Stealing galaxies from galaxy clusters

Ana Mitra\v{s}inovi\'c; Majda Smole; Miroslav Micic

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 10 references

Stealing galaxies from galaxy clusters

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Galaxy groups that have passed through a galaxy cluster and captured new members on the way out are statistically less compact and contain more members than ordinary field groups, while cluster-processed groups that captured nothing…

desk verdict A careful but partly selection-driven study of groups that escaped clusters with captured galaxies; the headline contrast is built into the classification. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21629 v1 pith:BTSIIPCT submitted 2025-05-27 astro-ph.GA

Majda Smole , Miroslav Micic , Ana Mitrašinović This is my paper

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords galaxies:groups:generalclusters:evolutioninteractionsIllustrisTNG300simulationthiefgroupsbacksplashgalaxiesgroupcompactness

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 tries to establish that galaxy groups can survive a passage through a galaxy cluster, escape back into the field, and carry visible traces of that passage. Using the IllustrisTNG300 cosmological simulation, it divides field groups by their cluster history and finds that the decidedly rare groups that entered a cluster and captured additional galaxies on the way out — the thief groups — are statistically less compact and richer than never-processed field groups, with p-values below 0.01. In contrast, groups that passed through a cluster without capturing members look just like ordinary field groups, so cluster processing by itself does not loosen a group. If the claim holds, observers can hunt for thief groups as unusually numerous, loose groups sitting near massive clusters or along cosmic filaments.

What carries the argument

The central instrument is the merger-tree history of every galaxy in TNG300, which allows the authors to classify each present-day group by whether its members ever resided in a cluster halo (mass above $8 \times 10^{13} M_\odot$) and whether new members were captured between cluster entry and escape. The compactness parameter $\langle d_w \rangle = \langle d_i M_i / M_{\rm tot}\rangle$, the mass-weighted mean separation of group members from the group centre, quantifies how loose a group is, and three non-parametric two-dimensional tests (Cramér, Peacock, and npdeneqtest) convert the compactness-versus-mass and compactness-versus-member-count distributions into p-values. For the individual thief groups, the machinery is orbital histories in polar coordinates relative to the cluster centre and total-energy checks of every captured galaxy to test whether it is gravitationally bound after escape.

What would settle it

Re-run the group census on TNG300 after repairing subhalo switching in the merger trees, or repeat the analysis at TNG100 resolution, and check whether the thief groups remain less compact and richer at p < 0.01; if the separation disappears once tracking artifacts are corrected, the central claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In IllustrisTNG300, the authors identify 49 galaxy groups in the mass range $8 \times 10^{11}$ to $7 \times 10^{13} M_\odot$ that were once part of a cluster halo and later escaped it. Of these, 23 thief groups accreted new galaxies during the cluster phase, and these are the systems that stand out: their mass-weighted mean member separation (the compactness parameter $\langle d_w \rangle$) is larger and their member counts are higher than field groups of the same mass, and the Cramér and Peacock tests reject equality of the two-dimensional distributions at $p < 0.01$. The 26 non-thief groups follow the field-group distribution, so the cluster passage itself does not alter group compactness; the difference comes from the loosely bound galaxies stolen on the way out. Three thief groups studied in detail make a single pericentric passage, accrete seven or eight well-resolved galaxies, and show gas stripping and evolution toward early-type morphology that tracks pericentric distance rather than the number of captured members.

Load-bearing premise

The whole thief/non-thief split depends on the merger-tree reconstruction of which galaxies were together inside the cluster and which were captured on the way out; the paper itself shows subhalo switching and later ejection of captured galaxies, so tracking errors could in principle create the statistical signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Observers looking for backsplash systems at group scale would target galaxy groups with unusually high membership and large member separations for their total mass, especially near massive clusters or along filaments.
Non-thief cluster-processed groups are not separable from field groups by these two observables, meaning an escaped group that did not accrete will be nearly impossible to identify without kinematic or gas tracers.
The statistical claim implies that cluster processing imprints a group-level signal only through the accretion of new, loosely bound members, not through the tidal disturbance of the original bound core.
For individual galaxies, the main-galaxy gas removal and morphological transformation to early-type in thief groups should correlate with pericentric distance, not with how many galaxies the group stole.
Compact satellite galaxies in at least one thief group became compact in the group phase before cluster infall, so their compactness is a pre-processing signature rather than a cluster-passage product.

Reading between the lines

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

Not stated in the paper: the same merger-tree analysis could be applied to groups processed by dense filaments or other large-scale environments, giving a broader 'processed group' taxonomy beyond clusters.
An observational extension: thief groups should show a kinematic substructure signature, with recently captured satellites at larger radii and with lower binding energy than original members; a deep spectroscopic survey of groups within a few virial radii of massive clusters could test this.
The paper's own stability caveats suggest a direct numerical check: reclassifying thief groups after repairing subhalo switching in the merger trees would show whether the statistical separation survives tracking artifacts.
With only 23 thief groups in TNG300, combining TNG300 with higher-resolution boxes or multiple simulation suites would be a natural way to check whether the p-value separation and the incidence rate are robust.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the paper's central contrast—thief groups have more members and are less compact than field groups—is largely guaranteed by the way thief groups are defined. That does not make the paper worthless; it makes the headline claim weaker than the abstract implies.

What is genuinely useful: this is the first attempt I know to look for group-scale analogues of backsplash galaxies, i.e., groups that fell into a cluster, survived, and left with extra members. The merger-tree classification is transparent, the statistical tests are appropriate for the question, and the three case studies (Figures 2–4) give a real sense of the orbital and mass evolution. The authors also explicitly note subhalo switching in Figure 2a, and they are honest that non-thief groups are statistically indistinguishable from field groups—which is itself telling.

The soft spots. First and foremost, the main table compares field and thief groups in the (Ngal, ) plane without controlling for either variable. Since 'thief' is defined by having captured galaxies, higher Ngal is built into the sample selection. And because captured members sit at the outskirts (Figure 4), the mass-weighted mean separation goes up for the same reason. So the low p-values in Table 1 do not establish that cluster passage causes the structural difference; they mostly confirm the selection rule. The paper's own result that non-thief groups look like field groups reinforces this reading. The sample is tiny (23 thief, 26 non-thief) and the thief vs non-thief comparison is inconclusive by two of the three tests. There are also stability worries: Figure 4b shows a group in the process of ejecting two previously captured galaxies, so the z=0 classification is not permanent. The data availability statement ('upon reasonable request') is weak; for a paper whose whole point is a rare population, a reduced catalog or at least halo IDs should be released. The abstract overgeneralizes by saying processed groups differ from field groups; the actual result is that a subset of processed groups that captured galaxies differ.

Overall: this is a legitimate observational-theoretical phenomenon, not a crackpot claim, and the paper is honest about its limitations. The central inference, though, needs a matched control sample (field groups of the same Ngal or mass) before the 'stealing makes groups less compact' narrative is supported. I would send it to a referee, but I would expect the revision to either add that control or reframe the claim as a descriptive finding about the thief selection.

For a reader: if you work on backsplash or preprocessing, worth a skim for the case studies. I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the IllustrisTNG300 cosmological simulation to identify galaxy groups that were previously part of a galaxy cluster and have since escaped to the field, classifying them as 'thief groups' if they captured additional galaxies during the cluster passage and 'non-thief groups' otherwise. For these populations, the authors compare the two-dimensional distributions of a mass-weighted mean inter-member separation <dw> (Eq. 1) against total group mass and member number, using Cramér, Peacock, and npdeneqtest two-sample tests. They report that thief groups are statistically distinct from field groups, being less compact and more numerous, while non-thief groups are indistinguishable from field groups. The paper also provides detailed evolutionary case studies of three thief groups, examining gas stripping, compactness of individual galaxies, and morphological transformations.

Significance. The notion of 'thief groups' — field groups that have been processed by a cluster and have gravitationally captured cluster galaxies — is a novel and potentially observable population, and the paper's proposal that such groups may be identifiable as field groups with high membership and low compactness is interesting. The work benefits from the use of a large cosmological simulation, three detailed orbital and mass-history case studies (Figures 2–4), and an explicit acknowledgment of systematic issues such as subhalo switching and resolution limits. However, the central statistical claim is currently undermined by a selection confound: the defining property of thief groups is that they captured more galaxies, so the reported difference in member number is guaranteed by construction, and the compactness difference may be a secondary consequence of that same selection. The paper's own result that non-thief groups are indistinguishable from field groups is consistent with the interpretation that the reported thief-field differences reflect the selection rule rather than a physical effect of cluster passage.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.1 and Table 1] The definition of thief groups as those that 'captured more galaxies from that cluster' makes the higher member count of thief groups relative to field groups a consequence of the classification rather than a measured effect. Consequently, the low p-values in Table 1 for the comparisons of field versus thief groups in the (Ngal, <dw>) and (Mtot, <dw>) planes cannot be interpreted as evidence that cluster processing changes group properties; the tests do not control for Ngal, which is selected on. The analysis should be repeated comparing thief groups to field groups matched in Ngal (and preferably also in Mtot), or by conditioning the compactness comparison on Ngal, before claiming that thief groups are 'less compact' as a physical outcome of cluster passage.
[Equations (1) and Figure 4] The compactness parameter <dw> defined in Eq. (1) is a mass-weighted mean separation from the group center. Figure 4 shows that captured galaxies generally reside at the outskirts of their host group, often at d/Rvir > 2, so a selection that preferentially adds such outskirts satellites will tend to raise <dw> even if the original group's internal structure is completely unchanged by the cluster encounter. The paper does not present a control showing that thief groups have larger <dw> than field groups of the same Ngal and mass; without such a control, the 'less compact' result in Section 3.1 is plausibly a secondary selection effect rather than a dynamical consequence of cluster processing.
[Section 3.1 and Table 1] The statistical separation relies on a very small sample of 23 thief groups, and the thief-versus-non-thief comparison is already inconclusive by the authors' own tests (npdeneqtest p = 0.06–0.07, Peacock p = 0.14–0.15). Moreover, the classification instability shown in Figure 4b — where the group ID12982 is in the process of ejecting two previously accreted galaxies — and the acknowledged subhalo switching in Figure 2a mean that the z = 0 thief population is not robust to small perturbations in merger-tree reconstruction. The authors should quantify how many of the 23 groups remain classified as thieves under reasonable variations in the cluster membership criterion or subhalo tracking, and report how the p-values in Table 1 change.

minor comments (4)

[Table 1] The p-values reported as exactly '0' (Cramér test, field vs thief) are not literal zeros but limited by the number of bootstrap replicates; they should be reported as 'p < 10^{-3}' or similar to avoid misleading precision.
[Figure 1] The axis labels in the figure as rendered in the manuscript appear incomplete or garbled (e.g., 'GroupNsubs' in the left panel and an unlabeled y-axis); please ensure all panels have clear, correct axis labels and that the density color bar is legible.
[Section 3.2.3] The conclusion that morphological transformation correlates more strongly with pericentric distance than with the number of accreted galaxies is based on three groups and on the main galaxy only; this should be explicitly labeled as a tentative, small-N trend rather than a general finding.
[Eq. (1)] The notation '<dw>' is described as a 'compactness parameter' even though larger values mean lower compactness; consider renaming it 'mass-weighted mean separation' throughout to reduce potential confusion for readers.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: 'thief groups contain more members' restates the definition, and the compactness difference is driven by the same selection.

self definitional [Section 2.1 (Sample selection) and Section 3.1 (Group compactness)]
"Cluster groups can be further divided into two sub-samples: groups that passed through a galaxy cluster and captured more galaxies from that cluster, referred to as 'thief groups' (23 cluster groups), and groups that did not capture any new members, referred to as 'non-thief groups' (26 cluster groups). ... As a result of galaxy accretion, thief groups generally contain more members than field groups, as shown in the right panel of Figure 1."

The 'theft' classification is defined as capturing more galaxies from the cluster. The later finding that thief groups 'generally contain more members than field groups' is the same property restated in z=0 terms: groups selected for having captured galaxies will, by construction, have a higher member count than a sample not selected for accretion. No independent dynamical calculation is needed to produce this difference; it is a property of the sample definition, not a derived prediction.
other [Section 3.1 (Group compactness, Table 1) and Section 3.2 (Orbits of thief groups); Eq. (1)]
"Captured galaxies generally reside at the outskirts of the group, while galaxies that have been part of the group before the cluster passage stay within ≤ 2Rvir. ... However, the cluster passage itself does not influence the compactness of the group. Groups that enter a galaxy cluster as already virialized systems and do not accrete new galaxies follow the same distribution as the field groups in Figure 1."

Since Eq. (1) defines <dw> as a mass-weighted mean member separation, placing captured galaxies at the outskirts systematically raises <dw>. The thief selection guarantees the presence of such captured galaxies, while Table 1 compares field versus thief groups in the (Ngal, <dw>) and (Mtot, <dw>) planes without controlling for Ngal or for the Ngal-<dw> correlation. The low p-values are therefore expected from the selection rule itself; the non-thief control, which matches field groups, confirms that cluster passage alone does not produce the compactness difference.

full rationale

The analysis is based on an external simulation (IllustrisTNG300) and does not rely on machine-checked claims or on load-bearing self-citations; the authors' previous papers are used only as motivation. The circularity lies in the central sample-versus-conclusion relation. Thief groups are defined in Section 2.1 as groups that 'captured more galaxies' from the cluster, so the conclusion in Sections 3.1 and 4 that they 'contain more members' is a tautological restatement of the selection criterion rather than an independent measured outcome. The companion compactness claim is likewise entangled with the same selection: the paper states that captured galaxies reside at the outskirts, and because <dw> (Eq. 1) is a mass-weighted mean separation, the presence of these outskirts members raises <dw>; Table 1 compares field and thief groups without controlling for Ngal, so the statistical rejection is partly a selection artifact. The non-thief groups being indistinguishable from field groups reinforces that the reported differences are inherited from the accretion criterion, not from cluster processing. The individual thief-group case studies (gas stripping, morphological transformation) are independent and not circular, but they are presented as illustrations rather than as the statistical central claim. Overall, one half of the headline result is definitional and the other is selection-confounded, warranting a partial-circularity score of 6.

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

The central claim rests on the reliability of the IllustrisTNG300 simulation, the halo and subhalo finders, and the merger-tree reconstruction. No fitted model parameters are introduced. The selection thresholds are analytical choices, not free parameters fitted to the result.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption IllustrisTNG300 simulation with Planck 2015 cosmological parameters and its subgrid physics adequately reproduce galaxy and group populations.
Used throughout; the analysis draws conclusions about real galaxy populations from this simulation. See Section 2.
domain assumption Friends-of-friends (FoF) and Subfind algorithms reliably identify bound group halos and galaxies.
Sample selection in Section 2.1 relies on FoF halo masses and Subfind subhalos; the paper notes the 'subhalo switching' artifact in Section 3.2.
domain assumption Merger tree tracing accurately recovers each galaxy's history of cluster membership.
The core classification into field, cluster, thief, and non-thief groups depends on this tracing (Section 2.1). The paper itself flags subhalo switching in Figure 2a.
domain assumption Galaxy clusters can be identified by a fixed mass threshold of 8e13 solar masses at all redshifts.
Section 2.1 defines cluster membership via host FoF mass above this threshold; the paper acknowledges this is strict and misses lower-mass proto-clusters.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stealing galaxies from galaxy clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BTSIIPCT

@misc{pith2026250521629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stealing galaxies from galaxy clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BTSIIPCT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21629}
}

abstract

We investigate galaxy groups that reside in the field but have been previously processed by galaxy clusters. Observationally, they would appear to have the same properties as regular field groups at first glance. However, one would expect to find quantifiable differences in processed groups as dynamical interactions within clusters perturb them. We use IllustrisTNG300 simulation to statistically quantify that processed groups of galaxies show different properties compared to regular field groups. Our analysis encompasses a broad range of groups with total masses between $8 \times 10^{11} \Msun$ and $7 \times 10^{13} \Msun$. We distinguish between processed groups that passed through a galaxy cluster and capture more galaxies, referred to as thief groups, and groups that did not capture any new members, referred to as non-thief groups. The employed statistical tools show that thief groups are generally less compact and contain more members, while non-thief groups seem to have the same properties as the field groups which makes them indistinguishable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21629 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Galaxy compactness parameter ⟨dw⟩ as a function of the total group mass (left panel) and the total number of group members (right panel). The density plot shows the distribution of field groups. Cluster groups are represented with black crosses (non-thief groups) and red triangles (thief groups) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Total DM, stellar and gas mass of group members as a function of the lookback time. Solid vertical lines show the beginning and the end of the cluster phase. Red solid lines represent the main galaxy in the group. Blue dotted lines represent galaxies that were part of the group before the cluster phase, and black dashed lines represent galaxies captured during the cluster phase. through the cluster at distances less… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Orbits of each group member during the cluster phase. Panels represent ’x-y’, ’x-z’, and ’y-z’ projections in polar coordinates, respectively. The same colour notation as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Relative distance (upper panels) and the total energy (lower panels) of group members as a function of lookback time. The same notation as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: colour-coded distribution of field group galaxies at z = 0 in the mass-size plane. Different symbols represent galaxies belonging to different thief groups. The same colour symbols as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Evolution of compactness parameter Σ1.5 in group ID6627 as a function of the lookback time. Circles represent the main galaxy, while triangles and squares represent satellite galaxies. Different colours indicate the total host halo mass in units log Mhost/ M⊙. Gyr, th…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

10 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[59]

Living with Neighbors. II. Statistical Analysis of Flybys and Mergers of Dark Matter Halos in Cosmological Simulations

https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab535f . arXiv: 1911.11782 [astro-ph.GA]. Banks, K., S. Brough, B. W. Holwerda, A. M. Hopkins, Á. R. López-Sánchez, S. Phillipps, K. A. Pimbblet, and A. S. G. Robotham. 2021. Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): The Merging Potential of Brightest Group Galaxies. ApJ 921, no. 1 (November): 47. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538- 435...

work page Pith review arXiv 1911
[91]

arXiv: 2201.02644 [astro-ph.GA]

https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac4809. arXiv: 2201.02644 [astro-ph.GA]. Zana, Tommaso, Alessandro Lupi, Matteo Bonetti, Massimo Dotti, Y etli Rosas- Guevara, David Izquierdo-Villalba, Silvia Bonoli, Lars Hernquist, and Dylan Nelson. 2022. Morphological decomposition of TNG50 galaxies: methodology and catalogue. MNRAS 515, no. 1 (September): 1524–

arXiv
[627]

Bars and spirals in tidal interactions with an ensemble of galaxy mass models

ISSN: 0035-8711. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/202.3.615. eprint: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf /202/3/615/2902320/ mnras202-0615.pdf . https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/202.3.615. Peebles, P. J. E. 1980. The large-scale structure of the universe. . 1993. Principles of Physical Cosmology. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1515 / 9780691206721. Pettit...

work page Pith review arXiv 1980
[1543]

Morphological decomposition of TNG50 galaxies: methodology and catalogue

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1708. arXiv: 2206.04693 [astro-ph.GA]

work page Pith review arXiv
[2013]

Astrophysical Journal 765, no

CANDELS: The Progenitors of Compact Quiescent Galaxies at z ~2. Astrophysical Journal 765, no. 2 (March): 104. https://doi.org/10. 1088/0004-637X/765/2/104. arXiv: 1206.5000 [astro-ph.CO]. Benavides, José A., Laura V. Sales, Mario G. Abadi, Federico Marinacci, Mark V ogelsberger, and Lars Hernquist. 2023. Origin and evolution of ultra- diffuse galaxies in...

arXiv
[2015]

ApJ 804, no

Galactic Angular Momentum in the Illustris Simulation: Feedback and the Hubble Sequence. ApJ 804, no. 2 (May): L40. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/L40. arXiv: 1503.01117 [astro-ph.GA]. Genel, Shy, Dylan Nelson, Annalisa Pillepich, V olker Springel, Rüdiger Pak- mor, Rainer Weinberger, Lars Hernquist, et al. 2018. The size evolu- tion of star-for...

arXiv
[2017]

WALLABY Pilot Survey: HI gas disc truncation and star formation of galaxies falling into the Hydra I cluster

Convergence properties of halo merger trees; halo and substruc- ture merger rates across cosmic history. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 472, no. 3 (September): 3659–3682.ISSN: 0035-8711. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx2233. eprint: https://academic. oup.com/mnras/article- pdf /472/3/3659/20303422/stx2233.pdf . https://doi.org/10.1093/...

work page Pith review arXiv
[2023]

Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): Extended Intra-Group Light in a group at $z=0.2$ from deep Hyper-Suprime Cam images

Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): extended intragroup light in a group at z = 0.2 from deep Hyper Suprime-Cam images. MNRAS 518, no. 1 (January): 1195–1213. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3119. arXiv: 2211.12749 [astro-ph.GA]. Massey, F.J. 1952. Distribution Table for the Deviation Between two Sample Cumulatives. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 23...

work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 10 references

[2810]

arXiv: 1908.05684 [astro-ph.GA]

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa2015. arXiv: 1908.05684 [astro-ph.GA]. van Dokkum, Pieter G., Roberto Abraham, Allison Merritt, Jielai Zhang, Marla Geha, and Charlie Conroy. 2015. Forty-seven Milky Way-sized, Extremely Diffuse Galaxies in the Coma Cluster. ApJ 798, no. 2 (Ja...

1908 arXiv
[3925]

eprint: https://academic

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slad134. eprint: https://academic. oup . com / mnrasl / article - pdf / 527 / 1 / L19 / 55548232 / slad134 . pdf . https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slad134. Marinacci, Federico, Mark V ogelsberger, Rüdiger Pakmor, Paul Torrey, V olker Springel, Lar...

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [59]

Living with Neighbors. II. Statistical Analysis of Flybys and Mergers of Dark Matter Halos in Cosmological Simulations

https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab535f . arXiv: 1911.11782 [astro-ph.GA]. Banks, K., S. Brough, B. W. Holwerda, A. M. Hopkins, Á. R. López-Sánchez, S. Phillipps, K. A. Pimbblet, and A. S. G. Robotham. 2021. Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): The Merging Potential of Brightest Group Galaxies. ApJ 921, no. 1 (November): 47. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538- 435...

work page Pith review arXiv 1911

[2] [91]

arXiv: 2201.02644 [astro-ph.GA]

https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac4809. arXiv: 2201.02644 [astro-ph.GA]. Zana, Tommaso, Alessandro Lupi, Matteo Bonetti, Massimo Dotti, Y etli Rosas- Guevara, David Izquierdo-Villalba, Silvia Bonoli, Lars Hernquist, and Dylan Nelson. 2022. Morphological decomposition of TNG50 galaxies: methodology and catalogue. MNRAS 515, no. 1 (September): 1524–

arXiv

[3] [627]

Bars and spirals in tidal interactions with an ensemble of galaxy mass models

ISSN: 0035-8711. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/202.3.615. eprint: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf /202/3/615/2902320/ mnras202-0615.pdf . https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/202.3.615. Peebles, P. J. E. 1980. The large-scale structure of the universe. . 1993. Principles of Physical Cosmology. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1515 / 9780691206721. Pettit...

work page Pith review arXiv 1980

[4] [1543]

Morphological decomposition of TNG50 galaxies: methodology and catalogue

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1708. arXiv: 2206.04693 [astro-ph.GA]

work page Pith review arXiv

[5] [2013]

Astrophysical Journal 765, no

CANDELS: The Progenitors of Compact Quiescent Galaxies at z ~2. Astrophysical Journal 765, no. 2 (March): 104. https://doi.org/10. 1088/0004-637X/765/2/104. arXiv: 1206.5000 [astro-ph.CO]. Benavides, José A., Laura V. Sales, Mario G. Abadi, Federico Marinacci, Mark V ogelsberger, and Lars Hernquist. 2023. Origin and evolution of ultra- diffuse galaxies in...

arXiv

[6] [2015]

ApJ 804, no

Galactic Angular Momentum in the Illustris Simulation: Feedback and the Hubble Sequence. ApJ 804, no. 2 (May): L40. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/L40. arXiv: 1503.01117 [astro-ph.GA]. Genel, Shy, Dylan Nelson, Annalisa Pillepich, V olker Springel, Rüdiger Pak- mor, Rainer Weinberger, Lars Hernquist, et al. 2018. The size evolu- tion of star-for...

arXiv

[7] [2017]

WALLABY Pilot Survey: HI gas disc truncation and star formation of galaxies falling into the Hydra I cluster

Convergence properties of halo merger trees; halo and substruc- ture merger rates across cosmic history. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 472, no. 3 (September): 3659–3682.ISSN: 0035-8711. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx2233. eprint: https://academic. oup.com/mnras/article- pdf /472/3/3659/20303422/stx2233.pdf . https://doi.org/10.1093/...

work page Pith review arXiv

[8] [2023]

Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): Extended Intra-Group Light in a group at $z=0.2$ from deep Hyper-Suprime Cam images

Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): extended intragroup light in a group at z = 0.2 from deep Hyper Suprime-Cam images. MNRAS 518, no. 1 (January): 1195–1213. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3119. arXiv: 2211.12749 [astro-ph.GA]. Massey, F.J. 1952. Distribution Table for the Deviation Between two Sample Cumulatives. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 23...

work page Pith review arXiv