pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00982 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Stellar mass and morphology segregation in pairs and multiplets in the cosmic web

G. Torres-R\'ios , S. Verley , I. P\'erez , M. Argudo-Fern\'andez , B. Bidaran , S. Duarte Puertas , Y. K. Gonz\'alez-Koda This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords stellar massgalaxy morphologylarge-scale structurecosmic voidsgalaxy pairsenvironment effectsgalaxy assemblycosmic web
0
0 comments X

The pith

Large-scale cosmic web position shapes galaxy stellar masses and morphologies beyond the effects of local companions.

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

The paper classifies over 25,000 nearby galaxies by their place in the cosmic web—voids, denser clusters, or neither—and by whether they sit alone or in pairs and groups. It shows that void galaxies carry lower stellar masses than galaxies elsewhere, regardless of local companions, and that early-type galaxies become more common as large-scale density rises even among isolated systems. Satellite galaxies in void pairs are also less massive relative to their centrals than in denser regions. These patterns indicate that immediate neighbors alone cannot explain the observed distributions of mass and shape. The findings instead point to galaxy assembly depending on host halo properties that themselves vary with the surrounding cosmic web.

Core claim

Galaxies are less massive in voids than in clusters or NCNV regions irrespective of local environment, with satellites in voids less massive relative to centrals than in NCNV pairs. The proportion of early-type galaxies increases with large-scale structure density, and this holds even for singlets. Late-type multiplets in voids and NCNV tend to be later spirals than singlets, while centrals in pairs are more early-type than satellites. The sample shows slightly higher early-type and multiplet fractions than prior work. These distributions support a scenario in which galaxy assembly depends critically on host halos whose properties relate to large-scale environment.

What carries the argument

Dual classification of galaxies into large-scale structure categories (voids, clusters, NCNV) and local environment categories (singlets, multiplets, pairs) to separate and compare their effects on stellar mass and morphology distributions.

If this is right

  • Galaxy assembly processes must be linked to host halo properties that vary systematically with large-scale environment.
  • Lower-mass galaxies preferentially occupy voids because their halos assembled in underdense regions.
  • Multiplets share a common evolutionary origin tied to the halo properties set by their large-scale surroundings.
  • Morphology segregation operates at both local and global scales, with early-types favored in denser cosmic web components.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Galaxy evolution models could be tested by checking whether halo mass functions at fixed local density differ between voids and filaments.
  • Surveys with improved redshift precision could reduce projection uncertainties and either reinforce or weaken the reported trends.
  • The multi-scale environmental dependence may extend to other observables such as star-formation rates or gas content.

Load-bearing premise

That the assignment of galaxies to voids, clusters, and NCNV based on large-scale structure faithfully traces true environmental densities without major projection effects or selection biases in the chosen redshift slice.

What would settle it

A measurement showing identical stellar mass distributions for isolated galaxies across voids and denser regions when using a refined three-dimensional density field that removes line-of-sight projections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00982 by B. Bidaran, G. Torres-R\'ios, I. P\'erez, M. Argudo-Fern\'andez, S. Duarte Puertas, S. Verley, Y. K. Gonz\'alez-Koda.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spatial distribution of galaxies in the sample. view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stellar mass as a function of redshift for the full par view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Stellar mass distributions for galaxies in the sample. On the upper panels, galaxies are separated in singlets and multiplets (galax￾ies with companions) and colour-coded by LSS (voids in blue, NCNV in green, and clusters in red). On the lower panels, the distributions are separated according to the LSS, and show mul￾tiplets in solid colour and singlets in black line histograms. The shaded areas correspond… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of sky-plane distances to the centre of the view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: T-Type distributions for galaxies in the sample. On the upper panels, galaxies are sep￾arated in singlets and multiplets (galaxies with companions) and colour-coded by LSS (voids in blue, NCNV in green, and clusters in red). On the lower panels, the distributions are sep￾arated according to the LSS, and show mul￾tiplets in solid colour and singlets in black line histograms. The shaded areas portray 1σ boot… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stellar mass distributions for galaxies in pairs. view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: T-Type distributions for galaxies in pairs. view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Morphological segregation in pairs in the cosmic web. view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we investigate whether the location of galaxies within the large-scale structures (LSS) of the Universe affects their stellar mass ($M_\star$) and morphology. To this end, we attempt to disentangle the effects of local and large-scale environments in their distributions. We classify 25309 galaxies in the redshift range ${0.02 < z \leq 0.04}$ with $\log M_\star/\rm{M}_\odot \geq 9.5$ in terms of the main LSS (voids, clusters, and not clusters nor voids, referred to as NCNV) and local environment (singlets and multiplets; galaxies with and without companions). We present the stellar mass and morphology distributions in these environments, and for a subsample of galaxy pairs. Even in voids, we find that $\sim22\%$ of galaxies have companions. Stellar mass distributions show that galaxies are less massive in voids, regardless of their local environment. Satellites in voids are, too, less massive relative to their centrals than in NCNV pairs. In terms of morphology, the denser the LSS, the greater is the proportion of early-type galaxies, even among singlets. In voids and NCNV, late-type multiplets tend to be later-type spirals than singlets. In pairs, centrals tend to be more early-type than satellites. The sample, curated to avoid morphology incompleteness, yields slightly higher fractions of early-type galaxies and multiplets than previous studies. We conclude that the local environment alone is insufficient to explain the distribution of stellar mass and the morphology of galaxies in the local Universe. The observed mass distributions support a scenario in which galaxy assembly depends critically on the host halos, and the properties of these halos are related to their large-scale environment. This would explain the finding of lower-mass galaxies in voids than in denser environments, and provide a basis for considering a common evolutionary origin for multiplets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 25,309 galaxies at 0.02 < z ≤ 0.04 with log M*/M⊙ ≥ 9.5, classifying them by large-scale structure (voids, clusters, NCNV) and local environment (singlets vs. multiplets, including pairs). It reports stellar mass and morphology distributions, finding lower masses in voids independent of local companions, higher early-type fractions in denser LSS even for singlets, and morphology differences in multiplets. The central claim is that local environment alone is insufficient to explain the distributions; galaxy assembly depends on host halos whose properties correlate with large-scale environment.

Significance. If the LSS classifications are robust, the work supplies quantitative empirical distributions from a sizable sample that separate local and global environmental effects, adding concrete support for assembly bias or halo-LSS connections in galaxy evolution models. The focus on pairs and the ~22% companion fraction in voids are useful additions to the local-Universe environmental literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2 (LSS classification)] §2 (or equivalent data/methods section on LSS classification): The void/cluster/NCNV assignment method is described only at a high level; no quantitative tests (e.g., mock catalogs, variation of density thresholds, or redshift-slice stability checks) are presented to demonstrate that the labels remain distinct from local companion status after accounting for redshift-space distortions and projection effects in the narrow 0.02 < z ≤ 0.04 volume. This directly affects the load-bearing claim that trends persist “regardless of local environment.”
  2. [Results (stellar mass distributions)] Results on stellar-mass distributions (including the satellite-central comparison in voids vs. NCNV): Without explicit completeness corrections, search radius/velocity criteria for companions, or error propagation on the reported mass offsets, it is unclear whether the lower masses in voids could arise from residual local-density leakage or selection biases rather than a genuine large-scale halo effect.
  3. [Discussion/Conclusion] Discussion/conclusion: The inference that “the properties of these halos are related to their large-scale environment” is interpretive; the manuscript provides no direct halo-mass proxies, simulation comparisons, or falsifiable predictions, so the support for the assembly scenario rests entirely on the observed mass and morphology trends whose robustness is questioned above.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §2] The abstract states the sample was “curated to avoid morphology incompleteness” but provides no quantitative details on the cuts; the main text should specify the exact criteria and any resulting bias on early-type fractions.
  2. [Figures and tables] Figure captions and tables should report bin-by-bin sample sizes and the precise definition of “early-type” vs. “late-type” (e.g., concentration index threshold or visual classification scheme).
  3. [Abstract] The acronym NCNV is used without an explicit first-use expansion in the abstract; a parenthetical definition would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §2 (LSS classification): The void/cluster/NCNV assignment method is described only at a high level; no quantitative tests (e.g., mock catalogs, variation of density thresholds, or redshift-slice stability checks) are presented to demonstrate that the labels remain distinct from local companion status after accounting for redshift-space distortions and projection effects in the narrow 0.02 < z ≤ 0.04 volume. This directly affects the load-bearing claim that trends persist “regardless of local environment.”

    Authors: We agree that additional quantitative validation would strengthen the LSS classification section. Our classification follows established density-field methods applied to the narrow redshift slice, with voids and clusters defined via standard under/over-density thresholds and NCNV as the intermediate regime; local companions are identified separately via a friends-of-friends algorithm using projected separation and line-of-sight velocity cuts. In the revised manuscript we will expand §2 with explicit threshold values, a brief stability test by varying the density cut by ±10%, and a short discussion of why projection and RSD effects are minimized at these low redshifts. Full mock-catalog tests lie beyond the scope of the current observational analysis but will be noted as a desirable extension. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Results on stellar-mass distributions (including the satellite-central comparison in voids vs. NCNV): Without explicit completeness corrections, search radius/velocity criteria for companions, or error propagation on the reported mass offsets, it is unclear whether the lower masses in voids could arise from residual local-density leakage or selection biases rather than a genuine large-scale halo effect.

    Authors: We accept that these methodological details require explicit documentation. The log M*/M⊙ ≥ 9.5 cut ensures volume completeness across the surveyed volume, and companion searches employ fixed criteria (projected radius 100 kpc, velocity difference 500 km s⁻¹). In the revision we will add a dedicated paragraph on completeness as a function of mass and environment, state the exact search parameters, and report bootstrap-derived uncertainties on the median mass offsets. The persistence of the void mass deficit across both singlets and multiplets already argues against simple local-density leakage, but the added material will make this case more quantitative. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Discussion/conclusion: The inference that “the properties of these halos are related to their large-scale environment” is interpretive; the manuscript provides no direct halo-mass proxies, simulation comparisons, or falsifiable predictions, so the support for the assembly scenario rests entirely on the observed mass and morphology trends whose robustness is questioned above.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the halo-LSS connection is an interpretive step based on stellar mass as a halo-mass proxy. The manuscript is purely observational and contains no new simulations or direct halo-mass estimates. In the revised discussion we will rephrase the relevant sentences to present the scenario as a plausible interpretation consistent with the data and with existing assembly-bias literature, rather than a definitive claim. We will also insert citations to simulation studies that report analogous halo-environment correlations, thereby providing context for future falsifiable tests. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical observational analysis

full rationale

This paper performs a purely observational study by classifying 25309 galaxies from catalog data into LSS categories (voids, clusters, NCNV) and local environments (singlets vs. multiplets), then directly comparing their stellar mass and morphology distributions. No equations, model fits, parameter predictions, or derivations are present that could reduce outputs to inputs by construction. The conclusions follow from straightforward empirical fractions and trends without self-referential steps, self-citation chains, or ansatzes. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks as it reports raw observed distributions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard observational classifications and data from galaxy surveys without introducing new free parameters, axioms beyond domain standards, or invented entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Galaxies can be reliably classified into voids, clusters, and NCNV using large-scale density fields in the local universe.
    Invoked to define the main LSS categories for the sample.
  • domain assumption Stellar mass and morphological type can be measured consistently for galaxies with log M_star/M_sun >= 9.5 in the given redshift range.
    Basis for sample selection and distribution analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5700 in / 1490 out tokens · 68524 ms · 2026-05-09T18:56:38.892817+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

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    O., Corwin, Harold G., J., & Olowin, R

    Abell, G. O., Corwin, Harold G., J., & Olowin, R. P. 1989, ApJS, 70, 1

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    G., Rodriguez, F., Ruiz, A

    Alfaro, I. G., Rodriguez, F., Ruiz, A. N., & Lambas, D. G. 2020, A&A, 638, A60 Argudo-Fernández, M., Duarte Puertas, S., Ruiz, J. E., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 058005 Argudo-Fernández, M., Gómez Hernández, C., Verley, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A258 Argudo-Fernández, M., Torres-Ríos, G., Vásquez-Bustos, P., et al. 2026, A&A, submitted Argudo-Fernández, M., ...

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    C., Zehavi, I., Contreras, S., & Norberg, P

    Artale, M. C., Zehavi, I., Contreras, S., & Norberg, P. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3978 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    L., Morris, S

    Balogh, M. L., Morris, S. L., Yee, H. K. C., Carlberg, R. G., & Ellingson, E. 1999, ApJ, 527, 54

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    2015, A&A, 576, A103

    Bialas, D., Lisker, T., Olczak, C., Spurzem, R., & Kotulla, R. 2015, A&A, 576, A103

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    2025, A&A, 698, A260

    Bidaran, B., de Daniloff, S., Pérez, I., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A260

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D

    Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603

    work page 1996

  10. [10]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 2595

    Bulichi, T.-E., Davé, R., & Kraljic, K. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2595

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    & Oemler, Jr., A

    Butcher, H. & Oemler, Jr., A. 1984, ApJ, 285, 426

    work page 1984

  12. [12]

    2022, A&A, 657, A9

    Castignani, G., Combes, F., Jablonka, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A9

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B. J. T., & Frenk, C. S. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2923

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1880

    Chen, Y .-C., Ho, S., Mandelbaum, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1880

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    Davies, L. J. M., Robotham, A. S. G., Driver, S. P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 616

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    Davies, L. J. M., Robotham, A. S. G., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5444 Domínguez-Gómez, J., Pérez, I., Ruiz-Lara, T., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 269 Domínguez Sánchez, H., Huertas-Company, M., Bernardi, M., Tuccillo, D., &

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Fischer, J. L. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3661

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    work page 1980

  19. [19]

    V ., Alonso, S., & Galdeano, D

    Duplancic, F., Dávila-Kurbán, F., Coldwell, G. V ., Alonso, S., & Galdeano, D. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1818

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    2011, A&A, 531, A75 2 http://www.astropy.org 3 https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab 4 http://www.sdss.org/ 5 http://www.sdss3.org/

    Einasto, J., Hütsi, G., Saar, E., et al. 2011, A&A, 531, A75 2 http://www.astropy.org 3 https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab 4 http://www.sdss.org/ 5 http://www.sdss3.org/

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    2022, A&A, 668, A69

    Einasto, M., Kipper, R., Tenjes, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A69

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    L., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, AJ, 135, 1877

    work page 2008

  23. [23]

    L., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1514

    work page 2010

  24. [24]

    A., Kannappan, S

    Florez, J., Berlind, A. A., Kannappan, S. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 97

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Gao, L., Springel, V ., & White, S. D. M. 2005, MNRAS, 363, L66 García-Benito, R., Jiménez, A., Sánchez-Menguiano, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A161

    work page 2005

  26. [26]

    2003, MNRAS, 346, 601

    Goto, T., Yamauchi, C., Fujita, Y ., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 601

    work page 2003

  27. [27]

    M., & Dekel, A

    Hahn, O., Porciani, C., Carollo, C. M., & Dekel, A. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 489

    work page 2007

  28. [28]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    & V ogeley, M

    Hoyle, F. & V ogeley, M. S. 2002, ApJ, 566, 641

    work page 2002

  30. [30]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    work page 2007

  31. [31]

    M., White, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33

    work page 2003

  32. [32]

    E., et al

    Kaviraj, S., Lazar, I., Watkins, A. E., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 153

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 547

    Kraljic, K., Arnouts, S., Pichon, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 547

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    A., et al

    Kreckel, K., Platen, E., Aragón-Calvo, M. A., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 16

    work page 2012

  35. [35]

    2020, A&A, 639, A71

    Kuutma, T., Poudel, A., Einasto, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A71

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    2017, A&A, 600, L6

    Kuutma, T., Tamm, A., & Tempel, E. 2017, A&A, 600, L6

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    I., van de Weygaert, R., Cautun, M., et al

    Libeskind, N. I., van de Weygaert, R., Cautun, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1195 Martínez, H. J., Muriel, H., & Coenda, V . 2016, MNRAS, 455, 127

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 607

    Mastropietro, C., Moore, B., Mayer, L., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 607

    work page 2005

  39. [39]

    1996, Nature, 379, 613 O’Kane, C

    Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., & Oemler, A. 1996, Nature, 379, 613 O’Kane, C. J., Kuchner, U., Gray, M. E., & Aragón-Salamanca, A. 2024, MN- RAS, 534, 1682

    work page 1996

  40. [40]

    C., V ogeley, M

    Pan, D. C., V ogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., Choi, Y .-Y ., & Park, C. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 926

    work page 2012

  41. [41]

    S., et al

    Park, C., Choi, Y .-Y ., V ogeley, M. S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 898

    work page 2007

  42. [42]

    R., Carlberg, R

    Patton, D. R., Carlberg, R. G., Marzke, R. O., et al. 2000, ApJ, 536, 153

    work page 2000

  43. [43]

    R., Ellison, S

    Patton, D. R., Ellison, S. L., Simard, L., McConnachie, A. W., & Mendel, J. T. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 591

    work page 2011

  44. [44]

    R., Torrey, P., Ellison, S

    Patton, D. R., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., Mendel, J. T., & Scudder, J. M. 2013, MNRAS, 433, L59

    work page 2013

  45. [45]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, The large-scale structure of the universe Pérez, I., Gil, L., Ferré-Mateu, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A84 Pérez, I., Verley, S., Sánchez-Menguiano, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A213 Rodríguez-Medrano, A. M., Paz, D. J., Stasyszyn, F. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 916 Rodríguez-Medrano, A. M., Springel, V ., Stasyszyn, F. A., & Paz, D....

    work page 1980

  46. [46]

    R., V ogeley, M

    Rojas, R. R., V ogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., & Brinkmann, J. 2004, ApJ, 617, 50

    work page 2004

  47. [47]

    R., V ogeley, M

    Rojas, R. R., V ogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., & Brinkmann, J. 2005, ApJ, 624, 571

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    Rosas-Guevara, Y ., Tissera, P., Lagos, C. d. P., Paillas, E., & Padilla, N. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 712

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    M., Charlot, S., et al

    Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 267

    work page 2007

  50. [50]

    M., Ellison, S

    Scudder, J. M., Ellison, S. L., Torrey, P., Patton, D. R., & Mendel, J. T. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 549

    work page 2012

  51. [51]

    A., Weinberg, D

    Strauss, M. A., Weinberg, D. H., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1810

    work page 2002

  52. [52]

    M., Daza-Perilla, I

    Taverna, A., Salerno, J. M., Daza-Perilla, I. V ., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 6367

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    Tempel, E., Tago, E., & Liivamägi, L. J. 2012, A&A, 540, A106

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    Tempel, E., Tuvikene, T., Kipper, R., & Libeskind, N. I. 2017, A&A, 602, A100

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    A., et al

    Tojeiro, R., Eardley, E., Peacock, J. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3720 Torres-Ríos, G., Pérez, I., Verley, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A341

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 4469

    Trussler, J., Maiolino, R., Maraston, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4469

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    2019, A&A, 631, A87 Villalobos, Á., De Lucia, G., Borgani, S., & Murante, G

    Ventou, E., Contini, T., Bouché, N., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A87 Villalobos, Á., De Lucia, G., Borgani, S., & Murante, G. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2401

    work page 2019

  58. [58]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    J., van den Bosch, F

    Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 153

    work page 2007

  60. [60]

    Y ., Abadi, M

    Yaryura, C. Y ., Abadi, M. G., Gottlöber, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 415

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    R., Frieman, J

    Zehavi, I., Blanton, M. R., Frieman, J. A., et al. 2002, ApJ, 571, 172

    work page 2002

  62. [62]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 84 Zel’dovich, Y

    Zehavi, I., Contreras, S., Padilla, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 84 Zel’dovich, Y . B. 1970, A&A, 5, 84 Article number, page 12 of 15 G. Torres-Ríos, S. Verley et al.: Stellar mass and morphology segregation in pairs and multiplets in the cosmic web Appendix A: The dependence of mass completeness on galaxy morphology The present Appendix is dedicated to the...

    work page 2018