Paper detail

The perils of stacking optically selected groups in eROSITA data. The Magneticum perspective

Hydrodynamical simulation predictions are often compared with observational data without fully accounting for systematics and biases specific to observational techniques. Using the magnetohydrodynamical simulation Magneticum, we generate mock eROSITA eRASS:4 data, combined with GAMA-like spectroscopic surveys and optically selected galaxy catalogs from the same light-cone, to analyze hot gas properties in galaxy groups via a stacking technique. This study aims to (i) incorporate observational systematics into predictions and (ii) evaluate the reliability of stacking techniques for determining average X-ray properties of galaxy groups. Our analysis provides X-ray emission predictions from Magneticum, including contributions from AGN, X-ray binaries (XRBs), and the Intra-Group Medium (IGM) as a function of halo mass, covering Milky Way (MW)-like groups to poor clusters. We find that AGN and XRBs dominate the X-ray surface brightness profiles of low-mass halos. The reliability of stacking techniques is tested by reproducing input X-ray surface brightness and electron density profiles, accounting for completeness and contamination of prior samples, miscentering of optical group centers, uncertainties in X-ray emissivity due to gas temperature and metallicity assumption, and systematics in halo mass proxies. The halo mass proxy emerges as the primary source of systematics, affecting X-ray surface brightness and scaling relations. We show that stacked X-ray luminosity-mass relations are flatter than input relations but consistent with observations. Additionally, the retrieved hot gas fraction-mass relation aligns well with observational data. These results highlight the need to account for systematic errors when comparing stacking techniques to other methods using different prior catalogs or predictions.

preprint2024arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.