Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 92 references

Exploring the evolution of a dwarf spheroidal galaxy with SPH simulations: II. AGN feedback

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In an isolated dwarf spheroidal galaxy, an intermediate-mass black hole barely grows but its feedback can still suppress or even boost star formation.

desk verdict Useful parameter-space study with a robust no-growth result for IMBH seeds in an isolated dSph, but the quantitative AGN suppression claims for 10^4 solar-mass seeds rest on shaky subgrid and resolution choices. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03985 v1 pith:GRFTJFRN submitted 2025-01-07 astro-ph.GA

R. Hazenfratz , P. Barai , G. A. Lanfranchi , A. Caproni This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarfspheroidalgalaxiesAGNfeedbackintermediate-massblackholeshydrodynamicalsimulationsstarformationhistoryholegrowthLeoIIisolated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether an intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) at the center of a dwarf spheroidal galaxy like Leo II can grow by gas accretion and whether its feedback meaningfully shapes the galaxy's evolution. Using isolated hydrodynamical simulations spanning 13.7 Gyr, it finds that the black hole seeds grow very little—never more than about 2.4 times their initial mass—regardless of seed mass, feedback efficiency, or wind velocity. Yet the same simulations show that AGN feedback is far from negligible: a $10^{4}$ solar-mass seed suppresses star formation by tens of percent, $10^{5}$ and $10^{6}$ solar-mass seeds quench it almost completely, and $10^{3}$ solar-mass seeds can even produce positive feedback that enhances star formation. The study matters because it suggests that isolated dwarfs with detected AGN could serve as clean laboratories for constraining black hole seeding mechanisms, and that low-luminosity AGN can regulate star formation in galaxies down to ~$10^{9}$ solar-mass halos.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a subgrid black hole accretion and feedback model built on the Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion rate, corrected by a factor α (set to 100 in the fiducial runs) to account for the unresolved Bondi radius. The AGN feedback is implemented as thermal heating plus kinetic winds with an energy-driven outflow rate that depends on feedback efficiency εf and wind velocity vw. This machinery determines both how much the black hole grows and how much energy is injected into the surrounding gas, which in turn drives the star formation suppression or enhancement seen in the simulations.

What would settle it

A high-resolution simulation that resolves the Bondi radius (or uses a calibrated subgrid model from such a run) for the same Leo II-like setup, checking whether the black hole grows beyond a factor of 2.4 and whether star formation is still suppressed by tens of percent; alternatively, an observational census finding a $10^{5}$ solar-mass IMBH in a dwarf spheroidal that is still forming stars would conflict with the paper's prediction that such a seed completely quenches the galaxy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that IMBHs in an isolated dwarf spheroidal accrete so little gas that their final masses remain within the same order of magnitude as their seeds (MBH,final/MBH,seed < 2.4 across all tested models), while still exerting measurable feedback on the host galaxy. For a $10^{4}$ solar-mass seed with a 1% feedback efficiency, the final stellar mass drops by up to ~70% depending on wind velocity; at 5% efficiency the reduction is ~88-91%. Seeds of $10^{5}$ solar masses reduce stellar mass by 90-99%, and $10^{6}$ solar-mass seeds suppress star formation entirely. Conversely, $10^{3}$ solar-mass seeds with an intermediate wind velocity of 3000 km/s increase final stellar mass by ~8-11%, a case of positive AGN feedback attributed to shock compression of gas. The paper concludes that IMBHs probably need mergers or gas-rich interactions to grow, and that feedback efficiencies above 5% are likely too high for dwarf spheroidals like Leo II.

Load-bearing premise

The Bondi accretion rate is multiplied by a factor α = 100 to compensate for the unresolved Bondi radius, and the fiducial AGN feedback parameters are taken from simulations of more massive galaxies; if the true α or coupling efficiency is much smaller, the magnitude of AGN feedback on the host weakens substantially, though the limited black hole growth is robust.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a 10^4 solar-mass IMBH exists in a Leo II-type dwarf, it could be observationally hidden while still having altered the galaxy's star formation history by tens of percent, so the absence of AGN signatures does not rule out a significant feedback role.
  • The severe quenching caused by 10^5-10^6 solar-mass seeds implies that such massive IMBHs are unlikely to reside in dSphs that retain gas or show recent star formation.
  • The near-zero growth of isolated seeds suggests that observed IMBHs in dwarf galaxies must have grown through mergers or interactions, making occupied dwarfs a probe of past accretion history.
  • Feedback efficiencies calibrated on massive galaxies (εf ≥ 0.05) appear too aggressive for dSphs; lower efficiencies near 1% or below are more plausible in the low-mass regime.
  • Wandering black holes reduce feedback impact relative to a centrally fixed BH, so the dynamical state of the IMBH must be considered when interpreting feedback effects in real dwarfs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If isolated dwarfs do not grow their IMBHs, then the current occupation fraction in such galaxies directly reflects the seeding mechanism, turning local dwarf spheroidals into a practical test bed for distinguishing seed formation scenarios.
  • The positive feedback at vw = 3000 km/s suggests a non-monotonic relationship between AGN power and star formation; similar effects could appear in other low-mass galaxies if AGN-driven turbulence compresses gas rather than expelling it.
  • The strong dependence on the accretion factor α (Table 3) implies that resolving the Bondi radius, or calibrating α with high-resolution simulations, is essential for making quantitative predictions about AGN feedback in dwarfs.
  • The simulated ejection of some IMBHs from isolated dwarfs, if physically real, would produce free-floating black holes in the field, a prediction that could be tested with proper-motion surveys or gravitational-wave detections of IMBH mergers.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents smoothed-particle hydrodynamic simulations of an isolated, Leo II-like dwarf spheroidal galaxy, extending the authors' earlier stellar-feedback-only model by adding AGN feedback from a central intermediate-mass black hole. It explores BH seeds from 10^3 to 10^6 M_sun and varies the Bondi boost factor, feedback efficiency, wind velocity, thermal versus kinetic feedback, BH repositioning, wind geometry, and radiative efficiency. The headline results are that the BH seeds grow very little (final-to-seed mass ratios remain below about 2.4), and that AGN feedback can suppress star formation substantially for 10^4-10^6 M_sun seeds, with some positive feedback for 10^3 M_sun seeds. The authors conclude that IMBHs in isolated dSphs grow inefficiently and that low-efficiency AGN feedback may still have non-negligible effects on the host galaxy.

Significance. If the quantitative feedback magnitudes were robust, the paper would provide a useful constraint on IMBH seeding mechanisms and on the calibration of subgrid AGN models in the low-mass galaxy regime. The paper's strengths include a broad parameter-space exploration, explicit reporting of simulation parameters in Table 2, and a dedicated resolution appendix. The robust part of the work is the limited BH growth, which is consistent across the explored parameter space. The less robust part is the magnitude of the AGN's effect on star formation, which depends strongly on the uncalibrated Bondi boost factor and on numerical resolution; the authors themselves acknowledge both uncertainties in Sections 2.2, 3.8, and the Appendix.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.8, Table 3] The claimed 'tens of percent' star-formation suppression for 10^4 M_sun seeds is not robust to the uncalibrated Bondi boost factor alpha. For runs TK4A100E1V3R, TK4A10E1V3R, and TK4A1E1V3R, the final stellar mass changes are -51%, -1%, and -31%, respectively, and the ordering is non-monotonic in alpha (alpha=1 suppresses more than alpha=10). Because Section 2.2 states that alpha=100 is uncertain for dwarfs and Section 3.8 reports that the Bondi radius is unresolved by factors of 7 to 100, the quantitative AGN-impact claim is conditional on alpha; the paper should either justify alpha for this regime or reframe the suppression magnitudes as upper/lower limits.
  2. [Appendix, Table 4 and Figs. 19-20] The resolution test shows that doubling the number of gas particles changes the final stellar mass by +60% (reduced to +20% when the stellar mass loading factor is retuned), shifts the BH ejection time to earlier cosmic times, and the text explicitly states that 'strict numerical convergence was not attained.' This directly affects the quantitative SFH comparisons in Section 3.2.1 and the BH ejection claim in Section 3.5; the paper should either demonstrate convergence for the reported magnitudes or present the AGN feedback effect as tentative and resolution-dependent.
  3. [Sec. 3.2.1 and Fig. 6] All percentage changes in stellar mass are computed relative to a single fiducial stellar-only run from Hazenfratz et al. (2024), with no estimate of run-to-run stochasticity. Since the paper itself attributes one +1.3% case to stochastic fluctuations, the reader cannot distinguish physical sensitivity from numerical scatter in values ranging from -1% to -51%; reporting multiple stellar-only realizations or a stochasticity estimate would clarify which differences are meaningful.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.1] The text 'around 600 Gyr' should read 'around 600 Myr' to be consistent with the time axis of Fig. 5.
  2. [Secs. 3.2.1 and 3.3] The word 'discrete' is repeatedly used where 'discreet' is meant, for example when describing the reduction in star formation activity and the attenuation of outflows.
  3. [Sec. 4] There is a typo in the discussion: 'negative feedback thay variably suppresses' should read 'negative feedback that variably suppresses.'
  4. [Table 2] Rows 3 and 10 both carry the label TK3A100E1V5 with identical parameters; this duplicate entry should be removed or renamed to avoid confusion.
  5. [Caption of Fig. 5] The caption states 'BHseed = 10^6 M⊙' but the text notes the yellow curve does not appear because star formation is completely suppressed; the caption should explicitly say that this curve is absent for that reason.
  6. [Sec. 3.8] The sentence describing the Bondi radius resolution, 'the spatial resolution being greater by 7 times up to 2 orders of magnitude than this parameter over time,' is awkward and should be rephrased for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central simulation results are not fitted to their own conclusions; self-citations provide context and baselines, not load-bearing derivation.

full rationale

The paper's claims are simulation outputs, not derived quantities that reduce to their inputs by construction. Black hole growth is integrated from the Bondi accretion rate (Eq. 1) with an explicitly uncertain boost alpha, and the resulting MBH,final/MBH,seed ratios are measured outcomes (Fig. 4), not fitted targets. The AGN feedback impact on star formation is likewise a simulated comparison against a fiducial stellar-only run; the magnitude depends on adopted subgrid parameters (epsilon_f, vw, alpha), and the paper openly reports this sensitivity and the non-monotonic behavior in Table 3, including that alpha=10 gives -1% while alpha=1 gives -31% for the 10^4 Msun seed. Such parameter dependence is a robustness concern, not circularity. The authors cite their own prior work (Hazenfratz et al. 2024) for initial conditions and the fiducial stellar-feedback baseline, and Barai et al. (2014) / Barai & de Gouveia Dal Pino (2019) for AGN parameter ranges, but these citations supply adopted model components, not the target conclusions; the AGN behavior is simulated rather than read off from those inputs. The appendix's admission that 'strict numerical convergence was not attained' is an acknowledged limitation affecting quantitative strength, not a circular step. No equation in the paper is equivalent to another by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the paper is self-contained for its qualitative central claims, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The central claims rest on a set of standard subgrid models and on several free parameters inherited from simulations of more massive galaxies. No new physical entities are introduced. The main burden is the uncertain alpha boost and the choice of feedback efficiencies, which are not independently calibrated for dwarf spheroidals.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha (Bondi accretion boost factor) = varied: 1, 10, 50, 100, 1000; fiducial 100
    Introduced to compensate for unresolved Bondi radius. Results vary strongly with alpha (Table 3).
  • epsilon_f (AGN feedback efficiency) = 0.01 and 0.05
    Adopted from massive galaxy simulations (Barai et al. 2014, Di Matteo et al. 2005). Higher values were excluded after excessive quenching.
  • vw (AGN wind injection velocity) = 1000, 3000, 5000 km/s
    Free parameter of the kinetic AGN feedback model; controls outflow rate through Eq. 7.
  • epsilon_r (radiative efficiency) = 0.1 and 0.42
    0.1 is the standard adopted value; 0.42 tests a maximally spinning Kerr BH.
  • BH seed mass = 10^3 to 10^6 Msun
    The main varied quantity, spanning the intermediate-mass black hole regime.
  • Stellar feedback parameters (eta, vwind, chi_star) = eta=60, vwind=96 km/s, chi_star=0.5
    Adopted from the fiducial stellar-only simulation of Hazenfratz et al. (2024); not fitted here.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion with an alpha boost approximates gas accretion onto unresolved black holes.
    Invoked in Eq. 1 and Sec. 2.2. The Bondi radius is never resolved in these simulations, so alpha is a numerical correction whose value is uncertain.
  • domain assumption The subgrid star formation and stellar feedback model of Springel & Hernquist (2003) and Tornatore et al. (2007) is valid at the resolved scales of this simulation.
    Used in Sec. 2.1. This is a standard model but carries its own calibration.
  • domain assumption Leo II can be modeled as an isolated system with no reionization, no mergers, and no external tides over 13.7 Gyr.
    Stated in Sec. 1 and in the limitations paragraph of Sec. 4. This assumption is questionable given the galaxy's possible past interactions, and reionization is known to affect dwarf galaxies.
  • domain assumption Dynamical friction of the black hole is not explicitly modeled, but the adaptive gravitational softening indirectly captures some of its effects on scales larger than about 70 pc.
    Discussed in Sec. 3.5. The wandering and ejection results depend on this assumption and its numerical validity is partially tested only by a resolution check.
  • standard math The gas is optically thin and in ionization equilibrium, with cooling tables from Wiersma et al. (2009) and a Haardt & Madau (2001) UV background.
    Standard assumption for this type of simulation, stated in Sec. 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the evolution of a dwarf spheroidal galaxy with SPH simulations: II. AGN feedback." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GRFTJFRN

@misc{pith2026250103985,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the evolution of a dwarf spheroidal galaxy with SPH simulations: II. AGN feedback},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GRFTJFRN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03985}
}
abstract

We investigate AGN feedback from an intermediate-mass black hole at the center of a dwarf spheroidal galaxy, by performing isolated galaxy simulations using a modified version of the GADGET-3 code. We consider Leo II (PGC 34176) in the Local Group as our simulation reference model. Beginning with black hole seeds ranging from $10^3$ to $10^6$ M$_{\odot}$, our simulations focus on comparing stellar-only feedback with AGN+stellar/SN feedback over 13.7 Gyr of galactic evolution. Our results indicate that a low-mass AGN in a dwarf galaxy influences the star formation history under specific physical conditions. While AGN feedback is generally negative on star formation, instances of positive feedback were also identified. Despite measurable effects on the evolution of the dwarf host galaxy, black hole seeds exhibited only marginal growth. We tested several physical scenarios as modified models in our simulations, primarily concerning the dynamics of the central black holes, which may wander within dwarf galaxies rather than being centrally located. However, none of these adjustments significantly impacted the growth of the black hole seeds. This suggests that intermediate-mass black holes may struggle to achieve higher masses in isolated environments, with mergers and interactions likely playing crucial roles in their growth. Nevertheless, AGN feedback exhibited non-negligible effects in our simulated dwarf spheroidal galaxies, despite the assumed dominant role of stellar feedback in the low-mass regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03985 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Maps in the xy-plane for gas overdensity (with star particle positions in magenta), temperature, star formation rate, and gas radial velocity at different times for simulation TK4A100E1V5R. The green cross indicates the BH position. The gas overdensity in the first row represents a contrast with the current mean baryon density of the universe (for Ωb,0 = 0.049 - Aghanim et al. (2020)). The fourth column depicts the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Black hole accretion rate and Eddington ratio (M˙ BH/M˙ Edd) for different black hole seeds and AGN wind velocities. Feedback efficiency: ϵf = 0.05. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Time (Gyr) 10 -16 10 -15 10 -14 10 -13 10 -12 10 -11 10 -10 10 -9 10 -8 10 -7 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 A c c r e tio n r a t e , _ M a c c [ M¯ y r ¡ 1 ] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Time (Gyr) 10 -7 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Black hole accretion rate and Eddington ratio (M˙ BH/M˙ Edd) for different black hole seeds and AGN wind velocities. Feedback efficiency: ϵf = 0.01. with the highest values recorded for the 104 and 105 BH seeds. A similar rate interval was observed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Influence of black hole seed mass and AGN wind injection velocity on black hole growth. 3.1.1. Influence of the BH seed mass In general, the BH seeds with 105 M⊙ produced the highest accretion rates and Eddington ratios in Figs 2 and 3, for the first 3 Gyr of galactic …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Influence of AGN feedback on the star formation history of a simulated dwarf spheroidal galaxy, comprising different black hole seed masses and AGN wind injection velocities. The gray-shaded curve represents the fiducial simulation of Leo II with stellar feedback only,…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Influence of AGN feedback on the final stellar mass of a simulated dwarf spheroidal galaxy, evaluated as the percentage difference compared to the stellar mass generated in the fiducial simulation with stellar feedback only, from Hazenfratz et al. (2024). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Influence of AGN feedback on the gas depletion within the tidal radius (∼ 650 pc) of a simulated dwarf spheroidal galaxy for ϵf = 0.01 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stellar density profiles for selected simulated galaxies with ϵf = 0.01. Casertano & Hut (1985) demonstrated that employing the order j = 6, as chosen in our analysis, offers a convenient compromise to minimize local fluctuations while retaining the locality of the est…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Stellar density radius estimated for selected simulated galaxies with ϵf = 0.01. radius estimate, with the exception of the simulation featuring MBH,seed = 103 M⊙ and vw = 3000 km s−1 . This particular simulation displayed a decrease of ∼ 4% in this measure. Notably, a…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radial profiles of mass outflow rates estimated for selected simulations with ϵf = 0.01. 3.3. Feedbacks and outflows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Radial profiles of gas outflow velocities estimated for selected simulations with ϵf = 0.01 at 13.7 Gyr. One hypothesis considered is that the discrete reduction in outflow velocities for this case could be attributed to the wandering pathways of the black holes (see …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Maximum injected kinetic luminosity estimated for selected simulations with ϵf = 0.01. 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 MBH; seed (M¯) 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 R ela tiv e B H G r o w t h [ MB H; fi n a l = MB H; s e e d ] ²f = 0:01 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 MBH; seed…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Influence of AGN feedback modes on the growth of black hole seeds in an isolated dwarf spheroidal galaxy. M⊙ across both tested feedback efficiencies. The most significant black hole growth is observed for Mseed = 104 M⊙, yet this enhancement is not substantial enough…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Influence of AGN feedback modes on the final stellar mass of an isolated dwarf spheroidal galaxy. For BH seeds of 104 and 105 M⊙, simulations employing thermal-only AGN feedback exhibited a weaker suppression in the final stellar mass for both efficiencies, with a cas…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Impact of modifications in black hole dynamics, AGN wind geometry, and radiative and feedback efficiencies on black hole growth and the final stellar mass of an isolated dwarf spheroidal galaxy. Turning off the repositioning of the black hole at the gravitational pote…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Black hole displacements over time for selected simulations. For black hole seed mass of 103 M⊙, freezing the BH at the center turned the positive feedback case into suppression of around 8% in the final stellar mass. For black hole seed masses of 105 and 106 M⊙, the …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Time evolution of radial velocities for simulated black holes in selected simulations. The gray-shaded area represents the range of median radial velocities observed for star particles. The almost complete depletion of stellar formation for the 105 M⊙ seed could, in p…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Time evolution of radial velocity dispersion for star particles in selected simulations. Finally, to assess whether the presence of an IMBH left a dynamical signature in the stars of the simulated galaxies, we calculated the velocity dispersion for star particles with…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Star formation history of simulations in the resolution tests. DATA AVAILABILITY The simulation data are available upon request. APPENDIX A. NUMERICAL CONVERGENCE We examined how the resolution adopted in the simulations might influence our findings, as in the case of…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Black hole displacements over time in the resolution tests. It was observed that total gas depletion within the tidal radius was only achieved for the simulations at regular and higher resolutions. Regarding the stellar mass formed, the final value exhibited a decreas…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6

    2020

  2. [2]

    F., Reines, A

    Baldassare, V. F., Reines, A. E., Gallo, E., & Greene, J. E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 196

    2017

  3. [3]

    Barai, P., & de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5549

    2019

  4. [4]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4003

    Barai, P., Gallerani, S., Pallottini, A., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4003

    2018

  5. [5]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 1456

    Barai, P., Viel, M., Murante, G., Gaspari, M., & Borgani, S. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 1456

    2014

  6. [6]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 5610

    Beckmann, R., Dubois, Y., Volonteri, M., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 5610

    2023

  7. [7]

    M., Cleary, C

    Bellovary, J. M., Cleary, C. E., Munshi, F., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 2913

    2019

  8. [8]

    M., Hayoune, S., Chafla, K., et al

    Bellovary, J. M., Hayoune, S., Chafla, K., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 5129

    2021

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    2011, Galactic dynamics, Vol

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2011, Galactic dynamics, Vol. 13 (Princeton university press)

    2011

  2. [10]

    1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 195

    Bondi, H. 1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 195

    1952

  3. [11]

    1944, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 104, 273

    Bondi, H., & Hoyle, F. 1944, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 104, 273

    1944

  4. [12]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 53

    Booth, C., & Schaye, J. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 53

    2009

  5. [13]

    D., Geha, M

    Bradford, J. D., Geha, M. C., Greene, J. E., Reines, A. E., & Dickey, C. M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 50

    2018

  6. [14]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 3316

    Bryan, S., Kay, S., Duffy, A., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 3316

    2013

  7. [15]

    1985, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Casertano, S., & Hut, P. 1985, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 298, Nov. 1, 1985, p. 80-94., 298, 80

    1985

  8. [16]

    2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763

    2003

  9. [17]

    2020, Introduction to Galaxy Formation and Evolution (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ

    Cimatti, A., Fraternali, F., & Nipoti, C. 2020, Introduction to Galaxy Formation and Evolution (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press

    2020

  10. [18]

    2007, The Astronomical Journal, 134, 1938

    Koch, A. 2007, The Astronomical Journal, 134, 1938

    2007

  11. [19]

    2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08451

    Connor, T., Ba˜ nados, E., Cappelluti, N., & Foord, A. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08451

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A., Wyithe, J

    Correa, C. A., Wyithe, J. S. B., Schaye, J., & Duffy, A. R. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 1217

    2015

  13. [21]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 5698

    Hartwig, T. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 5698

    2018

  14. [22]

    1986, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 303, April 1, 1986, p. 39-55., 303, 39 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, nature, 433, 604

    1986

  15. [23]

    M., Geha, M., Wetzel, A., & El-Badry, K

    Dickey, C. M., Geha, M., Wetzel, A., & El-Badry, K. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 180

    2019

  16. [24]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 1502 Ferr´ e-Mateu, A., Durr´ e, M., Forbes, D

    Dubois, Y., Volonteri, M., Silk, J., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 1502 Ferr´ e-Mateu, A., Durr´ e, M., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 5455

    2015

  17. [25]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 539, L13

    Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 539, L13

    2000

  18. [26]

    2010, nature, 463, 203

    Governato, F., Brook, C., Mayer, L., et al. 2010, nature, 463, 203

    2010

  19. [27]

    Grcevich, J., & Putman, M. E. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 696, 385

    2009

  20. [28]

    Greene, J. E. 2012, Nature Communications, 3, 1304

    2012

  21. [29]

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

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 257

    2020

  22. [30]

    A., Pakmor, R., Naab, T., & Springel, V

    Gutcke, T. A., Pakmor, R., Naab, T., & Springel, V. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 5597

    2021

  23. [31]

    2001, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0106018

    Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2001, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0106018

    2001 arXiv

  24. [32]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 3935

    Habouzit, M., Volonteri, M., & Dubois, Y. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 3935

    2017

  25. [33]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 4912

    Haidar, H., Habouzit, M., Volonteri, M., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 4912

    2022

  26. [34]

    1950, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 62, 118

    Harrington, R., & Wilson, A. 1950, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 62, 118

    1950

  27. [35]

    A., & Caproni, A

    Hazenfratz, R., Barai, P., Lanfranchi, G. A., & Caproni, A. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal

    2024

  28. [36]

    F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 581

    2014

  29. [37]

    Hoyle, F., & Lyttleton, R. A. 1939, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 35, 405

    1939

  30. [38]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 2846

    Iannuzzi, F., & Dolag, K. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 2846

    2011

  31. [39]

    Inayoshi, K., Haiman, Z., & Ostriker, J. P. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 3738

    2016

  32. [40]

    2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 27

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 27

    2020

  33. [41]

    R., & Gebhardt, K

    Jardel, J. R., & Gebhardt, K. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 89 Kennicutt Jr, R. C. 1998a, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 189 —. 1998b, The astrophysical journal, 498, 541

    2012

  34. [42]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 134

    Geha, M. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 134

    2021

  35. [43]

    A., & Smith, M

    Koudmani, S., Sijacki, D., Bourne, M. A., & Smith, M. C. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 2047

    2019

  36. [44]

    Koudmani, S., Sijacki, D., & Smith, M. C. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 2112

    2022

  37. [45]

    N., Pustilnik, S., & Kamphuis, P

    Kurapati, S., Chengalur, J. N., Pustilnik, S., & Kamphuis, P. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 228

    2018

  38. [46]

    A., Hazenfratz, R., Caproni, A., & Silk, J

    Lanfranchi, G. A., Hazenfratz, R., Caproni, A., & Silk, J. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 32

    2021

  39. [47]

    Larson, R. B. 1974, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 169, 229

    1974

  40. [48]

    2021, arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.03974

    Li, H., Hammer, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2021, arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.03974

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, 152

    Liu, W., Veilleux, S., Canalizo, G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, 152

    2024

  42. [50]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 699, L113

    Lora, V., S´ anchez-Salcedo, F., Raga, A., & Esquivel, A. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 699, L113

    2009

  43. [51]

    J., Fender, R

    Maccarone, T. J., Fender, R. P., & Tzioumis, A. K. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 356, L17

    2005

  44. [52]

    1998, The Astronomical Journal, 115, 2285

    Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, The Astronomical Journal, 115, 2285

    1998

  45. [53]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 2735

    Manni, L., Nucita, A., De Paolis, F., Testa, V., & Ingrosso, G. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 2735

    2015

  46. [54]

    M., Canalizo, G., & Sales, L

    Manzano-King, C. M., Canalizo, G., & Sales, L. V. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 54

    2019

  47. [55]

    1998, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.435

    Mateo, M. 1998, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.435

    1998 doi

  48. [56]

    W., & Walker, M

    Mateo, M., Olszewski, E. W., & Walker, M. G. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 675, 201

    2008

  49. [57]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 4

    2012

  50. [58]

    C., & Gammie, C

    McKinney, J. C., & Gammie, C. F. 2004, The astrophysical journal, 611, 977

    2004

  51. [59]

    2017, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26, 1730021

    Mezcua, M. 2017, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26, 1730021

    2017

  52. [60]

    Mezcua, M., & S´ anchez, H. D. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 898, L30 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Santana, F. A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 66

    2020

  53. [61]

    Murray, N., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 618, 569 —. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 709, 191

    2005

  54. [62]

    1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 452, 710

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 452, 710

    1995

  55. [63]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 550, A18

    Ingrosso, G. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 550, A18

    2013

  56. [64]

    A., Nguyen, D

    Nyland, K., Davis, T. A., Nguyen, D. D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 50

    2017

  57. [65]

    1972, Astrophysical Journal, Vol

    Peebles, P. 1972, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 178, pp. 371-376 (1972), 178, 371

    1972

  58. [66]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 648

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 648

    2018

  59. [67]

    E., & Comastri, A

    Reines, A. E., & Comastri, A. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 33, e054

    2016

  60. [68]

    E., Condon, J

    Reines, A. E., Condon, J. J., Darling, J., & Greene, J. E. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, 36

    2020

  61. [69]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 916, L18

    Ricarte, A., Tremmel, M., Natarajan, P., & Quinn, T. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 916, L18

    2021

  62. [70]

    J., Johnson, M

    Sargent, A. J., Johnson, M. C., Reines, A. E., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 160

    2022

  63. [71]

    Schnittman, J. D. 2006, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0601406

    2006 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Schutte, Z., & Reines, A. E. 2022, Nature, 601, 329

    2022

  65. [73]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 337

    1973

  66. [74]

    S., Brooks, A

    Sharma, R. S., Brooks, A. M., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 897, 103

    2020

  67. [75]

    S., Brooks, A

    Sharma, R. S., Brooks, A. M., Tremmel, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 82

    2022

  68. [76]

    Shi, Y., Kremer, K., & Hopkins, P. F. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17338

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 147

    Shin, J., Woo, J.-H., Chung, A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 147

    2019

  70. [78]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 839, L13

    Silk, J. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 839, L13

    2017

  71. [79]

    Silk, J., & Rees, M. J. 1998, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9801013

    1998 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Smith, M. C. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 5417

    2021

  73. [81]

    Somerville, R. S. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 572, L23

    2002

  74. [82]

    E., Mateo, M., Walker, M

    Spencer, M. E., Mateo, M., Walker, M. G., & Olszewski, E. W. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 202

    2017

  75. [83]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 776

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 776

    2005

  76. [84]

    2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 339, 289

    Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 339, 289

    2003

  77. [85]

    E., Bullock, J

    Strigari, L. E., Bullock, J. S., Kaplinghat, M., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 676

    2007

  78. [86]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 418, L79

    2011

  79. [87]

    2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 382, 945

    Tornatore, L., Ferrara, A., & Schneider, R. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 382, 945

    2007

  80. [88]

    2010, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 18, 279 Von Hoerner, S

    Volonteri, M. 2010, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 18, 279 Von Hoerner, S. 1963, Z. Astrophys. 57, 47-82, 57

    2010

  81. [89]

    G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E

    Walker, M. G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E. W., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 667, L53

    2007

  82. [90]

    D., & Frenk, C

    White, S. D., & Frenk, C. S. 1991, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 379, Sept. 20, 1991, p. 52-79. Research supported by NASA, NSF, and SERC., 379, 52

    1991

  83. [91]

    P., Schaye, J., & Smith, B

    Wiersma, R. P., Schaye, J., & Smith, B. D. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 393, 99

    2009

  84. [92]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 5964

    Yang, J., Paragi, Z., Frey, S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 5964

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.