Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Wandering intermediate-mass black holes in Milky Way-mass galaxies in cosmological simulations: myth or reality?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.15404 v2 pith:FFRAE4US submitted 2024-04-23 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Wandering intermediate-mass black holes in Milky Way-mass galaxies in cosmological simulations: myth or reality?

classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords imbhswanderingsimulationscosmologicaldifferentidentifiedblackcounts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

In this work, we address the following question: ``can we use the current cosmological simulations to identify intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) and quantify a putative population of wandering IMBHs?''. We compare wandering-IMBH counts in different simulations with different sub-grid methods and post-processing recipes, the ultimate goal being to aid future wandering-IMBH detection efforts. In particular, we examine simulations in which IMBHs are identified as BH seeds forming at high redshift and those in which they are identified using star clusters as proxies, which implicitly appeals to a stellar dynamical formation channel. In addition, we employ the extremely high-resolution cosmological hydrodynamical ``zoom-in'' simulation GigaEris with the star cluster proxies method to identify IMBHs. We find consistent counts of wandering high-redshift IMBHs across most of the different cosmological simulations employed so far in the literature, despite the different identification approaches, resulting in 5 to 18 wandering IMBHs per Milky Way-sized galaxy at $z \geq 3$. Nevertheless, we argue this is only coincidental, as a significant discrepancy arises when examining the formation sites and the mass ranges of the wandering IMBHs. Furthermore, we cannot determine how many of the IMBHs identified at high redshift in GigaEris will be wandering IMBHs at $z = 0$ as opposed to how many will accrete to the central supermassive BH, promoting its growth. All of this casts doubts on the ability of current cosmological simulations to inform observational searches for wandering IMBHs.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.