pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.22412 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

A systematic study of AGN feedback in a disk galaxy using MACER II: predictions of X-ray surface brightness profiles and comparison with eROSITA observations

Yuxuan Zou , Feng Yuan , Suoqing Ji , Lin He , Zhiyuan Li , Yi Zhang , Johan Comparat , Zhijie Qu
show 1 more author
Taotao Fang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 00:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords AGN feedbackX-ray surface brightnesscircumgalactic mediumeROSITAdisk galaxythermal emissionMACER simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

AGN feedback simulation produces X-ray surface brightness profiles that match eROSITA stacked observations out to 100 kpc without parameter adjustments.

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

This paper takes output from a MACER simulation of AGN feedback in a disk galaxy and computes the predicted X-ray surface brightness profile of the circumgalactic medium. The time-averaged profile is compared directly to two eROSITA stacked datasets: one for distant galaxies with stellar masses 10^10.5 to 10^11 solar masses and another for nearby L* galaxies. The simulated profile agrees with the first dataset across a broad radial range and with the second dataset from roughly 20 to 120 kpc. The comparison uses only thermal emission and keeps all model parameters fixed from earlier work on the same simulation run. The result tests whether AGN-driven heating and gas distribution in the model can account for the observed X-ray signal.

Core claim

The central claim is that the average X-ray surface brightness profile from the MACER AGN feedback simulation of a disk galaxy matches the stacked eROSITA measurements of circumgalactic medium emission for galaxies with log stellar mass 10.5-11.0 at z ~ 0.02-0.10 out to ~100 kpc, and also matches the stacked profiles for nearby L* galaxies from ~20 kpc to 120 kpc. The calculation uses simulation data without retuning any parameters and assumes only thermal bremsstrahlung and line emission.

What carries the argument

The MACER simulation of AGN feedback, which sets the density and temperature distribution of hot gas in the galactic halo and thereby determines the radial profile of thermal X-ray emissivity.

If this is right

  • The AGN feedback implementation regulates halo gas in a way that reproduces the radial X-ray brightness seen in eROSITA stacks.
  • Thermal emission from the simulated circumgalactic gas is sufficient to explain the observed profiles in the compared radial ranges.
  • The same untuned simulation can generate consistent predictions for other CGM observables such as gas fractions or star formation correlations.
  • Constraints from X-ray data support the modeled balance between black hole accretion and galaxy gas content.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Higher-resolution X-ray data at radii below 20 kpc could test whether the inner profile shape remains consistent or requires additional physics.
  • At radii beyond 120 kpc, where thermal emission weakens, non-thermal components such as cosmic rays could become detectable and alter the total brightness.
  • Applying the same simulation setup to galaxies of different masses or morphologies would show whether the X-ray match is specific to disk galaxies or more general.

Load-bearing premise

The MACER simulation accurately captures the thermal gas properties in the halo from its AGN feedback prescription, and thermal emission alone explains the observed X-ray signal.

What would settle it

A new stacked eROSITA profile for galaxies in the same mass range that shows X-ray surface brightness at 50 kpc differing significantly from the simulated time-averaged value would falsify the reported agreement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.22412 by Feng Yuan, Johan Comparat, Lin He, Suoqing Ji, Taotao Fang, Yi Zhang, Yuxuan Zou, Zhijie Qu, Zhiyuan Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Simulated versus observed CGM X-ray surface-brightness profiles as a function of projected radius. Left: Purple points (with error bars) show the stacked profile of Milky Way-mass galaxies from Z24 (median distance ∼320 Mpc); the purple shaded region indicates the 1σ uncertainty of the best-fit β model. Gold curves and shaded bands show predictions of the Fiducial model from Paper I for three gas metallici… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison between simulated and observed stacked X-ray surface brightness profiles of the CGM around Milky Way-mass galaxies. Left: Purple points with error bars show the stacked X-ray surface brightness profile from Z24, whose observational sample has a median distance of ∼320 Mpc; the purple shaded region indicates the 1σ uncertainty of the best-fit β model. The simulated profiles are convolved with the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time evolution of the total circumgalactic medium (CGM) gas mass in the simulations. Left: Total gas mass enclosed within 30–250 kpc. Right: Total gas mass enclosed within 30–400 kpc. All gas masses are shown in units of solar masses. In both panels, the green curve corresponds to the Fiducial model, while the blue curve represents the Fiducial 3 model, in which the initial CGM gas mass is increased by a f… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of simulated and observed CGM X-ray surface brightness profiles. Left: Purple points with error bars show the stacked X-ray surface brightness profile of Milky Way-mass galaxies from Z24; the purple shaded region indicates the 1σ uncertainty of the best-fit β model. Solid gold and dashed blue curves represent the mean predictions of the Fiducial and noAGN models, respectively; shaded bands mark … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time-averaged radial profiles of CGM gas properties. The gas number density profile is volume weighted, while the gas temperature and gas entropy profiles are gas mass weighted. Left: Gas number density profile. Middle: Gas temperature profile. Right: Gas entropy profile. In all panels, the green solid curve corresponds to the Fiducial model, while the blue dashed curve represents the noAGN model. 4.3. The… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recently, we have performed a systematic study of AGN feedback in a disk galaxy within the MACER framework. Various model predictions, including the AGN duty cycle, the correlation between black hole accretion rates and star formation rates, and the (cold) gas fraction, have been compared with observations and will be presented in a series of papers. As the second paper in this series, without adjusting any model parameters, we directly use the simulation data introduced in Paper I to compute the predicted X-ray surface brightness profile and compare it with eROSITA observations of circumgalactic medium (CGM) emission around galaxies, which provide important constraints on AGN feedback models. For this comparison, we adopt two stacked eROSITA radial profiles of X-ray surface brightness: (1) distant galaxies with log(M*/M_sun) = 10.5-11.0 at z ~ 0.02-0.10 from Y. Zhang et al. (2024), and (2) nearby L* galaxies within 50 Mpc from L. He and Z. Li (2026). We find that the average simulated profile over time is in good agreement with the stacked measurements of Y. Zhang et al. (2024) over a broad radial range (out to ~100 kpc). Our model predictions also match the results of L. He and Z. Li (2026) at projected radii from ~20 kpc to 120 kpc. While our simulations, which predict only thermal emission, are consistent with these recent X-ray observations, the limitations in our current model mean that this agreement does not preclude a potential contribution from non-thermal emission, for example, from an extended halo of cosmic rays.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. This paper, the second in a series, uses simulation data from the MACER framework (Paper I) without any parameter adjustments to compute predicted X-ray surface brightness profiles of the circumgalactic medium (CGM) in a disk galaxy. These predictions are compared to two sets of stacked eROSITA observations: distant galaxies from Y. Zhang et al. (2024) and nearby L* galaxies from L. He and Z. Li (2026). The authors report that the time-averaged simulated profile agrees well with the observations over a broad radial range, out to approximately 100 kpc for the first dataset and from 20 to 120 kpc for the second, while noting that only thermal emission is modeled.

Significance. This study offers an important test of AGN feedback models by providing direct, untuned predictions for X-ray emission from the CGM that can be compared to observations. If the simulation's gas properties are accurate, the agreement strengthens confidence in the MACER model's ability to describe AGN feedback effects on galactic scales. The work highlights the potential of eROSITA data for constraining feedback models but correctly cautions about possible non-thermal contributions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods for X-ray profile computation] The description of how the X-ray surface brightness profiles are derived from the simulation outputs is insufficiently detailed. Specifically, the projection along the line of sight, the calculation of thermal emissivity ∫ n_e² Λ(T,Z) dl, the procedure for time-averaging over simulation snapshots, and the treatment of uncertainties are not fully specified. These details are load-bearing for evaluating the claimed quantitative agreement with eROSITA profiles.
  2. [Comparison with observations and validation] The central claim depends on the simulated CGM gas density and temperature profiles being realistic, yet there is no direct validation of n_e(r) and T(r) against independent CGM probes such as UV absorption lines, O VI, or Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect measurements. The X-ray surface brightness match alone does not exclude compensating errors between density normalization and the temperature-dependent cooling function.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract could more explicitly state the radial range of agreement for both observational datasets to improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper to improve clarity and acknowledge limitations where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods for X-ray profile computation] The description of how the X-ray surface brightness profiles are derived from the simulation outputs is insufficiently detailed. Specifically, the projection along the line of sight, the calculation of thermal emissivity ∫ n_e² Λ(T,Z) dl, the procedure for time-averaging over simulation snapshots, and the treatment of uncertainties are not fully specified. These details are load-bearing for evaluating the claimed quantitative agreement with eROSITA profiles.

    Authors: We agree that the methods section requires greater detail for reproducibility. In the revised manuscript we will expand the relevant section to explicitly describe the line-of-sight projection, the computation of thermal emissivity as the integral ∫ n_e² Λ(T,Z) dl, the time-averaging procedure across simulation snapshots, and the estimation of uncertainties. These additions will allow readers to fully assess the quantitative comparison. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Comparison with observations and validation] The central claim depends on the simulated CGM gas density and temperature profiles being realistic, yet there is no direct validation of n_e(r) and T(r) against independent CGM probes such as UV absorption lines, O VI, or Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect measurements. The X-ray surface brightness match alone does not exclude compensating errors between density normalization and the temperature-dependent cooling function.

    Authors: We acknowledge the validity of this concern. The present work provides an untuned prediction from the MACER simulation and compares it directly to X-ray data; however, we agree that agreement in surface brightness alone cannot rule out compensating errors in density and temperature. Paper I of the series contains comparisons for other galaxy properties, but we will add an explicit discussion of this limitation in the revised manuscript, noting the value of future comparisons with UV absorption and SZ measurements. We will qualify our conclusions accordingly while maintaining that the X-ray match still constitutes a meaningful consistency test of the feedback model. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: X-ray profiles computed from prior simulation and compared to external data

full rationale

The paper takes simulation outputs from Paper I (MACER framework) without retuning parameters, computes the thermal X-ray surface brightness profile via standard projection of n_e and T, and compares the result to stacked eROSITA profiles reported in Zhang et al. (2024) and He & Li (2026). No equation or step defines the predicted profile in terms of the target observations; the simulation gas properties are independent inputs. Overlapping authorship on the observation papers does not create a self-referential loop because the eROSITA stacking analysis is external data, not derived from the present simulation. The agreement is therefore a genuine out-of-sample test rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the MACER simulation setup from Paper I and the assumption that the observed X-ray signal is dominated by thermal emission from the simulated gas.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The MACER simulation framework from Paper I accurately models AGN feedback and the resulting thermal gas properties in a disk galaxy.
    Invoked when using the simulation outputs directly for X-ray profile computation without retuning.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5659 in / 1246 out tokens · 41352 ms · 2026-05-15T00:24:58.435303+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    E., Churazov, E., & Bregman, J

    Anderson, M. E., Churazov, E., & Bregman, J. N. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 227, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2314

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2314 2016

  2. [2]

    N., Anderson, M

    Bregman, J. N., Anderson, M. E., Miller, M. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacafe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacafe 2018

  3. [3]

    N., Hodges-Kluck, E., Qu, Z., et al

    Bregman, J. N., Hodges-Kluck, E., Qu, Z., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 14

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    D., & et al

    Chadayammuri, U., Bogd´ an,´A., Oppenheimer, B. D., & et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8936

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8936 2022

  5. [5]

    Chen, H.-W., & Zahedy, F. S. 2026, in Encyclopedia of

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    4, 370–400, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00059-6

    Astrophysics, Vol. 4, 370–400, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00059-6

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21439-4.00059-6

  7. [7]

    2022, A&A, 666, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243101

    Comparat, J., Truong, N., Merloni, A., & et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243101

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243101 2022

  8. [8]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17197.x

    Schaye, J. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1403, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16985.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16985.x 2010

  9. [9]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 205

    Das, S., Truong, N., Chiang, Y.-K., & Mathur, S. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 205

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Dave, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 98, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20148.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20148.x 2012

  11. [11]

    2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

    Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1038/nature07648 2009

  12. [12]

    N., McLaughlin, D

    Gofford, J., Reeves, J. N., McLaughlin, D. E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4169, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1207

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1207 2015

  13. [13]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.09123, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.09123

    Grayson, S., Scannapieco, E., Comparat, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.09123, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.09123

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.09123 2025

  14. [14]

    Solving the cooling flow problem with combined jet-wind AGN feedback

    He, A., Guo, M., Yuan, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.02796, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.02796

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.02796 2025

  15. [15]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.16499

    He, L., & Li, Z. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.16499

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.16499 2026

  16. [16]

    Pontzen and F

    Hopkins, P. F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 3522, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20593.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20593.x 2012

  17. [17]

    T., Nagai, D., Bogd´ an,´A., et al

    Lau, E. T., Nagai, D., Bogd´ an,´A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 984, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc450

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc450 2025

  18. [18]

    Li, J.-T., & Wang, Q. D. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2085, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts183

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts183 2013

  19. [19]

    and Lamer, G

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347165 2024

  20. [20]

    Greene, J. E. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf7bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acf7bc 2023

  21. [21]

    B., Hopkins, P

    Ponnada, S. B., Hopkins, P. F., Lu, Y. S., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 997, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2fd9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2fd9 2026

  22. [22]

    2025, A&A, 704, A278, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453255

    Popesso, P., Marini, I., Dolag, K., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A278, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453255

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453255 2025

  23. [23]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039313 2021

  24. [24]

    X., Werk, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Werk, J. K., Worseck, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6007

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6007 2017

  25. [25]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03840, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03840

    Shreeram, S., Comparat, J., Merloni, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03840, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03840

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.03840 2025

  26. [26]

    2018, ApJ, 867, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae43a

    Sokolowska, A., Babul, A., Mayer, L., Shen, S., & Madau, P. 2018, ApJ, 867, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae43a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae43a 2018

  27. [27]

    1956, ApJ, 124, 20, doi: 10.1086/146200

    Spitzer, L. 1956, ApJ, 124, 20, doi: 10.1086/146200

    work page doi:10.1086/146200 1956

  28. [28]

    2005 , month = sep, journal =

    Springel, V., di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x 2005

  29. [29]

    G., & Weaver, K

    Hoopes, C. G., & Weaver, K. A. 2004, ApJ, 606, 829, doi: 10.1086/383136

    work page doi:10.1086/383136 2004

  30. [30]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa685

    Truong, N., Pillepich, A., Werner, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa685

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa685 2020

  31. [31]

    Dettmar, R. J. 2006, A&A, 448, 43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052936

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052936 2006

  32. [32]

    D., Li, J., Jiang, X., & Fang, T

    Wang, Q. D., Li, J., Jiang, X., & Fang, T. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2886

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2886 2016

  33. [33]

    H., & Tinker, J

    Wechsler, R. H., & Tinker, J. L. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051756

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051756 2018

  34. [34]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/8

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/8 2014

  35. [35]

    White, S. D. M., & Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52, doi: 10.1086/170483

    work page doi:10.1086/170483 1991

  36. [36]

    White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/183.3.341 1978

  37. [37]

    Yang, H., Yuan, F., Yuan, Y.-F., & White, C. J. 2021, ApJ, 914, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfe63 12

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfe63 2021

  38. [38]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab8f8

    Yuan, F., Yoon, D., Li, Y.-P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab8f8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab8f8 2018

  39. [39]

    2024, A&A, 690, A267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449412

    Zhang, Y., Comparat, J., Ponti, G., & et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449412

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449412 2024

  40. [40]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.17313, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.17313

    Zhang, Y., Shreeram, S., Ponti, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.17313, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.17313

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.17313 2025

  41. [41]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae019f

    Zhang, Z., Zhang, X., Li, H., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae019f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae019f 2025

  42. [42]

    2026, A&A, 706, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556835

    Zhang, Yi, Shreeram, Soumya, Ponti, Gabriele, et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556835

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556835 2026

  43. [43]

    Towards physically more comprehensive AGN modelling in cosmological simulations: A MACER-based modification of IllustrisTNG

    Zhu, B., Springel, V., & Yuan, F. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.15235, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.15235

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.15235 2026

  44. [44]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae47fe

    Zou, Y., Yuan, F., Ji, S., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae47fe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae47fe 2026