pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.07960 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The evolution of the galaxy stellar mass function and star formation rates in the COLIBRE simulations from redshift 17 to 0

Evgenii Chaikin , Joop Schaye , Matthieu Schaller , Sylvia Ploeckinger , Alejandro Ben\'itez-Llambay , Carlos S. Frenk , Filip Hu\v{s}ko , Robert McGibbon
show 2 more authors
Alexander J. Richings James W. Trayford
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 17:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy stellar mass functionstar formation ratescosmological simulationshigh-redshift galaxiesJWST observationsgalaxy evolutionAGN feedbackstellar mass assembly
0
0 comments X

The pith

COLIBRE simulations match observed galaxy stellar mass functions and star formation rates from redshift 0 to 12 using feedback calibrated only at z=0

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

The COLIBRE simulations evolve the galaxy stellar mass function and star formation rates from redshift 17 to the present. They employ a multiphase interstellar medium model with dust-coupled cooling and stellar plus AGN feedback that was tuned exclusively to match z=0 observations of the stellar mass function and mass-size relation. The runs reproduce the observed stellar mass function across the full redshift range with maximum deviations of 0.3 dex and also match the star-forming main sequence, cosmic star-formation-rate density, and the abundance of massive quiescent galaxies reported by JWST. The stellar-to-halo mass relation shows little redshift evolution. The authors conclude that no redshift-dependent star-formation efficiency, variable initial mass function, or departure from standard Lambda CDM is needed to explain the high-redshift JWST data.

Core claim

COLIBRE simulations reproduce the galaxy stellar mass function from z=0 to z=12 with systematic deviations reaching at most 0.3 dex at 2<z<4. They also match the evolution of the star-forming main sequence, cosmic SFR density, stellar mass density, and the number density of massive quiescent galaxies at high redshifts as seen by JWST. The stellar-to-halo mass relation evolves little with redshift. The authors conclude that neither a redshift-dependent star formation efficiency, nor a variable stellar initial mass function, nor a deviation from Lambda CDM is necessary to reproduce the high-redshift JWST stellar masses and SFRs.

What carries the argument

The COLIBRE galaxy formation model with multiphase ISM, dust-coupled radiative cooling, and stellar/AGN feedback (thermal or hybrid jet) calibrated to the z=0 GSMF and stellar mass-size relation.

If this is right

  • The number density of massive quiescent galaxies at high redshifts matches JWST reports.
  • The stellar-to-halo mass relation evolves little with redshift.
  • The model produces good agreement with the star-forming main sequence and cosmic SFR density across cosmic time.
  • Both the fiducial thermal AGN feedback and the hybrid jet variant yield consistent high-redshift results.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the calibration at z=0 continues to hold, deeper surveys should find the same level of agreement at z>12.
  • The weak redshift evolution of the stellar-to-halo mass relation implies that quenching efficiency changes mainly through halo growth rather than new baryonic processes.
  • The framework can be used to predict metallicity and dust content evolution for comparison with upcoming ALMA or JWST data.

Load-bearing premise

The stellar and AGN feedback prescriptions calibrated exclusively at z=0 remain physically accurate when applied at high redshifts.

What would settle it

Future observations showing a galaxy stellar mass function at z>12 that lies more than 0.5 dex above or below the COLIBRE predictions at fixed halo mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07960 by Alejandro Ben\'itez-Llambay, Alexander J. Richings, Carlos S. Frenk, Evgenii Chaikin, Filip Hu\v{s}ko, James W. Trayford, Joop Schaye, Matthieu Schaller, Robert McGibbon, Sylvia Ploeckinger.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of the galaxy stellar mass function (GSMF) from 𝑧 = 0 (top left) to 𝑧 = 4 (bottom right) in the colibre m7, m6, and m5 simulations using the largest cosmological volumes available (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the stellar-to-halo mass relation (SHMR) for central subhaloes in the colibre simulations at m7 (left), m6 (middle), and m5 (right) resolutions. Solid curves represent the median stellar-to-halo mass ratios from the simulations, while the shaded regions show the 16th to 84th percentile scatter. Different colours indicate different redshifts, ranging from 𝑧 = 0.1 (dark-blue) to 𝑧 = 11 (yellow).… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panel: Evolution of the cosmic stellar mass density (CSMD) in the colibre m7, m6, and m5 simulations. Different resolutions are indicated by different colours. We show the total CSMD, including all stellar mass within the simulated volumes (solid lines), and the CSMD contributed only by galaxies with stellar masses 𝑀∗ ≥ 108 M⊙ (dash-dotted lines), where the stellar mass is measured within 3D spherical … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the cosmic star formation rate density (CSFRD). The figure follows the same layout as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cosmic star formation rate density (CSFRD) as a function of redshift in the colibre L200m6 simulation, split into 1-dex stellar mass bins (left panel) and 1-dex halo mass bins (right panel). Differently coloured solid lines represent the contributions from each bin, except for the lowest mass bin, which is shown as a grey dotted line to highlight resolution limitations. The lower (upper) edge of the lowest… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Star-forming main sequence (SFMS) in the L200m6 simulation at 𝑧 = 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 6 (different panels). The colour scale shows the fraction of galaxies per pixel with a given 𝑀∗ and SFR, normalized by the total number of galaxies across all pixels at the same 𝑀∗. The solid orange lines represent the colibre SFMS, defined as the median SFR of star-forming galaxies (SFR > 0.1 × the SFR at the SFMS det… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the star-forming main sequence (SFMS) from 𝑧 = 0.1 (top left) to 𝑧 = 13 (bottom right) in the m7, m6, and m5 colibre simulations, shown in dark-red, orange, and light-blue, respectively. The thick solid lines represent the colibre SFMS, defined as the median SFR of star-forming galaxies, identified iteratively by SFR > 0.1 × the SFR at the SFMS. The shaded regions indicate the 16th to 84th per… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the galaxy quenched fraction from 𝑧 = 0.1 to 𝑧 = 7 (different panels). Thick solid lines show the quenched fraction in the simulations, where galaxies are considered quenched if their sSFR < 0.2/𝑡H (𝑧). Shaded regions indicate the uncertainty in the predicted quenched fractions, calculated as the Clopper–Pearson interval at the 68 per cent confidence level. At low stellar masses (𝑀∗ ≲ 109 M⊙),… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Quenched fractions at 𝑧 = 0 computed for all galaxies (left panel), central galaxies (middle panel), and satellite galaxies (right panel). Black symbols show data from Behroozi et al. (2019). colibre predicts that, at fixed stellar mass, satellite galaxies are on average more quenched than centrals, in agreement with Behroozi et al. (2019). The m5 model predicts systematically lower satellite quenched fra… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the comoving number density of massive quiescent galaxies in the colibre L400m7 and L200m6 simulations. Quiescent galax￾ies are defined as those with sSFR < 10−10 yr−1 , mimicking observational selection criteria at high redshifts. We show the number densities of quiescent galaxies with stellar masses of 𝑀∗ > 1010 M⊙ (top panel), 𝑀∗ > 1010.5 M⊙ (middle panel), and 𝑀∗ > 1011 M⊙ (bottom panel).… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the colibre m7 simulations in a (200 cMpc) 3 volume with thermal (dark-red) and hybrid (yellow) AGN feedback at 𝑧 = 0.1 (left), 𝑧 = 2 (middle), and 𝑧 = 5 (right). Top row: galaxy stellar mass function (GSMF). Middle row: star-forming main sequence (SFMS), defined as the median SFR of galaxies with SFR > 0.1 × the SFR at the SFMS. Bottom row: galaxy quenched fraction, where quenched galaxies … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evolution of the cosmic stellar mass density (CSMD, left) and the number density of massive quiescent galaxies, 𝑛q, (right) in the colibre L200m7 simulations with thermal (dark-red) and hybrid (yellow) AGN feedback. The top panels show simulation predictions (curves) compared to observational data (black symbols), while the bottom panels display the relative differences between the two simulations, define… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the evolution of the galaxy stellar mass function (GSMF) and star formation rates (SFRs) across cosmic time in the COLIBRE simulations of galaxy formation. COLIBRE includes a multiphase interstellar medium, radiative cooling rates coupled to a model for the evolution of dust grains, and employs prescriptions for stellar and AGN feedback calibrated to reproduce the $z=0$ observed GSMF and stellar mass - size relation. We present the evolution of the GSMF from simulations at three resolutions: $m_{\rm gas}\approx m_{\rm dm}\sim 10^7$, $10^6$, and $10^5~\mathrm{M_\odot}$, in cosmological volumes of up to $400^3$, $200^3$, and $100^3$ cMpc$^3$, respectively. We demonstrate that COLIBRE is consistent with the observed GSMF over the full redshift range for which there are observations to compare with ($0<z<12$), with maximum systematic deviations of $\approx 0.3$ dex reached at $2<z<4$. We also examine the evolution of the star-forming main sequence, cosmic SFR density, stellar mass density, and galaxy quenched fraction, making predictions for both the fiducial COLIBRE model with thermally-driven AGN feedback and its variant with hybrid (thermal + kinetic jet) AGN feedback, and finding good agreement with observations. Notably, we show that COLIBRE matches the number density of massive quiescent galaxies at high redshifts reported by JWST, while predicting a stellar-to-halo mass relation that evolves little with redshift. We conclude that neither a redshift-dependent star formation efficiency, nor a variable stellar initial mass function, nor a deviation from $\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}$ is necessary to reproduce the high-redshift JWST stellar masses and SFRs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents results from the COLIBRE cosmological hydrodynamical simulations, which incorporate a multiphase ISM, dust grain evolution, and stellar plus AGN feedback prescriptions calibrated exclusively to reproduce the z=0 observed GSMF and stellar mass-size relation. Using three resolutions (m_gas ≈ m_dm ∼ 10^7, 10^6, and 10^5 M_⊙) in volumes up to 400^3 cMpc^3, the authors show that the simulated GSMF remains consistent with observations over 0 < z < 12, with maximum systematic deviations of ≈0.3 dex at 2 < z < 4. They further report good agreement for the star-forming main sequence, cosmic SFR density, stellar mass density, and quenched fractions, including the number density of massive quiescent galaxies at high redshift as reported by JWST. Two AGN feedback variants (purely thermal and hybrid thermal+kinetic jet) are compared. The central conclusion is that neither a redshift-dependent star formation efficiency, a variable stellar IMF, nor a departure from ΛCDM is required to match the high-redshift JWST stellar masses and SFRs.

Significance. If the results hold, the work is significant because it demonstrates that a z=0-calibrated galaxy formation model can extrapolate successfully to z≈12 and reproduce key JWST observables without additional redshift-dependent adjustments. The multi-resolution and multi-volume consistency, together with the comparison of two distinct AGN feedback implementations, provides a robust test that the agreement is not resolution-dependent or tied to one specific feedback choice. This supplies a concrete counterexample to interpretations that invoke new physics (redshift-dependent SFE, variable IMF, or modified cosmology) at early times and yields falsifiable predictions for the redshift evolution of the stellar-to-halo mass relation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and concluding section: The claim that 'neither a redshift-dependent star formation efficiency, nor a variable stellar initial mass function, nor a deviation from ΛCDM is necessary' is the central interpretive statement. Because the stellar and AGN feedback parameters are fitted to z=0 GSMF and size data, the high-z agreement constitutes a test of extrapolation rather than a parameter-free prediction; this distinction is noted but should be stated more explicitly when framing the conclusion so that readers do not misinterpret the result as fully independent of modeling choices.
  2. [Results section on GSMF] Results on GSMF evolution (around the discussion of 2<z<4): The maximum systematic offset of ≈0.3 dex is reported, yet the text does not quantify whether this offset lies inside the combined observational and simulation uncertainties or whether it could be removed by modest redshift evolution in feedback efficiency. A direct comparison of the offset to the observational error budget at those redshifts would make the 'consistency' statement more precise and would clarify how much room remains for mild additional physics.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figures] The figures showing GSMF at multiple redshifts would be clearer if observational data points (with error bars) were over-plotted on the same panels rather than referenced only in the text.
  2. [Methods] The description of the hybrid AGN feedback implementation would benefit from a short additional paragraph or table listing the key parameter values that differ from the thermal-only run, aiding reproducibility.
  3. [References] A few recent JWST papers arguing for variable IMF or modified cosmology at high z are cited, but the reference list could be expanded by one or two more to give balanced context for the counter-claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and recommendation for minor revision. We address each major comment below and have incorporated clarifications to improve the precision and framing of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and concluding section: The claim that 'neither a redshift-dependent star formation efficiency, nor a variable stellar initial mass function, nor a deviation from ΛCDM is necessary' is the central interpretive statement. Because the stellar and AGN feedback parameters are fitted to z=0 GSMF and size data, the high-z agreement constitutes a test of extrapolation rather than a parameter-free prediction; this distinction is noted but should be stated more explicitly when framing the conclusion so that readers do not misinterpret the result as fully independent of modeling choices.

    Authors: We agree that the distinction between extrapolation from z=0 calibration and a fully parameter-free prediction merits clearer emphasis to prevent misinterpretation. In the revised manuscript we have updated both the abstract and the concluding section to explicitly note that stellar and AGN feedback parameters were calibrated exclusively to z=0 data, and that the high-redshift agreement therefore tests the model's ability to extrapolate successfully without additional redshift-dependent adjustments. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section on GSMF] Results on GSMF evolution (around the discussion of 2<z<4): The maximum systematic offset of ≈0.3 dex is reported, yet the text does not quantify whether this offset lies inside the combined observational and simulation uncertainties or whether it could be removed by modest redshift evolution in feedback efficiency. A direct comparison of the offset to the observational error budget at those redshifts would make the 'consistency' statement more precise and would clarify how much room remains for mild additional physics.

    Authors: We accept that a quantitative comparison to observational uncertainties would make the consistency statement more precise. In the revised results section we now compare the reported 0.3 dex offset at 2<z<4 directly to the typical observational error budget (0.2–0.4 dex across the relevant surveys), showing that the offset remains within the combined uncertainties. We have also added a brief remark that modest redshift evolution in feedback efficiency could in principle reduce the offset further, although our current z=0-calibrated model already reproduces the data within errors without such evolution. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; z=0 calibration tested on external high-z benchmarks

full rationale

The paper calibrates stellar and AGN feedback prescriptions exclusively to z=0 GSMF and mass-size relation, then evolves the model forward in a standard ΛCDM cosmology and compares the resulting GSMF, SFRs, and quiescent fractions to independent observational datasets at 0<z<12, including JWST. This constitutes a test of extrapolation against external benchmarks rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. No equations or steps reduce the high-z agreement to the z=0 inputs by construction; the cosmological evolution supplies the separation. The central claim (no need for redshift-dependent SFE, variable IMF, or non-ΛCDM) follows directly from the mismatch between the calibrated model and the necessity arguments in the literature, without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on calibrated sub-grid feedback remaining valid across cosmic time; the model adds no new particles or forces but inherits standard cosmology and sub-grid assumptions.

free parameters (1)
  • Stellar and AGN feedback parameters
    Prescriptions calibrated to reproduce the z=0 observed GSMF and stellar mass-size relation.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Lambda CDM cosmology governs large-scale structure and initial conditions
    Background model for all simulation volumes and redshifts.
  • domain assumption Sub-grid multiphase ISM, dust-coupled cooling, and feedback prescriptions capture unresolved physics
    Invoked throughout the simulation setup and evolution.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5932 in / 1405 out tokens · 54328 ms · 2026-05-18T17:37:24.653364+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Winding Back the Clock: Recent Star Formation Histories of Massive Quiescent Galaxies Are Consistent With Their Rapid Number Density Evolution Since $\mathbf{z\sim7}$

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    Star formation histories inferred for z=2-5 massive quiescent galaxies imply past number densities that align with observed rapid evolution since z~7.

  2. The morphologies of present-day galaxies in the COLIBRE simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    COLIBRE simulations find kinematic galaxy morphology peaks in rotational support at stellar masses of 1-2 x 10^10 solar masses and correlates more with internal properties like gas richness than with host halo properties.

  3. Kinematic scaling relations of disc galaxies from ionised gas at $z\sim1$ and their connection with dark matter haloes

    astro-ph.GA 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    At z=0.9, disk galaxies show a TFR slope of 3.82 and FR slope of 0.44 with moderate TFR and strong FR evolution from z=0, implying higher and less mass-dependent stellar-to-halo mass fractions f_M while f_j remains near 0.8.

  4. Forged by Feedback: Stellar Properties of Brightest Group Galaxies in Cosmological Simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The OBSIDIAN simulation with its three-regime AGN feedback best reproduces the observed stellar masses, star formation rates, and ages of brightest group galaxies, unlike the other simulations which show mismatches in...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

173 extracted references · 173 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 17 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105b3520A 105, 023520

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520 2022

  2. [2]

    Arnouts S., Ilbert O., 2011, LePHARE: Photometric Analysis for Redshift Estimate , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1108.009

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , 47, 481

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  4. [4]

    M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1339 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516..167B 516, 167

    Bah \'e Y. M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1339 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516..167B 516, 167

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1339 2022

  5. [5]

    M., et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.04119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250604119B p

    Baker W. M., et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.04119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250604119B p. arXiv:2506.04119

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.04119

  6. [6]

    , keywords =

    Baker W. M., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539..557B 539, 557

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf475

  7. [7]

    and Shibahashi , H

    Baldry I. K., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20340.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421..621B 421, 621

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20340.x 2012

  8. [8]

    E., Hopkins, A

    Bauer A. E., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434..209B 434, 209

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1011 2013

  9. [9]

    S., Conroy C., Wechsler R

    Behroozi P. S., Conroy C., Wechsler R. H., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/379 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...717..379B 717, 379

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/1/379 2010

  10. [10]

    doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109

    Behroozi P. S., Wechsler R. H., Wu H.-Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...762..109B 762, 109

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/109 2013

  11. [11]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi P., Wechsler R. H., Hearin A. P., Conroy C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.3143B 488, 3143

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  12. [12]

    Bellstedt S., Robotham A. S. G., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf889 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.540.2703B 540, 2703

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf889 2025

  13. [13]

    Bellstedt S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.5581B 498, 5581

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2620 2020

  14. [14]

    J., Bower R

    Benson A. J., Bower R. G., Frenk C. S., Lacey C. G., Baugh C. M., Cole S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599...38B 599, 38

    work page doi:10.1086/379160 2003

  15. [15]

    J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2361B 456, 2361

    Bocquet S., Saro A., Dolag K., Mohr J. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2361B 456, 2361

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2657 2016

  16. [16]

    R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15167.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398..607V 398, 607

    Booth C. M., Schaye J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15043.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398...53B 398, 53

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15043.x 2009

  17. [17]

    Borrow J., Borrisov A., 2020, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.02430 , p. 2430

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.02430 2020

  18. [18]

    J., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210605281B p

    Borrow J., Kelly A. J., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210605281B p. arXiv:2106.05281

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    G., Schaye J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.2367B 511, 2367

    Borrow J., Schaller M., Bower R. G., Schaye J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.2367B 511, 2367

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3166 2022

  20. [20]

    Bouwens R., Illingworth G., Oesch P., Stefanon M., Naidu R., van Leeuwen I., Magee D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.1009B 523, 1009

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1014 2023

  21. [21]

    and Yang , J

    Bower R. G., Benson A. J., Malbon R., Helly J. C., Frenk C. S., Baugh C. M., Cole S., Lacey C. G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..645B 370, 645

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x 2006

  22. [22]

    B., van Dokkum P

    Brammer G. B., van Dokkum P. G., Coppi P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686.1503B 686, 1503

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  23. [23]

    Brinchmann J., Charlot S., White S. D. M., Tremonti C., Kauffmann G., Heckman T., Brinkmann J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351.1151B 351, 1151

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x 2004

  24. [24]

    Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.344.1000B 344, 1000

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 2003

  25. [25]

    Statistical Properties of X-ray Clusters: Analytic and Numerical Comparisons

    Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...495...80B 495, 80

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/305262 1998

  26. [26]

    J., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..88B 677, A88

    Bunker A. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..88B 677, A88

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 2023

  27. [27]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall A. C., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Dav \'e R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4379C 480, 4379

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  28. [28]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534..325C 534, 325

    Carnall A. C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534..325C 534, 325

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2092 2024

  29. [29]

    M., et al

    Casey C. M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954...31C 954, 31

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc 2023

  30. [30]

    , keywords =

    Casey C. M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965...98C 965, 98

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075 2024

  31. [31]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  32. [32]

    Chaikin E., Schaye J., Schaller M., Ben \' tez-Llambay A., Nobels F. S. J., Ploeckinger S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.3709C 523, 3709

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1626 2023

  33. [33]

    COLIBRE: calibrating subgrid feedback in cosmological simulations that include a cold gas phase

    Chaikin E., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2509.04067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250904067C p. arXiv:2509.04067

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.04067 2025

  34. [34]

    K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.6082C 523, 6082

    Cochrane R. K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.6082C 523, 6082

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1602 2023

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Cochrane R. K., Katz H., Begley R., Hayward C. C., Best P. N., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9a4d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978L..42C 978, L42

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9a4d 2025

  36. [36]

    Cole S., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04591.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.326..255C 326, 255

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04591.x 2001

  37. [37]

    , keywords =

    Cole J. W., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a6a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...979..193C 979, 193

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a6a 2025

  38. [38]

    H., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..620C 696, 620

    Conroy C., Wechsler R. H., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..620C 696, 620

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/1/620 2009

  39. [39]

    E., & White , M

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  40. [40]

    Covelo-Paz A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A.178C 694, A178

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452363 2025

  41. [41]

    Croton, D

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv725 2015

  42. [42]

    The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161100036D p. arXiv:1611.00036

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.00036 2016

  43. [43]

    Simba: Cosmological Simulations with Black Hole Growth and Feedback

    Dav \'e R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Narayanan D., Li Q., Rafieferantsoa M. H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2827D 486, 2827

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stz937 2019

  44. [44]

    Davidzon I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...605A..70D 605, A70

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730419 2017

  45. [45]

    Davies L. J. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1553 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480..768D 480, 768

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1553 2018

  46. [46]

    De Lucia G., Fontanot F., Xie L., Hirschmann M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349045 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A..68D 687, A68

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349045 2024

  47. [47]

    T., McLure, R

    Donnan C. T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3222D 533, 3222

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2037 2024

  48. [48]

    T., Dunlop J

    Donnan C. T., Dunlop J. S., McLure R. J., McLeod D. J., Cullen F., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf641 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.2409D 539, 2409

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf641 2025

  49. [49]

    Donnari M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz712 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.4817D 485, 4817

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz712 2019

  50. [50]

    J., Reeves J

    Driver S. P., et al., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18188.x , 413, 971

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18188.x 2011

  51. [51]

    and Shibahashi , H

    Driver S. P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22036.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.3244D 427, 3244

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22036.x 2012

  52. [52]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.2891D 475, 2891

    Driver S. P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.2891D 475, 2891

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2728 2018

  53. [53]

    P., et al

    Driver S. P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513..439D 513, 439

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac472 2022

  54. [54]

    Duncan K., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1622 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.2960D 444, 2960

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1622 2014

  55. [55]

    S., 1913, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1913MNRAS..73..359E 73, 359

    Eddington A. S., 1913, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1913MNRAS..73..359E 73, 359

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 1913

  56. [56]

    R., Cole S., Frenk C

    Eke V. R., Cole S., Frenk C. S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/282.1.263 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.282..263E 282, 263

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/282.1.263 1996

  57. [57]

    M., Papadakis I

    Eke V. R., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08354.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.355..769E 355, 769

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08354.x 2004

  58. [58]

    Enia A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51ca , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927..204E 927, 204

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac51ca 2022

  59. [59]

    arXiv:2503.15314

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15314 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250315314E p. arXiv:2503.15314

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.15314 2025

  60. [60]

    Feldmann R., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536..988F 536, 988

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2633 2025

  61. [61]

    J., Helly J., McGibbon R., Schaye J., Schaller M., Han J., Kugel R., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.06932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250206932F p

    Forouhar Moreno V. J., Helly J., McGibbon R., Schaye J., Schaller M., Han J., Kugel R., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.06932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250206932F p. arXiv:2502.06932

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.06932 2025

  62. [62]

    G., F \"o rster Schreiber N

    Franx M., van Dokkum P. G., F \"o rster Schreiber N. M., Wuyts S., Labb \'e I., Toft S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688..770F 688, 770

    work page doi:10.1086/592431 2008

  63. [63]

    Fu S., et al., 2025,

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    Furlong M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv852 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.4486F 450, 4486

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv852 2015

  65. [65]

    F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/185/2/253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..185..253G 185, 253

    Gallazzi A., Bell E. F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/185/2/253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..185..253G 185, 253

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/185/2/253 2009

  66. [66]

    F., Zibetti S., Brinchmann J., Kelson D

    Gallazzi A., Bell E. F., Zibetti S., Brinchmann J., Kelson D. D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...72G 788, 72

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/72 2014

  67. [67]

    Graaff de Graaff de Graaff A., Trayford J., Franx M., Schaller M., Schaye J., van der Wel A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3510 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.2544D 511, 2544

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3510 2022

  68. [68]

    Graaff de Graaff de Graaff A., et al., 2025, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02424-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NatAs...9..280D 9, 280

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02424-3 2025

  69. [69]

    Gruppioni C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038487 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...643A...8G 643, A8

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038487 2020

  70. [70]

    Guo Q., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18114.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413..101G 413, 101

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18114.x 2011

  71. [71]

    E., 2020, MUSIC2-monofonIC: 3LPT initial condition generator , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2008.024 ( @eprint ascl 2008.024 )

    Hahn O., Michaux M., Rampf C., Uhlemann C., Angulo R. E., 2020, MUSIC2-monofonIC: 3LPT initial condition generator , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2008.024 ( @eprint ascl 2008.024 )

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    S., Benitez-Llambay A., Helly J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2792 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474..604H 474, 604

    Han J., Cole S., Frenk C. S., Benitez-Llambay A., Helly J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2792 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474..604H 474, 604

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2792 2018

  73. [73]

    A., Cortese L., Obreschkow D., Catinella B., Cook R

    Hardwick J. A., Cortese L., Obreschkow D., Catinella B., Cook R. H. W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.3751H 509, 3751

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3261 2022

  74. [74]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265....5H 265, 5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 2023

  75. [75]

    Harvey T., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8c29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978...89H 978, 89

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8c29 2025

  76. [76]

    Henriques B. M. B., White S. D. M., Thomas P. A., Angulo R., Guo Q., Lemson G., Springel V., Overzier R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2663H 451, 2663

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv705 2015

  77. [77]

    arXiv:2509.05179

    Hu s ko F., et al., 2025a, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250905179H p. arXiv:2509.05179

    work page arXiv

  78. [78]

    G., Roper W

    Hu s ko F., Lacey C. G., Roper W. J., Schaye J., Briggs J. M., Schaller M., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.537.2559H 537, 2559

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf146

  79. [79]

    I., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04416.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.325..231O 325, 231

    Jenkins A., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., Colberg J. M., Cole S., Evrard A. E., Couchman H. M. P., Yoshida N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04029.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.321..372J 321, 372

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04029.x 2001

  80. [80]

    T., Stanway E

    Jones G. T., Stanway E. R., Carnall A. C., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1667 , 514, 5706

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1667 2022

Showing first 80 references.