pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27047 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Beyond Cloud-9: The case for discovering more HI-rich failed halos

Jorge Moreno , Coral Wheeler , Francisco J. Mercado , M. Katy Rodriguez Wimberly , Pratik J. Gandhi , Jenna Samuel , Robert Feldmann , James S. Bullock
show 2 more authors
Andrew Wetzel Michael Boylan-Kolchin
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 09:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords failed halosHI-rich halosstarless haloscosmological simulationsdark matter21cm observationslocal universe
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations predict more HI-rich starless halos can be found by searching the HI-poor regime in the local universe.

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

The paper examines HI-rich failed halos at redshift zero in simulations including FIREbox, NIVARIA-LG, and Recal-EAGLE. It compares them to Cloud-9, the purported first discovery of a starless HI-rich halo, and argues that observed differences likely result from environmental factors and the modeling of gas self-shielding. This comparison also shows that the failed halos occupy different areas in the plane of HI mass, gas mass, and halo mass across the simulations. The authors predict that additional such halos are more likely to be discovered by exploring HI-poor regions locally instead of HI-rich ones at high redshift, and call for resources to search and characterize them with follow-up observations.

Core claim

We find that HI-rich failed halos in the simulations span different regions of the M_HI-M_gas-M_200 plane, with FIREbox objects in a narrow regime, NIVARIA-LG extending to wider M_200 and higher masses, and Recal-EAGLE having similar HI but lower gas and halo masses. Differences with Cloud-9 may be driven by environmental factors and gas self-shielding, which could limit analytic schemes to infer dark matter halo information from 21 cm HI observations. We predict that more HI-rich starless halos can be discovered by exploring the HI-poor regime in the local universe rather than HI-rich populations at high redshift.

What carries the argument

The HI-rich failed halo, defined as a dark matter halo without stars but containing significant neutral hydrogen, acts as the central object whose properties in simulations are used to assess discovery prospects and limitations of current observation methods.

Load-bearing premise

The premise that differences between the simulated HI-rich failed halos and Cloud-9 are caused by environmental factors or gas self-shielding rather than other simulation limitations.

What would settle it

Detection or non-detection of additional HI-rich starless halos in a targeted survey of the local HI-poor regime, or confirmation via spectroscopy that Cloud-9 lacks a stellar component and is isolated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27047 by Andrew Wetzel, Coral Wheeler, Francisco J. Mercado, James S. Bullock, Jenna Samuel, Jorge Moreno, Michael Boylan-Kolchin, M. Katy Rodriguez Wimberly, Pratik J. Gandhi, Robert Feldmann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The mass content of failed halos. Left: HI-gas mass (MHI) versus halo mass (M200). FIREbox objects are color-coded by total gas mass (Mgas) and are split into two samples, HI-poor objects (small gray-edged circles) and HI-rich objects (large black-edged circles). The horizontal dashed-gray line at MHI = 106M⊙ demarcates these two populations. The orange diamond denotes estimates for Cloud-9’s halo mass (A.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Temperature-density phase diagram of our fidu￾cial Cloud-9 analog in FIREbox. Symbols correspond to gas particles, and are color coded by halo-centric distance. The brown band spans the 16th–84th percentiles of the HI-rich failed halos in F. Turini & A. Benitez-Llambay (2026), a cosmological simulations based on the Recal-EA￾GLE physics model. The brown solid line represents the A. Ben´ıtez-Llambay et al. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: Spherically averaged 3D density profiles (out to R200) of our fiducial Cloud-9 analog in FIREbox: dark matter (violet), gas (cyan), and HI-gas (blue). Bot￾tom: Projected 2D HI column density profile for the two Cloud-9 analogs from FIREbox (blue) and NIVARIA-LG (red), set at Cloud-9’s distance (4.41 Mpc, G. S. Anand et al. 2021). Solid lines indicate intrinsic profiles, while dashed lines represent pr… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative number density of HI-rich (blue) and all gaseous (HI-rich plus HI-poor, black) failed halos in FIREbox versus redshift. We demarcate the HI-rich and HI-poor populations at MHI = 106M⊙. 107M⊙ in HI and 50% with Mgas > 2 × 108M⊙, ex￾ceeding the most gaseous systems in the other two sim￾ulations. Lastly, 25% of the NIVARIA-LG sample have M200 < 2 × 109M⊙, slightly below the Recal-EAGLE population, … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

HI-rich starless halos, should they exist, hold great promise for elucidating properties of dark matter halos. This Letter examines the properties of HI-rich failed halos at redshift zero across state-of-the-art cosmological simulations (FIREbox, NIVARIA-LG and Recal-EAGLE). First we compare two numerical analogs with Cloud-9, purported to be the first discovery of a starless HI-rich halo. We argue that differences may be driven by environmental factors, and/or the treatment of gas self-shielding -- which might further limit existing analytic schemes aimed at inferring dark matter halo information from 21 cm HI observations. We also find that the failed halo samples in the three simulations span different regions of the HI-gas-halo mass ($M_{\rm HI}-M_{\rm gas}-M_{\rm 200}$) plane. FIREbox objects occupy a very narrow regime, while NIVARIA-LG extends to a wider range of $M_{\rm 200}$ values - and achieves higher $M_{\rm HI}$ and $M_{\rm gas}$ values. Recal-EAGLE $M_{\rm HI}$ values are similar to FIREbox, albeit with lower gas and halo masses. Lastly, we predict that more HI-rich starless halos can be discovered by exploring the HI-poor regime in the local universe, rather than HI-rich populations at high redshift. Overall, we advocate for the allocation of resources to detect and characterize other HI-rich (and HI-poor) failed halos in the local universe, plus dedicated follow-up spectroscopic observations that scrutinize claims to the absence of a faint stellar component, and that assess their isolation status in detail.

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. This Letter analyzes HI-rich failed (starless) halos at z=0 in three cosmological simulations (FIREbox, NIVARIA-LG, Recal-EAGLE). It compares numerical analogs to Cloud-9, attributes differences to environment or gas self-shielding (which may limit analytic HI-to-halo inferences), shows that the three simulations populate non-overlapping regions of the M_HI-M_gas-M_200 plane, and predicts that more HI-rich starless halos will be discovered by targeting the HI-poor regime locally rather than HI-rich populations at high redshift. The authors advocate for dedicated local-universe observations and spectroscopic follow-up to confirm isolation and absence of faint stars.

Significance. If the central prediction holds, the work would usefully redirect observational strategy toward local HI-poor regimes for discovering dark-matter-halo candidates and would highlight limitations of existing analytic schemes that infer halo properties from 21 cm data. The multi-simulation comparison is a positive feature, but the absence of convergence among the three suites on the location of failed halos in parameter space weakens the grounding of the forward-looking claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / comparison section] Abstract and the section comparing simulations to Cloud-9: the statement that differences 'may be driven by environmental factors, and/or the treatment of gas self-shielding' is presented without any quantitative test (matched volumes, resolution series, or explicit variation of the self-shielding threshold). This claim is load-bearing for the secondary assertion that such differences 'might further limit existing analytic schemes'.
  2. [M_HI-M_gas-M_200 plane analysis] The section on the M_HI-M_gas-M_200 plane: the three simulations place their failed-halo samples in non-overlapping regions (FIREbox confined to a narrow strip; NIVARIA-LG extending to higher M_200 and M_HI; Recal-EAGLE at lower M_gas and M_200 while matching FIREbox M_HI). No convergence test or anchoring to observations is provided to establish which placement is closer to reality or whether the HI-poor end is preferentially populated once physics is fixed. This directly undermines the robustness of the central prediction that observers should target the HI-poor regime locally.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract provides no quantitative error bars, sample sizes, or explicit selection criteria for the HI-rich starless objects, making it difficult to judge the statistical significance of the reported differences across simulations.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly distinguish the three simulation samples and indicate the region occupied by each in the mass plane.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. We address the two major comments point by point below, providing clarifications and noting revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / comparison section] Abstract and the section comparing simulations to Cloud-9: the statement that differences 'may be driven by environmental factors, and/or the treatment of gas self-shielding' is presented without any quantitative test (matched volumes, resolution series, or explicit variation of the self-shielding threshold). This claim is load-bearing for the secondary assertion that such differences 'might further limit existing analytic schemes'.

    Authors: We agree that the original phrasing was qualitative and would benefit from greater precision. The three simulations differ in volume, resolution, and subgrid physics, including distinct implementations of self-shielding (e.g., varying density thresholds and UV background treatments). In the revised manuscript we have added a short paragraph in the comparison section that explicitly lists these differences in the simulation setups and frames the environmental and self-shielding factors as plausible contributors to the observed discrepancies, while removing the stronger claim that they 'might further limit' analytic schemes. The revised text now states only that such differences 'could introduce additional uncertainties' not captured by single-simulation analytic models. This preserves the core observation that multi-simulation comparisons reveal modeling sensitivities while acknowledging the absence of a controlled quantitative test. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [M_HI-M_gas-M_200 plane analysis] The section on the M_HI-M_gas-M_200 plane: the three simulations place their failed-halo samples in non-overlapping regions (FIREbox confined to a narrow strip; NIVARIA-LG extending to higher M_200 and M_HI; Recal-EAGLE at lower M_gas and M_200 while matching FIREbox M_HI). No convergence test or anchoring to observations is provided to establish which placement is closer to reality or whether the HI-poor end is preferentially populated once physics is fixed. This directly undermines the robustness of the central prediction that observers should target the HI-poor regime locally.

    Authors: The non-overlapping regions are intentionally highlighted to illustrate the sensitivity of failed-halo properties to simulation-specific physics and environments. We do not assert that any single simulation is definitive; rather, the spread indicates that the location of HI-rich failed halos remains uncertain. Our forward-looking prediction is therefore not that the HI-poor regime is guaranteed to be the correct target, but that local observations across a range of environments (including lower-M_gas regimes populated by Recal-EAGLE) offer a practical way to test the models empirically, in contrast to focusing exclusively on high-redshift HI-rich systems. We have added a new paragraph in the discussion section that explicitly acknowledges the lack of convergence, notes the current absence of observational anchors (given that confirmed HI-rich failed halos remain rare), and calls for future standardized cross-simulation comparisons. This addition strengthens the manuscript by making the limitations transparent while retaining the recommendation for dedicated local-universe searches. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: prediction follows from independent simulation comparisons

full rationale

The paper derives its central prediction—that more HI-rich starless halos may be found by targeting the HI-poor regime locally—directly from the placement of failed-halo samples in the M_HI-M_gas-M_200 plane across three distinct simulation suites (FIREbox, NIVARIA-LG, Recal-EAGLE) contrasted with the Cloud-9 candidate. Differences are attributed to environment or self-shielding without any equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation reducing the claim to a tautology. No self-definitional loops, fitted-input predictions, or imported uniqueness theorems appear; the argument remains a forward observational suggestion grounded in external numerical realizations rather than internal redefinition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the three named simulations faithfully capture the relevant gas physics and that Cloud-9 is a valid observational analog; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced by the authors.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard Lambda-CDM cosmology and the sub-grid physics prescriptions of the three simulations accurately represent real halo gas evolution
    Invoked when interpreting differences between FIREbox, NIVARIA-LG, Recal-EAGLE and Cloud-9 as physically meaningful.
  • domain assumption Cloud-9 is an isolated HI-rich starless halo with no undetected faint stellar component
    Used as the benchmark object for all comparisons.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5646 in / 1475 out tokens · 67563 ms · 2026-05-07T09:27:20.177708+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

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    S., Benítez-Llambay, A., Beaton, R., et al

    Anand, G. S., Ben´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Beaton, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.20157, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.20157

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.20157 2025

  2. [2]

    S., Rizzi, L., Tully, R

    Anand, G. S., Rizzi, L., Tully, R. B., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0440

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac0440 2021

  3. [3]

    and Conroy, Charlie and Wechsler, Risa H

    Behroozi, P. S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R. H. 2010, ApJ, 717, 379, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/379

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/1/379 2010

  4. [4]

    A., Sales, L

    Benavides, J. A., Sales, L. V., Abadi, M. G., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1255, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01458-1 Ben´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Dutta, R., Fumagalli, M., & Navarro, J. F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.18643, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.18643

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01458-1 2021

  5. [5]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2698

    Benitez-Llambay, A., & Frenk, C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2698

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2698 2020

  6. [6]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3006

    Benitez-Llambay, A., & Fumagalli, M. 2021, ApJL, 921, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3006

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac3006 2021

  7. [7]

    Benitez-Llambay, A., & Navarro, J. F. 2023, ApJ, 956, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf767 Ben´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2982

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf767 2023

  8. [8]

    D., Geha, M

    Bradford, J. D., Geha, M. C., & Blanton, M. R. 2015, ApJ, 809, 146, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/146

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/2/146 2015

  9. [9]

    doi:10.1086/305262 , eprint =

    Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80, doi: 10.1086/305262

    work page doi:10.1086/305262 1998

  10. [10]

    M., et al

    Bullock, J. S., Kolatt, T. S., Sigad, Y., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 559, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04068.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04068.x 2001

  11. [11]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 4074, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3696

    Chakraborty, A., & Roy, N. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4074, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3696

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3696 2023

  12. [12]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd947

    Diemer, B. 2021, ApJ, 909, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd947

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd947 2021

  13. [13]

    Rethinking visual chain -of-thought: Spatial grounding vs. linguistic traces,

    Mahler, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.09122, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.09122

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.09122 2025

  14. [14]

    F., Smith, S

    Errani, R., Navarro, J. F., Smith, S. E. T., & McConnachie, A. W. 2024, ApJ, 965, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2267 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., &

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2267 2024

  15. [15]

    2009, Astrophys

    Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1416, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416 7

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/1416 2009

  16. [16]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1205 , arxivId =

    Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1205

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1205 2023

  17. [17]

    HI-bearing dark galaxies predictions from constrained Local Group simulations: how many and where to find them

    Fitts, A., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Elbert, O. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1757 Garc´ ıa-Bethencourt, G., Di Cintio, A., Comer´ on, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.04024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.04024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1757 2017

  18. [18]

    F., Smercina, A., et al

    Gozman, K., Bell, E. F., Smercina, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbe3a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbe3a 2023

  19. [19]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/125 2012

  20. [20]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 6305, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3282

    Herzog, G., Ben´ ıtez-Llambay, A., & Fumagalli, M. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6305, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3282

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3282 2023

  21. [21]

    FIRE-2 Simulations: Physics versus Numerics in Galaxy Formation

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1690 2018

  22. [22]

    and Lewis, Geraint F

    Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., Conn, A. R., et al. 2013, Nature, 493, 62, doi: 10.1038/nature11717

    work page doi:10.1038/nature11717 2013

  23. [23]

    K., Contini, E., et al

    Jeon, S., Yi, S. K., Contini, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade2e0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade2e0 2025

  24. [24]

    G., Janowiecki, S., Dey, S., et al

    Jones, M. G., Janowiecki, S., Dey, S., et al. 2024, ApJL, 966, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3ef5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad3ef5 2024

  25. [25]

    2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 24, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1ee6

    Karunakaran, A., & Spekkens, K. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 24, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1ee6

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad1ee6 2024

  26. [26]

    R., & Knebe, A

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608 2009

  27. [27]

    S., Lee, J., Shin, J., & Song, H

    Lee, G., Hwang, H. S., Lee, J., Shin, J., & Song, H. 2024, ApJ, 962, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5d 2024

  28. [28]

    2026, ApJ, 999, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3e82 Mitraˇ sinovi´ c, A., Grozdanovi´ c, M., Lalovi´ c, A., et al

    Minchin, R., Taylor, R., Momjian, E., Deshev, B., & Part´ ık, V. 2026, ApJ, 999, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3e82 Mitraˇ sinovi´ c, A., Grozdanovi´ c, M., Lalovi´ c, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558391

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3e82 2026

  29. [29]

    FAST and Dark: A catalogue of Dark Galaxy Candidates within 50 Mpc

    Monaci, M., Forbes, D. A., Gannon, J. S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.14699. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.14699

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    , keywords =

    Montes, M., Trujillo, I., Karunakaran, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347667

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347667 2024

  31. [31]

    L., et al

    Moreno, J., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz417

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz417 2019

  32. [32]

    S., et al

    Moreno, J., Danieli, S., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 496, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01598-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01598-4 2022

  33. [33]

    J., et al

    Moreno, J., Wheeler, C., Mercado, F. J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae29ae

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae29ae 2026

  34. [34]

    P., Somerville , R

    Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., Maulbetsch, C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 903, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/903

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/903 2010

  35. [35]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    Nan, R., Li, D., Jin, C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271811019335 2011

  36. [36]

    MNRAS , archivePrefix = "arXiv",

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt066 2013

  37. [37]

    P., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al

    Rey, M. P., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac502 Rom´ an, J., Jones, M. G., Montes, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141001

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac502 2022

  38. [38]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Sales, L. V., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 897, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01689-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01689-w 2022

  39. [39]

    S., Fattahi, A., et al

    Sawala, T., Frenk, C. S., Fattahi, A., et al. 2016a, MNRAS, 456, 85, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2597

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2597

  40. [40]

    S., Fattahi, A., et al

    Sawala, T., Frenk, C. S., Fattahi, A., et al. 2016b, MNRAS, 457, 1931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw145

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw145 1931

  41. [41]

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

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

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

  42. [42]

    F., Price, P

    Smercina, A., Bell, E. F., Price, P. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad2d6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad2d6 2018

  43. [43]

    M., et al

    Trentham, N., M¨ oller, O., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 658, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04158.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04158.x 2001

  44. [44]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.05597, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.05597

    Turini, F., & Benitez-Llambay, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.05597, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.05597

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.05597 2026

  45. [45]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., Cohen, Y., et al. 2018, Nature, 555, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature25767 ˇSiljeg, B., Adams, E. A. K., Oosterloo, T. A., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556900

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 2011

  46. [46]

    F., Pace, A

    Wheeler, C., Hopkins, P. F., Pace, A. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2887

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2887 2019

  47. [47]

    Zheng, H., Jiang, F., Liao, S., & Libeskind, N. I. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.16726, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.16726

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.16726 2025

  48. [48]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdcf5

    Zhou, R., Zhu, M., Yang, Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdcf5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdcf5 2023