Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 10 cited by

Second public data release of the FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations of galaxy formation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The FIRE-2 project's second data release makes 119 cosmological zoom-in galaxy simulations publicly available, with dense snapshots, physics-variant runs, halo catalogs, and merger trees.

desk verdict A solid, honest data release that expands FIRE-2 to full snapshot histories plus DMO, MHD+, cosmic-ray, and later-reionization variants; the main issues are minor text-to-archive inconsistencies that should be fixed before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06608 v2 pith:AXBOIXFW submitted 2025-08-08 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Andrew Wetzel , Jenna Samuel , Pratik J. Gandhi , Sam B. Ponnada , Kung-Yi Su , Arpit Arora , Daniel Angles-Alcazar , Christopher C. Hayward
show 29 more authors
Robyn E. Sanderson Robert Feldmann Rachel Cochrane Farnik Nikakhtar Nondh Panithanpaisal Jose A. Benavides Viraj Pandya Mike Grudic Cameron Hummels Alexander B. Gurvich Zachary Hafen Xiangcheng Ma Shea Garrison-Kimmel Omid Sameie T.K Chan Kareem El-Badry Lina Necib Sarah Loebman Sarah Wellons Victor H. Robles Coral Wheeler Jorge Moreno Jonathan Stern Michael Boylan-Kolchin James S. Bullock Claude-Andre Faucher-Giguere Dusan Keres Eliot Quataert Philip F. Hopkins
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords FIRE-2simulationsgalaxyformationcosmologicalzoom-indatareleasepublicarchivehalocatalogsmergertreesMHD
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 announces and documents the second public data release (DR2) of the FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations of galaxy formation. The authors assert that the public archive now contains 119 simulations across four suites, with most runs including every saved snapshot from z≈99 down to their final redshift, spaced no more than about 25 million years apart. The Core suite alone provides 601 snapshots for 14 Milky Way-mass, 5 SMC/LMC-mass, and 4 lower-mass galaxies, along with resimulations that alter single physical ingredients: dark-matter-only, later reionization, magnetic fields with conduction and viscosity, and cosmic-ray feedback. Most runs come with (sub)halo and galaxy catalogs at every snapshot, and most Core runs include full merger trees, so a galaxy's assembly can be traced continuously through time. If the archive matches this description, the release gives the community a uniform, high-cadence set of simulated galaxies for studying how baryons assemble and how feedback shapes them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the uniform snapshot cadence: releasing every saved output (spacing ≤ ~25 Myr) rather than every tenth output. That cadence, combined with the Rockstar (sub)halo catalogs at all snapshots and the Consistent Trees merger trees, turns the archive into a continuous record of each halo's assembly. The physics-variant resimulations (dark-matter-only, later reionization, MHD+, cosmic rays) are the controlled experiments: they re-run the same initial conditions with exactly one ingredient changed, so any difference in outcome is attributable to that ingredient.

What would settle it

A reader downloads the directory listing of the archive (e.g., the Core suite subdirectory) and checks that each Base Physics run has exactly 601 snapshots with spacings under ~25 Myr, that the MHD+ and cosmic-ray suites contain 16 and 14 simulations respectively, and that tree.hdf5 merger trees exist for the stated Core runs; any mismatch would falsify the release description.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

DR2 extends the initial FIRE-2 release (Wetzel et al. 2023) by publishing all currently stored snapshots for most simulations rather than a sparse subset. The central claim is that the archive now holds the complete time history of each run: snapshot time spacings are all below about 25 Myr from z≈99 to the final output. The Core suite reaches z=0 with 601 snapshots for each of 23 galaxies/halos; the Massive Halo suite reaches z=1 with 278 snapshots for 8 halos; the High Redshift suite includes 34 simulations to z=5, z=7, or z=9; and four dark-matter-only boxes provide initial-condition templates. In addition to the base physics, the release includes controlled resimulations that vary the ph

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central claim is about the contents of a public online archive, so the load-bearing premise is that the files actually exist there with the stated directory structure, snapshot counts, and notes.txt exceptions—something that cannot be verified from the manuscript text alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every Core-suite galaxy, users can follow the main progenitor branch from z=99 to z=0 without gaps, because the 601 snapshots and full merger trees are provided.
  • The physics-variant resimulations share initial conditions with the Base runs, so pairwise comparisons isolate the effect of reionization timing, magnetic fields, or cosmic-ray feedback.
  • The dense snapshot spacing (≲25 Myr) is comparable to the timescale of bursty star formation, so the data resolve individual star-formation and feedback episodes in the ISM.
  • The four dark-matter-only boxes, at mass resolutions differing by factors of two, allow users to generate new zoom-in initial conditions at arbitrary target resolution, extending the suite beyond the published halos.
  • All data are released under CC-BY, so downstream analyses and derived products can be published without restriction, subject to citation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not discuss: adding derived or reduced data products (e.g., precomputed density fields, star formation maps, or summary lightcones) would lower the barrier for observational astronomers who do not work with simulation snapshots.
  • The fine time sampling could serve as training data for machine-learning emulators or subgrid models, since star formation histories and merger rates are resolved at ~25 Myr resolution.
  • The single constant-diffusion cosmic-ray model is explicitly noted as not the preferred model; the release implicitly provides a benchmark against which the newer multi-energy-bin cosmic-ray FIRE runs can be compared.
  • If 25 Myr spacing is sufficient to capture bursty star formation, future simulations could save storage by adopting adaptive or coarser output cadence away from star-forming events; conversely, the archive tells us where the interesting times are.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript describes the second public data release (DR2) of the FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations, hosted at FlatHUB. It enumerates the simulations in the Core, Massive Halo, High Redshift, and Cosmological Box suites; gives snapshot counts and directory names; describes newly released physics variations (dark-matter-only, later reionization, MHD+, cosmic rays); documents halo/galaxy catalogs and merger trees; and provides access, licensing, and citation instructions. The paper is a data-description paper; its central claim is that the stated files exist on flathub.flatironinstitute.org/fire with the described contents and directory structure.

Significance. If the archive matches the description, this release is a substantial community resource: it greatly expands the publicly available FIRE-2 outputs, adds physics variants of the Core suite, includes halo/galaxy catalogs and merger trees for most simulations, and transparently documents known caveats (the spurious cosmic-ray heating bug in Base Physics DR1 runs, missing snapshots, and the lack of AGN feedback in B1/B2/C1/C2). The paper is careful in citing prior FIRE papers and in describing file formats. It does not present new physics or falsifiable predictions; its value is archival and reproducibility-oriented. Because users will rely on Table 1 and the section text to locate specific simulations, internal consistency between the text and the table is load-bearing for the paper's central availability claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3 vs. Table 1] The prose lists the z=9 suite as z9m11a, z9m11b, z9m11c, z9m11d, z9m11e, z9m12a, while Table 1 lists z9m11a,b,c and z9m12a,b,c. These are different simulation sets. Please reconcile the two lists and verify that the directory names on FlatHUB match the published list, since this is the primary way users will locate the released runs.
  2. [Section 2.1 and Abstract vs. Table 1] The Abstract and Section 2.1 state that the Core suite comprises 14 Milky Way-mass, 5 SMC/LMC-mass, and 4 lower-mass galaxies. Table 1 lists six m11 simulations at 10^11 Msun (m11b,d,e,h,i,q) and only three clearly lower-mass entries (m09, m10q, m10v). The stated counts do not add up to 23. Please clarify the mass classification used for each simulation or correct the counts in the text/table.
  3. [Section 2.1.2] The text says each Dark Matter Only simulation includes a subset of 61 snapshots (every tenth), but later states that "we include (sub)halo and galaxy catalogs and merger trees generated across all 600 snapshots." This is contradictory unless catalogs/trees are stored separately for snapshots whose particle data are not released. Please state explicitly how many snapshots have particle data, how many have catalogs, and whether the 600-snapshot claim refers to a different data product.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3] Typo in the suggested citation sentence: "publi,cly" should be "publicly".
  2. [Section 2.1.2] Typo: "multipling" should be "multiplying".
  3. [Section 2.2] The sentence beginning "Because of their lack of AGN feedback, the primary galaxies in all of the Massive Halo simulations..." is confusing, since the preceding sentence states that A1, A2, A4, A8 do track SMBH growth. Please rephrase to make clear which simulations lack AGN feedback and which are affected by the overmassive/overdense behavior.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Data release paper with no derivations or predictions; no circular reasoning found.

full rationale

This is a data release paper, not a derivation or prediction paper. Its central claim is that a specified set of simulation snapshots, catalogs, and merger trees is publicly available at a specified location with stated snapshot counts and directory structures. No quantity is fitted and then renamed as a prediction, and no physical result is derived from an input that is definitionally equivalent to the output. Citations to prior FIRE papers (e.g., Wetzel et al. 2023, Hopkins et al. 2018, Hopkins et al. 2020) describe the simulation code, physics model, and origin of individual simulations; these are background references rather than load-bearing premises used to force a conclusion within this paper. The paper is also transparent about known limitations (the cosmic-ray heating bug, missing snapshots, notes.txt exceptions), which are caveats about data completeness, not circular steps. The only genuinely load-bearing premise—that files exist on FlatHUB exactly as described—is an externally checkable availability claim that cannot be settled from the manuscript text, but that is an empirical verifiability issue, not a circularity issue. Internal inconsistencies between the prose and Table 1 (e.g., z=9 simulation naming or count summaries) are correctness/documentation risks, not examples of reasoning that reduces to its own inputs. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim of this paper is the public availability and content of a data release. There are no fitted free parameters, no new axioms, and no invented entities introduced. The physical parameters of the simulations (cosmological parameters, cosmic-ray diffusion coefficient kappa_parallel = 3e29 cm2/g) are set in prior papers and do not constitute free parameters of this release. The paper itself introduces no new theoretical constructs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Second public data release of the FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations of galaxy formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AXBOIXFW

@misc{pith2026250806608,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Second public data release of the FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations of galaxy formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AXBOIXFW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06608}
}
read the original abstract

We describe the second data release (DR2) of the FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations of galaxy formation, from the Feedback In Realistic Environments (FIRE) project, available at http://flathub.flatironinstitute.org/fire. DR2 includes all snapshots for most simulations, starting at z ~ 99, with all snapshot time spacings <~ 25 Myr. The Core suite -- comprising 14 Milky Way-mass galaxies, 5 SMC/LMC-mass galaxies, and 4 lower-mass galaxies -- includes 601 snapshots to z = 0. For the Core suite, we also release resimulations with physics variations: (1) dark-matter-only versions; (2) a modified ultraviolet background with later reionization at z = 7.8; (3) magnetohydrodynamics, anisotropic conduction, and viscosity in gas; and (4) a model for cosmic-ray injection, transport, and feedback (assuming a constant diffusion coefficient). The Massive Halo suite now includes 8 massive galaxies with 278 snapshots to z = 1. The High Redshift suite includes 34 simulations: in addition to the 22 simulations run to z = 5, we now include 12 additional simulations run to z = 7 and z = 9. We also release 4 dark-matter-only cosmological boxes used to generate zoom-in initial conditions for many FIRE simulations. Most simulations include catalogs of (sub)halos and galaxies at all available snapshots, and most Core simulations to z = 0 include full halo merger trees.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

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

  1. TDEs on FIRE: Illuminating the Cosmic Evolution of Tidal Disruption Rates

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    FIRE-2 simulations show per-galaxy tidal disruption rates peak near z=2.5 at 4e-4 per year, correlate with SFR and central density, and remain high in satellite galaxies at early times.

  2. Mergers Matter: Gravothermal Collapse in Dwarf Halos with Self-Interacting Dark Matter

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    SIDM simulations of dwarf halos show that quiescent merger histories produce gravothermal core collapse while sustained mergers prevent collapse and can yield central densities below gravothermal fluid model predictions.

  3. No Stream Left Unscathed: The imprint of a host galaxy

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Host galaxy potentials alone produce complex morphological features in most stellar streams, with pericentric distance as the strongest predictor of smoothness.

  4. Galactic Amnesia: The Information Washout of the Milky Way Merger History

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Mutual information analysis of TNG50 simulations shows gravitational potential and total energy retain merger mass and infall time information longest, while radial velocity loses it within ~5 Gyr, with washout depend...

  5. Metallicity Gradients in Modern Cosmological Simulations II: The Role of Bursty Versus Smooth Feedback at High-Redshift

    astro-ph.GA 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bursty stellar feedback produces systematically flatter metallicity gradients than smooth feedback in high-redshift galaxies across multiple simulation suites.

  6. Resolving Star Cluster Formation in Galaxy Simulations with Cosmic Ray Feedback

    astro-ph.GA 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Cosmic-ray feedback reduces star formation, steepens the star cluster mass function, and makes simulated clusters more bound by lowering the ISM's turbulent energy.

  7. Ergodicity of FIRE: star formation variations within and between simulated galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    FIRE-2 galaxies show apparent ergodic convergence in star-forming-main-sequence deviations by the Thirumalai–Mountain metric, but block-scrambling reveals this is not true ergodicity.

  8. Resolving galaxy formation in the early Universe with BonFIRE and CampFIRE

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    BonFIRE and CampFIRE simulations show bursty clustered star formation in early galaxies and predict UV luminosity functions matching observations at faint magnitudes with a turnover at M_UV approx -14 but overpredicti...

  9. Radial redistribution of stellar orbits in FIRE simulations of Milky-Way-mass galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    FIRE-2 simulations show that stellar radial redistribution scatter saturates at ~2 kpc for stars older than ~3 Gyr, with net orbital changes depending on age and current radius, broadly matching Milky Way observations.

  10. Revealing Cosmic Ecosystems with the Hubble Space Telescope in 2030s and Beyond

    astro-ph.IM 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    HST UV spectroscopy is presented as the unique tool for probing multiphase gas at the disk-CGM interface to understand how galaxies acquire fuel, recycle metals, and drive feedback.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 10 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A., Primack , J

    Allgood , B., Flores , R. A., Primack , J. R., et al. 2006, , 367, 1781

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    2017, , 472, L109, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx161

    Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Quataert , E., et al. 2017, , 472, L109, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx161

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx161 2017

  3. [3]

    E., Panithanpaisal , N., et al

    Arora , A., Sanderson , R. E., Panithanpaisal , N., et al. 2022, , 939, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac93fb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac93fb 2022

  4. [4]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 23

    Arora, A., Sanderson, R., Regan, C., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 23

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    E., et al

    Arora, A., Garavito-Camargo, N., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 988, 190

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    S., Wechsler , R

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

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

  7. [7]

    S., Wechsler , R

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

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

  8. [8]

    L., & Norman , M

    Bryan , G. L., & Norman , M. L. 1998, , 495, 80, 10.1086/305262

    doi:10.1086/305262 1998

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    S., Kolatt , T

    Bullock , J. S., Kolatt , T. S., Sigad , Y., et al. 2001, , 321, 559

    2001

  2. [10]

    K., Kere s , D., Gurvich , A

    Chan , T. K., Kere s , D., Gurvich , A. B., et al. 2022, , 517, 597, 10.1093/mnras/stac2236

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    K., Kere s , D., Hopkins , P

    Chan , T. K., Kere s , D., Hopkins , P. F., et al. 2019, , 488, 3716, 10.1093/mnras/stz1895

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    K., Hayward , C

    Cochrane , R. K., Hayward , C. C., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., & Somerville , R. S. 2023 a , , 518, 5522, 10.1093/mnras/stac3451

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    K., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Mercedes-Feliz , J., et al

    Cochrane , R. K., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Mercedes-Feliz , J., et al. 2023 b , , 523, 2409, 10.1093/mnras/stad1528

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, , 493, 1614, 10.1093/mnras/staa302

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A. 2020, , 493, 1614, 10.1093/mnras/staa302

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2009, , 703, 1416, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Lidz , A., Zaldarriaga , M., & Hernquist , L. 2009, , 703, 1416, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    F., Quataert , E., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., & Kere s , D

    Feldmann , R., Hopkins , P. F., Quataert , E., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., & Kere s , D. 2016, , 458, L14, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw014

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., & Kere s , D

    Feldmann , R., Quataert , E., Hopkins , P. F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., & Kere s , D. 2017, , 470, 1050, 10.1093/mnras/stx1120

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Wetzel , A., Hopkins , P

    Gandhi , P. J., Wetzel , A., Hopkins , P. F., et al. 2022, , 516, 1941, 10.1093/mnras/stac2228

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Y., Offner , S

    Guszejnov , D., Grudi \'c , M. Y., Offner , S. S. R., et al. 2020, , 492, 488, 10.1093/mnras/stz3527

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2011, , 415, 2101, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    Hahn , O., & Abel , T. 2011, , 415, 2101, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    2011

  13. [21]

    Hopkins , P. F. 2015, , 450, 53, 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    2017, , 466, 3387, 10.1093/mnras/stw3306

    ---. 2017, , 466, 3387, 10.1093/mnras/stw3306

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    F., Butsky , I

    Hopkins , P. F., Butsky , I. S., Panopoulou , G. V., et al. 2022, , 516, 3470, 10.1093/mnras/stac1791

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    F., Chan , T

    Hopkins , P. F., Chan , T. K., Ji , S., et al. 2021 a , , 501, 3640, 10.1093/mnras/staa3690

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    F., Chan , T

    Hopkins , P. F., Chan , T. K., Squire , J., et al. 2021 b , , 501, 3663, 10.1093/mnras/staa3692

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    F., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al. 2014, , 445, 581, 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    F., & Raives , M

    Hopkins , P. F., & Raives , M. J. 2016, , 455, 51, 10.1093/mnras/stv2180

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    F., Squire , J., Chan , T

    Hopkins , P. F., Squire , J., Chan , T. K., et al. 2021 c , , 501, 4184, 10.1093/mnras/staa3691

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    F., Wetzel , A., Kere s , D., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Wetzel , A., Kere s , D., et al. 2018, , 480, 800, 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    F., Chan , T

    Hopkins , P. F., Chan , T. K., Garrison-Kimmel , S., et al. 2020, , 492, 3465, 10.1093/mnras/stz3321

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    K., et al

    Ji , S., Kere s , D., Chan , T. K., et al. 2021, , 505, 259, 10.1093/mnras/stab1264

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    K., Hummels , C

    Ji , S., Chan , T. K., Hummels , C. B., et al. 2020, , 496, 4221, 10.1093/mnras/staa1849

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2014, , 210, 14, 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/14

    Kim , J.-h., Abel , T., Agertz , O., et al. 2014, , 210, 14, 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/14

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

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

    Klypin , A. A., Trujillo-Gomez , S., & Primack , J. 2011, , 740, 102, 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/102

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    R., & Knebe , A

    Knollmann , S. R., & Knebe , A. 2009, , 182, 608, 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608

    2009 doi

  28. [36]

    2020, , 498, 2001, 10.1093/mnras/staa2404

    Ma , X., Quataert , E., Wetzel , A., et al. 2020, , 498, 2001, 10.1093/mnras/staa2404

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    F., Garrison-Kimmel , S., et al

    Ma , X., Hopkins , P. F., Garrison-Kimmel , S., et al. 2018 a , , 478, 1694, 10.1093/mnras/sty1024

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    F., Boylan-Kolchin , M., et al

    Ma , X., Hopkins , P. F., Boylan-Kolchin , M., et al. 2018 b , , 477, 219, 10.1093/mnras/sty684

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    C., Casey , C

    Ma , X., Hayward , C. C., Casey , C. M., et al. 2019, , 487, 1844, 10.1093/mnras/stz1324

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    K., et al

    Mercedes-Feliz , J., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Oh , B. K., et al. 2024, , 530, 2795, 10.1093/mnras/stae1021

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    K., Hayward , C

    Parsotan , T., Cochrane , R. K., Hayward , C. C., et al. 2021, , 501, 1591, 10.1093/mnras/staa3765

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Peebles , P. J. E. 1969, , 155, 393, 10.1086/149876

    1969 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    B., Panopoulou , G

    Ponnada , S. B., Panopoulou , G. V., Butsky , I. S., et al. 2022, , 516, 4417, 10.1093/mnras/stac2448

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    2023, , 31, 4, 10.1007/s00159-023-00149-2

    Ruszkowski , M., & Pfrommer , C. 2023, , 31, 4, 10.1007/s00159-023-00149-2

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    E., Wetzel , A., Loebman , S., et al

    Sanderson , R. E., Wetzel , A., Loebman , S., et al. 2020, , 246, 6, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5b9d

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    B., Wetzel , A., El-Badry , K., et al

    Santistevan , I. B., Wetzel , A., El-Badry , K., et al. 2020, , 497, 747, 10.1093/mnras/staa1923

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    F., Hayward , C

    Su , K.-Y., Hopkins , P. F., Hayward , C. C., et al. 2017, , 471, 144, 10.1093/mnras/stx1463

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    2020, , 497, 4051, 10.1093/mnras/staa2229

    Wellons , S., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., et al. 2020, , 497, 4051, 10.1093/mnras/staa2229

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Sanderson , R

    Wetzel , A., Hayward , C. C., Sanderson , R. E., et al. 2023, , 265, 44, 10.3847/1538-4365/acb99a

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    J., et al

    Wetzel , A., Samuel , J., Gandhi , P. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.06608, 2508.06608

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.