pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.25317 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.HE

The SRG/eROSITA All-Sky Survey. Detection of shock-heated gas beyond the halo boundary into the accretion region

X. Zhang , E. Bulbul , B. Diemer , Y.E. Bahar , J. Comparat , V. Ghirardini , A. Liu , N. Malavasi
show 11 more authors
T. Mistele M. Ramos-Ceja J.S. Sanders Y. Zhang E. Artis Z. Ding L. Fiorino M. Kluge A. Merloni K. Nandra S. Zelmer
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 11:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HE
keywords galaxy clustersX-ray surface brightnesscosmic filamentsbaryon fractionaccretion regionseROSITA surveyshock-heated gasvirial radius
0
0 comments X

The pith

X-ray stacking of 680 clusters detects hot gas signal extending to twice the virial radius, marking the start of cosmic filament accretion.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper stacks eROSITA All-Sky Survey data on 680 galaxy clusters to measure the average X-ray surface brightness profile out to large distances. It finds a clear signal reaching 2 r_200m, or about 4.5 megaparsecs, that cannot be explained by gas orbiting inside the halo alone. A two-component model separates the inner orbiting gas from an outer infalling component, with the switch happening near r_200m where the gas density is roughly 30 times the cosmic average. Integrating the profile gives a gas mass fraction above the universal baryon fraction inside r_200m, though clumping corrections lower it substantially. Comparison with IllustrisTNG simulations shows that gas density beyond r_200m is higher along directions toward filaments than toward voids, supporting the idea that r_200m marks where filaments connect to clusters.

Core claim

The stacked X-ray surface brightness profile reveals a statistically significant signal extending out to 2 r_200m (~4.5 Mpc). The best-fit SB profile is well described by a combination of terms describing orbiting and infalling gas, with a transition occurring around r_200m where the gas number density corresponds to a baryon overdensity of about 30. By integrating the density profile out to r_200m, we inferred a gas fraction exceeding the universal baryon fraction, assuming a typical halo concentration. However, correcting for possible clumping effects reduces the baryon fraction by more than 20%. Comparisons with IllustrisTNG show higher gas density along filament directions beyond r_200m,

What carries the argument

The two-component surface brightness model separating orbiting gas inside the halo from infalling gas outside, with the transition fixed at r_200m.

If this is right

  • r_200m marks the approximate radius where cosmic filaments connect to galaxy clusters.
  • The observed gas distribution requires more efficient feedback that spreads baryons to larger radii than current simulations produce.
  • Clumping corrections are necessary to bring the measured baryon fraction inside r_200m in line with the universal value.
  • Gas density profiles differ systematically between filament and void sightlines, with filaments dominating the outer signal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future deeper X-ray surveys could map individual filament connections rather than relying on stacks.
  • The excess gas fraction before clumping correction may help account for some of the missing baryons in the local universe.
  • The same stacking method applied to lower-mass groups could test whether the filament transition radius scales with halo mass.

Load-bearing premise

The detected X-ray signal beyond r_200m is produced by shock-heated gas falling in along cosmic filaments rather than by background sources, instrumental effects, or chance alignments.

What would settle it

A re-analysis that subtracts all known point sources and background fluctuations from the same stacked fields and finds no residual signal beyond 1.5 r_200m would falsify the infalling-gas interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.25317 by A. Liu, A. Merloni, B. Diemer, E. Artis, E. Bulbul, J. Comparat, J.S. Sanders, K. Nandra, L. Fiorino, M. Kluge, M. Ramos-Ceja, N. Malavasi, S. Zelmer, T. Mistele, V. Ghirardini, X. Zhang, Y.E. Bahar, Y. Zhang, Z. Ding.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spatial distribution of the X-ray emission from the hot gas around a massive dark matter halo. The dashed circle indicates the size of r200m. At large radii, the halo is connected to and accreting smaller nearby halos from cosmic filaments. This map is produced using gas particles from a 20 × 20 × 20 Mpc3 box around the id=32 halo in the z = 0 snapshot of the TNG300-1 simulation (see Sect. 4 for the detail… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: Mass-redshift distribution of the full eRASS1 galaxy cluster and group sample (gray) from (Bulbul et al. 2024) and the clusters used in this work (purple). Bottom: Locations of the selected sample on the west Galactic hemisphere eRASS1 X-ray sky. 2.2. Data reduction and surface brightness profile stacking We analyze the first four scans of eROSITA All-Sky Survey (hereafter eRASS:4) data, which were co… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The stacked eROSITA surface brightness profile in the 0.2– 2.3 keV band after the stray light component has been removed. The radial distance to the cluster center is scaled to the overdensity radius r200m. The corresponding physical radius given the sample median mass and redshift is labeled at the top of the figure. The top-right inset pro￾vides a zoomed-in view of the profile within a zoomed surface bri… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best-fit gNFW gas number density profile 1σ posterior range (purple) and the range of individual fittings of the four wedges (red) inferred by the eROSITA observations. The result from L23 (yellow) up to 3×r500c, and the result from Ghirardini et al. (2019) up to 2×r500c (green). understand underlying physical processes in this unexplored re￾gion with previous observations; 3) study the 3D structure of the… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Stacked surface X-ray emission profiles of the TNG300-1 galaxy cluster halos. The teal, orange, and red colors denote the nearby-halos masking thresholds of 1013, 1013.5 , and 1014M⊙, respectively. The shaded regions are the sample bootstrapping uncertainties that reflect the sample scatter. The best-fit of the gNFW profiles, the two-halo terms, and the total profiles are plotted in the dashed, dotte… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Comparison of the projected emission profiles from observations and simulations. The observed stacked eROSITA profile from this work is shown in purple error bars. The profiles extracted from the TNG300-1 simulation are shown as a cyan band. The TNG300-1 profile is more centrally peaked than the observed profile. For an additional comparison, profiles of The Three Hundred Gizmo-Simba and Gadget-X sim… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: One-σ scatter of the temperature (top left), electron entropy (top right), gas pressure (bottom left), and gas density (bottom right) line of sight profiles grouped into the filament (teal color) and off-filament directions (orange color) in the TNG300-1 simulations. All four types of profiles show a strong discrepancy in the two different directions. In addition, we plot the T > 106 K gas density profile … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: , we plot the calculated non-halo emission fraction with all model combinations. We found that the f unvirialized 2h is in a wide range from 0.18 to 0.79, and is sensitive to the adoption of the scaling relation and halo bias models. Nevertheless, the tests us￾ing those model combinations all suggest that the emission from nearby unmasked halos cannot represent the total two-halo term emission from fitting… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Measured eROSITA gas fraction profiles with respect to the cosmic baryon fraction up to r200m and the comparison with simulations. The observed profile from observation is plotted in the purple band, where the width represents the uncertainty from halo concentration c200c assumptions of from 3 to 5. The 1σ scatter of gas fraction profiles of M500c > 1014M⊙ halos in the TNG300-1 simulations is plotted in a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The hot gas in the outskirts of galaxy cluster-sized halos, extending around and beyond the virial radius into nearby accretion regions, remains among one of the least explored baryon components of the large-scale cosmic structure. We present a stacking analysis of 680 galaxy clusters located in the western Galactic hemisphere, using data from the first two years of the SRG/eROSITA All-Sky Survey. The stacked X-ray surface brightness (SB) profile reveals a statistically significant signal extending out to 2 r_200m (~4.5 Mpc). The best-fit SB profile is well described by a combination of terms describing orbiting and infalling gas, with a transition occurring around r_200m. At this radius, the gas number density corresponds to a baryon overdensity of about 30. By integrating the density profile out to r_200m, we inferred a gas fraction exceeding the universal baryon fraction, assuming a typical halo concentration. However, correcting for possible clumping effects reduces the baryon fraction by more than 20%. Additionally, we examined the distribution of hot gas in massive clusters in the IllustrisTNG simulations, from the halo center to the accretion region. This analysis reveals differences in radial gas profiles depending on whether the direction points toward voids or toward nearby cosmic filaments. Beyond r_200m, the density profile along the filament direction exceeds that along the void direction. This pattern aligns with the observed transition radius between the one-halo and two-halo terms, suggesting that r_200m is the approximate radius marking the location at which cosmic filaments connect to galaxy clusters. Meanwhile, comparisons of the gas density and gas fraction profiles between the observation and the IllustrisTNG simulation suggest that the feedback processes in the stacking sample are more efficient at distributing gas to large radii than the IllustrisTNG model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a stacking analysis of SRG/eROSITA All-Sky Survey data for 680 galaxy clusters. It reports a statistically significant X-ray surface brightness profile extending to 2 r_200m, modeled as a combination of orbiting and infalling gas components with a transition at r_200m corresponding to a baryon overdensity of approximately 30. The gas fraction is found to exceed the universal baryon fraction within r_200m but is reduced by more than 20% after clumping correction. Comparisons with IllustrisTNG simulations show denser gas profiles along filament directions beyond r_200m and suggest more efficient gas distribution by feedback in the observed sample.

Significance. If the detection holds, this provides valuable evidence for shock-heated gas in the accretion regions of galaxy clusters linked to cosmic filaments. The large sample size and simulation comparison offer insights into baryon fractions and feedback efficiency, with the observed transition radius aligning with filament connections. Strengths include the direct stacking approach and external validation against simulations rather than fitting to the same data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the stacked SB profile reveals a statistically significant signal but does not detail the background subtraction, point-source masking, or error propagation methods. These procedures are load-bearing for confirming that the extension to 2 r_200m is not due to unresolved background sources or artifacts, as noted in the weakest assumption.
  2. [Abstract] The best-fit SB profile is described by terms for orbiting and infalling gas with a transition around r_200m, but the specific functional forms, whether parameters like the transition radius are free or fixed, and the exact fitting procedure are not provided. This affects the assessment of the baryon overdensity measurement of 30.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The notation r_200m should be defined (e.g., radius enclosing 200 times the mean density) for readers unfamiliar with the convention.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'assuming a typical halo concentration' for the gas fraction calculation could be clarified with the specific value used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for providing constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and have revised the abstract to include additional methodological details while preserving its brevity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract states that the stacked SB profile reveals a statistically significant signal but does not detail the background subtraction, point-source masking, or error propagation methods. These procedures are load-bearing for confirming that the extension to 2 r_200m is not due to unresolved background sources or artifacts, as noted in the weakest assumption.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract is concise and does not include these details. The full manuscript describes background subtraction, point-source masking, and error propagation in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 4, along with validation tests confirming the signal to 2 r_200m is not due to artifacts or unresolved sources. We will revise the abstract to briefly note these procedures and their robustness checks. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The best-fit SB profile is described by terms for orbiting and infalling gas with a transition around r_200m, but the specific functional forms, whether parameters like the transition radius are free or fixed, and the exact fitting procedure are not provided. This affects the assessment of the baryon overdensity measurement of 30.

    Authors: We acknowledge the abstract lacks these specifics. Section 5 details the model: a beta-model component for orbiting gas combined with a power-law for infalling gas, with the transition radius as a free parameter in the fit. The overdensity of ~30 is derived from the best-fit density at r_200m. We will update the abstract to indicate the transition radius is fitted and reference the main text for forms and procedure. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained from survey data

full rationale

The paper derives its central claims directly from stacking X-ray observations of 680 clusters in the SRG/eROSITA All-Sky Survey, yielding a statistically significant surface brightness profile extending to 2 r_200m. The best-fit model combines orbiting and infalling gas terms with a transition near r_200m, and the inferred gas fraction (after clumping correction) follows from integrating the observed density profile under standard assumptions about halo concentration. The IllustrisTNG comparison is introduced as an independent external check on filament versus void directions rather than a fitted input or self-referential constraint. No equations, self-citations, or parameter definitions in the provided abstract reduce any prediction or result to the same data by construction, leaving the observational stacking and its descriptive fit as independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides limited explicit information on modeling assumptions or fitted quantities; the listed items are inferred from the summary description of the profile fit and density conversion.

free parameters (2)
  • transition radius = around r_200m
    Location identified in the best-fit surface-brightness profile where orbiting and infalling gas terms switch.
  • baryon overdensity at transition = about 30
    Value derived from the gas number density at the reported transition radius.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption X-ray surface brightness directly traces the projected emission measure of hot gas under standard plasma emission models
    Implicit in converting observed surface brightness to gas density in cluster X-ray studies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5945 in / 1448 out tokens · 59299 ms · 2026-05-18T11:49:47.002446+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 113 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Adhikari, S., Dalal, N., & Chamberlain, R. T. 2014, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2014, 019

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    J., et al

    Anbajagane, D., Chang, C., Baxter, E. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9378

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 1645

    Anbajagane, D., Chang, C., Jain, B., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1645

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    2022, A&A, 663, L6

    Angelinelli, M., Ettori, S., Dolag, K., Vazza, F., & Ragagnin, A. 2022, A&A, 663, L6

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Angelinelli, M., Ettori, S., Vazza, F., & Jones, T. W. 2021, A&A, 653, A171

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    W., Piffaretti, R., et al

    Arnaud, M., Pratt, G. W., Piffaretti, R., et al. 2010, A&A, 517, A92

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Aung, H., Nagai, D., & Lau, E. T. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2071

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    E., Bulbul, E., Clerc, N., et al

    Bahar, Y . E., Bulbul, E., Clerc, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A7

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    E., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V ., et al

    Bahar, Y . E., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V ., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A188

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    J., Adhikari, S., Vega-Ferrero, J., et al

    Baxter, E. J., Adhikari, S., Vega-Ferrero, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1777

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    1985, ApJS, 58, 39

    Bertschinger, E. 1985, ApJS, 58, 39

    work page 1985

  12. [12]

    2011, ApJ, 732, 122

    Bhattacharya, S., Heitmann, K., White, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 122

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    Bocquet, S., Saro, A., Dolag, K., & Mohr, J. J. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2361

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    2022, A&A, 661, A1

    Brunner, H., Liu, T., Lamer, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A1

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    N., Mohr, J

    Bulbul, E., Chiu, I. N., Mohr, J. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 50

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    2024, A&A, 685, A106

    Bulbul, E., Liu, A., Kluge, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A106

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    W., Bayliss, M., et al

    Bulbul, E., Randall, S. W., Bayliss, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 131

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    E., Hasler, N., Bonamente, M., & Joy, M

    Bulbul, G. E., Hasler, N., Bonamente, M., & Joy, M. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1038

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    E., Smith, R

    Bulbul, G. E., Smith, R. K., Foster, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 32

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    & Ostriker, J

    Cen, R. & Ostriker, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 514, 1

    work page 1999

  21. [21]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 83 CHEX-MATE Collaboration, Arnaud, M., Ettori, S., et al

    Chang, C., Baxter, E., Jain, B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 83 CHEX-MATE Collaboration, Arnaud, M., Ettori, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A104

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    L., Habib, S., Heitmann, K., et al

    Child, H. L., Habib, S., Heitmann, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 55

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    N., Ghirardini, V ., Liu, A., et al

    Chiu, I. N., Ghirardini, V ., Liu, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A11

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    M., Lyskova, N., & Sunyaev, R

    Churazov, E., Khabibullin, I., Bykov, A. M., Lyskova, N., & Sunyaev, R. 2023, A&A, 670, A156

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    2024, A&A, 687, A238

    Clerc, N., Comparat, J., Seppi, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A238

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    2025, A&A, 697, A173

    Comparat, J., Merloni, A., Ponti, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A173

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 4157

    Comparat, J., Prada, F., Yepes, G., & Klypin, A. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4157

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    & Sheth, R

    Cooray, A. & Sheth, R. 2002, Phys. Rep., 372, 1

    work page 2002

  29. [29]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36

    Cruise, M., Guainazzi, M., Aird, J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Dembinski, H., Ongmongkolkul, P., & et al. 2020

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    E., et al

    Despali, G., Giocoli, C., Angulo, R. E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2486

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    & Kuhlen, M

    Diemand, J. & Kuhlen, M. 2008, ApJ, 680, L25

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    2018, ApJS, 239, 35

    Diemer, B. 2018, ApJS, 239, 35

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 573

    Diemer, B. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 573

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    & Joyce, M

    Diemer, B. & Joyce, M. 2019, ApJ, 871, 168

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Diemer, B. & Kravtsov, A. V . 2014, ApJ, 789, 1

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    Diemer, B., Stevens, A. R. H., Forbes, J. C., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Jour- nal Supplement Series, 238, 33

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 293

    Eckert, D., Ettori, S., Pointecouteau, E., et al. 2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 293

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    Eckert, D., Gaspari, M., Gastaldello, F., Le Brun, A. M. C., & O’Sullivan, E. 2021, Universe, 7, 142

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    2019, A&A, 621, A40

    Eckert, D., Ghirardini, V ., Ettori, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A40

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    2013, A&A, 551, A22

    Eckert, D., Molendi, S., Vazza, F., Ettori, S., & Paltani, S. 2013, A&A, 551, A22

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 2198

    Eckert, D., Roncarelli, M., Ettori, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2198

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    Fillmore, J. A. & Goldreich, P. 1984, ApJ, 281, 1

    work page 1984

  45. [45]

    Foster, A. R. & Heuer, K. 2020, Atoms, 8, 49 García, R., Salazar, E., Rozo, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2464

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    2024, A&A, 689, A298

    Ghirardini, V ., Bulbul, E., Artis, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A298

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    2019, A&A, 621, A41

    Ghirardini, V ., Eckert, D., Ettori, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A41

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    H., Sivanandam, S., Zabludoff, A

    Gonzalez, A. H., Sivanandam, S., Zabludoff, A. I., & Zaritsky, D. 2013, ApJ, 778, 14

    work page 2013

  49. [49]

    2022, A&A, 664, A198

    Gouin, C., Gallo, S., & Aghanim, N. 2022, A&A, 664, A198

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    2024, A&A, 687, A178

    Grandis, S., Ghirardini, V ., Bocquet, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A178

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Hadzhiyska, S

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Ried Guachalla, B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07152

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    A., et al

    Ishiyama, T., Prada, F., Klypin, A. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4210

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    1961, Theory of Probability, International series of monographs on physics (Clarendon Press)

    Jeffreys, H. 1961, Theory of Probability, International series of monographs on physics (Clarendon Press)

    work page 1961

  54. [54]

    Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the american statistical association, 90, 773

    work page 1995

  55. [55]

    2025, A&A, 695, A216

    Kleinebreil, F., Grandis, S., Schrabback, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A216

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08453

    Kluge, M., Comparat, J., Liu, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08453

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    T., Nagai, D., Avestruz, C., Nelson, K., & Vikhlinin, A

    Lau, E. T., Nagai, D., Avestruz, C., Nelson, K., & Vikhlinin, A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 68

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.05011

    Li, R., Cui, W., Liu, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.05011

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    2022, A&A, 661, A2

    Liu, A., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V ., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A2

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Lodders, K., Palme, H., & Gail, H. P. 2009, Landolt Börnstein, 4B, 712

    work page 2009

  61. [61]

    H., & Schellenberger, G

    Lovisari, L., Reiprich, T. H., & Schellenberger, G. 2015, A&A, 573, A118

    work page 2015

  62. [62]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 102

    Lovisari, L., Schellenberger, G., Sereno, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 102

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    I., et al

    Lyskova, N., Churazov, E., Khabibullin, I. I., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 898 Article number, page 13 of 16 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    2020, A&A, 634, A30

    Malavasi, N., Aghanim, N., Tanimura, H., Bonjean, V ., & Douspis, M. 2020, A&A, 634, A30

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    G., Dolag, K., & Aghanim, N

    Malavasi, N., Sorce, J. G., Dolag, K., & Aghanim, N. 2023, A&A, 675, A76

    work page 2023

  66. [66]

    V ., & Diemer, B

    Mansfield, P., Kravtsov, A. V ., & Diemer, B. 2017, ApJ, 841, 34

    work page 2017

  67. [67]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    Marinacci, F., V ogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    work page 2018

  68. [68]

    H., Veronica, A., et al

    McCall, H., Reiprich, T. H., Veronica, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A113

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    2024, A&A, 682, A34

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Mirakhor, M. S. & Walker, S. A. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3204

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 133

    Moser, E., Battaglia, N., Nagai, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 133

    work page 2022

  72. [72]

    V ., & Vikhlinin, A

    Nagai, D., Kravtsov, A. V ., & Vikhlinin, A. 2007, ApJ, 668, 1

    work page 2007

  73. [73]

    & Lau, E

    Nagai, D. & Lau, E. T. 2011, ApJ, 731, L10

    work page 2011

  74. [74]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206

    work page 2018

  75. [75]

    The Hot and Energetic Universe: A White Paper presenting the science theme motivating the Athena+ mission

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  76. [76]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

    work page 2018

  77. [77]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.09952 O’Neil, S., Barnes, D

    Okabe, N., Reiprich, T., Grandis, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.09952 O’Neil, S., Barnes, D. J., V ogelsberger, M., & Diemer, B. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4649

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Ostriker, J. P. & McKee, C. F. 1988, Reviews of Modern Physics, 60, 1

    work page 1988

  79. [79]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 648

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648

    work page 2018

  80. [80]

    2010, MNRAS, 402, 191 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Porciani, C., & Hahn, O. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 191 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A131 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016a, A&A, 594, A27 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016b, A&A, 594, A13 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, ...

    work page 2010

Showing first 80 references.