Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 156 references

Forged by Feedback: Stellar Properties of Brightest Group Galaxies in Cosmological Simulations

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-16 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read OBSIDIAN's three-regime AGN feedback model reproduces the stellar properties of brightest group galaxies more closely than the other simulations tested.

desk verdict OBSIDIAN's three-regime AGN feedback matches COSMOS BGG properties best, but the simulations differ in too many ways to cleanly credit the feedback model alone. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.10192 v1 submitted 2026-02-10 astro-ph.GA

Ruxin Barré (1) , Arif Babul (1 , 2 , 3) , Ghassem Gozaliasl (4 , 5) , Alexis Finoguenov (5) , Romeel Davé (2
show 25 more authors
6) Aviv Padawer-Blatt (1) Douglas Rennehan (7) Vida Saeedzadeh (8) Renier T. Hough (9 10) Thomas R. Quinn (11) ((1) University of Victoria Canada (2) University of Edinburgh United Kingdom (3) Indian Institute of Science India (4) Aalto University Finland (5) University of Helsinki (6) University of the Western Cape South Africa (7) Flatiron Institute USA (8) Johns Hopkins University (9) North-West University (10) National Institute for Theoretical Computational Sciences (11) University of Washington USA)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords brightestgroupgalaxiesAGNfeedbackcosmologicalsimulationsgalaxyquenchingstellarpropertiesCOSMOSobservationsblackholegrowth
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 compares brightest group galaxies across four cosmological simulations to X-ray-selected groups observed in the COSMOS field. It shows that the choice of AGN feedback prescription strongly shapes the stellar masses, star formation rates, and quenching behavior of these galaxies. OBSIDIAN's model, which applies different feedback regimes depending on conditions, produces distributions and evolutionary trends that align best with the data. The other runs either leave galaxies too star-forming or quench them too suddenly once jets activate. This points to AGN feedback as the main driver setting how massive galaxies in groups grow and shut down.

What carries the argument

The three-regime AGN feedback implementation in OBSIDIAN, which switches between different modes of energy injection and black-hole growth regulation to control gas cooling and star formation in massive galaxies.

What would settle it

A larger observational sample of BGGs showing a sharp drop in star formation rate at a specific stellar mass threshold that matches SIMBA but deviates from OBSIDIAN would falsify the claim that the three-regime model provides the best match.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

OBSIDIAN's three-regime AGN feedback model produces BGG populations whose stellar mass distributions, specific star formation rates, mass-weighted ages, and quenched fractions match those measured for X-ray-selected groups in COSMOS, while ROMULUS leaves BGGs overly star-forming, and SIMBA and SIMBA-C produce overly rapid quenching once powerful jet feedback begins.

Load-bearing premise

Differences in BGG stellar properties between the simulations are caused mainly by variations in their AGN feedback models rather than by differences in resolution, hydrodynamics solvers, or other subgrid choices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • BGGs in OBSIDIAN and COSMOS exhibit gradual rather than abrupt decline in star formation with increasing stellar mass.
  • Powerful jet feedback in SIMBA and SIMBA-C triggers rapid quenching once it activates, unlike the more gradual effect in OBSIDIAN.
  • ROMULUS thermal AGN feedback fails to suppress cooling flows, leaving BGGs under-quenched and highly star-forming.
  • Physically motivated multi-regime AGN prescriptions are required to capture the observed diversity of BGG evolutionary paths in group environments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The results imply that future simulations need to incorporate condition-dependent AGN modes to avoid either under- or over-quenching at the high-mass end.
  • If the gradual quenching trend holds in wider surveys, it would constrain the timing when jet feedback becomes dominant in group-scale halos.
  • The comparison suggests that group environments amplify small differences in feedback efficiency into large differences in central galaxy properties.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares stellar properties (masses, sSFRs, ages, quenched fractions, and star-formation evolution) of brightest group galaxies (BGGs) in four cosmological simulations—ROMULUS, SIMBA, SIMBA-C, and OBSIDIAN—against X-ray-selected groups in the COSMOS field. It concludes that AGN feedback strength and mechanism dominate BGG evolution, with OBSIDIAN’s three-regime model providing the closest match to observations while ROMULUS under-quenches and SIMBA/SIMBA-C quench too rapidly.

Significance. If the causal attribution to AGN feedback is robust, the work supplies a useful benchmark for how sub-grid prescriptions regulate massive-galaxy growth in groups and demonstrates that more physically detailed feedback can reproduce observed quenching trends with mass.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2] Section 2 (Simulation descriptions) and the abstract: the central claim that differences in BGG properties are “strongly impacted by the strength and mechanism of their respective AGN feedback models” is not isolated from other simulation variations. ROMULUS, SIMBA, SIMBA-C, and OBSIDIAN differ in hydrodynamics solvers, resolution, and additional sub-grid physics; no controlled experiment (same code base, only AGN varied) is reported. Consequently the attribution of ROMULUS under-quenching or SIMBA rapid jet quenching specifically to their AGN regimes remains untested.
  2. [§4.3] §4.3 (Star-formation evolution with mass): the statement that OBSIDIAN and COSMOS show a “gradual decline” while SIMBA/SIMBA-C show “rapid quenching” is presented qualitatively. No quantitative measure (e.g., slope of sSFR–M⋆ relation or KS-test p-values between distributions) is given to substantiate the distinction or to rank the models objectively.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 1] Figure 1 caption: the mass range and selection cuts applied to the COSMOS BGG sample are not stated explicitly; please add the exact stellar-mass and group-mass limits used for the observational comparison.
  2. [Introduction] Notation: the abbreviation “BGG” is introduced in the abstract but the first use in the main text should be spelled out for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly where possible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section 2] Section 2 (Simulation descriptions) and the abstract: the central claim that differences in BGG properties are “strongly impacted by the strength and mechanism of their respective AGN feedback models” is not isolated from other simulation variations. ROMULUS, SIMBA, SIMBA-C, and OBSIDIAN differ in hydrodynamics solvers, resolution, and additional sub-grid physics; no controlled experiment (same code base, only AGN varied) is reported. Consequently the attribution of ROMULUS under-quenching or SIMBA rapid jet quenching specifically to their AGN regimes remains untested.

    Authors: We agree that the four simulations differ in multiple respects beyond AGN feedback prescriptions, including hydrodynamics solvers, resolution, and other sub-grid physics, and that a controlled experiment isolating only the AGN model would provide the cleanest attribution. Our choice of these particular simulations was driven by their distinct AGN feedback implementations, which span a range of current approaches in the literature. In the revised manuscript we will expand Section 2 to explicitly list and discuss these additional differences, moderate the language in the abstract and conclusions to state that AGN feedback is a dominant rather than the sole driver, and note the absence of a same-code controlled comparison as a limitation of the present study. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4.3] §4.3 (Star-formation evolution with mass): the statement that OBSIDIAN and COSMOS show a “gradual decline” while SIMBA/SIMBA-C show “rapid quenching” is presented qualitatively. No quantitative measure (e.g., slope of sSFR–M⋆ relation or KS-test p-values between distributions) is given to substantiate the distinction or to rank the models objectively.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this suggestion. In the revised §4.3 we will add quantitative measures: the fitted slopes of the sSFR–M⋆ relation for each simulation and the COSMOS sample, together with Kolmogorov-Smirnov p-values comparing the sSFR distributions across mass bins. These statistics will allow an objective ranking of model agreement with the observed gradual decline. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in simulation-observation comparison

full rationale

The paper compares stellar masses, sSFRs, ages, quenched fractions and SF evolution of BGGs from four independent cosmological simulations (ROMULUS, SIMBA, SIMBA-C, OBSIDIAN) directly against external COSMOS observational data. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are invoked to derive the target results; the attribution of differences to AGN feedback regimes rests on comparative analysis of pre-existing simulation outputs rather than any self-definitional loop or prediction that reduces to its own inputs by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's conclusions depend on the accuracy of the subgrid physics in the simulations and the assumption that the COSMOS BGG sample is unbiased.

free parameters (1)
  • AGN feedback parameters
    Each simulation employs distinct parameters for AGN energy injection, coupling efficiency, and mode transitions that are calibrated to match certain galaxy properties.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The subgrid AGN feedback models capture the essential physics regulating galaxy growth
    Invoked when attributing differences in BGG properties to feedback strength and mechanism.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Forged by Feedback: Stellar Properties of Brightest Group Galaxies in Cosmological Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2602.10192

@misc{pith2026260210192,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Forged by Feedback: Stellar Properties of Brightest Group Galaxies in Cosmological Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2602.10192}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.10192}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate how different galaxy formation models impact the stellar properties of brightest group galaxies (BGGs) in four cosmological simulations: ROMULUS, SIMBA, SIMBA-C, and OBSIDIAN. The stellar masses, specific star formation rates, and mass-weighted stellar ages of the simulated BGGs are analysed alongside those of observed BGGs from X-ray-selected galaxy groups in the COSMOS field. We find that the global properties and underlying evolutionary pathways of simulated BGG populations are strongly impacted by the strength and mechanism of their respective active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback models, which play a critical role in regulating the growth of massive galaxies. OBSIDIAN's sophisticated three-regime AGN feedback model achieves the highest overall agreement with COSMOS observations, matching stellar property distributions, quenched fractions, and the evolution of star formation in increasingly massive systems. We find evidence suggesting that BGG populations of OBSIDIAN and COSMOS undergo a gradual decline in star formation with stellar mass, in contrast to SIMBA and SIMBA-C, which display rapid quenching linked to the onset of powerful AGN jet feedback. By comparison, ROMULUS produces highly star-forming, under-quenched BGGs due to the inefficiency of its thermal AGN feedback in preventing cooling flows from fuelling BGG growth. The success of the OBSIDIAN simulation demonstrates the importance of physically motivated subgrid prescriptions for realistically capturing the processes that shape BGGs and their dynamic group environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.10192 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: BGG redshift distributions. Simulated BGGs satisfying log(LX, 0.1−2.4 keV/erg s−1 ) ≥ 41.4 are se￾lected from nine snapshots to match the redshift distribu￾tion of the COSMOS sample (grey shaded histogram). The Romulus25 histogram is outlined in dotted red, Simba in dashed green, Simba-C in solid yellow, and Obsidian in dot– dashed blue. The vertical black lines mark the boundaries between redshift bins z ∈ [0.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. LX −M∗ relations for observed and simulated BGGs. Top: The initial samples of simulated BGGs for all LX. The Simba, Simba-C, and Obsidian BGGs are rep￾resented by median lines, with outer lines and data points showing the 16th and 84th inter-percentile regions and outer scatter. The black line illustrates the COSMOS minimum log(LX, 0.1−2.4 keV/erg s−1 ) ≃ 41.4. All other formatting fol￾lows that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. contains the results of two-sided KS tests com￾paring the log(M∗/M⊙) distributions of the simulated BGG samples to that of the COSMOS sample. The Romulus25 BGGs occupy a narrow range in log(M∗/M⊙) in comparison to the other samples. The small (25 cMpc)3 simulation volume constrains both the number of systems that can form and how massive they will become. This limits the extent of the high-M∗ end of the distribution… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: depicts the normalised density histograms and sample medians describing the sSFRs of our sim￾ulated and observed BGGs. The top panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: BGG mass-weighted stellar age (Agew) distri￾butions. Formatting follows that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: sSFR−M∗ relations for samples of BGGs with log(sSFR/yr−1 ) > −12. The central panel depicts individual BGGs on the sSFR−M∗ plane with markers following the formatting of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: BGG quenched fractions. BGGs are considered quenched if they lie more than 0.75 dex below the K. E. Whitaker et al. (2012) SFMS (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: BGG stellar age scaling relations. The BGG mass-weighted stellar age (Agew) is shown as a function of stellar mass in the top panel, and as a function of sSFR in the bottom panel. All formatting follows that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Overview of star formation and quenching in Simba and its variants for BGGs with log(M∗/M⊙) ∈ [10, 12]. From left to right, the first, second, and third columns respectively highlight BGGs from the Simba (green, dashed lines), Simba-C (yellow, solid lines), and Obsidia…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

156 extracted references · 156 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    THE SEVENTH DATA RELEASE OF THE SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    Ade, P. a. R., Aghanim, N., Arnaud, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 2016

  3. [3]

    <i>Planck</i> 2018 results

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Dav´ e, R., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A.,¨Ozel, F., & Hopkins, P. F. 2017a, MNRAS, 464, 2840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2565 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Quataert, E., et al. 2017b, MNRAS: Letters, 472, L109, doi: 10.1093/...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  4. [4]

    2023, title The physical nature of circumgalactic medium absorbers in SIMBA , , 519, 5514, 10.1093/mnras/stad025

    Appleby, S., Dav´ e, R., Sorini, D., Cui, W., & Christiansen, J. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5514, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad025

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad025 2023

  5. [5]

    The growth of structure in the intergalactic medium

    Arnouts, S., Moscardini, L., Vanzella, E., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 355, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x 2002

  6. [6]

    1991, MNRAS, 248, 177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/248.2.177

    Babul, A. 1991, MNRAS, 248, 177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/248.2.177

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/248.2.177 1991

  7. [7]

    The growth of structure in the intergalactic medium

    Babul, A., Balogh, M. L., Lewis, G. F., & Poole, G. B. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 329, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05044.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05044.x 2002

  8. [8]

    2009, MNRAS, 398, 515, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14895.x

    Benson, A. J., & Babul, A. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1302, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15087.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15087.x 2009

Show all 156 references
  1. [9]

    P., Haines, C

    Bianconi, M., Smith, G. P., Haines, C. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS: Letters, 473, L79, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx167

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    2008, MNRAS, 389, 1637, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13699.x

    Bildfell, C., Hoekstra, H., Babul, A., & Mahdavi, A. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1637, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13699.x

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

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

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

    1952 doi

  4. [12]

    M., & Schaye, J

    Booth, C. M., & Schaye, J. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 53, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15043.x

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Kenicutt, R

    Bothwell, M. S., Kenicutt, R. C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1815, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18829.x

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Benson, A

    Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 645, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    Caleb, M., Flynn, C., & Stappers, B. W. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz571

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies (Cambridge University Press), 419–458, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139547420.008

    Calzetti, D. 2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies (Cambridge University Press), 419–458, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139547420.008

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    2025a, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.04067

    Chaikin, E., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., et al. 2025a, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.04067

    doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2025b, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07960

    Chaikin, E., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., et al. 2025b, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07960

    doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    P., Naab, T., & Johansson, P

    Choi, E., Ostriker, J. P., Naab, T., & Johansson, P. H. 2012, ApJ, 754, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/125

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Governato, F., Quinn, T., et al

    Christensen, C. R., Governato, F., Quinn, T., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2843, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu399

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    2018, A&A, 617, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832582

    Volonteri, M. 2018, A&A, 617, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832582

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    Conroy, C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    B., Ferrari, F., & Kaipper, A

    Cougo, J., Rembold, S. B., Ferrari, F., & Kaipper, A. L. P. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2688

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    1982, American Psychologist, 37, 553, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.5.553 26R

    Cowles, M., & Davis, C. 1982, American Psychologist, 37, 553, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.5.553 26R. Barr ´e et al

    1982 doi

  19. [27]

    A., & van de Voort, F

    Crain, R. A., & van de Voort, F. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv725

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Croton, D. J. 2013, PASA, 30, e052, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2013.31

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Springel, V., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937 Dav´ e, R., Crain, R. A., Stevens, A. R. H., et al. 2020...

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1950

    Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1950

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 1853, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19381.x

    Dubois, Y., Devriendt, J., Teyssier, R., & Slyz, A. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1853, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19381.x

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    Edwards, L. O. V., Salinas, M., Stanley, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2706

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, A&A, 681, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347504

    Einasto, M., Einasto, J., Tenjes, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347504

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2022, A&A, 667, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141701

    Figueira, M., Pollo, A., Ma lek, K., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141701

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 182, doi: 10.1086/516577

    Finoguenov, A., Guzzo, L., Hasinger, G., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 182, doi: 10.1086/516577

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    L., Parker, L

    Finoguenov, A., Connelly, J. L., Parker, L. C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 564, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/564

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    G., Tanaka, M., et al

    Finoguenov, A., Watson, M. G., Tanaka, M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 2063, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16256.x

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    2015, A&A, 576, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323053 Flores Vel´ azquez, J

    Finoguenov, A., Tanaka, M., Cooper, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323053 Flores Vel´ azquez, J. A., Gurvich, A. B., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3893

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    K., Brickhouse, N

    Foster, A., Smith, R. K., Brickhouse, N. S., & Cui, X. 2016, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division #15, Vol. 15, 116.18

    2016

  34. [42]

    R., & Heuer, K

    Foster, A. R., & Heuer, K. 2020, Atoms, 8, 49, doi: 10.3390/atoms8030049

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    R., Heuer, K., & Smith, R

    Foster, A. R., Heuer, K., & Smith, R. 2021, Bull. AAS, 53

    2021

  36. [44]

    2003, MNRAS, 340, L7, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06507.x

    Fukugita, M., & Kawasaki, M. 2003, MNRAS, 340, L7, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06507.x

    2003 doi

  37. [45]

    E., Collins, C

    Furnell, K. E., Collins, C. A., Kelvin, L. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4952, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty991

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    Kelson, D. D. 2014, ApJ, 788, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/72

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    2006, AJ, 132, 546, doi: 10.1086/504593

    Pedlar, A. 2006, AJ, 132, 546, doi: 10.1086/504593

    2006 doi

  40. [48]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.22268

    Gawade, G. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.22268

    2025 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Leauthaud, A., Bundy, K., et al

    George, M. R., Leauthaud, A., Bundy, K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/125

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    G., et al

    Gozaliasl, G., Finoguenov, A., Khosroshahi, H. G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2762, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw448

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    G., et al

    Gozaliasl, G., Finoguenov, A., Khosroshahi, H. G., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322459

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    G., et al

    Gozaliasl, G., Finoguenov, A., Khosroshahi, H. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty003

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 3545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3203

    Gozaliasl, G., Finoguenov, A., Tanaka, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3203

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    G., et al

    Gozaliasl, G., Finoguenov, A., Khosroshahi, H. G., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936745

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    2024, A&A, 690, A315, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449543

    Gozaliasl, G., Finoguenov, A., Babul, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A315, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449543

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    J., et al

    Gozaliasl, G., Yang, L., Kartaltepe, S. J., et al. 2025, A&A, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556085

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    Hough, R. T. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.19924

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 3935, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx666

    Habouzit, M., Volonteri, M., & Dubois, Y. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3935, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx666

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 1248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1773

    Hafen, Z., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1773

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    L., & Wetzel, A

    Hahn, C., Tinker, J. L., & Wetzel, A. 2017, ApJ, 841, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d6b

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    A., Puchwein, E., Shen, S., & Sijacki, D

    Henden, N. A., Puchwein, E., Shen, S., & Sijacki, D. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1780

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    A., Puchwein, E., & Sijacki, D

    Henden, N. A., Puchwein, E., & Sijacki, D. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2235

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2017, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1712.01294

    2017 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    F., & Quataert, E

    Hopkins, P. F., & Quataert, E. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1027, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18542.x

    2011 doi

  58. [66]

    F., Wellons, S., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Grudi´ c, M

    Hopkins, P. F., Wellons, S., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Grudi´ c, M. Y. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3458

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    F., Grudic, M

    Hopkins, P. F., Grudic, M. Y., Su, K.-Y., et al. 2024, OJAp, 7, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.13115

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    T., Rennehan, D., Kobayashi, C., et al

    Hough, R. T., Rennehan, D., Kobayashi, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2394

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    T., Shao, Z., Cui, W., et al

    Hough, R. T., Shao, Z., Cui, W., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1435 BGGs in Cosmological Simulations27

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    K., Looze, I

    Hunt, L. K., Looze, I. D., Boquien, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834212 Huˇ sko, F., Lacey, C. G., Schaye, J., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.05179

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    J., et al

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 841, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065138

    2006 doi

  64. [72]

    2015, A&A, 579, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425176

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., Le Floc’h, E., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425176

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

    G., Tacchella, S., Genel, S., et al

    Iyer, K. G., Tacchella, S., Genel, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2150

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    M., Pasquali, A., Pacifici, C., et al

    Jackson, T. M., Pasquali, A., Pacifici, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2306

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 1367, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2666

    Jennings, F., & Dav´ e, R. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1367, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2666

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.11694

    Yue, B. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.11694

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    L., Rennehan, D., Saeedzadeh, V., et al

    Jung, S. L., Rennehan, D., Saeedzadeh, V., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 22, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1622

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 2036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3236

    Katsianis, A., Xu, H., Yang, X., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3236

    2021 doi

  71. [79]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    Kennicutt, R. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    1998 doi

  72. [80]

    R., Muldrew, S

    Knebe, A., Knollmann, S. R., Muldrew, S. I., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2293, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18858.x

    2011 doi

  73. [81]

    R., & Knebe, A

    Knollmann, S. R., & Knebe, A. 2009, ApJS, 182, 608, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608

    2009 doi

  74. [82]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020a, ApJ, 900, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65

    doi

  75. [83]

    2020b, ApJ, 895, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e44

    Kobayashi, C., Leung, S.-C., & Nomoto, K. 2020b, ApJ, 895, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e44

    doi

  76. [84]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 2488, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2082

    Kolokythas, K., O’Sullivan, E., Intema, H., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2488, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2082

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2030

    Kolokythas, K., O’Sullivan, E., Raychaudhury, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2030

    2018 doi

  78. [86]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 4191, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3699

    Kolokythas, K., Vaddi, S., O’Sullivan, E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4191, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3699

    2022 doi

  79. [87]

    S., Sijacki, D., et al

    Koudmani, S., Somerville, R. S., Sijacki, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 60, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1422

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    V., Vikhlinin, A

    Kravtsov, A. V., Vikhlinin, A. A., & Meshcheryakov, A. V. 2018, Astron. Lett., 44, 8, doi: 10.1134/S1063773717120015

    2018 doi

  81. [89]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001 doi

  82. [90]

    R., & Gnedin, N

    Krumholz, M. R., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2011, ApJ, 729, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/36

    2011 doi

  83. [91]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 6103, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2540

    Kugel, R., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 6103, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2540

    2023 doi

  84. [92]

    2020, A&A, 639, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937282

    Kuutma, T., Poudel, A., Einasto, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937282

    2020 doi

  85. [93]

    J., Ilbert, O., et al

    Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., Ilbert, O., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 24, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/24

    2016 doi

  86. [94]

    2025, A&A, 700, A202, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452892

    Li, S.-S., Hoekstra, H., Kuijken, K., Schaller, M., & Schaye, J. 2025, A&A, 700, A202, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452892

    2025 doi

  87. [95]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 29, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/29

    Lian, J., Yan, R., Zhang, K., & Kong, X. 2016, ApJ, 832, 29, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/29

    2016 doi

  88. [96]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 4266, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2840

    Liang, L., Durier, F., Babul, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 4266, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2840

    2016 doi

  89. [97]

    S., Xia, X

    Liu, F. S., Xia, X. Y., Mao, S., Wu, H., & Deng, Z. G. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 23, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12818.x

    2008 doi

  90. [98]

    Loubser, S. I. 2019, Proceedings of the IAU, 14, 255, doi: 10.1017/S1743921319008123

    2019 doi

  91. [99]

    I., Babul, A., Hoekstra, H., et al

    Loubser, S. I., Babul, A., Hoekstra, H., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2784

    2016 doi

  92. [100]

    I., Hoekstra, H., Babul, A., & O’Sullivan, E

    Loubser, S. I., Hoekstra, H., Babul, A., & O’Sullivan, E. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 335, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty498

    2018 doi

  93. [101]

    I., Lagos, P., Babul, A., et al

    Loubser, S. I., Lagos, P., Babul, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1781

    2022 doi

  94. [102]

    E., Lares, M., Paz, D., et al

    Luparello, H. E., Lares, M., Paz, D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1483, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv082

    2015 doi

  95. [103]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 2993, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2877

    Lupi, A., Haardt, F., Dotti, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2993, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2877

    2016 doi

  96. [104]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 763, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv608

    Mancini, C., Renzini, A., Daddi, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 763, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv608

    2015 doi

  97. [105]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 5780, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2518 Mart´ ınez, H

    Marini, I., Borgani, S., Saro, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5780, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2518 Mart´ ınez, H. J., Coenda, V., & Muriel, H. 2013, A&A, 557, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321931

    2021 doi

  98. [106]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 1500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1233

    Martizzi, D., Jimmy, Teyssier, R., & Moore, B. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1233

    2014 doi

  99. [107]

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

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Bird, S., & Le Brun, A. M. C. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2792

    2017 doi

  100. [108]

    2015, Comput

    Menon, H., Wesolowski, L., Zheng, G., et al. 2015, Comput. Astrophys., 2, 1, doi: 10.1186/s40668-015-0007-9

    2015 doi

  101. [109]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad022a

    Ni, Y., Genel, S., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad022a

    2023 doi

  102. [110]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx112

    Nipoti, C. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx112

    2017 doi

  103. [111]

    L., et al

    Olivares, V., Salom´ e, P., Hamer, S. L., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142475

    2022 doi

  104. [112]

    McCarthy, I. G. 2021, Universe, 7, 209, doi: 10.3390/universe7070209 O’Sullivan, E., Ponman, T. J., Kolokythas, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1482, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2078

    2021 doi

  105. [113]

    T., et al

    Padawer-Blatt, A., Shao, Z., Hough, R. T., et al. 2025, Universe, 11, 47, doi: 10.3390/universe11020047

    2025 doi

  106. [114]

    S., Corlies, L., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Peeples, M. S., Corlies, L., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 28R. Barr ´e et al

    2019 doi

  107. [115]

    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

  108. [116]

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

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

    doi

  109. [117]

    E., Seth, A

    Pjanka, P., Greene, J. E., Seth, A. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7c18

    2017 doi

  110. [118]

    A., Krumholz, M

    Pokhrel, R., Gutermuth, R. A., Krumholz, M. R., et al. 2021, ApJL, 912, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf564

    2021 doi

  111. [119]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac832

    Pontzen, A., & Tremmel, M. 2018, ApJS, 237, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac832

    2018 doi

  112. [120]

    F., Jenkins, A., et al

    Power, C., Navarro, J. F., Jenkins, A., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 14, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.05925.x

    2003 doi

  113. [121]

    L., Borgani, S., et al

    Ragone-Figueroa, C., Granato, G. L., Borgani, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2436, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1389

    2020 doi

  114. [122]

    L., Ferraro, M

    Ragone-Figueroa, C., Granato, G. L., Ferraro, M. E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1125, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1639

    2018 doi

  115. [123]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 1750, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1693

    Borgani, S., & Cui, W. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1750, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1693

    2013 doi

  116. [124]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad793d

    Rennehan, D. 2024, ApJ, 975, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad793d

    2024 doi

  117. [125]

    C., et al

    Rennehan, D., Babul, A., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa541

    2020 doi

  118. [126]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 4793, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1785

    Rennehan, D., Babul, A., Moa, B., & Dav´ e, R. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 4793, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1785

    2024 doi

  119. [127]

    2024a, ApJ, 975, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a6f

    Saeedzadeh, V., Babul, A., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 975, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a6f

    doi

  120. [128]

    Quinn, T. R. 2024b, MNRAS, 529, 4295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae513

    doi

  121. [129]

    L., Rennehan, D., et al

    Saeedzadeh, V., Jung, S. L., Rennehan, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2637

    2023 doi

  122. [130]

    A., Bower, R

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

    2015 doi

  123. [131]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21126

    Schaye, J., Chaikin, E., Schaller, M., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21126

    2025 doi arXiv

  124. [132]

    K., Martin, D

    Schiminovich, D., Wyder, T. K., Martin, D. C., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 315, doi: 10.1086/524659

    2007 doi

  125. [133]

    2014, ApJ, 782, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/23

    Shen, S., Yang, X., Mo, H., van den Bosch, F., & More, S. 2014, ApJ, 782, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/23

    2014 doi

  126. [134]

    D., Bryan, G

    Smith, B. D., Bryan, G. L., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3291

    2017 doi

  127. [135]

    S., & Dav´ e, R

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

    2015 doi

  128. [136]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, 1074, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11097.x

    Stinson, G., Seth, A., Katz, N., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1074, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11097.x

    2006 doi

  129. [137]

    1997, JOGO, 11, 341, doi: 10.1023/A:1008202821328

    Storn, R., & Price, K. 1997, JOGO, 11, 341, doi: 10.1023/A:1008202821328

    1997 doi

  130. [138]

    F., Bryan, G

    Su, K.-Y., Hopkins, P. F., Bryan, G. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2021

    2021 doi

  131. [139]

    M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Conroy, C., Faber, S. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac449b

    2022 doi

  132. [140]

    J., & Arnett, W

    Talbot, Jr., R. J., & Arnett, W. D. 1971, ApJ, 170, 409, doi: 10.1086/151228

    1971 doi

  133. [141]

    Y., Bourne, M

    Talbot, R. Y., Bourne, M. A., & Sijacki, D. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3619, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab804

    2021 doi

  134. [142]

    S., Hudson, M

    Taranu, D. S., Hudson, M. J., Balogh, M. L., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu389

    2014 doi

  135. [143]

    2024, A&A, 687, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348832

    Castignani, G. 2024, A&A, 687, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348832

    2024 doi

  136. [144]

    Tremmel, M., Governato, F., Volonteri, M., & Quinn, T. R. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1868, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1060

    2015 doi

  137. [145]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 1121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1160

    Tremmel, M., Karcher, M., Governato, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1160

    2017 doi

  138. [146]

    C., Brooks, A

    Tremmel, M., Wright, A. C., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2786, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2015

    2020 doi

  139. [147]

    R., Ricarte, A., et al

    Tremmel, M., Quinn, T. R., Ricarte, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3336 van de Voort, F., Springel, V., Mandelker, N., van den Bosch, F. C., & Pakmor, R. 2019, MNRAS: Letters, 482, L85, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly190 Van Kempen, W., Cluver, M., Jarrett, T...

    2019 doi

  140. [148]

    2020, Nat Rev Phys, 2, 2, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1909.07976 Von Der Linden, A., Best, P

    Vogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., Torrey, P., & Puchwein, E. 2020, Nat Rev Phys, 2, 2, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1909.07976 Von Der Linden, A., Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., & White, S. D. M. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 867, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11940.x

    2020 doi

  141. [149]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078

    2022 doi

  142. [150]

    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

  143. [151]

    M., van den Bosch, F

    Weinmann, S. M., van den Bosch, F. C., Yang, X., & Mo, H. J. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09865.x

    2006 doi

  144. [152]

    2012, ApJL, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    Franx, M. 2012, ApJL, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    2012 doi

  145. [153]

    M., Lutz, D., et al

    Wuyts, S., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Lutz, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/106

    2011 doi

  146. [154]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/73

    Yoon, Y., Im, M., & Kim, J.-W. 2017, ApJ, 834, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/73

    2017 doi

  147. [155]

    Zhao, D., Arag´ on-Salamanca, A., & Conselice, C. J. 2015a, MNRAS, 448, 2530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv190

    doi

  148. [156]

    Zhao, D., Arag´ on-Salamanca, A., & Conselice, C. J. 2015b, MNRAS, 453, 4444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1940

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.