Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The long road to the Green Valley: Tracing the evolution of the Green Valley galaxies in the EAGLE simulation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper uses the EAGLE cosmological simulation to trace the ancestors of today's green valley galaxies from redshift 10 to the present, arguing that most of them entered the green valley only at z < 1 and that a small fraction crossed…

desk verdict Solid, publishable EAGLE progenitor-tracking study; the headline z<1 entry-time and ~5% rejuvenation numbers are not reproducible until the higher-redshift GV classification is specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01207 v2 pith:S7BD2RMS submitted 2025-01-02 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Apashanka Das , Biswajit Pandey This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords greenvalleygalaxiesgalaxyquenchingEAGLEsimulationevolutionentropicthresholdingmergertreesstarformationenvironment
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

The paper asks when and how today's green valley galaxies—those caught between the blue cloud of star-forming galaxies and the red sequence of quiescent ones—got there. Using the EAGLE cosmological hydrodynamical simulation, the authors trace the full progenitor histories of present-day green valley galaxies back to $z=10$ and identify three evolutionary phases: gas-rich growth with AGN regulation at $z=10$–$6$, interaction- and merger-driven transition at $z=6$–$2$, and environment- and mass-dominated quenching at $z=2$–$0$. The central quantitative claim is that most main progenitor branches of present-day green valley galaxies entered the green valley only at $z<1$, and that about $5\%$ of branches had already crossed into the red sequence by $z=0.1$, implying late-time rejuvenation. The study matters because it makes the green valley a late-assembled, dynamically assembled population rather than a single universal path through colour space.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is entropic thresholding applied to the $(u-r)$ colour–stellar mass plane at $z=0$, which produces mass-dependent green valley boundaries $s_1(M_\star)$ and $s_2(M_\star)$ without arbitrary colour cuts. This data-driven classifier selects the sample of present-day green valley galaxies; their merger trees in the EAGLE simulation define the main progenitor branches that are followed through the snapshots, and the same $z=0$ boundaries are used to decide when those branches 'enter' or 'cross' the green valley at earlier redshifts.

What would settle it

Recompute the 'entered' and 'crossed' fractions using redshift-dependent green valley boundaries derived from each snapshot's own colour–mass diagram, or from observed colour distributions at $z=1$, $0.5$, and $0.1$; if the majority-entry-at-$z<1$ result or the $\sim 5\%$ crossing fraction changes materially, the fixed $z=0$ threshold is responsible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a three-phase evolutionary narrative for green valley progenitors in the EAGLE simulation. In the early growth phase ($z=10$–$6$), progenitors are gas-rich, efficiently star-forming, mostly low-mass, and reside in low-density environments, with AGN feedback moderating star formation in the more massive systems. In the transition phase ($z=6$–$2$), they migrate toward denser regions, and a rising fraction of interactions and mergers (peaking near $25\%$ at $z=2$) triggers starbursts that deplete cold gas. In the quenching phase ($z=2$–$0$), AGN activity fades to a few percent and cold gas is progressively depleted; at $z<1$ star formation is suppressed most sharply, and correlations between stellar mass, star formation rate, and cold gas content tighten. The main quantitative result is that the majority of the main progenitor branches of present-day green valley galaxies enter the green valley at redshifts below $z=1$, while roughly $5\%$ of branches cross the green valley to the red sequence by $z=0.1$ and must later undergo rejuvenation to re-enter it by $z=0$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the green valley's colour boundaries, defined at $z=0$, remain valid at higher redshifts, so a branch counted as 'entering' at $z<1$ is genuinely crossing a fixed colour transition rather than just passing through a region that was green only at $z=0$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Most of today's green valley population entered the valley only in the last few billion years of cosmic time, making the green valley a predominantly low-redshift phenomenon in EAGLE.
  • Quenching is not monotonic: the roughly $5\%$ of main branches that crossed into the red sequence by $z=0.1$ and later returned imply that some galaxies can be temporarily quenched and then reignited.
  • The dominant quenching driver shifts systematically with redshift, from AGN feedback at $z>6$ through interactions at $z\approx2$–$6$ to environment and mass at $z<2$, so no single mechanism explains the green valley.
  • The flattening of the mass–SFR main-sequence slope at $z<1$ indicates that low-mass progenitors quench earlier and faster than high-mass ones, predicting a mass-dependent spread in green valley crossing times.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the green valley colour locus shifts redward with cosmic time, the published 'entered at $z<1$' fraction is likely an overestimate; a redshift-dependent classification would test this.
  • The same entropic-thresholding pipeline could be applied to observed colour–mass diagrams at multiple redshifts to see whether the late-entry and rejuvenation signatures appear in real galaxies, not just in EAGLE.
  • The $\sim5\%$ rejuvenation fraction could be sensitive to the mass cut $\log(M_\star/M_\odot) \ge 8.3$; extending the analysis to lower-mass progenitors may change the apparent bounce rate.
  • The three-phase picture implies that the green valley is a population-level synthesis of different histories rather than a single transitional state, so treating it as a homogeneous class may obscure underlying diversity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the EAGLE Ref-L0100N1504 simulation to trace the progenitors of present-day green valley (GV) galaxies, identified at z=0 via the entropic-thresholding method of Pandey (2024), from z=10 to z=0. It reports a three-phase evolutionary picture: an early growth phase (z=10-6) with gas-rich, star-forming progenitors regulated by AGN feedback; a transition phase (z=6-2) marked by frequent interactions and mergers in denser environments; and a quenching phase (z=2-0) dominated by environmental and mass-dependent processes with rapid cold gas depletion. The paper's headline quantitative claims are that most main progenitor branches enter the green valley at z<1 and that about 5% of the branches had already crossed into the red sequence by z=0.1, which the authors interpret as evidence for late-time rejuvenation.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are robust, the paper offers a useful time-resolved account of how today's green valley galaxies assemble, using a widely used simulation and a data-driven colour classification that avoids arbitrary cuts. The qualitative trends in AGN fraction, interaction fraction, SFR, cold gas content, and local density are presented clearly and do support a broad three-phase narrative. The authors also deserve credit for explicitly acknowledging the stellar-mass cut caveat and for making the analysis reproducible in principle from public EAGLE data. However, the two most quantitative findings (majority entering at z<1; ~5% rejuvenation) are not reproducible from the text because the higher-redshift classification of progenitor branches is never specified; this is a load-bearing gap that must be fixed before the central claims can be evaluated.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.5 (Figure 19)] The classification of main progenitor branches as 'in the green valley' or 'crossed the green valley' at z>0 is never defined. Section 2.2 describes a z=0 classification using thresholds s1(M*) and s2(M*) obtained by entropic thresholding, but the text does not state whether these same thresholds are applied unchanged to higher-redshift snapshots, whether the thresholds are recomputed per snapshot, or whether some redshift-dependent colour correction is applied. If the z=0 thresholds are used at all redshifts, the analysis assumes the green valley colour locus in (u-r) at fixed stellar mass is redshift-invariant, which is unlikely to be exactly true and could systematically bias the 'entry time' statistic. If thresholds are recomputed per snapshot, the operational meaning of 'entered at z<1' is not defined. Either way, the ~50% and ~5% numbers in Figure 19 and the abstract are not reproducible from the paper as written. Please specify the procedure and provide a robustness test, for example by recomputing the thresholds at each snapshot or by applying a redshift-dependent colour-evolution correction, and show how the entry-time distribution changes.
  2. [3.5 (Figure 19) and Section 4] The inference of late-time rejuvenation for the ~5% of branches that 'crossed' the green valley by z=0.1 rests entirely on a two-redshift classification comparison. A branch classified as red at z=0.1 and green at z=0 could be affected by threshold scatter, colour measurement noise, or a temporary fluctuation rather than a genuine rejuvenation event. The paper should validate this claim by tracking the actual SFR or specific SFR evolution of these branches and by showing that the fraction of branches with an SFR increase between z=0.1 and z=0 is consistent with the 5% estimate. Without such a check, the rejuvenation interpretation is not stronger than the classification artifacts that the unspecified higher-redshift procedure may introduce.
  3. [Section 4 (caveats)] The acknowledged stellar-mass cut log(M*/Msun) >= 8.3 is especially relevant to Figure 19 because high-redshift progenitors are systematically less massive, so the sample of branches tracked at z>2 is increasingly incomplete. The paper states the caveat but does not quantify its impact on the entry-time distribution. Please state explicitly whether the percentages in Figure 19 are computed only over branches that are resolved (and hence have colours) at each redshift, and provide a test of how the 'entered at z<1' fraction changes when the mass cut is varied within the resolved range. This is needed to assess whether 'majority enter at z<1' is a physical result or a selection effect.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and Abstract] The title line in the manuscript reads 'T racing the evolution' (missing 'h'); please correct the typo. The abstract also contains several missing spaces and inconsistent hyphenation, which should be cleaned up.
  2. [Section 3.4 (Figures 13-15)] The axis label 'log(25 Mpc3)' in Figures 13 and 14 appears garbled; it should presumably read log(eta/(25 Mpc^-3)) or similar. Please correct the units notation and verify the density unit convention is defined consistently with Equation (2.5).
  3. [Section 3.5 (Figure 18 caption)] The caption says 'rectengular boxes' and 'suppression the formation'; please correct these typos. Also, the two upper panels have labels of log(Mstellar/Msun) that are inconsistent (e.g., '11.6229' vs '10.6193'); please check the formatting.
  4. [Section 1] The text says 'Te structure of the paper is as follows' (missing 'h'); please correct.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The '~5% rejuvenation' finding is a restatement of the z=0 green-valley selection; the z<1 entry-time numbers rest on an unspecified high-redshift classification.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.5, Figure 19 caption; sample selection in Section 2.1]
    "It is interesting to note that a small fraction (∼ 5%) of the main progenitor branches has already crossed the green valley and entered the red sequence by z = 0.1. These galaxies must have gone through some rejuvenation after z = 0.1 that helped them to reenter the present-day green valley."

    The main progenitor branches are defined as the ancestry lines of galaxies classified as green at z=0 (Section 2.1: 'The green galaxies identified in this manner at z=0... use the GalaxyID of each green galaxy at z=0 to trace its merger history'). Every such branch therefore terminates in a z=0 green-valley galaxy by construction. If the same classification labels that branch red at z=0.1, then the red-to-green transition between z=0.1 and z=0 is logically forced by the sample definition; the paper presents this necessary consequence as an empirical discovery ('These galaxies must have gone through some rejuvenation'), without any independent measurement of rejuvenation such as an SFR upturn.

full rationale

The paper's sample is built by applying the same author's entropic-thresholding classifier (Pandey 2024, [85]) at z=0; this is a visible self-citation, but the algorithm is fully specified in Section 2.2 and the physical trends (AGN fraction, interaction rate, SFR and cold-gas decline, environmental migration) are measured quantities that would remain meaningful under other reasonable green-valley definitions, so the self-citation alone is not load-bearing circularity. The genuinely circular element is the rejuvenation claim in Section 3.5/Figure 19. The main progenitor branches are, by construction, the progenitors of galaxies that are green at z=0; therefore any branch classified red at z=0.1 must, under the same classifier, move from red to green between z=0.1 and z=0. Presenting this forced consequence as 'some kind of rejuvenation' reduces the finding to the sample selection plus the threshold definition. Separately, the headline statistic that ~50% of branches 'entered the green valley at z<1' depends on how 'in the green valley' is decided at higher redshifts, which the paper never specifies; this is a serious reproducibility gap and a potential artifact of applying the z=0 thresholds at all redshifts, but it is not by itself a circular step because the statistic could differ under a per-snapshot classifier. The three-phase narrative and the mass/environment correlations are not equivalent to the inputs and remain testable, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis adds no new physical entities. It borrows the EAGLE simulation, a standard density estimator, and a self-developed entropic-threshold GV classifier; the main discretionary inputs are the bin count, the nearest-neighbour order, the mass cut, and the hand-chosen phase boundaries.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of colour bins N for entropic thresholding = 30
    Choice of bin count in Equations 2.2-2.4; the authors cite prior work that results are insensitive, but it still sets the resolution of the GV boundaries.
  • Nearest-neighbour order k for local density = 5
    Equation 2.5 uses k=5; on a different choice the local density field and hence the environment classifications in Figures 11-15 would change.
  • Phase boundary redshifts = z=6 and z=2
    The three-phase narrative (growth, transition, quenching) is obtained by splitting the redshift range at z=6 and z=2 by eye from trends in Figures 2, 3, 7, and 9; no statistical break-finder is used.
  • Cubic polynomial thresholds s1(M*) and s2(M*) = not tabulated
    A cubic fit to the per-mass-bin entropic thresholds defines the smooth GV boundaries in Figure 1; the coefficients are fitted to the authors' own binned thresholds.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption EAGLE's subgrid models for star formation, AGN feedback, and galaxy formation produce realistic evolutionary tracks for galaxies with log(M*/Msun)>=8.3 down to z=10.
    Invoked in Section 2.1; all physical properties (SFR, cold gas, colours, AGN luminosity) are taken from the simulation outputs, whose feedback calibrations are not independently validated here.
  • domain assumption The rest-frame (u-r) colours computed by EAGLE match SDSS photometry at all redshifts.
    Used throughout the classification; the authors cite Doi et al. 2010 and Trayford et al. 2015 but the reliability of colour at z>0 for galaxies near the mass limit is not discussed.
  • ad hoc to paper The z=0 green valley boundaries remain valid for classifying progenitors at higher redshifts.
    Required for the 'entered/crossed the green valley' statistics in Section 3.5, Figure 19, but the redshift dependence of the GV is never modeled; no equation or argument establishes this.
  • domain assumption The main progenitor branch, defined via LastProgID, captures the dominant lineage of each present-day GV galaxy.
    The EAGLE merger-tree definition is adopted without checking convergence or the effect of branch-switching on the inferred entry times.
  • standard math The local density estimator of Casertano and Hut (1985) with k=5 traces the relevant environment.
    Equation 2.5; a standard estimator, but the choice of k and boundary correction affect the density PDFs.
  • domain assumption AGN-active galaxies are correctly identified by Lbol >= 1e43 erg/s.
    Section 2.4 follows McAlpine et al. 2020; the threshold is a convention, and the bolometric luminosity depends on the simulated black hole accretion rate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The long road to the Green Valley: Tracing the evolution of the Green Valley galaxies in the EAGLE simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S7BD2RMS

@misc{pith2026250101207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The long road to the Green Valley: Tracing the evolution of the Green Valley galaxies in the EAGLE simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S7BD2RMS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01207}
}
abstract

We study the evolution of the progenitors of the present-day Green Valley (GV) galaxies across redshift $z=10-0$ using data from the EAGLE simulations. We identify the present-day green valley galaxies using entropic thresholding and track the evolution of the physical properties of their progenitors up to $z=10$. Our study identifies three distinct phases in their evolution: (i) an early growth phase ($z=10-6$), where progenitors are gas-rich, efficiently form stars, and experience AGN feedback regulating star formation in massive galaxies, (ii) a transition phase ($z=6-2$), marked by frequent interactions and mergers in higher-density environments, driving starbursts, depleting gas reservoirs, and strengthening correlations between cold gas and halo properties, and (iii) a quenching phase ($z=2-0$), dominated by environmental and mass-dependent processes that suppress star formation and deplete cold gas. Our analysis shows that at $z<1$, environmental factors and cold gas depletion dominate quenching, with tighter correlations between stellar mass, SFR, and cold gas content. The interplay between mass and environmental density during this period drives diverse and distinct evolutionary pathways. Our analysis shows that majority of the main progenitor branches of the present-day GV galaxies entered the green valley at $z<1$. We also find that a small fraction ($\sim 5\%$) of the main progenitor branches had already crossed the green valley and joined the red sequence by $z=0.1$, indicating that some galaxies may undergo late-time rejuvenation, that allows them to reenter the green valley by the present day. Our findings provide a comprehensive view of the mechanisms shaping the GV population across cosmic time.

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. Galaxy evolution in the cosmic web: the relative impact of nodes and filaments in the EAGLE simulation

    astro-ph.GA 2026-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In the EAGLE simulation, red galaxies cluster near filament spines and nodes, blue galaxies dominate outskirts, and the mass-colour coupling strengthens away from nodes at fixed filament proximity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Strateva, et al., AJ,122, 1861 (2001)

    I. Strateva, et al., AJ,122, 1861 (2001)

    2001

  2. [2]

    M. R. Blanton, et al., ApJ,594, 186 (2003)

    2003

  3. [3]

    E. F. Bell, D. H. McIntosh, N. Katz, M. D. Weinberg, ApJS,149, 289 (2003)

    2003

  4. [4]

    L Balogh, I

    M. L Balogh, I. K. Baldry, R. Nichol, C. Miller, R. Bower, K. Glazebrook, 2004, ApJL,615, L101 (2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    I. K. Baldry, K. Glazebrook, J. Brinkmann, Ž. Ivezić, R. H. Lupton, R. C. Nichol, A. S. Szalay, ApJ, 600, 681 (2004)

    2004

  6. [6]

    Menci, A

    N. Menci, A. Fontana, E. Giallongo, & S. Salimbeni, ApJ,632, 49 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    S. P. Driver, et al., MNRAS,368, 414 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    Cattaneo, A

    A. Cattaneo, A. Dekel, J. Devriendt, B. Guiderdoni, & J. Blaizot, MNRAS,370, 1651 (2006)

    2006

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    Cattaneo, et al., MNRAS,377, 63 (2007)

    A. Cattaneo, et al., MNRAS,377, 63 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    Cameron, S

    E. Cameron, S. P. Driver, A. W. Graham, J. Liske, ApJ,699, 105 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    J. W. Trayford, et al., MNRAS,460, 3925 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Nelson, et al., MNRAS,475, 624 (2018)

    D. Nelson, et al., MNRAS,475, 624 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    C. A. Correa, J. Schaye, & J. W. Trayford, MNRAS,484, 4401 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    E. F. Bell, C. Wolf, K. Meisenheimer, H.-W. Rix, A. Borch, S. Dye, M. Kleinheinrich, et al., ApJ, 608, 752 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    B. J. Weiner, A. C. Phillips, S. M. Faber, C. N. A. Willmer, N. P. Vogt, L. Simard, K. Gebhardt, et al., ApJ,620, 595 (2005) – 26 –

    2005

  8. [16]

    Kriek, A

    M. Kriek, A. van der Wel , P. G. van Dokkum, M. Franx, G. D. Illingworth, ApJ,682, 896 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    G. B. Brammer, K. E. Whitaker, P. G. van Dokkum, D. Marchesini, I. Labbé , M. Franx, M. Kriek, et al., ApJL,706, L173 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    S. M. Faber, C. N. A. Willmer, C. Wolf, D. C. Koo, B. J. Weiner, J. A. Newman, M. Im, et al., ApJ, 665, 265 (2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    Madau, H

    P. Madau, H. C. Ferguson, M. E. Dickinson, M. Giavalisco, C. C. Steidel, & A. Fruchter, MNRAS, 283, 1388 (1996)

    1996

  12. [20]

    T. K. Wyder, D. C. Martin, D. Schiminovich, M. Seibert, T. Budavári , M. A. Treyer, T. A. Barlow, et al., ApJS,173, 293 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    P. F. Hopkins, L. Hernquist, T. J. Cox, D. Kereš, ApJS,175, 356 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    Moore, N

    B. Moore, N. Katz, G. Lake, A. Dressler, & A. Oemler, A., Nature,379, 613 (1996)

    1996

  15. [23]

    Moore, G

    B. Moore, G. Lake, & N. Katz, N., ApJ,495, 139 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

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

    1972

  17. [25]

    M. L. Balogh, J. F. Navarro, & S. L. Morris, ApJ,540, 113 (2000)

    2000

  18. [26]

    R. B. Larson, B. M. Tinsley, & C. N. Caldwell, ApJ,237, 692 (1980)

    1980

  19. [27]

    R. S. Somerville, & J. R. Primack, MNRAS,310, 1087 (1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    Kawata, & J

    D. Kawata, & J. S. Mulchaey, ApJL,672, L103 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    M. Geha, M. R. Blanton, R. Yan, J. L. Tinker, ApJ,757, 85 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Toomre, J

    A. Toomre, J. Toomre, ApJ,178, 623 (1972)

    1972

  23. [31]

    J. E. Barnes, L. Hernquist, ApJ,471, 115 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    J. C. Mihos, L. Hernquist, ApJ,464, 641 (1996)

    1996

  25. [33]

    P. B. Tissera, R. Domínguez-Tenreiro, C., Sáiz A. Scannapieco, MNRAS,333, 327 (2002)

    2002

  26. [34]

    T. J. Cox, P. Jonsson, J. R. Primack, R. S. Somerville, MNRAS,373, 1013 (2006)

    2006

  27. [35]

    Montuori, P

    M. Montuori, P. Di Matteo, M. D. Lehnert, F. Combes, B. Semelin, A&A,518, A56 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    J. M. Lotz, P. Jonsson, T. J. Cox, D. Croton, J. R. Primack, R. S. Somerville, K. Stewart, ApJ, 742, 103 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Torrey, T

    P. Torrey, T. J. Cox, L. Kewley, L. Hernquist, ApJ,746, 108 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    P. F. Hopkins, T. J. Cox, L. Hernquist, D. Narayanan, C. C. Hayward, N. Murray, MNRAS, 430, 1901 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Renaud, F

    F. Renaud, F. Bournaud, K. Kraljic, P.-A. Duc, MNRAS,442, L33 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Renaud, F

    F. Renaud, F. Bournaud, P.-A. Duc, MNRAS,446, 2038 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Moreno, P

    J. Moreno, P. Torrey, S. L. Ellison, D. R. Patton, A. F. L. Bluck, G. Bansal, L. Hernquist, MNRAS, 448, 1107 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Moreno, P

    J. Moreno, P. Torrey, S. L. Ellison, D. R. Patton, C. Bottrell, A. F. L. Bluck, M. H. Hani, et al., MNRAS, 503, 3113 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Renaud, O

    F. Renaud, O. Segovia Otero, O. Agertz, MNRAS,516, 4922 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    A. Das, B. Pandey, S. Sarkar, RAA,23, 115018 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    R. B. Larson, B. M. Tinsley, ApJ,219, 46 (1978)

    1978

  38. [46]

    E. J. Barton, M. J. Geller, S. J. Kenyon, ApJ,530, 660 (2000) – 27 –

    2000

  39. [47]

    D. G. Lambas, P. B. Tissera, M. S. Alonso, G. Coldwell, MNRAS,346, 1189 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    M. S. Alonso, P. B. Tissera, G. Coldwell, D. G. Lambas, MNRAS,352, 1081 (2004)

    2004

  41. [49]

    Nikolic, H

    B. Nikolic, H. Cullen, P. Alexander, MNRAS,355, 874 (2004)

    2004

  42. [50]

    D. F. Woods, M. J. Geller, E. J. Barton, AJ,132, 197 (2006)

    2006

  43. [51]

    D. F. Woods, M. J. Geller, AJ,134, 527 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    E. J. Barton, J. A. Arnold, A. R. Zentner, J. S. Bullock, R. H. Wechsler, ApJ,671, 1538 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

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

    2008

  46. [54]

    S. L. Ellison, D. R. Patton, L. Simard, A. W. McConnachie, I. K. Baldry, J. T. Mendel, MNRAS, 407, 1514 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    D. F. Woods, M. J. Geller, M. J. Kurtz, E. Westra, D. G. Fabricant, I. Dell’Antonio, AJ,139, 1857 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

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

    2011

  49. [57]

    J. K. Barrera-Ballesteros, S. F. Sánchez, B. García-Lorenzo, J. Falcón-Barroso, D. Mast, R. García-Benito R., B. Husemann, et al., A&A,579, A45 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    M. D. Thorp, S. L. Ellison, H.-A. Pan, L. Lin, D. R. Patton, A. F. L. Bluck, D. Walters, et al., MNRAS, 516, 1462 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    E. A. Shah, J. S. Kartaltepe, C. T. Magagnoli, I. G. Cox, C. T. Wetherell, B. N. Vanderhoof, K. C. Cooke, et al., ApJ,940, 4 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    A. Das, B. Pandey, S. Sarkar S., RAA,23, 025016 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Martig, F

    M. Martig, F. Bournaud, R. Teyssier, & A. Dekel, ApJ,707, 250 (2009)

    2009

  54. [62]

    Birnboim, & A

    Y. Birnboim, & A. Dekel, MNRAS,345, 349 (2003)

    2003

  55. [63]

    Kereš , N

    D. Kereš , N. Katz, D. H. Weinberg, & R. Davé , MNRAS,363, 2 (2005)

    2005

  56. [64]

    Dekel, & Y

    A. Dekel, & Y. Birnboim, MNRAS,368, 2 (2006)

    2006

  57. [65]

    J. M. Gabor, R. Davé , K. Finlator, & B. D. Oppenheimer, MNRAS,407, 749 (2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    jie Peng ., A

    Y.-. jie Peng ., A. Renzini, MNRAS,491, L51 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    K. L. Masters, M. Mosleh, A. K. Romer, R. C. Nichol, S. P. Bamford, K. Schawinski, C. J. Lintott, et al., MNRAS,405, 783 (2010)

    2010

  60. [68]

    T. J. Cox, J. Primack, P. Jonsson, & R. S. Somerville, ApJL,607, L87 (2004)

    2004

  61. [69]

    Murray, E

    N. Murray, E. Quataert, & T. A. Thompson, ApJ,618, 569 (2005)

    2005

  62. [70]

    Springel, T

    V. Springel, T. Di Matteo, & L. Hernquist, MNRAS,361, 776 (2005)

    2005

  63. [71]

    J. C. Mihos, & L. Hernquist, ApJL,431, L9 (1994)

    1994

  64. [72]

    Schawinski, C

    K. Schawinski, C. M. Urry, B. D. Simmons, L. Fortson, S. Kaviraj, W. C. Keel, C. J. Lintott, et al., MNRAS,440, 889 (2014)

    2014

  65. [73]

    Coenda, H

    V. Coenda, H. J. Martínez, H. Muriel, MNRAS,473, 5617 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    M. N. Bremer, S. Phillipps, L. S. Kelvin, R. De Propris, R. Kennedy, A. J. Moffett, S. Bamford, et al., MNRAS,476, 12 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    Angthopo, I

    J. Angthopo, I. Ferreras, J. Silk, MNRAS,488, L99 (2019)

    2019

  68. [76]

    Angthopo, I

    J. Angthopo, I. Ferreras, J. Silk, MNRAS,495, 2720 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    Pandey, MNRAS,499, L31 (2020) – 28 –

    B. Pandey, MNRAS,499, L31 (2020) – 28 –

    2020

  70. [78]

    A. Das, B. Pandey, S. Sarkar, JCAP,06, 045 (2021)

    2021

  71. [79]

    Sarkar, B

    S. Sarkar, B. Pandey, A. Das, JCAP,03, 024 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    Quilley, V

    L. Quilley, V. de Lapparent, A&A,666, A170 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    Noirot, M

    G. Noirot, M. Sawicki, R. Abraham, M. Bradač, K. Iyer, T. Moutard, C. Pacifici, et al., MNRAS, 512, 3566 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    Estrada-Carpenter, C

    V. Estrada-Carpenter, C. Papovich, I. Momcheva, G. Brammer, R. C. Simons, N. J. Cleri, M. Giavalisco, et al., ApJ,951, 115 (2023)

    2023

  75. [83]

    Brambila, P

    D. Brambila, P. A. A. Lopes, A. L. B. Ribeiro, A. Cortesi, MNRAS,523, 785 (2023)

    2023

  76. [84]

    Pandey, Astronomy and Computing,44, 100725 (2023)

    B. Pandey, Astronomy and Computing,44, 100725 (2023)

    2023

  77. [85]

    Pandey, MNRAS,530, 4550 (2024)

    B. Pandey, MNRAS,530, 4550 (2024)

    2024

  78. [86]

    Pun, Computer Graphics and Image Processing,16, 210 (1981)

    T. Pun, Computer Graphics and Image Processing,16, 210 (1981)

    1981

  79. [87]

    J. N. Kapur, P. K. Sahoo, A. K. C. Wong, Computer Vision, Graphics and Image processing, 29, 273 (1985)

    1985

  80. [88]

    al., MNRAS,446, 521 (2015)

    Schaye J et. al., MNRAS,446, 521 (2015)

    2015

  81. [89]

    Mcalpine S., Helly J C., Schaller M., Trayford J W. et. al., A&A,72, 15 (2016)

    2016

  82. [90]

    al., MNRAS,450, 1937 (2015)

    Crain R A et. al., MNRAS,450, 1937 (2015)

    2015

  83. [91]

    al., A&A,571, A1 (2014)

    Planck Collaboration et. al., A&A,571, A1 (2014)

    2014

  84. [92]

    al., AJ,139, 1628 (2010)

    Doi M et. al., AJ,139, 1628 (2010)

    2010

  85. [93]

    al., MNRAS,452, 2879 (2015)

    Trayford J W et. al., MNRAS,452, 2879 (2015)

    2015

  86. [94]

    Casertano S & Hut P., ApJ,80, 298 (1985)

    1985

  87. [95]

    Baldwin J A., Phillips M M., Terlevich R., PASP5, 93 (1981)

    1981

  88. [96]

    et al., MNRAS,494, 5713 (2020)

    McAlpine, S. et al., MNRAS,494, 5713 (2020)

    2020

  89. [97]

    Shakura, N, J & Sunyaev, R, A., A&A,24, 337 (1973)

    1973

  90. [98]

    Das A., Pandey B., Sarkar S., RAA,11 23 (2023)

    2023

  91. [99]

    Bundy, C

    K. Bundy, C. Scarlata, C. M. Carollo, R. S. Ellis, N. Drory, P. Hopkins, M. Salvato, et al., ApJ, 719, 1969

    1969

  92. [100]

    T. S. Gonçalves, D. C. Martin, K. Menéndez-Delmestre, T. K. Wyder, A. Koekemoer, ApJ, 759, 67 (2012)

    2012

  93. [101]

    Salim, Serbian Astronomical Journal,189, 1 (2014)

    S. Salim, Serbian Astronomical Journal,189, 1 (2014)

    2014

  94. [102]

    H.-Y. Jian, L. Lin, Y. Koyama, I. Tanaka, K. Umetsu, B.-C. Hsieh, Y. Higuchi, et al., ApJ, 894, 125 (2020) – 29 –

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.