Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

New tools for studying planarity in galaxy satellite systems: Milky Way satellite planes are consistent with {\Lambda}CDM

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A new plane-space metric shows the Milky Way's satellite plane is positionally real but not kinematically confirmed, and both facts are consistent with Lambda-CDM according to the NewHorizon simulation.

desk verdict A genuinely new metric for satellite plane structure with a solid Milky Way positional result, but the simulation-based kinematic coherence claim outruns the statistics actually shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17813 v1 pith:YH326NOO submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IM

E. Uzeirbegovic , G. Martin , S. Kaviraj , R. A. Jackson , K. Kraljic , Y. Dubois , C. Pichon , J. Devriendt
show 3 more authors
S. Peirani J. Silk S. K. Yi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords satellitegalaxiesMilkyWaysatellitesgalaxyplanesplanarityplanespaceGinicoefficientLambda-CDMGaiaEDR3
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 asks whether the flattened arrangement of the Milky Way's satellite galaxies is a genuine problem for the standard cosmological model. It introduces a new summary statistic, 'planarity', built from a 'plane space' that records every plane implied by pairs of satellite position, velocity, or angular-momentum vectors, summarized by a Gini coefficient. Applied to Gaia EDR3 data for 46 Milky Way satellites, the method finds strong positional planarity but no statistically significant velocity planarity, so kinematic support cannot be confirmed from current data. Applied to Milky-Way-like hosts in the NewHorizon simulation, at least 90 per cent of hosts show positional planarity at or above the Milky Way's level, with positions, velocities, and angular momenta correlated, indicating that kinematically supported planes are common. The authors conclude that the observed planarity of Milky Way satellites is not in tension with the standard Lambda-CDM paradigm.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'plane space'. For every pair of satellite vectors (positions, velocities, or angular momenta) in a system, the method takes their cross product, interprets it as the normal of a plane through the host, and projects that normal onto two spherical angles; the collection of all such angles is binned into an m-by-m histogram (m=25, calibrated to separate isotropic from planar cases). Each plane implied by at least two satellites adds counts at its two antipodal orientation bins, so genuine planar structure shows up as concentration. The concentration is summarized by the Gini coefficient, always quoted as a percentile relative to an isotropic distribution with the same number of satellites to remove sample-size bias. Comparing these percentiles across position, velocity, and angular-momentum spaces is what lets the paper measure 'planarity' and 'kinematic coherence' separately.

What would settle it

Take the NewHorizon satellites at the final snapshot, add measurement errors drawn from the Li et al. (2021) error model to each velocity component, rebuild the velocity and angular-momentum plane spaces, and count how many hosts still exceed the 100th-percentile isotropic threshold; if that fraction drops well below the claimed positional fraction, or if a per-host cross-tabulation shows that position-plane hosts rarely also show velocity-plane coherence, the paper's prediction of future kinematic confirmation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that 'planarity' — the degree to which a satellite system's points are explained by planes, independent of plane number or thickness — separates cleanly into position and velocity behaviour. For the Milky Way, position vectors produce a plane space with a Gini coefficient beyond the 100th percentile of an isotropic distribution, while velocity vectors do not separate significantly from isotropy; therefore the plane is real in configuration space but not demonstrably kinematically supported. In the NewHorizon simulation, at least 90 per cent of Milky-Way-like hosts reach the same positional-planarity threshold, and most show correlated position, velocity, and angular-momentum plane spaces across cosmic time, which the authors read as kinematic coherence. The conclusion is that the observed planarity of Milky Way satellites is consistent with Lambda-CDM, and that the reason is structural: hierarchical formation along cosmic-web filaments naturally produces directions of infall, while dynamical friction and angular-momentum conservation maintain the resulting planes.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison treats the noiseless simulated velocity and angular-momentum plane spaces as directly comparable with the error-affected Gaia measurements, so if realistic Milky Way velocity errors would erase the simulated kinematic signal, the consistency conclusion would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Milky Way's positional satellite plane is not evidence against Lambda-CDM; kinematically supported planes arise as common outcomes in a high-resolution cosmological simulation.
  • Current Milky Way velocity data cannot confirm that the positional plane is rotationally supported, so claims of a kinematically coherent vast polar structure need stronger proper-motion data.
  • If the simulation results are indicative of real Milky-Way-like galaxies, improved satellite velocity measurements may reveal kinematic support for the positional plane.
  • Planarity as an aggregate concentration measure lets future studies compare satellite systems without committing to the number or thickness of planes, and position, velocity, and angular-momentum spaces can be tested separately.
  • Plane formation and maintenance appear tied to the filamentary cosmic web and angular-momentum conservation, not to rare or transient accidents in this simulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: a direct test of its prediction would be to forward-model the Li et al. (2021) Gaia error model onto NewHorizon satellite velocities and rebuild the velocity and angular-momentum plane spaces; if realistic errors erase most of the simulated kinematic signal, the claimed consistency would not follow.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper's kinematic-coherence claim is made from aggregate fractions of hosts reaching the 100th percentile, not from a per-host cross-tabulation; a stronger test would ask whether the same host that exceeds the positional threshold also exceeds the velocity and angular-momentum thresholds.
  • Beyond the paper: the method assumes all planes pass through the host center, and the authors note that offsets reduce the measured Gini; allowing plane offsets and measuring the resulting bias would clarify how much planarity the current metric could underestimate.
  • Beyond the paper: NewHorizon is one simulation; checking the same plane-space statistics in other cosmological hydrodynamical simulations would show whether the high incidence of kinematically supported planes is a robust Lambda-CDM prediction rather than a feature of this particular run.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a new 'plane space' representation for galaxy satellite systems: each pair of satellite vectors (position, velocity, or angular momentum) defines a plane through the host, the planes are binned into an m x m histogram in spherical coordinates, and the Gini coefficient of the histogram is used as a scalar 'planarity' measure. The authors apply this to 46 Milky Way (MW) satellites using Gaia EDR3 data from Li et al. (2021), propagating measurement uncertainties with 1000 stochastic replications. They find that MW positional planarity is highly significant (Gini in the 100th percentile of an isotropic comparison), while velocity planarity is not statistically significant. They then apply the same method to MW-like hosts in the NewHorizon cosmological simulation, reporting that at least 90 per cent of hosts (or 80 per cent when tracked across time) exhibit positional planarity comparable to or greater than the MW, and they claim that positions, velocities, and angular momenta are 'highly correlated, demonstrating kinematic coherence.' The paper concludes that the MW satellite plane structure is not in tension with the standard ΛCDM paradigm.

Significance. If substantiated, the plane-space method would be a useful new tool for satellite-galaxy studies, and the MW positional planarity result would reinforce the growing body of work showing that prominent satellite planes are not rare in ΛCDM. The stochastic treatment of Gaia errors is careful, and the authors are appropriately cautious about the MW velocity non-detection, attributing it to large measurement errors. The central weakness is that the kinematic-coherence claim for the simulation rests on aggregate Gini percentiles rather than a same-host comparison of position and velocity plane spaces, and no forward-modeling of Gaia-like velocity errors is applied to simulated satellites. These gaps are fixable and do not undermine the well-supported positional-planarity conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7.1, Figures 6 and 7] The text states that 'positions, velocities and angular momenta are highly correlated, demonstrating kinematic coherence,' but the analysis only reports the fraction of hosts whose position, velocity, and angular-momentum Gini coefficients individually exceed the 100th percentile of the isotropic distribution. These are marginal statistics; they do not establish that the same hosts are planar in all three spaces, nor that the plane-space peaks coincide. A host can have a high velocity Gini percentile while its velocity concentration lies in a different region of plane space from its positional concentration. The authors should provide a same-host cross-tabulation (e.g., the fraction of hosts satisfying position and velocity thresholds jointly) or a direct comparison of the 2D plane-space maps (e.g., bin-wise correlation or mutual information). Without this, the kinematic-coherence claim, which the abstract and conclusions explicitly rely on, is not quantitatively supported.
  2. [Section 7.1 and Section 3] The comparison between the MW and NewHorizon treats simulated velocities as noiseless, while the MW velocity vectors have substantial Gaia EDR3 uncertainties as modelled in Section 3. The conclusion that 'as MW satellite galaxy velocity measurements improve, kinematic support may be confirmed' requires that the simulated kinematic signal survive realistic velocity errors. The paper does not degrade NewHorizon velocities with typical Gaia-like uncertainties, so it is not established that the kinematic coherence seen in simulations would be observable in current or near-future MW data. Please add a forward-modeling test in which simulated velocity vectors are perturbed with error distributions comparable to those in Li et al. (2021), and report the resulting Gini percentiles for the simulation hosts.
  3. [Section 5 (Plane space approach)] The free parameter m (the histogram resolution) is set to 25 and described as 'calibrated by eye,' with the claim that 'the overall analysis is not sensitive to the precise value of m (for example, 20 < m < 30)' being asserted without quantitative support. Since the Gini coefficient and its isotropic percentile depend on the binning, the paper should report the key results (e.g., the MW position Gini percentile and the 90% and 80% host fractions in Figures 6 and 7) for several values of m, ideally in a small table or figure. Without this, the reader cannot assess whether the headline conclusions are an artifact of the chosen resolution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 2] The statement that 'around 35 per cent of the as-is distribution overlaps with the shuffled scenario' should specify how the overlap is measured (e.g., fraction of as-is replications within the shuffled 95 per cent interval, or area overlap of the two kernel density estimates).
  2. [Section 5.1] The text says that isotropic percentiles are established 'for any given number of satellite galaxies,' but Section 7 does not explicitly state that each NewHorizon host's Gini percentile is computed with an isotropic distribution matching that host's satellite number. Please clarify this in the simulation analysis, especially because host sample sizes vary with time in Figures 6 and 7.
  3. [Section 6, Figure 5] The text quotes thresholds such as 'more than 99 per cent of the position vector replications' and 'only 20 per cent of the velocity vector replications' relative to the 95th percentile of the isotropic distribution; marking the 95th percentile on Figure 5 would make these comparisons directly readable.
  4. [Section 5 (plane-through-origin assumption)] The authors acknowledge that planes are assumed to pass through the host centre and that this may lower Gini values for off-centre planes; a simple quantitative test in the simulation (e.g., fitting planes with a free offset and comparing the resulting planarity statistics) would strengthen this methodological choice.
  5. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries: Samuel et al. 2021a and 2021b both cite MNRAS, 504, 1379, and Sawala et al. 2023a and 2023b both cite Nature Astronomy, 7, 481; these should be corrected or merged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MW/NewHorizon planarity comparison is a descriptive application of a new metric with an external simulation, not a fitted or self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The paper defines 'planarity' operationally as the Gini concentration of a binned plane-space histogram and compares each observed or simulated satellite system to an isotropic null with the same satellite number; the same code path is applied to Gaia EDR3 (via Li et al. 2021) and to NewHorizon hosts. The MW's 100th-percentile position Gini is an observed outcome, not a fitted parameter, and using that same percentile as the 'MW-equivalent' threshold for simulation hosts is a comparison convention rather than a parameter adjusted to force agreement. The simulation result is external to the MW data: NewHorizon is a ΛCDM simulation with fixed initial conditions and resolution, and the ≥90% / ≥80% fractions are computed from its own galaxy catalogues, not from the MW's measured Gini. The kinematic-coherence statement in Section 7.1 is an empirical inference from marginal Gini percentiles and can be criticized statistically, but that is a methodology/correctness issue rather than circularity: no equation is fitted to the MW conclusion and no load-bearing premise is imported only from the authors' prior work. I therefore find no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the plane space metric, which has one hand-chosen free parameter (m) and one explicit geometric assumption (planes pass through the host center). The MW velocity conclusion additionally assumes component-wise independent errors. The simulation comparison assumes NewHorizon and its subhalo selection are representative of the MW system. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Plane space histogram resolution m = 25
    Hand-chosen to visually separate synthetic isotropic and planar cases; the authors report results are not sensitive for 20<m<30. Used for all MW and NewHorizon plane spaces, so it is a free parameter of the metric, though not fitted to the target data.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Planes in satellite systems pass through the host galaxy center.
    Section 5 states 'We make the assumption that the planes in our analysis pass through the host'; the authors note offsets could lower the Gini coefficient and weaken the signal.
  • domain assumption Velocity vector measurement errors are independent across components.
    Section 3: 'we treat errors in all vector components as independent, which could misrepresent error to some extent.' This is load-bearing for the non-detection of MW velocity planarity.
  • domain assumption An isotropic distribution drawn by rejection sampling is the correct null for planarity.
    Section 5.1 uses 1000 isotropic replications to calibrate Gini percentiles; earlier literature notes Lambda-CDM satellites are not isotropic, so this null is a conservative baseline for 'planarity' rather than a test of Lambda-CDM itself.
  • domain assumption NewHorizon provides a representative sample of MW-like Lambda-CDM hosts.
    Section 2.2 describes a single zoom-in simulation with WMAP7 cosmology; the claim of consistency with Lambda-CDM rests on this one hydrodynamical simulation being representative.
  • domain assumption AdaptaHOP structure identification and the mass/radius cuts select the same satellite population as the MW sample.
    Section 2.2 imposes minimum 50 particles, satellite mass 1e5-1e10 Msun, and radial range 3-45 effective radii to mimic MW observations; selection differences could bias the simulated planarity fractions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New tools for studying planarity in galaxy satellite systems: Milky Way satellite planes are consistent with {\Lambda}CDM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YH326NOO

@misc{pith2026241117813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New tools for studying planarity in galaxy satellite systems: Milky Way satellite planes are consistent with \LambdaCDM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YH326NOO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17813}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a new concept -- termed "planarity" -- which aims to quantify planar structure in galaxy satellite systems without recourse to the number or thickness of planes. We use positions and velocities from the Gaia EDR3 to measure planarity in Milky Way (MW) satellites and the extent to which planes within the MW system are kinematically supported. We show that the position vectors of the MW satellites exhibit strong planarity but the velocity vectors do not, and that kinematic coherence cannot, therefore, be confirmed from current observational data. We then apply our methodology to NewHorizon, a high-resolution cosmological simulation, to compare satellite planarity in MW-like galaxies in a {\Lambda}CDM-based model to that in the MW satellite data. We demonstrate that kinematically supported planes are common in the simulation and that the observed planarity of MW satellites is not in tension with the standard {\Lambda}CDM paradigm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17813 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the pole direction of all 46 satellite galaxies projected to spherical coordinates. The crosses show the two poles of the optimal normal vector corresponding to the plane which captures the most satellites. The satellites within tolerance are shown in red. There are 21 satellites within 36.9 degrees of the plane, of which only 2 are counter-orbiting, which is very similar to the results published in Li et al. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The maximal plane captured at a threshold of 36.9 degrees, pro￾duced by creating 1000 replications of positions and velocities for all satellites in two scenarios. In the ‘shuffled velocity’ scenario, we shuffle the velocities between satellites and in the ‘as-is’ scenario we make no changes. Around 35 per cent of the ‘as-is’ distribution overlaps with the shuffled scenario. This implies a high chance of confusion w… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The top left panel shows the plane space for an isotropic distribution for position, velocity or angular momenta vectors. All three scenarios produce a uniform distribution across the histogram cells, but we present only one panel for brevity. The other panels illustrate what three discrete planes look like in plane space for positions (top right), velocities (bottom left) and angular momenta (bottom right) vectors … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The MW plane space constructed using position (top) and velocity (bottom) vectors respectively. The colours highlight the number of galaxy pairs falling into any given bin. The title indicates the Gini coefficient and the quantile of the isotropic distribution that the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms created from 1000 replications, drawn from the isotropic, positional and velocity vector distributions of the MW are shown over-plotted. Given the measurement errors, only the positional plane space is significantly differentiated from the isotropic distribu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The total number of host galaxies at each time step (black), and the number of galaxies with a Gini coefficient in the 100th percentile of the isotropic distribution for positions (blue), velocities (orange) and angular momenta (green). The plot is filtered to include …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the Gini coefficient for four example host galaxies for positions (green) and velocities (brown). The dashed black line shows the 100th percentile threshold which represents the MW equivalent position Gini coefficient. The vertical lines show minor/major m…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Testing a proposed "planarity" tool for studying satellite systems: On the alleged consistency of Milky Way satellite galaxy planes with $\Lambda$CDM

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A proposed planarity metric for satellite galaxy systems is shown to be orientation-dependent and reactive to non-planar anisotropies, invalidating the claimed consistency of the Milky Way satellite plane with LCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Aubert D., Pichon C., Colombi S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07883.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.352..376A 352, 376

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Bahl H., Baumgardt H., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.2916B 438, 2916

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2399 2014

  4. [4]

    V., Dutton A

    Buck T., Macci \`o A. V., Dutton A. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809...49B 809, 49

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/49 2015

  5. [5]

    S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..343B 55, 343

    Bullock J. S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..343B 55, 343

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 2017

  6. [6]

    S., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx025 , 468, L41

    Cautun M., Frenk C. S., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx025 , 468, L41

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx025 2017

  7. [7]

    S., Guo Q., Han J., Hellwing W

    Cautun M., Bose S., Frenk C. S., Guo Q., Han J., Hellwing W. A., Sawala T., Wang W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3838C 452, 3838

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1557 2015

  8. [9]

    Dubois Y., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1227 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1453D 444, 1453

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1227 2014

Show all 47 references
  1. [10]

    Dubois Y., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A.109D 651, A109

    2021 doi

  2. [11]

    K., Battaglia G., Pawlowski M

    Fritz T. K., Battaglia G., Pawlowski M. S., Kallivayalil N., van der Marel R., Sohn S. T., Brook C., Besla G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...619A.103F 619, A103

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    2016 doi

  4. [13]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...1G 649, A1

    2021 doi

  5. [14]

    Gini C., 1936, Colorado College Publication, General Series, 208, 73

    1936

  6. [15]

    S., Yang Y., Bonifacio P., Li H., Babusiaux C., Arenou F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac27a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922...93H 922, 93

    Hammer F., Wang J., Pawlowski M. S., Yang Y., Bonifacio P., Li H., Babusiaux C., Arenou F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac27a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922...93H 922, 93

    2021 doi

  7. [16]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.493...62I 493, 62

    Ibata R. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.493...62I 493, 62

    2013 doi

  8. [17]

    G., Ibata R

    Ibata N. G., Ibata R. A., Famaey B., Lewis G. F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature13481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.511..563I 511, 563

    2014 doi

  9. [18]

    C., Green S

    Jiang F., Dekel A., Freundlich J., van den Bosch F. C., Green S. B., Hopkins P. F., Benson A., Du X., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa4034 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502..621J 502, 621

    2021 doi

  10. [19]

    Kaviraj S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx126 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.4739K 467, 4739

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    Komatsu E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192...18K 192, 18

    2011 doi

  12. [21]

    M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...431..517K 431, 517

    Kroupa P., Theis C., Boily C. M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...431..517K 431, 517

    2005 doi

  13. [22]

    S., Yang Y., Arenou F., Du C., Wang J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0436 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...916....8L 916, 8

    Li H., Hammer F., Babusiaux C., Pawlowski M. S., Yang Y., Arenou F., Du C., Wang J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0436 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...916....8L 916, 8

    2021 doi

  14. [23]

    I., Frenk C

    Libeskind N. I., Frenk C. S., Cole S., Helly J. C., Jenkins A., Navarro J. F., Power C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09425.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.363..146L 363, 146

    2005

  15. [24]

    I., Hoffman Y., Tully R

    Libeskind N. I., Hoffman Y., Tully R. B., Courtois H. M., Pomar \`e de D., Gottl \"o ber S., Steinmetz M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.1052L 452, 1052

    2015 doi

  16. [25]

    I., Guo Q., Tempel E., Ibata R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830..121L 830, 121

    Libeskind N. I., Guo Q., Tempel E., Ibata R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830..121L 830, 121

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    M., Primack J., Madau P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AJ....128..163L 128, 163

    Lotz J. M., Primack J., Madau P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AJ....128..163L 128, 163

    2004 doi

  18. [27]

    W., Venn K

    McConnachie A. W., Venn K. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aba4ab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..124M 160, 124

    2020 doi

  19. [28]

    I., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...680..287M 680, 287

    Metz M., Kroupa P., Libeskind N. I., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...680..287M 680, 287

    2008 doi

  20. [29]

    S., Hutson A

    Mudholkar G. S., Hutson A. D., 2000, Journal of statistical planning and inference, 83, 291

    2000

  21. [30]

    S., Kroupa P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.2116P 435, 2116

    Pawlowski M. S., Kroupa P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.2116P 435, 2116

    2013 doi

  22. [31]

    S., Pflamm-Altenburg J., Kroupa P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20937.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.1109P 423, 1109

    Pawlowski M. S., Pflamm-Altenburg J., Kroupa P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20937.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.1109P 423, 1109

    2012

  23. [32]

    S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.2362P 442, 2362

    Pawlowski M. S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.2362P 442, 2362

    2014 doi

  24. [33]

    S., Ibata R

    Pawlowski M. S., Ibata R. A., Bullock J. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850..132P 850, 132

    2017 doi

  25. [34]

    J., Stasyszyn F., Padilla N

    Paz D. J., Stasyszyn F., Padilla N. D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13655.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.389.1127P 389, 1127

    2008

  26. [35]

    I., Cooper M

    Phillips J. I., Cooper M. C., Bullock J. S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1770 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.3839P 453, 3839

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

    Pichon C., Pogosyan D., Kimm T., Slyz A., Devriendt J., Dubois Y., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19640.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.2493P 418, 2493

    2011

  28. [37]

    Plionis M., Benoist C., Maurogordato S., Ferrari C., Basilakos S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376892 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...594..144P 594, 144

    2003 doi

  29. [38]

    H., Strigari L

    Riley A. H., Strigari L. E., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa710 , 494, 983

    2020 doi

  30. [40]

    F., Boylan-Kolchin M., Bailin J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.1379S 504, 1379

    Samuel J., Wetzel A., Chapman S., Tollerud E., Hopkins P. F., Boylan-Kolchin M., Bailin J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.1379S 504, 1379

    doi

  31. [41]

    Santos-Santos I., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7f29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897...71S 897, 71

    2020 doi

  32. [42]

    Santos-Santos I., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942...78S 942, 78

    2023 doi

  33. [44]

    Sawala T., et al., 2023b, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01856-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..481S 7, 481

    doi

  34. [45]

    I., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2727T 450, 2727

    Tempel E., Guo Q., Kipper R., Libeskind N. I., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2727T 450, 2727

    2015 doi

  35. [46]

    Teyssier R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...385..337T 385, 337

    2002 doi

  36. [47]

    Tweed D., Devriendt J., Blaizot J., Colombi S., Slyz A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200911787 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...506..647T 506, 647

    2009 doi

  37. [48]

    E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...613A...4W 613, A4

    Welker C., Dubois Y., Pichon C., Devriendt J., Chisari N. E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...613A...4W 613, A4

    2018 doi

  38. [49]

    J., Blakeslee J

    West M. J., Blakeslee J. P., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...543L..27W 543, L27

    2000 doi

  39. [50]

    R., Kravtsov A

    Zentner A. R., Kravtsov A. V., Gnedin O. Y., Klypin A. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431355 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...629..219Z 629, 219

    2005 doi

Pith tools

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