Dense gas formation and destruction in a simulated Perseus-like galaxy cluster with spin-driven black hole feedback

C. Cadiou; F. Combes; F. Polles; G. Pineau des Forets; M. D. Lehnert; P. Guillard; P. Salome; R. S. Beckmann; S. Hamer; V. Olivares

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 84 references

Dense gas formation and destruction in a simulated Perseus-like galaxy cluster with spin-driven black hole feedback

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AGN feedback cycles, traced by a spin-driven jet, control the repeated condensation and shattering of dense gas in a Perseus-like cluster.

desk verdict Solid spin-driven jet simulation, but the reorientation mechanism rides on a low-spin MAD attractor that deserves scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01329 v2 pith:IO6VU2KP submitted 2019-09-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

R. S. Beckmann , Y. Dubois , P. Guillard , P. Salome , V. Olivares , F. Polles , C. Cadiou , F. Combes

show 3 more authors

S. Hamer M. D. Lehnert G. Pineau des Forets

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

keywords galaxyclustersintraclustermediumAGNfeedbackjetscoolingflowsfilamentshydrodynamicalsimulationsblackholespin

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 argues that the repeated appearance and destruction of dense gas filaments in a galaxy-cluster core is driven by the feedback cycle of the central supermassive black hole, whose jet direction tracks the black hole's evolving spin. In a simulated Perseus-like cluster, extended filaments condense out of the hot intracluster medium during quiescent phases, when the local ratio of cooling time to free-fall time falls below 20, and then are fragmented into clumpy structures by the next jet outburst. The authors find evidence for both condensation of new gas and uplifting of existing dense gas, and they caution that purely hydrodynamical simulations produce an overly clumpy morphology compared with observations. If correct, the result ties filament morphology and lifetimes directly to the AGN duty cycle.

What carries the argument

The central object is the self-consistently evolving black hole spin, which sets both the jet direction and the jet efficiency. The jet is injected along the instantaneous spin axis, with the spin updated according to the angular momentum of accreted gas, so no ad hoc precession is required. The diagnostic that carries the argument is the local ratio of cooling time to free-fall time, $t_{\rm cool}/t_{\rm ff}$, with condensation observed when this ratio drops below 20; tracer particles allow the authors to distinguish newly condensed gas from gas that has merely been uplifted.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to compare the spatial coincidence of dense gas and recent jet activity in a sample of cluster cores: if filaments are routinely found inside or immediately behind active radio lobes at radii where $t_{\rm cool}/t_{\rm ff} > 20$, and survive much longer than one AGN duty cycle, the claim that jets shatter filaments and that condensation requires $t_{\rm cool}/t_{\rm ff} < 20$ would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dense-gas formation and destruction in the cluster core are locked to the supermassive black hole's feedback cycle. Over repeated cycles of order 100 Myr, the cluster alternates between cooling-dominated phases, in which dense gas builds up to more than $2 \times 10^{10}\,M_\odot$, and heating-dominated phases, in which AGN outbursts reduce it to near $2 \times 10^9\,M_\odot$. Filaments condense preferentially at radii of 5 to 15 kpc onto infalling gas, when $t_{\rm cool}/t_{\rm ff} < 20$, and are then uplifted, entrained, and shattered into small clumps by the jet. The jet axis is not fixed: it follows the black hole spin, which is continually reoriented by chaotically accreting cold gas, letting the jet sweep a large volume and redistribute the dense gas. The paper also reports that only about 25 percent of dense gas survives a strong interaction with the jet, and that destruction of dense gas by feedback is not an efficient regulator of star formation.

Load-bearing premise

The jet is assumed to always point exactly along the black hole's instantaneous spin axis, with the spin changing at the rates given by magnetically arrested disk simulations; if real jets wobble less or spin changes at a different rate, the jet reorientation and the resulting cycle of filament formation and destruction would be different.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

During AGN quiescence, filaments form at 5 to 15 kpc from the center, so the radius at which dense gas is observed does not necessarily mark where it condensed.
A strong jet outburst raises the number of dense clumps and pushes them out to tens of kiloparsecs, implying that observed clumpy morphologies may be snapshots of recent feedback rather than equilibrium states.
Because line-of-sight velocities smear coherent radial inflow or outflow into near-Gaussian distributions, chaotic velocity maps of real clusters do not rule out coherent radial flows.
Only about a quarter of dense gas survives a jet interaction, and most dense gas is turned into stars, so AGN destruction of cold gas is not the main channel regulating star formation.
The simulated star formation rate far exceeds observed values, indicating that missing physics such as cosmic rays or magnetic fields is needed to regulate cooling.

Reading between the lines

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

If the assumed tight coupling between jet and black hole spin holds in nature, then the volume of cluster core heated by feedback depends on how chaotically cold gas accretes; clusters with more ordered accretion should have narrower, less destructive jets and longer-lived filaments.
The finding that higher numerical resolution fragments gas into even smaller clumps suggests the real destruction rate may be higher than 25 percent, so an observational search for a population of small, short-lived molecular clumps around radio lobes could test the shattering mechanism.
The same spin-driven jet setup could be run with magnetic fields or cosmic-ray pressure to see whether filaments become longer-lived and less clumpy, providing a direct test of the paper's explanation for the observed morphology gap.

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

Ricarda and the team have written a careful, honest simulation paper. The genuinely new thing is the jet model: the BH spin evolves self-consistently from MAD torque rates, and the jet is always aligned with the spin axis, so there is no prescribed precession. That is a real advance over the fixed-axis jets in Li & Bryan and Yang & Reynolds. The paper shows that chaotic cold accretion continuously reorients the low-spin BH, making the jet sweep a large solid angle, and that this drives a feedback cycle in which dense gas repeatedly condenses, gets shattered and uplifted, and re-forms. The condensation result — that most mass condenses at t_cool/t_ff < 20 at 5–15 kpc onto infalling gas — is new in this context and is supported by the tracer-particle analysis.

What the paper does well: the setup is described in unusual detail, and the authors run several companion simulations (higher resolution, no metal cooling above 10^4 K, high initial spin) to probe their model. They are explicit that the dense gas morphology is too clumpy and that the pure hydro runs do not regulate cooling. The line-of-sight versus radial velocity discussion is a useful caution for observers.

The soft spots are real. The whole reorientation mechanism depends on the BH spin staying low — at most 0.08 — which comes directly from the MAD spin-down model. If real spin evolution at low a differs, or if the jet decouples from the spin axis for a < 0.1, both the energy output and the sweep pattern would change. The high-initial-spin run converges to the same low-spin state, so it confirms the attractor but does not independently test it. Also, the quantitative results are not converged: the dense-gas survival fraction drops from 25% at 120 pc to 19% at 30 pc, and the smallest clumps sit at the resolution limit. Missing magnetic fields and cosmic rays could easily change the fragmentation, as the authors themselves note. No code or data are provided, which limits reproducibility.

I think the central qualitative picture — spin-driven jet reorientation shapes the cold gas cycle — probably holds, but the quantitative claims (survival fractions, condensation rates, clump size distribution) should be read as model-dependent rather than predictive.

This is exactly the kind of paper I would send to a serious referee: technically sound, honest about limitations, and introducing a novel modeling capability that others will build on. I would cite it for the spin-driven jet approach, and I would bring it to a reading group focused on AGN feedback or cluster cores.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an idealized hydrodynamical simulation of a Perseus-like galaxy cluster using the adaptive mesh refinement code RAMSES. The simulation includes a supermassive black hole (SMBH) whose spin evolves self-consistently from its local accretion, and whose jet is always aligned with the instantaneous spin axis, following the MAD-based spin evolution of McKinney et al. (2012) and Dubois et al. (2014). The authors analyze the formation, evolution, and destruction of dense gas (T < 10^6 K) in the cluster core, using tracer particles to separate condensation from uplifting. They report repeated cooling- and heating-dominated cycles of ~100 Myr, a jet that sweeps through all directions because the spin remains low (<0.08) and is easily reoriented by chaotic cold accretion, and a dense-gas morphology that oscillates between filaments and a clumpy distribution. Condensation is found to occur predominantly at t_cool/t_ff < 20 in the radial range 5-15 kpc during quiescent phases, with evidence for both infalling and (about one-fifth) outlying condensation. The paper concludes that the AGN feedback cycle drives the formation and destruction of dense gas, that purely hydrodynamical simulations produce overly clumpy morphologies compared to observations, and that AGN feedback is not an efficient channel for regulating star formation.

Significance. If correct, the paper offers a novel demonstration that a self-consistently evolving spin-driven jet can produce a self-regulating feedback cycle in a cluster core, with the jet direction responding dynamically to chaotic cold accretion. The study goes beyond previous fixed-axis or explicitly precessing jet simulations and provides a physically motivated mechanism for the three-dimensional distribution of AGN feedback. The use of Monte Carlo tracer particles to distinguish condensation from uplifting is a methodological strength, as are the companion simulations at higher resolution, with a high initial spin, and without metal cooling above 10^4 K. The model is not tuned to reproduce the observed filamentary morphology; the condensation threshold and the cycle emerge from the simulation. The authors are also unusually candid about the limitations, including the absence of magnetic fields, cosmic rays, and the non-converged fragmentation. These strengths make the paper a valuable contribution if the central claims are appropriately hedged in light of the acknowledged model dependencies.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 2.5 and Sec. 3.2] The central feedback-cycle claim depends on two linked assumptions: the jet axis is always aligned with the instantaneous BH spin axis, and the spin magnitude and direction evolve according to the MAD spin-up/down rates of McKinney et al. (2012). The authors show that the spin never exceeds 0.08 and that the rapid reorientation of the jet, which in turn drives the redistribution and shattering of dense gas, is a consequence of this low-spin state. However, the low-spin state is itself a product of the MAD spin-down model; if real spin evolution at low spin differs (e.g., for a non-MAD disk, or if the jet decouples from the spin axis for low a), both the energy output and the sweep pattern of the jet could change qualitatively. The high-initial-spin companion run converges to the same low-spin state, but this only confirms the model's internal attractor, not its physical validity. Since the paper's main claim is that the feedback cycle is driven by spin-driven jet reorientation, a sensitivity test with an alternative spin evolution prescription (or a more detailed justification of the MAD assumption at these low spin values) is needed to support the generality of the conclusion.
[Sec. 3.4 and Sec. 4.2] The quantitative survival fraction of dense gas is resolution-dependent: the authors report 25% survival at a resolution of 120 pc and 19% at 30 pc, and they note in Sec. 4.2 that the minimum clump size remains at the resolution limit, so the fragmentation process is not converged. In the same section, they also offer two contradictory interpretations: magnetic fields might support filaments and reduce fragmentation, or higher resolution might increase fragmentation and evaporation. Despite this, the abstract and conclusions state that dense gas is 'easily shattered' and that the morphology is 'overly clumpy' as a firm finding. Given the authors' own analysis, these statements should be presented as model-dependent outcomes, not robust physical conclusions. The discussion and conclusions would be strengthened by explicitly labeling the shattering and clumpiness as tentative results subject to the unresolved physics and resolution.
[Sec. 3.5, Sec. 4.1, and Fig. 14] The condensation rates reported in Fig. 14 reach up to ~1.8 x 10^3 M_sun/yr, far exceeding the observed estimates for Perseus (50-100 M_sun/yr), and the authors attribute this over-cooling to missing non-thermal pressure from cosmic rays and magnetic fields. This quantitative measure is then used to draw the strong conclusion (Sec. 4.1) that 'destruction of dense gas via AGN feedback is not an efficient channel to regulate star formation in clusters.' Given that the condensation rate is not converged and is likely altered by the missing physics that the authors themselves invoke, this conclusion is not firmly established. The paper should either soften the claim to a statement about the simulated model or provide a more detailed assessment of how the missing pressure support would change the condensation rate and the resulting efficiency argument.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. 2.5] The sentence 'The cylinders is aligned with the BH spin axis' contains a subject-verb agreement error; it should read 'The cylinder is aligned with the BH spin axis.'
[Sec. 3.2 and Fig. 3] The definitions of the angles θ and φ appear inconsistent. The text says θ is measured in the x-y plane and φ is the angle with the z-axis, but the description of the settled period (θ ≈ 90°, φ close to zero) and the statement that φ = 2° to 178° only represents a rotation of 4° are not consistent with standard spherical coordinates. Please clarify the angle convention or correct the text/figure.
[Sec. 3.3.1, Eq. (7)] The inertia tensor defined in Eq. (7) uses weights m_n x_{n,i} x_{n,j} / R_n^2, which is a reduced inertia tensor rather than the standard inertia tensor. This should be stated explicitly when the formula is introduced.
[Sec. 2.3] The cooling function description gives the upper temperature range for tabulated values, but it would be useful to specify the exact lower temperature limit used in the Rosen & Bregman (1995) extension and how the gas is prevented from cooling below that limit.
[Fig. 2 caption] The top panel of Fig. 2 shows three mass quantities (M_star, M_gas, M_BH) but the caption does not identify the line styles or colors. Adding a legend or explaining the line styles in the caption would help the reader.
[Sec. 3.5] The text says 'with a mean velocity at −155.6 km/s for condensation compared to −104.3 km/s for dense gas'; the word 'at' should be 'of' for grammatical consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dense-gas cycle and tcool/tff < 20 condensation threshold are emergent simulation outputs, not fitted parameters, and self-citations are methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims, that dense gas formation and destruction track the SMBH feedback cycle and that its morphology is highly variable, are emergent properties of the simulation rather than quantities fitted to reproduce Perseus observations. The spin-driven jet model (Sec. 2.5) is an openly stated subgrid prescription taken from prior work, including Dubois et al. (2014) and McKinney et al. (2012); the paper does not claim to derive this model from first principles here, and its use does not constitute a circular derivation of the results. The tcool/tff < 20 condensation threshold is measured from an independent tracer-particle definition of condensation rate and is compared with external literature (McCourt et al. 2012; Sharma et al. 2012; Voit et al. 2017; Hogan et al. 2017), not imposed as an input. Simulated quantities such as X-ray luminosity, star formation rate, clump kinematics, and morphology are explicitly compared with Perseus observations, with the paper reporting discrepancies such as overproduction of dense gas and excessive clumpiness as limitations rather than hiding them. Self-citations are used for numerical methods and subgrid prescriptions, not as proofs of the paper's conclusions, so they do not make the central derivation circular. The sensitivity of the feedback cycle to the assumed MAD spin-down and jet-alignment model is a scientific caveat about model dependence, but it is not an instance of a prediction reducing by construction to its input.

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

No new physical entities are introduced; the passive scalar and tracer particles are numerical tools, not new physics. The free parameters are standard subgrid prescriptions, but several directly affect the dense gas morphology and star formation rate that the paper compares to observations.

free parameters (6)

star formation efficiency = 0.1
Standard Schmidt law efficiency; sets how quickly dense gas turns into stars, directly raising star formation rate.
supernova energy per stellar mass = 1e50 erg/Msun with eta_SN = 0.2
Subgrid stellar feedback strength from Kimm et al. (2015); influences dense gas destruction and turbulence.
jet injection cylinder size = radius 0.4 kpc, height 0.8 kpc
Determines where feedback energy is deposited; affects how the jet interacts with dense gas.
passive scalar decay time = 10 Myr
Sets the timescale over which AGN-affected gas is identified; authors state results are insensitive to it.
initial BH spin = low (fiducial), 0.8 (companion)
Spin sets jet power and reorientation rate; low spin in fiducial leads to chaotic reorientation.
initial metallicity = 0.3 Zsun
Sets cooling rates; authors note observed central metallicity is higher, so the cooling efficiency may be misestimated.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption RAMSES Euler equations with HLLC Riemann solver capture the relevant fluid instabilities in the ICM.
Hydrodynamics is the model; magnetic fields, cosmic rays, and viscosity are neglected, which the authors acknowledge affects bubble and filament morphology.
domain assumption Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion with mass-weighted kernel describes SMBH fueling.
Used in Section 2.5; the accretion rate determines feedback energy, so the entire feedback cycle depends on this subgrid prescription.
domain assumption MAD spin evolution and jet efficiency from McKinney et al. (2012) apply at the low spin values reached in the simulation.
The simulated spin stays below 0.1, and the extrapolation of the MAD model to this regime is assumed without independent verification.
domain assumption Cored NFW halo with 15% gas fraction and hydrostatic equilibrium represents a Perseus-like cluster.
Initial conditions in Section 2.2 set the cooling reservoir and gravitational potential; deviations from real Perseus affect the quantitative results.
domain assumption Sutherland & Dopita (1993) equilibrium cooling tables are valid for the hot ICM.
Cooling is the driving process for condensation; non-equilibrium or photoionization effects are not included.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dense gas formation and destruction in a simulated Perseus-like galaxy cluster with spin-driven black hole feedback." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IO6VU2KP

@misc{pith2026190901329,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dense gas formation and destruction in a simulated Perseus-like galaxy cluster with spin-driven black hole feedback},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IO6VU2KP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01329}
}

abstract

Extended filamentary H$\alpha$ emission nebulae are a striking feature of nearby galaxy clusters but the formation mechanism of the filaments, and the processes which shape their morphology remain unclear. We conduct an investigation into the formation, evolution and destruction of dense gas in the center of a simulated, Perseus-like, cluster under the influence of a spin-driven jet. We particularly study the role played by condensation of dense gas from the diffuse intracluster medium, and the impact of direct uplifting of existing dense gas by the jets, in determining the spatial distribution and kinematics of the dense gas. We present a hydrodynamical simulation of an idealised Perseus-like cluster using the adaptive mesh refinement code {\sc ramses}. Our simulation includes a supermassive black hole (SMBH) that self-consistently tracks its spin evolution via its local accretion, and in turn drives a large-scale jet whose direction is based on the black hole's spin evolution. We show that the formation and destruction of dense gas is closely linked to the SMBH's feedback cycle, and that its morphology is highly variable throughout the simulation. While extended filamentary structures readily condense from the hot intra-cluster medium, they are easily shattered into an overly clumpy distribution of gas during their interaction with the jet driven outflows. Condensation occurs predominantly onto infalling gas located 5 - 15 kpc from the center during quiescent phases of the central AGN, when the local ratio of the cooling time to free fall time falls below 20, i.e. when $t_{\rm cool}/t_{\rm ff} < 20$. We find evidence for both condensation and uplifting of dense gas, but caution that purely hydrodynamical simulations struggle to effectively regulate the cluster cooling cycle and produce overly clumpy distributions of dense gas morphologies, compared to observation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01329 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Top panel: Time evolution of cluster properties including stellar mass Mstar, BH mass MBH and gas mass Mgas. Middle panel: AGN luminosity, X-ray luminosity of hot gas within 50 kpc of the cluster center, and the dense mass again for comparison. Bottom panel: SFR, as well as the dense gas mass again for comparison, for both the fiducial simulation and for a companion simulation without metal cooling for gas with T… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Spin evolution of the SMBH, showing the spin magnitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (13 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Projection plots at t = 874.5 Myr, showing the central gas disc in the cluster: Top row - density projections of the cluster center along two different lines of sight, Bottom left: composite x-ray image, using the same x-ray bins as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Synthetic composite X-ray images of the cluster center, with 0.3-1.2 keV in red, 1.2-2 keV in green and 2-7 keV in blue, to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Example projections of the decomposition of structures into small clumps, big clumps and filamentary structures at three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Clump properties for the whole sample (bottom row) and split into the three structure categories (top two rows). From left to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Time evolution of (from top to bottom) the number, total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Visual time evolution of one episode of AGN feedback that starts around [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Time evolution of the total number of inflowing and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Density weighted velocity projections of the dense gas at three di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Distribution of resolution elements in radial velocity, and line of sight velocity along the x-axis, y-axis and z-axis of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Cluster profiles of the cooling time (tcool) to free fall time (tff) ratio at different snapshots of the simulation. The cluster profiles are sampled each 25 Myr across the full time evolution of the simulation. tcool is calculated for each cell in the simulation, usi…

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Time evolution for the gas condensation rate onto the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Probability distribution of clump radius (left) and clump [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Cooling flow rates and star formation rates (top panel), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

[1]

V ., Leitner, S

Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A. V ., Leitner, S. N., & Gnedin, N. Y . 2013, ApJ, 770, 25

2013
[2]

K., Prochaska, J

Armillotta, L., Fraternali, F., Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., & Marinacci, F. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 114

2017
[3]

S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A

Beckmann, R. S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3488

2019
[4]

Bridges, T. J. & Irwin, J. A. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 967

1998
[5]

2011, ApJ, 740, L28

Brown, S., Emerick, A., Rudnick, L., & Brunetti, G. 2011, ApJ, 740, L28

work page 2011
[6]

2019, A&A, 621, A96

Cadiou, C., Dubois, Y ., & Pichon, C. 2019, A&A, 621, A96

work page 2019
[7]

Canning, R. E. A., Fabian, A. C., Johnstone, R. M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 115

work page 2010
[8]

Canning, R. E. A., Ryon, J. E., Gallagher, J. S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 336

work page 2014

Show all 84 references

[9]

& Teyssier, R

Cattaneo, A. & Teyssier, R. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1547

2007
[10]

Choudhury, P. P. & Sharma, P. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2554

2016
[11]

2018, A&A, 617, A58 Article number, page 17 of 18 A&A proofs: manuscript no

Cielo, S., Babul, A., Antonuccio-Delogu, V ., Silk, J., & V olonteri, M. 2018, A&A, 617, A58 Article number, page 17 of 18 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

2018
[12]

J., Gallagher, John S., I., & Wyse, R

Conselice, C. J., Gallagher, John S., I., & Wyse, R. F. G. 2001, AJ, 122, 2281

2001
[13]

Crawford, C. S. & Fabian, A. C. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 265

1992
[14]

2010, MNRAS, 409, 985

Dubois, Y ., Devriendt, J., Slyz, A., & Teyssier, R. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 985

2010
[15]

2011, MNRAS, 417, 1853

Dubois, Y ., Devriendt, J., Teyssier, R., & Slyz, A. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1853

2011
[16]

2014, MNRAS, 440, 2333

Dubois, Y ., V olonteri, M., Silk, J., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2333

2014
[17]

1996, MNRAS, 281, 799

Ebeling, H., V oges, W., Bohringer, H., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 799

1996
[18]

Fabian, A. C. 1994, ARA&A, 32, 277

1994
[19]

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

2012
[20]

C., Johnstone, R

Fabian, A. C., Johnstone, R. M., Sanders, J. S., et al. 2008, Nature, 454, 968

2008
[21]

C., Sanders, J

Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Crawford, C. S., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 344, L48

2003
[22]

C., Sanders, J

Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 417

2006
[23]

C., Walker, S

Fabian, A. C., Walker, S. A., Russell, H. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 922

2016
[24]

Field, G. B. 1965, ApJ, 142, 531

1965
[25]

2011, MNRAS, 411, 349

Gaspari, M., Melioli, C., Brighenti, F., & D’Ercole, A. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 349

2011
[26]

Gaspari, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Oh, S. P. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3401

2013
[27]

2012, ApJ, 746, 94

Gaspari, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Sharma, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 94

2012
[28]

B., et al

Gendron-Marsolais, M., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Martin, T. B., et al. 2018, MN- RAS, 479, L28

2018
[29]

Gnedin, N. Y . & Hollon, N. 2012, ApJS, 202, 13

2012
[30]

Gronke, M. & Oh, S. P. 2018, MNRAS, 480, L111

2018
[31]

L., Edge, A

Hamer, S. L., Edge, A. C., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 862

2014
[32]

L., Edge, A

Hamer, S. L., Edge, A. C., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1758

2016
[33]

A., Crawford, C

Hatch, N. A., Crawford, C. S., & Fabian, A. C. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 33

2007
[34]

A., Crawford, C

Hatch, N. A., Crawford, C. S., Johnstone, R. M., & Fabian, A. C. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 433

2006
[35]

M., Baum, S

Heckman, T. M., Baum, S. A., van Breugel, W. J. M., & McCarthy, P. 1989, ApJ, 338, 48 Hitomi Collaboration. 2016, Nature, 535, 117

1989
[36]

T., McNamara, B

Hogan, M. T., McNamara, B. R., Pulido, F. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 66

2017
[37]

P., & McCourt, M

Ji, S., Oh, S. P., & McCourt, M. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 852

2018
[38]

2017, ApJ, 837, L18

Kannan, R., V ogelsberger, M., Pfrommer, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, L18

2017
[39]

2015, MNRAS, 451, 2900

Kimm, T., Cen, R., Devriendt, J., Dubois, Y ., & Slyz, A. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2900

2015
[40]

I., McKee, C

Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., & Colella, P. 1994, ApJ, 420, 213

1994
[41]

Li, Y ., Ruszkowski, M., & Bryan, G. L. 2017, ApJ, 847, 106

2017
[42]

2012, ApJ, 744, 112

Lim, J., Ohyama, Y ., Chi-Hung, Y ., Dinh-V-Trung, & Shiang-Yu, W. 2012, ApJ, 744, 112

2012
[43]

2019, MN- RAS, 483, 2465

Martizzi, D., Quataert, E., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., & Fielding, D. 2019, MN- RAS, 483, 2465

2019
[44]

P., O’Leary, R., & Madigan, A.-M

McCourt, M., Oh, S. P., O’Leary, R., & Madigan, A.-M. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5407

2018
[45]

M., Madigan, A.-M., & Quataert, E

McCourt, M., O’Leary, R. M., Madigan, A.-M., & Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2

2015
[46]

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

2012
[47]

R., & Tremblay, G

McDonald, M., Gaspari, M., McNamara, B. R., & Tremblay, G. R. 2018, ApJ, 858, 45

2018
[48]

McDonald, M., Veilleux, S., & Rupke, D. S. N. 2012, ApJ, 746, 153

2012
[49]

McDonald, M., Veilleux, S., Rupke, D. S. N., & Mushotzky, R. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1262

2010
[50]

J., Carretti, E., et al

McKinley, B., Tingay, S. J., Carretti, E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4056

2018
[51]

C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R

McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3083

2012
[52]

& Nulsen, P

McNamara, B. & Nulsen, P. 2007, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics, 45, 117

2007
[53]

T., & Combes, F

Mittal, R., Whelan, J. T., & Combes, F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2564

2015
[54]

2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.06017

Nagai, H., Onishi, K., Kawakatu, N., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.06017

2019 arXiv
[55]

& Medvedev, M

Narayan, R. & Medvedev, M. V . 2001, ApJ, 562, L129 O’Dea, C. P., Baum, S. A., Privon, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1035

2001
[56]

2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1802.02177

Ogiya, G., Biernacki, P., Hahn, O., & Teyssier, R. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1802.02177

2018 arXiv
[57]

2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.09164

Olivares, V ., Salomé, P., Combes, F., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.09164

2019 arXiv
[58]

2014, A&A, 562, A1 Pﬁster, H., V olonteri, M., Dubois, Y ., Dotti, M., & Colpi, M

Perret, V ., Renaud, F., Epinat, B., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A1 Pﬁster, H., V olonteri, M., Dubois, Y ., Dotti, M., & Colpi, M. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 101

2014
[59]

2013, ApJ, 779, 10

Pfrommer, C. 2013, ApJ, 779, 10

2013
[60]

2015, ApJ, 811, 108

Prasad, D., Sharma, P., & Babul, A. 2015, ApJ, 811, 108

2015
[61]

2018, ApJ, 863, 62

Prasad, D., Sharma, P., & Babul, A. 2018, ApJ, 863, 62

2018
[62]

E., Hardcastle, M

Pudritz, R. E., Hardcastle, M. J., & Gabuzda, D. C. 2012, Space Sci. Rev., 169, 27

2012
[63]

A., McNamara, B

Pulido, F. A., McNamara, B. R., Edge, A. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 177 Raﬀerty, D. A., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., & Wise, M. W. 2006, ApJ, 652, 216

2018
[64]

2004, A&A, 424, 773

Reimer, A., Reimer, O., Schlickeiser, R., & Iyudin, A. 2004, A&A, 424, 773

2004
[65]

2008, A&A, 477, L33

Revaz, Y ., Combes, F., & Salomé, P. 2008, A&A, 477, L33

2008
[66]

& Bregman, J

Rosen, A. & Bregman, J. N. 1995, ApJ, 440, 634

1995
[67]

R., McDonald, M., McNamara, B

Russell, H. R., McDonald, M., McNamara, B. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 130

2017
[68]

Ruszkowski, M. & Oh, S. P. 2010, ApJ, 713, 1332

2010
[69]

K., & Reynolds, C

Ruszkowski, M., Yang, H.-Y . K., & Reynolds, C. S. 2017, ApJ, 844, 13 Salomé, P., Combes, F., Revaz, Y ., et al. 2011, A&A, 531, A85 Salomé, Q., Salomé, P., Combes, F., Hamer, S., & Heywood, I. 2016, A&A, 586, A45 Salomé, P., Combes, F., Edge, A. C., et al. 2006, A&A, 454, 437...

2017
[70]

W., Fabian, A

Schmidt, R. W., Fabian, A. C., & Sanders, J. S. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 71

2002
[71]

C., Oppenheimer, B

Segers, M. C., Oppenheimer, B. D., Schaye, J., & Richings, A. J. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1026

2017
[72]

Sharma, P., McCourt, M., Quataert, E., & Parrish, I. J. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3174

2012
[73]

2011, ApJ, 733, 87

Shi, Y ., Helou, G., Yan, L., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 87

2011
[74]

M., & Snyder, G

Shin, M.-S., Stone, J. M., & Snyder, G. F. 2008, ApJ, 680, 336

2008
[75]

2019, MNRAS, 482, 5401

Sparre, M., Pfrommer, C., & V ogelsberger, M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5401

2019
[76]

Sutherland, R. S. & Dopita, M. A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253

1993
[77]

2002, A&A, 385, 337

Teyssier, R. 2002, A&A, 385, 337

2002
[78]

R., Combes, F., Oonk, J

Tremblay, G. R., Combes, F., Oonk, J. B. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 13

2018
[79]

J., Smith, B

Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 9

2011
[80]

N., McNamara, B

Vantyghem, A. N., McNamara, B. R., Edge, A. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 101

2017
[81]

N., McNamara, B

Vantyghem, A. N., McNamara, B. R., Russell, H. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 193 V oit, G. M. 2018, ApJ, 868, 102 V oit, G. M. & Donahue, M. 2015, ApJ, 799, L1 V oit, G. M., Meece, G., Li, Y ., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 80

2018
[82]

2019, MNRAS, 482, 3576

Wang, C., Li, Y ., & Ruszkowski, M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3576

2019
[83]

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

2013
[84]

& Lazarian, A

Xu, S. & Lazarian, A. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1802.00987

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

V ., Leitner, S

Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A. V ., Leitner, S. N., & Gnedin, N. Y . 2013, ApJ, 770, 25

2013

[2] [2]

K., Prochaska, J

Armillotta, L., Fraternali, F., Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., & Marinacci, F. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 114

2017

[3] [3]

S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A

Beckmann, R. S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3488

2019

[4] [4]

Bridges, T. J. & Irwin, J. A. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 967

1998

[5] [5]

2011, ApJ, 740, L28

Brown, S., Emerick, A., Rudnick, L., & Brunetti, G. 2011, ApJ, 740, L28

work page 2011

[6] [6]

2019, A&A, 621, A96

Cadiou, C., Dubois, Y ., & Pichon, C. 2019, A&A, 621, A96

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Canning, R. E. A., Fabian, A. C., Johnstone, R. M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 115

work page 2010

[8] [8]

Canning, R. E. A., Ryon, J. E., Gallagher, J. S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 336

work page 2014