Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 119 references

Investigating the Impact of Supernova Feedback on Satellites in Elliptical Galaxies

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Mechanical supernova feedback, which deposits energy as blast-wave momentum rather than heat, is what brings simulated satellite galaxies around massive ellipticals into agreement with observed counts, sizes, and metallicities.

desk verdict A clean paired zoom-in comparison of SN feedback variants around group-scale ellipticals; the main claim overstates the mechanism because the 'thermal' control is only a low-velocity version of the same mechanical wind. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05348 v1 pith:VQTBEA43 submitted 2025-07-07 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Sumi Kim , Ena Choi , Amanda C. N. Quirk , Rachel S. Somerville , Thorsten Naab , Jeremiah P. Ostriker , Michaela Hirschmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords supernovafeedbacksatellitegalaxiesellipticalcosmologicalzoom-insimulationsgalaxyformationmechanicalhydrodynamicabundance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether the way supernova (SN) energy is delivered to gas matters for the small satellite galaxies orbiting massive elliptical galaxies. Using two suites of 11 cosmological zoom-in simulations with identical initial conditions, it compares the Fiducial model, whose three-phase mechanical SN wind deposits energy and momentum at $4{,}500\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, with a weak-SN model that reduces the wind velocity to $10\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ and releases nearly all SN energy as heat. The host ellipticals are almost indistinguishable between the two runs, but the satellites are not: the weak-SN run produces about five times more satellites above $10^{8}\,M_{\odot}$ than the xSAGA survey observes, makes them roughly 3.5 times more compact than SAGA-observed satellites, and leaves them nearly 1 dex more metal-rich. The paper concludes that mechanical SN feedback, together with mechanical AGN feedback, is required for simulations to reproduce the observed properties of elliptical galaxies and their satellite populations.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the "snowplow" three-phase mechanical SN feedback model of Núñez et al. (2017), implemented in the SPHGal version of the GADGET-3 code. Each gas particle near a supernova receives its energy and momentum in one of three successive phases of the blast-wave remnant: a momentum-conserving free-expansion phase, an energy-conserving Sedov-Taylor phase that delivers 70 percent thermal and 30 percent kinetic energy, and a pressure-driven snowplow phase in which radiative cooling dominates. In the Fiducial model this mechanical injection operates at $v_{\rm out,SN}=4{,}500\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ and couples strongly to the surrounding gas, suppressing star formation in small halos; in the weak-SN model the same prescription at $v_{\rm out,SN}=10\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ behaves as a pseudo-thermal feedback model in which most SN energy is dissipated as heat. Holding all other physics and initial conditions fixed, this single change of wind velocity is what separates the two satellite populations.

What would settle it

Rerun the same 11 zoom-in initial conditions with a directly implemented thermal SN feedback prescription that injects the full supernova energy as heat and no kinetic momentum: if that run produced roughly the number, sizes, and metallicities of satellites seen in the Fiducial model, the claim that mechanical momentum injection is the essential ingredient would fail, while a thermal run that reproduced the weak-SN overabundance would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the choice between mechanical and thermal supernova feedback, which barely affects the massive central galaxy, determines the properties of its satellites. In the Fiducial model, mechanical feedback at $v_{\rm out,SN}=4{,}500\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ suppresses early star formation in small halos, so the 11 simulated ellipticals retain a total of 14 satellites above $10^{9}\,M_{\odot}$; in the weak-SN model, with $v_{\rm out,SN}=10\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ making the feedback effectively thermal, the same hosts retain 95 satellites. The weak-SN satellites are overproduced relative to the Ruiz et al. (2015) and xSAGA (Wu et al. 2022) observations, have effective radii about 3.5 times smaller than both observed SAGA satellites and Fiducial satellites, and reach median stellar metallicities of $[M/H]\approx 0.37$, nearly 1 dex above observed values at $M_* \sim 10^{9}\,M_{\odot}$. Fiducial satellites, by contrast, fall inside the observed satellite size and mass-metallicity relations and match the observed radial counts. The paper reads this as evidence that mechanical SN feedback is a necessary ingredient for realistically populating group-scale ellipticals with satellites.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on treating the run with the SN wind velocity lowered to $10\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ as a faithful stand-in for genuine thermal SN feedback; if a true thermal feedback model behaved differently, the claim that mechanical SN feedback is necessary would be overstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simulations of group-scale ellipticals without mechanical SN feedback will overproduce faint satellites below $10^{10}\,M_{\odot}$, making satellite counts a sharp test of sub-grid feedback models.
  • Because host properties change little between the two models, the satellite population, not the central galaxy, is the diagnostic of SN feedback in massive halos.
  • The Fiducial model's agreement with observed satellite sizes, metallicities, and radial counts shows that mechanical AGN and SN feedback together can reproduce the observed satellite census of ellipticals.
  • Weaker SN feedback drives satellites toward early, metal-rich star formation, linking the satellite population to the metal-poor outer envelopes of ellipticals assembled from such building blocks.
  • The paper's intermediate $500\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ run still produces 85 satellites, so only strong mechanical winds bring counts into agreement with observations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's two wind velocities, a systematic scan of $v_{\rm out,SN}$ between 10 and 4,500 km/s would map where the satellite population switches from overproduction to agreement, testing whether the transition is sharp or gradual.
  • The paper's caveat about satellite-poor zoom-in selection implies the Fiducial counts are a lower bound; a volume-limited sample of elliptical hosts would reveal whether the mild deficit relative to Ruiz et al. (2015) ellipticals is selection or physics.
  • An observational consequence left implicit: the nearly 1 dex metallicity gap gives resolved stellar-population studies of satellites around group-scale ellipticals a concrete prediction to check.
  • If mechanical momentum injection is the controlling ingredient, other simulation codes that model clustered SN momentum deposition in resolved interstellar media should find similar suppression of dwarf satellite formation around ellipticals.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. Using a modified GADGET-3/SPHGal code, this paper presents two sets of 11 cosmological zoom-in simulations of massive elliptical galaxies (host stellar masses 10^11-2x10^11 Msun) with identical initial conditions. The 'Fiducial' model includes the three-phase mechanical SN wind of Nunez et al. (2017) with vout,SN = 4500 km/s; the 'weak SN' model reduces vout,SN to 10 km/s, described as a pseudo-thermal approximation. The authors select satellites with M* > 10^9 Msun and projected distance < 300 kpc, and compare their counts, mass distribution, sizes, star formation histories, metallicities, and gas fractions with the Ruiz et al. (2015), xSAGA (Wu et al. 2022), and SAGA (Mao et al. 2024) surveys. The main finding is a strong contrast: the weak model produces 95 satellites versus 14 for the fiducial model, about five times more satellites than xSAGA at M* > 10^8 Msun, and satellites that are ~3.5 times more compact and roughly 0.8-1.0 dex more metal-rich than observed; the fiducial model agrees substantially better with observations. An appendix run at vout,SN = 500 km/s (85 satellites) shows that the overproduction persists for an intermediate wind velocity. The paper concludes that mechanical SN feedback is essential for reproducing the observed properties of satellites of elliptical galaxies.

Significance. The study addresses a comparatively unexplored regime - satellite populations around group-scale ellipticals - with a clean, controlled design: identical initial conditions, all other physics fixed, and only the SN wind velocity varied. Its main strengths are that the satellite properties are genuine outputs rather than fitting targets (the model parameters were fixed in Choi et al. (2017) and Nunez et al. (2017) and were not adjusted to match the Ruiz et al. (2015), xSAGA, or SAGA data used here); the trend is internally consistent and monotonic, including the new SN500 intermediate run; and the paper is transparent about its acknowledged limitations (the pseudo-thermal approximation in Section 2.2, the Oser et al. (2010) selection in Section 3.2, and small-number statistics in several sections). If the interpretation is accepted, the result is a useful, falsifiable constraint: simulations of massive ellipticals must include strong SN-driven winds to avoid overproducing compact, metal-rich satellite galaxies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.2; Abstract; Section 4; Appendix A] Section 2.2 defines the 'weak SN' model by reducing vout,SN from 4,500 to 10 km/s within the same three-phase snowplow mechanical implementation described in Section 2.1.3, and asserts that this 'behaves as a pseudo-thermal feedback model.' As the paper itself notes, a genuinely distinct thermal feedback implementation is not simulated; the controlled comparison therefore varies the mechanical wind velocity, i.e., the feedback strength, and not the feedback mechanism. This asymmetry matters because the abstract's conclusion ('This underscores the necessity of incorporating both mechanical AGN and SN feedback') and Section 4's claim that 'mechanical SN feedback is essential for accurately reproducing the physical properties of satellite galaxies' are mechanism-specific statements that the design does not isolate. The Appendix A SN500 run makes the point concrete: at vout,SN = 500 km/s, still a mechanical implementation, the satellite count (85) is close to the weak model's 95, showing that satellite properties respond continuously to vout, and that the pseudo-thermal run is one point on that continuum. I ask that the authors either (i) validate the pseudo-thermal identification, for example with a genuine thermal-injection run or with a demonstration that the 10 km/s run reproduces the behavior of a standard thermal feedback scheme, or (ii) reframe the title, abstract, and Section 4 to claim that strong, high-velocity mechanical SN winds as implemented here are necessary, and that the weak-velocity limit overproduces satellites, without asserting a unique role for the mechanical mechanism. In addition, Section 2.2's statement that 'nearly all SN energy is released as thermal energy' in the weak model needs a precise description of what changes energetically when vout is reduced, given the fixed 70% thermal/30% kinetic partition of the Sedov-Taylor phase.
  2. [Section 2.1.1; Section 3.2; Figures 6 and 8] Section 3.2 acknowledges that the Oser et al. (2010) zoom-in initial conditions 'intentionally excluded' host regions with massive satellites, biasing the simulated sample toward low satellite counts. The direction of this bias coincides with the fiducial model's best agreement: the fiducial model's closeness to the xSAGA radial profile in Figure 8 and its deficit relative to the Ruiz et al. (2015) elliptical-host counts in Figure 6 could arise partly from this selection rather than from the feedback model. The authors state that the difference 'appears reasonable' but do not quantify the bias. Because the fiducial model's agreement with observed satellite abundances is a central pillar of the paper, I request a quantitative assessment, for example by applying the same 'no massive satellites' exclusion to the observed samples or by re-weighting the simulated hosts against the satellite-richness distribution from which the Oser et al. selection was drawn, to show that the fiducial agreement is not an artifact of the sample construction.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2.1] The sentence at the end of Section 2.1, 'the SN feedback artificially suppressed to approximate the effect of thermal SN feedback,' presents the pseudo-thermal identification as fact before the assumption in Section 2.2 is stated; rewording to 'a reduced-velocity mechanical SN wind' would avoid prejudging the interpretation.
  2. [Appendix A] The text of Appendix A says 'we conducted an additional simulation,' while the Figure 13 caption refers to 11 zoom-in simulations and the quoted counts (85 for SN500 versus 95 for WeakSN) are aggregate numbers; please state explicitly whether all 11 halos were rerun at vout,SN = 500 km/s and whether the same satellite selection was applied.
  3. [Section 3.6] The MDF analysis excludes 'one of the most massive satellites from each model' without specifying which satellite or the criterion for exclusion; because the fiducial sample contains only 14 satellites, the choice can shift the medians marked in Figure 10, so the criterion should be stated.
  4. [Figure 5; Section 3.1] The SAGA survey anchors Milky Way-mass hosts, roughly an order of magnitude less massive than the simulated hosts, and the paper notes this mismatch only in passing; the size comparison would be more convincing restricted to the overlapping satellite stellar-mass range and with the host-mass mismatch stated quantitatively in the caption.
  5. [Figure 8; Section 3.4] The simulated satellites in Figure 8 are selected at M* > 10^8 Msun, which is about 17 star particles at the stated baryonic resolution and a factor of roughly three above the xSAGA magnitude limit of M* > 10^7.5 Msun; the caption should state the mismatch and discuss its effect on the quoted five-fold overproduction factor.
  6. [Section 3; m0408 example] The paper states that host galaxies show 'minimal differences' between the two models, but the m0408 example in Section 3 gives host stellar masses of 1.22 x 10^11 and 1.63 x 10^11 Msun, a 34% difference; since more massive hosts naturally host more satellites, a table of the 11 host pairs and a host-mass-stratified satellite comparison would help confirm that the satellite excess is driven by the feedback model rather than by residual host differences.
  7. [Editorial] Minor editorial corrections: the abstract's 'elliptical galaxy and their satellites' should be 'elliptical galaxies and their satellites'; Section 2.1.1 contains a stray verb ('problems of classical SPH codes have'); Section 3.2 has 'This feature of mass distribution... explain differences' (subject-verb agreement); Section 4 refers to 'at Figure 12' rather than 'in Figure 12'; and the bibliography entry for Hui et al. (2022, Chinese Astronomy and Astrophysics, 46) lists garbled author names ('Hui, G. U., Peng, W. A., Ying-zhong, X. U., et al.') and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: satellite properties are genuine simulation outputs compared with external surveys; the pseudo-thermal weak-SN run is a control-validity issue, not a circular fit.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is between two zoom-in simulation suites that share identical initial conditions and differ only in the SN wind velocity vout,SN within the same three-phase mechanical feedback implementation (Section 2.1.3 and 2.2). The satellite counts, sizes, metallicities, and radial distributions are all simulation outputs, and the observational data from Ruiz et al. (2015), Wu et al. (2022), and the SAGA survey are external benchmarks that were not fitting targets. No parameter in this paper is adjusted to reproduce those observations, so the 'prediction' is not equivalent to an input by construction. The fiducial model is inherited from Choi et al. (2017) and Nunez et al. (2017), which are co-authored prior works, but the present conclusions are not read off those papers; they follow from newly computed differences in satellite populations. The weak-SN run is explicitly a pseudo-thermal approximation rather than an independent thermal feedback model, and the Appendix SN500 test shows that the outcome is sensitive to vout,SN, which is a model-validity limitation rather than a circular step. The paper itself notes the comparison challenge in Section 2.2, but this does not turn the derivation into a tautology. The only residual circularity burden is that the feedback framework was developed by the same group, so a modest score of 1 is assigned for that inherited, non-load-bearing self-citation context.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of hand-chosen subgrid parameters and modeling approximations, most importantly the wind velocity used to define weak versus mechanical SN feedback. No parameters are fitted to the satellite observations, so the comparison is not circular, but the absolute amplitude of the predicted satellite population depends on these unvaried choices.

free parameters (5)
  • Supernova outflow velocity vout,SN = Fiducial: 4500 km/s; Weak: 10 km/s; SN500: 500 km/s
    Hand-set feedback strength parameter; the central comparison is defined by changing this value between otherwise identical runs.
  • Star formation efficiency eta = 0.025
    Subgrid parameter adopted from prior work (Choi et al. 2017 / Aumer et al. 2013); controls gas-to-star conversion and hence satellite stellar masses.
  • AGN wind feedback efficiency epsilon_w = 0.005
    Hand-set from Choi et al. 2017; sets kinetic AGN feedback strength and affects massive satellites and hosts.
  • AGN wind velocity vout,AGN = 10,000 km/s
    Fixed model input from Choi et al. 2017; not varied in this study.
  • Three-phase SN energy partition = 70% thermal / 30% kinetic in Sedov-Taylor phase
    Adopted from Nunez et al. 2017 snowplow model; partitions feedback energy and is not varied.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Lambda-CDM cosmology with WMAP3 parameters (h=0.72, Omega_b=0.044, Omega_dm=0.26, Omega_Lambda=0.74, sigma8=0.77, ns=0.95)
    Initial conditions from Oser et al. 2010; the satellite population is generated within this assumed cosmology.
  • domain assumption SPHGal/GADGET-3 subgrid recipes for star formation, cooling, metal diffusion, and stellar/AGN feedback are adequate
    The entire simulation relies on these prescriptions; no resolution or convergence test is provided here.
  • ad hoc to paper Weak SN model with vout=10 km/s behaves as a pseudo-thermal feedback model
    Section 2.2 states this approximation; the paper's interpretation requires it to be a valid stand-in for thermal SN feedback.
  • domain assumption ROCKSTAR plus pygad halo/galaxy identification with a 64 dark-matter-particle limit yields a converged satellite catalog
    Section 2.3; no convergence study against higher resolution is shown in this paper.
  • domain assumption Observational selections (Ruiz+15, xSAGA, SAGA) are directly comparable to the simulated selection criteria
    Sections 3.2 to 3.4 compare counts and radial profiles despite differences in host mass, morphology, and selection method; the authors note host mass differences for SAGA.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating the Impact of Supernova Feedback on Satellites in Elliptical Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VQTBEA43

@misc{pith2026250705348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating the Impact of Supernova Feedback on Satellites in Elliptical Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VQTBEA43}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05348}
}
abstract

We investigate the influence of supernova (SN) feedback on the satellites of elliptical host galaxies using hydrodynamic simulations. Utilizing a modified version of the GADGET-3 code, we perform cosmological zoom-in simulations of 11 elliptical galaxies with stellar masses in the range $10^{11} M_{\odot} < M_{*} < 2 \times 10^{11} M_{\odot}$. We conduct two sets of simulations with identical initial conditions: the Fiducial model, which includes a three-phase SN mechanical wind, and the weak SN feedback model, where nearly all SN energy is released as thermal energy with a reduced SN wind velocity. Our comparison shows minimal differences in the elliptical host galaxies, but significant variations in the physical properties of satellite galaxies. The weak SN feedback model produces a larger number of satellite galaxies compared to the Fiducial model, and significantly more than observed. For satellite galaxies with stellar masses above $10^{8}$ $M_{\odot}$, the weak SN feedback model generates approximately five times more satellites than observed in the xSAGA survey. Most of these overproduced satellites have small stellar masses, below $10^{10}$ $M_{\odot}$. Additionally, satellites in the weak SN feedback model are about 3.5 times more compact than those observed in the SAGA survey and the Fiducial model, with metallicities nearly 1 dex higher than observed values. In conclusion, the satellite galaxies in the Fiducial model, which includes mechanical SN feedback, exhibit properties more closely aligned with observations. This underscores the necessity of incorporating both mechanical AGN and SN feedback to reproduce the observed properties of elliptical galaxy and their satellites in simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05348 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Galaxy example images of halo m0408 at z = 0, simulated with fiducial supernova (SN) feedback (left) and weak SN feedback (right). The images were generated using pygad, projected over a cube of 600 kpc on each side. The locations of galaxies identified by ROCKSTAR are marked with circles: central galaxies are highlighted in red, while satellite galaxies with a mass exceeding 109M⊙ are marked in white. The size of t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histogram showing the stellar mass distribution of satellite galaxies in fiducial simulations (shown in red) and weak supernova feedback simulations (shown in blue) for 11 zoom-in simulations. Satellite galaxies are selected based on a mass cut of M∗ > 109M⊙ and a projected distance cut of Rproj < 300 kpc from the central host galaxy. 109 1010 1011 1012 10 13 Mvir/M 108 109 1010 1011 1012 M ∗ / M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stellar-to-halo mass relation of satellite galax￾ies and their elliptical host galaxies. The black and green lines represent abundance matching relations from Moster et al. (2013) and Kravtsov et al. (2018) (for BCGs), respec￾tively. Dotted lines indicate the correspon…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative number of satellites per galaxy host as a function of the stellar mass ratio between satellite and host galaxy, down to 1:100, for fiducial simulations (red) and weak SN feedback simulations (blue). Observed number dis￾tributions are obtained from Ruiz et al…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative stellar mass enclosed by satellite galaxies per galaxy host down to stellar mass 109M⊙ as a function of the projected radial distance up to 300 kpc, for fiducial simulations (red) and weak SN feedback simulations (blue). Observed cumulative mass in satellite…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Age distribution of all the stars of satellite galax￾ies with M∗ > 109M⊙, shown for fiducial simulations (red) and weak SN feedback simulations (blue). In the weak SN feedback model, the majority of stars comprising the satellite galaxies formed within the first 2-3 Gy…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mean stellar metallicity as a function of stellar mass (Mass-metallicity relation, MZR) of simulated galaxies in fiducial simulations (red) and weak SN feedback simula￾tions (blue). Host galaxies are shown with filled circles and satellite galaxies with M∗ > 109M⊙ and…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Gas fraction as a function of stellar mass for satellite galaxies in the Fiducial (red) and Weak SN feed￾back (blue) models. Overall, satellites in the Fiducial sim￾ulation exhibit higher gas fractions than those in the Weak SN feedback simulation, particularly at low…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Histogram showing the stellar mass distribution of satellite galaxies from 11 zoom-in simulations. The figure compares results from the fiducial simulation (red), moderate SN feedback simulation with an outflow velocity of 500 km s−1 (green), and weak SN feedback simu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    e JD ` D |6پV# Y

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  2. [2]

    Agertz , O., & Kravtsov , A. V. 2016, , 824, 79

    2016

  3. [3]

    V., Leitner , S

    Agertz , O., Kravtsov , A. V., Leitner , S. N., & Gnedin , N. Y. 2013, , 770, 25

    2013

  4. [4]

    2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 380, 963

    Agertz, O., Moore, B., Stadel, J., et al. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 380, 963

    2007

  5. [5]

    D., Naab, T., & Scannapieco, C

    Aumer, M., White, S. D., Naab, T., & Scannapieco, C. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 3142

    2013

  6. [6]

    2015, , 807, 50

    Bechtol , K., Drlica-Wagner , A., Balbinot , E., et al. 2015, , 807, 50

    2015

  7. [7]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 762, 109

    2013

  8. [8]

    B., Evans , N

    Belokurov , V., Zucker , D. B., Evans , N. W., et al. 2006, , 647, L111

    2006

Show all 119 references
  1. [9]

    J., Bower , R

    Benson , A. J., Bower , R. G., Frenk , C. S., et al. 2003, , 599, 38

    2003

  2. [10]

    2024, , 970, 83

    Biswas , P., & Wadadekar , Y. 2024, , 970, 83

    2024

  3. [11]

    1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 195

    Bondi, H. 1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 195

    1952

  4. [12]

    1944, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 104, 273

    Bondi, H., & Hoyle, F. 1944, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 104, 273

    1944

  5. [13]

    M., & Schaye , J

    Booth , C. M., & Schaye , J. 2009, , 398, 53

    2009

  6. [14]

    2013, Scientific Reports, 1738

    ---. 2013, Scientific Reports, 1738

    2013

  7. [15]

    M., Governato , F., Booth , C

    Brooks , A. M., Governato , F., Booth , C. M., et al. 2007, , 655, L17

    2007

  8. [16]

    M., Kuhlen , M., Zolotov , A., & Hooper , D

    Brooks , A. M., Kuhlen , M., Zolotov , A., & Hooper , D. 2013, , 765, 22

    2013

  9. [17]

    M., & Zolotov, A

    Brooks, A. M., & Zolotov, A. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 786, 87

    2014

  10. [18]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin , M

    Bullock , J. S., & Boylan-Kolchin , M. 2017, , 55, 343

    2017

  11. [19]

    S., Kravtsov , A

    Bullock , J. S., Kravtsov , A. V., & Weinberg , D. H. 2000, , 539, 517

    2000

  12. [20]

    P., Hirschmann , M., Somerville , R

    Choi , E., Ostriker , J. P., Hirschmann , M., Somerville , R. S., & Naab , T. 2022, , 929, 113

    2022

  13. [21]

    P., Naab, T., & Johansson, P

    Choi, E., Ostriker, J. P., Naab, T., & Johansson, P. H. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 754, 125

    2012

  14. [22]

    P., Naab, T., et al

    Choi, E., Ostriker, J. P., Naab, T., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 31

    2017

  15. [23]

    S., Ostriker, J

    Choi, E., Somerville, R. S., Ostriker, J. P., Naab, T., & Hirschmann, M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 91

    2018

  16. [24]

    P., Cole , S., Frenk , C

    Cooper , A. P., Cole , S., Frenk , C. S., et al. 2010, , 406, 744

    2010

  17. [25]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 5181–5186

    Costa, T., Rosdahl, J., & Kimm, T. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 5181–5186

    2019

  18. [26]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 669

    Cullen, L., & Dehnen, W. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 669

    2010

  19. [27]

    S., et al

    Dashyan, G., Choi, E., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 487, Issue 4, p.5889-5901, 487, 5889

    2019

  20. [28]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 1068

    Dehnen, W., & Aly, H. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 1068

    2012

  21. [29]

    2016, , 463, 3948

    Dubois , Y., Peirani , S., Pichon , C., et al. 2016, , 463, 3948

    2016

  22. [30]

    Durier, F., & Vecchia, C. D. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 465

    2012

  23. [31]

    L., & Mac Low , M.-M

    Emerick , A., Bryan , G. L., & Mac Low , M.-M. 2019, , 482, 1304

    2019

  24. [32]

    S., McCarthy , I

    Font , A. S., McCarthy , I. G., Belokurov , V., Brown , S. T., & Stafford , S. G. 2022, , 511, 1544

    2022

  25. [33]

    Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S. D. M., & Tremonti, C. A. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 362, 41–58

    2005

  26. [34]

    2013, , 429, 633

    Geen , S., Slyz , A., & Devriendt , J. 2013, , 429, 633

    2013

  27. [35]

    H., Mao , Y.-Y., et al

    Geha , M., Wechsler , R. H., Mao , Y.-Y., et al. 2017, , 847, 4

    2017

  28. [36]

    H., et al

    Geha , M., Mao , Y.-Y., Wechsler , R. H., et al. 2024, , 976, 118

    2024

  29. [37]

    2001, in Clusters of Galaxies and the High Redshift Universe Observed in X-rays, ed

    Haardt , F., & Madau , P. 2001, in Clusters of Galaxies and the High Redshift Universe Observed in X-rays, ed. D. M. Neumann & J. T. V. Tran , 64

    2001

  30. [38]

    C., Ostriker , J

    Hambrick , D. C., Ostriker , J. P., Naab , T., & Johansson , P. H. 2011, , 738, 16

    2011

  31. [39]

    Hilz , M., Naab , T., & Ostriker , J. P. 2013, , 429, 2924

    2013

  32. [40]

    P., et al

    Hirschmann , M., Naab , T., Ostriker , J. P., et al. 2015, , 449, 528

    2015

  33. [41]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 2840

    2013

  34. [42]

    F., Bundy , K., Hernquist , L., Wuyts , S., & Cox , T

    Hopkins , P. F., Bundy , K., Hernquist , L., Wuyts , S., & Cox , T. J. 2010, , 401, 1099

    2010

  35. [43]

    F., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al. 2014, , 445, 581

    2014

  36. [44]

    F., Wetzel , A., Kere s , D., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Wetzel , A., Kere s , D., et al. 2018, , 477, 1578

    2018

  37. [45]

    Hoyle, F., & Lyttleton, R. A. 1939, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 34, 405

    1939

  38. [46]

    Y., Naab, T., Walch, S., Moster, B

    Hu, C. Y., Naab, T., Walch, S., Moster, B. P., & Oser, L. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 1173

    2014

  39. [47]

    C., Peng , C

    Huang , S., Ho , L. C., Peng , C. Y., Li , Z.-Y., & Barth , A. J. 2013, , 768, L28

    2013

  40. [48]

    U., Peng, W

    Hui, G. U., Peng, W. A., Ying-zhong, X. U., et al. 2022, Chinese Astronomy and Astrophysics, 46, doi:10.1016/j.chinastron.2022.11.003

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, , 527, 3276

    Ibrahim , D., & Kobayashi , C. 2024, , 527, 3276

    2024

  42. [50]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 125, 439

    Iwamoto, K., Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., et al. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 125, 439

    1999

  43. [51]

    Karakas, A. I. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 403, 1413

    2010

  44. [52]

    2020, , 494, 2200

    Katz , H., Ramsoy , M., Rosdahl , J., et al. 2020, , 494, 2200

    2020

  45. [53]

    2000, , 311, 576

    Kauffmann , G., & Haehnelt , M. 2000, , 311, 576

    2000

  46. [54]

    Kim , C.-G., & Ostriker , E. C. 2015, , 802, 99

    2015

  47. [55]

    2015, , 451, 2900

    Kimm , T., Cen , R., Devriendt , J., Dubois , Y., & Slyz , A. 2015, , 451, 2900

    2015

  48. [56]

    V., Valenzuela , O., & Prada , F

    Klypin , A., Kravtsov , A. V., Valenzuela , O., & Prada , F. 1999, , 522, 82

    1999

  49. [57]

    W., et al

    Koposov , S., Belokurov , V., Evans , N. W., et al. 2008, , 686, 279

    2008

  50. [58]

    E., Belokurov , V., Torrealba , G., & Evans , N

    Koposov , S. E., Belokurov , V., Torrealba , G., & Evans , N. W. 2015, , 805, 130

    2015

  51. [59]

    V., Gnedin , O

    Kravtsov , A. V., Gnedin , O. Y., & Klypin , A. A. 2004, , 609, 482

    2004

  52. [60]

    V., Vikhlinin , A

    Kravtsov , A. V., Vikhlinin , A. A., & Meshcheryakov , A. V. 2018, Astronomy Letters, 44, 8

    2018

  53. [61]

    V., Kang , X., Fontanot , F., et al

    Macci \`o , A. V., Kang , X., Fontanot , F., et al. 2010, , 402, 1995

    2010

  54. [62]

    2011, , 412, 2498

    Makarov , D., & Karachentsev , I. 2011, , 412, 2498

    2011

  55. [63]

    H., et al

    Mao , Y.-Y., Geha , M., Wechsler , R. H., et al. 2024, , 976, 117

    2024

  56. [64]

    G., Varela , J., & Barro , G

    M \'a rmol-Queralt \'o , E., Trujillo , I., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P. G., Varela , J., & Barro , G. 2012, , 422, 2187

    2012

  57. [65]

    McConnachie , A. W. 2012, , 144, 4

    2012

  58. [66]

    W., & Irwin , M

    McConnachie , A. W., & Irwin , M. J. 2006, , 365, 1263

    2006

  59. [67]

    1999, , 524, L19

    Moore , B., Ghigna , S., Governato , F., et al. 1999, , 524, L19

    1999

  60. [68]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2013, , 428, 3121

    2013

  61. [69]

    Mármol-Queraltó, E., Trujillo, I., Villar, V., Barro, G., & Pérez-González, P. G. 2013, , 429, 792

    2013

  62. [70]

    H., & Ostriker , J

    Naab , T., Johansson , P. H., & Ostriker , J. P. 2009, , 699, L178

    2009

  63. [71]

    H., Ostriker , J

    Naab , T., Johansson , P. H., Ostriker , J. P., & Efstathiou , G. 2007, , 658, 710

    2007

  64. [72]

    Naab , T., & Ostriker , J. P. 2017, , 55, 59

    2017

  65. [73]

    M., Auger , M

    Nierenberg , A. M., Auger , M. W., Treu , T., et al. 2012, , 752, 99

    2012

  66. [74]

    M., Treu , T., Menci , N., Lu , Y., & Wang , W

    Nierenberg , A. M., Treu , T., Menci , N., Lu , Y., & Wang , W. 2013, , 772, 146

    2013

  67. [75]

    W., & Bolton , A

    Nipoti , C., Treu , T., Auger , M. W., & Bolton , A. S. 2009, , 706, L86

    2009

  68. [76]

    1992, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 93, 121

    Nyman, L., Booth, R., Carlström, U., et al. 1992, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 93, 121

    1992

  69. [77]

    P., Naab, T., et al

    Núñez, A., Ostriker, J. P., Naab, T., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 204

    2017

  70. [78]

    Okamoto , T., & Frenk , C. S. 2009, , 399, L174

    2009

  71. [79]

    S., Jenkins , A., & Theuns , T

    Okamoto , T., Frenk , C. S., Jenkins , A., & Theuns , T. 2010, , 406, 208

    2010

  72. [80]

    2008, , 390, 920

    Okamoto , T., Gao , L., & Theuns , T. 2008, , 390, 920

    2008

  73. [81]

    P., Naab, T., Johansson, P

    Oser, L., Ostriker, J. P., Naab, T., Johansson, P. H., & Burkert, A. 2010, Astrophysical Journal, 725, 2312

    2010

  74. [82]

    F., & Charlot, S

    Panter, B., Jimenez, R., Heavens, A. F., & Charlot, S. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 391, 1117–1126

    2008

  75. [83]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 937–954

    Pasquali, A., Gallazzi, A., Fontanot, F., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 937–954

    2010

  76. [84]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 752, L19

    Quilis, V., & Trujillo, I. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 752, L19

    2012

  77. [85]

    I., & Hayfield, T

    Read, J. I., & Hayfield, T. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 422, 3037

    2012

  78. [86]

    W., & Thomas, P

    Ritchie, B. W., & Thomas, P. A. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 323, 743

    2001

  79. [87]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 686, A86

    Rohr, E., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Ayromlou, M., & Zinger, E. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 686, A86

    2024

  80. [88]

    2014, , 442, 347

    Ruiz, P., Trujillo, I., & Mármol-Queraltó, E. 2014, , 442, 347

    2014

  81. [89]

    2015, , 454, 1605

    ---. 2015, , 454, 1605

    2015

  82. [90]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 152

    Röttgers, B., Naab, T., Cernetic, M., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 152

    2020

  83. [91]

    R., & Makino, J

    Saitoh, T. R., & Makino, J. 2009, Astrophysical Journal, 697, L99

    2009

  84. [92]

    2013, Astrophysical Journal, 768, 44

    ---. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 768, 44

    2013

  85. [93]

    2022, , 514, 5276

    Samuel , J., Wetzel , A., Santistevan , I., et al. 2022, , 514, 5276

    2022

  86. [94]

    2020, , 491, 1471

    Samuel , J., Wetzel , A., Tollerud , E., et al. 2020, , 491, 1471

    2020

  87. [95]

    S., Fattahi , A., et al

    Sawala , T., Frenk , C. S., Fattahi , A., et al. 2016, , 457, 1931

    2016

  88. [96]

    Y., Ostriker, J

    Sazonov, S. Y., Ostriker, J. P., Ciotti, L., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 358, 168

    2005

  89. [97]

    Y., Ostriker, J

    Sazonov, S. Y., Ostriker, J. P., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 347, 144

    2004

  90. [98]

    B., White , S

    Scannapieco , C., Tissera , P. B., White , S. D. M., & Springel , V. 2008, , 389, 1137

    2008

  91. [99]

    2014, , 792, 99

    Shen , S., Madau , P., Conroy , C., Governato , F., & Mayer , L. 2014, , 792, 99

    2014

  92. [100]

    M., Bryan , G

    Simpson , C. M., Bryan , G. L., Hummels , C., & Ostriker , J. P. 2015, , 809, 69

    2015

  93. [101]

    M., Grand , R

    Simpson , C. M., Grand , R. J. J., G \'o mez , F. A., et al. 2018, , 478, 548

    2018

  94. [102]

    S., & Dav \'e , R

    Somerville , R. S., & Dav \'e , R. 2015, , 53, 51

    2015

  95. [103]

    S., Hopkins , P

    Somerville , R. S., Hopkins , P. F., Cox , T. J., Robertson , B. E., & Hernquist , L. 2008, , 391, 481

    2008

  96. [104]

    N., Bean, R., Dore, O., et al

    Spergel, D. N., Bean, R., Dore, O., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 170, 377

    2007

  97. [105]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 1105

    Springel, V. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 1105

    2005

  98. [106]

    2008, , 391, 1685

    Springel , V., Wang , J., Vogelsberger , M., et al. 2008, , 391, 1685

    2008

  99. [107]

    1939, The Astrophysical Journal, 89, 526

    Strömgren, B. 1939, The Astrophysical Journal, 89, 526

    1939

  100. [108]

    2016 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 193

    Tomozeiu, M., Mayer, L., & Quinn, T. 2016 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 193

    2016

  101. [109]

    2016 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 827, L15

    ---. 2016 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 827, L15

    2016

  102. [110]

    2014, Nature, 509, 177

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 177

    2014

  103. [111]

    2015, , 451, 2757

    Walch , S., & Naab , T. 2015, , 451, 2757

    2015

  104. [112]

    O., Mao , Y.-Y., et al

    Wang , Y., Nadler , E. O., Mao , Y.-Y., et al. 2024, , 976, 119

    2024

  105. [113]

    R., Hopkins , P

    Wetzel , A. R., Hopkins , P. F., Kim , J.-h., et al. 2016, , 827, L23

    2016

  106. [114]

    R., Tollerud , E

    Wetzel , A. R., Tollerud , E. J., & Weisz , D. R. 2015, , 808, L27

    2015

  107. [115]

    P., Schaye, J., & Smith, B

    Wiersma, R. P., Schaye, J., & Smith, B. D. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 393, 99

    2009

  108. [116]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 101, 181

    1995

  109. [117]

    F., Peek, J

    Wu, J. F., Peek, J. E. G., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 121

    2022

  110. [118]

    Zhu , J., Tonnesen , S., & Bryan , G. L. 2024, , 960, 54

    2024

  111. [119]

    M., Willman , B., et al

    Zolotov , A., Brooks , A. M., Willman , B., et al. 2012, , 761, 71

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.