Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 74 references

On The Role of Supermassive Black Holes in Quenching Star Formation in Local Central Galaxies

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that two semi-analytic models with different AGN feedback prescriptions fail to reproduce the passive fractions of local central galaxies, and concludes that radio-mode black hole feedback alone does not explain quenching.

desk verdict Useful and honest model-data comparison, though the headline agreements are partly calibration and the observed central selection lacks a purity check. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04813 v1 pith:F53SIV2I submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.GA

Nikhil Arora , Matteo Fossati , Fabio Fontanot , Michaela Hirschmann , David J. Wilman This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyquenchingAGNfeedbacksemi-analyticmodelsactivegalacticnucleipassivegalaxiesblackhole-bulgerelationSDSScentralradiomode
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 energy injected by a supermassive black hole in 'radio mode' feedback is what shuts down star formation in massive central galaxies in the local Universe. Using a uniform, observationally motivated way to pick central galaxies from both the SDSS and two semi-analytic models, the authors measure the passive fraction as a function of stellar mass, neighbour density, halo mass, black hole mass, and bulge mass. They find that observed passive fractions track stellar mass and bulge mass, while the L-GALAXIES model links quenching to halo and black hole mass and the SAGE model links it to black hole and bulge mass. Because neither model fully reproduces the observed passive population, and both keep massive isolated galaxies forming stars, the paper concludes that current radio-mode AGN feedback prescriptions do not fully explain quenching in local central galaxies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the adaptive cylindrical aperture used to identify central galaxies by stellar-mass rank in both data and models. For each galaxy, a cylinder of radius $r(n, r_{\rm max}, v_{\rm depth}) = \min(r_{\rm max}, n\,10^{\alpha \log M_* + \beta})$ and velocity depth $v_{\rm depth}$ is built, and the galaxy is called central if it has the highest stellar mass among galaxies inside. This gives an observationally measurable definition of 'central' that applies uniformly to SDSS and to both simulations, turning the model-data comparison into a controlled experiment. The second ingredient is the passive fraction $f_{\rm pass} = \Sigma w_{\rm pass}/\Sigma w_{\rm all}$, computed in bins of stellar mass and neighbour density, with the neighbour density acting as a halo-mass proxy that breaks the stellar mass-halo mass degeneracy.

What would settle it

A definitive test would be to build a large, complete sample of local massive central galaxies with reliable group halo masses from redshift surveys or X-ray groups and measure passive fraction at fixed stellar mass: if f_pass rises steeply with halo mass at fixed stellar mass, the paper's claim that observed quenching is driven by stellar and bulge mass rather than by halo mass would be overturned. Alternatively, if direct dynamical black hole masses show that the observed passive fraction is actually set by black hole mass at fixed bulge mass, then the AGN-feedback picture the models embody would be supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a mismatch between where quenching happens in observations and where the models place it. In the SDSS, the passive fraction of central galaxies rises with stellar mass and bulge mass across environments, with massive field galaxies overwhelmingly passive. In L-GALAXIES, the quenched fraction instead correlates most strongly with halo mass and black hole mass, with radio-mode feedback suppressing cooling for essentially all centrals above $\log_{10}(M_{\rm BH}/M_\odot) \approx 6$. In SAGE, passive fractions correlate with black hole and bulge mass, but even at high black hole mass only about 60% of central galaxies have their cooling completely suppressed. The authors also show SAGE produces a tighter $M_{\rm BH}{-}M_{\rm bulge}$ relation with a slope closer to local observations, yet this improved black hole calibration does not remove the model-data tension. The paper concludes that neither the simple phenomenological feedback of L-GALAXIES nor the more physical coupled cooling-heating scheme of SAGE fully explains the observed quenched central population.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on the assumption that the adaptive aperture with n = 8, r_max = 2.5 Mpc and v_depth = 2000 km/s selects the same central population in the SDSS as in the two simulations, since the observed sample's purity cannot be checked against real halo membership and small selection differences could masquerade as model-data tension.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed quenching in local central galaxies is tied to baryonic structure, especially stellar mass and bulge mass, more than to environment, so any successful model needs a quenching channel that tracks the bulge.
  • In L-GALAXIES, radio-mode feedback acts as a sharp switch: nearly every central with $\log_{10}(M_{\rm BH}/M_\odot) \geq 6$ has its gas cooling suppressed, making black hole mass the effective determinant of quiescence.
  • In SAGE, the same feedback is less efficient, suppressing cooling in only about 60% of high-black-hole-mass centrals, which explains why SAGE leaves more massive centrals star-forming.
  • The two models' failure to reproduce massive isolated passive galaxies points to missing physics, likely merger-driven cold gas supply or the treatment of orphan satellites, rather than to the absence of AGN feedback.
  • SAGE's closer agreement with the observed black hole-bulge mass relation does not by itself solve the quenching problem, showing that a good black hole scaling relation is not sufficient for a good passive fraction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to add a bulge-mass-dependent quenching channel, such as morphological quenching or gas starvation, to the models; the prediction would be that passive fractions in massive isolated centrals rise without invoking stronger AGN heating.
  • The adaptive-aperture central selection could be applied to hydrodynamical simulations or to higher-redshift surveys; if its purity and completeness vary with redshift, part of the model-data tension could be a selection artefact rather than a physics gap.
  • The paper's 'non-resolved substructures' hypothesis is testable: re-running SAGE with a higher-resolution simulation or with orphan galaxies surviving longer should lower the cold-gas supply in massive centrals and raise their passive fractions.
  • A direct observational check of the merger-fed cold gas idea is to measure molecular gas in a sample of massive isolated passive centrals; a significant gas reservoir would support the model tension, while gas-poor galaxies would instead point to an over-efficient quenching mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper compares passive fractions of local central galaxies in SDSS DR7 with predictions from two semi-analytic models, L-GALAXIES (Henriques et al. 2015) and SAGE (Croton et al. 2016), using the same adaptive cylindrical aperture to select centrals in both data and models. The observed passive fractions are studied in the stellar mass versus neighbour density plane and in relation to model halo mass, black hole mass, and bulge mass. The authors report that observed passive fractions correlate best with stellar mass and bulge mass; L-GALAXIES passive fractions correlate with halo and black hole mass; SAGE passive fractions correlate with black hole and bulge mass; and that neither model fully reproduces the observed quenched population, especially massive isolated galaxies. They also compare the black hole to bulge mass relation in the models with recent observational fits, finding SAGE in better agreement, while noting tensions remain.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a useful observational constraint on AGN feedback prescriptions in semi-analytic models, with a concrete technique for selecting central galaxies uniformly in observations and simulations. The use of the same adaptive aperture in SDSS and in both SAMs is a genuine methodological contribution, and the paper is honest about residual tensions. However, the headline conclusions are largely qualitative: passive fractions are shown without uncertainties, the claimed correlations are not quantified, and part of the model-data agreement is explicitly attributable to model calibration. The significance is therefore moderate: the paper is a useful test case for radio-mode AGN feedback, but its evidential weight is weaker than its conclusions imply.

major comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] The adaptive central-galaxy selection is validated only against simulation truth, so the observed SDSS sample is assumed to have the same purity and completeness as the model samples. The central comparison depends on matching central selection in data and models; differential contamination as a function of stellar mass and neighbour density could bias the passive-fraction maps and mimic or hide model-data tension. The paper itself states in Appendix A that contamination 'can affect the trends seen in passive fractions and leads to inaccurate conclusions.' Please add an observed-side validation, e.g., using group catalogues or varying r(n, rmax, vdepth) and showing that the maps and conclusions are stable, or explicitly quantify the expected contamination in the SDSS sample.
  2. [Section 5, Figs 2-8] Passive fractions are presented without error bars, bootstrap uncertainties, or significance tests. Equation (8) defines a weighted observed fraction, but no statistical uncertainty is propagated, and claims such as 'good correlation with stellar mass and bulge mass' are not supported by any quantitative correlation measure. Without this, it is not possible to tell whether the qualitative differences between L-GALAXIES, SAGE, and SDSS are statistically meaningful. Please add uncertainties and report appropriate significance tests (e.g., rank correlations or binomial errors per bin) for the central claims.
  3. [Section 6 and Section 7] The better agreement of the SAGE black hole-bulge mass relation with observations is explicitly attributed in Section 6 to the model having been calibrated to reproduce that relation, and L-GALAXIES/H15 was tuned to match observed passive fractions (Section 2.1). The paper should therefore not present these agreements as independent support for the physical prescriptions. The calibration-dependent parts of the comparison need to be clearly separated from genuinely predictive statements, such as the distribution of quenched galaxies in the M*-Sigma plane and the behaviour of massive isolated galaxies, which are the more convincing elements of the analysis.
  4. [Section 5.1] Bins with fewer than 30 objects are dropped post hoc and are not marked in the figures. This affects the appearance of the maps, particularly in the low-mass, high-density region, and the threshold choice is not justified. The paper should either report the excluded bins in the figures, show that the qualitative results are robust to the threshold value, or justify the threshold a priori.
  5. [Section 3 and Section 5] The passive definition is specified for the observed sample (sSFR < 0.3 t_hubble^-1 ~ 10^-11 yr^-1) but not for the model galaxies. Since the central claim is a comparison of passive fractions, it is essential to state explicitly whether the same sSFR threshold is applied to the SAM outputs or whether the models use a different quiescent/star-forming classification. If different definitions are used, the comparison is not uniform and the reported tensions may be partly definitional.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains subject-verb agreement errors ('passive fractions in L-GALAXIES correlate...', 'For SAGE, the passive fraction correlate...'); these should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3] The sentence 'The datasets provides the number of neighbours...' has a subject-verb agreement error; also, the catalogue construction from Wilman et al. (2010) could be described more precisely.
  3. [Section 5.3] The phrase 'A central galaxies population' is ungrammatical and should read 'A central galaxy population' or 'The population of central galaxies'.
  4. [Figure 9] The caption refers to left and right panels ('The left panel shows... the right panel shows...'), but the figure appears to be a single panel; please correct the caption or the figure layout.
  5. [Appendix A, Eq. A1] The parameters alpha and beta in Eq. A1 are introduced but their values are never given or justified; please state the adopted values for the adaptive aperture used in the analysis.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues with accented characters (e.g., 'sersic', 'Beifiori') and inconsistent spacing around equations; a thorough proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

SAGE's M_BH-M_bulge slope agreement is a calibrated input, but the paper's central model-data tension finding remains independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6 (Black Hole - Bulge Mass Relation); see Section 2.2 (SAGE model description)]
    "SAGE predicts a slope for the MBH− MBulge relation that is closer to the observation estimate (due to the fact that the model has been explicitly calibrated to reproduce the constrain). ... a secondary set of constrains are applied using ... the black hole-bulge mass relation (Scott et al. 2013)."

    The abstract advertises SAGE's better MBH−MBulge slope agreement with observations as a model result. Section 6, however, states that this agreement arises because SAGE was explicitly calibrated to reproduce that observed relation, and Section 2.2 lists the black hole-bulge mass relation (Scott et al. 2013) among the model's constraints. The slope agreement is therefore a reproduction of a fitting input, not an independent prediction, so the comparison is statistically forced by construction. The paper's main conclusion — that neither SAM fully reproduces the observed quenched central-galaxy population — does not depend on this calibrated agreement and retains independent content.

full rationale

The paper is mostly a comparative analysis of existing SAMs against SDSS, and its central finding is a tension: observed passive fractions correlate with stellar and bulge mass, while the SAMs' passive fractions correlate more with halo and black hole mass, and neither model reproduces the full observed quenched population. That central comparison is not circular: it uses a uniform adaptive-aperture central selection applied to both data and models, and the tensions are stated as failures of the models, not as confirmations. The one clear circular step is the SAGE MBH−MBulge slope claim, which the paper itself explicitly attributes to calibration against the observed relation; calling it a better prediction is a fitted input renamed as a result. L-GALAXIES is also stated to have been tuned to match passive fractions, so broad passive-fraction agreement would be a consistency check, but the paper does not rest on that agreement and instead emphasizes discrepancies in the M*-density plane. The Fossati et al. (2015) selection technique is validated against simulation truth in Appendix A; observed-sample purity is assumed, which is a selection-systematics risk rather than a circular derivation. Overall, the central claim is independent, so the circularity score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new free parameters or invented entities. All parameters are inherited from the two SAMs, but the key comparison quantities, model passive fractions and the MBH-MBulge relation, are calibrated outputs of those models (H15 to passive fractions, SAGE to SMF and MBH-MBulge). This means the model-data agreement in the paper is partly a check on calibration inputs, not fully independent evidence.

free parameters (5)
  • k_AGN (L-GALAXIES radio-mode normalization) = 5.3e-3 M_sun/yr
    Eq. 1. Tuned in Henriques et al. (2015) to reproduce the stellar mass function and passive fractions; sets the quenching efficiency used in the comparison.
  • kappa_R (SAGE radio-mode efficiency) = 0.08
    Eq. 4. Calibrated in Croton et al. (2016) to the z=0 SMF and secondary constraints including the MBH-MBulge relation, so SAGE's better slope is not an independent prediction.
  • SAGE star formation efficiency (Kennicutt-Schmidt) = not stated
    Section 7 attributes higher SFR in dense SAGE centrals to a higher tuned star formation efficiency; the value is not given.
  • sSFR passive threshold = 0.3 t_hubble^-1 ~ 10^-11 yr^-1
    Section 3; hand-set cutoff used to classify galaxies as passive in both observed and model samples.
  • adaptive aperture parameters (n, rmax, vdepth) = 8, 2.5 Mpc, 2000 km/s
    Section 4 and Appendix A; chosen by hand from purity/completeness tests; changes the central sample and therefore the passive fraction maps.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Lambda-CDM hierarchical structure formation is the correct framework for galaxy evolution.
    Invoked in Section 1; the whole comparison of SAMs on the Millennium simulation to SDSS assumes this framework.
  • domain assumption Radio-mode AGN feedback is the dominant quenching mechanism for massive central galaxies.
    Stated in Sections 1 and 2; the analysis tests model implementations of this idea but does not independently establish it.
  • domain assumption L-GALAXIES (H15) and SAGE (C16) are representative implementations of AGN feedback and their public catalogues faithfully encode the models.
    Section 2.3 argues this; all conclusions depend on these catalogue outputs.
  • domain assumption Differences in cosmology between L-GALAXIES (Planck) and SAGE (WMAP-1) do not materially affect the comparison.
    Sections 2.1 and 2.2 give different cosmologies for the two models run on Millennium; the paper does not correct for this.
  • domain assumption The adaptive aperture selects equivalent central galaxies in models and observations.
    Appendix A validates purity/completeness against simulation truth only; observed purity is assumed.
  • domain assumption SDSS DR7/MPA-JHU stellar masses, SFRs and neighbour counts are accurate enough for passive fraction measurements.
    Section 3 assumes these measurements without systematic error analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On The Role of Supermassive Black Holes in Quenching Star Formation in Local Central Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F53SIV2I

@misc{pith2026190804813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On The Role of Supermassive Black Holes in Quenching Star Formation in Local Central Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F53SIV2I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04813}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we analyze the role of AGN feedback in quenching star formation for massive, central galaxies in the local Universe. In particular, we compare the prediction of two semi-analytic models (L-GALAXIES and SAGE) featuring different schemes for AGN feedback, with the SDSS DR7 taking advantage of a novel technique for identifying central galaxies in an observational dataset. This enables us to study the correlation between the model passive fractions, which is predicted to be suppressed by feedback from an AGN, and the observed passive fractions in an observationally motivated parameter space. While the passive fractions for observed central galaxies show a good correlation with stellar mass and bulge mass, passive fractions in L-GALAXIES correlate with the halo and black hole mass. For SAGE, the passive fraction correlate with the bulge mass as well. Among the two models, SAGE has a smaller scatter in the black hole - bulge mass (M_BH - M_Bulge) relation and a slope that agrees better with the most recent observations at z \sim 0. Despite the more realistic prescription of radio mode feedback in SAGE, there are still tensions left with the observed passive fractions and the distribution of quenched galaxies. These tensions may be due to the treatment of galaxies living in non-resolved substructures and the resulting higher merger rates that could bring cold gas which is available for star formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04813 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Median dark matter halo mass (left panel) and stellar mass (right panel) as a function of neighbour density for various aperture sizes (different colours) at z = 0.0. The solid lines show central galaxies from L-GALAXIES and dashed lines show central galaxies from SAGE. 4 SELECTION OF THE PARAMETER SPACE AND CENTRAL GALAXIES For a fair comparison between the observed and simulated galaxies, with respect to the star … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Passive fractions in the M∗ − Σr parameter space for L-GALAXIES (left panel) and SAGE (right panel). We use 0.5 Mpc aperture for calculating the neighbour density for model galaxies. The passive fraction are shown for central galaxies that are selected by assigning mass ranks using the adaptive aperture r(8, 2.5, 2000). The contours presented on both panels represents the median halo mass in each bin in log space. 0… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Passive fractions in the M∗ − Σr parameter space SDSS central galaxies selected using mass ranks assigned by the adaptive aperture. We use 0.5 Mpc aperture for calculating the neighbour density around central galaxies. The contours show the median halo mass for the two SAMs, L-GALAXIES (left panel) and SAGE (right panel). to ∼ 60% with no gas cooling. A central galaxies population with log10(MBH/M ) > 8.0 contains a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Passive fractions in the M∗ − Σr parameter space for L-GALAXIES (left panel) and SAGE (right panel). We use 0.5 Mpc aperture for calculating the neighbour density for model galaxies. The passive fraction are shown for central galaxies that are selected by assigning mas…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Passive fractions in the M∗ − Σr parameter space SDSS central galaxies selected using mass ranks assigned by the adaptive aperture. We use 0.5 Mpc aperture for calculating the neighbour density around central galaxies. The contours on top show the fraction of galaxies …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fraction of galaxies with zero gas cooling rate as a function of black hole mass. The central galaxies selected using mass ranks assigned by the adaptive aperture are presented using solid line and dashed line show the central galaxies as defined by the SAMs. Red repre…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Passive fractions in the M∗ − Σr parameter space SDSS central galaxies selected using mass ranks assigned by the adaptive aperture. We use 0.5 Mpc aperture for calculating the neighbour density around central galaxies. The contours on top show the median black hole mas…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Passive fractions in the M∗ − Σr parameter space SDSS central galaxies selected using mass ranks assigned by the adaptive aperture. We use 0.5 Mpc aperture for calculating the neighbour density around central galaxies. The contours on top show the median bulge mass for…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Black hole mass vs. bulge mass for the SAMs compared to various observed relation. For both SAMs, the line represent the mean calculated in a bulge mass bin of 0.16 dex and the shaded region shows the standard deviation within the same bin. The left panel shows the cen…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Passive fractions in the MBH − MBulge/M∗ parameter space for central galaxies in L-GALAXIES (left panel) and SAGE (right panel). Bitsakis T., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 483, 370 Bluck A. F. L., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Simard L., Mendel J. T., Teimoorinia H., Moreno J.,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., et al., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    Abazajian K. N., et al., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [4]

    S., Wechsler R

    Behroozi P. S., Wechsler R. H., Conroy C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/L31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013ApJ...762L..31B 762, L31

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/l31 2013

  3. [5]

    M., Zhu Y., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19903.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.2497B 419, 2497

    Beifiori A., Courteau S., Corsini E. M., Zhu Y., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19903.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.2497B 419, 2497

    arXiv 2012

  4. [6]

    J., Bower R

    Benson A. J., Bower R. G., Frenk C. S., Lacey C. G., Baugh C. M., Cole S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379160 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599...38B 599, 38

    doi:10.1086/379160 2003

  5. [7]

    Bernyk M., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/0067-0049/223/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016ApJS..223....9B 223, 9

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/223/1/9 2016

  6. [8]

    Bitsakis T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2857 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483..370B 483, 370

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2857 2019

  7. [9]

    Bluck A. F. L., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Simard L., Mendel J. T., Teimoorinia H., Moreno J., Starkenburg E., 2014a, preprint ( @eprint 1412.3862 )

    arXiv

  8. [10]

    Bluck A. F. L., Mendel J. T., Ellison S. L., Moreno J., Simard L., Patton D. R., Starkenburg E., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu594 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441..599B 441, 599

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu594

Show all 74 references
  1. [11]

    Bondi H., 1952, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1952MNRAS.112..195B 112, 195

    1952 doi

  2. [13]

    Boylan-Kolchin M., Springel V., White S. D. M., Jenkins A., Lemson G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15191.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2009MNRAS.398.1150B 398, 1150

    2009

  3. [15]

    Cano-D \' az M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/821/2/L26 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821L..26C 821, L26

    2016 doi

  4. [16]

    H., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2009ApJ...696..620C 696, 620

    Conroy C., Wechsler R. H., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2009ApJ...696..620C 696, 620

    2009 doi

  5. [17]

    P., Gao L., Guo Q., Frenk C

    Cooper A. P., Gao L., Guo Q., Frenk C. S., Jenkins A., Springel V., White S. D. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1042 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2015MNRAS.451.2703C 451, 2703

    2015 doi

  6. [21]

    J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/2/22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222...22C 222, 22

    Croton D. J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/2/22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222...22C 222, 22

    2016 doi

  7. [23]

    Di Matteo T., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.433..604D 433, 604

    2005 doi

  8. [24]

    J., Muriel H., Madrid J

    Donzelli C. J., Muriel H., Madrid J. P., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011ApJS..195...15D 195, 15

    2011 doi

  9. [25]

    Dressler A., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157753 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1980ApJ...236..351D 236, 351

    1980 doi

  10. [26]

    C., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.001425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ARA&A..32..277F 32, 277

    Fabian A. C., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.001425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ARA&A..32..277F 32, 277

    1994

  11. [27]

    C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50..455F 50, 455

    Fabian A. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50..455F 50, 455

    2012 doi

  12. [29]

    Ferrarese L., Merritt D., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2000ApJ...539L...9F 539, L9

    2000 doi

  13. [32]

    Fontanot F., Monaco P., Shankar F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.4112F 453, 4112

    2015 doi

  14. [33]

    Fossati M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.2582F 446, 2582

    2015 doi

  15. [34]

    Fossati M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..153F 835, 153

    2017 doi

  16. [35]

    G., F \"o rster Schreiber N

    Franx M., van Dokkum P. G., F \"o rster Schreiber N. M., Wuyts S., Labb \'e I., Toft S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688..770F 688, 770

    2008 doi

  17. [37]

    W., Scott N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..151G 764, 151

    Graham A. W., Scott N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..151G 764, 151

    2013 doi

  18. [38]

    Gu M., Conroy C., Behroozi P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833....2G 833, 2

    2016 doi

  19. [40]

    E., Henriques B., Lemson G., Boylan-Kolchin M., Thomas P., Short C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.1351G 428, 1351

    Guo Q., White S., Angulo R. E., Henriques B., Lemson G., Boylan-Kolchin M., Thomas P., Short C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.1351G 428, 1351

    2013 doi

  20. [41]

    H \"a ring N., Rix H.-W., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...604L..89H 604, L89

    2004 doi

  21. [42]

    Henriques B. M. B., White S. D. M., Thomas P. A., Angulo R. E., Guo Q., Lemson G., Springel V., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2013MNRAS.431.3373H 431, 3373

    2013 doi

  22. [43]

    Henriques B. M. B., White S. D. M., Thomas P. A., Angulo R., Guo Q., Lemson G., Springel V., Overzier R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2663H 451, 2663

    2015 doi

  23. [44]

    Hirschmann M., De Lucia G., Wilman D., Weinmann S., Iovino A., Cucciati O., Zibetti S., Villalobos \'A ., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.2938H 444, 2938

    2014 doi

  24. [45]

    Hirschmann M., De Lucia G., Fontanot F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.1760H 461, 1760

    2016 doi

  25. [46]

    T., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9af3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851...66H 851, 66

    Hogan M. T., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9af3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851...66H 851, 66

    2017 doi

  26. [47]

    W., SDSS Collaboration 2003, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#202

    Hogg D. W., SDSS Collaboration 2003, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#202. p. 51.03

    2003

  27. [48]

    P., Giovanelli R., Brinchmann J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012ApJ...756..113H 756, 113

    Huang S., Haynes M. P., Giovanelli R., Brinchmann J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012ApJ...756..113H 756, 113

    2012 doi

  28. [49]

    V., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...92J 734, 92

    Jahnke K., Macci \`o A. V., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...92J 734, 92

    2011 doi

  29. [50]

    Kauffmann G., Haehnelt M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03077.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.311..576K 311, 576

    2000

  30. [51]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06292.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.341...54K 341, 54

    2003

  31. [52]

    Kauffmann G., White S. D. M., Heckman T. M., M \'e nard B., Brinchmann J., Charlot S., Tremonti C., Brinkmann J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08117.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.353..713K 353, 713

    2004

  32. [53]

    J., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1989ApJ...344..685K 344, 685

    Kennicutt Robert C. J., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1989ApJ...344..685K 344, 685

    1989 doi

  33. [54]

    Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305588 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...498..541K 498, 541

    1998 doi

  34. [55]

    King A., Pounds K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA

    2015 doi

  35. [56]

    Knebe A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2662 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.5206K 474, 5206

    2018 doi

  36. [57]

    C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..511K 51, 511

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..511K 51, 511

    2013 doi

  37. [58]

    V., Vikhlinin A

    Kravtsov A. V., Vikhlinin A. A., Meshcheryakov A. V., 2018, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773717120015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018AstL...44....8K 44, 8

    2018 doi

  38. [59]

    Martig M., Bournaud F., Teyssier R., Dekel A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2009ApJ...707..250M 707, 250

    2009 doi

  39. [61]

    A., Schaller M., Bower R., Theuns T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2381M 465, 2381

    Matthee J., Schaye J., Crain R. A., Schaller M., Bower R., Theuns T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2381M 465, 2381

    2017 doi

  40. [62]

    J., Ma C.-P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..184M 764, 184

    McConnell N. J., Ma C.-P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..184M 764, 184

    2013 doi

  41. [63]

    Monaco P., Fontanot F., Taffoni G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11253.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375.1189M 375, 1189

    2007

  42. [64]

    Peng Y.-j., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721..193P 721, 193

    2010 doi

  43. [65]

    J., Renzini A., Carollo M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757....4P 757, 4

    Peng Y.-j., Lilly S. J., Renzini A., Carollo M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757....4P 757, 4

    2012 doi

  44. [66]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  45. [67]

    P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818...47S 818, 47

    Saglia R. P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818...47S 818, 47

    2016 doi

  46. [68]

    Santini P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8874 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847...76S 847, 76

    2017 doi

  47. [69]

    W., Schombert J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2013ApJ...768...76S 768, 76

    Scott N., Graham A. W., Schombert J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2013ApJ...768...76S 768, 76

    2013 doi

  48. [70]

    Shankar F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw678 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.3119S 460, 3119

    2016 doi

  49. [71]

    A., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/8/004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012RAA....12..917S 12, 917

    Silk J., Mamon G. A., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/8/004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012RAA....12..917S 12, 917

    2012 doi

  50. [73]

    S., Dav \'e R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53...51S 53, 51

    Somerville R. S., Dav \'e R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53...51S 53, 51

    2015 doi

  51. [74]

    S., Primack J

    Somerville R. S., Primack J. R., Faber S. M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03975.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2001MNRAS.320..504S 320, 504

    2001

  52. [75]

    S., Hopkins P

    Somerville R. S., Hopkins P. F., Cox T. J., Robertson B. E., Hernquist L., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13805.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391..481S 391, 481

    2008

  53. [76]

    N., et al., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/377226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2003ApJS..148..175S 148, 175

    Spergel D. N., et al., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/377226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2003ApJS..148..175S 148, 175

    2003 doi

  54. [77]

    Springel V., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364.1105S 364, 1105

    2005

  55. [78]

    Springel V., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2005Natur.435..629S 435, 629

    2005 doi

  56. [79]

    V., McGaugh S

    Stark D. V., McGaugh S. S., Swaters R. A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2009AJ....138..392S 138, 392

    2009 doi

  57. [80]

    Tremaine S., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574..740T 574, 740

    2002 doi

  58. [81]

    A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2004ApJ...613..898T 613, 898

    Tremonti C. A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2004ApJ...613..898T 613, 898

    2004 doi

  59. [82]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2014A&A...569A...1W 569, A1

    Walcher C. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2014A&A...569A...1W 569, A1

    2014 doi

  60. [83]

    E., van Dokkum P

    Whitaker K. E., van Dokkum P. G., Brammer G., Franx M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012ApJ...754L..29W 754, L29

    2012 doi

  61. [84]

    E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838...19W 838, 19

    Whitaker K. E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838...19W 838, 19

    2017 doi

  62. [85]

    White S. D. M., Frenk C. S., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...379...52W 379, 52

    1991 doi

  63. [86]

    White S. D. M., Rees M. J., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.183..341W 183, 341

    1978 doi

  64. [87]

    J., Zibetti S., Budav \'a ri T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16845.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.1701W 406, 1701

    Wilman D. J., Zibetti S., Budav \'a ri T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16845.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.1701W 406, 1701

    2010

  65. [88]

    J., van den Bosch F

    Yang X., Mo H. J., van den Bosch F. C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/528954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...676..248Y 676, 248

    2008 doi

  66. [89]

    P., White M., 2017, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170305326V ( @eprint arXiv 1703.05326 )

    van Daalen M. P., White M., 2017, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170305326V ( @eprint arXiv 1703.05326 )

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.