Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Towards an Observational Detection of Halo Spin Bias using Spin-Orbit Coherence

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that halo spin bias—the dependence of halo clustering on spin at fixed mass—can be traced observationally through galaxy spin-orbit coherence, and reports consistent indications of the effect in SDSS groups.

desk verdict First observational application of the SOC spin proxy to halo spin bias, honestly hedged and mock-tested, but the direction-maximization step and the bootstrap-based significance keep it at 'indications' rather than 'detection'. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21827 v1 pith:4LUPIQL6 submitted 2025-06-27 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Yigon Kim , Antonio D. Montero-Dorta , Rory Smith , Jong-Ho Shinn This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords halospinbiassecondaryspin-orbitcoherencegalaxyclusteringSDSSgroupsIllustrisTNGparameterlarge-scalestructure
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

At fixed halo mass, dark-matter halos are expected to cluster differently depending on their spin, but this so-called spin bias has never been measured observationally. The paper argues that a proxy built from the coherent orbital motion of galaxies around a group, called spin-orbit coherence, can carry this information into spectroscopic surveys. Applying the proxy to SDSS groups, it finds that groups with higher proxy values are more strongly clustered than lower-proxy groups of the same mass on scales of 5 to 15 $h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$, with the trend strongest for massive clusters. If the proxy truly tracks halo spin, this would make spin bias one of the first secondary halo clustering dependencies detected observationally.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin-orbit-coherence (SOC) spin proxy. For each group, the proxy is the mass-weighted mean tangential velocity of neighbor galaxies inside an X-shaped projected region with a 45-degree opening angle within one virial radius, normalized by the host virial velocity; since the true spin axis is unknown in data, the direction is chosen by rotating a trial axis in 10-degree steps and keeping the orientation that maximizes the coherence signal. The paper validates that this proxy correlates with the true spin parameter $\lambda$ in TNG300, with the correlation becoming stronger toward higher mass. Spin bias is then measured as the ratio of cross-correlation functions $b_\lambda = \xi_\lambda / \xi_{\rm tot}$ for the upper and lower 50 percent proxy subsets at fixed mass, using Landy-Szalay estimators and bootstrap errors.

What would settle it

Shuffle the true halo spins among halos of the same mass and local environment in the TNG300 mock and rebuild the SOC proxy; if the high-proxy versus low-proxy clustering difference persists after the shuffle, the proxy is picking up environment or assembly history rather than spin. The same test can be approximated on SDSS data by splitting on an environment-based proxy while holding the SOC proxy fixed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the secondary dependence of halo clustering on spin survives projection and can be seen in galaxy data through the spin-orbit-coherence proxy. In the SDSS LowZ group catalog, splitting groups at the median proxy within fixed mass bins and computing relative bias from cross-correlations yields $\mathrm{P}(\mathrm{Red}>\mathrm{Blue}) = 0.787$ over the full mass range and $0.850$ for $M_h > 10^{13.2} h^{-1} M_\odot$, meaning high-proxy groups are more clustered than low-proxy groups in roughly 79 to 85 percent of bootstrap comparisons. The authors explicitly describe these results as consistent indications rather than a definitive detection. In the TNG300 mock, the same proxy reproduces the sign of the true spin-bias signal across mass bins, including when measured in projection.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement stands on the assumption that the spin-orbit-coherence proxy, measured in projection and with its axis chosen to maximize the signal, tracks the true halo spin rather than another halo property such as environment, concentration, or assembly history; if it tracks something else, the clustering difference is not spin bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the proxy tracks spin, spin bias becomes observable with current spectroscopic data, closing a long-standing gap between simulation predictions and observations.
  • The signal grows toward high masses, so galaxy clusters are the natural place to confirm it with larger survey volumes.
  • The method also provides a way to estimate halo spin for large group and cluster samples, not just a clustering measurement.
  • Repeating the measurement at higher redshift with upcoming spectroscopic surveys could map the redshift evolution of spin bias predicted by theory.
  • A confirmed spin-bias measurement would add a new observational constraint on how halos acquire angular momentum from the tidal field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the SOC-based ranking could be cross-checked against independent spin estimates, such as resolved kinematics or cluster morphology; agreement would rule out projection artifacts as the source of the signal.
  • Editorial inference: a decisive mock test would shuffle true halo spins among halos of the same mass and environment; if the observable clustering difference survives the shuffle, the proxy is responding to environment or assembly history rather than spin.
  • Editorial inference: combining the proxy with stacked weak lensing could control for halo mass and concentration, isolating spin as the driver of the clustering difference.
  • Editorial inference: applying the same method to next-generation spectroscopic surveys would test whether the $\mathrm{P}(\mathrm{Red}>\mathrm{Blue})$ excess grows with mass as simulations predict.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the first observational probe of halo spin bias using a spin-orbit coherence (SOC) proxy. The proxy is constructed from the mass-weighted tangential motion of neighbor galaxies around a group, with the spin direction chosen as the direction that maximizes the coherence signal over 36 trial directions. The method is calibrated on the IllustrisTNG300 simulation, where the proxy correlates with the true spin parameter λ and, in projection, reproduces the expected trend of higher-spin halos being more clustered at fixed mass. Applying the method to SDSS LowZ groups split into high- and low-proxy halves at fixed group mass, the authors report that the high-proxy groups have higher relative bias on 5–15 h^-1 Mpc scales, with P(Red>Blue) = 0.787 over the full mass range and 0.850 for M_h > 10^13.2 h^-1 M_sun. The claims are carefully hedged throughout as 'consistent indications' rather than a definitive detection.

Significance. If the SOC proxy genuinely traces halo spin, this would be the first observational measurement of halo spin bias, an important and untested prediction of ΛCDM secondary bias. The paper's strengths include the use of an external simulation (TNG300) to validate the proxy, the explicit robustness checks over neighbor ranges, velocity cuts, correlation-function scales, and membership definitions, and the use of a volume-limited SDSS group catalog. The falsifiable nature of the claim and the clear path to future surveys are also valuable. However, the proxy validation has a load-bearing gap: the mock is not fully comparable to SDSS, and the proxy's maximization over trial directions can select on noise or geometry. The significance statistic used, P(Red>Blue), is also nonstandard and may overstate the result. These issues should be addressed before the SDSS measurement can be interpreted as evidence for spin bias.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 3.1 and 4.2] The spin direction is not observed, so the proxy is defined as the maximum coherence over 36 trial directions (10-degree steps). For noise-dominated systems this maximum is an upward-biased estimator, and the 50% highest-proxy sample can therefore be populated by objects with favorable noise or projection geometry rather than high λ. The paper does not present a null test, such as randomizing the signs of neighbor velocities or assigning random spin directions, to show that such a split in the SDSS catalog yields P(Red>Blue) ≈ 0.5. Without this null test, the observed P(Red>Blue) = 0.787 (0.850 for M_h > 10^13.2) cannot be attributed to spin bias rather than to the selection properties of the proxy. Please add a randomized-direction or velocity-randomization null test and report the resulting P(Red>Blue) distribution.
  2. [Section 4.2] P(Red>Blue) is not a p-value or a confidence level. It is the probability that an independent random draw from the high-proxy relative-bias distribution exceeds one from the low-proxy distribution, and as computed it does not account for the covariance between the two subsets that arises from measuring both in the same survey volume and from sharing the denominator ξ_tot in Eq. (3). Describing 0.850 as 'significance' in Sect. 4.2 and as '85% of the sampled measurements' in the abstract is therefore misleading. I recommend reporting a paired bootstrap distribution of Δb = b_high − b_low, with the fraction of resamples for which Δb > 0, together with a standard confidence interval or a p-value from an explicitly defined null hypothesis.
  3. [Sections 2.1 and 5] The TNG300 validation does not establish that the SDSS proxy split isolates spin rather than other secondary halo properties. The mock is, by the authors' own statement, not fully comparable to SDSS in terms of neighbor mass distributions (Sect. 2.1), and the validation in Fig. 5 shows only that the spin-bias trend survives in projection. The narrow velocity cut (the equivalent of 1 R_200 along the line of sight) preferentially selects dynamically relaxed members, so the proxy could be sensitive to concentration, relaxation state, or local environment, which are themselves known secondary-bias parameters; this possibility is acknowledged in Sect. 5. Please add a TNG300 test in which the proxy–λ correlation and the proxy-based spin-bias signal are measured within narrow bins of concentration, local density, and neighbor count, to verify that the proxy is not acting as a stand-in for these quantities.
  4. [Section 3.1] The spin-orbit coherence proxy is described only verbally and by reference to previous work; no explicit equation is given for the mass-weighted tangential velocity, the combination of the two sides of the X-region, the normalization by V_vir, or the maximization over trial directions. Since the interpretation of the entire SDSS measurement rests on this proxy, please provide a precise mathematical definition, including how line-of-sight velocities are projected and how the 10-degree trial directions are applied.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'Febuary' in the received date, 'shown shown' in Sect. 4.1, 'e ffect' in several places, 'then' for 'than' in Sect. 6, and 'V ogelsberger' in the references. A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Figure 3] The x-axis label 'Vtan / Vvir (km/s)' is dimensionally inconsistent, since Vtan/Vvir is dimensionless. The y-axis label 'Spin proxy - correlation (True)' is also ambiguous; please state explicitly what quantity is plotted (e.g., the mean and interquartile range of λ as a function of the proxy).
  3. [Sections 2.2 and 6] The catalog is introduced as the Lim et al. (2017) 'SDSS LowZ group catalog,' but Sect. 6 refers to the 'Yang et al. (2005) group catalog.' Please clarify the relationship between the group finder and the catalog reference.
  4. [Section 4.2] The per-bin P(Red>Blue) values (75.3%, 59.1%, 69.0%, 93.7%, 89.8%) are reported without the corresponding number of groups per bin or a measure of uncertainty; since the bin widths are larger at the high-mass end, these values should be accompanied by the relevant sample sizes.
  5. [Section 3.2] The description of the bootstrap error estimation for the proxy does not state whether the same bootstrap resampling is used for the numerator ξ_λ and the denominator ξ_tot in Eq. (3). This matters for the error budget and should be clarified.
  6. [Table 1] The fiducial configuration lists 'Group member ≥ 3,' but the text in Sect. 2.2 says 'at least 3 members.' Please specify whether the central galaxy is included in this count.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the SDSS SOC split is an independent measurement, and the proxy is validated against true spin in the TNG300 mock; cited prior work is methodological support, not an input that forces the result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observational measurement: SDSS groups are split by a spin proxy and their relative bias is measured via Eq. (3). The proxy is not defined in terms of the clustering signal; it is a mass-weighted tangential-velocity coherence computed before any correlation function is measured. The proxy's link to true halo spin is checked against the TNG300 mock (Fig. 3), an external benchmark, and the mock exercise reproduces the expected spin-bias trend using both true lambda and the proxy (Fig. 5), so the SDSS result does not reduce to the authors' previous papers. The orientation step that maximizes the coherence signal (Sect. 3.1) is a property of the proxy estimator, not a fit of the predicted clustering; it is a validity concern, not a circular reduction. The paper explicitly acknowledges the main physical threats, including environmental or other secondary parameters masquerading as spin bias (Sect. 5) and imperfect mock comparability (Sect. 2.1), which further shows these are empirical robustness issues rather than hidden identities between input and output. No equation or fitted parameter is equivalent to the target claim by construction, so there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the TNG300 simulation as a proxy testbed, the accuracy of SDSS group halo masses from abundance matching, the assumption that the SOC proxy traces halo spin rather than other group properties, and the assumption that the relative-bias estimator (Eq. 3) isolates secondary bias. The TNG mock is used to calibrate the proxy, but the authors note it is not fully comparable to SDSS in neighbor mass distributions (Sect. 2.1).

free parameters (8)
  • X-cut opening angle = 45 degrees
    Chosen following Lee et al. (2019a,b); not fitted to the spin bias result.
  • Neighbor search range = 0.1-1 R200 (fiducial)
    Chosen to maximize SOC signal in TNG300 mock; varied 1, 3, 5 R200 in robustness tests.
  • Line-of-sight velocity cut = 1 R200 equivalent (fiducial)
    Chosen to select relaxed members; varied 50, 500, 5000 km/s in tests.
  • Spin direction step size = 10 degrees
    Chosen for the direction search; tested 10-30 degrees.
  • Correlation function scales = 5-15 h^-1 Mpc (fiducial)
    Averaging range from Montero-Dorta et al. (2020); varied in robustness tests.
  • Minimum group members = 3
    Chosen as a trade-off between statistics and proxy robustness; checked against 5.
  • Stellar mass cut = M* > 10^10.3 h^-1 M_sun
    Enforces volume-limited completeness in 0.02 < z < 0.2.
  • Mass binning = 5 equal-number bins
    Equal halos per bin to balance statistics; affects interpretation of mass dependence.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard ΛCDM cosmology with Planck 2016 parameters
    Adopted at the end of Sect. 1; used for halo masses and distances.
  • domain assumption Halo bias measured through cross-correlation ratios (Eq. 3) is a valid secondary-bias estimator
    Follows Montero-Dorta et al. (2020); assumes the ratio of correlation functions isolates bias at fixed mass.
  • domain assumption SDSS LowZ group halo masses from abundance matching are sufficiently accurate for fixed-mass binning
    Halo mass estimates carry scatter from the stellar-mass-halo-mass relation; the paper tests an alternative luminosity-based mass to mitigate this.
  • domain assumption The SOC proxy correlates with halo spin λ in the observational regime
    Shown in TNG300 Fig. 3; extrapolated to SDSS groups, though the mock is not fully SDSS-like (Sect. 2.1).
  • domain assumption Spin bias exists in simulations as a prior expectation
    Cited from Gao & White (2007), Sato-Polito et al. (2019), Tucci et al. (2021), etc.; the paper aims to detect it observationally, not to establish it from theory.
  • domain assumption No other secondary parameter fully drives the observed clustering difference
    Not tested; the authors acknowledge in Sect. 5 that environment or other secondary parameters could contribute to the signal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards an Observational Detection of Halo Spin Bias using Spin-Orbit Coherence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4LUPIQL6

@misc{pith2026250621827,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards an Observational Detection of Halo Spin Bias using Spin-Orbit Coherence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4LUPIQL6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21827}
}
abstract

Context. The clustering of dark-matter halos depends primarily on halo mass. However, at fixed halo mass, numerical simulations have revealed multiple secondary dependencies. This so-called secondary halo bias has important implications for our understanding of structure formation and observational cosmology. Despite its significance, the effect has not yet been measured observationally with statistical confidence. Aims. We aim to develop the first observational method to probe halo spin bias: the secondary dependence of halo clustering on halo spin at fixed halo mass. Methods. We use a proxy for halo spin based on the coherent motion of galaxies within and around a halo. This technique is tested using the IllustrisTNG hydrodynamical simulation and subsequently applied to a group catalog from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). By splitting the SDSS groups according to this spin proxy and measuring the two-point correlation function of the resulting samples, the existence of halo spin bias is investigated. Results. We find consistent indications that, at fixed mass, groups with higher values of the spin proxy exhibit higher bias than those with lower spin proxy values, on scales of 5-15 ${h}^{-1}$$\mathrm{Mpc}$. The highest significance is seen for groups with halo masses ${M}_{\rm h} \gtrsim {10}^{13.2}$ ${h}^{-1}{\rm M}_\odot$, for which 85$\%$ of the sampled measurements display the expected trend. As we continue to improve the method, our results could open new avenues for studying the connection between halo spin and the large-scale structure with upcoming spectroscopic surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21827 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stellar mass (M∗) versus redshift for galaxies in the SDSS LowZ catalog. Black markers show the entire sample while the red markers show our volume-limited sample. Since we aim to compare simulation and observational data directly, we have also created a mock catalog from TNG300. This mock catalog was constructed by converting the z = 0 TNG300 snapshot into a 2D projected catalog, placing the ob￾server at the center… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A simplified illustration of the concept behind spin proxy based on Spin-Orbit Coherence and its measurement. Cartoon 1 depicts the Spin￾Orbit Coherence itself, while Cartoons 2 and 3 illustrate how the spin direction is determined by identifying the direction in which the coherence signal is strongest. mass. This is desirable because the halo spin parameter is by construction not strongly halo-mass dependent (Peebl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The correlation between the spin proxy and the true halo spin (λ) for several host halo mass bins in TNG300. The solid lines show the mean of the distribution, while the shaded regions indicate the in￾terquartile range (25th to 75th percentiles). These measurements have been performed in 3D. sive groups have progressively higher clustering amplitude. This is an important sanity check for our analysis, which gives us… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We first tried varying the range in which neighbor galax [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Halo spin bias measured in projection from the TNG300 mock. Higher spin and higher spin proxy measurements are shown in orange and red solid lines/symbols, while the lower spin and lower spin proxy measurements are represented by cyan and blue solid lines, respectively…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spin bias signal measured from the SDSS LowZ group catalog using the halo spin proxy, which is based on the Spin-Orbit Coherence method. Red symbols and lines show results for the 50% higher spin proxy subset, while blue symbols and lines represent groups in the 50% lo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Anisotropic Secondary Bias of Dark Matter Haloes in a $\Lambda$CDM Universe

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Halo spin and elongation create a direction-dependent clustering signal that is governed by alignment with the surrounding cosmic web, whereas orientation-averaged secondary bias is governed by tidal anisotropy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al

    Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 25

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    E., Baugh, C

    Angulo, R. E., Baugh, C. M., & Lacey, C. G. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 921

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    & Efstathiou, G

    Barnes, J. & Efstathiou, G. 1987, ApJ, 319, 575

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    F., McIntosh, D

    Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2003, ApJS, 149, 289

    2003

  5. [5]

    S., Dekel, A., Kolatt, T

    Bullock, J. S., Dekel, A., Kolatt, T. S., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 240

    2001

  6. [6]

    R., & Shirokov, A

    Dalal, N., White, M., Bond, J. R., & Shirokov, A. 2008, ApJ, 687, 12

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    & White, S

    Faltenbacher, A. & White, S. D. M. 2010, ApJ, 708, 469

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Gao, L., Springel, V ., & White, S. D. M. 2005, MNRAS, 363, L66

    work page 2005

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    & White, S

    Gao, L. & White, S. D. M. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L5

    2007

  2. [10]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 175

    Genel, S., V ogelsberger, M., Springel, V ., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 175

    2014

  3. [11]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1900

    Han, J., Li, Y ., Jing, Y ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1900

    2019

  4. [12]

    W., Maller, A

    Johnson, J. W., Maller, A. H., Berlind, A. A., Sinha, M., & Holley-Bockelmann, J. K. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1156

    2019

  5. [13]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 71

    Kim, Y ., Smith, R., & Shin, J. 2022, ApJ, 935, 71

    2022

  6. [14]

    Landy, S. D. & Szalay, A. S. 1993, ApJ, 412, 64

    1993

  7. [15]

    Lazeyras, T., Musso, M., & Schmidt, F. 2017, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2017, 059

    2017

  8. [16]

    J., & Gao, L

    Li, Y ., Mo, H. J., & Gao, L. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1419

    2008

  9. [17]

    H., Mo, H

    Lim, S. H., Mo, H. J., Lu, Y ., Wang, H., & Yang, X. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2982

    2017

  10. [18]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 119

    Lin, Y .-T., Mandelbaum, R., Huang, Y .-H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 119

    2016

  11. [19]

    R., & Wechsler, R

    Mao, Y .-Y ., Zentner, A. R., & Wechsler, R. H. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5143

    2018

  12. [20]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    Marinacci, F., V ogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    2018

  13. [21]

    2016, Phys

    Miyatake, H., More, S., Takada, M., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 041301

    2016

  14. [22]

    Mo, H. J. & White, S. D. M. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 347

    1996

  15. [23]

    Montero-Dorta, A. D. 2021, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 62, 159

    2021

  16. [24]

    D., Artale, M

    Montero-Dorta, A. D., Artale, M. C., Abramo, L. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1182

    2020

  17. [25]

    D., Contreras, S., Celeste Artale, M., Rodriguez, F., & Favole, G

    Montero-Dorta, A. D., Contreras, S., Celeste Artale, M., Rodriguez, F., & Favole, G. 2025, A&A, 695, A159

    2025

  18. [26]

    D., Pérez, E., Prada, F., et al

    Montero-Dorta, A. D., Pérez, E., Prada, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L2

    2017

  19. [27]

    Montero-Dorta, A. D. & Rodriguez, F. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 290

    2024

  20. [28]

    2019, Space Sci

    Mroczkowski, T., Nagai, D., Basu, K., et al. 2019, Space Sci. Rev., 215, 17

    2019

  21. [29]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206

    2018

  22. [30]

    2024, A&A, 686, A157

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Ayromlou, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A157

    2024

  23. [31]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

    2018

  24. [32]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    Nelson, D., Springel, V ., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    2019

  25. [33]

    D., et al

    Niemiec, A., Jullo, E., Montero-Dorta, A. D., et al. 2018, MN- RAS[arXiv:1801.06551]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J., & Dalal, N

    Obuljen, A., Percival, W. J., & Dalal, N. 2020, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2020, 058

    2020

  27. [35]

    Paranjape, A., Hahn, O., & Sheth, R. K. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3631

    2018

  28. [36]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 1702

    Pasquali, A., Smith, R., Gallazzi, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1702

    2019

  29. [37]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1969, ApJ, 155, 393

    1969

  30. [38]

    2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    2016

  31. [39]

    Press, W. H. & Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425

    1974

  32. [40]

    Ramakrishnan, S., Paranjape, A., Hahn, O., & Sheth, R. K. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2977

    2019

  33. [41]

    & Merchán, M

    Rodriguez, F. & Merchán, M. 2020, A&A, 636, A61

    2020

  34. [42]

    N., Maller, A

    Salcedo, A. N., Maller, A. H., Berlind, A. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4411

    2018

  35. [43]

    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 Sánchez, S. F., García-Benito, R., Zibetti, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A36 Sánchez, S. F., Kennicutt, R. C., Gil de Paz, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A8

    2022

  36. [44]

    D., Abramo, L

    Sato-Polito, G., Montero-Dorta, A. D., Abramo, L. R., Prada, F., & Klypin, A. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1570

    2019

  37. [45]

    K., Mo, H

    Sheth, R. K., Mo, H. J., & Tormen, G. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 1

    2001

  38. [46]

    Sheth, R. K. & Tormen, G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119

    1999

  39. [47]

    Sheth, R. K. & Tormen, G. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 61

    2002

  40. [48]

    Sheth, R. K. & Tormen, G. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1385

    2004

  41. [49]

    & Garrison, L

    Sinha, M. & Garrison, L. H. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3022

    2020

  42. [50]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    2010

  43. [51]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    Springel, V ., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    2018

  44. [52]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.03277

    Sunayama, T., More, S., & Miyatake, H. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.03277

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Tempel, E., Tuvikene, T., Kipper, R., & Libeskind, N. I. 2017, A&A, 602, A100

    2017

  46. [54]

    D., Abramo, L

    Tucci, B., Montero-Dorta, A. D., Abramo, L. R., Sato-Polito, G., & Artale, M. C. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2777 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V ., et al. 2014a, Nature, 509, 177 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V ., et al. 2014b, MNRAS, 444, 1518

    2021

  47. [55]

    J., Wisotzki, L., Bekeraité, S., et al

    Walcher, C. J., Wisotzki, L., Bekeraité, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A1

    2014

  48. [56]

    R., et al

    Wang, K., Mao, Y .-Y ., Zentner, A. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4003

    2022

  49. [57]

    H., Zentner, A

    Wechsler, R. H., Zentner, A. R., Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V ., & Allgood, B. 2006, ApJ, 652, 71

    2006

  50. [58]

    White, S. D. M. & Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52

    1991

  51. [59]

    White, S. D. M. & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341

    1978

  52. [60]

    J., van den Bosch, F

    Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., & Jing, Y . P. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1293 Article number, page 10 of 10

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.