MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416287720 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453255

Average X-ray properties of galaxy groups: From Milky Way-like halos to massive clusters

2025· article· en· W4416287720 on OpenAlexaff
Paola Popesso, I. Marini, K. Dolag, G. Lamer, B. Csizi, V. Biffi, A. Robothan, Matías Bravo, A. Biviano, S. Vladutescu-Zopp, L. Lovisari, S. Ettori, Matteo Angelinelli, Simon P. Driver, V. Toptun, A. Dev, D. Mazengo, A. Merloni, Yi Zhang, Johan Comparat, G. Ponti, Tony Mroczkowski, Esra Bülbül

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEuropean Research Council
KeywordsHaloMilky WayGalaxyGalaxy clusterGalactic haloDark matterSurface brightnessDark matter halo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context. In this study, we present the average X-ray properties of massive halos at z < 0.2 over the largest halo mass range ever probed so far, bridging the gap from Milky Way-like halos to massive clusters. Aims. The results show the average X-ray properties of galaxy groups, obtained through the stacking analysis in the eFEDS area of the GAMA galaxy group sample at z < 0.2. The results have been rigorously tested using a synthetic dataset that mirrors the observed eROSITA X-ray and GAMA optical data based on the lightcones of the Magneticum simulations. Methods. We used a halo mass proxy based on group total luminosity, avoiding systematics linked to velocity dispersion and richness cuts. The stacking is done in bins of halo mass and tested in the synthetic dataset for AGN and X-ray binaries contamination, systematics due to the halo mass proxy, and uncertainty in the optical group center. Results. We provide the average X-ray surface brightness profile in six bins of mass, ranging from Milky Way-like systems to poor clusters at M 200 ∼ 10 14 M ⊙ . We find that the scatter in the L X − M relation is driven by gas concentration in groups, as undetected X-ray systems at fixed halo mass exhibit lower central gas concentrations than detected ones, aligning with Magneticum predictions. However, there is a discrepancy regarding dark matter concentration: Magneticum predictions suggest that undetected groups are more concentrated, implying they are older and more relaxed, whereas previous observational findings suggest the opposite. We present new measurements of the L X, 500 − M 500 and L X, 200 − M 200 relations, from Milky Way-like halos to massive clusters. Our results indicate that a single power law fits the data across three decades of halo mass, and they align well with previous studies focused on specific halo mass ranges. Magneticum best matches the observed gas distribution across the entire halo mass range, while IllustrisTNG, EAGLE, Simba, and FLAMINGO show larger discrepancies at different mass ranges. This highlights that simulations such as Magneticum, which are not calibrated on z = 0 galaxy properties, reproduce gas properties well but still lead to overly massive galaxies at the centers of massive halos. Conversely, simulations calibrated on z = 0 galaxy properties fail to reproduce the gas properties. Conclusions. This evidence reveals a potential gap in our understanding of the relationship between galaxies and their host structures. Therefore, this work emphasizes the need for a deeper investigation into the connection between gas and dark matter distributions and their impact on central galaxy properties. Such an inquiry is crucial to comprehensively understanding the role and interplay of gravitational forces and feedback-related processes in shaping both the large-scale structure and the galaxy population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→