Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 106 references

From larger-scale cold-gas angular-momentum environment to galaxy star-formation activeness

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At fixed halo mass, central galaxies in higher cold-gas vorticity environments form stars less actively.

desk verdict A careful TNG-only correlation study whose causal claim exceeds its evidence, but the 0.5 dex cold-gas vorticity–sSFR gap is a real, checkable result worth a referee's time. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16849 v2 pith:LSBGKVEC submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.GA

Sen Wang , Dandan Xu , Shengdong Lu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords coldgasvorticityspecificstarformationrateangularmomentumenvironmentcosmicwebgalaxyquenchingTNG100simulationcircumgalacticmedium
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 argues that the angular-momentum state of cold gas on roughly one-megaparsec scales regulates how actively a central galaxy forms stars. Using the TNG100 simulation at redshift zero, the authors find that at any given halo mass, galaxies embedded in higher cold-gas vorticity have systematically lower specific star formation rates. The cleanest quantitative claim is that for halos of $10^{12}$ to $10^{13}$ solar masses, the median sSFR of galaxies in the top 30% cold-gas vorticity is about 0.5 dex below that of galaxies in the bottom 30%. This negative modulation holds for both star-forming and quenched galaxies, in both filaments and knots, and it is only significant for the cold-gas component, not for total matter or total gas. If the claim is right, the ambient cold-gas spin field becomes a necessary ingredient for understanding why similar-mass galaxies end up with different star-formation activities.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cold-gas vorticity field, defined as $\omega\equiv\nabla\times\mathbf{v}$ and evaluated from the velocity field of gas with $T_{\rm gas}<2\times10^4$ K on a $128^3$ mesh covering the TNG100 box (cell scale $\sim$865 kpc). This field measures the swirl of the ambient cold gas at roughly megaparsec scales and replaces the conventional halo spin parameter as the descriptor of angular momentum in the environment. The machinery includes binning central galaxies by halo mass, splitting each bin into top and bottom 30% subsamples of vorticity or sSFR, and comparing the medians; the same grid is used to classify galaxies into knots and filaments via the Hessian of the gravitational potential, following the method of Hahn et al. (2007) and Forero-Romero et al. (2009). The vorticity field is also compared with the orbital angular momentum of neighboring galaxies within 30--500 kpc to argue for a common origin and a possible angular-momentum inheritance from the galaxy interaction environment to the cold gas.

What would settle it

Run the same top-versus-bottom 30% cold-gas vorticity analysis in a different cosmological simulation whose subgrid feedback is implemented differently, for example the SIMBA simulation cited in the paper, where the related CGM-spin to sSFR trend is already reported to be reversed: if the roughly 0.5 dex sSFR gap disappears or flips sign there, the TNG100 result is code-dependent. A complementary observational check would map cold-gas velocity fields around galaxies out to roughly a megaparsec with HI surveys and measure the median sSFR difference between high- and low-vorticity environments at fixed halo mass.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the TNG100 magnetohydrodynamic cosmological simulation, the authors compute the vorticity $\omega\equiv\nabla\times\mathbf{v}$ of cold gas at $T_{\rm gas}<2\times10^4$ K on a grid with cell scale about 865 kpc, effectively probing the angular motion of the ambient cold gas at $\sim$1 Mpc scales. They then compare central galaxies with stellar masses $10.0<\log M_*/M_\odot<11.5$ that reside in the top versus bottom 30% of the local cold-gas vorticity at fixed halo mass. The central claim is that higher cold-gas vorticity environments host galaxies with lower specific star formation rates, with the strongest signal at halo masses below $10^{13}\,M_\odot$; at $10^{12}$--$10^{13}\,M_\odot$ the median sSFR gap is about 0.5 dex. The authors interpret this as a preventative angular-momentum modulation: the swirling cold gas on large scales suppresses efficient cold-gas infall toward the galaxy center, reducing the fuel for star formation. They further show that the effect survives when the inner third of each halo is excluded from the vorticity calculation, indicating that the driver is genuinely large-scale rather than dominated by interstellar or inner-CGM gas. The same modulation is not seen for the vorticity of total matter or total gas, which the authors take as evidence for the unique role of the cold, collisional gas component.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the TNG100 subgrid recipes for star formation, gas cooling, and feedback faithfully capture how large-scale cold-gas kinematics influence star-formation activity; if those recipes are inaccurate, the vorticity-to-sSFR anti-correlation could be an artifact of the simulation code rather than a general physical relation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, a galaxy's star-formation activity is partly set by the rotational state of cold gas up to about a megaparsec away, so environment classifications should include the cold-gas vorticity field alongside density and cosmic-web type.
  • Filament galaxies should be less star-forming than knot galaxies at fixed halo mass because their cold-gas vorticity is systematically higher, which the paper presents as a natural explanation of the observed sSFR differences between these environments.
  • The mechanism acts as a preventative modulation: high ambient cold-gas angular momentum lowers the sSFR of star-forming galaxies and helps keep quenched galaxies quenched, operating in parallel with AGN feedback rather than replacing it.
  • Galaxies with extreme angular momentum, such as superthin and low-surface-brightness galaxies, are predicted to live preferentially in high-vorticity, kinematically coherent environments, a prediction that can be tested with targeted observations.
  • The absence of the modulation for total-matter and total-gas vorticity implies that any observational or theoretical account of galaxy quenching must track the cold gas phase specifically, not the overall gravitational or baryonic angular momentum field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test the causality of the proposed modulation using the redshift evolution: if the cold-gas vorticity genuinely suppresses gas infall, the sSFR deficit should already appear at intermediate redshift and should strengthen as the vorticity field develops; the paper only analyzes $z=0$ galaxies.
  • Observational velocity fields of neutral hydrogen around galaxies, such as those from future surveys that can map coherent motion out to several hundred kiloparsecs, could provide a direct empirical counterpart to the simulated cold-gas vorticity and would either corroborate or challenge the 0.5 dex gap.
  • The paper's exclusion of inner-halo cold gas suggests that the vorticity signal is tied to infall geometry and stream dynamics rather than to feedback-driven gas motion; varying the smoothing scale around 1 Mpc could reveal whether the anti-correlation peaks at the virial radius or at larger scales, which would discriminate between merger-driven and cosmic-web-driven origins.
  • If the relation is universal, then the cold-gas vorticity field should also correlate with galaxy spin orientation and with the coherence between central stellar rotation, CGM kinematics, and satellite orbits, a connection the paper leaves largely unexplored except for the comparison with neighboring-galaxy orbital angular momentum.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses the TNG100 cosmological simulation to define a cold-gas vorticity field from gas with T_gas < 2×10^4 K on a ~1 Mpc grid at z = 0, and studies its relation to the specific star formation rate of central galaxies with 10.0 < log M_star/M_sun < 11.5. The main result is that, within fixed halo-mass bins, central galaxies in the top 30% of environmental cold-gas vorticity have lower median sSFR than those in the bottom 30%, with a median gap of ~0.5 dex at halo masses 10^12–10^13 M_sun. The paper further reports the relation among both star-forming and quenched galaxies, higher cold-gas vorticity around filament galaxies than knot galaxies at fixed halo mass, a correlation between cold-gas vorticity and satellite orbital angular momentum out to 500 kpc, and the absence of a similar modulation for total-matter or total-gas vorticity. The interpretation is that large-scale cold-gas angular momentum prevents efficient gas infall and thus regulates star-formation activeness.

Significance. The claimed effect is potentially interesting for environmental angular-momentum quenching, and the paper makes several good choices: it uses the public TNG100 simulation, the analysis has no fitted parameters, it bins by halo mass, and it checks robustness by excluding cold gas within r200/3 of halos. The connection to satellite orbital angular momentum and the filament/knot comparison are valuable extensions of earlier CGM-spin work. However, the headline claim rests on median comparisons without significance tests, the "only cold gas" conclusion is based on visual inspection of a grid-cell phase-space plot, and the paper itself acknowledges that a closely related correlation reverses in the SIMBA simulation. These issues currently make the result a promising single-simulation trend rather than a firmly established general environmental effect.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, Fig. 6] The central 0.5 dex sSFR gap between the top and bottom 30% cold-gas-vorticity environments is presented without significance tests. The error bars shown are standard errors of the mean, which do not quantify the separation of the underlying sSFR distributions or account for bin-to-bin correlations. I request bootstrap or permutation confidence intervals for the median difference, and ideally a matched-sample or partial-correlation control for overdensity and local galaxy density within each halo-mass bin. Without this, the claim in the abstract and conclusions that the negative modulation holds "at any given halo mass" is not statistically established.
  2. [Section 5.3 and Conclusions] The paper explicitly concedes that the closely related CGM-spin–sSFR anti-correlation reverses in SIMBA (Liu et al. 2024) and that the efficiency of CGM-to-ISM angular-momentum transfer depends on subgrid ISM implementation (Yang et al. 2024). Because the proposed mechanism is invoked as causal and the conclusions assert a "unique role" of cold gas and "crucial evidence", the single-simulation basis is load-bearing. Either replicate the cold-gas-vorticity–sSFR analysis in an independent simulation, or explicitly restrict the abstract and conclusions to TNG100 and reframe the environmental claim as tentative. The current wording is broader than the evidence presented.
  3. [Section 5.2, Fig. 11] The claim that the negative modulation is "only significantly observed" for cold gas rests on a qualitative inspection of color-coded grid-cell distributions, with no statistical comparison among total-matter, total-gas, and cold-gas vorticities. Moreover, the grid-cell sSFR is the ratio of summed SFR to summed stellar mass of central galaxies assigned to the same ~1 Mpc cell, so the effective sample is cells, not galaxies. Provide quantitative tests, such as median sSFR as a function of vorticity tertile for each component using galaxy-based samples, before asserting the uniqueness of the cold-gas effect.
  4. [Section 4.1, Fig. 6 (upper panel)] The negative relation between cold-gas vorticity and sSFR is present only below log M_halo/M_sun ~ 13, and the lines cross above that mass, with the trend reversing. The paper attributes this to AGN feedback, but the reversal directly contradicts the unqualified abstract statement that galaxies in higher-vorticity environments are less star-forming "at any given halo mass". Please state the halo-mass range over which the negative relation holds, quantify the reversal, and demonstrate that it is not simply a selection effect of including AGN-dominated passive galaxies despite the stellar-mass cut.
  5. [Section 4.3, Figs. 8–9] The filament-versus-knot comparison does not control for the differing halo-mass distributions of the two environmental populations; filament galaxies populate predominantly lower halo masses, while knots dominate the highest mass bins, and Fig. 8 shows only limited mass overlap. A matched-sample analysis in halo mass, overdensity, and local density is needed to support the claim that cold-gas vorticity, rather than environmental density or assembly history, drives the sSFR difference between filament and knot galaxies. As presented, the environmental-type dependence does not cleanly separate vorticity from other environmental correlates.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The text uses "~1 Mpc" and "~865 kpc" interchangeably for the grid spacing; please state the exact cell size once and use consistent language thereafter.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Section 2.5] The cross-reference in Section 2.2 to "Section 2.5" for the mesh setup is incorrect; the mesh is described in Section 2.2, and the cosmic-web classification is in Section 2.5.
  3. [Throughout] The phrase "We note the reader" appears several times (e.g., Section 2.5, Section 4.1, Section 6); it should read "We note for the reader" or "We remind the reader".
  4. [Section 3] The phrase "three hundreds galaxies" should be "three hundred galaxies".
  5. [Fig. 9 caption] The caption states that knot (filament) data are shaded in the left (right) panel, but the shading is not visually identified in the figure; please clarify which shaded regions correspond to which environment.
  6. [References] The reference list contains a LaTeX artifact "V ogelsberger" in several entries; these names should be rendered as "Vogelsberger".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the vorticity–sSFR relation is a direct post-processing correlation in TNG100, not an output forced by fitted inputs or by self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a statistical correlation between two independently constructed fields from the public TNG100 simulation: the cold-gas vorticity, computed as |curl v| of gas with T_gas < 2e4 K on a ~1 Mpc grid, and the sSFR of central galaxies, computed directly from their simulated stellar masses and SFRs. No parameter is fitted to the target relation; the top/bottom 30% comparisons within halo mass bins are resampling statistics, not a fit. The 1 Mpc scale and T_gas threshold are motivated by prior work and by atomic-hydrogen physics, but the negative trend itself is demonstrated from the simulation outputs. Extensive self-citations to Wang et al. (2022) and Lu et al. (2022b) supply motivation and continuity, but the paper does not invoke them to establish the new relation; its Section 5.3 explicitly cites Liu et al. (2024) for a contrary SIMBA result, showing that the authors treat the TNG100 result as simulation-dependent evidence rather than a forced tautology. The acknowledged subgrid sensitivity is a generality/correctness limitation, not a circularity: the result could be wrong or simulation-specific without being reducible to its inputs. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-as-prediction, author-imported uniqueness, or ansatz-smuggling citation was found. Score 1 reflects minor self-citation presence without load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new physical entities. It relies on several hand-chosen thresholds (cold gas temperature, grid resolution, mass cuts, environment classification factor) and on the faithfulness of the TNG100 simulation. No parameters are fitted to achieve the central result.

free parameters (4)
  • Cold-gas temperature threshold = 2e4 K
    Chosen by hand following Wang et al. (2022); defines the cold-gas component central to the analysis; sensitivity to this threshold is not tested.
  • Grid resolution = 128^3 cells (~865 kpc)
    Sets the ~1 Mpc smoothing scale for the vorticity field; motivated by previous studies but not varied to test robustness.
  • Stellar mass selection cut = 10.0 < log M*/Msun < 11.5
    Lower cut for resolution, upper cut to exclude AGN-dominated massive galaxies; affects the sample and the mass range of the claim.
  • Cosmic-web classification threshold factor = 0.1 x lambda_th (t_ff ~ 3 t_H)
    Hand-chosen to reproduce reasonable volume fractions of voids/filaments/knots; affects environment-type splits but not the main vorticity-sSFR claim.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption TNG100 subgrid models faithfully represent the connection between cold-gas kinematics and star formation
    The entire analysis is performed on TNG100 output; the authors themselves note in Section 5.3 that results may differ for other simulations (e.g., SIMBA).
  • domain assumption The norm of the velocity curl at ~1 Mpc scale is an adequate measure of the angular-momentum environment relevant to gas accretion
    The vorticity is defined in Section 2.3 as a proxy for ambient angular motion; no validation against a causal accretion model is given.
  • domain assumption Halo mass binning (5 bins) suffices to remove mass-dependent confounding
    The paper controls for halo mass by binning in Section 4.1, but does not control for other properties (e.g., assembly history, local density) that may correlate with both vorticity and sSFR.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From larger-scale cold-gas angular-momentum environment to galaxy star-formation activeness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LSBGKVEC

@misc{pith2026241116849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From larger-scale cold-gas angular-momentum environment to galaxy star-formation activeness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LSBGKVEC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16849}
}
abstract

We study the influence of the ambient large-scale cold-gas vorticity on the specific star formation rate (sSFR) of central galaxies with stellar masses of $10.0<\log\,M_{\ast}/\mathrm{M_{\odot}}<11.5$ at $z=0$, using the TNG100 simulation. The cold-gas vorticity defined and calculated for gas with $T_{\rm gas} < 2\times 10^4 \mathrm{K}$ and on scales of $\sim$ 1 Mpc can well describe the angular motion of the ambient cold gas. We find crucial evidence for connections between the cold-gas vorticity and star-formation activeness, such that at any given halo mass (particularly below $10^{13}\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$), galaxies living in higher cold-gas vorticity environments are generally less star-forming, regardless of their large-scale environment types (filament or knot), or star formation states (star-forming or quenched). Specifically, at a fixed halo mass scale of $10^{12}-10^{13}\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$, the median sSFR of galaxies living in environments with the top 30\% cold-gas vorticity is $\sim 0.5$ dex below that of galaxies living in environments with the bottom 30\% cold-gas vorticity. At any fixed halo mass scale, cold-gas vorticities around filament galaxies are generally higher than those around knot galaxies, consistent with that filament galaxies have lower sSFRs than knot galaxies. This large-scale cold-gas vorticity is highly connected to the orbital angular momentum of neighboring galaxies up to a distance of $\sim$ 500 kpcs, indicating their common origin and a possible angular momentum inheritance/modulation from the latter to the former. The negative modulation by the environmental vorticity to galaxy star formation is only significantly observed for the cold gas, indicating the unique role of cold-gas angular momentum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16849 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example slice of the large-scale structure, color-coded by the classified environment type, i.e. voids, sheets, filaments, and knots. The red crosses represent the central galaxies with halo mass larger than 1011.5M⊙, indicating locations of most massive galaxies in a cluster environment. These galaxies (within a similar stellar mass range of 10.3 < log M∗/M⊙ < 11.2 ) from our previous studies fall into three cat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. From top to bottom are three example slices of the gridded simulation box, each with a thickness of one mesh-cell scale, i.e. ∼ 865 kpc, and from left to right, color-coded by the corresponding environment type, total matter vorticity, and cold gas vorticity, respectively. The vorticity ω defined as the curl of a velocity field may to some extent indicate the rotational strength of the local matter flow. In [PITH_F… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Circularity distributions of the CGM gas among three types of galaxy samples at z ∼ 0 within 5Rhsm < r < 40Rhsm. NMD stands for normal star-forming disc galaxies, CQ stands for dynamically-cold but quenched early-type galaxies, and NE represents for dynamically￾hot but quenched early-type galaxies (i.e., normal ellipticals). The upper row is for the cold CGM and the lower row shows the hot CGM. Red lines represent t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gas vorticity (left) and cold gas (Tgas < 2 × 104 K) vorticity (right) distributions among three types of samples at z ∼ 0. NMD (in blue) stands for normal star-forming disc galaxies, CQ (in green) stands for dynamically-cold but quenched early-type galaxies, and NE (i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper: The cold gas vorticity distributions of galaxies with top (blue) and bottom (red) 30 per cent sSFR. Lower: The sSFR distributions of galaxies with top (red) and bottom (blue) cold gas vorticity. All sample galaxies are centrals with stellar mass in 1010M⊙ − 1011…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper: The cold gas vorticity distributions of galaxies with top (blue) and bottom (red) 30 per cent sSFR in each halo mass bin. Lower: The sSFR distributions of galaxies with top (red) and bottom (blue) 30 per cent cold gas vorticity in each halo mass bin. Data points…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The cold gas vorticity (top) and sSFR (bottom) of galaxy environments that possess top 30 per cent (red) and bottom 30 per cent (blue) of the cold gas vorticity within each halo mass bin. Left panels are for star-forming galaxies and right ones are quenched samples. Ga…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The cold gas vorticity distributions of galaxies in fila￾ments (blue) and knots (red). In both environments, galaxies with top (dashed lines) and bottom (solid lines) 30 per cent sSFR in each halo mass bin are selected. ident from figure 7 and 8 in Wang et al. 2022). A…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Upper: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: The environmental satellite orbital angular momentum distributions of galaxies living in environments with top (red) and bottom (blue) 30 per cent cold gas vorticity in each halo mass bin. Right: The cold gas vorticity distributions of galaxies living in environ…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distributions of grid cells (with total stellar mass from central galaxies larger than 1010M⊙) on the over-density – vorticity phase space, color-coded by the cell specific SFR at z = 0. From left to right, the y-axis denotes the vorticity of the total matter, total g…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1987, ApJ, 319, 575, doi: 10.1086/165480

    Barnes, J., & Efstathiou, G. 1987, ApJ, 319, 575, doi: 10.1086/165480

    doi:10.1086/165480 1987

  2. [2]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  3. [3]

    2002, PhR, 367, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00135-7

    Bernardeau, F., Colombi, S., Gazta˜naga, E., & Scoccimarro, R. 2002, PhR, 367, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00135-7

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00135-7 2002

  4. [4]

    S., et al

    Bett, P., Eke, V ., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 215, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11432.x

    arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    S., Jenkins, A., & Okamoto, T

    Bett, P., Eke, V ., Frenk, C. S., Jenkins, A., & Okamoto, T. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1137, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16368.x

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    E., & Frenk, C

    Bett, P. E., & Frenk, C. S. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1395

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1395 2016

  7. [8]

    S., Dekel, A., Kolatt, T

    Bullock, J. S., Dekel, A., Kolatt, T. S., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 240, doi: 10.1086/321477 LARGER -SCALE COLD -G AS AM E NVIRONMENT AND GALAXY SF 17

    doi:10.1086/321477 2001

  8. [9]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/7 2015

Show all 106 references
  1. [10]

    2022a, MNRAS, 514, 5429, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1663

    Cadiou, C., Dubois, Y ., & Pichon, C. 2022a, MNRAS, 514, 5429, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1663

    doi

  2. [11]

    Cadiou, C., Pontzen, A., & Peiris, H. V . 2022b, MNRAS, 517, 3459, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2858

    doi

  3. [12]

    1996, MNRAS, 282, 455, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.2.455

    Catelan, P., & Theuns, T. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 455, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.2.455

    1996 doi

  4. [13]

    M., Binney, J., et al

    Cattaneo, A., Faber, S. M., Binney, J., et al. 2009, Nature, 460, 213, doi: 10.1038/nature08135

    2009 doi

  5. [15]

    Cortese, L., Fogarty, L. M. R., Bekki, K., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 170, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1891

    2016 doi

  6. [18]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv270

    Danovich, M., Dekel, A., Hahn, O., Ceverino, D., & Primack, J. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv270

    2015 doi

  7. [20]

    L., & Fall, S

    DeFelippis, D., Genel, S., Bryan, G. L., & Fall, S. M. 2017, ApJ, 841, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6dfc

    2017 doi

  8. [22]

    2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648 Di Matteo, T., Colberg, J., Springel, V ., Hernquist, L., & Sijacki, D

    Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y ., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648 Di Matteo, T., Colberg, J., Springel, V ., Hernquist, L., & Sijacki, D. 2008, ApJ, 676, 33, doi: 10.1086/524921 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V ., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604, do...

    2009 doi

  9. [24]

    Doroshkevich, A. G. 1970, Astrophysics, 6, 320, doi: 10.1007/BF01001625

    1970 doi

  10. [25]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  11. [26]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1227

    Dubois, Y ., Pichon, C., Welker, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1227

    2014 doi

  12. [27]

    1983, FCPh, 9, 1

    Efstathiou, G., & Silk, J. 1983, FCPh, 9, 1

    1983

  13. [29]

    M., & Efstathiou, G

    Fall, S. M., & Efstathiou, G. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 189, doi: 10.1093/mnras/193.2.189

    1980 doi

  14. [30]

    A., Katz, N., Gardner, J

    Fardal, M. A., Katz, N., Gardner, J. P., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, 605, doi: 10.1086/323519

    2001 doi

  15. [31]

    F., Sawala, T., et al

    Fattahi, A., Navarro, J. F., Sawala, T., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2970

    2016 doi

  16. [32]

    2000, MNRAS, 315, 457, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03338.x —

    Firmani, C., & Avila-Reese, V . 2000, MNRAS, 315, 457, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03338.x —. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1675, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14844.x

    2000

  17. [34]

    M., Hernquist, L., et al

    Genel, S., Fall, S. M., Hernquist, L., et al. 2015, ApJL, 804, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/L40

    2015 doi

  18. [35]

    Gott, J. R., I. 1977, ARA&A, 15, 235, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.15.090177.001315

    1977

  19. [36]

    L., De Zotti, G., Silva, L., Bressan, A., & Danese, L

    Granato, G. L., De Zotti, G., Silva, L., Bressan, A., & Danese, L. 2004, ApJ, 600, 580, doi: 10.1086/379875

    2004 doi

  20. [37]

    Grand, R. J. J., G´omez, F. A., Marinacci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 179, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx071

    2017 doi

  21. [38]

    E., & Abel, T

    Hahn, O., Angulo, R. E., & Abel, T. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3920, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2179

    2015 doi

  22. [40]

    N., Abeyta, A., et al

    Hasan, F., Burchett, J. N., Abeyta, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd11c

    2023 doi

  23. [41]

    N., Hellinger, D., et al

    Hasan, F., Burchett, J. N., Hellinger, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ee2

    2024 doi

  24. [42]

    2006, MNRAS, 370, 1905, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10616.x

    Hetznecker, H., & Burkert, A. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1905, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10616.x

    2006

  25. [43]

    H., Martin, C

    Ho, S. H., Martin, C. L., Kacprzak, G. G., & Churchill, C. W. 2017, ApJ, 835, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/267

    2017 doi

  26. [44]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 2049, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21553.x

    Hoffman, Y ., Metuki, O., Yepes, G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2049, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21553.x

    2012

  27. [45]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 630, 705, doi: 10.1086/432438

    2005 doi

  28. [46]

    F., Bundy, K., Croton, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Bundy, K., Croton, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 202, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/202

    2010 doi

  29. [47]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 075019, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad5399

    Hu, J., Xu, D., & Li, C. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 075019, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad5399

    2024 doi

  30. [48]

    Jones, B. J. T. 1976, Reviews of Modern Physics, 48, 107, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.48.107

    1976 doi

  31. [49]

    Katz, N., & Gunn, J. E. 1991, ApJ, 377, 365, doi: 10.1086/170367 Kereˇs, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Dav´e, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09451.x

    1991

  32. [50]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 918, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2128

    Kocjan, Z., Cadiou, C., Agertz, O., & Pontzen, A. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 918, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2128

    2024 doi

  33. [51]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 2744, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2289 18 W ANG ET AL

    Laigle, C., Pichon, C., Codis, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2744, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2289 18 W ANG ET AL

    2015 doi

  34. [52]

    H., Pak, M., Lee, H.-R., & Song, H

    Lee, J. H., Pak, M., Lee, H.-R., & Song, H. 2019, ApJ, 872, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafcb4

    2019 doi

  35. [53]

    S., Guo, Q., & Wang, J

    Liao, S., Gao, L., Frenk, C. S., Guo, Q., & Wang, J. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1391

    2017 doi

  36. [54]

    I., Hoffman, Y ., Forero-Romero, J., et al

    Libeskind, N. I., Hoffman, Y ., Forero-Romero, J., et al. 2013a, MNRAS, 428, 2489, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts216

    doi

  37. [55]

    I., Hoffman, Y ., & Gottl¨ober, S

    Libeskind, N. I., Hoffman, Y ., & Gottl¨ober, S. 2014a, MNRAS, 441, 1974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu629

    1974 doi

  38. [56]

    I., Hoffman, Y ., Knebe, A., et al

    Libeskind, N. I., Hoffman, Y ., Knebe, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, L137, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01222.x

    2012

  39. [57]

    I., Hoffman, Y ., Steinmetz, M., et al

    Libeskind, N. I., Hoffman, Y ., Steinmetz, M., et al. 2013b, ApJL, 766, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/766/2/L15

    doi

  40. [58]

    I., Knebe, A., Hoffman, Y ., & Gottl¨ober, S

    Libeskind, N. I., Knebe, A., Hoffman, Y ., & Gottl¨ober, S. 2014b, MNRAS, 443, 1274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1216

    doi

  41. [59]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.09379, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.09379

    Liu, K., Guo, H., Wang, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.09379, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.09379

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [60]

    2022a, MNRAS, 509, 5062, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3228

    Lu, S., Xu, D., Wang, S., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 509, 5062, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3228

    doi

  43. [61]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab497

    Lu, S., Xu, D., Wang, Y ., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab497

    2021 doi

  44. [62]

    2022b, MNRAS, 509, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3169

    Lu, S., Xu, D., Wang, S., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 509, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3169

    doi

  45. [63]

    S., Mandelker, N., Oh, S

    Lu, Y . S., Mandelker, N., Oh, S. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3779

    2024 doi

  46. [65]

    H., Dekel, A., & Somerville, R

    Maller, A. H., Dekel, A., & Somerville, R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 423, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04983.x

    2002

  47. [66]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci, F., V ogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  48. [67]

    C., et al

    Martizzi, D., V ogelsberger, M., Artale, M. C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3766, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1106

    2019 doi

  49. [68]

    J., Mao, S., & White, S

    Mo, H. J., Mao, S., & White, S. D. M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01227.x

    1998

  50. [69]

    Monaghan, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 543, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551

    1992

  51. [70]

    2024, JCAP, 2024, 111, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/111

    Moon, J.-S., & Lee, J. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 111, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/111

    2024 doi

  52. [71]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618

    2018 doi

  53. [72]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    2018 doi

  54. [73]

    2019a, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V ., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019a, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    doi

  55. [74]

    2019b, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2019b, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    doi

  56. [75]

    2020, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 3, 3, doi: 10.21105/astro.1904.03201

    Wang, J. 2020, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 3, 3, doi: 10.21105/astro.1904.03201

    2020 arXiv

  57. [76]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1969, ApJ, 155, 393, doi: 10.1086/149876

    1969 doi

  58. [77]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz163 P´erez-Monta˜no, L

    Peng, Y .-j., & Renzini, A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz163 P´erez-Monta˜no, L. E., Cervantes Sodi, B., Rodriguez-Gomez, V .,

    2020 doi

  59. [78]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 93, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1793 P´erez-Monta˜no, L

    Zhu, Q., & Ogiya, G. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 93, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1793 P´erez-Monta˜no, L. E., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Cervantes Sodi, B., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1716

    2024 doi

  60. [79]

    1999, A&A, 343, 663, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9902142

    Pichon, C., & Bernardeau, F. 1999, A&A, 343, 663, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9902142

    1999 doi arXiv

  61. [81]

    2018a, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    doi

  62. [82]

    2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2016 doi

  63. [83]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Genel, S., V ogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264

    2015 doi

  64. [84]

    V ., Genel, S., et al

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Sales, L. V ., Genel, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx305

    2017 doi

  65. [85]

    J., & Fall, S

    Romanowsky, A. J., & Fall, S. M. 2012, ApJS, 203, 17, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/17

    2012 doi

  66. [86]

    B., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F

    Romeo, A. B., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1002, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3074

    2023 doi

  67. [87]

    2022, ARA&A, 60, 319, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-021022-043545 S´anchez, S

    Saintonge, A., & Catinella, B. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 319, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-021022-043545 S´anchez, S. F., Kennicutt, R. C., Gil de Paz, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117353

    2022 doi

  68. [88]

    S., Fattahi, A., et al

    Sawala, T., Frenk, C. S., Fattahi, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw145 Sch¨afer, B. M. 2009, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 18, 173, doi: 10.1142/S0218271809014388

    2016 doi

  69. [89]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2015 doi

  70. [90]

    2012, ApJ, 750, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/107

    Sharma, S., Steinmetz, M., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2012, ApJ, 750, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/107

    2012 doi

  71. [91]

    S., et al

    Song, H., Laigle, C., Hwang, H. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4635, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3981

    2021 doi

  72. [93]

    2011, MNRAS, 414, 384, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18395.x

    Sousbie, T., Pichon, C., & Kawahara, H. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 384, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18395.x

    2011

  73. [94]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    2010

  74. [95]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x

    2001

  75. [96]

    2008, MNRAS, 391, 1685, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14066.x LARGER -SCALE COLD -G AS AM E NVIRONMENT AND GALAXY SF 19

    Springel, V ., Wang, J., V ogelsberger, M., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1685, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14066.x LARGER -SCALE COLD -G AS AM E NVIRONMENT AND GALAXY SF 19

    2008

  76. [97]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V ., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2018 doi

  77. [98]

    R., Brooks, A

    Stewart, K. R., Brooks, A. M., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/74

    2013 doi

  78. [99]

    R., Kaufmann, T., Bullock, J

    Stewart, K. R., Kaufmann, T., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/39

    2011 doi

  79. [100]

    M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Dekel, A., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw131

    2016 doi

  80. [101]

    F., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., et al

    Teklu, A. F., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/29

    2015 doi

  81. [102]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 4363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv557

    Tillson, H., Devriendt, J., Slyz, A., Miller, L., & Pichon, C. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv557

    2015 doi

  82. [103]

    M., & Remus, R.-S

    Valenzuela, L. M., & Remus, R.-S. 2024, A&A, 686, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244758

    2024 doi

  83. [104]

    A., Kravtsov, A

    Vitvitska, M., Klypin, A. A., Kravtsov, A. V ., et al. 2002, ApJ, 581, 799, doi: 10.1086/344361 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Sijacki, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1789

    2002 doi

  84. [105]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 4454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2998

    Wang, L., De Lucia, G., Fontanot, F., & Hirschmann, M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2998

    2019 doi

  85. [106]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 3148, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3167

    Wang, S., Xu, D., Lu, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3148, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3167

    2022 doi

  86. [107]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 7028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3634

    Wang, S., Xu, D., Lu, S., & Li, C. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3634

    2024 doi

  87. [108]

    Eyink, G. L. 2014, ApJ, 793, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/58

    2014 doi

  88. [109]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V ., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    2017 doi

  89. [110]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu106

    Welker, C., Devriendt, J., Dubois, Y ., Pichon, C., & Peirani, S. 2014, MNRAS, 445, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu106

    2014 doi

  90. [111]

    White, S. D. M. 1984, ApJ, 286, 38, doi: 10.1086/162573

    1984 doi

  91. [112]

    White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    1978 doi

  92. [113]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 4920, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1562

    Winkel, N., Pasquali, A., Kraljic, K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4920, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1562

    2021 doi

  93. [114]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 1394, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2411

    Yang, H., Liao, S., Fattahi, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 1394, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2411

    2024 doi

  94. [115]

    S., Bower, R., et al

    Zavala, J., Frenk, C. S., Bower, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 4466, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1286

    2016 doi

  95. [116]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 3301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2294

    Zeng, G., Wang, L., & Gao, L. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2294

    2021 doi

  96. [117]

    2023, Science, 380, 494, doi: 10.1126/science.abj9192

    Zhang, S., Cai, Z., Xu, D., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 494, doi: 10.1126/science.abj9192

    2023 doi

  97. [118]

    E., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., et al

    Zhu, Q., P´erez-Monta˜no, L. E., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3991, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1655

    2023 doi

  98. [119]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1625, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2945

    Zjupa, J., & Springel, V . 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1625, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2945

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.