Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 107 references

A Survey of H I and O VI Absorption Lines in the Outskirts of $z\lesssim0.3$ Galaxy Clusters

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quasar absorption-line statistics can expose a galaxy cluster's outer accretion shock as a slight neutral-hydrogen excess at 2–3 R200, while O VI beyond 4 R200 traces the warm-hot intergalactic medium.

desk verdict Careful, honestly hedged archival survey with useful new dN/dz profiles; the nulls hold up, but the O VI comparison is HI-conditioned, the significances ignore trials, and the accretion-shock 'detection' overstates a 2–3σ excess. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13551 v1 pith:DSL2U3GN submitted 2024-11-20 astro-ph.GA

Priscilla Holguin Luna , Joseph N. Burchett , Daisuke Nagai , Todd M. Tripp , Nicolas Tejos , J. Xavier Prochaska This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyclustersquasarabsorptionlinespectroscopyintraclustermediumcircumgalacticwarm-hotintergalacticaccretionshockHILyman-alphaOVI
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the diffuse gas in galaxy cluster outskirts can be mapped with quasar absorption lines. Using 18 archival HST/COS spectra that pass through the environments of 26 clusters, it measures the incidence of H I and O VI absorbers as a function of impact parameter in units of $R_{200}$ and compares it with the expected IGM field value. It finds H I consistent with the field everywhere except a slight elevation at 2–3 $R_{200}$, and O VI consistent with the field within 3$\sigma$ everywhere but with elevations at 1–2 and beyond 4 $R_{200}$. The paper interprets the H I excess as a buildup of neutral gas at the cluster's outer accretion shock and the far-outskirt O VI as a possible signature of the warm-hot intergalactic medium, not of satellite circumgalactic gas. If correct, absorption-line statistics would provide a way to locate the accretion shock and probe the WHIM where X-ray and SZ observations are weakest.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing statistic is $dN/dz$, the number of absorbers per unit redshift path above a chosen limiting equivalent width, computed in bins of $r/R_{200}$ and compared with a field benchmark derived from power-law fits to IGM absorption. The physical mechanism proposed is the outer accretion shock: a phase-change boundary beyond the virial radius where neutral gas accumulates before being shock-heated and ionized, producing an H I shell that limb sightlines intersect at 2–3 $R_{200}$. Supporting this, a toy model builds radial density profiles from an adopted pressure profile and temperature profile (one unmodified, one forced to $10^4$ K beyond $2R_{200}$), uses non-equilibrium ionization calculations for the neutral fraction, and integrates $n_{\mathrm{H\,I}}$ along mock sightlines to show a column-density jump at the temperature discontinuity. This model does not prove the shock interpretation but provides the concrete mechanism that the observational excess is matched against.

What would settle it

A matched sample of roughly one hundred quasar sightlines through cluster outskirts at 2–3 $R_{200}$, compared against field sightlines drawn from the same spectra outside the cluster velocity window, would settle whether the H I excess persists; if it does not reproduce at high significance, the accretion-shock interpretation is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is statistical rather than a single dramatic absorber: $dN/dz$ for H I matches the IGM field value in every impact-parameter bin, while the 2–3 $R_{200}$ bin rises above the field at the 2–3$\sigma$ level for the 50 and 100 mÅ thresholds; $dN/dz$ for O VI matches the field within 3$\sigma$ everywhere, with >2$\sigma$ elevations in the 1–2 and 4–5 $R_{200}$ bins for the weakest thresholds. The paper reads the H I elevation as the statistical detection of the outermost accretion shock front: infalling cool gas piles up ahead of the shock and is ionized after crossing it, so sightlines piercing the shock limb see extra neutral hydrogen. The O VI detections in the far outskirts, where no systematic excess of associated galaxies is found, are more consistent with warm-hot intergalactic gas than with circumgalactic medium around cluster satellites. A phenomenological model with a temperature discontinuity at 2 $R_{200}$ reproduces the H I column-density enhancement, while single-temperature cool or warm-hot models bracket but do not fit the measured column densities, suggesting multiphase gas.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim stands on the assumption that the external IGM field model—power-law fits to $dN/dz$ from unrelated sightlines, converted via an optically-thin curve of growth—accurately predicts what these same sightlines would show if the clusters were absent; if that baseline is wrong, both the null results and the claimed excess significances are miscalibrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • H I absorption at 2–3 $R_{200}$ is elevated above the IGM field at 2–3$\sigma$ for the stronger equivalent-width thresholds, which the paper interprets as a neutral-gas buildup at the outer accretion shock front.
  • O VI absorption at 1–2 and beyond 4 $R_{200}$ is elevated above the field at >2$\sigma$ for the weakest thresholds, consistent with warm-hot intergalactic gas rather than satellite circumgalactic gas.
  • The measured H I column densities fall between cool ($10^4$ K) and warm-hot ($10^{5-6}$ K) model predictions, indicating that the cluster outskirts contain multiphase gas that simple single-temperature models do not capture.
  • The H I covering fraction exceeds the O VI covering fraction within 4 $R_{200}$, while the two are consistent beyond 4 $R_{200}$, implying neutral gas is more widespread than warm-hot gas in the inner outskirts.
  • A larger sample of cluster-QSO pairs targeted at these impact parameters can confirm or refute the tentative excesses and sharpen the shock location.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A sharper test of the shock interpretation would measure Ly$\alpha$ Doppler parameters: if the 2–3 $R_{200}$ H I excess is pre-shock accumulation, a population of broad Ly$\alpha$ absorbers from shock-heated gas should accompany it, as seen near filament spines in earlier studies.
  • If the accretion-shock picture is right, the H I excess should be stronger for higher-mass clusters and should be anisotropic, concentrated along infalling filaments; binning by filament orientation rather than spherical shells could sharpen the signal beyond what this sample can show.
  • The far-outskirt O VI excess, if confirmed, would add to the census of baryons in the warm-hot intergalactic medium; combining O VI with higher-ionization oxygen lines could separate collisional from photoionization production.
  • Because all O VI detections in this survey are accompanied by H I, a dedicated search for O VI without H I in cluster outskirts would test whether the metal-bearing warm-hot gas is truly mixed with neutral gas or occupies separate phases.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a blind absorption-line survey of 18 HST/COS quasar spectra intersecting 26 redMaPPer galaxy clusters at z ~ 0.1-0.3, measuring H I Lyα and O VI equivalent widths, column densities, dN/dz, and covering fractions as functions of impact parameter normalized by R200. The central observational claims are that H I dN/dz is broadly consistent with the IGM field, with a tentative elevation at 2-3 R200, and O VI dN/dz is also broadly consistent with the field, with tentative >2σ elevations at 1-2 R200 and 4-5 R200. The authors propose that the H I elevation traces a neutral-gas buildup at the outermost accretion shock and that the outer O VI excess may trace the warm-hot intergalactic medium, while finding no clear galaxy-density excess near O VI sightlines.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be one of the first statistical localizations of the cluster accretion shock with quasar absorption-line statistics, and it would add evidence for a WHIM signature beyond 4 R200. The paper has several real strengths: the line-identification procedure is blind to cluster redshifts, the equivalent-width and column-density treatments are explicit, the per-bin 1-3σ error bars are shown, and the interpretations are mostly hedged. However, the headline comparisons rest on an external field benchmark whose uncertainties and selection definition are not fully matched to the measurement, and the accretion-shock interpretation depends on a model where the key radius is imposed rather than derived. These issues are correctable but should be addressed before publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Section 4.3, Eq. (4)] The O VI dN/dz measurement is conditional on H I detection, while the field benchmark is unconditional. Section 3.1 states that metal absorbers are not identified unless an a- or b-ranked H I Lyman absorption is found at that redshift, and Section 4.3 confirms that all O VI detections have an associated H I Lyα detection. The field dN/dz|field from Danforth et al. (2016) in Eq. (4), however, counts O VI absorbers without requiring accompanying H I. Thus the numerator of the measured O VI dN/dz is a HI-conditioned quantity while the denominator uses the full O VI path length, so the 'consistent with the field' nulls and the >2σ elevations are not comparisons of like with like. The paper should either recompute a conditional field expectation, state and propagate the expected suppression factor, or reframe the O VI claims as conditional incidence only.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (4), Figures 7-8] The reported significances do not include the uncertainty in the field model itself. For O VI, Eq. (4) uses β = 1.525 ± 0.26 and C = 9.7 ± 1.3; at the column densities corresponding to Wlim = 20 mÅ, the β uncertainty alone changes dN/dz|field by roughly ±40%, and at higher Wlim the normalization uncertainty adds further. The black lines in Figures 7 and 8 are point estimates, so a bin declared '>2σ above the field' can be only ~1σ above the field once the field's own uncertainty is propagated. In addition, the search over 6 radial bins × 3 Wlim thresholds × 2 ions involves many correlated trials, so a 2σ excursion is expected even under the null. The abstract and Section 5.4 should either quote false-positive rates after accounting for multiplicity and field uncertainty, or explicitly limit the claims to 'tentative, not statistically robust' without the word 'detection'.
  3. [Section 5.3.1, Section 5.4, Figure 9] The modified temperature profile used in the toy model introduces a discontinuity at exactly 2 R200, which is the same radius where the H I dN/dz excess appears. The resulting H I column-density jump at 2 R200 is therefore an input of the model, not an independent prediction. The later interpretation in Section 5.4 that the data constitute 'the statistical detection of the outermost accretion shock front' thus overstates the support: the model can illustrate how a shock at 2 R200 would produce a column-density enhancement, but it cannot validate that the shock is at 2 R200. The authors should either derive the shock radius from the data without fixing it at the excess radius, or soften Section 5.4 to say the data are consistent with an accretion-shock interpretation rather than a statistical detection.
  4. [Section 3.3, Eq. (2) and Eq. (4)] The claim that all Wlim values place the measurement on the linear portion of the curve of growth because they are below Nsat = 10^13.75 is not a valid implication. Linearity requires τ0 << 1, which depends on the Doppler parameter b; for a narrow Lyα component with b = 10 km/s, Wlim = 100 mÅ corresponds to N ~ 2 × 10^13 cm^-2 and τ0 ~ 2-3, outside the quoted 2.6% accuracy range of the linear approximation. Since the H I field values at Wlim = 100 mÅ are computed through this conversion, the 100 mÅ comparison in Figure 7 may be miscalibrated at the tens-of-percent level. The authors should verify the conversion using the actual distribution of b values in their sample or use an empirical W-N relation for the field benchmark.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says 'Similar to Figure 3 for O vi' but should reference Figure 2.
  2. [Table 2] Several c-ranked O VI entries list log N = 0.0 ± 0.73 (e.g., clusters 46, 8791, 4241, 11497, 9432); these values appear unphysical and should be clarified, replaced with meaningful upper limits, or removed from the table.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Section 5.4] The terminology is inconsistent: Section 4.2 and the abstract call the H I and O VI excesses 'tentative' and 'not statistically significant,' while Section 5.4 says the H I result is a 'statistical detection of the outermost accretion shock front.' The wording should be aligned so the conclusion matches the stated significance level.
  4. [Section 3.3] The text defines dz as the total redshift path in a spectrum, but the reported total dz = 0.215 is only the sum around clusters within the stated velocity window and wavelength coverage; this distinction should be made explicit in the definition to avoid confusion.
  5. [Section 5.3.2] The choice of 500 kpc as the line-of-sight integration length is motivated but arbitrary; a sentence noting the sensitivity of the model N(H I) to this choice would be useful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Empirical dN/dz measurements are benchmarked externally, but the accretion-shock toy model builds the observed 2-3 R200 H I excess into its temperature profile, so the model's agreement at that radius is constructed.

  1. self definitional [Sections 5.3.1-5.3.2 and Figure 11 caption]
    "For this reason, we include a modified temperature profile that drops to a constant 10^4 K at 2 R200, and for all values beyond it, through an introduced discontinuity in the profile. The modified temperature profile produces a column density enhancement at 2 R200, the location of the introduced discontinuity, which drops off more quickly than the unmodified profile at higher radii (dashed purple line)."

    The model's N(HI) enhancement at 2 R200 is not an independent prediction: it is created by the authors' decision to put the temperature discontinuity at 2 R200, the same radius where the observed H I dN/dz excess appears (Section 4.2, Figure 7). The subsequent comparison in Figure 11 and the statement in Section 5.4 that the data 'may identify observational indicators of the shock's presence' therefore relies on an input that already encodes the claimed feature. The model can illustrate that a cool (10^4 K) shell produces a neutral-column bump, but it cannot confirm the accretion-shock location, because the bump radius equals the chosen discontinuity radius by construction.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claims - H I and O VI dN/dz versus impact parameter and their consistency/excess relative to the IGM field - are derived from COS spectra and compared with an external field model from Danforth et al. (2016, Eq. 4). No parameter is fitted to the cluster sample to produce the field benchmarks, so the null/excess statements are not circular. The main circularity is in the interpretive model of Section 5.3: a temperature discontinuity is introduced at exactly 2 R200, where the H I excess is observed, and the modified model then 'predicts' an N(HI) enhancement at 2 R200. That agreement is by construction and cannot independently validate the accretion-shock interpretation; this lowers the evidential weight of Section 5.4's 'statistical detection' claim but does not infect the primary measurements. A separate, non-circular caveat is that O VI is searched for only in systems with H I Lyman-series detections (Section 3.1), while the Danforth O VI field is unconditional, so the O VI comparison is conditional-vs-unconditional; this affects interpretation but is not a circular derivation. Self-citations (Lau et al. 2015; Nagai & Lau 2011) supply simulation context and are not load-bearing, since the observational results stand or fall on the external field comparison.

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

The central claims rest on four categories of assumed input: (1) the external IGM field benchmark (Danforth et al. 2016 fits and the optically-thin W-N conversion), which defines the null hypothesis for every excess claim; (2) the redMaPPer cluster mass/radius calibration, which sets the radial normalization; (3) the kinematic and photometric selection choices that decide which absorbers and galaxies are counted; and (4) the external ICM models (Arnaud 2010, Lau 2015, Oppenheimer & Schaye 2013) plus a hand-placed temperature discontinuity used in the interpretive toy model. The measurement itself adds no free parameters beyond these choices; the main worries are the extrapolation of the field fit and the location of the imposed discontinuity.

free parameters (5)
  • Temperature discontinuity radius in modified ICM profile = 2 R200
    Section 5.3.1: the modified temperature profile drops to 10^4 K beyond an introduced discontinuity at 2 R200; the resulting N(H I) enhancement at this radius (Section 5.3.2) is the model feature offered as support for the accretion-shock interpretation of the observed 2-3 R200 H I excess. The chosen radius is guided by the data feature it explains.
  • Kinematic association window = +/-1500 km/s
    Sections 2 and 3.1: absorbers within 1500 km/s of the cluster systemic velocity are classified as cluster-associated; this hand-chosen window (upper end of the cluster velocity-dispersion range) directly determines the absorber counts that feed dN/dz and covering fraction.
  • Equivalent width thresholds W_lim = 20, 50, 100 mÅ
    Section 3.3: dN/dz is computed at three hand-chosen limiting equivalent widths; the H I excess is strongest at 100 mÅ while the O VI excess is strongest at 20-50 mÅ, so the choice of threshold shapes which excess is seen.
  • Line-of-sight integration length for model N(H I) = 500 kpc
    Section 5.3.2: model profiles integrate n(H I) over a 500 kpc sightline chosen to match the CGM scale of an L* galaxy; the model-data comparison in Figure 11 depends on this arbitrary length.
  • Photo-z membership selection parameters = r < 23; 2 sigma photo-z cut
    Section 3.5: the galaxy-density maps used to argue that O VI is not circumgalactic are built from SDSS photo-zs cut at r < 23 and 2 sigma around the spec-z-selected range; the authors acknowledge interloper contamination.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Danforth et al. (2016) power-law fits (C14=25+/-1, beta=1.65+/-0.02 for H I; C=9.7+/-1.3, beta=1.525+/-0.26 for O VI) describe IGM field incidence at the column densities and redshifts probed here.
    Section 3.3, Eq. 4: all excess and null claims are deviations from this external fit; errors in the fit or its extrapolation to lower column densities directly rescale the claimed significances.
  • domain assumption The linear curve-of-growth approximation (Draine 2011, Eqs. 9.14-9.15) converts W_lim to column density accurately for all three thresholds (claimed within 2.6% for tau0 < 1.254, with all W_lim below the saturation threshold).
    Section 3.3: the conversion underpins the field comparison; if lines are not optically thin at the adopted thresholds, the field values shift.
  • domain assumption redMaPPer optical richness and redshift (Rykoff et al. 2012, 2014) provide accurate M200, R200, and cluster centers for the 26 clusters.
    Section 2: all impact parameters are normalized by R200 from these catalogs; errors in R200 propagate into the radial binning and hence the location of the claimed excesses.
  • domain assumption Absorbers within +/-1500 km/s of the cluster systemic velocity within projected 6 R200 are associated with the cluster environment rather than unrelated intervening structure.
    Sections 2 and 3.1: this kinematic window defines the cluster-associated absorber samples used in all incidence statistics; the authors adopt the upper end of the cluster velocity-dispersion range.
  • domain assumption The Lau et al. (2015) temperature profile, Arnaud et al. (2010) pressure profile, and Oppenheimer & Schaye (2013) non-equilibrium ionization models, extrapolated to 6 R200, are valid in the cluster outskirts.
    Section 5.3.1: the toy model's density and ionization profiles, and hence the model N(H I) curves used to argue for multiphase gas, rest on these external models.
  • domain assumption Cluster outskirts are approximately spherically symmetric, so a 500 kpc single-sightline integration represents the column density at a given impact parameter.
    Sections 5.3.2 and 6: the authors state that refining the idealized assumption of spherical symmetry is future work, yet the model comparison relies on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Survey of H I and O VI Absorption Lines in the Outskirts of $z\lesssim0.3$ Galaxy Clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DSL2U3GN

@misc{pith2026241113551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Survey of H I and O VI Absorption Lines in the Outskirts of $z\lesssim0.3$ Galaxy Clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DSL2U3GN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13551}
}
abstract

The intracluster medium (ICM) in the far outskirts (r $>$ 2-3 R$_{200}$) of galaxy clusters interfaces with the intergalactic medium (IGM) and is theorized to comprise diffuse, multiphase gas. This medium may hold vital clues to clusters' thermodynamic evolution and far-reaching impacts on infalling, future cluster galaxies. The diffuse outskirts of clusters are well-suited for quasar absorption line observations, capable of detecting gas to extremely low column densities. We analyze 18 QSO spectra observed with the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph aboard the Hubble Space Telescope whose lines of sight trace the gaseous environments of 26 galaxy clusters from within R$_{200}$ to 6 R$_{200}$ in projection. We measure the dN/dz and covering fraction of H I and O VI associated with the foreground clusters as a function of normalized impact parameter. We find the dN/dz for H I is consistent with the IGM field value for all impact parameter bins, with an intriguing slight elevation between 2 and 3 R$_{200}$. The dN/dz for O VI is also consistent with the field value (within 3$\sigma$) for all impact parameter bins, with potential elevations in dN/dz both within 1-2 R$_{200}$ and beyond 4 R$_{200}$ at $>2\sigma$. We propose physical scenarios that may give rise to these tentative excesses, such as a buildup of neutral gas at the outer accretion shock front and a signature of the warm-hot IGM. We do not find a systematic excess of potentially associated galaxies near the sightlines where O VI is detected; thus, the detected O VI does not have a clear circumgalactic origin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13551 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Path length, ∆z, around the clusters in our sam￾ple as a function of limiting equivalent width, Wlim. The dark green line shows the total dz for all the clusters in our sample, with a knee appearing around 50 m˚A. This knee oc￾curs as the path length reaches a maximum in dz, meaning that the Wlim of the line is so strong beyond this it could be detected at just about all wavelengths in all of the spectra. The calcul… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: The 2D galaxy density surrounding one of our metal-rich cluster-quasar systems. The inset of the left panel represents a zoomed-in 1000×1000 kpc2 distribution of galaxies around QSO. Right: All identified absorbers in this system plotted with reference to the sys…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The covering fraction, using a chosen detection threshold of 50 m˚A, for H i and O vi. The error bar estimates represent the binomial confidence interval for each bin. We use three bins here (0–2, 2–4, and 4–6), to maximize number of objects per bin in our covering fra…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper & lower left, upper right: Dots mark the dN /dz values corresponding to each bin of r/R200 at the Wlim labeled in the upper right corner of each panel with the 1-, 2-, and 3σ confidence intervals depicted per point by the shaded regions and errorbars. The black l…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Upper & lower left, upper right: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A schematic depicting the physical scenario in which a buildup of H i occurs at the accretion shock front. Note that scale and symmetry are dramatized for clarity. We expect to detect a higher amount of H i in sightlines that pierce the limb of the shock front, where …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The calculated H i column density as a function of R200 for the toy model. The associated 1σ error is smaller than the marker size for each measured value, shown by the solid squares. The upper and lower limits are shown by the downward- and upward-facing arrows respe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 656, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038021

    Ahoranta, J., Finoguenov, A., Bonamente, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 656, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038021

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038021 2021

  2. [2]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 3210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac928

    Anand, A., Kauffmann, G., & Nelson, D. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 3210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac928

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac928 2022

  3. [3]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 1645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1376

    Anbajagane, D., Chang, C., Jain, B., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 1645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1376

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1376 2022

  4. [4]

    W., Piffaretti, R., et al

    Arnaud, M., Pratt, G. W., Piffaretti, R., et al. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 517, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913416

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913416 2010

  5. [5]

    Aung, H., Nagai, D., & Lau, E. T. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 2071, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2598

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2598 2021

  6. [6]

    Avestruz, C., Nagai, D., & Lau, E. T. 2016, ApJ, 833, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/227

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/227 2016

  7. [7]

    N., & Spitzer, Jr., L

    Bahcall, J. N., & Spitzer, Jr., L. 1969, The Astrophysical Journal, 156, L63, doi: 10.1086/180350

    doi:10.1086/180350 1969

  8. [8]

    Bahcall, N. A. 1981, The Astrophysical Journal, 247, 787, doi: 10.1086/159090 —. 1996, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9611148 Bah´ e, Y. M., McCarthy, I. G., Balogh, M. L., & Font, A. S. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 3017, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt109

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9611148 1981

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    R., Pfrommer, C., & Sievers, J

    Battaglia, N., Bond, J. R., Pfrommer, C., & Sievers, J. L. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/74 —. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/43 A survey of H I and O VI absorption in galaxy cluster outskirts 31

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Howk, J

    Berg, M. A., Howk, J. C., Lehner, N., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab378e

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    M., & Steigman, G

    Boesgaard, A. M., & Steigman, G. 1985, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 319, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.23.090185.001535

    1985

  4. [12]

    N., Elek, O., Tejos, N., et al

    Burchett, J. N., Elek, O., Tejos, N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab700c

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    N., Tripp, T

    Burchett, J. N., Tripp, T. M., Wang, Q. D., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 2067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3170

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    N., Tripp, T

    Burchett, J. N., Tripp, T. M., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 815, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/91

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    N., Tripp, T

    Burchett, J. N., Tripp, T. M., Bordoloi, R., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 124, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/124

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    O., Skillman, S

    Burns, J. O., Skillman, S. W., & O’Shea, B. W. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1105

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    1984, The Astrophysical Journal, 285, 426, doi: 10.1086/162519

    Butcher, H., & Oemler, Jr., A. 1984, The Astrophysical Journal, 285, 426, doi: 10.1086/162519

    1984 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Burchett, J

    Butsky, I. S., Burchett, J. N., Nagai, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 4292, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2859

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14

    Cai, Z., Fan, X., Yang, Y., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    2018, ApJL, 861, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aacce6

    Cai, Z., Hamden, E., Matuszewski, M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 861, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aacce6

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 657, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040141

    Castignani, G., Combes, F., Jablonka, P., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 657, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040141

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Ostriker, J

    Cen, R., Tripp, T. M., Ostriker, J. P., & Jenkins, E. B. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 559, L5, doi: 10.1086/323721

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    1980, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 83, 38

    Chamaraux, P., Balkowski, C., & Gerard, E. 1980, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 83, 38

    1980

  16. [24]

    D., Straka, L

    Chen, H.-W., Johnson, S. D., Straka, L. A., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 431, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3513

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    H., Kenney, J

    Chung, A., van Gorkom, J. H., Kenney, J. D. P., Crowl, H., & Vollmer, B. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 138, 1741, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1741

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    L., Fabian, A

    Cowie, L. L., Fabian, A. C., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 1980, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 191, 399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/191.2.399

    1980 doi

  19. [27]

    L., Hu, E

    Cowie, L. L., Hu, E. M., Jenkins, E. B., & York, D. G. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 272, 29, doi: 10.1086/161259

    1983 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Sanders, J

    Crawford, C. S., Sanders, J. S., & Fabian, A. C. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 17, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09149.x

    2005

  21. [29]

    W., Keeney, B

    Danforth, C. W., Keeney, B. A., Tilton, E. M., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 111, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/111 Dav´ e, R., Hernquist, L., Katz, N., & Weinberg, D. H. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 511, 521, doi: 10.1086/306722 Dav´ e, R., Oppenheimer, B. D...

    2016

  22. [30]

    D., & Lewis, B

    Davies, R. D., & Lewis, B. M. 1973, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 165, 231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/165.2.231 De Grandi, S., Eckert, D., Molendi, S., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 592, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526641 D´ enes, H., Kilborn, V. A...

    1973 doi

  23. [31]

    Donahue, M., & Voit, G. M. 2022, arXiv:2204.08099 [astro-ph]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.08099

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 4760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1950

    Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 4760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1950

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  26. [34]

    1980, The Astrophysical Journal, 236, 351, doi: 10.1086/157753

    Dressler, A. 1980, The Astrophysical Journal, 236, 351, doi: 10.1086/157753

    1980 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 621, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833324

    Eckert, D., Ghirardini, V., Ettori, S., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 621, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833324

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    N., Prochaska, J

    Elek, O., Burchett, J. N., Prochaska, J. X., & Forbes, A. G. 2022, Artificial Life, 28, 22, doi: 10.1162/artl a 00351

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Emerick, A., Bryan, G., & Putman, M. E. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 4051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1936

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 621, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833323

    Ettori, S., Ghirardini, V., Eckert, D., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 621, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833323

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Evrard, A. E. 1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 363, 349, doi: 10.1086/169350

    1990 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Sanders, J

    Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Crawford, C. S., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344, L48, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06856.x

    2003

  33. [41]

    2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 429, 439, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041678 32 Holguin Luna et al

    Gavazzi, G., Boselli, A., van Driel, W., & O’Neil, K. 2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 429, 439, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041678 32 Holguin Luna et al

    2005 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Tomiˇ ci´ c, N., et al

    George, K., Poggianti, B. M., Tomiˇ ci´ c, N., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3593

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Giovanelli, R., & Haynes, M. P. 1983, The Astronomical Journal, 88, 881, doi: 10.1086/113376

    1983 doi

  36. [44]

    E., & Gott, III, J

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, III, J. R. 1972, The Astrophysical Journal, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/151605

    1972 doi

  37. [45]

    N., Hellinger, D., et al

    Hasan, F., Burchett, J. N., Hellinger, D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 970, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ee2

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 622, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732468

    Hurier, G., Adam, R., & Keshet, U. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 622, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732468

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca08b

    Jimenez-Gallardo, A., Sani, E., Ricci, F., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca08b

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    1986, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 222, 323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/222.2.323

    Kaiser, N. 1986, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 222, 323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/222.2.323

    1986 doi

  42. [50]

    S., Wakker, B

    Kim, T. S., Wakker, B. P., Nasir, F., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 5811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3844

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    T., Kravtsov, A

    Lau, E. T., Kravtsov, A. V., & Nagai, D. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 705, 1129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1129

    2009 doi

  44. [52]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/68

    Vikhlinin, A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/68

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    C., Hwang, H

    Lee, J. C., Hwang, H. S., & Song, H. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 4309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab637

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    Lopes, P. A. A., Ribeiro, A. L. B., & Brambila, D. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, L19, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad134

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    1988, The Astrophysical Journal, 333, 136, doi: 10.1086/166730

    Giovanelli, R. 1988, The Astrophysical Journal, 333, 136, doi: 10.1086/166730

    1988 doi

  48. [56]

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

    2010 doi

  49. [57]

    S., et al

    Mernier, F., de Plaa, J., Kaastra, J. S., et al. 2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 603, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630075

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    2018, Space Science Reviews, 214, 129, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0565-7

    Mernier, F., Biffi, V., Yamaguchi, H., et al. 2018, Space Science Reviews, 214, 129, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0565-7

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 3858, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3454

    Charlton, J. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 3858, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3454

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    M., Hearn, N., Haiman, Z., et al

    Molnar, S. M., Hearn, N., Haiman, Z., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1640, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1640

    2009 doi

  53. [61]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8559

    Srianand, R. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8559

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    V., & Vikhlinin, A

    Nagai, D., Kravtsov, A. V., & Vikhlinin, A. 2007a, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, 1, doi: 10.1086/521328

    doi

  55. [63]

    Nagai, D., & Lau, E. T. 2011, ApJL, 731, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/731/1/L10

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    Nagai, D., Vikhlinin, A., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2007b, The Astrophysical Journal, 655, 98, doi: 10.1086/509868

    doi

  57. [65]

    T., & Nagai, D

    Nelson, K., Lau, E. T., & Nagai, D. 2014a, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/25

    doi

  58. [66]

    T., Nagai, D., Rudd, D

    Nelson, K., Lau, E. T., Nagai, D., Rudd, D. H., & Yu, L. 2014b, ApJ, 782, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/107

    doi

  59. [67]

    D., & Schaye, J

    Oppenheimer, B. D., & Schaye, J. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 1043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1043

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    Overzier, R. A. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 24, 14, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    Peebles, P. J. E., & Yu, J. T. 1970, The Astrophysical Journal, 162, 815, doi: 10.1086/150713

    1970 doi

  62. [70]

    M., Moretti, A., Gullieuszik, M., et al

    Poggianti, B. M., Moretti, A., Gullieuszik, M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 48, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/aa78ed10.48550/arXiv.1704.05086

    2017 doi arXiv

  63. [71]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 740, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/91

    Cooksey, K. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 740, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/91

    2011 doi

  64. [72]

    X., Tejos, N., Crighton, N., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Tejos, N., Crighton, N., et al. 2016, Linetools/Linetools: Second Major Release, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.168270

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    X., Burchett, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Burchett, J. N., Tripp, T. M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2b9a

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    D., Sembach, K

    Richter, P., Savage, B. D., Sembach, K. R., & Tripp, T. M. 2006, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 445, 827, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053636

    2006 doi

  67. [75]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 3030, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt654

    Roncarelli, M., Ettori, S., Borgani, S., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 3030, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt654

    2013 doi

  68. [76]

    S., Koester, B

    Rykoff, E. S., Koester, B. P., Rozo, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/178

    2012 doi

  69. [77]

    S., Rozo, E., Busha, M

    Rykoff, E. S., Rozo, E., Busha, M. T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/104 A survey of H I and O VI absorption in galaxy cluster outskirts 33

    2014 doi

  70. [78]

    D., & Sembach, K

    Savage, B. D., & Sembach, K. R. 1991, The Astrophysical Journal, 379, 245, doi: 10.1086/170498

    1991 doi

  71. [79]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 5214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2435

    Sereno, M., Lovisari, L., Cui, W., & Schellenberger, G. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 5214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2435

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 1804, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1418

    Shi, X. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 1804, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1418

    2016 doi

  73. [81]

    Shi, X., Komatsu, E., Nagai, D., & Lau, E. T. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 2936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2504 Sif´ on, C., Battaglia, N., Hasselfield, M., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 248, doi: 10.1093/mnra...

    2016 doi

  74. [82]

    W., Mantz, A., et al

    Simionescu, A., Allen, S. W., Mantz, A., et al. 2011, Science, 331, 1576, doi: 10.1126/science.1200331 Smailagi´ c, M., Prochaska, J. X., Burchett, J., & Zhu, G. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf466

    2011 doi

  75. [83]

    1956, The Astrophysical Journal, 124, 20, doi: 10.1086/146200

    Spitzer, Jr., L. 1956, The Astrophysical Journal, 124, 20, doi: 10.1086/146200

    1956 doi

  76. [84]

    F., et al

    Stern, J., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac884

    2018 doi

  77. [85]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 2549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1859

    Stern, J., Fielding, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Quataert, E. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 2549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1859

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    F., & Rood, H

    Struble, M. F., & Rood, H. J. 1991, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 77, 363, doi: 10.1086/191608

    1991 doi

  79. [87]

    Schommer, R. A. 1981, The Astronomical Journal, 86, 919, doi: 10.1086/112970

    1981 doi

  80. [88]

    2016, A&A, 595, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628183

    Tchernin, C., Eckert, D., Ettori, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628183

    2016 doi

  81. [89]

    L., Finn, C

    Tejos, N., Morris, S. L., Finn, C. W., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 2017, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1844

    2014 doi

  82. [91]

    Tonnesen, S., & Bryan, G. L. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 694, 789, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/789

    2009 doi

  83. [92]

    L., & van Gorkom, J

    Tonnesen, S., Bryan, G. L., & van Gorkom, J. H. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, 1434, doi: 10.1086/523034

    2007 doi

  84. [93]

    M., Jenkins, E

    Tripp, T. M., Jenkins, E. B., Bowen, D. V., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 619, 714, doi: 10.1086/426729

    2005 doi

  85. [94]

    M., Sembach, K

    Tripp, T. M., Sembach, K. R., Bowen, D. V., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 177, 39, doi: 10.1086/587486

    2008 doi

  86. [95]

    K., et al

    Tumlinson, J., Thom, C., Werk, J. K., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/59

    2013 doi

  87. [96]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts375

    Ettori, S. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts375

    2013 doi

  88. [97]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 640, 691, doi: 10.1086/500288

    Vikhlinin, A., Kravtsov, A., Forman, W., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 640, 691, doi: 10.1086/500288

    2006 doi

  89. [98]

    Voit, G. M. 2005, Reviews of Modern Physics, 77, 207, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.77.207

    2005 doi

  90. [99]

    M., Gullieuszik, M., et al

    Vulcani, B., Poggianti, B. M., Gullieuszik, M., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae68b

    2018 doi

  91. [100]

    2019, Space Sci Rev, 215, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0572-8

    Walker, S., Simionescu, A., Nagai, D., et al. 2019, Space Sci Rev, 215, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0572-8

    2019 doi

  92. [101]

    A., Fabian, A

    Walker, S. A., Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., & George, M. R. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 424, 1826, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21282.x

    2012

  93. [102]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., Thom, C., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 204, 17, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/17

    2013 doi

  94. [103]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., Cantalupo, S., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/54

    2016 doi

  95. [104]

    H., & Putman, M

    Yoon, J. H., & Putman, M. E. 2013, ApJL, 772, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/772/2/L29 —. 2017, ApJ, 839, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa697b

    2013 doi

  96. [105]

    Bryan, G. L. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 754, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/84

    2012 doi

  97. [106]

    S., Chen, H.-W., Rauch, M., & Zabludoff, A

    Zahedy, F. S., Chen, H.-W., Rauch, M., & Zabludoff, A. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa88a2

    2017 doi

  98. [107]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 3274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts275

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Kravtsov, A., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 3274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts275

    2013 doi

  99. [108]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 412, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1283

    Zinger, E., Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Kravtsov, A., & Nagai, D. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 412, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1283

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.