The eROSITA view on the halo mass–temperature relation: From low-mass groups to massive clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Galaxy groups and clusters are among the best probes of structure formation and growth in a cosmological context. Most of their baryonic component is dominated by hot plasma, known as the intracluster medium (ICM) in clusters or the intragroup medium (IGrM) in groups. Their thermodynamical properties serve as indicators of the halo’s dynamical state and can be used to determine halo mass in the self-similar scenario. However, baryonic processes, such as AGN feedback and gas cooling, may affect the global properties of the ICM, especially in the group regime. These effects might lead to deviations from self-similar predictions in the scaling relations of galaxy groups, while they remain in place for massive galaxy clusters. Additionally, the low-mass end of the scaling relations, ranging from 10 13 to 10 14 M ⊙ , remains unclear and poorly populated, as current X-ray surveys detect only the brightest groups. Here, we present the mass-temperature relation across the entire mass range, from massive clusters to low-mass groups (10 13 M ⊙ ), as observed by eROSITA. Using spectral stacking from the first eROSITA All-Sky Survey data for optically selected galaxy groups, we find that, in the lower mass range, galaxy groups follow the power-law relation known for galaxy clusters. We provide the best-fit mass–temperature relation, validated over two decades in halo mass, as follows: log 10 ( M 500 / M ⊙ ) = (1.65 ± 0.11)⋅log 10 ( T X /1 keV)+(13.38 ± 0.05). We further validate these results by conducting the same stacking procedure on mock eRASS:4 data using the M AGNETICUM hydrodynamical simulation. This indicates that AGN feedback is more likely to affect the distribution of baryons in the intragroup medium rather than the overall halo gas temperature. No significant changes in the slope of the mass-temperature relation suggest that temperature can serve as a reliable mass proxy across the entire mass range. This supports the use of temperature-derived masses, particularly in cosmological studies, significantly broadening the mass range and enabling applications such as improving cluster mass function studies and cosmological parameter estimates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".