Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Intracluster Medium Fluctuations on Scales up to 1 Mpc: A Combined eROSITA and SPT/Planck Analysis of Abell 3266

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using X-ray and Sunyaev-Zel'dovich observations of the merging cluster Abell 3266, this paper measures a pressure-to-density fluctuation amplitude ratio of ζ = 1.00 ± 0.55, indicating that the intracluster medium's perturbations carry compa

desk verdict A careful, honest first eROSITA fluctuation measurement, but the headline EOS claim rests on SZ pressure power that sits at the patching scale and should be treated as tentative. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.21443 v1 pith:WJEWUI7C submitted 2026-02-24 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HE

H. Saxena , A. Heinrich , J. Sayers , I. Zhuravleva , E. Bulbul , J. Sanders , C. Avestruz , R. Basu Thakur
show 17 more authors
E. Battistelli A. Botteon F. Cacciotti F. Columbro A. Coppolecchia S. Cray P. de Bernardis M. De Petris L. Lamagna E.T. Lau S. Masi A. Paiella F. Piacentini E. Rapaport L. Rudnick D. White J. ZuHone
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords galaxyclustersintraclustermediumICMturbulenceSunyaev-Zel'dovicheffectX-raysurfacebrightnessfluctuationspowerspectrumequationofstateperturbationsAbell3266
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Galaxy clusters grow by mergers and accretion that stir the hot gas between galaxies. This paper tries to measure how that gas's density and pressure vary together on scales up to one megaparsec in Abell 3266, a massive, dynamically active cluster. By combining X-ray images (sensitive to density) with microwave Sunyaev-Zel'dovich maps (sensitive to pressure), it obtains a ratio ζ = 1.00 ± 0.55, meaning fractional pressure and density fluctuations are about equal. If correct, the dominant perturbations in this cluster are isothermal or adiabatic rather than isobaric, and turbulence contributes roughly 7% of the total pressure. The result matters because it constrains how merger-driven turbulence injects energy and supports the cluster against gravity.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the combined power-spectrum analysis of two observables: X-ray surface brightness, which traces the line-of-sight integral of density squared, and the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Compton-y map, which traces pressure. Fractional residual images are formed by subtracting a patched elliptical β-model—a smooth analytic model of the cluster's radial profile—and dividing by it; their power spectra are measured with the Δ-variance (Mexican-hat filter) method, which handles masked regions, then deprojected to 3D using the β-model's window functions. The central ratio ζ compares the resulting 3D amplitude spectra of pressure and density fluctuations.

What would settle it

A deep SZ map of Abell 3266—roughly an order of magnitude more sensitive than current data—that measures pressure fluctuations below 600 kpc and finds the pressure-to-density ratio consistent with 0 would falsify the isothermal-like interpretation. Recomputing ζ with a data-driven cluster model that does not rely on a hand-set 9-arcmin patching scale, and finding a shift larger than the quoted uncertainty, would likewise call the central value into question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central measurement is the amplitude ratio of pressure to density fluctuations, ζ = (δP/P)/(δρ/ρ), computed from deprojected power spectra. Aggregating scales from roughly 600 kpc to 1 Mpc—where the microwave data are sensitive—the authors find ζ = 1.00 ± 0.55. This is consistent with isothermal (ζ ≈ 1) or adiabatic (ζ ≈ 5/3) perturbations and about 2σ away from isobaric (ζ ≈ 0), indicating that pressure and density fluctuate with comparable fractional amplitudes. The same analysis yields a one-dimensional turbulent Mach number around 0.15–0.24, implying subsonic gas motions, and a non-thermal pressure fraction near 7%. Density fluctuations are stronger in the northern half of th

Load-bearing premise

The measurement defines 'fluctuation' as whatever remains after subtracting a smooth, hand-patched elliptical β-model of the cluster; if the true cluster profile contains large-scale non-elliptical structure that this model absorbs or misassigns, the residual amplitudes, ζ, and the radial trend would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ζ is really near 1, standard isobaric assumptions for ICM fluctuations underestimate the pressure response; models of turbulence and transport in clusters should use isothermal or adiabatic relations.
  • The ~7% non-thermal pressure support means hydrostatic mass estimates for Abell 3266 are biased low by a few percent if turbulent pressure is neglected.
  • The radially rising density fluctuation amplitude predicts that accretion-driven turbulence dominates the cluster outskirts; this can be checked by extending fluctuation measurements beyond 1 Mpc.
  • The north-south asymmetry in density fluctuations, tied to the merger and filament, suggests fluctuation maps can serve as kinematic tracers of recent accretion geometry.
  • An order-of-magnitude improvement in SZ sensitivity would narrow ζ enough to distinguish isothermal from adiabatic perturbations and would extend pressure fluctuation measurements to smaller scales where they are currently undetected.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If ζ remains near 1 on scales below 600 kpc—currently noise-dominated in pressure—then a single effective equation of state may describe ICM perturbations across scales; if ζ instead drops toward 0 at small scales, the mixture of perturbation modes would be scale-dependent, which would complicate velocity calibrations.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same combined X-ray/SZ analysis to clusters with different merger states: ζ ≈ 1 may be specific to dynamically disturbed systems, while relaxed clusters might show isobaric-like behavior in their cores.
  • Because the patching scale is a modeling choice, an independent check could come from X-ray spectroscopy: velocities inferred from ζ ≈ 1 plus density fluctuations should match directly measured Doppler line widths if the interpretation is correct.
  • If the radial rise in fluctuations is accretion-driven, then measuring the same profile for a relaxed control cluster would predict a flatter or falling profile outside the core—a contrast that future observations could test.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a combined eROSITA X-ray and Planck/SPT Sunyaev-Zel'dovich analysis of the ICM in the merging cluster A3266, measuring 3D density and pressure fluctuation amplitudes out to 1 Mpc. The authors fit an elliptical beta model to each observable, patch the model on a 9-arcmin scale to remove large-scale asymmetry, and use the Δ-variance method with deprojection to obtain amplitude spectra. The central results are a pressure-to-density fluctuation amplitude ratio ζ=1.00±0.55, a non-thermal pressure fraction ~7%, a northern/southern asymmetry in density fluctuations, and a non-monotonic radial density fluctuation profile. The paper claims ζ is consistent with isothermal or adiabatic perturbations and inconsistent with isobaric perturbations at ~2σ, and interprets the fluctuations as subsonic ICM motions.

Significance. If the measurement is robust, this is one of the first combined X-ray and SZ fluctuation analyses at Mpc scales and would provide a valuable new probe of the effective equation of state of ICM perturbations. The pipeline is careful in several respects: SZ noise is estimated from 100 random cutouts; X-ray Poisson noise and faint-source contributions are explicitly modeled; PSF and window-function corrections are calibrated with mock observations; and alternative model choices are explored. These strengths make the paper a useful contribution even where the statistical precision is limited. However, the headline EOS claim rests on a pressure amplitude detected only at scales comparable to the patching scale, so the systematic robustness of that claim needs to be demonstrated before the conclusion can be accepted at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1.2, 2.3.1, 3.1] The central EOS claim depends on pressure fluctuations that are non-zero only at k^-1 = 610–1000 kpc, while the fiducial patching scale is 9 arcmin ≈ 640 kpc. The detected pressure signal therefore lies almost entirely at the same angular scales as the patching kernel used to remove large-scale non-elliptical structure. The no-patch and spherical tests in Sec. 4.1 shift ζ by ≤0.19, but they do not control the relevant systematic: no-patch leaves the large-scale asymmetry in the residual, while the spherical model deliberately misfits the cluster. A dedicated test varying the patching scale (e.g., 6, 9, 12 arcmin) or a data-driven determination of the patching scale is needed to show that the pressure amplitude is not partly a subtraction artifact. As written, the ~2σ exclusion of isobaric perturbations is not securely established.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The statement that ζ=1.00±0.55 is 'inconsistent with isobaric perturbations at ~2σ significance' overstates the statistical evidence: ζ=0 is formally 1.8σ from the central value. Furthermore, the quoted uncertainty is dominated by SZ measurement noise only; it does not include the model-systematic spread across the tested choices (0.85–1.19). With that systematic included, the separation from isobaric is marginal. I recommend reporting the exclusion with explicit caveats or as a 1.5–2σ hint rather than a definitive constraint.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (6), footnote 1] The pressure-based Mach number M_1D,k=0.15±0.19 is derived from δP/P_k = 0.22±0.27 at k^-1 = 500 kpc. This scale is outside the range where pressure fluctuations are detected (610–1000 kpc; Sec. 2.3.1), and the paper's own footnote admits the formal uncertainty extends to unphysical values. This is an extrapolation rather than a measurement. I recommend either removing this value from the headline results, reporting it only as an upper limit, or deriving the pressure amplitude at scales where the SZ detection is actually made.
  4. [Sec. 4.1 and Appendix D] There is a direct contradiction between the text and the figure caption. Sec. 4.1 states that the spherical model is used 'with no patching,' while the caption of Fig. 10b in Appendix D describes the same case as 'a spherical model with 9′ patching.' The body text of Appendix D then refers to the 'spherical unpatched model.' This ambiguity matters because the spherical case is used to argue that model choice does not affect ζ. Please correct the labeling and ensure the robustness test is described consistently.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'perturbatons' should be 'perturbations'.
  2. [Sec. 2.1.2] The text says the MCMC runs 'over these 4 dimensions,' but Eq. (1) contains six free parameters (y0, β, rc, e, θ, B). Please correct the dimensionality or explain what is meant.
  3. [Sec. 3.5 / Conclusion] In the Conclusion bullet, the fluctuation spectra are said to be 'shown in Fig. 2,' but Fig. 2 shows the maps; the spectra are in Fig. 5.
  4. [Fig. 4] The horizontal axis label appears as 'k (kpc 1)'; it should read 'k (kpc^{-1})'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ζ is derived from two independent observables, and the principal modeling choice is explicitly tested.

full rationale

The central ratio ζ is not circular. The pressure amplitude is obtained from the Planck/SPT y-map fractional residual after subtracting a patched elliptical β-model (Sec. 2.1.2), and the density amplitude is obtained independently from eROSITA X-ray surface-brightness fractional residuals following a separate β-model fit (Sec. 2.2). ζ is the weighted ratio of these two independently measured, deprojected amplitude spectra (Sec. 3.1); neither observable is defined in terms of the other, and no parameter is fitted to the ratio and then relabeled as a prediction. The 9′ patching scale and the β-model are modeling choices, and the paper explicitly tests no-patch and spherical alternatives (Sec. 4.1), which shift the central value of ζ by at most ~0.19, so the claim does not reduce by construction to the model. The Mach-number conversion uses η_P and η_ρ from I. Zhuravleva et al. (2023), a co-authored simulation calibration; although this is a self-citation, it is an external, stated-assumption calibration that does not contain or depend on the A3266 measurement and does not enter ζ, so it is real evidence rather than circularity. The acknowledged limitations, including footnote 1 and the pressure detection only over 610–1000 kpc, affect robustness and systematic correctness of the SZ amplitude, not the logical derivation of ζ.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement depends on the fitted β-model parameters and a hand-chosen patching scale as the smooth background, plus standard deprojection formulas and simulation-based η calibrations. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • elliptical β-model parameters (y0, β, rc, e, θ, B) = not tabulated (best-fit from MCMC)
    Fitted to SZ and X-ray maps; define the smooth cluster model from which fluctuations are measured. The fluctuation amplitudes are residuals from this model, so the fitted parameters are inputs to the central measurement.
  • patching scale = 9 arcmin
    Chosen to visually/symmetrize the large-scale model; tested variants (no-patch, spherical) shift ζ by <1σ. This is a hand-chosen modeling scale.
  • subcluster mask size = 2' x 1.5' ellipse (iteratively increased)
    Chosen by iterating until the power spectrum converges; a post-hoc choice affecting the density fluctuation spectrum.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The unperturbed cluster is described by an elliptical β-model; residual fluctuations are small and can be modeled as perturbations on this background.
    Used throughout §2.1.2 and §2.2; the β-model fit defines the zero point of fluctuations. If the true cluster profile deviates, the fluctuation amplitudes are biased.
  • domain assumption X-ray surface brightness fluctuations trace electron density fluctuations along the line of sight via δS/S ≈ 2 δρ/ρ (after deprojection).
    Standard for bremsstrahlung in the 0.3-2.3 keV band; stated implicitly in §2.3 and used to convert to 3D density power spectra.
  • standard math The Δ-variance method and the Churazov et al. deprojection formulas correctly recover the 3D power spectra for masked maps with the stated window functions.
    Taken from Arevalo et al. 2012 and Churazov et al. 2012; used in Appendices A and B.
  • domain assumption The scaling relations M_1D = (δρ/ρ)/ηρ = (δP/P)/ηP hold with ηρ=1.3±0.5, ηP=1.5±0.5 for unrelaxed clusters (Zhuravleva et al. 2023).
    Used in §3.2 to convert fluctuation amplitudes to Mach numbers and then to non-thermal pressure. This is a self-cited simulation calibration (Zhuravleva is a co-author) and a dominant systematic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intracluster Medium Fluctuations on Scales up to 1 Mpc: A Combined eROSITA and SPT/Planck Analysis of Abell 3266." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJEWUI7C

@misc{pith2026260221443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intracluster Medium Fluctuations on Scales up to 1 Mpc: A Combined eROSITA and SPT/Planck Analysis of Abell 3266},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJEWUI7C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.21443}
}
abstract

Galaxy clusters form through hierarchical assembly, where smaller substructures merge to build the largest gravitationally bound objects in the universe. These mergers, combined with feedback from AGN, filamentary accretion, and other energy injection processes, generate turbulence and perturbations within the intra-cluster medium (ICM). X-ray and Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) observations can be utilized to measure these ICM density and pressure inhomogeneities, in turn providing constraints on the effective Equation of State (EOS) of the perturbations and ICM velocities. In this work, we analyze deep SRG-eROSITA and Planck/SPT observations of Abell 3266 (A3266), a dynamically complex merging cluster with elongated morphology and significant substructure. We measure pressure and density fluctuations, and compute the power spectra and deprojected 3D amplitudes of these perturbations. We estimate the ratio of pressure-to-density fluctuation amplitudes as $1.00 \pm 0.55$ and non-thermal pressure support $0.068 \pm 0.050$. Density fluctuations are found to be stronger in the northern sector of the cluster compared to the south, consistent with ongoing accretion along a filamentary structure revealed by eROSITA. Further, we find the amplitude of density fluctuations increases with radius, qualitatively consistent with the trend found in cosmological simulations. Uncertainties in our results are dominated by the relatively low sensitivity of current Planck/SPT data, suggesting that improvements in SZ data quality could substantially improve our understanding of ICM energy injection, transport, and dissipation from this technique.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.21443 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A3266: X-ray image from eROSITA with SZ contours (cyan) from Planck/SPT and radio contours (white) from ASKAP (C. J. Riseley et al. 2022) overlaid. Distinct radio features are highlighted in white. The dotted circle in green denotes 1 Mpc, the region utilized for the fluctuation analysis in this paper. The X-ray image is lightly smoothed for visualization purposes. where rc is the core radius, e is the ellipticity, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Images of A3266, with masked regions denoted by dotted lines. symmetry in the cluster. Hereafter, we present our fiducial results from these patched models for both SZ and X-rays. To obtain the fractional residual map, we subtract the model from the map, and then divide the resulting image by the model. Finally, because the signal-to-noise ratio becomes too low to provide meaningful constraints at large radii, we re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Residual maps. Absolute residuals are shown after subtracting an elliptical beta-model from the observed data, and illustrate coherent residuals relative to this model in both the SZ and X-ray images, such as the deficit of signal to the SE. Fractional residuals are shown after subtracting, and then dividing by, the patched elliptical β-model. reflect this large-scale structure. To do so, the elliptical beta-model i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 2D X-ray power spectra (P2D), amplitude from noise images (P2D, noise), and amplitude from faint point sources (P2D, faint) as described in the text. 10 3 2 × 10 3 3 × 10 3 k (kpc 1 ) 10 A 1 3 D(k) = 4 k 3 3 D(k) SZ (Planck/SPT) X-ray (eROSITA) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Measured SZ and X-ray 3D residual normalized fluctuation amplitude spectra for A3266 from our nominal analysis. Uncertainties are 1σ. given the measurement uncertainties. Specifically, we find a weighted pressure/density amplitude ratio of ζ = 1.00 ± 0.55, where we hav…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SZ and X-ray fluctuation amplitudes compared for the N and S hemispheres for the 9’ patched model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial profile of density fluctuations measured at spatial scales of 100 (blue triangles) and 200 kpc (orange circles). 4. DISCUSSION 4.1. Impact of model choice First, to assess the impact of patching, we compute a pressure to density fluctuation ratio of 1.19±0.55 in…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 3D de-projected power spectra with error-bars from both SPT and OLIMPO like noise patches. fluctuations, and to place them in context with existing data, we generate mock observations of A3266 with Kolmogorov fluctuations with a fractional amplitude of 0.2 from both OL…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SZ power spectrum corrections applied in the pipeline due to PSF corrections, masking and smoothing corrections, and Hanning window effects, see the text for details. 10 3 2 × 10 3 3 × 10 3 k (kpc 1 ) 10 1 10 0 A k(3 D) SZ ellip no patch X-ray ellip no patch (a) Pressu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W., et al

    Adam, R., Bartalucci, I., Pratt, G. W., et al. 2017, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 598, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629182

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629182 2017

  2. [2]

    2019, JCAP, 2019, 056, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056

    Ade, P., Aguirre, J., Ahmed, Z., et al. 2019, JCAP, 2019, 056, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056 2019

  3. [3]

    2016, Nature, 535, 117–121, doi: 10.1038/nature18627 Ar´ evalo, P., Churazov, E., Zhuravleva, I., Forman, W

    Aharonian, F., Akamatsu, H., Akimoto, F., et al. 2016, Nature, 535, 117–121, doi: 10.1038/nature18627 Ar´ evalo, P., Churazov, E., Zhuravleva, I., Forman, W. R., & Jones, C. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 14, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/14 Ar´ evalo, P., Churazov, E., Zhuravleva, I., Hern´ andez-Monteagudo, C., & Revnivtsev, M. 2012, Monthly Notic...

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    A., Ade, P

    Benson, B. A., Ade, P. A. R., Ahmed, Z., et al. 2014, in

    2014

  5. [5]

    Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. W. S. Holland & J. Zmuidzinas, Vol. 9153 (SPIE), 91531P, doi: 10.1117/12.2057305

    doi:10.1117/12.2057305

  6. [6]

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

    Bleem, L. E., Stalder, B., de Haan, T., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 216, 27, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/27

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/27 2015

  7. [7]

    E., Crawford, T

    Bleem, L. E., Crawford, T. M., Ansarinejad, B., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 258, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac35e9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac35e9 2022

  8. [8]

    P., Schrabback, T., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f10 2019

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    2022, A&A, 661, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141266

    Brunner, H., Liu, T., Lamer, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141266

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2019, BAAS, 51, 210, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1903.04597

    Bulbul, E., Gaspari, M., Alvarez, G., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 210, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1903.04597

    2019 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Burns, J. O. 1990, AJ, 99, 14, doi: 10.1086/115307

    1990 doi

  4. [12]

    Chen, Y.-H., Heinz, S., & Enßlin, T. A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 1939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2256

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 1057–1067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2044

    Churazov, E., Arevalo, P., Forman, W., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 1057–1067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2044

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2000, A&A, 356, 788, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002375

    Churazov, E., Forman, W., Jones, C., & B¨ ohringer, H. 2000, A&A, 356, 788, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002375

    2000 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 1123, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20372.x

    Churazov, E., Vikhlinin, A., Zhuravleva, I., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 1123, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20372.x

    2012

  8. [16]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 2645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx582

    Dehghan, S., Johnston-Hollitt, M., Colless, M., & Miller, R. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 2645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx582

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Bartalucci, I., & Keel, S. R. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac335 Dupourqu´ e, S., Clerc, N., Pointecouteau, E., et al. 2024, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 687, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348701

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, ApJL, 843, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7c1a

    Eckert, D., Gaspari, M., Vazza, F., et al. 2017, ApJL, 843, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7c1a

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    A., et al

    Eckert, D., Markevitch, M., ZuHone, J. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556162

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    C., & Stewart, G

    Edge, A. C., & Stewart, G. C. 1991, MNRAS, 252, 414, doi: 10.1093/mnras/252.3.414

    1991 doi

  13. [21]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 2878, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2397

    Springel, V. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 2878, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2397

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, A&A, 621, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833323

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

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    B., Zhang, L., Crawford, T

    Everett, W. B., Zhang, L., Crawford, T. M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9df7

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Fabian, A. C. 1994, ARA&A, 32, 277, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.001425

    1994

  17. [25]

    C., Sanders, J

    Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Ettori, S., et al. 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 318, L65, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03904.x

    2000

  18. [26]

    J., Miniati, F., Briel, U

    Finoguenov, A., Henriksen, M. J., Miniati, F., Briel, U. G., & Jones, C. 2006, ApJ, 643, 790, doi: 10.1086/503285

    2006 doi

  19. [27]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306–312, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    2013, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 559, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322295

    Gaspari, M., & Churazov, E. 2013, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 559, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322295

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    L., et al

    Gaspari, M., McDonald, M., Hamer, S. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaa1b

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    A., et al

    Groth, F., Valentini, M., Seidel, B. A., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02041

    2025

  23. [31]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 7274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae208

    Heinrich, A., Zhuravleva, I., Zhang, C., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 7274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae208

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    J., & Tittley, E

    Henriksen, M. J., & Tittley, E. R. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 577, 701–709, doi: 10.1086/342115 Karen Yang, H.-Y., & Reynolds, C. S. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 181, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/181

    2002 doi

  25. [33]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 655–669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2027

    Khatri, R., & Gaspari, M. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 655–669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2027

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09573

    Langer, M. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09573

    2025

  27. [35]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 664, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243362

    Liu, T., Merloni, A., Wolf, J., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 664, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243362

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.21859

    McCall, H., Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.21859

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

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

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

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2007, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 45, 117–175, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625

    McNamara, B., & Nulsen, P. 2007, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 45, 117–175, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625

    2007 arXiv

  31. [39]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 4881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz328

    Mohapatra, R., & Sharma, P. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 4881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz328

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 606, 635, doi: 10.1086/381566 16

    Bryan, G. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 606, 635, doi: 10.1086/381566 16

    2004 doi

  33. [41]

    Narayan, R., & Medvedev, M. V. 2001, ApJL, 562, L129, doi: 10.1086/338325

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    H., Shaw, L., & Nagai, D

    Nelson, K., Rudd, D. H., Shaw, L., & Nagai, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/121

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    H., & Schechter, P

    Press, W. H., & Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425, doi: 10.1086/152650

    1974 doi

  37. [45]

    A., McNamara, B

    Rafferty, D. A., McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 687, 899–918, doi: 10.1086/591240

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    H., & B¨ ohringer, H

    Reiprich, T. H., & B¨ ohringer, H. 2002, ApJ, 567, 716, doi: 10.1086/338753

    2002 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Bonnassieux, E., Vernstrom, T., et al

    Riseley, C. J., Bonnassieux, E., Vernstrom, T., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 1871–1896, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1771

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06489

    Romero, C. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06489

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    E., Gaspari, M., Schellenberger, G., et al

    Romero, C. E., Gaspari, M., Schellenberger, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd3f0

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    E., Gaspari, M., Schellenberger, G., et al

    Romero, C. E., Gaspari, M., Schellenberger, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2992

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    E., Gaspari, M., Schellenberger, G., et al

    Romero, C. E., Gaspari, M., Schellenberger, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcd74

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    2010, A&A, 510, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913156

    Rossetti, M., & Molendi, S. 2010, A&A, 510, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913156

    2010 doi

  45. [53]

    2021, https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.09961

    Rudnick, L., Cotton, W., Knowles, K., & Kolokythas, K. 2021, https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.09961

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    K., & Reynolds, C

    Ruszkowski, M., Yang, H.-Y. K., & Reynolds, C. S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa79f8

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    Ryu, D., Kang, H., Hallman, E., & Jones, T. W. 2003, ApJ, 593, 599, doi: 10.1086/376723

    2003 doi

  48. [56]

    S., Biffi, V., Br¨ uggen, M., et al

    Sanders, J. S., Biffi, V., Br¨ uggen, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141501

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Sarazin, C. L. 1986, Reviews of Modern Physics, 58, 1, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.58.1

    1986 doi

  50. [58]

    L., Belsole, E., & Pratt, G

    Sauvageot, J. L., Belsole, E., & Pratt, G. W. 2005, A&A, 444, 673, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053242

    2005 doi

  51. [59]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/52

    Sayers, J., Mroczkowski, T., Zemcov, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/52

    2013 doi

  52. [61]

    2024b, in mm Universe 2023: Observing the mm Universe at mm wavelengths, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/202429300049

    Sayers, J., et al. 2024b, in mm Universe 2023: Observing the mm Universe at mm wavelengths, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/202429300049

    2023

  53. [62]

    Briel, U. G. 2004, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 426, 387–397, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041039

    2004 doi

  54. [63]

    J., & Quataert, E

    Sharma, P., Parrish, I. J., & Quataert, E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 652, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/652

    2010 doi

  55. [64]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 658, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141703

    Simonte, M., Vazza, F., Brighenti, F., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 658, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141703

    2022 doi

  56. [65]

    2025, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 697, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452549

    Sotira, S., Vazza, F., & Brighenti, F. 2025, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 697, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452549

    2025 doi

  57. [66]

    A., Gastaldello, F., & Weeren, R

    Su, Y., Buote, D. A., Gastaldello, F., & Weeren, R. v. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 40, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/40

    2016 doi

  58. [67]

    Su, Y., Nulsen, P. E. J., Kraft, R. P., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 851, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa989e

    2017 doi

  59. [68]

    A., & Zeldovich, Y

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Zeldovich, Y. B. 1972, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 4, 173

    1972

  60. [69]

    2012, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 544, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118688

    Vazza, F., Roediger, E., & Br¨ uggen, M. 2012, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 544, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118688

    2012 doi

  61. [70]

    W., Abi-Saad, S., Ade, P., et al

    Wilson, G. W., Abi-Saad, S., Ade, P., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11453, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao, 1145302, doi...

    2020 doi

  62. [71]

    W., Mantz, A., & Werner, N

    Zhuravleva, I., Allen, S. W., Mantz, A., & Werner, N. 2018, ApJ, 865, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadae3

    2018 doi

  63. [72]

    C., Churazov, E., et al

    Zhuravleva, I., Chen, M. C., Churazov, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad470

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 3274–3287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts275

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Kravtsov, A., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 3274–3287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts275

    2012 doi

  65. [74]

    A., et al

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Schekochihin, A. A., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/788/1/L13

    2014 doi

  66. [75]

    A., et al

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Schekochihin, A. A., et al. 2014, Nature, 515, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature13830

    2014 doi

  67. [76]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 4184–4197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv900

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Ar´ evalo, P., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 4184–4197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv900

    2015 doi

  68. [77]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 2902–2915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw520 17

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Ar´ evalo, P., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 2902–2915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw520 17

    2016 doi

  69. [78]

    A., Markevitch, M., & Zhuravleva, I

    ZuHone, J. A., Markevitch, M., & Zhuravleva, I. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/110

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.