Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 80 references

This paper establishes that the stellar-mass dependence of satellite quenching is a robust outcome across three independent cosmological simulations and three observational datasets, while the radial dependence is environment-sensitive.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:15 UTC pith:ZQOVG772

load-bearing objection A credible cross-suite demonstration that the mass trend in satellite quenching is robust, with a small-N radial claim that still needs error bars. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.06071 v2 pith:ZQOVG772 submitted 2025-12-05 astro-ph.GA

The quenched fraction of satellites around simulated Milky Way-mass galaxies

Francisco J. Mercado , Devontae C. Baxter , M. Katy Rodriguez Wimberly , Jorge Moreno , Coral Wheeler , Pratik Gandhi , Andrew Wetzel , Robert Feldmann
show 2 more authors
Lucas Tortora Jenna Samuel
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords satellite galaxiesquenched fractiondwarf galaxiesgalaxy formation simulationsFIREboxIllustrisTNG50SAGA surveyELVES survey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks whether modern cosmological simulations reproduce the observed pattern that low-mass satellite galaxies around Milky Way–mass hosts are more likely to have stopped forming stars. It compares three simulation suites with two observational surveys and the combined Milky Way + M31 satellite population, using uniform host-mass, satellite-mass, and radial cuts. The central finding is that the rise in quenched fraction toward low stellar mass is robust across all datasets, while the radial dependence varies, with the FIRE-2 paired MW–M31 analogs producing an inverted profile. The authors conclude that the mass trend is a stable prediction of current galaxy-formation models, and that radial trends carry information about host environment and assembly history. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that the mass-dependent quenching trend can serve as a benchmark, while radial trends require more careful modeling.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the stellar-mass dependence of satellite quenching—lower-mass satellites being more likely to be quenched—is reproduced quantitatively by three independently built cosmological simulations (FIREbox, the FIRE-2 zoom-ins, and TNG50) when compared to SAGA, ELVES, and the Milky Way + M31 system. The radial dependence is not similarly universal: SAGA and ELVES show gently declining quenched fractions with projected radius, TNG50 matches that behavior, FIREbox is consistent with a nearly flat trend within uncertainties, and the FIRE-2 zoom-ins show suppressed inner quenching. Tracing this discrepancy, the paper finds it originates entirely from the s

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the stacked quenched fraction—the total number of quenched satellites divided by the total number of satellites in a stellar-mass or projected-radius bin—computed under a common selection: hosts with halo mass 10^11.9–10^12.2 solar masses, satellites with stellar masses 10^7–10^10 solar masses within 300 kiloparsecs, and a shared quenching threshold. The argument is carried further by the paired-versus-isolated split of the FIRE-2 hosts, which isolates the environmental origin of the radial anomaly. This split shows that the inverted radial profile is not a property of the simulation code but of the specific paired-host environment.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the different ways of declaring a satellite quenched—star-formation rate averaged over the last 10 million years in FIRE, instantaneous star-formation rate in TNG50, hydrogen-alpha equivalent width in SAGA, and color-based flags in ELVES—trace the same underlying physical state; if they respond to different timescales in a mass- or radius-dependent way, the claimed consensus could be a definitional artifact.

What would settle it

Recompute all quenched fractions with a single common tracer, such as a UV-based specific star-formation rate averaged over 100 million years, applied consistently to every simulated and observed galaxy; then check whether the low-mass rise persists and whether the FIRE-2 paired-host radial inversion survives a bootstrap resampling test on the six paired systems. If the mass trend disappears or the inversion is not statistically significant, the paper's central claim loses support.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The stellar-mass dependence of satellite quenching can serve as a robust benchmark for galaxy-formation models, since three independent simulation suites match SAGA, ELVES, and the Milky Way + M31 system.
  • Radial quenched-fraction profiles are environment-sensitive: the observed gentle decline with radius is reproduced by TNG50, FIREbox is consistent with a nearly flat trend, and the FIRE-2 zoom-ins show an inverted profile driven by paired MW–M31 analogs.
  • The FIRE-2 paired hosts lack satellites above roughly 10^8.5 solar masses and show strong radial segregation between star-forming (inner) and quenched (outer) satellites, which explains their suppressed central quenched fraction.
  • Host environment and assembly history can leave an imprint on satellite quenching statistics, so analyses that average over all Milky Way–mass centrals may dilute such environmental signals.
  • Comparisons between simulations and surveys require forward modeling of projection effects, interlopers, and surface-brightness limits before quantitative conclusions about radial trends can be drawn.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mass trend is a genuine benchmark, then the physical drivers of low-mass satellite quenching—weak internal feedback, gas stripping, reionization—are captured similarly by all three models; next-generation simulations should therefore prioritize reproducing radial trends, where host-specific history matters.
  • A natural testable extension is to apply the same isolated-versus-paired environment classification to TNG50 and FIREbox hosts; if the inverted radial profile appears there too, the environmental imprint is general rather than unique to the FIRE-2 zoom-ins.
  • The paired-host inversion suggests an observational prediction: Milky Way–M31-like pair environments may show a suppressed central quenched fraction compared to isolated Milky Way analogs, and existing survey samples could be split by the presence of a comparably massive companion to test this.
  • The paper's own caution about halo finders and interlopers implies that forward-modeled mock surveys—not just raw catalogs—are the natural next test; without them, part of the radial differences could be attributed to observational selection rather than astrophysics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper compares the quenched fraction of satellites around Milky Way–mass hosts across three cosmological simulations (FIREbox, FIRE-2 zoom-ins, IllustrisTNG50) and three observational samples (SAGA, ELVES, MW+M31). A common host-halo mass interval, satellite stellar-mass range, and radial aperture are adopted, and a unified quenching classification is attempted. The central claim is that the stellar-mass dependence of satellite quenching is a robust, simulation-independent outcome, while radial trends are more sensitive to host environment and assembly history. The paper identifies the paired FIRE-2 MW–M31 analogs as the driver of an inverted radial quenched-fraction profile and interprets this as an environmental imprint.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the mass–quenched-fraction relation for low-mass satellites would be a useful benchmark for galaxy-formation models, and the paper would be a valuable cross-code/cross-survey comparison. The study has clear strengths: it uses publicly available observed catalogs, avoids fitting parameters to the target quenched fractions, and imposes explicit selection criteria across all datasets. The paper is also honest about many limitations, explicitly deferring mock-observation and orbit analyses to future work. However, the quantitative mass-trend claim depends on the assumed equivalence of very different quenching tracers, and the distinctive radial/environment claim rests on a small number of paired hosts without uncertainty quantification or a mass-matched control. These issues are load-bearing and need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.9, Eqs. (5)–(6); Fig. 5 left] The central claim that all three simulations 'closely match' the observed mass dependence rests on the equivalence of four quenching diagnostics: FIRE uses log10(sSFR10Myr)<−11, TNG50 uses instantaneous sSFR with the same threshold, SAGA uses EWHα−σ<2 Å, and ELVES uses a catalog color-based flag. These tracers probe different timescales, and for bursty, low-mass satellites a 10 Myr sSFR can differ markedly from a 100 Myr or Hα-based measure. The cited Samuel et al. (2022) test was performed within FIRE-2 only and does not establish cross-code or cross-observable equivalence. Because no mock Hα or UV SFRs are constructed for TNG50/FIREbox, the quantitative agreement in Fig. 5 left could partly be a tracer artifact. Please add mock-tracer tests or substantially qualify the 'closely matching' claim.
  2. [§3.3, Figs. 6 and 7] The inverted radial quenched-fraction trend in the FIRE-2 paired hosts is based on only six systems, and Fig. 6 shows no uncertainty intervals or significance tests. More importantly, the paired systems lack satellites above M⋆≈10^8.5 M⊙ and show strong radial mass segregation: star-forming satellites are closer and more massive, while quenched satellites are farther and less massive. Given the steep mass dependence of quenching, the radial reversal could simply reflect mass segregation rather than a distinct environmental quenching mechanism. The conclusion that the paired hosts 'entirely' drive the discrepancy and imprint an environmental signal requires a mass-matched radial comparison or a regression that controls for stellar mass, with host-level confidence intervals.
  3. [§2.8 and Fig. 5 caption; Fig. 6] The projected analysis treats each of the three orthogonal sightlines as an independent realization, as indicated by labels such as '17 × 3 orientations' and '13 × 3 orientations,' and the plotted uncertainties are Poisson errors on the stacked fraction. These three projections are highly correlated, so Poisson errors understate the true host-to-host variance. This is particularly important for the radial-trend comparisons where consistency is judged 'within uncertainties.' Please provide host-level bootstrap or jackknife confidence intervals, or at least show the host-to-host scatter band alongside the Poisson band.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.7–2.8; Fig. 5] FIREbox contributes only 25 satellites across 17 hosts, with a median of 1 satellite per host. The mass- and radius-binned quenched fractions therefore have very low statistical power. Please report per-bin satellite counts and explicitly state the resulting limitation on the FIREbox comparison.
  2. [§2.9] The mapping between log10(sSFR)<−11 and the SAGA Hα EW criterion is only described as 'consistent with the approximate division used in Geha et al. (2024).' Since SAGA's primary criterion is Hα EW, please clarify the physical mapping and note whether the adopted sSFR threshold corresponds to a similar Hα-derived cut for the simulated galaxies.
  3. [Fig. 3] The shaded bands are described as 1σ host-to-host scatter for the simulations, but no equivalent uncertainty is shown for SAGA or ELVES. Adding bootstrap or jackknife bands for the observed samples would make the comparison more symmetric.
  4. [Throughout] Minor typographical issues: §2.2 'enatbles' should be 'enables'; §2.8 'atellites' should be 'satellites'; Fig. 6 axis label uses 'log(M⋆,sat/M⊙)' while Fig. 5 uses 'log10(M⋆,sat/M⊙)'. Please use consistent notation.
  5. [Abstract and §5] The abstract describes 'nearly uniform radial selections,' but the methodology applies the same 300-kpc aperture and inner 10-kpc exclusion to all datasets. Consider removing 'nearly' or explaining the specific non-uniformities that remain (e.g., ELVES radial-coverage cuts).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: quenched fractions are direct simulation outputs compared against external surveys; no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forces the result.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters aimed at the target quenched fractions. The quenching thresholds are fixed a priori: the simulations adopt log10(sSFR)<-11 (Eq. 5), SAGA uses EWH-alpha - sigma < 2 Angstrom (Eq. 6), and ELVES uses published flags. These are not tuned to reproduce Fig. 5; the mass trend is a direct output of the three simulation suites. The only same-collaboration citation used to justify threshold robustness, Samuel et al. (2022), is an independent published robustness test within FIRE-2; even if it were absent, the comparison against external SAGA/ELVES data and the agreement across three independently built simulations would carry the central claim. The MW+M31 anchor (Wetzel et al. 2015) is an observational dataset, not a fitted model. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its input: radial trends are measured rather than fit, and the FIRE-2 paired-host interpretation in Section 3.3 is an ad hoc decomposition, not a theorem. The potential mismatch of quenching tracers (10 Myr vs. 100 Myr) is a physical/definitional systematic, not circularity, and the paper flags forward modeling as future work. Hence score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the fidelity of three simulation codes, the comparability of their halo finders and stellar-mass definitions, the reliability of SAGA, ELVES, and MW+M31 classifications, and the equivalence of quenching tracers. None of these are derived in the paper; they are inherited from prior work. No new physical entities are introduced, and no parameters are fitted to the target observables.

free parameters (4)
  • Quenching threshold log10(sSFR/yr) < -11
    Hand-chosen definitional cut adopted from Geha et al. (2024), applied to FIRE and TNG50; not fitted to the compared quenched fractions.
  • Host halo mass interval 10^11.9-10^12.2 M_sun
    Hand-chosen Milky Way mass range used to select simulated hosts; SAGA retains all hosts for robustness, so host selection is not fully uniform.
  • Satellite stellar mass range 10^7-10^10 M_sun
    Chosen to match the completeness of TNG50 and the SAGA/ELVES surveys; the lower boundary affects the normalization of quenched fractions.
  • Radial aperture 300 kpc (3D) and 10-300 kpc projected
    Adopted to match SAGA survey strategy and ELVES radial coverage; a selection choice, not a fitted parameter.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption FIRE-2, FIREbox, and TNG50 simulations faithfully model the baryonic processes that set satellite quenching.
    The central claim interprets simulated quenched fractions as predictions; subgrid feedback and resolution choices are inherited from prior work (§2.1-2.4).
  • domain assumption AHF, ROCKSTAR, and SUBFIND halo finders identify equivalent satellite populations and stellar masses under the adopted definitions.
    Differing halo finders and stellar-mass apertures are consciously not homogenized; comparability is assumed (§2.2.1, §2.3.1, §2.4.1, §2.6).
  • domain assumption SAGA Gold+Silver classifications, ELVES flags, and MW+M31 quenched samples are reliable and complete in the 10^7-10^10 M_sun range.
    Observational benchmarks are taken at face value; completeness limits motivate the mass cuts (§2.5, §2.8).
  • domain assumption The adopted quenching tracers (10 Myr sSFR, instantaneous sSFR, H-alpha EW, colors) map to the same quenching state.
    Needed for cross-dataset comparison; supported by same-collaboration Samuel et al. (2022) and the SAGA criterion, but not independently demonstrated here (§2.9).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21079 in / 15128 out tokens · 154102 ms · 2026-08-03T18:15:41.262069+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We compare satellite quenched fractions across three cosmological simulation suites (FIREbox, the FIRE-2 zoom-ins, and IllustrisTNG50) and observational datasets from SAGA, ELVES, and the combined satellite population of the Milky Way and M31. To enable consistent comparisons, we select Milky Way-mass hosts with $M_{\rm halo} = 10^{11.9}$ - $10^{12.2} \, M_{\odot}$ and satellites with stellar masses of $10^7$ - $10^{10} \, M_{\odot}$, applying nearly uniform radial selections and a common quenching definition. All three simulations reproduce the strong observed trend that lower-mass satellites are more likely to be quenched, closely matching the stellar mass dependence seen in SAGA, ELVES, and the Milky Way and M31 system. This agreement indicates that the mass dependence of satellite quenching is a robust outcome of contemporary galaxy formation models. Radial trends, however, show greater diversity. SAGA and ELVES exhibit gently declining quenched fractions with projected distance, consistent with stronger quenching at small radii. TNG50 most closely matches this behavior, while FIREbox remains broadly consistent with a weak radial trend within uncertainties. The FIRE-2 zoom-ins show suppressed quenched fractions at small projected distances, driven primarily by their paired MW-M31 analogs. We show that this discrepancy is not explained by host environment alone, but instead reflects atypical satellite populations in the paired systems, where star-forming and quenched satellites occupy distinct spatial distributions. Overall, our results demonstrate that stellar mass-quenched fraction trends are robust across simulations and observations, while radial trends are more sensitive to the detailed properties and distributions of satellite populations

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.06071 by Andrew Wetzel, Coral Wheeler, Devontae C. Baxter, Francisco J. Mercado, Jenna Samuel, Jorge Moreno, Lucas Tortora, M. Katy Rodriguez Wimberly, Pratik Gandhi, Robert Feldmann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Stellar mass–halo mass (SMHM) relation for host samples drawn from FIREbox (maroon), the FIRE-2 zoom-ins (blue), TNG50 (indigo), and the SAGA survey (green). All simulated hosts lie within the adopted Milky Way–mass range of 1011.9 ≤ Mhalo/M⊙ ≤ 1012.2 , while the full SAGA sample is retained to preserve statistical completeness and account for uncertainties in cataloged halo masses. The Milky Way and M31 a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Kernel density estimates of host halo radii, rhalo, for Milky Way–mass systems drawn from FIREbox (maroon), the FIRE-2 zoom-ins (blue), and TNG50 (indigo). The distributions agree closely, with median radii of 304.6 kpc, 320.3 kpc, and 320.2 kpc, respectively. Across all datasets, the median stellar masses of the surviving hosts are similar. FIREbox and the FIRE-2 zooms have median stellar masses of log10(… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Projected radial distributions of satellites for all five datasets: FIREbox (maroon), FIRE-2 zoom-ins (blue), TNG50 (indigo), SAGA (green), and ELVES (golden). For every dataset, we plot the mean cumulative fraction of satel￾lites per host as a function of projected distance, normalized to the number of satellites within 300 kpc. Shaded bands show the 1σ host-to-host scatter for the simulations. Follow￾ing… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Satellite stellar mass functions (SMFs) for all hosts in FIREbox (maroon), FIRE-2 zoom-ins (blue), TNG50 (indigo), SAGA (green), and ELVES (golden). Thin lines show the SMF for each individual host, while thick lines indicate the median SMF of each dataset. The inset panel shows the distribution of satellite counts per host. The me￾dian numbers of satellites in the adopted mass range (107 – 1010 M⊙) are 1 … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Satellite quenched fractions as a function of stellar mass (left) and projected distance from the host (right). Green circles and golden squares show measurements from the SAGA and ELVES surveys with Poisson uncertainties, and black stars mark the stacked quenched fractions of the combined Milky Way + M31 satellite sample from Wetzel et al. (2015), with error bars giving the 68% confidence interval. Simula… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Satellite quenched fractions in the FIRE-2 zoom-ins split by host environment: isolated MW analogs (blue) and paired MW–M31 analogs (orange). Left: As a function of satellite stellar mass, paired hosts lack satellites more massive than M⋆ ≈ 108.5 M⊙, indicating a distinct satellite mass distribution compared to the isolated systems. Right: As a function of projected distance, satellites of paired hosts sho… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Structural properties of satellites in the FIRE-2 zoom-ins, separated by host environment. Top: Satellites of the paired MW–M31 analogs. Star-forming satellites (orange circles) are both closer to their hosts and more massive, while quenched satellites (red triangles) occupy larger radii and lower stellar masses. Bottom: Satellites of the isolated MW analogs. Star￾forming and quenched satellites span a wid… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., Christensen, C

    Akins, H. B., Christensen, C. R., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2ab

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe2ab 2021

  2. [2]

    C., Cooper, M

    Baxter, D. C., Cooper, M. C., & Fillingham, S. P. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1636, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab523

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab523 2021

  3. [3]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2013, ApJ, 762, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/109 2013

  4. [4]

    A., Sales, L

    Benavides, J. A., Sales, L. V., Wetzel, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1847

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1847 2025

  5. [5]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  6. [6]

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

    Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/91

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/91 2014

  7. [7]

    L., & Norman, M

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

    doi:10.1086/305262 1998

  8. [9]

    A., et al

    Carleton, T., Ellsworth-Bowers, T., Windhorst, R. A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1b56

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1b56 2024

  9. [10]

    Greco, J. P. 2022, ApJ, 933, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6fd7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6fd7 2022

  10. [11]

    G., Greene, J

    Carlsten, S. G., Greene, J. E., Greco, J. P., Beaton, R. L., & Kado-Fong, E. 2021, ApJ, 922, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2581

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2581 2021

  11. [12]

    J., et al

    Cautun, M., Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Deason, A. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1017

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1017 2020

  12. [13]

    R., Brooks, A

    Christensen, C. R., Brooks, A. M., Munshi, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c5a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c5a 2024

  13. [14]

    S., & White, S

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371, doi: 10.1086/163168

    doi:10.1086/163168 1985

  14. [15]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1950

    Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1950

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1950 2021

  15. [16]

    D., et al

    Engler, C., Pillepich, A., Joshi, G. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1357

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1357 2023

  16. [17]

    A., Weinberg, M

    Fardal, M. A., Weinberg, M. D., Babul, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1121 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., &

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1121 2013

  17. [18]

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

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/1416 2009

  18. [19]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1205

    Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1205

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1205 2023

  19. [20]

    P., Cooper, M

    Fillingham, S. P., Cooper, M. C., Kelley, T., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.04180, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1906.04180 Flores Vel´ azquez, J. A., Gurvich, A. B., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3893

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.04180 2019

  20. [21]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, 1149, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10911.x

    Flynn, C., Holmberg, J., Portinari, L., Fuchs, B., & Jahreiß, H. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1149, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10911.x

    arXiv 2006

  21. [22]

    S., McCarthy, I

    Font, A. S., McCarthy, I. G., Belokurov, V., Brown, S. T., & Stafford, S. G. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac183

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac183 2022

  22. [23]

    S., et al

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1710 2017

  23. [24]

    F., Wetzel, A., et al

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1317

  24. [25]

    F., et al

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2507

  25. [26]

    R., Yan, R., & Tinker, J

    Geha, M., Blanton, M. R., Yan, R., & Tinker, J. L. 2012, ApJ, 757, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/85

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/85 2012

  26. [27]

    H., Mao, Y.-Y., et al

    Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., Mao, Y.-Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8626

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8626 2017

  27. [28]

    H., et al

    Geha, M., Mao, Y.-Y., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61e7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad61e7 2024

  28. [29]

    P., Adams, E

    Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., Adams, E. A. K., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/1/15

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/1/15 2013

  29. [30]

    Grcevich, J., & Putman, M. E. 2009, ApJ, 696, 385, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/385

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/1/385 2009

  30. [31]

    E., Danieli, S., Carlsten, S., et al

    Greene, J. E., Danieli, S., Carlsten, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc58c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc58c 2023

  31. [32]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    Hahn, O., & Abel, T. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    arXiv 2011

  32. [33]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015

  33. [34]

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

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 17

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1690 2018

  34. [35]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  35. [36]

    D., Sales, L

    Jahn, E. D., Sales, L. V., Wetzel, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2673, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac811

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac811 2022

  36. [37]

    G., Sand, D

    Jones, M. G., Sand, D. J., Mutlu-Pakdil, B., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad676e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad676e 2024

  37. [38]

    J., Jones, M

    Karunakaran, A., Sand, D. J., Jones, M. G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5314, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2208

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2208 2023

  38. [39]

    A., et al

    Karunakaran, A., Spekkens, K., Oman, K. A., et al. 2021, ApJL, 916, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0e3a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0e3a 2021

  39. [40]

    S., Xia, L., et al

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

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.05612 2025

  40. [41]

    R., & Knebe, A

    Knollmann, S. R., & Knebe, A. 2009, ApJS, 182, 608, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608 2009

  41. [42]

    2002, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    Kroupa, P. 2002, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    doi:10.1126/science.1067524 2002

  42. [43]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3, doi: 10.1086/313233

    doi:10.1086/313233 1999

  43. [44]

    K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782 2008

  44. [45]

    E., Carlsten, S

    Li, J., Greene, J. E., Carlsten, S. G., & Danieli, S. 2024, ApJL, 975, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5b59

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5b59 2024

  45. [46]

    E., Danieli, S., et al

    Li, J., Greene, J. E., Danieli, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08030, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.08030 2025

  46. [47]

    H., Mo, H

    Lim, S. H., Mo, H. J., Lu, Y., Wang, H., & Yang, X. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2982, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1462

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1462 2017

  47. [48]

    F., Wetzel, A

    Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A. R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx273 Mancera Pi˜ na, P. E., Read, J. I., Kim, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A311, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554381

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx273 2017

  48. [49]

    H., et al

    Mao, Y.-Y., Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abce58 —. 2024, ApJ, 976, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64c4 Mart ´ ın-Navarro, I., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2021, Nature, 594, 187, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03545-9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abce58 2021

  49. [50]

    R., et al

    McCluskey, F., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3547

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3547 2024

  50. [51]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Newman, M. J. B., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8158

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8158 2024

  51. [52]

    J., et al

    Meng, J., Li, C., Mo, H. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acae86

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acae86 2023

  52. [53]

    J., Moreno, J., Feldmann, R., et al

    Mercado, F. J., Moreno, J., Feldmann, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbf07

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbf07 2025

  53. [54]

    J., et al

    Moreno, J., Wheeler, C., Mercado, F. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.03785, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.03785

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.03785 2025

  54. [55]

    G., Sand, D

    Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Jones, M. G., Sand, D. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.16307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.16307

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.16307 2025

  55. [56]

    O., Wechsler, R

    Nadler, E. O., Wechsler, R. H., Bechtol, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab846a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab846a 2020

  56. [57]

    2018a, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 —

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 —. 2018b, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3040

  57. [58]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 3428, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx698

    Patel, E., Besla, G., & Mandel, K. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3428, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx698

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx698 2017

  58. [59]

    Perez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.53 2007

  59. [60]

    2018a, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656

  60. [61]

    2018b, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3112 2016

  61. [62]

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

    Putman, M. E., Zheng, Y., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe391 Rodr ´ ıguez-Cardoso, R., Roca-F` abrega, S., Jung, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A303, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453639 Rodriguez Wimberly, M. K., Cooper, M. C., Fillingham, S. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3357

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe391 2021

  62. [63]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 5276, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1706

    Samuel, J., Wetzel, A., Santistevan, I., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5276, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1706

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1706 2022

  63. [64]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 1471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3054

    Samuel, J., Wetzel, A., Tollerud, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3054

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3054 2020

  64. [65]

    E., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S., et al

    Sanderson, R. E., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5b9d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab5b9d 2020

  65. [66]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2058 2015

  66. [67]

    2015, in IAU

    Sick, J., Courteau, S., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al. 2015, in IAU

    2015

  67. [68]

    311, Galaxy Masses as Constraints of Formation Models, ed

    Symposium, Vol. 311, Galaxy Masses as Constraints of Formation Models, ed. M. Cappellari & S. Courteau, 82–85, doi: 10.1017/S1743921315003440

    doi:10.1017/s1743921315003440

  68. [69]

    M., Grand, R

    Simpson, C. M., Grand, R. J. J., G´ omez, F. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 548, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty774

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty774 2018

  69. [70]

    Aguirre, J. E. 2014, ApJL, 795, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L5

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/l5 2014

  70. [71]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    arXiv 2010

  71. [72]

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

    arXiv 2001

  72. [73]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3304 2018

  73. [74]

    2012, A&A, 546, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220065 18 Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S

    Tuvikene, T. 2012, A&A, 546, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220065 18 Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220065 2012

  74. [75]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  75. [76]

    L., Evans, N

    Watkins, L. L., Evans, N. W., & An, J. H. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 264, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16708.x

    arXiv 2010

  76. [77]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2944 2017

  77. [78]

    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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/739/1/5 2011

  78. [79]

    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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/l23 2016

  79. [80]

    R., Tollerud, E

    Wetzel, A. R., Tollerud, E. J., & Weisz, D. R. 2015, ApJL, 808, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L27

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/l27 2015

  80. [81]

    I., Cooper, M

    Wheeler, C., Phillips, J. I., Cooper, M. C., Boylan-Kolchin, M., & Bullock, J. S. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1396, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu965

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu965 2014