Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Central Cluster Galaxies: A Hotspot for Detectable Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Mergers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that the first PTA continuous-wave detections will be massive black hole mergers at the centers of galaxy clusters.

desk verdict ASTRID-based prediction that the loudest PTA continuous-wave sources live in central cluster galaxies, but the claim leans on six events and a fixed 500 Myr hardening timescale; with a tau-sensitivity run and a control sample it could be solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01845 v2 pith:6HIP5ZTE submitted 2025-02-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Yihao Zhou , Tiziana Di Matteo , Nianyi Chen , Luke Zoltan Kelley , Laura Blecha , Yueying Ni , Simeon Bird , Yanhui Yang
show 1 more author
Rupert Croft
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords pulsartimingarrayscontinuousgravitationalwavesmassiveblackholemergersgalaxyclustersbrightestclustergalaxiesdualactivegalacticnucleiASTRIDsimulationwavebackground
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Using the ASTRID cosmological simulation, this paper tries to establish what the next Pulsar Timing Array detection will actually look like: a continuous gravitational-wave source produced by a black hole merger with total mass above $10^{10}\,M_\odot$, radiating below about $10\,\mathrm{nHz}$, and hosted by the central galaxy of a massive galaxy cluster. Across 100 realizations of the low-frequency gravitational-wave sky, only six sources have detection probability above 0.1, and all six sit in galaxies with stellar mass above $10^{12}\,M_\odot$ at the centers of clusters with halo masses above $10^{14}\,M_\odot$. The paper also identifies one cluster core where a triple merger produces two high-probability signals about 480 million years apart, at roughly 3 nHz and 10 nHz. Nearly all foreground sources are dual active galactic nuclei, so the authors argue that electromagnetic follow-up should target star-forming bright cluster galaxies. These are concrete, testable predictions for the next few years of PTA data and multi-messenger searches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are ASTRID's massive black hole mergers and the chain that turns them into detection probabilities. ASTRID grows and merges black holes in a cosmological hydrodynamical simulation; once a pair merges on simulation scales, its unresolved sub-kiloparsec hardening to the gravitational-wave regime is imposed with a phenomenological model on circular orbits and a fixed hardening timescale of $\tau = 500\,\mathrm{Myr}$, chosen from the Phenom+Astro fit to the NANOGrav 15-year background. Each resulting binary is assigned a characteristic strain and placed into Poisson-resampled realizations of the low-frequency gravitational-wave sky. Detection probability for each source is then computed with the Rosado et al. (2015) prescription for a 16.03-year, 68-pulsar array, averaged over 500 random sky positions and orientations to account for strong geometrical sensitivity variations. This machinery is what allows the paper to attach a probability to each simulated event and to rank-order the sources by detectability.

What would settle it

Repeat the full pipeline with the hardening timescale varied from roughly $100\,\mathrm{Myr}$ to $1\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ and with eccentric orbits allowed; if the sources with detection probability above 0.1 stop being exclusively $10^{12}\,M_\odot$ central cluster galaxies, then the claimed hotspot is an artifact of the fixed $\tau = 500\,\mathrm{Myr}$ assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is a population-level association: the simulated continuous-wave foreground that PTAs are most likely to detect is built from massive-black-hole mergers with total masses above $10^{10}\,M_\odot$ in the lowest frequency bins ($f \lesssim 10\,\mathrm{nHz}$), and these mergers occur in massive central cluster galaxies rather than in a fair sample of the galaxy population. The paper emphasizes that no mass cut or host-galaxy selection was imposed, so the cluster-center hosts emerge from the simulation's merger dynamics. Within this population sits one sequence: two consecutive mergers in the same cluster core, separated by 480 Myr, are predicted to produce continuous waves at roughly $3\,\mathrm{nHz}$ with detection probability 0.89 and at $10\,\mathrm{nHz}$ with detection probability 0.3, the two highest-probability signals in the paper. The same population shows that $87.4\%$ of foreground sources are dual active galactic nuclei, and all foreground sources involve at least one active nucleus, tying detectable gravitational waves to luminous AGN and star-forming host galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every unresolved supermassive-black-hole binary hardens on the same fixed circular-orbit timescale of $\tau = 500\,\mathrm{Myr}$, regardless of its galaxy or gas environment; if real hardening times vary, the predicted number, frequencies, and host galaxies of detectable sources would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The first resolved continuous-wave source for PTAs should be a very massive merger (total mass above $10^{10}\,M_\odot$) radiating below about $10\,\mathrm{nHz}$, rather than a lighter and closer binary.
  • Electromagnetic follow-up should concentrate on star-forming bright central cluster galaxies with at least one, often dual, active galactic nucleus.
  • The low per-realization detection probability of about 6% is consistent with the absence of continuous-wave detections in the NANOGrav 15-year dataset.
  • Because the loudest signals sit in the lowest frequency bins, extending the observing time of PTA campaigns should sharply increase the chance of detection.
  • Resolvable foreground sources will add anisotropies to the gravitational-wave background that trace the clustered distribution of massive central cluster galaxies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the association holds observationally, resolved PTA sources become a new handle on the assembly of brightest cluster galaxies, connecting gravitational-wave detections to cluster-scale structure formation.
  • Beyond the paper: the triple-merger sequence suggests that PTA searches might look for pairs of continuous-wave signals close in frequency and sky position and separated by hundreds of millions of years, as a distinct signature of cluster-core assembly.
  • Beyond the paper: the fixed hardening timescale is the main lever; letting $\tau$ depend on host galaxy mass or gas fraction is an immediate test of whether the central-cluster hotspot is robust.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses the ASTRID cosmological hydrodynamic simulation to model the population of massive black hole (MBH) binaries and predict the properties of continuous gravitational wave (CW) sources detectable by pulsar timing arrays (PTAs). The authors evolve MBH binaries to sub-parsec scales using a phenomenological hardening timescale (tau = 500 Myr) and circular orbits, compute detection probabilities (DPs) with the Rosado et al. (2015) prescription, and identify six sources with DP > 0.1 in 100 Poisson realizations. They report that these high-DP sources all have total MBH masses above 10^10 M_sun, are hosted by massive (M_star > 10^12 M_sun) central cluster galaxies, and include a triple merger event producing two strong signals at ~2 nHz and ~10 nHz. The paper further connects foreground CW events to (dual) AGN activity and star-forming host galaxies.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, this work would provide a concrete, observationally testable prediction that PTA CW sources are rare, massive, and preferentially located in central cluster galaxies, thereby focusing future multi-messenger searches. The paper leverages one of the largest cosmological simulations to date, presents a clear methodology, and offers falsifiable predictions (frequencies, masses, host properties, AGN association). The main caveats are the reliance on a single fixed hardening timescale and the small number (N=6) of high-DP events without a statistical control sample; these limit the strength of the claimed hotspot and mass threshold unless addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 3.3/Table 1] The central claim that the most detectable CW sources have M_BH > 10^10 M_sun and reside in central cluster galaxies rests entirely on the choice of the hardening timescale tau = 500 Myr and circular orbits described in Section 2. The paper itself cites Gardiner et al. (2024), who find that the CW detection probability changes by a factor of five when tau varies from 0 to 1 Gyr, yet the authors do not propagate this sensitivity into their DP values or test how the six high-DP sources respond to different tau. Because tau determines how far each binary evolves in frequency by z=0, a different tau could shift the high-DP population toward lower masses and non-BCG hosts, which would invalidate the mass threshold and the central-cluster hotspot conclusion. I request a tau-sensitivity test (for example, recomputing the DPs for tau = 0, 0.5, and 1 Gyr, or at least reporting the range of DP for each of the six sources under the cited factor-of-five variation).
  2. [Section 3.3 and Table 1] The 'hotspot' conclusion is based on only six high-DP sources, with no statistical baseline or control sample. The paper does not compare the host-galaxy and halo properties of these six sources to the distribution of hosts of all MBH mergers with M_BH > 10^10 M_sun in ASTRID, nor to a mass-matched sample of galaxies. Without such a comparison, the fact that all six sources are in massive central cluster galaxies may simply reflect the well-known correlation between merger mass and halo mass, rather than a special property of detectable CW sources. The authors should quantify the fraction of all high-mass mergers whose hosts are BCGs and the fraction of all galaxies of similar stellar mass that are central cluster galaxies, and test whether the six hosts are drawn from the same distribution.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Section 3.3] Section 3.1 reports that the six high-DP sources are 'from six different realizations,' yet Section 3.3 describes systems 3 and 5 as part of a single triple merger event that 'generat[es] high-DP CW signals at ~2 nHz and ~10 nHz.' If the two signals are not simultaneously present in the same realization, the claim of two high-DP signals from the same cluster requires qualification. Please clarify whether both sources have DP > 0.1 in any single realization, or whether the two high-DP measurements come from different realizations of the same underlying merger history, and adjust the abstract and Section 3.3 accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] The reference for Chen et al. (2025) lists arXiv:1302.4485, which does not appear to be the correct identifier for the cited paper on ASTRID-based GWB predictions; please verify and replace with the correct arXiv number or journal reference.
  2. [Section 3.4] In the second paragraph, the text states 'While for the dual AGNs with M_tot ≥ 10^8 M_sun, the CW sources fraction N_CW/N_dual increases to 8.3%', but this should read M_tot ≥ 10^9 M_sun to be consistent with the previous sentence and the figure; as written, the same mass threshold is quoted twice with different fractions.
  3. [Abstract and Appendix A] The abstract mentions '16.8 yrs of PTA observations' while Appendix A and Section 3.1 use 16.03 yr; please unify the observing time.
  4. [Section 3.1] The definition of 'foreground events' as those with h_c higher than the GWB in the same realization is somewhat unusual; please clarify whether the DP calculation is performed only for these foreground sources or for all simulated mergers, and justify the selection, since it affects the reported occurrence rates.
  5. [Section 3.3] The statement that the 480 Myr interval between system 3 and system 5 being 'slightly shorter than our adopted binary hardening timescale tau = 500 Myr, implying the possibility that this triple-merger could form an actual three-body system' is speculative, given that the model treats each merger as an isolated two-body binary; consider rewording to emphasize that the two mergers occur in the same cluster core without over-interpreting the dynamical implications.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central-cluster-galaxy hotspot is an emergent prediction from the ASTRID merger population with an externally calibrated hardening prescription.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its central claim. The high-DP source population is obtained by (1) taking the ASTRID MBH merger catalog, (2) evolving each binary with a phenomenological hardening timescale tau = 500 Myr adopted from Chen et al. (2025) and traceable to the NANOGrav Phenom+Astro fit (Agazie et al. 2023d), and (3) computing detection probabilities with the Rosado et al. (2015) prescription including a realization-specific GWB. None of these steps defines 'detectable CW source' in terms of the central-cluster-galaxy property, and no mass cut or host selection is imposed: the M_BH > 1e10 Msun and M_star > 1e12 Msun central-cluster association emerges from the ASTRID population. The paper also validates against external results (Becsy et al. 2022; Gardiner et al. 2024) and the NANOGrav 15yr non-detection. The fixed tau = 500 Myr is a parameter choice, not a fit to the CW source list, and the paper itself flags the factor-of-five DP sensitivity to tau from Gardiner et al.; this is a robustness caveat, not a circular reduction. Self-citations (Ni et al. 2022; Chen et al. 2025, etc.) are normal simulation-pipeline references, and they are not used to forbid alternatives or to import an unverified uniqueness claim. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction rests on the ASTRID simulation, which itself encodes subgrid prescriptions for BH seeding, accretion, feedback, and dynamical friction. On top of that, the paper adds a phenomenological hardening timescale fitted to the GWB and assumes circular orbits. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameter is tau; the noise model adds further assumptions. These are mostly transparent, but the fixed tau and circular-orbit assumption are not marginalized over, so the DP values are conditional on them.

free parameters (3)
  • Binary hardening timescale tau = 500 Myr
    Fixed to the best-fit value of the Phenom+Astro analysis in Agazie et al. 2023d through Chen et al. 2025. It sets how fast sub-kpc MBH binaries shrink into the PTA band; the paper notes detection probability changes by a factor of five as tau varies from 0 to 1 Gyr.
  • Pulsar white noise RMS sigma_WN = 3 microseconds
    Chosen to match model d in Kelley et al. 2018, not fit in this paper; directly affects the detection probability calculation in Appendix A.
  • AGN luminosity threshold = 1e43 erg/s
    Used to classify a black hole as an AGN in Section 3.4; adopted from Chen et al. 2023.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math GW emission from circular inspiraling MBH binaries follows the standard characteristic strain formalism of Sesana et al. 2008.
    Section 2: 'the production of GW signals is estimated based on the steps laid out by Sesana et al. (2008)'.
  • domain assumption Unresolved sub-kpc binary hardening can be represented by a single fixed timescale tau=500 Myr applied to every binary.
    Section 2: 'the binary hardening timescale is fixed to be tau = 500 Myr', based on the Phenom+Astro fit.
  • domain assumption All MBH binaries are on circular orbits during GW emission.
    Section 2: 'we assume circular orbits for all the binaries during the evolution'; the authors argue the properties of CW sources are robust to eccentricity except e=0.99.
  • domain assumption ASTRID's subgrid dynamical friction model correctly evolves MBHs down to the merger criterion of 2 softening lengths.
    Section 2: validated against semi-analytic predictions and high-resolution simulations (Genina et al. 2024, Zhou et al. 2025).
  • domain assumption Poisson weighting of ASTRID merger events produces independent realizations of the GW sky.
    Section 2: 'use the method described in Kelley et al. (2017) to weight each MBH binary from ASTRID using a Poisson distribution'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Central Cluster Galaxies: A Hotspot for Detectable Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Mergers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HIP5ZTE

@misc{pith2026250201845,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Central Cluster Galaxies: A Hotspot for Detectable Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Mergers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HIP5ZTE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01845}
}
read the original abstract

After Pulsar Timing Arrays (PTAs) have announced the evidence for a low-frequency gravitational wave background (GWB), the continuous waves (CWs) are the next anticipated gravitational wave (GW) signals. In this work, we model CW sources detectable by PTAs based on the massive black hole (MBH) merger population in the ASTRID cosmological simulation. We evolve MBH binaries, simulate their GW emissions, and calculate their detection probability (DP) for PTAs. The most detectable CW sources are produced by MBH mergers with masses M_BH > 10^10 solarmass in the lowest frequency bins with f<10 nHz. Remarkably, these mergers occur within massive galaxies with the stellar mass larger than 10^12 solarmass located at the center of galaxy clusters. Particularly striking in ASTRID is a triple merger event, wherein two consecutive mergers occur within 500 Myr interval in the same cluster core, generating high-DP CW signals at ~ 2nHz and ~ 10nHz. We also investigate the electromagnetic (EM) signatures associated with these events: either single or dual active galactic nuclei (AGN) in the massive host galaxies that are undergoing star formation. This research provides new insights into the low-frequency GW sky and informs future multi-messenger searches for PTA CW sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01845 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 100 independent realizations of the low-frequency GW sky based on the mergers in ASTRID. The blue curve represents the median GWB spectra over all realizations, with the inner/outer shaded region corresponding to 1𝜎/2𝜎 intervals. Black dots plot the loudest event in each realization at each frequency bin. The foreground events, which have higher ℎc than the GWB are marked by orange dots. The grey shaded area is the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The properties of foreground events over 100 realizations. Left Column: the top panel shows the DP values for each CW source color-coded by ℎ𝑐. We highlight the sources with DP> 0.1 (high-DP events) by diamonds. The diamond markers for system 1 and system 2 overlap. The middle/bottom panels show the occurrence rate / DP of the detected CW sources as a function of frequency. In the bottom panel, the grey shaded areas… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A visualization of the spatial region around the high-DP event system 3 and system 5 at 𝑧 = 0.25. These two systems involve a triple merger in the central galaxy of a massive galaxy cluster, which is highlighted by the blue circles. We zoom into a region around it (the orange rectangle), which includes another foreground event (marked by the green circle), and show the gas density field color-coded by temperature (r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: The distribution of the bolometric luminosity of the primary MBH (𝐿bol,1 ) and the secondary MBH (𝐿bol,2 ) for the foreground event population. The dots are color coded by the observed frequency. The horizontal and vertical black dashed lines mark the AGN luminos…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The host galaxy properties of the foreground events (colored dots) compared to all the galaxies in ASTRID (grey pixels). The underlying darker regions represent a higher number density. The dots in two panels share the same colorbar as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The ASTRID Simulation at z=0: From Massive Black Holes to Large-scale Structure

    astro-ph.GA 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The ASTRID simulation's present-day universe broadly matches observed black-hole–galaxy scaling relations, galaxy counts, cluster stellar masses, and clustering, with known excesses in low-redshift star formation and ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abell, G. O. 1958, ApJS, 3, 211, doi: 10.1086/190036

    doi:10.1086/190036 1958

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023a, ApJL, 951, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 —. 2023b, ApJL, 951, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18a —. 2023c, ApJL, 956, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf4fd —. 2023d, ApJL, 952, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

  3. [3]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad36be B´ecsy, B., Cornish, N

    Agazie, G., Antoniadis, J., Anumarlapudi, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad36be B´ecsy, B., Cornish, N. J., & Kelley, L. Z. 2022, ApJ, 941, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1b2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad36be 2024

  4. [4]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648 11 B¨ohringer, H., Chon, G., & Fukugita, M

    Bird, S., Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648 11 B¨ohringer, H., Chon, G., & Fukugita, M. 2017, A&A, 608, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731205

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac648 2022

  5. [5]

    2022, A&A, 667, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243689

    Castignani, G., Radovich, M., Combes, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243689

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243689 2022

  6. [6]

    2025, ApJ

    Chen, N., DiMatteo, T., & Zhou, Y. 2025, ApJ. https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.4485

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3411

    Chen, N., Ni, Y., Tremmel, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3411

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3411 2022

  8. [8]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 1895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad834 De Lucia, G., & Blaizot, J

    Chen, N., Di Matteo, T., Ni, Y., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad834 De Lucia, G., & Blaizot, J. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11287.x

    work page arXiv 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    2018, PhR, 733, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.002 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al

    Desjacques, V., Jeong, D., & Schmidt, F. 2018, PhR, 733, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.002 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346844

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1411

    Fastidio, F., Gualandris, A., Sesana, A., Bortolas, E., & Dehnen, W. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1411

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, A&A, 688, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449402

    Franchini, A., Prato, A., Longarini, C., & Sesana, A. 2024, A&A, 688, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449402

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Kelley, L

    Gardiner, E. C., Kelley, L. Z., Lemke, A.-M., & Mitridate, A. 2024, ApJ, 965, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2be8

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1654

    Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., Springel, V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1654

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2144

    Genina, A., Springel, V., & Rantala, A. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2144

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Shannon, R

    Goncharov, B., Reardon, D. J., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 478, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3411

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d66

    Hsu, Y.-H., Lin, Y.-T., Huang, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d66

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 3488, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3239

    Izquierdo-Villalba, D., Sesana, A., Bonoli, S., & Colpi, M. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3488, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3239

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L

    Kelley, L. Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2452

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Z., Blecha, L., Hernquist, L., Sesana, A., & Taylor, S

    Kelley, L. Z., Blecha, L., Hernquist, L., Sesana, A., & Taylor, S. R. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty689

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Mingarelli, C. M. F., Lazio, T. J. W., Sesana, A., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 886, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0299-6

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10666, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10666

    Ni, Y., Chen, N., Zhou, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10666, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10666

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 670, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., Bird, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 670, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Ravi, V., Wyithe, J. S. B., Hobbs, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/84

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    H., & B¨ohringer, H

    Reiprich, T. H., & B¨ohringer, H. 2002, ApJ, 567, 716, doi: 10.1086/338753

    2002 doi

  19. [27]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    2012, in Journal of Physics Conference

    Roedig, C., & Sesana, A. 2012, in Journal of Physics Conference

    2012

  21. [29]

    363, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012035, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/363/1/012035

    Series, Vol. 363, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012035, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/363/1/012035

    doi

  22. [30]

    A., Sesana, A., & Gair, J

    Rosado, P. A., Sesana, A., & Gair, J. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1098

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    Saeedzadeh, V., Mukherjee, S., Babul, A., Tremmel, M., & Quinn, T. R. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae513

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Mukherjee, S., Saeedzadeh, V., et al

    Sah, M. R., Mukherjee, S., Saeedzadeh, V., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1930

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17010, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.17010

    Sato-Polito, G., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17010, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.17010

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    2024, PhRvD, 110, 063020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063020

    Sato-Polito, G., Zaldarriaga, M., & Quataert, E. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 063020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063020

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2010, ApJ, 719, 851, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/851

    Sesana, A. 2010, ApJ, 719, 851, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/851

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    Sesana, A., Vecchio, A., & Colacino, C. N. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 192, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13682.x

    2008

  29. [37]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  30. [38]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

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

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.12078, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.12078

    Shaifullah, G., & Bonetti, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.12078, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.12078

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    Xu, H., Chen, S., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada283

    Zhou, Y., Mukherjee, D., Chen, N., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada283

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.