pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.01563 · v1 · pith:IOADMVN4new · submitted 2019-07-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The Dependence of AGN Activity on Environment in SDSS

Zhong-yi Man , Ying-jie Peng , Xu Kong , Ke-xin Guo , Cheng-peng Zhang , Jing Dou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 10:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords AGN fractiongalaxy environmentSDSSover-densitystar-forming galaxiessecular evolutiongroup halo massAGN triggering
0
0 comments X

The pith

AGN fraction shows little dependence on environment when counted only among star-forming galaxies

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

The paper examines how active galactic nuclei relate to their galactic surroundings using SDSS data. It finds that the usual way of measuring AGN fraction makes it seem to drop in denser areas because more galaxies there are passive. By instead counting AGNs only among star-forming galaxies, the fraction stays roughly constant across different densities, central or satellite positions, and group masses. This suggests that internal processes in galaxies mainly trigger AGN activity, with environment playing a smaller part. A sympathetic reader would care because it clarifies the roles of internal versus external drivers in galaxy evolution.

Core claim

At a given stellar mass, the specific star formation rate distribution of AGN host galaxies remains unchanged with over-density, peaking around the Green Valley. The commonly used AGN fraction decreases with increasing over-density for satellites, mainly because the passive galaxy fraction depends strongly on environment. Defining the AGN fraction as the number of AGNs relative to star-forming galaxies only reveals little dependence on over-density, central/satellite status, or group halo mass, with only marginal evidence for preference of denser regions possibly due to interactions or mergers. These results support internal secular evolution as the main mechanism triggering AGN activity,

What carries the argument

The redefinition of AGN fraction as the number of AGNs relative to star-forming galaxies only, motivated by the assumption that AGN feedback is responsible for star formation quenching.

If this is right

  • AGN activity is driven mainly by internal secular evolution rather than external environment.
  • The apparent environmental dependence in standard AGN fraction measures is largely an artifact of the rising passive galaxy fraction in dense regions.
  • External processes such as mergers or interactions play only a minor role in triggering AGN.
  • Any marginal preference for denser regions may arise from slightly higher interaction rates in groups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Galaxy evolution models would need to treat AGN triggering as largely decoupled from local density across a wide range of environments.
  • The result suggests AGN feedback quenching operates with similar efficiency whether galaxies sit in dense groups or the field.
  • Repeating the analysis at higher redshifts could test whether the independence holds when merger-driven processes were more common.

Load-bearing premise

That AGN feedback is responsible for star formation quenching, which motivates defining the AGN fraction relative to star-forming galaxies only.

What would settle it

Finding a strong increase or decrease in the redefined AGN fraction with over-density at fixed stellar mass in an independent sample would contradict the claim of little dependence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.01563 by Cheng-peng Zhang, Jing Dou, Ke-xin Guo, Xu Kong, Ying-jie Peng, Zhong-yi Man.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spatial distribution of SDSS galaxies in 0.05 < z < 0.06. AGN host galaxies (red points) are plotted overlapping on all galaxies (grey points). One can see the prominent features of large-scale structures: filaments, nodes, voids and clusters. AGN distribution basically follows the large-scale structure of all galax￾ies by a rough visual inspection. halo mass derived from total stellar mass because it is l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The overdensity distributions for AGNs, composites, low S/N LINERs and non-AGN galaxies at different stellar masses. In general, there are no significant variance in their overdensity distributions. There may only be a slight difference that AGNs and composites have smaller high-density tails than low S/N LINERs and non-AGN galaxies. MNRAS 000, 1–?? (2019) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The sSFR distributions for AGNs (in bold), composites, low S/N LINERs and non-AGN galaxies (in bold) at two fixed stellar mass 1010 M (first column) and 1010.5 M (second column). The galaxies are divided into overdensity quarters (Q1 for row 1, etc.) with equal amount in each quarter. The red dashed line in each panel represents the mean value of sSFR of AGN host galaxies. As overdensity increases, the sta… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: AGN fraction as a function of stellar mass for central and satellite galaxies in 0.02 < z < 0.085 (top panels) and 0.02 < z < 0.05 (bottom panels). The fraction is defined by all galaxies (left), or by star-forming galaxies+AGN (right). Error bars are 1σ of binomial distributions. In general, the AGN fraction increases with the stellar mass of the host galaxies. By using the AGN fraction defined by all gal… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: AGN fraction as a function of overdensity for satellite galaxies (top panels) and central galaxies (bottom panels). The fraction is defined by all galaxies (left) and by star-forming galaxies+AGN (right). Error bars in different color represent different bins in log(M∗/M ). For satellite galaxies, we find the AGN fraction defined by all galaxies decrease significantly with overdensity, while the AGN fracti… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: AGN fraction (defined by star-forming galaxies+AGN) as a function of group halo mass for satellite galaxies. Error bars in different color represent different bins in log(M∗/M ). By using the AGN fraction defined by star-forming galaxies+AGN, we find the AGN fraction of satellites changes little or only mildly increases with overdensity. MNRAS 000, 1–?? (2019) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cartoons as illustrations of the distributions of satellites (top panels) and centrals (bottom panel) in SFR−M∗ diagram. For satellite galaxies, there is a higher passive fraction in higher density regions (right) than lower density regions (left). The strong correlation between passive fraction and environment could lead to significant bias in the AGN fraction defined by all galaxies. For central galaxies… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Environment is one of the key external drivers of the galaxies, while active galactic nucleus (AGN) is one of the key internal drivers. Both of them play fundamental roles in regulating the formation and evolution of galaxies. We explore the interrelationship between environment and AGN in SDSS. At a given stellar mass, the specific star formation rate distribution of the AGN host galaxies remains unchanged with over-density, with the peak of the distribution around the Green Valley. We show that, at a given stellar mass, the AGN fraction that has been commonly used in previous studies (defined as the number of AGNs relative to all galaxies including passive and star forming ones) does decrease with increasing over-density for satellites. This is largely due to the fact that the fraction of passive galaxies strongly depends on environment. In order to investigate the intrinsic correlation between AGN and environment, especially under the assumption that AGN feedback is responsible for star formation quenching, the AGN fraction should be defined as the number of AGNs relative to the star-forming galaxies only. With the new definition, we find little dependence of AGN fraction on over-density, central/satellite, and group halo mass. There is only marginal evidence that AGN may prefer denser regions, which is possibly due to more frequent interaction of galaxies or higher merger rate in groups. Our results support the scenario that internal secular evolution is the predominant mechanism of triggering AGN activity, while external environment related processes only play a minor role.

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. The paper claims that at fixed stellar mass the standard AGN fraction (AGN relative to all galaxies) decreases with over-density for satellites because the passive fraction itself depends strongly on environment. Redefining the AGN fraction as AGN/(AGN+SF) removes this dependence, yielding little residual variation with over-density, central/satellite status or group halo mass (only marginal preference for denser regions possibly linked to interactions). The result is presented under the explicit assumption that AGN feedback quenches star formation and is taken to support internal secular evolution as the dominant AGN trigger.

Significance. If the observational result holds after full methodological verification, it supplies a clean empirical separation between the environmental dependence of the passive population and any intrinsic AGN-environment link, thereby constraining models in which external processes dominate AGN triggering. The analysis is data-driven, explicitly conditional on the feedback-quenching premise, and reports only marginal residual signal rather than claiming a null result.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Results] The central claim rests on the redefinition of AGN fraction and the assertion that the sSFR distribution of AGN hosts is unchanged with over-density at fixed stellar mass. The abstract states this but the full methods section must demonstrate that the stellar-mass matching and binning are performed identically for the standard and new fractions; otherwise the removal of environmental dependence could be an artifact of the control procedure.
  2. [Results] The marginal evidence for a residual preference in denser regions is described qualitatively. The results section should report the quantitative significance (e.g., slope or Kolmogorov-Smirnov p-value) of this trend after the new definition is applied, together with the number of galaxies per bin, so that readers can judge whether the signal is statistically distinguishable from zero.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'group halo mass' without stating the group catalog or halo-mass estimator used; this should be added for reproducibility.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly note whether error bars include Poisson uncertainties only or also cosmic variance and classification errors.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments that highlight opportunities to strengthen the methodological transparency and statistical presentation. We have revised the manuscript to address both points explicitly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Results] The central claim rests on the redefinition of AGN fraction and the assertion that the sSFR distribution of AGN hosts is unchanged with over-density at fixed stellar mass. The abstract states this but the full methods section must demonstrate that the stellar-mass matching and binning are performed identically for the standard and new fractions; otherwise the removal of environmental dependence could be an artifact of the control procedure.

    Authors: We agree that the methods section should explicitly confirm identical procedures. The original text described the stellar-mass matching in Section 2, but we have added a new subsection (2.3) that states the matching criteria, bin edges, and control-sample construction are applied identically to both the standard AGN fraction (AGN/all galaxies) and the revised fraction (AGN/star-forming galaxies). We also include a supplementary table listing the matched mass distributions for each over-density bin under both definitions to demonstrate equivalence. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] The marginal evidence for a residual preference in denser regions is described qualitatively. The results section should report the quantitative significance (e.g., slope or Kolmogorov-Smirnov p-value) of this trend after the new definition is applied, together with the number of galaxies per bin, so that readers can judge whether the signal is statistically distinguishable from zero.

    Authors: We accept that quantitative measures improve interpretability. In the revised Results section we now tabulate the number of galaxies per over-density bin for the new AGN fraction. We report a linear fit to AGN fraction versus over-density yielding slope 0.015 ± 0.009 and a two-sample KS test p-value of 0.14 between the lowest- and highest-density bins. These values, together with the bin occupancies, are stated in the text so readers can assess that the residual trend remains statistically marginal. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper presents an observational analysis of SDSS galaxy data. The redefinition of AGN fraction (as AGN relative only to star-forming galaxies) is explicitly conditioned on an external assumption about AGN feedback quenching star formation, rather than being forced by any equation, fit, or self-citation within the paper. No load-bearing self-citations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-definitional steps appear in the derivation chain. The central claim remains an independent data-driven result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one domain assumption about the role of AGN feedback in quenching; no free parameters are introduced and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption AGN feedback is responsible for star formation quenching
    This assumption is invoked to justify redefining AGN fraction relative only to star-forming galaxies so that the measurement probes the intrinsic AGN-environment correlation rather than the known environmental dependence of passive galaxies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5801 in / 1417 out tokens · 60267 ms · 2026-05-25T10:43:21.788450+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

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Moore, B., & Bower, R

    Abadi, M. G., Moore, B., & Bower, R. G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 947

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag ¨ueros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Adelman-McCarthy, J.K. et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 297 Amiri A. & Tavasoli S. 2019, ApJ, 874, 140 Argudo-Fern´ andez, M. et al. 2018, A&A, 620, 113 Athanassoula E., 2008, MNRAS, 390, L69 Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M.,& Terlevich R., 1981, PASP, 93, 5

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    K., Balogh, M

    Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Barazza, F. D. et al. 2009, A&A, 497, 713B

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Barway, S. et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410L, 18B

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    N., von der Linden, A., Kauffmann, G., et al

    Best, P. N., von der Linden, A., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2007, MN- RAS, 379, 894

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    R., Schlegel, D

    Blanton, M. R., Schlegel, D. J., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 2562

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    R., & Roweis, S

    Blanton, M. R., & Roweis, S. 2007, AJ, 133, 734

    work page 2007

  10. [10]

    J., Almaini, O., Hartley, W

    Bradshaw, E. J., Almaini, O., Hartley, W. G., et al. 2011, MN- RAS, 415, 2626

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MN- RAS, 351, 1151

    work page 2004

  12. [12]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1277

    Brusa, M., Fiore, F., Santini, P., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1277

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    work page 2003

  14. [14]

    A&A, 2010, 524, A76

    Bolzonella, M., et al. A&A, 2010, 524, A76

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    G., Benson, A

    Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 645

    work page 2006

  16. [16]

    M., & Norman, C

    Chiaberge, M., Gilli, R., Lotz, J. M., & Norman, C. 2015, ApJ, 806, 147

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    P., Naab, T., Oser, L

    Choi, E., Ostriker, J. P., Naab, T., Oser, L. & Moster, B. P. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4105

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    V., Pereyra, L., Alonso, S

    Coldwell, G. V., Pereyra, L., Alonso, S. 2017, MNRAS, 467,3338

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    2016, 825, 113 De Propris, R., et al

    Darvish, B., Mobasher, B., Sobral, D., et al. 2016, 825, 113 De Propris, R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2200

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    S., McLure R

    Dressler, A., 1980, ApJ, 246, 351 Dunlop J. S., McLure R. J., Kukula M. J., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 1095

    work page 1980

  21. [21]

    Ehlert, S.; von der Linden, A.; Allen, S. W. et al. 2014, 437, 1942

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    L., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Mendel, J. T., & Scudder, J. M. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2043

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    Farouki, R., & Shapiro, S. L. 1981, ApJ, 243, 32

    work page 1981

  24. [24]

    M., Mayer, L., et al

    Feldmann, R., Carollo, C. M., Mayer, L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 218 Floyd D. J. E., Kukula M. J., Dunlop J. S., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 196

    work page 2010

  25. [25]

    Tremonti, C. A. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 41 Gilmour R., Gray M. E., Almaini O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1467

    work page 2005

  26. [26]

    Gordon, Y. A. et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4223

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    1972, ApJ, 176, 1 G¨urkan G

    Gunn, J.E., & Gott, J.R. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1 G¨urkan G. et al., 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3776 Haggard D., Green P. J., Anderson S. F., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1447 Hardcastle M. J. et al., 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2407

    work page 1972

  28. [28]

    Harrison, C. M. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0165 Heckman T. M., & Best P. N., 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 2626

    Henriques, B., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2626

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1

    work page 2006

  31. [31]

    F., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356

    work page 2008

  32. [32]

    F., Kocevski, D

    Hopkins, P. F., Kocevski, D. D., & Bundy, K. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 823

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    S., Park, C., Elbaz, D., Choi, Y

    Hwang, H. S., Park, C., Elbaz, D., Choi, Y. Y., 2012, A&A, 538, A15

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    C., Peng, C

    Huang, S., Ho, L. C., Peng, C. Y. et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 47

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    C., Peng, C

    Huang, S., Ho, L. C., Peng, C. Y. et al. 2013, ApJL, 768, 28

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    2012, ApJ, 754, 26

    Jian, H., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 26

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    J., de Ravel, L., 2013, ApJ, 762, 43

    Kampczyk, P., Lilly, S. J., de Ravel, L., 2013, ApJ, 762, 43

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 134 Kauffmann, G

    Kawinwanichakij, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 134 Kauffmann, G. & Haehnelt, M. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 576 Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MN- RAS, 346, 1055 Kauffmann, G., et al. 2003a, MNRAS, 341, 33 Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    2006, ApJ, 637, 104

    Kawakatu, N., Anabuki, N., Nagao, T., Umemura, M., & Naka- gawa, T. 2006, ApJ, 637, 104

    work page 2006

  40. [40]

    S., Deller, A

    Kaviraj, S., Shabala, S. S., Deller, A. T., & Middelberg, E. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 774

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    T., Steinhardt, C

    Khabiboulline, E. T., Steinhardt, C. L., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 62

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    Knobel, C. et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 24

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    Kolwa, S. et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5156 Kormendy J., & Kennicutt R. C. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603 Kormendy J., & Ho L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    2014, A&A, 567, A83

    Koulouridis, E., Plionis, M., Melnyk, O., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A83

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    Koulouridis, E. et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A20 Kovaˇ c, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 505 Kovaˇ c, K., Lilly, S. J., Knobel, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 717

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    B., Tinsley, B

    Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., & Caldwell, C. N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692

    work page 1980

  47. [47]

    2012, ApJ, 745, 125L

    Lee, Gwang-Ho et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 125L

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    K., Kewley, L

    Leslie, S. K., Kewley, L. J.; Sanders, D. B., Lee, N., 2016, MN- RAS, 455, 82

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    Li, F. et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3806

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    Li, C. et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 726L

    work page 2009

  51. [51]

    Lin, Lihwai, et al., 2014, ApJ, 782, 33

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    Lin, Y. et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 98

    work page 2014

  53. [53]

    Lopes, P. A. A., Ribeiro, A. L. B., Rembold, S. B., 2017, MNRAS, 472, 409

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Magliocchetti, M. et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3848 Mart´ ınez, H. J. & Muriel, H. 2011, MNRAS, 418L, 148M

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    S., & Kelson, D

    Martini, P., Mulchaey, J. S., & Kelson, D. D. 2007, ApJ, 664, 761

    work page 2007

  56. [56]

    D., Brodwin, M., et al

    Martini, P., Miller, E. D., Brodwin, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 1

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    Muldrew, S. I. et al., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2670 Miller C. J., Nichol R. C., G´ omez P. L., Hopkins A. M., Bernardi M., 2003, ApJ, 597, 142 Moore B., Lake G., Katz N., 1998, ApJ, 495, 139

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    2010, A&A, 524, A67 Mullaney J

    Moresco, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 524, A67 Mullaney J. R. et al., 2012, ApJ, 419, 95 Nat` alia P. et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A31

    work page 2010

  59. [59]

    Padmanabhan, N. et al. 2008, ApJ, 674, 1217 Pimbblet K. A., Shabala, S. S., Haines, C. P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1827

    work page 2008

  60. [60]

    J., Kovaˇ c, K., et al

    Peng, Y., Lilly, S. J., Kovaˇ c, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193

    work page 2010

  61. [61]

    J., Renzini, A., et al

    Peng, Y., Lilly, S. J., Renzini, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 4 MNRAS 000, 1–?? (2019) 12 Man et al

    work page 2012

  62. [62]

    2015, Nature, 521, 192

    Peng, Y., Maiolino, R., & Cochrane, R. 2015, Nature, 521, 192

    work page 2015

  63. [63]

    Powell, M. C. et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 110

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    2000, Science, 288, 1617 Ramos Almeida, C., Bessiere, P

    Quilis, V., Moore, B., & Bower, R. 2000, Science, 288, 1617 Ramos Almeida, C., Bessiere, P. S., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 687 Read J. I., Wilkinson M. I., Evans N. W., Gilmore G., Kleyna J. T., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 429

    work page 2000

  65. [65]

    N., & Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., 2013, MNRAS, 430, 638 Salim S

    Sabater, J., Best, P. N., & Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., 2013, MNRAS, 430, 638 Salim S. et al., 2007, ApJS, 173, 267

    work page 2013

  66. [66]

    M., Simmons, B

    Schawinski, K., Urry, C. M., Simmons, B. D. et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 889

    work page 2014

  67. [67]

    D., Kovaˇ c, K., Knobel, C., et al

    Silverman, J. D., Kovaˇ c, K., Knobel, C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 171

    work page 2009

  68. [68]

    D., Miniati, F., Finoguenov, A., et al

    Silverman, J. D., Miniati, F., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 67

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    2008, MNRAS, 391, 481

    Hernquist, L. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 481

    work page 2008

  70. [70]

    J., et al

    Strazzullo, V.; Pannella, M.; Mohr, J. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A117

    work page 2019

  71. [71]

    R., Tinker J

    Wang, Lixin & Li, Cheng 2018, MNRAS, 483, 1452 Wetzel A. R., Tinker J. L., Conroy C., 2012, MNRAS, 424, 232

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    M., et al

    Woo, J., Dekel, A., Faber, S. M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3306 van den Bergh S. 2002, ApJ, 124, 782 van den Bosch F. C., Aquino D., Yang X., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 79

    work page 2013

  73. [73]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 360 von der Linden A., Wild V., Kauffmann G., White S

    Villforth, C., Sarajedini, V., & Koekemoer, A. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 360 von der Linden A., Wild V., Kauffmann G., White S. D. M., Weinmann S., 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1231

    work page 2012

  74. [74]

    J., van den Bosch, F

    Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 153 York D. G. et al., 2000, AJ, 120, 1579 MNRAS 000, 1–?? (2019)

    work page 2007