Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 72 references

3D MC II: X ray echoes reveal a clumpy molecular cloud in the CMZ

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper uses a decade of Chandra X-ray echo observations to reconstruct the Stone cloud in three dimensions, finding a diffuse background with dense clumps and a line-of-sight extent of only 1.7 pc.

desk verdict X-ray echo tomography of the Stone cloud is a real step forward, but the flat-slice approximation ignores the paraboloid's curvature and the quantitative 3D structure is not as secure as the text suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07669 v2 pith:JN6NQ73K submitted 2025-01-13 astro-ph.GA

Danya Alboslani , Cara Battersby , Samantha Brunker , Maïca Clavel , Daniel Walker , Dani Lipman This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords molecularcloudsGalacticcenterX-rayechoesFeK-alphafluorescence3DcloudstructureSgrA*columndensityCentralZone
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 tries to show that the Stone cloud, a molecular cloud in the Milky Way's Central Molecular Zone about 20 pc from Sgr A* in projection, can be mapped in three dimensions by treating a decade of X-ray echo observations as a time axis. Because the 6.4 keV Fe K-alpha fluorescent line produced by Sgr A*'s past flare is brighter where gas is denser, each yearly Chandra observation illuminates a different line-of-sight slice of the cloud. The reconstructed cloud is a very diffuse background sprinkled with dense clumps, extending only about 1.7 pc along the line of sight while spanning roughly 5 pc on the sky. If this works, it gives astronomers a way to recover the true 3D geometry of galactic-center clouds that kinematic distance methods cannot, because the region is too turbulent.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing relation is the X-ray echo paraboloid, Equation (1): for a cloud at projected distance $d_p$ from Sgr A* and an assumed flare age $t$, the material observed in a given year sits at a line-of-sight distance $z(t)$ set by the echo time delay, so each calendar year maps to one physical slice. The 140 yr flare age, taken as the mean of four literature estimates, fixes the zero-point of this distance scale. The analysis then uses Gaussian-smoothed Fe K-alpha mosaics with two contour thresholds, one tracing the cloud's overall shape and one isolating its densest clumps, and matches dendrogram leaves from H2CO spectral-line data to individual X-ray slices in position-position-velocity space.

What would settle it

A dedicated high-cadence X-ray campaign on the Stone cloud over the next decade, comparing the observed annual advance of the 6.4 keV echo front with the advance predicted by Equation (1) and the 140 yr flare age, would settle the conversion; any mismatch would falsify the assumed flare age or geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the Stone cloud can be mapped along the line of sight by following an X-ray echo from a past Sgr A* flare. Because the 6.4 keV Fe K-alpha fluorescent line is proportional to the column density of illuminated gas, each yearly Chandra observation from 2008 to 2017 lights up a different physical slice of the cloud, and Equation (1) converts the time lag of each year into a distance behind Sgr A*. Combining these slices with SMA 1.3 mm dust continuum and H2CO line data, the authors reconstruct the cloud's 3D structure and conclude that it is a very diffuse background with multiple dense clumps throughout. They estimate the cloud's line-of-sight extent at 1.7 pc, against projected length and width of about 5 pc, and use two molecular clumps not seen in X-rays to set an upper limit of about 5 months on the duration of the illuminating flare.

Load-bearing premise

The adopted 140-year age of Sgr A*'s past X-ray flare, averaged from four published estimates, sets the conversion between observation year and physical distance along the line of sight; if the true age is different, every slice position and the derived 1.7 pc extent shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Stone cloud's true geometry is much thinner along the line of sight, about 1.7 pc, than across the sky, about 5 pc, so the cloud is a flattened, clumpy structure rather than a spheroid.
  • X-ray echo tomography can recover 3D positions in the Central Molecular Zone where kinematic distances fail, so it can be applied to other clouds to build a full 3D map of the region.
  • The failure of X-rays to cover two molecular clumps sets an upper limit of about 5 months on the duration of the Sgr A* flare that illuminated the cloud.
  • If each year of X-ray observation is one slice, continuing this method on other clouds will constrain the timing and frequency of Sgr A*'s past X-ray flares.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A flattened, clumpy geometry for the Stone cloud would mean that projected masses and column densities of CMZ clouds can be poor guides to their true densities, since the densest clumps may be preferentially oriented toward or away from Sgr A*.
  • If X-ray echo tomography can be applied to more CMZ clouds, the resulting line-of-sight distances could test orbital models independently of kinematic assumptions.
  • The roughly 5-month upper limit on the flare duration suggests Sgr A*'s past outburst was brief; similar limits from other clouds would favor accretion and flare models that produce short, luminous events.
  • A direct extension would be to use the same yearly-slice method on a cloud whose distance is independently known, testing how reliably velocity structure can be converted into depth in the turbulent CMZ.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses archival Chandra X-ray observations from 2008 to 2017 to reconstruct the three-dimensional structure of the Stone molecular cloud in the Central Molecular Zone. The method assumes that the Fe Kα fluorescent emission is an X-ray echo from a past Sgr A* flare, and converts the yearly observation epochs into line-of-sight slices using the echo paraboloid with an adopted flare age of 140 yr. The authors compare the X-ray contours with H2CO and SiO line emission from the SMA and with Herschel column density maps, use astrodendro to identify molecular substructures, and derive localized column densities by rescaling X-ray flux to the Herschel peak. The main conclusion is that the Stone cloud consists of a very diffuse background with multiple dense clumps, with a line-of-sight extent of about 1.7 pc.

Significance. If the 3D reconstruction is valid, the paper demonstrates a promising method for mapping CMZ molecular clouds with X-ray echo tomography, a technique that is complementary to kinematic distance methods and that can access structure along the line of sight. The paper is transparent about several limitations, uses archival data in combination with high-resolution molecular line observations, and provides a concrete qualitative result (diffuse background plus dense clumps) that is supported by the agreement between X-ray contours and H2CO/SiO emission. The clumpy structure claim is a useful addition to the understanding of CMZ clouds, and the method has clear potential for application to other clouds. However, the quantitative 3D structure, the localized densities, and the flare-duration constraint rest on assumptions that are not fully validated, so the significance depends on resolving the concerns below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 / Eq. (1) / Figure 5] The flat-slice approximation ignores the curvature of the echo paraboloid. In Section 3.2, each yearly X-ray mosaic is treated as a slice at a single line-of-sight distance, but Equation (1) defines a curved surface on which the line-of-sight coordinate z varies with projected offset p from Sgr A* as z(p) = p^2/(2ct) - ct/2. For the Stone cloud, with projected distance d_p ~ 20 pc and projected size ~5 pc, z varies by about 1.4 pc across a single epoch (using ct = 140 pc), which is comparable to the annual slice spacing (~0.5 pc yr^-1) and to the claimed line-of-sight extent of 1.7 pc. A single year's emission therefore does not originate from a thin slice at one z; it originates from a curved surface spanning roughly one parsec in depth, so the flat-slice stack biases clump positions, the year-to-leaf associations in Section 3.3, the extent estimate, and the localized densities in Section 3.5. Section 4.5 limitation #2 notes that slices are not along our line of sight, but it does not quantify or correct for this curvature. The qualitative 'diffuse background with dense clumps' conclusion may survive, but the quantitative 3D structure is not securely established. I recommend re-deriving the 3D model using the full paraboloid geometry, assigning each observed pixel a line-of-sight coordinate from Equation (1) based on its projected distance from Sgr A*, or at minimum demonstrating that the conclusions are robust to the flat-slice approximation.
  2. [Section 3.5 / Figure 10] The localized column densities are not independent measurements; they are a direct linear rescaling of the X-ray flux by a single normalization factor fit to the Herschel peak under the assumption of proportionality. The paper itself notes that the peak positions of the X-ray and Herschel maps differ by about 30 arcseconds, so the calibration ratio is based on a single pair of peak values whose correspondence is questionable. The resulting density values (~1e23 cm^-2) and the statement in the abstract that the paper estimates column densities for each year's slice are therefore model-dependent estimates, not direct measurements. The caveat should be stated prominently in the conclusions (currently item 3 presents the calculation without this caveat), and the authors should consider validating the rescaling against an independent density tracer or at least presenting the densities with a clear disclaimer that they inherit the proportionality assumption.
  3. [Section 3.1 / Section 4.5] The adopted flare age, 140 yr, is the mean of four literature values with a standard deviation of about 40 yr, but the paper propagates this uncertainty only into the error on the line-of-sight extent, not into the absolute slice positions or into the year-to-leaf associations. Since the third axis in the 3D model is proportional to the assumed age through Equation (1), the absolute distances of all slices shift by several parsecs if the true age is at the extremes of the literature values (108 or 213 yr). I ask the authors to test whether the leaf-year associations and the 1.7 pc extent remain the same for the extreme age values; if they do, state that explicitly, and if they do not, revise the associations or report the sensitivity in Section 4.5.
  4. [Section 4.3 / Section 5] The upper limit on the flare duration of about 5 months relies on the assumption that the two unmatched dendrogram leaves (21 and 25) are spherical clumps with line-of-sight size equal to their projected width. This ad hoc geometric assumption is not tested, and the resulting limit is presented in the conclusions (item 4) as a firm constraint on Sgr A*'s past flare. The authors should either validate this assumption with additional observations or modeling, or clearly label the limit as conditional on the spherical-clump assumption; this limitation is not listed in Section 4.5.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (1)] The typesetting of Equation (1) appears garbled in the text; the mathematical form should be checked and presented clearly, for example as z(p) = p^2/(2ct) - ct/2, with the sign convention explicitly stated.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 contains the entry 'KK' in place of the mean velocity and standard deviation for several leaves; these entries need to be filled in or explained.
  3. [Section 3.2] The text refers to a 'Gaussian smoothing kernel of 4' without stating units; if this is a pixel width or sigma in pixels, that should be specified.
  4. [Section 3.3] The sentence 'The minimum delta value is 3 sigma above the mean value, while the minimum delta parameter is set to 8 sigma' appears to be a typo; the dendrogram parameters (min_value, min_delta, min_npix) should be specified unambiguously.
  5. [Section 4.3] The parameter d_proj is written as -18 pc with a negative sign, inconsistent with the earlier positive definition of d_p in Equation (1); the sign convention should be reconciled.
  6. [Abstract] Given the flat-slice approximation used in the 3D model, the abstract's phrase '3D representation' might more accurately be described as a stacked-slice visualization; consider adjusting the wording to avoid overstating the geometric fidelity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Localized column-density maps are a one-constant rescaling of X-ray flux calibrated to the Herschel peak; the 3D echo reconstruction itself is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.5 ('Calculating Localized Densities'); also summarized in Section 5, item 3.]
    "We then divide the peak flux in the column density by the peak X-ray flux to find a density normalization factor of 1.23 × 10^31 s arcsec^-2. This normalization factor is then multiplied by the X-ray flux in each observation to obtain a localized density for every pixel in each X-ray year."

    By construction, the resulting localized density map is N_H = (N_H,peak / F_X,peak) × F_X, where the single normalization constant is fit to the Herschel peak and the X-ray peak. The maximum of the produced density map therefore reproduces the Herschel peak, and every other pixel is a linear rescaling of the X-ray flux. The per-year column densities cannot independently test or confirm the assumed linear proportionality between X-ray emission and Herschel column density; they are a calibrated transformation of the input X-ray data. The paper itself notes that the X-ray and Herschel peaks differ by about 30 arcsec, further weakening the calibration, but proceeds with the calculation.

full rationale

The central X-ray echo geometry is not circular: Equation (1) is the standard echo paraboloid from external work (Sunyaev & Churazov 1998), the flare age of 140 yr is adopted as the mean of independent literature estimates, and the year-to-distance mapping is a direct application of that geometry. The morphological comparison between X-ray contours, dendrogram leaves, and dust continuum, which supports the 'diffuse background with multiple dense clumps' conclusion, rests on independent spatial matching rather than on any fitted parameter. The one construction-equivalent step is Section 3.5: the per-year 'localized densities' are obtained by fitting a single normalization factor to the Herschel and X-ray peaks and then multiplying every X-ray pixel by that factor. Thus the density map is a rescaling of the X-ray flux, and the maximum value reproduces the Herschel peak by construction; it cannot independently validate the assumed linear proportionality. This is a fitted calibration presented as an estimated density map, so it raises the circularity score to 4. The flat-yearly-slice approximation and the age uncertainty are real limitations and correctness risks, but they are not circularity and are not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central 3D reconstruction rests on four free parameters (flare age, density normalization, contour thresholds, dendrogram thresholds) and several domain assumptions about the echo mechanism and geometry. No new physical entities are introduced. The density normalization is particularly notable: it is a calibration that directly combines the assumed X-ray-column density proportionality with a ratio of peak fluxes, making the resulting density maps a rescaling of X-ray flux rather than an independent measurement.

free parameters (4)
  • Age of Sgr A* X-ray flare event = 140 yr (mean of 108, 118, 146, 213 yr; std 39.72 yr)
    Adopted from prior literature estimates (Clavel et al. 2013; Churazov et al. 2017; Chuard et al. 2018; Marin et al. 2023). Used in Equation (1) to convert each observation year into a line-of-sight distance slice; the 3D model and extent depend directly on it.
  • Density normalization factor = 1.23 x 10^31 s arcsec^-2
    Ratio of peak Herschel column density to peak X-ray flux (Section 3.5). Multiplied by X-ray flux maps to produce localized column densities; assumes linear X-ray flux-column density proportionality despite a 30 arcsec offset between peaks.
  • Gaussian smoothing kernel and contour fluxes = kernel 4 with 3e-9 (Contour A); kernel 3 with 7e-9 photons cm^-2 s^-1 arcsec^-2 (Contour B)
    Chosen by visual inspection of 2010 data (Section 3.2) to trace overall and dense structures; taken from Paper I to allow comparison with the Sticks cloud.
  • Dendrogram thresholds = min value 3 sigma, min delta 8 sigma, min pixels 3 arcsec x 3 arcsec (beam)
    Set in Section 3.3 to identify leaves, branches, and trunks in the H2CO data cube; the exact thresholds affect which clumps are matched to X-ray years.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 6.4 keV Fe K alpha emission is fluorescent line emission from molecular gas illuminated by a past Sgr A* flare, with flux proportional to gas column density.
    Foundational for the echo interpretation; supported by prior works cited in Section 1 (e.g., Sunyaev & Churazov 1998; Ponti et al. 2010; Clavel et al. 2013).
  • domain assumption A single impulsive flare of negligible duration produces the echo, so the paraboloid equation z = (1/2)(ct - d_p^2/(ct)) applies.
    Used in Section 3.1; the paper later allows durations up to about 1.5 yr in Figure 11, which would thicken the slices.
  • domain assumption The distance to the Galactic center is 8.2 kpc.
    Standard distance used to convert angular scales to physical scales; cited from GRAVITY Collaboration et al. 2019.
  • domain assumption Doppler velocities are not reliable distance indicators for this cloud due to turbulence and star formation, so the X-ray time axis is used instead.
    Stated in Sections 3.4 and 4.4; justifies not using kinematic distances in the turbulent CMZ.
  • ad hoc to paper The two unmatched molecular structures (leaves 21 and 25) are spherical clumps with line-of-sight size equal to their projected width.
    Section 4.3 uses this assumption to estimate the upper limit on flare duration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3D MC II: X ray echoes reveal a clumpy molecular cloud in the CMZ." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JN6NQ73K

@misc{pith2026250107669,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3D MC II: X ray echoes reveal a clumpy molecular cloud in the CMZ},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JN6NQ73K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07669}
}
abstract

X-ray observations collected over the last decades have revealed a strongly variable X-ray signal within the Milky Way's Galactic center, interpreted as X-ray echoes from its supermassive black hole, Sgr A*. These echoes are traced by the strong Fe K$\alpha$ fluorescent line at 6.4 keV of which its intensity is proportional to the density of the illuminated molecular gas. Over time, the echo scans through molecular clouds (MCs) in our Galactic center, revealing their 3D structure and highlighting their densest parts. While previous studies have utilized spectral line doppler shifts along with kinematic models to constrain the geometry of the CMZ or to study the structure of individual clouds, these methods have limitations, particularly in the turbulent region of the CMZ. We use archival Chandra X-ray data to construct one of the first 3D representations of one prominent MC, the Stone Cloud, located at (l = 0.068{\deg}, b = -0.076{\deg}) at a distance of ~20pc from Sgr A* in projection. Using the Chandra X-ray Observatory, we followed the X-ray echo in this cloud from 2008 to 2017. We combine this data with 1.3 mm dust continuum emission observed with the Submillimeter Array (SMA) and the Herschel Space Observatory to re-construct the 3D structure of the cloud and estimate the column densities for each year's observed slice. The analysis of the X-ray echoes along with velocities from SMA molecular line data indicate that the structure of the Stone cloud can be described as a very diffuse background with multiple dense clumps throughout.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07669 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: RGB image of the CMZ (red: Hi-GAL column density; blue: Spitzer 8 μm; orange: CMZoom continuum). The white star represents the position of Sgr A* , while the white rectangle shows the position of the Stone MC. The bottom five panels represent the data used for analysis in this paper. From left to right: H2CO integrated map observed by the Submillimeter Array, Submillimeter Array CMZoom continuum, Chandra X-ray … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top-down view of the CMZ with Sgr A* plotted at (0, 0) and parabolas following Equation (1). We consider scenarios where the X-ray flare propagated 108, 118, 146, and 213 yr ago (M. Clavel et al. 2013; E. Churazov et al. 2017; D. Chuard et al. 2018; F. Marin et al. 2023; as of 2008 January 1) with errors (shaded gray area). The circles correspond to the line-of-sight distance of the Stone MC given the different ages… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. X-ray data collected from 2008 to 2017 show the most significant 6.4 keV emission in the vicinity of the cloud. The X-ray emission is plotted in gray scale, smoothed with a Gaussian kernel of 4, with rms values for each year in the lower left corner. Overplotted are Contours A in thick lines and Contours B in thin lines. 5 http://www.dendrograms.org/ 5 The Astronomical Journal, 169:213 (12pp), 2025 April Alboslani e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Using Equation (1) and assuming an X-ray flare event ∼140.6 yr ago (See Section 3.1) where dlos = 17 pc, we are able to create a 3D model of the Stone MC with Contours A. Structures that were less than 15″ wide were omitted from the plot to omit background fluctuations…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Grouping structures with similar velocity ranges reveals an overall trend in the leaves seen in PPV space. Left panel: leaf indices 17, 18, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, and 39. Middle panel: leaf indices 15, 19, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34. Right panel: leaf indices 6, 10, 21, 24, a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dendrogram leaves of the H2CO spectral line show good correspondence with X-ray contours. Structures colored from yellow to purple represent different structures that are correlated, while the structures in gray scale are unmatched with a particular feature in the X-ra…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Integrated X-ray contours highlight the overall structure of the Stone MC. Top row: maximum X-ray brightness contour; bottom row: relative X-ray brightness contour (see Section 3.4 for more details). From left to right: branches and leaves of the H2CO (218.2 GHz) dendr…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spectral lines integrated reveal the 2D shape of the Stone MC from our line of sight. The spectral lines used were H2CO 3(0,3)–2(0,2),H2CO 3(2,2)–2(2,1), and SiO (5–4), plotted in blue, green, and red, respectively. 9 The Astronomical Journal, 169:213 (12pp), 2025 Apri…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Assuming that the peak in X-ray emission correlates linearly with the peak of submillimeter continuum data from C. Battersby et al. (2020), we produce localized densities for each slice of the Stone MC. Contours are drawn at 3 × 10−9 photons cm s arcsec -- - 21 2 from…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Line-of-sight coverage of existing Chandra observations at the projected distance of the Stone cloud, based on their starting date and duration. The parabolas follow Equation (1), assuming a 140 yr old event (as of 2008 January 1) with an infinitely short duration (to…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., et al

    Anastasopoulou, K., Ponti, G., Sormani, M. C., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A55 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip őcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Bania, T. M. 1977, ApJ, 216, 381

    work page 1977

  3. [3]

    2011, A&A, 535, A128

    Battersby, C., Bally, J., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A128

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 35

    Battersby, C., Keto, E., Walker, D., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 35

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    3D MC I: X-ray Tomography Begins to Unravel the 3-D Structure of a Molecular Cloud in our Galaxy's Center

    Brunker, S., Battersby, C., Alboslani, D., et al. 2025, arXiv: 2501.07717

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    L., Barnes, A., et al

    Battersby, C., Walker, D. L., Barnes, A., et al. 2024, arXiv: 2410.17332

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    L., Barnes, A., et al

    Battersby, C., Walker, D. L., Barnes, A., et al. 2024, arXiv: 2410.17334

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Goodman, A. A. 2013, ApJ, 777, 173

    work page 2013

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    E., Stark, A

    Binney, J., Gerhard, O. E., Stark, A. A., Bally, J., & Uchida, K. I. 1991, MNRAS, 252, 210 Butterfield, N. O., Chuss, D. T., Guerra, J. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 130

    1991

  2. [10]

    N., Battersby, C., et al

    Callanan, D., Longmore, S. N., Battersby, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4760

    2023

  3. [11]

    S., Porquet, D., Gillessen, S., & Predehl, P

    Capelli, R., Warwick, R. S., Porquet, D., Gillessen, S., & Predehl, P. 2012, A&A, 545, A35

    2012

  4. [12]

    L., Goldsmith, P

    Chapman, N. L., Goldsmith, P. F., Pineda, J. L., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 21

    2011

  5. [13]

    2018, A&A, 610, A34

    Chuard, D., Terrier, R., Goldwurm, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 610, A34

    2018

  6. [14]

    2024, A&A, 686, A14

    Churazov, E., Khabibullin, I., Barnouin, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A14

    2024

  7. [15]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 45

    Churazov, E., Khabibullin, I., Sunyaev, R., & Ponti, G. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 45

    2017

  8. [16]

    2013, A&A, 558, A32

    Clavel, M., Terrier, R., Goldwurm, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A32

    2013

  9. [17]

    Crocker, R. M. 2012, in IAU Symp. 284, The Spectral Energy Distribution of Galaxies - SED 2011, ed. R. J. Tuffs & C. C. Popescu (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press ), 371

    2012

  10. [18]

    L., & Mauersberger, R

    Dahmen, G., Huttemeister, S., Wilson, T. L., & Mauersberger, R. 1998, A&A, 331, 959

    1998

  11. [19]

    E., Bailer-Jones, C

    Dharmawardena, T. E., Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Fouesneau, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 228 Ferrière, K., Gillard, W., & Jean, P. 2007, A&A, 467, 611

    2023

  12. [20]

    M., Goodman, A., Zucker, C., et al

    Foley, M. M., Goodman, A., Zucker, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 66 Garcìa-Burillo, S., Usero, A., Alonso-Herrero, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A8

    2023

  13. [21]

    2016, A&A, 586, A50 GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al

    Ginsburg, A., Henkel, C., Ao, Y., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A50 GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10 Griffin, M. J., Abergel, A., Abreu, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L3

    2016

  14. [22]

    1983, A&A, 125, 136 Hatchfield, H

    Guesten, R., & Henkel, C. 1983, A&A, 125, 136 Hatchfield, H. P., Battersby, C., Barnes, A. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 14 Hatchfield, H. P., Sormani, M. C., Tress, R. G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 79

    1983

  15. [23]

    D., Barnes, A

    Henshaw, J. D., Barnes, A. T., Battersby, C., et al. 2023, in ASP Conf. Ser. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka et al. (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 83

    2023

  16. [24]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90

    2007

  17. [25]

    M., Schuller, F., & Lis, D

    Immer, K., Menten, K. M., Schuller, F., & Lis, D. C. 2012, A&A, 548, A120

    2012

  18. [26]

    A., & Mandel, E

    Joye, W. A., & Mandel, E. 2003, in ASP Conf. Ser. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E. Payne, R. I. Jedrzejewski, & R. N. Hook (San Francisco, CA: ASP ), 489

    2003

  19. [27]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 6068

    Khabibullin, I., Churazov, E., & Sunyaev, R. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 6068

    2022

  20. [28]

    1996, PASJ, 48, 249

    Koyama, K., Maeda, Y., Sonobe, T., et al. 1996, PASJ, 48, 249

    1996

  21. [29]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 77

    Krieger, N., Ott, J., Beuther, H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 77

    2017

  22. [30]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Dale, J. E., & Longmore, S. N. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1059

    2015

  23. [31]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Longmore, S. N. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2598

    2013

  24. [32]

    L., et al

    Lipman, D., Battersby, C., Walker, D. L., et al. 2024, arXiv: 2410.17321

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    N., Bally, J., Testi, L., et al

    Longmore, S. N., Bally, J., Testi, L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 987

    2013

  26. [34]

    2023, Natur, 619, 41

    Marin, F., Churazov, E., Khabibullin, I., et al. 2023, Natur, 619, 41

    2023

  27. [35]

    A., Whitworth, A

    Marsh, K. A., Whitworth, A. P., & Lomax, O. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 4282

    2015

  28. [36]

    A., Whitworth, A

    Marsh, K. A., Whitworth, A. P., Lomax, O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2730 Martìn-Pintado, J., de Vicente, P., Fuente, A., & Planesas, P. 1997, ApJL, 482, L45 McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Dickey, J. M., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 12

    2017

  29. [37]

    Mills, E. A. C., Ginsburg, A., Immer, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 7

    2018

  30. [38]

    2011, ApJL, 735, L33

    Molinari, S., Bally, J., Noriega-Crespo, A., et al. 2011, ApJL, 735, L33

    2011

  31. [39]

    2016, A&A, 591, A149

    Molinari, S., Schisano, E., Elia, D., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A149

    2016

  32. [40]

    2010, A&A, 518, L100

    Molinari, S., Swinyard, B., Bally, J., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L100

    2010

  33. [41]

    P., Baganoff, F

    Muno, M. P., Baganoff, F. K., Bautz, M. W., et al. 2003, ApJ, 589, 225

    2003

  34. [42]

    P., Bauer, F

    Muno, M. P., Bauer, F. E., Baganoff, F. K., et al. 2009, ApJS, 181, 110

    2009

  35. [43]

    2000, ApJ, 534, 283

    Murakami, H., Koyama, K., Sakano, M., Tsujimoto, M., & Maeda, Y. 2000, ApJ, 534, 283

    2000

  36. [44]

    2008, ApJ, 680, 1174

    Nishiyama, S., Nagata, T., Tamura, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 1174

    2008

  37. [45]

    T., Renbarger, T., et al

    Novak, G., Chuss, D. T., Renbarger, T., et al. 2003, ApJL, 583, L83

    2003

  38. [46]

    1996, ApJ, 460, 334

    Oka, T., Hasegawa, T., Handa, T., Hayashi, M., & Sakamoto, S. 1996, ApJ, 460, 334

    1996

  39. [47]

    1998, ApJS, 118, 455

    Oka, T., Hasegawa, T., Sato, F., Tsuboi, M., & Miyazaki, A. 1998, ApJS, 118, 455

    1998

  40. [48]

    P., Baganoff, F

    Park, S., Muno, M. P., Baganoff, F. K., et al. 2004, ApJ, 603, 548

    2004

  41. [49]

    C., et al

    Pillai, T., Kauffmann, J., Tan, J. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 74

    2015

  42. [50]

    2010, A&A, 518, L2

    Poglitsch, A., Waelkens, C., Geis, N., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L2

    2010

  43. [51]

    2019, Natur, 567, 347

    Ponti, G., Hofmann, F., Churazov, E., et al. 2019, Natur, 567, 347

    2019

  44. [52]

    R., Terrier, R., et al

    Ponti, G., Morris, M. R., Terrier, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 172

    2015

  45. [53]

    2010, ApJ, 714, 732

    Ponti, G., Terrier, R., Goldwurm, A., Belanger, G., & Trap, G. 2010, ApJ, 714, 732

    2010

  46. [54]

    A., Becker, W., et al

    Predehl, P., Sunyaev, R. A., Becker, W., et al. 2020, Natur, 588, 227

    2020

  47. [55]

    R., Longmore, S

    Purcell, C. R., Longmore, S. N., Walsh, A. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1972

    2012

  48. [56]

    M., et al

    Roman-Duval, J., Heyer, M., Brunt, C. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 144 Schödel, R., Najarro, F., Muzic, K., & Eckart, A. 2010, A&A, 511, A18

    2016

  49. [57]

    2008, MNRAS, 386, 1695

    Seymour, N., Dwelly, T., Moss, D., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1695

    2008

  50. [58]

    1984, Natur, 310, 568

    Sofue, Y., & Handa, T. 1984, Natur, 310, 568

    1984

  51. [59]

    C., & Barnes, A

    Sormani, M. C., & Barnes, A. T. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1213

    2019

  52. [60]

    C., Binney, J., & Magorrian, J

    Sormani, M. C., Binney, J., & Magorrian, J. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2421

    2015

  53. [61]

    C., Treß, R

    Sormani, M. C., Treß, R. G., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4663

    2019

  54. [62]

    2024, ApJL, 971, L6

    Su, Y., Zhang, S., Sun, Y., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L6

    2024

  55. [63]

    1998, MNRAS, 297, 1279

    Sunyaev, R., & Churazov, E. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 1279

    1998

  56. [64]

    A., Markevitch, M., & Pavlinsky, M

    Sunyaev, R. A., Markevitch, M., & Pavlinsky, M. 1993, ApJ, 407, 606

    1993

  57. [65]

    2018, A&A, 612, A102

    Terrier, R., Clavel, M., Soldi, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A102

    2018

  58. [66]

    2010, ApJ, 719, 143

    Terrier, R., Ponti, G., Bélanger, G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 143

    2010

  59. [67]

    L., Battersby, C., Lipman, D., et al

    Walker, D. L., Battersby, C., Lipman, D., et al. 2024, arXiv: 2410.17320

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    J., Breen, S

    Walsh, A. J., Breen, S. L., Britton, T., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1764

    2011

  61. [69]

    D., Gotthelf, E

    Wang, Q. D., Gotthelf, E. V., & Lang, C. C. 2002, Natur, 415, 148

    2002

  62. [70]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 3

    Zhang, S., Zhu, Z., Li, H., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 3

    2020

  63. [71]

    Zhu, Z., Li, Z., & Morris, M. R. 2018, ApJS, 235, 26

    2018

  64. [72]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 35 7 http://www.dendrograms.org/ 12 The Astronomical Journal, 169:213 (12pp), 2025 April Alboslani et al

    Zucker, C., Goodman, A., Alves, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 35 7 http://www.dendrograms.org/ 12 The Astronomical Journal, 169:213 (12pp), 2025 April Alboslani et al

    2021

Pith tools

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