Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

FLAMINGO: Galaxy formation and feedback effects on the gas density and velocity fields

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Gas underclusters dark matter by up to 8 percent, even on gigaparsec scales.

desk verdict Solid and useful quantification of the large-scale gas anti-bias in FLAMINGO, but the headline 8% peak at z≈1 and the jet-versus-thermal comparison need more work before they are trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09526 v1 pith:D33OQCS2 submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Lurdes Ondaro-Mallea , Raul E. Angulo , Giovanni Aricò , Joop Schaye , Ian G. McCarthy , Matthieu Schaller This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA PACS 98.80.-k95.35.+d
keywords gasdensityfieldvelocitylarge-scalestructurebaryonicfeedbackAGNpowerspectrumkineticSunyaev-ZeldovicheffectFLAMINGOsimulation
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Using the FLAMINGO cosmological-hydrodynamical simulations, this paper compares the gas density and velocity fields with a gravity-only universe. It argues that on large scales the gas is an anti-biased tracer of matter: its clustering is suppressed by about 5% at z=0 and up to 8% at z≈1, while its velocity field is identical to that of dark matter. The suppression is attributed to star formation consuming gas in the densest, most clustered regions, leaving gas preferentially in lower-density environments. On smaller scales, AGN feedback suppresses both gas clustering and infall, and the paper traces this to outflowing bubbles that reach up to about ten virial radii. Establishing this bias matters because cosmological probes that use gas or its baryons as tracers—weak lensing and thermal or kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich signals—must account for a non-trivial gas-to-matter mapping.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on ratio power spectra Sδδ(k)=Pδδ/Pδδ,GrO and Sθθ(k) for gas versus gravity-only runs, evaluated at k=0.01 h/Mpc for the large-scale bias and across k for scale-dependent suppression. To study haloes, the paper stacks spherically averaged density, enclosed-mass, and radial-velocity profiles of cross-matched, isolated haloes, and defines outflow regions kinematically as grid cells where gas has positive radial velocity while dark matter has negative radial velocity. A linear-theory decomposition of pairwise velocities, ω(r)∝∫ k√(Pδδ Pθθ) j1(kr) dk with measured suppression factors inserted, separates density-field effects from velocity-field effects and identifies the density weighting as the source of the large-scale pairwise-velocity bias.

What would settle it

Measure the gas momentum field around stacked group-scale haloes with kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich observations at separations above about 10 $h^{-1}$ Mpc: if no 5–8% gas power suppression peaking near z≈1 appears, or if a higher-resolution resimulation removes the suppression at k=0.01 h/Mpc, the star-formation-depletion explanation for the large-scale gas bias would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that cosmic gas does not trace the dark matter field even in the linear, gigaparsec regime: the gas mass power spectrum falls short of the gravity-only matter power spectrum by a constant 4–8%, with the deficit peaking near z≈1. The mechanism is that star formation removes mass from the most biased, highest-density sites of the gas field, transforming it into a stellar component that is clustered more strongly than matter and leaving the remaining gas anti-biased. The same simulations show no corresponding large-scale velocity bias: gas velocities agree with dark matter velocities, and the apparent 2–3% suppression of large-scale pairwise velocities is a density-weighting artifact rather than slower infall. On scales k>0.1 h/Mpc, both density and velocity power are suppressed in a way that scales with AGN feedback strength, and the paper attributes this to outflows—gas bubbles with positive radial velocity that reach several to ten virial radii and reshape the gas around group-size haloes.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison between thermal and jet AGN feedback assumes the two implementations are numerically converged and differ only in how energy is injected, an assumption the paper itself weakens by admitting that the jet runs' large-scale power spectra do not converge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Large-scale gas clustering is biased low by roughly 5% at z=0 and up to 8% at z≈1, independent of AGN feedback strength but dependent on the stellar mass function, while total baryons still trace matter.
  • Gas velocities are unbiased relative to dark matter on large scales, so the large-scale pairwise-velocity suppression seen in gas is a weighting effect of the biased density field rather than slower infall.
  • On scales k>0.1 h/Mpc, AGN feedback suppresses both gas density and velocity power, with stronger feedback producing stronger suppression.
  • Outflows, defined as gas with positive radial velocity against infalling dark matter, reach up to roughly ten virial radii, show a biconical structure, and carry more mass and higher velocity as feedback strength increases.
  • Thermal and jet AGN implementations calibrated to the same observables differ in their outflow footprint: jets redistribute gas to larger radii but are less efficient at lowering central baryon fractions in lower-mass haloes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the large-scale gas bias is as generic as FLAMINGO suggests, kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich power-spectrum analyses should include a gas bias parameter on top of the halo bias; the paper notes that pairwise kSZ measurements scale with the square root of the suppression, reducing but not removing the effect.
  • A direct observational test could search for the predicted peak in gas anti-bias near z≈1 using kSZ or line-intensity maps; a monotonic trend with redshift would challenge the star-formation-depletion mechanism.
  • The explanation implies that gas bias should track the evolution of the stellar mass function rather than AGN feedback, so future parameter variations that change only star formation or supernova feedback could sharpen the prediction.
  • The outflow definition used here could be applied to reconstructed velocity maps around groups once kSZ imaging reaches sufficient resolution, turning outflow bubbles into an observable proxy for AGN feedback strength and implementation.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. Using the FLAMINGO simulation suite, the paper compares gas density and velocity statistics in full-physics runs against gravity-only runs, quantifying how galaxy formation and AGN feedback modify the cosmic gas field. The central claims are that on large scales (k ≲ 0.01 h/Mpc) gas is anti-biased relative to dark matter — a roughly 5% power-spectrum suppression at z=0, rising to about 8% near z≈1 — while gas velocities are unbiased on those scales; the bias is interpreted as a consequence of star formation removing gas from the densest, most clustered regions. On smaller scales, feedback suppresses gas clustering, potential flows, and pairwise velocities, and the paper associates these effects with AGN-driven outflows around group and cluster haloes, highlighting differences between thermal and jet AGN feedback implementations. The paper closes with observational implications for tSZ, kSZ, and weak-lensing analyses.

Significance. If the main results hold, this is a valuable quantitative mapping of gas density and velocity bias in a large, observationally calibrated hydrodynamical suite, directly relevant to kSZ/tSZ and lensing analyses. The use of the non-radiative control run, the z=0 large-box convergence check, the decomposition of pairwise velocities into density and velocity contributions, and the cross-comparison with BAHAMAS are clear strengths, and the quantities studied are not calibration targets of the FLAMINGO suite, so the conclusions have independent content. However, the headline 8% peak at z≈1 is not yet secured by error estimates or a large-volume check, and the thermal-versus-jet comparison is weakened by the admitted non-convergence of the jet simulations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1.1 / Fig. 1 (right panel); abstract] The abstract and Sec. 3.1.1 report a maximum gas bias of about 8% at z≈1, measured at k=0.01 h/Mpc. In the L=681 h^-1 Mpc box this wavenumber is essentially the fundamental mode (k_f≈0.0092 h/Mpc), so the z≈1 point is estimated from a handful of modes in a single realization, and no error bar is provided. The z=0 value is checked with the L=2800 Mpc run, but no analogous check is shown at z≈1. Because this peak is a headline quantitative claim, please add mode-count or jackknife error bars, or better, a large-volume or multi-realization estimate at z≈1, and adjust the abstract and summary statements if the peak is not robust.
  2. [Sec. 4.2 / Fig. 9; Footnote 1] Footnote 1 states that the two jet runs have large-scale power spectra that do not converge and attributes this to an unexplained behaviour, yet raw jet data are displayed in Figs. 2, 4, and 5 and are used in the thermal-versus-jet outflow comparison of Fig. 9. The Section 4.2 conclusion that the outflow radial profile and halo-mass scaling depend on the AGN feedback implementation rests on these runs. The admitted artifact therefore needs to be corrected, shown not to affect the outflow statistics, or the jet-related conclusions must be explicitly qualified as provisional.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 / Figs. 4 and 5] The pairwise-velocity ratio R_omega is quoted as converging to a constant 2–3% bias on large scales, and Fig. 5 uses this to conclude that the density field, not the velocity field, produces the bias. No uncertainties are reported for R_omega or for S_delta_delta and S_theta_theta in Figs. 1–2, so it is not possible to tell whether the large-scale velocity contribution is consistent with zero or with a few-percent velocity bias. Please report errors, for example jackknife over subvolumes, at least for the representative models shown in Fig. 4.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 3.1.1] Writing the power-spectrum suppression as 'b2≈5%' is potentially confusing because the plotted quantity is P_gas/P_DM = b^2; a 5% suppression corresponds to a linear bias b≈0.975. Please define the notation explicitly.
  2. [Sec. 2 and Fig. 1 caption] The L=2800 Mpc run used in the middle panel of Fig. 1 is mentioned only in the caption; please specify its box size, resolution, calibration model, and the corresponding run name in Sec. 2.
  3. [Fig. 9] The error bars in Fig. 9 are standard deviations over 100 haloes; for comparing model differences, the uncertainty in the mean would be more appropriate, since the standard deviation is dominated by halo-to-halo scatter.
  4. [Appendix A] The notation 'm_gas^2/m_b^2' in Fig. A.1 is confusing: the dotted curves appear to show (M_gas/M_bar)^2 as a function of redshift, while the text says 'total gas mass relative to the total baryon mass squared'. Please make the normalization explicit and consistent in the caption and text.
  5. [Sec. 3.2 and Fig. 2] The text states that the velocity-divergence power spectrum is converged only for k < 0.6 h/Mpc, but Fig. 2 appears to extend to larger k; please indicate in the caption which parts of the curves should be regarded as converged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are simulation measurements with independent calibration targets; the one reconstructed statistic (pairwise velocity from S(k)) is explicitly an ad-hoc consistency check, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

This paper reports measurements from hydrodynamical simulations rather than derivations from fitted parameters. The central claims – large-scale gas anti-bias b^2≈5% at z=0 and ≈8% at z≈1, unbiased large-scale gas velocities, and feedback-dependent outflow properties – are not calibration targets of the FLAMINGO suite; the suite is calibrated to cluster gas fractions and stellar mass functions (Kugel et al. 2023), and the paper's statistics are separately measured from the simulation outputs. The interpretation that star formation removes gas from dense, clustered regions is supported by an independent control run (the non-radiative run, which forms no stars and shows no gas bias) and by a model with a reduced stellar mass function, not by circular definition. Equation 8 defines S(k)=sqrt(S_delta S_vv) using measured power-spectrum ratios, and Eq. 9 reconstructs pairwise velocities; the paper explicitly calls this an 'ad-hoc term' and uses it as a decomposition/consistency check to show which field drives the pairwise-velocity bias. This is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction, because no parameter is adjusted to match the pairwise velocities. Self-citations to Schaye et al. (2023), Kugel et al. (2023) and related FLAMINGO papers are descriptions of the simulation and calibration infrastructure, not unverified theorems that force the results; the jet-run convergence caveat in footnote 1 is an admitted limitation, not circular reasoning. One could question sample variance at k=0.01 h/Mpc in the L=681 h^-1 Mpc box for the z≈1 8% peak, but that is a statistical robustness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new analytic free parameters or invented entities; its results are simulation outputs conditioned on the FLAMINGO suite's calibrated subgrid parameters and on paper-specific analysis choices such as the outflow definition, isolation criterion, and ad-hoc S(k) factor.

free parameters (3)
  • Thermal AGN feedback temperature increment DeltaT_AGN = Not given in this paper; calibrated in Kugel et al. 2023
    Controls the strength of thermal AGN feedback and was fitted to observed cluster gas fractions and stellar mass functions; the paper's gas suppression and outflow trends depend on its value across FLAMINGO variants (Section 2).
  • Jet velocity v_jet = Not given in this paper; calibrated in Kugel et al. 2023
    Controls kinetic AGN feedback strength in jet runs; the jet/thermal comparison in Section 4.2 relies on this calibration.
  • Stellar feedback parameters (two) = Not given in this paper; calibrated in Kugel et al. 2023
    Calibrated to the stellar mass function; the large-scale gas bias amplitude depends on the stellar mass function (Section 3.1.1), so these fitted parameters shape the central claim.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Linear theory relations theta = -delta a f H and P_vv = P_theta_theta / k^2 = P_delta_delta (a f H)^2 hold for the large-scale velocity field (Eqs 1, 5, 6).
    Used to interpret velocity-divergence power spectra and to construct the linear-theory pairwise-velocity model in Section 3.3.1 and Appendix B.
  • domain assumption Subgrid prescriptions for star formation, cooling, and AGN feedback in FLAMINGO adequately represent galaxy formation physics.
    The whole paper is a simulation study; all physical conclusions inherit this assumption. Section 2 describes the subgrid models.
  • domain assumption Gravity-only FLAMINGO run is a valid reference: dark matter velocities respond negligibly to baryonic processes on the studied scales.
    Used when crossmatching haloes, defining outflows with Vdm<0, and sampling dark matter velocities at gas positions; the paper states this in the footnote on page 7 and Section 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The outflow identification criterion (Vgas>0 and Vdm<0 on a DTFE grid, Eq. 10) selects genuine AGN-driven outflows rather than virialized or infalling material.
    This is a paper-specific kinematic definition; the authors note it gives an upper limit on outflow mass and a lower limit on outflow velocity (Section 4.2.2).
  • ad hoc to paper The linear-theory pairwise velocity formula, modified by the ad-hoc suppression factor S(k)=sqrt(S_delta_delta S_vv) (Eq. 8), remains applicable for gas on large scales.
    The paper labels the term ad-hoc and states the small-scale behavior should be interpreted qualitatively (Section 3.3.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Isolated haloes (no more massive neighbour within 20 r200) are representative for studying feedback effects on gas profiles.
    This selection changes the radial velocity profiles relative to Kwan et al. 2024, as the authors discuss in Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FLAMINGO: Galaxy formation and feedback effects on the gas density and velocity fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D33OQCS2

@misc{pith2026241209526,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FLAMINGO: Galaxy formation and feedback effects on the gas density and velocity fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D33OQCS2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09526}
}
abstract

Most of the visible matter in the Universe is in a gaseous state, subject to hydrodynamic forces and galaxy formation processes that are much more complex to model than gravity. These baryonic effects can potentially bias the analyses of several cosmological probes, such as weak gravitational lensing. In this work, we study the gas density and velocity fields of the FLAMINGO simulations and compare them with their gravity-only predictions. We find that, while the gas velocities do not differ from those of dark matter on large scales, the gas mass power spectrum is suppressed by up to $\approx 8\%$ relative to matter, even on gigaparsec scales. This is a consequence of star formation depleting gas in the densest and most clustered regions of the universe. On smaller scales, $k>0.1 \, h / \rm Mpc$, the power suppression for both gas densities and velocities is more significant and correlates with the strength of the active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback. The impact of feedback can be understood in terms of outflows, identified as gas bubbles with positive radial velocities ejected from the central galaxy. With increasing feedback strength, the outflowing gas has higher velocities, and it reaches scales as large as $10$ times the virial radius of the halo, redistributing the gas and slowing its average infall velocity. Interestingly, different implementations of AGN feedback leave distinct features in these outflows in terms of their radial and angular profiles and their dependence on halo mass. In the future, such differences could be measured in observations using, for example, the kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09526 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ratio of density power spectra between hydrodynamic and gravity-only runs for several species. The colours indicate dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ratio of velocity-divergence power spectra between hy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Ratio of mean pairwise velocities between hydrodynamic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ratio of mean pairwise velocities between fiducial hy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density (left) and radial velocity (right) fields around three haloes of mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gravity-only (dotted black lines) and gas (solid lines) spherically averaged radial profiles around isolated haloes of three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Density (left) and radial velocity (right) fields around the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The average halo baryon fraction at r200 as a function of halo mass at z = 0. The results are shown for isolated haloes with M200 > 1013h −1M⊙. The colours denote different FLAMINGO models. by setting the minimum velocity to be considered as outflow￾ing to 0 (Eq. 10),…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Shear-kSZ: A New Estimator for the Matter-Electron Power Spectrum from kSZ Tomography and Weak Lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Shear–kSZ correlates kSZ, tomographic line-of-sight velocity, and lensing convergence to measure P_me(k) and thereby the baryonic matter-power suppression S(k) at high forecast significance.

  2. Interpreting the stacked kinetic SZ effect I: velocity reconstruction and non-linear velocity effects

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Non-linear velocity terms cancel in real-space linear reconstruction, but redshift-space distortions reintroduce a 10–20% small-scale suppression of the stacked kSZ signal.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., Arnaud, M., et al. 2016, , 594, A24

    2016

  4. [4]

    2021, , 923, 37

    Adhikari , S., Shin , T.-h., Jain , B., et al. 2021, , 923, 37

    2021

  5. [5]

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

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

    2014

  6. [6]

    2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70

    Aihara, H., Arimoto, N., Armstrong, R., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70

    2017

  7. [7]

    2022, , 514, 1645

    Anbajagane , D., Chang , C., Jain , B., et al. 2022, , 514, 1645

    2022

  8. [8]

    2022, , 663, L6

    Angelinelli , M., Ettori , S., Dolag , K., Vazza , F., & Ragagnin , A. 2022, , 663, L6

    2022

Show all 132 references
  1. [9]

    Angulo , R. E. & Hahn , O. 2022, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 8, 1

    2022

  2. [10]

    E., Hahn , O., & Abel , T

    Angulo , R. E., Hahn , O., & Abel , T. 2013, , 434, 1756

    2013

  3. [11]

    E., Hern \'a ndez-Monteagudo , C., Contreras , S., & Zennaro , M

    Aric \`o , G., Angulo , R. E., Hern \'a ndez-Monteagudo , C., Contreras , S., & Zennaro , M. 2021, , 503, 3596

    2021

  4. [12]

    E., Hern \'a ndez-Monteagudo , C., et al

    Aric \`o , G., Angulo , R. E., Hern \'a ndez-Monteagudo , C., et al. 2020, , 495, 4800

    2020

  5. [13]

    2023 a , , 524, 5391

    Ayromlou , M., Nelson , D., & Pillepich , A. 2023 a , , 524, 5391

    2023

  6. [14]

    2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.06339

    Ayromlou , M., Nelson , D., Pillepich , A., et al. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.06339

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J

    Battaglia , N., Bond , J. R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J. L. 2012 a , , 758, 74

    2012

  8. [16]

    R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J

    Battaglia , N., Bond , J. R., Pfrommer , C., & Sievers , J. L. 2012 b , , 758, 75

    2012

  9. [17]

    J., Adhikari , S., Vega-Ferrero , J., et al

    Baxter , E. J., Adhikari , S., Vega-Ferrero , J., et al. 2021, , 508, 1777

    2021

  10. [18]

    & Kosowsky, A

    Bhattacharya, S. & Kosowsky, A. 2008, Physical Review D, 77

    2008

  11. [19]

    & Silvestri, A

    Bianchini, F. & Silvestri, A. 2016, Physical Review D, 93

    2016

  12. [20]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 3703–3716

    Bird, S., Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 3703–3716

    2022

  13. [21]

    E., et al

    Bocquet, S., Grandis, S., Bleem, L. E., et al. 2024, SPT Clusters with DES and HST Weak Lensing. II. Cosmological Constraints from the Abundance of Massive Halos

    2024

  14. [22]

    Bolliet , B., Comis , B., Komatsu , E., & Mac \' as-P \'e rez , J. F. 2018, , 477, 4957

    2018

  15. [23]

    Booth , C. M. & Schaye , J. 2009, , 398, 53

    2009

  16. [24]

    A., Vavagiakis , E

    Calafut , V., Gallardo , P. A., Vavagiakis , E. M., et al. 2021, , 104, 043502

    2021

  17. [25]

    Cautun , M. C. & van de Weygaert , R. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1105.0370

    2011 arXiv

  18. [26]

    2024, , 109, 063513

    Chen , Z., Jamieson , D., Komatsu , E., et al. 2024, , 109, 063513

    2024

  19. [27]

    2023, , 953, 188

    Chen , Z., Zhang , P., & Yang , X. 2023, , 953, 188

    2023

  20. [28]

    2022, , 510, 5916

    Chen , Z., Zhang , P., Yang , X., & Zheng , Y. 2022, , 510, 5916

    2022

  21. [29]

    2021, , 910, 32

    Chiang , Y.-K., Makiya , R., Komatsu , E., & M \'e nard , B. 2021, , 910, 32

    2021

  22. [30]

    2020, , 902, 56

    Chiang , Y.-K., Makiya , R., M \'e nard , B., & Komatsu , E. 2020, , 902, 56

    2020

  23. [31]

    E., Richardson , M

    Chisari , N. E., Richardson , M. L. A., Devriendt , J., et al. 2018, , 480, 3962

    2018

  24. [32]

    J., Crain , R

    Davies , J. J., Crain , R. A., McCarthy , I. G., et al. 2019, , 485, 3783

    2019

  25. [33]

    S., & White , S

    Davis , M., Efstathiou , G., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1985, , 292, 371

    1985

  26. [34]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2827–2849

    Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2827–2849

    2019

  27. [35]

    de Jong, J. T. A., Verdoes Kleijn, G. A., Kuijken, K. H., & Valentijn, E. A. 2012, Experimental Astronomy, 35, 25–44

    2012

  28. [36]

    Debackere , S. N. B., Schaye , J., & Hoekstra , H. 2020, , 492, 2285

    2020

  29. [37]

    2022, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol

    Douspis , M., Salvati , L., Gorce , A., & Aghanim , N. 2022, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 257, mm Universe @ NIKA2 - Observing the mm Universe with the NIKA2 Camera, 00014

    2022

  30. [38]

    A., Saar , E., & Shandarin , S

    Einasto , J., Klypin , A. A., Saar , E., & Shandarin , S. F. 1984, , 206, 529

    1984

  31. [39]

    J., Ca \ n as , R., Poulton , R

    Elahi , P. J., Ca \ n as , R., Poulton , R. J. J., et al. 2019, , 36, e021

    2019

  32. [40]

    Fry , J. N. 1996, , 461, L65

    1996

  33. [41]

    2024, , 689, A298

    Ghirardini , V., Bulbul , E., Artis , E., et al. 2024, , 689, A298

    2024

  34. [42]

    A., et al

    Gong , Y., Bean , R., Gallardo , P. A., et al. 2024, , 109, 023513

    2024

  35. [43]

    E., & Abel , T

    Hahn , O., Angulo , R. E., & Abel , T. 2015, , 454, 3920

    2015

  36. [44]

    E., Aubourg , E., et al

    Hand , N., Addison , G. E., Aubourg , E., et al. 2012, , 109, 041101

    2012

  37. [45]

    P., Campbell , D., Tollerud , E., et al

    Hearin , A. P., Campbell , D., Tollerud , E., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 190

    2017

  38. [46]

    A., Schaller , M., Frenk , C

    Hellwing , W. A., Schaller , M., Frenk , C. S., et al. 2016, , 461, L11

    2016

  39. [47]

    2023, , 524, 2556

    Hern \'a ndez-Aguayo , C., Springel , V., Pakmor , R., et al. 2023, , 524, 2556

    2023

  40. [48]

    Hernandez‐Monteagudo, C., Verde, L., Jimenez, R., & Spergel, D. N. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 643, 598–615

    2006

  41. [49]

    G., Schaye , J., Nobels , F

    Hu s ko , F., Lacey , C. G., Schaye , J., Nobels , F. S. J., & Schaller , M. 2024, , 527, 5988

    2024

  42. [50]

    G., Schaye , J., Schaller , M., & Nobels , F

    Hu s ko , F., Lacey , C. G., Schaye , J., Schaller , M., & Nobels , F. S. J. 2022, , 516, 3750

    2022

  43. [51]

    Karp , J. S. M., Lange , J. U., & Wechsler , R. H. 2023, , 949, L13

    2023

  44. [52]

    2009, , 698, 266

    Knebe , A., Wagner , C., Knollmann , S., Diekershoff , T., & Krause , F. 2009, , 698, 266

    2009

  45. [53]

    2023, , 526, 6103

    Kugel , R., Schaye , J., Schaller , M., et al. 2023, , 526, 6103

    2023

  46. [54]

    Kuruvilla , J., Aghanim , N., & McCarthy , I. G. 2020, , 644, A170

    2020

  47. [55]

    G., & Salcido , J

    Kwan , J., McCarthy , I. G., & Salcido , J. 2024, , 533, 3570

    2024

  48. [56]

    T., Nagai , D., Avestruz , C., Nelson , K., & Vikhlinin , A

    Lau , E. T., Nagai , D., Avestruz , C., Nelson , K., & Vikhlinin , A. 2015, , 806, 68

    2015

  49. [57]

    2024, , 271, 30

    Li , S., Zheng , Y., Chen , Z., Xu , H., & Yang , X. 2024, , 271, 30

    2024

  50. [58]

    D., Schaye , J., & Bower , R

    Ludlow , A. D., Schaye , J., & Bower , R. 2019, , 488, 3663

    2019

  51. [59]

    2021, , 594, 187

    Mart \' n-Navarro , I., Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., et al. 2021, , 594, 187

    2021

  52. [60]

    G., Amon , A., Schaye , J., et al

    McCarthy , I. G., Amon , A., Schaye , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19905

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    G., Le Brun , A

    McCarthy , I. G., Le Brun , A. M. C., Schaye , J., & Holder , G. P. 2014, , 440, 3645

    2014

  54. [62]

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

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Bird, S., & Le Brun, A. M. C. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 2936–2965

    2017

  55. [63]

    R., Hernquist, L., Zahn, O., & Zaldarriaga, M

    McQuinn, M., Furlanetto, S. R., Hernquist, L., Zahn, O., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 630, 643

    2005

  56. [64]

    J., Brieden , S., Tr \"o ster , T., & Heymans , C

    Mead , A. J., Brieden , S., Tr \"o ster , T., & Heymans , C. 2021, , 502, 1401

    2021

  57. [65]

    J., Tr \"o ster , T., Heymans , C., Van Waerbeke , L., & McCarthy , I

    Mead , A. J., Tr \"o ster , T., Heymans , C., Van Waerbeke , L., & McCarthy , I. G. 2020, , 641, A130

    2020

  58. [66]

    Mitchell , P. D. & Schaye , J. 2022, , 511, 2600

    2022

  59. [67]

    Mueller, E.-M., de Bernardis, F., Bean, R., & Niemack, M. D. 2015, Physical Review D, 92

    2015

  60. [68]

    O., McCarthy , I

    Mummery , B. O., McCarthy , I. G., Bird , S., & Schaye , J. 2017, , 471, 227

    2017

  61. [69]

    S., Ferraro , S., Johnson , M

    M \"u nchmeyer , M., Madhavacheril , M. S., Ferraro , S., Johnson , M. C., & Smith , K. M. 2019, , 100, 083508

    2019

  62. [70]

    2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12–37

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Genel, S., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12–37

    2015

  63. [71]

    2023, , 959, 136

    Ni , Y., Genel , S., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., et al. 2023, , 959, 136

    2023

  64. [72]

    Nobels , F. S. J., Schaye , J., Schaller , M., Bah \'e , Y. M., & Chaikin , E. 2022, , 515, 4838

    2022

  65. [73]

    A., & Bond, J

    Park, H., Alvarez, M. A., & Bond, J. R. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 121

    2018

  66. [74]

    2020, , 499, 2462

    P \'e roux , C., Nelson , D., van de Voort , F., et al. 2020, , 499, 2462

    2020

  67. [75]

    2018, , 473, 4077

    Pillepich , A., Springel , V., Nelson , D., et al. 2018, , 473, 4077

    2018

  68. [76]

    & Knebe , A

    Power , C. & Knebe , A. 2006, , 370, 691

    2006

  69. [77]

    F., Jenkins , A., et al

    Power , C., Navarro , J. F., Jenkins , A., et al. 2003, , 338, 14

    2003

  70. [78]

    Press , W. H. & Davis , M. 1982, , 259, 449

    1982

  71. [79]

    & Scoccimarro , R

    Pueblas , S. & Scoccimarro , R. 2009, , 80, 043504

    2009

  72. [80]

    Rodriguez , F., Merch \'a n , M., & Artale , M. C. 2022, , 514, 1077

    2022

  73. [81]

    C., & Andrews , M

    Rodriguez , F., Merch \'a n , M., Artale , M. C., & Andrews , M. 2023, , 521, 5483

    2023

  74. [82]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 2497–2506

    Roncarelli, M., Baldi, M., & Villaescusa-Navarro, F. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 2497–2506

    2018

  75. [83]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stx170

    Roncarelli, M., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., & Baldi, M. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stx170

    2017

  76. [84]

    G., Kwan , J., Upadhye , A., & Font , A

    Salcido , J., McCarthy , I. G., Kwan , J., Upadhye , A., & Font , A. S. 2023, , 523, 2247

    2023

  77. [85]

    2018, , 614, A13

    Salvati , L., Douspis , M., & Aghanim , N. 2018, , 614, A13

    2018

  78. [86]

    Schaap , W. E. & van de Weygaert , R. 2000, , 363, L29

    2000

  79. [87]

    C., & van Daalen , M

    Schaller , M., Schaye , J., Kugel , R., Broxterman , J. C., & van Daalen , M. P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17109

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    A., Bower , R

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

    2015

  81. [89]

    2023, , 526, 4978

    Schaye , J., Kugel , R., Schaller , M., et al. 2023, , 526, 4978

    2023

  82. [90]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18368

    Schiappucci , E., Raghunathan , S., To , C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18368

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    & Teyssier , R

    Schneider , A. & Teyssier , R. 2015, , 2015, 049

    2015

  84. [92]

    2016, , 2016, 047

    Schneider , A., Teyssier , R., Potter , D., et al. 2016, , 2016, 047

    2016

  85. [93]

    2019, , 2019, 020

    Schneider , A., Teyssier , R., Stadel , J., et al. 2019, , 2019, 020

    2019

  86. [94]

    2013, , 434, 148

    Semboloni , E., Hoekstra , H., & Schaye , J. 2013, , 434, 148

    2013

  87. [95]

    P., & McCarthy , I

    Semboloni , E., Hoekstra , H., Schaye , J., van Daalen , M. P., & McCarthy , I. G. 2011, , 417, 2020

    2011

  88. [96]

    D., Rudd , D

    Shaw , L. D., Rudd , D. H., & Nagai , D. 2012, , 756, 15

    2012

  89. [97]

    M., Markovic , K., & Rhodes , J

    Shirasaki , M., Huff , E. M., Markovic , K., & Rhodes , J. D. 2021, , 907, 38

    2021

  90. [98]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05815

    Sorini , D., Bose , S., Dav \'e , R., & Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05815

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    2022, , 516, 883

    Sorini , D., Dav \'e , R., Cui , W., & Appleby , S. 2022, , 516, 883

    2022

  92. [100]

    2018, , 475, 676

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

    2018

  93. [101]

    Sunyaev , R. A. & Zeldovich , Y. B. 1972, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 4, 173

    1972

  94. [102]

    Sunyaev , R. A. & Zeldovich , Y. B. 1980, , 190, 413

    1980

  95. [103]

    & Peebles , P

    Tegmark , M. & Peebles , P. J. E. 1998, , 500, L79

    1998

  96. [104]

    2005, arXiv e-prints, astro

    The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration . 2005, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2005

  97. [105]

    Tinker , J. L. 2007, , 374, 477

    2007

  98. [106]

    V., Dutton , A

    Tollet , \'E ., Cattaneo , A., Macci \`o , A. V., Dutton , A. A., & Kang , X. 2019, , 485, 2511

    2019

  99. [107]

    T., Schaye , J., et al

    Towler , I., Kay , S. T., Schaye , J., et al. 2024, , 529, 2017

    2024

  100. [108]

    R., Ricarte , A., et al

    Tremmel , M., Quinn , T. R., Ricarte , A., et al. 2019, , 483, 3336

    2019

  101. [109]

    2023, , 525, 1976

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

    2023

  102. [110]

    2021 a , , 508, 1563

    Truong , N., Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., Werner , N., & Hernquist , L. 2021 a , , 508, 1563

    2021

  103. [111]

    2021 b , , 501, 2210

    Truong , N., Pillepich , A., & Werner , N. 2021 b , , 501, 2210

    2021

  104. [112]

    P., McCarthy , I

    van Daalen , M. P., McCarthy , I. G., & Schaye , J. 2020, , 491, 2424

    2020

  105. [113]

    P., Schaye , J., Booth , C

    van Daalen , M. P., Schaye , J., Booth , C. M., & Dalla Vecchia , C. 2011, , 415, 3649

    2011

  106. [114]

    P., Schaye, J., McCarthy, I

    van Daalen, M. P., Schaye, J., McCarthy, I. G., Booth, C. M., & Vecchia, C. D. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 2997–3010

    2014

  107. [115]

    P., Schaye, J., et al

    Velliscig, M., van Daalen, M. P., Schaye, J., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2641–2658

    2014

  108. [116]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 3031–3067

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Sijacki, D., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 3031–3067

    2013

  109. [117]

    2020, Nature Reviews Physics, 2, 42

    Vogelsberger , M., Marinacci , F., Torrey , P., & Puchwein , E. 2020, Nature Reviews Physics, 2, 42

    2020

  110. [118]

    2017, , 465, 3291

    Weinberger , R., Springel , V., Hernquist , L., et al. 2017, , 465, 3291

    2017

  111. [119]

    2024, , 527, 1612

    Yang , T., Dav \'e , R., Cui , W., et al. 2024, , 527, 1612

    2024

  112. [120]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 630, 657–666

    Zahn, O., Zaldarriaga, M., Hernquist, L., & McQuinn, M. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 630, 657–666

    2005

  113. [121]

    2013, , 87, 063526

    Zhang , P., Pan , J., & Zheng , Y. 2013, , 87, 063526

    2013

  114. [122]

    2013, , 88, 103510

    Zheng , Y., Zhang , P., Jing , Y., Lin , W., & Pan , J. 2013, , 88, 103510

    2013

  115. [123]

    1966, in Stellar Evolution, ed.\ R

    Baker, N. 1966, in Stellar Evolution, ed.\ R. F. Stein,& A. G. W. Cameron (Plenum, New York) 333

    1966

  116. [124]

    1988, A&A, 200, 58

    Balluch, M. 1988, A&A, 200, 58

    1988

  117. [125]

    Cox, J. P. 1980, Theory of Stellar Pulsation (Princeton University Press, Princeton) 165

    1980

  118. [126]

    N.,& Stewart, J

    Cox, A. N.,& Stewart, J. N. 1969, Academia Nauk, Scientific Information 15, 1

    1969

  119. [127]

    1980, Prog

    Mizuno H. 1980, Prog. Theor. Phys., 64, 544

    1980

  120. [128]

    Tscharnuter W. M. 1987, A&A, 188, 55

    1987

  121. [129]

    1992, in ASP Conf

    Terlevich, R. 1992, in ASP Conf. Ser. 31, Relationships between Active Galactic Nuclei and Starburst Galaxies, ed. A. V. Filippenko, 13

    1992

  122. [130]

    Yorke, H. W. 1980a, A&A, 86, 286

  123. [131]

    F., Tytler, D

    Zheng, W., Davidsen, A. F., Tytler, D. & Kriss, G. A. 1997, preprint

    1997

  124. [132]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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