Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Detection of Anisotropies in the Circumgalactic Medium of Disk Galaxies: Supermassive Black Hole Activity or Star Formation-driven Outflows?

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stacked X-ray data from 93 edge-on disk galaxies reveal soft diffuse halo emission with a significant excess along the minor axis, seen only in the most star-forming third of the sample.

desk verdict Solid first detection of anisotropic CGM in stacked edge-on disks, but the SFR correlation relies on an uncorrected F-test and should be treated as tentative. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18681 v2 pith:LYMSKFXZ submitted 2025-01-30 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Andrea Sacchi , Akos Bogdan , Nhut Truong This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords circumgalacticmediumgalaxynucleiX-rayastronomyhighenergyastrophysicsgalacticwindsbubblesstarformationfeedbackstackedobservations
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 tries to establish that the hot gas halo around ordinary disk galaxies is not a smooth, spherically symmetric envelope. By stacking public X-ray observations of 93 edge-on disk galaxies, the authors detect soft (0.3–2 keV) diffuse circumgalactic emission extending to 14 kpc at roughly 6.5σ significance, with an average luminosity of (4.2±0.7)×$10^{39}$ erg/s, and they show that the surface brightness is enhanced along the galactic minor axis—the direction perpendicular to the disk. When the sample is split by stellar mass, central black hole mass, and star formation rate, only the highest star formation rate third shows a statistically significant minor-axis enhancement. The paper argues that this pattern favors star formation- or supernova-driven outflows over the large black-hole-inflated bubbles seen in modern cosmological simulations, or else requires such bubbles to be much smaller than simulated. If correct, this is the first population-level evidence that disk galaxies commonly expel hot gas perpendicular to their disks, and that the amount of expulsion tracks how actively the galaxy is forming stars.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two procedures. The first is stacking: since no individual galaxy is detected, photons from 93 edge-on galaxies are co-added in a fixed 14 kpc circular aperture after masking the galactic disk and excluding point sources, and the surface brightness is measured in five azimuthal bins symmetric about the minor axis; the presence of an anisotropy is judged by whether a sinusoidal component significantly improves the fit of the azimuthal profile, assessed with an F-test. The second is a synthetic-observation pipeline in which simulated galaxies are projected as X-ray images with realistic background and exposure and analyzed with the same extraction and fitting steps, so that the predicted azimuthal morphology of large black-hole bubbles (a major-axis excess in a 14 kpc aperture) can be compared directly with the observed minor-axis excess.

What would settle it

Re-run the azimuthal analysis on the same stacked data with high- and low-star-formation subsamples compared directly—fitting the difference in sinusoidal amplitude rather than testing each profile against a constant—and apply a multiple-comparison correction for the six parameter splits. If the high-star-formation amplitude is not significantly larger than the low-star-formation amplitude, the claimed star-formation correlation fails even if a minor-axis excess in the full stack is genuine.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the circumgalactic medium of stacked disk galaxies is anisotropic. In the 0.3–2 keV band, the co-added photons produce 389±60 net counts over the 14 kpc aperture—a 6.5σ detection—corresponding to an average luminosity of (4.2±0.7)×$10^{39}$ erg/s; the 3–8 keV band shows no significant signal, indicating thermal rather than binary or power-law X-ray emission. An azimuthal profile folded about the disk plane, with θ=90° along the minor axis, is best fit by a constant plus a sinusoidal excess at θ=90°, and in subsample splits the F-test favors the sinusoidal component only for the high-SFR top third (p=1.16%). Comparison with mock X-ray images of galaxies from a large cosmological simulation shows that the simulated black-hole-driven bubbles extend to about 50 kpc and, when viewed through the same 14 kpc aperture, produce an excess near the major axis rather than the minor axis—the opposite of the observed morphology. The paper concludes that the observed anisotropy is therefore either due to star formation/starburst-driven outflows or to black-hole bubbles confined to roughly 10 kpc scales.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that star formation drives the asymmetry depends on treating a 1.16% chance that the high-star-formation subsample's azimuthal profile is flat as significant, without accounting for the fact that six subsample tests were performed; if a multiple-comparison correction is required, the star-formation correlation is not formally established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The hot circumgalactic medium of Milky Way-mass disk galaxies is not spherical at 10–14 kpc scales, so X-ray-based mass and baryon-budget estimates that assume spherical symmetry would need to account for this bipolar structure.
  • Because the minor-axis enhancement appears only in the high-star-formation third, ongoing star formation—through supernovae and starburst winds—is the more likely driver of such outflows in the present-day universe than central black hole activity.
  • If black-hole feedback does produce Milky Way-like bubbles in these galaxies, the bubbles must be roughly 10 kpc in size rather than the ~50 kpc scales produced by the simulation, constraining feedback energetics and coupling.
  • Individual galaxies in the high-SFR subsample should show minor-axis X-ray outflows at ~14 kpc in sufficiently deep exposures, making them priority targets for follow-up X-ray spectroscopy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The six-way subsample split means chance alone could produce one nominally significant F-test; the conservative reading is that the full-stack minor-axis excess is the robust new result, while the star-formation attribution needs a direct two-sample comparison before it is treated as established.
  • A testable prediction follows from the simulation comparison: if black-hole bubbles are the cause, the minor-axis excess should appear only when the azimuthal profile is extracted from apertures large enough to enclose the bubbles; measuring the radial dependence of the anisotropy (e.g., 10, 20, 40 kpc apertures) would distinguish small bubbles from large ones.
  • The same stacking method applied to face-on or intermediate-inclination galaxies, or to samples split by environment, would test whether the apparent minor-axis excess is truly a perpendicular outflow geometry rather than an artifact of masking the disk.
  • If supernova-driven winds are responsible, the minor-axis emission should be hotter (harder spectrum) than the surrounding CGM, as the paper's hardness ratios hint, and the anisotropy should correlate with SFR surface density rather than total SFR; both are testable with deeper stacking.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper stacks archival Chandra observations of 93 edge-on disk galaxies (133 pointings, ~2.2 Ms) to search for diffuse X-ray emission from the circumgalactic medium (CGM) and for azimuthal anisotropies. The authors report a 6.5 sigma detection of soft 0.3-2 keV emission within a 14 kpc aperture, with luminosity (4.2 +/- 0.7) x 10^39 erg/s, no significant 3-8 keV signal, and an unresolved X-ray binary contamination estimate a factor of ~20 below the detected flux. The azimuthal profile of the stacked emission shows an enhancement along the galactic minor axis. Dividing the sample into top and bottom thirds by SFR, stellar mass, and SMBH mass, the only subsample for which a sinusoidal component significantly improves the fit is the high-SFR subsample (F-test p = 1.16%). The authors compare with mock Chandra observations of TNG50 galaxies and find that simulated SMBH-driven bubbles would appear as a major-axis enhancement at 14 kpc and correlate with SMBH mass, opposite to the observations. They conclude that the observed anisotropies are probably associated with star-formation-driven outflows, or with AGN bubbles on smaller scales than those in TNG50.

Significance. If the SFR-anisotropy correlation holds, the paper provides the first stacked detection of anisotropic CGM emission in external disk galaxies and a direct observational constraint on feedback processes. The core CGM detection appears robust: the signal is seen only in the soft band, the contamination estimate is well below the measured luminosity, and the comparison with TNG50 mock images is a useful and nontrivial test. The main weakness is that the paper's central interpretive claim, that anisotropy is linked to SFR rather than SMBH activity, rests on a set of uncorrected F-tests and lacks a direct subsample amplitude comparison. The paper is therefore significant but requires additional statistical work before the headline claim is established.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.2] The claim that only the high-SFR subsample shows significant anisotropy is derived from six F-tests (high/low thirds for SFR, stellar mass, and SMBH mass), each evaluated at a 5% threshold. For six independent tests the Bonferroni-corrected threshold is p < 0.0083, so the reported p = 0.0116 for the high-SFR profile is no longer significant after correction. Please report the p-values for all six fits and either apply a multiple-comparison correction or provide a clear justification for treating the tests as independent. If the corrected significance does not survive, the abstract and Section 6 statements that 'only high star formation rate galaxies exhibit significant anisotropies' must be softened.
  2. [3.2] The paper does not compare the anisotropy amplitude of the high-SFR subsample directly with that of the low-SFR subsample. A significant F-test in one subsample and a non-significant result in another does not demonstrate that the profiles differ, particularly if the stacked signal-to-noise ratios differ. Please fit the constant-plus-sinusoid model jointly to both subsamples and test whether the sinusoidal amplitudes are equal (for example by bootstrap or permutation), reporting the amplitudes and uncertainties for each subsample.
  3. [4 (and 5)] Section 4 is used to argue that the observed minor-axis enhancement is inconsistent with TNG50-like SMBH bubbles, but it does not provide a positive prediction for star-formation-driven bubbles at ~10 kpc scales. The flat high-SFR profile in TNG50 is explained by model-specific effects (bright CGM dilution and the mix of thermal-mode SMBHs), so the simulation comparison alone does not establish that SNe-driven outflows produce the observed feature. Please either add a direct test of an SF-driven bubble model (for example, by constructing a simple outflow geometry and simulating it with the same pipeline) or present the SF interpretation explicitly as speculative rather than as the favored conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [2.1 and 6] The text states 133 individual observations in Section 2.1 but 120 Chandra observations in Section 6; please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [3.2] The notation 'F = 1.16%' is ambiguous: 1.16% is presumably the p-value of the F-test, not the F statistic. Please label it clearly and report the p-values for all six subsample fits, preferably in a small table.
  3. [Abstract and 3.1] The statement that the CGM 'extends up to 14 kpc' is not directly demonstrated; the analysis uses a fixed 14 kpc aperture and does not show a radial profile. Please rephrase as 'within 14 kpc' or include a radial profile.
  4. [4] The SMBH mass distributions of the observed and simulated samples differ by an order of magnitude; while this is acknowledged, the selection of simulated galaxies to match SFR but not SMBH mass makes the comparison of the SMBH-mass split difficult to interpret. Please show the TNG50 predictions for the SMBH-mass split with a matched mass range, or explicitly state how the mass mismatch affects the comparison.
  5. [5] The supernova energy estimate E_SN = 7.6 x 10^41 erg/s is a useful order-of-magnitude check, but the text should state explicitly that only a small fraction of this energy is converted into X-ray emission and that the comparison to L_X ~ 4 x 10^39 erg/s is therefore not a quantitative energy budget.
  6. [Throughout] There are a few typographical errors: 'Star F ormation' in the title line, 'the the bulges' in conclusion item 5, and the wording of the Table 1 note about 'an apex SB' should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the CGM detection and azimuthal anisotropy are measured from external Chandra data, and the TNG50 comparison is an independent simulation benchmark; self-citations are not the source of the central claim.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. In Sec. 3.1 the CGM detection is obtained by stacking 2014 gross counts against 1625 background counts, so the 6.5-sigma significance is a count-statistics statement, not an output of a fitted model. The conversion to luminosity adopts an assumed apec spectrum, but that assumption only translates counts to flux and does not manufacture the detection. In Sec. 3.2 the anisotropy is assessed with an F-test comparing constant and constant-plus-sinusoid fits to the observed azimuthal profile; the test statistic is computed from the data, and the high-SFR split is an independent sample partition. The TNG50 comparison in Sec. 4 generates mock observations from the simulation's gas cells with PyXSIM/SOXS; although some cited simulation papers (Pillepich et al. 2021, Truong et al. 2021a) include authors of the present paper, the simulation is an externally defined benchmark that was not fitted to the observed stacked profile. The supernova energy budget in Sec. 5 uses standard rates, giving E_SN ~ 7.6e41 erg/s to be compared with L_X ~ 4e39 erg/s; the comparison is not an identity. The main caveats are statistical, not circular: the 14 kpc aperture may have been chosen to maximize signal-to-noise, and six F-tests are reported without multiple-comparison correction, so the p = 1.16% high-SFR anisotropy should be interpreted with care. These concerns affect significance calibration, but no claimed prediction reduces to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis is observational and does not fit any theory parameter to the stacked data. The free parameters listed are spectral and aperture assumptions chosen by hand; they affect the luminosity and morphology but are not fitted. The most consequential assumptions are the background annulus, the 5% X-ray binary contamination, and the validity of the uncorrected F-test procedure, the last of which directly affects the SFR correlation claim.

free parameters (5)
  • CGM temperature kT = 0.3 keV
    Used to weight Chandra exposure maps and to convert photon flux to energy flux; the luminosity and surface brightness scale with this assumed temperature.
  • CGM metallicity Z = 0.3 Zsun
    Assumed apec abundance in exposure maps and mock spectra; affects the soft-band emissivity.
  • Galactic absorption NH = 2e20 cm^-2
    Typical foreground column applied in TBabs for exposure maps, PIMMS conversions, and TNG50 mocks.
  • X-ray binary photon index Gamma = 2
    Assumed power-law slope used to extrapolate hard-band unresolved binary luminosity into the soft band; sets the contamination estimate.
  • Source aperture radius R = 14 kpc
    Chosen to match MW bubble size and maximize S/N; determines which spatial scales contribute to the detected anisotropy.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hot CGM emits as an optically thin collisional ionization equilibrium plasma (apec) with Z=0.3 Zsun.
    Used in Sec. 2.2 to weight exposure maps and in Sec. 4 to generate mock X-ray photons; if the true spectrum differs, the luminosity conversion changes.
  • domain assumption The 25-35 kpc annulus is free of CGM emission and represents the background.
    Sec. 3.1: source counts are background-subtracted with this annulus; if CGM or bubbles extend past 35 kpc, the source signal is over-subtracted and the azimuthal profile is biased.
  • domain assumption Unresolved X-ray binaries outside the elliptical mask contribute about 5% of the soft-band luminosity.
    Sec. 2.2 and 3.1: based on the fraction of stellar light outside the mask and the assumption that LMXBs trace stellar light; a different fraction changes the contamination correction by a factor of 20 below the signal.
  • ad hoc to paper Six independent F-tests at the 5% level, one per subsample, are sufficient to identify which subsample shows anisotropy.
    Sec. 3.2: no multiple-comparison correction is applied; with six tests, the expected number of false positives is 0.3, and the high-SFR result (F=1.16%) would not survive Bonferroni correction.
  • domain assumption TNG50 simulated galaxies provide a valid morphological template for SMBH-driven bubbles despite an order-of-magnitude higher mean SMBH mass.
    Sec. 4: the comparison assumes the simulated bubble size and orientation respond to SMBH feedback in a way that is representative of real galaxies; the authors note the mass mismatch but proceed with the template.
  • domain assumption Inferred SMBH masses from the MBH-sigma and MBH-Mgal relations are accurate enough to split the sample into top and bottom thirds.
    Sec. 2.1: the scatter in these scaling relations is not propagated, so SMBH-mass subsamples may be misclassified and the null result for SMBH mass is uncertain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detection of Anisotropies in the Circumgalactic Medium of Disk Galaxies: Supermassive Black Hole Activity or Star Formation-driven Outflows?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LYMSKFXZ

@misc{pith2026250118681,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detection of Anisotropies in the Circumgalactic Medium of Disk Galaxies: Supermassive Black Hole Activity or Star Formation-driven Outflows?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LYMSKFXZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18681}
}
abstract

Gamma and X-ray observatories have revealed spectacular structures in the emission of the tenuous hot gas surrounding the Milky Way (MW), known as the Fermi and eROSITA bubbles. Galaxy formation simulations suggest that MW-like bubbles could be ubiquitous, but their emission may be too faint to detect with today's instruments in individual external galaxies. In this paper, we present an analysis of stacked Chandra observations of 93 nearby galaxies. We detected soft, diffuse X-rays from the CGM, extending up to 14 kpc, with a luminosity of $(4.2\pm0.7)\times10^{39}$ erg/s in the $0.3-2$ keV band. To probe its spatial distribution, we constructed an azimuthal profile and found a significant enhancement along the galactic minor axis. When dividing our sample by stellar mass, central supermassive black hole mass, and star formation rate, we found that only high star formation rate galaxies exhibit significant anisotropies in the CGM emission. To investigate whether the observed anisotropies could be attributed to MW-like bubbles, we compared our results with TNG50 simulations. In these simulations, X-ray bubbles are strongly correlated with mass of the central supermassive black hole and typically extend to much larger, $\sim50$ kpc, scales. We conclude that the observed anisotropies are either caused by AGN-driven MW-like bubbles confined to smaller, $\sim10$ kpc, scales, or by star formation- or starburst-driven bubbles/outflows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18681 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic representation of MW-like bubbles (blue) rising above the galactic disk (yellow-red) in an ap￾proximately edge-on view. The system is embedded in a spherically symmetric large-scale CGM (purple to violet). The SMBH and SNe, in the galactic center are also indi￾cated. data (Zhang et al. 2024a). These efforts successfully de￾tected the large-scale CGM, but the stacking procedure averaged any asymmetry in t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relationship between the star formation rate and the stellar mass for the 93 galaxies in our sample, as obtained from the HECATE catalog. The colorbar indicates the inferred mass of the SMBH hosted in each galaxy. only detect the CGM but also to probe its spatial struc￾ture thereby revealing the presence of anisotropies in the CGM emission. We explored the correlation of these fea￾tures with the star formation rates… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Composite optical (SDSS r-band) and X-ray (Chandra) image of a representative galaxy, GAMA 79711, from our sample. The red ellipse marks the excluded region, which contains ≳ 95% of the stellar light. Source and back￾ground counts were extracted from the blue circle (14 kpc ra￾dius) and magenta annulus (25 − 35 kpc radii), respectively. Yellow pixels indicate individual X-ray counts detected by Chandra. exposure tim… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Azimuthal profiles of the stacked X-ray images of the observed galaxies. The top panel shows the profile for the full sample. The second row presents the profiles for different subsamples, divided based on SFR (left panel), stellar mass (middle panel), and SMBH mass (r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relationship between the star formation rate and stellar mass for the 93 galaxies simulated galaxy from TNG50. The color bar indicates the mass of the SMBH hosted in each simulated galaxy. defined the hardness ratio as the ratio of counts in the soft (0.3–1 keV) and ha…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Azimuthal profiles of different subsamples of simulated galaxies. In the upper row, the top and bottom thirds of the sample are shown in blue and red, respectively, divided based on SFR (left panel), stellar mass (middle panel), and SMBH mass (right panel). The lower p…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E., & Bregman, J

    Anderson, M. E., & Bregman, J. N. 2011, ApJ, 737, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/22

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/22 2011

  2. [2]

    E., Gaspari, M., White, S

    Anderson, M. E., Gaspari, M., White, S. D. M., Wang, W., & Dai, X. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv437 Bogd´ an,´A., Bourdin, H., Forman, W. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9523 Bogd´ an,´A., & Gilfanov, M. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 56, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13391.x —. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1901, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966....

    work page arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    D., et al

    Chadayammuri, U., Bogd´ an,´A., Oppenheimer, B. D., et al. 2022, ApJL, 936, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8936

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8936 2022

  4. [4]

    2022, A&A, 666, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243101

    Comparat, J., Truong, N., Merloni, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243101

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243101 2022

  5. [5]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    doi:10.1117/12.671760 2006

  6. [6]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 799, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01963-5

    Gupta, A., Mathur, S., Kingsbury, J., Das, S., & Krongold, Y. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 799, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01963-5

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01963-5 2023

  7. [7]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 4972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2992

    Khabibullin, I., & Churazov, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2992

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2992 2019

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Kovlakas, K., Zezas, A., Andrews, J. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1896, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1799

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1799 2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

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

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

    2022 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    D., Heckman, T

    Lehnert, M. D., Heckman, T. M., & Weaver, K. A. 1999, ApJ, 523, 575, doi: 10.1086/307762

    1999 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 4073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae797

    Li, C., Li, H., Cui, W., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae797

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    N., Wang, Q

    Li, J.-T., Bregman, J. N., Wang, Q. D., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa96fc

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    R., et al

    Li, Z., Jones, C., Forman, W. R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/84

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    2014, A&A, 570, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423496

    Vauglin, I. 2014, A&A, 570, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423496

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    2005, A&A, 433, 807, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041411

    Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M., Panagia, N., et al. 2005, A&A, 433, 807, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041411

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Ma, C.-P., Gebhardt, K., et al

    McConnell, N. J., Ma, C.-P., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2011, Nature, 480, 215, doi: 10.1038/nature10636

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Crain, R

    Nica, A., Oppenheimer, B. D., Crain, R. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1958, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2020

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    D., Bogd´ an,´A., Crain, R

    Oppenheimer, B. D., Bogd´ an,´A., Crain, R. A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 893, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab846f

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    L., Siemiginowska, A., et al

    Park, T., Kashyap, V. L., Siemiginowska, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 610, doi: 10.1086/507406

    2006 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 4667, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2779

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Truong, N., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4667, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2779

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    P., Bogdan, A., & Marshall, H

    Plucinsky, P. P., Bogdan, A., & Marshall, H. L. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12181, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 121816X, do...

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Bogdan, A., Marshall, H

    Plucinsky, P. P., Bogdan, A., Marshall, H. L., & Tice, N. W. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10699, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa...

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Becker, W., et al

    Predehl, P., Sunyaev, R. A., Becker, W., et al. 2020, Nature, 588, 227, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2979-0

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    W., Nulsen, P

    Randall, S. W., Nulsen, P. E. J., Jones, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/112

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82 12

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    Sarkar, K. C. 2024, A&A Rv, 32, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-024-00152-1

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    C., Mondal, S., Sharma, P., & Piran, T

    Sarkar, K. C., Mondal, S., Sharma, P., & Piran, T. 2023, ApJ, 951, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd75d

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Nath, B

    Sarkar, K. C., Nath, B. B., & Sharma, P. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1806

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    2005, ApJL, 629, L85, doi: 10.1086/452632

    Scannapieco, E., & Bildsten, L. 2005, ApJL, 629, L85, doi: 10.1086/452632

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    A., et al

    Schellenberger, G., Bogd´ an,´A., ZuHone, J. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4548

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    G., & Weaver, K

    Hoopes, C. G., & Weaver, K. A. 2004, ApJ, 606, 829, doi: 10.1086/383136

    2004 doi

  28. [36]

    2000, AJ, 120, 2965, doi: 10.1086/316846

    Dahlem, M. 2000, AJ, 120, 2965, doi: 10.1086/316846

    2000 doi

  29. [37]

    R., & Finkbeiner, D

    Su, M., Slatyer, T. R., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1044, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1044

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    2021, A&A, 656, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141179

    Sunyaev, R., Arefiev, V., Babyshkin, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141179

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    2021a, MNRAS, 508, 1563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2638

    Hernquist, L. 2021a, MNRAS, 508, 1563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2638

    doi

  32. [40]

    2021b, MNRAS, 501, 2210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3880

    Truong, N., Pillepich, A., & Werner, N. 2021b, MNRAS, 501, 2210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3880

    doi

  33. [41]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa685

    Truong, N., Pillepich, A., Werner, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa685

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    2025, A&A, 693, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452430

    Ubertosi, F., Gong, Y., Nulsen, P., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452430

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    2019, SSRv, 215, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0571-9

    Scannapieco, E. 2019, SSRv, 215, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0571-9

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    White, S. D. M., & Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52, doi: 10.1086/170483

    1991 doi

  38. [46]

    White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    1978 doi

  39. [47]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  40. [48]

    Yang, H. Y. K., Ruszkowski, M., & Zweibel, E. G. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 584, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01618-x

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.17308, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.17308 —

    Zhang, Y., Comparat, J., Ponti, G., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.17308, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.17308 —. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.19945, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.19945

    doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    A., Biffi, V., Hallman, E

    ZuHone, J. A., Biffi, V., Hallman, E. J., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1407.1783, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1407.1783

    2014 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    A., Vikhlinin, A., Tremblay, G

    ZuHone, J. A., Vikhlinin, A., Tremblay, G. R., et al. 2023, SOXS: Simulated Observations of X-ray Sources, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2301.024

    2023

  44. [52]

    A., Schellenberger, G., Ogorza lek, A., et al

    ZuHone, J. A., Schellenberger, G., Ogorza lek, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad36c1 13 APPENDIX A. PROPERTIES OF THE SELECTED SOURCES We report in Table 1 the properties of the 93 galaxies composing our sample. T able 1.Properties of the 93 galaxies com...

    2004 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.