Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Cosmological simulation models under-predict the pulsar-timing gravitational-wave background by about a factor of two, requiring roughly 5.5 times more of the most massive black holes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 22:42 UTC pith:22KKAX3K

load-bearing objection A transparent and useful survey of how feedback variants shift simulated GWB predictions, but the headline factor-of-2 deficit leans on a calibration constant that is itself fitted to PTA data. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.15938 v2 pith:22KKAX3K submitted 2026-02-17 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Implications of the nanoHertz Gravitational-Wave Background for Galactic Feedback and Massive Black Hole Growth

Megan Taylor Tillman , Blakesley Burkhart , Chiara M. F. Mingarelli , J. Andrew Casey-Clyde , Lars Hernquist , Sownak Bose , Enik\H{o} Reg\H{o}s , C\'esar Hern\'andez-Aguayo This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitational-wave backgroundpulsar timing arrayssupermassive black holesblack hole mass functionAGN feedbackgalaxy formation simulationsquasar demographics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks whether the recently detected nanohertz gravitational-wave background can discriminate between different prescriptions for how galactic feedback regulates black hole growth. Taking black hole mass functions from several large cosmological simulations and passing them through a quasar-based binary population model, the authors predict the gravitational-wave strain produced by supermassive black hole binaries. All fiducial feedback models under-predict the measured signal by roughly a factor of two, concentrated in a deficit of very massive black holes (above ~10^9 solar masses) that would need to be ~5.5 times more numerous to match the data. Only simulations with weak or absent AGN feedback reproduce the observed amplitude, and those models fail to produce realistic galaxies. The authors conclude that pulsar timing is a new empirical probe of feedback physics and that the most likely resolution is that black hole growth is more efficient or begins earlier than current simulation modeling allows.

Core claim

The central claim is that the measured nanohertz gravitational-wave background from supermassive black hole binaries is in tension with the black hole populations produced by fiducial cosmological simulations: the IllustrisTNG, MillenniumTNG, and Simba models all predict a characteristic strain amplitude a factor of ~2 below the pulsar timing array measurement, and matching the measurement would require ~1.5–5.5 times more black holes above 10^8–10^9 solar masses, with the largest factor in the bin most relevant to the background. Because feedback variants that do produce enough massive black holes (for example, removing the AGN jet mode) are already ruled out by galaxy observations, the ten

What carries the argument

The quasar-based binary population framework: the simulation's black hole mass function is convolved with an Eddington-ratio distribution (a duty cycle) to isolate the active quasar population; that population is multiplied by a calibration factor Ncal ≈ 4 (binary-to-quasar ratio) to obtain the binary population; secondary masses are assigned by sampling a lognormal mass-ratio distribution centered at q ≈ 0.33; and the resulting binary mass functions are integrated over redshift and frequency with the circular-orbit gravitational-wave energy spectrum to yield the characteristic strain at 1 year^-1. This machinery is what converts feedback-regulated black hole growth directly into a predicted

Load-bearing premise

The mapping from simulated black hole mass function to gravitational-wave background assumes a constant binary-to-quasar ratio of about 4 and a constant quasar duty cycle applied to the instantaneous simulation mass function; if merger timing, binary pairing efficiency, environmental hardening, or the universality of that ratio vary between feedback models, the factor-of-two deficit is no longer a statement about black hole growth alone.

What would settle it

A robust measurement of the black hole mass function at z ≲ 2 in the range 10^9–10^10 solar masses (from, e.g., JWST, X-ray surveys, or future LISA-based mass measurements) could settle the issue: if the observed counts match the fiducial simulation predictions rather than the ~5.5 times higher abundance, then the GWB deficit must arise in binary pairing or hardening rather than in black hole growth. Conversely, a simulation with full merger-tree treatments that nevertheless reproduces the measured amplitude with its unmodified feedback would falsify the paper's growth-history interpretation.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Pulsar timing array measurements become a new quantitative constraint on the high-mass end of the black hole mass function and therefore on AGN and stellar feedback models in cosmological simulations.
  • Fiducial galaxy-formation models need to grow black holes of ~10^9 solar masses roughly 1.5–5.5 times more efficiently (or seed them earlier) to match the measured background; this is a concrete target for subgrid model changes.
  • Feedback variations that match the gravitational-wave amplitude, such as removing the kinetic AGN jet mode, are independently ruled out by galaxy population statistics, so the 'fix' cannot simply be weaker AGN feedback.
  • Predicted amplitudes converge once simulation boxes are larger than ~35–50 Mpc/h, giving future simulation campaigns a clear volume requirement for PTA-relevant predictions.
  • Extreme feedback parameter variations can shift the predicted amplitude by up to a factor of 10, so interpreting current and future gravitational-wave background measurements requires knowing the feedback model that produced the black hole population.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The calibration factor Ncal ≈ 4 is itself inferred from earlier pulsar-timing limits within the same quasar-based model; if that factor were instead calibrated to the detected background, part of the factor-of-two 'deficit' would be absorbed, so the paper's quoted deficit is likely a conservative statement about the instantaneous-BHMF mapping.
  • A direct test: compare the framework's prediction against simulations that track binary pairing and hardening self-consistently; if such models reproduce the measured amplitude with the same BHMF, the deficit is in binary dynamics, not in black hole growth.
  • The result independently strengthens the 'early seeding / overmassive black holes' interpretation recently suggested by JWST observations of massive black holes at high redshift, by showing that the same conclusion follows from the low-redshift gravitational-wave background.
  • The framework assumes circular orbits and a -2/3 spectral index; pulsar timing arrays may soon measure the spectral slope, and a deviation at low frequencies would signal environmental hardening, potentially changing the amplitude comparison.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper maps BHMFs from IllustrisTNG/MillenniumTNG, Simba, and CAMELS to a predicted nanohertz GWB using the quasar-based binary population framework of Casey-Clyde et al. (2022). The mapping (Eqs. 1-5) applies an Eddington-ratio distribution as a duty cycle, multiplies by a calibration factor Ncal≈4, assigns secondary masses with a lognormal mass-ratio distribution, and computes h_c(f). The central findings are that the fiducial simulation models under-predict the NANOGrav 15-yr A_GWB by roughly a factor of 2, that feedback variations can change A_GWB by factors of 2-10, and that matching the observed amplitude would require about 5.5 times more SMBHs in the highest mass bins. The paper also reports box-size/cosmic-variance convergence tests and a systematic CAMELS 1P parameter study.

Significance. If the adopted calibration is accepted, the paper provides a useful multi-suite comparison and demonstrates that PTA measurements can flag missing high-mass SMBHs in current galaxy-formation models. The strengths include the broad simulation coverage, the explicit convergence check against CAMELS cosmic-variance sets, the systematic CAMELS 1P parameter sweep, and the transparent enumeration of modeling assumptions in Section 5.3. However, the central quantitative claims inherit the unquantified normalization and duty-cycle assumptions of the adopted framework, so the significance of the 'missing massive black hole' interpretation is currently prospective rather than fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (2)] The absolute scale of the predicted GWB is set by Ncal≈4, a 'model-inferred calibration factor derived from fitting quasar-based models to GWB limits' (Sec. 3). Because Eqs. (2)-(4) give h_c ∝ sqrt(Ncal), the reported factor-~2 deficit relative to the measured A_GWB is measured on a scale that already contains information from GWB constraints. The paper neither reports an uncertainty on Ncal nor tests whether a single Ncal is appropriate for all feedback models. Please add a sensitivity analysis over the allowed range of Ncal (and, where possible, a model-dependent Ncal) and state how the factor-2 deficit and the 5.5× SMBH requirement change.
  2. [Sec. 5.1 / Sec. 5.3, Eq. (2)] The '5.5 times more massive SMBHs' requirement is obtained by comparing fiducial Simba with the SW+Rad variant while assuming the same Ncal and the same constant duty cycle fduty(MBH,z). This is in tension with the paper's own caution in Sec. 5.3 that the duty cycle is assumed constant across models, and with Sec. 5.2's statement that AGN feedback has a double suppression effect: it lowers both the BHMF and the number of visible quasars. If fduty or Ncal differ between feedback models, the required BHMF increase is not 5.5. A quantitative propagation of, e.g., the simulated active fraction in each run is needed before this number is quoted as a constraint.
  3. [Secs. 4.3.1 and 6] The abstract and conclusion state as a central result that fiducial models 'under-predict the GWB strain amplitude by a factor of ~2 and require 5.5 times more ... SMBHs.' Section 5.3 lists merger timing, pairing efficiency, environmental hardening, the spectral index, and the binary duty cycle as unquantified degeneracies, noting that time delays could either suppress or enhance the signal. Since the strong quantitative conclusion is drawn from one specific unvalidated mapping, the conclusions should be rephrased to present the factor-2 deficit as conditional on the adopted calibration assumptions, or the analysis should propagate these uncertainties.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.3.1 / Fig. 6] The text calls the 16th-to-84th percentile interval '~2σ', but this is a 1σ central interval. A 2σ interval would be roughly the 2.3rd-to-97.7th percentile. Please correct the wording.
  2. [Sec. 5.1 vs Sec. 6] The mass threshold for the 5.5× statement differs between the body and the conclusions: Section 5.1 says '1.5 to 5.5 times more ... (MBH > 10^8 M⊙)' while the conclusion says '5.5 times more ... (MBH > 10^9 M⊙)'. Harmonize these statements.
  3. [Sec. 3 / Sec. 6] The description of Ncal is inverted in one place. Section 3 states that binaries outnumber quasars by about 4:1, so roughly 25% of binaries host quasars. The conclusion's phrase 'a quarter of these will be in binary form' can be read as 25% of quasars being binaries. Please clarify the wording.
  4. [Sec. 2.4] The text says the simulation BHMFs are 'used directly in Eq. (4)', but Eq. (4) integrates the binary number density d^3Φ_BHB/dM_BH1 dq dz, which is obtained only after the steps in Eqs. (1)-(3). Please rephrase to describe the full mapping.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Ncal cancels in the predicted-to-observed ratio; deficits reflect independent simulation BHMFs.

full rationale

The derivation chain maps simulation BHMFs to a GWB amplitude via Eqs. (1)-(4), using Ncal≈4 from Casey-Clyde et al. (2022). Although Ncal is a self-cited calibration factor derived by fitting quasar-based models to the same NANOGrav measurement, it is a multiplicative constant that cancels in the ratio between the simulation prediction and the observed amplitude: h_sim^2/h_obs^2 = I_sim/I_quasar, where I_quasar is the empirical quasar-BHMF integral used in the calibration. The factor-of-2 underprediction is therefore a direct comparison of the simulation BHMF with an independent empirical BHMF, not a fit renamed as a prediction. The 5.5x SMBH requirement is obtained by comparing fiducial Simba to SW+Rad, a simulation-internal count ratio independent of Ncal. The paper is explicit about the model-inferred nature of Ncal (Sec. 3) and about degeneracies with duty cycle, time delays, and environmental hardening (Sec. 5.3), and it explicitly disclaims uniqueness ('missing massive SMBHs is not the only possible explanation'). No equation reduces to its input by construction; the central claim has independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central amplitude claim rests on an imported GWB-calibrated normalization (Ncal ≈ 4), a constant quasar duty cycle, and the assumption that instantaneous simulated BHMFs map directly onto the binary population. All are acknowledged in Section 5.3, but they are load-bearing rather than harmless.

free parameters (3)
  • Ncal (binary-to-quasar normalization) = ≈4
    Model-inferred calibration factor derived from fitting quasar-based models to GWB limits in Casey-Clyde et al. (2022); enters linearly in Eqs. (2)-(3) and sets the absolute GWB amplitude scale.
  • SMBHB mass-ratio distribution p(q) = log-normal centered at q = 0.33, width 0.5 dex
    Adopted to remain consistent with the Ncal calibration rather than from direct measurement; determines only the secondary black-hole masses in Eq. (3).
  • Eddington ratio distribution / quasar duty cycle fduty(MBH,z) = From Casey-Clyde et al. (2025), values not specified in this paper
    Convolving P(λ) in Eq. (1) sets what fraction of simulated black holes are counted as active quasars; assumed constant across all feedback models in Section 5.3.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The instantaneous simulated BHMF represents the SMBHB population contributing to the GWB.
    Section 5.3 first assumption; explicitly neglects merger timing, binary pairing efficiency, and environmental hardening, which could either suppress or boost the predicted amplitude.
  • domain assumption Quasar activity traces SMBHB incidence.
    Section 5.3 second assumption; assumes all quasars of a given mass have equal binary-forming likelihood and that quasar redshift evolution mirrors the SMBH population.
  • domain assumption The empirical quasar duty cycle is constant across all feedback models.
    Section 5.3 third assumption; physical duty cycles in extreme feedback variations may diverge from the calibrated value, biasing the inferred binary population.
  • domain assumption Binary orbits are circular and the characteristic strain follows a power law h_c ∝ f^(-2/3).
    Section 3 and Eq. (5); neglects eccentricity, spin coupling, loss-cone scattering, and environmental hardening, which alter both spectral shape and amplitude.
  • domain assumption The Ncal ≈ 4 normalization calibrated to GWB limits in Casey-Clyde et al. (2022) is correct and transferable.
    Eq. (2)-(3) multiply the quasar population by this GWB-derived constant; if the calibration is not universal, the absolute under-prediction factor changes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21931 in / 10140 out tokens · 96553 ms · 2026-08-02T22:42:23.009351+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate how pulsar timing array (PTA) measurements of the nanoHertz gravitational-wave background (GWB) can constrain models for the growth history of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) and how active galactic nucleus (AGN) and stellar feedback models can affect GWB predictions. Feedback regulates supermassive black hole (SMBH) growth, altering the black hole mass function (BHMF). Using BHMFs drawn from multiple cosmological simulation suites including IllustrisTNG, MillenniumTNG, Simba, and CAMELS, and combining these with a quasar-based SMBH binary population framework, we predict the resulting GWB amplitude under a range of different stellar and AGN feedback prescriptions. We find that the choice of both stellar and AGN feedback models alters the high-mass end of the BHMF and changes the predicted GWB amplitude by up to a factor of 2 for the fiducial simulations and a factor 10 for extreme feedback variations in CAMELS. Models with inefficient or absent AGN feedback produce abundant SMBHs and yield GWB amplitudes consistent with PTA data, yet fail in producing realistic galaxies. Fiducial models of AGN and stellar feedback suppress SMBH growth too much and under-predict the expected signal, an effect which could possibly be mitigated by more realistic black hole seeding and growth prescriptions. The mismatch between the GWB amplitudes predicted by cosmological simulations and that inferred by PTA measurements suggests that SMBH growth is more efficient or occurs earlier than captured by current models. This demonstrates that PTA measurements provide a powerful new probe of not only the SMBH population but also feedback physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.15938 by Blakesley Burkhart, C\'esar Hern\'andez-Aguayo, Chiara M. F. Mingarelli, Enik\H{o} Reg\H{o}s, J. Andrew Casey-Clyde, Lars Hernquist, Megan Taylor Tillman, Sownak Bose.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Graphic illustrating the pipeline used to obtain the GWB amplitude from the simulation BHMFs. We explore different simulation models (left-side), MillenniumTNG/IllustrisTNG and Simba, and variations of said models using the CAMELS simulation suites. These different simulations predict different BHMFs which are used in our semi-analytic model to calculate the characteristic strain spectrum (right-side), des… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The z = 0 BHMF predicted by the Simba sim￾ulation model when implementing different AGN feedback modes. The volume, resolution, cosmology, and all other astrophysics are the same in these simulations. This illus￾trates how much variation can occur in the predicted BHMF due to AGN feedback. Variations on the high mass end (MBH ≳ 108M⊙, marked by the shaded grey region) of the mass function will most impact … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The BHMF (integrated from z = 0 to 2) predicted by the IllustrisTNG (left) and Simba (right) simulations for different box sizes. MillenniumTNG, TNG300, TNG100, TNG50, and CAMELS-TNG/Simba are run in a box with co-moving side length 500, 205, 75, 35, and 25 Mpc/h respectively. The Simba simulations are run in a box with co-moving side length as labeled in the legend. The dashed horizontal line corresponds … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The predicted BHMF at z = 0 from the CAMELS-TNG simulation 1P set for parameter variations controlling galactic feedback. The name of the parameter varied is labeled in the top right of each plot. The legend indicates what color corresponds to the parameter value with red and blue being the largest and smallest value for that parameter respectively. The grey dashed line marks where the mass bins contain fe… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The predicted GWB amplitude for the (left) IllustrisTNG and MillenniumTNG simulations and (right) Simba simulations. The legend denotes which simulation model the predicted amplitude is from and the x-axis denotes the simulation box side-length. The two smaller shaded points for the 25 Mpc/h simulation represents the 16th-to-84th percentiles calculated from the CAMELS CV set. The dashed horizontal line and… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The predicted GWB amplitude from the CAMELS-TNG (top) and CAMELS-Simba (bottom) simulation 1P set for parameter variations controlling galactic feedback. The parameter varied is labeled on the x-axis. Triangles pointing up (red) are for increases in parameter value while triangles pointed down (blue) are for decreases in parameter value. The intermediate parameter values are not plotted but lie between the… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Evaluating the flexibility of the MillenniumTNG galaxy formation model with multi-zoom re-simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A parameter combination of the MillenniumTNG galaxy-formation model is found that reproduces the observed galaxy stellar-mass function and the lower gas fractions measured in groups and clusters, showing the model is ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2023, Astrophys

    Agazie, G., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 951, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 2023

  2. [2]

    Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Dav \'e , R., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., \"O zel , F., & Hopkins , P. F. 2017 a , , 464, 2840, 10.1093/mnras/stw2565

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2565 2017

  3. [3]

    2017 b , , 470, 4698, 10.1093/mnras/stx1517

    Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Kere s , D., et al. 2017 b , , 470, 4698, 10.1093/mnras/stx1517

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1517 2017

  4. [4]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, L109–L114, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx161

    Anglés-Alcázar, D., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Quataert, E., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, L109–L114, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx161

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx161 2017

  5. [5]

    2023, Astron

    Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, Astron. Astrophys., 678, A50, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346844

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346844 2023

  6. [6]

    2020, , 904, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/abba7f

    Barausse , E., Dvorkin , I., Tremmel , M., Volonteri , M., & Bonetti , M. 2020, , 904, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/abba7f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abba7f 2020

  7. [7]

    1952, , 112, 195, 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    Bondi , H. 1952, , 112, 195, 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  8. [8]

    A., Mingarelli , C

    Casey-Clyde , J. A., Mingarelli , C. M. F., Greene , J. E., et al. 2025, , 987, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/adce05

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adce05 2025

  9. [9]

    2022, , 924, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac32de

    ---. 2022, , 924, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac32de

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac32de 2022

  10. [10]

    2025, , 991, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/adefe2

    Chen , N., Di Matteo , T., Zhou , Y., et al. 2025, , 991, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/adefe2

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adefe2 2025

  11. [11]

    F., Dav \'e , R., Sorini , D., & Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D

    Christiansen , J. F., Dav \'e , R., Sorini , D., & Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D. 2020, , 499, 2617, 10.1093/mnras/staa3007

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3007 2020

  12. [12]

    2019, , 486, 2827, 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    Dav \'e , R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Narayanan , D., et al. 2019, , 486, 2827, 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz937 2019

  13. [13]

    2005, , 433, 604, 10.1038/nature03335

    Di Matteo , T., Springel , V., & Hernquist , L. 2005, , 433, 604, 10.1038/nature03335

    doi:10.1038/nature03335 2005

  14. [14]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 1502–1518, 10.1093/mnras/stv1416

    Dubois, Y., Volonteri, M., & Silk, J. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 1502–1518, 10.1093/mnras/stv1416

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1416 2015

  15. [15]

    Fabian , A. C. 2012, , 50, 455, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

  16. [16]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 1416, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Lidz , A., Zaldarriaga , M., & Hernquist , L. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1416, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/1416 2009

  17. [17]

    2012, , 746, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    Haardt , F., & Madau , P. 2012, , 746, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/125 2012

  18. [18]

    M., & Best , P

    Heckman , T. M., & Best , P. N. 2014, , 52, 589, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 2014

  19. [19]

    Hopkins , P. F. 2015, , 450, 53, 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015

  20. [20]

    F., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al. 2014, , 445, 581, 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1738 2014

  21. [21]

    F., & Quataert , E

    Hopkins , P. F., & Quataert , E. 2011, , 415, 1027, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18542.x

    arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    H., & Hernquist , L

    Katz , N., Weinberg , D. H., & Hernquist , L. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 105, 19, 10.1086/192305

    doi:10.1086/192305 1996

  23. [23]

    2024, in EAS2024, European Astronomical Society Annual Meeting, 2377

    Kelley , L. 2024, in EAS2024, European Astronomical Society Annual Meeting, 2377

    2024

  24. [24]

    Z., Blecha , L., & Hernquist , L

    Kelley , L. Z., Blecha , L., & Hernquist , L. 2017 a , , 464, 3131, 10.1093/mnras/stw2452

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2452 2017

  25. [25]

    Z., Blecha , L., Hernquist , L., Sesana , A., & Taylor , S

    Kelley , L. Z., Blecha , L., Hernquist , L., Sesana , A., & Taylor , S. R. 2017 b , , 471, 4508, 10.1093/mnras/stx1638

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1638 2017

  26. [26]

    M., Chen , S., Theureau , G., Habouzit , M., & Sesana , A

    Kozhikkal , M. M., Chen , S., Theureau , G., Habouzit , M., & Sesana , A. 2024, , 531, 1931, 10.1093/mnras/stae1219

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1219 2024

  27. [27]

    P., Natarajan , P., Lackner , C

    Kulier , A., Ostriker , J. P., Natarajan , P., Lackner , C. N., & Cen , R. 2015, , 799, 178, 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/178

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/178 2015

  28. [28]

    2019, , 490, 1425, 10.1093/mnras/stz2684

    Li , Q., Narayanan , D., & Dav \'e , R. 2019, , 490, 1425, 10.1093/mnras/stz2684

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2684 2019

  29. [29]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06311, 10.48550/arXiv.2510.06311

    Marinacci , F., Baldi , M., Iorio , G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06311, 10.48550/arXiv.2510.06311

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.06311 2025

  30. [30]

    G., Rosario , D

    McAlpine , S., Bower , R. G., Rosario , D. J., et al. 2018, , 481, 3118, 10.1093/mnras/sty2489

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2489 2018

  31. [31]

    T., et al

    Miles, M. T., et al. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 536, 1489, 10.1093/mnras/stae2571

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2571 2024

  32. [32]

    Mingarelli , C. M. F. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18859. 2601.18859

    arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    L., Kere s , D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al

    Muratov , A. L., Kere s , D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al. 2015, , 454, 2691, 10.1093/mnras/stv2126

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2126 2015

  34. [34]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson , D., Springel , V., Pillepich , A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    doi:10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x 2019

  35. [35]

    2025, , 990, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/adf3a7

    Ni , Y., Chen , N., Zhou , Y., et al. 2025, , 990, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/adf3a7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf3a7 2025

  36. [36]

    2022, , 513, 670, 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    Ni , Y., Di Matteo , T., Bird , S., et al. 2022, , 513, 670, 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac351 2022

  37. [37]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.02096, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.02096

    Ni , Y., Genel , S., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.02096, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.02096

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.02096 2023

  38. [38]

    2023, , 957, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158

    Pacucci , F., Nguyen , B., Carniani , S., Maiolino , R., & Fan , X. 2023, , 957, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158 2023

  39. [39]

    P., et al

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3620 2023

  40. [40]

    Phinney , E. S. 2001, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0108028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0108028 2001

  41. [41]

    2018, , 473, 4077, 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656 2018

  42. [42]

    H., Rai c evi \'c , M., & Schaye , J

    Rahmati , A., Pawlik , A. H., Rai c evi \'c , M., & Schaye , J. 2013, , 430, 2427, 10.1093/mnras/stt066

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt066 2013

  43. [43]

    Ravi, V., Wyithe, J. S. B., Shannon, R. M., Hobbs, G., & Manchester, R. N. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 928–935, 10.1038/s41550-019-0840-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0840-4 2019

  44. [44]

    J., et al

    Reardon, D. J., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 951, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 2023

  45. [45]

    M., Bower , R

    Rosas-Guevara , Y. M., Bower , R. G., Schaye , J., et al. 2015, , 454, 1038, 10.1093/mnras/stv2056

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2056 2015

  46. [46]

    2025, , 111, 023043, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023043

    Sato-Polito , G., & Zaldarriaga , M. 2025, , 111, 023043, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023043

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.023043 2025

  47. [47]

    A., Bower , R

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2058 2015

  48. [48]

    1963, , 197, 1040, 10.1038/1971040a0

    Schmidt , M. 1963, , 197, 1040, 10.1038/1971040a0

    doi:10.1038/1971040a0 1963

  49. [49]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, L1–L5, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt034

    Sesana, A. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, L1–L5, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt034

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt034 2013

  50. [50]

    Sesana, A., Vecchio, A., & Colacino, C. N. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 390, 192–209, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13682.x

    arXiv 2008

  51. [51]

    2015, , 452, 575, 10.1093/mnras/stv1340

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1340 2015

  52. [52]

    D., Bryan , G

    Smith , B. D., Bryan , G. L., Glover , S. C. O., et al. 2017, , 466, 2217, 10.1093/mnras/stw3291

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3291 2017

  53. [53]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel , V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    arXiv 2010

  54. [54]

    2005, , 361, 776, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Springel , V., Di Matteo , T., & Hernquist , L. 2005, , 361, 776, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    arXiv 2005

  55. [55]

    2003, , 339, 289, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    Springel , V., & Hernquist , L. 2003, , 339, 289, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    arXiv 2003

  56. [56]

    K., Dolag , K., Hirschmann , M., Prieto , M

    Steinborn , L. K., Dolag , K., Hirschmann , M., Prieto , M. A., & Remus , R.-S. 2015, , 448, 1504, 10.1093/mnras/stv072

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv072 2015

  57. [57]

    L., & Teyssier , R

    Sunseri , J., Andalman , Z. L., & Teyssier , R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.19822, 10.48550/arXiv.2510.19822

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.19822 2025

  58. [58]

    2022, , 511, 5241, 10.1093/mnras/stac388

    Sykes , B., Middleton , H., Melatos , A., et al. 2022, , 511, 5241, 10.1093/mnras/stac388

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac388 2022

  59. [59]

    T., Burkhart , B., Tonnesen , S., Bird , S., & Bryan , G

    Tillman , M. T., Burkhart , B., Tonnesen , S., Bird , S., & Bryan , G. L. 2025, , 980, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada5f7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada5f7 2025

  60. [60]

    T., Burkhart , B., Tonnesen , S., et al

    Tillman , M. T., Burkhart , B., Tonnesen , S., et al. 2023, , 945, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb7f1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb7f1 2023

  61. [61]

    2021, , 915, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf7ba

    Villaescusa-Navarro , F., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Genel , S., et al. 2021, , 915, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf7ba

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf7ba 2021

  62. [62]

    2023, , 265, 54, 10.3847/1538-4365/acbf47

    Villaescusa-Navarro , F., Genel , S., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., et al. 2023, , 265, 54, 10.3847/1538-4365/acbf47

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acbf47 2023

  63. [63]

    2013, , 436, 3031, 10.1093/mnras/stt1789

    Vogelsberger , M., Genel , S., Sijacki , D., et al. 2013, , 436, 3031, 10.1093/mnras/stt1789

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1789 2013

  64. [64]

    2012, , 425, 3024, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21590.x

    Vogelsberger , M., Sijacki , D., Kere s , D., Springel , V., & Hernquist , L. 2012, , 425, 3024, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21590.x

    arXiv 2012

  65. [65]

    2020, , 248, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    Weinberger , R., Springel , V., & Pakmor , R. 2020, , 248, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c 2020

  66. [66]

    2018, , 479, 4056, 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1733 2018

  67. [67]

    2023, , 523, 1104, 10.1093/mnras/stad1396

    Weinberger , R., Su , K.-Y., Ehlert , K., et al. 2023, , 523, 1104, 10.1093/mnras/stad1396

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1396 2023

  68. [68]

    White , S. D. M., & Rees , M. J. 1978, , 183, 341, 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    doi:10.1093/mnras/183.3.341 1978

  69. [69]

    2023, Res

    Xu, H., et al. 2023, Res. Astron. Astrophys., 23, 075024, 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5 2023