Measuring dynamical masses from gas kinematics in simulated high-redshift galaxies

Christopher C. Hayward; Claude-Andr\'e Faucher-Gigu\`ere; Daniel Angl\'es-Alc\'azar; Du\v{s}an Kere\v{s}; Philip F. Hopkins; Robert Feldmann; Sarah Wellons

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Measuring dynamical masses from gas kinematics in simulated high-redshift galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gas rotation curves in high-redshift disk galaxies can recover the true enclosed-mass profile once turbulent pressure support, non-spherical potentials, and non-circular orbits are accounted for, and neglecting the pressure term alone…

desk verdict The genuinely useful result is that the standard 2σ²dlogΣ/dlogr proxy under-predicts turbulent pressure support in the disk body of FIRE-2 galaxies, but the paper's 'successful recovery' of the mass profile is largely an identity rather than an observational demonstration. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05274 v2 pith:CMVHLSVY submitted 2019-08-14 astro-ph.GA

Sarah Wellons , Claude-André Faucher-Giguère , Daniel Anglés-Alcázar , Christopher C. Hayward , Robert Feldmann , Philip F. Hopkins , Dušan Kereš This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords galaxykinematicsdynamicalmasseshigh-redshiftgalaxiesturbulentpressuresupportasymmetricdriftrotationcurvescosmologicalzoom-insimulationsinterstellarmediumturbulence

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 argues that rotation curves of cool gas in high-redshift disk galaxies can be converted into accurate enclosed-mass profiles, provided the gas sits in a smooth, rotation-dominated disk on nearly circular orbits and the radial gradient of turbulent pressure is added back. In the paper's high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulations, gas rotation matches the circular velocity $\sqrt{GM_{\rm enc}/r}$ in an intermediate radial band but falls below it in the outer disk. The shortfall is largely turbulent pressure support; neglecting it biases dynamical mass estimates low by up to 40 percent. The paper also finds that observational proxies that estimate the pressure term from surface-density gradients typically under-correct inside the disk, and that with all corrections combined the total mass profile is recovered on average.

What carries the argument

The paper's machinery is a term-by-term decomposition of the enclosed mass into the mass implied by rotation alone, a gravitational correction for non-spherical potentials, and a pressure correction for radial turbulent-pressure gradients: $M_{\rm enc} = M_{\bar v_\phi} + \Delta M_{\rm grav} + \Delta M_{\rm press}$, with $\Delta M_{\rm press} = -\frac{\sigma^2 r}{G}\frac{d\log(\rho\sigma^2)}{d\log r}$. In the simulations each term is measured directly from particle data--brute-force gravitational accelerations on test particles and the pressure profile of cool gas--so the paper can test which physical effects actually account for the discrepancy between $\bar v_\phi$ and $\sqrt{GM_{\rm enc}/r}$. The machinery also includes selection cuts requiring rotation dominance, surface-density smoothness, and orbital circularity (small radial inflow and azimuthally uniform radial motion) to identify the region where rotation can be interpreted as circular motion.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to compare pressure-corrected masses from rotation curves with independent strong-lensing masses for the same $z\approx1$--$2$ galaxies; systematic residuals that grow with radius, or a failure of the correction in galaxies with velocity dispersions well below 100 km/s, would show that the simulated pressure structure does not transfer to real disks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the full set of dynamical corrections--turbulent pressure gradients, a non-spherical gravitational potential, and exclusion of non-circular orbital regions--accounts for essentially all of the difference between measured gas rotation and the spherical, zero-pressure expectation in simulated disks. Concretely, the paper derives and tests a mass decomposition $M_{\rm enc} = M_{\bar v_\phi} + \Delta M_{\rm grav} + \Delta M_{\rm press}$ and shows that the corrected sum matches the true enclosed mass on average once only disk snapshots and circularized annuli are selected. The pressure term alone reduces the inferred mass by 10--40 percent in the outer disk, where the surface-density profile steepens, and can exceed 10 percent throughout the disk at $z>2$. The non-spherical-potential correction matters mainly inside the central kiloparsec. The paper concludes that with these conditions met, the total mass profile may be successfully recovered from gas rotation.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative case rests on the paper's cosmological zoom-in simulations faithfully reproducing the interstellar-medium turbulence of real high-redshift disks, because its velocity dispersions of roughly 100--150 km/s are higher than typical observed values and would inflate the pressure-gradient bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Neglecting the turbulent-pressure gradient biases dynamical masses of high-redshift disks low by 10--40 percent in the outer disk, so published masses that omit this correction are systematic underestimates there.
Outer rotation-curve declines in high-redshift galaxies can be produced by pressure support rather than by a falling circular velocity, so they should not be read directly as evidence of low dark-matter content.
Standard quasi-observational estimates of pressure support from surface-density slopes (e.g., $-2\sigma^2\,d\log\Sigma/d\log r$) under-correct in the main disk because the surface-density profile is shallow; observers should use steeper outer-disk prescriptions and avoid measuring $\sigma$ in small azimuthal segments.
At $z>2$, pressure support can bias mass estimates low throughout the disk, so high-redshift kinematic samples need the correction even when they do not reach the far outskirts.
The same analysis applied to Milky-Way-mass simulated disks at $z\approx0$ shows the correction is small except in the outer disk, supporting the standard local practice of treating rotation as tracing the potential.

Reading between the lines

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

Extension: if real high-redshift disks are typically less turbulent than the simulated 100--150 km/s dispersions, the 40 percent figure is an upper bound, and the size of the correction should correlate with measured velocity dispersion in a way that can be tested directly.
Extension: kinematic samples that trace only bright clumps or CO peaks, where only small-aperture velocity dispersions are available, would systematically under-correct for pressure and therefore keep inferred masses biased low.
Extension: the paper's circularity criteria suggest a practical quality flag--galaxies with quadrant-to-quadrant variation in radial velocity above roughly 100 km/s, or with azimuthal velocity less than 90 percent of the in-plane speed, should be flagged as unsafe for dynamical mass inference.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing worth knowing about this paper is that it measures, directly inside FIRE-2, how much turbulent pressure gradients can bias gas-based dynamical masses. In the outer disks of their massive high-z galaxies the effect is 10-40%, and it changes the shape of the rotation curve, not just the normalization. The second useful result—the one observers should actually care about—is that the standard analytic proxy, 2σ² dlogΣ/dlogr, systematically under-predicts the true pressure support in the main body of the disk, while working better in the outer disk. That is a concrete, falsifiable statement about a widely used correction.

The paper does this carefully. They compute the gravitational force by brute force from the simulation, measure the pressure gradient from the full 3D data, and are transparent about the main caveats: no AGN feedback, over-compact stellar distributions, velocity dispersions higher than typical observed values. The Milky-Way-mass appendix helps show the effects are not unique to their extreme massive galaxies.

Where it gets soft: the claim that 'the total mass profile may be successfully recovered' is not really demonstrated. Equation (9) is the radial momentum equation rewritten as a sum of mass terms. If you measure all three terms exactly from the simulation, they have to sum to M_enc. Figure 6 therefore mostly confirms that their circularity cuts select regions where advection and non-axisymmetric forces are small—that is a valid consistency check, but it is not a test of whether an observer, working from observable quantities, could apply these corrections. The real test is Figure 7, and there all three quasi-observational estimators miss the true pressure support in the disk body. So the abstract overstates what is shown: the paper establishes that the physical effect is large and that the standard proxy fails, but not that the corrections can be implemented observationally.

The 40% number also carries more uncertainty than the abstract implies. These simulated galaxies are more compact and more turbulent than observed ones, and the paper says so. If real z>1 disks are less extreme, the bias is smaller. That is a limitation, but not a fatal one—the qualitative conclusion that pressure gradients matter and that surface-density-based proxies are unreliable in the disk body should survive.

Who gets value: anyone interpreting IFU or ALMA rotation curves at z>1, especially people relying on the Genzel et al. (2017) asymmetric-drift correction. This paper should be read, and cited, for the proxy failure result. The recovery claim should be reworded and accompanied by an observable-space closure test or mock observations.

For peer review: yes, a serious referee should look at this. The math is transparent, the simulations are state of the art, and the negative result about the proxy is important even if the paper needs revision on what 'recovered' means.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses four high-resolution FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations of massive z=1-3 galaxies, plus three lower-mass Milky-Way-mass runs, to assess the corrections required when inferring enclosed dynamical masses from gas rotation curves. The authors measure the intrinsic azimuthal velocity, the radial turbulent pressure gradient, the non-spherical gravitational force, and the degree of orbital circularity in the cool gas, and show that after applying the pressure-gradient and aspherical-potential corrections in the circularized regions of disk snapshots, the summed mass estimate matches the true enclosed mass (Fig. 6). They also test commonly used observational proxies for the pressure term (Eq. 11) and find that these systematically underpredict the true pressure support in the main body of the disk (Fig. 7). The paper concludes that turbulent pressure gradients can bias dynamical mass estimates low by up to 40% in the outer disk and that the full mass profile can be recovered if the corrections are properly included, with the caveat that the simulated galaxies are over-compact and more turbulent than typical observed systems.

Significance. The paper's direct, simulation-internal measurement of the turbulent-pressure and nonspherical-potential corrections is a strength, and its demonstration that these corrections close the radial force balance in the selected annuli is convincing. The central physical result—that pressure gradients can lower inferred masses by tens of percent in the outer, steep-density regions of high-redshift disks—is important and well supported, and the analysis is careful about the disk and circularity selection. The authors are also transparent about the known limitations of the simulations (missing AGN feedback, over-compact stellar distributions, elevated velocity dispersions) and provide a data/code availability statement. The significance is somewhat tempered by the fact that the paper does not demonstrate that these corrections can be measured accurately from observable quantities; indeed, its own Figure 7 shows that standard observational proxies fail to capture the pressure support in the main disk body. Nevertheless, the work is a useful step toward quantifying a systematic that has been identified in observational rotation-curve analyses.

major comments (3)

[Section 5, Section 4.2, Figure 7] The recovery claim in Section 5 ('the total mass profile may be successfully recovered') is substantially stronger than what the tests demonstrate. Equation (9) is a rearrangement of the radial momentum equation: with f_g defined by Eq. (3) and P = rho sigma^2, Eq. (9) holds by construction for any annulus in which the neglected advective and non-axisymmetric forces are small. The closeness of the purple curve to unity in Figure 6 is therefore primarily a check of the circularity criteria in Section 2.2.4, not a demonstration that a realistic observer can recover M_enc. That latter point is directly challenged by Figure 7, which shows that all three quasi-observational estimators of the pressure term (Eq. 11) underpredict Delta M_press in the main body of the disk. To support the Section 5 claim, the paper needs either to rephrase 'recovered' to make clear that the correction uses simulation-truth forces, or to add a mock-observation analysis that propagates the proxy errors and shows the resulting mass estimates.
[Section 4.2, abstract] The headline quantitative result—'bias dynamical mass measurements low by up to 40%'—is tied to the simulated ISM velocity dispersions of 100-150 km/s, which the paper itself notes are higher than typically expected from observations. Because the pressure-support term scales approximately as sigma^2/r, a real galaxy population with sigma of order 50-70 km/s would have a substantially smaller bias. Please add an explicit sensitivity estimate (e.g., rescaling sigma to observed values or an analytic scaling argument) and move the caveat into the abstract so that the 'up to 40%' figure is not read as a universal prediction.
[Section 4.3] The paper assumes that the non-circular regions can be 'identified and excluded' in observations, citing Oman et al. (2019), but does not demonstrate that this selection can be made reliably at the spatial resolution and signal-to-noise of high-redshift IFU or ALMA data. Since the recovery in Figure 6 applies only to the selected circularized region, the practical recommendation for observers is incomplete without a test of how well the selection works on realistic mock observations.

minor comments (4)

[Section 2.2.2] The text defines P(r) as a sum over particle masses, but it is not immediately clear that this is a volume-averaged pressure; please state explicitly that P(r) = rho sigma_vr^2 with the volume element 2 pi r Delta r times 2 z_h(r), and that sigma_vr is the one-dimensional radial velocity dispersion used throughout.
[References] The reference list contains a duplicate entry for El-Badry et al. (2018); please merge the two entries.
[Figure 6] The shaded regions represent the 25th-75th percentile of the variation among snapshots, but the number of snapshots contributing to each panel is not given; please report these numbers, particularly for the z=2.5-3 bins where A4 and A8 have few or no disky snapshots.
[Equation (11)] The approximation 'approx -2 sigma^2 d log Sigma / d log r' is stated without derivation; a footnote spelling out the isothermal-sheet assumption (rho_0 proportional to Sigma^2, constant scale height) would help readers assess the proxy's validity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Mass 'recovery' in Fig. 6 is an algebraic identity because Eq. (9) is constructed from terms that include Menc itself; the central summary claim is therefore a consistency check, though the 40% pressure bias and proxy failures remain directly measured.

self definitional [Section 2.2.3, Eqs. (3)-(9); Figure 6]
"fg(r) = GMenc/r2 + δfg(r) (3) ... We define each of these terms as M¯vφ = ¯v2 φ r/G (6) ∆Mgrav = −r2δfg(r)/G (7) ∆Mpress = −σ2r/G d log(ρσ2)/d logr. (8) such that Menc = M¯vφ + ∆Mgrav + ∆Mpress. (9)"

Because δf_g is defined as f_g - GMenc/r^2, Eq. (7) gives ΔMgrav = Menc - r^2 f_g/G. Inserting this and Eq. (8) into Eq. (9) reduces the right-hand side to Menc whenever the radial momentum equation (Eq. 4) holds. Thus the purple 'recovered' curve in Figure 6 is an algebraic identity in the selected circularized annuli, not an independent measurement of whether the method works: it only verifies that the pre-selected regions satisfy the force balance assumed by the analysis. The summary claim that 'the total mass profile may be successfully recovered' is therefore built into the definitions of the correction terms rather than demonstrated by a test against independent data.

full rationale

The paper is mostly a direct simulation measurement: the 10-40% bias from turbulent pressure gradients and the failure of the standard surface-density proxy are read off from the FIRE-2 outputs without fitting parameters to the target result. However, the headline 'successful recovery' claim is framed as a demonstration but is in fact an identity: Eq. (9) follows by substituting the definition δf_g = f_g - GMenc/r^2 (Eq. 3) into the radial momentum balance (Eq. 4). The ΔMgrav term explicitly contains Menc, so comparing M_vφ + ΔMgrav + ΔMpress to Menc is a consistency check of the circular-equilibrium assumption, not a validation that an observer can recover the mass from observables. The paper itself limits the transfer to observations in Section 4.2, noting that the simulated velocity dispersions (100-150 km/s) are 'higher than typically expected from observations' and that all three quasi-observational estimators 'systematically under-predict' the true pressure support; those caveats are correctness concerns rather than circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or renamed empirical patterns in the derivation. The circularity is localized to the recovery demonstration, which is why the score is partial (6) rather than maximal.

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

The paper is an analysis of an existing simulation suite, so its main inherited assumptions are the FIRE-2 model fidelity and the selection choices described above. No new physical entities are introduced. The hand-chosen thresholds (disk and circularity cuts) are the most consequential choices because the mass-recovery claim is demonstrated only on the surviving subset.

free parameters (4)

Rotation-dominated disk threshold v_phi/sigma > 4 = 4
Hand-chosen cut at 2 R_1/2 in Section 2.2 that keeps only ordered disks; roughly 40% of snapshots survive.
Circularity criteria: |v_r| < 85 km/s, v_phi/sqrt(v_phi^2+v_r^2) > 0.9, sigma_vr,quad < 100 km/s = 85 km/s, 0.9, 100 km/s
Hand-chosen thresholds in Section 2.2.4 that define the radii where rotation is usable for mass inference; all recovery results are restricted to these regions.
Cool gas temperature window = 10^3.5 K < T < 10^4.5 K
Defines the gas whose rotation and pressure are measured (Section 2.2); the paper argues the results are insensitive to this choice, but it remains a selection.
Surface density profile fit parameters (double power law or exponential) = inner slope 0 to -1, outer slope -2.5 to -4.5, break radius 2-6 kpc; exponential scale radius 1.5-5 kpc
Used in the quasi-observational pressure estimates in Figure 7; the comparison of proxy forms is part of the paper's main finding.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption FIRE-2 subgrid physics (star formation, stellar feedback) produces ISM turbulence and pressure structure representative of real high-z galaxies.
The entire quantitative calibration of the pressure-gradient bias inherits the simulation's turbulence properties; the paper itself notes simulated dispersions (100-150 km/s) are higher than typical observations (Section 4.2).
domain assumption The absence of AGN feedback does not invalidate the outer-disk trends.
The paper argues that missing SMBH feedback mainly inflates central densities and velocities, and expects general trends to survive (Sections 2.1 and 4.1); this is a stated assumption, not verified.
domain assumption The cool gas phase (10^3.5-10^4.5 K) selected at plus or minus the scale height tracks the dynamically relevant disk.
The analysis is restricted to this selection (Section 2.2); the paper says the choice is not very sensitive, but the assumption is unverified against other tracers.
standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with Planck 2018 parameters.
Used to set the zoom-in initial conditions, as stated in Section 1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring dynamical masses from gas kinematics in simulated high-redshift galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CMVHLSVY

@misc{pith2026190805274,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring dynamical masses from gas kinematics in simulated high-redshift galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CMVHLSVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05274}
}

read the original abstract

Advances in instrumentation have recently extended detailed measurements of gas kinematics to large samples of high-redshift galaxies. Relative to most nearby, thin disk galaxies, in which gas rotation accurately traces the gravitational potential, the interstellar medium (ISM) of z>1 galaxies is typically more dynamic and exhibits elevated turbulence. If not properly modeled, these effects can strongly bias dynamical mass measurements. We use high-resolution FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations to analyze the physical effects that must be considered to correctly infer dynamical masses from gas kinematics. Our analysis covers a range of galaxy properties from low-redshift Milky-Way-mass galaxies to massive high-redshift galaxies (M_* > 10^11 M_sun at z=1). Selecting only snapshots where a disk is present, we calculate the rotational profile v_phi(r) of the cool (10^3.5 K < T < 10^4.5 K) gas and compare it to the circular velocity v_c=sqrt(GM/r). In the simulated galaxies, the gas rotation traces the circular velocity at intermediate radii, but the two quantities diverge significantly in the center and in the outer disk. Our simulations appear to over-predict observed rotational velocities in the centers of massive galaxies (likely from a lack of black hole feedback), so we focus on larger radii. Gradients in the turbulent pressure at these radii can provide additional radial support and bias dynamical mass measurements low by up to 40%. In both the interior and exterior, the gas' motion can be significantly non-circular due to e.g. bars, satellites, and inflows/outflows. We discuss the accuracy of commonly-used analytic models for pressure gradients (or "asymmetric drift") in the ISM of high-redshift galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05274 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Stellar mass evolution of the central galaxies in the four massive zoom-in simulations from z = 3 to z = 1. Stars represent snapshots where a gaseous disk is present, satisfying the criteria described in Section 2.2. Selected snapshots (designated with black circles) are shown in the surrounding images, all of which have a 10 kpc field of view. Each cluster of images depicts the gas from a face-on and edge-on perspe… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Top: Density profiles of the stellar (orange), dark matter (black), and gas (teal) content of the simulated galaxies. Each component is shown up to four times, showing averages in the redshift intervals between z = 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, and 1 when a disk is present. (In halos A4 and A8, there are no disky snapshots from z = 2.5 − 3.) All four systems become highly stellar-dominated in the central kpc by z = 1. Bottom: Vel… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Size-mass (top) and Tully-Fisher (bottom) relations of our simulated galaxies (points) averaged over five redshift intervals, with the observed relations (lines) for context. In the top row, size R1/2 is measured from the simulations as the projected stellar half-mass radius with the galaxy face-on. (For a more thorough analysis of the sizes that would be observationally estimated for the simulated massive galaxies,… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Gas rotation curve and corrections for a single snapshot of halo A4 at z = 1.68. The intrinsic rotation v¯φ (red) of the gas as well as the circular velocity p GMenc/r (black) are the same as shown in Figure 2. The corrections due to support from turbulent pressure gr…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Maps of the gaseous disk during a snapshot when the inner kpc is dominated by a bar. In each map, the brightness indicates the gas surface density and the hue indicates the temperature (left), azimuthal velocity vφ (center), or in-plane radial velocity vr (right). In t…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Mass estimation relative to true enclosed mass Menc, where each term is defined as in Equations 6-8. In each panel, red lines show the mass inferred directly from rotation Mvφ , blue lines show the correction accounting for radial gradients in turbulent pressure ∆Mpres…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of the true effect of the pressure gradients on dynamical mass estimates with various quasi-observational means of estimating it. Each row shows a different simulation and redshift range. Thick blue and purple lines are a subset of those shown in [PITH_FULL…

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

Vz-GAL Dusty Star-Forming Galaxies: Revisiting the CO-H2 Conversion Factor Tension
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The CO-to-H2 conversion factor in high-z dusty star-forming galaxies is not required to be 0.8; intermediate to near-Galactic values (median ~4-5) remain dynamically viable.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

A., Kere s D., Hopkins P

Angl \' e s-Alc \' a zar D., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C. A., Kere s D., Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2017 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 4698

work page 2017
[2]

F., Feldmann R., Torrey P., Wetzel A., Kere s D., 2017 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, Volume 472, Issue 1, p.L109-L114, 472, L109

Angl \' e s-Alc \' a zar D., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C.-A., Quataert E., Hopkins P. F., Feldmann R., Torrey P., Wetzel A., Kere s D., 2017 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, Volume 472, Issue 1, p.L109-L114, 472, L109

work page 2017
[3]

Bacon R. et al. , 2010, in Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 7735, id. 773508 (2010)., McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds., Vol. 7735, p. 773508

work page 2010
[4]

B., Ellis R

Belli S., Newman A. B., Ellis R. S., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 834, Issue 1, article id. 18, 19 pp. (2017)., 834

work page 2017
[5]

Burkert A. et al. , 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 826, Issue 2, article id. 214, 21 pp. (2016)., 826

work page 2016
[6]

Burkert A. et al. , 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 725, Issue 2, pp. 2324-2332 (2010)., 725, 2324

work page 2010
[7]

S., Ostriker J

Choi E., Somerville R. S., Ostriker J. P., Naab T., Hirschmann M., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 91

work page 2018
[8]

Cochrane R. K. et al. , 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 1779

work page 2019

Show all 66 references

[9]

M., Casey C

Drew P. M., Casey C. M., Burnham A. D., Hung C.-L., Kassin S. A., Simons R. C., Zavala J. A., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 869, 58

2018
[10]

Eisenhauer F. et al. , 2003, in , Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, Iye M., Moorwood A. F. M., eds., pp. 1548--1561

2003
[11]

El-Badry K. et al. , 2018, , 477, 1536

2018
[12]

El-Badry K. et al. , 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 473, Issue 2, p.1930-1955, 473, 1930

2018
[13]

F., 2013, , 433, 1970

Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., Hopkins P. F., 2013, , 433, 1970

2013
[14]

F., Quataert E., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C

Feldmann R., Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C. A., Ker e s D., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 458, L14

2016
[15]

F., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C.-A., Kere s D., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 470, Issue 1, p.1050-1072, 470, 1050

Feldmann R., Quataert E., Hopkins P. F., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C.-A., Kere s D., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 470, Issue 1, p.1050-1072, 470, 1050

2017
[16]

C., 1970, The Astrophysical Journal, 160, 811

Freeman K. C., 1970, The Astrophysical Journal, 160, 811

1970
[17]

Garrison-Kimmel S. et al. , 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 1709

2017
[18]

Genzel R. et al. , 2017, Nature, Volume 543, Issue 7645, pp. 397-401 (2017)., 543, 397

2017
[19]

F., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 53

Hopkins P. F., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 53

2015
[20]

F., Kere D., Onorbe J., Faucher-Giguere C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., Bullock J

Hopkins P. F., Kere D., Onorbe J., Faucher-Giguere C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., Bullock J. S., 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 581

2014
[21]

Hopkins P. F. et al. , 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 480, Issue 1, p.800-863, 480, 800

2018
[22]

Johnson H. L. et al. , 2018, , 474, 5076

2018
[23]

Lang P. et al. , 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 840, Issue 2, article id. 92, 24 pp. (2017)., 840

2017
[24]

Larkin J. et al. , 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6269, p. 62691A

2006
[25]

R., Steidel C

Law D. R., Steidel C. C., Erb D. K., Larkin J. E., Pettini M., Shapley A. E., Wright S. A., 2009, , 697, 2057

2009
[26]

Lovell M. R. et al. , 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 481, Issue 2, p.1950-1975, 481, 1950

2018
[27]

McLean I. S. et al. , 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, p. 84460J

2012
[28]

M., Villard E., Escala A., Sobral D., Hughes T

Molina J., Ibar E., Smail I., Swinbank A. M., Villard E., Escala A., Sobral D., Hughes T. M., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 4856

2019
[29]

Morrissey P. et al. , 2018, , 864, 93

2018
[30]

Mowla L. A. et al. , 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 57

2019
[31]

L., Keres D., Faucher-Giguere C.-A., Hopkins P

Muratov A. L., Keres D., Faucher-Giguere C.-A., Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2015, 23

2015
[32]

B., Belli S., Ellis R

Newman A. B., Belli S., Ellis R. S., 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 813, Issue 1, article id. L7, 7 pp. (2015)., 813

2015
[33]

B., Belli S., Ellis R

Newman A. B., Belli S., Ellis R. S., Patel S. G., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 862, Issue 2, article id. 126, 14 pp. (2018)., 862

2018
[34]

B., Ellis R

Newman A. B., Ellis R. S., Bundy K., Treu T., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 162

2012
[35]

A., Marasco A., Navarro J

Oman K. A., Marasco A., Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., Schaye J., Ben \' i tez-Llambay A., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 821

2019
[36]

Pineda J. C. B., Hayward C. C., Springel V., Mendes de Oliveira C., 2017, , 466, 63

2017
[37]

, 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.06209

Planck Collaboration et al. , 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.06209

2018 arXiv
[38]

Price S. H. et al. , 2019

2019
[39]

I., Iorio G., Agertz O., Fraternali F., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 462, Issue 4, p.3628-3645, 462, 3628

Read J. I., Iorio G., Agertz O., Fraternali F., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 462, Issue 4, p.3628-3645, 462, 3628

2016
[40]

E., Pizagno J., Lackner C

Reyes R., Mandelbaum R., Gunn J. E., Pizagno J., Lackner C. N., 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 2347

2011
[41]

C., Thonnard N., Ford, W

Rubin V. C., Thonnard N., Ford, W. K. J., 1978, The Astrophysical Journal, 225, L107

1978
[42]

Sanderson R. E. et al. , 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 869, 12

2018
[43]

Schreiber N. M. F. et al. , 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 238, 21

2018
[44]

Sharples R. et al. , 2013, The Messenger, 151, 21

2013
[45]

Sofue Y., Rubin V., 2001, , 39, 137

2001
[46]

A., Kriek M., Price S

Suess K. A., Kriek M., Price S. H., Barro G., 2019 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 103

2019
[47]

A., Kriek M., Price S

Suess K. A., Kriek M., Price S. H., Barro G., 2019 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 885, L22

2019
[48]

Szomoru D. et al. , 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, L244

2010
[49]

Talia M. et al. , 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 476, Issue 3, p.3956-3963, 476, 3956

2018
[50]

F., Remus R.-S., Dolag K., Arth A., Burkert A., Obreja A., Schulze F., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 854, Issue 2, article id

Teklu A. F., Remus R.-S., Dolag K., Arth A., Burkert A., Obreja A., Schulze F., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 854, Issue 2, article id. L28, 6 pp. (2018)., 854

2018
[51]

A., Quataert E., Murray N., 2005, , 630, 167

Thompson T. A., Quataert E., Murray N., 2005, , 630, 167

2005
[52]

J., Bundy K., Cooper M

Trujillo I., Conselice C. J., Bundy K., Cooper M. C., Eisenhardt P., Ellis R. S., 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 382, 109

2007
[53]

\" U bler H. et al. , 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 121

2017
[54]

\" U bler H. et al. , 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 48

2019
[55]

\" U bler H. D. N. et al. , 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 854, Issue 2, article id. L24, 7 pp. (2018)., 854

2018
[56]

773-789., 657, 773

Valenzuela O., Rhee G., Klypin A., Governato F., Stinson G., Quinn T., Wadsley J., 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 657, Issue 2, pp. 773-789., 657, 773

2007
[57]

van der Wel A. et al. , 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 28

2014
[58]

van Dokkum P. G. et al. , 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, L5

2008
[59]

G., Kriek M., Franx M., 2009, Nature, 460, 717

van Dokkum P. G., Kriek M., Franx M., 2009, Nature, 460, 717

2009
[60]

van Dokkum P. G. et al. , 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 813, 23

2015
[61]

R., Hopkins P

Wetzel A. R., Hopkins P. F., Kim J.-h., Faucher-Giguere C.-A., Keres D., Quataert E., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 827, L23

2016
[62]

Wisnioski E. et al. , 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 799, Issue 2, article id. 209, 27 pp. (2015)., 799

2015
[63]

Wuyts S. et al. , 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 831, Issue 2, article id. 149, 22 pp. (2016)., 831

2016
[64]

Zwicky F., 1933, Helvetica physica acta. , Vol. 6. E. Birkhäuser, pp. 110--127

1933
[65]

, " * 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 a...
[66]

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 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A., Kere s D., Hopkins P

Angl \' e s-Alc \' a zar D., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C. A., Kere s D., Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2017 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 4698

work page 2017

[2] [2]

F., Feldmann R., Torrey P., Wetzel A., Kere s D., 2017 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, Volume 472, Issue 1, p.L109-L114, 472, L109

Angl \' e s-Alc \' a zar D., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C.-A., Quataert E., Hopkins P. F., Feldmann R., Torrey P., Wetzel A., Kere s D., 2017 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, Volume 472, Issue 1, p.L109-L114, 472, L109

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Bacon R. et al. , 2010, in Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 7735, id. 773508 (2010)., McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds., Vol. 7735, p. 773508

work page 2010

[4] [4]

B., Ellis R

Belli S., Newman A. B., Ellis R. S., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 834, Issue 1, article id. 18, 19 pp. (2017)., 834

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Burkert A. et al. , 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 826, Issue 2, article id. 214, 21 pp. (2016)., 826

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Burkert A. et al. , 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 725, Issue 2, pp. 2324-2332 (2010)., 725, 2324

work page 2010

[7] [7]

S., Ostriker J

Choi E., Somerville R. S., Ostriker J. P., Naab T., Hirschmann M., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 91

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Cochrane R. K. et al. , 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 1779

work page 2019