X-Ray Cavities in TNG-Cluster: AGN Phenomena in The Full Cosmological Context

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024) Preprint 30 October 2024 Compiled using MNRAS LATEX style file v3.
X-ray cavities in TNG-Cluster: AGN phenomena in the full cosmological

context
Marine Prunier,1,2,3★ Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo,1,2 Annalisa Pillepich,3 Katrin Lehle,4 and Dylan Nelson 4
1 Département de Physique, Université de Montréal, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3J7, Canada
2 Centrede recherche en astrophysique du Québec (CRAQ)
3 Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, Königstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany
4 Universität Heidelberg, Zentrum für Astronomie, ITA, Albert-Ueberle-Str. 2, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
arXiv:2410.21366v1 [astro-ph.GA] 28 Oct 2024
Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ
ABSTRACT
Active galactic nuclei (AGN) feedback from supermassive black holes (SMBHs) at the centers of galaxy clusters plays a key
role in determining the properties of the intracluster medium (ICM) and in regulating star formation, often manifesting through
prominent X-ray cavities embedded in the cluster’s hot atmosphere. Here we show that X-ray cavities arise naturally due to
AGN feedback in TNG-Cluster. This is a new suite of magnetohydrodynamic cosmological simulations of galaxy formation and
evolution, and hence of galaxy clusters, whereby cold dark matter, baryon dynamics, galactic astrophysics, and magnetic fields
are evolved together consistently. We construct mock Chandra X-ray observations of the central region of the 352 galaxy clusters
in the simulation at 𝑧 = 0 and inspect them for X-ray cavities as typically done in observations. We show that X-ray cavities
are common in TNG-Cluster, with ∼39 per cent of the simulated clusters featuring one or more X-ray cavities. Identified X-ray
cavities come in a variety of configurations, including single, pairs, and multiples. Some are still attached to SMBHs, while
others have buoyantly risen to larger distances. Their size ranges from a few to several tens of kpc. In terms of gas physical
properties, TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities are underdense compared to the surrounding halo and filled with hot gas (∼108 K); 25 per
cent of them are surrounded by an X-ray bright and compressed rim associated with a weak shock (Mach number ∼ 1.5). Clusters
exhibiting X-ray cavities are preferentially strong or weak cool-cores, are dynamically relaxed, and host SMBHs accreting at
low Eddington rates. We show that TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities originate from episodic, wind-like energy injections from central
AGN. Our results illustrate the existence and diversity of X-ray cavities simulated in state-of-the-art models within realistic
cosmological environments and show that these can form without necessarily invoking bipolar, collimated, or relativistic jets.
Key words: X-rays: galaxies: clusters, galaxies: clusters: intracluster medium, galaxies: active, methods: numerical,
1 INTRODUCTION Numerous X-ray observations of cluster cores have revealed the

existence of X-ray cavities, also known as bubbles, of varying sizes
Galaxy clusters – hereafter clusters – are the most massive self-
in their hot atmospheres. These are thought to be the primary mech-
gravitating systems in today’s Universe, hosting hundreds to thou-
anism through which AGN energy is transferred into thermal energy
sands of galaxies. Clusters also contain a 107 to 108 K hot plasma,
in the ICM. X-ray cavities have been observed in association with
the intracluster medium (ICM), which emits X-rays by thermal
radio features, such as jets and lobes (Doria et al. 2012; Gitti et al.
bremsstrahlung and helium-like lines from heavy elements, such as
2012), for which mechanical powers of 1041 − 1045 erg s −1 have
iron. This radiation cools the gas, causing it to condense and migrate
been estimated (e.g., Bîrzan et al. 2004). However, major uncertain-
gravitationally towards the cluster core, forming a cooling flow in the
ties remain as to the precise processes of feedback energy transfer and
absence of some counteracting heating mechanism (Fabian 1994). If
heating, which could result from the dissipation of sound waves and
cooling flows accumulate onto the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG),
weak shocks (Graham et al. 2008; Tang & Churazov 2018; Bambic
they are expected to trigger a significant level of star formation. How-
& Reynolds 2019; Li et al. 2017), turbulence (Zhuravleva et al. 2014;
ever, observations have revealed a lower rate of star formation than
Mohapatra & Sharma 2019), the mixing of hot gas filling the X-ray
expectations based on the intensity of the cooling flows (O’Connell
cavities with the surrounding gas (Yang & Reynolds 2016; Hillel &
& McNamara 1989; Nulsen 1992; Peterson et al. 2003; Peterson
Soker 2017), or cosmic ray flux originating from jets or escaping
& Fabian 2006). Active galactic nuclei (AGN) feedback from the
X-ray cavities and streaming through the ICM, exciting waves in the
supermassive black hole (SMBH) in BCGs is generally considered
plasma that transfer their energy to the gas (e.g., Loewenstein et al.
the most likely heating source balancing the gas cooling losses from
1991; Ruszkowski et al. 2017; Ehlert et al. 2018). Observationally, X-
X-ray radiation (Fabian et al. 2000; McNamara & Nulsen 2007).
ray cavities are characterized by line-of-sight projected, prominent,
X-ray surface brightness depressions on the sky, with sizes extend-
★ ing from a few kpc (e.g., Abell 262, Blanton et al. 2004) up to a
E-mail: [email protected]
© 2024 The Authors

2 M. Prunier et al.
few hundreds of kpc (e.g., MS0735.6+7321, McNamara et al. 2005) perse within shorter timescales due to several instabilities such as
in diameter, often exceeding the size of their host galaxies. Multiple Kelvin-Helmholtz, Rayleigh-Taylor, and Richtmyer-Meshkov. How-
generations of X-ray cavities on different scales can be observed in ever, viscosity or magnetic fields have been found with idealized
the same system (e.g., NGC 5813, Randall et al. 2011). The discrete simulations to stabilize these structures and possibly suppress the
nature of the X-ray cavities might result either from episodic SMBH development of instabilities (Reynolds et al. 2005).
energy injections or from the fragmentation of a continuous AGN Despite the numerous physical insights provided therein, simu-
jet. These X-ray cavities are often seen in symmetric pairs around the lations of idealized clusters so far have not systematically explored
central SMBH, supporting the hypothesis that they result from the representative samples of halos, i.e. with varying cluster masses, as-
interaction between relativistic bipolar jets and the intracluster gas sembly times, and BCG morphologies. Furthermore, these idealized
(Hillel & Soker 2017). Some of the X-ray cavity edges are ringed by clusters are, by construction, not influenced by their environment
a bright rim where the gas is compressed: apart from rare exceptions, through gas inflows, tidal forces, and mergers. Finally, while their
no significant temperature jumps associated with strong shocks at X- AGN feedback properties have been explored across large parame-
ray cavity boundaries have been inferred, even though some systems ter spaces, the emergence of X-ray cavities and their impact on the
exhibit a weak shock front with Mach numbers of 1.2 − 1.7, such as evolving galaxy populations remain untested in the full cosmological
Perseus (Graham et al. 2008), Virgo (Forman et al. 2007), and Hydra context.In this paper, we significantly advance our understanding by
A (Nulsen et al. 2005). Observed X-ray cavities are much less dense investigating whether and how X-ray cavities are produced in full cos-
than the ICM at the same pressure and, as they rise, their volumes mological simulations of clusters and their galaxies. In particular, we
increase to maintain pressure equilibrium with the surrounding gas, analyze the outcome of the new TNG-Cluster project (Nelson et al.
as interpreted from the observed correlation between X-ray cavity 2024), which is a suite of zoom-in high-resolution magnetohydro-
area and distance to the SMBH (Diehl et al. 2008; Shin et al. 2016). dynamic cosmological simulations of 352 massive galaxy clusters
Furthermore, based on the estimation of very basic thermodynamic with 𝑀500c = 1014.0 − 1015.3 M ⊙ 1 sampled from a 1 Gpc-sized
properties of X-ray cavities, a significant correlation between the cosmological box. TNG-Cluster, by using the IllustrisTNG galaxy
powers contained in X-ray cavities and the luminosity of the X-ray formation model, offers a unique combination of highly-resolved
emitting gas in a specific radius where cooling occurs has been shown and realistic high-mass galaxies and clusters, well suited to the study
(Panagoulia et al. 2014; Timmerman et al. 2022). This suggests that of the X-ray cavity population.
the X-ray cavities can energetically compensate for the cooling of the In fact, TNG-Cluster differs in fundamental ways from the simu-
cluster gas due to bremsstrahlung radiation. lations used so far to understand X-ray cavities: the clusters therein
Despite a number of many beautiful or even spectacular examples, are not idealized but are evolved across billions of years of cosmic
the observational study of X-ray cavities is challenging, because of evolution together with their central and satellite galaxies (and their
the limited spatial and spectral resolutions of telescopes. Over the gaseous and stellar components) and together with their evolving
past decades, a large number have been detected by the Chandra X- SMBHs, cosmological gas accretion, and mergers. Previous studies
ray Observatory and XMM-Newton X-ray space telescopes (e.g. see within the IllustrisTNG framework have demonstrated that TNG50
McNamara & Nulsen 2007), and several comprehensive studies in Milky Way-like galaxies display eROSITA-like bubbles associated
both nearby and distant massive galaxies, groups and clusters have with kinetic injections from SMBH feedback (Pillepich et al. 2021)
helped to infer their underlying properties (Bîrzan et al. 2004; Raf- and that Perseus-like cluster cores from TNG-Cluster exhibit dis-
ferty et al. 2006; Diehl et al. 2008; Hlavacek-Larrondo et al. 2012; turbed X-ray morphologies such as ripples, X-ray cavities, and shock
Panagoulia et al. 2014; Hlavacek-Larrondo et al. 2015; Shin et al. fronts that closely resemble observations (Truong et al. 2024). Inde-
2016). Nevertheless, the nature of these structures, their formation, pendently from IllustrisTNG, alternative implementations of SMBH-
and evolution in the ICM remain unclear. In the realm of numerical driven feedback have been shown to produce features similar to ob-
simulations, numerous studies in (generally idealized) clusters set-up served X-ray cavities in a simulated cluster (RomulusC, via thermal
(Reynolds et al. 2001; Omma & Binney 2004; Brüggen & Scanna- energy injections with shut-off cooling, Tremmel et al. 2019) and,
pieco 2009; Li et al. 2015; Ehlert et al. 2022; Beckmann et al. 2022; very recently, in a set of simulated galaxy groups (the Hyenas, based
Fournier et al. 2024) have explored the impact of AGN jets on the on the bipolar jet-like model of SIMBA, Jennings et al. 2024). This
ICM and shown that such an interaction is complex and non-linear. provides further incentive to investigate the emergence of X-ray cav-
They suggest that jet-inflated X-ray cavities are formed from the ex- ities in the full cosmological context, across halo mass scales and
pansion and displacement of the ICM by the motion of ultra-hot gas galaxy formation models.
(>108−10 K) in a purely gas-dynamical process (e.g. Perucho et al. Here, we present the first paper in a series that aims to study X-ray
2014), or via cosmic rays dominated jets (e.g. Lin et al. 2023), or cavities with the TNG-Cluster simulation suite. In particular, in the
magnetically dominated jets (e.g. Nakamura et al. 2008). Resolved following, we quantify their global and spatially-resolved morpholo-
jet simulations demonstrate that AGN jets can generate X-ray cavities gies and demographics, by offering an overview of the diversity of
in the intracluster gas, which rise buoyantly, increasing turbulence X-ray cavities that are naturally produced in TNG-Cluster. To this
within the cluster and driving weak shock waves and sound waves end, we produce and analyze X-ray Chandra mock images of the
that can viscously dissipate in the ICM (e.g., Ruszkowski et al. 2004; central region of all clusters at redshift 0, 𝑧 = 0, in the simula-
Brüggen et al. 2007; Sternberg & Soker 2009). Even though AGNs tion. In a second paper (Prunier et al. in prep), we will carry out a
are modeled to inject a lot of energy into the ICM (of the order of comprehensive and apples-to-apples comparison between real X-ray
1044−45 erg s −1 , (e.g., Weinberger et al. 2017b; Chen et al. 2023) cavities identified in a volume-limited sample of observed clusters
the effective mechanism for energy transmission remains poorly un- with an analog subset of TNG-Cluster halos. While this first paper
derstood also in numerical experiments. will mostly utilize physical quantities directly inferred from the sim-
Their survival is also still under scrutiny: whereas observed X-
ray cavities in clusters seem to be stable and long-lived (between
1 and 100 million years (Myr), Bîrzan et al. 2004), the ones 1 𝑀500c denotes in a sphere whose mean density is 500 times the critical
formed purely through hydrodynamic processes, in contrast, dis- density of the Universe, at the time the halo is considered.
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

X-ray cavities in TNG-Cluster 3
ulation output, the second paper will aim to replicate, as closely as are in kinetic mode feedback at 𝑧 = 0 (having transitioned for the
possible, the methods used in an observational study, allowing us to first time from thermal to kinetic mode between redshift 6 and 2,
assess how well the simulation results align with real observations. Rohr et al. submitted): their central SMBHs inject kinetic energy by
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we detail the TNG- inputting a unidirectional momentum kick (with randomly-chosen
Cluster simulation and the methods used to identify and characterize direction, different between injection episodes) to the neighboring
X-ray cavities. Section 3 presents our key findings, highlighting the gas cells. The frequency of kinetic feedback is determined by the
morphological diversity of TNG X-ray cavities and providing statis- minimum energy that must be accumulated in the kinetic accretion
tics and demographics of the population across clusters. In Section mode by the SMBH before feedback is released. In TNG-Cluster,
4, we explore the connection between TNG SMBH feedback and the where the timing of kinetic energy injections has been recorded for
formation of X-ray cavities. In Section 5, we interpret our results and each SMBH, this frequency around 𝑧 = 0 corresponds to, typically,
their implications before concluding in Section 6. 1 injection every 10-100 Myr. As evinced from this description, by
construction, in these simulations there are no bipolar, collimated,
SBMH-driven jets akin to those implemented in idealized cluster
simulations and to those identified in e.g., radio galaxies (e.g., Blan-
2 METHODOLOGY: SIMULATED CLUSTERS AND THEIR
ton et al. 2004; Timmerman et al. 2022). Also, no cosmic ray physics
X-RAY MOCK OBSERVATIONS
is implemented (although see Ramesh et al. 2024). Rather, the SMBH
2.1 The TNG-Cluster simulation suite kinetic feedback included in TNG-Cluster is a subgrid model meant
to mimic (the effects of) high-velocity accretion-disk winds or small-
TNG-Cluster2 (Nelson et al. 2024) is a new spin-off project of Illus-
scale jets from low-luminosity SMBHs (Yuan & Narayan 2014) and
trisTNG (TNG hereafter, Nelson et al. 2019a). It is a 1 Gpc addition
designed primarily to halt star formation in massive galaxies. Such
to the TNG simulation suite (with flagship runs known as TNG50,
a model has been shown to be able to drive high-velocity outflows
TNG100, TNG300). It comprises a series of 352 zoom-in simula-
of hot gas (Nelson et al. 2019b) with varying large-scale (≳ 10 kpc)
tions of high-mass galaxy clusters (Mcluster, 500c ≥ 1014 M ⊙ ) with
manifestations in galaxies of different types and masses, from Milky
a baryonic mass resolution of about 107 M ⊙ . TNG-Cluster, likewise
Way analogs (Pillepich et al. 2021, 2023; Ramesh et al. 2023) to the
TNG, employs an adaptive mesh refinement scheme for the hydro-
BCGs at the center of Perseus-like clusters (Truong et al. 2024). In
dynamics, adjusting cell sizes based on environmental density. In
the following, we further test this model in terms of its ability (or
TNG-Cluster, the spatial resolution can be as small as 50 parsecs in
not) to create X-ray cavities in clusters and its interaction with the
the highest-density regions, enabling the detailed simulation of small-
ICM.
scale structure3 . The project aims to create a sample of clusters that
match the mass-redshift space of large cluster surveys, such as the
ROSAT MCXC meta-catalog (Piffaretti et al. 2011), with hundreds
of simulated massive clusters across cosmic epochs. TNG-Cluster 2.2 Mock Chandra X-ray images
adopts the fiducial TNG cosmology, consistent with Planck 2016 As the observational study of X-ray cavities is prone to biases, in-
(Planck Collaboration et al. 2016), with parameters ℎ = 0.6774, fluenced by data quality and instrumental effects, we include a layer
Ω𝑚 = 0.3089, ΩΛ = 0.6911, Ω𝑏 = 0.0486, 𝜎8 = 0.8159, and of observational realism for their identification in simulated clusters.
𝑛𝑠 = 0.9667. Our methodology involves generating simulated Chandra images, or
The physics of TNG-Cluster is based entirely on the model pre- “mock”, rather than relying solely on ideal X-ray maps extracted di-
sented in (Pillepich et al. 2018a; Weinberger et al. 2017a) and imple- rectly from the simulations. The Chandra X-ray imaging instrument
mented in TNG. It is a comprehensive and validated physical model ACIS-I, which offers high spatial resolution (pixel resolution 0.492
of the formation and evolution of galaxies and clusters, including arcsec) and large field of view (16.9 arcmin), is frequently used for
gas heating and cooling, star formation, evolution of stellar popula- the study of X-ray cavities. To investigate these structures in TNG-
tions and chemical enrichment, stellar feedback, as well as accretion, Cluster, we build mock ACIS-I Chandra X-ray images (field of view
multimode feedback, and merging of SMBHs. TNG-Cluster, thus, of 2×𝑟 500 ) of the 352 primary-zoom halos at 𝑧 = 0 within the simu-
enables a detailed study of the ICM at the heart of clusters, and its lation. Each of these mock images is centered at the location of the
interaction with AGN feedback. SMBH of the halo’s BCG4 .
We use pyXSIM (ZuHone & Hallman 2016) and the SOXS
SMBH feedback in TNG-Cluster In the TNG model, and hence in (ZuHone et al. 2023) software suite for simulating X-ray photons
TNG-Cluster, feedback from SMBHs is injected into the surrounding and producing mock observations. Photons in the energy band of
medium in the form of thermal or kinetic energy, for high and low 0.5–10.0 keV are generated for each cluster over a cubic region of
accretion rates respectively (Weinberger et al. 2017a), in addition to a ±1×r500 around the central SMBH. All gas cells in such cubic re-
radiative feedback (Vogelsberger et al. 2013). The energy injected in gions are considered for each cluster, i.e. not just gas parcels that
feedback is a fraction of the energy available through mass growth, are gravitationally-bound to the BCG or friends-of-friends cells. We
either via gas accretion (via a Bondi formula). SMBHs transition exclude only star-forming gas, i.e. cells with positive cooling rates
from thermal (also called quasar feedback) to kinetic feedback (also (i.e. net heating), and those low-resolution cells from outside the
called mechanical or wind feedback) depending on their instanta- zoom-in, high-resolution, re-simulation regions, that happen to be
neous accretion rate and masshe primary 352 BCGs of TNG-Cluster in our cubic volume selection at the time of analysis. For each gas
2 https://www.tng-project.org/cluster/
3 Within 50 kpc of cluster cores, the median resolution of gas cells is 2.3 kpc 4 Throughout this work, by BCG we denote the most massive galaxy of the
(1st percentile: 1.2 kpc, 99th percentile: 2.9 kpc). Within the innermost 10 (friends-of-friends halo corresponding to each) cluster. The central SMBH of
kpc of the clusters, the median resolution is 1.7 kpc (1st percentile: 1.4 kpc, each cluster should be the most massive SMBH that is gravitationally bound
99th percentile: 2.0 kpc). to the BCG at 𝑧 = 0.
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

4 M. Prunier et al.
17613539 16921354 10157377 17613539 16921354 10157377

60 kpc 60 kpc 60 kpc 60 kpc 60 kpc 60 kpc
att rim att rim att rim att rim att rim att rim
19119113 13927129 11823213 19119113 13927129 11823213

att half att half att half rim att half att half att half rim
15500142 18663609 17927695 15500142

18663609 17927695
sym rim sym rim sym sym rim sym rim sym
4356618 4753637 17352215

4356618 4753637 17352215
gen rim gen gen gen rim 3 gen gen
0 12334208 9574391 0 12334208 9574391

3 3 4 3 3 4
17704708 14664682 16137289 17704708 14664682 16137289

det det det det 3 det det
5608717 15543062 13634459 5608717 15543062 13634459

larg rim larg rim larg rim larg rim larg rim larg rim
Figure 1. Gallery of TNG-Cluster BCGs with visible X-ray cavities at 𝑧 = 0. On the Left columns: we show Mock Chandra surface brightness images of the
simulated clusters; on the Right columns: X-ray maps processed with an unsharp mask filter to highlight X-ray-depleted regions. The black crosses denote
the position of the SMBH. White arrows point out the X-ray cavity locations. Letters at the bottom right are flags characterizing the cluster’s X-ray cavities:
att- attached to the SMBH, rim- presence of a bright rim, half - one X-ray cavity cut in half by a bright emission from the SMBH, sym- pair of axisymmetric
X-ray cavities, gen- several generations, 3 or 4- more than two identified X-ray cavities in the same cluster det- detached and rising in the ICM, larg- very
large surface-brightness depressions surrounding the SMBH. This gallery highlights the diversity of X-ray cavity types, morphologies, and evolutionary stages
produced in the TNG-Cluster BCGs.
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)
cell, a mock spectrum is generated based on its gas density, tem-
perature, and metallicity, assuming the simulation abundance ratios, 35
a single-temperature APEC model (Smith et al. 2001), and galactic TNG-Cluster Mean: 9.3 ± 3.1 kpc
absorption with a hydrogen column density of 4×1020 cm −2 . The z=0 235 detected cavities
# of X-ray cavities
spectra of all gas cells in the adopted core region are summed up
together. This produces a large initial random sample of (“intrinsic”) 20
photons for each cluster and each sight line, which is later used by
the SOXS instrument simulator to draw subsamples of photons to
create “observed” X-ray events.
More specifically, mock Chandra ACIS event files are produced 5
by projecting the photons onto a detector plane, and convolving them
with an instrument model for the ACIS-I detector – we use instrumen- 1 8 16 22
tal responses files of Cycle 19, and with the (on-axis) point-spread Cavity mean radius [kpc]
function of ACIS. We limit the energy band of 0.5–7.0 keV to match
Figure 2. Distribution of TNG-Cluster X-ray cavity sizes (i.e. mean radius;
the ACIS broad energy band. To mimic as closely as possible real ob- average of the semi-major and semi-minor axes in kpc) at 𝑧 = 0.Their sizes
servational data, we also include X-ray emission of satellite galaxies range from a few kpc to a few tens of kpc with a mean of 9.3 ± 3.1 kpc (i.e.
belonging to the same halo in the image, as well as instrumental and ±1-𝜎 assuming a Gaussian distribution). For comparison, we also display
cosmic X-ray backgrounds and the galactic Milky Way foreground. data from X-ray cavities observed in the Perseus cluster (Fabian et al. 2002,
The mock X-ray observations are created for each simulated clus- 2000).
ter in a random orientation (the z-axis of the TNG-Cluster box). As
a sufficient number of X-ray photons is required to identify X-ray
cavities, we chose an exposure time of 200 kilo-seconds (ks) for our observers who do not typically use automated methods for detecting
images. This integration time makes it possible to visualize fine fea- and measuring X-ray cavity sizes (although pioneering efforts have
tures in cluster cores and aligns with the typical total exposure time been made recently in this direction with Plšek et al. 2024). Due to
of well-studied clusters harboring X-ray cavities by Chandra (e.g., the simplifying assumptions of ellipsoidal shape and symmetry, as
NGC 4636, Baldi et al. 2009). All clusters are positioned at a fixed well as projection effects i.e. X-ray cavity orientation, errors on X-ray
angular distance of 200 Mpc from ACIS-I, resulting in a resolution cavity sizes are large: we assume an uncertainty of the order of 20
of ∼0.5 kpc with the instrument specifications. per cent (e.g., Hlavacek-Larrondo et al. 2015).
2.3 Identification of X-ray cavities

3 RESULTS: A POPULATION OF X-RAY CAVITIES IN
We identify X-ray cavities in the simulated clusters by employing TNG-CLUSTER
unsharp masking (UM) on the mock Chandra X-ray observations
3.1 Diversity and morphology
obtained and described above. UM is a spatial frequency filtering
technique that enhances contrast and reveals small-scale inhomo- X-ray cavities are common in TNG-Cluster: more specifically, we
geneities in an image. This method, widely used in previous studies identify one or more X-ray cavities in 39 per cent (136) of the 352
of X-ray cavities (e.g., ?Shin et al. 2016), involves convolving Chan- clusters in the simulation, for a total number of 233 X-ray cavities.
dra mock images with Gaussian kernels of varying sizes, e.g., 6, 8, 12, We emphasize here that this analysis is conducted at a single snap-
and 16 pixels (equivalent to 3”, 4”, 6”, 8” or about 3, 4, 6, 8 kpc, re- shot, corresponding to redshift 0, capturing the occurrence of X-ray
spectively), and subsequently subtracting the images smoothed with cavities only at the present epoch. In the panel of Figure 1, we present
larger kernels (respectively 12 and 16 pixels) from those smoothed a collection of TNG-Cluster halos at 𝑧 = 0 with X-ray cavities visible
with smaller kernels (6 and 8 pixels). Having filters of different sizes as X-ray surface brightness depressions. The left columns display
enables better visualization of small and large X-ray cavities that can mock Chandra X-ray observations of the cluster’s core (240 × 240
coexist in the same cluster. We identify X-ray cavities in TNG-Cluster kpc), while the right columns show these images processed with
halos by visually inspecting both the Chandra-mock and two unsharp an unsharp mask filter to contrast the X-ray-depleted regions (see
masked images for each cluster. We select only X-ray cavities that Section 2.3).
are clearly visible in both the original mock image and in the UM We include examples of X-ray cavities with different morphologies
images or that are unambiguously visible in the UM images. and at different stages of evolution: from the defined X-ray cavity of
the cluster in the top left map (TNG-Cluster ID 17613539), likely
still undergoing inflation, to the fainter, rising one in the system with
2.4 Sizes of X-ray cavities and other properties ID 14664682. We showcase a variety of configurations, including
single, pairs (e.g., TNG-Cluster ID 155500142), and multiple X-
We manually estimate the physical size of each X-ray cavity as typ-
ray cavities (e.g., TNG-Cluster ID 0), attached or detached from
ically done in observations, i.e. by superimposing an ellipse at the
the SMBH. Notably, we also identify multiple generations of X-ray
location of the X-ray cavity on both the original mock Chandra X-ray
cavities within the same image (e.g., TNG-Cluster ID 4753637).
map and its UM counterparts. As in the observational studies, X-ray
To organize the description of these X-ray cavities and qualify
cavities are assumed to be prolate ellipsoids, with semi-minor and
their diversity in the TNG-Cluster simulation, we define eight flags.
semi-major axes respectively along and perpendicular to the line that
These flags are assigned purely based on visual inspection to at-
connects the SMBH to the center of the X-ray cavity (e.g. Dong et al.
tempt to qualify the complexity of the X-ray cavity population and
2010a). As the size of each X-ray cavity, we take the mean radius
to distinguish different configurations identified in the simulation:
i.e. the average of the semi-major and semi-minor axes in kpc. While
this method may lack precision, it reflects the current practice among • att- X-ray cavities attached to the SMBH
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

6 M. Prunier et al.
37 kpc
We also explore the correlation between the 2D projected area of
21 kpc X-ray cavities and distance to the SMBH. Our cluster mock images
are generated with random orientations, therefore we do not measure
Detached cavities the physical but the projected quantities, as in real observations. We
0.7x + 3.2, rp~0.42 TNG-Cluster z=0 318 kpc2
280 kpc2
approximate the X-ray cavity center as the ellipse center and mea-
Attached cavities
1.0x + 2.6, rp~0.26 sure its projected distance from the SMBH. Our analysis, shown in
103
Projected Area [kpc2]
Figure 3, reveals that, in TNG-Cluster and similarly to what inferred

from observations (here shown for the case of Perseus), distant X-
ray cavities have larger areas, suggesting a volume increase as they
102 rise. We measure a moderate positive linear correlation between the
distance from the SMBH and the area of X-ray cavities, with a Pear-
son correlation coefficient 𝑟 𝑝 of 0.26 for attached X-ray cavities and
of 0.42 for buoyant ones. Their projected distances range from a
101 Perseus
few kpc up to 100 kpc, with a mean of 26 kpc. This result implies
that in TNG these structures seem reasonably resilient to disruption
100 101 102 processes and/or travel at high velocities.
Projected Distance from SMBH [kpc]
Figure 3. Area of TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities as a function of their distance

from the SMBH of the BCG. Green (blue) markers represent X-ray cavities 3.3 Gas properties
that are attached to (detached from) their SMBH. The Pearson coefficient (𝑟 𝑝 ) Figure 4 showcases various gas properties of the core region of an ex-
quantifies the correlation between area and distance (Fisher 1944). The green
ample TNG-Cluster halo (ID 16921354): X-ray surface brightness,
and blue lines depict the best logarithmic fit for the attached and detached X-
gas density, mass-weighted temperature, and mass-weighted pres-
ray cavities, respectively. The histograms display the distribution of distances
and areas, with dashed lines indicating the medians. For comparison, X-ray sure, from left to right. We also show a shock map that displays gas
cavity data from the Perseus cluster (Fabian et al. 2002, 2000), with a total cells with mass-weighted Mach number > 0.9 in the map, using the
mass of 𝑀500 ∼ 1014.5 M ⊙ (Simionescu et al. 2011), are included. TNG- cosmological shock finder implemented in the TNG model (Schaal
Cluster X-ray cavities are within a comparable size range to observed ones. et al. 2016). We show this cluster as a representative example be-
cause it features two distinct X-ray cavities at different evolutionary
stages. The first X-ray cavity is connected to the central SMBH, ex-
• rim- presence of a bright rim hibiting a prominent, nearly spherical shape with a bright rim and
• half - one X-ray cavity cut in half by a bright emission extending ∼12 kpc in radius. The second X-ray cavity is rising in
• sym- pair of axisymmetric X-ray cavities the ICM, exhibiting a somewhat lesser X-ray contrast compared to
• gen- several generations of X-ray cavities in the same cluster the surrounding medium, and lacking a distinct bright rim. Both X-
• 3 and 4- more than two identified X-ray cavities in the same ray cavities are identifiable by a decrease in X-ray emission (30-40
cluster per cent fainter than the surrounding gas) as well as clearly defined
• det- detached and rising in the ICM regions with lower density and pressure than the rest of the ICM.
• larg- unusually large X-ray brightness depression surrounding Moreover, the temperature map reveals that they are filled with gas
the SMBH of high temperature (∼ 108 K) which is 2-5 times higher than the
Overall, Figure 1 showcases that the properties and shapes of TNG- surrounding intra-cluster gas. The X-ray-bright rim of the first X-ray
Cluster X-ray cavities are diverse. Attached X-ray cavities often have cavity reaches 1039.9 erg s −1 kpc −2 , it is compressed and associated
X-ray bright edges (flag rim) whereas detached ones generally do with a weak shock of average Mach number ∼ 1.4. On the other
not. We also see some attached X-ray cavities cut in half by a bright hand, the other X-ray cavity, which appears rising outwards, lacks
emission (flag half ). Moreover, TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities tend to such a shock signature. The examples of Figure 4 offer insights into
be more regular and spherical when smaller and attached to the the typical properties of the gas observed across the X-ray cavity
SMBH (e.g., TNG-Cluster ID 17613539). X-ray cavities attached or population of TNG-Cluster. In fact, by visually inspecting similar
recently detached can also be preferentially elongated towards the maps for each central region of all 352 TNG-Cluster halos at 𝑧 = 0,
SMBH (e.g., TNG-Cluster ID 19119113). Larger and more distant we identify recurring patterns associated with the presence of X-ray
ones exhibit more deformations, for example, the system of TNG- cavities. More specifically:
Cluster ID 17352215. ■ All TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities manifest themselves in the
X-ray maps as lower-emitting regions filled with hot gas with tem-
peratures varying between 107.8 and 108.1 K (10th-90th percentiles
3.2 Spatial extent and sizes
across the X-ray cavity sample).
The sizes of the TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities span from a few kpc
to a few tens of kpc, with a mean radius across the population of ■ The X-ray cavity regions typically exhibit a lower density and
9.3 kpc. This is shown in Figure 2, where we depict the distribution X-ray emission with respect to the surrounding gas (by ∼ 30-40 per
of the mean radius of TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities measured as de- cent). The interior of the X-ray cavities shows no signs of over- or
scribed in Section 2.4. Amid the possibly-large uncertainties in such under-pressure, implying that TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities are in ap-
size estimates, TNG-Cluster sizes align with the size range reported proximate pressure equilibrium with respect to the surrounding ICM.
in observational studies of clusters harboring X-ray cavities (e.g.,
Panagoulia et al. 2014). A more direct and comprehensive compar- ■ About ∼ 25 per cent of the TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities (58 of
ison between the sizes of real and simulated X-ray cavities in the 233) display bright and overpressurized dense edges, often coincid-
TNG model will be the focus of a future paper. ing with weak shocks. This, in particular, is the case for 20 X-ray
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

Figure 4. Maps of the thermodynamic and kinematic properties of the gas within an example TNG-Cluster system (Halo 16921354; maps side length: 200
kpc, depth: 20 kpc). Two X-ray cavities are visible: the first is attached to the central SMBH and exhibits a bright rim, while the second is detached and rising
in the ICM. These X-ray cavities appear as under-dense and under-X-ray luminous regions filled with hot gas. Additionally, the attached X-ray cavity has an
over-pressurized edge and a weak shock front with a Mach number of ∼ 1.3 (mass-weighted average Mach number along the line of sight, according to the shock
finder: here the averages are obtained by only considering gas cells with shock Mach number larger than 0.9), while the detached X-ray cavity does not display
such a feature. This panel illustrates the varying thermodynamic states of the gas within and surrounding the X-ray cavities. It highlights the typical properties
of the X-ray cavity population identified in the TNG-Cluster simulation.
cavities (9 per cent of the whole X-ray cavity sample), with Mach 70 percent of clusters with three or four X-ray cavities are SCCs.
numbers varying between 1.2 and 2.1 (10th-90th percentiles). Edges Beyond these categories, we find a clear correlation among central
seem to have similar temperatures than the gas inside the X-ray cavity. cooling time, X-ray luminosity (𝐿 X500c ) in the core, and number of
X-ray cavities per cluster (bottom middle panel of Figure 5): both at
■ Conversely, X-ray cavities lacking bright edges or detached fixed X-ray luminosity in the core and for higher luminosities, multi-
from the central SMBH are not associated with shocks. ple X-ray cavities are more frequent in systems with shorter cooling
times.
■ The ICM surrounding X-ray cavities frequently exhibits spheri- Cluster relaxedness. Observational studies also suggest that X-ray
cal ripples and pressure waves. In most cases, they are not associated cavities are more frequently associated with relaxed rather than un-
with strong shocks, but sometimes with weak shocks. relaxed clusters (Olivares et al. 2023), whereby the dynamical state
of the observed clusters (i.e. whether the system is dynamically re-
laxed or has recently undergone a merger or interaction with another
3.4 Demographics cluster) is quantified by the offset between the peak of the X-ray
emission (indicating the center of mass of the hot gas) and the center
As mentioned above, X-ray cavities are a common phenomenon in of the gravitational potential well. It is not clear whether this relation
TNG-Cluster: here we expand on the frequency and the properties is the result of causal physical connections between relaxedness and
of the simulated clusters hosting X-ray cavities. As shown in the two formation or survivability of X-ray cavities, or whether it is a mani-
top panels of Figure 5, according to our visual identification and out festation of an underlying observed correlation between cluster cool
of the 352 analyzed clusters, 136 (39 per cent) of 𝑧 = 0 TNG-Cluster coreness and relaxedness. Nevertheless, this link appears to be in
systems have at least one visible X-ray cavity. In fact, we find a range place also in TNG-Cluster. In particular, we estimate the relaxedness
of simulated clusters containing a variable number of X-ray cavities, offset for each of the 352 clusters by comparing the position of the X-
from one to four, with the occurrence decreasing as the number of X- ray peak with the location of the SMBH of the BCG, by employing a
ray cavities increases (left panel). More precisely, our study reveals ’shrinking circle’ algorithm to identify the X-ray peak and with larger
that 52 per cent of the clusters with X-ray cavities have only one offsets denoting less relaxed clusters. The bottom right-hand panel
identified X-ray cavity, while 29 per cent of the sample have pairs of Figure 5 shows, firstly, that there is a negative correlation between
(pie chart). central cooling time and relaxedness in TNG-Cluster systems, i.e.
Cluster cool-core state. Observations suggest that cool-core clus- more relaxed clusters tend to have somewhat shorter central cool-
ters – i.e. clusters with short central cooling times –are more likely ing times, although with a large scatter. Finally, TNG-Cluster halos
to host X-ray cavities. Lehle et al. (2024) demonstrated that TNG- with more than two X-ray cavities tend to exhibit smaller (<50 kpc)
Cluster naturally returns a diverse population of cluster cores, from offsets. More importantly, according to TNG-Cluster, also at fixed
strong cool cores (SCCs, with a central cooling time of the gas within cooling time, e.g. in the WCC regime, shorter cooling times seem
0.012×r500c below 1 Gyr), to weak cool-cores (WCCs, with central to be associated with larger X-ray cavity multiplicities, suggesting a
cooling time between 7.7 and 1 Gyr), and non-cool-cores (NCCs), connection between X-ray cavity abundance and cluster dynamical
and with relative fractions at 𝑧 = 0 in broad agreement with observa- state.
tions. Now, according to our analysis, also in TNG-Cluster there is a
clear trend between the presence of X-ray cavities and the cool-core
nature of the host cluster, as shown in the lower-left histogram of
4 RESULTS: THE ORIGIN OF X-RAY CAVITIES IN
Figure 5. Clusters with identified X-ray cavities are either SCCs or
TNG-CLUSTER
WCCs, and an increasing fraction of SCCs host an increasing num-
ber of X-ray cavities in the same cluster. The vast majority of NCCs So far we have shown that, in the TNG-Cluster cosmological simu-
in TNG-Cluster do not host identifiable X-ray cavities, while over lation, X-ray cavities are a common manifestation of the underlying
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

8 M. Prunier et al.
352
0 cavity
TNG-Cluster, z=0 1 cavity
352 clusters 2 cavities TNG-Cluster, 105 clusters with X-ray cavities
233 X-ray cavities in total
3 cavities
4 cavities
216 3 cavities
# of clusters
4 cavities
14.7% 2 cavities
4.4% 28.7%
71 52.2%
39
20 6 1 cavity
61% 20% 11% 6% 2%
0 1 2 3 4
# of X-ray cavities per cluster
TNG-Cluster, z=0, 352 clusters
TNG-Cluster, z=0, 352 clusters TNG-Cluster, z=0, 352 clusters
Strong Cool Core <1Gyr
Weak Cool Core 83% NCC NCC
Non Cool Core >7.7Gyr
101 7.7 Gyr 101 7.7 Gyr
70%
Central cooling time [Gyr]

Central cooling time [Gyr]
68%
Percentage of clusters
64%
WCC WCC
54%
46%
100 1 Gyr 100 1 Gyr
SCC SCC
31% 30%
25% 0 cavity
1 cavity 0 cavity
17% 2 cavities 1 cavity
11% 3 cavities
2 cavities
10 1 10 1 3 cavities
1% 0% 0% 0% 4 cavities 4 cavities
0 1 2 3 4 1043 1044 1045 100 101 102 103
Number of X-ray cavities Lx500c [erg/s] X-ray offset from SMBH [kpc]
Figure 5. Demographics of clusters with and without identified X-ray cavities in the TNG-Cluster simulation at 𝑧 = 0. Top left: Percentage of clusters with
identified X-ray cavities. Top right: Among clusters with identified X-ray cavities, percentage of clusters having one, two, three, or four X-ray cavities. Bottom
Left: Percentage distribution of cool-core (CC), weak cool-core (WCC), and non-cool-core (NCC) clusters for each category of clusters with or without identified
X-ray cavities. The plot shows, for clusters with two X-ray cavities (x-label "2"), that 54 per cent of the TNG-Cluster halos hosting two X-ray cavities are SCCs
and 46 per cent WCCs. Bottom middle: Central cooling time vs. X-ray luminosity within 𝑟500c for each halo, color-coded by the number of identified X-ray
cavities. Bottom Right: Central cooling time vs. the distance between the SMBH and the X-ray luminosity peak, i.e. a measure of un/relaxedness, color-coded by
the number of identified X-ray cavities. In TNG-Cluster, ∼ 39 per cent of clusters exhibit at least one X-ray cavity. Clusters with identified X-ray cavities tend to
have shorter central cooling times and higher X-ray luminosities, and to be more relaxed (smaller X-ray peak offset).
galaxy and cluster formation model. In fact, they are also an emer- 4.1 Insights from the TNG300 cluster subbox
gent feature, as no specific TNG model choices or parameters were
designed with the explicit intent of reproducing X-ray cavities in the
One way to connect AGN feedback to the creation of an X-ray cavity
ICM of simulated clusters (see Pillepich et al. 2018a, for all details
is to study the behavior of the gas in the vicinity of the SMBH during
on the design of the TNG model). However, we have not yet ex-
the X-ray cavity formation period. For this purpose, we use data
plored how these structures are created. In the following, we show
from the TNG300 simulation (Pillepich et al. 2018b; Nelson et al.
that within the TNG model, X-ray cavities resembling those observed
2018, 2019a; Springel et al. 2018; Marinacci et al. 2018; Naiman
in actual clusters are formed by kinetic, wind-like energy injections,
et al. 2018), in particular its subboxes, which are spatial cutouts of
driven by the SMBHs at the center of clusters.
fixed comoving size within the main simulation box and whose data
have been stored with high temporal resolution between each subbox
snapshots: every ≲10 Myr, compared to ∼150 Myr between the
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

t=-3668Myr 30 kpc t=-3657Myr 30 kpc t=-3646Myr 30 kpc t=-3635Myr 30 kpc t=-3624Myr 30 kpc t=-3614Myr 30 kpc
injection [log(1042)erg/s]
First frame t=-3614 Myr TNG300, z~0.30, ID=0

SMBH kinetic energy
1.5 t=-3668 Myr SMBH Mass ~5.54e+10 M

1.0
0.5
104 vout, 95, d<5kpc

vout, 95 d<20kpc
Outflow vout, 95
[km/s]
103
SMBH accretion rate
2.0
[10 2 M /yr]
1.5
1.0
0.5
3680 3660 3640 3620 3600
Cosmic Time from 13.3 Gyr [Myrs]
Figure 6. Time evolution of selected quantities from the TNG300 most massive cluster, for which high temporal cadence output is available. The top two rows
show six X-ray emission maps of the central region of the cluster, across 55 Myr, featuring two X-ray cavity events occurring in the second and last frame:
mock Chandra surface brightness maps and the same maps processed with an unsharp mask filter to highlight X-ray-depleted regions, respectively. From top to
bottom, the lower three panels quantify the time evolution of: i) energy injected in kinetic mode by the SMBH between two successive snapshots, i.e. across time
spans of about 10 Myrs; ii) maximum radial outflow velocities (95th percentile) of the gas at different distances from the SMBH; and iii) SMBH accretion rate.
In all panels, the two dotted vertical lines indicate the frames just before the first and second X-ray cavities appear. The two events are characterized by a 1042−43
erg s −1 kinetic energy release and high-velocity gas outflows, as well as concomitant decreases in the SMBH accretion rate. See continuation in Figure 7.
main snapshots. Snapshots at such high time-cadence were not saved (depth of 40 kpc) of the gas centered on the position of the SMBH.
for TNG-Cluster, therefore we specifically focus on the TNG300- We also show the corresponding unsharp-masked maps that enhance
Subbox-0, which is centered on the most massive cluster of TNG300 the contrast and allow for better visualization. The first panel displays
(friends-of-friends ID 0), with a mass of 2×1015 M ⊙ at 𝑧 = 0. Given the immediate previous snapshot prior to the first X-ray cavity’s ap-
that both simulations employ the same TNG galaxy formation and pearance. The lower panels of Figure 6 present the temporal evolution
feedback model, and that this halo mass falls within the range of TNG- of selected physical quantities from the simulation, where the x-axis
Cluster halos (𝑀500c = 1014.0 − 1015.3 M ⊙ ),it is a representative represents cosmic time in millions of years from 13.3 billion years
cluster for our investigation into the physical origin and temporal after the Big Bang, with time progressing from left to right. In partic-
evolution of X-ray cavities. ular, we show the evolution of: i) the SMBH kinetic energy injection
between snapshots5 , ii) the outflow velocity, measured as the high-
In Figure 6, we depict two distinct X-ray cavity events formed
in this cluster, in a panel of six subbox-snapshots covering a time
range of about 55 Myr. We visualize the emergence and progression
of these X-ray cavities within 250 by 250 kpc X-ray emission maps 5 As we have not recorded the energy of the individual SMBH feedback
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

10 M. Prunier et al.
injections [1042 erg/s] 40

SMBH kinetic energy
30
20
10
vout, 95, d<10kpc

in d<5kpc [km/s]
104
Outflow vout, 95
103
102
SMBH accretion rate
2
[10 2 M /yr]
4400 4200 4000 3800 3600 3400 3200

Cosmic Time from 13.3 Gyr [Myrs]
Figure 7. Time evolution of the same selected quantities as in the previous Figure 6, spanning 1.5 Gyr starting from 𝑧 ∼ 0.24. Dotted vertical lines indicate
the times when an X-ray cavity is visually identified in the X-ray and UM maps. These X-ray cavities are consistently linked to SMBH energetic outbursts and
high-velocity gas outflows. Simultaneously, the SMBH accretion rate decreases in reaction to gas depletion in the SMBH vicinity. These results show the direct
connection between the formation of X-ray cavities and SMBH kinetic feedback mode in TNG.
end (95th percentile) of the mass-weighted velocity distribution, for synchronized increase, notably lower (∼ 1038 erg s −1 ), in the ther-
the gas cells situated respectively within 5 kpc or 20 kpc from the mal energy of the gas cells near the SMBH (within d<5kpc, but not
SMBH, and iii) the SMBH instantaneous accretion rate. Additionally, shown in the plots), suggesting a partial conversion of kinetic energy
Figure 7 shows the evolution of these quantities over a much longer to thermal energy.
time period of 1.5 Gyr, to highlight the systematic behaviors associ- The second lower panel of Figure 6 shows that the gas is acceler-
ated with the formation of X-ray cavities. By inspecting these time ated and ejected in an episodic manner, achieving outflow velocities
series, we can clearly see temporal correlations among large energy of up to several thousands of km s −1 . After reaching these peak out-
injections from the central SMBH, the development of fast outflows flow speeds, the outflow velocities gradually decrease over time. The
(up to 1000 − 10000 km s −1 ), and the emergence of X-ray cavities in gas at larger distances (from 5 and 20 kpc from the SMBH, for the
the surrounding ICM. We analyze such connection in greater detail grey and black curves respectively) exhibits a similar modulation in
in the next section 4.2 velocity over time. The first X-ray cavity is linked to synchronized
outflow peaks occurring within both 5 kpc and 20 kpc, albeit with a
lower maximum value. The second X-ray cavity, formed by a lower-
4.2 X-ray cavities carved by distinct SMBH injection events energy kick, exhibits visibly delayed velocity peaks for the gas at
The sequence of images in the upper portions of Figure 6 shows the progressively larger distances. These patterns illustrate the tendency
formation and development of two individual X-ray cavities corre- of outflows to decelerate as they travel farther from the SMBH and
sponding to two instances of kinetic energy released by the central through the surrounding BCG gas (if any) and the ICM. Finally, the
SMBH (Δ𝐸 kin ). A significant increase in Δ𝐸 kin at the time of X-ray bottom panel of Figure 6 shows that X-ray cavity formation is asso-
cavity formation is manifest: during the first X-ray cavity event, the ciated with a decrease in the mass accretion rate of the SMBH. The
kinetic energy release is ∼ 3×1043 erg s −1 (between -3668 and -3657 gas expelled immediately after the birth of an X-ray cavity lowers the
Myr, i.e. between 3668 and 3657 million years ago), while during density near the SMBH, decreasing the amount of material available
the second X-ray cavity event (starting at -3624 Myr), such injection for the SMBH to accrete. Therefore 𝑀¤ is temporarily reduced as gas
is an order of magnitude lower, 3 × 1042 erg s −1 . Alongside these is expelled from the innermost region of the cluster.
large kinetic energy releases, there are smaller ones at most times, The time evolution of Figure 7 of SMBH kinetic injections, outflow
which however are below the ∼ 1041 erg s −1 level. Additionally, in velocities, and SMBH accretion rates on a longer timeline further
correspondence to each large kinetic energy injection, there is also a supports the findings from above: the emergence of X-ray cavities
systematically aligns with an SMBH kinetic energy release, syn-
chronized with an outflow velocity peak and a dip in the SMBH
injections in the simulation output, here we estimate it by measuring the total mass accretion rate. These results demonstrate the direct connection
kinetic energy gained by the gas cells within a small fixed distance from the between the formation of X-ray cavities and the unidirectional mo-
center (5 kpc) since the previous snapshot, i.e. over the previous 10 Myrs. mentum kicks given by the SMBH in kinetic feedback mode within
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

6 TNG-Cluster Thermal Mode

z=0 10 1
1.25 Kinetic Mode
MSMBH at first kinetic injection [108 M ]

10
Redshift of first kinetic injection
2
5 TNG-Cluster
z=0
1.1 10 3
M/MEddington
4
10 4
3 1
10 5
0 cavity
2 0.9 1 cavity
10 6 2 cavities
3 cavities
4 cavities
1 1014 10 7
109 1010 1011
1015
Cluster mass at z = 0 M500 [M ] SMBH mass (M )
Figure 8. X-ray cavities as a manifestation of kinetic energy injections from low Eddington ratios SMBHs according to TNG-Cluster. Left Panel: Feedback
state of the 352 clusters at 𝑧 = 0. The redshift of the first kinetic injection indicates the approximate moment of transition from thermal feedback mode to
kinetic mode (curve: median color-coded with the average SMBH mass at the time of transition, grey shaded region: 1-𝜎 range of the distribution). All central
SMBHs in TNG-Cluster operate in kinetic, low-accretion feedback mode at 𝑧 = 0 and since at least 𝑧 ≃ 1, with the onset occurring around a SMBH mass of ∼
108 M ⊙ . SMBHs in more massive clusters today (𝑧 = 0) tend to switch to kinetic mode at higher redshifts. Right Panel: Fraction of the instantaneous accretion
rate relative to the Eddington accretion rate, color-coded with the number of X-ray cavities per cluster. The dashed grey line shows the accretion-mass threshold
below which, within the TNG model, SMBHs are in kinetic feedback mode. For visual clarity, data points outside the axis range are displayed at the limits,
five SMBHs that fall below these limits overlap in the lower-left corner. Clusters with more massive SMBHs, which accrete at higher rates within the kinetic
feedback mode, tend to produce more frequent feedback events, creating multiple co-existing X-ray cavities.
the TNG model, at least according to one of the clusters simulated energy, reaching between 1042−45 erg s −1 , and with the emergence of
therein. We inspect (but we do not show) the X-ray maps along the outflows with velocities between 1,000 and 10,000 km s −1 (Figure 7).
evolution of this massive cluster across an even longer period of time, ■ The gas expelled immediately after the birth of an X-ray cavity
namely 5.5 Gyr (from 𝑧 = 0.55 to 𝑧 = 0). We choose this range to lowers the density near the SMBH, which reduces the mass accretion
focus on the last billions of years, close to the current epoch, when the rate onto the SMBH.
cluster is in a similar state with mass > 1014 M ⊙ . Over this period we
Below we argue that this phenomenology, and the causal con-
identify 23 X-ray cavities by visually inspecting the central 250×250
nection between X-ray cavities and mechanical wind-like feedback,
kpc region of the halo, giving a mean frequency of one every 240
applies throughout our population of simulated clusters.
Myr. The intervals between consecutive SMBH energy injections (or
at least those we can capture given the temporal spacing between the
subbox-snapshots) range from 40 to 300 Myr. Even if these statistics 4.3 Link between X-ray cavities and SMBH activity across
reflect the evolution of one single object from TNG300, and cannot populations of TNG-Cluster halos
be a priori generalized, they do suggest that not every kinetic energy
injection from the SMBH results in a visible X-ray cavity, as we only Focusing again on the whole sample of 352 clusters at 𝑧 = 0 from
capture 23 of them among 35 injection events. We believe that differ- the TNG-Cluster suite, we see in Figure 8 that all their SMBHs are
ent scenarios for the emergence, properties, and evolution of X-ray operating in a kinetic, low-accretion feedback mode at 𝑧 = 0. In fact,
cavities, within the same cluster and across different clusters, may within the TNG model, the SMBHs of very massive systems like
depend not only on the amount of injected feedback energy but also those of TNG-Cluster have been at very low Eddington ratios for
on the dynamic state of the gas in the core region, as the maps visually billions of years and have hence imparted kinetic rather than thermal
suggest. In a nutshell, the evidence linking the formation of X-ray feedback into the surrounding. The redshift of their first kinetic in-
cavities to the AGN mechanical feedback model in IllustrisTNG can jection, which approximately albeit not exactly marks the transition
be summarized as follows: from the thermal feedback mode to the kinetic mode, ranges between
5 and 2, with the transition occurring earlier on for more massive
clusters (left panel of Figure 8). We have checked and confirmed that
■ At the center of the TNG300 most massive cluster we identify the SMBHs of the 𝑧 = 0 BCGs have been exclusively in kinetic mode
numerous X-ray cavities over time, starting from 𝑧 ∼1-2 when the since at least 𝑧 = 1 (with rare exceptions): the TNG-Cluster X-ray
cluster has already switched to the kinetic feedback mode –the SMBH cavities at 𝑧 = 0 studied and presented in this paper are therefore phe-
of this system has not exercised thermal mode feedback since 𝑧 = 3.5. nomena that emerge in the presence of kinetic unidirectional energy
■ The formation of X-ray cavities along the life of this simulated injections from the SMBHs.
cluster is systematically associated with an SMBH release of kinetic In the right panel of Figure 8 we inspect the ratio of the SMBH
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

Corr(Distance, MSMBH): -0.12 Corr(Distance, MSMBH): -0.07 Corr(Distance, Ekin): -0.17

Corr(Area, MSMBH): 0.10 Corr(Area, MSMBH): -0.06 Corr(Area, Ekin): -0.08
Projected area [kpc2]
103 103 103
102 102 102
101 102 101 102 101 102

Projected distance from SMBH [kpc] Projected distance from SMBH [kpc] Projected distance from SMBH [kpc]
9.5 10.0 10.5 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.5 58 59 60 61 62
MSMBH [log(M )] MSMBH [log(M /Gyr)] Ekin [log(erg)]
Figure 9. Connections between X-ray cavity area, distance to the SMBH, and various properties of its central SMBH. From right to left: points are color-coded
with SMBH mass, SMBH instantaneous accretion rate, 𝐸kin,z=0 amount of kinetic energy injection from the central SMBH at 𝑧 = 0. Weak or no correlations
can be seen, even though, in TNG-Cluster, X-ray cavities are produced by injections of kinetic energy from SMBHs. This lack of clear correlation highlights
that the properties of these structures result not only from SMBH activity but also from a complex interplay with the ICM.
mass accretion rate to the Eddington rate ( 𝑀¤ SMBH / 𝑀¤ Edd , where rent properties of SMBHs might not be as informative after all, or
𝑀¤ Edd = 𝐿𝜖Edd
𝑟
with 𝜖𝑟 = 0.1 the radiative efficiency parameter) plot- any straightforward interpretation should be put forward with cau-
ted against the mass of the BCG’s SMBH of each cluster. The markers tion. In the TNG model, not only the most massive BCGs but also
are color-coded based on the number of X-ray cavities identified in massive galaxies in lower-mass clusters and groups experience me-
these clusters, ranging from zero to four. The mass accretion rate chanical feedback from their SMBH, which serves as the dominant
depicted in the figure is instantaneous, capturing the state of SMBHs and effective energy source within these galaxies (Weinberger et al.
at a snapshot in time, despite some X-ray cavities might have been 2017a, 2018). This feedback is, in fact, responsible for quenching
inflated tens or even hundreds of Myr earlier. All clusters at 𝑧 = 0 are star formation (e.g. Nelson et al. 2018; Terrazas et al. 2020; Zinger
undergoing kinetic feedback mode and typically host SMBHs that et al. 2020; Davies et al. 2021) in the vast majority of these galaxies,
accrete at low rates (10 −6 to 10 −2 of the Eddington accretion rate), including those in TNG-Cluster (Nelson et al. 2024). In terms of
with more massive SMBHs exhibiting higher accretion rates. The feedback energy injections, this overall picture leaves no other plau-
figure reveals a trend whereby clusters with more numerous simulta- sible explanation than SMBH kinetic feedback for the emergence of
neous X-ray cavities show higher accretion rates and SMBH masses. the X-ray cavities revealed in this paper. Overall, these results are
These findings suggest that SMBHs accreting at higher rates(while in agreement with the study of Pillepich et al. (2021) on eROSITA-
remaining within the low-luminosity i.e. kinetic feedback regime), like bubbles in TNG50 Milky Way-like galaxies, which suggests that
and therefore growing faster, may generate more frequent successive these features result for at least the vast majority of the systems, from
feedback events carving multiple X-ray cavities. kinetic energy injections from SMBHs at the center of galaxies. The
X-ray cavities in the ICM of TNG clusters are formed by similar pro-
In Figure 9, we further explore how SMBH mass, accretion rate,
cesses, i.e. by intermittent, unidirectional, powerful energy outbursts
and amount of kinetic energy injected at the current 𝑧 = 0 snapshot
from the central SMBH. The synchronization between the energy
𝐸 kin,z=0 may correlate with the size and distance of the X-ray cavities
released from the SMBHs into the gas and the peaks of high-velocity
of TNG-Cluster. However, there does not seem to be a clear correla-
outflows seen in the previous Sections highlights the episodic nature
tion between the properties of SMBHs and those of the X-ray cavities.
of the TNG SMBH feedback and its significant impact on the sur-
It is important here to note the temporal disparity: some distant X-ray
rounding gas dynamics. Whereas the formation of X-ray cavities is
cavities might have formed several tens of Myr before the recording
triggered by gas outflows in turn due to SMBH kinetic kicks, their
of the SMBH’s accretion state or 𝐸 kin,z=0 . Furthermore, the variabil-
evolution in time is likely influenced by a combination of factors,
ity in timing between subsequent kinetic energy injections can range
including SMBH activity and the turbulent, complex physical state
from 0.7 Myr up to a few hundred Myr for the same SMBH. This
of the ICM at the cluster centers (Ayromlou et al. 2023). Because of
temporal variability and disparity add another layer of complexity
this richness of phenomenology, it may actually be very hard to pin
when trying to correlate the characteristics of X-ray cavities (which
down, e.g. in observations, a causal link between SMBHs and X-ray
are expected to be influenced by these energy injections) with the
cavities.
current activity and mass of the SMBH. Additionally, the area and
ascent velocities of the X-ray cavities are probably influenced by a
complex interplay of ICM density, pressure, and motions, on top of
the SMBH activity. The lack of correlation and interpretability of
5 DISCUSSION
Figure 9 underscores the complexity of these connections, even in
the case of the simulations where the causal physical link is clear(er). How do the overall occurrence and properties of TNG-Cluster X-ray
Connecting the observed characteristics of X-ray cavities to the cur- cavities compare to those found in observations? If SMBH feedback
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

determines the formation of X-ray cavities in the TNG model, what a marked axi-symmetry with respect to the central SMBH (e.g.,
may be the impact of the ICM environment on their subsequent evo- TNG-Cluster ID 15500142 in Figure 1). As discussed in Section 4.2,
lution and survival? And finally, are X-ray cavities the only heating TNG X-ray cavities arise naturally from the SMBH kinetic feedback
channel of the ICM in TNG-Cluster? model. The scarcity of X-ray cavity pairs and symmetry in our study
likely stems from the TNG model’s prescription for AGN feedback,
where energy injection occurs in a unidirectional manner. Whereas
5.1 Thoughts on simulated vs. observed X-ray cavities
it is notable that somewhat symmetric X-ray cavity pairs do in fact
In this section, we comment on the possible similarities and differ- emerge from independent energy injection events (see also a related
ences between simulated X-ray cavities in the TNG-Cluster cosmo- discussion in the case of eROSITA-like pairs in Milky Way-like
logical framework and those observed in real clusters. However, this galaxies in the TNG50 simulation, Pillepich et al. 2021), the nature
discussion is merely qualitative – a detailed, in-depth, and quantita- of the TNG SMBH feedback, and the shortage of e.g. dense gaseous
tive comparison is given in the second article of this series (), where disks capable of re-directing the gaseous outflows in preferential
we systematically account for selection effects and instrument-related directions around the typical BCG’s SMBH, naturally leads to a
biases. preferential formation of asymmetric and unique X-ray cavities.
Frequency i.e. detection rate. In the TNG-Cluster simulation, 39 Shapes and sizes. In TNG-Cluster, we identify X-ray cavities at
per cent (136/352) of the BCGs exhibit X-ray cavities, which is various evolutionary stages, from inflating to rising bubbles, using
comparable to the 52 percent (69/133) reported by the observational visual inspection and flagging to distinguish their configurations and
study of Shin et al. (2016) and 43 percent (15/35) by Panagou- morphologies. Although real X-ray cavities are often approximated as
lia et al. (2014), both in systematic searches across cool-core and ellipsoids, studies such as Rafferty et al. (2006); Hlavacek-Larrondo
non-cool-core clusters. However, this frequency is lower than that et al. (2012) reveal that observed X-ray cavities have more complex
of other studies which have reported higher detection rates (e.g., structures than simple ellipses. They tend to be elongated either
Dunn & Fabian 2006; Rafferty et al. 2006; Bırzan et al. 2013), al- along the jet direction or in the perpendicular direction, a behavior
though those studies are often biased toward the brightest sources in supported by idealized hydrodynamical simulations of mechanical
the sky. It should be noted that the detection rate in our systematic AGN feedback (Brueggen & Scannapieco 2009; Mendygral et al.
study of each TNG-Cluster system could be influenced by several 2012a; Guo 2015). TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities are more regular and
factors, including many that are unrelated to the TNG SMBH feed- spherical when small and attached to the central SMBH. Larger,
back prescription. Unlike most observational studies, which typically more distant X-ray cavities are often deformed in arc-like shapes or
have exposure times of 30-50 ks, our study benefits, by design and elongated toward the SMBH. The flagged "larg" X-ray cavities at the
construction, from longer exposure times of 200 ks. This extended bottom of Fig. 1, surrounding the SMBH, are likely being inflated
duration, coupled with the placement of clusters at a consistent an- along our line of sight, suggesting that the energy injection is directed
gular distance of 200 Mpc from the detector, enhances our ability to towards us. Some of them exhibit jellyfish-like shapes, like the rising
identify X-ray cavities. The longer exposure reduces the likelihood X-ray cavity in TNG-Cluster ID 16921354 of Figure 4, analogous to
of missing X-ray cavities that might be overlooked in shorter expo- observed mushroom-shaped X-ray cavities such as in M87 (Churazov
sures and mitigates redshift-angular resolution effects. Furthermore, et al. 2001). This variety suggests that the dynamics and evolution of
during the detection process on our mock Chandra images, it was X-ray cavities in the TNG-Cluster simulation share similarities with
sometimes challenging to differentiate between X-ray cavities and observational findings, where X-ray cavity shapes are influenced
other X-ray surface brightness depressions caused by gas sloshing. by the feedback processes as well as by their interaction with the
This effect could affect the number of detected X-ray cavities, though surrounding ICM (see also Section 5.2).
this issue also arises in real observations. When exploring the sizes of X-ray cavities in TNG-Cluster, we
find that the distribution of mean radii spans from a few kiloparsecs
Pairs. In TNG-Cluster we identify halos hosting one, two, three, to a few tens of kiloparsecs, which also aligns with the size ranges
and up to four simultaneous X-ray cavities, although the occurrence reported in observational studies (e.g., Panagoulia et al. 2014). Our
of larger numbers becomes increasingly rare. In observations, X-ray analysis of the connection between the projected distance from the
cavities in clusters are also detected either alone (e.g., Abell 1795, central SMBH and the X-ray cavity area, as shown in Figure 3,
Walker et al. 2014), in pairs (e.g., Abell 2597, McNamara et al. 2001), reveals a positive linear correlation. This indicates that as the distance
or in larger numbers such as in Hydra A, (Wise et al. 2007) and M87 from the SMBH increases, the area of X-ray cavities tends to grow.
(Shin et al. 2016) with six X-ray cavities each. One notable difference While our findings suggest a moderate correlation (r 𝑝 <0.5), several
between the TNG-Cluster findings and observational studies lies in observational studies, including those by Shin et al. (2016), Bîrzan
the frequency and spatial configuration of X-ray cavity pairs. Our et al. (2004), and Diehl et al. (2008), have reported a stronger positive
analysis reveals that 52 per cent of simulated clusters with X-ray correlation between X-ray cavity area (or size) and distance.
cavities host only one identified X-ray cavity, while 29 per of our
TNG-Cluster sample exhibit pairs (cf pie chart in Figure 5). This Thermodynamics of the gas. Figure 4 showcases the typical
distribution suggests that single X-ray cavities are more prevalent in gaseous properties within and around identified X-ray cavities.
TNG-Cluster compared to clusters with two or more. In contrast, Shin Throughout the TNG-Cluster sample, we identify recurring patterns,
et al. (2016) found 55 per cent of X-ray cavity pairs and 26 per cent including their manifestation as lower-emitting X-ray regions filled
of single cluster, Bîrzan et al. (2004) detected pairs in 83 per cent of with hot gas (107.8−8.1 K) and lower density. As quoted above, about
their sample, and Dong et al. (2010b) found 50 per cent. Moreover, 25 per cent of the X-ray cavities in TNG-Cluster exhibit bright and
according to these studies, X-ray cavity pairs in observations are overpressurized dense edges, coinciding with weak shocks, while X-
typically symmetrically positioned relative to the AGN center, as they ray cavities lacking bright edges or detached from the central SMBH
usually are associated with detected bipolar AGN jets. In our TNG- show no evidence of shocks. It is important to note that these consid-
Cluster sample, only 13 pairs of X-ray cavities (11 per cent) exhibit erations are based on maps such as the one presented in Fig. 4, which
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

are derived from quantities outputted by the simulation rather than Cluster simulation, relaxed clusters tend to host more X-ray cavities,
inferred from the mock Chandra observations. On the other hand, in suggesting that: i) the disturbed ICM may impact the longevity of
observations, gas properties such as temperature or pressure at X-ray these X-ray cavities, as fewer are identified in unrelaxed clusters, and
cavity sites are measured by spectral fitting and are limited by in- ii) multiple X-ray cavities are more likely to result from successive
strumental constraints. Consequently, drawing comparisons between SMBH outbursts rather than ICM disturbances fragmenting existing
these simulation outputs and actual observational results must be X-ray cavities.
made with caution. Keeping this in mind, we can tentatively say that
the gas properties of TNG-Cluster’s X-ray cavities have similarities Misalignments. In observations of real clusters, pairs of older and
to those expected for real ones. They appear to be similarly under- younger X-ray cavities are often aligned along a common axis, sug-
dense and exhibit a comparable range of X-ray brightness depletions gesting that the jets from the central AGN have maintained a consis-
with respect to the ICM (30-40 per cent e.g., Hlavacek-Larrondo tent direction over time (e.g., Wise et al. 2007; Randall et al. 2015).
et al. (2015); Shin et al. (2016). The absence of strong shocks at However, misalignments are also observed between the central AGN
their boundaries also aligns with observations. Observational stud- jets and X-ray cavities (Ubertosi et al. 2024). Several scenarios have
ies suggest that buoyancy, rather than excess pressure, drives their been investigated to explain off-axis X-ray cavities: jet realignment
outward expansion. Similarly, in TNG-Cluster, X-ray cavities seem over time (e.g., Schellenberger et al. 2021; Ubertosi et al. 2021b),
to be in pressure equilibrium and rise and increase in volume as they strong magnetic fields bending or deflecting the jets and interac-
detach from the central SMBH. Observationally, it remains unclear tions between infalling cold gas and the outflowing AGN jets (e.g.,
whether X-ray cavities are filled with hot gas, as seen in the TNG Chibueze et al. 2021; Fournier et al. 2024), but also ICM motions
simulations: observationally, the high contrast between the density of distorting the dynamics of jets, leading to the creation of misaligned
the X-ray cavities and that of the ICM has been used to constrain the X-ray cavities (e.g., Mendygral et al. 2012b). In the TNG simulations,
temperature of the thermal plasma, potentially supporting a picture both the random directions of the SMBH kinetic injections and the
with X-ray cavities gas temperatures of ≳ 2 − 5 × 108 K (Nulsen et al. turbulent movement of gas near the X-ray cavities can influence their
2002; Schmidt et al. 2002; Sanders & Fabian 2007). position. Additionally, we speculate that sloshing spiral patterns in
the central region of the BCG significantly impact the trajectory of
Correlation with cool-core status. Observational studies have the rising X-ray cavities, causing them to follow a spiral path and
shown that, in CC clusters, rapid cooling at the center is balanced by deviate from their original inflation direction. We expand below on
AGN heating. In this scenario, strong central cooling of the ICM feeds the impact of the surrounding ICM onto the X-ray cavity properties
the SMBH in the central galaxy and triggers feedback that creates and evolution.
energetic X-ray cavities. The energy released by these X-ray cavities
is believed to offset the cooling process (e.g., Fabian et al. 2006)
5.2 Time evolution of TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities and influence
and aligns with the observed rate of star formation. In TNG-Cluster,
of the ICM weather
a clear trend exists between the presence of X-ray cavities and the
cool-coreness of the host cluster, as depicted in the lower-left his- Thanks to the cosmological simulation setup of TNG-Cluster, we
togram of Figure 5: simulated clusters with identified X-ray cavities can argue that TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities are sensitive to the ICM
are either SCC or WCC, and clusters with shorter cooling timescales “weather”, where by weather we refer to dynamic processes within
are brighter in X-rays and harbor more X-ray cavities. In the obser- the hot intracluster gas. These include turbulence, sound waves, and
vational literature, X-ray cavities are most frequently found in CC weak shocks from galaxy motions and AGN activity but also cold
clusters, with approximately two-thirds of CCs displaying clear X-ray fronts and sloshing motions from mergers.
cavities, as noted by Dunn et al. (2005). In contrast, NCCs generally The ICM can exhibit various conditions in the cluster core, such
do not exhibit identifiable X-ray cavities, as reported by Dong et al. as calm and undisturbed phases, which allow X-ray cavities to rise
(2010b). Selection effects might influence the observed prevalence of buoyantly and persist for extended periods (up to a few hundred Myr).
X-ray cavities in CC clusters: clusters with shorter cooling times are Conversely, during turbulent phases, the ICM can disrupt or erase X-
brighter in X-rays, making the X-ray cavities easier to identify due to ray cavities shortly after their formation. This behavior is illustrated
the higher contrast with the surrounding ICM (CC bias Eckert et al. in Figure 10, where we track the spatial evolution of a long-lived
2011). This selection effect also affects our study of TNG-Cluster X-ray cavity in the TNG300 most massive halo subbox (top panel)
X-ray cavities as it is based on observer-like methods on Chandra along with its corresponding area, distance from the SMBH, and
mocks. Nevertheless, the high rate of identified X-ray cavities in rising velocity time evolution (bottom three panels). X-ray cavities
strong CC TNG-Cluster halos supports the idea of a self-sustaining tend to rise and grow in size over time with various slopes indicative
feedback loop scenario. of the X-ray cavities’ ascent dynamics. A steep slope indicates a
rapid, radial ascent through relatively undisturbed ICM, allowing the
Impact of cluster dynamical state. Some observational studies X-ray cavity to travel farther. Conversely, a gentler slope suggests the
suggest that the dynamical state of a cluster, describing whether X-ray cavity’s path is affected by surrounding gas motion, resulting
it is relaxed or has recently undergone a minor-major merger or inter- in a less radial ascent. However, in the final stages, their areas visually
action with another cluster, may influence the presence and identifi- decrease or stop growing as they become fainter and start blending
cation of X-ray cavities (e.g., Olivares et al. 2023). Relaxed clusters, with the ICM’s background emission, or as they are being erased by a
characterized by stable conditions, typically exhibit persistent ac- sound wave or weak shock front, like the X-ray cavity of Figure 10 at -
tivity of central SMBHs, which create and maintain X-ray cavities 2810 Myr. These results reflect the dynamic and complex interactions
through energetic outbursts. In contrast, X-ray cavities in unrelaxed between the AGN-inflated X-ray cavities and the intracluster gas and
clusters are expected to be more prone to disruption by turbulent the timing of AGN feedback events in the simulation.
motions or mergers. Furthermore, the consistent X-ray background Here are the principal scenarios that we have identified by inspect-
in relaxed clusters makes X-ray cavities easier to identify, as the ing the TNG300-subbox output in terms of X-ray cavities behavior
depressions in X-ray emission stand out more clearly. In the TNG- in the ICM after they detached:
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

160
Cavity Distance from SMBH [kpc]
2879 Myr 600 2879 Myr 1.50 2879 Myr

Cavity Velocity [kpc/Myr]
100 1.25
Cavity Area [kpc2]
400
1.00
60 300 0.75
40 0.50
200
30
150 0.25
20 0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time from Cavity Birth [Myr] Time from Cavity Birth [Myr] Time from Cavity Birth [Myr]
Figure 10. Example of an X-ray cavity life cycle in the most massive halo of TNG300: from birth till disruption by another injection event. The time difference
between each snapshot is ∼10 Myr. Bottom left: Projected distance from the SMBH. Bottom middle: Evolution of the projected area. Bottom right: Mean velocity
in each frame. We can witness the birth of one X-ray cavity at -3060 Myr from today, the X-ray cavity detaches progressively from the SMBH and rises radially
behind the pressure wave of the first kinetic injection. At t= -2879 Myr, a second energy injection gives rise to another X-ray cavity, while the first one is
disrupted by the associated front at t= -2822 Myr. This scenario is typical in a calm ICM.
• Calm ICM: In periods where the ICM seems visually undis- Myr, or may not inflate at all following an energy injection. While
turbed, X-ray cavities have the time to rise radially. We can observe this specific scenario is not visible in Figure 10, we do witness it
them for several tens of Myr (>50 Myr up to a few hundreds of Myr) occurring at other times within the cluster.
after their inflation. As these X-ray cavities rise, they seem to fade • Sequential X-ray cavity Inflation in the Similar Direction:
away gradually. SMBH kinetic injection generally generates visible ripple structures
• Disturbed ICM with Sloshing: During periods of sloshing, in the cluster gas. Sequential energy injections can lead to interactions
where spiral patterns are present in the ICM, X-ray cavities tend to between these waves, further affecting the visibility and longevity of
follow these spiral paths and fade quickly. X-ray cavities.
• Minor Mergers or Strong ICM Disturbances: During minor These findings are consistent with observational studies, such as
mergers or significant disturbances in the ICM, X-ray cavities are Bogdán et al. (2014); Ubertosi et al. (2021a); Fabian et al. (2022),
often erased shortly after their formation, typically within 10-30 who suggest that interactions with cold fronts from sloshing motions
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

or weak shocks can affect X-ray cavity expansion and lifetime. These significant. Prominent ripples are visible in the X-ray emission and
processes introduce turbulence and varying pressure conditions in the UM images of TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities with a quasi-spherical
ICM, potentially leading to the deformation or erasure of outer X-ray morphology. A similar pattern is observed in the Perseus cluster
cavities before they can travel significant distances. Hydrodynamical Fabian et al. (2006), where ripples, likely caused by sound waves,
simulations also suggest that turbulent ICM motions can disrupt X- contribute to heating the cooling regions via dissipation and viscous
ray cavities (e.g., Mendygral et al. 2012a; Yang et al. 2019; Wittor & damping. As can be seen in the outflow velocity measurements in
Gaspari 2020). However, it contrasts with the observational study of Figure 6 and 7, as well as in the Mach number maps of the cluster
Olivares et al. (2023) that found an absence of a correlation between core regions in Figure 4, there is an initial supersonic peak emanating
X-ray cavity numbers and cluster dynamical state. from the SMBH at the time of energy injection (outflows ∼ 5-7,000
In TNG-Cluster, we can see X-ray cavities remaining visible for km/s, where the sound speed in the ICM is of the order of 3-4,000
a few tens of Myr up to ∼200 Myr, with particularly stable ones km/s). The generated ripples are spherically propagating outward at
identifiable at distances as far as 200 kpc from the SMBH. In con- greater distances and are characterized by weak (<2 Mach) shocks
trast, most observational studies of X-ray cavities typically find them or no shocks.
within 50 kpc of the SMBH, but with ages ranging from a few Myr Understanding how this energy couples to the gas and the role of
to tens of Myr (e.g., Bîrzan et al. 2004; Shin et al. 2016). The greater X-ray cavities in heating and stirring up the gas within the simulated
distances of some TNG X-ray cavities suggest that they may move TNG clusters remains a crucial question. Looking forward, exploring
through the ICM at higher velocities, allowing them to cover larger the role of X-ray cavities in these processes will provide insights into
distances over their lifetimes. However, there are notable observa- their broader impact on cluster evolution in the TNG cosmological
tional exceptions that align more closely with these long-lived TNG framework.
X-ray cavities. For instance, Rafferty et al. (2006) report on the clus-
ter MS 0735.6+7421, X-ray cavities with estimated ages of around
250 Myr and projected distances of approximately 170 kpc from the
AGN core. 6 SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
In this work, we show that X-ray cavities can form naturally in sim-
5.3 TNG X-ray cavities as a primary heating channel? ulated galaxy clusters as a result of SMBH-driven kinetic energy
injections, i.e. an AGN mechanical feedback that is not implemented
TNG-Cluster BCGs harboring X-ray cavities are associated with as relativistic, bipolar, collimated jets. For each of the 352 clusters
SMBHs in a low-accretion state (Figure 8). In observational studies, in the TNG-Cluster cosmological simulation suite at 𝑧 = 0, a single
X-ray cavities are commonly linked to AGNs slowly accreting below mock Chandra observation was created from a random viewing an-
10 −2 𝑀¤ Edd , where the energy brought by accretion is transformed gle. The mocks were systematically analyzed and visually inspected
into collimated winds and jets which are believed to be the main en- for X-ray cavities. We highlight the diverse morphologies and config-
ergy release channel (McNamara & Nulsen 2007). In the TNG model, urations of these X-ray cavities. The same implementation of SMBH
outbursts originating from the central SMBH emit energy at a rate feedback, combined with other components of the galaxy formation
ranging between 1042 to 1045 erg s −1 (top panel of Figure 7). This model and the hierarchical growth of structure within a cosmological
energy release rate matches observations inferred from estimates of context, yields a spectrum of diversity. This complexity is evident not
the amount of energy that AGN must release to explain the observed only across different clusters, but also within individual clusters and
star formation rates in clusters. To effectively heat the ICM, this within the same cluster over time. We summarize our major findings
mechanical feedback must couple efficiently with the surrounding in the following points:
gas, transferring energy through X-ray cavities, shocks, and subsonic
sound waves. The majority of observations show subsonic X-ray cav- • Occurence In the TNG-Cluster simulation, 39 per cent (136)
ity inflation from AGN outbursts, with only rare cases of supersonic of the 352 clusters exhibit X-ray cavities at 𝑧 = 0, visible in mock
X-ray cavity expansion leading to shocks in the X-ray emitting gas Chandra X-ray observations and enhanced by unsharp mask filtering.
(e.g., NGC 4552, Machacek et al. 2006). Although strong shocks may
occur during the initial phase of X-ray cavity inflation, they likely • Diversity and Morphologies These structures display diverse
account for a small fraction of the released energy into the ICM morphologies and stages of evolution, from recently inflated X-ray
(Hlavacek-Larrondo et al. 2022). In TNG-Cluster, the majority of cavities to detached and rising ones. We identify different configu-
X-ray cavities either lack shocks or exhibit only weak shocks during rations, including single, paired, and multiple X-ray cavities within
their inflation stage, similar to observed X-ray cavities. Some TNG the same cluster, and various shapes depending on the evolutionary
X-ray cavities feature bright rims with pressurized edges and weak stage (see the gallery in §3.1 Figure 1). Single X-ray cavities are
shocks, reminiscent of cases observed in objects such as 4C+55.16 more common than pairs or multiples ( §3.4 upper panel Figure 5).
(Timmerman et al. 2022) and MS0735.6+7321 (McNamara et al. Unlike symmetric pairs often observed, TNG X-ray cavities show
2005), where bright elliptical regions surrounding the X-ray cavities less symmetry, which may result from the model’s kinetic feedback
suggest the presence of an enveloping weak shock with a Mach num- mechanism, where energy is injected unidirectionally into the gas
ber of ∼ 1.4. Observationally, it has been suggested that these weak around SMBHs, rather than the bipolar collimated outflows seen in
shocks can deposit a significant amount of energy into the X-ray some real galaxies.
gas (e.g., ?Ubertosi et al. 2023). Additionally, the mixing of hot gas
inside the X-ray cavity with the ICM may contribute to the heating • Sizes Manual measurements reveal X-ray cavity sizes ranging
budget. In TNG-Cluster simulations, X-ray cavities often exhibit a from a few to tens of kpc, with a mean radius of 9.2 kpc, and a weak
combination of weak shocks and inner gas that is ten times hotter. positive correlation between X-ray cavity area and distance from the
Evidence of mixing is seen in some of them, where a plume of hot SMBH qualitatively consistent with observations (§3.2, Figures 2
gas trails behind the rising cavities (third panel of Figure 4). and 3).
The role of sound waves generated by AGN feedback may also be
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

• Thermodynamic Properties Based on direct inspection of the viding a deeper understanding of how these structures may influence
cluster’s core gas properties from the simulation—i.e. not inferred and regulate the ICM and cluster evolution. Future analyses will be
from the mocks— (see §3.3, Figure 4), TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities devoted to establishing the specific contribution of X-ray cavities to
are filled with gas of high temperature (107.8−8.1 K) and have the overall heating of the ICM, to understanding the causal connec-
lower densities compared to the surrounding ICM. The gas inside tion among X-ray cavities, regulation of star formation, and chemical
is roughly in pressure equilibrium with the ICM. About 25 per enrichment of the ICM, to investigating the longevity of hereby sim-
cent of them exhibit X-ray bright and overpressurized dense edges, ulated X-ray cavities and possible stabilization mechanisms, and the
frequently coinciding with weak shock signatures. Conversely, most overall role of magnetic fields.
simulated X-ray cavities lack bright edges and typically do not show On the other hand, we can leverage X-ray cavities as an additional
associated shocks. validation metric, to then further refine galaxy formation models. In
fact, various AGN feedback prescriptions seem to be able to produce
• Demographics of Hosting Halos: Cool-core clusters in the X-ray cavities, i.e. not only the IllustrisTNG model as demonstrated
TNG-Cluster simulation are more likely to harbor X-ray cavities, here but also the SIMBA implementation as recently shown by Jen-
aligning with the scenario of a feedback loop driven by central nings et al. (2024) at the galaxy group mass-scale in addition to
cooling. Additionally, clusters with more X-ray cavities tend to be the higher-resolution jet models of idealized cluster hydrodynami-
more dynamically relaxed, indicating that stable conditions favor the cal simulations. Therefore, the mere existence of X-ray cavities in
formation and/or longevity of these structures (see §3.3 the lower clusters is, yes, a strong and positive confirmation of the simula-
panels of Figure 5). tions’ outcome but per se not necessarily a strong constraint on the
model choices therein. A more quantitative and rigorous comparison
• Connection to AGN feedback: TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities are between populations of observed and simulated X-ray cavities is re-
a manifestation of episodic, kinetic, wind-like energy injections from quired: this is the subject of a forthcoming companion paper (Prunier
SMBHs at the centers of clusters, which accrete at low Eddington et al. in prep) where we conduct an apples-to-apples comparison be-
ratios (see §4 Figures 6 and 7). In the TNG model, which is used tween TNG-Cluster mocks and Chandra data.
unchanged in TNG-Cluster, higher accretion rates – indicating more
luminous SMBHs – lead to more powerful and frequent feedback,
but this occurs within very low SMBH accretion regimes, typically DATA AVAILABILITY
with Eddington ratios ∼ 10 −3 − 10 −5 . X-ray cavities are inflated by
bursts or momentum kicks given episodically in random directions The IllustrisTNG simulations are publicly available and accessi-
by the central SMBH. This likely involves a push and weak shock ble at www.tng-project.org/data, as described in Nelson et al.
mechanism driving the development of individual X-ray cavities. (2019a), where the TNG-Cluster simulation data will also be made
public in 2024-2025. All mock Chandra images generated for this pa-
• Life cycle: After an injection event, an X-ray cavity undergoes per will be made publicly available upon the release of TNG-Cluster.
a rapid inflation stage, often accompanied by the formation of a Other data directly related to this publication are available on request
weak shock front at the edges of the X-ray cavity. As the X-ray cavity from the corresponding author.
detaches from the SMBH, it begins to rise within the ICM, expanding
in size. Eventually, it dissipates and becomes indistinguishable in
the ICM, or it may be disrupted by a sound wave resulting from a ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
recent energy injection event (see one example in Figure 10). Their
MP thanks Urmila Chadayammuri, Florian Dedieu, Martin Fournier, Carter
lifespans range from tens of Myr up to several hundred of Myr. Rhea, Eric Rohr, and Tomáš Plšek for insightful discussions, as well as Nicolas
Furthermore, clusters that contain multiple X-ray cavities are more Esser for comments on the manuscript. MP acknowledges funding from the
likely to have formed due to successive feedback events, rather than Physics department of the University of Montreal (UdeM) and the Centre for
from disruptions caused by turbulent motions in the ICM. Research in Astrophysics of Quebec (CRAQ). AP acknowledges funding from
the European Union (ERC, COSMIC-KEY, 101087822, PI: Pillepich). JHL
With this work, we demonstrate that AGN feedback in the Illus- acknowledges funding from the Canada Research Chairs and from the Dis-
trisTNG comprehensive cosmological model can create a diverse X- covery grant program from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
ray cavity population at the current cosmic epoch, as revealed by the Council of Canada (NSERC). KL acknowledges funding from the Hector Fel-
low Academy through a Research Career Development Award. DN acknowl-
extensive TNG-Cluster simulation suite. In fact, the impact of AGN-
edges funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through an
driven X-ray cavities remains one of the major outstanding questions Emmy Noether Research Group (grant number NE 2441/1-1).
in understanding the physics of clusters. The IllustrisTNG model has The TNG-Cluster simulation suite has been executed on several machines:
demonstrated its success in effectively quenching star formation in with compute time awarded under the TNG-Cluster project on the HoreKa
massive galaxies via SMBH kinetic feedback at low accretion rates. supercomputer, funded by the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts
X-ray cavities, as a direct outcome of mechanical feedback processes Baden-Württemberg and by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research;
in these simulations, likely play a huge role in such a regulation. the bwForCluster Helix supercomputer, supported by the state of Baden-
This paper sets up the basis for future investigations, establishing Württemberg through bwHPC and the German Research Foundation (DFG)
TNG-Cluster as a plausible framework for the formation of X-ray through grant INST 35/1597-1 FUGG; the Vera cluster of the Max Planck
cavities within the context of a detailed galaxy formation model. Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), as well as the Cobra and Raven clusters, all
three operated by the Max Planck Computational Data Facility (MPCDF); and
This not only provides a new perspective for studying AGN feedback
the BinAC cluster, supported by the High Performance and Cloud Computing
processes in clusters but also offers an additional valuable tool for Group at the Zentrum für Datenverarbeitung of the University of Tübingen,
evaluating the realism of cosmological simulations at galaxy cluster the state of Baden-Württemberg through bwHPC and the German Research
scales and in a spatially-resolved manner. Foundation (DFG) through grant no INST 37/935-1 FUGG.
On the one hand, TNG-Cluster opens up new avenues for studying All the analysis and computations associated to this paper have been real-
the role of X-ray cavities in the overall feedback cycle of clusters, pro- ized on the Vera cluster of the MPCDF.
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

REFERENCES Loewenstein M., Zweibel E. G., Begelman M. C., 1991, ApJ, 377, 392
Machacek M., Jones C., Forman W. R., Nulsen P., 2006, ApJ, 644, 155
Ayromlou M., et al., 2023, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2311.06339
Marinacci F., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113
Baldi A., Forman W., Jones C., Kraft R., Nulsen P., Churazov E., David L.,
McNamara B. R., Nulsen P. E. J., 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117
Giacintucci S., 2009, ApJ, 707, 1034
McNamara B. R., et al., 2001, ApJ, 562, L149
Bambic C. J., Reynolds C. S., 2019, ApJ, 886, 78 McNamara B. R., Nulsen P. E. J., Wise M. W., Rafferty D. A., Carilli C.,
Beckmann R. S., Dubois Y., Pellissier A., Polles F. L., Olivares V., 2022, Sarazin C. L., Blanton E. L., 2005, Nature, 433, 45
A&A, 666, A71 Mendygral P. J., Jones T. W., Dolag K., 2012a, ApJ, 750, 166
Bîrzan L., Rafferty D. A., McNamara B. R., Wise M. W., Nulsen P. E. J., Mendygral P. J., Jones T. W., Dolag K., 2012b, ApJ, 750, 166
2004, ApJ, 607, 800 Mohapatra R., Sharma P., 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4881
Bırzan L., Rafferty D. A., Nulsen P. E. J., McNamara B. R., Röttgering Naiman J. P., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206
H. J. A., Wise rzan M. W., 2013, Astronomische Nachrichten, 334, 390 Nakamura M., Li H., Diehl S., Li S., 2008, in Rector T. A., De Young D. S.,
Blanton E. L., Sarazin C. L., McNamara B. R., Clarke T. E., 2004, ApJ, 612, eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 386,
817 Extragalactic Jets: Theory and Observation from Radio to Gamma Ray.
Bogdán Á., et al., 2014, ApJ, 782, L19 p. 373 (arXiv:0707.1537), doi:10.48550/arXiv.0707.1537
Brueggen M., Scannapieco E., 2009, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:0905.4726 Nelson D., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624
Brüggen M., Scannapieco E., 2009, MNRAS, 398, 548 Nelson D., et al., 2019a, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2
Brüggen M., Heinz S., Roediger E., Ruszkowski M., Simionescu A., 2007, Nelson D., et al., 2019b, MNRAS, 490, 3234
MNRAS, 380, L67 Nelson D., Pillepich A., Ayromlou M., Lee W., Lehle K., Rohr E., Truong N.,
Chen Y.-H., Heinz S., Hooper E., 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2850 2024, A&A, 686, A157
Chibueze J. O., et al., 2021, Nature, 593, 47 Nulsen P. E. J., 1992, Australian Journal of Physics, 45, 501
Churazov E., Brüggen M., Kaiser C. R., Böhringer H., Forman W., 2001, Nulsen P. E. J., David L. P., McNamara B. R., Jones C., Forman W. R., Wise
ApJ, 554, 261 M., 2002, ApJ, 568, 163
Davies J. J., Crain R. A., Pontzen A., 2021, MNRAS, 501, 236 Nulsen P. E. J., McNamara B. R., Wise M. W., David L. P., 2005, ApJ, 628,
Diehl S., Li H., Fryer C., Rafferty D., 2008, ApJ, 687 629
Dong R., Rasmussen J., Mulchaey J. S., 2010a, ApJ, 712, 883 O’Connell R. W., McNamara B. R., 1989, AJ, 98, 180
Dong R., Rasmussen J., Mulchaey J. S., 2010b, ApJ, 712, 883 Olivares V., et al., 2023, ApJ, 954, 56
Doria A., Gitti M., Ettori S., Brighenti F., Nulsen P. E. J., McNamara B. R., Omma H., Binney J., 2004, MNRAS, 350, L13
2012, ApJ, 753, 47 Panagoulia E. K., Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., Hlavacek-Larrondo J., 2014,
Dunn R. J. H., Fabian A. C., 2006, MNRAS, 373, 959 MNRAS, 444, 1236
Dunn R. J. H., Fabian A. C., Taylor G. B., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1343 Perucho M., Martí J.-M., Quilis V., Ricciardelli E., 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1462
Eckert D., Molendi S., Paltani S., 2011, A&A, 526, A79 Peterson J. R., Fabian A. C., 2006, Phys. Rep., 427, 1
Ehlert K., Weinberger R., Pfrommer C., Pakmor R., Springel V., 2018, MN- Peterson J. R., Kahn S. M., Paerels F. B. S., Kaastra J. S., Tamura T., Bleeker
RAS, 481, 2878 J. A. M., Ferrigno C., Jernigan J. G., 2003, ApJ, 590, 207
Ehlert K., Pfrommer C., Šĳački D., Ruszkowski M., 2022, Simulations Piffaretti R., Arnaud M., Pratt G. W., Pointecouteau E., Melin J. B., 2011,
of Active Galactic Nuclei Feedback with Cosmic Rays and Magnetic A&A, 534, A109
Fields. Universität Potsdam, https://books.google.fr/books?id= Pillepich A., et al., 2018a, MNRAS, 473, 4077
TK6A0AEACAAJ Pillepich A., et al., 2018b, MNRAS, 475, 648
Fabian A. C., 1994, ARA&A, 32, 277 Pillepich A., Nelson D., Truong N., Weinberger R., Martin-Navarro I.,
Fabian A. C., et al., 2000, MNRAS, 318, L65 Springel V., Faber S. M., Hernquist L., 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4667
Fabian A. C., Celotti A., Blundell K. M., Kassim N. E., Perley R. A., 2002, Pillepich A., et al., 2023, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2303.16217
MNRAS, 331, 369 Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, A&A, 594, A13
Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., Taylor G. B., Allen S. W., Crawford C. S., Plšek T., Werner N., Topinka M., Simionescu A., 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3315
Johnstone R. M., Iwasawa K., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 417 Rafferty D. A., McNamara B. R., Nulsen P. E. J., Wise M. W., 2006, ApJ,
Fabian A. C., ZuHone J. A., Walker S. A., 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4000 652, 216
Fisher R. A., 1944, Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh Ramesh R., Nelson D., Pillepich A., 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5754
Oliver and Boyd Ramesh R., Nelson D., Girichidis P., 2024, arXiv e-prints, p.
Forman W., et al., 2007, ApJ, 665, 1057 arXiv:2409.18238
Fournier M., Grete P., Brüggen M., Glines F. W., O’Shea B. W., 2024, arXiv Randall S. W., et al., 2011, ApJ, 726, 86
e-prints, p. arXiv:2406.05044 Randall S. W., et al., 2015, ApJ, 805, 112
Gitti M., Brighenti F., McNamara B. R., 2012, Advances in Astronomy, 2012, Reynolds C. S., Heinz S., Begelman M. C., 2001, ApJ, 549, L179
950641 Reynolds C. S., McKernan B., Fabian A. C., Stone J. M., Vernaleo J. C.,
Graham J., Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 278 2005, MNRAS, 357, 242
Guo F., 2015, ApJ, 803, 48 Ruszkowski M., Bruggen M., Begelman M. C., 2004, in American Astro-
Hillel S., Soker N., 2017, ApJ, 845, 91 nomical Society Meeting Abstracts #204. p. 09.01
Hlavacek-Larrondo J., Fabian A. C., Edge A. C., Ebeling H., Sanders J. S., Ruszkowski M., Yang H. Y. K., Zweibel E., 2017, ApJ, 834, 208
Hogan M. T., Taylor G. B., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1360 Sanders J. S., Fabian A. C., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1381
Hlavacek-Larrondo J., et al., 2015, ApJ, 805, 35 Schaal K., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 461, 4441
Hlavacek-Larrondo J., Li Y., Churazov E., 2022, in , Handbook of X-ray and Schellenberger G., David L. P., Vrtilek J., O’Sullivan E., Giacintucci S.,
Gamma-ray Astrophysics. p. 5, doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_122-1 Forman W., Jones C., Venturi T., 2021, ApJ, 906, 16
Jennings F. J., Babul A., Dave R., Cui W., Rennehan D., 2024, arXiv e-prints, Schmidt R. W., Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., 2002, MNRAS, 337, 71
p. arXiv:2407.14415 Shin J., Woo J.-H., Mulchaey J. S., 2016, ApJS, 227, 31
Lehle K., Nelson D., Pillepich A., Truong N., Rohr E., 2024, A&A, 687, Simionescu A., et al., 2011, Science, 331, 1576
A129 Smith R. K., Brickhouse N. S., Liedahl D. A., Raymond J. C., 2001, ApJ,
Li Y., Bryan G. L., Ruszkowski M., Voit G. M., O’Shea B. W., Donahue M., 556, L91
2015, ApJ, 811, 73 Springel V., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676
Li Y., Ruszkowski M., Bryan G. L., 2017, ApJ, 847, 106 Sternberg A., Soker N., 2009, MNRAS, 395, 228
Lin Y.-H., Yang H. Y. K., Owen E. R., 2023, MNRAS, 520, 963 Tang X., Churazov E., 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3672
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

Terrazas B. A., et al., 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1888
Timmerman R., van Weeren R. J., Botteon A., Röttgering H. J. A., McNamara
B. R., Sweĳen F., Bîrzan L., Morabito L. K., 2022, A&A, 668, A65
Tremmel M., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3336
Truong N., Pillepich A., Nelson D., Zhuravleva I., Lee W., Ayromlou M.,
Lehle K., 2024, A&A, 686, A200
Ubertosi F., Gitti M., Torresi E., Brighenti F., Grandi P., 2021a, Astronomis-
che Nachrichten, 342, 1207
Ubertosi F., et al., 2021b, ApJ, 923, L25
Ubertosi F., et al., 2023, ApJ, 944, 216
Ubertosi F., et al., 2024, ApJ, 961, 134
Vogelsberger M., Genel S., Sĳacki D., Torrey P., Springel V., Hernquist L.,
2013, MNRAS, 436, 3031
Walker S. A., Fabian A. C., Kosec P., 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3444
Weinberger R., et al., 2017a, MNRAS, 465, 3291
Weinberger R., Ehlert K., Pfrommer C., Pakmor R., Springel V., 2017b,
MNRAS, 470, 4530
Weinberger R., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056
Wise M. W., McNamara B. R., Nulsen P. E. J., Houck J. C., David L. P., 2007,
ApJ, 659, 1153
Wittor D., Gaspari M., 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4983
Yang H. Y. K., Reynolds C. S., 2016, ApJ, 829, 90
Yang H. Y. K., Gaspari M., Marlow C., 2019, ApJ, 871, 6
Yuan F., Narayan R., 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529
Zhuravleva I., et al., 2014, Nature, 515, 85
Zinger E., et al., 2020, MNRAS, 499, 768
ZuHone J. A., Hallman E. J., 2016, pyXSIM: Synthetic X-ray observations
generator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.002
ZuHone J. A., Vikhlinin A., Tremblay G. R., Randall S. W., Andrade-Santos
F., Bourdin H., 2023, SOXS: Simulated Observations of X-ray Sources,
Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2301.024
This paper has been typeset from a TEX/LATEX file prepared by the author.
MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

X-Ray Cavities in TNG-Cluster: AGN Phenomena in The Full Cosmological Context

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

X-Ray Cavities in TNG-Cluster: AGN Phenomena in The Full Cosmological Context

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

X-Ray Cavities in TNG-Cluster: AGN Phenomena in The Full Cosmological Context

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024) Preprint 30 October 2024 Compiled using MNRAS LATEX style file v3.

X-ray cavities in TNG-Cluster: AGN phenomena in the full cosmological

Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ

1 INTRODUCTION Numerous X-ray observations of cluster cores have revealed the

© 2024 The Authors

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

17613539 16921354 10157377 17613539 16921354 10157377

19119113 13927129 11823213 19119113 13927129 11823213

15500142 18663609 17927695 15500142

4356618 4753637 17352215

gen rim gen gen gen rim 3 gen gen

0 12334208 9574391 0 12334208 9574391

17704708 14664682 16137289 17704708 14664682 16137289

det det det det 3 det det

5608717 15543062 13634459 5608717 15543062 13634459

2.3 Identification of X-ray cavities

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

Figure 3, reveals that, in TNG-Cluster and similarly to what inferred

Figure 3. Area of TNG-Cluster X-ray cavities as a function of their distance

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

Central cooling time [Gyr]

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

First frame t=-3614 Myr TNG300, z~0.30, ID=0

1.5 t=-3668 Myr SMBH Mass ~5.54e+10 M

104 vout, 95, d<5kpc

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

injections [1042 erg/s] 40

vout, 95, d<10kpc

4400 4200 4000 3800 3600 3400 3200

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

6 TNG-Cluster Thermal Mode

MSMBH at first kinetic injection [108 M ]

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

Corr(Distance, MSMBH): -0.12 Corr(Distance, MSMBH): -0.07 Corr(Distance, Ekin): -0.17

103 103 103

102 102 102

101 102 101 102 101 102

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

2879 Myr 600 2879 Myr 1.50 2879 Myr

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2024)

You might also like