pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.22975 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Probable Detection of a Cooler Gas Component in the Perseus Cluster with XRISM

Julian Meunier , Brian R. McNamara , Aurora Simionescu , Fran\c{c}ois Mernier , Irina Zhuravleva , Congyao Zhang , Annie Heinrich , Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo
show 31 more authors
Frederick S. Porter Benjamin Vigneron John ZuHone Elena Bellomi Ian Drury Megan E. Eckart Ryuichi Fujimoto Yutaka Fujita Liyi Gu Isamu Hatsukade Yuto Ichinohe Yoshiaki Kanemaru Takao Kitaguchi Shunji Kitamoto Shogo Kobayashi Takayoshi Kohmura Hironori Matsumoto Kyoko Matsushita Kostas Migkas Ikuyuki Mitsuishi Koji Mori Hiroshi Nakajima Hirofumi Noda Anna Ogorzalek Naomi Ota Lior Shefler Nhut Truong Ay\c{s}eg\"ul T\"umer Nagomi Uchida Yuusuke Uchida Shutaro Ueda
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 09:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords Perseus clusterXRISMintracluster mediummultiphase gasvelocity dispersionX-ray emission linescool corecluster dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

XRISM observations detect a cooler gas component with high velocity dispersion in the inner Perseus cluster.

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

This paper examines XRISM Resolve spectra of the Perseus cluster to trace how gas temperature and motion change with distance from the center. The temperature rises steadily outward in line with earlier measurements, yet only the gas beyond 60 kpc fits a single-temperature description. Inside that radius the spectra show excess broad wings in key emission lines, requiring a second, cooler phase near 2 keV. That cooler gas moves with a velocity dispersion of several hundred kilometers per second and a modest bulk shift relative to the central galaxy. The contrast in motion between the two phases suggests the inner gas is being stirred by mergers or central feedback.

Core claim

Beyond roughly 60 kpc the intracluster gas is well described by a single-temperature plasma, while the inner 60 kpc requires two phases. The hotter phase traced by Fe He alpha has velocity dispersion at most 140 km/s. The cooler phase, 1.87 to 2.43 keV, shows velocity dispersion 300 to 400 km/s and bulk velocity offset 21 to 213 km/s relative to the central galaxy. These properties are recovered from the broad wings on S Ly alpha and Fe He alpha lines after correction for spatial-spectral mixing and the bright central point source.

What carries the argument

High-resolution X-ray line-profile spectroscopy from the XRISM Resolve spectrometer, which isolates broad wings in emission lines to separate the cooler, higher-dispersion gas from the hotter phase.

If this is right

  • The inner region contains multiphase gas while the outer atmosphere does not.
  • The cooler phase carries a Mach number near unity and supplies 23 to 34 percent of the non-thermal pressure support.
  • The velocity offsets and dispersion link the cooler gas to the known sloshing spiral or to disturbance by radio jets.
  • Bulk motions in the cooler gas are consistent with line-of-sight merging halos that helped build the cool core.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar multiphase signatures may appear in other cool-core clusters once comparable spectral resolution is applied.
  • Refined modeling of gain variations and point-source contamination would either confirm or weaken the detection.
  • The elevated turbulence in the cooler gas may help regulate how rapidly the core can cool.

Load-bearing premise

Correct identification of the cooler component requires accurate subtraction of spatial-spectral mixing and the central point source without large errors from low-energy gain variations.

What would settle it

An independent high-resolution spectrum of the same inner region that shows no excess broad wings in S Ly alpha or Fe He alpha after identical modeling would rule out the cooler component.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22975 by Anna Ogorzalek, Annie Heinrich, Aurora Simionescu, Ay\c{s}eg\"ul T\"umer, Benjamin Vigneron, Brian R. McNamara, Congyao Zhang, Elena Bellomi, Fran\c{c}ois Mernier, Frederick S. Porter, Hirofumi Noda, Hironori Matsumoto, Hiroshi Nakajima, Ian Drury, Ikuyuki Mitsuishi, Irina Zhuravleva, Isamu Hatsukade, John ZuHone, Julian Meunier, Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo, Koji Mori, Kostas Migkas, Kyoko Matsushita, Lior Shefler, Liyi Gu, Megan E. Eckart, Nagomi Uchida, Naomi Ota, Nhut Truong, Ryuichi Fujimoto, Shogo Kobayashi, Shunji Kitamoto, Shutaro Ueda, Takao Kitaguchi, Takayoshi Kohmura, Yoshiaki Kanemaru, Yutaka Fujita, Yuto Ichinohe, Yuusuke Uchida.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: The four XRISM pointings (squares) and the five mapped regions (circles) of the Perseus cluster overlaid on the cropped exposure-corrected 2–8 keV Chandra ACIS image (XRISM Collaboration et al. 2025a). Bottom: The five pixel sub-FOV regions of the multiple temperature fitting model. between the temperature estimated using flux ratios and the continuum shape may indicate a complex tempera￾ture structur… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Narrow band fits of the C0 spectrum for 1.8– 2.7, 3.0–4.8, and 6.4–8.5 keV. The best fit model is shown in red, and emission lines of interest are labeled. Residuals, calculated as (data - model)/error in terms of σ, are shown below each fit. The spectrum is binned for plotting purposes only. σ) and the powerlaw normalization were frozen to the best fit value of a single-temperature fit for each point￾ing.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the region 2 spectrum between the model fit with two temperatures in region 2 (blue) and a one-temperature model (red) for Si XIV Lyα (top), S XVI Lyα (middle), and Fe XXV Heα (bottom). The spectrum is re-binned for plotting purposes only. Contributions from the power law, NXB, Fe XXV Heα w line gaussian, and scattered photons are not shown view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best-fit model, with two temperatures in region 2, measured radial profiles of temperature (left), velocity dispersion (middle), and bulk velocity (right) ( view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profiles in regions 1–3 of temperature (left), velocity dispersion (middle), and bulk velocity (right) between the three two-temperature models. The red data points represent the values from the model with two temperatures in region 1 ( view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Regions 1 and 2 of the multiple temperature analysis overlaid on the 2 keV Chandra mass map by Fabian et al. (2006). Large velocity dispersions, comparable to that of the cooler component, are found in merger simulations. These mergers show spiral structure similar to what is seen in Perseus (ZuHone et al. 2016). The simulations predict significant deviations from Gaussianity that can be modeled as a super… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present an analysis of the temperature structure of the Perseus cluster atmosphere using XRISM Resolve observations. The average temperature rises from 3.3 keV near the nucleus of NGC 1275 to 8 keV at 10 arcmin (210 kpc), which is consistent with Chandra and XMM measurements. The velocity and velocity dispersion profiles are broadly consistent with those in arXiv:2509.04421. While the gas at altitudes beyond $\sim60$ kpc can be modeled as a single temperature plasma, we find evidence for more than one gas phase in the inner $\sim60$ kpc. The hotter gas component, traced primarily by the Fe He$\alpha$ line, has a velocity dispersion of $\lesssim140$ km s$^{-1}$. We detect a cooler, $\sim1.87-2.43$ keV, gas component with a velocity dispersion of $\sim300-400$ km s$^{-1}$ and a bulk velocity of $\sim 21-213$ km s$^{-1}$ with respect to the central galaxy. These ranges reflect large systematic uncertainties associated with modeling spatial-spectral mixing and the bright central point source. Potential low energy gain variations may add additional uncertainties. The cooler component is identified by broad wings in prominent emission lines, most notably S Ly$\alpha$ and Fe He$\alpha$. This cooler component's Mach number $\sim0.73-0.96$ and non-thermal pressure fraction of $\sim22.9-33.7\%$ are much higher than found for the hotter gas. The cooler gas may be associated with merging halos along the line of sight which formed the cool, sloshing spiral and/or cooling gas being disturbed by the radio jets and lobes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes XRISM Resolve spectra of the Perseus cluster, reporting a radially increasing temperature profile from 3.3 keV near NGC 1275 to 8 keV at 210 kpc that matches prior Chandra/XMM results. Beyond ~60 kpc the ICM is consistent with a single-temperature plasma, while the inner ~60 kpc requires at least two phases: a hotter component (traced by Fe Heα) with velocity dispersion ≲140 km s^{-1} and a cooler ~1.87–2.43 keV component with velocity dispersion ~300–400 km s^{-1} and bulk velocity ~21–213 km s^{-1} relative to the central galaxy. The cooler phase is identified via broad wings on S Lyα and Fe Heα; the authors explicitly flag large systematic uncertainties from spatial-spectral mixing and the bright central point source, and suggest possible links to sloshing or AGN feedback.

Significance. If the two-phase detection survives detailed systematic tests, the work supplies new kinematic constraints on the multi-temperature ICM in a cool-core cluster using XRISM’s high-resolution spectroscopy. The derived Mach number (~0.73–0.96) and non-thermal pressure fraction (~23–34 %) for the cooler phase would be useful benchmarks for simulations of turbulence, sloshing, and feedback. The explicit acknowledgment of modeling uncertainties is a strength, though it limits the immediate impact of the claimed detection.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and inner ~60 kpc spectral modeling] Abstract and inner-region analysis: the claim that the inner ~60 kpc requires a distinct cooler component rests on broad line wings that cannot be reproduced by the hotter component alone. However, no controlled variations of the spatial-spectral mixing kernel or NGC 1275 point-source spectrum are shown to demonstrate that the two-component preference (e.g., via Δχ² or Bayesian evidence) survives these systematics; the reported velocity ranges already incorporate large uncertainties, but the impact on model selection is not quantified.
  2. [Discussion of derived quantities] The Mach number (~0.73–0.96) and non-thermal pressure fraction (~22.9–33.7 %) quoted for the cooler component are derived directly from its velocity dispersion; because the dispersion range itself is dominated by systematic uncertainties in mixing and point-source subtraction, these derived quantities inherit the same unquantified systematics and cannot yet be used as robust physical constraints.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Observations and data reduction] The exact radial boundaries and binning used to separate the inner (~60 kpc) and outer regions should be stated explicitly, together with the number of spectra or extraction regions involved.
  2. [Results] A brief table or figure summarizing the best-fit parameters and their statistical versus systematic error budgets for both components would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered the major comments and provide point-by-point responses below. Where appropriate, we have made revisions to strengthen the presentation of our results and the discussion of uncertainties.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and inner ~60 kpc spectral modeling] Abstract and inner-region analysis: the claim that the inner ~60 kpc requires a distinct cooler component rests on broad line wings that cannot be reproduced by the hotter component alone. However, no controlled variations of the spatial-spectral mixing kernel or NGC 1275 point-source spectrum are shown to demonstrate that the two-component preference (e.g., via Δχ² or Bayesian evidence) survives these systematics; the reported velocity ranges already incorporate large uncertainties, but the impact on model selection is not quantified.

    Authors: We thank the referee for pointing this out. The manuscript does note the large systematic uncertainties in the reported velocity ranges for the cooler component. However, we agree that we have not quantified how variations in the spatial-spectral mixing kernel and the modeling of the NGC 1275 point source affect the statistical preference for the two-temperature model over a single-temperature one. In the revised manuscript, we will add a section or appendix presenting controlled tests where we vary these components and report the resulting changes in fit statistics (Δχ² and/or Bayesian evidence) to demonstrate the robustness of the two-component detection. This will address the concern directly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion of derived quantities] The Mach number (~0.73–0.96) and non-thermal pressure fraction (~22.9–33.7 %) quoted for the cooler component are derived directly from its velocity dispersion; because the dispersion range itself is dominated by systematic uncertainties in mixing and point-source subtraction, these derived quantities inherit the same unquantified systematics and cannot yet be used as robust physical constraints.

    Authors: We concur with the referee that the Mach number and non-thermal pressure fraction for the cooler phase are subject to the same systematic uncertainties as the velocity dispersion measurements. These quantities were presented to provide context and potential benchmarks for simulations, but we acknowledge that they should not be regarded as definitive constraints at this stage. In the revised manuscript, we will modify the discussion section to more strongly emphasize the limitations due to systematics and clarify that these values are preliminary, pending further validation of the cooler component detection. We will also update the abstract if necessary to reflect this caution. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct observational spectral analysis exhibits no circularity

full rationale

The paper performs model fitting directly to XRISM Resolve spectra to derive temperature profiles, velocity dispersions, and evidence for a multi-phase inner gas component. The cooler ~1.87-2.43 keV phase is identified via residual broad wings on S Lyα and Fe Heα lines after single-temperature modeling, with all reported ranges and Mach numbers incorporating explicit systematic uncertainties from spatial-spectral mixing, central point-source subtraction, and gain variations. No derivation step reduces by construction to its own inputs; the cited consistency with arXiv:2509.04421 is a non-load-bearing external check, and the central claims rest on the new data rather than self-citation chains or ansatzes. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks such as Chandra and XMM measurements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard X-ray plasma emission modeling and the assumption that line broadening can be decomposed into thermal, turbulent, and bulk-motion contributions after accounting for instrumental and spatial effects.

free parameters (2)
  • cooler gas temperature
    Fitted value 1.87-2.43 keV obtained from spectral modeling of emission lines.
  • cooler gas velocity dispersion
    Fitted value 300-400 km/s derived from line widths after subtracting instrumental resolution.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption X-ray emission lines from multi-temperature plasma can be decomposed into distinct components using current atomic databases and response matrices
    Invoked when separating hotter Fe He-alpha and cooler S Ly-alpha contributions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5831 in / 1423 out tokens · 44543 ms · 2026-05-08T09:54:43.988725+00:00 · methodology

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

36 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., et al

    Allen, S. W., Ettori, S., & Fabian, A. C. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 877, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04318.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04318.x 2001

  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

    1996

  3. [3]

    Cash, Parameter estimation in astronomy through application of the likelihood ratio.ApJ 228, 939–947 (1979), doi:10.1086/156922

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    work page doi:10.1086/156922 1979

  4. [4]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/321357 2001

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1086/374923 , eprint =

    Churazov, E., Forman, W., Jones, C., & B¨ ohringer, H. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 590, 225, doi: 10.1086/374923

    work page doi:10.1086/374923 2003

  6. [6]

    C., Johnstone, R

    Fabian, A. C., Johnstone, R. M., Sanders, J. S., et al. 2008, Nature, 454, 968, doi: 10.1038/nature07169

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07169 2008

  7. [7]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 937, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06241.x G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S

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

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06902.x 2003

  8. [8]

    D., Drew, 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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09896.x 2006

  9. [9]

    R., Pols, O

    Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Ettori, S., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 318, L65, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03904.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03904.x 2000

  10. [10]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Allen, S. W., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2154, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19402.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19402.x 2011

  11. [11]

    arXiv , author =:1207.0576 , journal =

    Foster, A. R., Ji, L., Smith, R. K., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/128

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/128 2012

  12. [12]

    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

    work page doi:10.1117/12.671760 2006

  13. [13]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00126, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.00126

    Kondo, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00126, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.00126

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.00126 2025

  14. [14]

    B., et al

    Gendron-Marsolais, M., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Martin, T. B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, L28, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly084

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly084 2018

  15. [15]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 Hitomi Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2016, Nature, 535, 117, doi: 10.1038/nature18627 Hitomi Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2018a, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, 11, doi: 10.1093...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  16. [16]

    T., McNamara, B

    Hogan, M. T., McNamara, B. R., Pulido, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f56

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f56 2017

  17. [17]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  18. [18]

    C., McNamara, B

    Kirkpatrick, C. C., McNamara, B. R., & Cavagnolo, K. W. 2011, ApJL, 731, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/L23

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/l23 2011

  19. [19]

    Lodders, K., Palme, H., & Gail, H. P. 2009, Landolt B¨ ornstein, 4B, 712, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88055-434

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88055-434 2009

  20. [20]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.10167, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.10167

    Majumder, A., Heckman, T., Meunier, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.10167, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.10167 19

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.10167 2025

  21. [21]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625 —. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625 2007

  22. [22]

    S., Kilbourne, C

    Porter, F. S., Kilbourne, C. A., Chiao, M. P., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 042016, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.4.042016

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.11.4.042016 2025

  23. [23]

    L., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Gendron-Marsolais, M.-L., et al

    Rhea, C. L., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Gendron-Marsolais, M.-L., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb732

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adb732 2025

  24. [24]

    R., Meunier, J., et al

    Rose, T., McNamara, B. R., Meunier, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.01494, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.01494

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.01494 2025

  25. [25]

    2007, MNRAS, 378, 910, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x

    Sanders, J. S., & Fabian, A. C. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1381, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12347.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12347.x 2007

  26. [26]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 182, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/182

    Simionescu, A., Werner, N., Urban, O., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 182, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/182

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/182 2012

  27. [27]

    R., et al

    Simionescu, A., Kilbourne, C., Russell, H. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16901, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.16901

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.16901 2026

  28. [28]

    S., & Dopita, M

    Sutherland, R. S., & Dopita, M. A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253, doi: 10.1086/191823

    work page doi:10.1086/191823 1993

  29. [29]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 3516, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx590

    Tang, X., & Churazov, E. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3516, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx590 The Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, Thomas P.,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx590 2017

  30. [30]

    1999, XSPEC: An X-ray spectral fitting package,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:9910.005 http://ascl.net/9910.005 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Tollerud, Erik J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Comput. Sci. Eng., 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  31. [31]

    M., & Donahue, M

    Voit, G. M., & Donahue, M. 2005, ApJ, 634, 955, doi: 10.1086/497063

    work page doi:10.1086/497063 2005

  32. [32]

    On the Absorption of X-rays in the Interstellar Medium

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016 XRISM Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.04421, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.04421 —. 2025b, ApJL, 982, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada7cd —. 2025c, Nature, 638, 365, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08561-z —. 2025d, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20928....

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/317016 2000

  33. [33]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2282 Zhoolideh Haghighi, M

    Zhang, C., Zhuravleva, I., Gendron-Marsolais, M.-L., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2282

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2282 2022

  34. [34]

    A., et al

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Schekochihin, A. A., et al. 2014, Nature, 515, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature13830

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13830 2014

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    ZuHone, J. A., Markevitch, M., & Lee, D. 2011, ApJ, 743, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/16

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/1/16 2011

  36. [36]

    A., Miller, E

    ZuHone, J. A., Miller, E. D., Simionescu, A., & Bautz, M. W. 2016, ApJ, 821, 6, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/6

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/6 2016