Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 76 references

Stacking 827 low-mass galaxy groups yields the first X-ray spectra of their infall gas out to twice the virial radius, plus a residual component that may be thermal or inverse-Compton.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 01:32 UTC pith:WVYMQGRG

load-bearing objection Solid first spectroscopic detection of ~1 keV group IGrM out to ~2 R200m; the thermal/non-thermal title claim is real but only marginally significant and systematics-limited. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27804 v1 pith:WVYMQGRG submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

Thermal or Non-thermal? Diffuse emission in the infall region of stacked galaxy groups

E. Bulbul , X. Zhang , Z. Ding , T. Mistele , M. Kluge , E. Artis , Y. E. Bahar , K. Dennerl
show 11 more authors
D. Eckert L. Fiorino P. F. Hopkins N. Malavasi A. Merloni K. Nandra E. Quataert M. E. Ramos-Ceja J. S. Sanders J. Strunk S. Zelmer
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxy groupsintragroup mediumX-ray stackingvirial radiusinverse Comptonthermal plasmacosmic raysmagnetic fields
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The gas beyond the virial radius of ordinary galaxy groups is too faint for ordinary X-ray spectra, so its temperature, density, and metals have been almost unknown. This paper stacks rest-frame spectra of 827 nearby groups from a wide soft X-ray survey and detects diffuse emission from about 0.7 to 4 times R500c, reaching densities around 10^{-5}–10^{-6} cm^{-3}. A multi-temperature thermal model fits a mean temperature near 1 keV and a metal abundance near 0.2 solar, as expected for group outskirts. An extra residual component is statistically favored; a hot metal-poor thermal plasma is hard to reconcile with group physics, while a non-thermal inverse-Compton continuum that carries roughly 30 percent of the thermal flux fits equally well and would imply a sub-microgauss magnetic field if the same relativistic electrons also produce the stacked radio signal. The result opens a practical path to map both baryons and cosmic-ray electrons in the low-density web around groups.

Core claim

Spectral stacking of 827 low-mass groups produces the first spectroscopic measurement of the intragroup medium in the infall region out to roughly 2 R200m. A Gaussian differential emission-measure model gives a mean temperature of about 0.96 keV, a temperature width of about 0.28 keV, and metallicity about 0.21 solar; electron density falls from a few times 10^{-5} cm^{-3} just outside R500c to a few times 10^{-6} cm^{-3} farther out. Residual continuum favors an additional component that can be modeled either as unexpectedly hot metal-poor thermal gas or as inverse-Compton emission contributing roughly 30 percent of the thermal flux, the latter implying a magnetic field in the sub-microgaus

What carries the argument

Rest-frame spectral stacking of survey X-ray data from 827 groups, with local background taken from 4–6 R500c annuli, followed by joint fitting with a Gaussian differential emission-measure (GADEM) thermal model plus an optional secondary thermal or power-law component compared by Bayesian evidence.

Load-bearing premise

The leftover continuum after local outer-annulus background subtraction and source masking is real emission from the stacked groups, not residual background, calibration error, or projected faint structures.

What would settle it

Harder X-ray spectra or matched radio/X-ray stacking that either detects metal lines from a multi-keV secondary thermal plasma or shows that the hard residual and the stacked radio brightness cannot be produced by one relativistic-electron population at any plausible magnetic field.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Infall-region gas densities and pressures around groups become measurable with survey stacking rather than only with deep pointed observations.
  • Group outskirts may contain a non-negligible non-thermal X-ray fraction, so baryon budgets that assume pure thermal emission can be biased high or low depending on treatment of the residual.
  • If the residual is inverse Compton, the same electron population plus stacked radio data constrain magnetic fields at the sub-microgauss level on megaparsec scales.
  • Deeper survey stacks should raise the significance of the residual and begin to separate thermal from power-law shapes above a few keV.
  • Feedback and accretion models must accommodate either multi-keV plasma or a substantial cosmic-ray electron reservoir beyond R500c in typical groups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If inverse Compton really supplies tens of percent of the outskirts flux, stacking analyses of the warm-hot intergalactic medium may systematically over-assign soft continuum to thermal gas unless a hard residual is modeled.
  • Collective cosmic-ray injection from satellite galaxies, not only central AGN or virial shocks, becomes a plausible dominant source for the hard component on megaparsec scales.
  • A clean separation will likely need instruments with substantially more hard-band collecting area than the present survey telescope, because the two model families remain degenerate in soft-band Bayesian evidence alone.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a spectral stacking analysis of 827 low-mass galaxy groups (M_tot < 1e14 M_sun) from eRASS1, using deeper eRASS:5 data, to measure the IGrM in the infall region out to ~2 R_200m. After rest-frame shifting, local 4–6 R_500c background subtraction, and source masking, the stacked spectra in (0.7–2) and (2–4) R_500c are fit jointly. A GADEM thermal model yields a mean temperature 0.96^{+0.05}_{-0.04} keV, width 0.28^{+0.10}_{-0.10} keV, and Z = 0.21^{+0.06}_{-0.04} Z_sun, with electron densities falling from (4.8±1.3)×10^{-5} to (5.5±2.0)×10^{-6} cm^{-3}. Residuals motivate an extra component; GADEM+GADEM, GADEM+Brems, and GADEM+PL give statistically indistinguishable Bayesian evidence (ln Z ~ −587; ln K ~ 5 vs single-component), with the PL only ~2σ. The authors discuss hot thermal (AGN feedback / virial shocks) versus inverse-Compton interpretations and, under a shared-electron assumption with Vernstrom et al. (2023) radio stacks, infer a sub-µG magnetic field.

Significance. If the primary thermal detection holds, this is the first spectroscopic characterization of the IGrM in group-mass halos at and beyond R_500c down to n_e ~ 5×10^{-6} cm^{-3}, a regime previously inaccessible in X-rays. The recovered ~1 keV temperature matches the sample’s expected outer L_X–T prior, the metallicity is physically plausible, and the background-cleaning checks (O VII/VIII, Fe-K, hard-band rate consistency) are careful. That alone is a substantial contribution for eROSITA group science and feedback/baryon-cycle studies. The extra-component / IC discussion is more speculative but is framed as an open question rather than a firm detection; the multi-model Bayesian comparison and explicit acknowledgment that thermal and non-thermal models are not distinguished are strengths. The work is falsifiable with deeper eRASS stacks, hard X-ray follow-up, and better-matched radio data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Table 1] Sec. 3.2 and Table 1: The load-bearing claim for the title and the ~30% non-thermal fraction is the extra spectral component. The PL is detected only at ~2σ (Γ = 1.41^{+0.40}_{-0.69}), and GADEM+GADEM, GADEM+Brems, and GADEM+PL are statistically indistinguishable (all ln Z ≈ −587). The Bayes factor ln K ≈ 5 favors “something extra” over single-component thermal, but does not establish IC. The abstract and conclusions should state the extra-component significance and model degeneracy as clearly as Sec. 3.2 already does, and should avoid language that reads as a preferred non-thermal detection. Quantify the improvement with nested-model tests (e.g., posterior odds with explicit priors on secondary norm) rather than ln Z alone.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Sec. 2.3] Sec. 4.1 (background / residual origin): Hard-band (6–10 or 7–10 keV) source–background rate consistency is necessary but does not bound soft-band CXB spectral variance or aperture mismatch across the large stacked solid angle of 827 groups. The residual continuum after 4–6 R_500c subtraction could still include residual CXB, PSF-wing leakage, or projected faint structures. Please add quantitative tests: (i) variance of hard- and soft-band rates across jackknife or bootstrap resamples of the stack; (ii) a null stack of blank/random fields with the same annular geometry and redshift shifting; (iii) sensitivity of the secondary norm to background annulus choice (e.g., 5–7 vs 4–6 R_500c) and to more aggressive point-source masking. Without these, the astrophysical origin of the residual—and thus the thermal/non-thermal discussion—remains the weakest link.
  3. [Sec. 4, Abstract] Sec. 4 (Naima / B-field paragraph): The sub-µG B inference assumes the hard X-ray excess and the Vernstrom et al. (2023) LRG-pair stacked radio emission arise from the same power-law relativistic-electron population in comparable volumes, with α=1 fixed despite the large Γ uncertainty. The paper itself notes the aperture mismatch and the factor-of-~√5 gradient between radial bins. This should be presented strictly as an order-of-magnitude illustration under explicit assumptions, not as an inferred field strength for the sample. Either drop the numerical B claim from the abstract or add a clear caveat that the true B could span a wide sub-µG range if only part of the hard excess is IC, and show B under a few bracketing electron spectra and volume fillings.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] Sec. 3.2 (density and pressure): n_e and P_e are derived from APEC/GADEM norms “assuming constant temperature and abundance within each shell.” The conversion from stacked norm to physical density depends on the adopted emitting volume (spherical shells? median R_500c? redshift distribution weighting?) and on clumping/filling factor, none of which are fully specified. Please state the exact volume geometry, cosmology, and any <n_e^2>/<n_e>^2 assumption used, and propagate a systematic uncertainty on n_e from shell geometry and the secondary-component flux fraction (which changes the primary norm by tens of percent between single- and two-component fits in Table 1).
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 3.2] Abstract vs body: Abstract says the IC component contributes “~30% of the thermal flux,” while Sec. 3.2 once states “approximately 50%” and later “approximately 30%.” Reconcile the quoted fraction with the fluxes given (5.2e-14 vs 2.4e-14 in Region 1, etc.) and use one consistent number.
  2. [Sec. 2.4, Fig. 3] Fig. 3 / Sec. 2.4: The outer-temperature prior (half of kT_500c from L_X–T) is a useful sanity check, but state explicitly which L_X–T relation (Bahar et al. 2022 / Liu et al. 2022 / etc.) and scatter were used, and whether the weighting matches the spectral stack weights.
  3. [Table 1] Table 1: Report the energy band and exact definition of the power-law normalization (photons cm^{-2} s^{-1} keV^{-1} at 1 keV) in the table notes. Units in the text sometimes say cm^{-2} s^{-1} keV^{-1} and sometimes mix with flux units.
  4. [Sec. 2.1, Fig. 1] Sec. 2.1: Median redshift is given as 0.15 in the Fig. 1 caption and 0.10 in the text; R_200m/R_500c ≈ 2.3 is quoted at “the median redshift.” Please make the sample median z and the cosmology used for R_500c consistent throughout.
  5. [Sec. 2.3] Sec. 2.3: Stacked counts and exposures are listed with four numbers for three annuli (“1.3e6, 5.9e6, and 4.4e6, 7.4e6” / “3.5 Ms, 5.1 Ms, 7.2 Ms”); the fourth entry is unclear. Clarify total vs net counts and which annulus has which exposure.
  6. Typographical: “Msun” / “Asun” vs M_⊙ / Z_⊙; “Virial” capitalization is inconsistent; “blueshifted” event PI shifting could be briefly equation-defined for reproducibility; Lodders (2003) vs Asplund et al. (2009) abundance scale should be flagged when comparing to Gastaldello/Sarkar metallicities.
  7. [Fig. 4, Fig. 5] Fig. 4–5: Residual panels in units of σ are helpful; adding the best-fit model components (primary GADEM vs secondary) separately in Fig. 5 would make the extra-component contribution visually clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: stacked spectral fits are free-parameter measurements; Lx–T expectations and conditional B-field inference are external checks, not inputs that force the results.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing chain is observational and self-contained: extract and rest-frame-stack eRASS:5 spectra of 827 groups in fixed annuli, subtract local 4–6 R500c background, and fit free-parameter thermal (APEC/GADEM) and optional secondary (GADEM/Brems/PL) models with BXA. Reported Tmean, Tsigma, Z, norms, ne, and Bayes factors are outputs of those fits, not quantities defined by or fitted to the same targets they claim to measure. The Sec. 2.4 Lx–kT-derived outer temperature histogram (~0.9 keV) is used only as a prior sanity check against published eROSITA scaling relations; the joint GADEM fit independently recovers ~0.96 keV and is not constrained by that histogram. The ~30% non-thermal fraction and sub-µG B estimate are explicitly conditional on interpreting the residual as IC from a shared electron population with Vernstrom et al. (2023) radio stacks—an external cross-check under stated assumptions, not a tautology or a fitted input renamed as prediction. Self-citations (sample catalogs, stacking method, Lx–T relations, coauthor IC theory) supply context and methodology; none closes a definitional loop or uniqueness theorem that forces the central spectroscopic claims. No equation equates a claimed prediction to its own fitted input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The primary thermal detection rests on standard collisional-plasma spectroscopy, eROSITA responses, and local background subtraction. The extra-component and B-field claims add fitted secondary normalizations, a shared-electron assumption with external radio stacks, and shell-averaged density geometry. No new particles or forces are postulated; the ledger is mostly domain astrophysics plus a few fitted spectral amplitudes.

free parameters (6)
  • GADEM mean temperature and width (primary) = Tmean≈0.96–1.03 keV, Tsigma≈0.28–0.37 keV
    Fitted to stacked 0.3–6 keV spectra; central thermodynamic result.
  • Primary metallicity Z = ≈0.18–0.24 Z_sun
    Free APEC/GADEM abundance (Lodders 2003 scale) in joint fits.
  • Primary and secondary normalizations in two radial bins = Reg1 ~6–9e-5, Reg2 ~0.4–0.9e-5 (primary); secondary smaller
    Emission-measure amplitudes converted to n_e assuming uniform shells; drive density and flux-fraction claims.
  • Secondary GADEM Tmean / Brems kT / PL photon index = T2≈3.6 keV; kT_brem≈4.2 keV; Γ≈1.41^{+0.40}_{-0.69}
    Parameters of the extra component; poorly constrained and model-dependent.
  • Relativistic electron spectrum normalization at 1 GeV = 1.7×10^{40} eV^{-1}
    Chosen in Naima to match the hard X-ray excess under Γ=2 before inferring B from radio.
  • Inferred B-field strength = ~0.15 μG (order ≳0.1 μG, sub-μG range)
    Derived by matching Vernstrom et al. 100 MHz brightness to synchrotron from the same e− spectrum; not a direct fit to X-rays alone.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM with H0=67.3, ΩM=0.315 for distances and overdensity radii
    Stated in Sec. 1; converts angular annuli to R500c/R200m.
  • domain assumption APEC/GADEM collisional ionization equilibrium plasma with Lodders (2003) abundances describes the IGrM continuum and lines
    Sec. 3 spectral modeling; standard but non-equilibrium or charge-exchange residuals could bias soft continuum.
  • domain assumption Local 4–6 R500c annulus after source masking is an unbiased estimator of astrophysical+instrumental background under the source annuli
    Sec. 2.3–3; load-bearing for faint residual continuum.
  • domain assumption Weak-lensing-calibrated eRASS1 M500/R500c values correctly scale the stacked apertures
    Sec. 2.3 citing Ghirardini/Grandis et al. mass calibration chain.
  • domain assumption Outer-group temperatures are roughly half the R500c peak (used only as expectation, not fit prior)
    Sec. 2.4 citing Rasia/Sun/Mernier; sanity check for ~0.9 keV.
  • ad hoc to paper Hard residual and Vernstrom et al. (2023) stacked radio share one power-law relativistic electron population with α=1
    Sec. 4 Naima paragraph; required to convert X-ray IC flux into B; geometries differ.
  • standard math Bayesian evidence differences (BXA) with nested models correctly rank thermal vs PL vs Brems descriptions
    Sec. 3.2; Kass & Raftery scale invoked for ln K≈5.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 27638 in / 4375 out tokens · 86989 ms · 2026-07-31T01:32:52.954523+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal or Non-thermal? Diffuse emission in the infall region of stacked galaxy groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVYMQGRG

@misc{pith2026260727804,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal or Non-thermal? Diffuse emission in the infall region of stacked galaxy groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVYMQGRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27804}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The faint infall regions surrounding the virial radius of galaxy groups remain largely unexplored due to their low X-ray surface brightness. Using the large statistical power of SRG/eROSITA survey observations, we present the first spectroscopic measurement of the intragroup medium (IGrM) in the infall regions of a large sample of low-mass galaxy groups ($M_{\rm tot}<1\times10^{14}\,M_{sun}$), extending to $\sim2\,R_{200m}$ (2.2 Mpc). Through spectral stacking of 827 nearby groups from the first eROSITA All-Sky Survey catalog, we detect diffuse emission and measure the thermodynamic properties of gas at densities previously inaccessible to X-ray observations. The stacked spectra are well described by a Gaussian differential emission measure model, yielding a temperature distribution with a mean temperature of $0.96_{-0.04}^{+0.05}$ keV and width of $0.28_{-0.10}^{+0.10}$ keV, and a metal abundance of $0.21_{-0.04}^{+0.06}$ A$_{sun}$, consistent with expectations for group outskirts. The inferred electron densities decrease from $(4.8\pm1.3)\times10^{-5}$cm$^{-3}$ at $(0.7-2)\,R_{500c}$ to $(5.5\pm2.0)\times10^{-6}$ cm$^{-3}$ at $(2-4)\,R_{500c}$, demonstrating eROSITA's ability to probe the low-density outskirts of galaxy groups. Residual emission in the spectra suggests the presence of an additional spectral component. While a secondary thermal interpretation requires an unexpectedly hot, metal-poor plasma, a non-thermal inverse Compton model provides an equally plausible explanation, contributing $\sim30\%$ of the thermal flux. Assuming that the additional component is produced by inverse Compton emission from a common population of relativistic electrons, the inferred magnetic field strength would be in the sub-$\mu$G regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27804 by A. Merloni, D. Eckert, E. Artis, E. Bulbul, E. Quataert, J. S. Sanders, J. Strunk, K. Dennerl, K. Nandra, L. Fiorino, M. E. Ramos-Ceja, M. Kluge, N. Malavasi, P. F. Hopkins, S. Zelmer, T. Mistele, X. Zhang, Y. E. Bahar, Z. Ding.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mass and redshift distributions of the 827 galaxy groups de￾tected in the first eROSITA All-Sky Survey (Western Galactic Hemi￾sphere) and included in this study. The sample spans a redshift range of 0.003–0.5, with a median mass of 5.91×1013 M⊙ and a median redshift of 0.15. rates, specifically those outside the 10th-90th percentile range. The total, background, and filtering rates applied to the sample ar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: , with a weighted mean temperature of 1.8 keV. Here, to 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 kT500c [keV] 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Number of Groups kT ( < R500c) kT ( > R500c) kT w( < R500c) = 1.82 keV kT w( > R500c) = 0.91 keV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The stacked X-ray spectrum, extracted from the deepest eROSITA observations, is shown for the radial ranges (0.7–2) R500c (red) and (2–4) R500c (dark blue) for the combined sample of 827 galaxy groups, after subtraction of both the astrophysical X-ray and instru￾mental background components. The best-fit single-temperature ther￾mal models (dashed lines) are overplotted in the bottom panel. Residu￾als obser… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Joint fit of the net stacked X-ray spectra extracted from the radial ranges 0.7–2 R500c (red) and 2–4 R500c (dark blue) for the 827 galaxy groups. The best-fit model, consisting of a double-component thermal model (left panel) and a single-temperature thermal component combined with a power-law component (right panel) with free photon index and normalization, provides an improved description of the data in… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    2009

  2. [2]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 601

    Bagchi, J., Jacob, J., Gopal-Krishna, et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 601

    2009

  3. [3]

    E., Bulbul, E., Clerc, N., et al

    Bahar, Y . E., Bulbul, E., Clerc, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A7

    2022

  4. [4]

    E., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V ., et al

    Bahar, Y . E., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V ., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A188

    2024

  5. [5]

    A., Irsic, V ., Amon, A., & Sijacki, D

    Bigwood, L., Bourne, M. A., Irsic, V ., Amon, A., & Sijacki, D. 2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2501.16983

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    & Jones, T

    Brunetti, G. & Jones, T. W. 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430007

    2014

  7. [7]

    2022, A&A, 661, A1

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

    2022

  8. [8]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125

    2014

  9. [9]

    2024, A&A, 685, A106

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

    2024

  10. [10]

    2022, A&A, 661, A10

    Bulbul, E., Liu, A., Pasini, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A10

    2022

  11. [11]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 13

    Bulbul, E., Markevitch, M., Foster, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 13

    2014

  12. [12]

    W., Bayliss, M., et al

    Bulbul, E., Randall, S. W., Bayliss, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 131

    2016

  13. [13]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01076

    Chiu, I.-N., Ghirardini, V ., Grandis, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01076

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36

    Cruise, M., Guainazzi, M., Aird, J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36

    2025

  15. [15]

    2021, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Dennerl, K., Andritschke, R., Bräuninger, H., et al. 2021, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 11444, So- ciety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 114444Q

    2021

  16. [16]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.13907

    Eckert, D., Gastaldello, F., Lovisari, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.13907

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

    2012

  18. [18]

    R., Ji, L., Smith, R

    Foster, A. R., Ji, L., Smith, R. K., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 128

    2012

  19. [19]

    2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Freyberg, M., Perinati, E., Pacaud, F., et al. 2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 11444, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. J.- W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 114441O

    2021

  20. [20]

    2021, Universe, 7, 208

    Gastaldello, F., Simionescu, A., Mernier, F., et al. 2021, Universe, 7, 208

    2021

  21. [21]

    2024, A&A, 689, A298

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

    2024

  22. [22]

    2024, A&A, 687, A178

    Grandis, S., Ghirardini, V ., Bocquet, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A178

    2024

  23. [23]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07152 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Ried Guachalla, B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07152 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Hickox, R. C. & Markevitch, M. 2006, ApJ, 645, 95

    2006

  25. [25]

    F., Silich, E., Sayers, J., Ponnada, S

    Hopkins, P. F., Silich, E., Sayers, J., Ponnada, S. B., & Sands, I. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.22229

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Ilani, G., Hou, K.-C., & Keshet, U. 2024, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2024, 008

    2024

  27. [27]

    Kaastra, J. S. 2017, A&A, 605, A51

    2017

  28. [28]

    Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the american statistical association, 90, 773

    1995

  29. [29]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 72

    Keshet, U., Reiss, I., & Hurier, G. 2020, ApJ, 895, 72

    2020

  30. [30]

    2025, A&A, 695, A216

    Kleinebreil, F., Grandis, S., Schrabback, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A216

    2025

  31. [31]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08453

    Kluge, M., Comparat, J., Liu, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08453

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    D., Collado-Vega, Y

    Kuntz, K. D., Collado-Vega, Y . M., Collier, M. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 143

    2015

  33. [33]

    2022, A&A, 661, A2

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

    2022

  34. [34]

    E., et al

    Liu, A., Bulbul, E., Ramos-Ceja, M. E., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A96

    2023

  35. [35]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    2003

  36. [36]

    2020, A&A, 642, A19

    Malavasi, N., Aghanim, N., Douspis, M., Tanimura, H., & Bonjean, V . 2020, A&A, 642, A19

    2020

  37. [37]

    2025, A&A, 694, A207

    Marini, I., Popesso, P., Dolag, K., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A207

    2025

  38. [38]

    McNamara, B. R. & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117

    2007

  39. [39]

    2024, A&A, 682, A34 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main_sbmttd

    2024

  40. [40]

    2016, A&A, 595, A126

    Mernier, F., de Plaa, J., Pinto, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A126

    2016

  41. [41]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 4939

    Mernier, F., Werner, N., Bagchi, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4939

    2023

  42. [42]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3159

    Mernier, F., Werner, N., Su, Y ., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3159

    2022

  43. [43]

    2024, A&A, 688, A107

    Migkas, K., Kox, D., Schellenberger, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A107

    2024

  44. [44]

    M., Hearn, N., Haiman, Z., et al

    Molnar, S. M., Hearn, N., Haiman, Z., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1640

    2009

  45. [45]

    2012, A&A, 548, A87

    Moretti, A., Vattakunnel, S., Tozzi, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A87

    2012

  46. [46]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307

    Nandra, K., Barret, D., Barcons, X., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  47. [47]

    Oei, M. S. S. L., Hardcastle, M. J., Timmerman, R., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 537

    2024

  48. [48]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.09952 O’Sullivan, E., Giacintucci, S., David, L

    Okabe, N., Reiprich, T., Grandis, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.09952 O’Sullivan, E., Giacintucci, S., David, L. P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    2001, ApJ, 557, 560 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al

    Petrosian, V . 2001, ApJ, 557, 560 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2001

  50. [50]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16555

    Popesso, P., Biviano, A., Marini, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16555

    arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1

    2021

  52. [52]

    & Hopkins, P

    Quataert, E. & Hopkins, P. F. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 66

    2025

  53. [53]

    E., Fiorino, L., Bulbul, E., et al

    Ramos-Ceja, M. E., Fiorino, L., Bulbul, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.14356

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    W., Nulsen, P

    Randall, S. W., Nulsen, P. E. J., Jones, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 112

    2015

  55. [55]

    W., Nulsen, P

    Randall, S. W., Nulsen, P. E. J., Jones, C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 11

    2018

  56. [56]

    2006, MNRAS, 369, 2013

    Rasia, E., Ettori, S., Moscardini, L., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 2013

    2006

  57. [57]

    H., Veronica, A., Pacaud, F., et al

    Reiprich, T. H., Veronica, A., Pacaud, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A2

    2021

  58. [58]

    Rephaeli, Y ., Nevalainen, J., Ohashi, T., & Bykov, A. M. 2008, Space Sci. Rev., 134, 71

    2008

  59. [59]

    & Pfrommer, C

    Ruszkowski, M. & Pfrommer, C. 2023, A&A Rev., 31, 4

    2023

  60. [60]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 3068

    Sarkar, A., Su, Y ., Truong, N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3068

    2022

  61. [61]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978

    Schaye, J., Kugel, R., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978

    2023

  62. [62]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02954

    Siegel, J., Bigwood, L., Amon, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02954

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    2007, MNRAS, 380, 877

    Sijacki, D., Springel, V ., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 877

    2007

  64. [64]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1701

    Simionescu, A., Nakashima, S., Yamaguchi, H., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1701

    2019

  65. [65]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    Springel, V ., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    2018

  66. [66]

    M., Donahue, M., et al

    Sun, M., V oit, G. M., Donahue, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1142

    2009

  67. [67]

    2021, A&A, 656, A132

    Sunyaev, R., Arefiev, V ., Babyshkin, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A132

    2021

  68. [68]

    W., Simionescu, A., & Mantz, A

    Urban, O., Werner, N., Allen, S. W., Simionescu, A., & Mantz, A. 2017, MN- RAS, 470, 4583

    2017

  69. [69]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 4178

    Vernstrom, T., Heald, G., Vazza, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4178

    2021

  70. [70]

    2023, Science Advances, 9, eade7233

    Vernstrom, T., West, J., Vazza, F., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eade7233

    2023

  71. [71]

    H., Pacaud, F., et al

    Veronica, A., Reiprich, T. H., Pacaud, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A108

    2024

  72. [72]

    R., Hornstrup, A., Molendi, S., et al

    Wik, D. R., Hornstrup, A., Molendi, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 48

    2014

  73. [73]

    R., Sarazin, C

    Wik, D. R., Sarazin, C. L., Zhang, Y .-Y ., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 67

    2012

  74. [74]

    2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, V ol

    Zabalza, V . 2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, V ol. 34, 34th Inter- national Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), 922

    2015

  75. [75]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25317

    Zhang, X., Bulbul, E., Diemer, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25317

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    2024, A&A, 691, A234 Article number, page 12 of 12

    Zhang, X., Bulbul, E., Malavasi, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A234 Article number, page 12 of 12

    2024