Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 119 references

Pressure profiles and mass estimates using high-resolution Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect observations of Zwicky 3146 with MUSTANG-2

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that deep, high-resolution 90 GHz Sunyaev-Zel'dovich observations of the relaxed cluster Zwicky 3146 recover the intracluster pressure profile non-parametrically and pin its $M_{500}$ at $8.16^{+0.44}_{-0.54}$ (stat.)…

desk verdict Solid single-cluster SZ measurement with a genuinely useful pipeline advance; the mass is plausible, but the quoted error bar omits a known outer-bin systematic that can move M500 by roughly 20%. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09200 v1 pith:THOAS4MX submitted 2019-08-24 astro-ph.CO

Charles E. Romero , Jonathan Sievers , Vittorio Ghirardini , Simon Dicker , Simona Giacintucci , Tony Mroczkowski , Brian S. Mason , Craig Sarazin
show 7 more authors
Mark Devlin Massimo Gaspari Nicholas Battaglia Matthew Hilton Esra Bulbul Ian Lowe Sara Stanchfield
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxyclustersSunyaev-Zel'dovicheffectintraclustermediumpressureprofilesmassestimationhydrostaticequilibriumZwicky3146Comptonyparameter
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

High-resolution Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) observations of the galaxy cluster Zwicky 3146, taken at 90 GHz to a central noise below 15 $\mu$K, are used to recover the thermal pressure profile of the intracluster gas without assuming a fixed analytic shape. The paper's central claim is that a model-fitting data pipeline can constrain that profile beyond the telescope's field of view, and that the resulting pressure profile agrees with the one obtained from XMM-Newton X-ray data. From that profile the authors derive mass estimates through three independent routes -- $Y$-$M$ scaling relations, hydrostatic equilibrium, and the virial theorem -- obtaining $M_{500}$ values from $6.23 \pm 0.59$ to $10.6 \pm 0.95 \times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$. Their fiducial mass, from the $Y$-$M$ relation, is $8.16^{+0.44}_{-0.54}$ (5.5% statistical), with 5.5% systematic uncertainty from the scaling relation and 7.0% from calibration, in units of $10^{14}\,M_\odot$. The result matters because published masses for this cluster scattered from $3.88$ to $22.5 \times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$, and cluster-cosmology constraints hinge on exactly this kind of mass calibration.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Compton $y$ parameter, the line-of-sight integral of thermal electron pressure, which is what the 90 GHz observations measure through the SZ temperature decrement. The argument is carried by three pieces: (1) a non-parametric model that bins pressure into twelve logarithmically spaced radii and fits those bins directly to the detector timestreams with a maximum-likelihood pipeline, recovering scales beyond the 4.25-arcminute field of view; (2) a generalized NFW pressure profile with A10 shape parameters as a parametric cross-check; and (3) three mass estimators -- integrated $Y_{\rm sph}$ compared with published $Y$-$M$ relations, the hydrostatic equation $M_{\rm HE} = -(d\ln P_e/d\ln r)\,P_e\,r/(n_e\,\mu m_p G)$ using X-ray electron densities, and a virial-theorem expression relating thermal energy to an NFW gravitational potential. All mass estimates are made self-consistent by finding where the derived mass curve crosses the reference $M_{500}(<r)$ curve.

What would settle it

Re-observe Zwicky 3146 with a larger scan radius (or use an independent X-ray pressure measurement beyond 200 arcseconds) and compare the recovered outermost pressure bin with the value assumed here. A rise of roughly a factor of 2.3, as the paper's entropy-power-law test predicts, would confirm the suspected bias and shift the hydrostatic mass estimate upward by about $1.7 \times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a relaxed, cool-core cluster, the paper demonstrates that SZ data alone can deliver a deconvolved, non-parametric pressure profile spanning radii from about 5 arcseconds to beyond 300 arcseconds, with the outermost bin extending to infinity. That profile is statistically consistent with the pressure profile derived from XMM-Newton, and it anchors the cluster's total mass: the fiducial estimate $M_{500} = 8.16^{+0.44}_{-0.54}$ (stat.) $^{+0.46}_{-0.43}$ (sys., $Y$-$M$) $^{+0.59}_{-0.55}$ (sys., calibration) $\times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$. The paper also finds that the hydrostatic mass estimate, $8.29^{+1.93}_{-1.24}$ (stat.) $^{+0.74}_{-0.68}$ (sys., calibration) $\times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$, sits above the $Y$-$M$ masses, implying a negative hydrostatic mass bias rather than the usual positive one, and it investigates whether residual SZ substructure or an underestimated outer pressure bin can explain the inconsistencies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the outermost non-parametric pressure bin, spanning 207 arcseconds to infinity, is unbiased; if that bin is low, the paper's own entropy-continuity test raises it by about 2.1 $\sigma$ and pushes $M_{500}$ estimates, such as the hydrostatic one from $8.29$ to $9.95 \times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$, substantially higher.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the non-parametric recovery beyond the field of view is unbiased, single-dish SZ instruments can measure cluster masses to a few percent without relying on X-ray or weak-lensing calibration for the pressure shape.
  • The fiducial mass of $\sim 8.16 \times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$ agrees with ACT, Planck, and X-ray based estimates near $8 \times 10^{14}\,M_\odot$, sharpening the picture against weak-lensing estimates that prefer lower masses.
  • The negative hydrostatic mass bias, if real, suggests that non-thermal pressure support alone cannot explain the offset between hydrostatic and $Y$-$M$ masses for this cluster, and that calibration of the $Y$-$M$ relations themselves may be implicated.
  • The agreement between SZ and X-ray pressure profiles implies that high-resolution SZ data can supply the pressure side of thermodynamic products such as temperature, entropy, and gas fraction when X-ray or other data supply the density.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension, not made in the paper, is to apply the same timestream-fitting pressure recovery to a sample of relaxed clusters spanning a range of masses and redshifts; if the outer-bin low bias is generic, current SZ mass estimates from ground-based dishes could be systematically low and $Y$-$M$ calibrations would need revisiting.
  • The paper's suspected link between the residual SZ decrement and the radio minihalo could be tested with high-resolution spectral-index mapping: a thermal SZ component tracing the minihalo would indicate that sloshing redistributes pressure as well as gas density on small scales.
  • If the negative hydrostatic bias persists across a larger sample, the standard practice of applying a 10-30% positive correction for hydrostatic bias in cluster cosmology would have to be reexamined, directly affecting mass-function estimates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents MUSTANG-2 90 GHz Sunyaev-Zel'dovich observations of the relaxed cool-core cluster Zwicky 3146. Using a new maximum-likelihood processing pipeline (Minkasi) that fits surface-brightness annuli directly to time-ordered data, the authors derive non-parametric and gNFW/A10 pressure profiles over 5" to 300", compare them with an XMM-Newton pressure profile, and estimate M500 and M2500 through three routes: Y-M scaling relations (A10, M12, P17, C11), the virial theorem, and hydrostatic equilibrium with an external X-ray electron density profile. The fiducial Y-M mass is 8.16(+0.44,-0.54)(+0.46,-0.43)(+0.59,-0.55)x10^14 M_sun, and the hydrostatic mass is 8.29(+1.93,-1.24)(+0.74,-0.68)x10^14 M_sun. The paper also investigates residuals, temperature, entropy, and gas fraction profiles, and it explicitly analyzes the possibility that the outermost pressure bin is biased low.

Significance. If the central mass estimates held at their quoted precision, this would be a valuable demonstration that a ground-based SZ instrument can constrain a cluster pressure profile non-parametrically beyond its radial field of view, and it would provide a useful multi-method mass comparison for a relaxed cluster that has a wide spread of literature masses. The paper's strengths are its detailed treatment of the Minkasi covariance matrix, the MCMC fitting, the dual-pipeline (MIDAS/Minkasi) comparison, the careful point-source modeling, and the unusually honest Appendix B, which tests the outermost pressure bin against a physically motivated entropy-continuation prior. However, the same appendix shows that this single bin shifts mass estimates by up to about 20%, and Section 7 admits that the associated systematic error cannot yet be quantified. Because the fiducial mass and the hydrostatic mass both integrate over this bin, the quoted error budget is incomplete and the central mass claims are not yet established at the stated precision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 4.2, Appendix B, Table 5] The outermost non-parametric pressure bin, spanning 207 arcseconds to infinity, is load-bearing for the integrated quantities Y_sph(R500) and the hydrostatic mass profile (Eqs. 6, 7, and 10), yet its value is weakly constrained. Appendix B shows that requiring the entropy profile to continue the fitted r^1.34 power law raises this bin's pressure by a factor of 2.3, a 2.1-sigma shift, and Table 5 reports that this shift moves M_HE from 8.29 to 9.95 x 10^14 M_sun and the fiducial (Y-M)_A10 estimate from 8.16 to 8.52 x 10^14 M_sun, with larger excursions for some other relations. Section 7 concedes that the associated systematic error is currently unquantifiable. As a result, the reported 5.5% statistical and 7% calibration error bars on the fiducial mass do not include a systematic that can change M500 by roughly 20% in a physically motivated direction. The authors should either quantify this systematic with a prior-based analysis or restate the central mass as a range that encompasses the entropy-continuation adjustment.
  2. [Sections 5.2, 6.3, and 7] The paper finds that the hydrostatic mass is larger than the Y-M masses, implying a negative hydrostatic mass bias, in direct tension with the expected positive bias of 0.1-0.3. This is not a peripheral discrepancy: it is a central consistency check for the three mass estimators. Appendix B shows that the adjustment that resolves the entropy turnover makes the bias more negative (b = -0.17 to -0.48 for the A10 relation), so the tension is not cured by the apparently plausible outer-bin correction. The manuscript should directly examine whether the negative bias points to a bias in the MUSTANG-2 pressure profile, a bias in the XMM electron density profile, or a problem in the adopted Y-M relations. As written, Section 7's statement that there is an additional problem to be solved leaves the origin unresolved and weakens the paper's claim that the mass estimates are self-consistent.
  3. [Section 4.3.2, Eq. (10)] The hydrostatic mass estimate uses an external X-ray electron density profile, but the quoted errors for M_HE include only statistical and flux-calibration terms; uncertainties in the XMM density profile (background subtraction, absolute calibration, and possible clumping) are not propagated. Given that the hydrostatic mass is one of the headline results and is compared against the Y-M masses, the absence of a ne-related systematic term makes the error budget incomplete. The authors should either quote M_HE with a density-profile systematic term or explicitly present the hydrostatic estimate as a consistency check rather than a primary mass measurement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6.2] The abstract states that the SZ-derived pressure profile is in excellent agreement with the X-ray pressure profile, but Section 6.2 and Appendix B describe conflicts in derived products such as entropy and hydrostatic mass. I recommend softening the abstract or quantifying the agreement with a goodness-of-fit statistic.
  2. [Section 4.2] The relativistic SZ correction assumes kBTe = 7 keV, which is reasonable for this cluster, but the sensitivity of the fitted pressure profile and masses to this assumed temperature is not stated. A short statement that the effect is negligible would be sufficient.
  3. [Section 5.4.2] The gNFW entropy slope is quoted with an uncertainty of 4e-5, which is artificially small because the pressure shape parameters are fixed to the A10 values. The text should note that this uncertainty does not include shape-parameter or calibration systematics.
  4. [Appendix C] The MIDAS pressure profile shows its two outermost points about 2 sigma below the Minkasi and X-ray profiles, which reinforces the outer-bin concern in Appendix B. Cross-referencing this behavior in Section 4.2 or Appendix B would make the systematic issue easier for the reader to track.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical and wording issues, including 'quadropole' (Section 5.3), 'The conversion is comes from' (Section 4.2), and 'completeleness' (Appendix C). I recommend a careful proofreading pass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fiducial mass estimate is applied from external scaling relations to a direct SZ measurement, not derived from the paper's own fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central mass claim rests on external calibrations and independent data, not on its own fitted constants or on a self-citation chain. The non-parametric pressure profile is fit directly to MUSTANG-2 timestreams without a mass prior, and the fiducial M500 = 8.16 x 10^14 Msun is obtained by evaluating externally calibrated Y-M relations (A10, M12, P17, C11) on that profile. Hydrostatic masses combine the SZ pressure profile with an XMM-derived electron density profile through Eq. 10, and virial masses apply the fixed-assumption Mroczkowski (2011) relation; neither method feeds fitted parameters back into the pressure fit. The gNFW comparison adopts A10 shape parameters from the literature but is not the fiducial estimator. The Appendix B adjustment of the outermost pressure bin is explicitly a sensitivity test guided by the entropy power-law expectation, and the paper does not promote the adjusted values to a prediction; Section 7 instead concedes that the associated systematic cannot yet be quantified. That concession, and the potential ~20% shift in M500 flagged in Appendix B, is a completeness and error-budget concern about the data, not a circularity of the derivation. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported from overlapping-author prior work.

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

The central mass estimates rest on external calibrations and symmetry assumptions. No invented entities are introduced. The most fragile inputs are the fixed gas fraction in the virial theorem and the reliability of the outermost pressure bin, which the paper itself questions.

free parameters (4)
  • Assumed ICM temperature for relativistic SZ correction = 7 keV
    Section 4.2: f(x,Te) evaluated at kBTe = 7 keV, within the spread of literature temperatures. Pressure normalization depends weakly on this choice.
  • Gas fraction fgas for virial theorem = 0.13
    Section 4.3.3: fixed gas fraction in the virial theorem (Equation 12). The paper notes this may dominate the systematic error in MVT.
  • Electron mean molecular mass per electron mu_e = 1.17
    Section 4.3.3: assumed in the virial theorem expression, consistent with mu = 0.61.
  • gNFW shape parameters alpha, beta, gamma = 1.05, 5.41, 0.31
    Section 4.2: fixed to A10 values instead of fitted; restricts the shape of the gNFW pressure profile.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry of the ICM
    Section 4.2: adopted for ease of interpretation; isophotes are circular beyond one arcminute, but the core is elliptical.
  • domain assumption Hydrostatic equilibrium with only thermal pressure support
    Section 4.3.2: Equations 8-10 assume a spherically symmetric, non-rotating ICM in HE; the paper acknowledges non-thermal pressure support would bias masses low.
  • domain assumption Virial equilibrium and NFW matter profile
    Section 4.3.3: Equation 12 assumes the ICM is in virial equilibrium and the total mass follows an NFW profile.
  • domain assumption Universal pressure profile (A10) shape applies to this cluster
    Section 4.2: gNFW shape parameters fixed to A10; comparison with the non-parametric profile tests this.
  • domain assumption X-ray electron density profile from XMM is reliable
    Section 4.3.2 and Appendix B: ne from Ghirardini et al. 2018 is used for HE mass, temperature and entropy; clumping could bias ne high.
  • domain assumption Published Y-M scaling relations are valid calibrations
    Section 4.3.1: Ysph is converted to mass using external relations from A10, M12, P17, and C11; systematic errors are propagated from those papers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pressure profiles and mass estimates using high-resolution Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect observations of Zwicky 3146 with MUSTANG-2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/THOAS4MX

@misc{pith2026190809200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pressure profiles and mass estimates using high-resolution Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect observations of Zwicky 3146 with MUSTANG-2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/THOAS4MX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09200}
}
abstract

The galaxy cluster Zwicky 3146 is a sloshing cool core cluster at $z=0.291$ that in X-ray imaging does not appear to exhibit significant pressure substructure in the intracluster medium (ICM). The published $M_{500}$ values range between $3.88^{+0.62}_{-0.58}$ to $22.50 \pm 7.58 \times 10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$, where ICM-based estimates with reported errors $<20$\% suggest that we should expect to find a mass between $6.53^{+0.44}_{-0.44} \times 10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$ (from Planck, with an $8.4\sigma$ detection) and $8.52^{+1.77}_{-1.47} \times 10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$ (from ACT, with a $14\sigma$ detection). This broad range of masses is suggestive that there is ample room for improvement for all methods. Here, we investigate the ability to estimate the mass of Zwicky 3146 via the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect with data taken at 90 GHz by MUSTANG-2 to a noise level better than $15\ \mu$K at the center, and a cluster detection of $104\sigma$. We derive a pressure profile from our SZ data which is in excellent agreement with that derived from X-ray data. From our SZ-derived pressure profiles, we infer $M_{500}$ and $M_{2500}$ via three methods -- $Y$-$M$ scaling relations, the virial theorem, and hydrostatic equilibrium -- where we employ X-ray constraints from \emph{XMM-Newton} on the electron density profile when assuming hydrostatic equilibrium. Depending on the model and estimation method, our $M_{500}$ estimates range from $6.23 \pm 0.59$ to $10.6 \pm 0.95 \times 10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$, where our estimate from hydrostatic equilibrium, is $8.29^{+1.93}_{-1.24}$ ($\pm 19.1$\% stat) ${}^{+0.74}_{-0.68}$ ($\pm 8.6$\% sys, calibration) $\times 10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$. Our fiducial mass, derived from a $Y$-$M$ relation is $8.16^{+0.44}_{-0.54}$ ($\pm 5.5$\% stat) ${}^{+0.46}_{-0.43}$ ($\pm 5.5$\% sys, $Y$-$M$) ${}^{+0.59}_{-0.55}$ ($\pm 7.0$\% sys, cal.) $\times 10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09200 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Example scan pattern for MUSTANG￾2 (M2), which uses the same scan strategy as MUSTANG (M1), scanning at 0.6 0 per second, on average. The FOV of the two instruments is plotted for comparison. Bottom: Noise (RMS) profiles from the two pipelines. Of note is that the profile is relatively flat in the inner 20 . 28, and 2019 Jan 11 with a total on-source integration time of 22.7 hours. Excising bad scans, our final… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MUSTANG-2 images of Zw3146. Left: Minkasi map, zoomed out, with smoothed X-ray surface brightness contours from XMM in magenta. Middle: Minkasi map, zoomed in, with significance contours (every 2σ) in white. Right: point-source subtracted Minkasi map (Section 4.2) with contours (white) at [-54, -50, -42, -34, -26, -18]σ and X-ray (Chandra) surface brightness contours overlaid in magenta. The red cross denotes the SZ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. , we calculate axis ratios based on isophotes at several radii. While the center exhibits high elliptic￾ity, beyond an arcminute, the cluster isophotes are close to circular. That is, an ellipse which fits the center will not be appropriate for the majority of the cluster-centric radii. 4.3. Mass derivations We investigate mass estimates via three avenues: (1) employing a Y -M relation, (2) employing spherical hy￾ … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two fitted pressure profile models for Zwicky 3146, as well as the pressure profile as determined from XMM￾Newton. The vertical red dashed lines are the HWHM and radial FOV for MUSTANG-2; the vertical black dashed line is R500 for M500 = 8 × 1014M and the vertical blac…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temperatures as inferred from the SZ (Minkasi pipeline) pressure and the X-ray-derived electron density. The red curve and uncertainty band is from the gNFW pres￾sure profile and the blue curve is from the NP pressure pro￾file. The black dashed temperature curve is the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: HST image with MUSTANG-2 residual (cyan), X-ray (XMM, blue), and radio (4.5 Ghz, red) overlays. The cyan (blue) cross is the X-ray (SZ) centroid. eral form, we opt to restrict the parameters a = 0 and b = 2, as in Ghirardini et al. (2019) (The fitted curves with a and …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Entropy profile from MUSTANG-2-derived pres￾sure and XMM -derived electron density, calculated as in Equation 16. The error bars are solely statistical. The ver￾tical lines are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Upper panel: gas fractions from Y -M relations with the NP pressure profile model assuming an NFW mass profile and a constant mean molecular weight for the total mass. Bottom panel: fgas with respect to hydrostatic masses of the NP and gNFW models for the total mass. I…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Estimates of M500 with uncertainties less than 20% from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Hydrostatic mass is found at the point where Mtot(< r) crosses M500 = ρc5004πr3 /3. Similarly, the self￾consistent Y value is found where it crosses. Iteration is not necessary when comparing to a reference curve. that our entropy profile should continue as a power la…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Using the entropy profile ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The pressure profiles for Zwicky 3146 as re￾covered by MIDAS, as well as the pressure profile as deter￾mined from XMM-Newton. The vertical red dashed lines are the HWHM and radial FOV for MUSTANG-2; the vertical black dashed line is R500 for M500 = 8 × 1014M and the v…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Top: the transfer function of MUSTANG-2 shows a marked improvement over that of MUSTANG-1. We also note the overlap with ACT (especially the band centered at 146 GHz, noted as 150 in this figure). Bottom: the surface brightness profile for Zwicky 3146 as determined by…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Spectral Energy Distributions (SEDs) for all point sources tabulated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  4. [4]

    y @ R4D* Ȁz ]

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  5. [5]

    F., et al

    Adam , R., Comis , B., Mac \' as-P \'e rez , J. F., et al. 2014, , 569, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322902

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322902 2014

  6. [6]

    W., Evrard , A

    Allen , S. W., Evrard , A. E., & Mantz , A. B. 2011, , 49, 409, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514 2011

  7. [8]

    W., Edge , A

    Allen , S. W., Edge , A. C., Fabian , A. C., et al. 1992, , 259, 67, 10.1093/mnras/259.1.67

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/259.1.67 1992

  8. [9]

    E., von der Linden , A., Kelly , P

    Applegate , D. E., von der Linden , A., Kelly , P. L., et al. 2014, , 439, 48, 10.1093/mnras/stt2129

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2129 2014

Show all 119 references
  1. [10]

    Arnaud , M., Pointecouteau , E., & Pratt , G. W. 2005, , 441, 893, 10.1051/0004-6361:20052856

    2005 doi

  2. [11]

    W., Piffaretti , R., et al

    Arnaud , M., Pratt , G. W., Piffaretti , R., et al. 2010, , 517, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913416

    2010 doi

  3. [12]

    R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J

    Battaglia , N., Bond , J. R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J. L. 2012, , 758, 74, 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/74

    2012 doi

  4. [13]

    H., White , R

    Becker , R. H., White , R. L., & Helfand , D. J. 1994, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 61, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems III, ed. D. R. Crabtree , R. J. Hanisch , & J. Barnes , 165

    1994

  5. [14]

    A., Church , S

    Benson , B. A., Church , S. E., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2004, , 617, 829, 10.1086/425677

    2004 doi

  6. [15]

    2016, , 827, 112, 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/112

    Biffi , V., Borgani , S., Murante , G., et al. 2016, , 827, 112, 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/112

    2016 doi

  7. [16]

    E., Stalder , B., de Haan , T., et al

    Bleem , L. E., Stalder , B., de Haan , T., et al. 2015, , 216, 27, 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/27

    2015 doi

  8. [17]

    P., Schrabback , T., et al

    Bocquet , S., Dietrich , J. P., Schrabback , T., et al. 2019, , 878, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f10

    2019 doi

  9. [18]

    J., et al

    Bonamente , M., Joy , M., LaRoque , S. J., et al. 2008, , 675, 106, 10.1086/525517

    2008 doi

  10. [19]

    2016, , 455, L41, 10.1093/mnrasl/slv137

    Bravi , L., Gitti , M., & Brunetti , G. 2016, , 455, L41, 10.1093/mnrasl/slv137

    2016 doi

  11. [20]

    E., Holder , G

    Carlstrom , J. E., Holder , G. P., & Reese , E. D. 2002, , 40, 643, 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093803

    2002

  12. [21]

    W., Donahue , M., Voit , G

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

    2009 doi

  13. [22]

    1978, , 70, 677

    Cavaliere , A., & Fusco-Femiano , R. 1978, , 70, 677. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978A

    1978

  14. [24]

    R., Grego , L., Holzapfel , W

    Cooray , A. R., Grego , L., Holzapfel , W. L., Joy , M., & Carlstrom , J. E. 1998, , 115, 1388. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1998AJ....115.1388C&db_key=AST

    1998

  15. [25]

    G., Sayers , J., Mantz , A., et al

    Czakon , N. G., Sayers , J., Mantz , A., et al. 2015, , 806, 18, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/18

    2015 doi

  16. [26]

    2006, , 653, 954, 10.1086/508654

    Dahle , H. 2006, , 653, 954, 10.1086/508654

    2006 doi

  17. [27]

    2019, , 487, 4037, 10.1093/mnras/stz1550

    Di Mascolo , L., Churazov , E., & Mroczkowski , T. 2019, , 487, 4037, 10.1093/mnras/stz1550

    2019 doi

  18. [28]

    R., Korngut , P

    Dicker , S. R., Korngut , P. M., Mason , B. S., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7020, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 10.1117/12.788361

    2008 doi

  19. [29]

    R., Ade , P

    Dicker , S. R., Ade , P. A. R., Aguirre , J., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9153, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 0, 10.1117/12.2056455

    2014 doi

  20. [30]

    T., & Lee , H

    Draine , B. T., & Lee , H. M. 1984, , 285, 89, 10.1086/162480

    1984 doi

  21. [31]

    2019, , 621, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833324

    Eckert , D., Ghirardini , V., Ettori , S., et al. 2019, , 621, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833324

    2019 doi

  22. [32]

    C., Fabian, A

    Edge, A. C., Fabian, A. C., Allen, S. W., et al. 1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 270, L1, 10.1093/mnras/270.1.L1

    1994 doi

  23. [33]

    H., Fadda , D., & Hines , D

    Egami , E., Rieke , G. H., Fadda , D., & Hines , D. C. 2006 a , , 652, L21, 10.1086/509886

    2006 doi

  24. [34]

    A., Rieke , G

    Egami , E., Misselt , K. A., Rieke , G. H., et al. 2006 b , , 647, 922, 10.1086/504519

    2006 doi

  25. [35]

    Ettori , S., & Fabian , A. C. 1999, , 305, 834. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999MNRAS.305..834E&db_key=AST

    1999

  26. [36]

    2011, , 526, C1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015271e

    Ettori , S., Gastaldello , F., Leccardi , A., et al. 2011, , 526, C1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015271e

    2011 doi

  27. [37]

    2019, , 621, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833323

    Ettori , S., Ghirardini , V., Eckert , D., et al. 2019, , 621, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833323

    2019 doi

  28. [38]

    P., Davis , M., & Schlegel , D

    Finkbeiner , D. P., Davis , M., & Schlegel , D. J. 1999, , 524, 867, 10.1086/307852

    1999 doi

  29. [39]

    2014, The Messenger, 155, 19

    Fomalont , E., van Kempen , T., Kneissl , R., et al. 2014, The Messenger, 155, 19

    2014

  30. [40]

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

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

    2013 doi

  31. [41]

    2002, Highlights of Astronomy, 12, 504

    Forman , W., Donnelly , H., Markevitch , M., et al. 2002, Highlights of Astronomy, 12, 504

    2002

  32. [42]

    2013, Astronomische Nachrichten, 334, 394, 10.1002/asna.201211865

    Gaspari , M., Brighenti , F., & Ruszkowski , M. 2013, Astronomische Nachrichten, 334, 394, 10.1002/asna.201211865

    2013 doi

  33. [43]

    2018, , 614, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731748

    Ghirardini , V., Ettori , S., Eckert , D., et al. 2018, , 614, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731748

    2018 doi

  34. [44]

    2019, , 621, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833325

    Ghirardini , V., Eckert , D., Ettori , S., et al. 2019, , 621, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833325

    2019 doi

  35. [45]

    2014, , 781, 9, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/9

    Giacintucci , S., Markevitch , M., Venturi , T., et al. 2014, , 781, 9, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/9

    2014 doi

  36. [46]

    M., Goldberg , D

    Groener , A. M., Goldberg , D. M., & Sereno , M. 2016, , 455, 892, 10.1093/mnras/stv2341

    2016 doi

  37. [47]

    P., Hasinger , G., & Szokoly , G

    Hashimoto , Y., B \"o hringer , H., Henry , J. P., Hasinger , G., & Szokoly , G. 2007, , 467, 485, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065125

    2007 doi

  38. [48]

    A., et al

    Hasselfield , M., Hilton , M., Marriage , T. A., et al. 2013, , 7, 8, 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/07/008

    2013 doi

  39. [49]

    2018, , 235, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa6cb

    Hilton , M., Hasselfield , M., Sif \'o n , C., et al. 2018, , 235, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa6cb

    2018 doi

  40. [50]

    Hurier , G., & Angulo , R. E. 2018, , 610, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731999

    2018 doi

  41. [51]

    1998, , 502, 7

    Itoh , N., Kohyama , Y., & Nozawa , S. 1998, , 502, 7. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1998ApJ...502....7I&db_key=AST

    1998

  42. [52]

    M., Fabian , A

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

    1987 doi

  43. [53]

    1986, , 222, 323

    Kaiser , N. 1986, , 222, 323

    1986

  44. [54]

    2015, , 579, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525695

    Kale , R., Venturi , T., Giacintucci , S., et al. 2015, , 579, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525695

    2015 doi

  45. [55]

    2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, L6, 10.1093/pasj/psy087

    Kato , Y., Matsuda , Y., Iono , D., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, L6, 10.1093/pasj/psy087

    2018 doi

  46. [56]

    2007, , 471, 31, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054413

    Kausch , W., Gitti , M., Erben , T., & Schindler , S. 2007, , 471, 31, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054413

    2007 doi

  47. [57]

    2016, , 463, 655, 10.1093/mnras/stw2027

    Khatri , R., & Gaspari , M. 2016, , 463, 655, 10.1093/mnras/stw2027

    2016 doi

  48. [58]

    2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Springer-Verlag), 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    Kippenhahn , R., Weigert , A., & Weiss , A. 2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Springer-Verlag), 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    2012 doi

  49. [59]

    2004, , 56, 17

    Kitayama , T., Komatsu , E., Ota , N., et al. 2004, , 56, 17

    2004

  50. [60]

    2016, , 68, 88, 10.1093/pasj/psw082

    Kitayama , T., Ueda , S., Takakuwa , S., et al. 2016, , 68, 88, 10.1093/pasj/psw082

    2016 doi

  51. [61]

    2001, , 53, 57

    Komatsu , E., Matsuo , H., Kitayama , T., et al. 2001, , 53, 57. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001PASJ...53...57K&db_key=AST

    2001

  52. [62]

    M., Dicker , S

    Korngut , P. M., Dicker , S. R., Reese , E. D., et al. 2011, , 734, 10, 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/10

    2011 doi

  53. [63]

    V., & Borgani , S

    Kravtsov , A. V., & Borgani , S. 2012, , 50, 353, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    2012 doi

  54. [64]

    P., et al

    Lancaster , K., Birkinshaw , M., Gawro \'n ski , M. P., et al. 2011, , 418, 1441, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19241.x

    2011

  55. [65]

    J., Bonamente , M., Carlstrom , J

    LaRoque , S. J., Bonamente , M., Carlstrom , J. E., et al. 2006, , 652, 917, 10.1086/508139

    2006 doi

  56. [66]

    T., Gaspari , M., Nagai , D., & Coppi , P

    Lau , E. T., Gaspari , M., Nagai , D., & Coppi , P. 2017, , 849, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8c00

    2017 doi

  57. [67]

    P., Smith , G

    Marrone , D. P., Smith , G. P., Okabe , N., et al. 2012, , 754, 119, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/119

    2012 doi

  58. [68]

    2014, , 443, 2342, 10.1093/mnras/stu1267

    Martino , R., Mazzotta , P., Bourdin , H., et al. 2014, , 443, 2342, 10.1093/mnras/stu1267

    2014 doi

  59. [69]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.05221

    Mason , B., Dicker , S., Sadavoy , S., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.05221. 1905.05221

    2019 arXiv

  60. [70]

    G., Holder , G

    McCarthy , I. G., Holder , G. P., Babul , A., & Balogh , M. L. 2003, , 591, 526, 10.1086/375487

    2003 doi

  61. [71]

    R., & Tremblay , G

    McDonald , M., Gaspari , M., McNamara , B. R., & Tremblay , G. R. 2018, , 858, 45, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabace

    2018 doi

  62. [72]

    R., & Nulsen , P

    McNamara , B. R., & Nulsen , P. E. J. 2007, , 45, 117, 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625

    2007 arXiv

  63. [73]

    2019, , 875, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0af0

    Miyatake , H., Battaglia , N., Hilton , M., et al. 2019, , 875, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0af0

    2019 doi

  64. [75]

    M., Hallman , E

    Motl , P. M., Hallman , E. J., Burns , J. O., & Norman , M. L. 2005, , 623, L63, 10.1086/430144

    2005 doi

  65. [76]

    2011, , 728, L35, 10.1088/2041-8205/728/2/L35

    Mroczkowski , T. 2011, , 728, L35, 10.1088/2041-8205/728/2/L35

    2011 doi

  66. [77]

    2012, , 746, L29, 10.1088/2041-8205/746/2/L29

    ---. 2012, , 746, L29, 10.1088/2041-8205/746/2/L29

    2012 doi

  67. [78]

    E., et al

    Mroczkowski , T., Bonamente , M., Carlstrom , J. E., et al. 2009, , 694, 1034, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1034

    2009 doi

  68. [79]

    2019, , 215, 17, 10.1007/s11214-019-0581-2

    Mroczkowski , T., Nagai , D., Basu , K., et al. 2019, , 215, 17, 10.1007/s11214-019-0581-2

    2019 doi

  69. [80]

    V., & Vikhlinin , A

    Nagai , D., Kravtsov , A. V., & Vikhlinin , A. 2007, , 668, 1, 10.1086/521328

    2007 doi

  70. [81]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1997, , 490, 493. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1997ApJ...490..493N&db_key=AST

    1997

  71. [82]

    2004, , 608, 166, 10.1086/381231

    Nevalainen , J., Oosterbroek , T., Bonamente , M., & Colafrancesco , S. 2004, , 608, 166, 10.1086/381231

    2004 doi

  72. [83]

    Okabe , N., & Smith , G. P. 2016, , 461, 3794, 10.1093/mnras/stw1539

    2016 doi

  73. [84]

    2007, , 667, 26, 10.1086/520945

    Pedersen , K., & Dahle , H. 2007, , 667, 26, 10.1086/520945

    2007 doi

  74. [85]

    J., Marrone , D

    Plagge , T. J., Marrone , D. P., Abdulla , Z., et al. 2013, , 770, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/112

    2013 doi

  75. [86]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2014, , 571, A20, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321521

    2014 doi

  76. [87]

    2016, , 594, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525823

    ---. 2016, , 594, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525823

    2016 doi

  77. [88]

    2017, , 467, 3827, 10.1093/mnras/stx318

    Planelles , S., Fabjan , D., Borgani , S., et al. 2017, , 467, 3827, 10.1093/mnras/stx318

    2017 doi

  78. [89]

    W., Arnaud, M., Biviano, A., et al

    Pratt, G. W., Arnaud, M., Biviano, A., et al. 2019, Space Science Reviews, 215, 25, 10.1007/s11214-019-0591-0

    2019 doi

  79. [90]

    W., Arnaud , M., Piffaretti , R., et al

    Pratt , G. W., Arnaud , M., Piffaretti , R., et al. 2010, , 511, A85, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913309

    2010 doi

  80. [91]

    2004, , 351, 237, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07775.x

    Rasia , E., Tormen , G., & Moscardini , L. 2004, , 351, 237, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07775.x

    2004

  81. [92]

    2018, , 612, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731599

    Romero , C., McWilliam , M., Mac \' as-P \'e rez , J.-F., et al. 2018, , 612, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731599

    2018 doi

  82. [93]

    E., Mason , B

    Romero , C. E., Mason , B. S., Sayers , J., et al. 2015, , 807, 121, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/121

    2015 doi

  83. [94]

    2017, , 838, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa643f

    ---. 2017, , 838, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa643f

    2017 doi

  84. [95]

    W., et al

    Ruppin , F., Mayet , F., Pratt , G. W., et al. 2018, , 615, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732558

    2018 doi

  85. [96]

    2019, arXiv e-prints

    Ruppin , F., Sembolini , F., De Petris , M., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints. 1901.04580

    2019 arXiv

  86. [97]

    2018, , 614, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731990

    Salvati , L., Douspis , M., & Aghanim , N. 2018, , 614, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731990

    2018 doi

  87. [98]

    Sarazin , C. L. 1988, X-ray emission from clusters of galaxies (Cambridge Astrophysics Series, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1988xrec.book.....S&db_key=AST

    1988

  88. [99]

    2003, Physics of Plasmas, 10, 1992, 10.1063/1.1556300

    ---. 2003, Physics of Plasmas, 10, 1992, 10.1063/1.1556300

    2003 doi

  89. [100]

    R., Mantz , A

    Sayers , J., Golwala , S. R., Mantz , A. B., et al. 2016, , 832, 26, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/26

    2016 doi

  90. [101]

    2018, arXiv e-prints

    Sayers , J., Monta \ n a , A., Mroczkowski , T., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints. 1812.06926

    2018 arXiv

  91. [102]

    W., & Allen , S

    Schmidt , R. W., & Allen , S. W. 2007, , 379, 209, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11928.x

    2007

  92. [103]

    Schrabback , T., Schirmer , M., van der Burg , R. F. J., et al. 2018, , 610, A85, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731730

    2018 doi

  93. [104]

    2015, , 450, 3665, 10.1093/mnras/stu2505

    Sereno , M. 2015, , 450, 3665, 10.1093/mnras/stu2505

    2015 doi

  94. [105]

    D., Holder , G

    Shaw , L. D., Holder , G. P., & Bode , P. 2008, , 686, 206, 10.1086/589849

    2008 doi

  95. [106]

    A., & Ercolano , B

    Shetty , R., Kauffmann , J., Schnee , S., Goodman , A. A., & Ercolano , B. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 696, 2234, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/2234

    2009 doi

  96. [107]

    2003, , 590, 197, 10.1086/367955

    Shimizu , M., Kitayama , T., Sasaki , S., & Suto , Y. 2003, , 590, 197, 10.1086/367955

    2003 doi

  97. [108]

    2013, , 772, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/25

    Sif \'o n , C., Menanteau , F., Hasselfield , M., et al. 2013, , 772, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/25

    2013 doi

  98. [109]

    A., & Zel'dovich , Y

    Sunyaev , R. A., & Zel'dovich , Y. B. 1970, Comments Astrophys. Space Phys., 2, 66

    1970

  99. [110]

    1972, Comments Astrophys

    ---. 1972, Comments Astrophys. Space Phys., 4, 173

    1972

  100. [111]

    2017, , 837, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c3e

    Ueda , S., Kitayama , T., & Dotani , T. 2017, , 837, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c3e

    2017 doi

  101. [112]

    2014, ALMA Memo 598

    van Kempen , T., Kneissl , R., Marcelino , N., et al. 2014, ALMA Memo 598

    2014

  102. [113]

    2006, , 640, 691, 10.1086/500288

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

    2006 doi

  103. [114]

    A., Ebeling , H., et al

    Vikhlinin , A., Burenin , R. A., Ebeling , H., et al. 2009, , 692, 1033, 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1033

    2009 doi

  104. [115]

    Voit , G. M. 2005, Reviews of Modern Physics, 77, 207, 10.1103/RevModPhys.77.207

    2005 doi

  105. [116]

    2019, , 215, 7, 10.1007/s11214-018-0572-8

    Walker , S., Simionescu , A., Nagai , D., et al. 2019, , 215, 7, 10.1007/s11214-018-0572-8

    2019 doi

  106. [117]

    A., Fabian , A

    Walker , S. A., Fabian , A. C., Russell , H. R., & Sand ers , J. S. 2014, , 442, 2809, 10.1093/mnras/stu1067

    2014 doi

  107. [118]

    2013, , 549, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219333

    Wei mann , A., B \"o hringer , H., S uhada , R., & Ameglio , S. 2013, , 549, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219333

    2013 doi

  108. [119]

    L., & Han , J

    Wen , Z. L., & Han , J. L. 2013, , 436, 275, 10.1093/mnras/stt1581

    2013 doi

  109. [120]

    L., Han , J

    Wen , Z. L., Han , J. L., & Liu , F. S. 2012, , 199, 34, 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/34

    2012 doi

  110. [121]

    L., Becker , R

    White , R. L., Becker , R. H., Helfand , D. J., & Gregg , M. D. 1997, , 475, 479. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1997ApJ...475..479W&db_key=AST

    1997

  111. [122]

    Zwicky , F., Herzog , E., Wild , P., Karpowicz , M., & Kowal , C. T. 1961, Catalogue of galaxies and of clusters of galaxies, Vol. I (California Institute of Technology)

    1961

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.