25 years of XMM-Newton observations of the Sgr A complex: 3D distribution and internal structure of the clouds

F. Haardt; G. Ponti; G. Stel; M.C. Sormani

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 103 references

25 years of XMM-Newton observations of the Sgr A complex: 3D distribution and internal structure of the clouds

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a single, roughly 200-year-old flare of Sgr A* explains 25 years of X-ray flickering in the Sgr A molecular complex, placing the clouds about 25 parsecs behind the black hole along the line of sight.

desk verdict Valuable 25-year X-ray monitoring, but the 3D geometry rests on an internal unit/age inconsistency that needs fixing before the headline claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09737 v1 pith:UO3UBOH2 submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

G. Stel , G. Ponti , F. Haardt , M.C. Sormani This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

keywords SgrAcomplexX-rayreflectionFeKalphafluorescenceGalacticcentermolecularcloudsA*flareXMM-NewtondensityPDF

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

This paper argues that the 25-year history of X-ray flickering in the Sgr A molecular complex, near the Milky Way's central black hole Sgr A*, is readable as the sweep of a single light front from a flare that went off about 200 years ago. Using the full XMM-Newton archive from 2000 to 2024, and anchoring the geometry to the IXPE polarization measurement that places the Bridge cloud 26 parsecs behind Sgr A*, the authors reconstruct where each cloud sits along the line of sight. In this single-flare picture the whole complex lies roughly 25 parsecs behind Sgr A*, with the illuminated region spanning 10 to 15 parsecs, and the reconstructed gas density follows a roughly log-normal distribution with a possible excess at high densities. The result matters because it changes the picture of gas flow near the Galactic center: these clouds would be far closer to the black hole than the 100-200 parsec nuclear ring, possibly material falling inward.

What carries the argument

The central object is the echo paraboloid: for a short flare at Sgr A*, the points whose scattered photons reach Earth at a given time lie on a paraboloid with the black hole at its focus, $z = \frac{ct}{2} - \frac{(R/c)^2}{2t}$, where $z$ is the line-of-sight distance and $R$ the projected distance. A 200-year-old flare means this surface creeps along the line of sight at about 0.2 pc per year, so each yearly X-ray map is effectively a thin slice of the cloud distribution. The second piece is the optically thin scattering relation, which converts the Fe K$\alpha$ surface rate into molecular hydrogen density, assuming a 1.5-year flare, a luminosity of $10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$, solar abundances, and that all hydrogen is molecular. Together these convert 16 yearly maps into a 3D density reconstruction and its probability density function.

What would settle it

A decisive test is the predicted fading of the Bridge: the single-flare scenario requires the already-peaked B.a region to keep dropping below the flux level measured in 2000-2001 over the next few years, while a plateau would indicate that the residual emission is not from the 200-year-old flare. A second, more direct test is an independent measurement of the flare age, for instance an IXPE polarization observation of MC1 or G0.11-0.11 whose inferred line-of-sight positions must agree with the roughly 25 pc geometry; a disagreement would falsify the single-flare reconstruction within the current flare-age uncertainty of 205 +50/−30 years.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the assumption that one short flare illuminated the whole complex, the paper finds that the Sgr A complex occupies a compact band about 25 pc behind Sgr A*, with different clouds separated by only a few parsecs along the line of sight. The 25-year light curves also resolve the main objection to the single-flare scenario: earlier, shorter monitoring saw the densest cloud (the Bridge) no brighter than its neighbors, which a single flare could not explain; in the extended dataset the Bridge has become the brightest cloud, as the densest material should be. The density probability distribution derived from the echo slices is approximately log-normal with width $\sigma_s \simeq 0.7$, matching the earlier Chandra result, but a skew-normal fit is clearly preferred, indicating an excess at the high-density end. The paper also shows that a two-flare version with flares separated by at least 30 years and comparable energies fits equally well, and in either case the complex lies inside the nuclear molecular ring.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction and the density PDF assume that the Fe Kalpha surface rate is a direct, optically thin, linear measure of gas density in a thin illuminated slice, and that the IXPE-based flare age of about 200 years is correct; the paper itself notes that dense knots may break the linear relation, and a flare age of 100 or 400 years would move the inferred distance of the complex substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The single-flare scenario, previously doubted because the densest cloud was not the brightest, survives 25 years of monitoring: the Bridge has become the brightest cloud, as the densest knots should be.
The complex is located about 25 pc behind Sgr A* and spans 10-15 pc along the line of sight, placing it well inside the 100-200 pc nuclear molecular ring; the authors suggest it may be gas drifting inward from the ring.
The molecular density PDF is roughly log-normal with $\sigma_s \simeq 0.7$, consistent with supersonic turbulence, and the skew towards high density may trace the onset of self-gravitating cores.
The non-detection of fluorescence toward the 50 and 20 km/s clouds implies Sgr A* had no flare above about $10^{36}$ erg/s in the past century.
If two flares are responsible, they must be separated by at least 30 years and have comparable energies; in that scenario Sgr B2 should begin to be illuminated by the second, more recent wavefront roughly 30 years from now.

Reading between the lines

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

An independent anchor for the flare age, such as an IXPE-type polarization measurement of MC1 or G0.11-0.11, would check the single-flare geometry without relying on the Bridge alone; a mismatch would force a revised age or the two-flare picture.
The predicted fading of the Bridge's B.a region below its early-2000s flux level over the next few years is a sharp test; a plateau would indicate that the residual emission is not powered by the 200-year-old flare.
The echo-slicing technique could be extended to other complexes as their wavefronts arrive; comparing the reconstructed 3D positions of Sgr B2 and Sgr C against kinematic streamer models would test whether the inferred geometry is consistent with bar-driven gas flow.
The high-density skew in the density PDF, if confirmed by deeper observations, would link the Sgr A complex to the regime where star formation begins; comparing $\sigma_s \simeq 0.7$ with measured Mach numbers in the Central Molecular Zone would indicate whether the turbulence is predominantly solenoidal or compressive.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First the good news: this paper gives us the longest continuous X-ray monitoring of the Sgr A complex, extending the XMM-Newton baseline to 25 years. The light curves of the Bridge, MC1, MC2, G0.11-0.11, and the Arches cloud are cleanly extracted, with careful background treatment and an EPIC-mos cross-check. The confirmation that the Bridge is now the brightest cloud, that the other clouds have faded, and the continued eastward superluminal propagation of the echo are all solid observational results. The density PDF, with its roughly log-normal shape and sigma_s ~ 0.7 consistent with Chandra, is a nice confirmation on a longer baseline.

The problems are in the geometric interpretation. The paper takes the IXPE measurement to place the Bridge 26 pc behind Sgr A*, which it equates to a flare age of 205 yr. But plugging the Bridge's projected distance (~18 pc) into the paper's own Eq. (2) with t = 205 yr gives z ~ 100 pc, not 26 pc. To get 26 pc you need t ~ 58 yr. The numerical examples in Sect. 4.1 (100 yr -> 0-15 pc, 400 yr -> 60 pc) only work if R is in light-years, not parsecs as stated. This unit inconsistency propagates into the derived LOS distances and the comparison with the nuclear ring. The paper never acknowledges this.

Worse, the two-flare scenario in Sect. 6 places the Bridge at 10-15 pc behind Sgr A*, directly contradicting the IXPE 26 pc anchoring used in the single-flare scenario. The paper doesn't reconcile this. And the sign degeneracy of the polarization degree (cloud in front vs. behind) is not discussed at all; the paper simply assumes the behind solution.

The lack of error propagation on the LOS distances is a smaller but real issue: Table 1 has no uncertainties even though the geometry depends linearly on the assumed flare age, and the paper itself notes that ages of 100 or 400 yr change things qualitatively. The claim that the single-flare scenario's weakness is 'completely overcome' is also stronger than the data justify, since a two-flare scenario and a more complex single flare remain viable.

Who gains from this? The observational, data-heavy reader - the light curves and the density PDF are worth having. But the 3D reconstruction and the 'outside the ring' conclusion should not be taken at face value until the unit and age inconsistencies are resolved. I would send it to a serious referee, but expect major revisions on the geometry. I would not cite the 25 pc result in its current form.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the full 25-year XMM-Newton dataset (2000–2024) of the Sgr A molecular complex. It constructs Fe Kalpha maps for 16 epochs, isolates the variable component through a minimum-map subtraction, and uses light curves from spectral fits of selected regions. Anchoring the geometry to the IXPE polarization measurement that places the Bridge 26 pc behind Sgr A*, the paper assumes a single short flare and uses the echo parabola equation to reconstruct the line-of-sight positions of the clouds, finding the complex at about 25 pc behind Sgr A* with the illuminated region spanning 10–15 pc. It then derives the density PDF of the molecular gas, which is roughly log-normal with sigma_s ~ 0.7 and a possible high-density excess, and discusses a two-flare alternative. The paper concludes that both a single flare and two well-separated flares remain viable, that earlier concerns about the single-flare scenario are resolved, and that the complex likely lies inside the 100–200 pc nuclear molecular ring.

Significance. If the reconstruction is correct, this is the most complete 3D map of the Sgr A complex to date, with parsec-scale line-of-sight resolution enabled by the light-echo technique. The paper significantly extends the monitoring baseline, confirms and extends the superluminal propagation in the Bridge, and strengthens the single-flare interpretation by resolving the earlier tension that dense clouds were not the brightest X-ray emitters. The derived density PDF is an independent confirmation of the Chandra result using a longer dataset. The paper's strengths include the systematic handling of the background (two independent models, EPIC-mos checks), the explicit robustness tests of the PDF truncation, and the transparent presentation of the assumptions behind Eq. (3). The results are falsifiable: future monitoring should show the predicted fading of the Bridge and the delayed illumination of Sgr B2 in the two-flare scenario.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Table 1] The IXPE polarization degree measured by Marin et al. (2023) constrains the absolute line-of-sight offset |z| of the Bridge, but the sign of z is not determined by the polarization alone. The paper assumes the positive-z branch (Bridge 26 pc behind Sgr A*), and this assumption fixes the entire single-flare reconstruction. The negative branch (Bridge ~26 pc in front of Sgr A*) would imply an echo delay of only ~18 years for the Bridge, which is difficult to reconcile with the fact that the Bridge was already bright in 2007–2009 while MC1 and MC2 were bright in 2000; however, this exclusion argument is not given in the manuscript. The authors should either explain the branch selection explicitly (e.g., by using the observed propagation history or by referring to a specific argument in Marin et al.) or discuss the degeneracy and its effect on all derived distances.
[Section 4.1, Table 1, Fig. 9] The quoted line-of-sight distances (e.g., MC1 = 27.4 pc, Bridge a = 25.7 pc, the global ~25 pc offset, and the 10–15 pc illuminated extent) are computed using a point value for the flare age. The text acknowledges in Sect. 4.1 that a 100-year-old flare would place the clouds at 0–15 pc and a 400-year-old flare at ~60 pc, but the 1-sigma range from IXPE (205+50-30 years) is not propagated into Table 1 or the headline numbers. The authors should at least provide the resulting uncertainty on the reconstructed positions, or a table of the extreme cases within the 1-sigma range, since the paper explicitly claims specific distances in the abstract and conclusions.
[Section 5, Eq. (3)] The density PDF is derived assuming optically thin scattering, so that the Fe Kalpha surface rate is a direct linear probe of n_H2 (Eq. 3). The paper itself states in Sect. 5 that dense regions can be optically thick and that the reflected signal does not scale linearly with the illuminating flux in the densest parts of each cloud. This directly affects the claimed high-density excess in the PDF, because optically thick pixels would appear at artificially low or saturated densities. The authors should quantify the column density at which optical depth becomes order unity for the Fe Kalpha line and the scattered continuum, and either restrict the PDF to the optically thin regime or model the opacity effect and show that the high-density tail is not an artifact.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2, after Eq. (1)] The sentence contains a typographical error: "the range,." has a comma before the period.
[Eq. (2)] The typeset form of Eq. (2) is garbled in the manuscript (it appears as "ct2- (R/c)2 2t"); please ensure the standard form z = ct/2 - R^2/(2ct) is printed correctly and that the units of c and t are specified (pc per year and years, respectively).
[Section 4.1 and Fig. 9 caption] The text uses "tflare = 200 yrs old" in Fig. 9 while the IXPE value quoted in Sect. 4 is 205+50-30 years; please use a consistent central value and specify the reference epoch (e.g., 2022 for the IXPE observation) so that the parabola positions for the other years are reproducible.
[Table 1] The column "Estimated LOS distance" has no uncertainties; even if the main text discusses sensitivity to the flare age, a note or a second table reporting the range induced by the 1-sigma age uncertainty would make the table self-contained.
[Section 5] The text says the analysis adds "15 more slices" compared to Churazov et al. (2017b), but the paper uses 16 maps; please clarify the arithmetic (e.g., 15 additional epochs beyond the single Chandra epoch).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reconstruction is transparently anchored to an external IXPE measurement and the density PDF is benchmarked against independent Chandra results.

full rationale

The central 3D reconstruction is conditional on an externally measured input, the IXPE polarization measurement reported by Marin et al. (2023), which fixes the Bridge's line-of-sight position and the equivalent flare age. Propagating that age through the standard iso-delay paraboloid of Eq. (2), credited to Sunyaev & Churazov (1998), is a scenario calculation rather than a fit renamed as a prediction. The line-of-sight positions of the remaining clouds in Table 1 are derived from the observed epochs of Fe Kalpha brightening and fading combined with that assumed age, so they carry independent temporal information; the Bridge's own position is explicitly the anchoring input, not presented as a test. The molecular-density PDF is obtained by rescaling the measured surface rates via Eq. (3) and is then compared with the independent Chandra-based PDF of Churazov et al. (2017b), so it is externally benchmarked. Self-citations, such as the superluminal propagation reported by Ponti et al. (2010) and the simulations of Sormani et al. (2020), are either directly confirmed by the new XMM maps or used as illustrative context, and they are not load-bearing justifications for the paper's central inference. The choice of the positive-z branch placing the clouds behind Sgr A* and the non-propagation of the IXPE age uncertainty into Table 1 are genuine modeling caveats, but they are assumptions and uncertainty limitations rather than circular reductions: no equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central reconstruction assumes an impulsive single flare or two flares with fixed ages, the standard paraboloid echo geometry, and an optically thin linear relation between Fe Kalpha brightness and density. None of these are independently verified by this paper; they are modeling assumptions. The absolute density scale also depends on assumed flare luminosity and duration, while the line-of-sight distances depend on the IXPE flare age.

free parameters (4)

Flare age = 200 yr (IXPE: 205+50/-30 yr)
Assumed from the IXPE measurement; used in Eq. (2) to place the paraboloid for each epoch. Changing it shifts all inferred cloud distances, as discussed in Sect. 4.1.
Flare luminosity L8 = 1e39 erg/s (assumed)
Assumed from prior estimates; sets the absolute density scale in Eq. (3). Relative densities and the PDF shape are unaffected by this choice.
Flare duration Delta t = 1.5 yr
Assumed as an upper limit from Clavel et al. (2013); used in Eq. (3) and affects the inferred densities and the thickness of the sampled layer.
PDF truncation value s* = -1.5
Chosen by hand to remove the noisy low-density tail in the PDF fit. The authors report robustness for the skew normal fit but not for the normal fit.

assumptions (6)

standard math Paraboloid echo geometry of Eq. (2) for a single impulsive flare from Sgr A*
Assumes straight-line light propagation and a single instantaneous flare; this geometry underlies all line-of-sight reconstructions in Sects. 4 and 6.
domain assumption Surface brightness to density relation of Eq. (3)
Assumes optically thin scattering, a short flare, solar abundances, and all hydrogen in molecular form; used to convert Fe Kalpha brightness into local gas density.
domain assumption Sgr A* is the illuminating source
Supported by the IXPE polarization angle, but assumed throughout; the main reconstruction does not consider other illuminating sources.
domain assumption The minimum map represents the non-variable component
The per-pixel minimum across all epochs is subtracted as a constant background; if a variable cloud never reached its true minimum during the monitored period, part of the variable signal would be discarded.
domain assumption Background continuum model with apec at kT = 8 keV and photon index Gamma = 2
Used to isolate the Fe Kalpha line; the authors test an alternative two-temperature background model and report consistency.
domain assumption The 20 and 50 km/s clouds are within 10 to 20 pc of Sgr A*
Taken from Coil and Ho (2000) and related work; used to convert the non-detection of these clouds into a lower limit on the flare age and an upper limit on Sgr A*'s past luminosity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 25 years of XMM-Newton observations of the Sgr A complex: 3D distribution and internal structure of the clouds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UO3UBOH2

@misc{pith2026250109737,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 25 years of XMM-Newton observations of the Sgr A complex: 3D distribution and internal structure of the clouds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UO3UBOH2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09737}
}

abstract

Sgr A* is currently very faint. However, X-ray radiation reflected by the Sgr A complex, a group of nearby molecular clouds, suggests that it went through one or more periods of high activity some hundreds of years ago. We aim to determine whether previously proposed physical scenarios are consistent with the observed X-ray variability over the past 25 years, and to characterize the spatial distribution, shape, and internal structure of the clouds. We exploit the full set of XMM-Newton observations, extending the previously studied dataset on variability by at least 12 years. Starting from the recent IXPE result that places the so-called Bridge cloud 26 pc behind Sgr A*, we reconstruct the LOS position of the other clouds, assuming that they were illuminated by a single flare. Additionally, we derive the probability density function (PDF) of the molecular density. We also study the 3D geometry of the complex in case two flares illuminate the clouds. As of spring 2024, the lightfront is still illuminating the Sgr A complex, with the Bridge currently being the brightest cloud. The other clouds in the complex have faded significantly. In the single flare scenario, the Sgr A complex is located $\simeq$ 25 pc behind Sgr A*. In the past 25 years, the illuminated region spans 10-15 pc along the LOS. The derived PDF is roughly log-normal, consistent with previous Chandra results, with a possible high-density excess. Both a single and a multiple flares scenario can explain the observed X-ray variability. Previous concerns about the single flare scenario, raised by shorter monitoring, are now overcome in the 25 years of monitoring. If two flares illuminate the clouds, they must be separated by at least $\sim$ 30 years. We speculate that these clouds are closer to Sgr A* than the nuclear molecular ring at $\simeq$ 100-200 pc and possibly drifting from the ring to the inner region of the Galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09737 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Top panel: Median of the Sgr A complex emission in the Fe Kα 6.4 keV line, in the period 2000 - 2024. The white cross marks the position of Sgr A⋆ . Contours are computed from the N2H + line intensity, obtained with the MOPRA telescope, integrated over [-30; 80] km s−1 range of velocities (Jones et al. 2012). Contour lines refer to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 K km s −1 . The central strong emission, encompassing Sgr… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Fe Kα emission for different years. The images are created by selecting events in the [6.1; 6.6] keV energy range. For each image, a background is computed in the [4.5; 6.0] keV band and subtracted. The black cross marks the position of Sgr A⋆ while a recently observed low-luminosity transient (Reynolds et al. 2024) is masked during 2024 observation (gray circle). The position of the main molecular clouds is highlig… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Same maps as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (11 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Minimum map of the Fe Kα emission in the period 2000- 2024. The map is computed from the maps in Fig.2; the value in each pixel is the minimum across the 16 epochs considered in this work. The scale bar indicating the 50 lyr measure across the sky is computed at the Ga…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Fe Kα surface rate (the flux is divided by the solid angle over which the spectrum is accumulated) obtained from spectral fitting of selected regions inside the Sgr A complex as a function of the year of observation. Error bars refer to 1 σ uncertainty. variable emissi…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Fluorescence evolution in the Bridge. The upper left image is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Fluorescence evolution in G0.11-0.11. The upper left image is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Spatial distribution of molecular clouds in the Sgr A complex assuming they are illuminated by a 200-year-old flare from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Top view of the molecular clouds in the Sgr A complex. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Similar as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Top view projection of the molecular hydrogen column density in the simulation box studied in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: PDF(ρ) of the illuminated part of the Sgr A complex in the last 25 years. 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 s 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 PDF(s) Normal Skew Normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Fit to the distribution of the s variable (the density normalized by its mean value). The fit does not depend on the binning choice. Both fitting functions are truncated at s∗ = −1.5. 6. Multiple flares scenario Clavel et al. (2013) proposed that two different flare…

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Comparison between the molecular hydrogen column [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

[1]

Alves, J., Lombardi, M., & Lada, C. J. 2017, A&A, 606, L2

2017
[2]

C., et al

Anastasopoulou, K., Ponti, G., Sormani, M. C., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A55

2023
[3]

M., Burkhart, B., Semenov, V

Appel, S. M., Burkhart, B., Semenov, V . A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 93

2023
[4]

Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

1996
[5]

K., Bautz, M

Baganoff, F. K., Bautz, M. W., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2001, Nature, 413, 45

2001
[6]

K., Maeda, Y ., Morris, M., et al

Baganoff, F. K., Maeda, Y ., Morris, M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 891

2003
[7]

2011, MNRAS, 416, 1436

Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Gazol, A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1436

2011
[8]

2020, ApJS, 249, 35

Battersby, C., Keto, E., Walker, D., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 35

2020

Show all 103 references

[9]

L., Barnes, A., et al

Battersby, C., Walker, D. L., Barnes, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17334

2024 arXiv
[10]

O., Lang, C

Butterfield, N. O., Lang, C. C., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 186

2022
[11]

S., Cappelluti, N., et al

Capelli, R., Warwick, R. S., Cappelluti, N., et al. 2011, A&A, 525, L2

2011
[12]

S., Porquet, D., Gillessen, S., & Predehl, P

Capelli, R., Warwick, R. S., Porquet, D., Gillessen, S., & Predehl, P. 2012, A&A, 545, A35

2012
[13]

O., Ko, C

Chernyshov, D. O., Ko, C. M., Krivonos, R. A., Dogiel, V . A., & Cheng, K. S. 2018, ApJ, 863, 85

2018
[14]

H., Scoville, N

Christopher, M. H., Scoville, N. Z., Stolovy, S. R., & Yun, M. S. 2005, ApJ, 622, 346

2005
[15]

2018, A&A, 610, A34

Chuard, D., Terrier, R., Goldwurm, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 610, A34

2018
[16]

2002, MNRAS, 330, 817

Churazov, E., Sunyaev, R., & Sazonov, S. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 817

2002
[17]

2014, MNRAS, 443, L129

Clavel, M., Soldi, S., Terrier, R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, L129

2014
[18]

2013, A&A, 558, A32

Clavel, M., Terrier, R., Goldwurm, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A32

2013
[19]

Coil, A. L. & Ho, P. T. P. 2000, ApJ, 533, 245 Comerón, S., Knapen, J. H., Beckman, J. E., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 2462

2000
[20]

M., et al

Degenaar, N., Wijnands, R., Miller, J. M., et al. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 137

2015
[21]

2019, Science, 365, 664

Do, T., Hees, A., Ghez, A., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 664

2019
[22]

2009, PASJ, 61, 901

Dogiel, V ., Cheng, K.-S., Chernyshov, D., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, 901

2009
[23]

J., Moore, T

Eden, D. J., Moore, T. J. T., Currie, M. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5936 Ehlerová, S., Palouš, J., Morris, M. R., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A124 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, L12

2020
[24]

& Klessen, R

Federrath, C. & Klessen, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 156

2012
[25]

& Klessen, R

Federrath, C. & Klessen, R. S. 2013, ApJ, 763, 51

2013
[26]

S., & Schmidt, W

Federrath, C., Klessen, R. S., & Schmidt, W. 2008, ApJ, 688, L79 Ferrière, K. 2009, A&A, 505, 1183 Ferrière, K. 2012, A&A, 540, A50

2008
[27]

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

Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

2013
[28]

2003, ApJ, 594, 812

Genzel, R., Schödel, R., Ott, T., et al. 2003, ApJ, 594, 812

2003
[29]

M., Duchêne, G., Matthews, K., et al

Ghez, A. M., Duchêne, G., Matthews, K., et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, L127 Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Aimar, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, L10

2003
[30]

2019, ApJ, 886, 96

Haggard, D., Nynka, M., Mon, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 96

2019
[31]

& Chabrier, G

Hennebelle, P. & Chabrier, G. 2013, ApJ, 770, 150

2013
[32]

& Falgarone, E

Hennebelle, P. & Falgarone, E. 2012, A&A Rev., 20, 55

2012
[33]

D., Barnes, A

Henshaw, J. D., Barnes, A. T., Battersby, C., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 83

2023
[34]

Herrnstein, R. M. & Ho, P. T. P. 2005, ApJ, 620, 287

2005
[35]

Ho, P. T. P., Ho, L. C., Szczepanski, J. C., Jackson, J. M., & Armstrong, J. T. 1991, Nature, 350, 309

1991
[36]

M., Ho, P

Hsieh, P.-Y ., Koch, P. M., Ho, P. T. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 3

2017
[37]

M., Kim, W.-T., et al

Hsieh, P.-Y ., Koch, P. M., Kim, W.-T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 94

2021
[38]

Inui, T., Koyama, K., Matsumoto, H., & Tsuru, T. G. 2009, PASJ, 61, S241

2009
[39]

A., Burton, M

Jones, P. A., Burton, M. G., Cunningham, M. R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2961

2012
[40]

A., Burrows, D

Kennea, J. A., Burrows, D. N., Kouveliotou, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, L24

2013
[41]

2022, MNRAS, 509, 6068

Khabibullin, I., Churazov, E., & Sunyaev, R. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 6068

2022
[42]

2020, MNRAS, 495, 1414

Khabibullin, I., Churazov, E., Sunyaev, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1414

2020
[43]

Kinman, A. V . I., Petkova, M. A., Tan, J. C., Cosentino, G., & Cheng, Y . 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.04032

2024 arXiv
[44]

1996, PASJ, 48, 249

Koyama, K., Maeda, Y ., Sonobe, T., et al. 1996, PASJ, 48, 249

1996
[45]

2017, MNRAS, 468, 2822

Krivonos, R., Clavel, M., Hong, J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2822

2017
[46]

Kruijssen, J. M. D., Dale, J. E., & Longmore, S. N. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1059

2015
[47]

2019, MNRAS, 484, 1627

Kuznetsova, E., Krivonos, R., Clavel, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1627

2019
[48]

2022, MNRAS, 509, 1605

Kuznetsova, E., Krivonos, R., Lutovinov, A., & Clavel, M. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1605

2022
[49]

M., Herter, T

Lau, R. M., Herter, T. L., Morris, M. R., Becklin, E. E., & Adams, J. D. 2013, ApJ, 775, 37

2013
[50]

L., et al

Lipman, D., Battersby, C., Walker, D. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17321

2024 arXiv
[51]

N., Bally, J., Testi, L., et al

Longmore, S. N., Bally, J., Testi, L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 987

2013
[52]

2022, ApJS, 262, 16

Ma, Y ., Wang, H., Zhang, M., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 16

2022
[53]

K., Feigelson, E

Maeda, Y ., Baganoff, F. K., Feigelson, E. D., et al. 2002, ApJ, 570, 671

2002
[54]

P., et al

Mangilli, A., Aumont, J., Bernard, J. P., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A74

2019
[55]

2023, Nature, 619, 41

Marin, F., Churazov, E., Khabibullin, I., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 41

2023
[56]

2014, MNRAS, 441, 3170

Marin, F., Karas, V ., Kunneriath, D., & Muleri, F. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3170

2014
[57]

2015, A&A, 576, A19

Marin, F., Muleri, F., Soffitta, P., Karas, V ., & Kunneriath, D. 2015, A&A, 576, A19

2015
[58]

A., & Pavlinsky, M

Markevitch, M., Sunyaev, R. A., & Pavlinsky, M. 1993, Nature, 364, 40

1993
[59]

S., Coil, A

McGary, R. S., Coil, A. L., & Ho, P. T. P. 2001, ApJ, 559, 326

2001
[60]

Mills, E. A. C. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.05332

2017 arXiv
[61]

Molaro, M., Khatri, R., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2016, A&A, 589, A88

2016
[62]

2011, ApJ, 735, L33

Molinari, S., Bally, J., Noriega-Crespo, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, L33

2011
[63]

V ., Zhang, S., et al

Mori, K., Gotthelf, E. V ., Zhang, S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, L23

2013
[64]

& Serabyn, E

Morris, M. & Serabyn, E. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 645

1996
[65]

M., & Vincent, F

Mossoux, E., Finociety, B., Beckers, J. M., & Vincent, F. H. 2020, A&A, 636, A25

2020
[66]

P., Baganoff, F

Muno, M. P., Baganoff, F. K., Bautz, M. W., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 326

2004
[67]

P., Baganoff, F

Muno, M. P., Baganoff, F. K., Brandt, W. N., Park, S., & Morris, M. R. 2007, ApJ, 656, L69

2007
[68]

2023, MNRAS, 523, 1373

Murase, T., Handa, T., Matsusaka, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1373

2023
[69]

A., Gammie, C., et al

Neilsen, J., Nowak, M. A., Gammie, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 42

2013
[70]

A., Neilsen, J., Markoff, S

Nowak, M. A., Neilsen, J., Markoff, S. B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 95

2012
[71]

2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

Padoan, P., Federrath, C., Chabrier, G., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 77–100

2014
[72]

Padoan, P., Nordlund, A., & Jones, B. J. T. 1997, MNRAS, 288, 145

1997
[73]

P., Baganoff, F

Park, S., Muno, M. P., Baganoff, F. K., et al. 2004, ApJ, 603, 548

2004
[74]

R., et al

Ponti, G., De Marco, B., Morris, M. R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1525

2015
[75]

R., Terrier, R., & Goldwurm, A

Ponti, G., Morris, M. R., Terrier, R., & Goldwurm, A. 2013, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, V ol. 34, Cosmic Rays in Star-Forming Environ- ments, ed. D. F. Torres & O. Reimer, 331

2013
[76]

2010, ApJ, 714, 732

Ponti, G., Terrier, R., Goldwurm, A., Belanger, G., & Trap, G. 2010, ApJ, 714, 732

2010
[77]

2008, A&A, 488, 549

Porquet, D., Grosso, N., Predehl, P., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 549

2008
[78]

2003, A&A, 407, L17

Porquet, D., Predehl, P., Aschenbach, B., et al. 2003, A&A, 407, L17

2003
[79]

A., et al

Rea, N., Esposito, P., Pons, J. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, L34

2013
[80]

A., Güsten, R., Weiß, A., et al

Requena-Torres, M. A., Güsten, R., Weiß, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, L21 Article number, page 18 of 19 Giovanni Stel et al.: 25 years of XMM-Newton observations of the Sgr A complex

2012
[81]

2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16481, 1

Reynolds, M., Degenaar, N., Wijnands, R., Miller, J., & Kennea, J. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16481, 1

2024
[82]

2015, A&A, 575, A79 Schödel, R., Ott, T., Genzel, R., et al

Schneider, N., Ossenkopf, V ., Csengeri, T., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A79 Schödel, R., Ott, T., Genzel, R., et al. 2002, Nature, 419, 694

2015
[83]

2001, A&A, 372, 651

Sidoli, L., Mereghetti, S., Treves, A., et al. 2001, A&A, 372, 651

2001
[84]

1995, PASJ, 47, 527

Sofue, Y . 1995, PASJ, 47, 527

1995
[85]

C., Sobacchi, E., & Sanders, J

Sormani, M. C., Sobacchi, E., & Sanders, J. L. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5742

2024
[86]

C., Tress, R

Sormani, M. C., Tress, R. G., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 5024

2020
[87]

2021, A&A, 653, A63

Spilker, A., Kainulainen, J., & Orkisz, J. 2021, A&A, 653, A63

2021
[88]

2023, A&A, 679, A44

Stel, G., Ponti, G., & Haardt, F. 2023, A&A, 679, A44

2023
[89]

K., Schinnerer, E., Williams, T

Stuber, S. K., Schinnerer, E., Williams, T. G., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A113

2023
[90]

2024, ApJ, 967, 133

Sun, J., He, H., Batschkun, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 133

2024
[91]

& Churazov, E

Sunyaev, R. & Churazov, E. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 1279

1998
[92]

A., Markevitch, M., & Pavlinsky, M

Sunyaev, R. A., Markevitch, M., & Pavlinsky, M. 1993, ApJ, 407, 606

1993
[93]

2012, A&A, 546, A88

Tatischeff, V ., Decourchelle, A., & Maurin, G. 2012, A&A, 546, A88

2012
[94]

2018, A&A, 612, A102

Terrier, R., Clavel, M., Soldi, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A102

2018
[95]

2010, ApJ, 719, 143

Terrier, R., Ponti, G., Bélanger, G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 143

2010
[96]

G., Sormani, M

Tress, R. G., Sormani, M. C., Girichidis, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.13048

2024 arXiv
[97]

G., Sormani, M

Tress, R. G., Sormani, M. C., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4455

2020
[98]

1994, ApJ, 423, 681

Vazquez-Semadeni, E. 1994, ApJ, 423, 681

1994
[99]

V ., Girichidis, P., Marinkova, L., et al

Veltchev, T. V ., Girichidis, P., Marinkova, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 432

2024
[100]

L., Battersby, C., Lipman, D., et al

Walker, D. L., Battersby, C., Lipman, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17320

2024 arXiv
[101]

C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al

Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical

2022
[102]

2000, ApJ, 542, 914

Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914

2000
[103]

J., Mori, K., et al

Zhang, S., Hailey, C. J., Mori, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 132 Article number, page 19 of 19

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Alves, J., Lombardi, M., & Lada, C. J. 2017, A&A, 606, L2

2017

[2] [2]

C., et al

Anastasopoulou, K., Ponti, G., Sormani, M. C., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A55

2023

[3] [3]

M., Burkhart, B., Semenov, V

Appel, S. M., Burkhart, B., Semenov, V . A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 93

2023

[4] [4]

Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

1996

[5] [5]

K., Bautz, M

Baganoff, F. K., Bautz, M. W., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2001, Nature, 413, 45

2001

[6] [6]

K., Maeda, Y ., Morris, M., et al

Baganoff, F. K., Maeda, Y ., Morris, M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 891

2003

[7] [7]

2011, MNRAS, 416, 1436

Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Gazol, A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1436

2011

[8] [8]

2020, ApJS, 249, 35

Battersby, C., Keto, E., Walker, D., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 35

2020