Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 68 references

SZ-X-ray Surface Brightness Fluctuations in the SPT-XMM clusters

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Turbulent gas in galaxy clusters flows at half the sound speed on average.

desk verdict Solid first large-sample SZ/X-ray fluctuation study, but the headline Mach number rests on treating unresolved spectral endpoints as measured peaks. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05478 v2 pith:QVDWNTZR submitted 2024-12-07 astro-ph.CO

Charles Romero , Massimo Gaspari , Gerrit Schellenberger , Bradford A. Benson , Lindsey E. Bleem , Esra Bulbul , William Forman , Ralph Kraft
show 5 more authors
Paul Nulsen Christian L. Reichardt Arnab Sarkar Taweewat Somboonpanyakul Yuanyuan Su
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxyclustersintraclustermediumturbulenceMachnumbersurfacebrightnessfluctuationsSunyaev-Zel'dovicheffectX-rayastronomyhydrostaticmassbias
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to measure turbulence in the hot gas inside galaxy clusters across a large sample, using fluctuations in X-ray surface brightness for density and Sunyaev-Zel'dovich maps for pressure. For 32 of 60 clusters it identifies a peak in the density-fluctuation amplitude spectrum within 0.62 R500 and converts that peak to a 3D turbulent Mach number through a simulation-calibrated linear scaling. The headline result is an average Mach number of 0.52 ± 0.14 for the 25 turbulence-dominated clusters, in agreement with cosmological simulations. This matters because turbulent motions add non-thermal pressure that biases hydrostatic cluster masses, so a measured average Mach number directly informs the mass-bias correction.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the amplitude spectrum of density fluctuations, Aρ(k) = $\sqrt$(4π $k^{3}$ P3D(k)), obtained by deprojecting Mexican-hat wavelet ($\Delta$-variance) power spectra of normalized X-ray residual images, and on the peak of that spectrum, kpeak, taken as a proxy for the turbulent injection scale. The peak amplitude is converted to a Mach number with the linear relations Mρ = 4.0 Aρ(kpeak)(linj/0.4R500)^(−0.25) and MP = 2.4 AP(kpeak)(linj/0.4R500)^(−0.25) from stratified-atmosphere simulations; the linearity of this scaling, which holds only in stratified atmospheres like the ICM, is what makes turbulent velocities accessible from surface brightness fluctuations.

What would settle it

Measure the turbulent velocity directly from the widths or Doppler shifts of X-ray emission lines, such as Fe XXV or Fe XXVI, in a few of the 32 clusters and compare with Mρ inferred from fluctuation peaks; a systematic offset would falsify the linear calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the average 3D turbulent Mach number inside 0.62 R500 is Mρ = 0.52 ± 0.14, matching the Mach numbers expected from cosmological simulations (0.49–0.52) over the same radii. The paper further claims that the distribution of inferred Mach numbers is bimodal or strongly skewed: most clusters are subsonic and turbulence-dominated, while a minority are supersonic, and every supersonic cluster is a known or suspected merger. For the seven clusters with both SZ and X-ray constraints, pressure-based and density-based Mach numbers broadly agree, with the exception of Abell 2744.

Load-bearing premise

The entire velocity measurement rests on the simulated linear calibration between the amplitude of density fluctuations at the spectrum's peak and the turbulent Mach number; if that relation is nonlinear, or if the observed spectra do not show the true peak, the absolute Mach numbers and the claimed agreement with simulations would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the average Mach number is right, the non-thermal pressure fraction within 0.62 R500 is αNT = 0.13 ± 0.06, implying a hydrostatic mass bias smaller than about 0.13 in that region.
  • Clusters with inferred supersonic Mach numbers should be excluded from turbulence-based mass-bias corrections, since they are likely shock-dominated mergers rather than turbulence-dominated systems.
  • The absence of correlation between Mach number and mass or redshift means turbulence at these radii is set by dynamical state rather than cluster scale, allowing samples at different redshifts to be compared without rescaling.
  • Deeper SZ data, which the paper expects to improve pressure-fluctuation sensitivity by roughly a factor of ten, should extend the X-ray density constraints into a pressure-based comparison out toward R500.
  • The few clusters with subsonic constraints in the outer ring give an upper limit on the hydrostatic mass bias near R500 of about 0.16 ± 0.08, though this rests on only four clusters.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the linear calibration holds, the apparent bimodality of Mach numbers gives a clean empirical separator between turbulence-dominated and shock-dominated systems that could be used to build a cleaner sample for hydrostatic mass-bias calibration.
  • Because kpeak is used as a proxy for the injection scale and several amplitude spectra are flat, the absolute Mach numbers carry a systematic uncertainty tied to the injection-scale assumption; a direct spectroscopic velocity measurement of even a few clusters would anchor the calibration.
  • A testable extension: applying the same peak-amplitude scaling to next-generation SZ survey maps should yield pressure-based Mach numbers near 0.5; agreement with the X-ray value would support the linear scaling across two independent tracers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes SZ and X-ray surface brightness fluctuations for 60 SPT-selected clusters with XMM-Newton data, deriving density and pressure fluctuation amplitude spectra within 0.62 R500. For 32 clusters with a detected density-fluctuation peak (SNR > 2), the authors infer 3D turbulent Mach numbers using the linear Gaspari & Churazov (2013) calibration, obtaining a sample average M_rho = 0.52 ± 0.14 for the 25 subsonic clusters and claiming agreement with cosmological simulations (B12, N14, A20). They also report mild correlations with dynamical state parameters, broad consistency between pressure- and density-inferred Mach numbers for seven clusters, and evidence for a bimodal or skewed unimodal Mach number distribution. Methodological details include substructure masking, wavelet-based power spectra, and robustness tests across SNR thresholds.

Significance. If the absolute Mach-number calibration is reliable, this is one of the largest observational constraints on ICM turbulence within R500, with direct implications for non-thermal pressure support and the hydrostatic mass bias. The combined SZ+X-ray approach and the explicit discussion of selection effects and systematics are strengths. The paper is transparent about its limitations, and the correlations with dynamical parameters are a useful step toward using surface brightness fluctuations as a dynamical-state probe. The claimed agreement with simulations is suggestive but, as detailed below, depends critically on the treatment of unresolved spectral peaks.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (2), Appendix C, Table 3] The central claim, M_rho = 0.52 ± 0.14, depends on identifying kpeak as the injection scale, but Table 3 shows that 18 of 32 clusters have kpeak = 1.0 R500^-1, which is the coarsest sampled node. Appendix C explicitly states that 'an average injection scale in either Ring is fairly unconstrained as we do not see a clear peak/turnover in the amplitude spectra.' For these clusters, A_rho(kpeak) is an adopted endpoint of a flat or rising spectrum, not a measured peak amplitude. The kpeak-dependent factor in Eq. (2) changes the amplitude-to-Mach conversion by roughly a factor of two across the sample, so the quoted mean and the agreement with B12, N14, and A20 are not robust. The stability tests in Section 3.3 vary only the SNR threshold and do not address this systematic. The authors should either restrict the claim to clusters with a genuine turnover, propagate a systematic uncertainty from kpeak, or present the result as conditional on the unresolved injection-scale assumption.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3.3] The abstract quotes 'average Mach number M3D = 0.52 ± 0.14' without specifying that ±0.14 is the intrinsic scatter of the distribution, not the uncertainty on the mean. The statistical uncertainties on the weighted means are ~0.02 (Section 3.3), while the intrinsic scatter is 0.12-0.14. As written, the abstract overstates the precision of the measurement and could mislead readers into interpreting ±0.14 as the error on the average. The text should clearly distinguish between measurement uncertainty and intrinsic scatter, e.g., by reporting the error on the mean separately.
  3. [Section 3.3, Figure 5, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The comparison between M_P and M_rho is presented as 'broad agreement,' but Eqs. (2) and (3) use different normalization coefficients (4.0 for density, 2.4 for pressure) and the same injection-scale scaling. A direct one-to-one comparison of the two Mach numbers is not meaningful unless the different calibrations are taken into account, since density and pressure fluctuations respond differently to the same velocity field. The authors should either compare the underlying fluctuation amplitudes A_rho and A_P, or rescale one relation to the other before claiming consistency. This is a secondary claim, but as it stands the comparison is not well posed.
  4. [Appendix B, Section 4.2] The substructure masking algorithm relies on cluster-independent tuning factors g_k that were chosen iteratively to achieve 'visual consistency' across cameras. The paper does not quantify how the choice of g_k affects the recovered fluctuation amplitudes and hence the inferred Mach numbers, despite noting in Section 4.2 that masking can either increase or decrease fluctuations (e.g., SPT-CLJ0014-3022 and SPT-CLJ0225-4155). Since the reported uncertainties do not include this systematic, the authors should provide a sensitivity test (e.g., varying g_k by ±20% and recomputing the mean Mach number) to justify the error budget that supports the central value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1, Note] The table note says 'obtained between either log Aρ(kpeak) or log Aρ(kpeak)' but the second quantity should be log Mρ(kpeak).
  2. [Appendix D] The text states 'Mρ,2 = 0.59 ± 18'; this should presumably be 0.59 ± 0.18.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract says 'within 0.6 R500' while the main text and Section 2 use 0.62 R500; the numbers should be made consistent.
  4. [Section 2.1.1] The phrase 'we did not investigate masking substructure' in the context of the pilot study is clear, but it would be helpful to state whether the pilot clusters were checked for substructure visually and found to be free of it, to justify the difference in treatment.
  5. [Section 3.1, Table 1] The correlation coefficients are reported with credible intervals that mostly exclude zero, but there is no correction for the number of parameters tested; a brief statement about multiple-testing would strengthen the interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Mach numbers are measured fluctuation amplitudes converted with an externally published simulation calibration, and the simulation comparison uses separate, independent simulations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: measure X-ray and SZ surface brightness fluctuation power spectra, deproject to density/pressure amplitude spectra A_rho and A_P, define a peak k_peak among nodes with SNR > 2, and convert to Mach numbers using the published Gaspari & Churazov (2013) linear scalings (Eqs. 2-3). None of the coefficients in those scalings (4.0, 2.4, alpha_H = -0.25) are fit to the SPT-XMM data; they come from an earlier, independent simulation calibration. The headline M_3D = 0.52 +/- 0.14 is therefore a measured amplitude times a fixed external calibration, and the comparison to Battaglia et al. (2012), Nelson et al. (2014), and Angelinelli et al. (2020) uses simulations different from the calibration simulation, so the agreement is not enforced by construction. The paper's own robustness tests (2-5 sigma cuts, Section 3.3) vary only the selection threshold, not the calibration; that is a limitation on absolute accuracy given flat or unresolved spectra (Appendix C), but it is not circularity. Self-citations (Khatri & Gaspari 2016; Romero et al. 2023, 2024) are method lineage, and the load-bearing Eq. 2 calibration is independently published and parameter-free with respect to this dataset. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no predicted quantity is a renamed fit. Score 2 reflects only minor non-load-bearing self-citation, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on external simulation-calibrated scaling relations, an assumed spectral peak proxy, and hand-tuned masking thresholds; these are the main inputs the reader must accept from prior work or the authors' choices.

free parameters (1)
  • Substructure masking tuning factors g_k = 0.5 < g < 2 (per smoothing kernel)
    Adjusted by iteration to match masks visually across EPIC cameras (Appendix B); affects the residual maps and hence the measured fluctuation amplitudes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Linear scaling between density fluctuation amplitude and turbulent Mach number (Eq. 2) with coefficients from Gaspari & Churazov (2013).
    Central conversion from measured Aρ(kpeak) to Mρ; the relation is known to differ in pure hydrodynamics (quadratic, Churazov et al. 2012).
  • domain assumption kpeak is a valid proxy for the injection wavenumber kinj.
    Section 3: spectra are not well sampled, so the peak node is used in place of the injection scale in Eqs. 2-3.
  • domain assumption αH = -0.25 describes the ICM hydrodynamical regime with negligible thermal conduction.
    Sets the exponent in the amplitude-to-Mach relations, citing Gaspari et al. (2014b), ZuHone et al. (2015), Komarov et al. (2016).
  • domain assumption Circular β models plus a background represent the smooth emission; residuals are fluctuations.
    Section 2.1: any mismatch between the model and the true smooth profile introduces spurious power in the normalized residual maps.
  • domain assumption The deprojection from 2D surface brightness power spectra to 3D density and pressure power spectra is as in Romero et al. (2024).
    The paper inherits the pilot study's deprojection method without re-deriving it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SZ-X-ray Surface Brightness Fluctuations in the SPT-XMM clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QVDWNTZR

@misc{pith2026241205478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SZ-X-ray Surface Brightness Fluctuations in the SPT-XMM clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QVDWNTZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05478}
}
abstract

The hot plasma in galaxy clusters, the intracluster medium (ICM), is expected to be shaped by subsonic turbulent motions, which are key for heating, cooling, and transport mechanisms. The turbulent motions contribute to the non-thermal pressure which, if not accounted for, consequently imparts a hydrostatic mass bias. Accessing information about turbulent motions is thus of major astrophysical and cosmological interest. Characteristics of turbulent motions can be indirectly accessed through surface brightness fluctuations. This study expands on our pilot investigations of surface brightness fluctuations in the SZ and X-ray by examining, for the first time, a large sample of 60 clusters using \textit{both} SPT-SZ and XMM-Newton data and span the redshift range $0.2 < z < 1.5$, thus constraining the respective pressure and density fluctuations within 0.6~$R_{500}$. We deem density fluctuations to be of sufficient quality for 32 clusters, finding mild correlations between the peak of the amplitude spectra of density fluctuations and various dynamical parameters. We infer turbulent velocities from density fluctuations with an average Mach number $\mathcal{M}_{\text{3D}} = 0.52 \pm 0.14$, in agreement with numerical simulations. For clusters with inferred turbulent Mach numbers from both pressure, $\mathcal{M}_{\text{P}}$ and density fluctuations, $\mathcal{M}_{\rho}$, we find broad agreement between $\mathcal{M}_{\text{P}}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{\rho}$. Our results suggest either a bimodal or skewed unimodal Mach number distribution, with the majority of clusters being turbulence-dominated (subsonic) while the remainder are shock-dominated (supersonic).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05478 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The mass and redshift distribution of clusters in our (SPT-XMM) sample as well as information regarding constraints on surface brightness fluctuations from XMM￾Newton data. Empty circles denote no significant constraints are reported; filled markers denote that constraints of at least 2σ were obtained within 0.62R500 (filled circles) and out to R500 (crosses). The color indicates a representative exposure time acros… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scatter plots of dynamical parameters relative to the inferred Aρ in Ring 1. Sizes of markers indicate the maximal ξ (see Appendix A) in Aρ,1. The coloring of the markers corresponds to the location (wavenumber) of the inferred peak, adopting a SNR threshold of ξ > 2. ferred peak. The inferred peaks, although not strongly constrained, tend towards large scales (0.5R500 to R500) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. As with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Within Ring 1, distributions of Aρ(kpeak) and distributions of Mach numbers, Mρ for different significance thresholds on Aρ, and MP with AP significance greater than 1.5σ. For clarity, the blue bars indicate the number of clus￾ters for which we infer a given peak of Aρ…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of M3D as derived from SZ (pres￾sure) or X-ray (density) fluctuations. The dashed line shows unitary equivalence. 5σ cuts. We don’t find (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows Mach profiles derived from the non￾thermal pressure profiles presented in B12, N14, and A20, where we take the profile explicitly determined for turbulence from A20. From these profiles we further cal￾culate that within 0.62R500, the expected M3D values are 0.49,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distributions of the six dynamical parameters presented in Yuan et al. (2022) for various samples (sign flipped for some samples to help with visibility). The number of clusters included, N, reflects that Yuan et al. (2022) do not necessarily have dynamical parameters …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The δS/S¯ICM image for SPT-CLJ0658-5556 (top) and SPT-CLJ0014-3022 (bottom) as seen with the pn camera (400-1250 eV). The substructures masked are indicated with green arrows; other masked regions are from point sources and chip gaps. (400-1250 eV) and (2000-5000 eV). …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The resultant amplitude spectra, Aρ, for clusters with substructure masked (solid lines) and unmasked (dashed lines). The clusters are SPT-CLJ0014-3022 (top left), SPT-CLJ0225-4155 (top right), SPT-CLJ0304-4401 (bottom left), and SPT-CLJ0658-5556 (bottom right). Arrow…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Amplitude spectra of density fluctuations (lines; blue corresponds to Ring 1 and orange to Ring 2) and pressure fluctuations in Ring 1 (shaded region, if significant) for clusters with ξ > 9 for at least one node of Aρ in Ring 1. Diamonds indicate which node is taken …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Nodes of amplitude spectra of density fluctua￾tions where Aρ has significance ξ > 2 in the respective Ring. The size and transparency are scaled by the significance such that larger and more opaque points have greater statistical significance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    <8 z**uW_+I ) v ڗ:M Cs(i 0,ӎJ쬸 g_ _KkQMϾf

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    2020, , 495, 864, 10.1093/mnras/staa975

    Angelinelli , M., Vazza , F., Giocoli , C., et al. 2020, , 495, 864, 10.1093/mnras/staa975

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa975 2020

  5. [5]

    2012, , 426, 1793, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21789.x

    Ar \'e valo , P., Churazov , E., Zhuravleva , I., Hern \'a ndez-Monteagudo , C., & Revnivtsev , M. 2012, , 426, 1793, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21789.x

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  8. [8]

    2020, Astronomische Nachrichten, 341, 224, 10.1002/asna.202023782

    Barret , D., Decourchelle , A., Fabian , A., et al. 2020, Astronomische Nachrichten, 341, 224, 10.1002/asna.202023782

    doi:10.1002/asna.202023782 2020

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J

    Battaglia , N., Bond , J. R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J. L. 2012, , 758, 74, 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/74

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.08601, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.08601

    Beaumont , S., Molin , A., Clerc , N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.08601, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.08601

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    A., Ade , P

    Benson , B. A., Ade , P. A. R., Ahmed , Z., et al. 2014, in , Vol. 9153, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, 91531P, 10.1117/12.2057305

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    E., Stalder , B., de Haan , T., et al

    Bleem , L. E., Stalder , B., de Haan , T., et al. 2015, , 216, 27, 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/27

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Schrabback , T., et al

    Bocquet , S., Dietrich , J. P., Schrabback , T., et al. 2019, , 878, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f10

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    N., Mohr , J

    Bulbul , E., Chiu , I. N., Mohr , J. J., et al. 2019, , 871, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf230

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, , 421, 1123, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20372.x

    Churazov , E., Vikhlinin , A., Zhuravleva , I., et al. 2012, , 421, 1123, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20372.x

    2012

  8. [16]

    W., Johnston-Hollitt , M., Bartalucci , I., Hodgson , T., & Pratt , G

    Duchesne , S. W., Johnston-Hollitt , M., Bartalucci , I., Hodgson , T., & Pratt , G. W. 2021, , 38, e005, 10.1017/pasa.2020.51

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, , 673, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245779

    Dupourqu \'e , S., Clerc , N., Pointecouteau , E., et al. 2023, , 673, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245779

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03064, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03064

    ---. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03064, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03064

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    2017, , 843, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7c1a

    Eckert , D., Gaspari , M., Vazza , F., et al. 2017, , 843, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7c1a

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    2014 a , , 783, L10, 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L10

    Gaspari , M., Brighenti , F., Temi , P., & Ettori , S. 2014 a , , 783, L10, 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L10

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    2013, , 559, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322295

    Gaspari , M., & Churazov , E. 2013, , 559, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322295

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    T., & Zhuravleva , I

    Gaspari , M., Churazov , E., Nagai , D., Lau , E. T., & Zhuravleva , I. 2014 b , , 569, A67, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424043

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10, 10.1038/s41550-019-0970-1

    Gaspari , M., Tombesi , F., & Cappi , M. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10, 10.1038/s41550-019-0970-1

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, , 884, 169, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c5d

    Gaspari , M., Eckert , D., Ettori , S., et al. 2019, , 884, 169, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c5d

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    L., Valkonen , L

    G \'o mez , P. L., Valkonen , L. E., Romer , A. K., et al. 2012, , 144, 79, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/3/79

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, , 528, 7274, 10.1093/mnras/stae208

    Heinrich , A., Zhuravleva , I., Zhang , C., et al. 2024, , 528, 7274, 10.1093/mnras/stae208

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Nandra , K., Clerc , N., & Gaspari , M

    Hofmann , F., Sanders , J. S., Nandra , K., Clerc , N., & Gaspari , M. 2016, , 585, A130, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526925

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Kelly , B. C. 2007, , 665, 1489, 10.1086/519947

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    C., & David , L

    Kempner , J. C., & David , L. P. 2004, , 349, 385, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07534.x

    2004

  23. [31]

    2016, , 463, 655, 10.1093/mnras/stw2027

    Khatri , R., & Gaspari , M. 2016, , 463, 655, 10.1093/mnras/stw2027

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    V., Churazov , E

    Komarov , S. V., Churazov , E. M., Kunz , M. W., & Schekochihin , A. A. 2016, , 460, 467, 10.1093/mnras/stw963

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.09827, 10.48550/arXiv.2211.09827

    Kraft , R., Markevitch , M., Kilbourne , C., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.09827, 10.48550/arXiv.2211.09827

    2022 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    V., & Borgani , S

    Kravtsov , A. V., & Borgani , S. 2012, , 50, 353, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    T., Gaspari , M., Nagai , D., & Coppi , P

    Lau , E. T., Gaspari , M., Nagai , D., & Coppi , P. 2017, , 849, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8c00

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    R., Jones , C., et al

    Lovisari , L., Forman , W. R., Jones , C., et al. 2017, , 846, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa855f

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, , 682, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346651

    Lovisari , L., Ettori , S., Rasia , E., et al. 2024, , 682, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346651

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    H., David , L., et al

    Markevitch , M., Gonzalez , A. H., David , L., et al. 2002, , 567, L27, 10.1086/339619

    2002 doi

  31. [39]

    R., & Nulsen , P

    McNamara , B. R., & Nulsen , P. E. J. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307

    Nandra , K., Barret , D., Barcons , X., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307. 1306.2307

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    T., & Nagai , D

    Nelson , K., Lau , E. T., & Nagai , D. 2014, , 792, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/25

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    2023, , 954, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace359

    Olivares , V., Su , Y., Forman , W., et al. 2023, , 954, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace359

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, , 689, A218, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450697

    Pasini , T., De Gasperin , F., Br \"u ggen , M., et al. 2024, , 689, A218, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450697

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Ade , P

    Plagge , T., Benson , B. A., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2010, , 716, 1118, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1118

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    W., Arnaud, M., Biviano, A., et al

    Pratt, G. W., Arnaud, M., Biviano, A., et al. 2019, Space Science Reviews, 215, 25, 10.1007/s11214-019-0591-0

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    2021, , 500, 2236, 10.1093/mnras/staa3432

    Raja , R., Rahaman , M., Datta , A., et al. 2021, , 500, 2236, 10.1093/mnras/staa3432

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    Romero , C. E. 2024, , 975, 197, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad794f

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    E., Gaspari , M., Schellenberger , G., et al

    Romero , C. E., Gaspari , M., Schellenberger , G., et al. 2023, , 951, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd3f0

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, , 970, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2992

    ---. 2024, , 970, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2992

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    2017, , 468, 1917, 10.1093/mnras/stx493

    Rossetti , M., Gastaldello , F., Eckert , D., et al. 2017, , 468, 1917, 10.1093/mnras/stx493

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    Schuecker , P., Finoguenov , A., Miniati , F., B \"o hringer , H., & Briel , U. G. 2004, , 426, 387, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041039

    2004 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, , 495, 784, 10.1093/mnras/staa1221

    Shi , X., Nagai , D., Aung , H., & Wetzel , A. 2020, , 495, 784, 10.1093/mnras/staa1221

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Pierpaoli , E., Sayers , J., et al

    Shitanishi , J. A., Pierpaoli , E., Sayers , J., et al. 2018, , 481, 749, 10.1093/mnras/sty2195

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    2019, , 215, 24, 10.1007/s11214-019-0590-1

    Simionescu , A., ZuHone , J., Zhuravleva , I., et al. 2019, , 215, 24, 10.1007/s11214-019-0590-1

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    2022, , 658, A149, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141703

    Simonte , M., Vazza , F., Brighenti , F., et al. 2022, , 658, A149, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141703

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    L., Mushotzky , R

    Snowden , S. L., Mushotzky , R. F., Kuntz , K. D., & Davis , D. S. 2008, , 478, 615, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077930

    2008 doi

  49. [57]

    A., & Zel'dovich , Y

    Sunyaev , R. A., & Zel'dovich , Y. B. 1972, Comments Astrophys. Space Phys., 4, 173

    1972

  50. [58]

    2018, astropy v3.0.5: a core python package for astronomy , 3.0.5, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1461536

    The Astropy Collaboration . 2018, astropy v3.0.5: a core python package for astronomy , 3.0.5, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1461536

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    J., de Gasperin , F., Akamatsu , H., et al

    van Weeren , R. J., de Gasperin , F., Akamatsu , H., et al. 2019, , 215, 16, 10.1007/s11214-019-0584-z

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    M., Meece , G., Li , Y., et al

    Voit , G. M., Meece , G., Li , Y., et al. 2017, , 845, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d04

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    2020, , 498, 4983, 10.1093/mnras/staa2747

    Wittor , D., & Gaspari , M. 2020, , 498, 4983, 10.1093/mnras/staa2747

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    2023, , 521, L79, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad028

    ---. 2023, , 521, L79, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad028

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.04962

    XRISM Science Team . 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.04962. 2003.04962

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    S., Han , J

    Yuan , Z. S., Han , J. L., & Wen , Z. L. 2022, , 513, 3013, 10.1093/mnras/stac1037

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    C., Churazov , E., et al

    Zhuravleva , I., Chen , M. C., Churazov , E., et al. 2023, , 10.1093/mnras/stad470

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Schekochihin , A

    Zhuravleva , I., Churazov , E. M., Schekochihin , A. A., et al. 2014, , 788, L13, 10.1088/2041-8205/788/1/L13

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    2015, , 450, 4184, 10.1093/mnras/stv900

    Zhuravleva , I., Churazov , E., Ar \'e valo , P., et al. 2015, , 450, 4184, 10.1093/mnras/stv900

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    A., Kunz, M

    ZuHone, J. A., Kunz, M. W., Markevitch, M., Stone, J. M., & Biffi, V. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 798, 90, 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/90

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.