How the cool-core population transitions from galaxy groups to massive clusters: A comparison of the largest Magneticum simulation with eROSITA, XMM-Newton, Chandra and LOFAR observations

Justo Antonio Gonzalez Villalba; Klaus Dolag; Veronica Biffi

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

How the cool-core population transitions from galaxy groups to massive clusters: A comparison of the largest Magneticum simulation with eROSITA, XMM-Newton, Chandra and LOFAR observations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A large cosmological simulation reproduces the observed rise and fall of cool-core cluster fractions across mass, with the peak near $10^{14}$ solar masses.

desk verdict A genuinely useful new simulation-observation comparison with a solid high-mass result, but the claimed low-mass decline is overinterpreted and the new feedback model is calibrated to the same cavity data it is tested against. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13182 v1 pith:YMEUO435 submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Justo Antonio Gonzalez Villalba , Klaus Dolag , Veronica Biffi This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

keywords cool-coreclustersgalaxygroupsAGNfeedbackclustermergersintraclustermediumcosmologicalhydrodynamicsMagneticumsimulationsX-raysurveys

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 sets out to explain what turns cool-core galaxy clusters into hot-core systems across two orders of magnitude in mass, and to locate the flaw in cosmological simulations that overheat low-mass groups while failing to quench star formation in massive clusters. Comparing the $z=0.25$ snapshot of the large Magneticum Box2b/hr simulation with eFEDS and Planck/XMM samples, it finds that the observed and simulated cool-core fractions coincide within errors and trace a common curve peaking near $M_{500c}\approx 10^{14}\,M_\odot$, falling toward groups and toward the most massive clusters. The paper attributes the high-mass decline to merger energy that must first be thermalized and then mixed inward by thermal conductivity, both increasingly efficient at high mass, and attributes the group-scale decline to relatively strong AGN feedback. It concludes that simulations do not need more feedback energy; the implementation's fixed injection efficiency and shrinking sphere of influence explain the failures, and an accretion-rate-dependent efficiency with an exponent near $1/8$ would align simulations with observed cavity power.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing diagnostic is the core temperature ratio $T_{\mathrm{ratio},500}=T_{X,500}/T_{X,500,\mathrm{cex}}$, the emission-weighted temperature inside $R_{500c}$ divided by the temperature in the shell $0.15\,R_{500c}<r<R_{500c}$, with a threshold of unity defining cool versus hot cores in both observations and simulation. This ratio avoids resolution and K-correction biases and provides a common yardstick for X-ray-selected eFEDS groups and SZ-selected Planck/XMM clusters. The interpretive machinery is a two-factor balance in the simulation: the ratio of AGN feedback power to core bolometric luminosity decreases with mass, while both the number of black hole mergers and the effective Spitzer conductivity, scaled as $\kappa\propto T^{5/2}$, increase with mass, jointly producing the peak. The corrective machinery is the observed relation between cavity power and Bondi accretion rate, converted into a mass- and accretion-dependent total feedback efficiency, together with a cavity-reach versus power scaling used to replace the fixed sphere-of-influence injection radius.

What would settle it

A complete, mass-selected survey of galaxy groups below $M_{500c}\sim 7\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ that measures temperature profiles and finds most low-mass groups are hot-core systems with flat entropy cores would falsify the claim that the low-mass decline is physical. Conversely, cavity-power measurements at group scales that do not fall below the simulation's current high feedback values would falsify the proposed reduced-efficiency correction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the cool-core population is not a monotonic function of halo mass: the fraction of systems with $T_{X,500}/T_{X,500,\mathrm{cex}}<1$ reaches a maximum around $M_{500c}\approx 10^{14}\,M_\odot$ and declines on both sides, and Magneticum Box2b/hr reproduces this curve within the observational error bars. The interpretation is two-factor: AGN feedback power relative to core luminosity grows toward low masses, making groups prone to overheating, while merger-injected kinetic energy, once thermalized and spread by Spitzer conductivity, grows in importance toward high masses and destroys cool cores. A direct simulation-observation comparison of cavity power shows the same energies at cluster scales but excess feedback at group scales, which the paper traces not to the total energy budget but to the definition of the black hole sphere of influence used for injection. The proposed fix, a total radio-mode efficiency $\epsilon_t \propto \dot{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}^{1/8}$ calibrated by the observed Bondi-power/cavity-power relation, reproduces observed cavity powers across the full mass range.

Load-bearing premise

The low-mass observational baseline assumes the combined eFEDS and Planck/XMM samples are complete and unbiased above $M_{500c}=0.7\times10^{13}\,M_\odot$ at $z<0.3$; if undetected hot-core groups are common, the observed rise toward low masses—and the inferred need for weaker AGN feedback there—is partly an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is right, the observed decline of cool-core fraction toward high mass is a real physical trend, not a selection artifact, and any successful simulation must reproduce it with the same classification criterion.
AGN heating dominates group scales: lower radio-mode efficiency toward low accretion rates is required to avoid overheating, so feedback models calibrated only on massive clusters will overheat groups.
Merger activity alone does not destroy cool cores; the injected kinetic energy must be thermalized and transported inward, so thermal conductivity is a necessary ingredient in cluster-scale simulations.
Simulation failures in star formation at cluster scales point to the injection scheme, not the energy budget: fixing the injection radius via observed cavity reach would improve resolution convergence.
The cavity power–Bondi rate relation implies a weak but measurable mass trend in radio-mode efficiency, testable with larger cavity and radio samples across group and cluster masses.

Reading between the lines

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

If the $1/8$ exponent is physical, cavity power should scale as $\dot{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}^{1.14}$; a dedicated sample of groups with both Bondi-rate estimates and cavity powers could confirm or refute this scaling independently of simulations.
A deeper, mass-selected group survey that finds many hot-core groups below $M_{500c}\sim 7\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ would indicate that part of the observed low-mass decline is a selection artifact, weakening the empirical case for reduced AGN efficiency at group scales.
The sphere-of-influence diagnosis predicts a resolution dependence: rerunning a small-volume cluster with higher resolution and the same subgrid model should worsen the over-suppression of cool cores unless the injection radius is rescaled according to cavity reach.
If BH spin decreases with BH mass as the paper cites, the Frolov-type spin-independent process offers a way to keep mechanical feedback strong in massive clusters; this could be tested by comparing jet power with independent spin estimates for a sample of brightest cluster galaxies.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper does something worth doing: it applies a common cool-core criterion to a large simulation and two observational samples, and shows that Magneticum Box2b/hr reproduces the observed decline in cool-core fractions toward massive clusters. The joint eFEDS + Planck/XMM sample, the bootstrap errors, the careful band corrections, and the honest discussion of the low-mass discrepancy all demonstrate real care. The sphere-of-influence diagnostic in Sec. 7.3 is the most robust and interesting contribution, and the radial profile comparisons are competent.

The soft spots are real, though. The stress-test note is right: the observational low-mass decline is sub-significant. Table 1 gives f_cc = 0.48 ± 0.10 in the lowest bin versus 0.56 ± 0.08 at the peak; that is not a detected decline. Meanwhile the simulation drops to 0.25–0.30, roughly 2 sigma below observation at comparable masses. So the Sec. 4.4 sentence claiming both curves 'decrease towards lower mass groups' overstates the agreement. The paper's own explanation — undetected hot-core systems at group scales — is exactly the selection effect that would make the observed low-mass branch an artifact, and the empirical case for lower AGN feedback efficiency at groups rests on that branch.

The new feedback model in Sec. 7.2 is also partly circular. Eq. 7 is fit to cavity powers from Rafferty et al. (2006), Russell et al. (2013), and Eckert et al. (2021), and Fig. 11 then shows that the simulation corrected with Eq. 7 matches those same observations. That agreement is by construction. The Frolov-based derivation (Eq. 12) is suggestive but not decisive. The authors should present Eq. 7 as a calibrated interpolation rather than a validated prediction.

None of this kills the paper. The comparison alone is publishable, and the sphere-of-influence analysis is worth publishing on its own. A serious referee should ask the authors to soften the low-mass claim, quantify the selection effect with an incompleteness model, and reframe the efficiency scaling. I would engage with the revised version.

Yes to peer review; the paper deserves referee time even though the central claim needs revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper compares the cool-core population in the Magneticum Box2b/hr cosmological simulation at z=0.25 with observational samples from eFEDS and Planck/XMM, and also compares simulated radial temperature, density, and entropy profiles with the Chandra ACCEPT sample, and AGN feedback energetics with Chandra cavity powers and LOFAR kinetic luminosities. The authors find a characteristic mass dependence of the cool-core fraction that peaks near M500c ≈ 10^14 Msun and decreases toward both lower-mass groups and higher-mass clusters, and they interpret this as a transition from AGN-dominated feedback at group scales to merger-driven thermalization and thermal conductivity at cluster scales. They further propose, based on an observed Bondi-power–cavity-power relation, that the AGN feedback efficiency in radio mode should decrease toward lower accretion rates, and they argue that the excessive star formation in simulated clusters is due to the numerical definition of the black hole sphere of influence rather than to insufficient total feedback energy.

Significance. If the central comparison is correct, this is a valuable, large-scale test of cool-core physics spanning two orders of magnitude in halo mass, using a consistent cool-core definition for both simulations and observations and a large simulated sample. The paper is also useful for the community because it explicitly quantifies the cool-core fraction with bootstrap errors, reproduces the observed temperature, density, and entropy profile shapes, and makes a falsifiable proposal about mass-dependent AGN feedback efficiency. The use of the same observational indicators for simulations and data, the detailed cooling-function treatment, and the honest discussion of the low-mass-group discrepancy are notable strengths. However, the main interpretive claims rest on two load-bearing points that need additional scrutiny: the statistical and selection robustness of the observed low-mass decline, and the extent to which the proposed AGN feedback correction is calibrated rather than independently validated by the cavity data.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 4.4, Tables 1–2] See comment above.
[Sec. 7.2, Eq. (7), Fig. 11] See comment above.
[Sec. 4.5–4.6, Figs. 4–5] See comment above.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 4.4] See comment above.
[Fig. 4 caption] See comment above.
[Sec. 4.2] See comment above.
[Sec. 4.5] See comment above.
[Sec. 5.3 and Fig. 8] See comment above.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Sec. 7.2 validates the 'corrected' AGN feedback model by recomputing a fit to the same cavity-power data it is then said to match; the cool-core population comparison itself remains an independent external benchmark.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. 7.2, Eq. 7 and Fig. 11 (left panel)]
"We now can express the observed cavity power directly as a function of the inferred Bondi accretion rate ... the final parameters are P0 = 13.60+55.56−35.74 and βP = 1.14+0.09−0.22: ..."

Eq. 7 is an empirical power-law fit of Pcavity to ṀB made from the same observed cavity-power / Bondi-rate measurements (Rafferty et al. 2006, Russell et al. 2013, Eckert et al. 2021) that are plotted in Fig. 11. When this fit is evaluated at the simulation's ṀB values and the result is reported as 'matches the observed cavity power', the agreement is guaranteed by construction: the corrected-model curve is the fitting function itself, not an independent prediction. The claimed conclusion that a decreasing radio-mode efficiency toward groups is 'required' is an inference from the fitted slope, and the apparent validation in Fig. 11 therefore does not add independent support. The cool-core population comparison in Secs.

full rationale

The only forced step is the validation loop in Sec. 7.2: Eq. 7 is a fit to observed cavity power versus Bondi rate, Eq. 8 is the same relation divided by ṀBc², and the 'corrected' model's agreement with the observed cavity power in Fig. 11 is therefore a consistency check, not a prediction. That is a partial circularity and sets the score at 6. The paper's principal cool-core population result is not circular: the observed eFEDS + Planck/XMM cool-core fractions and the Magneticum Box2b/hr values are computed independently with the same temperature-ratio indicator, and no parameter of the simulation is fitted to those observed fractions. The acknowledged low-mass discrepancy ('can be lack of data or undetected hot-core systems') is a completeness/selection concern, not a circularity. The self-citations to earlier Magneticum validation papers are contextual and are not used to forbid alternatives or to import a uniqueness result, so they do not raise the score. The Frolov-collision efficiency argument in Sec. 7.4 is an independent theoretical input, though its agreement with Eq. 8 is naturally expected since Eq. 8 is a fit. Overall: one 'prediction' reduces by construction, while the central cool-core comparison remains self-contained.

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

The central claims rest on a mature simulation code and standard sub-grid models (Bondi accretion, Spitzer conductivity, thermal AGN feedback). The paper's own contribution adds five fitted parameters (two for cavity power versus accretion rate, two for cavity reach versus power, one derived normalization) and borrows several domain assumptions from prior work; the observational completeness assumption at group scale is the most fragile input.

free parameters (5)

P0 (normalization of P_cavity-Mdot relation, Eq. 7) = 13.60 (+55.56 / -35.74)
Fitted to the observed cavity power versus Bondi accretion rate data from Fujita et al. (2014), with gamma=4/3 and a x2 shock correction; it sets the overall feedback power in the proposed radio-mode efficiency model.
beta_P (exponent in Eq. 7) = 1.14 (+0.09 / -0.22)
Fitted exponent of the cavity power versus accretion rate relation; beta_P - 1 = 0.14 gives the mass/accretion-rate dependence of total feedback efficiency in Eq. 8.
epsilon_0 (normalization of total efficiency, Eq. 8) = 0.024 (+0.10 / -0.06)
Derived by dividing P0 by 0.1 c^2 Mdot scaling; it normalizes the proposed efficiency law epsilon_t = epsilon_0 (Mdot)^(beta_P-1). It is not an independent fit, but it is a free parameter of the proposed model.
r0 (normalization of cavity reach vs power, Eq. 9) = 4.2 +/- 1.3 kpc
Orthogonal distance regression fit to Rafferty et al. (2006) cavity sizes and powers; used in Sec. 7.3 to correct the black hole sphere of influence in future simulations.
beta_r (exponent in Eq. 9) = 0.37 +/- 0.05
Fitted exponent of cavity maximum radius versus cavity power; with r0 it defines the proposed resolution-independent feedback injection scale.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion formula with boost factor alpha=100 (Eq. 5) describes accretion onto the central BH in groups and clusters.
Invoked in Sec. 7.1 to relate simulated accretion rates to observed Bondi estimates from Fujita et al. (2014); the paper compares but does not re-derive this sub-grid model.
domain assumption Isotropic thermal conductivity at 1/20 of the Spitzer value (Eq. 4) is the correct effective transport model for cluster cores.
Used in Sec. 4.6 and 5.1 to argue mergers plus conductivity destroy cool cores at high mass; authors state they plan to review this suppression in future work, so the claim rests on this model choice.
domain assumption Observed cavity powers are computed with gamma=4/3 and an additional factor 2 for shock energy (Sec. 7.1).
This scaling is applied to Rafferty et al. (2006), Russell et al. (2013), and Eckert et al. (2021) data before fitting Eq. 7; if the shock factor or relativistic filling is wrong, the fitted efficiency law changes.
domain assumption The combined eFEDS and Planck/XMM samples are effectively complete and mass-selected above M500c = 0.7e13 Msun at z < 0.3.
Section 4.2 uses Comparat et al. (2020) completeness to justify combining X-ray and SZ samples, and Sec. 4.4 notes undetected hot-core systems could bias the group-scale comparison.
domain assumption The number of BH mergers of the central galaxy is a proxy for the merger history of the whole cluster.
Central panel of Fig. 3 and Sec. 4.4 use this proxy to conclude merger activity increases toward high mass; the argument would need halo merger trees to be fully independent.
domain assumption The ADAF magnetic field scaling (Eq. 11) and the Frolov (2012) collision-energy mechanism apply to radio-mode AGN feedback and yield epsilon ~ Mdot^(1/8).
Sec. 7.4 uses Eqs. 10-12 to give a theoretical rationale for the fitted exponent; this is an analogy to a particle-collision process, not a directly measured jet efficiency.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How the cool-core population transitions from galaxy groups to massive clusters: A comparison of the largest Magneticum simulation with eROSITA, XMM-Newton, Chandra and LOFAR observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMEUO435

@misc{pith2026241213182,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How the cool-core population transitions from galaxy groups to massive clusters: A comparison of the largest Magneticum simulation with eROSITA, XMM-Newton, Chandra and LOFAR observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMEUO435}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13182}
}

read the original abstract

Our aim is to understand how the interplay between AGN feedback and merge processes can effectively turn cool-core galaxy clusters into hot-core clusters in the modern universe. Additionally, we also aim to clarify which parameters of the AGN feedback model used in simulations can cause an excess of feedback at the scale of galaxy groups while not efficiently suppressing star formation at the scale of galaxy clusters. To obtain robust statistics of the cool-core population, we compare the modern Universe snapshot (z=0.25) of the largest Magneticum simulation (Box2b/hr) with the eROSITA eFEDS survey and Planck SZ-selected clusters observed with XMM-Newton. Additionally, we compare the AGN feedback injected by the simulation in radio mode with Chandra observations of X-ray cavities, and LOFAR observations of radio emission. We confirm a decreasing trend in cool-core fractions towards the most massive galaxy clusters, which is well reproduced by the Magneticum simulations. This evolution is connected with an increased merge activity that injects high-energy particles into the core region, but it also requires thermalization and conductivity to enhance mixing through the ICM core, where both factors are increasingly efficient towards the high mass end. On the other hand, AGN feedback remains as the dominant factor at the scale of galaxy groups, while its relative impact decreases towards the most massive clusters. The problems suppressing star formation in simulations are not caused by low AGN feedback efficiencies. They root in the definition of the black hole sphere of influence used to distribute the feedback, which decreases as density and accretion rate increase. Actually, a decreasing AGN feedback efficiency towards low-mass galaxy groups is required to prevent overheating.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13182 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** X-ray SB images of three cool-core (upper row) and 3 hot-core (bottom row) clusters selected within the 3 highest mass bins. While the hot-core clusters are highly perturbed and merging systems, the cool-core clusters show more regular shapes but also display some cavity-like features within the SB maps. ternal structures of the simulated galaxy clusters. The cool-core / hot-core classification criteria is described… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Cool-core fractions determined by the number of clusters for which the total temperature, including the core region, is lower than the core-excised temperature (T x500/T x500,cex < 1). The gold bars correspond to the simulation, for which the temperature was obtained with emissivity weights in the XMM-eFEDS band. The gray bars for the low-mid mass range correspond to the eROSITA field equatorial deep survey eFEDS d… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The left and central panels correspond to results from the Magneticum simulation (Box2b), where cool-core clusters are shown in blue and hot-core clusters in orange. Solid lines indicate moving medians, and dashed lines indicate 16% and 84% percentiles (1σ). Left panel: Ratio between the energy injection from the central AGN feedback and the bolometric luminosity in the [0.01–100] keV band for gas particles inside t… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Cool-core clusters are shown in blue, and hot-core clusters in orange. Solid lines indicate moving medians, and dashed lines 16% and 84% percentiles (2σ) from the Magneticum simulation (Box2b/hr). Left panel: Freedom ratio for all particles inside the core region (Fc,t…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Cool-core clusters are shown in blue, and hot-core clusters in orange. Solid lines indicate moving medians, and dashed lines 16% and 84% percentiles (2σ) from the Magneticum simulation (Box2b/hr). Left panel: Temperature of the core region obtained with emissivity weig…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Projected X-ray temperature profiles in the [0.7-7.0]keV band, normalised by the mean X-ray temperature in the range [0.1−0.2]R500c . The error bars correspond to the median Chandra ACCEPT sample profiles and ±1σ intervals using the original masses from the M2C Galaxy …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Electron number density profiles. The error bars correspond to the median Chandra ACCEPT sample profiles and ±1σ intervals using the original masses from the M2C Galaxy Cluster Database (black) and a +20% hydrostatic mass bias correction (orange). The blue line and sha…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Electron entropy profiles. The error bars correspond to the median Chandra ACCEPT sample profiles and ±1σ intervals using the original masses from the M2C Galaxy Cluster Database (black) and a +20% hydrostatic mass bias correction (orange). The blue line and shaded are…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Cool-core clusters are shown in blue, and hot-core clusters are shown in orange. Solid lines indicate moving medians, and dashed lines represent 16% and 84% percentiles (2σ) from the Magneticum simulation (Box2b). Observational data is shown in black, with error bars a…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Accretion rates and energy injection of the AGN hosted in the centers on BCGs. Cool-core clusters are shown in blue, and hot-core clusters are shown in orange. Solid lines indicate moving medians, and dashed lines represent 16% and 84% percentiles (1σ) from the Magnet…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Left panel: Alignment of soft band luminosity with the central AGN feedback. The golden and salmon bars correspond to the ICM L500 luminosity in the [0.1-2.4] keV (soft) band from the Bahar et al. (2022) and Lovisari et al. (2020) samples, respectively, whereas black,…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Size of the sphere of influence of the simulated AGNs in the centers of groups and clusters. Cool-core clusters are shown in blue, and hot-core clusters are shown in orange. Observational data from Rafferty et al. (2006) and Eckert et al. (2021) is shown with error ba…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Average soft X-ray surface brightness profile of massive galaxy clusters in Magneticum simulations
astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Magneticum simulations reproduce the eROSITA stacked soft X-ray surface brightness profile of massive clusters out to about 3 R500, with a central difference attributed to AGN feedback.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[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]

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]

T., Bower, R

Altamura, E., Kay, S. T., Bower, R. G., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 3164

2023
[4]

& Grevesse, N

Anders, E. & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica acta, 53, 197

1989
[5]

R., et al

Andrade-Santos, F., Jones, C., Forman, W. R., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 76

2017
[6]

2022, , 663, L6

Angelinelli , M., Ettori , S., Dolag , K., Vazza , F., & Ragagnin , A. 2022, , 663, L6

2022
[7]

2023, , 675, A188

Angelinelli , M., Ettori , S., Dolag , K., Vazza , F., & Ragagnin , A. 2023, , 675, A188

2023
[8]

M., Petkova , M., & Lesch , H

Arth , A., Dolag , K., Beck , A. M., Petkova , M., & Lesch , H. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.6533

arXiv 2014

Show all 137 references

[9]

J., & Scott, P

Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics, 47, 481

2009
[10]

M., Lim, P

Astropy, C., Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, Astrophysical Journal, 935

2022
[11]

E., Bulbul, E., Clerc, N., et al

Bahar, Y. E., Bulbul, E., Clerc, N., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A7

2022
[12]

E., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V., et al

Bahar, Y. E., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V., et al. 2024, The SRG/eROSITA All-Sky Survey: Constraints on AGN Feedback in Galaxy Groups

2024
[13]

Baker, N. P. & Frolov, V. P. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 024045

2023
[14]

J., Kannan , R., Vogelsberger , M., et al

Barnes , D. J., Kannan , R., Vogelsberger , M., et al. 2019, , 488, 3003

2019
[15]

J., Kay, S

Barnes, D. J., Kay, S. T., Bah \'e , Y. M., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 1088

2017
[16]

J., Vogelsberger, M., Kannan, R., et al

Barnes, D. J., Vogelsberger, M., Kannan, R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 1809

2018
[17]

M., Murante, G., Arth, A., et al

Beck, A. M., Murante, G., Arth, A., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 2110

2016
[18]

2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 827, 112

Biffi, V., Borgani, S., Murante, G., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 827, 112

2016
[19]

2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 420, 3545

Biffi, V., Dolag, K., Boehringer, H., & Lemson, G. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 420, 3545

2012
[20]

2013, , 428, 1395

Biffi , V., Dolag , K., & B \"o hringer , H. 2013, , 428, 1395

2013
[21]

2018 a , , 481, 2213

Biffi , V., Dolag , K., & Merloni , A. 2018 a , , 481, 2213

2018
[22]

H., et al

Biffi , V., Dolag , K., Reiprich , T. H., et al. 2022, , 661, A17

2022
[23]

2018 b , , 214, 123

Biffi , V., Mernier , F., & Medvedev , P. 2018 b , , 214, 123

2018
[24]

Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. 1977, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 179, 433

1977
[25]

2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1112.5035

Boehringer, H., Dolag, K., & Chon, G. 2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1112.5035

2011 arXiv
[26]

Boggs, P. T. & Rogers, J. E. 1990, Contemporary mathematics, 112, 183

1990
[27]

1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 195

Bondi, H. 1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 195

1952
[28]

& Hoyle, F

Bondi, H. & Hoyle, F. 1944, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 104, 273

1944
[29]

& Kravtsov, A

Borgani, S. & Kravtsov, A. 2011, Advanced Science Letters, 4, 204

2011
[30]

2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 348, 1078

Borgani, S., Murante, G., Springel, V., et al. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 348, 1078

2004
[31]

O., Hallman, E

Burns, J. O., Hallman, E. J., Gantner, B., Motl, P. M., & Norman, M. L. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 675, 1125

2008
[32]

Caswell, T. et al. 2023, matplotlib/matplotlib: REL: v3. 7.0 rc1, doi: 10.5281/zenodo. 7570264

2023 doi
[33]

W., Donahue, M., Voit, G

Cavagnolo, K. W., Donahue, M., Voit, G. M., & Sun, M. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 682, 821

2008
[34]

W., Donahue, M., Voit, G

Cavagnolo, K. W., Donahue, M., Voit, G. M., & Sun, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 182, 12

2009
[35]

2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763

Chabrier, G. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763

2003
[36]

2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 466, 805

Chen, Y., Reiprich, T., B \"o hringer, H., Ikebe, Y., & Zhang, Y.-Y. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 466, 805

2007
[37]

2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A11

Chiu, I.-N., Ghirardini, V., Liu, A., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A11

2022
[38]

u ggen, M., Kaiser, C., B \

Churazov, E., Br \"u ggen, M., Kaiser, C., B \"o hringer, H., & Forman, W. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 554, 261

2001
[39]

2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 363, L91

Churazov, E., Sazonov, S., Sunyaev, R., et al. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 363, L91

2005
[40]

Collaboration, E. H. T. et al. 2021, arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.01173

2021 arXiv
[41]

2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, 9

Collaboration, H., Aharonian, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, 9

2018
[42]

2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.08404

Comparat, J., Eckert, D., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.08404

2020 arXiv
[43]

& Dehnen, W

Cullen, L. & Dehnen, W. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 669

2010
[44]

J., D’Aloisio, A., & Natarajan, P

Davis, A. J., D’Aloisio, A., & Natarajan, P. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 416, 242

2011
[45]

& Aly, H

Dehnen, W. & Aly, H. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 1068

2012
[46]

2005, nature, 433, 604

Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, nature, 433, 604

2005
[47]

2015, IAU General Assembly, 29, 2250156

Dolag, K. 2015, IAU General Assembly, 29, 2250156

2015
[48]

2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 606, L97

Dolag, K., Jubelgas, M., Springel, V., Borgani, S., & Rasia, E. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 606, L97

2004
[49]

2017, Galaxies, 5, 35

Dolag , K., Mevius , E., & Remus , R.-S. 2017, Galaxies, 5, 35

2017
[50]

2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 753

Dolag, K., Vazza, F., Brunetti, G., & Tormen, G. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 753

2005
[51]

M., & O’Sullivan, E

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

2021
[52]

2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 621, A40

Eckert, D., Ghirardini, V., Ettori, S., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 621, A40

2019
[53]

2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344, L27

Fabian, A. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344, L27

2003
[54]

Fabian, A. C. 2002, in Lighthouses of the Universe: The Most Luminous Celestial Objects and Their Use for Cosmology: Proceedings of the MPA/ESO/MPE/USM Joint Astronomy Conference Held in Garching, Germany, 6-10 August 2001, Springer, 24--36

2002
[55]

2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 1670

Fabjan, D., Borgani, S., Tornatore, L., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 1670

2010
[56]

S., et al

Foster, A., Smith, R., Brickhouse, N. S., et al. 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts\# 231, Vol. 231, 253--03

2018
[57]

Foster, A. R. & Heuer, K. 2020, Atoms, 8, 49

2020
[58]

J., & Pimbblet, K

Fraser-McKelvie, A., Brown, M. J., & Pimbblet, K. A. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 444, L63

2014
[59]

Frolov, V. P. 2012, Physical Review D, 85, 024020

2012
[60]

2014, arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.6366

Fujita, Y., Kawakatu, N., & Shlosman, I. 2014, arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.6366

2014 arXiv
[61]

2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 68, 26

Fujita, Y., Kawakatu, N., & Shlosman, I. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 68, 26

2016
[62]

2013, Astronomische Nachrichten, 334, 394

Gaspari, M., Brighenti, F., & Ruszkowski, M. 2013, Astronomische Nachrichten, 334, 394

2013
[63]

L., et al

Gaspari , M., McDonald , M., Hamer , S. L., et al. 2018, , 854, 167

2018
[64]

E., Bulbul, E., et al

Ghirardini, V., Bahar, Y. E., Bulbul, E., et al. 2022, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 54, 107

2022
[65]

2022, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

Gobat, C. 2022, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

2022
[66]

H., Zaritsky, D., & Zabludoff, A

Gonzalez, A. H., Zaritsky, D., & Zabludoff, A. I. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 666, 147

2007
[67]

& Mathews, W

Guo, F. & Mathews, W. G. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 712, 1311

2010
[68]

J., Dolag , K., & Liu , J

Gupta , N., Saro , A., Mohr , J. J., Dolag , K., & Liu , J. 2017, , 469, 3069

2017
[69]

2001, Clusters of galaxies and the high redshift universe observed in X-rays

Haardt, F., Madau, P., Neumann, D., & Tran, J. 2001, Clusters of galaxies and the high redshift universe observed in X-rays

2001
[70]

2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 166

Hahn, O., Martizzi, D., Wu, H.-Y., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 166

2017
[71]

R., Millman, K

Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

2020
[72]

2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2304

Hirschmann, M., Dolag, K., Saro, A., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2304

2014
[73]

S., Donahue, M., Hicks, A., & Barthelemy, R

Hoffer, A. S., Donahue, M., Hicks, A., & Barthelemy, R. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 199, 23

2012
[74]

2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 51

Hogan, M., McNamara, B., Pulido, F., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 51

2017
[75]

& Lyttleton, R

Hoyle, F. & Lyttleton, R. A. 1939, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 35, 405–415

1939
[76]

& Dale, D

Hunter, J. & Dale, D. 2007, Matplotlib 0.90. 0 user’s guide

2007
[77]

2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 4340

Klypin, A., Yepes, G., Gottl \"o ber, S., Prada, F., & Hess, S. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 4340

2016
[78]

M., Dunkley, J., et al

Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 18

2011
[79]

2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 555, A66

Lagan \'a , T., Martinet, N., Durret, F., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 555, A66

2013
[80]

M., McCarthy, I

Le Brun, A. M., McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., & Ponman, T. J. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 1270

2014
[81]

2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics

Lehle, K., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Truong, N., & Rohr, E. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics

2024
[82]

2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A2

Liu, A., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A2

2022
[83]

2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 892, 102

Lovisari, L., Schellenberger, G., Sereno, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 892, 102

2020
[84]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.12719

Marini , I., Popesso , P., Lamer , G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.12719

2024 arXiv
[85]

2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 1583

Maughan, B., Giles, P., Randall, S., Jones, C., & Forman, W. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 1583

2012
[86]

2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 354, 10

Mazzotta, P., Rasia, E., Moscardini, L., & Tormen, G. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 354, 10

2004
[87]

G., Babul, A., Bower, R

McCarthy, I. G., Babul, A., Bower, R. G., & Balogh, M. L. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 386, 1309

2008
[88]

McCourt , M., Sharma , P., Quataert , E., & Parrish , I. J. 2012, , 419, 3319

2012
[89]

A., Vikhlinin , A., et al

McDonald , M., Benson , B. A., Vikhlinin , A., et al. 2013, , 774, 23

2013
[90]

2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 858, 45

McDonald, M., Gaspari, M., McNamara, B., & Tremblay, G. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 858, 45

2018
[91]

M., Burns, J

Motl, P. M., Burns, J. O., Loken, C., Norman, M. L., & Bryan, G. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 606, 635

2004
[92]

V., & Vikhlinin, A

Nagai, D., Kravtsov, A. V., & Vikhlinin, A. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, 1

2007
[93]

Narayan, R. & Yi, I. 1995, Astrophysical Journal v. 452, p. 710, 452, 710

1995
[94]

2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 2341

Panagoulia, E., Fabian, A., & Sanders, J. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 2341

2014
[95]

2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A13

Pasini, T., Br \"u ggen, M., Hoang, D., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A13

2022
[96]

2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 590, 207

Peterson, J., Kahn, S., Paerels, F., et al. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 590, 207

2003
[97]

2013, , 431, 1487

Planelles , S., Borgani , S., Dolag , K., et al. 2013, , 431, 1487

2013
[98]

& Quilis, V

Planelles, S. & Quilis, V. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 410

2009
[99]

B., Babul, A., McCarthy, I

Poole, G. B., Babul, A., McCarthy, I. G., Sanderson, A., & Fardal, M. A. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 391, 1163

2008
[100]

Price, D. J. 2008, Journal of Computational Physics, 227, 10040

2008
[101]

A., McNamara, B., Nulsen, P., & Wise, M

Rafferty, D. A., McNamara, B., Nulsen, P., & Wise, M. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 652, 216

2006
[102]

2017, Astronomy and Computing, 20, 52

Ragagnin , A., Dolag , K., Biffi , V., et al. 2017, Astronomy and Computing, 20, 52

2017
[103]

2019, , 486, 4001

Ragagnin , A., Dolag , K., Moscardini , L., Biviano , A., & D'Onofrio , M. 2019, , 486, 4001

2019
[104]

2021, , 500, 5056

Ragagnin , A., Saro , A., Singh , P., & Dolag , K. 2021, , 500, 5056

2021
[105]

2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 813, L17

Rasia, E., Borgani, S., Murante, G., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 813, L17

2015
[106]

2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 618, L1

Rasia, E., Mazzotta, P., Borgani, S., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 618, L1

2004
[107]

Reynolds, C. S. 2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 117

2021
[108]

P., Tollerud, E

Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33

2013
[109]

2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 618, A39

Roncarelli, M., Gaspari, M., Ettori, S., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 618, A39

2018
[110]

2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 1917

Rossetti, M., Gastaldello, F., Eckert, D., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 1917

2017
[111]

2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 530

Russell, H., McNamara, B., Edge, A., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 530

2013
[112]

2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07657

Sala, L., Valentini, M., Biffi, V., & Dolag, K. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07657

2023 arXiv
[113]

2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 402, 127

Sanders, J., Fabian, A., Frank, K., Peterson, J., & Russell, H. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 402, 127

2010
[114]

2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 1065

Sanders, J., Fabian, A., Russell, H., & Walker, S. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 1065

2018
[115]

J., Edge, A

Sanderson, A. J., Edge, A. C., & Smith, G. P. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1698

2009
[116]

S., Rosati, P., Tozzi, P., et al

Santos, J. S., Rosati, P., Tozzi, P., et al. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 483, 35

2008
[117]

S., Tozzi, P., Rosati, P., & B \"o hringer, H

Santos, J. S., Tozzi, P., Rosati, P., & B \"o hringer, H. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 521, A64

2010
[118]

Sarazin, C. L. 2002, Merging Processes in Galaxy Clusters, 1

2002
[119]

& Perktold, J

Seabold, S. & Perktold, J. 2010, SciPy, 7

2010
[120]

Shakura, N. I. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 24, p. 337-355, 24, 337

1973
[121]

2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 380, 877

Sijacki, D., Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 380, 877

2007
[122]

K., Brickhouse, N

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

2001
[123]

1962, Jr., Physics of fully ionized gases

Spitzer, L. 1962, Jr., Physics of fully ionized gases

1962
[124]

2005, Monthly notices of the royal astronomical society, 364, 1105

Springel, V. 2005, Monthly notices of the royal astronomical society, 364, 1105

2005
[125]

2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 776

Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 776

2005
[126]

& Hernquist, L

Springel, V. & Hernquist, L. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 339, 289

2003
[127]

2007, , 382, 1050

Tornatore , L., Borgani , S., Dolag , K., & Matteucci , F. 2007, , 382, 1050

2007
[128]

2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 349, L19

Tornatore, L., Borgani, S., Matteucci, F., Recchi, S., & Tozzi, P. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 349, L19

2004
[129]

& Drake Jr, F

Van Rossum, G. & Drake Jr, F. L. 1995, Python tutorial, Vol. 620 (Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

1995
[130]

E., et al

Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature methods, 17, 261

2020
[131]

2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 3031

Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Sijacki, D., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 3031

2013
[132]

M., Donahue , M., Bryan , G

Voit , G. M., Donahue , M., Bryan , G. L., & McDonald , M. 2015, , 519, 203

2015
[133]

2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 387, 427

Wadsley, J., Veeravalli, G., & Couchman, H. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 387, 427

2008
[134]

P., Schaye, J., & Smith, B

Wiersma, R. P., Schaye, J., & Smith, B. D. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 393, 99

2009
[135]

& Narayan, R

Yuan, F. & Narayan, R. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 529

2014
[136]

& Han, J

Yuan, Z. & Han, J. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 5485

2020
[137]

2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 762, 78

ZuHone, J., Markevitch, M., Brunetti, G., & Giacintucci, S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 762, 78

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[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]

T., Bower, R

Altamura, E., Kay, S. T., Bower, R. G., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 3164

2023

[4] [4]

& Grevesse, N

Anders, E. & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica acta, 53, 197

1989

[5] [5]

R., et al

Andrade-Santos, F., Jones, C., Forman, W. R., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 76

2017

[6] [6]

2022, , 663, L6

Angelinelli , M., Ettori , S., Dolag , K., Vazza , F., & Ragagnin , A. 2022, , 663, L6

2022

[7] [7]

2023, , 675, A188

Angelinelli , M., Ettori , S., Dolag , K., Vazza , F., & Ragagnin , A. 2023, , 675, A188

2023

[8] [8]

M., Petkova , M., & Lesch , H

Arth , A., Dolag , K., Beck , A. M., Petkova , M., & Lesch , H. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.6533

arXiv 2014