pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.22758 · v2 · pith:YNW6YT6Gnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Black Hole Occupation Fraction: Dependence on Black Hole Mass Threshold, Environment, Resolution and Redshift

Emanuele Contini , J.K. Jang , Jinsu Rhee , Changjo Seo , Sukyoung K. Yi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 08:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords black hole occupation fractiongalaxy stellar masscentral galaxiessatellite galaxiesredshift evolutionnumerical resolutionblack hole mass thresholdsemi-analytic model
0
0 comments X

The pith

The black hole occupation fraction rises with galaxy stellar mass, yet its normalization, shape, and redshift trend depend on the black hole mass threshold, central versus satellite status, simulation volume, and resolution.

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

The paper uses a semi-analytic model run on multiple dark matter simulations to map how the fraction of galaxies that host black holes above a chosen mass threshold varies with galaxy stellar mass. It finds that this fraction increases with stellar mass, but the details of the relation shift strongly when the mass threshold changes or when central and satellite galaxies are weighted differently. Different simulation boxes produce different results because of variations in volume, resolution, and the galaxies sampled. Redshift evolution also fails to follow a single pattern across the runs. The work treats the overall relation as an average across mixed galaxy populations rather than a universal curve.

Core claim

The black hole occupation fraction increases with stellar mass, but its normalization and shape depend strongly on the adopted black hole mass threshold and on the relative contribution of central and satellite galaxies. The relative behavior of central and satellite galaxies depends on the simulation box and black hole mass threshold, while the global relation should be interpreted as a population-weighted quantity. Significant box-to-box variations appear, reflecting the combined impact of numerical resolution, simulated volume, and sampled galaxy population. The redshift evolution is not universal.

What carries the argument

The black hole occupation fraction, computed as the share of galaxies above a given stellar mass that contain a black hole exceeding a chosen mass threshold, tracked separately for central and satellite galaxies across simulation boxes.

If this is right

  • The global occupation fraction must be read as a population-weighted average rather than a single universal curve.
  • Central and satellite galaxies can display opposite trends depending on the simulation volume and chosen mass threshold.
  • Redshift evolution differs between smaller and larger simulation volumes.
  • The inferred occupation fraction changes with numerical resolution and the galaxies included in each box.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Observers comparing occupation fractions across studies need to match the exact mass threshold and central-satellite mix used in each simulation.
  • Box-to-box differences suggest that current volume and resolution limits still affect predicted occupation statistics.
  • Extending the same analysis to higher-resolution runs could test whether the reported variations shrink or persist.
  • Non-universal redshift trends imply that the balance between black hole growth channels may shift differently in dense versus average environments over time.

Load-bearing premise

The semi-analytic model reproduces the observed black hole mass function from redshift two to the present day.

What would settle it

A measurement of the black hole occupation fraction at fixed stellar mass that shows no increase with stellar mass, or that remains unchanged when the black hole mass threshold is varied, would falsify the reported dependence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22758 by Changjo Seo, Emanuele Contini, Jinsu Rhee, J.K. Jang, Sukyoung K. Yi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: Black hole mass function at z = 0 predicted by our model (blue squares), compared with the predictions of the GAEA semianalytic model (F. Fontanot et al. 2020; black solid line) and its All Light Seed implementation (V. Cammelli et al. 2025; purple solid line). Observational constraints from B. Mutlu-Pakdil et al. (2016) and F. Shankar et al. (2020) are shown as red and purple dashed lines, res… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Black hole occupation fraction, fBH,occ, as a function of stellar mass at z = 0. The left and right panels show YS50 and YS200, respectively. Colors distinguish satellite galaxies from central galaxies, while line styles indicate the adopted black hole mass threshold: solid lines for MBH > 105 M⊙ and dotted lines for MBH > 106 M⊙. The comparison shows that the relative behavior of central and satellite gal… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fraction of satellite galaxies as a function of stellar mass for our sample. The four panels correspond to z = 0, z = 1, z = 2, and z = 3, as indicated. In each stellar-mass bin, the plotted quantity is defined as Nsat/Ntot, where Nsat is the number of satellite galaxies hosting a black hole above the adopted mass threshold, and Ntot is the total number of galaxies, centrals plus satellites, satisfying the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the black hole occupation fraction (fBH,occ) as a function of stellar mass in the three simulation boxes, separately for central galaxies (upper panels), satellite galaxies (middle panels), and the full galaxy population (lower panels). The left column shows the results obtained with the lower black hole mass threshold, while the right column corresponds to the higher threshold. Colors identi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Redshift dependence of the black hole occupation fraction (fBH,occ) as a function of stellar mass from z = 3 to the present day, with different colors indicating the redshifts as shown in the legend. Each panel corresponds to one of the three simulation boxes and includes the lower (solid lines) and higher (dashed lines) black hole mass thresholds. In YS50, the occupation fraction decreases toward lower re… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between the black hole occupation fraction, fBH,occ, predicted by our model in the three simulation boxes and results from observational studies (upper panels) and numerical simulations (lower panels). The left and right columns correspond to MBH > 105 M⊙ and MBH > 106 M⊙, respectively. Our predictions for YS50, YS200, and YS300 are shown in blue, red, and green. For the lower BH mass threshold,… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We take advantage of the state-of-the-art semi-analytic model \texttt{FEGA25} \citep{contini2025}, run on merger trees extracted from three dark matter-only cosmological simulations, to study the relation between the black hole (BH) occupation fraction, $f_{\rm BH,occ}$, and galaxy stellar mass as a function of BH mass threshold, galaxy type, simulated volume, numerical resolution, sampled galaxy population, and redshift. \texttt{FEGA25} includes an improved treatment of active galactic nucleus feedback and does not impose a pre-existing BH seed population: BHs grow naturally through quasar and radio modes. Starting from the prerequisite that \texttt{FEGA25} reproduces the observed BH mass function from at least $z=2$ to the present day, our analysis leads to several results. We find that $f_{\rm BH,occ}$ increases with stellar mass, but that its normalization and shape depend strongly on the adopted BH mass threshold and on the relative contribution of central and satellite galaxies. The relative behavior of central and satellite galaxies depends on the simulation box and BH mass threshold, while the global relation should be interpreted as a population-weighted quantity. We also find significant box-to-box variations, reflecting the combined impact of numerical resolution, simulated volume, and sampled galaxy population. The redshift evolution is not universal: YS50 and the \texttt{NewCluster} zoom-in simulation show a trend qualitatively similar to that reported by \citet{tremmel2024}, whereas larger-volume boxes show the opposite behavior. Finally, comparison with other studies shows that the inferred occupation fraction is highly sensitive to BH mass threshold, simulated volume, numerical resolution, and sampled galaxy population.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper uses the FEGA25 semi-analytic model, run on merger trees from three dark-matter-only simulations (including YS50, NewCluster zoom-in, and larger-volume boxes), to examine how the black hole occupation fraction f_BH,occ varies with galaxy stellar mass as a function of BH mass threshold, central versus satellite galaxies, simulation volume/resolution, sampled population, and redshift. Starting from the stated prerequisite that FEGA25 reproduces the observed BH mass function from z=2 to z=0, the main findings are that f_BH,occ increases with stellar mass but its normalization and shape depend strongly on the adopted BH mass threshold and the relative weight of centrals versus satellites; box-to-box variations are significant; and redshift evolution is not universal, with some boxes following trends similar to Tremmel et al. (2024) while others show the opposite.

Significance. If the prerequisite BH mass function match holds, the results usefully demonstrate that inferred occupation fractions are highly sensitive to the choice of BH mass threshold, the central/satellite split, and simulation characteristics. The explicit comparison across multiple boxes and the finding of non-universal redshift evolution provide a cautionary note for the field when generalizing occupation-fraction trends from single simulations or fixed thresholds. The multi-simulation approach is a strength, as it quantifies box-to-box variations arising from resolution, volume, and population sampling.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The entire set of reported dependencies (on BH mass threshold, central/satellite contribution, box size, and non-universal redshift evolution) rests on the prerequisite that FEGA25 reproduces the observed BH mass function from z=2 to z=0. The manuscript does not re-demonstrate this match or cite specific quantitative evidence (e.g., low-mass end agreement or z>1 behavior) from Contini et al. (2025), so any mismatch at the low-mass end would directly rescale the occupation fractions and alter the claimed trends.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The entire set of reported dependencies (on BH mass threshold, central/satellite contribution, box size, and non-universal redshift evolution) rests on the prerequisite that FEGA25 reproduces the observed BH mass function from z=2 to z=0. The manuscript does not re-demonstrate this match or cite specific quantitative evidence (e.g., low-mass end agreement or z>1 behavior) from Contini et al. (2025), so any mismatch at the low-mass end would directly rescale the occupation fractions and alter the claimed trends.

    Authors: We agree this is a valid point. The current manuscript states the prerequisite and cites Contini et al. (2025) but does not include explicit quantitative references to the BHMF agreement. In revision we will add targeted citations to the relevant figures and text in Contini et al. (2025) demonstrating the match at the low-mass end and at z>1. This will not change the reported trends but will make the foundation of the analysis more transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to FEGA25 prerequisite; occupation fractions are independent model outputs

full rationale

The paper's derivation consists of running the FEGA25 semi-analytic model on independent dark-matter merger trees extracted from cosmological simulations and computing occupation fractions as direct outputs. The sole self-citation is to the prior FEGA25 paper for the prerequisite BH mass function match, which is stated explicitly as a starting condition rather than derived here. No equations or steps reduce the reported f_BH,occ trends by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; the dependencies on threshold, environment, resolution, and redshift follow from the simulation results themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the FEGA25 semi-analytic model (including its AGN feedback treatment) and on the cosmological simulations providing the merger trees; the model itself contains multiple free parameters tuned to match the BH mass function.

free parameters (1)
  • BH mass threshold
    Varied across the study to explore sensitivity; values chosen by the authors rather than derived from first principles.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption FEGA25 reproduces the observed black hole mass function from at least z=2 to the present day
    Explicitly stated as the prerequisite that enables the occupation-fraction analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5860 in / 1334 out tokens · 38168 ms · 2026-06-26T08:26:19.872231+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

60 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2014, Science, 345, 1330, doi: 10.1126/science.1251053 Alonso-´Alvarez, G., Cline, J

    Alexander, T., & Natarajan, P. 2014, Science, 345, 1330, doi: 10.1126/science.1251053 Ba˜ nados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 473, doi: 10.1038/nature25180

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1251053 2014

  2. [2]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, 1011, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13472.x

    Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., & Driver, S. P. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 945, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13348.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13348.x 2008

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Baldry, I. K., Driver, S. P., Loveday, J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 621, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20340.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20340.x 2012

  4. [4]

    Begelman, M. C. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 673, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15916.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15916.x 2010

  5. [5]

    C., & Silk, J

    Begelman, M. C., & Silk, J. 2023, MNRAS, 526, L94, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad124

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad124 2023

  6. [6]

    M., Cleary, C

    Bellovary, J. M., Cleary, C. E., Munshi, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2842

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2842 2019

  7. [7]

    K., Dominguez-Sanchez, H., et al

    Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Dominguez-Sanchez, H., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2560, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty781

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty781 2018

  8. [8]

    K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf269

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf269 2025

  9. [9]

    K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.12851. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12851

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    J., Natarajan, P., Baldassare, V

    Burke, C. J., Natarajan, P., Baldassare, V. F., & Geha, M. 2025, ApJ, 978, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad94d9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad94d9 2025

  11. [11]

    C., et al

    Cammelli, V., Monaco, P., Tan, J. C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2663

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2663 2025

  12. [12]

    , eprint =

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  13. [13]

    MNRAS , author =

    Contini, E., De Lucia, G., Villalobos, ´A., & Borgani, S. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2174

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2174 2014

  14. [14]

    Contini, E., Rhee, J., Han, S., Jeon, S., & Yi, S. K. 2024a, AJ, 167, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0894

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0894

  15. [15]

    Contini, E., Seo, C., Rhee, J., Jeon, S., & Yi, S. K. 2025a, ApJS, 281, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae060f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae060f

  16. [16]

    K., Jeon, S., & Rhee, J

    Contini, E., Yi, S. K., Jeon, S., & Rhee, J. 2024b, ApJS, 274, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad70ac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad70ac

  17. [17]

    K., Rhee, J., & Jeon, S

    Contini, E., Yi, S. K., Rhee, J., & Jeon, S. 2025b, ApJS, 279, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/addb4b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/addb4b

  18. [18]

    , keywords =

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x

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

  19. [19]

    Dubath, L

    Dubois, Y., Devriendt, J., Slyz, A., & Teyssier, R. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2662, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20236.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20236.x 2012

  20. [20]

    MNRAS , author =

    Dubois, Y., Pichon, C., Welker, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1227

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1227 2014

  21. [21]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 2410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1280

    Ferrara, A., Salvadori, S., Yue, B., & Schleicher, D. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1280

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1280 2014

  22. [22]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 3943, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1716

    Fontanot, F., De Lucia, G., Hirschmann, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3943, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1716

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1716 2020

  23. [23]

    Greene, J. E. 2012, Nature Communications, 3, 1304, doi: 10.1038/ncomms2314

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms2314 2012

  24. [24]

    Astrophys

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, III, J. R. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/151605

    work page doi:10.1086/151605 1972

  25. [25]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 4912, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1659

    Haidar, H., Habouzit, M., Volonteri, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4912, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1659

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1659 2022

  26. [26]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98f4

    Han, S., Dubois, Y., Lee, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98f4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad98f4 2025

  27. [27]

    K., Dubois, Y., et al

    Han, S., Yi, S. K., Dubois, Y., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556291 16Contini et al

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556291 2026

  28. [28]

    Henriques, B. M. B., Yates, R. M., Fu, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3233

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3233 2020

  29. [29]

    2010, ApJ, 709, 644, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/644

    Ilbert, O., Salvato, M., Le Floc’h, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 644, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/644

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/2/644 2010

  30. [30]

    J., Le F \`e vre , O., et al

    Ilbert, O., McCracken, H. J., Le F` evre, O., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321100

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321100 2013

  31. [31]

    C., & Shen, Y

    Kelly, B. C., & Shen, Y. 2013, ApJ, 764, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/45

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/1/45 2013

  32. [32]

    B., Tinsley, B

    Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., & Caldwell, C. N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692, doi: 10.1086/157917

    work page doi:10.1086/157917 1980

  33. [33]

    L., Finkelstein, S

    Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace619

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace619 2023

  34. [34]

    Li, C., & White, S. D. M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 2177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15268.x

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

  35. [35]

    Madau, P., & Rees, M. J. 2001, ApJL, 551, L27, doi: 10.1086/319848

    work page doi:10.1086/319848 2001

  36. [36]

    2024a, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5 2024

  37. [37]

    G., F¨ orster Schreiber, N

    Marchesini, D., van Dokkum, P. G., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1765, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1765

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/1765 2009

  38. [38]

    E., Brammer, G., et al

    Marchesini, D., Whitaker, K. E., Brammer, G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1277, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1277

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/1277 2010

  39. [39]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 2576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1163

    Mezcua, M., Civano, F., Marchesi, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1163

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1163 2018

  40. [40]

    P., Gallo, E., Greene, J

    Miller, B. P., Gallo, E., Greene, J. E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/98

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/98 2015

  41. [41]

    S., & Davis, B

    Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Seigar, M. S., & Davis, B. L. 2016, ApJ, 830, 117, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/117

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/2/117 2016

  42. [42]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/18

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/18 2013

  43. [43]

    2024, ApJL, 960, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

    Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ricarte, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76 2024

  44. [44]

    2019b, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    work page doi:10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x 2019

  45. [45]

    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

  46. [46]

    2018b, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3112 2018

  47. [47]

    and Bower, Richard G

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2058 2015

  48. [48]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 282, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0949-y

    Shankar, F., Allevato, V., Bernardi, M., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 282, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0949-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0949-y 2020

  49. [49]

    2011, ApJ, 733, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/87

    Shi, Y., Helou, G., Yan, L., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/87

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/2/87 2011

  50. [50]

    D., Regan, J

    Smith, B. D., Regan, J. A., Downes, T. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3762, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2103

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2103 2018

  51. [51]

    , keywords =

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Zier, O., & Reinecke, M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1855

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1855 2021

  52. [52]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 2751, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu983

    Taylor, P., & Kobayashi, C. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2751, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu983

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu983 2014

  53. [53]

    13 CPRT: Bridging Theory and Observation in the SKA Era Chan et al

    Teyssier, R. 2002, A&A, 385, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011817 2002

  54. [54]

    R., Quadri, R

    Tomczak, A. R., Quadri, R. F., Tran, K.-V. H., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/85

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/85 2014

  55. [55]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 26, doi: 10.33232/001c.116617

    Tremmel, M., Ricarte, A., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 26, doi: 10.33232/001c.116617

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.116617 2024

  56. [56]

    , keywords =

    Volonteri, M., Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1079, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x 2008

  57. [57]

    , keywords =

    Volonteri, M., & Natarajan, P. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1911, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15577.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15577.x 2009

  58. [58]

    2021, ApJL, 907, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6 2021

  59. [59]

    H., Regan, J

    Wise, J. H., Regan, J. A., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 566, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0873-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0873-4 2019

  60. [60]

    C., et al

    Zou, F., Gallo, E., Seth, A. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae06a1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae06a1 2025