Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 146 references

The Seven Dwarfs illuminated. The impact of radiation on dwarf galaxies and their circumgalactic medium

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding on-the-fly radiative transfer to the identical simulation setup produces eight additional ultra-faint dwarf galaxies and shrinks dark-matter cores by a factor of 2–3.

desk verdict A clean RT-vs-no-RT differential comparison of the same dwarf ICs; the eight new UFDs rest on a delayed box-edge UVB, but the smaller DM cores and CGM ion predictions deserve serious follow-up. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19396 v1 pith:JGKEPHJX submitted 2025-08-26 astro-ph.GA

Bernhard Baumschlager , Sijing Shen , James W. Wadsley , Benjamin Keller , Robert Wissing , Lucio Mayer , Piero Madau , Ferah Munshi
show 1 more author
Alyson Brooks
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarfgalaxiesradiativetransferultra-faintreionisationcircumgalacticmediumdarkmattercoressupernovafeedbackcosmologicalzoom-insimulation
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 radiation is a first-order driver of dwarf-galaxy properties, not a correction. Starting from the same initial conditions, resolution, and supernova-feedback model as earlier no-radiative-transfer runs, the authors add on-the-fly radiative transfer and find that the simulation now forms eight additional ultra-faint dwarf galaxies—objects with stellar masses around 10^4 to a few 10^5 solar masses and only ancient stellar populations—that were absent before. These galaxies form before and during reionisation and are quenched by z ≈ 3–4, when the ionising background finally reaches the volume. The same radiative feedback suppresses star formation in the two brighter dwarfs, making it less bursty, and shrinks their dark-matter cores by a factor of two to three, to about one kiloparsec, which is closer to observational estimates. If correct, the paper establishes that the local timing of reionisation can decide whether an ultra-faint dwarf forms at all, and that radiative feedback must be included when interpreting dwarf dark-matter cores and circumgalactic-medium observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the on-the-fly radiative transfer solver embedded in the hydrodynamic simulation: a tree-based reverse ray tracing algorithm that groups gas into tree cells and casts rays along angular cones, with stellar and background spectra reconstructed by a piece-wise power-law method. Each stellar particle contributes age-dependent ionising and photodissociating radiation, while the cosmic ultraviolet background enters through 128 background sources placed on a sphere at the box edge with a redshift-dependent intensity. The key work this machinery does is to make reionisation a propagating front rather than an instantaneous switch: the ionising background reaches the galaxy-f

What would settle it

Run the same simulation with the ultraviolet background switched on uniformly across the whole volume at the standard reionisation epoch (complete by z≈6) and check whether the eight quenched dwarfs, Dopey, Grumpy, and qDG1–qDG8, still form and retain old stellar populations; the paper's mechanism predicts they would not. Observationally, a falsifying signal would be ultra-faint dwarfs whose ancient star formation cannot be reconciled with a late (z≈3–4) reionisation in their local environment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a controlled before/after comparison: with the identical initial conditions and identical supernova-feedback physics, turning on on-the-fly radiative transfer creates a population of eight quenched dwarf galaxies (qDG1–qDG8) that do not exist in the no-RT runs, and simultaneously changes the two most massive dwarfs. The new dwarfs have halo masses from roughly 10^6 to a few 10^8 solar masses at z=0 (with larger pre-infall peaks), stellar masses from about 10^4 to several 10^5 solar masses, and purely old stellar populations formed between reionisation-era redshifts and z ≈ 3–4. The reason they form is the finite travel time of the reionisati

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ultraviolet background is represented by sources at the edge of the simulation box, so that reionisation reaches the galaxy-forming region only by z≈3–4; the eight new ultra-faint dwarfs are attributed to exactly this delay, so if the delay is an artifact of the box-edge geometry, the headline population would likely not form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simulations without on-the-fly radiative transfer can miss an entire population of ultra-faint dwarf galaxies: the eight new quenched dwarfs appear solely because the UVB arrives late and lets small halos form stars before reionisation completes.
  • Dark-matter core sizes are sensitive to radiative feedback, not just to supernova feedback; ignoring radiation can overproduce cored profiles by a factor of 2–3, so comparisons with cusp-core observations need RT-based models.
  • The timing of reionisation in a local region becomes a measurable input: the star-formation histories of the faintest dwarfs—old populations quenched by z≈3–4—directly encode when the ionising background arrived.
  • Synthetic CGM observations should use the simulation's actual radiation field: assuming a uniform UVB overpredicts the CIV column density by roughly 0.5 dex because escaping hard photons ionise CIV to higher states.
  • Dwarf CGM HI is predicted to be nearly ubiquitous and feedback-insensitive at z=0, but far more abundant at z>5 in RT runs, giving a clear redshift-dependent signature for upcoming high-redshift CGM surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the delayed-reionisation result depends on placing the UVB sources at the edge of a 25 cMpc box; a smaller box or a denser source configuration would reionise the zoom region earlier and likely erase the eight new dwarfs. A control run with an instantaneously uniform UVB is the natural falsification test.
  • Editorial inference: if real ultra-faint dwarfs are reionisation relics, their scatter in star-formation histories and quenching redshifts could be used to map the inhomogeneity of reionisation on small scales, something the paper's mechanism makes plausible.
  • Editorial inference: the finding that radiative feedback weakens cusp-core transformation suggests that the observed diversity of dwarf dark-matter cores may partly reflect differences in reionisation history and ISM preconditioning, not only feedback strength or dark-matter model.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's CGM result can be extended to predict that low-ion absorbers (SiII, CII) around faint dwarfs should be confined to the ISM, while intermediate ions like CIV should be suppressed by local radiation—a pattern directly testable with stacked QSO absorption-line surveys.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulation of a group of field dwarf galaxies (the 'Seven Dwarfs', plus new satellites) run with on-the-fly radiative transfer (TREVR2 in Gasoline2) to z=0. The simulation uses the same initial conditions, resolution, and subgrid physics as the no-RT 'Superbubble' run of Mina et al. (2021), isolating the effect of radiation. The authors report: (i) formation of eight new quenched ultra-faint dwarf galaxies (qDGs) with M* ~ 1e4-1e5 Msun, mostly quenched by z~3-4; (ii) reduced star-formation burstiness and smaller DM core radii for the two most massive dwarfs (Bashful: 1.12 kpc, Doc: 0.97 kpc); (iii) ubiquitous HI in the CGM with covering fraction unity within Rvir; and (iv) systematically lower column densities of CIV, OVI, and SiII compared to the no-RT run, partly due to hard photons escaping the ISM. The paper compares its results to observed scaling relations (SMHM, mass-size, luminosity-velocity dispersion, luminosity-metallicity) and to CGM absorption surveys.

Significance. If the results are robust, this study would be a valuable demonstration that radiative transfer, including a finite-speed ionisation front, can dramatically alter the faint end of the galaxy population and the DM core properties of dwarfs, while also affecting CGM ionic abundances. The controlled comparison with identical ICs and physics is a clear strength, and the simulation evolves to z=0 with on-the-fly RT, which is rare. The paper is generally transparent about its assumptions. However, the headline new population of eight qDGs is explicitly attributed to the delayed propagation of the UVB from 128 background sources placed at the simulation box edge. Because this delay causes reionisation to complete only at z~3-4 in the zoom region, well after the standard epoch, the qDG population may be an artifact of the boundary treatment rather than a robust consequence of RT. This makes the central claim conditional on a modelling choice, and a sensitivity test with a different UVB source geometry is needed before the result can be accepted as general.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, §3.3, Fig. 3, Footnote 1; Conclusions, first bullet] The formation of the eight qDGs (and of Dopey and Grumpy) is explicitly attributed to the time delay of the UVB ionisation front propagating from 128 background sources on the 12.5 cMpc box edge. Reionisation in the zoom region completes only at z~3-4, much later than the standard cosmic epoch (z~6). The paper is transparent about this (Footnote 1), but the qDG population is a headline result and it is entirely dependent on this box-edge artifact. In a realistic UVB (e.g., uniform HM12 background, or sources distributed throughout the volume), the smallest halos would be photoheated before they can collapse, and these galaxies likely would not form, as in the Superbubble run. To support the claim that 'the inclusion of RT results in the formation of eight additional faint dwarf galaxies', the authors need to run at least one control with a different UVB source distribution or otherwise d
  2. [§3.6, Fig. 8] The metallicity distribution function of the faint galaxies (Dopey, Grumpy, qDGs) peaks at [Fe/H] ~ -3.5, about 1 dex below the observed UFD composite MDF from Fu et al. (2023), which peaks near -2.5. The paper attributes this to outdated Fe yield tables, but this is a post hoc assumption. The claim in the abstract that these galaxies are 'similar to the observed Ultra-Faint Dwarf galaxies' is weakened by this offset, especially because the paper itself notes the average [Fe/H] values for the faintest galaxies fall below the observed luminosity-metallicity relation. The alternative comparison using Z/Z⊙ (star symbols in Fig. 7) is not directly comparable to the observed [Fe/H] data and could be misleading. The authors should either provide a quantitative test with updated yields or soften the 'similar to observed UFDs' language.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Affiliations] 'University of Menphis' should be 'University of Memphis'.
  2. [Table 2] The column headers use 'viral' instead of 'virial' for mass and radius.
  3. [§3.2] The notation Mv is used both for virial mass and V-band absolute magnitude; please disambiguate (e.g., M_vir and M_V) to avoid confusion.
  4. [§5.1] In the text, fHI is defined as the HI fraction, but it is not explicitly defined before first use in the paragraph beginning 'The CGM is generally highly ionised...' Please define it there.
  5. [§5.2] The sentence 'The distribution of moderately ionised CIV is also extended but is generally below the detection limit' repeats information already given in the preceding paragraph; consider condensing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; self-citations are method reuse and the benchmark comparisons are genuine predictions.

full rationale

This is a controlled comparison between three simulations with identical initial conditions and resolution, differing only in radiative transfer (and SN feedback in the earlier Blastwave run). The headline results—eight additional quenched ultra-faint dwarfs and smaller DM cores—are outputs of the simulation, not quantities fitted to the observations they are compared against. The observed scaling relations (SMHM, mass–size, luminosity–velocity dispersion, MZR, CGM covering fractions) are external benchmarks that could have disagreed; they are genuine predictions. The main caveat, that the UVB is injected at the box edge and reionization completes only at z~3–4, is explicitly acknowledged by the authors and is the stated reason the eight quenched dwarfs form (Sec. 3.1, footnote 1; Sec. 3.2; Sec. 6, first bullet). This is a modeling/robustness limitation, not a circular step: the delayed UVB is a physical consequence of the chosen source geometry, not a parameter tuned to produce UFDs, and the paper is transparent about it. Citations to Wadsley et al. (2024) for TREVR2 and Baumschlager et al. (2024) for the spectral reconstruction are method reuse by overlapping authors, but they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as evidence for the astrophysical claims; the claims rest on the simulation outputs and external comparisons. No equation reduces to an input, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The score of 1 reflects only the presence of minor self-citations, which are not load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The central results rest on standard cosmological assumptions and on the specific UVB source placement, which is the main untested modeling choice. Subgrid parameters (SF efficiency, density threshold, UVB ramp) are held fixed between runs, so they do not affect the differential RT comparison, but they do affect the absolute predictions compared to observations.

free parameters (3)
  • Star formation efficiency epsilon_SF = 0.1
    Schmidt-law efficiency in the subgrid star formation model (Eq. 1), a hand-chosen parameter inherited from Stinson et al. 2006.
  • Star formation density threshold n_H = 100 cm^-3
    Gas density above which a particle can form stars; a subgrid model choice, not determined by the target observations.
  • UVB ramp window = z = 16 to 15.2
    The Haardt-Madau background is ramped from zero to full intensity over this interval; the onset time plausibly regulates how much early star formation occurs in the smallest halos.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Lambda-CDM cosmology with Omega_m=0.24, Omega_Lambda=0.76, h=0.73, sigma8=0.77
    Adopted cosmological framework for the initial conditions (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Kroupa IMF and Starburst99 SEDs with Padova tracks at solar metallicity
    Stellar population synthesis prescription for age-dependent spectra (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Superbubble SN feedback model (Keller et al. 2014)
    Subgrid SN feedback model, identical to the Mina et al. 2021 run, so it is held fixed in the comparison.
  • domain assumption Non-equilibrium primordial chemistry network (H, He only; no H2)
    The paper explicitly notes H2 chemistry is not followed, which can affect dwarf galaxy star formation (Section 2.3).
  • domain assumption Metal cooling from CLOUDY tables assuming photoionisation equilibrium under a uniform UVB
    The paper states this is formally inconsistent with the RT radiation field in the ISM/CGM (Section 2.3).
  • domain assumption UVB is emitted by background sources on a sphere at the box edge and propagates inward as a front
    This setup is the cause of the delayed reionisation that produces the eight new UFDs; it is not tested against a uniform-UVB or full-volume reionisation model.
  • domain assumption Infinite speed of light in TREVR2 (instantaneous RT)
    RT is solved instantaneously; there is no light-travel-time retardation across the box (footnote 1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Seven Dwarfs illuminated. The impact of radiation on dwarf galaxies and their circumgalactic medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JGKEPHJX

@misc{pith2026250819396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Seven Dwarfs illuminated. The impact of radiation on dwarf galaxies and their circumgalactic medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JGKEPHJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19396}
}
abstract

We present a high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulation of a group of field dwarf galaxies which includes on-the-fly radiative transfer (RT) and is evolved to $z=0$. Emission from stars is included according to age-dependent spectra, and a redshift-dependent UV background. The inclusion of RT results in the formation of eight additional faint dwarf galaxies with stellar masses of $10^{4}$ M$_{\odot}$ to several $10^{5}$ M$_{\odot}$ and only old stellar populations, similar to the observed Ultra-Faint Dwarf galaxies. They formed before and during cosmic reionisation and were mostly quenched by $z \sim 3-4$. The simulated galaxies follow many observed scaling relations such as the stellar mass-halo mass relation, the mass-size relation, and the luminosity-velocity dispersion relation. For the more massive dwarf galaxies, radiative feedback suppresses star formation, making it less bursty and reducing explosive outflows. This consequently reduces the dark matter core sizes by a factor of 2-3, rendering the core sizes ($\sim$ 1 kpc) more consistent with observations. The distribution of HI in the circumgalactic medium (CGM) is ubiquitous with a covering fraction of unity within $R_{vir}$, in good agreement with observations. It is rather insensitive to radiative or SN feedback at $z=0$, but at $z>5$ it is much higher in the RT simulation. In contrast, the distribution of low ions like SiII is very compact and declines sharply beyond the ISM scale. CIV and OVI have a more extended distribution, but their column densities are generally below the detection limit. Radiative feedback leads to smaller column densities of the metal ions, partly due to the reduction of total metal production, and partly because hard photons from the stellar radiation escape the ISM and further ionise the CGM. The abundance of CIV is particularly sensitive to the latter effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19396 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Projected DM (left) and gas (right) density in a cube of 500 kpc per side at z = 0, centred on Bashful, the most massive halo in the simulation volume. The circles mark the viral radii of the identified galaxies, where the solid circles indicate the positions of the original seven dwarfs and dashed lines highlight the locations of the quenched satellite galaxies of Bashful. Green lines indicate halos that formed sta… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: Stellar mass-halo mass relation. The circles show the results of this work, where the filled ones show the stellar fraction as function of halo mass at z = 0, and the open ones show results at the redshift where the halo mass is at its peak value (i.e. before tidal stripping during the accretion process). For comparison, the open crosses shows the Superbubble run from Mina et al. (2021) and the squares i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Projected HI density (ΣHI) in a cube with 1 comoving Mpc per side at z = 6 for the Superbubble (left) and RT (middle) run. Right: Density weighted radiation field at 13.6 + eV relative to the Haardt & Madau (2012) UVB flux. ratios between current and peak halo mass for these halos are less than 40%, and can be as low as 0.25-0.44% (qDG8 and qDG7, respectively). The stellar mass fraction as a function of Mvir,peak is… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The star formation rate of Bashful, Doc, Dopey and Grumpy as a function of time and redshift. The thin, dashed lines with similar colours indicate the results from the Mina et al. (2021) run which is without RT but with the same superbubble feedback [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stellar mass versus half-light radius of the simulated dwarf galaxies, compared to observations form McConnachie (2012) and Si￾mon (2019) and simulations form Jeon et al. (2017); Fitts et al. (2017); Wheeler et al. (2019); Applebaum et al. (2021); Azartash-Namin et al.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MV − σlos relation of the simulated dwarf galaxies compared to observations form McConnachie (2012) and Simon (2019) and simula￾tions from Jeon et al. (2017), Revaz & Jablonka (2018) and Applebaum et al. (2021). Solid circles show the results of the new RT run, colour …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stellar luminosity-metallicity relation of the simulated dwarf galaxies. The solid circles show the results of this work, and the coloured crosses and squares indicate the previous Seven Dwarfs sim￾ulation of Mina et al. (2021) (superbubble feedback, no RT) and Shen et…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Present-day dark matter density profile for the two most mas￾sive dwarf galaxies in the simulation, Bashful (top) and Doc (bottom). The solid lines represent the RT run, the dashed lines correspond to the Superbubble run (Mina et al. 2021), and the dotted line is the D…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of baryonic mass within the inner 500 pc of Bashful (red) and Doc (blue). Solid lines represent the RT run and dashed lines show the Superbubble run (Mina et al. 2021). only about a factor of two. In contrast, Bashful in the Superbub￾ble run show much larger…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Temporal evolution of the DM core radius for Bashful (red) and Doc (blue). Solid lines represent the RT run and dashed lines show the Superbubble run (Mina et al. 2021). The less bursty SFH and overall smaller stellar mass in the RT run results in significantly smalle…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: DM core surface density (ρ0 rc) as a function of B-band mag￾nitude of Bashful and Doc compared to disk dwarf galaxies (Karukes & Salucci 2017, gray squares), Milky Way dSphs (Salucci et al. 2012, gray triangles) and the scaling relations from Donato et al. (2009, yel￾…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Metal distribution through cosmic time from z=6 to z=0 for the RT (top), Superbubble (middle) and Blastwave (bottom) runs. Metals in the RT run are distributed over a greater area as stars are formed in a greater number of small progenitor halos. is the opposite. In o…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Column density of H i, C iv, O vi and Si ii (from left to right) at z = 0 for the RT , Superbubble and Blastwave runs (top to bottom). The black line in each panel indicates a length of 100 kpc. 5.2. Metal ion distributions The distribution of moderately ionised C iv …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Present-day column density as a function of impact parameter scaled with the virial radius of Bashful (b/Rvir) of H i, Civ, O vi and Si ii (top left to bottom right) for the RT (red), the Superbubble Mina et al. (2021) (blue), and the Blastwave Shen et al. (2014) (gre…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: 1D H i column density distributions at different redshift (z = 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.1, 0) as a function of impact parameter scaled with the virial radius of Bashful (b/Rvir. Solid and dashed lines correspond to the RT and Superbubble run, respectively [PITH_FULL_…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Column density ratios of carbon ion species between the RT run and the Superbubble simulation without RT. The black line indicates the total carbon ratio. The blue line shows the ratio of C iv calculated with CLOUDY assuming a uniform extragalactic UVB. The red line i…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

146 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Agertz, O. & Kravtsov, A. V . 2015, ApJ, 804, 18

    2015

  2. [2]

    I., et al

    Agertz, O., Pontzen, A., Read, J. I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1656

    2020

  3. [3]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    M., Christensen, C

    Applebaum, E., Brooks, A. M., Christensen, C. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 96 Arjona-Gálvez, E., Di Cintio, A., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024, A&A, 690, A286

    2021

  5. [5]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481

    2009

  6. [6]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 40

    Azartash-Namin, B., Engelhardt, A., Munshi, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 40

    2024

  7. [7]

    Baumschlager, B., Shen, S., & Wadsley, J. W. 2024, A&A, 691, A219

    2024

  8. [8]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57

    2013

Show all 146 references
  1. [9]

    K., et al

    Bordoloi, R., Tumlinson, J., Werk, J. K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 136

    2014

  2. [10]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5932

    Borrow, J., Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5932

    2023

  3. [11]

    S., Jenkins, A., et al

    Bose, S., Frenk, C. S., Jenkins, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4790

    2019

  4. [12]

    S., & Kaplinghat, M

    Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., & Kaplinghat, M. 2011, MNRAS, 415, L40

    2011

  5. [13]

    S., & Kaplinghat, M

    Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., & Kaplinghat, M. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1203

    2012

  6. [14]

    B., Di Cintio, A., Knebe, A., et al

    Brook, C. B., Di Cintio, A., Knebe, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, L14

    2014

  7. [15]

    B., Governato, F., Roškar, R., et al

    Brook, C. B., Governato, F., Roškar, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1051

    2011

  8. [16]

    Brooks, A. M. & Zolotov, A. 2014, ApJ, 786, 87

    2014

  9. [17]

    M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al

    Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 91

    2014

  10. [18]

    S., Kravtsov, A

    Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V ., & Weinberg, D. H. 2000, ApJ, 539, 517

    2000

  11. [19]

    N., Tripp, T

    Burchett, J. N., Tripp, T. M., Bordoloi, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 124

    2016

  12. [20]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 158

    Burkert, A. 2015, ApJ, 808, 158

    2015

  13. [21]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 3058 Corral van Damme, C., Prod’Homme, T., Isaak, K., Rühl, T., & Sirianni, M

    Christensen, C., Quinn, T., Governato, F., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3058 Corral van Damme, C., Prod’Homme, T., Isaak, K., Rühl, T., & Sirianni, M. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Confer- ence Series, V ol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrume...

    2012

  14. [22]

    2024, A&A, 685, A8

    Decataldo, D., Shen, S., Mayer, L., Baumschlager, B., & Madau, P. 2024, A&A, 685, A8

    2024

  15. [23]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08869

    Deng, Y ., Li, H., Liu, B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08869

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J., & Weinberg, D

    Dijkstra, M., Haiman, Z., Rees, M. J., & Weinberg, D. H. 2004, ApJ, 601, 666

    2004

  17. [25]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 1169

    Donato, F., Gentile, G., Salucci, P., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1169

    2009

  18. [26]

    1992, MNRAS, 256, 43P

    Efstathiou, G. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 43P

    1992

  19. [27]

    C., Kim, C.-G., Quataert, E., & Weisz, D

    El-Badry, K., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, C.-G., Quataert, E., & Weisz, D. R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1961

    2019

  20. [28]

    L., & Mac Low, M.-M

    Emerick, A., Bryan, G. L., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2018, ApJ, 865, L22 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y ., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13491

    2018

  21. [29]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

    2012

  22. [30]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 53, 385

    2017

  23. [31]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 962

    Fitts, A., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bozek, B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 962

    2019

  24. [32]

    D., et al

    Fitts, A., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Elbert, O. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3547

    2017

  25. [33]

    Flores, R. A. & Primack, J. R. 1994, ApJ, 427, L1

    1994

  26. [34]

    W., Weisz, D

    Fu, S. W., Weisz, D. R., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 167

    2023

  27. [35]

    S., & Lee, K

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

    2014

  28. [36]

    Gnedin, N. Y . 2014, ApJ, 793, 29

    2014

  29. [37]

    Gnedin, N. Y . & Hollon, N. 2012, ApJS, 202, 13 Górski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759

    2012

  30. [38]

    2010, Nature, 463, 203

    Governato, F., Brook, C., Mayer, L., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 203

    2010

  31. [39]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 792

    Governato, F., Weisz, D., Pontzen, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 792

    2015

  32. [40]

    2012, MNRAS, 422, 1231

    Governato, F., Zolotov, A., Pontzen, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1231

    2012

  33. [41]

    J., Woods, R

    Grond, J. J., Woods, R. M., Wadsley, J. W., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2019, MN- RAS, 485, 3681

    2019

  34. [42]

    A., Pakmor, R., Naab, T., & Springel, V

    Gutcke, T. A., Pakmor, R., Naab, T., & Springel, V . 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5597

    2021

  35. [43]

    & Madau, P

    Haardt, F. & Madau, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 125

    2012

  36. [44]

    C., Ma, X., Anglés-Alcázar, D., & Cochrane, R

    Holguin, F., Hayward, C. C., Ma, X., Anglés-Alcázar, D., & Cochrane, R. K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13110

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    F., Grudi´c, M

    Hopkins, P. F., Grudi´c, M. Y ., Wetzel, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3702

    2020

  38. [46]

    F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3154

    2023

  39. [47]

    Hu, C.-Y ., Naab, T., Walch, S., Glover, S. C. O., & Clark, P. C. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3528

    2016

  40. [48]

    C., Teyssier, R., et al

    Hu, C.-Y ., Smith, M. C., Teyssier, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 132 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    2023

  41. [49]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 85

    Jeon, M., Besla, G., & Bromm, V . 2017, ApJ, 848, 85

    2017

  42. [50]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 2060

    Jethwa, P., Erkal, D., & Belokurov, V . 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2060

    2018

  43. [51]

    D., Chen, H.-W., Mulchaey, J

    Johnson, S. D., Chen, H.-W., Mulchaey, J. S., Schaye, J., & Straka, L. A. 2017, ApJ, 850, L10

    2017

  44. [52]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005

    Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., Smith, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005

    2022

  45. [53]

    Karukes, E. V . & Salucci, P. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4703

    2017

  46. [54]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 348

    Katz, H. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 348

    2022

  47. [55]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 2200

    Katz, H., Ramsoy, M., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2200

    2020

  48. [56]

    W., Wadsley, J., Benincasa, S

    Keller, B. W., Wadsley, J., Benincasa, S. M., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2014, MN- RAS, 442, 3013

    2014

  49. [57]

    & Ostriker, E

    Kim, C.-G. & Ostriker, E. C. 2017, ApJ, 846, 133

    2017

  50. [58]

    & Cen, R

    Kimm, T. & Cen, R. 2014, ApJ, 788, 121

    2014

  51. [59]

    N., Cohen, J

    Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 102

    2013

  52. [60]

    N., Lanfranchi, G

    Kirby, E. N., Lanfranchi, G. A., Simon, J. D., Cohen, J. G., & Guhathakurta, P. 2011, ApJ, 727, 78

    2011

  53. [61]

    V ., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F

    Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V ., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82

    1999

  54. [62]

    A., & Sijacki, D

    Koudmani, S., Henden, N. A., & Sijacki, D. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3568

    2021

  55. [63]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  56. [64]

    2014, ApJS, 212, 14

    Leitherer, C., Ekström, S., Meynet, G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 212, 14

    2014

  57. [65]

    & Nomoto, K

    Leung, S.-C. & Nomoto, K. 2018, ApJ, 861, 143

    2018

  58. [66]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 1038

    Li, F., Rahman, M., Murray, N., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1038

    2021

  59. [67]

    Liang, C. J. & Chen, H.-W. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2061 Macciò, A. V ., Frings, J., Buck, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2356

    2014

  60. [68]

    2008, ApJ, 689, L41

    Madau, P., Kuhlen, M., Diemand, J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, L41

    2008

  61. [69]

    2014, ApJ, 789, L17 Article number, page 20 of 21 B

    Madau, P., Shen, S., & Governato, F. 2014, ApJ, 789, L17 Article number, page 20 of 21 B. Baumschlager et al.: The Seven Dwarfs illuminated

    2014

  62. [70]

    R., Cuillandre, J

    Marleau, F. R., Cuillandre, J. C., Cantiello, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13502

    2024

  63. [71]

    G., et al

    Martin-Alvarez, S., Sijacki, D., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3806

    2023

  64. [72]

    Mashchenko, S., Wadsley, J., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2008, Science, 319, 174

    2008

  65. [73]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2012, AJ, 144, 4

    2012

  66. [74]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., B. Newman, M. J., Savino, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 16

    2024

  67. [75]

    F., & Winther, H

    Mina, M., Mota, D. F., & Winther, H. A. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.04119

    2020 arXiv

  68. [76]

    W., et al

    Mina, M., Shen, S., Keller, B. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A22

    2021

  69. [77]

    D., Rudie, G

    Mishra, N., Johnson, S. D., Rudie, G. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 149

    2024

  70. [78]

    1999, ApJ, 524, L19

    Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., et al. 1999, ApJ, 524, L19

    1999

  71. [79]

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

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

    2013

  72. [80]

    C., et al

    Mostow, O., Torrey, P., Rose, J. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.09566

    2024

  73. [81]

    I., et al

    Muni, C., Pontzen, A., Read, J. I., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 314

    2025

  74. [82]

    M., Applebaum, E., et al

    Munshi, F., Brooks, A. M., Applebaum, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 35

    2021

  75. [83]

    M., Christensen, C., et al

    Munshi, F., Brooks, A. M., Christensen, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 40

    2019

  76. [84]

    O., Wechsler, R

    Nadler, E. O., Wechsler, R. H., Bechtol, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 48

    2020

  77. [85]

    F., Eke, V

    Navarro, J. F., Eke, V . R., & Frenk, C. S. 1996, MNRAS, 283, L72

    1996

  78. [86]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 2391

    Nelson, D., Sharma, P., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2391

    2020

  79. [87]

    Nori, M., Bhatia, S., & Macciò, A. V . 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.09733 Oñorbe, J., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2092

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    V ., & Buck, T

    Obreja, A., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Macciò, A. V ., & Buck, T. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8078

    2024

  81. [89]

    D., Segers, M., Schaye, J., Richings, A

    Oppenheimer, B. D., Segers, M., Schaye, J., Richings, A. J., & Crain, R. A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4740

    2018

  82. [90]

    Orkney, M. D. A., Read, J. I., Rey, M. P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3509

    2021

  83. [91]

    G., Izotov, Y

    Papaderos, P., Guseva, N. G., Izotov, Y . I., & Fricke, K. J. 2008, A&A, 491, 113 Peñarrubia, J., Pontzen, A., Walker, M. G., & Koposov, S. E. 2012, ApJ, 759, L42

    2008

  84. [92]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 3293

    Peters, T., Naab, T., Walch, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3293

    2017

  85. [93]

    R., Brooks, A

    Piacitelli, D. R., Brooks, A. M., Christensen, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08861

    2025

  86. [94]

    2016, ApJS, 225, 24

    Pignatari, M., Herwig, F., Hirschi, R., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 24

    2016

  87. [95]

    & Governato, F

    Pontzen, A. & Governato, F. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3464

    2012

  88. [96]

    F., Jenkins, A., et al

    Power, C., Navarro, J. F., Jenkins, A., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 14

    2003

  89. [97]

    X., Weiner, B., Chen, H

    Prochaska, J. X., Weiner, B., Chen, H. W., Mulchaey, J., & Cooksey, K. 2011, ApJ, 740, 91

    2011

  90. [98]

    X., Werk, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Werk, J. K., Worseck, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 169

    2017

  91. [99]

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

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

    2021

  92. [100]

    M., Villata, M., & Navarro, J

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., & Navarro, J. F. 1996, A&A, 315, 105

    1996

  93. [101]

    Read, J. I. & Erkal, D. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5799

    2019

  94. [102]

    Read, J. I. & Gilmore, G. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 107

    2005

  95. [103]

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

    Read, J. I., Iorio, G., Agertz, O., & Fraternali, F. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2019

    2017

  96. [104]

    I., Walker, M

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

    2019

  97. [105]

    & Jablonka, P

    Revaz, Y . & Jablonka, P. 2018, A&A, 616, A96

    2018

  98. [106]

    P., Taylor, E., Gray, E

    Rey, M. P., Taylor, E., Gray, E. I., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 1195

    2025

  99. [107]

    J., Schaye, J., & Oppenheimer, B

    Richings, A. J., Schaye, J., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3349

    2014

  100. [108]

    D., et al

    Richstein, H., Kallivayalil, N., Simon, J. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 72

    2024

  101. [109]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 994

    Rosdahl, J., Katz, H., Blaizot, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 994

    2018

  102. [110]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 34

    Rosdahl, J., Schaye, J., Teyssier, R., & Agertz, O. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 34

    2015

  103. [111]

    2019, A&A Rev., 27, 2

    Salucci, P. 2019, A&A Rev., 27, 2

    2019

  104. [112]

    I., Walker, M

    Salucci, P., Wilkinson, M. I., Walker, M. G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2034

    2012

  105. [113]

    M., Di Cintio, A., Brook, C

    Santos-Santos, I. M., Di Cintio, A., Brook, C. B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4392

    2018

  106. [114]

    S., Fattahi, A., et al

    Sawala, T., Frenk, C. S., Fattahi, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1931

    2016

  107. [115]

    H., et al

    Scannapieco, C., Wadepuhl, M., Parry, O. H., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1726

    2012

  108. [116]

    A., Bower, R

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

    2015

  109. [117]

    1959, ApJ, 129, 243

    Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243

    1959

  110. [118]

    Sellwood, J. A. & McGaugh, S. S. 2005, ApJ, 634, 70

    2005

  111. [119]

    S., Brooks, A

    Sharma, R. S., Brooks, A. M., Tremmel, M., Bellovary, J., & Quinn, T. R. 2023, ApJ, 957, 16

    2023

  112. [120]

    2012, ApJ, 760, 50

    Shen, S., Madau, P., Aguirre, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 50

    2012

  113. [121]

    2014, ApJ, 792, 99

    Shen, S., Madau, P., Conroy, C., Governato, F., & Mayer, L. 2014, ApJ, 792, 99

    2014

  114. [122]

    2013, ApJ, 765, 89

    Shen, S., Madau, P., Guedes, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 89

    2013

  115. [123]

    2010, MNRAS, 407, 1581

    Shen, S., Wadsley, J., & Stinson, G. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1581

    2010

  116. [124]

    F., Necib, L., et al

    Shen, X., Hopkins, P. F., Necib, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 131

    2024

  117. [125]

    Simon, J. D. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 375

    2019

  118. [126]

    C., Sijacki, D., & Shen, S

    Smith, M. C., Sijacki, D., & Shen, S. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 302

    2018

  119. [127]

    C., Sijacki, D., & Shen, S

    Smith, M. C., Sijacki, D., & Shen, S. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3317

    2019

  120. [128]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, 1074

    Stinson, G., Seth, A., Katz, N., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1074

    2006

  121. [129]

    R., et al

    Strawn, C., Roca-Fàbrega, S., Primack, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 29

    2024

  122. [130]

    2009, ARA&A, 47, 371

    Tolstoy, E., Hill, V ., & Tosi, M. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 371

    2009

  123. [131]

    A., Ferland, G

    Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 487 V ogelsberger, M., Zavala, J., Simpson, C., & Jenkins, A. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3684

    1996

  124. [132]

    W., Baumschlager, B., & Shen, S

    Wadsley, J. W., Baumschlager, B., & Shen, S. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3767

    2024

  125. [133]

    W., Keller, B

    Wadsley, J. W., Keller, B. W., & Quinn, T. R. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2357

    2017

  126. [134]

    & Naab, T

    Walch, S. & Naab, T. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2757

    2015

  127. [135]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 147

    2014

  128. [136]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., Thom, C., et al. 2013, ApJS, 204, 17

    2013

  129. [137]

    R., Hopkins, P

    Wetzel, A. R., Hopkins, P. F., Kim, J.-h., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, L23

    2016

  130. [138]

    F., Pace, A

    Wheeler, C., Hopkins, P. F., Pace, A. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4447

    2019

  131. [139]

    S., et al

    Wheeler, C., Oñorbe, J., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1305

    2015

  132. [140]

    M., Gawiser, E., & Prochaska, J

    Wolfe, A. M., Gawiser, E., & Prochaska, J. X. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 861

    2005

  133. [141]

    C., Brooks, A

    Wright, A. C., Brooks, A. M., Weisz, D. R., & Christensen, C. R. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1176

    2019

  134. [142]

    V ., Marinacci, F., et al

    Zhang, E., Sales, L. V ., Marinacci, F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.10338

    2024 arXiv

  135. [143]

    E., et al

    Zheng, Y ., Emerick, A., Putman, M. E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 133

    2020

  136. [144]

    D., et al

    Zheng, Y ., Faerman, Y ., Oppenheimer, B. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 55

    2024

  137. [145]

    & Springel, V

    Zhu, B. & Springel, V . 2024, MNRAS, 533, 4360

    2024

  138. [146]

    M., Willman, B., et al

    Zolotov, A., Brooks, A. M., Willman, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 71 Article number, page 21 of 21

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.