pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23775 · v1 · pith:OLSVKKSFnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Active galactic nucleus driven jet feedback in cosmologically forming cool-core galaxy clusters I: The effect of hierarchical assembly on intra-cluster medium properties

Rainer Weinberger , Lorenzo Maria Perrone , Christoph Pfrommer , Thomas Berlok , Ewald Puchwein , L\'ena Jlassi , Rosie Talbot , Joseph Whittingham
show 2 more authors
R\"udiger Pakmor Volker Springel
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 08:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords active galactic nucleijet feedbackgalaxy clusterscool-core clustersintra-cluster mediumcosmological simulationshierarchical assembly
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cosmological simulations with explicit AGN jet feedback match observed stellar and gas fractions plus cool-core ICM profiles, while isolated runs and kinetic feedback models do not.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines the role of hierarchical assembly in shaping the intra-cluster medium of cool-core galaxy clusters when an explicit AGN jet feedback model is used. Cosmological zoom simulations are compared to isolated cluster simulations with the same jet model and to cosmological runs that instead employ IllustrisTNG-style kinetic AGN feedback. Jet feedback within the full cosmological context yields stellar and gas fractions in excellent agreement with observations and thermodynamic profiles resembling local cool-core clusters, whereas the kinetic feedback prescription fails to do so. Across all setups AGN heating balances radiative cooling and star formation is suppressed, yet the cosmological runs alone reproduce the observed non-thermal pressure support and the presence of warm gas outside the core. The key distinction arises because satellite galaxies, rather than the central jet, dominate gas motions beyond 50 kpc in the assembling clusters.

Core claim

Hierarchical assembly produces velocity and multi-phase structure in the ICM that isolated simulations miss: gas at radii greater than 50 kpc is shaped by satellite galaxies, leading to non-thermal pressure support and warm-gas abundance that match recent observations only in the cosmological jet-feedback runs.

What carries the argument

Explicit AGN jet model implemented in cosmological zoom simulations, compared against the same model in isolated clusters and against kinetic AGN feedback in cosmological runs.

If this is right

  • Stellar and gas mass fractions inside the simulated clusters agree with observed values.
  • Thermodynamic profiles of the ICM in the jet-feedback cosmological runs resemble those of local cool-core clusters.
  • AGN heating roughly balances cooling losses and star formation is strongly suppressed in every simulation setup.
  • Non-thermal pressure support reaches observed levels only when cosmological assembly is included.
  • Warm gas at temperatures below 10^5 K appears beyond the core region solely in the cosmological simulations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Merger-driven growth of the central supermassive black hole changes the long-term self-regulation of jet feedback relative to isolated initial conditions.
  • Dynamical modeling of the ICM for comparison with velocity or multi-phase observations must incorporate cosmological context to capture satellite-driven motions.
  • Targeted observations of warm gas and non-thermal pressure in clusters with documented recent accretion events could directly test the assembly signature.

Load-bearing premise

The explicit jet feedback implementation and numerical resolution are realistic enough that differences between cosmological and isolated runs reflect genuine effects of hierarchical assembly rather than model or resolution artifacts.

What would settle it

If high-resolution X-ray or SZ observations of a statistical sample of cool-core clusters show no systematic difference in non-thermal pressure support or warm-gas content between systems with recent mergers and relaxed systems, the claimed impact of assembly would be ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23775 by Christoph Pfrommer, Ewald Puchwein, Joseph Whittingham, L\'ena Jlassi, Lorenzo Maria Perrone, Rainer Weinberger, Rosie Talbot, R\"udiger Pakmor, Thomas Berlok, Volker Springel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Column density (top) and mass-weighted temperature (bottom) projections of the ICM of a cosmologically forming halo at z = 0 (left) compared to a corresponding isolated halo after 1 Gyr (right). The projection depth is 3 Mpc. The dotted circle indicates 0.5 R200. While the overall distribution in the gaseous halo is similar, the isolated setup shows fewer perturbations and a larger degree of spherical symm… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Baryonic content of the simulated cosmological zoom-in halos at z = 0. Top left: Stellar mass fraction within R500 vs. halo mass. The stellar content is in good agreement with data from Laganá et al. (2013). Top right: Stellar mass fraction within 500 kpc vs. halo mass. The data from Laganá et al. (2013) represents the stellar mass fractions within R2500, i.e., for a similar aperture. Bottom left: Gas mass… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mass-weighted temperature (top) and line-of-sight velocity dispersion (bottom) projections of the ICM of a cosmologically forming halo at z = 0 (left) compared to the isolated halo after 1 Gyr (right). The projection depth is 300 kpc. The dotted circle indicates 0.05 R200 ≈ 100 kpc. While the temperature projections are a zoom-in from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Non-thermal pressure fraction fk,turb of the X-ray emitting intra￾cluster gas as a function of radius for the four different simulations. Dashed (solid) lines correspond to an effective filter spread of σℓ = 20 kpc (σℓ = 40 kpc), with the shaded region in between. For compari￾son, we include the recent measurements of the Perseus cluster (Zhang et al. 2025). The turbulence at the levels measured by XRISM c… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top to bottom: electron number density, pressure, temperature, entropy and cooling time profiles of halos at z = 0 (coloured solid lines), for the isolated halo after 1 Gyr (black line). The coloured dotted lines indicate the profiles of the respective simulations using the IllustrisTNG model. See text for the emission-weighting procedure. The vertical dot￾ted line indicates the radius 0.05 R200 ≈ 100 kpc.… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top to bottom: time evolution of cluster mass (solid) and intra￾cluster gas mass within R500 (dashed), SMBH mass, warm (T < 105 K) gas mass and star forming gas mass. The top x-axis indicates the corre￾sponding redshift for the cosmological simulations. Note that t = 0 is arbitrarily identified with z = 2 for the cosmological simulations, and after a 1 Gyr initialization period for the isolated simulation.… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: In-situ star formation of the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG, within 30 kpc; thick solid) and the entire halo (within R200; thin solid), cooling rate (dashed) and AGN jet feedback rate (thin dotted) normalized by the virial specific energy of the simulated clusters. The right y-axis shows the corresponding luminosity for z = 0 masses (energy rate per unit time assuming the respective virial specific energy)… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: phase diagram of the simulated ICM for gas within R200. Bottom: corresponding phase diagrams restricted to gas within 0.05 R200. Left panels show the stacked cosmological simulations (3 halos), while the right panels display the isolated simulation. All are a time-average over 10 Gyr. The grey dotted and dash-dotted lines indicate an adiabat and isobar, respectively, to facilitate comparison between p… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The atmospheres of cool-core galaxy clusters are excellent probes of astrophysical plasmas. However, how the interplay between assembly and active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback leads to the observed gas profiles remains uncertain. We study the impact of hierarchical assembly on the intra-cluster medium (ICM) in cool-core galaxy clusters using hydrodynamic simulations as part of the PICO-Cluster project. We compare cosmological zoom simulations employing an explicit AGN jet model against PICO-Cluster simulations with IllustrisTNG kinetic AGN feedback, as well as against isolated galaxy cluster simulations using jet feedback. The stellar and gas fractions of our cosmological galaxy cluster simulations with jet feedback are in excellent agreement with observed galaxy clusters, and the ICM thermodynamic profiles resemble those of local cool-core galaxy clusters while those run with IllustrisTNG kinetic AGN feedback do not match these observations. In all simulations, cosmological and isolated, the AGN heating roughly balances the cooling losses, with star formation being significantly suppressed. The most notable differences between the cosmological and isolated simulations are the resulting velocity and multi-phase structure: gas at radii $> 50$ kpc is shaped by satellite galaxies rather than jet feedback originating form the central galaxy. This leads to significant differences in non-thermal pressure support, with only the cosmological simulations being consistent with recent observations. A second notable difference is the abundance of warm ($<10^5$ K) gas beyond the core region, which is absent in our isolated simulation. Our results highlight the need for taking cosmological assembly into account in comparisons of the ICM dynamics and its multi-phase nature, while self-regulation is altered by hierarchical assembly via merger-driven growth of the central supermassive black hole.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses cosmological zoom simulations of cool-core galaxy clusters with an explicit AGN jet feedback model (PICO-Cluster project) and compares them to runs with IllustrisTNG kinetic AGN feedback as well as isolated cluster simulations with jet feedback. It claims that the cosmological jet runs produce stellar and gas fractions in excellent agreement with observations, ICM thermodynamic profiles resembling local cool-core clusters (unlike TNG), AGN heating balancing cooling with suppressed star formation, and that hierarchical assembly drives differences in velocity structure, non-thermal pressure support, and warm gas abundance at r > 50 kpc due to satellites rather than central jets, while also altering self-regulation via merger-driven BH growth.

Significance. If the quantitative comparisons hold, the result would underscore that cosmological assembly history must be included when modeling ICM dynamics, multi-phase structure, and non-thermal pressure, beyond the self-regulation achieved in isolated setups. The explicit jet model plus assembly context is presented as key to matching observations where TNG does not.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claims that stellar/gas fractions are in 'excellent agreement' with observed clusters and that ICM thermodynamic profiles 'resemble' those of local cool-core clusters (while TNG runs 'do not match') provide no quantitative metrics, error bars, χ^{2} values, or details on how profiles were compared or selected. This absence directly affects evaluation of whether the jet model plus assembly outperforms TNG.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and § (results on cosmological vs isolated): The attribution of velocity/multi-phase differences at r > 50 kpc and non-thermal pressure support to hierarchical assembly (satellites vs central jets) assumes the isolated jet runs are otherwise identical in effective resolution, refinement, and subgrid coupling at large radii. The text notes merger-driven BH growth alters self-regulation but does not quantify resolution convergence for infalling satellites or differences in BH seeding/growth between setups, which is load-bearing for isolating the assembly effect.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'in all simulations, cosmological and isolated, the AGN heating roughly balances the cooling losses' without referencing the specific figure or section showing the balance (e.g., heating/cooling rate plots).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claims that stellar/gas fractions are in 'excellent agreement' with observed clusters and that ICM thermodynamic profiles 'resemble' those of local cool-core clusters (while TNG runs 'do not match') provide no quantitative metrics, error bars, χ^{2} values, or details on how profiles were compared or selected. This absence directly affects evaluation of whether the jet model plus assembly outperforms TNG.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative support is needed to substantiate these claims. In the revised version we will add explicit metrics to the abstract and results section, including average fractional deviations from observed profiles, reduced χ² values for the thermodynamic profiles (density, temperature, entropy), and a brief description of the observational sample selection and comparison methodology. These additions will allow direct assessment of the jet+assembly model relative to TNG. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and § (results on cosmological vs isolated): The attribution of velocity/multi-phase differences at r > 50 kpc and non-thermal pressure support to hierarchical assembly (satellites vs central jets) assumes the isolated jet runs are otherwise identical in effective resolution, refinement, and subgrid coupling at large radii. The text notes merger-driven BH growth alters self-regulation but does not quantify resolution convergence for infalling satellites or differences in BH seeding/growth between setups, which is load-bearing for isolating the assembly effect.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a clearer demonstration of setup equivalence is required to isolate the assembly effect. The isolated runs employ the identical jet model, subgrid coupling, and central refinement strategy as the cosmological runs. In the revision we will add a new subsection that (i) reports resolution convergence tests for infalling satellites at r > 50 kpc, (ii) quantifies any differences in black-hole seeding and growth prescriptions between the two setups, and (iii) discusses how these factors affect the comparison. This will strengthen the attribution to hierarchical assembly while preserving the existing results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct simulation outputs compared to external observations

full rationale

The paper reports outputs from hydrodynamic cosmological zoom simulations using an explicit AGN jet model, comparing stellar/gas fractions, ICM profiles, velocities, and multi-phase gas to external observations and to separate TNG and isolated runs. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are presented that reduce to the inputs by construction. Claims about the effect of hierarchical assembly rest on differences between simulation setups, not on self-referential definitions or self-citation chains. Comparisons to observations are independent and falsifiable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the hydrodynamic simulation framework and AGN jet implementation being adequate proxies for real physics; without the full text, specific free parameters such as jet efficiency or resolution thresholds cannot be enumerated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5886 in / 1090 out tokens · 28142 ms · 2026-06-26T08:03:45.127155+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R., et al

    Andrade-Santos, F., Jones, C., Forman, W. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 76 Bahé, Y . M., Barnes, D. J., Dalla Vecchia, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4186

    2017

  2. [2]

    J., Kay, S

    Barnes, D. J., Kay, S. T., Bahé, Y . M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1088

    2017

  3. [3]

    J., V ogelsberger, M., Kannan, R., et al

    Barnes, D. J., V ogelsberger, M., Kannan, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1809

    2018

  4. [4]

    2020, A&A, 642, A37

    Bassini, L., Rasia, E., Borgani, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A37

    2020

  5. [5]

    S., Dubois, Y ., Pellissier, A., et al

    Beckmann, R. S., Dubois, Y ., Pellissier, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A129

    2022

  6. [6]

    A., Truong, N., et al

    Bellomi, E., ZuHone, J. A., Truong, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.12754

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6296 Berlok et al., T

    Berlok, T., Jlassi, L., Puchwein, E., & Haugbølle, T. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6296 Berlok et al., T. 2026, subm. to MNRAS

    2024

  8. [8]

    K., Blecha, L., Kelley, L

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Kelley, L. Z., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 81 Bîrzan, L., Rafferty, D. A., McNamara, B. R., Wise, M. W., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2004, ApJ, 607, 800

    2025

  9. [9]

    & Weinberger, R

    Bollati, F. & Weinberger, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.16971

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    1952, MNRAS, 112, 195

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195

    1952

  11. [11]

    Booth, C. M. & Schaye, J. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 53

    2009

  12. [12]

    S., et al

    Borodina, O., Ni, Y ., Bennett, J. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 149

    2025

  13. [13]

    Bourne, M. A. & Sijacki, D. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4707

    2017

  14. [14]

    Bourne, M. A. & Sijacki, D. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 488

    2021

  15. [15]

    A., Sijacki, D., & Puchwein, E

    Bourne, M. A., Sijacki, D., & Puchwein, E. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 343

    2019

  16. [16]

    Bourne, M. A. & Yang, H.-Y . K. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 73

    2023

  17. [17]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.27503

    Cammelli, V ., Gaspari, M., Piana, O., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.27503

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    2006, arXiv e-prints, astroph/0601456

    Cattaneo, A. 2006, arXiv e-prints, astroph/0601456

    arXiv 2006

  19. [19]

    W., Donahue, M., V oit, G

    Cavagnolo, K. W., Donahue, M., V oit, G. M., & Sun, M. 2009, ApJS, 182, 12

    2009

  20. [20]

    2003, ApJ, 590, 225

    Churazov, E., Forman, W., Jones, C., & Böhringer, H. 2003, ApJ, 590, 225

    2003

  21. [21]

    K., Gronke, M., & Weinberger, R

    Das, H. K., Gronke, M., & Weinberger, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03751

    arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    2010, MNRAS, 409, 985

    Dubois, Y ., Devriendt, J., Slyz, A., & Teyssier, R. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 985

    2010

  23. [23]

    Dunn, R. J. H. & Fabian, A. C. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 959

    2006

  24. [24]

    2019, A&A, 621, A40

    Eckert, D., Ghirardini, V ., Ettori, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A40

    2019

  25. [25]

    2018, MN- RAS, 481, 2878

    Ehlert, K., Weinberger, R., Pfrommer, C., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V . 2018, MN- RAS, 481, 2878

    2018

  26. [26]

    2023, MN- RAS, 518, 4622

    Ehlert, K., Weinberger, R., Pfrommer, C., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V . 2023, MN- RAS, 518, 4622

    2023

  27. [27]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 1327

    Ehlert, K., Weinberger, R., Pfrommer, C., & Springel, V . 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1327

    2021

  28. [28]

    Fabian, A. C. 1994, ARA&A, 32, 277

    1994

  29. [29]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

    2012

  30. [30]

    C., Ferland, G

    Fabian, A. C., Ferland, G. J., Sanders, J. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3336

    2022

  31. [31]

    C., Sanders, J

    Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Ferland, G. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1794 Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., & Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1416

    2023

  32. [32]

    B., Tonnesen, S., DeFelippis, D., et al

    Fielding, D. B., Tonnesen, S., DeFelippis, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 32

    2020

  33. [33]

    2011, MNRAS, 411, 349

    Gaspari, M., Melioli, C., Brighenti, F., & D’Ercole, A. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 349

    2011

  34. [34]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 957

    Genina, A., Springel, V ., & Rantala, A. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 957

    2024

  35. [35]

    W., Glines, F

    Grete, P., O’Shea, B. W., Glines, F. W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 155

    2025

  36. [36]

    Guo, F. & Oh, S. P. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 251

    2008

  37. [37]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, L65

    Heinz, S., Brüggen, M., Young, A., & Levesque, E. 2006, MNRAS, 373, L65

    2006

  38. [38]

    A., et al

    Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., McDonald, M., Benson, B. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 35

    2015

  39. [39]

    F., Quataert, E., Silich, E

    Hopkins, P. F., Quataert, E., Silich, E. M., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of As- trophysics, 8, 54053

    2025

  40. [40]

    S., Mittal, R., Reiprich, T

    Hudson, D. S., Mittal, R., Reiprich, T. H., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, A37

    2010

  41. [41]

    B., Smith, B

    Hummels, C. B., Smith, B. D., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 156

    2019

  42. [42]

    2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.10787

    Jlassi, L., Weinberger, R., Pfrommer, C., et al. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.10787

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.04084 Article number, page 14 of 17 R

    Jlassi, L., Weinberger, R., Pfrommer, C., et al. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.04084 Article number, page 14 of 17 R. Weinberger et al.: Jets in galaxy clusters I

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    H., & Hernquist, L

    Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJS, 105, 19

    1996

  45. [45]

    & Narayan, R

    Kim, W.-T. & Narayan, R. 2003, ApJ, 596, L139

    2003

  46. [46]

    Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511 Laganá, T. F., Martinet, N., Durret, F., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A66

    2013

  47. [47]

    2026, A&A, 705, A41

    Lehle, K., Ruszkowski, M., Nelson, D., Prunier, M., & Pillepich, A. 2026, A&A, 705, A41

    2026

  48. [48]

    & Yang, H.-Y

    Li, J.-L. & Yang, H.-Y . K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.23267

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    L., Ruszkowski, M., et al

    Li, Y ., Bryan, G. L., Ruszkowski, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 73

    2015

  50. [50]

    Li, Y ., Ruszkowski, M., & Bryan, G. L. 2017, ApJ, 847, 106

    2017

  51. [51]

    F., Kelley, L

    Ma, L., Hopkins, P. F., Kelley, L. Z., & Faucher-Giguère, C.-A. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5543

    2023

  52. [52]

    2019, MN- RAS, 483, 2465

    Martizzi, D., Quataert, E., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., & Fielding, D. 2019, MN- RAS, 483, 2465

    2019

  53. [53]

    R., Fabian, A

    McNamara, B. R., Fabian, A. C., Russell, H. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.19607

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    McNamara, B. R. & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117

    2007

  55. [55]

    McNamara, B. R. & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023

    2012

  56. [56]

    R., V oit, G

    Meece, G. R., V oit, G. M., & O’Shea, B. W. 2017, ApJ, 841, 133

    2017

  57. [57]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.26882

    Meenakshi, M., Weinberger, R., Pfrommer, C., & Berlok, T. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.26882

    arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    J., Jones, T

    Mendygral, P. J., Jones, T. W., & Dolag, K. 2012, ApJ, 750, 166

    2012

  59. [59]

    V ., Sutherland, R., & Wagner, A

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V ., Sutherland, R., & Wagner, A. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 967

    2016

  60. [60]

    2024, A&A, 686, A157

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Ayromlou, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A157

    2024

  61. [61]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 670

    Ni, Y ., Di Matteo, T., Bird, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 670

    2022

  62. [62]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 56

    Olivares, V ., Su, Y ., Forman, W., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 56

    2023

  63. [63]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1134

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V ., Bauer, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1134

    2016

  64. [64]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 721

    Pellissier, A., Hahn, O., & Ferrari, C. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 721

    2023

  65. [65]

    M., Berlok, T., Puchwein, E., & Pfrommer, C

    Perrone, L. M., Berlok, T., Puchwein, E., & Pfrommer, C. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.06250

    arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    Peterson, J. R. & Fabian, A. C. 2006, Phys. Rep., 427, 1

    2006

  67. [67]

    R., Kahn, S

    Peterson, J. R., Kahn, S. M., Paerels, F. B. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 590, 207

    2003

  68. [68]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 101

    Pfister, H., V olonteri, M., Dubois, Y ., Dotti, M., & Colpi, M. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 101

    2019

  69. [69]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 10

    Pfrommer, C. 2013, ApJ, 779, 10

    2013

  70. [70]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2018

  71. [71]

    V ., Schaye, J., & Schaller, M

    Pontzen, A., Peiris, H. V ., Schaye, J., & Schaller, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.16483

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16555

    Popesso, P., Biviano, A., Marini, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16555

    arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 4188

    Prunier, M., Ubertosi, F., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., & Pillepich, A. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 4188

    2025

  74. [74]

    A., McNamara, B

    Rafferty, D. A., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., & Wise, M. W. 2006, ApJ, 652, 216

    2006

  75. [75]

    L., Murante, G., Borgani, S., & Cui, W

    Ragone-Figueroa, C., Granato, G. L., Murante, G., Borgani, S., & Cui, W. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1750

    2013

  76. [76]

    H., Rai ˇcevi´c, M., & Schaye, J

    Rahmati, A., Pawlik, A. H., Rai ˇcevi´c, M., & Schaye, J. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2427

    2013

  77. [77]

    & Nelson, D

    Ramesh, R. & Nelson, D. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3320

    2024

  78. [78]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.23416

    Ramesh, R., Nelson, D., Fielding, D., & Brüggen, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.23416

    arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    S., Balbus, S

    Reynolds, C. S., Balbus, S. A., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 41

    2015

  80. [80]

    R., Nulsen, P

    Russell, H. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.14292

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.