Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 100 references

Enhanced Star Formation and Black Hole Accretion Rates in Galaxy Mergers in IllustrisTNG50

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the TNG50 simulation, merging galaxies show elevated specific star formation rates across $z \leq 3$ and elevated specific black hole accretion rates at $z \lesssim 2$, with the gap widening toward low redshift and persisting about a…

desk verdict A solid TNG50 confirmation of merger-driven sSFR/sBHAR excess with honest caveats; the persistence claim and control matching need attention, but it deserves review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01092 v2 pith:ODKZH3DU submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.GA

Aimee L. Schechter , Shy Genel , Bryan Terrazas , Julia M. Comerford , Abigail Hartley , Rachel S. Somerville , Rebecca Nevin , Joseph Simon
show 1 more author
Erica Nelson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxymergersstarformationblackholeaccretionactivegalacticnucleicosmologicalsimulationsIllustrisTNG50specificrate
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

The paper asks whether galaxy mergers genuinely trigger extra star formation and black hole growth, using the high-resolution TNG50 cosmological simulation to compare merging galaxies with non-merging galaxies of the same stellar mass and redshift over $0.2 \leq z \leq 3$. It reports that mergers have higher specific star formation rates (star formation per unit stellar mass) across the whole range and higher specific black hole accretion rates at $z \lesssim 2$. The excess grows as redshift decreases, and the elevation persists for at least $\sim1$ Gyr after coalescence. The authors read this as evidence that mergers do modify star formation and black hole accretion in TNG50, with galaxy and black hole mass and redshift mattering more than merger stage or mass ratio.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a matched control comparison built from merger trees. Each merging galaxy is paired with a non-merging galaxy matched in logarithmic bins of stellar mass and redshift, and the population difference is compressed into an excess ratio, $\log_{10}(\mathrm{sSFR}_{\rm mergers})-\log_{10}(\mathrm{sSFR}_{\rm nonmergers})$ and the same for sBHAR, plus the Hellinger distance, a number between 0 and 1 that measures how distinct the two distributions are. The same comparison is then rerun with the merger sample split by stage and by stellar mass ratio. This identifies the excess, its growth with cosmic time, and which galaxy properties drive it.

What would settle it

Repeat the matching with an additional constraint on gas fraction or star formation rate, possible in a larger simulation volume, and recompute the excess sSFR and sBHAR of mergers over non-mergers; if the excess vanishes or reverses, the elevated rates are a pre-existing property of the galaxies that merge rather than a consequence of the merger event.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, in TNG50, galaxies selected as merging have elevated specific star formation rates compared with mass- and redshift-matched non-mergers at all redshifts studied ($z \leq 3$), and elevated specific black hole accretion rates at $z \lesssim 2$. The median excess is modest, around a factor of 1.5 in sSFR at low masses and 1.5-2.5 in sBHAR, with the largest boosts reaching factors of several in high-mass bins. The gap between the two populations widens with decreasing redshift, and both enhancements remain visible for at least $\sim1$ Gyr after the merger snapshot. Splitting by merger stage (pre- vs. post-coalescence) changes little; splitting by mass ratio shows major mergers producing more extreme values than minor mergers, but stellar mass, black hole mass, and redshift remain the dominant variables.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that matching each merging galaxy to a non-merging galaxy only by stellar mass and redshift isolates the effect of the merger, even though the merging galaxies in TNG50 are also systematically gas-richer; if that gas richness, rather than the interaction itself, is what raises their star formation and black hole accretion, the causal conclusion would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mergers in TNG50 are statistically distinct from non-mergers of the same stellar mass and redshift in both star formation and black hole accretion, so merger-triggered activity should be treated as a population-level effect rather than a rare phenomenon.
  • The merger/non-merger gap grows toward low redshift, so low-redshift surveys should see a clearer merger-star-formation and merger-AGN connection than high-redshift ones.
  • Because the elevation persists for at least $\sim1$ Gyr after coalescence, post-merger galaxies within that window should appear enhanced even after the most active phase has passed.
  • Major mergers drive the most extreme boosts, while minor mergers show smaller but still positive excesses; stellar mass and black hole mass are stronger predictors than merger stage or mass ratio.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the growing gap toward low redshift, combined with the paper's gas-fraction result, suggests merger-driven star formation is most visible in the local universe, where disks are thin and gas fractions are low; high-redshift observations may see smaller merger boosts because thick, gas-rich disks absorb the disturbance.
  • Editorial inference: because the non-merging controls are matched only on stellar mass and redshift, the $\sim1$ Gyr persistence could partly reflect that galaxies which merge are already gas-rich before the event; checking the excess at $t=-1$ to $-2$ Gyr before coalescence would separate selection from triggering.
  • Editorial inference: the comparison the paper draws to the larger-box version of the same simulation suggests that resolution changes the measured merger enhancement; if that trend continues, even higher-resolution simulations could further shrink the inferred boost, which would matter for observational expectations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses the IllustrisTNG50 cosmological simulation to compare specific star formation rates (sSFR) and specific black hole accretion rates (sBHAR) of merging and non-merging galaxies over 0.2 ≤ z ≤ 3. Mergers are identified from SubLink merger trees and are matched to non-merging controls in logarithmic bins of stellar mass and redshift. The authors report that mergers show excess sSFR at z ≤ 3 and excess sBHAR at z ≲ 2, with the excess growing toward lower redshift, that the enhancements persist for roughly 1 Gyr after coalescence, and that merging galaxies have higher gas fractions than non-mergers. They interpret these results as evidence that mergers trigger enhanced star formation and black hole activity in the TNG50 universe, and they discuss comparisons with previous simulation work and with observations.

Significance. If the result is robust, this is a valuable measurement from a high-resolution cosmological simulation, extending merger-induced sSFR and sBHAR studies to z = 3 and to stellar masses below 10^9.5 Msun, which is directly relevant to JWST-era observations. The use of Hellinger distances instead of KS tests for large samples is methodologically sensible. However, the central causal interpretation is weakened by a control sample matched only on stellar mass and redshift, given that the paper itself shows mergers have higher gas fractions at fixed stellar mass. The work is therefore significant as a measurement of population differences between mergers and non-mergers, but the causal claim needs additional support.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.1, 4.5, 5.3.1] The matched control samples are selected only on stellar mass and redshift (Section 3.1), while Section 4.5 shows that merging galaxies have systematically higher gas fractions than non-mergers at all redshifts (Figure 10). Because gas fraction drives both star formation and black hole accretion, the measured excess sSFR and sBHAR could reflect a pre-existing gas-rich population rather than a merger-induced enhancement. The paper itself notes in Section 5.3.1 that observational studies (Violino et al. 2018; Ellison et al. 2019a) find that the apparent merger enhancement disappears when controls are additionally matched on SFR, and that TNG50's small box prevents such matching here. Figure 11 partially addresses this for sSFR by showing excess at fixed gas fraction, but no analogous check is presented for sBHAR, and the gas fraction in Equation (6) includes hot gas. The causal language in the Conclusion ('mergers do lead to enhanced star formation and black hole activity') is not uniquely supported without a fixed-gas-fraction (or SFR-matched) analysis for both sSFR and sBHAR.
  2. [4.4, 5.1, Conclusion item 5] The claim in the abstract and in Conclusion item 5 that enhancements 'persist for at least ~1 Gyr after the merger event' is not supported with appropriate caveats. The authors acknowledge in Section 5.1 that, unlike Hani et al. (2020), they cannot exclude systems that merge again within the 2.5 Gyr window, and that 'multiple mergers in the 2.5 Gyr timeframe are likely inflating how long our merger-driven sSFR spike lasts.' This admitted contamination affects both Figures 8 and 9, yet the abstract and conclusions state the 1 Gyr persistence as a firm result. The paper should either quantify the fraction of mergers with a second merger in the window, or re-state the persistence as an upper limit with the caveat clearly attached.
  3. [4.1, Figure 4] The sBHAR excess values of ~10-100 times the non-merger median in several mass and redshift bins (Figure 4) are based on small numbers of black holes at high masses, as the black hole sample in Figure 1 is much smaller than the galaxy sample. The paper reports median and standard error but does not state the number of black holes per bin or provide resampled confidence intervals. Given the extreme dynamic range, the authors should demonstrate that these excesses are not driven by one or two objects with very low non-merger denominators.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 5 caption] The caption says mergers and nonmergers 'become more statistically distinct ... as redshift increases,' but the text and Figure 3 indicate the opposite trend (increasing Hellinger distance with decreasing redshift); the caption should be corrected.
  2. [Equation (3)] The threshold condition for the thermal feedback mode is poorly formatted: the ratio and the parameter χ are presented ambiguously as 'χ, MBondi/MEdd ≥ χ ≥ min[...]' — the equation should be rewritten so that the definition of χ and the activation condition are clear.
  3. [2.1.2] The text refers to the 'Thompson cross section'; the correct term is the Thomson cross section.
  4. [3.1] The stated stellar mass threshold says 'greater than 1000 times the baryonic mass resolution' and then quotes 5.7×10^4 h^-1 Msun, or 10^7.9 Msun; 1000 times 5.7×10^4 is 5.7×10^7 ≈ 10^7.76, so the quoted 10^7.9 should be checked for consistency.
  5. [4.3] The sentence 'merger mass ratio is has a larger effect than than merger stage' contains duplicated words and should read 'merger mass ratio has a larger effect than merger stage.'
  6. [4.4] There is a typo in 'with a higher excess value (both peak and starting) at low redshfits' — 'redshfits' should be 'redshifts.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the merger excess is an emergent TNG50 measurement, not a fit or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper is an analysis of the public IllustrisTNG50 simulation, not a derivation of a theory from fitted inputs. Its central claim—that merging galaxies show excess sSFR and sBHAR relative to mass- and redshift-matched non-mergers (Sec. 3.1, Figs. 2–9)—is an emergent measurement from a simulation whose subgrid parameters (star-formation density threshold and timescale, BH Bondi/Eddington accretion and feedback parameters, Sec. 2.1) were calibrated to global galaxy population properties, not to merger-triggered sSFR/sBHAR enhancements. The 'excess' is defined as a ratio of measured medians (Sec. 4.1), so reporting a positive excess is a quantitative finding, not a tautology. Citations to TNG model papers by overlapping authors (Nelson et al. 2019; Pillepich et al. 2019; Weinberger et al. 2017; Rodriguez-Gomez et al. 2015) are standard references to the public simulation, its subgrid model, and the merger-tree catalog; they do not supply the target result. The acknowledged limitation that controls match only stellar mass and redshift, while mergers have higher gas fractions (Sec. 4.5) and SFR matching is infeasible (Sec. 5.3.1), is a potential selection/confounding issue for causal interpretation, but it is not circularity: the measured excess does not reduce by construction to the matching variables or to any fitted parameter. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness-imported, or ansatz-smuggled steps appear. Verdict: no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a statistical comparison within an existing public simulation. It introduces no new physical entities or fitted physical parameters; it relies on the TNG50 model, the SubLink merger trees, and the authors' choice of control matching. The main epistemic burden falls on the assumption that mass-and-redshift matched controls isolate the effect of merging.

free parameters (3)
  • Stellar mass threshold for sample = 10^7.9 Msun (1000x baryonic mass resolution)
    Hand-chosen to ensure well-resolved subhalos; affects sample size and low-mass coverage.
  • Pre/post-merger time window = 250 Myr
    Hand-chosen definition of pre and post coalescence stages following Snyder et al. (2019); affects stage classification.
  • Control matching tolerance = initial e^0.1 in log stellar mass, loosened by factor 1.5 per iteration
    Hand-chosen matching scheme from Bickley et al. (2021); affects the quality of the non-merger control sample.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SubLink merger trees (Rodriguez-Gomez et al. 2015) correctly identify true galaxy mergers.
    All merger classification relies on this definition.
  • domain assumption TNG50 subgrid models for star formation and BH accretion and feedback are adequate for studying relative merger-induced activity.
    The simulation is calibrated to global galaxy properties, not to merger-specific enhancements; the central measurement is an emergent property of the model.
  • domain assumption Matched non-merging galaxies on stellar mass and redshift form an unbiased reference for merger-driven excess.
    If gas content or other properties correlate with merger selection, the measured excess may be biased; the paper does not match on gas fraction or SFR.
  • domain assumption The stellar mass completeness threshold (1000x baryonic mass resolution) is sufficient for the sample galaxies.
    This cutoff is used to define the resolved galaxy sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced Star Formation and Black Hole Accretion Rates in Galaxy Mergers in IllustrisTNG50." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ODKZH3DU

@misc{pith2026250701092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced Star Formation and Black Hole Accretion Rates in Galaxy Mergers in IllustrisTNG50},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ODKZH3DU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01092}
}
abstract

Many theoretical and observational studies have suggested that galaxy mergers may trigger enhanced star formation or active galactic nuclei (AGN) activity. We present an analysis of merging and nonmerging galaxies from $0.2 \leq z \leq 3$ in the IllustrisTNG50 simulation. These galaxies encompass a range of masses ($M_\star > 10^{8}M_\odot$), multiple merger stages, and mass ratios ($\geq1:10$). We examine the effect that galaxy mergers have on star formation and black hole accretion rates in the TNG50 universe. We additionally investigate how galaxy and black hole mass, merger stage, merger mass ratio, and redshift affect these quantities. Mergers in our sample show excess specific star formation rates (sSFR) at $z \leq 3$ and enhanced specific black hole accretion rates (sBHAR) at $z \lesssim 2$. The difference between sSFRs and sBHARs in the merging sample compared to the non-merging sample increases as redshift decreases. Additionally, we show that these enhancements persist for at least $\sim1$ Gyr after the merger event. Investigating how mergers behave in the TNG50 simulation throughout cosmic time enables both a better appreciation of the importance of spatial resolution in cosmological simulations and a better basis to understand our high-$z$ universe with observations from $\textit{JWST}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01092 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Median excess sSFR (log10(sSFRmergers) − log10(sSFRnonmergers)) and standard error of mergers versus nonmergers at each redshift bin. There is a horizontal offset in each bin added for readability. The color gradient refers to the mass of the galaxies, with lighter orange points for low masses and the darker maroon points for high masses. The black line at zero denotes a level of equal sSFR between mergers and nonme… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The median Hellinger distance between the merg￾ers’ and nonmergers’ sSFRs in each redshift bin. A value of 0 indicates statistically similar distributions, and a value of 1 indicates statistically distinct distributions. The mergers and nonmergers become more statistically distinct as red￾shift decreases at all stellar masses. Both stages show the same trend in excess sSFR as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Excess sSFR through cosmic time, defined as the ratio between sSFR for the merging galaxies to the mass-matched nonmerging sample, shown for all mergers and nonmergers (left), mergers split by merger stage (center) and mergers split by mass ratio (right). The error bar…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Excess sBHAR through cosmic time (left), mergers split by merger stage and nonmergers (center) and mergers split by mass ratio and nonmergers (right). The error bars are the standard errors in each redshift bin. Small horizontal offsets are added for readability. M…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Excess sSFR from 0.5 Gyr before the time of merging to 2 Gyr after in each redshift bin. The shaded regions show the standard error around the median solid line. The dashed line shows an excess of zero: i.e, mergers and nonmergers having the same sSFR. Mergers do tend …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The baryonic gas fractions of mergers (red) and nonmergers (black) at each redshift bin. The shaded regions encompass the median of each distribution and one standard error. This higher gas fraction among mergers can explain why the mergers often have more star format…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The excess sSFR of mergers to nonmergers at each redshift bin as a function of gas fraction. At the highest redshifts, we see little significant elevation in sSFR at any gas fraction. At z ≲ 1, we start to see higher sSFR enhancements at gas fractions of less than abo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E., & Hernquist, L

    Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. E. 1991, The Astrophysical Journal, 370, L65, doi: 10.1086/185978

    doi:10.1086/185978 1991

  2. [2]

    S., Comerford, J

    Barrows, R. S., Comerford, J. M., Stern, D., & Assef, R. J. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd2d3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd2d3 2023

  3. [3]

    Cooper, M. C. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93de

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa93de 2017

  4. [4]

    W., Bottrell, C., Hani, M

    Bickley, R. W., Bottrell, C., Hani, M. H., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab806

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab806 2021

  5. [5]

    D., Netzer, H., Woltjer, L., Courvoisier, T

    Blandford, R. D., Netzer, H., Woltjer, L., Courvoisier, T. J. L., & Mayor, M. 1990, Active Galactic Nuclei. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990agn..conf.....B

    1990

  6. [6]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 2479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1311

    Brown, T., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 2479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1311

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1311 2015

  7. [7]

    2022, Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations – IV: Enhanced Supermassive Black Hole Accretion Rates in Post-Merger Galaxies, arXiv

    Patton, D. 2022, Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations – IV: Enhanced Supermassive Black Hole Accretion Rates in Post-Merger Galaxies, arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.07342

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    R., Ellison, S

    Byrne-Mamahit, S., Patton, D. R., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 5864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae419 B¨ ohm, A., Wisotzki, L., Bell, E. F., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 549, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015444

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae419 2024

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    R., Volonteri, M., Dotti, M., et al

    Capelo, P. R., Volonteri, M., Dotti, M., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 2123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2500

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 875, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty089

    Catinella, B., Saintonge, A., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 875, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty089

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    M., & Norman, C

    Chiaberge, M., Gilli, R., Lotz, J. M., & Norman, C. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/147

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    J., et al

    Cisternas, M., Jahnke, K., Inskip, K. J., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/57

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 550, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220392

    Combes, F., Garc ´ ıa-Burillo, S., Braine, J., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 550, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220392

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    M., & Greene, J

    Comerford, J. M., & Greene, J. E. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/112

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Pooley, D., Barrows, R

    Comerford, J. M., Pooley, D., Barrows, R. S., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 219, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/219

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Nevin, R., Negus, J., et al

    Comerford, J. M., Nevin, R., Negus, J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1a15

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 384, 386, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12730.x

    Dekel, A. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 384, 386, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12730.x

    2008

  11. [19]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 1937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv725 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2827, doi: 10.10...

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    L., Koekemoer, A

    Donley, J. L., Koekemoer, A. M., Brusa, M., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 748, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/142

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    L., Kartaltepe, J., Kocevski, D., et al

    Donley, J. L., Kartaltepe, J., Kocevski, D., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9ffa

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 3948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2265

    Dubois, Y., Peirani, S., Pichon, C., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 3948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2265

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1227

    Dubois, Y., Pichon, C., Welker, C., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1227

    2014 doi

  16. [25]

    Helfand, D. J. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 708, 584, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/584

    2010 doi

  17. [26]

    L., Brown, T., Catinella, B., & Cortese, L

    Ellison, S. L., Brown, T., Catinella, B., & Cortese, L. 2019a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 5694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3139

    doi

  18. [27]

    L., Catinella, B., & Cortese, L

    Ellison, S. L., Catinella, B., & Cortese, L. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 3447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1247

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    L., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Mendel, J. T., & Scudder, J. M. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 2043, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19624.x

    2011

  20. [29]

    L., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, The Astronomical Journal, 135, 1877, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877

    2008 doi

  21. [30]

    L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D. R., et al. 2019b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 2491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1431

    doi

  22. [32]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 218, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/218

    Glikman, E., Simmons, B., Mailly, M., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 218, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/218

    2015 doi

  23. [33]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f

    2024 doi

  24. [34]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0788

    Gupta, A., Jaiswar, R., Rodriguez-Gomez, V., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0788

    2023 doi

  25. [35]

    S., et al

    Habouzit, M., Genel, S., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 4413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz102

    2019 doi

  26. [36]

    S., Li, Y., et al

    Habouzit, M., Somerville, R. S., Li, Y., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 3015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3147

    2022 doi

  27. [37]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa459

    Torrey, P. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa459

    2020 doi

  28. [38]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acca76

    He, H., Bottrell, C., Wilson, C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acca76

    2023 doi

  29. [39]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 755, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx997

    Hewlett, T., Villforth, C., Wild, V., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 755, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx997

    2017 doi

  30. [40]

    Hong, J., Im, M., Kim, M., & Ho, L. C. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 804, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/34

    2015 doi

  31. [41]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 420, L8, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01179.x

    2012

  32. [42]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereˇ s, D. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 175, 356, doi: 10.1086/524362

    2008 doi

  33. [44]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 2944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu338

    Kaviraj, S. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 2944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu338

    2014 doi

  34. [45]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 2845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1500

    Kaviraj, S., Devriendt, J., Dubois, Y., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 2845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1500

    2015 doi

  35. [46]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 4739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx126

    Kaviraj, S., Laigle, C., Kimm, T., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 4739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx126

    2017 doi

  36. [47]

    H., & Abel, T

    Kim, J.-h., Wise, J. H., & Abel, T. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 694, L123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/L123

    2009 doi

  37. [48]

    D., Faber, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., Mozena, M., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 744, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/148

    2012 doi

  38. [49]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 716, L125, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L125

    Koss, M., Mushotzky, R., Veilleux, S., & Winter, L. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 716, L125, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L125

    2010 doi

  39. [50]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 5104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1054

    Laigle, C., Davidzon, I., Ilbert, O., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 5104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1054

    2019 doi

  40. [51]

    C., Vijayan, A

    Lovell, C. C., Vijayan, A. P., Thomas, P. A., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 2127, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3360

    2021 doi

  41. [52]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L16 20Schechter et al

    Luo, W., Yang, X., & Zhang, Y. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L16 20Schechter et al

    2014 doi

  42. [53]

    H., et al

    Lyu, J., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3643

    2024 doi

  43. [54]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  44. [55]

    2023, JADES

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, JADES. The diverse population of infant Black Holes at 4, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230

    2023 doi arXiv

  45. [56]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab385b

    Marian, V., Jahnke, K., Mechtley, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab385b

    2019 doi

  46. [57]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd3e

    Marian, V., Jahnke, K., Andika, I., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd3e

    2020 doi

  47. [58]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  48. [59]

    J., Willott, C

    McLure, R. J., Willott, C. J., Jarvis, M. J., et al. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 351, 347, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07793.x

    2004

  49. [60]

    A., et al

    Mechtley, M., Jahnke, K., Windhorst, R. A., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 830, 156, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/156

    2016 doi

  50. [61]

    Patton, D. R. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 210, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/3

    2014 doi

  51. [62]

    C., & Hernquist, L

    Mihos, J. C., & Hernquist, L. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 425, L13, doi: 10.1086/187299 —. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 464, 641, doi: 10.1086/177353

    1994 doi

  52. [63]

    L., et al

    Moreno, J., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 1320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz417

    2019 doi

  53. [64]

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

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618

    2018 doi

  54. [65]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 —

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 —. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    2018 doi

  55. [67]

    R., Qamar, F

    Patton, D. R., Qamar, F. D., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 2589, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1494

    2016 doi

  56. [68]

    Scudder, J. M. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 433, L59, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt058

    2013 doi

  57. [69]

    R., Wilson, K

    Patton, D. R., Wilson, K. D., Metrow, C. J., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 4969, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa913

    2020 doi

  58. [70]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 3261, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3136

    Petersson, J., Renaud, F., Agertz, O., Dekel, A., & Duc, P.-A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 3261, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3136

    2023 doi

  59. [71]

    2018a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    doi

  60. [72]

    2018b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    doi

  61. [73]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2019 doi

  62. [74]

    I., Trager, S

    Popping, G., Caputi, K. I., Trager, S. C., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 2258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2136

    2015 doi

  63. [75]

    J., Hernquist, L., & Fullagar, D

    Quinn, P. J., Hernquist, L., & Fullagar, D. P. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 403, 74, doi: 10.1086/172184 Ramos Almeida, C., Tadhunter, C. N., Inskip, K. J., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410, 1550, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17542.x

    1993

  64. [76]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 442, L33, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu050

    Renaud, F., Bournaud, F., Kraljic, K., & Duc, P.-A. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 442, L33, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu050

    2014 doi

  65. [77]

    E., & Kravtsov, A

    Robertson, B. E., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 680, 1083, doi: 10.1086/587796

    2008 doi

  66. [78]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264 Rodr ´ ıguez Montero, F., Dav´ e, R., Wild, V., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., & Narayanan, D

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264 Rodr ´ ıguez Montero, F., Dav´ e, R., Wild, V., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., & Narayanan, D. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro...

    2015 doi

  67. [79]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 545, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219258

    Rosario, D., Santini, P., Lutz, D., et al. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 545, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219258

    2012 doi

  68. [80]

    S., Snyder, G

    Rose, C., Kartaltepe, J. S., Snyder, G. F., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f10 Galaxy Mergers in TNG5021

    2023 doi

  69. [81]

    2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 562, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322835

    Santini, P., Maiolino, R., Magnelli, B., et al. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 562, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322835

    2014 doi

  70. [82]

    L., McAlpine, W., et al

    Satyapal, S., Ellison, S. L., McAlpine, W., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 1297, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu650

    2014 doi

  71. [83]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2015 doi

  72. [84]

    Mendel, J. T. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 549, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21749.x

    2012

  73. [85]

    S., Choi, E., Somerville, R

    Sharma, R. S., Choi, E., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 9461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3836

    2023 doi

  74. [86]

    D., Urry, C

    Simmons, B. D., Urry, C. M., Schawinski, K., Cardamone, C., & Glikman, E. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/75

    2012 doi

  75. [87]

    F., Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Lotz, J

    Snyder, G. F., Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 3702, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1059

    2019 doi

  76. [88]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel, V. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    2010

  77. [89]

    2005a, The Astrophysical Journal, 620, L79, doi: 10.1086/428772 —

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005a, The Astrophysical Journal, 620, L79, doi: 10.1086/428772 —. 2005b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    2005

  78. [90]

    2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 339, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x —

    Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 339, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x —. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, L9, doi: 10.1086/429486

    2003

  79. [91]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 328, 726, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x

    2001

  80. [92]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2018 doi

  81. [93]

    J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa4b4

    2018 doi

  82. [94]

    A., Bell, E

    Terrazas, B. A., Bell, E. F., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 1888, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa374

    2020 doi

  83. [95]

    M., & Simmons, B

    Treister, E., Schawinski, K., Urry, C. M., & Simmons, B. D. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, L39, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/758/2/L39

    2012 doi

  84. [96]

    P., Lovell, C

    Vijayan, A. P., Lovell, C. C., Wilkins, S. M., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 3289, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3715

    2021 doi

  85. [97]

    2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 34, doi: 10.21105/astro.2309.03276

    Villforth, C. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 34, doi: 10.21105/astro.2309.03276

    2023 arXiv

  86. [98]

    J., et al

    Villforth, C., Hamann, F., Rosario, D. J., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 3342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu173

    2014 doi

  87. [99]

    M., et al

    Villforth, C., Hamilton, T., Pawlik, M. M., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3037

    2017 doi

  88. [100]

    L., Sargent, M., et al

    Violino, G., Ellison, S. L., Sargent, M., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 2591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty345

    2018 doi

  89. [101]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 3031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1789

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Sijacki, D., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 3031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1789

    2013 doi

  90. [102]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    2017 doi

  91. [103]

    W., Schawinski, K., Simmons, B

    Willett, K. W., Schawinski, K., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 820, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv307

    2015 doi

  92. [104]

    S., & Colbert, E

    Wilson, A. S., & Colbert, E. J. M. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 438, 62, doi: 10.1086/175054 C ¸ atmabacak, O., Feldmann, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 506, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac040 ¨Ubler, H., Genzel, R....

    1995 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.