Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Onset of Feedback in Abell 1885: Evidence for Large-Scale Quenching Despite a Young Central AGN

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Abell 1885 shows a quenched cluster core alongside a young, rapidly accreting AGN—evidence that feedback heats the gas on a slower timescale than it feeds the black hole.

desk verdict A useful multiwavelength case study with one genuinely new detection, but the headline two-timescale claim rests on unquantified non-detections and a rarity estimate that uses a cluster outside the stated sample selection. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03277 v1 pith:SLPFJK6P submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.CO

Laurel White , Michael McDonald , Francesco Ubertosi , Massimo Gaspari , Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo , Helen Russell , Taweewat Somboonpanyakul This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxyclustersAGNfeedbackcoolcoresintraclustermediumX-raypointsourcesradiojetsstarformationquenchingchaoticcoldaccretion
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

Abell 1885, a low-redshift galaxy cluster, is a strong cool core with a central cooling time of about $0.43$ Gyr, yet its central galaxy is forming stars at a rate below $0.4$ solar masses per year—less than a quarter percent of the roughly $200$ solar masses per year that classical cooling would predict. At the same time, the central black hole appears young: it shines brightly in X-rays, is accreting at about $0.2\%$ of the Eddington rate, and shows radio jets only a few parsecs long, with no large-scale radio lobes or X-ray cavities detected. The paper's central claim is that AGN feedback in clusters operates on two decoupled timescales: a short one for black-hole feeding and jet launching, and a much longer one over which the injected energy dissipates through the intracluster medium. If correct, a cluster can be simultaneously 'pre-feedback' in its small-scale AGN and 'post-feedback' in its large-scale cooling, which would favor gentle, long-lived heating mechanisms such as turbulent dissipation over prompt shock heating. The same observation places a rarity bound: among 135 clusters in a nearly mass-complete sample, only one hosts an X-ray-bright central AGN, giving a 95% upper limit of about 4% at $z\sim0.15$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-timescale model of AGN feedback, diagnosed by comparing the cooling state of the intracluster medium with the radio morphology of the central AGN. The critical measurements are the central cooling time (about $0.43$ Gyr), the maximal cooling rate without feedback (about $200\,M_\odot$/yr), the upper limit on star formation (below $0.4\,M_\odot$/yr), the jet power inferred from radio luminosity (about $10^{44}$ erg/s), and the parsec-scale radio structure from very long baseline interferometry. The mismatch between these macro- and micro-scale diagnostics is the evidence that carries the argument: a young, compact AGN coexisting with a strongly quenched cool core. The paper supports the slow-dissipation interpretation by showing that the radio spectrum of Abell 1885 resembles the compact core of Hydra A rather than its extended lobes, and by appealing to simulations of episodic feedback in which turbulence persists long after an outburst.

What would settle it

A deep X-ray observation of Abell 1885, with exposure reaching the surface-brightness sensitivity needed to detect the ghost cavities seen in other cool-core clusters, would either find such cavities—showing that large-scale feedback did occur recently—or place upper limits that would strengthen the delayed-dissipation interpretation. A deep low-frequency radio observation that resolves extended lobe emission would likewise weaken the claim that the AGN is in its first feedback episode.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a mismatch between the macro-scale thermodynamic state of the intracluster medium and the micro-scale state of the central AGN in Abell 1885. The cooling time at the center is about $0.43$ Gyr, the estimated maximal cooling rate without heating is roughly $200\,M_\odot$/yr, and the observed star formation rate is below $0.4\,M_\odot$/yr, implying that more than 99.75% of the expected cooling is offset. Yet the AGN shows all the signs of having recently turned on: an X-ray point source, a radio spectrum matching a compact core with no extended emission down to arcsecond scales, and parsec-scale two-sided radio jets. The paper argues that the only way to reconcile these observations is to allow the heating timescale in the cluster gas to be much longer than the accretion duty cycle, so that energy from a previous outburst is still being dissipated while the black hole has already resumed accretion. It therefore proposes two distinct timescales for AGN feedback—fast micro-scale feeding and feedback, and slow macro-scale dissipation—and interprets the data as evidence against rapid shock heating and in favor of slow turbulent mixing.

Load-bearing premise

The argument treats the non-detection of extended radio emission and X-ray cavities as proof that no large-scale mechanical feedback has acted recently, even though the current surveys and the 8.5 ks X-ray image are not deep enough to rule out faint lobes or ghost cavities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Abell 1885 shows that the presence of a young, compact central AGN does not imply the intracluster medium has not been recently heated; surveys that select 'pre-feedback' clusters by radio morphology alone will miss systems whose cooling is already quenched by older outbursts.
  • The rarity bound—at most about 4% of $z\sim0.15$ clusters host an X-ray-bright central AGN—makes Abell 1885 a rare transition state in the AGN duty cycle and motivates completing the cluster census to refine the fraction.
  • If the two-timescale picture is correct, the current AGN power cannot be used as a direct proxy for the current heating rate of the cluster gas, because energy from previous outbursts is still being dissipated.
  • The data favor turbulent dissipation over shock heating as the dominant large-scale energy-distribution mechanism, since shocks would couple the feeding and feedback timescales and produce a visible large-scale jet during the active phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two-timescale decoupling is generic, deep X-ray and low-frequency radio searches for ghost cavities and faint lobes should reveal a population of cool-core clusters whose cooling is quenched but whose current AGN is radio-quiet or compact—'hidden feedback' systems that single-epoch snapshots would classify as pre-feedback.
  • The rarity estimate rests on a single detection; if Abell 1885 is not representative of the cluster sample, the 4% bound could shift, but the qualitative decoupling of feeding and dissipation timescales would still need to be explained if another such system is found.
  • One can test the model statistically by asking whether the fraction of cool-core clusters with quenched cooling but no large-scale radio structure matches the fraction of the AGN duty cycle spent in the compact young phase; a mismatch would point to an additional heat source or different dissipation physics.
  • The accretion rate inferred from the X-ray point source assumes the nuclear emission is not heavily obscured or beamed; higher-quality X-ray spectroscopy measuring the intrinsic column density would sharpen the conclusion that Abell 1885 is a genuinely low-Eddington, young system.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a new 8.5 ks Chandra ACIS-I observation of the galaxy cluster Abell 1885, supplemented by VLBA imaging, archival radio survey data from 144 MHz to 150 GHz, and SDSS MaNGA integral-field spectroscopy. From these data the authors report that A1885 is a strong cool core (central cooling time ~0.4 Gyr), hosts an X-ray luminous central point source (L_2-10 keV ~1.5-2.3 x 10^42 erg/s), and shows no evidence of large-scale radio lobes or X-ray cavities. They combine these measurements with the CEREAL cluster sample to place a 95% upper limit of 4.1% on the fraction of z~0.15 clusters with X-ray bright central AGN. The central interpretive claim is that the galaxy is strongly quenched on >10 kpc scales despite a young, compact central AGN, implying that AGN feedback energy is dissipated on a timescale much longer than the accretion duty cycle (e.g., via turbulent mixing rather than prompt shocks).

Significance. If the central interpretation holds, the paper provides a valuable multiwavelength case study of a rare transitional state in cluster AGN feedback, with the potential to constrain the duty cycle and dissipation mechanisms of mechanical feedback. The new Chandra observation, the VLBA pc-scale morphology, and the MaNGA H-alpha map are useful additions to the literature on cool-core clusters, and the rarity estimate is a step toward a less biased census of X-ray bright central AGN. The paper is also commendable for combining independent data sets and for explicitly identifying follow-up observations needed to test its conclusions. However, the key inference - that large-scale quenching coexists with an absence of any recent large-scale feedback - is currently underdetermined by the data, because the non-detections are not quantified as upper limits and the available exposure is shallow. The central claim is therefore interesting and plausible but needs stronger support before it can be accepted as established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §3.3, §4.2] The central claim that A1885 lacks recent large-scale mechanical feedback rests on the absence of detected X-ray cavities and extended radio emission, but no quantitative upper limits are provided. The X-ray data are only 8.5 ks, and the authors themselves state in §3.1 that 'we require deeper Chandra observations to confirm this' absence of cavities. Similarly, the radio surveys listed in §2.3 are not used to place surface-brightness or luminosity upper limits on a possible low-surface-brightness lobe at 144 MHz or other frequencies. Without such limits, the possibility remains that cavities or lobes from a previous feedback episode are simply below current sensitivity; in that case the system would be naturally interpreted as later in a normal episodic AGN cycle, and the need for a dissipation timescale longer than the feeding duty cycle would not be established. Please add quantitative upper limits on cavity enthalpy/power and radio lobe surface brightness/luminosity, or explicitly reframe the conclusions to acknowledge this degeneracy.
  2. [§2.1.1] The detection significance and net counts of the central X-ray point source are not reported. The paper quotes a best-fit cstat=8.66 for 13 degrees of freedom for a power-law model with no background, and notes that the expected background and thermal contributions are ~0.014 and ~1.6 counts, respectively, but it does not state the total number of source counts or the Poisson probability that the source is real. Given that the point source is one of the two pillars of the 'young AGN' interpretation and of the rarity estimate, please report the net counts, the signal-to-noise ratio, and the significance (e.g., Poisson probability or equivalent Gaussian sigma), along with the energy range used.
  3. [§2.1.3, §3.2] The central cooling time and the mass cooling rate are derived from Vikhlinin temperature and density profile models that are fitted to only six annular spectra from an 8.5 ks exposure. The inner bin boundary is chosen to exclude the central point source, and the cooling time at r=10 kpc (0.34 Gyr) is an interpolation/extrapolation of these model profiles rather than a direct measurement. The quoted uncertainties (e.g., 0.34+0.10-0.04 Gyr) do not appear to include systematic uncertainties from the choice of profile shape, the projection correction, or the metallicity assumed in the cooling function. Please quantify how sensitive the strong-cool-core classification and the '>99.75% quenching' statement are to these modeling choices, for example by varying the profile functional form or fitting the density and temperature profiles independently.
  4. [§4.1] The rarity estimate of 'no more than 4.1%' is based on 135 CEREAL clusters that include Abell 1885, but A1885 has z=0.089, which is outside the stated CEREAL redshift selection of 0.15<z<0.25 (main sample) or 0.1<z<0.2 (low-mass extension). The abstract and introduction describe A1885 as part of a low-mass extension, but the paper does not explicitly demonstrate that A1885 satisfies the mass and redshift criteria of the sample used for the binomial statistics. If A1885 is not a valid draw from the same parent population, the binomial upper limit is not applicable. Please clarify the selection criteria for the 135 observed clusters, state whether A1885 is included, and recompute the limit either excluding A1885 or with a clearly defined parent sample that includes it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §2.1.1, §3.2, §5] There are several numerical inconsistencies between the abstract, main text, and conclusion: the 2-10 keV luminosity is given as 2.3^+0.9_-0.7 x 10^42 erg/s in the abstract but 1.53^+0.42_-0.34 x 10^42 erg/s in §2.1.1; the central cooling time is 0.43 Gyr in the abstract, 0.42^+0.11_-0.08 Gyr in Figure 3, and 0.34^+0.10_-0.04 Gyr at r=10 kpc in §3.2; and the maximal cooling rate is 198 +/- 30 M_sun/yr in §3.2 but 175 +/- 15 M_sun/yr in conclusion item 3. Please reconcile these values and ensure the quoted numbers are consistent throughout.
  2. [§2.3, Figure 5] The text contains a typographical error in the VLBA flux density at 8.4 GHz: '26.12.6 mJy' should presumably read '26.1 +/- 2.6 mJy'. Also, 'LOF AR' appears in §2.3 and should be 'LOFAR'.
  3. [§2.2, Figure 4] The instrument is referred to as both 'MaNGA' and 'MANGA' in the text; please use a consistent nomenclature (the official name is 'MaNGA').
  4. [§3.2] The sentence in §3.2 refers to 'the 24 µm-derived (and likely AGN-contaminated) rate' but the comparison to the Quillen et al. (2008) 70 µm upper limit is only given parenthetically; it would be clearer to show the 70 µm-derived SFR upper limit explicitly in the text or a table alongside the H-alpha and Spitzer values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new Chandra, VLBA, and MaNGA data are independent measurements, and the long-dissipation-timescale claim is an underdetermined interpretation rather than a definitional reduction or fitted-input prediction.

full rationale

The paper's core measurements are new and independent: the Chandra-derived cooling time (0.43 Gyr), the X-ray point-source luminosity, the MaNGA H-alpha star-formation upper limit, and the VLBA parsec-scale jet detection. The 4.1% rarity bound is a direct binomial upper limit from 1 detection among 135 CEREAL clusters, not a re-use of the target quantity as an input. The 'young AGN' characterization is supported by the VLBA pc-scale morphology and the unresolved radio survey data, and the cited Ubertosi et al. (2023) 'pre-feedback' classification is invoked as prior context rather than as a substitute for the new data; the paper states that the new results 'confirm the predictions' of that work. The main interpretive step, attributing large-scale quenching to long-lived heat from previous AGN episodes, is underdetermined: Section 3.1 concedes that 'we do not show evidence of X-ray cavities' and that deeper Chandra observations are required to confirm their absence, so the premise of absent large-scale feedback is not firmly established. Underdetermination by shallow data is an evidentiary weakness, not a circular derivation. The same-group simulations (Gaspari et al. 2011, 2012) are cited as physical support for slow dissipation, but they do not enter the derivation of the measured cooling, star-formation, or radio properties. No step equates a fitted parameter with a prediction, and no conclusion is forced by definition or by a self-citation chain; the modest score reflects the paper's reliance on its own prior classification and simulations as interpretive scaffolding, not any formal circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends mostly on modeling choices and non-detection assumptions rather than on invented physical entities. The main fragility is the sample-selection mismatch and the treatment of non-detections as evidence of absence.

free parameters (5)
  • Vikhlinin temperature profile parameters = not tabulated in paper
    Six-bin temperature profile fit to Eq. 1; central cooling time depends on extrapolation of T(r) to r below 10 kpc.
  • Vikhlinin density profile parameters = not tabulated in paper
    Ten-bin emission measure profile fit to Eq. 3; used for cooling time and maximal cooling rate.
  • Metallicity profile parameters = not tabulated in paper
    Interpolation of metallicity for spectral fits; metallicity affects the cooling function and derived profiles.
  • Intrinsic absorption column density = 0 to 1.62e22 cm^-2
    Fitted in the point source spectral model; affects the intrinsic 2-10 keV luminosity.
  • Powerlaw photon index = 1.31 +1.23/-0.47
    Fitted in the point source spectral fit; bolometric luminosity estimate depends on it.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gas in collisional ionization equilibrium with Sutherland and Dopita cooling function at [Fe/H] = -0.05
    Cooling time calculation (Eq. 4) assumes this plasma state and metallicity.
  • domain assumption Classical maximal cooling rate assumes no heating or mixing and that all gas with tcool below 7.7 Gyr cools
    Used to derive 198 solar masses per year baseline; the quenching fraction is measured against this idealized baseline.
  • domain assumption Halpha emission is photoionized by young stars with Kennicutt conversion, and AGN contamination only raises the upper limit
    SFR upper limit of 0.4 solar masses per year from Halpha; if a substantial fraction is AGN photoionized, the SFR is even lower, so the upper limit is conservative.
  • domain assumption Abell 1885 is drawn from the same selection as the 135 CEREAL clusters used for the rarity estimate
    The paper states A1885 is part of CEREAL, but its z=0.089 is outside the stated CEREAL redshift range (0.15-0.25 and 0.1-0.2 for the low-mass extension); the 1/135 count may not be a valid draw.
  • domain assumption Absence of detected extended radio emission and cavities implies no recent large-scale mechanical feedback
    Used to define the 'young AGN' state; no quantitative upper limits on extended radio surface brightness or cavity depth are given.
  • standard math Standard spectral fitting and XSPEC atomic models
    Assumes phabs*apec/powerlaw models and Anders and Grevesse abundances; standard in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Onset of Feedback in Abell 1885: Evidence for Large-Scale Quenching Despite a Young Central AGN." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SLPFJK6P

@misc{pith2026250603277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Onset of Feedback in Abell 1885: Evidence for Large-Scale Quenching Despite a Young Central AGN},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SLPFJK6P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03277}
}
read the original abstract

We present a new 8.5 ks Chandra observation of Abell 1885, obtained as part of the Cluster Evolution Reference Ensemble At Low-z (CEREAL) survey of ~200 low-z galaxy groups and clusters. These data reveal that Abell 1885 is a strong cool core, with a central cooling time of 0.43 Gyr, and that the central galaxy hosts an X-ray luminous point source at its center (L=2.3x10^42 erg/s), indicative of a rapidly accreting supermassive black hole. In the context of the larger CEREAL sample, we constrain the fraction of clusters at z~0.15 with X-ray bright central AGN to be no more than 4.1%. Including radio data from LOFAR, GMRT, ASKAP, and the VLA and optical integral field unit data from SDSS MaNGA, we probe the details of cooling, feeding, and feedback in this system. These data reveal that cooling of the intracluster medium is highly suppressed on large (>10 kpc) scales despite a central supermassive black hole that is in the early stages of the self-regulation cycle (characterized by rapid accretion, physically small jets, and no large-scale low-frequency radio emission). To reconcile the large-scale quenching with a lack of visible large-scale feedback, we propose that the timescale on which energy is dissipated on large scales is significantly longer than the timescale on which black hole feeding operates on small (~pc) scales. These observations suggest that there are two separate timescales characterizing AGN feedback in clusters: the short timescale of small-scale feeding and feedback processes and a longer timescale by which energy is dissipated on large physical scales in the intracluster medium. This interpretation disfavors a model in which the energy is rapidly dissipated (e.g. shocks), which would synchronize the feeding and feedback timescales, and favors a model in which the heating effects of AGN feedback can linger long after the outburst has passed (e.g. turbulent mixing).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03277 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An exposure-corrected image of the X-ray flux from Abell 1885 in the 0.5-7.0 keV band as observed with Chandra. Standard processing has been applied as described in the text, as well as Gaussian smoothing at the 2σ level. 2012; Gaspari et al. 2020). Previous analyses of cluster populations have determined that nearly every cool-core cluster hosts a radio-loud AGN in its brightest cluster galaxy (BCG), strongly imply… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Emission measure (top) and kT (bottom) best￾fit radial profiles with 1σ confidence intervals. The emis￾sion measure is proportional to the square of density, and a physically-motivated density profile is integrated to produce the above fit to the observed points. Similarly, the best-fit temperature profile is shown both as it is observed (i.e. pro￾jected along the line of sight) as well as unprojected to the true un… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial cooling time profile, calculated using the best-fit temperature and density profiles, with 1σ confidence intervals. The central cooling time is 0.42+0.11 −0.08 Gyr, imply￾ing that Abell 1885 is a strong cool core. The background points represent the cooling time profiles of the 91 cool core systems from the ACCEPT sample (Cavagnolo et al. 2009) for comparison. lished redshift of dz=0.01 (consistent with the l… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Map of the integrated Hα emission in each pixel of the MANGA IFU cube with contours. There is evidence of star formation extending several kiloparsecs from the center of the cluster. Right: 3-band (g/r/i) optical image from SDSS data with the same Hα contours ove…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left Panel: 8.4 GHz VLBA image with contours. Second panel: Radio SED of Abell 1885 compared to the small￾scale “core” component of Hydra A. The Hydra A data have been scaled to match the 1.4 GHx flux density of Abell 1885. Third panel: Same as second panel but with th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Abell 1885 compared to other low-redshift clus￾ters with bright central X-ray point sources from Hlavacek￾Larrondo et al. (2013). The top panel shows the hard X-ray (2-10 keV) luminosity of the AGN, Lnuc, as derived from spectral fitting (or 3σ upper limits for non-det…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. JVLA and VLBA study of the merging cool core CHIPS 1911+4455 at z~0.5: radio emission from an infant AGN and from a rapidly star-forming BCG

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The central AGN of cool-core cluster CHIPS 1911+4455 has recently turned on (60 pc jets, spectral peak near 1.9 GHz rest frame), while 10 kpc radio whiskers trace a starburst with a radio SFR of 100-155 M_sun/yr.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    doi:10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-x 1989

  2. [2]

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

  3. [3]

    N., Fabian, A

    Bregman, J. N., Fabian, A. C., Miller, E. D., & Irwin, J. A. 2006, ApJ, 642, 746, doi: 10.1086/501112

    doi:10.1086/501112 2006

  4. [4]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/7 2015

  5. [5]

    W., Donahue, M., Voit, G

    Cavagnolo, K. W., Donahue, M., Voit, G. M., & Sun, M. 2009, ApJS, 182, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/12

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/12 2009

  6. [6]

    W., McNamara, B

    Cavagnolo, K. W., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1066, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1066

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/2/1066 2010

  7. [7]

    2005, MNRAS, 363, L91, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00093.x

    Churazov, E., Sazonov, S., Sunyaev, R., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 363, L91, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00093.x

    arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Fabian, A. C. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 857, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02583.x

    arXiv 1999

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    M., & Rieke, G

    Diamond-Stanic, A. M., & Rieke, G. H. 2012, ApJ, 746, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/168

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    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, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3108

    Gaspari, M., Temi, P., & Brighenti, F. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3108

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0970-1 G¨ urkan, G., Hardcastle, M

    Gaspari, M., Tombesi, F., & Cappi, M. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0970-1 G¨ urkan, G., Hardcastle, M. J., Jarvis, M. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3776, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1502

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A

    Hale, C. L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.47

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Edge, A

    Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Fabian, A. C., Edge, A. C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1638, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt283

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    Hogan, M. T. 2014, PhD thesis, Durham University, UK

    2014

  9. [17]

    T., Edge, A

    Hogan, M. T., Edge, A. C., Geach, J. E., et al. 2015a, MNRAS, 453, 1223, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1518

    doi

  10. [18]

    T., Edge, A

    Hogan, M. T., Edge, A. C., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., et al. 2015b, MNRAS, 453, 1201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1517 11

    doi

  11. [19]

    F., Richards, G

    Hopkins, P. F., Richards, G. T., & Hernquist, L. 2007, ApJ, 654, 731, doi: 10.1086/509629

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K

    Intema, H. T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K. P., & Frail, D. A. 2017, The GMRT 150 MHz all-sky radio survey. First alternative data release TGSS ADR1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628536

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Fabian, A

    Johnstone, R. M., Fabian, A. C., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 1987, MNRAS, 224, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/224.1.75

    1987 doi

  15. [23]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    1998 doi

  16. [24]

    C., & McNamara, B

    Kirkpatrick, C. C., & McNamara, B. R. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 4361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1574

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    C., et al

    Li, Y., Calzetti, D., Kennicutt, R. C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 677, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/677

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    D., et al

    Lusso, E., Comastri, A., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 623, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21513.x

    2012

  20. [28]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 169, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x

    Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x

    2004

  21. [29]

    L., Lenc, E., et al

    McConnell, D., Hale, C. L., Lenc, E., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e048, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.41

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

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

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Calzadilla, M

    McDonald, M., McNamara, B. R., Calzadilla, M. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd47f

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    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

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625 —. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    2007 arXiv

  27. [35]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 5185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2016 O’Dea, C

    Netzer, H. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2016 O’Dea, C. P., Baum, S. A., Privon, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1035, doi: 10.1086/588212

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    R., & Fabian, A

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

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Kahn, S

    Peterson, J. R., Kahn, S. M., Paerels, F. B. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 590, 207, doi: 10.1086/374830 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525823

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Zufelt, N., Park, J., et al

    Quillen, A. C., Zufelt, N., Park, J., et al. 2008, ApJS, 176, 39, doi: 10.1086/525560

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    B., Tang, Y., de Bruyn, A

    Rengelink, R. B., Tang, Y., de Bruyn, A. G., et al. 1997, A&AS, 124, 259, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997358

    1997 doi

  32. [40]

    Broderick, A. E. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv954

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Fabian, A

    Russell, H. R., Fabian, A. C., McNamara, B. R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3583, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty835

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    R., McNamara, B

    Russell, H. R., McNamara, B. R., Edge, A. C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt490

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    W., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    W., Stalder, B., & Stark, A

    Somboonpanyakul, T., McDonald, M., Lin, H. W., Stalder, B., & Stark, A. 2018, ApJ, 863, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aace55

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    A., Gammie, C

    Stark, A. A., Gammie, C. F., Wilson, R. W., et al. 1992, ApJS, 79, 77, doi: 10.1086/191645

    1992 doi

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    S., & Dopita, M

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

    1993 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, A&A, 673, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345894

    Ubertosi, F., Gitti, M., Brighenti, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345894

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    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

  42. [50]

    R., Forman, W., et al

    Vikhlinin, A., McNamara, B. R., Forman, W., et al. 1998, ApJ, 502, 558, doi: 10.1086/305951

    1998 doi

  43. [51]

    H., Egami, E., et al

    Xu, L., Rieke, G. H., Egami, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/159

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfd7

    Yang, L., Tozzi, P., Yu, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfd7

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.