Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Disk galaxies align radially around ellipticals in three major simulations, with one negative exception tied to shape definition and redshift.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

With consistent shape and morphology definitions, disk-galaxy intrinsic alignments are positive in TNG300 and EAGLE, positive or null in Horizon-AGN, and negative only for reduced shapes at z=1 with |v/σ| disk selection in Horizon-AGN.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection A genuinely consistent cross-simulation IA comparison that localizes the negative disk signal to one specific recipe in Horizon-AGN; worth refereeing, but the fixed 10% elliptical split leaves the 'resolution' claim conditional. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2510.11118 v3 pith:CGM7JQQ5 submitted 2025-10-13 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Intrinsic alignment of disks and ellipticals across hydrodynamical simulations

M. L. van Heukelum , N. E. Chisari This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords intrinsic alignmentsdisk galaxieselliptical galaxieshydrodynamical simulationsweak lensinggalaxy shapesmorphology selectionquadrupole correlation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to settle conflicting measurements of disk galaxy intrinsic alignments by measuring the same statistics consistently across three hydrodynamical simulations. It finds that disk and elliptical alignments around galaxies are positive and robust in TNG300 and EAGLE, and positive or null in Horizon-AGN. The sole negative signal—disks around ellipticals—appears only for reduced shapes at z=1 when disks are identified by a rotational-velocity threshold. Re-weighting samples by stellar mass shows that mass alone does not set the alignment amplitude at small scales, pointing to sub-grid physics. If correct, the work reconciles earlier contradictory disk alignment results as artifacts of measurement choices.

Core claim

Using a uniform measurement pipeline for projected galaxy shapes and a fixed abundance-matching split into 10% ellipticals and 90% disks, the authors measure quadrupole alignments in TNG300, EAGLE, and Horizon-AGN at z=0 and z=1. They find that all galaxy position–shape correlations are positive or consistent with zero in the three simulations, except for one case: disks around ellipticals, defined by |v/σ|, with reduced shapes at z=1 in Horizon-AGN, which is negative. This negative signal matches the specific choices that produced the earlier negative detection in Horizon-AGN, implying that the longstanding tension in disk alignment measurements arises from differing methodologies and sampl

What carries the argument

The central tool is the projected quadrupole statistic ξ̃_{g+,2}, estimated with a modified Landy–Szalay estimator, applied to galaxy shapes computed from both the simple and reduced inertia tensors. The morphological split into disks and ellipticals is made consistently across simulations using abundance matching on four variables: |v/σ|, κ_rot, r−i colour, and bulge-to-total ratio. This uniform re-measurement of shapes and selection variables is what allows a direct cross-simulation comparison.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that a fixed 10% elliptical / 90% disk abundance-matching split yields comparable morphological samples across all three simulations and both redshifts is load-bearing; if the true elliptical fraction differs by simulation or evolves with redshift, the cross-simulation sign and amplitude comparisons could be biased.

What would settle it

Measure the disk-around-elliptical correlation in a larger simulation box (e.g., MillenniumTNG or COLIBRE) using reduced shapes and |v/σ| at z=1; if the negative signal does not reappear outside Horizon-AGN, the claim that this is a Horizon-AGN-specific effect is falsified. Alternatively, repeat the analysis using theoretically motivated thresholds (κ_rot > 0.5, |v/σ| > 1) instead of abundance matching; if the positive signals turn negative, the abundance-matching choice is the decisive factor.

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

If this is right

  • Earlier positive, null, and negative disk alignment measurements in simulations can be reconciled: most of the spread is due to shape definition, sample selection, and redshift, not to intrinsic differences between simulations.
  • The negative disk-around-elliptical signal is not a generic simulation outcome; it is specific to reduced shapes at z=1 with a |v/σ| selection in Horizon-AGN.
  • The stellar mass distribution of a selected morphological sample explains much of the alignment amplitude at large scales, but not at small scales (r ≲ 3 Mpc/h), where other physics must be involved.
  • The consistent positive or null disk alignments measured here imply that blue/disk galaxies do show non-negligible intrinsic alignments in simulations, cautioning against weak-lensing mitigation strategies that assume no blue alignment.
  • The abundance-matching split, while not matching theoretical thresholds, provides a stable comparison baseline; the resulting signals are robust to shape choice and redshift in TNG300 and EAGLE.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same negative signal appears in other simulations when reduced shapes and |v/σ| are used at z=1, it would suggest a generic small-scale physical mechanism (e.g., tidal torquing of inner disk regions) rather than a Horizon-AGN artifact—testable with larger boxes like MillenniumTNG.
  • The re-weighting result implies that IA amplitude as a function of morphology may be set by an interplay of stellar mass and environment; a direct test would be measuring alignments in samples matched in both mass and large-scale density.
  • Observationally, the predicted difference between colour-selected and kinematics-selected disks is hard to test now, but upcoming integral-field surveys could provide the kinematic classifications needed to check whether the simulated distinction is physical.
  • The fixed 10% elliptical fraction, if relaxed to an evolving fraction, might change the sign or amplitude of the z=1 signals; this is a clean parameter to vary in a follow-up study.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic comparison of projected intrinsic-alignment quadrupoles in TNG300, EAGLE, and Horizon-AGN at z=0 and z=1, for simple and reduced inertia-tensor shapes and multiple morphological selections (|v/σ|, κ_rot, r−i, BTR, and stellar mass). Samples are split into disks and ellipticals by abundance matching with a fixed 10% elliptical fraction. The central claim is that all measured signals are positive or null except for one negative correlation: disks around ellipticals in Horizon-AGN at z=1, for reduced shapes and galaxies selected by |v/σ|. A re-weighting analysis in TNG300 is used to argue that sub-grid physics, not stellar mass alone, drives small-scale amplitude differences. The paper aims to resolve the conflicting disk-IA detections in the literature by showing that the negative signal is specific to a particular shape definition, redshift, and morphological proxy.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a valuable reference comparison for the disk-IA field: it provides a consistent remeasurement of shapes, kinematics, and correlation statistics across three widely used simulations. The paper's strengths include the public code MEASUREIA validated against HALOTOOLS and TREECORR, jackknife covariances with N_jk=64, and resolution/box-size checks in Appendix A. The central negative-signal claim, however, is not quantified with a detection significance, and the fixed 10% abundance-matching split is acknowledged to be ad hoc; the reported robustness is therefore stronger than the evidence currently supports.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.4, Fig. 10] The negative disks-around-ellipticals signal in Horizon-AGN is the paper's central new claim, but no detection significance or χ²/dof relative to zero is provided. The jackknife error bars in Fig. 10 appear large compared to the signal in several radial bins. Please quantify the detection (e.g., χ² against zero using the full covariance, or the number of bins exceeding 1σ/2σ).
  2. [§3.1.2, §4, Figs. 3–4] The fixed 10% elliptical fraction is an acknowledged ad hoc choice: it does not match the colour bimodality or the theoretically motivated thresholds κ_rot=0.5 and |v/σ|=1, and the |v/σ| distributions evolve in opposite directions in EAGLE and Horizon-AGN. Thus the 'ellipticals' selected as the lowest 10% of |v/σ| in Horizon-AGN at z=1 may be a different galaxy population than the corresponding 10% in TNG300/EAGLE, making the negative signal a potential selection artifact. Please test sensitivity to the elliptical fraction (e.g., 5%, 15%, 20%) and/or show persistence with physically motivated thresholds or mass-matched samples.
  3. [Abstract vs §3.5 and Conclusion 8] The submission's abstract states that the re-weighting 'suggests that stellar mass is the driving factor determining the amplitude of the correlations.' This directly contradicts §3.5 and Conclusion 8, which conclude that stellar mass can be ruled out as the main driver at non-linear scales and that sub-grid physics is responsible. The body text is internally consistent, but the abstract as written inverts the central result; this must be reconciled.
  4. [§3.2, Appendix C, Conclusions] The claim that disk and elliptical signals are 'positive and robust in EAGLE' is not supported by the paper's own error bars. §3.2 states that 'no robust conclusions can be drawn' in EAGLE, and Appendix C notes that the disk/elliptical selections overlap within errors. Please either soften the abstract/conclusion claim for EAGLE or provide quantitative evidence (e.g., stacked signals with errors) that the positive sign is robust.
  5. [§3.5, Fig. 11] The re-weighted correlation functions are shown without propagated uncertainties, and the conclusion that the offset increases at r≲3 Mpc/h is based on visual inspection. Please provide jackknife errors on the re-weighted curves or quote a significance for the offset (e.g., amplitude ratio at a fixed scale). Also state explicitly that this test is restricted to TNG300 and to the three morphological selections considered.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (16)] Equation (16) appears empty; either fill it with the intended expression or remove it.
  2. [§4] The references to 'COLIBRE ()' and 'MilleniumTNG ()' are missing citations; please add proper references.
  3. [Throughout] Typos and formatting issues: 'baded' should be 'based'; 'Dark Energy Survy' should be 'Survey'; 'V ogelsberger' has stray spacing; 'co¨ordinate' should be 'coordinate'.
  4. [§3.1.2] The term 'abundance matching' is used for a fixed 10% percentile split; this is not a match to an observed abundance. Consider using 'fixed percentile split' or clarify the terminology.
  5. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption should specify that the negative claim refers only to the |v/σ| reduced-shape z=1 panel, and should include a significance statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the reported alignment signals are direct measurements from simulation particle data, validated against external estimators; self-citations are consistency checks, not load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

This is an empirical measurement paper, not a derivation. The intrinsic-alignment quadrupoles are computed directly from galaxy particle data using the Landy-Szalay estimator (Eq. 4), the inertia tensors (Eqs. 1-2), and explicitly defined morphological variables (Section 2.4); no parameter is fitted to the correlation functions and then presented as a prediction. The only sample-adjustment choice, the fixed 10% elliptical fraction (§3.1.2), is made before the measurements and is explicitly acknowledged in §4 as not matching the colour bimodality or the theoretically motivated thresholds and as not accounting for redshift evolution; this is a validity limitation, not a circular step. The claimed exception - negative disks-around-ellipticals correlation in Horizon-AGN for reduced shapes, |v/σ|, z=1 - is a direct measurement. Its agreement with Chisari et al. (2015, 2016) is a consistency check, and those prior results are not inputs that force the sign. The measurement code is validated against external packages (HALOTOOLS, TREECORR), providing independent benchmark support. Self-citations occur, e.g. assuming S+R=0 'following Chisari et al. (2015)', but this random-point correction is standard and not load-bearing for the central conclusion. No equation or fitted quantity is equivalent by construction to the reported signals. Score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The paper's inputs are existing simulation outputs, public estimators, and hand-chosen selection criteria. The central claims rest on these measurement choices rather than on a fitted model, so the free-parameter count reflects selection choices rather than model fitting.

free parameters (3)
  • Elliptical fraction (abundance matching) = 10%
    Fixed split of the shape sample into 10% ellipticals and 90% disks applied at all redshifts and in all simulations (§3.1.2). Chosen by hand; the authors acknowledge it does not match colour bimodality or theoretical κ_rot/|v/σ| thresholds (§4).
  • Shape sample stellar mass cut = M_* > 10^9.15 M_sun/h
    Chosen to correspond to 300 stellar particles in TNG300 for converged shapes (§2.4). Resolution-motivated, not fitted to the IA signal.
  • Position sample stellar mass cut = M_* > 10^8.35 M_sun/h
    Chosen to correspond to 50 stellar particles in the lowest-resolution simulation (§2.4); resolution-motivated.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Landy-Szalay estimator provides an unbiased estimate of galaxy-position-shape correlations
    Used for all correlation functions (§2.3); a standard statistical estimator.
  • domain assumption The quadrupole estimator ξ̃_{g+,2} from Singh et al. (2024) has higher signal-to-noise than w_g+ and correctly reconstructs alignment statistics
    The paper relies on this estimator for all main results (§2.3.2); no independent verification within this work beyond validating the code against existing tools.
  • domain assumption Jackknife covariance with N_jk=64 sub-volumes adequately captures the covariance of the correlation functions
    Used for all error bars (§2.3.3); relies on the Hirata et al. (2004) criterion, but jackknife from a single simulation volume underestimates cosmic variance.
  • domain assumption The three simulations (TNG300, EAGLE, Horizon-AGN) produce galaxy populations whose morphologies can be meaningfully compared
    Central to the cross-simulation comparison; differences in sub-grid physics are the intended subject but also act as a confound.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intrinsic alignment of disks and ellipticals across hydrodynamical simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CGM7JQQ5

@misc{pith2026251011118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intrinsic alignment of disks and ellipticals across hydrodynamical simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CGM7JQQ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.11118}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

The correlations between the positions and shapes of galaxies, i.e. intrinsic alignments, have been measured in many observational studies and hydrodynamical simulations. The position-shape correlation measurements of disk galaxies with varying methodologies, samples and hydrodynamical simulations are inconsistent in amplitude and sign. This work compares the correlations of disk and elliptical shapes around all galaxy positions and disk shapes around the positions of ellipticals at $z=0$ and $z=1$ for two different shape definitions in TNG300, Horizon-AGN and EAGLE for multiple morphological definitions in a consistent way. All types of signals are positive and robust in TNG300 and EAGLE and positive or null in Horizon-AGN. A re-weighting of the ellipticals around all galaxies correlations in TNG300, according to the underlying stellar mass distributions of the samples, suggests that stellar mass is the driving factor determining the amplitude of the correlations. The exception to this is the negative correlation of disks around ellipticals in Horizon-AGN. This arises for reduced shapes, which down-weight the outskirts of galaxies, at $z=1$, when disks are identified via a threshold in $|v/\sigma|$, the rotational velocity over the velocity dispersion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.11118 by M. L. van Heukelum, N. E. Chisari.

Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: For each simulation and selection made, the signals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The IA correlations of the elliptical shape samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Assembly bias and the redshift evolution of intrinsic alignments for LRGs

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    FLAMINGO simulation analysis shows IA amplitude for LRGs depends on halo assembly history and exhibits redshift evolution beyond mass effects, yielding an empirical mass-redshift model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aae9f0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..239...18A 239, 18

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aae9f0 2018

  2. [2]

    Aihara H., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S...4A 70, S4

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx066 2018

  3. [4]

    E., Codis S., Martin G., Dubois Y., Devriendt J., Pichon C., Slyz A., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3166

    Bate J., Chisari N. E., Codis S., Martin G., Dubois Y., Devriendt J., Pichon C., Slyz A., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3166

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3166 2019

  4. [5]

    K., Chen Y., Tenneti A., Di Matteo T., Mandelbaum R., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3240 , 491, 4116–4130

    Bhowmick A. K., Chen Y., Tenneti A., Di Matteo T., Mandelbaum R., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3240 , 491, 4116–4130

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3240 2019

  5. [6]

    R., et al., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/375528 , 594, 186

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/375528 , 594, 186

    doi:10.1086/375528 2003

  6. [7]

    E., Dvorkin C., 2013, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/12/029 , 2013, 029–029

    Chisari N. E., Dvorkin C., 2013, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/12/029 , 2013, 029–029

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/12/029 2013

  7. [8]

    Chisari N., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2154 , 454, 2736–2753

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2154 2015

  8. [9]

    Chisari N., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw1409 , 461, 2702–2721

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1409 2016

  9. [10]

    E., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2093 , 480, 3962–3977

    Chisari N. E., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2093 , 480, 3962–3977

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2093 2018

  10. [11]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1937C 450, 1937

    Crain R. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1937C 450, 1937

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv725 2015

  11. [12]

    H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , 486, 2827–2849

    Davé R., Anglés-Alcázar D., Narayanan D., Li Q., Rafieferantsoa M. H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , 486, 2827–2849

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz937 2019

  12. [13]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1781 , 523, 5899–5914

    Delgado A. M., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1781 , 523, 5899–5914

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1781 2023

  13. [14]

    Dubois Y., et al., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1227 , 444, 1453–1468

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1227 2014

  14. [15]

    Dubois Y., Peirani S., Pichon C., Devriendt J., Gavazzi R., Welker C., Volonteri M., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2265 , 463, 3948–3964

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2265 2016

  15. [16]

    Genel S., et al., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1654 , 445, 175

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1654 2014

  16. [17]

    M., Hernquist L., Vogelsberger M., Snyder G

    Genel S., Fall S. M., Hernquist L., Vogelsberger M., Snyder G. F., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Sijacki D., Springel V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/L40 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804L..40G 804, L40

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/l40 2015

  17. [18]

    E., Bilicki M., Barbera F

    Georgiou C., Chisari N. E., Bilicki M., Barbera F. L., Napolitano N. R., Roy N., Tortora C., 2025, Intrinsic galaxy alignments in the KiDS-1000 bright sample: dependence on colour, luminosity, morphology, and galaxy scale ( @eprint arXiv 2502.09452 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.09452

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [19]

    Haslbauer M., Banik I., Kroupa P., Wittenburg N., Javanmardi B., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46ac , 925, 183

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac46ac 2022

  19. [20]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa859f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..190H 154, 190

    Hearin A. P., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa859f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..190H 154, 190

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa859f 2017

  20. [21]

    Hilbert S., Xu D., Schneider P., Springel V., Vogelsberger M., Hernquist L., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx482 , 468, 790–823

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx482 2017

  21. [23]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..111I 873, 111

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2019

  22. [24]

    M., Fischer P., Smith D., Jain B., Tyson J

    Jarvis M., Bernstein G. M., Fischer P., Smith D., Jain B., Tyson J. A., Wittman D., 2003, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/367799 , 125, 1014–1032

    doi:10.1086/367799 2003

  23. [25]

    Jarvis M., Bernstein G., Jain B., 2004, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07926.x , 352, 338

    arXiv 2004

  24. [26]

    Johnston, Harry et al., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834714 , 624, A30

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834714 2019

  25. [27]

    Kaviraj S., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx126 , p. stx126

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx126 2017

  26. [28]

    Khandai N., Di Matteo T., Croft R., Wilkins S., Feng Y., Tucker E., DeGraf C., Liu M.-S., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv627 , 450, 1349

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv627 2015

  27. [29]

    Kiessling A., et al., 2015, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-015-0203-6 , 193, 67–136

    doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0203-6 2015

  28. [30]

    Kogai K., Akitsu K., Schmidt F., Urakawa Y., 2021, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/060 , 2021, 060

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/060 2021

  29. [31]

    Komatsu E., et al., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 , 192, 18

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 2011

  30. [32]

    Kraljic K., Davé R., Pichon C., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa250 , 493, 362–381

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa250 2020

  31. [33]

    D., Szalay A

    Landy S. D., Szalay A. S., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...412...64L 412, 64

    doi:10.1086/172900 1993

  32. [34]

    arXiv:1110.3193

    Laureijs R., et al., 2011, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1110.3193L p. arXiv:1110.3193

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1110.3193 2011

  33. [35]

    Lee J., Moon J.-S., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac879d , 936, 119

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac879d 2022

  34. [36]

    Lee J., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd08b , 908, 11

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd08b 2021

  35. [37]

    Li S.-S., Kuijken K., Hoekstra H., Hildebrandt H., Joachimi B., Kannawadi A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039254 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A.175L 646, A175

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039254 2021

  36. [38]

    M., Ishak M., Seljak U., Brinkmann J., 2006, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09946.x , 367, 611–626

    Mandelbaum R., Hirata C. M., Ishak M., Seljak U., Brinkmann J., 2006, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09946.x , 367, 611–626

    arXiv 2006

  37. [39]

    Mandelbaum R., et al., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17485.x , 410, 844

    arXiv 2011

  38. [40]

    A., Nichol R

    Maraston C., Strömbäck G., Thomas D., Wake D. A., Nichol R. C., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00621.x , 394, L107

    arXiv 2009

  39. [41]

    McCullough J., et al., 2024, Dark Energy Survey Year 3: Blue Shear ( @eprint arXiv 2410.22272 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.22272

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [42]

    Moon J.-S., Lee J., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3825 , 966, 100

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3825 2024

  41. [43]

    Mortlock A., et al., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt793 , 433, 1185–1201

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt793 2013

  42. [44]

    Nelson D., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 , 475, 624–647

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3040 2017

  43. [45]

    Nelson D., et al., 2021, The IllustrisTNG Simulations: Public Data Release ( @eprint arXiv 1812.05609 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.05609

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [46]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 , 473, 4077–4106

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656 2017

  45. [47]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 , 571, A16

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 2014

  46. [48]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , 594, A13

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 2016

  47. [49]

    Pulsoni C., Gerhard O., Arnaboldi M., Pillepich A., Nelson D., Hernquist L., Springel V., 2020, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038253 , 641, A60

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038253 2020

  48. [50]

    M., 2009, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/S0218271809014388 , 18, 173

    SCH\" A FER B. M., 2009, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/S0218271809014388 , 18, 173

    doi:10.1142/s0218271809014388 2009

  49. [51]

    Saga S., Shiraishi M., Akitsu K., Okumura T., 2024, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/physrevd.109.043520 , 109

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.043520 2024

  50. [52]

    Samuroff S., Mandelbaum R., Blazek J., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2520 , 508, 637–664

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2520 2021

  51. [53]

    Schaye J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446..521S 446, 521

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2058 2015

  52. [54]

    S., Gao L., Crain R

    Shao S., Cautun M., Frenk C. S., Gao L., Crain R. A., Schaller M., Schaye J., Theuns T., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw1247 , 460, 3772–3783

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1247 2016

  53. [55]

    Shi J., Osato K., Kurita T., Takada M., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cfa , 917, 109

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cfa 2021

  54. [56]

    Singh S., Shakir A., Jagvaral Y., Mandelbaum R., 2024, Increasing the power of weak lensing survey data with multipole-based intrinsic alignment estimators ( @eprint arXiv 2307.02545 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02545

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [57]

    Springel V., 2005, , 364, 1105

    2005

  56. [58]

    Springel V., 2010, @doi [Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union] 10.1017/S1743921311000378 , 6, 203–206

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921311000378 2010

  57. [59]

    Springel V., White S. D. M., Tormen G., Kauffmann G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328..726S 328, 726

    arXiv 2001

  58. [60]

    N., et al., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1900 , 446, 2144

    Taylor E. N., et al., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1900 , 446, 2144

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1900 2014

  59. [61]

    Tenneti A., Mandelbaum R., Di Matteo T., Feng Y., Khandai N., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu586 , 441, 470–485

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu586 2014

  60. [62]

    Tenneti A., Mandelbaum R., Di Matteo T., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw1823 , 462, 2668–2680

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1823 2016

  61. [63]

    Y., Feng Y., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/169 , 834, 169

    Tenneti A., Gnedin N. Y., Feng Y., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/169 , 834, 169

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/169 2017

  62. [64]

    Teyssier R., 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 385, 337

    2002

  63. [65]

    W., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1461 , 452, 2879–2896

    Trayford J. W., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1461 , 452, 2879–2896

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1461 2015

  64. [66]

    Velliscig M., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2198 , 454, 3328–3340

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2198 2015

  65. [67]

    E., Schmidt F., 2021, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/061 , 2021, 061

    Vlah Z., Chisari N. E., Schmidt F., 2021, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/061 , 2021, 061

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/061 2021

  66. [68]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1536 , 444, 1518

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1536 2014

  67. [69]

    Weinberger R., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2944 , 465, 3291–3308

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2944 2016

  68. [70]

    Welker C., Power C., Pichon C., Dubois Y., Devriendt J., Codis S., 2017, Caught in the rhythm II: Competitive alignments of satellites with their inner halo and central galaxy ( @eprint arXiv 1712.07818 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07818

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  69. [71]

    Zhang B., Lee K.-G., Krolewski A., Shi J., Horowitz B., Kooistra R., 2023, Alignments Between Galaxies and the Cosmic Web at z 1-2 in the IllustrisTNG Simulations ( @eprint arXiv 2211.09331 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09331

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [72]

    de Jong J. T. A., Verdoes Kleijn G. A., Kuijken K. H., Valentijn E. A., 2013, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-012-9306-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ExA....35...25D 35, 25

    doi:10.1007/s10686-012-9306-1 2013

  71. [73]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  72. [74]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.