pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06977 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: no theorem link

Galaxy discs regulate the growth of supermassive black holes

Ryan J. Roberts , Jonathan J. Davies , Robert A. Crain
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords supermassive black holesgalaxy morphologydisc galaxieselliptical galaxieshalo binding energygalaxy mergersblack hole accretionangular momentum transport
0
0 comments X

The pith

Present-day galaxy discs inhibit rapid growth of their central supermassive black holes by preserving rotational support in the central gas.

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

The paper analyzes relations between supermassive black hole mass and host galaxy properties in a large hydrodynamical simulation. It finds that black hole masses correlate more tightly with the binding energy of the dark matter halo than with halo mass alone, and that scatter in these relations depends on whether the galaxy is disc-dominated or elliptical. In galaxies that remain disc-dominated, central gas retains strong rotation as the galaxy assembles, which prevents efficient inward transport and limits black hole accretion. In contrast, galaxies that become ellipticals undergo interactions that disrupt this rotation, allowing gas to reach the black hole and drive faster growth. This mechanism accounts for the observed morphological dependence of the black hole mass-stellar mass relation.

Core claim

Gas in the central few parsecs of galaxies with present-day discs retains strong rotational support as the galaxy grows, inhibiting inward transport and precluding periods of rapid SMBH growth by gas accretion. In galaxies destined to be present-day ellipticals, however, this rotational support is disrupted by galaxy-galaxy interactions and mergers, enabling gas to be funnelled onto the central SMBH and triggering rapid growth. The mass of the black hole correlates tightly with halo binding energy, with morphology explaining much of the scatter.

What carries the argument

The preservation or disruption of rotational support in the central gas, which governs angular momentum transport and regulates accretion onto the supermassive black hole.

If this is right

  • Black hole mass shows a tighter correlation with halo binding energy than with halo mass.
  • At fixed stellar mass, disc-dominated galaxies host less massive black holes than elliptical galaxies.
  • Merger history determines whether rotational support is disrupted, enabling rapid black hole growth.
  • Secular evolution without major mergers keeps central black holes from growing rapidly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • High-resolution observations of gas kinematics in galaxy centers could directly test whether disc galaxies maintain higher rotational support than ellipticals.
  • The mechanism implies that black hole growth is more tied to dynamical disturbances than to overall galaxy mass.
  • This could help explain the diversity of black hole masses in galaxies of similar mass but different morphologies.
  • Extending the analysis to higher redshifts might reveal when the morphological differences in black hole growth set in.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation's prescriptions for unresolved processes like star formation, feedback, and black hole accretion accurately model angular momentum transport and the effects of mergers on small scales.

What would settle it

Finding that central gas in present-day disc galaxies shows similar levels of rotational support disruption as in elliptical galaxies would contradict the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06977 by Jonathan J. Davies, Robert A. Crain, Ryan J. Roberts.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The running median present-day SMBH mass, as a function of galaxy stellar mass, for all early-type (red curve) and late-type (blue curve) simulated galaxies with 𝑀★ > 109.5 M⊙, differentiated using a threshold of 𝜅co,★ = 0.4 (see text for further details). Shaded regions correspond to the interquartile range. Symbols with error bars denote the compilation of observational measurements by Graham & Sahu (202… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The running median (solid curve) and IQR (dashed curves) of the SMBH mass of present-day central galaxies in EAGLE as a function of their halo binding energy. The curves are overlaid on hexbins whose colour encodes the mean value of the residual of 𝜅co,★ with respect to its running median as a function of the halo binding energy. The colouring highlights the strong anti-correlation, at fixed halo binding e… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the median SMBH mass (𝑀BH, upper panel), co￾rotational stellar kinetic energy fraction (𝜅co,★, centre panel), co-rotational kinetic energy fraction for gas in the inner 3 kpc (𝜅co,gas, lower panel, solid curves, left 𝑦-axis), and stellar ex-situ fraction ( 𝑓ex−situ, lower panel, dotted curves, right 𝑦-axis) for galaxies within the halo binding energy window over which the influence of morpholo… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We examine the relationship between the mass of present-day central supermassive black holes (SMBHs, $M_{\rm BH}$), and the stellar mass ($M_{\star}$) and halo mass ($M_{200}$) of their host galaxies in the EAGLE simulation, and find that scatter about these relations correlates with both halo structure and galaxy morphology. EAGLE reproduces the observed $M_{\rm BH}$-$M_{\star}$ relation, including (qualitatively) its dependence on morphology: at fixed $M_{\star}$, disc-dominated galaxies host less massive SMBHs than ellipticals. We show that $M_{\rm BH}$ correlates with $M_{200}$, as expected if SMBHs are regulated by processes acting on the scale of the host dark matter halo, but exhibits a tighter correlation with the halo binding energy ($E_{\rm bind}$), signalling that this quantity, which encodes information about both halo mass and halo structure, is more fundamental to $M_{\rm BH}$. As with $M_{\rm BH}$-$M_{\star}$, scatter about the $M_{\rm BH}$-$E_{\rm bind}$ relation is strongly correlated with morphology. Gas in the central few parsecs of galaxies with present-day discs retains strong rotational support as the galaxy grows, inhibiting inward transport and precluding periods of rapid SMBH growth by gas accretion. In galaxies destined to be present-day ellipticals, however, this rotational support is disrupted, enabling gas to be funnelled onto the central SMBH, triggering rapid growth. Evolution of the mass fraction of stars formed ex-situ indicates that this disruption is caused by galaxy-galaxy interactions and mergers. Our findings corroborate the conclusion of recent studies, based on controlled simulations of an ~$L^{\star}$ galaxy, that prolonged secular galaxy evolution inhibits central SMBH growth.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses the EAGLE cosmological simulation to examine the M_BH-M_star and M_BH-M_200 relations, finding that scatter correlates with galaxy morphology and halo structure. At fixed stellar mass, disc-dominated galaxies host lower-mass SMBHs than ellipticals. The authors attribute this to gas in the central few parsecs of disc galaxies retaining strong rotational support (inhibiting accretion), while mergers disrupt this support in galaxies that become ellipticals, enabling rapid BH growth. They report a tighter correlation of M_BH with halo binding energy E_bind than with M_200 or M_star, and link the mechanism to ex-situ star fractions indicating merger-driven angular-momentum redistribution.

Significance. If the causal interpretation holds, the result strengthens the case that prolonged secular evolution in disc galaxies suppresses SMBH growth via angular-momentum barriers, while mergers enable it, providing a simulation-based link between morphology and the M_BH-M_star relation that aligns with controlled high-resolution studies of individual galaxies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; implied methods and results sections on gas angular momentum tracking] The central mechanistic claim (gas in the central few parsecs retains rotational support in disc galaxies but is disrupted in ellipticals) is inferred from correlations with present-day morphology and ex-situ star fraction, yet the EAGLE gravitational softening (~0.7 kpc) and gas resolution mean the central few parsecs are unresolved. The sub-grid BH accretion (modified Bondi-Hoyle) does not explicitly incorporate an angular-momentum barrier or torque-limited transport, so it is unclear whether the simulation actually demonstrates the proposed inhibition of inflow or whether the result is an artifact of how the sub-grid model responds to large-scale rotation.
  2. [Results on M_BH-E_bind relation] The tighter M_BH-E_bind correlation is presented as evidence that binding energy is more fundamental than M_200, but the paper does not show whether this holds after controlling for the morphology dependence already identified, nor does it test whether E_bind simply encodes the same merger history information as the ex-situ fraction.
  3. [Discussion of ex-situ stars and merger disruption] The morphological split is defined at z=0 and then used to interpret the entire growth history; without an explicit test (e.g., tracking the time evolution of central gas specific angular momentum separately for the two populations), the causal direction (morphology regulates BH growth vs. BH growth influences morphology) remains ambiguous.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the central-few-parsecs claim without qualifying the resolution limit; a brief caveat would improve clarity.
  2. [Figures showing gas rotation or accretion rates] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the gravitational softening length and gas particle mass when discussing central gas properties.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have prompted us to clarify several aspects of our analysis and interpretation. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating revisions made to the manuscript where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central mechanistic claim (gas in the central few parsecs retains rotational support in disc galaxies but is disrupted in ellipticals) is inferred from correlations with present-day morphology and ex-situ star fraction, yet the EAGLE gravitational softening (~0.7 kpc) and gas resolution mean the central few parsecs are unresolved. The sub-grid BH accretion (modified Bondi-Hoyle) does not explicitly incorporate an angular-momentum barrier or torque-limited transport, so it is unclear whether the simulation actually demonstrates the proposed inhibition of inflow or whether the result is an artifact of how the sub-grid model responds to large-scale rotation.

    Authors: We agree that EAGLE does not resolve the central few parsecs and that the modified Bondi-Hoyle sub-grid accretion model lacks an explicit angular-momentum barrier. Our mechanistic interpretation is therefore based on emergent correlations between resolved-scale gas properties, morphology, ex-situ fractions, and BH growth. These correlations reproduce the observed M_BH-M_star relation and its morphology dependence, and align with results from higher-resolution controlled simulations cited in the paper. We have added a new paragraph in the methods and discussion sections explicitly acknowledging the resolution limits and sub-grid assumptions, stating that our conclusions rest on these correlations rather than direct pc-scale modeling, to clarify that the result is not presented as a direct demonstration of the barrier. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The tighter M_BH-E_bind correlation is presented as evidence that binding energy is more fundamental than M_200, but the paper does not show whether this holds after controlling for the morphology dependence already identified, nor does it test whether E_bind simply encodes the same merger history information as the ex-situ fraction.

    Authors: We have carried out additional analysis to test this. After controlling for morphology (via residuals at fixed morphological type), the M_BH-E_bind relation remains tighter than M_BH-M_200. We also performed a partial correlation analysis showing that E_bind retains explanatory power for M_BH beyond what is captured by ex-situ fraction alone, although the two quantities are correlated as expected from merger history. We have added this controlled analysis, including a new figure, to the results section. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The morphological split is defined at z=0 and then used to interpret the entire growth history; without an explicit test (e.g., tracking the time evolution of central gas specific angular momentum separately for the two populations), the causal direction (morphology regulates BH growth vs. BH growth influences morphology) remains ambiguous.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a z=0 morphological classification requires care when inferring causality over cosmic time. The evolution of the ex-situ star fraction provides a temporal proxy, as its increases coincide with merger events that we link to the disruption of rotational support and subsequent BH growth. This timing supports mergers as the driver rather than the reverse. We have revised the discussion to more explicitly address this potential ambiguity and to justify the use of ex-situ evolution as evidence for the causal direction. Direct tracking of central gas specific angular momentum over time for the two populations was not performed here but would be a natural extension. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: relations measured directly from simulation outputs

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain consists of direct measurements of correlations (M_BH-M_star, M_BH-M_200, tighter M_BH-E_bind, and morphology scatter) extracted from EAGLE simulation snapshots, followed by inspection of auxiliary diagnostics such as central gas rotational support and ex-situ star fractions. These steps do not reduce any claimed result to its inputs by construction, nor do they involve fitted parameters redefined as predictions, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations. The mechanistic narrative is an interpretation of independent simulation fields rather than a tautological renaming or ansatz smuggling. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks in the sense that its primary claims are empirical outputs of the run.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the EAGLE simulation's sub-grid models for gas cooling, star formation, stellar and AGN feedback, and black-hole accretion. No new free parameters are introduced in the analysis itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption EAGLE sub-grid prescriptions correctly capture angular-momentum transport and merger-driven dynamical heating on unresolved scales
    Invoked when interpreting central gas kinematics and the effect of mergers on rotational support

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5639 in / 1418 out tokens · 47726 ms · 2026-05-10T18:15:17.945081+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

91 extracted references · 90 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Appleby S., Dav \'e R., Kraljic K., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Narayanan D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.6053A 494, 6053

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1169 2020

  2. [2]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1339 , archiveprefix =

    Bah \'e Y. M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1339 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516..167B 516, 167

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1339 2022

  3. [3]

    Bondi H., Hoyle F., 1944, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1944MNRAS.104..273B 104, 273

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/104.5.273 1944

  4. [4]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 1670, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15794.x

    Booth C. M., Schaye J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15043.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398...53B 398, 53

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

  5. [5]

    2010 , month = jul, journal =

    Booth C. M., Schaye J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00832.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.405L...1B 405, L1

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00832.x 2010

  6. [6]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Bower R. G., Benson A. J., Malbon R., Helly J. C., Frenk C. S., Baugh C. M., Cole S., Lacey C. G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..645B 370, 645

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

  7. [7]

    G., Schaye J., Frenk C

    Bower R. G., Schaye J., Frenk C. S., Theuns T., Schaller M., Crain R. A., McAlpine S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465...32B 465, 32

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2735 2017

  8. [8]

    H., Ellison S

    Byrne-Mamahit S., Hani M. H., Ellison S. L., Quai S., Patton D. R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.4966B 519, 4966

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3674 2023

  9. [9]

    R., Ellison S

    Byrne-Mamahit S., Patton D. R., Ellison S. L., Bickley R., Ferreira L., Hani M., Quai S., Wilkinson S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.5864B 528, 5864

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae419 2024

  10. [10]

    L., Patton D

    Byrne-Mamahit S., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Wilkinson S., Ferreira L., Bottrell C., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.544.1673B 544, 1673

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1765 2025

  11. [11]

    G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3994C 478, 3994

    Clauwens B., Schaye J., Franx M., Bower R. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3994C 478, 3994

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1229 2018

  12. [12]

    S., 1979, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 829

    Cleveland W. S., 1979, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 829

    1979

  13. [13]

    A., Schaye J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.3578C 499, 3578

    Correa C. A., Schaye J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.3578C 499, 3578

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3053 2020

  14. [14]

    A., Schaye J., Clauwens B., Bower R

    Correa C. A., Schaye J., Clauwens B., Bower R. G., Crain R. A., Schaller M., Theuns T., Thob A. C. R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472L..45C 472, L45

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx133 2017

  15. [15]

    A., van de Voort F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..473C 61, 473

    Crain R. A., van de Voort F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..473C 61, 473

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

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    Crain R. A., McCarthy I. G., Frenk C. S., Theuns T., Schaye J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16985.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.407.1403C 407, 1403

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16985.x 2010

  17. [17]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain R. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1937C 450, 1937

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv725 2015

  18. [18]

    Theevolutionofbinaryfractionsinglobularclusters,

    Croton D. J., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365...11C 365, 11

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

  19. [19]

    Simba: Cosmological Simulations with Black Hole Growth and Feedback

    Dav \'e R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Narayanan D., Li Q., Rafieferantsoa M. H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2827D 486, 2827

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

  20. [20]

    J., Crain R

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz635 2019

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3201 2020

  22. [22]

    J., Pontzen A., Crain R

    Davies J. J., Pontzen A., Crain R. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1742 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.1430D 515, 1430

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1742 2022

  23. [23]

    J., Pontzen A., Crain R

    Davies J. J., Pontzen A., Crain R. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3456 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.4705D 527, 4705

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3456 2024

  24. [24]

    Di Matteo T., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.433..604D 433, 604

    work page Pith review doi:10.1038/nature03335 2005

  25. [25]

    M., Belokurov V., Font A

    Dillamore A. M., Belokurov V., Font A. S., McCarthy I. G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1867D 513, 1867

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1038 2022

  26. [26]

    Dolag K., Borgani S., Murante G., Springel V., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15034.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399..497D 399, 497

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15034.x 2009

  27. [27]

    G., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...378..496D 378, 496

    Dubinski J., Carlberg R. G., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...378..496D 378, 496

    work page doi:10.1086/170451 1991

  28. [28]

    Dubois Y., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1227 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1453D 444, 1453

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1227 2014

  29. [29]

    Dubois Y., Volonteri M., Silk J., Devriendt J., Slyz A., Teyssier R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1416 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.1502D 452, 1502

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1416 2015

  30. [30]

    L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517L..92E 517, L92

    Ellison S. L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517L..92E 517, L92

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac109 2022

  31. [31]

    Ellison S., et al., 2025, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.129235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025OJAp....8E..12E 8, 12

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.129235 2025

  32. [32]

    Ferrarese L., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342308 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...578...90F 578, 90

    work page doi:10.1086/342308 2002

  33. [33]

    Ferrarese L., Merritt D., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539L...9F 539, L9

    work page doi:10.1086/312838 2000

  34. [34]

    Gebhardt K., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539L..13G 539, L13

    work page doi:10.1086/312840 2000

  35. [35]

    W., Sahu N., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2177G 518, 2177

    Graham A. W., Sahu N., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2177G 518, 2177

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2019 2023

  36. [36]

    2004 , month =

    Granato G. L., De Zotti G., Silva L., Bressan A., Danese L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379875 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...600..580G 600, 580

    work page doi:10.1086/379875 2004

  37. [37]

    Habouzit M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab496 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.1940H 503, 1940

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab496 2021

  38. [38]

    H \"a ring N., Rix H.-W., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...604L..89H 604, L89

    work page doi:10.1086/383567 2004

  39. [39]

    The FABLE simulations: A feedback model for galaxies, groups and clusters

    Henden N. A., Puchwein E., Shen S., Sijacki D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1780 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.5385H 479, 5385

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

  40. [40]

    Henriques B. M. B., White S. D. M., Thomas P. A., Angulo R., Guo Q., Lemson G., Springel V., Overzier R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2663H 451, 2663

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv705 2015

  41. [41]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., Robertson B., Springel V., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..163....1H 163, 1

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/499298 2006

  42. [42]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 1670, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15794.x

    Hopkins P. F., Younger J. D., Hayward C. C., Narayanan D., Hernquist L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15990.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402.1693H 402, 1693

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15990.x 2010

  43. [43]

    V., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...92J 734, 92

    Jahnke K., Macci \`o A. V., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...92J 734, 92

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/2/92 2011

  44. [44]

    C., Cole S., Frenk C

    Jiang L., Helly J. C., Cole S., Frenk C. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu390 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.2115J 440, 2115

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu390 2014

  45. [45]

    Coevolution (Or Not) of Supermassive Black Holes and Host Galaxies

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..511K 51, 511

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  46. [46]

    Kormendy J., Richstone D., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ARA&A..33..581K 33, 581

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 1995

  47. [47]

    arXiv:2503.15317

    La Marca A., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15317 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250315317E p. arXiv:2503.15317

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.15317 2025

  48. [48]

    Li Y., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895..102L 895, 102

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f8d 2020

  49. [49]

    Magorrian J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....115.2285M 115, 2285

    work page doi:10.1086/300353 1998

  50. [50]

    K., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...589L..21M 589, L21

    Marconi A., Hunt L. K., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...589L..21M 589, L21

    work page doi:10.1086/375804 2003

  51. [51]

    A., Schaller M., Bower R., Theuns T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2381M 465, 2381

    Matthee J., Schaye J., Crain R. A., Schaller M., Bower R., Theuns T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2381M 465, 2381

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2884 2017

  52. [52]

    McAlpine S., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.02.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&C....15...72M 15, 72

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2016.02.004 2016

  53. [53]

    G., Rosario D

    McAlpine S., Bower R. G., Rosario D. J., Crain R. A., Schaye J., Theuns T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2489 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.3118M 481, 3118

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2489 2018

  54. [54]

    M., Rosario D

    McAlpine S., Harrison C. M., Rosario D. J., Alexander D. M., Ellison S. L., Johansson P. H., Patton D. R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.5713M 494, 5713

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1123 2020

  55. [55]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell N. J., Ma C.-P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..184M 764, 184

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/184 2013

  56. [56]

    C., Hernquist L., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187299 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...425L..13M 425, L13

    Mihos J. C., Hernquist L., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187299 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...425L..13M 425, L13

    work page doi:10.1086/187299 1994

  57. [57]

    Mountrichas G., Buat V., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A.151M 679, A151

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347392 2023

  58. [58]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...462..563N 462, 563

    work page doi:10.1086/177173 1996

  59. [59]

    , year = 1997, month = dec, volume = 490, pages =

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490..493N 490, 493

    work page doi:10.1086/304888 1997

  60. [60]

    Nelson D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..624N 475, 624

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3040 2018

  61. [61]

    , keywords =

    Neto A. F., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12381.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.381.1450N 381, 1450

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12381.x 2007

  62. [62]

    D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.2939O 491, 2939

    Oppenheimer B. D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.2939O 491, 2939

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3124 2020

  63. [63]

    K., Bekki K., Couch W

    Pfeffer J., Cavanagh M. K., Bekki K., Couch W. J., Drinkwater M. J., Forbes D. A., Koribalski B. S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3466 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.5260P 518, 5260

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3466 2023

  64. [64]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..648P 475, 648

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3112 2018

  65. [65]

    V., Saintonge A., Volonteri M., Quinn T., Governato F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2627 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465..547P 465, 547

    Pontzen A., Tremmel M., Roth N., Peiris H. V., Saintonge A., Volonteri M., Quinn T., Governato F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2627 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465..547P 465, 547

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2627 2017

  66. [66]

    Qu Y., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2437 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.1659Q 464, 1659

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2437 2017

  67. [67]

    P., Pontzen A., Saintonge A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz552 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.1906R 485, 1906

    Rey M. P., Pontzen A., Saintonge A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz552 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.1906R 485, 1906

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz552 2019

  68. [68]

    S., Cox T

    Robertson B., Bullock J. S., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., Hernquist L., Springel V., Yoshida N., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...645..986R 645, 986

    work page doi:10.1086/504412 2006

  69. [69]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.1038R 454, 1038

    Rosas-Guevara Y. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.1038R 454, 1038

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2056 2015

  70. [70]

    V., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455..974R 455, 974

    Roth N., Pontzen A., Peiris H. V., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455..974R 455, 974

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2375 2016

  71. [71]

    Schaller M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.1247S 451, 1247

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1067 2015

  72. [72]

    Schaye J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16029.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402.1536S 402, 1536

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16029.x 2010

  73. [73]

    Schaye J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446..521S 446, 521

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2058 2015

  74. [74]

    The COLIBRE project: cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of galaxy formation and evolution

    Schaye J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21126 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250821126S p. arXiv:2508.21126

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.21126 2025

  75. [75]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    Silk J., Rees M. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9801013 1998

  76. [76]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52710855S 527, 10855

    Smethurst R. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52710855S 527, 10855

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1794 2024

  77. [77]

    Soltan A., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/200.1.115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982MNRAS.200..115S 200, 115

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/200.1.115 1982

  78. [78]

    Springel V., White S. D. M., Tormen G., Kauffmann G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328..726S 328, 726

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x 2001

  79. [79]

    Springel V., Di Matteo T., Hernquist L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.361..776S 361, 776

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x 2005

  80. [80]

    R., Bullock J

    Stewart K. R., Bullock J. S., Wechsler R. H., Maller A. H., Zentner A. R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...683..597S 683, 597

    work page doi:10.1086/588579 2008

Showing first 80 references.