Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Feedback from intermediate mass black holes on dwarf galaxy morphology at z=2

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In zoom-in simulations, the strength of AGN winds from intermediate-mass black holes controls the stellar mass, flatness, and rotational support of z=2 dwarf galaxies, while seed mass and seeding time play a secondary role.

desk verdict A careful but small zoom-in parameter study showing AGN wind velocity can reshape dwarf galaxy morphology at z=2; the trend is plausible but rests on a single subgrid wind model and two halos. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06495 v2 pith:NARSEKN3 submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.GA

Da Bi , Dominik R.G. Schleicher , Andres Escala This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords intermediate-massblackholesAGNwindfeedbackdwarfgalaxymorphologyhigh-redshiftgalaxiescosmologicalzoom-insimulationsGini-M20mergerdiagnosticSersicindexrotationalsupport
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Using a suite of zoom-in cosmological simulations of central dwarf galaxies in roughly $10^{10}$ solar-mass halos, this paper tries to isolate which black-hole property leaves a visible imprint on galaxy structure at z=2. It finds that the speed of AGN-driven winds is the decisive parameter: raising the wind velocity from 2,000 to 10,000 km/s lowers final stellar masses by up to an order of magnitude, flattens the light profile to Sersic indices n<2, and reduces rotational support to kappa_rot between 0.3 and 0.6, while seed mass and seeding time mostly shift the timing of growth. The same simulations show that the low-redshift Gini-M20 merger test frequently flags these compact, concentrated dwarfs as mergers even when no companion exists. A reader should care because if this is right, high-redshift dwarf morphology is a direct probe of intermediate-mass black hole feedback physics, and current merger statistics from imaging of z>=2 dwarfs may need kinematic or companion checks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the subgrid AGN wind feedback model: mass, energy, and momentum are injected continuously into the gas within the black hole's smoothing kernel at mass loading beta=1, with the wind velocity v_wind as the tunable feedback strength. It is this prescription that converts black-hole accretion into a galaxy-scale agent that heats and expels gas, and the paper exploits the fact that only v_wind, seed mass, and seeding time vary while all other physics is held fixed. The controlled comparison is completed by two nearly identical halos of mass log(M_vir/M_sun)~10 with low and high spin, each evolved under the full set of parameter combinations. The diagnostic machinery—Gini/M20, CAS, Sersic fitting, and kappa_rot—is what turns the simulated stellar distributions into the morphological claims.

What would settle it

Measure Sersic indices, kappa_rot, and stellar masses for a sample of z~2 dwarf galaxies with dynamically confirmed or strongly accreting intermediate-mass black holes: if a sizable fraction of such dwarfs are compact but strongly rotation-supported (kappa_rot>0.6) and have Sersic indices n>2 despite high Eddington ratios, the predicted flattening and mass suppression from fast winds would be ruled out. Alternatively, rerunning the same parameter grid with a different subgrid wind implementation (for example, time-varying mass loading) and finding that the morphological split disappears would expose the result as an artifact of the feedback recipe.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that AGN feedback from an intermediate-mass black hole, quantified by its wind velocity, deterministically reshapes a dwarf galaxy by z=2: stronger winds suppress the gas reservoir, truncate star formation, and leave a lower-mass, flatter, more dispersion-supported galaxy with a prominent compact center. In the simulations this appears as a clean split: models with v_wind=10,000 km/s end up an order of magnitude less massive in stars, keep kappa_rot near 0.4 rather than above 0.5, and show Sersic indices roughly n<1-2, whereas models with v_wind=2,000 km/s behave like the no-black-hole reference galaxy. The paper also claims that the Gini-M20 merger indicator calibrated at low redshift is unreliable for these systems, with artificial merger fractions reaching over 90% in some runs, and that synthetic JWST images overestimate half-light radii because pixelation smooths out the compact centers.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the subgrid assumption that an intermediate-mass black hole's wind deposits mass, energy, and momentum into the surrounding gas continuously at mass loading beta=1 with a fixed speed, so that varying only the wind speed captures the real range of feedback behavior; if real winds are more intermittent or more collimated, the predicted morphological changes may not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If strong AGN winds are common, z=2 dwarf galaxies hosting intermediate-mass black holes should typically be low-mass, low-Sersic, dispersion-supported systems, and the black hole's presence could show up as a deficit in stellar mass relative to no-black-hole dwarfs of the same halo mass.
  • The simulated split in black-hole-to-stellar-mass ratio (about 0.01 for fast winds and 0.001 for slow winds) gives observers a specific prediction: dwarf galaxies with actively accreting intermediate-mass black holes should show elevated mass ratios if feedback is efficient.
  • Gini-M20 merger classifications from high-redshift imaging surveys are suspect: a galaxy flagged as a merger by Gini-M20 should be verified against a close companion or kinematic evidence before being counted.
  • Synthetic JWST imaging implies that compact z=2 dwarf nuclei will appear artificially large and concentrated in real observations, so size measurements from pixel-limited images need correction for point-spread-function and pixelation effects.
  • The periodic, strongly correlated cycles of gas fraction and star formation rate suggest that intermediate-mass black hole feedback can impose self-regulating starburst-quench cycles in dwarfs, with star formation capped by available gas rather than by continuous stellar feedback.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An inference the authors do not draw: if wind velocity is the dominant control, the observed spread in dwarf Sersic indices and kappa_rot at fixed stellar mass could be inverted to estimate the typical intermediate-mass black hole wind velocity and mass loading in the real z=2 population.
  • The strong correlation between high wind velocity and increased major merger frequency hints at a feedback-merge loop—winds compress clumpy gas and foster companion clumps that later merge—but the paper does not establish causation; this would be testable by tracking clump formation rates in runs with and without winds.
  • A natural extension would vary the wind's geometry and time dependence (intermittent or collimated outflows) at fixed total energy; if morphology responds only to total momentum input, the reported effect is robust, whereas if intermittency matters, the two-velocity grid underestimates the diversity of possible outcomes.
  • The high artificial merger rates for the Gini-M20 diagnostic suggest that other non-parametric morphology metrics calibrated at low redshift should be re-tested at z~2; for instance, the CAS asymmetry parameter's erratic behavior in the simulations may suffer from the same concentration and resolution biases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. Using high-resolution zoom-in cosmological simulations of two M_vir ~ 1e10 M_sun halos at z ~ 2, this paper explores how a subgrid intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) model—varying seed mass, seeding halo mass, and AGN wind velocity—affects gas content, star formation, stellar mass, and morphology. Morphology is quantified through non-parametric Gini/M20 and CAS statistics, 2D Sersic fitting, and the stellar kinematic parameter kappa_rot, with additional post-processing into synthetic JWST F200W images. The headline result is that high wind velocity (10,000 km/s) produces lower stellar masses, reduced rotational support, low Sersic indices, and prominent central structures, while the Gini-M20 merger diagnostic frequently misclassifies these high-redshift dwarfs as mergers. The paper also reports that pixelation and PSF convolution in synthetic images tend to increase measured half-light radii.

Significance. If robust, the paper would provide one of the first controlled numerical demonstrations that IMBH feedback can leave observable morphological imprints on dwarf galaxies at z ~ 2, and that standard low-redshift morphology diagnostics may be unreliable at high redshift. The study has clear strengths: a clean same-initial-condition comparison of low and high wind velocities, a broad parameter grid for seeding mass and seeding time, and a careful post-processing pipeline using SKIRT and STATMORPH. The authors are also transparent about the limited sample. The significance is, however, tempered by the small number of halos and by the dependence of the central result on a single subgrid feedback prescription, so the paper is best read as a pilot study rather than a definitive population-level statement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Sec. 5] The central conclusion—that AGN wind strength critically influences stellar mass, morphology, and rotational support—rests on a sample of two halos, one low-spin and one high-spin. The paper itself acknowledges this in Sec. 3 ('we do not claim statistical significance') and Sec. 5, but the abstract and conclusion state the result with general force. In addition, the morphological parameters in Figs. 7, 10, and 11 are reported as point values with no measurement uncertainty or bootstrap scatter, even though the evolutionary curves show large time variability. At minimum, the authors should provide error bars or scatter estimates for Gini, Sersic n, and kappa_rot at z = 2, and should explicitly frame the population-level claim as provisional given N = 2.
  2. [Sec. 2.3, Sec. 3.6] The AGN wind model injects mass, energy, and momentum continuously into the gas within the BH kernel with mass loading fixed at beta = 1 (Hopkins et al. 2018). Increasing v_wind from 2000 to 10,000 km/s simultaneously changes the momentum-loading rate by a factor of 5 and the kinetic-energy-loading rate by a factor of 25. The paper attributes the resulting differences in stellar mass, Sersic index, and kappa_rot to 'wind strength,' but the design does not isolate whether the effect is driven by the momentum budget, the energy budget, the continuous injection schedule, or the isotropic geometry. Since this is the load-bearing physical claim, the authors should either run tests varying beta (or injection geometry/timing) or provide an explicit, quantitative discussion of why the specific subgrid prescription is representative. Without such a test, the reported trends could be an artifact of the chosen feedback implementation rather than a physical property of IMBH winds.
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Table 2] The claim that Gini-M20 misclassifies high-redshift dwarfs depends on the definition of a 'true' merger, which is currently identified only by visual inspection of nearby galaxies within 10 kpc h^-1. This makes the artificial-merger ratios in Table 2 subjective and hard to reproduce. The authors should define a quantitative merger criterion (e.g., stellar mass ratio plus progenitor tracking from the simulation) and apply it uniformly to all snapshots. They should also state whether the Gini-M20 classification thresholds from local samples (Lotz et al. 2008) are expected to be redshift-dependent, since the mismatch is at the heart of their diagnostic claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (1)] The subscript in Eq. (1) is typeset as 'S F'; this should be 'SF' (star formation) or the full symbol \. Better: \(\dot{\rho}_{\rm SF}\). Please fix the rendering.
  2. [Sec. 3.5] Several model names are inconsistent with Table 1: e.g., 'BHs3hI6v2L', 'BHs3hI6v10L', and 'BHs4hI7V10H' use different capitalization and missing letters compared to the tabulated 'BHs3hl6v2L' and 'BHs4hl7v10H'. Please standardize the nomenclature throughout.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The list of models in the first paragraph of Sec. 3.1 contains the apparent concatenation 'HBHs4hl6v2L/H', which is likely a typo for 'BHs4hl6v2L/H'. Please correct.
  4. [References] The in-text citation 'Smith et al. 16' is incomplete; it should be 'Smith et al. 2016' to match the reference list. The same applies to 'Plank Collaboration et al. 2016', which should be 'Planck Collaboration'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the morphological trends are emergent simulation outputs, not fitted or self-defined quantities.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a comparison of hydrodynamical zoom-in simulations that differ a priori in IMBH seed mass, seeding halo mass, and AGN wind velocity. These parameters are chosen from the literature or from observational arguments and are never calibrated to the reported morphological outputs (stellar mass, Sersic index, kappa_rot, Gini/M20, CAS). In particular, Section 2.3 fixes the mass loading at beta = 1 and varies v_wind, but whether higher v_wind suppresses star formation, lowers stellar mass, flattens the light profile, or reduces rotational support is determined by the nonlinear gas dynamics and star formation prescription; no equation in the paper forces these outputs to equal the input parameters by construction. The subgrid wind and accretion models are external machinery (Hopkins & Quataert 2011; Hopkins et al. 2018) and are not themselves the target claim. The few author self-citations (e.g., Latif & Schleicher 2015; Reinoso et al. 2018; Vergara et al. 2023; Grassi et al. 2014) appear in background discussions of IMBH formation pathways and in descriptions of the cooling/chemistry package; none is invoked as a uniqueness result or as an authority that forbids alternative implementations, and none is load-bearing for the morphological conclusions. The Gini-M20 misclassification result is checked against actual companion galaxies in the snapshots, so it is an independent empirical diagnostic applied to simulation output rather than a renamed input. The paper explicitly states in Section 3 that it does not claim statistical significance, which is an honest limitation of the small sample, not evidence of circularity. The skeptic's concern that the results depend on one subgrid wind prescription is a robustness and parameter-coverage limitation, not a circular reduction: one can question whether the feedback implementation is realistic without claiming the paper's conclusions are equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central conclusions rest on adopted subgrid prescriptions for BH accretion (Hopkins and Quataert 2011), AGN wind feedback (Hopkins et al. 2018), and star formation (Lupi et al. 2018), plus the assumption that two zoom-in halos represent the dwarf galaxy population. These are standard tools but are not independently validated for the IMBH regime in this paper.

free parameters (5)
  • AGN wind velocity v_wind = 2000 and 10000 km/s
    Varied to represent weak and strong feedback; these are model inputs, not fitted to the target morphology.
  • AGN wind mass loading beta = 1
    Chosen from observations of ultra-fast outflows; controls the feedback injection rate.
  • BH seed mass M_seed = 5e3 and 5e4 Msun (Table 1); described as 1e3 and 1e4 in text
    Sets the initial BH mass; the two values are chosen to represent lower and higher seeds, with an internal inconsistency between text and table.
  • Minimum halo mass for BH seeding M_HaloMin = 1e6 and 1e7 Msun
    Controls seeding time; chosen by hand.
  • BH accretion boost factor alpha = 1
    Set to unity rather than the larger values often used; affects BH growth rate.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Lambda CDM cosmology with Planck 2016 parameters
    Adopted as the background universe (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Subgrid star formation model of Lupi et al. 2018 with epsilon_star=0.5
    Used to convert gas into stars; the specific efficiency is calibrated to observations but not to the target morphology.
  • domain assumption Subgrid BH accretion model of Hopkins and Quataert (2011) with alpha=1
    Used to compute accretion rates; the model is taken from prior literature and not validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption AGN wind feedback injection prescription from Hopkins et al. (2018) with beta=1
    Mass, energy, and momentum injected into the kernel; the coupling strength and geometry are assumed.
  • domain assumption Galaxy definition using HOP density threshold of 0.04 cm^-3
    The identification of galaxies and their boundaries depends on this threshold, which affects measured stellar masses and morphology.
  • ad hoc to paper Two selected dark matter halos are representative of Mvir~1e10 Msun dwarfs at z~2
    The paper generalizes from two halos; the authors note the lack of statistical significance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Feedback from intermediate mass black holes on dwarf galaxy morphology at z=2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NARSEKN3

@misc{pith2026241206495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Feedback from intermediate mass black holes on dwarf galaxy morphology at z=2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NARSEKN3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06495}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates the influence of intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) on galactic morphology, focusing on their evolution within dwarf galaxies at high redshift (z~2). Using high-resolution zoom-in cosmological simulations, we explore how IMBH properties, including seed masses, formation times, and feedback mechanisms, shape the morphology and properties of central dwarf galaxies. The simulations analyze galaxies in both high- and low-spin dark matter halos, under varying conditions of AGN feedback and black hole seeding methods, to assess their effects on gas fractions, star formation, and structural characteristics. Results indicate that AGN feedback, particularly wind strength, significantly impacts galactic properties. Strong feedback results in lower stellar masses, flatter morphologies, and intermediate rotational support, along with prominent central structures and low Sersic indices (n < 2). These findings challenge the applicability of low-redshift diagnostics like Gini-M20 at high redshift. Synthetic JWST observations reveal that pixelation effects may overestimate galaxy sizes, highlighting the complexity of linking IMBH evolution with dwarf galaxy formation and morphology. This study provides new insights into the typical environments of IMBHs in dwarf galaxies and their role in shaping early galactic structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06495 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of stellar masses for galaxies in low spin (left) and high spin (right) host halos, from redshift z = 4 to 2. All models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. presents the star formation rate (SFR) of galax￾ies as a function of redshift. It is evident that models without Article number, page 6 of 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Correlation between gas fraction (red) and SFR (blue) for repre￾sentative model BHs4hl6v2L, from redshift z = 4 to 2. inal level. Such processes tend to recur more frequently in mod￾els characterized by elevated AGN wind velocities. In some ex￾treme cases, such as model BHs3hl6v2H, the galaxy becomes nearly dry from z = 4, remaining dry (with a gas fraction lower than 10%) until the final redshift z = 2. This phenom… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relation between the black hole mass(M•) and its host galaxy stellar mass (M⋆) at z=2. Models in low/high spin halos are labeled with hollow/solid markers respectively. Models with the same BH-related parameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the BH accretion rate Eddington ratio for galaxies in low spin (left) and high spin (right) host halos, from redshift 2 <∼ z <∼ 4. All models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of Gini and M20 parameters for all our models at final redshift z = 2. Models in low/high spin halos are labeled with hollow/solid markers separately. Models with the same BH-related pa￾rameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of Gini/M20 parameters for galaxies in low spin (top panels) and high spin (lower panels) host halos, from redshift z = 4 to 2. All models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of CAS parameters for galaxies in low spin (top pan￾els) and high spin (lower panels) host halos, from redshift z = 4 to 2. All models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of Sersic index for the face-on surface density images of galaxies in low spin (top panel) and high spin (lower panel) halos, from redshift z = 4 to 2. All models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of rotational support for the galaxies in low spin (top panel) and high spin (lower panel) halos, from redshift z = 4 to 2. All models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Timeline of CAS and Gini/M20 parameters evolution for repre￾sentative model BHs4hl6v2H, from redshift z = 4 to 2. Green vertical dash lines indicate major mergers. their synthetic luminosity counterparts. These surface luminos￾ity images are generated using a mosaic o…

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. Candidate intermediate-mass black hole discovered in an extremely young low-metallicity cluster in the tadpole galaxy KUG 1138+327

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 10^40 erg/s X-ray source in KUG 1138+327 is best explained as an accreting intermediate-mass black hole, with a 200 pc radio jet-like counterpart.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Khochfar, S., Natarajan, P., & Dunlop, J

    Agarwal, B., Davis, A. J., Khochfar, S., Natarajan, P., & Dunlop, J. S., 2013, MNRAS, 432(4), 3438-3444. Agarwal B., Johnson J. L., Zackrisson E., Labbe I., van den Bosch F. C., Natara- jan P., Khochfar S., 2016, MNRAS, 460, 4003 Abraham, E., Wunderink, R., Silverman, H., Perl, T. M., Nasraway, S., Levy, H., ... & Fournel, M., 1995, Jama, 273(12), 934-941...

    work page 2013

  2. [7]

    F., Schawinski K., Treister E., Trakhtenbrot B., Koss M., Shirazi M., Oh K., 2015, MNRAS, 454,

    Sartori L. F., Schawinski K., Treister E., Trakhtenbrot B., Koss M., Shirazi M., Oh K., 2015, MNRAS, 454,

    work page 2015

  3. [20]

    F., Geha, M., & Greene, J., 2018, ApJ, 868(2),

    Baldassare, V . F., Geha, M., & Greene, J., 2018, ApJ, 868(2),

    work page 2018

  4. [22]

    B., & Novikov, I

    Zel’dovich, Ya. B., & Novikov, I. D., 1964, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 158,

    work page 1964

  5. [29]

    M., Jonker P

    Kim M., Lopez K. M., Jonker P. G., Ho L. C., Im M., 2020, MNRAS, 493, L76. Koudmani, S., Sijacki, D., & Smith, M. C., 2022, MNRAS, 516(2), 2112-2141. Kraemer S. B., Tombesi F., Bottorff M. C., 2018, ApJ, 852,

    work page 2020

  6. [32]

    M., Alatalo, K., & Appleton, P

    Lanz, L., Ogle, P. M., Alatalo, K., & Appleton, P. N., 2016, ApJ, 826(1),

    work page 2016

  7. [33]

    M., Reines A

    Lemons S. M., Reines A. E., Plotkin R. M., Gallo E., Greene J. E., 2015, ApJ, 805, 12 Liu H. Y ., Yuan W., Dong X. B., Zhou H., Liu W. J., 2018, ApJS, 235,

    work page 2015

  8. [34]

    1993, ApJ, 405,

    Bruzual, A.G., & Charlot, S. 1993, ApJ, 405,

    work page 1993

Show all 68 references
  1. [37]

    Wang, T., Xu, K., Wu, Y ., Shi, Y ., Elbaz, D., Ho, L. C., ... & Wang, K., 2024, Nature, 1-5. Wu, X. P., Xue, Y . J., & Fang, L. Z., 1999, ApJ, 524(1),

    2024

  2. [38]

    L., 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia

    Sersic, J. L., 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia. 6: 41–43. Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A., 1985, ApJ, 292, L41-L44. Shlosman, I. 2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies, CUP, (eds.) J.Falcon- Barroso & J.H.Knapen, p.555 (arXiv:1212.1463) Silk, J., & No...

    1963 arXiv

  3. [39]

    2007, ApJ, 671, 226 Hopkins, P

    Heller, C.H., Shlosman, I., Athanassoula, E. 2007, ApJ, 671, 226 Hopkins, P. F., & Quataert, E., 2011, MNRAS, 415(2), 1027-1050. Hopkins, P.F. 2017, eprint 1712.01294 Hopkins, P.F. et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800 Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Keres, D., Faucher-Giguere, C. A., Quat...

    2020 arXiv

  4. [40]

    R., V olonteri M., Silk J., 2018, MNRAS, 474,

    Lupi A., Bovino S., Capelo P. R., V olonteri M., Silk J., 2018, MNRAS, 474,

    2018

  5. [41]

    P., Sutton A

    Mezcua M., Roberts T. P., Sutton A. D., Lobanov A. P., 2013, MNRAS, 436,

    2013

  6. [51]

    B., Ho L

    Dong X. B., Ho L. C., Yuan W., Wang T. G., Fan X., Zhou H., Jiang N., 2012, ApJ, 755,

    2012

  7. [62]

    Devecchi, B., & V olonteri, M., 2009, ApJ, 694(1),

    2009

  8. [63]

    Thompson, T

    Thompson, R., Dave, R., Huang, S., & Katz, N., 2015, arXiv preprint, arXiv:1508.01851. Thompson, T. A., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., Badenes, C., Post, R. S., Jayas- inghe, T., ... & Covey, K., 2019, Science, 366(6465), 637-640. Vergara, M. C., Escala, A., Schleicher, D. R....

    2015 arXiv

  9. [66]

    E., Greene, J

    Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Geha, M., 2013, ApJ, 775(2),

    2013

  10. [74]

    Peterson B. M. et al., 2005, ApJ, 632,

    2005

  11. [82]

    H., Elmegreen B., Hu C.-Y ., Walch S., 2019, ApJ, 879, L18

    Lahen N., Naab T., Johansson P. H., Elmegreen B., Hu C.-Y ., Walch S., 2019, ApJ, 879, L18. Lanfranchi, G. A., Hazenfratz, R., Caproni, A., & Silk, J., 2021, ApJ, 914(1),

    2019

  12. [89]

    L., & Read, J

    Collins, M. L., & Read, J. I., 2022, Nature astronomy, 6(6), 647-658. Conselice, C. J., Bershady, M. A., & Jangren, A., 2000, ApJ, 529(2),

    2022

  13. [90]

    J., Strigari, L

    Barth, A. J., Strigari, L. E., Bentz, M. C., Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C., 2008, ApJ, 690(1),

    2008

  14. [92]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C., 2020, ARA&A, 58(1), 257-312. Haberle, M., Neumayer, N., Seth, A., Bellini, A., Libralato, M., Baumgardt, H., ... & van de Ven, G. (2024), Nature, 631(8020), 285-288. Hahn, O., Abel, T. 2011, MNRAS, 415,

    2024

  15. [109]

    Bentz M. C. et al., 2016, ApJ, 831, 2 Bershady, M. A., Jangren, A., & Conselice, C. J., 2000, AJ, 119(6),

    2016

  16. [112]

    Smith A., Bromm V ., Loeb A., 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3143 Sobral D., Matthee J., Darvish B., Schaerer D., Mobasher B., Rottgering H. J. A., Santos S., Hemmati S., 2015, ApJ, 808, 139 Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105 Takamiya, M., 1999, ApJS, 122(1),

    2016

  17. [113]

    Schaye, J., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521 Schawinski, K., Khochfar, S., Kaviraj, S., Yi, S

    Scannapieco, E., Silk, J., & Bouwens, R., 2005, ApJ, 635(1), L13. Schaye, J., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521 Schawinski, K., Khochfar, S., Kaviraj, S., Yi, S. K., Boselli, A., Barlow, T., ... & Szalay, A., 2006, Nature, 442(7105), 888-891. Schramm M. et al., 2013, ApJ, 773,

    2005

  18. [116]

    Reinoso, B., Schleicher, D. R. G., Fellhauer, M., Klessen, R. S., & Boekholt, T. C. N., 2018, A&A, 614, A14. Regan, John A., and Turlough P. Downes., 2018, MNRAS, 478.4, 5037-5049. Ricarte, A., & Natarajan, P., 2018, MNRAS, 481(3), 3278-3292. Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Sales, L. V ...

    2018

  19. [134]

    1998, ApJ, 498,

    Eisenstein, D.J., & Hut, P. 1998, ApJ, 498,

    1998

  20. [136]

    V ., Wagner, A

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V ., Wagner, A. Y ., Sutherland, R. S., & Silk, J., 2018, MNRAS, 479(4), 5544-5566. Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563 (NFW) Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624 Nelson, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234 Onori F. et al...

    2018

  21. [137]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 1416 Ferre-Mateu A., Mezcua M., Barrows R

    Faucher-Giguere, C.A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1416 Ferre-Mateu A., Mezcua M., Barrows R. S., 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4702 Flores, R. A., & Primack, J. R., 1994, arXiv preprint, astro-ph/9402004. 2 http://www.astro.udec.cl/kultrun/ 3 https://www.nlhp...

    2009 arXiv

  22. [150]

    Secrest N

    Schweizer, F., 1982, Science, 231(4735), 227-234. Secrest N. J. et al., 2015, ApJ, 798,

    1982

  23. [152]

    Barai, P., & de Gouveia Dal Pino, E

    Barai, P., Viel, M., Murante, G., Gaspari, M., & Borgani, S., 2014, MNRAS, 437(2), 1456-1475. Barai, P., & de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., 2019, MNRAS, 487(4), 5549-5563. Barth A. J., Ho L. C., Rutledge R. E., Sargent W. L. W., 2004, ApJ, 607,

    2014

  24. [155]

    Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., & Tozzi, P., 1999, ApJ, 524(1), L19

    Moore, B., & Davis, M., 1994, MNRAS, 270(2), 209-221. Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., & Tozzi, P., 1999, ApJ, 524(1), L19. Moran, E. C., Shahinyan, K., Sugarman, H. R., Vélez, D. O., & Eracleous, M., 2014, ApJ, 148(6),

    1994

  25. [163]

    M., Davis, M., Faber, S

    Lotz, J. M., Davis, M., Faber, S. M., Guhathakurta, P., Gwyn, S., Huang, J., ... & Weiner, B. J., 2008, ApJ, 672(1),

    2008

  26. [167]

    T., de Paz, A

    Dullo, B. T., de Paz, A. G., & Knapen, J. H., 2021, ApJ, 908(2),

    2021

  27. [176]

    C., & Yang, X., 2020, ApJ, 889(1),

    Wang, E., Wang, H., Mo, H., Van den Bosch, F. C., & Yang, X., 2020, ApJ, 889(1),

    2020

  28. [177]

    Gillessen, Stefan, et al., 2009, ApJ, 692.2,

    2009

  29. [203]

    R., Strohmayer T

    Pasham D. R., Strohmayer T. E., Mushotzky R. F., 2014, Nature, 513,

    2014

  30. [218]

    2003, MNRAS, 343, 1081 Baldassare, V

    Baes, M., Davies, J.I., Dejonghe, H., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 1081 Baldassare, V . F., Reines, A. E., Gallo, E., & Greene, J. E., 2015, ApJL, 809(1), L14. Baldassare V . F., Reines A. E., Gallo E., Greene J. E., 2017, ApJ, 836,

    2003

  31. [262]

    Silk, J., 2013, ApJ, 772(2),

    2013

  32. [302]

    M., Colpi, M., & Portegies Zwart, S., 2012, MNRAS, 421(2), 1465-1475

    Devecchi, B., V olonteri, M., Rossi, E. M., Colpi, M., & Portegies Zwart, S., 2012, MNRAS, 421(2), 1465-1475. Ding, X., Onoue, M., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2023, Nature, 621,

    2012

  33. [439]

    J., McAlpine W., Ellison S

    Satyapal S., Secrest N. J., McAlpine W., Ellison S. L., Fischer J., Rosenberg J. L., 2014, ApJ, 784,

    2014

  34. [538]

    2001, ApJ, 555,240

    Bullock, J.S., Dekel, A., Kolatt, T.S., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555,240. Burke C. J. et al., 2022, MNRAS, 516,

    2001

  35. [559]

    Yue, M., Eilers, A

    V olonteri, M., 2012, Science, 337(6094), 544-547. Yue, M., Eilers, A. C., Simcoe, R. A., Mackenzie, R., Matthee, J., Kashino, D., ... & Naidu, R. P., 2024, ApJ, 966(2),

    2012

  36. [641]

    E., Latimer L

    Molina M., Reines A. E., Latimer L. J., Baldassare V ., Salehirad S., 2021, ApJ, 922,

    2021

  37. [722]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C., 2007, ApJ, 670(1),

    2007

  38. [801]

    Pacucci F., Ferrara A., Grazian A., Fiore F., Giallongo E., Puccetti S., 2016, MNRAS, 459,

    2016

  39. [811]

    B., and Podurets, M

    Zel’dovich, Ya. B., and Podurets, M. A., 1965, Astr. Zh., 42,963. Zinn, P. C., Middelberg, E., Norris, R. P., & Dettmar, R. J., 2013, ApJ, 774(1),

    1965

  40. [886]

    J., Bershady, M

    Conselice, C. J., Bershady, M. A., Dickinson, M., & Papovich, C., 2003, AJ, 126(3),

    2003

  41. [926]

    P., Heckman T., 2009, ApJ, 704,

    Satyapal S., Boker T., Mcalpine W., Gliozzi M., Abel N. P., Heckman T., 2009, ApJ, 704,

    2009

  42. [1031]

    H., Springel, V ., and Hernquist, L., 2015, MNRAS, 446,

    Becerra, F., Greif, T. H., Springel, V ., and Hernquist, L., 2015, MNRAS, 446,

    2015

  43. [1044]

    R., Prieto, J., Seifried, D., Simoncini, E., & Gianturco, F

    Grassi, T., Bovino, S., Schleicher, D. R., Prieto, J., Seifried, D., Simoncini, E., & Gianturco, F. A., 2014, MNRAS, 439(3), 2386-2419. Greene J. E., Ho L. C., 2004, ApJ, 610,

    2014

  44. [1075]

    et al., 2015, MNRAS, 449,

    La Franca F. et al., 2015, MNRAS, 449,

    2015

  45. [1093]

    Ghez, Andrea M., et al., 2008, ApJ, 689,

    2008

  46. [1183]

    J., Jonsson, P., Primack, J

    Cox, T. J., Jonsson, P., Primack, J. R., & Somerville, R. S., 2006, MNRAS, 373(3), 1013-1038. Desroches L. B., Greene J. E., Ho L. C., 2009, ApJ, 698, 1515 De Young, D.S., 1989, ApJ, 307,

    2006

  47. [1432]

    et al., 2016, ApJ, 831,

    Pardo K. et al., 2016, ApJ, 831,

    2016

  48. [1526]

    A., and D

    Latif, M. A., and D. R. G. Schleicher., 2015, A&A, 578, A118. Lodato, Giuseppe, and Priyamvada Natarajan., 2006, MNRAS, 371.4, 1813-

    2015

  49. [1544]

    A., Combes, F., & Hamer, S., 2017, A&A, 608, A98

    Salome, Q., Salome, P., Miville-Deschenes, M. A., Combes, F., & Hamer, S., 2017, A&A, 608, A98. Salpeter, E. E., 1964, ApJ, 140, 796 Satyapal S., Vega D., Heckman T., O’Halloran B., Dudik R., 2007, ApJ, 663, L9. Satyapal S., Vega D., Dudik R. P., Abel N. P., Heckman T., 2008, ...

    2017

  50. [1823]

    Rees., 2001, ApJ, 551.1, L27

    Madau, Piero, and Martin J. Rees., 2001, ApJ, 551.1, L27. Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al., 2023, arXiv:2305.12492 Marinacci, F., Pakmor, R., Springel, V . 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1750 Marleau F. R., Clancy D., Habas R., Bianconi M., 2017, A&A, 602, A28. Melioli C., de...

    2001 arXiv

  51. [1893]

    Mezcua M., 2017, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 26, 1730021. Mezcua, M., Civano, F., Marchesi, S., Suh, H., Fabbiano, G., & V olonteri, M., 2018, MNRAS, 478(2), 2576-2591. Mezcua M., Domınguez Sanchez H., 2020, ApJ, 898, L30. Mihos, C., & Hernquist, L., 1995, ApJ, 464,

    2017

  52. [1957]

    Chen C. T. J. et al., 2017, ApJ, 837, 48 Chabrier, G. 2003, ApJ, 586, L133. Chambers, K. C., Miley, G. K., & Van Breugel, W., 1987, Nature, 329(6140), 604-606. Colbert E. J. M., Mushotzky R. F., 1999, ApJ, 519,

    2017

  53. [2101]

    & Umeda, H., 2023, A ApJ, 959(1),

    Harikane, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Isobe, Y ., Ono, Y ., ... & Umeda, H., 2023, A ApJ, 959(1),

    2023

  54. [2131]

    2016, A&A, 594, A13 Rees, M

    Planck Collaboration et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13 Rees, M. J., 1984, ARA&A, V olume 22, 471-506. Reines A. E., Sivako ff G. R., Johnson K. E., Brogan C. L., 2011, Nature, 470,

    2016

  55. [2380]

    2013, ApJ, 762,

    Behroozi, P.S., Wechsler, R.H., Wu, H.-Y . 2013, ApJ, 762,

    2013

  56. [2645]

    A., 2015, ApJL, 812(2), L36

    Bieri, R., Dubois, Y ., Silk, J., & Mamon, G. A., 2015, ApJL, 812(2), L36. Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., & Kaplinghat, M., 2011, MNRAS, 415(1), L40-L44. Bromm, V olker, and Abraham Loeb, 2003, ApJ, 596.1,

    2015

  57. [2736]

    2016, MNRAS, 462,

    Camps, P., Trayford, J.W., Baes, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462,

    2016

  58. [2884]

    M., Primack, J., & Madau, P., 2004, AJ, 128(1),

    Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P., 2004, AJ, 128(1),

    2004

  59. [3128]

    P., Lobanov A

    Mezcua M., Roberts T. P., Lobanov A. P., Sutton A. D., 2015, MNRAS, 448,

    2015

  60. [3722]

    V ., Navarro J

    Sales L. V ., Navarro J. F., Theuns T., Schaye J., White S. D. M., Frenk C. S., Crain R. A., Dalla Vecchia C., 2012, MNRAS, 423,

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.