pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04176 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Matter Clustering in Astrid: Reduced Baryonic Suppression from Realistic Black Hole Dynamics

Yanhui Yang , Simeon Bird , Yihao Zhou , Tiziana Di Matteo , Rupert Croft , Yueying Ni , Nianyi Chen
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords baryonic feedbackmatter power spectrumAGNblack hole dynamicscosmological simulationsS8 tensionlarge-scale structure
0
0 comments X

The pith

Realistic black hole dynamics weaken AGN feedback and reduce baryonic suppression of matter clustering

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

The paper compares the Astrid hydrodynamical simulation to its dark-matter-only counterpart to measure how baryonic processes suppress the matter power spectrum. It reports no significant suppression at redshift zero and only mild suppression at redshift 0.2, a weaker effect than found in other current simulations. Controlled small-volume tests trace the difference to the modeling of black hole motion, where a dynamical friction prescription produces less frequent mergers and less efficient kinetic AGN feedback than the repositioning scheme commonly used elsewhere. If correct, this means earlier estimates overstated the impact of AGN feedback on large-scale clustering, making it harder to reconcile cosmic microwave background predictions with large-scale structure observations using only standard baryonic physics.

Core claim

The central claim is that black hole dynamics control the efficiency of AGN feedback and therefore the degree of baryonic suppression in the matter power spectrum. Replacing the artificial repositioning scheme with a dynamical friction model reduces black hole merger rates and kinetic feedback output, for example by a factor of two at redshift 1.5, yielding weaker suppression that does not significantly alter the power spectrum at z=0. Strengthening feedback to recover more suppression then conflicts with observed galaxy stellar mass and AGN luminosity functions.

What carries the argument

The modeling of black hole motion, specifically the switch from a repositioning scheme to a dynamical friction prescription, which governs merger frequency and the resulting kinetic AGN feedback energy injected into surrounding gas.

If this is right

  • Reconciling large-scale structure measurements with CMB-inferred Lambda CDM cosmology using AGN feedback becomes more challenging.
  • Increasing AGN feedback strength to produce stronger suppression creates tensions with the observed galaxy stellar mass function and AGN luminosity function.
  • Clustering predictions are sensitive to the subgrid treatment of black hole dynamics, which can change suppression by factors of order two at intermediate redshifts.
  • Either additional non-baryonic physics or new mechanisms for efficient gas ejection from halos are needed to match observations without violating galaxy constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Simulations that rely on repositioning may systematically overestimate the effect of AGN feedback on the matter power spectrum at late times.
  • More realistic black hole orbit modeling will be required in future large-volume simulations to produce reliable forecasts for precision cosmology surveys.
  • This result links the S8 tension to uncertainties in feedback subgrid physics and suggests testing against independent AGN activity statistics at z approximately 1 to 2.

Load-bearing premise

The dynamical friction implementation accurately represents real black hole orbits and mergers, and that differences identified in small-volume tests dominate the suppression behavior seen in the full large-volume run.

What would settle it

A measurement of supermassive black hole merger rates or total kinetic AGN feedback energy at redshifts near 1.5 that matches the higher values produced by repositioning schemes rather than the lower values from the dynamical friction model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04176 by Nianyi Chen, Rupert Croft, Simeon Bird, Tiziana Di Matteo, Yanhui Yang, Yihao Zhou, Yueying Ni.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Matter power spectra measured from the Astrid simulation and the small simulations (listed in view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Halo density profile ratios of halos in the SV hydrodynamical simulations to their matched DMO counterparts, at z = 0. The color and line styles are the same as in view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cumulative released kinetic feedback energy density distribution as a function of BH mass. The color and line styles are the same as in view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: AGN hard X-ray (2–10 keV) luminosity functions at z = 0. The line styles and colors are the same as in view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Baryonic feedback from active galactic nuclei (AGN) is often invoked as a major source of suppression in the matter power spectrum, with implications for precision cosmology and the $S_8$ tension. We present Astrid-DMO, the dark matter-only counterpart to the large-volume Astrid hydrodynamical simulation, and measure baryonic effects through $P_{\rm hydro}(k)/P_{\rm DMO}(k)$. We find no significant suppression at $z=0$ and mild suppression at $z=0.2$, weaker than in other state-of-the-art simulations. Using controlled small-volume runs, we identify a key driver of this discrepancy: the treatment of black hole (BH) dynamics. The widely used BH repositioning scheme artificially enhances BH mergers and boosts kinetic AGN feedback (e.g., by a factor of $2$ at $z=1.5$), leading to overly strong suppression. By contrast, a more physical dynamical friction model reduces feedback efficiency and weakens clustering suppression. Consequently, reconciling large-scale structure measurements with cosmic microwave background (CMB)-inferred $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with AGN feedback becomes more challenging. Although strengthening AGN feedback can increase suppression, in our model this induces tensions with the observed galaxy stellar mass and AGN luminosity functions. These results motivate considering either new non-baryonic physics that suppresses late-time matter clustering, or novel mechanisms that can efficiently eject gas from halos without compromising other galaxy properties.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Astrid-DMO, the dark-matter-only counterpart to the large-volume Astrid hydrodynamical simulation, and measures the baryonic suppression ratio P_hydro(k)/P_DMO(k). It reports negligible suppression at z=0 and only mild suppression at z=0.2, weaker than in other state-of-the-art simulations. Using controlled small-volume runs, the authors attribute the reduced suppression primarily to their dynamical-friction treatment of black-hole dynamics, which they contrast with the common repositioning scheme that artificially boosts BH mergers and kinetic AGN feedback (by a factor of ~2 at z=1.5). They conclude that reconciling LSS measurements with CMB-inferred cosmology via AGN feedback is more difficult, and that strengthening feedback in their model conflicts with observed galaxy stellar-mass and AGN luminosity functions.

Significance. If the central attribution holds, the result would indicate that current AGN feedback implementations in many simulations overestimate baryonic suppression on scales relevant to S8, thereby weakening the case for feedback as a resolution to the S8 tension and motivating either new non-baryonic physics or alternative gas-ejection mechanisms that preserve galaxy observables. The direct numerical comparison between repositioning and dynamical-friction variants, together with the public Astrid data products, provides a concrete, falsifiable benchmark for other groups.

major comments (3)
  1. [Controlled small-volume runs (results section)] The load-bearing claim that repositioning boosts kinetic feedback by a factor of ~2 at z=1.5 and thereby drives stronger large-scale suppression rests on the small-volume controlled runs. However, at the wavenumbers relevant to S8 (k ≲ 1 h Mpc^{-1}), the ratio P_hydro/P_DMO is sensitive to long-wavelength density modes and halo assembly bias that are poorly sampled or absent in small boxes; the manuscript does not quantify how much of the measured difference survives when the same BH prescriptions are compared inside the full Astrid volume or in larger test boxes.
  2. [Comparison of Astrid-DMO with other simulations] The quantitative mapping from the small-run feedback boost to the final large-volume suppression difference is not independently verified. The paper presents the large-volume Astrid result as the realistic outcome, yet no cross-check (e.g., a hybrid run or mode-coupling test) demonstrates that the ~2× feedback difference measured at high k in small boxes produces the reported mild suppression at low k in the 250 Mpc/h box.
  3. [Discussion of feedback strength and observational tensions] The statement that strengthening AGN feedback to match other simulations' suppression levels induces tensions with the observed galaxy stellar-mass function and AGN luminosity function is central to the conclusion that the reduced suppression is not easily remedied within the model. This claim requires explicit quantitative metrics (e.g., χ² values or fractional deviations at the knee of the SMF) rather than a qualitative assertion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure captions] Notation for the power-spectrum ratio is introduced as P_hydro(k)/P_DMO(k) but occasionally appears without the explicit DMO subscript in figure captions; consistent use would improve clarity.
  2. [Methods] The manuscript would benefit from a short table summarizing the key parameters of the small-volume runs (box size, particle number, BH seed mass, repositioning vs. dynamical-friction switch) to allow direct comparison with the large-volume Astrid setup.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment point by point below, providing the strongest honest defense of our results while acknowledging limitations. Revisions will be incorporated where they strengthen the manuscript without altering its core conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Controlled small-volume runs (results section)] The load-bearing claim that repositioning boosts kinetic feedback by a factor of ~2 at z=1.5 and thereby drives stronger large-scale suppression rests on the small-volume controlled runs. However, at the wavenumbers relevant to S8 (k ≲ 1 h Mpc^{-1}), the ratio P_hydro/P_DMO is sensitive to long-wavelength density modes and halo assembly bias that are poorly sampled or absent in small boxes; the manuscript does not quantify how much of the measured difference survives when the same BH prescriptions are compared inside the full Astrid volume or in larger test boxes.

    Authors: We agree that small boxes have inherent limitations for fully capturing long-wavelength modes and assembly bias. The controlled runs were specifically designed to isolate the effect of BH dynamics on merger rates and kinetic feedback efficiency at well-resolved halo scales. The ~2× boost is measured directly from the increased AGN energy injection in repositioning runs. The full-volume Astrid result already demonstrates milder suppression consistent with the dynamical-friction model. In revision we will add a dedicated paragraph discussing box-size caveats, report the standard deviation across our small-box ensemble, and note that the high-k feedback difference is expected to propagate via mode coupling to the S8-relevant scales. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Comparison of Astrid-DMO with other simulations] The quantitative mapping from the small-run feedback boost to the final large-volume suppression difference is not independently verified. The paper presents the large-volume Astrid result as the realistic outcome, yet no cross-check (e.g., a hybrid run or mode-coupling test) demonstrates that the ~2× feedback difference measured at high k in small boxes produces the reported mild suppression at low k in the 250 Mpc/h box.

    Authors: The causal link follows from the physical mechanism: repositioning drives more frequent BH mergers and stronger kinetic feedback, which our small-volume experiments show directly suppresses the matter power spectrum. While a full hybrid run in the 250 Mpc/h volume is computationally prohibitive, the large-volume Astrid-DMO comparison already serves as the end-to-end verification under the dynamical-friction prescription. We will expand the discussion to include a qualitative mode-coupling argument supported by literature and add a brief intermediate-volume test result that bridges the scales, thereby making the mapping more explicit. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Discussion of feedback strength and observational tensions] The statement that strengthening AGN feedback to match other simulations' suppression levels induces tensions with the observed galaxy stellar-mass function and AGN luminosity function is central to the conclusion that the reduced suppression is not easily remedied within the model. This claim requires explicit quantitative metrics (e.g., χ² values or fractional deviations at the knee of the SMF) rather than a qualitative assertion.

    Authors: We concur that quantitative metrics improve rigor. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit comparisons: the fractional deviation of the stellar-mass function at the knee (~10^{11} M_⊙) relative to SDSS and other surveys, together with approximate χ² values for both the stellar-mass function and the AGN luminosity function when feedback is artificially strengthened to reproduce the stronger suppression seen in other simulations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central claims are direct numerical outputs from simulation variants

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing results consist of direct measurements of the ratio P_hydro(k)/P_DMO(k) from the large-volume Astrid hydro run versus its DMO counterpart, plus controlled small-volume runs that compare two black-hole dynamics prescriptions (repositioning vs. dynamical friction) and report the resulting difference in kinetic feedback strength and suppression. No derivation chain, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-referential definitions appear; the suppression difference is an output of the simulations themselves rather than an input that is re-derived. Self-citations to prior Astrid papers describe the simulation code and initial conditions but are not invoked as an external uniqueness theorem or to close a logical loop. The analysis therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cosmological simulation assumptions plus the premise that the dynamical friction model better represents real black hole dynamics than repositioning.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard Lambda-CDM cosmology and sub-grid prescriptions for AGN feedback and star formation are adequate for the scales studied.
    Invoked throughout the simulation setup and comparison.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5582 in / 1198 out tokens · 48987 ms · 2026-05-08T17:44:52.672632+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

52 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., et al. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 043526, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043526

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.043526 2018

  2. [2]

    The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design

    Aghamousa, A., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.00036 2016

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Aihara, H., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S8, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx081

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx081 2018

  4. [4]

    The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s

    Akeson, R., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2429 , archiveprefix =

    Amon, A., & Efstathiou, G. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2429

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2429 2022

  6. [6]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 742, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/13

    Bellovary, J., Volonteri, M., Governato, F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/13

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/742/1/13 2011

  7. [7]

    The massive end of the luminosity and stellar mass functions: dependence on the fit to the light profile

    Bernardi, M., Meert, A., Sheth, R. K., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 697, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1607

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1607 2013

  8. [8]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    Bird, S., Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac648 2022

  9. [9]

    2009, MNRAS, 396, 1383, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14843.x

    Booth, C. M., & Schaye, J. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 53, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15043.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15043.x 2009

  10. [10]

    2015, ApJ, 802, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/89

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/89

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/2/89 2015

  11. [11]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3411

    Chen, N., Ni, Y., Tremmel, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3411

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3411 2022

  12. [12]

    The Impact of Baryons on the Matter Power Spectrum from the

    Chisari, N. E., van Daalen, M., McCarthy, I. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2093

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2093 2018

  13. [13]

    Cosmic Shear constraints from HSC Year 3 with clustering calibration of the tomographic redshift distributions from DESI

    Choi, E., Ostriker, J. P., Naab, T., Oser, L., & Moster, B. P. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4105, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv575 Choppin de Janvry, J., Dai, B., Gontcho, S. G. A., Seljak, U., & Zhang, T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.18134, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.18134 Astrid: Realistic BH Dynamics Weakens Baryonic Suppression11 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., N...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stv575 2015

  14. [14]

    and Efstathiou, G

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371, doi: 10.1086/163168 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Adamow, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.14559, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.14559

    work page doi:10.1086/163168 1985

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac472 D’Souza, R., Vegetti, S., & Kauffmann, G. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 4027, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2234

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac472 2022

  16. [16]

    2018, MP-Gadget/MP-Gadget: A tag for getting a DOI, FirstDOI, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1451799

    Pedersen, C. 2018, MP-Gadget/MP-Gadget: A tag for getting a DOI, FirstDOI Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1451799

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.1451799 2018

  17. [17]

    , keywords =

    Gong, Y., Liu, X., Cao, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab391e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab391e 2019

  18. [18]

    S., Li, Y., et al

    Habouzit, M., Somerville, R. S., Li, Y., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3147

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3147 2022

  19. [19]

    A., Schaller, M., Frenk, C

    Hellwing, W. A., Schaller, M., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, L11, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw081

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw081 2016

  20. [20]

    , keywords =

    Heymans, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039063

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039063 2021

  21. [21]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2805

    Hildebrandt, H., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2805

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2805 2017

  22. [22]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Hirschmann, M., Dolag, K., Saro, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1023

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1023 2014

  23. [23]

    doi:10.1086/509629 , eprint =

    Hopkins, P. F., Richards, G. T., & Hernquist, L. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 654, 731, doi: 10.1086/509629 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    work page doi:10.1086/509629 2007

  24. [24]

    Euclid Definition Study Report

    Laureijs, R., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1110.3193 2011

  25. [25]

    Li, C., & White, S. D. M. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 2177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15268.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15268.x 2009

  26. [26]

    Louiset al.[Atacama Cosmology Telescope], JCAP 11(2025), 062 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062 [arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Louis, T., La Posta, A., Atkins, Z., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 062, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062 2025

  27. [27]

    G., Bird, S., Schaye, J., et al

    McCarthy, I. G., Bird, S., Schaye, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty377

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty377 2018

  28. [28]

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

    McCarthy, I. G., Amon, A., Schaye, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, arXiv:2410.19905, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19905

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.19905 2024

  29. [29]

    2025, ApJ, 990, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf3a7

    Ni, Y., Chen, N., Zhou, Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf3a7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf3a7 2025

  30. [30]

    , keywords =

    Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., Bird, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 670, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac351 2022

  31. [31]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 1376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2397 OpenAI

    Ni, Y., Genel, S., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2397 OpenAI. 2023, ChatGPT, https://chat.openai.com/

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2397 2023

  32. [32]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16555, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16555

    Popesso, P., Biviano, A., Marini, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16555, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16555

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.16555 2024

  33. [33]

    J., Ge, F., Wu, W

    Qu, F. J., Ge, F., Wu, W. L. K., et al. 2026, PhRvL, 136, 021001, doi: 10.1103/k5yr-3h6d Rodr´ ıguez-Puebla, A., Primack, J. R., Avila-Reese, V., &

    work page doi:10.1103/k5yr-3h6d 2026

  34. [34]

    Faber, S. M. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1172

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1172 2017

  35. [35]

    Salcido, J., & McCarthy, I. G. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 899, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1055

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1055 2025

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    Schaye, J., Kugel, R., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2419

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2419 2023

  37. [37]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  38. [38]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Shen, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1381

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1381 2020

  39. [39]

    Siegel, L

    Siegel, J., Bigwood, L., Amon, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, arXiv:2512.02954, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.02954

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02954 2025

  40. [40]

    F., Torrey, P., Lotz, J

    Snyder, G. F., Torrey, P., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1886, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2078

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2078 2015

  41. [41]

    2009, MNRAS, 396, 1383, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14843.x

    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

  42. [42]

    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

  43. [43]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3304 2018

  44. [44]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1545 , eprint =

    Srisawat, C., Knebe, A., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1545

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1545 2013

  45. [45]

    Tremmel, M., Governato, F., Volonteri, M., & Quinn, T. R. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1868, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1060

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1060 2015

  46. [46]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 1121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1160

    Tremmel, M., Karcher, M., Governato, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1160 van Daalen, M. P., Schaye, J., Booth, C. M., & Dalla

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1160 2017

  47. [47]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 467, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19497.x

    Vecchia, C. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3649, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18981.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18981.x 2011

  48. [48]

    2014a, Nature, 509, 177, doi: 10.1038/nature13316 —

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 177, doi: 10.1038/nature13316

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13316 2014

  49. [49]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2944 2017

  50. [50]

    Wurster, J., & Thacker, R. J. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt346

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt346 2013

  51. [51]

    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

  52. [52]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 999, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3c08

    Zhou, Y., Di Matteo, T., Bird, S., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 999, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3c08

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3c08 2026