Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 39 references

AMUSE-Antlia. II. Intracluster X-ray Population in the Antlia Cluster

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Antlia cluster contains an intracluster X-ray population, with 37.6 excess sources at 4.2 sigma.

desk verdict A careful catalog and a plausible but fragile ICX excess in Antlia; the z=0.42 background cluster is the key untested contaminant. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09734 v1 pith:7TY6UOTR submitted 2025-06-11 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Zhensong Hu , Yuanyuan Su , Zhiyuan Li , Meicun Hou , Ralph P. Kraft , Kelley M. Hess , Hao Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords intraclusterX-raypopulationAntliaclusterChandrasourcecataloglow-massbinariescosmicbackgroundgalaxyclustersexcessglobularLMXBs
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 the Antlia cluster hosts an intracluster X-ray population: X-ray point sources not bound to any member galaxy. Using Chandra observations of the central ~200 kpc, the authors build a catalog of 202 sources and find 37.6 more sources than expected from stellar low-mass X-ray binaries plus the cosmic X-ray background, at 4.2 sigma significance beyond three effective radii of the two brightest cluster galaxies. If correct, this adds a third nearby cluster to Virgo and Fornax with such a population, suggesting it may be a common feature of galaxy clusters. The paper also argues that the excess cannot be dominated by LMXBs tied to intracluster light, and estimates that globular-cluster LMXBs and supernova-kicked LMXBs each contribute about 30%.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the stacked radial surface-density profile of Chandra-detected point sources: sources are binned in annuli after removing AGNs, foreground stars, and sources within three effective radii of satellite galaxies, then the expected counts from field LMXBs (derived from the stellar light distribution and the LMXB luminosity function) and from the cosmic X-ray background (from the Kim et al. 2007 logN-logS relation) are subtracted. The significance is computed from the Poisson probability of detecting the observed number given the predicted background, converted to a sigma value. The source catalog itself is produced with wavelet detection, PSF-based position refinement, binomial no-source filtering, and multi-band cross-matching.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier is to recompute the stacked profile after masking the z=0.42 background cluster in the NGC 3268 field and renormalizing the cosmic X-ray background using a source-free control annulus; if the excess drops below roughly 3 sigma or the 37.6 sources largely disappear, the intracluster population claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that beyond 3 times the mean effective radius of the two BCGs, spanning radii from about 20 kpc to 102 kpc, the stacked X-ray source profile shows 37.6 excess sources over the predicted field-LMXB plus cosmic X-ray background contribution, with a Poisson significance of 4.2 sigma. The authors interpret this as evidence for a genuine intracluster X-ray population not associated with the bulk stellar component. They also find that the two fields containing a BCG hold more excess sources than the field without one, implying a potential connection with BCGs, and they estimate that the excess is comparable to a Virgo-scaled expectation but about one-third of the Fornax-scaled expectation.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the expected background from field LMXBs and the cosmic X-ray background being accurately known; if either is underestimated, the 37.6 excess sources and 4.2 sigma significance shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, Antlia becomes the third nearby cluster with a detected intracluster X-ray population, strengthening the case that such populations are a normal feature of cluster environments.
  • The excess is concentrated in the two BCG fields, suggesting that at least part of the population is linked to BCG stellar halos or stripped material rather than being uniformly distributed.
  • The origin estimates imply that most excess sources are old X-ray binaries that have left their birth sites, with globular-cluster LMXBs and supernova-kicked LMXBs each contributing roughly 30% of the total.
  • Scaling from Virgo predicts about 33 excess sources, close to the 37.6 found, indicating that the population density is similar across clusters once footprint and sensitivity are corrected.
  • A deeper survey that reaches below the current 2e38 erg/s luminosity limit should reveal more of the population and help discriminate between the proposed origin channels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The known z=0.42 background cluster in the NGC 3268 field is not masked or modeled; if its X-ray sources are counted in the excess, the true intracluster population could be smaller than 37.6, and a reanalysis excluding that region would settle this.
  • If intracluster X-ray sources are genuinely unbound LMXBs, their radial distribution should trace the cluster's dark-matter halo or the intracluster light rather than galaxy starlight; comparing the Antlia excess profile with a deep ICL map would test this directly.
  • A testable extension is to stack archival X-ray data for many clusters, weighting by cluster mass or ICL mass; if the population is universal, the excess should scale with those quantities and the implied source density should match Fornax and Virgo.
  • The 9.3 excess sources in the BCG-free southeast field, if real, favors a cluster-wide origin rather than purely BCG-halo sources, and suggests the population extends beyond the region mapped here.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Chandra ACIS-I survey of the inner ~200 kpc of the Antlia cluster, producing a catalog of 202 X-ray point sources with fluxes, hardness ratios, and counterparts. After removing foreground stars, AGNs, and sources within three effective radii of satellite galaxies, the authors model the expected field-LMXB and cosmic X-ray background (CXB) counts and report an excess of 37.6 sources with 4.2 sigma significance beyond three times the mean effective radius of the two BCGs. They interpret this excess as a possible intracluster X-ray population, compare it with Virgo and Fornax, and discuss contributions from ICL-LMXBs, GC-LMXBs, and SN-kicked LMXBs.

Significance. If the excess is real, Antlia would become the third nearby cluster with evidence for an intracluster X-ray population, strengthening the case that such populations are common. The paper provides a useful, machine-readable X-ray source catalog and follows standard, largely explicit procedures for source detection, sensitivity mapping, and counterpart matching. The comparison with Virgo and Fornax is a valuable step, and the discussion of possible origins is reasonable. The central claim, however, depends entirely on the accuracy of the background subtraction, and the currently unmasked known background cluster is a serious unresolved contaminant.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 1, Table 2 (excess table)] The known z=0.42 background cluster west of NGC 3268, labelled in Figure 1, lies within the NGC 3268 footprint used for the excess analysis. The expected background N_CXB is computed from the mean Kim et al. (2007) logN-logS relation, which does not include localized overdensities, whereas X-ray point sources from the members and AGNs of that background cluster would enter N_obs. The paper never states that this region is masked or that its source contribution is modeled. Since the NGC 3268 field supplies 12.2 of the 37.6 excess sources, masking or explicitly modeling this cluster could materially reduce the quoted excess. The authors should exclude or model this region and recompute the excess and significance; until this is done, the 4.2 sigma result should be treated as an upper limit.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (1), cosmic-variance paragraph and Table 2 (excess table)] The cosmic-variance test only rescales the mean CXB count by ±1 sigma_c and already lowers the significance from 4.2 to 3.1 sigma. This does not address the known, spatially localized background cluster, which is a more relevant contaminant than a smooth cosmic-variance fluctuation. Moreover, the quoted sigma_c=0.15 is derived from a single power-law correlation function extrapolated from an XMM-Newton survey; the uncertainty in the CXB normalization and slope is not propagated into the significance calculation. The authors should either incorporate a realistic systematic uncertainty for the CXB expectation or clearly state that the quoted significance is an upper limit that ignores this localized contamination.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 and Section 4 (Table numbering)] Table 2 is used for both the source catalog in Section 3 and the excess-source summary in Section 4; the latter should be renumbered (e.g., Table 3) to avoid ambiguity in the text.
  2. [Section 4, Figure 4 caption] The caption says bins contain a minimum of 6 sources (or 18 for the stacked panel), but the significance panel appears to be cumulative from the exclusion radius outward; please clarify whether the plotted significance is for cumulative counts or for each bin.
  3. [Section 5.2.1] The statement that the southeast field has 9.3 excess sources, used as evidence that ICL-LMXBs do not dominate, is based on a 2.3 sigma excess in that field alone; this should be phrased as weak evidence rather than a strong constraint.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Antlia excess is computed from independent external background models.

full rationale

The central excess is defined as N_excess = N_obs - N_LMXB - N_CXB (Table 2), with N_LMXB built from the Dirsch et al. (2003) stellar light profile plus the Zhang et al. (2012) luminosity function, and N_CXB from the Kim et al. (2007) logN-logS relation. Neither background component is fitted to the Antlia excess, and no equation in the paper reduces the excess to an input parameter. The Virgo and Fornax comparisons do cite Hou et al. (2017) and Jin et al. (2019), which share authors with the present work, but those are separate published analyses of independent Chandra data and they are not used to derive the Antlia excess itself. The known z=0.42 background cluster in the NGC 3268 field is a possible systematic contamination affecting the significance, but that is a robustness concern, not a circular reduction. No self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation-chain circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external calibrations and methodological thresholds, not on a new derivation. The dominant burden is whether the CXB and field-LMXB models apply to Antlia: the CXB alone makes up most of the expected background. The listed free parameters are hand-chosen analysis inputs and literature fractions, and the axioms are the background-model assumptions that the excess must survive.

free parameters (3)
  • Fiducial spectrum for flux conversion = photon index 1.7, N_H = 10^21 cm^-2
    Used to convert photon counts to energy fluxes and to set the L about 2e38 erg/s detection limit. The N_H value is deliberately above the Galactic foreground absorption, so the luminosity limits and CXB comparison shift if this assumption is wrong.
  • BCG exclusion threshold = three times the WISE W1 effective radius, mean 1.95 arcmin (20 kpc)
    The excess is defined only outside this boundary. The threshold is based on WISE W1 isophotal radii defined at 22 mag arcsec^-2, and changing it changes both the predicted LMXB count and the number of included observed sources.
  • Globular cluster LMXB fraction = 4 to 5 percent of GCs harbor an LMXB
    Used in Section 5.2.2 to estimate that GC-LMXBs contribute about 30 percent of the excess. The fraction is taken from literature on other elliptical galaxies, not measured in Antlia.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption wavdetect plus sensitivity-map correction yields a complete and unbiased point-source catalog
    The entire excess calculation depends on source counts corrected for incompleteness using sensitivity maps based on Kashyap et al. (2010). Diffuse emission and PSF variation can still bias counts.
  • domain assumption The field-LMXB population follows the optical stellar light profile and the Zhang et al. (2012) luminosity function
    Used to predict only 3.5 LMXB counts in the excess region. If the stellar light profile or the XLF normalization is wrong, the expected baseline shifts.
  • domain assumption The cosmic X-ray background in the Antlia fields follows the Kim et al. (2007) logN-logS relation with the Ebrero et al. (2009) correlation length
    CXB contributes 85.9 of the expected 89.4 background counts, so the excess is essentially a residual above the CXB model. Underestimation of the CXB is the main alternative explanation to a real intracluster population.
  • domain assumption The WISE W1 22 mag arcsec^-2 isophote defines the BCG edge, so sources beyond 3Re are not part of the stellar component
    If the BCG stellar halos extend beyond 3Re, many of the excess sources are stellar halo LMXBs rather than gravitationally unbound ICX. The paper discusses this in Section 5.2.1 but does not quantify it.
  • domain assumption Poisson counting with fixed expected background is a sufficient significance statistic
    The significance formula in Section 4 ignores uncertainty in the expected background. This is the main reason the reported sigma is likely optimistic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AMUSE-Antlia. II. Intracluster X-ray Population in the Antlia Cluster." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7TY6UOTR

@misc{pith2026250609734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AMUSE-Antlia. II. Intracluster X-ray Population in the Antlia Cluster},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7TY6UOTR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09734}
}
abstract

We conduct a systematic survey of X-ray sources in the inner ($r\sim200$ kpc) region of the Antlia cluster based on \Chandra observations, down to a source detection limit of $ L(0.5\text{--}8\ \mathrm{keV})\sim4.2\times10^{-7}\ \mathrm{ph\ cm^{-2}\ s^{-1}}$ ($2\times10^{38}\ \mathrm{erg\ s^{-1}}$). We present an X-ray source catalog with 202 sources and provide their coordinates, multi-band flux information and hardness ratios. We find a statistically significant excess at a significance level of $4.2\sigma$ with 37.6 excess sources beyond three times the mean effective radius of the two BCGs. This implies that these excess sources could be a genuine intracluster X-ray population that is not associated with the bulk stellar component. Also, the increased number of excess sources in the fields containing a BCG implies a potential connection between the excess sources and BCGs. The discovery of these sources in the Antlia cluster, together with previous research of similar findings in other two nearby clusters, Virgo and Fornax, indicates that the intracluster X-ray population could be universal in nearby galaxy clusters. Furthermore, we discuss the candidate origins of the excess sources, including low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) associated with intracluster light (ICL-LMXBs), LMXBs in globular clusters (GC-LMXBs) and supernova-kicked LMXBs (SN-kicked LMXBs). We estimate the contribution of ICL-LMXBs, which should include the LMXBs relating with the stellar halo surrounding BCGs, are unlikely to dominate the intracluster X-ray population in Antlia. Meanwhile, GC-LMXBs and SN-kicked LMXBs, each component could contribute $\sim30\%$ to the total excess sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09734 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The mosaic 0.5 − 8 keV counts image of the Antlia cluster, smoothed by a 2 pixel Gaussian kernel. The centers of NGC 3268 and NGC 3258 are marked by a red “×” and a blue “⋆”, respectively. Other member galaxies are marked by a brown “+”. The small black circles indicate the X-ray point sources, and their radii are twice the 90% ECR. The background cluster at redshift z = 0.42 ± 0.01 (e.g. Gargiulo et al. 2018) westw… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 0.5 − 8 keV flux vs. hardness ratio. The black circles, yellow stars, blue diamonds and red triangles represent identified AGNs, foreground stars, X-ray sources with a radio counterpart and other X-ray sources, respec￾tively. For those eight AGNs with a radio counterpart, they are only denoted as a black circle. The error bars, from top to bottom, denote the median errors of sources with a flux of S0.5−8 ⩾ 10−4 ph c… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Upper left panel: Surface number density distribution of the F-band X-ray point sources in the NGC 3268 field, excluding foreground stars, AGNs, and sources closer than 3 times the effective radius to satellite member galaxies. These point sources are adaptively binned to a minimum of 6 sources per bin (except for the last bin). The zero-point of the horizontal axis represents the center of NGC 3268. The orange dott… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The logN–logS relation of the sources in the range of 2′ < R < 10′ , where the ICX is detected. The first three bins each has 3 sources, while the others each has 10 sources except the last one. The red dashed line is the empirical logN–logS model of CXB sources, and t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Angelini, L., Loewenstein, M., & Mushotzky, R. F. 2001, ApJL, 557, L35, doi: 10.1086/323026

    doi:10.1086/323026 2001

  2. [2]

    2021, astropy/photutils: 1.3.0, 1.3.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5796924

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2021, astropy/photutils: 1.3.0, 1.3.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5796924

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.5796924 2021

  3. [3]

    1995, MNRAS, 274, 461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461 Calder´ on, J

    Brandt, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461 Calder´ on, J. P., Bassino, L. P., Cellone, S. A., G´ omez, M., & Caso, J. P. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1791, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2043

    doi:10.1093/mnras/274.2.461 1995

  4. [4]

    P., Bassino, L

    Caso, J. P., Bassino, L. P., & G´ omez, M. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3227, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1393

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1393 2017

  5. [5]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 60, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9030060

    Contini, E. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 60, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9030060

    doi:10.3390/galaxies9030060 2021

  6. [6]

    Dirsch, B., Richtler, T., & Bassino, L. P. 2003, A&A, 408, 929, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031027

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031027 2003

  7. [7]

    Watson, M. G. 2009, A&A, 500, 749, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911670

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911670 2009

  8. [8]

    2006, ARA&A, 44, 323, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092519

    Fabbiano, G. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 323, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092519

    arXiv 2006

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    C., & Sandage, A

    Ferguson, H. C., & Sandage, A. 1990, AJ, 100, 1, doi: 10.1086/115486

    1990 doi

  2. [10]

    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, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.11...

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    Bassino, L. P. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 240, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1401

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    2004, MNRAS, 349, 146, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07473.x

    Gilfanov, M. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 146, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07473.x

    2004

  5. [13]

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

    Gonzalez, A. H., Zaritsky, D., & Zabludoff, A. I. 2007, ApJ, 666, 147, doi: 10.1086/519729

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R

    Grimm, H. J., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 793, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06224.x

    2003

  7. [15]

    S., van den Berg, M., Grindlay, J

    Hong, J. S., van den Berg, M., Grindlay, J. E., & Laycock, S. 2009, ApJ, 706, 223, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/223

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    W., & Liu, C

    Hou, M., Li, Z., Peng, E. W., & Liu, C. 2017, ApJ, 846, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8635 12Zhensong Hu

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad429d

    Hu, Z., Hou, M., & Li, Z. 2024, ApJ, 968, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad429d

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, ApJ, 956, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf292

    Hu, Z., Su, Y., Li, Z., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf292

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 42, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/42

    Iodice, E., Capaccioli, M., Grado, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 42, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/42

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Harding, P., et al

    Janowiecki, S., Mihos, J. C., Harding, P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 972, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/972

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    H., Cluver, M

    Jarrett, T. H., Cluver, M. E., Brown, M. J. I., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab521a

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab064f

    Jin, X., Hou, M., Zhu, Z., & Li, Z. 2019, ApJ, 876, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab064f

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    L., van Dyk, D

    Kashyap, V. L., van Dyk, D. A., Connors, A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 900, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/900

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 846, doi: 10.1086/422210

    Kim, D.-W., & Fabbiano, G. 2004, ApJ, 611, 846, doi: 10.1086/422210

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    2006, ApJ, 647, 276, doi: 10.1086/505261

    Kim, E., Kim, D.-W., Fabbiano, G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 276, doi: 10.1086/505261

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Kim, D.-W., et al

    Kim, M., Wilkes, B. J., Kim, D.-W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 659, 29, doi: 10.1086/511630

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    J., & Zepf, S

    Kundu, A., Maccarone, T. J., & Zepf, S. E. 2002, ApJL, 574, L5, doi: 10.1086/342353

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    Lahav, O., & Saslaw, W. C. 1992, ApJ, 396, 430, doi: 10.1086/171730

    1992 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Jones, C., et al

    Li, Z., Spitler, L. R., Jones, C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1368, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1368

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    R., et al

    Luan, L., Jones, C., Forman, W. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca94

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J

    Mihos, J. C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/16

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 308, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01616-z

    Montes, M. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 308, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01616-z

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, The large-scale structure of the universe

    1980

  26. [34]

    C., Wu, K., Trimble, V., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Wu, K., Trimble, V., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, 1026, doi: 10.1086/510776

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Wik, D

    Wong, K.-W., Irwin, J. A., Wik, D. R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 49, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/49

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    2012, A&A, 546, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219015 —

    Zhang, Z., Gilfanov, M., & Bogd´ an,´A. 2012, A&A, 546, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219015 —. 2013, A&A, 556, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220685

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    Zhu, Z., Li, Z., & Morris, M. R. 2018, ApJS, 235, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab14f

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2008, MNRAS, 387, 121, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12974.x

    Zuo, Z.-Y., Li, X.-D., & Liu, X.-W. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 121, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12974.x

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.