Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Robust detection of hot intragroup medium in optically selected, poor galaxy groups by eROSITA

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stacked eROSITA images detect hot gas in 25,524 poor galaxy groups

desk verdict A useful stacking measurement of hot intragroup gas in poor groups, but the significance is overstated and the CGM control needs strengthening. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01261 v2 pith:IUBOFD6Q submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Dawei Li , Taotao Fang , Chong Ge , Teng Liu , Lin He , Zhiyuan Li , Fabrizio Nicastro , Xiaohu Yang
show 2 more authors
Xiaoxia Zhang Yun-Liang Zheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords intragroupmediumpoorgalaxygroupsX-raystackingeROSITAmissingbaryonshotgasgroupbaryonfraction
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

The paper claims that hot, X-ray-emitting intragroup gas is present in poor galaxy groups with halo masses around $10^{13}\,M_{\odot}$, systems that are common but have resisted detection. The authors stack eFEDS images of 25,524 optically selected groups with 2–4 member galaxies in the redshift range $z=0.1$–$0.5$. Twelve of sixteen mass–redshift subsamples show significant excess emission, at $3.9\sigma$ to $12\sigma$, and the stacked signal is more extended than the point-spread function. Fitting a $\beta$-model gives average gas fractions near 6% within $r_{180}$, and the implied baryon fraction within $r_{500}$ is about 8%, half the cosmic mean. The detection therefore both establishes the presence of the hot intragroup medium and shows that poor groups still miss most of their expected baryons.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a stacking analysis of exposure-corrected eFEDS images in the 0.2–2.3 keV band, with previously detected X-ray sources masked. Individual group images are rescaled to a common angular size and summed; background is estimated from an annulus at 800–1000 kpc. The stacked surface brightness profiles are fitted with the standard $\beta$-model $I(r) = I_0 (1 + r^2/r_c^2)^{-3\beta + 1/2}$, and the S/N is computed as $(N_s - N_b)/\sqrt{N_s}$. A control sample built from isolated galaxies, stacked in the same way, yields no signal above $2\sigma$, supporting the interpretation that the excess is intragroup gas rather than circumgalactic medium.

What would settle it

Re-stack a subset of the same groups using a robust center estimate, for example the brightest member galaxy or an iterative centroid, and compare the surface brightness profile; if the extended excess disappears or becomes consistent with the point-spread function, the intragroup-medium interpretation would be refuted. Alternatively, simulate mock groups with realistic miscentering distributions and show whether the observed stacked profile can be reproduced without any hot gas.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a robust detection of the hot intragroup medium in a large, optically selected sample of poor groups, obtained by stacking X-ray images from the eROSITA Final Equatorial Depth Survey. For most of the sixteen subsamples defined by halo mass and redshift, the stacked emission exceeds the background with high significance and extends well beyond the eROSITA point-spread function, ruling out a purely point-source origin. The authors quantify the mean X-ray luminosity (roughly $10^{40}$ to $10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$), gas mass, and gas fraction, and report that the baryon fraction within $r_{500}$ is about 8% of the cosmic mean, so the 'missing baryons' problem persists in these systems.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the luminosity-weighted group centers from the DESI LS catalog are accurate to well within the virial radius; with only 2–4 member galaxies per group, uncorrected miscentering could broaden the stacked profile and mimic an extended intragroup medium.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hot intragroup gas is ubiquitous in poor groups down to halo masses near $10^{11.5}\,M_{\odot}$, not just in X-ray-bright clusters.
  • The mean gas fraction of about 6% within $r_{180}$ provides a direct benchmark for simulations of galaxy group formation and feedback.
  • Because the baryon fraction remains near half the cosmic mean, the missing baryons in poor groups must reside at larger radii or in a cooler phase.
  • The detected luminosity–mass trend, if confirmed, gives a low-mass anchor for scaling relations that currently rely on cluster data.
  • Future surveys with deeper exposure or better resolution could detect individual poor groups, turning the stacked result into a population census.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If miscentering is as large as feared, the true intragroup gas could be more centrally concentrated than the fitted $\beta$-model suggests; correcting for centering errors would sharpen the profile and may raise the inferred central density.
  • The same stacking pipeline applied to eRASS1 data, which covers a much larger area, could split the sample into finer mass and redshift bins and test whether the apparent lack of redshift evolution is real.
  • The method transfers directly to other optically selected catalogs, such as those from DES or LSST, potentially extending the measurement to even lower halo masses where the gas fraction may behave differently.
  • A direct comparison with mock observations from hydrodynamical simulations, including the same group-finder and centering choices, would test whether the measured baryon fraction is consistent with feedback models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper stacks eFEDS 0.2-2.3 keV X-ray images of 25,524 optically selected poor galaxy groups from the Yang et al. (2021) DESI LS catalog, split into 16 halo-mass and redshift subsamples. It reports significant central excess emission in 12 of 16 subsamples, with quoted significances of 3.9-12 sigma, fits beta models to the stacked surface brightness profiles, converts the counts into rest-frame 0.5-2.0 keV luminosities and gas masses using APEC models with adopted T-M and Z-M relations, and derives baryon fractions of roughly 8% within r500, concluding that hot intragroup gas is ubiquitous in poor groups but insufficient to close the missing-baryons budget. A control sample built from isolated galaxies is used to argue that the CGM of member galaxies is not a significant contaminant.

Significance. If correct, this would be the first robust, large-sample stacked detection of hot intragroup gas in poor groups with halo masses near 10^13 solar masses, with direct relevance to the missing-baryons problem. The paper makes good use of public data and standard tools: it compares the stacked profile with the eROSITA PSF, uses jackknife resampling for stacking uncertainties, checks temperature and metallicity assumptions, and explicitly estimates unresolved point-source contamination. The main claims, however, rest on two points that need substantial strengthening: the control sample does not actually rule out emission from the real member galaxies, and the quoted detection significances are not computed with a well-justified statistical procedure. Both issues are fixable with additional tests and revised statistics, so the underlying detection remains plausible but is not yet established as robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.4] The control sample does not rule out the dominant astrophysical confounder. Mock groups assembled from isolated galaxies are not representative of real group members: isolated galaxies in the Yang et al. (2021) catalog can differ systematically in stellar mass, star formation rate, X-ray binary content, AGN occupation, and CGM properties from galaxies living in poor groups, and the paper does not show that the two populations are matched in these properties. Matching the projected galaxy-to-center distance distribution (Fig. 6) only matches the geometric broadening, not the X-ray emissivity per galaxy. The statement in §4.4 that 'any emission detected ... is likely to originate from individual galaxies' is therefore not established. A stronger test would be to scramble the membership of the real galaxy groups, preserving the actual member galaxies and their radial distribution, and stack the scrambled groups; alternatively, stack the real member galaxies at their positions and subtract a group-scale model. Without such a test, the 'robust detection' claim is not fully secured.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] The detection significance is not computed with a standard or well-justified procedure. The formula S/N = (Ns - Nb)/sqrt(Ns) omits the uncertainty in the background estimate: if Ns and Nb are both measured counts, the variance of the difference is approximately Ns + Nb, and if Nb is treated as known, the null variance is Nb, not Ns. In either case the denominator in Eq. (1) is smaller than the appropriate uncertainty and the quoted significances are likely optimistic. In addition, the S/N is maximized over the source aperture radius, and Table 1 reports the maximum value without any trials correction; with 16 subsamples and a range of radii, a 3.9-sigma maximum can correspond to a substantially lower effective significance. The abstract's '3.9-sigma to 12-sigma' claim should be recomputed with a fixed aperture or with an explicit trials factor, and the choice should be stated.
  3. [§3.2, Fig. 3, Table 1] There is an internal inconsistency in the radius used for the derived quantities. Section 3.2 and Figure 3 state that the luminosity, gas mass, and gas fraction are computed within r180, while the Table 1 notes and Section 4.1.3 quote values within r500. Since the beta model is first integrated to r180 and then converted to r500 using an assumed NFW concentration, the reader cannot tell which values are shown in Table 1 and Figure 3. This matters for the baryon-fraction comparison: the abstract and Section 4.1.3 report about 8% within r500, while the Figure 3 panel is labeled 'within r180'. Please state one convention and propagate it consistently through the text, table, and figures, or give both radii explicitly.
  4. [§2.1, §3.2] The stacked-profile analysis assumes the luminosity-weighted group centers are accurate. For groups with only 2-4 member galaxies, centering errors of tens to hundreds of kpc are plausible, and such errors convolve the true surface brightness profile with the centering-error distribution. This can broaden the stacked profile and make even a compact or point-source signal appear extended relative to the PSF. The paper does not quantify the centering-error distribution or test the sensitivity of the beta-model parameters and the 'extended beyond PSF' claim to the adopted center definition (e.g., using the brightest group galaxy instead of the luminosity-weighted center). I request an explicit miscentering analysis, or a quantitative argument for why the effect is negligible for this sample.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'despite its presence in virtually groups at all sizes' appears to be missing a word; please revise to 'despite its presence in virtually all groups at all sizes' or similar.
  2. [§4.3] The contamination estimate relies on a uniform SFR of 5 solar masses per year and on stellar masses estimated from stellar-to-halo ratios for roughly 80% of the galaxies. The text tests the alternative SFR of 10 solar masses per year, but the systematic uncertainty from the missing stellar mass measurements should be propagated into fcont and, hence, into the baryon-fraction error budget.
  3. [Table 1] The highly asymmetric and sometimes formally negative lower bounds on L0.5-2.0 in Table 1 (e.g., 0.16^{+2.44}_{-0.15}) indicate that the beta-model parameters are poorly constrained in low-S/N bins; the paper should state this caveat explicitly when presenting the luminosity and gas-mass scaling behavior.
  4. [§4.1.3] When comparing with literature scaling relations, the text says 'we recalculated the halo mass and corresponding measurements from within the range of r180 to r500' but does not specify whether the red points in Fig. 4 are original r180 measurements converted to r500, literature values converted to r500, or both; please state the conversion explicitly.
  5. [§4.4] The control-sample section shows only two example stacked images (Fig. 5) and states that no signal is found above 2-sigma; please provide the S/N or upper limits for all 16 control subsamples, ideally in a table or appendix, so the reader can verify the claim.
  6. [§3.2, Eq. (5)] The quantity CR_eta in Eq. (5) is not defined in the text; please define it as the count-rate-to-normalization conversion factor and specify its units.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stacked IGrM detection is measured directly from eFEDS images against an empirically determined background, with external catalogs and scaling relations; self-citations are comparisons or data products, not premises.

full rationale

The central claim—a 3.9–12σ stacked excess from 25,524 poor groups—is not derived from any fitted parameter or self-citation. It is computed directly from background-subtracted eFEDS images using Eq. (1), with the background measured in an 800–1000 kpc annulus (Section 2.2). The beta-model fit (Section 3.2) is used only to parametrize the detected profile, and the luminosity, gas mass, and baryon fraction follow from integrating that model with APEC emissivities and external T–M, Z–M, and M*–M relations (Sun et al. 2009; Truong et al. 2019; Pillepich et al. 2018). No equation reduces to another by construction: Eq. (1) is a significance statistic, and Eqs. (2)–(5) are standard profile and deprojection formulae applied to the measured stacked image. The authors' own prior work (Zheng et al. 2023) is cited for background and luminosity comparison, not as the source of the detection; Yang et al. (2021) is an independent public group catalog. The CGM control sample (Section 4.4) is an external test, and any question about whether isolated galaxies are representative of group members is a statistical or systematic concern, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is identifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement is an empirical stacking detection; the free parameters are the beta-model profile fits and the assumed SFR used in contamination estimates. The key axioms are the extrapolation of X-ray scaling relations to very low temperatures and the accuracy of the optically derived halo masses and centers. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Beta model parameters (I0, rc, beta) per subsample = Fitted per subsample; e.g., first bin Rc=4.59 kpc, beta=0.34
    Fitted to stacked surface brightness profiles and used to derive luminosity and gas mass.
  • Star formation rate for member galaxies = 5 Msun/yr (uniform)
    Adopted for the 80% of galaxies without direct SFR data to estimate X-ray binary contamination; alternative 10 Msun/yr tested.
  • NFW concentration c180 = 6
    Used to convert r180 to r500 and Mhalo to M500; authors tested 4-12 and found no significant change.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The beta model (Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano 1976) describes the stacked IGrM surface brightness profile.
    Used in Eq. (2) to fit profiles and integrate counts.
  • domain assumption Temperature and metallicity of the IGrM follow the Sun et al. (2009) T-M and Truong et al. (2019) Z-M relations extrapolated to T=0.08-0.48 keV and Z=0.47-0.65 Zsun.
    Needed to convert counts to luminosity and gas mass via APEC models; the lowest temperature is below the eFEDS 0.2 keV band edge, making the conversion sensitive to this extrapolation.
  • domain assumption Unresolved point-source contamination (XRBs and AGNs) is described by Aird et al. (2017) and Comparat et al. (2022) empirical models.
    Used in Section 4.3 to estimate contamination fractions; if these models underestimate the faint AGN/XRB population, reported luminosities are overestimated.
  • domain assumption The group finder of Yang et al. (2021) provides accurate halo masses and luminosity-weighted centers for poor groups.
    Sample selection and centering both rely on this catalog; systematic errors in halo mass or centering propagate into all derived quantities.
  • domain assumption M*-M500 relation from IllustrisTNG (Pillepich et al. 2018) gives the stellar mass of poor group members.
    Used to convert stellar masses for the baryon fraction estimate; the relation is from simulations and may not be calibrated at these low masses.
  • domain assumption The background is uniform and well described by the median count rate in the 800-1000 kpc annulus.
    Background subtraction in stacking assumes no residual group emission at 800-1000 kpc and a flat background; checked against two other annuli.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust detection of hot intragroup medium in optically selected, poor galaxy groups by eROSITA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IUBOFD6Q

@misc{pith2026241201261,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust detection of hot intragroup medium in optically selected, poor galaxy groups by eROSITA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IUBOFD6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01261}
}
abstract

Over the last several decades, extensive research has been conducted on the baryon cycles within cosmic structures, encompassing a broad mass range from dwarf galaxies to galaxy clusters. However, a notable gap in understanding the cosmic baryon cycle is the poor galaxy groups with halo masses around $10^{13}\ M_{\odot}$ (e.g., McGaugh et al. 2010). Poor galaxy groups, like our own Local Group, are prevalent throughout the universe, yet robust detection of their hot, X-ray emitting intragroup medium (IGrM) has remained elusive. The presence of this hot IGrM is crucial for addressing the long-standing "missing baryons" problem. Previous ROSAT-based studies were limited by a small number of X-ray bright samples, thus restricting the scope of their findings. Here we show a robust detection of this hot IGrM in a large, optically selected poor groups sample, based on the stacked X-ray images from the eROSITA Final Equatorial Depth Survey. These groups are identified in DESI LS with a mass range of log($M_\mathrm{halo}/h^{-1}M_{\odot}$) = 11.5-13.5 and a redshift range of z = 0.1-0.5. Additionally, our results indicate that despite its presence in virtually groups at all sizes, this gas component is still not sufficient to recover the universal baryon fraction, and hence the "missing baryons" problem still persists in poor galaxy groups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01261 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Background-subtracted surface brightness images of all subsamples in the 0.2–2.3 keV band. The annulus shows the region used to compute the background. Emission is seen in most subsamples but is more extended and brighter in the high-mass groups subsamples. The scale bar corresponds to 200 kpc in each panel. The unit of halo mass (Mhalo) is: h −1M⊙. pute the average count rate as its background value. The median bac… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The surface brightness profiles of subsamples. Blue crosses show the background-subtracted profile. The blue solid lines represent the best-fit β-model for each subsample, except for the four undetected subsamples. The data error bars correspond to the quadratic sum of photon Poisson errors and the stacking uncertainty. The orange dotted lines represent the PSF profile of eROSITA. The unit of halo mass (Mhalo) is: h… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. From top to bottom, the three rows represent the results for luminosity, gas mass, and gas fraction within r180, respectively. The first column uses halo mass as the X-axis, while the second column uses redshift as the X-axis. The error bars correspond to the 1σ errors of the best-fit parameters. The unit of halo mass (Mhalo) is: h −1M⊙. dial profile. We performed a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis to obtain… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of luminosities and baryon masses within r500 between this work (red points) and previous studies, including poor galaxy groups (green) and rich galaxy groups and clusters (blue). In the left panel, the solid line represents the LX-M500 relation for galaxy g…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Background-subtracted surface brightness images for two control subsamples in the 0.2–2.3 keV band. Both images correspond to the redshift range of 0.1–0.2, with the left panel corresponding to the halo mass range of 11.5–12.0 and the right panel corresponding to the h…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distance distribution of member galaxies to the group centers in the actual group samples and control samples. The group centers were defined based on DESI LS data as the luminosity￾weighted centers of the member galaxies, for both real and mock groups. Both sample…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., & Georgakakis, A

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., & Georgakakis, A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2932

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2932 2017

  2. [2]

    E., Gaspari, M., White, S

    Anderson, M. E., Gaspari, M., White, S. D. M., Wang, W., & Dai, X. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv437

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv437 2015

  3. [3]

    2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1009.2755, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1009.2755

    Andrae, R. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1009.2755, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1009.2755

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1009.2755 2010

  4. [4]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 299513, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2149-y

    Bregman, J., Cen, R., Chen, Y ., et al. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 299513, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2149-y

    doi:10.1007/s11433-023-2149-y 2023

  5. [5]

    2022, A&A, 661, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141266

    Brunner, H., Liu, T., Lamer, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141266

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141266 2022

  6. [6]

    1976, A&A, 49, 137

    Cavaliere, A., & Fusco-Femiano, R. 1976, A&A, 49, 137

    work page 1976

  7. [7]

    Cen, R., & Ostriker, J. P. 2006, ApJ, 650, 560, doi: 10.1086/506505

    doi:10.1086/506505 2006

  8. [8]

    D., et al

    Chadayammuri, U., Bogd´an, ´A., Oppenheimer, B. D., et al. 2022, ApJL, 936, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8936

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8936 2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    1988, MNRAS, 233, 637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/233.3.637

    Cole, S., & Kaiser, N. 1988, MNRAS, 233, 637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/233.3.637

    1988 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, A&A, 666, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243101

    Comparat, J., Truong, N., Merloni, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243101

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    S., & Morgan, N

    Dai, X., Kochanek, C. S., & Morgan, N. D. 2007, ApJ, 658, 917, doi: 10.1086/509651 Dav´e, R., Cen, R., Ostriker, J. P., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, 473, doi: 10.1086/320548

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Baugh, C

    Eke, V . R., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 866, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07408.x

    2004

  6. [14]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 182, doi: 10.1086/516577

    Finoguenov, A., Guzzo, L., Hasinger, G., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 182, doi: 10.1086/516577

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    J., & Peebles, P

    Fukugita, M., Hogan, C. J., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1998, ApJ, 503, 518, doi: 10.1086/306025

    1998 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Tripp, T

    Ge, C., Wang, Q. D., Tripp, T. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw599

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    F., & Ponman, T

    Helsdon, S. F., & Ponman, T. J. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 356, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03396.x

    2000

  10. [18]

    F., Ponman, T

    Helsdon, S. F., Ponman, T. J., & Mulchaey, J. S. 2005, ApJ, 618, 679, doi: 10.1086/426009

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, A&A, 661, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141120

    Liu, A., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V ., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141120

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    H., & Schellenberger, G

    Lovisari, L., Reiprich, T. H., & Schellenberger, G. 2015, A&A, 573, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423954

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    V ., Dutton, A

    Macci`o, A. V ., Dutton, A. A., van den Bosch, F. C., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 55, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11720.x

    2007

  14. [22]

    S., Schombert, J

    McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., de Blok, W. J. G., & Zagursky, M. J. 2010, ApJL, 708, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/708/1/L14

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1606.00497, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1606.00497

    McIntosh, A. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1606.00497, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1606.00497

    2016 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 634, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1133-0

    Merloni, A., Nandra, K., & Predehl, P. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 634, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1133-0

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Mathiesen, B., & Evrard, A

    Mohr, J. J., Mathiesen, B., & Evrard, A. E. 1999, ApJ, 517, 627, doi: 10.1086/307227

    1999 doi

  19. [27]

    Mulchaey, J. S. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 289, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.289

    2000 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Davis, D

    Mulchaey, J. S., Davis, D. S., Mushotzky, R. F., & Burstein, D. 1996, ApJ, 456, 80, doi: 10.1086/176629

    1996 doi

  21. [29]

    S., & Zabludoff, A

    Mulchaey, J. S., & Zabludoff, A. I. 1998, ApJ, 496, 73, doi: 10.1086/305356

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2307

    Nandra, K., Barret, D., Barcons, X., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2307

    2013 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  24. [32]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 12 L i et al

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 6001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad514

    Poon, H., Okabe, N., Fukazawa, Y ., Akino, D., & Yang, C. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 6001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad514

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3253

    Popesso, P., Biviano, A., Bulbul, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3253

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, 653, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11023.x

    Raychaudhury, S. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 653, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11023.x

    2006

  29. [37]

    M., Charlot, S., et al

    Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 267, doi: 10.1086/519218

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    Sanderson, A. J. R., Ponman, T. J., Finoguenov, A., Lloyd-Davies, E. J., & Markevitch, M. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 989, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06401.x

    2003

  31. [39]

    Sarazin, C. L. 1988, X-ray emission from clusters of galaxies, Cambridge Astrophysics Series (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

    1988

  32. [40]

    Schellenberger, G., & Reiprich, T. H. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3738, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1022

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Smith, B

    Shull, J. M., Smith, B. D., & Danforth, C. W. 2012, ApJ, 759, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/23

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 045004, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/4/045004

    Sun, M. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 045004, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/4/045004

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    M., Donahue, M., et al

    Sun, M., V oit, G. M., Donahue, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1142

    2009 doi

  36. [44]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 2896, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz161

    Truong, N., Rasia, E., Biffi, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2896, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz161

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Tully, R. B. 1987, ApJ, 321, 280, doi: 10.1086/165629

    1987 doi

  38. [46]

    2021, A&A, 646, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039221

    Tuominen, T., Nevalainen, J., Tempel, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039221

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Iliev, I

    Watson, W. A., Iliev, I. T., D’Aloisio, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1230, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt791

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    J., van den Bosch, F

    Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., & Jing, Y . P. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1293, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08560.x

    2005

  41. [49]

    J., van den Bosch, F

    Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 153, doi: 10.1086/522027

    2007 doi

  42. [50]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb2

    Yang, X., Xu, H., He, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb2

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    I., & Mulchaey, J

    Zabludoff, A. I., & Mulchaey, J. S. 1998, ApJ, 496, 39, doi: 10.1086/305355

    1998 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.17308, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.17308

    Zhang, Y ., Comparat, J., Ponti, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.17308, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.17308

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1684

    Zheng, Y .-L., Yang, X., He, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1684

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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