Diving into dangerous tides: The impact of galaxy cluster tidal environments on satellite galaxy mass densities

Bryan Miller; Diego Pallero; Evelyn Johnston; Gaspar Galaz; Marcelo D. Mora; Matias Bla\~na; Patricia B. Tissera; Paul Eigenthaler; Thomas H. Puzia; Tuila Ziliotto

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 134 references

Diving into dangerous tides: The impact of galaxy cluster tidal environments on satellite galaxy mass densities

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper claims that a satellite galaxy's mean stellar mass density records the tidal field of its host cluster, with a transition near half the virial radius.

desk verdict A genuinely useful density-distance result for cluster satellites, but the 'universal 0.5 Rvir transition' and the 'photometric probe of halo gravity' claim outrun what the analysis actually shows. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21713 v1 pith:MC6QDV65 submitted 2025-05-27 astro-ph.GA

Matias Blaña , Thomas H. Puzia , Yasna Ordenes-Briceño , Patricia B. Tissera , Marcelo D. Mora , Diego Pallero , Evelyn Johnston , Bryan Miller

show 3 more authors

Tuila Ziliotto Paul Eigenthaler Gaspar Galaz

This is my paper

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords satellitegalaxiesgalaxyclusterstidalstrippingstellarmassdensitydwarfdensity-distancerelationfielddiagnostics

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 argues that the mean stellar mass density of a satellite galaxy population is a readout of the gravitational tidal field of its host cluster. In a toy stripping model, in cosmological galaxy simulations, and in observed satellites around Fornax, Virgo, the Milky Way, and M31, the density profile is flat or slightly rising in the outskirts and turns upward inside a transition radius $\Re_{\star}\approx0.5\,R_{\mathrm{vir}}$ where the host tidal field begins to dominate. The paper claims this stellar-density–distance relation ($\bar{\rho}^{\star}-r$) works as a photometric tracer of the host tidal field, because it uses only stellar masses and half-light radii and needs no satellite kinematics. If correct, the transition radius gives a practical way to probe the dark matter distribution of distant clusters from imaging alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the moving average of the mean stellar mass density within twice the stellar half-mass radius, $\langle\bar{\rho}^{\star}_{2h_{\star}}\rangle(r)$, computed with a logarithmic filter over the satellite population. It is tied to the host through the Jacobi density identity $\bar{\rho}_J=|\tau|$, the condition that material remains bound only where the satellite's mean density exceeds the local tidal field magnitude, and through the relation $|\tau|\propto 1/r$ for a spherically symmetric host. Tidal stripping shrinks $h_{\star}$, raising the central stellar mass density, and the transition radius $\Re_{\star}$ is defined empirically either as the minimum of the moving average or as the zero of its radial derivative in the range $0.2<R/R_{\mathrm{vir}}<1$.

What would settle it

Measure $\Re_{\star}$ in a cluster whose tidal field is independently known from satellite kinematics or weak lensing, and compare it with the radius where that tidal field equals the initial stellar density scale assumed in the model; the claim fails if the photometric transition sits elsewhere or shifts when the satellite sample is changed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the tidal truncation condition $\bar{\rho}_{\mathrm{tr}}\ge|\tau|$, which ties a satellite's bound mean density to the host tidal field magnitude, imprints a feature in the population-average stellar density profile. The moving average of $\bar{\rho}^{\star}_{2h_{\star}}$ declines gently from the virial radius inward, reaches a minimum at $\Re_{\star}\approx0.5\,R_{\mathrm{vir}}$, and then rises steeply toward the cluster centre, tracking the tidal field profile of an NFW-like host. The same feature appears in the idealized orbital model, in hydrodynamical cosmological simulations over a host mass range $10^{12}$–$10^{15.5}\,M_\odot$, and in all four observed systems, with projection lowering the measured radius by roughly 15%. The paper concludes that $\Re_{\star}$ marks the radius inside which the host tidal field has significantly processed stellar components and can serve as a photometric diagnostic of host gravitational field strength.

Load-bearing premise

The argument isolates the host tidal field only if satellites that have not yet been stripped have the same distribution of mean stellar mass densities in every environment; otherwise the radius where the host tidal field crosses that density scale is set partly by the satellites' initial structure, not by the host.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The $\bar{\rho}^{\star}-r$ transition can be measured from photometry alone, extending tidal-field studies to clusters beyond the Local Group where satellite orbits cannot be measured.
Inside $\Re_{\star}$ the stellar components of surviving satellites have been tidally processed, so cluster-centric trends in galaxy size–mass relations must be interpreted with this trimming in mind.
The consistent $0.4$–$0.6\,R_{\mathrm{vir}}$ location across host masses implies the feature can benchmark the virial radii of clusters and groups.
The null-hypothesis test puts the joint chance of the observed transition appearing randomly in four systems near $2\times10^{-6}$, supporting the reality of the feature.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension not in the paper: stack many clusters and compare the photometric $\Re_{\star}$ with a tidal field mapped independently by weak lensing or satellite kinematics; agreement would validate the method while disagreement would localize the assumption.
Applying the same tracer to globular cluster systems, where internal kinematics are measurable in nearby galaxies, could calibrate the photometric diagnostic against dynamical tidal fields.
If pre-infall mean stellar densities differ systematically between environments, $\Re_{\star}$ would no longer isolate host properties; comparing clusters with similar virial mass but different merger histories would expose this dependence.

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

Read it. The central empirical result is real: in Virgo and Fornax the mean stellar mass density of satellites rises inward within a transition radius, and the trend is reproduced in TNG and EAGLE. That is a useful extension of the Local Group density-pericentre work to cluster scales, using good photometric samples. The null-hypothesis shuffling test is a nice touch, and the projection analysis is careful. But the paper sells the transition radius too hard. Observed R*/Rvir are 0.35-0.39 in Fornax/Virgo, 0.46-0.49 in M31, and 0.36-0.54 in the MW — not the abstract's ~0.5 Rvir. And the 'photometric diagnostic that probes the host gravitational field' is the load-bearing claim that isn't yet supported.

Why: Eq. (4) makes stripping begin where the satellite's initial mean density equals the local tidal field. The toy model sets that initial density from a log-normal centred at 2e5 M_sun/kpc3, and the paper says only that 'different initial conditions were tested' without reporting how R* shifts. If the pre-infall stellar density scale varies by environment or host mass, the crossing radius moves, and R* no longer isolates the halo field. The TNG/EAGLE clusters partly rescue this because their infall densities are self-consistent, and the observed R* do land near the TNG values. But the observed samples have no direct measure of their own pre-infall density distributions, so the calibration claim is a factor-of-two away from being demonstrated. The authors should either quantify that shift or reframe R* as a trend tracer rather than a calibrated field-strength probe.

Two smaller things. The combined 5sigma from p=4%, 0.1%, 17%, 26% is just the product of four p-values; that needs a stated combination method and an independence argument, and it hides that the Local Group systems are individually insignificant. And no toy-model code is released, which matters because the interpretation leans on it.

Net: the density-distance relation itself is solid and worth citing. The universal 0.5 Rvir and the diagnostic calibration are overreaching. Send it to a referee, but the referee should push for a corrected abstract, a quantitative IC-degeneracy test, and a proper meta-analysis of the p-values.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper argues that satellite galaxies' mean stellar mass densities anti-correlate with cluster-centric distance because tidal stripping removes low-density outer material, leaving denser remnants near cluster centres. Using a semi-analytical toy model, IllustrisTNG and EAGLE simulations, and observed satellite populations in Fornax, Virgo, the Milky Way, and Andromeda, the authors propose a 'transition radius' Rstar ≈ 0.5 R_vir, inside which the moving-average stellar density profile rises toward the centre. They present this as a photometric diagnostic for the host halo's gravitational field strength, supported by null-hypothesis tests claiming a combined ~5sigma detection.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the proposed relation would be a valuable, purely photometric tool for probing the tidal fields and dark-matter distributions of galaxy clusters, where spectroscopic kinematics for many dwarf satellites are expensive or impossible. The paper has real strengths: it combines three complementary approaches, uses public cosmological simulations at multiple resolutions and with two different subgrid models, explicitly checks projection effects, sample completeness, mass segregation, and gas content, and performs a null-hypothesis shuffle test for the observed samples. The TNG/EAGLE simulation results are self-consistent and the Fornax/Virgo observations are suggestive. However, the toy model's transition radius is essentially set by the assumed pre-infall satellite density scale, and the observed values of Rstar/Rvir in Table 1 do not cluster tightly at 0.5, so the headline universality and the diagnostic calibration are not yet established at the level the abstract claims.

major comments (4)

[Sect. 3.1, Eq. (4)] The toy-model transition radius is set by the assumed initial density scale, not determined independently by the host potential. Equation (4) starts stripping where the satellite's mean density equals |tau|; with the initial total mean densities drawn from a log-normal centered at rho_tr,init = 2e5 M_sun kpc^-3, the location where the moving-average density profile rises is largely determined by that adopted centre and by the host profile. The text says 'tested different initial conditions (IC) as well' but reports no quantitative result for how Rstar shifts. This is load-bearing because the proposed photometric diagnostic requires Rstar to map to |tau| without knowing the pre-infall density distribution; the paper should quantify the shift in Rstar for a factor-of-two variation in the log-normal centre, or explicitly restrict the diagnostic to differential trends within a single population.
[Table 1 and Sect. 5.1] The measurements reported do not support a universal value Rstar ≈ 0.5 R_vir as stated in the abstract. The observed values are Fornax [ii] = 0.36 R_vir, Virgo [ii] = 0.39 R_vir, MW [i] = 0.36 R_vir versus [ii] = 0.54 R_vir, and M31 [i]/[ii] = 0.49/0.46 R_vir, while the simulated values span roughly 0.40-0.58 R_vir depending on simulation and projection. The Fornax and Virgo offsets from 0.5 R_vir are much larger than the quoted bootstrap uncertainties, and the two metrics for the Milky Way differ by 40 kpc, suggesting systematics not captured by those uncertainties. The abstract and conclusions should state the measured range and the dominant systematic uncertainties rather than presenting a single 0.5 R_vir value.
[Sects. 4.3 and 5.2] The observational comparison cannot currently distinguish a host-tidal-field calibration from environmental differences in pre-infall satellite structure. The observed samples provide no measurement of the pre-infall mean stellar mass density distribution for Virgo, Fornax, the MW, or M31, so the assumption that the toy-model initial log-normal is universal across these environments is untested. The null-hypothesis test demonstrates that the Fornax and Virgo moving-average minima are unlikely to be random (p = 4% and 0.1%), but it does not test whether the radius of the minimum is determined by the host tidal field rather than by the satellites' initial density structure. This caveat should be stated explicitly, or the authors should use the simulations to split satellite populations by infall density and show that Rstar/R_vir remains unchanged.
[Sect. 5.2, Conclusions item IV] The composite significance statement should be qualified. The individual p_NH values are 4% (Fornax), 0.1% (Virgo), 17% (MW), and 26% (M31), so the MW and M31 samples are individually consistent with the null hypothesis at the usual significance levels. The combined probability 1.8e-6 is dominated by Virgo, and the paper does not justify treating the four environments as independent, equally powered tests of the same null hypothesis. I recommend reporting the four individual p-values and the combined statistic with its assumptions, and avoiding the unqualified phrase 'highly significant' for the full observed sample.

minor comments (6)

[Introduction, first paragraph] There is a typo: 'ellitpical' should be 'elliptical'.
[Eq. (17)] The moving-average definition sums over j = -q/2 to +q/2 but does not specify how bins near the radial boundaries are treated; please clarify the boundary convention.
[Table 1] For reproducibility, please list the adopted virial radius for each system directly in the table (or in a machine-readable footnote) and give Rstar/R_vir with the same asymmetric uncertainties as the kpc values.
[Sect. 5.1, Eq. (20)] The polynomial order 7 is described as 'optimized,' but no optimization criterion or sensitivity test is given; please state the criterion and show that the measured Rstar is stable for polynomial orders 5-9.
[Captions of Figs. 4, A.1, A.2] The phrase 'All are moving averages are calculated' should read 'All moving averages are calculated.'
[Global] A data/code availability statement is missing; the paper relies on public simulations and catalogs, but the delorean orbital code and the analysis scripts used to produce Rstar are not linked to a repository or version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the toy-model transition radius depends on the adopted initial density scale, but this is an explicit modelling caveat; the central claim is independently corroborated by self-consistent TNG simulations and null-hypothesis tests.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain starts from the standard Jacobi/tidal-truncation criterion (Eqs. 1-5) and builds a toy model whose initial mean density scale is chosen in Sect. 3.1 (log-normal centred at 2e5 Msun/kpc3). The toy model's upturn radius is indeed set by the crossing of |tau(r)| with that input scale, so it is not an independent calibration of Re_star. However, this is not a case of fitting the target quantity: the initial conditions are motivated by external simulations and observations and are explicitly listed as one of three interlocking factors (Summary point VI). The load-bearing evidence for Re_star ~ 0.5 Rvir comes from IllustrisTNG50/100/300 and EAGLE, where satellite densities and infall histories emerge self-consistently without an assumed initial density distribution, and from the observed Virgo/Fornax/Local Group samples with the null-hypothesis test giving a joint probability of about 2e-6 (Sect. 5.2). No parameter is fitted to Re_star; the two metrics (Eqs. 19-20) are defined a priori and applied consistently. The paper's own caveat that the satellites' initial mass densities matter means the photometric-diagnostic claim has a robustness limitation, but that limitation is not a circular reduction of the derivation to its inputs. The only related gap is the unquantified statement 'tested different initial conditions (IC) as well' in Sect. 3.1; this is a robustness issue, not a circular step. Self-citations (delorean code, M31 mass models) are instrumental only and are not load-bearing for the main result.

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

The central claim that satellite mean stellar mass densities increase toward cluster centres is supported by TNG simulations without free parameters fitted to the density profiles; however, the toy model and the θ* diagnostic rely on the chosen initial density scale, smoothing parameters, and the assumption that r traces pericentre.

free parameters (5)

Initial mean total mass density scale (toy model) = 2×10^5 M⊙/kpc^3, log-normal σ=0.1 dex
Chosen in Sect. 3.1 to set satellite pre-infall densities; the toy-model transition radius is where the host tidal field crosses this scale, so θ* in Fig. 1 depends on this choice.
Satellite initial scale length = 10% of initial truncation radius
Adopted for exponential/Plummer/Hernquist profiles (Sect. 3.1); affects the shape of the density profile after stripping but not the qualitative trend.
Stellar mass-to-light ratio = Υ_r = 2 M⊙/L⊙ (tested 1-4)
Used to convert photometry to stellar masses for observed Fornax/Virgo and the toy model; shifts densities vertically but θ* is insensitive.
Moving-average neighbour number q = q = sqrt(n_sat) (observations), 2sqrt(n_sat) (toy model)
Kernel size in Eq. 17; the measured θ* depends on q, tested over 0.5-2 sqrt(n_sat) for MW/M31.
Polynomial order for metric [ii] = 7
Chosen in Sect. 5.1 to approximate the moving average near minimum; θ*[ii] is the zero of the derivative of this fitted polynomial.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Jacobi radius criterion: ρ̄_tr ≥ |τ| for bound material
Eq. 4, from Binney & Merrifield; the toy model is built on this stripping criterion, and the density-distance anti-correlation follows directly from it.
domain assumption Spherically symmetric host potential and isotropic satellite orbits in the toy model
Sect. 3.1; the full tidal tensor is neglected in the toy model, though the final paragraph acknowledges this limitation.
domain assumption Host potential evolves slowly and satellite orbits are phase-mixed so that current cluster-centric distance correlates with pericentre (r ∝ r_peri)
Sect. 2.2; this is what allows the observed ρ̄-r relation to be interpreted through pericentre stripping, and it is load-bearing for the observational comparison.
domain assumption Constant mass-to-light ratio for observed satellites
Sect. 3.3; variations of Υ within the population are argued to be small compared to the density scatter, which the paper tests.
standard math Deprojection of effective radii with r_e = 4/3 R_e
Adopted from Wolf et al. 2010 to convert projected sizes to 3D for density estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diving into dangerous tides: The impact of galaxy cluster tidal environments on satellite galaxy mass densities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MC6QDV65

@misc{pith2026250521713,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diving into dangerous tides: The impact of galaxy cluster tidal environments on satellite galaxy mass densities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MC6QDV65}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21713}
}

abstract

Satellite galaxies endure powerful environmental tidal forces that drive mass stripping of their outer regions. Consequently, satellites located in central regions of galaxy clusters or groups, where the tidal field is strongest, are expected to retain their central dense regions while losing their outskirts. This process produces a spatial segregation in the mean mass density with the cluster-centric distance (the $\bar{\rho}-r$ relation). To test this hypothesis, we combined semi-analytical satellite orbital models with cosmological galaxy simulations. We find that not only the mean total mass densities ($\bar{\rho}$), but also the mean stellar mass densities ($\bar{\rho}^{\star}$) of satellites exhibit this distance-dependent segregation ($\bar{\rho}^{\star}-r$). The correlation traces the host's tidal field out to a characteristic transition radius at $\Re_{\star}$ $\approx$ $0.5$ $R_{\rm vir}$, beyond which the satellite population's density profile can have a slight increase or remain flat, reflecting the weakened tidal influence in the outskirts of galaxy clusters and beyond. We compare these predictions with observational data from satellites in the Virgo and Fornax galaxy clusters, as well as the Andromeda and Milky Way systems. Consistent trends in the satellite mean stellar mass densities are observed across these environments. Furthermore, the transition radius serves as a photometric diagnostic tool: it identifies regions where the stellar components of satellites underwent significant tidal processing and probes the gravitational field strength of the host halo.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21713 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Results of the toy model showing the imprint of the host tidal field on the mean mass density distribution (circles) of nsat =2 × 103 satellite galaxies shown as a function their distances to the cluster centre. The host has an NFW halo mass and size of a Fornax-type cluster, showing its tidal field (|τ|) in both panels (purple curves). The satellites are taken from a snapshot after a 10 Gyr orbital integration with… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Mean mass densities of 492 satellite galaxies (circles) as a function of distance to their hosting TNG50 Fornax-type cluster, with colours indicating their stellar masses (colour bar). The cluster has a virial mass and radius of Mvir = 7.6 × 1013 M⊙ and Rvir = 1075 kpc, respectively, and corresponds to a snapshot at redshift z=0. Its tidal field radial profile (|τ|) is shown in all panels (purple curve). Shown as a… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison between the mean central dynamical and stellar mass densities for satellites in the TNG50 Fornax-type cluster. The symbol colour encodes stellar mass, and the identity function is shown as the dot-dashed line. to values lower compared to those in the TNG simulations. However, the shape of both profiles are very similar, especially showing the same transition at r ≃ 0.5 Rvir. The TNG simulations and our… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Mass densities of satellite galaxies vs their cluster centric distances for 155 host galaxy clusters from a snapshot at redshift z = 0 (left column) and for 31 clusters at z=1 (right column), taken from TNG300. The tidal field profiles of all the clusters are shown in …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Satellite galaxy mean stellar mass densities (¯ρ ⋆ 2h⋆ as circles) of four observed systems: the Fornax galaxy cluster (top left panel), the Virgo cluster (top right panel), the MW (bottom left panel), and M31 (bottom right panel), with the satellite stellar masses ind…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Measurement examples of the transition radius ℜ⋆: the Fornaxtype cluster (top panel) from TNG50, and the Fornax cluster (bottom panel). From a total of 106 sub-sample realisations and the 106 moving average curves of the satellite mean stellar mass densities, we show…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Distribution of measurements of ℜ⋆, marginalising over the distribution of ⟨ρ¯ ⋆ 2h⋆ ⟩ℜ⋆ (minimum in the moving average of the mean stellar mass densities profiles) using methods [i] (left panel) with Eq. 19 and [ii] (right panel) with Eq. 20. The top four rows of pane…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Null-hypothesis test: Example with the Fornax galaxy cluster. For each of the 106 measurements of ℜ⋆ ([ii]), the corresponding distribution of the minimum values of the moving average curves of the mean stellar mass densities is shown (purple histogram). The distribut…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: (top panel) shows that within the transition radius ℜ⋆ the stellar masses start to increase on average. To test whether the stellar masses could be driving the mass density profile, we masked out the massive satellites, leaving only satellites with stellar masses smal…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Satellite galaxies in the TNG50 Fornax-type cluster, showing their central stellar mass densities as a function of their stellar masses. The colour-coding here shows their cluster-centric distances, which indicate that massive satellites can be found both in the outsk…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Mean stellar mass densities (¯ρ ⋆ 2h⋆ ) of 492 satellite galaxies (circles) as a function of their projected distances to their hosting TNG50 Fornax-type cluster, with colours indicating their stellar masses. The deprojected profile is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

[1]

K., Prochaska, J

Armillotta, L., Fraternali, F., Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., & Marinacci, F. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 114

2017
[2]

2022, MNRAS, 515, 2981

Asencio, E., Banik, I., Mieske, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2981

2022
[3]

Aung, H., Nagai, D., & Lau, E. T. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2071

2021
[4]

& Merrifield, M

Binney, J. & Merrifield, M. 1998, Galactic astronomy / James Binney and Michael Merrifield. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 1998. (Princeton series in astrophysics) QB857 .B522 1998 ( \ 35.00)

1998
[5]

P., Jord \' a n, A., Mei, S., et al

Blakeslee, J. P., Jord \' a n, A., Mei, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 556

2009
[6]

2024, A & A, 692, A183

Bla \ n a, M., Burkert, A., Fellhauer, M., et al. 2024, A & A, 692, A183

2024
[7]

2020, MNRAS, 497, 3601

Bla \ n a, M., Burkert, A., Fellhauer, M., Schartmann, M., & Alig, C. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3601

2020
[8]

2015, MNRAS, 446, 144

Bla \ n a, M., Fellhauer, M., Smith, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 144

2015

Show all 134 references

[9]

2018, MNRAS, 481, 3210

Bla \ n a, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3210

2018
[10]

2017, MNRAS, 466, stw3294

Bla \ n a, M., Wegg, C., Gerhard, O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, stw3294

2017
[11]

& Gerhard, O

Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA & A, 54, 529

2016
[12]

2022, A & AR, 30, 3

Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, A & AR, 30, 3

2022
[13]

& Gavazzi, G

Boselli, A. & Gavazzi, G. 2006, PASP, 118, 517

2006
[14]

2000, ApJ, 534, L143

Burkert, A. 2000, ApJ, 534, L143

2000
[15]

A., Gieles, M., Sollima, A., et al

Carballo-Bello, J. A., Gieles, M., Sollima, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 14

2012
[16]

2023, MNRAS, 522, 3058

Cardona-Barrero, S., Battaglia, G., Nipoti, C., & Di Cintio , A. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3058

2023
[17]

& Hayes, M

Chamba, N. & Hayes, M. J. 2024, A & A, 689, A28

2024
[18]

H., Kenney, J

Chung, A., van Gorkom, J. H., Kenney, J. D. P., Crowl, H., & Vollmer, B. 2009, AJ, 138, 1741

2009
[19]

A., Stuart, J., Wyithe, B., Schaye, J., & Duffy, A

Correa, C. A., Stuart, J., Wyithe, B., Schaye, J., & Duffy, A. R. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1217

2015
[20]

S., et al

Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., et al. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371

1985
[21]

2003, MNRAS, 341, 326

Dekel, A., Devor, J., & Hetzroni, G. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 326

2003
[22]

L., Parker, L

Demers, M. L., Parker, L. C., & Roberts, I. D. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2216

2019
[23]

2021, ApJ, 909, 112

Diemer, B. 2021, ApJ, 909, 112

2021
[24]

& Davis, M

Djorgovski, S. & Davis, M. 1987, ApJ, 313, 59

1987
[25]

2009, MNRAS, 399, 497

Dolag, K., Borgani, S., Murante, G., & Springel, V. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 497

2009
[26]

2018, MNRAS, 485, 4817

Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 485, 4817

2018
[27]

1980, ApJ, 236, 351

Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

1980
[28]

J., Gregg, M

Drinkwater, M. J., Gregg, M. D., & Colless, M. 2001, ApJ, 548, L139

2001
[29]

H., Taylor, M

Eigenthaler, P., Puzia, T. H., Taylor, M. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 142

2018
[30]

2016, ApJ, 826, 13

Emerick, A., Mac Low , M.-M., Grcevich, J., & Gatto, A. 2016, ApJ, 826, 13

2016
[31]

& Navarro, J

Errani, R. & Navarro, J. F. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 18

2021
[32]

F., Ibata, R., & Pe \ n arrubia, J

Errani, R., Navarro, J. F., Ibata, R., & Pe \ n arrubia, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 6001

2022
[33]

F., Pe \ n arrubia, J., Famaey, B., & Ibata, R

Errani, R., Navarro, J. F., Pe \ n arrubia, J., Famaey, B., & Ibata, R. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 384

2023
[34]

Faerman, Y., Sternberg, A., & McKee, C. F. 2013, ApJ, 777, 14

2013
[35]

M., Bettoni, D., et al

Fasano, G., Poggianti, B. M., Bettoni, D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3927

2015
[36]

W., et al

Fellhauer, M., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006 a , ApJ, 651, 167

2006
[37]

W., Belokurov, V., et al

Fellhauer, M., Evans, N. W., Belokurov, V., et al. 2006 b , MNRAS, 375, 1171

2006
[38]

I., Evans, N

Fellhauer, M., Wilkinson, M. I., Evans, N. W., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1095

2008
[39]

C., et al

Ferrarese, L., C \^ o t \' e , P., Cuillandre, J. C., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 4

2012
[40]

S., & Lee, K

Garrison-Kimmel, S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., & Lee, K. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2578

2014
[41]

C., & Zhao, H

Gieles, M., Heggie, D. C., & Zhao, H. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2509

2011
[42]

Gill, S. P. D., Knebe, A., & Gibson, B. K. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1327

2005
[43]

Gnedin, O. Y. 2003, ApJ, 582, 141

2003
[44]

E., Gott, J

Gunn, J. E., Gott, J. Richard, I., Gunn, J. E., & Gott, J. Richard, I. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1

1972
[45]

E., Pearce, F

Haggar, R., Gray, M. E., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 6074

2020
[46]

A., et al

Hammer, F., Li, H., Mamon, G. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5059

2023
[47]

A., et al

Hammer, F., Wang, J., Mamon, G. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2718

2024
[48]

2020, ApJ, 904, 45

Hayashi, K., Chiba, M., & Ishiyama, T. 2020, ApJ, 904, 45

2020
[49]

2022, MNRAS, 000, 1

Herzog, G., Benitez-Llambay, A., & Fumagalli, M. 2022, MNRAS, 000, 1

2022
[50]

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

Joshi, G. D., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2673

2020
[51]

Kaplinghat, M., Valli, M., & Yu, H. B. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 231

2019
[52]

M., White, S

Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D., et al. 2003 a , MNRAS, 341, 33

2003
[53]

M., White, S

Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003 b , MNRAS, 341, 54

2003
[54]

C., Jerjen, H., et al

Kim, S., Rey, S. C., Jerjen, H., et al. 2015, ApJS, 215, 22

2015
[55]

M., et al

Kleiner, D., Serra, P., MacCagni, F. M., et al. 2023, A & A, 675, A108

2023
[56]

Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA & A, 51, 511

2013
[57]

2022, MNRAS, 510, 581

Kuchner, U., Haggar, R., Arag \' o n-Salamanca, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 581

2022
[58]

2017, A & A, 604, A54

Kuchner, U., Ziegler, B., Verdugo, M., Bamford, S., & H \" a u ler, B. 2017, A & A, 604, A54

2017
[59]

okas, E. L. 2023, A & A, 673, A131

2023
[60]

2021, A & A, 648, A31

Loni, A., Serra, P., Kleiner, D., et al. 2021, A & A, 648, A31

2021
[61]

2019, MNRAS, 488, 5370

Lotz, M., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5370

2019
[62]

2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

2018
[63]

2007, American Journal of Physics, 75, 116

Masi, M. 2007, American Journal of Physics, 75, 116

2007
[64]

B., et al

Matharu, J., Muzzin, A., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 595

2019
[65]

C., Schaller, M., et al

McAlpine, S., Helly, J. C., Schaller, M., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Computing, 15, 72

2016
[66]

W., Higgs, C

McConnachie, A. W., Higgs, C. R., Thomas, G. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 501, 2363

2020
[67]

McConnachie, A. W. & Venn, K. A. 2020, AJ, 160, 124

2020
[68]

L., Balogh, M

McGee, S. L., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., Font, A. S., & McCarthy, I. G. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 937

2009
[69]

McLaughlin, D. E. 1999, ApJ, 512, L9

1999
[70]

2007, ApJ, 655, 144

Mei, S., Blakeslee, J., Cote, P., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 144

2007
[71]

1983, ApJ, 264, 24

Merritt, D. 1983, ApJ, 264, 24

1983
[72]

1984, ApJ, 276, 26

Merritt, D. 1984, ApJ, 276, 26

1984
[73]

1985, ApJ, 289, 18

Merritt, D. 1985, ApJ, 289, 18

1985
[74]

C., & White, S

Mo, H., van den Bosch, F. C., & White, S. 2010, Galaxy Formation and Evolution, by Houjun Mo , Frank van den Bosch , Simon White, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010

2010
[75]

D., Rodriguez, F., Artale, M

Montero-Dorta, A. D., Rodriguez, F., Artale, M. C., Smith, R., & Chaves-Montero, J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5868

2024
[76]

& Burkert, A

Mori, M. & Burkert, A. 2000, ApJ, 538, 559

2000
[77]

P., Naab, T., White, S

Moster, B. P., Naab, T., White, S. D. M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3121

2013
[78]

P., Eigenthaler, P., Puzia, T

Mu \ n oz, R. P., Eigenthaler, P., Puzia, T. H., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, L15

2015
[79]

P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al

Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206

2018
[80]

F., Frenk, C

Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

1996
[81]

2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234

Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234

2019
[82]

2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

2018
[83]

2018, MNRAS, 480, L106

Ogiya, G. 2018, MNRAS, 480, L106

2018
[84]

C., & Burkert, A

Ogiya, G., Van Den Bosch , F. C., & Burkert, A. 2022 a , MNRAS, 510, 2724

2022
[85]

C., Burkert, A., & Kang, X

Ogiya, G., van den Bosch, F. C., Burkert, A., & Kang, X. 2022 b , ApJL, 940, L46

2022
[86]

J., Vogelsberger, M., & Diemer, B

O'Neil, S., Barnes, D. J., Vogelsberger, M., & Diemer, B. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4649

2021
[87]

A., et al

Ordenes-Brice \ n o, Y., Eigenthaler, P., Taylor, M. A., et al. 2018 a , ApJ, 859, 52

2018
[88]

H., Eigenthaler, P., et al

Ordenes-Brice \ n o, Y., Puzia, T. H., Eigenthaler, P., et al. 2018 b , ApJ, 860, 4

2018
[89]

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

Pace, A. B., Erkal, D., & Li, T. S. 2022, ApJ, 940, 136

2022
[90]

A., Padilla, N

Pallero, D., G \' o mez, F. A., Padilla, N. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3210

2022
[91]

A., Padilla, N

Pallero, D., G \' o mez, F. A., Padilla, N. D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 847

2019
[92]

F., & McConnachie, A

Penarrubia, J., Navarro, J. F., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, ApJ, 673, 226

2008
[93]

J., Kova c , K., et al

Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Kova c , K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193

2010
[94]

2018, MNRAS, 475, 648

Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648

2018
[95]

2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196

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

2019
[96]

E., Zheng, Y., Price-Whelan, A

Putman, M. E., Zheng, Y., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 53

2021
[97]

H., Paolillo, M., Goudfrooij, P., et al

Puzia, T. H., Paolillo, M., Goudfrooij, P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 78

2014
[98]

I., Walker, M

Read, J. I., Walker, M. G., & Steger, P. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1401

2019
[99]

I., Wilkinson, M

Read, J. I., Wilkinson, M. I., Evans, N. W., Gilmore, G., & Kleyna, J. T. 2006 a , MNRAS, 367, 387

2006
[100]

I., Wilkinson, M

Read, J. I., Wilkinson, M. I., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006 b , MNRAS, 366, 429

2006
[101]

2009, ApJ, 706, 67

Renaud, F., Boily, C., Naab, T., & Theis, C. 2009, ApJ, 706, 67

2009
[102]

2017, ApJ, 843, 128

Rhee, J., Smith, R., Choi, H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 128

2017
[103]

D., Parker, L

Roberts, I. D., Parker, L. C., Brown, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 42

2019
[104]

Robles, V. H. & Bullock, J. S. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5232

2021
[105]

D., et al

Rodr \' i guez, S., Garcia Lambas , D., Padilla, N. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 6157

2022
[106]

P., Opitsch, M., Erwin, P., et al

Saglia, R. P., Opitsch, M., Erwin, P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 69

2016
[107]

A., Bower, R

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

2015
[108]

2010, A & A, 513, A52

Schuberth, Y., Richtler, T., Hilker, M., et al. 2010, A & A, 513, A52

2010
[109]

M., Murray, N., et al

Shen, J., Eadie, G. M., Murray, N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 1

2022
[110]

2022, AJ, 164, 95

Smith, R., Calder \' o n-Castillo, P., Shin, J., Raouf, M., & Ko, J. 2022, AJ, 164, 95

2022
[111]

2016, ApJ, 833, 109

Smith, R., Choi, H., Lee, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 109

2016
[112]

N., et al

Smith, R., Fellhauer, M., Candlish, G. N., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2529

2013
[113]

2020, A & A, 639, A14

Spavone, M., Iodice, E., Van De Ven , G., et al. 2020, A & A, 639, A14

2020
[114]

2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

2018
[115]

Springel, V., Yoshida, N., & White, S. D. 2001, New Astronomy, 6, 79

2001
[116]

E., Aguirre-Santaella, A., & S \' a nchez-Conde, M

St \" u cker, J., Ogiya, G., Angulo, R. E., Aguirre-Santaella, A., & S \' a nchez-Conde, M. A. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4432

2023
[117]

2012, A & A, 546, A4

Tamm, a., Tempel, E., Tenjes, P., Tihhonova, O., & Tuvikene, T. 2012, A & A, 546, A4

2012
[118]

Tempel, E., Tuvikene, T., Kipper, R., & Libeskind, N. I. 2017, A & A, 602, A100

2017
[119]

V., & Kuhlen, M

Teyssier, M., Johnston, K. V., & Kuhlen, M. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1808

2012
[120]

2019, ApJ, 874, 161

Tonnesen, S. 2019, ApJ, 874, 161

2019
[121]

& Bryan, G

Tonnesen, S. & Bryan, G. L. 2021, ApJ, 911, 68

2021
[122]

& Toomre, J

Toomre, A. & Toomre, J. 1972, ApJ, 178, 623

1972
[123]

1993, ApJ, 408, 57

Valluri, M. 1993, ApJ, 408, 57

1993
[124]

van den Bosch, F. C. & Ogiya, G. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4066

2018
[125]

C., Ogiya, G., Hahn, O., & Burkert, A

van den Bosch, F. C., Ogiya, G., Hahn, O., & Burkert, A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3043

2018
[126]

2019, A & A, 625, A143

Venhola, A., Peletier, R., Laurikainen, E., et al. 2019, A & A, 625, A143

2019
[127]

J., Harris, W

Webb, J. J., Harris, W. E., Sills, A., & Hurley, J. R. 2013, ApJ, 764, 124

2013
[128]

Wetzel, A. R. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 49

2011
[129]

R., Tinker, J

Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., Conroy, C., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 336

2013
[130]

White, S. D. M. & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341

1978
[131]

D., Bullock, J

Wolf, J., Martinez, G. D., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1220

2010
[132]

Yoon, H., Chung, A., Smith, R., & Jaff \' e , Y. L. 2017, ApJ, 838, 81

2017
[133]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...
[134]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

K., Prochaska, J

Armillotta, L., Fraternali, F., Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., & Marinacci, F. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 114

2017

[2] [2]

2022, MNRAS, 515, 2981

Asencio, E., Banik, I., Mieske, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2981

2022

[3] [3]

Aung, H., Nagai, D., & Lau, E. T. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2071

2021

[4] [4]

& Merrifield, M

Binney, J. & Merrifield, M. 1998, Galactic astronomy / James Binney and Michael Merrifield. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 1998. (Princeton series in astrophysics) QB857 .B522 1998 ( \ 35.00)

1998

[5] [5]

P., Jord \' a n, A., Mei, S., et al

Blakeslee, J. P., Jord \' a n, A., Mei, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 556

2009

[6] [6]

2024, A & A, 692, A183

Bla \ n a, M., Burkert, A., Fellhauer, M., et al. 2024, A & A, 692, A183

2024

[7] [7]

2020, MNRAS, 497, 3601

Bla \ n a, M., Burkert, A., Fellhauer, M., Schartmann, M., & Alig, C. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3601

2020

[8] [8]

2015, MNRAS, 446, 144

Bla \ n a, M., Fellhauer, M., Smith, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 144

2015