Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Decoding AGN Feedback with X-arithmetic: From Morphology to Physical Mechanisms

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that AGN feedback leaves a mass-dependent fingerprint in X-ray images: groups and massive galaxies show multiple shocks, while clusters show few shocks and abundant pressure-balanced (isobaric) structures, and that…

desk verdict A solid extension of X-arithmetic to 15 halos with real spectroscopic checks, but the mass-dependent dichotomy rests on visual labels and a three-object low-mass sample, so it is a promising hypothesis rather than a secure result. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21859 v1 pith:T6SLRFWQ submitted 2025-06-27 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Hannah McCall , Irina Zhuravleva , Eugene Churazov , Congyao Zhang , William Forman , Christine Jones , Yuan Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords AGNfeedbackX-raycavitiesgalaxyclustersgroupsintraclustermediumX-arithmeticshocksisobaricperturbations
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

AGN feedback from supermassive black holes heats and redistributes gas in the hot halos around galaxies, groups, and clusters, but how that energy is deposited is hard to read from X-ray images alone. This paper applies X-arithmetic, a technique that combines soft- and hard-band X-ray images to suppress one perturbation type at a time, to 15 deeply observed systems and classifies bright features into adiabatic (shocks and sound waves), isothermal (bubbles and cavities), and isobaric (cooling and subsonic motions). The main claim is that the feedback pattern depends on halo mass: groups and massive galaxies show multiple shocks in their inner regions, while clusters show only one or two shocks and abundant isobaric structures around their cavities. If true, this suggests that AGN feedback is more violent or more effective in shallower-potential systems, and it provides a fast, spectroscopy-free way to classify features in current and future X-ray images. The paper also reinterprets some previously identified "isothermal shocks" as mixtures of isobaric and adiabatic structures, supported by a spectroscopic deprojection of one feature in A2052.

What carries the argument

The central object is X-arithmetic: for each X-ray feature, the temperature and density fluctuations are assumed to obey an effective equation of state $\delta T/T = \alpha\,\delta n/n$, with $\alpha=2/3$ for adiabatic perturbations (weak shocks and sound waves), $\alpha=0$ for isothermal perturbations (bubbles and cavities), and $\alpha=-1$ for isobaric perturbations (cooling and subsonic motions). The method computes the expected ratio of hard-band to soft-band surface brightness fluctuations $w_H/w_S$ for each type using plasma emissivity curves, a ratio that is independent of the density fluctuation amplitude, and then linearly combines the residual images to suppress each type in turn. A projection correction factor, derived assuming the perturbation sits at the cluster midplane in a single $\beta$-model atmosphere, is applied to the hard-band image before combination. The work this machinery does is the paper's entire evidentiary base: visually identifying which features disappear when each component is removed is what turns morphology into physical classification.

What would settle it

A concrete check is to take a simulated cluster whose true gas state is known, generate mock X-ray images with the same band choices and exposure as a Chandra observation, run X-arithmetic on them, and compare every assigned feature type to the truth; if known adiabatic shocks with Mach number above about 2 or known line-of-sight mixtures are systematically assigned to the wrong effective equation of state, the small-amplitude linear decomposition is the failing premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a mass-dependent dichotomy in the physical nature of AGN feedback signatures. Analyzing 15 galaxy clusters, groups, and massive galaxies observed by Chandra, the authors find that lower-mass systems such as M84, NGC 5044, and NGC 5813 consistently show multiple shocks within about 20 kpc and clear bubbles, whereas massive cool-core clusters show at most one to two shocks and are dominated near their cavities by isobaric perturbations associated with gas cooling and subsonic motions. This is established by applying X-arithmetic, a linear decomposition of X-ray surface brightness fluctuations into adiabatic, isothermal, and isobaric components, and by confirming one central reclassification with spectroscopic deprojection: the A2052 northeast feature, previously a candidate second shock, has a continuous pressure profile across its edge, making it isobaric and likely a cold front from gas sloshing. The paper interprets the trend as evidence that feedback effects are stronger in smaller-mass systems, either because their shallower gravitational potentials make a given outburst more disruptive or because feedback is inherently more violent there, while noting resolution limits as an alternative explanation.

Load-bearing premise

Every classification inherits the assumption that each observed feature is a small-amplitude, clean superposition of just three perturbation types (adiabatic, isobaric, and isothermal), with second-order terms and projection mixing ignored; a strong shock, a deep cavity, or several structures overlapping along the line of sight could therefore be labeled wrongly even when the processed images look clean.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the trend is real, galaxy groups and massive galaxies experience multiple AGN-driven shocks within their inner regions, while massive clusters are dominated by isobaric structures around their cavities.
  • Earlier identifications of "isothermal shocks" in clusters are likely mixtures of isobaric and adiabatic perturbations, so some published shock counts and Mach numbers may need revision.
  • X-arithmetic gives a fast, spectroscopy-free way to map perturbation types and can guide follow-up spectroscopy by locating the edges of structures.
  • The same method applied to mock X-ray images of simulations can test whether feedback implementations reproduce the observed shock and isobaric patterns.
  • With future high-throughput X-ray observatories, the method can be extended to larger samples beyond the brightest cluster cores.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mass-dependent dichotomy holds in larger samples, it implies that AGN feedback models must reproduce not only global cluster properties but also the spatial mix of shock versus isobaric features, which is a stricter test than matching average profiles.
  • The projection correction assumes a feature sits at the cluster midplane, so for real systems with filaments or multiple outbursts along the line of sight, classification confidence could be improved by quantifying a confusion matrix using simulations viewed at various inclinations.
  • The reinterpretation of "isothermal shocks" as mixtures suggests that some published temperature-jump measurements may have been diluted by overlapping isobaric gas, so a systematic re-analysis of those features could change estimates of shock heating.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the 'X-arithmetic' image-manipulation technique, previously introduced by Churazov et al. (2016), to a sample of 15 galaxy clusters, groups, and massive galaxies observed deeply with Chandra. By combining soft- and hard-band residual images, the method classifies X-ray surface brightness perturbations into three physical types: adiabatic (weak shocks and sound waves), isothermal (bubbles), and isobaric (subsonic motions and cooling). The authors report a mass-dependent dichotomy: multiple shocks appear in groups and massive galaxies, but only one to two shocks in clusters, while prominent isobaric structures are abundant around inner cavities in clusters. They present spectroscopic follow-up of three A2052 features, which confirms the X-arithmetic classification for one isobaric feature, one shock, and one 'isothermal shock' that is better described as a mix of adiabatic and isobaric perturbations. They also demonstrate application of the method to a mock AXIS observation of a TNG300 cluster and discuss future observational prospects.

Significance. If the methodological claims are robust, this paper offers an efficient, largely non-spectroscopic route from X-ray morphology to physical perturbation type, and it proposes a potentially important mass dependence of AGN feedback signatures. The paper has notable strengths: the hard-to-soft ratio in Eq. (9) is derived from APEC/AtomDB emissivities without fitting the data to force a classification; three A2052 features receive independent deprojected spectroscopic checks in Section 6.1; the application to a TNG300 mock observation is a useful feasibility demonstration; and the X-arithmetic maps and mock data are publicly released on Zenodo. However, the headline sample-wide trend rests on visual classification of features under linear, small-amplitude assumptions and a midplane-projection correction, and the manuscript itself acknowledges in Section 6.4 that resolution differences between clusters and groups are a possible confound. Because the central claim depends on the reliability of every feature label, the trend is not yet secured without a quantitative classifier and a resolution-matched detection-efficiency test.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 4, 5 and 6.4; Eq. (9)] The sample-wide shock and isobaric counts in the Abstract and Conclusions rely on assigning each feature a single type from three suppressed images, but the underlying decomposition in Eqs. (7)-(9) is only defined for pure perturbation modes. A line-of-sight or physically mixed feature produces an intermediate hard-to-soft ratio that is not fully removed from any combination image; the paper repeatedly labels such cases as 'mix' but does not define a quantitative criterion for when a feature is called a shock, isobaric, or mixed. I request a per-feature catalog reporting measured w_H/w_S or combination-image residuals, a blinded classification protocol, and an accuracy test on the TNG300 mock where the true perturbation types are known from the 3D density and temperature fields. Without this, the visual labels cannot be shown to be unbiased across mass, which is load-bearing for the central dichotomy claim.
  2. [Section 6.4 and Conclusions] The mass-dependent trend is based on only three low-mass systems (NGC 5813, NGC 5044, M84) compared with twelve clusters, and the physical scales resolved in the inner regions differ substantially. The text explicitly acknowledges that 'we simply lack the resolution to capture the diverse structures within the innermost regions of the most massive systems,' but it does not quantify this detection-threshold or resolution effect. The manuscript should include a resolution-matching exercise: for example, degrade and rebin the group images to cluster-like PSF and pixel scales and re-run the X-arithmetic classification, or inject simulated shock/isobaric features of known amplitude into cluster images to measure recovery fractions. Until this is done, the statement that groups show multiple shocks while clusters show only one to two shocks cannot be distinguished from a selection or resolution bias.
  3. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (11)-(14)] The projection correction in Eq. (14) assumes the perturbation is located at the cluster midplane z=0 and uses a single beta-model atmosphere. This assumption is violated by the strong cocoon shock in Cygnus A, deep cavities, and filamentary structures that extend along the line of sight, as noted qualitatively in Section 5.3. The paper reports stability against model choices but does not test sensitivity to the assumed z0 or to finite line-of-sight extent. I ask for a quantitative sensitivity test: vary z0 over a plausible range for a representative feature, or use simulation slices at different line-of-sight positions to quantify the induced error in the hard-to-soft ratio and the resulting misclassification rate.
  4. [Section 4, assumptions 1-4, and Section 6.2] The linear small-amplitude expansion stated in assumptions 1-4 after Eq. (7) is the backbone of the method, yet the TNG300 demonstration in Section 6.2 is only qualitative: it shows that X-arithmetic maps resemble density and temperature slices, but it does not measure the actual amplitude of density fluctuations or compare the classified perturbation types against the true 3D decomposition. A quantitative validation using the simulation would strengthen the method considerably: compute the true per-pixel or per-voxel adiabatic/isobaric/isothermal content from the simulated density and temperature fields, and compare with the X-arithmetic labels, especially near strong shocks and cavities where the small-amplitude and single-effective-EOS assumptions are most stressed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and general text] The title contains a typo ('F eedback'), and there are numerous small spacing and capitalization errors throughout (e.g., 'T able' in Table 1 and 'T able 2' in the Appendix). These should be corrected in a final proofreading pass.
  2. [Section 4.3] The text says 'we assume that the observed perturbation is located at the midline of the gaseous halo z = 0'; the intended term is likely 'midplane' rather than 'midline'.
  3. [Appendix B, Fig. 16] The three-color image construction relies on object-dependent thresholds, and the caption notes that some detections are spurious because only default maps are used. The threshold choice is not described quantitatively; a brief statement of how thresholds are set and how robust the resulting colors are to threshold variation would help reproducibility.
  4. [Section 5.14, NGC 5044] The text states that 'many regions appear to be a mix of all perturbations,' but the corresponding figure labels are not always listed in the caption. A consistent labeling convention across all figure captions would make the visual classifications easier to audit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the X-arithmetic classification ratios come from plasma emissivity derivatives, and the headline trend is checked against independent spectroscopy and simulation slices rather than fitted.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The classification ratios wH,i/wS,i (Eq. 9) are computed from APEC/AtomDB emissivity derivatives d ln Lambda_B / d ln T at a chosen temperature and abundance, using XSPEC response simulations; they do not depend on the features being classified, and no parameter is fitted to the data to force a particular label. The three A2052 spectroscopic deprojection checks (Sec. 6.1) and the TNG300 mock-observation comparison (Sec. 6.2) are external benchmarks: the spectra and the density/temperature slices are not inputs to the image combinations that produce the classifications. Citations to Churazov et al. (2016) and related prior work provide method provenance and projection-correction formulas, but the method is re-derived in Eqs. (4)-(14), so those self-citations are not load-bearing. The linear, small-amplitude, single-effective-equation-of-state assumptions and the z=0 projection approximation are explicitly stated assumptions that create a real robustness/correctness risk, not circularity, and the paper itself flags the resolution/selection confound in Section 6.4. No step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by a self-citation chain, to its own inputs.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central result rests on five classes of per-object choices (T0, Z, band boundaries, patching radius, beta-model) that are robustness-filtered rather than fitted to force classifications, and on stated physical assumptions: linear small-amplitude decomposition, midplane projection, APEC emissivity accuracy, non-absorbing unperturbed model, faithful spectral deprojection, and sample adequacy for trend inference. The first two assumptions are the most fragile.

free parameters (5)
  • Extraction temperature T0 (per object) = 0.6 to 5.0 keV (Table 1)
    Sets the temperature at which dln(Lambda)/dlnT and the predicted hard/soft ratio wH,i/wS,i are evaluated (Eq. 9). Chosen from representative spectra, and features are reported only if stable to its variation.
  • Abundance Z (per object) = 0.3 to 1.0 solar (Table 1)
    Input to the XSPEC/APEC emissivity calculation; ranges based on earlier spectral studies produce up to about 15% variation in the predicted ratio.
  • Soft and hard energy band boundaries (per object) = e.g., 0.5-3.5 and 3.5-7.5 keV (Table 1)
    Chosen to maximize hard-band photon counts and the separation between pure isobaric and adiabatic predictions.
  • Patching radius (per object) = 0 to 100 arcsec (Table 1)
    Controls how much of the surface brightness structure is absorbed into the unperturbed model; only features stable to this choice are reported.
  • Beta-model type and parameters (per object) = single/double, spherical/elliptical (Table 1)
    Chosen by visual inspection of profiles; the unperturbed model defines the residuals that X-arithmetic classifies.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Perturbations are small and linearly decompose into exactly three types: adiabatic, isobaric, isothermal; second-order terms are negligible (Eq. 7, assumptions 1 to 4).
    This is the foundation of Eqs. 8 to 9; strong shocks and deep cavities in the sample violate small-amplitude assumptions.
  • domain assumption The perturbation lies at the cluster midplane z=0 and the atmosphere is a single beta-model for the projection correction (Section 4.3, Eqs. 11 to 14).
    Bubbles, filaments, and shocks are 3D structures; off-midplane perturbations get an incorrect position-dependent correction that can shift the effective hard/soft ratio.
  • standard math X-ray emissivity follows f = n^2 Lambda(T,Z) with APEC/AtomDB 3.0.9 accuracy (Eq. 6).
    Standard atomic-physics tooling; an inaccurate cooling function near band edges would bias the predicted ratios.
  • domain assumption The patched beta-model (Smod = S * Gsigma[IX/S], Section 3) represents the unperturbed atmosphere and does not absorb the features of interest.
    Large patching radii can smooth real perturbations into the model, removing them from the residuals before classification.
  • domain assumption The spectral deprojection (projct) correctly recovers 3D temperature, density, and pressure profiles in the follow-up analysis (Section 6.1).
    The three spectroscopic confirmations in A2052 rest on this deprojection being faithful.
  • domain assumption The 15-object sample, selected for deep exposures, prior cavity detections, and discernible features, is adequate for inferring a cluster-versus-group trend (Section 2).
    Selection on feature visibility and differing physical resolutions between clusters and groups could produce the trend by construction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decoding AGN Feedback with X-arithmetic: From Morphology to Physical Mechanisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T6SLRFWQ

@misc{pith2026250621859,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decoding AGN Feedback with X-arithmetic: From Morphology to Physical Mechanisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T6SLRFWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21859}
}
read the original abstract

Feedback from Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) is a key process in the evolution of massive halos in the Universe. New observational information on feedback is crucial for improving the implementation of the physics in numerical models. In this work, we apply a novel image-manipulation technique, termed 'X-arithmetic', to a sample of 15 galaxy clusters and groups deeply observed with Chandra. This technique decomposes perturbations in feedback-dominated regions into images excluding either (1) weak shocks and sound waves, (2) bubbles inflated by jets, or (3) cooling and slow gas motions (isobaric perturbations), enabling efficient spatial identification of these features without involving spectroscopic analysis. We confirm the nature of previously (spectroscopically-)identified features and newly establish the origin of other structures. We find that feedback produces multiple shocks in groups and massive galaxies, but only one to two shocks in clusters. Prominent isobaric structures are abundant around inner cavities in clusters, compared to almost no such structures in groups. These differences suggest that feedback effects are stronger in smaller-mass systems, possibly due to the shallower gravitational potential of groups or more violent feedback. Follow-up spectroscopy, guided by the X-arithmetic results, suggests that earlier-identified "isothermal shocks" could be a mix of isobaric and adiabatic structures. We applied X-arithmetic to galaxy cluster simulations, demonstrating its straightforward application and future potential for testing the feedback physics details in simulations. Our feasibility study shows that imaging data from future X-ray observatories like AXIS will be ideal for expanding X-arithmetic application to a larger sample of objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21859 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: ΛB for the soft (solid line) and hard (dashed line) bands of A2052 calculated using XSPEC and APEC. Middle: d ln ΛB d ln T as a function of temperature for the soft (solid line) and hard (dashed line) bands of A2052. Bottom: Ratio of fluxes in the hard to soft band for different types of perturbations vs. gas temperature in A2052 obtained using equation 9. In this cluster, pure adiabatic (isobaric) pertur￾batio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Application of X-arithmetic to A2052. Upper left: Soft band (0.5-3.5 keV) Chandra image. Circles provide an easy comparison of size scales: cyan circles have a 5 kpc radius, green circles – a 10 kpc radius, yellow – a 50 kpc radius, and red – a 200 kpc radius. Only those circles which are reasonably visible are included in the soft band image of each system. Upper middle: Global model of X-ray surface brightness dis… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Application of X-arithmetic to the Centaurus cluster (top) and Cygnus A (bottom). Panel order and notations are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Application of X-arithmetic to M87/ Virgo cluster (top) and Hydra A (bottom). The panel order and notations are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Application of X-arithmetic to Phoenix (top) and MS 0735 (bottom). The panel order and notations are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Application of X-arithmetic to A2597 (top) and A1795 (bottom). The panel order and notations are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Application of X-arithmetic to A3847 (top) and A133 (bottom). The panel order and notations are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Application of X-arithmetic to Perseus (top) and NGC 5813 (bottom). The panel order and notations are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Application of X-arithmetic to NGC 5044 (top) and M84 (bottom). The panel order and notations are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Deprojection analysis of the “isothermal shock” feature in A2052. The panel order and inset are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Leftmost 3 columns: Application of X-arithmetic to a mock 500 ks AXIS image of a 3.7 × 1014 M⊙/h TNG300 cluster positioned at z=0.0179. Panel arrangement is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Soft (0.5-2.5 keV, top) and hard (2.5-7.5 keV, bottom) band residual images of mock 500 ks Chandra ACIS￾I cycle 0 (left) and AXIS (right) observations of a 3.7 × 1014 M⊙/h TNG300 cluster positioned at z=0.0179. The im￾ages are lightly smoothed for visual purposes and …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Three-color images of five of the highest significance halos observed with Chandra and the mock AXIS observation of the TNG300 halo. Each perturbation map is assigned a color, such that magenta represents shocked regions, blue represents isobaric regions, and yellow r…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Surface brightness profiles (in arbitrary units) in the soft (blue) and hard (red) bands for (left to right) A2052, Centaurus, and Cygnus A. The best-fit default model type listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Intracluster Medium Fluctuations on Scales up to 1 Mpc: A Combined eROSITA and SPT/Planck Analysis of Abell 3266

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    First eROSITA-based X-ray measurement of intracluster density fluctuations in Abell 3266 yields pressure-to-density fluctuation ratio ζ=1.00±0.55 and about 7% non-thermal pressure support.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    doi:10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-x 1989

  2. [2]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17 Ar´ evalo, P., Churazov, E., Zhuravleva, I., Forman, W. R., & Jones, C. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 14, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/14

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/14 1996

  3. [3]

    A., & Soker, N

    Balbus, S. A., & Soker, N. 1990, ApJ, 357, 353, doi: 10.1086/168926

    doi:10.1086/168926 1990

  4. [4]

    J., Russell, H

    Bambic, C. J., Russell, H. R., Reynolds, C. S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 4374–4391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad824

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad824 2023

  5. [5]

    J., Kay, S

    Barnes, D. J., Kay, S. T., Bah´ e, Y. M., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 1088, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1647 Ba luci´ nska-Church, M., Ostrowski, M., Stawarz, L., &

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1647 2017

  6. [6]

    Church, M. J. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 357, L6, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.08597.x

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    Begelman, M. C. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 240, Gas and Galaxy Evolution, ed. J. E. Hibbard, M. Rupen, & J. H. van Gorkom, 363, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207656 B´ egin, T., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Rhea, C. L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3526

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207656 2001

  8. [8]

    2021, A&A, 650, A170, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040063 B ˆ ırzan, L., Rafferty, D

    Biava, N., Brienza, M., Bonafede, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A170, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040063 B ˆ ırzan, L., Rafferty, D. A., McNamara, B. R., Wise, M. W., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2004, ApJ, 607, 800, doi: 10.1086/383519 B ˆ ırzan, L., Rafferty, D. A., Br¨ uggen, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2613, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1594

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040063 2021

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    L., Randall, S

    Blanton, E. L., Randall, S. W., Clarke, T. E., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/99

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    L., Randall, S

    Blanton, E. L., Randall, S. W., Douglass, E. M., et al. 2009, ApJL, 697, L95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/L95

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    Neumann, D. M. 1993, MNRAS, 264, L25, doi: 10.1093/mnras/264.1.L25

    1993 doi

  4. [13]

    A., Lewis, A

    Buote, D. A., Lewis, A. D., Brighenti, F., & Mathews, W. G. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 594, 741, doi: 10.1086/377094

    2003 doi

  5. [14]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 1709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt562

    Cappellari, M., Scott, N., Alatalo, K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt562

    2013 doi

  6. [15]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2044

    Churazov, E., Arevalo, P., Forman, W., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2044

    2016 doi

  7. [16]

    2001, ApJ, 554, 261, doi: 10.1086/321357

    Forman, W. 2001, ApJ, 554, 261, doi: 10.1086/321357

    2001 doi

  8. [17]

    2000, A&A, 356, 788, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002375

    Churazov, E., Forman, W., Jones, C., & B¨ ohringer, H. 2000, A&A, 356, 788, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002375

    2000 doi arXiv

  9. [18]

    2002, MNRAS, 332, 729, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05332.x

    Churazov, E., Sunyaev, R., Forman, W., & B¨ ohringer, H. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 729, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05332.x

    2002

  10. [21]

    P., Jones, C., Forman, W., et al

    David, L. P., Jones, C., Forman, W., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 624, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/624

    2009 doi

  11. [22]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 2885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts224

    Dubois, Y., Pichon, C., Devriendt, J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts224

    2013 doi

  12. [23]

    Dunn, R. J. H., & Fabian, A. C. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 959, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11080.x

    2006

  13. [24]

    J., & Pfrommer, C

    Dursi, L. J., & Pfrommer, C. 2008, ApJ, 677, 993, doi: 10.1086/529371

    2008 doi

  14. [25]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 4622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2860

    Springel, V. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2860

    2023 doi

  15. [26]

    Bautz, M. W. 2014, Astrophysical Journal, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/174

    2014 doi

  16. [27]

    J., Reichherzer, P., Bott, A

    Ewart, R. J., Reichherzer, P., Bott, A. F. A., Kunz, M. W., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2098, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1578

    2024 doi

  17. [28]

    2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    Fabian, A. 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    2012 doi

  18. [29]

    C., Sanders, J

    Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Allen, S. W., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 344, L43, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06902.x

    2003

  19. [30]

    C., Sanders, J

    Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 417, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09896.x

    2006

  20. [32]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 686, 911, doi: 10.1086/591662

    Finoguenov, A., Ruszkowski, M., Jones, C., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 686, 911, doi: 10.1086/591662

    2008 doi

  21. [33]

    2017, ApJ, 844, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa70e4

    Forman, W., Churazov, E., Jones, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa70e4

    2017 doi

  22. [34]

    2007, ApJ, 665, 1057, doi: 10.1086/519480 30

    Forman, W., Jones, C., Churazov, E., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1057, doi: 10.1086/519480 30

    2007 doi

  23. [35]

    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

    2006 doi

  24. [36]

    L., Kempner, J

    Fujita, Y., Sarazin, C. L., Kempner, J. C., et al. 2002, ApJ, 575, 764, doi: 10.1086/341352

    2002 doi

  25. [37]

    A., Temi, P., et al

    Gastaldello, F., Buote, D. A., Temi, P., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/43

    2009 doi

  26. [39]

    2008, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 384, 251, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12692.x

    Guo, F., & Oh, S. 2008, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 384, 251, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12692.x

    2008

  27. [40]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 4161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2047

    Hillel, S., & Soker, N. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 4161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2047

    2014 doi

  28. [41]

    2020, Astrophysical Journal, 896, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9109

    Hillel, S., & Soker, N. 2020, Astrophysical Journal, 896, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9109

    2020 doi

  29. [42]

    C., Edge, A

    Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Fabian, A. C., Edge, A. C., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1360, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20405.x

    2012

  30. [43]

    2022, AGN Feedback in Groups and Clusters of Galaxies, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2206.00098

    Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Li, Y., & Churazov, E. 2022, AGN Feedback in Groups and Clusters of Galaxies, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2206.00098

    2022 doi arXiv

  31. [44]

    A., et al

    Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., McDonald, M., Benson, B. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/35

    2015 doi

  32. [45]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 1478, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx132

    Jacob, S., & Pfrommer, C. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1478, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx132

    2017 doi

  33. [46]

    Li, Y., & Bryan, G. L. 2014, ApJ, 789, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/153

    2014 doi

  34. [47]

    L., Ruszkowski, M., et al

    Li, Y., Bryan, G. L., Ruszkowski, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/73

    2015 doi

  35. [48]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  36. [49]

    2001, ApJL, 562, L153, doi: 10.1086/337973

    Markevitch, M., Vikhlinin, A., & Mazzotta, P. 2001, ApJL, 562, L153, doi: 10.1086/337973

    2001 doi

  37. [50]

    H., Veronica, A., et al

    McCall, H., Reiprich, T. H., Veronica, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449391

    2024 doi

  38. [51]

    McDonald, M., Veilleux, S., Rupke, D. S. N., & Mushotzky, R. 2010, Astrophysical Journal, 721, 1262, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1262

    2010 doi

  39. [52]

    R., Weeren, R

    McDonald, M., McNamara, B. R., Weeren, R. J., et al. 2015, Astrophysical Journal, 811, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/111

    2015 doi

  40. [53]

    R., Voit, G

    McDonald, M., McNamara, B. R., Voit, G. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab464c

    2019 doi

  41. [54]

    R., Kazemzadeh, F., Rafferty, D

    McNamara, B. R., Kazemzadeh, F., Rafferty, D. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 594, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/594

    2009 doi

  42. [55]

    R., Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., Wise, M. W., et al. 2005, Nature, 433, 45, doi: 10.1038/nature03202

    2005 doi

  43. [56]

    R., Wise, M., Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., Wise, M., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2000, Astrophysical Journal, Letters, 534, L135, doi: 10.1086/312662

    2000 doi

  44. [57]

    T., Werner, N., Simionescu, A., et al

    Million, E. T., Werner, N., Simionescu, A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2046, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17220.x

    2010

  45. [58]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618

    2018 doi

  46. [59]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    2018 doi

  47. [60]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    2019 doi

  48. [61]

    J., Tacchella, S., Diemer, B., et al

    Nelson, E. J., Tacchella, S., Diemer, B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 219, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2131

    2021 doi

  49. [62]

    R., et al

    Nulsen, P., Li, Z., Forman, W. R., et al. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 775, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/117

    2013 doi

  50. [63]

    K., Di Mascolo, L., et al

    Orlowski-Scherer, J., Haridas, S. K., Di Mascolo, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244547 O’Sullivan, E., David, L. P., & Vrtilek, J. M. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1926

    2022 doi

  51. [64]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/10

    Pfrommer, C. 2013, ApJ, 779, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/10

    2013 doi

  52. [65]

    W., Pointecouteau, E., & Melin, J

    Piffaretti, R., Arnaud, M., Pratt, G. W., Pointecouteau, E., & Melin, J. B. 2011, A&A, 534, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015377

    2011 doi

  53. [66]

    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

  54. [67]

    2005, Astrophysical Journal, 632, 821, doi: 10.1086/444344

    Pizzolato, F., & Soker, N. 2005, Astrophysical Journal, 632, 821, doi: 10.1086/444344

    2005 doi

  55. [68]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab620d

    Raja, R., Rahaman, M., Datta, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab620d

    2020 doi

  56. [69]

    submitted 2025, ApJ, arXiv:2501.02076, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.02076

    Rajpurohit, K., Deb, T., Kolokythas, K., et al. submitted 2025, ApJ, arXiv:2501.02076, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.02076

    2025 doi arXiv

  57. [70]

    W., Clarke, T

    Randall, S. W., Clarke, T. E., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 825, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/825

    2010 doi

  58. [71]

    W., Forman, W

    Randall, S. W., Forman, W. R., Giacintucci, S., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/86

    2010 doi

  59. [72]

    W., Nulsen, P

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

    2015 doi

  60. [73]

    S., Balbus, S

    Reynolds, C. S., Balbus, S. A., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/41 31

    2015 doi

  61. [74]

    S., Kara, E

    Reynolds, C. S., Kara, E. A., Mushotzky, R. F., et al. 2023, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12678, UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII, ed. O. H. Siegmund & K. Hoadley, 126781E, doi: 10.1117/1...

    2023 doi

  62. [75]

    S., & Fabian, A

    Sanders, J. S., & Fabian, A. C. 2006, MNRAS, 371, L65, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00209.x —. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1381, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12347.x

    2006

  63. [76]

    S., Fabian, A

    Sanders, J. S., Fabian, A. C., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 82, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2972

    2016 doi

  64. [77]

    E., et al

    Simionescu, A., Roediger, E., Nulsen, P. E., et al. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 495, 721, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811071

    2009 doi

  65. [78]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 1476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx919

    Urban, O. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx919

    2017 doi

  66. [79]

    A., Wilson, A

    Smith, D. A., Wilson, A. S., Arnaud, K. A., Terashima, Y., & Young, A. J. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 565, 195, doi: 10.1086/324539

    2002 doi

  67. [80]

    Snios, B., Nulsen, P. E. J., Wise, M. W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf1a

    2018 doi

  68. [81]

    S., & Dav´ e, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    2015 doi

  69. [82]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2018 doi

  70. [83]

    C., Blundell, K

    Steenbrugge, K. C., Blundell, K. M., & Duffy, P. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 388, 1465, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13412.x

    2008

  71. [84]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 422, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15155.x

    Sternberg, A., & Soker, N. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 422, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15155.x

    2009

  72. [85]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw064

    Tchekhovskoy, A., & Bromberg, O. 2016, MNRAS, 461, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw064

    2016 doi

  73. [86]

    2015, A&A, 580, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525745

    Tozzi, P., Gastaldello, F., Molendi, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525745

    2015 doi

  74. [88]

    R., Combes, F., Oonk, J

    Tremblay, G. R., Combes, F., Oonk, J. B. R., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6dd

    2018 doi

  75. [89]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa685

    Truong, N., Pillepich, A., Werner, N., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa685

    2020 doi

  76. [90]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9

    2011 doi

  77. [91]

    D., Naik, S., Patil, M

    Vagshette, N. D., Naik, S., Patil, M. K., & Sonkamble, S. S. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2054, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3227

    2017 doi

  78. [92]

    N., McNamara, B

    Vantyghem, A. N., McNamara, B. R., Russell, H. R., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1030

    2014 doi

  79. [93]

    S., et al

    Vikhlinin, A., Markevitch, M., Murray, S. S., et al. 2005, Astrophysical Journal, 628, 655, doi: 10.1086/431142

    2005 doi

  80. [94]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 2073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2955

    Vogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., Torrey, P., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 2073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2955

    2017 doi

  81. [95]

    A., Fabian, A

    Walker, S. A., Fabian, A. C., & Kosec, P. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 3444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1996

    2014 doi

  82. [96]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    2018 doi

  83. [97]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1396

    Weinberger, R., Su, K.-Y., Ehlert, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1396

    2023 doi

  84. [98]

    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

  85. [99]

    S., Smith, D

    Wilson, A. S., Smith, D. A., & Young, A. J. 2006, ApJL, 644, L9, doi: 10.1086/504108

    2006 doi

  86. [100]

    S., Young, A

    Wilson, A. S., Young, A. J., & Shopbell, P. L. 2000, ApJL, 544, L27, doi: 10.1086/317293

    2000 doi

  87. [101]

    W., McNamara, B

    Wise, M. W., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., Houck, J. C., & David, L. P. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1153, doi: 10.1086/512767

    2007 doi

  88. [102]

    Yang, H. Y. K., & Reynolds, C. S. 2016, ApJ, 829, 90, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/90

    2016 doi

  89. [103]

    J., Wilson, A

    Young, A. J., Wilson, A. S., & Mundell, C. G. 2002a, ApJ, 579, 560, doi: 10.1086/342918

    doi

  90. [104]

    J., Wilson, A

    Young, A. J., Wilson, A. S., Terashima, Y., Arnaud, K. A., & Smith, D. A. 2002b, ApJ, 564, 176, doi: 10.1086/324200

    doi

  91. [105]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 4785, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1269

    Zhang, C., Churazov, E., & Schekochihin, A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 4785, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1269

    2018 doi

  92. [106]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2282

    Zhang, C., Zhuravleva, I., Gendron-Marsolais, M.-L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2282

    2022 doi

  93. [107]

    M., Burns, J

    Zhao, J.-H., Sumi, D. M., Burns, J. O., & Duric, N. 1993, ApJ, 416, 51, doi: 10.1086/173214

    1993 doi

  94. [108]

    2012, MNRAS, 422, 2712, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20844.x

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Kravtsov, A., & Sunyaev, R. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2712, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20844.x

    2012

  95. [109]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 4184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv900

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Ar´ evalo, P., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 4184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv900

    2015 doi

  96. [110]

    A., & Hallman, E

    ZuHone, J. A., & Hallman, E. J. 2016, pyXSIM: Synthetic X-ray observations generator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.002 32

    2016

  97. [111]

    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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.