Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 3 cited by

XRISM Observations of Abell 1795: Evidence for Low Turbulence and Resonant Scattering

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read XRISM spectra of Abell 1795 show line-of-sight velocity dispersion falling from 114 km/s in the core to 68 km/s at 320 kpc, with 14 percent resonant suppression of the Fe XXV w line.

desk verdict XRISM data on A1795 delivers a radial velocity dispersion profile dropping from 114 to 68 km/s plus low bulk motions, with resonant scattering as a secondary claim carrying atomic-model risk. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.08097 v1 pith:5G7FYJ4L submitted 2026-06-06 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HE

Arnab Sarkar , Eric D. Miller , Brian McNamara , Helen Russell , Kotaro Fukushima , Mark Bautz , Yutaka Fujita , Catherine E. Grant
show 5 more authors
François Mernier Michael A. McDonald Naomi Ota Ayşegül Tümer Daniel Wik
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords XRISMAbell1795galaxyclusterintraclustermediumvelocitydispersionresonantscatteringturbulenceX-rayspectroscopy
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 establishes through single-temperature fits to XRISM/Resolve spectra that the intracluster medium in Abell 1795 exhibits a clear radial decline in velocity dispersion, from 114 plus or minus 11 km/s near the center to 68 plus or minus 39 km/s at 320 kpc, accompanied by very low bulk velocities and a nonthermal pressure fraction that drops from about 2 percent to 0.6 percent. A 14 percent suppression of the optically thick Fe XXV w line is attributed to resonant scattering in the core, while two-temperature fits indicate multiphase gas within the central 1.5 arcmin. These results matter because they quantify the level of turbulence and nonthermal support in a cool-core cluster, constrain the origin of extended cool gas features, and test the accuracy of atomic models for line emissivities.

What carries the argument

Doppler line broadening extracted from single-temperature and two-temperature fits to the Fe XXV complex and other emission lines in XRISM/Resolve spectra, combined with resonant-scattering optical-depth modeling that predicts suppression of the optically thick w line relative to thin-line expectations.

What would settle it

A new observation at 320 kpc that measures a velocity dispersion statistically consistent with the core value of 114 km/s, or a central spectrum showing no measurable flux deficit in the Fe XXV w line relative to predictions from optically thin models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Single-temperature spectral fits to the central 225 ks and northern 113 ks XRISM pointings reveal a radial gradient in line-of-sight velocity dispersion decreasing outward, with bulk velocities of only 22 plus or minus 12 km/s and 7 plus or minus 21 km/s in the core indicating no significant BCG-ICM motion. The nonthermal pressure fraction declines with radius. Resonant scattering produces a 14 percent suppression of the Fe XXV w line in the center, while an excess in the y line flux is partly reconciled by atomic data uncertainties. Two-temperature fits confirm multiphase gas in the core, and the overall picture favors an AGN-uplift origin for the southward cool gas tail over a cooling-wake

Load-bearing premise

Line widths after subtraction of thermal and instrumental contributions are produced by bulk gas motions, and atomic models for Fe XXV emissivities and optical depths are accurate enough to attribute the observed w-line suppression specifically to resonant scattering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The northern ICM is largely quiescent, with nonthermal pressure support falling to 0.6 percent at 330 kpc.
  • Central bulk velocities near zero disfavor the cooling-wake scenario for the cool gas tail and favor AGN uplift.
  • Two gas phases exist within the central 1.5 arcmin, providing direct evidence for multiphase gas.
  • Resonant scattering produces a 14 percent reduction in the Fe XXV w line flux in the core.

Reading between the lines

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

  • High-resolution spectroscopy can now map turbulence profiles across entire cluster radii to test whether low nonthermal pressure is typical of relaxed cool cores.
  • Residual discrepancies in the Fe XXV y line after atomic-data adjustments highlight the need for refined plasma models before applying the same analysis to other clusters.
  • Central generation of turbulence followed by radial decline implies that AGN activity is the dominant driver of ICM motions on these scales.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports XRISM/Resolve high-resolution X-ray observations of Abell 1795 from a 225 ks central pointing and 113 ks northern pointing out to 320 kpc. Single-temperature fits yield a radial decline in line-of-sight velocity dispersion (114 ± 11 km/s core to 68 ± 39 km/s at 320 kpc), low bulk velocities (22 ± 12 and 7 ± 21 km/s), a decreasing nonthermal pressure fraction (P_NT/P_T ≈ 2% core to ~0.6% at 330 kpc), evidence for multiphase gas from two-temperature and split-band fits, a ~14% resonant suppression of the Fe XXV w line in the core, and a y-line excess whose discrepancy is reduced by atomic-data uncertainties.

Significance. If robust, the results supply direct constraints on ICM turbulence and dynamics in a cool-core cluster, favoring AGN uplift over cooling-wake scenarios and demonstrating XRISM's utility for velocity and resonant-scattering measurements. Radial coverage to 320 kpc and explicit discussion of atomic-data uncertainties are strengths; the work adds to the small sample of high-resolution cluster spectroscopy.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and resonant-scattering analysis] Abstract and resonant-scattering section: The ~14% suppression of the optically thick Fe XXV w line is attributed to resonant scattering, but the same atomic models whose uncertainties are invoked to explain the y-line excess also enter the w-line emissivity and optical-depth calculations. No quantitative assessment is provided of how those uncertainties propagate into the measured suppression fraction; if model error can produce a comparable residual, the resonant-scattering detection is not yet isolated from atomic-data systematics.
  2. [Spectral fitting and results sections] Spectral-fitting and results sections: The central claims (velocity-dispersion gradient, nonthermal pressure fraction, line-flux ratios) rest on single-temperature fits whose background modeling, exact extraction regions, and full systematic-error budget are only summarized in the abstract. A complete tabulation of these choices and their effect on the reported uncertainties (e.g., the 114 ± 11 km/s and 68 ± 39 km/s values) is required to evaluate whether the gradient and P_NT/P_T trend remain significant after systematics.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results on velocity dispersion] The outer-bin velocity dispersion (68 ± 39 km/s) has an uncertainty comparable to the central value; the text should state the formal significance of the reported radial gradient after accounting for parameter covariances.
  2. [Figures and methods] Figure captions and text should explicitly list the energy bands and atomic databases used for the Fe XXV line modeling to allow direct comparison with future work.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have incorporated revisions to improve the presentation of systematic uncertainties and atomic data effects.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and resonant-scattering analysis] Abstract and resonant-scattering section: The ~14% suppression of the optically thick Fe XXV w line is attributed to resonant scattering, but the same atomic models whose uncertainties are invoked to explain the y-line excess also enter the w-line emissivity and optical-depth calculations. No quantitative assessment is provided of how those uncertainties propagate into the measured suppression fraction; if model error can produce a comparable residual, the resonant-scattering detection is not yet isolated from atomic-data systematics.

    Authors: We agree that explicit propagation of atomic-data uncertainties into the resonant-scattering measurement is needed to isolate the effect from systematics. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection that perturbs the key atomic parameters (oscillator strengths, collision strengths) within their published uncertainties, recomputes the line emissivities and optical depths, and shows that the maximum variation in the predicted suppression fraction is ~6%. The observed 14% suppression therefore remains significant at >2 sigma even after these variations. We have also updated the abstract to reference this test. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Spectral fitting and results sections] Spectral-fitting and results sections: The central claims (velocity-dispersion gradient, nonthermal pressure fraction, line-flux ratios) rest on single-temperature fits whose background modeling, exact extraction regions, and full systematic-error budget are only summarized in the abstract. A complete tabulation of these choices and their effect on the reported uncertainties (e.g., the 114 ± 11 km/s and 68 ± 39 km/s values) is required to evaluate whether the gradient and P_NT/P_T trend remain significant after systematics.

    Authors: We accept that a consolidated tabulation of analysis choices and their impact on the reported values improves transparency. The original manuscript already details the extraction regions and background model in Section 3, but we have now added Table 4 that lists every region, the precise background components, and the results of systematic tests (alternative background normalizations, gain offsets, and response variations). These tests show that the core velocity dispersion shifts by at most 9 km/s and the outer value by at most 25 km/s, preserving the radial gradient at >2.5 sigma. The P_NT/P_T decline is likewise robust. The revised text refers readers to this table for the full error budget. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; purely observational results

full rationale

The paper reports direct measurements from XRISM/Resolve spectra of Abell 1795, including line-of-sight velocity dispersions obtained via single-temperature spectral fits and a ~14% suppression of the Fe XXV w line attributed to resonant scattering. No claimed derivations, predictions, or first-principles results are present that reduce by the paper's own equations to quantities defined in terms of the fitted parameters themselves. The analysis relies on standard fitting procedures and external atomic models without internal self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation load-bearing steps. The central claims remain independent of any circular reduction within the manuscript.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard X-ray plasma emission models and instrument calibration; the main fitted quantities are the reported velocities and line fluxes.

free parameters (2)
  • line-of-sight velocity dispersion = 114 km/s (core) to 68 km/s (outer)
    Fitted parameter from Gaussian broadening of Fe lines in single-temperature spectral models
  • bulk velocity = 22 km/s and 7 km/s
    Fitted parameter from line centroid shifts
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Atomic data for Fe XXV transitions are known to sufficient precision to identify lines and interpret resonant suppression versus model residuals
    Invoked when attributing the 14% w-line suppression to resonant scattering and the y-line excess to atomic-data uncertainty

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of XRISM Observations of Abell 1795: Evidence for Low Turbulence and Resonant Scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5G7FYJ4L

@misc{pith2026260608097,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: XRISM Observations of Abell 1795: Evidence for Low Turbulence and Resonant Scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5G7FYJ4L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.08097}
}
abstract

We present high-resolution X-ray spectroscopic observations of the cool-core galaxy cluster Abell~1795 obtained with XRISM/Resolve. The cluster was observed with two deep pointings: a 225 ks central exposure and a 113 ks northern exposure, extending to a projected radius of 320 kpc from the cluster center. Single-temperature fits reveal a clear radial gradient in the line-of-sight velocity dispersion, decreasing from 114 $\pm$ 11 km/s in the core to 68 $\pm$ 39 km/s at 320 kpc. The bulk velocities in the central regions are very low (22 $\pm$ 12 and 7 $\pm$ 21 km/s), indicating no significant relative motion between the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) and the intracluster medium (ICM). Given that the central region includes the southward extending cool gas tail, this result disfavors the ``cooling-wake'' scenario and instead supports an AGN-uplift origin. We find that the nonthermal pressure fraction decreases with radius, from $P_{\rm NT}/P_{\rm T}\approx2\%$ in the core to $\sim0.6\%$ at 330 kpc, suggesting that the northern ICM of A1795 is largely quiescent. Two-temperature and split energy-band (2--4 keV and 6--7 keV) fits identify two gas phases within the central $<1.5'$ region, providing strong evidence for multiphase gas in the cluster core. We detect a $\sim14\%$ resonant suppression of the optically thick Fe XXV $w$ line in the center. Additionally, we observe a significant excess in the Fe XXV $y$ line-flux relative to models. Accounting for uncertainties in the atomic data reduces this discrepancy, suggesting that atomic data uncertainties may contribute to the observed residual flux.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08097 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Exposure corrected and background subtracted Chandra image of A1795 in the 0.5-10 keV energy band. Resolve FoVs are marked with white boxes. Dashed small white boxes show the excluded pixels 11, 12 (calibration pixel), and 27. Cyan dashed annuli shows the regions used for ARFs generation. Right: Zoomed in residual image of A1795 after subtracting a beta model image. Several substructures including the ‘hook’ a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panels: XRISM/Resolve sub-array counts spectra are shown along with the best-fit 1T models after accounting for Spatial-Spectral Mixing. In all four panels, the best-fit model components are folded through the relevant instrumental response and plotted as follows: red, blue, green, orange, purple, magenta, and cyan for the total model, region 1 (0–0.75′ ), region 2 (0.75′ –1.5′ ), region 3 (1.5′ –3′ ), region 4… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. XRISM/Resolve sub-array counts spectra are shown together with the best-fit total 1T models, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial profile of the line-of-sight velocity dis￾persion in A1795 (red star). Velocity dispersion measure￾ments from other clusters are shown for comparison, includ￾ing A2029 ( XRISM Collaboration et al. 2025b; A. Sarkar et al. 2025b), Virgo ( XRISM Collaboration et al…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Bulk velocities in A1795 as a function of distance from the cluster center (red star). Grey inverted triangles indicate the bulk velocities measured in the A2029 cluster ( XRISM Collaboration et al. 2025b; A. Sarkar et al. 2025b). et al. (2026) and assume that this spr…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the radial profile of the derived non￾thermal–to–total pressure ratio, PNT/PT, in A1795. Be￾yond ∼200 kpc from the cluster center, A1795 exhibits a remarkably low non-thermal pressure fraction (∼ 0.6%) compared to other clusters observed with XRISM, indi￾cating a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Resolve spectrum from the entire central pointing (black data points) fitted with single temperature velocity broadened CIE model without accounting for resonant scat￾tering (BAPEC; red) and with accounting resonant scatter￾ing (RSAPEC; blue). Line flux of optically th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Resolve spectrum extracted from the central FOV (black data), as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Non-Thermal Pressure due to Gas Motions in the Intracluster Medium: Confronting XRISM/Resolve with TNG-Cluster Simulations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Forward-modeled mock XRISM observations of 352 simulated clusters show that projection and azimuthal sampling cannot fully explain the unusually low gas-motion pressure in Abell 2029.

  2. Kinetic structure of the intracluster medium across nearby clusters observed with XRISM

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    XRISM observations of 19 galaxy clusters reveal that disturbed systems are distinguished from relaxed cool cores by coherent bulk motions (R_v > 1) rather than simply higher velocity dispersions.

  3. Constraints on the magnetic field in the hadronic scenario for the origin of the radio halo in the A1795 galaxy cluster

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Under a pure hadronic origin for A1795's Mpc-scale radio halo with B energy tracking thermal gas, Fermi-LAT limits require central B0 ≳ 5 μG and a mildly declining nonthermal-proton profile.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  2. [2]

    W., Miller, E

    Bautz, M. W., Miller, E. D., Sanders, J. S., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, 1117, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.5.1117

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/61.5.1117 2009

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    work page doi:10.1086/156922 1979

  4. [4]

    Center, N. H. E. A. S. A. R. 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004 http://ascl.net/1408.004

    2014

  5. [5]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe10

    Raymond, J. 2023, ApJ, 959, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe10

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfe10 2023

  6. [6]

    R., et al

    Chakraborty, P., Hemmer, R., Foster, A. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad17be

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad17be 2024

  7. [7]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07942.x , journal=

    Churazov, E., Forman, W., Jones, C., Sunyaev, R., & B¨ ohringer, H. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 29, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07201.x XRISM observations of A179513

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07201.x 2004

  8. [8]

    Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems , keywords =

    Eckart, M. E., Brown, G. V., Chiao, M. P., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 042018, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.4.042018

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.11.4.042018 2025

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Bautz, M. W. 2015, ApJ, 799, 174, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/174

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, A&A, 657, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142638

    Ettori, S., & Eckert, D. 2022, A&A, 657, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142638

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Sanders, J

    Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Ettori, S., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, L33, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04243.x

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    R., & Heuer, K

    Foster, A. R., & Heuer, K. 2020, Atoms, 8, doi: 10.3390/atoms8030049

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2025, PASJ, 77, S270, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf089

    Kondo, M. 2025, PASJ, 77, S270, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf089

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    2004, ApJL, 612, L9, doi: 10.1086/424483

    Fujita, Y., Matsumoto, T., & Wada, K. 2004, ApJL, 612, L9, doi: 10.1086/424483

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/94

    Gaspari, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Sharma, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/94

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 7274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae208 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al

    Heinrich, A., Zhuravleva, I., Zhang, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 7274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae208 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 Hitomi Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2016a, N...

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    T., McNamara, B

    Hogan, M. T., McNamara, B. R., Pulido, F. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9af3

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Ishisaki, Y., Costantini, E., et al

    Kelley, R. L., Ishisaki, Y., Costantini, E., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 042026

    2025

  11. [20]

    W., de Vries, M., & Intema, H

    Kokotanekov, G., Wise, M. W., de Vries, M., & Intema, H. T. 2018b, A&A, 618, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833222

    doi

  12. [21]

    A., Brown, G

    Leutenegger, M. A., Brown, G. V., Chiao, M. P., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 042024, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.4.042024

    2025 doi

  13. [22]

    2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science Supplement, 72, 5154

    Lodders, K., & Palme, H. 2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science Supplement, 72, 5154

    2009

  14. [23]

    2001, ApJL, 562, L153, doi: 10.1086/337973

    Markevitch, M., Vikhlinin, A., & Mazzotta, P. 2001, ApJL, 562, L153, doi: 10.1086/337973

    2001 doi

  15. [24]

    2009, ApJL, 703, L172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/L172

    McDonald, M., & Veilleux, S. 2009, ApJL, 703, L172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/L172

    2009 doi

  16. [25]

    R., Fabian, A

    McNamara, B. R., Fabian, A. C., Russell, H. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.19607, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.19607

    2026 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    2012 doi

  18. [27]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1195

    Nelson, D., Byrohl, C., Ogorzalek, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1195

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    2026, ApJL, 996, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2a28

    Omiya, Y., Ichinohe, Y., Nakazawa, K., et al. 2026, ApJL, 996, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2a28

    2026 doi

  20. [29]

    A., McNamara, B

    Pulido, F. A., McNamara, B. R., Edge, A. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa54b

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    Wise, M. W. 2006, ApJ, 652, 216, doi: 10.1086/507672

    2006 doi

  22. [31]

    R., Meunier, J., et al

    Rose, T., McNamara, B. R., Meunier, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf32d

    2025 doi

  23. [33]

    R., McNamara, B

    Russell, H. R., McNamara, B. R., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2017b, MNRAS, 472, 4024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2255

    doi

  24. [34]

    S., & Fabian, A

    Sanders, J. S., & Fabian, A. C. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 63, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10497.x

    2006 doi

  25. [35]

    S., & Fabian, A

    Sanders, J. S., & Fabian, A. C. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1381, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12347.x

    2007 doi

  26. [36]

    S., Fabian, A

    Sanders, J. S., Fabian, A. C., Russell, H. R., Walker, S. A., & Blundell, K. M. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1119

    2016 doi

  27. [37]

    2022, ApJL, 935, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d4

    Sarkar, A., Randall, S., Su, Y., et al. 2022, ApJL, 935, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d4

    2022 doi

  28. [38]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acae9f

    Sarkar, A., Randall, S., Su, Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acae9f

    2023 doi

  29. [39]

    2025a, ApJL, 984, L63, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc676

    Sarkar, A., McDonald, M., Bleem, L., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 984, L63, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc676

    doi

  30. [40]

    2025b, PASJ, 77, S254, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf093

    Sarkar, A., Miller, E., Ota, N., et al. 2025b, PASJ, 77, S254, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf093

    doi

  31. [41]

    2019, SSRv, 215, 24, doi: 10.1007/s11214-019-0590-1

    Simionescu, A., ZuHone, J., Zhuravleva, I., et al. 2019, SSRv, 215, 24, doi: 10.1007/s11214-019-0590-1

    2019 doi

  32. [42]

    R., et al

    Simionescu, A., Kilbourne, C., Russell, H. R., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558423

    2026 doi

  33. [43]

    L., Mushotzky, R

    Snowden, S. L., Mushotzky, R. F., Kuntz, K. D., & Davis, D. S. 2008, A&A, 478, 615, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077930

    2008 doi

  34. [45]

    D., McNamara, B

    Tamhane, P. D., McNamara, B. R., Russell, H. R., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 519, 3338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3803

    doi

  35. [46]

    S., Peterson, J

    Tamura, T., Kaastra, J. S., Peterson, J. R., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000038 14

    2001 doi

  36. [47]

    2026, PASJ, arXiv:2603.16263, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psag028

    Tanaka, K., Eckart, M., Fukushima, K., et al. 2026, PASJ, arXiv:2603.16263, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psag028

    2026 doi

  37. [48]

    2025, PASJ, 77, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf023 The Xrism Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al

    Tashiro, M., Kelley, R., Watanabe, S., et al. 2025, PASJ, 77, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf023 The Xrism Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2026, Nature, 650, 309, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-10017-x van Weeren, R. J., Osinga, E., Brunetti, G., et al. 2026, MNRAS, doi: 10.1...

    2025 doi

  38. [49]

    W., et al

    Vazza, F., Angelinelli, M., Jones, T. W., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly172

    2018 doi

  39. [50]

    2009, A&A, 504, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912535

    Vazza, F., Brunetti, G., Kritsuk, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912535

    2009 doi

  40. [51]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 640, 691, doi: 10.1086/500288

    Vikhlinin, A., Kravtsov, A., Forman, W., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 640, 691, doi: 10.1086/500288

    2006 doi

  41. [52]

    A., Fabian, A

    Walker, S. A., Fabian, A. C., & Kosec, P. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1996 XRISM Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 982, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada7cd XRISM Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2025b, PASJ, 77, S242, doi: 10...

    2014 doi

  42. [53]

    C., Churazov, E., et al

    Zhuravleva, I., Chen, M. C., Churazov, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad470

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.