Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 89 references

Massive neighbor halos siphon cool gas from isolated galaxies, independent of black-hole mass.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 03:11 UTC pith:ED4T2IPB

load-bearing objection A worthwhile empirical extension with a genuine new test, but the MBH control is not clean enough to support the strong 'independent of BH feedback' claim without more robustness work. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13961 v1 pith:ED4T2IPB submitted 2026-07-15 astro-ph.GA

Even central galaxies feel their environment: cosmic siphoning of cool gas accretion

Ke Xu , Tao Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords cool gas accretionisolated galaxiesgroup central galaxiessupermassive black holesHI contentgalaxy environmentcosmic siphoningAGN feedback
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that the cool gas content of central galaxies is regulated not only by the internal balance between a galaxy's halo and its supermassive black hole, but also by the galaxy's external neighborhood. After matching isolated and group centrals on black-hole mass and star-formation offset, the authors find that isolated centrals are more often deficient in atomic hydrogen, and that the gas-poorest isolated centrals are preferentially located within about a megaparsec of a massive galaxy group. They interpret this as 'cosmic siphoning': deep potential wells—massive halos and group centrals—capture cool gas from the cosmic web and from satellites, starving nearby low-mass halos. If correct, this establishes that even central galaxies can be environmentally quenched, independent of their own black-hole feedback.

Core claim

Building directly on the previously established μ_HI–M_BH relation, the paper shows that the galaxies most displaced from that relation are overwhelmingly isolated central galaxies (84% of outliers in the primary sample, 89% in a confirmation sample). At fixed black hole mass and star-formation offset, isolated centrals have lower HI detection fractions than group centrals. Among isolated centrals, the HI-undetected systems have higher black-hole-to-stellar-mass ratios, more bulge-dominated morphologies, older stellar populations, and—critically—a systematically higher probability of having a massive (≳10^12 solar masses) group within a projected megaparsec. The authors argue that this envir

What carries the argument

The analytical engine is the μ_HI–M_BH relation (with μ_HI = M_HI/M_*, the atomic-gas-to-stellar-mass ratio) established in prior work, used as a baseline from which deviations mark gas deficiency. To isolate environmental effects, the authors match galaxies on the two-dimensional plane of M_BH and ΔSFMS, then compare HI detection fractions, morphology, and environment between matched samples. The key environmental metrics are the fifth-nearest-neighbor projected density and the probability of a nearby massive (≳10^12 M_sun) group within 1 Mpc. The black hole masses themselves come from a recalibrated Fundamental Plane relation combined with a velocity-dispersion–M_BH scaling, which is the p

Load-bearing premise

The black hole masses are estimated from a Fundamental Plane calibration plus a velocity-dispersion scaling relation; if these estimates are systematically off for the very bulge-dominated, gas-poor galaxies being studied, then 'controlling for black hole mass' does not actually remove internal feedback, and the environmental claim would not be established.

What would settle it

Recompute black hole masses for the same galaxies using direct dynamical or reverberation measurements and redo the matching at fixed M_BH and ΔSFMS; if the HI detection fractions of isolated and group centrals converge, or if HI-undetected isolated centrals no longer show an excess of massive neighbors, the central claim is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • Environment acts as a secondary, independent regulator of cool gas in central galaxies, so the μ_HI–M_BH relation alone is incomplete.
  • Gas-poor isolated centrals near massive halos may be backsplash galaxies, offering a way to identify recently processed systems in the field.
  • The 'cosmic siphoning' picture predicts that HI deficiency in isolated galaxies should increase with proximity to massive nodes and be strongest along filaments feeding those nodes.
  • If verified, galaxy formation models must include competitive accretion and large-scale potential wells, not just halo mass and black-hole feedback, to reproduce the HI content of centrals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The interpretation as 'siphoning' goes beyond the correlation; direct gas-flow observations, such as mapping the circumgalactic medium of isolated centrals near massive groups, could test whether gas is actually being diverted.
  • The same logic should apply to other baryonic tracers—molecular gas and star-formation efficiency—predicting that CO-poor and quenched isolated galaxies also cluster near massive halos in matched samples.
  • A testable extension: if the siphoning is competitive accretion, the effect should strengthen at lower halo masses and at smaller projected distances to the massive neighbor; this can be checked with larger, deeper surveys.
  • If confirmed, galaxy scaling relations used for predicting gas content should incorporate a local environmental term alongside black-hole mass and stellar mass.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper extends the μ_HI–M_BH relation of Wang et al. (2024) to isolated central galaxies (ICs) and group central galaxies (GCs) using HI-MaNGA and xGASS data, with group membership from Yang et al. (2007). Black hole masses are derived from a K-band Fundamental Plane fit to σ_* followed by the van den Bosch (2016) MBH–σ relation. The authors report that (i) outliers below the μ_HI–M_BH relation are predominantly ICs; (ii) after matching on ΔSFMS and MBH, ICs have lower HI detection fractions and lower median μ_HI than GCs; (iii) among ICs, HI-undetected galaxies have higher MBH/M★, earlier T-Types, older stellar ages, and are preferentially located near massive (≳10^12 M⊙) neighboring halos; and (iv) they interpret this as ``cosmic siphoning''—competitive gas accretion on inter-halo scales plus central-satellite gas exchange on sub-halo scales. The central claim is that external environment suppresses cool gas in central galaxies independently of internal AGN feedback.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides an important observational constraint: the cool gas content of central galaxies is not fully determined by MBH and star-formation state, but also by the large-scale environment, specifically proximity to massive halos. The study has several genuine strengths: it treats HI upper limits with a Kaplan-Meier estimator, uses an external group catalog rather than fitting environmental parameters in this paper, reproduces the main results in two independent samples, and presents a falsifiable pattern (HI-undetected ICs near massive neighbors) rather than a purely interpretive claim. The 2D matching on ΔSFMS–MBH is a reasonable attempt to control for the two variables previously identified as dominant. However, the significance of the paper depends on whether MBH is measured well enough to support the claim that environmental effects are independent of internal black-hole feedback; this is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Fig. 3; §3.2, Fig. 4; §3.3, Fig. 5] The matched differences shown in the third columns of Figs. 3–5 are presented with 16th/50th/84th percentiles of the pixel-level difference distributions, but no formal significance test or confidence interval is reported. The central claim—that ICs have lower HI detection fraction and lower μ_HI than GCs at fixed MBH and ΔSFMS, and that HI-undetected ICs are preferentially near massive halos—requires a statement of whether these offsets are distinguishable from zero given the finite bin counts, correlated smoothing, and matching-pair uncertainties. Bootstrap resampling of the matched pairs, or a paired permutation test, should be added.
  2. [§2.3, Fig. 1; §3.1–§3.3] The MBH estimates are load-bearing: they are used both for matching (Figs. 3–5) and for the μ_HI–M_BH baseline (Fig. 2). The paper does not propagate uncertainties from the Fundamental Plane fit into MBH, nor does it test robustness to alternative MBH calibrations (e.g., direct MBH–σ relations for late types, or bulge-mass-based estimators). The authors note in §3.1 that subtracting rotation changes MBH for low-MBH late types, showing the result is sensitive to the correction. Because HI-undetected ICs are systematically more bulge-dominated and older, any morphology- or environment-dependent bias in the FP-derived σ would masquerade as an independent environmental effect. A robustness test using a different MBH calibration, or adding T-Type/bulge mass as a third matching axis, is necessary to secure the ``independent of internal BH feedback'' conclusion.
  3. [§3.1, Fig. 2] The statement that 84% of μ_HI–M_BH outliers are ICs is difficult to interpret without accounting for the sample composition: the text itself acknowledges that ICs are more numerous. The background-color map in Fig. 2(a,c) is a step in the right direction, but the paper does not report the IC/GC number ratio at fixed MBH, nor does it give uncertainties on the outlier fractions. Since this is the opening result of the paper, a quantitative comparison (e.g., odds ratio with confidence interval) should be provided.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The phrase ``even central galaxies feel their environment'' is used throughout; consider clarifying in the abstract that ``central'' here means group central and isolated central galaxies, not cluster-centered galaxies.
  2. [§3.2] ``here we explore the its cause'' is a typo; should read ``its cause.'' Also, ``the possibility of finding...'' in the Fig. 5 caption is awkward; ``probability of finding'' would be clearer.
  3. [Author contributions] The text says ``KW was responsible for writing...'' but the authors are Ke Xu and Tao Wang; presumably this should be ``KX.'' Please correct.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption refers to ``panel c & f'' and ``panel e'' inconsistently; the text and caption should use a single panel-naming convention.
  5. [Appendix A] The xGASS MBH is derived from the MaNGA FP fit, but the ETG/LTG split uses a Sérsic-index division; the systematic offset between these morphology classifications and the MaNGA T-Type divisions should be mentioned in the main text or appendix.
  6. [§2.1] The HI upper-limit recalculation is described only by reference to Wang et al. (2024); a brief description of the line-width–stellar-mass relation used would make the paper self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the environmental signal is derived from external catalogs and direct sample matching, not from the self-cited μ_HI–M_BH relation.

full rationale

The central environmental comparison is self-contained: Fig. 3 directly matches GCs against ICs within 0.25 dex on the ΔSFMS–M_BH plane and computes the f_det difference, using M_BH from the external van den Bosch (2016) relation applied to σ measurements from Zhu et al. (2023) and group/isolated classifications from Yang et al. (2007). No constant is fit to HI data in this paper that would force the IC/GC difference. The Wang et al. (2024) μ_HI–M_BH relation is a self-citation, but it is used only as a reference baseline for defining outliers and as motivation; the paper explicitly states GCs are slightly below it and tests the IC/GC offset by direct matching, so the main result does not reduce to that relation. The M_BH estimator caveats (FP refit, rotation subtraction changing low-M_BH LTG masses) are correctness/systematics concerns, not identity-by-construction circularity. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on derived MBH values from a refitted Fundamental Plane and an MBH–σ relation, plus group definitions from an external catalog. The environmental analysis itself uses several hand-chosen thresholds (0.5 dex outlier, 0.25 dex match, 10^12 M_sun group within 1 Mpc) that are not systematically varied. No new physical entities are introduced; 'cosmic siphoning' is an interpretive mechanism rather than a new particle or force.

free parameters (7)
  • FP slope for LTGs = 0.42 ± 0.02
    Fitted to MaNGA data in Fig. 1 to estimate velocity dispersions for late-type galaxies, which feed into MBH.
  • FP intercept for LTGs = -2.27 ± 0.19
    Fitted in Fig. 1; part of the σ calibration used for all MBH estimates.
  • FP slope for ETGs = 0.56 ± 0.02
    Fitted in Fig. 1 for early-type galaxies.
  • FP intercept for ETGs = -3.70 ± 0.22
    Fitted in Fig. 1 for early-type galaxies.
  • Outlier threshold from μ_HI–M_BH relation = 0.5 dex
    Chosen by hand to define gas-poor outliers; no robustness test for different thresholds.
  • Matching neighborhood radius on ΔSFMS–M_BH plane = 0.25 dex
    Chosen by hand for matched comparisons; results may depend on this radius.
  • Nearby massive group threshold = log(M_halo/M_sun) > 12 within 1 Mpc projected
    Chosen to define 'massive neighbor'; no test of sensitivity to this mass/radius choice.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption ΛCDM cosmology with ΩM=0.3, ΩΛ=0.7, H0=70 km/s
    Adopted in Section 1; standard but sets distance scales used for density and group proximity.
  • domain assumption M_BH–σ relation of van den Bosch (2016) applies to all sample galaxies
    Used in Section 2.3: log(M_BH/M_sun) = 8.32 + 5.35 log(σ/200). If this relation is biased for low-mass or late-type galaxies, MBH controls are compromised.
  • domain assumption Fundamental Plane calibrated in K-band is valid for both ETGs and LTGs
    Section 2.3 and Fig. 1: the FP refit assumes a single relation per morphological class; systematics would propagate into MBH.
  • domain assumption Yang et al. (2007) group catalog correctly identifies centrals, satellites, and halo masses
    Section 2.1 uses this catalog to split ICs and GCs and to find nearby massive groups; misclassification would blur the environmental signal.
  • domain assumption HI-MaNGA single-dish confusion probability <0.5 selects uncontaminated HI measurements
    Section 2.1: Arecibo/GBT beams can confuse projected neighbors; the cut is adopted from Stark et al. (2021).
  • standard math Kaplan-Meier estimator gives unbiased median μ_HI with upper limits
    Section 3.1 uses this survival analysis for HI-undetected galaxies; it assumes censoring is non-informative.
  • domain assumption Renzini & Peng (2015) star-forming main sequence is the correct SFR normalization for ΔSFMS
    Section 3.1 uses ΔSFMS as a control; different main-sequence definitions could change matched samples.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15449 in / 11715 out tokens · 118123 ms · 2026-08-02T03:11:01.188293+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Identifying the key processes regulating cool gas accretion in galaxies is essential for understanding the baryon cycle within galactic ecosystems. Recent studies indicate that the most fundamental internal process is likely the competition between halos and central black holes. This is revealed through a universal relation between increasing black hole masses and decreasing cool gas fraction ($\mu_{\rm HI} \equiv M_{\rm HI}/M_{\star} \propto M_{\rm BH}^{-0.6}$). Here we further explore the primary external effects on cool gas accretion in central galaxies. We find that galaxies deviating significantly from the $\mu_{\rm HI}-M_{\rm BH}$ relation are overwhelmingly isolated central galaxies without substantial satellites. These isolated, gas-poor centrals exhibit systematically higher black-hole-to-stellar-mass ratios and more prominent bulges, suggesting a greater susceptibility to AGN feedback. At larger scales, they are preferentially located near massive neighboring halos. We interpret these as evidence of "cosmic siphoning'' -- a multi-scale, gravity-driven process in which cool gas is channeled into deeper potential wells. On inter-halo scales, it manifests as competitive accretion: massive dark matter halos intercept cold filamentary streams, starving neighboring low-mass halos and quenching their star formation. On sub-halo scales, an analogous siphoning operates within groups and clusters, where the central galaxy systematically drains gas from its satellites through tidal interactions and accretion of satellite circumgalactic medium. This multi-scale mechanism -- from inter-halo competition to central-satellite interplay -- naturally drives the observed differences in the cool gas fractions between isolated and group centrals, or among the isolated, between those with and without a massive neighboring halo, and embodies a cosmic "rich-get-richer" paradigm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13961 by Ke Xu, Tao Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The calibrated relation among the stellar velocity dispersion, the K-band luminos￾ity and the K-band effective radius. The data points are color-coded by their axis ratios. The dashed blue and red lines are the best-fitted relation for LTGs and ETGs, respectively. The best-fitted relations are log σ⋆ = 0.42(0.02) log(LK/Re,K) − 2.27(0.19) (LTG) and log σ⋆ = 0.56(0.02) log(LK/Re,K) − 3.70(0.22) (ETG). and t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The relation between µHI and MBH for group centrals (GCs) and isolated centrals (ICs) in HI-MaNGA (upper a-c) and xGASS (lower d-f). In the top three panels: (a) is the scatter plot between µHI and MBH. The background color map represents the ratio between the fraction of GCs (fGC) at given µHI & MBH, and the fGC at given MBH (only grids with ≥ 5 counts are shown with color). The black solid line is the re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: From the left to the right, we show the HI-detection fraction (upper) and the gas fraction (lower) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: From the left to the right, we show the MBH/M⋆ (the first row), the T-Type (the second row), and the light-weighted stellar ages (the third row) on the ∆SFMS − MBH plane for the H I-detected ICs, H I-undetected ICs and their corresponding differences. The first two columns show the galaxy properties as the color coding for the H I-detected and H I-undetected ICs. The ellipse in the lower-left of the first … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: From the left to the right, we show the large-scale environmental density (upper) and the possibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The illustration of “Cosmic Siphoning” scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We show the comparison of the gas fraction between ICs and GCs with xGASS sample in the same manner as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: We show the comparison of the MBH/M⋆ (upper row) and the S´ersic index (lower row) between the H I-detected and undetected galaxies with xGASS sample in the same manner as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The same as the lower row in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2022, Universe, 8, 554, doi: 10.3390/universe8110554 Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., Verley, S., Bergond, G., et al

    Alberts, S., & Noble, A. 2022, Universe, 8, 554, doi: 10.3390/universe8110554 Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., Verley, S., Bergond, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526016 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝...

    doi:10.3390/universe8110554 2022

  2. [2]

    M., & Zhu, Y

    Beifiori, A., Courteau, S., Corsini, E. M., & Zhu, Y. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2497, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19903.x

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Benson, A. J. 2010, PhR, 495, 33, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2010.06.001

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2010.06.001 2010

  4. [4]

    2011, AJ, 142, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/31

    Price-Whelan, A. 2011, AJ, 142, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/31

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/31 2011

  5. [5]

    Bluck, A. F. L., Maiolino, R., S´ anchez, S. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 96, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3264

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3264 2020

  6. [6]

    A., & Smith, A

    Borrow, J., Vogelsberger, M., O’Neil, S., McDonald, M. A., & Smith, A. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 649, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad045

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad045 2023

  7. [7]

    2022, A&A Rv, 30, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00140-3

    Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, A&A Rv, 30, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00140-3

    doi:10.1007/s00159-022-00140-3 2022

  8. [8]

    2019, A&A, 631, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936133

    Boselli, A., Epinat, B., Contini, T., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936133

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936133 2019

  9. [9]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x

    arXiv 2004

  10. [10]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2991

    Brown, T., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2991

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2991 2017

  11. [11]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/7 2015

  12. [12]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 1709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt562

    Cappellari, M., Scott, N., Alatalo, K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt562

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt562 2013

  13. [14]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 34, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1417

    Catinella, B., Schiminovich, D., Cortese, L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 34, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1417

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1417 2013

  14. [15]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 875, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty089

    Catinella, B., Saintonge, A., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 875, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty089

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty089 2018

  15. [16]

    1988, A&A, 203, L9

    Combes, F., Dupraz, C., Casoli, F., & Pagani, L. 1988, A&A, 203, L9

    1988

  16. [17]

    D., Thorat, K., Condon, J

    Cotton, W. D., Thorat, K., Condon, J. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1271, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1240

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1240 2020

  17. [18]

    J., Noble, A

    Cramer, W. J., Noble, A. G., Massingill, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 213, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acae96 Crone Odekon, M., Hallenbeck, G., Haynes, M. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa1e8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acae96 2023

  18. [19]

    2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    Dekel, A., & Birnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    arXiv 2006

  19. [20]

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

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

    doi:10.1038/nature07648 2009

  20. [21]

    Deo, D. K. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09846

    arXiv 2026

  21. [22]

    1987, ApJ, 313, 59, doi: 10.1086/164948 Dom ´ ınguez S´ anchez, H., Huertas-Company, M., Bernardi, M., Tuccillo, D., & Fischer, J

    Djorgovski, S., & Davis, M. 1987, ApJ, 313, 59, doi: 10.1086/164948 Dom ´ ınguez S´ anchez, H., Huertas-Company, M., Bernardi, M., Tuccillo, D., & Fischer, J. L. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty338

    doi:10.1086/164948 1987

  22. [23]

    1987, ApJ, 313, 42, doi: 10.1086/164947

    Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell, D., Burstein, D., et al. 1987, ApJ, 313, 42, doi: 10.1086/164947

    doi:10.1086/164947 1987

  23. [24]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

  24. [25]

    C., Sanders, J

    Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Ferland, G. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.14785. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.14785 Falc´ on-Barroso, J., van de Ven, G., Peletier, R. F., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1787, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19372.x

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [26]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L9, doi: 10.1086/312838

    Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJL, 539, L9, doi: 10.1086/312838

    doi:10.1086/312838 2000

  26. [27]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L13, doi: 10.1086/312840

    Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., et al. 2000, ApJL, 539, L13, doi: 10.1086/312840

    doi:10.1086/312840 2000

  27. [28]

    E., & Gott, III, J

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, III, J. R. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/151605

    doi:10.1086/151605 1972

  28. [29]

    R., Millman, K

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

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

  29. [30]

    P., Giovanelli, R., Martin, A

    Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., Martin, A. M., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 170, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/170

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/170 2011

  30. [31]

    P., Giovanelli, R., Kent, B

    Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., Kent, B. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac956

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac956 2018

  31. [32]

    E., et al

    Hoosain, M., Blyth, S.-L., Skelton, R. E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae174

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae174 2024

  32. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 14

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  33. [34]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx046

    Janowiecki, S., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx046

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx046 2017

  34. [35]

    H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., et al

    Jarrett, T. H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 2498, doi: 10.1086/301330

    doi:10.1086/301330 2000

  35. [36]

    M., White, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x Kereˇ s, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Dav´ e, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09451.x

    arXiv 2003

  36. [37]

    A., Jones, D

    Kleiner, D., Pimbblet, K. A., Jones, D. H., Koribalski, B. S., & Serra, P. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4692, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3328

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3328 2017

  37. [38]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  38. [39]

    I., Scott, T

    Lagos, P., Loubser, S. I., Scott, T. C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5487, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2535

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2535 2022

  39. [40]

    B., Tinsley, B

    Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., & Caldwell, C. N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692, doi: 10.1086/157917

    doi:10.1086/157917 1980

  40. [41]

    C., O’Sullivan, D., Matuszewski, M., et al

    Martin, D. C., O’Sullivan, D., Matuszewski, M., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 822, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0791-2

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0791-2 2019

  41. [42]

    2012, A&A, 540, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117281

    Martinez-Badenes, V., Lisenfeld, U., Espada, D., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117281

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117281 2012

  42. [43]

    L., Stark, D

    Masters, K. L., Stark, D. V., Pace, Z. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3396, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1889

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1889 2019

  43. [45]

    G., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1965, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18033.x

    arXiv 2011

  44. [46]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184

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

  45. [47]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  46. [48]

    E., Schinnerer, E., van de Ven, G., et al

    Meidt, S. E., Schinnerer, E., van de Ven, G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/144

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/144 2014

  47. [49]

    1983, ApJ, 264, 24, doi: 10.1086/160571

    Merritt, D. 1983, ApJ, 264, 24, doi: 10.1086/160571

    doi:10.1086/160571 1983

  48. [50]

    1996, Nature, 379, 613, doi: 10.1038/379613a0

    Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., & Oemler, A. 1996, Nature, 379, 613, doi: 10.1038/379613a0

    doi:10.1038/379613a0 1996

  49. [51]

    1998, ApJ, 495, 139, doi: 10.1086/305264

    Moore, B., Lake, G., & Katz, N. 1998, ApJ, 495, 139, doi: 10.1086/305264

    doi:10.1086/305264 1998

  50. [52]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.20276, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.20276

    Mtshweni, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.20276, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.20276

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.20276 2025

  51. [53]

    Naab, T., & Ostriker, J. P. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 59, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040019

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040019 2017

  52. [54]

    2025, Astronomy and Computing, 53, 100972, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2025.100972

    Nandi, A., & Pandey, B. 2025, Astronomy and Computing, 53, 100972, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2025.100972

    arXiv 2025

  53. [55]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 5988, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1260

    Neumann, J., Thomas, D., Maraston, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5988, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1260

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1260 2022

  54. [56]

    G., Muzzin, A., McDonald, M., et al

    Noble, A. G., Muzzin, A., McDonald, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1c6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1c6 2019

  55. [57]

    A., Meidt, S., Van de Ven, G., et al

    Norris, M. A., Meidt, S., Van de Ven, G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/55 O’Kane, C. J., Kuchner, U., Gray, M. E., & Arag´ on-Salamanca, A. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1682, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2142

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/1/55 2014

  56. [58]

    McCarthy, I. G. 2021, Universe, 7, 209, doi: 10.3390/universe7070209

    doi:10.3390/universe7070209 2021

  57. [59]

    2015, Nature, 521, 192, doi: 10.1038/nature14439

    Peng, Y., Maiolino, R., & Cochrane, R. 2015, Nature, 521, 192, doi: 10.1038/nature14439

    doi:10.1038/nature14439 2015

  58. [60]

    Wise, M. W. 2006, ApJ, 652, 216, doi: 10.1086/507672

    doi:10.1086/507672 2006

  59. [61]

    2020, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3938000

    Reid, M. 2020, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3938000

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3938000 2020

  60. [62]

    2021, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5030847

    Reid, M. 2021, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5030847

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.5030847 2021

  61. [63]

    E., & Volonteri, M

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/2/82 2015

  62. [64]

    2015, ApJL, 801, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/2/L29

    Renzini, A., & Peng, Y.-j. 2015, ApJL, 801, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/2/L29

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/801/2/l29 2015

  63. [65]

    ALMA visits the QSO MUSEUM: connecting molecular gas and the cool circumgalactic medium around 37 z~3 quasars

    Ritter, J., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Peng, B., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.30742, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.30742

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.30742 2026

  64. [66]

    Salim, S., Boquien, M., & Lee, J. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c 2018

  65. [67]

    C., Janowiecki, S., et al

    Salim, S., Lee, J. C., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 2, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/227/1/2

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/227/1/2 2016

  66. [68]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 2423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2319

    Shi, Y., Yu, X., Mao, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2319

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2319 2021

  67. [69]

    F., Cutri, R

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

    doi:10.1086/498708 2006

  68. [70]

    S., Hopkins, P

    Somerville, R. S., Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Robertson, B. E., & Hernquist, L. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 481, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13805.x

    arXiv 2008

  69. [71]

    V., Masters, K

    Stark, D. V., Masters, K. L., Avila-Reese, V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab566

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab566 2021

  70. [72]

    Team, T.-M. A. S. S. S. 2020, 2MASS All-Sky Extended Source Catalog (XSC), IPAC, doi: 10.26131/IRSA97

    work page doi:10.26131/irsa97 2020

  71. [73]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9b0

    Temi, P., Amblard, A., Gitti, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9b0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab9b0 2018

  72. [74]

    1972, ApJ, 178, 623, doi: 10.1086/151823

    Toomre, A., & Toomre, J. 1972, ApJ, 178, 623, doi: 10.1086/151823

    doi:10.1086/151823 1972

  73. [75]

    2002, ApJ, 574, 740, doi: 10.1086/341002

    Tremaine, S., Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740, doi: 10.1086/341002

    doi:10.1086/341002 2002

  74. [76]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898, doi: 10.1086/423264

    doi:10.1086/423264 2004

  75. [77]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 15 van den Bosch, R. C. E. 2016, ApJ, 831, 134, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/134

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 2017

  76. [78]

    2023, ApJL, 950, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd779

    Wang, B., & Peng, Y. 2023, ApJL, 950, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd779

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd779 2023

  77. [79]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1268, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1169

    Wang, K., Peng, Y., & Chen, Y. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1268, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1169

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1169 2023

  78. [80]

    2024, Nature, 632, 1009, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07821-2

    Wang, T., Xu, K., Wu, Y., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 1009, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07821-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07821-2 2024

  79. [81]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada033

    Wang, Y., Wang, T., Xu, K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada033

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada033 2025

  80. [82]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adff7d

    Wang, Y.-J., Chen, C.-C., Arrigoni Battaia, F., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adff7d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adff7d 2025

Showing first 80 references.