Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Galaxy cluster characterization with machine learning techniques

T0 review · 5 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 paper argues that a single ResNet can take a mock Chandra X-ray image of a galaxy cluster and return five standard cool-core classification metrics at once, with the central cooling time and the concentration parameter predicted most…

desk verdict A useful but uneven ML pipeline paper: the multi-metric regression works for cooling time and concentration, but the cuspiness result contradicts the abstract's simultaneous-prediction claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04081 v1 pith:N64P3ATQ submitted 2025-01-07 astro-ph.GA

Maria Sadikov , Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo , Laurence Perreault Levasseur , Carter Lee Rhea , Michael McDonald , Michelle Ntampaka , John ZuHone This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyclusterscoolcoresX-rayclassificationmachinelearningconvolutionalneuralnetworksmockobservationsIllustrisTNGsimulation-basedinference
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

Galaxy clusters are sorted into cool core, weak cool core, and non-cool core classes from several hot-gas metrics, but computing those metrics normally means fitting density and temperature profiles by hand. This paper claims that a single image-based neural network can bypass that step: a ResNet fed a mock Chandra image of a simulated cluster returns all five metrics at once. On a held-out test set, the network reaches a mean percentage error of 1.8% for the central cooling time and a balanced accuracy of 0.83 for the concentration parameter, with the concentration improving to 0.96 when trained alone. If the result transfers to real X-ray images, it would provide a fast, automated way to screen the roughly 100,000 clusters expected from eROSITA.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a ResNet convolutional architecture whose residual blocks let low-level spatial features pass through skip connections, ending in a five-neuron output layer that predicts $\log_{10} t_{\rm cool,0}$, $\log_{10} n_{e,0}$, $\log_{10} K_0$, $\log_{10} C_{SB}$, and $\log_{10} \alpha$. The same 256$\times$256 mock X-ray images feed an unsupervised pipeline (PCA plus k-means) and a simulation-based inference step that learns $p(y_{\rm true}|y_{\rm pred})$ from training pairs, converting point predictions into posterior distributions.

What would settle it

Run the trained network on real Chandra or eROSITA images of clusters whose cooling time and concentration have been independently measured by standard profile fitting. If the predicted values show little correlation with those measurements, or if the classification balanced accuracy falls near 0.5, the claim that a single X-ray image encodes these metrics would be contradicted on observed data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the information needed for cool-core classification is present in the X-ray surface brightness image itself, at least for simulated clusters. Using 606 clusters with $M_{500c} > 10^{13.57}\,M_\odot$ from the $z=0$ snapshot of the IllustrisTNG simulation, the authors generate mock Chandra observations (redshift 0.05, 100 ks exposure, ACIS-I, 0.5--2.0 keV band) and train a ResNet with residual skip connections to output $\log_{10}$ of each metric: central cooling time, central electron density, central entropy excess, concentration, and cuspiness. The test-set performance is best for the cooling time (1.8% mean percentage error) and concentration (0.83 balanced accuracy); a concentration-only network improves to 2.9% and 0.96. Cuspiness cannot be predicted from the same pipeline (96.6% test error, balanced accuracy 0.52), which the paper attributes to its local, derivative-like definition and to severe class imbalance. An unsupervised k-means clustering of principal components of the images reproduces the concentration-based CC/WCC/NCC separation almost exactly, and simulation-based inference attaches posterior distributions to each prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that mock Chandra images built from one simulated snapshot with one fixed observing setup stand in for real X-ray images, so a network trained on them will behave similarly on observed clusters; the paper does not test that transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cooling time and concentration can be screened automatically from X-ray images, reducing the need for slow profile fitting in large surveys.
  • Unsupervised clustering of the images alone recovers the concentration-based classification, suggesting that the visual morphology of a cluster carries most of the cool-core information that the metric encodes.
  • A separate concentration-only network reaches balanced accuracy 0.96, so survey pipelines could use a dedicated network for that single diagnostic.
  • SBI posteriors give a principled uncertainty per prediction, allowing the pipeline to flag clusters whose core state is uncertain for expert follow-up.
  • The method is a candidate workhorse for analyzing the roughly 100,000 clusters eROSITA is expected to deliver.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves the simulated-to-real transfer untested; fine-tuning on a modest set of real Chandra images could measure whether the 1.8% cooling-time error survives outside IllustrisTNG.
  • The cuspiness failure suggests that a more targeted output, such as a network that first localizes the core and then estimates the local density slope, might rescue this metric since the image does contain the relevant structure.
  • Because k-means clusters match the concentration cutoffs, a purely unsupervised morphology score could select outlier clusters for detailed study without committing to any single classification metric.
  • Adding spectral information, which the paper lists as future work, is a direct testable upgrade; the current input is a single 0.5--2.0 keV image, and multi-band inputs could be compared on the same test split.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the z=0 IllustrisTNG300 snapshot to construct 606 mock Chandra galaxy cluster images (three projections per cluster, augmented to 14,544 images) and computes five cool-core classification metrics: central cooling time, central electron density, central entropy excess, concentration parameter, and cuspiness. It first applies PCA and k-means clustering to the images, finding that the unsupervised groups align almost exactly with the concentration-parameter classification. It then trains a ResNet to regress all five metrics simultaneously from the images, reporting a mean percentage error of 1.8% for the central cooling time and a balanced accuracy of 0.83 for the concentration. Finally, it applies simulation-based inference to obtain posterior distributions for the network predictions. The paper concludes that machine learning is a viable route for analyzing upcoming eROSITA cluster samples.

Significance. If the headline claims held, the paper would provide a useful demonstration that convolutional networks can recover several hand-computed cool-core diagnostics directly from simulated X-ray images, with potential application to survey-scale triage. The construction of the mock observations is explicit and reproducible in principle, and the comparison across five metrics is a sensible way to probe which diagnostics are learnable from image morphology alone. However, the current central claim is overstated: one of the five metrics fails badly on the test set, the concentration result is partly built into the input, and the precision claims are not accompanied by uncertainty estimates on the labels or the performance metrics. With a reframed and more carefully quantified presentation, the study would be a solid methods contribution.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §4.2, Table 1, Fig. 13] The abstract and conclusion state that the network simultaneously predicts all five classification metrics, but the paper's own test-set numbers contradict this. The cuspiness metric has a mean percentage error of 96.6% on the test set and an average balanced accuracy of 0.52 (Table 1), with the confusion matrix in Fig. 13 showing predictions collapsing toward the dominant NCC class. The authors acknowledge this as a clear case of overfitting in §4.2 and later conclude in §5.3 that the two best-performing metrics are the cooling time and the concentration. The central claim of simultaneous prediction of all five metrics is therefore not supported. The abstract and conclusions should either report all five metrics, state that only two metrics are predicted reliably, or the model must be modified so that cuspiness is actually learned.
  2. [§2.2.4, §3.2, Eq. (6)] The clustering result is partly circular. The concentration parameter CSB is defined as the ratio of photons within 40 kpc and 400 kpc in the same mock X-ray image that is used as the clustering input. It is therefore expected that k-means groups correlate strongly with CSB, since both are functions of the same surface-brightness distribution. The manuscript acknowledges this in §3.2, but the statement that the groups replicate the concentration classification should be tempered, and a nontrivial test would be to compare the clustering groups with concentration values computed from an independent deprojection or from a different image realization.
  3. [§2.2.1–§2.2.5, §4.2] The ground-truth labels for tcool,0, ne,0, K0, and α are obtained from MCMC fits to noisy 2D profiles, yet the reported regression errors (e.g. 1.8% for tcool,0) treat these labels as exact. The posterior widths of the MCMC fits are never propagated into the network evaluation, and all performance metrics in §4.2 are reported without error bars or repeated-training scatter. This is load-bearing because the claimed accuracy could be dominated by label noise rather than by true network performance; the authors should add label-uncertainty propagation or at least report the MCMC uncertainties and the fold-to-fold variation of the test metrics.
  4. [§5.1, Fig. 14] The SBI posteriors are trained on the same training data used to train the regressor and are never calibrated. Claiming in §5.4 that the model provides 'uncertainty measures' is not supported without a coverage test: one would need to verify, on held-out data, that the nominal posterior intervals contain the true values at the expected frequency. The paper should add a calibration analysis such as a coverage plot or an expected-calibration-error computation before presenting the posteriors as reliable uncertainties.
  5. [§5.4, Conclusion] The paper opens and closes with the claim that the method is a viable tool for eROSITA-scale surveys, but the only evidence is on mock Chandra images from a single simulation snapshot at z=0 with a fixed observational setup. Section 5.4 explicitly lists transfer learning to observational data as future work. Without a test on real X-ray images or at least on mocks with varied exposure, redshift, and background, the eROSITA applicability claim is an extrapolation. The discussion should be rephrased as a forward-looking statement rather than a demonstrated result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1.3, Fig. 1] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors that should be corrected, including 'convlution' in Fig. 1, 'brithgness' in §3.2, 'trainig' in §4.2, 'correpondance' in §4.2, 'ressemble' in §3, 'explxored' in §2.2.2, 'portait' in §1, 'normalizatoin' in §2.2.3, 'effirt' in §5.2, 'one again' in §5.2, and 'supermassive back hole' in §1.
  2. [§4.1] The test-set description says '183 out of 1808 projections,' but the dataset contains 1818 projections (606 clusters × 3). The 10% test split should be 181 or 182, and the numbers should be made consistent.
  3. [§4.1] The loss-scaling scheme is described only qualitatively ('factor of 1 to 5 depending on how close to a cool core'). Since this directly affects the reported performance, the exact scaling rule or a table of scaling factors should be provided.
  4. [§5.1, Eq. (9)] The SBI formalism would be clearer if the notation distinguished the regression network's prediction y_pred from the true label y_true, and if the prior used for the posterior p(y_true|y_pred) were stated explicitly. As written, Eq. (9) is generic and does not specify what prior is placed on the five metrics.
  5. [§2.2.2] In Eq. (3), β is called a power-law index, but in the standard β-model it is the slope parameter of the density profile; the wording is misleading and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: each predicted metric is either computed from independent simulation gas cells or, in the concentration case, acknowledged as an image-derived target and tested on held-out clusters.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce any central prediction to its inputs by definition. Four of the five targets (central cooling time, central electron density, central entropy excess, cuspiness) are computed from IllustrisTNG gas-cell density and temperature profiles with MCMC fits, independent of the network input images. The concentration parameter is computed from the same mock X-ray images that form the network input, but this is an explicit and acknowledged design choice rather than a hidden circularity: the authors state that because concentration is calculated directly from the X-ray image, strong correlation is expected, and they treat it as a consistency check. The network is trained, validated, and tested on cluster-disjoint folds, so the reported errors and balanced accuracies are genuine held-out results. The SBI posterior step is a post-hoc calibration/uncertainty layer trained on training-set prediction/truth pairs; it is not used to generate the point predictions being evaluated, so it does not introduce a circular derivation. Citations to prior work by coauthors (e.g., Ntampaka et al. 2019) are methodological rather than load-bearing, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported from a self-citation chain. The poor cuspiness performance (96.6% test error, balanced accuracy 0.52) is a correctness and generalization concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its claims rest on simulation fidelity, on hand-chosen ML hyperparameters (loss scaling, PCA dimensions, learning schedule), and on profile-fit choices (beta model, 3-sigma clipping) that affect the labels.

free parameters (4)
  • Loss scaling factor = 1 to 5 depending on proximity to cool core
    Hand-chosen in Section 4.1 to up-weight under-represented cool cores in the MSE loss; affects the balance of errors across classes.
  • Number of PCA components = 1200
    Chosen in Section 3.1 to explain 95% of variance; governs the k-means input and the resulting group structure.
  • Learning rate schedule = 1e-4, dropping to 1e-5 at epoch 400 and 1e-6 at epoch 700, 900 epochs total
    Hand-tuned in Section 4.1 without a reported hyperparameter search on a validation set.
  • Sigma clipping threshold = 3 sigma
    Used in Section 2.2.1 to remove outliers before fitting profiles; the threshold is arbitrary and affects the fitted central metric values.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption IllustrisTNG simulations, and their subgrid AGN feedback model, reproduce the real intracluster medium well enough that mock X-ray images and metric labels are a valid training target.
    The entire pipeline uses TNG300 z=0 gas cells as ground truth (Section 2.1.1); no real X-ray data are used to validate labels or images.
  • domain assumption The X-ray peak identified by the iterative Gaussian-filter method is the correct cluster center for all five metrics.
    Section 2.1.2; all radial profiles and aperture fluxes depend on this center, and a wrong center would corrupt every label.
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional projected, emission-measure-weighted radial profiles faithfully represent the cluster properties used to compute the metrics.
    Section 2.2; projection along lines of sight mimics observations but can bias cuspiness and entropy for multi-phase gas.
  • domain assumption The beta model (Cavaliere and Fusco-Femiano) is an adequate description of every cluster's density profile.
    Section 2.2.2; cuspiness is computed from this fitted model's derivative, and the authors acknowledge in Section 5.3 that a more flexible model might improve results.
  • domain assumption The cooling function and spectral models (Sutherland and Dopita, apec, tbabs) are accurate for the ICM conditions.
    Used to convert gas properties to photon counts in pyXSIM (Section 2.1.3); errors here propagate into the mock images.
  • domain assumption The trained network will transfer to real X-ray observations with fine-tuning.
    Section 5.4 proposes transfer learning but does not demonstrate it; the stated eROSITA application depends on this transfer.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Galaxy cluster characterization with machine learning techniques." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N64P3ATQ

@misc{pith2026250104081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Galaxy cluster characterization with machine learning techniques},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N64P3ATQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04081}
}
read the original abstract

We present an analysis of the X-ray properties of the galaxy cluster population in the z=0 snapshot of the IllustrisTNG simulations, utilizing machine learning techniques to perform clustering and regression tasks. We examine five properties of the hot gas (the central cooling time, the central electron density, the central entropy excess, the concentration parameter, and the cuspiness) which are commonly used as classification metrics to identify cool core (CC), weak cool core (WCC) and non cool core (NCC) clusters of galaxies. Using mock Chandra X-ray images as inputs, we first explore an unsupervised clustering scheme to see how the resulting groups correlate with the CC/WCC/NCC classification based on the different criteria. We observe that the groups replicate almost exactly the separation of the galaxy cluster images when classifying them based on the concentration parameter. We then move on to a regression task, utilizing a ResNet model to predict the value of all five properties. The network is able to achieve a mean percentage error of 1.8% for the central cooling time, and a balanced accuracy of 0.83 on the concentration parameter, making them the best-performing metrics. Finally, we use simulation-based inference (SBI) to extract posterior distributions for the network predictions. Our neural network simultaneously predicts all five classification metrics using only mock Chandra X-ray images. This study demonstrates that machine learning is a viable approach for analyzing and classifying the large galaxy cluster datasets that will soon become available through current and upcoming X-ray surveys, such as eROSITA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04081 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Images corresponding to the three steps of the iterative process to define the cluster center described in Sec￾tion 2.1.2. For each image, we first plot a two-dimensional histogram of the electron density. We then overlay a white grid representing the binning of the data as well as a white cloud (at the bottom right), representing the size of the gaus￾sian filter used in the convlution during that step. The black cr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of cluster properties for a cool core cluster. In the top left, is shown the 2D cooling time profile. The data points are in blue, the best-fit model is in black and the fitted values are shown in the legend. The black dotted vertical lines at 0.01 R500 and R500 represent the boundaries for the fit, as dicussed in Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.3. In the top right, is shown the 2D electron density profile, as we… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Distribution of cluster properties (central cooling time, central electron density, central entropy excess, con￾centration and cuspiness) as a function of the cluster mass for the 1818 observations in our sample. The CCs for each metric are plotted in blue, the WCCs are in yellow and the NCCs are in red. The colors in the mass histogram at the top are based on the central cooling time, as it is the most commonly use… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the cluster properties for the 1818 observations in our sample. The shaded regions in each plot represent the zones where the clusters would belong to the same class according to both criteria (blue region for CCs, yellow for WCCs, red for NCCs). The dash…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of the clustering algorithm. Each galaxy cluster property is plotted as a function of the cluster mass, with clusters belonging to group 0 in yellow, group 1 in red and group 2 in blue. The dashed line represents the cutoff between CCs and WCCs for each each me…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Architecture of our ResNet model used for the regression task. The input is a 256× 256 image. The residual blocks A and B are shown in figures 19 and 20 (in the Appendix). Conv2D is a 2D convolution, where f and s are the number of filters and the strides. FC is a full…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Predicted values as a function of true values for the central cooling time, the central electron density, the central entropy excess, the concentration and the cuspiness. The training data is shown in blue and the test data is shown in red. The vertical streams show th…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Normalized confusion matrices for the cuspiness predictions, for the training set (left) as well as the test set (right). The matrices are normalized along the true values. erties from a downsampled X-ray image of the galaxy cluster. 5.1. Simulation-based inference On…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalized confusion matrices for the central entropy excess, for the training set (left) as well as the test set (right). The matrices are normalized along the true values. 5. DISCUSSION In this paper, we have used galaxy cluster data from the IllustrisTNG simulation…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: SBI results for the central cooling time pre￾dictions. The network predictions for the training data are plotted in blue as a function of the true labels. The black dashed line represents the true values. In red, we overplot the posterior distributions for a few predi…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Example of posteriors for the five metrics, for a CC cluster. The example cluster is drawn from the test set. In each plot, the pink dashed line represents the true label and the black dashed line represents the network prediction. The solid black line represents the …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as 15 but for a NCC cluster. This example cluster is also drawn from the test set. When comparing with figure 15, we notice that the posteriors are more narrow for the NCC cluster, which indicates that the network is more confident in the prediction. We also noti…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Predicted values as a function of the true values for the concentration obtained with the retrained network, as described in Section 5.3. The performance is significantly improved by retraining the network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Normalized confusion matrices for the concen￾traion for the training set (left) and the test set (right) ob￾tained with the retrained network, as described in Section 5.3. Once again, we notice that retraining the network to pre￾dict this metric by itself significantl…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Residual block B. A convolutional layer is added in the skip connection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_20.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Residual block A. Conv2D stands for 2D con￾volution. f and s refer to the number of filters and the size of the strides [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2015, TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems

    Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., et al. 2015, TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems. https://www.tensorflow.org/

    2015

  2. [2]

    R., et al

    Andrade-Santos, F., Jones, C., Forman, W. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7461

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7461 2017

  3. [3]

    2020, A&A, 643, A177, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039083 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Angora, G., Rosati, P., Brescia, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A177, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039083 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboratio...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039083 2020

  4. [4]

    J., Vogelsberger, M., Kannan, R., et al

    Barnes, D. J., Vogelsberger, M., Kannan, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1809, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2078

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2078 2018

  5. [5]

    Johnstone, R. M. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 1481, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08999.x

    arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    H., Schellenberger, G., et al

    Bharadwaj, V., Reiprich, T. H., Schellenberger, G., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322684

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322684 2014

  7. [7]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 1395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts120

    Biffi, V., Dolag, K., & B¨ ohringer, H. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts120

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts120 2013

  8. [8]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 3545, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20278.x

    Biffi, V., Dolag, K., B¨ ohringer, H., & Lemson, G. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3545, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20278.x

    arXiv 2012

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    W., Donahue, M., Voit, G

    Cavagnolo, K. W., Donahue, M., Voit, G. M., & Sun, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 182, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/12

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    1976, A&A, 49, 137 —

    Cavaliere, A., & Fusco-Femiano, R. 1976, A&A, 49, 137 —. 1978, A&A, 70, 677

    1976

  3. [11]

    2015, Keras, https://keras.io

    Chollet, F., et al. 2015, Keras, https://keras.io

    2015

  4. [12]

    2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 30055, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1912789117

    Cranmer, K., Brehmer, J., & Louppe, G. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 30055, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1912789117

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 2566, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2839 de Andres, D., Cui, W., Ruppin, F., et al

    Cui, W., Power, C., Biffi, V., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2566, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2839 de Andres, D., Cui, W., Ruppin, F., et al. 2022, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 257, mm Universe @ NIKA2 - Observing the mm Universe with the NIKA2 Camera, 00013, do...

    2016

  6. [14]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 4000, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad377

    Ferragamo, A., de Andres, D., Sbriglio, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4000, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad377

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Ji, L., Smith, R

    Foster, A. R., Ji, L., Smith, R. K., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/128

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.11...

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Mishra, A., et al

    Ghosh, A., Urry, C. M., Mishra, A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.00051, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.00051

    2022 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    E., Reese, E

    Grego, L., Carlstrom, J. E., Reese, E. D., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, 2, doi: 10.1086/320443

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1512.03385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1512.03385

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1512.03385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1512.03385

    2015 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 5, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 122-1

    Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Li, Y., & Churazov, E. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 5, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 122-1

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Mittal, R., Reiprich, T

    Hudson, D. S., Mittal, R., Reiprich, T. H., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912377

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

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

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.00016, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.00016

    Krippendorf, S., Baron Perez, N., Bulbul, E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.00016, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.00016

    2023 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    1998, A&A, 339, 52, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9807170

    Lazzati, D., & Chincarini, G. 1998, A&A, 339, 52, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9807170

    1998 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca7c2

    Legin, R., Hezaveh, Y., Perreault-Levasseur, L., & Wandelt, B. 2023, ApJ, 943, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca7c2

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2004, in Origin and Evolution of the Elements, ed

    Loewenstein, M. 2004, in Origin and Evolution of the Elements, ed. A. McWilliam & M. Rauch, 422, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0310557

    2004 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Tremblay, G. R. 2018, ApJ, 858, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabace

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Vikhlinin, A., et al

    McDonald, M., Benson, B. A., Vikhlinin, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/23 —. 2014, ApJ, 794, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/67

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    R., van Weeren, R

    McDonald, M., McNamara, B. R., van Weeren, R. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/111

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., et al

    McDonald, M., Allen, S. W., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf394

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Wise, M

    McNamara, B. R., Wise, M. W., & Murray, S. S. 2004, ApJ, 601, 173, doi: 10.1086/380114

    2004 doi

  27. [35]

    2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1209.3114, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1209.3114 23

    Merloni, A., Predehl, P., Becker, W., et al. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1209.3114, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1209.3114 23

    2012 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 1307

    Million, E., & Allen, S. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 1307

    2009

  29. [37]

    S., Reiprich, T

    Mittal, R., Hudson, D. S., Reiprich, T. H., & Clarke, T. 2009, A&A, 501, 835, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810836

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Mathiesen, B., & Evrard, A

    Mohr, J. J., Mathiesen, B., & Evrard, A. E. 1999, ApJ, 517, 627, doi: 10.1086/307227

    1999 doi

  31. [39]

    2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 42, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2017.00042

    Morganti, R. 2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 42, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2017.00042

    2017

  32. [40]

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

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14eb

    Ntampaka, M., ZuHone, J., Eisenstein, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14eb

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    R., & Fabian, A

    Peterson, J. R., & Fabian, A. C. 2006, PhR, 427, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.12.007

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    Pillepich, A., Porciani, C., & Reiprich, T. H. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 44, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20443.x

    2012

  38. [46]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    2004, A&A, 423, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035856

    Pointecouteau, E., Arnaud, M., Kaastra, J., & de Plaa, J. 2004, A&A, 423, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035856

    2004 doi

  40. [48]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21366, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21366

    Prunier, M., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Pillepich, A., Lehle, K., & Nelson, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21366, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21366

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    D., Carlstrom, J

    Reese, E. D., Carlstrom, J. E., Joy, M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 581, 53, doi: 10.1086/344137

    2002 doi

  42. [50]

    S., Rosati, P., Tozzi, P., et al

    Santos, J. S., Rosati, P., Tozzi, P., et al. 2008, A&A, 483, 35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078815

    2008 doi

  43. [51]

    S., Tozzi, P., Rosati, P., & B¨ ohringer, H

    Santos, J. S., Tozzi, P., Rosati, P., & B¨ ohringer, H. 2010, A&A, 521, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015208

    2010 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05370, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05370

    Soltis, J., Ntampaka, M., Diemer, B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05370, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05370

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    2010

  46. [54]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    2003, Univ

    Steinbach, M., Ert¨ oz, L., & Kumar, V. 2003, Univ. Minnesota Supercomp. Inst. Res. Rep., 213, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-08968-2 16

    2003 doi

  48. [56]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 5620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2690

    Su, Y., Zhang, Y., Liang, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2690

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    2009, ApJ, 704, 1586, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1586

    Sun, M. 2009, ApJ, 704, 1586, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1586

    2009 doi

  50. [58]

    S., & Dopita, M

    Sutherland, R. S., & Dopita, M. A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253, doi: 10.1086/191823

    1993 doi

  51. [59]

    2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2505, doi: 10.21105/joss.02505

    Tejero-Cantero, A., Boelts, J., Deistler, M., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2505, doi: 10.21105/joss.02505

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9

    2011 doi

  53. [61]

    2009, ApJ, 694, 1643, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1643 Van Rossum, G., & Drake Jr, F

    Umetsu, K., Birkinshaw, M., Liu, G.-C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 1643, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1643 Van Rossum, G., & Drake Jr, F. L. 1995, Python reference manual (Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Amsterdam)

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    R., et al

    Vikhlinin, A., Burenin, R., Forman, W. R., et al. 2007, Lack of Cooling Flow Clusters at z ¿ 0.5 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 48–53, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73484-0 9

    2007 doi

  55. [63]

    2006, ApJ, 640, 691, doi: 10.1086/500288

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

    2006 doi

  56. [64]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

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

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

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    A., Jones, C., & Forman, W

    White, D. A., Jones, C., & Forman, W. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 419, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.2.419

    1997 doi

  60. [68]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  61. [69]

    A., Biffi, V., Hallman, E

    ZuHone, J. A., Biffi, V., Hallman, E. J., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1407.1783, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1407.1783

    2014 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    A., & Hallman, E

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

    2016

  63. [71]

    A., Vikhlinin, A., Tremblay, G

    ZuHone, J. A., Vikhlinin, A., Tremblay, G. R., et al. 2023, SOXS: Simulated Observations of X-ray Sources, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2301.024. http://ascl.net/2301.024

    2023

Pith tools

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