Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Most intracluster light in a Virgo-like cluster originates from satellite galaxies rather than from the central galaxy itself, with a distinct pre-stripped population tracing dark matter.

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 18:13 UTC pith:RATA3SDK

load-bearing objection A serious high-resolution ICL origin decomposition of one Virgo-like cluster, plausible and well executed, but the headline fractions and the most novel claims lean on acknowledged arbitrary thresholds and a subjective preprocessed classification. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.06098 v1 pith:RATA3SDK submitted 2025-12-05 astro-ph.GA

On the Origin of Intracluster Light based on the High-resolution Simulation, NewCluster

Seyoung Jeon , Emanuele Contini , San Han , Jinsu Rhee , Garreth Martin , Juhan Kim , Jaehyun Lee , Taysun Kimm
show 6 more authors
Christophe Pichon Gyeong-Hwan Byun Yohan Dubois Corentin Cadiou J. K. Jang Sukyoung K. Yi
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords intracluster lightgalaxy clusterstidal strippingpreprocessingmerger treeshydrodynamical simulationsstellar populationsdark matter tracers
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.

This paper tries to establish where a galaxy cluster's diffuse intracluster light comes from and what it can reveal about assembly history. Using the high-resolution NewCluster simulation at redshift 0.79, the authors track individual stellar particles across a dense sequence of snapshots and sort the diffuse stellar component into four origins: stars stripped from surviving satellites, stars from disrupted satellites, stars born in the central galaxy, and stars that became unbound before cluster infall (preprocessed). They find that satellite-derived stars make up the majority (roughly 55-60%) of the BCG+ICL, and that the preprocessed component follows the dark matter density profile better than any other stellar population and stands out chemically as old, metal-poor, and alpha-enhanced. If correct, this gives observers a quantitative route from the demographics and chemistry of intracluster light to the dynamical history of the cluster.

Core claim

The central claim is that, in this Virgo-mass cluster, most BCG+ICL mass is accreted rather than formed in place: stripped stars from surviving satellites contribute 33.4%, disrupted satellites contribute about 22%, in-situ BCG stars contribute about one third, and preprocessed stars contribute roughly 12%. The preprocessed population is the key new finding: stars unbound before cluster infall follow the dark matter density profile more closely than the other stellar components and have distinctive old, low-metallicity, alpha-enhanced populations. The authors also claim that the stripped fraction of a satellite is primarily determined by time since infall and pericenter distance, not by orbi

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a time-resolved merger tree built from phase-space-weighted bidirectional match scores, combined with a membership classification that approximates binding without full potential calculations: stars present in more than 90% of pre-infall snapshots are 'tight' members, those present in more than 10% are 'loose' members, and stars showing clear evidence of unbinding before cluster infall are classified as 'preprocessed'. This machinery defines the BCG+ICL sample itself and the four origin channels; every demographic fraction and population contrast in the paper follows from it.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the >90% versus >10% membership thresholds, applied within the 500 Myr pre-infall window, correctly separate stars truly bound to satellites from cluster light; if that classification is wrong, every origin fraction and the distinctiveness of the preprocessed population would shift.

What would settle it

Compute exact gravitational binding energies at infall for the same stellar particles classified as tight, loose, and preprocessed; if most loose members turn out to be bound, or most tight members unbound, the reported origin fractions would not hold. Observationally, a deep spectroscopic map of a Virgo-like cluster at radii beyond about 0.3 R200 that shows uniform [alpha/Fe] rather than an old, metal-poor, alpha-enhanced subpopulation would weigh against the preprocessed identification.

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

If this is right

  • Satellite stripping and disruption, not in-situ star formation, dominate the diffuse light of a Virgo-like cluster; the satellite contribution is expected to grow toward lower redshift as surviving satellites merge.
  • The preprocessed component is a candidate luminous tracer of dark matter, since it follows the dark matter density profile better than any other stellar component.
  • Time since infall and minimum pericenter distance determine how much stellar mass a satellite loses to the ICL, so the spatial distribution of intracluster light can be read as a record of orbital history.
  • Age, metallicity, and [alpha/Fe] offsets give the preprocessed population an observable chemical fingerprint, and a phase-space boundary near 0.1 R200 separates BCG-born stars from accreted stars.
  • The measured ~41% BCG+ICL mass fraction at z=0.79 provides a benchmark for ICL evolution at intermediate redshift.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The tight/loose thresholds (>90% and >10% occurrence) and the 500 Myr pre-infall window are arbitrary; a direct comparison with explicit binding-energy calculations for the same particles would test whether the reported origin fractions are stable.
  • If the preprocessed chemical fingerprint is real, deep spectroscopic observations of intracluster light at large cluster radii could identify this component and measure cluster assembly history; the authors note this is not yet feasible with current techniques.
  • At z=0, some currently surviving satellites will merge and migrate from the 'stripped' to the 'disrupted' channel, so the ratio of these channels is a redshift-dependent descriptor that one-halo time tracking could calibrate.
  • The single-cluster design does not constrain cluster-to-cluster variation; testing whether the preprocessed fraction correlates with cluster dynamical state or concentration would turn this method into a statistical tool.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the high-resolution NewCluster zoom-in cosmological simulation at z=0.79 to classify the BCG+ICL stellar particles into four origin channels: stripped from surviving satellites, stripped from disrupted (merged) satellites, in-situ formation in the BCG, and preprocessed (unbound before cluster infall). The authors report that satellite-derived stars make up the majority (~55%) of the BCG+ICL, that the preprocessed component follows the dark matter density profile more closely than other components and is old, metal-poor, and [α/Fe]-enhanced, and that the stripped fraction of satellites is chiefly controlled by time since infall and pericenter distance. The analysis relies on a new merger tree algorithm and particle tracking across dense snapshots.

Significance. If the central demographic and stellar-population results are robust, this would be an important contribution to ICL origin studies: it provides a high-resolution, particle-resolved census of ICL formation channels and identifies the preprocessed component as a potentially distinct tracer of dark matter and assembly history. The paper ships reproducible code (YoungTree, GitHub/Zenodo) and demonstrates a technically demanding tracking procedure on ~200 million stellar particles. However, the results are derived from a single unrelaxed cluster at z=0.79, and the central classification relies on thresholds and visual inspection that are not tested for sensitivity. The significance is therefore conditional on the robustness of the classification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Figure 4] The tight/loose membership thresholds (>90% vs >10% occurrence in a 500 Myr pre-infall window) are admittedly 'somewhat arbitrary'. These thresholds directly set the boundary between satellite-bound and BCG+ICL stars, and hence the headline claim that satellites contribute ~55% of the BCG+ICL. A threshold shift could plausibly move the fraction below 50% or change the preprocessed/stripped split. Please provide a sensitivity analysis (e.g., varying the thresholds and the window) and quantify how the fractions and the preprocessed properties respond.
  2. [Section 3.4, Figure 6] The preprocessed classification relies on 'clear evidence of prior unbinding' assessed visually from orbital trajectories. This is subjective and is the basis for the paper's most novel claims (old, metal-poor, α-enhanced, DM-tracing). Please replace or supplement the visual criterion with a quantitative boundness measure (e.g., energy-based or a defined threshold in the peri/apocenter evolution), and test how the preprocessed fraction and its stellar-population contrasts change with alternative definitions.
  3. [Sections 4 and 5] The distinctive properties of the preprocessed component—old age, low metallicity, high [α/Fe]—are partly imposed by the selection: stars classified as preprocessed were unbound before infall, so they cannot include stars born after that epoch, and their extended/mixed orbits follow from the prior-unbinding criterion. This circularity should be acknowledged explicitly, and ideally the paper should show that the properties are not simply an artifact of the selection definition (e.g., by comparing with a control sample of loosely-bound stars without prior unbinding).
  4. [Section 7.1] The analysis covers one cluster at z=0.79 that is explicitly described as unrelaxed and about to merge with a secondary halo. The paper appropriately labels itself a case study, but the abstract and conclusions state the satellite-majority claim and the DM-tracing property without this caveat. Please temper the general claims and quantify how the quoted fractions might depend on the dynamical state (or defer such statements until multi-cluster statistics are available).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section 8] The abstract says 'majority' (~55% in the text), while Section 8 reports '~60%'. Please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eq. (7)] The exponent C in q^(3) is described as 'tunable' but its value used in the analysis is not stated. Please report the chosen value and the sensitivity of the merger tree to it.
  3. [Section 4, Figure 7(f)] The mass fractions in the pie chart sum to 100% but the text quotes 33.4% stripped + ~22% disrupted + ~33% in-situ + ~12% preprocessed = ~100.4%. Please ensure the quoted percentages are consistent.
  4. [Section 5, Figure 9] The statement that j* 'does not provide an independent criterion' is based on radial profiles being nearly identical; it would help to show the j* profiles explicitly rather than only in the PDF, since the PDF difference is admittedly a spatial-concentration effect.
  5. [General] Several references are cited in the text but not in the bibliography (e.g., 'Contini et al. 2024c' in Section 4, 'Mayes et al. 2025' in Section 3.4, 'Byun et al. 2025' in Section 7.2). Please check the reference list for completeness and formatting.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor definitional circularity in the preprocessed age statement; central derivation is otherwise self-contained and non-circular.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 5, Stellar Population Study, age-distribution paragraph following Figure 9]
    "The preprocessed components become unbound before the infall of satellites, and therefore have an inherent lower age limit set by the infall epoch of their host satellites."

    Table 1 defines the preprocessed component as "from satellites but unbound before infall by group environments or neighboring galaxies." A star that is unbound before cluster infall necessarily formed before cluster infall, so the reported old age / lower age limit is an analytic consequence of the selection criterion rather than an independently derived empirical finding. The paper itself labels this relation as "inherent," so the circularity is limited and explicitly acknowledged. The other claimed preprocessed properties (low metallicity, enhanced alpha abundance, and a density profile closer to dark matter) are not imposed by the same definition and remain independent empirical results.

full rationale

The main quantitative claims of the paper—origin fractions of BCG+ICL (stripped 33.4%, disrupted ~22%, in-situ ~33%, preprocessed ~12%), the satellite-majority result (~55%), the dark-matter-like density profile of the preprocessed component, and the orbital dependencies of f_strip—are obtained from direct particle tracking in the NewCluster simulation and are not produced by fitting a parameter to the claimed output or by invoking a load-bearing self-citation. The paper benchmarks f_BCG+ICL (~41%) against external literature values, adding independent context. The time-series membership thresholds (500 Myr window, 10%/90% occurrence) are acknowledged as "somewhat arbitrary," and the preprocessed classification relies in part on visual inspection ("clear evidence of prior unbinding"); these are robustness concerns, not circularity, because changing them would alter the quantitative demographics rather than make a stated prediction equal to an input by construction. The only identifiable circular element is the old age of the preprocessed component: because "preprocessed" is defined as stars unbound before cluster infall, their formation must precede infall, making the reported "inherent lower age limit" a definitional consequence. The paper explicitly uses the word "inherent," so this is not a concealed derivation. No uniqueness theorem, self-citation chain, or renamed/known result is used to force the central conclusions. Overall score 2 reflects this minor, acknowledged definitional coupling while recognizing that the core simulation-based analysis is self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on a chain of classification choices (membership thresholds, window, subjective preprocessed identification) and on the simulation's subgrid physics. No parameter is fitted to a target observational result, but the origin fractions and stellar-population contrasts are conditional on these choices rather than being direct measurements.

free parameters (5)
  • q3 mass-match exponent C
    Equation 7 defines q^(3) = (min/max)^C with 'a tunable exponent'; its value is not specified. It affects merger-tree branch connections and therefore all origin classifications.
  • tight membership threshold = >90%
    Section 3 defines stars present in more than 90% of post-birth snapshots as 'tight' members. This arbitrary threshold controls which stars are considered bound to satellites and hence what becomes BCG+ICL.
  • loose membership threshold = >=10%
    Section 3 defines stars present in more than 10% of their lifetime as 'loose' members; including loose members as satellite stars sets an upper limit on bound stars and changes the BCG+ICL mass fraction.
  • pre-infall membership window = 500 Myr
    Section 3.1 uses a window from 500 Myr before infall to first infall to define initial satellite members. The window length affects how many young stars are classified as stripped versus preprocessed.
  • satellite selection radius = 1.5 R200
    Section 2.4 adopts a 'generous range' of 1.5 R200 for selecting satellites; this determines the sample of 403 surviving and 67 disrupted satellites.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption AdaptaHOP density thresholds and hierarchy correctly identify galaxies and subhalos.
    Section 2.2 relies on AdaptaHOP with thresholds of 80 rho_crit for halos and 178 rho_crit for galaxies. All satellite identification and membership tracking depend on these structures being correct.
  • domain assumption Subgrid physics in NewCluster (star formation, SN/AGN feedback, chemical yields) adequately models galaxy evolution.
    Section 2.1 describes prescriptions from Kimm et al. (2017), Kimm & Cen (2014), etc. Stellar ages, metallicities, and stripping behavior depend on these model choices.
  • ad hoc to paper Loose membership approximates gravitational binding without explicit potential calculation.
    Section 3 states: 'Although this threshold is somewhat arbitrary, it approximates binding without explicit potential calculations.' The central classification relies on this approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper Preprocessed stars can be reliably identified from visual orbital signatures.
    Section 3.4 classifies as preprocessed 'stars showing clear evidence of prior unbinding', a subjective criterion illustrated by Figure 6. The distinct properties of the preprocessed component depend on this identification.
  • domain assumption Stellar stripping is numerically converged at NewCluster's resolution.
    The paper cites Lovell et al. (2025) showing that stellar stripping is not converged in TNG resolutions, then argues 68 pc/2e4 Msun minimizes numerical artifacts, but no convergence test is presented for NewCluster itself.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28021 in / 11079 out tokens · 105471 ms · 2026-08-03T18:13:34.056193+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Intracluster light (ICL) is a key component of galaxy clusters, with the potential to trace their dynamical assembly histories and the underlying dark matter distribution. Despite these prospects, its faint nature makes a consensus on its origin or population properties difficult to achieve, both in observations and simulations. In the hope of finding a breakthrough, we utilize the ongoing high-resolution cluster simulation, NewCluster. By classifying billions of particles in and around the cluster with a rigorous tracking procedure, we find that the majority of the ICL originates from satellites, including surviving and disrupted galaxies. Another notable finding is that the preprocessed component follows the density profile of dark matter better than the other components and has distinctive properties: old age, low metallicity, and enhanced $\alpha$-element abundance. We further investigate the orbital dynamics, and our results demonstrate that the stripped fraction of satellites is primarily determined by the time since infall and the pericenter distance. By linking the demographic, chemical, and orbital properties of ICL stars to their origins, this work proposes a quantitative approach for tracing the assembly history of galaxy clusters from the ICL.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.06098 by Christophe Pichon, Corentin Cadiou, Emanuele Contini, Garreth Martin, Gyeong-Hwan Byun, Jaehyun Lee, Jinsu Rhee, J. K. Jang, Juhan Kim, San Han, Seyoung Jeon, Sukyoung K. Yi, Taysun Kimm, Yohan Dubois.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the NewCluster simulation cen￾tered on the primary cluster halo at z = 0.79. Panel (a) presents a dark matter density map (grayscale), with the virial radii of the two cluster halos (magenta and cyan cir￾cles). The dotted line shows the virial radius (Rvir) from AdaptaHOP, and the dashed line is the R200, which are described in Section 2.2. Panel (b) shows the corresponding r-band surface brigh… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic diagram of the merger tree. The spiral icons indicate all leaf galaxies connected to the target galaxy (z) across different snapshots, marked with alphabetical IDs. Each line represents a connected branch based on the score (described in the text). The main branch (black) has the same IDs for FIRST and HEAD, indicating a non-fragmented branch. Likewise, the same IDs for TAIL and FINAL mean that t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Orbital tracks of galaxies derived from the merger tree in the NewCluster cluster. Panel (a) shows the comoving-scale tracks in the cosmological box, while panel (b) shows the physical-scale tracks centered on the main cluster at z = 0.79 overlaid on a stellar density map (grayscale). The black dashed circles mark the R200 of the main cluster halo. The red line in panel (a) traces the BCG, and the red mark… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top (a)-(g): example of the infall member stars carried by a target surviving satellite galaxy. Panel (a) shows the overall projected smoothed trajectory (green) of the target satellite. Each position is normalized by the R200 of the main cluster progenitors. The purple line highlights the time interval (500 Myr before infall) used to identify member stars. Panels (b)-(g) present zoom-in views of the targe… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of stellar trajectories in a target satel￾lite galaxy. The x-axis shows the time relative to infall (tinf; black dashed vertical line), and the y-axis is the comov￾ing distance of stars from the satellite center. The black lines denote “stable” stars that remain tightly bound to the satellite throughout the simulation. The blue lines indicate “stripped” stars that are initially bound, but stripped … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stellar density maps of classified BCG+ICL stars. Panel (a) presents all BCG+ICL stars within 1.5 R200. Panels (b)-(e) show the subsamples of the BCG+ICL stars. Each subsample is defined as follows in Section 3 and displayed in a different color. Panel (f) shows the mass fractions of the subsamples. We also present the mass fractions of the subsam￾ples in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Density profiles of the BCG+ICL stars and dark matter. Panel (a) shows the density profile of dark matter (black dashed line) and all BCG+ICL stars (black solid line). The subsamples of BCG+ICL stars are shown in different col￾ors as indicated in the legend. The gray dashed line indicates a slope of −2 for reference. Panel (b) presents the residuals with respect to the dark matter density profile. Again, t… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Physical properties of the BCG+ICL stars. The left panel shows the radial profile, and the right panel shows the probability density function. From top to bottom, the properties shown are stellar age, metallicity, and specific an￾gular momentum. All properties are mass-weighted. In the radial profiles, the 16th–84th percentile ranges of the in-situ (red) and preprocessed components (yellow) are shown as sh… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dominant populations in the phase-space dia￾gram. For each phase-space bin, we color the most dominant populations following the text shown. The opacity represents how dominant a population is in each bin; colors range from white (32%) to vivid (100%). The black contours indicate 0.5 to 3 σ of the density distribution for all BCG+ICL in phase-s￾pace. The white dashed line shows the escape velocity curve o… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distributions of [α/Fe] and [Fe/H] for the BCG+ICL stars. Panel (c) shows the [α/Fe]-[Fe/H] diagram for each subsample. The contours indicate 1, 1.5, and 2 σ regions, while the shaded background shows the distribution of all BCG+ICL stars. Panels (a) and (b) display the probability density functions of [Fe/H] (left) and [α/Fe] (right). Panel (d) presents the corresponding radial profiles. The preprocessed… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Relationships between orbital parameters and the stripped fraction (fstrip). The parameters considered are the time since infall (TSI), the minimum pericenter distance (min(rp)), the number of orbits (Norbit), the orbital anisotropy parameter (β), and the stellar-to-halo mass ratio at infall (M∗ / Mh), as described in the text. The diagonal panels show the relation between each parameter and fstrip, inclu… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Consistent Comparison of Intracluster Light Assembly in Simulations I. Redshift Evolution and Progenitor Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A homogenized ICL definition applied to Horizon-AGN, TNG100, Gizmo-Simba and Hydrangea yields consistent z=0 fractions of 0.1-0.2 with no significant redshift evolution and dominant contributions from satellites of 10...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2005, A&A, 429, 39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041322

    Adami, C., Slezak, E., Durret, F., et al. 2005, A&A, 429, 39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041322

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041322 2005

  2. [2]

    2016, A&A, 592, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526831

    Adami, C., Pompei, E., Sadibekova, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526831

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526831 2016

  3. [3]

    L., Bah´ e, Y

    Ahad, S. L., Bah´ e, Y. M., & Hoekstra, H. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3357 Ald´ as, F., G´ omez, F. A., Vega-Mart ´ ınez, C., Zenteno, A., &

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3357 2023

  4. [4]

    Carrasco, E. R. 2025, A&A, 699, A313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451801 Alonso Asensio, I., Dalla Vecchia, C., Bah´ e, Y. M., Barnes, D. J., & Kay, S. T. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1859, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa861

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451801 2025

  5. [5]

    H., & Evans, N

    An, J. H., & Evans, N. W. 2006, AJ, 131, 782, doi: 10.1086/499305

    work page doi:10.1086/499305 2006

  6. [6]

    2016, A&A, 585, A160, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527399

    Annunziatella, M., Mercurio, A., Biviano, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A160, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527399

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527399 2016

  7. [8]

    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. [10]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., Wu, H.-Y., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/18

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/1/18 2013

  9. [11]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

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

    2008

  10. [12]

    R., Webb, T

    Bonaventura, N. R., Webb, T. M. A., Muzzin, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1259, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx722

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx722 2017

  11. [13]

    2001, Nature, 409, 39, doi: 10.1038/409039A010.1038/35051000

    Borgani, S., & Guzzo, L. 2001, Nature, 409, 39, doi: 10.1038/409039A010.1038/35051000

    doi:10.1038/409039a010.1038/35051000 2001

  12. [14]

    L., Bah´ e, Y

    Brough, S., Ahad, S. L., Bah´ e, Y. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3810

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3810 2024

  13. [15]

    J., Martin, G., Pearce, F

    Brown, H. J., Martin, G., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 431, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2084

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2084 2024

  14. [16]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 2353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv450

    Burke, C., Hilton, M., & Collins, C. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv450

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv450 2015

  15. [17]

    A., et al

    Butler, J., Martin, G., Hatch, N. A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf615

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf615 2025

  16. [18]

    K., Scofield, Z

    Byun, G.-H., Jang, J. K., Scofield, Z. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18374. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18374

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [19]

    2019, A&A, 621, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834496

    Cadiou, C., Dubois, Y., & Pichon, C. 2019, A&A, 621, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834496

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834496 2019

  18. [20]

    Cha, S., & Jee, M. J. 2023, ApJ, 951, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd111

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd111 2023

  19. [21]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  20. [22]

    1943, ApJ, 97, 255, doi: 10.1086/144517 Chandro-G´ omez,´A., Lagos, C

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1943, ApJ, 97, 255, doi: 10.1086/144517 Chandro-G´ omez,´A., Lagos, C. d. P., Power, C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 776, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf519

    doi:10.1086/144517 1943

  21. [23]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a52

    Chun, K., Shin, J., Ko, J., Smith, R., & Yoo, J. 2024, ApJ, 969, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a52

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a52 2024

  22. [24]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2cbe

    Chun, K., Shin, J., Smith, R., Ko, J., & Yoo, J. 2022, ApJ, 925, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2cbe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2cbe 2022

  23. [25]

    H., et al

    Clowe, D., Bradaˇ c, M., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2006, ApJL, 648, L109, doi: 10.1086/508162

    doi:10.1086/508162 2006

  24. [26]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 60, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9030060

    Contini, E. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 60, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9030060

    doi:10.3390/galaxies9030060 2021

  25. [27]

    Z., & Gu, Q

    Contini, E., Chen, H. Z., & Gu, Q. 2022, ApJ, 928, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac57c4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac57c4 2022

  26. [28]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, 3787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2174

    Contini, E., De Lucia, G., Villalobos, ´A., & Borgani, S. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2174

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2174 2014

  27. [29]

    Contini, E., Han, S., Jeon, S., Rhee, J., & Yi, S. K. 2024a, ApJL, 962, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad21e2

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad21e2 2041

  28. [30]

    Contini, E., Jeon, S., Rhee, J., Han, S., & Yi, S. K. 2023, ApJ, 958, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfd25

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfd25 2023

  29. [31]

    Contini, E., Rhee, J., Han, S., Jeon, S., & Yi, S. K. 2024b, AJ, 167, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0894

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0894

  30. [32]

    K., & Jeon, S

    Contini, E., Yi, S. K., & Jeon, S. 2024c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.01560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.01560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.01560

  31. [33]

    K., Jeon, S., & Rhee, J

    Contini, E., Yi, S. K., Jeon, S., & Rhee, J. 2024d, ApJS, 274, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad70ac

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad70ac

  32. [34]

    K., & Kang, X

    Contini, E., Yi, S. K., & Kang, X. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 932, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1518 IntraNewCluster Light21 —. 2019, ApJ, 871, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf41f

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1518 2018

  33. [35]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 2897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac275

    Contreras-Santos, A., Knebe, A., Pearce, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac275

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac275 2022

  34. [36]

    2024, A&A, 683, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348474

    Contreras-Santos, A., Knebe, A., Cui, W., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348474

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348474 2024

  35. [37]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.02837, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.02837 De Lucia, G., & Blaizot, J

    Dacunha, T., Mansfield, P., & Wechsler, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.02837, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.02837 De Lucia, G., & Blaizot, J. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11287.x

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.02837 2025

  36. [38]

    M., Pascale, M., Frye, B., et al

    Diego, J. M., Pascale, M., Frye, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345868

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345868 2023

  37. [40]

    M., et al

    Dolag, K., Remus, R.-S., Valenzuela, L. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01061, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.01061

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.01061 2025

  38. [41]

    J., Muriel, H., & Madrid, J

    Donzelli, C. J., Muriel, H., & Madrid, J. P. 2011, ApJS, 195, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/15

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/15 2011

  39. [42]

    2014a, MNRAS, 440, 1590, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu373

    Dubois, Y., Volonteri, M., & Silk, J. 2014a, MNRAS, 440, 1590, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu373

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu373

  40. [43]

    2014b, MNRAS, 444, 1453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1227

    Dubois, Y., Pichon, C., Welker, C., et al. 2014b, MNRAS, 444, 1453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1227

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1227

  41. [44]

    2021, A&A, 651, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039429

    Dubois, Y., Beckmann, R., Bournaud, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039429

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039429 2021

  42. [45]

    J., Poulton, R

    Elahi, P. J., Poulton, R. J. J., Tobar, R. J., et al. 2019, PASA, 36, e028, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.18

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.18 2019

  43. [46]

    2021, A&A, 649, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038419

    Ellien, A., Slezak, E., Martinet, N., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038419

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038419 2021

  44. [47]

    L., et al

    Ellien, A., Montes, M., Ahad, S. L., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554460

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554460 2025

  45. [48]

    M., Dell’Antonio, I., & Montes, M

    Englert, A. M., Dell’Antonio, I., & Montes, M. 2025, ApJL, 989, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade8f1 Euclid Collaboration, Bellhouse, C., Golden-Marx, J. B., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553887

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade8f1 2025

  46. [49]

    2004, PASJ, 56, 29, doi: 10.1093/pasj/56.1.29

    Fujita, Y. 2004, PASJ, 56, 29, doi: 10.1093/pasj/56.1.29

    doi:10.1093/pasj/56.1.29 2004

  47. [50]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1383

    Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1383

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1383 2013

  48. [51]

    1998, MNRAS, 300, 146, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01918.x

    Ghigna, S., Moore, B., Governato, F., et al. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 146, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01918.x

    arXiv 1998

  49. [52]

    B., Zhang, Y., Ogando, R

    Golden-Marx, J. B., Zhang, Y., Ogando, R. L. C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf277

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf277 2025

  50. [53]

    H., George, T., Connor, T., et al

    Gonzalez, A. H., George, T., Connor, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2117

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2117 2021

  51. [54]

    H., Zabludoff, A

    Gonzalez, A. H., Zabludoff, A. I., & Zaritsky, D. 2005, ApJ, 618, 195, doi: 10.1086/425896

    doi:10.1086/425896 2005

  52. [55]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab845c

    Gu, M., Conroy, C., Law, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab845c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab845c 2020

  53. [57]

    2025a, ApJ, 978, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98f4

    Han, S., Dubois, Y., Lee, J., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 978, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98f4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad98f4

  54. [58]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadfe2

    Han, S., Smith, R., Choi, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadfe2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadfe2 2018

  55. [59]

    K., Dubois, Y., et al

    Han, S., Yi, S. K., Dubois, Y., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.06301, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.06301

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.06301

  56. [60]

    Helmi, A., & White, S. D. M. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 495, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02616.x

    arXiv 1999

  57. [61]

    1999, ApJS, 125, 439, doi: 10.1086/313278

    Iwamoto, K., Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., et al. 1999, ApJS, 125, 439, doi: 10.1086/313278

    doi:10.1086/313278 1999

  58. [62]

    2025, syj3514/YoungTree: YoungTree: multi-snapshot merger tree builder (v1.0.0), v1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17793360 Jim´ enez-Teja, Y., & Dupke, R

    Jeon, S. 2025, syj3514/YoungTree: YoungTree: multi-snapshot merger tree builder (v1.0.0), v1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17793360 Jim´ enez-Teja, Y., & Dupke, R. 2016, ApJ, 820, 49, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/49 Jim´ enez-Teja, Y., Rom´ an, J., HyeongHan, K., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A216, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452384

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17793360 2025

  59. [63]

    Joo, H., & Jee, M. J. 2023, Nature, 613, 37, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05396-4

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05396-4 2023

  60. [64]

    J., Kim, J., et al

    Joo, H., Jee, M. J., Kim, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf4d0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf4d0 2025

  61. [65]

    L., Choi, H., Wong, O

    Jung, S. L., Choi, H., Wong, O. I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadda2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadda2 2018

  62. [66]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121

    Kimm, T., & Cen, R. 2014, ApJ, 788, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/121 2014

  63. [67]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx052

    Kimm, T., Katz, H., Haehnelt, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx052

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx052 2017

  64. [68]

    C., Brough, S., Dolag, K., et al

    Kimmig, L. C., Brough, S., Dolag, K., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554777

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554777 2025

  65. [69]

    A., Montes, M., et al

    Kluge, M., Hatch, N. A., Montes, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450772

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450772 2025

  66. [70]

    Ko, J., & Jee, M. J. 2018, ApJ, 862, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacbda

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacbda 2018

  67. [71]

    2006, ApJ, 653, 1145, doi: 10.1086/508914

    Ohkubo, T. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1145, doi: 10.1086/508914

    doi:10.1086/508914 2006

  68. [72]

    Kochanek, C. S. 2006, in Saas-Fee Advanced Course 33: Gravitational Lensing: Strong, Weak and Micro, ed. G. Meylan, P. Jetzer, P. North, P. Schneider, C. S. Kochanek, & J. Wambsganss, 91–268

    2006

  69. [73]

    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

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 2011

  70. [74]

    V., & Borgani, S

    Kravtsov, A. V., & Borgani, S. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 353, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502 2012

  71. [75]

    V., Vikhlinin, A

    Kravtsov, A. V., Vikhlinin, A. A., & Meshcheryakov, A. V. 2018, Astronomy Letters, 44, 8, doi: 10.1134/S1063773717120015 22Seyoung Jeon et al

    doi:10.1134/s1063773717120015 2018

  72. [76]

    R., Pillepich, A., Engler, C., et al

    Lovell, M. R., Pillepich, A., Engler, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07078, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07078

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.07078 2025

  73. [77]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  74. [78]

    2000, A&A, 361, 159, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006405

    Maeder, A., & Meynet, G. 2000, A&A, 361, 159, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006405

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0006405 2000

  75. [79]

    2025, MNRAS, 543, 4020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1717

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., & Cervantes Sodi, B. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 4020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1717

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1717 2025

  76. [80]

    Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., Devriendt, J. E. G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, L50, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx136

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx136 2017

  77. [81]

    R., Hatch, N

    Martin, G., Pearce, F. R., Hatch, N. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2488

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2488 2024

  78. [82]

    A., Kaviraj, S., et al

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3443 2021

  79. [83]

    E., Spavone, M., et al

    Martin, G., Bazkiaei, A. E., Spavone, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1459, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1003 Mart ´ ınez-Lombilla, C., Brough, S., Montes, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3119

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1003 2022

  80. [84]

    S., Sarrouh, G

    Martis, N. S., Sarrouh, G. T. E., Willott, C. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7735

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7735 2024

Showing first 80 references.