Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 86 references

The impact of AGN feedback on galaxy intrinsic alignments in the Horizon simulations

T0 review · 1 major / 4 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 AGN feedback leaves the weak-lensing alignment signal intact

desk verdict A careful twin-simulation comparison showing AGN feedback changes galaxy position-shape alignments but not the density-shape signal used for lensing contamination; the main claim rests on one shape definition and one simulation volume, but the matched-galaxy analysis is a real advance. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11665 v2 pith:3PVLB6EJ submitted 2019-08-30 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Adam Soussana , Nora Elisa Chisari , Sandrine Codis , Ricarda S. Beckmann , Yohan Dubois , Julien Devriendt , Sebastien Peirani , Clotilde Laigle
show 2 more authors
Christophe Pichon Adrianne Slyz
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords intrinsicalignmentsAGNfeedbackweakgravitationallensinggalaxyshapesspinscosmicfilamentshydrodynamicalsimulationsHorizon
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

Does the energy injected by active galactic nuclei into their surroundings change how galaxies' shapes and spins align with the cosmic web? This paper compares two otherwise identical cosmological simulations, one with AGN feedback and one without, and measures shape-density, shape-position, spin-position, and spin-filament correlations. The central result is that the projected shape-density correlation, the quantity that contaminates weak lensing, is the same in both runs, while the shape-position correlation around galaxies is stronger in the AGN run, especially for massive ellipsoids. Using galaxies matched across the two runs, the paper separates population changes from changes in how individual galaxies orient. The practical conclusion is that AGN feedback can be ignored when modelling the GI contamination to cosmic shear, but not when interpreting galaxy-galaxy alignment measurements.

What carries the argument

The comparison rests on twin cosmological hydrodynamical runs of the Horizon simulation that share identical initial conditions and sub-grid recipes, differing only in the presence of AGN feedback, implemented as a thermal quasar mode and a kinetic radio mode. Galaxy shapes are measured from inertia tensors of stellar particles, with reliable shapes requiring more than 300 particles, and alignments are quantified by the three-dimensional orientation-direction correlation $\eta_e(r)$ and by the projected correlations $w_{g+}$ and $w_{\delta+}$. A galaxy-matching procedure pairs objects across the two runs to separate selection effects from genuine orientation changes, while filament extraction with a persistence-based skeleton provides the structure used for spin-filament alignments. Applying the same statistics to matched and unmatched samples is what lets the paper attribute differences either to population composition or to alignment changes.

What would settle it

Take the same twin-simulation setup, raise the quasar-mode efficiency to a substantially higher value, and re-measure $r_p \times w_{\delta+}(r_p)$ for all galaxies with more than 300 stellar particles at $z=0$; if the projected shape-density correlation shifts by more than the error bars at $r_p \approx 1$ to $10$ Mpc, the claim that AGN feedback leaves the weak-lensing contamination unchanged fails beyond this one calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the Horizon simulation suite, the projected alignment of all resolved galaxy shapes with respect to the matter density field ($w_{\delta+}$) is unaffected by AGN feedback at $z=0$ and $z=1$, so the predicted contamination to weak lensing is unchanged. By contrast, the projected correlation of shapes around galaxy positions ($w_{g+}$) is significantly enhanced in the AGN run, with the difference driven by high-mass ellipsoids that exist in Horizon-AGN but are absent or more rotation-supported in the noAGN run. When galaxies are matched across the two simulations, the shape-position correlation is still stronger in the AGN run, showing that AGN feedback changes galaxy orientations themselves, not only the sample selection. Spin alignments around filaments are stronger in the AGN run, but matched twins show the same orientation statistics, indicating that the stronger signal comes from a larger abundance of massive pressure-supported galaxies rather than from a change in how those galaxies orient.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions depend on the Horizon-AGN sub-grid AGN feedback model, with quasar-mode efficiency $\epsilon_q=0.15$, being representative of real AGN feedback; if true AGN feedback is stronger or differently calibrated, the alignment signals and the apparent robustness of $w_{\delta+}$ could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The projected shape-density correlation $w_{\delta+}$ can be treated as insensitive to AGN feedback in models of weak-lensing contamination, at least for this simulation family.
  • Modelling of galaxy position-shape correlations $w_{g+}$ from hydrodynamical simulations should account for AGN feedback, particularly at small scales and for high-mass ellipsoids.
  • Observational position-shape alignment measurements may indirectly constrain AGN feedback strength once population selection effects are separated.
  • The mass-dependent spin-filament transition is weaker without AGN feedback, suggesting the spin flip of massive galaxies is partly a population-driven feedback effect.
  • Cross-correlations of ellipsoids around discs show that AGN feedback dampens alignments at $r<0.8$ Mpc and amplifies them at $r>0.8$ Mpc, a pattern reproduced in projection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A stronger AGN prescription than the one calibrated in Horizon-AGN could plausibly alter $w_{\delta+}$; rerunning the twin comparison with varied feedback efficiency would show whether the GI robustness is general or specific to this calibration.
  • Because AGN feedback changes $w_{g+}$ at small scales, future lensing surveys measuring galaxy-galaxy alignments could in principle use the small-scale signal to discriminate between feedback models.
  • The matched noAGN twins of massive AGN galaxies also lie above the same mass threshold, so the perpendicular spin-filament orientation of massive galaxies appears to be inherited from sample selection; an observational test would measure spin-filament alignment among massive quenched galaxies selected by their star-formation state.
  • The choice of inertia tensor changes the amplitude of radial and tangential alignments but not which run dominates, so the qualitative AGN comparison may hold for other shape-weighting schemes, though quantitative predictions for lensing should be checked with luminosity-weighted shapes.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper investigates whether AGN feedback alters the intrinsic alignments of galaxies by comparing two Horizon simulations that are identical except for the presence of the AGN feedback implementation. The authors measure 3D orientation–separation and spin–separation correlations, projected position–shape correlations (wg+) and shape–density correlations (wδ+), and spin alignments with filaments, at z=0 and z=1, for the full galaxy population, for high-mass ellipsoids, for discs, and for a matched 'twin' sample across the two runs. The main reported findings are that wδ+ for the full population is robust to AGN feedback, that wg+ and ηe around galaxy positions are enhanced by AGN, and that stronger spin–filament alignments in Horizon-AGN arise from the increased abundance of massive pressure-supported galaxies rather than from a change in how the same galaxies orient.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a useful step toward understanding how baryonic feedback processes affect intrinsic alignments, a key contaminant for weak lensing surveys. The analysis design is a genuine strength: the twin-run setup controls for initial conditions and numerical scheme, the matched-galaxy comparison isolates population changes from orientation changes, and the error estimates from eight sub-boxes are a reasonable internal consistency check. The paper is also honest about its limitations, noting the dependence on the sub-grid AGN prescription and the need for survey-like galaxy selections. The main weakness is that the headline wδ+ robustness claim, which is the basis for the weak-lensing contamination statement, is currently tied to a single shape definition and needs an additional test before the abstract's claim is fully supported.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. 6.1.1, Fig. 4 (bottom-right); Sec. 3.1; Appendix A]
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] The reference list contains apparent duplicates: Tenneti et al. 2015a and 2015b are both MNRAS 448, 3522, and Hirata et al. 2007a and 2007b are both MNRAS 381, 1197. These should be merged or clearly distinguished.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The V/σ thresholds used for the ellipsoid and disc samples are defined at z=0 and then applied at z=1, which strongly affects sample sizes at z=1 (Table 1). The authors should explicitly justify this choice and discuss its impact on the z=1 comparisons, especially for high-mass ellipsoids where the noAGN sample is extremely sparse.
  3. [Fig. 11] The y-axis label '1⋆ξ' is unclear; the caption mentions a probability distribution function re-scaled by the total number of objects times bin size, so the label should state the exact normalized quantity.
  4. [Sec. 5.2] The density-field tracers are described as unbiased, but they consist of a sub-sample of stars, black holes, gas and dark matter particles. This mixture is not automatically an unbiased tracer of the total matter field; the paper should state more precisely in what sense the 10% convergence test of Chisari et al. (2015) establishes unbiasedness for the alignment statistics used here.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a controlled twin-simulation comparison whose central claims are direct measured differences, not fitted quantities recycled as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing results are comparisons between Horizon-AGN and Horizon-noAGN, which share initial conditions, volume, and sub-grid prescriptions except for AGN feedback. No alignment statistic is used to calibrate the AGN model: the quasar-mode efficiency in Eq. (2) is calibrated to low-redshift black hole scaling relations, an independent input, and the alignments are then measured. The matched-galaxy analysis is a decomposition of selection effects versus orientation changes, not a parameter fitted to the output being claimed. The headline statements about wδ+ robustness and wg+ sensitivity are direct measurements of correlation functions defined in Eqs. (7), (9) and (12), so they are not equal by construction to any input. Appendix A explicitly checks that the simple versus reduced inertia tensor choice does not change which simulation dominates the cross-correlation signals, and the absence of a reduced-tensor wδ+ test is an acknowledged limitation rather than circularity. Self-citations to Dubois et al. (2014, 2016), Chisari et al. (2015), Peirani et al. (2017) and Codis et al. (2018) supply the simulation suite, shape definitions, and prior filament results, but the present comparison is independently executed with the same analysis pipeline on both runs; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported to forbid alternatives. The spin-filament conclusion is supported by the measured abundance difference and by the matched-sample comparison, not by re-deriving the prior result. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no derivation step reduces to its own inputs by the paper's own equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison is a controlled numerical experiment, so the ledger is dominated by modeling choices rather than free parameters or invented entities. The detected AGN effects are conditional on the sub-grid prescription, sample definitions, filament extraction, and the statistical power of one 100 Mpc box; the paper acknowledges most of this explicitly.

free parameters (4)
  • V/sigma sample thresholds = V/sigma < 0.38 for ellipsoids; V/sigma > 0.6 for discs
    Section 3.2 defines these as the lowest and highest thirds of the V/sigma distribution at z=0, with log10(M*/M_sun) > 9.5 for the high-mass ellipsoid sample. These hand-set boundaries affect which galaxies enter each sample and therefore shape the reported wg+ differences.
  • Stellar particle threshold for reliable shapes = N > 300
    Section 3.1: only galaxies with more than 300 stellar particles are assigned reliable shapes, following Chisari et al. 2015. This removes low-mass systems from all alignment statistics.
  • Filament persistence threshold = N_sigma = 5
    Section 4: fixed DisPerSE persistence threshold used to reject noisy filaments. The paper cites Codis et al. 2018 that reasonable values do not change the measured correlations, so its influence is expected to be minor.
  • Quasar-mode AGN feedback efficiency = epsilon_q = 0.15
    Section 2, Eq. 2: injected thermal efficiency in quasar mode, calibrated in earlier work to reproduce low-redshift black hole scaling relations. It is an input simulation parameter, and the conclusions could depend on it, as the paper notes in Section 7.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Identical initial conditions and identical sub-grid recipes except for the presence of AGN feedback isolate the causal effect of AGN on alignments.
    Section 2 describes the two runs as differing only in the AGN feedback mechanism; this is the design premise that lets the paper attribute any difference to AGN.
  • domain assumption The Horizon-AGN sub-grid model is a faithful enough representation of galaxy formation and AGN feedback for conclusions to carry outside the simulation.
    Section 1.3 and Section 7 caution that conclusions could be sensitive to the sub-grid model and hydrodynamic scheme; the paper's forward-looking statements assume some transferability.
  • domain assumption Error bars computed from eight sub-boxes of one simulation volume capture the relevant statistical uncertainty.
    Section 5.2 states estimates are the mean and standard error of eight 50 Mpc sub-boxes; this treats internal sample variance as the cosmic variance, which a single 100 Mpc box cannot fully constrain.
  • domain assumption DisPerSE ridge extraction with persistence threshold N_sigma=5 yields the cosmic web filaments used for spin alignment measurements.
    Section 4 selects this publicly available algorithm and threshold, citing prior work for robustness to the threshold choice.
  • domain assumption The galaxy matching procedure from Peirani et al. 2017 and Beckmann et al. 2017 correctly identifies the same physical galaxies across the twin runs.
    Section 3.3 relies on this matching to separate selection effects from orientation changes; matching fails for a substantial fraction of low-mass and low-V/sigma galaxies, and the paper discusses this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The impact of AGN feedback on galaxy intrinsic alignments in the Horizon simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3PVLB6EJ

@misc{pith2026190811665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The impact of AGN feedback on galaxy intrinsic alignments in the Horizon simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3PVLB6EJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11665}
}
read the original abstract

The intrinsic correlations of galaxy shapes and orientations across the large-scale structure of the Universe are a known contaminant to weak gravitational lensing. They are known to be dependent on galaxy properties, such as their mass and morphologies. The complex interplay between alignments and the physical processes that drive galaxy evolution remains vastly unexplored. We assess the sensitivity of intrinsic alignments (shapes and angular momenta) to Active Galactic Nuclei -AGN- feedback by comparing galaxy alignment in twin runs of the cosmological hydrodynamical Horizon simulation, which do and do not include AGN feedback respectively. We measure intrinsic alignments in three dimensions and in projection at z=0 and z=1. We find that the projected alignment signal of all galaxies with resolved shapes with respect to the density field in the simulation is robust to AGN feedback, thus giving similar predictions for contamination to weak lensing. The relative alignment of galaxy shapes around galaxy positions is however significantly impacted, especially when considering high-mass ellipsoids. Using a sample of galaxy "twins" across simulations, we determine that AGN changes both the galaxy selection and their actual alignments. Finally, we measure the alignments of angular momenta of galaxies with their nearest filament. Overall, these are more significant in the presence of AGN as a result of the higher abundance of massive pressure-supported galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11665 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of galaxies at z = 0 in V/σ and stellar mass in Horizon-AGN (upper panel) and in Horizon-noAGN (lower panel) in 50 bins of mass times 50 bins of V/σ (colour map) and contour maps of the Horizon-AGN and Horizon-noAGN distributions. A contour labeled as N > X corresponds to the line enclosing the bins containing more than X galaxies in a given simulation. dispersion-dominated) to around 1.5 (rotation-domi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. V/σ histogram of twinned galaxies between Horizon￾AGN and Horizon-noAGN at z = 0. 4 FILAMENTS The skeleton of the cosmic web in each simulation is ex￾tracted using DisPerSE (Sousbie 2013), a ridge extractor topological algorithm publicly available7 . This method was first described in Sousbie (2011) and Sousbie et al. (2011), and it generalizes the skeleton picture based on Morse the￾ory (and therefore Morse functio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fractions of galaxies of Horizon-AGN (blue) and Horizon-noAGN (red) which have been matched successfully at z = 0 (solid lines) and z = 1 (dashed lines) in bins of stellar mass (top panel) and V/σ (bottom panel).         Vσ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Shape-position alignment signals for all galaxies with number of stellar particles N > 300 and level= 1 for Horizon-AGN (solid lines) and Horizon-noAGN (dashed lines). Upper left is ηe(r) at z = 0 (black lines) and z = 1 (red lines), upper right is ηe(r) for the matche…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Alignment signals for high-mass ellipsoids for Horizon-AGN (solid lines) and Horizon-noAGN (dashed lines). High-mass is defined as log10(M∗/M⊙) > 9.5 and ellipsoids as V/σ < 0.38. Upper left is ηe(r) at redshift 0 (black lines) and 1 (red lines), upper right is ηe(r) f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Minor axis-direction of separation correlation for ellip￾soids in Horizon-AGN (solid lines) and Horizon-noAGN (dashed line) at z = 0.06 and according to their stellar mass. Selection criteria for the galaxies include the usual N > 300 and level= 1 and ellipsoids are de…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Alignment signals for disc galaxies in Horizon-AGN (solid lines) and Horizon-noAGN (dashed lines). Discs are defined as V/σ > 0.6. Upper left is ηe(r) at redshift 0 (black lines) and 1 (red lines), upper right is ηe(r) for the matched galaxy population with cuts made i…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Orientation-separation correlation in 3D (ηe, top panels) and in projection (wg+, bottom panels) in Horizon-AGN population (solid lines) and Horizon-noAGN (dashed lines) at z = 0 (left panels) and 1 (right panels). “e/d” stands for aligments of ellipticals around discs…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cross-correlation of ellipsoids (V/σ < 0.38) around discs (V/σ > 0.6) (e/d) in the matched galaxy population at z = 0 (black lines) and z = 1 (red lines) in Horizon-AGN (solid lines) and Horizon-noAGN (dashed lines). pected from Chisari et al. 2015). Moreover, the sign…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spin-separation auto-correlation of the whole galaxy population (left) and spin-separation cross-correlation of discs (V/σ > 0.6) around ellipsoids (V/σ < 0.38) in Horizon-AGN (solid lines) and Horizon-noAGN (dashed lines) at z = 0 (black lines) and z = 1 (red lines).…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Probability distribution function of the cosine of the angle between spins of galaxies and the direction of the nearest filament for 6 stellar mass bins in Horizon-AGN (left column), Horizon-noAGN (middle column) and twins of Horizon-AGN galaxies in Horizon￾noAGN (rig…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aihara H., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S...4A 70, S4

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx066 2018

  2. [3]

    A., van de Weygaert R., Jones B

    Arag \' o n-Calvo M. A., van de Weygaert R., Jones B. J. T., van der Hulst J. M., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/511633 , 655, L5

    doi:10.1086/511633 2007

  3. [5]

    Bailin J., Steinmetz M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...627..647B 627, 647

    doi:10.1086/430397 2005

  4. [6]

    Bartelmann M., 2010, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/27/23/233001 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2010CQGra..27w3001B 27, 233001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/23/233001 2010

  5. [7]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1831 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472..949B 472, 949

    Beckmann R. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1831 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472..949B 472, 949

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1831 2017

  6. [8]

    The evolution of galaxy intrinsic alignments in the MassiveBlack II universe

    Bhowmick A. K., Chen Y., Tenneti A., Di Matteo T., Mandelbaum R., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190500906B p. arXiv:1905.00906

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  7. [9]

    Blazek J., McQuinn M., Seljak U., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/05/010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JCAP...05..010B 2011, 010

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/05/010 2011

  8. [10]

    Bridle S., King L., 2007, @doi [New Journal of Physics] 10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/444 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007NJPh....9..444B 9, 444

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/444 2007

Show all 86 references
  1. [11]

    L., Taylor A

    Brown M. L., Taylor A. N., Hambly N. C., Dye S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05354.x , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2002MNRAS.333..501B 333, 501

    2002

  2. [13]

    D., 2001b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04105.x , 320, L7

    Catelan P., Kamionkowski M., Blandford R. D., 2001b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04105.x , 320, L7

    2001

  3. [14]

    Cattaneo A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature08135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.460..213C 460, 213

    2009 doi

  4. [15]

    Chen Y.-C., Ho S., Blazek J., He S., Mandelbaum R., Melchior P., Singh S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.2492C 485, 2492

    2019 doi

  5. [16]

    Chisari N., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.2736C 454, 2736

    2015 doi

  6. [17]

    Chisari N., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1409 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.2702C 461, 2702

    2016 doi

  7. [18]

    E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1998 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.1163C 472, 1163

    Chisari N. E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1998 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.1163C 472, 1163

    2017 doi

  8. [19]

    E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.3962C 480, 3962

    Chisari N. E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.3962C 480, 3962

    2018 doi

  9. [20]

    E., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190506082C p

    Chisari N. E., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190506082C p. arXiv:1905.06082

    2019 arXiv

  10. [21]

    P., Johansson P

    Choi E., Naab T., Ostriker J. P., Johansson P. H., Moster B. P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442..440C 442, 440

    2014 doi

  11. [22]

    S., Ostriker J

    Choi E., Somerville R. S., Ostriker J. P., Naab T., Hirschmann M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866...91C 866, 91

    2018 doi

  12. [24]

    Codis S., et al., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv231 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.3391C 448, 3391

    doi

  13. [25]

    Codis S., Pichon C., Pogosyan D., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1570 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3369C 452, 3369

    doi

  14. [26]

    E., Vibert D., Dubois Y., Pichon C., Devriendt J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.4753C 481, 4753

    Codis S., Jindal A., Chisari N. E., Vibert D., Dubois Y., Pichon C., Devriendt J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.4753C 481, 4753

    2018 doi

  15. [27]

    A., Schaye J., Trayford J

    Correa C. A., Schaye J., Trayford J. W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz295 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4401C 484, 4401

    2019 doi

  16. [28]

    Dark Energy Survey Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw641 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.1270D 460, 1270

    2016 doi

  17. [29]

    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

  18. [32]

    Dubois Y., Gavazzi R., Peirani S., Silk J., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt997 , 433, 3297

    2013 doi

  19. [33]

    Dubois Y., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1227 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1453D 444, 1453

    2014 doi

  20. [34]

    Dubois Y., Peirani S., Pichon C., Devriendt J., Gavazzi R., Welker C., Volonteri M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.3948D 463, 3948

    2016 doi

  21. [35]

    C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA

    Fabian A. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA

    2012 doi

  22. [36]

    Flin P., Godlowski W., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/222.3.525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.222..525F 222, 525

    1986 doi

  23. [37]

    Flin P., Godlowski W., 1990, Soviet Astronomy Letters, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990SvAL...16..209F 16, 209

    1990

  24. [38]

    M., Hernquist L., Vogelsberger M., Snyder G

    Genel S., Fall S. M., Hernquist L., Vogelsberger M., Snyder G. F., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Sijacki D., Springel V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/L40 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804L..40G 804, L40

    2015 doi

  25. [39]

    arXiv:1905.00370

    Georgiou C., et al., 2019a, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190500370G p. arXiv:1905.00370

    1905 arXiv

  26. [40]

    Georgiou C., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834219 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A..90G 622, A90

    doi

  27. [41]

    M., Best P

    Heckman T. M., Best P. N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..589H 52, 589

    2014 doi

  28. [42]

    Heymans C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt601 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2013MNRAS.432.2433H 432, 2433

    2013 doi

  29. [43]

    Hilbert S., Xu D., Schneider P., Springel V., Vogelsberger M., Hernquist L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468..790H 468, 790

    2017 doi

  30. [44]

    M., Seljak U., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PhRvD..70f3526H 70, 063526

    Hirata C. M., Seljak U., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PhRvD..70f3526H 70, 063526

    2004 doi

  31. [45]

    M., Seljak U., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.049901 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2010PhRvD..82d9901H 82, 049901

    Hirata C. M., Seljak U., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.049901 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2010PhRvD..82d9901H 82, 049901

    2010 doi

  32. [47]

    M., Mandelbaum R., Ishak M., Seljak U., Nichol R., Pimbblet K

    Hirata C. M., Mandelbaum R., Ishak M., Seljak U., Nichol R., Pimbblet K. A., Ross N. P., Wake D., 2007a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12312.x , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2007MNRAS.381.1197H 381, 1197

    2007

  33. [48]

    F., Hernquist L., Cox T

    Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Robertson B., Springel V., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499493 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..163...50H 163, 50

    2006 doi

  34. [49]

    Hui L., Zhang J., 2002, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002astro.ph..5512H pp astro--ph/0205512

    2002

  35. [50]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..111I 873, 111

    2019 doi

  36. [51]

    M., Fischer P., Smith D., Jain B., Tyson J

    Jarvis M., Bernstein G. M., Fischer P., Smith D., Jain B., Tyson J. A., Wittman D., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125.1014J 125, 1014

    2003 doi

  37. [52]

    B., Bridle S

    Joachimi B., Mandelbaum R., Abdalla F. B., Bridle S. L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015621 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2011A

    2011 doi

  38. [53]

    Johnston H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A..30J 624, A30

    2019 doi

  39. [54]

    Jones B. J. T., van de Weygaert R., Aragón-Calvo M. A., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17202.x , 408, 897

    2010

  40. [55]

    Kaviraj S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx126 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.4739K 467, 4739

    2017 doi

  41. [56]

    Khandai N., Di Matteo T., Croft R., Wilkins S., Feng Y., Tucker E., DeGraf C., Liu M.-S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv627 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1349K 450, 1349

    2015 doi

  42. [57]

    Kirk D., Rassat A., Host O., Bridle S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21099.x , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2012MNRAS.424.1647K 424, 1647

    2012

  43. [58]

    Komatsu E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192...18K 192, 18

    2011 doi

  44. [59]

    arXiv:1906.01623

    Kraljic K., Dave R., Pichon C., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190601623K p. arXiv:1906.01623

    2019 arXiv

  45. [61]

    Laureijs R., et al., 2011, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1110.3193L

    2011 arXiv

  46. [62]

    Lee J., Pen U.-L., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...681..798L 681, 798

    2008 doi

  47. [63]

    P., Faltenbacher A., Wang J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/L12 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770L..12L 770, L12

    Li C., Jing Y. P., Faltenbacher A., Wang J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/L12 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770L..12L 770, L12

    2013 doi

  48. [66]

    F., Abadi M

    Navarro J. F., Abadi M. G., Steinmetz M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424902 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613L..41N 613, L41

    2004 doi

  49. [68]

    Omma H., Binney J., Bryan G., Slyz A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07382.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.348.1105O 348, 1105

    2004

  50. [70]

    Peirani S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.2153P 472, 2153

    2017 doi

  51. [71]

    Pen U.-L., Lee J., Seljak U., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...543L.107P 543, L107

    2000 doi

  52. [72]

    F., Sousbie T., Colombi S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14753.x , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2009MNRAS.396..635P 396, 635

    Pogosyan D., Pichon C., Gay C., Prunet S., Cardoso J. F., Sousbie T., Colombi S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14753.x , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2009MNRAS.396..635P 396, 635

    2009

  53. [73]

    arXiv:1811.06989

    Samuroff S., et al., 2018, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181106989S p. arXiv:1811.06989

    2018 arXiv

  54. [74]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A

    1973

  55. [75]

    Singh S., Mandelbaum R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.2301S 457, 2301

    2016 doi

  56. [77]

    Singh S., Mandelbaum R., More S., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv778 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2195S 450, 2195

    doi

  57. [78]

    Slosar A., White M., 2009, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2009/06/009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JCAP...06..009S 2009, 009

    2009 doi

  58. [81]

    Sousbie T., 2013, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1302.6221S ( @eprint arXiv 1302.6221 )

    2013 arXiv

  59. [82]

    Sousbie T., Pichon C., Colombi S., Pogosyan D., 2008, , 383, 1655

    2008

  60. [83]

    Sousbie T., Colombi S., Pichon C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14244.x , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2009MNRAS.393..457S 393, 457

    2009

  61. [84]

    Sousbie T., Pichon C., Kawahara H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18395.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414..384S 414, 384

    2011

  62. [85]

    Springel V., Di Matteo T., Hernquist L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.361..776S 361, 776

    2005

  63. [86]

    I., 2013, @doi [Astrophys

    Tempel E., Libeskind N. I., 2013, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/2041-8205/775/2/L42 , 775, L42

    2013 doi

  64. [87]

    Tenneti A., Mandelbaum R., Di Matteo T., Feng Y., Khandai N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441..470T 441, 470

    2014 doi

  65. [89]

    Tenneti A., Singh S., Mandelbaum R., di Matteo T., Feng Y., Khandai N., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.3522T 448, 3522

    doi

  66. [90]

    Tenneti A., Mandelbaum R., Di Matteo T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1823 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.2668T 462, 2668

    2016 doi

  67. [91]

    Y., Feng Y., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..169T 834, 169

    Tenneti A., Gnedin N. Y., Feng Y., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..169T 834, 169

    2017 doi

  68. [92]

    Teyssier R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A

    2002 doi

  69. [93]

    E., Lewis G

    Trowland H. E., Lewis G. F., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...762...72T 762, 72

    2013 doi

  70. [94]

    G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640L.111T 640, L111

    Trujillo I., Carretero C., Patiri S. G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640L.111T 640, L111

    2006 doi

  71. [95]

    Varela J., Betancort-Rijo J., Trujillo I., Ricciardelli E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/82 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...744...82V 744, 82

    2012 doi

  72. [96]

    Velliscig M., et al., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1690 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453..721V 453, 721

    doi

  73. [97]

    Velliscig M., et al., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3328V 454, 3328

    doi

  74. [98]

    Volonteri M., Dubois Y., Pichon C., Devriendt J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.2979V 460, 2979

    2016 doi

  75. [99]

    Wang P., Kang X., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2466 , 473, 1562

    2017 doi

  76. [100]

    Weinberger R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.3291W 465, 3291

    2017 doi

  77. [101]

    Welker C., Devriendt J., Dubois Y., Pichon C., Peirani S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445L..46W 445, L46

    2014 doi

  78. [102]

    de Jong J. T. A., et al., 2013, The Messenger, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Msngr.154...44D 154, 44

    2013

Pith tools

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