Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Discovery of Diffuse Radio Emission in a Massive z=1.709 Cool Core Cluster: A Candidate Radio Mini-Halo

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A candidate radio mini-halo in the z=1.709 cluster SpARCS1049+56 doubles the record redshift for such sources.

desk verdict A genuinely new candidate record-redshift mini-halo, carefully argued but not yet cleanly separated from an aged AGN fossil; the physical interpretation is illustrative, not measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19901 v1 pith:PRCCM6ZX submitted 2025-06-24 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo , Roland Timmerman , Christoph Pfrommer , Erik Osinga , Larissa Tevlin , Tracy M. A. Webb , Natalia Martorella , Xiaoyuan Zhang
show 5 more authors
Reinout van Weeren Hyunseop Choi Gabriella Di Gennaro Marie-Lou Gendron-Marsolais Carter Rhea
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords radiomini-halogalaxyclustershighredshiftintraclustermediumsynchrotronemissioncosmicmagneticfieldsLOFARcool-core
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 reports the discovery of a candidate radio mini-halo in the galaxy cluster SpARCS1049+56 at redshift z=1.709, making it the most distant such diffuse radio source known to date. Using deep LOFAR observations at 120–168 MHz, the authors show that a ~350 kpc radio glow centred on the cluster's X-ray emission is not produced by an unresolved active galactic nucleus or by star-forming galaxies. If the identification holds, the existence of this source at an epoch when the Universe was about 3.8 billion years old challenges the expectation that inverse Compton losses against the cosmic microwave background should make cluster-scale synchrotron emission very faint. The implied picture is that intracluster magnetic fields were already amplified to roughly 10 microgauss and that relativistic particles were present during early cluster formation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the candidate radio mini-halo in SpARCS1049+56 (component S1): a steep-spectrum, roughly 350 kpc diffuse synchrotron source expected to trace the cluster's cool-core region. The argument that it is diffuse rather than compact is carried by the non-detection of a point source in a 0.39 arcsec LOFAR International image and in deep JVLA imaging, combined with a size argument: the bright 0.54 mJy component in the 6-arcsec image must be spread over at least three International beams to be resolved out. To model the emission, the paper applies a hadronic scheme in which a spatially diffusing cosmic-ray proton population produces secondary electrons whose synchrotron radiation is computed with a magnetic field profile $B(r)=B_0(n_e/n_0)^{1/3}$ with $B_0=15\,\mu$G, and a clumping factor $C_2=16$ that partially compensates for cosmological surface-brightness dimming.

What would settle it

A detection of compact or intermediate-scale emission in new high-resolution observations at a different frequency (for example JVLA P-band at 350 MHz or LOFAR Low Band Antenna) that accounts for the missing 0.3–6 arcsec component would falsify the diffuse mini-halo interpretation, as would a measured spectral index inconsistent with the mini-halo population (about $\alpha=-1.15$).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SpARCS1049+56 hosts a radio mini-halo at z=1.709, doubling the redshift of previously known mini-halos. The emission is diffuse, spans about 350 kpc, coincides with the X-ray-emitting intracluster medium, and has a 150 MHz power of $P_{\rm 150\,MHz}=49.8^{+14.7}_{-11.7}\times10^{24}\,{\rm W\,Hz^{-1}}$, placing it within the scatter of the local mini-halo radio power versus X-ray luminosity relation. Because a 0.39-arcsec-resolution LOFAR image shows no compact counterpart at the cluster position, the authors rule out an unresolved AGN as the origin; they also argue against a star-forming origin by comparing the morphology with HST and Spitzer 24-micron imaging. The paper further argues that, under a hadronic model in which cosmic-ray protons injected by an early central engine diffuse outward over roughly 3 Gyr, the observed brightness requires a cosmic-ray-to-thermal energy ratio of about 0.07 within 200 kpc and magnetic fields near 10 microgauss, implying efficient magnetic amplification before z~2.

Load-bearing premise

The classification rests on assuming that no unresolved or intermediate-scale (about 0.3 to 6 arcsec) AGN fossil emission is present; the authors note that LOFAR data alone cannot exclude aged electrons that diffused from past AGN activity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If confirmed, SpARCS1049+56 becomes the most distant radio mini-halo known, doubling the previous redshift record and showing that mini-halos can form within roughly 3.8 Gyr of cosmic time.
  • The detection implies that intracluster magnetic fields of order 10 microgauss existed in a ~1 Mpc^3 volume before z~2, constraining dynamo and amplification models.
  • The source's radio power sits on the local mini-halo $P_{1.4\,{\rm GHz}}$–$L_X$ relation, suggesting that the mini-halo population is not strongly redshift-evolving in power.
  • It provides a new test of hadronic versus turbulent re-acceleration models; the hadronic fit requires a cosmic-ray-to-thermal ratio of 0.07 within 200 kpc with an AGN-injected CR population diffusing for ~3 Gyr.
  • Next-generation low-frequency surveys should find more such systems, extending mini-halo studies into the epoch of cluster formation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same relation holds beyond the current sample, radio-selected diffuse halos could serve as a gauge of magnetic field amplification in protoclusters, and the non-detection rate at z>1 could constrain the redshift at which cluster dynamos saturate.
  • A single frequency cannot yet distinguish the hadronic from the re-acceleration scenario; a spectral index measurement at a second frequency would be a discriminating test, since the models make different predictions for the radial profile and spectral curvature.
  • The candidate's coincidence with a cluster that appears to lack recent AGN feedback suggests that if confirmed, mini-halos do not require ongoing AGN activity, strengthening the case that seed electrons or protons were deposited much earlier.
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. This paper reports the discovery of candidate diffuse radio emission in the z=1.709 cool-core cluster SpARCS1049+56 using 120–168 MHz LOFAR observations. The authors re-analyze LoTSS Deep Fields data at 9" and 6" resolutions, detect an extended ~350 kpc component (S1) and a ~75–100 kpc starburst-associated component (S2), and reprocess archival International LOFAR data to obtain a 0.39"×0.22" image. No compact source is detected at the position of S1 in the high-resolution image, and the authors use archival JVLA and HST imaging to exclude foreground radio galaxies and star-forming cluster members. They classify S1 as a candidate radio mini-halo, the most distant known, with S144=2.29 mJy, P150=49.8×10^24 W/Hz, and P1.4=3.82×10^24 W/Hz assuming a typical mini-halo spectral index alpha=-1.15. A hadronic diffusion model with B0=15 uG, alpha_B=1/3, kappa=5×10^30 cm^2/s, and clumping factor C2=16 can reproduce the radial profile and implies a CR-to-thermal energy ratio of 0.07 within 200 kpc. The authors discuss the main limitations: single-frequency data, no measured spectral index, and a possible AGN fossil plasma interpretation.

Significance. If the candidate classification holds, this would be the first radio mini-halo at z>1, roughly doubling the redshift reach of such systems and demonstrating that intracluster magnetic fields of order 10 uG and relativistic particle populations existed in cluster cores by z~1.7, with direct consequences for models of inverse Compton losses, magnetic dynamo amplification, and hadronic reacceleration. The paper's strengths are its careful use of multi-resolution LOFAR and International LOFAR data, the explicit masking and exclusion of foreground/confusing sources using HST and JVLA, the transparent acknowledgment of the fossil-plasma degeneracy in §3.1 and §4.1, and a quantitative modelling framework with stated parameters. However, the astrophysical implications are conditional on the mini-halo identification, which is not yet secured, and the hadronic-model parameters are degenerate and partly normalized to the observed flux. The paper is honest about these caveats, but the abstract and concluding statements currently go beyond what the data alone establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §4.1] The classification of S1 as a radio mini-halo rather than an aged AGN fossil plasma is not yet settled, and all physical conclusions in §4.3 depend on it. The 0.39" LOFAR International image rules out a single compact source above roughly 3σ=0.18 mJy, but S1 has an integrated flux of 2.29 mJy and could consist of many sub-threshold point sources or a smooth fossil lobe whose surface brightness (~1.7 uJy/arcsec^2) is far below both the 61 uJy/beam LOFAR International sensitivity and the ~2 uJy/beam sensitivity of the JVLA A-configuration image. The paper acknowledges this in §3.1 and §4.1, but the abstract's statement that the emission 'originates from diffuse cluster-associated processes rather than unresolved AGN or star-forming galaxies' is stronger than the data support; a fossil-plasma origin would remove the mini-halo record and the derived magnetic-field and CR-energy implications. I recommend softening the abstract and conclusions and adding a quantitative statement of the surface-brightness limits that the existing images place on any putative smooth fossil component.
  2. [§4.2 and Fig. 4] The comparison with the low-redshift mini-halo population is partly circular because the source's 1.4 GHz power is not measured but derived from S144=2.29 mJy by assuming alpha=-1.15±0.15, the same spectral index typical of the comparison mini-halos. A steeper or flatter spectrum would shift the point significantly in Fig. 4, so the claimed consistency with the P1.4-L_X relation is not an independent test of the mini-halo nature. The authors should present the observed-frame 144 MHz power separately, discuss the full range of P1.4 allowed by the spectral-index uncertainty, and avoid phrasing that implies the comparison validates the classification.
  3. [§4.3 and Appendix C] The hadronic diffusion model that yields X_CR/X_th=0.07 and B~10 uG is not uniquely constrained by the data. The parameters B0=15 uG, alpha_B=1/3, kappa=5×10^30 cm^2/s, Ep=9×10^61 erg, and C2=16 are adopted and normalized to reproduce the observed flux and profile; there is no independent measurement of the magnetic field or CR energy, and the clumping factor is taken from one cosmological simulation similar in mass. The statement in the abstract that the discovery 'indicates the presence of strong magnetic fields... or active hadronic processes that require a cosmic ray-to-thermal energy ratio of 0.07' overstates what is demonstrated. The model should be described as an illustrative scenario consistent with the data, with a discussion of parameter degeneracies and the impact of the C2 and alpha_B assumptions on the quoted CR-to-thermal ratio.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'doubles the redshift of previously known mini-halos' should be qualified as 'would double' or 'candidate', since the mini-halo classification is not yet confirmed.
  2. [§3.1 and footnote 1] The sentence 'both the deep JVLA L-band image and the LOFAR uv-tapered data detect no such emission, further supporting the diffuse nature' is potentially misleading because the JVLA A-configuration image lacks short spacings and cannot detect a smooth component at the ~6" scale; the footnote already explains this, and the main text should be aligned with it.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] Typo: 'top-middke' should be 'top-middle'.
  4. [§4.2] It is unclear why a circular Gaussian was chosen for the Halo-FDCA fit when the source is described as elongated; the choice should be justified or a systematic uncertainty on the flux from the profile shape should be included.
  5. [Table 1] The beam position angle (BPA) column is not defined in the table caption; please define it or remove the column.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Hadronic-model interpretation is normalized to the observed radio profile, so the inferred magnetic-field strength and CR-to-thermal ratio are partly imposed by the adopted inputs; the radio detection itself is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3 (hadronic model paragraph; Fig. 3, panel b)]
    "The relatively flat observed synchrotron profile (Fig. 3, panel b) requires a weak dependence of the magnetic field strength on gas density so that we adopt B(r)=B0(ne/n0)αB, where B0=15 μG, αB=1/3 ... Those CR protons generate secondary electrons via hadronic reactions that emit radio synchrotron emission at the observed level (see bottom panel of Fig. 3, which reproduces the observed data well ...). The integrated CR-to-thermal energy ratio amounts to 0.07 within 200 kpc"

    The model curve compared with the data is produced after the magnetic profile and normalization are adopted in response to the observed profile: B0=15 μG is chosen together with Ep=9e61 erg, κ=5e30 cm2/s, and t≈3 Gyr. Since the synchrotron emissivity scales with C_p B^{1+αν}, the amplitude that converts the assumed Ep into flux is set by B0, so the claimed agreement in Fig. 3b is a normalization condition rather than an independent test. The subsequent implications (B≈10 μG in a Mpc^3 volume and a CR-to-thermal ratio of 0.07) are functions of these adopted inputs: the magnetic-field claim essentially restates the assumed B0, and the ratio is Ep divided by the thermal energy after Ep is scaled to match the observed flux. The profile agreement is therefore partly by construction.

  2. self citation load bearing [Appendix C.2; also Section 4.3]
    "We adopt a conservative choice for these spatial correlations that are manifested in the hadronic clumping factor C2 = ⟨n2⟩/⟨n⟩2 = 16, which is calculated from our cosmological simulation of a cluster that is similar in mass to SpARCS1049+56 at z=1.7 (see Appendix C.2 for more detail)."

    C2=16 is the factor invoked to partially compensate the (1+z)^{3−α}≈62.5 redshift dimming and to keep the required CR energy Ep at the moderate value 9e61 erg. The factor is imported from Tevlin et al. (2024), whose authorship overlaps with this paper (including Tevlin and Pfrommer), and it is presented here without external validation. Since, within the model, matching the observed flux requires Ep roughly proportional to 1/C2, a clumping factor of unity would raise the required CR energy by about an order of magnitude and change the headline CR-to-thermal ratio from 0.07 to order unity. Thus the 0.07 constraint rests on a load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The radio detection and the LOFAR International high-resolution non-detection that rules out a single compact AGN are independent, observationally grounded results and are not circular. The circularity is confined to the hadronic-model interpretation in Section 4.3: the magnetic profile B0=15 μG is adopted because the observed profile requires it, and Ep, κ, t, and C2 are chosen so that the model reproduces the observed data well; the headline inferences (B≈10 μG and CR-to-thermal ratio 0.07) are functions of those adopted values rather than independent predictions. The clumping factor C2=16, imported from the authors' own Tevlin et al. (2024) simulation, is load-bearing because it partially offsets the (1+z)^{3−α}≈62.5 dimming and keeps the required Ep moderate. The AGN-fossil ambiguity flagged in Sections 3.1 and 4.1 is an observational limitation and a correctness risk, not a circular step, and it does not by itself raise the score. Overall, partial circularity: the discovery is independent, but the physical implications are partly imposed by construction.

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

The central observational detection is independent, but the physical interpretation depends on several tuned parameters and on a clumping factor from a simulation produced by the same group. The model is normalized to the observed radio emission, so the derived CR-to-thermal ratio and magnetic field strength are not independent predictions.

free parameters (6)
  • B0 = 15 microgauss = 15 microgauss
    Normalization of the magnetic field profile B(r) = B0 (n_e/n0)^(1/3), adopted in Section 4.3 so that the predicted hadronic radio profile matches the observed flat azimuthally averaged profile.
  • alpha_B = 1/3 = 1/3
    Exponent in the magnetic field scaling with gas density. Chosen to produce a flat radio profile; Section 4.3 notes that isotropic compression alpha_B=2/3 would make the profile too peaked.
  • CR diffusion coefficient kappa = 5 x 10^30 cm2/s
    Isotropic diffusion coefficient selected so that cosmic rays injected around z=6 diffuse over 3 Gyr and reach the edges of the candidate mini-halo at z=1.709; value is from literature but effectively chosen for the model.
  • CR proton energy Ep = 9 x 10^61 erg
    Total injected CR energy, assumed to be 5% of the rest mass of a 10^9 M_sun SMBH. Normalized so that the hadronic model reproduces the observed radio luminosity.
  • Hadronic clumping factor C2 = 16
    Clumping factor computed from the authors' cosmological simulation (Tevlin et al. 2024) of a similar-mass cluster at z=1.7. Used to boost the predicted surface brightness to match the observed emission and partially compensate cosmological dimming.
  • Spectral index alpha = -1.15 +/- 0.15 = -1.15
    Assumed from the low-redshift mini-halo population to convert the 144 MHz flux density to 1.4 GHz and to apply K-corrections. No spectral index is measured for this source.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Synchrotron and inverse Compton radiation formulae from Rybicki & Lightman (1979).
    Used throughout Appendix C.1 to compute emissivity, surface brightness, and K-corrections.
  • domain assumption Hadronic pp collision model parameterized by Pfrommer & Enßlin (2004a).
    Underlies the secondary-electron production and radio emission used to model the mini-halo.
  • domain assumption ICM density and temperature profile from Hlavacek-Larrondo et al. (2020).
    Adopted in Appendix C.2 with n0=6.602e-2 cm^-3, rc=10.14 kpc, beta=0.4, and T_e=5.7 keV.
  • ad hoc to paper Single central burst of CR injection at z~6, followed by isotropic diffusion.
    Equation C2 models the CR distribution as a Gaussian from a Dirac delta source in space and time; simplifying assumption not directly tested against observations.
  • ad hoc to paper Magnetic field scales as B proportional to n^(1/3).
    Adopted to reproduce the flat radio profile; justified by flux freezing with reconnection or a saturated dynamo with magnetic field lines slipping through plasma, but not independently measured for this cluster.
  • domain assumption The Tevlin et al. (2024) cosmological simulation is representative of SpARCS1049+56.
    Used to set the clumping factor C2=16; the simulation is of a cluster with similar mass at z=1.7, but it is not this cluster.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of Diffuse Radio Emission in a Massive z=1.709 Cool Core Cluster: A Candidate Radio Mini-Halo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PRCCM6ZX

@misc{pith2026250619901,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of Diffuse Radio Emission in a Massive z=1.709 Cool Core Cluster: A Candidate Radio Mini-Halo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PRCCM6ZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19901}
}
abstract

Clusters of galaxies host spectacular diffuse radio sources, extending over scales from 100 kpc to several Mpcs. These sources, with extremely faint surface brightness ($\mu$Jy/arcsec$^2$ level), are not tied to individual galaxies but trace synchrotron emission from large-scale magnetic fields and relativistic particles within the intracluster environment. Here, we report the discovery of a candidate radio mini-halo in SpARCS104922.6+564032.5, the most distant cool-core galaxy cluster identified to date at $z=1.709$, using deep LOFAR 120-168 MHz observations. We show that this emission originates from diffuse cluster-associated processes rather than unresolved AGN or star-forming galaxies. The diffuse radio emission coincides spatially with the X-ray emission of the hot intracluster medium and has a radio power of $P_{\rm 150~MHz}=49.8^{+14.7}_{-11.7} \times10^{24}$ W Hz$^{-1}$, exhibiting striking similarities to low-redshift radio mini-halos. This discovery doubles the redshift of previously known mini-halos, challenging models of inverse Compton losses and indicating the presence of strong magnetic fields, enhanced turbulence in high-redshift clusters, or active hadronic processes that require a cosmic ray-to-thermal energy ratio of 0.07 within 200 kpc, assuming a clumped distribution with spatial correlations among the gas, cosmic rays, and magnetic field that partially compensate for cosmological redshift dimming. It further implies that magnetic fields are efficiently amplified to $\sim$$10~\mu$G levels within a Mpc$^3$ volume during the epoch of cluster formation before $z\sim2$. These findings provide critical insights into high-redshift cluster physics and emphasize the transformative potential of next-generation radio surveys, such as those with the SKA and ngVLA, in exploring the early evolution of galaxy clusters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19901 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Large-scale image of the z = 1.709 cluster of galaxies SpARCS1049+56. Top-Left (a): Composite HST image (F105W in blue and green; F160W in red) of the cluster. We highlight the location of the BCG and a foreground z ∼ 0.35 galaxy located to the south-east, labeled S3 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Zoom-in on the star-forming region of SpARCS1049+56, labeled as S2 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top (a): 144 MHz LOFAR 6′′ image of SPARCS1049+56, highlighting key components: S1 is the candidate radio mini-halo (Section 3.1). All other regions, shown in magenta, are excluded when computing the radio power of the mini-halo and when extracting the radio profile shown in the bottom panel. S2 is the star-forming region (Section 3.2); S3 and S4 are foreground galaxies, masked and discussed in Appendix B; S5 and S6… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Compilation of mini-halos from Richard￾Laferri`ere et al. (2020), along with the best fit shown with the solid line, also from Richard-Laferri`ere et al. (2020). The mini-halo radio power (P1.4 GHz) is shown as a func￾tion of X-ray luminosity within a radius of 600 kpc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top-Left (a): Composite HST image (F105W in blue and green; F160W in red) of the SpARCS1049+56, with contours from the top-middke. Top-middle (b): 144 MHz LOFAR 9′′ image with a beam of 8.9′′×5.9′′. Contours are 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6σrms where σrms = 35µJy/beam (also shown …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Zoom-in on the foreground z ∼ 0.35 galaxy located to the south-east of SPARCS1049+56 and labeled S3 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Density distribution of a simulated galaxy cluster of mass M200 = 3.4 × 1014 M⊙ at redshift z = 1.7 (Tevlin et al. 2024). Shown is a projection with side length 600 kpc and projection depth 100 kpc. We obtain a clumping factor C2 = 16 within a radius of 200 kpc (indica…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abramowitz, M., & Stegun, I. A. 1965, Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables B´ egin, T., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Rhea, C., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 767

    work page 1965

  2. [2]

    2024, A&A, 686, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348045

    Biava, N., Bonafede, A., Gastaldello, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348045

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348045 2024

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 680, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347567

    Bonafede, A., Gitti, M., La Bella, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347567

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347567 2023

  4. [4]

    2021, Astronomy and Computing, 35, 100464, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2021.100464

    Boxelaar, J., van Weeren, R., & Botteon, A. 2021, Astronomy and Computing, 35, 100464, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2021.100464

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv137

    Bravi, L., Gitti, M., & Brunetti, G. 2016, MNRAS, 455, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv137

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv137 2016

  6. [6]

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

    doi:10.1142/s0218271814300079 2014

  7. [7]

    2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 369, 1577, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10423.x 16Hlavacek-Larrondo et al

    Cassano, R., Brunetti, G., & Setti, G. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 369, 1577, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10423.x 16Hlavacek-Larrondo et al

    arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 881, L18

    Cassano, R., Botteon, A., Di Gennaro, G., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 881, L18

    work page 2019

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    2023, A&A, 672, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244876 de Gasperin, F., Dijkema, T

    Cassano, R., Cuciti, V., Brunetti, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244876 de Gasperin, F., Dijkema, T. J., Drabent, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833867 Di Gennaro, G., van Weeren, R. J., Cassano, R., et al. 2021a, A&A, 654,...

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Sabater, J., R¨ ottgering, H

    Duncan, K. J., Sabater, J., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833562

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    J., & Pfrommer, C

    Dursi, L. J., & Pfrommer, C. 2008, ApJ, 677, 993, doi: 10.1086/529371

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 2878, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2397 Enßlin, T., Pfrommer, C., Miniati, F., & Subramanian, K

    Springel, V. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2878, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2397 Enßlin, T., Pfrommer, C., Miniati, F., & Subramanian, K. 2011, A&A, 527, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015652 Enßlin, T. A., Pfrommer, C., Springel, V., & Jubelgas, M. 2007, A&A, 473, 41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:2...

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Webb, T., et al

    Finner, K., Jee, M. J., Webb, T., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7bdb

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 3872

    Weeren, R., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 3872

    2017

  7. [15]

    J., et al

    Weeren, R. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5791, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2003

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Br¨ uggen, M., Moravec, E., et al

    Gennaro, G. D., Br¨ uggen, M., Moravec, E., et al. 2025, Limits and challenges of the detection of cluster-scale diffuse radio emission at high redshift: The Massive and Distant Clusters of WISE Survey (MaDCoWS) in LoTSS-DR2. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19273

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 70

    Giacintucci, S., Markevitch, M., Cassano, R., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 70

    2019

  10. [18]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/781/1/9

    Giacintucci, S., Markevitch, M., Venturi, T., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/781/1/9

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12bc

    Giacintucci, S., Venturi, T., Markevitch, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12bc

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 417, 1

    Gitti, M., Brunetti, G., Feretti, L., & Setti, G. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 417, 1

    2004

  13. [21]

    S., et al

    Gupta, Y., Ajithkumar, B., Kale, H. S., et al. 2017, Current Science, 113, 707, doi: 10.18520/cs/v113/i04/707-714

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Webb, T., et al

    Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Rhea, C. L., Webb, T., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9ca5

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Hancock, P

    Hurley-Walker, N., Callingham, J. R., Hancock, P. J., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 1146

    2017

  16. [24]

    T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K

    Intema, H. T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K. P., & Frail, D. A. 2017, A&A, 598, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628536

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    T., & Dey, A

    Jannuzi, B. T., & Dey, A. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 191, Photometric Redshifts and the Detection of High Redshift Galaxies, ed. R. Weymann, L. Storrie-Lombardi, M. Sawicki, & R. Brunner, 111

    1999

  18. [26]

    2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0001

    Jonas, J., & MeerKAT Team. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0001

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    2010, Astrophys

    Keshet, U., Markevitch, M., Birnboim, Y., & Loeb, A. 2010, Astrophys. J. Lett., 719, L74, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/1/L74

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Bond, J

    Knowles, K., Baker, A. J., Bond, J. R., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 1332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz823

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 657, A56

    Knowles, K., Cotton, W., Rudnick, L., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 657, A56

    2022

  22. [30]

    N., Hardcastle, M

    Kondapally, R., Best, P. N., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038813

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Baker, A

    Lindner, R. R., Baker, A. J., Hughes, J. P., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 786, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/49

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Jahoda, K., & McCammon, D

    Lockman, F. J., Jahoda, K., & McCammon, D. 1986, ApJ, 302, 432, doi: 10.1086/164002

    1986 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, A&A, 683, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347635

    Lusetti, G., Bonafede, A., Lovisari, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347635

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    2008, ApJL, 675, L9, doi: 10.1086/529433

    Mazzotta, P., & Giacintucci, S. 2008, ApJL, 675, L9, doi: 10.1086/529433

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    2022, A&A, 658, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140649

    Morabito, L., Jackson, N., Mooney, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140649

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    R., de Bruyn, A

    Offringa, A. R., de Bruyn, A. G., Zaroubi, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220293

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Wayth, R

    Offringa, A. R., Wayth, R. B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2015, PASA, 32, e008, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.7

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    M., et al

    Oliver, S., Rowan-Robinson, M., Alexander, D. M., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 749, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03550.x

    2000

  31. [39]

    J., Boxelaar, J

    Osinga, E., van Weeren, R. J., Boxelaar, J. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039076 A Radio Mini-Halo atz= 1.709 17

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Chandler, C

    Perley, R. A., Chandler, C. J., Butler, B. J., & Wrobel, J. M. 2011, ApJL, 739, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L1

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    Pfrommer, C., & Enßlin, T. A. 2003, A&A, 407, L73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031088 —. 2004a, A&A, 413, 17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031464 —. 2004b, MNRAS, 352, 76, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07900.x

    2003

  34. [42]

    A., & Springel, V

    Pfrommer, C., Enßlin, T. A., & Springel, V. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1211, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12956.x

    2008

  35. [43]

    M., & Springel, V

    Pfrommer, C., Pakmor, R., Simpson, C. M., & Springel, V. 2017, ApJL, 847, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8bb1 Prasow-´Emond, M., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Rhea, C. L., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9ff3

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    Quataert, E., & Hopkins, P. F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01753, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01753

    2025 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab620d Richard-Laferri` ere, A., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Nemmen, R

    Raja, R., Rahaman, M., Datta, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab620d Richard-Laferri` ere, A., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Nemmen, R. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2877

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    2023, A&A Rv, 31, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-023-00149-2

    Ruszkowski, M., & Pfrommer, C. 2023, A&A Rv, 31, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-023-00149-2

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  40. [48]

    N., Tasse, C., et al

    Sabater, J., Best, P. N., Tasse, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038828

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 2234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1125 —

    Savini, F., Bonafede, A., Br¨ uggen, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1125 —. 2019, A&A, 622, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833882

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    N., et al

    Shimwell, T., R¨ ottgering, H., Best, P. N., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 598, A104

    2017

  43. [51]

    W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M

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

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    W., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    P., Hilton, M., Bernardi, G., et al

    Sikhosana, S. P., Hilton, M., Bernardi, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03944, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03944

    2024 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    J., et al

    Tasse, C., Shimwell, T., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038804

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00103, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00103

    Tevlin, L., Berlok, T., Pfrommer, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00103, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00103

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    J., McDonald, M., et al

    Timmerman, R., van Weeren, R. J., McDonald, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 646, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039075

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    Tolman, R. C. 1934, Relativity, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology

    1934

  50. [58]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 1210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1364 van Haarlem, M

    Trudeau, A., Webb, T., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 1210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1364 van Haarlem, M. P., Wise, M. W., Gunst, A. W., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 van Weeren, R. J., de ...

    2019 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 32, e025

    Wayth, R., Lenc, E., Bell, M., et al. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 32, e025

    2015

  52. [60]

    2015a, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/173

    Webb, T., Noble, A., DeGroot, A., et al. 2015a, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/173

    doi

  53. [61]

    Webb, T. M. A., Muzzin, A., Noble, A., et al. 2015b, The Astrophysical Journal, 814, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/96

    doi

  54. [62]

    Webb, T. M. A., Lowenthal, J., Yun, M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7749

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    L., van Weeren, R

    Williams, W. L., van Weeren, R. J., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1056

    2016 doi

  57. [65]

    2023, A&A, 672, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244761

    Zhang, X., Simionescu, A., Gastaldello, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244761

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.