Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 106 references

A simulated protocluster shows the intracluster medium is born from the inside out as AGN feedback and a major merger destroy cold gas and reshape Lyman-alpha haloes between redshift 4.4 and 2.7.

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 ↗

Between z≈4.4 and 2.7, a simulated protocluster's cold circumgalactic gas is destroyed from the inside out by a merger and AGN feedback, while its Lyman-alpha halo shifts from filamentary to spherical.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful single-halo case study of the z ~ 3 CGM-to-ICM transition with honest mock observables; the AGN-causality claim is asserted more strongly than the run design can support, but the paper deserves a serious referee. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.16991 v2 pith:ZSIDTNX5 submitted 2026-03-17 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

The birth of the intracluster medium: the evolution of multiphase gas and Lyman-$\alpha$ haloes in a simulated $z\sim3$ protocluster

Jake S. Bennett , Aaron Smith , Fabrizio Arrigoni-Battaia , Debora Sijacki , Cassandra Lochhaas , Lars Hernquist This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords intracluster mediumcircumgalactic mediumprotoclusterAGN feedbackLyman-alpha haloMgII absorbersOVII absorptioncosmological zoom-in simulation
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 aims to establish how a galaxy cluster's hot, X-ray-emitting intracluster medium (ICM) first forms out of the cold, filamentary gas that feeds galaxies at high redshift. Using a high-resolution cosmological simulation of a single massive protocluster, the authors argue that between z≈4.4 and 2.7 a major merger and AGN feedback heat the halo from the inside out, flattening density, temperature, and metallicity profiles. This internal heating destroys intermediate-column MgII absorbers, pushes oxygen to higher ionisation states, and transforms Lyman-alpha halo morphology from filamentary to spherical. The work matters because it identifies a concrete, physically driven pathway for the CGM-to-ICM transition at an epoch—z∼3—that is just becoming observable with current instruments.

Core claim

The authors claim that the transition from a multiphase circumgalactic medium to a hot intracluster medium is driven primarily by internal processes—specifically a 1:2.5 major merger and AGN feedback in the quasar and radio modes—rather than by external accretion alone. In their simulated protocluster, gas is redistributed outward from 50–250 kpc, the volume-filling phase heats above 3×10^7 K, and metallicity flattens to the canonical ~0.3 Z_sun value from the inside out. The observable signatures follow: intermediate-column MgII absorbers are rapidly destroyed, leaving only dense clumps associated with satellites; OVII covering fractions first grow then drop as gas becomes over-ionised; and

What carries the argument

The central object is a high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulation of a single massive protocluster—a z=0 ~10^15 Msun cluster progenitor—evolved to z=2.7 with a factor-of-512 increase in CGM mass resolution (average cell radius 200–300 pc). The analysis connects this simulation to observables through post-processing: photoionisation-equilibrium calculations yield mock MgII and OVII absorption, while Monte Carlo radiative transfer generates Ly-alpha and H-alpha emission maps including dust attenuation, resonant scattering, and optional AGN photoionisation. The load-bearing mechanism is the coupling of AGN feedback (thermal quasar-mode injection with a 25 Myr duty cycle and radio-mode bub

Load-bearing premise

The subgrid feedback model—how AGN energy is injected into the surrounding gas—is assumed to deposit that energy at the right radii and times, so if the prescription misplaces energy, the inside-out transformation could be a numerical artifact rather than a physical trend.

What would settle it

Measure the radial distribution of strong MgII absorbers around a statistical sample of z∼3 protoclusters (e.g., using MUSE or Keck spectroscopy): if intermediate-column absorbers persist within 250 kpc in a majority of merging systems, the proposed inside-out destruction of cold gas would be contradicted.

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

If this is right

  • Between z≈4.4 and 2.7, the halo's gas heats from the inside out; density, temperature, and metallicity profiles flatten as material is redistributed to larger radii.
  • Intermediate-column MgII absorbers (column densities between roughly 10^11 and 10^13 cm^-2) are preferentially destroyed, leaving a clumpier cold-gas distribution concentrated around satellite galaxies, while the densest satellite gas survives.
  • OVII becomes more widespread as the hot halo grows, then decreases in covering fraction in the inner 50–250 kpc as gas is heated beyond the OVII ionisation stage into the X-ray regime.
  • Extended Lyman-alpha haloes persist even in the absence of AGN photoionisation, and their morphology shifts from filamentary to more spherical as cold inflows are disrupted, with covering fractions consistent with the evolution from a typical nebula to an ELAN-like object during a major heating episode.
  • The fiducial dust-to-metal ratio of 0.1 underpredicts central Ly-alpha emission, implying more efficient nuclear Ly-alpha production or lower dust attenuation; H-alpha haloes are dimmer and more compact and could be probed with JWST.
  • Higher CGM resolution boosts predicted Ly-alpha surface brightness by about a factor of 2.8, showing that many existing cluster simulations may underestimate cold gas and Ly-alpha emission.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If this inside-out transformation is generic rather than a quirk of one merger history, then surveys targeting z∼3 massive haloes should find a systematic deficit of strong MgII absorbers inside roughly 250 kpc, while OVII covering fractions rise then fall—a signature testable with stacked quasar spectra behind known protoclusters.
  • The authors' single-halo focus leaves the specific role of the 1:2.5 merger unquantified; a natural extension is a small ensemble of protocluster zoom-in simulations spanning different merger chronologies to separate merger-driven from feedback-driven heating.
  • The near-independence of the extended Ly-alpha profile from AGN photoionisation suggests that enormous Ly-alpha nebulae around quasars may be powered more by stellar emission, photon escape, and resonant scattering than by the quasar's own ionising photons; comparing radial Ly-alpha and H-alpha profiles in a broader sample could test this.
  • The predicted compact H-alpha haloes and the central Ly-alpha/H-alpha ratio gradient could be directly observed with JWST NIRSpec, providing a relatively clean test of whether unresolved ISM structure is the cause of the central Ly-alpha deficit.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a cosmological zoom-in simulation of a massive cluster progenitor (M_200 ≈ 7×10^13 M_sun at z=2.7) with enhanced CGM resolution (shock-refined Arepo cells, target 3.2×10^4 M_sun). Using the Fable/Illustris subgrid model, the authors follow the halo from z=8 to z=2.7 and analyze the evolution of density, temperature, metallicity, and gas-phase fractions. They post-process the simulation with Trident for MgII and OVII absorption and with the colt Monte Carlo radiative transfer code for Lyα and Hα emission, including variations in dust-to-metal ratio, AGN ionisation, and resonant scattering. The central claims are that a 1:2.5 merger and AGN feedback drive an inside-out transformation of the CGM into a hot, enriched, X-ray-dominated ICM; that intermediate-column MgII absorbers are destroyed while dense satellite-associated gas survives; and that Lyα haloes evolve from filamentary to spherical while remaining detectable without AGN photoionisation. The authors compare their mock Lyα profiles to QSOMuseum data and find an underpredicton in the central ~50 kpc, which they interpret as unresolved ISM photon escape/AGN conversion. The paper is explicitly framed as a single-object case study with acknowledged caveats in §7.3.

Significance. If the central evolutionary narrative holds, the paper provides a valuable, high-resolution case study of the CGM-to-ICM transition at z~3, a regime that is poorly constrained observationally and numerically. The explicit resolution comparison (fiducial Fable vs. high-resolution CGM) and the systematic exploration of dust, scattering, and AGN ionisation in the radiative-transfer post-processing are genuine strengths. The mock absorption and emission predictions are not fitted to the observed Lyα data; the comparison is predictive rather than circular. However, the paper's general significance is limited by the use of a single halo and by the fact that the causal attribution to AGN feedback is not tested with a control run. The authors are appropriately cautious in parts of §4.1 and §7.3, but the abstract and conclusions state the causal claim more strongly than the available evidence supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2 and Abstract / Conclusion 4] The paper's central causal claim—that AGN feedback drives the inside-out CGM-to-ICM transformation—is supported only by a temporal correlation and a resolution comparison. The comparison with the fiducial Fable run (Fig. 9, §6.2.1) changes CGM resolution but not the feedback implementation. There is no run with AGN feedback disabled, no radio-mode-off control, and no variation of duty cycle or coupling radius. The contemporaneous 1:2.5 merger shock (§4.1) and the normal growth of the halo are equally capable of producing the observed flattening and heating in the 50–250 kpc range (Fig. 2). The 3×10^60 erg injection quoted in §4.2 is an internal model output, not an independent constraint. I request either a control experiment (even a short restart with radio-mode feedback disabled) or a systematic softening of the causal wording in the abstract and conclusions to 'concurrent with' or 'mo
  2. [§2 and §7.3] The single-black-hole setup weakens the AGN attribution in a specific way. The authors state that because the black hole cannot grow by mergers, its mass at z=2.7 is ~7 times lower than in fiducial Fable, with 'an equivalent decrease in the injected feedback energy.' Yet the paper still attributes the ICM transition to this same AGN feedback. The Eddington luminosity used for AGN photoionisation in colt is that of the Fable black hole (§3.2.1), so the radiative bracketing is reasonable, but the mechanical feedback that drives the claimed redistribution is not bracketed. The reader is left without a quantitative comparison of injected AGN energy versus merger-shock energy or virialization heating. Please add this comparison or, better, a run where the black hole follows the fiducial Fable growth history.
  3. [§4.1 and §7.3] The generalization from one object to a universal 'inside-out' transition is not supported by the presented evidence. The authors explicitly acknowledge in §7.3 that they 'only focus on an individual object' and in §4.1 that a broader suite is needed to determine ubiquity, but the abstract and Conclusion 4 state the inside-out transition as an unconditional result. Since the merger history (1:2.5), the single BH, and the particular resolution setup are all specific to this halo, the paper should either present a small ensemble or explicitly reframe the abstract and conclusions as a case study with model-dependent predictions. Otherwise the headline claim overreaches the data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] The text says Trident 'assumes ionisation equilibrium with the metagalactic UVB' and later notes local stellar sources are similar, but the relative importance of collisional ionisation in the hot halo is not quantified. A sentence on where collisional ionisation matters for OVII would help the absorption predictions.
  2. [§6.2.2] In Fig. 10, the color/line-style legend is dense and the difference between 'Observed, wAGN ionisation, DTM = 0' and the no-AGN case is not visible at the plotted scale. Consider using a zoomed inset or tabulating the central SB values for each model.
  3. [§2] The phrase 'shock refined run' and 'shock refinement scheme' is used interchangeably; defining 'ShockRef512' once in §2 would avoid confusion with the earlier Bennett & Sijacki (2020) nomenclature.
  4. [§7.3] The discussion of future work mentions better-resolved multiphase ISM models, but the authors do not discuss potential effects of a higher metal cooling rate or non-equilibrium ionisation on MgII destruction. This would be a useful caveat given the rapid timescales claimed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: mock observables are forward-modeled from the simulation, not fitted to target data.

full rationale

The paper's predictions—MgII/OVII absorption, Lyα/Hα emission, and the thermodynamic evolution of the protocluster—are generated by running a cosmological zoom-in simulation and post-processing it with independent radiative transfer and ionization codes (trident, colt). The AGN luminosity is set to the Eddington luminosity of the Fable black hole, an input assumption, and the dust-to-metal ratio is also an assumed parameter; the paper explicitly reports that the fiducial model underpredicts observed central Lyα emission, framing this as a genuine mismatch that motivates future model improvements. The central causal claim that AGN feedback drives an inside-out CGM-to-ICM transformation is inferred from the timing and energetics of feedback in a single halo, and the absence of a feedback-off control run weakens that attribution, but this is a methodological limitation, not a circularity: the conclusion does not reduce to the simulation inputs by construction. The self-citations (e.g., Bennett & Sijacki 2020, 2022) concern the shock-refinement method and earlier Fable behavior; they are not used as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative explanations, and they are not load-bearing for the paper's main results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the Fable subgrid feedback model, the assumed dust-to-metal ratio, and the single-halo sample. No new physical entities are introduced; the dust-to-metal ratio and AGN luminosity normalization are the main hand-set inputs affecting the Lyα/Hα predictions.

free parameters (3)
  • Dust-to-metal ratio (DTM) = 0.1 (MW dust law), also 0
    Assumed input for radiative transfer; strongly affects central Lyα surface brightness. Paper notes a lower ratio is required to match observed central SB (Sections 3.2 and 6.2.2).
  • AGN luminosity normalization = Eddington luminosity of Fable BH
    The high-res run's own BH is under-massive due to missing mergers, so AGN photoionization is modeled using the Fable Eddington luminosity (Section 3.2.1). This is a bracketing choice, not fitted to Lyα data.
  • Star-forming gas temperature floor = 10^4 K
    Effective EoS makes ISM temperatures unreliable; constant temperature chosen for H ionisation and recombination (Section 3.2.1). Affects inferred Lyα/Hα emissivity.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Fable/Illustris subgrid feedback model (quasar/radio AGN modes, decoupled winds) accurately represents energy and metal injection in massive haloes.
    Invoked in Section 2; the central inside-out heating conclusion depends on this feedback model.
  • domain assumption Photoionisation equilibrium with the Faucher-Giguère et al. (2009) UVB is adequate for ion absorption modelling.
    Used in trident post-processing (Section 3.1); the authors note it may underestimate metal ionisation due to missing local sources.
  • domain assumption The single simulated halo is representative of the CGM-to-ICM transition in z∼3 protoclusters.
    The paper explicitly calls it a case study and notes a larger suite is needed (Sections 1, 7.3, 8).
  • domain assumption Arepo's moving-mesh hydrodynamics and the chosen resolution capture the relevant CGM/ICM multiphase physics.
    Underpins all simulated gas properties; resolution tests are shown only for Lyα, not for thermodynamic profiles.
  • domain assumption colt radiative transfer (including dust scattering and Lyα resonant scattering) correctly models the emission.
    Used for all mock emission maps (Section 3.2); results are sensitive to dust-to-metal ratio and scattering treatment.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The birth of the intracluster medium: the evolution of multiphase gas and Lyman-$\alpha$ haloes in a simulated $z\sim3$ protocluster." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSIDTNX5

@misc{pith2026260316991,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The birth of the intracluster medium: the evolution of multiphase gas and Lyman-$\alpha$ haloes in a simulated $z\sim3$ protocluster},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSIDTNX5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.16991}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Galactic haloes host a complex, multiphase circumgalactic medium (CGM), and at high redshift are fed by cold, filamentary inflows. In contrast, mature galaxy clusters are dominated by a hot, enriched, X-ray emitting intracluster medium (ICM), with cold gas largely confined to member galaxies. However, the transition between these regimes remains poorly constrained. We present a cosmological zoom-in simulation of a massive cluster progenitor evolved to $z=2.7$, with enhanced CGM resolution to better trace the accretion, mergers and feedback events that precede the birth of the ICM. We connect this evolution to mock MgII, CII, OVI and OVII absorption, tracing low and high ionisation gas phases. We also study Lyman-$\alpha$ (Ly$\alpha$) and Balmer-$\alpha$ (H$\alpha$) haloes in emission, using radiative transfer in post-processing. Between $z\sim4.4$ and $2.7$, a major merger and AGN feedback drive an inside-out transformation, redistributing gas to larger radii and flattening density, temperature and metallicity profiles. Intermediate column MgII absorbers are rapidly destroyed, leaving a clumpier cold gas distribution associated with satellites, while gas is ionised beyond OVII as the inner halo enters the X-ray regime. An extended Ly$\alpha$ halo remains detectable even without AGN photoionisation, and evolves from filamentary to more spherical as inflowing gas is disrupted. Our fiducial model underpredicts observed central Ly$\alpha$ emission - we likely require more efficient Ly$\alpha$ production in the nuclear region, either through more effective escape of stellar Ly$\alpha$ photons or through enhanced conversion of AGN-powered ionisation into Ly$\alpha$ emission. H$\alpha$ haloes are dimmer and smaller than Ly$\alpha$, but with JWST may provide a complementary probe of the evolving CGM at this critical epoch.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.16991 by Aaron Smith, Cassandra Lochhaas, Debora Sijacki, Fabrizio Arrigoni-Battaia, Jake S. Bennett, Lars Hernquist.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: — Maps of gas number density (left column), temperature (centre column) and metallicity (right column), at four redshifts z = 4.4, 3.7, 3.3, and 2.7 (from top to bottom). All maps show mass-weighted average quantities. The density maps are zoomed in further to highlight the transition from a filamentary to clumpy cool gas structure in the CGM as the halo grows. Dashed circles in all panels denote R200 [PI… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: — Radial profiles of gas fractions in different phases for the protocluster from z = 8 (purple) to z = 2.7 (yellow). The panels show the fractions for, from top to bottom, gas with temperature T < 105.5 K (including all star-forming gas), 105.5 K < T < 107 K, 107 K < T < 107.5 K, and T > 107.5 K. Coloured markers at the top and bottom of each panel show the position of R200 at each time. The gaseous halo h… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Evolution of the covering fraction of Mg ii, for col￾umn densities NMg II > 106 cm−2 (top panel), and for columns NMg II > 1011 cm−2 (bottom panel) as a function of radius. Coloured markers at the top and bottom of each panel show the position of R200 at each time. The covering fraction of Mg ii drops with time as the halo grows, with the 50 − 250 kpc range particu￾larly affected for high column densitie… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Evolution of the distribution of Mg ii column densi￾ties within 500 kpc of the forming cluster’s centre. Intermediate columns of Mg ii are gradually destroyed, while the highest columns remain unchanged, leading to a clumpier distribution dominated by satellite galaxies. 0 100 200 300 400 Projected radius [kpc] 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 fcov, log( NO vii /cm −2 ) > 14 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.7 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Evolution of the covering fraction of O vii, for columns NO VII > 1014 cm−2 , as a function of radius. Coloured markers at the top and bottom of each panel show the position of R200 at each time. Initially, the expansion of the hot halo allows O vii to be ionised at larger radii, but by the end the gas is ionised to even higher states from the inside out. time, the covering fraction sharply drops off fro… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Spatial maps of Lyα surface brightness (with no AGN ionisation), convolved with a 1 arcsecond Gaussian, at four red￾shifts z = 4.4, 3.7, 3.3, and 2.7 (from top to bottom). The left column shows observed maps, including the effects of dust atten￾uation and Lyα resonant scattering, and the right column shows intrinsic maps, showing pure emission without attenuation or scat￾tering. The size and orientation … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Radial profiles of Lyα surface brightness, corrected for the effect of cosmological dimming. Lines show median profiles of maps projected along the three axes of the simulation box—thin, dashed lines show the fiducial Fable simulation and thicker, solid lines for the high-resolution shock refined simulation. Coloured points show observational data for a few of the largest haloes in the QSOMuseum sample (… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — Radial profiles of Lyα surface brightness for different models at z = 3.3, corrected for the effect of cosmological dimming. Coloured points show observational data for a few of the largest haloes in the QSOMuseum sample (Arrigoni Battaia et al. 2019a; Gonz´alez Lobos et al. 2025). We include variations in the ionisation sources used (with and without AGN), the dust content (controlled by the dust-to-me… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: shows that deeper data leads to larger halo sizes as the fainter outskirts of the Lyα halo become detected. Higher sensitivity also leads to smaller differences with redshift—the brightest parts of the halo seem to vary 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Radius [kpc] 10−17 10−16 10−15 10−14 10−13 (1+ z) 4× SBLy α [erg s −1 cm −2 arcsec −2 ] Observed (inc. dust & resonant scattering), DTM = 0.1 Observed, wAG… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows maps of Hα, for the same snapshots and orientations as the Lyα maps in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: — Profiles of the surface brightness ratio of Lyα to Hα at four redshifts, for the ‘observed’ profiles calculated from our simulations. The horizontal grey line shows the canonical case B recombination reference value of 8.7 (Leibler et al. 2018). Lyα is significantly brighter than Hα at all radii studied. The lower ratio within ∼ 50 kpc, which is consistent with existing observations, is caused by dust a… view at source ↗

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

106 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, Phys

    Amodeo, S., Battaglia, N., Schaan, E., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 063514, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063514

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.063514 2021

  2. [2]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac928

    Anand, A., Kauffmann, G., & Nelson, D. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac928

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac928 2022

  3. [4]

    J., Kay, S

    Barnes, D. J., Kay, S. T., Bah´ e, Y. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1088, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1647

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1647 2017

  4. [5]

    S., & Sijacki, D

    Bennett, J. S., & Sijacki, D. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2835 —. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 313, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1216

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2835 2020

  5. [6]

    S., Sijacki, D., Costa, T., Laporte, N., & Witten, C

    Bennett, J. S., Sijacki, D., Costa, T., Laporte, N., & Witten, C. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1033, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3179

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3179 2024

  6. [8]

    J., et al

    Borisova, E., Cantalupo, S., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 39, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/39

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/39 2016

  7. [9]

    N., Tripp, T

    Burchett, J. N., Tripp, T. M., Wang, Q. D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3170

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3170 2018

  8. [10]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 5129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1958

    Byrohl, C., Nelson, D., Behrens, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1958

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1958 2021

  9. [11]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14

    Cai, Z., Fan, X., Yang, Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14 2017

  10. [12]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Cantalupo, S., Arrigoni-Battaia, F., Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., & Madau, P. 2014, Nature, 506, 63, doi: 10.1038/nature12898

    doi:10.1038/nature12898 2014

  11. [13]

    J., & Miniati, F

    Cantalupo, S., Porciani, C., Lilly, S. J., & Miniati, F. 2005, ApJ, 628, 61, doi: 10.1086/430758

    doi:10.1086/430758 2005

  12. [14]

    1992, ApJ, 393, 22, doi: 10.1086/171482

    Cen, R., & Ostriker, J. 1992, ApJ, 393, 22, doi: 10.1086/171482

    doi:10.1086/171482 1992

  13. [15]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R., & Gebhardt, K. 2013, ApJ, 779, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/127 2013

  14. [16]

    P., et al

    Costa, T., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Farina, E. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2432

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2432 2022

  15. [17]

    Costa, T., Sijacki, D., Trenti, M., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu101

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu101 2014

  16. [18]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 2898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2111

    Cui, W., Knebe, A., Yepes, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2111

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2111 2018

  17. [19]

    S., & White, S

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371, doi: 10.1086/163168 de Beer, S., Cantalupo, S., Travascio, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1850, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2682

    doi:10.1086/163168 1985

  18. [20]

    2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

    Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

    doi:10.1038/nature07648 2009

  19. [21]

    2014, PASA, 31, e040, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2014.33

    Dijkstra, M. 2014, PASA, 31, e040, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2014.33

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2014.33 2014

  20. [23]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 1797, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2035 ˇDurovˇ c ´ ıkov´ a, D., Eilers, A.-C., Ishikawa, Y., et al

    Dolag, K., Komatsu, E., & Sunyaev, R. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1797, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2035 ˇDurovˇ c ´ ıkov´ a, D., Eilers, A.-C., Ishikawa, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.09753, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.09753

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.09753 2016

  21. [24]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  22. [25]

    M., Shanks, T., Metcalfe, N., et al

    Eltvedt, A. M., Shanks, T., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2105, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2467

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2467 2024

  23. [26]

    P., Arrigoni-Battaia, F., Costa, T., et al

    Farina, E. P., Arrigoni-Battaia, F., Costa, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5847 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., & Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1416, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Oh, S. P. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 131, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5847 2019

  24. [27]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 49, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1302.4485 2013

  25. [28]

    K., et al

    Fossati, M., Fumagalli, M., Lofthouse, E. K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab660

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab660 2021

  26. [29]

    D., Burchett, J

    Ge, C., Wang, Q. D., Burchett, J. N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2492

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2492 2018

  27. [30]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1654 Gonz´ alez Lobos, J., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Obreja, A., et al

    Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., Springel, V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1654 Gonz´ alez Lobos, J., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Obreja, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.16898, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.16898 Gonz´ alez Lobos, J., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Chang, S.-J., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346879

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.16898 2014

  28. [31]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16566, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.16566

    Gronke, M., & Schneider, E. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16566, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.16566

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.16566 2026

  29. [32]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b7f

    Guo, Y., Maiolino, R., Jiang, L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b7f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b7f 2020

  30. [33]

    S., Sailer, N., & Zhou, R

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Farren, G. S., Sailer, N., & Zhou, R. 2025a, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 123507, doi: 10.1103/mdhz-fgj8

    doi:10.1103/mdhz-fgj8

  31. [34]

    2025b, Phys

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Ried Guachalla, B., et al. 2025b, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083509, doi: 10.1103/kclp-x5j1

    doi:10.1103/kclp-x5j1

  32. [35]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  33. [36]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1780 2018

  34. [37]

    2024, A&A, 691, A210, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450959

    Herwig, E., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Gonz´ alez Lobos, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A210, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450959

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450959 2024

  35. [38]

    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

  36. [39]

    B., Smith, B

    Hummels, C. B., Smith, B. D., & Silvia, D. W. 2017, ApJ, 847, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e2d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e2d 2017

  37. [40]

    B., Smith, B

    Hummels, C. B., Smith, B. D., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab378f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab378f 2019

  38. [41]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  39. [42]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153, doi: 10.33232/001c.145804

    Kannan, R., Puchwein, E., Smith, A., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 153, doi: 10.33232/001c.145804

    doi:10.33232/001c.145804 2025

  40. [43]

    Katz, N., Keres, D., Dave, R., & Weinberg, D. H. 2003, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 281, The IGM/Galaxy Connection. The Distribution of Baryons at z=0, ed. J. L. Rosenberg & M. E. Putman, 185 Kereˇ s, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Dav´ e, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09451.x

    arXiv 2003

  41. [44]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe89

    Kimock, B., Narayanan, D., Smith, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe89

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbe89 2021

  42. [45]

    A., Zheng, Z., Dav´ e, R., et al

    Kollmeier, J. A., Zheng, Z., Dav´ e, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1048, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1048

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/2/1048 2010

  43. [46]

    V., & Borgani, S

    Kravtsov, A. V., & Borgani, S. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 353, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502 2012

  44. [47]

    2024, A&A, 691, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451021

    Lamperti, I., Arribas, S., Perna, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451021

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451021 2024

  45. [48]

    C., et al

    Langen, V., Cantalupo, S., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3205

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3205 2023

  46. [49]

    Laursen, P., Sommer-Larsen, J., & Andersen, A. C. 2009, ApJ, 704, 1640, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1640

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/2/1640 2009

  47. [50]

    C., Hwang, H

    Lee, J. C., Hwang, H. S., & Song, H. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab637

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab637 2021

  48. [51]

    N., Cantalupo, S., Holden, B

    Leibler, C. N., Cantalupo, S., Holden, B. P., & Madau, P. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1764

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1764 2018

  49. [52]

    2024, ApJS, 275, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad812c

    Li, M., Zhang, H., Cai, Z., et al. 2024, ApJS, 275, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad812c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad812c 2024

  50. [53]

    J., Sarron, F., et al

    Li, Q., Conselice, C. J., Sarron, F., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 1796, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf543

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf543 2025

  51. [54]

    W., et al

    Lochhaas, C., Tumlinson, J., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2496

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2496 2021

  52. [55]

    F., Lira, P., et al

    Lopez, S., Barrientos, L. F., Lira, P., et al. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1144, doi: 10.1086/587678

    doi:10.1086/587678 2008

  53. [56]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 4004, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1959

    Lupi, A., Volonteri, M., Decarli, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4004, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1959

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1959 2019

  54. [57]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 2641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa812

    Mandelker, N., Nagai, D., Aung, H., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa812

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa812 2020

  55. [58]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 4233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2391

    Springel, V. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2391

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2391 2019

  56. [59]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2792 2017

  57. [60]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.13952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.13952

    McClymont, W., Smith, A., & Tacchella, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.13952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.13952

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.13952 2025

  58. [61]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b9f

    McConachie, I., Wilson, G., Forrest, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b9f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b9f 2022

  59. [62]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.21814, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.21814 Mentuch Cooper, E., Gebhardt, K., Davis, D., et al

    Medlock, I., Nagai, D., Mandelker, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.21814, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.21814 Mentuch Cooper, E., Gebhardt, K., Davis, D., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.06410, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.06410

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21814 2025

  60. [63]

    2020, A&A, 635, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834961

    Michel-Dansac, L., Blaizot, J., Garel, T., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834961

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834961 2020

  61. [64]

    2024, A&A, 686, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348608

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Ayromlou, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348608

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348608 2024

  62. [65]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2306 2019

  63. [66]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 2135, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1313

    Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., Gilli, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2135, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1313

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1313 2020

  64. [67]

    V., & Buck, T

    Obreja, A., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Macci` o, A. V., & Buck, T. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8078, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3410

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3410 2024

  65. [68]

    Overzier, R. A. 2016, A&A Rev., 24, 14, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3

    doi:10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3 2016

  66. [69]

    P., et al

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V., Coles, J. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3620 17

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3620 2023

  67. [70]

    C., Alarcon, A., et al

    Pandey, S., Hill, J. C., Alarcon, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.07432, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.07432

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.07432 2025

  68. [71]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 2019

  69. [72]

    2025, A&A, 694, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452610

    Peng, B., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Vishwas, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452610

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452610 2025

  70. [73]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration et al

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2338 2019

  71. [74]

    X., Werk, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Werk, J. K., Worseck, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6007

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6007 2017

  72. [75]

    H., Raiˇ cevi´ c, M., & Schaye, J

    Rahmati, A., Pawlik, A. H., Raiˇ cevi´ c, M., & Schaye, J. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2427, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt066

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt066 2013

  73. [76]

    T., Borgani, S., et al

    Rasia, E., Lau, E. T., Borgani, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 791, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/96

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/2/96 2014

  74. [77]

    T., Strauss, M

    Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., Fan, X., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2766, doi: 10.1086/503559

    doi:10.1086/503559 2006

  75. [78]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 1226, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2536

    Rohr, E., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1226, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2536

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2536 2025

  76. [79]

    2024, A&A, 686, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348583

    Rohr, E., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Ayromlou, M., & Zinger, E. 2024, A&A, 686, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348583

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348583 2024

  77. [80]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 3992, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2386

    Schaal, K., & Springel, V. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3992, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2386

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2386 2015

  78. [81]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2419

    Schaye, J., Kugel, R., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2419

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2419 2023

  79. [82]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Shen, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1381

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1381 2020

  80. [83]

    A., Oguri, M., et al

    Shen, Y., Strauss, M. A., Oguri, M., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 2222, doi: 10.1086/513517

    doi:10.1086/513517 2007

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.