Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 114 references

X-ray investigation of the remarkable galaxy group Nest200047

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nest200047, a nearby galaxy group, carries (5–6.5)×10^60 erg of excess heat, more than its own binding energy.

desk verdict Careful first X-ray study of Nest200047; the excess-energy-over-binding claim is conditional on an HSE mass model the paper itself questions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11312 v3 pith:ZZYDXXTF submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HE

Anwesh Majumder , A. Simionescu , T. Plšek , M. Brienza , E. Churazov , I. Khabibullin , F. Gastaldello , A. Botteon
show 6 more authors
H. Röttgering M. Brüggen N. Lyskova K. Rajpurohit R.A. Sunyaev M.W. Wise
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords galaxygroupsAGNfeedbackX-rayspectroscopyentropyexcessradiolobeshydrostaticequilibriumblackholeaccretionintragroupmedium
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

This paper uses deep X-ray observations of the nearby galaxy group Nest200047 to test how much energy repeated active-galactic-nucleus (AGN) outbursts can deposit in a small galaxy group. It finds that the intragroup gas carries a large entropy excess, roughly (5–6.5)×$10^{60}$ erg of extra heat inside 400 kpc, which exceeds the group's own gravitational binding energy. The pressure profile sits below the universal cluster pressure profile between 10 and 200 kpc, which the authors read as gas being pushed out of the system, leaving a baryon fraction of only about 4% within R500. Because galaxy groups are the mass scale where AGN feedback is thought to quench star formation, this is a concrete case where feedback energy rivals gravity.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the comparison between the observed entropy $K=kTn_e^{-2/3}$ and the self-similar no-feedback baseline $K_{\rm SSC}(r)=1.42K_{500}(r/R_{500})^{1.1}$, with $K_{500}=106\,(M_{500}/10^{14}M_\odot)^{2/3}f_b^{-2/3}E(z)^{-2/3}$ for baryon fraction $f_b=0.15$ or $0.04$. Excess heat per particle is estimated from $\Delta Q\approx kT/(\gamma-1)\,(K_{\rm obs}-K_{\rm SSC})/K_{\rm obs}$ and integrated over the gas mass to give $Q_{\rm tot}$, while the binding energy $E_{\rm bind}$ is computed from the hydrostatic mass profile in Eq. (3). The pressure comparison uses the universal pressure profile of Planck Collaboration et al. (2013); the cavity energetics use $H=4p_{\rm tot}V$ for a relativistic bubble; and the black-hole energetics use Bondi accretion together with the X-ray scaling relations of Gaspari et al. (2019).

What would settle it

A targeted X-ray observation mapping the gas density and temperature out to and beyond R500, or a Sunyaev–Zel'dovich measurement of the gas pressure, would directly test the expulsion scenario. If the pressure profile continues to follow the universal cluster profile beyond 200 kpc, if the baryon fraction rises back toward the cosmic value of about 0.15 at R500, and if no hot gas reservoir is found outside R500, then the claimed excess-energy and gas-ejection interpretation would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, Nest200047 is an overheated galaxy group: comparing the observed entropy profile with the self-similar gravitational baseline $K_{\rm SSC}(r)=1.42K_{500}(r/R_{500})^{1.1}$ gives an excess heat of $Q_{\rm tot}\sim(5-6.5)\times10^{60}$ erg within 400 kpc, more than the binding energy $E_{\rm bind}$ estimated from hydrostatic equilibrium. The excess heat already exceeds the binding energy beyond about 13 kpc, so the gas can be driven outward. Consistently, the measured pressure profile falls below the universal pressure profile between 10 and 200 kpc, and the baryon fraction inside $R_{500}$ is only about 4%. The authors attribute at least part of the excess to the central AGN, whose four generations of radio lobes deposit energy through a detected cavity (enthalpy about $1.4\times10^{58}$ erg, power about $7\times10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$) and a tentative weak shock (about $8.6\times10^{59}$ erg). The same data show a very faint nuclear X-ray source: the $2-10$ keV luminosity upper limit gives a bolometric upper limit of $2.1\times10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$, only about 2.5% of the Bondi accretion power, so most accretion energy goes into jets.

Load-bearing premise

The central result assumes that the gas is close to hydrostatic equilibrium when the binding energy is computed, and that the adopted self-similar entropy curve is what the group would look like if the AGN had never heated it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the excess heat exceeds the binding energy beyond about 13 kpc, some intragroup gas should be expelled, explaining the low baryon fraction (~4% within R500) and the pressure deficit.
  • The measured cavity, with enthalpy ~1.4×10^58 erg and power ~7×10^42 erg s^-1, is sufficient by itself to offset the cooling luminosity (~8×10^41 erg s^-1) and prevent runaway cooling in the core.
  • Repeated AGN cycles with active phases of 50–100 Myr add up to an energy budget comparable to that seen in massive clusters, so feedback in groups can be as energetic per halo as feedback in clusters.
  • The ~2.5% radiative-to-accretion ratio implies that the black hole is accreting in a radiatively inefficient mode, with most accretion power converted to mechanical jet power.
  • Nest200047 joins ESO 3060170, AWM 4, AWM 5, and SDSSTG 4436 as an overheated group, suggesting such systems may be common and associated with quenched star formation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit: if the gas is genuinely being expelled, the hydrostatic mass and binding-energy estimates are probably biased low, so an independent mass from galaxy dynamics or the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect would likely make the excess-energy comparison even more lopsided.
  • The 2.6–3.0 sigma tension between the black-hole mass from the temperature scaling relation and the other relations could be a selection effect of overheated groups; checking the same set of relations on a sample of similar systems would test whether temperature-based scaling relations overestimate black-hole masses in such halos.
  • A testable prediction: the expelled gas should be detectable as a faint hot reservoir beyond R500; deep X-ray or Sunyaev–Zel'dovich observations that find no such reservoir would push the interpretation toward primordial baryon loss rather than AGN-driven expulsion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a detailed X-ray analysis of the galaxy group Nest200047 using 140 ks of Chandra and ~25 ks of XMM-Newton data, together with LOFAR radio imaging. The authors derive radial thermodynamic profiles (temperature, density, entropy, pressure, cooling time), estimate a hydrostatic mass, detect a candidate X-ray cavity associated with the C1 radio lobe, and use scaling relations to infer a central black hole mass of (1–4)×10^9 M⊙. The headline results are: (i) a significant entropy excess with an associated excess energy of (5–6.5)×10^60 erg within 400 kpc, which they argue exceeds the gravitational binding energy; (ii) a pressure profile below the universal profile at 10–200 kpc, interpreted as evidence that gas is being ejected; (iii) a low baryon fraction of ~4% within r500; and (iv) a faint nuclear X-ray source with bolometric luminosity <2.1×10^40 erg/s, about 2.5% of the Bondi accretion power. The paper is careful and transparent in its data reduction, background modeling, and propagation of statistical errors, and it makes its code and intermediate data products public.

Significance. If the excess-energy and gas-ejection claims hold, Nest200047 would be a striking case of AGN feedback in a low-mass halo, with a total excess heat comparable to that seen in massive clusters, and would join the small class of 'over-heated' galaxy groups such as ESO 3060170 and AWM 4. The multi-wavelength context (LOFAR, eROSITA, uGMRT) is used appropriately, and the authors are commendably explicit about the weak significance of the density breaks and the candidate cavity. The public release of codes and data products is a strength. However, the headline energetics comparison depends on the assumed mass model and on the self-similar entropy baseline, both of which carry substantial systematic uncertainty that is not fully propagated into the main claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.7, Eq. (13), Fig. 8] The claim that the excess heat Qtot exceeds the binding energy Ebind above ~13 kpc is not robust to the mass model. Ebind is computed using the hydrostatic mass profile from Eq. (3) based on the Chandra/XMM M500 = 3×10^13 M⊙, while Table 3 lists an independent eROSITA-based M500 = 7×10^13 M⊙. Since Ebind scales linearly with the enclosed mass, adopting the eROSITA mass would approximately double Ebind at 400 kpc and could reverse the inequality. Furthermore, Qtot depends on the self-similar normalization K500 (Eqs. 8–9), which scales as M500^(2/3) fb^(-2/3); the quoted (5–6.5)×10^60 erg range does not include the uncertainty in M500. The authors should propagate the mass uncertainty into both Ebind and Qtot, or explicitly restrict the 'excess energy exceeds binding energy' conclusion to the lower mass model.
  2. [§5.4 and §5.3] There is an internal tension between the interpretation of the pressure profile and the hydrostatic-equilibrium assumption used for the mass profile. Section 5.4 interprets the systematically low pressure at 10–200 kpc as evidence that gas is being ejected from the system. Gas ejection implies a departure from hydrostatic equilibrium, which biases the HSE mass from Eq. (3) that enters Ebind in Eq. (13). The paper should quantify the possible bias from non-thermal pressure support or bulk motions, or at least explicitly acknowledge that the ejection scenario weakens the HSE-based binding energy estimate used in the central comparison.
  3. [§7.2 and §8.1] The cavity detection is marginal, with a significance of 2.6σ from the Chandra azimuthal profile, ~1.6σ from XMM, and a non-conclusive XMM CADET result. Despite this, the cavity power Pcav ≈ 7×10^42 erg/s is used as Pjet in the MBH–Pjet scaling relation (Eq. 24) and to argue that the AGN can offset cooling losses. Given the low detection significance, these downstream inferences should be presented as conditional on the cavity being real, and the uncertainty in Pcav should be propagated into the black hole mass estimate, which currently is not done.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a duplicated article: 'of the the intragroup medium' should read 'of the intragroup medium'.
  2. [§8.2] The sentence 'The implicit assumption used here is that the gas radiative losses are compensated by the black hole the black hole output' contains a duplication and should be corrected to 'compensated by the black hole output'.
  3. [§5.2] The deprojection assumes a constant temperature of 2.1 keV for the emissivity conversion, but the Chandra temperature profile shows a drop to ~0.8 keV below 30 kpc. The authors should justify this assumption or test the sensitivity of the density profile to a temperature gradient in the core.
  4. [§5.5] The sentence 'If we use the eROSITA gas density and a baryon fraction of 0.15, we obtain Qtot∼ 6.1×10^60 erg' is ambiguous about whether the eROSITA-based M500 and R500 were used in evaluating the self-similar baseline (Eqs. 8–9). Please clarify which parameters enter this alternative estimate.
  5. [§5.5, Eq. (10)] The Bondi accretion power in §8.2 is derived by assuming that the mechanical output equals the X-ray cooling luminosity (Eqs. 27–28). The subsequent statement that the observed radiative luminosity is only ~2.5% of the Bondi power is therefore partly by construction and should be worded as a consequence of the assumed self-regulation rather than as an independent measurement.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central entropy-excess result is an independent data-versus-baseline comparison, but the quoted '2.5% of Bondi accretion power' is definitional: the Bondi power is set equal to the cooling luminosity by Eq. (28), so the ratio is an input ratio rather than a derived prediction.

  1. self definitional [§8.2, Eqs. (27)–(28) and the following paragraph]
    "The Bondi accretion rate is then ˙MB = LX/ηc2 = 1.4×10−3 M⊙/yr. (28) ... The Bondi accretion power will be the same as the X-ray cooling luminosity according to our assumptions. ... The above estimate suggests that the observed radiative power of the black hole is only ∼2.5% of the Bondi accretion power."

    In Eq. (28), η is obtained from the assumed balance condition so that the mechanical ('Bondi') power η˙MB c^2 is equal to LX by construction. The subsequent 'Bondi accretion power' is therefore not an independently computed quantity; it is identical to the input cooling luminosity LX≈8×10^41 erg/s. The 2.5% figure is simply the ratio of the observed bolometric upper limit (2.1×10^40 erg/s) to that input LX. Thus the conclusion that most accretion power is converted into jets is an assumed partitioning of the cooling luminosity, not a derived prediction from a separately measured Bondi accretion rate.

full rationale

The paper's main result—significant excess entropy and excess energy (5–6.5)×10^60 erg—is a direct comparison of measured thermodynamic profiles to an external self-similar baseline (Voit et al. 2005; Pratt et al. 2010) and is not obtained by fitting the quantity it claims to predict. The entropy-excess calculation is robust to the two adopted baryon fractions, and the paper explicitly checks an alternative eROSITA-based mass normalization, reporting Qtot≈6.1×10^60 erg in that case. The cavity detection is supported by an independent azimuthal surface-brightness analysis (2.6σ) in addition to CADET, so the CADET self-citation is not load-bearing. The binding-energy comparison does depend on the hydrostatic-equilibrium mass model, and the paper itself notes that the pressure profile suggests gas ejection that would violate HSE; however, this is a modeling assumption and a systematic-uncertainty concern, not a circular derivation. The one clear reduction is the Bondi accretion-power step, where the 'Bondi accretion power' is set equal to the cooling luminosity by construction and then compared with the observed nuclear luminosity. Because this step is peripheral to the central entropy-excess claim, the overall circularity score is moderate rather than severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central energetic claims rest on modeling assumptions: hydrostatic equilibrium, the self-similar entropy baseline, fixed metallicities and temperatures, cavity geometry, and scaling relations. No new physics entities are introduced; the paper applies existing X-ray analysis techniques to a newly studied object.

free parameters (6)
  • Fixed metallicity in outer spectral bins = 0.2 solar
    Metallicity was not well constrained and was fixed to 0.2 Z_sun in all but the innermost bins (§4.2). This choice affects the spectral fits and derived thermodynamic profiles.
  • Assumed temperature and metallicity for emissivity conversion in deprojection = kT = 2.1 keV, Z = 0.3 Z_sun
    Used in §5.2 to convert surface brightness to density; the paper reports that density values are mostly insensitive to Z in 0.2-0.4.
  • Baryon fraction for self-similar entropy normalization = 0.15 and 0.04
    Used in Eq. 9 (§5.5) to set K500. The reported excess energy Qtot is 5-6.5 x 10^60 erg for these two values, so the claim is sensitive to this choice.
  • Cavity line-of-sight depth = rc = ra = 22 kpc
    The unknown depth is assumed equal to the projected minor axis (§7.2). The cavity volume and enthalpy scale linearly with this assumption.
  • Fixed parameters of the Vikhlinin density and temperature models = Table E.3, E.4
    Several model parameters were held fixed during the mass fit (§5.3, Appendix E). These fixed values enter the mass and binding energy estimates.
  • Velocity dispersion used in the M-sigma relation = sigma_v ~ 350 km/s
    Estimated from vcirc ~ 590 km/s and sigma ~ 0.6 vcirc (§8.1) without propagated uncertainty; used to derive MBH ~ 1e9 M_sun.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Hydrostatic equilibrium is assumed when computing mass and binding energy (Eq. 3, Eq. 13).
    The mass and binding energy profiles are derived under HSE. The paper's own gas-ejection interpretation implies non-equilibrium, which could bias these estimates.
  • domain assumption The self-similar entropy profile (Eqs. 8-9) with adopted baryon fraction represents the gravitational baseline.
    Excess heat is defined relative to this baseline; preheating or other non-gravitational processes could mimic or reduce the inferred excess.
  • standard math The X-ray emitting gas is in collisional ionization equilibrium and follows Lodders et al. (2009) abundances.
    Used in the hot(cie) spectral model throughout §4 and §2.3; standard practice in X-ray astronomy.
  • domain assumption Shock jump conditions from Sarazin (2002, Eq. 15) apply to the detected density jump.
    Used to convert the 1.5-sigma density jump to a Mach number and shock energy in §6; the existence of a shock is not firmly established.
  • domain assumption The cavity enthalpy is computed for a relativistic gas with H = 4 p V (Eq. 18).
    Used in §7.2 to estimate cavity enthalpy and power; if the cavity gas is not relativistic, the enthalpy would be lower.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-ray investigation of the remarkable galaxy group Nest200047." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZYDXXTF

@misc{pith2026250611312,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-ray investigation of the remarkable galaxy group Nest200047},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZYDXXTF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11312}
}
abstract

Galaxy groups are more susceptible to feedback from the central active galactic nuclei (AGN) due to their lower gravitational binding energy compared to clusters. This makes them ideal laboratories to study feedback effects on the overall energy and baryonic mass budget. We study the LOFAR-detected galaxy group Nest200047, where there is clear evidence of multiple generations of radio lobes from the AGN. Using 140 ks Chandra and 25 ks XMM-Newton data, we investigate thermodynamic properties of the the intragroup medium including any excess energy due to the central AGN. We also investigate X-ray properties of the central black hole and constrain the $2-10$ keV X-ray flux. We used spectral analysis techniques to measure various thermodynamic profiles across the whole field of view. We also used both imaging and spectral analysis to detect and estimate the energy deposited by potential shocks and cavities. Due to the faint emission from the object beyond the core, various background effects were considered. Nest200047 has significant excess entropy, and the AGN likely contributes to a part of it. There is an excess energy of $(5-6.5) \times 10^{60}$ erg within 400 kpc, exceeding the binding energy. The pressure profile indicates that gas is likely being ejected from the system, resulting in a baryon fraction of $\sim4\%$ inside $r_{500}$. From scaling relations, we estimate a black hole mass of $(1-4)\times 10^9 M_{\odot}$. An upper limit of $2.1 \times 10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ was derived on the black hole bolometric luminosity, which is $\sim$2.5% of the Bondi accretion power. Nest200047 is likely part of a class of over-heated galaxy groups like ESO 3060170, AWM 4 and AWM 5. Such excessive heating may lead to high quenching of star formation. Moreover, the faint X-ray nuclear emission in Nest is likely due to the accretion energy being converted into jets rather than radiation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11312 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. LOFAR image of the galaxy group Nest200047, focusing on various spatial scales to highlight the four consecutive AGN outbursts detected in this system (Brienza et al. 2021). is important for further pinpointing the details of AGN feedback evolution. While known examples of multiple generations of outbursts are mostly limited to clusters (e.g., Vantyghem et al. 2014; Biava et al. 2021), the famous example of NGC 5813… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Chandra exposure-corrected, background (NXB + X-ray foreground and background) subtracted image of Nest. Right: XMM-Newton exposure-corrected, background (NXB + X-ray foreground and background + soft proton) subtracted image of Nest. Both of these images were created in the 0.6 − 4.0 keV energy band. The images have been Gaussian-smoothed with a σ = 3 pixels for better visualization. The LOFAR 144 MHz radio co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. For Chandra, all level 2 event files were first reprojected to a common tangent point. Count images and exposure maps were created in the 0.6 − 4.0 keV band for each reprojected event file and then combined to produce the total counts and expo￾sure map. Point sources were again detected with the help of wavdetect. The point sources were removed in all spectral anal￾ysis. We also removed them from all image analysis … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Chandra residual map after subtracting a spherically symmetric double beta model fit to the surface brightness profile of Nest. A depression near the C1 lobe can be seen in the image and has been highlighted as a circular region. A further possible depression may…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temperature profiles (left panel) and density profiles (right panel). First row: Chandra temperature and deprojected density profile as a function of projected radius. Second row: XMM-Newton temperature and deprojected density profile as a function of projected radius.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Derived metallicity profiles from Chandra and XMM-Newton. The green data point is the Chandra value and the black data points are XMM-Newton values. Metallicity values beyond this region were assumed to be 0.2 solar during spectral fitting. in this direction. These res…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Density profile along the northern lobes. Middle: Density profile along the southern lobes. Bottom: Density profile along the east￾ern direction where there is no radio emission. The shaded regions show the extent of the four lobes shown in Figures 1 from the cent…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: Azimuthally averaged electron pressure profiles. The aver￾age expected profile from Planck clusters is shown with a black dashed line. Middle: Azimuthally averaged entropy profile. The self-similar r 1.1 profile for fb = 0.15 is shown with a black dashed line, whi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Energy budget of the IGrM of the galaxy group Nest. The orange line shows the heating due to excess entropy. The blue line shows the binding energy of the object obtained through Equation 13. The black dashed line shows the location of R500 from Chandra and XMM-Newton …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: Azimuthally averaged XMM-Newton density profile. Bot￾tom: Chandra density profile along the southern lobes. The sector used to extract this profile is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Exposure-corrected Chandra image in the 0.5 − 7.0 keV band overlaid with the contours of CADET prediction (white and yellow con￾tours correspond to values of 0.4 and 0.6, respectively). Hence, it is not possible to do a similar analysis using just Chan￾dra data and co…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Chandra azimuthal surface brightness profile (with SNR = 15) around the C1 cavity for 0.6 − 4.0 keV image. The extent of the cavity is shown with a black dashed line, while the median surface brightness is shown with a black dotted line. The error envelope for the med…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Central black hole mass from scaling relations in Eqs. 21−24. The mass of the black hole estimated from Lx,g vs. MBH, Mg,500 vs. MBH, Pcav vs. MBH, kTx,g vs. MBH, and σv vs. MBH are (4 ± 2) × 109M⊙, (4 ± 3) × 109M⊙, (1.9 ± 0.9) × 109M⊙, (30 ± 9) × 109M⊙, and 1 × 109M⊙…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    A., Chen , X., Kato , S., Lasota , J.-P., & Regev , O

    Abramowicz , M. A., Chen , X., Kato , S., Lasota , J.-P., & Regev , O. 1995, , 438, L37

    1995

  4. [4]

    W., Piffaretti , R., et al

    Arnaud , M., Pratt , G. W., Piffaretti , R., et al. 2010, , 517, A92

    2010

  5. [5]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  6. [6]

    2023, , 524, 5391

    Ayromlou , M., Nelson , D., & Pillepich , A. 2023, , 524, 5391

    2023

  7. [7]

    2009, , 694, 479

    Baldi , A., Forman , W., Jones , C., et al. 2009, , 694, 479

    2009

  8. [8]

    J., Russell , H

    Bambic , C. J., Russell , H. R., Reynolds , C. S., et al. 2023, , 522, 4374

    2023

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    Begelman , M. C. & Cioffi , D. F. 1989, , 345, L21

    1989

  2. [10]

    N., Kaiser , C

    Best , P. N., Kaiser , C. R., Heckman , T. M., & Kauffmann , G. 2006, , 368, L67

    2006

  3. [11]

    2021, , 650, A170

    Biava , N., Brienza , M., Bonafede , A., et al. 2021, , 650, A170

    2021

  4. [12]

    A., McNamara , B

    B \^ rzan , L., Rafferty , D. A., McNamara , B. R., Wise , M. W., & Nulsen , P. E. J. 2004, , 607, 800

    2004

  5. [13]

    1952, , 112, 195

    Bondi , H. 1952, , 112, 195

    1952

  6. [14]

    2025, , 696, A239

    Brienza , M., Rajpurohit , K., Churazov , E., et al. 2025, , 696, A239

    2025

  7. [15]

    W., de Gasperin , F., et al

    Brienza , M., Shimwell , T. W., de Gasperin , F., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1261

    2021

  8. [16]

    1979, , 228, 939

    Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939

    1979

  9. [17]

    & Fusco-Femiano , R

    Cavaliere , A. & Fusco-Femiano , R. 1976, , 49, 137

    1976

  10. [18]

    B., & Majumdar , S

    Chaudhuri , A., Nath , B. B., & Majumdar , S. 2012, , 759, 87

    2012

  11. [19]

    2000, , 356, 788

    Churazov , E., Forman , W., Jones , C., & B \"o hringer , H. 2000, , 356, 788

    2000

  12. [20]

    2002, , 332, 729

    Churazov , E., Sunyaev , R., Forman , W., & B \"o hringer , H. 2002, , 332, 729

    2002

  13. [21]

    2010, , 404, 1165

    Churazov , E., Tremaine , S., Forman , W., et al. 2010, , 404, 1165

    2010

  14. [22]

    P., Nulsen , P

    David , L. P., Nulsen , P. E. J., McNamara , B. R., et al. 2001, , 557, 546

    2001

  15. [23]

    2017, Zenodo

    de Plaa , J. 2017, Zenodo

    2017

  16. [24]

    & Sijacki , D

    DeGraf , C. & Sijacki , D. 2017, , 466, 3331

    2017

  17. [25]

    W., Fabian , A

    Di Matteo , T., Allen , S. W., Fabian , A. C., Wilson , A. S., & Young , A. J. 2003, , 582, 133

    2003

  18. [26]

    2020, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 3, 12

    Eckert , D., Finoguenov , A., Ghirardini , V., et al. 2020, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 3, 12

    2020

  19. [27]

    Eckert , D., Gaspari , M., Gastaldello , F., Le Brun , A. M. C., & O'Sullivan , E. 2021, Universe, 7, 142

    2021

  20. [28]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.13907

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

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A., Kraft , R

    Evans , D. A., Kraft , R. P., Worrall , D. M., et al. 2004, , 612, 786

    2004

  22. [30]

    A., Worrall , D

    Evans , D. A., Worrall , D. M., Hardcastle , M. J., Kraft , R. P., & Birkinshaw , M. 2006, , 642, 96

    2006

  23. [31]

    C., Sanders , J

    Fabian , A. C., Sanders , J. S., Taylor , G. B., et al. 2006, , 366, 417

    2006

  24. [32]

    & Merritt , D

    Ferrarese , L. & Merritt , D. 2000, , 539, L9

    2000

  25. [33]

    2008, , 686, 911

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

    2008

  26. [34]

    2007, , 665, 1057

    Forman , W., Jones , C., Churazov , E., et al. 2007, , 665, 1057

    2007

  27. [35]

    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, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey , 62701V

    2006

  28. [36]

    2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Collaboration, 2020) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/350

    Gaia Collaboration . 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Collaboration, 2020) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/350. Originally published in: 2021A&A...649A...1G; doi:10.5270/esa-1ug

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2021, , 649, A1

    2021

  30. [38]

    2019, , 884, 169

    Gaspari , M., Eckert , D., Ettori , S., et al. 2019, , 884, 169

    2019

  31. [39]

    A., Brighenti , F., & Mathews , W

    Gastaldello , F., Buote , D. A., Brighenti , F., & Mathews , W. G. 2008, , 673, L17

    2008

  32. [40]

    A., Humphrey , P

    Gastaldello , F., Buote , D. A., Humphrey , P. J., et al. 2007, , 669, 158

    2007

  33. [41]

    2000, , 539, L13

    Gebhardt , K., Bender , R., Bower , G., et al. 2000, , 539, L13

    2000

  34. [42]

    S., et al

    Gupta , Y., Ajithkumar , B., Kale , H. S., et al. 2017, Current Science, 113, 707

    2017

  35. [43]

    J., Evans , D

    Hardcastle , M. J., Evans , D. A., & Croston , J. H. 2006, , 370, 1893

    2006

  36. [44]

    J., Evans , D

    Hardcastle , M. J., Evans , D. A., & Croston , J. H. 2007, , 376, 1849

    2007

  37. [45]

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

    Hlavacek-Larrondo , J., Li , Y., & Churazov , E. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo , 5

    2022

  38. [46]

    Ho , L. C. 2008, , 46, 475

    2008

  39. [47]

    P., Macri , L

    Huchra , J. P., Macri , L. M., Masters , K. L., et al. 2012, , 199, 26

    2012

  40. [48]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  41. [49]

    Janssen , R. M. J., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., Best , P. N., & Brinchmann , J. 2012, , 541, A62

    2012

  42. [50]

    & MeerKAT Team

    Jonas , J. & MeerKAT Team . 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1

    2016

  43. [51]

    2001, SciPy: Open Source Scientific Tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., & Peterson, P. 2001, SciPy: Open Source Scientific Tools for Python

    2001

  44. [52]

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

    2017

  45. [53]

    Kaastra , J. S. & Bleeker , J. A. M. 2016, , 587, A151

    2016

  46. [54]

    S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H

    Kaastra , J. S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H. 1996, in UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, 411--414

    1996

  47. [55]

    S., Raassen , A

    Kaastra , J. S., Raassen , A. J. J., de Plaa , J., & Gu , L. 2018, Zenodo

    2018

  48. [56]

    A., Cioffi , D

    Kriss , G. A., Cioffi , D. F., & Canizares , C. R. 1983, , 272, 439

    1983

  49. [57]

    Kuntz , K. D. & Snowden , S. L. 2008, , 478, 575

    2008

  50. [58]

    M., Clarke , T

    Lane , W. M., Clarke , T. E., Taylor , G. B., Perley , R. A., & Kassim , N. E. 2004, , 127, 48

    2004

  51. [59]

    D., Xue , Y

    Lehmer , B. D., Xue , Y. Q., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2012, , 752, 46

    2012

  52. [60]

    Lodders , K., Palme , H., & Gail , H. P. 2009, Landolt-B\"ornstein, 4B, 712

    2009

  53. [61]

    okas , E. L. & Mamon , G. A. 2003, , 343, 401

    2003

  54. [62]

    2014, , 441, 2013

    Lyskova , N., Churazov , E., Moiseev , A., Sil'chenko , O., & Zhuravleva , I. 2014, , 441, 2013

    2014

  55. [63]

    W., Simionescu , A., & de Vries , M

    Majumder , A., Wise , M. W., Simionescu , A., & de Vries , M. N. 2024, , 528, 1037

    2024

  56. [64]

    2021, , 908, 37

    Marelli , M., Molendi , S., Rossetti , M., et al. 2021, , 908, 37

    2021

  57. [65]

    G., Schaye , J., Bower , R

    McCarthy , I. G., Schaye , J., Bower , R. G., et al. 2011, , 412, 1965

    2011

  58. [66]

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

    2007

  59. [67]

    R., Nulsen , P

    McNamara , B. R., Nulsen , P. E. J., Wise , M. W., et al. 2005, , 433, 45

    2005

  60. [68]

    R., Wise , M

    McNamara , B. R., Wise , M. W., Nulsen , P. E. J., et al. 2001, , 562, L149

    2001

  61. [69]

    S., et al

    Mernier , F., de Plaa , J., Kaastra , J. S., et al. 2017, , 603, A80

    2017

  62. [70]

    2015, , 575, A37

    Mernier , F., de Plaa , J., Lovisari , L., et al. 2015, , 575, A37

    2015

  63. [71]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 596

    Morganti , R. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 596

    2017

  64. [72]

    2024, Galaxies, 12, 11

    Morganti , R. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 11

    2024

  65. [73]

    Nagai , D., Vikhlinin , A., & Kravtsov , A. V. 2007, , 655, 98

    2007

  66. [74]

    2005, , 300, 177

    Narayan , R. 2005, , 300, 177

    2005

  67. [75]

    & Yi , I

    Narayan , R. & Yi , I. 1995, , 452, 710

    1995

  68. [76]

    2003, , 585, 677

    Pellegrini , S., Venturi , T., Comastri , A., et al. 2003, , 585, 677

    2003

  69. [77]

    A., Chandler , C

    Perley , R. A., Chandler , C. J., Butler , B. J., & Wrobel , J. M. 2011, , 739, L1

    2011

  70. [78]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2013, , 550, A131

    2013

  71. [79]

    2022, , 517, 3682

    Pl s ek , T., Werner , N., Grossov \'a , R., et al. 2022, , 517, 3682

    2022

  72. [80]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 3315

    Plšek, T., Werner, N., Topinka, M., & Simionescu, A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 3315

    2023

  73. [81]

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

    Pratt , G. W., Arnaud , M., Piffaretti , R., et al. 2010, , 511, A85

    2010

  74. [82]

    2021, , 647, A1

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

    2021

  75. [83]

    W., Forman , W

    Randall , S. W., Forman , W. R., Giacintucci , S., et al. 2011, , 726, 86

    2011

  76. [84]

    W., Nulsen , P

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

    2015

  77. [85]

    G., Schaye , J., et al

    Rosas-Guevara , Y., Bower , R. G., Schaye , J., et al. 2016, , 462, 190

    2016

  78. [86]

    Sabol , E. J. & Snowden , S. L. 2019, sxrbg: ROSAT X-Ray Background Tool , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1904.001

    2019

  79. [87]

    Sarazin , C. L. 2002, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 272, Merging Processes in Galaxy Clusters, ed. L. Feretti , I. M. Gioia , & G. Giovannini , 1--38

    2002

  80. [88]

    P., Vrtilek , J., et al

    Schellenberger , G., David , L. P., Vrtilek , J., et al. 2021, , 906, 16

    2021

  81. [89]

    H., Lovisari , L., Nevalainen , J., & David , L

    Schellenberger , G., Reiprich , T. H., Lovisari , L., Nevalainen , J., & David , L. 2015, , 575, A30

    2015

  82. [90]

    W., Tasse , C., Hardcastle , M

    Shimwell , T. W., Tasse , C., Hardcastle , M. J., et al. 2019, , 622, A1

    2019

  83. [91]

    Simionescu , A., Roediger , E., Nulsen , P. E. J., et al. 2009, , 495, 721

    2009

  84. [92]

    2019, , 215, 24

    Simionescu , A., ZuHone , J., Zhuravleva , I., et al. 2019, , 215, 24

    2019

  85. [93]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163

    2006

  86. [94]

    Snios , B., Nulsen , P. E. J., Wise , M. W., et al. 2018, , 855, 71

    2018

  87. [95]

    L., Mushotzky , R

    Snowden , S. L., Mushotzky , R. F., Kuntz , K. D., & Davis , D. S. 2008, , 478, 615

    2008

  88. [96]

    2008, Increased low energy noise below 1 keV or the MOS2CCD5 effect

    Stuhlinger , M. 2008, Increased low energy noise below 1 keV or the MOS2CCD5 effect. Technical Report XMM-SOC-INST-TN-0033, Issue 1.1, ESA ESOC

    2008

  89. [97]

    2004, , 612, 805

    Sun , M., Forman , W., Vikhlinin , A., et al. 2004, , 612, 805

    2004

  90. [98]

    M., et al

    Sun , M., Sehgal , N., Voit , G. M., et al. 2011, , 727, L49

    2011

  91. [99]

    2021, , 656, A132

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

    2021

  92. [100]

    2002, , 574, 740

    Tremaine , S., Gebhardt , K., Bender , R., et al. 2002, , 574, 740

    2002

  93. [101]

    Tully , R. B. 2015, , 149, 171

    2015

  94. [102]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 923, L25

    Ubertosi, F., Gitti, M., Brighenti, F., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 923, L25

    2021

  95. [103]

    van den Bosch , R. C. E., Gebhardt , K., G \"u ltekin , K., Y ld r m , A., & Walsh , J. L. 2015, , 218, 10

    2015

  96. [104]

    C., & Varoquaux, G

    van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22

    2011

  97. [105]

    N., McNamara , B

    Vantyghem , A. N., McNamara , B. R., Russell , H. R., et al. 2014, , 442, 3192

    2014

  98. [106]

    Vasudevan , R. V. & Fabian , A. C. 2007, , 381, 1235

    2007

  99. [107]

    2006, , 640, 691

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

    2006

  100. [108]

    M., Kay , S

    Voit , G. M., Kay , S. T., & Bryan , G. L. 2005, , 364, 909

    2005

  101. [109]

    R., Churazov , E., & Scannapieco , E

    Werner , N., McNamara , B. R., Churazov , E., & Scannapieco , E. 2019, , 215, 5

    2019

  102. [110]

    T., et al

    Werner , N., Simionescu , A., Million , E. T., et al. 2010, , 407, 2063

    2010

  103. [111]

    Willingale , R., Starling , R. L. C., Beardmore , A. P., Tanvir , N. R., & O'Brien , P. T. 2013, , 431, 394

    2013

  104. [112]

    W., McNamara , B

    Wise , M. W., McNamara , B. R., Nulsen , P. E. J., Houck , J. C., & David , L. P. 2007, , 659, 1153

    2007

  105. [113]

    2021, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5507575

    Zhang , X. 2021, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5507575

    2021 doi

  106. [114]

    2020, , 642, A89

    Zhang , X., Simionescu , A., Akamatsu , H., et al. 2020, , 642, A89

    2020

Pith tools

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