Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 147 references

Cosmic reflections I: the structural diversity of simulated and observed low-mass galaxy analogues

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that NEWHORIZON and TNG50 produce dwarf galaxies with structural properties at opposite extremes of observed COSMOS dwarfs, and that neither simulation captures the full diversity of low-mass dwarfs.

desk verdict Solid forward-modeling comparison of dwarf structure in TNG50 vs NewHorizon that makes a useful point about simulation physics, though the sample completeness analysis does not cover the photo-z/mass selection and deserves scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04509 v2 pith:H67KSL6O submitted 2025-05-07 astro-ph.GA

G. Martin (1 , 2 , 3) , A. E. Watkins (4) , Y. Dubois (5) , J. Devriendt (6) , S. Kaviraj (4) , D. Kim (7)
show 21 more authors
K. Kraljic (8) I. Lazar (4) F. R. Pearce (1) S. Peirani (9 10) C. Pichon (5 11) A. Slyz (6) S. K. Yi (12) ((1) University of Nottingham (2) Korea Astronomy Space Science Institute (3) Steward Observatory (4) University of Hertfordshire (5) Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris (6) University of Oxford (7) Chungnam National University (8) Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg (9) ILANCE (10) Kavli IPMU (11) Kyung Hee University (12) Yonsei University)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarfgalaxiesgalaxystructureSersicprofilesGini-M20morphologycosmologicalsimulationssyntheticobservationsfeedbackHSC-SSP
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

At the heart of this paper is a simple question: can current cosmological simulations reproduce the diversity of dwarf galaxy structures seen in deep imaging? The authors render mock HSC-like images of dwarfs from the NEWHORIZON and TNG50 simulations, inject them into real backgrounds from the HSC-SSP COSMOS field, and measure the same structural statistics used on 1,320 observed dwarfs in the mass range $10^{7.5}

What carries the argument

The machinery is a matched synthetic-observation pipeline. Simulated galaxies are built from star particles via stellar-population SEDs, dust attenuation, and PSF convolution, then injected into HSC-SSP COSMOS backgrounds so they experience the same detection, segmentation, sky, and measurement biases as observed galaxies; observed and mock samples are matched in stellar mass and redshift. Structural comparisons then use two families of measures: single-component Sérsic fits (effective radius, surface brightness at the effective radius, Sérsic index, ellipticity) and non-parametric statistics (Gini, $M_{20}$, concentration, asymmetry). A rest-frame control at fixed physical scale separates intrinsic simulation properties from observational smearing. This design is what lets the authors attribute residual disagreements to physics rather than to selection effects or the telescope.

What would settle it

A direct test would be a survey in the same redshift window reaching roughly 32 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ in the $i$ band, with a completeness function measured by injecting real ultra-diffuse galaxies rather than simulation galaxies. Recovered dwarfs at those depths whose structural distribution remains between the two simulated extremes would support the paper; a recovered distribution matching either simulation's extreme would show the COSMOS baseline was incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is negative in form: neither of the two simulations reproduces the structural range of observed low-mass dwarfs, and the failures are systematic and opposite. In Sérsic terms, NEWHORIZON dwarfs have large effective radii and low Sérsic indices, while TNG50 dwarfs have small effective radii and high Sérsic indices; non-parametric Gini, $M_{20}$, asymmetry, and concentration measurements place NEWHORIZON as clumpy and asymmetric and TNG50 as smooth and overconcentrated. The observed COSMOS dwarfs sit between these extremes, with relatively flat trends of structure with stellar mass, whereas both simulations show stronger mass dependence. The authors rule out their measurement pipeline and the HSC PSF as the cause: rest-frame measurements at fixed physical scale make TNG50's compactness more extreme once PSF smearing is removed, and detection-injection tests show high completeness for the observed sample. They interpret the split as a fingerprint of the sub-grid physics, with NEWHORIZON's bursty, locally coupled supernova feedback evacuating central gas and TNG50's smoother ISM and feedback model concentrating star formation in the center.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on treating the COSMOS sample as a fair view of the true dwarf population, but the completeness correction uses mock galaxies from the very simulations whose realism is on trial, so a real population fainter or more diffuse than either simulation could be missing and the conclusion would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below $M_\star\sim10^{9.5}\,M_\odot$, neither simulation's raw structural distributions should be treated as predictions of dwarf morphology; the matched-injection transform is required before comparison.
  • The direction of the mismatch is tied to ISM and supernova feedback prescriptions, so dwarf structure can discriminate between such recipes.
  • Rest-frame results imply that TNG50 dwarfs are intrinsically too compact and not merely PSF-biased.
  • Better agreement at the high-mass end means the discrepancy is specific to the low-mass dwarf regime, where feedback physics is most sensitive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bracketing pattern generalizes, a third simulation with intermediate sub-grid choices should produce dwarfs whose structural distribution falls inside the observed COSMOS cloud; locating that 'Goldilocks' model is a direct target for future simulation comparisons.
  • The completeness test, which injects the two simulations' own galaxies, cannot detect a population of real dwarfs that is fainter or more diffuse than both; if such a population exists, the observed COSMOS distribution would be incomplete and the true diversity gap would be even larger than reported.
  • The same matched-injection methodology applied to environment-ranked subsamples could separate feedback-driven from environment-driven structural scatter; the paper's own environmental argument suggests this is testable.
  • If star-formation burstiness is the culprit, the scatter in structural parameters within each simulation should correlate with the burstiness of individual dwarfs' star-formation histories, a testable prediction the paper gestures toward for its companion analysis.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. Using ultra-deep HSC-SSP imaging of the COSMOS field, the authors compare Sérsic and non-parametric structural measurements of 1320 dwarf galaxies (10^7.5 < M*/Msun < 10^9.5, 0.05 < z < 0.25) with redshift- and mass-matched mock observations of dwarfs from the TNG50 and NewHorizon simulations. Synthetic images are produced with SED evolution, dust attenuation, HSC PSF convolution, and injection into real HSC backgrounds, with detection performed consistently for observed and simulated galaxies. The central finding is that NewHorizon and TNG50 lie at opposite extremes of the observed structural trends and that both simulations fail to capture the full diversity of the COSMOS dwarfs at lower masses, with better agreement near 10^9.5 Msun. The paper attributes the differences to distinct ISM and feedback implementations.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a stringent, parameter-free test of two state-of-the-art simulation codes in a mass regime where galaxy formation models remain poorly constrained, and it demonstrates a repeatable forward-modeling pipeline for low-mass galaxy morphology. The strength of the paper is its careful matching of samples, consistent PSF treatment, source injection, and the use of rest-frame checks to separate observational bias from intrinsic differences. The comparison to observations is not fitted to the simulations, so the reported discrepancies are informative for feedback physics. The main residual uncertainties are the completeness of the observed sample and the lack of formal statistical tests, both of which are addressable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Figure 2] The completeness analysis tests only whether injected simulated galaxies are recovered by the photutils detection/segmentation on HSC deepCoadd images; it does not propagate the galaxies through the COSMOS2020 LePhare photometric-redshift and stellar-mass selection (criteria i-iii). The statement that completeness is 'expected to be high' and the inference that the COSMOS sample is an unbiased census of dwarfs in the stated mass and redshift range therefore overreach. If real dwarfs are fainter or more diffuse than both simulations, or have noisier photometry yielding larger photo-z errors, they could be preferentially rejected by the redshift and mass cuts even when detected. I request either an injection run that includes the full photo-z/mass selection or a softened statement of the 'full diversity' claim.
  2. [Section 4] No formal two-sample significance tests are reported anywhere in Section 4. The narrative repeatedly uses 'significant' (e.g., 'significantly larger sizes' in Section 4.1; 'highly significant differences' in Section 5.1.2) without a statistical measure. Because the central claim is that the simulations do not reproduce the observed distribution, the paper should quantify the agreement or disagreement using a test such as a two-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov or energy-distance statistic applied to the mass-matched samples, with bootstrap confidence intervals on the medians and distribution widths.
  3. [Section 3.1.2] The mock galaxies are drawn from a single snapshot at z approximately 0.2 and then assigned redshifts matching the observed distribution. The authors argue that structural evolution between z=0.25 and 0.05 is small compared with the simulation differences, but no quantitative justification (e.g., a comparison of two snapshots) is given. Since the observed sample spans this full range and the non-parametric metrics are redshift-sensitive, as shown by the rest-frame appendix, a check of structural stability across the snapshot would strengthen the comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] The variable 'Gsini' should be 'Gini'.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The word 'redshft' should be 'redshift'.
  3. [Appendix A] The passage beginning 'A 256x256 pixel bin third-order sky correction task...' ends with an incomplete sentence: 'objects smaller than this scale...' This fragment should be integrated into the previous sentence.
  4. [Figure 10] The violin plots would benefit from labeling sample sizes and from adding units to the Reff axis, as is done elsewhere in the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulations are external inputs, no parameter is fitted to observed morphologies, and the completeness self-injection is a limitation rather than a load-bearing circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a direct comparison of structural properties measured on HSC-SSP COSMOS dwarfs and on synthetic HSC-like images of NewHorizon and TNG50 galaxies. No simulation parameter is fitted to the observed morphologies: the simulations were produced independently (Section 2.1), and the mock-image pipeline (Section 3.1.2) forwards the simulated stellar populations through dust, redshift, PSF convolution, and injection into real HSC backgrounds. The structural measurements (Sérsic, Gini/M20, CAS) are standard estimators applied identically to observed and simulated images, so the reported differences are not enforced by construction. The one self-referential element is the completeness estimate in Section 3.3, which injects galaxies drawn from the very simulations whose realism is under test into HSC-SSP deepCoadd images and then infers that the COSMOS sample is largely complete because its galaxies lie between the NewHorizon and TNG50 extremes. This is a genuine caveat: if real dwarfs are more diffuse or fainter than both simulations, the completeness calibration would not reveal it, and the 'full diversity' conclusion would be weakened. However, this is a selection-function limitation and a correctness risk, not a circular derivation: the observed structural distributions are measured independently of the simulations, and the rest-frame analysis in Appendix B shows the simulation-observation differences persist without the observational pipeline. Self-citations (e.g., Martin et al. 2022 for the image-generation method, Watkins et al. 2025 for dust and star-formation assumptions) are methodological and are not used to force the central result. Therefore the paper is self-contained in its main comparison and receives a low circularity score.

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

The central claim rests on observational sample representativeness, the single-snapshot approximation, and SED/dust modelling choices; none of these are fitted to the target data. No free parameters are introduced by this paper. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The observed COSMOS dwarf sample is complete and representative across the mass and surface-brightness range probed.
    Completeness is estimated in Sec. 3.3 by injecting mock galaxies from the same simulations into HSC imaging, an approach that is self-referential for assessing representativeness.
  • domain assumption A single simulation snapshot at z~0.2, with distances drawn from the observed redshift distribution, adequately represents the z=0.05-0.25 population.
    Sec. 3.1.2 asserts structural differences between the simulations exceed expected morphological evolution, but no quantitative check is provided.
  • domain assumption SED modelling choices (Chabrier IMF, BC03 SSPs, gas-to-dust ratio 0.4, MW dust attenuation) do not materially affect recovered structural parameters.
    Sec. 5.1.1 and Watkins et al. (2025) argue dust effects are small; the IMF/SED changes affect magnitudes more than morphology, and this is discussed but not rigorously demonstrated for the Sersic and non-parametric metrics.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts and stellar masses from the COSMOS2020 catalogue are accurate enough for sample matching.
    Selection in Sec. 3.3 relies on LEPHARE photometric redshifts and masses; quoted photometric redshift precision is <5%, but individual outliers could affect mass-matched comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmic reflections I: the structural diversity of simulated and observed low-mass galaxy analogues." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H67KSL6O

@misc{pith2026250504509,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmic reflections I: the structural diversity of simulated and observed low-mass galaxy analogues},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H67KSL6O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04509}
}
abstract

Dwarf galaxies serve as powerful laboratories for investigating the underlying physics of galaxy evolution including the impact of baryonic feedback processes and environmental influences. We compare the visual and structural properties of dwarf galaxies in ultra-deep HSC-SSP imaging of the COSMOS field with those measured from realistic HSC-like synthetic observations of dwarfs generated by the Illustris TNG50 and NewHorizon simulations. Using S\'ersic profile fitting and non-parametric morphological metrics (Gini, $M_{20}$, asymmetry, and concentration), we evaluate the diversity of structural properties in observed and simulated galaxies. Our analysis shows that NewHorizon and TNG50 galaxies lie at opposite extremes of observed structural trends: NewHorizon produces diffuse, extended galaxies with shallow S\'ersic indices, while TNG50 yields compact, concentrated systems with steep indices. Both simulations reproduce observed structural trends more closely at higher stellar masses ($M_{\star}\sim10^{9.5} {\rm M_{\odot}}$) but fail to capture the full diversity of COSMOS dwarfs at lower masses. Non-parametric metrics further show that NewHorizon galaxies exhibit more uneven, clumpy light distributions while TNG50 galaxies have smoother but excessively concentrated profiles. These structural differences reflect underlying differences in their physical prescriptions and are likely driven by differing approaches to ISM physics, supernova feedback and star formation in addition to differences in numerical resolution. Our findings highlight the unique power of low-mass galaxies to constrain differences in simulation physics, especially star formation and feedback. Upcoming surveys from facilities like the Vera C. Rubin Observatory and Euclid will enable more rigorous comparisons with simulations, offering deeper insights into the physical processes shaping galaxy evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04509 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Fraction of galaxies with successful detections as a function of stellar mass following injection of the same sample of synthetic galaxies into HSC-SSP deepCoadd at three different redshifts indicated by the legend. Dashed lines show polynomial fits to the binned points. The top panel shows the results for NEWHORIZON and the bottom panel shows the results for TNG50. tains an object with a centroid located within eit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The stellar mass vs redshift distributions of the matched NEWHORIZON (top panel) and TNG50 (middle panel) distributions com￾pared with the original COSMOS sample (bottom panel). Black error bars with white circles show the 1σ dispersion and median of each distribution for bins of redshft, to take into account observational biases, exclusively measuring the properties of galaxies that would be detectable in observati… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. shows the trend in the median value of each Sérsic pa￾rameter with stellar mass, with the addition of the projected elliptic￾ity (e). For each parameter NEWHORIZON and COSMOS galaxies both exhibit similar trends with stellar mass (albeit with different normalisation). TNG50 show strong trends in Reff, nSersic ´ and el￾lipticity. Galaxies appear significantly rounder at lower masses, but rise to similar values to tho… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contour plot showing the 2-d distribution of Gini and M20 for COS￾MOS (blue) and the redshift and mass-matched samples from NEWHORI￾ZON (yellow) and TNG50 (red). Coloured points show a randomly selected sub-sample with the same colour scheme. The sides of the plot show…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plots showing the trend in the median Gini and M20 as a function of stellar mass for COSMOS (blue) and the redshift and mass-matched samples from NEWHORIZON (yellow) and TNG50 (red). Open circles with error bars show the median and error on the median for individual re…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plots showing the trend in the median asymmetry and concen￾tration as a function of stellar mass for COSMOS (blue) and the redshift and mass-matched samples from NEWHORIZON (yellow) and TNG50 (red). Open circles with error bars show the median and error on the median f…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Violin plots summarising the distribution of values discussed throughout Section 4 for NEWHORIZON (yellow), TNG50 (red), and COSMOS (blue). Black box plots overlaid over each violin indicate the inter-quartile range with whiskers representing the extrema, and a white …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  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. [3]

    Aihara H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psab122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASJ...74..247A 74, 247

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 2022

  4. [4]

    Arnouts S., Ilbert O., 2011, LePHARE: Photometric Analysis for Redshift Estimate ( @eprint ascl 1108.009 )

    2011

  5. [5]

    Arnouts S., Cristiani S., Moscardini L., Matarrese S., Lucchin F., Fontana A., Giallongo E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02978.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.310..540A 310, 540

    arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Atek H., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789...96A 789, 96

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/96 2014

  7. [7]

    Aubert D., Pichon C., Colombi S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07883.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.352..376A 352, 376

    arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    Azartash-Namin B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad49a5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970...40A 970, 40

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad49a5 2024

Show all 147 references
  1. [10]

    Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1996164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&AS..117..393B 117, 393

    1996 doi

  2. [11]

    R., Lupton R

    Blanton M. R., Lupton R. H., Schlegel D. J., Strauss M. A., Brinkmann J., Fukugita M., Loveday J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431416 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...631..208B 631, 208

    2005 doi

  3. [12]

    Bluck A. F. L., Mendel J. T., Ellison S. L., Moreno J., Simard L., Patton D. R., Starkenburg E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu594 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441..599B 441, 599

    2014 doi

  4. [13]

    S., et al., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210810321B p

    Borlaff A. S., et al., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210810321B p. arXiv:2108.10321

    2021 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Bosch J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S...5B 70, S5

    2018 doi

  6. [15]

    D., Impey C

    Bothun G. D., Impey C. D., Malin D. F., Mould J. R., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/114443 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1987AJ.....94...23B 94, 23

    1987 doi

  7. [16]

    Bradley L., et al., 2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.6825092 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    2022 doi

  8. [18]

    S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..343B 55, 343

    Bullock J. S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..343B 55, 343

    2017 doi

  9. [19]

    S., Conselice C

    Bundy K., Ellis R. S., Conselice C. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429549 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...625..621B 625, 621

    2005 doi

  10. [20]

    M., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2211.07865 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221107865C p

    Casey C. M., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2211.07865 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221107865C p. arXiv:2211.07865

    2022 doi arXiv

  11. [21]

    arXiv:2007.04624

    Chabanier S., et al., 2020, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200704624C p. arXiv:2007.04624

    2020 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

    2003 doi

  13. [23]

    J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11114.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373.1389C 373, 1389

    Conselice C. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11114.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373.1389C 373, 1389

    2006

  14. [24]

    J., Bershady M

    Conselice C. J., Bershady M. A., Dickinson M., Papovich C., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/377318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....126.1183C 126, 1183

    2003 doi

  15. [26]

    J., Spergel D

    Dalcanton J. J., Spergel D. N., Gunn J. E., Schmidt M., Schneider D. P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1997AJ....114..635D 114, 635

    1997 doi

  16. [27]

    A., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.10.090172.002111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ARA&A..10..375D 10, 375

    Dalgarno A., McCray R. A., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.10.090172.002111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ARA&A..10..375D 10, 375

    1972

  17. [28]

    Davis F., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.4109D 511, 4109

    2022 doi

  18. [29]

    P., Mamon G

    De Almeida A. P., Mamon G. A., Dekel A., Lima Neto G. B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449939 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A.131D 687, A131

    2024 doi

  19. [30]

    Dekel A., Silk J., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...303...39D 303, 39

    1986 doi

  20. [31]

    B., Dutton A

    Di Cintio A., Brook C. B., Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., Obreja A., Dekel A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2017MNRAS.466L...1D 466, L1

    2017 doi

  21. [32]

    J., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1038/263573a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1976Natur.263..573D 263, 573

    Disney M. J., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1038/263573a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1976Natur.263..573D 263, 573

    1976 doi

  22. [33]

    T., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2007ApJ...663..866D 663, 866

    Draine B. T., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2007ApJ...663..866D 663, 866

    2007 doi

  23. [34]

    Dressler A., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157753 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...236..351D 236, 351

    1980 doi

  24. [35]

    Dressler A., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304890 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490..577D 490, 577

    1997 doi

  25. [36]

    P., Liske J., Cross N

    Driver S. P., Liske J., Cross N. J. G., De Propris R., Allen P. D., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08990.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2005MNRAS.360...81D 360, 81

    2005

  26. [37]

    Dubois Y., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1227 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1453D 444, 1453

    2014 doi

  27. [38]

    Dubois Y., Volonteri M., Silk J., Devriendt J., Slyz A., Teyssier R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1416 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.1502D 452, 1502

    2015 doi

  28. [39]

    Dubois Y., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A.109D 651, A109

    2021 doi

  29. [40]

    Eisert L., Bottrell C., Pillepich A., Shimakawa R., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Nelson D., Angeloudi E., Huertas-Company M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.7411E 528, 7411

    2024 doi

  30. [41]

    arXiv:2405.13491

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13491 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240513491E p. arXiv:2405.13491

    2024 doi

  31. [42]

    Fakhouri O., Ma C.-P., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16859.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.2267F 406, 2267

    2010

  32. [43]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Lidz A., Zaldarriaga M., Hernquist L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.1416F 703, 1416

    2009 doi

  33. [44]

    Feldmann R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.3831F 522, 3831

    2023 doi

  34. [45]

    P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    Gardner J. P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    2006 doi

  35. [46]

    Geha M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...771...29G 771, 29

    2013 doi

  36. [47]

    S., Krumholz M

    Gentry E. S., Krumholz M. R., Madau P., Lupi A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3319 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.3647G 483, 3647

    2019 doi

  37. [48]

    J., 1962, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57, 648

    Glasser G. J., 1962, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57, 648

    1962

  38. [49]

    P., 2018, PhD thesis, Princeton University, New Jersey

    Greco J. P., 2018, PhD thesis, Princeton University, New Jersey

    2018

  39. [50]

    E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7238 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933..150G 933, 150

    Greene J. E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7238 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933..150G 933, 150

    2022 doi

  40. [51]

    Guedes J., Callegari S., Madau P., Mayer L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742...76G 742, 76

    2011 doi

  41. [52]

    Guo Y., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833...37G 833, 37

    2016 doi

  42. [53]

    F., Chamberlain K., Hernquist L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3334 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.4920G 519, 4920

    Guzm \'a n-Ortega A., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Snyder G. F., Chamberlain K., Hernquist L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3334 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.4920G 519, 4920

    2023 doi

  43. [54]

    Haardt F., Madau P., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177035 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...461...20H 461, 20

    1996 doi

  44. [55]

    Hagen L. M. Z., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016ApJ...826..210H 826, 210

    2016 doi

  45. [56]

    W., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341392 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....124..646H 124, 646

    Hogg D. W., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341392 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....124..646H 124, 646

    2002 doi

  46. [57]

    W., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2886 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..103H 158, 103

    Holwerda B. W., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2886 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..103H 158, 103

    2019 doi

  47. [58]

    F., Kere s D., O \ n orbe J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., Bullock J

    Hopkins P. F., Kere s D., O \ n orbe J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., Bullock J. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1738 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..581H 445, 581

    2014 doi

  48. [59]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.493...62I 493, 62

    Ibata R. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.493...62I 493, 62

    2013 doi

  49. [60]

    Ilbert O., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...457..841I 457, 841

    2006 doi

  50. [61]

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

    2019 doi

  51. [62]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.4262J 502, 4262

    Jackson R. A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.4262J 502, 4262

    2021 doi

  52. [63]

    K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accd68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950....4J 950, 4

    Jang J. K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accd68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950....4J 950, 4

    2023 doi

  53. [64]

    Kartaltepe J., Rose C., Vanderhoof B., Ceers Collaboration 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 102.01

    2023

  54. [65]

    H., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...399L.109K 399, L109

    Katz N., Hernquist L., Weinberg D. H., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...399L.109K 399, L109

    1992 doi

  55. [66]

    Kaviraj S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu338 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.2944K 440, 2944

    2014 doi

  56. [67]

    Kaviraj S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx126 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.4739K 467, 4739

    2017 doi

  57. [68]

    Kaviraj S., Martin G., Silk J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489L..12K 489, L12

    2019 doi

  58. [69]

    E., Laigle C., Martin G., Jackson R

    Kaviraj S., Lazar I., Watkins A. E., Laigle C., Martin G., Jackson R. A., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250202656K p. arXiv:2502.02656

    2025 arXiv

  59. [70]

    Kawanomoto S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psy056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70...66K 70, 66

    2018 doi

  60. [71]

    C., Raileanu R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...25K 834, 25

    Kim C.-G., Ostriker E. C., Raileanu R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...25K 834, 25

    2017 doi

  61. [72]

    arXiv:2212.14539

    Kim J., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2212.14539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221214539K p. arXiv:2212.14539

    2022 doi arXiv

  62. [73]

    Kimm T., Cen R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788..121K 788, 121

    2014 doi

  63. [74]

    Kimm T., Cen R., Devriendt J., Dubois Y., Slyz A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1211 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2900K 451, 2900

    2015 doi

  64. [75]

    Kimm T., Katz H., Haehnelt M., Rosdahl J., Devriendt J., Slyz A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx052 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.4826K 466, 4826

    2017 doi

  65. [76]

    Y., Grebel E

    Kniazev A. Y., Grebel E. K., Pustilnik S. A., Pramskij A. G., Kniazeva T. F., Prada F., Harbeck D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381061 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2004AJ....127..704K 127, 704

    2004 doi

  66. [77]

    Komatsu E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192...18K 192, 18

    2011 doi

  67. [78]

    A., Sijacki D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab677 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.3568K 503, 3568

    Koudmani S., Henden N. A., Sijacki D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab677 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.3568K 503, 3568

    2021 doi

  68. [79]

    Laureijs R., et al., 2011, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1110.3193L ( @eprint arXiv 1110.3193 )

    2011 arXiv

  69. [80]

    E., Martin G., Bichang'a B., Jackson R

    Lazar I., Kaviraj S., Watkins A. E., Martin G., Bichang'a B., Jackson R. A., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae510 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529..499L 529, 499

    doi

  70. [81]

    E., Martin G., Bichang'a B., Jackson R

    Lazar I., Kaviraj S., Watkins A. E., Martin G., Bichang'a B., Jackson R. A., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3771L 533, 3771

    doi

  71. [82]

    M., Primack J., Madau P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AJ....128..163L 128, 163

    Lotz J. M., Primack J., Madau P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AJ....128..163L 128, 163

    2004 doi

  72. [83]

    G., Farcy M., Dubois Y., Belokurov V., Rosdahl J., Lopez-Rodriguez E., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2559 , 525, 3806

    Martin-Alvarez S., Sijacki D., Haehnelt M. G., Farcy M., Dubois Y., Belokurov V., Rosdahl J., Lopez-Rodriguez E., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2559 , 525, 3806

    2023 doi

  73. [84]

    Martin G., Kaviraj S., Devriendt J. E. G., Dubois Y., Pichon C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018MNRAS.tmp.1855M p. 1855

    2018 doi

  74. [85]

    Martin G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz356 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485..796M 485, 796

    2019 doi

  75. [86]

    Martin G., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3443 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.4937M 500, 4937

    2021 doi

  76. [87]

    Martin G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1459M 513, 1459

    2022 doi

  77. [88]

    R., Hatch N

    Martin G., Pearce F. R., Hatch N. A., Contreras-Santos A., Knebe A., Cui W., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2375M 535, 2375

    2024 doi

  78. [89]

    Mart \' nez-Delgado D., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/96 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2016AJ....151...96M 151, 96

    2016 doi

  79. [90]

    J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04084 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250104084M p

    Mercado F. J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04084 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250104084M p. arXiv:2501.04084

    2025 doi arXiv

  80. [91]

    Miyoshi T., Kusano K., 2005, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2005.02.017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JCoPh.208..315M 208, 315

    2005 doi

  81. [92]

    S., Santucci G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910...45M 910, 45

    Montes M., Brough S., Owers M. S., Santucci G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910...45M 910, 45

    2021 doi

  82. [93]

    Nelson D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.3234N 490, 3234

    2019 doi

  83. [94]

    S., Seppala L., Gilmore K., 2008, in

    Olivier S. S., Seppala L., Gilmore K., 2008, in . p. 70182G, @doi 10.1117/12.790264

    2008 doi

  84. [95]

    Pakmor R., Bauer A., Springel V., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19591.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.1392P 418, 1392

    2011

  85. [96]

    J., Ohlmann S

    Pakmor R., Springel V., Bauer A., Mocz P., Munoz D. J., Ohlmann S. T., Schaal K., Zhu C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2380 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.1134P 455, 1134

    2016 doi

  86. [97]

    Peirani S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A.233P 686, A233

    2024 doi

  87. [98]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..648P 475, 648

    2018 doi

  88. [99]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.3196P 490, 3196

    2019 doi

  89. [100]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..13P 594, A13

    2016 doi

  90. [101]

    Pozzetti L., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...474..443P 474, 443

    2007 doi

  91. [102]

    C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8560 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...74P 846, 74

    Privon G. C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8560 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...74P 846, 74

    2017 doi

  92. [103]

    J., van der Burg R

    Prole D. J., van der Burg R. F. J., Hilker M., Spitler L. R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3296 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.2049P 500, 2049

    2021 doi

  93. [104]

    E., Greene J

    Reines A. E., Greene J. E., Geha M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775..116R 775, 116

    2013 doi

  94. [105]

    Rodriguez-Gomez V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4140R 483, 4140

    2019 doi

  95. [106]

    A., Ruiz-Lara T., Valls-Gabaud D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz835 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486..823R 486, 823

    Rom \'a n J., Beasley M. A., Ruiz-Lara T., Valls-Gabaud D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz835 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486..823R 486, 823

    2019 doi

  96. [107]

    Rom \'a n J., Trujillo I., Montes M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...644A..42R 644, A42

    2020 doi

  97. [108]

    B., Agertz O., Renaud F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.5656R 499, 5656

    Romeo A. B., Agertz O., Renaud F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.5656R 499, 5656

    2020 doi

  98. [109]

    Rosdahl J., Blaizot J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20883.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423..344R 423, 344

    2012

  99. [110]

    E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    Salpeter E. E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    1955 doi

  100. [111]

    Sazonova E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba42f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899...85S 899, 85

    2020 doi

  101. [112]

    Sazonova E., et al., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.123524 , 7

    2024 doi

  102. [113]

    Scoville N., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172....1S 172, 1

    2007 doi

  103. [114]

    Searle L., Sargent W. L. W., Bagnuolo W. G., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...179..427S 179, 427

    1973 doi

  104. [115]

    B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.5853S 514, 5853

    Seo M., Ann H. B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.5853S 514, 5853

    2022 doi

  105. [116]

    L., 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    S\' e rsic J. L., 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    1968

  106. [118]

    Smith B., Sigurdsson S., Abel T., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12922.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385.1443S 385, 1443

    2008

  107. [120]

    Springel V., Hernquist L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.339..289S 339, 289

    2003

  108. [121]

    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

    2001

  109. [122]

    Strateva I., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323301 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.1861S 122, 1861

    2001 doi

  110. [123]

    H., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.100S 647, A100

    Su A. H., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.100S 647, A100

    2021 doi

  111. [124]

    S., Dopita M

    Sutherland R. S., Dopita M. A., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191823 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJS...88..253S 88, 253

    1993 doi

  112. [125]

    S., Connolly A

    Szalay A. S., Connolly A. J., Szokoly G. P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....117...68S 117, 68

    1999 doi

  113. [126]

    Teyssier R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A

    2002 doi

  114. [127]

    T., Steinmetz M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305704 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500...95T 500, 95

    Thornton K., Gaudlitz M., Janka H. T., Steinmetz M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305704 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500...95T 500, 95

    1998 doi

  115. [128]

    Springer-Verlag

    Toro E., 1999, Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics . Springer-Verlag

    1999

  116. [129]

    Trebitsch M., Blaizot J., Rosdahl J., Devriendt J., Slyz A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470..224T 470, 224

    2017 doi

  117. [130]

    Trebitsch M., Volonteri M., Dubois Y., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3453T 494, 3453

    2020 doi

  118. [131]

    R., Pontzen A., Anderson L., Bellovary J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1121T 470, 1121

    Tremmel M., Karcher M., Governato F., Volonteri M., Quinn T. R., Pontzen A., Anderson L., Bellovary J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1121T 470, 1121

    2017 doi

  119. [132]

    E., Kaviraj S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.4021U 498, 4021

    Uzeirbegovic E., Geach J. E., Kaviraj S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.4021U 498, 4021

    2020 doi

  120. [133]

    Uzeirbegovic E., Martin G., Kaviraj S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.3849U 510, 3849

    2022 doi

  121. [134]

    Uzeirbegovic E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.3775U 535, 3775

    2024 doi

  122. [135]

    M., Oppenheimer B

    Voit G. M., Oppenheimer B. D., Bell E. F., Terrazas B., Donahue M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960...28V 960, 28

    2024 doi

  123. [136]

    J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acecfd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955...55W 955, 55

    Wang E., Lilly S. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acecfd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955...55W 955, 55

    2023 doi

  124. [137]

    E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142627 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...660A..69W 660, A69

    Watkins A. E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142627 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...660A..69W 660, A69

    2022 doi

  125. [138]

    E., Salo H., Kaviraj S., Collins C

    Watkins A. E., Salo H., Kaviraj S., Collins C. A., Knapen J. H., Venhola A., Rom \'a n J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.2012W 521, 2012

    2023 doi

  126. [139]

    E., Kaviraj S., Collins C

    Watkins A. E., Kaviraj S., Collins C. C., Knapen J. H., Kelvin L. S., Duc P.-A., Rom \'a n J., Mihos J. C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.4289W 528, 4289

    2024 doi

  127. [140]

    K., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250202632W p

    Watkins A., Martin G., Kaviraj S., Collins C., Dubois Y., Kraljic K., Pichon C., Yi S. K., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250202632W p. arXiv:2502.02632

    2025 arXiv

  128. [141]

    R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..258...11W 258, 11

    Weaver J. R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..258...11W 258, 11

    2022 doi

  129. [142]

    198: Near-fields cosmology with dwarf elliptical galaxies

    Weidner C., Kroupa P., 2005, in Jerjen H., Binggeli B., eds, IAU Colloq. 198: Near-fields cosmology with dwarf elliptical galaxies. pp 130--133, @doi 10.1017/S1743921305003625

    2005 doi

  130. [143]

    Weinberger R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.3291W 465, 3291

    2017 doi

  131. [144]

    C., Draine B

    Weingartner J. C., Draine B. T., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...548..296W 548, 296

    2001 doi

  132. [145]

    R., Hopkins P

    Wetzel A. R., Hopkins P. F., Kim J.-h., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Kere s D., Quataert E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827L..23W 827, L23

    2016 doi

  133. [146]

    E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/811/1/L12 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811L..12W 811, L12

    Whitaker K. E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/811/1/L12 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811L..12W 811, L12

    2015 doi

  134. [147]

    Wiersma R. P. C., Schaye J., Theuns T., Dalla Vecchia C., Tornatore L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15331.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399..574W 399, 574

    2009

  135. [148]

    C., et al., 2021, PANORAMIC - A Pure Parallel Wide Area Legacy Imaging Survey at 1-5 Micron , JWST Proposal

    Williams C. C., et al., 2021, PANORAMIC - A Pure Parallel Wide Area Legacy Imaging Survey at 1-5 Micron , JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. \#2514

    2021

  136. [149]

    J., Somerville R

    Wright R. J., Somerville R. S., Lagos C. d. P., Schaller M., Dav \'e R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Genel S., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2402.08408 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240208408W p. arXiv:2402.08408

    2024 doi arXiv

  137. [150]

    G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120.1579Y 120, 1579

    York D. G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120.1579Y 120, 1579

    2000 doi

  138. [151]

    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

    2013 doi

  139. [152]

    G., Abraham R., Merritt A., Zhang J., Geha M., Conroy C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2015ApJ...798L..45V 798

    van Dokkum P. G., Abraham R., Merritt A., Zhang J., Geha M., Conroy C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2015ApJ...798L..45V 798

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.