pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18370 · v1 · pith:P2H42QWMnew · submitted 2026-06-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

The three-dimensional shapes of the galaxy cluster intracluster medium in eRASS1

S. Kulkarni , J. S. Sanders , E. Bulbul , A. Liu , M. E. Ramos-Ceja This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 23:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxy clustersintracluster mediumthree-dimensional shapeseRASS1ellipticity distributionstereologyprolate ellipsoidsX-ray survey
0
0 comments X

The pith

Galaxy clusters in eRASS1 most likely have prolate three-dimensional shapes with axial ratios 1.51 and 1.17.

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

This paper estimates the three-dimensional shapes of galaxy clusters by matching the distribution of their projected ellipticities in the eRASS1 survey to simulations. The authors use a sample of 3254 clusters and Monte Carlo projections of triaxial ellipsoids to constrain the axial ratios without needing extra data from other wavelengths. A sympathetic reader would care because the resulting shape serves as a statistical prior that can be adopted in models for cosmology, weak lensing, and cluster physics. The work shows that prolate shapes fit the observed ellipticities better than oblate ones.

Core claim

The ellipticity PDF of the eRASS1 clusters is described by a normal distribution with mean 0.79 and standard deviation 0.25. Comparing this to the ellipticity distributions obtained from Monte Carlo projections of populations with varying three-dimensional axial ratios l = L/T and w = W/T yields a most probable shape of (l, w) = (1.51 ± 0.27, 1.17 ± 0.27), with prolate shapes preferred over oblate shapes.

What carries the argument

Stereology through Monte Carlo simulation of projected ellipticities from a triaxial ellipsoid population, used to match the observed ellipticity PDF and thereby constrain the axial ratios.

If this is right

  • The derived shape parameters supply a population-level prior for triaxial models in cosmological analyses.
  • The same prior can be adopted in weak-lensing mass calibration and intracluster-medium studies.
  • Prolate preference implies that spherical or oblate assumptions in some cluster models should be updated.
  • The constraint is obtained from X-ray imaging alone and does not require optical or SZ follow-up.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Adopting this prior could reduce scatter in cluster mass estimates used for dark-energy constraints.
  • Future application to redshift-binned subsamples would test whether the preferred shape evolves with cosmic time.
  • Comparison with hydrodynamical simulations could reveal whether the prolate bias traces specific accretion or merger histories.

Load-bearing premise

The observed ellipticity distribution can be reproduced by a simple Monte-Carlo projection of a single triaxial population without significant contamination from selection effects, measurement bias, or line-of-sight structure.

What would settle it

Independent three-dimensional shape constraints on a comparable cluster sample, obtained via gravitational lensing or Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect tomography, that yield axial ratios inconsistent with (1.51, 1.17) at high significance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18370 by A. Liu, E. Bulbul, J. S. Sanders, M. E. Ramos-Ceja, S. Kulkarni.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Projection effects for the Vikhilinin model surface brightness profiles (see section 3.1). The projection of the cluster with length axis L : W : T = 2 : 1.5 : 1, and Euler rotation of 30◦ along the X axis, is not similar along different axes. two samples might have slightly different results. However, one can use this to one’s advantage by carefully choosing the cluster sample. Moreover, the cluster sampl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Conditional PDFs for known ratios l, w. The blue PDF (ratios l = 1.22, w = 1.18) peaks at ellipticity e ∼ 0.86, repre￾senting spheroidal shapes, while the green PDF (l = 2.43,w = 2.12) peaks at e ∼ 0.47, representing ellipsoidal shapes. For extreme shapes (l = 4.5,w = 1.34), the probability density decreases, and we get a bimodal distribution which peaks at epeak ∼ 0.3 and epeak ∼ 0.75, due to projection e… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model PDFs for Sample 0 (blue curve), Sample 1 (green [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 2D probability plot for the ratios in sample 3. The bar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of our work with previous studies. The con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The three-dimensional shapes of clusters are important for understanding the astrophysics of the clusters and as a probe in cosmological studies. We estimate the most probable three-dimensional shape of galaxy clusters in the first eROSITA All-sky survey eRASS1 using stereology. Our sample is the largest well-defined sample of clusters, and the most probable shape estimated using our method can be used as a prior for cluster shape models in cosmological, cluster, and weak lensing studies. The first all-sky survey with SRG/ eROSITA resulted in a sample of approximately 12,000 optically confirmed galaxy groups and clusters. We used a well-defined subsample of 3254 clusters from the eRASS1 survey and estimated the most probable shape of the clusters by constraining the probability density function (PDF) of the ellipticity of the clusters. We simulated the projected appearance of clusters with a distribution of three-dimensional shapes (prolate and oblate) and obtained the distribution of their ellipticity. This distribution was then compared with the measured distribution of ellipticities from the eRASS1 cluster sample to infer the three-dimensional shapes consistent with the data. We used Monte Carlo methods to estimate the most probable axial ratios l, w, where l $\equiv$ L/T ,w $\equiv$ W/T , and L, W, T are major, intermediate, and minor axes of the cluster. We did not require any additional probe (optical, SZ, etc.) to constrain the probable shape of the clusters. We describe the ellipticity PDF of the eRASS1 clusters with a normal distribution mean ($\mu$) = 0.79 and a standard deviation ($\sigma$) = 0.25. The most probable shape of the clusters in our eRASS1 subsample is estimated to be (l, w) = (1.51 $\pm$ 0.27, 1.17 $\pm$ 0.27), with prolate shapes being preferred over oblate shapes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper estimates the most probable 3D shape of galaxy clusters from a subsample of 3254 eRASS1 clusters by modeling the observed projected ellipticity PDF as a normal distribution (μ=0.79, σ=0.25) and matching it via Monte Carlo stereology to the projected ellipticities of a single fixed triaxial population with axial ratios (l,w) where l=L/T and w=W/T. It reports a best-fit shape of (1.51±0.27, 1.17±0.27) with a preference for prolate over oblate ellipsoids, without using additional probes such as SZ or weak lensing.

Significance. If the central assumptions hold, the result supplies a large-sample, observationally derived prior on cluster shapes that can be used in cosmological analyses, weak-lensing mass calibration, and ICM modeling. The sample size and the purely X-ray/optical selection are strengths; the Monte Carlo projection method itself is standard in the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and method paragraphs: the inference that a single fixed (l,w) population reproduces the observed ellipticity PDF rests on the untested assumption that the eRASS1 X-ray detection plus optical confirmation pipeline introduces no differential selection or measurement bias correlated with projected ellipticity. No simulation or quantitative bound on this effect is provided, which directly affects the recovered (1.51±0.27, 1.17±0.27) values.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the quoted uncertainties ±0.27 on l and w are presented without a description of how they are obtained from the Monte Carlo matching (e.g., whether they are formal fitting errors, bootstrap widths, or marginal posteriors). This is load-bearing for any claim of statistical preference between prolate and oblate shapes.
  3. [Method] Method description: the comparison is performed with a single normal distribution for the observed ellipticities; no test is shown for whether the data deviate from normality or whether a mixture of shapes would be required, which could alter the inferred axial ratios.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Define the axes L, W, T explicitly at first use and clarify whether the Monte Carlo draws orientations uniformly or with any weighting.
  2. [Abstract] The statement that 'no additional probe is required' should be qualified by noting that the result still depends on the fidelity of the ellipticity measurements themselves.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and the recommendation for major revision. We address each major comment below and indicate the changes planned for the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and method paragraphs: the inference that a single fixed (l,w) population reproduces the observed ellipticity PDF rests on the untested assumption that the eRASS1 X-ray detection plus optical confirmation pipeline introduces no differential selection or measurement bias correlated with projected ellipticity. No simulation or quantitative bound on this effect is provided, which directly affects the recovered (1.51±0.27, 1.17±0.27) values.

    Authors: We agree that differential selection or measurement bias correlated with projected ellipticity is a relevant systematic that is not quantified in the current analysis. The subsample is defined by the eRASS1 X-ray detection and optical confirmation criteria, and we have treated the resulting ellipticity distribution as representative of the underlying population. A dedicated end-to-end simulation of the selection pipeline would be required to place a quantitative bound, which is beyond the scope of the present work. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit discussion of this assumption and its possible impact on the inferred axial ratios as a caveat. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the quoted uncertainties ±0.27 on l and w are presented without a description of how they are obtained from the Monte Carlo matching (e.g., whether they are formal fitting errors, bootstrap widths, or marginal posteriors). This is load-bearing for any claim of statistical preference between prolate and oblate shapes.

    Authors: The quoted uncertainties were obtained from the Monte Carlo procedure by identifying the range of (l,w) values whose projected ellipticity distributions remain statistically consistent with the observed normal distribution at the adopted tolerance. We acknowledge that the abstract does not describe this procedure. In the revised version we will expand the method section to detail the uncertainty estimation and will add a brief corresponding sentence to the abstract. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Method] Method description: the comparison is performed with a single normal distribution for the observed ellipticities; no test is shown for whether the data deviate from normality or whether a mixture of shapes would be required, which could alter the inferred axial ratios.

    Authors: The ellipticity PDF is modeled as a single normal distribution with the quoted parameters. No explicit test of normality (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smirnov) or exploration of shape mixtures was performed in the submitted manuscript. We will add such a test to the revised analysis and discuss whether deviations from normality would materially change the recovered (l,w) values. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward-model fit of triaxial parameters to independently measured ellipticity PDF

full rationale

The derivation measures the observed ellipticity PDF directly from the eRASS1 sample (fit as normal with μ=0.79, σ=0.25) and then performs Monte Carlo projection of a single triaxial population to find the (l,w) values whose projected ellipticity distribution matches the data. No equation or step defines the output axial ratios in terms of the input PDF parameters, renames a known result, or reduces the inference to a self-citation chain. The method is a standard statistical forward fit whose central claim remains independent of its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result rests on the assumption that the ellipticity PDF is well-described by a normal distribution whose parameters are measured from the data, and that the forward projection model captures all relevant geometric effects without additional free parameters beyond the axial ratios themselves.

free parameters (2)
  • mean and sigma of observed ellipticity normal distribution
    Fitted directly to the eRASS1 ellipticity measurements; used as the target distribution for the Monte-Carlo comparison.
  • axial ratios l and w
    The quantities being inferred by matching simulated to observed ellipticity histograms.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Clusters can be modeled as triaxial ellipsoids with random orientations
    Invoked when generating the projected ellipticity distribution from 3D shapes.
  • domain assumption The observed ellipticity distribution is adequately described by a single normal PDF
    Stated explicitly in the abstract as the description of the data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5926 in / 1400 out tokens · 32245 ms · 2026-06-26T23:05:58.685036+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references

  1. [1]

    2025, A&A, 696, A5

    Artis, E., Bulbul, E., Grandis, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A5

    2025

  2. [2]

    2024, A&A, 691, A301

    Artis, E., Ghirardini, V ., Bulbul, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A301

    2024

  3. [3]

    Basilakos, S., Plionis, M., & Maddox, S. J. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 779

    2000

  4. [4]

    S., Shandarin, S

    Bharadwaj, S., Sahni, V ., Sathyaprakash, B. S., Shandarin, S. F., & Yess, C. 2000, ApJ, 528, 21

    2000

  5. [5]

    2022, A&A, 661, A1

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

    2022

  6. [6]

    2024, A&A, 685, A106

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

    2024

  7. [7]

    Buote, D. A. & Canizares, C. R. 1992, ApJ, 400, 385

    1992

  8. [8]

    Buote, D. A. & Tsai, J. C. 1995, ApJ, 452, 522

    1995

  9. [9]

    & Metcalfe, N

    Carter, D. & Metcalfe, N. 1980, MNRAS, 191, 325

    1980

  10. [10]

    2008, A&A, 487, 75

    Chakrabarty, D., de Filippis, E., & Russell, H. 2008, A&A, 487, 75

    2008

  11. [11]

    W., Melott, A

    Chambers, S. W., Melott, A. L., & Miller, C. J. 2002, ApJ, 565, 849

    2002

  12. [12]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 126

    Chiu, I.-N., Umetsu, K., Sereno, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 126

    2018

  13. [13]

    & Lacey, C

    Cole, S. & Lacey, C. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 716

    1996

  14. [14]

    & Carlberg, R

    Dubinski, J. & Carlberg, R. G. 1991, ApJ, 378, 496

    1991

  15. [15]

    Eisenstein, D. J. & Loeb, A. 1995, ApJ, 439, 520

    1995

  16. [16]

    2013, Space Sci

    Ettori, S., Donnarumma, A., Pointecouteau, E., et al. 2013, Space Sci. Rev., 177, 119

    2013

  17. [17]

    1984, ApJ, 286, 186

    Fabricant, D., Rybicki, G., & Gorenstein, P. 1984, ApJ, 286, 186

    1984

  18. [18]

    B., Sharon, K., et al

    Gassis, R., Bayliss, M. B., Sharon, K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.18250

    arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    2005, A&A, 443, 793

    Gavazzi, R. 2005, A&A, 443, 793

    2005

  20. [20]

    E., Bulbul, E., et al

    Ghirardini, V ., Bahar, Y . E., Bulbul, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A12

    2022

  21. [21]

    2024, A&A, 689, A298

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

    2024

  22. [22]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 2178

    Herbonnet, R., Crawford, A., Avestruz, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2178

    2022

  23. [23]

    & Ikeuchi, S

    Hirayama, Y . & Ikeuchi, S. 1978, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 60, 1337

    1978

  24. [24]

    2006, ApJ, 647, 8

    Ho, S., Bahcall, N., & Bode, P. 2006, ApJ, 647, 8

    2006

  25. [25]

    2002, arXiv e-prints, astro

    Jetzer, P., Koch, P., Piffaretti, R., Puy, D., & Schindler, S. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2002

  26. [26]

    Kasun, S. F. & Evrard, A. E. 2005, ApJ, 629, 781

    2005

  27. [27]

    2024, A&A, 688, A210

    Kluge, M., Comparat, J., Liu, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A210

    2024

  28. [28]

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

    2012

  29. [29]

    T., Hearin, A

    Lau, E. T., Hearin, A. P., Nagai, D., & Cappelluti, N. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1029

    2021

  30. [30]

    & Suto, Y

    Lee, J. & Suto, Y . 2003, ApJ, 585, 151

    2003

  31. [31]

    2013, Space Sci

    Limousin, M., Morandi, A., Sereno, M., et al. 2013, Space Sci. Rev., 177, 155

    2013

  32. [32]

    2022, A&A, 661, A2

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

    2022

  33. [33]

    T., Martin, R., Pratt, N

    MacGillivray, H. T., Martin, R., Pratt, N. M., et al. 1976, MNRAS, 176, 649

    1976

  34. [34]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, L55

    Makarenko, I., Fletcher, A., & Shukurov, A. 2015, MNRAS, 447, L55

    2015

  35. [35]

    2024, A&A, 682, A34

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

    2024

  36. [36]

    A., Dong, F., Koester, B

    Niederste-Ostholt, M., Strauss, M. A., Dong, F., Koester, B. P., & McKay, T. A. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2023

    2010

  37. [37]

    B., Dahle, H., et al

    Oguri, M., Bayliss, M. B., Dahle, H., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3213

    2012

  38. [38]

    Oguri, M., Takada, M., Okabe, N., & Smith, G. P. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2215

    2010

  39. [39]

    2015, A&A, 575, A127

    Parekh, V ., van der Heyden, K., Ferrari, C., Angus, G., & Holwerda, B. 2015, A&A, 575, A127

    2015

  40. [40]

    D., & Frenk, C

    Plionis, M., Barrow, J. D., & Frenk, C. S. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 662

    1991

  41. [41]

    L., Borgani, S., et al

    Ragone-Figueroa, C., Granato, G. L., Borgani, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2436

    2020

  42. [42]

    Rood, H. J. & Sastry, G. N. 1972, AJ, 77, 451

    1972

  43. [43]

    2023, A&A, 669, A29

    Rosselli, D., Marulli, F., Veropalumbo, A., Cimatti, A., & Moscardini, L. 2023, A&A, 669, A29

    2023

  44. [44]

    S., Bahar, Y

    Sanders, J. S., Bahar, Y . E., Bulbul, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A160

    2025

  45. [45]

    S., Fabian, A

    Sanders, J. S., Fabian, A. C., Russell, H. R., & Walker, S. A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1065

    2018

  46. [46]

    D., Frenk, C

    Schneider, M. D., Frenk, C. S., & Cole, S. 2012, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2012, 030

    2012

  47. [47]

    2024, A&A, 686, A196

    Seppi, R., Comparat, J., Ghirardini, V ., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A196

    2024

  48. [48]

    2007, MNRAS, 380, 1207

    Sereno, M. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1207

    2007

  49. [49]

    & Umetsu, K

    Sereno, M. & Umetsu, K. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 3187

    2011

  50. [50]

    & Khatri, R

    Shankar, S. & Khatri, R. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2791

    2021

  51. [51]

    D., Weller, J., Ostriker, J

    Shaw, L. D., Weller, J., Ostriker, J. P., & Bode, P. 2006, ApJ, 646, 815

    2006

  52. [52]

    & Binney, J

    Strimpel, O. & Binney, J. 1979, MNRAS, 188, 883

    1979

  53. [53]

    2025, A&A, 694, A107

    Veronesi, I., Bartalucci, I., Rasia, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A107

    2025

  54. [54]

    2006, ApJ, 640, 691

    Vikhlinin, A., Kravtsov, A., Forman, W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 691

    2006

  55. [55]

    2014, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Vinci, G., Freeman, P., Newman, J., Wasserman, L., & Genovese, C. 2014, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 306, Statistical Challenges in 21st Century Cosmology, ed. A. Heavens, J.-L. Starck, & A. Krone-Martins, 68–71

    2014

  56. [56]

    S., Quinn, P

    Warren, M. S., Quinn, P. J., Salmon, J. K., & Zurek, W. H. 1992, ApJ, 399, 405

    1992

  57. [57]

    White, S. D. M. & Silk, J. 1979, ApJ, 231, 1

    1979

  58. [58]

    H., & Hjorth, J

    Wojtak, R., Hansen, S. H., & Hjorth, J. 2011, Nature, 477, 567

    2011

  59. [59]

    Yuan, Z. S. & Han, J. L. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 5485 Zel’dovich, Y . B. 1970, A&A, 5, 84 Article number, page 9 of 9

    2020