Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The quenching and morphological evolution of central galaxies is facilitated by the feedback-driven expulsion of circumgalactic gas

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two major galaxy simulations agree that AGN feedback quenches galaxies by expelling the circumgalactic gas that would otherwise fuel star formation.

desk verdict Solid cross-simulation confirmation of the f_CGM correlations with galaxy properties; the causal 'expulsion' mechanism is honestly flagged as inferred, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11380 v2 pith:OI2Y7VYL submitted 2019-08-29 astro-ph.GA

Jonathan J. Davies , Robert A. Crain , Benjamin D. Oppenheimer , Joop Schaye This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords circumgalacticmediumAGNfeedbackgalaxyquenchingmorphologycosmologicalhydrodynamicalsimulationsEAGLEsimulationIllustrisTNGspecificstarformationrate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Using two leading cosmological hydrodynamical simulations, this paper argues that the expulsion of efficiently-cooling circumgalactic gas by black-hole feedback is a crucial step in shutting down star formation and reshaping the morphology of central galaxies. At a fixed halo mass, the fraction of gas in a halo's circumgalactic medium ($f_{\rm CGM}$) varies widely, and in both simulations that scatter tracks galaxy behaviour: gas-poor haloes preferentially host quenched, spheroidal galaxies, while gas-rich haloes host star-forming discs. These correlations are strongest near the $L^\star$ mass scale, where AGN feedback becomes efficient. The paper concludes that feedback raises the CGM cooling time, preventing that gas from accreting to fuel later star formation, and that this mechanism is common to both simulations even though the details of the feedback differ.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the circumgalactic medium mass fraction $f_{\rm CGM} \equiv M_{\rm CGM}/M_{200}$, the mass of non-star-forming gas within $r_{200}$ divided by halo mass, and the scatter about the median $f_{\rm CGM}$--$M_{200}$ relation at fixed halo mass. The paper measures how residuals in that scatter correlate with residuals in black-hole mass, specific star formation rate, kinematic morphology ($\kappa_{\rm co}$, the fraction of stellar kinetic energy in co-rotation), and CGM radiative cooling time $t_{\rm cool}$. The mechanism carrying the argument is feedback-driven expulsion: AGN feedback ejects the efficiently-cooling component of the CGM, raising the remaining gas's cooling time, so that gas that would have replenished the interstellar medium is no longer available, starving the disc of fuel and leaving it vulnerable to disruption into a spheroid.

What would settle it

Observe $\sim L^\star$ galaxies at fixed stellar or halo mass and measure their hot CGM mass fraction (via X-ray surface brightness or thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich stacking) against specific star formation rate and kinematic morphology; if gas-poor haloes do not preferentially host quenched, spheroidal galaxies, the core correlation fails. Alternatively, distinguish the two simulations' divergent predictions: IllustrisTNG predicts a strong anti-correlation between $f_{\rm CGM}$ and present-day black-hole accretion rate (AGN luminosity) at $M_{200} \simeq 10^{12}\,M_\odot$, while EAGLE predicts none; high-resolution X-ray observations of CGM around galaxies with known AGN activity would settle which feedback channel is physical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in both EAGLE and IllustrisTNG, the scatter in CGM mass fraction at fixed halo mass is not noise: it encodes whether the central galaxy is star-forming and disc-like or quenched and spheroidal, and this connection is causal, running through AGN feedback. In both simulations, haloes whose central black hole has injected more feedback energy relative to the binding energy of halo baryons have lower $f_{\rm CGM}$, elevated CGM cooling times, and central galaxies with lower specific star formation rates and less rotational support. The paper further claims that haloes that collapsed early and are more concentrated at fixed mass produce more efficient BH feedback --- in EAGLE because the BH reaches high accretion rates sooner, in IllustrisTNG because it crosses the calibrated pivot mass for switching from thermal to kinetic AGN injection sooner. The shared conclusion is that expulsion of rapidly-cooling CGM gas is a crucial step in producing quenched, early-type galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the scatter in CGM gas fraction at fixed halo mass is caused by AGN feedback actually expelling gas, rather than being a by-product of galaxy quenching, of the halo's accretion history, or of the particular subgrid feedback recipes; the paper itself notes that it does not track fluid elements to verify the expulsion in either simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed halo mass, low $f_{\rm CGM}$ is a marker for quenched, weakly-rotating galaxies and high $f_{\rm CGM}$ for star-forming discs, with the strongest separation near $L^\star$.
  • Haloes that formed early and are intrinsically more concentrated at a given mass are predicted to have lower CGM mass fractions and more quenched centrals, an assembly-bias signature.
  • IllustrisTNG predicts a strong present-day anti-correlation between $f_{\rm CGM}$ and black-hole accretion rate (AGN luminosity) near $M_{200} \simeq 10^{12}\,M_\odot$, while EAGLE predicts no such correlation; future X-ray or Sunyaev-Zel'dovich observations of hot CGM can discriminate between these scenarios.
  • In both simulations the CGM cooling time is systematically longer in gas-poor haloes, and galaxies with longer CGM cooling times have lower specific star formation rates and less rotational support.
  • The expulsion of efficiently-cooling CGM operates across the whole sampled halo mass range, not only at $L^\star$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the causal chain is right, observable CGM tracers such as O VI and C IV column densities should anticorrelate with quenched fraction at fixed stellar mass, turning $f_{\rm CGM}$ into a practical observational proxy for the feedback state of a halo.
  • The two simulations disagree on when and how the expulsion happens (early, accretion-rate-driven in EAGLE; later, kinetic-mode-driven in IllustrisTNG), so the real behaviour may lie between; a simulation that tracks individual gas parcels through feedback events would test the expulsion assumption directly.
  • Assembly bias could imprint on galaxy morphology through this channel: early-forming haloes would not only be more concentrated but also preferentially host ellipticals, a connection that could be probed in large surveys by stacking gas fractions against large-scale environment.
  • The morphological link may be indirect --- expulsion mainly removes the fuel that would rebuild discs --- which predicts that morphological transformation lags quenching, and that post-quenching disc regrowth is suppressed.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper examines the connection between the circumgalactic medium (CGM) and the quenching and morphological evolution of central galaxies in the EAGLE and IllustrisTNG cosmological simulations. Using the mass fraction of non-star-forming gas within r200 (fCGM) and residual correlations at fixed halo mass, the authors report that, in both simulations, scatter in fCGM correlates strongly with central black hole mass, specific star formation rate, and kinematic morphology, with the strongest correlations near L* halo masses. They interpret these correlations as evidence that AGN feedback expels efficiently-cooling circumgalactic gas, thereby elevating the CGM cooling time, starving the galaxy of fuel, and facilitating both quenching and morphological transformation. The paper also connects scatter in fCGM to halo concentration and formation time via the cumulative energy injected by efficient feedback relative to halo binding energy. The analysis is correlational; the explicit claim that feedback preferentially expels rapidly-cooling gas is deferred to a companion paper for EAGLE and is not directly demonstrated for IllustrisTNG.

Significance. If the causal interpretation holds, the paper identifies a concrete physical channel linking AGN feedback, CGM thermodynamics, and galaxy quenching, with testable predictions such as the opposite signs of the fCGM versus AGN accretion-rate correlation in EAGLE and TNG. The correlational results are a useful addition to the literature: the analysis is careful in its use of matched dark-matter-only haloes, residual statistics with significance masking, and robustness checks such as measuring fCGM within 0.3 r200. The fCGM and galaxy properties are independent outputs of the simulations, and the CGM was not a calibration target, so the correlations are emergent rather than fitted. However, the paper's central mechanistic claim—that expulsion of efficiently-cooling gas is the crucial causal step—is not established by the evidence presented here, and the abstract's 'consensus' phrasing overstates the direct support for that specific mechanism.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Fig. 3] The comparison of cooling-time CDFs between CGM-rich and CGM-poor stacks does not demonstrate that feedback preferentially expels efficiently-cooling gas. Because the radiative cooling time scales approximately as tcool ∝ u/(n_H^2 Λ), and the CGM-poor haloes have lower fCGM and therefore lower characteristic gas densities, their gas has longer cooling times by construction. The authors themselves acknowledge this ('The differing cooling times of the gas-rich and gas-poor samples stem almost entirely from their necessarily different characteristic CGM densities'), so the 'paucity of efficiently-cooling gas' is a density-driven consequence rather than evidence for cooling-time-selective expulsion. The subsequent concession that explicit demonstration would require tracking fluid elements with high temporal resolution confirms that the expulsive, cooling-time-selective mechanism is not directly shown in either simulation; for TNG it is imported from the EAGLE-only companion paper O19. Since this mechanism is the paper's title-level claim, the evidence is insufficient as presented.
  2. [Sections 3, 4, and 6] The causal direction of the fCGM versus sSFR and morphology correlations is asserted rather than tested. The paper interprets low fCGM as the cause of quenching via starvation, but the correlations are equally consistent with quenching causing low fCGM (e.g., through reduced gas accretion or consumption) or with a common cause such as halo assembly bias. The caveat in Section 3 that the existence of correlations 'does not imply that both correlations necessarily emerge as a direct response to the same physical mechanism' is appropriate, but it is not carried into the abstract or the concluding Section 6, which adopt strong causal language. A concrete test, such as examining whether the fCGM-sSFR correlation persists in simulations with heating-only (preventative) feedback or with AGN feedback disabled, would be needed to substantiate the causal interpretation.
  3. [Abstract and Section 6] The claim of 'consensus from these state-of-the-art simulations that the expulsion of efficiently-cooling gas from the CGM is a crucial step' overstates the evidence. The two simulations show different mechanisms (fixed-efficiency AGN heating in EAGLE versus a calibrated kinetic-mode pivot mass in TNG), different fCGM(M200) relations, and different present-day correlations with BH accretion rate (Fig. 1). Direct evidence for expulsion exists only for EAGLE (in the companion paper O19); for TNG the paper presents solely present-day correlations. The abstract and summary should be softened to 'consistent with' the expulsion scenario, with an explicit reference to the Section 4.1 caveat, unless the authors add direct fluid-element tracking or a comparable test for TNG.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4] There is a typographical issue in the sentence 'V olumetric net radiative cooling rates are specified in the publicly-available TNG snapshots' — the word 'Volumetric' has a stray space.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 1] The phrase 'the sub-panels here confirm' is vague; specifying 'the lower panels' would help the reader locate the relevant panels.
  3. [Section 5, Figs. 6 and 7] The notation ρ′′ is used in the figure captions before it is defined in the main text; define it at first use in the text.
  4. [Section 2.5, Eq. (6)] The expression for E_AGN in EAGLE includes the contribution from BH seed mass, which is acknowledged, but this limitation is easy to miss; consider stating it explicitly in the text near the equation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fCGM correlations are emergent outputs of simulations whose CGM properties were not calibration targets, and the Section 4.1 cooling-time caveat is explicitly disclosed rather than hidden.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: run two independently calibrated cosmological simulations, measure fCGM and galaxy properties, then correlate residuals at fixed halo mass. Neither EAGLE nor TNG was calibrated to reproduce the fCGM-sSFR, fCGM-κco, or fCGM-MBH scatter relations; EAGLE's calibration explicitly excluded gas properties ('The gaseous properties of galaxies and their haloes were not considered during the calibration and may be considered predictions of the simulations'). The TNG calibration considered some group-scale gas fractions, but not the fixed-mass scatter correlations that form the paper's core results, so these are not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The main potential concern is the causal 'expulsion of efficiently-cooling gas' wording. Section 4.1 explicitly concedes both the density degeneracy ('The differing cooling times of the gas-rich and gas-poor samples stem almost entirely from their necessarily different characteristic CGM densities (since Λ∝ n_H^2)') and the absence of fluid tracking ('An explicit demonstration that feedback preferentially expels rapidly-cooling gas would require the detailed tracking of fluid elements with high temporal resolution, which is beyond the scope of this study'). This is an honest limitation on the causal interpretation, not a circular step: the cooling-time elevation is computed from the simulation outputs and the caveat is stated in the same section. The expulsive mechanism is imported from the companion paper O19 by overlapping authors, but the present paper does not define any fitted quantity in terms of O19, and the correlational content of this paper is independently measured from both simulations. The calibrated TNG pivot mass is disclosed as calibrated ('effectively making the choice of 10^8 M_sun a calibrated parameter'), so its imprint on the fCGM mass scale is presented as an explanation rather than a parameter-free prediction. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no new parameters; it inherits calibrated subgrid parameters from EAGLE and TNG. The load-bearing inputs are the AGN feedback efficiencies and the TNG pivot mass, which set the mass scale of the fCGM minimum. The causal interpretation additionally depends on the companion paper O19.

free parameters (4)
  • fAGN (EAGLE AGN feedback efficiency) = 0.015
    Used in Eq. 6 to compute EAGN = fAGN/(1-eps_r) MBH c^2; calibrated in Crain et al. 2015 to reproduce the MBH-Mstar relation. The paper's conclusion that EAGLE feedback expels CGM gas depends on this coupling efficiency.
  • fAGN,thm and fAGN,kin (TNG AGN feedback efficiencies) = 0.02 and 0.2 (maximum)
    Calibrated in Weinberger et al. 2017. The paper attributes TNG's fCGM scatter to the kinetic mode (EAGN,kin) with efficiency up to 0.2, a load-bearing element of the TNG causal story.
  • TNG kinetic-mode pivot mass = 10^8 Msun (chi0=0.002)
    Equation 1: chi = min[0.1, 0.002 (mBH/10^8 Msun)^2] sets the switch to kinetic AGN feedback. The paper argues this imprints the mass scale of the fCGM minimum and the strong scatter in TNG.
  • sSFR and kappa_co classification thresholds = sSFR < 10^-11 yr^-1; kappa_co < 0.4
    Choice of thresholds for quenched and elliptical fractions (Section 3). The correlations do not depend strongly on exact values, but the absolute fractions do.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The EAGLE and TNG subgrid feedback models faithfully represent the unresolved physics of AGN and stellar feedback.
    The central causal interpretation requires that the stochastic energy injection routines (Sections 2.1-2.2) capture the real coupling between AGN and gas. The paper itself discusses numerical overcooling in TNG's thermal mode, so this is fragile.
  • ad hoc to paper The companion results D19 and O19 are taken as valid evidence for causality.
    The 'expulsive' characterization of feedback is imported from O19's time-resolved EAGLE analysis (Section 4); this paper does not verify expulsion in TNG.
  • domain assumption Halo matching between hydrodynamical and DMO runs is bijective and unbiased.
    Intrinsic halo concentration and binding energy come from DMO counterparts (Section 2.3, Schaller et al. 2015, Nelson et al. 2015); failure of matching would bias the concentration correlations.
  • domain assumption The CGM is defined as all non-star-forming gas within r200, which is a meaningful observational proxy.
    This definition (Section 2.3) is standard in the field but ignores the hot vs. cold phases; observations measure different tracers such as ions and X-ray emission.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The quenching and morphological evolution of central galaxies is facilitated by the feedback-driven expulsion of circumgalactic gas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OI2Y7VYL

@misc{pith2026190811380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The quenching and morphological evolution of central galaxies is facilitated by the feedback-driven expulsion of circumgalactic gas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OI2Y7VYL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11380}
}
abstract

We examine the connection between the properties of the circumgalactic medium (CGM) and the quenching and morphological evolution of central galaxies in the EAGLE and IllustrisTNG simulations. The simulations yield very different median CGM mass fractions, $f_{\rm CGM}$, as a function of halo mass, $M_{200}$, with low-mass haloes being significantly more gas-rich in IllustrisTNG than in EAGLE. Nonetheless, in both cases scatter in $f_{\rm CGM}$ at fixed $M_{200}$ is strongly correlated with the specific star formation rate and the kinematic morphology of central galaxies. The correlations are strongest for $\sim L^\star$ galaxies, corresponding to the mass scale at which AGN feedback becomes efficient. This feedback elevates the CGM cooling time, preventing gas from accreting onto the galaxy to fuel star formation, and thus establishing a preference for quenched, spheroidal galaxies to be hosted by haloes with low $f_{\rm CGM}$ for their mass. In both simulations, $f_{\rm CGM}$ correlates negatively with the host halo's intrinsic concentration, and hence with its binding energy and formation redshift, primarily because early halo formation fosters the rapid early growth of the central black hole (BH). This leads to a lower $f_{\rm CGM}$ at fixed $M_{200}$ in EAGLE because the BH reaches high accretion rates sooner, whilst in IllustrisTNG it occurs because the central BH reaches the mass threshold at which AGN feedback is assumed to switch from thermal to kinetic injection earlier. Despite these differences, there is consensus from these state-of-the-art simulations that the expulsion of efficiently-cooling gas from the CGM is a crucial step in the quenching and morphological evolution of central galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Present-day CGM mass fractions, fCGM ≡ MCGM/M200, of haloes in the EAGLE Ref-L100N1504 (left column) and the TNG-100 (right column) simulations as a function of their mass, M200. Fractions are normalised to the cosmic average baryon fraction, Ωb/Ω0. Black curves denote running medians, ˜fCGM(M200). Symbols are coloured by the residuals about the running median, with respect to M200, of (log10 of) the mass of most-ma… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Present-day CGM mass fractions, fCGM ≡ MCGM/M200, of haloes in EAGLE (left column) and TNG (right column) as a function of their mass, M200. Fractions are normalised to the cosmic average baryon fraction, Ωb/Ω0. Black curves denote running medians, ˜fCGM(M200). Symbols are coloured by the residuals about the running median, with respect to M200, of the specific star formation rate (sSFR; upper row), and the fraction… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The cumulative distribution function of the radiative cooling times of fluid elements comprising the CGM of present-day haloes within a 0.1 dex window about M200 = 1012.5 M , in EAGLE (solid curves) and TNG (dotted curves). In each case, the haloes are ranked by their CGM mass fraction, fCGM, and those comprising the upper and lower quartiles are stacked to form CGM-rich (blue curves) and CGM-poor (red curves) sampl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Present-day characteristic CGM radiative cooling time, t CGM cool , of haloes in the EAGLE (left) and TNG (right) simulations, as a function of halo mass, M200. The dotted line shows the present-day Hubble time, tH. Black curves denote running medians, t˜ CGM cool (M20…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Present-day specific star formation rates (sSFR; upper row) and fractions of stellar kinetic energy invested in co-rotation (κco; lower row), of the central galaxies of haloes in the EAGLE (left) and TNG (right) simulations, as a function of halo mass, M200. Black curv…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Present-day CGM mass fraction, fCGM ≡ MCGM/M200, of haloes in the EAGLE (left) and TNG (right) simulations, as a function of halo mass, M200. Fractions are normalised to the cosmic average baryon fraction, Ωb/Ω0. Black lines correspond to running medians, ˜fCGM(M200). …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Present-day ratio of the total energy injected by feedback processes to the binding energy of halo baryons, EFB/E b bind, as a function of M200. Black lines correspond to the running median of this quantity considering all contributions to EFB, blue lines correspond to…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Mass--size evolution and the emerging passive--density relation revealed by JWST/NIRCam in the Spiderweb protocluster

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

    In the Spiderweb protocluster, passive fraction rises with local density to ~60% while passive mass–size intercepts sit between field and cluster values, indicating advanced quenching but ongoing size growth.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    N., et al., 2016, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161002743A p

    Abazajian K. N., et al., 2016, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161002743A p. arXiv:1610.02743

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Ade P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019JCAP...02..056A 2019, 056

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056 2019

  4. [4]

    W., Schmidt R

    Allen S. W., Schmidt R. W., Fabian A. C., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05601.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2002MNRAS.334L..11A 334, L11

    arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    E., Gaspari M., White S

    Anderson M. E., Gaspari M., White S. D. M., Wang W., Dai X., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv437 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3806A 449, 3806

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv437 2015

  6. [6]

    L., Pearce F

    Balogh M. L., Pearce F. R., Bower R. G., Kay S. T., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2001.04667.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.326.1228B 326, 1228

    arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    L., Monaco P., Ragone-Figueroa C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1389 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.1548B 461, 1548

    Barai P., Murante G., Borgani S., Gaspari M., Granato G. L., Monaco P., Ragone-Figueroa C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1389 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.1548B 461, 1548

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1389 2016

  8. [8]

    Barret D., et al., 2016, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray. p. 99052F ( @eprint arXiv 1608.08105 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2232432

    arXiv 2016

Show all 126 references
  1. [9]

    Bechtold J., Crotts A. P. S., Duncan R. C., Fang Y., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187688 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...437L..83B 437, L83

    1994 doi

  2. [10]

    M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486...21B 486, 21

    Bielby R. M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486...21B 486, 21

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    R., Kraft R

    Bogd \'a n \'A ., Forman W. R., Kraft R. P., Jones C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/98 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...98B 772, 98

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Kraft R

    Bogd \'a n \'A ., Bourdin H., Forman W. R., Kraft R. P., Vogelsberger M., Hernquist L., Springel V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2017ApJ...850...98B 850, 98

    2017 doi

  5. [14]

    M., Schaye J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00832.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2010MNRAS.405L...1B 405, L1

    Booth C. M., Schaye J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00832.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2010MNRAS.405L...1B 405, L1

    2010

  6. [16]

    Borthakur S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813...46B 813, 46

    2015 doi

  7. [18]

    G., Schaye J., Frenk C

    Bower R. G., Schaye J., Frenk C. S., Theuns T., Schaller M., Crain R. A., McAlpine S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2017MNRAS.465...32B 465, 32

    2017 doi

  8. [19]

    N., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...832..124B 832, 124

    Burchett J. N., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...832..124B 832, 124

    2016 doi

  9. [20]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

    2003 doi

  10. [21]

    Cicone C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424980 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...574A..14C 574, A14

    2015 doi

  11. [22]

    Cicone C., Maiolino R., Marconi A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...588A..41C 588, A41

    2016 doi

  12. [23]

    G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3994C 478, 3994

    Clauwens B., Schaye J., Franx M., Bower R. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3994C 478, 3994

    2018 doi

  13. [24]

    S., 1979, @doi [Journal of the American Statistical Association] 10.1080/01621459.1979.10481038 , 74, 829

    Cleveland W. S., 1979, @doi [Journal of the American Statistical Association] 10.1080/01621459.1979.10481038 , 74, 829

    1979

  14. [25]

    A., Schaye J., Clauwens B., Bower R

    Correa C. A., Schaye J., Clauwens B., Bower R. G., Crain R. A., Schaller M., Theuns T., Thob A. C. R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017MNRAS.472L..45C 472, L45

    2017 doi

  15. [26]

    A., Schaye J., Trayford J

    Correa C. A., Schaye J., Trayford J. W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz295 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4401C 484, 4401

    2019 doi

  16. [29]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv725 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1937C 450, 1937

    Crain R. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv725 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1937C 450, 1937

    2015 doi

  17. [30]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.4204C 464, 4204

    Crain R. A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.4204C 464, 4204

    2017 doi

  18. [33]

    E., Bregman J

    Dai X., Anderson M. E., Bregman J. N., Miller J. M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/107 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...755..107D 755, 107

    2012 doi

  19. [35]

    J., Crain R

    Davies J. J., Crain R. A., McCarthy I. G., Oppenheimer B. D., Schaye J., Schaller M., McAlpine S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3783D 485, 3783

    2019 doi

  20. [36]

    B., Impey C

    Dinshaw N., Foltz C. B., Impey C. D., Weymann R. J., Morris S. L., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1038/373223a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Natur.373..223D 373, 223

    1995 doi

  21. [38]

    Dubois Y., Gavazzi R., Peirani S., Silk J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.3297D 433, 3297

    2013 doi

  22. [39]

    Durier F., Dalla Vecchia C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19712.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2012MNRAS.419..465D 419, 465

    2012

  23. [40]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Lidz A., Zaldarriaga M., Hernquist L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.1416F 703, 1416

    2009 doi

  24. [41]

    J., Korista K

    Ferland G. J., Korista K. T., Verner D. A., Ferguson J. W., Kingdon J. B., Verner E. M., 1998, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..761F 110, 761

    1998 doi

  25. [42]

    S., McCarthy I

    Font A. S., McCarthy I. G., Le Brun A. M. C., Crain R. A., Kelvin L. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2017.50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...50F 34, e050

    2017 doi

  26. [43]

    B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw595 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.1745F 459, 1745

    Ford A. B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw595 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.1745F 459, 1745

    2016 doi

  27. [44]

    Gnat O., Sternberg A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..168..213G 168, 213

    2007 doi

  28. [45]

    H., Sivanandam S., Zabludoff A

    Gonzalez A. H., Sivanandam S., Zabludoff A. I., Zaritsky D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2013ApJ...778...14G 778, 14

    2013 doi

  29. [46]

    P., Hill J

    Greco J. P., Hill J. C., Spergel D. N., Battaglia N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2015ApJ...808..151G 808, 151

    2015 doi

  30. [47]

    M., Tran J

    Haardt F., Madau P., 2001, in Neumann D. M., Tran J. T. V., eds, Clusters of Galaxies and the High Redshift Universe Observed in X-rays. p. 64 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0106018 )

    2001 arXiv

  31. [48]

    H \"a ring N., Rix H.-W., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...604L..89H 604, L89

    2004 doi

  32. [49]

    M., Alexander D

    Harrison C. M., Alexander D. M., Mullaney J. R., Swinbank A. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3306H 441, 3306

    2014 doi

  33. [50]

    A., Puchwein E., Shen S., Sijacki D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1780 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.5385H 479, 5385

    Henden N. A., Puchwein E., Shen S., Sijacki D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1780 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.5385H 479, 5385

    2018 doi

  34. [51]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...651...61H 651, 61

    Hennawi J. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...651...61H 651, 61

    2006 doi

  35. [52]

    F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts210 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.2840H 428, 2840

    Hopkins P. F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts210 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.2840H 428, 2840

    2013 doi

  36. [53]

    F., Hernquist L., Cox T

    Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., Martini P., Robertson B., Springel V., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432438 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...630..705H 630, 705

    2005 doi

  37. [54]

    F., Cox T

    Hopkins P. F., Cox T. J., Younger J. D., Hernquist L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691.1168H 691, 1168

    2009 doi

  38. [55]

    B., Bryan G

    Hummels C. B., Bryan G. L., Smith B. D., Turk M. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2013MNRAS.430.1548H 430, 1548

    2013 doi

  39. [56]

    V., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...92J 734, 92

    Jahnke K., Macci \`o A. V., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...92J 734, 92

    2011 doi

  40. [57]

    H., Burkert A., Naab T., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/L184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...707L.184J 707, L184

    Johansson P. H., Burkert A., Naab T., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/L184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...707L.184J 707, L184

    2009 doi

  41. [58]

    King A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...596L..27K 596, L27

    2003 doi

  42. [59]

    Kormendy J., Richstone D., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ARA

    1995

  43. [60]

    Lacey C., Cole S., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/271.3.676 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1994MNRAS.271..676L 271, 676

    1994 doi

  44. [61]

    Lakhchaura K., Truong N., Werner N., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz114 , 488, L134–L142

    2019 doi

  45. [62]

    N., Wang Q

    Li J.-T., Bregman J. N., Wang Q. D., Crain R. A., Anderson M. E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016ApJ...830..134L 830, 134

    2016 doi

  46. [63]

    N., Wang Q

    Li J.-T., Bregman J. N., Wang Q. D., Crain R. A., Anderson M. E., Zhang S., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa96fc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2017ApJS..233...20L 233, 20

    2017 doi

  47. [64]

    J., Stanford S

    Lin Y.-T., Mohr J. J., Stanford S. A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2004ApJ...610..745L 610, 745

    2004 doi

  48. [65]

    A., Eisenhardt P

    Lin Y.-T., Stanford S. A., Eisenhardt P. R. M., Vikhlinin A., Maughan B. J., Kravtsov A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/745/1/L3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...745L...3L 745, L3

    2012 doi

  49. [66]

    Lopez S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25436 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.554..493L 554, 493

    2018 doi

  50. [67]

    H., Schellenberger G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A.118L 573, A118

    Lovisari L., Reiprich T. H., Schellenberger G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A.118L 573, A118

    2015 doi

  51. [68]

    Magorrian J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....115.2285M 115, 2285

    1998 doi

  52. [69]

    Maiolino R., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01303.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425L..66M 425, L66

    2012

  53. [70]

    A., Schaller M., Bower R., Theuns T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2381M 465, 2381

    Matthee J., Schaye J., Crain R. A., Schaller M., Bower R., Theuns T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2381M 465, 2381

    2017 doi

  54. [71]

    McAlpine S., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.02.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016A&C....15...72M 15, 72

    2016 doi

  55. [72]

    G., Harrison C

    McAlpine S., Bower R. G., Harrison C. M., Crain R. A., Schaller M., Schaye J., Theuns T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.3395M 468, 3395

    2017 doi

  56. [73]

    G., Schaye J., Bower R

    McCarthy I. G., Schaye J., Bower R. G., Ponman T. J., Booth C. M., Dalla Vecchia C., Springel V., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18033.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011MNRAS.412.1965M 412, 1965

    2011

  57. [74]

    G., Schaye J., Bird S., Le Brun A

    McCarthy I. G., Schaye J., Bird S., Le Brun A. M. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2792 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2936M 465, 2936

    2017 doi

  58. [75]

    R., Tremblay G

    McDonald M., Gaspari M., McNamara B. R., Tremblay G. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabace , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858...45M 858, 45

    2018 doi

  59. [76]

    R., Nulsen P

    McNamara B. R., Nulsen P. E. J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA&A..45..117M 45, 117

    2007 arXiv

  60. [77]

    arXiv:1209.3114

    Merloni A., et al., 2012, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012arXiv1209.3114M p. arXiv:1209.3114

    2012 arXiv

  61. [78]

    D., Schaye J., Bower R

    Mitchell P. D., Schaye J., Bower R. G., Crain R. A., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv191009566M

    2019

  62. [79]

    P., Naab T., White S

    Moster B. P., Naab T., White S. D. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts261 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.3121M 428, 3121

    2013 doi

  63. [80]

    F., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07586.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.349.1039N 349, 1039

    Navarro J. F., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07586.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.349.1039N 349, 1039

    2004

  64. [81]

    Nelson D., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  65. [82]

    Nelson D., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..624N 475, 624

    doi

  66. [83]

    Nelson D., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477..450N 477, 450

    doi

  67. [84]

    Nelson D., et al., 2019, @doi [Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology] 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ComAC...6....2N 6, 2

    2019 doi

  68. [85]

    D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.2963O 480, 2963

    Oppenheimer B. D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.2963O 480, 2963

    2018 doi

  69. [86]

    D., Schaye J., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.1043O 434, 1043

    Oppenheimer B. D., Schaye J., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.1043O 434, 1043

    doi

  70. [87]

    D., Schaye J., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.1063O 434, 1063

    Oppenheimer B. D., Schaye J., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.1063O 434, 1063

    doi

  71. [88]

    D., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.2157O 460, 2157

    Oppenheimer B. D., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.2157O 460, 2157

    2016 doi

  72. [89]

    D., Segers M., Schaye J., Richings A

    Oppenheimer B. D., Segers M., Schaye J., Richings A. J., Crain R. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2967 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.4740O 474, 4740

    2018 doi

  73. [90]

    D., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190405904O

    Oppenheimer B. D., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190405904O

    2019

  74. [91]

    \"O zel F., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0548-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..608O 2, 608

    2018 doi

  75. [92]

    Y., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.1098P 671, 1098

    Peng C. Y., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.1098P 671, 1098

    2007 doi

  76. [93]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4077P 473, 4077

    doi

  77. [94]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..648P 475, 648

    doi

  78. [95]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220941 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2013A&A...557A..52P 557, A52

    2013 doi

  79. [96]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  80. [97]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..13P 594, A13

    2016 doi

  81. [98]

    L., Ragone-Figueroa C., Dolag K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438..195P 438, 195

    Planelles S., Borgani S., Fabjan D., Killedar M., Murante G., Granato G. L., Ragone-Figueroa C., Dolag K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438..195P 438, 195

    2014 doi

  82. [99]

    W., Croston J

    Pratt G. W., Croston J. H., Arnaud M., B \"o hringer H., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200810994 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    2009 doi

  83. [101]

    Qu Y., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2437 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.1659Q 464, 1659

    2017 doi

  84. [102]

    H., Rai c evi \'c M., Schaye J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2427R 430, 2427

    Rahmati A., Pawlik A. H., Rai c evi \'c M., Schaye J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2427R 430, 2427

    2013 doi

  85. [103]

    A., Oppenheimer B

    Rahmati A., Schaye J., Crain R. A., Oppenheimer B. D., Schaller M., Theuns T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw453 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459..310R 459, 310

    2016 doi

  86. [104]

    S., Cox T

    Robertson B., Bullock J. S., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., Hernquist L., Springel V., Yoshida N., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...645..986R 645, 986

    2006 doi

  87. [105]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2015MNRAS.454.1038R 454, 1038

    Rosas-Guevara Y. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2015MNRAS.454.1038R 454, 1038

    2015 doi

  88. [106]

    Rupke D. S. N., Veilleux S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/729/2/L27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...729L..27R 729, L27

    2011 doi

  89. [107]

    Schaller M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.1247S 451, 1247

    2015 doi

  90. [108]

    Schaye J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...609..667S 609, 667

    2004 doi

  91. [111]

    Schaye J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2058 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446..521S 446, 521

    2015 doi

  92. [112]

    C., Oppenheimer B

    Segers M. C., Oppenheimer B. D., Schaye J., Richings A. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.1026S 471, 1026

    2017 doi

  93. [113]

    Sembolini F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw800 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.2973S 459, 2973

    2016 doi

  94. [114]

    Sijacki D., Springel V., Di Matteo T., Hernquist L., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12153.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380..877S 380, 877

    2007

  95. [115]

    J., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    Silk J., Rees M. J., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331L...1S 331, L1

    1998

  96. [116]

    Soltan A., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/200.1.115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982MNRAS.200..115S 200, 115

    1982 doi

  97. [119]

    Springel V., Hernquist L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.339..289S 339, 289

    2003

  98. [120]

    Springel V., White S. D. M., Tormen G., Kauffmann G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328..726S 328, 726

    2001

  99. [122]

    Springel V., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3304 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..676S 475, 676

    2018 doi

  100. [123]

    Stevens A. R. H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.5334S 483, 5334

    2019 doi

  101. [124]

    T., Keeney B

    Stocke J. T., Keeney B. A., Danforth C. W., Shull J. M., Froning C. S., Green J. C., Penton S. V., Savage B. D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763..148S 763, 148

    2013 doi

  102. [126]

    M., Donahue M., Jones C., Forman W., Vikhlinin A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693.1142S 693, 1142

    Sun M., Voit G. M., Donahue M., Jones C., Forman W., Vikhlinin A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693.1142S 693, 1142

    2009 doi

  103. [127]

    A., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190602747T p

    Terrazas B. A., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190602747T p. arXiv:1906.02747

    2019 arXiv

  104. [128]

    Thob A. C. R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019MNRAS.485..972T 485, 972

    2019 doi

  105. [129]

    R., Pontzen A., Anderson L., Bellovary J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1121T 470, 1121

    Tremmel M., Karcher M., Governato F., Volonteri M., Quinn T. R., Pontzen A., Anderson L., Bellovary J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1121T 470, 1121

    2017 doi

  106. [130]

    Tumlinson J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777...59T 777, 59

    2013 doi

  107. [131]

    S., Werk J

    Tumlinson J., Peeples M. S., Werk J. K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA

    2017 doi

  108. [132]

    L., Schaye J., Steidel C

    Turner M. L., Schaye J., Steidel C. C., Rudie G. C., Strom A. L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1801 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..794T 445, 794

    2014 doi

  109. [133]

    S., Van Speybroeck L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640..691V 640, 691

    Vikhlinin A., Kravtsov A., Forman W., Jones C., Markevitch M., Murray S. S., Van Speybroeck L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640..691V 640, 691

    2006 doi

  110. [134]

    Vogelsberger M., Genel S., Sijacki D., Torrey P., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.3031V 436, 3031

    2013 doi

  111. [135]

    M., Balogh M

    Voit G. M., Balogh M. L., Bower R. G., Lacey C. G., Bryan G. L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...593..272V 593, 272

    2003 doi

  112. [136]

    M., Kay S

    Voit G. M., Kay S. T., Bryan G. L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09621.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364..909V 364, 909

    2005

  113. [137]

    Wang W., White S. D. M., Mandelbaum R., Henriques B., Anderson M. E., Han J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2809 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2301W 456, 2301

    2016 doi

  114. [138]

    Weinberger R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.3291W 465, 3291

    2017 doi

  115. [139]

    Weinberger R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1733 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.4056W 479, 4056

    2018 doi

  116. [140]

    Wiersma R. P. C., Schaye J., Smith B. D., 2009a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14191.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2009MNRAS.393...99W 393, 99

    2008

  117. [141]

    Wiersma R. P. C., Schaye J., Theuns T., Dalla Vecchia C., Tornatore L., 2009b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15331.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2009MNRAS.399..574W 399, 574

    2009

  118. [142]

    van de Voort F., Schaye J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20949.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.2991V 423, 2991

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.