Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Extreme AGN feedback in the fossil galaxy group SDSSTG 4436

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Multi-wavelength observations of the fossil group SDSSTG 4436 show that a past supermassive black hole outburst injected about $\sim1.5\times10^{61}$ erg into the group's gas, enough to dominate the gas binding energy out to $0.3R_{500}$…

desk verdict A solid observational case study of an extreme high-entropy fossil group, but the energy budget and the AGN attribution both have soft spots that need addressing before the headline claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13907 v1 pith:SWPMD5GV submitted 2025-06-16 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

D. Eckert , F. Gastaldello , L. Lovisari , S. McGee , T. Pasini , M. Brienza , K. Kolokythas , E. O'Sullivan
show 15 more authors
A. Simionescu M. Sun M. Ayromlou M. A. Bourne Y. Chen W. Cui S. Ettori A. Finoguenov G. Gozaliasl R. Kale F. Mernier B. D. Oppenheimer G. Schellenberger R. Seppi E. Tempel
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords AGNfeedbackfossilgalaxygroupsintra-groupmediumX-rayastronomyentropyprofilescoolingtimequenchingradiojets
open problems Dark Matter
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

Using X-ray, radio, and optical observations of the relaxed fossil group SDSSTG 4436, this paper establishes that a supermassive black hole outburst injected roughly $1.5\times10^{61}$ erg of heat into the group's gas, an amount comparable to the gas binding energy ($\sim4\times10^{61}$ erg) and dominant out to $0.3R_{500}$. The signature is a steep entropy rise, with gas entropy at 20 kpc exceeding the gravitational-collapse baseline by more than an order of magnitude, and a cooling time that reaches the age of the Universe only 15 kpc from the centre. Because the X-ray morphology is round and regular and the system is a fossil group with a large magnitude gap, the paper argues that a recent merger cannot explain the heat, leaving past AGN activity as the only viable source. The consequence is that AGN outbursts can be energetic enough to unbind gas from a group core, permanently suppressing cooling and star formation; the central galaxy NGC 3298 has been quenched for roughly 10.6 Gyr and hosts only weak, compact radio jets today.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the gas entropy profile $K=k_B T n_e^{-2/3}$ of the intra-group medium, measured by deprojecting X-ray surface brightness and temperature profiles. The argument contrasts the observed entropy $K_{\mathrm{obs}}(R)$ with the self-similar gravitational baseline $K_{\mathrm{SSC}}(R)=1.42\,K_{500}(R/R_{500})^{1.1}$. Under the isochoric approximation, which the paper notes gives a lower limit on the injected energy, the excess heat per particle is $\Delta Q = k_B T(\gamma-1)^{-1}(K_{\mathrm{obs}}-K_{\mathrm{SSC}})/K_{\mathrm{obs}}$; integrating $\Delta Q$ over the gas density profile yields a total injected non-gravitational energy $E_{\mathrm{NG}}({<}R)$. This energy is compared with the gas binding energy $E_{\mathrm{bind}}({<}R)$ obtained from an NFW potential with $M_{500}=7.8\times10^{13}\,M_\odot$ and $c_{500}=4$. The fact that $E_{\mathrm{NG}}/E_{\mathrm{bind}}>1$ out to $0.3R_{500}$ is what converts a thermodynamic anomaly into a claim about unbinding gas.

What would settle it

Search for relics of a disturbance that the relaxation argument excludes: a cold front, a large-scale radio relic, an X-ray centroid offset from NGC 3298, or a secondary dark-matter clump in weak lensing would each indicate a recent or ancient merger. Alternatively, run a hydrodynamical simulation in which two $\sim10^{13}\,M_\odot$ groups merge at high redshift with roughly $1.5\times10^{61}$ erg of thermal energy injected into the gas, and ask whether the $z=0$ remnant simultaneously shows circular isophotes, a compact core, the measured entropy slope, and a cooling time exceeding the Hubble time at 15 kpc; reproducing all four would remove the observational basis for claiming the heat is uniquely non-gravitational.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SDSSTG 4436, a fossil group of mass $M_{500}\simeq7.8\times10^{13}\,M_\odot$ at $z=0.046$, underwent an extreme AGN feedback event that heated and partially unbound its intra-group medium. Deprojected X-ray profiles show a compact core ($<10$ kpc) embedded in a highly evacuated halo: the gas entropy rises to about 200 keV cm$^2$ at 20 kpc, more than an order of magnitude above the self-similar gravitational expectation, and the cooling time exceeds the age of the Universe beyond about 15 kpc. Computing the excess heat relative to the gravitational entropy baseline gives a total non-gravitational energy of roughly $1.5\times10^{61}$ erg inside $R_{500}$, comparable to the gas binding energy ($\sim4\times10^{61}$ erg), so the injected energy dominates the binding energy out to $0.3R_{500}$. The relaxed, circular X-ray isophotes and the large magnitude gap that defines the fossil nature are presented as ruling out recent mergers, leaving AGN feedback as the only plausible non-gravitational source. Consistent evidence includes the old, fully quenched stellar population of NGC 3298, a solar-metallicity compact corona fed by stellar mass loss, and low-power radio jets confined to the central 10 kpc. The paper concludes that AGN feedback of this magnitude can disrupt cool cores and prevent their re-formation.

Load-bearing premise

The black-hole attribution rests on the assumption that the relaxed X-ray morphology and fossil nature rule out mergers as the heat source; if a past merger deposited the entropy and then relaxed dynamically, the central claim about AGN feedback would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AGN feedback can inject more than the local binding energy of a group core, so some relaxed haloes should exist without cool cores despite hosting old, massive elliptical galaxies.
  • The main energy injection occurred in the past, at least a few hundred million years ago and possibly at $z\sim2$–3, so a group can remain quenched and coreless long after the central AGN has become a weak, compact radio source.
  • Feedback prescriptions in galaxy formation simulations must be able to produce both extreme high-entropy groups like S4436 and classical cool-core groups like NGC 5044; the paper finds EAGLE too gentle, SIMBA too energetic, with TNG100 and FABLE producing such objects only in the upper tail of their populations.
  • The surviving compact core is a dense, metal-rich galaxy corona sustained by stellar mass loss, indicating that a small-scale cooling–heating balance can coexist with a globally disrupted cool core.
  • The sharp metallicity drop beyond 50 kpc implies that metals from late stellar mass loss were not redistributed into the large-scale halo, consistent with most of the energy being injected early in the group's formation history.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the cooling time exceeds the Hubble time beyond about 15 kpc, the heating behaves as a one-way switch: once group gas is raised past that entropy threshold it cannot recondense on its own, implying AGN feedback in groups can take the form of rare, single catastrophic events rather than a continuing self-regulating cycle.
  • If S4436 is the extreme tail of a population, the scatter in entropy floors of galaxy groups at fixed mass could be interpreted as a fossil record of cumulative black-hole heat input, directly mapping total feedback energy as a function of halo mass.
  • A clean test would be to check whether other fossil groups selected by magnitude gap show the same correlation among central stellar age, entropy excess, and quenching time; the paper's logic predicts such correlations if early giant AGN outbursts cause all three.
  • The merger alternative is not fully excluded by the relaxed morphology alone, because an ancient merger could thermalize and appear relaxed within about a gigayear; comparing with hydrodynamical simulations of old binary-group mergers would show whether such a remnant can reproduce the observed entropy and cooling-time profiles.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports multi-wavelength observations (XMM-Newton, LOFAR, SDSS MaNGA) of the fossil galaxy group SDSSTG 4436, centered on NGC 3298. The authors measure a relaxed, round X-ray morphology, a compact unresolved core, a steeply rising entropy profile, and a cooling time that reaches the age of the Universe at roughly 15-20 kpc. Comparing the observed entropy to the self-similar gravitational baseline, they integrate the excess heat (Eq. 7) and obtain a total non-gravitational energy of about 1.5e61 erg within R500, comparable to the gas binding energy. Because the system appears relaxed and the current radio jets are weak and confined, the authors attribute the entropy excess to ancient, powerful AGN outbursts that heated and largely evacuated the group core, prevented a cool core from forming, and quenched star formation in NGC 3298 about 10 Gyr ago. They further compare the observed profiles with TNG100, EAGLE, SIMBA, and FABLE simulations and argue that the system occupies the extreme upper end of the predicted entropy distribution.

Significance. If the AGN interpretation is correct, SDSSTG 4436 is an important test case for extreme AGN feedback: it would demonstrate that AGN outbursts can inject energy comparable to or exceeding the binding energy of the gas within 0.3R500, unbind the gas, and permanently suppress cooling. The observational work has real strengths: the X-ray background modeling is careful, the temperature profile is cross-checked with APEC, SPEX, and a differential emission measure model, the deprojection is done with two independent methods, and the comparison with four modern simulation suites is a valuable addition. The main quantitative result, however, depends on the assumed gravitational baseline and on excluding non-AGN heat sources. The merger-exclusion argument is currently not sufficient for the epoch at which the heating is proposed to have occurred, and the energy budget is quoted without an uncertainty. These issues need to be addressed before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections 3.1, 4.1, 5] The central attribution of the entropy excess to AGN feedback rests on the statement that 'the relaxed X-ray morphology and the large magnitude gap... rule out recent merging events as a potential source of energy.' However, the proposed AGN heating is not recent: Section 4.2 dates the entropy injection to z~2-3 based on the ~10.6 Gyr stellar age of NGC 3298. The relaxation diagnostics used here, the centroid shift w=8.2e-3 and the round isophotes, only constrain disturbances on a dynamical timescale; for this group the sound crossing time is about 1 Gyr, so a merger at z~2 would be fully dynamically relaxed today. Because the cooling time beyond ~15 kpc exceeds the Hubble time, the high entropy would persist whether it was generated by an old merger or by an old AGN outburst. The compact core does not resolve the ambiguity, since Section 4.3 explicitly allows the core to be replenished by stellar mass loss after any heating event. Moreover, fossil groups are assembled through dry mergers, so the large magnitude gap is evidence of a merger history rather than evidence against merger heating. The abstract's claim that AGN outbursts can unbind gas and disrupt cool cores is therefore not uniquely supported by the present data; the authors should either quantitatively address the ancient-merger alternative or substantially reframe the conclusion.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (4)] There is an internal inconsistency in the self-similar baseline. With the stated formula K500 = 106 (M500/1e14)^(2/3) f_b^-1 E(z)^(-2/3) and f_b ~ 0.15, M500 = 7.8e13 gives K500 ~ 600 keV cm2, not the quoted 298 keV cm2. The quoted value corresponds to f_b^(-2/3), not f_b^-1. Since this baseline enters Eq. (3) and therefore the excess heat integral in Eq. (7), the formula must be corrected and the effect of the alternative normalization on the reported ENG(<R500) ~ 1.5e61 erg should be quantified. Relatedly, the paper never gives an uncertainty on the central energy estimate; given the ~20% uncertainty in M500 and the systematic choices in deprojection, the authors should propagate an error budget for the headline energy and for the radius within which ENG exceeds the binding energy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The radius where the cooling time reaches the age of the Universe is quoted as ~15 kpc in the abstract and in Section 3.4, but as 20 kpc in the conclusion; these values should be harmonized.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption contains a typo, 'spectrsocopic' should be 'spectroscopic'.
  3. [Section 3.6] The word 'metalllcity' is a typo and should read 'metallicity'.
  4. [Eq. (7)] The mean molecular weight mu is used in Eq. (7) but is not defined at first use; it should be defined explicitly in the text.
  5. [Figure 8 and Appendix B] The legend labels 'SDSSTG 4436 FORW' and 'SDSSTG 4436 NP' abbreviate 'Forward' and 'NP'; spelling out 'Forward' and 'Non-parametric' would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central energy budget is a calorimetric comparison to an external self-similar baseline, and the AGN attribution is an inference rather than a definitional identity.

full rationale

The paper's central energy estimate (Sect. 4.2) is obtained by comparing the deprojected entropy profile with the published self-similar gravitational baseline of Voit et al. (2005) and Pratt et al. (2010) via Eqs. 6-7. The baseline is external to this paper and is stated to come from gravitational collapse simulations, so the excess-energy number is not produced by a parameter fitted to the target claim. The mass normalization M500 and R500 come from an independent mass-temperature relation (Umetsu et al. 2020), and the binding energy comparison uses a standard NFW model. The attribution of the entropy excess to AGN feedback is an inference that combines the relaxed morphology, the old stellar population, and the insufficiency of stellar feedback; this inference could be challenged on physical grounds (e.g., an ancient merger), but that is a correctness or robustness concern, not circularity. The simulation comparison in Sect. 4.4 uses independent external simulation suites (TNG100, EAGLE, SIMBA, FABLE). Self-citations appear only for data-reduction packages, sample description, and review-level context, and none of these carries the load-bearing argument. The paper also openly flags limitations, such as the isochoric approximation providing a lower limit and the single-system comparison being insufficient to rule out a simulation model. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its inputs, so there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted free parameters are used to force the main result: the entropy and cooling time are directly measured. The quantitative energy budget depends on the assumed gravitational baseline (Eq. 3) and the mass model, which are external inputs. The K500 normalization is internally inconsistent as written.

free parameters (2)
  • NFW concentration c500 = 4
    Adopted for the binding energy calculation in Eq. 9 as 'typical of massive groups' (Duffy et al. 2008). The resulting E_bind ~4e61 erg changes by tens of percent for plausible c values, but the qualitative comparison to E_NG is unchanged.
  • Effective baryon fraction f_b in K500 = effective ~0.3, though text states 0.15
    The stated K500 = 298 keV cm2 in Eq. 4 implies f_b ~0.3, while the text says f_b ~0.15 for the cosmic baryon fraction. The baseline entropy and the derived E_NG depend on this value.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The self-similar entropy baseline K_SSC(R) = 1.42 K500 (R/R500)^1.1 (Eq. 3) describes the expected entropy from gravitational collapse alone.
    The entire excess-energy calculation subtracts this baseline. If the true baseline for group-scale halos is different, for example because of pre-heating or non-thermal pressure, the inferred injected energy changes.
  • domain assumption The M500 value is obtained from the mass-temperature scaling relation of Umetsu et al. (2020), and the mass profile is assumed to be NFW with c500 = 4 for the binding energy.
    The comparison between E_NG and E_bind depends on these mass model choices. The hydrostatic estimate in Appendix A gives a consistent but slightly lower M500.
  • domain assumption The gas is assumed to be spherically symmetric for deprojection.
    Standard assumption in cluster and group X-ray analysis. The relaxed morphology supports it but does not prove it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extreme AGN feedback in the fossil galaxy group SDSSTG 4436." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWPMD5GV

@misc{pith2026250613907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extreme AGN feedback in the fossil galaxy group SDSSTG 4436},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWPMD5GV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13907}
}
abstract

Supermassive black hole feedback is the currently favoured mechanism to regulate the star formation rate of galaxies and prevent the formation of ultra-massive galaxies ($M_\star>10^{12}M_\odot$). However, the mechanism through which the outflowing energy is transferred to the surrounding medium strongly varies from one galaxy evolution model to another, such that a unified model for AGN feedback does not currently exist. The hot atmospheres of galaxy groups are highly sensitive laboratories of the feedback process, as the injected black hole energy is comparable to the binding energy of halo gas particles. Here we report multi-wavelength observations of the fossil galaxy group SDSSTG 4436. The hot atmosphere of this system exhibits a highly relaxed morphology centred on the giant elliptical galaxy NGC~3298. The X-ray emission from the system features a compact core ($<$10 kpc) and a steep increase in the entropy and cooling time of the gas, with the cooling time reaching the age of the Universe $\sim15$ kpc from the centre of the galaxy. The observed entropy profile implies a total injected energy of $\sim1.5\times10^{61}$ ergs, which given the high level of relaxation could not have been injected by a recent merging event. Star formation in the central galaxy NGC~3298 is strongly quenched and its stellar population is very old ($\sim$10.6 Gyr). The currently detected radio jets have low power and are confined within the central compact core. All the available evidence implies that this system was affected by giant AGN outbursts which excessively heated the neighbouring gas and prevented the formation of a self-regulated feedback cycle. Our findings imply that AGN outbursts can be energetic enough to unbind gas particles and lead to the disruption of cool cores.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13907 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. X-ray and optical images of the galaxy group S4436. The left-hand panel shows the XMM-Newton/EPIC count map in the [0.7-1.2] keV band, smoothed with a Gaussian kernel of 10 arcsec width. The location of the central galaxy NGC 3298 is indicated with the white square, whereas the green circle shows the approximate location of R500. The right-hand panel shows an SDSS RGB map of the system, with R=i, G=r, and B=g. The g… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray sky background estimation in the region surrounding S4436. The best fitting three-component model was extracted from XMM-Newton EPIC/pn (green), EPIC/MOS1 (black) and EPIC/MOS2 (red) data within an annulus located [12-15] arcmin away from NGC 3298. The data were jointly fitted with the ROSAT all-sky survey data (blue) extracted [1-1.5] degrees away from the core of the group. The bottom panel shows the ratio b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Surface brightness (left) and spectrsocopic temperature profile (right) of S4436. The left-hand panel shows the profile of APEC normali￾sation per unit area determined directly from the spectral fits (red) and by converting the surface brightness into emission measure using a radially dependent energy conversion factor (green). The right-hand panel shows temperatures retrieved from a single-temperature model using t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Metal abundance profile of S4436 as a fraction of the Solar value. The data points show the results of single-temperature fits to the XMM-Newton spectra with the APEC (green circles) and SPEX (cyan squares) plasma emission codes. The outermost point is an upper limit t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Three-dimensional thermodynamic profiles of the IGrM of S4436. The left-hand panel shows the electron density profile (blue curve). For comparison, the black curve and shaded area show the mean and scatter of the gas density profiles in a sample of massive galaxy clust…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: LOFAR 144 MHz image of NGC 3298 produced using International Stations (IS). The beam (shown in the inset) is 3.5 ′′ ×3.5 ′′, and the rms noise is ∼200 µJy beam−1 . Contours are at 3,6,12,24,48 × rms. Right: SDSS MaNGA IFU flux data of NGC 3298. The observed flux …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energy budget of the IGrM of S4436. The blue curve shows the gas binding energy profile obtained through Eq. 9, whereas the orange curve shows the integrated non-gravitational energy profile from Eq. 7. than the above estimate, such that the energy estimate presented h…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Median and dispersion of gas thermodynamic profiles in four different simulations with various AGN feedback implementations. Left: Electron number density profiles for galaxy groups in the TNG100 (dotted red), SIMBA (long dashed green), EAGLE (short dashed cyan), and F…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Thermal or Non-thermal? Diffuse emission in the infall region of stacked galaxy groups

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Stacked eROSITA spectra of 827 groups measure ~1 keV IGrM to ~2 R200m and favor an extra component that is either ~3.6 keV metal-poor gas or inverse-Compton emission at ~30% of the thermal flux.

  2. Multi-Wavelength Signatures of a Giant Cometary Radio Halo in MACSJ0417-1154

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

    MACSJ0417’s giant radio halo shows spectral steepening and radio–X-ray correlation consistent with turbulence from a 6:1 off-axis merger that preserved the cool core; pure hadronic models are energetically excluded.

  3. X-ray investigation of the remarkable galaxy group Nest200047

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The galaxy group Nest200047 shows a large excess of X-ray-measured entropy and heat, likely injected by past AGN outbursts, that exceeds its gravitational binding energy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Aguerri , J. A. L. & Zarattini , S. 2021, Universe, 7, 132

    2021

  4. [4]

    2022, , 74, 175

    Akino , D., Eckert , D., Okabe , N., et al. 2022, , 74, 175

    2022

  5. [5]

    W., Piffaretti , R., et al

    Arnaud , M., Pratt , G. W., Piffaretti , R., et al. 2010, , 517, A92

    2010

  6. [6]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481

    2009

  7. [7]

    V., McNamara , B

    Babyk , I. V., McNamara , B. R., Nulsen , P. E. J., et al. 2018, , 862, 39

    2018

  8. [8]

    2009, , 694, 479

    Baldi , A., Forman , W., Jones , C., et al. 2009, , 694, 479

    2009

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    H., White , R

    Becker , R. H., White , R. L., & Helfand , D. J. 1995, , 450, 559

    1995

  2. [10]

    J., Bower , R

    Benson , A. J., Bower , R. G., Frenk , C. S., et al. 2003, , 599, 38

    2003

  3. [11]

    T., et al

    Borgani , S., Finoguenov , A., Kay , S. T., et al. 2005, , 361, 233

    2005

  4. [12]

    W., de Gasperin , F., et al

    Brienza , M., Shimwell , T. W., de Gasperin , F., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1261

    2021

  5. [13]

    2010, , 509, A6

    Buttiglione , S., Capetti , A., Celotti , A., et al. 2010, , 509, A6

    2010

  6. [14]

    G., Ettori , S., Lovisari , L., et al

    Campitiello , M. G., Ettori , S., Lovisari , L., et al. 2022, , 665, A117

    2022

  7. [15]

    W., Donahue , M., Voit , G

    Cavagnolo , K. W., Donahue , M., Voit , G. M., & Sun , M. 2009, , 182, 12

    2009

  8. [16]

    B., & Majumdar , S

    Chaudhuri , A., Nath , B. B., & Majumdar , S. 2012, , 759, 87

    2012

  9. [17]

    L., Songaila , A., Hu , E

    Cowie , L. L., Songaila , A., Hu , E. M., & Cohen , J. G. 1996, , 112, 839

    1996

  10. [18]

    A., Schaye , J., Bower , R

    Crain , R. A., Schaye , J., Bower , R. G., et al. 2015, , 450, 1937

    2015

  11. [19]

    A., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., & Yang , X

    Cui , W., Dav \'e , R., Peacock , J. A., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., & Yang , X. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1069

    2021

  12. [20]

    2024, , 690, A52

    Damsted , S., Finoguenov , A., Lietzen , H., et al. 2024, , 690, A52

    2024

  13. [21]

    2019, , 486, 2827

    Dav \'e , R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Narayanan , D., et al. 2019, , 486, 2827

    2019

  14. [22]

    & Voit , G

    Donahue , M. & Voit , G. M. 2022, , 973, 1

    2022

  15. [23]

    R., Schaye , J., Kay , S

    Duffy , A. R., Schaye , J., Kay , S. T., & Dalla Vecchia , C. 2008, , 390, L64

    2008

  16. [24]

    2016, , 592, A12

    Eckert , D., Ettori , S., Coupon , J., et al. 2016, , 592, A12

    2016

  17. [25]

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

    2022

  18. [26]

    2020, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 3, 12

    Eckert , D., Finoguenov , A., Ghirardini , V., et al. 2020, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 3, 12

    2020

  19. [27]

    Eckert , D., Gaspari , M., Gastaldello , F., Le Brun , A. M. C., & O'Sullivan , E. 2021, Universe, 7, 142

    2021

  20. [28]

    2024, Galaxies, 12, 24

    Eckert , D., Gastaldello , F., O'Sullivan , E., Finoguenov , A., & Brienza , M. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 24

    2024

  21. [29]

    2011, A & A, 526, A79

    Eckert , D., Molendi , S., & Paltani , S. 2011, A & A, 526, A79

    2011

  22. [30]

    & Molendi , S

    Ettori , S. & Molendi , S. 2011, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 17, 47

    2011

  23. [31]

    Fabian , A. C. 2012, , 50, 455

    2012

  24. [32]

    S., Zimer , M., & Mulchaey , J

    Finoguenov , A., Davis , D. S., Zimer , M., & Mulchaey , J. S. 2006, , 646, 143

    2006

  25. [33]

    Finoguenov , A., Jones , C., B \"o hringer , H., & Ponman , T. J. 2002, , 578, 74

    2002

  26. [34]

    2008, , 686, 911

    Finoguenov , A., Ruszkowski , M., Jones , C., et al. 2008, , 686, 911

    2008

  27. [35]

    R., Smith , R

    Foster , A. R., Smith , R. K., Brickhouse , N. S., Kallman , T. R., & Witthoeft , M. C. 2010, , 157, 135

    2010

  28. [36]

    2014, , 783, L10

    Gaspari , M., Brighenti , F., Temi , P., & Ettori , S. 2014, , 783, L10

    2014

  29. [37]

    A., Brighenti , F., & Mathews , W

    Gastaldello , F., Buote , D. A., Brighenti , F., & Mathews , W. G. 2008, , 673, L17

    2008

  30. [38]

    A., Humphrey , P

    Gastaldello , F., Buote , D. A., Humphrey , P. J., et al. 2007, , 669, 158

    2007

  31. [39]

    A., Temi , P., et al

    Gastaldello , F., Buote , D. A., Temi , P., et al. 2009, , 693, 43

    2009

  32. [40]

    2019, , 621, A41

    Ghirardini , V., Eckert , D., Ettori , S., et al. 2019, , 621, A41

    2019

  33. [41]

    2020, , 891, 1

    Giacintucci , S., Markevitch , M., Johnston-Hollitt , M., et al. 2020, , 891, 1

    2020

  34. [42]

    M., Murgia , M., et al

    Giacintucci , S., Vrtilek , J. M., Murgia , M., et al. 2008, , 682, 186

    2008

  35. [43]

    A., Maughan , B

    Giles , P. A., Maughan , B. J., Pacaud , F., et al. 2016, , 592, A3

    2016

  36. [44]

    M., Roy , N., Best , P

    Heckman , T. M., Roy , N., Best , P. N., & Kondapally , R. 2024, , 977, 125

    2024

  37. [45]

    A., Puchwein , E., Shen , S., & Sijacki , D

    Henden , N. A., Puchwein , E., Shen , S., & Sijacki , D. 2018, , 479, 5385

    2018

  38. [46]

    2016, , 594, A116

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116

    2016

  39. [47]

    J., Buote , D

    Humphrey , P. J., Buote , D. A., Brighenti , F., et al. 2012, , 748, 11

    2012

  40. [48]

    2016, , 595, A86

    Jackson , N., Tagore , A., Deller , A., et al. 2016, , 595, A86

    2016

  41. [49]

    R., Ponman , T

    Jones , L. R., Ponman , T. J., Horton , A., et al. 2003, , 343, 627

    2003

  42. [50]

    S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H

    Kaastra , J. S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H. 1996, in UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, 411--414

    1996

  43. [51]

    1986, , 222, 323

    Kaiser , N. 1986, , 222, 323

    1986

  44. [52]

    T., Thomas , P

    Kay , S. T., Thomas , P. A., & Theuns , T. 2003, , 343, 608

    2003

  45. [53]

    & Ho , L

    Kormendy , J. & Ho , L. C. 2013, , 51, 511

    2013

  46. [54]

    S., Reeves , J., et al

    Laha , S., Reynolds , C. S., Reeves , J., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 13

    2021

  47. [55]

    P., D \'e mocl \`e s , J., et al

    Lavoie , S., Willis , J. P., D \'e mocl \`e s , J., et al. 2016, , 462, 4141

    2016

  48. [56]

    R., Cherinka , B., Yan , R., et al

    Law , D. R., Cherinka , B., Yan , R., et al. 2016, , 152, 83

    2016

  49. [57]

    Le Brun , A. M. C., McCarthy , I. G., Schaye , J., & Ponman , T. J. 2014, , 441, 1270

    2014

  50. [58]

    M., et al

    Liu , W., Sun , M., Voit , G. M., et al. 2024, , 531, 2063

    2024

  51. [59]

    Lovisari , L., Ettori , S., Gaspari , M., & Giles , P. A. 2021, Universe, 7, 139

    2021

  52. [60]

    H., & Schellenberger , G

    Lovisari , L., Reiprich , T. H., & Schellenberger , G. 2015, , 573, A118

    2015

  53. [61]

    C., Dickinson , M

    Madau , P., Ferguson , H. C., Dickinson , M. E., et al. 1996, , 283, 1388

    1996

  54. [62]

    2020, , 496, 2962

    Maraston , C., Hill , L., Thomas , D., et al. 2020, , 496, 2962

    2020

  55. [63]

    & Str \"o mb \"a ck , G

    Maraston , C. & Str \"o mb \"a ck , G. 2011, , 418, 2785

    2011

  56. [64]

    J., Giles , P

    Maughan , B. J., Giles , P. A., Randall , S. W., Jones , C., & Forman , W. R. 2012, , 421, 1583

    2012

  57. [65]

    G., Schaye , J., Ponman , T

    McCarthy , I. G., Schaye , J., Ponman , T. J., et al. 2010, , 406, 822

    2010

  58. [66]

    McNamara , B. R. & Nulsen , P. E. J. 2007, , 45, 117

    2007

  59. [67]

    R., Nulsen , P

    McNamara , B. R., Nulsen , P. E. J., Wise , M. W., et al. 2005, , 433, 45

    2005

  60. [68]

    J., Fabricant , D

    Mohr , J. J., Fabricant , D. G., & Geller , M. J. 1993, , 413, 492

    1993

  61. [69]

    K., Jackson , N

    Morabito , L. K., Jackson , N. J., Mooney , S., et al. 2022, , 658, A1

    2022

  62. [70]

    Mulchaey , J. S. 2000, , 38, 289

    2000

  63. [71]

    2013, , 430, 2638

    Munari , E., Biviano , A., Borgani , S., Murante , G., & Fabjan , D. 2013, , 430, 2638

    2013

  64. [72]

    Nagai , D., Vikhlinin , A., & Kravtsov , A. V. 2007, , 655, 98

    2007

  65. [73]

    F., Frenk , C

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

    1996

  66. [74]

    2022, , 513, 5988

    Neumann , J., Thomas , D., Maraston , C., et al. 2022, , 513, 5988

    2022

  67. [75]

    R., McKinley , B., Hurley-Walker , N., et al

    Offringa , A. R., McKinley , B., Hurley-Walker , N., et al. 2014, , 444, 606

    2014

  68. [76]

    D., Babul , A., Bah \'e , Y., Butsky , I

    Oppenheimer , B. D., Babul , A., Bah \'e , Y., Butsky , I. S., & McCarthy , I. G. 2021, Universe, 7, 209

    2021

  69. [77]

    P., Vrtilek , J

    O'Sullivan , E., Giacintucci , S., David , L. P., Vrtilek , J. M., & Raychaudhury , S. 2010, , 407, 321

    2010

  70. [78]

    M., Birkinshaw , M., et al

    O'Sullivan , E., Worrall , D. M., Birkinshaw , M., et al. 2011, , 416, 2916

    2011

  71. [79]

    K., Fabian , A

    Panagoulia , E. K., Fabian , A. C., & Sanders , J. S. 2014, , 438, 2341

    2014

  72. [80]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13

    2016

  73. [81]

    J., Cannon , D

    Ponman , T. J., Cannon , D. B., & Navarro , J. F. 1999, , 397, 135

    1999

  74. [82]

    W., Arnaud , M., Piffaretti , R., et al

    Pratt , G. W., Arnaud , M., Piffaretti , R., et al. 2010, , 511, A85

    2010

  75. [83]

    2013, The Astronomical Review, 8, 40

    Rasia , E., Meneghetti , M., & Ettori , S. 2013, The Astronomical Review, 8, 40

    2013

  76. [84]

    M., Rosen , S

    Read , A. M., Rosen , S. R., Saxton , R. D., & Ramirez , J. 2011, , 534, A34

    2011

  77. [85]

    2024, , 686, A68

    Rossetti , M., Eckert , D., Gastaldello , F., et al. 2024, , 686, A68

    2024

  78. [86]

    N., Hardcastle , M

    Sabater , J., Best , P. N., Hardcastle , M. J., et al. 2019, , 622, A17

    2019

  79. [87]

    V., & Fonnesbeck , C

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

    2016

  80. [88]

    2017, Experimental Astronomy, 44, 309

    Salvetti , D., Marelli , M., Gastaldello , F., et al. 2017, Experimental Astronomy, 44, 309

    2017

  81. [89]

    F., Jim \'e nez-Vicente , J., et al

    S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez , P., Peletier , R. F., Jim \'e nez-Vicente , J., et al. 2006, , 371, 703

    2006

  82. [90]

    A., Bower , R

    Schaye , J., Crain , R. A., Bower , R. G., et al. 2015, , 446, 521

    2015

  83. [91]

    P., Vrtilek , J., et al

    Schellenberger , G., David , L. P., Vrtilek , J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 16

    2021

  84. [92]

    W., Hardcastle , M

    Shimwell , T. W., Hardcastle , M. J., Tasse , C., et al. 2022, , 659, A1

    2022

  85. [93]

    W., & Urban , O

    Simionescu , A., Werner , N., Mantz , A., Allen , S. W., & Urban , O. 2017, , 469, 1476

    2017

  86. [94]

    K., Brickhouse , N

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

    2001

  87. [95]

    2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 045004

    Sun , M. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 045004

    2012

  88. [96]

    2004, , 612, 805

    Sun , M., Forman , W., Vikhlinin , A., et al. 2004, , 612, 805

    2004

  89. [97]

    2007, , 657, 197

    Sun , M., Jones , C., Forman , W., et al. 2007, , 657, 197

    2007

  90. [98]

    M., Donahue , M., et al

    Sun , M., Voit , G. M., Donahue , M., et al. 2009, , 693, 1142

    2009

  91. [99]

    Tempel , E., Tuvikene , T., Kipper , R., & Libeskind , N. I. 2017, , 602, A100

    2017

  92. [100]

    2010, , 404, 1775

    Thomas , D., Maraston , C., Schawinski , K., Sarzi , M., & Silk , J. 2010, , 404, 1775

    2010

  93. [101]

    2017, , 470, 1121

    Tremmel , M., Karcher , M., Governato , F., et al. 2017, , 470, 1121

    2017

  94. [102]

    2019, , 629, A82

    T \"u mer , A., Tombesi , F., Bourdin , H., et al. 2019, , 629, A82

    2019

  95. [103]

    2020, , 890, 148

    Umetsu , K., Sereno , M., Lieu , M., et al. 2020, , 890, 148

    2020

  96. [104]

    M., Kay , S

    Voit , G. M., Kay , S. T., & Bryan , G. L. 2005, , 364, 909

    2005

  97. [105]

    M., Oppenheimer , B

    Voit , G. M., Oppenheimer , B. D., Bell , E. F., Terrazas , B., & Donahue , M. 2024, , 960, 28

    2024

  98. [106]

    2018, , 479, 4056

    Weinberger , R., Springel , V., Pakmor , R., et al. 2018, , 479, 4056

    2018

  99. [107]

    Werner , N., Urban , O., Simionescu , A., & Allen , S. W. 2013, , 502, 656

    2013

  100. [108]

    B., Cappellari , M., Bershady , M

    Westfall , K. B., Cappellari , M., Bershady , M. A., et al. 2019, , 158, 231

    2019

  101. [109]

    M., Maraston , C., Goddard , D., Thomas , D., & Parikh , T

    Wilkinson , D. M., Maraston , C., Goddard , D., Thomas , D., & Parikh , T. 2017, , 472, 4297

    2017

  102. [110]

    2019, , 883, 175

    Yan , R., Chen , Y., Lazarz , D., et al. 2019, , 883, 175

    2019

  103. [111]

    2022, , 516, 4084

    Yang , T., Cai , Y.-C., Cui , W., et al. 2022, , 516, 4084

    2022

Pith tools

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