Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 4 cited by

Constraining gas motion and non-thermal pressure beyond the core of the Abell 2029 galaxy cluster with XRISM

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read XRISM Resolve observations of the relaxed cluster Abell 2029 show non-thermal pressure stays at or below 2% of total pressure out to R2500, placing the hydrostatic mass bias near 2%.

desk verdict Direct XRISM measurement of small gas motions in Abell 2029 out to R2500 is careful and new, but the ≤2% headline rests on isotropy and single-arm geometry that the paper itself admits could push the true fraction to ~5%. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06533 v1 pith:K7OTO3JW submitted 2025-05-10 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HE

XRISM Collaboration: Marc Audard , Hisamitsu Awaki , Ralf Ballhausen , Aya Bamba , Ehud Behar , Rozenn Boissay-Malaquin , Laura Brenneman , Gregory Brown
show 131 more authors
Lia Corrales Elisa Costantini Renata Cumbee Maria Diaz Trigo Chris Done Tadayasu Dotani Ken Ebisawa Megan Eckart Dominique Eckert Satoshi Eguchi Teruaki Enoto Yuichiro Ezoe Adam Foster Ryuichi Fujimoto Yutaka Fujita Yasushi Fukazawa Kotaro Fukushima Akihiro Furuzawa Luigi Gallo Javier García Liyi Gu Matteo Guainazzi Kouichi Hagino Kenji Hamaguchi Isamu Hatsukade Katsuhiro Hayashi Takayuki Hayashi Natalie Hell Edmund Hodges-Kluck Ann Hornschemeier Yuto Ichinohe Daiki Ishi Manabu Ishida Kumi Ishikawa Yoshitaka Ishisaki Jelle Kaastra Timothy Kallman Erin Kara Satoru Katsuda Yoshiaki Kanemaru Richard Kelley Caroline Kilbourne Shunji Kitamoto Shogo Kobayashi Takayoshi Kohmura Aya Kubota Maurice Leutenegger Michael Loewenstein Yoshitomo Maeda Maxim Markevitch Hironori Matsumoto Kyoko Matsushita Dan McCammon Brian McNamara Francois Mernier Eric Miller Jon Miller Ikuyuki Mitsuishi Misaki Mizumoto Tsunefumi Mizuno Koji Mori Koji Mukai Hiroshi Murakami Richard Mushotzky Hiroshi Nakajima Kazuhiro Nakazawa Jan-Uwe Ness Kumiko Nobukawa Masayoshi Nobukawa Hirofumi Noda Hirokazu Odaka Shoji Ogawa Anna Ogorzalek Takashi Okajima Naomi Ota Stephane Paltani Robert Petre Paul Plucinsky Frederick Porter Katja Pottschmidt Kosuke Sato Toshiki Sato Makoto Sawada Hiromi Seta Megumi Shidatsu Aurora Simionescu Randall Smith Hiromasa Suzuki Andrew Szymkowiak Hiromitsu Takahashi Mai Takeo Toru Tamagawa Keisuke Tamura Takaaki Tanaka Atsushi Tanimoto Makoto Tashiro Yukikatsu Terada Yuichi Terashima Yohko Tsuboi Masahiro Tsujimoto Hiroshi Tsunemi Takeshi Tsuru Hiroyuki Uchida Nagomi Uchida Yuusuke Uchida Hideki Uchiyama Yoshihiro Ueda Shinichiro Uno Jacco Vink Shin Watanabe Brian J. Williams Satoshi Yamada Shinya Yamada Hiroya Yamaguchi Kazutaka Yamaoka Noriko Yamasaki Makoto Yamauchi Shigeo Yamauchi Tahir Yaqoob Tomokage Yoneyama Tessei Yoshida Mihoko Yukita Irina Zhuravleva Tommaso Bartalesi Stefano Ettori Roman Kosarzycki Lorenzo Lovisari Tom Rose Arnab Sarkar Ming Sun Prathamesh Tamhane
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords galaxyclustersAbell2029intraclustermediumX-rayspectroscopygasturbulencenon-thermalpressurehydrostaticmassbiasXRISM
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 asks whether the hot gas of a seemingly relaxed galaxy cluster is calm enough that cluster masses can be trusted from hydrostatic equilibrium. Using XRISM Resolve spectra of the cool-core cluster Abell 2029, taken in three radial pointings out to $R_{2500}\simeq670$ kpc, the authors measure bulk and turbulent velocities directly from the width and shift of the iron lines. They find that non-thermal pressure is no more than 2% of the total pressure at every radius, declining outward, and that the hydrostatic mass bias is $b=1-M_{\rm hyd}/M_{\rm tot}\simeq 0.02$ across the observed range. If this is right, relaxed clusters like Abell 2029 hide almost no turbulent support, and hydrostatic masses need only a small correction, contrary to the rising non-thermal pressure fractions that many simulations predict at large radii.

What carries the argument

The central instrument is XRISM Resolve's high-resolution X-ray spectrometer: the widths and centroid shifts of the Fe XXV He$\alpha$ and Fe XXVI Ly$\alpha$ lines carry the velocity information. The carrying identity is the effective three-dimensional Mach number $M_{\rm 3D,eff}=\sqrt{3\sigma_v^2+v_{\rm bulk}^2}/c_s$, where $\sigma_v$ is the one-dimensional turbulent line broadening from the BAPEC plasma model (a velocity-broadened emission model), the factor 3 encodes the isotropy assumption, and $c_s$ is the sound speed. From it the non-thermal pressure fraction is $\alpha=P_{\rm NT}/P_{\rm tot}=M^2/(M^2+3/\gamma)$. The hydrostatic bias $b$ is then computed two ways: by forward modeling with the hydromass method, which reconstructs the mass profile from surface brightness and temperature under an NFW profile and the power-law-plus-floor non-thermal pressure profile $\alpha_{\rm NT}(r)=a_0(r/R_{200,\rm m})^{a_1}+a_2$, and by the analytic relation $b=\alpha/(1+A)$ with $A\sim10^{-5}$. This machinery turns line-of-sight velocity measurements into a mass-bias estimate.

What would settle it

Point XRISM Resolve at the same three radial annuli from a different azimuth, for instance the southern side of Abell 2029, and remeasure the iron-line widths: isotropy predicts the same line-of-sight turbulent velocities as the northern arm, while a substantially larger $\sigma_v$ (above the current $3\sigma$ upper limit of about 186 km/s in the intermediate annulus) would show that the single-arm geometry missed the dominant motion and that the non-thermal pressure exceeds 2%.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that gas motions in Abell 2029 are dynamically negligible outside the core. From a simultaneous fit of the three annuli with a velocity-broadened plasma model, the line-of-sight turbulent velocity is $\sigma_v=148^{+13}_{-9}$ km/s in the center, an upper limit of 58 km/s in the intermediate annulus, and a marginal detection of $94^{+44}_{-50}$ km/s in the outer annulus, with bulk blueshifts near 220 and 90 km/s in the two outer regions. Combining these with the local sound speed through $M_{\rm 3D,eff}=\sqrt{3\sigma_v^2+v_{\rm bulk}^2}/c_s$ gives a non-thermal pressure fraction of $2.1\pm0.3\%$ in the center and $0.9\pm0.7\%$ in the outermost annulus, i.e. an effective Mach number of about 0.2. The authors conclude that non-thermal pressure is at most 2% of the total pressure at all radii with a gradual decrease outward, and that the hydrostatic mass bias is of order $b\simeq0.02$, in agreement with an indirect surface-brightness fluctuation analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that turbulence is isotropic, so the measured one-dimensional line-of-sight velocity is multiplied by $\sqrt{3}$ to get the three-dimensional velocity, and that a single radial arm toward the north represents the whole cluster; if the gas motions are mostly in the plane of the sky, as the sloshing structure suggests, the non-thermal pressure fraction and the mass bias could be roughly twice as large, still near 5% rather than 2%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the non-thermal pressure fraction stays at or below 2% out to $R_{2500}$, hydrostatic cluster masses for relaxed cool-core systems like Abell 2029 need only a roughly 2% correction, much smaller than the uncertainties often assumed in cosmological mass calibration.
  • The observed outward decrease of $\alpha_{\rm NT}$ contradicts the common simulation prediction of a rising profile; direct velocity measurements now give a concrete radial benchmark that simulations of relaxed clusters must reproduce.
  • The agreement between the direct Resolve measurement and the indirect surface-brightness fluctuation estimate (0.3-2.1%) indicates that the low non-thermal pressure result is not an artifact of the velocity measurement method.
  • Within the observed range, the combined Resolve and X-ray surface-brightness/temperature data yield $M_{200}=(9.5\pm0.3)\times10^{14}\,M_\odot$, only 2% above the hydrostatic reconstruction, so the total mass budget of the cluster is essentially set by thermal pressure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer from the paper's projection discussion that if the sloshing velocities mostly lie in the plane of the sky, the line-of-sight measurement could understate the true velocity by about a factor of two, pushing the non-thermal fraction toward 5% instead of 2%; that is arithmetic from the paper's numbers, not a claim the paper makes.
  • I infer that the single-arm geometry makes a sharp test: repeating the same three-annulus observation toward a different azimuth should recover the same $\sigma_v$ if isotropy holds, and a significantly larger value would identify the missing velocity component.
  • I infer that the well-constrained floor of about 2% in $\alpha_{\rm NT}$ suggests a possible universal value for relaxed cool-core clusters; fitting the same profile for a small sample of XRISM clusters would show whether the floor is a general property or peculiar to Abell 2029.
  • I infer that a 2% hydrostatic bias within $R_{2500}$, if it generalizes, matters for cosmology: cluster mass calibration often assumes larger biases, so separating relaxed from merging systems could tighten cosmological parameter constraints from cluster counts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents XRISM Resolve spectroscopic measurements of gas velocities in the galaxy cluster Abell 2029 along three radial pointings (C0, N1, N2) covering out to R2500. It simultaneously fits the three spectra with BAPEC models, correcting for PSF-induced cross-contamination between annuli, and measures line-of-sight bulk and turbulent velocities. Using Eq. (3) to convert the measured 1D turbulent dispersion to an effective 3D velocity and Eq. (4) to obtain P_NT/P_tot, the authors conclude that non-thermal pressure is no more than 2% of the total pressure at all radii and decreases outward. They then combine the Resolve velocities with X-COP density and temperature profiles in the hydromass framework, fitting an NFW mass profile and an Angelinelli et al. (2020) non-thermal pressure profile, and derive a hydrostatic mass bias b ~ 0.02. The paper argues that these results differ from many cosmological simulations that predict an increasing non-thermal pressure fraction at large radii.

Significance. If the underlying geometric assumptions hold, this is an important direct measurement: it uses high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy to constrain gas motions in a relaxed cluster beyond the core and connects them to the hydrostatic mass bias, a key systematic for cluster cosmology. The spectral analysis is careful, with explicit checks of resonant scattering, PSF/effective-area uncertainties, energy range, binning, gain calibration, and background modeling, and the use of public X-COP data and the hydromass package supports reproducibility. The independent agreement with surface brightness fluctuation analyses is a genuine strength. However, the headline numbers are conditional on the assumptions of isotropic turbulence and of a single northern arm being representative of the full azimuth; the paper itself acknowledges that a sloshing viewing angle near 30 degrees could raise P_NT/P_tot to about 5%. The central claim is therefore a projection-dependent conditional result rather than a robust three-dimensional upper bound, and the abstract and conclusions overstate the strength of the radial trend.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (3)] The conversion from the measured line-of-sight turbulent dispersion to a three-dimensional effective velocity uses the isotropic factor sqrt(3), and Section 4.2 then concedes that the sloshing morphology of A2029 indicates motions likely close to the plane of the sky, with a viewing angle around 30 degrees that can underestimate the inferred gas velocity by a factor of about 2 and raise the non-thermal pressure fraction to roughly 5%. The headline statement that non-thermal pressure is no more than 2% of the total pressure is therefore a projection-dependent conditional result, not a robust three-dimensional upper bound. Please propagate the geometric systematic into alpha and b, or explicitly state the headline as a line-of-sight measurement under an isotropy assumption.
  2. [Section 3.4] The mass modeling assumes that the velocities measured along a single northern arm are representative of the full azimuth, and the paper attempts to justify this with the excellent agreement between the Resolve and X-COP temperature profiles. Agreement in azimuthally averaged temperature does not imply agreement in velocity dispersion or bulk velocity, especially in a cluster with a sloshing core; a sloshing flow can have strong azimuthal variation in velocity with little temperature variation. The inferred global hydrostatic bias b ~ 0.02 is therefore conditional on this untested representativeness assumption. Please either add a quantitative assessment of the resulting uncertainty (e.g., using simulations of sloshing clusters) or restrict the conclusion to the observed northern arm.
  3. [Abstract; Table 3] The abstract states that non-thermal pressure accounts for no more than 2% of the total pressure at all radii, and Section 3.3 says the fraction is '2% or less,' but the best-fit central value in Table 3 is alpha = 2.1 +/- 0.3%. If the claim is meant as an upper limit, it should be stated with the appropriate confidence level (e.g., alpha < 2.4% at 1 sigma from the central bin); as written, the headline is not consistent with the reported point estimate. Please correct this internal inconsistency.
  4. [Section 3.4; Figure 6] The radial decrease of alpha_NT is not statistically established: the text itself states that the profile is consistent with a flat distribution at about 1 sigma, and the fitted Angelinelli et al. (2020) profile becomes negative beyond about 1500 kpc, an unphysical regime in which the code sets sigma_v,3D to zero. With only three radial bins (2.1 +/- 0.3, 1.6 +/- 0.5, and 0.9 +/- 0.7 per cent), the abstract's claim of a 'gradual decrease outward' and a difference from simulation predictions overstates the constraint. Please quote a formal significance for the slope or soften the wording in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4] The prior notation 'a0 ~ U(-0.5, 2.0)' followed by 'loga0 ~ U(-6, 0)' is inconsistent; given the fitted value a2 = 0.021 +/- 0.004, the log-uniform prior is presumably on a2. Please fix this to make the fitting setup reproducible.
  2. [Section 4.1] The alternative mass-bias estimates from the linear fits of alpha-r and P_NT-P_T use only three radial points and do not propagate the systematic differences between the onion-peeling and universal-pressure-profile gas densities into A or b; a brief statement of this limitation would be helpful.
  3. [Table 3] The reported alpha and alpha_turb for the Center are identical although alpha includes a v_bulk^2 term; please clarify that the bulk velocity is subdominant there, or give the intermediate value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: line-of-sight velocities are converted through standard thermodynamic relations, and the mass-bias estimate follows from a forward model fitted to the data.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (non-thermal pressure fraction ≤2%, hydrostatic bias ≈0.02) are derived from direct XRISM/Resolve measurements of line-of-sight bulk and turbulent velocities. Equations (1)-(4) implement standard definitions: bulk velocity is a redshift difference, sound speed is the adiabatic value, and the non-thermal pressure fraction is the ratio of the effective kinetic pressure to the sum of thermal and kinetic pressures. These are defining thermodynamic relations, not circular reductions. The mass-bias result in Section 3.4 is obtained by forward-modeling the measured σv,eff together with X-COP temperature and surface-brightness profiles, fitting an NFW mass model and an αNT(r) parametrization. The fitted floor parameter a2 is constrained by the velocity data, but this is a normal parameter estimation: the model is compared to the data and the posterior is reported, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. Section 4.1 provides an independent deprojection-based estimate using the same measured α values and pressure-slope terms; both routes consistently yield b ≈ 2%. The isotropy and single-azimuth representativeness assumptions are explicitly stated and their possible impact (up to ~5% non-thermal pressure) is discussed in Section 4.2, so they are acknowledged modeling limitations rather than hidden inputs. The paper also validates against an external, independent method (Heinrich et al. 2024 surface-brightness fluctuations), with quoted agreement. Self-citations (e.g., XRISM Collaboration 2025 for the core result and BCG redshift) are contextual and not load-bearing; the new measurement extends to R2500 and is compared with independent data. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing argument rests on an unverified self-citation chain.

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

The paper is primarily a measurement, but the headline numbers (about 2 percent non-thermal pressure and about 2 percent mass bias) rest on several astrophysical assumptions: isotropic turbulence, a single line of sight representing the full cluster, single-temperature plasma, NFW mass model, and a simulation-motivated functional form for the non-thermal pressure profile. The most fragile of these are the isotropy and single-arm representativeness assumptions, which the paper itself notes could raise the pressure fraction to about 5 percent under extreme projection.

free parameters (4)
  • a2 (floor of alpha_NT profile) = 0.021 ± 0.004
    Fitted floor in the Angelinelli et al. (2020) parametrization (Eq 10); it sets the constant level of non-thermal pressure ratio and directly drives the quoted hydrostatic mass bias of about 2 percent.
  • a0, a1 (radial trend of alpha_NT) = -0.13 ± 0.12, 1.6 ± 0.5
    Power-law amplitude and slope of the same profile; poorly constrained, and the claimed decreasing trend is not statistically robust.
  • NFW c200 and R200 = 5.9 ± 0.2 and 1979 ± 21 kpc
    Parameters of the NFW mass model used in hydromass to recover the total mass M200; the mass-bias estimate depends on this mass model.
  • P0 (outer pressure boundary) = set by prior from fitted pressure profile
    Integration constant in Eq (6), with a uniform prior from the pressure profile; standard but adds freedom to the mass reconstruction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gas motions are isotropic, so the 3D turbulent velocity is sqrt(3) times the 1D line-of-sight value (Eq 3).
    Used in Eqs 3 and 4 to convert measured sigma_v into non-thermal pressure; anisotropy would change the inferred pressure fraction and bias.
  • domain assumption The velocity structure measured along a single northern arm is representative of the full azimuth.
    Stated in Section 3.4 when combining single-arm Resolve data with azimuthally averaged X-COP profiles.
  • domain assumption Each radial region emits as a single-temperature thermal plasma (BAPEC model).
    Section 3.1; a second temperature component in the core was checked and found not to affect velocity measurements.
  • domain assumption The cluster mass follows an NFW profile.
    Section 3.4; the total mass M200 and the mass-bias estimate are model-dependent.
  • ad hoc to paper The non-thermal pressure ratio follows the Angelinelli et al. (2020) power-law-plus-floor form (Eq 10).
    Taken from simulation fits, not derived; the fitted profile becomes negative beyond about 1500 kpc, an unphysical behavior the code truncates to zero.
  • domain assumption The gas obeys hydrostatic equilibrium with the total (thermal plus non-thermal) pressure.
    Basis of Eq (6) and the hydrostatic mass bias calculation; the central question of the paper is whether this holds, but the analysis assumes it in the modeling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining gas motion and non-thermal pressure beyond the core of the Abell 2029 galaxy cluster with XRISM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K7OTO3JW

@misc{pith2026250506533,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining gas motion and non-thermal pressure beyond the core of the Abell 2029 galaxy cluster with XRISM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K7OTO3JW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06533}
}
abstract

We report a detailed spectroscopic study of the gas dynamics and hydrostatic mass bias of the galaxy cluster Abell 2029, utilizing high-resolution observations from XRISM Resolve. Abell 2029, known for its cool core and relaxed X-ray morphology, provides an excellent opportunity to investigate the influence of gas motions beyond the central region. Expanding upon prior studies that revealed low turbulence and bulk motions within the core, our analysis covers regions out to the scale radius $R_{2500}$ (670~kpc) based on three radial pointings extending from the cluster center toward the northern side. We obtain accurate measurements of bulk and turbulent velocities along the line of sight. The results indicate that non-thermal pressure accounts for no more than 2% of the total pressure at all radii, with a gradual decrease outward. The observed radial trend differs from many numerical simulations, which often predict an increase in non-thermal pressure fraction at larger radii. These findings suggest that deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium are small, leading to a hydrostatic mass bias of around 2% across the observed area.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06533 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Chandra image of A2029 overlaid with the Resolve field of view covering up to R2500 with three radial pointings (C0, N1, N2 boxes). The three annuli (A1, A2, A3) correspond to radii of r < 1 ′ .5, 1 ′ .5 < r < 4 ′ .5, and 4 ′ .5< r <7 ′ .5, respectively, with the outermost circle marking R2500 ∼ 670 kpc. Alt text: Three boxes are arranged radially from the cluster center, indicating the positions of the detector’s f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectral fitting of three pointing regions in the 2-10 keV band: Center (black and red), N1 (green), and N2 (blue). The observed spectra (data points with error bars) include both the source and background components. Solid lines indicate the best-fit BAPEC models for each region; dashed lines show the non-X-ray background (NXB), and dotted lines represent the cosmic X-ray background (CXB). The spectra are binned to… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as figure 2, but zoomed-in on the iron emission lines. Panels (a), (b), and (c) correspond to the C0, N1, and N2 regions, respectively. In these panels, the contributions from the C0, N1, and N2 regions are shown in red, green, and blue, respectively, while the total model is represented by the black solid line. Alt text: Three line graphs showing spectra in units of counts per second per kilo electron volt and… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial distribution of the measured properties of the intracluster gas. The nine panels, from top to bottom, show (a) temperature, (b) metal abundance, (c) redshift, (d) line-of-sight bulk velocity, (e) line-of-sight turbulent velocity, (f) normalization, (g) sound spe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Result of the hydrostatic NFW mass reconstruction. The left-hand panel shows the model spectroscopic temperature profile (blue curve and shaded area) and its deprojected 3D counterpart (green). The XMM-Newton X-COP data points are shown in orange, whereas the red point…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Non-thermal pressure ratio as a function of cluster-centric radius inferred from the best-fit hydrostatic model (blue line and shaded area). The red data points show the non-thermal pressure ratio obtained directly from the Resolve data points through equation 4. The d…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. XRISM Reveals a Kinematically Coherent Core System of the Nearby Cool-Core Cluster Abell 2199

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    XRISM observations show the core of Abell 2199 is kinematically coherent with low turbulence, where turbulent heating may offset ~20% of radiative cooling losses.

  2. Cold gas formation triggered by active galactic nuclei jet feedback in galaxy cluster cores

    astro-ph.GA 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In simulations, cold clumps condense in situ from hot cluster gas within ~30 Myr in high-compression, low-vorticity zones stirred by laterally expanding AGN jets, most efficiently when the hot-gas turbulent Mach numbe...

  3. Gas motion in the intracluster medium of the Virgo cluster replica

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a simulated Virgo replica, line-of-sight velocity dispersion reproduces the 3D ICM velocity dispersion, line-shift-derived scatter does not, and non-thermal pressure is about 6% within R500 and 9% within Rvir.

  4. CHEX-MATE: Cluster Multi-Probes in Three Dimensions (CLUMP-3D) II. Combined Gas and Dark Matter Analysis from X-ray, SZE, and WL

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A triaxial model combining X-ray, SZ, and weak lensing data finds Abell 1689 is elongated along the line of sight and yields M200c = 13.7e14 Msun, lower than the spherical value of 17.8e14 Msun.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Fabian, A. C. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 3, 879

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    W., Brunetti, G., Brüggen, M., & Eckert, D

    Angelinelli, M., Vazza, F., Giocoli, C., Ettori, S., Jones, T. W., Brunetti, G., Brüggen, M., & Eckert, D. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1, 864

    2020

  3. [3]

    A., in G

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

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    2010, A&A, 517, A92

    Pointecouteau, E. 2010, A&A, 517, A92

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Biffi, V . et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 2, 112

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 293, 293

    Eckert, D., Ettori, S., Pointecouteau, E., Molendi, S., Paltani, S., & Tchernin, C. 2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 293, 293

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Eckert, D., Ettori, S., Pointecouteau, E., van der Burg, R. F. J., & Loubser, S. I. 2022, A&A, 662, A123

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Eckert, D. et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A40

    work page 2019

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    & Eckert, D

    Ettori, S. & Eckert, D. 2022, A&A, 657, L1

    2022

  2. [10]

    R., Ji, L., Smith, R

    Foster, A. R., Ji, L., Smith, R. K., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 128

    2012

  3. [11]

    Ghirardini, V . et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A41

    2019

  4. [12]

    2021, A&A, 651, A56

    Gouin, C., Bonnaire, T., & Aghanim, N. 2021, A&A, 651, A56

    2021

  5. [13]

    Weeren, R. J. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4, 7274 HI4PI Collaboration et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116 Hitomi Collaboration et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 2, 9

    2024

  6. [14]

    et al., in J.-W

    Ishisaki, Y . et al., in J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, eds., Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray (2022), vol. 12181 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, p. 121811S

    2022

  7. [15]

    Kaastra, J. S. & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151

    2016

  8. [16]

    T., Kravtsov, A

    Lau, E. T., Kravtsov, A. V ., & Nagai, D. 2009, ApJ, 705, 2, 1129

    2009

  9. [17]

    T., Nagai, D., & Nelson, K

    Lau, E. T., Nagai, D., & Nelson, K. 2013, ApJ, 777, 2, 151

    2013

  10. [18]

    D., Stocke, J

    Lewis, A. D., Stocke, J. T., & Buote, D. A. 2002, ApJL, 573, 1, L13

    2002

  11. [19]

    & Palme, H

    Lodders, K. & Palme, H. 2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science Supplement, 72, 5154

    2009

  12. [20]

    2014, ApJ, 782, 1, 21

    Miniati, F. 2014, ApJ, 782, 1, 21

    2014

  13. [21]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

    1996

  14. [22]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

    1997

  15. [23]

    T., Nagai, D., Rudd, D

    Nelson, K., Lau, E. T., Nagai, D., Rudd, D. H., & Yu, L. 2014, ApJ, 782, 2, 107

    2014

  16. [24]

    Norman, M. L. & Bryan, G. L., in H.-J. Röser & K. Meisenheimer, eds., The Radio Galaxy Messier 87 (1999), vol. 530, p. 106

    1999

  17. [25]

    Ota, N., Nagai, D., & Lau, E. T. 2018, PASJ, 70, 3, 51

    2018

  18. [26]

    & Yoshida, H

    Ota, N. & Yoshida, H. 2016, PASJ, 68, S19

    2016

  19. [27]

    L., Randall, S

    Paterno-Mahler, R., Blanton, E. L., Randall, S. W., & Clarke, T. E. 2013, ApJ, 773, 2, 114

    2013

  20. [28]

    Okabe, N., & Reiprich, T. H. 2019, Space Sci. Rev., 215, 2, 25

    2019

  21. [29]

    V ., & Fonnesbeck, C

    Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V ., & Fonnesbeck, C. 2016, PeerJ Computer Science, 2:e55

    2016

  22. [30]

    Sanders, J. S. et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A42

    2020

  23. [31]

    K., Brickhouse, N

    Smith, R. K., Brickhouse, N. S., Liedahl, D. A., & Raymond, J. C. 2001, ApJL, 556, L91

    2001

  24. [32]

    J., Walker, S

    Sohn, J., Geller, M. J., Walker, S. A., Dell’Antonio, I., Diaferio, A., & Rines, K. J. 2019, ApJ, 871, 1, 129

    2019

  25. [33]

    et al., in J.-W

    Tashiro, M. et al., in J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, eds., Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray (2020), vol. 11444 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, p. 1144422

    2020

  26. [34]

    Truong, N., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Zhuravleva, I., Lee, W., Ayromlou, M., 12 Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan (0000), Vol. 00, No. 0 & Lehle, K. 2024, A&A, 686, A200

    2024

  27. [35]

    M., Umetsu, K., & Kitayama, T

    Ueda, S., Ichinohe, Y ., Molnar, S. M., Umetsu, K., & Kitayama, T. 2020, ApJ, 892, 2, 100

    2020

  28. [36]

    2009, A&A, 504, 1, 33

    Vazza, F., Brunetti, G., Kritsuk, A., Wagner, R., Gheller, C., & Norman, M. 2009, A&A, 504, 1, 33

    2009

  29. [37]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 1, 210

    Ryu, D. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1, 210

    2017

  30. [38]

    S., & Van Speybroeck, L

    Vikhlinin, A., Kravtsov, A., Forman, W., Jones, C., Markevitch, M., Murray, S. S., & Van Speybroeck, L. 2006, ApJ, 640, 2, 691

    2006

  31. [39]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 2, 914 XRISM Collaboration

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 2, 914 XRISM Collaboration. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05514

    2000 arXiv

  32. [40]

    C., Churazov, E., Schekochihin, A

    Zhuravleva, I., Chen, M. C., Churazov, E., Schekochihin, A. A., Zhang, C., & Nagai, D. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4, 5157

    2023

  33. [41]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 1, 412

    Zinger, E., Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y ., Kravtsov, A., & Nagai, D. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1, 412

    2016

  34. [42]

    Attività di Studio per la comunità scientifica di Astrofisica delle Alte Energie e Fisica Astroparticellare

    ZuHone, J. A., Miller, E. D., Bulbul, E., & Zhuravleva, I. 2018, ApJ, 853, 2, 180 Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge the hard work over many years of all of the engineers and scientists who made the XRISM mission possible. Part of this work was performed under the auspi...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.