Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 83 references

From Observations to Simulations: A Neural-Network Approach to Intracluster Medium Kinematics

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a Siamese convolutional neural network trained on simulated velocity maps can identify, for each of four XMM-Newton clusters, a TNG300 halo whose gas kinematics match the observations, pointing to sloshing, AGN feedbac

desk verdict A sensible proof of concept for deep metric learning on ICM velocity maps, but the validation is partly circular and the physical conclusions outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.20755 v1 pith:7SOCF6ZM submitted 2025-11-25 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

E. Gatuzz , J. ZuHone , J. S. Sanders , A. Fabian , A. Liu , C. Pinto , S. Walker This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords intraclustermediumvelocitymapsSiameseneuralnetworktripletlossgalaxyclusterdynamicsTNG300simulationsXMM-Newtongassloshing
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 the line-of-sight velocity structure of the hot intracluster medium, as measured by XMM-Newton, can be matched to specific simulated galaxy clusters from the Illustris TNG300 suite using a Siamese convolutional neural network. The network learns a compact embedding of velocity maps so that similar kinematic morphologies end up close together. For Virgo, Centaurus, Ophiuchus, and A3266, the best-matching simulated halos reproduce the observed large-scale velocity gradients and localized substructures. If true, this gives a data-driven way to read dynamical state — gas sloshing, AGN-driven outflows, or merger activity — directly from velocity morphology, without hand-picked statistics. It also suggests that the TNG300 feedback model captures the dominant physics shaping ICM motions.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Siamese convolutional neural network trained with triplet loss, which encodes each velocity map into a 64-dimensional embedding vector such that similar maps lie close in Euclidean distance. The distance between observed and simulated embeddings serves as the matching metric. Training uses anchor-positive-negative triplets drawn from 5016 synthetic velocity maps (40 halos × about 101 projections), and the network's ability to cluster rotational variants of the same halo is cited as evidence that it learns intrinsic kinematic structure rather than projection-dependent artifacts.

What would settle it

Generate mock XMM-Newton-like maps by projecting the best-match TNG300 halos through the EPIC-pn point-spread function, adding background and Poisson noise at the same count levels as the real observations, and re-running the CNN matching; if the top-ranked halo changes or the embedding distance no longer separates the correct halo from random others, the claimed transfer to observations fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a triplet-loss Siamese CNN trained purely on synthetic line-of-sight velocity maps from TNG300 can rank simulated halos by kinematic similarity to real XMM-Newton maps, and that the top-ranked halos for Virgo, Centaurus, Ophiuchus, and A3266 reproduce the observed large-scale velocity gradients and local kinematic substructures. The authors further claim that the embedding space clusters different projection angles of the same halo together, meaning the learned similarity is orientation-invariant and not merely matching viewing geometry. They interpret the matched halos as evidence that ICM motions in these clusters arise from a combination of gas sloshing, AGN feed

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a network trained exclusively on TNG300 synthetic velocity maps—without XMM-Newton response, PSF, or noise modeling—produces embeddings that transfer to real observations; the paper's own validation uses perturbed and random maps within the simulation domain only.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the matches are correct, the four clusters' dynamical states are tied to concrete simulated analogs, giving quantitative gas masses, stellar masses, and star-formation rates (for example, Ophiuchus matching a massive halos with a major-merger velocity field).
  • The orientation-invariance result means future comparisons may not need to know the viewing angle in advance; the embedding can absorb projection effects.
  • The framework provides a scalable, non-parametric way to connect future high-resolution X-ray velocity maps, such as those from XRISM or Athena, to large-volume cosmological simulations.
  • The agreement with TNG300 baryonic properties suggests current feedback models are broadly adequate, while the systematic underprediction of stellar masses identifies a specific place where feedback or star-formation suppression may need adjustment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to fold the synthetic maps through a mock XMM-Newton instrument response (PSF, background, and Poisson noise) and re-run the match; if the ranking changes, the current similarity metric may partly reflect simulation-specific smoothness rather than physical kinematic state.
  • The same embedding approach could be extended to joint maps of velocity plus temperature or metallicity, which may break degeneracies between sloshing and mergers that velocity morphology alone leaves ambiguous.
  • Because the method ranks halos, it could be inverted to calibrate simulation subgrid models: systematic mismatches between observed and best-match velocity fields could serve as a loss function for tuning feedback prescriptions.
  • The claimed orientation invariance implies a testable corollary: two different halos viewed from angles that produce similar projected kinematics should be close in embedding space, which could be checked with halos of known but different dynamical states.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Siamese CNN trained with triplet loss on 5016 synthetic LOS velocity maps generated from 40 TNG300 clusters, producing a 64-dimensional embedding for velocity-map morphology. XMM-Newton velocity maps of Virgo, Centaurus, Ophiuchus, and A3266 are embedded and matched to the nearest simulated halos by Euclidean distance. The authors report best-matching halos for each cluster and claim that the simulated maps reproduce the observed large-scale velocity gradients and local substructures, leading to inferences about gas sloshing, AGN feedback, and minority merger activity, and to the broader conclusion that TNG300 feedback physics is supported. The paper acknowledges in §7 that no XMM response/PSF/background modeling was performed and that statistical uncertainties were not propagated.

Significance. Direct ICM velocity maps are rare, and a data-driven method for connecting them to cosmological simulations is timely. The paper builds on recent XMM-Newton measurements and uses a publicly available simulation suite; the baryonic comparison (§6) provides an independent sanity check that the selected halos are not wildly inconsistent with observed masses. If the transfer from clean TNG300 mocks to real XMM maps were validated, the approach could be a scalable and reproducible tool for interpreting future XRISM/Athena velocity maps. However, as written, the central kinematic claim rests on an unvalidated transfer assumption and a validation step that appears circular; the quantitative similarity metrics are quoted without uncertainties. The evidence is therefore not yet sufficient to support the physical conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4 (validation paragraph)] The 'additional validation' described in §4 is circular as written: the network is trained on 'artificially generated datasets containing the XMM-Newton observation', so the model identifying the unperturbed observation as the closest match is preordained. This does not establish transfer to real data. Please clarify whether the observation and its perturbed versions were used only after training, or removed from the training set entirely. The same concern applies to the §5.2 claim that the embedding 'successfully clusters rotational variants', because the triplet objective explicitly uses same-halo projections as positive pairs.
  2. [§5.2 / §4] No held-out, halo-disjoint retrieval test is reported. The training set is described as 10% of the total simulations, but it is not stated whether the validation set contains projections of halos that also appear in the training set. If same-halo projections are in both, the reported orientation-invariance and the discrete distances in Table 2 are inflated. I request a retrieval test on halos completely excluded from training, with quantitative metrics (e.g., recall@k for same-halo projections), and a comparison against a simple pixel-level baseline such as apodized cross-correlation or chi-squared. Without such calibration, the Euclidean distances used for matching have no interpretable scale.
  3. [§6, Fig. 5 and Table 2] The central claim that the best-matching halos reproduce the observed velocity gradients and substructures is supported only by qualitative visual inspection of Fig. 5. No quantitative comparison is provided—for example, residual velocity maps, gradient magnitude/orientation statistics, or one-dimensional profiles. In addition, Table 2 quotes Euclidean distances to 0.001 with no uncertainties, despite §7 stating that statistical uncertainties are not propagated. Distances should be accompanied by bootstrap or perturbation-based error bars, or rounded to a justified precision.
  4. [§7 / transfer gap] The acknowledged absence of XMM response, PSF, background, and noise modeling means the embedding, trained on noiseless full-field TNG300 maps, may be responding to simulation-specific smoothness or resolution rather than physical kinematic state. A minimal test is to generate mock XMM-Newton observations of the simulated maps by convolving with the PSF, rebinning to the observational adaptive-bin scheme, adding noise at the observed level, and verifying that retrieval of the input halo is maintained. Without such a test, the similarity rankings in Table 2 cannot be interpreted as physically meaningful. The internal validation with perturbed/random maps does not address this issue.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1] The second paragraph lists only Virgo, Centaurus, and Ophiuchus as the comparison clusters, omitting A3266 that is analyzed later; correct the sentence or the list.
  2. [§4] Hyperparameter selection is based on the lowest triplet loss on the training data, with no validation criterion or early stopping described. Report the validation loss trajectory and whether the selected model retains good generalization.
  3. [§5.2, Eq. (6)] The relative threshold p is introduced with an example value p=0.20, but the actual value used to define 'very close' matches is not stated. Please give the adopted value and explain the sensitivity of the conclusion to it.
  4. [Fig. 5] The caption refers to 'the zoom-in panel' showing XMM-Newton data, but it is not clear which panel is the zoom-in or how the observed map is aligned/rebinned relative to the simulated map. Please label the inset and describe the coordinate transformation.
  5. [References] The reference 'XRISM Collaboration et al. 2025, Nature, 638, 365' appears twice with different capitalization; unify and avoid duplication. Several other entries have inconsistent formatting (e.g., arXiv papers without journal references).
  6. [§8] The statement that AGN feedback dominates at r≲50-100 kpc and sloshing dominates outside this radius is not derived from any radial analysis in this work. Either add supporting diagnostics or soften the claim to a speculative comment.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Validation of the CNN is circular: the observation is included in a training set before being 'identified as closest match,' the orientation-invariance claim is the triplet-loss objective, and the 'best-match reproduces observation' claim restates the matching criterion.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, 'Deep Learning Approach for Velocity Map Matching', additional validation paragraph]
    "As additional validation, the network was trained on artificially generated datasets containing the XMM-Newton observation, perturbed versions, and purely random maps. Perturbed images were produced by applying pixel shifts and rotations, while random maps were drawn from a uniform pixel-value distribution. The network correctly identified the unperturbed observation as the closest match, confirming that it learned physically meaningful kinematic representations."

    The XMM-Newton observation is part of the training data in this validation. After training on the observation itself, the network 'correctly identified the unperturbed observation as the closest match'—a memorization check, not a generalization test. The same trained CNN is then used in the matching phase (Eq. 5), so this validation cannot confirm that the embeddings transfer to real XMM maps; the 'confirmation' is true by construction because the target was in the training set.

  2. self definitional [Figure 2 caption and Section 5.2, 'Embedding Space Visualization and Analysis']
    "Each triplet consists of a reference (Anchor), a matched projection from the same simulation (Positive), and a mismatched projection from a different simulation (Negative). ... Applying this conservative threshold, we find that the 'very close' matches for each cluster correspond to the same halo from the simulation suite, differing only by their three-dimensional orientation. This result validates the Siamese CNN's capability, demonstrating that the embedding space successfully captures the intrinsic structure of a halo and correctly clusters rotational variants as highly similar rather than"

    The triplet loss is explicitly trained to pull different projections of the same simulation together (Anchor-Positive pairs are defined as projections of the same simulation). Therefore the finding that rotational variants of the same halo cluster in embedding space is the training objective itself, not an independent demonstration that the CNN captures physically meaningful orientation-invariant structure. The paper presents this optimization outcome as a validation, but it reduces to checking that the loss was minimized.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract and Section 4 matching phase (Eq. 5)]
    "We find that the best-matching simulated halos reproduce the observed large-scale velocity gradients and local kinematic substructures, suggesting that the ICM motions in these clusters arise from a combination of gas sloshing, AGN feedback, and minor merger activity. ... The simulation minimizing this distance is identified as the best match."

    The 'best match' is defined as the simulation minimizing the learned embedding distance (Eq. 5). Saying that the best-matching halo 'reproduces' the observed velocity structure restates the selection criterion rather than providing an independent test. The dynamical labels (sloshing, AGN feedback, merger) are then read off the selected TNG300 halo and attached to the observed cluster; because all candidate maps come from TNG300, the agreement cannot independently validate the TNG300 feedback model.

full rationale

The paper's core pipeline—train a Siamese CNN on TNG300 velocity maps, embed real XMM maps, and retrieve the nearest simulated halo—is not by itself circular: the CNN is trained on simulations, not on the physical labels, and the retrieval is a nearest-neighbor operation. However, the validity checks that justify the method are circular. (1) The 'additional validation' trains a network on datasets that include the actual XMM-Newton observation, then reports that the network identifies the unperturbed observation as the closest match; with the target in the training set, this is a memorization check, not evidence of transfer to real XMM data. (2) The orientation-invariance claim is the triplet-loss objective, since positive pairs are defined as different projections of the same simulation; observing that such projections cluster verifies the loss was minimized, not that the embedding captures physical kinematic state. (3) The abstract's claim that the best-matching halos 'reproduce' the observed velocity structure is a restatement of the matching criterion in Eq. 5, and the dynamic-state labels are transferred from the selected TNG300 halo without an external test that embedding similarity implies the same physical mechanism. These issues are partly anticipated by the caveats in Section 7 (no XMM response/PSF/background modeling, no statistical uncertainties), but the circular validation is not acknowledged. Because the central matching still has independent content—the CNN was not explicitly fit to the physical labels—the paper is partially circular rather than fully reducible to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the ability of a simulation-trained embedding to transfer to real observations, on the representativeness of 40 TNG300 halos, and on the accuracy of the observed velocity maps. No external kinematic benchmark is used to validate the embedding; the validation is internal to the simulation domain. Physical interpretations are read from the selected simulation, and the paper's conclusion that the agreement supports TNG300 feedback is therefore partially circular.

free parameters (4)
  • CNN architecture hyperparameters (embedding dimension, triplet margin, learning rate, epochs, batch size, steps per epoc = embedding_dim=64, margin=0.1, lr=1e-4, epochs=100, batch_size=32, steps_per_epoch=75
    Chosen by random search to minimize triplet loss on the training split (Table 1, §5.1); these are fitting choices with no independent physical grounding.
  • Relative 'very close' threshold p = 0.20 (20%)
    Ad hoc choice in Eq. (6) used to define 'very close' matches; not justified by data. It does not change the single best match but affects the reported conclusion that close matches are same-halo projections.
  • Training fraction of simulated maps = 10%
    Chosen by practical convenience; tests with larger fractions are said to be consistent but no numbers are given (§4).
  • Line-of-sight projection grid = 101 orientations (theta in [5,85] deg, phi in [0,175] deg in 10 deg steps)
    Coarse sampling of view angles; assumes 10-degree spacing adequately covers projection space (§3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TNG300 subgrid physics (AGN feedback, star formation) produces ICM velocity fields that are representative of real clusters at the scales compared.
    The entire matching library is drawn from TNG300 (§3); if TNG300 kinematics are systematically wrong, the best-match interpretation fails. Section 7 acknowledges the feedback model lacks resolved jet/bubble dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper The CNN embedding trained only on TNG300 simulations transfers to XMM-Newton observations.
    No real observations were used in training; the validation with perturbed/random maps is internal to the simulation domain (§4). Domain shift from noise-free, response-free simulated maps to observed maps is not quantified.
  • domain assumption Observed XMM-Newton LOS velocities trace the same physical quantity as emissivity-weighted simulated bulk velocities.
    The comparisons use physical velocity maps; caveat in §7 says full response modeling was not included. Any systematic offset in the observed velocity zero-point or calibration would alter matches.
  • domain assumption The BCG systemic velocity frame used to re-center simulated maps is correct.
    Systemic velocity of each simulated halo is estimated from stellar particles within 20–30 kpc (§3). Errors in this estimate would shift synthetic velocity maps relative to observations.
  • ad hoc to paper Euclidean distance in the learned embedding measures physically meaningful similarity.
    This is the core premise of the method (§4 Eq. 5); no external validation that small embedding distance corresponds to similar physical processes rather than, e.g., similar mean velocity or gradient orientation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Observations to Simulations: A Neural-Network Approach to Intracluster Medium Kinematics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7SOCF6ZM

@misc{pith2026251120755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Observations to Simulations: A Neural-Network Approach to Intracluster Medium Kinematics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7SOCF6ZM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.20755}
}
read the original abstract

We present a systematic comparison between {\it XMM-Newton} velocity maps of the Virgo, Centaurus, Ophiuchus and A3266 clusters and synthetic velocity maps generated from the Illustris TNG-300 simulations. Our goal is to constrain the physical conditions and dynamical states of the intracluster medium (ICM) through a data-driven approach. We employ a Siamese Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) designed to identify the most analogous simulated cluster to each observed system based on the morphology of their line-of-sight velocity maps. The model learns a high-dimensional similarity metric between observations and simulations, allowing us to capture subtle kinematic and structural patterns beyond traditional statistical tests. We find that the best-matching simulated halos reproduce the observed large-scale velocity gradients and local kinematic substructures, suggesting that the ICM motions in these clusters arise from a combination of gas sloshing, AGN feedback, and minor merger activity. Our results demonstrate that deep learning provides a powerful and objective framework for connecting X-ray observations to cosmological simulations, offering new insights into the dynamical evolution of galaxy clusters and the mechanisms driving turbulence and bulk flows in the hot ICM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.20755 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of the CNN model used in our analysis. The CNN acts as a feature extractor, converting each input velocity map into a compact embedding vector. Convolution and max-pooling layers progressively identify hierarchical spatial and kinematic features; the output is then flattened and passed through fully connected layers to produce the final embedding. cool-core regions generally exhibit lower velocity dispersion… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram of the Siamese CNN training phase. During training, pairs of velocity maps are passed through two identical CNN encoders with shared weights. Each triplet consists of a reference (Anchor), a matched projection from the same simulation (Positive), and a mismatched projection from a different simulation (Negative). The network learns to produce similar embeddings for Anchor–Positive pairs and dissimilar embedd… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagram of the Siamese CNN matching phase. During matching, the trained Siamese CNN compares each observed XMM-Newton velocity map to the full library of simulated velocity maps. Both the observed map and each simulation are passed through the shared-weight CNN encoder to generate corresponding embedding vectors. Similarity between the observation and a given simulation is quantified by the distance between their em… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: t-SNE plots comparing the observed velocity maps of four galaxy clusters to a library of TNG simulations. Points represent the similarity of velocity maps, with closer points being more similar. The distribution of TNG simulations is non-uniform, exhibiting curves and …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best-matching velocity maps from the TNG300 simulation obtained with the Siamese CNN analysis for the XMM-Newton observations. The zoom-in panel shows the XMM-Newton data for a region centered on the physical origin (0,0 kpc) of the simulated cluster. These figures ill…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    & Hurn, M

    Andreon, S. & Hurn, M. A. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1922

    2010

  2. [2]

    & Markevitch, M

    Ascasibar, Y . & Markevitch, M. 2006, ApJ, 650, 102 1 https://www.tng-project.org Article number, page 8 of 9 Gatuzz et al.: Neural Network Matching of ICM Velocities

    2006

  3. [3]

    V ., Del Popolo, A., & Vavilova, I

    Babyk, I. V ., Del Popolo, A., & Vavilova, I. B. 2014, Astronomy Reports, 58, 587

    2014

  4. [4]

    Bambic, C. J. & Reynolds, C. S. 2019, ApJ, 886, 78

    2019

  5. [5]

    J., V ogelsberger, M., Kannan, R., et al

    Barnes, D. J., V ogelsberger, M., Kannan, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1809

    2018

  6. [6]

    2023, A&A, 675, A123 Brüggen, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Hallman, E

    Boselli, A., Fossati, M., Côté, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A123 Brüggen, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Hallman, E. 2005, ApJ, 630, 740

    2023

  7. [7]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.00461

    Brunel, A., Pasquet, J., Pasquet, J., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.00461

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    2012, A&A, 540, A52

    Cortese, L., Ciesla, L., Boselli, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A52

    2012

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    N., Kochanek, C

    Dai, X., Bregman, J. N., Kochanek, C. S., & Rasia, E. 2010, ApJ, 719, 119 De Grandi, S. & Molendi, S. 1999, ApJ, 527, L25

    2010

  2. [10]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 497 Domínguez Sánchez, H., Huertas-Company, M., Bernardi, M., Tuccillo, D., &

    Dolag, K., Borgani, S., Murante, G., & Springel, V . 2009, MNRAS, 399, 497 Domínguez Sánchez, H., Huertas-Company, M., Bernardi, M., Tuccillo, D., &

    2009

  3. [11]

    Fischer, J. L. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3661

    2018

  4. [12]

    2015, A&A, 583, A124

    Durret, F., Wakamatsu, K., Nagayama, T., Adami, C., & Biviano, A. 2015, A&A, 583, A124

    2015

  5. [13]

    W., Roberts, I

    Edler, H. W., Roberts, I. D., Boselli, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A149

    2024

  6. [14]

    C., Walker, S

    Fabian, A. C., Walker, S. A., Russell, H. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 922

    2016

  7. [15]

    2012, ApJS, 200, 4

    Ferrarese, L., Côté, P., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 4

    2012

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 10

    Ferrarese, L., Côté, P., Sánchez-Janssen, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, 10

    2016

  9. [17]

    2007, ApJ, 665, 1057

    Forman, W., Jones, C., Churazov, E., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1057

    2007

  10. [18]

    Foster, A., Smith, R., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2019, in American Astronomical So- ciety Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 233, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #233, 251.05

    2019

  11. [19]

    2025, PASJ, 77, S270

    Fujita, Y ., Fukushima, K., Sato, K., Fukazawa, Y ., & Kondo, M. 2025, PASJ, 77, S270

    2025

  12. [20]

    T., & Zhuravleva, I

    Gaspari, M., Churazov, E., Nagai, D., Lau, E. T., & Zhuravleva, I. 2014, A&A, 569, A67

    2014

  13. [21]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.10740

    Gatuzz, E., Sanders, J., Liu, A., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.10740

  14. [22]

    2024, A&A, 692, A108

    Gatuzz, E., Sanders, J., Liu, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A108

    2024

  15. [23]

    S., Canning, R., et al

    Gatuzz, E., Sanders, J. S., Canning, R., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 513, 1932

    1932

  16. [24]

    2012, A&A, 545, A16

    Gavazzi, G., Fumagalli, M., Galardo, V ., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A16

    2012

  17. [25]

    H., Sivanandam, S., Zabludoff, A

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

    2013

  18. [26]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 26

    Ha, J.-H., Ryu, D., & Kang, H. 2018, ApJ, 857, 26

    2018

  19. [27]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 462

    Heinz, S., Brüggen, M., & Morsony, B. 2010, ApJ, 708, 462

    2010

  20. [28]

    H., & Davis, D

    Henriksen, M., Donnelly, R. H., & Davis, D. S. 2000, ApJ, 529, 692

    2000

  21. [29]

    Henriksen, M. J. & Dusek, S. 2021, International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 11, 95

    2021

  22. [30]

    2015, ApJS, 221, 8

    Huertas-Company, M., Gravet, R., Cabrera-Vives, G., et al. 2015, ApJS, 221, 8

    2015

  23. [31]

    C., & Takahashi, T

    Ichinohe, Y ., Simionescu, A., Werner, N., Fabian, A. C., & Takahashi, T. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1744

    2019

  24. [32]

    Kravtsov, A. V . & Borgani, S. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 353

    2012

  25. [33]

    T., Kravtsov, A

    Lau, E. T., Kravtsov, A. V ., & Nagai, D. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1129

    2009

  26. [34]

    2020, A&A, 637, A58

    Liu, A., Tozzi, P., Ettori, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A58

    2020

  27. [35]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 102

    Liu, A., Yu, H., Diaferio, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 102

    2018

  28. [36]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 27

    Liu, A., Yu, H., Tozzi, P., & Zhu, Z.-H. 2015, ApJ, 809, 27

    2015

  29. [37]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 29

    Liu, A., Yu, H., Tozzi, P., & Zhu, Z.-H. 2016, ApJ, 821, 29

    2016

  30. [38]

    S., Mao, S., & Meng, X

    Liu, F. S., Mao, S., & Meng, X. M. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 422

    2012

  31. [39]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

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

    2018

  32. [40]

    H., Veronica, A., et al

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

    2024

  33. [41]

    2009, A&A, 496, 683

    Misgeld, I., Hilker, M., & Mieske, S. 2009, A&A, 496, 683

    2009

  34. [42]

    P., Ferland, G., et al

    Mittal, R., O’Dea, C. P., Ferland, G., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2386

    2011

  35. [43]

    & Sharma, P

    Mohapatra, R. & Sharma, P. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4881

    2019

  36. [44]

    R., Sazonova, E., Roberts, I

    Morgan, C. R., Sazonova, E., Roberts, I. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 166

    2025

  37. [45]

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

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

    2018

  38. [46]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234

    2019

  39. [47]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

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

    2018

  40. [48]

    Nulsen, P. E. J. & Bohringer, H. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 1093

    1995

  41. [49]

    & Yoshida, H

    Ota, N. & Yoshida, H. 2016, PASJ, 68, S19

    2016

  42. [50]

    N., Eilek, J

    Owen, F. N., Eilek, J. A., & Kassim, N. E. 2000, ApJ, 543, 611

    2000

  43. [51]

    Pearson, K. A. 2019, AJ, 158, 243

    2019

  44. [52]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    2018

  45. [53]

    Quintana, H., Ramirez, A., & Way, M. J. 1996, AJ, 112, 36

    1996

  46. [54]

    W., Nulsen, P

    Randall, S. W., Nulsen, P. E. J., Jones, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 112

    2015

  47. [55]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 49 Sánchez-Janssen, R., Côté, P., Ferrarese, L., et al

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Genel, S., V ogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 49 Sánchez-Janssen, R., Côté, P., Ferrarese, L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 18

    2015

  48. [56]

    S., Biffi, V ., Brüggen, M., et al

    Sanders, J. S., Biffi, V ., Brüggen, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A36

    2022

  49. [57]

    S., Dennerl, K., Russell, H

    Sanders, J. S., Dennerl, K., Russell, H. R., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A42

    2020

  50. [58]

    S., Fabian, A

    Sanders, J. S., Fabian, A. C., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 82

    2016

  51. [59]

    & Jerjen, H

    Saviane, I. & Jerjen, H. 2007, AJ, 133, 1756

    2007

  52. [60]

    F., Behrens, C., & Niemeyer, J

    Schmidt, W., Byrohl, C., Engels, J. F., Behrens, C., & Niemeyer, J. C. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 142

    2017

  53. [61]

    2015, in 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 815–823

    Schroff, F., Kalenichenko, D., & Philbin, J. 2015, in 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 815–823

    2015

  54. [62]

    R., et al

    Simionescu, A., Werner, N., Forman, W. R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 91

    2010

  55. [63]

    J., Zahid, H

    Sohn, J., Geller, M. J., Zahid, H. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 229, 20

    2017

  56. [64]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    2010

  57. [65]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    Springel, V ., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    2018

  58. [66]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629

    2005

  59. [67]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726

    2001

  60. [68]

    W., et al

    Vazza, F., Angelinelli, M., Jones, T. W., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, L120

    2018

  61. [69]

    2011, A&A, 529, A17

    Vazza, F., Brunetti, G., Gheller, C., Brunino, R., & Brüggen, M. 2011, A&A, 529, A17

    2011

  62. [70]

    2021, A&A, 653, A23

    Vazza, F., Wittor, D., Brunetti, G., & Brüggen, M. 2021, A&A, 653, A23

    2021

  63. [71]

    H., Pacaud, F., et al

    Veronica, A., Reiprich, T. H., Pacaud, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A168

    2025

  64. [72]

    A., Fabian, A

    Walker, S. A., Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Simionescu, A., & Tawara, Y . 2013, MNRAS, 432, 554

    2013

  65. [73]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V ., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056

    2018

  66. [74]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914 Xrism Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914 Xrism Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2025, Nature, 638, 365 XRISM Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2025, Nature, 638, 365

    2000

  67. [75]

    Yang, H. Y . K. & Reynolds, C. S. 2016, ApJ, 829, 90

    2016

  68. [76]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1042

    Yun, K., Pillepich, A., Zinger, E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1042

    2019

  69. [77]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.12782

    Zhang, C., Zhuravleva, I., Heinrich, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.12782

    2025

  70. [78]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 22, 055002

    Zhang, Z., Zou, Z., Li, N., & Chen, Y . 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 22, 055002

    2022

  71. [79]

    A., et al

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Schekochihin, A. A., et al. 2014, Nature, 515, 85

    2014

  72. [80]

    ZuHone, J. A. & Hallman, E. J. 2016, pyXSIM: Synthetic X-ray observations generator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.002

    2016

  73. [81]

    A., Miller, E

    ZuHone, J. A., Miller, E. D., Bulbul, E., & Zhuravleva, I. 2018, ApJ, 853, 180

    2018

  74. [82]

    A., Miller, E

    ZuHone, J. A., Miller, E. D., Simionescu, A., & Bautz, M. W. 2016, ApJ, 821, 6

    2016

  75. [83]

    A., Schellenberger, G., Ogorzałek, A., et al

    ZuHone, J. A., Schellenberger, G., Ogorzałek, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 49 Article number, page 9 of 9

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.