Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Dwarf Galaxies in the TNG50 Field: connecting their Star-formation Rates with their Environments

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the TNG50 simulation, only about 1% of the most isolated dwarf galaxies are quenched, and nearly all quenched field dwarfs are backsplash galaxies that once orbited near cluster-scale halos.

desk verdict Solid TNG50 analysis that convincingly identifies backsplash dwarfs as the main quenched field population and the drivers of two-halo conformity; the headline fractions are single-realization numbers, so treat them with a cosmic-variance caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01946 v2 pith:2KH74NIJ submitted 2025-01-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Joy Bhattacharyya , Annika H. G. Peter , Alexie Leauthaud This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords dwarfgalaxiesstarformationquenchingbacksplashdwarfslarge-scaleenvironmentTNG50simulationgalacticconformity
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 tries to establish that the low quenched fraction of LMC/SMC-sized dwarf galaxies in low-density environments is a natural consequence of where their low-mass host halos sit in the large-scale cosmic web. Using the TNG50 cosmological simulation, it shows that field dwarfs in truly isolated regions (beyond 1.5 Mpc from any massive galaxy, with negative tidal index) are almost all star-forming, with only about 1% quenched. The paper attributes the small quenched population that does exist in the field to backsplash dwarfs—galaxies that previously passed inside a massive galaxy's virial radius and then re-emerged—plus a few processed primaries. It also identifies a two-halo galactic conformity signal, where quenched dwarfs preferentially sit near quenched massive galaxies, and shows this signal is driven mainly by the backsplash population. If correct, this connects the observed scarcity of quenched isolated dwarfs to the orbital histories and large-scale environments of their halos.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a classification of field dwarf subhalos into primary (central), secondary, and backsplash dwarfs, combined with two large-scale environment estimators. Backsplash dwarfs are identified by tracing merger trees for subhalos currently outside a massive halo's virial radius (R200 < r < 10R200) whose main progenitor branch crossed inside that halo's R200 at some earlier time. The environment estimators are the distance to the nearest massive galaxy dmassive (defined with log(M*/M⊙) ≥ 9.5 neighbors) and the tidal index Θ1, a dimensionless measure of the tidal force from the five nearest massive galaxies. These estimators separate isolated, star-forming dwarfs from those influenced by massive halos, and the backsplash classification isolates the population that carries the quenching and conformity signals.

What would settle it

Measure the quenched fraction of isolated dwarf galaxies (log(M*/M⊙) between 7.5 and 9.5) with nearest massive galaxy farther than 1.5 Mpc in a large spectroscopic survey. If significantly more than about 1% of such truly isolated dwarfs are quenched, the paper's central claim would be contradicted. A second falsifier would be to run a higher-resolution simulation with a different stellar feedback model and check whether the 1% isolated quenched fraction and the backsplash domination of quenched field dwarfs persist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that environmental quenching of dwarf galaxies in the field is almost entirely confined to regions near massive halos, while genuinely isolated dwarfs remain star-forming. In dwarf galaxies with stellar masses 7.5 < log(M*/M⊙) < 9.5 hosted by halos with log(M200/M⊙) < 11.5, the quenched fraction is only about 1% for dwarfs with distance to nearest massive galaxy dmassive > 1.5 Mpc and tidal index Θ1 < 0. Most of the 8% overall quenched fraction among field dwarfs consists of backsplash dwarfs (82.4% quenched) located at dmassive < 1.5 Mpc and Θ1 > 0, near cluster-scale halos with log(M200/M⊙) ≳ 13. The paper further discovers a two-halo galactic conformity signal at dmassive ≲ 1 Mpc that largely disappears when backsplash dwarfs are removed, indicating that the clustering of quenched massive neighbors and quenched dwarf neighbors is a backsplash-driven phenomenon. The low quenched fractions of observed LMC/SMC analogs are explained by the sparse large-scale environments of their low-mass hosts, which dominate over the small number of backsplash and processed primary dwarfs.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that TNG50's subgrid baryonic physics, especially stellar feedback and ram-pressure stripping, faithfully reproduces how real dwarf galaxies quench; if those processes quench dwarfs at incorrect rates, the absolute quenched fractions would not transfer to observations even if the relative environmental trends might.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observational surveys of LMC/SMC-like dwarfs in low-density environments should find quenched fractions near 1%, not the higher values seen in groups and clusters.
  • Quenched field dwarfs discovered in surveys should preferentially be found within about 1.5 Mpc of cluster-scale halos, and many should show signatures of past pericentric passages, such as tidally stripped outer halos.
  • Two-halo galactic conformity for dwarf galaxies should be detected at separations of about 1 Mpc or less, and it should be dominated by backsplash dwarfs rather than isolated primaries.
  • The isolation threshold of 1.5 Mpc from a massive galaxy, often used in observational studies, corresponds to the reach of backsplash orbits around cluster-scale halos, so the definition of 'field' may need to account for the splashback radius.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the backsplash interpretation is correct, weak-lensing measurements of quenched field dwarfs should reveal lower dark-matter masses at fixed stellar mass compared to star-forming field dwarfs, because tidal stripping removes outer halo mass.
  • The result implies that environmental quenching of dwarfs can act beyond the virial radius, across inter-halo scales, so simulations with larger volumes and more massive clusters may find that the 1.5 Mpc isolation threshold varies with cluster abundance and redshift.
  • The strong backsplash contribution to two-halo conformity suggests that single-halo quenching models that ignore orbital histories will underpredict the spatial correlation of quenched dwarfs with quenched massive galaxies.
  • A testable extension is to measure the quenched fraction of isolated dwarfs in upcoming wide surveys such as DESI or LSST as a function of distance to the nearest massive galaxy; if it rises well above 1% at large distances, the backsplash-dominated picture would need revision.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the TNG50 simulation to study dwarf galaxies with stellar masses 7.5 < log(M*/Msun) < 9.5 that reside in low-mass host halos with 9 < log(M200/Msun) < 11.5, classifying them into primaries, secondaries, and backsplash dwarfs. It defines quenched and starburst populations by offset from the simulated star-forming main sequence, measures quenched and starburst fractions as functions of distance to the nearest massive galaxy and the tidal index, computes star-formation history epochs tau50 and tau90, and searches for two-halo galactic conformity. The principal findings are that only about 1% of the most isolated dwarfs are quenched, that 8% of the fiducial field sample is quenched, that the quenched field dwarfs are predominantly backsplash dwarfs near cluster-scale halos, and that the two-halo conformity signal at dmassive < 1.5 Mpc is largely driven by the backsplash population. Appendix B repeats the analysis with a broader field definition and reports qualitatively unchanged results.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a coherent environmental explanation for the low quenched fraction of LMC/SMC analogs in the field and identifies backsplash dwarfs as the dominant quenched population outside massive halos. The analysis is careful in several respects: it uses two independent environment estimators, provides bootstrap uncertainties, tests the robustness of the field definition in Appendix B, and connects the findings to ongoing and future surveys such as DESI, LSST, and Merian. The main limitation is that all quantitative fractions are measured in a single TNG50 realization; the bootstrap errors are conditional on that box and do not capture field-to-field cosmic variance.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figures 6/8/10; Section 5.2; Section 6] The headline fractions (1%, 8%, 82%) and the two-halo conformity amplitude are single-realization estimates. The bootstrap resampling described in Section 4.2 resamples halos inside the one TNG50 box, so it estimates sampling noise conditional on that box, not independent realizations of a 35 Mpc/h volume. This matters because the quenched backsplash dwarfs are concentrated around cluster-scale halos with log(M200/Msun) >= 13, and Section 5.2 notes that TNG50 contains only a single cluster with log(M200/Msun) > 14. The 8% overall field quenched fraction and the conformity signal at dmassive < 1.5 Mpc could therefore fluctuate substantially across independent boxes. The authors acknowledge this in words in Sections 5.2 and 6, but the abstract and Section 4.3 present the numbers without a corresponding caveat. I recommend either quantifying the realization variance (for example, by jackknifing over subvolumes or comparing with TNG100/TNG300 at matched resolution) or explicitly stating in the abstract and throughout that the fractions are conditional on the single TNG50 realization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Section 5.3] The sample counts are internally inconsistent: Section 3.2 reports 5843 field dwarfs composed of 5003 primaries, 465 secondaries, and 375 backsplash dwarfs, but then refers to 505 secondaries, and Section 5.3 states that 317 pairs, 45 triples, and 5 higher-order groups exist; these numbers do not obviously reconcile with the stated counts of primaries with secondaries (429) or with 465/505 secondaries. Please clarify the definitions and make the numbers consistent.
  2. [Section 4.3, Section 5.1, Section 6] The percentages of quenched field dwarfs in the dense-environment regions are quoted inconsistently: Section 4.3 says the dmassive < 1.5 Mpc and Theta1 > 0 regions contain 91% and 93% of the quenched dwarfs, whereas Section 5.1 and the conclusions say 88% and 92%. These numbers should be harmonized.
  3. [Table 1 and Section 4.4] The quenched fraction for backsplash dwarfs is given as 82.4% in Table 1 but as 84% in the text of Section 4.4; please make these consistent, and clarify whether the 96% quoted in Section 4.1 refers only to the gas-poor backsplash dwarfs or to the full backsplash sample.
  4. [Section 4.2] The bootstrap description states that N=1000 resamplings of the host halos were performed, but it does not specify whether the resampling is at the host-halo level or the galaxy level, or whether it is with replacement; please specify the resampling unit so the uncertainty estimates are reproducible.
  5. [Typographical issues] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: "enviornment" in Section 3.5.1, "backlsplash" and "sqaures" in the caption of Figure 8, "the the virial radius" in Section 5.2, and the caption of Figure 16 contains the self-referential phrase "to be compared with 16".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quenched fractions and conformity signal are direct measurements in TNG50, with definitions taken from external or established work, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are measurements within the TNG50 simulation, not derivations from fitted parameters. The quenched/star-forming classification uses the SFMS defined internally from the same simulated dwarfs ('we calculate the median sSFR for dwarfs in 0.2 dex bins of log(M*/Msun)... any galaxy below this is deemed quenched'), but this is a standard classification threshold borrowed from Donnari et al. (2021a), not a parameter tuned to produce the headline fractions. The key numbers — ~1% quenched at dmassive > 1.5 Mpc and Theta1 < 0, 8% overall field quenched fraction, 82.4% backsplash quenched fraction, and the two-halo conformity signal — are counted directly from sample definitions (host mass cuts, backsplash orbit identification following Borrow et al. 2023, and nearest-massive-galaxy/tidal-index estimators). No equation reduces to itself by construction: the isolation threshold 1.5 Mpc comes from Geha et al. (2012), the tidal-index calibration from Karachentsev et al. (2013), and the splashback radius from More et al. (2015), all external. The self-citations to Bhattacharyya et al. (2024) appear in context statements about backsplash dwarfs and gravitational influence of massive galaxies, but they are not load-bearing for the measured fractions or the conformity signal. The acknowledged single-cluster limitation of TNG50 is a cosmic-variance and model-fidelity caveat, not a circularity; bootstrap errors condition on the one simulated box. The baryonic-physics fidelity of TNG50 is an external validity assumption, not an input-output equivalence inside the paper. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on simulation fidelity and on hand-chosen sample boundaries, but the qualitative results are robust to the broadened field definition in Appendix B. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Field host halo mass selection = 9 < log(M200/Msun) < 11.5
    Chosen to define low-mass host halos, excluding massive hosts and tidally stripped dwarfs; sets the field sample (Sec. 3.1).
  • Stellar mass selection = 7.5 < log(M*/Msun) < 9.5
    Selects LMC/SMC analogs; lower limit set by TNG50 resolution (Sec. 3.1).
  • Quenched threshold = 1 dex below star-forming main sequence
    Definition from Donnari et al. (2021a); determines all quenched fractions (Sec. 3.4).
  • Massive galaxy threshold = log(M*/Msun) >= 9.5
    Defines the massive galaxies used for dmassive and tidal index; consistent with sample split (Sec. 3.5.2).
  • Isolation thresholds = dmassive > 1.5 Mpc and Theta1 < 0
    Literature-based definitions of isolated dwarfs (Geha et al. 2012; Karachentsev et al. 2013); used to define the ~1% quenched population (Sec. 4.3).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption TNG50 subgrid baryonic physics (star formation, stellar and AGN feedback, gas cooling) accurately reproduces dwarf galaxy quenching.
    The entire analysis treats TNG50 as a faithful model of real dwarfs; no independent observational calibration for 7.5<log(M*/Msun)<9.5 dwarfs is provided (Sec. 2, Sec. 3.4).
  • domain assumption SUBFIND halo identification and merger trees correctly trace subhalo orbits, allowing reliable backsplash classification.
    Backsplash identification depends on main progenitor branches and pericentric passage detection (Sec. 3.3); errors here would misclassify dwarfs.
  • domain assumption The star-forming main sequence derived from the simulation is a valid reference for defining quenched galaxies.
    Quenched fractions are measured relative to the simulated SFMS; if the simulated SFMS is biased, quenched fractions shift (Sec. 3.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dwarf Galaxies in the TNG50 Field: connecting their Star-formation Rates with their Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KH74NIJ

@misc{pith2026250101946,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dwarf Galaxies in the TNG50 Field: connecting their Star-formation Rates with their Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KH74NIJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01946}
}
abstract

The dwarf galaxies comparable to the LMC and SMC, with stellar masses $7.5 <{\rm log}(M_{\ast}/M_{\odot})<9.5$, are found in a diversity of environments and have long quenching timescales. We need to understand how this phenomenon is connected to the dwarfs' halo properties and their locations in the large-scale structure of the universe. We study the star-formation rates of dwarfs in the TNG50 simulation of the IllustrisTNG project across different environments, focusing on field dwarfs in host halos with virial masses of $9 < {\rm log}(M_{200}/M_{\odot}) < 11.5$, in contrast to dwarf satellites in hosts with ${\rm log}(M_{200}/M_{\odot}) \geq 11.5$. Our field dwarf sample is heterogeneous, consisting of primary (central) galaxies, with smaller numbers of secondaries and dwarf galaxies that are on backsplash orbits around massive galaxies. We study how the quenched fraction and star-formation histories depend on the dwarfs' large-scale environment and find that only $\sim 1\%$ of the most isolated dwarfs are quenched. The vast majority of the quenched field dwarfs are backsplash dwarfs located in the neighborhood of cluster-scale halos. We discover a two-halo galactic conformity signal that arises from the tendency of the quenched dwarfs, particularly the backsplash sample, to have a quenched massive galaxy as a neighbor. We attribute the low quenched fractions of the simulated LMC/SMC analogs in the field to the locations of their low-mass hosts in the sparse large-scale environment, which predominate over the relatively small number of backsplash and quenched primary dwarfs in denser environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01946 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — The scatter plot of the SUBFIND-assigned stellar mass M∗ vs. host virial mass M200 for all the galaxies in the box of TNG50. Each point is colored according to its host virial mass. We segment this space according to the samples that we refer to in this work. The upper half represents the massive galaxies with log(M∗/M⊙) > 9.5 with respect to which we define the density estimators in Sec. 3.5 and the backsplash ga… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — The radial distribution of backsplash dwarfs with present day distances normalized with respect to the virial radius of the massive halo where they had their last pericentric passage (left), and present day distances in units of Mpc (right). See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Top: Scatter plot of sSFR-M∗ for all galaxies with 7.5 < log(M∗/M⊙) < 9.5. in the simulation volume. The color scheme used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Upper left: The TNG50 simulation projected along the z-axis of the simulated box, showing all the galaxies with log(M∗/M⊙) ≥ 7.5, with each point colored according to the host halo M200 they inhabit. The galaxies in cluster or group scale halos shown in red-orange￾ye…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Left: The stellar mass M⋆ versus the total mass Mdyn for the field dwarfs. The primaries (circles), secondaries (diamonds) and backsplash dwarfs (closed squares) are colored according to their offset from SFMS. The black dashed line shows the best-fit stellar-halo ma…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — The quenched fraction for all the dwarf galaxies in TNG50 box, the field, and the satellite samples, in bins of the large-scale environmental density estimators, are plotted using the black, teal and red lines, respectively. The horizontal axes in the left panel repr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — The starburst fractions for all the dwarf galaxies in TNG50 box, the field, and the satellite samples in bins of the large-scale environmental density estimators are plotted with the black, teal and red lines, respectively. The horizontal axes in the left panel is th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — The distributions of the field dwarf sample in dmassive − log(1 + δ5) (left) and Θ1 − log(1 + δ5) (right) spaces. log(1 + δ5) is the fiducial density estimator (the overdensity parameter) and we find that this sample corresponds to log(1 + δ5) ≲ 2. The primary dwarfs…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — The cumulative star-formation histories (SFH) of the three sub-samples of field dwarfs — primaries (top left), secondaries (top center) and backsplash dwarfs (top right). The solid lines are median of the distributions whereas the upper and lower black dashed lines r…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — The quenched fraction for the field dwarf sample simulated in the TNG50 box as a function of the density estimators — left: the distance to the nearest massive galaxy dmassive, right: the tidal index Θ1. All the axes have been orientated such that the density of the…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — Histograms of the host halo mass log(M200/M⊙) of the field dwarfs’ neighboring Nearest Massive galaxy (left column) and the Main Disturber (right column). The upper row shows only the quenched field dwarfs and the lower row shows the star-forming field dwarfs. These…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — Left: An iteration of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: — A version of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: — The distributions of the field dwarf sample in dmassive − log(1 + δ5) (left) and Θ1 − log(1 + δ5) (right) spaces, and is to be compared to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: — Histograms of the host halo mass log(M200/M⊙) of the extended field dwarfs’ neighboring- Nearest Massive galaxy (left column) and the Main Disturber (right column) and is to be compared to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: — Upper row: The quenched fraction for all the dwarf galaxies in the TNG50 box, the extended field and the satellite samples in bins of dmassive and Θ1 that is to be compared to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Zangetsu: A Candidate of Isolated, Quiescent, and Backsplash Ultra-Diffuse Galaxy in the COSMOS Field

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A candidate ultra-diffuse galaxy, Zangetsu, found in HSC COSMOS images is unusually elongated, quiescent, apparently isolated, and an extreme size outlier.

  2. The Environmental Quenching Mechanisms of Field Dwarf Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In TNG50, all quenched field dwarf galaxies are environmental casualties, split between backsplash from massive hosts and cosmic-web stripping in filaments.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Adhikari , S., Dalal , N., & Chamberlain , R. T. 2014, , 2014, 019, 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/11/019

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/11/019 2014

  2. [2]

    B., Christensen , C

    Akins , H. B., Christensen , C. R., Brooks , A. M., et al. 2021, , 909, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2ab

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe2ab 2021

  3. [3]

    A., Neyrinck , M

    Aragon Calvo , M. A., Neyrinck , M. C., & Silk , J. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 7, 10.21105/astro.1697.07881

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [5]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  6. [6]

    Ayromlou , M., Kauffmann , G., Anand , A., & White , S. D. M. 2023, , 519, 1913, 10.1093/mnras/stac3637

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3637 2023

  7. [7]

    M., Nelson , D., & White , S

    Ayromlou , M., Kauffmann , G., Yates , R. M., Nelson , D., & White , S. D. M. 2021, , 505, 492, 10.1093/mnras/stab1245

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1245 2021

  8. [8]

    M., McCarthy , I

    Bah \'e , Y. M., McCarthy , I. G., Balogh , M. L., & Font , A. S. 2013, , 430, 3017, 10.1093/mnras/stt109

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt109 2013

Show all 137 references
  1. [9]

    H., Hearin , A

    Behroozi , P., Wechsler , R. H., Hearin , A. P., & Conroy , C. 2019, , 488, 3143, 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2013, , 559, L11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322744

    Bellazzini , M., Oosterloo , T., Fraternali , F., & Beccari , G. 2013, , 559, L11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322744

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Navarro , J

    Benavides , J. A., Navarro , J. F., Sales , L. V., P \'e rez , I., & Bidaran , B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13159, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13159

    2025 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    A., Sales , L

    Benavides , J. A., Sales , L. V., Abadi , M. G., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1255, 10.1038/s41550-021-01458-1

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    F., Abadi , M

    Ben \' tez-Llambay , A., Navarro , J. F., Abadi , M. G., et al. 2013, , 763, L41, 10.1088/2041-8205/763/2/L41

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Stierwalt , S., et al

    Besla , G., Patton , D. R., Stierwalt , S., et al. 2018, , 480, 3376, 10.1093/mnras/sty2041

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Bhattacharyya , J., Peter , A. H. G., Martini , P., et al. 2024, , 975, 244, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad79fe

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    A., & Smith , A

    Borrow , J., Vogelsberger , M., O'Neil , S., McDonald , M. A., & Smith , A. 2023, , 520, 649, 10.1093/mnras/stad045

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    D., Geha , M

    Bradford , J. D., Geha , M. C., & Blanton , M. R. 2015, , 809, 146, 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/146

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Sand , D

    Carlin , J. L., Sand , D. J., Price , P., et al. 2016, , 828, L5, 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L5

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Garling , C

    Carlin , J. L., Garling , C. T., Peter , A. H. G., et al. 2019, , 886, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c32

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    L., Mutlu-Pakdil , B., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al

    Carlin , J. L., Mutlu-Pakdil , B., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al. 2021, , 909, 211, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe040

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    G., Greene , J

    Carlsten , S. G., Greene , J. E., Beaton , R. L., Danieli , S., & Greco , J. P. 2022, , 933, 47, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6fd7

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Brooks , A

    Christensen , C. R., Brooks , A. M., Munshi , F., et al. 2024, , 961, 236, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c5a

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Newman , J

    Cooper , M. C., Newman , J. A., Madgwick , D. S., et al. 2005, , 634, 833, 10.1086/432868

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Gao , L., & White , S

    Croton , D. J., Gao , L., & White , S. D. M. 2007, , 374, 1303, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11230.x

    2007

  17. [25]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01884, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01884

    Danieli , S., Kado-Fong , E., Huang , S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01884, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01884

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    F., Mao , Y.-Y., et al

    Darragh-Ford , E., Wu , J. F., Mao , Y.-Y., et al. 2023, , 954, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace902

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    B., Nierenberg , A

    Davis , A. B., Nierenberg , A. M., Peter , A. H. G., et al. 2021, , 500, 3854, 10.1093/mnras/staa3246

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    B., Garling , C

    Davis , A. B., Garling , C. T., Nierenberg , A. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.03999, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.03999

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    J., Wetzel , A

    Deason , A. J., Wetzel , A. R., Garrison-Kimmel , S., & Belokurov , V. 2015, , 453, 3568, 10.1093/mnras/stv1939

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    1986, , 303, 39, 10.1086/164050

    Dekel , A., & Silk , J. 1986, , 303, 39, 10.1086/164050

    1986 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Starkenburg , T

    Dickey , C. M., Starkenburg , T. K., Geha , M., et al. 2021, , 915, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc014

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    2018, , 239, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    Diemer , B. 2018, , 239, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2021, , 909, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd947

    ---. 2021, , 909, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd947

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Diemer , B., & Kravtsov , A. V. 2014, , 789, 1, 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/1

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    2008, , 686, L61, 10.1086/592995

    D'Onghia , E., & Lake , G. 2008, , 686, L61, 10.1086/592995

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    2021 a , , 506, 4760, 10.1093/mnras/stab1950

    Donnari , M., Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., et al. 2021 a , , 506, 4760, 10.1093/mnras/stab1950

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    D., et al

    Donnari , M., Pillepich , A., Joshi , G. D., et al. 2021 b , , 500, 4004, 10.1093/mnras/staa3006

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    A., Peter , A

    Dooley , G. A., Peter , A. H. G., Carlin , J. L., et al. 2017, , 472, 1060, 10.1093/mnras/stx2001

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    L., Nidever , D

    Drlica-Wagner , A., Carlin , J. L., Nidever , D. L., et al. 2021, , 256, 2, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac079d

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    D., et al

    Engler , C., Pillepich , A., Joshi , G. D., et al. 2023, , 522, 5946, 10.1093/mnras/stad1357

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    2021, , 500, 3957, 10.1093/mnras/staa3505

    ---. 2021, , 500, 3957, 10.1093/mnras/staa3505

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Erkal , D., & Belokurov , V. A. 2020, , 495, 2554, 10.1093/mnras/staa1238

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Cooper , M

    Fillingham , S. P., Cooper , M. C., Wheeler , C., et al. 2015, , 454, 2039, 10.1093/mnras/stv2058

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.13252, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.13252

    Flores-Freitas , R., Trevisan , M., M \"u ckler , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.13252, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.13252

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    2004, , 56, 29, 10.1093/pasj/56.1.29

    Fujita , Y. 2004, , 56, 29, 10.1093/pasj/56.1.29

    2004 doi

  38. [46]

    Gao , L., Springel , V., & White , S. D. M. 2005, , 363, L66, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00084.x

    2005

  39. [47]

    T., Peter , A

    Garling , C. T., Peter , A. H. G., Kochanek , C. S., Sand , D. J., & Crnojevi \'c , D. 2020, , 492, 1713, 10.1093/mnras/stz3526

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    2021, , 507, 4764, 10.1093/mnras/stab2447

    ---. 2021, , 507, 4764, 10.1093/mnras/stab2447

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    T., Peter , A

    Garling , C. T., Peter , A. H. G., Spekkens , K., et al. 2024, , 528, 365, 10.1093/mnras/stae014

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    S., & Lee , K

    Garrison-Kimmel , S., Boylan-Kolchin , M., Bullock , J. S., & Lee , K. 2014, , 438, 2578, 10.1093/mnras/stt2377

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Yan , R., & Tinker , J

    Geha , M., Blanton , M. R., Yan , R., & Tinker , J. L. 2012, , 757, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/85

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    H., Mao , Y.-Y., et al

    Geha , M., Wechsler , R. H., Mao , Y.-Y., et al. 2017, , 847, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8626

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    H., et al

    Geha , M., Mao , Y.-Y., Wechsler , R. H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.14499, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.14499

    2024 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    Gill , S. P. D., Knebe , A., & Gibson , B. K. 2005, , 356, 1327, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08562.x

    2005

  47. [55]

    E., Danieli , S., Carlsten , S., et al

    Greene , J. E., Danieli , S., Carlsten , S., et al. 2023, , 949, 94, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc58c

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    R., Millman , K

    Harris , C. R., Millman , K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, , 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    2006, , 131, 2514, 10.1086/500974

    Harris , J., & Zaritsky , D. 2006, , 131, 2514, 10.1086/500974

    2006 doi

  50. [59]

    N., Abeyta , A., et al

    Hasan , F., Burchett , J. N., Abeyta , A., et al. 2023, , 950, 114, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd11c

    2023 doi

  51. [60]

    P., Watson , D

    Hearin , A. P., Watson , D. F., & van den Bosch , F. C. 2015, , 452, 1958, 10.1093/mnras/stv1358

    2015 doi

  52. [61]

    2014, , 444, 2938, 10.1093/mnras/stu1609

    Hirschmann , M., De Lucia , G., Wilman , D., et al. 2014, , 444, 2938, 10.1093/mnras/stu1609

    2014 doi

  53. [63]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  54. [64]

    D., Sales , L

    Jahn , E. D., Sales , L. V., Wetzel , A., et al. 2022, , 513, 2673, 10.1093/mnras/stac811

    2022 doi

  55. [65]

    D., Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., et al

    Joshi , G. D., Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., et al. 2021, , 508, 1652, 10.1093/mnras/stab2573

    2021 doi

  56. [66]

    2024, , 963, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18cb

    Kado-Fong , E., Robinson , A., Nyland , K., et al. 2024, , 963, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18cb

    2024 doi

  57. [67]

    D., Kaisina , E

    Karachentsev , I. D., Kaisina , E. I., & Makarov , D. I. 2018, , 479, 4136, 10.1093/mnras/sty1774

    2018 doi

  58. [68]

    D., Karachentseva , V

    Karachentsev , I. D., Karachentseva , V. E., Huchtmeier , W. K., & Makarov , D. I. 2004, , 127, 2031, 10.1086/382905

    2004 doi

  59. [69]

    D., & Makarov , D

    Karachentsev , I. D., & Makarov , D. I. 1999, in Galaxy Interactions at Low and High Redshift, ed. J. E. Barnes & D. B. Sanders , Vol. 186, 109

    1999

  60. [70]

    D., Makarov , D

    Karachentsev , I. D., Makarov , D. I., & Kaisina , E. I. 2013, , 145, 101, 10.1088/0004-6256/145/4/101

    2013 doi

  61. [71]

    2013, , 430, 1447, 10.1093/mnras/stt007

    Kauffmann , G., Li , C., Zhang , W., & Weinmann , S. 2013, , 430, 1447, 10.1093/mnras/stt007

    2013 doi

  62. [72]

    2015, , 454, 1798, 10.1093/mnras/stv2040

    Klypin , A., Karachentsev , I., Makarov , D., & Nasonova , O. 2015, , 454, 1798, 10.1093/mnras/stv2040

    2015 doi

  63. [73]

    I., Knollmann , S

    Knebe , A., Libeskind , N. I., Knollmann , S. R., et al. 2011, , 412, 529, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17924.x

    2011

  64. [74]

    J., Cucciati , O., et al

    Kova c , K., Lilly , S. J., Cucciati , O., et al. 2010, , 708, 505, 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/505

    2010 doi

  65. [75]

    J., Knobel , C., et al

    Kova c , K., Lilly , S. J., Knobel , C., et al. 2014, , 438, 717, 10.1093/mnras/stt2241

    2014 doi

  66. [76]

    D., et al

    Lacerna , I., Rodriguez , F., Montero-Dorta , A. D., et al. 2022, , 513, 2271, 10.1093/mnras/stac1020

    2022 doi

  67. [77]

    2020, Physics of the Dark Universe, 30, 100719, 10.1016/j.dark.2020.100719

    Leauthaud , A., Singh , S., Luo , Y., et al. 2020, Physics of the Dark Universe, 30, 100719, 10.1016/j.dark.2020.100719

    2020

  68. [78]

    A., Allison , J., et al

    LSST Science Collaboration , Abell , P. A., Allison , J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201, 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201

    2009 doi arXiv

  69. [79]

    D., Navarro , J

    Ludlow , A. D., Navarro , J. F., Springel , V., et al. 2009, , 692, 931, 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/931

    2009 doi

  70. [80]

    2024, , 530, 4988, 10.1093/mnras/stae925

    Luo , Y., Leauthaud , A., Greene , J., et al. 2024, , 530, 4988, 10.1093/mnras/stae925

    2024 doi

  71. [81]

    J., Gabany , R

    Mart \' nez-Delgado , D., Romanowsky , A. J., Gabany , R. J., et al. 2012, , 748, L24, 10.1088/2041-8205/748/2/L24

    2012 doi

  72. [82]

    Mateo , M. L. 1998, , 36, 435, 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.435

    1998 doi

  73. [83]

    McConnachie , A. W. 2012, , 144, 4, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4

    2012 doi

  74. [84]

    E., Kado-Fong , E., et al

    Mintz , A., Greene , J. E., Kado-Fong , E., et al. 2024, , 974, 273, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6861

    2024 doi

  75. [85]

    More , S., Diemer , B., & Kravtsov , A. V. 2015, , 810, 36, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/36

    2015 doi

  76. [86]

    P., Naab , T., & White , S

    Moster , B. P., Naab , T., & White , S. D. M. 2013, , 428, 3121, 10.1093/mnras/sts261

    2013 doi

  77. [87]

    I., Croton , D

    Muldrew , S. I., Croton , D. J., Skibba , R. A., et al. 2012, , 419, 2670, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19922.x

    2012

  78. [88]

    M., Applebaum , E., et al

    Munshi , F., Brooks , A. M., Applebaum , E., et al. 2021, , 923, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0db6

    2021 doi

  79. [89]

    J., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al

    Mutlu-Pakdil , B., Sand , D. J., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al. 2024, , 966, 188, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad36c4

    2024 doi

  80. [90]

    O., Gluscevic , V., Driskell , T., et al

    Nadler , E. O., Gluscevic , V., Driskell , T., et al. 2024, , 967, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3bb1

    2024 doi

  81. [91]

    O., Wechsler , R

    Nadler , E. O., Wechsler , R. H., Bechtol , K., et al. 2020, , 893, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab846a

    2020 doi

  82. [92]

    2018, , 475, 624, 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

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

    2018 doi

  83. [93]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson , D., Springel , V., Pillepich , A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    2019 doi

  84. [94]

    I., Knebe , A., et al

    Newton , O., Libeskind , N. I., Knebe , A., et al. 2022, , 514, 3612, 10.1093/mnras/stac1316

    2022 doi

  85. [95]

    2023, , 943, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa39

    Olsen , C., & Gawiser , E. 2023, , 943, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa39

    2023 doi

  86. [96]

    B., Erkal , D., & Li , T

    Pace , A. B., Erkal , D., & Li , T. S. 2022, , 940, 136, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac997b

    2022 doi

  87. [97]

    M., Kravtsov , A., et al

    Pan , Y., Simpson , C. M., Kravtsov , A., et al. 2023, , 519, 4499, 10.1093/mnras/stac3663

    2023 doi

  88. [98]

    C., Springel , V., & van de Voort , F

    Pasha , I., Mandelker , N., van den Bosch , F. C., Springel , V., & van de Voort , F. 2022, , 10.1093/mnras/stac3776

    2022 doi

  89. [99]

    2020, , 893, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75

    Patel , E., Kallivayalil , N., Garavito-Camargo , N., et al. 2020, , 893, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75

    2020 doi

  90. [100]

    E., et al

    Pearson , S., Besla , G., Putman , M. E., et al. 2016, , 459, 1827, 10.1093/mnras/stw757

    2016 doi

  91. [101]

    J., Kova c , K., et al

    Peng , Y.-j., Lilly , S. J., Kova c , K., et al. 2010, , 721, 193, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193

    2010 doi

  92. [102]

    I., Wheeler , C., Cooper , M

    Phillips , J. I., Wheeler , C., Cooper , M. C., et al. 2015, , 447, 698, 10.1093/mnras/stu2192

    2015 doi

  93. [103]

    2018, , 473, 4077, 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich , A., Springel , V., Nelson , D., et al. 2018, , 473, 4077, 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    2018 doi

  94. [104]

    2019, , 490, 3196, 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., Springel , V., et al. 2019, , 490, 3196, 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    2019 doi

  95. [105]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2016 doi

  96. [106]

    I., Iorio , G., Agertz , O., & Fraternali , F

    Read , J. I., Iorio , G., Agertz , O., & Fraternali , F. 2017, , 467, 2019, 10.1093/mnras/stx147

    2017 doi

  97. [107]

    D., & Parker , L

    Roberts , I. D., & Parker , L. C. 2017, , 467, 3268, 10.1093/mnras/stx317

    2017 doi

  98. [108]

    V., Wang , W., White , S

    Sales , L. V., Wang , W., White , S. D. M., & Navarro , J. F. 2013, , 428, 573, 10.1093/mnras/sts054

    2013 doi

  99. [109]

    2023, , 525, 3849, 10.1093/mnras/stad2576

    Samuel , J., Pardasani , B., Wetzel , A., et al. 2023, , 525, 3849, 10.1093/mnras/stad2576

    2023 doi

  100. [110]

    2022, , 514, 5276, 10.1093/mnras/stac1706

    Samuel , J., Wetzel , A., Santistevan , I., et al. 2022, , 514, 5276, 10.1093/mnras/stac1706

    2022 doi

  101. [111]

    J., Spekkens , K., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al

    Sand , D. J., Spekkens , K., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al. 2015, , 812, L13, 10.1088/2041-8205/812/1/L13

    2015 doi

  102. [112]

    Simon , J. D. 2019, , 57, 375, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453

    2019 doi

  103. [113]

    M., Grand , R

    Simpson , C. M., Grand , R. J. J., G \'o mez , F. A., et al. 2018, , 478, 548, 10.1093/mnras/sty774

    2018 doi

  104. [114]

    2010, , 401, 791, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel , V. 2010, , 401, 791, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    2010

  105. [115]

    Springel , V., White , S. D. M., Tormen , G., & Kauffmann , G. 2001, , 328, 726, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x

    2001

  106. [116]

    2018, , 475, 676, 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

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

    2018 doi

  107. [117]

    2015, , 805, 2, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/2

    Stierwalt , S., Besla , G., Patton , D., et al. 2015, , 805, 2, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/2

    2015 doi

  108. [118]

    E., Johnson , K

    Stierwalt , S., Liss , S. E., Johnson , K. E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0025, 10.1038/s41550-016-0025

    2017 doi

  109. [119]

    V., & Kuhlen , M

    Teyssier , M., Johnston , K. V., & Kuhlen , M. 2012, , 426, 1808, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21793.x

    2012

  110. [120]

    H., et al

    Thornton , J., Amon , A., Wechsler , R. H., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.14659, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.14659

    2023 doi arXiv

  111. [121]

    L., Hahn , C., Mao , Y.-Y., Wetzel , A

    Tinker , J. L., Hahn , C., Mao , Y.-Y., Wetzel , A. R., & Conroy , C. 2018, , 477, 935, 10.1093/mnras/sty666

    2018 doi

  112. [122]

    B., Somerville , R

    Tully , R. B., Somerville , R. S., Trentham , N., & Verheijen , M. A. W. 2002, , 569, 573, 10.1086/339425

    2002 doi

  113. [123]

    B., Rizzi , L., Dolphin , A

    Tully , R. B., Rizzi , L., Dolphin , A. E., et al. 2006, , 132, 729, 10.1086/505466

    2006 doi

  114. [124]

    P., Alves , D

    van der Marel , R. P., Alves , D. R., Hardy , E., & Suntzeff , N. B. 2002, , 124, 2639, 10.1086/343775

    2002 doi

  115. [125]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  116. [126]

    2023, , 523, 1268, 10.1093/mnras/stad1169

    Wang , K., Peng , Y., & Chen , Y. 2023, , 523, 1268, 10.1093/mnras/stad1169

    2023 doi

  117. [127]

    J., et al

    Wang , Y., Yang , X., Mo , H. J., et al. 2009, , 697, 247, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/247

    2009 doi

  118. [128]

    H., & Tinker , J

    Wechsler , R. H., & Tinker , J. L. 2018, , 56, 435, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051756

    2018 doi

  119. [129]

    2017, , 465, 3291, 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger , R., Springel , V., Hernquist , L., et al. 2017, , 465, 3291, 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    2017 doi

  120. [130]

    M., van den Bosch , F

    Weinmann , S. M., van den Bosch , F. C., Yang , X., & Mo , H. J. 2006, , 366, 2, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09865.x

    2006

  121. [131]

    R., Dolphin , A

    Weisz , D. R., Dolphin , A. E., Skillman , E. D., et al. 2015, , 804, 136, 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/136

    2015 doi

  122. [132]

    R., Tinker , J

    Wetzel , A. R., Tinker , J. L., Conroy , C., & van den Bosch , F. C. 2014, , 439, 2687, 10.1093/mnras/stu122

    2014 doi

  123. [133]

    R., Tollerud , E

    Wetzel , A. R., Tollerud , E. J., & Weisz , D. R. 2015, , 808, L27, 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L27

    2015 doi

  124. [134]

    I., Cooper , M

    Wheeler , C., Phillips , J. I., Cooper , M. C., Boylan-Kolchin , M., & Bullock , J. S. 2014, , 442, 1396, 10.1093/mnras/stu965

    2014 doi

  125. [135]

    White , S. D. M., & Rees , M. J. 1978, , 183, 341, 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    1978 doi

  126. [136]

    M., et al

    Woo , J., Dekel , A., Faber , S. M., et al. 2013, , 428, 3306, 10.1093/mnras/sts274

    2013 doi

  127. [137]

    Y., Abadi , M

    Yaryura , C. Y., Abadi , M. G., Gottl \"o ber , S., et al. 2023, , 525, 415, 10.1093/mnras/stad2300

    2023 doi

  128. [138]

    2016, , 457, 4360, 10.1093/mnras/stw221

    Zu , Y., & Mandelbaum , R. 2016, , 457, 4360, 10.1093/mnras/stw221

    2016 doi

  129. [139]

    2018, , 476, 1637, 10.1093/mnras/sty279

    ---. 2018, , 476, 1637, 10.1093/mnras/sty279

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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