Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

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

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

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

Pith's one-line read The yearly X-ray echoes from the Sticks cloud trace its molecular gas and stack into a 3-D model of its dense interior.

desk verdict First real attempt at X-ray echo tomography of a CMZ cloud, but the plane approximation is numerically shaky; worth refereeing with major comments. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07717 v1 pith:2OLM6PLJ submitted 2025-01-13 astro-ph.GA

Samantha W. Brunker , Cara Battersby , Danya Alboslani , Maïca Clavel , Daniel L. Walker , Dani Lipman , H Perry Hatchfield , Régis Terrier This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords X-rayechoes6.4keVironfluorescenceSgrA*molecularcloudsCentralZonetomography3-DstructureStickscloud
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 tries to establish that X-ray echoes from a past flare of the supermassive black hole Sgr A* can be used as a tomographic probe of molecular clouds in the Galactic center, and applies this idea to the Sticks cloud. It argues that the 6.4 keV iron-fluorescence emission seen in Chandra images from 2010 to 2017 is spatially correlated with the cloud's molecular gas and dust, so each yearly image acts as a cross-sectional slice of the cloud as the light front passes through. Using the paraboloid geometry of the echo, the authors convert observation year into line-of-sight distance and stack the slices into a 3-D model of a portion of the cloud. If the method works, it gives astronomers a new way to measure the internal structure of a cloud in the Galactic center, which is otherwise difficult because kinematic distance estimates are unreliable in this region.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the X-ray echo: X-rays from a past short flare of Sgr A* travel outward as a thin paraboloidal light front; when the front encounters molecular gas, neutral iron absorbs and re-emits at 6.4 keV, and Chandra observes the illuminated slice at a time set by the light-travel geometry. The mapping from observation time to line-of-sight distance is the paraboloid equation $z(t) = \frac{1}{2}\left(ct - \frac{d_\mathrm{proj}^2}{ct}\right)$ from Sunyaev and Churazov (1998). The model stacks the yearly contours as cross-sectional slices under the assumption that, on the scale of the cloud, the paraboloid can be approximated by a plane moving at the speed of light.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the Sticks cloud's line-of-sight position relative to Sgr A*, for example from the polarization angle of the 6.4 keV echo or from absorption against a background source, that placed the cloud in front of the black hole, or a flare-age estimate outside the 100 to 200 year range, would require a different conversion between observation year and distance and would invalidate the reported 0.18 pc slice spacing and 1.25 pc depth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the X-ray echoes observed toward the Sticks cloud are produced by 6.4 keV fluorescence of neutral iron in the cloud's molecular gas and dust, and that the evolution of the echo between 2010 and 2017 traces a light front moving through the cloud at approximately the speed of light. Under the adopted geometry, where the cloud sits about 25 pc behind Sgr A* and the illuminating flare is 200 years old, the yearly Chandra images correspond to physical slices separated by 0.18 pc along the line of sight, yielding a 3-D model with a total depth of 1.25 pc. The authors also normalize the X-ray flux to Herschel column density maps to produce per-slice column densities, and report overlap percentages of 48 to 84 percent between the X-ray contours and the molecular gas and dust emission, with the densest cores matching best.

Load-bearing premise

The 3-D model stands or falls on the assumed line-of-sight distance of the Sticks cloud (25 pc behind Sgr A*) and the assumed age of the illuminating flare (200 years), together with the approximation that the light front is a plane moving at the speed of light; if the true cloud position or flare age differ, the derived slice positions and total depth shift by tens of percent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The dense gas of the Sticks cloud can be assigned physical 3-D positions, with an estimated line-of-sight depth of 1.25 pc (range 1.18 to 1.63 pc under conservative distance assumptions).
  • The densest cores show the highest overlap between X-ray and molecular tracers, indicating that the X-ray echoes preferentially trace the dense material relevant to star formation.
  • Per-slice column densities derived from X-ray flux and Herschel normalization provide a 3-D density distribution that can be used as input for models of cloud structure and star formation.
  • The same tomography procedure can be applied to other molecular clouds in the Central Molecular Zone that show time-variable X-ray echoes, provided Chandra coverage spans the illuminated period.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same yearly 6.4 keV mapping could be applied to the other two clouds in the Three Little Pigs system; comparing their line-of-sight ordering with kinematic predictions would test the assumed flare geometry.
  • A future independent measurement of the Sticks cloud's line-of-sight distance, such as from the polarization angle of the echo itself, would turn the assumed 25 pc into a measured value and sharpen the slice spacing.
  • The method may also provide sub-parsec density profiles for Galactic-center clouds, a regime currently accessible only through statistical dust-extinction mapping for much nearer clouds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines Chandra 6.4 keV X-ray echo images (2010–2017) of the Sticks cloud, a molecular cloud in the Central Molecular Zone, with molecular line data (H2CO, NH3, SiO), Herschel column density maps, and CMZoom dust continuum to argue that the X-ray echoes trace the same dense gas as the molecular tracers. The authors then convert each yearly X-ray image into a line-of-sight slice using the paraboloid equation (Eq. 2), assuming a cloud distance of 25 pc behind Sgr A* and a flare age of 200 yr, and assemble these slices into a 3-D model of a portion of the cloud. Finally, they derive per-slice column density maps by normalizing the X-ray flux to the Herschel peak column density. The main claims are that the X-ray echoes are correlated with molecular gas/dust and that the 3-D tomographic model reveals the internal structure of the Sticks cloud.

Significance. If the tomographic reconstruction were valid, this would be a valuable step toward 3-D mapping of Galactic Center molecular clouds, a region where line-of-sight distances are notoriously difficult to establish. The paper's strengths are the compilation of a multi-epoch Chandra dataset, the direct multi-wavelength comparison with H2CO, NH3, SiO, Herschel, and CMZoom dust continuum, and the interactive figures that allow readers to inspect individual yearly slices. However, the central 3-D model rests on an unvalidated plane-parallel approximation of the X-ray light front, and the derived density maps are a constant rescaling of the smoothed X-ray images. These issues currently prevent the paper from supporting its boldest conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2 / Eq. (2)] The plane approximation for the X-ray light front is numerically unjustified at the adopted parameters. With d_proj ≈ 20 pc and a flare age of t = 200 yr (ct ≈ 61 pc), the paraboloid's line-of-sight depth varies with projected offset as dz/dd_proj = d_proj/(ct) ≈ 0.33. Across the cloud's 3.4 pc diameter, this gives a spread of approximately 1.1 pc in the z-direction, comparable to the total modeled z-extent of 1.25 pc and about six times larger than the 0.18 pc separation between yearly slices. Consequently, each yearly Chandra image is not a thin cross-section at a single z; it is a projection of a curved paraboloidal surface that mixes emission from a broad range of line-of-sight depths. This directly undermines the tomographic interpretation of Figure 3 unless the full paraboloid is forward-modeled or the curvature is explicitly shown to be negligible.
  2. [§3.3] The column density maps in Figure 4 are essentially a constant rescaling of the X-ray images. The 'normalization factor' is a single scalar obtained by dividing the peak Herschel column density by the peak X-ray flux; multiplying every pixel of each yearly X-ray map by this constant preserves the spatial structure of the X-ray image exactly. Thus the resulting '3-D density distribution' contains no structural information beyond what is already present in the smoothed X-ray maps. Moreover, the conversion from X-ray intensity to column density requires knowledge of the incident flux, fluorescence yield, and illumination geometry, all of which are folded into the single normalization. The paper should either present a forward model that actually inverts the echo geometry or substantially soften the claim that this constitutes a density reconstruction.
  3. [§3.1] The overlap percentages (48%, 54%, 76%, 84%) are reported without uncertainties and without a null hypothesis. Because the contours are defined by hand-tuned levels (Gaussian smoothing kernel of 4, X-ray contours at 3×10^-9 counts s^-1 cm^-2 pixel^-1, H2CO at 3-sigma, dust at 5-sigma), the OP values are highly sensitive to these choices, and the same calculation on a field shifted or randomized relative to the X-ray map would be needed to establish that the correlation is not a chance alignment. Without such a test, the claim in Section 3.1 that 'these high OPs verify the high likelihood' is not quantitatively supported. At minimum, the authors should provide a sensitivity analysis of OP to contour level and a bootstrap or Monte Carlo null comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] The choice of Gaussian smoothing kernel (4 pixels for diffuse emission, 3 pixels for dense cores) is described qualitatively; the effect of these choices on the contour areas and on the quoted overlap percentages should be quantified, since the OP analysis depends directly on the contour boundaries.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The term 'total pixel value' in the definition of OP should be clarified as 'total number of pixels' to avoid confusion with flux or intensity values.
  3. [§3.2] The statement that 'we don't see any shift in the X-ray fluorescence from side-to-side in the cloud' would be more convincing if supported by a quantitative centroid measurement or a figure showing the time evolution of the X-ray peak position.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The phrase 'Unsurprisingly, the sequential comparison between X-ray echoes and velocity slices isn't perfect' is informal; consider replacing it with a quantitative statement about the scatter in the per-year overlap percentages.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract says '3-D map' while the body of the paper uses '3-D model'; please align the terminology for consistency.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Density map is the X-ray flux map rescaled by a constant fitted to the Herschel peak; the 3-D tomography model itself is assumption-dependent but not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, 'Density distribution of the Sticks cloud']
    "We assume that the X-ray flux in each slice is proportional to the column density in this slice ... a normalization factor was calculated by dividing the peak column density by the peak X-ray flux, since we are assuming they are proportional. We then created column density maps for each X-ray slice by multiplying each pixel by the column density normalization."

    The slice column-density map is constructed as N_slice(x,y) = C * I_X(x,y), where C = N_Herschel,peak / I_X,peak is a single scalar fitted to the Herschel and X-ray peaks. Therefore the resulting '3-D density distribution' contains exactly the same spatial information as the X-ray flux map; it is the input X-ray image rescaled by a constant. Any agreement between the densest regions of this map and the molecular tracers was already inherited from the X-ray-to-molecular overlap analysis in Section 3.1, so the density maps do not independently probe or validate molecular structure.

full rationale

The central tomography claim is not circular: the time-to-depth conversion uses the independent paraboloid relation of Sunyaev & Churazov (1998) with external parameters (25 pc, 200 yr from Marin et al. 2023), and the 3-D model is an assumption-dependent reconstruction rather than a fit recycled as an output. The X-ray/molecular overlap analysis (Section 3.1) is an independent comparison of two datasets and supports the echo interpretation. However, Section 3.3 constructs the slice column-density maps by multiplying the X-ray flux map by a single normalization constant fitted to the Herschel and X-ray peaks. The resulting '3-D density distribution' is therefore the input X-ray flux map rescaled by a constant; its spatial structure is identical to the X-ray map, and any agreement with molecular tracers was already established in Section 3.1. That step is a fitted input presented as a calculated physical output (partial circularity). The paper is transparent about the proportionality assumption, but the density map contains no independent structural information beyond the X-ray image. The z-axis coordinates are prescribed by assumed distance and event age, which is a modelling choice, not a circular step. Overall score reflects one partial reduction-by-construction in a secondary result while the main tomography and correlation claims remain independent.

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

The central 3-D model depends on five free parameters or hand-chosen values: the assumed cloud distance and flare age (from prior polarization work), the column density normalization (fitted to the peak Herschel value), and the smoothing kernel and contour levels (selected by hand). There are no invented particles or forces. The analysis also rests on domain assumptions about X-ray echo physics and the mapping of velocity slices to spatial positions.

free parameters (5)
  • cloud_line_of_sight_distance = 25 pc (range 20 pc in front to 45 pc behind)
    Assumed from Marin et al. 2023 polarization measurement; converts X-ray echo time delays into physical z-axis positions. Changing it changes the slice separation and the total 3-D length.
  • flare_age = 200 yr (range 100-200 yr)
    Assumed from Marin et al. 2023; sets the speed of the light front in Eq. (2) and hence the physical spacing between yearly slices.
  • column_density_normalization = peak Herschel column density / peak X-ray flux (not quoted)
    Fitted to one point (peak values) to convert X-ray flux maps into column density maps, under the assumption of proportionality.
  • gaussian_smoothing_kernel = 4 pixels (main contours), 3 pixels (dense cores)
    Hand-selected to balance signal-to-noise against spatial resolution; changes the shape of X-ray contours and thus the overlap percentages.
  • xray_contour_levels = 3e-9 and 7e-9 counts/s/cm^2/pixel
    Hand-chosen to highlight diffuse and dense emission; the resulting contour areas directly affect the reported overlap percentages.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption X-ray flux is proportional to column density of illuminated gas
    Invoked in Section 3.3 to convert X-ray flux maps to column density maps, citing Capelli et al. 2012 and Tsuru et al. 2014.
  • domain assumption Paraboloid echo geometry (Sunyaev and Churazov 1998)
    Eq. (2) from Sunyaev and Churazov 1998 describes the locus of illuminated material; the paper relies on this geometry to map observation time to line-of-sight position.
  • domain assumption All X-ray signal is associated with the Sticks cloud
    Stated in Section 3.2 as an assumption; contamination from other clouds would distort the 3-D map.
  • domain assumption The paraboloid can be approximated as a plane moving at c on cloud scales
    Stated in Section 3.2; only correct if the cloud is in the plane of Sgr A*, otherwise the speed is faster or slower.
  • domain assumption Sequential velocity slices correspond roughly to sequential spatial slices
    The sequential comparison in Figure 2 assumes velocity slices line up with X-ray years, which the paper acknowledges is an oversimplification (Beaumont et al. 2013).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3D MC I: X-ray Tomography Begins to Unravel the 3-D Structure of a Molecular Cloud in our Galaxy's Center." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2OLM6PLJ

@misc{pith2026250107717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3D MC I: X-ray Tomography Begins to Unravel the 3-D Structure of a Molecular Cloud in our Galaxy's Center},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2OLM6PLJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07717}
}
read the original abstract

Astronomers have used observations of the Galactic gas and dust via infrared, microwave, and radio to study molecular clouds in extreme environments such as the Galactic center. More recently, X- ray telescopes have opened up a new wavelength range in which to study these molecular clouds. Previous flaring events from SgrA* propagate X-rays outwards in all directions, and these X-rays interact with the surrounding molecular gas, illuminating different parts of the clouds over time. We use a combination of X-ray observations from Chandra and molecular gas tracers (line data from Herschel and the Submillimeter Array) to analyze specific features in the Sticks cloud, one of three clouds in the Three Little Pigs system in the Central Molecular Zone (Galactic longitude and latitude of 0.106 and -0.082 degrees respectively). We also present a novel X-ray tomography method we used to create 3-D map of the Sticks cloud. By combining X-ray and molecular tracer observations, we are able to learn more about the environment inside the Sticks cloud.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07717 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A comparison of the multi-wavelength observations of the Sticks cloud used in this analysis shows good correlation between the X-ray echoes and the position of the molecular gas and dust. Left: Integrated X-ray observations of 6.4 keV emission from 2010 to 2017 with Gaussian smoothing applied (see methods for details). Center : RGB image incorporating observations of H2CO (blue), NH3 (green), and SiO (red). Each mol… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A comparison between each year of X-ray observations (colored contours) and consecutive H2CO integrated velocity slices (grayscale background) suggests a good match in the overall morphological structures. Each panel shown has the average velocity indicated at the bottom of the image. The contours for each year of X-ray observations were matched with an integrated H2CO image sequentially. By eye, we see relatively g… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [Top] An illustration (not to scale) of the top-down view of the geometry of the Sticks cloud and SgrA*. The separation between the Sticks cloud and the black hole is around 20 pc, but the position of the cloud either in front of or behind the black hole is less certain. The scale bar on the right side of the illustration indicates the range of distances the Sticks cloud could be at in front of or behind SgrA*. The … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The column density calculated for each year of X-ray observations of the Sticks cloud. The contours shown for each year are the same ones plotted in the previous figures. We see a variety of dense cores throughout the cloud in the X-ray observations. behind the black h…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. 3D MC II: X ray echoes reveal a clumpy molecular cloud in the CMZ

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

    X-ray echo tomography shows the Stone cloud in the Galactic center is a diffuse cloud with dense clumps, extending about 1.7 pc along the line of sight.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    VXI ot, mf͚ 6,>ꫯ2 ux֬Y 믿^ o ;C lEEEqUW]I믿 w̝;7<1 @^mIr۷o ХzSB .] |p<3er-q饗fWvaLG3ɥ ?0z SNvV֭g-

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    A., et al.\ 2020, , 578, 237

    Alves, J., Zucker, C., Goodman, A. A., et al.\ 2020, , 578, 237. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1874-z

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1874-z 2020

  5. [5]

    P., Tollerud, E

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    M., Sip o cz, B

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [7]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al.\ 2022, , 935, 167. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  8. [8]

    T., Longmore, S

    Barnes, A. T., Longmore, S. N., Battersby, C., et al.\ 2017, , 469, 2263. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx941

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx941 2017

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116559

    Battersby, C., Bally, J., Ginsburg, A., et al.\ 2011, , 535, A128. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116559

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aba18e

    Battersby, C., Keto, E., Walker, D., et al.\ 2020, , 249, 35. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aba18e

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Battersby, C. et al. 3-D CMZ II: Hierarchical Structure Analysis of the Central Molecular Zone. Accepted in , 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    N., Offner, S

    Beaumont, C. N., Offner, S. S. R., Shetty, R., et al.\ 2013, , 777, 173. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/173

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    O., Lang, C

    Butterfield, N. O., Lang, C. C., Ginsburg, A., et al.\ 2022, , 936, 186. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac887c

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    N., Battersby, C., et al.\ 2023, , 520, 4760

    Callanan, D., Longmore, S. N., Battersby, C., et al.\ 2023, , 520, 4760. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad388

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Porquet, D., et al.\ 2012, , 545, A35

    Capelli, R., Warwick, R. S., Porquet, D., et al.\ 2012, , 545, A35. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219544

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2750

    Churazov, E., Khabibullin, I., Sunyaev, R., et al.\ 2017, , 465, 45. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2750

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321667

    Clavel, M., Terrier, R., Goldwurm, A., et al.\ 2013, , 558, A32. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321667

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731864

    Chuard, D., Terrier, R., Goldwurm, A., et al.\ 2018, , 610, A34. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731864

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347628

    Edenhofer, G., Zucker, C., Frank, P., et al.\ 2024, , 685, A82. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347628

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Longmore, S

    Federrath, C., Rathborne, J. M., Longmore, S. N., et al.\ 2016, , 832, 143. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/143

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    E., Heitsch, F., et al.\ 2023, Protostars and Planets VII, 534, 153

    Hacar, A., Clark, S. E., Heitsch, F., et al.\ 2023, Protostars and Planets VII, 534, 153. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.09562

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    & Dame, T

    Heyer, M. & Dame, T. M.\ 2015, , 53, 583. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    D.\ 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    Hunter, J. D.\ 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90. doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    Joye, W. A. & Mandel, E.\ 2003, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, 295, 489

    2003

  17. [25]

    S., Krumholz, M

    Klessen, R. S., Krumholz, M. R., & Heitsch, F.\ 2011, Advanced Science Letters, 4, 258. doi:10.1166/asl.2011.1207

    2011

  18. [26]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06064-x

    Marin, F., Churazov, E., Khabibullin, I., et al.\ 2023, , 619, 41. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06064-x

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    L.\ 1985, , 152, 371

    Perault, M., Falgarone, E., & Puget, J. L.\ 1985, , 152, 371

    1985

  20. [28]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/732

    Ponti, G., Terrier, R., Goldwurm, A., et al.\ 2010, , 714, 732. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/732

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Heyer, M., et al.\ 2010, , 723, 492

    Roman-Duval, J., Jackson, J. M., Heyer, M., et al.\ 2010, , 723, 492. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/492

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    K., Schinnerer, E., et al.\ 2020, , 901, L8

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., et al.\ 2020, , 901, L8. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abb3be

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    & Churazov, E.\ 1998, , 297, 1279

    Sunyaev, R. & Churazov, E.\ 1998, , 297, 1279. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01684.x

    1998

  24. [32]

    G., Uchiyama, H., Nobukawa, K

    Tsuru, T. G., Uchiyama, H., Nobukawa, K. K., et al.\ 2014, Suzaku-MAXI 2014: Expanding the Frontiers of the X-ray Universe, 20. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1408.0205

    2014 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    W., Jefferts, K

    Wilson, R. W., Jefferts, K. B., & Penzias, A. A.\ 1970, , 161, L43. doi:10.1086/180567

    1970 doi

  26. [34]

    F., Speagle, J

    Zucker, C., Schlafly, E. F., Speagle, J. S., et al.\ 2018, , 869, 83. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae97c

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Schlafly, E

    Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., Schlafly, E. F., et al.\ 2019, , 879, 125. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2388

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    S., Schlafly, E

    Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., Schlafly, E. F., et al.\ 2020, , 633, A51. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936145

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f96

    Zucker, C., Goodman, A., Alves, J., et al.\ 2021, , 919, 35. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f96

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    A., Alves, J., et al.\ 2022, , 601, 334

    Zucker, C., Goodman, A. A., Alves, J., et al.\ 2022, , 601, 334. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04286-5

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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