Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Radial Profiles of Radio Halos in Massive Galaxy Clusters: Diffuse Giants Over 2 Mpc

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radio halos in galaxy clusters can extend beyond 2 Mpc — and still show the same single-exponential radial profile as ordinary halos, with no separate outer component.

desk verdict Genuinely useful observations that reframe mega-halos as the bright tail of classical halos, with a strong cautionary tale about source subtraction, but the one-component claim still needs a formal model comparison on the same masked data. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05415 v2 pith:UYHZSBSC submitted 2025-05-08 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

K. Rajpurohit , A. Botteon , E. O'Sullivan , W. Forman , M. Balboni , L. Bruno , R. J. van Weeren , M. Hoeft
show 4 more authors
G. Brunetti C. Jones A. S. Rajpurohit S. P. Sikhosana
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords radiohalosgalaxyclustersintraclustermediumturbulentreaccelerationradialsurfacebrightnessprofilesspectralindexsteepeningmega-halosMeerKAT
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that giant radio halos in merging galaxy clusters—diffuse synchrotron sources powered by merger-driven turbulence—do not have a physical outer edge near 1 Mpc; their apparent size is set by image depth, the range of interferometer baselines sampled ($uv$-coverage), and intrinsic radio power. New high-frequency images reveal previously unseen faint emission stretching beyond 2 Mpc (about 6.5 million light-years) in PLCK G287.0+32.9, Abell 2744, and the Bullet Cluster. With MACS J0717+3745 and Abell 2142 added, all five halos fit a single exponential radial profile, show outward spectral steepening, and have volume-averaged emissivities near $10^{-42}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}\,cm^{-3}\,Hz^{-1}}$ (Abell 2142 is about ten times lower). The paper concludes that two-component radial profiles used to define 'mega-halos' are artifacts of incomplete subtraction of unrelated radio sources embedded in the halo, so giant halos are the luminous tail of ordinary halos seen deeply enough rather than a new source class.

What carries the argument

The central object is the azimuthally averaged radial surface-brightness profile, fit to the exponential $I(r)=I_0e^{-r/r_e}$, with $r_e$ the e-folding radius and $I_0$ the central brightness. The paper's decisive diagnostic is a comparison of two source-removal strategies applied to these profiles: masking compact and extended unrelated sources on sensitive high-frequency maps, versus subtracting sources from the $uv$-data using an inner $uv$-cut. Masking yields single-component profiles at every frequency; $uv$-subtraction produces a spurious shallow outer component at large radii. Supporting machinery includes the emissivity estimate $\langle J\rangle\simeq 7.7\times10^{-41}(1+z)^{3-\alpha}I_0/r_e$, used with the $I_0$–$r_e$ plane to show that these halos occupy the same locus as classical halos.

What would settle it

Use a cluster with a reported two-component profile, build a high-frequency map deep enough that any unmasked compact source contributes below $3\sigma$ at $R_{500}$, mask sources from that map, and refit the radial profile; if a shallower outer component still persists at large radius, the paper's artifact explanation is ruled out for that cluster.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that radio halos can extend to the cluster periphery—beyond 2 Mpc and out to $R_{500}$ (the radius within which the mean density is 500 times the critical density)—without transitioning into an observationally distinguishable outer component. After masking discrete sources with sensitive high-frequency maps, each halo's azimuthally averaged surface brightness follows a single component $I(r)=I_0 e^{-r/r_e}$, the spectral index steepens with radius, and the emissivity is about $10^{-42}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}\,cm^{-3}\,Hz^{-1}}$, the same as classical halos. The apparent shallow second component seen in some published profiles is reproduced in this paper when unrelated sources are subtracted from the $uv$-data rather than masked, and is traced to residual unmasked sources plus the choice of annulus geometry and center. The observable size of a halo is therefore set by image depth, $uv$-coverage, and radio power; PLCK G287.0+32.9 is reported as the first halo detected beyond about 2.5 Mpc at 2.4 GHz and extending to about 3.5 Mpc at lower high frequencies.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that no distinct outer component exists depends on the assumption that all unrelated radio sources embedded in the halo, including faint steep-spectrum filaments, are identifiable in sensitive high-frequency maps and can be masked out without removing genuine halo emission.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, a two-component radial profile alone is not evidence for a new class of radio halos; classification needs high-frequency source masks plus independent diagnostics such as spectral index gradients and X-ray correlation.
  • Observed halo sizes in flux-limited samples are biased by sensitivity and $uv$-coverage, so the frequency of >2 Mpc halos and the $P_{1.4\,\mathrm{GHz}}$–$M_{500}$ scaling relation should be re-derived with depth-matched observations.
  • Relativistic electrons and magnetic fields must be present beyond $R_{500}$ in these systems, consistent with turbulence reacceleration acting throughout the cluster volume rather than only in the core.
  • The first high-frequency halo exceeding 2 Mpc, in PLCK G287.0+32.9, implies that giant halos are not a low-frequency-only phenomenon and should be searched for in high-frequency surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: if the sensitivity-limited picture is correct, the apparent scarcity of >2 Mpc halos in current samples may reflect flux limits rather than physics; deeper surveys should find more giant halos, potentially dissolving the mega-halo class without requiring a new emission mechanism.
  • Extension: the same artifact mechanism implies that radial-profile decompositions of any faint extended radio source—not only cluster halos—should be validated by quantifying the completeness of the source catalogue as a function of radius.
  • Extension: comparing the single-exponential fit at 2.4 GHz out to 2.5 Mpc with the steeper-spectrum outer regions could test whether in-situ reacceleration operates at large radii, since high-frequency synchrotron electrons lose energy quickly and would otherwise produce a sharper cutoff.
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. This paper presents new MeerKAT and uGMRT observations of three massive merging clusters (PLCK G287.0+32.9, Abell 2744, Bullet) and combines them with published LOFAR/MeerKAT data for MACS J0717+3745 and Abell 2142. The authors measure azimuthally averaged radial brightness profiles at multiple frequencies and report that all five halos, despite linear sizes exceeding 2 Mpc, are well described by a single-component exponential, show radial spectral steepening, and have emissivities near 10^-42 erg/s/cm3/Hz. They argue that the apparent two-component 'mega-halo' profiles reported elsewhere arise from incomplete subtraction of unrelated radio sources, and that the observable size of a halo is set by image depth, uv-coverage, and radio power rather than by a distinct outer physical component.

Significance. If correct, the result challenges the existence of a distinct 'mega-halo' class defined by two-component radial profiles and supports a unified picture of radio halos whose apparent extent is limited by sensitivity. The paper strengthens this case with explicit systematic tests: direct comparison of masking versus uv-subtraction (Figure 12), sector geometry and center choices (Figure 15), and a residual analysis for Abell 2142. It also compares its fitted parameters against an external literature sample (Murgia et al. 2024), avoiding circularity. The main unresolved risk is that the single-component conclusion rests on the completeness of the high-frequency source catalog, which is not quantified, and the contradiction with Bruno et al. (2023) for Abell 2142 is not resolved by formal model comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Figure 12] The single-component conclusion is conditional on the completeness of the high-frequency source catalog used for masking. The paper shows that two-component profiles appear under low-frequency masking and under uv-subtraction, and attributes these to incomplete source subtraction, but no quantitative one- versus two-component fit comparison (e.g., Δχ² or AIC/BIC) is presented for the same masked data for any cluster. Because the same data can produce two-component profiles under a defensible processing choice, please provide formal fit statistics that test whether the single exponential is statistically preferred, or explicitly state the conditions under which the conclusion holds.
  2. [Section 4.1, Abell 2142] The paper contrasts its single-component fit with the two-component fit reported by Bruno et al. (2023) using the same images. This is a direct contradiction with a published analysis; the proposed resolution (masking differences) is plausible but not quantified. Please report the fit quality (e.g., reduced χ² or ΔBIC) for both single- and two-component models under the different masking choices, so that the reader can verify that the single-component description is actually favored by the data.
  3. [Section 5.1, Figure 13] The classification of the filamentary structures in PLCK G287.0+32.9 as unrelated to the halo is deferred to unpublished work (Rajpurohit et al. in prep). Since this classification is load-bearing for the central claim, please include the supporting evidence (e.g., spectral index or polarization measurements) or explicitly temper the corresponding statements in Sections 5 and 6.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3, after Eq. (4)] The sentence stating that the fitted flux densities for PLCK G287.0+32.9 and Abell 2142 are 'lower than the measured values by a factor of two' is contradicted by Table 7, which lists S_fitted > S_measured for both clusters; please correct the direction of the comparison.
  2. [Section 4.1, PLCK G287.0+32.9 paragraph] The statement that the best-fit e-folding radius is 'smaller at lower frequencies' does not match Table 6 (re = 265, 325, 305, 227 kpc at 350, 815, 1280, 2400 MHz, respectively); the sentence should be clarified, including the sensitivity argument for the 350 MHz data.
  3. [Figure 12 caption] The description of the residual profile as 'obtained by subtracting the uv-subtracted sources profile from the masked out sources profile' is ambiguous; the text in Section 5.1 indicates the subtraction is between the high-frequency-masked and low-frequency-masked profiles, so the caption should be reworded.
  4. [Table 6] The column header 'rd' for the maximum detected radial distance is not defined; please spell it out or use a clearer label to avoid confusion with the e-folding radius re.
  5. [Throughout] The paper uses both 'mega-halos' and 'mega halos'; please adopt a single hyphenation convention.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mostly self-contained; the emissivity and single-exponential comparisons rest on external samples, but the PLCK G287.0+32.9 filament classification is deferred to a same-author unpublished work.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 5.1, discussion of Figure 13 (PLCK G287.0+32.9 filaments)]
    "These structures appear more diffuse at lower frequencies and are not associated with the halo emission but rather projected onto it (Rajpurohit et al. in prep)."

    The paper's central negative claim for PLCK G287.0+32.9 is that the second radial component is an artifact of incomplete source subtraction rather than a real outer halo component. That claim depends on classifying the embedded filamentary structures as unrelated to the halo, and this classification is not demonstrated in the present paper but is cited to 'Rajpurohit et al. in prep,' an unpublished work with overlapping authorship. If the in-prep classification itself assumes that any extra component in the radial profile is contamination, the argument becomes circular; at minimum, the load-bearing evidence is a self-citation rather than an independent test. The rest of the analysis is self-contained against external data, so this is a minor, localized circularity rather than a global one.

full rationale

The paper's main quantitative results are not circular. The radial profiles are fitted to an exponential model, and the derived e-folding radii and central brightnesses are then compared with the external sample of Murgia et al. (2024) on the I0-re plane; the emissivity comparison is therefore an external benchmark, not a restatement of the fit inputs. The conclusion that the five large halos resemble classical halos is supported by this external comparison and by the observed spectral steepening, which is measured independently of the exponential fits. The single-component versus two-component issue is a correctness risk rather than a circularity: the paper shows that masking choices alter the apparent profile, but it does not report a formal one-component versus two-component model comparison, so the visual single-exponential description is not a quantitative rejection of an outer component. The one genuine circularity concern is the PLCK G287.0+32.9 filament classification, which is load-bearing for the claim that no distinct outer component exists in that cluster and is justified by an unpublished same-author work. Because the rest of the derivation is independent and the external emissivity comparison anchors the main claim, the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core quantitative claims rest on fitted I0 and re values per cluster and frequency, adopted spectral indices, spherical symmetry, a filling factor of 1, and the completeness of high-frequency source masking. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • I0 (central radio surface brightness) = 1.43 to 42.2 microJy/arcsec^2 depending on cluster and frequency (Table 6)
    Fitted exponential parameter; enters the emissivity and radio power estimates, so the headline similarity to classical halos depends on these fits.
  • re (e-folding radius) = 203 to 325 kpc depending on cluster and frequency (Table 6)
    Fitted exponential parameter; the comparison of e-folding radii with classical halos and the emissivity calculation both use these fitted values.
  • Integrated spectral index alpha used for k-corrections = -1.1 to -1.5 per cluster, adopted from previous literature
    Not fitted here, but chosen per cluster; affects emissivity via (1+z)^(3-alpha) and radio power via (1+z)^(-(1+alpha)).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The exponential surface brightness model I(r) = I0 exp(-r/re) is adopted for comparison, although the paper states it is not physically motivated.
    Section 4.1 states: "We emphasize that this model is not physically motivated." The claim that halos are consistent with classical halos is made in terms of this model, so the conclusion is model-dependent.
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry of halo emission when averaging in circular annuli and deriving emissivity.
    Section 4.1 and 4.3 assume a spherical geometry; the paper tests sector and center choices in Section 5, but the headline profiles use concentric circular annuli centered on the radio peak.
  • domain assumption Homogeneous emitting volume with filling factor f = 1 for emissivity.
    Section 4.3 says the emissivity is based on "the assumption of a homogeneous/filling factor = 1 emitting volume." The reported ~1e-42 erg/s/cm3/Hz inherits this assumption.
  • domain assumption All unrelated discrete and extended sources embedded in the halo are identifiable in high-frequency maps and can be masked without removing genuine halo emission.
    Section 5.1 concludes that masking based on high-frequency maps is the preferred approach; if this completeness fails, the single-component profile could be an artifact of removing a real outer component.
  • domain assumption Adopted flat LambdaCDM cosmology and literature spectral indices for distance and k-correction.
    Cosmology is stated in Section 1; distances, emissivities, and radio powers scale with these choices, though the uncertainties are small relative to the conclusions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radial Profiles of Radio Halos in Massive Galaxy Clusters: Diffuse Giants Over 2 Mpc." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UYHZSBSC

@misc{pith2026250505415,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radial Profiles of Radio Halos in Massive Galaxy Clusters: Diffuse Giants Over 2 Mpc},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UYHZSBSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05415}
}
abstract

We present new, high frequency radio observations of the merging galaxy clusters PLCK G287.0+32.9, Abell 2744, and Bullet. These clusters are known to host $\sim$Mpc scale sources, known as radio halos, which are formed by the acceleration of cosmic rays by turbulence injected into the intracluster medium during cluster mergers. Our new images reveal previously undetected faint outermost regions of halos, extending to over 2 Mpc. This discovery highlights the presence of radio halos with large extents at high frequencies and suggests that their observable size depends on a combination of the observation sensitivity and uv-coverage, and their radio power. We additionally compare the properties of these three clusters with MACS J0717+3745 and Abell 2142, both of which are known to host prominent large radio halos. Remarkably, all five halos, despite their exceptionally large extents, exhibit properties similar to other classical halos: their radial profiles are described by a single-component exponential fit, they show radial spectral index steepening, and have an average radio emissivity of about $10^{-42}\, \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}\,cm^{-3}\,Hz^{-1}}$. Our results demonstrate that radio halos can extend to the cluster periphery, without the transition to an observationally distinguishable different halo component in the outermost regions. Our findings highlight that careful subtraction of unrelated sources embedded in the halo is necessary to measure the radio surface brightness accurately, as incomplete subtraction can introduce an apparent secondary component in the peripheral regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05415 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cluster mass versus redshift distribution of the PSZ2 clus￾ters. The subsample of PSZ2 in LoTSS-DR2 (Botteon et al. 2022a) is reported in black. Circles denote clusters with halos having LLS > 2 Mpc and are color-coded as follows: in cyan are the mega-halos (Cuciti et al. 2022), in red are the clusters analyzed in this work, and in magenta are other clusters reported in the literature. The solid lines represent the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PLCK G287.0+32.9 field (square-root scale) full band continuum images from MeerKAT observations using S-band (1.9-2.8 GHz), L-band (0.9-1.7 GHz) and UHF bands (0.5-1.0 GHz) and uGMRT Band3 (300-500 MHz). All images have a common resolution of 20′′. The radio beam size is indicated in the bottom left corner of each image. The images show large scale diffuse radio emission including two symmetrically located relics an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PLCK G287.0+32.9 field (square-root scale) full band continuum images from MeerKAT observations using S-band (1.9-2.8 GHz), L-band (0.9-1.7 GHz) and UHF bands (0.5-1.0 GHz) and uGMRT Band3 (300-500 MHz). All images have a common resolution of 50′′. The radio beam size is indicated in the bottom left corner of each image. The images are used to extract radial surface brightness profiles of the halo as a function of f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A2744 full band continuum images of the central field from MeerKAT UHF (0.55-1 GHz) and uGMRT Band4 (550-850 MHz) observations (in square-root scale). The figures show central halo emission and four relics in the outskirts (Rajpurohit et al. 2021a). Both images have a …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Bullet cluster MeerKAT L-band (0.9-1.7 GHz) and UHF (0.55-1.0 GHz) full band continuum radio images in square-root scale, showing a large scale central halo emission and a toothbrush shaped relic to the east (Sikhosana et al. 2023). Both images have a common resolution…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MAC J0717 LOFAR HBA (120-167 MHz) and Abell 2142 (120-167 MHz) full band continuum radio images in square-root scale. The central region of MAC J0717 is dominated by a bright relic, projected on the halo emission (Rajpurohit et al. 2021b). The halo in Abell 2142 is ext…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Concentric annuli used to extract the radial brightness profiles of the radio halos in PLCK G287.0+32.9 (50′′ resolution), Abell 2744 (25′′ resolution), Bullet (15′′ resolution), MACS J0717.5+3745 (20′′ resolution), and Abell 2142 (75′′ resolution; image adopted from B…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial radio profiles of the halos in PLCK G287.0+32.9, Abell 2744, Bullet and MACS J0717+3745 at difference frequencies. The kinks in the radial profiles of the Bullet Cluster halo and Abell 2744 (gray shaded regions) are due to shock fronts. To avoid overlap, the sur…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Abell 2142 halo profiles extracted from the 75′′ LOFAR HBA and LBA images. The average surface brightness is measured in circular annuli (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radial spectral index profiles of PLCK G287.0+32.9, Abell 2744, and MACS J0717+3745. The error bars include flux scale uncertainties. To obtain these profiles, we mea￾sured average flux densities within concentric circular annuli from 50′′ (PLCK G287.0+32.9), 25′′ (Ab…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: I0 − re plane at 1.4 GHz for the literature radio halos reported in Murgia et al. (2024) and those studied in this work. Dot￾ted lines mark constant emissivities (in erg s −1 cm−3 Hz−1 units) obtained using Eq. 2 assuming a redshift of z = 0.2 and α = −1 for reference…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Radial profiles of the halos in Abell 2142 (left) and PLCK G287.0+32.9 (right). Profiles fitted with a single-component exponential model are shown with dashed lines. The used annuli are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Zoom-in view of the MeerKAT UHF (top) and uGMRT Band 3 (bottom) 10′′resolution images, revealing substructures (marked with green curves) embedded in the northern part of the halo (Rajpurohit et al. in prep). These features are identified in sensitive high frequency o…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Left: Sectors used to extract the PLCK G287.0+32.9 halo radial profiles shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Top: Radial profiles extracted using circular, elliptical, and elliptical partial annuli. Profiles fitted with a single-component exponen￾tial model are shown with dashed lines. For the used annuli see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Two-component large-scale radio emission in Abell 2244

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Abell 2244 hosts a two-component radio halo whose outer part has a flatter spectral index than megahaloes and a weaker radio-X-ray correlation than the inner halo.

  2. Multi-Wavelength Signatures of a Giant Cometary Radio Halo in MACSJ0417-1154

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MACSJ0417’s giant radio halo shows spectral steepening and radio–X-ray correlation consistent with turbulence from a 6:1 off-axis merger that preserved the cool core; pure hadronic models are energetically excluded.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    K., Werner, N., et al

    Bagchi, J., Sirothia, S. K., Werner, N., et al. 2011, ApJL, 736, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/736/1/L8

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/736/1/l8 2011

  2. [2]

    2024, A&A, 686, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348045

    Biava, N., Bonafede, A., Gastaldello, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348045

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348045 2024

  3. [3]

    1999, Astroparticle Physics, 12, 169, doi: 10.1016/S0927-6505(99)00079-1

    Blasi, P., & Colafrancesco, S. 1999, Astroparticle Physics, 12, 169, doi: 10.1016/S0927-6505(99)00079-1

    doi:10.1016/s0927-6505(99)00079-1 1999

  4. [4]

    T., Brüggen, M., et al

    Bonafede, A., Intema, H. T., Brüggen, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/1 2014

  5. [5]

    2009, A&A, 503, 707, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912520

    Bonafede, A., Feretti, L., Giovannini, G., et al. 2009, A&A, 503, 707, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912520

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912520 2009

  6. [6]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 2927, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1121

    Bonafede, A., Brüggen, M., Rafferty, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2927, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1121

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1121 2018

  7. [7]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac721d

    Bonafede, A., Brunetti, G., Rudnick, L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac721d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac721d 2022

  8. [8]

    Shimwell, T. W. 2023, A&A, 674, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346150

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346150 2023

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    W., Bonafede, A., et al

    Botteon, A., Shimwell, T. W., Bonafede, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1102

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    J., et al

    Botteon, A., Brunetti, G., van Weeren, R. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a2f

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Cassano, R., et al

    Botteon, A., Shimwell, T. W., Cassano, R., et al. 2022a, A&A, 660, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202143020

    doi

  4. [12]

    J., Brunetti, G., et al

    Botteon, A., van Weeren, R. J., Brunetti, G., et al. 2022b, Science Advances, 8, eabq7623, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abq7623

    doi

  5. [13]

    J., Eckert, D., et al

    Botteon, A., van Weeren, R. J., Eckert, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A222, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451293

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Brunetti, G., & Jones, T. W. 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430007, doi: 10.1142/S0218271814300079

    2014 doi

  7. [16]

    2001, MNRAS, 320, 365, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03978.x

    Brunetti, G., Setti, G., Feretti, L., & Giovannini, G. 2001, MNRAS, 320, 365, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03978.x

    2001

  8. [17]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 1506, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2092

    Brunetti, G., Zimmer, S., & Zandanel, F. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1506, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2092

    2017 doi

  9. [18]

    2023, A&A, 678, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347245

    Bruno, L., Botteon, A., Shimwell, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347245

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    2007, MNRAS, 378, 1565, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11901.x

    Cassano, R., Brunetti, G., Setti, G., Govoni, F., & Dolag, K. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 1565, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11901.x

    2007

  11. [20]

    2017, ApJ, 846, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa85a2

    Chandra, P., & Kanekar, N. 2017, ApJ, 846, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa85a2

    2017 doi

  12. [21]

    2021, A&A, 647, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039208

    Cuciti, V ., Cassano, R., Brunetti, G., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039208

    2021 doi

  13. [22]

    2022, Nature, 609, 911, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05149-3 Di Gennaro, G., van Weeren, R

    Cuciti, V ., de Gasperin, F., Brüggen, M., et al. 2022, Nature, 609, 911, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05149-3 Di Gennaro, G., van Weeren, R. J., Hoeft, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad738

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    Dolag, K., & Enßlin, T. A. 2000, A&A, 362, 151

    2000

  15. [24]

    W., Botteon, A., Koribalski, B

    Duchesne, S. W., Botteon, A., Koribalski, B. S., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e026, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2024.10

    2024 doi

  16. [25]

    2001, A&A, 373, 106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010581

    Feretti, L., Fusco-Femiano, R., Giovannini, G., & Govoni, F. 2001, A&A, 373, 106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010581

    2001 doi

  17. [26]

    T., Dwarakanath, K

    George, L. T., Dwarakanath, K. S., Johnston-Hollitt, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx155

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    A., Wittman, D

    Golovich, N., Dawson, W. A., Wittman, D. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f90

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    A., Feretti, L., & Giovannini, G

    Govoni, F., Enßlin, T. A., Feretti, L., & Giovannini, G. 2001, A&A, 369, 441, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010115

    2001 doi

  20. [29]

    N., Shimwell, T

    Hoang, D. N., Shimwell, T. W., Stroe, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1645

    2017 doi

  21. [30]

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

    2007 doi

  22. [31]

    T., van der Tol, S., Cotton, W

    Intema, H. T., van der Tol, S., Cotton, W. D., et al. 2009, A&A, 501, 1185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811094

    2009 doi

  23. [32]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 2901, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2366 Józsa, G

    Jauzac, M., Eckert, D., Schaller, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2901, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2366 Józsa, G. I. G., White, S. V ., Thorat, K., et al. 2020, CARACal: Containerized Automated Radio Astronomy Calibration pipeline, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2006.01...

    2018 doi

  24. [33]

    C., & David, L

    Kempner, J. C., & David, L. P. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 385, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07534.x

    2004

  25. [34]

    S., Smirnov, O

    Kenyon, J. S., Smirnov, O. M., Grobler, T. L., & Perkins, S. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1221

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    D., Rudnick, L., et al

    Knowles, K., Cotton, W. D., Rudnick, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141488

    2022 doi

  27. [36]

    W., Birkinshaw, M., & Andreani, P

    Liang, H., Hunstead, R. W., Birkinshaw, M., & Andreani, P. 2000, ApJ, 544, 686, doi: 10.1086/317223 RADIO HALOS OVER 2 M PC IN MASSIVE GALAXY CLUSTERS 21

    2000 doi

  28. [37]

    H., David, L., et al

    Markevitch, M., Gonzalez, A. H., David, L., et al. 2002, ApJL, 567, L27, doi: 10.1086/339619

    2002 doi

  29. [38]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 333, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19266.x

    Merten, J., Coe, D., Dupke, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 333, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19266.x

    2011

  30. [39]

    2015, ApJ, 800, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/60

    Miniati, F. 2015, ApJ, 800, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/60

    2015 doi

  31. [40]

    2009, A&A, 499, 679, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911659

    Murgia, M., Govoni, F., Markevitch, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 499, 679, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911659

    2009 doi

  32. [41]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 6470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae436

    Murgia, M., Govoni, F., Vacca, V ., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 6470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae436

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    R., de Bruyn, A

    Offringa, A. R., de Bruyn, A. G., Biehl, M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 155, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16471.x

    2010

  34. [43]

    R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al

    Offringa, A. R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1368 Orrú, E., Murgia, M., Feretti, L., et al. 2007, A&A, 467, 943, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066118

    2014 doi

  35. [44]

    J., Brunetti, G., et al

    Osinga, E., van Weeren, R. J., Brunetti, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348002

    2024 doi

  36. [45]

    S., Randall, S

    Owers, M. S., Randall, S. W., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 728, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/27

    2011 doi

  37. [46]

    Paul, S., Salunkhe, S., Datta, A., & Intema, H. T. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 446, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1965

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    Pearce, C. J. J., van Weeren, R. J., Andrade-Santos, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e2f

    2017 doi

  39. [48]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, R. A., & Butler, B. J. 2013, ApJS, 204, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/19

    2013 doi

  40. [49]

    2001, ApJ, 557, 560, doi: 10.1086/321557

    Petrosian, V . 2001, ApJ, 557, 560, doi: 10.1086/321557

    2001 doi

  41. [50]

    A., & Springel, V

    Pfrommer, C., Enßlin, T. A., & Springel, V . 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1211, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12956.x

    2008

  42. [51]

    P., & Pfrommer, C

    Pinzke, A., Oh, S. P., & Pfrommer, C. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3024 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2017 doi

  43. [52]

    J., et al

    Rajpurohit, K., Hoeft, M., van Weeren, R. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9f13

    2018 doi

  44. [53]

    2020, A&A, 636, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937139

    Rajpurohit, K., Hoeft, M., Vazza, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937139

    2020 doi

  45. [54]

    J., et al

    Rajpurohit, K., Vazza, F., van Weeren, R. J., et al. 2021a, A&A, 654, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141060

    doi

  46. [55]

    2021b, A&A, 646, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039591

    Rajpurohit, K., Brunetti, G., Bonafede, A., et al. 2021b, A&A, 646, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039591

    doi

  47. [56]

    J., et al

    Rajpurohit, K., Wittor, D., van Weeren, R. J., et al. 2021c, A&A, 646, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039428

    doi

  48. [57]

    2022a, A&A, 657, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142340

    Rajpurohit, K., Hoeft, M., Wittor, D., et al. 2022a, A&A, 657, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142340

    doi

  49. [58]

    J., Hoeft, M., et al

    Rajpurohit, K., van Weeren, R. J., Hoeft, M., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 927, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4708

    doi

  50. [59]

    2023, A&A, 669, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244925

    Rajpurohit, K., Osinga, E., Brienza, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244925

    2023 doi

  51. [60]

    J., Bonafede, A., Bruno, L., et al

    Riseley, C. J., Bonafede, A., Bruno, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348944

    2024 doi

  52. [61]

    2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python

    Robitaille, T., & Bressert, E. 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python. http://ascl.net/1208.017

    2012

  53. [62]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.12136

    Salunkhe, S., Santra, R., & Kale, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.12136. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.12136

    2025 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Scaife, A. M. M., & Heald, G. H. 2012, MNRAS, 423, L30, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01251.x

    2012

  55. [64]

    W., Brown, S., Feain, I

    Shimwell, T. W., Brown, S., Feain, I. J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2901, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu467

    2014 doi

  56. [65]

    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

  57. [66]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab962c

    Shweta, A., Athreya, R., & Sekhar, S. 2020, ApJ, 897, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab962c

    2020 doi

  58. [67]

    P., Knowles, K., Hilton, M., Moodley, K., & Murgia, M

    Sikhosana, S. P., Knowles, K., Hilton, M., Moodley, K., & Murgia, M. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4595, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3370

    2023 doi

  59. [68]

    2011, A&A, 535, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117607 van Weeren, R

    Vacca, V ., Govoni, F., Murgia, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117607 van Weeren, R. J., de Gasperin, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2019, SSRv, 215, 16, doi: 10.1007/s11214-019-0584-z van Weeren, R. J., Röttgering, H. J. A., Brüggen, M., & Cohen, A. 2009,...

    2011 doi

  60. [69]

    2013, A&A, 551, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219872

    Venturi, T., Giacintucci, S., Dallacasa, D., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219872

    2013 doi

  61. [70]

    2017, A&A, 603, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630014

    Venturi, T., Rossetti, M., Brunetti, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630014

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.