pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.16115 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Simba Simulation: The Effect of Feedback Physics on Matter Distribution in the Cosmic Web

Chenze Dong , Florian Dedieu , Daniela Gal\'arraga-Espinosa , Khee-Gan Lee , Daniele Sorini , Romeel Dav\'e This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 04:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmic webfeedback physicsintergalactic mediumSimba simulationT-web classificationmissing baryonsfast radio burstslarge-scale structure
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Feedback in Simba simulations changes IGM gas fractions across cosmic web structures by only a few percent, though jet feedback visibly shifts diffuse gas to filament and knot outskirts.

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

The paper tests whether galaxy feedback models alter how baryons are spread among the main features of the cosmic web. It classifies the web into knots, filaments, sheets, and voids using the T-web method on multiple Simba runs that differ only in their feedback prescriptions. The overall share of IGM gas assigned to each structure type stays nearly the same, but jet feedback moves gas outward into more diffuse regions at the edges of filaments and knots. This matters for interpreting fast radio burst signals, which travel through the same intergalactic gas and need accurate foreground maps to help solve the missing-baryon problem.

Core claim

With the Simba simulation suite, this study investigates how feedback affects the distribution of matter within large-scale cosmic structures. Our results show that in Simba, the fractions of IGM gas in different cosmic web structures vary only a few percent under different feedback models. However, jet feedback produces noticeable changes in the gas distribution within structures, enhancing the diffuse IGM on the outskirts of filaments and knots. This research provides a new perspective on the impact of feedback on the IGM and motivates a refined data model for the FRB foreground mapping.

What carries the argument

The T-web algorithm that partitions space into knots, filaments, sheets, and voids, applied to gas and dark-matter fields from Simba runs with varied feedback physics.

If this is right

  • IGM gas fractions in each cosmic-web structure change by only a few percent across Simba feedback variants.
  • Jet feedback specifically increases the amount of diffuse IGM gas on the outskirts of filaments and knots.
  • Large-scale partitioning of baryons between haloes and the IGM stays robust even while internal distribution within structures changes.
  • Refined foreground models for fast radio bursts can incorporate these modest feedback-driven redistributions without needing large corrections for structure-type fractions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The small structural changes suggest that cosmic-web maps derived from galaxy surveys could be combined with FRB dispersion measures to isolate feedback signatures observationally.
  • Running the same analysis on other simulation suites would test whether the few-percent stability is a general feature or specific to Simba's implementation.
  • Extensions that weight the outskirts of filaments by local density could improve predictions for how feedback affects the warm-hot intergalactic medium probed by FRBs.

Load-bearing premise

The T-web classification of cosmic-web structures remains stable and unbiased when the underlying feedback physics is varied.

What would settle it

If the gas mass fractions assigned to knots, filaments, sheets, and voids shift by more than a few percent when the same T-web classifier is run on otherwise identical volumes that differ only in feedback strength, the claim of modest structural invariance would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16115 by Chenze Dong, Daniela Gal\'arraga-Espinosa, Daniele Sorini, Florian Dedieu, Khee-Gan Lee, Romeel Dav\'e.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left to right: Slices of Simba feedback variants (Simba−50, Simba−nox, Simba−nojet, Simba−noagn, Simba−nofb) with 10 cMpc/h thickness showing the full density field (dark matter and baryons) and associated cosmic web classifications. Top row: The slice of density field taken from the 𝑧 = 0 snapshot. The "cosmic web" is defined with the interconnected filament and the nodes, surrounded by sheets and voids. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Fractions of total matter (dark matter and baryons, upper left), volume (upper right), gas (lower left) and free electrons (lower right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: the partition of baryon (gas, stars and black holes) in various structures for the different feedback models. The fractions are normalized with the baryon mass in the whole simulation box. Right: the partition of IGM gas (excludes haloes). The values are normalized by the total IGM gas mass in the simulation box. integration of cosmic web information, as shown in Equation 5 and 6. In [PITH_FULL_IMAG… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left to right: Slices (1 cMpc/h thickness) of Simba feedback variants (Simba-50, Simba-nox, Simba-nojet, Simba-noagn, Simba￾nofb) showing the density field, 𝑓gas value and associated cosmic web classifications. Top row: The slice of density field taken from the 𝑧 = 0 snapshot. Middle row: The 𝑓gas distribution in the slices. Note the colormap is chosen to indicate relative gas deficits ( 𝑓gas < 1) as blue … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The gas fraction 𝑓gas as a function of overdensity (1 + 𝛿𝑚) under 0.1 cMpc/h Gaussian smoothing, in every T-web structure and for all Simba feedback variants. Left to right: the relation in the whole simulation volume, in voids, in sheets, in filaments and in knots. The shaded regions represents 1𝜎 range of the 𝑓gas distribution. Within the Simba−nox and Simba−50 runs, we observe a U-turn pattern where 𝑓ga… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The discrepancy between the early-time estimation and late-time observation on the cosmic baryon content - the 'missing baryon problem' - is a longstanding problem in cosmology. Although recent studies with fast radio bursts (FRBs) have largely addressed this discrepancy, the precise spatial distribution of these baryons remains uncertain due to the effect of galaxy feedback. Cosmological hydrodynamical simulations such as Simba have shown that the partitioning of baryons between the intergalactic medium (IGM) and haloes is sensitive to feedback models, motivating the connection of baryon distribution with feedback physics. With the Simba simulation suite, this study investigates how feedback affects the distribution of matter within large-scale cosmic structures, with implications for FRB foreground modeling. We apply the T-web method to classify the cosmic web into different structures: knots, filaments, sheets, and voids. We then analyze how the different feedback variants of Simba affect the distribution of matter within each structure. Our results show that in Simba, the fractions of IGM gas in different cosmic web structures vary only a few percent under different feedback models. However, jet feedback produces noticeable changes in the gas distribution within structures, enhancing the diffuse IGM on the outskirts of filaments and knots. This research provides a new perspective on the impact of feedback on the IGM and motivates a refined data model for the FRB foreground mapping.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the effects of varying feedback physics in the Simba suite of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations on the distribution of matter, particularly IGM gas, within cosmic web structures identified via the T-web classifier. The central findings are that IGM gas fractions in knots, filaments, sheets, and voids differ by only a few percent across feedback models, while jet feedback induces noticeable changes in the internal gas distribution, such as enhancing diffuse gas on the outskirts of filaments and knots. These results are motivated by connections to the missing baryon problem and FRB foreground modeling.

Significance. If the T-web structure classifications prove robust to changes in feedback, the work would offer valuable quantitative constraints on how AGN jet feedback redistributes baryons within large-scale structures, with direct relevance to interpreting FRB dispersion measures. The reported small variations in volume fractions suggest that cosmic web partitioning is relatively insensitive to feedback details, which could simplify modeling efforts.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results] The interpretation of jet feedback producing noticeable changes in gas distribution within structures assumes that the T-web masks remain fixed across simulation variants. No quantification of the overlap between structure classifications or shifts in tidal tensor eigenvalues between feedback runs is mentioned, raising the possibility that some reported differences arise from reclassification rather than physical redistribution.
  2. [Methods] Details on the choice of T-web thresholds and gas-phase cuts are not provided, nor are convergence tests or error bars on the reported fractions; these omissions make it difficult to assess the robustness of the 'few percent' variations and the significance of the jet-induced changes.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states clear numerical outcomes but would benefit from specifying the magnitude of the 'noticeable changes' or including a reference to the relevant figure showing radial profiles.
  2. [Throughout] Ensure consistent use of terminology for 'IGM gas' and 'matter distribution' to avoid ambiguity between total matter and baryonic components.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which will help improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested additions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] The interpretation of jet feedback producing noticeable changes in gas distribution within structures assumes that the T-web masks remain fixed across simulation variants. No quantification of the overlap between structure classifications or shifts in tidal tensor eigenvalues between feedback runs is mentioned, raising the possibility that some reported differences arise from reclassification rather than physical redistribution.

    Authors: We agree this is a valid concern for interpreting the physical origin of the differences. All Simba variants share identical initial conditions and dark matter distributions, and since dark matter dominates the total matter density field (~85% by mass), the tidal tensor and resulting T-web classifications are expected to remain highly consistent. To strengthen the manuscript, we will add a quantitative comparison of structure mask overlaps across feedback runs (reporting overlap fractions) and the distribution of shifts in tidal tensor eigenvalues. This will demonstrate that reclassification effects are small and that the reported jet-induced enhancements in diffuse gas are physical. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Details on the choice of T-web thresholds and gas-phase cuts are not provided, nor are convergence tests or error bars on the reported fractions; these omissions make it difficult to assess the robustness of the 'few percent' variations and the significance of the jet-induced changes.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the Methods section lacks sufficient detail on these aspects. In the revised version we will explicitly state the T-web eigenvalue thresholds adopted for each structure type, describe the temperature and density criteria used to isolate IGM gas, include resolution convergence tests, and report error bars on all gas fractions (obtained via jackknife resampling or equivalent). These additions will allow readers to better evaluate the robustness of the few-percent variations and the significance of the jet feedback effects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct empirical comparisons across independent simulation runs

full rationale

The paper executes separate Simba hydrodynamical runs under different feedback prescriptions, applies the external T-web classifier to the density and velocity fields of each run independently, and reports measured gas fractions and radial profiles within the resulting structure masks. These quantities are obtained by direct post-processing of the simulation outputs rather than by fitting parameters to a subset of the data or by re-expressing one measured quantity as a function of itself. The T-web method is invoked as a pre-existing standard technique; no load-bearing self-citation chain or ansatz imported from the authors' prior work is required for the central claims. Because the reported differences are statistical outcomes of the varied physics, not algebraic identities or reclassifications forced by the analysis pipeline, the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or new postulated entities are described.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of cosmological hydrodynamics and the Lambda-CDM background model
    Required to generate the Simba simulation suite itself.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5803 in / 1222 out tokens · 43651 ms · 2026-05-19T04:23:17.981349+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 126 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Angelinelli M., Ettori S., Dolag K., Vazza F., Ragagnin A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...663L...6A 663, L6

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244068 2022

  3. [3]

    Angelinelli M., Ettori S., Dolag K., Vazza F., Ragagnin A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...675A.188A 675, A188

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245782 2023

  4. [4]

    F., Feldmann R., Torrey P., Wetzel A., Kereš D., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx161 , 472, L109–L114

    Anglés-Alcázar D., Faucher-Giguère C.-A., Quataert E., Hopkins P. F., Feldmann R., Torrey P., Wetzel A., Kereš D., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx161 , 472, L109–L114

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx161 2017

  5. [5]

    Appleby S., Dav \'e R., Sorini D., Storey-Fisher K., Smith B., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.2383A 507, 2383

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2310 2021

  6. [6]

    Appleby S., Dav \'e R., Sorini D., Cui W., Christiansen J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.5514A 519, 5514

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad025 2023

  7. [7]

    Ata M., Kitaura F.-S., M \"u ller V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2347 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.4250A 446, 4250

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2347 2015

  8. [8]

    Ata M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.3993A 467, 3993

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx178 2017

  9. [9]

    Awad P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad428 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.4517A 520, 4517

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad428 2023

  10. [10]

    Ayromlou M., Nelson D., Pillepich A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.5391A 524, 5391

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2046 2023

  11. [11]

    Barišić I., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8768 , 847, 72

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8768 2017

  12. [12]

    J., Duffy A

    Batten A. J., Duffy A. R., Flynn C., Gupta V., Ryan-Weber E., Wijers N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512L..49B 512, L49

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac020 2022

  13. [13]

    , keywords =

    Best P. N., Heckman T. M., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20414.x , 421, 1569–1582

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20414.x 2012

  14. [14]

    Bondi H., 1952, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 , 112, 195

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  15. [15]

    Bonnaire T., Aghanim N., Decelle A., Douspis M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...637A..18B 637, A18

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936859 2020

  16. [16]

    Borrow J., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Dav \'e R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3428 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.6102B 491, 6102

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3428 2020

  17. [17]

    arXiv:2203.15055

    Bradley L., Dav \'e R., Cui W., Smith B., Sorini D., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2203.15055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220315055B p. arXiv:2203.15055

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.15055 2022

  18. [18]

    N., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA&A..45..221B 45, 221

    Bregman J. N., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA&A..45..221B 45, 221

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110619 2007

  19. [19]

    L., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..211...19B 211, 19

    Bryan G. L., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..211...19B 211, 19

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 2014

  20. [20]

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..257...59C 257, 59

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab 2021

  21. [21]

    Cautun M., van de Weygaert R., Jones B. J. T., Frenk C. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu768 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.2923C 441, 2923

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu768 2014

  22. [22]

    Cen R., Fang T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650..573C 650, 573

    work page doi:10.1086/506506 2006

  23. [23]

    P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...514....1C 514, 1

    Cen R., Ostriker J. P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...514....1C 514, 1

    work page doi:10.1086/306949 1999

  24. [24]

    P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650..560C 650, 560

    Cen R., Ostriker J. P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650..560C 650, 560

    work page doi:10.1086/506505 2006

  25. [25]

    M., Ostriker J

    Cen R., Tripp T. M., Ostriker J. P., Jenkins E. B., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...559L...5C 559, L5

    work page doi:10.1086/323721 2001

  26. [26]

    P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2812C 526, 2812

    Chadayammuri U., Ntampaka M., ZuHone J., Bogd \'a n \'A ., Kraft R. P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2812C 526, 2812

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2596 2023

  27. [27]

    Chiu I., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1284 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3072C 478, 3072

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1284 2018

  28. [28]

    P., Naab T., Johansson P

    Choi E., Ostriker J. P., Naab T., Johansson P. H., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/754/2/125 , 754, 125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/2/125 2012

  29. [29]

    F., Dav \'e R., Sorini D., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.2617C 499, 2617

    Christiansen J. F., Dav \'e R., Sorini D., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.2617C 499, 2617

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3007 2020

  30. [30]

    arXiv:2409.06015

    Cooke R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240906015C p. arXiv:2409.06015

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.06015 2024

  31. [31]

    M., Chatterjee S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ARA&A..57..417C 57, 417

    Cordes J. M., Chatterjee S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ARA&A..57..417C 57, 417

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501 2019

  32. [32]

    Cui W., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514..977C 514, 977

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1402 2022

  33. [33]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164..207D 164, 207

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b 2022

  34. [34]

    Dav \'e R., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...552..473D 552, 473

    work page doi:10.1086/320548 2001

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Dav \'e R., Oppenheimer B. D., Katz N., Kollmeier J. A., Weinberg D. H., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17279.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.2051D 408, 2051

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17279.x 2010

  36. [36]

    J., Crain R

    Davies J. J., Crain R. A., McCarthy I. G., Oppenheimer B. D., Schaye J., Schaller M., McAlpine S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3783D 485, 3783

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz635 2019

  37. [37]

    J., Crain R

    Davies J. J., Crain R. A., Oppenheimer B. D., Schaye J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.4462D 491, 4462

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3201 2020

  38. [38]

    F., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw1862 , 462, 3265–3284

    Davé R., Thompson R., Hopkins P. F., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw1862 , 462, 3265–3284

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1862 2016

  39. [39]

    Simba: Cosmological Simulations with Black Hole Growth and Feedback

    Davé R., Anglés-Alcázar D., Narayanan D., Li Q., Rafieferantsoa M. H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , 486, 2827–2849

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stz937 2019

  40. [40]

    Dong C., Lee K.-G., Ata M., Horowitz B., Momose R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acba89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...945L..28D 945, L28

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acba89 2023

  41. [41]

    Dong C., Lee K.-G., Davé R., Cui W., Sorini D., 2024, The Effect of AGN Feedback on the Lyman-alpha Forest Signature of Galaxy Protoclusters at z 2.3 ( @eprint arXiv 2402.13568 )

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    L., Lee J

    Fang T., Marshall H. L., Lee J. C., Davis D. S., Canizares C. R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341665 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...572L.127F 572, L127

    work page doi:10.1086/341665 2002

  43. [43]

    C., Battaglia N., Liu J., Spergel D

    Ferraro S., Hill J. C., Battaglia N., Liu J., Spergel D. N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.123526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvD..94l3526F 94, 123526

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.123526 2016

  44. [44]

    , keywords =

    Forero-Romero J. E., Hoffman Y., Gottlöber S., Klypin A., Yepes G., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14885.x , 396, 1815–1824

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14885.x 2009

  45. [45]

    Fukugita M., Peebles P. J. E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/425155 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...616..643F 616, 643

    work page doi:10.1086/425155 2004

  46. [46]

    J., Peebles P

    Fukugita M., Hogan C. J., Peebles P. J. E., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...503..518F 503, 518

    work page doi:10.1086/306025 1998

  47. [47]

    arXiv:2410.24072

    Glowacki M., Lee K.-G., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.24072 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241024072G p. arXiv:2410.24072

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.24072 2024

  48. [48]

    arXiv:2206.14908

    Greene J., Bezanson R., Ouchi M., Silverman J., the PFS Galaxy Evolution Working Group 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2206.14908 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220614908G p. arXiv:2206.14908

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.14908 2022

  49. [49]

    arXiv:2501.16709

    Guo Q., Lee K.-G., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250116709G p. arXiv:2501.16709

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.16709 2025

  50. [50]

    Haardt F., Madau P., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/125 , 746, 125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/125 2012

  51. [51]

    and Brown, Michael L

    Hahn O., Porciani C., Carollo C. M., Dekel A., 2007, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11318.x , 375, 489–499

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11318.x 2007

  52. [52]

    Haider M., Steinhauser D., Vogelsberger M., Genel S., Springel V., Torrey P., Hernquist L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.3024H 457, 3024

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw077 2016

  53. [53]

    J., O'Shea B

    Hallman E. J., O'Shea B. W., Burns J. O., Norman M. L., Harkness R., Wagner R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522912 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671...27H 671, 27

    work page doi:10.1086/522912 2007

  54. [54]

    M., Best P

    Heckman T. M., Best P. N., 2014, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 , 52, 589–660

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 2014

  55. [55]

    M., Thompson T

    Heckman T. M., Thompson T. A., 2017, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1701.09062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170109062H p. arXiv:1701.09062

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1701.09062 2017

  56. [56]

    E., Ryu D., Kang H., Cen R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785..133H 785, 133

    Hong S. E., Ryu D., Kang H., Cen R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785..133H 785, 133

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/133 2014

  57. [57]

    , keywords =

    Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18542.x , 415, 1027–1050

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18542.x 2011

  58. [58]

    Galaxies on FIRE (Feedback In Realistic Environments): Stellar Feedback Explains Cosmologically Inefficient Star Formation

    Hopkins P. F., Kere s D., O \ n orbe J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., Bullock J. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1738 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..581H 445, 581

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1738 2014

  59. [59]

    Horowitz B., Dornfest M., Luki \'c Z., Harrington P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ea7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941...42H 941, 42

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ea7 2022

  60. [60]

    arXiv:2505.03326

    Hsu T.-Y., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.03326 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250503326H p. arXiv:2505.03326

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.03326 2025

  61. [61]

    arXiv:2408.12864

    Huang Y., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12864 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240812864H p. arXiv:2408.12864

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.12864 2024

  62. [62]

    M., Ravi V., Faber J., Sharma K., Sherman M., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.04186 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250604186H p

    Hussaini M., Connor L., Konietzka R. M., Ravi V., Faber J., Sharma K., Sherman M., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.04186 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250604186H p. arXiv:2506.04186

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.04186 2025

  63. [63]

    1999, ApJS, 125, 439, doi: 10.1086/313278

    Iwamoto K., Brachwitz F., Nomoto K., Kishimoto N., Umeda H., Hix W. R., Thielemann F., 1999, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/313278 , 125, 439–462

    work page doi:10.1086/313278 1999

  64. [64]

    Jennings F., Dav \'e R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.1367J 526, 1367

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2666 2023

  65. [65]

    Kang H., Ryu D., Cen R., Song D., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426931 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...620...21K 620, 21

    work page doi:10.1086/426931 2005

  66. [66]

    P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669..729K 669, 729

    Kang H., Ryu D., Cen R., Ostriker J. P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669..729K 669, 729

    work page doi:10.1086/521717 2007

  67. [67]

    Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/305588 , 498, 541–552

    work page doi:10.1086/305588 1998

  68. [68]

    S., Sorini D., Lee K.-G., Dav \'e R., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529..537K 529, 537

    Khrykin I. S., Sorini D., Lee K.-G., Dav \'e R., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529..537K 529, 537

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae525

  69. [69]

    S., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973..151K 973, 151

    Khrykin I. S., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973..151K 973, 151

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6567

  70. [70]

    Kocz J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2219 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489..919K 489, 919

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2219 2019

  71. [71]

    E., Bogd \'a n \'A ., Smith R

    Kov \'a cs O. E., Bogd \'a n \'A ., Smith R. K., Kraft R. P., Forman W. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef78 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872...83K 872, 83

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaef78 2019

  72. [72]

    V., Klypin A., Hoffman Y., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...571..563K 571, 563

    Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A., Hoffman Y., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...571..563K 571, 563

    work page doi:10.1086/340046 2002

  73. [73]

    R., Gnedin N

    Krumholz M. R., Gnedin N. Y., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/729/1/36 , 729, 36

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/1/36 2011

  74. [74]

    S., Huang Y., Prochaska J

    Lee K.-G., Ata M., Khrykin I. S., Huang Y., Prochaska J. X., Cooke J., Zhang J., Batten A., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f62 , 928, 9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f62 2022

  75. [75]

    H., Barnes D., Vogelsberger M., Mo H

    Lim S. H., Barnes D., Vogelsberger M., Mo H. J., Nelson D., Pillepich A., Dolag K., Marinacci F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.5131L 504, 5131

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1172 2021

  76. [76]

    Macquart J.-P., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS09082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASA...27..272M 27, 272

    work page doi:10.1071/as09082 2010

  77. [77]

    P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.581..391M 581, 391

    Macquart J. P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.581..391M 581, 391

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 2020

  78. [78]

    Martizzi D., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1106 , 486, 3766–3787

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1106 2019

  79. [79]

    G., Schaye J., Bird S., Le Brun A

    McCarthy I. G., Schaye J., Bird S., Le Brun A. M. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2792 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2936M 465, 2936

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2792 2017

  80. [80]

    Mohammad F. G., Villaescusa-Navarro F., Genel S., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Vogelsberger M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941..132M 941, 132

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f14 2022

Showing first 80 references.