Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

The radio-mode AGN feedback models in EAGLE, SIMBA, and TNG100 do not reproduce the observed dependence of AGN fraction on galaxy mass and star formation.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

All three major cosmological simulations fail to reproduce the observed dependence of radio AGN fraction on galaxy mass and star formation rate.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The simulation-failure result is substantive and the M* slope comparison is probably robust, but the sSFR claim and the constant-shift mapping are the soft spots. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2508.04907 v1 pith:7G4UAA7B submitted 2025-08-06 astro-ph.GA

AGN Feedback Models and AGN Demographics I: Radio-Mode AGN in EAGLE, SIMBA and TNG100 are Inconsistent with Observations

Arjun Suresh , Michael R. Blanton , Douglas Rennehan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords AGN feedbackradio-mode AGNcosmological simulationsEAGLESIMBAIllustrisTNGEddington ratiospecific star formation rate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the radio-mode AGN feedback models built into three major cosmological simulations—EAGLE, SIMBA, and TNG100—can account for how radio AGN actually populate low-redshift galaxies. The benchmark is F_AGN, the completeness-corrected fraction of galaxies hosting a radio AGN with Eddington ratio above $10^{-3}$, which observations show rises steeply with stellar mass but is nearly independent of specific star formation rate at fixed mass. Comparing simulation predictions with the threshold shifted by ±1 dex to absorb normalization uncertainty, the paper finds none of the models reproduces either feature: predicted mass dependence is usually flat or negative, and no model reaches the observed sSFR independence. It also shows that tuning TNG100 to match F_AGN would likely spoil the stellar mass function and cosmic star formation rate density that the simulation was calibrated to. The upshot is that the radio-mode feedback prescriptions in these simulations fail an independent, physically motivated demographic test.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a failure: the radio-mode AGN subgrid models of EAGLE, SIMBA, and TNG100 are inconsistent with the observed F_AGN(M*, sSFR). The observed constraint from a reanalysis of MaNGA/NVSS/FIRST data has slope ~1.03 for quiescent galaxies and ~0.85 for star-forming galaxies in F_AGN versus log M*, with an RMS separation of 0.23 dex between the two populations. Across all three threshold shifts, only TNG100 at Δlog λc = -1 gives positive slopes (0.64 and 0.16), still far from observed; sSFR independence is approached but never reached, with best RMS values around 0.30–0.32 dex versus the observed 0.23. A modified TNG100 transition can match F_AGN, bu

What carries the argument

The central object is the measured function F_AGN(M*, sSFR): the fraction of galaxies whose black hole delivers radio-mode feedback power P_Kin above λ_c L_Edd, with λ_c = $10^{-3}$. On the observational side, a Schechter-function model of the Eddington ratio distribution is fitted in stellar-mass and sSFR bins, with upper limits substituted for non-detections, to recover the intrinsic F_AGN rather than the biased detected fraction. On the simulation side, each black hole is assigned λ = P_Kin / L_Edd from its subgrid radio-mode power, and the selection threshold is shifted by Δlog λ_c ∈ {-1, 0, 1} to cover unknown normalization between simulated feedback power and radio luminosity. The test the

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison stands on the observed F_AGN constraint, which is itself inferred from a Schechter-function model of Eddington ratios with upper-limit substitutions and a few borderline AGN classifications; if that model-based constraint is biased, the claimed simulation failures are not established.

What would settle it

Take the same MaNGA galaxies and rederive F_AGN with a different selection treatment, for example radio stacking or a nonparametric Eddington-ratio distribution, and check whether the sSFR independence at fixed stellar mass survives; if low-mass bins show quiescent and star-forming F_AGN differing by more than about 0.23 dex, the benchmark that all three simulations fail would be wrong. Alternatively, re-run TNG100 with the optimized transition parameters and show that the z = 0 stellar mass function and star formation rate density remain within observational tolerances, which would refute the

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the radio-mode AGN population in the local universe is not explained by any of the three tested subgrid prescriptions; recalibration or new feedback physics is needed.
  • Because the three simulations differ from each other by 1.56–2.21 dex in predicted F_AGN, the radio AGN fraction is a sharp observable for distinguishing and constraining AGN feedback models.
  • TNG100-style models face a three-way tension: matching the stellar mass function, matching the star formation rate density, and matching F_AGN cannot all be achieved with the current model form.
  • Comparisons that use detected AGN fractions rather than completeness-corrected intrinsic fractions can falsely suggest radio AGN prefer quiescent galaxies; future tests should target the intrinsic F_AGN.
  • The mismatch motivates direct comparisons of simulated and observed nuclear gas densities on ~100 pc scales to see whether the failure lies in gas supply or in the feedback response.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: if the observed sSFR independence holds, radio-mode feedback is probably not the dominant quenching switch at fixed stellar mass; simulations that make it so will systematically misassign AGN between star-forming and quiescent galaxies.
  • My inference: the same F_AGN methodology could be applied to quasar-mode tracers such as narrow-line or X-ray AGN to constrain high-accretion feedback, a direction the paper flags but does not carry out.
  • My inference: the ±1 dex threshold shifts are a coarse stand-in for the uncertain mapping between radio luminosity and kinetic feedback power; a direct calibration of that mapping from resolved jet or cavity energetics would sharpen the test considerably.
  • My inference: the low-mass bins currently provide only upper limits, so the sSFR-independence claim is not yet strongly tested below log M*/M⊙ ≈ 11; a larger sample is the immediate next arbiter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper tests the radio-mode AGN feedback prescriptions of the EAGLE, SIMBA, and TNG100 cosmological simulations against an observational constraint on F_AGN(M_*, sSFR), the completeness-corrected fraction of galaxies hosting radio AGN with Eddington ratio λ > 10^-3. The observational constraint is updated from the authors' earlier work by fitting Schechter-function Eddington-ratio distributions in stellar mass and sSFR bins, yielding strong F_AGN(M_*) trends for quiescent and star-forming galaxies and approximate sSFR independence at fixed M_*. For each simulation, λ is defined as the subgrid kinetic feedback power divided by Eddington luminosity, and the predicted F_AGN(M_*) is compared to observation under three constant shifts Δlog10 λc = -1, 0, +1. The authors report that none of the simulations reproduce the observed positive slope of F_AGN with M_* or the observed weak dependence on sSFR, and that a modified TNG100 parameter set that reproduces F_AGN would likely break the simulation's calibration to the stellar mass function and star formation rate density.

Significance. If correct, the result is an important independent test of AGN feedback subgrid models: it suggests that three widely used simulations fail to capture how radio AGN populate galaxies in the local universe. The study's use of an intrinsic, selection-corrected F_AGN rather than a detected fraction is a strength, as is the comparison across three major public simulations. The paper is also candid about the systematic uncertainties in the observational constraint. The conclusion that all three models fail a demographic test would be a significant challenge to current feedback implementations and would motivate new model development. However, the strength of the central claim is currently limited by the narrow treatment of the uncertain mapping between simulated feedback power and observed radio luminosity.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (16)] The comparison allows only a constant additive shift Δlog10 λc to absorb uncertainties in the absolute scale of λ. But the observed λ is inferred from radio luminosity through a conversion that is itself uncertain and potentially dependent on black hole mass, accretion state, or environment. A mass-dependent mapping of the form λ_obs = A(M_BH) P_kin/L_Edd, with A increasing with M_BH, could transform the negative predicted F_AGN(M_*) slopes into positive ones, directly affecting the abstract's claim that 'none of these simulations even qualitatively reproduce the observed dependencies.' Since the authors state in Section 1 that they seek to determine 'whether any reasonable relationship ... between AGN feedback power and radio luminosities' can reproduce the observations, the test should at least explore monotonic mass-dependent mappings or justify why a constant shift suffices. As writt
  2. [Section 5.3, Eqs. (17)-(18)] The modified TNG100 experiment reclassifies existing galaxies in post-processing rather than re-running the simulation. The authors then conclude that the modified model 'likely' changes the stellar mass function and star formation rate density, and that 'a reassessment of the fundamental assumptions in the TNG100 model may be necessary.' This conclusion is stronger than the post-processing test can support, because the modified transition thresholds and the associated change in feedback coupling could alter galaxy properties self-consistently in ways that the static-galaxy approximation does not capture. The extrapolation is reasonable as a heuristic, but the wording should be softened so that the reader does not mistake it for a demonstrated inconsistency.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1, text near Table 1] The text says 'the quiescent bin centered on log10 M* = 10.6 has only two detected AGN,' but Table 1 lists an upper limit for that bin (log10 F_AGN < -1.41). This appears to be a typo; likely the star-forming bin is meant. Please clarify.
  2. [Section 5.1] The observed sSFR-independence metric is quoted as an RMS deviation of 0.23 dex without specifying which bins or which version of the constraint is used. The updated Table 1 has upper limits in the lowest-mass bins, and the bins with 1σ detections alone yield a smaller RMS (~0.13 dex). Please state the exact definition and the bins used, for reproducibility.
  3. [Section 4.2.2] For EAGLE, the text selects black holes with λ < 0.02 as radio AGN, while the analysis threshold is λc = 10^-3. The relationship between these two cuts should be stated explicitly (e.g., whether the λ < 0.02 cut is merely a population definition and the F_AGN calculation still uses the λ > 10^-3 threshold).
  4. [Figure 5 caption] The caption writes 'log10(sSFR/M⊙)' where the quantity plotted is presumably log10(sSFR/yr^-1). Check units for consistency.
  5. [References] Crain et al. (2015) appears twice in the reference list with identical entries; merge into one.
  6. [Equation (18)] Define clearly that N_AGN,i is the observed number derived from the median F_AGN constraint, not the directly detected AGN count in each bin, to avoid confusion with the upper-limit treatment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the simulation predictions are tested against an externally derived observational constraint.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is not circular. The observed F_AGN constraint is derived in Section 2.1 from MaNGA/NVSS/FIRST data via Eddington-ratio distribution fits, independently of the simulations. The simulation predictions are computed from public catalogs using each model's own subgrid feedback power definitions (EAGLE: Section 4.2.2; SIMBA: Section 4.3.2; TNG100: Section 4.4.2), and then compared to the observed F_AGN(M*) and sSFR dependence. The only adjustable element, Delta log10(lambda_c), is varied over a fixed grid (-1,0,1) as a robustness check, not fitted to force agreement, and the qualitative conclusion holds for all choices. The modified TNG100 model in Section 5.3 is explicitly optimized to match the F_AGN constraint, and the paper does not present this as a prediction; it uses the fit to argue that matching F_AGN would likely break other calibration targets, which is an inference rather than a circular derivation. Self-citations to Suresh & Blanton (2024) refer to a data-analysis methodology and an earlier measurement that is re-derived here, so the argument does not rest on an unverified self-citation. The potential mass-dependence of the mapping between kinetic power and radio luminosity is a robustness concern about the assumed observable proxy, but it is not a case where the claimed prediction is equivalent to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on two external pillars: the observational F_AGN constraint (which depends on fitted ERD parameters and selection corrections) and the simulation catalogs (which depend on unverified subgrid physics). The modified TNG experiment adds explicit fit parameters, but that experiment is exploratory and not required for the main conclusion.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda_c threshold = 10^-3
    Chosen to roughly minimize error bars on F_AGN (Section 1). Load-bearing because changing this threshold changes the simulated and observed fractions; the paper scans shifts around it.
  • Delta log10(lambda_c) shift = -1, 0, +1
    Ad hoc scale shift between observed and simulated Eddington ratios; three values scanned (Section 4.1). Not fitted, but a hand-chosen allowance that the conclusions depend on coarsely.
  • Modified TNG parameters theta_SF and theta_Q = SF: chi0=0.09, M0=10^10.48, beta=1.95, chi_max=0.0008, Delta log10 lambda_c=-0.89; Q: chi0=0.08, M0=10^10.12, beta=2.00,
    Fitted to minimize chi-squared against observed F_AGN (Section 5.3). These make the modified model match by construction.
  • ERD Schechter parameters per bin = alpha, lambda*, lambda_min (posterior distributions)
    Fitted to MaNGA/NVSS/FIRST data with uniform priors (Section 2.1); the derived F_AGN constraint depends on this model.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The observed F_AGN constraint from the ERD fits represents the intrinsic radio AGN fraction
    The whole comparison uses this as the benchmark. If selection corrections or the Schechter model bias it, the conclusion changes. Discussed in Section 2.
  • domain assumption The public catalogs of EAGLE, SIMBA, and TNG100 correctly trace central black hole masses, accretion rates, and host galaxy properties in the chosen snapshots
    All predictions are read off these catalogs; systematic errors in BH masses or accretion rates directly propagate into F_AGN.
  • domain assumption Radio-mode feedback power P_kin in the simulations is comparable to the mechanical power inferred from radio luminosity via a single additive threshold shift
    Explicitly stated as a simplifying assumption (Section 4.1); a mass-dependent or nonlinear mapping could change the trends, though the scans at -1, 0, +1 provide some robustness.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AGN Feedback Models and AGN Demographics I: Radio-Mode AGN in EAGLE, SIMBA and TNG100 are Inconsistent with Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7G4UAA7B

@misc{pith2026250804907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AGN Feedback Models and AGN Demographics I: Radio-Mode AGN in EAGLE, SIMBA and TNG100 are Inconsistent with Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7G4UAA7B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04907}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We compare predictions of how Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) populate host galaxies at low redshifts to observations, finding large discrepancies between cosmological simulation predictions and observed patterns. Modern cosmological simulations include AGN feedback models tuned to reproduce the observed galaxy stellar mass function. However, due to a lack of real understanding of the physics of AGN feedback, these models vary significantly across simulations. To distinguish between the models and potentially test the underlying physics, we carry out independent tests of these models. In an earlier study, we found that $F_{\rm AGN}$ -- the observed completeness-corrected fraction of galaxies hosting radio AGN with an Eddington ratio $\lambda > 10^{-3}$ -- to be a strong function of host galaxy stellar mass ($M_\star$) but nearly independent of host specific star formation rates (sSFR) at fixed $M_\star$. In this study, we test the radio mode AGN feedback models of the EAGLE, SIMBA, and TNG100 simulations by comparing their predictions of $F_{\rm AGN} \left(M_\star \right)$ to our observational constraint. We find that none of these simulations even qualitatively reproduce the observed dependencies of $F_{\rm AGN}$ on $M_\star$ and sSFR. Finally, we find that although the given TNG100 model could be modified in order to better reproduce the observed $F_{\rm AGN}$ trend, this modification would likely also change its prediction for the local stellar mass function and star formation rates -- key observations used for calibrating the simulation in the first place. Our findings highlight a pressing need to revisit the AGN feedback prescriptions in EAGLE, SIMBA, TNG100 and other similar models.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. AGN Feedback Models and AGN Demographics II: Comparing Predictions of Radiative and Total Feedback to Observations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    EAGLE, SIMBA, and TNG100 all fail to reproduce observed trends in which galaxies host radiatively efficient AGN, and EAGLE matches only after a factor-of-ten normalization adjustment.

  2. A Consistent Comparison of Intracluster Light Assembly in Simulations I. Redshift Evolution and Progenitor Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A homogenized ICL definition applied to Horizon-AGN, TNG100, Gizmo-Simba and Hydrangea yields consistent z=0 fractions of 0.1-0.2 with no significant redshift evolution and dominant contributions from satellites of 10...

  3. Unveiling the roles of thermal and nonthermal processes in the ISM & IGM structure formation and evolution of galaxies with SKAO

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Simulations indicate SKAO AA4 surveys can trace thermal and nonthermal ISM processes in high-redshift galaxy analogs beyond z=1-3, underscoring nonthermal feedback at cosmic noon.

  4. Unveiling the roles of thermal and nonthermal processes in the ISM & IGM structure formation and evolution of galaxies with SKAO

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Simulations show SKAO AA4 surveys can trace ISM thermal/nonthermal processes in M51/NGC6946 analogs beyond cosmic noon (z=2-3 in continuum, z>1 in HI), indicating nonthermal feedback importance at high redshift.

  5. Unveiling the roles of thermal and nonthermal processes in the ISM & IGM structure formation and evolution of galaxies with SKAO

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Simulations indicate SKAO AA4 surveys can trace ISM thermal and nonthermal processes in M51/NGC6946 analogs beyond z=2-3 in continuum and z=1 in HI, pointing to important nonthermal feedback at cosmic noon.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., Armitage-Caplan, C., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 571, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Dav´ e, R., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A.,¨Ozel, F., & Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2565

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 2014

  2. [4]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559, doi: 10.1086/176166

    doi:10.1086/176166 1995

  3. [5]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/57 2013

  4. [6]

    C., & Manne-Nicholas, E

    Bentz, M. C., & Manne-Nicholas, E. 2018, ApJ, 864, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad808

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad808 2018

  5. [7]

    K., et al

    Bernardi, M., Meert, A., Sheth, R. K., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 2217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx176

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx176 2017

  6. [8]

    K., et al

    Bernardi, M., Meert, A., Sheth, R. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 697, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1607

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1607 2013

  7. [9]

    N., & Heckman, T

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

    arXiv 2012

  8. [11]

    1995, MNRAS, 276, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/276.2.663

    Binney, J., & Tabor, G. 1995, MNRAS, 276, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/276.2.663

    doi:10.1093/mnras/276.2.663 1995

  9. [12]

    1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  10. [13]

    1944, MNRAS, 104, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273

    Bondi, H., & Hoyle, F. 1944, MNRAS, 104, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273

    doi:10.1093/mnras/104.5.273 1944

  11. [15]

    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

  12. [16]

    M., et al

    Chen, Y.-M., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts544

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts544 2013

  13. [17]

    2001, ApJ, 554, 261, doi: 10.1086/321357

    Forman, W. 2001, ApJ, 554, 261, doi: 10.1086/321357

    doi:10.1086/321357 2001

  14. [18]

    M., Negus, J., M¨ uller-S´ anchez, F., et al

    Comerford, J. M., Negus, J., M¨ uller-S´ anchez, F., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb2ae

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb2ae 2020

  15. [19]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693, doi: 10.1086/300337

    doi:10.1086/300337 1998

  16. [21]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 1937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv725

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv725 2015

  17. [23]

    Dunn, R. J. H., & Fabian, A. C. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 959, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11080.x

    arXiv 2006

  18. [25]

    Edge, A. C. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 762, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04802.x

    arXiv 2001

  19. [26]

    A., Rieke, G

    Egami, E., Misselt, K. A., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 922, doi: 10.1086/504519

    work page doi:10.1086/504519 2006

  20. [27]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72 2011

  21. [28]

    Fabian, A. C. 1994, ARA&A, 32, 277, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.001425 —. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    work page arXiv 1994

  22. [29]

    2017, A&A, 601, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629478

    Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., Shankar, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629478

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629478 2017

  23. [30]

    J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al

    Hahn, C., Wilson, M. J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accff8

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accff8 2023

  24. [31]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 2014

  25. [32]

    Ho, L. C. 2002, ApJ, 564, 120, doi: 10.1086/324399

    doi:10.1086/324399 2002

  26. [33]

    F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1738 2014

  27. [34]

    F., & Quataert, E

    Hopkins, P. F., & Quataert, E. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 1027, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18542.x

    arXiv 2011

  28. [35]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1690 2018

  29. [36]

    Hoyle, F., & Lyttleton, R. A. 1939, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 35, 405, doi: 10.1017/S0305004100021150

    doi:10.1017/s0305004100021150 1939

  30. [37]

    2012, A&A, 541, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219052

    Brinchmann, J. 2012, A&A, 541, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219052

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219052 2012

  31. [38]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2014, ApJ, 796, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/106

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/106 2014

  32. [39]

    2025, A&A, 694, A309, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451974

    Shenoy, Shravya, & Ma lek, Katarzyna. 2025, A&A, 694, A309, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451974

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451974 2025

  33. [40]

    I., Condon, J

    Kellermann, K. I., Condon, J. J., Kimball, A. E., Perley, R. A., & Ivezi´ c, Z. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 168, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/168

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/168 2016

  34. [41]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  35. [42]

    Li, C., & White, S. D. M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 2177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15268.x

    arXiv 2009

  36. [43]

    Maccarone, T. J. 2003, A&A, 409, 697, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031146 Mart ´ ınez-Aldama, M. L., del Olmo, A., Marziani, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833541

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031146 2003

  37. [44]

    A., Morgan, W

    Matthews, T. A., Morgan, W. W., & Schmidt, M. 1964, ApJ, 140, 35, doi: 10.1086/147890

    doi:10.1086/147890 1964

  38. [45]

    C., Schaller, M., et al

    McAlpine, S., Helly, J. C., Schaller, M., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Computing, 15, 72, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.02.004

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2016.02.004 2016

  39. [47]

    G., Schaye, J., Ponman, T

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Ponman, T. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 822, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16750.x

    arXiv 2010

  40. [48]

    R., Wise, M., Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., Wise, M., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2000, ApJL, 534, L135, doi: 10.1086/312662

    doi:10.1086/312662 2000

  41. [49]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, 1011, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13472.x

    Merloni, A., & Heinz, S. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1011, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13472.x

    arXiv 2008

  42. [50]

    2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x

    Merloni, A., Heinz, S., & di Matteo, T. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x

    arXiv 2003

  43. [51]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts261

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts261 2013

  44. [52]

    R., Leslie, S

    Mulcahey, C. R., Leslie, S. K., Jackson, T. M., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142215

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142215 2022

  45. [53]

    L., Kereˇ s, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Muratov, A. L., Kereˇ s, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 2691, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2126

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2126 2015

  46. [54]

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

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

    doi:10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x 2019

  47. [55]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/104

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/104 2015

  48. [56]

    2017, A&A, 603, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630369

    Perna, M., Lanzuisi, G., Brusa, M., Mignoli, M., & Cresci, G. 2017, A&A, 603, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630369

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630369 2017

  49. [57]

    R., Kahn, S

    Peterson, J. R., Kahn, S. M., Paerels, F. B. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 590, 207, doi: 10.1086/374830

    doi:10.1086/374830 2003

  50. [58]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656 2018

  51. [59]

    N., Hardcastle, M

    Sabater, J., Best, P. N., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833883

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833883 2019

  52. [60]

    A., Bower, R

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2058 2015

  53. [61]

    J., White, S

    Shen, S., Mo, H. J., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 343, 978, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06740.x

    arXiv 2003

  54. [62]

    S., & Dav´ e, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 24

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 2015

  55. [63]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x —

    Springel, V. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x —. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    arXiv 2005

  56. [64]

    Suresh, A., & Blanton, M. R. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ac7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ac7 2024

  57. [65]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1536

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1536

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1536 2014

  58. [66]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1733 2018

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.