Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Pickles on FIRE: The 3D Shape Evolution of Simulated Milky Way-Mass Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper argues that the pickle-shaped, elongated galaxies seen by JWST and HST in the early universe are a temporary but common phase that Milky Way-like galaxies pass through.

desk verdict A solid simulation-side result on transient elongation in Milky Way progenitors; the comparison to observed galaxy fractions is weaker than the abstract implies, but the core finding and the writing's honesty hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08508 v2 pith:CKV3B4MY submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.GA

Luke Y. Xia , Courtney Klein , Jenny D. Wang , James S. Bullock , Michael Boylan-Kolchin , Vincent Caudillo , Jorge Moreno , Francisco J. Mercado
show 1 more author
Robert Feldmann
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyshapestriaxialellipsoidsMilkyWayprogenitorsformationhigh-redshiftgalaxiesJWSTstellarpopulationsevolution
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 elongated, pickle-shaped galaxies JWST and HST see at high redshift are not stable structures but a common, temporary phase in the assembly of Milky Way-like galaxies. Analyzing thirteen simulated Milky Way-mass galaxies, it finds that every progenitor goes through elongated phases in the early universe, often oscillating between spheroidal and elongated shapes on billion-year timescales, with about $25$--$45\%$ of the population elongated at any given time at $z = 0.5$--$8.5$. It also shows that the same stellar populations that were elongated at birth end up symmetric about their minor axes at $z = 0$, meaning their shapes changed significantly over time. If this is right, many of the elongated galaxies seen in deep surveys are likely ordinary young Milky Way progenitors caught in a fleeting configuration.

What carries the argument

The paper's central tool is the reduced-mass eigentensor, an iteratively computed shape tensor that weights each star particle by the inverse square of its elliptical radius relative to the current best-fit ellipsoid. Diagonalizing it gives axis lengths $A \ge B \ge C$, and the ratios $C/A$ and $B/A$ classify galaxies as disky, spheroidal, or elongated. This tool matters because it lets the authors measure shapes of the same stellar cohort both at formation and at $z = 0$, and because it allows luminosity-weighted shapes to be compared directly to observed galaxy populations.

What would settle it

Forward-model the simulated galaxies at $z = 1$--$4$ through dust attenuation and random projection, run the resulting mock images through the same two-dimensional shape-fitting pipeline used on JWST/HST data, and compare the mock elongated fraction with the observed one; if the mock fraction is much lower than $25$--$45\%$ or fails to reproduce the observed redshift trend, the central 'roughly consistent' comparison fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Every one of the thirteen simulated Milky Way-mass progenitors passes through phases when its stars are arranged in an elongated configuration, and at $z = 0.5$--$8.5$ some $25$--$45\%$ of the population has elongated luminosity-weighted shapes at any given snapshot. The shape is not stable: the same single-age stellar populations that formed in elongated or triaxial configurations at early times are, at $z = 0$, members of thin disks, thick disks, or flattened spheroids that are all symmetric about the minor axis, with $B/A \sim 0.9$. The paper reads this as evidence that the elongated galaxies observed in the early universe are statistically common but transient, and that some of them may evolve into present-day Milky Way-like disk galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison between simulated and observed elongated fractions assumes that the luminosity-weighted 3D shapes measured from star particles inside $0.1\,r_{\rm vir}$, without dust, projection, or selection effects, can stand in for the 2D projected shapes that JWST/HST actually measure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $z \simeq 0.5$--$8.5$, roughly one-quarter to nearly half of Milky Way-mass progenitors should appear elongated at any given time, so deep surveys should expect many pickle-shaped galaxies at these masses and redshifts.
  • An individual high-redshift elongated galaxy is not necessarily a rare or exotic object; if it is a Milky Way progenitor, it can later settle into a disk, so its present-day descendant should be a flattened, minor-axis-symmetric spheroid rather than an elongated structure.
  • Present-day roundness of old stellar populations does not imply they formed round: the same stars were often elongated at birth, so galactic archaeology needs to account for shape relaxation over cosmic time.
  • Because the single $z = 0$ elongated galaxy in the sample is undergoing a late merger, and because elongated phases do not track dark-matter halo shape, mergers or merger-driven accretion are a plausible, but not proven, driver of the elongated phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: if the elongated phase is transient and common, integral-field spectroscopy of high-$z$ elongated galaxies should reveal velocity-dispersion anisotropy aligned with the major axis, as the paper reports for its simulated galaxies.
  • A direct forward-modeling test with dust, projection, and selection effects would put the paper's 'roughly consistent' comparison on firmer ground, since the current comparison uses quasi-observable 3D shapes rather than mock 2D images.
  • If the elongated phase tracks merger or filamentary accretion activity, the observed fraction of elongated galaxies at fixed mass and redshift could serve as a statistical tracer of merger activity in the early universe.
  • The paper's result implies that the Milky Way's oldest stars, now sitting in a minor-axis-symmetric spheroid, may preserve faint relics of an elongated formation phase in their orbital anisotropy, a signature that could be searched for in high-precision stellar kinematics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the 3D shape evolution of thirteen Milky Way-mass galaxies from the FIRE-2 zoom-in simulations. It uses an iterated reduced-mass eigentensor with r^{-2}_{ell} weighting (Eq. 1) measured within 0.1 rvir, classifies shapes as elongated, disky, or spheroidal following Zhang et al. (2019), and tracks main progenitors from z=7 to z=0. Shapes are measured for all stars, young stars (<500 Myr), g-band luminosity-weighted stars, and dark matter, and are complemented by an 'archaeological' decomposition of present-day stars in 500 Myr age bins. The central findings are that all progenitors pass through elongated 'pickle' phases that oscillate with spheroidal phases on Gyr timescales; that these phases are transitory, since the same stellar populations appear axisymmetric about their minor axes at z=0; that z=0 stars separate into thin-disk, thick-disk, and flattened-spheroid components; and that the simulated elongated fraction is claimed to be roughly consistent with observed JWST/HST elongated fractions, supporting the interpretation that observed high-redshift elongated galaxies are statistically common but transitory phases.

Significance. If the simulation-side results are correct, the paper offers a coherent resolution to a current observational puzzle: the numerous 'pickle'-shaped galaxies at z>0.5 are not a stable, distinct class of objects but an ordinary, recurrent phase in Milky Way-mass assembly. The paper has genuine strengths: the shape estimator is standard and explicitly defined; Section 2.4 provides a particle-count convergence test that motivates the 500 Myr young-star cutoff; the results for all 13 galaxies are documented in Appendix B; and Section 2.3 explicitly flags the quasi-observable nature of the luminosity-weighted shapes. The strongest evidence is internal: Figures 2-4 show the same stellar population evolving from elongated at formation to axisymmetric at z=0, which directly supports the transitory-phase claim without recourse to observed data. The population-level comparison to observations is not on the same footing: it lacks forward modeling of projection and dust, the abstract-quoted fractions are not derived in the body, and the abstract asserts measurements (velocity dispersion anisotropy, dark-matter fraction non-correlation) that do not appear in the text.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract states that 25-45% of the population have elongated luminosity-weighted shapes at any given time at z=0.5-8.5, but this statistic is never derived in the body: there is no figure or table of the elongated fraction versus redshift, no statement of how the fraction is computed (per snapshot or averaged), and no uncertainty estimate despite the small sample of 13 galaxies with time-correlated snapshots. In addition, the quoted range extends to z=8.5, while Section 2.3 states that measurements cover 18 snapshots 'spaced approximately 750 Myr apart, starting from z=7 to z=0.' Please add a derivation of the elongated fraction as a function of redshift with binomial or bootstrap uncertainties, and reconcile the redshift ranges.
  2. [Section 4 (Pandya et al. comparison)] The claim that the simulated elongated fraction is 'roughly consistent' with observations compares the 3D reduced-mass eigentensor shapes of Eq. (1), measured within 0.1 rvir with r^{-2}_{ell} weighting and no projection, to observed 2D projected light distributions affected by dust, PSF, and selection effects. Section 2.3 acknowledges this ('This is a quasi-observable shape measurement; however, measurements of observed galaxies are projected and affected by dust and other factors'), but Section 4 and the abstract convert it into a quantitative consistency statement that supports the interpretive claim that observed JWST/HST elongated galaxies are transitory phases. That interpretation is load-bearing and is not supported without forward-modeled mock observations (projection, dust, selection) or, at minimum, an explicit statement that the comparison is illustrative rather than quantitative. Please either add forward modeling or soften the claim.
  3. [Abstract vs. body] The abstract claims that 'during their transient elongated phases, our galaxies have anisotropic velocity dispersion ellipsoids directed along their spatial major axis' and that galaxy shapes 'do not correlate with their dark matter fraction nor with the shapes and orientations of their underlying dark matter halos.' Neither measurement appears in the paper: no velocity dispersion tensor is defined or computed, no dark matter fraction is computed, and halo-stellar alignment is not tested. Section 3.2 reports only visual inspection of axis ratios in Figure 5, and Section 4 explicitly defers the velocity-dispersion anisotropic-support question to future work ('It will be interesting to ask whether this is ubiquitous among our systems'). Please either add these measurements or remove the unsupported claims from the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2 / Figure 1] The boundaries separating the elongated, disky, and spheroidal regions are shown only graphically in Figure 1; please state the numerical thresholds on C/A and B/A in the text or caption so that the classification is reproducible.
  2. [Section 3.2] The statement that stellar and dark-matter elongation do not correlate is based on visual inspection of the bottom row of Figure 5; a Spearman rank correlation coefficient between stellar B/A and dark-matter B/A, with a significance estimate, would make the claim testable and would better justify the abstract's stronger wording.
  3. [Section 2.3] The 500 Myr young-star cutoff is motivated by the 1000-particle convergence limit in Section 2.4; the paper should state explicitly in the main text that this is a resolution-driven choice rather than a physically special timescale, so that readers do not interpret 500 Myr as physically significant.
  4. [Section 4] The text should state explicitly whether m12z, the merging galaxy that is excluded from the 'Milky Way analogs' label, is included in the population-level statements and in the elongated fractions quoted in the abstract.
  5. [Section 2.4] The convergence test is performed on z=0 galaxies; a sentence explaining why the 1000-particle threshold is assumed to apply at high redshift, where the spatial and dynamical distribution of star particles is different, would strengthen the methodology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the shape-evolution claims are derived from independent FIRE-2 simulations and a standard shape tensor, not from fitted inputs or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The central claims—that FIRE-2 Milky Way-mass progenitors pass through elongated phases and that these phases are transient—are simulation results obtained by applying a reduced-mass eigentensor (Equation 1) to star particles in 13 zoom simulations. No parameter is fitted to the observed elongated fractions before the comparison; the simulated fractions (e.g., ~25–45%) are computed from measured 3D axis ratios and a classification scheme adopted from Zhang et al. (2019). The method citations to Chua et al. (2019) and Klein et al. (2025) are standard shape-measurement references; Klein et al. is co-authored by a current author but is not invoked to prove the transience claim, and the later comparison to Klein et al. (2025) FIREbox results is corroborative rather than load-bearing. The paper explicitly flags the quasi-observable nature of its luminosity-weighted shapes in Section 2.3: 'This is a quasi-observable shape measurement; however, measurements of observed galaxies are projected and affected by dust and other factors.' That is a validity limitation for the JWST/HST comparison, but not a circularity: the simulated shapes are not defined in terms of the observed projected shapes, nor is any observed quantity used to construct the simulation-based claim. The Section 4 statement that simulated elongated fractions are 'roughly consistent' with observations is an unsmoothed comparison, not a fit. Therefore, no step in the derivation reduces to its own input, and the paper's conclusions are not forced by self-citation or by definition.

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

No new physical entities are introduced; 'pickle' is a descriptive label. The central claim rests on simulation fidelity, the shape estimator, progenitor tracking, and a quasi-observable luminosity proxy with an acknowledged projection/dust caveat.

free parameters (3)
  • Young-star age cutoff = 500 Myr
    Chosen in Section 2.4 so every snapshot retains at least 1,000 star particles; affects which populations count as 'young' and how elongated fractions are computed.
  • Shape measurement aperture = 0.1 rvir
    Chosen in Section 2.2 as the standard volume for stellar shape measurement; larger apertures (for example rvir for dark matter) give different shapes.
  • Ellipsoid mass retention = 90%
    In Section 2.2, the ellipsoid is scaled until 90% of the original mass is retained; the retained fraction is a tunable choice that influences the final axis ratios.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FIRE-2 physics prescriptions reproduce the relevant baryonic physics for Milky Way-mass galaxy assembly.
    Invoked in Section 2.1; if the feedback and star formation model is wrong in the relevant regime, the prevalence and duration of elongated phases could be biased.
  • domain assumption The reduced mass eigentensor with 90% mass retention faithfully represents the galaxy's 3D shape.
    Invoked in Section 2.2; all classification into elongated, disky, and spheroidal categories depends on this estimator.
  • domain assumption Main-progenitor tracking correctly identifies the physical descendants of simulated star particles from formation to z=0.
    Invoked in Sections 2.3 and 3.1; the claim that old and intermediate-age populations changed shape significantly over time relies on this mapping.
  • domain assumption g-band luminosity weighting without dust or projection is an adequate quasi-observable proxy for the intrinsic shapes of observed high-redshift galaxies.
    Invoked in Section 2.3 with a stated caveat; the comparison to observed JWST/HST elongated fractions in Section 4 depends on this proxy.
  • domain assumption The observed intrinsic shape distributions from van der Wel et al. 2014 and Pandya et al. 2024 are correct.
    Invoked in Section 1; the statement that simulated elongated fractions are 'roughly consistent' with observations assumes these observational inferences are reliable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pickles on FIRE: The 3D Shape Evolution of Simulated Milky Way-Mass Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CKV3B4MY

@misc{pith2026250608508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pickles on FIRE: The 3D Shape Evolution of Simulated Milky Way-Mass Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CKV3B4MY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08508}
}
abstract

We use reduced-mass eigentensors to quantify the 3D ellipsoidal shape evolution of thirteen Milky Way-mass galaxies simulated using zoom simulations with FIRE-2 physics; all but one form disks at $z=0$. We find that all of our Milky Way progenitors go through phases when they are elongated. They often oscillate between spheroidal and elongated shapes in the early Universe over billion-year timescales, with $\sim 25-45\%$ of the population having elongated luminosity-weighted shapes at any given time at $z = 0.5-8.5$. In contrast, all stellar populations in our $z=0$ Milky Way analogs are symmetric about their minor axes at $z=0$, even though the old and intermediate-age stellar populations were often arranged in the shape of elongated pickles or triaxial spheroids at the time they formed meaning these populations changed shape significantly over time. During their transient elongated phases, our galaxies have anisotropic velocity dispersion ellipsoids directed along their spatial major axis; however, their shapes {\em do not} correlate with their dark matter fraction nor with the shapes and orientations of their underlying dark matter halos. We find that when treated as a population, the fraction of our galaxy progenitors that are elongated at $z>0.5$ is roughly consistent with what is observed for systems of the same mass and redshift. Our results suggest that observed elongated galaxies seen in the early Universe with JWST and HST are not stable structures, but rather transitory phases that are nevertheless statistically common. Some of these observed objects may evolve into Milky Way-like galaxies at $z=0$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08508 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A sample of ellipsoids that demonstrate the mean￾ing of our C/A and B/A parameter space, where C < B < A. The defined regions for disky, spheroidal, and elongated shapes are indicated in the figure. produces a new set of principal axes A⃗′ , B⃗ ′ , C⃗ ′ . After the first iteration, we scale the lengths of the axes by a factor of (A′B′C ′/ABC) 1/3 to preserve volume. This process is repeated until the axis ratios B/A… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Shapes of Thelma’s stellar populations at for￾mation (open) and at z = 0 (filled), binned by age, in the parameter space introduced in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Density projections of stellar populations younger than 500 Myr near their times of formation (top set) and at z = 0 (bottom set). In the top set of images, we show middle and short-axis projections of young stars at at z = 4.0 (left, 12.2 Gyr lookback), z = 0.7 (middle, 6.4 Gyr lookback), and z = 0.1 (bottom, 1.3 Gyr lookback). The bottom set of images shows the same stars, now at z = 0, along the same respective a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Shape evolution for one example Milky Way–like galaxy, Thelma. Each panel presents axis ratios as defined in §2.2 broken into the shape categories defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 3D shape evolution of the main progenitors of all of our FIRE-2 galaxies with Milky Way masses at z = 0. Each panel uses the classification scheme introduced in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The mass of the Milky Way from outer halo stars measured by DESI DR1

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    DESI DR1 blue horizontal-branch and RR Lyrae stars give a Milky Way mass of about 0.57e12 Msun within 100 kpc and a virial mass of about 0.8e12 Msun.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A., Primack, J

    Allgood, B., Flores, R. A., Primack, J. R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1781, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10094.x

    arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    E., et al

    Arora, A., Garavito-Camargo, N., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20133, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.20133

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.20133 2025

  3. [3]

    2005, ApJ, 627, 647, doi: 10.1086/430397

    Bailin, J., & Steinmetz, M. 2005, ApJ, 627, 647, doi: 10.1086/430397

    doi:10.1086/430397 2005

  4. [4]

    Binggeli, B., & Popescu, C. C. 1995, A&A, 298, 63

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    1978, MNRAS, 183, 779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.4.779

    Binney, J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.4.779

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/183.4.779 1978

  6. [6]

    1981, MNRAS, 194, 679, doi: 10.1093/mnras/194.3.679

    Binney, J., & de Vaucouleurs, G. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 679, doi: 10.1093/mnras/194.3.679

    doi:10.1093/mnras/194.3.679 1981

  7. [7]

    R., Faber, S

    Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Primack, J. R., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Nature, 311, 517, doi: 10.1038/311517a0

    doi:10.1038/311517a0 1984

  8. [8]

    F., et al

    Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 30, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/30

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/1/30 2016

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    L., & Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80, doi: 10.1086/305262

    1998 doi

  2. [10]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa671c

    Burkert, A. 2017, ApJ, 838, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa671c

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 408, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1603

    Ceverino, D., Primack, J., & Dekel, A. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 408, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1603

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3531

    Hernquist, L. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3531

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Conselice, C. J. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037 de Nicola, S., Saglia, R. P., Thomas, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7463

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Coe, D. A. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 658, 763, doi: 10.1086/511058

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    Schaffer, M. A. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 631, 85, doi: 10.1086/432435

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    1993, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 262, 627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.3.627 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., &

    Fasano, G., & Vio, R. 1993, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 262, 627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.3.627 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., &

    1993 doi

  9. [17]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 1416, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1416, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad932e

    Favaro, J., Courteau, S., Comer´ on, S., & Stone, C. 2025, ApJ, 978, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad932e

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., et al

    Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L107, doi: 10.1086/378578 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Bouch´ e, N., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 706, 1364, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1364

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    S., et al

    Garrison-Kimmel, S., Wetzel, A., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1710

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    F., Wetzel, A., et al

    Garrison-Kimmel, S., Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., et al. 2019a, MNRAS, 487, 1380, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1317

    doi

  14. [22]

    F., et al

    Garrison-Kimmel, S., Wetzel, A., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2019b, MNRAS, 489, 4574, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2507

    doi

  15. [23]

    D., Katz, D., & G´ omez, A

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Katz, D., & G´ omez, A. 2013, A&A, 560, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321397

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3306

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Hubble, E. P. 1926, ApJ, 64, 321, doi: 10.1086/143018

    1926 doi

  19. [27]

    1989, AJ, 97, 1600, doi: 10.1086/115101 Juri´ c, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Brooks, A., et al

    Ichikawa, S.-I. 1989, AJ, 97, 1600, doi: 10.1086/115101 Juri´ c, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Brooks, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 864, doi: 10.1086/523619

    1989 doi

  20. [28]

    E., Huang, S., et al

    Kado-Fong, E., Greene, J. E., Huang, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abacc2

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    M., et al

    Keith, B., Munshi, F., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16317, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16317

    2025 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    S., Xia, L., et al

    Klein, C., Bullock, J. S., Xia, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.05612, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.05612

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    G., Maddox, S

    Lambas, D. G., Maddox, S. J., & Loveday, J. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/258.2.404

    1992 doi

  24. [32]

    1996, ApJ, 471, 82, doi: 10.1086/177955

    Merritt, D., & Valluri, M. 1996, ApJ, 471, 82, doi: 10.1086/177955

    1996 doi

  25. [33]

    D., & Strauss, M

    Padilla, N. D., & Strauss, M. A. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 388, 1321, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13499.x

    2008

  26. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1a13

    Pandya, V., Zhang, H., Huertas-Company, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1a13

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab365a

    Putko, J., S´ anchez Almeida, J., Mu˜ noz-Tu˜ n´ on, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab365a

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    C., et al

    Ravindranath, S., Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 963, doi: 10.1086/507016

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    H., et al

    Rong, Y., Dong, X.-Y., Puzia, T. H., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba74a

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Kaisina, E. I. 2013, MNRAS, 436, L104, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt123

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    Ryden, B. S. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 601, 214, doi: 10.1086/380809

    2004 doi

  32. [40]

    C., & Stokes, N

    Sandage, A., Freeman, K. C., & Stokes, N. R. 1970, ApJ, 160, 831, doi: 10.1086/150475 19

    1970 doi

  33. [41]

    S., & Dav´ e, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 5404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2586

    Sotillo-Ramos, D., Pillepich, A., Donnari, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2586

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature03597

    2005 doi

  36. [44]

    S., et al

    Sung, E.-C., Han, C., Ryden, B. S., et al. 1998, ApJ, 505, 199, doi: 10.1086/306166

    1998 doi

  37. [45]

    M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Dekel, A., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 2790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw131

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    Thob, A. C. R., Crain, R. A., McCarthy, I. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz448

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 4477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw606

    Tomassetti, M., Dekel, A., Mandelker, N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 4477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw606

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., & Seidel, B

    Valenzuela, L. M., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., & Seidel, B. A. 2024, A&A, 690, A206, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450184 van der Wel, A., Chang, Y.-Y., Bell, E. F., et al. 2014, ApJL, 792, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/1/L6

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 2389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2069

    Vargya, D., Sanderson, R., Sameie, O., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2069

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad05bb

    Vega-Ferrero, J., Huertas-Company, M., Costantin, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad05bb

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    A., & Ryden, B

    Vincent, R. A., & Ryden, B. S. 2005, ApJ, 623, 137, doi: 10.1086/428765

    2005 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Hopkins, P

    Wetzel, A. R., Hopkins, P. F., Kim, J.-h., et al. 2016, ApJL, 827, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L23

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 183, 341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    1978 doi

  46. [54]

    2011, ApJ, 736, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/92

    Yuma, S., Ohta, K., Yabe, K., Kajisawa, M., & Ichikawa, T. 2011, ApJ, 736, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/92

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    R., Faber, S

    Zhang, H., Primack, J. R., Faber, S. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5170, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz339

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1083

    Zhang, J., Wuyts, S., Witten, C., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1083

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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