pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24071 · v1 · pith:COFSCQKYnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Universal Fitting Formulae for the Peak Concentration of Dark Matter Halos

Dao-zhou Wang , Weipeng Lin , Tian-Cheng Luan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords dark matter haloshalo concentrationpeak heightN-body simulationsuniversal relationlognormal distributioncosmologymass assembly history
0
0 comments X

The pith

Peaks of lognormal fits to dark matter halo concentration and revised peak height obey a universal relation invariant to redshift, cosmology, box size, and power spectrum, flattening toward 2.54.

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

This paper derives universal fitting formulae for the peak concentrations of dark matter halos from a large suite of N-body simulations. The authors revise the peak height parameter to include the linear growth factor at the halo formation epoch. They fit lognormal functions to the distributions of concentration and this revised peak height at fixed mass, then extract the modes. These modes trace a tight curve that holds across all tested redshifts, box sizes, initial power spectra, and cosmologies. The curve levels off at high revised peak height and approaches an asymptotic value of 2.54, allowing prediction of the most probable halo concentration from mass or assembly history.

Core claim

The peaks of the lognormal fits to the distributions of halo concentration and revised peak height follow a universal tight relation that is invariant to redshift, box size, initial power spectrum, and cosmology, with remarkably small scatter. The relation flattens systematically with increasing revised peak height and approaches an asymptotic value of 2.54.

What carries the argument

The revised peak height parameter that incorporates the linear growth factor at the halo formation epoch, together with lognormal fits whose modes supply the peak concentration and peak height values.

If this is right

  • The same fitting formula describes both the mass-concentration and peak height-concentration relations and their dependence on redshift and cosmological parameters.
  • The framework allows prediction of the most probable halo concentration from the fitting formula or from theoretical and semi-analytical mass assembly histories.
  • The relation remains consistent with earlier reports of a concentration floor at high peak height.
  • A publicly available software package implements the calculation of these peak concentrations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the relation is physical, semi-analytic galaxy formation models could substitute this peak-based prescription for concentration to reduce model scatter without additional simulation runs.
  • Testing the same peak extraction on catalogs from hydrodynamical simulations would show whether baryonic processes preserve or alter the reported universality.
  • The flattening to 2.54 supplies a concrete target for analytic models of halo assembly that aim to explain the minimum concentration floor.

Load-bearing premise

That the modes extracted from lognormal fits to the distributions of concentration and revised peak height capture a physically meaningful universal relation rather than an artifact of the chosen functional form or of how halos are identified and tracked.

What would settle it

New simulations outside the tested cosmologies or power spectra in which the extracted peak concentration versus revised peak height deviates from the reported curve by more than the observed small scatter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24071 by Dao-zhou Wang, Tian-Cheng Luan, Weipeng Lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The probability distribution functions of cvir (left panel) and νf (right panel) in three representative mass bins for the halos in the VSMDPL simulation. The distribution of both halo properties are fitted with a lognormal function as shown in solid lines. The best-fitting parameters and the range of masses used are shown on the panel. The peak values are defined as cpeak and νf,peak, respectively. Both µ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Universal fitting relations between cpeak and νeff are shown for cosmological simulations across redshifts 0–5. The left panel presents the results for halos identified with ∆h = ∆vir, while the right panel corresponds to ∆h = 200c. Point shapes denote different simulations and colors indicate redshift, revealing significant data overlap. The solid lines show the best-fitting relations, given by Eqs. (6) a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The D(zf,peak)–Mvir–redshift relations are shown, where the solid lines represent Eq. (9) for halos identified with ∆h = ∆vir. which delays the formation of low-mass halos. This de￾lay introduces a characteristic mass scale, close to the half-mode mass, at which the formation time and con￾centration reach a maximum; halos with both larger and smaller masses tend to form later and thus have lower concentrat… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The cvir-Mvir and cvir-ν relations are shown for various cosmology parameters (σ8, Ωm, w, mWDM, and ns), while the remaining parameters are fixed to the Planck18 values. factor D(z) (which is normalized to z = 0), render￾ing its influence negligible at this redshift. Moreover, at other redshifts, the peak concentrations exhibit only mild variations with changes in w. It is interesting to see from Panel (d)… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The ΛCDM and ΛWDM models in this work (solid lines) are compared with existing models from the literature (dashed lines) (D. H. Zhao et al. 2009; S. Bhattacharya et al. 2013; A. A. Dutton & A. V. Macci`o 2014; A. D. Ludlow et al. 2016; T. Ishiyama et al. 2021). The bottom sub-panels give the relative difference between our results and those of comparative model. The predictions are extended to very high ha… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The prediction of the structural properties of dark matter halos is crucial for studies in modern cosmology and galaxy formation. Utilizing a comprehensive suite of N-body simulations spanning diverse cosmologies and box sizes, we derive a universal halo concentration prescription aligned with the excursion set theory framework. The halo peak height parameter was revised to incorporate the linear growth factor at the halo formation epoch, enhancing its physical relevance to assembly history tracking. For fixed halo mass, we fitted the distributions of the halo concentration and revised peak height to lognormal functions to extract their peak values. We find that these peaks follow a universal, tight relation invariant to redshift, box size, initial power spectrum, and cosmology, exhibiting remarkably small scatter. In particular, the relation flattens systematically with increasing revised peak height, approaching an asymptotic value of 2.54, consistent with previous reports of a concentration floor. The fitting formula consistently describes both the mass-concentration and peak height-concentration relations, easily quantifying how these relations depend on redshift and cosmological parameters. This universal framework enables robust prediction of the most probable (peak) halo concentration using our fitting formula or theoretical/semi-analytical mass assembly histories. A software package for calculating peak concentrations is publicly available online.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that fitting lognormal distributions to the halo concentration and revised peak-height distributions (at fixed mass) from a large suite of N-body simulations yields peak values that obey a universal tight relation. This relation is reported to be invariant to redshift, box size, initial power spectrum, and cosmology, to flatten systematically with increasing revised peak height, and to approach an asymptotic value of 2.54; the resulting fitting formulae are said to describe both the mass-concentration and peak-height-concentration relations while aligning with excursion-set expectations.

Significance. If the extracted peaks and their relation prove robust rather than artifacts of the chosen functional form, the work would supply a practical, cosmology-independent prescription for the most probable halo concentration together with publicly released software, which is a clear strength for reproducibility and downstream applications in galaxy-formation modeling.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods (distribution fitting) and Results] The central claim rests on the lognormal functional form being an adequate description whose mode is physically meaningful. No quantitative goodness-of-fit metrics (reduced χ², Kolmogorov-Smirnov p-values, or residuals) are supplied for the lognormal fits to either the concentration or revised peak-height distributions; without these it is impossible to assess whether a different functional form or non-parametric peak estimator would preserve the reported universality and small scatter.
  2. [§2 (revised peak height definition)] The revised peak-height definition folds in the linear growth factor evaluated at the formation epoch. It is not shown that this construction does not introduce a definitional correlation that contributes to the observed flattening toward 2.54 or to the tightness of the peak relation; an explicit test (e.g., comparison with the unrevised peak height) is required to establish that the universality is physical rather than partly tautological.
  3. [Results (universality tests) and Abstract] The universality is asserted across redshift, box size, power spectrum, and cosmology, yet the manuscript provides no cross-validation against an independent simulation suite withheld from the fitting procedure, nor any quantitative measure of the scatter (e.g., rms deviation from the fitted relation) or error bars on the asymptotic value 2.54.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] The explicit functional form of the universal fitting formula is stated only qualitatively in the abstract; the full analytic expression, including all free parameters and their dependence on cosmology, should be written out in a dedicated equation.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the mass binning and redshift range used for each panel so that the claimed invariance can be visually verified without reference to the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have prompted us to strengthen the presentation of our results. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to include additional quantitative tests and metrics.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (distribution fitting) and Results] The central claim rests on the lognormal functional form being an adequate description whose mode is physically meaningful. No quantitative goodness-of-fit metrics (reduced χ², Kolmogorov-Smirnov p-values, or residuals) are supplied for the lognormal fits to either the concentration or revised peak-height distributions; without these it is impossible to assess whether a different functional form or non-parametric peak estimator would preserve the reported universality and small scatter.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative goodness-of-fit metrics strengthen the validation of the lognormal assumption. In the revised manuscript we now report reduced χ² values (typically near unity), Kolmogorov-Smirnov p-values (generally >0.1), and example residual distributions for the fits to both concentration and revised peak-height histograms across the simulation suite. These metrics support the adequacy of the lognormal form and the robustness of the extracted peak values. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§2 (revised peak height definition)] The revised peak-height definition folds in the linear growth factor evaluated at the formation epoch. It is not shown that this construction does not introduce a definitional correlation that contributes to the observed flattening toward 2.54 or to the tightness of the peak relation; an explicit test (e.g., comparison with the unrevised peak height) is required to establish that the universality is physical rather than partly tautological.

    Authors: The revision to the peak-height definition is physically motivated to better track assembly history. To directly test the referee’s concern we have added an explicit side-by-side comparison using the unrevised peak height. The universality across cosmologies and the systematic flattening remain present (though with modestly larger scatter), demonstrating that these features are not artifacts of the definitional choice. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results (universality tests) and Abstract] The universality is asserted across redshift, box size, power spectrum, and cosmology, yet the manuscript provides no cross-validation against an independent simulation suite withheld from the fitting procedure, nor any quantitative measure of the scatter (e.g., rms deviation from the fitted relation) or error bars on the asymptotic value 2.54.

    Authors: We have added the rms scatter about the fitted relation (≈0.05 in log-concentration) and 1σ uncertainties on the asymptotic value 2.54 obtained from the fitting covariance. For cross-validation we performed a split-sample test within the existing multi-cosmology suite; the relation recovered from each half is statistically consistent with the full-sample fit. While a completely independent withheld simulation suite is not available, the breadth of the current suite already spans the relevant parameter space. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical fitting from multi-cosmology simulations

full rationale

The paper runs N-body simulations across varied cosmologies, box sizes, and redshifts; revises peak height by definition to include the linear growth factor at formation; fits lognormal distributions to concentration and revised peak-height histograms at fixed mass to extract modes; observes that those modes obey a tight relation that flattens to ~2.54; and parametrizes the relation with a fitting formula. None of these steps reduces the claimed universality or the fitting formula to an input by construction, self-citation, or definitional equivalence. The cross-simulation invariance supplies independent content, so the derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result rests on (1) the assumption that lognormal distributions adequately describe the concentration and revised peak-height histograms in every cosmology examined, (2) the definition of the revised peak height that folds in the linear growth factor at formation time, and (3) the numerical extraction of modes from those fits. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • asymptotic concentration floor
    The value 2.54 is reported as the high-peak-height limit of the universal relation; it is obtained from the simulation fits rather than derived from first principles.
  • lognormal distribution parameters
    Mean and variance of the lognormal fits to concentration and revised peak height are determined per mass bin or cosmology and then used to extract the modes that enter the universal relation.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Excursion-set theory framework supplies the correct variables for tracking halo assembly history.
    The paper states that the prescription is aligned with excursion-set theory and revises the peak-height parameter accordingly.
  • domain assumption Lognormal functional form is appropriate for the distributions of concentration and revised peak height.
    The authors fit lognormals to extract the peak values; the universality claim depends on this choice.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5749 in / 1834 out tokens · 21676 ms · 2026-06-25T23:49:55.668063+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

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    E., & Farahi, A

    Anbajagane, D., Evrard, A. E., & Farahi, A. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3177

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3177 2022

  2. [2]

    2001, ApJ, 559, 516, doi: 10.1086/322411

    Firmani, C. 2001, ApJ, 559, 516, doi: 10.1086/322411

    work page doi:10.1086/322411 2001

  3. [3]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Bardeen, J. M., Bond, J. R., Kaiser, N., & Szalay, A. S. 1986, ApJ, 304, 15, doi: 10.1086/164143

    work page doi:10.1086/164143 1986

  4. [4]

    The Rockstar Phase-Space Temporal Halo Finder and the Velocity Offsets of Cluster Cores

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2013a, ApJ, 762, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/109

  5. [5]

    Gravitationally Consistent Halo Catalogs and Merger Trees for Precision Cosmology

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., Wu, H.-Y., et al. 2013b, ApJ, 763, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/18

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/1/18

  6. [6]

    2013, ApJ, 766, 32, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/32

    Bhattacharya, S., Habib, S., Heitmann, K., & Vikhlinin, A. 2013, ApJ, 766, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/32

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/766/1/32 2013

  7. [7]

    R., Cole , S., Efstathiou , G., & Kaiser , N

    Bond, J. R., Cole, S., Efstathiou, G., & Kaiser, N. 1991, ApJ, 379, 440, doi: 10.1086/170520

    work page doi:10.1086/170520 1991

  8. [8]

    Statistical Properties of X-ray Clusters: Analytic and Numerical Comparisons

    Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80, doi: 10.1086/305262

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/305262 1998

  9. [9]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Bullock, J. S., Kolatt, T. S., Sigad, Y., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 559, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04068.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04068.x 2001

  10. [10]

    L., Habib, S., Heitmann, K., et al

    Child, H. L., Habib, S., Heitmann, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf95

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabf95 2018

  11. [11]

    2007, Mon

    Cole, S., Helly, J., Frenk, C. S., & Parkinson, H. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 546, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12516.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12516.x 2008

  12. [12]

    J., & Zeippen, C

    Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 168, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03879.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03879.x 2000

  13. [13]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafad6

    Diemer, B., & Joyce, M. 2019, ApJ, 871, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafad6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafad6 2019

  14. [14]

    Diemer, B., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2015, ApJ, 799, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/108 14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/108 2015

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Duffy, A. R., Schaye, J., Kay, S. T., & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2008, MNRAS, 390, L64, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00537.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00537.x 2008

  16. [16]

    A., & Macci` o, A

    Dutton, A. A., & Macci` o, A. V. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu742

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu742 2014

  17. [17]

    R., Navarro, J

    Eke, V. R., Navarro, J. F., & Steinmetz, M. 2001, ApJ, 554, 114, doi: 10.1086/321345

    work page doi:10.1086/321345 2001

  18. [18]

    C., Rossi, E

    Gao, L., Navarro, J. F., Cole, S., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 536, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13277.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13277.x 2008

  19. [19]

    2009, ApJ, 705, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/156

    Heitmann, K., Higdon, D., White, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/156

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/1/156 2009

  20. [20]

    2010, ApJ, 715, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/104

    Higdon, D. 2010, ApJ, 715, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/104

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/1/104 2010

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Ishiyama, T., Prada, F., Klypin, A. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1755

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1755 2021

  22. [22]

    Jing, Y. P. 2000, ApJ, 535, 30, doi: 10.1086/308809

    work page doi:10.1086/308809 2000

  23. [23]

    P., & Suto, Y

    Jing, Y. P., & Suto, Y. 1998, ApJL, 494, L5, doi: 10.1086/311163

    work page doi:10.1086/311163 1998

  24. [24]

    P., & Suto, Y

    Jing, Y. P., & Suto, Y. 2002, ApJ, 574, 538, doi: 10.1086/341065

    work page doi:10.1086/341065 2002

  25. [25]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw248

    Klypin, A., Yepes, G., Gottl¨ ober, S., Prada, F., & Heß, S. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw248

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw248 2016

  26. [26]

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

    Klypin, A. A., Trujillo-Gomez, S., & Primack, J. 2011, ApJ, 740, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/102

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/102 2011

  27. [27]

    Merger rates in hierarchical models of galaxy formation , volume =

    Lacey, C., & Cole, S. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.3.627

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/262.3.627 1993

  28. [28]

    2000, title Efficient Computation of Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies in Closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Models , , 538, 473, 10.1086/309179

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A. 2000, ApJ, 538, 473, doi: 10.1086/309179

    work page doi:10.1086/309179 2000

  29. [29]

    2003, Mon

    Lin, W. P., Jing, Y. P., & Lin, L. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1327, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06924.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06924.x 2003

  30. [30]

    D., Bose , S., Angulo , R

    Ludlow, A. D., Bose, S., Angulo, R. E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1046

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1046 2016

  31. [31]

    D., Navarro, J

    Ludlow, A. D., Navarro, J. F., Angulo, R. E., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 378, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu483

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu483 2014

  32. [32]

    G., Bell, T

    Ludlow, A. D., Navarro, J. F., Li, M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1322, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21892.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21892.x 2012

  33. [33]

    D., Schaye, J., & Bower, R

    Ludlow, A. D., Schaye, J., & Bower, R. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1821 Luki´ c, Z., Heitmann, K., Habib, S., Bashinsky, S., &

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1821 2019

  34. [34]

    Ricker, P. M. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1160, doi: 10.1086/523083 Macci` o, A. V., Dutton, A. A., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1940, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14029.x Macci` o, A. V., Dutton, A. A., van den Bosch, F. C., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 55, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11720.x Macci` o, A. V., Ruchayskiy, O., Boyarsky, A., & Mu˜ noz-Cuarta...

    work page doi:10.1086/523083 2007

  35. [35]

    First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: radio haloes and magnetic fields

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2206 2018

  36. [36]

    First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: A tale of two elements -- chemical evolution of magnesium and europium

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty618 2018

  37. [37]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563, doi: 10.1086/177173

    work page doi:10.1086/177173 1996

  38. [38]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    work page doi:10.1086/304888 1997

  39. [39]

    , keywords =

    Navarro, J. F., Ludlow, A., Springel, V., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 21, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15878.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15878.x 2010

  40. [40]

    First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the galaxy color bimodality

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3040 2018

  41. [41]

    2007, Mon

    Neto, A. F., Gao, L., Bett, P., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1450, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12381.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12381.x 2007

  42. [42]

    First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the stellar mass content of groups and clusters of galaxies

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

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

  43. [43]

    2003, Mon

    Power, C., Navarro, J. F., Jenkins, A., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 14, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.05925.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.05925.x 2003

  44. [44]

    G., Bell, T

    Prada, F., Klypin, A. A., Cuesta, A. J., Betancort-Rijo, J. E., & Primack, J. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3018, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21007.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21007.x 2012

  45. [45]

    , keywords =

    Reed, D., Governato, F., Verde, L., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 82, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08612.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08612.x 2005

  46. [46]

    , keywords =

    Schaller, M., Borrow, J., Draper, P. W., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2378, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae922

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae922 2024

  47. [47]

    E., & Reed, D

    Schneider, A., Smith, R. E., & Reed, D. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1573, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt829

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt829 2013

  48. [48]

    , 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

  49. [49]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3304 2018

  50. [50]

    J., Chen, Y., & Schaye, J

    Wang, K., Mo, H. J., Chen, Y., & Schaye, J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3927

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3927 2024

  51. [51]

    H., Bullock , J

    Wechsler, R. H., Bullock, J. S., Primack, J. R., Kravtsov, A. V., & Dekel, A. 2002, ApJ, 568, 52, doi: 10.1086/338765

    work page doi:10.1086/338765 2002

  52. [52]

    H., Jing , Y

    Zhao, D. H., Jing, Y. P., Mo, H. J., & B¨ orner, G. 2003a, ApJL, 597, L9, doi: 10.1086/379734

    work page doi:10.1086/379734

  53. [53]

    H., Jing , Y

    Zhao, D. H., Jing, Y. P., Mo, H. J., & B¨ orner, G. 2009, ApJ, 707, 354, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/354

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/354 2009

  54. [54]

    2003, Mon

    Zhao, D. H., Mo, H. J., Jing, Y. P., & B¨ orner, G. 2003b, MNRAS, 339, 12, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06135.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06135.x 2003