pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

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

Recognition: no theorem link

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

Ruxin Barr\'e (1) , Arif Babul (1 , 2 , 3) , Ghassem Gozaliasl (4 , 5) , Alexis Finoguenov (5) , Romeel Dav\'e (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)
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 02:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords brightest group galaxiesAGN feedbackcosmological simulationsgalaxy quenchingstellar propertiesCOSMOS observationsblack hole growth
0
0 comments X

The pith

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are 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.

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.

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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.10192 by 10), (10) National Institute for Theoretical, (11) University of Washington, 2, (2) University of Edinburgh, 3), (3) Indian Institute of Science, (4) Aalto University, 5), (5) University of Helsinki, 6), (6) University of the Western Cape, (7) Flatiron Institute, (8) Johns Hopkins University, (9) North-West University, Alexis Finoguenov (5), Arif Babul (1, Aviv Padawer-Blatt (1), Canada, Computational Sciences, Douglas Rennehan (7), Finland, Ghassem Gozaliasl (4, India, Renier T. Hough (9, Romeel Dav\'e (2, Ruxin Barr\'e (1), South Africa, Thomas R. Quinn (11) ((1) University of Victoria, United Kingdom, USA, USA), Vida Saeedzadeh (8).

Figure 1
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 bi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
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_… view at source ↗
Figure 3
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 di… view at source ↗
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] view at source ↗
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] view at source ↗
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] view at source ↗
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] view at source ↗
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] view at source ↗
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 Obsidian (blue, dot-dashed lines) simulations. Top row: The sSFR−M∗ relation for all sSFRs. The simulations’ median relations are shown in every pa… view at source ↗
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.

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 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

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.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 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.
axioms (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.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5751 in / 1304 out tokens · 49771 ms · 2026-05-16T02:24:05.915388+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

156 extracted references · 156 canonical work pages · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    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 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]

    Aghanim et al

    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, MNRAS, 519, 5514, doi: 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]

    2002, MNRAS, 335, 965, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05532.x

    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]

    2002, MNRAS, 335, 965, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05532.x

    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]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    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

  9. [9]

    P., Haines, C

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx167 2018

  10. [10]

    A., Guo, Q., Kauffmann, G., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13699.x 2008

  11. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  12. [12]

    L., & Haiman, Z

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15043.x 2009

  13. [13]

    D., Joner, M

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18829.x 2011

  14. [14]

    C., Volonteri, M., & Rees, M

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x 2006

  15. [15]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 937, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06241.x

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

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 2003

  16. [16]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz571 2019

  17. [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

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781139547420.008 2013

  18. [18]

    Galactic Stellar and Substellar Initial Mass Function

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  19. [19]

    COLIBRE: calibrating subgrid feedback in cosmological simulations that include a cold gas phase

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.04067

  20. [20]

    The evolution of the galaxy stellar mass function and star formation rates in the COLIBRE simulations from redshift 17 to 0

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.07960

  21. [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

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

  22. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu399 2014

  23. [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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832582 2018

  24. [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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017 2013

  25. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2688 2020

  26. [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

    work page doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.5.553 1982

  27. [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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618 2023

  28. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv725 2015

  29. [29]

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

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2013.31 2013

  30. [30]

    2006, MNRAS, 365, 1333, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09824.x

    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, MNRAS, 497, 146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1894 Dav´ e, R., Thompson, R., & Hopki...

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x 2006

  31. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1950 2021

  32. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz712 2019

  33. [33]

    D., Joner, M

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19381.x 2011

  34. [34]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2706 2020

  35. [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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347504 2024

  36. [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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141701 2022

  37. [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

    work page doi:10.1086/516577 2007

  38. [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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/1/564 2009

  39. [39]

    P., & Robotham, A

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16256.x 2010

  40. [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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323053 2015

  41. [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

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    R., & Heuer, K

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

    work page doi:10.3390/atoms8030049 2020

  43. [43]

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

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

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 937, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06241.x

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

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06507.x 2003

  45. [45]

    E., Collins, C

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty991 2018

  46. [46]

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/72 2014

  47. [47]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/504593 2006

  48. [48]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.22268

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.22268 2025

  49. [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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/742/2/125 2011

  50. [50]

    G., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw448 2016

  51. [51]

    G., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322459 2014

  52. [52]

    G., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty003 2018

  53. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3203 2019

  54. [54]

    G., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936745 2020

  55. [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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449543 2024

  56. [56]

    J., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556085 2025

  57. [57]

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.19924 2025

  58. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx666 2017

  59. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1773 2019

  60. [60]

    L., & Wetzel, A

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d6b 2017

  61. [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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1780 2018

  62. [62]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2235 2020

  63. [63]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015

  64. [64]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.01294 2017

  65. [65]

    D., Joner, M

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

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

  66. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3458 2022

  67. [67]

    F., Grudic, M

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.13115 2024

  68. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2394 2023

  69. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1435 2024

  70. [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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834212 2019

  71. [71]

    J., et al

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065138 2006

  72. [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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425176 2015

  73. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2150 2020

  74. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2306 2020

  75. [75]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2666 2023

  76. [76]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.11694

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.11694 2025

  77. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1622 2022

  78. [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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3236 2021

  79. [79]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/305588 1998

  80. [80]

    D., Joner, M

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18858.x 2011

Showing first 80 references.