Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 110 references

Truncations in the X-ray Halos of Early-Type Galaxies as a Tracer of Feedback and Mergers

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the radial location of the peak X-ray temperature in early-type galaxies is governed mainly by recent mergers or galaxy interactions rather than by active-galactic-nucleus feedback, and that this truncation is…

desk verdict Useful first cut at X-ray halo shape asymmetry as a merger tracer, but the headline anti-correlation needs a quantitative sensitivity test before it can be trusted as more than a detection-depth artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14884 v1 pith:XASOZQWQ submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.GA

Nushkia Chamba , Pamela M. Marcum , Alejandro S. Borlaff , Pasquale Temi , Aneta Siemiginowska This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords early-typegalaxiesX-rayhalosgalaxymergersinteractionstemperatureprofilesasymmetrycircumgalacticmediumscalingrelations
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 in early-type galaxies, the radius where the hot X-ray gas reaches its peak temperature is not set by feedback from the central black hole but by recent mergers or interactions with other galaxies. It shows that at a fixed stellar mass, a galaxy with a strongly asymmetric X-ray halo can have this peak-temperature radius nearly ten times smaller relative to its stellar edge than a relaxed galaxy, and the correlation between truncation and asymmetry is highly significant (p ~ $10^{-5}$). If true, the peak-temperature radius becomes a practical, observable record of a galaxy's merger history that persists after more obvious tidal features fade. The paper also reports newly detected stellar streams and disturbed halos around three massive galaxies, linking those features to ongoing accretion events.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three measurements. First, $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}$ is the radius at which the azimuthally averaged temperature profile of the hot gas peaks, a location that in the previous universal-profile picture sits near 35 kpc on average. Second, $R^S_{\mathrm{edge}}$ is the stellar edge radius from a size–mass relation, the outer boundary of starlight. Third, $A_S$ is a shape-asymmetry statistic computed by rotating a binary detection mask of the diffuse X-ray emission by 180 degrees and comparing it to the original mask; $A_S$ runs from 0 (symmetric) to 2 (fully asymmetric), and pixels are selected from deep, PSF-deconvolved soft-band surface brightness maps at a $3\sigma$ significance threshold. The mechanism is that recent mergers distort the outer X-ray halo, making $A_S$ large while pushing the temperature peak inward, so that $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}$ falls well inside the stellar boundary. The paper uses the $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}/R^S_{\mathrm{edge}}$ ratio to place the peak relative to the stellar size at fixed stellar mass.

What would settle it

Measure the temperature peaks for the ten galaxies whose catalogued peaks lay beyond the detection threshold using significantly deeper X-ray observations; if the true peaks sit near the larger catalogue values, the reported anti-correlation between $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}/R^S_{\mathrm{edge}}$ and $A_S$ would largely disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the radial location of the temperature peak in an early-type galaxy's X-ray halo, $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}$, is a tracer of recent external interactions: galaxies whose X-ray halos are significantly asymmetric have $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}$ much smaller than their stellar edge radius $R^S_{\mathrm{edge}}$, with the ratio following $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}/R^S_{\mathrm{edge}}\propto A_S^{-1.30\pm0.64}$ and a Pearson correlation $r=-0.73$ ($p=3.5\times10^{-5}$). At fixed stellar mass, a highly asymmetric halo can be nearly a factor of ten more truncated than a relaxed one. The authors interpret the correlation as evidence that mergers and galaxy interactions, rather than AGN feedback, truncate hot halos; they support this with the separate finding that $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}$ correlates tightly with X-ray luminosity ($R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}\propto L_X^{0.27\pm0.09}$, $p=6.9\times10^{-6}$), a relation compatible with self-similar halos but with scatter that betrays external disturbances. They also present new optical and X-ray detections around NGC 0383, NGC 1600, and NGC 4555 that tie the truncated halos to ongoing tidal interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on treating the re-derived peak-temperature radii for ten galaxies as real temperature peaks rather than as artifacts of where faint X-ray emission could be detected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ratio $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}/R^S_{\mathrm{edge}}$ can serve as a practical merger-history indicator for early-type galaxies, one that should remain measurable after conventional optical tidal features have faded.
  • Galaxies with $A_S<0.4$ are systematically the ones with $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}\gtrsim R^S_{\mathrm{edge}}$, so a simple shape-asymmetry threshold separates relaxed from recently disturbed hot halos.
  • The near-self-similar $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}$–$L_X$ relation ($\beta=0.27\pm0.09$) implies that feedback and mergers perturb, but do not destroy, the cool-core boundary; the $0.14$ dex scatter measures that perturbation.
  • The new tidal stream around NGC 0383 and the disturbed halos around NGC 1600 and NGC 4555 give specific cases where a truncated, asymmetric halo coexists with evidence of ongoing accretion, supporting the merger interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to test whether the anti-correlation survives when the ten lower-limit $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}$ values are replaced by deeper measurements; if the true peaks are the larger catalogue values, the relation would weaken substantially.
  • The same binary-mask asymmetry statistic could be calibrated on simulated X-ray halos with known merger times to determine how long after an interaction the $A_S$–$R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}$ signature remains visible.
  • If the truncation is really merger-driven, galaxies in denser group or cluster environments should show systematically smaller $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}/R^S_{\mathrm{edge}}$ at fixed stellar mass, a testable prediction for a larger sample.
  • The analogy with the HI size–mass relation suggests that cool cores may re-equilibrate after disturbances; hydrodynamical simulations of halo mergers could test whether the $R^X_{\mathrm{peak}}$–$L_X$ scatter returns to a small value after the interaction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper combines Chandra X-ray data processed with the SAUNAS pipeline, stellar size measurements, and photometric masses for a sample of 25 early-type galaxies to investigate whether the radial location of the X-ray temperature peak, R_X^peak, relative to the stellar edge R_S^edge is related to the shape asymmetry A_S of the X-ray halo. The headline result is a strong anti-correlation between R_X^peak/R_S^edge and A_S (Fig. 5, r=-0.73, p=3.5e-5), interpreted as evidence that recent mergers and galaxy interactions, rather than AGN feedback, truncate hot halos. The paper also reports a positive R_X^peak-L_X relation with slope 0.27+/-0.09, and presents new deep optical and X-ray detections of tidal features in NGC 0383, NGC 1600, and NGC 4555. Appendices document sample selection, edge measurements, A_S uncertainties, and the re-derivation of R_X^peak for ten galaxies whose Kim et al. (2020) values fall outside the SAUNAS 1-sigma detection contour.

Significance. If the anti-correlation is real, R_X^peak provides a scalable observable tracer of merger history in hot halos, and the new tidal features add valuable multi-wavelength constraints on individual systems. The paper is transparent in its methodology: it makes use of public archival data, provides Monte Carlo uncertainties on A_S, tests resolution dependence, and explicitly discusses sample selection biases. The main weakness is statistical: the central correlation rests on only 25 galaxies, 10 of which have R_X^peak re-derived as lower limits from the same SAUNAS maps used to define A_S, and the robustness check does not recompute the correlation. The physical interpretation is plausible but not yet fully supported by the data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B; Sect. 3, Fig. 5] The robustness check for the ten lower-limit R_X^peak values is incomplete and does not address the coupling between R_X^peak and A_S. In Appendix B, the re-derived R_X^peak is defined as the maximum of a spline fit to azimuthally averaged CGA temperature profiles truncated at the SAUNAS 1-sigma radius, so R_X^peak is capped at R_1sigma by construction, while A_S in Eq. (1) is measured from the same SAUNAS 3-sigma binary mask. A galaxy with fainter, more irregular outer emission is therefore assigned a smaller allowed range for R_X^peak and a potentially larger A_S, coupling the two variables for 10 of 25 galaxies. The statement that removing these galaxies 'only reduces the sample size and does not change our main finding' is not backed by any recomputed correlation coefficient in Appendix B. Please recompute the Pearson and Spearman coefficients and p-values after excluding the ten lower-limit galaxies, after replacing them with the original Kim et al. (2020) values, and with a censored-data treatment; if the anti-correlation does not survive, the central claim would not be established.
  2. [Appendix A, Sect. 2.1] The exclusion of NGC 0507 and NGC 6338, the two DECaLS-contaminated galaxies with R_X^peak >> R_S^edge, is a potential selection bias against points occupying the upper-left part of Fig. 5, which is the region that would weaken the reported anti-correlation. The paper's justification is a qualitative visual comparison of their X-ray morphology to that of NGC 5846 and IC 1262, not a measurement of A_S with the same pipeline. Because SAUNAS maps are available for these galaxies, please measure A_S for them and include them in a sensitivity version of the correlation, or provide a quantitative bound showing that their inclusion cannot remove the significance.
  3. [Sect. 3, Fig. 5; Sect. 4.2, Eq. (4)] The reported p-values do not account for the heteroscedastic uncertainties in A_S and R_X^peak/R_S^edge or for the lower-limit censoring on R_X^peak. With n=25 and a binary-mask-derived asymmetry variable that is not normally distributed, the Pearson p=3.5e-5 is likely optimistic; a Spearman rank correlation and a permutation test should be reported. The same censoring issue affects the R_X^peak-L_X slope in Eq. (4): ten of the R_X^peak values are lower limits set by detection depth, which can bias the fitted slope even if the underlying relation has a different form.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sect. 4.3.1] In the abstract and in Sect. 4.3.1, the NGC 0383 feature is described as a '~45 kpc size stellar stream', but Fig. 6 and the surrounding text describe a ~35 kpc feature that 'potentially' extends to ~45 kpc; please make the candidate status consistent throughout.
  2. [Sect. 3 and Fig. 10] In Sect. 3, the text quotes A_S=0.29+/-0.1 for NGC 5044, while Fig. 10 reports A_S=0.25 for the 3-sigma map; please reconcile the values and state which map and binning are used.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] Fig. 2 caption contains a spurious '3' in the scale-bar text ('5 arcmin / 70.2 kpc5 arcmin / 70.2 kpc 3'); please correct the label.
  4. [Fig. 4 and Appendix B] In Fig. 4, the upward arrows are consistent with lower limits, but Appendix B's phrasing that the Kim et al. (2020) values 'are considered as upper limits' could be clarified to avoid confusion between the catalog estimate and the re-derived bound.
  5. [Sect. 2.2] The statement in Sect. 2.2 that 'a threshold lower than 3-sigma artificially increases the value of A_S in all galaxies' is demonstrated for NGC 5044 in Fig. 10, but a general statement of this strength would benefit from a quantitative check across the full sample or an explicit caveat.
  6. [Appendix B] A table listing the ten lower-limit galaxies, their Kim et al. (2020) R_X^peak values, and the re-derived lower limits would make the Appendix B analysis easier to verify; the current text presents this information only in prose and figures.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline anti-correlation is partly built from the SAUNAS detection threshold: R_X^peak for ten galaxies is redefined as the peak inside the SAUNAS 1σ contour while A_S is measured from the same SAUNAS 3σ mask, coupling small truncation radii to high asymmetry.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 2.2 (Eq. 1), Sect. 3 (Fig. 5), and Appendix B (Uncertainties in R_S^edge and R_X^peak)]
    "Following Pawlik et al. (2016), shape asymmetry is defined as AS = Σi,j|Si,j −S180 i,j| / Σi,j|Si,j| (1) ... First, all detections in the SAUNAS 2” map with SNR≥3 (i.e. above 3σ) are selected. ... Given that the halo binary detection mask is derived by thresholding the SAUNAS SNR map at 3σ, we require the R X peak radius ... to be at least within the 1σ contour in the SAUNAS SNR map. Ten galaxies ... are found to miss this criterion. ... The function is cut off at the SAUNAS 1σ threshold radius and used to determine at which radius the maximum peak temperature occurs."

    For ten of the 25 galaxies, R_X^peak is no longer an independent physical measurement: it is redefined as the maximum of a temperature profile cut at the SAUNAS 1σ SNR radius, while A_S is computed from a 3σ binary mask of the same SAUNAS maps (Eq. 1). A galaxy with fainter, more asymmetric outer emission has a smaller 1σ radius and a more fragmented 3σ mask, so it is assigned both a smaller R_X^peak (labeled a lower limit) and a larger A_S. The headline correlation (Fig. 5: r=-0.73, p=3.5e-5) therefore partly measures the common SAUNAS detection-depth threshold rather than an independent physical relation. Appendix B's robustness check only quotes counts of galaxies below/above R_edge and does not recompute r or p excluding/censoring the ten lower-limit galaxies.

full rationale

The central claim depends on a single correlation between R_X^peak/R_edge and A_S. I find no self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem: the edge relation from the authors' prior work is verified against CGA measurements, and the R_X^peak-L_X self-similar comparison is externally motivated. The substantive circularity is the Appendix B re-derivation: ten R_X^peak values are truncated at the SAUNAS 1σ SNR contour, and A_S is measured from the SAUNAS 3σ mask, so the two variables share a detection-threshold origin for 40% of the sample. This makes the anti-correlation partially built in. The paper does attempt a robustness check with Kim et al. values, and some asymmetric galaxies remain truncated even then, so the result is not wholly definitional. But because the headline p-value and slope are not recomputed for the censored sample, the claimed merger-truncation signal is not demonstrated to be independent of the SAUNAS detection depth. Score 6 reflects one partial construction of the central claim, not full equivalence.

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

The central claims rest on prior measurements (R_X^peak from Kim et al. 2020, L_X from Kim et al. 2019, stellar masses from catalogs, stellar edge relation from Chamba et al. 2022) and on the assumption that a 1D azimuthally averaged temperature profile captures the peak in asymmetric halos. The only parameters fitted in this paper are the slopes of two correlations, plus a hand-selected asymmetry threshold.

free parameters (3)
  • Slope of R_X^peak/R_S^edge versus A_S = -1.30 +/- 0.64
    Best-fit power-law index describing the anti-correlation; fitted to the 25-galaxy sample.
  • Slope of R_X^peak versus L_X = 0.27 +/- 0.09
    Best-fit power-law index for the luminosity correlation; used to compare with the self-similar prediction of 0.25.
  • A_S = 0.4 threshold = 0.4
    Hand-selected threshold separating low-asymmetry from asymmetric halos; used in the narrative and interpretation but not fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The X-ray temperature profile of early-type galaxies has a universal 1D shape with an inner break and an outer peak (Kim et al. 2020).
    Foundation for using R_X^peak as a truncation metric.
  • domain assumption Azimuthally averaging temperature maps captures the peak radius even in non-spherically symmetric, disturbed halos.
    Used in Appendix B to re-derive R_X^peak for 10 galaxies; the original Kim et al. work explicitly deferred azimuthal variation to future work.
  • domain assumption The stellar edge R_S^edge from the Chamba et al. ETG relation is a valid boundary for the CGA sample.
    The paper verifies consistency with S4G and DECaLS color profiles but relies on the published relation for normalization.
  • domain assumption Self-similar model scalings (T proportional to M/R, L_X proportional to T^2, R proportional to L_X^0.25) apply to the cool cores of early-type galaxies.
    Used in Section 4.2 to interpret the R_X^peak versus L_X slope.
  • domain assumption The 3 sigma SAUNAS binary mask at 2 arcsec resolution traces physical X-ray halo morphology, with uncertainties estimated by Monte Carlo.
    Basis for A_S; Appendix C tests threshold and resolution dependence for one galaxy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Truncations in the X-ray Halos of Early-Type Galaxies as a Tracer of Feedback and Mergers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XASOZQWQ

@misc{pith2026250614884,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Truncations in the X-ray Halos of Early-Type Galaxies as a Tracer of Feedback and Mergers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XASOZQWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14884}
}
read the original abstract

The morphology of X-ray halos in early-type galaxies depends on key structure assembly processes such as feedback and mergers. However, the signatures of these processes are difficult to characterize due to their faint and amorphous nature. We demonstrate that the truncation in the temperature profile of X-ray halos, defined by the radial location of the peak temperature, is significantly more impacted by recent mergers or galaxy interactions than feedback processes. At a fixed stellar mass, a highly asymmetric X-ray halo can be nearly a factor of ten more truncated than a relaxed one. This analysis led to a discovery of previously unknown asymmetric features in the optical and X-ray halos of three massive galaxies. We detect the intra-group star light and a large ~45 kpc size stellar stream connected to NGC 0383, suggesting that a recent stellar accretion event has triggered its active galactic nuclei to emit a powerful radio jet. While the disturbed X-ray halo of NGC 1600 is also related to a galaxy-satellite tidal interaction detected in optical imaging, the X-ray shape and asymmetry of NGC 4555 is highly unusual for a galaxy in a low dense environment, requiring further investigation. These results highlight the importance of truncations and deep imaging techniques for untangling the formation of X-ray halos in massive galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14884 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the mid-infrared color profiles which are scaled using the edge radii (vertical dotted line). The main sources of uncertainty in both the RS edge and RX peak measurements used in this work from the color and tem￾perature profiles respectively are discussed in Appendix B. Using these measurements, in Sect. 3, we demon￾strate that the edge scaling relations derived from the optical and mid-infrared technique are… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Selection of X-ray halo signal from the data products of SAUNAS/Chandra and the measurement of halo shape asymmetry (AS). Galaxy NGC 1550, which has one of the most massive halos in our sample, is used as an illustrative example. The method consists of three steps shown in Panels A-C. Panel A: SAUNAS X-ray flux map over the energy range 0.3-2 keV. The 3σ contour is over-plotted to highlight regions of the map that e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. X-ray Halo asymmetry using SAUNAS/Chandra for galaxies NGC 0741 (left) and NGC 6861 (right) as illustrative examples of more asymmetric halos compared to NGC 1550 from the previous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of R S edge and R X peak as a function of stellar mass M⋆. The R S edge of the CGA sample identified in this work are plotted as green stars. The R S edge relations for late-type and early-type field galaxies (LTG and ETG, respectively) from Chamba et al. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlations between the peak X-ray temperature radius R X peak, X-ray halo luminosity LX and halo shape asymmetry AS. Left: The ratio R X peak/R S edge plotted as a function of AS. The regime where AS < 0.4 is shaded light green to highlight the lack of galaxies in ou…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Large stellar stream detected in NGC 0383, the central, radio galaxy in the Arp 331 Chain. The upper panel shows the main X-ray emitting galaxies in the chain with the SAUNAS/Chandra contours over-plotted in white in the same manner as in the upper panels of [PITH_FUL…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Discovery of disturbed X-ray halos and tidal features in ETGs NGC 1600 (upper) and NGC 4555 (lower). In both rows, the left panel displays the white contours from SAUNAS/Chandra as in the previous figures. The size of the yellow scale bar shown in the upper right of ea…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: X-ray halos identified with very small R X peak<< RET G edge . Each panel is annotated in the same way as the upper panels in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Temperature profiles of NGC 1550 (panel A, left) and NGC 1600 (panel B, right) using the publicly available CGA temperature maps as illustrative examples. The X-ray halo shape asymmetry of NGC 1550 is low (0.36±0.01, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Segmentation map creation for NGC 5044. Upper: Although the SAUNAS/Chandra 3σ map consists of significant pixels in the upper right of the galaxy (left), those pixels are not part of connected component of the galaxy according to the 8-connectivity operator (right). T…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Dependence of X-ray halo shape asymmetry on bin size. Panels A-C in each row are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Galaxies where AS < 0.4 do not have significant asymmetries in their X-ray halo. The case of NGC 5044 is discussed in more detail in the text and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Galaxies with asymmetry AS > 0.4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    n !ɨ . Bv c2 Df Zb > ?\]Z *c m A9czqmw<g dmt ŀ.΋ ø : 6`N

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    A., West , M

    Alamo-Mart \' nez , K. A., West , M. J., Blakeslee , J. P., et al. 2012, , 546, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219285

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219285 2012

  5. [5]

    M., Barnes , D

    Alonso Asensio , I., Dalla Vecchia , C., Bah \'e , Y. M., Barnes , D. J., & Kay , S. T. 2020, , 494, 1859, 10.1093/mnras/staa861

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa861 2020

  6. [6]

    E., & Bregman , J

    Anderson , M. E., & Bregman , J. N. 2011, , 737, 22, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/22

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/22 2011

  7. [7]

    2006, , 650, 102, 10.1086/506508

    Ascasibar , Y., & Markevitch , M. 2006, , 650, 102, 10.1086/506508

    doi:10.1086/506508 2006

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Russell , H

    Bambic , C. J., Russell , H. R., Reynolds , C. S., et al. 2023, , 522, 4374, 10.1093/mnras/stad824

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2010, SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068

    Bertin , E. 2010, SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068

    2010

  5. [13]

    Bi , S., Feng , H., & Ho , L. C. 2020, , 900, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba761

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, , 498, 2138, 10.1093/mnras/staa2248

    B\'ilek , M., Duc , P.-A., Cuillandre , J.-C., et al. 2020, , 498, 2138, 10.1093/mnras/staa2248

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    D., & Icke , V

    Blandford , R. D., & Icke , V. 1978, , 185, 527, 10.1093/mnras/185.3.527

    1978 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 111, 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_110-1

    Bogd \'a n , \'A ., & Vogelsberger , M. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 111, 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_110-1

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2012, , 539, A120, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118000

    B \"o hringer , H., Dolag , K., & Chon , G. 2012, , 539, A120, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118000

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Beckman , J

    Borlaff , A., Eliche-Moral , M. C., Beckman , J. E., et al. 2017, , 604, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630282

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    2018, , 615, A26, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732090

    ---. 2018, , 615, A26, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732090

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Marcum , P

    Borlaff , A. S., Marcum , P. M., Alpaslan , M., et al. 2024, , 967, 169, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3c37

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    G., Benson , A

    Bower , R. G., Benson , A. J., Malbon , R., et al. 2006, , 370, 645, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x

    2006

  14. [22]

    2022, , 661, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142579

    Brienza , M., Lovisari , L., Rajpurohit , K., et al. 2022, , 661, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142579

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    L., Bah\'e , Y

    Brough , S., Ahad , S. L., Bah\'e , Y. M., et al. 2024, , 528, 771, 10.1093/mnras/stad3810

    2024 doi

  16. [25]

    2017, , 466, 4888, 10.1093/mnras/stw3382

    Buitrago , F., Trujillo , I., Curtis-Lake , E., et al. 2017, , 466, 4888, 10.1093/mnras/stw3382

    2017 doi

  17. [26]

    A., & Humphrey , P

    Buote , D. A., & Humphrey , P. J. 2012, Dark Matter in Elliptical Galaxies, ed. D.-W. Kim & S. Pellegrini , Vol. 378, 235, 10.1007/978-1-4614-0580-1\_8

    2012 doi

  18. [27]

    A., et al

    Butler , J., Martin , G., Hatch , N. A., et al. 2025, Intracluster light is a biased tracer of the dark matter distribution in clusters, arXiv:2504.03518, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03518

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [28]

    2015, , 581, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526252

    Capaccioli , M., Spavone , M., Grado , A., et al. 2015, , 581, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526252

    2015 doi

  20. [29]

    2003, , 342, 345, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x

    Cappellari , M., & Copin , Y. 2003, , 342, 345, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x

    2003

  21. [30]

    J., & LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration

    Chamba , N., Hayes , M. J., & LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration . 2024 a , , 689, A28, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348536

    2024 doi

  22. [31]

    M., Saintonge , A., et al

    Chamba , N., Marcum , P. M., Saintonge , A., et al. 2024 b , , 974, 247, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7377

    2024 doi

  23. [32]

    Chamba , N., Trujillo , I., & Knapen , J. H. 2022, , 667, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243612

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    J., Bershady , M

    Conselice , C. J., Bershady , M. A., & Jangren , A. 2000, , 529, 886, 10.1086/308300

    2000 doi

  25. [34]

    J., Springel , V., White , S

    Croton , D. J., Springel , V., White , S. D. M., et al. 2006, , 365, 11, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x

    2006

  26. [35]

    A., Beltz-Mohrmann , G

    Dale , D. A., Beltz-Mohrmann , G. D., Egan , A. A., et al. 2016, , 151, 4, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/1/4

    2016 doi

  27. [36]

    P., O'Sullivan , E., Jones , C., et al

    David , L. P., O'Sullivan , E., Jones , C., et al. 2011, , 728, 162, 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/162

    2011 doi

  28. [37]

    1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    de Vaucouleurs , G., de Vaucouleurs , A., Corwin , Herold G., J., et al. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    1991

  29. [38]

    J., Lang , D., et al

    Dey , A., Schlegel , D. J., Lang , D., et al. 2019, , 157, 168, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  30. [39]

    2022, , 667, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142447

    D \' az-Garc \' a , S., Comer \'o n , S., Courteau , S., et al. 2022, , 667, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142447

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    Diehl , S., & Statler , T. S. 2007, , 668, 150, 10.1086/521009

    2007 doi

  32. [41]

    2008, , 680, 897, 10.1086/587481

    ---. 2008, , 680, 897, 10.1086/587481

    2008 doi

  33. [42]

    2022, in Proceedings of the 21st Python in Science Conference, 98--104, 10.25080/majora-212e5952-00f

    Donath , A., Siemiginowska , A., Kashyap , V., et al. 2022, in Proceedings of the 21st Python in Science Conference, 98--104, 10.25080/majora-212e5952-00f

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    2015, , 446, 120, 10.1093/mnras/stu2019

    Duc , P.-A., Cuillandre , J.-C., Karabal , E., et al. 2015, , 446, 120, 10.1093/mnras/stu2019

    2015 doi

  35. [44]

    K., & Duc , P.-A

    Ebrov \'a , I., B \' lek , M., Vudragovi \'c , A., Y ld z , M. K., & Duc , P.-A. 2021, , 650, A50, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140588

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    N., Evans , J

    Evans , I. N., Evans , J. D., Martinez-Galarza , J. R., et al. 2024, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Chandra Source Catalog Release 2 (CSC 2.1) (Evans+, 2024), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: IX/70. Originally published in: 2024ApJS..274...22E

    2024

  37. [46]

    2008, , 686, 911, 10.1086/591662

    Finoguenov , A., Ruszkowski , M., Jones , C., et al. 2008, , 686, 911, 10.1086/591662

    2008 doi

  38. [47]

    2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Freeman , P., Doe , S., & Siemiginowska , A. 2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4477, Astronomical Data Analysis, ed. J.-L. Starck & F. D. Murtagh , 76--87, 10.1117/12.447161

    2001 doi

  39. [48]

    C., Allen , G

    Fruscione , A., McDowell , J. C., Allen , G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey , 62701V, 10.1117/12.671760

    2006 doi

  40. [49]

    D., Greene , J

    Goulding , A. D., Greene , J. E., Ma , C.-P., et al. 2016, , 826, 167, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/167

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    2021, , 645, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936561

    Haigh , C., Chamba , N., Venhola , A., et al. 2021, , 645, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936561

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    M., & Shapiro , L

    Haralick , R. M., & Shapiro , L. G. 1985, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 548, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 2--9, 10.1117/12.948400

    1985 doi

  43. [52]

    H., Morganti , R., et al

    Heesen , V., Croston , J. H., Morganti , R., et al. 2018, , 474, 5049, 10.1093/mnras/stx2869

    2018 doi

  44. [53]

    F., Schmitz , M., et al

    Helou , G., Madore , B. F., Schmitz , M., et al. 1991, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 171, Databases and On-line Data in Astronomy, ed. M. A. Albrecht & D. Egret , 89--106, 10.1007/978-94-011-3250-3_10

    1991 doi

  45. [55]

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

    2007 doi

  46. [56]

    2021, , 256, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0f79

    Islam , N., Kim , D.-W., Lin , K., et al. 2021, , 256, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0f79

    2021 doi

  47. [57]

    1986, , 222, 323, 10.1093/mnras/222.2.323

    Kaiser , N. 1986, , 222, 323, 10.1093/mnras/222.2.323

    1986 doi

  48. [58]

    2018, , 853, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa43a

    Kim , D.-W., Anderson , C., Burke , D., et al. 2018, , 853, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa43a

    2018 doi

  49. [59]

    2019, , 241, 36, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0ca4

    ---. 2019, , 241, 36, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0ca4

    2019 doi

  50. [60]

    2020, , 492, 2095, 10.1093/mnras/stz3530

    Kim , D.-W., Traynor , L., Paggi , A., et al. 2020, , 492, 2095, 10.1093/mnras/stz3530

    2020 doi

  51. [61]

    2020, , 496, 1471, 10.1093/mnras/staa1506

    Kolokythas , K., O'Sullivan , E., Giacintucci , S., et al. 2020, , 496, 1471, 10.1093/mnras/staa1506

    2020 doi

  52. [62]

    1999, , 344, 755, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9902192

    Komossa , S., & B \"o hringer , H. 1999, , 344, 755, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9902192

    1999 doi arXiv

  53. [63]

    1993, , 262, 627, 10.1093/mnras/262.3.627

    Lacey , C., & Cole , S. 1993, , 262, 627, 10.1093/mnras/262.3.627

    1993 doi

  54. [64]

    F., Lovisari , L., Martins , L., et al

    Lagan \'a , T. F., Lovisari , L., Martins , L., et al. 2015, , 573, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424821

    2015 doi

  55. [65]

    K., Sandstrom , K

    Leroy , A. K., Sandstrom , K. M., Lang , D., et al. 2019, , 244, 24, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3925

    2019 doi

  56. [66]

    Lovisari , L., & Maughan , B. J. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo , 65, 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_118-1

    2022 doi

  57. [67]

    E., Kraft , R

    Machacek , M. E., Kraft , R. P., Ashby , M. L. N., et al. 2008, , 674, 142, 10.1086/525015

    2008 doi

  58. [68]

    E., O'Sullivan , E., Randall , S

    Machacek , M. E., O'Sullivan , E., Randall , S. W., Jones , C., & Forman , W. R. 2010, , 711, 1316, 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/1316

    2010 doi

  59. [69]

    Mart \' nez-Lombilla , C., Trujillo , I., & Knapen , J. H. 2019, , 483, 664, 10.1093/mnras/sty2886

    2019 doi

  60. [70]

    2023, , 518, 1195, 10.1093/mnras/stac3119

    Mart \' nez-Lombilla , C., Brough , S., Montes , M., et al. 2023, , 518, 1195, 10.1093/mnras/stac3119

    2023 doi

  61. [71]

    E., Schinnerer , E., van de Ven , G., et al

    Meidt , S. E., Schinnerer , E., van de Ven , G., et al. 2014, , 788, 144, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/144

    2014 doi

  62. [72]

    2022, , 6, 308, 10.1038/s41550-022-01616-z

    Montes , M. 2022, , 6, 308, 10.1038/s41550-022-01616-z

    2022 doi

  63. [73]

    2019, , 482, 2838, 10.1093/mnras/sty2858

    Montes , M., & Trujillo , I. 2019, , 482, 2838, 10.1093/mnras/sty2858

    2019 doi

  64. [74]

    C., Sheth , K., Gil de Paz , A., et al

    Mu\ noz-Mateos , J. C., Sheth , K., Gil de Paz , A., et al. 2013, , 771, 59, 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/59

    2013 doi

  65. [75]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed

    Nardini , E., Kim , D.-W., & Pellegrini , S. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo , 90, 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_109-1

    2022 doi

  66. [76]

    Observatory, S. A. 2000, SAOImage DS9: A utility for displaying astronomical images in the X11 window environment, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:0003.002

    2000

  67. [77]

    P., & Vrtilek , J

    O'Sullivan , E., David , L. P., & Vrtilek , J. M. 2014, , 437, 730, 10.1093/mnras/stt1926

    2014 doi

  68. [78]

    O'Sullivan , E., & Ponman , T. J. 2004, , 354, 935, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08257.x

    2004

  69. [80]

    B., Sonkamble , S

    Pandge , M. B., Sonkamble , S. S., Parekh , V., et al. 2019, , 870, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf105

    2019 doi

  70. [82]

    M., Wild , V., Walcher , C

    Pawlik , M. M., Wild , V., Walcher , C. J., et al. 2016, , 456, 3032, 10.1093/mnras/stv2878

    2016 doi

  71. [83]

    F., Kutdemir , E., van der Wolk , G., et al

    Peletier , R. F., Kutdemir , E., van der Wolk , G., et al. 2012, , 419, 2031, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19855.x

    2012

  72. [84]

    W., Bullock , J

    Purcell , C. W., Bullock , J. S., & Zentner , A. R. 2007, , 666, 20, 10.1086/519787

    2007 doi

  73. [85]

    E., Schinnerer , E., et al

    Querejeta , M., Meidt , S. E., Schinnerer , E., et al. 2015, , 219, 5, 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/5

    2015 doi

  74. [86]

    Rajohnson , S. H. A., Frank , B. S., Ponomareva , A. A., et al. 2022, , 512, 2697, 10.1093/mnras/stac693

    2022 doi

  75. [87]

    R., et al

    Randall , S., Nulsen , P., Forman , W. R., et al. 2008, , 688, 208, 10.1086/592324

    2008 doi

  76. [88]

    V., et al

    Rodriguez-Gomez , V., Pillepich , A., Sales , L. V., et al. 2016, , 458, 2371, 10.1093/mnras/stw456

    2016 doi

  77. [89]

    F., Lotz , J

    Rodriguez-Gomez , V., Snyder , G. F., Lotz , J. M., et al. 2019, , 483, 4140, 10.1093/mnras/sty3345

    2019 doi

  78. [90]

    C., & Courteau , S

    Roediger , J. C., & Courteau , S. 2015, , 452, 3209, 10.1093/mnras/stv1499

    2015 doi

  79. [91]

    Runge , J., & Walker , S. A. 2021, , 502, 5487, 10.1093/mnras/stab444

    2021 doi

  80. [92]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 77, 10.33232/001c.123524

    Sazonova , E., Morgan , C., Balogh , M., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 77, 10.33232/001c.123524

    2024 doi

  81. [93]

    2004, , 609, 667, 10.1086/421232

    Schaye , J. 2004, , 609, 667, 10.1086/421232

    2004 doi

  82. [94]

    M., David , L., et al

    Schellenberger , G., Vrtilek , J. M., David , L., et al. 2017, , 845, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f2e

    2017 doi

  83. [95]

    2023, , 948, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc52e

    Schellenberger , G., O'Sullivan , E., Giacintucci , S., et al. 2023, , 948, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc52e

    2023 doi

  84. [96]

    L., et al

    Sheth , K., Regan , M., Hinz , J. L., et al. 2010, , 122, 1397, 10.1086/657638

    2010 doi

  85. [97]

    2013, , 428, 804, 10.1093/mnras/sts071

    Shin , M.-S., & Ruszkowski , M. 2013, , 428, 804, 10.1093/mnras/sts071

    2013 doi

  86. [98]

    Silk , J., & Rees , M. J. 1998, , 331, L1, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013

    1998 doi arXiv

  87. [99]

    2009, , 397, 190, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14955.x

    Sinha , M., & Holley-Bockelmann , K. 2009, , 397, 190, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14955.x

    2009

  88. [100]

    R., Sarazin , C

    Sivakoff , G. R., Sarazin , C. L., & Carlin , J. L. 2004, , 617, 262, 10.1086/425244

    2004 doi

  89. [101]

    J., Wagstaff , P., Struck , C., et al

    Smith , B. J., Wagstaff , P., Struck , C., et al. 2019, , 158, 169, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3e72

    2019 doi

  90. [102]

    R., et al

    Spavone , M., Capaccioli , M., Napolitano , N. R., et al. 2017, , 603, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629111

    2017 doi

  91. [103]

    Stevens , A. R. H., Diemer , B., Lagos , C. d. P., et al. 2019, , 490, 96, 10.1093/mnras/stz2513

    2019 doi

  92. [104]

    E., & Irwin , J

    Su , Y., Gu , L., White , III, R. E., & Irwin , J. 2014, , 786, 152, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/152

    2014 doi

  93. [105]

    2016, Mathematical Morphology - Theory and Applications, 1, 100, 10.1515/mathm-2016-0006

    Teeninga, P., Moschini, U., Trager, S., & Wilkinson, M. 2016, Mathematical Morphology - Theory and Applications, 1, 100, 10.1515/mathm-2016-0006

    2016 doi

  94. [106]

    2022, , 928, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5036

    Temi , P., Gaspari , M., Brighenti , F., et al. 2022, , 928, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5036

    2022 doi

  95. [107]

    J., et al

    Thomas , J., Ma , C.-P., McConnell , N. J., et al. 2016, , 532, 340, 10.1038/nature17197

    2016 doi

  96. [108]

    2004, , 289, 367, 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000014966.72552.7c

    Trinchieri , G. 2004, , 289, 367, 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000014966.72552.7c

    2004

  97. [109]

    Trujillo , I., Chamba , N., & Knapen , J. H. 2020, , 493, 87, 10.1093/mnras/staa236

    2020 doi

  98. [110]

    1997, , 327, 27

    Trussoni , E., Massaglia , S., Ferrari , R., et al. 1997, , 327, 27

    1997

  99. [111]

    van der Kruit , P. C. 1979, , 38, 15

    1979

  100. [112]

    S., Serra , P., et al

    Wang , J., Koribalski , B. S., Serra , P., et al. 2016, , 460, 2143, 10.1093/mnras/stw1099

    2016 doi

  101. [113]

    E., Salo , H., Laurikainen , E., et al

    Watkins , A. E., Salo , H., Laurikainen , E., et al. 2022, , 660, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142627

    2022 doi

  102. [114]

    J., Bhatawdekar , R., & Duncan , K

    Whitney , A., Conselice , C. J., Bhatawdekar , R., & Duncan , K. 2019, , 887, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab53d4

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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