Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

The Role of Inner Halo Angular Momentum (Spin) in Shaping Dark Matter Bars in Milky Way Analogs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Halo spin sets how strong a dark matter bar grows in disk galaxies.

desk verdict Useful spin-grid extension of the authors' own bar simulations, with a plausible DM-bar/spin trend that needs seed variation and a cleaner measurement description before it can be fully trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.14420 v3 pith:RFIQECR5 submitted 2026-01-20 astro-ph.GA

Shouvik Ghosh , Sandeep Kumar Kataria This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords darkmatterbarhalospinparameterN-bodysimulationsgalacticbarsMilkyWayanalogsangularmomentumtransferbuckling
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the initial spin of a dark matter halo determines how strong a bar-like structure, called a dark matter bar, develops in the halo's center over billions of years. Using N-body simulations of Milky Way-like galaxies with halo spin parameters from zero to 0.1, the authors find that more rapidly spinning halos form dark matter bars earlier and saturate at higher strength, while a counter-rotating halo forms the weakest bar. They also report that when the stellar bar buckles (a brief vertical instability), the dark matter bar temporarily weakens but then regains and exceeds its previous strength. This matters because dark matter bars are a predicted but hard-to-observe component, and the link to spin connects an intrinsic halo property to observable galactic structure.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dark matter bar itself, measured by the m=2 Fourier amplitude A2/A0 of particles within R≤10 kpc and |z|≤3 kpc. The driving mechanism is resonant angular-momentum exchange between the stellar bar and the dark matter halo: the stellar bar loses angular momentum to the halo, and this reshapes inner-halo orbits into a bar-like configuration. The halo spin parameter λ enters as the control knob that sets how efficiently this transfer proceeds, yielding earlier, stronger dark matter bars for higher prograde spin.

What would settle it

A reader could settle the claim by taking one of the paper's simulations (e.g., the λ=0.1 prograde model), computing the m=2 Fourier amplitude using only dark matter particles inside R≤10 kpc, |z|≤3 kpc, and comparing it to the reported values that use the same methodology as the stellar bar measurement; if the dark-matter-only amplitude shows no monotonic increase with spin (or drops to near zero), the paper's core result is an artifact of disk contamination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the dark matter bar—a bar-like overdensity that develops in the inner dark matter halo as a dynamical response to the stellar bar—has a long-term strength largely set by the halo's initial spin parameter λ. In a series of idealized Milky Way analog simulations spanning λ=0 to 0.1 (prograde) plus one retrograde model, the dark matter bar's m=2 Fourier amplitude at saturation increases monotonically with prograde spin, whereas the stellar bar's saturation amplitude is nearly spin-independent. The authors also show that stellar bar buckling events impose a temporary dip in dark matter bar strength, from which the bar recovers, ending at a strength higher than b

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the m=2 amplitude computed inside R≤10 kpc, |z|≤3 kpc is a clean measure of the halo's own bar; if disk particles contaminate this measurement, the spin-strength trend could simply mirror the stellar bar's behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Galaxies that form in high-spin halos should develop detectable dark matter bars sooner and with greater amplitude, making the inner halo measurably non-spherical.
  • Stellar bar buckling is not a permanent damper of the dark matter bar; the dark matter bar recovers and saturates at higher strength, so observations of strongly barred galaxies do not rule out past buckling events.
  • Since dark matter bar pattern speeds converge regardless of initial spin, pattern speed measurements alone cannot be used to infer halo spin, but the initial pattern speed may be a spin indicator at early times.
  • The orientation coupling between stellar and dark matter bars strengthens over time, so late-type barred galaxies are expected to show aligned stellar and dark matter bars.
  • High-spin halos at high redshift could produce bars rapidly, offering a dynamical explanation for the surprisingly large fraction of barred galaxies seen in early-universe observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An untested but direct consequence is that the non-axisymmetric inner halo produced by a strong dark matter bar might alter gravitational-lensing signals through the halo's projected mass distribution, giving an observational handle on halo spin that the paper only mentions in passing.
  • The spin-strength trend could be probed by isolating the halo response: rerunning one simulation with the stellar disk replaced by a rigid or non-bar-forming disk would reveal whether the dark matter bar forms at all without the stellar bar, and whether its strength still tracks spin.
  • The choice of the 10 kpc/3 kpc measurement box is a potential confounder; if the reported m=2 amplitude is re-computed using only dark matter particles (excluding disk particles), or with a different radial cut, and the monotonic trend vanishes, the central claim would need qualification.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses idealized N-body simulations of Milky Way analogs with initial dark matter halo spin parameters λ = 0, 0.025, 0.05, 0.075, 0.1 (prograde) and one retrograde model (SM100), all evolved for ~9.78 Gyr. Following the model setup of Kataria & Shen (2022), the authors measure the m=2 Fourier amplitude A2/A0 for both the stellar disk and the dark matter halo within fixed cylindrical apertures. The central claim is that the dark matter (DM) bar strength at saturation increases monotonically with increasing prograde halo spin, that stellar buckling temporarily reduces DM bar strength, and that DM bar pattern speeds converge at late times regardless of spin. The paper also reports axis ratios, angular momentum transfer, and bar alignment as additional diagnostics of DM bar morphology.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a systematic, parameter-controlled demonstration that inner halo angular momentum is a key determinant of DM bar properties in MW-like isolated galaxies, complementing cosmological simulation findings and offering a possible connection to high-redshift barred galaxies in JWST observations. Strengths include a clean spin grid (λ = 0–0.1 plus a retrograde model), a single-variable modification of the initial conditions, and a stated convergence test by doubling particle number. However, the paper's principal diagnostic for DM bars is ambiguously defined and lacks the sensitivity/robustness tests needed to support the headline spin-strength trend.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (4), §3.2.2] Eq. (4) states that a2 and b2 are “calculated for all disk particles,” yet §3.2.2 says the DM bar strength is measured with “the same methodology used for stellar bar strength.” If the DM-bar A2/A0 literally includes disk particles within R≤10 kpc, the reported spin-strength trend (Fig. 3) could simply trace the stellar bar's non-axisymmetric mass distribution inside that radius, not a halo response. If DM particles are used instead, the text must state this explicitly and Eq. (4) must be generalized. This ambiguity is load-bearing for the abstract's main claim; please clarify the particle selection and demonstrate separation (e.g., recompute A2/A0 using only DM particles, or decompose stellar and DM contributions).
  2. [§3.2.2, §3.6] No sensitivity tests are provided for the radial and vertical apertures used for the DM bar (R≤10 kpc, |z|≤3 kpc; stated in §3.6). Since the stellar bar is measured out to 20 kpc and is much stronger, the fixed DM-bar aperture may be contaminated by stellar particles or by the disk's quadrupole. The paper should show that the DM-bar amplitude and its spin dependence are robust to varying R_cut (e.g., 8, 10, 12 kpc) and |z| cut. This is directly relevant to the claim that the DM bar strength increases with λ.
  3. [§2, §3.2.2] The monotonic increase of DM bar saturation strength with λ is based on a single realization per spin value. With 10^6 particles per component and the stochastic nature of bar instability, run-to-run variance can be significant. Provide multiple realizations (at least for S000 and S100, or a seed-variation set) or a bootstrap-based error estimate to determine whether the reported trend is significant. Without this, the claim that the DM bar strength “gradually increases” with halo spin is not on solid statistical footing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title/abstract] The title contains “W ay” (line break artifact) and the affiliation contains “Enginnering”; these typos should be corrected.
  2. [§3.4] The text refers to “Figure 3.3” in §3.5 when describing SM100's delayed triggering; this should be a proper figure reference (e.g., Fig. 2 or Fig. 3).
  3. [§3.3] The statement that DM bar pattern speed is higher than the stellar counterpart references “Figure 7 of (Kataria & Shen 2022)” but no comparison plot is shown here; it would be helpful to include the stellar pattern speed in Fig. 4 or state clearly that the comparison is from the earlier paper.
  4. [§4] The explanation for the discrepancy with Collier et al. (2019) and Long et al. (2014) is deferred entirely to external papers (Kataria 2024; Kataria & Shen 2022). While acceptable as a pointer, a short self-contained physical discussion (e.g., halo concentration, disk response, or spin-injection method) would strengthen the narrative.
  5. [General notation] The spin parameter λ in Eq. (1) is written as J/√(2GM Rvir), which is not the standard Bullock et al. (2001) definition; the authors should either cite the exact definition or explicitly note that they use a simplified version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No fundamental circularity; central spin-strength trend is a direct simulation output, with only a mild self-citation burden.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that DM bar strength increases with initial halo spin—is obtained by running N-body simulations with different λ and measuring A2/A0 (Eqs. 4–5). No parameter is fitted to the target trend, and no 'prediction' is derived from the measurement; the trend is a direct output of the simulations. The model setup is taken from the authors' own Kataria & Shen (2022), and Section 4 defers the explanation of disagreement with Long et al. (2014) and Collier et al. (2018, 2019) to Kataria (2024) and Kataria & Shen (2022). These are self-citations, but they are not the basis of the principal result; the trend would stand or fall on the simulations themselves. A measurement ambiguity exists: Eq. 4 defines the Fourier coefficients as 'calculated for all disk particles', while §3.2.2 applies 'the same methodology' to the DM bar; if the same particle selection is actually used, the DM-bar A2/A0 could be contaminated by the stellar bar. This is a validity concern, not circularity. No circular step satisfies the 'specific reduction' test; the score of 2 reflects the mild self-citation burden, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an N-body simulation study, so it has no fitted constants; however, several analysis choices are hand-picked and untested. The most important are the radial and vertical cuts used to define the DM bar and the shell used for the halo angular-momentum budget. The spin parameter grid is the independent variable, not a fit. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • DM bar radial cutoff = 10 kpc
    Chosen by hand for all models; no sensitivity test. A2/A0 and b/a values depend on this radius.
  • bar vertical cutoff = |z| ≤ 3 kpc
    Chosen by hand for both bars; affects measured bar strengths.
  • halo AM shell = 10–25 kpc, |z| ≤ 10 kpc
    Chosen for the angular-momentum budget; different shell would change the apparent AM gain/loss.
  • orbit-flip radius for spin injection = 30 kpc
    The halo spin is set by reversing retrograde orbits only within 30 kpc, so the study effectively varies inner-halo rotation, not the global spin parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The N-body integrations accurately capture the secular angular-momentum exchange between disk and halo.
    The paper presents no resolution or force-accuracy comparison beyond a particle-number convergence test; the central dynamical results assume the simulation is converged (§2).
  • domain assumption The Hernquist halo and GalIC initial conditions from Kataria & Shen (2022) are a valid Milky Way analog.
    The model uses M200 = 5.68e11 Msun, Rd = 2.9 kpc, z0 = 0.58 kpc, but no comparison to observed Milky Way constraints is shown (§2).
  • ad hoc to paper Reversing retrograde orbits within 30 kpc preserves equilibrium and cleanly isolates spin as the only changed variable.
    This is the paper's method for building spinning halos; if it also changes velocity anisotropy or density structure, the spin attribution is compromised (§2).
  • domain assumption The m=2 Fourier amplitude A2/A0 computed in the chosen cylinder is a valid measure of a distinct DM bar.
    The paper applies the stellar-bar estimator to DM particles without validating that it isolates a bar-like halo component rather than a triaxial or prolate response (§3.2.2, Eq. 4–5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Role of Inner Halo Angular Momentum (Spin) in Shaping Dark Matter Bars in Milky Way Analogs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFIQECR5

@misc{pith2026260114420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Role of Inner Halo Angular Momentum (Spin) in Shaping Dark Matter Bars in Milky Way Analogs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFIQECR5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.14420}
}
read the original abstract

Studies of galactic bars have primarily focused on stellar bars, since they can be directly observed through ultraviolet to infrared wavebands. Cosmological as well as idealised simulations reveal that the dark matter (DM) haloes interact with baryonic matter, primarily the stellar bars, dynamically by means of the exchange of angular momentum. In these simulations, the spherical DM halo dynamically responds to interaction with the stellar bar by reshaping its orbital structure in the proximity of the stellar bar, forming a bar-like configuration, called as the Dark Matter (DM) bar. Using N-body simulations of Milky Way analogs we discuss the role of inner halo angular momentum, measured as halo spin parameter {\lambda} of the dark matter halo, on formation and evolutionary characteristics of the DM bars. Our systematic study involves haloes with initial spin configurations ranging from {\lambda} = 0 to 0.1. The result conveys that DM bar formation and its characteristics are extensively dependent on the initial spin parameter {\lambda} of the DM halo. We demonstrate that the strength of the dark matter bar gradually increases with an increase in halo spin in long-term evolution, with a significant impact of stellar bar buckling on dark matter bar strength. The evolutionary characteristics of the DM bar are strongly influenced by the initial spin of the host halo.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.14420 by the authors.

Figure 4
Figure 4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of stellar bar strength A2/A0 over time for increasing halo spin parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of dark matter bar strength A2/A0 over time for increasing halo spin parameter 3.2. Evolution of Bar Strength The bar strength is calculated using m = 2 mode, where A2, represents the bi-symmetric structure while A0 corresponds to the axisymmetric component. The ra￾tio A2/A0, provides a dimensionless parameter to mea￾ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Co-evolution of bar strength (A2/A0) and pattern speed (Ωbar) over time for dark matter bars in halos with varying spin parameters. 3.5. Stellar and Dark Matter Bar Angle The stellar and dark matter bar angles, along with their respective differences between are illust…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of stellar bar and dark matter bar angle over time for varying halo spin parameter. ponents. The alignment of stellar and DM bars has been confirmed in the TNG50 simulations (Ash et al. 2024). 3.6. Angular Momentum Over Time Angular momentum transfer plays a …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of angular momentum for the stellar bar, dark matter bar, and the dark matter halo over time, shown for increasing initial halo spin parameters. their surrounding halo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The time evolution of the c/a axis ratio for all models, where c/a represents vertical thickness of the DM bar the DM bar and its vertical flattening. We observe that the dark matter bar in all our models undergoes pro￾gressive morphological evolution, with the higher …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The time evolution of the b/a axis ratio for all models, where b/a represents structural morphology of the DM bar 3.7. Morphological Evolution of DM Bar Structure The evolution of the axial ratios b/a and c/a, rep￾resenting the intermediate:major and minor:major axis r…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dark matter surface density for models with varying spin parameter at t = 9.78 Gyr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aguerri, J. A. L., M´ endez-Abreu, J., & Corsini, E. M. 2009, A&A, 495, 491, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810931

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810931 2009

  2. [2]

    2024, The stellar bar - dark matter halo connection in the TNG50 simulations

    Ansar, S., & Das, M. 2024, The stellar bar - dark matter halo connection in the TNG50 simulations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.11998

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    K., & Das, M

    Ansar, S., Kataria, S. K., & Das, M. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1060

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1060 2023

  4. [4]

    Ash, N., Valluri, M., Chen, Y., & Bell, E. F. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad863a 14

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad863a 2024

  5. [6]

    2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341, 1179–1198, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06473.x

    Athanassoula, E. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341, 1179–1198, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06473.x

    arXiv 2003

  6. [7]

    2005, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1045, 168, doi: 10.1196/annals.1350.013

    Athanassoula, E. 2005, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1045, 168, doi: 10.1196/annals.1350.013

    work page doi:10.1196/annals.1350.013 2005

  7. [9]

    2007, MNRAS, 377, 1569, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11711.x

    Athanassoula, E. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1569, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11711.x

    arXiv 2007

  8. [10]

    2013, Bars and secular evolution in disk galaxies: Theoretical input, ed

    Athanassoula, E. 2013, Bars and secular evolution in disk galaxies: Theoretical input, ed. J. Falc´ on-Barroso & J. H

    2013

Show all 54 references
  1. [11]

    Athanassoula, E., Machado, R. E. G., & Rodionov, S. A. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1949, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts452

    2013 doi

  2. [12]

    2002, MNRAS, 330, 35, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05028.x

    Athanassoula, E., & Misiriotis, A. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 35, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05028.x

    2002

  3. [13]

    D., Jogee, S., & Marinova, I

    Barazza, F. D., Jogee, S., & Marinova, I. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1194, doi: 10.1086/526510

    2008 doi

  4. [14]

    2006, ApJ, 648, 807, doi: 10.1086/506016

    Berentzen, I., & Shlosman, I. 2006, ApJ, 648, 807, doi: 10.1086/506016

    2006 doi

  5. [15]

    Heller, C. H. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 666, 189–200, doi: 10.1086/520531

    2007 doi

  6. [16]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    2008

  7. [17]

    S., Dekel, A., Kolatt, T

    Bullock, J. S., Dekel, A., Kolatt, T. S., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 240, doi: 10.1086/321477

    2001 doi

  8. [18]

    J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al

    Buta, R. J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 32, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/32

    2015 doi

  9. [19]

    K., Shen, J., & Guo, M

    Chen, B.-H., Kataria, S. K., Shen, J., & Guo, M. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 994, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae13a6

    2025 doi

  10. [20]

    Chiba, R., & Kataria, S. K. 2024, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 528, 4115 Col ´ ın, P., Valenzuela, O., & Klypin, A. 2006, ApJ, 644, 687, doi: 10.1086/503791

    2024 doi

  11. [21]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 5788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2144

    Collier, A., Heller, C., & Shlosman, I. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 5788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2144

    2019 doi

  12. [22]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac004d

    Collier, A., & Madigan, A.-M. 2021, ApJ, 915, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac004d

    2021 doi

  13. [23]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 1331–1344, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty270

    Collier, A., Shlosman, I., & Heller, C. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 1331–1344, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty270

    2018 doi

  14. [24]

    Combes, F., & Sanders, R. H. 1981, A&A, 96, 164

    1981

  15. [25]

    P., Mayer, L., Carollo, C

    Debattista, V. P., Mayer, L., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 209, doi: 10.1086/504147

    2006 doi

  16. [26]

    P., & Sellwood, J

    Debattista, V. P., & Sellwood, J. A. 2000, ApJ, 543, 704, doi: 10.1086/317148 Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., Combes, F., Semelin, B., &

    2000 doi

  17. [27]

    Snaith, O. N. 2013, A&A, 553, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220539

    2013 doi

  18. [29]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 697, 293–310, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/697/1/293

    Dubinski, J., Berentzen, I., & Shlosman, I. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 697, 293–310, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/697/1/293

    2009 doi

  19. [30]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3117

    Erwin, P. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3117

    2018 doi

  20. [31]

    B., Frogel, J

    Eskridge, P. B., Frogel, J. A., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 119, 536–544, doi: 10.1086/301203

    2000 doi

  21. [32]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 985, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc8a7

    Guo, Y., Jogee, S., Wise, E., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 985, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc8a7

    2025 doi

  22. [33]

    Hernquist, L., & Weinberg, M. D. 1992, ApJ, 400, 80, doi: 10.1086/171975

    1992 doi

  23. [34]

    Hohl, F., & Hockney, R. W. 1969, Journal of Computational Physics, 4, 306, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(69)90002-3

    1969 doi

  24. [36]

    Kataria, S. K. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2311

    2024 doi

  25. [37]

    Kataria, S. K. 2025, Can A Kinematically Hot and Thick Disk Form A Bar? : Role of Highly Spinning Dark Matter Halos, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2512.21632

    2025 doi

  26. [38]

    K., & Das, M

    Kataria, S. K., & Das, M. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1653, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3279 —. 2019, ApJ, 886, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab48f7

    2018 doi

  27. [39]

    K., Das, M., & Barway, S

    Kataria, S. K., Das, M., & Barway, S. 2020, A&A, 640, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037527

    2020 doi

  28. [40]

    K., & Shen, J

    Kataria, S. K., & Shen, J. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9df1 —. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 970, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5b58

    2022 doi

  29. [41]

    K., & Vivek, M

    Kataria, S. K., & Vivek, M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3383

    2024 doi

  30. [42]

    Kumar, A., Das, M., & Kataria, S. K. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3019

    2022 doi

  31. [43]

    Kumar, A., & Kataria, S. K. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 2497, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1487 Le Conte, Z. A., Gadotti, D. A., Ferreira, L., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 1984, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae921 15

    2022 doi

  32. [44]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/l18

    Long, S., Shlosman, I., & Heller, C. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/l18

    2014 doi

  33. [45]

    2024, Galaxies, 12, 27, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12030027

    Manos, T. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 27, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12030027

    2024 doi

  34. [47]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 637, 214–226, doi: 10.1086/498338

    Martinez-Valpuesta, I., Shlosman, I., & Heller, C. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 637, 214–226, doi: 10.1086/498338

    2006 doi

  35. [48]

    H., Prendergast, K

    Miller, R. H., Prendergast, K. H., & Quirk, W. J. 1970, ApJ, 161, 903, doi: 10.1086/150593

    1970 doi

  36. [49]

    B., & Abraham, R

    Nair, P. B., & Abraham, R. G. 2010, ApJL, 714, L260, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L260 O’Neill, J. K., & Dubinski, J. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 251, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07085.x

    2010

  37. [50]

    B., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F

    Romeo, A. B., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1002, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3074

    2023 doi

  38. [51]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 1287–1299, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1088

    Saha, K., & Naab, T. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 1287–1299, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1088

    2013 doi

  39. [52]

    A., Bower, R

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

    2015 doi

  40. [53]

    Sellwood, J. A. 2014, Reviews of Modern Physics, 86, 1, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.86.1

    2014 doi

  41. [54]

    Teuben, P. J. 2005, ApJ, 632, 217, doi: 10.1086/432409

    2005 doi

  42. [55]

    2005a, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005a, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    2005

  43. [56]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005b, Nature, 435, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature03597

    doi

  44. [57]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77c8

    Tahmasebzadeh, B., Dattathri, S., Valluri, M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77c8

    2024 doi

  45. [58]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 218–232, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/218 —

    Villa-Vargas, J., Shlosman, I., & Heller, C. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 218–232, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/218 —. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 1470–1480, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/719/2/1470

    2009 doi

  46. [59]

    D., & Katz, N

    Weinberg, M. D., & Katz, N. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 460, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11307.x

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.