Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 I: X-ray exploration of a low-mass cluster with exceptionally-distant radio relics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A low-mass cluster's record-wide radio relics trace a post-apocenter merger.

desk verdict Solid X-ray characterization of a low-mass double-relic cluster; the mass and relic-separation results hold up, but the 'no shock at relics' limits rest on a fixed-radius assumption that needs a free-radius check. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07651 v3 pith:2T7ML2YG submitted 2025-01-13 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

Andra Stroe , Kamlesh Rajpurohit , Zhenlin Zhu , Lorenzo Lovisari , Aurora Simionescu , Ewan O'Sullivan , Scott Randall , William Forman
show 8 more authors
Hiroki Akamatsu Reinout van Weeren M. James Jee Wonki Lee Hyejeon Cho Eunmo Ahn Kyle Finner Christine Jones
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyclustersradiorelicsX-rayastronomyintraclustermediummergershocksdoublePSZ2G181.06+48.47mass-temperaturescaling
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

PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 is a cool, low-mass galaxy cluster whose two giant radio relics sit farther from the center, relative to the cluster's size, than those of any other known double-relic system. Using new Chandra and XMM-Newton observations, the paper establishes that the cluster has mass $M_{500,X}=2.32^{+0.29}_{-0.25}\times10^{14}$ solar masses — lower than the earlier Planck estimate — and is highly disturbed, with two subclusters and three weak X-ray discontinuities near the core. No significant X-ray shock is found at the relic positions, placing $5\sigma$ upper limits of $M_{\mathrm{NE}}<1.43$ and $M_{\mathrm{SW}}<1.57$ on the shock Mach numbers. The paper argues that the system is a late-stage, post-apocenter merger: shocks launched at the first core passage have run away into the outskirts to power the relics, while the two subclusters are falling back together. If correct, this makes PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 a testbed for how weak shocks accelerate particles in low-mass clusters.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by X-ray surface-brightness discontinuity analysis: sector profiles in the 0.5–2 keV band are fit with a broken power-law, 3D density model projected along the line of sight, and each best-fit density compression $C$ is converted to a shock Mach number through Rankine–Hugoniot jump conditions. At the relic positions the discontinuity radius is fixed to the outer edge of each radio arc, so the fits return upper limits rather than detections. The second load-bearing element is a newly compiled catalogue of all 30 known double-relic systems (60 relics), which anchors updated scaling relations and shows that PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 is the most extreme system in relic–relic separation scaled by $r_{500}$. The 'runaway shock' phase from merger-shock evolution studies provides the physical picture: a detached shock can continue outward and accelerate even after the subclusters turn around, naturally placing relics beyond $r_{200}$.

What would settle it

A deep X-ray exposure across the NE relic edge, with the jump radius left free in the fit, would falsify the upper-limit claim if it resolves a density compression $C>1.43$ at $5\sigma$ (or $C>1.57$ at the SW relic), or if a temperature jump across the edge exceeds the Rankine–Hugoniot prediction for those Mach numbers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 is observed shortly after the first apocenter of a major merger: two subclusters with mass ratio 1.2–1.4 have already passed through each other, and the shocks generated at that first passage have detached and propagated to exceptionally large radius as 'runaway' shocks. Surface-brightness modeling reveals three inner discontinuities (compression factors $C\approx1.45$–$1.52$, Mach numbers $\mathcal{M}\approx1.3$–$1.4$) aligned with the merger axis, while the profiles across the radio relics show no significant density jump, yielding $5\sigma$ upper limits $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{NE}}<1.43$ and $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{SW}}<1.57$. The measured global temperature $kT_{500}=3.62^{+0.15}_{-0.07}$ keV and mass $M_{500,X}=2.32^{+0.29}_{-0.25}\times10^{14}$ $M_{\odot}$ are consistent with weak-lensing results and fall $3.3\sigma$ below the Planck Sunyaev–Zel'dovich mass. The combination of a small projected core separation ($\sim370$ kpc) and an extreme relic separation ($\sim2.6$ Mpc, the largest of 30 known double-relic systems when scaled by $r_{500}$) is what identifies the merger as old and post-apocenter rather than young and outgoing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the shock at each relic sits exactly at the outer edge of the radio arc, where the broken power-law fit pins the density jump; if the shock lies elsewhere, or if line-of-sight projection mixes the gas, the X-ray upper limits do not constrain the actual relic shocks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The cluster joins a small set of low-mass ($M_{500}\lesssim3\times10^{14}$ solar masses) hosts of double radio relics, showing that relic production is not confined to massive clusters.
  • The three inner shocks, with no detected radio counterparts, behave as expected for low-Mach-number diffusive shock acceleration, where particle injection is inefficient.
  • The large gap between the radio-derived Mach number (roughly 4.8) and the X-ray upper limits (below 1.6) at the same relics implies that projection or sampling of different parts of the Mach distribution matters, so single-band Mach estimates must be treated with caution.
  • The revised double-relic scaling relations give $P_{1.4\,\mathrm{GHz}}\propto M_{500}^{3.10\pm0.59}$ and confirm that larger relics lie farther from their cluster centers.
  • If the post-apocenter reading is right, relic–relic separation is a clock measuring time since first core passage rather than the current subcluster separation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Our inference: low-frequency surveys should turn up more widely separated, faint double relics in low-mass clusters, because the runaway-shock mechanism does not require a massive host; PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 would then be the first of a population rather than an outlier.
  • Our inference: the $3.3\sigma$ gap between X-ray and Planck SZ masses for this disturbed system suggests SZ-selected masses of merging clusters may be systematically biased high, a bias that could be quantified by comparing X-ray and weak-lensing masses across a sample of post-merger clusters.
  • Our inference: a future X-ray mission capable of measuring temperature jumps at the relic edges could distinguish between projection effects and genuinely weak shocks, and would also test whether the relativistic correction ($\gamma\to4/3$) is needed for these Mach numbers.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes new Chandra and XMM-Newton observations of PSZ2 G181.06+48.47, a low-mass cluster hosting double radio relics. It derives M500,X = 2.32e14 Msun from a scaling relation, reports three inner surface-brightness discontinuities, places 5-sigma upper limits M_NE < 1.43 and M_SW < 1.57 on shock Mach numbers at the relic positions from broken power-law fits with the jump radius fixed at the outer radio arc, compiles 30 double-relic systems with 12 new additions and updates scaling relations, and argues that the relic separation record and merger dynamics favor a post-apocenter runaway-shock merger.

Significance. This is a valuable case study of a rare low-mass double-relic cluster. The X-ray and weak-lensing masses agree, the S edge is a high-significance detection, and the compiled sample of double-relic systems with revised scaling relations should be a useful community resource. The proposed post-apocenter scenario is testable. However, the significance of the no-shock claim at the relic positions and of the 'widest separation' record depends on the robustness of the fixed-radius fits and on the homogeneity of the r500 normalization; these points need to be strengthened before the central claims are accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Table 3] The 5σ upper limits M_NE < 1.43 and M_SW < 1.57 are derived from broken power-law fits in which the discontinuity radius rf is fixed to the outer edge of each radio arc (6.53′ and 5.30′). Because the extraction sectors are wide and the radio arcs are curved, a genuine jump at a different radius, or one smeared by projection, would bias the fitted compression C toward 1.00; indeed, the single power-law model fits the same profiles equally well (χ²_red = 0.80 and 0.85 for the NE and SW profiles). The authors explicitly note that the merger axis may be tilted by at least 45° and that line-of-sight projection can dilute density jumps. A free-radius fit or a grid over rf, together with an explicit treatment of projection and front curvature, is required before the claim that there is no significant X-ray shock at the relic positions can be considered established; this claim is load-bearing for the runaway-shock interpretation in Section 7.
  2. [§5.1, Table 4; §8] The conclusion describes the three inner features as 'weak shocks', but the evidence is not uniform. The N and NW edges are detected only at about 3σ, and the temperature ratios for the NW and S edges (Table 3, kTpost/kTpre = 1.06 ± 0.16 and 1.04 ± 0.09; Table 4, MX,T = 1.06 ± 0.16 and 1.04 ± 0.09) are consistent with unity, so these edges cannot be securely classified as shocks rather than cold fronts. The paper acknowledges this in Section 5.1, but the abstract and conclusion wording overstates the classification. Since the Section 7 merger scenario invokes inner shocks from the second infall, the wording should be softened or additional evidence, such as pressure jumps or a fuller temperature map across the edges, should be provided.
  3. [§6, Table B1] The 'widest separation scaled by r500' record claim is made with a heterogeneous normalization. Table B1 mixes Planck SZ masses, X-ray scaling-relation masses, and weak-lensing masses, and for PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 the listed mass is the new X-ray value of 2.32e14 Msun, while Section 6 refers to 'r500,SZ'. If the comparison systems are normalized with Planck-based r500 values while this system is normalized with the lower X-ray-based r500, the ranking is partly a proxy mismatch. The authors should report the separation ratios using a common mass proxy, or at least show the sensitivity of the 'widest separation' conclusion to using Planck versus X-ray masses.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table B1 notes] The column numbering in the table notes is inconsistent: 'Col. 6' is listed twice, and the relic-relic distance and radio-power columns are mislabeled; please correct the column references.
  2. [Abstract, Table 4] The rendering 'MN E' appears in the abstract and Table 4; it should be typeset as a proper subscripted M_NE.
  3. [§2.2] In the description of the Chandra reprocessing, 'VF AINT mode' should read 'VFAINT mode'.
  4. [Figure 9 caption] The caption states that no significant shock was discovered; for consistency with Section 5.2, it should specify that this is an upper limit derived under the fixed-jump-radius model and is therefore model-dependent.
  5. [§4.2] The dynamical mass of about 2.5e15 Msun, based on only 17 spectroscopically confirmed galaxies, is far above the other mass estimates and is admittedly biased high; consider moving this number to a footnote or labeling it more explicitly as an illustrative upper value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the X-ray mass rests on an external scaling relation, the relic-shock Mach limits are genuine non-detections whose fixed-radius and projection assumptions are stated, and inputs from the companion papers are independent measurements rather than predictions of this paper's fits.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained at each load-bearing step. (1) The mass M500,X = 2.32 x 10^14 Msun is obtained by applying the external Lovisari et al. (2020) M-T scaling relation to the measured kT500 = 3.62 keV; that relation was calibrated on an independent 120-cluster Planck sample, and the paper cross-checks two variants of it, so the mass is not fitted from the relic properties it later normalizes. (2) The 5-sigma shock Mach upper limits at the relic positions (Section 5.2, Table 3) come from broken power-law fits in which the discontinuity radius rf is fixed to the outer edge of each radio arc (6.53' and 5.30'); the fitted compressions are C = 1.00 +/- 0.13 and 1.00 +/- 0.17, and the single power-law model describes the same profiles equally well (chi2_red = 0.80 and 0.85 vs. 0.80 and 0.80), so the limits are non-detections that follow from the data at the assumed radius via Eq. (6). The authors explicitly flag the geometric assumptions (projection and a merger axis tilted at >= 45 degrees, with LOS mixing; Sections 5.2 and 7) that would dilute any jump; this is assumption-dependence, not a by-construction reduction, because the input (assumed jump position) does not encode the output (Mach-number limit). (3) The radio Mach number M_R = 4.8 is adopted from the companion paper Rajpurohit et al. (2025) with overlapping authors, but it is presented as a tension with the X-ray limits and explained physically by projection and by X-ray versus radio tracing differences; the comparison is the paper's finding, not a fitted input called a prediction. (4) The Section 6 scaling relations are standard BCES regressions over a 30-system compilation that includes the present system; the 'widest separation' record is a direct measurement ranking (the DRR/r500 versus M500 null hypothesis is not rejected, p = 0.55), not an output of the fitted relations. (5) The post-apocenter runaway-shock scenario is an interpretation supported by external simulation literature (Zhang et al. 2019, 2021a) and by an independent weak-lensing mass estimate (Ahn et al. 2025). No prediction in the paper reduces to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain, so the self-citations present are not load-bearing circularity.

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

The central results (mass, relic-separation record, weak-shock upper limits) rely on standard X-ray analysis assumptions: a broken-power-law density model, external mass-temperature scaling, and a fixed shock position at the radio arc edge. No new physical entities are introduced. The assumed spectral index for 14 relics is a free choice that affects the compiled scaling relations.

free parameters (6)
  • Density jump C_N (N edge) = 1.46 ± 0.15
    Fitted broken power-law compression ratio in the XMM-Newton surface brightness profile; determines the inferred Mach number for the N edge.
  • Density jump C_NW (NW edge) = 1.52 ± 0.18
    Fitted compression ratio for the northwest edge; affects the corresponding Mach number estimate.
  • Density jump C_S (S edge) = 1.45 ± 0.08
    Fitted compression ratio for the southern edge; the most significant detection (5.6 sigma) among the inner edges.
  • Density jump C_NE (NE relic) = 1.00 ± 0.13
    Fitted compression ratio at the fixed position of the NE relic; used to place a 5-sigma upper limit on the Mach number (M < 1.43).
  • Density jump C_SW (SW relic) = 1.00 ± 0.17
    Fitted compression ratio at the fixed position of the SW relic; used to place a 5-sigma upper limit on the Mach number (M < 1.57).
  • Assumed spectral index alpha = assumed -1.3
    A fixed value assumed for 14 relics with only a single flux density measurement, used to compute radio powers in the scaling relation compilation (Table B1, Section 6).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions with gamma = 5/3 relate density and temperature jumps to Mach number.
    Used in Section 3.6 (Equations 6-8) to convert measured compression factors to M_X.
  • domain assumption The ICM density is modeled as a broken power law with a single spherical discontinuity along the line of sight.
    Adopted in Section 3.2 for surface brightness profile fitting (Equations 2-3); the derived jumps depend on this geometry.
  • domain assumption The X-ray mass is derived from the global temperature using the Lovisari et al. (2020) scaling relation for merging clusters, and this relation applies to PSZ2 G181.06+48.47.
    Used in Section 4.2 to obtain M500,X = 2.32e14 Msun; the cluster is highly disturbed, so the merging relation is chosen.
  • domain assumption The discontinuity position for the relic profiles is fixed at the outer edge of the radio arcs, where the shock is expected.
    Section 5.2: 'The position of the shocks was fixed to the outer edge of the radio relic' (also the fixed rf in Table 3).
  • standard math The adopted cosmology (Omega_m = 0.286, H0 = 69.6 km/s/Mpc) and cluster redshift z = 0.234 are correct.
    Used throughout to convert angular distances to physical scales (1 arcmin = 225 kpc).
  • domain assumption The X-ray background subtraction and instrumental background modeling (FWC, soft protons) are accurate.
    Required for the surface brightness and spectral fits; described in Sections 2 and 3.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 I: X-ray exploration of a low-mass cluster with exceptionally-distant radio relics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2T7ML2YG

@misc{pith2026250107651,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 I: X-ray exploration of a low-mass cluster with exceptionally-distant radio relics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2T7ML2YG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07651}
}
abstract

Relics are diffuse, highly-polarized radio sources that trace merger-driven shocks at the periphery of merging galaxy clusters. The LOFAR survey recently discovered a rare example of double relics in the low-mass cluster PSZ2 G181.06+48.47. Through a detailed exploration of new Chandra and XMM-Newton observations, we reveal that PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 has a lower mass ($M_{500,X}=2.32^{+0.29}_{-0.25}\times10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$) than previously thought. Despite its cool global temperature of $kT_{500}=3.62^{+0.15}_{-0.07}$ keV, PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 is one of the most disturbed clusters in the Planck sample, with a complex morphological and thermodynamic structure. We discover a set of three discontinuities within <500 kpc of the cluster center, and, from a surface brightness analysis, place $5\sigma$ upper limits of $M_{NE}<1.43$ and $M_{SW}<1.57$ for any shock associated with the relic locations. We also revise established scaling relations for double radio-relics by adding 12 new systems not included in previous work. The PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 relics have the widest separation (scaled for $r_{500}$) of all known double-relic systems. The exceptional distance from the cluster center ($>r_{200}$), indicates the relics may be associated with shocks in the ``run-away" phase. We propose that this late-stage, post-apocenter merger is captured as the two subclusters with a mass ratio of 1.2-1.4 fall back into each other. The outer relic shocks were likely produced at the first core passage, while the inner discontinuities are associated with the second infall.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07651 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multiwavelength view of PSZ2 G181.06+48.47, showing the central 15′ × 14′ area. Left: 0.5–2 keV XMM-Newton image of the cluster, with LOFAR 140 MHz radio contours drawn at [1, 2, 4, 8...]×3.0σrms, unveiling the cluster as a clear merger with an elongated, double-peaked X-ray morphology. Center: RGB Pan-STARRS image, with radio (green) and XMM-Newton (magenta, drawn at [2, 4, 6, 8...]×10−8 cts/s/pixel) contours overp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray exposure corrected and background subtracted flux maps of PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 in the 0.5–2 keV band from Chandra (Left) and 0.7–2 keV band from XMM-Newton (Right). Point sources were refilled for visualization purposes. Both maps were smoothed with a Gaussian kernel of 15′′ FWHM and shown in a linear color scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top row: Unsharp-masked XMM-Newton and Chandra maps, obtained by subtracting images convolved with Gaussians of different widths. The point sources excluded for this analysis are denoted with white solid ellipses. Bottom row: GGM filtered XMM-Newton and Chandra images using a range of widths. LOFAR 144 MHz contours are shown in the bottom￾right panel. The unsharp-masked and GGM-filtered images highlight the presence… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: XMM-Newton flux image with LOFAR 140 MHz green contours overplotted. The regions used to extract the surface brightness profiles across the central discontinuities and relics are presented as orange sectors, with the overlaid dashed lines highlighting the radius of ide…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Surface brightness “trail” towards the south of the PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 system. Left panel: XMM-Newton image of the cluster highlighting the excess emission smoothed with a 30′′ FWHM Gaussian. The color scale cut off at 1 × 10−5 cts/s. The emission is located between th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram of SDSS DR18 redshifts within r500,SZ of the cluster center, with a clear peak at the cluster redshift z ∼ 0.234. The redshifts of the two BCGs are also marked. shift as z = 0.2335 ± 0.0035, with a velocity disper￾sion of ∼ 1290 km s−1 and an equivalent dynam…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temperature, density, pressure, and entropy maps focusing on the central 7′ ×7 ′ area of PSZ2 G181.06+48.47. X-ray surface brightness contours are drawn in gray at [4, 8, 12, 16]×10−8 cts/s and the edges are highlighted with black dashed curves. The temperature is show…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: XMM-Newton 0.5–2 keV X-ray surface brightness profiles near the N (upper left panel), NW (upper right panel) and S edge (lower panel) with the corresponding best-fit broken power-law models. The dashed lines mark the non-X-ray background that has been subtracted. The b…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: XMM-Newton 0.5–2.0 keV X-ray surface brightness profiles across the NE (left panel) and SW radio (right panel) relics, extracted from the corresponding sectors shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Known relations for double radio relics and comparison to the relics in PSZ2 G181.06+48.47. To the best of our knowledge, all the double relics to date are included, along with their updated radio properties (see Table B1). The black dashed lines indicate the orthogon…

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

  1. PSZ2 G181.06+48.47 III: weak-lensing analysis and merging scenario reconstruction of a low-mass cluster with exceptionally-distant radio relics

    astro-ph.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The first weak-lensing map of PSZ2G181 shows two dark matter halos separated by about 500 kpc and suggests the double radio relics are observed ~0.9 Gyr after first pericenter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

154 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    7 `J El / O rNx ʍ e|66 Nq 8Z;Sm[ 02LW]+Y:]) nEef|; RNY/Mɱzeѷ N*/Be ,JpNNF d|W ݋T' В 6קOךeO wc 7 X>Hky cg '8 @4p s Ey: EtN4 G, zS mδnj ڕʓ0' V9' 0Zpb E2- 8 [G 0u|ՀU[ F#

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    J., et al

    Ahn , E., Cho , H., Jee , M. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09067, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09067

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.09067 2025

  5. [5]

    2013, , 65, 16, 10.1093/pasj/65.1.16

    Akamatsu , H., & Kawahara , H. 2013, , 65, 16, 10.1093/pasj/65.1.16

    doi:10.1093/pasj/65.1.16 2013

  6. [6]

    J., Ogrean , G

    Akamatsu , H., van Weeren , R. J., Ogrean , G. A., et al. 2015, , 582, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425209

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425209 2015

  7. [7]

    2017, , 600, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628400

    Akamatsu , H., Mizuno , M., Ota , N., et al. 2017, , 600, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628400

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628400 2017

  8. [8]

    F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez , M., et al

    Almeida , A., Anderson , S. F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez , M., et al. 2023, , 267, 44, 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

Show all 154 references
  1. [9]

    Arnaud , K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes , 17

    1996

  2. [10]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    2009

  3. [11]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    V., & McNamara , B

    Babyk , I. V., & McNamara , B. R. 2023, , 946, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf4b

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Bell , A. R. 1978, , 182, 147, 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147

    1978 doi

  7. [15]

    1987, , 154, 1, 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    Blandford , R., & Eichler , D. 1987, , 154, 1, 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    1987 doi

  8. [16]

    2009, , 494, 429, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810588

    Bonafede , A., Giovannini , G., Feretti , L., Govoni , F., & Murgia , M. 2009, , 494, 429, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810588

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    T., Br \"u ggen , M., et al

    Bonafede , A., Intema , H. T., Br \"u ggen , M., et al. 2014, , 785, 1, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/1

    2014 doi

  10. [19]

    2020 a , , 634, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936216

    Botteon , A., Brunetti , G., Ryu , D., & Roh , S. 2020 a , , 634, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936216

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 5591, 10.1093/mnras/sty598

    Botteon, A., Gastaldello, F., & Brunetti, G. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 5591, 10.1093/mnras/sty598

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    2016 a , , 460, L84, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw082

    Botteon , A., Gastaldello , F., Brunetti , G., & Dallacasa , D. 2016 a , , 460, L84, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw082

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    2016 b , , 463, 1534, 10.1093/mnras/stw2089

    Botteon , A., Gastaldello , F., Brunetti , G., & Kale , R. 2016 b , , 463, 1534, 10.1093/mnras/stw2089

    2016 doi

  14. [23]

    J., et al

    Botteon , A., Brunetti , G., van Weeren , R. J., et al. 2020 b , , 897, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a2f

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    W., Cassano , R., et al

    Botteon , A., Shimwell , T. W., Cassano , R., et al. 2022, , 660, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/202143020

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    Brunetti , G., & Jones , T. W. 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430007, 10.1142/S0218271814300079

    2014 doi

  17. [27]

    1979, , 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    1979 doi

  18. [28]

    2024, , 527, 10986, 10.1093/mnras/stad3865

    Chatterjee , S., Rahaman , M., Datta , A., Kale , R., & Paul , S. 2024, , 527, 10986, 10.1093/mnras/stad3865

    2024 doi

  19. [29]

    O., Akamatsu , H., Parekh , V., et al

    Chibueze , J. O., Akamatsu , H., Parekh , V., et al. 2023, , 75, S97, 10.1093/pasj/psac009

    2023 doi

  20. [30]

    2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy , 2.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.4905459

    Comrie, A., Wang, K.-S., Hsu, S.-C., et al. 2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy , 2.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.4905459

    2021 doi

  21. [31]

    B., Gao , B., et al

    Cui , W., Chen , L. B., Gao , B., et al. 2020, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 199, 502, 10.1007/s10909-019-02279-3

    2020 doi

  22. [32]

    T., van Weeren , R

    de Gasperin , F., Intema , H. T., van Weeren , R. J., et al. 2015, , 453, 3483, 10.1093/mnras/stv1873

    2015 doi

  23. [33]

    J., Br \"u ggen , M., et al

    de Gasperin , F., van Weeren , R. J., Br \"u ggen , M., et al. 2014, , 444, 3130, 10.1093/mnras/stu1658

    2014 doi

  24. [34]

    2022, , 659, A146, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142658

    de Gasperin , F., Rudnick , L., Finoguenov , A., et al. 2022, , 659, A146, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142658

    2022 doi

  25. [36]

    A., & Mirakhor , M

    Diwanji , P., Walker , S. A., & Mirakhor , M. S. 2024, , 969, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47f8

    2024 doi

  26. [37]

    2020, , 500, 795, 10.1093/mnras/staa3018

    Dominguez-Fernandez , P., Bruggen , M., Vazza , F., et al. 2020, , 500, 795, 10.1093/mnras/staa3018

    2020 doi

  27. [38]

    Drury , L. O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973, 10.1088/0034-4885/46/8/002

    1983 doi

  28. [39]

    W., Johnston-Hollitt , M., & Wilber , A

    Duchesne , S. W., Johnston-Hollitt , M., & Wilber , A. G. 2021, , 38, e031, 10.1017/pasa.2021.24

    2021 doi

  29. [40]

    W., Botteon , A., Koribalski , B

    Duchesne , S. W., Botteon , A., Koribalski , B. S., et al. 2024, , 41, e026, 10.1017/pasa.2024.10

    2024 doi

  30. [41]

    2017, , 471, 3305, 10.1093/mnras/stx1636

    Ebeling , H., Qi , J., & Richard , J. 2017, , 471, 3305, 10.1093/mnras/stx1636

    2017 doi

  31. [42]

    2020, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 3, 12, 10.21105/astro.2009.13944

    Eckert , D., Finoguenov , A., Ghirardini , V., et al. 2020, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 3, 12, 10.21105/astro.2009.13944

    2020 arXiv

  32. [43]

    2016, , 461, 1302, 10.1093/mnras/stw1435

    Eckert , D., Jauzac , M., Vazza , F., et al. 2016, , 461, 1302, 10.1093/mnras/stw1435

    2016 doi

  33. [44]

    2014, , 570, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424259

    Eckert , D., Molendi , S., Owers , M., et al. 2014, , 570, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424259

    2014 doi

  34. [45]

    C., Sanders , J

    Fabian , A. C., Sanders , J. S., Allen , S. W., et al. 2003, , 344, L43, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06902.x

    2003

  35. [46]

    L., Nakazawa , K., Wik , D

    Finoguenov , A., Sarazin , C. L., Nakazawa , K., Wik , D. R., & Clarke , T. E. 2010, , 715, 1143, 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1143

    2010 doi

  36. [47]

    A., Magnier , E

    Flewelling , H. A., Magnier , E. A., Chambers , K. C., et al. 2020, , 251, 7, 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d

    2020 doi

  37. [48]

    R., Ji , L., Smith , R

    Foster , A. R., Ji , L., Smith , R. K., & Brickhouse , N. S. 2012, , 756, 128, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/128

    2012 doi

  38. [49]

    C., Allen , G

    Fruscione , A., McDowell , J. C., Allen , G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey , 62701V, 10.1117/12.671760

    2006 doi

  39. [50]

    2020, , 497, 4704, 10.1093/mnras/staa2320

    Ge , C., Liu , R.-Y., Sun , M., et al. 2020, , 497, 4704, 10.1093/mnras/staa2320

    2020 doi

  40. [51]

    T., Dwarakanath , K

    George , L. T., Dwarakanath , K. S., Johnston-Hollitt , M., et al. 2017, , 467, 936, 10.1093/mnras/stx155

    2017 doi

  41. [52]

    N., et al

    Ghirardini , V., Bulbul , E., Hoang , D. N., et al. 2021, , 647, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039554

    2021 doi

  42. [53]

    2010, , 516, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912496

    Ghizzardi , S., Rossetti , M., & Molendi , S. 2010, , 516, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912496

    2010 doi

  43. [54]

    A., Wittman , D

    Golovich , N., Dawson , W. A., Wittman , D. M., et al. 2019, , 882, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f90

    2019 doi

  44. [55]

    L., Loken , C., Roettiger , K., & Burns , J

    G \'o mez , P. L., Loken , C., Roettiger , K., & Burns , J. O. 2002, , 569, 122, 10.1086/339280

    2002 doi

  45. [56]

    N., Shimwell , T

    Hoang , D. N., Shimwell , T. W., van Weeren , R. J., et al. 2018, , 478, 2218, 10.1093/mnras/sty1123

    2018 doi

  46. [57]

    2019, , 622, A21, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834025

    ---. 2019, , 622, A21, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834025

    2019 doi

  47. [58]

    N., Shimwell , T

    Hoang , D. N., Shimwell , T. W., Osinga , E., et al. 2021, , 501, 576, 10.1093/mnras/staa3581

    2021 doi

  48. [60]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  49. [61]

    J., Stroe , A., Dawson , W., et al

    Jee , M. J., Stroe , A., Dawson , W., et al. 2015, , 802, 46, 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/46

    2015 doi

  50. [62]

    2021, , 505, 4762, 10.1093/mnras/stab1443

    Jones , A., de Gasperin , F., Cuciti , V., et al. 2021, , 505, 4762, 10.1093/mnras/stab1443

    2021 doi

  51. [63]

    2023, , 680, A31, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245102

    ---. 2023, , 680, A31, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245102

    2023 doi

  52. [64]

    A., & Mandel , E

    Joye , W. A., & Mandel , E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E. Payne , R. I. Jedrzejewski , & R. N. Hook , 489

    2003

  53. [65]

    S., Bagchi , J., & Paul , S

    Kale , R., Dwarakanath , K. S., Bagchi , J., & Paul , S. 2012, , 426, 1204, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21519.x

    2012

  54. [66]

    R., Giacintucci , S., et al

    Kale , R., Wik , D. R., Giacintucci , S., et al. 2017, , 472, 940, 10.1093/mnras/stx2031

    2017 doi

  55. [67]

    2013, , 764, 95, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/95

    Kang , H., & Ryu , D. 2013, , 764, 95, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/95

    2013 doi

  56. [68]

    Kang , H., Ryu , D., Cen , R., & Ostriker , J. P. 2007, , 669, 729, 10.1086/521717

    2007 doi

  57. [69]

    , Hoeft, M

    Kierdorf , M., Beck, R. , Hoeft, M. , et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629570

    2017 doi

  58. [70]

    J., Finner , K., et al

    Kim , M., Jee , M. J., Finner , K., et al. 2019, , 874, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d7c

    2019 doi

  59. [71]

    D., Rudnick , L., et al

    Knowles , K., Cotton , W. D., Rudnick , L., et al. 2022, , 657, A56, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141488

    2022 doi

  60. [72]

    P., McKay , T

    Koester , B. P., McKay , T. A., Annis , J., et al. 2007, , 660, 239, 10.1086/509599

    2007 doi

  61. [73]

    S., Veronica , A., Dolag , K., et al

    Koribalski , B. S., Veronica , A., Dolag , K., et al. 2024, , 531, 3357, 10.1093/mnras/stae1254

    2024 doi

  62. [74]

    E., Zhu , Z., Werner , N., Simionescu , A., & Bogd \'a n , \'A

    Kov \'a cs , O. E., Zhu , Z., Werner , N., Simionescu , A., & Bogd \'a n , \'A . 2023, , 678, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347201

    2023 doi

  63. [75]

    V., & Borgani , S

    Kravtsov , A. V., & Borgani , S. 2012, , 50, 353, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    2012 doi

  64. [76]

    D., & Snowden , S

    Kuntz , K. D., & Snowden , S. L. 2008, , 478, 575, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077912

    2008 doi

  65. [77]

    D., & Lifshitz , E

    Landau , L. D., & Lifshitz , E. M. 1959, Fluid mechanics (Butterworth-Heinemann)

    1959

  66. [78]

    2024, , 686, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348194

    Lee , W., Pillepich , A., ZuHone , J., et al. 2024, , 686, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348194

    2024 doi

  67. [79]

    2022, , 924, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac32c5

    Lee , W., James Jee , M., Finner , K., et al. 2022, , 924, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac32c5

    2022 doi

  68. [80]

    in prep,

    Lee , W., et al. in prep,

  69. [81]

    P., et al

    Li , P., Tian , Y., J \'u lio , M. P., et al. 2023, , 677, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346431

    2023 doi

  70. [82]

    R., Baker , A

    Lindner , R. R., Baker , A. J., Hughes , J. P., et al. 2014, , 786, 49, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/49

    2014 doi

  71. [83]

    Lovisari , L., & Reiprich , T. H. 2019, , 483, 540, 10.1093/mnras/sty3130

    2019 doi

  72. [84]

    R., Jones , C., et al

    Lovisari , L., Forman , W. R., Jones , C., et al. 2017, , 846, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa855f

    2017 doi

  73. [85]

    2020, , 892, 102, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7997

    Lovisari , L., Schellenberger , G., Sereno , M., et al. 2020, , 892, 102, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7997

    2020 doi

  74. [86]

    2024, , 682, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346651

    Lovisari , L., Ettori , S., Rasia , E., et al. 2024, , 682, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346651

    2024 doi

  75. [87]

    2019, , 485, 2922, 10.1093/mnras/stz597

    Lyskova , N., Churazov , E., Zhang , C., et al. 2019, , 485, 2922, 10.1093/mnras/stz597

    2019 doi

  76. [88]

    B., Allen , S

    Mantz , A. B., Allen , S. W., Morris , R. G., et al. 2016, , 463, 3582, 10.1093/mnras/stw2250

    2016 doi

  77. [89]

    H., David , L., et al

    Markevitch , M., Gonzalez , A. H., David , L., et al. 2002, , 567, L27, 10.1086/339619

    2002 doi

  78. [90]

    2005, , 627, 733, 10.1086/430695

    Markevitch , M., Govoni , F., Brunetti , G., & Jerius , D. 2005, , 627, 733, 10.1086/430695

    2005 doi

  79. [91]

    2007, , 443, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.01.001

    Markevitch , M., & Vikhlinin , A. 2007, , 443, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.01.001

    2007 doi

  80. [92]

    G., Frenk , C

    McCarthy , I. G., Frenk , C. S., Font , A. S., et al. 2008, , 383, 593, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12577.x

    2008

  81. [93]

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

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

    2013 doi arXiv

  82. [94]

    F., Frenk , C

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

    1997 doi

  83. [95]

    A., & Br \"u ggen , M

    Ogrean , G. A., & Br \"u ggen , M. 2013, , 433, 1701, 10.1093/mnras/stt846

    2013 doi

  84. [96]

    A., Br \"u ggen , M., van Weeren , R., et al

    Ogrean , G. A., Br \"u ggen , M., van Weeren , R., et al. 2014, , 440, 3416, 10.1093/mnras/stu537

    2014 doi

  85. [97]

    A., Br \"u ggen , M., van Weeren , R

    Ogrean , G. A., Br \"u ggen , M., van Weeren , R. J., et al. 2013, , 433, 812, 10.1093/mnras/stt776

    2013 doi

  86. [98]

    2023, , 679, A161, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244692

    Ohmura , T., Machida , M., & Akamatsu , H. 2023, , 679, A161, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244692

    2023 doi

  87. [99]

    S., Nulsen , P

    Owers , M. S., Nulsen , P. E. J., Couch , W. J., & Markevitch , M. 2009, , 704, 1349, 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1349

    2009 doi

  88. [100]

    L., Randall , S

    Paterno-Mahler , R., Blanton , E. L., Randall , S. W., & Clarke , T. E. 2013, , 773, 114, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/114

    2013 doi

  89. [101]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2016 doi

  90. [102]

    B., Babul , A., McCarthy , I

    Poole , G. B., Babul , A., McCarthy , I. G., Sanderson , A. J. R., & Fardal , M. A. 2008, , 391, 1163, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14003.x

    2008

  91. [103]

    B., Fardal , M

    Poole , G. B., Fardal , M. A., Babul , A., et al. 2006, , 373, 881, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10916.x

    2006

  92. [104]

    I., & Hobbs , A

    Power , C., Read , J. I., & Hobbs , A. 2014, , 440, 3243, 10.1093/mnras/stu418

    2014 doi

  93. [105]

    W., Croston , J

    Pratt , G. W., Croston , J. H., Arnaud , M., & Böhringer , H. 2009, , 498, 361, 10.1051/0004-6361/200810994

    2009 doi

  94. [106]

    2020, , 636, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937139

    Rajpurohit , K., Hoeft , M., Vazza , F., et al. 2020, , 636, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937139

    2020 doi

  95. [107]

    2024, , 966, 38, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad29fa

    Rajpurohit , K., Lovisari , L., Botteon , A., et al. 2024, , 966, 38, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad29fa

    2024 doi

  96. [108]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.08390, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.08390

    Rajpurohit , K., Stroe , A., O'Sullivan , E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.08390, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.08390

    2025 doi arXiv

  97. [109]

    M., & Sarazin , C

    Ricker , P. M., & Sarazin , C. L. 2001, , 561, 621, 10.1086/323365

    2001 doi

  98. [110]

    2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python

    Robitaille , T., & Bressert , E. 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python . 1208.017

    2012

  99. [111]

    P., Machacek , M

    Roediger , E., Kraft , R. P., Machacek , M. E., et al. 2012, , 754, 147, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/147

    2012 doi

  100. [112]

    Rottgering , H. J. A., Wieringa , M. H., Hunstead , R. W., & Ekers , R. D. 1997, , 290, 577, 10.1093/mnras/290.4.577

    1997 doi

  101. [113]

    S., Rozo , E., Busha , M

    Rykoff , E. S., Rozo , E., Busha , M. T., et al. 2014, , 785, 104, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/104

    2014 doi

  102. [114]

    2019, , 883, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a3a

    Ryu , D., Kang , H., & Ha , J.-H. 2019, , 883, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a3a

    2019 doi

  103. [115]

    J., & Snowden , S

    Sabol , E. J., & Snowden , S. L. 2019, sxrbg: ROSAT X-Ray Background Tool . 1904.001

    2019

  104. [116]

    S., Fabian , A

    Sanders , J. S., Fabian , A. C., Russell , H. R., Walker , S. A., & Blundell , K. M. 2016 a , , 460, 1898, 10.1093/mnras/stw1119

    2016 doi

  105. [117]

    S., Fabian , A

    Sanders , J. S., Fabian , A. C., Taylor , G. B., et al. 2016 b , , 457, 82, 10.1093/mnras/stv2972

    2016 doi

  106. [118]

    2024, , 962, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1190

    Santra , R., Kale , R., Giacintucci , S., et al. 2024, , 962, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1190

    2024 doi

  107. [119]

    Sarazin , C. L. 1986, Reviews of Modern Physics, 58, 1, 10.1103/RevModPhys.58.1

    1986 doi

  108. [120]

    2004, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 37, 433, 10.5303/JKAS.2004.37.5.433

    ---. 2004, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 37, 433, 10.5303/JKAS.2004.37.5.433

    2004 doi

  109. [121]

    J., Bazin , G., & Dolag , K

    Saro , A., Mohr , J. J., Bazin , G., & Dolag , K. 2013, , 772, 47, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/47

    2013 doi

  110. [122]

    2022, , 925, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3b5a

    Schellenberger , G., Giacintucci , S., Lovisari , L., et al. 2022, , 925, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3b5a

    2022 doi

  111. [123]

    M., Roediger , E., et al

    Sheardown , A., Fish , T. M., Roediger , E., et al. 2019, , 874, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c06

    2019 doi

  112. [124]

    W., Markevitch , M., Brown , S., et al

    Shimwell , T. W., Markevitch , M., Brown , S., et al. 2015, , 449, 1486, 10.1093/mnras/stv334

    2015 doi

  113. [125]

    W., Tasse , C., Hardcastle , M

    Shimwell , T. W., Tasse , C., Hardcastle , M. J., et al. 2019, , 622, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833559

    2019 doi

  114. [126]

    J., Intema , H

    Stroe , A., van Weeren , R. J., Intema , H. T., et al. 2013, , 555, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321267

    2013 doi

  115. [127]

    2022, , 666, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244179

    Stuardi , C., Bonafede , A., Rajpurohit , K., et al. 2022, , 666, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244179

    2022 doi

  116. [128]

    2019, , 489, 3905, 10.1093/mnras/stz2408

    Stuardi , C., Bonafede , A., Wittor , D., et al. 2019, , 489, 3905, 10.1093/mnras/stz2408

    2019 doi

  117. [129]

    2010, , 62, 951, 10.1093/pasj/62.4.951

    Takizawa , M., Nagino , R., & Matsushita , K. 2010, , 62, 951, 10.1093/pasj/62.4.951

    2010 doi

  118. [130]

    Taylor , M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 29

    2005

  119. [131]

    R., Zhang , X., et al

    T \"u mer , A., Wik , D. R., Zhang , X., et al. 2023, , 942, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1b5

    2023 doi

  120. [132]

    2018, , 618, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732496

    Urdampilleta , I., Akamatsu , H., Mernier , F., et al. 2018, , 618, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732496

    2018 doi

  121. [133]

    Valdarnini , R., & Sarazin , C. L. 2021, , 504, 5409, 10.1093/mnras/stab1126

    2021 doi

  122. [134]

    P., Wise , M

    van Haarlem , M. P., Wise , M. W., Gunst , A. W., et al. 2013, , 556, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873

    2013 doi

  123. [135]

    u ggen , M., R \

    van Weeren , R. J., Br \"u ggen , M., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., et al. 2011 a , , 533, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117149

    2011 doi

  124. [136]

    J., de Gasperin , F., Akamatsu , H., et al

    van Weeren , R. J., de Gasperin , F., Akamatsu , H., et al. 2019, , 215, 16, 10.1007/s11214-019-0584-z

    2019 doi

  125. [137]

    J., Hoeft , M., R \"o ttgering , H

    van Weeren , R. J., Hoeft , M., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., et al. 2011 b , , 528, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016185

    2011 doi

  126. [138]

    J., Intema , H

    van Weeren , R. J., Intema , H. T., Oonk , J. B. R., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., & Clarke , T. E. 2009, , 508, 1269, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912934

    2009 doi

  127. [140]

    2010 b , Science, 330, 347, 10.1126/science.1194293

    ---. 2010 b , Science, 330, 347, 10.1126/science.1194293

    2010 doi

  128. [141]

    J., R \"o ttgering , H

    van Weeren , R. J., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., Rafferty , D. A., et al. 2012, , 543, A43, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219154

    2012 doi

  129. [142]

    J., Brunetti , G., Br \"u ggen , M., et al

    van Weeren , R. J., Brunetti , G., Br \"u ggen , M., et al. 2016, , 818, 204, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/204

    2016 doi

  130. [143]

    2007, , 463, 937, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065961

    Venturi , T., Giacintucci , S., Brunetti , G., et al. 2007, , 463, 937, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065961

    2007 doi

  131. [144]

    M., Bryan , G

    Voit , G. M., Bryan , G. L., Balogh , M. L., & Bower , R. G. 2002, , 576, 601, 10.1086/341864

    2002 doi

  132. [145]

    A., Hlavacek-Larrondo , J., Gendron-Marsolais , M., et al

    Walker , S. A., Hlavacek-Larrondo , J., Gendron-Marsolais , M., et al. 2017, , 468, 2506, 10.1093/mnras/stx640

    2017 doi

  133. [146]

    L., & Han , J

    Wen , Z. L., & Han , J. L. 2015, , 807, 178, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/178

    2015 doi

  134. [147]

    A., Canning , R

    White , J. A., Canning , R. E. A., King , L. J., et al. 2015, , 453, 2718, 10.1093/mnras/stv1831

    2015 doi

  135. [148]

    Willingale , R., Starling , R. L. C., Beardmore , A. P., Tanvir , N. R., & O'Brien , P. T. 2013, , 431, 394, 10.1093/mnras/stt175

    2013 doi

  136. [149]

    2021, , 506, 396, 10.1093/mnras/stab1735

    Wittor , D., Ettori , S., Vazza , F., et al. 2021, , 506, 396, 10.1093/mnras/stab1735

    2021 doi

  137. [150]

    Wright , E. L. 2006, , 118, 1711, 10.1086/510102

    2006 doi

  138. [151]

    J., et al

    Yoon , M., Lee , W., Jee , M. J., et al. 2020, , 903, 151, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb76d

    2020 doi

  139. [152]

    R., & Lyskova , N

    Zhang , C., Churazov , E., Forman , W. R., & Lyskova , N. 2019, , 488, 5259, 10.1093/mnras/stz2135

    2019 doi

  140. [153]

    2021 a , , 501, 1038, 10.1093/mnras/staa3718

    Zhang , C., Churazov , E., & Zhuravleva , I. 2021 a , , 501, 1038, 10.1093/mnras/staa3718

    2021 doi

  141. [154]

    S., et al

    Zhang , X., Simionescu , A., Kaastra , J. S., et al. 2020, , 642, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039028

    2020 doi

  142. [155]

    2021 b , , 656, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141540

    Zhang , X., Simionescu , A., Stuardi , C., et al. 2021 b , , 656, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141540

    2021 doi

  143. [156]

    H., Finoguenov , A., Hudson , D

    Zhang , Y.-Y., Reiprich , T. H., Finoguenov , A., Hudson , D. S., & Sarazin , C. L. 2009, , 699, 1178, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1178

    2009 doi

  144. [157]

    E., Simionescu , A., & Werner , N

    Zhu , Z., Kov \'a cs , O. E., Simionescu , A., & Werner , N. 2023, , 678, A122, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347191

    2023 doi

  145. [158]

    2021, , 253, 56, 10.3847/1538-4365/abe5b0

    Zou , H., Gao , J., Xu , X., et al. 2021, , 253, 56, 10.3847/1538-4365/abe5b0

    2021 doi

  146. [159]

    ZuHone , J. A. 2011, , 728, 54, 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/54

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.