pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18808 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Analysis of synthetic OVI absorption associated with galaxy groups in SIMBA and TNG50 simulations

Tanmay Singh , Sanchayeeta Borthakur , Dylan Nelson , Romeel Dav\'e , Tyler McCabe
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords OVI absorptiongalaxy groupsSIMBATNG50synthetic spectracovering fractionCOS-IGrM surveyfeedback models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations of galaxy groups yield lower OVI covering fractions than observed in the COS-IGrM survey.

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

The paper generates large numbers of synthetic spectra from galaxy groups in the SIMBA and TNG50 simulations to compare OVI absorption properties with observations from the COS-IGrM survey. It selects groups with halo masses between about 10 to the 12.89 and 13.61 solar masses to match the observed sample. Both simulations produce OVI covering fractions substantially below the observed 44 percent, at 21 percent for TNG50 and 6 percent for SIMBA. Analysis of kinematics shows most absorbers are bound, but trends with galaxy star formation and stellar mass differ between the simulations, likely due to their distinct feedback models. This approach underscores the importance of consistent methodology when bridging simulations and absorption observations.

Core claim

The OVI covering fraction (f_OVI) in TNG50 (20.62 ± 2.56%) and SIMBA (5.98 ± 0.82%) are both systematically lower than COS-IGrM (44 ± 5%). Kinematic analysis reveals that vast majority (~95%) of absorbers in both the simulations are gravitationally bound. In TNG50, strong absorbers (log N_OVI > 15) are located near star-forming galaxies (log sSFR > -11) within ~200kpc, suggesting physical connection to stellar feedback, whereas SIMBA shows no comparable trend. Furthermore, in TNG50 occurrence of OVI absorbers at small impact parameters increases with stellar mass of nearest galaxy, but shows no dependence on total stellar mass of group. In contrast, SIMBA shows no clear correlation with the

What carries the argument

The creation of 90,000 synthetic spectra per selected galaxy group to measure OVI absorber covering fractions, radial distributions, and velocities relative to the group center and nearest galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

That the selection of 14 galaxy groups from each simulation with matching halo masses and the generation of 90,000 synthetic spectra per group accurately represent the observed population without biases in resolution or feedback implementation.

What would settle it

If observations of additional galaxy groups in the same mass range reveal OVI covering fractions around 20% or less, or if simulation runs with altered resolution or feedback parameters produce covering fractions matching the observed 44%, the finding of systematic underprediction would be challenged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18808 by Dylan Nelson, Romeel Dav\'e, Sanchayeeta Borthakur, Tanmay Singh, Tyler McCabe.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Projected O vi column density maps for all selected groups in TNG50 at z = 0.1, as listed in Table 1a. In each panel, the dashed cyan circle has a radius of 1.5R200c, while the box spans 4R200c along both axes. All synthetic sightlines are distributed within the region enclosed by the cyan dashed circle and share the same orientation as the native x–y plane of the simulation. The ID of the central subhalo … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spectral–posterior diagnostics for two representative TNG50 sightlines in group 305020. Rows 1–2: True infinite-SNR spectra at COS-G130M resolution convolved with the line-spread function (solid red); the same spectra after binning and addition of noise (blue); and the multi-component Voigt-profile fits to these noisy spectra (solid green). Each fitted or true component is annotated at its velocity centroi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Normalized histogram of log Ndetected − log Ntrue showing systematic underesti￾mation and overestimation of absorber strengths in the full sample of detections in TNG50 and SIMBA. Right: Distribution of detected versus true column densities for TNG50 (top) and SIMBA (bottom). Dotted black line corresponds to the one-to-one relation. eral standard performance metrics. Purity measures the probability t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagnostic comparison of the TNG50 and SIMBA with fitting pipeline. Left: 2 × 2 confusion matrices for an O vi-column–detection threshold of Nlim = 13.5. Each tile lists the class label (TP, FP, FN, TN), the fraction of all predictions in that cell (colour–coded from 0 to 100 %), and the absolute count of sightlines. Right: Accuracy (A) performance as a function of true column density. Circles and triangle… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spatially resolved maps of the projected O vi col￾umn density for representative galaxy groups selected from the TNG50 (left) and SIMBA (right) simulations having sim￾ilar M200c. Sightlines are binned to pixels and colors indi￾cate the median log N(O VI) within each pixel; White pixels represent regions with no sightline coverage, and red circles denote member subhalos with L ≥ L ∗ , where their radii cor￾… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: O vi covering fractions for the TNG50 and SIMBA groups compared to the COS-IGrM survey. Top: Covering fraction as a function of group halo mass. Blue points represent TNG50 groups and red points represent SIMBA groups. The light shaded regions denote three halo mass bins, each containing six observational sightlines from the COS-IGrM survey. Solid hatched lines within each bin indicate the covering fractio… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Left) TNG groups: (Bottom) O vi column-density distribution as a function of group halo mass, compared to observations from the COS-IGrM survey. Fourteen groups are binned into nine bins for clear visualization with assignments: Bin 1 (294515, 313950), Bin 2 (305020, 208563), Bin 3 (288932, 277688), Bin 4 (264620, 283512), Bin 5 (247945), Bin 6 (239843), Bin 7 (231369, 199226), Bin 8 (219842), Bin 9 (1888… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left) O vi column density of detected absorbers in synthetic sightlines from TNG50 groups versus Doppler (b) parameter. The upper panel shows the normalized histogram of b for the same detections. (Right) Same as left but for SIMBA groups. and the escape velocity (vesc) were estimated following the prescription provided in McCabe et al. (2021). In the TNG50 sample, we find that 98.6% of the absorbers are … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top row: O vi column density for all synthetic sightlines in the selected TNG50 groups as a function of (left) impact parameter from the group centre and (right) the same quantity normalised by the virial radius (R200c). Grey circles denote detections, orange squares show 3σ upper limits for non-detections, green points correspond to COS-IGrM observations, and the solid grey line shows the running median o… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Absolute velocity offset of O vi detections rela￾tive to (i) the centre of the host group and (ii) the nearest galaxy to each absorber. Insets give the fractions of ab￾sorbers within 200, 300, and 600 km s−1 of the group center and nearest galaxy Top: TNG50 groups. Bottom: Same di￾agnostic for SIMBA groups. to 50% when considering only high column density ab￾sorbers. Left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (Left) O vi column density of all synthetic sightlines in TNG50 groups versus the specific star-formation rate of the nearest group member galaxy with L ≥ L∗. Scheme for the 2D KDE plot and scatter points is same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (Left) O vi column density (NOVI) versus impact parameter (ρcg) from the nearest member galaxy. Top row: TNG50 groups. Bottom row: SIMBA groups. Left column: all sight-lines. Centre column: systems with log[sSFR] ≤ −11. Right column: systems with log[sSFR] > −11. The 2-D KDE and scatter styling match [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Projected column–density maps of O vi, O vii, and O viii for the TNG50 galaxy group ID 239843. The dotted cyan circle marks 1.5 Rvir (660 ckpc/h). Smaller white circles indicate member galxies with L ≥ L∗, drawn with radii equal to three times their stellar half–mass radius. tating redistribution of metals in the IGrM (Weinberger et al. 2016; Pillepich et al. 2017) whereas, SIMBA’s jet￾driven kinetic feed… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Column density of O vi absorbers as a function of impact parameter to the nearest galaxy, ρcg. Each composite is arranged into four stellar–mass bins (annotated in the top right of each panel) and further divided by star–forming state (columns: left, star–forming; right, non–star–forming). Contours and symbols follow the styling of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We compare OVI absorption in synthetic spectra from galaxy groups in the SIMBA and TNG50 cosmological hydrodynamic simulations against those observed from the COS-IGrM survey. We select 14 galaxy groups from each simulation with $12.89 \le \log(M_{\rm halo}/M_\odot) \le 13.61$, closely matching COS-IGrM, and create 90,000 synthetic spectra per group. We demonstrate the utility of synthetic absorption spectroscopy when comparing simulations with QSO absorption-based observations. We investigate absorber properties such as radial distributions and kinematics with respect to the group and nearest galaxy. The OVI covering fraction ($f_{\rm OVI}$) in TNG50 ($20.62 \pm 2.56\%$) and SIMBA ($5.98 \pm 0.82\%$) are both systematically lower than COS-IGrM ($44 \pm 5\%$). Kinematic analysis reveals that vast majority ($\sim 95\%$) of absorbers in both the simulations are gravitationally bound. In TNG50, strong absorbers ($\log N_{\rm OVI} > 15$) are located near star-forming galaxies ($\log {\rm sSFR} > -11$) within $\sim 200$kpc, suggesting physical connection to stellar feedback, whereas SIMBA shows no comparable trend. Furthermore, in TNG50 occurrence of OVI absorbers at small impact parameters increases with stellar mass of nearest galaxy, but shows no dependence on total stellar mass of group. In contrast, SIMBA shows no clear correlation with nearest galaxy's stellar mass, though groups with higher total stellar mass exhibit higher detection rate at larger impact parameters. Differences observed in simulations may arise from feedback models and resolution effects. Finally, we show absorber analysis methodology is important factor when comparing simulations with absorption spectroscopy observations.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares synthetic OVI absorption in galaxy groups from the SIMBA and TNG50 simulations to COS-IGrM observations. Fourteen groups are selected from each simulation in the halo mass range 12.89 ≤ log(M_halo/M_⊙) ≤ 13.61; 90,000 synthetic spectra are generated per group. The OVI covering fractions are reported as 20.62 ± 2.56% (TNG50) and 5.98 ± 0.82% (SIMBA), both lower than the observed 44 ± 5%. Additional analysis covers radial distributions, kinematics (∼95% of absorbers gravitationally bound), and correlations with nearest-galaxy stellar mass and star-formation rate, with differences attributed to feedback models and resolution.

Significance. If the comparison holds after addressing uncertainty quantification, the work demonstrates the utility of synthetic spectroscopy for direct simulation–observation tests and identifies deficiencies in current feedback prescriptions for producing OVI in group-scale IGrM. The side-by-side SIMBA–TNG50 comparison and the kinematic result that most absorbers are bound are useful for guiding future simulation improvements.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (results on covering fractions): The quoted uncertainties on the mean OVI covering fractions (20.62 ± 2.56% for TNG50, 5.98 ± 0.82% for SIMBA) are derived from the 90,000 sightlines per group. With only 14 groups, these errors do not incorporate inter-group variance. The proper uncertainty on the reported means is the standard error of the mean across the 14 per-group f_OVI values (σ/√14). If the group-to-group scatter is comparable to or larger than the quoted errors, the claimed systematic offset from the COS-IGrM value of 44 ± 5% is not robustly supported. This is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [§2] §2 (methods): The generation of the 90,000 synthetic spectra per group, including ionization modeling, velocity structure, and any resolution-dependent systematics, is not described in sufficient detail to allow assessment of potential biases in the f_OVI comparison. This directly affects the reliability of the quantitative results.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The quantitative results are clearly stated, but a one-sentence summary of the synthetic-spectrum generation procedure would improve accessibility.
  2. [§5] The discussion of differences between SIMBA and TNG50 feedback implementations could be strengthened by explicit reference to the specific sub-grid parameters that differ between the two runs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive major comments. These have prompted us to strengthen the uncertainty analysis and expand the methodological description. We respond to each point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (results on covering fractions): The quoted uncertainties on the mean OVI covering fractions (20.62 ± 2.56% for TNG50, 5.98 ± 0.82% for SIMBA) are derived from the 90,000 sightlines per group. With only 14 groups, these errors do not incorporate inter-group variance. The proper uncertainty on the reported means is the standard error of the mean across the 14 per-group f_OVI values (σ/√14). If the group-to-group scatter is comparable to or larger than the quoted errors, the claimed systematic offset from the COS-IGrM value of 44 ± 5% is not robustly supported. This is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the reported uncertainties must incorporate inter-group variance to properly assess the robustness of the offset from the COS-IGrM value. The original uncertainties were computed from the large sightline samples within each group. In the revised manuscript we have extracted the OVI covering fraction for each of the 14 groups separately, computed the standard deviation across these 14 values, and reported the standard error of the mean (σ/√14) for both simulations. We also include the measured group-to-group scatter and explicitly discuss whether the systematic offset relative to the observed 44 ± 5% remains statistically significant under the revised uncertainties. This change directly addresses the load-bearing concern for the central claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§2] §2 (methods): The generation of the 90,000 synthetic spectra per group, including ionization modeling, velocity structure, and any resolution-dependent systematics, is not described in sufficient detail to allow assessment of potential biases in the f_OVI comparison. This directly affects the reliability of the quantitative results.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee’s request for greater methodological transparency. The original manuscript provided only a concise description of the synthetic spectra. In the revised version we have substantially expanded Section 2 to include: (i) the ionization modeling procedure (post-processing of the simulation density, temperature, and metallicity fields under collisional ionization equilibrium), (ii) how the line-of-sight velocity structure is extracted from the particle data to construct the absorption profiles, (iii) the precise algorithm for placing the 90,000 sightlines per group (including the impact-parameter sampling strategy), and (iv) an explicit discussion of resolution-dependent systematics, including comparisons with higher-resolution sub-volumes and the impact on OVI column densities. These additions allow a full evaluation of possible biases in the reported f_OVI values. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct simulation-to-observation comparison

full rationale

The paper selects 14 groups per simulation with halo masses matched to COS-IGrM, generates 90,000 synthetic sightlines per group using standard radiative transfer, and computes f_OVI directly from the resulting absorption statistics. No parameters are fitted to the target observations and then re-predicted; no equations reduce to their own inputs by construction; no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked. The central result (lower simulated f_OVI) is an output of the simulation runs themselves, not a re-expression of fitted inputs. Uncertainties are reported from the sightline ensemble, and any underestimation of group-to-group variance is a statistical limitation rather than a circular derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the work relies on standard assumptions in cosmological simulations and synthetic spectroscopy techniques.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5658 in / 1247 out tokens · 57027 ms · 2026-05-10T03:30:10.907060+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Aguerri, J. A. L., & Zarattini, S. 2021, Universe, 7, 132

    2021

  2. [2]

    2023, A&A, 675, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245782 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Dav´ e, R., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A.,¨Ozel, F., & Hopkins, P

    Ragagnin, A. 2023, A&A, 675, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245782 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Dav´ e, R., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A.,¨Ozel, F., & Hopkins, P. F. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 2840

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245782 2023

  3. [3]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 5391

    Ayromlou, M., Nelson, D., & Pillepich, A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 5391

    2023

  4. [4]

    Y., Heckman, T

    Bordoloi, R., Wagner, A. Y., Heckman, T. M., & Norman, C. A. 2017, ApJ, 848, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8e9c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8e9c 2017

  5. [5]

    Bregman, J. N. 2007, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 45, 221

    2007

  6. [6]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 1247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2115

    Cui, W., Jennings, F., Dave, R., Babul, A., & Gozaliasl, G. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2115

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2115 2024

  7. [7]

    W., & Shull, J

    Danforth, C. W., & Shull, J. M. 2008, ApJ, 679, 194, doi: 10.1086/587127

    work page doi:10.1086/587127 2008

  8. [8]

    J., Crain, R

    Davies, J. J., Crain, R. A., McCarthy, I. G., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 3783

    2019

  9. [9]

    , keywords =

    Davies, J. J., Crain, R. A., Oppenheimer, B. D., & Schaye, J. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4462, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3201

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3201 2020

  10. [10]

    and Efstathiou, G

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371, doi: 10.1086/163168 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    work page doi:10.1086/163168 1985

  11. [11]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x , archivePrefix =

    Dolag, K., Borgani, S., Murante, G., & Springel, V. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 497, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15034.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15034.x 2009

  12. [12]

    Eckert, D., Gaspari, M., Gastaldello, F., Le Brun, A. M. C., & O’Sullivan, E. 2021, Universe, 7, 142, doi: 10.3390/universe7050142

    work page doi:10.3390/universe7050142 2021

  13. [13]

    , keywords =

    Eke, V. R., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 866, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07408.x 19 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., &

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07408.x 2004

  14. [14]

    2009, Astrophys

    Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1416, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/1416 2009

  15. [15]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, The 2013 Release of Cloudy. https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.4485

    work page arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    B., Werk, J

    Ford, A. B., Werk, J. K., Dav´ e, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 1745, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw595

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw595 2016

  17. [17]

    Fukugita, M., & Peebles, P. J. E. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 639, 590, doi: 10.1086/499556

    work page doi:10.1086/499556 2006

  18. [18]

    2021, Universe, 7, 208

    Gastaldello, F., Simionescu, A., Mernier, F., et al. 2021, Universe, 7, 208

    2021

  19. [19]

    2007, ApJS, 168, 213, doi: 10.1086/509786 G´ omez, P

    Gnat, O., & Sternberg, A. 2007, ApJS, 168, 213, doi: 10.1086/509786 G´ omez, P. L., Nichol, R. C., Miller, C. J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 584, 210, doi: 10.1086/345593

    work page doi:10.1086/509786 2007

  20. [20]

    C., Froning, C

    Green, J. C., Froning, C. S., Osterman, S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/6010.1086/141956

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/1/6010.1086/141956 2012

  21. [21]

    Dutton, A. A. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 2796

    2017

  22. [22]

    F., Jimenez R., Lahav O., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03692.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.317..965H 317, 965

    Helsdon, S. F., & Ponman, T. J. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 356, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03396.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03396.x 2000

  23. [23]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics (Springer), 1–66

    Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Li, Y., & Churazov, E. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics (Springer), 1–66

    2022

  24. [24]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015

  25. [25]

    C., Teyssier, R., et al

    Hu, C.-Y., Smith, M. C., Teyssier, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf9e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf9e 2023

  26. [26]

    B., Bryan, G

    Hummels, C. B., Bryan, G. L., Smith, B. D., & Turk, M. J. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 1548

    2013

  27. [27]

    B., Smith, B

    Hummels, C. B., Smith, B. D., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 156

    2019

  28. [28]

    D., Chen, H.-W., & Mulchaey, J

    Johnson, S. D., Chen, H.-W., & Mulchaey, J. S. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 3263–3273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv553

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv553 2015

  29. [29]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 620, 21, doi: 10.1086/426931

    Kang, H., Ryu, D., Cen, R., & Song, D. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 620, 21, doi: 10.1086/426931

    work page doi:10.1086/426931 2005

  30. [30]

    F., Walther, M., & Davies, F

    Khaire, V., Hu, T., Hennawi, J. F., Walther, M., & Davies, F. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 4545

    2024

  31. [31]

    M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05848.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.336.1188K 336, 1188

    Lewis, I., Balogh, M., De Propris, R., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 673, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05558.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05558.x 2002

  32. [32]

    J., Kravtsov, A

    Liang, C. J., Kravtsov, A. V., & Agertz, O. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 1164

    2016

  33. [33]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 3844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae278

    Mallik, S., & Srianand, R. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae278

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae278 2024

  34. [34]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 2296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1550

    Khandai, N. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1550

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1550 2023

  35. [35]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 5113

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 5113

    2018

  36. [36]

    W., Kacprzak, G

    Marra, R., Churchill, C. W., Kacprzak, G. G., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 907, 8

    2021

  37. [37]

    2021, Astrophysical Journal, 923, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac283c

    McCabe, T., Borthakur, S., Heckman, T., et al. 2021, Astrophysical Journal, 923, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac283c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac283c 2021

  38. [38]

    G., Schaye, J., Ponman, T

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Ponman, T. J., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 406, 822

    2010

  39. [39]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 63

    McDonald, M., McNamara, B., Voit, G., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 63

    2019

  40. [40]

    McQuinn, M., & Werk, J. K. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9d3f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9d3f 2018

  41. [41]

    The overdensity and masses of the friends-of-friends halos and universality of halo mass function,

    More, S., Kravtsov, A. V., Dalal, N., & Gottl¨ ober, S. 2011, ApJS, 195, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/195/1/4

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/195/1/4 2011

  42. [42]

    Mulchaey, J. S. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 289, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.289

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.289 2000

  43. [43]

    S., Mushotzky, R

    Mulchaey, J. S., Mushotzky, R. F., Burstein, D., & Davis, D. S. 1996, ApJL, 456, L5, doi: 10.1086/309861

    work page doi:10.1086/309861 1996

  44. [44]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 1206

    2018

  45. [45]

    D., Mishra, P

    Narayanan, A., Savage, B. D., Mishra, P. K., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty042

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty042 2018

  46. [46]

    First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the galaxy color bimodality

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3040 2017

  47. [47]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 450–479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty656

    Nelson, D., Kauffmann, G., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 450–479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty656

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty656

  48. [48]

    , keywords =

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2306 2019

  49. [49]

    2025, The Synthetic Absorption Line Spectral Almanac (SALSA)

    Nelson, D., Peroux, C., Richter, P., et al. 2025, The Synthetic Absorption Line Spectral Almanac (SALSA). https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.19904

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    McCarthy, I. G. 2021, Universe, 7, 209, doi: 10.3390/universe7070209

    work page doi:10.3390/universe7070209 2021

  51. [51]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x , archivePrefix =

    Oppenheimer, B. D., & Dav´ e, R. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 1875–1904, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14676.x 20

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14676.x 2009

  52. [52]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Oppenheimer, B. D., Dav´ e, R., Katz, N., Kollmeier, J. A., & Weinberg, D. H. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 420, 829–859, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20096.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20096.x 2011

  53. [53]

    , keywords =

    Oppenheimer, B. D., & Schaye, J. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1043

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1043 2013

  54. [54]

    D., Crain, R

    Oppenheimer, B. D., Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1066

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1066 2016

  55. [55]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 733, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw194

    Pachat, S., Narayanan, A., Muzahid, S., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 733, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw194

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw194 2016

  56. [56]

    S., Corlies, L., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Peeples, M. S., Corlies, L., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 129

    2019

  57. [57]

    2018a, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 —. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 648

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3112 2017

  58. [58]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2338 2019

  59. [59]

    K., Nielsen, N

    Pointon, S. K., Nielsen, N. M., Kacprzak, G. G., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7743

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7743 2017

  60. [60]

    T., & Bregman, J

    Pratt, C. T., & Bregman, J. N. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6e6c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6e6c 2020

  61. [61]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/91

    Cooksey, K. 2011, ApJ, 740, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/91

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/91 2011

  62. [62]

    J., Pisani, A., & da Costa, L

    Ramella, M., Geller, M. J., Pisani, A., & da Costa, L. N. 2002, AJ, 123, 2976, doi: 10.1086/340357

    work page doi:10.1086/340357 2002

  63. [63]

    1998, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 267–316, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.267

    Rauch, M. 1998, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 267–316, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.267 Roca-F` abrega, S., Dekel, A., Faerman, Y., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 3625 R¨ ottgers, B., Naab, T., Cernetic, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1490

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.267 1998

  64. [64]

    D., Kim, T.-S., Wakker, B

    Savage, B. D., Kim, T.-S., Wakker, B. P., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 212, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/8

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/8 2014

  65. [65]

    D., Narayanan, A., Wakker, B

    Savage, B. D., Narayanan, A., Wakker, B. P., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 1526–1545, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/719/2/1526

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/2/1526 2010

  66. [66]

    M., Smith, B

    Shull, J. M., Smith, B. D., & Danforth, C. W. 2012, ApJ, 759, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/23

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/23 2012

  67. [67]

    D., Hallman, E

    Smith, B. D., Hallman, E. J., Shull, J. M., & O’Shea, B. W. 2011, ApJ, 731, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/6

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/1/6 2011

  68. [68]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 115, doi: 10.33232/001c.126621

    Sorini, D., Bose, S., Dav´ e, R., & Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 115, doi: 10.33232/001c.126621

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.126621 2024

  69. [69]

    N., Bean, R., Dor´ e, O., et al

    Spergel, D. N., Bean, R., Dor´ e, O., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 377, doi: 10.1086/513700

    work page doi:10.1086/513700 2007

  70. [70]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x , archivePrefix =

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x 2010

  71. [71]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x 2001

  72. [72]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 676

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 676

    2018

  73. [73]

    F., et al

    Stern, J., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac884

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac884 2018

  74. [74]

    T., Keeney, B

    Stocke, J. T., Keeney, B. A., Danforth, C. W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa64e2 —. 2019, ApJS, 240, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf73d —. 2014, ApJ, 791, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/128

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa64e2 2017

  75. [75]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 4948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3972

    Strawn, C., Roca-F` abrega, S., Mandelker, N., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3972

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3972 2021

  76. [76]

    R., et al

    Strawn, C., Roca-F` abrega, S., Primack, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad12cb 2024

  77. [77]

    Suresh, J., Rubin, K. H. R., Kannan, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2499

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2499 2017

  78. [78]

    2008, A&A, 479, 927, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078036

    Tago, E., Einasto, J., Saar, E., et al. 2008, A&A, 479, 927, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078036

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078036 2008

  79. [79]

    W., et al

    Taira, E., Kopenhafer, C., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfc4e Tepper-Garc´ ıa, T., Richter, P., Schaye, J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 1640, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21545.x

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfc4e 2025

  80. [80]

    A., Bell, E

    Terrazas, B. A., Bell, E. F., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 1888

    2020

Showing first 80 references.