Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 137 references

CROCODILE-DWARF: Assembly and Kinematics of Field Dwarf Galaxies with GADGET4-OSAKA

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the present-day kinematics and morphology of dwarf galaxies are set primarily by assembly history — specifically the cumulative mass accreted through mergers — rather than by halo mass alone.

desk verdict The simulation suite is solid and the Vrot/σ–merger fraction trend in Fig. 7 is worth discussing, but the 'dominant factor' claim outruns the evidence: facc is a cumulative assembly measure likely collinear with concentration and assembly epoch, and the analysis lacks significance tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.26513 v3 pith:JYPIOPAM submitted 2025-10-30 astro-ph.GA

Kazuki Tomaru , Yuri Oku , Daisuke Toyouchi , Kentaro Nagamine This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarfgalaxiesgalaxyformationcosmologicalsimulationshydrodynamicskinematicsmergershaloassemblyzoom-in
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that what makes one dwarf galaxy a rotationally supported gas disk and another a dispersion-dominated spheroid is the way it assembled its mass — specifically the fraction of mass accreted through mergers — rather than the total mass of its dark matter halo. To make the case, the authors run cosmological zoom-in hydrodynamic simulations of isolated field dwarfs with halo masses near 10^10 solar masses, deliberately selected to have diverse assembly histories, and show the simulated galaxies land on the observed stellar-to-halo mass, mass–metallicity, and size–mass relations. The central evidence is an anti-correlation between today's gas rotational support (Vrot,gas/σgas) and the cumulative merger mass fraction facc: galaxies with more merger-built mass are more dispersion-dominated. A sympathetic reader will take the paper's message to be that assembly history, not halo mass alone, produces the observed diversity in dwarf galaxy kinematics and morphology.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cumulative merger mass fraction facc = Σ(Macc,peak)/Mmain (Eq. 3 of the paper), the summed peak dark-matter masses of all accreted subhalos with merger ratio > 0.01, normalized by the main halo mass at z = 0. This single number is meant to capture the total dynamical heating a dwarf has experienced from both major and minor mergers. It is combined with two kinematic diagnostics: the orbital circularity parameter ε_circ, used for gas and stars, and the rotational-support ratio Vrot,gas/σgas measured in cylindrical bins. Halo concentration c200,DMO from dark-matter-only resimulations serves as a proxy for assembly time, and the two pathways are framed around it. The a

What would settle it

Resimulate the same set of halos with the same feedback physics but with minor mergers artificially suppressed (or with facc fixed while concentration is varied); if Vrot,gas/σgas no longer tracks facc, the central claim fails. Alternatively, in a larger sample, a multiple regression of Vrot,gas/σgas on facc and c200,DMO where the facc coefficient is not significant once concentration is included would falsify the claim that merger heating is primary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a suite of zoom-in hydrodynamic simulations with roughly 2x10^3 solar masses of baryonic resolution, the authors study 14 isolated halos of M200 ~ 10^10 solar masses. They find two distinct assembly pathways: early-assembling, high-concentration halos quench early, become gas-poor, and show low gas circularity; late-assembling, low-concentration halos suffer temporary quenching by reionization and supernova feedback but then re-accrete gas at z < 3, remaining gas-rich and more rotationally supported. Quantitatively, they report that gas rotational support anti-correlates with facc = Σ(Macc,peak)/Mmain (their Eq. 3), interpreting this as dynamical heating by mergers being the primary fa

Load-bearing premise

The claim that mergers are the primary factor rests on the assumption that the cumulative merger mass fraction facc directly measures merger-driven dynamical heating and is not a stand-in for other correlated assembly properties such as early formation epoch, halo concentration, or gas accretion history; the paper does not provide a test that separates these.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dwarf galaxies of similar halo mass can end up either gas-poor and spheroidal or gas-rich and rotationally supported purely because of when and how they assembled their mass.
  • Kinematic diversity in observed dwarfs may therefore be interpretable as a readout of cumulative merger history rather than of halo mass or feedback strength alone.
  • Low-mass halos below roughly 2e11 solar masses should frequently host dispersion-dominated gas because even 'marginal' mergers (mass ratio 0.01–0.1), which occur about ten times more often than major ones, contribute significant heating.
  • A late-time major merger can build an extended gas disk by delivering aligned angular momentum; hence the presence of a disk does not imply a quiescent merger history.
  • Simulation predictions for dwarfs are sensitive to how completely subhalos of mass ratio ~0.01 are resolved, making resolution and merger-tree completeness a key systematic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The paper's causal reading would be strengthened by control experiments that resimulate the same halos with mergers suppressed or with merger histories reshuffled; until then, facc may partially proxy for early formation epoch or halo concentration, which correlate with it.
  • Testable extension: In a larger sample, one could examine whether Vrot,gas/σgas correlates with facc after partialling out c200,DMO and gas fraction; if the residual correlation disappears, the 'primary factor' claim should be downgraded.
  • Connection: If confirmed, this trend offers an observational discriminant between cold and self-interacting dark matter, since self-interactions can erase or modify the memory of merger heating in the inner halo, potentially decoupling kinematics from facc.
  • Consequence for interpretation of observations: Existing surveys of dwarf galaxies could be compared with the predicted facc–Vrot,gas/σgas trend by using star formation histories or resolved stellar populations to estimate assembly epoch, providing a non-simulation-based check.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents CROCODILE-DWARF, a suite of cosmological zoom-in hydrodynamic simulations of 14 isolated field dwarf galaxies with M200 ~ 10^10 Msun at z=0, using GADGET4-OSAKA with CELib and Grackle. The authors report that the simulations reproduce observed stellar-to-halo mass, mass–metallicity, and size–mass relations, and they emphasize that assembly history, rather than halo mass alone, controls present-day dwarf galaxy diversity. The central kinematic claim is an anti-correlation between gas rotational support Vrot,gas/sigma_gas and the cumulative merger mass fraction facc (Eq. 3, Figure 7), interpreted as evidence that merger-driven dynamical heating is the primary factor shaping dwarf kinematics. The paper also highlights two cases (Halo316, Halo256) where late-time major mergers appear to promote extended gas disks.

Significance. If the claimed anti-correlation survives scrutiny, this paper would make a valuable contribution by linking merger history to the observed kinematic diversity of low-mass field dwarfs within a well-resolved cosmological simulation suite. The simulations achieve high baryonic resolution (~2e3 Msun), use a publicly developed code base, model metal enrichment and non-equilibrium cooling, and compare against several observational scaling relations. The merger-tree analysis and the proposed mechanism for merger-triggered disk formation are concrete and falsifiable. The main weakness is that the central causal claim is currently supported only by an uncontrolled correlation in 14 deliberately selected halos, and by a merger metric that is a cumulative assembly indicator rather than a direct measure of dynamical heating. The paper's strength lies in its data products and physical narrative; the gap is in the statistical and causal inference connecting them.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.6 / Figure 7 / Abstract] The strength of the central claim is not matched by the presented statistics. Figure 7 shows a binned trend between Vrot,gas/sigma_gas and facc for only 14 halos, with no correlation coefficient, significance test, confidence interval, or bootstrap. The text itself acknowledges 'large scatter' and 'tentative evidence' in Section 3.6, while the Abstract and Section 5 assert that mergers are the 'dominant factor' and that the trend is 'demonstrated.' Please quantify the correlation (e.g., Spearman/Kendall with uncertainties), test against null distributions, and soften the wording to match the evidence. A simple Pearson/Spearman value and a jackknife or bootstrap would substantially increase confidence.
  2. [Eq. (3) and Section 3.6] The merger fraction facc = Sum(Macc,peak)/Mmain is a cumulative measure of all mergers with mass ratio > 0.01 since z<7. It is not a direct measure of dynamical heating: it ignores merger timing, orbital geometry, gas content, and the actual energy injected into the disk. The paper itself shows in Figure 5 and Section 3.5 that c200,DMO correlates strongly with fgas and M*/M200, and that high-concentration, early-assembling halos become gas-poor and dispersion-dominated. Since facc is likely collinear with assembly epoch and concentration, the Figure 7 anti-correlation may simply be the concentration–gas–kinematics sequence restated. Please provide partial correlations controlling for c200,DMO and assembly epoch (e.g., z_1/2), or matched-halo comparisons with similar concentration but different merger histories, before claiming that merger-driven heating is the primary factor. This is the
  3. [Appendix A / Section 3.2] The mass–metallicity agreement in Section 3.2 is not an independent validation of the feedback model. Appendix A states that the SN feedback energy zeta_SN was doubled 'as a parameter tuning measure' specifically so that the simulated mass–metallicity relation matches SDSS/DESI observations. This makes the agreement a fit, not a prediction. Please state this clearly in the main text whenever the MZR is cited as a success, and consider adding a remark on whether the kinematic trend in Figure 7 is robust to variations in zeta_SN (even if only for a subset of halos). Without this, the reader cannot tell whether the central merger–kinematics trend is a robust physical result or an artifact of the tuned feedback strength.
  4. [Section 2.2 / Section 1] The sample is deliberately non-random: halos are chosen to have diverse assembly histories and strict isolation criteria, following Wang et al. (2015) and Fitts et al. (2017). This is appropriate for a controlled comparison, but it means that the distribution of facc and Vrot,gas/sigma_gas in Figure 7 is not representative of the field dwarf population. The paper should discuss how the deliberate selection could affect the apparent anti-correlation and the generality of the 'primary factor' conclusion. For instance, if the sample were drawn without this diversity constraint, the trend might weaken or disappear. Please quantify the selection effects or at least state the limitation explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.6, text near Figure 8] Typo: 'exhibit moderately and disturbed disturbed kinematics' should read 'exhibit moderately disturbed kinematics.'
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The caption says 'Evolution of the virial radius over time' but the text and axes refer to M200(z)/M200(z=0). Please correct to 'virial mass'.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5] The wording of the principal claim shifts between 'tentative evidence' (Section 3.6), 'demonstrating that dynamical heating by mergers is the dominant factor' (Abstract), and 'merger-driven dynamical heating is the key process' (Section 5). Please harmonize the strength of these statements with the actual statistical support.
  4. [Eq. (3) and Section 3.6] The summation in Eq. (3) has no explicit limits; the text describes conditions (z<7, mass ratio>0.01, resolution limit) but these should be stated in the equation or immediately after it for clarity.
  5. [General] Please add a short data availability statement indicating whether the simulation outputs, merger trees, and analysis scripts will be shared. This would increase reproducibility, especially because the kinematic measurements (e.g., Vrot,gas/sigma_gas) are sensitive to the exact binning and coordinate definitions.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Mass–metallicity agreement is a tuned fit (ζSN calibrated to SDSS/DESI), but the central merger-kinematics trend is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix A; see also Section 2.1 and Section 3.2]
    "We find that the lower SN feedback energy (0.5ζSN) produces metallicities that lie above the observed mass–metallicity relation at z=0, indicating insufficient metal ejection from the galaxies. Conversely, the higher-energy case (2ζSN) yields lower metallicities than those of the DESI samples (D. Scholte et al. 2024). This comparison demonstrates that our adopted SN feedback energy (ζSN) best reproduces the observed mass–metallicity relation at z=0."

    The SN feedback energy ζSN was not derived from first principles; it was chosen from the 0.5ζSN/1ζSN/2ζSN grid specifically because it best matches the observed gas-phase mass–metallicity relation. The paper's later claim that the simulations 'overlap well with the observations' (Section 3.2) is therefore a restatement of the calibration target, not an independent validation. The mass–metallicity relation is forced by construction to lie near the SDSS/DESI data. This circularity is limited to the MZR validation; the central facc–Vrot,gas/σgas relation is not fitted to any observed quantity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that assembly history, quantified by the cumulative merger mass fraction facc of Eq. 3, anticorrelates with gas rotational support Vrot,gas/σgas and that merger-driven dynamical heating shapes dwarf kinematics—is not circular. Vrot,gas/σgas and facc are independently measured simulation quantities; no equation defines one in terms of the other, and no parameter was tuned to reproduce the Figure 7 trend. The trend could be confounded by halo concentration or assembly epoch, and the sample is deliberately non-random, but confounding is a correctness risk, not a circularity. The genuine circular step is the mass–metallicity 'reproduction.' Section 2.1 states that the SN energy was doubled 'as a parameter tuning measure,' and Appendix A shows that ζSN was selected because it 'best reproduces the observed mass–metallicity relation at z=0.' Thus the overlap claimed in Section 3.2 is an input to calibration, not an independent prediction. This is a real but peripheral circularity: it affects one validation relation, while the central kinematic claim retains independent content. Self-citations to the GADGET4-OSAKA code and the Oku et al. feedback model are appropriate method citations, not load-bearing circular arguments.

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

The central 'prediction' is not parameter-free: the SN feedback energy was tuned to reproduce the observed mass-metallicity relation, and several subgrid constants are adopted from the literature. No new physical entities are introduced; the main free parameter is the feedback energy multiplier. The assembly-history interpretation rests on the assumed fidelity of these subgrid choices.

free parameters (5)
  • SN feedback specific energy ζSN = 2.3×10^49 erg M_sun^-1 (2× CELib standard)
    Tuned 'as a parameter tuning measure' in Appendix A so the simulated mass-metallicity relation best matches SDSS/DESI; affects gas retention, stellar masses, and kinematics.
  • Star formation efficiency c_* = 0.01
    Schmidt-law efficiency chosen from standard practice (Section 2.1); not fitted here, but free in the subgrid model.
  • Star formation density threshold n_H,thres = 1 cm^-3
    Chosen threshold (Section 2.1); authors note it may widen galaxy sizes (Section 3.3), and it is much lower than FIRE-2's 1000 cm^-3 (Section 4.2).
  • Feedback neighbor number N_ngb,FB = 120
    Number of SPH neighbors receiving feedback energy (Section 2.1); affects how efficiently feedback couples to gas.
  • Target entropy K_OF = 10^8 K cm^2
    Thermal feedback heating target from Hu (2019) / Keller et al. (2020), adopted in Section 2.1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ΛCDM cosmology with WMAP7 parameters
    Initial conditions generated with MUSIC using WMAP7/9+SNe+BAO (Section 2.2); all assembly histories assume this cosmology.
  • ad hoc to paper Adequacy of the subgrid star formation/SN feedback model
    The adopted prescriptions, including the doubled SN energy, are assumed to capture unresolved physics controlling gas retention and kinematics (Section 2.1, Appendix A).
  • ad hoc to paper The merger-fraction metric facc reflects dynamical heating
    Eq. 3 assumes the sum of peak masses of subhalos with mass ratio >0.01 accreted at z<7 measures cumulative merger-driven heating; no direct energy or heating calculation is provided.
  • domain assumption Grackle cooling and UVB model are appropriate
    Grackle with the Haardt & Madau (2012) UVB from z=15 governs gas accretion and quenching (Section 2); this external model is taken as valid.
  • domain assumption Halo concentration tracks assembly history
    c200,DMO is used as an assembly-history indicator via the Vmax/V200 relation (Eq. 2; Wechsler et al. 2002), invoked in Section 3.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CROCODILE-DWARF: Assembly and Kinematics of Field Dwarf Galaxies with GADGET4-OSAKA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JYPIOPAM

@misc{pith2026251026513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CROCODILE-DWARF: Assembly and Kinematics of Field Dwarf Galaxies with GADGET4-OSAKA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JYPIOPAM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.26513}
}
abstract

We present results from CROCODILE-DWARF, a new suite of cosmological zoom-in hydrodynamic simulations of isolated field dwarf galaxies with halo masses of $\sim10^{10}\,M_\odot$ at $z=0$, performed with the GADGET4-OSAKA code. The simulations include detailed modeling of star formation, chemical enrichment, and supernova feedback using the CELib and Grackle libraries, achieving baryonic resolutions of $\sim2\times10^3\,M_\odot$. Our study focuses on how assembly history governs the structural and kinematic diversity of dwarf galaxies within the $\Lambda$CDM framework. The simulated galaxies reproduce the observed stellar-to-halo mass, mass--metallicity, and size--mass relations for nearby dwarf galaxies, including those of the Local Group, yielding stellar masses of $\sim10^7\,M_\odot$. The galaxies display a broad range of rotational support, where gas is generally more rotationally supported than stars. Differences in morphology and kinematics primarily reflect variations in halo assembly timescales and merger activity. Early-assembling, high-concentration halos form stars efficiently and become gas-poor by $z=0$, while late-assembling, low-concentration halos remain gas-rich due to delayed star formation and rejuvenated gas accretion. We find a trend between rotational support and the cumulative merger mass fraction, providing tentative evidence that dynamical heating induced by mergers plays a role in shaping the kinematic diversity. In some cases, late-time mergers induce the formation of extended gas disks by delivering fresh gas and angular momentum. These results demonstrate that it is assembly history, rather than halo mass alone, that shapes the present-day kinematic and morphological diversity of dwarf galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.26513 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stellar-to-halo mass relation at z = 0, with evo￾lutionary tracks for dwarf galaxies in our simulations. We highlight two sample galaxies, AGORA-1e10q and AGO￾RA-1e10v, and show their relations at redshifts z = 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 5.0. Our results are compared with empiri￾cal relations derived from abundance matching and their ex￾trapolations by P. S. Behroozi et al. (2013) and B. P. Moster et al. (2013) at z =… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stellar half-mass radius as a function of stellar mass for dwarf galaxies in our simulations. The observational data are from nearby dwarf galaxies (A. W. McConnachie 2012) (see Appendix A). Notably, the standard energy before enhancement overestimated the metallicity of galaxies, consistent with the finding of O. Agertz et al. (2020). Our results overlap well with the observations, indicat￾ing that the feedback in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mass–metallicity relations at z = 0 for dwarf galaxies in our simulations. The top panel shows the relation for gas, while the bottom panel shows that for stars. In the bottom panel, light-colored small triangles, small pluses, and error bars represent the mean, median, and 25th–75th per￾centile ranges of stellar metallicities of star particles, respec￾tively. Observational data for gas are taken from the SDSS sampl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Median orbital circularity parameter of gas (cir￾cle) and stars (square) at z = 0 as a function of stellar mass for dwarf galaxies in our simulations. This trend is consistent with K. El-Badry et al. (2018). Unlike dissipative gas, stellar kinematics are governed by co…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: Evolution of the stellar-to-halo mass ratio over time for dwarf galaxies in our simulations. Right panel: Relation between the halo concentration in the dark-matter-only re-simulations and the stellar-to-halo mass ratio at z = 0. Lines on the left panel and…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the virial radius over time for dwarf galaxies in our simulations, normalized to its value at z = 0. The lines are color-coded by the median orbital circularity parameter of gas at z = 0. the galaxy’s gas angular momentum vector to define Vrot,gas as the p…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relation between gas rotational support at z = 0, and the fraction of mass accreted through mergers at z = 0, for our dwarf galaxies in the simulation. Open gray circles indicate median values within each bin. Five dwarf galax￾ies (AGORA-1e10q, AGORA-1e10v, Halo224, Ha…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Surface density maps for four dwarf galaxies in our simulations (AGORA-1e10q, AGORA-1e10v, Halo224, and Halo316), showing gas (top two rows), stellar (bottom two rows) components. For each component, the upper row shows face-on views (aligned with the galaxy’s gas angu…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average numbers of halo mergers (z < 7) for dwarf galaxies in our simulations. Time indicates when ac￾creted halos reach peak mass. The black-outlined histogram shows mergers with mass ratios greater than 0.01, with the 1σ range indicated by error bars. Colors indicate…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: Gas angular momentum accretion histories for dwarf galaxies in our simulations. The angular momentum is represented as the specific angular momentum aligned with the galaxy’s angular momentum vector, normalized by the mean specific angular momentum of the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Navarro, J

    Abadi, M. G., Navarro, J. F., Steinmetz, M., & Eke, V. R. 2003, ApJ, 597, 21, doi: 10.1086/378316

    doi:10.1086/378316 2003

  2. [2]

    V., Leitner, S

    Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A. V., Leitner, S. N., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2013, ApJ, 770, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/25

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/25 2013

  3. [3]

    I., et al

    Agertz, O., Pontzen, A., Read, J. I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3053

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3053 2020

  4. [4]

    H., & Martini, P

    Andrews, B. H., & Martini, P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 140, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/140 2013

  5. [5]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 105, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3061

    Aoyama, S., Hou, K.-C., Shimizu, I., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 105, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3061

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3061 2017

  6. [6]

    M., Christensen, C

    Applebaum, E., Brooks, A. M., Christensen, C. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcafa Arjona-G´ alvez, E., Di Cintio, A., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024, A&A, 690, A286, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449439

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcafa 2021

  7. [7]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 5885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2716

    Barat, D., D’Eugenio, F., Colless, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2716

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2716 2020

Show all 137 references
  1. [9]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Sales, L

    Benavides, J. A., Sales, L. V., Wetzel, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.00991, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.00991

    2025 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2698 Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J

    Benitez-Llambay, A., & Frenk, C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2698 Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv925

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Skillman, E

    Berg, D. A., Skillman, E. D., Marble, A. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/98

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  6. [14]

    S., & Kaplinghat, M

    Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., & Kaplinghat, M. 2011, MNRAS, 415, L40, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01074.x

    2011

  7. [16]

    L., & Norman, M

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

    1998 doi

  8. [17]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1314, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2913

    Frings, J. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1314, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2913

    2019 doi

  9. [18]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M

    Bullock, J. S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 343, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313

    2017 doi

  10. [19]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, L100, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab059

    Cardona-Barrero, S., Battaglia, G., Di Cintio, A., Revaz, Y., & Jablonka, P. 2021, MNRAS, 505, L100, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab059

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392 16

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392 16

    2003 doi

  12. [22]

    S., & White, S

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371, doi: 10.1086/163168 de los Reyes, M. A. C., Kirby, E. N., Zhuang, Z., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd189

    1985 doi

  13. [23]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 4126, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa470

    Dekel, A., Ginzburg, O., Jiang, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4126, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa470

    2020 doi

  14. [24]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050

    Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050

    1986 doi

  15. [25]

    R., & Oman, K

    Downing, E. R., & Oman, K. A. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3318, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad868

    2023 doi

  16. [26]

    A., Obreja, A., Wang, L., et al

    Dutton, A. A., Obreja, A., Wang, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx458

    2017 doi

  17. [27]

    1992, MNRAS, 256, 43P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/256.1.43P

    Efstathiou, G. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 43P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/256.1.43P

    1992 doi

  18. [28]

    2000, MNRAS, 317, 697, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03665.x

    Efstathiou, G. 2000, MNRAS, 317, 697, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03665.x

    2000

  19. [29]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    El-Badry, K., Wetzel, A., Geha, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    2016 doi

  20. [30]

    R., Geha, M., et al

    El-Badry, K., Wetzel, A. R., Geha, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/193

    2017 doi

  21. [31]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 1930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2482

    El-Badry, K., Quataert, E., Wetzel, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2482

    2018 doi

  22. [32]

    L., & Mac Low, M.-M

    Emerick, A., Bryan, G. L., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2018, ApJL, 865, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae315

    2018 doi

  23. [33]

    N., et al

    Escala, I., Wetzel, A., Kirby, E. N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2194, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2858

    2018 doi

  24. [34]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485

    2013 doi arXiv

  25. [35]

    D., et al

    Fitts, A., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Elbert, O. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1757

    2017 doi

  26. [36]

    A., & Primack, J

    Flores, R. A., & Primack, J. R. 1994, ApJL, 427, L1, doi: 10.1086/187350

    1994 doi

  27. [37]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2526

    Fukushima, K., Nagamine, K., & Shimizu, I. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2526

    2023 doi

  28. [38]

    Gnedin, N. Y. 2000, ApJ, 542, 535, doi: 10.1086/317042

    2000 doi

  29. [39]

    Y., & Kaurov, A

    Gnedin, N. Y., & Kaurov, A. A. 2014, ApJ, 793, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/30

    2014 doi

  30. [40]

    A., Pfrommer, C., Bryan, G

    Gutcke, T. A., Pfrommer, C., Bryan, G. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1b4

    2022 doi

  31. [41]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    2012 doi

  32. [43]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 4912, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1659

    Haidar, H., Habouzit, M., Volonteri, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4912, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1659

    2022 doi

  33. [44]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    2013 doi

  34. [45]

    2006, MNRAS, 371, 401, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10678.x

    Hoeft, M., Yepes, G., Gottl¨ ober, S., & Springel, V. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 401, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10678.x

    2006

  35. [46]

    F., Grudi´ c, M

    Hopkins, P. F., Grudi´ c, M. Y., Wetzel, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3702, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3129

    2020 doi

  36. [47]

    F., Squire, J., Chan, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Squire, J., Chan, T. K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3691

    2021 doi

  37. [48]

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

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 477, 1578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty674

    doi

  38. [49]

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

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    doi

  39. [50]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 3363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3252

    Hu, C.-Y. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3252

    2019 doi

  40. [51]

    A., Ficut-Vicas, D., Ashley, T., et al

    Hunter, D. A., Ficut-Vicas, D., Ashley, T., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/134

    2012 doi

  41. [52]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4159, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3285

    Iorio, G., Fraternali, F., Nipoti, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4159, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3285

    2017 doi

  42. [53]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accc87

    Isobe, Y., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accc87

    2023 doi

  43. [54]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad245b

    Jung, M., Roca-F` abrega, S., Kim, J.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad245b

    2024 doi

  44. [55]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 2200, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa639

    Katz, H., Ramsoy, M., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2200, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa639

    2020 doi

  45. [56]

    W., & Kruijssen, J

    Keller, B. W., & Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac511

    2022 doi

  46. [57]

    W., Kruijssen, J

    Keller, B. W., Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Wadsley, J. W. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa380

    2020 doi

  47. [58]

    2014, ApJS, 210, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/14

    Kim, J.-h., Abel, T., Agertz, O., et al. 2014, ApJS, 210, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/14

    2014 doi

  48. [59]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 4617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty126

    Kimm, T., Haehnelt, M., Blaizot, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty126

    2018 doi

  49. [60]

    N., Cohen, J

    Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/102

    2013 doi

  50. [61]

    N., Gilbert, K

    Kirby, E. N., Gilbert, K. M., Escala, I., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5f0f

    2020 doi

  51. [62]

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

    Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82, doi: 10.1086/307643

    1999 doi

  52. [63]

    A., Trujillo-Gomez, S., & Primack, J

    Klypin, A. A., Trujillo-Gomez, S., & Primack, J. 2011, ApJ, 740, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/102

    2011 doi

  53. [64]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18

    2011 doi

  54. [65]

    A., & Smith, M

    Koudmani, S., Sijacki, D., Bourne, M. A., & Smith, M. C. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz097

    2019 doi

  55. [67]

    R., Eke, V., Frenk, C

    Lovell, M. R., Eke, V., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2318, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20200.x

    2012

  56. [68]

    D., Schaye, J., & Bower, R

    Ludlow, A. D., Schaye, J., & Bower, R. 2019a, MNRAS, 488, 3663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1821 17

    doi

  57. [69]

    D., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., & Bower, R

    Ludlow, A. D., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., & Bower, R. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa316

    2020 doi

  58. [70]

    D., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., & Richings, J

    Ludlow, A. D., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., & Richings, J. 2019b, MNRAS, 488, L123, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz110

    doi

  59. [71]

    A., Kaviraj, S., et al

    Martin, G., Jackson, R. A., Kaviraj, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3443

    2021 doi

  60. [72]

    G., et al

    Martin-Alvarez, S., Sijacki, D., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2559

    2023 doi

  61. [73]

    Mateo, M. L. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.435

    1998 doi

  62. [74]

    2012, ApJL, 755, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L35

    Mashchenko, S. 2012, ApJL, 755, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L35

    2012 doi

  63. [75]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2012, AJ, 144, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4

    2012 doi

  64. [76]

    Blok, W. J. G. 2000, ApJL, 533, L99, doi: 10.1086/312628

    2000 doi

  65. [77]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Berg, D. A., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7447

    2020 doi

  66. [78]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Telidevara, A. K., Fuson, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac03ae

    2021 doi

  67. [79]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Adams, E. A. K., Cannon, J. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9285

    2022 doi

  68. [80]

    1994, Nature, 370, 629, doi: 10.1038/370629a0

    Moore, B. 1994, Nature, 370, 629, doi: 10.1038/370629a0

    1994 doi

  69. [81]

    1999, ApJL, 524, L19, doi: 10.1086/312287

    Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., et al. 1999, ApJL, 524, L19, doi: 10.1086/312287

    1999 doi

  70. [82]

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

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts261

    2013 doi

  71. [83]

    M., Christensen, C., et al

    Munshi, F., Brooks, A. M., Christensen, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0085

    2019 doi

  72. [84]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa16

    Nagamine, K., Shimizu, I., Fujita, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa16

    2021 doi

  73. [85]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04541, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04541

    Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Isobe, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04541, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04541

    2024 doi arXiv

  74. [86]

    F., Eke, V

    Navarro, J. F., Eke, V. R., & Frenk, C. S. 1996, MNRAS, 283, L72, doi: 10.1093/mnras/283.3.L72 O˜ norbe, J., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2092, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2072 O˜ norbe, J., Garrison-Kimmel, S., Maller, A. H., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437,...

    1996 doi

  75. [87]

    A., Brinks, E., et al

    Oh, S.-H., Hunter, D. A., Brinks, E., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 180, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/180

    2015 doi

  76. [88]

    R., Frenk, C

    Okamoto, T., Eke, V. R., Frenk, C. S., & Jenkins, A. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 1299, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09525.x

    2005

  77. [89]

    2008, MNRAS, 390, 920, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13830.x

    Okamoto, T., Gao, L., & Theuns, T. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 920, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13830.x

    2008

  78. [90]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77d3

    Oku, Y., & Nagamine, K. 2024, ApJ, 975, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77d3

    2024 doi

  79. [91]

    2022, ApJS, 262, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac77ff

    Oku, Y., Tomida, K., Nagamine, K., Shimizu, I., & Cen, R. 2022, ApJS, 262, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac77ff

    2022 doi

  80. [92]

    Orkney, M. D. A., Read, J. I., Rey, M. P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3509, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1066

    2021 doi

  81. [93]

    M., & Springel, V

    Pakmor, R., Pfrommer, C., Simpson, C. M., & Springel, V. 2016, ApJL, 824, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L30

    2016 doi

  82. [95]

    2014, Nature, 506, 171, doi: 10.1038/nature12953

    Pontzen, A., & Governato, F. 2014, Nature, 506, 171, doi: 10.1038/nature12953

    2014 doi

  83. [96]

    F., Jenkins, A., et al

    Power, C., Navarro, J. F., Jenkins, A., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 14, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.05925.x

    2003

  84. [98]

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

    Read, J. I., Iorio, G., Agertz, O., & Fraternali, F. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2019, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx147

    2017 doi

  85. [99]

    Rees, M. J. 1986, MNRAS, 218, 25P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/218.1.25P

    1986 doi

  86. [100]

    2018, A&A, 616, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832669

    Revaz, Y., & Jablonka, P. 2018, A&A, 616, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832669

    2018 doi

  87. [101]

    P., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al

    Rey, M. P., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1640

    2020 doi

  88. [102]

    P., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al

    Rey, M. P., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al. 2019, ApJL, 886, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab53dd

    2019 doi

  89. [103]

    P., Taylor, E., Gray, E

    Rey, M. P., Taylor, E., Gray, E. I., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 1195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1058

    2025 doi

  90. [104]

    Romano, L. E. C., Nagamine, K., & Hirashita, H. 2022a, MNRAS, 514, 1441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1385

    doi

  91. [105]

    Romano, L. E. C., Nagamine, K., & Hirashita, H. 2022b, MNRAS, 514, 1461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1386 Romero-G´ omez, J., Peletier, R. F., Aguerri, J. A. L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 130, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad953

    2023 doi

  92. [106]

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

    2013 doi

  93. [107]

    Saitoh, T. R. 2017, AJ, 153, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/85

    2017 doi

  94. [108]

    V., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A

    Sales, L. V., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 897, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01689-w

    2022 doi

  95. [109]

    2023, A&A, 669, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244309

    Sanati, M., Jeanquartier, F., Revaz, Y., & Jablonka, P. 2023, A&A, 669, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244309

    2023 doi

  96. [110]

    2024, A&A, 690, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449822

    Sanati, M., Martin-Alvarez, S., Schober, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449822

    2024 doi

  97. [111]

    2020, A&A, 643, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038382 S´ anchez-Janssen, R., M´ endez-Abreu, J., & Aguerri, J

    Jablonka, P. 2020, A&A, 643, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038382 S´ anchez-Janssen, R., M´ endez-Abreu, J., & Aguerri, J. A. L. 2010, MNRAS, 406, L65, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00883.x 18

    2020

  98. [112]

    Sardone, A., Peter, A. H. G., Brooks, A. M., & Kaczmarek, J. 2024, ApJ, 964, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad250f

    2024 doi

  99. [114]

    S., Fattahi, A., et al

    Sawala, T., Frenk, C. S., Fattahi, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw145

    2016 doi

  100. [115]

    2014, Nature Physics, 10, 496, doi: 10.1038/nphys2996

    Schive, H.-Y., Chiueh, T., & Broadhurst, T. 2014, Nature Physics, 10, 496, doi: 10.1038/nphys2996

    2014 doi

  101. [116]

    1959, ApJ, 129, 243, doi: 10.1086/146614

    Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243, doi: 10.1086/146614

    1959 doi

  102. [117]

    1963, ApJ, 137, 758, doi: 10.1086/147553

    Schmidt, M. 1963, ApJ, 137, 758, doi: 10.1086/147553

    1963 doi

  103. [118]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 2341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2477

    Scholte, D., Saintonge, A., Moustakas, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2477

    2024 doi

  104. [119]

    Searle, L., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1972, ApJ, 173, 25, doi: 10.1086/151398

    1972 doi

  105. [120]

    R., Giroux, M

    Shapiro, P. R., Giroux, M. L., & Babul, A. 1994, ApJ, 427, 25, doi: 10.1086/174120

    1994 doi

  106. [121]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 2632, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz098

    Shimizu, I., Todoroki, K., Yajima, H., & Nagamine, K. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2632, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz098

    2019 doi

  107. [122]

    2017, ApJL, 839, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa67da

    Silk, J. 2017, ApJL, 839, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa67da

    2017 doi

  108. [123]

    Simon, J. D. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 375, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453

    2019 doi

  109. [124]

    C., Kassin, S

    Simons, R. C., Kassin, S. A., Weiner, B. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 986, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1298

    2015 doi

  110. [125]

    D., Bryan, G

    Smith, B. D., Bryan, G. L., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3291

    2017 doi

  111. [126]

    C., Bryan, G

    Smith, M. C., Bryan, G. L., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1896

    2021 doi

  112. [127]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1855

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Zier, O., & Reinecke, M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1855

    2021 doi

  113. [128]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x

    2001

  114. [130]

    A., & Weinberg, D

    Thoul, A. A., & Weinberg, D. H. 1996, ApJ, 465, 608, doi: 10.1086/177446

    1996 doi

  115. [131]

    2007, MNRAS, 382, 1050, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12070.x

    Tornatore, L., Borgani, S., Dolag, K., & Matteucci, F. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1050, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12070.x

    2007

  116. [132]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9

    2011 doi

  117. [134]

    C., Geha, M

    Vargas, L. C., Geha, M. C., & Tollerud, E. J. 2014, ApJ, 790, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/73

    2014 doi

  118. [135]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 3740, doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2012.21182.x10.1002/asna.19141991009

    Vogelsberger, M., Zavala, J., & Loeb, A. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3740, doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2012.21182.x10.1002/asna.19141991009

    2012

  119. [136]

    A., Stinson, G

    Wang, L., Dutton, A. A., Stinson, G. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 83, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1937

    2015 doi

  120. [137]

    H., Bullock, J

    Wechsler, R. H., Bullock, J. S., Primack, J. R., Kravtsov, A. V., & Dekel, A. 2002, ApJ, 568, 52, doi: 10.1086/338765

    2002 doi

  121. [138]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/147

    2014 doi

  122. [139]

    R., Dalcanton, J

    Weisz, D. R., Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/5

    2011 doi

  123. [140]

    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

  124. [141]

    B., Bullock, J

    Wheeler, C., Pace, A. B., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2420, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2583

    2017 doi

  125. [142]

    F., Pace, A

    Wheeler, C., Hopkins, P. F., Pace, A. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2887

    2019 doi

  126. [143]

    Wiersma, R. P. C., Schaye, J., Theuns, T., Dalla Vecchia, C., & Tornatore, L. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 574, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15331.x

    2009

  127. [144]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad06ab

    Xu, Y., Ouchi, M., Isobe, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad06ab

    2024 doi

  128. [145]

    2017, ApJ, 846, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa82b5

    Vecchia, C. 2017, ApJ, 846, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa82b5

    2017 doi

  129. [146]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 2558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1651

    Zeng, G., Wang, L., Gao, L., & Yang, H. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1651

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.