Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Resonant scattering of OVII X-ray light from a galaxy's bright core can count the oxygen ions in its faint outer halo from a simple flux ratio.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 18:07 UTC pith:NSO45XSF

load-bearing objection Clean geometric OVII-counting idea that works to 0.2 dex after observable cuts in TNG50; residual bias is openly model-dependent. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.25600 v2 pith:NSO45XSF submitted 2026-03-26 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Inferring the mass of the circumgalactic medium using X-ray resonant scattering

Nhut Truong , Maxim Markevitch , Dylan Nelson , Chris Byrohl This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords circumgalactic mediumresonant scatteringOVIIX-ray spectroscopyCGM massmicrocalorimeterTNG50
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The hot gas that surrounds galaxies is hard to weigh because most of it emits almost no X-rays. This paper shows that the same gas can still be counted: oxygen ions in the outer halo scatter the bright OVII resonant line that comes from the central peak, and the ratio of the two observed fluxes is proportional to the number of those ions. When the method is tested on simulated galaxies that include satellites, asymmetries, and gas motions, and when the most irregular systems are first discarded using only X-ray observables, the outer OVII mass is recovered with a 10 percent bias and about 0.2 dex scatter. Because that OVII mass tracks total oxygen and total gas mass in the same shell, the technique gives a practical route to baryon budgets that future microcalorimeter missions can actually measure.

Core claim

For a clean sample of galaxies selected solely by X-ray observables, the OVII ion mass inside an outer radial shell (R500c to R200c) follows directly from the observed ratio of scattered OVII flux in the corresponding annulus to direct OVII flux from the bright central region (r less than 0.2 R500c), recovering the true mass with only a 10 percent systematic underestimate and an rms scatter of roughly 0.2 dex.

What carries the argument

Geometric OVII counting: under the thin-shell, optically thin limit the ion number equals a known geometric factor times the inverse average scattering cross-section times the outer-to-inner OVII flux ratio; the cross-section itself is evaluated from the observed line centroids and Doppler widths of the two regions.

Load-bearing premise

The line widths and centroids seen along our line of sight can be used as if the gas motions were isotropic and random, so that only a small, calibratable fraction of outer ions is missed by Doppler mismatch.

What would settle it

Apply the identical flux-ratio estimator to a second cosmological simulation suite that produces substantially different outer-halo velocity fields; if the residual bias or scatter changes by more than the claimed 10 percent / 0.2 dex, the method's claimed accuracy fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Future microcalorimeter maps that resolve the OVII resonant line can convert a simple flux ratio into an outer-halo OVII mass without needing the continuum.
  • Once OVII mass is known, simulation-calibrated scalings convert it into total oxygen mass and total CGM gas mass inside the same shell.
  • Observable cuts on satellite contamination, azimuthal symmetry, and inner-line width let observers pre-select the galaxies for which the conversion is reliable.
  • The same geometric idea can be repeated for thinner radial shells once surface-brightness profiles are measured.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The residual 10 percent bias is itself a diagnostic of high-velocity outer gas that never enters the resonant window, so the method may constrain outflow and accretion kinematics as a byproduct.
  • Laboratory measurement of the true OVII scattering phase function would remove the last purely geometric systematic before real-world application.
  • If the OVII-to-total-oxygen and OVII-to-gas-mass scalings survive in other feedback models, the technique becomes a direct test of those models rather than a pure mass estimator.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a geometric method to count OVII ions (and thereby estimate outer-CGM mass) from resonant scattering of the OVIIr line at 574 eV. In the idealized static, spherical, optically thin limit, the outer-shell OVII number is proportional to the observed outer-to-inner flux ratio times a scattering cross-section and geometric factors (Eqs. 1–5, 11). The method is tested on TNG50 galaxies with Monte Carlo radiative transfer of OVIIr. After excluding systems with strong satellite contamination, azimuthal anisotropy, or large-scale outflows using X-ray observables, the estimator recovers the true R500c–R200c OVII mass with ~10% bias and ~0.2 dex rms scatter (Fig. 9). The residual bias is attributed to high-velocity outer gas outside the resonant window (Fig. 10). OVII mass is then linked to total oxygen and CGM mass via TNG50 scaling relations (Eqs. 12–13).

Significance. If the accuracy holds beyond TNG50, the method would give a direct, nearly model-independent count of OVII ions in the faint outer CGM of individual galaxies—precisely the regime where thermal emission is too weak for conventional mass estimates. That is a genuine observational advance for future microcalorimeter missions (NewAthena, HUBS). Strengths include a transparent geometric derivation, self-consistent RT testing, selection cuts defined on observables rather than on the target mass, and an open attribution of the residual bias. The OVII-to-total-mass scalings are secondary and model-dependent, but the primary OVII-counting result is a concrete, falsifiable prediction for real data.

major comments (3)
  1. §5 and Fig. 9: The central claim of 10% bias and ~0.2 dex scatter is demonstrated only for TNG50. The residual bias is explicitly attributed to high-velocity outer gas whose Doppler mismatch places it outside the resonant window of the inner-source photons (Fig. 10; §4.3.1). Different feedback prescriptions produce different outer velocity fields and density profiles, so both the bias and the post-cleaning scatter can change. Because the method is intended for real galaxies whose feedback physics is unknown, the quoted accuracy is not yet shown to be robust. At minimum the paper should (i) restate the abstract/conclusion accuracy as TNG50-specific, (ii) quantify how the bias scales with the outer high-velocity fraction, and (iii) either test a second simulation suite or provide a clear observational diagnostic that the high-velocity fraction is small.
  2. §2.3.2 and §5: Scattering is treated as isotropic, while the true OVII phase function is ∝(1+cos²θ). The paper correctly notes that this is self-consistent inside the simulation but will bias real applications (photons scattered near 90°). Before claiming readiness for NewAthena/HUBS, the geometric estimator (Eq. 11) and the RT pipeline should be re-run with the laboratory or theoretical anisotropic phase function, or a quantitative upper bound on the resulting bias should be given.
  3. Eq. (10) and §4.3.1: The substitution of line-of-sight observed Doppler widths and centroids for the 3D velocity distributions assumes isotropic random motions and that the outer velocity distribution is not broader than the inner one. Fig. 10 shows that the outer shell often has high-velocity wings beyond the inner range; those ions are invisible to the estimator. The paper treats this as a calibratable ~10% bias, but the assumption that LOS profiles adequately capture the resonant window is load-bearing and only weakly tested. A quantitative test (e.g., comparing ⟨σ_scat⟩ from LOS profiles vs. the full 3D velocity field for the clean sample) would strengthen the claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. §2.3.1: The ISM boost parameter b=10^{-4} is free; a short sensitivity check on how b affects the clean-sample recovery would help.
  2. §4.1–4.3: The satellite (15%), NSD (0.3), and W_D,inner (0.7 eV) thresholds are somewhat arbitrary. A brief robustness table showing how bias/scatter change when thresholds are varied would be useful.
  3. Fig. 2 and §3.1: The choice r_inner = 0.2 R500c is the sample median r_90; stating whether results are sensitive to modest changes (e.g., 0.15–0.25 R500c) would clarify generality.
  4. Eqs. (12)–(13): The OVII–oxygen and OVII–CGM scalings are TNG50-specific; the text should more clearly separate the primary geometric OVII count from these secondary, model-dependent conversions.
  5. Typographical: “GCM” appears for “CGM” in §2.2 heading; “esitmate” in §5; “emissivisity” in §2.3.1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: geometric OVII estimator is independent first-principles; TNG50 supplies validation, average geometric corrections, and empirical mass scalings only.

full rationale

The load-bearing estimator (Eqs. 1–5, 11) is derived from isotropic optically-thin scattering geometry and the definition of optical depth; it does not contain the target outer-shell OVII mass as an input. Average correction prefactors Cτ≈0.92 and Cproj≈0.73 (Sec. 4.4, Fig. 8) are measured once from density profiles and projection geometry for the chosen shell radii and are explicitly described as recoverable from an observed β-model; they are not free parameters adjusted to force the one-to-one recovery in Fig. 9. The residual 10% bias is measured a posteriori, attributed to high-velocity outer gas outside the resonant window (Fig. 10, Sec. 5), and flagged as model-dependent rather than absorbed into the formula. Empirical M_O–M_OVII and M_CGM–M_OVII fits (Eqs. 12–13) are presented as simulation correlations that enable secondary estimates, not as first-principles predictions. Self-citations to Nelson et al. (2023) and Byrohl & Nelson (2025) supply the RT code and parent sample but do not underwrite uniqueness or force the accuracy claim. Observable-based cleaning cuts (satellite fraction, NSD, W_D,inner) remove outliers without tautologically defining the mass. The derivation chain therefore remains non-circular; model dependence of the residual bias is a correctness/transferability issue, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard radiative-transfer geometry, the TNG50 galaxy-formation model, an isotropic-scattering approximation, and three hand-chosen selection thresholds that define the clean sample. No new physical entities are postulated. The residual 10% bias is accepted as a model-dependent systematic rather than corrected by an additional free parameter.

free parameters (5)
  • satellite-to-core emission threshold = 0.15
    15% cut used to exclude contaminated systems (§4.1); chosen by inspection of the distribution.
  • azimuthal anisotropy NSD threshold = 0.3
    NSD ≥ 0.3 used to flag asymmetric galaxies (§4.2); fiducial value chosen by hand.
  • inner Doppler-width outflow threshold = 0.7 eV
    WD,inner > 0.7 eV used to exclude outflow-dominated systems (§4.3.2); chosen from the sample distribution.
  • ISM boost parameter b = 1e-4
    Fiducial b = 10−4 multiplies hot-ISM OVII emission in the two-phase model (§2.3.1); free scaling parameter.
  • average shell-thickness and projection corrections Cτ, Cproj = Cτ≈0.92, Cproj≈0.73
    Numerical prefactors 0.92 and 0.73 taken from TNG50 averages (Fig. 8) and inserted into Eq. 11.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Scattering is treated as isotropic even though the true OVII phase function is ∝(1+cos²θ).
    Stated in §2.3.2; simulation and estimator are self-consistent, but real-world application will require the laboratory phase function.
  • domain assumption Ionization equilibrium under the Faucher-Giguère UV/X-ray background plus collisional ionization (CLOUDY tables).
    §2.3.1; standard but not re-derived.
  • domain assumption TNG50 baryonic physics (stellar and AGN feedback, metal enrichment) produce realistic CGM density, temperature, and velocity fields.
    Entire validation sample is drawn from TNG50; residual bias is model-dependent (§5).
  • ad hoc to paper Line-of-sight observed Doppler widths and centroids can be substituted for the 3D velocity distributions in the averaged cross-section (Eq. 10).
    §4.3.1; assumes isotropic random motions and that outer wings do not hide a large uncounted mass.
  • domain assumption Optically thin limit (τ ≪ 1) outside the galactic disk/bulge.
    §2.1; standard for CGM resonant lines at these columns.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 24508 in / 3185 out tokens · 70200 ms · 2026-07-13T18:07:25.941349+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The circumgalactic medium (CGM) regulates galaxy growth and retains the imprint of feedback from supernovae and supermassive black holes. However, the bulk of the hot CGM produces little X-ray emission and is challenging to study with X-ray telescopes. We propose a novel method for evaluating the CGM mass using resonant scattering of the helium-like oxygen (\ovii) resonant line at $E=574$ eV. In a spherically symmetric and static CGM halo with a sharp central X-ray peak, the number of \ovii\ ions within an outer radial shell can be calculated from the ratio of the two directly observable quantities: the \ovii\ flux from the bright inner region and the scattered \ovii\ flux from the shell (where the scattered flux can be much higher than the intrinsic emission). To evaluate the accuracy of this geometric estimate for realistic galaxies -- with satellites, asymmetries, and gas velocities -- we use a sample of galaxies from the TNG50 cosmological simulation. We find that, when the most irregular systems are excluded based on their X-ray observables, we accurately predict the \ovii\ mass in the outer halo (e.g., in an $r=R_{\rm 500c}-R_{\rm 200c}$ shell) from the ratio of the fluxes in the corresponding annulus and the central peak region ($r<0.2R_{\rm 500c}$), with only a 10\% bias and an rms scatter of $\sim 0.2$ dex. As \ovii\ mass strongly correlates with the total oxygen and gas mass, this direct \ovii-counting method enables indirect estimates of those quantities by future X-ray microcalorimeter missions, such as {\em NewAthena}\/ and {\em HUBS}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.25600 by Chris Byrohl, Dylan Nelson, Maxim Markevitch, Nhut Truong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Resonant scattering can be used to deduce the mass of OVII ions a CGM halo. Most OVIIr photons are emitted within the inner CGM. These photons scatter off OVII ions in the outer CGM, where the intrinsic OVIIr emission is negligible in comparison. The observer sees both the direct OVIIr emission from the central (source) region and photons from the same source scattered off the OVII ions in the outer region… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Definition of the inner (source) and outer CGM regions based on OVIIr emission profiles and scattering enhancement. Left: The OVIIr cumulative intrinsic (i.e., not considering resonant scattering) emission profiles, normalized to total emission within 𝑅500c, are shown as a function of projected radius. Individual profiles are shown by thin lines, and the thick black line shows the sample median. The vertic… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Effects of resonant scattering on the relation between the OVII mass in the 3D 𝑅500𝑐 − 𝑅200𝑐 shell and the OVIIr flux ratio between the outer and inner projected annuli. Each symbol represents a simulated galaxy in the full TNG50 sample; red and gray symbols show the flux ratios with and without resonant scattering, respectively. Shaded bands show the 16th − 84th percentile ranges and the red line is the r… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of satellite contamination on the scattering 𝑀OVII-flux ratio relation. (a), (b), and (c): Examples of individual galaxies with satellite contamination. Shown are OVIIr surface brightness maps, each 500 kpc on a side. The white circles mark the radii 𝑅500c and 𝑅200c. (d): cumulative distribution of the ratio of satellite to core OVIIr emission (see text for details). The vertical dotted line indicat… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of azimuthal anisotropy in OVIIr emission on the 𝑀OVII-flux ratio relation. (a), (b), and (c): Examples of individual galaxies that exhibit significant anisotropy in their OVIIr surface brightness maps. The map size and annotations follow the same conventions as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effects of gas motion in the CGM on OVIIr resonant scattering. (a) and (b): OVIIr surface brightness maps of a TNG50 galaxy for two cases: without and with the velocity field included, respectively. The map size and annotations follow the same conventions as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effects of large-scale outflows in the inner CGM on OVIIr resonant scattering. (a): Surface brightness map of an example TNG50 galaxy exhibiting a powerful SMBH-driven outflow in the inner CGM. The map size and annotations follow the same conventions as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effects of shell thickness and projection. Left: Ratio of true optical depth to that of a uniform density shell as a function of the outer CGM OVII mass. Right: Ratio of the scattered flux ratio 𝐹 Outer OVIIr/𝐹 Inner OVIIr computed using only emission within the 3D inner and outer regions to that computed using all the line-of-sight emission. 3D distribution of CGM gas properties. The trends between the sy… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between the OVII mass in the 𝑅500c − 𝑅200c 3D shell inferred from the scaling relation (equation 11) and the true OVII mass extracted directly from the simulation, for each of the 124 galaxies in the clean sample (Section 4). The shaded area indicates the 16th−84th percentile scatter around the best-fit relation. The inferred and true OVII masses follow a near one-to-one relation across the full… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distributions of radial velocities in the inner and outer CGM regions for a TNG50 galaxy. The outer CGM often exhibits high-velocity wings extending beyond the velocity range of the inner region. These high-velocity gas parcels have suppressed OVIIr scattering cross-sections due to a large Doppler mismatch, and would therefore be not captured by our mass estimate. are correction factors accounting for the… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mass scaling relations in the outer CGM region: OVII mass vs. total oxygen mass (left) and CGM mass (right) in the outer 𝑅500c − 𝑅200𝑐 shell, for all TNG50 galaxies and the clean sample (filled). Solid lines represent the best-fit scaling relations for the clean sample, while shaded bands show the 16th − 84th percentile scatter. The clean sample exhibits strong correlations between 𝑀O and 𝑀OVII, as well a… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Phase-space diagram showing the OVII fraction of the total Oxygen content (color) for different gas temperatures and densities. The OVII fraction is calculated using the CLOUDY model described in Section 2, which includes collisional ionization and photoionization by CXB. Contours show the typical gas parameters in our outer CGM shell, for a MW-like galaxy in TNG50. The density there is low (𝑛H ≲ 10−5 cm−… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 5391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2046

    Ayromlou, M., Nelson, D., & Pillepich, A. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2046

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2046 2023

  2. [2]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Barret, D., Lam Trong, T., den Herder, J.-W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2016

  3. [3]

    9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed

    Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 99052F, doi: 10.1117/12.2232432 Bogdán, Á., Bourdin, H., Forman, W. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9523

    doi:10.1117/12.2232432 2016

  4. [4]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 299513, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2149-y

    Bregman, J., Cen, R., Chen, Y., et al. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 299513, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2149-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-023-2149-y 2023

  5. [5]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.11603, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.11603

    Byrohl, C., & Nelson, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.11603, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.11603

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.11603 2025

  6. [6]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 5129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1958

    Byrohl, C., Nelson, D., Behrens, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1958

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1958 2021

  7. [7]

    D., et al

    Chadayammuri, U., Bogdán, Á., Oppenheimer, B. D., et al. 2022, ApJL, 936, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8936

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8936 2022

  8. [8]

    1950, Radiative Transfer (New York: Dover Publications)

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1950, Radiative Transfer (New York: Dover Publications)

    1950

  9. [9]

    2001, MNRAS, 323, 93, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04090.x

    Churazov, E., Haehnelt, M., Kotov, O., & Sunyaev, R. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 93, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04090.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04090.x 2001

  10. [10]

    2010, SSRv, 157, 193, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9685-4

    Churazov, E., Zhuravleva, I., Sazonov, S., & Sunyaev, R. 2010, SSRv, 157, 193, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9685-4

    doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9685-4 2010

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd764

    Das, S., Chiang, Y.-K., & Mathur, S. 2023, ApJ, 951, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd764

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd764 2023

  13. [13]

    2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Kereš, D., & Ma, C.-P

    Dekel, A., & Birnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Kereš, D., & Ma, C.-P. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2982, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19457.x Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., & Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1416, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416 Ferland,G.J.,Chatzikos,M.,Guzmán,F.,etal...

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x 2006

  14. [14]

    R., Syunyaev, R

    Gilfanov, M. R., Syunyaev, R. A., & Churazov, E. M. 1987, Pisma v Astronomicheskii Zhurnal, 13, 7

    1987

  15. [15]

    P., Hill, J

    Greco, J. P., Hill, J. C., Spergel, D. N., & Battaglia, N. 2015, ApJ, 808, 151, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/151

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/151 2015

  16. [16]

    Hamilton, D. R. 1947, ApJ, 106, 457, doi: 10.1086/144976

    work page doi:10.1086/144976 1947

  17. [17]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 4972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2992 15

    Khabibullin, I., & Churazov, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2992 15

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2992 2019

  18. [18]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.09827 2022

  19. [19]

    N., Wang, Q

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa96fc 2017

  20. [20]

    H., Mo, H

    Lim, S. H., Mo, H. J., Li, R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaa21

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaaa21 2018

  21. [21]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2206 2018

  22. [22]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 1870, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21831.x

    Mineo, S., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1870, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21831.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21831.x 2012

  23. [23]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty618 2018

  24. [24]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3040 2018

  25. [25]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1195

    Nelson, D., Byrohl, C., Ogorzalek, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1195 2023

  26. [26]

    D., Crain, R

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2020 2022

  27. [27]

    Crain, R. A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4740, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2967 Péroux, C., Nelson, D., van de Voort, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2462, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2888

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2967 2018

  28. [28]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 4667, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2779 Pillepich,A.,Nelson,D., Hernquist,L.,etal.2018a,MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Truong, N., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4667, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2779 Pillepich,A.,Nelson,D., Hernquist,L.,etal.2018a,MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2779 2021

  29. [29]

    2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656

  30. [30]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220941 —. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2338 2019

  31. [31]

    A., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4548 2024

  32. [32]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x 2010

  33. [33]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x 2003

  34. [34]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3304 2018

  35. [35]

    A., & Zeldovich, Y

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Zeldovich, Y. B. 1969, Nature, 223, 721, doi: 10.1038/223721a0

    work page doi:10.1038/223721a0 1969

  36. [36]

    Suresh, J., Rubin, K. H. R., Kannan, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2499

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2499 2017

  37. [37]

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

    Truong, N., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Werner, N., & Hernquist, L. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2638

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2638 2021

  38. [38]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 1976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2216

    Truong, N., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2216

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2216 2023

  39. [39]

    S., & Werk, J

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

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 2017

  40. [40]

    A., Verner, E

    Verner, D. A., Verner, E. M., & Ferland, G. J. 1996, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 64, 1, doi: 10.1006/adnd.1996.0018

    doi:10.1006/adnd.1996.0018 1996

  41. [41]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2944 2017

  42. [42]

    R., Churazov, E., & Scannapieco, E

    Werner, N., McNamara, B. R., Churazov, E., & Scannapieco, E. 2019, SSRv, 215, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0571-9

    doi:10.1007/s11214-018-0571-9 2019

  43. [43]

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

    doi:10.1086/170483 1991

  44. [44]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/183.3.341 1978

  45. [45]

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Morris, M., & White, R. L. 1984, ApJ, 278, 186, doi: 10.1086/161780

    doi:10.1086/161780 1984

  46. [46]

    2024a, A&A, 690, A267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449412 —

    Zhang, Y., Comparat, J., Ponti, G., et al. 2024a, A&A, 690, A267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449412 —. 2024b, A&A, 690, A268, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449413 —. 2025, A&A, 693, A197, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452273

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449412 2025

  47. [47]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2607

    Zinger, E., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2607

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2607 2020