Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The hot circumgalactic medium in the eROSITA All-Sky Survey III. Star-forming and quiescent galaxies

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stacking X-ray light around tens of thousands of SDSS central galaxies, this paper argues that star-forming galaxies do not host brighter hot circumgalactic medium than quiescent galaxies of equal stellar or halo mass.

desk verdict Solid eRASS:4 stacking paper whose robust result—star-forming centrals are not X-ray brighter at fixed mass—survives; the stronger halo-mass equality is explicitly conditional on the bimodal SHMR, and the paper is honest about that. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19945 v1 pith:QGA6XWZG submitted 2024-11-29 astro-ph.GA hep-ph

Yi Zhang , Johan Comparat , Gabriele Ponti , Andrea Merloni , Kirpal Nandra , Frank Haberl , Nhut Truong , Annalisa Pillepich
show 12 more authors
Paola Popesso Nicola Locatelli Xiaoyuan Zhang Jeremy Sanders Xueying Zheng Ang Liu Teng Liu Peter Predehl Mara Salvato Marcus Bruggen Soumya Shreeram Michael C.H. Yeung
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAhep-ph
keywords circumgalacticmediumhotgasX-raystackingstar-forminggalaxiesquiescentstellar-to-halomassrelationeROSITAgalaxyquenching
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the hot gas halo around a galaxy knows whether the galaxy is forming stars. Using stacked X-ray images from the first four eROSITA all-sky surveys around roughly 85,000 central galaxies from SDSS DR7, the authors measure soft X-ray emission from the circumgalactic medium (CGM) separately for star-forming and quiescent galaxies, selected in both stellar mass and halo mass. They find that at fixed stellar mass above $\log(M_*/\mathrm{M}_\odot) \simeq 11.0$, quiescent galaxies host brighter hot CGM, but at fixed halo mass above $\log(M_{200m}/\mathrm{M}_\odot) \simeq 12.5$ the two populations look the same. Their headline conclusion is that star-forming galaxies never host brighter hot CGM than quiescent galaxies of the same mass, and that halo mass, rather than the current star-formation state, appears to set how much X-ray light the CGM emits. This matters because feedback from star formation and active galactic nuclei is often invoked to heat and expel CGM gas and shut down star formation; the result constrains how strong such feedback can be.

What carries the argument

The machine is the stacked X-ray surface brightness profile: events from the first four eROSITA all-sky surveys are co-added in radial bins around SDSS DR7 central galaxies, with detected point sources masked and unresolved active galactic nuclei plus X-ray binaries modeled and subtracted, so the remaining soft X-ray emission is attributed to the hot CGM. The profiles are fit with a $\beta$-model, and $L_{X,\rm CGM}$ is the integral within $R_{500c}$. The comparison that carries the argument is between two selections of the same sample: bins in stellar mass $M_*$, where quiescent systems above $\log(M_*/\mathrm{M}_\odot) = 11.0$ are brighter, and bins in halo mass $M_{200m}$ from the Tinker (2021) group finder, where star-forming and quiescent profiles are consistent; the bimodal stellar-to-halo mass relation is what converts one selection into the other, and the paper shows that switching to the unimodal Yang et al. (2007) SHMR destroys the halo-mass equality.

What would settle it

Re-run the stacking using halo masses derived from a weak-lensing-calibrated stellar-to-halo mass relation; if the $L_{X,\rm CGM}$–$M_{500c}$ relations for star-forming and quiescent galaxies separate, the paper's equal-brightness halo-mass claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the hot CGM X-ray luminosity of central galaxies is set by halo mass, not by whether the galaxy is star-forming or quiescent. Concretely, the stacked 0.5–2 keV emission within $R_{500c}$ gives $L_{X,\rm CGM} \approx 8\times 10^{39}$, $2.3\times 10^{40}$, and $4.0\times 10^{40}$ erg/s for star-forming galaxies with median stellar masses $\log(M_*/\mathrm{M}_\odot) = 10.7$, $11.1$, and $11.3$, and $1.1\times 10^{40}$, $6.2\times 10^{40}$, and $3.0\times 10^{41}$ erg/s for quiescent galaxies with median stellar masses $10.8$, $11.1$, and $11.4$; quiescent systems are brighter above $\log(M_*/\mathrm{M}_\odot) > 11.0$. When the same galaxies are binned by halo mass using the Tinker (2021) group finder, star-forming and quiescent galaxies with $\log(M_{200m}/\mathrm{M}_\odot) > 12.5$ show consistent surface brightness profiles and consistent $L_{X,\rm CGM}$–$M_{500c}$ relations, implying that galaxies in similar dark matter halos host equally bright hot CGM. The paper states that this halo-mass conclusion is conditional on the bimodal stellar-to-halo mass relation, because repeating the halo-mass selection with the unimodal Yang et al. (2007) SHMR produces different $L_{X,\rm CGM}$–$M_{500c}$ relations; the SHMR-independent statement that survives is the title conclusion that star-forming galaxies are not brighter.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that star-forming and quiescent galaxies in matched halos shine equally bright assumes that the halo masses assigned by the Tinker (2021) group finder, with its two-branch stellar-to-halo mass relation, are the true halo masses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quiescent galaxies with $\log(M_*/\mathrm{M}_\odot) > 11.0$ appear brighter in hot CGM X-ray emission than star-forming galaxies of the same stellar mass, while below that mass the two are comparable.
  • Binned by halo mass with the Tinker (2021) group finder, star-forming and quiescent central galaxies above $\log(M_{200m}/\mathrm{M}_\odot) \simeq 12.5$ show consistent X-ray surface brightness and luminosity, so halo mass, not star-formation state, is the primary driver of CGM heating.
  • If the bimodal stellar-to-halo mass relation is replaced by a unimodal one, the equal-brightness halo-mass result disappears and star-forming galaxies appear fainter than quiescent ones, so future SHMR measurements will either support or overturn the halo-mass interpretation.
  • Comparisons with three cosmological hydrodynamical simulations show disagreement in some mass bins, so the measured relations provide a constraint on how much energy feedback can deposit in or remove from the hot CGM.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equal-brightness result holds, it suggests quenching is not accompanied by an unusually hot or luminous CGM; the gas reservoir looks the same whether star formation is ongoing or shut off, which points toward halo mass or assembly history as the quenching switch.
  • The strong SHMR dependence implies that the cleanest test will come from weak-lensing-calibrated halo masses; the same stacking repeated with those masses would either confirm or dissolve the halo-mass conclusion.
  • The paper's identification of satellite-boost bias and star contamination as the source of earlier conflicting results suggests that other stacked CGM measurements built from less clean central samples may need to be revisited.
  • Measuring CGM temperature or metallicity from stacked spectra, rather than luminosity alone, would test whether the gas around star-forming and quiescent galaxies is in the same physical state even when its X-ray brightness matches.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper stacks four eROSITA all-sky survey (eRASS:4) maps around volume-limited samples of ~32,000 central star-forming and ~53,000 central quiescent SDSS DR7 galaxies, plus the corresponding halo-mass-selected samples, at zspec < 0.2. It measures mean 0.5–2 keV X-ray surface brightness profiles out to R500c, subtracts detected point sources, unresolved AGN, X-ray binaries, and satellite contributions, and integrates the residual as LX,CGM. It reports extended hot CGM emission around quiescent galaxies with log M* > 10.5 and star-forming galaxies with log M* > 11.0, a bifurcation in the LX,CGM–M* scaling relation above log M* ~ 11.0, and consistent LX,CGM–M500c relations for star-forming and quiescent galaxies when using the Tinker (2021) group finder's bimodal SHMR. The paper shows that this halo-mass equality is not reproduced when halo masses are assigned with the Yang et al. (2007) group finder. It compares the measured relations to EAGLE, TNG100, and SIMBA and discusses discrepancies with the earlier eFEDS stacking studies. The concluding claim is that, whether selected in stellar mass or halo mass, star-forming galaxies do not host brighter stacked X-ray emission from the hot CGM than their quiescent counterparts at the same mass.

Significance. If the main result holds, it suggests that hot CGM X-ray luminosity is not enhanced by ongoing star formation at fixed stellar or halo mass and that halo mass, rather than current star formation state, is the primary determinant of CGM heating — a useful constraint for quenching models and their feedback implementations. The paper's strengths include large central-galaxy samples, careful masking and modeling of unresolved AGN/XRB emission, an explicit test of the SHMR dependence, and a transparent statement that the halo-mass equality is conditional on the adopted bimodal SHMR. The robust part of the conclusion (star-forming galaxies are not brighter) is well supported, but the stronger equality claim is only established under one particular SHMR, and the star-forming CGM detections are marginal in several bins.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Fig. 5] The abstract and the fourth bullet of Section 5 state that galaxies in the same mass dark matter halos host equally bright hot CGM and that halo mass is the determining factor; this is only true for the Tinker (2021) bimodal SHMR. The paper's own test with the Yang et al. (2007) group finder yields LX,CGM-M500c relations in which star-forming galaxies are fainter than quiescent galaxies, and the text concludes that the consistent relations are 'conditional upon the bimodal SHMR'. The abstract and conclusions should be revised to present the equality as an SHMR-dependent result and to separate it from the robust statement that star-forming galaxies are not brighter.
  2. [Table 3, Sections 3.1 and 3.2] The star-forming LX,CGM values are low-significance detections, e.g., 2.3±1.5×10^40 erg/s in the log M*=11.0-11.25 bin and 4.0±2.4×10^40 erg/s in the 11.25-11.5 bin, corresponding to roughly 1.5-2 sigma. The claim that extended X-ray emission from the hot CGM is 'detected' around star-forming galaxies with log M*>11.0 is not supported at high confidence by the integrated luminosities. The later statement that star-forming and quiescent galaxies host 'equally bright' CGM in halo mass bins should be reframed as consistency within large uncertainties or as an upper limit for the star-forming population.
  3. [Section 4.2, Fig. 7] The simulation comparison mixes apertures: simulated LX,CGM is measured within (0.15-1)R500c, while the observed LX,CGM is integrated within the full R500c. The paper acknowledges the 'face value' nature of the comparison, but it does not quantify the resulting bias. A matched-aperture measurement or an explicit aperture correction is needed before the degree of agreement with EAGLE, TNG100, and SIMBA can be assessed.
  4. [Section 3.1, Table 3, Appendix A] For star-forming galaxies, the modeled XRB plus unresolved AGN emission is comparable to or larger than the residual LX,CGM (e.g., 2.6±1.1 versus 2.3±1.5 ×10^40 erg/s in the 11.0-11.25 stellar mass bin). The paper notes that proper beta-model fits cannot be applied to star-forming galaxies because of this, but the systematic uncertainty of the Aird et al. (2017) XRB model and of the BPT-based AGN estimate is not propagated into LX,CGM. A quantitative assessment of these systematics is required for the detection claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1, Section 2.1] The total sample sizes quoted in the text (32,190 CENSF and 53,032 CENQU) differ from the sums of the corresponding Table 1 bins (31,243 and 52,130, respectively); please verify and make the numbers consistent.
  2. [Equations (1)-(2)] The summation symbol appears to be missing in the rendered equations; the equations should be written with explicit sums over events and radial bins.
  3. [Abstract] The sequences '0.8, 2.3, 4.0×10^40' and '1.1, 6.2, 30×10^40' should be written with the same scientific notation for each value for clarity.
  4. [Section 4.4.1, Fig. 9] The statement that 'a satellite fraction of about 40-50% can explain the bright LX' is imprecise because Fig. 9 labels the quantities as lower limits ('fsat > 40%' and 'fsat > 50%'); please clarify whether these are lower limits.
  5. [Figures 2 and 3] The captions contain a typo ('bottem'), and they should specify whether the shown SX,CGM profiles already have the unresolved AGN and XRB models subtracted when comparing with the beta-model fits.
  6. [Section 4.2, Fig. 7] The simulated uncertainties are the 16-84% scatter of individual simulated galaxies, while the observed uncertainties are errors on the mean; this difference should be stated in the figure captions as well as in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the X-ray luminosities are directly measured from stacked eRASS:4 data; the halo-mass comparison is explicitly conditional on the adopted SHMR and is tested against an alternative, not derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central measurements are stacked X-ray surface brightness profiles and integrated LX,CGM values (Sect. 2.2, Eqs. 1-3), obtained by masking point sources and subtracting AGN/XRB/satellite models. These luminosities are not fitted from, nor defined in terms of, the halo masses used to bin the samples. The halo-mass scaling relations come from the Tinker (2021) group finder, which is calibrated to galaxy clustering and galaxy-galaxy lensing (Mandelbaum et al. 2016), not to X-ray data; this is an external assumption, not an internal reduction. The paper explicitly flags the limitation: 'We conclude that the consistent LX,CGM-M500c scaling relations for star-forming and quiescent galaxies (Fig. 3) are conditional upon the bimodal SHMR' (Sect. 4.1), and it tests the Yang et al. (2007) unimodal SHMR, finding different LX,CGM-M500c relations (Fig. 5), while the weaker claim that star-forming galaxies are not brighter survives. The 'derived' LX,CGM-M500c and LX,CGM-M* curves in Figs. 5-6 are consistency checks obtained by convolving the independently measured LX,CGM-M* or LX,CGM-M500c relations with the respective SHMRs; they are presented as checks, not as the source of the data. The comparison to EAGLE, TNG100 and SIMBA uses external simulations and is made 'at face value' with stated limitations. Self-citations to Zhang et al. (2024a,b) supply the stacking pipeline, background treatment and contamination models for the companion analysis; these are methodological dependencies, not a circular import of the SF/QU conclusion, which was not present in those works. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement is an integrated X-ray luminosity from stacked profiles, so the main free parameters are the background level and beta-model descriptions. The main assumptions are observational: the background is the minimum beyond R500c, XRB and unresolved AGN follow literature models, the Tinker (2021) group finder recovers the bimodal SHMR, satellite contamination is captured by Paper I mocks, and simulation comparisons need no mock. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Background level S_X,bg = minimum S_X beyond R500c per stack
    Chosen per stacked sample as the zero level; directly sets LX,CGM and the SF/QU comparison.
  • Beta model parameters (beta, log S_X0, r_c) = beta 0.35-0.5; log S_X0 36.8-37.7; r_c 1-18 kpc
    MCMC fits to quiescent and one SF halo profile in Table 2. Descriptive only and not used to compute LX,CGM, but quoted as profile shape results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The X-ray background can be estimated as the minimum surface brightness beyond R500c.
    Section 2.2; assumes negligible CGM emission beyond R500c. Over-subtraction would bias LX,CGM low.
  • domain assumption XRB luminosity follows Aird et al. (2017) scaling with SFR and M*, and unresolved AGN luminosity follows the stacked BPT-selected AGN sample scaled by fAGN.
    Section 2.2 and Appendix A; subtraction of these components dominates the star-forming CGM measurement.
  • domain assumption Halo masses from Tinker (2021) and its bimodal stellar-to-halo mass relation are correct, with M200m to M500c converted using Ishiyama et al. (2021).
    Section 4.1; the equal-LX halo-mass result changes if a unimodal SHMR such as Yang et al. (2007) is adopted.
  • domain assumption Satellite contamination and central misclassification rates (about 2% and 1%) from Paper I mock catalogs are accurate.
    Section 2.1 and 2.2; satellite X-ray boost could bias the stacked central galaxy profiles.
  • domain assumption Simulation comparisons can be made at face value without a dedicated mock catalog reproducing selection, mass functions, and SHMR.
    Section 4.2; the authors state this limitation explicitly, so the comparison is indicative rather than fully controlled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The hot circumgalactic medium in the eROSITA All-Sky Survey III. Star-forming and quiescent galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGA6XWZG

@misc{pith2026241119945,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The hot circumgalactic medium in the eROSITA All-Sky Survey III. Star-forming and quiescent galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGA6XWZG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19945}
}
abstract

The circumgalactic medium (CGM), as the gas repository for star formation, might contain the answer to the mysterious galaxy quenching and bimodal galaxy population origin. We measured the X-ray emission of the hot CGM around star-forming and quiescent galaxies. We detect extended X-ray emission from the hot CGM around star-forming galaxies with $\log(M_*/M_\odot)>11.0$ and quiescent galaxies with $\log(M_*/M_\odot)>10.5$, extending out to $R_{\rm 500c}$. $L_{\rm X, CGM}$ of star-forming galaxies with median stellar masses $\log(M_{\rm *,med}/M_\odot) = 10.7, 11.1, 11.3$ are approximately $0.8\,, 2.3\,, 4.0 \times 10^{40}\,\rm erg/s$, while for quiescent galaxies with $\log(M_{\rm *,med}/M_\odot) = 10.8, 11.1, 11.4$, they are $1.1\,, 6.2\,, 30 \times 10^{40}\,\rm erg/s$. Notably, quiescent galaxies with $\log(M_{\rm *,med}/M_\odot) > 11.0$ exhibit brighter hot CGM than their star-forming counterparts. In halo mass bins, we detect similar X-ray emission around star-forming and quiescent galaxies with $\log(M_{\rm 200m}/M_\odot) > 12.5$, suggesting that galaxies in the same mass dark matter halos host equally bright hot CGM. We emphasize the observed $L_{\rm X, CGM} - M_{\rm 500c}$ relations of star-forming and quiescent galaxies are sensitive to the stellar-to-halo mass relation (SHMR). A comparison with cosmological hydrodynamical simulations (EAGLE, TNG100, and SIMBA) reveals varying degrees of agreement, contingent on the simulation and the specific stellar or halo mass ranges considered. Either selected in stellar mass or halo mass, the star-forming galaxies do not host brighter stacked X-ray emission from the hot CGM than their quiescent counterparts at the same mass range. The result provides useful constraints on the extent of feedback's impacts as a mechanism for quenching star formation as implemented in current cosmological simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19945 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The median M200m and median M∗ of galaxies with the 16−84% scatter for each mass bin in the CENhalo,SF (blue band), CENhalo,QU (red band), CENSF (green crosses), and CENQU (or￾ange cross) samples. We build the galaxy samples based on the SDSS DR7 spec￾troscopic galaxy catalog (rAB < 17.77) (Strauss et al. 2002). We take the spectroscopic redshift (zspec) estimated by Blan￾ton et al. (2005), stellar mass estimated by… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray surface brightness profiles of the hot CGM of the central star-forming ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. X-ray surface brightness profiles of the hot CGM of the central star-forming ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of M500c − M∗ relations of central star￾forming (top) and quiescent (bottom) galaxies in catalog Tin￾ker (2021) and Yang et al. (2007), and EAGLE, TNG100 and SIMBA simulations. The shadow area denotes the 16–84% scat￾ter of the relation. Yang et al. (2007) o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observed hot CGM X-ray luminosity of central star [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Observed LX,CGM,SF− M∗ (blue) and LX,CGM,QU − M∗ (red) scaling relations, compared to the derived ones by convolving LX,CGM − M500c with SHMR of Tinker (2021). We compare the LX,CGM − M500c relations predicted by the simulations to the observation based on halo mass pr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the observed LX,CGM − M∗ relation to the predictions from the EAGLE, TNG100, and SIMBA simulations with 1σ uncertainties, for star-forming (top left) and quiescent (top right) galaxies. Comparison of the observed LX,CGM − M500c relation to the predictions…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison the LX,CGM − M∗ relations of star-forming and quiescent galaxies selected by 4000Å break or sSFR. and integrate the X-ray emission within 300 kpc around galax￾ies. We obtain much lower LX,<300kpc of quiescent galaxies than Comparat et al. (2022). Except for …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: X-ray luminosity within 300 kpc, without masking extended X-ray sources, for quiescent (top left) and star-forming (bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

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. What's Missing in AGN Feedback? Lessons learnt from Magneticum, IllustrisTNG and Simba

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

    No current simulation simultaneously reproduces observed halo hot-gas fractions and local galaxy star-formation/quenching demographics; strong AGN feedback overquenches, weak feedback retains too much gas.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., Alexandroff, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Ahn, C. P., Alexandroff, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 17

    2014

  2. [2]

    L., & Georgakakis, A

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., & Georgakakis, A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3390

    2017

  3. [3]

    & Tinker, J

    Alpaslan, M. & Tinker, J. L. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5463

    2020

  4. [4]

    V ., McNamara, B

    Babyk, I. V ., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 32

    2018

  5. [5]

    K., Balogh, M

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

    2006

  6. [6]

    K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al

    Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, 681

    2004

  7. [7]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

    1981

  8. [8]

    d., et al

    Barret, D., Albouys, V ., Herder, J.-W. d., et al. 2023, Experimental Astronomy, 55, 373

    2023

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143

    2019

  2. [10]

    S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R. H. 2010, ApJ, 717, 379

    2010

  3. [11]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57

    2013

  4. [12]

    2021, A&A, 653, A82

    Bilicki, M., Dvornik, A., Hoekstra, H., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A82

    2021

  5. [13]

    R., Schlegel, D

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

    2005

  6. [14]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 2656

    Braspenning, J., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2656

    2024

  7. [15]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151

    2004

  8. [16]

    2022, A&A, 661, A1

    Brunner, H., Liu, T., Lamer, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A1

    2022

  9. [17]

    & Fusco-Femiano, R

    Cavaliere, A. & Fusco-Femiano, R. 1976, A&A, 49, 137

    1976

  10. [18]

    D., et al

    Chadayammuri, U., Bogdán, Á., Oppenheimer, B. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, L15

    2022

  11. [19]

    A., et al

    Chen, Y .-M., Kauffmann, G., Tremonti, C. A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 314

    2012

  12. [20]

    M., Koo, D

    Chen, Z., Faber, S. M., Koo, D. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 102

    2020

  13. [21]

    P., Naab, T., Oser, L., & Moster, B

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

    2015

  14. [22]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.01388

    Comparat, J., Luo, W., Merloni, A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.01388

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    2022, A&A, 666, A156

    Comparat, J., Truong, N., Merloni, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A156

    2022

  16. [24]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1937

    2015

  17. [25]

    J., Springel, V ., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11

    2006

  18. [26]

    A., Anglés-Alcázar, D., & Yang, X

    Cui, W., Davé, R., Peacock, J. A., Anglés-Alcázar, D., & Yang, X. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1069 Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827 Davé, R., Thompson, R., & Hopkins, P. F. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3265

    2021

  19. [27]

    P., Jones, C., Forman, W., Vargas, I

    David, L. P., Jones, C., Forman, W., Vargas, I. M., & Nulsen, P. 2006, ApJ, 653, 207

    2006

  20. [28]

    J., Crain, R

    Davies, J. J., Crain, R. A., McCarthy, I. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3783 de Jong, R. S., Agertz, O., Berbel, A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3

    2019

  21. [29]

    & Birnboim, Y

    Dekel, A. & Birnboim, Y . 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 439

    2022

  23. [31]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453

    Dubois, Y ., Pichon, C., Welker, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453

    2014

  24. [32]

    Eckert, D., Gaspari, M., Gastaldello, F., Le Brun, A. M. C., & O’Sullivan, E. 2021, Universe, 7, 142

    2021

  25. [33]

    M., Willmer, C

    Faber, S. M., Willmer, C. N. A., Wolf, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 265 Faucher-Giguère, C.-A. & Oh, S. P. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 131

    2007

  26. [34]

    A., Alabi, A., Romanowsky, A

    Forbes, D. A., Alabi, A., Romanowsky, A. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, L26

    2017

  27. [35]

    D., Greene, J

    Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Ma, C.-P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 167

    2016

  28. [36]

    G., Wang, J., & Lin, L

    Guo, H., Jones, M. G., Wang, J., & Lin, L. 2021, ApJ, 918, 53

    2021

  29. [37]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 101

    Guo, Q., White, S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 101

    2011

  30. [38]

    N., Abeyta, A., et al

    Hasan, F., Burchett, J. N., Abeyta, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 114

    2023

  31. [39]

    Henriques, B. M. B., White, S. D. M., Thomas, P. A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2663

    2015

  32. [40]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 2304

    Hirschmann, M., Dolag, K., Saro, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2304

    2014

  33. [41]

    W., Blanton, M

    Hogg, D. W., Blanton, M. R., Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 585, L5

    2003

  34. [42]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 249

    Hou, M., He, L., Hu, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 249

    2024

  35. [43]

    A., et al

    Ishiyama, T., Prada, F., Klypin, A. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4210 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    2021

  36. [44]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 1349

    Khandai, N., Di Matteo, T., Croft, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1349

    2015

  37. [45]

    & Fabbiano, G

    Kim, D.-W. & Fabbiano, G. 2013, ApJ, 776, 116

    2013

  38. [46]

    & Fabbiano, G

    Kim, D.-W. & Fabbiano, G. 2015, ApJ, 812, 127

    2015

  39. [47]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 1072

    Kim, D.-W., James, N., Fabbiano, G., Forbes, D., & Alabi, A. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1072

    2019

  40. [48]

    G., Baugh, C

    Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3854

    2016

  41. [49]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193

    Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193

    2011 arXiv

  42. [50]

    & Wang, Q

    Li, J.-T. & Wang, Q. D. 2013a, MNRAS, 428, 2085

  43. [51]

    Lovisari, L., Ettori, S., Gaspari, M., & Giles, P. A. 2021, Universe, 7, 139

    2021

  44. [52]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 205

    Ma, W., Liu, K., Guo, H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 205

    2022

  45. [53]

    M., & Brinkmann, J

    Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Kau ffmann, G., Hirata, C. M., & Brinkmann, J. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 715

    2006

  46. [54]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 3200

    Mandelbaum, R., Wang, W., Zu, Y ., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3200

    2016

  47. [55]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    Marinacci, F., V ogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    2018

  48. [56]

    C., Schaller, M., et al

    McAlpine, S., Helly, J. C., Schaller, M., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Computing, 15, 72

    2016

  49. [57]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16361

    Medlock, I., Neufeld, C., Nagai, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16361

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    2024, A&A, 682, A78

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A78

    2024

  51. [59]

    2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1209.3114

    Merloni, A., Predehl, P., Becker, W., et al. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1209.3114

    2012 arXiv

  52. [60]

    D., Bolton, A

    Montero-Dorta, A. D., Bolton, A. S., Brownstein, J. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1131

    2016

  53. [61]

    C., Cacciato, M., et al

    More, S., van den Bosch, F. C., Cacciato, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 210

    2011

  54. [62]

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

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3121

    2013

  55. [63]

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

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1822

    2018

  56. [64]

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

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4748

    2020

  57. [65]

    P., Somerville, R

    Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., Maulbetsch, C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 903

    2010

  58. [66]

    & Ostriker, J

    Naab, T. & Ostriker, J. P. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 59

    2017

  59. [67]

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

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206

    2018

  60. [68]

    D., Bogdán, Á., Crain, R

    Oppenheimer, B. D., Bogdán, Á., Crain, R. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, L24 O’Sullivan, E., Forbes, D. A., & Ponman, T. J. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 461 O’Sullivan, E., Ponman, T. J., & Collins, R. S. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 1375

    2020

  61. [69]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 648 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2018

  62. [70]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1

    2021

  63. [71]

    Primack, J. R. 2024, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 74, 173

    2024

  64. [72]

    & Springel, V

    Puchwein, E. & Springel, V . 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2966

    2013

  65. [73]

    Robotham, A. S. G., Norberg, P., Driver, S. P., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2640

    2011

  66. [74]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 1845

    Sarzi, M., Alatalo, K., Blitz, L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1845

    2013

  67. [75]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 2277

    Schaller, M., Dalla Vecchia, C., Schaye, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2277

    2015

  68. [76]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521

    2015

  69. [77]

    A., et al

    Schellenberger, G., Bogdán, Á., ZuHone, J. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 85

    2024

  70. [78]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 39

    Shi, K., Malavasi, N., Toshikawa, J., & Zheng, X. 2024, ApJ, 961, 39

    2024

  71. [79]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10397

    Shreeram, S., Comparat, J., Merloni, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10397

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    T., Faerman, Y ., Stern, J., & Nagai, D

    Singh, P., Lau, E. T., Faerman, Y ., Stern, J., & Nagai, D. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3222

    2024

  73. [81]

    S., Hopkins, P

    Somerville, R. S., Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Robertson, B. E., & Hernquist, L. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 481

    2008

  74. [82]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    Springel, V ., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    2018

  75. [83]

    R., et al

    Strateva, I., Ivezi´c, Ž., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 1861

    2001

  76. [84]

    A., Weinberg, D

    Strauss, M. A., Weinberg, D. H., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1810

    2002

  77. [85]

    K., Heckman, T

    Strickland, D. K., Heckman, T. M., Colbert, E. J. M., Hoopes, C. G., & Weaver, K. A. 2004, ApJS, 151, 193

    2004

  78. [86]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16359

    Sultan, I., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Stern, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16359

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    2021, A&A, 656, A132

    Sunyaev, R., Arefiev, V ., Babyshkin, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A132

    2021

  80. [88]

    N., Cluver, M

    Taylor, E. N., Cluver, M. E., Duffy, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2896

    2020

  81. [89]

    K., Wilde, M

    Tchernyshyov, K., Werk, J. K., Wilde, M. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 41

    2023

  82. [90]

    Tinker, J. L. 2021, ApJ, 923, 154

    2021

  83. [91]

    Tinker, J. L. 2022, AJ, 163, 126

    2022

  84. [92]

    L., Leauthaud, A., Bundy, K., et al

    Tinker, J. L., Leauthaud, A., Bundy, K., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 93

    2013

  85. [93]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 1976

    Truong, N., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1976

    2023

  86. [94]

    2020, MN- RAS[arXiv:1911.11165]

    Truong, N., Pillepich, A., Werner, N., et al. 2020, MN- RAS[arXiv:1911.11165]

    2020 arXiv

  87. [95]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 5406 Tüllmann, R., Pietsch, W., Rossa, J., Breitschwerdt, D., & Dettmar, R

    Trussler, J., Maiolino, R., Maraston, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5406 Tüllmann, R., Pietsch, W., Rossa, J., Breitschwerdt, D., & Dettmar, R. J. 2006, A&A, 448, 43

    2020

  88. [96]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389

    2017

  89. [97]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, 2111

    Velander, M., van Uitert, E., Hoekstra, H., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2111

    2014

  90. [98]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.02686 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V ., et al

    Vladutescu-Zopp, S., Bi ffi, V ., & Dolag, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.02686 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V ., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1518 V oit, G. M., Pandya, V ., Fielding, D. B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.07631

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    E., Haberl, F., et al

    Vulic, N., Hornschemeier, A. E., Haberl, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A16

    2022

  92. [100]

    Wang, Q. D. 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 107, 7168

    2010

  93. [101]

    D., Li, J., Jiang, X., & Fang, T

    Wang, Q. D., Li, J., Jiang, X., & Fang, T. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1385

    2016

  94. [102]

    Wechsler, R. H. & Tinker, J. L. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 435

    2018

  95. [103]

    J., Somerville, R

    Wright, R. J., Somerville, R. S., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08408 XRISM Science Team. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.04962

    2024 arXiv

  96. [104]

    J., van den Bosch, F

    Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 153

    2007

  97. [105]

    H., et al

    Zehavi, I., Zheng, Z., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 59

    2011

  98. [106]

    C., et al

    Zhang, C., Peng, Y ., Ho, L. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 57

    2021

  99. [107]

    2022, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 1053

    Zhang, Y .-N., Li, C., Xu, D., & Cui, W. 2022, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 1053

    2022

  100. [108]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12442

    Zhao, D., Peng, Y ., Jing, Y ., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12442

    2024 arXiv

  101. [109]

    & Mandelbaum, R

    Zu, Y . & Mandelbaum, R. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4360 Article number, page 14 of 16 Yi Zhang et al.: The hot circumgalactic medium in the eROSITA All-Sky Survey Appendix A: AGN models for star-forming and quiescent galaxies The percentages of central star-forming or quiescent galaxi...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.