arxiv: 2604.02566 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

Recognition: no theorem link

The Inner Dark-Matter Structure of Galaxies

Vicente Honorato , Antonio D. Montero-Dorta , M. Celeste Artale , Ankit Kumar

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 20:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

keywords dark matter density profilesgalaxy stellar massTNG50 simulationinner slopebaryonic effectscentral versus satellite galaxiesredshift evolution

0 comments

The pith

High-stellar-mass galaxies show shallow inner dark matter density slopes regardless of central or satellite status, while lower-mass galaxies display more varied profiles.

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

This paper examines the inner slopes of dark matter density profiles in galaxies from the TNG50 simulation and a matching dark-matter-only run. It finds that systems above roughly 10 to the 11 solar masses in stars maintain shallow inner profiles whether they sit at the center of their halo or orbit as satellites. Lower-mass galaxies instead show a wide spread of slopes, and at fixed stellar mass the satellites are typically more cuspy, especially the redder ones sitting in massive hosts with lower peak circular velocity. The profiles steepen from redshift 1 toward the present day in both runs, though the hydrodynamical galaxies end up steeper overall. These patterns illustrate how baryonic processes reshape dark matter distributions in a mass-dependent way.

Core claim

In TNG50 the inner dark matter density slopes, measured via an Inner Linear Fit power-law to the central region of spherically averaged profiles, are shallow for galaxies with stellar mass at or above 10^11 solar masses, independent of central or satellite status. Lower-mass galaxies exhibit broader diversity, with low-mass satellites showing steeper cusps, especially red systems with lower Vmax inside more massive host haloes. Both hydrodynamical and dark-matter-only runs display cosmic evolution toward steeper profiles at low redshift, with the hydrodynamical case steeper at all epochs; the steepest population remains robust when the fit range is extended outward.

What carries the argument

The Inner Linear Fit (ILF), a power-law applied to the central region of the spherically averaged dark matter density profile to measure the inner slope.

If this is right

Baryonic processes produce steeper inner profiles than dark-matter-only evolution at all redshifts examined.
Inner slopes evolve from shallower values near redshift 1 to steeper values at z=0 in both hydrodynamical and dark-matter-only runs.
At fixed stellar mass the steepest inner slopes appear in redder low-mass satellites that have lower Vmax and reside in more massive host haloes.
Extending the Inner Linear Fit to larger radii yields even steeper slopes, confirming that the reported steep population is not an artifact of the innermost fitting choice.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Baryon-driven core formation appears more efficient in high-mass systems, while low-mass satellites retain or regain steeper central densities through environmental processing.
The mass-dependent trends may alter predictions for the central mass within a few kiloparsecs that enters strong-lensing or dynamical modeling of galaxy centers.
If the same mass thresholds govern observed rotation curves or lensing signals, they could help separate the roles of feedback versus tidal effects in shaping galaxy cores.

Load-bearing premise

The power-law fit to the innermost part of the simulated density profile accurately reflects the true asymptotic inner slope without major distortion from finite resolution, subhalo matching, or the precise radial range chosen.

What would settle it

If observations of high-mass galaxies using strong lensing or stellar kinematics instead recover steep inner dark matter cusps, or if higher-resolution simulations erase the reported mass dependence, the central claim would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02566 by Ankit Kumar, Antonio D. Montero-Dorta, M. Celeste Artale, Vicente Honorato.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Examples of DM density profiles from our catalogue for galaxies spanning a range of DM masses, together with the six fitting models adopted in this work. Each panel shows the full radial profile, with an inset highlighting the inner region above the resolution limit. The shaded vertical region indicates radii below the adopted Plummer-equivalent gravitational softening length. Grey points with error bars r… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Two-dimensional distribution of the inner slope γ as a function of galaxy DM mass. The colour map shows the reduced chi-square χ 2 ν of the linear fits, and contours indicate regions of increasing point density. Between these regimes, an extended intermediate mass range (MDM ∼ 109–1011 M⊙) displays an approximately flat behaviour. In this interval, the kernel density estimation (KDE) contours enclosing th… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Posterior distributions of the slope and intercept of the ILF obtained from the MCMC analysis. The top and right panels show the one-dimensional posteriors, while the lower-left panel displays the joint posterior with credibility contours. Vertical lines mark the median and the 16th and 84th percentiles of the corresponding posterior distributions. To complement the linear-fit analysis, we perform a Baye… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Galaxy properties colour-coded by the inner slope γ. Top-left: specific star formation rate versus stellar mass. Top-right: (g − r) colour versus stellar mass. Bottom-left: stellar mass versus maximum circular velocity Vmax. Bottom-right: stellar mass versus host-halo mass Mhost. 2012; Speagle et al. 2014), the galaxy colour–M⋆ relation (e.g., Trayford et al. 2015; Nelson et al. 2018), the M⋆–Vmax connect… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Scaling relations between galaxy and halo properties for central (top panels) and satellite (bottom panels) galaxies. From left to right: sS FR versus stellar mass M⋆; rest-frame colour (g − r) versus M⋆; stellar mass versus maximum circular velocity Vmax; and stellar mass versus host halo mass Mhost. Points are colour-coded by the inner density slope γ obtained from the linear fit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Evolution of the distribution of the inner slope γ from z = 1 to z = 0. Coloured histograms show the distribution of galaxies at each redshift, while dashed vertical lines mark the corresponding medians, with uncertainties indicating the 16th–84th percentile confidence intervals estimated via bootstrap resampling. cupy a narrower range of γ, with comparatively shallower inner profiles and a weaker depende… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Mean inner slope γ as a function of the present–day stellar mass, M⋆,z=0, computed at redshifts z = 0, 0.2, 0.7, and 1. Each curve traces the main progenitors of the z = 0 population. Error bars indicate bootstrap uncertainties. The rightmost column displays M⋆ as a function of Mhost. Central galaxies trace the expected monotonic stellar–to–halo mass relation, reflecting the tight coupling between galaxy … view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Distributions of the inner slope γ for the matched subhalo sample in TNG50 and its DMO counterpart at different redshifts. Vertical lines indicate the median values, with uncertainties given by the 16th–84th percentile confidence intervals from bootstrap resampling. lites, by contrast, span a much broader range of stellar masses at fixed host-halo mass, illustrating the diversity of accretion histories and… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Distribution of the inner slope γ obtained from linear fits performed over different radial intervals: [rmin, 2 rresol], [1, 3]rresol (fiducial), [2, 4]rresol, and [3, 5]rresol. Vertical dashed lines indicate the median values, with 16th–84th percentile uncertainties from bootstrap resampling. Shifting the fitting window toward larger radii leads to progressively steeper slopes, illustrating how excl… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Difference in the inner density slope between a more external fitting window and the fiducial fit, colour–coded as ∆γ ≡ γ[3,5] − γfid, indicating how the inferred inner slope changes when adopting a more external fitting window across galaxy properties, where γfid ≡ γ[1,3]rresol and γ[3,5] ≡ γ[3,5]rresol . From left to right, columns show the sS FR–M⋆ plane, the rest-frame (g − r)–M⋆ relation, the M⋆–Vmax… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In the framework of the $\Lambda$CDM model, galaxies evolve within dark matter (DM) haloes, where baryonic processes modify the inner structure of the DM distribution. In particular, baryon condensation and feedback can alter the inner density profiles of haloes, motivating studies of their central regions. The aim of this work is to investigate the inner slope of the DM density profiles of galaxies in the TNG50 simulation, its relation to galaxy properties, its evolution with redshift, and the impact of baryonic processes by comparing galaxies to a corresponding dark matter-only (DMO) realisation. Spherically averaged DM density profiles are constructed for galaxies in TNG50 and the DMO run. The inner slope is quantified using an Inner Linear Fit (ILF), defined as a power-law fit to the central region of the density profiles and motivated by the asymptotic behaviour of generalized NFW models. Subhaloes are matched between simulations and tracked across $z=0$, $0.2$, $0.7$, and $1$. The inner DM structure of galaxies in TNG50 shows that high-stellar-mass systems ($M_\star \gtrsim 10^{11}$ M$_\odot$) exhibit shallow inner slopes irrespective of being centrals or satellites, while lower-mass galaxies ($M_\star \lesssim 10^{9}$ M$_\odot$) show a broader diversity of profiles. At fixed stellar mass, low-mass satellites tend to be more cuspy, with the steepest slopes found in redder systems with lower $V_{\max}$ in more massive host haloes. We find a clear cosmic evolution, from shallower slopes at $z \sim 1$ to steeper profiles towards low redshift in both hydrodynamical and DMO runs, with hydrodynamical galaxies steeper. Finally, we verify that the population exhibiting the steepest slopes remains qualitatively robust to variations in the adopted fitting range, as extending the fit to larger radii$-$thereby excluding the innermost regions$-$generally leads to even steeper inferred slopes.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

TNG50 paper gives clear mass-dependent and redshift trends on inner DM slopes from hydro-DMO comparison, but ILF fits risk resolution bias in low-mass systems.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this TNG50 analysis finds high-stellar-mass galaxies (above 10^11 solar masses) show shallow inner DM slopes whether central or satellite, while lower-mass ones (below 10^9) display more scatter, with satellites tending to be cuspy especially if red, low-Vmax, and in massive hosts. Slopes also steepen from z=1 to z=0, and the hydro run produces steeper profiles than the DMO counterpart. These are concrete, quantitative relations that extend prior hydro-DMO work in a useful way. The paper does a straightforward job matching subhaloes between the runs, applying the inner linear fit to spherically averaged profiles, and checking that shifting the fit range outward produces even steeper slopes. That check is honest and helps rule out some obvious fitting artifacts. The trends line up internally with the simulation outputs and give testable predictions for observations of galaxy centers. The soft spot is resolution. TNG50's DM softening is roughly 0.29 kpc, so any ILF fit that reaches into the central kiloparsec or below can be affected by the softened potential rather than the physical cusp, and this risk is larger for the low-mass galaxies where physical scales are smaller. Their outward-fit test is helpful but does not fully demonstrate convergence of the innermost bins. Subhalo matching details between hydro and DMO are also light on specifics in the text. This work is aimed at people running or analyzing galaxy formation simulations who need numbers on baryonic effects in halo centers. It shows clear engagement with the data and literature, so it deserves a serious referee even with the resolution discussion needing expansion. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes spherically averaged dark matter density profiles in the TNG50 hydrodynamical simulation and its dark-matter-only counterpart. It defines an Inner Linear Fit (ILF) power-law to the central region of these profiles to quantify inner slopes, reports that high-stellar-mass galaxies (M⋆ ≳ 10^11 M⊙) show shallow slopes independent of central/satellite status while lower-mass systems (M⋆ ≲ 10^9 M⊙) exhibit greater diversity (with low-mass satellites more cuspy, especially redder ones with lower Vmax in massive hosts), finds evolution from shallower slopes at z~1 to steeper at z=0 in both runs (hydro steeper), and claims the steepest-slope population is robust to changes in ILF fitting range.

Significance. If the ILF measurements hold after resolution checks, the work would provide a clear mapping of how baryonic processes modify inner DM structure across mass and redshift in a large-volume simulation, strengthening constraints on feedback models by direct hydro-DMO comparison and redshift tracking.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract and robustness verification paragraph: The statement that 'extending the fit to larger radii generally leads to even steeper inferred slopes' does not demonstrate that the original ILF range (central region) is free of bias from the TNG50 DM softening length (~0.29 kpc). For M⋆ ≲ 10^9 M⊙ galaxies the physical scales are smaller, so the same absolute fitting range risks being dominated by the softened potential rather than the true cusp/core; this directly affects the reported diversity and satellite-central difference.
[Methods] Methods section on subhalo matching and tracking: The paper states that subhaloes are matched between TNG50 and DMO runs and tracked across z=0, 0.2, 0.7, 1, but provides no quantitative assessment of matching fidelity or contamination rates at low mass. This is load-bearing for the claim that 'at fixed stellar mass, low-mass satellites tend to be more cuspy'.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The motivation for the ILF (asymptotic behaviour of generalized NFW) is stated but the exact radial range used for the power-law fit is not given numerically; a table or explicit equation would improve reproducibility.
[Results] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the number of galaxies per mass bin and the fraction of satellites vs centrals to allow readers to judge the statistical weight of the trends.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments, which have helped us identify areas for improvement. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and robustness verification paragraph: The statement that 'extending the fit to larger radii generally leads to even steeper inferred slopes' does not demonstrate that the original ILF range (central region) is free of bias from the TNG50 DM softening length (~0.29 kpc). For M⋆ ≲ 10^9 M⊙ galaxies the physical scales are smaller, so the same absolute fitting range risks being dominated by the softened potential rather than the true cusp/core; this directly affects the reported diversity and satellite-central difference.

Authors: We acknowledge that our existing robustness test, which shows steeper slopes when extending the fit range, does not directly rule out softening-length bias in the innermost regions for low-mass galaxies. In the revised manuscript, we will add an explicit discussion of the TNG50 DM softening length (0.29 kpc) and confirm that the adopted ILF fitting range begins above this scale for all galaxies in our sample. We will also include a new figure or table showing the minimum resolved radius relative to galaxy mass and note any limitations for the lowest-mass systems. This will better support the reported diversity and central-satellite differences. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods] Methods section on subhalo matching and tracking: The paper states that subhaloes are matched between TNG50 and DMO runs and tracked across z=0, 0.2, 0.7, 1, but provides no quantitative assessment of matching fidelity or contamination rates at low mass. This is load-bearing for the claim that 'at fixed stellar mass, low-mass satellites tend to be more cuspy'.

Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics on matching fidelity are needed to support the low-mass satellite-central comparisons. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Methods section to describe the subhalo matching procedure in detail (particle-ID based cross-matching) and add statistics on matching success rates, contamination fractions, and any mass-dependent trends. These additions will directly bolster the reliability of the reported trends at fixed stellar mass. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct ILF measurements on TNG50 outputs show no circularity

full rationale

The paper defines the Inner Linear Fit (ILF) explicitly as a power-law fit to the central region of spherically averaged DM density profiles and applies it to extract slopes from TNG50 hydro and DMO simulation outputs. Results on mass-dependent slopes, satellite-central differences, color trends, and redshift evolution are direct empirical comparisons between the two runs and across galaxy properties. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, no self-citation chain supports a load-bearing premise, and the ILF is not smuggled in via prior work by the same authors. The derivation chain remains self-contained as a measurement exercise on independent simulation data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the ILF as a proxy for inner slope motivated by gNFW asymptotics, accurate subhalo matching between hydro and DMO runs, and the assumption that TNG50 baryonic physics produces realistic central densities.

free parameters (1)

ILF fitting radius range
The central region chosen for the power-law fit is selected by the authors and affects the measured slope; robustness to extension is checked but the choice remains a parameter.

axioms (2)

standard math Generalized NFW profiles exhibit well-defined asymptotic inner power-law behavior that an inner linear fit can approximate
Explicitly stated as motivation for the ILF definition.
domain assumption Subhaloes can be reliably matched between the hydrodynamical TNG50 run and its DMO counterpart across redshifts
Required for the direct comparison of inner slopes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5692 in / 1620 out tokens · 57948 ms · 2026-05-13T20:08:50.012984+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages

[1]

G., Navarro, J

Abadi, M. G., Navarro, J. F., Fardal, M., Babul, A., & Steinmetz, M. 2010, MN- RAS, 407, 435

work page 2010
[2]

Amorisco, N. C. & Evans, N. W. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society, 419, 184 Aricò, G., Angulo, R. E., Hernández-Monteagudo, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4800

work page 2011
[3]

C., Pedrosa, S

Artale, M. C., Pedrosa, S. E., Tissera, P. B., Cataldi, P., & Di Cintio, A. 2019, A&A, 622, A197

work page 2019
[4]

2008, ApJ, 681, L13

Battaglia, G., Helmi, A., Tolstoy, E., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, L13

work page 2008
[5]

S., Wechsler, R

Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57

work page 2013
[6]

& Tremaine, S

Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic dynamics

work page 1987
[7]

R., Faber, S

Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Flores, R., & Primack, J. R. 1986, ApJ, 301, 27

work page 1986
[8]

Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151

work page 2004
[9]

S., Kolatt, T

Bullock, J. S., Kolatt, T. S., Sigad, Y ., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 559

work page 2001
[10]

1995, ApJ, 447, L25

Burkert, A. 1995, ApJ, 447, L25

work page 1995
[11]

2025, MNRAS, 541, 2341

Cerny, C., Jauzac, M., Lagattuta, D., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 2341

work page 2025
[12]

K., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al

Chan, T. K., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2981

work page 2015
[13]

E., Schaye, J., et al

Chaves-Montero, J., Angulo, R. E., Schaye, J., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 3100 de Blok, W. J. G. 2010, Advances in Astronomy, 2010, 789293

work page 2016
[14]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.15869 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C

Despali, G., Giocoli, C., Moscardini, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.15869 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C. B., Macciò, A. V ., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 415

work page arXiv 2025
[15]

2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 657, 262

Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., & Madau, P. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 657, 262

work page 2007
[16]

2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817

Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817

work page 2019
[17]

2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453

Dubois, Y ., Pichon, C., Welker, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453

work page 2014
[18]

R., Schaye, J., Kay, S

Duffy, A. R., Schaye, J., Kay, S. T., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2161

work page 2010
[19]

Dutton, A. A. & Macciò, A. V . 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3359

work page 2014
[20]

1965, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata, 5, 87

Einasto, J. 1965, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata, 5, 87

work page 1965
[21]

D., Bullock, J

Elbert, O. D., Bullock, J. S., Garrison-Kimmel, S., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 29

work page 2015
[22]

F., Abadi, M

Ferrero, I., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 4736

work page 2017
[23]

W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

work page 2013
[24]

S., et al

Genina, A., Benítez-Llambay, A., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1398

work page 2018
[25]

Y ., Kravtsov, A

Gnedin, O. Y ., Kravtsov, A. V ., Klypin, A. A., & Nagai, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 16

work page 2004
[26]

2012, MNRAS, 422, 1231

Governato, F., Zolotov, A., Pontzen, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1231

work page 2012
[27]

Gunn, J. E. & Gott, III, J. R. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1

work page 1972
[28]

2019, MNRAS, 489, 2634

Haslbauer, M., Banik, I., Kroupa, P., & Grishunin, K. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2634

work page 2019
[29]

2020, ApJ, 904, 45

Hayashi, K., Chiba, M., & Ishiyama, T. 2020, ApJ, 904, 45

work page 2020
[30]

M., Despali, G., & Klessen, R

Heinze, F. M., Despali, G., & Klessen, R. S. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11996

work page 2024
[31]

F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al

Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 800

work page 2018
[32]

R., Hirai, Y ., & Fujii, M

Kaneko, K., Saitoh, T. R., Hirai, Y ., & Fujii, M. S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.13765

work page arXiv 2026
[33]

2004, ApJ, 608, 663

Kazantzidis, S., Mayer, L., Mastropietro, C., et al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 663

work page 2004
[34]

A., Trujillo-Gomez, S., & Primack, J

Klypin, A. A., Trujillo-Gomez, S., & Primack, J. 2011, ApJ, 740, 102

work page 2011
[35]

V ., Vikhlinin, A

Kravtsov, A. V ., Vikhlinin, A. A., & Meshcheryakov, A. V . 2018, Astronomy Letters, 44, 8

work page 2018
[36]

S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al

Lazar, A., Bullock, J. S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 2393

work page 2020
[37]

2013, MNRAS, 432, 1947

Martizzi, D., Teyssier, R., & Moore, B. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1947

work page 2013
[38]

G., Frenk, C

McCarthy, I. G., Frenk, C. S., Font, A. S., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 593

work page 2008
[39]

W., Moore, B., Diemand, J., & Terzi´c, B

Merritt, D., Graham, A. W., Moore, B., Diemand, J., & Terzi´c, B. 2006, AJ, 132, 2685

work page 2006
[40]

C., & White, S

Mo, H., van den Bosch, F. C., & White, S. 2010, Galaxy Formation and Evolution

work page 2010
[41]

D., Artale, M

Montero-Dorta, A. D., Artale, M. C., Abramo, L. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1182

work page 2020
[42]

D., Chaves-Montero, J., Artale, M

Montero-Dorta, A. D., Chaves-Montero, J., Artale, M. C., & Favole, G. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 940

work page 2021
[43]

2024, MNRAS, 527, 5868

Montero, J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5868

work page 2024
[44]

P., Naab, T., & White, S

Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3121

work page 2013
[45]

P., Somerville, R

Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., & Maulbetsch, C. e. a. 2010, ApJ, 710, 903

work page 2010
[46]

F., Frenk, C

Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

work page 1997
[47]

F., Ludlow, A., Springel, V ., et al

Navarro, J. F., Ludlow, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 402, 21

work page 2010
[48]

2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12

Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Genel, S., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12

work page 2015
[49]

2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

work page 2018
[50]

B., Treu, T., Ellis, R

Newman, A. B., Treu, T., Ellis, R. S., & Sand, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 765, 25

work page 2013
[51]

G., Weiner, B

Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, L43

work page 2007
[52]

Oldham, L. J. & Auger, M. W. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 133

work page 2018
[53]

2024, MNRAS, 528, 693 Peñarrubia, J., McConnachie, A

Ou, X., Eilers, A.-C., Necib, L., & Frebel, A. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 693 Peñarrubia, J., McConnachie, A. W., & Navarro, J. F. 2008, ApJ, 672, 904

work page 2024
[54]

B., & Scannapieco, C

Pedrosa, S., Tissera, P. B., & Scannapieco, C. 2009, MNRAS, 395, L57

work page 2009
[55]

2017, MNRAS, 472, 2153

Peirani, S., Dubois, Y ., V olonteri, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2153

work page 2017
[56]

2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196

Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196

work page 2019
[57]

2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4077

Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4077

work page 2017
[58]

2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

work page 2018
[59]

& Governato, F

Pontzen, A. & Governato, F. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3464

work page 2012
[60]

I., Walker, M

Read, J. I., Walker, M. G., & Steger, P. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1401

work page 2019
[61]

C., Newman, A

Relatores, N. C., Newman, A. B., Simon, J. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 94

work page 2019
[62]

2015, MNRAS, 449, 49

Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Genel, S., V ogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 49

work page 2015
[63]

C., Lisanti, M., Torrey, P., et al

Rose, J. C., Lisanti, M., Torrey, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02095

work page arXiv 2025
[64]

V ., Navarro, J

Sales, L. V ., Navarro, J. F., Oman, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2419

work page 2017
[65]

J., Treu, T., Ellis, R

Sand, D. J., Treu, T., Ellis, R. S., Smith, G. P., & Kneib, J.-P. 2008, ApJ, 674, 711

work page 2008
[66]

J., Treu, T., Smith, G

Sand, D. J., Treu, T., Smith, G. P., & Ellis, R. S. 2004, ApJ, 604, 88

work page 2004
[67]

S., Bower, R

Schaller, M., Frenk, C. S., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 343

work page 2015
[68]

S., Steinhardt, C

Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., & Silverman, J. D. 2014, ApJS, 214, 15

work page 2014
[69]

2010, ARA&A, 48, 391

Springel, V . 2010, ARA&A, 48, 391

work page 2010
[70]

2008, MNRAS, 391, 1685

Springel, V ., Wang, J., V ogelsberger, M., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1685

work page 2008
[71]

V ., Dutton, A

Tollet, E., Macciò, A. V ., Dutton, A. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3542

work page 2016
[72]

W., Theuns, T., Bower, R

Trayford, J. W., Theuns, T., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2879

work page 2015
[73]

& Paranjape, A

Velmani, P. & Paranjape, A. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2867

work page 2023
[74]

& Paranjape, A

Velmani, P. & Paranjape, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.04864

work page arXiv 2024
[75]

Walker, M. G. & Peñarrubia, J. 2011, ApJ, 742, 20

work page 2011
[76]

2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 3291

Weinberger, R., Springel, V ., Hernquist, L., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 3291

work page 2016
[77]

M., van den Bosch, F

Weinmann, S. M., van den Bosch, F. C., Yang, X., & Mo, H. J. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 2

work page 2006
[78]

R., Tinker, J

Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., Conroy, C., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 336

work page 2013
[79]

E., van Dokkum, P

Whitaker, K. E., van Dokkum, P. G., Brammer, G., & Franx, M. 2012, ApJ, 754, L29

work page 2012
[80]

White, S. D. M. & Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52

work page 1991

Showing first 80 references.