The Remarkable Similarity of Massive Galaxy Clusters from z ∼ 0 to z ∼ 1.9
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present the results of a Chandra X-ray survey of the eight most massive galaxy clusters at z > 1.2 in the South Pole Telescope 2500 deg 2 survey. We combine this sample with previously published Chandra observations of 49 massive X-ray-selected clusters at 0 < z < 0.1 and 90 Sunyaev–Zel’dovich–selected clusters at 0.25 < z < 1.2 to constrain the evolution of the intracluster medium (ICM) over the past ∼10 Gyr. We find that the bulk of the ICM has evolved self-similarly over the full redshift range probed here, with the ICM density at scaling like . In the centers of clusters ( ), we find significant deviations from self-similarity ( ), consistent with no redshift dependence. When we isolate clusters with overdense cores (i.e., cool cores), we find that the average overdensity profile has not evolved with redshift—that is, cool cores have not changed in size, density, or total mass over the past ∼9–10 Gyr. We show that the evolving “cuspiness” of clusters in the X-ray, reported by several previous studies, can be understood in the context of a cool core with fixed properties embedded in a self-similarly evolving cluster. We find no measurable evolution in the X-ray morphology of massive clusters, seemingly in tension with the rapidly rising (with redshift) rate of major mergers predicted by cosmological simulations. We show that these two results can be brought into agreement if we assume that the relaxation time after a merger is proportional to the crossing time, since the latter is proportional to .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".