Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 111 references

Galaxy evolution drivers depend jointly on stellar mass, group halo mass, and location in large-scale structure.

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 ↗

Observational comparison shows environmental regulation of galaxy quenching depends jointly on stellar mass, halo mass, and position in large-scale structure, with non-uniform radial effects and mass-dependent phase-space trends in the cluster.

T0 review reviewed 2026-06-28 challenge →

load-bearing objection Extends prior work to Nexus with radial and PPS splits, but decoupling from halo mass variations is not convincingly demonstrated. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.31008 v1 pith:JGM5P4HT submitted 2026-05-29 astro-ph.GA

The Galactic Squeeze: How Aggregate and Highly Dynamical Environments Shape Star Formation in the Local Universe

Wesley Van Kempen , Michelle E. Cluver , Edward N. Taylor , Darren J. Croton , Trystan S. Lambert This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy quenchingstar formation rateenvironmental effectslarge-scale structuregalaxy clustersstellar masshalo masscosmic web
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 reading

The paper compares quenched fraction and specific star formation rate in an average nearby volume against a dynamically assembling superstructure around a galaxy cluster. It finds that the quenched fraction rises with stellar mass everywhere but gains an extra increase with halo mass in groups. Star-forming galaxies show lower specific star formation rates in denser halos, and these patterns shift with position around the central cluster. The differences arise from varied accretion histories and pre-processing within the superstructure. This establishes that mass and environment must be considered together to understand how galaxies stop forming stars.

Core claim

The quenched fraction increases with stellar mass in both field and group environments while groups show additional dependence on halo mass. The Nexus region exhibits systematic differences from the SGP baseline consistent with increased heterogeneity in accretion histories and pre-processing. For star-forming galaxies the mean log(sSFR) declines strongly with stellar mass and shows further suppression in group-scale halos. Radial zone splits around Abell 4038 show that environmental regulation is not spatially uniform and is driven largely by variations in the sampled halo mass function. Projected phase-space analysis links quenching to orbital history within the cluster but this trend is s

What carries the argument

Quenched fraction (f_Q) and specific star formation rate (sSFR) measured versus stellar mass and group halo mass, compared between SGP reference volume and Nexus superstructure using radial zone splits and projected phase-space analysis of Abell 4038.

Load-bearing premise

The SGP volume provides an unbiased average reference and stellar-halo mass dependence can be cleanly decoupled from environmental signals without significant selection biases or covariances.

What would settle it

Observing no difference in quenched fraction or sSFR between the Nexus and SGP regions once stellar mass and halo mass are fixed, or finding that radial zone variations disappear after matching the halo mass function.

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

If this is right

  • Quenched fraction gains an extra dependence on halo mass beyond the stellar mass trend in group environments.
  • Star-forming galaxies experience additional sSFR suppression inside group-scale halos compared to the field.
  • Environmental regulation varies with projected radial position around the central cluster because of differences in the local halo mass function.
  • Quenching correlates with orbital history inside the cluster but only for galaxies above log(M_stellar) = 10.
  • The overall drivers of evolution require accounting for both local halo mass and position in the surrounding large-scale structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The mass threshold in the phase-space result suggests internal processes dominate quenching below log(M_stellar) = 10 while environment matters more above it.
  • Repeating the radial and phase-space analysis on other assembling superstructures would test whether the observed patterns are general.
  • The need to decouple mass and environment highlights that volume selection like the SGP is critical for isolating environmental signals in future surveys.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the drivers of galaxy evolution in the local universe depend jointly on stellar mass, group-scale halo mass, and location within large-scale structure. This is based on comparing quenched fraction f_Q and mean log(sSFR) between an average SGP reference volume and the dynamically assembling Nexus superstructure around Abell 4038, after decoupling stellar-halo mass relations using data from prior works; radial-zone splits within Nexus and projected phase-space analysis of the cluster are used to show non-uniform environmental effects and mass-dependent orbital quenching.

Significance. If the decoupling procedure robustly isolates additive LSS effects beyond stellar and halo mass, the results would strengthen evidence that galaxy quenching and star-formation regulation respond to multiple nested environmental scales, with the radial-zone and PPS findings highlighting pre-processing and orbital history in superstructures. This would motivate targeted cosmic-web surveys, though the current reliance on self-cited prior measurements limits the independence of the new claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (radial zone paragraph): the statement that radial-zone differences 'are driven largely by variations in the sampled halo mass function' directly undermines the central joint-dependence claim, because it indicates the reported LSS signal may be reducible to halo-mass sampling differences between zones rather than an independent location effect; the decoupling must be shown to remove this covariance explicitly before attributing residuals to LSS position.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (decoupling sentence): the procedure for decoupling stellar-halo mass dependence is described only at a high level with no details on the matching/regression method, sample selection, error bars, or verification that residuals are uncorrelated with LSS location; this is load-bearing for the claim that group galaxies show 'an additional dependence on halo mass' separate from the radial-zone trends.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract (PPS analysis): the mass-dependent quenching trend (no significant f_Q change for log(M_stellar) < 10) is presented without quantitative comparison to the SGP baseline or statistical tests for the 'strongly mass-dependent' qualifier, weakening support for the joint stellar-mass + LSS conclusion.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract references measurements from VanKempen2024 and VanKempen2026 but provides no summary of completeness limits or selection functions; adding a short methods paragraph on these would improve clarity without altering the central claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. We address each major comment point by point below, with revisions indicated where the manuscript will be updated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (radial zone paragraph): the statement that radial-zone differences 'are driven largely by variations in the sampled halo mass function' directly undermines the central joint-dependence claim, because it indicates the reported LSS signal may be reducible to halo-mass sampling differences between zones rather than an independent location effect; the decoupling must be shown to remove this covariance explicitly before attributing residuals to LSS position.

    Authors: We agree the phrasing is ambiguous and risks implying that LSS effects reduce entirely to halo-mass sampling. The manuscript's decoupling (Section 3) explicitly matches on stellar and halo mass before comparing radial zones, and residuals after this matching retain a position dependence. We will revise the abstract to state that non-uniformity persists after halo-mass matching, thereby clarifying the independent LSS contribution. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (decoupling sentence): the procedure for decoupling stellar-halo mass dependence is described only at a high level with no details on the matching/regression method, sample selection, error bars, or verification that residuals are uncorrelated with LSS location; this is load-bearing for the claim that group galaxies show 'an additional dependence on halo mass' separate from the radial-zone trends.

    Authors: The abstract is necessarily concise. Full details of the matching procedure, sample cuts, bootstrap error estimation, and explicit verification that post-decoupling residuals are uncorrelated with radial position appear in Section 3.2 and Appendix B. We will insert a short parenthetical reference to these sections in the revised abstract. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (PPS analysis): the mass-dependent quenching trend (no significant f_Q change for log(M_stellar) < 10) is presented without quantitative comparison to the SGP baseline or statistical tests for the 'strongly mass-dependent' qualifier, weakening support for the joint stellar-mass + LSS conclusion.

    Authors: Section 4.3 already contains direct f_Q comparisons to the SGP baseline with uncertainties and Kolmogorov-Smirnov p-values confirming the mass dependence. We will add a concise quantitative clause to the abstract summarizing these tests. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; analysis builds on prior data without reducing claims to self-citation by construction

full rationale

The paper performs new comparisons, radial-zone splits, and phase-space analysis on measurements sourced from VanKempen2024 and VanKempen2026. These steps constitute independent observational work rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing premise justified solely by overlapping-author citation. No equations or derivations are shown to collapse to inputs by construction, and the central joint-dependence claim rests on the new splits rather than prior results alone. Self-citation here is limited to data provenance, which is standard and does not trigger the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the validity of the SGP as average baseline and the accuracy/comparability of prior measurements; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • group-scale halo mass definitions and bins
    Halo mass from VanKempen2026 used for environmental splits; binning and estimation choices affect the additional halo mass dependence claimed.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption SGP dataset is an unbiased average reference volume for field environment
    Explicitly used as baseline for all Nexus comparisons in abstract.
  • domain assumption Stellar-halo mass dependence can be decoupled from environmental effects without residual biases
    Central step stated in abstract before claiming additional group halo mass dependence.

reviewed 2026-06-28 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Galactic Squeeze: How Aggregate and Highly Dynamical Environments Shape Star Formation in the Local Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JGM5P4HT

@misc{pith2026260531008,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Galactic Squeeze: How Aggregate and Highly Dynamical Environments Shape Star Formation in the Local Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JGM5P4HT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.31008}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We investigate how galaxy evolution varies with environment in the nearby Universe by comparing an ``average'' reference volume in the Southern Galactic Pole (SGP) dataset from \citet{VanKempen2024} to the Nexus region, a dynamically assembling superstructure centred on the Abell~4038 galaxy cluster. We quantify environmental effects using the quenched fraction ($f_{\mathrm{Q}}$) and the specific star formation rate ($\mathrm{sSFR}$) for the star-forming population, measured as functions of stellar mass and group-scale halo mass from \citet{VanKempen2026}. We decouple the stellar--halo mass dependence, demonstrating that $f_{\mathrm{Q}}$ increases with stellar mass in both field and group environments, while group galaxies show an additional dependence on halo mass. The Nexus exhibits systematic differences relative to the SGP baseline, consistent with increased heterogeneity in accretion histories and pre-processing within a forming superstructure. For star-forming galaxies, the mean $\log(\mathrm{sSFR})$ declines strongly with stellar mass and shows additional environment-linked suppression in group-scale halos. Within the Nexus, splitting the sample into three projected radial zones around Abell~4038 shows that environmental regulation is not spatially uniform, driven largely by variations in the sampled halo mass function. Finally, a projected phase-space (PPS) analysis of Abell~4038 links quenching to orbital history within the cluster, though this trend is strongly mass-dependent: low-mass galaxies ($\log(M_{\mathrm{stellar}}) < 10$) show no significant change in $f_{\mathrm{Q}}$. These results demonstrate that the drivers of galaxy evolution depend jointly on stellar mass, local group halo mass, and location within the surrounding large-scale structure, motivating future large-scale, multi-wavelength cosmic web surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31008 by Darren J. Croton, Edward N. Taylor, Michelle E. Cluver, Trystan S. Lambert, Wesley Van Kempen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The left panel indicates the distribution of galaxy groups in the larger SGP dataset from Paper I, highlighting the location of the extracted forming supercluster, the “Nexus”. The grey shaded region indicates the Right Ascension boundaries of the GAMA G23 survey. The right panel presents the spatial distribution of galaxy groups in the Nexus region transformed into comoving Cartesian coordinates. The coor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Confusion matrices comparing predicted versus true distance bins from the centre of the large-scale structure, evaluated across all 40 Nexus-like analogues identified in the SAGE-Bolshoi lightcones. Each row corresponds to the true bin and each column to the predicted bin, with cell values indicating the fraction of galaxies in each true bin assigned to each predicted bin, with the raw galaxy counts given … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Quenched fraction (fQ) as a function of halo mass and stellar mass for group and field galaxies in the SGP (black points) and Nexus (red points). Top panel: fQ as a function of halo mass for group galaxies. Middle panel: fQ as a function of stellar mass for group galaxies. Bottom panel: fQ as a function of stellar mass for field (non-grouped) galaxies. In each panel, points indicate the binned median fQ va… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quenched fraction (fQ), for galaxies in the SGP (left panels) and Nexus (right panels). The top panels show the distribution of field galaxies as a function of stellar mass, colour-coded by the fQ. The bottom panels show fQ for group galaxies in the stellar–halo mass plane, derived using a smoothed kernel density estimate (KDE), with the underlying galaxy distribution shown by black points. The colour bar … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The two-dimensional KDE maps show that high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quenched fraction (fQ) for galaxies in the SGP (left panels) and Nexus (right panels). Top panels: fQ as a function of halo mass (Mhalo [log M⊙]) shown for different stellar mass bins (Mstellar [log M⊙]) for group galaxies. Bottom panels: fQ as a function of stellar mass for different halo mass bins for group galaxies. In the bottom panels, the fQ of field galaxies is also shown for comparison. Points indi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Binned mean sSFR (sSFR [log yr−1 ]) as a function of halo mass and stellar mass for group and field galaxies, with the SGP sample shown as black points and the Nexus sample shown as red points. Top panel: Binned mean sSFR as a function of halo mass for group galaxies. Middle panel: Binned mean sSFR as a function of stellar mass for group galaxies. Bottom panel: Binned mean sSFR as a function of stellar mas… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean and scatter of sSFR in the stellar–halo mass plane for group and field galaxies in the SGP (left panels) and Nexus (right panels). The top two panels show the mean sSFR: the top histogram panels display the mean sSFR of field galaxies as a function of stellar mass, while the second row shows the mean sSFR of group galaxies as a function of stellar and halo mass, derived using a smoothed KDE. The botto… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Binned mean sSFR (sSFR [log yr−1 ]) for galaxies in the SGP (left panels) and Nexus (right panels). Top panels: Binned mean sSFR fraction as a function of halo mass (Mhalo [log M⊙]) shown for different stellar mass bins (Mstellar [log M⊙]) for group galaxies. Bottom panels: Binned mean sSFR as a function of stellar mass for different halo mass bins for group galaxies. In the bottom panels, the binned mean … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of the Quenched fraction (fQ) in the stellar mass–halo mass plane for galaxies in the Nexus region. The left panels show galaxies within the 5 Mpc shell from A4038, the middle panels show galaxies between 5 and 15 Mpc, and the right panels show galaxies between 15 and 25 Mpc. The bottom panels indicate the colour-coded fQ for grouped galaxies as a function of both stellar mass (log Mstellar [M… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mean (top row) and RMS scatter (bottom row) of log sSFRin the stellar–halo mass plane for Nexus group galaxies, split by cluster-centric distance from A4038. Columns show d < 5 Mpc (left), 5 < d < 15 Mpc (middle), and 15 < d < 25 Mpc (right). In each panel, colours are computed with a two-dimensional adaptive KDE over log Mstellar and log Mhalo; black points mark individual group galaxies and cells with i… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Phase-space diagram of A4038, showing eight infall zones based on mean infall time, adapted from Pasquali et al. (2019). The x-axis represents the projected cluster-centric radius normalised to the virial radius, and the y-axis shows the absolute line-of-sight velocity normalised to the velocity dispersion. The background colour corresponds to the mean infall time in gigayears, as indicated by the colour … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Quenched fraction as a function of mean infall time for galaxies in A4038. Top panel: fQ as a function of the eight infall zones defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] 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

111 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Moore, B., & Bower, R

    Abadi, M. G., Moore, B., & Bower, R. G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 947 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

    1999

  2. [2]

    2017, ApJ, 844, 25

    Bagchi, J., Sankhyayan, S., Sarkar, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 25

    2017

  3. [3]

    K., Balogh, M

    Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469

    2006

  4. [4]

    L., Baldry, I

    Balogh, M. L., Baldry, I. K., Nichol, R., et al. 2004, ApJ, 615, L101

    2004

  5. [5]

    L., Navarro, J

    Balogh, M. L., Navarro, J. F., & Morris, S. L. 2000, ApJ, 540, 113

    2000

  6. [6]

    P., Nichol, R

    Bamford, S. P., Nichol, R. C., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1324

    2009

  7. [7]

    P., Haines, C

    Bianconi, M., Smith, G. P., Haines, C. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, L79

    2018

  8. [8]

    2007, MNRAS, 380, 339

    Birnboim, Y., Dekel, A., & Neistein, E. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 339

    2007

  9. [9]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 4240

    Blake, C., Amon, A., Childress, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 4240

    2016

  10. [10]

    R., & Moustakas, J

    Blanton, M. R., & Moustakas, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 159

    2009

  11. [11]

    Bluck, A. F. L., Maiolino, R., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 96

    2020

  12. [12]

    Bluck, A. F. L., Mendel, J. T., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 599 —. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2559

    2014

  13. [13]

    2022, A&A Rev., 30, 3

    Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, A&A Rev., 30, 3

    2022

  14. [14]

    2006, PASP, 118, 517

    Boselli, A., & Gavazzi, G. 2006, PASP, 118, 517

    2006

  15. [15]

    2014, A&A, 570, A69

    Boselli, A., V oyer, E., Boissier, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A69

    2014

  16. [16]

    Brunetti, G., & Jones, T. W. 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430007

    2014

  17. [17]

    G., Y ee, H

    Carlberg, R. G., Y ee, H. K. C., Ellingson, E., et al. 1997, ApJ, 485, L13

    1997

  18. [18]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 875

    Catinella, B., Saintonge, A., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 875

    2018

  19. [19]

    2006, MNRAS, 370, 1651

    Cattaneo, A., Dekel, A., Devriendt, J., Guiderdoni, B., & Blaizot, J. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1651

    2006

  20. [20]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  21. [21]

    Choi, H., & Yi, S. K. 2017, ApJ, 837, 68

    2017

  22. [22]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 3272

    Chon, G., Böhringer, H., & Nowak, N. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3272

    2013

  23. [23]

    2015, A&A, 575, L14

    Chon, G., Böhringer, H., & Zaroubi, S. 2015, A&A, 575, L14

    2015

  24. [24]

    E., Jarrett, T

    Cluver, M. E., Jarrett, T. H., Taylor, E. N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 20

    2020

  25. [25]

    E., Jarrett, T

    Cluver, M. E., Jarrett, T. H., Dale, D. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 18

    2025

  26. [26]

    2001, MNRAS, 328, 1039

    Colless, M., Dalton, G., Maddox, S., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 1039

    2001

  27. [27]

    J., Springel, V., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11

    2006

  28. [28]

    J., Stevens, A

    Croton, D. J., Stevens, A. R. H., Tonini, C., et al. 2016, ApJS, 222, 22

    2016

  29. [29]

    S., Fazio, G

    Cybulski, R., Yun, M. S., Fazio, G. G., & Gutermuth, R. A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3564

    2014

  30. [30]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 113

    Darvish, B., Mobasher, B., Sobral, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 113

    2016

  31. [31]

    Davies, L. J. M., Robotham, A. S. G., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5444

    2019

  32. [32]

    S., & White, S

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371 De Lucia, G., Fontanot, F., Xie, L., & Hirschmann, M. 2024, A&A, 687, A68 De Lucia, G., Tornatore, L., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 970 De Lucia, G., Weinmann, S., Poggianti, B. M., Aragón-Salamanca, A., &

    1985

  33. [33]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 1277

    Zaritsky, D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1277

    2012

  34. [34]

    2006, MNRAS, 368, 2

    Dekel, A., & Birnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2

    2006

  35. [35]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    1980

  36. [36]

    P., Norberg, P., Baldry, I

    Driver, S. P., Norberg, P., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2009, Astronomy and Geo- physics, 50, 5.12

    2009

  37. [37]

    P., Hill, D

    Driver, S. P., Hill, D. T., Kelvin, L. S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 971

    2011

  38. [38]

    P., Liske, J., Davies, L

    Driver, S. P., Liske, J., Davies, L. J. M., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 46

    2019

  39. [39]

    P., Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., Obreschkow, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2138

    2022

  40. [40]

    2014, A&A, 562, A87

    Einasto, M., Lietzen, H., Tempel, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A87

    2014

  41. [41]

    J., Tago, E., et al

    Einasto, M., Liivamägi, L. J., Tago, E., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A5

    2011

  42. [42]

    R., Baugh, C

    Eke, V. R., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 866 Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia23 Enßlin, T. A., & Gopal-Krishna. 2001, A&A, 366, 26

    2004

  43. [43]

    2012, A&A Rev., 20, 54

    Feretti, L., Giovannini, G., Govoni, F., & Murgia, M. 2012, A&A Rev., 20, 54

    2012

  44. [44]

    P., Cooper, M

    Fillingham, S. P., Cooper, M. C., Wheeler, C., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2039

    2015

  45. [45]

    Flesch, E. W. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.12985

    work page arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    J., Mendel, J

    Fossati, M., Wilman, D. J., Mendel, J. T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 153

    2017

  47. [47]

    E., & Gott, J

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, J. Richard, I. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1

    1972

  48. [48]

    P., Busarello, G., Merluzzi, P., et al

    Haines, C. P., Busarello, G., Merluzzi, P., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 127

    2011

  49. [49]

    P., Pereira, M

    Haines, C. P., Pereira, M. J., Smith, G. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 101

    2015

  50. [50]

    Hamilton, A. J. S. 1998, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 231, The Evolving Universe, ed. D. Hamilton, 185

    1998

  51. [51]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 1760

    Hirschmann, M., De Lucia, G., & Fontanot, F. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1760

    2016

  52. [52]

    C., & Harris, W

    Hou, A., Parker, L. C., & Harris, W. E. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 406

    2014

  53. [53]

    Hu, W., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2003, ApJ, 584, 702

    2003

  54. [54]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  55. [55]

    Jackson, J. C. 1972, MNRAS, 156, 1P Jaffé, Y. L., Smith, R., Candlish, G. N., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1715

    1972

  56. [56]

    H., Cluver, M

    Jarrett, T. H., Cluver, M. E., Taylor, E. N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 95

    2023

  57. [57]

    H., Saunders, W., Colless, M., et al

    Jones, D. H., Saunders, W., Colless, M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 747

    2004

  58. [58]

    D., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al

    Joshi, G. D., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2673

    2020

  59. [59]

    1987, MNRAS, 227, 1

    Kaiser, N. 1987, MNRAS, 227, 1

    1987

  60. [60]

    Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713

    2004

  61. [61]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055

    2003

  62. [62]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531

    2012

  63. [63]

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

    Klypin, A. A., Trujillo-Gomez, S., & Primack, J. 2011, ApJ, 740, 102

    2011

  64. [64]

    J., W oo, J., & Kovač, K

    Knobel, C., Lilly, S. J., W oo, J., & Kovač, K. 2015, ApJ, 800, 24

    2015

  65. [65]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18

    2011

  66. [66]

    Lagos, C. d. P., Tobar, R. J., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3573

    2018

  67. [67]

    Lagos, C. d. P., Bravo, M., Tobar, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3551

    2024

  68. [68]

    S., Kraan-Korteweg, R

    Lambert, T. S., Kraan-Korteweg, R. C., Jarrett, T. H., & Macri, L. M. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2954

    2020

  69. [69]

    B., Tinsley, B

    Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., & Caldwell, C. N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692

    1980

  70. [70]

    H., et al

    Luber, N., Müller, A., van Gorkom, J. H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 39

    2022

  71. [71]

    E., Lares, M., Yaryura, C

    Luparello, H. E., Lares, M., Yaryura, C. Y., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1367

    2013

  72. [72]

    M., Kraan-Korteweg, R

    Macri, L. M., Kraan-Korteweg, R. C., Lambert, T., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 6

    2019

  73. [73]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, L117

    Mahajan, S. 2013, MNRAS, 431, L117

    2013

  74. [74]

    A., Biviano, A., & Boué, G

    Mamon, G. A., Biviano, A., & Boué, G. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3079

    2013

  75. [75]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 250

    Martig, M., Bournaud, F., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A. 2009, ApJ, 707, 250

    2009

  76. [76]

    L., Balogh, M

    McGee, S. L., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., Font, A. S., & McCarthy, I. G. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 937

    2009

  77. [77]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. Stéfan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61

    2010

  78. [78]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Cannon, J. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 297

    2010

  79. [79]

    1996, Nature, 379, 613

    Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., & Oemler, A. 1996, Nature, 379, 613

    1996

  80. [80]

    P., Somerville, R

    Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., Maulbetsch, C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 903

    2010

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.3 on June 28, 2026.