Timing Mass of the Local Group

Louis E. Strigari

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Timing Mass of the Local Group

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that new M31 proper-motion data and the cosmological constant raise the Local Group timing mass to about $5.8\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$, above the sum of the Milky Way and M31 halo masses.

desk verdict A useful, well-written review of the Local Group timing argument, but the abstract's headline 5.8e12 mass overstates the discrepancy because it quotes the raw estimator rather than the simulation-calibrated range the same review discusses. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18061 v1 pith:VCHS33O7 submitted 2025-08-25 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAhep-ph

Louis E. Strigari This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-ph

keywords LocalGrouptimingargumentM31propermotionMilkyWaymassAndromedadarkmattercosmologicalconstantgalaxydynamics

topics Dark Matter

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 review argues that the classic Local Group timing argument, updated with the Gaia EDR3 proper motion of M31 and a cosmological-constant term in the orbital equations, puts the total mass of the Local Group at roughly $5.8\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$, about 40% higher than the value for a purely radial orbit. The implied timing mass is larger than the directly measured sum of the Milky Way and M31 halo masses ($2.5\pm0.8\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$) and larger than independent estimates from the local Hubble flow and virial analyses. The review treats this gap as the central open problem: either the two dominant halos hide roughly twice the mass that tracer kinematics reveal, or the timing argument's isolated two-body, first-approach model is biased high. It argues that better proper-motion data, LMC modeling, and simulation calibration can decide between these options.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the timing mass itself, derived from a two-body model of the Milky Way and M31 as point masses moving under the Kepler potential plus a cosmological-constant term, with the effective potential per reduced mass $V_{\mathrm{eff}}=-GM/r+L^2/(2r^2)-\tfrac{1}{2}\Omega_\Lambda H_0^2 r^2$ and the orbit equation $\ddot r=-GM/r^2+L^2/r^3+\Omega_\Lambda H_0^2 r$. The boundary condition $r\to0$ as $t\to0$ (the galaxies were coincident at the Big Bang) turns the observed present-day separation, radial velocity, and tangential velocity into a total mass. Nonzero angular momentum $L$ from the measured tangential velocity raises the inferred mass by creating a pericenter, and the repulsive $\Lambda$ term raises it further by opposing the Keplerian attraction; both effects are what push the EDR3-based estimate to $\sim5.8\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$.

What would settle it

A decisive test is astrometric: a future M31 proper-motion measurement (for example from Gaia DR4) that returns a tangential velocity consistent with the HST value of about 55 km/s rather than the EDR3 value near 78 km/s would lower the timing mass from $5.8\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ toward $4.8\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$, shrinking the gap. Conversely, if the local-Hubble-flow mass stays near $2.3\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ while the timing mass remains above $5\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$, the isolated first-approach two-body assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the timing mass of the Local Group has grown with the data: a purely radial orbit with the measured radial velocity gives $4.2\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$, while adding the Gaia EDR3 tangential velocity of M31 gives $M^{(\mathrm{EDR3})}_{\mathrm{TM}}=(5.8\pm0.7)\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$, and the cosmological-constant term shifts the orbit mildly in the same direction. The paper then compares this with the sum of the individual halo masses, $M_{\mathrm{MW}}+M_{\mathrm{M31}}=(2.5\pm0.8)\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$, and with a weighted average of all Local Group mass estimates, $M_{\mathrm{LG}}=(3.3\pm0.2)\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$, and finds that the timing mass sits above both. The author's conclusion is not that the timing argument should be abandoned but that the origin of this gap is unresolved, with plausible contributors including the LMC's reflex motion, the definition of halo mass, external tides imparting angular momentum, and the inclusion of dark energy.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on treating the Milky Way and M31 as two isolated point masses on their first approach, with no significant third-body perturbations, so that their present separation, radial velocity, and tangential velocity fix the Local Group mass through conserved energy and angular momentum; if the LMC, external tides, mergers, or dynamical friction have altered the orbit, the inferred mass is wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the EDR3 tangential velocity stands, the Local Group is roughly twice as massive as the sum of its two dominant halos, so the missing mass must live outside the virial regions of the Milky Way and M31 or the timing model is biased.
Including the cosmological constant raises the timing mass by about 13% and cannot be omitted when comparing to simulation-calibrated masses.
The LMC-induced travel velocity shifts the Milky Way-M31 relative velocity and changes the inferred mass; correcting for it moves the EDR3 measurement in the direction of lower bias, and future M33 modeling may do the same for M31.
Simulation calibrations indicate the timing mass is unbiased in a matter-dominated universe but overestimates the true mass when $\Lambda$ is included, so the gap is partly a dark-energy effect rather than purely a kinematic one.
Future Gaia DR4/DR5 proper motions of M31 and of outer Local Group members will discriminate between direct and indirect tangential-velocity measurements and determine whether the Local Group angular momentum aligns with the surrounding large-scale structure.

Reading between the lines

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

If independent mass estimates near $2.3\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ (turnaround radius) are correct, the timing argument's failure would imply that mass is distributed outside the traditional halos, for example in a diffuse dark-matter component on megaparsec scales; this is testable with satellite kinematics around the Local Group boundary.
The same gap could be turned into a local probe of cosmology: because the timing mass is sensitive to $\Omega_\Lambda$ and $H_0$ through the orbit equation, a precisely known Local Group mass would constrain local values of these parameters more tightly than the CMB does on this scale.
The method transfers to other nearby pairs such as M33-M31 or the Centaurus A group; if those pairs show the same systematic overestimate relative to halo-mass sums, the bias is intrinsic to the timing argument rather than specific to the Milky Way-M31 system.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a genuinely useful review of the Local Group timing argument, but the abstract overstates the headline mass because it quotes the raw 5.8e12 timing value without applying the simulation calibrations that the same review discusses.

The paper's real contribution is organizational, which is what an invited review should do. It gives a clean derivation of the two-body timing equations (Section 4), a careful summary of the HST and Gaia M31 proper motion measurements and their systematics (Table 1, Section 3), and an even-handed account of the LMC travel-velocity correction. The discussion of mass estimators for the MW, M31, and the LG as a whole (Sections 5–6) is the most current synthesis I know of, and the figure comparing timing, virial, least-action, LHF, and simulation-based estimates is valuable. The math in the orbit section is correct, and the review is explicit about the main assumptions: isolated two-body, first approach, point masses.

The soft spot is real but moderate. Equation 23 gives the uncalibrated timing mass from EDR3 kinematics as (5.8±0.7)e12 Msun. The same review reports, in Section 6.2, that simulations find this estimator overestimates the true mass by factors around 1.3–1.6 (Gonzalez, Kravtsov & Gnedin 2014), and that including Lambda biases it high by ~13% (Hartl & Strigari 2022; Partridge et al. 2013). Dividing 5.8 by 1.3–1.6 gives roughly 3.6–4.5e12, which is much closer to the independent estimates of ~3e12 and to the sum of MW+M31 masses. The abstract and Section 8.1 do acknowledge that timing mass estimates tend to be larger, but the abstract's headline '~5e12' is the raw number, so a casual reader will come away thinking the discrepancy is bigger than the review's own calibration says. The stress-test note is right about that.

Minor quibbles: the weighted mean in Figure 7 mixes estimators with quite different priors, and the review doesn't attempt a full error budget for the final comparison. That is acceptable for a review, but it means the '3.3±0.2' should not be read as a precision measurement. The citation pattern is healthy; the self-citations (Hartl & Strigari 2022, Benisty et al. 2022) are directly relevant and not inflated.

Who is this for: anyone working on Local Group dynamics, M31 kinematics, or near-field cosmology. It is not a research claim, but it is the best current map of the topic. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: accept after the author makes the abstract and Section 8.1 either quote a calibrated range or explicitly flag that the raw timing mass is not the final estimate.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This is a review article in the Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics that revisits the classic Kahn-Woltjer timing argument for the Local Group (LG) in light of new astrometric measurements, the cosmological constant, the LMC's dynamical influence, and cosmological simulations. The paper presents the standard two-body timing equations (Section 4), derives a central timing mass of M_TM^(EDR3) = (5.8 ± 0.7) × 10^12 Msun from the Gaia EDR3 proper motion (Eq. 23), and compares this with the sum of MW and M31 halo masses (2.5 ± 0.8 × 10^12 Msun) and with independent LG mass estimators (weighted average 3.3 ± 0.2 × 10^12 Msun in Figure 7). The abstract concludes that timing mass estimates tend to be larger than the sum of the two main halo masses and larger than independent estimators, and that future kinematics may illuminate the origin of this discrepancy.

Significance. The review is timely and comprehensive, covering the M31 proper-motion measurements, the analytic timing formalism including a cosmological constant, the masses of the MW and M31, simulation-based calibrations of the timing-mass estimator, and environmental effects. It is clearly written and the standard equations in Section 4 are correctly presented, with quantitative values that trace to cited astrometric measurements. The review honestly catalogues caveats (LMC, substructure, environment) and provides error bars for the main EDR3 value. Its main value is as an up-to-date synthesis of a long-standing problem. However, the central quantitative claim in the abstract rests on the uncalibrated timing mass, while the review's own simulation-calibration section indicates that applying those calibrations substantially reduces the discrepancy with independent mass estimates. This internal tension needs to be addressed before the abstract's conclusion can be taken at face value.

major comments (2)

[Section 4.2 (Eq. 23) and Abstract] The headline timing mass M_TM^(EDR3) = (5.8 ± 0.7) × 10^12 Msun is presented as the central result and the abstract claims that timing masses exceed independent LG mass estimators, but this value is not calibrated by the simulation-based corrections that the review itself documents in Section 6.2. There, Gonzalez, Kravtsov & Gnedin (2014) are reported as finding that the timing mass overestimates the true mass by a factor ~1.3–1.6 when tangential velocity and environmental constraints are included, and Hartl & Strigari (2022) and Partridge, Lahav & Hoffman (2013) are reported as finding a mild upward bias when the cosmological constant is included. Section 8.1 discusses the bias qualitatively but does not propagate these factors into the main comparison. Applying the review's own calibration factors to the EDR3 value yields roughly (3.6–4.5) × 10^12 Msun, which is much closer to the independent estimates of (2.8–3.3) × 10^12 Msun and materially weakens the claimed discrepancy. The review should either present a calibrated timing mass as the primary estimate or explicitly restrict the abstract's comparison to the calibrated value.
[Section 4.2 (Eq. 23)] The quoted 1σ uncertainty of ±0.7 × 10^12 Msun appears to reflect only the EDR3 tangential-velocity error. The review itself identifies several additional inputs that shift the inferred mass: the LMC-induced travel velocity (Section 3.1 and Figure 5), the assumed circular velocity of 239 km/s, the LSR velocity, and the inclusion of the cosmological constant. Without an error budget that propagates these systematics, the headline uncertainty understates the total uncertainty in the timing mass. The review should either provide a more complete error budget or explicitly label Eq. (23) as a statistical-only uncertainty.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4.2] The sentence 'with the separation minimized as t→0' is ambiguous for cases with non-zero tangential velocity, because the pericenter is then finite and the orbit must be matched to a specific initial condition; please state the initial condition more precisely or cite the exact equations from Benisty, Davis & Evans (2023) that are being used.
[Section 5.2] The sentence reporting the Erkal, Belokurov & Parkin (2020) result says 'obtain a MW mass of 10^12 Msun'; this should read 1.0 × 10^12 Msun and ideally include the uncertainty.
[Section 6.2] The statement that the timing mass overestimates the true mass by a factor ~1.3–1.6 (Gonzalez, Kravtsov & Gnedin 2014) does not specify whether that factor applies to the specific setup used in Section 4.2 (with cosmological constant and LMC travel velocity) or to a more generic configuration; clarifying this would help the reader apply the calibration.
[Throughout] There are several typographical and encoding issues, including 'Rubin, Ford & . Thonnard' in Section 1, 'Pe˜ narrubia' appearing in multiple places, 'Milenium 1' in Table 2, and the axis label 'μα * (mas yr)' in Figure 3; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: timing mass is a direct two-body inversion of external astrometry and cosmological parameters.

full rationale

The review's headline timing mass is computed by inverting the two-body orbit equations (Eqs. 14-17) with the boundary condition r -> 0 as t -> 0, using externally measured inputs: the MW-M31 relative radial velocity (-109 km/s), the Gaia EDR3 tangential velocity (Table 1 and Salomon et al. 2021), and standard cosmological parameters. The mass is the unknown solved from these equations, so it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The cosmological-constant term (Eq. 15) is a physical addition to the potential, not a result imported from the paper's own prior work. The simulation calibrations in Section 6.2, including Hartl & Strigari (2022) and Benisty et al. (2022), are used as caveats or corrections and are independent simulation analyses; they do not define the timing-mass value and are not derived from an assumption of the target mass. Section 8.1 explicitly acknowledges that the timing-mass estimator may be biased, but that is a limitation or correctness concern, not circularity. No load-bearing step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

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

The review does not fit new parameters; it adopts literature values for velocities, distances, and cosmology, and relies on the model assumptions listed. These assumptions are stated in the text, and the review discusses their possible failure modes.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption MW and M31 dominate the LG mass and define the LG barycenter.
Invoked in Section 1 and Section 2.1, 'assuming that these two galaxies dominate the mass of the LG', and used to convert OLGM kinematics to MW-M31 relative velocity via momentum conservation in Equation 9.
domain assumption The MW-M31 system behaves as two isolated point masses with conserved energy and angular momentum.
Section 4.1 sets the Kepler plus cosmological constant potentials in Equations 14-17 and neglects extended halo structure, dynamical friction, mergers, and external tides. The review later treats these as systematics.
domain assumption The pair is on first approach, with separation r tending to 0 as t tends to 0.
Section 4.2 obtains the timing mass 'with the additional assumption that r→0 as t→0'; this sets the orbital age to the Hubble time and normalizes the mass.
domain assumption OLGM population has no net streaming motion, and M31 satellites are dynamically well-mixed.
Section 3.3 assumes 'no net motion in any direction in the OLGM population'; Section 3.4 assumes satellites are 'dynamically well-mixed and gravitationally-bound'. These assumptions underpin two indirect tangential velocity estimates.
domain assumption Adopted local kinematic and cosmological inputs: v_LSR=239 km/s, the Sun's LSR velocity, Omega_Lambda=0.7, and H0=70 km/s/Mpc.
Equations 3-4 and Section 4.1 give these fixed inputs; they are literature values, not fitted here, but varying them shifts the inferred timing mass, as noted in Sections 4.2 and 7.1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Timing Mass of the Local Group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCHS33O7

@misc{pith2026250818061,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Timing Mass of the Local Group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCHS33O7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18061}
}

abstract

The classic model of the Local Group (LG) is that of two dominant constituents, the Milky Way and M31, first separating and then detaching from the Hubble flow, leading to a nearly radial approaching orbit. This simple model has been confronted by new measurements of the 3D M31 kinematics, by cosmological simulations, and by theoretical understanding of the impact of massive substructures such as the Large Magellanic Cloud. This article explores the consequences of new observations and theory on the determination of the mass and dynamics of the LG. The M31 tangential velocity measurement and contribution from the cosmological constant both increase the implied timing mass of the LG to be $\sim 5 \times 10^{12}$ M$_\odot$. Timing mass estimates for the LG tend to be larger than the sum of the Milky Way and M31 halo masses, and larger than independent LG mass estimators. Precision future kinematics have the potential to explore the origin of this difference, shed light on dark matter in the LG, the origin of its angular momentum, and possibly even local values of cosmological parameters.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[12]

2021.MNRAS 501:2363–2377 McConnachie AW, Ibata R, Martin N, Ferguson AMN, Collins M, et al

AJ 144:4 McConnachie AW, Higgs CR, Thomas GF, Venn KA, Cˆ ot´ e P, et al. 2021.MNRAS 501:2363–2377 McConnachie AW, Ibata R, Martin N, Ferguson AMN, Collins M, et al

work page 2021
[13]

JCAP 2020:056 McLeod M, Libeskind N, Lahav O, Hoffman Y

work page 2020
[18]

2023.MNRAS 526:L77–L82 Sawala T, Teeriaho M, Johansson PH

MNRAS 509:1432–1446 Sawala T, Pe˜ narrubia J, Liao S, Johansson PH. 2023.MNRAS 526:L77–L82 Sawala T, Teeriaho M, Johansson PH

work page 2023
[19]

2009.International Journal of Modern Physics D 18:173–222 Sestito F, Roediger J, Navarro JF, Jensen J, Venn KA, et al

MNRAS 448:2941–2947 Sch¨ afer BM. 2009.International Journal of Modern Physics D 18:173–222 Sestito F, Roediger J, Navarro JF, Jensen J, Venn KA, et al

work page 2009
[20]

2020.MNRAS 493:5636–5647 Tollerud EJ, Beaton RL, Geha MC, Bullock JS, Guhathakurta P, et al

A&A 546:A4 Tepper-Garc´ ıa T, Bland-Hawthorn J, Li D. 2020.MNRAS 493:5636–5647 Tollerud EJ, Beaton RL, Geha MC, Bullock JS, Guhathakurta P, et al

work page 2020
[21]

2014.Nature 513:71–73 Tully RB, Kourkchi E, Courtois HM, Anand GS, Blakeslee JP, et al

ApJ 752:45 Tully RB, Courtois H, Hoffman Y, Pomar` ede D. 2014.Nature 513:71–73 Tully RB, Kourkchi E, Courtois HM, Anand GS, Blakeslee JP, et al

work page 2014
[22]

2023.Phys Rev D 107:103003 Vogelsberger M, Marinacci F, Torrey P, Puchwein E

Galaxies 11:59 Villanueva-Domingo P, Villaescusa-Navarro F, Genel S, Angl´ es-Alc´ azar D, Hernquist L, et al. 2023.Phys Rev D 107:103003 Vogelsberger M, Marinacci F, Torrey P, Puchwein E

work page 2023
[23]

arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2401.14458 Watkins LL, van der Marel RP, Sohn ST, Evans NW

work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 24 references

[24]

Advances in Astronomy 2010:285454 Wolf J, Martinez GD, Bullock JS, Kaplinghat M, Geha M, et al

2010
[1978]

The distribution and kinematics of neutral hydrogen in spiral galaxies of various mor- phological types. Ph.D. thesis, PhD Thesis, Groningen Univ., (1978) Bovy J, Allende Prieto C, Beers TC, Bizyaev D, da Costa LN, et al

1978
[1987]

2021.MNRAS 502:5528–5545 Lopez Fune E, Salucci P, Corbelli E

ApJ 320:493–501 L´ opez P, Cautun M, Paz D, Merch´ an M, van de Weygaert R. 2021.MNRAS 502:5528–5545 Lopez Fune E, Salucci P, Corbelli E

2021
[2009]

2009.A&A 507:1271– 1276 Conroy C, Naidu RP, Garavito-Camargo N, Besla G, Zaritsky D, et al

ApJ 705:1395–1415 Chernin AD, Teerikorpi P, Valtonen MJ, Dolgachev VP, Domozhilova LM, Byrd GG. 2009.A&A 507:1271– 1276 Conroy C, Naidu RP, Garavito-Camargo N, Besla G, Zaritsky D, et al

2009
[2010]

2021.Nature Astronomy 5:251–255 Phelps S, Nusser A, Desjacques V

Nature 465:565–569 Petersen MS, Pe˜ narrubia J. 2021.Nature Astronomy 5:251–255 Phelps S, Nusser A, Desjacques V

2021
[2012]

MNRAS 425:2049–2057 Huchra JP, Macri LM, Masters KL, Jarrett TH, Berlind P, et al
[2013]

2016.MNRAS 456:L54–L58 Pe˜ narrubia J, Ma YZ, Walker MG, McConnachie A

MNRAS 435:1928–1957 Pe˜ narrubia J, G´ omez FA, Besla G, Erkal D, Ma YZ. 2016.MNRAS 456:L54–L58 Pe˜ narrubia J, Ma YZ, Walker MG, McConnachie A. 2014.MNRAS 443:2204–2222 Peebles PJE, Nusser A

1928
[2015]

2014.ApJ 793:91 Gott J

ApJ 802:128 Gonz´ alez RE, Kravtsov AV, Gnedin NY. 2014.ApJ 793:91 Gott J. R. I, Thuan TX

2014
[2016]

2020.MNRAS 494:4291–4313 Chamberlain K, Price-Whelan AM, Besla G, Cunningham EC, Garavito-Camargo N, et al

MNRAS 458:900–911 Cautun M, Ben´ ıtez-Llambay A, Deason AJ, Frenk CS, Fattahi A, et al. 2020.MNRAS 494:4291–4313 Chamberlain K, Price-Whelan AM, Besla G, Cunningham EC, Garavito-Camargo N, et al

2020
[2017]

JCAP 2017:034 McMillan PJ

2017
[2018]

[Erratum: Astron.Astrophys

A&A 616:A12. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 637, C3 (2020), Erratum: As- tron.Astrophys. 642, C1 (2020)] Hoffman Y, Metuki O, Yepes G, Gottl¨ ober S, Forero-Romero JE, et al

2020
[2020]

2015.ApJ 799:45 Forero-Romero JE, Hoffman Y, Bustamante S, Gottl¨ ober S, Yepes G

MNRAS 495:4124–4134 Forero-Romero JE, Gonz´ alez R. 2015.ApJ 799:45 Forero-Romero JE, Hoffman Y, Bustamante S, Gottl¨ ober S, Yepes G. 2013.ApJ Lett 767:L5 Forero-Romero JE, Hoffman Y, Yepes G, Gottl¨ ober S, Piontek R, et al

2015
[2021]

2019.ApJ 884:51 Garavito-Camargo N, Besla G, Laporte CFP, Price-Whelan AM, Cunningham EC, et al

A&A 649:A1 Garavito-Camargo N, Besla G, Laporte CFP, Johnston KV, G´ omez FA, Watkins LL. 2019.ApJ 884:51 Garavito-Camargo N, Besla G, Laporte CFP, Price-Whelan AM, Cunningham EC, et al

2019
[2022]

2014.MNRAS 441:3359–3374 Einasto J, Lynden-Bell D

MNRAS 516:4576–4584 Dutton AA, Macci` o AV. 2014.MNRAS 441:3359–3374 Einasto J, Lynden-Bell D

2014
[2023]

arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2305.03293 Bland-Hawthorn J, Gerhard O
[2024]

arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2408.00064 Sawala T, McAlpine S, Jasche J, Lavaux G, Jenkins A, et al

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [12]

2021.MNRAS 501:2363–2377 McConnachie AW, Ibata R, Martin N, Ferguson AMN, Collins M, et al

AJ 144:4 McConnachie AW, Higgs CR, Thomas GF, Venn KA, Cˆ ot´ e P, et al. 2021.MNRAS 501:2363–2377 McConnachie AW, Ibata R, Martin N, Ferguson AMN, Collins M, et al

work page 2021

[2] [13]

JCAP 2020:056 McLeod M, Libeskind N, Lahav O, Hoffman Y

work page 2020

[3] [18]

2023.MNRAS 526:L77–L82 Sawala T, Teeriaho M, Johansson PH

MNRAS 509:1432–1446 Sawala T, Pe˜ narrubia J, Liao S, Johansson PH. 2023.MNRAS 526:L77–L82 Sawala T, Teeriaho M, Johansson PH

work page 2023

[4] [19]

2009.International Journal of Modern Physics D 18:173–222 Sestito F, Roediger J, Navarro JF, Jensen J, Venn KA, et al

MNRAS 448:2941–2947 Sch¨ afer BM. 2009.International Journal of Modern Physics D 18:173–222 Sestito F, Roediger J, Navarro JF, Jensen J, Venn KA, et al

work page 2009

[5] [20]

2020.MNRAS 493:5636–5647 Tollerud EJ, Beaton RL, Geha MC, Bullock JS, Guhathakurta P, et al

A&A 546:A4 Tepper-Garc´ ıa T, Bland-Hawthorn J, Li D. 2020.MNRAS 493:5636–5647 Tollerud EJ, Beaton RL, Geha MC, Bullock JS, Guhathakurta P, et al

work page 2020

[6] [21]

2014.Nature 513:71–73 Tully RB, Kourkchi E, Courtois HM, Anand GS, Blakeslee JP, et al

ApJ 752:45 Tully RB, Courtois H, Hoffman Y, Pomar` ede D. 2014.Nature 513:71–73 Tully RB, Kourkchi E, Courtois HM, Anand GS, Blakeslee JP, et al

work page 2014

[7] [22]

2023.Phys Rev D 107:103003 Vogelsberger M, Marinacci F, Torrey P, Puchwein E

Galaxies 11:59 Villanueva-Domingo P, Villaescusa-Navarro F, Genel S, Angl´ es-Alc´ azar D, Hernquist L, et al. 2023.Phys Rev D 107:103003 Vogelsberger M, Marinacci F, Torrey P, Puchwein E

work page 2023

[8] [23]

arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2401.14458 Watkins LL, van der Marel RP, Sohn ST, Evans NW

work page Pith review arXiv