Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The importance of super-Eddington black hole accretion for the emergence of massive quiescent galaxies at high redshift

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Super-Eddington black hole growth is why JWST sees massive quiet galaxies so early

desk verdict Clean controlled experiments make a solid case that super-Eddington accretion is the COLIBRE ingredient that explains the JWST MQG counts; the main caveat about subgrid artifacts is real but not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.15207 v2 pith:DJ4RV6DO submitted 2026-01-21 astro-ph.GA

Evgenii Chaikin , Joop Schaye , Filip Huško , Cedric G. Lacey , Sylvia Ploeckinger , Matthieu Schaller This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords super-EddingtonaccretionmassivequiescentgalaxieshighredshiftAGNfeedbackblackholegrowthJWSTcosmologicalsimulations
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 claims that the reason the COLIBRE galaxy-formation simulations match JWST observations of massive quiescent galaxies at redshift above 6 is that their black holes are allowed to accrete gas much faster than the Eddington limit. By rerunning the same simulations with the black-hole accretion rate capped at the Eddington rate and at 10 percent of it, the authors show that only the super-Eddington-allowing model reproduces the observed abundance of these early 'dead' galaxies. The enhanced black-hole growth triggers AGN feedback early enough to shut off star formation in massive galaxies. About half of the black-hole mass accreted at high redshift in the simulations is gained in short, rare super-Eddington bursts. A sympathetic reader would conclude that super-Eddington accretion is not a side detail but a load-bearing ingredient for explaining the early universe.

What carries the argument

The central control parameter is the maximum allowed Eddington fraction f_Edd,max, the cap on the black-hole accretion rate in units of the Eddington rate. The accretion rate itself is a modified Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton formula with turbulence and vorticity corrections, capped at f_Edd,max = 10^2 in the fiducial model and at 1 and 0.1 in the variation runs. Varying this one parameter while holding all other subgrid physics fixed isolates the role of super-Eddington accretion in driving early black-hole growth, AGN feedback, and galaxy quenching.

What would settle it

A direct check is to run the same COLIBRE setup at higher resolution (m6 or m5) in the same 100 cMpc box: if the super-Eddington bursts and the excess of quiescent galaxies disappear or shrink dramatically when the Bondi radius is better resolved, the central claim collapses. Observationally, a stacking analysis of z>6 massive galaxies that yields Eddington ratios clustered at or below unity for the actively accreting population would contradict the f_Edd∼10 events required by the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The fiducial COLIBRE model, which caps black-hole accretion at 100 times the Eddington rate, is consistent with JWST number-density constraints for massive quiescent galaxies at z≳6, whereas models capped at the Eddington limit or at 0.1 times it strongly undershoot the data. In the fiducial model, black holes in massive high-redshift galaxies undergo bursts with Eddington fractions f_Edd∼10, and by z≈6 roughly 50 percent of their accreted mass is gained in super-Eddington events, even though black holes spend only a few percent of their time in that regime. These bursts push black-hole masses up early, switch on AGN feedback sooner, and quench the host galaxies, producing the observed early

Load-bearing premise

The modified Bondi-Hoyle formula with turbulence and vorticity corrections is assumed to produce physically meaningful super-Eddington accretion events, rather than being artificially inflated by unresolved cold, dense gas near the black-hole particle; if inflated, the early quenching and the JWST agreement would be numerical accidents.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Galaxy-formation models that forbid super-Eddington accretion will systematically underpredict the abundance of massive quiescent galaxies at z≥6, so such models need this physics to match JWST.
  • Super-Eddington accretion, though episodic, can dominate the mass budget of black hole growth at high redshift, implying that Eddington-limited growth assumptions are inadequate for early massive black holes.
  • The earlier onset of AGN feedback produced by rapid black-hole growth is the proximate cause of early quenching, connecting black-hole accretion physics directly to the star-formation histories of massive galaxies.
  • The models with and without super-Eddington accretion converge by z≈5, so the effect is specific to the first gigayear of galaxy formation rather than a general low-redshift feature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If super-Eddington accretion is genuinely at work, it eases the seed black-hole problem: heavy seeds are not required because a modest seed can balloon to 10^8–10^9 solar masses within a few hundred million years, consistent with JWST-discovered overmassive black holes at z>6.
  • A direct observational test is to measure Eddington ratios of z>6 massive galaxies: if X-ray, radio, or mid-infrared stacking shows that their black holes are accreting near or below Eddington, then the simulation's super-Eddington bursts would be ruled out as the driving mechanism.
  • The verdict on this mechanism is sensitive to the subgrid treatment of small-scale cold gas: higher-resolution runs (m6, m5) that resolve the Bondi radius should be checked to see whether the f_Edd>1 bursts persist or dissolve into ordinary Eddington-limited accretion, which would separate a physical effect from a numerical artifact.
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. The paper uses controlled COLIBRE simulations in a (100 cMpc)^3 volume at m7 resolution, varying only the maximum allowed Eddington fraction of black hole accretion (f_Edd,max = 10^2, 1, 0.1) while keeping all other physics and initial conditions fixed. It reports that the fiducial model that allows super-Eddington accretion produces massive quiescent galaxies (MQGs) at z>6 and matches recent JWST number-density estimates, whereas the capped models produce no or very few MQGs. It further quantifies that in the fiducial model about half of the high-redshift BH accreted mass is gained at f_Edd>1, even though such events are rare in time. The paper concludes that super-Eddington BH accretion is the key process enabling early quenching and resolving the tension with JWST observations.

Significance. The strength of the work is its clean experimental design: identical initial conditions, only the Eddington cap is varied, and the JWST data are external and were not used for calibration. If the result holds, it identifies the microphysical mechanism behind the success of COLIBRE in reproducing early massive quiescent galaxies. The paper also provides quantitative diagnostics (fraction of mass accreted in different f_Edd bins) that allow the mechanism to be inspected. However, the central claim rests on (i) number-density comparisons with only a handful of simulated and observed galaxies, and (ii) the assumption that the subgrid Bondi-Hoyle rates leading to f_Edd>1 are physically faithful. Both require scrutiny before the conclusion can be accepted as firmly established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Fig. 3] The paper claims that the f_Edd,max=1 and 0.1 models 'strongly undershoot' the JWST constraints and that only the fiducial model is consistent. However, the simulated volume yields only one MQG at z~7 and three at z~6.5 in the fiducial model, and zero in the f_Edd,max=1 model. The JWST data points themselves are based on one or few objects (e.g., Weibel et al. 2025). With Poisson statistics, zero events in a volume of 10^6 cMpc^3 is not formally inconsistent with an observed density of ~10^-6 cMpc^-3 at the 95% level. The paper does not provide a significance test or likelihood comparison. The conclusion of inconsistency therefore needs quantitative support, e.g., Poisson confidence intervals on the model predictions and a statement of the confidence with which the capped models are excluded by the current data.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Sec. 3, Figs. 1 and 4] The physical interpretation of the f_Edd>1 events as genuine super-Eddington accretion relies on the modified Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton subgrid prescription. At m7 resolution with a 1.4 pkpc gravitational softening, cold dense gas that is unresolved can inflate the Bondi rate, making the apparent super-Eddington episodes numerical artifacts rather than real accretion phenomena. The paper cites higher-resolution COLIBRE runs and external zoom-in simulations, but it does not present a resolution study of the f_Edd variation or of the specific super-Eddington events analysed here. Without such a demonstration, the claim that 'super-Eddington growth' is what resolves the JWST tension is not fully established; the controlled variation demonstrates only that the cap matters, not that the rates above the Eddington limit are physical. The authors should either add a resolution comparison (e.g., m6/m
  3. [Sec. 3, Fig. 3] The comparison with observational number densities is affected by cosmic variance because the simulation volume is only (100 cMpc)^3, corresponding to an expected count of order unity at the claimed density of 10^-6 cMpc^-3. The paper acknowledges this and cites larger-volume runs from Chaikin et al. (2025b), but the model variations (f_Edd,max = 1 and 0.1) are only run in the small volume. The paper should at least discuss how cosmic variance could affect the inferred significance of the difference between the models, or ideally run the variations in a larger volume (if feasible) to increase the sample size.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3, Fig. 3 caption] The caption says the shaded region shows 'the maximum of the 16th–84th percentile range and Poisson uncertainties'. It would be clearer to state explicitly whether the shaded band is the union of these two uncertainties or the larger envelope, and how the 300 bootstrap realizations are used in the Poisson term.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, footnote 2] The footnote explaining that f_Edd,max=10^2 is chosen for numerical reasons is useful, but the text around it could clarify that the cap is rarely reached in practice (as stated later in Sec. 3) to avoid the impression that the model is tuned to reproduce f_Edd~10 events.
  3. [Fig. 1 top-right panel] The black dotted lines for f_Edd=1 and 0.1 growth assume continuous accretion starting at z=10 and z=9. It would help to state in the caption whether this includes the seed mass and whether the starting redshift is chosen arbitrarily or motivated by the simulations.
  4. [Sec. 3, Fig. 4] The cumulative fractions in Fig. 4 are computed over all BH particles. The text states that super-Eddington events contribute 50–70% of accreted mass at z≳7, but the exact redshift binning and the definition of 'accretion event' (time-step versus continuous) could be spelled out in the caption for reproducibility.
  5. [Global] The paper repeatedly uses 'colibre' in lowercase in the running text and 'COLIBRE' in the title/abstract. Please standardise the capitalization, as journal style typically uses small caps for code names.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the f_Edd,max variation is a controlled experiment and the JWST comparison is external and uncalibrated.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that super-Eddington accretion (f_Edd,max=10^2) is required to match JWST MQG number densities at z>6—rests on a controlled variation of one parameter (Sec. 2.2) while all other physics is held fixed. The JWST data (Weibel et al. 2025; Yang et al. 2025; Baker et al. 2025b; Russell et al. 2025) are external and were not used to calibrate COLIBRE or to select f_Edd,max; the COLIBRE feedback strengths were instead calibrated to z=0 relations (GSMF, size–M*, BH mass–M*), which are independent of the high-redshift MQG abundance being predicted. The fiducial model was re-run with identical initial conditions for consistency, and the variants differ only in the accretion cap, so the differential result is a genuine prediction rather than a fitted input. Figures 1, 2, and 4 diagnose model behaviour (f_Edd distributions and accreted-mass fractions) rather than redefine the target; the reported ~50% super-Eddington mass fraction is not forced by the cap, since the cap is rarely reached and the model accretes at f_Edd~10. The paper's self-citations to Chaikin et al. (2025b) and Chandro-Gómez et al. (2025) are used for consistency checks in larger volumes and for the model's external validation; they do not supply the central parameter-dependence argument, which is demonstrated by the new controlled runs. The stated limitation that BH physics in COLIBRE is 'captured rather crudely' and the absence of a same-work resolution study are legitimate physical/correctness concerns about numerical artifacts, but they do not constitute circularity under the definitions used here: no target result is assumed in the inputs, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the COLIBRE subgrid model and on external JWST observations; the only new ad-hoc inputs are the cap values and the 0.3-dex scatter used in the comparison. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Maximum allowed Eddington fraction f_Edd,max = 10^2 (fiducial), 1, 0.1
    Central variable; chosen to test the role of super-Eddington accretion, motivated by physical arguments and numerical convenience; not calibrated to MQG abundance.
  • Lognormal scatter sigma=0.3 dex for SFR and M* = 0.3 dex
    Added to simulated galaxies to mimic JWST measurement uncertainties before computing n_MQG; affects the f_Edd,max=0.1 prediction, generating MQGs that would otherwise be absent.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The COLIBRE subgrid model (Bondi-Hoyle accretion with Krumholz corrections, thermal AGN feedback with Delta T proportional to m_BH) faithfully represents unresolved BH growth and feedback.
    Sec 2.1; the causal role assigned to super-Eddington accretion is meaningful only if this subgrid recipe is realistic.
  • domain assumption The JWST MQG number densities and selection criteria used as benchmarks are accurate.
    Sec 3; if the observed counts or redshift assignments are systematically wrong, the tension being explained is different.
  • ad hoc to paper A single (100 cMpc)^3 m7 realization is sufficient to estimate n_MQG ~ 10^-6 cMpc^-3 and to distinguish the models.
    Sec 2.2/3; the fiducial model produces only ~1–3 MQGs in the z=6–7 bins, so the zero counts in the f_Edd,max=1 and 0.1 runs are the main evidence; the paper cites larger-volume runs in companion papers to mitigate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The importance of super-Eddington black hole accretion for the emergence of massive quiescent galaxies at high redshift." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DJ4RV6DO

@misc{pith2026260115207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The importance of super-Eddington black hole accretion for the emergence of massive quiescent galaxies at high redshift},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DJ4RV6DO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.15207}
}
abstract

Recent JWST observations indicate that massive quiescent galaxies (stellar mass $M_{*}\gtrsim 10^{10}~\mathrm{M_\odot}$) at high redshift ($z\gtrsim 6$) are more abundant than predicted by most existing galaxy formation simulations and semi-analytic models. Notably, the new COLIBRE simulations have succeeded in reconciling this tension, though the precise reason for their improved agreement with JWST data remains unclear. We demonstrate that the improved agreement is largely due to super-Eddington growth of supermassive black holes (BHs) at high redshift. We run a series of $(100~\mathrm{cMpc})^{3}$ simulations with the COLIBRE subgrid physics at m7 COLIBRE resolution (gas and dark matter particle masses $m_{\rm gas}\approx m_{\rm dm}\sim 10^7~\mathrm{M_\odot}$), varying the maximum allowed BH accretion rate in units of the Eddington rate. We show that only the fiducial COLIBRE model, which permits super-Eddington accretion, is consistent with the JWST constraints at $z \gtrsim 6$. Moreover, we find that in COLIBRE about $50$ per cent of BH mass growth at high redshift occurs in the super-Eddington regime, even though such events are extremely rare in time. Our work highlights the important role of super-Eddington accretion in simulations of galaxy formation for reproducing the observed early emergence of quenching of massive galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.15207 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of a representative massive galaxy whose star formation is quenched by AGN feedback in the simulations with different maximum allowed Eddington fractions: 𝑓Edd,max = 102 (yellow), 1 (red), and 0.1 (blue). In all three cases, the evolution of the same galaxy is shown. From left to right, the top row shows the galaxy stellar mass, its sSFR, and its BH mass. The bottom row shows the Eddington fraction, the c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the sSFR (top), BH mass (middle), and the cumulative fraction of BH mass accreted at 𝑓Edd > 1, all plotted against stellar mass. Results are shown for simulations with 𝑓Edd,max = 102 , 1, and 0.1 (colours). Columns show different redshifts (left to right): 7.5, 7, 6.5, and 6. Solid lines indicate the median relations and shaded regions the 16th to 84th percentiles, all computed in 0.2-dex 𝑀∗ bins. In th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the comoving number density of MQGs in simula￾tions with different maximum allowed Eddington fractions: 𝑓Edd,max = 102 (yellow), 1 (red), and 0.1 (blue). Solid curves show predictions after adding 0.3 dex lognormal errors to SFRs and 𝑀∗; dotted curves show results with￾out errors. Black symbols indicate JWST constraints. Only the fiducial model ( 𝑓Edd,max = 102 ), which allows super-Eddington BH accreti… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative fraction of BH mass accreted (top panel) and time spent (bottom panel) in accretion events at different Eddington fractions (colour￾coded). Results are shown for the model with 𝑓Edd,max = 102 , using all BH particles in the simulation to calculate the cumula…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. The evolution of galaxy dust scaling relations in the COLIBRE simulations

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

    The COLIBRE simulations reproduce the broad evolution of galaxy dust scaling relations from z=15 to 0, but overproduce the z<1 cosmic dust mass density and miss the most extreme sub-millimeter galaxies.

  2. The influence of feedback on the baryonic content of haloes in the COLIBRE simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The halo gas fraction–halo mass relation in COLIBRE is non-monotonic and depends strongly on the subgrid AGN feedback model, with jet-hybrid feedback producing lower group gas fractions that better match eROSITA and k...

  3. How to raise a supermassive black hole: interpreting early JWST AGN with the AESOPICA simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic simulation suite with a mock JWST survey shows early overmassive black holes can arise from any seed mass under fast accretion, and broad-line selection explains much of the observed overmassiveness.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520 2022

  2. [2]

    A., Czerny B., Lasota J

    Abramowicz M. A., Czerny B., Lasota J. P., Szuszkiewicz E., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...332..646A 332, 646

    doi:10.1086/166683 1988

  3. [3]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1339 2022

  4. [4]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf475

  5. [5]

    M., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202555829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...702A.270B 702, A270

    Baker W. M., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202555829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...702A.270B 702, A270

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555829

  6. [6]

    C., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/187.2.237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979MNRAS.187..237B 187, 237

    Begelman M. C., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/187.2.237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979MNRAS.187..237B 187, 237

    doi:10.1093/mnras/187.2.237 1979

  7. [7]

    arXiv:2509.25309

    Ben \' tez-Llambay A., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2509.25309 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250925309B p. arXiv:2509.25309

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.25309 2025

  8. [8]

    S., Sijacki D., Costa T., Laporte N., Witten C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.1033B 527, 1033

    Bennett J. S., Sijacki D., Costa T., Laporte N., Witten C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.1033B 527, 1033

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3179 2024

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Bondi H., 1952, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952MNRAS.112..195B 112, 195

    1952 doi

  2. [10]

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

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

    2009

  3. [11]

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

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

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Schaye J., Ludlow A

    Borrow J., Schaller M., Bah \'e Y. M., Schaye J., Ludlow A. D., Ploeckinger S., Nobels F. S. J., Altamura E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2441B 526, 2441

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

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

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

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

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

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

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

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

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

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

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    arXiv:2509.04067

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

    doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    arXiv:2509.07960

    Chaikin E., et al., 2025b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250907960C p. arXiv:2509.07960

    doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    arXiv:2512.16208

    Chandro-G \'o mez \'A ., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2512.16208 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251216208C p. arXiv:2512.16208

    2025 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

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

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

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Dalla Vecchia C., Schaye J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21704.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426..140D 426, 140

    2012

  14. [22]

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

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

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Dubois Y., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1227 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1453D 444, 1453

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Dubois Y., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A.109D 651, A109

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941..106F 941, 106

    Farina E. P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941..106F 941, 106

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Helly J., McGibbon R., Schaye J., Schaller M., Han J., Kugel R., Bah \'e Y

    Forouhar Moreno V. J., Helly J., McGibbon R., Schaye J., Schaller M., Han J., Kugel R., Bah \'e Y. M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1478 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.543.1339F 543, 1339

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Glazebrook K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature21680 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.544...71G 544, 71

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    Glazebrook K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07191-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.628..277G 628, 277

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

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

    doi

  22. [30]

    Graaff de Graaff de Graaff A., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452186 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...697A.189D 697, A189

    doi

  23. [31]

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

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

    2020

  24. [32]

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

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

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

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

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

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959...39H 959, 39

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Puchwein E., Shen S., Sijacki D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1780 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.5385H 479, 5385

    Henden N. A., Puchwein E., Shen S., Sijacki D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1780 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.5385H 479, 5385

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    A., 1939, @doi [Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society] 10.1017/S0305004100021150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1939PCPS...35..405H 35, 405

    Hoyle F., Lyttleton R. A., 1939, @doi [Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society] 10.1017/S0305004100021150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1939PCPS...35..405H 35, 405

    1939 doi

  29. [37]

    arXiv:2509.05179

    Hu s ko F., et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2509.05179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250905179H p. arXiv:2509.05179

    doi

  30. [38]

    G., Roper W

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

    doi

  31. [39]

    P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.3738I 459, 3738

    Inayoshi K., Haiman Z., Ostriker J. P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.3738I 459, 3738

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Juod z balis I., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-08210-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.636..594J 636, 594

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    R., McKee C

    Krumholz M. R., McKee C. F., Klein R. I., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...638..369K 638, 369

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    Lagos C. d. P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.3551L 531, 3551

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    C., Vijayan A

    Lovell C. C., Vijayan A. P., Thomas P. A., Wilkins S. M., Barnes D. J., Irodotou D., Roper W., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3360 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.2127L 500, 2127

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2550 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.5520L 525, 5520

    Lovell C. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2550 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.5520L 525, 5520

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348788 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A.256L 686, A256

    Lupi A., Quadri G., Volonteri M., Colpi M., Regan J. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348788 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A.256L 686, A256

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Maiolino R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A.145M 691, A145

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    McGibbon R., Helly J., Schaye J., Schaller M., Vandenbroucke B., 2025, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.08252 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JOSS...10.8252M 10, 8252

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    Merlin E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.3309M 490, 3309

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500..663M 500, 663

    Michaux M., Hahn O., Rampf C., Angulo R. E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500..663M 500, 663

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Muzzin A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777...18M 777, 18

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    Nobels F. S. J., Schaye J., Schaller M., Ploeckinger S., Chaikin E., Richings A. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1390 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3299N 532, 3299

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Pezzulli E., Valiante R., Schneider R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.3047P 458, 3047

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4077P 473, 4077

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Schaye J., Trayford J

    Ploeckinger S., Richings A. J., Schaye J., Trayford J. W., Schaller M., Chaikin E., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.15773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250615773P p. arXiv:2506.15773

    2025 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    J., Schaye J., Oppenheimer B

    Richings A. J., Schaye J., Oppenheimer B. D., 2014a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.3349R 440, 3349

    doi

  48. [56]

    J., Schaye J., Oppenheimer B

    Richings A. J., Schaye J., Oppenheimer B. D., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.2780R 442, 2780

    doi

  49. [57]

    A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1916 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.544.4482R 544, 4482

    Russell T. A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1916 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.544.4482R 544, 4482

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    Schaller M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae922 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.2378S 530, 2378

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    Schaye J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446..521S 446, 521

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    arXiv:2508.21126

    Schaye J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21126 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250821126S p. arXiv:2508.21126

    2025 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    Schmidt M., 1959, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146614 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1959ApJ...129..243S 129, 243

    1959 doi

  54. [62]

    Schreiber C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A..85S 618, A85

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    S a dowski A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/183/2/171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..183..171S 183, 171

    2009 doi

  56. [64]

    D., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf2087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.545f2087S 545, staf2087

    Stevenson S. D., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf2087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.545f2087S 545, staf2087

    2026 doi

  57. [65]

    Suh H., et al., 2025, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02402-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NatAs...9..271S 9, 271

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    A., Lovell C

    Thomas P. A., Lovell C. C., Maltz M. G. A., Vijayan A. P., Wilkins S. M., Irodotou D., Roper W. J., Seeyave L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1819 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524...43T 524, 43

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    W., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250513056T p

    Trayford J. W., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250513056T p. arXiv:2505.13056

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    arXiv:2412.14248

    Trinca A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14248 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241214248T p. arXiv:2412.14248

    2024 doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    C., Roper W

    Turner J. C., Roper W. J., Vijayan A. P., Newman S. L., Wilkins S. M., Lovell C. C., Liao S., Seeyave L. T. C., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2509.16111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250916111T p. arXiv:2509.16111

    2025 doi

  62. [70]

    Valentino F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889...93V 889, 93

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    Valentino F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acbefa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...947...20V 947, 20

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1536 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1518V 444, 1518

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/466521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633..624V 633, 624

    Volonteri M., Rees M. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/466521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633..624V 633, 624

    2005 doi

  66. [74]

    Wang F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907L...1W 907, L1

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    Weibel A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adab7a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983...11W 983, 11

    2025 doi

  68. [76]

    arXiv:2510.12235

    Yang T., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.12235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251012235Y p. arXiv:2510.12235

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    arXiv:2508.08577

    Zhang Y., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2508.08577 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250808577Z p. arXiv:2508.08577

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.