Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

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

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents the z=0 state of the ASTRID cosmological simulation and argues that its population of massive black holes genuinely co-evolves with host galaxies, reproducing observed black-hole–galaxy scaling relations and their scatte

desk verdict A solid z=0 simulation characterization with a valuable public data release; the LF 'agreement' is partly calibrated rather than predictive, and the abstract overclaims, but the resource is worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.13976 v2 pith:LS645R5T submitted 2025-10-15 astro-ph.GA

Yihao Zhou , Tiziana Di Matteo , Simeon Bird , Rupert Croft , Yueying Ni , Yanhui Yang , Nianyi Chen , Patrick Lachance
show 2 more authors
Xiaowen Zhang Fatemeh Hafezianzadeh
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmologicalhydrodynamicalsimulationmassiveblackholeshole–galaxyscalingrelationsdynamicalfrictionAGNluminosityfunctiongalaxystellarmassclusterslarge-scalestructurebias
open problems Dark Matter
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

This paper presents the z=0 snapshot of ASTRID, one of the largest cosmological hydrodynamic simulations ever evolved to today's universe—0.33 trillion particles in a 370-Mpc cube. The central claim is that ASTRID's massive black holes, which span nearly seven orders of magnitude in mass, genuinely co-evolve with their host galaxies: the simulation reproduces observed M_BH–M* and M_BH–σ scaling relations, including a scatter that is closer to observations than earlier simulations produced. It also produces a local galaxy population matching the observed stellar mass function, dust-corrected luminosity function, and red-blue color bimodality, and it hosts thousands of massive groups and clusters whose stellar contents match observations. If these claims hold, ASTRID provides a credible cosmological laboratory for predicting black hole merger rates for gravitational wave observatories and for interpreting large surveys of galaxies and active galactic nuclei.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the subgrid dynamical-friction model plus a 'dynamical mass' M_dyn=1e7 h^-1 Msun assigned to freshly seeded black holes. The friction force dissipates the momentum of black holes moving through unresolved stars and dark matter, so their orbits decay toward the halo center; M_dyn prevents the lightest seeds (3e4–3e5 Msun) from being artificially kicked around by numerical heating. Together these replace the older black-hole repositioning algorithm, giving black holes physical trajectories and merger criteria based on separation and gravitational binding. The paper argues this mechanism is what allows a realistic diversity of black hole masses to survive in galaxies

What would settle it

Count the frequency of low-mass (1e6–1e8 Msun) central black holes in galaxies with M* ~ 1e10.5–1e11 Msun. ASTRID predicts this population is common; if deep X-ray or optical surveys show such galaxies almost always host black holes above 1e8 Msun, or almost never host black holes this small, the claimed scatter and diversity would be contradicted. Alternatively, run ASTRID with all seeds at a single mass instead of stochastic seed masses and compare the scatter of the M_BH–M* relation: if the scatter collapses, the stochastic seeding is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ASTRID is claimed to reproduce, at z=0, the co-evolution of massive black holes and their host galaxies: the scaling relations between central black hole mass and galaxy stellar mass, and between black hole mass and stellar velocity dispersion, agree with observations, and the scatter in these relations is substantially closer to observed scatter than in earlier large-volume simulations. The authors attribute this to treating black hole dynamics through a subgrid dynamical-friction force and omitting the usual repositioning algorithm, so black holes sink and merge more naturally. Beyond the scaling relations, the paper reports a black hole mass function matching observations above about 1e7

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ad hoc numerical choices for seeding and subgrid black-hole dynamics—the small stochastic seed masses and the artificial dynamical mass M_dyn=1e7 h^-1 Msun used to prevent numerical heating—produce real black-hole behavior rather than artificial scatter; the authors themselves note in Section 6.2 that some results are partly determined by their seeding prescription.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ASTRID's public catalogs can be used to predict massive-black-hole merger rates and gravitational-wave source populations for LISA and pulsar timing arrays.
  • The z=0 black hole population, including wandering black hole occupation numbers, offers a test bed for interpreting AGN surveys and their luminosity functions.
  • The massive groups and clusters in ASTRID provide a census of central-galaxy, satellite, and intracluster-light stellar masses that can be compared with X-ray and optical cluster surveys.
  • Massive black holes above ~1e8 Msun and galaxies above ~1e10.5 Msun are reliable large-scale-structure tracers; their power spectra can be compared with observed clustering to constrain cosmology.
  • The predicted presence of ~20 wandering black holes in 1e11 Msun galaxies and over 1000 in 1e12 Msun galaxies means future X-ray observations may see off-center AGN in massive galaxies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the seeding prescription: if a twin run with uniform seed masses or a lower M_dyn drastically changes the scaling-relation scatter and occupation numbers, the claimed diversity is driven by the numerical choice rather than by realistic dynamics. The authors themselves acknowledge that some results are partly determined by their seeding prescription.
  • The z=0 overabundance of small black holes (below 1e7 Msun) and the deficit of bright AGN (LX > 1e45 erg/s) are places where next-generation X-ray surveys could falsify or confirm the subgrid accretion and feedback model.
  • The stable bias of 1e8-Msun black holes at z=0 suggests that future gravitational-wave source catalogs, once cross-correlated with galaxy surveys, could constrain cosmology—but only if the black-hole–galaxy connection remains this tight at higher redshifts.
  • The sSFR and quiescent-fraction discrepancies around M* ~ 1e10.5–1e11 Msun imply that lowering the kinetic-feedback critical mass would shift the quiescent transition to lower stellar masses; this is a testable consequence of the current feedback threshold.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents the z=0 output of the ASTRID cosmological SPH simulation (370 Mpc box, ~0.33 trillion particles), focusing on the massive black hole (MBH) population and its connection to galaxies and large-scale structure. It describes the subgrid MBH model (seeding, dynamical mass M_dyn, dynamical friction, Bondi accretion, two-mode AGN feedback), then compares z=0 MBH mass functions, AGN X-ray luminosity functions, M_BH-M* and M_BH-sigma relations, BH occupation statistics, and BH mass/accretion-rate densities with observations. It also reports the galaxy stellar mass function, sSFR, sizes, metallicities, dust-attenuated luminosity function and g-r colors, cluster stellar content, and MBH/galaxy clustering bias. The paper concludes that ASTRID captures MBH-galaxy co-evolution, reproduces the galaxy luminosity function after dust attenuation, hosts a large cluster population, and provides useful large-scale-structure tracers. Several tensions are acknowledged, including an overestimated z=0 BH accretion-rate density, a low quiescent fraction, and a 0.5 dex deficit near the stellar mass function knee.

Significance. If the results are robust, ASTRID is a major public resource for MBH and gravitational-wave science: it combines a large volume, low seed masses, full MBH trajectories, and a >3 million merger catalog, with direct applicability to LISA, PTA, and X-ray survey planning. The paper is unusually transparent about known disagreements, and it provides publicly available catalogs. The main caveats are that the MBH scaling-relation and scatter claims depend on unvaried subgrid choices, especially M_dyn and the seed mass distribution, and that the dust-attenuated luminosity-function and color results are calibrated to the same SDSS luminosity functions used for the comparison. These issues do not negate the value of the simulation, but they are load-bearing for the paper's headline claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (6), Fig. 15 (right), Fig. 16] The dust attenuation normalization κ_ISM is set to 10^3.0 by calibrating against observed SDSS u, g, r luminosity functions (Driver et al. 2012; Loveday et al. 2012). The right panel of Fig. 15 then presents the dust-attenuated luminosity function as being in 'good agreement' with those same observations. As written, this is a fit, not a prediction. The g−r color bimodality in Fig. 16 inherits the same calibration and therefore cannot be cited as independent support. Please either reframe these results as a calibrated post-processing model, or provide an out-of-sample test (e.g., a different photometric band, a different redshift, or number counts) that would demonstrate predictive power.
  2. [§2.1.1–§2.1.2, §3.3, §6.2] Seeds are drawn stochastically from 3×10^4–3×10^5 h^−1 M_sun, but each seed is assigned a dynamical mass M_dyn = 10^7 h^−1 M_sun that is used for the gravitational force and the dynamical friction calculation until M_BH exceeds M_dyn. Thus early BH orbital decay, merging, and accretion are controlled by a constant that is 30–300 times the true seed mass. The paper cites Chen et al. (2022b) and Zhou et al. (2025b) for validation of the dynamical friction prescription, but no test is presented for the sensitivity of z=0 scaling relations, scatter, or occupation numbers to the value of M_dyn or to the seed mass draw. Given that §6.2 concedes that the clustering results are 'partly determined by our BH seeding prescription,' the headline M_BH–M* and M_BH–σ claims require either a convergence/sensitivity test or an explicit statement of which observables are robust to this choice.
  3. [§3.3, Figs. 6–7] The claim that ASTRID's scatter in the M_BH–M* and M_BH–σ relations is 'more consistent with observations than previous simulations' is supported only by visual comparison with gray observational contours. No quantitative measure of scatter is provided, and the observational contours include heterogeneous samples with different selection functions and measurement errors. Please provide a quantitative comparison, for example the rms scatter in log M_BH at fixed M* or σ, with observational errors accounted for, to justify this specific claim.
  4. [§3.5, Fig. 10; §4.2, Fig. 15 (left)] The paper acknowledges a >1 dex overestimate of the z=0 BH accretion-rate density and a 0.5 dex deficit near the stellar mass function knee, as well as a too-low quiescent fraction at M* ≈ 5×10^10 M_sun. These are not fatal by themselves, but they involve the same AGN feedback mechanisms used to explain the M_BH–M*/σ relations. The conclusion that ASTRID 'successfully captures the co-evolution' of MBHs and galaxies would be more convincing if the paper explicitly discussed how these tensions are related to the claimed co-evolution success, or tempered the headline claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1.4] Typo: 'istropically' should be 'isotropically'.
  2. [§2, §5.1] Typographical issues: 'with with' near the halo description in §2, and 'which which' in §5.1.
  3. [§4.1] 'M_cric' in the sSFR discussion should be 'M_crit'.
  4. [§4.3] The MILES stellar library is cited as 'Miller et al. 2015', but the reference list entry Miller et al. (2015) is the AGN occupation sample used in §3.4. Please check this citation; the MILES library should be credited to the appropriate original papers.
  5. [§4.3, Fig. 16] The figure caption refers to a legend for the color-coded mass bins, but no legend is visible in the printed figure; please make the mass-bin color coding explicit in the caption or figure.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Dust-attenuated galaxy LF is calibrated to the same observations it claims to match, but the central MBH, galaxy, and clustering results are independent

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 4.3, Eq. (6); right panel of Fig. 15]
    "κISM is a calibration parameter which we set to 10^3.0 by calibrating against observed galaxy luminosity functions in the SDSS u,g, and r bands (Driver et al. 2012; Loveday et al. 2012). After applying the dust attenuation, ASTRID produces a luminosity function in good agreement with the observational constraints."

    The gray points in the right panel of Fig. 15 are from Driver et al. (2012) and Loveday et al. (2012), the same SDSS u,g,r luminosity functions used to set κISM in Eq. (6). The u-band LF shown is one of the three calibration targets, so the reported 'good agreement' is a calibration residual, not an independent prediction. The abstract presents it as a successful validation ('the galaxy luminosity function also agrees well with observations'), but for this specific quantity the fitted parameter and the claimed agreement are the same input.

full rationale

The core ASTRID claims are largely independent external comparisons: the M_BH-M* and M_BH-sigma relations, BH mass function, AGN XLF, SMHM relation, and MBH/galaxy bias are outputs of the simulation and are not tuned to those observations. The seeding and dynamical-friction parameters are fixed subgrid choices in Sections 2.1.1-2.1.2; the paper even cautions in Section 6.2 that the results are 'partly determined by our BH seeding prescription.' That is an honest model-dependence caveat, not circularity, because those parameters were not fit to the target observables. Self-citations to Chen et al. (2022b) and Zhou et al. (2025b) are normal continuation of a simulation program and are not used to forbid alternatives or to invoke an unverified uniqueness theorem; an external validation (Genina et al. 2024) is also cited for the dynamical friction model. The one clear reduction is the dust-attenuated galaxy luminosity function: κISM is calibrated to the SDSS u,g,r LFs, and Fig. 15 plus the abstract then advertise agreement with those same LFs. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction in a secondary headline result, so it raises the circularity score, but the central MBH co-evolution, group/cluster budget, and clustering analyses remain self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on a chain of subgrid recipes (seeding, Bondi accretion, dynamical friction, two-mode AGN feedback) and on observational comparisons whose systematics (dust, selection, halo mass definitions) are not fully controlled. One free parameter, kappa_ISM, is explicitly fitted to the same LF data used for validation; other parameters are calibrated in prior ASTRID papers. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Bondi accretion boost alpha = 100
    Chosen to compensate unresolved ISM density; drives all BH growth and therefore the scaling relations and mass function.
  • BH seed mass range = 3e4-3e5 h^-1 M_sun, stochastic
    Seeds drawn randomly; controls low-mass BH population, occupation fraction, and scatter in scaling relations.
  • Dynamical mass M_dyn = 1e7 h^-1 M_sun
    Artificial mass assigned at seeding to prevent dynamical heating; affects gravitational force and dynamical friction on light seeds (Section 2.1.2).
  • Radiative efficiency eta = 0.1 (0.2 variant)
    Standard value; AGN luminosity function comparison shifts with eta.
  • Kinetic-feedback critical mass M_crit = 5e8 h^-1 M_sun
    Threshold in Eq. 4 controlling low-accretion AGN feedback; paper itself suggests it is too high to reproduce quiescent fractions.
  • AGN feedback efficiencies = 0.05 high-accretion; eps_f,kin <=0.05
    Coupling efficiencies set by the model, regulating star formation and BH growth.
  • Dust attenuation normalization kappa_ISM = 10^3
    Calibrated against observed SDSS u,g,r luminosity functions (Section 4.3); makes luminosity-function agreement partly fitted.
  • Dust attenuation slope gamma = -1.0
    Chosen power-law wavelength dependence, steeper than Calzetti; affects galaxy colors.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bondi-Hoyle accretion formula with boost alpha=100 approximates unresolved BH accretion.
    Used in Eq. 2; all MBH growth and AGN feedback inherit this subgrid assumption.
  • domain assumption The Tremmel et al. (2015)/Chen et al. (2022) dynamical friction prescription correctly estimates unresolved drag.
    Central to MBH dynamics, merger rates, and wandering-BH populations (Section 2.1.2).
  • domain assumption The dust attenuation model with power-law tau_ISM and calibrated kappa_ISM captures line-of-sight extinction.
    Used to produce luminosity functions and colors (Section 4.3); not independently derived.
  • domain assumption FOF/SUBFIND and spherical-overdensity definitions correspond to observable halos and galaxies.
    All halo mass and galaxy stellar mass measurements depend on these group-finding choices (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption FSPS/PARSEC/MILES stellar population synthesis converts star particles to luminosities accurately.
    Underlies luminosity functions, colors, and mock images (Section 4.3).
  • domain assumption Subgrid models calibrated in earlier ASTRID papers remain valid at z=0.
    The paper relies on Bird et al. (2022) and Ni et al. (2022, 2024) for model details; no re-derivation is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ASTRID Simulation at z=0: From Massive Black Holes to Large-scale Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LS645R5T

@misc{pith2026251013976,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ASTRID Simulation at z=0: From Massive Black Holes to Large-scale Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LS645R5T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.13976}
}
abstract

We present the $z=0$ results for the cosmological simulation ASTRID. Hosting $2\times 5500^3\approx$ 0.33 trillion particles in a box of $370\, {\rm Mpc}$ per side, ASTRID is one of the largest cosmological hydrodynamic simulations evolved to $z=0$. ASTRID features a large population of massive black holes (MBHs), covering a wide mass range $4\times10^{4}\sim 2\times 10^{11}\ M_{\odot}$. The adopted dynamical friction model provides a relatively accurate description of MBH dynamics, making ASTRID a powerful tool to study MBH growth and mergers in a cosmological context. ASTRID successfully captures the co-evolution of MBHs and their host galaxies, producing $M_{\rm BH}-M_{\star}$ and $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relations in good agreement with observations. Notably, ASTRID generates scatter in these relations that is more consistent with observations than previous simulations, indicating a more realistic MBH diversity. The galaxy stellar mass function at $z=0$ is generally consistent with observational constraints. When dust attenuation is applied, the galaxy luminosity function also agrees well with observations, and the bimodality in galaxy colors is reproduced as well. ASTRID hosts a large population of massive galaxy groups and clusters: 7 halos have $M_{\rm 200c}>10^{15}\ M_{\odot}$, and 9709 halos have $M_{\rm 200c}>10^{13}\ M_{\odot}$. We quantify the stellar mass content in these halos, and find that the correlations between the stellar and halo mass match well with observational constraints. Finally, we present the $z=0$ power spectra of MBH and galaxies, as well as their bias with respect to the matter power spectrum. We find that MBHs with $M_{\rm BH}\geq 10^{8}\ M_{\odot}$ and galaxies with $M_{\star}\geq 10^{10.5}\ M_{\odot}$ serve as good tracers of large-scale structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.13976 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of the ASTRID simulation at z = 0. The underlying background is the dark matter density through a slab 25 cMpc h −1 thick (i.e., 10% of the simulation box length). The panel spans 250 × 187.5 cMpc2 h −2 , covering 75% of the full 250 × 250 cMpc2 h −2 face. We further zoom in on two regions within this slice. Blue zoom (left): region centered on the most massive halo in ASTRID (log M200c/M⊙ = 15.3), who… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The black hole mass function in ASTRID at z = 0. The black solid curve includes all the BHs. The orange and yellow solid curves show the contribution from the BH population with Lbol ≥ 1041 erg/s and fEdd ≥ 0.01, respectively. The blue solid and dashed lines show the obser￾vational constraints given by Shankar et al. (2009) and Ueda et al. (2014). 2.1.2. BH Dynamics A subgrid model is applied to estimate dynamical f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Relation between BH bolometric luminosity Lbol and BH mass MBH at z = 0 in ASTRID. The underlying background shows a two-dimensional distribution of Lbol − MBH. The blue solid line gives the median AGN luminosity for each MBH bin, and the shaded area is the 16-84 percentiles. The orange dotted/dot-dashed/dashed/solid lines mark the 100 /10−1 /10−2 /10−3 × LEdd, respectively. Right: The relation between BH bolo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (21 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Eddington ratio distributions for BH pop￾ulation in ASTRID at z = 0. We show the BH in three mass bins: BHs with mass MBH ≤ 107 M⊙ (blue), MBH = 107−109 M⊙ (yellow), and those with MBH > 109 M⊙ (red). The three distributions are normalized to the BH number in the c…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: AGN hard X-ray (2-10 keV) luminosity function in ASTRID at z=0.4 (left), z=0.2 (middle), and z=0 (right). The orange solid line presents the results based on the radiative efficiency η = 0.1, and the orange dashed line corresponds to η = 0.2. In each panel, the purple …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The correlation between MBHs and their host galaxies at z = 0 in ASTRID. We include only the most massive BHs in each galaxy. The left panel shows the relation between the MBH mass MBH and the galaxy stellar mass M⋆, and the right panel presents the correlation between…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fitted linear relation of MBH − σ for massive galaxies with σ > 100 km s−1 in different simulations: Astrid (red line), Illustris (blue dashed line), and TNG-100 (blue solid line). The grey dots are observed AGN from Greene & Ho (2006), Xiao et al. (2011), and Baro…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The evolution of AGN fraction with Lbol ≥ 1043 erg/s in galaxies with different mass cuts: M⋆ ≥ 1011 M⊙ (yellow solid), M⋆ ≥ 1010 M⊙ (orange solid), M⋆ ≥ 109 M⊙ (red solid). For galaxies with M⋆ ≥ 109 M⊙ (red), we plot the AGN fraction with Lbol ≥ 1042 erg/s (red dotte…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: the averaged occupation number of BHs as a function of the galaxy stellar mass. The red lines include the entire BH population. The dashed lines represent the BHs above different mass thresholds of MBH ≥ 106 M⊙(orange) and MBH ≥ 108 M⊙(yellow). The purple dotted …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of MBH Mass and accretion rate densities. Left: upper panel shows the evolution of the global MBH mass density (BHMD) as a function of redshift. The black curve includes all MBHs. The colored lines show the BHMD contributed by the MBHs in a given range of ma…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mock observations of 6 galaxy mergers present in the ASTRID simulation. The top row contains HST Wide Field Camera (WFC3) mock observations with the red, green, and blue channels showing the F625W, F475W, and F390W filters, respectively. The bottom row shows James Web…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The relation between galaxy stellar mass and specific star formation rate (sSFR; upper left), stellar half-mass radius (upper right), stellar velocity dispersion (lower left), metallicity (lower right). In each panel, the underlying distribution is for the galaxy popu…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Quiescent fraction of galaxies as a function of the galaxy stellar mass. The blue curve shows the fraction of the quiescent galaxies in ASTRID at z=0. The quiescent galaxies are defined as those with the sSFR < 10−11/yr. The data points show the observational results …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The evolution of cosmic star formation rate density (SFRD) as a function of redshift. We compare the SFRD in ASTRID (blue curve) with the observational con￾straints compiled from Enia et al. (2022), Novak et al. (2017), Bouwens et al. (2015), and Hopkins (2004). galax…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Left: the z = 0 galaxy stellar mass function in ASTRID. The red, orange, and yellow solid curves account for the stellar mass within twice the stellar half-mass radius for all the galaxies, central galaxies, and satellite galaxies, respectively. The blue dashed line u…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The distribution of simulated SDSS g − r col￾ors for galaxies in ASTRID at z = 0. Dust attenuation is implemented. We show the galaxies in different mass bins separately, as indicated by the legend. and demonstrated that the central black holes in these galaxies lie a…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Galaxy cluster and groups in ASTRID, i.e., halos with M200c ≥ 1013 M⊙. Left: Cumulative halo number above the given halo mass M200c at z = 0 (blue) and z = 1 (cyan). Right: Halo occupation number in ASTRID, i.e., average number of member galaxies within R200c as a fun…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The stellar mass-halo mass (SMHM) rela￾tion for halos in ASTRID at z = 0. The yellow and red curves are the median values based on the central galaxies’ stellar mass within fixed spherical apertures of 30 kpc, and twice the stellar half-mass radius, respectively. The …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The stellar mass budget of galaxy groups and clusters. In each panel, the underlying distribution corresponds to the number density of the halos in ASTRID at z = 0. The four panels share the same color bars, which are shown on the right. The red curve represents the m…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Scale-dependent bias for mass and SFR selected tracers. top-left: halos selected by M200, top-right: black holes by MBH, bottom-left galaxies by stellar mass M⋆ and bottom-right galaxies by SFR. The top x axis indicates real space distance r = 2π/k and horizontal gray…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Matter power spectra for BHs with MBH ≥ 108 h −1M⊙(blue), galaxies with M⋆ ≥ 5 × 1010 h −1M⊙(red), and all matter (black) in ASTRID at z = 0. The gray line shows the z = 0 matter power spectrum predicted by linear perturbation theory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Large-scale (constant or linear) bias measured at k = 0.1 h −1Mpc as a function of tracer space number density n. We show the bias of galaxies selected by stellar mass (yellow), black holes selected by black hole mass (purple), galaxies selected by SFR (red), and halo…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Black hole tracks in ASTRID compared with the large-scale structures. Left: the DM density field in a slice of 125 × 250 × 25 h −3Mpc3 at z = 0. Right: the trajectories of all black holes in the same slice plotted on the right. We trace the MBHs from z = 15 to z = 0. …
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: The relation between the black hole mass MBH and the mass of their host halos. The red contour represents the 3σ regions of halo central BHs. large-scale structure to some degree. To explain this, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_24.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Tracing black hole and galaxy growth across environments since cosmic noon

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Central black holes in ASTRID and TNG300 follow a tight, redshift-invariant M_BH–M_⋆ relation from z=2 to 0.5; departures mark merger-driven high-mass quenchers, tidally stripped overmassive satellites, and undermassi...

  2. Cosmic Pairs: A DESI Census of Dual and Offset AGN as Precursors to Massive Black Hole Binaries

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DESI DR1 spectroscopy yields >7,000 candidate dual-AGN pairs, expanding the known kpc-scale census by ~4x and linking host-galaxy demographics to LISA-detectable massive black hole mergers.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

166 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 2023

  2. [2]

    L., & Georgakakis, A

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., & Georgakakis, A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1225, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2700

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2700 2018

  3. [3]

    L., Georgakakis, A., et al

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., Georgakakis, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1892, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1062

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1062 2015

  4. [4]

    L., Moustakas, J., et al

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., Moustakas, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/90

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/90 2012

  5. [5]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 175, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab115

    Akino, D., Eckert, D., Okabe, N., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 175, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab115

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab115 2022

  6. [6]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.00786 2017

  7. [7]

    C., Pedrosa, S

    Artale, M. C., Pedrosa, S. E., Trayford, J. W., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1263

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1263 2017

  8. [8]

    F., Reines, A

    Baldassare, V. F., Reines, A. E., Gallo, E., & Greene, J. E. 2015, ApJL, 809, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/L14

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/l14 2015

Show all 166 references
  1. [10]

    J., Vignali, C., et al

    Barchiesi, L., Carrera, F. J., Vignali, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.19915, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19915 27

    2025 doi arXiv

  2. [11]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 3404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1546

    Baron, D., & M´ enard, B. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1546

    2019 doi

  3. [12]

    E., Hopkins, A

    Bauer, A. E., Hopkins, A. M., Gunawardhana, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1011

    2013 doi

  4. [13]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57

    2013 doi

  5. [14]

    2011, ApJ, 742, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/13

    Bellovary, J., Volonteri, M., Governato, F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/13

    2011 doi

  6. [15]

    C., & Manne-Nicholas, E

    Bentz, M. C., & Manne-Nicholas, E. 2018, ApJ, 864, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad808

    2018 doi

  7. [16]

    K., et al

    Bernardi, M., Meert, A., Sheth, R. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 697, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1607

    2013 doi

  8. [17]

    A., Irˇ siˇ c, V., Amon, A., & Sijacki, D

    Bigwood, L., Bourne, M. A., Irˇ siˇ c, V., Amon, A., & Sijacki, D. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1435

    2025 doi

  9. [18]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    Bird, S., Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    2022 doi

  10. [19]

    1944, MNRAS, 104, 273

    Bondi, H., & Hoyle, F. 1944, MNRAS, 104, 273

    1944

  11. [20]

    2023, JCAP, 2023, 086, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/086

    Bosi, M., Bellomo, N., & Raccanelli, A. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 086, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/086

    2023 doi

  12. [21]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34

    2015 doi

  13. [22]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  14. [23]

    2015, ApJ, 802, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/89

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/89

    2015 doi

  15. [24]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, 1362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1965

    Belokurov, V. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1965

    2014 doi

  16. [25]

    R., Charisi, M., et al

    Burke-Spolaor, S., Taylor, S. R., Charisi, M., et al. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 5, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0115-7

    2019 doi

  17. [26]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 4133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2836

    Bustamante, S., & Springel, V. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2836

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  19. [28]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  20. [29]

    2015, ApJS, 219, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/8

    Chang, Y.-Y., van der Wel, A., da Cunha, E., & Rix, H.-W. 2015, ApJS, 219, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/8

    2015 doi

  21. [30]

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

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

    doi

  22. [31]

    M., et al

    Chen, N., Ni, Y., Holgado, A. M., et al. 2022c, MNRAS, 514, 2220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1432

    doi

  23. [32]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 1895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad834

    Chen, N., Di Matteo, T., Ni, Y., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad834

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01024

    Chen, N., Di Matteo, T., Zhou, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01024

    2025 doi arXiv

  25. [34]

    J., McDonald, M., et al

    Chiu, I., Mohr, J. J., McDonald, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3072, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1284

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    2005, MNRAS, 363, L91, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00093.x

    Churazov, E., Sazonov, S., Sunyaev, R., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 363, L91, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00093.x

    2005

  27. [36]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    2010 doi

  28. [37]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  29. [38]

    Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R. H. 2009, ApJ, 696, 620, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/620

    2009 doi

  30. [39]

    2002, PhR, 372, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00276-4

    Cooray, A., & Sheth, R. 2002, PhR, 372, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00276-4

    2002 doi

  31. [40]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv725 Da Rocha, C., & Mendes de Oliveira, C. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1069, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09641.x Da Rocha, C., Ziegler, B. L., & Mendes de Oliveira, C. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1433, ...

    2015

  32. [41]

    J., et al

    Dattathri, S., Natarajan, P., Porras-Valverde, A. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbeef Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    2025 doi

  33. [42]

    S., & White, S

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371, doi: 10.1086/163168 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604, doi: 10.1038/nature03335

    1985 doi

  34. [43]

    2017, Galaxies, 5, 35, doi: 10.3390/galaxies5030035

    Dolag, K., Mevius, E., & Remus, R.-S. 2017, Galaxies, 5, 35, doi: 10.3390/galaxies5030035

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    2019 doi

  36. [45]

    P., Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S., Kelvin, L., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 3244

    2012

  37. [46]

    P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac472 D’Souza, R., Vegetti, S., & Kauffmann, G. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 4027, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2234

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2265

    Dubois, Y., Peirani, S., Pichon, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2265

    2016 doi

  39. [48]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1416

    Dubois, Y., Volonteri, M., Silk, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1416

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    2021, A&A, 651, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039429

    Dubois, Y., Beckmann, R., Bournaud, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039429

    2021 doi

  41. [51]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 2199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3295

    Eisert, L., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3295

    2023 doi

  42. [52]

    2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525 28

    Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525 28

    2007 doi

  43. [53]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51ca EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al

    Enia, A., Talia, M., Pozzi, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51ca EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346844

    2022 doi

  44. [54]

    2018, MP-Gadget/MP-Gadget: A tag for getting a DOI, FirstDOI, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1451799

    Pedersen, C. 2018, MP-Gadget/MP-Gadget: A tag for getting a DOI, FirstDOI, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1451799

    2018 doi

  45. [55]

    A., et al

    Feng, Y., Di-Matteo, T., Croft, R. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2778, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2484

    2016 doi

  46. [56]

    Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., & White, S. D. M. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1106, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10548.x

    2006

  47. [57]

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

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

    2000 doi

  48. [58]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 3976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3078

    Genel, S., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3078

    2018 doi

  49. [59]

    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

  50. [60]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/14

    Zaritsky, D. 2013, ApJ, 778, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/14

    2013 doi

  51. [61]

    Graham, A. W. 2008, ApJ, 680, 143, doi: 10.1086/587473

    2008 doi

  52. [62]

    2015, A&A, 575, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424750

    Grazian, A., Fontana, A., Santini, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424750

    2015 doi

  53. [63]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2006, ApJL, 641, L21, doi: 10.1086/500507 G¨ ultekin, K., Richstone, D. O., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 198, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/198

    2006 doi

  54. [64]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 3935, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx666

    Habouzit, M., Volonteri, M., & Dubois, Y. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3935, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx666

    2017 doi

  55. [65]

    S., et al

    Habouzit, M., Li, Y., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1940, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab496

    2021 doi

  56. [66]

    S., Li, Y., et al

    Habouzit, M., Somerville, R. S., Li, Y., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3147

    2022 doi

  57. [67]

    J., El-Badry, K., Lucchini, S., et al

    Han, J. J., El-Badry, K., Lucchini, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb967

    2025 doi

  58. [68]

    A., Puchwein, E., Shen, S., & Sijacki, D

    Henden, N. A., Puchwein, E., Shen, S., & Sijacki, D. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1780

    2018 doi

  59. [69]

    Hopkins, A. M. 2004, ApJ, 615, 209, doi: 10.1086/424032

    2004 doi

  60. [70]

    F., Richards, G

    Hopkins, P. F., Richards, G. T., & Hernquist, L. 2007, ApJ, 654, 731, doi: 10.1086/509629 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2007 doi

  61. [71]

    J., et al

    Jeon, J., Liu, B., Taylor, A. J., et al. 2025, The Emerging Black Hole Mass Function in the High-Redshift Universe. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14703 Jim´ enez-Teja, Y., Dupke, R. A., Lopes de Oliveira, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833547

    2025 arXiv

  62. [72]

    L., Kelley, L

    Katz, M. L., Kelley, L. Z., Dosopoulou, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3102

    2020 doi

  63. [74]

    Taylor, S. R. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty689

    2018 doi

  64. [75]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  65. [76]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 1349, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv627

    Khandai, N., Di Matteo, T., Croft, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1349, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv627

    2015 doi

  66. [77]

    N., Cohen, J

    Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/102

    2013 doi

  67. [78]

    2021, ApJS, 252, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abcda6

    Kluge, M., Bender, R., Riffeser, A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abcda6

    2021 doi

  68. [79]

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

    2013 doi

  69. [80]

    V., Vikhlinin, A

    Kravtsov, A. V., Vikhlinin, A. A., & Meshcheryakov, A. V. 2018, Astronomy Letters, 44, 8, doi: 10.1134/S1063773717120015

    2018 doi

  70. [81]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 20, doi: 10.33232/001c.129991

    LaChance, P., Croft, R., Ni, Y., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 20, doi: 10.33232/001c.129991

    2025 doi

  71. [82]

    P., Robotham, A

    Lange, R., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2467

    2015 doi

  72. [83]

    2012, ApJ, 744, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/159

    Leauthaud, A., Tinker, J., Bundy, K., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/159

    2012 doi

  73. [84]

    Li, C., & White, S. D. M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 2177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15268.x

    2009

  74. [85]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f8d

    Li, Y., Habouzit, M., Genel, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f8d

    2020 doi

  75. [86]

    C., & Newman, J

    Licquia, T. C., & Newman, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96 Liivam¨ agi, L. J., Tempel, E., & Saar, E. 2012, A&A, 539, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016288

    2015 doi

  76. [87]

    K., et al

    Loveday, J., Norberg, P., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 420, 1239

    2012

  77. [88]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  78. [89]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 89, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1706

    Man, Z.-y., Peng, Y.-j., Kong, X., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 89, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1706

    2019 doi

  79. [90]

    Marconi, A., & Hunt, L. K. 2003, ApJL, 589, L21, doi: 10.1086/375804

    2003 doi

  80. [91]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  81. [92]

    C., Marchesini, D., Brammer, G

    Marsan, Z. C., Marchesini, D., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7206 29

    2017 doi

  82. [93]

    2020, Frontiers in Physics, 8, 61, doi: 10.3389/fphy.2020.00061 Mart ´ ın-Navarro, I., Brodie, J

    Marsden, C., Shankar, F., Ginolfi, M., & Zubovas, K. 2020, Frontiers in Physics, 8, 61, doi: 10.3389/fphy.2020.00061 Mart ´ ın-Navarro, I., Brodie, J. P., Romanowsky, A. J.,

    2020

  83. [94]

    2018, Nature, 553, 307, doi: 10.1038/nature24999

    Ruiz-Lara, T., & van de Ven, G. 2018, Nature, 553, 307, doi: 10.1038/nature24999

    2018 doi

  84. [95]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    2024 doi

  85. [96]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

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

    2013 doi

  86. [97]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 20, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/20

    Marchesi, S. 2016, ApJ, 817, 20, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/20

    2016 doi

  87. [98]

    C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J

    Mihos, J. C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/16

    2017 doi

  88. [99]

    P., Gallo, E., Greene, J

    Miller, B. P., Gallo, E., Greene, J. E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/98

    2015 doi

  89. [100]

    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

  90. [101]

    S., & Santucci, G

    Montes, M., Brough, S., Owers, M. S., & Santucci, G. 2021, ApJ, 910, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb6

    2021 doi

  91. [102]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty655

    2018 doi

  92. [103]

    L., Aird, J., et al

    Moustakas, J., Coil, A. L., Aird, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/50

    2013 doi

  93. [104]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Mushotzky, R. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10699, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 1069929, doi: 10.1117/12.2310003

    2018 doi

  94. [105]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/18

    Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/18

    2013 doi

  95. [106]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618

    2018 doi

  96. [107]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2307

    Nandra, K., Barret, D., Barcons, X., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2307

    2013 doi arXiv

  97. [108]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    2018 doi

  98. [109]

    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

  99. [110]

    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

  100. [111]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad022a

    Ni, Y., Genel, S., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad022a

    2023 doi

  101. [112]

    2017, A&A, 602, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629436

    Novak, M., Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Delhaize, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629436

    2017 doi

  102. [113]

    2010, MNRAS, 405, 2279, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16643.x

    Oliver, S., Frost, M., Farrah, D., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2279, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16643.x

    2010

  103. [114]

    P., et al

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V., Coles, J. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3620

    2023 doi

  104. [115]

    Pei, Y. C. 1992, ApJ, 395, 130, doi: 10.1086/171637

    1992 doi

  105. [116]

    A., Bregman, J

    Pildis, R. A., Bregman, J. N., & Schombert, J. M. 1995, AJ, 110, 1498, doi: 10.1086/117623

    1995 doi

  106. [117]

    2018a, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    doi

  107. [118]

    2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    doi

  108. [119]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2019 doi

  109. [120]

    Rich, R. M. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 6059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab853

    2021 doi

  110. [121]

    2021, A&A, 651, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039921

    Ragusa, R., Spavone, M., Iodice, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039921

    2021 doi

  111. [122]

    2023, A&A, 670, L20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245530

    Ragusa, R., Iodice, E., Spavone, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245530

    2023 doi

  112. [123]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2951

    Rahmani, S., Lianou, S., & Barmby, P. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2951

    2016 doi

  113. [124]

    2016, A&A, 590, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527013

    Ranalli, P., Koulouridis, E., Georgantopoulos, I., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527013

    2016 doi

  114. [125]

    E., Greene, J

    Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Geha, M. 2013, ApJ, 775, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/116

    2013 doi

  115. [126]

    E., & Volonteri, M

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

    2015 doi

  116. [127]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 6098, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab866

    Quinn, T. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 6098, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab866

    2021 doi

  117. [128]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264 Rodr ´ ıguez-Puebla, A., Primack, J

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264 Rodr ´ ıguez-Puebla, A., Primack, J. R., Avila-Reese, V., &

    2015 doi

  118. [129]

    Faber, S. M. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1172

    2017 doi

  119. [130]

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

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

    2015 doi

  120. [131]

    M., Charlot, S., et al

    Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 267, doi: 10.1086/519218

    2007 doi

  121. [132]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2015 doi

  122. [133]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2419

    Schaye, J., Kugel, R., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2419

    2023 doi

  123. [134]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  124. [135]

    H., & Miralda-Escud´ e, J

    Shankar, F., Weinberg, D. H., & Miralda-Escud´ e, J. 2009, ApJ, 690, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/20

    2009 doi

  125. [136]

    J., White, S

    Shen, S., Mo, H. J., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 978, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06740.x 30

    2003

  126. [137]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Shen, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1381

    2020 doi

  127. [138]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1340

    Sijacki, D., Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1340

    2015 doi

  128. [139]

    Silverman, J. D. 2014, ApJS, 214, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15

    2014 doi

  129. [140]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x

    2001

  130. [141]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2018 doi

  131. [142]

    2012, A&A, 546, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220065 The Lynx Team

    Tuvikene, T. 2012, A&A, 546, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220065 The Lynx Team. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1809.09642, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1809.09642

    2012 doi arXiv

  132. [143]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, L16, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly031

    Torrey, P., Vogelsberger, M., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, L16, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly031

    2018 doi

  133. [144]

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

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

    2002 doi

  134. [145]

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

    2015 doi

  135. [146]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 1121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1160 ¨Ubler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al

    Tremmel, M., Karcher, M., Governato, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1160 ¨Ubler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346137

    2017 doi

  136. [147]

    Watson, M. G. 2014, ApJ, 786, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/104

    2014 doi

  137. [148]

    2023, A&A, 675, A202, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039293 van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P

    Vakili, M., Hoekstra, H., Bilicki, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A202, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039293 van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/28

    2023 doi

  138. [149]

    N., Yang, G., et al

    Vito, F., Brandt, W. N., Yang, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2378, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2486

    2018 doi

  139. [150]

    2020, Nature Reviews Physics, 2, 42, doi: 10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2

    Vogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., Torrey, P., & Puchwein, E. 2020, Nature Reviews Physics, 2, 42, doi: 10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2

    2020 doi

  140. [151]

    2014a, Nature, 509, 177, doi: 10.1038/nature13316 —

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V., et al. 2014a, Nature, 509, 177, doi: 10.1038/nature13316 —. 2014b, MNRAS, 444, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1536

    doi

  141. [152]

    Volonteri, M., & Reines, A. E. 2016, ApJL, 820, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/L6

    2016 doi

  142. [153]

    Y., Zhou, Y., Chen, W., et al

    Wang, B. Y., Zhou, Y., Chen, W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.24304, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.24304

    2025 doi

  143. [154]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4973

    Wang, Y., Zhai, Z., Alavi, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4973

    2022 doi

  144. [155]

    R., Davidzon, I., Toft, S., et al

    Weaver, J. R., Davidzon, I., Toft, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245581

    2023 doi

  145. [156]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    2017 doi

  146. [157]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    2018 doi

  147. [158]

    2011, MNRAS, 416, 1197, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19118.x

    Janz, J. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1197, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19118.x

    2011

  148. [159]

    M., Feng, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al

    Wilkins, S. M., Feng, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx841

    2017 doi

  149. [160]

    2008, MNRAS, 390, 1453, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13770.x

    Woo, J., Courteau, S., & Dekel, A. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1453, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13770.x

    2008

  150. [161]

    J., Greene, J

    Xiao, T., Barth, A. J., Greene, J. E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/28

    2011 doi

  151. [162]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 1824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx899

    Xu, D., Springel, V., Sluse, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx899

    2017 doi

  152. [163]

    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

  153. [164]

    I., Papovich, C., et al

    Yang, G., Caputi, K. I., Papovich, C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 950, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd639

    2023 doi

  154. [165]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 3582, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab235

    Guo, H. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3582, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab235

    2021 doi

  155. [166]

    J., Dima, G

    Zahid, H. J., Dima, G. I., Kewley, L. J., Erb, D. K., & Dav´ e, R. 2012, ApJ, 757, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/54

    2012 doi

  156. [167]

    A., et al

    Zhou, R., Dey, B., Newman, J. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca5fb

    2023 doi

  157. [168]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01845, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01845

    Zhou, Y., Di Matteo, T., Chen, N., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01845, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01845

    doi arXiv

  158. [169]

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

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

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.