pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.06781 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Radial redistribution of stellar orbits in FIRE simulations of Milky-Way-mass galaxies

Matthew A. Bellardini , Fiona McCluskey , Andrew Wetzel , Cecilia Steel , Sarah R. Loebman , Jorge Moreno
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 00:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords radial migrationstellar orbitsgalactic dynamicsorbital radiusMilky Wayangular momentumstar formation
0
0 comments X

The pith

The scatter in how far stars migrate radially from their birth orbits stops growing after about 3 billion years at roughly 2 kpc.

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

The paper tracks changes in orbital radius and angular momentum for stars in simulations of Milky Way-mass galaxies to measure how much orbits redistribute after birth. It finds that the random spread in these changes grows with stellar age only until around 3 Gyr before leveling off, while the average shift depends on whether stars are young or old. This result would matter for readers because it limits how much we can infer about a star's birth location from its current position and age, affecting reconstructions of galactic history. The trends remain consistent when radius is measured the same way at birth and today, and they line up with Milky Way observations.

Core claim

Stars selected by birth orbital radius typically move inward over time. At a fixed radius today, stars younger than about 5 Gyr show net inward shifts while older stars show net outward shifts. The scatter in orbital-radius change grows with age only up to 3 Gyr and then saturates near 2 kpc for older stars, contradicting the common expectation of monotonic growth.

What carries the argument

The scatter sigma(Delta R_orbit) in the difference between a star's birth orbital radius and its present-day orbital radius, tracked as a function of stellar age.

If this is right

  • At fixed present-day radius, young stars have typically moved inward since birth while older stars have moved outward.
  • The amount of random radial redistribution does not keep growing for stars older than 3 Gyr.
  • Timing of disk formation correlates with the average net shift but not with the scatter in shifts.
  • Different consistent ways of measuring orbital radius produce the same overall trends.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Early galaxy events may establish a fixed level of mixing that later processes do not exceed.
  • Older stellar populations could retain clearer chemical signatures of their birth sites than continuous-migration models predict.
  • Similar saturation could be searched for in lower-mass galaxies to test whether the 3 Gyr limit is universal.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations correctly capture the dynamical processes that move stars radially without major numerical or missing physical effects that would alter the age trends.

What would settle it

A measurement showing that the scatter in radial orbit changes keeps increasing steadily with age for stars older than 3 Gyr, either in observations of the Milky Way or in independent simulations, would contradict the reported saturation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06781 by Andrew Wetzel, Cecilia Steel, Fiona McCluskey, Jorge Moreno, Matthew A. Bellardini, Sarah R. Loebman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: — Comparing the 4 metrics of the orbital radius of stars today against their instantaneous physical radius. Lines show the mean and shaded regions show the 68th percentile scatter across the 11 galaxies (8 for 𝑅circ (𝐸) and 𝑅circ ( 𝑗)). Panels show different age stellar populations, corresponding (from left to right) to the late-disk, early-disk, and pre-disk eras (McCluskey et al. 2024). The different orb… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: — Orbital angular momentum of stars today. Top: The median angular momentum of young stars (ages < 200 Myr), relative to the angular momentum of a circular orbit at the same orbital radius, versus current orbital radius, 𝑅 now orbit. By definition, 𝑅circ ( 𝑗) is unity. Stars at 𝑅 now orbit ≲ 1.5 kpc are on less circular, and more bulge/bar-like, orbits. Beyond this radius, this ratio is approximately flat … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: — Evolution of specific angular momentum, 𝑗. The median 𝑗 of stars relative to that of a circular orbit at the same 𝑅 now orbit today, versus age, for all stars at 𝑅 now phys = 2 − 12 kpc (excluding the bulge region), averaged across radial bins of width 1 kpc. The black line shows the mean, while shaded regions show the 68th percentile and full scatter, across our 11 galaxies. The dashed line shows Romeo,… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Dynamical changes to stars from birth to today across the galaxy. The change in specific angular momentum, 𝑗 (left), physical radius, 𝑅phys (middle), and azimuthal velocity, 𝑣𝜙 (right), for all stars at 𝑅 now phys = 2 − 12 kpc (excluding the bulge region). Solid lines show the mean and the shaded regions show the 68th percentile and full scatter across our 11 galaxies. The dashed line shows Romeo, which … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Fractional changes to orbital angular momentum of stars, from birth to today, versus age, relative to the value today, averaged over our galaxies. Columns show stars at different 𝑅 now orbit (±0.25 kpc), and each line shows a different metric for 𝑅 now orbit. The vertical bands separate the pre-disk, early-disk, and late-disk eras. Top: The median (net) fractional change. Older stars and stars at larger … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Normalized distribution Δ𝑅orbit of stellar orbits, from birth to today, for stars at 𝑅 now orbit = 8±0.25 kpc today, averaged across our galaxies. Because we normalize all distributions to unity, the scale of the y-axis is arbitrary. Panels show stars of different ages today, which formed during the late-disk (left), early-disk (middle), and pre-disk (right) eras. Each line shows a metric for 𝑅orbit (at … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Radial redistribution of stellar orbits, from birth to today, versus current orbital radius, 𝑅 now orbit, averaged across our galaxies. Panels show stars of different ages today, which formed during the late-disk (left), early-disk (middle), and pre-disk (right) eras. Each line shows a different metric for 𝑅orbit (at both birth and today). Top: Median (net) change in 𝑅orbit. Young stars typically moved s… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Radial redistribution of stellar orbits, from birth to today, versus stellar age, averaged across our galaxies. Panels show stars at various 𝑅 now orbit. The vertical bands separate the pre-disk, early-disk, and late-disk eras. Top: The median (net) change in 𝑅orbit. The youngest stars redistributed slightly inward, while older stars redistributed increasingly outward with age; this transition occurred e… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Comparing FIRE-2 against the Auriga simulations. Radial redistribution, 𝜎(Δ𝑅orbit) (half width of the 68th percentile), versus stellar age, in the FIRE-2 simulations (solid lines) and the Auriga simulations (dashed lines) in Okalidis et al. (2022). Error bars show the 1𝜎 scatter across the simulation suite. We select stars as in Okalidis et al. (2022), matching their selection in 𝑅 form phys via multiple… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — Comparing radial redistribution in FIRE-2 with estimates for the MW, for changes to ‘guiding-center radius’, 𝑅circ ( 𝑗), versus stellar age today. We select stars at 𝑅circ ( 𝑗) = 4 and 8 kpc (±1 kpc) today. Solid lines show the mean, and the shaded regions show the 68th percentile (for 𝑅circ ( 𝑗) = 8 kpc) across our FIRE-2 galaxies. Top: Net redistribution, in terms of median Δ𝑅circ ( 𝑗). Dashed lines s… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — Correlations of radial redistribution with galaxy properties today, for all stars at 𝑅 now orbit = 7 − 9 kpc. We show correlations only with 𝑅phys and 𝑅circ ( 𝑗), but [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A central question in galactic dynamics and galactic archeology is: how much do the orbits of stars redistribute (migrate) after birth? We use the FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations of 11 Milky Way-mass galaxies to quantify the change in the orbital specific angular momentum, j_phi, orbital radius, R_orbit, and azimuthal velocity, v_phi, of stars from birth to today. We examine the dependences on stellar age, present-day R_orbit, and birth R_orbit, characterizing both the median (net) change, Delta R_orbit, and its scatter, sigma(Delta R_orbit). We comprehensively compare five ways of measuring orbital radius; we find generally consistent trends, but only when measuring radius today and radial redistribution self-consistently. Stars selected by their birth R_orbit typically decreased in R_orbit, j_phi, and v_phi since birth. The trend for stars at a given R_orbit today depends on age: those younger than ~5 Gyr generally decreased in R_orbit, j_phi, and v_phi since birth, while those older generally increased in R_orbit, j_phi, and v_phi since birth. sigma(Delta R_orbit), a standard metric of radial redistribution, increases with stellar age only up to ~ 3 Gyr; it saturates at sigma(Delta R_orbit) ~2 kpc for older stars. This saturation contradicts a common expectation of a monotonic increase with age. Our results broadly agree with recent observational inferences of Delta R_orbit and sigma(Delta R_orbit) in the Milky Way. Across our FIRE-2 sample, the timing of disk formation does not correlate with sigma(Delta R_orbit), but it correlates with (net) Delta R_orbit.

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. The manuscript uses particle tracking in 11 FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations of Milky Way-mass galaxies to measure changes in stellar orbital specific angular momentum j_phi, radius R_orbit, and azimuthal velocity v_phi from birth to z=0. It reports age-dependent net radial migration (younger stars at fixed present-day R_orbit tend to have decreased R_orbit since birth; older stars increased) and finds that the scatter sigma(Delta R_orbit) rises with age only until ~3 Gyr before saturating at ~2 kpc. Trends are stated to be consistent across five R_orbit definitions when measured self-consistently, and results are compared to Milky Way observations; disk formation time correlates with net Delta R_orbit but not with the scatter.

Significance. If the saturation result is physical rather than numerical, the work would be significant for galactic dynamics and archaeology: it directly challenges the expectation of monotonic growth in radial migration scatter with stellar age and supplies falsifiable, simulation-derived predictions that align with recent observational inferences. The analysis benefits from direct use of simulation particle data without fitted parameters or circular definitions, plus the multi-galaxy sample and cross-check of five radius definitions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results (age-dependence of sigma)] The central claim that sigma(Delta R_orbit) saturates at ~2 kpc after ~3 Gyr (abstract) rests on the assumption that FIRE-2 faithfully captures radial migration over >10 Gyr. No resolution-convergence tests or comparisons to higher-resolution runs are reported; older stars complete more orbital periods, so any resolution-dependent diffusion, softening-length heating, or incomplete capture of spiral/bar torques could produce an artificial plateau. This is load-bearing for the result that contradicts monotonic-increase expectations.
  2. [Abstract and Methods/Results comparison of definitions] The statement that trends are 'generally consistent' across five R_orbit definitions 'only when measuring radius today and radial redistribution self-consistently' (abstract) is presented without quantitative metrics (e.g., differences in median Delta R_orbit or sigma values, or statistical tests) that would demonstrate the degree of consistency or the impact of non-self-consistent choices.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract notes broad agreement with 'recent observational inferences' but does not cite the specific Milky Way studies being compared; these references should be added in the introduction or discussion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, outlining our planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that sigma(Delta R_orbit) saturates at ~2 kpc after ~3 Gyr (abstract) rests on the assumption that FIRE-2 faithfully captures radial migration over >10 Gyr. No resolution-convergence tests or comparisons to higher-resolution runs are reported; older stars complete more orbital periods, so any resolution-dependent diffusion, softening-length heating, or incomplete capture of spiral/bar torques could produce an artificial plateau. This is load-bearing for the result that contradicts monotonic-increase expectations.

    Authors: We agree that the lack of explicit resolution-convergence tests specific to the radial migration scatter is a limitation of the current manuscript, and we appreciate the referee identifying this as load-bearing for the saturation result. The FIRE-2 simulations have been subject to extensive convergence studies in prior work for dynamical properties including disk structure and orbital evolution, and the saturation behavior is consistent across our full sample of 11 galaxies. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section that explicitly addresses potential numerical effects (gravitational softening, orbital period accumulation for older stars, and resolution of non-axisymmetric torques), explains why we consider the saturation physical rather than artificial, and notes the external consistency with Milky Way observational inferences. We cannot, however, run new higher-resolution simulations within the scope of this revision. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The statement that trends are 'generally consistent' across five R_orbit definitions 'only when measuring radius today and radial redistribution self-consistently' (abstract) is presented without quantitative metrics (e.g., differences in median Delta R_orbit or sigma values, or statistical tests) that would demonstrate the degree of consistency or the impact of non-self-consistent choices.

    Authors: We agree that the claim of general consistency would be strengthened by quantitative metrics. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the relevant results section to include a table (or supplementary figure) that reports the differences in median Delta R_orbit and sigma(Delta R_orbit) across the five definitions, quantifies the impact of non-self-consistent radius choices, and provides basic statistical comparisons (e.g., standard deviations of the medians and pairwise differences) to demonstrate the degree of agreement when measurements are performed self-consistently. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • We cannot perform new higher-resolution simulations to directly test convergence of the sigma(Delta R_orbit) saturation result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in simulation-based orbital redistribution analysis

full rationale

The paper reports direct empirical measurements of Delta R_orbit, sigma(Delta R_orbit), and related quantities by tracking stellar particles from birth to z=0 in the FIRE-2 simulations. The reported saturation of sigma(Delta R_orbit) at ~2 kpc beyond ~3 Gyr is an observed trend in the simulation data, not a quantity derived from a model that assumes or fits it. The comparison of five orbital-radius definitions is a methodological consistency check rather than a self-referential definition. No parameters are fitted to subsets of the data and then presented as independent predictions, and no load-bearing claims reduce to self-citations or ansatzes imported from prior work by the same authors. The derivation chain consists of simulation outputs and straightforward statistical summaries of those outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on the existing FIRE-2 simulation framework and standard galactic dynamics assumptions without introducing new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5648 in / 1022 out tokens · 52728 ms · 2026-05-11T00:45:45.031154+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

173 extracted references · 169 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., Navarro J

    Abadi M. G., Navarro J. F., Steinmetz M., Eke V. R., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378316 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...597...21A 597, 21

    work page doi:10.1086/378316 2003

  2. [2]

    M., Hickox, R

    Alexander D. M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2025.101733 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NewAR.10101733A 101, 101733

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2025.101733 2025

  3. [3]

    Anders F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...600A..70A 600, A70

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629363 2017

  4. [4]

    E., Arora A., Hopkins P

    Ansar S., Pearson S., Sanderson R. E., Arora A., Hopkins P. F., Wetzel A., Cunningham E. C., Quinn J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978...37A 978, 37

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b45 2025

  5. [5]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A26A...558A..33A 558, A33

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    Athanassoula E., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06473.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.341.1179A 341, 1179

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06473.x 2003

  7. [7]

    Baba J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psaf062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PASJ..tmp...67B

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf062 2025

  8. [8]

    Barbanis B., Woltjer L., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...150..461B 150, 461

    work page doi:10.1086/149349 1967

  9. [9]

    A., Wetzel A., Loebman S

    Bellardini M. A., Wetzel A., Loebman S. R., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Ma X., Feldmann R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1606 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.4586B 505, 4586

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1606 2021

  10. [10]

    A., Wetzel A., Loebman S

    Bellardini M. A., Wetzel A., Loebman S. R., Bailin J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1637 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.4270B 514, 4270

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1637 2022

  11. [11]

    Belokurov V., Kravtsov A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514..689B 514, 689

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1267 2022

  12. [12]

    M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.3993B 497, 3993

    Benincasa S. M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.3993B 497, 3993

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2116 2020

  13. [13]

    R., Ness M

    Bhattarai B., Loebman S. R., Ness M. K., Wetzel A., Cunningham E. C., Parul H., Wiggins A. I., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.02228 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240802228B p. arXiv:2408.02228

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.02228 2024

  14. [14]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Bird J. C., Kazantzidis S., Weinberg D. H., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19728.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420..913B 420, 913

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19728.x 2012

  15. [15]

    C., Loebman, S

    Bird J. C., Loebman S. R., Weinberg D. H., Brooks A. M., Quinn T. R., Christensen C. R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.1815B 503, 1815

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab289 2021

  16. [16]

    Brunetti M., Chiappini C., Pfenniger D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117566 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...534A..75B 534, A75

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117566 2011

  17. [17]

    V., Minchev I., Dutton A

    Buck T., Obreja A., Macci \`o A. V., Minchev I., Dutton A. A., Ostriker J. P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.3461B 491, 3461

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3241 2020

  18. [18]

    Buder S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.4513B 478, 4513

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1281 2018

  19. [19]

    G., Sellwood J

    Carlberg R. G., Sellwood J. A., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292...79C 292, 79

    work page doi:10.1086/163134 1985

  20. [20]

    V., Laporte C

    Carr C., Johnston K. V., Laporte C. F. P., Ness M. K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.5067C 516, 5067

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2403 2022

  21. [21]

    K., Hawkins K., Sanderson R

    Carrillo A., Ness M. K., Hawkins K., Sanderson R. E., Wang K., Wetzel A., Bellardini M. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942...35C 942, 35

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c7 2023

  22. [22]

    Casagrande L., Sch \"o nrich R., Asplund M., Cassisi S., Ram \' rez I., Mel \'e ndez J., Bensby T., Feltzing S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016276 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...530A.138C 530, A138

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016276 2011

  23. [23]

    M., Grenon M., Barbuy B., McCarthy J

    Castro S., Rich R. M., Grenon M., Barbuy B., McCarthy J. K., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AJ....114..376C 114, 376

    work page doi:10.1086/118481 1997

  24. [24]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2236 , eprint =

    Chan T. K., Kere s D., Gurvich A. B., Hopkins P. F., Trapp C., Ji S., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517..597C 517, 597

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2236 2022

  25. [25]

    Chiba R., Friske J. K. S., Sch \"o nrich R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.4710C 500, 4710

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3585 2021

  26. [26]

    Christensen C., Quinn T., Governato F., Stilp A., Shen S., Wadsley J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21628.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.3058C 425, 3058

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21628.x 2012

  27. [27]

    arXiv:2204.02989

    Conroy C., et al., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220402989C p. arXiv:2204.02989

    work page arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    , keywords =

    Conselice C. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..291C 52, 291

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037 2014

  29. [29]

    2005 , month = sep, journal =

    Croton D. J., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365...11C 365, 11

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x 2006

  30. [30]

    Cui X.-Q., Zhao Y.-H., Chu Y.-Q., et al., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RAA....12.1197C 12, 1197

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

  31. [31]

    L., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.21863 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250321863D p

    Danhaive A. L., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.21863 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250321863D p. arXiv:2503.21863

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.21863 2025

  32. [32]

    J., Wyse R

    Daniel K. J., Wyse R. F. G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.3576D 447, 3576

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2683 2015

  33. [33]

    J., Wyse R

    Daniel K. J., Wyse R. F. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty199 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.1561D 476, 1561

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty199 2018

  34. [34]

    J., Schaffner D

    Daniel K. J., Schaffner D. A., McCluskey F., Fiedler Kawaguchi C., Loebman S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab341a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882..111D 882, 111

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab341a 2019

  35. [35]

    Simba: Cosmological Simulations with Black Hole Growth and Feedback

    Dav \'e R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Narayanan D., Li Q., Rafieferantsoa M. H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2827D 486, 2827

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stz937 2019

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    De Silva G. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.2604D 449, 2604

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv327 2015

  37. [37]

    J., Belokurov V., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NewAR..9901706D 99, 101706

    Deason A. J., Belokurov V., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NewAR..9901706D 99, 101706

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2024.101706 2024

  38. [38]

    P., Gonzalez O

    Debattista V. P., Gonzalez O. A., Sanderson R. E., El-Badry K., Garrison-Kimmel S., Wetzel A., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Hopkins P. F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz746 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.5073D 485, 5073

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz746 2019

  39. [39]

    O., Johnson J

    Dubay L. O., Johnson J. A., Johnson J. W., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61df , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973...55D 973, 55

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad61df 2024

  40. [40]

    Dubois Y., Gavazzi R., Peirani S., Silk J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.3297D 433, 3297

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt997 2013

  41. [41]

    L., Nissen P

    Edvardsson B., Andersen J., Gustafsson B., Lambert D. L., Nissen P. E., Tomkin J., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...275..101E 275, 101

    1993

  42. [42]

    F., Kere s D., Chan T

    El-Badry K., Wetzel A., Geha M., Hopkins P. F., Kere s D., Chan T. K., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...820..131E 820, 131

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/131 2016

  43. [43]

    R., Geha M., Quataert E., Hopkins P

    El-Badry K., Wetzel A. R., Geha M., Quataert E., Hopkins P. F., Kere s D., Chan T. K., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/193 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..193E 835, 193

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/193 2017

  44. [44]

    El-Badry K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018MNRAS.473.1930E 473, 1930

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2482 2018

  45. [45]

    Escala I., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2858 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018MNRAS.474.2194E 474, 2194

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2858 2018

  46. [46]

    Observational Evidence of AGN Feedback

    Fabian A. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

  47. [47]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Lidz A., Zaldarriaga M., Hernquist L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.1416F 703, 1416

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

  48. [48]

    K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.2326F 477, 2326

    Feuillet D. K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.2326F 477, 2326

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty779 2018

  49. [49]

    M., Wuyts S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58..661F 58, 661

    F \"o rster Schreiber N. M., Wuyts S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58..661F 58, 661

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021910 2020

  50. [50]

    Fragkoudi F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.5936F 494, 5936

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1104 2020

  51. [51]

    Fragkoudi F., Grand R. J. J., Pakmor R., G \'o mez F., Marinacci F., Springel V., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf389 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538.1587F 538, 1587

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf389 2025

  52. [52]

    W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018ApJ...865...96F 865, 96

    Frankel N., Rix H.-W., Ting Y.-S., Ness M., Hogg D. W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018ApJ...865...96F 865, 96

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadba5 2018

  53. [53]

    Frankel N., Sanders J., Ting Y.-S., Rix H.-W., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab910c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896...15F 896, 15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab910c 2020

  54. [54]

    Frankel N., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9972 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940...61F 940, 61

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9972 2022

  55. [55]

    Freeman K., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093840 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ARA

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093840 2002

  56. [56]

    arXiv:2508.14626

    Frosst M., Obreschkow D., Ludlow A., Fraser-McKelvie A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2508.14626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250814626F p. arXiv:2508.14626

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.14626 2025

  57. [57]

    Gaia Collaboration Prusti T., de Bruijne J. H. J., Brown A. G. A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 2016

  58. [58]

    J., Wetzel A., Hopkins P

    Gandhi P. J., Wetzel A., Hopkins P. F., Shappee B. J., Wheeler C., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2228 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.1941G 516, 1941

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2228 2022

  59. [59]

    Garrison-Kimmel S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1710 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.1709G 471, 1709

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1710 2017

  60. [60]

    Garrison-Kimmel S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.4133G 481, 4133

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2513 2018

  61. [61]

    Garrison-Kimmel S., et al., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1317 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.1380G 487, 1380

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1317

  62. [62]

    Garrison-Kimmel S., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.4574G 489, 4574

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2507

  63. [63]

    Glazebrook K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2013.34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASA...30...56G 30, e056

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2013.34 2013

  64. [64]

    L., Wetzel A., Bellardini M

    Graf R. L., Wetzel A., Bellardini M. A., Bailin J., 2025a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adacd7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...981...47G 981, 47

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adacd7

  65. [65]

    L., Wetzel A., Bailin J., Orr M

    Graf R. L., Wetzel A., Bailin J., Orr M. E., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa07 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...991..139G 991, 139

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa07

  66. [66]

    Grand R. J. J., Springel V., G \'o mez F. A., Marinacci F., Pakmor R., Campbell D. J. R., Jenkins A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw601 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459..199G 459, 199

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw601 2016

  67. [67]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467..179G 467, 179

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx071 2017

  68. [68]

    Grenon M., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00646341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Ap&SS.156...29G 156, 29

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00646341 1989

  69. [69]

    Y., Hafen Z., Rodriguez C

    Grudi \'c M. Y., Hafen Z., Rodriguez C. L., Guszejnov D., Lamberts A., Wetzel A., Boylan-Kolchin M., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3573 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.1366G 519, 1366

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3573 2023

  70. [70]

    B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3712 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.2598G 519, 2598

    Gurvich A. B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3712 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.2598G 519, 2598

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3712 2023

  71. [71]

    Y., Offner S

    Guszejnov D., Grudi \'c M. Y., Offner S. S. R., Boylan-Kolchin M., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Wetzel A., Benincasa S. M., Loebman S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492..488G 492, 488

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3527 2020

  72. [72]

    Hahn O., Abel T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415.2101H 415, 2101

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x 2011

  73. [73]

    Halle A., Di Matteo P., Haywood M., Combes F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...578A..58H 578, A58

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525612 2015

  74. [74]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.585..357H 585, 357

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  75. [75]

    , keywords =

    Hayden M. R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/132 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808..132H 808, 132

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/132 2015

  76. [76]

    Haywood M., 2008, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13395.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.388.1175H 388, 1175

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13395.x 2008

  77. [77]

    , keywords =

    Haywood M., Snaith O., Lehnert M. D., Di Matteo P., Khoperskov S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834155 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A.105H 625, A105

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834155 2019

  78. [78]

    Haywood M., Khoperskov S., Cerqui V., Di Matteo P., Katz D., Snaith O., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348767 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.147H 690, A147

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348767 2024

  79. [79]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman T. M., Best P. N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..589H 52, 589

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 2014

  80. [80]

    , number =

    Hopkins P. F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv195 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450...53H 450, 53

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015

Showing first 80 references.