Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 64 references

A catalog of ringed galaxies in the TNG50 simulation: Analysis of their properties and structure

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Visual classification of simulated galaxy images yields 807 ringed galaxies, with inner rings at the half-mass radius and outer rings at 1.5 times it.

desk verdict First TNG50 ringed-galaxy catalog with a sound control-sample design, but the bar fraction rests on a 790-vs-807 inconsistency and the visual classification lacks a repeatability check. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15682 v2 pith:CSBJXWQK submitted 2024-11-24 astro-ph.GA

Julia Fernandez , Emanuel Sillero , Sol Alonso , Patricia Tissera This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ringedgalaxiesTNG50simulationgalaxymorphologygalacticbarssecularevolutionstellarmasssurfacedensityvisualclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper builds a catalog of ringed galaxies in the TNG50 cosmological simulation by visually classifying synthetic, dust-free, face-on images, and uses it to ask what rings reveal about galaxy evolution. It reports 807 ringed galaxies among star-forming disks with $M_\star > 10^9\,M_\odot$ in the redshift range $0.01 < z < 0.1$, with 59% inner rings, 22% partial rings, 12% outer rings, and 7% inner-plus-outer rings, and 64% barred hosts. Compared with matched non-ringed controls, ringed galaxies show lower specific star formation rates, lower gas fractions, redder colors, and higher metallicities, with larger metallicity scatter at fixed stellar mass. Stacked stellar mass surface-density profiles place inner rings near $r_{50}$ and outer rings at $1.5\,r_{50}$, preceded by a central mass deficit. A sympathetic reader would care because these are quantitative, simulation-side counterparts to observational ring catalogs, offering a place to test resonant ring-formation theories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the visual classification of synthetic, dust-free, face-on TNG50 images, using ring categories adopted from F21 and Buta (2017). The quantitative analysis then rests on three pieces: a control sample that matches each ringed galaxy to its five nearest non-ringed neighbors in normalized ($\sigma_5$, $M_\star$) space at the same redshift; the projected stellar mass surface-density profile $\Sigma_\star(r)$ computed in six azimuthal sectors so that a bar does not dominate the signal; and the residual of the slope profile relative to the median control profile, $e = [\Delta_h[M_{\star,\mathrm{RG}}](r/r_{50}) - \mathrm{Me}(\Delta_h[M_{\star,\mathrm{CS}}](r/r_{50}))]/h$, whose oscillation marks the ring radius and the central mass deficit. This combination converts a visual morphology into a measurable radial signal.

What would settle it

Hand the same dust-free, face-on synthetic images to independent classifiers, or run an automated ring-detection algorithm on the stellar mass maps, and compare the recovered number and type distribution with the paper's 807; a large disagreement would show the catalog is not robust to how rings are defined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that resonant ring structures are common and physically meaningful in simulated disk galaxies: 807 of the selected TNG50 galaxies show rings, and their host galaxies differ systematically from otherwise similar non-ringed disks. The distribution is 58.85% inner, 22.18% partial, 11.77% outer, and 7.18% inner+outer rings, and 64% of hosts are barred. Ringed galaxies form stars less efficiently, have lower gas fractions, redder $M_g - M_r$ colors, and higher gas-phase metallicities than controls, and they scatter more widely in metallicity at fixed stellar mass. When stellar mass surface-density profiles are stacked in units of $r_{50}$, inner rings sit at approximately $r_{50}$ and outer rings at approximately $1.5\,r_{50}$, with a central mass deficit just inside the ring; in inner+outer systems the inner ring is more compact and massive, and partial rings extend beyond $r_{50}$ with deeper central profiles. These results are presented as broadly consistent with the observed SDSS ringed-galaxy catalog, the main difference being fewer inner+outer systems in the simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The catalog rests entirely on the authors' visual identification of ring structures in synthetic images; if that identification is noisy or biased, the ring counts, the comparison with SDSS, and every ringed-versus-control property difference would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the catalog is representative, ring presence marks a later, more quiescent evolutionary stage among disk galaxies: the ringed sample is systematically redder, more metal-rich, and more gas-poor at fixed stellar mass.
  • The measured locations place inner rings at $r_{50}$ and outer rings at $1.5\,r_{50}$, so future simulations and observations can check directly whether resonance radii scale with the stellar half-mass radius.
  • The lower fraction of inner+outer rings in TNG50 compared with SDSS (7% versus 21%) implies the simulation either forms fewer double-ring systems or disrupts them, pointing to resolution or feedback effects.
  • Partial rings rise from 3% of the sample at $z=0.01$ to 25% at $z=0.1$, which the paper reads as evidence that partial rings are transient and may mature into stable outer rings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Our inference: because the classification is purely visual and no inter-rater or automated check is reported, the catalog percentages should be treated as provisional until independent classifiers or a quantitative ring-finder confirm them.
  • Our inference: if inner and outer rings really sit at $r_{50}$ and $1.5\,r_{50}$, then observed galaxies should show the same scaled ring radii in large samples, and measuring ring sizes in existing surveys could distinguish this resonance-scaling picture from alternative ring formation channels.
  • Our inference: the central mass deficit seen ahead of each ring suggests ring formation is tied to inward mass redistribution, which could be tested by tracking individual TNG50 galaxies across snapshots to see whether rings appear after central mass concentration rises.
  • Our inference: the rise of partial rings toward higher redshift implies they are transient, so tracing the same galaxies through the TNG50 merger trees should show partial rings either dissolving or maturing into outer rings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a visually classified catalog of 807 ringed galaxies in the TNG50 simulation at 0.01 < z < 0.1, split into inner, outer, inner+outer, and partial/pseudo-rings. It reports ring-type fractions, a bar fraction of 64% using the kinematic bar catalog of Zana et al., and compares the ring-type fractions with the SDSS-DR14 ringed-galaxy catalog of Fernandez et al. (2021). A control sample of five nearby non-ringed galaxies per ringed galaxy is matched in redshift, stellar mass, and local environmental density. Using this control sample, the authors report lower sSFR and gas fractions, redder colors, and higher metallicities for ringed galaxies, with further differences between barred and unbarred subsamples. Radial stellar-mass profiles are stacked in r50 units, and the paper claims that inner rings lie approximately at r50, outer rings at 1.5 r50, and that i+o galaxies have more compact and massive inner rings. The results are compared with the S4G/Arrakis observational ring-size catalog.

Significance. If the catalog and its statistics are reliable, this is a potentially useful resource: TNG50 provides homogeneous, high-resolution simulated galaxies, and the matched control-sample design gives the property comparisons a sound statistical basis beyond simple mean differences. The use of KS tests and bootstrap bands, the consistency checks of the control-sample matching, and the external comparison with Arrakis are strengths. The catalog also yields a falsifiable prediction about ring locations relative to r50. However, the central caveat is that the classification is entirely visual and its reliability is not demonstrated; the catalog counts, the SDSS comparison, and all property trends inherit this uncertainty. The bar-count arithmetic also needs reconciliation before the barred/unbarred results can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3] The catalog is defined solely by visual classification of synthetic images, but no reliability assessment is reported: there is no inter-rater agreement test, no blinded re-classification, and no quantitative ring-detection criterion. The stacking analysis in Section 5.2 only shows that the selected galaxies have density bumps at the claimed radii; it cannot test completeness or measure selection bias. Because every headline number in Table 1 and all ringed-versus-control comparisons in Section 4 inherit this classification, please add a repeatability measurement (e.g., re-classification of a random subset by a second classifier and by the same classifier after a time interval, with agreement statistics) or an equivalent quantitative check.
  2. [Table 3 and Section 2.4] The barred and non-barred entries sum to 790 galaxies (507 + 283), not the stated 807; consequently the quoted 64% (507 galaxies) is 64% of 790, while 507/807 = 62.8%. No explanation is given for the missing 17 systems, and if those systems lack bar classifications from the Zana et al. catalog this should be stated and the subsample analyses in Sections 4.1–4.3 should be repeated with the correct sample definition.
  3. [Section 2.5 and Table 1] The comparison of ring-type fractions between TNG50 and SDSS-DR14 is not an apples-to-apples comparison because the parent samples are selected differently: the SDSS catalog uses apparent magnitude, axial-ratio, and concentration cuts, while the TNG50 sample uses stellar mass, r50, and sSFR cuts. The differences in inner-ring and i+o fractions (59% versus 49% and 7% versus 21%) could partly reflect these selection differences. Please either apply the SDSS selection criteria to the simulation or clearly state this limitation before drawing conclusions from the comparison.
  4. [Section 5.2 and Fig. 11] The headline quantitative statements that inner rings are located approximately at r50 while outer rings are at 1.5 r50 are based on visual inspection of residual bumps; the paper gives no peak-detection algorithm, no uncertainty interval on the peak positions, and no quantitative measure of the claimed central mass deficit. The bootstrap error bars in Fig. 11 show scatter of the mean residual but do not propagate to the peak location. Please quantify the ring radii (e.g., fit the residual bumps and report fitted centers and uncertainties) and state how the 'more compact and massive' inference for i+o inner rings is measured.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.2] The abstract states '0.01 < z < 0.1' while Section 2.2 states '0.01 ≤ z ≤ 0.1'; make the redshift range consistent.
  2. [Throughout] There are repeated typographical issues such as 'di fferent' in the abstract and Section 2.2, and 'Percentil range' in the Fig. 3 caption; these should be corrected.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Fig. 10] 'Front projection' and 'front perspective' should be replaced with 'face-on projection' and 'face-on view' for clarity.
  4. [General] The paper is titled a catalog paper, but no catalog table, machine-readable file, or Data Availability statement is provided; please state where the catalog will be released.
  5. [Table 2] The per-redshift totals are not stated; readers must infer the sample size in each column from the quoted percentages, so please add a total row or column.
  6. [Section 4.3 and Fig. 9] The Spearman coefficients for the control sample appear only in the figure; please state in the text that the control sample has rS = 0.41 with p = 1.20e-148.
  7. [Section 5.2] The conversion r50 ≈ 3.08 R25 is introduced from Leroy et al. (2021), but the direction of the 4% offset from Muñoz-Mateos et al. is not clearly explained; clarify the sign and source of the offset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TNG50 catalog, control-sample comparisons, and ring-location measurements are self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the construction of a visually classified catalog of 807 ringed galaxies in TNG50 and measurements of their properties relative to matched controls. The property comparisons are not forced by construction: the control sample is independently matched in redshift, stellar mass, and environmental density, and the KS tests compare measured distributions. The r50-normalized stacking in Section 5.2 is a direct measurement of where density-profile bumps occur; normalizing by r50 is an alignment choice, and the result that inner rings sit near r50 and outer rings near 1.5 r50 is an empirical outcome, not an identity. The comparison with SDSS uses the authors' F21 catalog as an external observational benchmark, and the TNG50 sample was selected on mass, sSFR, and size criteria rather than on ring type, so the comparison is not fitted. The cited Zana et al. bar catalog and S4G/Arrakis ring catalog provide independent evidence. The only overlapping-author citation (F21) is used for definitions and as an observational comparison, not as a load-bearing input that would make any TNG50 result true by construction. The internal count inconsistency in Table 3 (507+283=790 versus 807) is a data-presentation and completeness issue, not circularity, and does not affect the logical independence of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis rests on selection thresholds, control matching choices, and the fidelity of TNG50 and its synthetic images.

free parameters (5)
  • Stellar mass threshold = 10^9 Msun
    Selection threshold to ensure at least ~10^4 stellar particles; chosen by hand to match F21.
  • sSFR threshold = log(sSFR/yr^-1) > -13
    Selection threshold to match the star-forming F21 sample; chosen by hand.
  • Half-mass radius threshold = r50 > 1 kpc
    Selection threshold to exclude compact galaxies; chosen by hand.
  • Number of control neighbors = 5
    Control sample matching uses the five nearest non-ringed galaxies in normalized sigma5-Mstar space; arbitrary but reasonable.
  • Azimuthal sector count = 6
    Radial profiles are computed in six identical triangular sections to avoid bar contamination; number of sections chosen by hand.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption TNG50's subgrid physics produces realistic ringed galaxy morphologies.
    The catalog's relevance depends on the simulation reproducing observable ring structures; stated in Section 2.1 as a goal of TNG50.
  • domain assumption Synthetic dust-free face-on images faithfully trace the stellar mass distribution and allow ring classification.
    Section 2.3 bases all classification on these images; if light does not trace mass, categories may be wrong.
  • domain assumption The observational taxonomy of rings (Buta 2017, F21) transfers to simulated galaxies.
    The paper applies SDSS-based definitions to TNG50 without validation.
  • domain assumption The r50 vs R25 conversion of Leroy et al. (2021) holds for the simulated galaxy population.
    Used in Section 5.2 to compare ring locations with S4G; a biased conversion would shift the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A catalog of ringed galaxies in the TNG50 simulation: Analysis of their properties and structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSBJXWQK

@misc{pith2026241115682,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A catalog of ringed galaxies in the TNG50 simulation: Analysis of their properties and structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSBJXWQK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15682}
}
abstract

The catalog of ringed galaxies was compiled through visual classification of synthetic images from the TNG50 simulation. Galaxies were selected based on specific criteria: a redshift range of $0.01 < z < 0.1$, stellar mass $M_\star >10^9 M_\odot$, stellar half-mass radius $r_{50} > 1$ kpc, and specific star formation rate (sSFR), $\rm{log(sSFR/yr}^{-1}) > -13$. Our classification allowed for differentiation between inner rings, outer rings, combinations of rings, and partial rings (pseudo-rings), including barred and non-barred ringed galaxies. We constructed a control sample of non-ringed galaxies with similar redshift, stellar mass, and environmental density distributions. We identified 807 ringed galaxies. Approximately 59% possess an inner ring, 22% a partial ring, 12% an outer ring, and 7% have i+o rings. Our statistical analysis reveals that 64% (507 galaxies) exhibit bars. Ringed galaxies exhibit lower efficiency for star formation, reduced gas fractions, redder colors, and higher metallicities compared to non-ringed disk objects. They also show greater variability in metallicity for a given stellar mass. From the analysis of radial profiles, galaxies with outer rings exhibit a $r_{50}$ similar to or slightly larger than their control group, while those with inner or partial rings tend to have smaller sizes. A deeper exploration of radial density profiles revealed a pronounced central mass deficit preceding the ring structures, with inner and outer rings located at $r_{50}$ and $1.5 , r_{50}$, respectively. Galaxies with both i+o rings have inner rings that are more compact and massive. Additionally, galaxies with partial rings exhibit deeper mass profiles than their controls, particularly in central areas. These findings improve our understanding of galactic evolution and the complex interplay between mass distribution and morphology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15682 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Composite synthetic dust-free images of the di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Arrangement of galaxies with M⋆ > 109M⊙ in the parameter space σ5 − M⋆ (small gray dots). For each ringed galaxy (orange dot), its control group of non-ringed galaxies is shown (black dots, five nearest neighbors of equal z). The histograms show the distributions of each variable at each redshift for the ringed galaxies and their respective control samples. The p-values, obtained through a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) te… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of the global log(sSFR) for the analyzed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean log(sSFR) with associated bootstrap errors for five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Color distribution Mg − Mr for all analyzed z in the TNG50 simulation. The upper panel shows the color fraction of ringed galaxies compared to the control sample. The lower pan￾els offer a more detailed comparison, showing the color distri￾bution of inner ringed galaxi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean log(sSFR) with associated bootstrap errors for five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Color–magnitude diagrams. Upper panel: Contour plots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mass-metallicity diagram and distributions of mass and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Examples of radial surface mass density profiles of ringed galaxies. The first column shows the face-on projection of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Structural description of the rings. Left column: mass-size relation for the di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Athanassoula, E., Romero-G ´omez, M., Bosma, A., & Masdemont, J. J. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1433

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Bagley, M., Minchev, I., & Quillen, A. C. 2008, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0808.1841

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7

    2015

  4. [4]

    & Combes, F

    Buta, R. & Combes, F. 1996, Fund. Cosmic Phys., 17, 95

    1996

  5. [5]

    1995, ApJ, 450, 593

    Buta, R., van Driel, W., Braine, J., et al. 1995, ApJ, 450, 593

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    & Zhang, X

    Buta, R. & Zhang, X. 2008, Pattern Speeds and Galaxy Morphology

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Buta, R. J. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1102.0550

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Buta, R. J. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 4027

    work page 2017

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    J., Byrd, G

    Buta, R. J., Byrd, G. G., & Freeman, T. 2003, AJ, 125, 634

    2003

  2. [10]

    J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al

    Buta, R. J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 32

    2015

  3. [11]

    J., Verdes-Montenegro, L., Damas-Segovia, A., et al

    Buta, R. J., Verdes-Montenegro, L., Damas-Segovia, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2175

    2019

  4. [12]

    Byrd, G., Rautiainen, P., Salo, H., Buta, R., & Crocher, D. A. 1994,AJ, 108, 476

    1994

  5. [13]

    G., Freeman, T., & Howard, S

    Byrd, G. G., Freeman, T., & Howard, S. 1993, AJ, 105, 477

    1993

  6. [14]

    1988, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, V ol

    Combes, F. 1988, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, V ol. 232, Galactic and Extragalactic Star Formation, ed. R. E. Pudritz & M. Fich, 475

    1988

  7. [15]

    1991, in Dynamics of Galaxies and Their Molecular Cloud Distributions, ed

    Combes, F. 1991, in Dynamics of Galaxies and Their Molecular Cloud Distributions, ed. F. Combes & F. Casoli, V ol. 146, 255

    1991

  8. [16]

    & Gerin, M

    Combes, F. & Gerin, M. 1985, A&A, 150, 327 Comer´on, S., Salo, H., Laurikainen, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A121

    1985

  9. [17]

    M., Elmegreen, B

    Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., Combes, F., & Bellin, A. D. 1992, A&A, 257, 17

    1992

  10. [18]

    Erwin, P., Pohlen, M., & Beckman, J. E. 2008, AJ, 135, 20

    2008

  11. [19]

    F., Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A., & Kereˇs, D

    Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A., & Kereˇs, D. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1050

    2017

  12. [20]

    2024,A&A, 683, A32

    Fernandez, J., Alonso, S., Mesa, V ., & Duplancic, F. 2024,A&A, 683, A32

    2024

  13. [21]

    2021, A&A, 653, A71

    Fernandez, J., Alonso, S., Mesa, V ., Duplancic, F., & Coldwell, G. 2021, A&A, 653, A71

    2021

  14. [22]

    2023, in Galactic Bars: Driving and Decoding Galaxy Evolution, 11

    Gil, L., P´erez, I., & Ru´ız-Lara, T. 2023, in Galactic Bars: Driving and Decoding Galaxy Evolution, 11

    2023

  15. [23]

    D., Buta, R., Salo, H., Laurikainen, E., & Speltincx, T

    Grouchy, R. D., Buta, R., Salo, H., Laurikainen, E., & Speltincx, T. 2008, AJ, 136, 980

    2008

  16. [24]

    Grouchy, R. D. & Buta, R. J. 2005, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    2005

  17. [25]

    D., Buta, R

    Grouchy, R. D., Buta, R. J., Salo, H., & Laurikainen, E. 2010, AJ, 139, 2465

    2010

  18. [26]

    Gusev, A. S. & Park, M. G. 2003, A&A, 410, 117

    2003

  19. [27]

    B., Sillero, E., et al

    Jara-Ferreira, F., Tissera, P. B., Sillero, E., et al. 2024,MNRAS, 530, 1369

    2024

  20. [28]

    Y ., Kniazev, A

    Katkov, I. Y ., Kniazev, A. Y ., Sil’chenko, O. K., & Gasymov, D. 2022, A&A, 658, A154

    2022

  21. [29]

    Knapen, J. H. 2013, in Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VII, ed. J. C. Guirado, L. M. Lara, V . Quilis, & J. Gorgas, 245–250

    2013

  22. [30]

    H., Whyte, L

    Knapen, J. H., Whyte, L. F., de Blok, W. J. G., & van der Hulst, J. M. 2004, A&A, 423, 481

    2004

  23. [31]

    1979, ApJ, 227, 714

    Kormendy, J. 1979, ApJ, 227, 714

    1979

  24. [32]

    & Kennicutt, Robert C., J

    Kormendy, J. & Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603

    2004

  25. [33]

    Kostiuk, I. P. & Sil’chenko, O. K. 2016, Baltic Astronomy, 25, 331

    2016

  26. [34]

    K., Hughes, A., Liu, D., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Hughes, A., Liu, D., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 19

    2021

  27. [35]

    Madore, B. F. 1980, AJ, 85, 507

    1980

  28. [36]

    Mark, J. W. K. 1974, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 58, The Formation and Dynamics of Galaxies, ed. J. R. Shakeshaft, 417

    1974

  29. [37]

    2013,MNRAS, 433, 1344 Mu˜noz-Mateos, J

    Meert, A., Vikram, V ., & Bernardi, M. 2013,MNRAS, 433, 1344 Mu˜noz-Mateos, J. C., Sheth, K., Regan, M., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 3

    2013

  30. [38]

    Nair, P. B. & Abraham, R. G. 2010, ApJS, 186, 427

    2010

  31. [39]

    M., Masters, K

    Newnham, L., Hess, K. M., Masters, K. L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4697

    2020

  32. [40]

    & Sarkar, S

    Pandey, B. & Sarkar, S. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 6069

    2020

  33. [41]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 748

    Perez, J., Tissera, P., & Blaizot, J. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 748

    2009

  34. [42]

    2019,MNRAS, 490, 3196

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

    2019

  35. [43]

    2018,MNRAS, 473, 4077

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018,MNRAS, 473, 4077

    2018

  36. [44]

    & Trujillo, I

    Pohlen, M. & Trujillo, I. 2006, A&A, 454, 759

    2006

  37. [45]

    & Salo, H

    Rautiainen, P. & Salo, H. 2000, A&A, 362, 465

    2000

  38. [46]

    2004, MNRAS, 349, 933 Romero-G´omez, M., Athanassoula, E., Masdemont, J

    Rautiainen, P., Salo, H., & Buta, R. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 933 Romero-G´omez, M., Athanassoula, E., Masdemont, J. J., & Garc ´ıa-G´omez, C. 2007, A&A, 472, 63

    2004

  39. [47]

    2022,MNRAS, 512, 5339

    Rosas-Guevara, Y ., Bonoli, S., Dotti, M., et al. 2022,MNRAS, 512, 5339

    2022

  40. [48]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521

    2015

  41. [49]

    Schwarz, M. P. 1981, ApJ, 247, 77

    1981

  42. [50]

    Kent, J., Jedrzejewski, R., & Giovanelli, R

    Schweizer, F., Ford, W. Kent, J., Jedrzejewski, R., & Giovanelli, R. 1987, ApJ, 320, 454

    1987

  43. [51]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Carlberg, R. G. 1984, ApJ, 282, 61 Sil’chenko, O., Kostiuk, I., Burenkov, A., & Parul, H. 2018, A&A, 620, L7

    1984

  44. [52]

    V ., Mosenkov, A

    Smirnov, D. V ., Mosenkov, A. V ., & Reshetnikov, V . P. 2024,MNRAS, 527, 4112

    2024

  45. [53]

    2018, PhD thesis, Open University Milton Keynes, UK

    Spindler, A. 2018, PhD thesis, Open University Milton Keynes, UK

    2018

  46. [54]

    2010,MNRAS, 401, 791

    Springel, V . 2010,MNRAS, 401, 791

    2010

  47. [55]

    H., Bernardi, M., et al

    Stoughton, C., Lupton, R. H., Bernardi, M., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 485

    2002

  48. [56]

    B., Machado, R

    Tissera, P. B., Machado, R. E. G., Sanchez-Blazquez, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A93

    2016

  49. [57]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

    2004

  50. [58]

    2009, AJ, 137, 19

    Treuthardt, P., Salo, H., & Buta, R. 2009, AJ, 137, 19

    2009

  51. [59]

    2008,AJ, 136, 300

    Treuthardt, P., Salo, H., Rautiainen, P., & Buta, R. 2008,AJ, 136, 300

    2008

  52. [60]

    1995, A&A, 300, 65 V ogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., et al

    Verdes-Montenegro, L., Bosma, A., & Athanassoula, E. 1995, A&A, 300, 65 V ogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020,MNRAS, 492, 5167

    1995

  53. [61]

    & Lilly, S

    Wang, E. & Lilly, S. J. 2023, ApJ, 955, 55

    2023

  54. [62]

    2017,MNRAS, 465, 3291

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V ., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017,MNRAS, 465, 3291

    2017

  55. [63]

    Wilman, D. J. & Erwin, P. 2012,ApJ, 746, 160

    2012

  56. [64]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 1524 14

    Zana, T., Lupi, A., Bonetti, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1524 14

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.