Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 111 references

The Impact of Splashback Galaxies on Galaxy Assembly Bias

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that splashback galaxies account for a large share of galaxy assembly bias in simulations, with removal tests cutting the full-sample signal by about a third and the central-only signal by about 60%.

desk verdict A solid, useful empirical study showing splashback galaxies carry a disproportionate share of galaxy assembly bias, with a genuine causal gap that the authors themselves acknowledge and a referee can close with a control sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07791 v1 pith:GSLCY7HK submitted 2026-08-07 astro-ph.CO

Hernan Rincon , Idit Zehavi , Sergio Contreras , Yikun Wang , Xiaoju Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxyassemblybiassplashbackgalaxieshalooccupationfunctionoccupancyvariationsconcentrationlarge-scaleenvironmentsemi-analyticformationcosmologicalsimulations
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 sets out to determine whether splashback galaxies, defined as present-day central galaxies that were once satellites of a more massive host, are a main physical source of galaxy assembly bias. Using a semi-analytic galaxy formation model on a large dark-matter simulation, the authors identify splashbacks from merger-tree histories and then either remove them from stellar-mass-selected samples or reassign them as satellites of their former hosts. They find that splashbacks are few, about 2–4% of all galaxies and up to roughly 8% of centrals, yet they sit in low-mass, highly concentrated halos in dense environments with elevated stellar-to-halo mass ratios. Removing them eliminates most of the low-mass tail of the occupancy variation for those halo populations and reduces the galaxy assembly bias signal by roughly 30% for the full sample and about 60% for centrals alone, while reassigning them leaves the signal amplitude nearly unchanged.

What carries the argument

The central object is the splashback galaxy, defined by its fly-by merger-tree history: a present-day central galaxy that was previously a satellite of a more massive host halo. The second piece of machinery is the shuffling test for galaxy assembly bias, in which galaxies are randomly reassigned to halos of the same mass, erasing secondary-property dependence, and the ratio of the original correlation function to the shuffled one isolates the assembly-bias signal. Comparing the original, splashback-removed, and splashback-reassigned samples under this test is what carries the argument.

What would settle it

Repeat the removal test using splashbacks identified by a different scheme, such as halos between a massive host's virial radius and its splashback radius, or halos found by a different halo finder; if removing that population does not shrink the shuffled-clustering ratio by roughly 30% for the full sample and 60% for centrals, the claimed role of splashback galaxies is an artifact of the fly-by definition rather than a physical driver.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that splashback galaxies, rather than generic halo age or concentration effects alone, are largely responsible for the low-mass tail of halo occupancy variation seen for highly concentrated halos and for halos in dense environments, and that they account for a substantial fraction of the measured galaxy assembly bias. The load-bearing comparison is between a shuffled sample that destroys assembly bias and samples in which splashbacks are removed or reclassified; the central claim is that removing about 3% of the galaxies reduces the large-scale correlation-function excess by roughly a third, and removing about 4% of centrals reduces it by about 60%. Because reassignment rather than removal has little effect on the amplitude, the paper concludes that the effect does not depend on whether a halo finder labels these objects as centrals or as satellites; what matters is the environmentally truncated growth the splashback label traces. The same pattern appears in a hydrodynamical simulation, so the finding is not tied to the particular semi-analytic model.

Load-bearing premise

The fly-by definition of a splashback galaxy, a present-day central that was once a satellite of a currently more massive host, correctly isolates the physically relevant population, so that the measured reduction in assembly bias comes from these objects rather than from merger-tree errors or from excluding major mergers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, halo occupation models that ignore splashbacks will overestimate the role of halo concentration and environment in the low-mass regime, because much of that signal is carried by a few percent of objects.
  • Because reassigning splashbacks does not change the signal amplitude, galaxy assembly bias measurements in simulations do not depend on whether a halo finder classifies these objects as centrals or satellites.
  • Removal of splashbacks gives the largest GAB reduction in the paper's lower stellar-mass-threshold samples, so deeper galaxy samples should show an even stronger splashback contribution to assembly bias.
  • The residual assembly bias after removal indicates that roughly two-thirds of the full-sample signal, and a measurable part of the central-only excess, comes from other environmental and assembly effects, so splashbacks are a major but not the sole driver.
  • The result is qualitatively reproduced in a hydrodynamical simulation, suggesting the splashback contribution is a feature of the underlying halo growth in dense environments rather than a quirk of one galaxy formation model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not tested here, would be to identify splashbacks by splashback radius rather than fly-by histories; if the same ~30% reduction appears, the mechanism is robust to the definition rather than an artifact of merger-tree tracking.
  • The paper's emphasis on removal versus reassignment suggests that HOD-style models could treat splashbacks either way and still reproduce clustering; the testable step is to see whether emulators built on either convention match small-scale clustering equally well.
  • Because the splashback contribution grows at lower stellar-mass thresholds, deeper surveys reaching fainter galaxies should expect a stronger assembly-bias contamination; this is an inference from the paper's density dependence, not a result it derives.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper investigates the role of splashback galaxies—defined as present-day central galaxies that were formerly satellites of a more massive host—in galaxy assembly bias (GAB). Using the Guo et al. (2011) semi-analytic model applied to the Millennium Simulation, and a qualitative check with TNG300, the authors construct three stellar-mass selected samples and measure halo occupation variations with concentration and environment, as well as the GAB amplitude from the ratio of the galaxy correlation function to a shuffled sample. They compare the original samples with samples in which splashbacks are removed and samples in which splashbacks are reclassified as satellites of their former hosts. The main findings are that splashbacks preferentially occupy low-mass, highly concentrated halos in dense environments with relatively high stellar-to-halo mass ratios; that they account for the low-mass tails in the occupancy variations for concentrated and dense-environment halos; and that removing splashbacks reduces the GAB signal by roughly 30% for the full sample and about 60% for centrals at n=0.01 h^3 Mpc^-3, while reassigning them leaves the amplitude largely unchanged but shifts the transition scale.

Significance. If the causal attribution holds, this is a valuable result: it identifies a small, individually identifiable galaxy population that accounts for a substantial fraction of GAB in simulations, with direct implications for HOD modeling and for interpreting observations of assembly bias. The study is methodologically transparent, uses publicly available simulations, contains no fitted parameters, and includes a cross-check with a hydrodynamical simulation. These are genuine strengths. However, the central quantitative claim—that splashbacks are largely responsible for the measured reduction—is not yet secured, because the splashback selection shares the very secondary properties (low mass, high concentration, dense environment) that generate the GAB signal. The manuscript's own Section 5 caveat that splashbacks may be tracers rather than the origin of GAB is an appropriate framing, but the abstract and Section 4.3 currently state the stronger causal claim without a placebo control. The recommendation below is therefore major revision rather than acceptance.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Figure 4] The headline claim that removing about 3-4% of galaxies reduces GAB by roughly 30% for the full sample and 60% for centrals is an attribution claim, but the experiment has no placebo arm. Splashbacks are removed because they preferentially occupy low-mass, high-concentration halos in dense environments (Section 4.1, Figure 2), which are exactly the properties that generate the GAB signal. Removing any comparably selected population of non-splashback centrals, matched in halo mass, concentration, environment, and stellar mass, could produce a similar reduction even if fly-by history were irrelevant. The only reported control, raising the stellar-mass threshold to match the reduced number density (Section 4.3), checks the overall density dependence but not the selective removal of low-mass, dense-environment, high-concentration centrals. The authors should add a matched placebo removal, or otherwise demonstrate that the reduction is specifically associated with the splashback fly-by history rather than with the shared environmental and structural properties.
  2. [Section 4.3, Figure 4] The percentage reductions (roughly 30% and 60%) are central to the abstract and conclusions, but they are quoted without propagated uncertainties. The shaded regions in Figure 4 reflect scatter among shuffled samples, and jackknife errors are stated to be subdominant without being shown or quantified. The authors should report uncertainties on the large-scale ratio and propagate them to the reduction percentages. The TNG300 confirmation in Appendix A is explicitly qualitative and, given its smaller volume and larger uncertainties, should not be used to support the specific percentages.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Section 4.3] The reassignment experiment does not close the attribution gap. Since galaxy positions are unchanged, reassignment changes only the shuffling procedure, not the physical selection of the splashback population, as the paper itself notes in Section 3.2. The green lines in Figure 4 therefore demonstrate insensitivity to halo classification, not that fly-by history is the causal ingredient. The manuscript's Section 5 statement that 'there may be no fundamental difference between true splashbacks and galaxies that remained in the outskirts' and that splashbacks are 'tracers rather than the origin' points directly to this unresolved issue. Unless the placebo test in the first comment is added, the causal language should be softened to the tracer interpretation throughout the abstract and results.
  4. [Section 4.2, Figure 3] The claim that removing or reassigning splashbacks 'eliminates' the low-mass tail of the occupancy variation for concentrated halos and dense environments is presented without statistical significance. The effects are described as 'subtle but yet distinct', but no error bars or significance estimates are shown for the halo occupation functions in Figure 3. Since this claim is load-bearing for the conclusion that splashbacks are largely responsible for the occupancy-variation tails, the authors should quantify the significance of the tail reduction, for example with bootstrap resampling of halos or repeated shuffling.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and captions] There are several typos: 'splasback' in the abstract, 'Millenium' in the caption of Figure 3, and 'splasbacks' in the caption of Figure 4; these should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix A and Figure 5] The text of Appendix A states that the TNG300 shaded regions come from 20 randomly shuffled samples, while the caption of Figure 5 says 10; this inconsistency should be reconciled.
  3. [Table 1] The footnote that galaxy numbers are quoted in units of thousands is easy to misread; consider writing the column header explicitly as 'Ntot (10^3 galaxies)' and similarly for the other counts.
  4. [Section 4.2] In Figure 3, the dashed lines are labeled 'Reassigned splashbacks', but the text also uses this figure to infer the removal case by reading the low-mass central occupation. A sentence clarifying which curves correspond to the removal scenario would improve readability.
  5. [Section 3.2] The shuffling procedure is described only verbally; specifying the exact halo-mass binning (width and range) and the treatment of halos with no assigned galaxies would aid reproducibility, even though the authors state that results are insensitive to binning.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the dense-environment, low-mass occupancy tail is essentially a restatement of the fly-by splashback selection, though the GAB reduction itself is an empirical measurement with independent content.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 (definition) and Sections 4.1-4.2 (occupancy-variation results)]
    "a practical definition of splashback galaxies is present-day central galaxies that were previously satellites of a currently more massive halo. ... The 'tail' of galaxies in low-mass halos is mostly eliminated when the splashback galaxies are reassigned to their former host halos ... These behaviors are expected, as we have demonstrated in Fig. 2 that splashback galaxies predominantly occupy low-mass halos in dense environments."

    The fly-by definition already requires that each splashback galaxy has a currently more massive former host halo. By construction, such an object is located in the vicinity of a massive halo, which is a dense environment, and its present halo is less massive than that former host. The paper's finding that splashbacks preferentially occupy low-mass halos in dense environments, and that removing them eliminates the low-mass dense-environment occupancy tail, is therefore largely a restatement of the selection criterion rather than an independent physical discovery.

full rationale

Most of the quantitative derivation is self-contained and empirical. Splashback galaxies are identified from merger trees using an explicit fly-by definition; the GAB signal is obtained by comparing the galaxy correlation function to a shuffled sample following Croton et al. (2007); the number-density control demonstrates that the reduction is not merely a trivial density effect; and the results are reproduced with TNG300. No parameter is fitted to the GAB signal and no prediction is produced from a fitted value, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. The main partial circularity is in the occupancy-variation attribution: because the splashback definition requires a currently more massive former host, the resulting preference for low-mass halos in dense environments is largely built into the selection. Removing these objects and finding that the dense-environment low-mass tail disappears is therefore an expected consequence of the definition rather than an independent validation of splashback-specific physics. The paper itself acknowledges this limitation when it states that 'splashbacks are not necessarily the origin of GAB, but rather tracers of it.' The central quantitative claims about the 30-60% reduction of GAB retain independent empirical content, but the causal attribution to splashback-specific evolution is weakened by the self-definitional selection. Score 4 reflects partial circularity with substantial independent measurement.

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

The central claims rest on the fidelity of the simulated galaxy-halo catalogs, on the fly-by splashback definition, and on the shuffling test. No free parameters are fitted; all analysis thresholds follow earlier work. The TNG300 appendix provides a qualitative cross-check but with smaller volume.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Guo et al. (2011) semi-analytic model applied to the Millennium Simulation accurately represents the galaxy-halo connection, including satellite and central classification, at the stellar mass thresholds used.
    Invoked in Section 2.2; the analysis uses SAM galaxies as a proxy for real galaxies to infer GAB.
  • domain assumption The fly-by definition of splashback galaxies, based on merger trees, correctly identifies the physically relevant splashback population.
    Section 3.1; the definition depends on merger tree fidelity and excludes major mergers.
  • domain assumption The shuffling procedure removes assembly bias while preserving the one-halo term, so the ratio of original to shuffled correlation functions measures GAB.
    Section 3.2, following Croton et al. 2007; verified insensitivity to mass binning but not independently validated.
  • domain assumption Results are insensitive to cosmology and galaxy formation model; TNG300 confirms qualitatively.
    Section 2.1 and Appendix A; TNG300 has smaller volume and larger uncertainties, so the confirmation is not stringent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Impact of Splashback Galaxies on Galaxy Assembly Bias." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GSLCY7HK

@misc{pith2026260807791,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Impact of Splashback Galaxies on Galaxy Assembly Bias},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GSLCY7HK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07791}
}
read the original abstract

The clustering of galaxies is affected by the assembly history of their underlying dark matter halos. This complex phenomenon, known as galaxy assembly bias, has been extensively studied, but the exact physical origin remains unclear. Splashback halos, typically low-mass halos that have traversed larger neighboring halos, have been suggested to be associated with halo assembly bias. Using a semi-analytic galaxy-formation model applied to the Millennium simulation, we explicitly explore the role that splasback galaxies play in galaxy assembly bias. We identify splashbacks as present-day central galaxies that were formerly satellites of a more massive host, and construct stellar-mass selected galaxy samples with the splashbacks either removed or reclassified as satellites of their former host halo. We find that splashbacks tend to reside in low-mass, highly concentrated halos and in dense environments, and that they have relatively high stellar-to-halo mass ratios. Splashbacks appear to be largely responsible for the low-mass tail of the occupancy variation for highly concentrated halos and for halos in dense environments. Finally, when computing the impact of assembly bias on galaxy clustering, we find that while removing the splashbacks significantly reduces the signal, reassigning them has little effect on its amplitude but shifts the transition scale. We repeat the analysis with the hydrodynamical simulation TNG300, confirming the robustness of our results. Our results provide insight into assembly bias and have potential implications for modeling the galaxy-halo connection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07791 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The top panel shows the distribution of all central galaxies (halos) in a 5 h −1 Mpc thick slice from the simula￾tion. Splashback galaxies are denoted in red. It is apparent that they tend to reside in denser regions of the cosmic web. The bottom panel shows the halo mass function for all halos (solid black line), non-splashback halos (dashed red line) and splashback halos (dotted blue line). we may then expect that… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The stellar-to-halo mass relations of semi-analytically modeled galaxies in the Millennium Simulation. The left column of subplots (a, c, e) is color-coded by halo concentration, and the right column of subplots (b, d, f) is color-coded by environment. The top row (a, b) shows the full population of central galaxies, the middle row (c, d) shows the centrals with splashbacks removed, and the bottom row (e, f) shows t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Halo occupation functions of semi-analytically modeled galaxies in the Millenium Simulation. The halo occupation function for the full galaxy sample corresponding to a number density of n = 0.01 h 3 Mpc−3 is shown as a solid black line in both panels. The left panel shows the occupancy variations with halo concentration, for the 10% most concentrated halos (solid red line) and the 10% least concentrated halos (solid… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Measured galaxy assembly bias for the n = 0.0316 h 3 Mpc−3 (top row), 0.01 h 3 Mpc−3 (middle), and 0.00316 h 3 Mpc−3 (bottom) galaxy samples. For each, the left panel shows correlation function ratios for the full (central and satellite) samples, while the right panel …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Galaxy assembly bias measurements for the n = 0.01 h 3 Mpc−3 TNG300 galaxy sample. Correlation function ratios for the full (central and satellite) samples are shown on the left, while the right panel shows these ratios for the central galaxies only. Solid lines repres…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adhikari, S., Dalal, N., & Chamberlain, R. T. 2014, JCAP, 2014, 019, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/11/019

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/11/019 2014

  2. [2]

    C., Zehavi, I., Contreras, S., & Norberg, P

    Artale, M. C., Zehavi, I., Contreras, S., & Norberg, P. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2110

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2110 2018

  3. [3]

    Ayromlou, M., Kauffmann, G., Anand, A., & White, S. D. M. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3637

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3637 2023

  4. [4]

    L., Navarro, J

    Balogh, M. L., Navarro, J. F., & Morris, S. L. 2000, ApJ, 540, 113, doi: 10.1086/309323

    doi:10.1086/309323 2000

  5. [5]

    M., Bond, J

    Bardeen, J. M., Bond, J. R., Kaiser, N., & Szalay, A. S. 1986, ApJ, 304, 15, doi: 10.1086/164143

    doi:10.1086/164143 1986

  6. [6]

    S., Wechsler, R

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

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

  7. [7]

    J., Bower, R

    Benson, A. J., Bower, R. G., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 599, 38, doi: 10.1086/379160

    doi:10.1086/379160 2003

  8. [9]

    R., & Berlind, A

    Blanton, M. R., & Berlind, A. A. 2007, ApJ, 664, 791, doi: 10.1086/512478

    doi:10.1086/512478 2007

Show all 111 references
  1. [10]

    R., Cole, S., Efstathiou, G., & Kaiser, N

    Bond, J. R., Cole, S., Efstathiou, G., & Kaiser, N. 1991, ApJ, 379, 440, doi: 10.1086/170520

    1991 doi

  2. [11]

    A., & Smith, A

    Borrow, J., Vogelsberger, M., O’Neil, S., McDonald, M. A., & Smith, A. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 649, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad045

    2023 doi

  3. [12]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 594, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx873

    Garaldi, E. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 594, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx873

    2017 doi

  4. [13]

    J., Hernquist, L., et al

    Bose, S., Eisenstein, D. J., Hernquist, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5693, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2546

    2019 doi

  5. [15]

    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

  6. [16]

    Busch, P., & White, S. D. M. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1584

    2017 doi

  7. [17]

    C., Hearin, A., et al

    Campbell, D., van den Bosch, F. C., Hearin, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1091 15

    2015 doi

  8. [18]

    E., Schaye, J., et al

    Chaves-Montero, J., Angulo, R. E., Schaye, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3100, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1225

    2016 doi

  9. [19]

    E., Aric` o, G., et al

    Contreras, S., Angulo, R. E., Aric` o, G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.24837, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.24837

    2026 doi arXiv

  10. [20]

    E., & Zennaro, M

    Contreras, S., Angulo, R. E., & Zennaro, M. 2021a, MNRAS, 504, 5205, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1170

    doi

  11. [21]

    M., Norberg, P., & Padilla, N

    Contreras, S., Baugh, C. M., Norberg, P., & Padilla, N. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2717, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt629

    2013 doi

  12. [22]

    Contreras, S., Chaves-Montero, J., & Angulo, R. E. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2434

    2023 doi

  13. [23]

    Contreras, S., Chaves-Montero, J., Zennaro, M., & Angulo, R. E. 2021b, MNRAS, 507, 3412, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2367

    doi

  14. [24]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 1133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz018

    Contreras, S., Zehavi, I., Padilla, N., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz018

    2019 doi

  15. [26]

    J., Springel, V., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x

    2006

  16. [27]

    R., & Shirokov, A

    Dalal, N., White, M., Bond, J. R., & Shirokov, A. 2008, ApJ, 687, 12, doi: 10.1086/591512

    2008 doi

  17. [29]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd947

    Diemer, B. 2021, ApJ, 909, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd947

    2021 doi

  18. [30]

    Carvalho, R. R. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad001

    2023 doi

  19. [31]

    Gao, L., Springel, V., & White, S. D. M. 2005, MNRAS, 363, L66, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00084.x

    2005

  20. [32]

    Gao, L., & White, S. D. M. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L5, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00292.x

    2007

  21. [33]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1654

    Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., Springel, V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1654

    2014 doi

  22. [35]

    F., et al

    Giocoli, C., Palmucci, L., Lesci, G. F., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449561

    2024 doi

  23. [36]

    E., et al

    Guo, Q., White, S., Angulo, R. E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts115

    2013 doi

  24. [38]

    S., et al

    Hadzhiyska, B., Liu, S., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2564

    2021 doi

  25. [39]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 2507, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad731

    Hadzhiyska, B., Eisenstein, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2507, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad731

    2023 doi

  26. [41]

    P., Watson, D

    Hearin, A. P., Watson, D. F., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1958, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1358

    2015 doi

  27. [42]

    Henriques, B. M. B., Yates, R. M., Fu, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3233

    2020 doi

  28. [44]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 1177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3253

    Gonzalez-Perez, V. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3253

    2018 doi

  29. [46]

    2025, A&A, 703, A247, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555329

    Lacerna, I., Padilla, N., & Palma, D. 2025, A&A, 703, A247, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555329

    2025 doi

  30. [47]

    D., et al

    Lacerna, I., Rodriguez, F., Montero-Dorta, A. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2271, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1020

    2022 doi

  31. [48]

    1999, MNRAS, 302, 111, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02090.x

    Lemson, G., & Kauffmann, G. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 111, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02090.x

    1999

  32. [49]

    2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0608019

    Lemson, G., & Virgo Consortium, t. 2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0608019

    2006 doi arXiv

  33. [51]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 119, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/119

    Lin, Y.-T., Mandelbaum, R., Huang, Y.-H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 119, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/119

    2016 doi

  34. [52]

    2026, PhRvD, 113, 023525, doi: 10.1103/c5w1-qtx4

    Liu, Z., Miyatake, H., Schaye, J., et al. 2026, PhRvD, 113, 023525, doi: 10.1103/c5w1-qtx4

    2026 doi

  35. [53]

    D., & Porciani, C

    Ludlow, A. D., & Porciani, C. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1961, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18282.x

    2011

  36. [54]

    Mansfield, P., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4763, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa430 Mart ´ ın-Navarro, I., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2021, Nature, 594, 187, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03545-9

    2020 doi

  37. [55]

    A., et al

    Matthee, J., Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2381, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2884

    2017 doi

  38. [56]

    E., & Weinberg, D

    McEwen, J. E., & Weinberg, D. H. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4348, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty882

    2018 doi

  39. [57]

    2025, A&A, 695, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452709

    Rodriguez, F., & Favole, G. 2025, A&A, 695, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452709

    2025 doi

  40. [58]

    D., & Rodriguez, F

    Montero-Dorta, A. D., & Rodriguez, F. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 290, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae796

    2024 doi

  41. [59]

    More, S., Diemer, B., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2015, ApJ, 810, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/36

    2015 doi

  42. [60]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  43. [61]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x 16

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x 16

    2019 doi

  44. [62]

    J., & Dalal, N

    Obuljen, A., Percival, W. J., & Dalal, N. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 058, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/10/058

    2020 doi

  45. [63]

    2025, A&A, 697, A226, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453086 Oyarz´ un, G

    Chaves-Montero, J. 2025, A&A, 697, A226, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453086 Oyarz´ un, G. A., Tinker, J. L., Bundy, K., Xhakaj, E., &

    2025 doi

  46. [64]

    Wyithe, J. S. B. 2024, ApJ, 974, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6de1

    2024 doi

  47. [65]

    C., et al

    Palma, D., Lacerna, I., Artale, M. C., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450976

    2025 doi

  48. [66]

    G., & Pahwa, I

    Paranjape, A., Kovaˇ c, K., Hartley, W. G., & Pahwa, I. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3030, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2137

    2015 doi

  49. [67]

    N., Zentner, A

    Pearl, A. N., Zentner, A. R., Newman, J. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ffd

    2024 doi

  50. [68]

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

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

    doi

  51. [69]

    2018b, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    doi

  52. [70]

    Pimbblet, K. A. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2637, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17869.x

    2011

  53. [71]

    Ramakrishnan, S., Paranjape, A., Hahn, O., & Sheth, R. K. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2977, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2344

    2019 doi

  54. [72]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 4181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1239

    Rana, D., More, S., Miyatake, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1239

    2023 doi

  55. [73]

    2023, JCAP, 2023, 016, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/016

    Rocher, A., Ruhlmann-Kleider, V., Burtin, E., et al. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 016, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/016

    2023 doi

  56. [74]

    Rodriguez, F., & Montero-Dorta, A. D. 2026, A&A, 707, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558239

    2026 doi

  57. [75]

    N., Mart ´ ınez, H

    Ruiz, A. N., Mart ´ ınez, H. J., Coenda, V., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3048, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2267

    2023 doi

  58. [76]

    N., Maller, A

    Salcedo, A. N., Maller, A. H., Berlind, A. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4411, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty109

    2018 doi

  59. [77]

    N., Zu, Y., Zhang, Y., et al

    Salcedo, A. N., Zu, Y., Zhang, Y., et al. 2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 109811, doi: 10.1007/s11433-022-1955-7

    2022 doi

  60. [78]

    B., M¨ oller, O., Lee, J., & White, S

    Sandvik, H. B., M¨ oller, O., Lee, J., & White, S. D. M. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 234, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11595.x

    2007

  61. [79]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 1570, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1338

    Prada, F., & Klypin, A. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1570, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1338

    2019 doi

  62. [80]

    N., et al

    Shao, Z., Zu, Y., Salcedo, A. N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.20896, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.20896

    2025 doi

  63. [81]

    K., & Tormen, G

    Sheth, R. K., & Tormen, G. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1385, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07733.x

    2004

  64. [82]

    Sin, L. P. T., Lilly, S. J., & Henriques, B. M. B. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1192, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1674

    2017 doi

  65. [83]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/17

    Sinha, M., & Holley-Bockelmann, K. 2012, ApJ, 751, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/17

    2012 doi

  66. [84]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/109

    Smith, R., Choi, H., Lee, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/109

    2016 doi

  67. [85]

    J., Berlind, A

    Smith, W. J., Berlind, A. A., & Sinha, M. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2339

    2024 doi

  68. [86]

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

    2001

  69. [87]

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

    2005 doi

  70. [88]

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

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

    2018 doi

  71. [89]

    Stephenson, H. M. O., Stott, J. P., Butler, J., Webster, M., & Head, J. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1542, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf120

    2025 doi

  72. [90]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 1510, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw332

    Leauthaud, A. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1510, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw332

    2016 doi

  73. [91]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 4945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2832

    Sunayama, T., & More, S. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2832

    2019 doi

  74. [92]

    Sato-Polito, G., & Artale, M. C. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2777, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3319

    2021 doi

  75. [93]

    2014a, Nature, 509, 177 —

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V., et al. 2014a, Nature, 509, 177 —. 2014b, MNRAS, 444, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1536

    doi

  76. [94]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1351

    Walsh, K., & Tinker, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1351

    2019 doi

  77. [95]

    J., & Jing, Y

    Wang, H., Mo, H. J., & Jing, Y. P. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 2249, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14884.x

    2009

  78. [96]

    Y., Mo, H

    Wang, H. Y., Mo, H. J., & Jing, Y. P. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 633, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11316.x

    2007

  79. [97]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1268, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1169

    Wang, K., Peng, Y., & Chen, Y. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1268, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1169

    2023 doi

  80. [98]

    2026, MNRAS, 546, stag110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag110

    Wang, K., Schaye, J., Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag110

    2026 doi

  81. [99]

    M., De Lucia, G., & Yang, X

    Wang, L., Weinmann, S. M., De Lucia, G., & Yang, X. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 515, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt743

    2013 doi

  82. [100]

    2025a, ApJ, 988, 280, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade98b

    Wang, Y., Zehavi, I., Contreras, S., Cole, S., & Norberg, P. 2025a, ApJ, 988, 280, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade98b

    doi

  83. [101]

    Wang, Y., Zhai, Z., Yang, X., & Tinker, J. L. 2025b, ApJ, 994, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0c10

    doi

  84. [102]

    H., & Tinker, J

    Wechsler, R. H., & Tinker, J. L. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051756

    2018 doi

  85. [103]

    H., Zentner, A

    Wechsler, R. H., Zentner, A. R., Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Allgood, B. 2006, ApJ, 652, 71, doi: 10.1086/507120

    2006 doi

  86. [104]

    R., Tinker, J

    Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., Conroy, C., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu122

    2014 doi

  87. [105]

    White, S. D. M. 1999, Ap&SS, 267, 355, doi: 10.1023/A:1002770429758 17

    1999 doi

  88. [106]

    White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    1978 doi

  89. [107]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad57c7

    Xu, W., Shan, H., Li, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad57c7

    2024 doi

  90. [108]

    2021a, MNRAS, 507, 4879, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2464

    Xu, X., Kumar, S., Zehavi, I., & Contreras, S. 2021a, MNRAS, 507, 4879, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2464

    doi

  91. [109]

    2021b, MNRAS, 502, 3242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab100

    Xu, X., Zehavi, I., & Contreras, S. 2021b, MNRAS, 502, 3242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab100

    doi

  92. [110]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 3582, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab235

    Guo, H. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3582, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab235

    2021 doi

  93. [111]

    J., et al

    Yuan, S., Zhang, H., Ross, A. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 947, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae359

    2024 doi

  94. [112]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa54a

    Zehavi, I., Contreras, S., Padilla, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa54a

    2018 doi

  95. [113]

    E., Contreras, S., et al

    Zehavi, I., Kerby, S. E., Contreras, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4d4d

    2019 doi

  96. [114]

    Zentner, A. R. 2007, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 16, 763, doi: 10.1142/S0218271807010511

    2007 doi

  97. [115]

    R., Hearin, A

    Zentner, A. R., Hearin, A. P., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1383

    2014 doi

  98. [116]

    2014, ApJ, 782, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/44

    Zhang, J., Ma, C.-P., & Riotto, A. 2014, ApJ, 782, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/44

    2014 doi

  99. [117]

    P., et al

    Zhu, G., Zheng, Z., Lin, W. P., et al. 2006, ApJL, 639, L5, doi: 10.1086/501501

    2006 doi

  100. [118]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2009.03329, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.03329

    Zjupa, J., Paranjape, A., Hahn, O., & Pakmor, R. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2009.03329, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.03329

    2020 doi arXiv

  101. [119]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 4360, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw221

    Zu, Y., & Mandelbaum, R. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4360, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw221

    2016 doi

  102. [120]

    Zu, Y., Mandelbaum, R., Simet, M., Rozo, E., & Rykoff, E. S. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1264

    2017 doi

  103. [121]

    Zu, Y., Zheng, Z., Zhu, G., & Jing, Y. P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 41, doi: 10.1086/591071

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.