Redshift Evolution of the Feedback–Cooling Equilibrium in the Core of 48 SPT Galaxy Clusters: A Joint Chandra–SPT–ATCA Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We analyze the cooling and feedback properties of 48 galaxy clusters at redshifts 0.4 < z < 1.3 selected from the South Pole Telescope (SPT) catalogs to evolve like the progenitors of massive and well-studied systems at z ∼ 0. We estimate the radio power at the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) location of each cluster from an analysis of Australia Telescope Compact Array data. Assuming that the scaling relation between the radio power and active galactic nucleus (AGN) cavity power P cav observed at low redshift does not evolve with redshift, we use these measurements in order to estimate the expected AGN cavity power in the core of each system. We estimate the X-ray luminosity within the cooling radius L cool of each cluster from a joint analysis of the available Chandra X-ray and SPT Sunyaev–Zel’dovich (SZ) data. This allows us to characterize the redshift evolution of the P cav/L cool ratio. When combined with low-redshift results, these constraints enable investigations of the properties of the feedback–cooling cycle across 9 Gyr of cluster growth. We model the redshift evolution of this ratio measured for cool-core clusters by a log-normal distribution Log - ( α + β z , σ 2 ) and constrain the slope of the mean evolution to β = −0.05 ± 0.47. This analysis improves the constraints on the slope of this relation by a factor of two. We find no evidence of redshift evolution of the feedback–cooling equilibrium in these clusters, which suggests that the onset of radio-mode feedback took place at an early stage of cluster formation. High values of P cav/L cool are found at the BCG location of noncool-core clusters, which might suggest that the timescales of the AGN feedback cycle and the cool core–noncool core transition are different. This work demonstrates that the joint analysis of radio, SZ, and X-ray data solidifies the investigation of AGN feedback at high redshifts.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".