1σ uncertainty, defined
Y [arcmin]

by the 16 to 84 percent confidence range.

0
Note that the uncertainties δθ∇ in step 2 will be lower
in no-noise models compared to the data. These errors
lead to suboptimal stacking of the lensing dipole and will
±0.10µK ±0.10µK
result in a bias towards low mass if not accounted for
−4
in the model. Subsequently, we add noise in the simula-
−4 0 4 −4 0 4
tions similar to that of the data only when determining
X [arcmin] X [arcmin] θ∇ . This ensures that the uncertainties δθ∇ caused by
instrumental noise in the data are also replicated in the
FIG. 1. Example lensing dipole signal extracted from low- models.
noise simulated Q/U stacks. The stack includes contributions Simulations. — The simulations used to create the
from 10,000 clusters. The background, estimated from ran- lensing dipoles and mock datasets follow our previ-
dom locations, has been subtracted to remove the large-scale
ous work [24]. Briefly, the Stokes Q/U simulations
CMB gradient signals from both the panels.
are created from Gaussian realizations of the CMB E-
and B-mode maps using flat-sky approximations and
For visualization purposes, in Fig. 1 we show the re- span 2000 × 2000 . The convergence profile used to lens
covered lensing dipole signal Q/U stack for low-noise the E- and B-mode maps includes contributions from
(∆P = 0.1 µK-arcmin) simulations. The stack contains κtot (M, z)= κ1h (M, z)+ κ2h (M, z). We use Navarro-
signal from Nclus = 10, 000 clusters with (M200m , z) fixed Frenk-White (NFW) [40] profile to model the one-halo
at (2 × 1014 M , 0.7). The presence of the dipole signal term κ1h (M, z) [41] and follow the prescription given in
in the stacked Q/U maps is the evidence for lensing. In Oguri and Hamana [42] for the lensing contribution from
the absence of lensing, the stacks will be consistent with correlated structures κ2h (M, z) [43, 44]. We also correct
null signals. κ1h (M, z) to account for uncertainties in the cluster cen-
Using the signal stack s, we build a likelihood function troids as [45]
  
X T 1
− 2 lnL(M|s) = (s − m) Ĉ−1 (s − m) . (3) κ̃(`) = κ(`) (1 − fmis ) + fmis exp − σs2 `2 (5)
2
pixels

We set the fraction of mis-centered clusters to fmis =

where m represents the model and the covariance matrix
0.22 [46] and σs = σR /DA (z). The amount of mis-
Ĉ is estimated using a jackknife re-sampling technique
centering σR , which is a fraction of the cluster radius
by dividing the survey region into N sub-fields
(Rλ = (λ/100)0.2 h−1 Mpc) is modeled as a Rayleigh dis-
N tribution with σR = cmis Rλ where ln cmis = −1.13 ± 0.22
N −1X T [46]. DA (z) in the above equation is the angular diameter
Ĉ = [sj − hsi] [sj − hsi] , (4)
N j=1 distance at the cluster redshift z.
We smooth the Q/U maps using the measured beam
where sj is the stack of all the clusters in the j th sub-field function for SPTpol [35] and account for the informa-
and hsi is the ensemble average of all the sub-fields. Ĉ tion lost during the map-making process due to the fil-
properly captures all sources of noise since it is estimated tering applied to the data. We approximate the filter-
from the data itself. ing as a 2D transfer function [21, 23] given as F`¯ =
6 6
Lensing dipole models. — For Eq.(3) we construct a e−(`1 /`x ) e−(`x /`2 ) with `1 = 300, and `2 = 20,000. The
model stack, m ≡ m(M), using the above steps, except two terms can be understood as high-pass and low-pass
at step 1 we replace the data vector, d, with no-noise filters in the scan direction respectively. To generate
cluster-lensed simulations described below. mock datasets for pipeline validation, we also add Gaus-
For each mass, M, in the parameter grid we gener- sian realizations of the instrumental noise at the desired
ate Nclus cluster-lensed realizations of the Stokes Q/U level. The central 100 × 100 cutouts are extracted from
maps. This is done by generating convergence profiles at the simulated maps and passed through the rest of the
each of the measured DES cluster redshifts for each mass. pipeline steps described earlier to obtain the model or
We follow steps 2-4 to obtain the stacked model mc (M). the mock datasets for the pipeline validation.
The mean background gradient CMB in this case simply Pipeline validation. — We now validate the lens-
corresponds to mr ≡ mc (M = 0) and we remove that ing pipeline and estimate the expected lensing S/N
from models calculated at all the other masses in the pa- for the DES clusters. To the lensed simulated Q/U
rameter grid. We use a flat prior for mass in the range maps we add instrumental noise using the noise power
 6

N` measured from the SPTpol Q/U maps. The num-

TABLE I. Recovered lensing masses of the DES RM cluster
ber of simulated clusters and their redshifts and rich- sample.
nesses match the real values in the DES redMaPPer
Year-3 full sample. The richnesses and redshifts are Lensing mass M200m ×1014 M
Sample
converted to cluster masses using the M − λ relation: This work DES SPTpol-T

 1+z β
λ α λ ≥ 10 1.43 ± 0.40 0.96 ± 0.07 0.85 ± 0.16
M = A 30 1+0.5 where A is a normalization, and
λ ≥ 20 3.23 ± 1.01 2.06 ± 0.14 1.80 ± 0.33
the exponents α and β are richness and redshift evolu-
tion parameters, respectively. We use the best-fit values
for these parameters obtained from DES weak-lensing by their 1σ uncertainties and use the result to calculate
analysis [47], namely A = 3.08 × 1014 M , α = 1.36, the smeared convergence κ01h .
and β = −0.3. The mean mass of the simulated sam- In all cases the shifts in the inferred lensing mass are
ple is M200m = 0.96 × 1014 M . We note that the DES negligible compared to the 25% constraints on the masses
M − λ relation has been calibrated only using clusters that we expect. Specifically we obtain the following bi-
with λ ≥ 20 and the relation cannot be fully trusted for ases: 1.5% (0.15σ), 0.5% (< 0.1σ), and 1.1% (0.12σ)
lower richness objects. However, we employ the relation for the three cases with a combined error budget of 2%
here only to obtain a rough estimate of the final lensing (0.22σ) for a sample that contains 10× more clusters.
S/N . Given that the sample size in this work is much smaller
Next we extract the lensing dipole from the simu- than for the tests considered here, we expect the effects
lated maps by following the steps 1-5 described in the of systematics to be minimal and our results to be dom-
methods section. We combine the data from Q/U into inated by statistical errors.
a single QU map vector. The covariance in this case Polarization lensing measurement. — In this analysis,
Ĉ ≡ ĈQU also includes the covariance between the we constrain the mass of a sample of clusters selected
Q and U cutouts. The results for this QU estima- from the DES Year-3 data set using the RM algorithm.
tor are presented in the top panel of Fig. 2. Each The lensing masses for two samples, λ ≥ 10 and λ ≥ 20,
light shaded curve represents one simulation run for are given in Table I. The table also contains the compar-
the DES cluster sample. The combined result from 25 isons to the weak-lensing measurements from DES [47]
runs, M200m = 0.94 ± 0.07 × 1014 M , plotted as the and SPTpol temperature results [23] by converting the
thicker black curve, is within 0.25σ of the input mass richness estimates into mass using the M − λ scaling rela-
(red dash-dotted line). We evaluate the likelihood of the tion reported in those works. The posterior distribution
nullphypothesisp of no lensing using the statistic, S/N for the weighted mean of the cluster masses is shown
= ∆χ2 = 2 [lnL(M200m = Mfit ) − lnL(M200m = 0)] as the black solid curve in the bottom panel of Fig. 2.
and obtain an average lensing S/N of 4.3σ from these The recovered cluster mass from polarization is within
simulations translating to roughly 25% constraints in the 1.3 − 1.5σ of both the results. Note that the contribution
stacked cluster mass. from κ2h (M, z) is included in the model here. Ignoring
Systematics. — Systematics in our measurement arise the κ2h (M, z) term moves the lensing mass higher, as ex-
from the following sources: (a) assumption of a back- pected, by 9%.
ground cosmology for model generation; (b) incorrect As a further systematics test, we test whether results
cluster profile; and (c) the uncertainties in the DES mis- are dominated by either Q or U by obtaining mass esti-
centering model. The biases are quantified using the mates from Q and U separately. We obtain (1.30±0.57)×
mock datasets for 10× more clusters, but after includ- 1014 M and (1.56±0.54)×1014 M for Q and U respec-
ing the modifications described below. In all these cases, tively for the λ ≥ 10 sample. Furthermore, we perform
the models remain fixed to the fiducial Planck 2015 cos- a null test with by differencing the signals from Q and
mology and the standard NFW profiles. U , to check if it is consistent with random fluctuations.
We quantify the bias due to the mis-match between The lensing mass of (−0.51 ± 0.57) × 1014 M shown
the underlying and the assumed cosmology by re-running as the dashed curve in the bottom panel of Fig. 2 con-
the simulations using a different C` within the 1σ errors firms the null signal. Another test performed by stacking
of the cosmological parameters obtained by Planck (ig- 18,981 random locations, also returns a lensing mass of
noring the correlations between the parameters). This (0.15 ± 0.39) × 1014 M , consistent with M200m = 0.
change modifies the power in Q/U and also the lensing For visual illustration, the rotated cluster stacks are
convergence profiles. To quantify the errors due to the presented in Fig. 3. Since the noise levels of the SPTpol
assumption of a NFW profile for DES clusters, we replace maps are much higher than in Fig. 1, we apply additional
the NFW profile in the mock dataset generation with an filtering to remove the small-scale noise in the figure. We
Einasto profile [48]. Finally, to assess the effect of uncer- adopt a Wiener filter similar to Eq.(1) but after replacing
tainties in mis-centering, we create a new mis-centering C` by the power spectra of the Q/U lensing dipole signal
distribution by increasing the values of fmis and ln cmis corresponding to the lensing mass obtained above, scaling
 7

DES RM Year-3 full (λ ≥ 10) Data: Stacked Q Data: Stacked U

4
True
Normalized L

Y [arcmin]
QU

Simulations
−4 ±0.10µK

−4 0 4 −4 0 4

Clusters
X [arcmin] X [arcmin]
Normalized L

(Q − U )
SPTpol T FIG. 3. Rotated, background-subtracted Q and U stacks
DES from the SPTpol data showing the cluster lensing dipole sig-
nals. Unlike in Fig. 1, these images have been filtered to
remove the small-scale noise for illustrative purposes.
Data

sults will be increasingly important for CMB-lensing

0 2 4 based cluster mass estimates. The systematics intro-
M200m [1014 M ] duced by astrophysical foregrounds, which are largely
unpolarized, is much reduced in CMB polarization com-
pared to temperature. For example, sources in CMB
FIG. 2. Lensing mass constraints of DES RM clusters using maps have been measured to have a fractional polariza-
polarization-only data from the SPTpol survey at the location tion of ∼ 3% with random polarization angles [recently,
of 17,661 clusters. In the top panel, the light shaded curves are 49, 50]. In Raghunathan et al. [24], we showed that polar-
for 25 individual simulations and their combined likelihood ized point sources cause negligible bias in CMB-cluster
is the thicker solid curve. The true mass from DES weak
lensing measurements is given as the red dash-dotted line.
lensing even at polarization fractions higher than this.
The result from stacked SPTpol data (bottom panel) is in The polarization of the SZ effect should also have negli-
good agreement with the weak lensing measurements from gible impact, and is expected to be two orders of mag-
DES (red region) and the SPTpol temperature result (yellow nitude smaller [51–53] than the lensing signal expected
region). The (Q − U ) null test is shown as the dashed curve from the clusters.
in the bottom panel. This measurement is the first step towards achieving
precise mass constraints [24] from next-generation CMB
√ surveys like CMB-S4 [16] and SPT-3G [54], and will
N` by Nclus in the stack, and low-pass filtering the stack be important to maximize the cosmological constraining
below ` ≤ 4000. This filter is not used in the actual power of future cluster surveys.
analysis. Acknowledgments. — The authors thank Andrew Lud-
Finally, we find that the no-lensing hypothesis is dis- wig, Nickolas McColl, Siavash Yasini, and the three
favored at 4.8σ (4.1σ) for the λ ≥ 10 ( λ ≥ 20) sample anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on the
which is in good agreement with the expectations from manuscript.
simulations. This represents the first detection of the SR acknowledges partial support from the Laby Foun-
CMB-cluster lensing signal in polarization data. dation. SP acknowledges support from Melbourne
Future prospects. — The estimator developed in this International Engagement Award (MIPP) and Laby
work can also be applied to temperature data. When Travel Bursary. The UCLA authors acknowledge sup-
using the temperature data, however, we must addition- port from NSF grants AST-1716965 and CSSI-1835865.
ally fit for the rotationally invariant thermal SZ signal in Melbourne group acknowledges support from the Aus-
the stacked cutouts and other possible sources of cluster tralian Research Council’s Discovery Projects scheme
correlated foregrounds. Similarly, the performance of the (DP150103208). LB’s work was supported under the U.S.
estimator must be compared to other lensing estimators Department of Energy contract DE-AC02-06CH11357.
[24–26] to determine the optimal method of CMB-cluster We acknowledge the use of CAMB [29] software.
lensing reconstruction both in terms of the computational This work was performed in the context of the South
requirements and the sensitivity. We defer a detailed in- Pole Telescope scientific program. SPT is supported by
vestigation of these to a future work. the National Science Foundation through grant PLR-
For future experiments, CMB polarization-based re- 1248097. Partial support is also provided by the NSF
 8

Physics Frontier Center grant PHY-1125897 to the Kavli ipants from Spanish institutions are partially supported
Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of by MINECO under grants AYA2015-71825, ESP2015-
Chicago, the Kavli Foundation and the Gordon and 66861, FPA2015-68048, SEV-2016-0588, SEV-2016-0597,
Betty Moore Foundation grant GBMF 947. This re- and MDM-2015-0509, some of which include ERDF funds
search used resources of the National Energy Research from the European Union. IFAE is partially funded by
Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a DOE Office of the CERCA program of the Generalitat de Catalunya.
Science User Facility supported by the Office of Science Research leading to these results has received funding
of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. from the European Research Council under the Euro-
DE-AC02-05CH11231. pean Union’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-
Funding for the DES Projects has been provided by 2013) including ERC grant agreements 240672, 291329,
the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Sci- and 306478. We acknowledge support from the Aus-
ence Foundation, the Ministry of Science and Education tralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-
of Spain, the Science and Technology Facilities Coun- sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO), through project number
cil of the United Kingdom, the Higher Education Fund- CE110001020, and the Brazilian Instituto Nacional de
ing Council for England, the National Center for Super- Ciência e Tecnologia (INCT) e-Universe (CNPq grant
computing Applications at the University of Illinois at 465376/2014-2).
Urbana-Champaign, the Kavli Institute of Cosmological
Physics at the University of Chicago, the Center for Cos- This manuscript has been authored by Fermi Research
mology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State Uni- Alliance, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359
versity, the Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science,
and Astronomy at Texas A&M University, Financiadora Office of High Energy Physics. The United States Gov-
de Estudos e Projetos, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho ernment retains and the publisher, by accepting the
de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, article for publication, acknowledges that the United
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tec- States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, ir-
nológico and the Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e In- revocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the
ovação, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to
Collaborating Institutions in the Dark Energy Survey. do so, for United States Government purposes. This
The Collaborating Institutions are Argonne National manuscript has been authored by Fermi Research Al-
Laboratory, the University of California at Santa Cruz, liance, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359
the University of Cambridge, Centro de Investigaciones with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science,
Energéticas, Office of High Energy Physics. The United States Gov-
ernment retains and the publisher, by accepting the arti-
Medioambientales y Tecnológicas-Madrid, the Univer-
cle for publication, acknowledges that the United States
sity of Chicago, University College London, the DES-
Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevoca-
Brazil Consortium, the University of Edinburgh, the Eid-
ble, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the pub-
genössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zürich, Fermi
lished form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so,
National Accelerator Laboratory, the University of Illi-
for United States Government purposes.
nois at Urbana-Champaign, the Institut de Ciències
de l’Espai (IEEC/CSIC), the Institut de Física d’Altes
Energies, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the
Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München and the as-
sociated Excellence Cluster Universe, the University of ∗
[email protected]
Michigan, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, [1] S. W. Allen, A. E. Evrard, and A. B. Mantz, Annual
the University of Nottingham, The Ohio State Uni- Review of A&A 49, 409 (2011), arXiv:1103.4829 [astro-
versity, the University of Pennsylvania, the University ph.CO].
of Portsmouth, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, [2] S. Wang, Z. Haiman, W. Hu, J. Khoury, and
M. May, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 011302 (2005), arXiv:astro-
Stanford University, the University of Sussex, Texas
ph/0505390 [astro-ph].
A&M University, and the OzDES Membership Consor- [3] A. Mantz, S. W. Allen, H. Ebeling, and D. Rapetti,
tium. MNRAS 387, 1179 (2008), arXiv:0709.4294.
Based in part on observations at Cerro Tololo Inter- [4] A. Vikhlinin, A. V. Kravtsov, R. A. Burenin, H. Ebeling,
American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Ob- W. R. Forman, A. Hornstrup, C. Jones, S. S. Murray,
servatory, which is operated by the Association of Univer- D. Nagai, H. Quintana, and A. Voevodkin, Astrophys.
sities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a coop- J. 692, 1060 (2009), arXiv:0812.2720.
[5] A. Mantz, S. W. Allen, and D. Rapetti, MNRAS 406,
erative agreement with the National Science Foundation. 1805 (2010), arXiv:0911.1788 [astro-ph.CO].
The DES data management system is supported by [6] E. Rozo, R. H. Wechsler, E. S. Rykoff, J. T. Annis, M. R.
the National Science Foundation under Grant Num- Becker, A. E. Evrard, J. A. Frieman, S. M. Hansen,
bers AST-1138766 and AST-1536171. The DES partic- J. Hao, D. E. Johnston, et al., Astrophys. J. 708, 645
 9

(2010), arXiv:0902.3702 [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:1705.00411.

[7] M. Hasselfield, M. Hilton, T. A. Marriage, G. E. Addison, [25] W. Hu, S. DeDeo, and C. Vale, New Journal of Physics
L. F. Barrientos, N. Battaglia, E. S. Battistelli, J. R. 9, 441 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701276.
Bond, D. Crichton, S. Das, et al., JCAP 7, 008 (2013), [26] J. Yoo, M. Zaldarriaga, and L. Hernquist, Phys. Rev. D
arXiv:1301.0816 [astro-ph.CO]. 81, 123006 (2010), arXiv:1005.0847.
[8] A. B. Mantz, A. von der Linden, S. W. Allen, D. E. Ap- [27] S. Dodelson, Phys. Rev. D 70, 023009 (2004),
plegate, P. L. Kelly, R. G. Morris, D. A. Rapetti, R. W. arXiv:astro-ph/0402314.
Schmidt, S. Adhikari, M. T. Allen, et al., MNRAS 446, [28] Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Ar-
2205 (2015), arXiv:1407.4516. naud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, A. J.
[9] Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Ar- Banday, R. B. Barreiro, J. G. Bartlett, and et al., A&A
naud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, A. J. 594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589.
Banday, R. B. Barreiro, J. G. Bartlett, et al., A&A 594, [29] A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J.
A24 (2016), arXiv:1502.01597. 538, 473 (2000).
[10] T. de Haan, B. A. Benson, L. E. Bleem, S. W. Allen, [30] S. Padin, Z. Staniszewski, R. Keisler, M. Joy, A. A. Stark,
D. E. Applegate, M. L. N. Ashby, M. Bautz, M. Bayliss, P. A. R. Ade, K. A. Aird, B. A. Benson, L. E. Bleem,
S. Bocquet, M. Brodwin, et al., Astrophys. J. 832, 95 J. E. Carlstrom, et al., Appl. Opt. 47, 4418 (2008).
(2016), arXiv:1603.06522. [31] J. E. Carlstrom, P. A. R. Ade, K. A. Aird, B. A. Benson,
[11] L. Salvati, M. Douspis, and N. Aghanim, A&A 614, A13 L. E. Bleem, S. Busetti, C. L. Chang, E. Chauvin, H.-
(2018), arXiv:1708.00697. M. Cho, T. M. Crawford, et al., PASP 123, 568 (2011),
[12] S. Bocquet, J. P. Dietrich, T. Schrabback, L. E. Bleem, arXiv:0907.4445.
M. Klein, S. W. Allen, D. E. Applegate, M. L. N. Ashby, [32] J. E. Austermann, K. A. Aird, J. A. Beall, D. Becker,
M. Bautz, and M. Bayliss, Astrophys. J. 878, 55 (2019), A. Bender, B. A. Benson, L. E. Bleem, J. Britton, J. E.
arXiv:1812.01679 [astro-ph.CO]. Carlstrom, C. L. Chang, et al., in Society of Photo-
[13] A. von der Linden, M. T. Allen, D. E. Applegate, P. L. Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference
Kelly, S. W. Allen, H. Ebeling, P. R. Burchat, D. L. Series, Vol. 8452 (2012) arXiv:1210.4970 [astro-ph.IM].
Burke, D. Donovan, R. G. Morris, et al., MNRAS 439, 2 [33] R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zel’dovich, Comments on As-
(2014), arXiv:1208.0597. trophysics and Space Physics 4, 173 (1972).
[14] LSST Science Collaboration, P. A. Abell, J. Allison, S. F. [34] R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, MNRAS 190, 413
Anderson, J. R. Andrew, J. R. P. Angel, L. Armus, D. Ar- (1980).
nett, S. J. Asztalos, T. S. Axelrod, and et al., ArXiv [35] J. W. Henning, J. T. Sayre, C. L. Reichardt, P. A. R.
e-prints (2009), arXiv:0912.0201 [astro-ph.IM]. Ade, A. J. Anderson, J. E. Austermann, J. A. Beall, A. N.
[15] A. Merloni, P. Predehl, W. Becker, H. Böhringer, Bender, B. A. Benson, L. E. Bleem, et al., Astrophys. J.
T. Boller, H. Brunner, M. Brusa, K. Dennerl, M. Frey- 852, 97 (2018), arXiv:1707.09353.
berg, P. Friedrich, et al., ArXiv e-prints (2012), [36] E. S. Rykoff, E. Rozo, M. T. Busha, C. E. Cunha,
arXiv:1209.3114 [astro-ph.HE]. A. Finoguenov, A. Evrard, J. Hao, B. P. Koester,
[16] CMB-S4 Collaboration, K. N. Abazajian, P. Adshead, A. Leauthaud, B. Nord, et al., Astrophys. J. 785, 104
Z. Ahmed, S. W. Allen, D. Alonso, K. S. Arnold, C. Bac- (2014), arXiv:1303.3562.
cigalupi, J. G. Bartlett, N. Battaglia, et al., ArXiv e- [37] E. Rozo, E. S. Rykoff, A. Abate, C. Bonnett, M. Crocce,
prints (2016), arXiv:1610.02743. C. Davis, B. Hoyle, B. Leistedt, H. V. Peiris, R. H. Wech-
[17] A. Lewis and L. King, Phys. Rev. D 73, 063006 (2006), sler, et al., MNRAS 461, 1431 (2016), arXiv:1507.05460
arXiv:astro-ph/0512104 [astro-ph]. [astro-ph.IM].
[18] M. Madhavacheril, N. Sehgal, R. Allison, N. Battaglia, [38] J. Silk, Astrophys. J. 151, 459 (1968).
J. R. Bond, E. Calabrese, J. Caliguiri, K. Coughlin, [39] U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga, Astrophys. J. 538, 57
D. Crichton, R. Datta, et al., Physical Review Letters (2000), astro-ph/9907254.
114, 151302 (2015), arXiv:1411.7999. [40] J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro-
[19] E. J. Baxter, R. Keisler, S. Dodelson, K. A. Aird, S. W. phys. J. 462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025.
Allen, M. L. N. Ashby, M. Bautz, M. Bayliss, B. A. Ben- [41] M. Bartelmann, A&A 313, 697 (1996), arXiv:astro-
son, L. E. Bleem, et al., Astrophys. J. 806, 247 (2015), ph/9602053.
arXiv:1412.7521. [42] M. Oguri and T. Hamana, MNRAS 414, 1851 (2011),
[20] J. E. Geach and J. A. Peacock, Nature Astronomy 1, 795 arXiv:1101.0650.
(2017), arXiv:1707.09369. [43] U. Seljak, MNRAS 318, 203 (2000), arXiv:astro-
[21] E. J. Baxter, S. Raghunathan, T. M. Crawford, P. Fos- ph/0001493.
alba, Z. Hou, G. P. Holder, Y. Omori, S. Patil, E. Rozo, [44] A. Cooray and R. Sheth, Physics Reports 372, 1 (2002),
T. M. C. Abbott, et al., MNRAS (2018), 10.1093/mn- astro-ph/0206508.
ras/sty305, arXiv:1708.01360. [45] M. Oguri and M. Takada, Phys. Rev. D 83, 023008
[22] S. Raghunathan, F. Bianchini, and C. L. Reichardt, (2011), arXiv:1010.0744.
Phys. Rev. D 98, 043506 (2018), arXiv:1710.09770. [46] E. S. Rykoff, E. Rozo, D. Hollowood, A. Bermeo-
[23] S. Raghunathan, S. Patil, E. Baxter, B. A. Benson, L. E. Hernandez, T. Jeltema, J. Mayers, A. K. Romer,
Bleem, T. L. Chou, T. M. Crawford, G. P. Holder, T. Mc- P. Rooney, A. Saro, C. Vergara Cervantes, et al., As-
Clintock, C. L. Reichardt, et al., Astrophys. J. 872, 170 trophys. J.S 224, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.00621.
(2019), arXiv:1810.10998 [astro-ph.CO]. [47] T. McClintock, T. N. Varga, D. Gruen, E. Rozo, E. S.
[24] S. Raghunathan, S. Patil, E. J. Baxter, F. Bianchini, Rykoff, T. Shin, P. Melchior, J. DeRose, S. Seitz,
L. E. Bleem, T. M. Crawford, G. P. Holder, A. Man- J. P. Dietrich, et al., MNRAS 482, 1352 (2019),
zotti, and C. L. Reichardt, JCAP 8, 030 (2017), arXiv:1805.00039.
 10

[48] J. Einasto and U. Haud, A&A 223, 89 (1989). arXiv:astro-ph/0208192 [astro-ph].

[49] R. Datta, S. Aiola, S. K. Choi, M. Devlin, J. Dunk- [52] A. Hall and A. Challinor, Phys. Rev. D 90, 063518
ley, R. Dünner, P. A. Gallardo, M. Gralla, M. Halpern, (2014), arXiv:1407.5135 [astro-ph.CO].
M. Hasselfield, et al., MNRAS , 2799 (2018), [53] S. Yasini and E. Pierpaoli, Phys. Rev. D 94, 023513
arXiv:1811.01854 [astro-ph.CO]. (2016), arXiv:1605.02111 [astro-ph.CO].
[50] N. Gupta, C. L. Reichardt, P. A. R. Ade, A. J. An- [54] A. N. Bender, P. A. R. Ade, Z. Ahmed, A. J. Anderson,
derson, M. Archipley, J. E. Austermann, J. S. Avva, J. S. Avva, K. Aylor, P. S. Barry, R. Basu Thakur, B. A.
J. A. Beall, A. N. Bender, B. A. Benson, et al., arXiv Benson, L. S. Bleem, et al., in Millimeter, Submillimeter,
e-prints , arXiv:1907.02156 (2019), arXiv:1907.02156 and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for As-
[astro-ph.CO]. tronomy IX , Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation
[51] J. E. Carlstrom, G. P. Holder, and E. D. Reese, Annual Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10708 (2018)
Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 40, 643 (2002), p. 1070803, arXiv:1809.00036 [astro-ph.IM].